The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2004 05-24 City Council PacketAGENDA MAPLEWOOD CITY COUNCIL 7:00 P.M. Monday, May 24, 2004 Council Chambers, Municipal Building Meeting No. 04-11 A. CALL TO ORDER B. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE C. ROLL CALL D. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 1. Minutes from the CounciUManager Workshop--May 10, 2004 2. Minutes from the City Council Meeting-- May 10, 2004 E. APPROVAL OF AGENDA F. APPOINTMENTS/PRESENTATIONS 1. Commissioner Reinhardt-Courthouse Update 2. HRC Diversity Speech Contest Winner - Faraaz Mohammed -North St. Paul High School 3. Planning Commission Appointment(s) 4. 2003 Annual Financial Report and Audit 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 -Dearborn Meadow (Castle Avenue and Castle Court) 3. Police & Fire Laptop Computers-Purchase 4. Temporary Food Permit -Todd Hawkins (The Donut Family) -MCC Summer Program Kickoff 5. County Road D (East) Realignment Improvements, City Project 02-07 -Resolution Approving No Parking Restrictions 6. Budget Changes- Building and Sewer Maintenance 7. Transfer to Close Fund for Project 03-OS 8. Continuing Education-City Manager H. PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. 7:00 p.m. Legacy Parkway Improvements (Southlawn to Hazelwood), Project 03-26 Assessment Hearing & Resolution for Adoption of Assessment Roll 2. 7:15 p.m. Mounds Park Academy Expansion (2051 Larpenteur Avenue) Land Use Plan Change (R-1 to S (school) (4 votes) Conditional Use Permit Revision Design Approval H. PUBLIC HEARINGS (continued) 3. 7:30 p.m. Capital Improvement Plan and the Issuance of Capital Improvement Bonds (4 VOTES) 4. 8:00 p.m. Cheasapeake Companies Retail Center (Maplewood Movies ISite - 3091 White Bear Avenue) Preliminary Plat Planned Unit Development Design Approval 5. 8:15 p.m. T.H. 61 Improvments (Beam to I-694), Project 03-07 -Resolution Authorizing Preparation of Plans and Specifications, Authorizing Acquisition of Right of Way, Ordering Project to be Constructed, and Authorizing Purchase of Signal System Mast Arms I. AWARD OF BIDS Legacy Parkway Improvements (Southlawn to Hazelwood), Project 03-26 -Resolution for Award of Bids J. UNFINISHED BUSINESS 1. Toenjes Hills Estates (1966 McMenemy Street) Vacations Preliminary Plat 2. Nuisance Ordinance-Second Reading K. NEW BUSINESS Consideration of Zoning Code Change - BC (M) (Business Commercial Modified) District 2. Intoxicating Liquor License (Smiley's Sports Bar & Grill) Change of Owner/New Manager -Pao Thao Yang 3. Gladstone North Area Streets, Project 04-15 -Resolution Ordering Feasibility Study 4. User Fee Study L. VISITOR PRESENTATIONS M. COUNCIL PRESENTATIONS N. ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS 1. Schedule 800 MHz Meeting 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 some rules ofcivility the City of Maplewood expects ofeveryone appearing at Council Meetings -elected officials, staffand citizens. Itis 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. Agenda Item D 1 DRAFT--MINUTES CITY COUNCIL/MANAGER WORKSHOP Monday, May 10, 2004 Maplewood Room, City Hall 6:00 p.m. A. CALL TO ORDER B. ROLL CALL Robert Cardinal, Mayor Kathleen Juenemann, Councilmember Marvin Koppen, Councilmember Jackie Monahan-Junek, Councilmember Will Rossbach, Councilmember Others Present: C. D. City Manager Fursman Assistant City Manager Coleman City Clerk Guilfoile Parks and Recreation Chair Peter Fisher APPROVAL OF AGENDA Present Present Present Present Present Councilmember Juenemann moved to approve the agenda as presented. Seconded by Councilmember Monahan-Junek Ayes-All NEW BUSINESS 1. Parks & Recreation Commission Interviews Council discussed the questions prior to interviewing the candidates. The following questions were asked of each applicant: 1. Do you believe that residents should have input in the park planning process and how would you weigh the comments from a property owner who abuts a park as contrasted to someone who lives six blocks to three miles away from the site? 2. Discuss why you believe parks and open space are important to the quality of life for residents in the city of Maplewood? How would you balance the needs and wants of the residents given the layout of our city? 3. If you could name one change or improvement that you would make in our parks or open spaces what would it be? City Council/Manager Workshop OS-10-04 4. What peaked your interest in this commission and if you don't get appointed, would you be interested in another board or commission? 5. Does it matter if you have only lived in the city for a short period of time to the contribution you would make? Councilmember Rossbach moved to not place an~~plicants name on the ballot that did not show up the interview. Seconded by Councilmember Monahan-Junek Aye-All The applicant were interviewed in the following order: Kendra Ryan Tom Geskermann Daniel Lee John Piechowski Daniel Enga The appointment to fill the two vacancies will be made at the following City Council Meeting. E. FUTURE TOPICS F. ADJOURNMENT Councilmember Juenemann moved to adiourn at 7:08 b.m. Seconded by Councilmember Monahan-Junek Ayes-All City Council/Manager Workshop OS-10-04 2 Agenda Item D2 DRAFT--MINUTES MAPLEWOOD CITY COUNCIL 7:12 P.M. Monday, May 10, 2004 Council Chambers, Municipal Building Meeting No. 04-10 A. B. C. D. E. CALL TO ORDER A meeting of the City Council was held in the Council Chambers, at the Municipal Building, and was called to order at 7:12 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 1. Minutes from April 26, 2004 Council/Manager Workshop Councilmember Rossbach moved to approve the minutes from the Apri126, 2004 City Council/Nlana~er workshop as presented. Seconded by Councilmember Koppen Ayes-All 2. Minutes from the Apri126, 2004 City Council Meeting Councilmember Juenemann moved to approve the minutes from the Apri126, 2004 City Council Meeting as amended. Seconded by Councilmember Rossbach Ayes-All APPROVAL OF AGENDA N1. Smoke Free Maplewood N2. Personnel Issues/Communication N3. 50-Year Anniversary Committee M3. Ice Arena Update M4. Code of Conduct M5. NEST M6. Azure Properties Request M7. Beam Avenue M8. Cops n' Lobsters M9. National Law Enforcement Week M10. Emergency Food Shelf Report F 1. Rescheduled to next council meeting (OS-24-04) F2. Appointment of two Parks and Recreation Commissioners City Council Meeting OS-10-04 Councilmember Monahan-Junek moved to approve the agenda as amended. Seconded by Councilmember Juenemann Ayes-All F. APPOINTMENTS/PRESENTATIONS 1. HRC Diversity Speech Contest Winner - Faraaz Mohammed -North St. Paul High SchoolReschedule to the May 24, 2004 meeting. 2. Council appointed Daniel Enga and Tom Geskermann to the Maplewood Parks and Recreation Commission. G. CONSENT AGENDA 1. Approval of Claims ACCOUNTS PAYABLE: $ 59,874.09 Checks # 63673 thru # 63706 dated 4/27/04 $ 136,871.15 Disbursements via debits to checking account dated 4/16/04 thru 4/22/04 $ 572,470.69 Checks # 63707 thru # 63785 dated 5/04/04 $ 296,198.91 Disbursements via debits to checking account dated 4/23/04 thru 4/29/04 $ 1,065,414.84 Total Accounts Payable PAYROLL $ 515,972.76 Payroll Checks and Direct Deposits dated 4/23/04 $ 4,492.64 Payroll Deduction check # 97315 thru # 97317 dated 4/23/04 $ 520,465.40 Total Payroll $ 1,585,880.24 GRAND TOTAL City Council Meeting OS-10-04 2 2. Conditional Use Permit Review -Frontline Church (2055 White Bear Avenue) Approved to review the conditional use permit for the Frontline Church at 2055 White Bear Avenue again in one year or sooner if the church or the owner proposes a major change to the site. Food Fee Waiver -Boy Scout Troop #187 -Arlington Hills United Methodist Church Approved the miscellaneous permit to sell food at Arlington Hills United Methodist Church and to waive the $47.00 permit fee. 4. Carnival, Fireworks, and Noise Control -Fee Waivers -Ramsey County Fair Approved the Miscellaneous Permits for Joe Fox, Ramsey County Fair Manager, for the Ramsey County Fair that will be held from July 14 through the ~ gth . MCC Replacement Compressor Awarded the low bid to Cramer Building Services for $19,317 to replace a failed compressor for the Maplewood Community Center. 6. Donation to Landfall Cops `n Kids Fishing Clinic Accepted a donation of $200.00 to the Maplewood Police Department from Saturn of St. Paul for use at the annual Landfall Cops `n Kids Fishing Clinic. 7. Purchase of 2004-2005 Winter Road Salt Authorized the purchase of road salt under the state contract not to exceed a cost of $36,000. Signal System Light Replacement Program Authorized the expenditure of $51,500 form the Street Maintenance budget for the cooperative project with Ramsey County for the installation of LED lights at 24 intersections. 9. County Road D Realignment (East), T.H. 61 to Southlawn, Project 02-07 - Revise Dates for Bid Opening and Assessment Hearing Approved the revised bid opening and assessment hearing dates for County road D Realignment, Project 02-07. The bid opening will be rescheduled for 10:00 a.m. Friday June 4, 2004, and the assessment hearing will be rescheduled for 7:15 p.m. Monday, June 14, 2004. Councilmember Koppen moved to approve the consent agenda item 1-4 and 7 and 9 as City Council Meeting OS-10-04 presented. Seconded by Councilmember Juenemann Ayes-All Councilmember Juenemann moved to approve the consent agenda item 6 as presented. Seconded by Councilmember Monahan-Junek Ayes-All Councilmember Koppen moved to approve the consent agenda item 5 as presented. Seconded by Councilmember Rossbach Ayes-All Councilmember Juenemann moved to approve the consent agenda item 8 as presented. Seconded by Councilmember Koppen Ayes-All H. PUBLIC HEARINGS 7:20 P.M. Kennard Street Right-of--Way Vacation (next to 1655 Sextant Avenue) City Manager Fursman presented the report. b. Associate Planner Roberts presented specifics from the report. Commissioner Mueller presented the Planning Commission Report. d. Mayor Cardinal opened the public hearing, calling for proponents or opponents. The following person was heard: None Mayor Cardinal closed the public hearing. Councilmember Juenemann moved to adopt the following resolution for the vacation north of the unused Kennard Street right-of-way north of Sextant Avenue: VACATION RESOLUTION 04-05-088 WHEREAS, Mr. Tom LaBarre, the adjacent property owner, applied for the vacation of the following: The Kennard Street right-of--way that is north of Sextant Avenue and next to the property at 1655 Sextant Avenue and described as follows: The Kennard Street right-of--way lying north of the north right-of--way line of Sextant Avenue and next to the property at 1655 Sextant Avenue in Maplewood, Ramsey County, in Section 10, Township 29, Range 22. WHEREAS, the history of this vacation is as follows: On April 19, 2004, the planning commission recommended that the city council City Council Meeting OS-10-04 approve the public vacation. 2. On May 10, 2004, the city council held a public hearing. The city staff published a notice in the Maplewood Review and sent a notice to the abutting property owners. The council gave everyone at the hearing a chance to speak and present written statements. The council also considered reports and recommendations from the city staff and planning commission. WHEREAS, after the city approves this vacation, the public interest in the property will go to the property at 1655 Sextant Avenue (Lot 7, Block 2, North Dells Addition -PIN 10-29- 22-13 -003 0). NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the city council approve the above- described vacation for the following reasons: 1. It is in the public interest. 2. The existing right-of--way is not used or needed for street purposes. 3. The adjacent properties have adequate street access. This vacation is subject to the city keeping a drainage and utility easement over the entire vacated right-of--way. Seconded by Councilmember Rossbach Ayes- 2. 7:30 P.M. Toenjes Hills Estates (1966 McMenemy Street) a. Vacations b. Preliminary Plat a. City Manager Fursman presented the report. b. Associate Planner Roberts presented specifics from the report. Commissioner Mueller presented the Planning Commission Report. d. Mayor Cardinal opened the public hearing, calling for proponents or opponents. The following persons were heard: Todd Erickson, Folz, Freeman, Erickson, Inc. Engineer for the project Joe Delaney, 7446 Stillwater Boulevard, Oakdale William Giles, 1967 McMenemy, Maplewood Mark Johnson, 1961 McMenemy, Maplewood Joe Delaney, second appearance Todd Erickson, second appearance Joe Delaney, third appearance Mayor Cardinal closed the public hearing. City Council Meeting OS-10-04 Councilmember Rossbach moved to table this item and requested that the three parties (Toenj es, Delaney and Shrier) work together and contact the city with a decision within seven days if they can agree on a proposal together. This item will return to council at the May 24, 2004 meeting. Seconded by Councilmember Koppen Ayes-All 7:40 P.M. Conditional Use Permits -Peltier (1236 Kohlman Avenue) a. Expansion of Non-Conforming Use b. Over-sized Accessory Structure City Manager Fursman presented the report. b. Associate Planner Roberts presented specifics from the report. Commissioner Mueller presented the Planning Commission Report. d. Mayor Cardinal opened the public hearing, calling for proponents or opponents. The following person was heard: Steven Peltier, the applicant Mayor Cardinal closed the public hearing. Councilmember Rossbach moved to adopt the following resolution a~provin~ a conditional use permit for the expansion of a non-conforming residential use to add a detached accessory structure to a property in a light manufacturing (M-1) zoning district at 1236 Kohlman Avenue: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION 04-05-089 WHEREAS, Steven Peltier applied for a conditional use permit to expand a nonconforming residential use (addition of a 1,344 square foot detached accessory structure) within a light manufacturing (M-1) zoning district; WHEREAS, this permit applies to property located at 1236 Kohlman Avenue, Maplewood, Minnesota. The legal description is: Tract B, Registered Land Survey 477. WHEREAS, the Ramsey County Property Identification Number for this property is 04-29-22-44-0043. WHEREAS, the history of this conditional use permit is as follows: On Apri126, 2004, the planning commission recommended that the city council approve the conditional use permit. 2. On May 10, 2004, the city council held a public hearing. City staff published a notice in the Maplewood Review and sent notices to the surrounding property owners. The council conducted the public hearing whereby all public present were given a chance to speak and present written statements. The city council also considered reports and City Council Meeting OS-10-04 recommendations from the city staff and planning commission. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the city council approves the above- described conditional use permit based on the building and site plans. The city approved this 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. The use would not depreciate property values. 4. The use would not involve any activity, process, materials, equipment or methods of operation that would be dangerous, hazardous, detrimental, disturbing or cause a nuisance to any person or property, because of excessive noise, glare, smoke, dust, odor, fumes, water or air pollution, drainage, water runoff, vibration, general unsightliness, electrical interference or other nuisances. 5. The use would generate only minimal vehicular traffic on local streets and would not create traffic congestion or unsafe access on existing or proposed streets. 6. The use would be served by adequate public facilities and services, including streets, police and fire protection, drainage structures, water and sewer systems, schools and parks. 7. The use would not create excessive additional costs for public facilities or services. 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 of the conditional use permit is subject to the following conditions: Expansion of the nonconforming residential use applies to the construction of a 1,344 square foot detached accessory structure. Any future addition or accessory structure will require a separate conditional use permit approved by the city council. 2. Expansion of the nonconforming residential use must follow the site plan approved by the city. The director of community development may approve minor changes. The proposed expansion must be started within one year after city council approval or the permit shall end. The city council may extend this deadline for one year. 4. The conditional use permit shall be reviewed by the city council in one year. Seconded by Councilmember Koppen Ayes-All Councilmember Rossbach moved to adopt the following resolution a~provin~ a conditional use permit for an oversized accessory structure: City Council Meeting OS-10-04 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION 04-05-090 WHEREAS, Steven Peltier applied for a conditional use permit to construct an oversized detached accessory structure (1,344-square-feet in area); WHEREAS, this permit applies to property located at 1236 Kohlman Avenue, Maplewood, Minnesota. The legal description is: Tract B, Registered Land Survey 477. WHEREAS, the Ramsey County Property Identification Number for this property is 04-29-22-44-0043. WHEREAS, the history of this conditional use permit is as follows: On Apri126, 2004, the planning commission recommended that the city council approve the conditional use permit. 2. On May 10, 2004, the city council held a public hearing. City staff published a notice in the Maplewood Review and sent notices to the surrounding property owners. The council conducted the public hearing whereby all public present were given a chance to speak and present written statements. The city council also considered reports and recommendations from the city staff and planning commission. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the city council approves the above- described conditional use permit based on the building and site plans. The city approved this 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. The use would not depreciate property values. 4. The use would not involve any activity, process, materials, equipment or methods of operation that would be dangerous, hazardous, detrimental, disturbing or cause a nuisance to any person or property, because of excessive noise, glare, smoke, dust, odor, fumes, water or air pollution, drainage, water runoff, vibration, general unsightliness, electrical interference or other nuisances. 5. The use would generate only minimal vehicular traffic on local streets and would not create traffic congestion or unsafe access on existing or proposed streets. 6. The use would be served by adequate public facilities and services, including streets, police and fire protection, drainage structures, water and sewer systems, schools and parks. 7. The use would not create excessive additional costs for public facilities or services. 8. The use would maximize the preservation of and incorporate the site's natural and scenic features into the development design. City Council Meeting OS-10-04 9. The use would cause minimal adverse environmental effects. Approval of the conditional use permit is subject to the following conditions: The detached accessory structure is limited in size to 1,344 square feet in area and 19 feet in height, as measured from ground grade to the peak of the roof. 2. Impervious surface for the driveway is limited to a concrete parking pad in front of the garage that is no larger than 28 feet wide by 20 feet deep, with the remainder of the driveway as gravel. Any additional impervious surface will bring the property over the allowable 35 percent impervious surface coverage as approved by the city council, and will require additional city council approval of an impervious surface variance. Prior to issuance of a grading or building permit, the following must be submitted and approved by city staff: Samples of exterior materials and colors used on the detached accessory structure. The materials and colors must be compatible to the house. b. A grading escrow of $1,000 will be required with grading permit to ensure proper construction of the rainwater and infiltration gardens. 4. The following conditions apply to the excavation and continued maintenance of drainage on the site: Grade driveway to drain to the most northerly rainwater and infiltration garden. b. Use a clean river rock for gravel part of driveway to allow for infiltration. Care will need to be taken during the construction of the rainwater gardens to ensure they will infiltrate. d. Maintain rainwater gardens as designed to ensure continued infiltration. 5. The detached accessory structure is approved only for residential use of the owner or occupant and shall not be used for commercial or business purposes. 6. All construction shall follow the site plan approved by the city. The director of community development may approve minor changes. 7. The proposed construction must be started within one year after city council approval or the permit shall end. The city council may extend this deadline for one year. 8. The conditional use permit shall be reviewed by the city council in one year. Seconded by Councilmember Koppen Ayes-All L AWARD OF BIDS None City Council Meeting OS-10-04 J. UNFINISHED BUSINESS Appointment for 800 MHz City Manager Fursman presented the staff report. b. City Clerk Guilfoile presented specifics from the report. Mayor Cardinal moved to appoint Councilmember Juenemann as the 800 MHz representative with Councilmember Rossbach as the alternate. Seconded by Councilmember Monahan-Junek Ayes-All A five-minute break was taken. K. NEW BUSINESS Cable Commission Presentation City Manager Fursman presented the staff report. b. Assistant City Manager Coleman presented specifics from the report. Cable Commissioner Facile and Tim Finnerty, Executive Director of the Cable Commission, provided further specifics. Mayor Cardinal moved to direct Kim Facile to brim option #4 (in draft form) to the Cable Commission for consideration at the May 13th, 2004 meeting. Seconded by Councilmember Rossbach Ayes-All Mayor Cardinal moved to limit Maplewood's participation of the Cable Commission legal expenses to 25%. Motion died for lack of a second. Councilmember Monahan-Junek moved to direct Kim Facile to brim to the commission a policy that will be created by City Manager Fursman and Commissioner Facile that will include consequences for committing lesser infractions such as slander, telling lies about individuals, etc. Seconded by Councilmember Koppen Ayes-All 2. Stop Sign Requests a. City Manager Fursman presented the staff report. b. City Engineer Ahl presented specifics from the report. The following persons were heard: City Council Meeting OS-10-04 10 Patty Krause, 2517 Forrest Street, Maplewood Kurt Davis, 950 Demont Avenue, Maplewood Melanie Grover-1758 Edward Street, Maplewood John Jacobson, 1144 Ripley, Maplewood Councilmember Rossbach moved to install a four wa Street and Connor Street. Seconded by Councilmember Koppen Motion withdrawn Councilmember Koppen moved to install a two reviewed by staff and council in one . Seconded by Mayor Cardinal on the corner of Forest on Connor Street to be Ayes-All Councilmember Monahan-Junek moved to replace the yield suns at Rosewood Avenue South, Maryknoll Avenue and Rosewood Avenue North at Kennard Street with stop suns and to review the recommendation once main in one . Seconded by Councilmember Koppen Ayes-All Councilmember Juenemann moved to extend the meeting until the agenda is completed Seconded by Councilmember Monahan-Junek Ayes-All Mayor Cardinal moved to monitor Edward Street and Sophia Avenue for asix-month period of time for staff and residents to arrive at a different solution other than the installation of stop suns. Seconded by Councilmember Koppen Ayes-All Hazelwood/County Road C Area Streets, Project 03-18 -Assessment Objection Recommendations City Manager Fursman presented the staff report. b. City Engineer Ahl presented specifics from the report. Councilmember Juenemann moved to adopt the following resolution for the adoption of the revised assessment roll for the Hazelwood/County Road C Area Street Improvements: RESOLUTION 04-05-091 ADJUSTMENTS TO ASSESSMENT ROLL WHEREAS, pursuant to a resolution adopted by the City Council on Apri126, 2004, the assessment roll for the Hazelwood/County Road C Area Street Improvements, City Project City Council Meeting OS-10-04 11 03-18 was presented in a Public Hearing format, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 429, and WHEREAS, four property owners filed objections to their assessments according to the requirements of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 429, summarized as follows: Rodney and Helen McClellan, 2552 Germain Street North, (PIN 102922120015): Requests a senior citizen deferral of their assessment. 2. Mary J. Strand, 2452 Germain Street North, (PIN 102922130023): Requests a reduction of her assessment to one residential unit for storm sewer and street reconstruction. 3. Roger Kessler, future 1663 and 1669 Demont Avenue East (PIN 102922110078): Requests an undeveloped property deferral of the assessment. 4. Curtis R. Bjorklund, 1651 and future 1659 Demont Avenue East (PIN 102922120053 and 102922120022): Requests a disability deferment of the assessment for PIN 102922120053 and an undeveloped property deferral of the assessment for PIN102922120022. 5. David N. Pritchard, 1554 Sextant Avenue East (PIN 102922130053): Review for accuracy. 6. Donna M Oakes, 1578 Sextant Avenue East (PIN 102922130056): Review for accuracy. 7. Stephen A. Gravely, 1570 Sextant Avenue East (PIN 102922130055): Review for accuracy. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA: A. That the City Engineer and City Clerk are hereby instructed to make the following adjustments to the assessment roll for the Maplewood Drive/Keller Parkway Resurfacing, City Project 03 -02: Rodney and Helen McClellan, 2552 Germain Street North, (PIN 102922120015): Grant request for a senior citizen deferral of their assessment contingent on the petitioner providing the appropriate documentation. The assessment will accrue interest at a rate of 5.0%. 2. Mary J. Strand, 2452 Germain Street North, (PIN 102922130023): Grant request for a reduction of her assessment to one residential unit for storm sewer and street reconstruction. Roger Kessler, future 1663 and 1669 Demont Avenue East (PIN 102922110078): Grant request for undeveloped property deferral of the assessment. The assessment is deferred for 15 years, or until such time as the property is sold or developed. The assessment will accrue interest at a rate of 5.0%. 4. Curtis R. Bjorklund, 1651 and future 1659 Demont Avenue East (PIN 102922120053 and 102922120022): Grant request for a disability deferment of the assessment for PIN 102922120053 contingent on the petitioner providing the appropriate documentation. The assessment will accrue interest at a rate of 5.0%. Grant undeveloped property deferral of City Council Meeting OS-10-04 12 the assessment for PIN102922120022. The assessment is deferred for 15 years, or until such time as the property is sold or developed. The assessment will accrue interest at a rate Of 5.0%. 5. David N. Pritchard, 1554 Sextant Avenue East (PIN 102922130053): Accept assessment as originally proposed. 6. Donna M Oakes, 1578 Sextant Avenue East (PIN 102922130056): Accept assessment as originally proposed. 7. Stephen A. Gravely, 1570 Sextant Avenue East (PIN 102922130055): Accept assessment as originally proposed. B. Such assessments shall be payable in equal annual installments extending over a period of 15 years, the first installments to be payable on or before the first Monday in January 2004 and shall bear interest at the rate of 5.0 percent per annum for the date of the adoption of this assessment resolution. To the first installment shall be added interest on the entire assessment from the date of this resolution until December 31, 2004. To each subsequent installment when due shall be added interest for one year on all unpaid installments. C. The owner of any property so assessed may, at any time prior to certification of the assessment to the county auditor, but no later than October 1, 2004, pay the whole of the assessment on such property, with interest accrued to the date of the payment, to the city clerk, except that no interest shall be charged if the entire assessment is paid within 30 days from the adoption of this resolution; and they may, at any time after August 1, 2004, pay to the county auditor the entire amount of the assessment remaining unpaid, with interest accrued to December 31 of the year in which such payment is made. Such payment must be made before November 15 or interest will be charged through December 31 of the next succeeding year. D. The city engineer and city clerk shall forthwith after October 1, 2004, but no later than November 15, 2004, transmit a certified duplicate of this assessment to the county auditor to be extended on the property tax lists of the county. Such assessments shall be collected and paid over the same manner as other municipal taxes. Seconded by Councilmember Koppen Ayes-All 4. Ordinance Amending the City Code Relating to Nuisances -First Reading City Manager Fursman presented the staff report. b. Deputy Police Chief Bannick presented specifics from the report. Councilmember Koppen moved to adopt the first reading of the following Amended City Code Relating to Nuisances: ORDINANCE NO. 849 AMENDING CHAPTER OF THE CITY CODE RELATING TO NUISANCES Sec. 1. Purpose and intent. The purpose of this article is to protect the public health, safety and welfare and to reduce public exposure to health risks where law enforcement officers have determined City Council Meeting OS-10-04 13 that hazardous chemicals from a suspected clandestine drug lab or chemical dump site may exist. These conditions present health and safety risks to occupants and visitors of such structures and land through fire, explosion and skin and respiratory exposure to chemicals. The City Council finds that such sites may contain hazardous chemicals, substances or residues that place people, particularly children or adults of child-bearing age, at risk of exposure through inhabiting the property, visiting the property or using or being exposed to contaminated personal property. Sec. 2. Definitions. Child means any person less than 18 years of age. Chemical dump site means any place or area where chemicals or other waste materials have been located. Clandestine drug lab means the unlawful manufacture or attempt to manufacture controlled substances. Clandestine drug lab site means any place or area where law enforcement has determined that conditions associated with the operation of an unlawful clandestine drug lab exist. A clandestine drug lab site includes any dwellings, accessory structures, buildings, a chemical dump site, a vehicle, boat, trailer or other similar appliance or any other area, land or location. Cleanup means proper removal and/or containment of substances hazardous to humans and/or the environment at a clandestine drug lab site or chemical dump site. Controlled substance means any drug, substance or immediate precursor in Schedules I through V of Minnesota Statutes Section 152.02. The term does not include distilled spirits, wine, malt beverages, intoxicating liquors or tobacco. Owner means any person, firm, corporation or other entity who owns, in whole or in part, the land, building, structure, vehicle, boat, trailer or other location associated with a clandestine drug lab site or chemical dump site. Public health nuisance means a nuisance as defined under Section 18-31 of the Maplewood City Code or under Minnesota Statute Section 145A.02, subd. 17. Remediation means methods such as assessment, evaluation, testing, venting, detergent scrubbing, enclosure, encapsulation, demolition and/or removal of contaminated materials from a clandestine drug lab site or chemical dump site. Sec. 3. Declaration of property as a public health nuisance. (1) Any property containing a clandestine drug lab or chemical dump site will be declared a public health nuisance. (2) No person may occupy, enter or allow occupancy or entrance to property declared a public health nuisance under this section until such declaration is vacated or modified to allow occupancy. Sec. 4. Law enforcement notice to other authorities. Upon identification of a clandestine drug lab site or chemical dump site deemed to place neighbors, visiting public or present and future occupants of the affected property at risk for exposure to harmful contaminants and other associated conditions, law enforcement officials shall notify the City Environmental Health Official and other appropriate municipal, child protection and public health authorities of the property location, the property owner, if known, and conditions found. Sec. 5. Seizure of property. City Council Meeting OS-10-04 14 (1) If a clandestine drug lab or chemical dump site is located inside a vehicle, boat, trailer or other form of moveable personal property, law enforcement authorities may immediately seize such property and transport it to a more secure location. (2) Personal property may not be removed from a clandestine drug lab site or a chemical dump site without prior consent from the City Environmental Health Official. Sec. 6. Action by City Environmental Health Official. (1) Upon notification by law enforcement authorities, the City Environmental Health Official or other appropriate municipal or public health authority will issue a Declaration of Public Health Nuisance for the affected property and post a copy of the Declaration at all probable entrances to the dwelling or property. (2) Removal of the posted Declaration of Public Health Nuisance by anyone other than the Environmental Health Official, law enforcement authorities or their designees is prohibited. (3) The City Environmental Health Official shall also attempt to notify the following parties of the Declaration of Public Health Nuisance: (a) Owner of the property; (b) Occupants of the property; (c) Neighbors within close proximity that can be reasonably affected by the conditions found; (d) The City of Maplewood Police Department and (e) Other state and local authorities, such as the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency and the Minnesota Department of Public Health, which are known to have public and environmental protection responsibilities applicable to the situation. (4) Any rental license issued by the city for the property is immediately suspended upon issuance of the Declaration of Public Health Nuisance. Such license will be reinstated only after full compliance with an abatement order. (5) After issuance of the Declaration of Public Health Nuisance, the City Environmental Health Official will issue an order to the property owner to abate the public health nuisance. The abatement order will include the following: (a) A copy of the Declaration of Public Health Nuisance; (b) An order to immediately vacate those portions of the property, including building or structure interiors, which may place the occupants or visitors at risk; (c) Notification of suspension of the rental license, if applicable; (d) A summary of the owner's and occupant's responsibilities; (e) Information on locating professional services necessary to remove and abate the public health nuisance status as provided in this ordinance and Minnesota State Statute Section 145A.04 and (f) Information about the potentially hazardous condition of the clandestine drug lab site or chemical dump site. Sec. 7. Responsibilities of owner. City Council Meeting OS-10-04 15 (1) Upon receipt of an abatement order by the City's Environmental Health Official, the property owner must, at the owner's expense: (a) Immediately vacate those portions of the property, including building or structure interiors, that may place the occupants or visitors at risk. This includes dwellings, buildings, motor vehicles, trailers, boats, appliances or any other affected area or location. No persons shall occupy, enter or allow occupancy or entrance to a building or structure declared a Public Health Nuisance until such declaration is vacated or modified to allow occupancy; (b) Properly secure and post warning signs on the perimeter of any contaminated areas on the property in an effort to avoid exposure to unsuspecting parties; (c) Promptly contract with one or more acceptable environmental hazard testing and cleaning firms (acceptable firms are those that have provided assurance of appropriate equipment, procedures and personnel, as determined by the Minnesota Department of Health) to accomplish the following: 1) A detailed on-site assessment of the extent of contamination at the site and the contamination of the personal property therein; 2) Soil testing of the site and testing of all property and soil in proximity to the site that the environmental hazard testing and cleaning firm determines may have been affected by the conditions found at the site; 3) A complete cleanup of all property and soil at the site and in proximity to the site that is found to be affected by conditions found at the site (including, but not limited to, the cleanup or removal of contaminated plumbing, ventilation systems, fixtures and contaminated soil) or a demolition of the site and a complete cleanup of the demolished site and 4) Remediation testing and follow-up testing to determine all health risks are sufficiently reduced, according to the Minnesota Department of Health guidelines, to allow safe human occupancy and use of the site and use of the personal property therein. (d) Regularly notify the city of actions taken and reach agreement with the city on the cleanup schedule. The city shall consider practical limitations and the availability of contractors in approving the schedule for cleanup and (e) Provide written documentation to the city of the cleanup process, including a signed, written statement that the property is safe for human occupancy and that the cleanup was conducted in accordance with Minnesota Department of Health guidelines. (2) The property may not be re-occupied or used in any manner until the city has obtained the written statement in Section 7 (1) (e) and has confirmed that the property has been cleaned in accordance with the guidelines established by the Minnesota Department of Health. Sec. 8. Owner's responsibility for costs. The owner is responsible for all costs associated with nuisance abatement and cleanup of the clandestine drug lab site or chemical dump site, including, but not limited to, costs for: (1) Emergency response; City Council Meeting OS-10-04 16 (2) Posting and physical security of the site; (3) Notification of affected parties; (4) Expenses related to the recovery of costs, including the assessment process; (5) Laboratory fees; (6) Cleanup services; (7) Administrative fees and (8) Other associated costs. Sec. 9. City authority to initiate cleanup and recovery of costs. (1) If, within ten (10) days after service of notice of the Declaration of Public Health Nuisance, the city is unable to locate the property owner or if the City Environmental Health Official determines that the owner refuses to or cannot pay the costs or arrange timely assessment and cleanup that is acceptable to the city, the City Environmental Health Official is authorized to proceed in a prompt manner to initiate the on-site assessment and cleanup. (2) The city may abate the nuisance by removing any hazardous structure, building or otherwise in accordance with Minnesota Statutes Chapter 463, Chapter 18 of the Maplewood City Code or by any other means provided under law. (3) If the city abates the public health nuisance, in addition to any legal remedy, it is entitled to recover all costs associated with such abatement plus an additiona125% of the city's costs for administration. In addition to any other legal remedy, the city may recover costs by civil action against the person or persons who own the property or by assessing such costs as a special tax against the property in the manner that taxes and special assessments are certified and collected pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 429.101 and Section 18-37 of the Maplewood City Code. Sec. 10. Authority to modify or remove declaration of public health nuisance. (1) The Environmental Health Official is authorized to modify the Declaration conditions or remove the Declaration of Public Health Nuisance. (2) Such modifications or removal of the Declaration shall only occur after documentation from a qualified environmental or cleaning firm stating that the health and safety risks, including those to neighbors and potential dwelling occupants, are sufficiently abated or corrected to allow safe occupancy of the dwelling. Sec. 11. Penalties. Any person violating any provision of this ordinance is guilty of a misdemeanor and upon conviction shall be subj ect to the penalties set forth in Minnesota Statute Section 609.02, subd. 3. Sec. 12. 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 of any part thereof, other than the part held to be invalid. Sec. 13. Effective date. City Council Meeting OS-10-04 17 This ordinance shall take effect upon its passage and publication. L. Seconded by Councilmember Juenemann Ayes-All VISITOR PRESENTATIONS Robert Arndt, 2144 Sloan Street, Maplewood, informed the public that May 15- 22"d is National Tinnitus (a ringing in the ears) Awareness Week. M. COUNCIL PRESENTATIONS South Leg Group -Councilmember Rossbach requested a budget for expenditures for the South Leg Group. Mayor Cardinal moved to approve a budget for expenditures for the South Lei GrOUp •• Seconded by Councilmember Koppen 2. Visitor Presentation -Councilmember Rossbach suggested that Visitor Presentations be moved to the beginning of the agenda. Mayor Cardinal moved to put Visitor Presentations on the agenda with Appointments/Presentations for a period of 15 minutes. Seconded by Councilmember Rossbach Motion failed. 4 6 Ayes-Mayor Cardinal and Councilmember Rossbach Nays-Councilmembers Juenemann, Monahan-Junek and Koppen Ice Arena Update-Councilmember Monahan-Junek gave an update on the last committee meeting. Then next meeting will be held at the arena on May 20tH Code of Conduct-Councilmember Monahan-Junek requested that the Code of Conduct be discussed at a future meeting. Councilmember Monahan-Junek moved to include this item on a future Council/Nlana~er Workshop Seconded by Mayor Cardinal Ayes-Mayor Cardinal, Councilmembers Koppen and Rossbach Nays-Councilmembers Juenemann and Monahan-Junek Ayes-All NEST-Councilmember Koppen gave an update on NEST and asked that the City News publish NEST ads on a more frequent basis. Azure Property Request-Councilmember Rossbach discussed the Azure City Council Meeting OS-10-04 18 Properties request from the May 10th Council Meeting and possible reconsideration. Councilmember Koppen moved to direct staff to consider lan~ua~e changes to the zoning code allowing expanding uses providing there are conditions attached. Seconded by Councilmember Rossbach Ayes-Mayor Cardinal, Councilmembers Koppen, Monahan-Junek and Rossbach Nays-Councilmember Juenemann 7. Beam Avenue (White Bear to McKnight)-Councilmember Rossbach asked that in the new Capital Improvement plan is it possible to apply traffic medication devices to the prof ect plan? City Engineer Ahl confirmed that it could be added to the plan. Cops `n Lobsters-Councilmember Juenemann provided a report on the success of the Cops `n Lobsters Program. The officers will be serving again this Thursday, May 13th, 5:30-8:30 p.m. N. 9. National Law Officers Week (May 9th-15th)-Councilmember Juenemann gave a history of the week. In recognition, Maplewood Squad Cars will be wearing blue ribbons in honor of those who have given their lives in service. 10. Emergency Food Shelf Report-Mayor Cardinal presented council with the 2003 report for the Oakdale/North St. Paul/Nlaplewood Food Shelf. 11. Rain Gardens-Councilmember Juenemann noted in this month's edition of Minnesota Conservation Volunteer there is a spread on rain gardens with a garden from Maplewood featured. ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS Smoke Free Maplewood-This item will be placed on the agenda at the May 24, 2004 meeting. 2. Personnel Issues Communication-City Manager Fursman gave an overview of city policy regarding how personnel issues are handled according to the council/manager form of government. 50th Anniversary Committee-Mayor Cardinal announced that the City Council will be 50 years old in February of 2007. O. ADJOURNMENT Councilmember Juenemann moved to adiourn the meeting at 12:10 a.m. Seconded by Councilmember Koppen Ayes-All City Council Meeting OS-10-04 19 Agenda #F3 MEMORANDUM TO: Richard Fursman, City Manager FROM: Ken Roberts, Planner SUBJECT: Interview of Applicants for Planning Commission DATE: May 12, 2004 INTRODUCTION The planning commission has two vacancies created by the election of Will Rossbach and Jackie Monahan-Junek to the city council. The city received five applications from residents interested in serving on the planning commission. I have attached location maps of the planning commissioners, of the applicants and the five candidates' applications. (See pages two through eight.) The applicants will be present at the May 24, 2004, city council workshop for interviews by the city council. BACKGROUND The city council appointed Jeffrey Bartol to the planning commission on December 8, 2003. Since that time, staff has continued to advertise the planning commission vacancy with the latest deadline for application submittal ending February 27, 2004. The two, three-year terms of the vacancies would run until December 31, 2005. DISCUSSION According to the city council's new policy for appointing advisory board vacancies, the city council will conduct the interviews with a representative of the advisory board available for consultation during the interview. The city council will also accept questions from the advisory boards to use during the interview process. Lorraine Fisher, the chairperson of the planning commission, submitted a list of questions for the city council's consideration. (I have included them on page nine). RECOMMENDATION Interview the applicants and appoint one or two candidates to fill the planning commission vacancies. These terms would run until December 31, 2005. P:/pc/pc interview memo (2004) Attachments: 1. Planning Commissioners' Location Map 2. Planning Commission Applicant's Location Map 3. Richard Currie Application 4. Scott Gilbert Application 5. Michael Grover Application 6. Judd Johnson Application 7. Daniel Lee Application 8. Possible Interview Questions Attachment 1 CITY OF MAPLEW000 _ _~ _ _ County of Rcrosey, Minnesota '~ n 1830 East ,.aunty ROOC 9. Moplewoad. Nn. I '~ ~ - r ~ (651) 770-4500 55109 ,J ~ LEGEND ~ 1~ IN1T:nsure rTNNI( Incxvw. 2 sl zoN ~ % c us. nuuemm muuc wwwAr O I ~ _ sTA1F ~wNeOtEO muNR wcuwAY © I .~ 3I ($ COUNtt S1A1E AIO NIOIf/MY v ~ •\ ~i > ~ ~~ COONtt IILL1O 2880N ~ ~ _\- ~2 .•~•c / 9 I NUNICIVN. PARK M r L1gOl 4 ~~ ¢~ ,rd ~ ~ ~ ~~~1 ~ ~I FlNE STATION b 2 ~ t ~1• ~ app ~ ~s~~ I 1JB1410Y 26AON -.~~ 'e ~j`gAa~ 'Sg•Y v~4 3 ~ a ~ A I I 60 ®~ ` 2~OON _ ..~ ~ i1 !arl.e oa~~~ ~. ~,- zI6oN - - 9 3 ~ °~~ myn 192011 ~ ~p u ' s a _3 Y ~H~i .: 57€ y ~ I 4 ~v i~ r ~^ 3 + ~ ~ ,unr ~ cAUT l°/ Ism c I ~ i .min .k:,.. .,,., ' - :~.: ~ 9 tTZa+ .d 'a. 1 - ;li, ~ I 1 t ~ I 'If( 2 f T(1(1`i Ir ,ii.t l ~~ -~ 28WN _ j - H - 2400N O' 1100' 300' 5100' 6800' 1 I , 2160N _ SCALE 5 ,~„~ ~ 1920N ,~ 31 P 1 ' S ~ a 6 • ! - IIIBON ~ ~• 1 " a ../~"\ 3 ~'~ _r - . ~: -- ~.s IRON 3 . K i a - .~. a ~= ~• ~ - / 9 IzooN s y u '" ' - - 980N 6 = 4N,~ - ~~ N .6 ~f _ ~ - .121W ~+ -» _ , I ,. o 16011 a T IZ ® o ~m -- 2WN I ~ - 1a ,-- -~. I ~ I s - ~ L ? I• N!i £ mi k - - 2M5 r9 •~. 1 S ~ rc ~..a- r ~- .805 ,. ~_ ~ ~ ~ 16 i ~ " a~~ s - 1205 MAPLEWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION Q Lorraine Fischer, Chair ~Tushar Desai 1812 Furness Street 2937 Edward Street Maplewood MN 55109 Maplewood MN 55109 U"ale Trippler ~. Leff Bartol 1201 Junction Avenue 2702 Pinkspire Lane Maplewood MN 55109 Maplewood MN 55119 ~aul Mueller ~ary Pearson 1820 Onacrest Court 1209 Antelope Way Maplewood MN 55117 Maplewood MN 55119 Mary Dierich ~, 2624 Promontory Place Maplewood MN 55119 ~~ 9605 Ig • 'r. -r ~1~1~ (~//R4.US[ (~ C:.~~ BHT. ~ F ~ 2 r r - Izaa3 19 __ Ies05 20 16603 Attachment 2 C1TY OF MAPLEWOOD _ ~_ -_ County of Ramsay Minnesota a n '830 cast Cpunly Ropd 9. Maplewood. Mn. !~ ~ r ~, ~ ~ ~ I (sst~ ~~o-soo sstoe -.~ m LEGEND - y, wmesure ~urtt xleAwAY ~ slmn % A u.s. nuNemm muNA wwwA. ~ 1 yffi~ ~ 'il sure wNeEx6o muNx wcNwAr 3 t ;~. ~g ~~ J COUNtt STAre >IO HIGHWAY : ~ ~ ~14 ~ a l ~~• ~ 3 Cp1Ntt ANO • 268pN r ~ ~~ ° e ~ NUItlpIPAI PLAIN ~ „' .~F• ~ ~= I V ~ FlIIE STAIgN a ~r- ~ ~~~:~ ~K -- _~~~1~ ~r~' ~ ueNNn z6wN - ~ .. ~ ~ •1~ `I .l _° ~~'' 2 , "a / n I~ "9 o ~ ' __ 8 ai A 6 ~ c ~ ~ 0 zaomA a9 h , ay, ~~'. ~~ ~T / ~ ~ ~ z, 6oN - t II . °I si 5 o-/ ~~. ~ ~ yr' ~~` s~ i ~i~ ~ ~~ :'.. 1920n Y 6 ~ s \ ° ~• 0 3 ~ ~ i ~ ~ ~, ~ .. 166o,I . . ~ I ' o ® _„Nf ~ 'AUl I PLANNING COMMISSION APPLICANTS 1. Richard Currie 1937 West Kenwood Drive Maplewood, MN 55117 2. Scott Gilbert 2559 Meridian Drive Maplewood MN 55109 3. Michael Grover 1758 Edward Street Maplewood MN 55109 4. Judd Johnson 1699 Barclay Street Maplewood MN 55109 5. Daniel Lee 2024 Clarence Street Maplewood MN 55109 3 r S ~ - .~Y..-•. A A '!i~.`~~b ~~ ul }, zoN 4 0 ' ~ ' I ~' i I Il(~ 3 vpe'r _ r ,.poi z i~ { ~~/' I - I6apN ~ x ' ~ _ '9s` ~ - 2appN J a Y r a ~ g p' I9ao• }aoo' s, w' efipp• - 2, epN ' OJ°,r~- p' (`II ~ ' ~ t I' 2~ T a- SCxE 5 ~ _ ,.r. ! ~q ~ • A > 1920N 'y + ; Y ~ ' ~ ~ 0 8 i ~ - " ,~~ 1 } -- ~~ x.~ ; w-~_ s' 6 z- :~: - 0 2ppN ..s'< ~~ ~ 9 ~' - Ip I - -` •' i t ,A ~ -- ~+ ]IpN ,~ ~ 6pN ,2 0 ,n ~ © IS I a J = ~. 1' ~~ ' ~1 s e ? ,. ~r 3 ice: a - zaps i ~$ 16 h xY ° ~ A ~ y ~ - asps ~~~ ~~ I6 .. , . i ~ , °f7f ~' 6 )206 ~ -a I , ~ ~ ~~C - 9605 I y l~ 16 > rtl ~ _ \ ..a g ~J 1 9 £ c .~ ~. .le '. 0 f~ F4!.IScI' CLt!II.'f~ - ~...,: ~ _. iii, w rv ry n t66p5 CITY OF MAPLEWOOD BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS , APPLICANT INFORMATION FORM Attachment 3 ,JI E 1Si c- h cL,t'd t"ua, ~ ~ ~: t~~2i~ ,ODRESS /'937 GtJEs~` /~~r.zvarbl. ~9t. ZIP SS7f7-ZZZ-~ PHONE NO. Work: Home: DATE 1) How long have you lived in the City of Maplewood? ~ p~~-- 2) Will other commitments make regular attendance at meetings difficult? Yes No .,~ Comments: 3) On which Board or Commission are you interested in serving? (please check) ~_ Community Design Review Board Park 8~ Recreation Commission Housing 8~ Redevelopment Authority _~ Planning Commission Human Relations Commission Police Civil Service Commission 4) Do you have any s ecific areas of interest within this Board's or Commission's scope of responsibilities? ~ 3 ~~~ s ;n; 31d ~N- ~i~rt". i Z ; ~ /Vu R s ~ P, y M.~ '~ 5) List other organizations or clubs in the Community in which you have been or are an active participant: 1 •~sf ,eat ~'~ ~,~K~,a~ Fi~c ~t~i ~t ,~~1 ~,~K ~ e1,:~ I ~ N1,gP%wu.~;~i ~ t~E~ ~~s`to~i cr~L ~c~'G-'~y 6) Why would you like to serve on this Board or Commission? `8~e.`r~~ Z'~,~„rt fo ADDITIONAL COMMENTS: THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS APPLICATION SHALL 8E CLASS/F1ED AS PUBLIC. FORM518R~SCOMM.APL 4 1 ~/% ~,i.=`.~ 1 1 2003 CITY OF MAPLEWOOD Attachment 4 BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS APPLICANT INFORMATION FORM ADDRESS ? S S~, -^1L-~; ~' ~ ~ (~~~ ZIP ,~I i7c PHONE NO. Work:_ __ ___ - Home: . EMAIL FAX _U _ 1) How long have you lived in the City of Maplewood? ~c ~'~ ZODc~ 2) Will other commitments make regular attendance at meetings difficu t? Yes No Comments: On which Board or Commission are you interested in serving? (please check) A description of the duties of each committee is on back. ~~Community Design Review Board Park & Recreation Commission Housing & Redevelopment Authority Planning Commission f Human Relations Commission Police Civil Service Commission 4) Do you have any s ecific areas of interest within this Board's or Commisison's scope of responsibilities? 11 `` . I ,~ ~7 , y~ - I ~ -~' c~ ~ ~ ~'~-O +~ .cn'1 .E;n S .,~.-i K ~ ~f' ~~ ~1' ',,"~,,/~!~ C'~M ~~I wY1. ,~,o `"~ ~"~ ~to~' ~ao ~ ~o~ e ~ ., ' Vt ILI, lilnl ~ "- CJ~ ~ ~ 1~ GYG;.. G' J ~ ~ ~ , `~ ~"~l~ y~QC~ ~~~LE..~ ` S cam. ~ ~~.`t 5 List other or `~nizations or clubs in~h~ommunity in which u have beep or are an active ~ ~~~ 9~ ). participant: l n ~Errl.~ I oc ~L/v~ , V 6) Why would you like to serve on the Board or Commission? ~` U ADDIT~I,{ONAL COMM3yENTS: (/~ ~~ ,,_ ~//~ !l' I f J 1-" 1 tn7~ cil ~ ~ \Yl~ ,,}.~,".°• ~ s- ~`~-~OC ®yl irY~ GvY-~`'~ ~;'' S'1- ~Cv~ 5'+ ""'-i•`i~' S ~f; (i THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS APPLICATION AND ANYATTACHMENT PROVIDED ARE CONSIDERED PUBLIC INFORMATION. WORD/BRD&COMM oa/o2 5 Attachment 5 CITY OF MAPLEWOOD ~~(~~p~/ (~® BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS Sip n a 2003 APPLICANT INFORMATION FORM NAME M, Glt,.~.e l Grove Y' --------------- ADDRESS 1758 ~'o1,wA r Sf• /~ ZIP S'~/D PHONE NO. Work: _ _ _ Home:_ _ _, _ EMAIL ~ _FAX -- ~~ 1) How long have you lived in the City of Maplewood? 5 ~~°~ YS 2) Will other commitments make regular attendance at meetings difficult? Yes No~ Comments: On which Board or Commission are you interested in serving? (please check) A description of the duties of each committee is on back. Community Design Review Board Park & Recreation Commission ~~Housing & Redevelopment Authority -Planning Commission Human Relations Commission Police Civil Service Commission 4) Do you have any specific areas of interest within this Board's or Commisison's scope of resp''/onsibilities? • /TO N,S l ~~ L/-~f `t( f/J GG ~ ri+~,.f/~~b/D'N~ft- • R~Ga ~e ~ dks ~ ~ '~SM,Gf.l~~ rdWf7~1, ~~ ~vGl ~~t,t ( ~~ 5) List other organizations or clubs in the Community in which you have been or are an active participant: Gu ~/'.~.~,f' oGo ~Ld f- n ~c r 1`t ~~ /I a ~ ~r.~c a ~1 y G/Yit ~l vet i t~ 42 4 a~r~i7,~i7~~t /" / / / V ov C~~ . ~y ,S c rv~ /Lt 3`~.c t`l~P~ 1 ~ fa ~ arc .u y ve (mac a ~i S~vt ~e fb ~`~.e ~Gi~. l~ev-~2 c.~u~t'vH<' t/ 6) Why would you like to serve on the Board or Commission? .. ~ ~uct~G s~ro~1z ~~a~~« ~ ~r~,~s~~ cad /xrS'/ha,~.~. r~Gi~f'~ ~ca~s~~. ~,t( ~-e ~Lt ~~ /S~aud ~ /~a !«i~ . ! au{ cu rr~~ f-'~~" ~~/r ~/fir ~J <SStrf~~zn't ~~ lJ6t/l~i/~~v~wGcce .rtic (/`btt( j'fu,~~t,,C v~tTr e~1'a~icr.~ ~i(GG~Lf~IL~ / ~t, O^GG~Piv~~Q~~~G ~ GGl~1'I ffl !~K < ~j~' ~Gh!~n~~'/~1 J'L' G'4I ~~ G~~~ (v/ D G ..~.~ /Lt<Ccva~cc-~GGC Gi~%c, P`l~-C ~~~~s' . ff 3 a- ADDITIONAL COMMENTS: (C S~ :~. ~~ ~~~~ r ,Lt!!~ a~~. a~vJ ~'r.-9l~ia.~ /2A~iI v~G ,~~~ r~Sut der ~2. fKc ~-c a Gl~~ ~ Gv~uGv~ ~.( ~ ~ S ~ G w uJGt/t' G~.~-d- ~~~~ GGGG ~~ l`D /~dGCd~p .c~ d~t/vL ~~-Q~ l ~- ~ ,off ~C ~ ~,~,~LVV~ o~ud iuain ~t~~i ! `y7~-e G!~ s ~~ ~h /~ THE INFU~RMATION CONTAINED IN THIS APPLICATION AND ANYATTACHMENT OVIDED ARE CONSIDERED Sly PUBLIC INFORMAT/ON. WORD/BRD&COMM 04/02 6 CITY OF MAPLEWOOD BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS APPLICANT INFORMATION FORM NAME ~: ~..~) ~ ADDRESS / (~~ ~- PHONE NO. Work: EMAIL Attachment 6 rn~ ZIP SS~o~ .... ~ _ _ FAX - A __ 1) How long have you lived in the City of Maplewood? s% ~~ c L 19 ~ ~, v` 1 f, ~ cT~ ~, 2) Will other commitments make regular attendance at meetings difficult? Yes No ~~ r J / Comments: / ~..,.v~-ld ~~ G.V~/~~-5/c ~y ~~KL c~// r.ec~„c,a- S On which Board or Commission are you interested in serving? (please check) A description of the duties of each committee is on back. Community Design Review Board Park & Recreation Commission Housing & Redevelopment Authority ~ Planning Commission Human Relations Commission Police Civil Service Commission 4) Do you have any specific areas of interest within this Board's or Commission's scope of responsibilities? `~ / J 1 ~Q l1II Lo-N~ L.1~ aa., t/~ Z/vN) N~c Gr-t c~ ~ // /J 7c~~J~ r/v r+.C. ~' ~ F-Jh.eJi.-n.i¢.,~ f! L~..~-i 1' 1`u ~~ ~~ ~Y /'t~ ~t~.e/pA i%• 4-- ~ ~~~ 5) List other organizations or clubs in the Community in which you have been or are an active participant: 6) Why would you like to serve on the Board or Commission? ~.V G~ tia, ~jd`C ~J j.. G~I~~I/ ~y Uf '/FTC ADDITIONAL COMMENTS: V ~ ~ C,O~l`1 M'^ [. ~ ~J J/ r /N T~ C! ~ U 1" THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS APPLICATION AND ANY ATTACHMENT PROVIDED ARE CONSIDERED PUBLIC INFORMATION EXCEPT FOR.HOMEAND WORK TELEPHONE NUMBERS. Return or mail this application to: City of Maplewood a :4~ 1830 County Road B East, Maplewood MN 55109 ~ ' ~~ `~~g~~tim ~.,,~_ P\COM-DVPT\WORD\COMMISSION-BOARD 11/03 7 CITY OF MAPLEWOOD Attachment 7 BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS (''~ APPLICANT INFORMATION FORM NAME ~ a ~ ~~. ~-e~ ADDRESS ~ ~ _ S ZIP ~Sloq PHONE NO. Work:__ ~Home:__ ,~ _ ~~ EMAIL - FAX - r 1) How long have you lived in the City of Maplewood? (o ~- O~ ~''~ l 7 ~~T2.Se~~` ,v ~ `~('~~-{a,~ 2) Will other commitments make regular attendance at meetings difficult? Yes No~ Comments: On which Board or Commission are you interested in serving? (please check) A descripti9n of the duties of each committee is on back. ~_Community Design Review Board _7 Park & Recreation Commission Housing & Redevelopment Authority ~_Planning Commission Human Relations Commission Police Civil Service Commission 4) Do you have any specific areas of interest within this Board's or Commissi +on's scope of responsibilities? ~vti. U~rY +~.~re~~-e ~ j~.~, rXe~ ~.~`,cS i,.. ~~~,e ~u~ Gi~,~+ ~cc,,.c~ SCca.P~~y t~ ?(~ic~..)ar ~1,, ~ >~ v , sL=r. +~-~~~ }-~ ~ ~ ~-~., Luc ~- ~-~.. ~ ~~ e ~ d;.~~ c~.e.v-eloF~~..~- ~~. ~ ~ y C`Jv~ U ~ J'civ~ v'~,q, ~~, ~' ~ ~ G~.~f w.. J ~. 5) List other organizations or clubs in the Community in which you have been or are an active participant: 61 Why would you like to serve on the Board or Commission? .~ i.~,45 `~oti ~ ~.~~ ('a;5~~ ~~-.. ~~~ S `` ( f < < (~ ~('ee~, (~~a d S-1z.~) GCv~ d G~w. ~. S Ck~}2 C ~-v ~ t~ 1 ~-1 ~~J ~~ ~~. 1 lNw. ~~ ~v'~~ ~ ~r ~ ~ I -~- cis ~1 ~v~ov~ c,~ ~, ~ Cam. ~~;, v-e ~ e ~ ~, ~ i ~ F ~k~ r ~ ~ ~- j ~.-1'~.re ~ ~ ,Sow wa~ . AD''DITIONALCOMMENTS: -i r~~l~~ ~'^Y ~XF~~r;e~c~ +`aC~~~;^;~",'«-~-~ ~``{- ~`'``S ~S c~~. ~~~~« ~.L_ VLG~~. ~ t l.~IcY.~ S CJ't~' ~n i ~n.~ `r ~ `~ ~ ~ l.v t ~ -~- C:~' •JU [ ~ti~ J ~ C~ Vl ~ C_ ~~ ~ ~/ , THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS APPLICATION AND ANY ATTACHMENT PROVIDED ARE CONSIDERED PUBLIC INFORMATION EXCEPT FOR HOME AND WORK TELEPHONE NUMBERS. Return or mail this application to: City of Maplewood 1830 County Road B East, Maplewood MN 55109 P\COM-DVPl1WORD\COMMISSION-BOARD 11/03 Attachment 8 POSSIBLE INTERVIEW PROCEDURES AND QUESTIONS Welcome applicants and thank them for their interest in serving on the commission. Explain the number of openings, the interview and appointment processes. Give an overview of the duties of the commissioners, their role (advisory to the council, and occasionally other commissions), frequency of commission meetings and attendance at city council meetings, training sessions, field trips, etc. So applicants will have realistic expectations of what we can or cannot do (and why) present a quirk overview of comprehensive plan, zoning, CUP, etc., and point out areas where we do or do not have much discretion -where we have rules from above -- the state, Met Council, county, etc. (Ti~ese could all be done by the chary, o~• could be slit among the conzmissione~•s.) POSSIBLE QUESTIONS 1. Do you foresee any problem with attendance at regularly scheduled meetings? at city council meetings? Would you have any difficulties with meetings that might go later than 10:00? 2. Do you have any areas where you might have a conflict of interest? How would you handle this? 3. We usually receive our packets on Thursday. Some of them contain a considerable amount of reading material. Do you foresee any difficulty in visiting the sites mentioned on the agenda. and getting the material read by the Monday meeting date? 4. All of our regular meetings are televised and rerun, do you think you will have any problem expressing your opinions with the camera's eye on you? 5. As previously mentioned, the commission's role is acr'viso~y to the council which makes the final decision. Can you be comfortable with this role? 6. At times we have controversial items with a variety of opinions and sometimes outright hostility being expressed. Can you be comfortable with these situations? 7. What do you feel you can bring to this group -interests, talents, life experiences, etc. 8. After sitting through this meeting do you have any questions on what was done and why? Did you disagree with any of the decisions? If so, why? (If there was a split vote, which side ~~~ould you have been on?) 9. Looking at how Maplewood has developed, a) What do you think has been done well? b) What do you think could have been done better. c) What do you see as important to be addressed in the future (near or far)? 9 AGENDA Nq. F® AGENDA REPORT TO: City Manager FROM: Finance Director RE: 2003 ANNUAL FINANCIAL REPORT AND AUDIT DATE: May 14, 2004 Chris Omdahl of KPMG will be at the Council meeting to review the ~nnt~al financial report and audit reports. Copies of the 2003 Annual Financial Deport will be distributed to the City Council and management staff on May 18. Two additional items will also be reviewed at the meeting: 1. Legal compliance audit report letter. 2. Auditors' communication letter. Copies of these letters are attached. P\finance\word\agn\AUDITMTG.doc 1 KPMG LLP 4200 Wells Fargo Center 90 South Seventh Street Minneapolis, MN 55402 Independent Auditors' Report The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Maplewood, Minnesota: We have audited, in accordance with auditing standards generally accepted in the Uniteid States of America, the basic financial statements of the City of Maplewood, Minnesota (thy City) as of and for the year ended December 31, 2003, and have issued our report thereon dated Matrch l6, 2004. In connection with our audit, nothing came to our attention that caused us to believe that the City failed to comply with the provisions of the contracting and bidding, deposits end investments, conflicts of interest, public indebtedness and claims and disbursements of the .Yllinnesota Legal Compliance Audit Guide for Local Government, promulgated by the State Auditor pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 6.65, insofar as they relate to accounting matters, except as described in the accompanying Schedule of Findings. This report is intended solely for the information and use of the City and the Office of the State Auditor and is not intended to be and should not be used by anyone other than these specified parties. ~~~ u~ Minneapolis, Minnesota March 16, 2004 KPMG LLP, a U.S. limited liability partnership, is the U.S. member firm of KPMG International, a Swiss cooperative. Minneapolis Office 1 Celebrating ~PQ' %~J C 19(7 i-2?u4 G CITY OF MAPLEWOOD Maplewood, Minnesota Schedule of Findings Year ended December 31, 2003 PUBLIC INDEBTEDNESS REPORTING Finding Minnesota Statutes Section. 471.70, states that the municipality must report, on or be~'pre February 1 of each year, to the auditor of each county in which the municipality is situated, the total amount of outstanding obligations and the purpose for which issued, as of December 31 of the preceding year. The City of Maplewood reported to the county auditor on February 9, 2004 the total amount of outstanding obligations and the purpose for which issued. Recommendation The City of Maplewood should submit the required report within the statutory timelines. 3 KPMG LLP 4200 Wells Fargo Center 90 South Seventh Street Minneapolis, MN 55402 March 16, 2004 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Maplewood, Minnesota: Telephone 812 305 5000 Fax G12 30~ 5100 We have audited the financial statements of the City of Maplewood, Minnesota (the City) for the year ended December 31, 2003, and have issued our report thereon dated Mazch 16, 2004. Under generally accepted auditing standards, we are providing you with the attached information related to the conduct of our audit. OUR RESPONSIBILITY UNDER GENERALLY ACCEPTED AUDITING STANDARDS We have a responsibility to conduct our audit in accordance with auditing standards generally accepted in the United States of America. In carrying out this responsibility, we planned and performed the audit to obtain reasonable assurance about whether the financial st~temtnts are free of material misstatement, whether caused by error or fraud. Because of the nature of audit evidence and the characteristics of fraud, we are to obtain reasonable, not absolute, assurrance that material misstatements are detected. We have no responsibility to plan and perform the audit to obtain reasonable assurance that misstatements, whether caused by error or fraud, that are nonmaterial to the financial statements are detected. In addition, in planning and performing our audit, we considered internal control in order to determine our auditing procedures for the purpose of expressing our opinions on the financial statements. An audit does not include examining the effectiveness of internal control and does nG-t provide assurance on internal control. SIGNIFICANT ACCOUNTING POLICIES The significant accounting policies used by the City are described in the notes to the financial statements. No accounting principles were adopted and the application of existing accounting policies was not changed during the fiscal year. We noted no transactions entered into by the City during the year that were both tiignificant and unusual, and of which, under professional standards, we are required to inform you, or transactions for which there is a lack of authoritative guidance or consensus. MANAGEMENT JiJDGMENTS AND ACCOUNTING ESTIMATES Accounting estimates aze an integral part of the financial statements prepared by management and are based upon management's current judgments. Certain accounting estimates are particularly sensitive because of their significance to the financial statements and because of the possibility that future events affecting them may differ markedly from management's current judgments. We evaluated the key factors and assumptions used to ascertain that they are reasonable in relation to the financial statements of the City taken as a whole. .... KPMG LLP, a U.S. limited liability Partnership, is the U.S. member tirm of KPMG International, a Swiss cooperative. Minneapolis Office Celebrating 1 ~~yl',C,r%!