Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2004 06-14 City Council PacketCounciUManager Workshop 5:30 p.m.-Maplewood Room AGENDA MAPLEWOOD CITY COUNCIL 7:00 P.M. Monday, June 14, 2004 Council Chambers, City Hall Meeting No. 04-12 A. CALL TO ORDER B. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE C. ROLL CALL D. APPROVAL OF MINUTES E. F. G. 1. Minutes from the May 24, 2004 CounciUManager Workshop 2. Minutes from the May 24, 2004 City Council Meeting APPROVAL OF AGENDA APPOINTMENTS/PRESENTATIONS 1. Resolution of Appreciation Gordon "Gordy' Heininger -Human Relations Commission 2. Environmental Advisory Committee Appointments 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. Parade Permit -White Bear Avenue Business Association -Fee Waiver 3. Temporary Beer -Aldrich Arena -Rice Street Boxing & Fitness Association 4. Resolution of Pay Ranges and Job Classifications for Temp/Seasonal & Casual Part-time Employees 5. Final Plat -Towns of New Century Third Addition (New Century Boulevard and Highwood Ave.) 6. Copier Replacement-Main Copier in City Hall 7. Purchase of RecWare Software 8. Purchase of Software Enterprise Agreement-LT. Department 9. Purchase of Snowplow and Wing 10. Holloway Avenue, North St. Paul Road to McKnight Road-Resolution Accepting Road Turnback from Ramsey County 11. Hazelwood Street Improvement, Project 01-16-Resolution for Modification of Existing Construction Contract 12. Miscellaneous Permit -Farmer's Market-Maplewood Mall H. PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. 7:00 p.m. Evangelical Lutheran Good Samaritan Tax-Exempt Financing Request (550 Roselawn Avenue) 2. 7:10 p.m. Rygwalski (2086 Edgerton Street) Land Use Plan Change - NC (Neighborhood Commercial) to R-2 (Double Dwelling) (4 votes) Zoning Map Change - NC (Neighborhood Commercial to R-2 (Double Dwellings) 3. 7:15 p.m. County Road D Realignment (East), T.H. 61 to Southlawn Drive, Project 02-07-Assessment Hearing and Resolution for Adoption of Assessment Roll H. PUBLIC HEARINGS (continued) 4. 7:30 p.m. Trout Land (west of Highway 61 and new County Road D) Comprehensive Plan Changes a. Land Use Plan Changes - R-1 and M-1 to R-3(M) (4 votes) b. Collector Street Designation -County Road D (4 votes) Conditional Use Permit for Planned Unit Development Preliminary Plat 5. 8:00 p.m. Heritage Square Second Addition (Legacy Village -Kennard Street and Legacy Parkway) Planned Unit Development Revision Preliminary Plat Design Approval 6. 8:30 p.m. Olivia Gardens (2329 and 2335 Stillwater Road) Land Use Plan Change - R-1 (single dwellings) to R-2 (double dwellings) (4 votes) Zoning Map Change (R-1 to R-2) Conditional Use Permit for Planned Unit Development Preliminary Plat I. AWARD OF BIDS Roof Replacement-Fire Stations 1 & 3 J. UNFINISHED BUSINESS None K. NEW BUSINESS 1. Preliminary Approval for Issuance of Bonds 2. Electric Franchise Fee 3. Existing County Road D Improvements, Walter Street to T.H. 61, Project 04-06, Resolution Accepting Report and Calling for Public Hearing 4. County Road D Realignment (West), Walter Street to T.H. 61, Project 02-08, Resolutions for: a. Approving plans and Advertising for Bids b. Ordering Preparation of Assessment Roll 5. Municipal State Aid Street System: Resolution Approving Authorizations to Advance Municipal State Aid Street Funds L. VISITOR PRESENTATIONS M. COUNCIL PRESENTATIONS Set Special Meeting-Fire/EMS Presentation-July 14, 2004 at 5:30 p.m. N. ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS O. ADJOURNMENT Sign language interpreters for hearing impaired persons are available for public hearings upon request. The request for this service must be made at least 96 hours in advance. Please call the City Clerk's Office at (651) 249-2001 to make arrangements. Assisted Listening Devices are also available. Please check with the City Clerk for availability. RULE'SOFCIVILITYFOR OUR COMMUNITY Following are some rules ofcivility the City ofMaplewood expects ofeveryone appearing at Council Meetings -elected off cials, staffand citizens. It is hoped that by following these simple rules, everyone, 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 Dl DRAFT-MINUTES CITY COUNCIL/MANAGER WORKSHOP Monday, May 24, 2004 Maplewood Room, City Hall 6:06 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. Assistant City Manager Coleman Recording Secretary Hansen Planning Commission Chair Fisher APPROVAL OF AGENDA Present Present Present Present Present Councilmember Juenemann moved to a~rove the a,~enda as submitted. Seconded by Councilmember Monahan-Junek Ayes-All NEW BUSINESS Planning Commission Interviews Council discussed the questions prior to interviewing the candidates. The following questions were asked of each applicant: 1. Looking at how Maplewood has developed, what has been done well? What do you think could have been done better? What do you see at important to be addressed in the future (near or far)? 2. What do you feel you can bring to this group-interests, talents, life experience, etc.? 3. At times we have controversial items with a variety of opinions and sometimes outright hostility being express. Would you be able to make a decision base on what is best for the city overall which may or may not be what the neighbors want? 4. As you know, the commission's role is to the council, which makes the final decision. Can you be comfortable with this role? Please explain. 5. 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? 6. 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 p.m.? City Council/Manager Workshop OS-24-04 The applicants were interviewed in the following order: Richard Currie Scott Gilbert Daniel Lee Michael Grover The council cast their votes, and the two applicants with the most votes were Michael Grover and Daniel Lee. They will be appointed at the City Council Meeting. E. FUTURE TOPICS None F. ADJOURNMENT Councilmember Koppen moved to adjourn the meeting at 6:55 p.m. Seconded by Councilmember Rossbach Ayes-All City Council/Manager Workshop OS-24-04 A. B. C D. E. DRAFT--MINUTES MAPLEWOOD CITY COUNCIL 7:06 P.M. Monday, May 24, 2004 Council Chambers, Municipal Building Meeting No. 04-11 CALL TO ORDER Agenda Item D2 A meeting of the City Council was held in the Council Chambers, at the Municipal Building, and was called to order at 7:06 P.M. by Mayor Cardinal. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE A moment of silence was held in memory of Barbara Goss, the mother of Maplewood City Clerk Karen Guilfoile. 