~ ~ 1464-ZOSM \ ~~~r ~ ~r P G 2 AUDIT ADJUSTMENTS AND UNCORRECTED MISSTATEMENTS. In connection with our audit of your financial statements, we have not discussed with management any significant financial statement misstatements that have not been convected for in yaur books and records as of and for the year ended December 31, 2003. DISAGREEMENTS WITH MANAGEMENT There were no disagreements with management on financial accounting and reporting t~natters that, if not satisfactorily resolved, would have caused a modification of our report on !the City's financial statements. CONSULTATION WITH OTHER ACCOUNTANTS To the best of our lrnowledge management has not consulted with or obtained opinions, written or oral, from other independent accountants during the past yeaz that were subject to the requirements of Statement of Auditing Standards No. 50, Reports on the Application of Accounting Principles. MAJOR ISSUES DISCUSSED WITH MANAGEMENT PRIOR TO RETENTION We generally discuss a variety of matters, including the application of accounting principles and auditing standards, with management each year prior to retention as the City's auditors. However, these discussions occurred in the normal course of our professional relationship and our responses were not a condition to our retention. DIFFICULTIES ENCOUNTERED IN PERFORMING THE AUDIT We encountered no difficulties in dealing with management in performing our audit. SIGNIFICANT WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS BETWEEN THE AUDITOR AND MANAGEMENT In accordance with the communication requirements of SAS No. 61, the following material written communications exist between management and us: 1) Engagement letter dated December 11, 2003; 2) Management representation letter dated March 16, 2004; and 3) No material weakness letter dated March 16, 2004. ***** This report is intended solely for the information and use of the Mayor and City Council and is not intended to be and should not be used by anyone other than these specified parties. Very truly yours, ~r~G 1.L'i' AGENDA NO. G-1 AGENDA REPORT TO: City Council FROM: Finance Director RE: APPROVAL OF CLAIMS DATE: May 24, 2004 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: $ 535.59 Checks # 63786 thru # 63787 dated 5/04/04 thru 5/06/04 $ 94,637.98 Checks # 63788 thru # 63841 dated 5/11/04 $ 137,700.13 Disbursements via debits to checking account dated 4/30/04 thru 5/06/04 $ 528,343.80 Checks # 63842 thru # 63912 dated 5/18/04 $ 285,834.45 Disbursements via debits to checking account dated 5/7/04 thru 5/13/04 $ 1,047,051.95 Total Accounts Payable PAYROLL $ 410,266.58 Payroll Checks and Direct Deposits dated 5-07-04 $ 6,128.41 Payroll Deduction check # 97420 thru # 97424 dated 5/07/04 $ 416,394.99 Total Payroll $ 1,463,446.94 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\04-AprClms 05-07 and 5-14 1 Check Register City of Maplewood vchlist 05/07/2004 10:50:03 AM Check Date Vendor Description/Account Amount 63786 5/4/2004 00672 HJELLE, ERIK REIMB GAS LEAK ON CENTURY FOOD 4/22 135.59 63787 5/6/2004 01088 MN POLLUTION CONTROL AGENCY NPDES PERMIT FEE 400.00 63788 5/11/2004 00014 A T & T MANAGED INTERNET SRV -APR 1,013.60 63789 5/11/2004 02780 ACTIVE NETWORK INC, THE SOFTWARE MAINT4/8-4/7/05 1,940.00 63790 5/11/2004 01908 ADMINISTRATION, DEPT OF WIDE AREA NETWORK USAGE -MAR 392.00 63791 5/11/2004 00049 ADT SECURITY SERVICES CARD ACCESS SYS - PW BLDG 6,964.41 63792 5/11/2004 00049 ADT SECURITY SERVICES CARD ACCESS SYS -FIRE STATION 3 3,785.00 63793 5/11/2004 02411 ALEX AIR APPARATUS INC AIR QUAL TEST & COMPRESSOR -STA 1 808.34 AIR QUAL & COMPRESSOR MAINT- STA 7 654.98 REPAIR SCBA AIR STORAGE SYS -STA 4 167.21 AIR QUAL & COMPRESSOR MAINT -STA 2 697.58 63794 5/11/2004 02658 AVENET LLC WEB BANNER DESIGN WORK 75.00 HOSTING WEB & SUPERFORMS 340.00 63795 5/11/2004 00152 BANICK, JOHN REIMB FOR TUITION 2/25 - 3/17 270.00 63796 5/11/2004 03004 BEHAVIORAL HEALTH SRVS INC EAP SERVICES - 1ST QTR 480.00 63797 5/11/2004 00244 CABLING SERVICES CORP VOICE & DATA WIRING FOR PUBLIC WORKS 4,372.38 VOICE & DATA WIRING FOR PUBLIC WORKS 4,372.38 VOICE & DATA CABLING 4/19 & 4/20 2,871.72 63798 5/11/2004 02746 CLOVER SUPER FOODS INC MERCH FOR RESALE 179.49 63799 5/11/2004 00338 CRABTREE COMPANIES INC. LASERFICHE SOFTWARE - ADDL LIC & SUPPORT 2,776.04 63800 5/11/2004 02050 CRITICAL CONNECTION ECOLOGICAL ECOLOGICAL CONSULTING 320.00 63801 5/11/2004 00241 CSI SOFTWARE SOFTWARE MAINT 5/04 - 4/05 3,204.00 63802 5/11/2004 00384 DE LAGE LANDEN FINANCIAL SRVS COPIER PYMT 326.54 63803 5/11/2004 00358 DGM INC. TOW FORFEITURE VEHICLE 90.53 TOW FORFEITURE VEHICLE 90.53 TOW INVESTIGATIVE VEHICLE 142.48 TOW FORFEITURE VEHICLE 90.53 TOW FORFEITURE VEHICLE 90.53 TOW FORFEITURE VEHICLE 90.53 TOW FORFEITURE VEHICLE 122.48 TOW FORFEITURE VEHICLE 90.53 TOW FORFEITURE VEHICLE 90.53 63804 5/11/2004 02743 DOBLAR, RICHARD REIMB FOR TUITION 2/26 - 4/8 573.75 REIMB FOR TUITION 3/1 - 5/1 191.25 63805 5/11/2004 00462 EMBEDDED SYSTEMS, INC. REPAIR TORNADO SIREN 170.00 63806 5/11/2004 00463 EMERGENCY APPARATUS MAINT REPAIR OPTICOM -AMB 2 1,076.95 REPAIR DOOR LATCH -AMB 1 1,075.75 REPAIR POWER STEERING -AMB 7 913.72 63807 5/11/2004 00508 FIRE INSTRUCTORS ASSN OF MINN TRAINING BOOK & TAPE 108.00 63808 5/11/2004 00545 GFOA SGC GASB COMP PLAN 7/2004 - 6/2005 190.00 63809 5/11/2004 00589 GRAF, DAVE KARATE INSTRUCTOR 234.00 63810 5/11/2004 00612 GYM WORKS INC PREV MAINT-APR 792.88 63811 5/11/2004 02547 HARTLAND FUEL PRODUCTS LLC INC 7003 GAL UNL MID-GRADE GAS (89 OCTANE) 10,553.51 63812 5/11/2004 00677 HOME DEPOT - GECF HOSE & NOZZLE 34.29 63813 5/11/2004 02990 INSTANT INSTALL INC RELOCATION OF ENGINEERING DEPT TO PW 560.00 RELOCATION OF ENGINEERING DEPT TO PW 1,565.00 63814 5/11/2004 03087 JACOBSON, SCOTT A REIMB FOR PARKING 4/28 11.00 63815 5/11/2004 00785 KAMCOM TECHNOLOGIES SYMANTEC ANTIVIRUS ENTERPRISE MAINT 3,088.50 63816 5/11/2004 02877 LA METTRY'S COLLISION REPAIRS TO DURANGO 1,796.40 PAINT VEHICLE 2,518.99 63817 5/11/2004 02947 METCALF MOVING & STORAGE CO BOOK CARTS & 4 WHEEL DOLLY RENTAL 594.00 63818 5/11/2004 01028 MN STATE TREASURER STAR MONTHLY SURTAX -APR 2,082.42 63819 5/11/2004 01202 NYSTROM PUBLISHING CO INC NEWLETTER -MAY 2,320.00 63820 5/11/2004 00001 ONE TIME VENDOR REF CONNIE PEREZ -SOFTBALL 45.00 63821 5/11/2004 00001 ONE TIME VENDOR REF JONI MULFINGER -MCC PROGRAM 42.50 63822 5/11/2004 00001 ONE TIME VENDOR REF KEVIN JSCOTT -VOLLEYBALL 42.50 63823 5/11/2004 00001 ONE TIME VENDOR REF JENNIFER POTHEN -MCC PROGRAM 42.50 63824 5/11/2004 00001 ONE TIME VENDOR REF JOHN BERG -MEMBERSHIP 42.00 63825 5/11/2004 00001 ONE TIME VENDOR REF DENNIS LINDORFF -TOWEL PROG 20.00 63826 5/11/2004 00001 ONE TIME VENDOR REF EDWARD ELIASSON -MCC PROGRAM 17.15 63827 5/11/2004 00001 ONE TIME VENDOR REF BRIAN BORG -AMB 04002396/2121 13.08 63828 5/11/2004 00001 ONE TIME VENDOR REF ANNETTE SPARKS - NC PROGRAM 3.00 2 Check Register City of Maplewood vchlist 05/07/2004 10:50:03 AM Check Date Vendor 63829 5/11/2004 01337 63830 5/11/2004 01346 63831 5/11/2004 01455 63832 5/11/2004 01473 63833 5/11/2004 01550 63834 5/11/2004 01572 63835 5/11/2004 01574 63836 5/11/2004 03086 63837 5/11/2004 03088 63838 5/11/2004 01728 63839 5/11/2004 01734 63840 5/11/2004 02462 63841 5/11/2004 01807 56 Checks in this report Description/Account Amount RAMSEY COUNTY-PROP REC & REV 1ST HALF PROP TAX - 03-29-22-23-0008 12,532.00 RAMSEY COUNTY-PROP REC & REV 1ST HALF PROP TAX - 03-29-22-23-0022 576.00 RAMSEY COUNTY-PROP REC & REV 1ST HALF PROP TAX - 03-29-22-23-0023 869.00 RAMSEY COUNTY-PROP REC & REV 1ST HALF PROP TAX - 18-29-22-43-0019 625.00 RAMSEY-WASHINGTON METRO DIST 2004 WATERFEST CONTRIBUTION 750.00 SHORTREED, MICHAEL REIMB MEALS,TUITION & BOOKS 2/26-4/30 1,248.59 SMITH DIVING SCUBA& SNORKELING INSTRUCTION 1,036.00 SUMMIT INSPECTIONS ELECTRICAL INSPECTIONS 3,039.20 SYSTEMS SUPPLY, INC. INK CARTRIDGES 248.34 INK CARTRIDGES 386.60 T.A. SCHIFSKY & SONS, INC VARIOUS BITUMINOUS- 555.11 TAHO SPORTSWEAR MCC REC PROGRAM BALLS 1,343.23 201 SLEEVELESS HENLEY SHIRTS 1,674.33 TRAN, JOSEPH REIMB FOR TUITION & BOOKS 2/25-4/7 649.84 VOYAGEUR ASSET MGMT INC INV MGMT SERVICES 989.00 WALSH, WILLIAM P. COMMERCIAL PLUMBING INSPECTIONS 456.00 WEMYSS, SCOTT D NAME TAGS 6.00 ZWIEG, SUSAN SWEATSHIRTS 26.26 Total checks : 95,173.57 3 CITY OF MAPLEWOOD Disbursements via Debits to Checking account Transmitted Settlement Date Date Payee Description 04/29/04 04/30/04 MN State Treasurer Drivers License/Deputy Registrar 04/23/04 04/30/04 WI Dept of Revenue State Payroll Tax 04/29/04 04/30/04 MN Dept of Natural Resources DNR electronic licenses 04/30/04 05/03/04 MN State Treasurer Drivers License/Deputy Registrar 05/03/04 05/04/04 MN State Treasurer Drivers License/Deputy Registrar 05/04/04 05/05/04 MN State Treasurer Drivers License/Deputy Registrar 05/05/04 05/06/04 MN State Treasurer Drivers License/Deputy Registrar 04/30/04 05/06/04 Elan Financial Services* Purchasing card items TOTAL *Detailed listings of Elan purchasing card items are attached. Amount 16,199.24 1,249.55 1,191.50 21,138.74 27,980.92 23,766.78 16,163.71 30,009.69 4 Transaction Review 4/27/2004 For Transactions posted between 04/17/2004 to 04/23/2004 Post Date Vendor Name Settlement Amt Cardholder Name 04/22/2004 CUB FOODS, INC. 9.82 MANDY ANZALDI 04/22/2004 CUB FOODS, INC. 21.65 MANDY ANZALDI 04/20/2004 TGI_FRIDAYS #0260 13.79 JOHN BANICK 04/20/2004 GRAFIX SHOPPE 383.40 JOHN BANICK 04/22/2004 SHRED IT 173.16 JOHN BANICK 04/19/2004 TARGET 00011858 57.41 JIM BEHAN 04/21/2004 MINNESOTA ELEVATOR INC 200.00 JIM BEHAN 04/22/2004 HENRIKSEN ACE HARDWARE 63.32 JIM BEHAN 04/23/2004 POOLSIDE 65.44 JIM BEHAN 04/23/2004 EXCELLCOM 105.50 JIM BEHAN 04/19/2004 UNIFORMS UNLIMITED INC 90.90 JOHN BOHL 04/19/2004 MENARDS 3022 88.45 RON BOURQUIN 04/20/2004 GE CAPITAL 149.10 LINDA CROSSON 04/21/2004 PARTYPRO.COM 95.54 LINDA CROSSON 04/21/2004 ORIENTAL TRADING CO 130.35 LINDA CROSSON 04/22/2004 PAPER MART 37.50 LINDA CROSSON 04/22/2004 RHODE ISLAND NOVELTY 54.58 LINDA CROSSON 04/23/2004 PARTYPRO.COM 85.17 LINDA CROSSON 04/21/2004 SUN TURF METRO POWER 250.68 THOMAS DEBILZAN 04/22/2004 AAFES TWIN CITIES MS 61.60 RICHARD DOBLAR 04/19/2004 EMERGENCY MEDICAL PROD 659.58 PAUL E EVERSON 04/22/2004 BECK SHOE PRODUCTS 77.20 PAUL E EVERSON 04/21/2004 SUPERSHUTTLE BALT 28.00 DANIEL F FAUST 04/19/2004 GLENWOOD-INGLEWOOD 106.34 DAVID FISHER 04/19/2004 ALL MAIN STREET ELECTRIC 1,080.00 DAVID FISHER 04/19/2004 S & T OFFICE PRODUCTS 41.02 PATRICIA FRY 04/19/2004 FORESTRY SUPPLIERS, INC. 35.22 VIRGINIA GAYNOR 04/23/2004 TARGET 00011858 10.42 CAROLE GERNES 04/21/2004 MN PHOTO 9.28 CLARENCE GERVAIS 04/19/2004 RAINBOW 1-8852 26.18 MIKE GRAF 04/19/2004 TARGET 00000687 30.77 MIKE GRAF 04/20/2004 SUPERAMERICA 4089 7.74 MIKE GRAF 04/23/2004 HENRIKSEN ACE HARDWARE 2.75 MARK HAAG 04/21/2004 REED BUS INFO ACCT REC 1,409.58 LORI HANSON 04/21/2004 NAPA AUTO PARTS 7.64 MICHAEL HEMQUIST 04/19/2004 MOGREN BROTHERS 115.02 GARY HINNENKAMP 04/20/2004 MENARDS 3022 63.81 GARY HINNENKAMP 04/21/2004 MOGREN BROTHERS 63.90 GARY HINNENKAMP 04/19/2004 VERIZON WRLS 12KW RE3 32.79 MICHAEL KANE 04/19/2004 UNIFORMS UNLIMITED INC 92.59 FLINT KARIS 04/22/2004 BLUE RIBBON BAIT & TACKLE 5.95 HEATHER KOS 04/19/2004 ARBY'S #214 Q52 15.80 DAVID KVAM 04/20/2004 FRANKS 00502898 47.88 MICHAEL LIDBERG 04/20/2004 THOMAS TOOL AND SU 76.68 DENNIS LINDORFF 04/21/2004 OXYGEN SERVICE CO INC 59.95 DENNIS LINDORFF 04/21/2004 THE HOME DEPOT 2801 499.49 DENNIS LINDORFF 04/21/2004 THOMAS TOOL AND SU 249.21 DENNIS LINDORFF 04/22/2004 MENARDS 3022 76.85 DENNIS LINDORFF 04/19/2004 VERIZON WRLS 12KW RE3 40.02 STEVE LUKIN 04/21/2004 AMERITECH MOBILE PA 17.61 STEVE LUKIN 04/19/2004 VERIZON WRLS 12KW RE3 19.19 MARK MARUSKA 04/22/2004 SUN TURF METRO POWER 1,458.20 MARK MARUSKA 04/19/2004 VERIZON WRLS 12KW RE3 61.59 ED NADEAU 5 04/19/2004 SPRINTPCS AUTOPYMT RC1 59.92 BRYAN NAGEL 04/23/2004 RYCO SUPPLY COMPANY 26.73 JEAN NELSON 04/23/2004 S & T OFFICE PRODUCTS 103.71 JEAN NELSON 04/23/2004 HENRIKSEN ACE HARDWARE 14.44 RICHARD NORDQUIST 04/19/2004 VERIZON WRLS 12KW RE3 28.80 ERICK OSWALD 04/20/2004 TARGET 00011858 56.39 KURT PARSONS 04/21/2004 S & T OFFICE PRODUCTS 138.78 KATHLEEN PECK HALL 04/23/2004 S & T OFFICE PRODUCTS -15.25 KATHLEEN PECK HALL 04/19/2004 OFFICE MAX 00007054 33.28 PHILIP F POWELL 04/23/2004 PEAVEY CORPORATION 85.20 PHILIP F POWELL 04/23/2004 OFFICE MAX 00007013 21.29 PHILIP F POWELL 04/22/2004 METRO SALES INC 103.00 WILLIAM J PRIEFER 04/19/2004 MERIT CHEVROLET 51.24 STEVEN PRIEM 04/19/2004 TOUSLEY FORD 127200039 106.14 STEVEN PRIEM 04/19/2004 KATH AUTO PARTS 61.92 STEVEN PRIEM 04/19/2004 CATCO PARTS AND SERVICE 10.00 STEVEN PRIEM 04/20/2004 KATH AUTO PARTS 144.64 STEVEN PRIEM 04/21/2004 TOUSLEY FORD 127200039 126.13 STEVEN PRIEM 04/21/2004 SUNRAY BTB 27.40 STEVEN PRIEM 04/21/2004 CONTINENTAL RESEARCH 152.22 STEVEN PRIEM 04/21/2004 ZARNOTH BRUSH WORKS INC 1,042.64 STEVEN PRIEM 04/21/2004 KATH AUTO PARTS 53.20 STEVEN PRIEM 04/22/2004 TOUSLEY FORD 127200039 174.62 STEVEN PRIEM 04/22/2004 JOHNSON RADIO COMM 542.38 STEVEN PRIEM 04/23/2004 KATH AUTO PARTS 48.94 STEVEN PRIEM 04/19/2004 EXCELLCOM 75.00 KEVIN RABBETT 04/20/2004 NEXTEL WIRELESS SVCS 1,678.59 KEVIN RABBETT 04/19/2004 VIDEOGAME MASTER 54.99 TERRIE RAMEAUX 04/19/2004 MENARDS 3059 18.05 JAMES SCHINDELDECKER 04/20/2004 NORTHERN TOOL EQUIP-MN 479.24 JAMES SCHINDELDECKER 04/22/2004 MILLS FLEET FARM #27 144.64 JAMES SCHINDELDECKER 04/22/2004 S & T OFFICE PRODUCTS 66.69 DEB SCHMIDT 04/19/2004 VERIZON WRLS 12KW RE3 45.47 ANDREA SINDT 04/21/2004 CUB FOODS, INC. 71.71 ANDREA SINDT 04/21/2004 BENMEDS 305.82 ANDREA SINDT 04/21/2004 S & T OFFICE PRODUCTS 101.79 ANDREA SINDT 04/23/2004 KINKO'S #0617 537.24 ANDREA SINDT 04/21/2004 FRANKS 00502898 12.77 PAULINE STAPLES 04/21/2004 OFFICE MAX 00002204 34.36 PAULINE STAPLES 04/21/2004 S & T OFFICE PRODUCTS 249.18 JOANNE M SVENDSEN 04/22/2004 MERVYN'S 00003053 4.21 JOANNE M SVENDSEN 04/19/2004 CRAWFORD DOOR SALES COMPA 96.00 RUSTIN SVENDSEN 04/23/2004 EXCELLCOM 21.29 LYLE SWANSON 04/23/2004 QWESTCOMM TN651 338.46 JUDY TETZLAFF 04/22/2004 LTG POWER EQUIPMENT 64.91 TODD TEVLIN 04/22/2004 GRUBERS POWER EQUIPMENT 33.87 TODD TEVLIN 04/22/2004 GARCEAU HARDWARE AND POWE 291.12 TODD TEVLIN 04/20/2004 KOHL'S #0052 47.99 PAUL THIENES 04/20/2004 TGI_FRIDAYS #0260 21.22 DAVID J THOMALLA 04/19/2004 RAINBOW FOODS 1-886 8.86 JOSEPH WATERS 04/19/2004 THE HOME DEPOT 2801 12.25 JOSEPH WATERS 04/19/2004 QUIZNOS MAPLEWOOD 42.59 JOSEPH WATERS 04/19/2004 GRUBERS POWER EQUIPMENT 57.87 JOSEPH WATERS 04/20/2004 KINKO'S #0623 -3.72 JOSEPH WATERS 04/19/2004 QUILL CORPORATION 21.62 SUSAN ZWIEG 16, 797.45 6 Transaction Review For Transactions posted between 04/24/2004 to 04/30/2004 Post Date Vendor Name 04/26/200 UNIFORMS UNLIMITED INC 04/26/200 S & T OFFICE PRODUCTS 04/26/200 S & T OFFICE PRODUCTS 04/26/200 SPRINTPCS-SPEEDPAYIVR 04/28/200 UNIFORMS UNLIMITED INC 04/29/200~THE UPS STORE #2171 04/29/200 MICHAELS #2744 04/29/200 CUB FOODS, INC. 04/26/200 BEST WESTERN HOTELS 04/29/20OINFOMATIKA PUBLICATION IN 04/29/200 MUSKA LIGHTING CENTER 04/30/200 WALLY'S UPHOLS80110026 04/30/200 EXCELLCOM 04/27/200 SEWARD COOP S4J 04/27/200 MYFONTS.COM C/OBITSTREAM 04/28/200 KINKO'S #0617 04/28/200 PETSMART 00004614 04/29/200 DGI DYNAMIC GRAPHICS 04/30/200 KINKO'S #0617 04/26/200~T J T-SHIRTS 04/26/200 TARGET 00007518 04/30/200 OFFICE MAX 00002204 04/26/200 UNIFORMS UNLIMITED INC 04/28/200 S & T OFFICE PRODUCTS 04/29/200 ST PAUL AREA CHAMBER 04/26/200 MSP AIRPORT PA20002002 04/26/200 HMSHOST-BWI-AIR #0431 04/26/200 LOEWS ANNAPOL130480107 04/28/200 SUPERSHUTTLE BALT 04/26/200 HIRSHFIELD'S INC 04/29/200~THE HOME DEPOT 2801 04/26/200 MILLS FLEET FARM #27 04/26/200 CRAGUNS LODGE AND GOLF RE 04/29/200 MN PHOTO 04/26/200 STREAMLINE DESIGN 04/26/200 OFFICE MAX 00002204 04/26/200~TAH0 SPORTSWEAR 04/26/200 CUB FOODS-SUN RAY 04/26/200 RAINBOW FOODS 1-886 04/26/200 HOTSY EQUIPMENT OF MINNES 04/26/200 HOTSY EQUIPMENT OF MINNES 04/29/200 CASA RIO 04/29/200 SHELL OIL 27540740308 04/29/200 BULLIS HOUSE 04/29/200 BULLIS HOUSE 04/30/200 ITALIA RISTORONTE 04/30/200 MAMA'S RESTAURANTS 04/26/200 HENRIKSEN ACE HARDWARE 04/26/200~ALL MAIN STREET ELECTRIC 04/29/200 DALCO ENTERPRISES, INC 04/30/200 NORTHERN TOOL EQUIPMNT 04/30/200 MENARDS 3059 04/26/200 CONTINENTAL RESEARCH 5/4/2004 Settlement Amt Cardholder Name 88.93 MARK ALDRIDGE 132.42 BRUCE K ANDERSON 33.59 BRUCE K ANDERSON 35.00 BRUCE K ANDERSON 154.40 SCOTT ANDREWS 7.55 SCOTT ANDREWS 48.83 MANDY ANZALDI 1.79 MANDY ANZALDI 245.28 JOHN BANICK 374.95 JOHN BANICK 823.59 JIM BEHAN 106.22 JIM BEHAN 21.25 JIM BEHAN 16.10 OAKLEY BIESANZ 24.00 HEIDI CAREY 44.73 HEIDI CAREY 9.57 HEIDI CAREY 79.00 HEIDI CAREY 82.01 HEIDI CAREY 282.50 LINDA CROSSON 10.47 LINDA CROSSON 44.70 LINDA CROSSON 78.17 KERRY GROTTY 58.94 ROBERTA DARST 40.00 ROBERTA DARST 41.00 DANIEL F FAUST 12.80 DANIEL F FAUST 333.76 DANIEL F FAUST 28.00 DANIEL F FAUST 268.38 DAVID FISHER 57.51 MYCHAL FOWLDS 23.78 RONALD FREBERG 125.00 RICHARD FURSMAN 18.14 CLARENCE GERVAIS 585.00 MIKE GRAF 64.99 MIKE GRAF 1,087.50 MIKE GRAF 13.97 MIKE GRAF 29.38 KAREN E GUILFOILE 9.27 MARK HAAG 229.45 MARK HAAG 11.47 STEVE HURLEY 17.53 STEVE HURLEY 424.95 STEVE HURLEY -298.70 STEVE HURLEY 18.13 STEVE HURLEY 8.92 STEVE HURLEY 0.64 DAVID JAHN 650.00 DAVID JAHN 204.93 DAVID JAHN 47.91 DAVID JAHN 4.57 DAVID JAHN 187.72 MICHAEL KANE 7 04/28/200 OFFICE MAX 00002204 04/26/200 HOLIDAY 523 04/30/200 METRO SALES INC 04/26/200 MOGREN BROTHERS 04/26/200 ROCCOS PIZZA 04/30/200 PUMP & METER SERVICE INC 04/27/200 KATH AUTO PARTS 04/26/200 OFFICE MAX 00007948 04/27/200 S & T OFFICE PRODUCTS 04/26/200 NORTHLAND BUSINESS SYSTE 04/28/200 PANERA BREAD #3459 04/26/200 KINKO'S #0617 04/26/200 S & T OFFICE PRODUCTS 04/30/200 S & T OFFICE PRODUCTS 04/30/200 OFFICE MAX 00002204 04/30/200 GEMPLER 04/28/200 PIONEER PRESS SUBSCRIPTI 04/28/200~THE STAR TRIBUNE-CIRCULAT 04/26/200 GILLUND ENTERPRISES 04/26/200~ZARNOTH BRUSH WORKS INC 04/26/200 SUNRAY BTB 04/27/200 KATH AUTO PARTS 04/28/200~JOHNSON RADIO COMM 04/28/200 FACTORY MOTOR PARTS 04/29/200 SUNRAY BTB 04/29/200 SUNRAY BTB 04/30/200~AMERICAN FASTENER00 OF 00 04/29/200 CARQUEST 04/30/200 EAT INC 04/30/200 EAT INC 04/30/200 MAC QUEEN EQUIPMENT IN 04/30/200 MAC QUEEN EQUIPMENT IN 04/30/200 BOYER TRUCKS-PARTS 04/30/200 KATH AUTO PARTS 04/30/200 KATH AUTO PARTS 04/30/200 KATH AUTO PARTS 04/26/200 GATEWAY CYCLE 04/28/200 UNIFORMS UNLIMITED INC 04/26/200 MENARDS 3059 04/28/200 MENARDS 3022 04/30/200 S & T OFFICE PRODUCTS 04/26/200 WRISTBANDS MEDTECH USA IN 04/28/200 WWW.THESPORTSAUTHORTY.C 04/29/200 NORTHERN TOOL EQUIPMNT 04/26/200 BENMEDS 04/26/200 S & T OFFICE PRODUCTS 04/26/200~THE HOME DEPOT 2801 04/28/200 GOPHER STAGE LIGHTING INC 04/30/200~THE HOME DEPOT 2801 04/28/200~GRUBERS POWER EQUIPMENT 04/26/200~THE HOME DEPOT 2801 04/29/200 VIKING ELECTRIC-ST. PAUL 04/29/200 QWESTCOMM TN651 04/26/200 BEST WESTERN HOTELS 04/26/20OINDIAN HEAD COUNCIL BS 04/26/200 PIONEER PRESS SUBSCRIPTI 04/30/200 MINUTEMAN PRESS 14.88 MARY B KOEHNEN 18.49 STEVE LUKIN 1,920.00 STEVE LUKIN 38.02 MARK MARUSKA 41.79 JON A MELANDER 236.94 ED NADEAU 60.07 BRYAN NAGEL 11.17 JEAN NELSON 212.70 AMY NIVEN 146.63 MARSHA PACOLT 21.98 KURT PARSONS 56.87 KATHLEEN PECK HALL 136.60 KATHLEEN PECK HALL 23.86 KATHLEEN PECK HALL 114.46 PHILIP F POWELL 111.35 PHILIP F POWELL 99.58 WILLIAM J PRIEFER 112.58 WILLIAM J PRIEFER 35.80 STEVEN PRIEM 547.94 STEVEN PRIEM -67.84 STEVEN PRIEM 452.63 STEVEN PRIEM 10.74 STEVEN PRIEM 164.85 STEVEN PRIEM 69.82 STEVEN PRIEM 27.29 STEVEN PRIEM 78.50 STEVEN PRIEM 9.34 STEVEN PRIEM 264.56 STEVEN PRIEM 34.42 STEVEN PRIEM 372.40 STEVEN PRIEM 95.12 STEVEN PRIEM 319.64 STEVEN PRIEM 50.85 STEVEN PRIEM 20.09 STEVEN PRIEM 19.44 STEVEN PRIEM 597.50 KEVIN RABBETT 49.45 KEVIN RABBETT 34.61 JAMES SCHINDELDECKE 3.67 JAMES SCHINDELDECKE 42.89 DEB SCHMIDT -2,019.35 RUSSELL L SCHMIDT 205.80 RUSSELL L SCHMIDT 18.17 SCOTT SCHULTZ 112.00 ANDREA SINDT 89.93 ANDREA SINDT 142.28 PAULINE STAPLES 238.72 PAULINE STAPLES 9.52 RONALD SVENDSEN 42.49 RUSTIN SVENDSEN 11.02 LYLE SWANSON 33.59 LYLE SWANSON 60.43 JUDY TETZLAFF 353.92 DAVID J THOMALLA 105.00 DAVID J THOMALLA 8.30 SUSAN ZWIEG 138.75 SUSAN ZWIEG 13, 212.24 8 CITY OF MAPLEWOOD EMPLOYEE GROSS EARNINGS REPORT FOR THE CURRENT PAY PERIOD CHECK # CHECK DATE EMPLOYEE NAME AMOUNT dd 05/07/04 CARDINAL, ROBERT 406.78 dd 05/07/04 JUENEMANN, KATHLEEN 358.00 dd 05/07/04 KOPPEN, MARVIN 358.00 dd 05/07/04 ROSSBACH, WILLIAM 358.00 dd 05/07/04 COLEMAN, MELINDA 3,967.87 dd 05/07/04 DARST, ROBERTA 1,499.68 dd 05/07/04 FURSMAN, RICHARD 4,629.25 dd 05/07/04 SWANSON, LYLE 1,614.49 dd 05/07/04 LE, SHERYL 3,824.76 dd 05/07/04 RAMEAUX, THERESE 2,197.61 dd 05/07/04 FAUST, DANIEL 3,982.97 dd 05/07/04 SCHMIDT, DEBORAH 1,348.44 dd 05/07/04 ANDERSON, CAROLE 1,287.72 dd 05/07/04 BAUMAN, GAYLE 3,015.50 dd 05/07/04 JACKSON, MARY 1,766.84 dd 05/07/04 KELSEY, CONNIE 755.55 dd 05/07/04 TETZLAFF, JUDY 1,766.84 dd 05/07/04 FRY, PATRICIA 1,639.64 dd 05/07/04 GUILFOILE, KAREN 2,826.07 dd 05/07/04 OSTER, ANDREA 1,713.07 dd 05/07/04 CARLE, JEANETTE 1,634.72 dd 05/07/04 FIGG, SHERRIE 1,045.63 dd 05/07/04 JAGOE, CAROL 1,613.11 dd 05/07/04 JOHNSON, BONNIE 978.06 dd 05/07/04 OLSON, SANDRA 393.18 dd 05/07/04 SCHACHT, BARBARA 814.20 dd 05/07/04 WEAVER, KRISTINE 1,670.04 dd 05/07/04 BANICK, JOHN 3,445.97 dd 05/07/04 CORCORAN, THERESA 1,551.64 dd 05/07/04 POWELL, PHILIP 2,156.41 dd 05/07/04 SPANGLER, EDNA 308.00 dd 05/07/04 THOMALLA, DAVID 3,817.59 dd 05/07/04 ABEL, GLINT 2,002.32 dd 05/07/04 ALDRIDGE, MARK 2,604.24 dd 05/07/04 ANDREWS, SCOTT 2,855.28 dd 05/07/04 BAKKE, LONN 2,731.93 dd 05/07/04 BELDE, STANLEY 2,519.43 dd 05/07/04 BIERDEMAN, BRIAN 1,833.22 dd 05/07/04 BOHL, JOHN 2,976.94 dd 05/07/04 BUSACK, DANIEL 2,181.10 dd 05/07/04 COFFEY, KEVIN 1,986.69 dd 05/07/04 GROTTY, KERRY 2,415.17 dd 05/07/04 DOBLAR, RICHARD 2,771.55 dd 05/07/04 FRASER, JOHN 2,264.08 dd 05/07/04 HEINZ, STEPHEN 2,349.59 dd 05/07/04 HIEBERT, STEVEN 3,028.29 dd 05/07/04 JOHNSON, KEVIN 3,406.98 dd 05/07/04 KARIS, FLINT 2,697.74 dd 05/07/04 KONG, TOMMY 2,169.35 dd 05/07/04 KROLL, BRETT 1,920.51 dd 05/07/04 KVAM, DAVID 2,917.78 9 CHECK # CHECK DATE EMPLOYEE NAME AMOUNT dd 05/07/04 CARSON, DANIEL 2,413.42 dd 05/07/04 LU, JOHNNIE 2,482.42 dd 05/07/04 MARINO, JASON 1,984.14 dd 05/07/04 MARTIN, JERROLD 2,243.41 dd 05/07/04 MCCARTY, GLEN 1,767.81 dd 05/07/04 METRY, ALESIA 1,929.60 dd 05/07/04 PALMA, STEVEN 2,542.42 dd 05/07/04 RABBETT, KEVIN 3,124.61 dd 05/07/04 STEFFEN, SCOTT 3,590.77 dd 05/07/04 SZCZEPANSKI, THOMAS 2,470.80 dd 05/07/04 THIENES, PAUL 2,388.54 dd 05/07/04 TRAN, JOSEPH 2,065.95 dd 05/07/04 WENZEL, JAY 2,389.15 dd 05/07/04 WINGATE, DAVID 1,552.39 dd 05/07/04 XIONG, KAO 1,920.51 dd 05/07/04 BARTZ, PAUL 3,303.77 dd 05/07/04 BERGERON, JOSEPH 3,019.49 dd 05/07/04 DUGAS, MICHAEL 2,082.29 dd 05/07/04 DUNN, ALICE 3,251.99 dd 05/07/04 ERICKSON, VIRGINIA 2,473.94 dd 05/07/04 EVERSON, PAUL 2,012.50 dd 05/07/04 FLOR, TIMOTHY 3,042.63 dd 05/07/04 HALWEG, JODI 1,905.04 dd 05/07/04 KATZMAN, BARBARA 1,630.04 dd 05/07/04 L'ALLIER, DANIEL 1,286.25 dd 05/07/04 LANGNER, SCOTT 553.38 dd 05/07/04 OLSON, JULIE 2,205.37 dd 05/07/04 PARSONS, KURT 1,881.12 dd 05/07/04 PIKE, GARY 2,222.71 dd 05/07/04 DAWSON, RICHARD 1,855.92 dd 05/07/04 DUELLMAN, KIRK 1,869.01 dd 05/07/04 JOHNSON, DOUGLAS 1,842.83 dd 05/07/04 NOVAK, JEROME 1,869.01 dd 05/07/04 PETERSON, ROBERT 1,867.44 dd 05/07/04 SVENDSEN, RONALD 1,990.52 dd 05/07/04 GERVAIS-JR, CLARENCE 2,624.84 dd 05/07/04 FEHR, JOSEPH 1,874.60 dd 05/07/04 FLAUGHER, JAYME 1,874.60 dd 05/07/04 JACKSON, LINDA 1,622.56 dd 05/07/04 LAFFERTY, WALTER 2,139.24 dd 05/07/04 LINK, BRYAN 2,189.94 dd 05/07/04 PACOLT, MARSHA 2,142.40 dd 05/07/04 RABINE, JANET 2,527.93 dd 05/07/04 SCHAULS, ADAM 170.00 dd 05/07/04 STAHNKE, JULIE 2,486.58 dd 05/07/04 LUKIN, STEVEN 3,353.68 dd 05/07/04 SVENDSEN, RUSTIN 2,678.00 dd 05/07/04 ZWIEG, SUSAN 1,710.84 dd 05/07/04 DOLLERSCHELL, ROBERT 266.30 dd 05/07/04 AHL, R. CHARLES 4,220.84 dd 05/07/04 NIVEN, AMY 1,259.15 dd 05/07/04 PRIEFER, WILLIAM 2,462.94 dd 05/07/04 WEGWERTH, JUDITH 1,809.04 dd 05/07/04 BRINK, TROY 1,586.84 dd 05/07/04 DEBILZAN, THOMAS 1,799.64 dd 05/07/04 EDGE, DOUGLAS 1,786.04 10 CHECK # CHECK DATE EMPLOYEE NAME AMOUNT dd 05/07/04 JONES, DONALD 1,751.64 dd 05/07/04 KANE, MICHAEL 2,722.50 dd 05/07/04 LUTZ, DAVID 1,800.50 dd 05/07/04 MEYER, GERALD 1,857.34 dd 05/07/04 NAGEL, BRYAN 1,961.87 dd 05/07/04 OSWALD, ERICK 1,961.87 dd 05/07/04 TEVLIN, TODD 1,822.87 dd 05/07/04 CAVETT, CHRISTOPHER 3,056.22 dd 05/07/04 DUCHARME, JOHN 2,230.85 dd 05/07/04 ENGSTROM, ANDREW 1,453.24 dd 05/07/04 JACOBSON, SCOTT 1,453.24 dd 05/07/04 LINDBLOM, RANDAL 2,233.07 dd 05/07/04 MURRA, AARON 252.63 dd 05/07/04 PECK, DENNIS 2,524.20 dd 05/07/04 PRIEBE, WILLIAM 2,948.41 dd 05/07/04 SCHACHT, ERIN 2,166.04 dd 05/07/04 VERMEERSCH, CHARLES 2,065.24 dd 05/07/04 ANDERSON, BRUCE 3,939.03 dd 05/07/04 CAREY, HEIDI 1,896.44 dd 05/07/04 HALL, KATHLEEN 1,715.30 dd 05/07/04 MARUSKA, MARK 2,513.20 dd 05/07/04 NAUGHTON, JOHN 1,591.96 dd 05/07/04 SCHINDELDECKER, JAMES 1,788.27 dd 05/07/04 BIESANZ, OAKLEY 1,374.47 dd 05/07/04 HAYMAN, JANET 1,153.49 dd 05/07/04 HUTCHINSON, ANN 2,092.14 dd 05/07/04 KOS, HEATHER 442.06 dd 05/07/04 NELSON, JEAN 1,095.88 dd 05/07/04 SEEGER, GERALD 549.32 dd 05/07/04 GAYNOR, VIRGINIA 1,915.68 dd 05/07/04 EKSTRAND, THOMAS 2,740.62 dd 05/07/04 KROLL, LISA 1,096.69 dd 05/07/04 LIVINGSTON, JOYCE 950.57 dd 05/07/04 SINDT, ANDREA 1,554.04 dd 05/07/04 THOMPSON, DEBRA 632.82 dd 05/07/04 YOUNG, TAMELA 1,370.84 dd 05/07/04 FINWALL, SHANN 2,126.04 dd 05/07/04 ROBERTS, KENNETH 2,516.59 dd 05/07/04 CARVER, NICHOLAS 2,561.82 dd 05/07/04 FISHER, DAVID 3,022.43 dd 05/07/04 MENNENGA, JOHN 416.00 dd 05/07/04 RICE, MICHAEL 1,456.44 dd 05/07/04 SWAN, DAVID 1,810.04 dd 05/07/04 KONEWKO, DUWAYNE 2,548.44 dd 05/07/04 ANZALDI, MANDY 679.00 dd 05/07/04 BJORK, ALICIA 58.00 dd 05/07/04 BJORK, BRANDON 380.00 dd 05/07/04 FINN, GREGORY 1,917.13 dd 05/07/04 GRAF, MICHAEL 1,728.26 dd 05/07/04 HADDAD, JULIE 265.50 dd 05/07/04 KELLY, LISA 1,282.63 dd 05/07/04 OHLHAUSER, MEGHAN 228.00 dd 05/07/04 ROBBINS, AUDRA 1,872.13 dd 05/07/04 SHERRILL, CAITLIN 218.25 dd 05/07/04 TAUBMAN, DOUGLAS 2,639.28 dd 05/07/04 BREHEIM, ROGER 1,790.49 11 CHECK # CHECK DATE EMPLOYEE NAME AMOUNT dd 05/07/04 NORDQUIST, RICHARD 2,003.76 dd 05/07/04 SCHULTZ, SCOTT 2,046.72 dd 05/07/04 CROSSON, LINDA 2,338.51 dd 05/07/04 FONTAINE, ANTHONY 770.43 dd 05/07/04 HEITHOFF, TREVOR 51.48 dd 05/07/04 LEIER, SARA 55.30 dd 05/07/04 MOY, PAMELA 392.67 dd 05/07/04 PELOQUIN, PENNYE 586.65 dd 05/07/04 SCHMIDT, RUSSELL 1,778.19 dd 05/07/04 STAPLES, PAULINE 2,720.85 dd 05/07/04 ABRAHAMSON, DANIEL 94.50 dd 05/07/04 ABRAHAMSON, REBECCA 77.77 dd 05/07/04 BENDTSEN, LISA 160.65 dd 05/07/04 BRENEMAN, NEIL 490.43 dd 05/07/04 CORNER, AMY 44.80 dd 05/07/04 EDSON, JAMIE 263.25 dd 05/07/04 GREDVIG, ANDERS 112.20 dd 05/07/04 GUZIK, JENNIFER 138.75 dd 05/07/04 HALEY, BROOKE 167.25 dd 05/07/04 HORWATH, RONALD 1,783.14 dd 05/07/04 IRISH, GRACE 126.00 dd 05/07/04 JONES, LACEY 58.50 dd 05/07/04 KOEHNEN, AMY 42.70 dd 05/07/04 KOEHNEN, MARY 856.03 dd 05/07/04 KRONHOLM, KATHRYN 441.53 dd 05/07/04 LINDSTROM, AMANDA 217.49 dd 05/07/04 MARTINEZ, AMY 93.63 dd 05/07/04 MARUSKA, ERICA 206.00 dd 05/07/04 OTTESON, JANET 137.35 dd 05/07/04 OVERBY, ANNA 74.60 dd 05/07/04 SCHULTZ, PETER 78.78 dd 05/07/04 SHAW, KRISTINA 161.88 dd 05/07/04 SMITH, ANN 54.00 dd 05/07/04 TUPY, HEIDE 121.25 dd 05/07/04 TUPY, MARCUS 337.93 dd 05/07/04 GROPPOLI, LINDA 297.00 dd 05/07/04 KURKOSKI, STEPHANIE 115.50 dd 05/07/04 VERNER, JEAN 100.00 dd 05/07/04 BEHAN, JAMES 1,668.76 dd 05/07/04 CRAWFORD - JR, RAYMOND 277.15 dd 05/07/04 LONETTI, JAMES 959.73 dd 05/07/04 MILES, LAURA 133.00 dd 05/07/04 PATTERSON, ALBERT 976.36 dd 05/07/04 PRINS, KELLY 930.03 dd 05/07/04 REILLY, MICHAEL 1,560.02 dd 05/07/04 STEINHORST, JEFFREY 81.38 dd 05/07/04 AICHELE, CRAIG 1,794.84 dd 05/07/04 PRIEM, STEVEN 2,008.44 dd 05/07/04 BERGO, CHAD 2,071.54 dd 05/07/04 FOWLDS, MYCHAL 1,850.70 dd 05/07/04 HURLEY, STEPHEN 2,991.94 wf 97327 05/07/04 MONAHAN-JUNEK, JACQUELINE 358.00 wf 97328 05/07/04 INGVOLDSTAD, CURTIS 112.50 wf 97329 05/07/04 KARSTENS, BRAD 50.00 wf 97330 05/07/04 JAHN, DAVID 1,588.04 wf 97331 05/07/04 MALDONADO, JUANA 681.44 12 CHECK # CHECK DATE EMPLOYEE NAME AMOUNT wf 97332 05/07/04 MORIN, TROY 216.75 wf 97333 05/07/04 MATHEYS, ALANA 1,847.41 wf 97334 05/07/04 GENNOW, PAMELA 104.00 wf 97335 05/07/04 HANSEN, LORI 1,598.85 wf 97336 05/07/04 PALANK, MARY 1,841.51 wf 97337 05/07/04 RICHIE, CAROLE 1,788.30 wf 97338 05/07/04 SVENDSEN, JOANNE 1,781.96 wf 97339 05/07/04 SHORTREED, MICHAEL 3,914.39 wf 97340 05/07/04 STEINER, JOSEPH 465.00 wf 97341 05/07/04 WELCHLIN, CABOT 2,518.35 wf 97342 05/07/04 GERARD, JAMIE 88.00 wf 97343 05/07/04 FREBERG, RONALD 2,099.49 wf 97344 05/07/04 EDSON, DAVID 1,820.09 wf 97345 05/07/04 HELEY, ROLAND 1,822.31 wf 97346 05/07/04 HINNENKAMP, GARY 1,808.72 wf 97347 05/07/04 LINDORFF, DENNIS 1,790.49 wf 97348 05/07/04 NOVAK, MICHAEL 1,669.24 wf 97349 05/07/04 BERGREN, KIRSTEN 39.88 wf 97350 05/07/04 GERNES, CAROLE 720.50 wf 97351 05/07/04 SOUTTER, CHRISTINE 303.25 wf 97352 05/07/04 MULHOLLAND, NANCY 448.00 wf 97353 05/07/04 ANZALDI, KALI 456.50 wf 97354 05/07/04 FREYBERGER, RACHEL 162.00 wf 97355 05/07/04 GEBHARD, MADELINE 236.25 wf 97356 05/07/04 GOODRICH, CHAD 439.20 wf 97357 05/07/04 GRAF, ASHLEY 30.00 wf 97358 05/07/04 HJELMGREN, NICOLE 93.42 wf 97359 05/07/04 ROME, JESSICA 33.00 wf 97360 05/07/04 SHOBERG, KARI 152.63 wf 97361 05/07/04 WERNER, KATIE 159.38 wf 97362 05/07/04 GERMAIN, DAVID 1,794.93 wf 97363 05/07/04 HAAG, MARK 1,713.86 wf 97364 05/07/04 NADEAU, EDWARD 2,722.50 wf 97365 05/07/04 DISKERUD, HEATHER 203.50 wf 97366 05/07/04 GLASS, JEAN 1,677.66 wf 97367 05/07/04 TOLBERT, FRANCINE 240.00 wf 97368 05/07/04 LINGER, MARGARET 530.12 wf 97369 05/07/04 WEISMANN, JENNIFER 426.49 wf 97370 05/07/04 ANDERSON, CALEB 272.29 wf 97371 05/07/04 BOTHWELL, KRISTIN 118.65 wf 97372 05/07/04 DUNN, RYAN 464.59 wf 97373 05/07/04 FENGER, JUSTIN 58.36 wf 97374 05/07/04 FONTAINE, KIM 657.86 wf 97375 05/07/04 GRANT, MELISSA 180.30 wf 97376 05/07/04 GRUENHAGEN, LINDA 484.35 wf 97377 05/07/04 HOULE, DENISE 66.90 wf 97378 05/07/04 JOHNSON, ROBERT 308.00 wf 97379 05/07/04 JOYER, MARTI 26.08 wf 97380 05/07/04 MCMAHON, MELISSA 229.60 wf 97381 05/07/04 OLSON, MARGRET 40.80 wf 97382 05/07/04 PEHOSKI, JOEL 127.10 wf 97383 05/07/04 PROESCH, ANDY 253.13 wf 97384 05/07/04 RENSTROM, KEVIN 103.00 wf 97385 05/07/04 RODEN, JASON 88.80 wf 97386 05/07/04 SCHOENECKER, SAMANTHA 26.00 wf 97387 05/07/04 SMITLEY, SHARON 253.00 13 CHECK # CHECK DATE EMPLOYEE NAME AMOUNT wf 97388 05/07/04 WARNER, CAROLYN 92.00 wf 97389 05/07/04 WEDES, CARYL 134.70 wf 97390 05/07/04 WELTER, ELIZABETH 244.98 wf 97391 05/07/04 WHITE, NICOLE 78.80 wf 97392 05/07/04 WOODMAN, ALICE 62.10 wf 97393 05/07/04 BOSLEY, CAROL 247.35 wf 97394 05/07/04 BREITBACH, GARY 84.00 wf 97395 05/07/04 HAGSTROM, EMILY 39.00 wf 97396 05/07/04 HANSEN, ANNA 38.25 wf 97397 05/07/04 KELLY, MICHAEL 152.25 wf 97398 05/07/04 NORLIN, AMANDA 23.88 wf 97399 05/07/04 ODDEN, JESSICA 58.50 wf 97400 05/07/04 OIE, REBECCA 22.75 wf 97401 05/07/04 QUINN, KELLY 12.00 wf 97402 05/07/04 RISER, LABEIGHA 37.00 wf 97403 05/07/04 VAN HALE, PAULA 125.80 wf 97404 05/07/04 WILLIAMSON, MONIQUE 22.20 wf 97405 05/07/04 COLLINS, ASHLEY 118.40 wf 97406 05/07/04 DOUGLASS, TOM 1,064.40 wf 97407 05/07/04 HER, CHONG 247.35 wf 97408 05/07/04 NAGEL, BROOKE 93.10 wf 97409 05/07/04 NEWCOMB, GENNA 179.39 wf 97410 05/07/04 O'GRADY, ZACHARY 96.43 wf 97411 05/07/04 RHODE, ERIC 57.15 wf 97412 05/07/04 RICHTER, MICHAEL 57.15 wf 97413 05/07/04 RYDEEN, ARIEL 95.26 wf 97414 05/07/04 SCHULZE, BRIAN 738.00 wf 97415 05/07/04 VANG, CIA 63.50 wf 97416 05/07/04 VERDELL, TRAQUEZ 206.15 wf 97417 05/07/04 WILLIAMS, NICK 25.40 wf 97418 05/07/04 ZIEMER, NICOLE 387.50 wf 97419 05/07/04 MULVANEY, DENNIS 1,967.73 410,266.58 14 vchlist 05/14/2004 11:31:30 AM Check Register City of Maplewood Check Date Vendor Description/Account Amount 63842 5/18/2004 03092 AMERICAN ACCOUNTS & ADV INC COLLECTION AGENCY FEE 231.84 63843 5/18/2004 00111 ANIMAL CONTROL SERVICES INC PATROL BOARDING & FEES 4/24 - 5/4 1,343.89 63844 5/18/2004 00178 BERGGREN, GORDON NAME SIGNS 60.00 63845 5/18/2004 03090 BIG DOLLAR STORE, THE ICE CREAM SCOOPS 48.15 63846 5/18/2004 00201 BOEHM'S CYCLING & FITNESS OVERHAUL & REPAIR SPINNING BIKES- 2,422.53 63847 5/18/2004 00096 BP/AMOCO OIL COMPANY FUEL 23.49 63848 5/18/2004 00230 BRYAN ROCK PRODUCTS, INC. ROCK 365.86 63849 5/18/2004 00240 C.S.C. CREDIT SERVICES APPLICANT BACKGROUND CHECK 66.00 63850 5/18/2004 00251 CAPITOL CITY MUTUAL AID ASSOC. 2004 MEMBERSHIP DUES 50.00 63851 5/18/2004 02149 CAREY, HEIDI REIMB FOR MILEAGE 11/13 - 1/29 28.99 REIMB FOR MILEAGE 3/2 - 5/7 49.13 63852 5/18/2004 02974 CORBAN GROUP INC, THE RMS PROJECT CONSULTING SRVS 438.85 63853 5/18/2004 00340 CRAMER BUILDING SERVICES MECH SYS -SCHEDULED MAINT AGREEMENT- 2,133.00 63854 5/18/2004 00462 EMBEDDED SYSTEMS, INC. SIREN REPAIR #11 170.00 63855 5/18/2004 00463 EMERGENCY APPARATUS MAINT REPAIR ENGINE 4 730.02 63856 5/18/2004 02567 EVERGREEN LAND SERVICES PROJ 03-26 RELOCATION SPEC 237.50 PROJ 03-26 RELOCATION SPEC 447.50 PROJ 03-26 RELOCATION SPEC 447.50 63857 5/18/2004 00487 F.M. FRATTALONE EXC INC PROJ 02-07 CTY RD D PYMT #4 108,661.58 63858 5/18/2004 00532 FRANK MADDEN & ASSOCIATES LEGAL SERVICES THRU 4/30 60.00 63859 5/18/2004 02873 GARDEN & ASSOCIATES INC INTERPRETIVE SRVS FOR INV 57.00 63860 5/18/2004 01949 GARY L FISCHLER & ASSOC PA FITNESS-FOR-DUTY EXAM 1,250.00 63861 5/18/2004 00543 GE CAPITAL RICOH COPIER LEASE 5/13 - 6/12 293.94 63862 5/18/2004 02547 HARTLAND FUEL PRODUCTS LLC INC #2 DIESEL, LOW SULPHUR RED DYED 7,544.66 63863 5/18/2004 01965 HEALTH PARTNERS REF AMB - J SIME 04004561 1,049.76 63864 5/18/2004 02945 HEALTHEAST VEHICLE SERVICES REPAIR PLATE 952 480.86 IMPALA REBUILD & OPTICOM KILL 2,756.05 63865 5/18/2004 03091 HERLUND, RICK REPAIR COMPUTER 154.07 63866 5/18/2004 02970 HIGH FREQUENCY DJ COMPANY EDGERTON COMM CTR EVENT 5/21 300.00 63867 5/18/2004 03095 HOOGHEEM, LISA FEMA GRANT PROPOSAL 250.00 63868 5/18/2004 00687 HUGO'S TREE CARE GRIND STUMPS 79.88 63869 5/18/2004 00489 INTEREUM INC HUMANSCALE KEYBOARD TRAY 219.26 RECTANGULAR TABLE 36" X 72" 1,695.37 63870 5/18/2004 00771 JOHNSON, RICK DEER REMOVAL 300.00 63871 5/18/2004 01894 KELLY & FAWCETT PA PROSECUTION SRVS -APR 9,825.00 LEGAL SERVICES -APR 23,166.54 63872 5/18/2004 02728 KIMLEY-HORN & ASSOCIATES INC PROJ 02-07 PROF SRVS THRU 3/31 12,725.96 PROJ 02-07 PROF SRVS THRU 3/31 3,150.50 PROJ 02-21 PROF SRVS THRU 3/31 1,604.92 PROJ 03-26 PROF SRVS THRU 3/31 45,395.38 PROJ 03-22 PROF SRVS THRU 3/31 12,214.93 63873 5/18/2004 03093 KNEFELKAMP, DAVID E POLYGRAPH EXAMINATION 300.00 63874 5/18/2004 00393 LABOR & INDUSTRY, DEPT OF BOILER LIC #024898-CC 20.00 63875 5/18/2004 00953 MCCARTHY WELL COMPANY WELL INSPECTION 105.00 63876 5/18/2004 00957 MCDONALD'S CLEAN-UP DAY LUNCH - 4/24 269.19 63877 5/18/2004 00982 METRO FIRE INC THERMAL IMAGE CAMERA- 9,899.00 63878 5/18/2004 00986 METROPOLITAN COUNCIL MONTHLY SAC -APR 14,627.25 63879 5/18/2004 00901 MGFOA MN GFOA MAY MEETING 15.00 63880 5/18/2004 01090 MIRACLE RECREATION EQUIPMENT MAINT SUPPLIES 35.78 63881 5/18/2004 01051 MN OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH D & A TESTING 405.00 63882 5/18/2004 01156 NELSON, JEAN REIMB FOR MILEAGE 3/2 - 4/29 77.21 63883 5/18/2004 00001 ONE TIME VENDOR REF SCOTT ERICKSON -AMB 04001279 111.94 63884 5/18/2004 00001 ONE TIME VENDOR REF MARY RICCI -AMB 03021296 90.56 63885 5/18/2004 00001 ONE TIME VENDOR REF BRIAN BORG -AMB 04002121 58.83 63886 5/18/2004 00001 ONE TIME VENDOR REF INGRID REIF - P & R PROGRAM 55.00 63887 5/18/2004 00001 ONE TIME VENDOR REF LISA BENICK -MCC PROG 49.00 63888 5/18/2004 00001 ONE TIME VENDOR REF ANNE BRYSON -MCC PROGRAM 40.00 63889 5/18/2004 00001 ONE TIME VENDOR REF THERESE THOMAS - P & R PROGRAM 37.00 63890 5/18/2004 00001 ONE TIME VENDOR REF PAMELA LONGENDYKE - P & R PROG 29.50 15 Check 63891 63892 63893 63894 63895 63896 63897 63898 63899 63900 63901 63902 63903 63904 63905 63906 63907 Date 5/18/2004 5/18/2004 5/18/2004 5/18/2004 5/18/2004 5/18/2004 5/18/2004 5/18/2004 5/18/2004 5/18/2004 5/18/2004 5/18/2004 5/18/2004 5/18/2004 5/18/2004 5/18/2004 5/18/2004 Vendor 00001 01941 03094 00396 01337 00069 01409 01488 01504 02250 01557 01578 01615 02164 02177 02069 01683 63908 5/18/2004 02165 63909 5/18/2004 01709 63910 5/18/2004 01750 63911 5/18/2004 01891 63912 5/18/2004 01190 71 Checks in this report Description/Account Amount ONE TIME VENDOR REF WASHINGTON MS -MCC PROG 16.80 PATRICK GRAPHICS & TROPHIES BASKETBALL TROPHIES 342.93 POLICE TRNG ADVISORY COMMITTEE TRAINING 5/18 75.00 PUBLIC SAFETY, DEPT OF HAZORDOUS CHEM INVENTORY FEE 25.00 STORAGE FEES 100.00 RAMSEY COUNTY-PROP REC & REV 2003 EVP MAINTENANCE 286.91 RISK MANAGEMENT ALTERNATIVES COLLECTION AGENCY FEE 15.00 S.E.H. PROJ 02-07 PROF SRVS -MAR 2,598.43 PROJ 03-07 PROF SRVS -MAR 2,062.37 PROJ 03-04 PROF SRVS -MAR 8,051.95 PROJ 03-04 PROF SRVS -MAR 17,717.53 SOUTTER, CHRISTINE REIMB FOR MILEAGE 1/22 - 3/24 25.95 ST PAUL, CITY OF RADIO REPAIRS 242.25 STAHNKE, JULIE REIMB FOR SHIRTS 44.95 SUPERIOR FORD 2004 FORD CROWN VICTORIA SQUAD CAR 20,174.00 T.R.F. SUPPLY CO. SAFETY GLASSES & GLOVES 588.73 SAFETY EQUIPMENT 498.64 THERMO-DYNE, INC. REPAIR DEHUMID SYSTEM 2,044.44 TOLTZ, KING, DUVALL, ANDERSON PROJ 01-16 PROF SRVS THRU 1/31/04 940.96 PROJ 01-16 PROF SRVS THRU 3/27 2,460.58 PROJ 01-29 PROF SRVS THRU 3/27 658.34 U-CARE REFUND REF AMB - R TRIEMERT VAC78469 604.93 ULTIMATE DRAIN SERVICES INC PROJ 03-18 TELEVISE LINES 295.00 PROJ 03-18 TELEVISE LINES 645.00 UNIFORMS UNLIMITED INC UNIFORM 149.90 UNIFORM 76.15 BADGES 287.58 UNIFORM 41.50 URS / BRW INC PROJ 02-07 PROF SRVS THRU 9/5 150,288.98 VASKO RUBBISH REMOVAL 2004 SPRING COLLECTION COSTS 6,162.37 WATSON CO INC, THE MERCH FOR RESALE 270.03 WEGWERTH, JUDITH REIMB FOR DAMAGED SWEATSHIRT 35.00 XCEL ENERGY MONTHLY UTIL -STMT DATE 5/5 41,761.43 Total checks : 528,343.80 16 CITY OF MAPLEWOOD Disbursements via Debits to Checking account Transmitted Settlement Date Date Payee 05/06/04 05/07/04 05/06/04 05/07/04 05/07/04 05/07/04 05/07/04 05/ 10/04 05/07/04 05/07/04 05/ 11 /04 05/ 12/04 05/ 10/04 05/07/04 05/07/04 05/07/04 05/ 10/04 05/ 10/04 05/ 10/04 05/ 10/04 05/ 11 /04 05/ 11 /04 05/ 11 /04 05/ 12/04 05/ 13/04 05/ 13/04 MN State Treasurer ICMA (Vantagepointe) MN Dept of Natural Resources MN State Treasurer U.S. Treasurer P.E.R.A. Orchard Trust MN State Treasurer MN State Treasurer Federal Reserve Bank MN State Treasurer MN State Treasurer ARC Administration TOTAL Description Drivers License/Deputy Registrar Deferred Compensation DNR electronic licenses Drivers License/Deputy Registrar Federal Payroll Tax P.E.R.A. Deferred Compensation Drivers License/Deputy Registrar State Payroll Tax Savings Bonds Drivers License/Deputy Registrar Drivers License/Deputy Registrar DCRP & Flex plan payments Omni int 15,382.43 8,066.59 1,378.50 21,780.97 85,046.87 48,023.94 21,686.78 22,715.57 16,240.23 200.00 26,554.15 17,430.1 1 1,328.31 LtiS,ti~4.45 17 Agenda #G2 MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: SUBJECT: PROJECT: LOCATION: DATE: City Manager Ken Roberts, Planner Conditional Use Permit Review Dearborn Meadows PUD Castle Avenue and Castle Court May 14, 2004 INTRODUCTION The conditional use permit (CUP) for the Dearborn Meadows planned unit development (PUD) is due for review. This CUP is fora 15-unit town house PUD on Castle Avenue and Castle Court, east of White Bear Avenue. Refer to the maps on pages three through six and the city council minutes starting on page eight. BACKGROUND On May 27, 2003, the city council approved a revision for the conditional use permit (CUP) for the Dearborn Meadows PUD. This revision was for the 15-unit town house development on Castle Avenue and Castle Court. (See the property line/zoning map on page five and the other maps on pages three through seven.) The CUP revision for this development was subject to seven conditions of approval. On September 8, 2003, the city council approved the final plat for Dearborn Meadows East. This plat created nine lots for town houses in the second phase of the Dearborn Meadows development. DISCUSSION The builder is progressing with the town houses in this development. There is, however, much site work and landscaping that the contractor needs to finish. Pat Kinney, the owner's representative, expects that the contractor will have these items completed later this year. Since not all of the site improvements are complete and the owner will not be finished with the project until later this year, the city council should review this permit again in one year. This review will give staff and the property owner a chance to ensure that the project is meeting all city ordinances and conditions of approval. RECOMMENDATION Review the conditional use permit (CUP) for the Dearborn Meadows PUD on Castle Avenue and Castle Court again in one year or sooner if the developer or the owner proposes a major change to the site. REFERENCE INFORMATION SITE DESCRIPTION Site size: 3.6 acres SURROUNDING LAND USES North: Home Depot across Highway 36 South: Single and double dwellings on Cope Avenue West: Houses on Castle Avenue East: Houses on Castle Avenue PLANNING Existing Land Use and Zoning designations: R-2 (single and double dwellings) Criteria for Conditional Use Penmit Approval Section 36-442(a) states that the city council may approve a CUP, based on nine standards. p:sec11\fDearborn Meadows CUP review - 2004.doc Attachments: 1. Location Map 2. Area Map 3. Property Line2oning Map 4. Proposed Preliminary Plat - 2003 5. May 27, 2003 City Council minutes 2 Attachment) RJIOMTZ S AYt. - _ ~ ~ ~ 1 ~ ~ "~'; ~ NORTH SAINT PAUL ~ ~ I<oH~wH "~~ ~~~ S > ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Et~EHltl RD. J ~ 88 ~r ~. ~ K ~ a~a~ ~ ~ oERwas ~ tiRAN0iVE1M AVE YKN~Jf: OR. SFiERREf! AVE. ~~ ` ~ Lola Z U AVE. DOPE AVE. ~. AVE. - t~-J G LARI( AVE. ~ ~'- ~ ~ ~ ~. ~ „~ ~~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ 0' 1700' 3400' euRlcE AVE. ® ~ el,wcE AVE. ~ / ~. AGE ,wE. ~., ~, 1 ~ ~ 0 1 2 ~ ~' Q ~ ~' SCALE ~~ ~E HARRIS AYE R06EIN000 AVE. N. ~ D ~" Av ~ "'~ ~' Mu~~'~ NORTH SAINT PAUL ~~~ AVE. ~ ~" ~ ~ rii 2 ~ AVE. AItE'NA ~ ® ~. i ~ ~ 1.a ~- ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 4. R'IPLEY AVE ~ RI PLE1f AV q ~ ~ ® ~i kINGSTON AVE ~ c $ ~ ~ ~ PRICE AVE rn lICIllOllf W uRPExrEVR ~ r' ~ o LOCATION MAP N Attachment 2 (~~ ~ ~ ~ 1946 1948 1922 Q 1930 M~~W puD DEpRgORN 1928 '"~ ~ 1937 ' 1917 n ~{ I 1 5 i 1 ~~-~ l ~ . _~ ~L~ ~ 2018 2008 1988 1998 1958 1 2 1968 187_. ~ ~ 19 ~p D 226 m r 2 t 224 AREA MAP 4 4 N Attachment 3 ~1 ~ ~ ~ ~ s • ~ ~ `~' ~o ' _ as.~z IJ ro~ 2~ ,~ ~ '9 ~r I ;o I ~- -- - - -I- - -°~- O~ . P ~~~ ~ 2~,~P l~~~f~j HOME DEPOT Q ~~ ~P 537.60 b'~i= ~ ~~ r r M) ~o ~ ^ I ~~ .~ ~ f i ~------, ~-----~------------HIGHWAY 36---- {}RI-V~------, ^f^^^^~ ^^1vil~l~^Ci^ ^^^^~^w^^^^^^ ^ ^^^^^,I / , k-FiWY T t.5.°430232 -K i ~ I HWY~SIIiT ~ ~ ~ LLll ~ if- Y ESM'1' --*-_~ I • ~~ r.si- z.3z.__ ~s~-- '_ _`l•_ _~7t T CASTLEAVENIJE MwrFS~r- -r. s.4°~•3Z _--;rJ - t- r --- ,• o ~ + 16 i7 Is ~~ ~I co , r°~ 's 4 st 2 !' ,~ lo- ~°a 5 6 7 8 9 1 ~ 1922 ~ ~~ ~ .o N <. VAGAT J'~ ' SITE R 2w ,p-t~ o) ~ ~ t,/ , ~~VV - _ _ 6 5 4 3 2 Ir~ CIS 14 12 II 10 9 7 -; .~° ~~ ~ •• '• ~~~ ~ - ,~~ • ( ) _ _ _ /~ ~ . 3 poc. L2 ~-- -' - AC ATED~ ./T ~9 - - r-- -I- ~- ii" ~ - - 25 26 271 16 17 is I • ~`' > 1937 7 ~ ~ > h ~ • p~f O~1 ~ ~ 3 - - "° 26 C P`QQ• ~ ~ 2a , Q917= ~ ~ ~ - !, as ~ ~. ~ 1995 ~°~ 1 ? o Tice „ - ~ I s .~ - , ~ - 1 •- (5 ) .~ -^' ^-^f~ COPE AVENUE-~I~ AV E ~ - - - - ---~~ ~ 7.393 1 O 03 ~<2 ~ ~ 3 ~ ~ Q = ~ .r 1126 ~ X2271 ~ ., ~c Ig~ieoo- -~-o s) oei ~~z~25 ~Ib~ 2 'fib c2z •,~ - ~ ~ r )) ~ ~ 24 ~ 7~ 3 . , ` ~ ~4~23 ~ Ca)4 ( N `5~ ~ r 2 2 ~ 9~ :5 4 h ~ )2 I (20)6 ' C ~ (31~ ~ u+ ~~20 r (7.1)7 1 ~ `8/19 8'f` f I R I S ~ (9) (z3~ 19 9 3o D(•, i-' X71,07 -- j ~ ~I (.O .. 1 I ° ~ , ~ 2272 ~ ~ ~ r' M ~ ~ ~ ~ c. ~' ~ `' ~ ,. o ~ o~ °i ~ 1994 ~ 19 ( (,) 2 I i ~ c r ~ w~ T - 7 to ,.. T6 ,,, - ~~ 1 ) ~~ a .3 o 2262'0 .) las) Qoo W !JJ ~ - -- 9 -- - --- - ~ - ---- `av~c z-~s=9o ~~ ~ oe~ zsu+ r Iz L(zl) • ~ a 3~34~ ° ~ ~~f`~) ~ Z ~ ~ ' '``° V ~ Q ~~~ KEY 4 `' -•~ • R1 =SINGLE DWELLINGS R (~ v $ W 2 =SINGLE AND DOUBLE DWELLINGS R3 =MULTIPLE DWELLINGS +~ ~zs) (AZT) ~ 0 BC =BUSINESS COMMERCIAL ~b~ ~ - , ~ M1 =LIGHT MANUFACTURING 15 (izs) - - . LAURIE a -_ ,~~~~7 [mss ~40~ r ~ (99) 2 ~ a .s: ns S iQ.l2 N .27•c}Y .• ,~. ~9,!~=. wu~~io ~Ti _ - - 197.34.- - - be ~ (ev) I v ~~'~, o_ Z94.5L "~ ~ I' M ~°z 130 1 3.)1 13!31 ) 1 l.4 l i35 t IGI.52 ~ ~ ^ (87). ~ '~ ~ _ _ 0 7~41~ 1~41'~ 0 o o M lG7i I w N I (7`) a~ eq _ /Y 7II 1 ~c~Y) " a ~. c ~y I q(39) 61.90 v~ J i ~ aa. u>s F- n (s.) Z_ 13t Q ~ (34 /ss I.. 13 s~ O Z n (3z) ~3s 2 N SEI o ~a-) I ' 3r ° R s 9/0.,15 ~ ~ C' 3~ O ~I ~ 1 _ „i w.10S~ I PROPERTY LINE /ZONING MAP APPLICANT'S SITE ,•;~;~ CITY-APPROVED ZONING CHANGE - 2002 ~T 1V Attachment 4 i~R~L li"I INr4i~Y `~DEI4RSORN ME14DOw ~~~~ EINSt 14QDITION ,,off P4T KINNEY TELE: (651)'I~3-2569 N°p-9>L9S ~~'~,-HIGHWAY 36 --B-0N Cmn°H Cvb - .~B_6].-Cmulre GN - - - - - - - - - - - __ ~ --r - ----- ----- -------- --- --_-_--_-- --__- I Y H.. I q`7.> - I ;~[3.=1: GAR. CAR I "~; I I ,.0.8' PROPOSED PROPOSm i~~~ ' TWN NOME 1x91 NONE ~ _ I I (12 CRS BSMn ~= I i1 9630 1~ - I I 16 °% ~ / ~ ~gb I ~R1dvr lil ~ / //Q "" I~~ • ~ ~ ~ I1 I I S i \ ~~ \ V I I '.s.' i e?? "~ I \ \ ~ \~~ RLS % 6]15'' I I ~ -T- ~ I I a~i awb ~' I I '' 1 I I I I I I I I 1 I I I I . I I •' I - I I I I I CASTLE A ~._N. SJ-1=- - - - ~~:'6~ I I m ~ xe9~e'1CE I 1 _ m.a0 I ~~ ~ ~ I ~ O W 1Q6 LOOR IMT 2~ ~F 8 0 h 1z ars esun I : o 1 ?o ~_$ TM91 E f •~xujxOME ~ ~ 2 „~~~ ~ y' ~ 9 ~-- - G J ~ C~ ~'O I OAR. GAR fl 8]SD ~ w R ~ I 1 I /03.00 OUTL A _ „.g . ; . ' r----- r--- -r---- I I ' I I ~ •- 9R9 w•OSa I I I ~ I ~5 LIe9~e•06t. I AIP~b ~~ I fl~9 TAR ~ 9] ] I O I ~AR. GAR. I H go I I m~ ~-- --'' 12s0• ~ ~ I __~ I n 3~ - ~ I h8 PROPOSED PROPOSED °'~I ^_~ PROPOSE~01 ~N0~1EI I I V Y 8 111111 HOME TxIN NOxE g~•I 8 11NN xou3 I 1 I 4 8{ fl- 3.6 r fl 9680 I I i o ~ i°a ~' z5 ~ (1z cgs B3Mn y ii ~ 3 (1~ ce 6g.In q. I I I F $o Z' 6 1 N MT MT I MT R I I i i ~p 15.s ( 19'%f ~ ~~0 ~ I I I r i 5 earo ~ ~ ~mDO ~ I I I '~ R I I I 1 I I ~' ~ 8 I I --'-------1------~ ;y I ~------L---• --- FrW 1/3' I.P.- I _ ~ x.25' 1.1'~-. L' ~::..~'. H...._.. RLS 1510 ------__ ~- r- , , ~ .~ RLS.,T996 r -r- T------T- -- -- -----L- I '1- 1[E D%!0- • FM 1/i~ I.P~~ ---p+°fn IAYr FRE? -- ~4Q.2 1 I I I ~ ux A I -N'ly u09 of Slr(2 of wwced mlby oDe ICs e9s Ny 9X~09;on I I I I I I xlt „vao 11 I I I I I I I I I I sle asr s/-1 ~-~ I I I I I I I I I I ..., 1 T f I I I I I I I t I :"$]p~IIII if •" I I I I Prepared By: E. C~ RUD t vON3, INC_ Land 5urveyoro 918m LEXINGTON AVENUE NE, Gli?GLE PINES, MN. 55m14-3625 Tel. 612-186-5556 Fax 612-186-6mm'1 m~ s I I i I I 8 x6r16• xn9 I J6 1 -----T-- I 6x986. .. I I cnR I I I~ I n-aia~ i $~ I ~~~ 10.91- • (rz cRSI av1 I WA~Kd1T -,Big ` I xfl.]BYBICw c I 2001 m _-l zp« "• i ~7S$ m 1 ~~~ ~ ~g 5 i I ~ I I I I I ~-_r~ .-1------1-- GAR _~~ ~ li= L-- Im n T------~------~------ ~-------r I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I GRAPHIC SCALE c ,w .6,sr 1 1 1991c - 66 }L PROPOSED PRELIMINARY PLAT 15 UNIT PLAN - 2003 ~Q N 6 Attachment 5 MINUTES MAPLEWOOD CITY COUNCIL 7:04 P.M., Tuesday, May 27, 2003 Council Chambers, Municipal Building Meeting No. 03-11 H. PUBLIC HEARINGS 7:32 p.m. Dearborn Meadow East (Castle Avenue) Conditional Use Permit Revision for Planned Unit Development Preliminary Plat Revision Design Approval a. City Manager Fursman presented the staff report. b. Associate Planner Roberts presented specifics from the report. c. Commissioner Dierich presented the Planning Commission Report. d. Boardmember Shankar presented the Community Design Review Board Report. e. Mayor Cardinal opened the public hearing, calling for proponents or opponents. The following person was heard: Patrick Kinney, the applicant, 4108 Oakmede, White Bear Lake d. Mayor Cardinal closed the public hearing. Councilmember Wasiluk moved to adopt the following resolution approving a revision to the conditional use hermit for a planed unit development for the 15-unit Dearborn Meadow and Dearborn Meadow East development on the south side of Castle Avenue: RESOLUTION 03-05-092 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REVISION RESOLUTION WHEREAS, Mr. Pat Kinney applied for a conditional use permit (CUP) revision for the Dearborn Meadow residential planned unit development (PUD). WHEREAS, this permit applies to the 15-lot Dearborn Meadow East development the city received on April 7, 2003. The legal description is: Lots 16 and 17, Block 6, Lots 27, 28, 29 and the east half of Lot 26, Block 7, Lots 1, 2, and 3, Block 10, Lots 14 and 15, Block 11, and Lots 18-22, Block 6; and Lots 9-13, Block 11, all in Dearborn Park, together with adjacent alleys and streets, in Section 11, Township 29, Range 22, Ramsey County, Minnesota. (The property to be known as Lots 1-6 of Dearborn Meadow and Lots 1-9 of Dearborn Meadow East) WHEREAS, the history of this conditional use permit is as follows: 7 On May 5, 2003, the planning commission recommended that the city council approve this permit. 2. On May 27, 2003, the city council held a public hearing. The city staff published a notice in the paper and sent notices to the surrounding property owners. The council gave everyone at the hearing a chance to speak and present written statements. The council also considered reports and recommendations of the city staff and planning commission. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the city council approves the above-described conditional use permit because: The use would be located, designed, maintained, constructed and operated to be in conformity with the city's comprehensive plan and code of ordinances. 2. The use would not change the existing or planned character of the surrounding area. 3. The use would not depreciate property values. 4. The use would not involve any activity, process, materials, equipment or methods of operation that would be dangerous, hazardous, detrimental, disturbing or cause a nuisance to any person or property, because of excessive noise, glare, smoke, dust, odor, fumes, water or air pollution, drainage, water run-off, vibration, general unsightliness, electrical interference or other nuisances. 5. The use would generate only minimal vehicular traffic on local streets and would not create traffic congestion or unsafe access on existing or proposed streets. 6. The use would be served by adequate public facilities and services, including streets, police and fire protection, drainage structures, water and sewer systems, schools and parks. 7. The use would not create excessive additional costs for public facilities or services. The use would maximize the preservation of and incorporate the site's natural and scenic features into the development design. 9. The use would cause minimal adverse environmental effects. Approval is subject to the following conditions: 1. All construction shall follow the plans approved by the city. The city council may approve major changes to the plans. The Director of Community Development may approve minor changes to the plans. Such changes shall include: a. Revising the grading and site plans to show: (1) The developer minimizing the loss or removal of natural vegetation including keeping and protecting as many of the trees as possible. (2) All driveways at least 20 feet wide. If the developer wants to have parking on one side of the main drive (Castle Place), then it must be at least 28 feet wide. 8 (3) All parking stalls with a width of at least 9.5 feet and a length of at least 18 feet. (4) Revised storm water pond locations and designs as suggested or required by the watershed district or city engineer. The ponds shall meet the city's design standards. 2. The proposed construction (of Dearborn Meadow East) must be substantially started within one year of council approval or the permit shall end. The council may extend this deadline for one year. 3. Have the city engineer approve final construction and engineering plans. These plans shall meet all the conditions and changes noted in the engineer's memo dated Apri124, 2003. 4. The approved setbacks for the principal structures in the Dearborn Meadow 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: 30 feet from any adjacent residential property line d. Side-yard setback (town houses): minimum - 20 feet from a property line and 20 feet minimum between buildings. 5. 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. 6.The developer or contractor shall: a. Complete all grading for the site drainage and the ponds, complete all public improvements and meet all city requirements. b. Place temporary orange safety fencing and signs at the grading limits. c. Remove any debris or junk from the site. 7. The city council shall review this permit in one year. Seconded by Councilmember Juenemann Ayes-All Councilmember Wasiluk moved to approve the Dearborn Meadow East preliminaryplat based on the following conditions: 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. 9 c. Pay the city for the cost of traffic-control, street identification and no-parking signs. d. Provide all required and necessary easements (including all utility easements and ten-foot drainage and utility easements along the front and rear lot lines of each lot and five-foot drainage and utility easements along the side lot lines of each lot). e. Cap and seal any wells on site. f. Have Xcel Energy install a street light at the intersection of Castle Avenue and the proposed private driveway (Castle Place). The exact location and type of light shall be subject to the city engineer's approval. g. Install permanent signs around the edge of the wetland buffer easement. These signs shall mark the edge of the easements and shall state that there shall be no mowing, vegetation cutting, filling, grading or dumping beyond this point. City staff shall approve the sign design and location before the contractor installs them. The developer or contractor shall install these signs before the city issues building permits in this plat. h. Install survey monuments along the wetland boundaries. 2.* Have the city engineer approve final construction and engineering plans. These plans shall include grading, utility, drainage, erosion control, tree, and street plans. The plans shall meet all the conditions and changes listed in the memo dated Apri128, 2003, and shall meet the following conditions: a. The erosion control plans shall be consistent with the city code. b. The grading plan shall: (1) Include proposed building pad elevation and contour information for each home site. The lot lines on this plan shall follow the approved preliminary plat. (2) Include contour information for all the land that the construction will disturb. (3) Show housing pads that reduce the grading on sites where the developer can save large trees. (4) Show the proposed street and driveway grades as allowed by the city engineer. (5) Include the tree plan that: • Shows where the developer will remove, save or replace large trees. This plan shall include an inventory of all existing large trees on the site. • Shows no tree removal beyond the approved grading and tree limits. (6) Show drainage areas and the developer's engineer shall provide the city engineer with the drainage calculations. The drainage design shall accommodate the runoff from the surrounding areas. The undeveloped parcel to the east of this site shall have unrestricted access to the storm sewer with a capacity to accommodate post 10 development runoff. c. The street and utility plans shall show the: (1) Water service to each lot and unit. (2) Repair of Castle Avenue (street and boulevard) after the developer connects to the public utilities and builds the private driveways. 3. Paying for costs related to the engineering department's review of the construction plans. 4. Change the plat as follows: a. Add drainage and utility easements as required by the city engineer. This shall include a 30- foot-wide easement for the existing 16-inch water main and easements for any other existing utilities on the site. The Saint Paul Regional Water Services (SPRWS) shall approve the description and location of the easement for the water main. b. Show drainage and utility easements along all property lines on the final plat. These easements shall be ten feet wide along the front and rear property lines and five feet wide along the side property lines. c. Label the north south part of the private driveway as Castle Place, label Castle Street as Castle Avenue and label the east/west part of the private driveway as Castle Court on all plans. d. Label the common area as Outlot A. 5. Secure and provide all required easements for the development including any off-site drainage and utility easements. 6. The developer shall complete all grading for public improvements and overall site drainage. The city engineer shall include in the developer's agreement any grading that the developer or contractor has not completed before final plat approval. 7. If necessary, obtain a permit from the Ramsey-Washington Metro Watershed District for grading. 8. 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. 9.* Submitting the homeowners' association bylaws and rules to the director of community development. These are to assure that there will be one responsible party for the maintenance of the private utilities, driveways and common areas. *The developer must complete these conditions before the city issues a grading permit or approves the final plat. Seconded by Councilmember Koppen Ayes-All 11 Councilmember Juenemann moved to approve the Dearborn Meadow East plans date-stamped Apri17, 2003, (site plan, landscape plan, ~radin~ and drainage plans and building elevations) for Dearborn Meadow. The city bases this approval on the findings required by the code and the following conditions: 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 and parking lot plans. The plans shall meet the following conditions: (1) The erosion control plan shall be consistent with city code. (2) The grading plan shall: (a) Include building, floor elevation and contour information. (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. (d) Show a berm (two to four feet high) along the south property line of the site. (3)* The tree plan shall: (a) Be approved by the city engineer before site grading or tree removal. (b) 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. (c) Show the size, species and location of the replacement trees. The deciduous trees shall be at least two and one half (2 ^) inches in diameter and shall be a mix of red and white oaks and sugar maples. (d) Show no tree removal beyond the approved grading and tree limits. (4) All the parking areas and driveways shall have continuous concrete curb and gutter except where the city engineer decides that it is not needed. The applicant and the city engineer shall review the curbing plan to possibly eliminate the right angles on the east end of Castle Court. (5) There shall be no parking on one side of the 28-foot-wide driveway (Castle Place). The developer or contractor shall post Castle Place with no parking signs to meet the above-listed standard. The city will allow parking on Castle Court. b. Submit a certificate of survey for all new construction and have each building staked by a 12 registered land surveyor. c. Submit a revised landscape plan to staff for approval that incorporates the following details: (1) All trees would be consistent with city standards for size, location and species. (2) Planting (instead of sodding) the disturbed areas around the wetland 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 people mowing into the pond. (3) The ash trees must be at least 2 ^ inches in caliper, balled and burlapped. (4) The plantings proposed around the front of the units shown on the landscape plan date-stamped Apri17, 2003, shall remain on the plan. (5) 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 wetland easement). (6) The contractor shall restore the Castle Avenue boulevard with sod. (7) Adding ten more evergreen trees (Black Hills spruce or Austrian pines) to the proposed evergreen trees along the north and south property lines of the site. These trees are to be at least six feet tall and the contractor shall plant these trees in staggered rows on the berm. This shall include adding trees between proposed Units 7 and 8 at the northeast corner of the site. d. Present a color scheme for the buildings with a variety of colors to staff for approval. e. Present a revised building plan for staff approval that shows brick wainscoting on the north sides of all the units that are along Castle Avenue. f. If necessary, get an access permit from MnDOT for the driveways that will be on Castle Avenue (as MnDOT has not turned Castle Avenue back to the city). g. 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. Sod all landscaped areas, except for the area within the easement, which may be seeded. c. Install continuous concrete curb and gutter along all interior driveways and around all open parking stalls. d. The developer or contractor shall: 13 (1) Place temporary orange safety fencing and signs at the grading limits. (2) Remove any debris or junk from the site. e. Put addresses on each building for each unit. f. Provide a driveway turn around for Lot 7 on Castle Avenue. 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 of Maplewood for all required exterior improvements. The owner or contractor shall complete any unfinished exterior improvements by June 1 if occupancy of the building is in the fall or winter, or within six weeks of occupancy of the building if occupancy is in the spring or summer. 5. All work shall follow the approved plans. The director of community development may approve minor changes. Seconded by Councilmember Collins Ayes-All 14 AGENDA REPORT Agenda Item G3 To: City Manager Richard Fursman From: Chief of Police David J. Thomalla and Fire Chief Steve Lukin Subject: Police and Fire Laptop Computers Date: May 17, 2004 Introduction The Police and Fire Departments are requesting permission to purchase laptop computers. Background Funds have been budgeted for the purchase of 30 laptop computers for in-car and fire apparatus use. Of these 30 laptops, 18 are replacements and 12 are new. There are sufficient funds available in the CIP and IT funds for the purchase of the laptops and accompanying hardware. City Council approval is needed to expend these budgeted funds. Recommendation It is recommended that City Council approval be given to make these purchases and authorize the appropriate budget changes. Action Required Submit to the City Council for review and approval. DJT:js Agenda # G4 MEMORANDUM TO: Richard Fursman, City Manager FROM: Karen Guilfoile, City Clerk DATE: May 18, 2004 RE: Temporary Food Fee Waiver Introduction The Donut Family, Inc., 2966 Chisholm Parkway, has submitted a temporary food permit for the Maplewood Community Center (MCC) "Allstar Kickoffl' for summer programs on June 5, 2004. The event will be held from 10:30 a.m. to 2:30 p.m. The Donut Family has participated in this annual event in the past and the Maplewood Parks and Recreation Department is asking that the temporary food permit fee be waived again this year. Recommendation It is recommended that the City Council approve the miscellaneous permit to sell food at the Maplewood Community Center and to waive the $47.00 permit fee. AGENDA G-5 ITEM AGENDA REPORT TO: Richard Fursman, City Manager FROM: R. Charles Ahl, Director of Public Works/City Engineer Chris Cavett, Assistant City Engineer SUBJECT: County Road D (East) Realignment Improvements, City Project 02-07 -Resolution Approving No Parking Restrictions DATE: May 17, 2004 Introduction The city council shall consider approving a parking restriction to meet state aid standards on County Road D (T.H. 61 to Southlawn Drive). Background It has been proposed to construct County Road D as afour-lane road with center medians and left-turn lanes from Highway 61 to Southlawn Drive (Segments 1 & 4 on the attached Location Map). In addition, approximately 600-feet of Hazelwood Street from County Road D to the south will also be realigned and reconstructed under this project to accommodate the new County Road D realignment. The proposed designs do not accommodate parking on either side of County Road D or Hazelwood, per state aid design standards. Due to the volume of traffic proposed for this roadway and the parking available on adjacent public and private facilities in the area, it was determined that parking was not necessary along these segments of roadway. Due to the design and funding requirements set on state aid projects, No Parking requirements must be set by council resolution. Recommendation It is recommended that the city council approve the attached resolution approving No Parking restrictions on County Road D, from Highway 61 to Southlawn Drive. CMC Attachment 1. Resolution Approving No Parking Requirements 2. Location Map RESOLUTION NO PARKING RESTRICTION COUNTY ROAD D REALIGNMENT IMPROVEMENT, PROJECT 02-07 S.A.P. 138-121-03 S.A.P. 138-112-OS WHEREAS, the City of Maplewood has approved the plans for the construction of County Road D from T.H. 61 to Southlawn Drive; and WHEREAS, the city will be expending Municipal State Aid (MSA Projects 138-121-03 and 138-112-OS) funds on the improvement of said street; and WHEREAS, said improvement does not conform to the approved minimum State Aid width standard with unrestricted parking; and WHEREAS, release of MSA funds is dependent on specified parking restrictions. NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED that the City of Maplewood shall ban the parking of motor vehicles from the following locations: 1. Both the northerly and southerly sides of County Road D, (S.A.P. 138-121-03) from T.H. 61 to Southlawn Drive; and 2. Both the easterly and westerly sides of Hazelwood Street, (S.A.P. 138-112-OS) from County Road D to 585-feet south of County Road D. ice` ~~' ` AGENDA NO. G-6 AGENDA REPORT TO: City Manager FROM: Finance Director RE: BUDGET CHANGES BUILDING AND SEWER MAINTENANCE DATE: May 13, 2004 In conjunction with the move of Public Works Department employees from City Hall to the Public Works Building, the sewer maintenance crew helped the building maintenance staff with painting and other maintenance activities. The labor charges for the sewer maintenance crew were charged to the building maintenance program. The budget needs to be adjusted as a result. It is recommended that the General Fund budget for building maintenance be increased by $8,545 and the Sewer Fund budget for sewer maintenance be decreased by $8,545. P\agn\budget changes 115.doc AGENDA NO. G-7 AGENDA REPORT TO: City Manager FROM: Finance Director RE: Transfer to Close Fund for Project 03-05 DATE: May 13, 2004 On January 13, 2003 the City Council appropriated $15,000 for the South Maplewood Comprehensive Sewer Study (Project 03-05) that was financed by the Sewer Fund. The study has been completed and the final cost was $17,923. It is recommended that the Council approve a transfer of $2,923 from the Sewer Fund to the fund for Project 03-05 and the appropriate budget changes. P\agn\close fund for 03_05.doc Ca~a~tA~nch C~ MerrlOr~Idum To: Mayor and City Council From: Richard Fursman Date: 5/19/2004 Re: Continuing Education/Tuition Reimbursement INTRODUCTION I am requesting the City authorize the transfer of $9,000 to the Executive Budget/Administration to provide for 2004 tuition at St. Thomas University. I have been accepted in the Doctorate Program in Organizational Development. Several employees are currently continuing their education and furthering their credentials throu~~h the aforementioned program. B.A C I<CrROUND The City has a tuition reimbursement program as part of the council adopted personnel policies. St. Thomas University has a Doctorial Program in Organizational Development (OD) that I was accepted to after the 2004 budget was already adopted. The OD program is acohort-structured class, with 20+ students participating together for three years. The first class begins in June. ACTION The council is requested to transfer $9,000 from the reserve account to the Executive Budget under Administration to provide for continuing education expenses. (It should be noted that the $300,000+ in funds that were set aside for possible aid cuts will not be needed. The legislature left the aids intact. This money is part of the reserve account). TUITION ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA Courses taken for credit at an approved educational institution must meet the following criteria to be approved for reimbursement: A. Courses must be directly related to the employee's present position (whether required for a degree program or not); or B. Courses must be directly related to a reasonable promotional opportunity in the same field of work as present position (whether part of a degree program or not). The City will pay 50% of the cost of tuition and books upon successful completion (C grade), 75% reimbursement upon completion with a "B" grade, and 100% reimbursement upon completion with an "A" grade. Courses taken "pass/fail" will be reimbursed at the same percentage as a C grade (if passed). All reimbursements will be prorated for part-time employees. The maximum reimbursement will be based on per credit cost at the University of Minnesota. Employees may elect to attend a more costly school provided they pay the difference in cost. Employees must reimburse the City if they voluntarily leave employment within twelve (12) months of reimbursement. AGENDA ITEM H-1 AGENDA REPORT TO: Richard Fursman, City Manager FROM: Charles Ahl, Public Works Director/City Engineer Erin Laberee, Civil Engineer 1 SUBJECT: Legacy Parkway Improvements, Project 03-26 1. Assessment Hearing, 7:00 p.m. 2. Approve Resolution for Adoption of Assessment Roll DATE: May 17, 2004 Introduction An assessment hearing should be held for all properties in the project area. All property owners have been mailed a notice of the exact amount of their assessment, as well as notice that they must submit a written objection either at or prior to the hearing if they disagree with the assessment amount. The city council should conduct the assessment hearing, receive all objections, refer those objections to the staff for action at the June 14th city council meeting and consider approving the attached resolution adopting the assessment roll without the property owners who have submitted objections. Background The proposed assessments for the Legacy Parkway Improvements total $1,898,966.00. The amounts of the assessments are not directly dependent on the actual amount of the bid, rather on predetermined assessment rates defined in the feasibility study or on amounts established in the Developer's Agreement between the city and the Hartford. The vast majority of the project costs will be recovered through assessments from Heritage Square (Town and Country Homes), Legacy Village (Hartford) and Southwinds Development. A small amount of the project costs will be financed from utility funds and a share paid from funds generated by property taxes from site improvements at Legacy Village and Southwinds (tax abatement). A complete assessment roll is attached. Objections Filed No objections have been filed as of May 17t", 2004. Mr. George Supan has indicated that he will be filing an objection to the proposed assessment to his property. Mr. Supan has entered into a purchase agreement with Southwinds Builders, but has not completed the closing on his property. Southwinds Builders has agreed to the assessment amounts; however, Mr. Supan believes that the assessment will negatively impact his taxes at the closing. More information is needed before resolving this issue with Mr. Supan. City Council Agenda Background Legacy Parkway Assessment Hearing May 24, 2004 Page Two Recommendation It is recommended that the city council approve the attached resolution for the adoption of the assessment roll for the Legacy Parkway. Budget Impact There would be no impact to the approved budget based on the above recommendation. The proposed assessments to these properties were included in the original financing plan, and the Hartford Development Agreement . JW Attachments: Resolution: Adoption of the Assessment Roll Assessment Roll-Provided as a Supplement to the City Council Location Maps RESOLUTION ADOPTING ASSESSMENT ROLL WHEREAS, pursuant to a resolution adopted by the City Council on Apri126, 2004, calling for a Public Hearing, the assessment roll for the Legacy Parkway Improvements, City Project 03-26, was presented in a Public Hearing format, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 429, and WHEREAS, no property owners have filed objections to their assessments according to the requirements of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 429, summarized as follows: NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA: 1. That the City Engineer and City Clerk are hereby instructed to review the objections received and report to the City Council at the regular meeting on June 14~', 2004, as to their recommendations for adjustments. The assessment roll for the Legacy Parkway Improvements as amended, without those property owners' assessments that have filed objections, a copy of which is attached hereto and made a part hereof, is hereby adopted. Said assessment roll shall constitute the special assessment against the lands named therein, and each tract of land therein included is hereby found to be benefited by the proposed improvement in the amount of the assessment levied against it. Such assessments shall be payable in equal annual installments extending over a period of 15 years, the first installments to be payable on or before the first Monday in January 2005 and shall bear interest at the rate of 5.0 percent per annum for the date of the adoption of this assessment resolution. To the first installment shall be added interest on the entire assessment from the date of this resolution until December 31, 2004. To each subsequent installment when due shall be added interest for one year on all unpaid installments. The owner of any property so assessed may, at any time prior to certification of the assessment to the county auditor, but no later than October 1, 2004, pay the whole of the assessment on such property, with interest accrued to the date of the payment, to the city clerk, except that no interest shall be charged if the entire assessment is paid within 30 days from the adoption of this resolution; and they may, at any time after October 1, 2004, pay to the county auditor the entire amount of the assessment remaining unpaid, with interest accrued to December 31 of the year in which such payment is made. Such payment must be made before November 15 or interest will be charged through December 31 of the next succeeding year. 5. The city engineer and city clerk shall forthwith after October 1, 2004, but no later than November 15, 2004, transmit a certified duplicate of this assessment to the county auditor to be extended on the property tax lists of the county. Such assessments shall be collected and paid over the same manner as other municipal taxes. Adopted by the council on this 24~' day of May 2004. O '.P.mNe ave. 3N a n 'r N ~: ~ m.m o o 0 0 0 D e e ° ° o° °a °o o a z z z z F x ~ x i p O A O - n ~' . O r ~ 3 03 'w' 'v'c +'o a D f ',E ~ s 3 s'..s a 3 c 3 s ~ ~ 4 z n" u q F w.. vi o a o F E' F E E£ E F . . n o D p o o O o, ~I ', nnn ~~'.n. a 3 c° 3 '! ~ w o ~ '. 3 'm a e e o a e N « « « ~ 3 ~ i a 3 n A 3 3 I I 23 i ~., ~ li S 2 ~ ° 3 _ c « N ~ 3 ~ , a I ~~ m : 1 . 3 m a i « a N 7 3 ' ~ w °m ~,A N Nle _ U ~ p nnfo hd pl~ o v a a ~ _ m 3~ 'am _,.Aq n aq a ~'2 n A ~~., z F ~ 2 ~ a 3 - - - _ - - ~. r Legacy Parkway Improvements 03-26 Assessments SUMMARY MEMORANDUM TO: City Manager FROM: Ken Roberts, Planner SUBJECT: Land Use Plan Change, Review PROJECT: Mounds Park Academy LOCATION: 2051 Larpenteur Avenue DATE: May 17, 2004 INTRODUCTION Project Description Agenda #H2 Conditional Use Permit Revision and Design Mr. David Aune, representing Mounds Park Academy, is proposing several changes for the expansion of Mounds Park Academy at 2051 Larpenteur Avenue. Requests To make the changes to the site and the school, Mr. Aune is asking that Maplewood approve: 1. Aland use plan change for two adjacent residential properties on Larpenteur Avenue. This change would be from R-1 (single dwellings) to S (school). The revision is for the site expansion, the revised parking lot and driveway plans and for the proposed building additions. 2. A conditional use permit (CUP) revision. The Maplewood City Code requires a CUP for schools in any location. (Refer to the applicant's statement in the review memo.) 3. The design plans for the project, including the site, building and landscaping plans. DISCUSSION The requests before the city for this proposal include a change to the land use plan for two adjacent properties, a conditional use permit revision and design approval. Please see my project review memo for a complete discussion of these requests. It is staff's opinion that the school and their consultants have prepared project plans that will help the school meet their needs while being sensitive to the site, the existing conditions and to the neighbors. While the plans will remove two houses, it should allow for much better traffic flow in and out of the site. This change should help to lessen the traffic impacts that the school now has on Larpenteur Avenue by allowing vehicles to move in and out of the site more efficiently. RECOMMENDATIONS Staff is recommending approval of the proposed land use plan change, the conditional use permit revision and the project plans for the expansion of Mounds Park Academy, subject to several conditions. MEMORANDUM TO: City Manager FROM: Ken Roberts, Planner SUBJECT: Land Use Plan Change, Conditional Use Permit Revision and Design Review PROJECT: Mounds Park Academy LOCATION: 2051 Larpenteur Avenue DATE: May 17, 2004 INTRODUCTION Project Description Mr. David Aune, representing Mounds Park Academy, is proposing several changes for Mounds Park Academy at 2051 Larpenteur Avenue. (See the statement from the school on pages 16 and 17, the location and property line maps on pages 18 and 19 and the other maps on pages 20 - 32.) Requests To make the changes to the site and the school, Mr. Aune is asking that Maplewood approve: 1.A land use plan change for two adjacent residential properties on Larpenteur Avenue. This change would be from R-1 (single dwellings) to S (school). Please see the maps on pages 19 and 20. The revision is for the site expansion, the revised parking lot and driveway plans and for the proposed building additions. (See the maps on pages 22 - 25.) 2.A conditional use permit (CUP) revision. The Maplewood City Code requires a CUP for schools in any location. (Refer to the applicant's statement on pages 16 and 17.) 3. The design plans for the project, including the site, building and landscaping plans. BACKGROUND (Recent Actions) On January 8, 2001, the city council approved a revision to the CUP for Mounds Park Academy. This approval was for the school to build an addition between their existing building and the former school district building at 1801 Beebe Road. On January 14, 2002, the city council reviewed the CUP for Mounds Park Academy. The city council required a review in one year to allow Mounds Park Academy to complete construction of the addition and install all required landscaping. On January 27, 2003, the city council again reviewed the CUP for Mounds Park Academy. The city council agreed to review the CUP again only if a problem arises or if the school proposed a revision to the CUP or an expansion. On September 22, 2003, the city council approved a request from the school for up to $4.7 million in tax-exempt revenue note financing. The school planned to use this financing to pay off existing revenue bonds, to cover the costs of recent projects and to buy property. DISCUSSION Land Use Plan Change To build the expanded parking lot and revised driveways, Mr. Aune wants the city to change the land use plan for two adjacent properties on Larpenteur Avenue. This change would be from R-1 (single dwellings) to S (school). (See the existing land use plan map on page 20.) Land use plan changes do not require specific findings for approval. Any change, however, should be consistent with the city's land use goals and policies. There are several goals in the Comprehensive Plan that apply to this request. They include: • Provide for orderly development. • Minimize conflicts between land uses. • Whenever possible, changes in types of land use should occur so that similar uses front on the same street or at borders of areas separated by major man-made or natural barriers. • Transitions between distinctly differing types of land uses should not create a negative economic, social or physical impact on adjoining developments. • The city coordinates land use changes with the character of each neighbofiood. • Protect neighborhoods from encroachment or intrusion of incompatible land uses by adequate buffering and separation. Compatibility Staff does not find a problem with this proposal in terms of compatibility and land use. The proposed parking lot expansion would be near Larpenteur Avenue and next to the rear yards of several single dwellings. As proposed, the new parking lot and driveway will be 20 to 29 feet away from the west property line. In addition, the school will screen the new parking lot from the yards of the houses with a solid screening fence and landscaping. Conditional Use Permit Revision As noted in the school's statement of intended use of the property (pages 16 and 17), they are proposing to expand their campus and facilities in three phases. If approved by the city, the school would complete Phase 1 this summer. This work would inGude the expansion and reconfiguration of the parking lot in the front (south side) of the school, including moving the main entrance to the west side of the site. The school then expects to start the construction of Phase 2 of the plan in 2005. The major elements on this work would involve the building of the Gassroom addition and the field house on the north side of the existing school. As outlined in their statement, the school would hope to proceed to building the Phase 3 projects in 2008 or later as their funding would allow. This work would include cafeteria and kitchen remodeling, a relocated main entryway and the expansion of the library. The proposed school building additions and parking lot expansion will meet the city's findings of approval for a conditional use permit. As the school also noted in their use statement, they now have about 700 students and 125 staff (a total of 825). The school expects that with the additions and remodeling that those numbers would grow to 790 students and 135 staff for a total building population of 925 people. The increase of 100 people on the campus should not pose a problem for the neighbors or cause additional traffic issues on the nearby streets. Parking, Site Access and Vehicle Circulation With up to 135 staff persons and up to 790 students (with a maximum of 200 that can drive to school), the existing and proposed parking lots should be adequate to handle the parking needs of the school. There are now about 264 total parking spaces on the site. The proposed plans show 343 parking spaces on the school property after the completion of their projects. There would be about 249 spaces in the lots to the south and west of the building and the other 94 spaces would be behind (to the north and east) of the field house. The project architect calculated that together, if full, the school theater and the field house would need about 475 parking spaces. As I noted above, the plans show 343 total parking spaces on the site after completion. As such, the school should not have major functions in both of these parts of the building at the same time as they will not have enough parking on their site. The proposed project plans show the main entrance and exit for the school shifted to a point 28 feet from the new west property line of the site. For reference, the code requires at least a 20- foot setback from the residential property line for this driveway. The proposed plan shows three lanes for vehiGes -one for entering the property, one for tuming left and one for tuming right when leaving the school. Because of this design, it will be important for the school to screen the driveway and parking areas from the houses to the west. The school is proposing to extend the same type of wood privacy fence along all of the west property line from the opening at Price Avenue to the south to help provide this screening. (Please see the cross sections on pages 33 and 34.) The city should require the school to post all the driveways for no parking to ensure that there would not be cars parked in areas that would hinder site access and vehicular circulation. This plan also keeps asingle-lane entry into the school near the location of the existing entrance and exit. This would be primarily for busses and for the dropping off or the pick-up of students. The plans also show the removal of the existing parking area that is in front of the building and east of the existing entrance. The school intends to use this new green space as an outdoor play and educational area. Traffic A concern of several of the neighbors near the site is the increase in traffic the school could bring to the area. The county designed and built Larpenteur Avenue as a minor arterial street. It currently carries about 10,000 vehicles per day between White Bear Avenue and McKnight Road. In the area by the school, Larpenteur Avenue has two traffic lanes and a striped parking or bike lane on each side of the street. The city has designated Beebe Road as a collector street. These roads are to move traffic from neighborhoods and businesses to arterial streets and highways. Having a driveway from the school property onto Beebe Road is consistent with this designation and purpose. City staff had Dan Soler, the Ramsey County Traffic Engineer, review the proposed plans for Mounds Park Academy. (See Mr. Soler's comments on pages 39 and 40.} He noted that the proposed plans should not impact traffic operations along Larpenteur Avenue and that the improvements will likely improve traffic operations in the area, inGuding the traffic flow to and from the school. City staff estimates that the school, with a maximum building population of 925 (students and staff), (if approved by the city), would add up to 200 more vehicle trips per day to Larpenteur Avenue. These trips would be divided primarily between the morning and the afternoon as parents drop off and pick up students and as the staff goes to and from work. Both the city and county engineer told me that this proposal would not cause traffic problems or add enough additional traffic to exceed the capacity of Larpenteur Avenue. Life Safety and Building Code Concerns Butch Gervais, the Maplewood Fire Marshal, had several comments about the proposal. They included that he will require upgrading the fire protection and emergency lights and exits for the school and these must be continued into the new building additions. David Fisher, the Maplewood Building Official, also has comments and corrections that the school will need to address. They include meeting the requirements of the accessibility code (parking, providing access routes and possiby changing the bathrooms), that there may be a need for additional fire walls in the school and that the building must have a fire sprinkler system throughout the building. Mr. Fisher also recommended that the architect, contractor and city staff have apre-construction meeting. It is important to note that the city will require building permits for any remodeling of the existing space and that the city will not allow the school to occupy the building until the minimum life safety and building code standards are met. In addition, one should remember that the school is asking for a land use approval and that building code and life safety issues are typically reviewed and handled by city staff after the city council acts on the conditional use permit request. Furthermore, the city council would annually review the conditional use permit to check on the school, its compliance with the conditions and any issues or matters that may arise. Public Utilities There are sanitary sewer, storm sewer and water in Larpenteur Avenue that serve the school. Specifically, the city designed and built the storm sewer in Larpenteur Avenue to accommodate drainage from a large area north of Larpenteur Avenue. The developer's plans will connect their pipes to the existing storm and sanitary sewer pipes. Watershed District The Ramsey/Washington Metro Watershed District has reviewed the current proposal and has issued the school a permit. (See their permit comments in the memo on page 37.) Cliff Aichinger of the watershed district clarified that the watershed district has classified the existing pond on the site as a utilize wetland. This type of wetland is the lowest rated in the watershed district, would be the same as a Class Five wetland in Maplewood and does not require a setback. (Please see the e-mail from Mr. Aichinger on page 38.) Drainage Concerns Two of the neighbors of the school on Ruth Street expressed concern over the potential for increased runoff and flooding due to this project. The city should require that the grading/drainage plan would not increase the storm-water flow onto any neighbor's land. As proposed, the plans do not show any grading or site changes within about 20 feet of the edge of the existing ponding area. In fact, the plans show the school moving the north edge of the existing parking lot 10 feet to the south so it would be farther from the edge of the existing pond. The city engineering department review also raised several concerns about the shape and function of the proposed ponding areas. (Please see the comments from Chuck Vermeersch and Chris Cavett, starting on page 35.) The project plans show asix-foot-tall vinyl coated chain link fence around the new pond near Larpenteur Avenue. Design Review Building Design The proposed building additions would be attractive and would fit in with the design and materials of the existing school. The classroom additions would have an exterior of face brick to match the existing school brick while the field house would have walls of precast concrete panels with 1 inch reveals and windows. As proposed, the field house would have a lobby area with aluminum and glass curtain walls. (See the elevation on page 32 and the separate project plans.) Tree Removal/Replacement and Landscaping The proposed plans show the removal of 69 large trees (ash, oak, maple and elm), primarily from the back yards of the two houses on Larpenteur Avenue. The plans also show the school keeping many of the existing trees around the perimeter of the site and near the existing pond. (As a point of clarification, the developer would remove more than 69 trees. Other than the 69 quality trees, the applicant would remove many box elder and cottonwoods.) The proposed landscape plan (pages 29 and 30) shows the developer planting 50 spruce trees, 20 maple trees and 16 honey locust trees (for a total of 86 trees). Specifically, these include a double row of Black Hills spruce along the south property line (between the proposed ponding area and Larpenteur Avenue) and 20 maple trees primarily along the driveway and near the building additions. The landscape plan (page 29) also shows new plantings near the building that would include lilac trees, spirea, junipers and dogwoods. The applicant should revise the landscape plan to add plantings in the front ponding area (consistent with the requirements of the city engineer) and so it would be consistent with Maplewood ordinance standards. The maple trees must be at least 2'r4 inches in caliper, balled and buriapped. In addition to the above, all yard areas should be sodded (except for mulched and edged planting beds). Lighting Plan The applicant submitted a proposed lighting plan for the new parking lots (page 31). This plan shows that the new lights will provide no more than .4 foot-candle of light at the school's property lines (the maximum allowed by the city code). In fact, the plan shows that the lighting at most of the property lines will be at .1 or zero foot-candles. Other Comments Police Department Lieutenant David Kvam of the Maplewood Police Department noted that the proposed plans, with the additional entry/exit into the site, will benefit the school but may not alleviate the issues of the vehicles turning into the school. COMMISSION ACTIONS On May 3, 2004, the planning commission held a public hearing to consider the proposed land use plan amendment and CUP revision for Mounds Park Academy. The commission, after listening to the public and after much discussion, recommended approval of the proposed plan amendment and the proposed CUP revision, subject to several conditions. On May 13, 2004, the community design review board (CDRB) considered the design plans for the proposed Mounds Park Academy expansion and remodeling. The CDRB recommended approval of the project plans, subject to several conditions. RECOMMENDATIONS A. Adopt the resolution on page 46. This resolution changes the land use plan designation from R-1(single dwellings) to S (school) for the properties at 2025 and 2027 Larpenteur Avenue. This change is for the expansion of Mounds Park Academy at 2051 Larpenteur Avenue. The city is making this change because: 1. It would be consistent with the goals and objectives of the comprehensive plan including: a. Provide for orderly development. b. Minimize conflicts between land uses. c. Whenever possible, changes in types of land use should occur so that similar uses front on the same street or at borders of areas separated by major man-made or natural barriers. d. Transitions between distinctly differing types of land uses should not create a negative economic, social or physical impact on adjoining developments. e. The city coordinates land use changes with the character of each neighborhood. f. Protect neighborhoods from encroachment or intrusion of incompatible land uses by adequate buffering and separation. 2. This area would eliminate the planned residential area that was on a minor arterial street and was between a residential area and the existing school. 3. This site is proper for and consistent with the city's policies for a school. This includes: a. It is on a minor arterial street and is near a collector street. b.Minimizing any adverse effects on surrounding properties because there would be no traffic from this development on existing residential streets. 4. It would be consistent with the proposed land use. B. Adopt the resolution on pages 47 - 49. This resolution approves a revision for the conditional use permit for Mounds Park Academy at 2051 Larpenteur Avenue. Maplewood bases this permit revision on the findings required by the code and it is subject to the following conditions (the additions are underlined and the deletions are crossed out): 1. All construction must comply with the site plan, date-stamped April 8. 2004. Ir~e~er~ ~SAt~ The city council may approve major changes. The director of community development may approve minor changes. Such changes shall include: a Revising the grading and site plans to show the contractor minimizing the loss or removal of natural vegetation and to meet all the conditions of the city engineer. The school may implement the changes and additions shown on the plans in phases. 2. The city council shall review this permit revision one year from the date of approval, based on the procedure in the city code. 3. The school shall turn the tennis court lights off by 9:00 p.m. Only the school shall use the tennis court lights. 4. The school shall only use the area between the tennis courts and pond and the west lot line as a track or route for running during fall and spring cross-country meets. 5. 5. The school shall not allow garbage or trash pick up between the hours of 11:00 p.m. and 5:30 a.m. 6. The city council requires that the school remove IESeg the westerly access at Price Avenue . 7. The wooden screening fence shall be kept in good repair. 8. The school, the fire marshal and the city building official shall agree on a plan for the school to make the required life safety and building improvements to the existing building. This plan shall include the installation of: a. The required fire protection (sprinkler) systems. b. An early warning fire protection system (smoke detection and monitoring). c. Additional emergency lights and exit signs (if necessary). d. The necessary changes to meet the handicapped accessibility code requirements. e. A proper address on the building. f. Anv other changes the fire marshal or the building official deem necessary. 9. The proposed construction must be substantially started within one near of council approval or the permit shall end. The council may extend this deadline for one near. 10. Have the city engineer approve final construction and engineering plans. These plans shall meet all the conditions and changes that the engineer noted in the memo dated April 26, 2004, including the installation of the sidewalk along Larpenteur Avenue. 11. The school shall be responsible for the maintenance and clean up of the ponding areas on their property. 12. The school shall post the driveways and drive aisles as no parking zones. 7 13. The city council shall review this permit revision in one year. C. Approve the plans date-stamped April 8, 2004 (site plan, landscape plan, grading and drainage plans and building elevations) for Mounds Park Academy. The city bases this approval on the findings required by the code. This approval is subject to the applicant or contractor doing the following: 1. Repeat this review in two years if the city has not issued a grading permit or a building permit for this project. 2. Complete the following before the city issues a grading or building permit: a. Have the city engineer approve final construction and engineering plans. These plans shall inGude: grading, utility, drainage, erosion control, retaining wall, tree, sidewalk, driveway and parking lot plans. The plans shall meet the following conditions: (1) The erosion control plan shall be consistent with city code. (2) The grading plan shall: (a) InGude building, floor elevation, water elevation and contour information. These shall inGude the normal water elevation and 100-year high water elevation for the ponds. (b) Include contour information for all 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. The ponds or basins shall meet the city's design standards and shall include best management practices and rainwater gardens wherever practical. (d) Show all proposed slopes steeper than 3:1 on the proposed construction plans. The city engineer shall approve the plans, specifications and management practices for any slopes steeper than 3:1. This shall inGude covering these slopes with wood-fiber blankets and seeding them with a "no mow" native 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 as little disturbance as possible on the west and east sides of the site to minimize the loss or removal of the trees. This is to keep and protect as many of the trees along the west and east property lines as possible. (g) Show the required sidewalk along Larpenteur Avenue. (3) The tree plan shall: (a) Be approved by the city engineer before site grading or tree removal. (b) Show where the developer will remove, save or replace large trees. This plan shall inGude an inventory of all existing large trees on the site. (c) Show the size, species and location of the replacement trees. The deciduous trees shall be at least two and one half (2 1/2) inches in diameter and shall be a mix of coniferous trees and red and white oaks and sugar maples. (d) Show no tree removal beyond the approved grading and tree limits. (4) All the parking areas and driveways shall have continuous concrete curb and gutter except where the city engineer decides that it is not needed. (5) The project engineer shall submit to the city a storm water management plan, including drainage and ponding calculations, for the proposal. (6) Make all the changes and meet all the conditions as required by the city engineer and as noted by Chuck Vermeresch in the memo dated April 26, 2004. b. Submit a certificate of survey for all new construction. c. Submit a revised landscape plan to staff for approval that incorporates the following details: (1) Preserving as much of the existing vegetation (including large trees) along the western and eastern property lines as possible. (2) The manicured or mowed areas from the natural areas. The native grasses and flowering plants shall be those needing little or no maintenance. Specifically, the developer or contractor shall have the natural areas seeded with an upland mixture and lowland mixtures as appropriate. (3) That shows the location of all large trees on the site. (4) All trees would be consistent with city standards for size, location and species. (5) Planting (instead of sodding) the disturbed areas around the ponding areas 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 people mowing into the pond. (6) The maple trees must be at least 2 1/2 inches in caliper, balled and buriapped (7) The plantings proposed around the building shown on the landscape plan date- stamped April 8, 2004 shall remain on the plan. (8) In addition to the above, the contractor shall sod all front, side and rear yard areas (except for mulched and edged plantings or tree beds). (9) No landscaping shall take place in the Larpenteur Avenue boulevard. The contractor shall restore the boulevard with sod. 9 (10) Adding more evergreen trees (Black Hills spruce or Austrian pines) along the west property line of the site. These trees are to be at least six feet tall and the contractor shall plant these trees in staggered rows. The contractor shall place the trees to reduce the effects of motor vehicle headlight glare to adjacent residential properties. d. Submit material samples and color schemes for each building addition to staff for approval. The building materials and windows (including the frames and glass) shall be compatible with the existing building. e. Get a demolition permit from the city to remove the existing houses and garages from the properties at 2025 Larpenteur Avenue and 2027 Larpenteur Avenue. f. Get the necessary approvals and permits from the watershed district. g. Get the necessary approvals and permits from Ramsey County. h. Provide design details (height, depth and materials) about the proposed retaining walls. i. After demolition, the school shall combine the properties at 2025 and 2027 Larpenteur Avenue with the school property for tax and identification purposes. j. Submit plans for staff approval for the removal and replacement of the six-foot-high screening fence along the west property line. This fence shall extend from the Larpenteur Avenue right-of--way to the existing pond. k. Submit a letter of credit or cash escrow for all required exterior improvements. The amount of the escrow shall be 150 percent of the cost of the work. 3. Complete the following before using the new parking lots or before occupying the building additions: a. Replace property irons that are removed because of this construction. b. Restore and sod damaged boulevards. Sod all landscaped areas, except for the ponding areas, which may be seeded. c. Install continuous concrete curb and gutter along all interior driveways and around all open parking stalls. d. Install ahandicap-parking sign for each handicap-parking space and an address on the building. In addition, the applicant shall install °no parking° signs along all the driveways and drive aisles within the site and elsewhere, as may be required by staff. e. Paint any roof-top mechanical equipment to match the uppermost part of the building. (code requirement) f. 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. All light fixtures must have concealed lenses and bulbs to property shield glare from the adjacent street right-of-ways and from adjacent properties. io g. Remove and replace the privacy fence along the western property line from the right-of- way of l_arpenteur Avenue to the existing pond. h. The developer or contractor shall: (1) Complete all grading for the site drainage and meet all city requirements. (2) Place temporary orange safety fencing and signs at the grading limits. (3) Remove any debris or junk from the site. (4) Install the curb and gutter, parking lots, sidewalk and retaining walls as shown on the approved project plans. (5) Install the required landscaping with each phase of the project. 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 if the contractor finishes the new parking lot in the fall or winter or if the building additions are occupied in the fall or winter, or within six weeks of occupancy if the building additions are occupied in the spring or summer. c. The city receives an agreement that will allow the city to complete any unfinished work. 5. All work shall follow the approved plans. The director of community development may approve minor changes. 6. This approval does not inGude signage. All proposed signs must comply with the city's sign ordinance and the applicant must obtain all required sign permits before the installation or relocation of signs. 11 CITIZENS' COMMENTS City staff surveyed the owners of the 180 properties within 500 feet of the site of the school property. Of the ten replies, one was for the project, one objected and eight had comments or concerns. For Go for it! This school is an asset for the community. They are excellent neighbors. (Margaret & Bernard Tauer, Trustee, 1700 Stanich Place North.) Opposed I do not want to see this expansion! We were assured the last expansion would not affect the traffic flow and it certainly has. If you need a school that big, find another location. (Linda Goserud, 2021 California Avenue East.) 2. See the letter dated May 10, 2004, from the Schells on pages 42 and 43. Comments/Concerns/Questions After reviewing all the information regarding the Mounds Park Academy remodel and expansion, we had a couple of questions. In looking at the property line map it shows the property of Mounds Park Academy going up to my back fence. That wouldn't be correct. Behind our homes is a 5-foot utility easement. That isn't their property. We already have a problem getting Xcel or the phone company behind there during the week due to students parking up on the grass during school. Another problem would be during the winter time. All the snow gets pushed up behind our homes on the easement blocking it short. If they expand the parking lot will that increase the amount of snow by the easement? The printing on the map is really small, so we were also wondering if they plan on opening the exit onto Price Avenue? If they do we will need more police patrols after school and weekends. The lower and upper parking lots are raceways on many weekends, and now they will be able to cut across on to Price Avenue. Looking at the landscape plan it looks like it will be opened up. The next thing we wondered about was the new pond up on the hill by the tennis courts. Will that pond drain into the old pond down below? If that is the case they need to check into flooding of the easement area by the old pond. When they added the large drainage culvert on the east side of the pond, if there are some heavy downpours that last awhile there has been some flooding issues. Two years ago it went up into backyards reaching the back wall of a couple of homes. In general Mounds Park Academy has been a good neighbor. The biggest problem we always have is the easement issue. I do have documentation on the easement if needed. Also the four pine trees behind my home are mine and are planted behind my fence. Thank you. (Deborah Lewis- Majeski, 1732 Ruth Street North.) 2. I live at 2117 Southwind Drive and one concern of mine is the added traffic on Beebe Road. As of now most of the traffic from and to the school is by students who seem to ignore the STOP sign on the school and pull out on Beebe Road and accelerate at a high rate of speed. I think there should be more traffic enforcement. Also concerning the existing pond, I would like to see it cleaned of debris, tires, logs, etc. This is a spring fed pond and houses a lot of ducks & geese habitat. Eliminate fertilizer runoff from the school property into the pond. The pond always has water even in long dry periods. Thanks for your consideration in these matters. (Gerald & Jolene Heller, 2117 Southwind Drive.) 12 3. Make sure the traffic going into the school can turn right and left off of Larpenteur Avenue into the school and not just off of Beebe Road on the north end of the school. Just exactly where will the new proposed field house be located and at what height will the building be? Will it be an eyesore for the homes on Beebe Road? Will the entrance off Beebe Road be changed or will it stay the same? Now about the trees and bushes around the school. After the last addition, the school was to plant trees and bushes next to the homes on Beebe Road. They planted the bushes and trees but never watered them and let the weeds grow up around them. They did weed whack the weeds once, but the weeds were still there to grow again. It's not exactly my opinion of proper landscaping or taking care of it. (Margaret Earley, 1783 Beebe Road North.) 4. Traffic has to be changed. Exit of traffic from school should not be on Larpenteur Avenue but on adjacent streets. People on south side of property cannot get in and out because of congestive traffic of school. I think on Beebe Road would be best. (David & Audrey Anderson, 2060 Larpenteur Avenue East.) 5. Being directly across from the school entrance my concern is the traffic congestion. The new plan should help alleviate the problem. Also, I would hope to see landscaping to shield the view of the parking lot. (Elizabeth Sailor, 1602 Wildwood Road, Clearwater Florida, ownerof property across the street from Mounds Park Academy.) 6. We have concerns about the traffic and parking on Beebe Road. When Phase II of the Mounds Park Academy is accomplished, it will mean even more traffic on Beebe Road, as this will be most easily accessible from Beebe Road. When cars are parked on both sides of Beebe Road it is unsafe now. It would be safer if the road was posted for parking on one side only. Thank you for sending all the information. (Delores & Art Kaese, 1771 Southwind Lane.) Also, see the letter on page 41 and the e-mail on pages 44 and 45. 13 REFERENCE INFORMATION SITE DESCRIPTION Site size: 30 acres Existing land use: Existing school building, parking lots and athletic fields SURROUNDING LAND USES North: Double dwellings near Holloway Avenue South: Single dwellings across Larpenteur Avenue West: Single dwellings on Ruth Street East: Single dwellings and four-plexes on Beebe Road PLANNING Zoning: R-1 (Single dwellings) Land Use Plan: R-1 and S (school) ORDINANCE REQUIREMENTS Section 44-1092(3) requires a CUP for schools. Section 44-1097(a) states that the city council may approve a CUP, based on nine standards. See numbers 1 - 9 in the resolution beginning on page 47. Section 2-290(b) of the city code requires that the CDRB make the following findings to approve plans: 1. That the design and location of the proposed development and its relationship to neighboring, existing or proposed developments, and traffic is such that it will not impair the desirability of investment or occupation in the neighborhood; that it will not unreasonably interfere with the use and enjoyment of neighboring, existing or proposed developments; and that it will not create traffic hazards or congestion. 2. That the design and location of the proposed development is in keeping with the character of the surrounding neighborhood and is not detrimental to the harmonious, orderly and attractive development contemplated by this article and the city's comprehensive municipal plan. 3. That the design and location of the proposed development would provide a desirable environment for its occupants, as well as for its neighbors, and that it is aesthetically of good composition, materials, textures and colors. SITE HISTORY On April 27, 1992, the city council approved a revision to the CUP for Mounds Park Academy to build two additions and expand their recreation areas. 14 On November 14, 1994, the city council reviewed the CUP for Mounds Park Academy. The city council required a review in six months, after Independent School District 622 completed their proposed access road to Beebe Road, or in three years, whichever came first. On June 12, 1995, the city council approved a CUP and design review for Independent School District 622. This was so the school district could expand their parking lot and reroute their driveway to Beebe Road. APPLICATION DATE The city received all the materials for a complete application for this request on April 8, 2004. State law requires that the city council act on requests within 60 days. The council must act on this request by June 6, 2004, unless the applicant agrees to a time extension. p:sec14/MPA - 2051 Larp. - 2004.cup Attachments: 1. Applicant's Statement of Intended Use 2. Location Map 3. Properly Line Map 4. Land Use Plan Map 5. Site Survey 6. Site Plan 7. Site Plan Detail 8. Site Plan 9. Site Plan Detail 10. Proposed Grading Plan 11. Grading Plan 12. Tree Removal Plan 13. Proposed Landscape Plan 14. Landscape Plan Detail 15. Lighting Plan 16. Proposed Building Addition Elevation 17. Proposed Site Cross Section 18. Proposed Site Cross Section 19. Engineering Department Comments dated May 4, 2004 20. Watershed District Comments dated April 23, 2004 21. E-mail from Cliff Aichinger dated May 6, 2004 22. Comments from Dan Soler of Ramsey County dated April 20, 2004 23. Letter dated April 15, 2004 from Schells 24. Letter dated May 10, 2004 from Schells 25. E-mail from Jeanne Ewald dated April 18, 2004 26. Land Use Plan Change Resolution (R-1 to S) 27. Conditional Use Permit Revision Resolution 28. Project Plans (separate attachments) 15 Attachment 1 INTENDED USE OF PROPERTY MAY 1 4 ?.004 OVERVIEW: R E C E i V~ C Mounds Park Academy is currently a K-12 Independent School, and has been operating at this location since 1982. This building has been operating as a school since 1959. This application involves proposed work on our campus master plan which includes several major projects broken out into three phases: Phase 1 involves extensive site work on the south half of the campus along Larpenteur Avenue with the work to be done from mid-June through the end of August. This involves adding a second entrance to the campus from Larpenteur Avenue as well as the addition of more parking and green space (please refer to the Comprehensive Plan Amendment Application which includes the modification of two residential properties which allows us to accomplish Phase 1). Phase 2 is planned to commence spring 2005 and be completed in September 2006. This involves the construction of a field house (partially below grade), a two story classroom link connecting the new field house to existing locker rooms, new science labs, and the addition of a Pre-K classroom. Phase 3 (the timing of which will depend largely on the success of our fundraising efforts) will include a new cafeteria and remodeled kitchen accommodating fifty additional students, a new relocated main entryway, a new expanded two story library and renovation of existing space within the school. This phase will most likely not start for at least two years after the completion of Phase 2 if our fundraising is successful. DETAILS: With these changes there will be improved traffic management, increase available parking, and expanded green space for middle and lower school recess and physical education. The building additions and changes will provide significantly increased and improved facilities for all academic, arts and athletic program areas. Each of the three divisions (upper, middle and lower schools) will gain greater definition of space and identity, new and improved commons areas and a shared new cafeteria. The major part of the school building is 45 years old and in need of renovation. This expansion will allow our current population of 700 students and 125 employees (total of 825) to function more efficiently and also allow for future growth. Our student population over the next five to ten years could grow to 790 which would include reaching our current maximum capacity in grades K - 12 and the addition of a Pre-K program. The total population in the school at that point would reach 925 (790 students plus 135 staff). Five years ago our total population was 785 (666 students plus 115 staff), and has grown steadily since then. Three years ago we increased the maximum size of grades 9 through 12 from 60 to 75 students per grade. That change has created the majority of the increase in students in the past five years and will be contributing to the projected increase. We currently have 260 students in grades 9 through 12 and are projected to grow to 300 which will bring us to full capacity. Our new proposed four court field house (included in Phase 2) will allow for a dedicated facility for our gym classes and after school athletic programs. Our current single gymnasium along with the shared use of our Nicholson Center (a dual purpose performing arts center and gym) is not sufficient for our athletic programs. In addition to using this field house for our own athletic programs, we will be looking to generate additional revenues from the occasional rental to outside parties for various activities, which we are presently doing from time to time with our current facilities. The parking for this new field house will be located on the north side of the campus building across from the field house and will be most easily accessible from Beebe Avenue. 16 PROPOSED CHANGES: Taking into consideration the concerns and requests of nearby neighbors we propose the following changes: 1. The planned new second driveway access on Larpenteur Avenue which will run along the west side of our campus will be set back 29 feet from the west property line. It is our understanding that this exceeds code requirements by 9 feet. Extending this drive to 29 feet allows us to salvage a few more of the existing mature trees. 2. We plan to remove the existing fence that runs along the west property line and install a new 6 foot solid fence beginning at Larpenteur and continuing past our existing pond. In addition to the new 6 foot solid fence on the west side of our campus it is our plan to cluster trees at various places which may be affected by the lights of traffic headed in the west direction, providing additional privacy to our neighbors. 3. There is currently speed bumps installed on the stretch of driveway along our building just pass our circular driveway which runs toward the Beebe access. We also plan to install speed bumps along the new driveway which will run along the west side of our campus The results of recent studies conducted this week by our school showed that approximately 40% of the daily droo off and pick up traffic uses the Beebe access and 60% uses the Larpenteur Avenue access. We are very hopeful that the addition of a second driveway on Larpenteur will alleviate much of the back up that currently occurs during the two peak drop-off/pick-up times and which will overall create a better and safer separation of our bus traffic and vehicle traffic within our campus. The new design separates our lower school from our middle and upper school pick up areas. The lower school pick up area will be located with the buses at the south end of the school. The middle and upper school pick up area will be located to the west and north ends of the building, creating the Beebe road entrance/exit as a more desirable choice for our middle and upper school parents/students. We believe that the parking expansion in the rear of our campus (which will be in close proximity to our new field house), will allow a good percentage of traffic to use the Beebe access whenever there are athletic events because this will be a closer and more convenient access. Our total available parking will be increased from 264 soaces to 343 spaces, an increase of 30% to accommodate a projected maximum increase in our student and employee population of 12% (going from 825 to 9251 In the course of a normal school day our current parking is sufficient to handle our average vehicle total which ranges anywhere from 220 to 250 vehicles (this does not apply to days when there are special events where there are parents and visitors in attendance). Our estimated average vehicle total at our projected maximum capacity will range anywhere from 270 to 300 vehicles. Our new parking and drive design will also allow for an additional 35 vehicles to park alongside a curb line which extends the length of the school on the west and north sides. Presently about 15% or 117 students use the bus. Our goal over the next five years is to develop several van pools in some more heavily concentrated areas which we estimate will increase the number of students using buses or van pools to 20% of our student population which will help to alleviate the amount of traffic coming into our campus. 17 Attachment 2 KnucitN~riod take wnc n.c. L``=~ AVE ~ COPE AVE !~ (`, _ V ~ lARlC < AVE ~ ~i ~ ~ LAUR E RD • Z - ~ p LAUit~E Z ~. W ~ ~ W f ~ ~ ~ AvE ~ ~ ~i v o ~ .- iii o ~ W. RO. ~ B ® BURKE AVE caw ' .~, ~~ ~. J ~ ~'~ -~ ~ ,,,, HARRIS AVE ROSEMIOOD AVE N. D AV. AVE. S. RMISE7 COUMY ~ "~~ c"n~ AVE_ ~ ~ ALDRICi1. ® ~~c ~ ~~ AVE tai AREAM b ~% --` ~•. ~ ~~~ ~ do~fi~N ~~~ ;' t'' ; ))~ {~ /~:~ ~~ ~ o ~./ ,~ J W_ Z I 0' 1700' 3400' ~.. 1 „ 2" SCALE HOLLOWAY Q~~ Q~ Fn ~z ?• -! RPLEY AVE J IWGSTON W W PRICE AVE 3 SAINT PAUL NORTH SAINT PAUL AVE. ~ 2 ~ ~ ~ '. °c~ 3. 4 IOdOI . ~ AV 3 ~ IOIiGSiON AVE ~ Z 11NNQIf LN ~ I,ARPEMEIJR W ~ ~ ~~ W C F 4}/ 2 vE. 4j ¢ ~ ~~ AV U Q. NE~ASKA _W.r ~~ ~, ~ .J ~ Q ~11u! ~i ~ . W ~ ~ ~ Z LL' p~ ' ~ `~ U D P I~Y G• ~ ~ °~~ ~ ooro~E , ~nl AVE. : ~ ~ ~ _ 4 ~06i _ 1 3 OOIA E MARYLAND 4 ~ AVE. LOCATION MAP 18 N Attachment 3 `~-~ ~ti. ° leca RIPLEY AVE 0 1 p 7 2321 p 177 17211 r 78 2051 ' r„ ~ 1 R NL._ 1 ~ "V S 3221 2 2 2621 KINGSTON AVE E ,7ss ] 1 g SITE 1763 21212 21 213 ~1 7 33 Q a 17 r+y52 0 i lI~_II 1'149 ~ ^.,,4 24 3p 3821 C II_L~ 1743 ~ 1 1 ~_ n ~ T36 ^ PRICE AVE E ~ LLJJ 1737 -~ 70 1~ ~2 W N ~ ,7,7 ^ m ~ 4 rn D ~ 2135 ~~ ,~ ~ n v = Q .o ° q z r 2025 202((7'' ~ ~5 Z 1 94 ~ ^ U 5 'n'ag a ~ 6 ~ ^ ~ LJ 689 Z LARPENTEUR AVE E H ~ SAINT PAUL 1s7 0 1s Q 1 U 1ss7 ~ ~ 1977 0 19 19® l-J PROPERTY LINE MAP 19 ~T 1V ^ 17~ [~ Q2£ 177 Q1~ ~~© ~~ ,7 L.J 17 oa 1s s X ti 1694 'L 1 3 ~ 1 85 Attachment 4 LAND USE PLAN MAP 20 ~N Attachment 5 ~. ~. ~: •7~~~ ~ 2027 • 2025 ~~ _ ' s _ ~ l ~~~ _ ~~ r On~ .~ Q ` '~" LARPENTEUR AVENUE ~, - - ~~ ~~ r ~~ _ •~ 0 ti O 6 ,~V' V C~ M •~• ~ .. q O 1 O h s ~, s ._ ... . ~: - ~-. era x •~_~ ili y K , ~• ~j Ii S~ T.S h w ~ g ~j~ •` :t 1 C1 ~ t ~ ~~ v Cl ~i y r ^ ~~. ~S ~ `s X ~~ 1 ~ ^ r ~~ ~~w 1s r wrr, fm .....,~ .~,.......w~w.. SITE SURVEY 21 Attachment 6 _'.li ~r %~ i ~ I I I I I i lLibC °" 1" ~~ SAINT PAUL ~~~ ~~~ ~~~ a SITE PLAN 22 ~/-~=dy N I 1 1 I I I 1 I ~ I I ~ i ~ ND I I ~~\~ I 1 I ~"~\\~ 1 ~-_ `~~ I I \~ •~ I POND I ~` I i I J I ~ i1/ . ~~~ ~~ i ~ II I 1 1 I I 1 e I I s i~ I ~ i~ ~~ I 1' I 4'.' J I I I I I I I 1 I I I I 1 I f I I I 1 1 9~ 1 I I ~ I I p'~~~~ 1 `~`~~ ~~ OP r 5~ QO QUO /1 1 I i.e ' I I 1 ~--~- ~ ~~~ ~ ~-~~ ~ ~` I I I ~ I I I I - j :F - I I ;C k; I ;F: 1' ,_ - 1 E NEW PONDING AREA @ ~~11 I I ~ I I ~~ I I 1 ~ I 1 II I I ---~ I r---~ j I ~~~ I I i I I I I I~ Ir ~ ~ i~ 1e ~: I~ li I := J I ~ / =~J ~ Attachment 7 =ilk r ' 1' ~~~ ~ I I ~ ~ ~.. ~ I I n...~ ' ~ I ~ O 1 I I ~ o 1 ~ Ra.~~ Iii I 1 I I~ ~ ~ ~ i I I I I I~ I I ~~ I ~ ~ I I I I __ .--1 rt s.e ~s.e~ I ' 1 s ~' ~ I ~ I I I ~ ~ ~ 1 I ~~ " ~ ~ `~? i j ~w ~ 1 I `\\~ ~ i I ~ i ~' Ppp I 1 1 ~ I~ ~ ~ I~ I ~ j ~ I ~ 4 ~! Q,~~ I~ ~~ I 1 1 I ~~ p 5 -~ ~ I~ I~ ~ 11 I 1 ~'' ~ Q~ I I ~ j l 1 ~ c° QQ~ "yfl ~ I ~ I` Q I ~ I j $ ~ ~ I ~ I ~ O ~ y: I I fp xx~ ~ I ~ ~ / ;~ TAT ~ i 1 c f 3 ".~ I y ~ ~, x ~°~ a .. ~ I I ~'-- ~: ~QYQ~ ~~~ 3 r ~~~~ h w~ ; 72° S r ~si.r +' S •9_/ I ~~ ~~. 1 ~ _ SITE PLAN DETAIL ~`~_~~ 23 4 N Attachment 8 I I =_ I 1 ~ ~ 1 ~ j I I tr ° ~ 1 --- 1 I --~ I~ I I ^ I I I I j i I I I 1~ I __ L ;~~ I i ~ I ~.}~~_. it i I ~ I I ~ '~~` I ~ i I 1 . II I I I ~ if ~ 1 ~ ~~ ~~ ~ POND I II ~ / ~ 4 ~~ E _ I ~ I ~ ,~ ~' I ~I 1 ~--~ :~~ ~~~ ` :; I I 11 ~ I I I ~ I I ~ f ,- I i = ~ ll ~ ~_ I ;~ t I ~ ;, ~~ 1 U I I I I I I TTf ll~k 1 1 ~ ~ ~. fff I q -~ I - ----I- - -- I I I I I '~ I I ~ ~- ---~ I III I 1 I '. ~~' ~ ~ I .J I I r-- ~;~ I ~ i 1 ~ i~~ f l I ~ ~~ i I ' I' I 1 I; I , F ~ I~ I~ Lit ~ ~e#!~'i I ~~ ~r I I r ~ ~~ ~ ,~ I~ ~ s ~~~ [~ I I~~ ~ Ali ~~! ,~ I - ~ -- -- _ ~rirs:nsu~ J I I I ~ I ~r sram~aror~~- .J .i i J!~^ ~ j g ~/a - ~I ~ I a La[ L ~ ~~ `~i s 1 SAINT PAUL ~ "' SITE PLAN ~~~_6~l 24 4 N Attachment 9 I ~- ~_ ~t 1 ~ ~ .~ 1 I ~ ~' b I n - I = f- i I I ~ C i I ~ I=l~ ,~ r ~~ II t 1 ~~ ._, I ~ ~ i ' . I' ~ ~ I ~ ~ ~ j ii I ~ i ~ 1 I ~ L NEW P ONDING AREA ,. _ J ~ t i ~ ~ ~ • ~ e NNN '~ - Sp97l70'W S41p (9H3tY11J 1 SITE PLAN DETAIL 25 ~/ ~ 6y 4 N Attachment 10 ;!~y ~l ~ ~--~ - , , ~ ~ ~ ~ ~.--~;.:~....~~: "~~?--e ~_ i ~; /'i ~ . ~ i /viii i.. ~ ='~ 4~. ~ ~ ~~°a.-~~-~--~-,,.- ,.. ~ / ~ h i ~" ~v ~ ! r I r l ~ ~ i ~~ 'ter i / ~~ _~ ..... _ l I r r l~ l i _ =i ~~',~t~ / i/~-/U, { ~t~ ~ ~ - T~ . _ .d ~1 ~ ~ gip: I ~, ! ' v\~~~ ~~ ,~~ i~~s~~~ jr _ ~~ ~ POND ~,' ~ ,~. ,I _:.~_~~h`~~~,. ~.~;~.~y~~~: .lid I/I/%~~.~'i rr:~;_. ,.._ ~~: { I / 11 ~ ~~~ x ~~;' .yi ~~ 1 ~ -- / i ~.: ~j ~ VAT ~-- :'Yr. Tl / // ~\ ~ `~~ ~•• Rl ~ O .. ~7I LLr~ i ~ / ~ / ~ / %/ j~~ ~.. , .. _. N O ~- L ... .........- ..\ K.. /. ~ r. ~~ 'iir: ~. ~ ~ ~ ./__ / ~ ~~ ~j' ~ _. f -- c _ -d .;., I ~~ ,i - III{II it 1_. :q- ~! ~ _• f4' l III !I d !~ _ ~ °' _ ~± III I} ~'=\~- = ~~ s N ie -- e. ,. r' ~...'...,. _ ,11111« s ^~_ .. gta ~ ~ n ~ !a . ~ .' ., II 11,11• i- _'~`= ij ~Ii 8 1 i ~3d~ ,R ~ ~~~ _. ~,,`1, tr' .tip` ~7 i 7S`S ,. ... ~~~~ --- LARPENTEUR AVENUE -• - ~ .~;--J I-1. f11 _+' ' .._. W ~._ .. _ ~~; ~---;rte GRADING PLAN 26 ~~ ~=a`~ 4 N Attachment 11 -- a y~l _ _~ - ~r _- ~ _ ~ ~, ~ ;;~r,~,~ .~ ^a^ AIBIfE` j "yam _ /~ D r / _ / / gG I~~ ~.----$Y ~- ~ _j r ~%~ ~ Je TIC r 16" A i~Y. , ~~ _ p `P ~I is __ //~ /¢ '~( .F~'F 4 ~ ~ Q ~ ~ ~;,~: NEW POND ~ ~ ` '. ~ i -l ~,,, ~~~ _ l n~ ~I ~~ ' V ar _ .~ ~; 1' g r ~ <, ~i •' \ ~ I YY .a ~~ ,~~ 1- ~ -' ~c ` ~~ ;~ i~ `~ - 1 ~ , II ~ ~ '~ 5~ ~, = ~ r, 'fit a ` /. POND. ..~! .: ~~ I , ,---' .,.;;~~ ,, I I -.h ~~ ~ G,,.. i. ~~ /~ I ~~~ ie ~','~~ ~~~ .~ :r ~ ~/~~ ~~~~tii III ~~ C X Y ~ ~i// % ~%~~~ ~~ ~ / ~~1 IC r`iV ~....H ~~~~~ / ~ M I ~/~/ / _.~~~_ I r D o z ~ _ -f~ ~ ~ - .. 'c i~' /~ ~ ~~ --~~ -- - ~ y - ~~ ~~/ j H' r ~ o ~ - / ~~~ ~ ~~> ~> g . ts-• - -- - - --_ ~~~ N fTl Z T. _ _. ;7 ~ .~M'' p ~ No _ ,~ _ ~~~,hti ... I yy~ 1,. s. YE Z ~ O ~ _. i! _ I ~r ~ ~~jl. ± _ z --- ,~. b ~.. l..l,r ;iy ~ ~" I .~ ~I ~ -• -- lli (t -- ~~y ~'~ 4 ~ ~~ I,~ .~. MIT :k~.&~~~~ „_. ~ u l~l I~~•~ jIIII •y~~ i_. a N '~ Via:; - IIII 'atl II ~ ~_ ~° _g gg ~ • I III{I` .'..'.iL." ~i ~ c ~A~6 ~5 ¢ ~ - - _ =i' ~~1 - _\ e4 "' p it .r- _.~.,+ * ~_ ;:~.Y 9 . ! . mow, `'-\"_~ a - ~~ ~'.~ ~ fy y f s ~ ~. GRADING PLAN y_g-o~{ 27 4 N Attachment 12 . ~, m=Sp~ `--'~~~~ - ~-~~mmi~ m Ap[ p~mp.~p p OD pZ~yy _~ D~pmO m p .. .. mm =~mm~ -z ~9mmg M 3 ~D ~D>~Z ~~ ~ - ~M;I 4 ~Z ~~ wyp ~ ~ - ~ ~ ~ -:~ ~ti - ~' r i - ~• ~ _ _~. - - _ g i - ` G ~,-r Q , f ~ >Dy pm. p ~ D 9 D m fsi '" m ~ O ~ m m m ~ a - - .C o ~ ah i y p H y m ~ N D myG~ Rrt~II m O ~ p m 'V N y ~ ., y~0 G .. D . O D ~ T m c ~ 3 n o o '~~ _ ~ ~ .! ~' --- ~ -~ ~ - - :- - 4 . ' - ~~ .~ - • ~- - L ~ ~ - - - e t .. ~C r ._ --~--- ~ LARPENTEUR AVENUE -- TREE REMOVAL PLAN ~8 ~ ~~ ~~ 4 N Attachment 13 LANDSCAPE PLAN 29 ~- `~-~~ N Attachment 14 ~€ .• I •. - .Q O ei z I ~ a~ I o° I a ~~ ~. ----------- ---- - - - - - -------- I ~ ~. 9 ~ .~ ~- I o~ ~ - ~ 1 ,~ ~ I ~ ~ `~~ + t V • I O O ~j .1 ~f ~ II.4 ~ ~ ~w ~. ~a ~ I ~ e ~ I ~ ~ • • io ~ ~ t ~ k'x I e ~ ~ ~ s~ ~ ~ 'I g z NEW PONDING AREA I _...."'...J ~ws asn ~i 8 - ~ I LARPENTEUR AVENUE SAINT PAUL LANDSCAPE PLAN DETAIL 30 y--~-~1 4 N Attachment~l5 V ~~ ~a r r r r r r r r r r c r c r r r e r r c r r r r ~~ r r e e r r r r r r r r r r r 8~ ~c r r r r r E` r e r r r r r r r r r e • r r r r r r r r r r e y ~ r c r c c r r r r r r r r r r r r r r c r O •~ $ m r c r r r r r r r r r r r r r C r C r r r r C r r r r r , r r C c r r c r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r • • G7 2 r r c r r c r r -~ Z ~ r • r r C r r r r c t r c r e r r ~ 2 r c r r r r r r r r r r ~ ~ r r r t r r c r r r r r c r r r r r r r r r r r c r e r r r r r r r r r c r r e r r r r r r ~ ~ r r r r r r r r r r r r c n y r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r C r r r r c e r e r r r r 8 ~ r r r r a r r r r C r C r r r c r r r r r r r r m z r r r r r r r r r r r r r e r r r r r c A r e r e r r r r e r r r • ~ r r r r r r r e e r r r r r r r r r r r r e r r r r r r r r r r r e r r r r r r r r r c r r r r r e r r r r r r 8 r r e e r r r c r e r e r r r e r r e ^- r e r r r r r ~t r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r e r r r r r r r r r r e r c r r r r r c r r r r r r r c r r r r r r r e r r r r r r r r r r r ® ® e L A R P E N T E U R LIGHTING PLAN </-~-~-I 31 4 N r r r r r r r r r e e r r r r r r r r r r r r e e r r c e r r r r r r r r e r ! s r r r e r r e e e c r r e r r r C r e r w f .~ ;+a ~ i;~ ~, ` c~ yfr .~r - y~ '~. . ~, ~, ,~. ??ire Attachment 16 APR 0 S 2004 RECEIVED Attachment 17 Tr-r AEi-' PAFlt9Ni LOT GYTY REOIAF~ED PAfDr/MG St7BACK-20' Z I ~I ~ ~I I `` I I AEW l.1CriGY~7E 9LfEWi1CX I MOUNDS PARK ACADEMY I LARPENTEUR AVENUE } ~ I 3 ~~+~` i 4 2004 RECEIVED /~. .~~ J. 1:. ~. ,~ ~.;.. . :, ~/ .Bry~nia9''?o'c8', •:sFi'"7~'-'a~!'' ..:~t?''aixr/-xaar/•!••. `.BEvAiiavr~m~" ~v~izw.-•i~xa!' . .,•• .. .. 4. 'I . .. ~~ ~•• .. .. . Ill ' N ~ ~ s` s PavL PROPOSED NORTH /SOUTH SITE SECTION -LOOKING EAST Al NO SCALE PROPOSED SITE CROSS SECTION 33 Attachment 18 C?Y~HED PAHK/NG SETBACK-20' 2s'-o• ~I flE5YDENCE I I WESTENTR4NCE A/1~ EXIT 0 ~'rrr+vtsw~ ~ ~ .: .. QEYA7R~1(-pll'.. QEItA~Y-lVl7'' ~ BEVA7~p'V -1gpp~ 6,EVA7X.~V.~7t71p4' . W I I PROPOSED EAST /WEST SITE SECTION - E PROPOSED SITE CROSS SECTION 34 4 N NfAY ~ 4 20D4 RECEIVED NEW PAfdr/NG LOT Attachment 1g Engineering Plan Review PROJECT: Mounds Park Academy Expansion PROJECT NO: REVIEWED BY: Chuck Vermeersch and Chris Cavett DATE: May 4, 2004 The applicant or their engineer shall address the following comments. Grading and Drainage Plan: 1. Mounds Park Academy is an educational institution. Implementing some of the more innovative and environmentally friendly best management practices (BMP's) as part of its planned expansion would provide a unique educational opportunity for its students and the public, as well as contributing to the overall appearance of the campus. The approach presented in the current submittal does not take advantage of this opportunity. The applicant should strongly consider implementing other BMP's for water quality treatment, such as rainwater gardens and infiltration practices. Information on other BMP applications can be found on the Metropolitan Council Website: http://www. metrocouncil.org/environment/Watershed/bmp/manual. htm 2. Construction of the north pond will require the removal of two fire hydrants and some watermain. The applicant will submit plans to SPRWS for review and obtain all necessary approvals and permits. 3. A wetland delineation report was inGuded in the submittal. However, the project plans should show the wetland delineation, inGuding the delineator and the date of delineation. 4. The hydraulic calculations should include reservoir routing for the wetland. Provide existing and proposed hydraulic calculations including the wetland. 5. Curve numbers for subcatchments 4, 21 and 22 appear to be too low (open water surface counts as impervious). 6. Label ponds and wetland with normal and high water levels (NWL, HWL), and indicate emergency overflow elevations and locations on drawing. 7. Provide a defined emergency overflow for the north pond lined with permanent soil stabilization blanket (Enkamat, NAG C350 or equal) 8. The PondNET calculations for the north pond indicate a wet volume of 0.75 acre- feet, but the north pond design information summary lists the wet volume as 22,921 cubic feet (0.53 acre-feet). It appears that the smaller number is correct, and the north pond has insufficient wet volume to meet the water quality standard. 9. The north pond has an aquatic bench, but no maintenance bench. The pond is surrounded on three sides by retaining walls. The applicant should consider 35 redesigning the pond to allow for future access and maintenance activities. With a depth of nine feet, the applicant also should consider fencing the pond for safety. 10. Both proposed ponds have a 3:1 slope from the top down to the water and are adjacent to parking areas. The school must provide a barrier or guardrail at both ponds. 11. The outlet structure for the north pond includes afve-inch orifice. Small orifices such as this are prone to plugging. The city does not recommend the use of orifices smaller than eight inches. 12. Generally, both ponds seem to be "wedged in" to allow for parking, while the existing parking area at the. southeast comer of the site has been eliminated. The applicant shall explore alternative configurations for ponds, parking areas and storm sewer, which would allow for better safety, aesthetics and water quality performance. If sufficient wet volume to meet the water quality standard cannot be obtained in the north pond, a portion of the tributary area could be piped to a revised south pond. 13. Complete and sign a maintenance agreement for cleaning and maintenance of the two new ponds and the existing ponding area. A draft of a maintenance agreement is attached. Miscellaneous: 14. Provide asix-foot wide concrete sidewalk the length of the property along Larpenteur Avenue, located seven feet behind the curb. Provide the necessary easements if the sidewalk falls outside of the right-of-way. 15. The applicant shall submit plans to the RCMWD for review and approval, and obtain the necessary permits. 16. The applicant shall use an approved native seed mix for turf establishment in pond and wetland areas. Native seeding and vegetative restorations should include the areas around the pond, which might be considered as a buffer as described in the wetland report. Submit a landscape plan for the ponds that includes the use of some shrubs and trees in addition to the native seed mix. 17. The applicant shall eliminate the curb radii and entrance at Price Avenue, and extend the existing privacy fence, or provide screening in the form of landscaping along the west property line. 18. The relocation of the north entrance (on to Beebe Road) will require grading within an existing Great Lakes Pipeline easement. The applicant, or their engineer, must verify with the Great Lakes Pipeline that they will allow this grading, or the project engineer shall revise the plans such that the north entrance remains in the same location within the pipeline easement. 36 04/23/2004 13:46 6517042092 RWMWD PAGE 02 Attachment 20 Mounds Park Academy #04-18 1. All curb cuts shall be replaced with catch basins and pipe systems. The two catch basins that replaced the curb cuts near the western portion of the south pond shad be piped to the northeast corner of the eastern pond in order to increase water quality treatment effectiveness. All pipes shall dischazge at or below the normal water elevation of the pond. 2. An emergency overflow swale shall be installed at Catch Basin 3 on the eastena pond at the overflow point of each catch basin located at a low point. The swale shall exteind to the niortnal water level of the downstream water body or at a point where the downstream ground slope is one percent or flatter. The swale shall be a minimum of ten feet wide and one foot deep and be lined completely with a permanent soil stabilization material. A detail of the swale shall be shown on a revised set of plans. 3. A minimum of two feet of freeboazd shall be created between the 100-yeaz flood level of the south pond and the overflow point in the pavement. APR ~ ~ 2Q04 RECEIVED 37 Attachment 21 Megan W. Tasca Sunde Engineering, Inc. Consulting Civil Engineers 4200 West Old Shakopee Road/Suite 230 Bloomington, Minnesota 55437-2967 Telephone: (952) 881-3344 Fax: (952) 881-1913 E-mail: <mtasca@sundecivil.com> -----Original Message----- From: Clifton Aichinger [mailto:cliff@rwmwd.org] Sent: Thursday, May 06, 2004 11:5? AM To: Megan Tasca Subject: Mounds Park Academy. Megan- The wetland on the property just west of the existing building is classified as a Utilize wetland. This classification allows direct discharge of stormwater to the wetland without pretreatment. There is also no setback requirement for this basin. I hope this clarifies our wetland standards as they pertain to this basin. Please feel free to contact me if you have any additional questions. Cliff Clifton J. Aichinger Ramsey-Washington Metro Watershed District 2346 Helen St. Maplewood, MN 55109 Phone: 651-704-2089 fax: 651-704-2092 cell: 651-238-4448 38 Attachment 22 Department of Pnblic Works Kenneth G. Haider, P.E., Duector and County Engineer ADMINISTRATION/LAND SURVEY 50 West Kellogg Blvd., Suite 910 St. Paul, MN 55102 • (651) 266-2600 • Fax 266-2615 E-mail: Public.Works@co.ramsey.mn.us MEMORANDUM TO: Ken Roberts City of Maplewood FROM: Dan Soler ~ Ramsey C my Public Works SUBJECT: Mounds Park Academy 2051 East Larpenteur Avenue DATE: Apri120, 2004 ENGINEERING/OPERATIONS 3377 N. Rice Street Shoreview, MN 55126 (661) 484-9104 • Fax 482-5232 APR ;~ 2 X004 REDEIUED The Ramsey County Public Works Department has reviewed the proposed site plan revision for Mounds Park Academy at 2051 East Larpenteur Avenue. Ramsey County has the following comments regarding this proposal. 