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 the CounciUManager Workshop--May 10, 2004 Councilmember Juenemann moved to approve the minutes from the May 10, 2004 City CounciUManager workshop as presented. Seconded by Councilmember Monahan-Junek Ayes-All 2. Minutes from the City Council Meeting-- May 10, 2004 Councilmember Rossbach moved to approve the minutes from the May 10, 2004 City Council Meeting as presented. Seconded by Councilmember Juenemann Ayes-All APPROVAL OF AGENDA Ml . National Hunger Awareness Week M2. Girl Scouts M3. Tartan Ice Arena Update M4. Cable Commission M5. NEST M6. Shapeup Challenge M7. South Leg Group City Council Meeting OS-24-04 Councilmember Monahan-Junek moved to approve the agenda as amended. Seconded by Councilmember Juenemann Ayes-All F. APPOINTMENTS/PRESENTATIONS Commissioner Reinhardt-Courthouse Update a. City Manager Fursman presented the staff report. b. Commissioner Reinhart provided an overview of the selection process for the new Ramsey County Courthouse location. She also thanked City Manager Fursman, Assistant City Manager Coleman and Police Chief Thomalla for their efforts in brining the Maplewood proposal to the board. 2. HRC Diversity Speech Contest Winner -Faraaz Mohammed -North St. Paul High School a. City Manager Fursman presented the staff report. b. Councilmember Juenemann presented specifics from the report. c. Faraaz Mohammed, 1 st place winner of the 2004 Maplewood Human Relations Committee Diversity Speech Contest, and a student at North High School presented his speech. Mr. Mohammed also formally accepted the $500 first prize for his school to be used to further promote diversity. 3. Planning Commission Appointment(s) a. City Manager Fursman presented the staff report. b. Mayor Cardinal announced the appointment of Daniel Lee and Michael Grover to the Planning Commission. Their term will begin immediately and run through December 31, 2005. 4. 2003 Annual Financial Report and Audit a. City Manager Fursman presented the staff report. b. Finance Director Faust presented specifics from the report. c. Chris Omdahl from KPMG Accountants reviewed the annual fmancial report and audit reports. Councilmember Koppen moved to accept the 2003 Annual Financial Report and Audit. Seconded Mayor Cardinal Ayes-All City Council Meeting OS-24-04 G. CONSENT AGENDA 1. Approval of Claims 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 2. Conditional Use Permit Review -Dearborn Meadow (Castle Avenue and Castle Court) Approved to review the conditional use permit for the Dearborn Meadows PUD on Castle Avenue and Caste Court again in one year or sooner if the developer of the owner proposes a major change to the site. 3. Police & Fire Laptop Computers-Purchase Approved the purchase of 30 laptop computers for in-car and fire apparatus use. City Council Meeting OS-24-04 3 4. Temporary Food Permit -Todd Hawkins (The Donut Family) -MCC Summer Program Kickoff Approved the miscellaneous permit to sell food at the Maplewood Community Center and to waive the $47.00 permit fee. 5. County Road D (East) Realignment Improvements, City Project 02-07 -Resolution Approving No Parking Restrictions Adopted the following resolution approving the No Parking restrictions on County Road D from Highway 61 to Southlawn Drive: RESOLUTION 04-OS-093 NO PARHING 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. 6. Budget Changes- Building and Sewer Maintenance Approved increasing the General Fund budget for building maintenance be $8,545 and the sewer fund budget for sewer maintenance be decreased by $8,545. 7. Transfer to Close Fund for Project 03-OS Approved a transfer of $2,923 from the Sewer Fund to the fund for Project 03-OS and the appropriate budget changes. 8. Continuing Education-City Manager City Council Meeting OS-24-04 Approved to transfer $9,000 from the reserve account to the executive budget (under administration) to provide for continuing education expenses. Councilmember Koppen moved to approve Consent Agenda Items 1-8. Seconded by Councilmember Juenemann Ayes-All H. PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. 7:50 p.m. Legacy Parkway Improvements (Southlawn to Hazelwood), Project 03-26 Assessment Hearing & Resolution for Adoption of Assessment Roll a. City Manager Fursman presented the report. b. City Engineer Ahl presented specifics from the report. c. Mayor Cardinal opened the public hearing, calling for proponents or opponents. The following person was heard: George Supan, 3050 Hazelwood Street, Maplewood d. Mayor Cardinal closed the public hearing. Councilmember Koppen moved to adopt the following resolutions for the adoption of the assessment roll for the Legacy Parkway and the exclusion of 3050 Hazelwood: RESOLUTION 04-OS-092 ADOPTING ASSESSMENT ROLL WHEREAS, pursuant to a resolution adopted by the City Council on April 26, 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. 2. The assessment roll for the Legacy Parkway Improvements as amended, without those property owners' assessments that have filed obj ections, 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. City Council Meeting OS-24-04 3. 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. 4. The owner of any property so assessed may, at any time prior to certification of the assessment to the county auditor, but no later than 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. RESOLUTION 04-OS-094 ADOPTING ASSESSMENT ROLL WHEREAS, pursuant to a resolution adopted by the City Council on April 26, 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, one property owner filed an objection to their assessments according to the requirements of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 429, summarized as follows: George and Kathy Supan, 3050 Hazelwood Street: Objected to the assessment as not providing any benefit since their home will be removed by the improvements. They requested a cancellation of the entire assessment amount due to the developer obligation to pay the amount. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA: 6. That the City Engineer and City Clerk are hereby instructed to adjust the assessment for 3050 Hazelwood Street to $0.00. The City Council hereby instructs the City Engineer and City Clerk that they intend to collect the assessment at 3050 Hazelwood Street in its entire amount at a future date to be determined by the City Engineer as part of the redevelopment of this property. For purposes of this assessment, there is hereby no pending amount due for 3050 Hazelwood Street. 7. The assessment roll for the Legacy Parkway Improvements as amended, without those property owners' assessments that have filed obj ections, a copy of which is attached hereto and made a part hereof, is hereby adopted. Said assessment roll shall constitute the special assessment City Council Meeting OS-24-04 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. 8. 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. 9. 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. 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 Mayor Cardinal Ayes-All 2. 