1. The use of the site will stay as a K-12 Independent School, Mounds Park Academy. The school is expected to experience a small amount of growth but not an amount significant enough to impact traffic operations along Larpenteur Avenue. The improvements to the site will likely improve on traffic operations in the area. 2. The, existing access configuration on Larpenteur Avenue is a single access point to Mounds Park Academy and two additional driveways to the homes at 2025 and 2027 Larpenteur Avenue. The two homes, along with their driveways, will be removed. A second access point to Mounds Park Academy will be constructed at the west edge of the school property. This additional access point, along with modifications to the parking areas, will improve traffic flow to and from the school property. The County recommends that the eastern access point provide the primary entrance to the school and the western access point provide the primary exit. 3. Currently, left turns from Larpenteur Avenue into the school are prohibited between 2:30 and 4:00 pm. fihe County will consider eliminating this restriction because of the increased stacking space within the school property. If back-ups onto Larpenteur Avenue continue the turning prohibition will need to be re-installed. 39 Minnesota's First $ome 8nle County Peed ~ mycJed paper w1tA a n~nm of 10% poeFCOne„n,e, content 4. The property owner will be required to obtain a permit from Ramsey County Public Works for any work within the County right of way. Thanks for the opportunity to make comments regarding this issue. If you have any questions or need any additional information please give me a call. 40 'ECEIV~t~chment 23 ApR 1 9 2004 STEVE & SHEILA SCHELL 169 RUTH ST. MAPLEWOOD MN. 6> 1-777-fi2(0 OAKDALEFLOWERS~ri!MSN.COM APRIL i 5'200 To: Kenneth Roberts, In resp~se to your neighborhood survey regarding Mounds Park Acadeury; we are aware of their proposal and have met with them personally on a couple of occasions regarding their plans for exparesioa which directly affects our property. They have been very cooperative regarding the type of fencing they will be using to ensure our privacy. Their summer propvsal is directly behind our house and they have met every issue we had to our satisfaction including not putting grass around the holding pond but using mulch to keep the geese off the property. We are in agreemem with their proposal for The lots behind our house and they even are putting in non-invasive lighting. We have lived in our house for 18 years and ipsna enjoyed MPA as neighbors. We feel they will approach this project with the same integrity they use for their daily operations and education. Sincerely, _ ~ _ ~~ Steve chi Sheita Schett Cc: Dave Autze, MPA 41 May 10 04 12:48p p.l Attachment 24 -~ . ~~' I'. ~~,,~ r~i ~L MAY ~ ~ 2004 J9'~~iC ~ StiEtt& SCS-itLL 1 1699 RUTH ST. ~ _ - _ _ _ _ v _ J _ _ i+1rXc!'LEWOOB~ hAN 55109 May 10, 2004 KENNETH ROSERQS CITY PLANNER CITY OF MAPLWOE?F3- DEAR MR. R08ERTS, AFTER ATTENDING THE PLANNING COIvtISSION MEETING ON-MAY 3~, AND LISTENING TO CONCERNED NEIGM80RS AND SOME OF THE PANEL MEMBERS REGARDING THE MOUNDS PARK ACADEMY PROPOSALS WE RAVE SOME MAJOR CONERNS . 1) THE PROPOSED DISTANCFOFTHEtR Nt`Y~t BRtVEWAY AtONG OF1R PROPERTY LINE IS MUCH TO- CLOSI=. 2) THE PROPOSED FENCFWHhCf# IS THE SAME AS T1-tEY ttAVENOW IS NOT A PRIVACY FENCE 6ECAUSE OF THE LATTICE ON TOP, THIS WOULD ALLOW TOO MUCH NOISE AND HEADIIGH1<5 SHINING iNTOOUIrH07d1ES. 3) WE WERE NOT AIKARFOf HOV1trvSUCH-TRAFFIC MOUNDS PARIS ACADEME' HAS ON A DAILY BASIS AND THIS IS TOO MUCH TRAFFIC ON AN ALREADY BUSY LARPEMEUR. MY SUGGESTION 1S Tt7 SPtTf TtiE TRAfFiC ~ LARPENTEUR AND BEEBEE ROAD, WHICH IS AN ALREADY EXISTING ROAD BY DIVIDING THE GRADE SCHOOL ENTRANCE FROM THE MIDDCEANfJ UPPER CLASSES ENfii?ANCE. SEE ATTACHED DIAGRAM. 1 REALLY DONTSEE W1=1ERE THEY-NEEETTE}Pt}T THE-NE3M-DRIVEWAY NEXT TO THE PROPERTY LINE TO THE WEST, THAT IS NOT FAIR TO THOSE NEIGHBORS, AS ONE OF THE PANEL MEMSL-RSSTATED; THEYH1aVE A- tQ~ OF Pt3RPERTIf )OR DRIVEWAYS, WHY DOES R HAVE TO RUN ALONG THE PROPERTY LINE ON THE WEST. I THINK MOUNDS PARK SHOULD RETHINK SOMEQF7FiEIi~ PCANSANI7 CONSIDER THE NEIGHBORS WHO ARE PAYING PLENTY OF PROPERTY TAX FOR THEIR OWN PRIVACY. SINCERELY, ~~~ ~-~~~ cc: Maplev+ood- City Council cc: Dave Aune, Mounds Park Academy 42 May 10 04 12:48p ~o / ~,t .~~c ~ ~` f ~~, V 1~ ` _, 111`+,'{(-JJFV\µv ~~ i ~\ / / f ; ~ ~~ ~ 1C'~"A. ~i ~ ~ ~ T ~r~ t~ ~ _ l ~~Pi (S~~ ~-- ..... ~ ~ ~~ ~~ PLEASE-NOTE. i~ i I -F (~ i i D z~ fi ~~ p.2 ~~ ~c., , MAY 1 0 ?~J~4 . _.. - -- I SUGGEST ENTRi~iNeg ~I- g~Og gL~Rp- AND #2 ENTRANCE FOR MIDDLE AND UPPER CLASSES ARE SEPARATE ENTRANCES AND EXITS ONTO- LARPENTEiJR. A~yg BEE~E~ :. TH$R£FflRE D3-it1DING THE FLOW AND AMOUNT OF TRAFFIC ENTERING AND EXITING ONTO LARPENTEUR. 43 r -- ~ ~ Page 1 of 2 Attachment 25 Ken Roberts From: Ewald Jeanne (jjewald~earthink.net] Sent: Sunday, April 18, 2004 9:43 PM To: Ken Roberts Subject: Neighborhood Survey: Mounds Park Academy Hello Mr. Roberts, We write in response to the information mailed to us in regards to MPA's expansion and remodeling plans. We have lived at 1744 Ruth Street since 1984. MPA has been our neighbor for all of these years. After living through, and seeing the first and second expansions and remodeling, we have some insight into the process and appreciate a chance to give input to the the City of Maplewood. We were able to attend a meeting hosted by MPA on March 29, 2004 and already see some revisions from the first plans presented at that time. MPA has tried to communicate with the neighborhood in positive ways over the years and have seldom not addressed our concerns when things have caused neighborhood problems. However, ow experience is that some of the original conditions of their conditional permit were not met, so we hope to be actively involved again with the new changes and agreements. After looking through the packet mailed to us we have some suggestions and concerns in the following areas: 1) The moving of the front parking lot to the western edge of the property. The impact to the neighbors on Ruth St. and Larpenteur Ave. is extensive. The site plan currently lays out the road and parking lots with the main exit on to Larpenteur Ave. approximately 150 ft. from where Ruth St. (Maplewood side) enters the avenue. Ruth St. on the St. Paul side is staggered from Ruth St. in Maplewood and will be even closer to this exit, and therefore there will become in effect a " three corners." At the afternoon school release time we already have a considerable challenge to turn left from Larpentew onto Ruth St. In addition, the proposed driveway in and out of the lot is a straight line directly behind the entire row of houses with backyards to the school, about 675 ft or 8-9 city lots in length. This length of drive, even with speed bumps, will create a new express route exiting the lot. As an informational point the houses on Ruth St. were built in typical rambler style with bedrooms on the back of their homes. I encowage city officials to consider these facts before approving the parking lot changes proposed. 2) The staged grading plan. As it is presented in the information mailed to us we will feel the impact of numerous summers involved with earth moving. We would like to recommend that all grading of parking lots from Larpentew to the existing pond be completed in one summer. The houses closest to the project, including ours, will be dealing with dust and machines on our back lot lines for two years as it is currently proposed. Changing the plan will also improve the nun off to the existing pond. The current parking lot next to the pond is eroded and collapsing. Staging the field house and upper area of development will not impact us quite as much as it is not immediately adjacent to the residential lot lines. 3) Tree removal and Landscaping Plan. This particular part of the plan should really come first in our opinion. When the additional parking and building addition occurred 12 years ago, trees where placed on the drawing but no 4/19/2004 44 Page 2 of 2 landscaping occurred beyond the front door of the school. In the building of the theater addition, several trees were removed and NoT oNE NEw TREE has been planted beyond the front entrance. The only screening or buffer from residences on Ruth St. was in the form of a wooden screening fence which we can look over from the elevation of our lot. This fence has been replaced several times in different sections following windstorms or general weaz and tear, each new panel has a different look. Some buffer zone needs to be developed into this landscaping plan and we need to be assured by the City and MPA that it will be completed early in the plan and maintained into the future. As it is now, cars park up over the curb to within 3 ft. of the screening fence. Perhaps some posts along the curb edge and trees in the green space, trees in the parking lot islands... We need more green space and beauty in this plan, it did not happen last time the conditional use permit was granted. As we have several questions regarding the grounds and ponds, we would like to request that the Landscape Archetetic for MPA be present to address questions when the public hearing is conducted. 4) Lighting The lighting of the current site has been an ongoing problem. The lighting was not designed to down-light but creates huge azeas of light with just a few light fixtures. Current light poles place too much light in the wrong places. In addition the light poles are designed similar to Mall lighting and are very unattractive. The original agreement as to light timers and hours of lighting has not occurred or been enforced on a regular basis. Please involve the residents and consider looking at all the parking lots at one time in regards to lighting. 5) The new building addition. This new square foot azea is extensive. The plan of the new field house building is well designed and will blended into the old structure. Our experience with the theater addition was a real adjustment for us. With virtually no screening, the massive wall has had a visual impact from our property. (We call it the outdoor movie screen.) This wall also created an echo chamber. When the County Fair or baseball games are held at Goodrich we can decipher neazly every word of the announcer, player or music. We would like to see a visual picture of what the full addition will look like and not see lazge blank wall expanses which could create a stereo echo system. Parking around the new addition does not seem sufficient for events. The new ponding area and run off into the existing pond raises questions of management of water run-off. Hopefully this input to you will continue a process of involvement with MPA as our neighbor. We do feel that MPA should not be denied land development or building expansion and appreciate the opportunity to be involved to improve our neighborhood together. Please feel free to call, a-mail or write us if we can be of additional help. Sincerely, Jeff and Jeanne Ewald 1744 Ruth St. Maplewood, MN 55109 (651 }?70-4088 jj ewald@earthlink.net 4/19!2004 45 Attachment 26 LAND USE PLAN CHANGE RESOLUTION WHEREAS, David Aune, representing Mounds Park Academy, proposed a change to the city's land use plan from R-1 (single dwellings} to S (school). WHEREAS, this change applies to the properties at 2025 and 2027 Larpenteur Avenue (in Section 14, Township 29, Range 22, Ramsey County, Minnesota). WHEREAS, the history of this change is as follows: 1. On May 3, 2004, the planning commission held a public hearing. The city staff published a hearing notice in the Maplewood Review and sent notices to the sun-ounding property owners. The planning commission gave everyone at the hearing a chance to speak and present written statements. The planning commission recommended that the city council approve the plan amendment. 2. On May 24, 2004, the city council discussed the proposed land use plan change. They considered reports and recommendations from the planning commission and city staff. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the city council approve the above-described change for the following reasons: 1. It would be consistent with the goals and objectives of the comprehensive plan including: a. Provide for orderly development. b. Minimize conflicts between land uses. c. Whenever possible, changes in types of land use should occur so that similar uses front on the same street or at borders of areas separated by major man-made or natural barriers. d. Transitions between distinctly differing types of land uses should not create a negative economic, social or physical impact on adjoining developments. e. The city coordinates land use changes with the character of each neighborhood. f. Protect neighborhoods from encroachment or intrusion of incompatible land uses by adequate buffering and separation. 2. This area would eliminate the planned residential area that was on a minor arterial street and was between a residential area and the existing school. 3. This site is proper for and consistent with the city's policies for a school. This includes: a. It is on a minor arterial street and is near a collector street. b. Minimizing any adverse effects on surrounding properties because there would be no traffic from this development on existing residential streets. 4.It would be consistent with the proposed land use. The Maplewood City Council adopted this resolution on , 2004. 46 Attachment 27 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REVISION RESOLUTION WHEREAS, Mr. David Aune, representing Mounds Park Academy, has requested a revision to the conditional use permit far their school. WHEREAS, this permit applies to the existing school property at 2051 Larpenteur Avenue and the properties at 2025 and 2027 Larpenteur Avenue. The legal descriptions are: Tracts A, D, E, F, G, and H of Registered Land Survey No. 396, Ramsey County, Minnesota. Subject to County Road A (Larpenteur Avenue), the west 132 feet of the South 330 feet of the SE'/. of Section 14, Township 29, Range 22 (PIN 14-29-22-43-0009) Subject to County Road A (Larpenteur Avenue), the east 132 feet of the West 264 feet of the South 330 feet of the SE'/ of Section 14, Township 29, Range 22 (PIN 1429-22-43-0008) WHEREAS, the history of this conditional use permit revision is as follows: 1. The planning commission discussed the conditional use permit revision on May 3, 2004. They recommended that the city council approve the revision. 2. The city council held a public hearing on May 24, 2004. City staff published a notice in the paper and sent notices to the surrounding property owners as required by law. 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 approve the above-described conditional use permit revision for the following reasons: 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, inGuding 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. 47 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 must comply with the site plan, date-stamped A~rif 8, 2004. #+lew~aa4~er~ ~9A& The city council may approve major changes. The director of community development may approve minor changes. Such changes shall include: a. Revising the grading and site plans to show the contractor minimizing the loss or removal of natural vegetation and to meet all the conditions of the city engineer. The school may implement the changes and additions shown on the plans in phases. 2. The city council shall review this permit revision one year from the date of approval, based on the procedure in the city code. 3. The school shall tum the tennis court lights off by 9:00 p.m. Only the school shall use the tennis court lights. 4. The school shall only use the area between the tennis courts and pond and the west lot line as a track or route for running during fall and spring cross-country meets. 5. 5. The school shall not allow garbage or trash pick-up between the hours of 11:00 p.m and 5:30 a.m. 6. The city council requires that the school remove lei the westerly access at Price Avenue 7. The wooden screening fence shall be kept in good repair. 8. The school, the fire marshal and the city building official shall agree on a plan for the school to make the required life safety and building improvements to the existing building This plan shall include the installation of: a. The required fire protection (sprinkler) systems. b. An early warning fire protection system (smoke detection and monitoring) c. Additional emergency lights and exit signs (if necessary. d. The necessary changes to meet the handicapped accessibility code requirements. e. A proper address on the building. f. Any other changes the fire marshal or the building official deem necessary 9. The proposed construction must be substantially started within one year of council approval or the permit shall end. The counal may extend this deadline for one year. 48 10. Have the city engineer approve final construction and engineering plans. These plans shall meet all the conditions and changes that the engineers noted in the memo dated April 26 2004, including the installation of the sidewalk along Larpenteur Avenue. 11. The school shall be responsible for the maintenance and clean up of the ponding areas on their property. 12. The school shall post the driveways and drive aisles as no parking zones. 13. The city council shall review this permit revision in one near. The Maplewood City Council adopted this resolution on , 2004. 49 MINUTES OF THE MAPLEWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION 1830 COUNTY ROAD B EAST, MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA MONDAY, MAY 3, 2004 V. PUBLIC HEARING a. Mounds Park Academy Expansion (2051 Larpenteur Avenue) Mr. Roberts said Mr. David Aune, representing Mounds Park Academy, is proposing several changes for Mounds Park Academy at 2051 Larpenteur Avenue. Mr. Roberts said the first request is for a land use plan change for two residential properties on Larpenteur Avenue and the second request is for a CUP revision. Commissioner Trippler said he is concerned about having an outlet on the westerly side of the property. It seemed to him the people that live on Ruth Street would be very upset. The parking lot is 125 feet away from residential. Vehicles turning out onto Larpenteur Avenue means it will be impossible for people to get out onto Ruth Street. He was surprised by the county's response on page 35 of the staff report. They recommended that the primary entrance to the school be on the east and the primary exit should be on the west. Mr. Roberts said the western driveway is designed with one entrance lane and two exit lanes. The two exit lanes will have a left out or a right out option as well as a right in. Commissioner Trippler asked if he understood that staff doesn't think there will be any problems getting in and out of Ruth Street? Mr. Roberts said there may be a period of time where it will be congested in the morning and afternoon. Chairperson Fischer asked if fire and safety personnel had a problem closing the west exit to the parking lot to Price Street? Mr. Roberts said no as long as emergency personnel could get in and out of Beebe Road they were okay with the plan. Commissioner Pearson asked if it made any sense to vacate the easement on Price Avenue and closing off the fence line? Mr. Roberts said there is at least one home that has a driveway on the right-of-way and they are still using the right-of-way. Commissioner Trippler said a resident wrote in their letter on pages 38 and 39 of the staff report that they have lived there a long time and in one of the previous additions some additional trees were supposed to be planted by their property line. He knows there have been cases in the past that developments were supposed to plant additional landscaping and they did not. He asked if staff checked into the resident's complaint to see if indeed those trees were supposed to be planted? Mr. Roberts said he checked the plans and everything that was supposed to be planted was planted. He checked the city records to see if anything had been missing but it looked like everything had been planted. Commissioner Dierich said is concerned with the way the driveway on the western side enters onto the site. It is very close to the property line and she would like to ensure there is a significant amount of coniferous trees planted along the driveway. When she had her kids at Hill Murray her concern was that the left hand turn coming out of the parking lot in the afternoon is almost impossible to make and it stops traffic both ways. A lot of the kids come screeching out of the parking lot to make the turn just like at Hill Murray. She thinks the traffic should be routed differently. It doesn't make a lot of sense to have both of the entrances so close together and she is surprised the county approved it. Commissioner Desai asked for clarification regarding the six-foot high fence that exits behind the homeowners of Ruth Street and the MPA boundaries. He asked if that was a good enough requirement for fencing or should there be better fencing? When he was visiting the site he asked the neighbors how the fencing was working out and they said they hear a lot of noise in their homes and the traffic drives in and out. With this road being so close to their homes it will be even louder in their homes than it is today. Mr. Roberts said the code for fencing and screening is primarily for light and the screening of headlights and is not intended as a noise barrier. You would have to have a 20-foot tall wall to accomplish anything as a noise barrier. The fence is primarily to protect the residential homes from headlight glare and the fence was never intended for noise protection. The intention is for the school to extend the fence down the new west property line and there would be new landscaping between the new driveway and the new fence. On page 9 of the staff report, item 10 under the CDRB conditions, staff has added a condition to add more evergreen trees in that area. Commissioner Trippler said on page 3 of the staff report it says MPA believes there will be approximately 200 students who would be driving out of a population of 790 students. However, when he does the math he comes up with 8 extra parking spots. It doesn't seem near enough parking spaces for the school. MPA says there will be 343 parking spaces total and 335 of those parking spaces will be needed everyday and if the school has any type of activities simultaneously the school will be short parking spaces. He asked if staff talked to Mounds Park Academy about adding more parking spaces? Mr. Roberts said staff did not speak with MPA about adding additional parking spaces. The 200 student parking spaces are the maximum MPA could expect the students to use. He said the school may have a permit process for a certain number of students to drive each year. Commissioner Mueller asked if he was correct that you can't get from the southwest parking area to the east entrance unless you circle all the way around, and is there any reason for that? Mr. Roberts said that is really for loading and unloading and keeping those cars moving through the site. It is really to separate the two functions. Commissioner Mueller asked staff if the new grassy area was just for aesthetics? Mr. Roberts said as far as he knew the grassy area is just for aesthetics. Commissioner Mueller asked if some of the grassy area could be used for the driveway or some way to access the area? He wondered if everything could be moved over between Beebe and farther away from Ruth Street? Mr. Roberts said he did not know. Commissioner Mueller asked if there was a school speed zone on Larpenteur Avenue? Mr. Roberts said he didn't notice a sign. Commissioner Dierich asked if there was a way to slide the parking lot over to the left or to the west and still have the separate function but have the driveways parallel? Mr. Roberts said it may be possible to rework the site but he isn't sure anybody has looked at that option. Commissioner Dierich said she wondered if the school had thought that plan through or not. It seemed more reasonable to move everything farther away from the homes on Ruth Street. Mr. Roberts said the commission should consider if it is better for a car to drive by as it goes in and out of the driveway or to have a car park and slamming the car doors closer to their property. You have to be careful which option you pick. Commissioner Dierich said that's true but it should be left up to the neighbors to decide that option. Commissioner Mueller said getting in and out of schools is difficult. However, he has gone to some schools where there have been four way stops. People don't like them but they do help with slowing people down. He asked if that option had ever been considered? Mr. Roberts said he spoke with Dan Soler with Ramsey County about that and he said no. He said Larpenteur Avenue is to move traffic across the county between White Bear Avenue and McKnight Road and he would not foresee a traffic light or a stop sign there because it wouldn't be warranted. Chairperson Fischer asked about the 5-foot utility easement mentioned in the resident's comments on page 12 of the staff report. Mr. Roberts said staff read that comment and wasn't sure what the resident was commenting about. His assumption was generally there are drainage and utility easements on both sides of the line that are 5 feet wide. That means there is 5 feet to each property owner. Depending on which side of the property they are on there could be an easement on the school's property and an easement on the neighbor's property that she was concerned about. Commissioner Desai asked if the existing pond was classified as a pond or a wetland? Mr. Roberts said atone time the pond was classified as a class 5 wetland and then it was dug out at one point and made into a man made pond so it didn't qualify as a wetland. Mr. Chuck Vermeersch, Maplewood City Engineer, said the wetland delineation report said the pond had been excavated in the early 1900's but that was as specific as the report got. Commissioner Desai said on page 12 of the staff report in comment number 2, it stated the pond was spring fed. Mr. Vermeersch said if the pond was spring fed pond he wasn't aware of it. Mr. Roberts said that wouldn't necessarily qualify the pond as a wetland either. It depends on soil conditions and vegetation. He will clarify that with the Watershed District because they didn't give a clear enough answer regarding that. Commissioner Desai asked who would be responsible for maintaining and cleaning the pond out? Mr. Roberts said the pond would be private and would have to be maintained by the school. Commissioner Desai asked if the city has any say in making sure the school cleans out the pond or was there any recourse if the school didn't maintain or clean the pond out? Mr. Roberts said the city could tell the school there is debris in the pond that they need to take care but it would be on the school's dollar. Chairperson Fischer asked the applicant to address the commission. Mr. Michael Downs, Director at Mounds Park Academy, 2051 Larpenteur Avenue, Maplewood, addressed the commission. He said this plan began with thoughts of how the school wanted to improve the classroom experience for its students. The two main concerns for the drive and parking have been safety and traffic flow. The school also acknowledges the traffic has been problematic for the school, parents and neighbors. Mounds Park Academy is a K-12 school and grades 9-12 have about 260 students with drivers in grades 10 to 12. Commissioner Mueller asked why he felt this plan was going to work better than the way the parking lot is laid out now? Mr. Downs said one issue they have now is the bus pick up point. The kids have to cross the carpool lane to get to the buses, which is a safety concern. Because there is only one entrance to the campus there tends to be a jam up of cars waiting to enter. What they have tried to do with the new design is to create a much longer pick up lane, which winds along the building so they can have more cars sitting and waiting. They will have space for six buses, which allow students to get on the buses without crossing the traffic lane. In addition to that, once all the students have been picked up the cars can get back out onto Larpenteur Avenue because there will be double exits. They also believe parents will use the option of driving into the new west entrance, park their car and walk into school to get their kids which means fewer cars will get in the drive up line. Commissioner Mueller said the plan says MPA will have 343 parking spaces but the school will be using 335 of those spaces daily, he asked how the school proposed parents would park and go into the school to get their children if there aren't enough parking spaces? Mr. Downs said there has been a lot of discussion about the parking spaces. He knows the school will have a net increase of 80 parking spaces when the final plan is done. He said this is an increase proportionally to the student drivers the school would be adding. He said where parking is tight now it will be less tight in the future. Commissioner Desai asked why the school was going to turn the existing parking lot space into a grassy area and why are they turning the grassy area with large trees into a parking lot? Mr. Downs said the parking lot will be turned into a grassy area. It will be used as instructional space and as a large play area for the K-6 grade students. It's not just a green space to enhance the visibility of the campus. The other reason for setting the parking lot where the current green space is has to do with grading issues, which could be addressed by the architect. Commissioner Trippler asked on an average day how may people visit the school and park that are not students or staff? Mr. Downs said 20-40 people could visit the school on any given day depending on the activity that may occur in the middle of the day. Commissioner Trippler asked where they proposed those people to park? Mr. Downs said when visitors come to the school they are able to find parking spaces in the lot. The overall plan is to increase the net amount of parking greater than the amount of drivers they anticipate adding. The school may still have situations where parking is not sufficient. He said he takes very seriously the comments made by staff whether to schedule two consecutive activities at one time because of the lack of parking. Commissioner Trippler said if the school knew how many staff members and students they would have why is the school only increasing their parking by 8 parking spaces? Mr. Downs said when an activity takes place after school and in the evening the same staff and students are not using the same parking spaces up. The maximum number of students they anticipate driving to school is 200. During the day the custodial staff helps direct traffic and help the buses clear out of the parking area, which moves traffic along. Commissioner Trippler asked how many vehicles would be exiting the school on a typical day? Mr. Downs said he is guessing a few hundred. Commissioner Trippler said the residents who live at 1686 to 1708 Ruth Street have a backyard facing 2025 Larpenteur Avenue their backyard will be a thoroughfare for buses and cars twice a day which will dramatically change their living situation. He didn't see how the school was going to shelter the noise for those residents in the plans? Mr. Downs said it's not shown on the plan but there is a fairly significant grade difference from the street level to the top of the fence, which is about 11 feet different. He said the original plan was to be 20 feet away from the west property line but now they are going to be about 30 feet away. The separation between the curb of the exit drive and the property line will include screening of evergreen trees, which will help buffer a noise barrier and visual break. Commissioner Pearson asked if the parking spaces would be 9'h feet or 9 feet wide? Mr. Roberts believed the parking spaces would be 9 feet wide. Commissioner Dierich asked how deep the lots are along Ruth Street? Mr. Roberts said the lots along Ruth Street are about 140-150 feet deep. The lots are standard suburban size lots. Chairperson Fischer asked if anybody else wanted to speak on this item? Mr. David Aune, Business Manager at Mounds Park Academy, 2051 Larpenteur Avenue, Maplewood, addressed the commission. Mr. Aune shared some prepared comments with the commission. In August 2002 he became the newest member of the team at Mounds Park Academy but he was not new to MPA. He attended school at this building when it was Hill High School. He came on board just in time to see the installation of the new lockers to replace the lockers he himself used 35 years ago. A good portion of the main part of the building is 45 years ago and is in dire need of improvement, which this project will help the school do. Approximately 85% of the students either drive or are driven to and from school each day. The remaining students use the bus system so there is 4-6 buses used each day to school and home from school each day. The proposed grounds improvement and expansion will allow the school to have a better traffic management system and control the daily flow which should alleviate any backups on Larpenteur Avenue during the morning drop off and afternoon pickup times. There was a concern by one of the staff why there wasn't a left turn into the parking lot. Part of the reason the school doesn't want to do that is because any sort of delay is going to delay traffic coming in from Larpenteur Avenue, which starts to backup traffic. MPA wants to create a smooth drive through with two lanes coming into the campus property. The proposed additional green space will be created when they turn the existing bus turn around area into green space which will give the 450 plus K-8 students more room to enjoy their outdoor time and give them much needed daily physical exercise. The proposed building expansion will allow the school to make improvements, which will include additional classrooms and athletic facilities to better meet the current needs of the students and allow for growth. In reviewing the staff report and in conversations with some of the neighbors he has become aware of the feedback both for and against the proposal as well as comments from previous building projects and the lack of MPA following through with some items. He and Mike Downs are both new to the school and as part of MPA they are committed to being good neighbors and are willing and open to working with the neighbors for the best outcome for everybody. MPA considers themselves a part of the neighborhood not an island onto themselves. It is their intention to be sensitive to their concerns as well as uphold and respect the image that comes with being a part of the community. He is personally a part of the extended neighborhood growing up less than a mile south of the neighborhood and currently lives less than a 1 mile east of the school. They are very excited about the future of the school and believe that these improvements will be an enhancement to both the school and the local area. Thank you for allowing MPA to share the project with the city this evening. Commissioner Dierich asked if the school would be willing to rework these parking lot plans and bring back a different alignment to the commission? The commission could offer some suggestions as to how the plan could be better aligned. Mr. Aune said MPA would consider any suggestions from the commission as to how to improve the plan. MPA thought the drive and parking lot would be the easy part of the plan and after hours and hours of fine-tuning this plan they thought this was the best plan, however they are willing to work with the city. Commissioner Dierich said she doesn't doubt MPA has worked long and hard on this plan but many times when many different sets of eyes look at something somebody may see something you didn't think about or consider. She would like to know that the city has the option of prolonging the decision and reworking the plan if necessary and that it is amenable to MPA. Mr. Aune said the first phase of the plan is important which they plan on doing this summer leading up to the next phase, which includes the building additions. If the city has to delay this, MPA would ask how long the delay would be because MPA needs to move the process along quickly in order to stay on track. Commissioner Dierich asked staff if two weeks would be long enough for the applicant to rework the plan and bring it back to the commission? Mr. Roberts said for the architect to redesign the plan it would require new civil engineering plans, new grading plans and new drainage calculations. In order for it to come back to the next planning commission meeting he would need the new plan in the next two days. Commissioner Dierich said depending on how flexible the applicant is depends on how she plans to vote on this item. Commissioner Mueller said there is pavement on the east and they plan on changing it to green space. On the west they also plan on changing the green space into pavement. He asked if there was a reason MPA couldn't work with the existing pavement and existing green space. Mr. Aune said that plan would separate the green space from the school. The idea of having the green space was so that the kids have space to play and if you separate the green space from the school you are causing a safety issue moving the children a distance from the school and playground area. Commissioner Desai asked if you could direct traffic so half of the traffic enters and or exits onto Beebe Road and the other half exits and or enters onto Larpenteur Avenue? Mr. Aune said the school believes the traffic would split naturally where the cars would use both entrances and exits. Commissioner Desai said if the traffic flow would happen naturally than why isn't it happening already? Mr. Aune said with the new plan if there was an event in the field house it would be natural for people to enter and exit onto Beebe Road. The goal for picking students up is to get to the nearest curb in front of the school where your student will enter or exit the school. Commissioner Desai asked if there was a traffic study with traffic statistics done before this proposal was done? Mr. Aune said he wasn't sure if a traffic study had been done. The school feels if they provide parking closer to Beebe Road that will alleviate traffic coming and going onto Larpenteur Avenue. Commissioner Desai asked if the school had a parking permit process to ensure that only people at Mounds Park Academy were using the parking lot? Mr. Downs said no they do not have a parking permit process and so far have not had a need for one. Commissioner Desai asked if the school had non-students and non-employees parking in their lot the school would not know? Mr. Aune said that is correct. Commissioner Dierich asked if she heard correctly that 85% of the students do not take the bus? Mr. Aune said correct. Commissioner Dierich said realistically there would not be 400 vehicle trips a day in and out of the campus it would be closer to 800 vehicle trips a day plus the employee vehicles. That is a higher vehicle count than what is in the report. If you have kids that have siblings riding in the same car plus the 135 staff vehicles it would be closer to 500 to 600 vehicle trips a day. Mr. Aune said that sounded close. Commissioner Mueller asked if there was a way to put more parking north of the property or was there a serious enough grading problem that made that not possible? Mr. Randy Pete, Architect with Pope Associates, 1255 Energy Park Drive, St. Paul, addressed the commission. Mr. Pete said there is a 50-foot drop off there. He held a display board up to illustrate and discuss the flow of parking throughout the campus property and the completion of the second Phase. Chairperson Fischer asked if anybody else wanted to address the commission regarding this item? Ms. Peggy Hackseth, resident at 2040 Larpenteur Avenue, St. Paul, addressed the commission. She has lived across the street from the school for 23 years. This school has become a real heartache for them regarding traffic and people not showing respect. She does not see the entrance and exits working for the school as shown on the plans. Right now the school has a lot of lighting and removing the trees on the two residential properties that were sold to MPA is going to cause problems for her. Their bedrooms front Larpenteur Avenue. Recently MPA had a program at the school Thursday through Saturday night and people didn't leave until 11:00 p.m. The lights at MPA's parking lot shine into her home. The traffic is awful. The school only has 4 to 6 buses for all of these students. In the morning she has to leave her house before school starts or she has to leave her house after school has begun. In the late afternoon she has to either rearrange her schedule to come home before school lets out or way after school lets out. There are times she can't get to her home or get out of her driveway because of the traffic problems at MPA. Larpenteur Avenue is the main thoroughfare and there are traffic problems and during school the months that school is in session the traffic is horrendous. Ms. Hackseth said when kids are walking home from school either from Presentation or Hayden Heights School, she fears for them because nobody pays attention to the passing zones. The school made things a little better lining the cars up but when the cars come out it's a mess. In the wintertime the snowplows plow at 2:00 a.m. and the plows scrape the parking lot over and over and over again backwards and forwards. Saturday mornings at 6:30 a.m. Walter's trash company comes and picks up the garbage dumpsters at MPA and it goes bang, bang, bang. The security light on the school comes on occasionally and is so bright when the light comes on that she can read a book in her living room. She is concerned about MPA removing those beautiful trees. Her issues are traffic, lighting, snowplowing and garbage. She believes it will be a very difficult exit where Ruth comes out. She doesn't want all of the traffic to come out onto Larpenteur Avenue either. She said this is where she lives and pays taxes. She lives here 24 hours a day and the school operates in this location but they don't live there 24 hours a day. She is also concerned about the proposed preschool in this location. On top of the school traffic there will be additional traffic from people dropping kids off and picking the kids up at preschool. Ms. Hackseth said thank you for listening to her. Commissioner Mueller said he heard Ms. Hackseth state the lights from Mounds Park Academy's parking lot shine into her home but he asked if the parking lot was relocated would the lights still affect her? Ms. Hackseth said yes because of the direction the parking spaces are lined up lights would still shine into her house. Commissioner Mueller asked what Ms. Hackseth would propose the school to do about the issues? The school exists and other than closing the school, the problems are going to be there. Ms. Hackseth said adding more busing would alleviate the traffic problem but because of the high cost she knows that won't happen. The other option could be rerouting the traffic on the property out Beebe Road, which is the other entrance/exit on the property. Beebe Road is available but very few people use that road because they prefer to use Larpenteur Avenue. She said she still has an issue with the lighting and the shining of the lights into her house. She understands the question the commission is asking regarding how to alleviate the problems that exist and understands the school is not going away or closing. She doesn't know if the problems will ever go away but the problems can be less if things are changed. In the past 23 years that she has lived there the problems have gone from okay to horrendous. She wished the commission could sit and watch the problems that occur in the morning and in the afternoon. The traffic flow has to flow differently because it is a constant problem. She also said the issue of lights shining into her house will still be a problem unless the direction of the parking spaces is rearranged. Commissioner Bartol said he agrees with Commissioner Mueller that the school is not going away, the plowing of snow won't stop, and lights at the school are not going away. He believes the architects are attempting to improve the traffic situation on the site. If the commission approved this plan and they move forward he asked if this plan would help with the traffic flow in and out of the site? It seems to him that this new plan is an improvement over the current situation. Ms. Hackseth said it's an improvement but it won't solve the problem of cars going out onto Larpenteur Avenue because no matter what, the majority of the people will use Larpenteur Avenue. The lights will be more of a problem for her when the parking is moved and the brick wall towards the street is going to be removed. Commissioner Mueller asked if he understood correctly that first is the pond, then landscaping and then the parking lot? Mr. Roberts said the landscaping plan shows a double row of spruce trees, which will screen the ponding area and the parking lot from Larpenteur Avenue. Ms. Hackseth said she also has a problem with the pond not being kept clean. Chairperson Fischer asked if anybody else wanted to speak regarding this item? Ms. Jeanne Ewald, resident at 1744 Ruth Street, Maplewood, addressed the commission. Ms. Ewald said she sent in a long a-mail, which is in the staff report. She has a traffic study that was dated April 21, 1992, which was done before the Price Street exit was blocked off. As neighbors they asked for the street to be blocked off and the previous resident that spoke got the worst end of the deal and she got the best end of the deal because of the traffic route that had to change. The figures on the report show the west drive had 304 cars, the east drive had 210 cars, and Price Street had 1034 cars over a period of time from 2:00 p.m. April 14t"until 2:00 p.m. April 15, 1992. Keeping in mind that the District Center was occupied at that time, the enrollment was less and there were less student drivers at that time. Her concern is moving that driveway 800 feet from her property line because she sits on the edge of the pond. Her home sits on the end of the property where the students do their car burnouts. The high school students avoid the speed bumps by going through the parking lot, which means the plan needs to be reworked. It's just not fair for the residents who live there. There are cars parking up over the curb to within a short distance from the fence. They don't park in the parking spaces because it's closer to the entrance of the building to park up on the curb. She would like to see a better buffer between that lane of traffic and the resident's homes besides just a fence. Granted the residents that live on Larpenteur Avenue sit 11 feet above. Because her house sits that far above the parking lot when she stands outside she can look over the fence. So to her the fence is not a worthwhile buffer. The pond is also a concern of hers. Everything has gone from the parking lot into the pond. The pond will take a few years to be cleaned up and back in good condition. Her child does patrolling at Presentation School and when she picks her up at 3:10 p.m. she cannot drive on Larpenteur Avenue and she has take the back streets because she cannot turn on Ruth Street at 3:20 p.m. There is no speed zone for school in that location. Last year when the school district would not bus her children because of budget cuts her daughter walked home from school on Larpenteur Avenue and it's really dangerous. There are many kids that bike to and from school and it is a fast and busy road. The lights at the school have been a problem and are still a problem. She wonders what kind of lighting is going to happen with this new addition and parking lot. She urges the commission to really look at this plan. She knows this is a timing issue but if the plan has to be delayed to make this a better plan it is better to change things now rather than later when the plan is done. Commissioner Mueller said it looks like the new parking lot plan has only 80 parking spaces compared to the parking lot on the fence side that has 125 spots. To him the parking issue is an issue the school needs to police. He didn't believe that was something the city needed to take care of. He thought if speed bumps were put on the parking lot maybe that would help slow some of the traffic down and eliminate any possible squealing of tires. He said it sounds like MPA is trying to alleviate the traffic problem and doing their best to direct traffic out both directions. Ms. Ewald said when the Ruth Street entrance/exit was closed it took two years for people to stop dropping off and picking kids up at that location. It takes time to change patterns. Snowplowing was restricted to certain hours by the city when the conditional use permit was approved. That has not been enforced. She has called the school regarding the snowplowing problems in the past and this year she finally gave up. That condition was put in the CUP for a reason because it is very annoying to hear snowplows at that time of night or morning. The bedrooms are on the back of the homes and the noise is incredible. It starts out having the snowplows going back and forth and back and forth and is very loud. The restrictions were made for a reason and the restriction stated no noise between 11:00 p.m. until 5:30 a.m. The neighbors decided they could live with noise at 5:30 a.m. as long as the school was plowed and ready for the kids to come to school. The noise is happening at 2:30 a.m. and the noise can't continue. Chairperson Fischer asked if anybody else wanted to speak regarding this item to address the commission. Mr. Steve Schell, resident at 1694 Ruth Street, Maplewood, addressed the commission. He said he believes he is about the only person that is "for" this plan. The traffic is incredible and isn't going to get much better. If you want to see really bad traffic you should see Hill Murray's traffic problem. He said people could be parking on Larpenteur Avenue like they do at Hill Murray but we don't want that to happen. The plan shows pine trees proposed along the front of the pond, which would block the headlights in the parking lot. There will be two lanes of traffic in and out, which would move traffic along quicker. The trees in the two residential lots out front are junk trees and he looks at dead trees every time he looks out his window. He has been looking at an unkept abandoned house for two or three years now. This plan is an improvement. He and his three neighbors are "in favor" of the plan. They say "clean it up and fix it up" and Walter's trash hauling has got to go because at 5:00 a.m. the garbage company picks up trash and slams the containers down. Commissioner Trippler said his main concern is there would be a straight shot out onto Larpenteur Avenue that will be within 50-60 feet of the resident's homes. He asked Mr. Schell if that would be a problem for him? Mr. Schell said he has lived there for 19 years and he's never heard a squealing tire but he's almost been hit thousands of times driving by Hill Murray. Mounds Park Academy drivers don't drive like maniacs. Commissioner Trippler said he isn't saying the people drive like maniacs but he is saying there will be a lot of cars driving through the parking lot and he is looking out for the residents in the area. Mr. Schell said he would assume there would be speed bumps in the parking lot. Chairperson Fischer asked if anybody else wanted to address the commission regarding this item? Mr. Walter Hackseth, resident 2040 Larpenteur Avenue, Maplewood, addressed the commission. He said he doesn't agree with the comments made by the last resident. When an athletic event lets out the kids squeal their tires when they are in the parking lot. He said there was a no left turn sign on the St. Paul side of Larpenteur Avenue when the kids had to walk to school for Hayden Heights school the children walk to school on Larpenteur Avenue. Mr. Hackseth said there is no sidewalk and there are kids walking on the road. When people are trying to take a left turn from Larpenteur Avenue into Mounds Park Academy it can be a safety issue for children walking on the street and a backup problem when the cars have to wait to turn into the drive aisle into the parking lot. The school needs to use more buses for transportation this would take more cars off the road. The residents had a meeting with the school a few weeks ago and complained about the bright lights and about Walter's trash hauling. Walter's trash haulers come at 5:30 a.m. and floor their trucks all the way to the driveway. They asked MPA to talk to Walter's trash haulers but they never did. They complained about the one bright light in front of the school and asked if they could have it shut off which they never did. He said MPA has no credibility. Staff said cleaning up the pond on the property is MPA's financially responsibility. He said it smells and is full of garbage and no money is being spent to improve the condition of the pond. Now more ponds are being added to the site and MPA won't take care of those ponds either. He asked why the parking lot couldn't be in the back of the property instead of in the front. The school would look better without a parking lot in the front. In his opinion there is no reason why they couldn't add more fill for a parking lot in the back. He disagrees that half of the traffic will filter out onto Beebe Road. Saturday night MPA had a program, which didn't let out until 11:00 p.m. He counted 175 cars exiting onto Larpenteur Avenue. Phase I of the plan will be the parking lot and therefore nobody can access Beebe Road. Commissioner Mueller asked what authority the city has regarding trash, lighting, traffic, parking, and speed bumps? What area can the commission police and what area will the city police? Mr. Roberts said those conditions could be recommended as conditions of the conditional use permit. For example, the hours snowplowing and trash hauling could occur could be listed. There could be a sign posted to indicate where cars can and cannot park rather than no sign and then cars park on the curb or grassy area. The problem is trying to enforce the parking situation and policing the snowplow and trash-hauling problem. The city can't send the police out to enforce those issues. It would be the responsibility of MPA. If MPA doesn't take care of the problems the city can enforce that the problems be taken care of. Chairperson Fischer asked what the procedure would be for trash hauling and snowplowing problems? Mr. Roberts said if staff could not resolve it to the city's satisfaction MPA could be brought before the city council to discuss the problems if those were things listed as conditions of the CUP. Chairperson Fischer asked if the residents did not get the problems resolved could they call into the planners at the city and they would take it from there? Mr. Roberts said yes. Commissioner Bartol asked why there wasn't a posted school zone speed limit sign on Larpenteur Avenue? The residents seem to have a lot of safety concerns with Larpenteur Avenue with the children walking. Mr. Roberts said he was not sure and would have to clarify that with Ramsey County. Commissioner Dierich said she has a number of issues. The timing of MPA's application is not the commission's issue. If MPA wanted to get this project completed this summer they should have had their engineers working on this project last fall in order to get the permit this spring. It is unfortunate MPA just got their plans but the commission has asked people to put their projects on hold in the past. If the city doesn't know whether the pond is spring fed or not, the city should send their people out to find out. If it's a wetland then the city needs to look at the wetland mitigation rules. She won't be voting vote yes on this proposal unless there was an "in" only on Larpenteur. There is 150 feet between Ruth Street and the Larpenteur Avenue entrance. The commission has gone through this with other developments with entrances too close to another street. She would vote for the entire west entrance to be eliminated and to have the traffic coming in on Larpenteur Avenue and exiting on Beebe Road. The parking lot should be done in one phase. There is a serious discrepancy in the traffic totals between the staff report and what the residents are saying. By simple calculation the traffic is higher than what is in the staff report and the issue needs to be addressed. The wasted space should be address by this traffic flow pattern. There is a lot of asphalt in the lot for absolutely no reason. If you have a one way in from Larpenteur Avenue you should direct the traffic all the way along the school and out onto Beebe Road. The cars can park along the school and let the kids out and have a second lane of traffic along the lane of traffic that is parked going straight out onto Beebe Road and into the parking lots. That would alleviate the traffic driving along next to the neighbors and having that big area right in front with the turn around which is no use for anything at all other than slowing traffic down. Then you eliminate the problems on Larpenteur Avenue with cars turning onto Larpenteur Avenue and you can get cars onto Beebe Road and out to Holloway without much of a problem. She asked permission to have the vote split into two separate votes. Commissioner Mueller said if you send all the traffic onto Beebe Road all those residents are going to be complaining to the commission just like the residents that spoke tonight have about the traffic problem. Commissioner Dierich said if you leave the plan the way it is you would have people leaving the parking lot and also have people trying to make a left turn into the parking lot tying up both directions of traffic. But if you have a one way in and direct the traffic out onto Beebe Road it would keep the flow of traffic in and out. The neighbors are correct that the traffic is backed up both directions on Larpenteur Avenue for several blocks. The same problem occurs at Hill Murray and they have about 400 more students than MPA does. Ideally she would like to see a right in only into the parking lot at MPA but she does not think you could do that. Commissioner Mueller said if you direct traffic out onto Beebe Road the people will still take a left or a right hand turn onto Larpenteur Avenue. Chairperson Fischer said she thinks Commissioner Dierich was saying the people could go north on Beebe Road and then take a right onto Holloway depending on if they are going east or west. The senior housing on Beebe Road was given a parking variance so visitors could park on the street. There is also parking on both sides of the street when school events occur. There are no sidewalks on Beebe Road, which is now a MTC bus route. Commissioner Dierich said she is trying to think of the fastest way to get people in and out of the parking lot at MPA with 85% of the people in cars. She realizes that Beebe Road is a residential area and the residents would not be happy with the additional traffic. However, it isn't safe to have two entrances so close to Ruth Street. Chairperson Fischer said another option might be to have the students take a right onto Beebe Road and turn into the MPA parking lot from the back area where the new parking lot will be added and enter the school from the back end and exit onto Larpenteur Avenue. Commissioner Bartol said he's not sure how you can force people to turn into Beebe Road instead of entering on Larpenteur Avenue? People will find the most efficient way to enter and exit and that will be the way they go. If you take away entrances and exits you start to create congestion. He believes the proposed plan, although not perfect, is superior to what currently exists. Commissioner Trippler said he has a problem with having the west entrance where it is located. He thinks it's not an efficient use of resources to take a blacktop area and turn it to green space and take green space and turn it to blacktop. He was envisioning having a loop in the parking lot for buses and parents to drop off and pick up children that might encompass 50% of the front area including the parking lot that currently exists and a 1/4 of what they are proposing to develop as a parking lot with parking lot in the middle of a loop. That may address the need for grade school children to have a play area and still not have to cross through the parking lot. He doesn't like the configuration the way it is. Having the entrances and exits so close to Ruth Street is going to cause problems. Exiting and entering on the west side adjacent to peoples backyards is going to provide a noise problem that people will not be happy with once the project is done. Commissioner Pearson said even though some of the lighting on the building at MPA went in under a different zoning standard or requirement could the commission require that all lighting on the building and in the parking lot meet current requirements for remaining on the property as part of the CUP? Mr. Roberts said unless there is a direct glare onto an adjoining property that would be difficult. He has a condition in the staff report on page 10 regarding the lighting plan. The new lighting is covered under the new ordinance and the CDRB will review that at their May 11 t" meeting. Chairperson Fischer asked when a plan is changed doesn't the city have the ability to require something that doesn't meet the present code to be brought up to code such as the lighting that is spilling over? Mr. Roberts said he would guess that MPA would be willing to cooperate if it would help their cause. Commissioner Pearson said regarding the resident that spoke about a particular light that shined into her home that was very offensive to her, it would be nice if the school was sensitive to the homeowners request. Commissioner Bartol said the school is proposing to add more ponding area than parking area. The proposal is better than what they currently have in place today. The ponds compensate for the integrity and the sanctity of the existing ponds. Commissioner Pearson said the Watershed District reviewed this plan and they didn't have a problem with the plan. Commissioner Pearson moved to adopt the resolution on page 40 of the staff report. This resolution changes the land use plan designation from R-1 (single dwellings) to S (school) for the properties at 2025 2027 Larpenteur Avenue. This change is for the expansion of Mounds Park Academy at 2051 Larpenteur Avenue. The city is making this change because: 1. It would be consistent with the goals and objectives of the comprehensive plan including: a. Provide for orderly development. b. Minimize conflicts between land uses. c. Whenever possible, changes in types of land use should occur so that similar uses front on the same street or at borders separated by major man-made or natural barriers. d. Transitions between distinctly differing types of land uses should not create a negative economic, social or physical impact on adjoining developments. e. The city coordinates land use changes with the character or each neighborhood. f. Protect neighborhoods from encroachment or intrusion of incompatible land uses by adequate buffering and separation. 2. This area would eliminate the planned residential area that was on a minor arterial street and was between a residential area and the existing school. 3. This site is proper for and consistent with the city's policies for a school. This includes: a. It is on a minor arterial street and is near a collector street. b. Minimizing any adverse effects on surrounding properties because there would be no traffic from this development on existing residential streets. 4. It would be consistent with the proposed land use. Commissioner Mueller seconded. Ayes - Bartol, Desai, Dierich, Fischer, Mueller, Pearson, Trippler The motion passed. Commissioner Pearson moved to adopt the resolution on pages 41-43. This resolution approves a revision for the conditional use permit for Mounds Park Academy at 2051 Larpenteur Avenue. Maplewood bases this permit revision on the findings required by the code and it is subject to the following conditions: (the additions are underlined and the deletions are crossed out): 1. All construction must comply with the site plan, date-stamped April 8, 2004. ~leber-#~ 28A~ The city council may approve major changes. The director of community development may approve minor changes. Such changes shall include: a. Revising the grading and site plans to show the contractor minimizing the loss or removal of natural vegetation and to meet all the conditions of the city engineer. 2. The city council shall review this permit revision one year from the date of approval, based on the procedure in the city code. 3. The school shall turn the tennis court lights off by 9:00 p.m. Only the school shall use the tennis court lights. 4. The school shall only use the area between the tennis courts and pond and the west lot line as a track or route for running during fall and spring cross-country meets. 5. The school shall not allow any snowplowing or trash removal between the hours of 11:00 p.m. and 5:30 a.m. 6. The city council requires that the school remove JEee~ the westerly access at Price Avenue 7. The wooden screening fence shall be kept in good repair. 8. The school, the fire marshal and the city building official shall agree on a plan for the school to make the required life safety and building improvements to the existing building. This plan shall include the installation of: a. The required fire protection (sprinkler) systems. b. An early warning fire protection system (smoke detection and monitoring). c. Additional emergency lights and exit signs cif necessary). d. The necessary changes to meet the handicapped accessibility code requirements. e. A proper address on the building. f. Any other changes the fire marshal or the building official deem necessary. 9. 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. 10. Have the city engineer approve final construction and engineering plans. These plans shall meet all the conditions and changes that the engineer noted in the memo dated April 26, 2004. 11. The city council shall review this permit revision in one year. Commissioner Mueller asked fo add some friendly amendments. They include: a. The school shall not allow any snowplowing or trash removal between the hours of 11:00 p.m. and 5:30 a.m. (maybe inserted in old number 5.) Commissioner Pearson said he would agree to the trash hauling amendment but not the snowplowing. b. The school shall maintain all ponding areas in relationship to garbage and unkept grounds. (put it under the old number 5.) c. There shall be no parking in the undesignated parking areas and shall be designated as tow-away zones. Commissioner Bartol seconded. Ayes - Bartol, Fischer, Mueller, Pearson, Nays- Desai, Dierich, Trippler The motion passed. This item goes to the city council on May 24, 2004. DRAFT MINUTES OF THE MAPLEWOOD COMMUNITY DESIGN REVIEW BOARD 1830 COUNTY ROAD B EAST, MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA THURSDAY, MAY 13, 2004 (Rescheduled from Tuesday, May 11, 2004) (This meeting was not cablecast because of the date change) V. DESIGN REVIEW a. Mounds Park Academy - 2051 Larpenteur Avenue Ms. Finwall said Mr. David Aune, representing Mounds Park Academy (MPA), is proposing several changes for Mounds Park Academy at 2051 Larpenteur Avenue. To make the changes to the site and the school, Mr. Aune is asking that Maplewood approve the design plans for the project, including the site, building and landscaping plans. Board member Olson said she went to MPA when school was letting out. She saw people directing traffic and there were many cars lined up along Larpenteur Avenue waiting to pick their children up but had to wait their turn to enter the property. Board member Olson said the drivers were directed to wait on Larpenteur Avenue for the buses and she asked if there was some way the city could make sure the parents were waiting inside on the school property so there would not be cars sitting on Larpenteur Avenue? Ms. Finwall said staff feels the new proposal will help alleviate those problems by allowing the stacking of cars within the drive aisle. Board member Olson said it appeared there were cars stacking already but she asked if the traffic flow would be modified or not? Ms. Finwall recommended the applicant answer that question. Chairperson Longrie-Kline said she noted that staff is recommending that MPA not have two functions occurring at the same time in the field house and in the theatre because there could be a lack of parking spaces. If the school held two functions at the same time and they made arrangements to bus people in from another parking site could MPA then have two functions at one time? Ms. Finwall asked if she was referring to the conditions in the CUP? Chairperson Longrie-Kline said she was referring to the staff report on page 3, in the second paragraph, under Parking, Site Access and Vehicle Circulation. Ms. Finwall said that was mentioned in the staff report, however, it was not included as any type of condition. The city would hope MPA would control the parking situation. Board member Shankar asked if the east access is a one way in and the west access is both an in and out access? Mr. Finwall said yes. Board member Olson said on page 12 of the staff report, under comments, a resident sent in a letter regarding the fence and afive-foot utility easement, she asked who owned the fence along the property line? Ms. Finwall said according to the survey, the fence is on the property line. On newer properties along the back and sides of the property line there is a five-foot drainage and utility easement, which may be what the resident was referring to. Board member Olson said she would ask the applicant that question. Chairperson Longrie-Kline asked the applicant to address the board. Mr. David Aune, Business Manager at MPA, 2051 Larpenteur Avenue East, Maplewood, addressed the board. Mr. Aune said with the new parking lot design there will be two lanes of traffic to enter the property, which will move traffic off of Larpenteur Avenue. Currently when a car brakes and slows down that stops and backs up the traffic. MPA believes the new proposal would help alleviate that problem and would get traffic off Larpenteur Avenue and stacking the cars into the drive aisle along the curb. Mr. Aune said they want to get the buses into the property because often the buses are stuck behind cars and therefore, they can't pull up next to the curb for the children who are waiting to get onto the bus. MPA owns the fence and after looking at the fence they have decided to replace the whole length of the fence with a new cedar fence. He said there is quite a bit of concern from the residents that the proposed plan will increase the traffic along Larpenteur Avenue. The school recently did a traffic study on three different occasions and they studied the traffic during a 1-hour block of time in the morning before school started and an hour during the time school ended. They found that 40% of the cars currently came from Beebe Road and 60% of the cars came from Larpenteur Avenue. When the new plan is complete they believe more traffic will enter and exit onto Beebe Road because of the new parking lot and field house. MPA is increasing their available parking space by 30%. The school's maximum enrollment will grow about 12%. Currently the number of parking spaces is adequate for the school and they believe the increased parking spaces will work in the future even with additional faculty members and added students. He said the school tries to make sure that events are not scheduled at the same time. Not only does it cause a parking problem it makes it difficult for parents to decide which event they have to miss and the school doesn't want to upset their student's parents. He said they have a handful of events where they have a parking problem. One event is Grandparents Day where they ask the employees to park off site and they bus faculty and staff onto the school grounds allowing more room for grandparents to park in the lot. The school is going to cluster trees in a few areas on the west side of the expanded parking lot along the new six-foot high cedar fence, which will help with the headlight problem. Board member Olson asked if any of the attending students ride the MTC bus for public transportation since the school is on the bus line? Mr. Aune said MPA does not have any students that ride the MTC bus. People either drive or use the school bus for transportation. Currently they have 5 buses with 115 students or 15% of the students taking the bus. The goal is to introduce van pooling in some of the high growth areas in the twin cities so the school can increase the total of buses or van pooled students to 20-25%. This would attract more students to the school and would also alleviate some of the traffic concerns. They have space for six buses to stack in the new plan The vans could use the curb line as the other cars do. Chairperson Longrie-Kline asked if the school envisioned renting the theater out and then having an event at the field house at the same time, causing possible parking problems? Mr. Aune said it's possible but the school is going to try to avoid having two events at the same time because if parents can't find parking spaces that would make them angry. Chairperson Longrie-Kline said that would be in the best interest of the school, especially if they rented the theatre space out and had a good experience, they would probably want to rent the facility again. Also, if the school has an event they want their parents happy as well. Board member Olson asked if they had any building samples to show the board? Mr. Randy Peek, Architect with Pope Associates, 1255 Energy Park Drive, St. Paul, addressed the board. He said currently the building consists of a mixture of prefinished metal roofing, shingles, stucco and brick. Mr. Peek said their plan is to coordinate with the cream color of the existing brick and the window frame bands that are in place and try to reduce the number of materials in the new construction. The precast panel would be an architectural panel in a cast finish, which will be color sensitive to the brick and they will try to match the metal roofing. They would like the school building materials to consist of glass and brick to simplify the number of materials used. Chairperson Longrie-Kline asked what the new fence would be made of? Mr. Peek said the fence would be a smooth board, six-foot-high cedar fence. Board member Olson asked if they would be painting or staining the cedar fence? Mr. Peek said they planned on letting the cedar fence weather. Chairperson Longrie-Kline asked how the city would ensure the landscaping got done and on time? Ms. Finwall said the city requires either a letter of credit or a cash escrow to ensure the landscaping, lighting and other exterior improvements are completed. The applicants are allowed to install the landscaping by June 1, 2004, if the parking or building is complete in the fall. Board member Olson said she noticed the engineer had several comments. He was looking for a redesigned pond plan and she wondered if the applicant had submitted any new ponding plans yet? Ms. Finwall said staff is recommending approval on the conditions as outlined by the engineers in the report and they were hoping to work with MPA regarding the pond in front of the parking lot. The pond is designed as a square box and the engineering staff thought this would be a good educational tool for the school to take this ponding area and create a better design including native plantings. Mr. Peek said the Watershed District has already approved the submitted ponding plan. Since the original submission of the ponding plan the water quantity requirements have been adjusted to a lower capacity by both the Watershed District and the city. Therefore, the size of r the pond can be reduced. They are in the process of negotiating a dry pond system to resolve this. Board member Ledvina said he thinks the plans will be an attractive addition to the school. Board member Olson said she agrees and said that there seems to be a combination of building materials used in the different stages of additions to the school and she thinks it's a good idea to limit the building materials used. Chairperson Longrie-Kline asked if anybody in the audience wanted to speak on this item? Nobody came forward. Board member Ledvina moved to approve the plans date-stamped April 8, 2004, (site plan, landscape plan, grading and drainage plans and building elevations) for Mounds Park Academy. The city bases this approval on the findings required by the code. This approval is subject to the applicant or contractor doing the following: (additions are in bold and deletions are stricken) 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 grading or building permit: a. Have the city engineer approve final construction and engineering plans. These plans shall include: grading, utility, drainage, erosion control, retaining wall, tree, sidewalk, driveway and parking lot plans. The plans shall meet the following conditions: (1) The erosion control plan shall be consistent with city code. (2) The grading plan shall: (a) Include building, floor elevation, water elevation and contour information. These shall include the normal water elevation and 100- year high water elevation for the ponds. (b) Include contour information for all 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. The ponds or basins shall meet the city's design standards and shall include best management practices and rainwater gardens wherever practical. (d) Show all proposed slopes steeper than 3:1 on the proposed construction plans. The city engineer shall approve the plans, specifications and 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" native vegetation rather than 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 as little disturbance as possible on the west and east sides of the site to minimize the loss or removal of the trees. This is to keep and protect as many of the trees along the west and east property lines as possible. (3) *The tree plan shall: (a) Be approved by the city engineer before site grading or tree removal. (b) 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. (c) Show the size, species and location of the replacement trees. The deciduous trees shall be at least two and one half (21/2) inches in diameter and shall be a mix of coniferous trees and red and white oaks and sugar maples. (d) Show no tree removal beyond the approved grading and tree limits. (4) All the parking areas and driveways shall have continuous concrete curb and gutter except where the city engineer decides that it is not needed. (5) The project engineer shall submit to the city a storm water management plan, including drainage and ponding calculations, for the proposal. (6) Make all the changes and meet all the conditions as required by the city engineer and as noted by Chuck Vermeesch in the memo dated April 26, 2004. b. Submit a certificate of survey for all new construction. c. Submit a revised landscape plan to staff for approval that incorporates the following details: (1) Preserving as much of the existing vegetation (including large trees) along the western and eastern property lines as possible. (2) The manicured or mowed areas from the natural areas. The native grasses and flowering plants shall be those needing little or no maintenance. Specifically, the developer or contractor shall have the natural areas seeded with an upland mixture and lowland mixtures as appropriate. (3) That shows the location of all large trees on the site. (4) All trees would be consistent with city standards for size, location and species. (5) Planting (instead of sodding) the disturbed areas around the ponding areas 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 people mowing into the pond. (6) The maple trees must be at least 2'h inches in caliper, balled and burlapped. (7) The plantings proposed around the building shown on the landscape plan date-stamped April 8, 2004, shall remain on the plan. (8) In addition to the above, the contractor shall sod all front, side and rear yard areas (except for mulched and edged plantings or tree beds). (9) No landscaping shall take place in the Larpenteur Avenue boulevard. The contractor shall restore the boulevard with sod. (10) Adding more evergreen trees (Black Hills spruce or Austrian pines) along the west property line of the site. These trees are to be at least six feet tall and the contractor shall plant these trees in staggered rows. The contractor shall place the trees to reduce the effects of headlights adjacent to residential properties. d. Submit material samples and color schemes for each building addition to staff for approval so the building material and windows including glass and frames are compatible with the existing buildings. e. Get a demolition permit from the city to remove the existing houses and garages from the properties at 2025 Larpenteur Avenue and 2027 Larpenteur Avenue. f. Get the necessary approvals and permits from the watershed district. g. Get the necessary approvals and permits from Ramsey County. h. Provide design details (height, dept and materials) about the proposed retaining walls. i. After demolition, the school shall combine the properties at 2025 and 2027 Larpenteur Avenue with the school property for tax and identification purposes. 3. Complete the following before using the new parking lots or before occupying the building additions: a. Replace property irons that are removed because of this construction. b. Restore and sod damaged boulevards. Sod all landscaped areas, except for the ponding areas, which may be seeded. c. Install continuous concrete curb and gutter along all interior driveways and around all open parking stalls. d. Install ahandicap-parking sign for each handicap-parking space and an address on the building. In addition, the applicant shall install "no parking" signs along all the driveways and drive aisles within the site and elsewhere, as may be required by staff. e. Paint any root-top mechanical equipment to match the uppermost part of the building. (code requirement) f. 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. All light fixtures must have concealed lenses and bulbs to properly shield glare from the adjacent street right-of-ways and from adjacent properties. g. Replace the privacy fence along the western property line from the right-of- way of Larpenteur Avenue to the existing pond. #re~ h. The developer or contractor shall: (1) Complete all grading for the site drainage and meet all city requirements. (2) Place temporary orange safety fencing and signs at the grading limits. (3) Remove any debris or junk from the site. (4) Install the curb and gutter, parking lot and retaining walls as shown on the approved project plans. 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 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. c. The city receives an agreement that will allow the city to complete any unfinished work. 5. All work shall follow the approved plans. The director of community development may approve minor changes. 6. 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 before the installation or relocation of signs. Chairperson Longrie-Kline had a friendly amendment to add to item 2. 4. d. adding the wording at the end of the sentence: such that the materials and color of the building materials, window frames and glass shall be compatible with the existing buildings. Board member Ledvina was agreeable with the amendment. Board member Olson seconded. Ayes -Ledvina, Longrie-Kline, Olson, Shankar The motion passed. This item goes to the city council on May 24, 2004. AGENDA NO. H-3 AGENDA REPORT TO: City Manager FROM: Finance Director RE: PUBLIC HEARING ON CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN AND THE ISSUANCE OF CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT BONDS (4 VOTES) DATE: May 7, 2004 PROPOSAL It is proposed that (1) the 2005-2009 Capital Improvement Plan be formally adopted with a strong commitment to follow the construction and financing schedule in the C.I.P. for public works projects and (2) the issuance of Capital Improvement Bonds in the amount of $700,000 be authorized. BACKG ROU N D The Capital Improvement Plan is a planning tool used to identify needed capital projects and to coordinate the timing and financing of projects. Capital projects for the Maplewood C.I.P. are defined as major equipment purchases and construction projects costing in excess of $50,000. The 2005-2009 C.I.P. replaces the 2004-2008 C.I.P. that was approved by the Council last year. No property taxes were required in 2004 for the C.I.P. but a tax levy of $335,000 will be required in 2005. This tax levy is needed to finance redevelopment and the Housing Replacement Program ($130,000), replacement of fire trucks ($55,000), Tartan Arena improvements ($80,000), and sidewalk improvements ($50,000). For the first time, Capital Improvement Bonds are included as a source of financing for one of the projects in the CIP. Because of this, a public hearing is required on the CIP and the planned issuance of CIP Bonds. Proceeds from this bond issue will be used to partly finance the Public Works Building Addition project that is listed on page 3-38 in the CIP booklet. If issuance of these bonds is authorized, they will be issued in August at the same time as the Tax Abatement and Improvement Bonds. (A referendum on the question of issuing the CIP Bonds must be held if a petition requesting a vote on the issuance is signed by votes equal to five percent of the votes cast in the City in the last general election and is filed with the City Clerk within 30 days after the public hearing.) When the CIP is approved, a strong commitment to follow the construction and financing schedule on pages 1-8 and 1-9 in the C.I.P. is needed. This will allow the City's engineering staff to be fully utilized and will minimize the need for consultant engineers. Also, it will facilitate Finance Department planning for the 2005 bond issue that will finance the public works projects. Consequently, a public works project to be constructed in 2005 must be included in the C.I.P. to facilitate the engineering required for the project. Projects not scheduled for 2005 in the C.I.P. will be delayed to 2006. PLANNING COMMISSION The Planning Commission reviewed the C.I.P. at its meeting on May 17. A representative of the Planning Commission will be at the Council meeting to report on the action the commission took. ACTION REQUIRED After the video of the C.I.P. is shown, it is recommended that the Council adopt the attached resolution. Since the C.I.P. is part of the Comprehensive Plan, it requires four votes for adoption. Attachment P:\CIPWDOPT 2 RESOLUTION APPROVING A CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN AND THE ISSUANCE OF CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT BONDS WHEREAS, A. Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 475.521, the City of Maplewood, Minnesota (the "City") is authorized to adopt a capital improvement plan and issue bonds to finance capital improvements described therein; B. Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 475.521, Subdivision 2 the City Council held a public hearing on the date hereof; and C. In approving the Capital Improvement Plan, the City Council considered for each project and for the overall plan: 1. The condition of the City's existing infrastructure, including the projected need for repair and replacement; 2. The likely demand for the improvement; 3. The estimated cost of the improvement; 4. The available public resources; 5. The level of overlapping debt in the City; 6. The relative benefits and costs of alternative uses of the funds; 7. Operating costs of the proposed improvements; and 8. Alternatives for providing services more efficiently through shared facilities with other local governmental units; and D. The City Council has determined that the issuance of Capital Improvement Bonds in the aggregate principal amount of $700,000 is the best way to finance those portions of Capital Improvement Plan eligible under Minnesota Statutes, Section 475.521. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the Maplewood City Council adopts the 2005-2009 Capital Improvement Plan and authorizes the issuance ofCapitalImprovement Bonds in the aggregate principal amount of $700,000. 3 Agenda #H4 REPORT SUMMARY Applicant: Site Address: Zoning: Land Use: City Council Hearing Date: 60-Day Deadline: Chesapeake Companies Development Group 3091 White Bear Avenue Business Commercial (BC) Business Commercial (BC) May 24, 2004 June 13, 2004 Project Description: Chesapeake Companies has purchased the Maplewood Movie Theater I site at 3091 White Bear Avenue. They propose to demolish the theater and redevelop the site. Buildings proposed for the site include two restaurants (TGI Fridays and Buffalo Wild Wings), one, jewelry store (Jared Jewelers), and a future retail center with various tenants. Requests: Chesapeake Companies is requesting that the city approve a preliminary plat to divide the site into four lots; a conditional use permit for a planned unit development; and design review. Recommendations: The planning commission unanimously recommended approval of the preliminary plat and conditional use permit at their May 3, 2004, planning commission meeting. The community design review board unanimously approved design review at their May 13, 2004, community design review board meeting. Staff also recommends approval of the preliminary plat, conditional use permit, and design review. MEMORANDUM TO: Richard Fursman, City Manager FROM: Shann Finwall, Planner SUBJECT: Maplewood Movie (Site -Chesapeake Retail Center LOCATION: 3091 White Bear Avenue APPLICANT: Chesapeake Companies Development Group, LLC DATE: May 17, 2004 INTRODUCTION Project Description Chesapeake Companies has purchased the Maplewood Movie I Theater site located at 3091 White Bear Avenue. Chesapeake Companies proposes to demolish the theater and redevelop the 4.98-acre site with four new restaurant/retail buildings including TGI Fridays, Buffalo Wild Wings, Jared Jewelers, and a future multi-tenant retail center. The proposed name for the center is Chesapeake Retail Center. (Refer to the narrative on pages 19 through 22 and the maps and elevations on pages 23 through 43.) Requests Chesapeake Companies is requesting that the city approve the following requests to develop the Chesapeake Retail Center: 1. Preliminary Plat to divide the site into four lots. 2. Planned Unit Development (PUD). 3. Design Review. DISCUSSION Preliminary Plat Chesapeake Companies proposes to subdivide the 4.98-acre site into four separate lots to accommodate each new building. All four lots will be subject to cross easements for parking, access, and utilities. In addition, a sign easement will be created in the northeast corner of proposed Lot 1 along County Road D to accommodate a freestanding sign for Lot 2, which will not have public street frontage. The city engineer has identified future, expanded roadway right-of-way needs along both County Road D and White Bear Avenue.. In order to accommodate the future expansion of these roads and rights-of-way, a condition of approval is the dedication of 10 feet of right-of-way along White Bear Avenue and 17 feet of right-of-way along County Road D. Chesapeake Companies has accommodated the additional rights-of-way in their site layout. Planned Unit Development The property is zoned business commercial (BC). Within this zoning district restaurants and retail stores are permitted uses. A PUD is requested to allow flexibility from the city's codes in order to produce a superior development. In addition, a PUD is required to assure cross easements and maintenance of all commonly owned property and facilities. Access to Site Access to the site will be achieved through two private driveways extending off of the mall road that is located west of the site. Preliminary plans for the expansion of County Road D reflect that access from County Road D onto the mall road will be aright-turn-in and right-turn-out only. Chesapeake Companies has requested that the city provide some assurance that access to the mall road will be maintained with the roadway expansion. In the engineering department's review on pages 46 through 48, the possibility of a 3/ intersection (left and right-turn-in, but right-turn-out only) is discussed. In order to determine this feasibility, the engineering department is requiring that Chesapeake Companies conduct a traffic study which will identify what effects alert-turn-in will have on the overall flow of traffic in the area. As the roadway plans are preliminary at this point, approval of the preliminary plat and PUD are not dependent on this traffic study. Dan Soler, Ramsey County Public Works Engineer, submitted a review of the Chesapeake Retail Center's development proposal attached on pages 49 and 50. Mr. Soler states that the intersection of the Maplewood Mall road with County Road D will increase in traffic volume with the Chesapeake Retail proposal, and the installation of a traffic signal after the development is constructed may be justified. Mr. Soler agrees with the city engineering department's requirement for an updated traffic study at this intersection to determine the impacts. Chesapeake Companies is currently attempting to negotiate with Arbys for a shared driveway access from White Bear Avenue. (Refer to preliminary White Bear Avenue driveway plans on pages 44 and 45.) Staff supports a shared driveway access, as it would benefit Chesapeake Companies, Arbys, and the city as a whole. To accommodate a future driveway onto White Bear Avenue, staff has suggested that Chesapeake Companies shift both Building C (TGI Fridays) and Building D (Jared Jewelers) to the south. Chesapeake Companies is receptive to this recommendation and has indicated that the buildings would only need to be shifted to the south approximately five feet, or less, to accommodate a future driveway. The engineering department's review also states that an additional access would make sense; however, they point out that the 2002 Maplewood Mall Traffic Study did not account for such an access. If such a proposal were made, the engineering department states that Chesapeake Companies must conduct a traffic study update to compare the traffic generated by the proposed development and the impacts such an access onto White Bear Avenue might have to the area traffic. Mr. Soler is also supportive of a combined White Bear Avenue driveway access with Chesapeake Retail and Arbys, and again agrees with the city's engineering Chesapeake Retail Center 2 May 17, 2004 department's requirement for an updated traffic study for this driveway. The Minnesota Department of Transportation's April 29, 2004, correspondence attached on page 51 states that it would also be beneficial for their agency to review any traffic studies conducted for this development. The existing conditions map located on page 27 shows two driveways on the south side of the property. These driveways access a small private drive owned by Mogren Development for the Wedding Day Jeweler building located to the south. The new site plan on page 26 reflects the removal of these driveways. Based on staffs suggestion, Chesapeake Companies and Mogren Development will accommodate for one vehicle and one pedestrian cross-access between the two properties. The site plan will be revised to reflect across-access driveway aligning with the continuous drive aisle in front of Building B (Buffalo Wild Wings) and a pedestrian cross-access extending from the sidewalk in front of Building D (Jared Jewelers). Setbacks Building Setback to Roads -City code requires all buildings within the BC zoning district to maintain a 30-foot setback from aright-of-way, with no required rear or side-yard setbacks. As proposed, the three buildings fronting White Bear Avenue and County Road D (Buildings A, C, and D) will maintain this setback. With the required dedication of 17 feet of right-of-way along County Road D, Building A will come within 13 feet of the new right-of-way. With the dedication of 10 feet of right-of-way along White Bear Avenue, Building C will come within 23.5 feet and Building D will come within 21.1 feet of the new right-of-way. Staff supports these setbacks, as they will be consistent with the neighboring buildings along County Road D (Circuit City) and White Bear Avenue (Arbys). City code does not specify a required setback to a private road. Both Building A (future retail center) and Building B (Buffalo Wild Wings) will be located approximately 15 feet from the mall road. Staff supports these setbacks, as they will ensure adequate parking and vehicle movement within the site. Building Setback to Pipelines -There is an existing pipeline located on the south side of the property. This pipeline is owned and maintained by the BP Pipeline Company. City code requires all new buildings to be located at least 100 feet from a pipeline. BP's suggested distance for a building from their pipeline is anywhere outside of their easement. This pipeline's easement is approximately 40 feet wide. BP conducted a pipeline survey the week of April 19 and found that the pipeline is located 26 feet to the north of Chesapeake's south property line. This survey reflects that Building B (Buffalo Wild Wings) is 104 feet and Building D (Jared Jewelers) is 82 feet from the pipeline. However, shifting Building D five feet to the south will bring Building D within 77 feet of the pipeline. City code allows reduced setbacks to a pipeline with berming, an oil containment system, or similar requirements to mitigate the potential damage to a building by a pipeline leak or explosion. In addition, reduced setbacks are allowed where the building would not be any closer than the prevailing setback of neighboring buildings. Chesapeake Retail Center 3 May 17, 2004 The southeast corner of the lot is approximately ten feet higher than the remaining grade due to the location of a power pole. In addition to this grade difference, Chesapeake Companies proposes additional mitigation by a westward extension of the retaining wall south of Building D (Jared Jewelers). Chesapeake Companies states that the retaining wall height would be sufficient to create a prevailing ground slope away from Building D, thereby deflecting a potential flow from a pipeline leak. It should also be noted that two neighboring buildings are located closer than 100 feet to the pipeline, Baker's Square is located approximately 85 feet and North China Restaurant is located approximately 15 feet from the pipeline. For these reasons, staff supports a 77-foot setback to the pipeline for Building D. Parking Lot Setbacks to Rights-of--Way -City code requires parking lots to maintain a 15-foot setback from rights-of-way. The proposed parking lot will come within 22.1 feet of the County Road Dright-of-way. However, once the required 17 feet of right-of-way is dedicated, the parking lot will maintain a 5.1-foot setback. This setback should be adequate for a landscaping strip on the north side of the parking lot and will also be consistent with neighboring properties on County Road D (Circuit City and Arbys). Sidewalks Chesapeake Companies has agreed to install a sidewalk on the north side of their property, adjacent County Road D. The engineering department notes in their review that this sidewalk will represent an extension of a proposed trail identified in the Lake Links Trail Comprehensive Plan, and as such should be constructed of either concrete or bituminous material at an 8-foot width. A sidewalk is also proposed along the mall road. Simon Companies, owner of the Maplewood Mall, has agreed to allow the construction of this sidewalk within their private drive aisle. To ensure further pedestrian access to and from the site, staff recommends the extension of the sidewalk in front of Building A (future retail/restaurant) onto the County Road D trail. Also, pedestrian access should be created from White Bear Avenue. Staff discussed this condition with Chesapeake Companies who state that the best location for pedestrian access onto White Bear Avenue would be a stairwell south of Building D (Jared Jewelers). Grading/Drainage/Utilities The engineering department's review of the grading and drainage plan states that runoff from the site will be treated with two treatment structures to remove sediment. A condition of approval is that the developers sign a maintenance agreement for the annual cleaning of the proposed treatment structures. The Maplewood Movie I Theater building was connected to sanitary sewer extending to the south, under the Wedding Day Jewelers and Jiffy Lube properties. Chesapeake Companies' utility plan shows the new connection under County Road D. The engineering department's review recommends that the developer maintain the direction of sanitary flow to the private line, and not redirect the flow to County Road D. Chesapeake Companies is willing to accommodate this request, if the existing sewer line can accommodate the future flows and if the legal issues regarding cross sewer Chesapeake Retail Center 4 May 17, 2004 easements can be resolved. Because of these issues, the engineering department's review specifies that the city may allow sanitary sewer connection under County Road D if Chesapeake Companies can provide supporting documentation as to why redirecting the sanitary flow to County Road D is warranted. Chesapeake Companies will be able to report further on this issue at the May 24, 2004, city council meeting. Chesapeake Companies is also proposing a water main service connection under County Road D. The engineering department's review specifies that there should be no water main service connection allowed under County Road D unless the sanitary service connection is approved by the city. However, Chesapeake Companies has been working with St. Paul Regional Water Services on the possibility of tying the water main into the existing fire hydrant connection alongside County Road D. The city engineering department and the St. Paul Regional Water Services must approve this connection. Parking Number of Parking Spaces -City code requires 315 parking spaces for the four proposed restaurant/retail buildings. Chesapeake Companies is proposing a total of 342 parking spaces. Chesapeake Companies has stressed the importance of the number of parking spaces needed to attract and retain desirable retail/restaurant tenants. In summary, they contend that all of the proposed parking is critical to their tenants. Size of Parking Spaces -City code requires parking spaces within the BC zoning district to maintain a 9.5-foot width x 18-foot length for the proposed uses. Parking spaces can be reduced in length by 2.5 feet when adjacent a curb, sidewalk, or landscaped area. Also, city code allows employee parking with reduced widths. Chesapeake Companies is proposing a majority of the parking spaces to be 9 feet wide x 18 feet long, with the allowable reduction in length when adjacent a curb, sidewalk, or landscaped area. Approximately 15 percent of the parking spaces will be 8 feet wide and will be signed as "compact" or "employee" parking. As the city council is aware, the City of Maplewood recently approved reduced parking widths within our new mixed-use zoning district. During research on parking spaces, staff found that the engineering field recommends parking spaces at 8.5 feet wide by 18 feet long, according to the 2000 Urban Land Institute's Dimensions of Parking. Because the city's adherence to the older standards can result in additional land unnecessarily being consumed by parking lots, the city council supported the reduction of parking space widths within the mixed-use zoning district from 9.5 feet to 9 feet wide. Therefore, staff also supports the reduction of parking space widths within the Chesapeake Retail Center, including the reduction of a majority of the parking spaces to 9 feet wide and approximately 15 percent of the parking spaces to 8 feet wide, as long as these spaces are signed for employee or compact cars only. Maintenance City code requires all PUDs with common space to have an owners association responsible for insurance, taxes and maintenance of all commonly owned property and facilities. These documents should be submitted to city staff prior to final plat approval. Chesapeake Retail Center 5 May 17, 2004 Design Review Building Designs TGI Fridays -The TGI Fridays building will be 6,989 square feet in area and approximately 28 feet in height. The front of the building will be constructed of brick, granite, stone, and several glass windows. The rear of the building is proposed as EIFS and wood. Red and white canopies above the windows and an artistic front door give the building an art deco, or "Funky Fridays" appearance. The city should ensure consistent quality materials and detail on all sides of the building. The building elevations submitted show all of the detail on the front entrance, toward the parking lot. This design may be acceptable for a building with limited rear visibility, but not for this particular site. Staff recommends the removal of the EIFS building material and replacement of brick, granite, and stone building materials around the entire building. Consistent detail, including the parapet walls to ensure the screening of mechanical equipment, should be continued around the entire building. In addition, because the dumpster enclosure will be located along White Bear Avenue, the enclosure should be constructed of quality materials to match the building. Jared Jewelers -The Jared Jewelers building will be 6,000 square feet in area and 30 feet in height. All four elevations of the building will be constructed of brick, EIFS, and glass windows. The windows will be trimmed with brown and topped with abrown-color canopy. Because of the location of a large power pole and power easement on the southeast corner of the lot, a retaining wall will be constructed on the east and south side of the building. This retaining wall will begin at a height of approximately one foot on the north side of the wall to a maximum height of approximately five feet toward the southeast corner of the wall. The building will be approximately seven feet lower than the White Bear Avenue grade (refer to the south elevation on page 35). Staff finds all four elevations of the building attractive with consistent building materials. Because of the location of the dumpster enclosure along White Bear Avenue, the enclosure should be constructed of quality materials to match the building. Buffalo Wild Wings -The Buffalo Wild Wings building will be 5,430 square feet in area and approximately 23 feet in height. All four elevations of the building will be constructed of brick, stone, EIFS, and glass windows. A decorative black and yellow- checked canopy is proposed above the windows. There appears to be a yellow exposed neon stripe along the top of the building. Staff finds all four elevations of the building attractive with consistent building materials. Staff recommends the removal of the exposed neon stripe and the construction of the trash enclosure with quality materials to match the building. Buffalo Wild Wings is also proposing a 1,000 square foot outdoor dining patio. Surrounding the patio is a 4-foot-high, wrought iron fence with decorative lights. Staff finds the fencing and lighting an attractive addition to the building. However, Lieutenant Chesapeake Retail Center 6 May 17, 2004 Kevin Rabbett states in his review of the development that it would be the preference of the police department to have an approximately 6-foot high, wrought iron fence similar to the one at the nearby Acapulco restaurant. Because of aesthetic concerns over a 6-foot-high fence and the fact that Buffalo Wild Wings is a family-style restaurant where the emphasis is on food and not alcohol, planning staff requested that Chief of Police David Thomalla review the city's policy, as well as other surrounding city policies, on fencing for outdoor patios where liquor is served. Chief Thomalla stated that the City of Maplewood has consistently required a 6-foot-high fence when there is a full liquor license, and has allowed a reduced height of fence when there is a wine and beer liquor license. Chief Thomalla also indicates that other Chief of Police stated that they apply the state statute, which requires that there is a "barrier" between the patio and the public area. Chief Thomalla supports the city's current policy of a 6-foot-high fence for a full liquor license. The community design review board (CDRB) reviewed the patio fencing as part of the aesthetics of the overall development and determined that a 4-foot-high fence would be more attractive and inviting for customers than a 6-foot-high fence, with narrow slats as recommended by the police department. Multi-Tenant Building -The future multi-tenant building will be 9,620 square feet in area. There are no definite plans for the design of the building at this time. Therefore, this building must go through the CDRB approval process once final plans are submitted. Li-_g_hting An existing, approximately 40-foot-tall light pole will be removed from the site and replaced with 15 box-style freestanding lights. These lights will be a maximum height of 25 feet from ground grade to the top of the fixture, which meets the city's maximum height requirement for freestanding lights. Chesapeake Companies proposes a minor change to the lighting plan submitted which would relocate most of the light poles into the landscape islands, rather than freestanding in the parking lot. The photometric plan submitted exceeds the city's maximum light illumination at all property lines, particularly along the south and east property lines. This plan should be revised to ensure a maximum of .4-foot-candles of illumination at all property lines, and should also take into account any proposed wall pack lights installed on the buildings. Sins City Code -Within the BC zoning district, the city's sign code allows each business with two street frontages such as the Chesapeake Retail Center, to have five signs. Of these signs, one can be a freestanding sign up to 50 feet in height, depending on the setback, and 300 square feet in area. The remaining signs can be wall signs encompassing up to 20 percent of the gross wall area on which the sign is attached. Staff finds the city's existing sign code within the BC zoning district excessive. Because Chesapeake Retail Center is being processed as a PUD, the city may impose conditions on the number, size, location, or lighting of signage to ensure a quality development and to protect the public interest. Chesapeake Retail Center 7 May 17, 2004 Chesapeake's Sign Proposal -Chesapeake Companies has made sign recommendations in their narrative on page 21. In general, they recommend each building have one freestanding sign, 25 feet in height and 100 square feet in area, except for the multi-tenant building which would be allowed a freestanding sign up to 150 square feet in area. They recommend that each building be allowed three wall signs to be attached to separate elevations, except for the multi-tenant building which could have two wall signs for each tenant. Recommended wall sign size is limited to 20 percent of the gross wall area on which the sign is attached. City Staff's Sign Proposal -Adjacent businesses' freestanding signs include Arbys, Wedding Day Jewelers, and Circuit City. These signs range in size from 105 square feet in area and 20 feet in height (Wedding Day Jewelers) to approximately 200 square feet in area and 30 feet in height (Circuit City). Staff supports the proposed 100-square-foot freestanding sign for Buffalo Wild Wings, Jare_ d Jewelers, and TGI Fridays, with a maximum height of 25 feet, as they are quite conservative comparatively. Because of the grade difference in front of Jared Jewelers, staff recommends that the height of the signs be measured from the grade of the building elevation, rather than the grade of the ground elevation, to ensure that the signs are not towering over the building heights. In addition, staff supports Chesapeake Companies proposal for three wall signs per building. Wall signs are limited in size to 20 percent of the gross wall area on which the sign is attached. Wall signs are allowed on the building, and not on a canopy. Staff recommends that both the freestanding sign and the wall signs for the multi-tenant building be reviewed at the time of CDRB application and that no specific conditions be made regarding signage for that building during this review. Freestanding Sign Setbacks -City code requires that freestanding signs maintain a 10- foot setback from all property lines. As proposed, all three freestanding signs are set back more than 10 feet to the existing rights-of-way. With the city's required dedication of right-of-way, Buffalo Wild Wing's freestanding sign will maintain a zero setback to the new County Road Dright-of-way and a 5-foot setback to the adjacent property; and TGI Friday's and Jared Jeweler's freestanding signs will maintain a 5-foot setback to the new White Bear Avenue right-of-way. Since there is limited space in which to relocate the signs, and the fact that adjacent signs were constructed prior to the city's requirement fora 10-foot setback and therefore all maintain a zero setback from the right-of-way, staff supports a reduced setback of 5 feet. Staff originally recommended that the location of the freestanding signs along White Bear Avenue remain as proposed (5-foot setback), and the freestanding sign along County Road D (zero setback) be shifted to the south by 5 feet, thereby creating a consistent five-foot setback for all freestanding signs on the site. However, because Buffalo Wild Wing's freestanding sign as proposed (zero setback) will be located approximately 21 feet from the existing paved portion of County Road D, the CDRB recommended approval of a zero setback for the Buffalo Wild Wings freestanding sign along County Road D and a 5-foot setback for the freestanding signs along White Bear Avenue. After review of the the CDRB's recommendation, Chris Cavett, Assistant City Engineer, recommends that Buffalo Wild Wing's freestanding sign maintain at least Chesapeake Retail Center 8 May 17, 2004 a 1-foot setback from the new County Road Dright-of-way, in order to ensure at least a 2-foot setback from the County Road D trail as required for state funding of trails. To help mitigate this reduction in setback staff recommends that the base of all signs be constructed of quality building materials to match the buildings (similar to the Jared Jeweler's sign which has a brick base and decorative columns). Landscaping The city's tree preservation ordinance requires that all large trees be replaced one for one, but in no case must a developer replace more than 10 trees per acre. A large tree is defined as any tree with a diameter of 8-inches at a 4-foot-trunk height, excluding boxelders, cottonwoods, and poplars. Chesapeake Companies proposes to remove all 37 trees located on the site. Of these trees, 28 are considered large trees. The landscape plan shows the planting of 24 deciduous trees including linden, honey locust, and maple; and 17 ornamental trees including silk lilac and crab apple. This variation may change with the relocation of some light poles into the parking lot landscape islands. At which point there would be 19 deciduous and 24 ornamental trees. The tree replacement is well over that required by city code. Chesapeake Companies proposes seven boulevard lindens to be planted between the sidewalk and the mall road located on the west side of the development. Boulevard lindens only grow to a width of 25 feet. To ensure an attractive row of boulevard trees along this side of the development, staff recommends an additional seven trees be planted, whether additional lindens or an alternative tree. The Jared Jeweler building is slated for development first. Because of this a final foundation landscape plan has been submitted for this building only. (Refer to the landscape plan on page 32.) These plantings include six ornamental trees and several shrubs and perennials. Staff finds this plan attractive, but would recommend that additional plantings be concentrated in front of the dumpster enclosure to help screen the enclosure from White Bear Avenue. A foundation landscape plan for each subsequent building must be submitted to staff prior to the issuance of a building permit. These plans should be consistent and complement the overall landscaping and Jared Jeweler's foundation plantings, and should ensure appropriate plantings in front of all dumpster enclosures to ensure screening from the roadways. In addition, a detailed landscape plan should be submitted for the base of each proposed freestanding sign. OTHER COMMENTS Police Department: Lieutenant Kevin Rabbett states that he has reviewed the plans for the Chesapeake Retail Center and has no significant public safety concerns. However, the patio at Buffalo Wild Wings could be an issue. Assuming that the business will have a full liquor license, it would be the preference of the police department to have a more substantial enclosure than the proposed low wall. An approximately 6-foot-high, wrought iron fence similar to the one at the nearby Acapulco restaurant would be preferred. Building Department: Dave Fisher, building official, states that all four proposed buildings must comply with the 2000 IBC and State Building Codes; must be sprinklered; Chesapeake Retail Center 9 May 17, 2004 and all handicap accessible parking stalls must be located at the closest location to the main entries. Fire Department: Butch Gervais, fire marshal, submitted the following comments regarding the Chesapeake Retail Center: Monitoring all parts of the fire protection system and fire alarm system will be required. 2. Fire alarm systems will be required in TGI Fridays and Buffalo Wild Wings if the occupancy, including staff, will be 300 or more. 3. Maintain a 20-foot emergency access clearance to the building for emergency vehicles. 4. Fire protection systems will be required in all four buildings. Watershed District: Clifton Aichinger of the Ramsey-Washington Metro Watershed District submitted the following comments regarding the Chesapeake Retail Center: The project will require a watershed district permit. 2. The stormwater system appears to include two underground stormwater treatment devices on which the watershed district will need hydrologic calculations. 3. No additional stormwater treatment for this site will be required as a regional treatment system is in place downstream and the property is not discharging directly to a wetland. 4. Construction site erosion control will be required throughout the development process with all sediment contained on-site and all storm sewer catch basins protected from sediment runoff after installation. 5. Perimeter streets must be kept free of soil tracked off site during construction. COMMITTEE ACTIONS The planning commission unanimously recommended approval of the preliminary plat and conditional use permit for a planned unit development for the Chesapeake Retail Center at their May 3, 2004, planning commission meeting (refer to May 3 planning commission minutes attached). The CDRB unanimously recommended approval of the design review of Chesapeake Retail Center at their May 13, 2004, CDRB meeting (refer to the May 13 CDRB minutes attached). Chesapeake Retail Center 10 May 17, 2004 RECOMMENDATIONS Approve Chesapeake Companies' preliminary plat for the Chesapeake Retail Center at 3091 White Bear Avenue date stamped March 30, 2004. Approval is subject to the following conditions: a. Have the city engineer approve final construction and engineering plans. These plans shall comply with all requirements as specified in the city engineering department's April 26, 2004, engineering plan review. b. Revise the plat to show: 1) The dedication of 10 feet of additional right-of-way along White Bear Avenue. 2) The dedication of 17 feet of additional right-of-way along County Road D. Prior to final plat approval, the following must be submitted for city staff approval: 1) Easement agreement that governs and provides for legal cross easements for parking, access, and utilities between all lots within the project. 2) Easement agreement for the installation and maintenance of a freestanding sign on Lot 1 to benefit Lot 2. 3) Owners association agreement specifying responsibilities for insurance, taxes and maintenance of all commonly owned property and facilities (including snow plowing). d. Record all easements and owners association agreements with the final plat. 2. Approve the resolution on pages 53 and 54. This resolution approves a conditional use permit for a planned unit development for the development of four restaurant/retail buildings at 3091 White Bear Avenue (Chesapeake Retail Center). Approval is subject to the following conditions: a. Have the city engineer approve final construction and engineering plans. These plans shall comply with all requirements as specified in the city engineering department's April 26, 2004, engineering plan review as well as the following: 1) A westward extension of the retaining wall south of Building D (Jared Jewelers). The retaining wall height must be sufficient to create a prevailing ground slope away from Building D, thereby deflecting a potential flow from a pipeline leak. Chesapeake Retail Center 11 May 17, 2004 b. An easement agreement that governs and provides for legal cross easements for parking, access, and utilities between all lots within the project. c. An easement agreement for the installation and maintenance of a freestanding sign on Lot 1 to benefit Lot 2. d. An owners association agreement specifying responsibilities for insurance, taxes and maintenance of all commonly owned property and facilities (including snow plowing). e. All 8-foot-wide parking spaces must be signed as either "employee" or "compact" car parking only. Signage for Buildings B, C, and D are allowed as follows: 1) One freestanding sign, 25 feet in height and 100 square feet in area. Freestanding sign height must be measured from building grade to top of the sign, not ground grade to top of sign. The TGI Friday's and Jared Jeweler's freestanding signs must maintain a 5-foot setback to the White Bear Avenue right-of-way and a 10- foot setback to all side property lines. The Buffalo Wild Wing's freestanding must maintain a 1-foot setback to the County Road D right-of-way and a 5-foot setback to the side property line. All three freestanding signs must have a decorative base constructed of quality building materials to match the corresponding buildings. 2) Three wall signs per building, only one per elevation. Size of the wall sign is limited to 20 percent of the gross wall area on which the sign is attached. Wall signs are not permitted on a canopy. g. All construction shall follow the plans date-stamped March 30, 2004 and April 26, 2004, with revisions as noted in this approval. The city council may approve major changes to the plans. The Director of Community Development may approve minor changes to the plans, including a change to the site plan for the proposed future driveway access onto White Bear Avenue, pending Ramsey County engineer and city engineer approval. h. The proposed construction must be substantially started within one year of city council approval or the permit shall end. The city council may extend this deadline for one year. The city council shall review this permit in one year. 3. Approve the building and sign elevations, site plan, and landscape plan date- stamped March 30, 2004; the lighting plan date-stamped April 26, 2004; and the Jared Jewelers foundation landscape plan date-stamped April 26, 2004, for the development of the Chesapeake Retail Center 3091 White Bear Avenue. The developer shall do the following (community design review board changes are underlined if added and stricken if deleted): Chesapeake Retail Center 12 May 17, 2004 a. Repeat this review in two years if the city has not issued a building permit for all three buildings for this project (Buildings B, C, and D). b. Submit the following to city staff prior to issuance of a grading or building permit: 1) Have the city engineer approve final construction and engineering plans. These plans shall comply with all requirements as specified in the city engineering department's April 26, 2004, engineering plan review as well as the following: a) A westward extension of the retaining wall south of Building D (Jared Jewelers). The retaining wall height must be sufficient to create a prevailing ground slope away from Building D, thereby deflecting a potential flow from a pipeline leak. 2) Obtain a demolition permit for the removal of the existing Maplewood Movie I Theater building. 3) Obtain the required Ramsey/Washington Metro Watershed District permits. 4) Submit payment for all required Park Access Charges (PAC fees) as specified in the Park Director's April 14, 2004, correspondence to Chesapeake Companies. 5) Submit an easement agreement that governs and provides for legal cross easements for parking, access, and utilities between all lots within the project. 6) Submit an easement agreement for the installation and maintenance of a freestanding sign on Lot 1 to benefit Lot 2. 7) Submit an owners association agreement specifying responsibilities for insurance, taxes and maintenance of all commonly owned property and facilities (including snow plowing). 8) Submit a revised site plan showing the following: a) The dedication of 10 feet of additional right-of-way along White Bear Avenue. b) The dedication of 17 feet of additional right-of-way along County Road D. c) Building C (TGI Fridays) and Building D (Jared Jewelers) shifted approximately five feet to the south, or a lesser distance, to accommodate a future driveway located to the Chesapeake Retail Center 13 May 17, 2004 north of Building C that would extend onto White Bear Avenue. d) Pending continued cooperation with the adjacent property owner, show the location of a driveway and pedestrian cross-access on the south side of the property, to accommodate entrance and egress to and from the southerly property (3065 White Bear Avenue). e) The extension of the sidewalk in front of Building A (future retail/restaurant) onto the County Road D trail. f) A pedestrian access extending from the White Bear Avenue sidewalk. 9) A revised landscape plan, subject to review and approval by staff, that shows the following: Thy .^..''''~+~ ;~ ~ ~~ ~; rt~~,. +..,,,... +w .+~. •,+ f ~-r~i ..... v cT ~c-crcc~'v~i-~rrc~ Pending a shared driveway scenario with Arbys, a revised landscape plan showing the area of disturbance and landscaping proposed. bid} Seven additional trees on the west side of the property, between the sidewalk and the Maplewood Mall road. Additional plantings in front of Jared Jeweler's dumpster enclosure to help screen the enclosure from White Bear Avenue. d)#} A foundation landscape plan for TGI Fridays and Buffalo Wild Wings. These plans should be consistent and complement the overall landscaping and Jared Jeweler's foundation plantings, and should ensure appropriate plantings in front of all dumpster enclosures to ensure screening from the roadways. An underground irrigation plan to ensure all landscaping is irrigated per city code. 10) Revised building and dumpster enclosure elevations showing the following: Chesapeake Retail Center 14 May 17, 2004 TGI Fridays: a) Removal of the EIFS building material and replacement with of brick, granite, and/or stone building materials and consistent building detail, including parapet walls, on all elevations of the building. b) Dumpster and recycling enclosure constructed of quality building materials to match the building. The enclosure must be at least 6 feet high and have a 100-percent opaque gate. Jared Jewelers: a) Dumpster and recycling enclosure constructed of quality building materials to match the building. The enclosure must be at least 6 feet high and have a 100-percent opaque gate. Buffalo Wild Wings: a) Removal of the exposed neon stripe. b) Dumpster and recycling enclosure constructed of quality building materials to match the building. The enclosure must be at least 6 feet high and have a 100-percent opaque gate. 11) A revised outdoor lighting and photometric plan. The revised plan shall show the exact location, height, and style of all outdoor lights. The light illumination from all outdoor lights may not exceed .4-foot-candles at all property lines. 12) A cash escrow or an irrevocable letter of credit for all required exterior improvements. The amount shall be 150 percent of the cost of the work. c. Prior to issuance of sign permits, the following must be submitted: 1) Sign elevations for Buildings B, C, and D as follows: a) One freestanding sign, 25 feet in height and 100 square feet in area. Freestanding sign height must be measured from building grade to top of the sign, not ground grade to top of sign. , .., .. ..,,,, ..,,,,,,.,..,... ..; .,.. ,.+ .., . The TGI Friday's and Jared Jeweler's freestanding signs must maintain a 5-foot setback to the White Bear Avenue right-of-way and a 10- foot setback to all side property lines. The Buffalo Wild Wina's freestanding sign must maintain a 1-foot setback to the County Road Dright-of-way and a 5-foot setback to the Chesapeake Retail Center 15 May 17, 2004 side property line. All three freestanding signs must have a decorative base constructed of quality building materials to match the corresponding buildings. b) Three wall signs per building, only one per elevation. Size of the wall sign is limited to 20 percent of the gross wall area on which the sign is attached. Wall signs are not permitted on a canopy. 2) A detailed landscape plan for the base of all three proposed freestanding signs. d. Complete the following before occupying the buildings: 1) Install all required exterior improvements. 2) Screen all roof-mounted equipment visible from streets. e. 