8:15 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 a. City Manager Fursman presented the report. b. Associate Planner Roberts presented specifics from the report. d. Community Design Review Board member Longrie-Kline presented the Planning Commission Report e. Commissioner Bartol presented the Planning Commission Report. £ Mayor Cardinal opened the public hearing, calling for proponents or opponents. The following persons were heard: Dave Aune, Business Manager for Mounds Park Academy, Maplewood Ron Cockriel, 943 Century Avenue, Maplewood, Maplewood g. Mayor Cardinal closed the public hearing. Councilmember Monahan-Junek moved to adopt the followin,~ resolution changin,~ the land use plan designation from R-1 (single Dwellings) to S (school) for the properties at 2025 and 2027 Larpenteur Avenue: City Council Meeting OS-24-04 LAND USE PLAN CHANGE RESOLUTION 04-OS-095 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: 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 surrounding property owners. The planning commission gave everyone at the hearing a chance to speak and present written statements. The planning commission recommended that the city council approve 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. £ 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. City Council Meeting OS-24-04 4. It would be consistent with the proposed land use. Seconded by Councilmember Koppen Ayes-All Councilmember Monahan-Junek moved to adopt the following resolution approving a revision for the conditional use permit for Mound Park Academy at 2051 Larpenteur Avenue CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REVISION RESOLUTION 04-OS-096 WHEREAS, Mr. David Aune, representing Mounds Park Academy, has requested a revision to the conditional use permit for 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 ~/4 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 ~/4 of Section 14, Township 29, Range 22 (PIN 14-29-22-43-0008) WHEREAS, the history of this conditional use permit revision is as follows: 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, City Council Meeting OS-24-04 electrical interference or other nuisances. 5. The use would generate only minimal vehicular traffic on local streets and would not create traffic congestion or unsafe access on existing or proposed streets. 6. The use would be served by adequate public facilities and services, including streets, police and fire protection, drainage structures, water and sewer systems, schools and parks. 7. The use would not create excessive additional costs for public facilities or services. 8. The use would maximize the preservation of and incorporate the site's natural and scenic features into the development design. 9. The use would cause minimal adverse environmental effects. Approval is subject to the following conditions: 1. All construction must comply with the site plan, date-stamped April 8, 2004. ~.T.a_~-~'~~-- ' '' ~~ The city council may approve major changes. The director of community development may approve minor changes. Such changes shall include: a. Revising the rg adin,~ and site plans to show the contractor minimizin,~ the loss or removal of natural vegetation and to meet all the conditions of the city en ig Weer. The school ma~plement 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. c. The school shall not allow ag rba,~e or trash pick-up between the hours of 11:00 p.m and 5:30 a.m. d. The city council requires that the school remove the westerly access at Price Avenue e. The wooden screening fence shall be kept in good repair. City Council Meeting OS-24-04 10 £ The school, the fire marshal and the city buildin,~ official shall a,~ree 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 (~rinkler) s.. std b. An early warning fire protection s.. st~(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. £ Any other changes the fire marshal or the building official deem necessary. g. 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. h. Have the city en ing eer a~rove final construction and en ing eerin~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. i. The school shall be responsible for the maintenance and clean up of the pondin,~ areas on their property_ j. The school shall post the driveways and drive aisles as no parkin zg ones. k. The city council shall review this hermit revision in one Seconded by Councilmember Koppen Ayes-All Councilmember Monahan-Junek moved to approve the plans date-stamped April 8, 2004 (site plan, landscape plan, rg ading and drainage plans and building elevations) for Mounds Park Academy. This approval is subject to the applicant or contractor doing the following: l .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 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. City Council Meeting OS-24-04 11 (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 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 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 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: City Council Meeting OS-24-04 12 (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 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 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. £ 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 City Council Meeting OS-24-04 13 Avenue with the school property for tax and identification purposes. 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 maybe 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 properly shield glare from the adjacent street right-of--ways and from adjacent properties. g. Remove and replace the privacy fence along the western property line from the right-of- way of Larpenteur 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. City Council Meeting OS-24-04 14 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. 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. Seconded by Councilmember Juenemann Ayes-All 9:25 p.m. Capital Improvement Plan and the Issuance of Capital Improvement Bonds (4 VOTES) Councilmember Monahan-Junek moved to continue this item until after the completion of Public Hearings 4 and 5. Seconded by Councilmember Juenemann Ayes-All 4. 9:26 p.m. Chesapeake Companies Retail Center (Maplewood Movies ISite - 3091 White Bear Avenue) Preliminary Plat Planned Unit Development Design Approval a. City Manager Fursman presented the report. b. Associate Planner Finwall presented specifics from the report. c. Boardmember Longrie-Kline presented the Community Design Review Board d. Mayor Cardinal opened the public hearing, calling for proponents or opponents. The following persons were heard: Jeff Wurst, Chesapeake Companies Development Group, LLC Jim Schmidt, Legal Counsel for Buffalo Wildwings, Inc. Sheri Ahrens, Westwood Professional Services, Inc Jeff Wurst, second appearance City Council Meeting OS-24-04 15 e. Mayor Cardinal closed the public hearing. Councilmember Koppen moved to approve the preliminaryplat 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 easements and owners association agreements with the final plat. Seconded by Councilmember Rossbach Ayes-All Councilmember Koppen moved to adopt the following resolution approving a conditional use permit for a planned unit development for the development of four restaurant/retails buildin,~s at 3091 White Bear Avenue) Chesapeake Retail Center CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION 04-OS-097 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: On May 3, 2004, the planning commission reviewed this request and made a recommendation City Council Meeting OS-24-04 16 about this permit. 