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 above-required letter of credit or cash escrow is held by the City of Maplewood for all required exterior improvements. The owner or contractor shall complete any unfinished exterior improvements by June 1 if occupancy of the building is in the fall or winter, or within six weeks of occupancy of the building if occupancy is in the spring or summer. f. All work shall follow the approved plans. The city council may approve major changes to the plans. The Director of Community Development may approve minor changes to the plans, including a change to the site plan for the proposed future driveway access onto White Bear Avenue, pending Ramsey County engineer and city engineer approval. g. Building A and signs associated with Building A are not included in this community design review approval. h. The community design review board recommends that a 4-foot-high fence around the Buffalo Wild Wing's patio be approved as proposed by the applicant. The community design review board views this fence as part of the aesthetics of the overall development of the site. Chesapeake Retail Center 16 May 17, 2004 CITIZEN COMMENTS Staff surveyed the 25 surrounding property owners within 500 feet of this site for their comments. Two property owners replied as follows: Thomas Schuette on behalf of Azure Properties and Woodring Company - 3069 White Bear Avenue (Acapulco Restaurant and Jiffy Lube Oil Change): Mr. Schuette submitted correspondence dated April 23, 2004, attached on page 52. In summary, Mr. Schuette expressed concern regarding adequate parking on the site and possible overFlow parking to their site. 2. Bruce Mogren on behalf of Mogren Development Company - 3065 White Bear Avenue (Wedding Day Jewelers): During a telephone conversation with staff, Mr. Mogren stated that he would be supportive of a shared driveway from the Chesapeake Retait Center onto his property. Chesapeake Retail Center 17 May 17, 2004 REFERENCE SITE DESCRIPTION Site size: 4.98 Acres Existing Use: Vacant Movie Theater SURROUNDING LAND USES North: Arbys Restaurant and County Road D South: Retail/Restaurants including Wedding Day Jewelers, Acapulco Restaurant, and future Jiffy Lube East: White Bear Avenue and Fazolies, Mama Mias, Baker's Square, and North China Restaurant West: Maplewood Mall Ring Road and Circuit City PLANNING Land Use Plan Designation: Business Commercial (BC) Zoning: Business Commercial (BC) Criteria for CUP Approval Article V, Sections 44-1091 through 44-1105 states that the city council may grant a CUP subject to the nine standards for approval noted in the resolution on pages 53 and 54. Application Date We received the complete application and plans for this proposal on April 14, 2004. State law requires that the city take action within 60 days of receiving complete applications for a proposal. City council action is required on this proposal by June 13, 2004, unless the applicant agrees to a time extension. Com-Dev\Chesapeake Retail Center 5-3-04 PC Attach ments: 1. Chesapeake Companies' Narrative 2. Location Map 3. Zoning Map 4. Land Use Map 5. Site Plan 6. Existing Conditions 7. Preliminary Plat 8. Grading Plan 9. Utility Plan 10. Overall Landscape Plan 11. Jared Jeweler's Foundation Landscape Plan 12. Jared Jeweler's Elevations 13.. Jared Jeweler's Floor Plan 14. Jared Jeweler's Freestanding Sign Elevation 15. TGI Fridays Elevations 16. TGI Fridays Floor Plan 17. TGI Fridays Freestanding Sign 18. Buffalo Wild Wings Elevations 19. Buffalo Wild Wings Floor Plan 20. Buffalo Wild Wings Freestanding Sign 21. Proposed White Bear Avenue Driveway (Two Options) 22. City Engineer Review 23. Ramsey County Public Works May 4, 2004, Correspondence 24. Minnesota Department of Transportation's April 29, 2004, Correspondence 25. Azure Properties 4/23/04 Correspondence 26. Conditional Use Permit Resolution 27. Large Plans (Separate Handout) Chesapeake Retail Center 18 May 17, 2004 Attachment 1. APPLICATION NARRATIVE PUD Development Plans for Chesapeake Retail Center at Maplewood Mall Project Narrative March 30, 2004 Introduction Chesapeake Companies Development Group, LLC is submitting the attached applications for redevelopment of an existing retail site into amulti-site retail development in Maplewood, Minnesota. This narrative describes the site development and aspects of the application request. Development Description The 4.98 acre site is a peripheral property to the Maplewood Mall located in the southwest quadrant of the intersection of White Bear Avenue and County Road D. The Maplewood mall private road runs along the west edge of the property. As detailed on the Site Plan, the existing movie theatre building will be demolished to allow for the proposed commercial site that will consist of approximately 29,000 square feet of new retail space. The new retail space will include two free-standing restaurant buildings, one free standing retail building, and one inline multi-tenant retaiUrestaurant building. Since the proposed development is being designed and implemented into one master-planned retail project with common access and parking areas, a Planned Unit Development approval is being requested. Due to the property configuration, available access, and adjacent roadways each of the buildings will face more than one street or common area. Access to the site will be from the Maplewood mall private road that is accessed from County Road D or the mall ring road. The property has frontage on both White Bear Avenue and County Road D. Site Zoning and Right-of--Way According to the City's Zoning Map, the site is currently in the BC business commercial district. The proposed uses are permitted uses within this zoning district. The site meets or exceeds the City's zoning requirements for building and parking lot setbacks City Staff has identified (on a preliminary basis) future, expanded roadway right-of--way areas along both County Road D and White Bear Avenue. The areas specifically identified by City Staff within the development property include 17 feet ofright-of--way along the northern edge of the property paralleling County Road D, and 10 feet of right- of-way along the eastern edge of the property paralleling White Bear Avenue. These identified, preliminary areas have been considered in the site design and are reflected in the general site layout. Page 1 of 4 19 Site Layout and Parking The proposed site layout consists of four buildings for retail and restaurant uses. The buildings are located on the site to maximize parking area and visibility from White Bear Avenue and County Road D. The proposed buildings are located a minimum distance of 30-feet from public right-of--way along County Road D and White Bear Avenue and are constrained by a power line easement and power pole located within the south portion of the site. The proposed parking lot adjacent to County Road D is a minimum of 22 feet from the existing right-of--way in recognition of future roadway and trail right-of--way areas identified by City Staff. Public sidewalks have been included along County Road D and the mall private road to provide efficient pedestrian access to the development. The general site layout provides for an increase in green-space area from approximately 10 to 20 percent of the total lot area relative to existing conditions. Additionally, impervious surface area has been reduced from approximately 90 percent to 80 percent of the lot area. Access to the site is via to two entrance drives from the mall private road. The entrance drives are 30-feet wide and drive-lanes are 24-feet wide. Parking has been provided to exceed the following standards: RetaiUOffice, 5 stalls per 1,000 SF of space; and Restaurants, 5 stalls per 200 SF of patron usage area. For the purpose of computing required stalls for the northwest retaillrestaurantbuflding, the assumed usage is 2/3- restaurant space and 1/3-retail space. Typical parking stall dimensions are 9-feet wide by 18-feet long. Approximately 17 percent of the parking stalls will be 8-foot width compact stalls. Platting The property is currently platted as a single lot. As detailed on the Preliminary Plat drawing, the development proposal includes the replatting of the property for the creation of four individual lots. The site meets the City's zoning requirements for.building and parking lot setbacks. All properties will be subject to a Declaration of Easements Agreement which will govern and provide for legal cross easements for parking, access, and utilities between all lots within the project. A sign easement area will be created in the northeast corner of proposed Lot 1 along County Road D in favor of proposed Lot 2 thereby allowing for the installation of afree-standing sign. Building Architecture The buildings of Chesapeake Retail Center at Maplewood Mall are located on the site to face a common internal parking area. The architecture of the freestanding buildings will reflect the individual tenant retail identities through the incorporation of their proprietary retail image and signs. Page 2 of 4 20 Mechanical equipment is located on the roofs of the buildings. Parapet heights of the buildings provide site line screening. Service area screening is provided by a combination of structural walls with wood gates and landscape plantings. Jared, The Galleria of Jewelry (Building C) architectural materials will consist primarily of two colors of brick with two complementary colors of EFIS. All of the building elevations utilize the same materials and similar details. T.G.I. Friday's (Building D) architectural materials will consist primarily of complimentary colors of brick, granite, stone, and EFIS. All of the building elevations utilize the same materials and similar details. Buffalo Wild Wings (Building B) architectural materials will consist primarily of complimentary colors of brick, split-face concrete block, and EFIS. All of the building elevations utilize the same materials and similar details. A description of Buildings A is not included with this submittal. Comprehensive Sign Plan Due to the property configuration, available access, and adjacent roadways each of the buildings will face more than one street or common area. The overall development functions much like a corner lot. Adequate identification signage for each of the four platted lots will be critical to ensure efficient traffic flows to the site. Freestanding signs and building signage will reflect the individual tenant retail identities through the incorporation of their proprietary retail image and typical trademark signage. Identification signs for Buildings B, C, and D will include one illuminated freestanding pylon sign, and a total of three illuminated building fascia signs. Pylon signs will be a maximum height of 25 feet and will include a maximum total sign copy area of 100 sf per side. The freestanding sign for Building B (proposed Lot 2) will be located on proposed Lot 1 along County Road C. Building fascia signs will be limited to one sign per building elevation and will not exceed twenty percent of the wall surface to which the signs are attached. Identification signs for multi-tenant Building A will include one illuminated freestanding pylon sign, and a total of two or three illuminated building fascia signs per building tenant. The pylon sign will be a maximum height of 25 feet and will include a maximum total sign copy area of 150 sf per side to be shared by all building tenants. Building fascia signs will limited to one sign per tenant exterior facade and will not exceed twenty percent of a tenant's wall surface area to which the signs are attached. Page 3 of 4 21 Utilities and Stormwater Treatment Public utilities for sanitary sewer and water main are presently available to serve the site within the adjacent roadway right-of--ways. Natural gas, electricity, and telephone are also available to serve the site. Storm sewer is presently in place within the mall private road to serve the surface drainage needs of the site. The storm sewer system within the existing site will be re- constructed to accommodate the site changes. Stormwater runoff will continue to discharge into the existing storm sewer system; however the runoff quality will be improved by routing the Stormwater runoff through treatment structures to remove sediment and floatables prior to discharge into the existing storm sewer system. As shown on the Utility Plan, the sanitary sewer, water main, and storm sewer utilities will be extended into the site to serve the proposed project. Landscaping and Lighting The overall landscape area within the site will increase from approximately 10 to 20 percent of the total lot area. The typical landscape island areas are larger than the present islands to better accommodate plantings. The overall number of trees and plantings throughout the site will be increased and additional foundation plantings will be provided. The mall private road boulevard trees will be removed to accommodate construction of the new public sidewalk; however the removed trees will be offset in number by new trees to be planted along this new sidewalk as well as the new public sidewalk/trail along County Road D. The Site Lighting Plan details the locations of proposed light poles and the photometric details. The plan also shows the type of proposed fixtures and pole heights. All site lighting will comply with the city standard lighting requirements and restrictions. Schedule The proposed development schedule would include a construction start date in late spring of 2004 (approximately May 1 S`). Initial construction site work will include demolition, grading, utilities, curbing and paving followed by building construction of the Jared building, Buffalo Wild Wings building and Building A. The Jared and Buffalo Wild Wings buildings are targeted for completion and site opening in fa112004. Construction of the TGI Friday's building will likely be finished between late fall 2004 and early summer 2005. Page 4 of 4 22 Attachment 2 w~E Location Map 23 Attachment 3 i, , ~.~~ N W E S R1~ LB~i LE3C RZ R1 Buell R1 R2 R1 LBC R3 R1 Zoning Map ~-c~qy -- ~trup Farm Attachment 4 Pack N w~~ Land Use Map ~~ Attachment 5 -- ~-- i pp A :'~°~~ ~~ V n~ I _-- 7---~ N W E S L I i i ~~~o a i tip !OM M MAYMO 0 Site Plan 26 Attachment 6 --- - - " -- - '" ~~- x COUNTY RO~D~ `b ~ ~ ~ s , ~ ~ ~ ~ i i ~'r ~ °. ul ~ ~ ~ :~~, roar s~ as ~ W ~ _ _ \° \ \ ~ \ °-x~ ,n ~: ; ° t ..ni. L W / s. ~..n. r r,l~~ I I ~~ ~ a \ s ~ o..°...,.... ~.~....~. I ~I I I i !I ~" I ~ ~ I II W ~ Y ~ x~ ~! / I~I II/ a I II' I 1 •~I x~^ $ °" s~i}~~ ' - - " i ~ ' •.izroe~w ass /s «.. ~` ~ I R ~... _..". e 'm'om---~~'---~~ ..W~j~~I J ~. ~~' / ~~~¢ ~ m e~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ t I ~ II ~ ~: ~ ,V ~ ~~ I i ~ I. ---------------------- ------ ~A ~ ------ ----- -----__--- ~,,:° Sonde °"~ N W E S Existing Conditions 27 Attachment 7 COUNTY ROAD-', W I' , ~ ~ ~ fi ~ ~ s Q s ~ II Q; = W Q1 I pA ~ ~b ~ b , ~~ °N , ~¢ N W E S Preliminary Plat 28 OWNER /APPLICANT ~ w.r,y ru. PROPOSED LOT 1 = 63.243 square feet ar 1.45 acres RBMNNfiY PLAT C>F' Chesapeake Companies Development Group, LLC PROPOSED LOT 2 = 54,497 square feet or 1.25 acre CHESAPEAKE frETAA'. CE/VIEA 11100 Wayiato Blvo. Suite 766 PROPOSED LOT 3 57,552 square feet a 1.32 acres __ Minnetonka, MN 55305 Sande ..e. PROPOSED LOT 4 : 41,736 square feet or 0.96 acre O ISM 6eree~iq, elC. e.+r-~ TOTAL = 217,028 square f¢et or 4.98 Dues w _t~•~~ °° r ffi Attachment 8 w~E Grading Plan s 29 Attachment 9 N w~t Utility Plan s 30 Attachment 10 Planting Schedule m. rtr owuw~nor~xrx vs O4[ESiDRY DEQWWS iHEES - 2i ) K ~eMww1 LbM / lM mmwMns'eaMwf w ~ ~ xnMwM / a~mN~ InxmMr rm. M~'RKw' i.i~ M ~ • __ _ ~ lei M / n..wr ~.~w.~.~~'wN uwM / ~v .i4un Tart! iY n OPHAMENTA~ 111EE5 - Y~ E CL Mory s4 fM tlw / q~FA nm/ero Mry N' a r)e rlai~~ w / vwn Ylwn.' ~= u ~ ~ a.. er / wr. 'r~~. w.~ : ~ ~ ~ • A i.r r 1'i Is ~o :rw j i. i.~.w ra w o~.rtsom corw)mous m¢s __ W !w! ~ tires / M1n V«~ awsa Y M SINWS - 1)J i M Mw ~1 / ew Melwin W Ds l M P M M M blw Y a ~' P ~~ a rrN ~ew n w / Um~n un M M l A r-r Shrub Detail S, Tree Detail `.' 7 .'1. y' ,'rte.' i S l' r ... .. y C~•'~`E.?~i72' ~.'L~l.. .r+"'~ rte.' :.. Bverereen Detail ~~ " - sar: -- a~.~$a4 le --- I 1 N W E S Landscape Plan 31 Attachment 11 plan~g~Schedule •1'L R1' OOYYOM/YOTANCK WWE tog pIMAYENTAL /BEES - 6 s r•c wa tre.. a+ / rr+ we ter..' w w stytues - n• M K AVM Out~t / IIN M~ P o.w u t•- •trrr tw.t•. / ra.er •w.ttr tootMit/f /s ~ • R h/r ilW / •rtl~ Tib' • ••11 N •Mwr •+p ~ p C.~n1 ~~ .M M~a ~ It Al r.r+ r tti ~~ / +~.. t.~l..er. t.ti r ttrl /6 ~. A •G fl~dt ~r}r / ~~'M^~ ~n Y~.Jd /• Ont pE11E7lNALS - !0 w no tMv- tw.. Mr/ ~~•••+• t4rr ~~ ~ ar. /~ Owt R !OD 1•M r On •Ml ~+~~ ~ r O1 NOTE: ONLY LABELED PLANT MATERIALS ARE INCLUDED IN THE JARED JEWELER LANDSCAPING N W E Jared Jeweler's Foundation S Landscaping Plan 32 Attachment 12 ~~,L Cp1A1W3~K ~NGM `u~ [OMLl nw lE p'fAI YM] NtAY~nL]NfroAr E v4 's mssr Nip m.~ia. r.~eiwumr ~• Arr. E A 9 m ~ /3 I1 w D ~ ~ ~ ~»~m .,~.~. - I.~..,R.I..«.. ...I{,LL.,,,.,_» A~NI. -- I ----+---~ -----I ~ ~ -~ ,~ ~~ ,~ pprtW ~M~PnV1MInP's! lIl NALW MRI'MYLA1m QRIA4 WA]I M1i d11ll W16YtA<bM','J', NO LMM 11f111C fMK/U GLLK IKlq 1110L11AMO ~O +OM R4.MlAM wrtlm •^~IC l~C'..Mq AWM RIAY ]'All. W.l01IOL<.1 A1Mfn'll A FRONT ELEVATION ""~"~~" r wp~l Elevations (Jared Jewelers) 33 g LEFT ELEVATION ..'.4.0. K .... ~ " 0 ~~ ) A ~ ~~rue~M anl~/I+TI yi A. 9M. maro~rs rpr perws Ibu' lM ~~ 6RAY7y M'MU WMf/clllml m P^V mO Y.RO.aMA~ ~ ~A ,U~,~1W YGf6 WM v-r nVu I: HII w'~MOA LIMY. to 13 oRii M ~r •]I. ~s •r~•r~~'m~mn. M. M. l-ww~e rul PoR OnNl M. pow ce«.an wo a r.PrO~°".se%10~0... vcR.ee s ~" o D~¶,~ 1 ~ ~W1S y ~'~ o I o L L ~~s~ G REAR ELEVATION c ~ ~~~ ti+ xu.e, ua•.r.o• E 'r` µ µ E reram imr one ~r suixrrr yµ Bern emrn •ir.A~f~oAOriiw yr nw. uwlM art w~v.ID ea~ri- Q ngrrNMtKf Ml w•ra wanme[n~nx.~~'. E ~~ lnet! ~w~r~weru wrmsw~s~ ww ds evu~vwU Nr. G E E C D ~', _ I o ~ -----------__ `~----- - -------- - -~~ i LSo~rth'~ - p RIGHT ELEVATION w~ wu, u+••rv. Elevations (Jared Jewelers) 34 ~~~` ~~~~ W z W d a w m w F x -. -. _---_ ....950 - ___. ._.____._._ 940 Jared Jeweler's South Elevation -Grade Difference from White Bear Avenue 35 d r a~j ~~C C t a A ® ~:~ '~ y //~ _~ I I --_----__ -__---_-__-_-- i lI ~Atrtachment 13 rl li-- I I~ ,I III a F ~ f3 d ~ ~~ d! ~ I d€ i ~ `~ ~S~E~E ~~ q Y I I ~l l 9~~~ ®~ o ~ ~'~ . I Y r f4 4 tt F7 ~ ~ ~ ~g 8a~~~`$ g S q3 v5~ gg ~~il.~~ d q 3 ~ -8~ 11 ~ e.~ ~ ~E a ~# ~~ t ~~ ® ~ ~ ' ~ ;~ ~= e~ i~ ~~ T ~ rn I emr + ~* O t ri - ' y r0 ~ ~ IC _~ ~~ X ~®p d! fe ~ I O ~ t~ ~~~;; q~eJi¢ ! i ~_ s ~ - n~ ~_ ~ f -- o - g3 p gg q g ~x I ~ _ p e2 )f ~ r ~~ f~g~ ~d ~~ ~t ~d~ ~d A ,h~A ~~~ 93 ~ Q' 3 ~ $ ~ I AA ! "~ gE I C, ~I g ~ '~ ~4 gag ~ I ~ I ~'~ F~ _~ 5~a ~ y .I --- - --- g ---- -- ~ ~ ~ ® - #q~ ~ } I {€ q of ® ~k~~ ~~ ~La ~~ ~t~~~ q~~~~8 ~~ ~~E a~ I W . w 3 ~ vf~df~ I r~l~1 ,~f~1~~ a ~~ L~ j o OO I®~ ` ~, .~ Ofd#~ ;q~~;~d I .,<..«ow ~. .w ~ I ~~ a€ ~~f~~eq~~ / T ~ 4 I KY ~ I y ~1 ~ I ~ O __-_ _- \i r - I'a~ ~ f g8 ~ -----~- -- S -- --- -_---_F_ - d OO ~___-____----F-' F - 3 N W E S i I ~ I I I i ~_-_ f q I ~~ ~^~ I~ 1 ~~ ~~ Floor Plan (Jared Jewelers) Attachment 14 iM NIIVI DAYLIbM RWJISlLM SlG! • i •I e SECTION 1/2'-1'-D' r--~--- -~ ----~ I ~~ I i--~-- --- -J ~' ®' PLAN 1/2'-1'-O• A® FRONT ELEVATION ®° 81DE ELEVATION PYLON SIGN Freestanding Sign Elevation (Jared Jewelers) 37 I ~-wxmueroumrouDA.w~ I I ~------------J ~-----I Attachment 15 W ~} .~ a~~~T'~v~~r~N Nor}h ~~ _Y ] r RfwAR` ~t...AfilaN Elevations (TGI Fridays) 38 ~~z~rrr ~~va~~~~l ~~~ ~1.~~~~~~~ Attachment 16 Floor Plan "~E (TGI Friday's) 39 Attachment 17 ~ ~.~~~ ~~~ N ti ~.~o~o~~ e r 7r,~.0 $~~u~r'e Feet Freestanding Sign Elevation (TGI Friday's) 40 Attachment 18 ~+ ~ Wes+ -~ ~,~~, --~ Elevations (Buffalo Wild Wings) 41 PIOFlf EIEVATK)N ._. _., Attachment 19 ~' • ~ ~ ~ ; .._~ i ~?tii 4 l I~ ~ .! ', • ,~ t - = - fie, ..~~'~~ "~ ~ ® ~~ 4. ~~ _._ ®~ ~ ~ ~ gar .~ ~, ~ ~ i Y" ~ N ~... _ ~ ~ ` b i ! ~ 1 ~~~ ' ~ ~ I ~,t i+"~~ ~ ~ ~ '~ ?, f ~ ~,..A~ ~ ~~ ; ;1'R'~ 1 .~- LLJ ~Mw4 ~'~ ~ ~ ~ _... f~ i~,V. ,..,. ......._ _ {`M/) ~~ --~- A t~ F-J--- --- -- ~ F' ~ - ~ '~ - - I -- __ _ ., --. i ~$•S i li =~ ~~ Floor Plan "'~` (Buffalo Wild Wings) 42 B 2'-6" E D ~~ ~ SIGN CABINET WITH FLEX FACES ILLUMINATED W/HO FLUORESCENT LAMPS WHITE FLEX FACES ARE OVERLAID ON THE FIRST SURFACE WITH #525 BRIGHT YELLOW AND #22 BLACK ARLON TRANSLUCENT FILM WITH THE EYE, HORN AND WING WEEDED OUT WHITE. SQUARES ARE #525 BRIGHT YELLOW ARLON TRANSLUCENT FILM BACKGROUND IS FIRST SURFACE ARLON #03 BLACK OPAQUE FILM SUPPORT PIPE PAINTED SEMI-GLOSS BLACK A B C D E F SIGN AREA (SQ PS-110 9'-2" 15'-7" 8'-0" 10" 7" _ 10" 143 PS•98 8'-2" 13'-10" 7'-1" 9" 6.5" I 9" 113 PS_86 T-2" 12'-2" 6'-3" 8" 6" I 8" ~ 87 Freestanding Sign Elevation (Buffalo Wild Wings) 43 DOUBLE FACE ILLUMINATED PYLON SIGN Attachment 21 ~y ROAD D ~ ~ ' .', ,__ i r (...~ , ~~_ _.__ _ = i % v ~ ; ~' ~ ?I + ii---'-- ~.___.. ~ ~ _ r~ r~ ,, t ~ ~ t- r :' ~' i , A ~------ "--- . ...... E~ I c~;,....~. ~~~ ~: of • i'` ~ •.._,--- ------------------------- „ ,; ,. ,~ ;~ ~ i ll ~~ ~ 1 , \ 1 _y w~.m~b' wry i .` t N W E S -:t,' .._......._....._ ............ ...........{:.:' i 3 Possible Future Shared Driveway (Option One) i OOUNIY TOAD D ~ I ---~--- I I I I I -r--I------ - I I II i- I I Ij fI ~ X~ ~ I I ~ I' I 1 h0y'~ Rw nrtmt (nppraMnM~ loeallan) ~, _ f I -- .. ®~~~ ~ t---- 0 ~~ L 0 ',-~~w0 L ~ I ~ / CAnaytW Ioal~ay Ynprm`nmb !y N Possible Future w~t Shared Driveway s (Option Two) 45 Engineering Plan Review Attachment 22 PROJECT: Chesapeake Retail Center PROJECT NO: 04-09 REVIEWED BY: Erin Laberee and Chris Cavett Maplewood Engineering Dept. DATE: Apri126t6, 2004 Chesapeake Companies has purchased the Maplewood Movie Theater 1 site at the southwest corner of County Road D and White Bear Ave. They are proposing to redevelop the site to include two restaurants (TGI Fridays and Buffalo Wild Wings), a jewelry store, (Jared Jewelers) and a strip mall with various tenants. Currently the developer is proposing access to the site from Maplewood Mall Road. The developer is requesting that the city consider maintaining access to the site from County Road D and White Bear Ave. when improvements are made to White Bear Avenue. Runoff from the site will be treated with two treatment structures to remove sediment from the site. Drainage from the site is eventually treated downstream in Markham pond, a regional treatment pond. The developer shall address the following issues. Grading & Erosion Control 1. A building permit will be required for the proposed retaining wall located east of Jared Jewelers since a portion of the wall height is greater than four feet. A plan and a specific soil stabilization detail for the wall design will be required as part of the building permit. 2. The developer must sign a maintenance agreement for the annual cleaning of the proposed treatment structures. Utilities 1. The applicant has proposed a sanitary sewer service connection for the site under County Road D. The existing sewer service to the movie theater is connected to a private sanitary sewer line under Maplewood Mall Road. It is recommended that the developer maintain the direction of sanitary flow to the private line and not redirect it to County Road D. If the developer is able to provide supporting documentation as to why redirecting the sanitary flow to County Road D is warranted, the city will consider approving the connection. No water main service connection will be allowed under County Road D unless the sanitary service connection is approved by the city. 2. The applicant shall have the location of the BP pipeline surveyed and shown on the plans. City code requires a 100-foot offset from the pipeline to any buildings. The city must approve the building locations if they do meet the 100 foot offset requirement. The applicant shall provide the city any conditions of review from the BP pipeline prior to the city approving grading and utility permits for the site. 46 Misc. 1. The developer shall dedicate 10 feet of right of way along White Bear Ave. and 17 feet of right of way along County Road D. The additional right of way is for future improvements to the respective streets. 2. The proposed sidewalk along County Road D is shown at 5 feet wide. As this is the location of a proposed trail identified in the Lake Links Trail Comprehensive Plan, the traiUwalk shall be constructed 8 feet wide. The trail may be constructed with bituminous or concrete and shall conform to the city's standazd plate for sidewalks and trails, (plate no. 230) NOTE: The developer is requesting that the city provide some assurance that access to the mall road, located on the west end of their site, be maintained when County Road D is upgraded in the future. At this time an expansion of County Road D is anticipated for 2007 or 2008. The engineering department has informed the developer that no guazantees can be made at this time. Based on preliminary layouts of a future County Road D, the intersection would be reduced to a right- in-right-out. Staff also discussed with the applicant the possibility of a 3/4 intersection, (left and right-in, but right-out only). There is some possibility that this option might be feasible in the future, but it is still rather eazly yet to determine. Staff discussed with the applicant that if they wanted some assurance that a 3/4 intersection might be feasible, then they would need to conduct a traffic study. A traffic study update will identify what effects a left turn in will have on the overall flow of traffic in the azea. The developer may conduct their own traffic study, to be reviewed by the city's traffic engineer, or may contribute $5,000 for a traffic study to be prepazed by the city. The study would review what impact a left turn into Maplewood Mall Road might have to County Road D and White Beaz Avenue. Currently, the developer is only proposing access to the site from Maplewood Mall Road. The applicant is considering a possible future proposal to provide access to the site via a shared drive with Arbys. The following comments are for future access improvements to the development and should not have a bearing on the current proposal as laid out in the plans dated March 22°d, 2004. Any future access to White Beaz Avenue would require approval and review by the Ramsey County Traffic Engineer. The proposed development and a possible future right-in, right-out access to White Beaz Avenue would have impacts to the flow of traffic on White Bear Avenue and County Road D. Though such an access and a subsequent elimination of another access may make sense, however traffic flow in this area has been of concern to the City and County for quite some time. A detailed traffic model was done in 2001 & 2002 to analyze traffic movement at the intersection of County Road D and White Beaz Ave. The past traffic study did not account for the type of access possibly being considered by the developer in the future. If such a proposal were made, a detailed traffic study update would need to done to compaze the traffic generated by the proposed development and the impacts such an access onto white Beaz Avenue might have to the area traffic. 47 If access to white Beaz Avenue is proposed, the city will require a separate traffic study be completed to determine what effect this will have on traffic flow. In this case the study will be more detailed and must be done by the city's traffic engineer. The developer would be required contribute $15,000 to the city to conduct a traffic study for any proposal to access White Beaz Ave. Approval of this development is not dependent on this study. Access approval is dependent on the outcome of the traffic study and approval of the city engineer and the Ramsey County traffic engineer. Currently the improvements to White Bear Avenue and County Road D are scheduled to begin in 2007. However, the plans must be coordinated with the Federal Highway Department and could take 12 to 18 months to complete. Also, the environmental and design phase of the project will take another 12 to 18 months to finish. Many of the decisions regazding geometry and access to County Road D or White Bear Ave may take as long to determine. There is a likelihood that County Road D will be turned over to Ramsey County after improvements aze made. Any improvements to County Road D will require acceptance from the County including access to the development. Any decisions made regarding future site access may take as long as 30 months. 48 Attachment 23 w~nnser cou-vN Deparbnent of Pablic Works Kenneth G. Haider, P.E., Director and County Engineer ADMINISTRATION/I~AND SURVEY 50 West Kellogg Blvd., Suite 910 St. Paul, MN 55102 • (651) 266-2600 • Fax 266-2615 E-mail: Public.Works@co.ramsey.mn.us MEMORANDUM TO FROM: Shaun Finwall City of Maplewood Dan Soler ~ N` ` Ramsey C my Public Works SUBJECT: Chesapeake Companies 3091 White Bear Avenue Former Maplewood Movie I Site DATE: May 4, 2004 ENGINEERING/OPERATIONS 3377 N. Rice Street Shoreview, MN 55126 (651) 484-9104 • Fax 482-5232 The Ramsey County Public Works Department has reviewed the proposed site plan from Chesapeake Companies at 3091 White Bear Avenue. This plan involves the redevelopment of the former Maplewood I movie theater site located west of White Bear Avenue and south of County Road D. Ramsey County has the following continents regarding this proposal. 1. The applicant, Chesapeake Companies, is proposing to redevelop the site and install two restaurants, a jewelry store and a strip mall. The former use of the site was asix-screen movie theater. The theater has been closed for several years. The development will generate a significantly greater amount of traffic than the former theater. The additional traffic will be added to an already congested White Bear Avenue/County Road D corridor. 2. This site is currently served by two driveways onto the Maplewood Mall private roadway. The proposed redevelopment will also be served by two full access driveways onto the Maplewood Mall private roadway. 3. The site traffic will primarily access the regional roadway system from the Maplewood Mall ring road out to White Bear Avenue at Woodlynn Avenue or from the Maplewood Mall Road directly out to County Road D. The intersection of Woodlynn Avenue and White Bear Avenue is signalized and' should not pose a significant problem. The intersection of the Maplewood Mall Road with County Road D will increase in traffic volume and may justify the installation of a traffic signal after the development is constructed. The City review comments have indicated that the future reconstruction of County Road D may result in a median closure (right in /right out) or a 3/a opening (right in/right out/left in) at the ~, ~ ~ ~':~ <:: Q 49 MAY 1 0 2004 Minnesota's First Home Bale County .. , .... . . . ... . .... printed on recycled paper with a minimum o(10% post•consumer content .,ice Maplewood Mall Road and County Road D intersection. The current Maplewood Mall Area Traffic Study needs to be updated based on trip generation and trip distribution caused by this development. These new trips will then be used to evaluate impacts to the intersection of the Maplewood Mall Road and County Road D and help define the best future operation of full, signalized access, right in/right out or 3/a. Any modification to this intersection should consider the elimination of the direct access from Arbys restaurant onto County Road D and combining it into the Chesapeake Companies site plan. 4. The developer has also presented a possible design proposal of a right in/right out access onto White Bear Avenue at the north end of their property. This access would be a combined access with the Arbys property. The existing access from Arbys onto White Bear Avenue would be eliminated. Initial reaction to this proposal by the County is positive. A similar situation exists to the south on White Bear Avenue between Lydia Avenue and Beam Avenue. Having an entrance at this location would deter some of the trips from the County Road D and White Bear Avenue intersection that is already congested. Again the current Maplewood Mall Area Traffic Study should be updated with these geometrics in place to address the feasibility of this access. 5. The City and County have begun preliminary design of a project to widen White Bear Avenue to a six-lane roadway in the future. The City should acquire any necessary right of way for this future project as part of the plat approval. Right of way needs have been estimated by Kimley-Horn as part of the White Bear Avenue plan. 6. The developer will require a permit from Ramsey County for utility work on White Bear Avenue. Please have the property owner contact Bob Vezina at 651-248-0453 when they are ready for a permit. Thanks for the opportunity to make comments regarding this issue. If you have any questions or need any additional information please give me a call. Cc: Erin Laberee -City of Maplewood 50 0~~9 -70F 7RP~~~ April 29, 2004 Shann Finwall Associate Planner -City of Maplewood Maplewood Community Development 1830 County Road B East Maplewood, MN 55109 SUBJECT: Chesapeake Retail Center NW Quad of County Road D and White Bear Ave Dear Mr. Finwall: Thank you for the opportunity to review the above referenced development proposal. This site is not directly adjacent to Mn/DOT's right of way, however the intensity of this development will likely have an impact on the traffic operations at White Bear Avenue and I-694 Interchange. Due to the high traffic volumes there are currently operational problems at this interchange. We are concerned that the additional traffic from this development will exacerbate the problem. It would be beneficial for our agency to review any traffic studies conducted for this development. Thank you again for keeping our agency informed of this development. We would appreciate maintaining our early involvement and reviewing any studies or changes for the development. If you have any questions concerning our review please feel free to contact me at (651) 582-1378. Sincerely, Brigid Gom o d Senior Planner Minnesota Department of Transportation Attachment 24 Metropolitan Division Waters Edge 1500 West County Road B2 Roseville, MN 55113 Copy: Dan Soler / Ramsey County Traffic Engineer Jeff Wurst /Chesapeake Companies Development Group, LLC Shari Ahrens / Westwood Professional Services, Inc. Marc Goess / Mn/DOT Area Engineer 51 An equal opportunity employer AZURE PROPERTIES P.O. BOX 17830 ST. PAUL, MN 55117-7830 (651) 484-0070 (FAX) 486-3444 April 23, 2004 Shann Finwall Planner Office of Community Development City of Maplewood 1830 East Cty Rd. B Maplewood, MN 55109 RE: Proposed Redevelopment of the Maplewood One Theater Site 3091 White Bear Ave. Maplewood, MN Dear Shann, Attachment 25 Facsimile 651-249-2319 This letter is written on behalf of Woodring Company regarding the proposed Maplewood Movie One Theatre site redevelopment. Woodring Company owns the site which is the location of the Acapulco Restaurant and the soon to be built Jiffy Lube Oil Change facility. Woodring Company is concerned that the new development must have adequate parking to properly serve its customers without overflow to adjoining properties. Adequate available parking is a critical element of commercial real estate. Woodring Companies has elected to replace the former "Pizza hut" restaurant on the Acapulco site with a new Jiffy Lube facility because the Jiffy Lube will cause little parking impact. The Acapulco restaurant customers will have adequate parking due to this change of use of the second building. As the southern neighbor of the proposed movie theater redevelopment, Woodring cannot accommodate any overflow parking. We ask that the Office of Community Development carefully consider that the amount of parking being provided is adequate for the needs of the new restaurants and other commercial tenants to be located on the former theater site. Thank you for your consideration. Please call if I can answer any additional questions regarding this matter. incere 0~..-~_ Thomas M. Schuette On behalf of Azure Properties TMS/kl 52 Attachment 26 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION WHEREAS, Chesapeake Companies Development Group, LLC, applied for a conditional use permit for a planned unit development to construct four restaurant/retail buildings for a development known as Chesapeake Retail Center. WHEREAS, this permit applies to the property at 3091 White Bear Avenue. The legal description is Lot 1, Block 1, Maplewood Mall Addition. WHEREAS, the history of this conditional use permit is as follows: 1. On May 3, 2004, the planning commission reviewed this request and made a recommendation about this permit. 2. On May , 2004, the city council held a public hearing. 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 from the city staff and planning commission. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the city council approve the above- described conditional use permit, because: 1. The use would be located, designed, maintained, constructed and operated to be in conformity with the city's comprehensive plan and code of ordinances. 2. The use would not change the existing or planned character of the surrounding area. 3. The use would not depreciate property values. 4. The use would not involve any activity, process, materials, equipment or methods of operation that would be dangerous, hazardous, detrimental, disturbing or cause a nuisance to any person or property, because of excessive noise, glare, smoke, dust, odor, fumes, water or air pollution, drainage, water runoff, vibration, general unsightliness, electrical interference or other nuisances. 5. The use would generate only minimal vehicular traffic on local streets and would not create traffic congestion or unsafe access on existing or proposed streets. 6. The use would be served by adequate public facilities and services, including streets, police and fire protection, drainage structures, water and sewer systems, schools and parks. 7. The use would not create excessive additional costs for public facilities or services. 8. The use would maximize the preservation of and incorporate the site's natural and scenic features into the development design. 9. The use would cause minimal adverse environmental effects. 53 Approval is subject to the following conditions: Have the city engineer approve final construction and engineering plans. These plans shall comply with all requirements as specified in the city engineering department's April 26, 2004, engineering plan review as well as the following: a. A westward extension of the retaining wall south of Building D (Jared Jewelers). The retaining wall height must be sufficient to create a prevailing ground slope away from Building D, thereby deflecting a potential flow from a pipeline leak. 2. An easement agreement that governs and provides for legal cross easements for parking, access, and utilities between all lots within the project. 3. An easement agreement for the installation and maintenance of a freestanding sign on Lot 1 to benefit Lot 2. 4. An owners association agreement specifying responsibilities for insurance, taxes and maintenance of all commonly owned property and facilities (including snow plowing). 5. All 8-foot-wide parking spaces must be signed as either "employee" or "compact" car parking only. 6. Signage for Buildings B, C, and D are allowed as follows: a. One freestanding sign, 25 feet in height and 100 square feet in area. Freestanding sign height must be measured from building grade to top of the sign, not ground grade to top of sign. The TGI Friday's and Jared Jeweler's freestanding signs must maintain a 5-foot setback to the White Bear Avenue right-of-way and a 10-foot setback to all side property lines. The Buffalo Wild Wing's freestanding must maintain a 1-foot setback to the County Road Dright- of-way and a 5-foot setback to the side property line. All three freestanding signs must have a decorative base constructed of quality building materials to match the corresponding buildings. b. Three wall signs per building, only one per elevation. Size of the wall sign is limited to 20 percent of the gross wall area on which the sign is attached. Wall signs are not permitted on a canopy. 7. All construction shall follow the plans date-stamped March 30, 2004 and April 26, 2004, with revisions as noted in this approval. The city council may approve major changes to the plans. The Director of Community Development may approve minor changes to the plans, including a change to the site plan for the proposed future driveway access onto White Bear Avenue, pending Ramsey County engineer and city engineer approval. 8. The proposed construction must be substantially started within one year of city council approval or the permit shall end. The city council may extend this deadline for one year. 9. The city council shall review this permit in one year. The Maplewood City Council approved this resolution on , 2004. 54 MINUTES OF THE MAPLEWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION 1830 COUNTY ROAD B EAST, MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA MONDAY, MAY 3, 2004 VI. NEW BUSINESS a. Chesapeake Properties Retail Center (Maplewood I Movie Site - 3091 White Bear Avenue) Ms. Finwall said Chesapeake Companies has purchased the Maplewood Movie I theater site located at 3091 White Bear Avenue. Chesapeake Companies proposes to demolish the theater and redevelop the 4.98-acre site with four new restaurant/retail buildings including TGI Fridays, Buffalo Wild Wings, Jared Jewelers, and a future multi-tenant retail center. The proposed name for the center is Chesapeake Retail Center. Chesapeake Companies is requesting that the city approve the request to develop the Chesapeake Retail Center for a preliminary plat to divide the site into four lots and a planned unit development (PUD). Commissioner Pearson asked if the 8-foot parking spaces are they the same length as the 9-foot parking spaces? Ms. Finwall said the 8-foot parking spaces have reduced lengths, which is allowable in the city's code when adjacent to landscaping or a sidewalk area. Commissioner Pearson asked what the aisle width between the parking spaces would be? Ms. Finwall said the aisle width would be maintained with 24-foot widths. Commissioner Mueller asked how many parking spaces were at the old movie theater site? Ms. Finwall said the applicant could answer that. Commissioner Trippler asked for clarification regarding page 5 of the staff report under Signs it states "within this zoning district, the city's sign code allows each business with two street frontages, such as the Chesapeake Retail Center, to have five signs". He said staff stated this signage is excessive and he asked for clarification on those statements. Ms. Finwall said the CDRB will be looking at this at their next meeting May 11, 2004, and they will be taking a closer look at the sign requirements for this proposal. Commissioner Trippler said he did not see any sidewalks in the plans and he asked if there were plans for sidewalks? Ms. Finwall said sidewalks are shown on the site plan along County Road D. The applicant has proposed a 5-foot wide sidewalk however, after the engineering department reviewed the plans they recommended the sidewalk be widened to 8-foot wide because it is on a future sidewalk extension. They also are proposing a 5-foot wide sidewalk along the mall Ring Road and they are working with Simon Companies, the owner of Maplewood Mall on installing the sidewalk right-of- way. Commissioner Pearson asked when BP did their pipeline survey were they able to determine the depth of the line? Ms. Finwall said she hopes the applicant has more information on the results of the pipeline survey this evening. Commissioner Trippler asked why the city is concerned where the sanitary sewer is going? Ms. Laberee, Maplewood City Engineer, said currently the sanitary sewer service for the Maplewood Theater is going to the ring road and the applicant is proposing to redirect the sewer to County Road D. She said the city would like to keep the sanitary sewer going to the ring road. The city did not want to open up County Road D for the construction of the sewer service because of the high volume of traffic on that road. Chairperson Fischer asked the applicant to address the commission. Mr. Jeffrey Wurst, Development Manager, Chesapeake Companies, 11100 Wayzata Boulevard, Suite 766, Minnetonka, addressed the commission. The existing theater site has a total of 377 parking spaces verses a proposed parking space count of 342 and a city requirement of 315. BP has completed their survey of the pipeline and has identified both locations on the property. Relative to building D, which is the Jared Jewelry store, they are currently at a setback from the pipeline as proposed at 82.8 feet. With an additional movement of the building to the south if it were 10 feet that would reduce the setback to 72.8 feet however, they don't believe a shift of 10 feet is required. They have taken a closer look at the Arby's site and believe with afive-foot building shift to the south they are able to accommodate a driveway. He wanted it made clear they are not proposing an excessive amount of signage and he understands that the sign proposal would be reviewed at the CDRB meeting. Mr. Wurst said regarding the sanitary sewer line they have been working with the engineering department. They are faced with tying into the existing sewer line or tying in with new uses to a very complex private system run by Simon Properties. Secondly they cross two properties to the south. The sewer line doesn't tie directly into the ring road but rather it travels south across the Wedding Day Jewelers property and Acapulco Restaurant. He also said that as of this date Chesapeake Companies has not gotten permission from the owner of the Acapulco Restaurant to enter into a written easement agreement thereby providing access from the south. He said there are still some issues to discuss with the engineering department but they wanted the commission to know they are working on it. Commissioner Bartol asked if Chesapeake Companies has an agreement with Arby's as far as a shared entrance? Mr. Wurst said no they have not. The plan for Arby's looks very official but it is very preliminary. This is a very complex situation as Arby's is part of a franchise, there is also the property owner of Arby's and there are lenders behind both of these entities as well. They are committed to trying to get this to happen, however, there are many obstacles to cover before this driveway can happen. Commissioner Bartol asked if the driveway proposal fell through would they see that as a problem and would they attempt to make changes so they would have an entrance directly off of White Bear Avenue? Mr. Wurst said there are no plans to do that at this point. The idea of including a shared driveway with Arby's was an after thought, which was also prompted with discussions with city staff. They are satisfied that the existing locations off the ring road could adequately serve the development without a direct access off of White Bear Avenue. Commissioner Trippler asked what the rationale was to request a variance on the width of the parking spaces to go from 9'/2 feet to 9 feet? Mr. Wurst said they wanted to make sure there would be adequate parking for all the retail tenants. One of the items that supports that is the neighboring property owner to the south had written in a letter a concern of what the parking requirement would be for this location and that they would not be able to sustain overflow parking. Chesapeake Companies doesn't think they have that problem they think what they have proposed will adequately serve the sites that are at this location. The number of parking spots proposed were not based on the minimum city requirement but what the tenants needs are for this location. Basically Chesapeake Companies has to provide enough parking spaces for the tenants to be interested in staying at this location. Commissioner Desai said he really likes the proposed plan and thinks these tenants would be a nice addition to the area. However, he is concerned about the traffic levels especially during the holidays when County Road D and White Bear Avenue are clogged up around the mall. He asked if there had been any type of traffic study done in the area? Mr. Wurst said no there hadn't been any type of traffic study done that he was aware of. In relation to the mall area they believe these tenants will be a very small traffic generator and should not cause any more traffic delay in the area. He believes people will stop at these restaurants on their way to the Maplewood Mall. Commissioner Mueller asked compared to the movie theater would that generate more or less traffic in the area? Mr. Wurst said he was not sure how to answer that. He said if parking space was a good gauge the movie theater site has 377 parking spaces and they have proposed 317 parking spaces for the new space. Commissioner Dierich asked if they had amulti-tenant proposed for the multi-tenant area yet? Mr. Wurst said they haven't made an attempt to market the building at this time. He estimates 1/3 of the tenant space would occupy a "fast casual" restaurant similar to a Chipotle restaurant otherwise the rest of the tenant space is unknown at time. Chairperson Fischer asked if anybody else wanted to address the commission regarding this item? Nobody came forward. Commissioner Trippler said he likes the overall plan and concept. He said there are about five different variances that have to be granted in order for this proposal to pass. He doesn't like granting variances when it doesn't seem necessary. With a little bit of tweaking and helping the applicant out with understanding the city's ordinances most of these variances could have been avoided. He would like to see staff try to avoid these types of variances in the future. Commissioner Pearson moved to approve Chesapeake Companies' preliminary plat for the Chesapeake Retail Center at 3091 White Bear Avenue date stamped March 30, 2004. Approval is subject to the following conditions: a. Have the city engineer approve final construction and engineering plans. These plans shall comply with all requirements as specified in the city engineering department's April 26, 2004, engineering plan review. b. Revise the plat to show: 1)The dedication of 10 feet of additional right-of-way along White Bear Avenue. 2)The dedication of 17 feet of additional right-of-way along County Road D. c. Prior to final plat approval, the following must be submitted for city staff approval: 1) Easement agreement that governs and provides for legal cross easements for parking, access, and utilities between all lots within the project. 2) Easement agreement for the installation and maintenance of a freestanding sign on Lot 1 to benefit Lot 2. 3) Owners association agreement specifying responsibilities for insurance, taxes and maintenance of all commonly owned property and facilities (including snow plowing). d. Record all easement and owners association agreements with the final plat. Commissioner Pearson moved to approve the resolution on pages 34 through 36. This resolution approves a conditional use permit for a planned unit development for the development of four restaurant/retail buildings at 3091 White Bear Avenue (Chesapeake Retail Center). Approval is subject to the following conditions: a. Have the city engineer approve final construction and engineering plans. These plans shall comply with all requirements as specified in the city engineering department's April 26, 2004, engineering plan review as well as the following: 1)A westward extension of the retaining wall south of Building D (Jared Jewelers). The retaining wall height must be sufficient to create a prevailing ground slope away from Building D, thereby deflecting a potential flow from a pipeline leak. b. Prior to issuance of a grading or building permit, the developer must complete the following: 1)Obtain a demolition permit for the removal of the existing Maplewood Movie I Theatre building. 2)Submit a revised site plan showing Building C (TGI Fridays) and Building D (Jared Jewelers) shifted approximately ten feet to the south in order to accommodate a future driveway located to the north of Building C which may be installed onto White Bear Avenue. 3) Pending continued cooperation with the adjacent property owner, submit a revised site plan showing the location of a driveway and pedestrian cross-access on the south side of the property, to accommodate entrance and egress to and from the southerly property (3065 White Bear Avenue). 4)Submit a revised site plan showing the extension of the sidewalk in front of Building A (future retail/restaurant) onto the County Road D trail. 5)Submit a revised site plan showing a pedestrian access extending from the White Bear Avenue sidewalk. 6)Obtain the required Ramsey/Washington Metro Watershed District permits. 7)Submit payment for all required Park Access Charges (PAC fees) as specified in the Park Director's April 14, 2004, correspondence to Chesapeake Companies. 8)Submit an easement agreement that governs and provides for legal cross easements for parking, access, and utilities between all lots within the project. 9)Submit an easement agreement for the installation and maintenance of a freestanding sign on Lot 1 to benefit Lot 2. 10) Submit an owners association agreement specifying responsibilities for insurance, taxes and maintenance of all commonly owned property and facilities (including snow plowing). c. All 8-foot-wide parking spaces must be signed as either "employees" or "compact" car parking only. d. Pending the community design review board recommendation and city council approval, each building is allowed one freestanding sign, 25 feet in height and 100 square feet in area, except for the multi-tenant building which would be allowed a freestanding sign up to 150 square feet in area. All freestanding signs must maintain a 10-foot setback to a right-of-way. Each building is allowed three wall signs to be attached to a separate elevations, except for the multi-tenant building which could have two wall signs for each tenant. Wall sign size is limited to 20 percent of the gross wall area on which the sign is attached. e. All construction shall follow the plans date stamped March 30, 2004, with revisions as noted in this approval. The city council may approve major changes to the plans. The Director of Community Development may approve minor changes to the plans, including a change to the site plan for the proposed future driveway access onto White Bear Avenue, pending Ramsey County engineer and city engineer approval. f. The proposed construction must be substantially started within one year of city council approval or the permit shall end. The city council may extend this deadline for one year. g. The city council shall review this permit in one year. Commissioner Mueller seconded. Ayes - Bartol, Desai, Dierich, Fischer, Mueller, Pearson, Trippler The motion passed. This item goes to the city council on May 24, 2004. DRAFT MINUTES OF THE MAPLEWOOD COMMUNITY DESIGN REVIEW BOARD 1830 COUNTY ROAD B EAST, MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA THURSDAY, MAY 13, 2004 (Rescheduled from Tuesday, May 11, 2004) (This meeting was not cablecast because of the date change) V. DESIGN REVIEW a. Chesapeake Retail Center - 3091 White Bear Avenue Ms. Finwall said Chesapeake Companies has purchased the Maplewood Movie I Theater site located at 3091 White Bear Avenue. Chesapeake Companies proposes to demolish the theater and redevelop the 4.98-acre site with four new restaurant/retail buildings including TGI Fridays, Buffalo Wild Wings, Jared Jewelers, and a future multi-tenant retail center. The proposed name for the center is Chesapeake Retail Center. The planning commission reviewed and recommended approval of the preliminary plat and planned unit development (PUD) at the May 3, 2004, planning commission meeting. The community design review board (CDRB) should review and make a recommendation on all design review items including architecture, landscaping, lighting, and signs at the May 13, 2004, meeting. Board member Ledvina said he thought the suggestions and conditions by staff were appropriate. He thinks the designs of these proposals are very attractive. Regarding the freestanding signs, he thinks the Jared Jewelers sign is nicely designed. He has questions about the TGI Friday's sign and the Buffalo Wild Wing's sign. He asked how tall these signs would be and if there were any improvements to be made along the base of the sign? Ms. Finwall said the sign criteria as outlined in the staff report indicates the sign height is 25 feet high and because of the grade difference on White Bear Avenue the height of the sign should be measured from the actual building grade. In order to support the five-foot freestanding sign setback as part of the PUD staff recommends that all freestanding signs have bases constructed with more architectural designs including building materials as seen on the building designs. Board member Ledvina asked if the multi-tenant building would have a sign? Ms. Finwall said the applicant is proposing a sign but staff recommends that be part of the overall approval of the building design and sign plan for the future multi-tenant building when it comes to the board for review. Ms. Finwall said it seemed there was limited space in that location for a sign as well. Chairperson Longrie-Kline asked if there had been any further reports done on the grading/drainage/utilities as shown on page 4 of the staff report? Ms. Finwall asked if she meant had there been any additional information regarding the sewer? Chairperson Longrie-Kline said yes. Ms. Finwall said she would let the applicant address that issue when they came forward. Chairperson Longrie-Kline asked the applicant to address the board. Mr. Jeff Wurst, Development Manager at Chesapeake Companies, Minnetonka, addressed the board. Mr. Wurst said Chesapeake Companies is very happy to bring the new development into the City of Maplewood. They are excited about this location and for the quality of tenants they have attracted to this site because they believe this development is the gateway to the Maplewood Mall. He said the 8-foot wide parking spaces will be labeled either compact or employee parking. Pedestrian access ways were discussed and shown on a map given to staff. Board member Shankar asked how many parking spaces the applicant would lose because of the pedestrian access? Mr. Wurst said they would lose 5 parking spaces. Board member Olson asked how discussions were going with Arby's regarding the shared access? Mr. Wurst said the discussions are ongoing. They have done a lot of work that has been going on for the last 6-8 weeks and they are 10% of where they need to be to make this happen. He said they have a landowner, because Arby's leases the land, they also have the Arby's franchisee and they also assume there is a lender involved. The discussions have gone well with both the landowner and Arby's franchisee. They will need to conduct a traffic study per city staff for the relocation of Arby's driveway to the south. Chesapeake Companies has decided to spend the time and money on surveying the Arby's property, which previously did not exist. They also believe shifting the building five feet to accommodate a future shared driveway is very doable. Chairperson Longrie-Kline said the cross access drive and the drive to the west seem close to each other and she asked if the applicant had an explanation for that? Mr. Wurst said the suggestion for the driveway location came from the property owner to the south. The property owner to the south would like an exchange for agreements for access to the sanitary sewer for the driveway cuts. He reviewed the proposed layout of the development relative to his property, which includes the Wedding Day Jewelry site and they have decided where they would like the cross access drive. Board member Olson asked what the applicant had in mind for the multi-tenant building? Mr. Wurst said they haven't marketed tenants for the multi-tenant building. They are envisioning at least half of the building to be anon-restaurant retail use and the other one-third to one-half a fast casual restaurant with a less intense parking need similar to a restaurant like Chipotle located on White Bear Avenue. Board member Olson asked if they feel they will have an adequate number of parking spaces for all of these tenants? Mr. Wurst said there is nothing more important to a high quality restaurant operation than adequate parking and he can assure the city they have reviewed with each retail tenant what their parking needs would be. The tenants wouldn't be interested in space in this location if they did not feel the parking would suit their needs. Board member Shankar asked what the size of the future multi-tenant building would be? Mr. Wurst said the building would fit within the overall site plan. They are still working on the building design but the building would be somewhere between 9,000 - 9,600 square feet. Board member Shankar asked if there would be a chance the applicant could come back in the future asking for more space on the south side thus eliminating 20 parking spaces? Mr. Wurst said they are planning on a building no larger than 9,600 square feet. The site design is going to be a blend of architectural details verses square footage to see what fits best on the site. Mr. Wurst showed a preliminary color rendering of what the building could look like to the board. Board member Ledvina asked if the applicant could discuss the signage for the buildings? Mr. Wurst said each building would have an equivalent of a 25-foot high sign, considering what the grade differences are between the building and the foundation. Board member Olson asked if they would be comfortable constructing all the signs so they have the same consistent base even though the face of the sign and poles may be different? Mr. Wurst said they have tried to keep the tenants trademark theme for each building for their signage. TGI Friday's, Buffalo Wild Wings, and Jared Jewelers all have trademark themes for their signage. He would prefer the base for each sign be constructed of the same materials that their buildings are constructed of. Jared Jewelers sign is a colonial style and is very nice looking and matches the building. He said Jared Jewelers does not have a signboard, what you see in the plans is what they plan on using. Board member Ledvina asked if there were any concerns regarding the staff recommendations for the TGI Friday's building? Mr. Wurst said they had a representative from TGI Friday's scheduled for the Tuesday evening meeting that was cancelled, unfortunately the representative wasn't able to make it to this meeting. Mr. Wurst said he couldn't commit to anything on behalf of TGI Friday's but from conversations he has had with them they agreed the trash enclosure area should be built of the same masonry materials. Mr. Wurst showed the board materials boards for all three buildings. Chairperson Longrie-Kline wanted to spread the word that the board appreciates seeing a materials board so they can visualize what the building colors and materials would look like. Board member Shankar said there are quite a few building materials being used on the TGI Friday's building. Board member Ledvina agreed there is a mix of building materials being used but this is their trademark building and it is a good mix. Board member Olson said she doesn't have a problem with the mix of building materials because it maintains the character of the building style and reflects what kind of business they run on the inside as well. Board member Shankar said his main concern is the frequency of joints in the marble. He recommended it would look better to him if the panels were 2 feet by 2 feet. Board member Ledvina said he understands what Board member Shankar is saying but he would defer that to the architect in terms of materials used and the availability. Mr. Wurst said it's his understanding that the brick material would continue around the trash enclosure and around the back of the property. Mr. Wurst said TGI Friday's plan is their prototype design that is used on all of their new buildings. As far as Board member Shankar's suggestion of changing the size of the materials, TGI Friday's would have to confirm that they could even get those materials in different dimensions in order to change the design. Chairperson Longrie-Kline asked for comments regarding the Maplewood Police Department recommendation to have asix-foot-high patio fence instead of the proposed four-foot-high patio fence for Buffalo Wild Wings? Mr. Wurst said from an aesthetic standpoint a 6-foot-high patio fence is not appealing. The patio area is very visible and in his opinion the fence should be low scale and inviting instead of appearing to be a high security area. He would recommend the representative for Buffalo Wild Wings speak more on the issue. Chairperson Longrie-Kline invited the applicant for Buffalo Wild Wings to address the board. Ms. Mary Twinem, CFO for Buffalo Wild Wings, St. Louis Park, addressed the board. She would like to discuss the operational aspects of having a patio at a restaurant. She said they are committed to the proper and responsible serving of alcoholic beverages and take it very seriously. Ms. Twinem said Buffalo Wild Wings will be requesting a full liquor license, but alcohol represents only 30% of their sales and of that amount 80% is from the sale of beer. They have a full menu and operate their kitchen the same hours they are open for business. They have many years of experience running and operating patio areas and currently have locations in Champlin and Coon Rapids with four-foot-high patio fences used at each location. They train their servers and bartenders for serving on patios and they also use the barcode training system that is endorsed by the (NRA) National Restaurant Association. They have servers that are assigned only to the patio area to monitor the activities and drinking in the area. They limit the patio area use to customers who are 21 and over unless accompanied by a parent. Buffalo Wild Wings has been operating for almost 20 years and have operated with patios for almost the same amount of time. Chairperson Longrie-Kline asked if there would be any gates on the patio fence enclosure? Ms. Twinem said that depends on what the city ordinance is. Many times you have to have gates for safety reasons so people can exit the area and the two patios they have in Champlin and Coon Rapids have gates. Board member Shankar asked what type of flooring material is used for the patio? Ms. Twinem said they would be using poured concrete. Board member Olson asked what material the fence would be made of? Ms. Twinem said the fence is made of wrought iron. Board member Olson asked what height they typically build the wrought iron fence at? Ms. Twinem said they have built the fences at both three feet high and four feet high. This fencing plan has been submitted at four feet. Board member Ledvina asked what the staff recommendation is for the fence height? Ms. Finwall said with Buffalo Wild Wings liquor license review the fence height would be up to the city council. Aesthetically staff would prefer afour-foot-high wrought iron fence around the patio area. It is the Police Department that requested asix-foot-high fence around the patio. Chairperson Longrie-Kline said her personal experience from sitting on patio areas is that she doesn't want to feel like a prisoner while sitting outside. She would like to be able to look outside and she thinks the four-foot fence height is a compromise between athree-foot high and asix-foot high fence. Chairperson Longrie-Kline asked if they could discuss the drainage of the development. Mr. Wurst said drainage refers to sanitary sewer. They have had detailed conversations with staff as to where the appropriate tie in point is for the sanitary sewer. One point is at County Road D and the other is tying into the private sanitary sewer system that flows through the Maplewood Mall system and into the public line again. This is a huge issue for Chesapeake Companies and they want to bring resolution with the engineering staff as quick as they can. Timing wise this jeopardizes the whole development and they don't want this to be an issue that delays construction at the site. They have commitments to the lease tenants and failure to deliver their commitments allows them to go away if they would like to. To tie into the existing line to the south it is going to require two easements. There are two property owners to the south for which the line crosses as well as approval from Simon Properties Group. Today they have a verbal agreement from one of the property owners to the south; however, the verbal agreement is a long way from someone signing the agreement. He is referring to the Mogren property, which also has the four individuals in partnership. The second property to the south is the Acapulco Restaurant. At this point they have no verbal or written agreement although they have been approaching them for over six weeks. City staff has had some conversation for the need for a sanitary sewer connection and an easement through the area and staff has suggested that they go ahead and submit a proposed written easement to the property owner. They have prepared the easement and they have surveyed the line to get a legal description to submit to the property owner. Mr. Wurst said based on the lack of response they have received over the last six weeks he doesn't have a lot of confidence. They are connecting to the private sewer system of Simon Properties with a greater use than the old movie theater site. They have gone through a lengthy evaluation of whether or not the system can accommodate the additional affluent. There is no known legal agreement that addresses the segment of pipe that flows from the Acapulco Restaurant site onto Simon Properties system, so there is another missing link. Frankly that is the low-cost alternative and that would be great if it happened but he is concerned about the timing. Mr. Wurst said given their construction schedule and what is needed to deliver the commitments to the tenants and the timeframes they are committed to, he has concerns about the possibility of having these plans aligned and being able to tie into the private sewer line. Board member Ledvina asked if there would be a freestanding sign for the future multi-tenant building? Mr. Wurst said yes there is one shown in the PUD plan and it's shown adjacent to the building in the northwest corner of the site and consistent with the staff recommendation they propose a 150 square foot sign face for that sign. They did a survey for other multi-tenant buildings in the area and that is greatly reduced from what is out there. Ms. Finwall said staff has not recommended that there is any action taken on the freestanding sign for the future multi-tenant building so that square footage is not included in the recommendation but would be reviewed during the design review of that building in the future. Chairperson Longrie-Kline said to clarify the sign location is in the PUD? Ms. Finwall said staff hasn't made a recommendation for sign location either, however, it's currently depicted on the plan and the current recommendation of staff is three freestanding signs with afive-foot setback. Chairperson Longrie-Kline said if the board isn't currently approving the location of the sign then it shouldn't be on the PUD that gets approved? Ms. Finwall said correct. Mr. Wurst said he understands the need for appropriate sign setbacks and what they have proposed along White Bear Avenue works and is consistent with the setbacks that have been recommended by staff. The sign for Buffalo Wild Wings on County Road D is very problematic in that area of the development because of the dedicated easement that is being required as a condition of the PUD approval, which is the 17-foot strip. The way the sign is shown on the drawing is about the only place it fits, which is shown at a zero foot setback relative to the five- foot setback recommended by staff. He asked if they could keep the door open for further discussion to determine a workable setback. Board member Ledvina asked for staff's comment regarding the sign setback. Ms. Finwall said staff is recommending afive-foot setback to the new right of way line. Board member Ledvina asked if that puts the sign 22 feet from the pavement of County Road D? Ms. Finwall said yes 22 feet from the existing pavement of County Road D. Board member Olson asked with Legacy Village isn't the city expanding signage closer to County Road D? Shouldn't the city be consistent with signage along County Road D, therefore couldn't the city could go with a zero foot setback and still be consistent? Specifically she is referring to Ashley Furniture and their proposal to have a sign right on the corner. Ms. Finwall said she is not familiar with the signage that was approved for Ashley Furniture. Having a zero setback would be consistent with the existing signs including Circuit City and Arby's because these signs were built prior to the city's requirement for any setback. Staff was recommending afive-foot setback on County Road D to be consistent with the five-foot setback on White Bear Avenue. Board members Olson and Ledvina said they would be comfortable with waiving the sign setback as long as it's consistent with the other signs along County Road D. Chairperson Longrie-Kline said she would also agree. Mr. Wurst asked if they could discuss landscaping? Chairperson Longrie-Kline said yes. Mr. Wurst said the initial land survey that was conducted was inaccurate as far as tree size and tree variety. In the staff report there are 37 trees identified and located 28 of the trees are considered large trees. But because of the sizing error there are actually 28 large trees. Mr. Wurst said unfortunately the land surveyor measured the trees at the base level verses four feet up and there are several trees that have a large stump like base to them that have multiple trunks that come out. They are still proposing to remove those trees. There are many scrub trees that were poorly maintained and many of them are being removed for functional reasons such as grading and sidewalks. They want the quality of the landscaping to match the quality of the buildings and the architecture that is being proposed. Along the Arby's and Chesapeake Companies property line they propose to remove 5 trees for the purpose of grading. Grades will change in the area in part to accommodate the possibility of a future Arby's driveway. The landscape plan doesn't include the TGI Friday's foundation landscape plan. Adding more trees would obscure the signage of the TGI Friday's building making it so it wouldn't be visible from White Bear Avenue. He questions the need for additional trees on the site. Along the ring road they have proposed the installation of trees to replace those that are being removed to accommodate the sidewalk. They don't want to create a canopy of trees so you can't see the buildings that are there. He understands the need for an attractive boulevard but they are also trying to allow for visibility of the tenants. They think they have a nice balance with the landscaping plan proposed. They are removing trees in the area but they are not Maple trees as written in the staff report, the trees are actually ornamental Amur maple trees. Chairperson Longrie-Kline asked if the new trees they are planning on replacing the Amur trees with would grow to be about the same height? Mr. Wurst said he would defer that question to the landscape representative. Chairperson Longrie-Kline asked her to address the board. Ms. Shari Ahrens, Project Engineer, Westwood Professional Services, Inc., addressed the board. She said in their conversations and approval with Xcel Energy they were told the maximum height of the trees in the easement area could be 15 feet. Board member Olson said these trees are fairly large and their root system extends out quite far. She estimates as they grade they would damage the trees significantly. Ms. Ahrens said they need a connection from White Bear Avenue to the site and they are looking at bringing the sidewalk in close proximity of the Maple trees, which could impact the root structure of the trees. Chairperson Longrie-Kline asked how tall the proposed trees would be? Ms. Ahrens said she didn't have the answer to that question but they would work with staff for the minimum size of trees. Ms. Finwall said she didn't realize the trees were Amur maple trees she thought they were regular maple trees. Also, there is over 500 feet from County Road D to the south property line, and 7 Linden trees will not fill in that area and the addition of 7 more trees would aesthetically add and not take away from the buildings, considering Linden trees are only 25 feet in width. Board member Ledvina said he is comfortable allowing staff and the applicant to work the landscaping details out. He understands from the applicant that they would be planting landscaping that would complement the high quality of their buildings. Board member Olson said the landscaping plans the board is reviewing is preliminary and the board doesn't have the landscaping plan for TGI Friday's yet. Board member Shankar said even though the foundation landscape is attractive he would still like to make some recommendations as to the level of planting along the west side of the site, facing the Maplewood Mall because he sees that as a different issue. Board member Ledvina said the buildings are very attractive and are a quality design. Staff is on target with their recommendations. He would agree that a neon sign for Buffalo Wild Wings is not appropriate for this location. Board member Ledvina moved to approve the building and sign elevations, site plan, and landscape plan date-stamped March 30, 2004; the lighting plan date-stamped April 26, 2004; and the Jared Jewelers foundation landscape plan date-stamped April 26, 2004, for the development of the Chesapeake Retail Center 3091 White Bear Avenue. The developer shall do the following: (additions are in bold and/or are underlined and deletions have been stricken) a. Repeat this review in two years if the city has not issued a building permit for all three buildings for this project (Buildings B, C, and D). b. Submit the following to city staff prior to issuance of a grading or building permit: 1) Have the city engineer approve final construction and engineering plans. These plans shall comply with all requirements as specified in the city engineering department's April 26, 2004, engineering plan review as well as the following: a) A westward extension of the retaining wall south of Building D (Jared Jewelers). The retaining wall height must be sufficient to create a prevailing ground slope away from Building D, thereby deflecting a potential flow from a pipeline leak. 2) Obtain a demolition permit for the removal of the existing Maplewood Movie I Theater building. 3) Obtain the required Ramsey/Washington Metro Watershed District permits. 4) Submit payment for all required Park Access Charges (PAC fees) as specified in the Park Director's April 14, 2004, correspondence to Chesapeake Companies. 5) Submit an easement agreement that governs and provides for legal cross easements for parking, access, and utilities between all lots within the project. 6) Submit an easement agreement for the installation and maintenance of a freestanding sign on Lot 1 to benefit Lot 2. 7) Submit an owner's association agreement specifying responsibilities for insurance, taxes and maintenance of all commonly owned property and facilities (including snow plowing). 8) Submit a revised site plan showing the following: a) The dedication of 10 feet of additional right-of-way along White Bear Avenue. b) The dedication of 17 feet of additional right-of-way along County Road D. c) Building C (TGI Fridays) and Building D (Jared Jewelers) shifted approximately five feet to the south, or a lesser distance, to accommodate a future driveway located to the north of Building C that would extend onto White Bear Avenue. d) Pending continued cooperation with the adjacent property owner, show the location of a driveway and pedestrian cross-access on the south side of the property, to accommodate entrance and egress to and from the southerly property (3065 White Bear Avenue). e) The extension of the sidewalk in front of Building A (future retail/restaurant) onto the County Road D trail. f) A pedestrian access extending from the White Bear Avenue sidewalk. g) The relocation of Buffalo Wild Wing's freestanding sign to ensure a 5- foot setback from all property lines. 9) A revised landscape plan subject to review and approval by staff shall be submitted with the following conditions: a) s} Pending a shared driveway scenario with Arby's. a revised landscape plan showing the area of disturbance and landscaping proposed. b) d} Seven additional trees on the west side of the property, between the sidewalk and the Maplewood Mall road. c) e} Additional plantings in front of Jared Jeweler's dumpster enclosure to help screen the enclosure from White Bear Avenue. d) #} A foundation landscape plan for TGI Fridays and Buffalo Wild Wings. These plans should be consistent and complement the overall landscaping and Jared Jeweler's foundation plantings, and should ensure appropriate plantings in front of all dumpster enclosures to ensure screening from the roadways. e) g} An underground irrigation plan to ensure all landscaping is irrigated per city code. 10) Revised building and dumpster enclosure elevations showing the following: TGI Fridays: a) Removal of EIFS building material and replacement e# with brick, granite, and/or stone building materials and consistent building detail, including parapet walls, on all elevations of the building. b) Dumpster and recycling enclosure constructed of quality building materials to match the building. The enclosure must be at least 6 feet high and have a 100-percent opaque gate. Jared Jewelers: a) Dumpster and recycling enclosure constructed of quality building materials to match the building. The enclosure must be at least 6 feet high and have a 100-percent opaque gate. Buffalo Wild Wings: a) Removal of the exposed neon stripe. b) Dumpster and recycling enclosure constructed of quality building materials to match the building. The enclosure must be at least 6 feet high and have a 100-percent opaque gate. 11) A revised outdoor lighting and photometric plan. The revised plan shall shoe the exact location, height, and style of all outdoor lights. The light illumination from all outdoor lights may not exceed .4-foot-candles at all property lines. 12) A cash escrow or an irrevocable letter of credit for all required exterior improvements. The amount shall be 150 percent of the cost of the work. c. Prior to issuance of sign permits, the following must be submitted: 1) Sign elevations for Buildings B, C, and D as follows: a) One freestanding sign, 25 feet in height and 100 square feet in area. Freestanding sign height must be measured from building grade to top of the sign, not ground grade to top of sign. The TGI Friday's and Jared Jewelers freestanding signs must maintain a 5- foot setback to the White Bear Avenue right-of-way and a 10-foot setback to all side property lines. The Buffalo Wild Wing's freestanding sign can maintain a zero setback to County Road D and a 5-foot setback to the side property line. All three freestanding signs must have a decorative base constructed of quality building materials to match the corresponding buildings. b) Three wall signs per building, only one per elevation. Size of the wall sign is limited to 20 percent of the gross wall area on which the sign is attached. Wall signs are not permitted on a canopy. 2) A detailed landscape plan for the base of all three proposed freestanding signs. d. Complete the following before occupying the buildings: 1) Install all required exterior improvements. 2) Screen all roof-mounted equipment visible from streets. e. 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 above-required letter of credit or cash escrow is held by the City of Maplewood for all required exterior improvements. The owner or contractor shall complete any unfinished exterior improvements by June 1 if occupancy of the building is in the fall or winter, or within six weeks of occupancy of the building if occupancy is in the spring or summer. f. All work shall follow the approved plans. The city council may approve major changes to the plans. The Director of Community Development may approve minor changes to the plans, including a change to the site plan for the proposed future driveway access onto White Bear Avenue, pending Ramsey County engineer and city engineer approval. g. Building A and signs associated with Building A are not included in this community design review approval. h. Community Design Review Board recommends that afour-foot-high fence around the Buffalo Wild Wings patio be approved as proposed by the applicant. The CDRB views this fence as part of the aesthetics of the overall development of the site. Board member Shankar seconded. Ayes - Ledvina, Longrie-Kline, Olson, Shankar The motion passed. The item goes to the city council on May 24, 2004. AGENDA ITEM H-5 AGENDA REPORT TO: Richard Fursman, City Manager FROM: R. Charles Ahl, Director of Public Works/City Engineer SUBJECT: 8:15 prn: Public Hearing: Trunk Highway 61 Improvements (Beam to interstate 694), Project 03-07 -- Resolution Authorizing Preparation of Plans and Specifications, Authorizing Acquisition of Right of Way, Ordering Project to be Constructed.,. and Authorizing Purchase of Signal System Mast Arms DATE: May 18, 2004 Introduction The city has been working on various roadway improvements in the Maplewood Mall area. One of the major improvements will be asignalized-intersection on Trunk Highway 61 between Beam Avenue and Interstate 694 where the newly aligned County Road D intersects TH 61. The improvements are coordinated with various plans from the Minnesota Department of Transportation. A public hearing has been called to review the proposed project and to authorize proceeding with the improvements. Background Attached is a report from SEH Engineers on the various improvements required for the section of TH 61 between Beam and Interstate 694. A majority of the improvements relate to the signal system and intersection. Turn lanes for the intersection approaches are included within this project. Additionally, the Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) has requested that the City of Maplewood include improvements that they would like to see into the improvement project. The MnDOT improvements are an acceleration lane for traffic exiting from eastbound Interstate 694 to southbound TH 61. The MnDOT traffic engineers have identified this area as a high accident/safety project and have provided all funding for the improvement. The traffic coordination and construction procedures make a combined project cost effective and efficient to the traveling public. Budget Impact The proposed budget for the project is: City of Maplewood Municipal State Aid Street Funds $ 477,435 MnDOT Cooperative Agreement Funds $ 540,000 MnDOT Safety Funds $ 278,400 TOTAL PROJECT COST $1,295,835 The financing for this project was originally assumed to be a majority from local funds. The $818,400 from MnDOT is a major financial benefit to the City's planned improvements. The Maplewood funds are from the City's gas tax allotment. There are no assessments or general tax levy funds proposed for this project. Due to the long time necessary for the signal system mast arms, the attached resolution requests authority to place the order now. City Council Agenda Background TH 61 Improvements May 24, 2004 Page Two Recommendation It is recommended that the city counci adopt the attached resolution authorizing preparation of the project plans and specifications, authorizing acquisition of right of way, ordering the project to be constructed and authorizing the purchase. of signal system mast arms.. Attachment: Resolution Feasibility Report (provided separately) RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING PREPARATION OF PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS AUTHORIZING ACQUISITION OF RIGHT OF WAY ORDERING PROJECT TO BE CONSTRUCTED AUTHORIZING PURCHASE OF SIGNAL SYSTEM MAST ARMS WHEREAS, a report has been prepared under the direction of the city engineer with reference to the improvement of Trunk Highway 61 (Beam to Interstate 694), City Project 03-07, and WHEREAS, the report provides information regarding whether the proposed project is necessary, cost-effective, and feasible, WHEREAS, the city council requested a council hearing on the proposed street improvements for Trunk Highway 61 (Beam to Interstate 694), City Project 03-07, and WHEREAS, ten days mailed notice and two weeks published notice of the hearing was given, and the hearing was duly held on May 24 2004, and the council has heard all persons desiring to be heard on the matter and has fully considered the same; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA, as follows: 1. That it is necessary, cost-effective and feasible, as detailed in the feasibility report, that the City of Maplewood make improvements to Trunk Highway 61 between Beam and Interstate 694, City Project 03-07. 2. Such improvement is hereby ordered as proposed in the council resolution adopted the 24th day of May 2004. 3. The city engineer is designated engineer for this improvement and is hereby directed to prepare final plans and specifications for the making of said improvement. 4. The city engineer is authorized to acquire the necessary right of way and easements for the making of these improvements by direct negotiations. 5. The finance director is hereby authorized to make the financial transfers necessary to create a financing plan for the project by the amounts detailed in the preliminary report. The project budget of $1,295,835 is hereby directed to be established as follows: Total Municipal State Aid $ 477,435 MnDOT Cooperative Agmt $ 540,000 MnDOT Safety Agmt Funds $ 278,400 TOTAL $1,295,835 6. The city engineer is authorized to order signal system mast arms for said intersection improvement and directed to enter said purchase into the project costs. Approved this 22nd day of March 2004. Feasibility Report County Road D Segment 3 - TH 61 Maplewood, Minnesota City Project No. 03-07 SEH No. A-MAPLE0402.00 May 17, 2004 May 17, 2004 Mr. R. Charles Ahl, PE City of Maplewood 1830 County Road B East Maplewood, MN 5 5 1 09-2702 Dear Mr. Ahl: RE: County Road D Segment 3 - TH 61 Feasibility Report Maplewood, Minnesota City Project No. 03-07 SEH No. A-MAPLE0402.00 Short Elliott Hendrickson Inc.® (SEH) is pleased to submit the enclosed Feasibility Report for the County Road D Segment 3 improvements. This report includes specific recommendations and estimated project costs for the street improvements. We are pleased to have had the opportunity to provide the report and are available for any assistance that you may require. Sincerely, Steven F. Heth, PE Project Manager nm x: \ko\maple\040200\reports&specs\rMeas. doc County Road D Segment 3 - TH 61 Feasibility Report Maplewood, Minnesota City Project No. 03-07 SEH No. A-MAPLE0402.00 May 17, 2004 I hereby certify that this report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision, and that I am a duly Licensed Professional Engineer under the laws of the State of Minnesota. Steven F. Heth, PE Date: May 17, 2004 Lic. No.: 20609 Reviewed by: Date Short Elliott Hendrickson Inc. 3535 Vadnais Center Drive St. Paul, MN 55110-5196 651.490.2000 Table of Contents Letter of Transmittal Certification Page Table of Contents Page 1.0 Introduction/History ..................................................................................................1 2.0 Scope ..........................................................................................................................2 2.1 Intersection/Signal System .................................................................................2 2.2 Southbound TH 61 ..............................................................................................2 2.3 Northbound TH 61 ..............................................................................................3 3.0 Feasibility and Recommendations ........................................................................... 3 4.0 Proposed Improvements ........................................................................................... 3 4.1 Intersection/Signal System ................................................................................. 3 4.2 Southbound TH 61 .............................................................................................. 4 4.3 Northbound TH 61 .............................................................................................. 4 5.0 Easement/Permits ...................................................................................................... 4 6.0 Estimated Project Costs ........................................................................................... 4 7.0 Financing Options/Revenue Sources ...................................................................... 5 8.0 Schedule ..................................................................................................................... 5 List of Tables Table 1 Maplewood Mall Area Studies and Reports ..............................................................1 List of Figures Figure 1 -Project Location Map Figure 2 -County Road Realignment Improvements Figure 3 -Acceleration Lane/Median Improvements List of Appendices Appendix A Road Construction Costs SEH is a registered trademark of Short Elliott Hendrickson Inc. Feasibility Report A-MAPLE0402.00 City of Maplewood Page i May 17, 2004 Feasibility Report County Road D Segment 3 - TH 61 Prepared for City of Maplewood 1.0 Introduction/History In 2001, the City of Maplewood led a group effort to address the growing traffic congestion surrounding the Maplewood Mall area. The first step in this process was the completion of the "Maplewood Mall Area Comprehensive Traffic Study" in December 2001. The Study outlined a number of improvements that would help alleviate congestion, including the extension of County Road D from Hazelwood to Trunk Highway (TH) 61. The collective improvements have been called the Maplewood Mall Area Traffic Improvements (MMATI). This process has continued since 2001 with the completion of the following studies and reports: Table 1 Maplewood Mall Area Studies and Reports Study/Report Date Author Maplewood Mall Area Comprehensive Traffic Study December 2001 URS Feasibility Study for County Road D/TH 61 Water Apri12002 URS Main Extension -City Project No. 01-28 Draft Wetland Delineation Report -Country View Peterson Golf Course Property Consult. Wetland Delineation and Survey of the Hartford August 2002 AES Group Parcel Alternate Urban Areawide Review (AUAR), Legacy December 2002 SRF Village at Maplewood Alignment Study and Report for County Road D December 2002 URS Realignment -City Project 02-07, 02-08 Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the County January 2003 URS Road D Realignment Project County Road D Alignment Options -City Project 02- Apri12003 URS 07, 02-08 Wetland Delineation Report -County Road D May 2003 URS Realignment Storm Water and Wetlands Plan for the Maplewood May 2003 SEH Mall Area Transportation Improvements A-MAPLE0402.00 Page 1 In July 2003, the Maplewood City Council received a feasibility report for the County Road D Realignment project. That report included the improvements for the five segments of the realignment outlined in the MMATI Plan. This report specifically pertains to the improvements in Segment 3: TH 61 Intersection Improvements and includes information from the original report, as well as updated information. As part of an effort to relieve the growing congestion around the Maplewood Mall, the City of Maplewood has established the Maplewood Mall Area Traffic Improvements (MMATI). The MMATI is a segmented plan to relieve the congestion currently experienced by traffic in the Mall area by extending County Road D west to TH 61, constructing a new signalized intersection and closing one driveway access point along TH 61. The purpose of this feasibility report is to outline the scope, describe the proposed improvements and provide an estimated cost estimate for Segment 3. This information is presented in anticipation of a public hearing to be held by the Maplewood City Council on May 24, 2004. 2.0 Scope Segment 3 includes the intersection of realigned County Road D and TH 61, and any improvements along TH 6 L Construction will include all removals of the existing crossover, construction of proposed turn lanes and additional safety features along TH 61. The existing concrete through lanes of northbound and southbound TH 61 will not be included in any improvements as part of Segment 3. 2.1 Intersection/Signal System The existing crossover at the north entrance to Gulden's will be the new signalized intersection of County Road D and TH 61. The western and eastern construction limits of the intersection will match the construction limits of Segment 2 and Segment 1, respectively. Eastbound County Road D will have a single left turn lane, two through lanes and a right turn lane at the intersection. Westbound County Road D will include a right turn lane with a concrete island, two through lanes and two left turn lanes at the intersection. All signal components that fall within the signal system will be constructed as part of Segment 3. Any components of the signal system falling outside of the Segment 3 limits will be purchased under the Segment 3 contract and provided to others for installation during construction of segments 1 and 2. 2.2 Southbound TH 61 Improvements to southbound TH 61, at the intersection, will include a new right turn lane with bituminous shoulder to westbound County Road D, along with dual left turn lanes to eastbound County Road D with a new concrete median separating the turn lanes and northbound TH 61 through traffic. Improvements south of the intersection will address safety issues relating to the multiple existing accesses on TH 61. These improvements will include closing the existing southern access to Gulden's restaurant and replacing the Feasibility Report A-MAPLE0402.00 City of Maplewood Page 2 existing access to LaMettry's Collision. This access will include a new turn lane from southbound TH 61 and will connect to a new frontage road to the west of TH 61 that will be constructed by others. This new access will act as a single point of access to all three businesses. Segment 3 will also include the construction of an acceleration lane for traffic exiting Eastbound Interstate 694 exit to Southbound TH 61. The acceleration lane will be designed by Mn/DOT and constructed under the Segment 3 contract. 2.3 Northbound TH 61 Improvements to northbound TH 61 will include a new right turn lane with bituminous shoulder to eastbound County Road D and a left turn lane to westbound County Road D. 3.0 Feasibility and Recommendations This project is necessary to decrease the congestion and increase the safety of the traveling public in the Maplewood Mall area. This project will provide an alternate access to the Mall area from the West at a signalized intersection, reducing the number of vehicles that currently use Beam Avenue or White Bear Avenue. This access will become even more important as the proposed developments surrounding Hazelwood start producing additional traffic counts. This project will also increase the safety of the traveling public along TH 61 by reducing the total number of direct access points to businesses along the highway and by providing turn lanes with adequate structural strength and turn lane space to account for the estimated traffic counts. This project is cost effective in that the proposed improvements are within existing right-of--way and do not require substantial new construction. Other options would require the construction of additional lanes to existing infrastructure, which would cost much more than the proposed improvements. The project is feasible from an engineering standpoint in that this type of improvement will extend the life expectancy of the current streets. This project also addresses several known traffic operational deficiencies and remedies via a variety of approaches. It is recommended that the project be constructed as proposed in this report and completed in conjunction with the other segments of the County Road D Realignment. 4.0 Proposed Improvements 4.1 Intersection/Signal System The existing concrete cross-over at the north entrance to Gulden's will be replaced with bituminous and become the new intersection of County Road D and TH 61. The existing TH 61 through lanes will remain intact, however, the existing bituminous shoulders and turn lanes will be removed as needed to construct new turn lanes and the entrances to County Road D. Feasibility Report A-MAPLE0402.00 City of Maplewood Page 3 Preliminary analysis of the traffic conditions surrounding the Mall area indicate that a signalized intersection is required. This traffic signal will provide for the orderly movement of traffic, while increasing the traffic- handling capacity of the intersection. Pedestrian crossing phases can be implemented in coordination with the signal system to provide greater pedestrian safety at crossing locations. The traffic signal will be designed to serve the proposed lane configurations and interconnected to the systems at Beam Avenue and the I-694 ramps to provide overall traffic coordination and traffic-flow efficiency. The loops for the through lanes on TH 61 will be cut into the existing lanes as these will remain intact during this project. All loops under turn lanes will be constructed prior to the placement of pavement. Any loops falling outside of the Segment 3 limits to the east and west will be placed by others during the construction of Segments 1 and 2. It is recommended that the equipment be purchased under the Segment 3 contract and provided for construction by others in Segments 1 and 2. 4.2 Southbound TH 61 The inside and outside bituminous shoulders and turn lanes will be removed as necessary to construct a single right turn lane with bituminous shoulder and dual left turn lanes to County Road D. A concrete median will be constructed between the dual left turn lanes and the Northbound TH 61 traffic to provide additional safety. The south existing entrance to Gulden's will be removed and the existing access to LaMettry's Collision will be reconstructed as a single point of access to a new frontage road to be constructed under the Segment 2 contract. The bituminous shoulder will be removed as needed to construct a new turn lane with bituminous shoulder to the proposed access at LaMettry's Collision. A new acceleration lane will be constructed for the traffic exiting eastbound I-694 to southbound TH 61. This lane will be designed by Mn/DOT and constructed under the Segment 3 contract. The existing bituminous shoulder will be removed as necessary and a new bituminous acceleration lane will be constructed from the southeast exit ramp of I-694 and TH 61. 4.3 Northbound TH 61 The inside and outside bituminous shoulders and turn lanes will be removed as necessary to construct a single right turn lane with bituminous shoulder and single left turn lane to County Road D. 5.0 Easement/Permits All proposed construction for Segment 3 will take place in the existing Mn/DOT right-of--way and will not require any additional easements. A Mn/DOT permit for construction will be required to construct the proposed improvements. 6.0 Estimated Project Costs The table below summarizes the estimated project cost. The project cost is based on a detailed estimate found in Appendix A. The cost includes a 10 Feasibility Report A-MAPLE0402.00 City of Maplewood Page 4 percent contingency. The total project cost includes a 31.5 percent allowance for indirect costs such as engineering, administration, and legal items, as well as capitalized interest. Roadway costs include landscaping. Segment 3 - TH 61 Intersection Improvements and Acceleration Lane Addition: Roadway ................................................................... $721,560 Traffic Signal ............................................................ $295,875 Acceleration Lane ..................................................... $278,400 Estimated Total Cost -Segment 3 $1,295,835 7.0 Financing Options/Revenue Sources Financing for this project will be provided by a variety of sources. These sources include County Funds and a Cooperative Agreements with Mn/DOT. The breakdown of the funds allocated for the proposed improvements are the following: Segment 3 - TH 61 Intersection Improvements: Maplewood MSA .......................................................... Mn/DOT (Cooperative Agreement) Intersection.......... Mn/DOT (Cooperative Agreement) Acceleration Lane 8.0 Schedule Present Feasibility Report to City Council Public Hearing Approve Plans and Specifications State Aid Plan Approval Award Contract Begin Construction End Construction $477,435 $540,000 $278,400 $1,295,835 ....... May 24, 2004 ....... May 24, 2004 ........July 12, 2004 ........July 12, 2004 ...August 23, 2004 September 7, 2004 ....... May 30, 2005 Feasibility Report City of Maplewood A-MAPLE0402.00 Page 5 List of Figures Figure 1 -Project Location Map Figure 2 - County Road Realignment Improvements Figure 3 -Acceleration Lane/Median Improvements ~W ',~~ uuuumi ~W~ I~, um~ ~~1ullillll VADNAIS HEIG ~~ 694 I ~ ~,~, a DGE C z I~ W \A// ~, 00 ~, VJ- r~ ~~ dp4~~P ~ w. os Ci eEPM ~ J D~ n I G ' ~ ~ _. oke ~ ~ ~ - ~ G ~~~ ~~ ~, _ _ ~ ~ ~_ ~~ N o oR ~i WHITE BEAR LAKE ` N~Rlfi SA~Nl P ~~ ~E~~~~ Ro. a~ ~~~ a.~ ~ ~~ ~- o G z ~i~ _ - _ ~ - G G o e G ro r ureuE nvE o ~ ~ _ HeEa= G ~6o aiocr m ' - ~o~ .. ~MA~ 4~ ~ i m~ r oRrH Ro , a ~` -~ . ©N aE~~ A~ ~ aE~~ wok o ~~ AT m ~, w FE N oN ~ ~ ER Ate. ~ ~, i _ _ ~ Pond s F ~~i _ N~ ~ - _ = s ~~~~. ~~ w w P w a > > d < w _ R ~~ - w 7 ~ 'I o - I I / iil - a ~~ ~ satyr r-~~L J ~ ~i~E No. SEGMENT 3 _ Aooooo040o LOCATION MAP FIGURE ~~~ ~ DATE: NO. 1 4~23~04 MAP~EW00~, M~ ~a, adoa AlNnoo I~ ~~ ~- - '~~ '~ i~ ;' ~~ /~ -m~ III ~~° JM ~~~ Z - ~-:- - -- -~ ', W ~ ~ N ' (7 W N W I ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ___ - ,~_~ yy // 1~ 3r /~ . / ('~~ oz ~a ;; ~ - '~, r ~o; ~, i ii %. ----------------- ~ ~~ -, ~ - - ------------ -, ~~ 3nN3At1 Wf/38 0 00 ~J _~ ~z ~~ 0 \X N ° ~ N ~ O g LL Z H Z W Z C9 (7 H ~~ GO W GN O V GQ O~ OO W Z az ~~ 1~ daa~w - ~ _ d ~o~~ n z~ Qz o~ ww ~) v° z~ o~ u~ / , aNnoa is ~~-- T 1 o ~ ~ i i ;~. _, a~3~~~~,~ ~~~~ A~ at/Oa A1Nf~E~ ,~~ / /; l/i~i ~~. /~/i _ ~i i ~j _ ~ ---r\ 1 ~~ ,~ ~ / ~~ i ~ i ~' Il I ~, /~I ~ ~~ 3w i ~ w z / z Q ~ z ~o ~~ ~Q ~~ zw o~ uw a ii / ~ r /- (~ LLD '~~Q l =, ~~~ \\ ----- qz wW ~W ~o z~ o~ u~ W ~ ~ ~ ~z LL N H Z W Q W J ~ Z~ ~a a~ ~z W J Q Q ~ z Q cQ o~ 00 az ~~ ~\N Appendix A Road Construction Costs APPENDIX A CITY OF MAPLEWOOD COUNTY ROAD `D' Segment 3 - TH 61 CITY PROJECT 00-00 AND 00-00 ROAD CONSTRUCTION COSTS ITEM NO. ITEM UNIT TOTAL ESTIMATED UNIT PRICE TOTAL QUANTITY 1 MOBILIZATION LUMP SUM 1 $30,000.00 $30,000.00 2 SAWING BIT PAVEMENT (FULL DEPTH) LIN FT 200 $1.50 $300.00 3 REMOVE BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT SQ YD 4160 $1.75 $7,280.00 4 REMOVE CONCRETE PAVEMENT SQ YD 200 $3.50 $700.00 5 COMMON EXCAVATION CU YD 5500 $7.00 $38,500.00 6 SELECT GRANULAR BORROW (CV) TON 7350 $10.00 $73,500.00 7 AGGREGATE BASE (CV) CLASS 5 TON 2450 $9.50 $23,275.00 8 TYPE 41A WEARING COURSE MIXTURE (C) TON 780 $37.00 $28,860.00 9 TYPE 41 BINDER COURSE MIXTURE (C) TON 780 $34.00 $26,520.00 10 TYPE 31 BASE COURSE MIXTURE (C) TON 780 $31.00 $24,180.00 11 BITUMINOUS MATERIAL FOR TACK COAT GALLON 710 $2.00 $1,420.00 12 CONCRETE CURB & GUTTER LIN FT 1,100 $10.00 $11,000.00 13 CONCRETE MEDIAN SQ YD 170 $30.00 $5,100.00 14 TRAFFIC CONTROL LUMP SUM 1 $15,000.00 $15,000.00 15 SIGNING AND STRIPING LS 1 $11,000.00 $11,000.00 16 LANDSCAPING LUMP SUM 1 $35,000.00 $35,000.00 CONSTRUCTION SUBTOTAL ADMINISTRATION & ENGINEERING (31.5%) TOTAL PROJECT COSTS $331,635.00 $104,465.03 $436,100.03 Feasibility Report City of Maplewood A-MAPLE0402.00 A-1 CITY OF MAPLEWOOD COUNTY ROAD `D' APPROACHES Segment 3 - TH 61 CITY PROJECT 00-00 AND 00-00 ROAD CONSTRUCTION COSTS ITEM NO. ITEM UNIT TOTAL ESTIMATED UNIT PRICE TOTAL QUANTITY 1 MOBILIZATION LUMP SUM 1 $20,000.00 $20,000.00 2 SAWING BIT PAVEMENT (FULL DEPTH) LIN FT 120 $1.50 $180.00 3 REMOVE BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT SQ YD 5000 $1.75 $8,750.00 4 REMOVE CONCRETE PAVEMENT SQ YD 120 $3.50 $420.00 5 COMMON EXCAVATION CU YD 3400 $7.00 $23,800.00 6 SELECT GRANULAR BORROW (CV) TON 4300 $10.00 $43,000.00 7 AGGREGATE BASE (CV) CLASS 5 TON 1420 $9.50 $13,490.00 8 TYPE 41A WEARING COURSE MIXTURE (C) TON 450 $37.00 $16,650.00 9 TYPE 41 BINDER COURSE MIXTURE (C) TON 450 $34.00 $15,300.00 10 TYPE 31 BASE COURSE MIXTURE (C) TON 450 $31.00 $13,950.00 11 BITUMINOUS MATERIAL FOR TACK COAT GALLON 410 $2.00 $820.00 12 CONCRETE CURB & GUTTER LIN FT 1,002 $10.00 $10,020.00 13 CONCRETE MEDIAN SQ YD 170 $30.00 $5,100.00 14 TRAFFIC CONTROL LUMP SUM 1 $9,000.00 $9,000.00 15 SIGNING AND STRIPING LS 1 $6,600.00 $6,600.00 16 LANDSCAPING LUMP SUM 1 $30,000.00 $30,000.00 CONSTRUCTION SUBTOTAL $217,080.00 ADMINISTRATION & ENGINEERING (31.5%) TOTAL PROJECT COSTS $68, 380.20 $285,460.20 Feasibility Report City of Maplewood A-MAPLE0402.00 A-2 AGENDA ITEM I-1 AGENDA REPORT TO: Richard Fursman, City Manager FROM: Charles Ahl, Director of Public Works/City Engineer Erin Laberee, Civil Engineer 1 SUBJECT: Legacy Parl~vay Improvements, City Project 03-26 Resolution Receiving Bids and Awarding Construction Contract DATE: May 17, 2004 Introduction Final plans and specifications for Legacy Parl~vay Improvements were approved by the city council on April 12, 2004, and authorization was given to advertise for bids. The bids for this project are scheduled to be opened on Thursday, May 20th, 2004. The results of those bids were not known at the time the council agenda was assembled. A tabulation of those bids and a supplemental report with recommendation will be distributed prior to the city council meeting. The city council will consider an award of bids for the Legacy Parl~vay Improvements, Project 03-26. EML/CMC Attachment: Location Map - - - _ - - ~. r SUMMARY MEMORANDUM TO: City Manager FROM: Ken Roberts, Planner SUBJECT: Toenjes Hills Estates LOCATION: East of McMenemey Street, north of Roselawn Avenue DATE: May 17, 2004 INTRODUCTION Project Description Agenda #J1 Mr. Hugh Toenjes, representing the property owner, is proposing to develop asix-lot plat for single dwellings called Toenjes Hills Estates. It would be on a two-acre site on the east side of McMenemey Street, north of Roselawn Avenue. Refer to the applicant's statement and the maps in the project review memo. Requests To build this project, Mr. Toenjes is requesting that the city approve: 1. The vacation of an unused street right-of-way (Edgemont Street), an unused alley and excess easements within the property. 2. A preliminary plat for six lots for single dwellings. DISCUSSION Our review of the proposal found no major issues or problems. The applicant's engineer commented at the planning commission meeting that they would make all the staff-suggested changes to the plat. The council first considered this proposal at their May 10, 2004, meeting. After taking testimony during the public hearing, the council tabled action on the proposal. This tabling was to allow the neighboring property owners time to get together to discuss the possibility of working together on a joint or revised development project. Mr. Toenjes, through his attorney, has indicated that he is not now interested in working with the neighboring property owners and that he wants the city to act on his proposal as he submitted to the city. (See the attached letter on pages two -four.) It is important to remember that Mr. Toenjes could still talk with the neighboring property owners and agree to revise his development plans after the city council acts on the proposed preliminary plat. The proponent of any revised development plans (that would include additional properties) should know that the city would have to start a new 60-day review process once the city received a new application and complete project plans. RECOMMENDATION Staff is recommending approval of the proposed vacations and the preliminary plat, subject to several conditions. (Please see the project review memo dated May 17, 2004.) I have added a condition to the original report to require the developer to provide trees for screening the house at 1967 McMenemey Street. Attachment -May 14, 2004, letter from David Magnuson MAGNUSONLAW FIltM LICENSED IN MINNESOTA AND WISCONSIN THE DESCH OFFICE BUILDING 333 NORTH MAIN STREET SUITE #202 P.O. Box 438 STILLWATER, MN 55082 TELEPHONE: (651) 439-9464 • FAX: (651) 439-5641 DAVID T. MAGNUSON May 14, 2004 Ken Roberts, City Planner Maplewood City Hall 1380 East County Road B Maplewood, MN 55119 Re: Toenjes Hills Estates Dear Mr. Roberts: MAY 1 ~ 204 ~E~~~~EO I represent Hubert and Herbert Toenjes and welcome this opportunity to provide information to you and to the City Council of Maplewood regarding efforts made by the Toenjes, the City of Maplewood Staff, and their neighbors to reach an agreed upon development plan for a coordinated development of Toenjes Hills Estates and other properties in the neighborhood. To appreciate the level of effort invested in a coordinated plan, a brief review of the process is important. To begin with, Hubert and Herbert grew up on the property, remain friends and acquaintances with adjoining neighbors, including Joe Delaney, and only in 2002 inherited the property from the estate of their father. Neither Hugh or Herb are experienced developers and their first thought was to sell the property in order to wind up the estate. On August 9, 2002, Joe Delaney offered to purchase the property and combine it with his own property for development. The next day Joe withdrew this offer. However, on September 17, 2002, Joe prepared another earnest money contract again offering to purchase the Toenjes property for an increased amount, subject to receiving an engineering report. Again, Joe requested a return of his earnest money, claiming that his engineer's report had disclosed a wetland on the property. In order to keep peace, my clients allowed the earnest money contract to be cancelled and returned Joe's earnest money. All of this fuss piqued the interest of Hugh and Herb who began investigating development possibilities for themselves. Early meetings with the City of Maplewood Staff revealed the City's strong interest in seeing a coordinated development in the neighborhood. With the help of Staff and a privately retained engineer, a preliminary drawing was made showing three possible options for developing the neighborhood. Engineering estimates were developed for three options, one of which included a development with a cul-de-sac off of MARGARET M. MURPHY 2 Ken Roberts May 14, 2004 Page 2 Roselawn Avenue that would have yielded 161ots and included the development of the Schreyer property and the Delaney property, as well as some property owned by the City of Maplewood. This neighborhood plan, however, required the total agreement and cooperation of five parties. The Schreyers would have achieved three lots with this development plan, and while they would have allowed the project to happen, they remained adamant that they would be unwilling to pay any development costs. The last discussions with the Schreyers were with Tom Schulte, who was representing Schreyer. He reiterated that the Schreyers would allow the development to take place, but would not pay any development costs. Further, he asked for control of the entire project and suggested that the Schreyers buy out the Toenjes, who declined that offer. The neighborhood proposal would also require the participation of Lorraine Littlefield, who would need to provide 30 feet of her property for a coordinated development. Lorraine, of course, is unwilling to sell this property and would have been an unwilling participant. The neighborhood proposal would also have required, not only the vacation of a street, but the possible sale of City land to augment lots adjacent to easements and ponds. Not only would a coordinated neighborhood plan require the willing participation of five different people, it would have required a coordinated vision for the development plan. The Toenjes have a slightly different view of development for the neighborhood. While the size of their property would allow for the development of 7 lots, Toenjes are requesting the platting of only 61ots. They envision the area having larger lot size and more upscale development plan. The important thing for the neighborhood is that the Toenjes plan, as proposed, would not defeat the development for plans envisioned for the Delaney property and the Schreyer property. Delaney would have the opportunity to extend Edgemont from Roselawn and this would provide access to the Schreyer lots as well. Further, the proposal submitted by Toenjes will provide for the dedication of an easement to the City of Maplewood for the existing storm water pipe that was installed underneath their property, without an easement. This amounts to a continuing trespass for which an action in inverse condemnation would surely lie. Moreover, the Toenjes' proposal provides for a storm pond, which is the deepening of an upstream pond and the installation of the downstream pond on City property, to be constructed by Toenjes that would lessen downstream flooding substantially. This watershed improvement is recognized by the engineering staff of the City and the Ramsey Metro Watershed District who has also approved this concept. Further, as a way of showing sensitivity to their neighbors, Hugh and Herb would agree to plant a row of pine trees across from the entrance of the their development in order to reduce the glare of headlights shining into their neighbor's home while leaving the development. 3 Ken Roberts May 14, 2004 Page 3 In summary, the Toenjes are mindful of their neighbors as they have been for their whole lives. They wish them well in every opportunity to develop their own property. The vision of these people working together, however, is an impossible one. From the design of the development itself, to the sharing of costs, and the dividing of land, it presents an unworkable mix of desires, financial abilities and responsibilities. In conclusion, the Toenjes asked that their development proposal be approved. Respectfully, David T. gnuson DTM/nm cc: Patrick Kelly, Maplewood City Attorney Timothy Freeman, Folz, Freeman, Erickson, Inc. 4 MEMORANDUM TO: City Manager FROM: Ken Roberts, Planner SUB.IECT: Toenjes Hills Estates LOCATION: East of McMenemey Street, north of Roselawn Avenue DATE: May 14, 2004 INTRODUCTION Project Description Mr. Hugh Toenjes, representing the property owner, is proposing to develop asix-lot plat for single dwellings called Toenjes Hills Estates. It would be on a two-acre site on the east side of McMenemey Street, north of Roselawn Avenue. Refer to the applicant's statement on page 11, the maps on pages 12-23 and the attached plans. Requests To build this project, Mr. Toenjes is requesting that the city approve: The vacation of an unused street right-of--way (Edgemont Street), an unused alley and excess easements within the property. (Please see the statement on page 16 and the maps on pages 15, 17 and 18.) 2. A preliminary plat for six lots for single dwellings. (See the maps on pages 18 through 23 and the enclosed project plans.) BACKGROUND In 2003, the planning commission and city council reviewed concept plans for developments with single dwellings on this and on the adjoining properties. DISCUSSION Vacations The map on page 17 shows the proposed vacations and includes the Edgemont Street right-of--way, an unused alley and an easement near the north property line of the site. The city has no use for any of these public dedications and the developer will be dedicating a new street right-of-way and easements with the new plat. Density and Lot Size As proposed, having six units on the two-acre site calculated to three units per acre. This is consistent with the density standards in the comprehensive plan for single dwelling residential development and is well above the 10,000- square-foot minimum lot area that the city requires for each single dwelling. Preliminary Plat There are several existing factors including the topography and ponding needs that limit and direct the possible development of the site. With the existing conditions on the property, there are not many options for designing a subdivision to fit the site. The proposed preliminary plat, with its street and lot design, raises many issues for the city to consider. I will discuss the major issues with this proposal below. Subdivision Ordinance Chapter 34 of the city code (subdivisions) regulates the platting or subdividing of property in Maplewood. The purpose of this part of the code is "to protect and promote the public health, safety and general welfare, to provide for the orderly, economic and safe development of land... ". As such, the city must balance many interests when reviewing and considering a subdivision in Maplewood. These include the interests of the property owner, the developer, the neighbors and the city as a whole. To this end, Section 34-6 of the code says that "the planning commission may recommend and the city council may require such changes or revisions of a preliminary plat as deemed necessary for the health, safety, general welfare and convenience of the city." Density and Lot Size As proposed, the lots in the plat will range from 11,382 square feet to 13,143 square feet with an average lot size of about 12,020 square feet. (See the proposed plat on page 18.) The city requires each single dwelling lot in the R-1 (single dwelling) zoning district to have at least 75 feet of width at the front setback line and be at least 10,000 square feet in area. In addition, the code requires corner lots to be at least 100 feet wide on each street side. As submitted, the two corner lots in the plat are 95 feet wide on Toenjes Place. The city should require the developer to change the plat as necessary to have all the lots meet all of Maplewood's subdivision requirements. Alt of the proposed lots should be able to meet or exceed the standards in the city code. Trees As proposed, the contractor for Mr. Toenjes would grade the center of the site to create the street right-of-way and the house pads. (See the grading and tree plans on pages 20 and 21.) This grading would remove about 30 large trees (including pine, oak, box elder, elm, and poplar) and would leave about 10 large trees on the two-acre site. Since the city code requires the developer to save at least 20 trees (10 per acre) on this site, the developer is proposing to plant 53 trees and 19 red twig dogwoods with this project. The trees would include Black Hills spruce, Colorado blue spruce, red pine and Austrian pine. (See the planting plan on page 20). The proposed planting plan meets the city's tree replacement requirements. Watershed District Comments and Wetland Ordinance The Ramsey/Washington Metro Watershed District is now reviewing the preliminary plans for this development. It is important to remember that Mr. Toenjes or the contractor must meet all the conditions of the watershed district and that they must get a permit from the watershed district before starting grading or construction. City Engineering Department Comments The city engineering department has been working with the applicant's engineering consultant in reviewing this proposal and plans. Erin Laberee's comments are included starting on page 25. 2 Public Utilities There is sanitary sewer and water near the site to serve the proposed development. Specifically, water is in McMenemey Street. The developer will extend the water main into the site from the existing water main. The Saint Paul Water Utility will need to approve the plan for the water main. Sanitary sewer also is in McMenemey Street next to the site. The developer is proposing to extend the sewer into the site from the existing street through the development. The city engineer must approve the final engineering plans before the applicant or contractor may start construction. As noted in the engineering comments, the city is going to install the improvements on this site as part of a public improvement project -including utilities, street and curbing. This, however, requires the property owner to petition the city to install the public improvements. After the city receives such a petition, the city will do the final design of the project plans and the developer or applicant will pay the city back for all costs. Drainage Most of the site drains to the east and to the south. The developer's engineer told me that by using the proposed pond east of the site (on the city park property) as a storm water detention facility, the development would 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. This plan, however, shows a new ponding area on the city park property. Mr. Cavett and Mr. Ahl have reviewed this proposal and have suggested that the developer pay the city about $30,000 for the easement for the new ponding area. Ms. LaBeree noted this requirement, along with several others, in her comments. (See the information starting on page 25.) Trail Bruce Anderson, the Maplewood Parks Director, reviewed the proposed development plans. (His comments are on page 24.) Mr. Anderson recommends that the developer install an eight-foot-wide trail from the new cul-de-sac to the east into the city park property. The exact design of this trail should be subject to the approval of the parks director and the city engineer. Other Engineering Concerns Erin also noted in her comments that the developer is to construct the retaining walls within the project during the grading of the site. This is to ensure that the walls are in place before the contractors start building the houses. Staff recommends that the city set a range of front setbacks of 20 to 25 feet within this development to address these concerns. Other Comments Lieutenant Kevin Rabbett of the Maplewood Police Department noted that he found no significant public safety concerns with the proposal. He did tell me that he wanted the city to be sure that there is enough room within the site to allow emergency vehicles to maneuver. 3 Fire Marshal Butch Gervais, the Maplewood Fire Marshal, noted that the cul-de-sac must have a turning radius of at least 42 feet (for equipment) and that there be fire hydrants in proper locations. Neighbors' Comments City staff surveyed the 50 property owners within 500 feet of the site. Refer to the comments on page nine and the written messages on pages 28 - 31. COMMISSION ACTION On April 19, 2004, the planning commission recommended approval of the proposed vacations and the proposed preliminary plat. RECOMMENDATIONS A. Approve the resolution on page 32. This resolution is for the vacation of the unused Edgemont Street right-of--way, the unused alley and the excess drainage easements on the property for the site of the Toenjes Hills Estates plat. The city is vacating these because: 1. It is in the public interest. 2. The city and the property owner have no plans to build a street or an alley in the existing right-of-ways. 3. The developer will be dedicating a new right-of--way and new easements with the final plat. B. Approve the Toenjes Hills Estates preliminary plat (received by the city on April 1, 2004). The developer shall complete the following before the city council approves the final plat: 1. Sign an agreement with the city that guarantees that the developer or contractor will: a. Complete all grading for overall site drainage, complete all retaining walls, site landscaping and meet all city requirements. b.* Place temporary orange safety fencing and signs at the grading limits. c. Have Xcel Energy install Group V rate street lights in two locations -primarily at the street intersections and at the east end of the cul-de-sac. The exact style and location shall be subject to the city engineer's approval. d. Provide all required and necessary easements (including all utility easements and ten- foot drainage and utility easements along the front and rear lot lines of each lot and five- foot drainage and utility easements along the side lot lines of each lot). e. Pay the city for the cost of traffiGCOntrol, street identification, and no parking signs. f. Provide all required and necessary easements, including any off-site easements. 4 g. Demolish or remove the existing shed from the site, and remove all other buildings, fencing, scrap metal, debris and junk from the site. h. Cap and seal all wells on site; and remove septic systems or drainfietds, subject to Minnesota rules and guidelines. i. Complete all curb on McMenemey Street on the west side of the site. This is to replace the existing driveways on McMenemey Street, and restore and sod the boulevards. 2.* Have the city engineer approve final construction and engineering plans. These plans shall include grading, utility, drainage, erosion control, tree, trail and street plans. The plans shall meet all the conditions and changes listed in the memo from Erin LaBeree dated April 12, 2004, and shall meet the following conditions: a. The erosion control plans shall be consistent with the city code and shall be extremely detailed to the satisfaction of the city engineer. b. The grading plan shall show: (1) The proposed building pad elevation and contour information for each home site. The lot lines on this plan shall follow the approved preliminary plat. (2) Contour information for all the land that the construction will disturb. (3) House pads that reduce the grading on sites where the developer can save large trees. (4) The proposed street and driveway grades as allowed by the city engineer. (5) All proposed slopes on the construction plans. The city engineer shall approve the plans, specifications and management practices for any slopes steeper than 3:1. On slopes steeper than 3:1, the developer shall prepare and implement a stabilization and planting plan. At a minimum, the slopes shall be protected with wood-fiber blanket, be seeded with a no-maintenance vegetation and be stabilized before the city approves the final plat. (6) Include the tree plan that: a. Shows where the developer will remove, save or replace large trees. This plan shall include an inventory of all existing large trees on the site. b. Shows no tree removal beyond the approved grading and tree limits. c. Changes the proposed Colorado Blue Spruce trees on the planting plans with other species that are more native and compatible to the climate and conditions in Maplewood. d. Shows the planting of Black Hills spruce or Austrian Pines in the front yard of the house at 1 ~7 McMenemey Street to provide screening for the house. (~ All retaining walls on the plans. Any retaining walls taller than 4 feet require a building permit from the city. 5 (8) Sedimentation basins or ponds as required by the watershed district or by the city engineer. (9) No grading beyond the plat boundary without temporary grading easements from the affected property owner(s). (10) As little grading as possible north and south of the proposed street. This is to keep as many of the existing trees on the site as is reasonably possible. (11) The 8-foot-wide trail from the cul-de-sac to the east property line. c. The street and utility plans shall show: (1) The street with a width of 28 feet (with parking on one side), shall be a 9-ton design with a maximum street grade of eight percent and the maximum street grade within 75 feet of the intersection at two percent. (2) The new street (Toenjes Place) with continuous concrete curb and gutter, except where the city engineer determines that concrete curbing is not necessary. (3) The completion or replacement of the curb on the east side of McMenemey Street and the restoration and sodding of the boulevards. (4) Repair of McMenemey Street (curb, street and boulevard) after the developer connects to the public utilities and builds the new street. (5) The coordination of the water main alignments and sizing with the standards and requirements of the Saint Paul Regional Water Services (SPRWS). (6) 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. (7) The plan and profiles of the proposed utilities. (8) A detail of any ponds, the pond outlets and the rainwater gardens. The contractor shall protect the outlets to prevent erosion. (9) The cul-de-sac with a minimum pavement radius of at least 42 feet. (10) Label McMenemey Street and the new street as Toenjes Place on all construction and project plans. d. The drainage plan shall ensure that there is no increase in the rate of storm water run-off leaving the site above the current (predevelopment) levels. The developer's engineer shall: (1) Verify inlet and pipe capacities. (2) Submit drainage design calculations. e. A landscape plan for: 6 (1) The areas along the street and the ponding areas. The coniferous trees shall be at least six feet tall and shall include Black Hills spruce or Austrian pines instead of Colorado blue spruce trees. (2) All deciduous trees shall be at least 2% inches in diameter. (3) The screening of the house at 1967 McMenemey Street. This plan shall include the planting of Black Hills spruce or Austrian Pines in the front yard to help screen the house from the new street. 3. Change the plat as follows: a. Add drainage and utility easements as required by the city engineer. b. Show drainage and utility easements along all property lines on the final plat. These easements shall be ten feet wide along the front and rear property lines and at least five feet wide along the side property lines. c. Revise the plans and lot layout to: 1. Accommodate a 20-foot-wide pedestrian way for a trail from the cul-de-sac to the city park. 2. Make the comer lots at least 100 feet wide on each street right-of--way. 3. Show the street right-of--way with a width of 60 feet and the cul-de-sac with aright- of-way radius of 55 feet. 4. Show house pads that meet all city setback requirements. 4. Pay for costs related to the engineering department's review of the construction plans. 5. Secure and provide all required easements for the development including any off-site drainage and utility easements. These shall include, but not be limited to, an easement for the culvert draining the pond on the north side of the plat and paying the city for the easement for the ponding area on the park property. 6. The developer shall complete all site grading and retaining wall construction. The city engineer shall include in the developer's agreement any grading that the developer or contractor has not completed before final plat approval. 7. Sign a developer's agreement with the city that guarantees that the developer or contractor will: a. Complete all grading for overall site drainage and ponding areas, install all retaining walls, install the landscaping and replacement trees, install all other necessary improvements and meet all city requirements. b. Place temporary orange safety fencing and signs at the grading limits. c. Provide for the repair of McMenemey Street (street, curb and boulevard} after the developer connects to the public utilities. d. Meet all the requirements of the city engineer. 7 8. Record the following with the final plat: a. Any homeowners' association documents. b. A covenant or deed restriction with the final plat that prohibits any driveways on Lots 1 and 6 from going onto McMenemey Street. c. A covenant or association documents that addresses the proper installation, maintenance and replacement of the retaining walls. The applicant shall submit the language for these dedications and restrictions to the city for approval before recording. 9. Obtain a permit from the Ramsey-Washington Metro Watershed District for grading. 10. Obtain a NPDES construction permit from the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA). 11. The property owner shall submit a petition to the city requesting the installation of the public improvements. 12. 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. 8 CITIZENS' COMMENTS I surveyed the owners of the 50 properties within 500 feet of this site and received four written replies. The following are the comments we received: For: Against: 1. No! No! No! The area provides habitat for red tail hawks, wood ducks, mallards, egrets, herons, fox and a little bit of peace and quiet in the neighborhood. There are also bluebirds in the woods. Why does money control everything?? We have ball parks we cannot use (they are chained shut), but we pay taxes on them. Last year the Roselawn ponding area got so overgrown from the lack of mowing, it was an absolute shame and an eyesore!! Not to mention a mosquito haven. It will be just another reason to destroy natural areas and make the rich richer! No! No! No! It also seems our storm sewers were just redone a few years back -why again? Then the city can raise our taxes again!! Some of the area residents are on a fixed income and cannot afford any more assessments of higher taxes! I will attend the meetings and encourage all friends, neighbors, churches and residents to do the same and stop this!!! Leave the land alone. (Gebhardt - 1986 Arkwright Street) Comments: 1. No comment. We are neutral to the new development at the Toenjes property site. (Lin - 2008 Edgemont Street) Please also see the a-mail message on page 28 and the letter starting on page 29. 9 REFERENCE INFORMATION SITE DESCRIPTION Site size: 2 acres Existing land use: accessory buildings from the former property owner SURROUNDING LAND USES North: Single dwellings South: Single dwellings and vacant property on Roselawn Avenue West: Houses across McMenemey Street East: Roselawn Park PLANNING Existing Land Use Plan designation: R-1 (single dwellings) Existing Zoning: R-1 (single dwellings) APPLICATION DATE The city received the complete project plans and application materials for this proposal on April 1, 2004. As such, the city needs to take action on the proposal by June 1, 2004, unless the developer agrees to a time extension. kr/p:/sec17/toenjes hills estates plat.doc Attachments: 1. Applicant's Narrative Description 2. Location Map 3. Property Line/Zoning Map 4. Property Line Map 5. Existing Site Survey 6. Applicant's Vacation Statement 7. Proposed Vacation Map 8. Proposed Preliminary Plat 9. Site Map 10. Grading and Tree Plan 11. Proposed Grading Plan 12. Storm Sewer Plan 13. Proposed Utility Plan 14. Bruce Anderson's comments dated 04-07-04 15. Engineering department plan review dated 04-12-04 16. E-mail message Don and Julie Shiek dated April 7, 2004 17. Letter from Ericksons dated April 10, 2004 18. Vacation Resolution 19. Project Plans date-stamped April 1, 2004 (separate attachments -including 11x17s and full-size) 10 Attachment 1 Folz, Freeman, Erickson, Inc. LAND PLANNING • SURVEYING • ENGINEERING NARRATIVE DESCRIPTION TOENJES HILLS ESTATES PRELIMINARY PLAT March 18, 2004 There are six new homesites being created along with just over 2001ineal feet of new street on a 2 acre site. The lots are all in excess of 10,000 square feet. The existing land form is generally sloping to the north and east. There is an existing wetland on the north side of the property that overflows into a larger wetland area (known as Roselawn Pond) to the east on the City of Maplewood park property (known as Roselawn Park). The subject property consists of an existing wooded lot of mostly box elder, poplar and elm, with a very few oaks and pines. The existing zoning is single dwelling residential, and this project does NOT propose any change in the zoning. The property is currently vacant, as the original homestead of Herbert Toenjes, Sr. has been removed. The underlying plat of MaGoffm's North Side Addition was never opened and improved in this area as originally platted. There are certain streets, alleys and easements that need to be vacated as a part of the project. The proposed vacations are detailed on .sheet three of the plan set. There are improvements to the storm water management system in conjunction with this project. We intend to create a new outlet structure for the existing pond to the north to provide additional storage capacity. We also propose building a infiltration basin on the City Park property to help alleviate periodic flooding issues with the Roselawn Pond. These improvements are being funded 100% by the developer as a part of this proposed development. The system as proposed will reduce the rate of runoff for this sub- watershed area. To properly create the street elevations and house pads, offsite fill will be imported to the site. The Grading and Erosion Control Plan details the improvements to the site, as well as the measures being taken to prevent negative impact to surrounding properties. The eight sheet plan set is much more detailed than a project this size would normally require. The additional detail is provided to ensure that all of the functions of this project are spelled out clearly and concisely so that staff, Planning Commission and City Council have all of the information needed to make an informed decision on this proposal. 11 56lOMemorialAvenueNorth, Stillwater, MN SS082 • Phone: (6S1J 439-8833 • Fax: (651) 430-9331 • Website: www.ffe-inc.com Bruce A. Folz, LS Timothy J. Frccman, LS Todd A. Erickson, PE 1939 - IL1D1 Prcsident Vice President Attachment 2 Gavais L~.I Lalae ~ ~~~-~~~ 2640N -' J~~3. FI/17/- s K.w~aoo oR pyyl ~ 3 ~LIECREST OR s ~ oR~ CT. P O O ~~ ~ O O ~ 3 '"~ `~ cr. ~, ~., , ~ A - B C ~ ~ 2400N ~~~, ~ ~ ~ ;~,~ ;_ lTLE CANADA ~ ,~ _~_ ` °R' vla~IC oR. ~ ``~ ~. uRx AVE. ~ ~ ~ ~.'~ ~i '.t ~ ~, < ,.,~~ ,~ ~ LAURIE CT. ~ ~ `. ~~ rii Ci ~ ~ m a ~ ~ ;' ~ r' .'~ Im. B BlJltl~ Cf. / ~; j ,, ~ ~ IiY RD. B ~ ® COUNiY ~ ~ J BURKE V ~..t ~ %,~ ;'. ~', iii LN. ~ OehriM ~ ! , BEIMONT ,i ~~ ~ J SIOLL11M1 ~ AVE. W j ~ SgLLMMI AV. ~~~ KENM OOD SiQ1l11W AVE. ~ iii ~ ~ ~ ~ W lli_ ~ YT. VE7iNON ~ ~ ~ ~ m ~ ~f ~ 3 r -, oo~s AvE_ g Mr vERrIO~I ~ W b ~ iii ~ ~ ~ ~ R06QAYrN ® a ~ ~ ~ ~11YMOOD AVE. BELL. AVE ~~~ AVE ~ ~ ~ SUMMER AVE. ~ a iii LN. .o ~ SICW~~ ~ ~ z 3 ~ m FEMdN AVE. ~ ~ p ~ ~ m ~ z Y ~ Y ~ ~ O~ ® ~ ~ ~ ~ to ~ AVE. ~ RIPLEY AVE. ____ iii iii ~ _ ~ iii ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~r~Rau-d=` j j , . ~"i pNGSTpJ ~ ~+ G j ~ ~ m IaPIGSTONt/1VE. ~ \~ *Lolr~. i T2 ~ ? ~ ~ (~' x~ ® o AVE. 3 ~ ~ PRICE AVE. ~ '~ ~ • i / Sc < o ~ ~ t/UiPE NiEUR W ~ AVE. _ ~ I a ~~. SAINT ~ PAUL LOCATION MAP 12 4 N Attachment 3 201E 2017 m n 2022 - ~ 2016 2019. X020 1 20118 ' 2x'10 2011_.. ' O z ', 2416. ~ 2d14, -{ 2008 ~012 ' D 2a10 .2004 2005 ' 2011 ~ ~oo ~R~ ~ 2004 ' 1$98 1999" 2000 ? 