2. On May 24, 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. 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: 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 Apri126, 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 City Council Meeting OS-24-04 17 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. Seconded by Councilmember Monahan-Junek Ayes-All Councilmember Koppen moved to approve the buildin ag nd si,~n elevations, site plan, and landscape plan date-stamped March 30, 2004; the lightingplan 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 (changes made by city council reflected as underlined if added or stricken if deleted): 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 City Council Meeting OS-24-04 18 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 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 retaiUrestaurant) onto the County Road D trail. f) A pedestrian access extending from the White Bear Avenue sidewalk. City Council Meeting OS-24-04 19 9) A revised landscape plan, subject to review and approval by staff, that shows the following: a) Pending a shared driveway scenario with Arbys, a revised landscape plan showing the area of disturbance and landscaping proposed. b) additional trees on the west side of the property, between the sidewalk and the Maplewood Mall road. c) 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) 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 the EIFS building material and replacement 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. c) A 6-foot-high fence around the proposed outdoor patio to be approved City Council Meeting OS-24-04 20 by the city council prior to issuance of a liquor license for Buffalo Wild Wings. ll) 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 Wing's freestanding sign 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. 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. City Council Meeting OS-24-04 21 £ 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. theme «r;i~ «r;,,..~~ ,,~te~~~o~€d~t~e-aoant~e ,..,ii ao..oi„r,~,o„~ „~~~,o ~;~o Seconded by Councilmember Monahan-Juenk Ayes-All 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 a. City Manager Fursman presented the report. b. City Engineer Ahl presented specifics from the report. c. Mayor Cardinal opened the public hearing, calling for proponents or opponents. The following person was heard: Steven Heth, SEH Engineer Jennifer Bouthilett, Owner of Hillcrest Animal Hospital d. Mayor Cardinal closed the public hearing. Councilmember Koppen moved to adopt the following resolution authorizing reparation of plans and specifications, authorizing acquisition of right of way, ordering_project to be constructed and authorizing purchase of signal system mast arms: 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, City Council Meeting OS-24-04 22 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. Councilmember Juenemann moved to extend the meeting until all agenda items were completed. Seconded by Mayor Cardinal Ayes All 3. 10:57 p.m. Capital Improvement Plan and the Issuance of Capital Improvement Bonds (4 VOTES) a. City Manager Fursman presented the report. b. Finance Director Faust presented specifics from the report. Mayor Cardinal moved to for,~o the viewin,~ of the Capital Improvement Plan video and the meeting. The video has been publicly telecast during the Maplewood Planning Commission Meeting_ Seconded by Councilmember Juenemann Ayes-All Councilmember Koppen moved to adopt the following resolution a~roving a capital improvement plan and the issuance of Capital improvement bonds. City Council Meeting OS-24-04 23 RESOLUTION 04-OS-099 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 prof ect and for the overall plan: 1. The condition of the City's existing infrastructure, including the prof ected 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 of Capital Improvement Bonds in the aggregate principal amount of $700,000. Seconded by Councilmember Rossbach Ayes-All I. AWARD OF BIDS Legacy Parkway Improvements (Southlawn to Hazelwood), Project 03-26 - Resolution for Award of Bids City Manger Fursman presented the report. b. City Engineer Ahl presented specifics from the report. Councilmember Koppen moved to adopt the following resolution accepting the bids and awardin,~ construction contract to Ryan Construction Company in the amount of $1,154,703.70: City Council Meeting OS-24-04 24 RESOLUTION 04-OS-010 RECEIVING BIDS AND AWARDING CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT WHEREAS, pursuant to resolution passed by the city council on April 12, 2004, plans and specifications for the Legacy Parkway Improvements, have been approved, and WHEREAS, pursuant to resolution passed by the city council on April 12, 2004, bids were received and publicly opened and read aloud on May 20~, 2004 at 2:00 pm as follows: Contractor Rid Amrnint Ryan Contracting Co. $1,154,703.70 Richard Knutson Inc. $1,189,181.63 Forest Lake Contracting Inc. $1,203,594.00 F.M. Frattalone Excavating & Grading, Inc. $1,243,579.85 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA: Said bids as opened on May 20, 2004 are hereby received and acknowledged. 2. A construction contract in the amount of $1,154,703.70 is hereby awarded to the lowest responsible bidder, Ryan Contracting Company and the mayor and city manager are hereby authorized to execute said construction contract. 3. The finance director is hereby authorized to make the financial transfers necessary to implement the financing plan. Seconded by Councilmember Rossbach Ayes- All J. UNFINISHED BUSINESS 1. Toenjes Hills Estates (1966 McMenemy Street) Vacations Preliminary Plat City Manger Fursman presented the report. b. Associate Planner Roberts presented specifics from the report. The following people were heard: Tim Freeman, of Folz, Freeman, Erickson, Inc. Don Bachmier, builder of the St. Paul Business Center Councilmember Koppen moved to adopt the following resolution for the vacation of the unused Ed~emont Street right-of--way, the unused alley and the excess drainage easements on the property for the site of the Toenjes Hills Estates Plat: City Council Meeting OS-24-04 25 VACATION RESOLUTION 04-OS-101 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 Magoffin'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. 1. The 20-foot-wide alley in Block 5, Magoffin's Northside Addition to Saint Paul, Minnesota, lying south of the vacated Vernon Avenue and north of Lot 7 and Lot 24 of said Block 5. 2. 