2402' - 1999 ~ ~OOb -{ I__ 1.998 i _ __ i 199 ~ ~ 1994 ~ ~ X992 1993 T590 ' 1993 188 ' 1994 186 1986 ~ ~ ! 19821984 i '~ 1983.. 1989 1 VERNON AvE R1 ~ 1966 LBC 1959 CO 305 306 314 320 328 334 R1 ~ I m SITE z m + ~ I cn I ~,Roselawn Park R1 ..:.._1944 ~' 375 3531 ROSELAWN AVE 19tZ' 380 PROPERTY LINE /ZONING MAP 13 1 r Attachment 4 _. 2 202.5 2010 2011 0 2008' 2019. 2 G) ~ _- m 21 2004 2005 O 2011 2( _- ~ 2C - ~ 20 1, _ 200© 20 9198 1999... ~ 20 __ _ 1999 ~ 19 G7 19 1992 ~ 19 2001 _ _ `1993 cn 19 1993 ' 19 ` 1994 19 19 _ __~, T98¢ 1c 1983 19$9 ', VERNON AV 1975 I I 1967 I ~ 1966 r ° SITE I ~ 1961 n ~ ~ I rn Z r-~L ~ l~Rpselawn Park ~ \ 1955 -- _1944 ~,/~-_`' 375 325 353' ROSELAWN AVE PROPERTY LINE MAP 14 4 N Attachment 5 TOENJES HILLS ESTATES PRELIMINAR y PLAT EXISTING CONDITIONS 6z DEMO PLAN ~, ti I ,~~_ __ _. ~ _ ~~ ,: / ~-~,~ I t,. / C1, 1 _ _. ;: I MH `, ~ ~ IT: 0 E N S 'I F A _ .. ~ , . 1 •895.2 ~. I ` t ~, I -....__. I w, ~ aI ~ I \ I ~ ``. I - i ~ ~ ..x „ 1 •vr REMOVE 20" DIP }p MANH \ I f ~~ I ~.. ~.-' / ~ ~a~ REMOVE MANHOI~'. k @ BUIaJ(HE~D I l., ~ `, PIPE END W/CON(~tETE _ ~ - _ - _ I j' ~ q ~ , ~ , ,ii' ' ` , ~. ~9[c,m y~ b..pq; I i,SP.t ~ J ~*, I ~~~ / I ~VERNON AVENUE (VACATED - ~~~0` > ~u~wc. .. ~ `~ - ` I I~ J ~- --r - -------- ~ ------- ----- ~-A ,~ ~ T--~-- _.,. .~, - - - ~ ~ ~' y t ~, / UTLITY EASEY T ~ ~ f ` f0. fi j ~~ TO BE VACATED I `DEMO ANB REMOVE ~ • I: I J _ %v SHED FROM PROPERTY ~ ~ W _ - .~ _ - + ~; ~ '; ~ REMOVE EXISTING FMP I ~ ::..rv.-. -~ p: ~ a \ v ~ - ~. , - _ _ - - ... ~'y'~'\- ~ sr t ~~ REMOVE ~TOSTIgo-~'..: ... ,. F ~, _ ~ .,• _ _ ~ - '~y - ~ `•~y ELECIR,ICAL _POC£.AJNES tlS ~ -~, X~ ~,., _ .. _ _ _ _ I ~lC• ~~ 8 1~ ~I 7 10-?INE ~~ W : I ~ `.1l (xT ` I! •• .(I I~ 18 ~ PINE c ~ .., ~ ~ ~ ~. ' ..d.aer s~tMr ~ . ~ ~,y~,- # ~ 24-'BO% ELDER - W ~ \ .. _ ._ ._ 'K +~~ ~ ~ ~' ti s((~ ~" ~ 4 'ten I: I \ 1; I, ~ ' ~.. 24-, - 9s- rrtu i ;` ~-, is 1 I " ~ ~~, DEMO CONCRETE ~, I t 18- . ~. I >.. I CURB !~ GUTTER ~ 26 'ELM .. 14- PINE~.1 ~-0~ ~. _ _ _ _ _ _ M1 J I I /BRUSH ,~_• f ~ ~ a 12- BOIL ELDER \ -,- _ _. . ~i::v _ ~ .. EDCEMONT STREET R _ -. . ,02-12 ELM ~ ''t .. 6~ ~ I , ' SANCUT 81T ," ~, ~ ELIJ S~ fjEOWRMEN75 o f i - ' • ~ TOENJES PUT, EAST 3D-FEET -~ ~ ,:. ": ~. - - ----~r..~ -.. f I ~, nz .Box EipvL.wobos/BRUS~ 1a-~Ei.M ~ ~ ? ~, .r s• euc%.cHEx~RV~~ _ --. ~., _ - - - _ I .14 BO% EWER ''18- BO%ELDER~ ~ .. ~ I ~ ~ ~ ~ / _ `~ .. a t 10-~ •L __rt_ 14--BO%yELDEA - U I• I - Y/OOD5}~USI~~ r ' ` c / - I ~. ~ *~1~ _ " _. ti ~~ ~ yp~ ..'' - 16 BO% ALDER. J ~ ~. ~ I ~ iz- Bok ~a~ 1 I, . ,.?4 ~ - ' .~0~ ELDER . _ .. _ - STING 7R Yq~ `. ~~ ~ .. i 'YK[' E7P °~ ~ ~I' - - - - - -76=-TR4f- _ ~RFI,LNN-IYPJ~C,L D7ECT}- ~F ~ . I .,. I of I ~ .. .. \ ._ .. .. "~ WOOpS%BRUSH .~ - ~ " * ~ -. ~,~y ~ \ i lISAN H '.~. ~ .. {tlM~ 7.75 "i ;:~ ... .` ._,. W . _ _ ~ --~ - _ _. \ ~ ~ ~ L INV. 393 ', • REMOYE APRON: _.~~_ _--n2'.~- .._ .._. a:.1 -':..... ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ o EXISTING SITE SURVEY 15 4 N Attachment 6 Folz, Freeman, Erickson, Inc. LAND PLANNING • SURVEYING • ENGINEERING NARRATIVE DESCRIPTION TOENJES HILLS ESTA TES VACATE STREETS AND ALLEY March 18, 2004 RECL,~'ED The underlying plat of MaGoffm's North Side Addition was never opened and improved in this area as originally platted. The property is currently vacant. The highest and best use of this property cannot be realized in it's current configuration. There is a portion of a street, alley and utility easement that needs to be vacated as a part of the project. The proposed vacations aze detailed on the attached map and legal descriptions. The street and alley that are to be vacated serve NO public purpose. The vacation of this street and alley will return unused property to the tax roll, and back to productive use to benefit the community. The utility easement to be vacated is no longer needed due to the reconfiguration of the storm water facilities. The vacations are integral to the development of this project. This project is a benefit to the community insofar as the additional storm water retention facilities that will be constructed to help alleviate the possible flooding issues with the Roselawn Pond azea within the City Pazk east of the project. These facilities will be funded 100 % by the development, at no cost to the community. APPLICANT'S STATEMENT 1b 5610 Memorial Avenue North, Stillwater, MN 55081 • Phone: (6S1) 439-8833 • Fax: (651J 430-9331 • Website: www.ffe-inc.com Bruce A. Folz, LS Timothy J. Freeman, LS Todd A. Erickson, PE 1939.1001 President Vice President Attachment 7 r~r~ ~1 "~ W I ------ ~~,,--,, i ~/ '~ rl~ I ~ ~`1 i~`~ ~ I crJ\ J~ - - -~--, - ~-Ct-- - - --~ ,<; ~` ~ ;, '°'J I ~~ ~~~~ '~ i.,J r~` o_- r',J RAMSEY COUNTY CAST IRON MGNUMENT AT WEST 1~4 CORNER SEC l7, T ?9 N, R 22 w I ,-r I / I II /^ III I ~- /l r- ~ ~ r- -r 1 ~,l L / 1 V lJ L_ 1,-`^ -- ~ ------------ i _ w i n n~r-r-in 1^ ~ n i~[~F*-r i ^In r- ~ .~ rvli-~VVi-i-li v.~ iiv~r~Il fl =11,/x_ - - - - - - - i ~ ~ nn Tenn 1 r~ r ~~ n v ~ -I I i I I i 7 `7 ~ i i « i i i v ' ~~ --~ ----- I o 2 ~~ I a'~ N ti \ 1/ U C O I ~ ~ L~ - - _ _ - - 2 m I ~° ~~~ I ~ a '~ I ? I r- n ~ ~ n e _ _ _I _ _ _/_1_ I \ lVI _ _ (\ n Np 2690 ^ N .2690368)----------~ ~. -'T P -~ ~. ~ ~ CPSfMEN f r~•-i ~- - - - - - - ~%~~~i i~ i~~~/i ii~~~i) .: ii ~ii~Y~/ i ii~,j i^ 'i ~~i 'L - - - ; i -, i,~, - ~~~~ ~~~% i i~ i--i~ , ' - J ~J oy ~~~~v~ ~~~; o,, ~F J ~~ W ~ a i~.)o/ t ~ \ _ N~ ~ _„~ ,_ , ~ i~ ~ ~ ~, ~ ,, ,, o~C~~;_ _ _ ~~~ / , ~~ ~~~~ ~, ;, , ~ „~~r- ,,,r, --- //////^ i i y i /, i2j i,i ` i i ~~ ~ i~ iJ /~//~ /~~//~~ / / ~ / / ~ / / ~ / ~ ~ ~ ~ / ~~/ ~ ~ / / / ~`r l// ~/J r~ ~~~ I ~ ~.: ~ i ~ i < TOENJES HILLS ESTATES PROPOSED VACATION 17 4 N Attachment 8 ----------- i _ ~~;J° ~~;° I ~~~ ~ ~, ~ I ,~, ; n ~~ ~ ,r~, ~`' I ---~~--x-C~----i ,~;'~~°J r~; I `~ ` ~ `"~ ~~~,~ ~~~~` i _ ~ ~I ~ 1`~ / I I I-------~ ----~ I ,`, I I -~ r, ~- / , ~- --~ m I O ' N I ~k I \ ; 7 I~ ~-----~---- U I ~h I r- ~ -~ n e i ~n Z69o~B -~~ -^n - . 2690368)-____________ G~ ~~ ~ ca o'a. - ~? i CP~~C~ yrl~i~ ------ ii iii ~ i~~ / i~ ~ii~~ ~i , i„ ~ ~~i~°~/ ~ .: ii ~~i~ i~ / iL ~/ // _ - _ _ /~~ %, j/ ^ ~~,{-_i~ // ~~~/^ ~i, ~~ r - m ~~~ - - - ~ , ` ~~ -~~ o~ '~~ 'L~ o ~ ., W'~; aJ /( •~o/~ q Qt .~~~'-~ it / ` -~ 7 ~ /<~ j~l .Q/ ~ ~ / /I 0 `, / ~ / /I y i ~ ~ n~^ /~ \J~~ v / ~ ~,/~ ~ I ~ ~ ./ LIJ// /~ ~~ ~ I iik~ ,2~y i~ ~~i ~~~^ ; ~i~ ~i~ ~~ i~ i ~ = ` i ~ ~2iJ ~ 2 i /~~///A ~~ ~//~~ / / / / // ///I ~ ` A -r ~~~ ~~ /,// /iJ :%//ii~~ c L i_._/...ti_ _ ~ ` ~ Ivl~vvi ,'Iwo w~r` ~ :: ~ II f 7 .; ILIi_ I _ _ - _ -^r r- -I 1 =rnr~ _ - - _ _ _ I I -~'/LI IVY v I l/ /~VL. I r- 1 RAMSEY COUNTY CAST IRON MONUMENT ~ '~ I AT WE57 i/4 CORNER ` ` i SEC. 77, 1 29 N, R 22 W it _ I 7 ~ ~ ~~ PROPOSED PRELIMINARY PLAT TOENJES HILLS ESTA TES 4 N 18 Attachment 9 SITE M~4I' L__ ~ I _, , I -~ ~: ~~ _~ i , ~ I [, I ~ roan a ~ :.. .,~ ~ - -- . ~, NWL892A // ~, ,. I ~\ I ... ... ._ .. I 1-nVL.B94511 ~.YFAR) ~ I _ :; ~ „ ,,.. ~ ~- I ~~ ! BLOCK 1 ~ ~, ~~ -. "~ fit. c .X'w ,~' % ~ ..,~,_ ~ I ' ~ > ~ ; r I ~ro~sPracE ~ { ~~ I INFII-TRATION BASIN '~, `' I ~ , ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ POh3D 1 ~~ `~" k~'' rrwi,svis I ~'.. ~ ~ ~ HWL 893.1 Ooo-YP.1A1 I r~; -, ~-,_.., - - - ~ I ----~ .t \ .., ~ ~ I ' } „ i ~. '' R I ~ ,C x. ~ "~. Ji I ~ .. ~ _. -----' . -. r i .- _ i.~ -_ I s .... :..L I- I ~y-. ~------ I is ` , I { - .., ~ ; ~-----~-----~ L---------~ ~------ I I SITE MAP 19 4~ N Attachment 10 TOENJES HILLS ESTATES PRELIMINARY PLAT TREE PLAN ~~~ ~w ~xrou. rnorosco a:awas mce vwmxe vxorosm caNrmaus m¢ au+nxc I .., >< ~ - ~'.. \ cernxe wan a yes ro iawMx f '' i e / \\'~-'- rvo~s I POND 2 '~`_\ L xwl evzo ._~ ' ~ .... '""~ ~ .i IIWLP445 l1oa' '- -.._ m¢usrueo~ euac xus ~ I / \ a calce~oo eLUC ~ucc e' er I r F- / Bed"- ~ , ~?h \ M ~siw/w nxc e' sais I I ...~ ee ~ u ~.' \ er ~ *~ oaw w i-c~i. rn. I ,; rf ---------- ~~ a~ -- - es - - - ` - - -, - - - - J ~ ~' :q ,~- !BLOCK 1 ~ ~ '~~ ~ _ ~, ~/ ~ _ ;~ _ S. k y 1, ' ` p ~ ~ j I ~ -:.~~ ~ NI , 1 ` p ~ w ~l 7 i S ., ~ ~p ~ I '~ 1 j ~ I ~ +r. ~ ~ 04 ~ ,i I ~Y # I ~~ ~, I 2 i ~ i Boaz ~ _- Bd6Bd6~~ f b _ , To~JESPLACB _ z z.o~,, - l ~~ t-- , ~ ~ C~TR.ATTON BAS oe I ~ POND 1 ~ ~ . ~ I ~ ~V ~ NN'L 891.5 +G~ ` 01 ~ ~B liWL6931 (100-YEAH) i ~ ,-- I I ,; ~ I _. . f: I I~ -s--- -,, ,4 ~/: f ~ bs :~ ., I , ~ I ~~ ~ - {l' ~ N~ I': I ~ ~ eq1 ~ '. I ~~ ~' ~~ I I ,: I ~"<- ~; ~ ,~ ~ ', ~ I * ... ~ ~ , t 2 ;. I~ ~~ ~. .-~ '. ,. EXISTING i' I ~ - f -4~! '- ROSEi,AWN v .. .. ~ ~ b ' ~- ---- - - - -----• OND • ----~. ----- ~ w - --------- ---- --•- -- --- .~ I _ - ~ ~ _ , .. ,_ I !~ GRADING AND TREE PLAN zo 4 N Attachment 11 TOENJES HILLS ESTATES PRELIMINARY PLAT GRADING & EROSION CONTROL PLAN __ , `_.__~ i{; ~ _ , ~ ~ ~ s ~~~O~K lI t °~~~ ~ >Y II nAJ /{ F K ~ I ~c ~hy ~ 'G I Ik bL Y µ _` f_ ~~~ I ,. ~ ~} i aI ,1 ~`i , i a ` i , e° ~ ,. ~ ~~ ~ ! ~ i. .. t '~ ~'° $~4v ~ I a ,. ` ~ ~ ~ y,Y,.. ~ ~ G 4 -_ _ -_ . i } ~~~, . I ~ 6~ I~ '~~ ~ ~ ~ ' - ~. ~ i ~ ~ ' + ~ --:,. -- .. ,' - - < ~. ~ a _. .. ~ ~~~ ~-• ;~ 1 ', t ;~,.. ~'? r~ ,~ ~ , , ~ i ' ,~ i ~- I ~~ `, ~~- I i ~~'~, - L ~ S I ~ --'< I \ i A I ---7---~----~ loco naunNC~' ~ ~ EYERCENCY o~,ow~ ~ ` ~)G ~ _ _ '~J5. '- _ ._ ~ N ..0.- - - i _. - - - - ~ ~- ~txt ~ '- -- ~..~ i TRATION BAS _ , . r _ ~; 'mac ~ , - -... ~ ~~ \~ ,. ., ~, < PROPOSED GRADING PLAN 21 N Attachment 12 ti ~ i I' POND 2 J ivwl. evz.o _ ~ ' xwLevas uoa.~,u,, 6 C.Y. RIP RAP CL XI PLACED IN 6' OF Z' ROCK BEOOINC OVER CEOIEXTLE TPE IV FABRIC - ~_ __ i -. ,... ~..._ 9s ~ ~~ I BLOCK 1 ~ ~ ,~~ ~---T-~~" 's: I, # K~ r ,~ I !, _2 _~ i r ,> I I--- -- ---1 --- ~ ~ -~ ~ ,` 3 ` _ ~ D CB tOB MOD. 5 CURB ~ WT7ER TOEN S PLACE _ ~-2+oa.n mo- ' • uoo. s cues a OUYTER _ ~ -----, I ~ .,,~ _ ~, ~ 4 6 PRELL?~fINARY PLAT STREET & STORM SEWER ---, - -~- I; ~y _ h ,a~ h ~`: ,- ~' I 8 C.Y. RIP RAP `Cl. IX PLACID IN 6' OF 2' Rope BEODINC OVER GEOIEXTLLE 7YPE IV FABPoC ,l \EXISTIIVG ROSELAWN nrnm STORM SEWER PLAN 22 4 N B C.Y. RIP RAP Cl XI PLACED IN 6' OF Z' ROIX BEODINC ~OKR~GE07E%711E TYPE ry FABRIC L_s/ -` INPiLTRATION BASIN PO'~ID 1 NN1 R913 HW1893.1 (100.YEAR) Attach~,rent 13 TOENJES HILLS ESTATES PRELIMINAR Y PLA T UTILITY PLAN ,. a F+ ,; ~ ~ ~> ,,_ ~ .._ ~1. CONNECT Tb °~ EXISTING WM w/8'x8' TEE ~ MH 1 ~ RIM~906.0 INV.~894.5 8' G.V. k BOX to ^ __ _~~~ Y I 6 ~1 '' ~ rr _ .:.:~ ..,~r ,oo `=is e /d8G a3 c ~ ~ Vii. ~. / 892 , .._ ... --T - ---- ; ---------- x --1 :, ~, ~ ~~ ~; a~~~ ~~~~~ ~ \~ ~. i~ «~ 4A 1-INCH / CURB BOX do STOP C. 3 6' HYDRANT t/ 6' C.V. k BOX 8'X6' REDUCEF -%- MH 2 RIM 905.3 INV. 896.00 %' 4 , PROPOSED UTILITY PLAN 23 iI # -~~~Ac- 1 ~ ~ y 3 < '~ ~ 1 10' MIN. 1 ~~ S ~ 1.t1CE 2 2+D3A1 .. 4" .PVC SC11. i0 7-INCH COPPER O :SERVICE (TYP_) SERVICE (T1PE K,:TYP.) 2 4 N Attachment 14 MEMORANDUM TO: Ken Roberts, Associate Planner FROM: Bruce K. Anderson, Director of Parks and Recreation DATE: April 7, 2004 SUBJECT: Toenjes Hills Estates I have taken the opportunity to review the proposed Toenjes Hills Estates preliminary plat that proposes six new home sites within the two-acre location at the intersection of Roselawn Avenue and McMenemy Street. The proposed plat is located east of Roselawn Park, which is in effect a small holding pond. Roselawn Park borders Desoto Street on the east and accesses Edgerton park/school. Staff recommends that the developer provide an eight-foot paved walkway between Lots 3 and 4 for a future trail corridor that would be developed along the old Edgemont Street access, following Mount Vemon to the east to access Edgerton Park. This trail access would provide not only access to Roselawn pond and Edgerton Park, but also to Edgerton Elementary School. In addition to the requested trail corridor development, staff recommends that the developer pay the standard residential park dedication fee for each of the six lots. kh~toenjes.mem c: Dennis Peck, Sr. Eng. Tech. 24 Attachment 15 Engineering Plan Review PROJECT: Toenjes Hills Estates PROJECT NO: 04-07 REVIEWED BY: Erin Laberee, Maplewood Engineering Department DATE: April 12, 2004 Herb and Hugh Toenjes are proposing to develop the property at 1966 McMenemey Street, just north of Roselawn Avenue, into six residential lots. They are proposing a short cul-de-sac along with a pond to be constructed on the city property in Roselawn Park, east of the site. The developer also is proposing to enlarge the existing pond north of the proposed development. It is proposed that the street and utilities be public infrastructure. The city's current policy for the construction of public streets and utilities is to perform the construction as part of a public improvement project petitioned by the property owner. Maplewood Engineering would prepare the detailed plans and specifications for the street and utilities and perform all inspection duties. Because this policy has changed since initial discussions with the developer, if the developer wishes to privately prepare the plans and specifications for the public street and utilities along with administering all construction activities, the developer must strictly follow Maplewood's Engineering Standards. These standards include a construction inspection schedule that outlines erosion control, grading, utility and street construction, and testing requirements. The developer would ensure that all construction activities conform to Maplewood's standards by entering into a Development Agreement with the city. The developer shall address the following issues. Drainage 1. The developer is proposing that Pond 1 be constructed within the city's property at Roselawn Park. There are two options available to the developer about the location of ponding: The first option is for the developer to pay the city ponding area impact charges to obtain rights over an area of the city property for ponding purposes. Pond 1 is shown to occupy approximately 225 ft by 270 ft (60,750 square feet) within Roselawn Park and public right of way. The storm water ponding area charge shall be $30,375 ($0.50 per square foot). The city would deposit the revenue from these fees into the city's environmental utility fund. The second alternative is for the developer to contain all ponding within the plat. This would probably result in a reduction in the number of buildable lots. 2. The grading plan shows proposed contours for Pond 2 outside of the plat and utility easement. The city will not allow grading north of the north property line of the site without right of entry agreements. If the developer must encroach onto private property, the developer must first get right of entry agreements from the affected property owners before the start of the construction. 25 The plans show Pond 1 as an infiltration basin. If the pond is to function as infiltration basin, the engineer shall design it to include rock sumps to improve infiltration. The sumps should consist of 1.5" of clean, clear rock wrapped in Type 5 geotextile filter fabric, (felt). The contractor shall place the top of the rock infiltration sumps about 12 inches below the finished bottom of the basin. The project engineer shall provide a detail and description in the plan of how the contractor will prepare the rock sumps. If the pond is to function as a pond it must meet NLTRP standards. For more information on infiltration basins, please see the Metro council BMP Manual at their web site: http~//www metrocouncil.org,/enviroment/Watershedlbmpmanual.htm 4. Catch basin 7 should be oversized in diameter and include a 3' sump before discharging into the pond. This is so that maintenance workers can remove the sediment deposited in the system before it enters the pond. Grading & Erosion Control 1. Line the first 20 feet of the emergency overflow swale between Pond 2 and Pond 1 with a soil stabilization blanket. 2. A portion of the proposed retaining wall is currently located within the utility easement. The retaining wall must be located within the plat and must have afive- foot setback from the property line. If the proposed retaining wall height is greater than 4 feet tall, the city will require a building permit. The city is concerned with the elevations of the site and buildings. The existing pond in Roselawn Park has no outlet. The pond has been pumped several times in the past to prevent flooding to nearby properties. The drainage area to the pond has been modeled for two, 100-year, back-to-back storm events. The water elevation in the pond has been modeled to reach approximately 901 for that type storm event. The developer must revise site grades and building elevations to set the lowest building opening elevation at 903, two feet above the water elevation in the event of two 100-year back-to-back storms. Utilities 1. Submit plans to Saint Paul Regional Water Services for their review and approval. 2. Relocate the proposed hydrant to the common lot line between Lots 3 and 4. 3. Shift sanitary sewer manhole No. 2 ten feet to the west to shorten the length of the sewer main. 4. The developer or contractor shall verify the location of any existing on-site septic system and remove it following all state regulations. 26 Landscaping 1. The applicant or contractor shall provide a turf establishment plan for the ponding areas. This plan shall include appropriate native-grass seed mixtures for upland and lowland areas around the infiltration basin and pond. Streets The city code requires the street width to be 32 feet face to face. The applicant, however, might consider reducing the street width to 28 feet face to face (by variance). However, by code, this also would limit parking to one side of the street. The right-of--way width also could be reduced to 50 feet (by variance). In fact, the code only requires a 60-foot-wide right-of--way, rather than the 66 feet shown on the preliminary plat. These street width and ROW reductions, (by variance), would allow for an increase in the lot depths. 2. The cul-de-sac pavement radius is shown as 50-feet. The minimum cul-de-sac radius by code is 47-feet face-to-face of curb. Other Lots 2, 3, 4 and 5 do not meet city requirements for minimum rear yard setbacks of 20% of the lot depth. The building and lot configuration will need to be revised to meet the depth requirements. Reducing the street and right of way width as recommended above will increase lot depths. The developer may reduce front yard setbacks to 25 feet (from the usual 30 feet) to obtain deeper rear yards. 2. The developer shall dedicate a 20-foot-wide right of way for an 8-foot-wide bituminous trail between Lots 3 and 4 to connect the subdivision to a future park trail. The owner must dedicate the trail right-of--way by separate document before the final plat. The trail shall be constructed as part of the development. 27 Page 1 of 1 Attachment 16 Ken Roberts From: DJshiek [djshiek~comcast.net] Sent: Wednesday, April 07, 2004 3:10 PM To: Ken Roberts Subject: TOENJES HILLS ESTATE Mr. Roberts It is the opion of myself and my wife that this is a project worth approval by the a1y as it will enhance our neighborhood. Our only concern is the quality of fill and the drainage project, which we assume the aty will monitor. Thanks Don & Julie Shiek 4/7/2004 28 Attachment 17 Date: Apri 110,2004 To: Ken Roberts, Planner r-,, City Of Maplewood ~ ~~ `~ `~ ~~ RECEIVED From: Jerry and Etta Erickson, Property Owners 1993 Edgemont Street Maplewood, Minnesota 55117 (651)776-1112 Re: Request for Clarification regarding The Proposed Toenjes Hills Estates Subdivision Thank you for making available to us this excellent packet of information related to the proposed development of the remaining lots of the old Toen jes farm site. We are the property owners in the north side of Pond #2. We built our new home in 2000, and have greatly enjoyed the close proximity of the pond behind our home. In the spring, the frogs in the pond sing their little hearts out. During the summer, we see many egrets, herons and song birds that take sanctuary there. Mother ducks hatch out their families in the weeds along the shoreline, and teach their ducklings to swim in the pond. Last summer we had pair of n golden eagles living somewhere in the woods to the south. They spent many hours circling in the sky above or sitting in the sun on a branch of the old box elder trees on the west side of the pond. At night we frequently see raccoons feeding and playing in the water under the moonlight. The entire area is home to an abundance of fireflies, and it is not unusual to see fox and deer in the pond area. In summary, the pond area and the woods behind it (the proposed subdivision site) has been a lovely wildlife and nature sanctuary. We are not suggesting that the development should not happen. What we are asking is that every possible effort be expended to spare the mature trees in the area, and to replace/relocate any trees and shrubs that need to be removed in order to preserve as much of the beauty of this area as is possible. We live in an intensely competitive, fast-paced, high-tech, world that needs to be balanced with havens of natural beauty if we are to remain mentally-healthy and 29 spiritually-whole, productive citizens of this city. With six new homes being added to this area, and with the additional taxes provided by these citizens, it makes sense to expend whatever effort is required to preserve the natural beauty of this area. We have several questions related to the proposed project that we would like to have answered: 1. POND #2 Please provide further information and detail on your statement in the narrative description "We intend to create a new outlet structure for the existing pond to the north to provide additional storage capacity." How much larger and deeper wi II the pond be? Will any excavation within and around the pond be done? How far to the west will the normal water level reach? What is the anticipated 'normal water level' of the pond when the project is complete? How does that compare to the current'normal water level' of the pond? Z. TREES Are the trees marked on the "existing site survey" meant to remain and be protected? What, if anything, will happen to the two big, old box elder trees directly to the west of the pond? If these two mature trees are removed, will you replace them with several relatively mature trees that might be re/ocoted from elsewhere on the subdivision property? What will be done to assure that Pond #2 area is aesthetically pleasing, and remains a sanctuary for birds and wildlife? 30 3. HOMES What will the average value of the six building sites be? What will be the average value of the new homes to be built? What is the time-line for getting this work done? Exactly how close to the south edge of Pond #2 will the back of the home on Block 2 be located? Please advise us regarding the date and time of the City Council meeting that will address this proposed project. Thank you for co ' g these concerns. ~-' Jerry and Etta Erickson 31 Attachment 18 VACATION RESOLUTION WHEREAS, Hugh Toenjes, representing the property owner, applied for the vacation of the following: 1. The Edgemont Street right-of--way, according to the plat of Magoffln's Northside Addition to Saint Paul, Minnesota, lying south of the vacated Vernon Avenue and north of Lot 7, Block 5 and Lot 24, Block 6. 2. The 20-foot-wide alley in Block 5, Magoffin's Northside Addition to Saint Paul, Minnesota, lying south of the vacated Vemon Avenue and north of Lot 7 and Lot 24 of said Block 5. 3. That part of the drainage and utility easement in Document No. 2690368, described as that part of said easement lying southerly of the centerline of vacated Vemon Avenue between the west line of Block 5 and the east line of Block 5 in Magoffin's Northside Addition to Saint Paul, Minnesota, Ramsey County. WHEREAS, the history of this vacation is as follows: 1. On April 19, 2004, the planning commission recommended that the city council approve the above-described vacations. 2. On May 10, 2004, the city council held a public hearing. The city staff published a notice in the Maplewood Review and sent a notice to the abutting property owners. The council gave everyone at the hearing a chance to speak and present written statements. The council also considered reports and recommendations from the city staff and planning commission. The council then tabled action on the request. 3. On May 24, 2004, the city council again considered this request. WHEREAS, after the city approves this vacation, the public interest in the property will go to the following properties: 1. Lots 1-7 and Lots 2430, Block 5, Magoffin's Northside Addition to St. Paul (PIN 17-29-22-23- 0073). 2. Lots 1-7 and Lots 24-30, Block 6, Magoffin's Northside Addition to St. Paul (PIN 17-29-22-23- 0072). NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the city council approve the above-described vacation for the following reasons: 1. It is in the public interest. 2. The city and the property owner have no plans to build a street or an alley in the right-of--ways. 3. The adjacent properties have adequate street access. 4. The developer will be dedicating a new right-of-way and new easements with the new plat. The Maplewood City Council adopted this resolution on , 2004. 32 MINUTES OF THE MAPLEWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION 1830 COUNTY ROAD B EAST, MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA MONDAY, APRIL 19, 2004 VI. NEW BUSINESS c. Toenjes Hills Estates (McMenemy Street) Mr. Hugh Toenjes, representing the property owner, is proposing to develop asix-lot plat for single dwellings called Toenjes Hills Estates. It would be on a two-acre site on the east side of McMenemy Street, north of Roselawn Avenue. Commissioner Desai asked where the drainage from pond number 2 was currently going? Mr. Cavett said pond number 2 outlets onto the applicant's property and flows over land and goes down into the Roselawn pond, basically where the drainage is proposed to go. Commissioner Bartol asked if vacating this property would affect the property owners at 1944 McMenemy Street and 353 Roselawn Avenue? Mr. Roberts said Mr. Toenjes tried to contact those two property owners to put a plan together for all three of the properties but could not come to an agreement. Therefore, Mr. Toenjes proceeded with his plan because he could no longer wait. He said the city is leaving the Edgemont right-of-way next to these two properties for the future use of the two owners. Commissioner Bartol said that was unfortunate because in his opinion this plan would have resulted in a better plan if the development were larger. He thinks the six homes would be very closely pinched together in a low area. Chairperson Fischer asked the applicant to address the commission. Mr. Tim Freeman addressed the commission as the representative for owners Hugh and Herb Toenjes. He is a land planner and surveyor with Folz, Freeman, Erickson, Inc., 5620 Memorial Avenue North, Stillwater. He said the staff has done a very comprehensive job of reviewing this subdivision and have been very professional in working with the applicants to resolve the issues that have risen. He said they have reviewed the staff report and do not have any issues with the staff report or the conditions listed. Commissioner Mueller said he is having a difficult time trying to imagine how large these lots would be and asked how large the homes would be that would be built on each of these six lots? Mr. Freeman said these six lots are more than 10,000 square feet and are large enough to have ramblers built on them and large enough to have houses with four bedrooms built. Mr. Roberts said he sees this area to be similar in size to the seven single-family lots and homes that were built a few years ago on Burke Circle. Chairperson Fischer asked the applicant if he had any problems with increasing the width of the lots from 95 to 100 feet wide? Mr. Freeman said no, those changes have already been made to the plans. However, they did not have enough time to get the changes to staff in time for the planning commission meeting tonight. Commissioner Pearson asked if the Watershed District had finished their review of this plan yet? Mr. Roberts said the Watershed District report is still pending. The Watershed District started their review but had some comments. The Watershed District received new information but city staff has not received those comments yet. Commissioner Pearson said he wasn't comfortable with the elevation difference on this plan but trusting the Watershed Districts report and staff's assessment of the plan he feels comfortable enough to make the motion. Commissioner Pearson moved to approve the resolution on page 32 of the staff report. These resolutions are for the vacation of the unused Edgemont Street right-of-way and unused alley and excess drainage easements on the property for the site of the Toenjes Hills Estates plat. The city is vacating these because: 1. It is in the public interest. 2. The city and the property owner have no plans to build a street or an alley in the existing right-of-ways. 3. The developer will be dedicating a new right-of-way and new easements with the final plat. Commissioner Pearson moved to approve the Toenjes Hills preliminary plat (received by the city on April 1, 2004). The developer shall complete the following before the city council approves the final plat: 1. Sign an agreement with the city that guarantees that the developer or contractor will: a. Complete all grading for overall site drainage, complete all retaining walls, site landscaping and meet all city requirements. b. *Place temporary orange safety fencing and signs at the grading limits. c. Have Xcel Energy install Group V rate streetlights in two locations -primarily at the street intersections and at the east end of the cul-de-sac. The exact style and location shall be subject to the city engineer's approval. d. Provide all required and necessary easements (including all utility easements and ten- footdrainage and utility easements along the front and rear lot lines of each lot and five- foot drainage and utility easements along the side lot lines of each lot). e. Pay the city for the cost of traffic-control, street identification, and no parking signs. f. Provide all required and necessary easements, including any off-site easements. g. Demolish or remove the existing shed from the site, and remove all other buildings, fencing, scrap metal, debris and junk from the site. h. Cap and seal all wells on site; and remove septic systems or drainfields, subject to Minnesota rules and guidelines. i. Complete all curb on McMenemy Street on the west side of the site. This is to replace the existing driveways on McMenemy Street, and restore and sod the boulevards. 2.* Have the city engineer approve final construction and engineering plans. These plans shall include grading, utility, drainage, erosion control, tree, trail and street plans. The plans shall meet all the conditions and changes listed in the memo from Erin LaBeree dated April 12, 2004, and shall meet the following conditions: a. The erosion control plans shall be consistent with the city code and shall be extremely detained to the satisfaction of the city engineer. b. The grading plan shall show: (1) The proposed building pad elevation and contour information for each home site. The lot lines on this plan shall follow the approved preliminary plat. (2) Contour information for all the land that the construction will disturb. (3) House pads that reduce the grading on sites where the developer can save large trees. (4) The proposed street and driveway grades as allowed by the city engineer. (5) All proposed slopes on the construction plans. The city engineer shall approve the plans, specifications and management practices for any slopes steeper than 3:1. On slopes steeper than 3:1, the developer shall prepare and implement a stabilization and planting plan. At a minimum, the slopes shall be protected with wood-fiber blanket, be seeded with a no-maintenance vegetation and be stabilized before the city approves the final plat. (6) Include the tree plan that: a. Shows where the developer will remove, save or replace large trees. This plan shall include an inventory of all existing large trees on the site. b. Shows no tree removal beyond the approved grading and tree limits. c. Changes the proposed Colorado Blue Spruce trees on the planting plans with other species that are more native and compatible to the climate and conditions in Maplewood. (7) All retaining walls on the plans. Any retaining walls taller than 4 feet require a building permit from the city. (8) Sedimentation basins or ponds as required by the watershed district or by the city engineer. (9) No grading beyond the plat boundary without temporary grading easements from the affected property owner(s). (10) As little grading as possible north and south of the proposed street. This is to keep as many of the existing trees on the site as is reasonably possible. c. The street and utility plans shall show: (1) The street with a width of 28 feet (with parking on one side), shall be a 9-ton design with a maximum street grade of eight percent and the maximum street grade within 75 feet of the intersection at two percent. (2) The new street (Toenjes Place) with continuous concrete ribbon curb, except where the city engineer determines that concrete curbing is necessary. (3) The completion or replacement of the curb on the east side of McMenemy Street and the restoration and sodding of the boulevards. (4) Repair of McMenemy Street (curb, street and boulevard) after the developer connects to the public utilities and builds the new street. (5) The coordination of the water main alignments and sizing with the standards and requirements of the Saint Paul Regional Water Services (SPRWS). (6) 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. (7) The plan and profiles of the proposed utilities. (8) A detail of any ponds, the pond outlets and the rainwater gardens. The contractor shall protect the outlets to prevent erosion. (9) The cul-de-sac with a minimum pavement radius of at least 42 feet. (10) Label McMenemy Street and the new street as Toenjes Place on all construction and project plans. d. The drainage plan shall ensure that there is no increase in the rate of storm water run- off leaving the site above the current (predevelopment) levels. The developer's engineer shall: (1) Verify inlet and pipe capacities. (2) Submit drainage design calculations. e. A landscape plan for the areas along the street and the ponding areas. The coniferous trees shall be at 3. Change the plat as follows: a. Add drainage and utility easements as required by the city engineer. b. Show drainage and utility easements along all property lines on the final plat. These easements shall be ten feet wide along the front and rear property lines and five feet wide along the side property lines. c. Revise the plans and lot layout to: 1. Accommodate a 20-foot-wide pedestrian way for a trail from the cul-de-sac to the city park. 2. Make the corner lots at least 100 feet wide on each street. 3. Show the street right-of-way with a width of 60 feet and the cul-de-sac with a right-of-way radius of 55 feet. 4. Show house pads that meet all city setback requirements. 4. Pay for costs related to the engineering department's review of the construction plans. 5. Secure and provide all required easements for the development including any off-site drainage utility easements. These shall include, but not be limited to, an easement for the culvert draining the pond on the north side of the plat and paying the city for easement for the ponding area on the park property. 6. The developer shall complete all site grading and retaining wall construction. The city engineer shall include in the developer's agreement any grading that the developer or contractor has not completed before final plat approval. 7. Sign a developer's agreement with the city that guarantees that the developer or contractor will: a. Complete all grading for overall site drainage and ponding areas, install all retaining walls, install the landscaping and replacement trees, install all other necessary improvements and meet all city requirements. b. Place temporary orange safety fencing and signs at the grading limits. c. Provide for the repair of McMenemy Street (street, curb and boulevard) after the developer connects to the public utilities. d. Meet all requirements of the city engineer. 8. Record the following with the final plat:. a. Any homeowners' association documents. b. A covenant or deed restriction with the final plat that prohibits any driveways on Lots 1 and 6 from going onto McMenemy Street. c. A covenant or association documents that addresses the proper installation, maintenance and replacement of the retaining walls. The applicant shall submit the language for these dedications and restrictions to the city for approval before recording. 9. Obtain a permit from the Ramsey-Washington Metro Watershed District for grading. 10. Obtain a NPDES construction permit from the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA). 11. The property owner shall submit a petition to the city requesting the installation of the public improvements. 12. 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. Commissioner Desai seconded. Ayes -Bartol, Desai. Fischer, Mueller, Pearson The motion passed. This item goes to the city council on May 10, 2004. extraordinary landscaping, traffic routing and hours of operation. The key here is that City Council could look at each case individually. They could then make decisions based on neighborhood input and employ proper mitigation applications as necessary for each individual site. Under this option, Azure Properties could re-apply for the Grill and Chill project for a conditional use permit. Anew public hearing would be required and the site plan review would be done simultaneously with the CUP review. First, the city would have to amend the zoning ordinance to allow adrive-through with a conditional use permit. It should be noted that once this amendment is approved, this new ordinance would apply to all BC(M) Districts in the city. There are currently 34 areas zoned in this manner. See Attachment 1. 2. Another option mentioned would be to rezone just the area for the proposed Chill and Grill to BC and/or to consider moving it to the most western portion of the property. If the proposed restaurant were moved down closer to the library, the noise impact to the nearby residential properties could possibly be reduced. The downside to this is that it could be considered to be spot zoning. Staff would not recommend this approach. 3. A third option would be to move the Chill and Grill to the west but re-zone the entire parcel to BC. This would require a new submittal by the applicant and the City Council would first need to make a decision on the zoning issue. This action would still require extra ordinary efforts by the applicant to address traffic and noise concerns associated with drive-through restaurants when/if a new site plan was submitted. 4. A final option would be to take no action and stand by the original decision not to re- zone this property to BC. This approach would be in compliance with the current comprehensive planning and zoning principles. This would also encourage less intensive commercial uses and perhaps higher quality development with hopefully less traffic and noise impacts to the neighbors. REQUESTED ACTION The City Council should direct staff how to proceed based on the options outlined above. P: Com_dvpt. BC(M)Councilconsideration.04 Attachment #1 AGENDA REPORT Agenda Item J2 To: City Manager Richard Fursman From: Chief of Police David J. Thomalla Subject: Ordinance Amending the City Code Relating to Nuisances -Second Reading Date: May 17, 2004 Introduction It is requested that the City Council adopt an amendment to the City ordinance relating to nuisances. Background Recently several surrounding cities have adopted an ordinance relating to the protection of public health, safety and welfare and reducing public exposure to health risks where law enforcement officers have determined that hazardous chemicals from a suspected clandestine drug lab or chemical dump site may exist. These conditions present health and safety risks to occupants and visitors of structures and land through fire, explosion and skin and respiratory exposure to chemicals. Although Maplewood has not yet had an incident where these conditions exist, it is felt that it would be in the City's best interest to have this ordinance in effect for possible future occurrences. The proposed ordinance includes definitions, the criteria for declaring the property a public health nuisance, seizure of property, duties of City officials, responsibilities of the property owner and penalties for violating the ordinance. Recommendation It is recommended that the City Council review and approve the first reading of this proposed ordinance. Action Required Submit to the City Council for review and approval. DJT:js AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER OF THE CITY CODE RELATING TO NUISANCES. Sec. 1. Purpose and intent. The purpose of this article is to protect the public health, safety and welfare and to reduce public exposure to health risks where law enforcement officers have determined that hazardous chemicals from a suspected clandestine drug lab or chemical dump site may exist. These conditions present health and safety risks to occupants and visitors of such structures and land through fire, explosion and skin and respiratory exposure to chemicals. The City Council finds that such sites may contain hazardous chemicals, substances or residues that place people, particularly children or adults of child-bearing age, at risk of exposure through inhabiting the property, visiting the property or using or being exposed to contaminated personal property. Sec. 2. Definitions. Child means any person less than 18 years of age. Chemical dump site means any place or area where chemicals or other waste materials have been located. Clandestine drug lab means the unlawful manufacture or attempt to manufacture controlled substances. Clandestine drug lab site means any place or area where law enforcement has determined that conditions associated with the operation of an unlawful clandestine drug lab exist. A clandestine drug lab site includes any dwellings, accessory structures, buildings, a chemical dump site, a vehicle, boat, trailer or other similar appliance or any other area, land or location. Cleanup means proper removal and/or containment of substances hazardous to humans and/or the environment at a clandestine drug lab site or chemical dump site. Controlled substance means any drug, substance or immediate precursor in Schedules I through V of Minnesota Statutes Section 152.02. The term does not include distilled spirits, wine, malt beverages, intoxicating liquors or tobacco. Owner means any person, firm, corporation or other entity who owns, in whole or in part, the land, building, structure, vehicle, boat, trailer or other location associated with a clandestine drug lab site or chemical dump site. Public health nuisance means a nuisance as defined under Section 18-31 of the Maplewood City Code or under Minnesota Statute Section 145A.02, subd. 17. Remediation means methods such as assessment, evaluation, testing, venting, detergent scrubbing, enclosure, encapsulation, demolition and/or removal of contaminated materials from a clandestine drug lab site or chemical dump site. Sec. 3. Declaration of property as a public health nuisance. (1) Any property containing a clandestine drug lab or chemical dump site will be declared a public health nuisance. (2) No person may occupy, enter or allow occupancy or entrance to property declared a public health nuisance under this section until such declaration is vacated or modified to allow occupancy. Sec. 4. Law enforcement notice to other authorities. Upon identification of a clandestine drug lab site or chemical dump site deemed to place neighbors, visiting public or present and future occupants of the affected property at risk for exposure to harmful contaminants and other associated conditions, law enforcement officials shall notify the City Environmental Health Official and other appropriate municipal, child protection and public health authorities of the property location, the property owner, if known, and conditions found. Sec. 5. Seizure of property. (1) If a clandestine drug lab or chemical dump site is located inside a vehicle, boat, trailer or other form of moveable personal property, law enforcement authorities may immediately seize such property and transport it to a more secure location. (2) Personal property may not be removed from a clandestine drug lab site or a chemical dump site without prior consent from the City Environmental Health Official. Sec. 6. Action by City Environmental Health Official. (1) Upon notification by law enforcement authorities, the City Environmental Health Official or other appropriate municipal or public health authority will issue a Declaration of Public Health Nuisance for the affected property and post a copy of the Declaration at all probable entrances to the dwelling or property. (2) Removal of the posted Declaration of Public Health Nuisance by anyone other than the Environmental Health Official, law enforcement authorities or their designees is prohibited. (3) The City Environmental Health Official shall also attempt to notify the following parties of the Declaration of Public Health Nuisance: (a) Owner of the property; (b) Occupants of the property; (c) Neighbors within close proximity that can be reasonably affected by the conditions found; (d) The City of Maplewood Police Department and (e) Other state and local authorities, such as the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency and the Minnesota Department of Public Health, which are known to have public and environmental protection responsibilities applicable to the situation. (4) Any rental license issued by the city for the property is immediately suspended upon issuance of the Declaration of Public Health Nuisance. Such license will be reinstated only after full compliance with an abatement order. (5) After issuance of the Declaration of Public Health Nuisance, the City Environmental Health Official will issue an order to the property owner to abate the public health nuisance. The abatement order will include the following: (a) A copy of the Declaration of Public Health Nuisance; (b) An order to immediately vacate those portions of the property, including building or structure interiors, which may place the occupants or visitors at risk; (c) Notification of suspension of the rental license, if applicable; (d) A summary of the owner's and occupant's responsibilities; (e) Information on locating professional services necessary to remove and abate the public health nuisance status as provided in this ordinance and Minnesota State Statute Section 145A.04 and (f) Information about the potentially hazardous condition of the clandestine drug lab site or chemical dump site. Sec. 7. Responsibilities of owner. (1) Upon receipt of an abatement order by the City's Environmental Health Official, the property owner must, at the owner's expense: (a) Immediately vacate those portions of the property, including building or structure interiors, that may place the occupants or visitors at risk. This includes dwellings, buildings, motor vehicles, trailers, boats, appliances or any other affected area or location. No persons shall occupy, enter or allow occupancy or entrance to a building or structure declared a Public Health Nuisance until such declaration is vacated or modified to allow occupancy; (b) Properly secure and post warning signs on the perimeter of any contaminated areas on the property in an effort to avoid exposure to unsuspecting parties; (c) Promptly contract with one or more acceptable environmental hazard testing and cleaning firms (acceptable firms are those that have provided assurance of appropriate equipment, procedures and personnel, as determined by the Minnesota Department of Health) to accomplish the following: 1) A detailed on-site assessment of the extent of contamination at the site and the contamination of the personal property therein; 2) Soil testing of the site and testing of all property and soil in proximity to the site that the environmental hazard testing and cleaning firm determines may have been affected by the conditions found at the site; 3) A complete cleanup of all property and soil at the site and in proximity to the site that is found to be affected by conditions found at the site (including, but not limited to, the cleanup or removal of contaminated plumbing, ventilation systems, fixtures and contaminated soil) or a demolition of the site and a complete cleanup of the demolished site and 4) Remediation testing and follow-up testing to determine all health risks are sufficiently reduced, according to the Minnesota Department of Health guidelines, to allow safe human occupancy and use of the site and use of the personal property therein. (d) Regularly notify the city of actions taken and reach agreement with the city on the cleanup schedule. The city shall consider practical limitations and the availability of contractors in approving the schedule for cleanup and (e) Provide written documentation to the city of the cleanup process, including a signed, written statement that the property is safe for human occupancy and that the cleanup was conducted in accordance with Minnesota Department of Health guidelines. (2) The property may not be re-occupied or used in any manner until the city has obtained the written statement in Section 7 (1) (e) and has confirmed that the property has been cleaned in accordance with the guidelines established by the Minnesota Department of Health. Sec. 8. Owner's responsibility for costs. The owner is responsible for all costs associated with nuisance abatement and cleanup of the clandestine drug lab site or chemical dump site, including, but not limited to, costs for: (1) Emergency response; (2) Posting and physical security of the site; (3) Notification of affected parties; (4) Expenses related to the recovery of costs, including the assessment process; (5) Laboratory fees; (6) Cleanup services; (7) Administrative fees and (8) Other associated costs. Sec. 9. City authority to initiate cleanup and recovery of costs. (1) If, within ten (10) days after service of notice of the Declaration of Public Health Nuisance, the city is unable to locate the property owner or if the City Environmental Health Official determines that the owner refuses to or cannot pay the costs or arrange timely assessment and cleanup that is acceptable to the city, the City Environmental Health Official is authorized to proceed in a prompt manner to initiate the on-site assessment and cleanup. (2) The city may abate the nuisance by removing any hazardous structure, building or otherwise in accordance with Minnesota Statutes Chapter 463, Chapter 18 of the Maplewood City Code or by any other means provided under law. (3) If the city abates the public health nuisance, in addition to any legal remedy, it is entitled to recover all costs associated with such abatement plus an additional 25% of the city's costs for administration. In addition to any other legal remedy, the city may recover costs by civil action against the person or persons who own the property or by assessing such costs as a special tax against the property in the manner that taxes and special assessments are certified and collected pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 429.101 and Section 18-37 of the Maplewood City Code. Sec. 10. Authority to modify or remove declaration of public health nuisance. (1) The Environmental Health Official is authorized to modify the Declaration conditions or remove the Declaration of Public Health Nuisance. (2) Such modifications or removal of the Declaration shall only occur after documentation from a qualified environmental or cleaning firm stating that the health and safety risks, including those to neighbors and potential dwelling occupants, are sufficiently abated or corrected to allow safe occupancy of the dwelling. Sec. 11. 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, subd. 3. Sec. 12. 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 of any part thereof, other than the part held to be invalid. Sec. 13. Effective date. This ordinance shall take effect upon its passage and publication. Passed by the City Council on 2004. Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk Ayes: Nays: Agenda #K1 MEMORANDUM TO: City Manager FROM: Assistant City Manager SUBJECT: Consideration of Amendments to the BC(M) Zoning District DATE: May 17, 2004 INTRODUCTION At the May 10, 2004, City Council meeting, staff was directed to review possible code amendments to the BC(M) Zoning District. The Council asked staff to look at the issue of drive-up windows and outdoor menu boards and to see if there could be a way for the city to allow these uses with certain conditions and to protect adjacent residential uses. BACKGROUND The BC(M) District was originally created and intended to provide for the orderly transition between more intensive commercial uses and low or medium density residential areas. Drive-in restaurants and restaurants with drive-up food or beverage windows and with outdoor menu boards are now prohibited in this zoning district. In 2002, the ordinance was changed to accommodate the new carry out or curbside features at Chili's and Outback Steakhouse. In these cases, cars drive into the restaurant parking lot and an employee carries the food out to them. There are no outside menu board or speakers in these instances. On Apri126, 2004, the City Council denied a request by Azure properties for a comprehensive land use plan change and zoning change from BC(M) to BC. The property under consideration was located on Beam Avenue, west of Southlawn Drive. The City Council is now seeking ideas for how to change the existing rules about drive- up windows and outdoor menu boards but with adequate protections for the adjacent residential uses. OPTIONS 1. An option to consider would be to allow drive-up features in the BC(M) Zoning District with a conditional use permit. This would require a public hearing and the City Council could attach special conditions such as noise reduction sound walls, extraordinary landscaping, traffic routing and hours of operation. The key here is that City Council could look at each case individually. They could then make decisions based on neighborhood input and employ proper mitigation applications as necessary for each individual site. Under this option, Azure Properties could re-apply for the Grill and Chill project for a conditional use permit. Anew public hearing would be required and the site plan review would be done simultaneously with the CUP review. First, the city would have to amend the zoning ordinance to allow adrive-through with a conditional use permit. It should be noted that once this amendment is approved, this new ordinance would apply to all BC(M) Districts in the city. There are currently 34 areas zoned in this manner. See Attachment 1. 2. Another option mentioned would be to rezone just the area for the proposed Chill and Grill to BC and/or to consider moving it to the most western portion of the property. If the proposed restaurant were moved down closer to the library, the noise impact to the nearby residential properties could possibly be reduced. The downside to this is that it could be considered to be spot zoning. Staff would not recommend this approach. 3. A third option would be to move the Chill and Grill to the west but re-zone the entire parcel to BC. This would require a new submittal by the applicant and the City Council would first need to make a decision on the zoning issue. This action would still require extra ordinary efforts by the applicant to address traffic and noise concerns associated with drive-through restaurants when/if a new site plan was submitted. 4. A final option would be to take no action and stand by the original decision not to re- zone this property to BC. This approach would be in compliance with the current comprehensive planning and zoning principles. This would also encourage less intensive commercial uses and perhaps higher quality development with hopefully less traffic and noise impacts to the neighbors. REQUESTED ACTION The City Council should direct staff how to proceed based on the options outlined above. P: Com_dvpt. BC(M)Councilconsideration.04 Attachment #1 urants Attachment (rants Zoned BCM: Outback Steakhouse No Restaurants .:.~: No Restaura Business Commercial Modified (BC-M) Zoning 34 Parcels ~ No Restaurants Restaurant Zoned BCM: 5-8 Club No Restaurants N W E s City of Maplewood Agenda # K2 Memorandum TO: Richard Fursman, City Manager FROM: Karen Guilfoile, City Clerk DATE: May 18, 2004 RE: Intoxicating Liquor License/Change of Owner - Smiley's Introduction Pao Thao Yang has submitted an application for an intoxicating and Sunday liquor license for Smiley's, 2425 Highway 61. Mr. Yang is purchasing Smiley's and will rename the business Smiley 's Sports Bar & Grill. . Background Mr. Yang has been residing at his current residence in Oakdale for approximately seven years. He has resided in the metro area since 1978. He is currently also in the livestock and meat processing business. As required by City ordinances, the necessary background investigation was completed by the Police Department on Mr. Yang. During the background check the following organizations were contacted for information regarding the applicant: State and Federal criminal history check, State and Federal wants and warrants, State Motor Vehicle and Drivers License files, the Cities of Columbia Heights, Oakdale and St. Paul, and Ramsey and Hennepin Counties. There was nothing found that would prohibit Mr. Yang from holding a liquor license in the City. He has been given a copy of the City Code of Ordinances that apply to being an intoxicating liquor license holder and he has met with Chief Thomalla to discuss measures to eliminate the sale of alcohol to underage persons, general security and retail crime related issues. Recommendation It is recommended that the City Council approve the liquor license application. AGENDA ITEM K-3 AGENDA REPORT TO: Richard Fursman, City Manager FROM: Charles Ahl, Public Works Director/City Engineer Erin Laberee, Civil Engineer I SUBJECT: Gladstone North Area Streets, City Project 04-15--Resolution Ordering Preparation of Feasibility Study DATE: May 17, 2004 Introduction/Summary The Gladstone North Area Streets project (see attached drawing) has, for a number of years, been in the Maplewood Capital Improvement Plan as a proposed project for the 2005 construction season. The city council will consider initiating the project by approving the attached resolution ordering the preparation of the feasibility study. Background In 1999, the Gladstone North Area Streets Project had been considered for reconstruction during the 2000 construction season. Staff began holding meetings in 1999 with the neighborhood to kick-off the project. At that time the city's street reconstruction program was in its infancy and there was very little support from the neighborhood for a project. Based on feedback from a survey questionnaire of the neighborhood and the apparent lack of neighborhood support, staff recommended cancellation of the project at that time and it was never brought before the city council for approval. Since 1999, the streets have continued to deteriorate. The public works department continues to spend a considerable amount of time maintaining the streets by patching potholes in severe areas to sustain a minimum level of service. Staff received a number calls following the cancellation of the project and more recently with inquiries about when the streets in this neighborhood would be done. Based on our experience on more recent projects and recent calls from residents of this neighborhood, staff feels that there is now ample support for a project in the Gladstone North neighborhood. This project would consist of approximately 2.5 miles of street reconstruction, drainage and utility improvements. It is necessary to reconstruct these streets to improve serviceability and drainage, meet city standards and relieve the maintenance department of continual repairs. Gladstone North Area Streets Agenda Report Page 2 May 17, 2004 Staff will initiate the project process and feasibility study by sending an information letter this month to the neighborhood residents. This summer the engineering department will begin topographic surveys and preliminary engineering studies of the project area. Staff will follow up with neighborhood meetings by early fall as the feasibility study is being completed. It is anticipated that the public hearing will be held in early fall. Budget A not-to-exceed project budget of $40,000 would be established for the project development, topographic surveying, and preliminary engineering required to complete the feasibility study. Recommendation Staff recommends that the city council approve the attached resolution ordering the preparation of the feasibility study for the Gladstone North Area Street Improvements, Project 04-15. Jw Attachments: Resolution Site Map RESOLUTION ORDERING PREPARATION OF A FEASIBILITY STUDY WHEREAS, it is proposed to make improvements to the Gladstone North Area Streets, City Project 04-15, and to assess the benefited property for all or a portion of the cost of the improvement, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 429, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA: That the proposed improvement be referred to the city engineer for study and that he is instructed to report to the council with all convenient speed advising the council in a preliminary way as to whether the proposed improvement is necessary, cost effective and feasible and as to whether it should best be made as proposed or in connection with some other improvement, and the estimated cost of the improvement as recommended. FURTHERMORE, funds in the amount of $40,000 are appropriated to prepare this feasibility report. AGENDA NO. K-4 AGENDA REPORT TO: City Manager FROM: Finance Director RE: USER FEE STUDY DATE: May 6, 2004 PROPOSAL It is proposed that the City Council approve a $25,000 appropriation for the preparation of a user fee study by the Maximus Company. BACKGROUND The City has had three user fee studies completed in 1993 and 1994 by the Maximus Company. The studies covered fees charged by Community Development, City Clerk"s office and Recreation. As a result of the user fee studies, the fee schedules were increased to cover the cost of services. Currently there is legislation pending at the State Capitol (HF 2103/SF 2272) that requires fees related to planning and zoning to have a nexus to the actual cost of service. Because of this and the number of years since the user fee studies were completed, current city fees should be reviewed. In addition, in-house engineering charges will be reviewed by the Maximus Company to insure that they are appropriate. (The specific fees that will be reviewed are listed in the attached Request For Proposal.) In response to the RFP, proposals were received as follows: Maximus - $25,000 HLB Tautges Redpath - $38,000 Springsted - $37,285 Maximus was selected because they have significant expertise, have successfully completed user fee studies for the city in the past and have the lowest cost proposal. Funding for the user fee study will come from the reserve for contingencies in the General Fund. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the City Council approve a $25,000 appropriation for the preparation of a user fee study by the Maximus Company. P\agn\user fee study.doc 2 CITY OF MAPLEWOOD RQUEST FOR PROPOSAL USER FEE STUDY INTRODUCTION The City is seeking proposals from accounting and consulting firms to conduct a study to identify all costs, both direct and indirect, associated with providing services for which fees are currently charged for the following: 1. Building permits 2. Heating permits 3. Electrical permits 4. Plumbing permits 5. In-house engineering for city and developer projects In addition, the City is seeking an alternate proposal that would also include the following fees: 1. Zone Charge 2. Conditional Use Permit a. Single and double-dwelling b. Other 3. Conditional Use Permit Revision a. Single and double-dwelling b. Other 4. Home Occupation 5. Comprehensive Plan Amendment 6. Variance a. Single or double-dwelling b. Other c. Front-yard setback 7. Preliminary Plat 8. Community Design Review Board a. Single and double-dwelling b. 15-Day Design Review c. Other d. Amendment 9. Planned Unit Development SCOPE OF WORK The consultant shall accomplish the following to prepare the user fee study: 1. Prepare schedule of current fees with narrative descriptions. 2. Prepare central service cost allocation plan to distribute administrative indirect costs to fee areas. 3. Determine cost of service on a unit of service basis. 3 City of Maplewood Page 2 of 2 Request for Proposal User Fee Study 4. Prepare report containing analysis of costs and consultant recommendations. 5. Present findings to City Council and city staff. QUALIFICATIONS The consultant shall demonstrate capability as displayed in recently completed studies. If the consultant claims prior experience in the development of general fund user fee studies, the consultant shall submit a copy of a recently completed general fund user fee studies prepared by the personnel proposed for the above scope of work. The consultant shall also present references for at least four other general fund user fee studies completed within the last two years as well as references for other governmental cost accounting studies. METHODOLOGY Consultant shall describe the proposed methodology for completing the scope of work. STAFFING Consultant shall present resumes for all proposed staff and the staffs experience in performing general fund user fee and other governmental cost accounting studies. TIME FOR PERFORMANCE The study outlined in these guidelines will commence immediately after execution of a contract with the selected consulting firm. The consultant will provide periodic progress reports on the status of the project as requested. A draft copy of the study will be completed within 60 days from the project start date. The final report will be delivered within 75 days from the start date. GUARANTEES BY CONSULTING FIRM Consulting firm should guarantee the following: Consultant should submit anot-to-exceed fee for the entire engagement which includes all expenses incurred. Consulting firm will not request additional fees from the City regardless of its actual time and reimbursable expenses on the engagement. Consultant will deliver final copy of the study before final fees are due them. The consultant will defend the study, at no additional cost, before the City Council and/or city staff The consultant will furnish the City with copies of all documents and materials prepared or developed in relation with or as part of the project. P:~F'INANCE\WORD~1VIisc~RFP-User Fee Study.doc City of Maplewood Request for Proposal User Fee Study REJECTION OF PROPOSAL Page 3 of 3 The City reserves the right to reject any and all proposals received in response to this RFP as determined to be in the best interest of the City. The City may not award a contract solely on the basis of this request for proposal and does not intend to pay for the information solicited or obtained. The information obtained will be used to determine the suitability of the proposal. Non-acceptance of any proposal will not imply any criticism of the proposal or convey any indication that the proposal was deficient. Non-acceptance of any proposal will mean that another proposal was deemed more advantageous to the City. REPONSE Four copies of the proposal shall be submitted by Apri126, 2004 to: Dan Faust Finance Director City of Maplewood 1830 County Road B East Maplewood, MN 55109 P:~F'INANCE\WORD~1VIisc~RFP-User Fee Study.doc rJ