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 Vernon 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: Lots 1-7 and Lots 24-30, 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. City Council Meeting OS-24-04 26 Seconded by Councilmember Rossbach Ayes- All Councilmember Koppen moved to approve the Toenjes Hills Estates preliminaryplat (received April 1, 2004). The developer shall compete 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. 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 oftraffic-control, street identification, and no parking signs. £ 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. 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. City Council Meeting OS-24-04 27 (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 1967 McMenemey Street to provide screening for the house. (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. (ll) 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. City Council Meeting OS-24-04 28 (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 prof ect 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: (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~/z 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 Council Meeting OS-24-04 29 city park. 2. Make the corner lots at least 100 feet wide on each street right-of--way. 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 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. 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. 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 City Council Meeting OS-24-04 30 (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. Seconded by Councilmember Rossbach 2. Nuisance Ordinance-Second Reading a. City Manger Fursman presented the report. Ayes- Mayor Cardinal, Councilmembers Juenemann, Koppen and Rossbach Nays-Councilmember Monahan- Junek b. Police Chief Thomalla presented specifics from the report. Mayor Cardinal moved to adopt the followin,~ second readin,~ of the Nuisance (~rdinance_ ORDINANCE NO. 849 AMENDING 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 ofchild-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 City Council Meeting OS-24-04 31 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: City Council Meeting OS-24-04 32 (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 City Council Meeting OS-24-04 33 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. City Council Meeting OS-24-04 34 (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. Seconded by Councilmember Koppen Ayes-All K. NEW BUSINESS 1. Consideration of Zoning Code Change - BC (M) (Business Commercial Modified) District City Manger Fursman presented the report. b. Assistant City Manager Coleman presented specifics from the report. Councilmember Koppen moved to adopt option 4 of the staff report in consideration of an amendment to the BC(M) Zoning District. Seconded by Mayor Cardinal Ayes- Mayor Cardinal, Councilmember Koppen Nays-Councilmembers Juenemann, Monahan-Junek and City Council Meeting OS-24-04 35 Rossbach Motion failed. 2. Intoxicating Liquor License (Smiley's Sports Bar & Grill) Change of Owner/New Manager -Pao Thao Yang City Manger Fursman presented the report. b. Police Chief Thomalla presented specifics from the report. Pao Thao Yang, the applicant, was present for questions. Councilmember Koppen moved to approve the liquor license application for Smile.~ports Bar & Grill. Seconded by Councilmember Monahan-Junek Ayes- All 3. Gladstone North Area Streets, Project 04-15 -Resolution Ordering Feasibility Study City Manger Fursman presented the report. b. City Engineer Ahl presented specifics from the report. Councilmember Koppen moved to adopt the following resolution ordering the preparation of the feasibility study for the Gladstone North Area Street improvement, Project 04-15: RESOLUTION 04-OS-102 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. Seconded by Councilmember Monahan-Junek Ayes-All City Council Meeting OS-24-04 36 4 User Fee Study City Manger Fursman presented the report. b. Finance Director Faust presented specifics from the report. Councilmember Koppen moved to approve a $25,000 appropriation for the preparation of a user fee study by the Maximus Company Seconded by Councilmember Rossbach Ayes-All L. M. VISITOR PRESENTATIONS 1. Diana Longrie-Kline, 1771 Burr Street, commented on how impressed she was with the Diversity Speech winner and the impact of his message, the placement of Visitor Presentations on the agenda, informing the public on how they may get an item placed on the agenda, complaints to the Cable Commission, and the new location for the Ramsey County Court House. COUNCIL PRESENTATIONS National Hunger Awareness Day Councilmember Rossbach moved to proclaim June 3rd Hunger Awareness Da.. i City of Maplewood as requested by the United States Conference of Ma. Seconded by Councilmember Koppen Ayes-Mayor Cardinal, Councilmembers Rossbach and Koppen Nays-Councilmembers 2. Girl Scouts-Mayor Cardinal announced the following Girl Scout Gold Award recipients from Maplewood: o Cassandra Cunningham, Tartan Senior High o Rena Dobervich, Tartan Senior High o Amy Horwath, Tartan Senior High o Diane Shockley, Tartan Senior High o Lisa Walters, Tartan Senior High Mayor Cardinal asked staff to contact the winners and invite them to a City Council Meeting. 3. Tartan Ice Arena Update-Councilmember Monahan-Junek distributed the final minutes from the April Tartan Ice Arena Meeting. 4. Cable Commission-Councilmember Koppen reported from the last Cable City Council Meeting OS-24-04 37 Commission meeting. The next meeting is scheduled for July 15~. 5. NEST-Councilmember Koppen thanked staff for the NEST ad in the City News and would like to see the video on-line. 6. Shape up Challenge-Councilmember Juenemann thanked the committee who organized the 6-week Shape Up Challenge and all those who participated to improve their health; physically, emotionally and socially. 7. South Leg Group-Councilmember Rossbach reported from the meeting held May 20~'. N. ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS Schedule 800 MHz Meeting-City Manager Fursman set a meeting date of June 14~ at 5:30 p.m. to discuss 800 MHz. Councilmember Juenemann moved to adjourn at 12:18 a.m. Seconded by Councilmember Koppen Ayes-All City Council Meeting OS-24-04 38 AGENDA REPORT TO: Richard Fursman, City Manager FROM: Karen Guilfoile, City Clerk DATE: June 8, 2004 RE: Resolution of Appreciation Agenda F1 Gordy Heininger resigned from his position on the Human Relations Commission. He has served on the board since January 1991. On behalf of the City and the Human Relations Commission I am requesting that the City Council approve the following resolution: RESOLUTION OF APPRECIATION Gordon "Gordy"Heininger Human Relations Commission WHEREAS, Gordon "Gordy "Heininger has been a member of the Maplewood Human Relations Commission since January, 1991 and has served faithfully in that capacity to the present time; and WHEREAS, the Human Relations Commission has appreciated his experience, insights and good judgment and WHEREAS, he has freely given of his time and energy, without compensation, for the betterment of the City of Maplewood; and WHEREAS, he has shown sincere dedication to his duties and has consistently contributed his leadership, time and effort for the benefit of the City. NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBYRESOLVED for and on behalf of the City of Maplewood, Minnesota and its citizens that Gordon "Gordy" Heininger is hereby extended our heartfelt gratitude and appreciation for his dedicated service, and we wish him continued success in the future. Agenda F2 MEMORANDUM TO: Richard Fursman, City Manager FROM: DuWayne Konewko, Environmental Management Specialist SUBJECT: Appointments for the Environmental Committee DATE: June 8, 2004 INTRODUCTION On June 7, 2004 the City Council interviewed and selected seven candidates to serve on the Environmental Committee. DISCUSSION The following list represents the candidates that the council selected to serve on the Environmental Committee and the length of their appointment: 1. Jeff Connell - 3 year term 2. Cammy Johnson - 3 year term 3. Jason Bailey - 3 year term 4. Gerald Moran - 3 year term 5. Shelly McVicker - 2 year term 6. Dale Trippler - 2 year term 7. Hans Neve - 2 year term RECOMMENDATION Appoint the candidates with their respective terms to serve on the Environmental Committee. AGENDA NO. G-1 AGENDA REPORT TO: City Council FROM: Finance Director RE: APPROVAL OF CLAIMS DATE: 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: $ 3,000.00 Checks # 63913 dated 05/20/04 $ 221,251.59 Checks #63914 thru # 63972 dated 05/21/04 thru 05/25/04 u $ 89,938.29 Disbursements via debits to checking account dated 05/14/04 thru 05/20/04 $ 359,096.96 Checks # 63973 thru # 64028 dated 6/1/04 $ 310,172.10 Disbursements via debits to checking account dated 5/21/04 thru 5/27/04 $ 363,010.33 Checks # 64029 thru # 64077 dated 6/08/04 $ 148,591.34 Disbursements via debits to checking account dated 5/28/04 thru 6/3/04 $ 1,495,060.61 Total Accounts Payable PAYROLL $ 406,331.27 Payroll Checks and Direct Deposits dated 05/21/04 $ 4,530.27 Payroll Deduction check # 97528 thru # 97530 dated 05/21/04 $ 413,992.98 Payroll Checks and Direct Deposits dated 6/4/04 $ 6,128.41 Payroll Deduction check # 97638 thru # 97642 dated 6/4/04 $ 420,121.39 Total Payroll $ 1,915,182.00 GRAND TOTAL Attached is a detailed listing of these claims. Please call me at 651-249-2902 if you have any questions o the attached listing. This will allow me to check the supporting documentation on file if necessary. ds attachments 1 vchlist 05/21/2004 11:22:30 AM Check Register City of Maplewood Check Date Vendor Description/Account Amount 63913 5/20/2004 01284 POSTMASTER MAILING CITY NEWSLETTER 3,000.00 63914 5/25/2004 01908 ADMINISTRATION, DEPT OF HARBOR BACKUP -APR 1,272.90 63915 5/25/2004 02106 ADVANCED BUSINESS SYSTEMS, INC PRINT WHEEL 40.22 63916 5/25/2004 02411 ALEX AIR APPARATUS INC AIR QUALITY TEST -STATION 3 892.47 HARST COMBI TEST 1,018.40 63917 5/25/2004 02473 ANZALDI, MANDI DANCE COSTUMES 980.00 63918 5/25/2004 00119 AQUA CITY IRRIGATION INC REPAIRED CONTROLLER 124.00 63919 5/25/2004 00157 BARR ENGINEERING CO MASTER PLAN FOR PRIORY PRESERVE 1,830.40 63920 5/25/2004 01811 BERNATELLO'S PIZZA INC MERCH FOR RESALE 234.00 MERCH FOR RESALE 117.00 63921 5/25/2004 03020 BRADLEY R BEHNKE GOLF MGMT LLC GOLF INSTRUCTORS 1,700.00 63922 5/25/2004 00384 DE LAGE LANDEN FINANCIAL SRVS RICOH COPIER LEASE 161.88 63923 5/25/2004 00520 FLOR, TIMOTHY W REIMB FOR MEAL 5/12 8.00 63924 5/25/2004 00531 FRA-DOR BLACK DIRT & RECYCLE BLACK DIRT 323.76 63925 5/25/2004 00536 ERASER, JOHN REIMB FOR MEAL 5/12 8.00 63926 5/25/2004 00550 GAMETIME REPAIR PLAYGROUND EQUIPMENT 2,194.48 63927 5/25/2004 00610 GULDENS ROADHOUSE INC PROJ 02-08 RIGHT OF ENTRY AGRMT 37,910.00 63928 5/25/2004 00652 HEINZ, STEVE REIMB FOR MEAL 5/12 8.00 63929 5/25/2004 02643 HITESMAN & ASSOCIATES PA LEGAL SERVICES 130.00 63930 5/25/2004 02237 IMPERIAL IMPRESSIONS AMBULANCE REPORT BOOKS 764.40 63931 5/25/2004 00721 INDEPENDENT SPORTS NETWORK UMPIRING SRVS 4/20 - 5/13 3,616.75 63932 5/25/2004 00788 KARIS, FLINT REIMB FOR MEAL 5/12 8.00 63933 5/25/2004 00809 KONG, TOMMY REIMB FOR LUNCH 5/18 6.90 63934 5/25/2004 00782 KPMG LLP AUDIT FEES 5,000.00 63935 5/25/2004 00827 L M C I T INSURANCE CLAIM 4,801.16 INSURANCE CLAIM 46.59 INSURANCE CLAIM 900.70 63936 5/25/2004 00881 LUKIN, STEVE REIMB FOR CAPITAL CITY DINNER 76.52 63937 5/25/2004 03049 M & S CABINETS INC FRONT COUNTER ENG/PW DEPT AT 1902 CTY 3,100.00 63938 5/25/2004 00932 MAPLEWOOD BAKERY MERCH FOR RESALE 485.12 LAW ENF RECOGNITION REFRESHMENTS 22.80 SAFETY TRAINING REFRESHMENTS 70.74 SAFETY TRAINING REFRESHMENTS 21.42 BIRTHDAY CAKES 170.75 BIRTHDAY CAKES 94.50 BIRTHDAY CAKES 91.50 BIRTHDAY CAKES 183.00 63939 5/25/2004 00945 MASYS CORP STRATUS MAINT -JUN 738.68 63940 5/25/2004 03098 MCFARLANE PROPERTIES LLC PROJ 02-08 RIGHT OF ENTRY AGRMT 65,340.00 63941 5/25/2004 01819 MCLEOD USA ACCT#4381701 INTERNET SRV 2001 - 2002 700.94 63942 5/25/2004 02617 METRY, ALESIA REIMB FOR TUITION 1/12 -4/12 93.75 63943 5/25/2004 01126 MN NCPERS LIFE INSURANCE PERA LIFE INS (P/R DEDUCTED IN MAY) 213.00 63944 5/25/2004 01162 NEW MECH COMPANIES INC TEST BACKFLOW ST PAUL WATER 250.00 63945 5/25/2004 01173 NORTH METRO AUTOMOTIVE REPAIR TO DC #4 174.28 63946 5/25/2004 01175 NORTH ST PAUL, CITY OF MONTHLY UTIL 4/8 - 5/7 2,099.48 63947 5/25/2004 00001 ONE TIME VENDOR REF K ICHIKAWA -AMB 04000330 206.49 63948 5/25/2004 00001 ONE TIME VENDOR REF ALLSTATE INS CO -AMB 03018027 200.00 63949 5/25/2004 00001 ONE TIME VENDOR REF KIM TUCCITTO -PARKS &REC 160.00 63950 5/25/2004 00001 ONE TIME VENDOR REF MATT TUDOR -MEMBERSHIP 110.95 63951 5/25/2004 00001 ONE TIME VENDOR REF DAVID HOM - #00-03 SOD & DIRT 41.63 63952 5/25/2004 00001 ONE TIME VENDOR REF AL OLDEEN - #01-14 SOIL & SEED 31.85 63953 5/25/2004 00001 ONE TIME VENDOR REF BARBARA GADOW -PARKS &REC 25.00 63954 5/25/2004 00001 ONE TIME VENDOR REF CHRIS CARROLL - NC PROGRAM 5.00 63955 5/25/2004 00001 ONE TIME VENDOR REF KENT NYE -NATURE CTR PROGRAM 5.00 63956 5/25/2004 01560 ONYX WASTE SRVS MIDWEST INC RECYCLING -APR 16,912.94 63957 5/25/2004 01254 PEPSI-COLA COMPANY MERCH FOR RESALE 409.85 63958 5/25/2004 01283 POST BOARD POLICE OFFICER LICENSE - 18 1,620.00 2 Check 63959 63960 63961 63962 63963 63964 63965 63966 63967 63968 63969 63970 63971 63972 Date Vendor 5/21/2004 00396 PUBLIC SAFETY, DEPT OF 5/25/2004 01316 QQEST SERVICE COMPANY LC 5/25/2004 00264 RAMEAUX, TERRIE 5/25/2004 01337 RAMSEY COUNTY-PROP REC & REV 5/25/2004 01360 REINHART FOODSERVICE 5/25/2004 02001 ROSEVILLE, CITY OF 5/25/2004 03099 RYAN PLUMBING HEATING & CO 5/25/2004 01463 SISTER ROSALIND GEFRE 5/25/2004 01504 ST PAUL, CITY OF 5/25/2004 03100 SVENDSEN, RICK 5/25/2004 01572 SYSTEMS SUPPLY, INC. 5/25/2004 01574 T.A. SCHIFSKY & SONS, INC 5/25/2004 01734 WALSH, WILLIAM P. 5/25/2004 02410 WELLS FARGO LEASING INC 60 Checks in this report Description/Account Amount TRANSFER TITLES -FORFEITURE VEH 54.00 SOFTWARE MAINT - 5/16/04 - 5/15/05 249.00 REIMB FOR MILEAGE 5/18 19.50 PROJ 02-10 MISC PLANTS 569.78 MERCH FOR RESALE 482.46 JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT -MAY 625.00 2 RP2 TESTS 320.00 MASSAGES -APR 2,253.00 ASPHALT MIX -APR 1,151.84 REPORT WRITING & RECORD MGMT 54,440.00 REPAIR PLUMBING 446.00 INK CARTRIDGES 323.66 VARIOUS BITUMINOUS- 264.44 COMM PLUMBING INSP 879.00 RICOH COPIER LEASE 5/3 - 6/3 1,420.71 Total checks : 224,251.59 3 CITY OF MAPLEWOOD Disbursements via Debits to Checking account Transmitted Settlement Date Date Payee 05/13/04 05/14/04 MN State Treasurer 05/13/04 05/14/04 MN Dept of Natural Resources 05/14/04 05/17/04 MN State Treasurer 05/14/04 05/17/04 Pitney Bowes 05/17/04 05/18/04 MN State Treasurer 05/18/04 05/19/04 MN State Treasurer 05/11/04 05/19/04 MN Dept of Revenue 05/19/04 05/20/04 MN State Treasurer TOTAL Description Drivers License/Deputy Registrar DNR electronic licenses Drivers License/Deputy Registrar Postage Drivers License/Deputy Registrar Drivers License/Deputy Registrar Sales Tax Drivers License/Deputy Registrar Amount 13,083.69 1,506.00 23,014.82 2,985.00 13,760.53 14,473.88 8,366.00 12,748.37 89,938.29 4 vchlist 05/28/2004 11:16:10 AM Check Register City of Maplewood Check Date Vendor 63973 6/1/2004 01047 3M 63974 6/1/2004 02074 AHL, R CHARLES 63975 6/1/2004 00111 ANIMAL CONTROL SERVICES INC 63976 6/1/2004 00174 BELDE, STAN 63977 6/1/2004 01811 BERNATELLO'S PIZZA INC 63978 6/1/2004 02914 BLUECROSS BLUESHIELD OF MN 63979 6/1/2004 00198 BOARD OF WATER COMMISSIONERS 63980 6/1/2004 02929 CNAGLAC 63981 6/1/2004 02921 DUGAS, MICHAEL J 63982 6/1/2004 00103 EARL F ANDERSON INC 63983 6/1/2004 02071 FISHER, DAVID 63984 6/1/2004 00529 FORTIS BENEFITS INSURANCE CO 63985 6/1/2004 02635 G-WHIZ LETTERING 63986 6/1/2004 03072 GATES, SILAS M 63987 6/1/2004 03070 GEBHARD, DANIEL CLIFFORD 63988 6/1/2004 02949 HEALTHEAST ST JOHN'S HOSPITAL 63989 6/1/2004 00668 HIEBERT, STEVEN 63990 6/1/2004 00672 HJELLE, ERIK 63991 6/1/2004 03102 HUMMINGBIRD HELICOPERS LLC 63992 6/1/2004 00857 LEAGUE OF MINNESOTA CITIES 63993 6/1/2004 03105 LYNDALE TERMINAL CO 63994 6/1/2004 00932 MAPLEWOOD BAKERY 63995 6/1/2004 01819 MCLEOD USA 63996 6/1/2004 02872 METLIFE SBC 63997 6/1/2004 00985 METROPOLITAN COUNCIL 63998 6/1/2004 01032 MN BOARD OF AELSLAGID 63999 6/1/2004 01085 MN LIFE INSURANCE 64000 6/1/2004 01050 MN NATURALIST ASSN 64001 6/1/2004 00001 ONE TIME VENDOR 64002 6/1/2004 00001 ONE TIME VENDOR 64003 6/1/2004 00001 ONE TIME VENDOR 64004 6/1/2004 00001 ONE TIME VENDOR 64005 6/1/2004 00001 ONE TIME VENDOR 64006 6/1/2004 00001 ONE TIME VENDOR 64007 6/1/2004 00001 ONE TIME VENDOR 64008 6/1/2004 00001 ONE TIME VENDOR 64009 6/1/2004 01941 PATRICK GRAPHICS & TROPHIES 64010 6/1/2004 01254 PEPSI-COLA COMPANY 64011 6/1/2004 00396 PUBLIC SAFETY, DEPT OF 64012 6/1/2004 01345 RAMSEY COUNTY 64013 6/1/2004 01359 REGAL AUTO WASH DETAIL XX 64014 6/1/2004 01387 ROSSINI, DR. JAMES 64015 6/1/2004 01504 ST PAUL, CITY OF 64016 6/1/2004 02250 64017 6/1/2004 01524 64018 6/1/2004 01537 STAHNKE, JULIE STATE OF MINNESOTA CPV PROGRAM STREAMLINE DESIGN INC. 64019 6/1/2004 01574 T.A. SCHIFSKY & SONS, INC Description/Account HIGH INTENSITY TAPE REIMB PARKING & MILEAGE 4/15 - 5/21 PATROL & BOARDING FEES 5/5 - 5/14 PATROL & BOARDING FEES - 5/15 - 5/25 K-9 HANDLER -JUN MERCH FOR RESALE MERCH FOR RESALE MONTHLY PREM MONTHLY WATER UTIL LONG TERM CARE INS REIMB FOR TUITION AFTON HEIGHTS PARK CONSTRUCTION REIMB FOR MILEAGE 1/1 - 5/13 REIMB FOR MILEAGE & MEALS 5/16-5/21 STD PLAN 4043120-0-1 -JUNE CITY LOGO EMBRODIERY PROJ 03-26 RELOCATE PRIV PROP PROJ 03-26 RELOCATE PRIV PROP MEDICAL REPORT FEE K-9 HANDLER -JUN REIMB FOR STRAW 5/25 HELICOPTER RENTAL -DEER SURVEY 2004 HIPAA TRAINING PROJ 02-13 EASEMENT ACQUISITION BIRTHDAY CAKES LOCAL PHONE SRVS 4-16 - 5/15 MONTHLY DENTAL PREM WASTEWATER -JUN ENGINEER'S LIC 7/1/04 - 6/30/06 MONTHLY PREM MEMBERSHIPS REF AUDREY SZYMANSKY -MCC PROG REF L ELLISEN -BLDG PRMT 04-00418 REF JOHN O'GORMAN -DAMAGED CAR REF NHIA VANG - AMB 03019932 REF MAXFIELD LRNG CTR -MCC GROUP REF TONY KURSCHNER -BLDG 04-00870 REF SUSAN FULLER - NC PROGRAM REF DAWN SWANSON -MCC PROGRAM TROPHIES -GIRLS SOFTBALL ADULT SOFTBALL TROPHIES MERCH FOR RESALE MOTIVATIONAL LEADERSHIP FILING FEES FILING FEES CAR WASHES-APR FITNESS PROGRAM -MAY CRIME LAB SRVS -APR INVESTIGATIONS COURSE REIMB FOR SHIRTS MEMBERSHIP FEE REPLICA CAPS T-SHIRTS VARIOUS BITUMINOUS- Amount 139.78 163.50 1,190.98 597.75 35.00 39.00 39.00 107,383.50 1,060.71 819.32 2,295.00 50,940.20 48.38 458.30 1,316.24 94.64 500.00 500.00 14.61 35.00 25.52 716.10 20.00 2,900.00 120.50 1,978.78 7,423.22 157,490.20 120.00 3,792.00 75.00 332.80 215.25 165.67 103.90 54.20 50.50 40.00 30.00 1,283.11 198.57 457.05 120.00 62.00 54.00 204.32 100.00 255.00 400.00 39.00 500.00 337.25 408.25 202.00 5 Check Date Vendor 64020 6/1/2004 03086 TAHO SPORTSWEAR 64021 6/1/2004 03063 TEMO SUNROOMS 64022 6/1/2004 01580 TSE, INC. 64023 6/1/2004 02069 ULTIMATE DRAIN SERVICES INC 64024 6/1/2004 01699 UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA 64025 6/1/2004 01734 WALSH, WILLIAM P. 64026 6/1/2004 02879 WASHINGTON COUNTY 64027 6/1/2004 02057 WENZEL, JAY 64028 6/1/2004 03104 WHITE BEAR LAKE COMM SRVS 56 Checks in this report Description/Account Amount SOFTBALL T-SHIRTS 27.66 SOFTBALL T-SHIRTS 169.95 SHIRTS 169.95 REF GRADING ESC - 1425 BURKE AVE E 1,028.22 CUSTODIAL SRVS 3/22 - 4/16 889.33 PROJ 02-08 TELEVISE MAIN LINE 750.00 PROJ 03-18 TELEVISE MAIN LINE 195.00 PROJ 03-18 TELEVISE MAIN LINE 195.00 TUITION PAYMENT 3,862.50 COMM PLUMBING INSP 300.00 MEMBERSHIP DUES 100.00 REIMB FOR MEAL 5/12 8.00 SR HIGH LEAGUE JOINT PARTNERSHIP 3,456.25 Total checks : 359,096.96 6 CITY OF MAPLEWOOD Disbursements via Debits to Checking account Transmitted Settlement Date Date Payee 05/20/04 05/21 /04 05/11 /04 05/20/04 05/14/04 05/21 /04 05/21 /04 05/21 /04 05/21 /04 05/24/04 05/21 /04 05/21 /04 05/25/04 05/26/04 05/24/04 05/21 /04 05/21 /04 05/21 /04 05/21 /04 05/21 /04 05/24/04 05/24/04 05/24/04 05/24/04 05/25/04 05/25/04 05/25/04 05/26/04 05/27/04 05/27/04 MN State Treasurer ICMA (Vantagepointe) MN Dept of Revenue MN Dept of Natural Resources Elan Financial Services* MN State Treasurer U.S. Treasurer P.E.R.A. Orchard Trust MN State Treasurer MN State Treasurer MSA/Dispatcher Unions MN State Treasurer MN State Treasurer ARC Administration TOTAL Description Drivers License/Deputy Registrar Deferred Compensation Fuel Tax DNR electronic licenses Purchasing card items Drivers License/Deputy Registrar Federal Payroll Tax P.E.R.A. Deferred Compensation Drivers License/Deputy Registrar State Payroll Tax Union Dues Drivers License/Deputy Registrar Drivers License/Deputy Registrar DCRP & Flex plan payments *Detailed listings of Elan purchasing card items are attached. Amount 14,247.50 8,066.59 297.00 2,245.60 51,243.83 15,934.45 83,873.40 47,437.61 21,668.78 16,773.36 15,943.04 208.00 17,824.31 13,618.57 790.06 310,172.10 7 Transaction Review 5/10/2004 For Transactions posted between 05/01/2004 to 05/07/2004 Post Date Vendor Name Settlement Amt Cardholder Name 05/07/2004 G & K SERVICES 006 427.60 BRUCE K ANDERSON 05/07/2004 G & K SERVICES 006 988.77 BRUCE K ANDERSON 05/07/2004 G & K SERVICES 006 262.40 BRUCE K ANDERSON 05/05/2004 KOHL'S #0052 29.99 SCOTT ANDREWS 05/05/2004 MICHAELS #9401 8.49 MANDY ANZALDI 05/04/2004 AIRGAS NORTH CENTRAL 154 770.99 JOHN BANICK 05/07/2004 MN PHOTO 270.09 JOHN BANICK 05/05/2004 HENRIKSEN ACE HARDWARE 15.49 JIM BEHAN 05/06/2004 AQUA LOGIC INC 657.90 JIM BEHAN 05/06/2004 AQUA LOGIC INC 649.35 JIM BEHAN 05/05/2004 NEXTEL WIRELESS SVGS 66.10 JIM BEHAN 05/06/2004 NORTHERN TOOL EQUIPMNT 178.36 JIM BEHAN 05/05/2004 HENRIKSEN ACE HARDWARE 6.99 ROGER BREHEIM 05/06/2004 HENRIKSEN ACE HARDWARE 45.98 ROGER BREHEIM 05/07/2004 SEARS ROEBUCK 1122 109.66 ROGER BREHEIM 05/03/2004 DEX MEDIA EAST #2 118.60 HEIDI CAREY 05/04/2004 VERIZON DIRECTORIES 40.50 HEIDI CAREY 05/07/2004 KINKO'S #0617 15.98 HEIDI CAREY 05/07/2004 MICHAELS #2744 34.56 HEIDI CAREY 05/07/2004 FACTORY CARD OUTLET #284 33.99 HEIDI CAREY 05/04/2004 NEXTEL WIRELESS SVGS 392.30 CHRISTOPHER CAVETT 05/03/2004 GE CAPITAL 149.10 LINDA CROSSON 05/06/2004 TIME WARNER CABLE 219.58 LINDA CROSSON 05/04/2004 CUB FOODS, INC. 45.78 ROBERTA DARST 05/04/2004 CUB FOODS, INC. 37.82 ROBERTA DARST 05/05/2004 CUSTOM HEADSETS INC 304.54 ROBERTA DARST 05/05/2004 CUSTOM HEADSETS INC 304.54 ROBERTA DARST 05/05/2004 CUSTOM HEADSETS INC -304.54 ROBERTA DARST 05/05/2004 ST PAUL AREA CHAMBER 80.00 ROBERTA DARST 05/07/2004 S & T OFFICE PRODUCTS 43.86 ROBERTA DARST 05/04/2004 COPY EQUIPMENT, INC. 112.87 JOHN DUCHARME 05/03/2004 MOGREN BROTHERS 12.51 DOUG EDGE 05/03/2004 WALGREEN 00031229 175.98 PAUL E EVERSON 05/07/2004 G & K SERVICES 006 413.25 DAVID FISHER 05/07/2004 G & K SERVICES 006 998.41 DAVID FISHER 05/03/2004 UNIFORMS UNLIMITED INC 88.50 TIMOTHY FLOR 05/07/2004 AMERICAN APPAREL -250.00 MYCHAL FOWLDS 05/07/2004 AMERICAN APPAREL 250.00 MYCHAL FOWLDS 05/07/2004 PITNEY BOWES INVOICE 821.12 PATRICIA FRY 05/05/2004 SPRINTPCS AUTOPYMT RC1 117.01 RICHARD FURSMAN 05/07/2004 NICABOYNE 496.97 MIKE GRAF 05/07/2004 CINDERS GREENHOUSE INC 10.69 MIKE GRAF 05/07/2004 CINDERS GREENHOUSE INC 29.95 MIKE GRAF 05/06/2004 VERIZON WRLS 33007-01 63.89 KAREN E GUILFOILE 05/04/2004 MENARDS 3059 16.61 MARK IIAAG 05/05/2004 THE HOME DEPOT 2801 67.83 MARK IIAAG 05/03/2004 S & T OFFICE PRODUCTS 47.99 LORI HANSON 05/03/2004 WATER GEAR INC. 84.82 RON HORWATH 05/03/2004 OFFICE MAX 00002204 16.61 RON HORWATH 05/03/2004 SHELL OIL 54288850016 6.01 STEVE HURLEY 05/03/2004 RAMADA INNS & SUITES SAN 192.66 STEVE HURLEY 05/04/2004 BUDGET RENT-A-CAR 209.40 STEVE HURLEY 8 Post Date Vendor Name Settlement Amt Cardholder Name 05/04/2004 MAMA'S RESTAURANTS 8.08 STEVE HURLEY 05/04/2004 ADT SECURITY SERVICES 155.57 STEVE HURLEY 05/04/2004 NEXTEL WIRELESS SVGS 600.38 STEVE HURLEY 05/05/2004 CABLING SERVICES CORPORAT 672.59 STEVE HURLEY 05/07/2004 KNOWLAN'S SPRMKT.#2 15.11 ANN E HUTCHINSON 05/03/2004 HENRIKSEN ACE HARDWARE 19.38 DAVID JAHN 05/07/2004 DALCO ENTERPRISES, INC 558.55 DAVID JAHN 05/03/2004 UNIFORMS UNLIMITED INC 100.50 FLINT KARIS 05/03/2004 TARGET 00011858 31.93 MARY B KOEHNEN 05/05/2004 UNIFORMS UNLIMITED INC 53.95 TOMMY KONG 05/04/2004 AMZ SUPERSTORE 28.87 HEATHER KOS 05/03/2004 GAL GALLS INC 413.29 DAVID KVAM 05/03/2004 GAL GALLS INC 110.00 DAVID KVAM 05/04/2004 VERIZON WRLS I2KW RE3 63.63 SHERYL L LE 05/07/2004 LTG POWER EQUIPMENT 184.82 DENNIS LINDORFF 05/03/2004 KINKO'S #0617 414.81 STEVE LUKIN 05/03/2004 CLAREY'S SAFETY EQUIPM 56.60 STEVE LUKIN 05/06/2004 UNITED RENTALS 25.67 DAVID LUTZ 05/03/2004 DAMS LOCK AND SAFE 16.49 MARK MARUSKA 05/03/2004 HUGOS TREE CARE 494.16 MARK MARUSKA 05/03/2004 SUN TURF METRO POWER 18.67 MARK MARUSKA 05/05/2004 ON SITE SANITATION, IN 127.80 MARK MARUSKA 05/06/2004 HENRIKSEN ACE HARDWARE 457.74 MARK MARUSKA 05/07/2004 ALL MAIN STREET ELEC 1,437.90 MARK MARUSKA 05/07/2004 G & K SERVICES 006 770.58 MARK MARUSKA 05/03/2004 MINAHOE/NORTHWINDS 123.54 JEAN NELSON 05/07/2004 G & K SERVICES 006 278.74 AMY NIVEN 05/07/2004 G & K SERVICES 006 534.64 AMY NIVEN 05/07/2004 G & K SERVICES 006 171.95 AMY NIVEN 05/07/2004 S & T OFFICE PRODUCTS 290.79 AMY NIVEN 05/06/2004 MENARDS 3022 52.26 MICHAEL NOVAK 05/03/2004 QWEST COMMUNICATION 629.00 MARSHA PACOLT 05/07/2004 HENRIKSEN ACE HARDWARE 7.60 KURT PARSONS 05/05/2004 S & T OFFICE PRODUCTS 13.31 KATHLEEN PECK HALL 05/03/2004 CENTURY BOOKSTORE 54.30 ROBERT PETERSON 05/03/2004 CENTURY COMM & TECH 1,072.40 ROBERT PETERSON 05/03/2004 GEMPLER 17.00 PHILIP F POWELL 05/05/2004 PEAVEY CORPORATION 15.95 PHILIP F POWELL 05/05/2004 BEST BUY 00000109 79.83 PHILIP F POWELL 05/06/2004 HENRIKSEN ACE HARDWARE 26.61 PHILIP F POWELL 05/06/2004 123AV, INC -52.76 PHILIP F POWELL 05/03/2004 KATH AUTO PARTS 32.84 STEVEN PRIEM 05/03/2004 KATH AUTO PARTS 80.41 STEVEN PRIEM 05/04/2004 KATH AUTO PARTS 43.93 STEVEN PRIEM 05/04/2004 KATH AUTO PARTS 16.64 STEVEN PRIEM 05/05/2004 SUNRAY BTB 46.11 STEVEN PRIEM 05/05/2004 FACTORY MOTOR PARTS 101.09 STEVEN PRIEM 05/05/2004 KATH AUTO PARTS 130.23 STEVEN PRIEM 05/06/2004 THANE HAWKINS 00430017 7.75 STEVEN PRIEM 05/06/2004 FACTORY MOTOR PARTS 304.40 STEVEN PRIEM 05/06/2004 KATH AUTO PARTS 129.55 STEVEN PRIEM 05/06/2004 KATH AUTO PARTS -50.65 STEVEN PRIEM 05/07/2004 MCCALLISTER AND CO 1,282.26 STEVEN PRIEM 05/07/2004 PARTS ASSOCIATES INC 63.13 STEVEN PRIEM 05/06/2004 AT&T WIRELESS SERVICES 147.00 KEVIN RABBETT 9 Post Date Vendor Name 05/06/2004 VIDEOGAME MASTER 05/03/2004 DALCO ENTERPRISES, INC 05/03/2004 CURTIS 1000 05/06/2004 STRINGER BUSINESS SYSTEMS 05/03/2004 WWW.THESPORTSAUTHORTY.COM 05/03/2004 T-MOBILE 05/07/2004 G & K SERVICES 006 05/04/2004 HOLIDAY INNS 05/06/2004 T-MOBILE 05/06/2004 VERIZON WRLS OT I2KW 05/06/2004 NEXTEL WIRELESS SVGS 05/04/2004 WMS WASTE MGMT WMEZPAY 05/06/2004 HENRIKSEN ACE HARDWARE 05/06/2004 ARCH WIRELESS 05/07/2004 ROSEDALE AUTOMOTIVE IN 05/03/2004 MENARDS 3059 05/04/2004 ASPEN MILLS 8005717343 05/05/2004 CENTURY BOOKSTORE 05/06/2004 ASPEN MILLS 8005717343 05/07/2004 SMOKE AWAY 05/03/2004 DALCO ENTERPRISES, INC 05/03/2004 DALCO ENTERPRISES, INC 05/07/2004 DALCO ENTERPRISES, INC 05/06/2004 NSC NORTHERN SAFETY CO 05/06/2004 ENGRAPHICS INC 05/03/2004 T-MOBILE 05/03/2004 MILLS FLEET FARM #27 05/03/2004 UNIFORMS UNLIMITED INC Settlement Amt Cardholder Name -54.99 TERRIE RAMEAUX 1,057.47 MICHAEL REILLY 131.37 DEB SCHMIDT 503.04 DEB SCHMIDT 29.94 RUSSELL L SCHMIDT 45.99 SCOTT SCHULTZ 219.22 GERALD SEEGER 174.62 MICHAEL SHORTREED 28.22 ANDREA SINDT 1.73 ANDREA SINDT 412.21 ANDREA SINDT 1,505.65 PAULINE STAPLES 28.66 PAULINE STAPLES 62.81 PAULINE STAPLES 41.00 SCOTT STEFFEN 47.91 RONALD SVENDSEN 1,511.92 RUSTIN SVENDSEN 62.50 RUSTIN SVENDSEN 155.20 RUSTIN SVENDSEN 129.85 RUSTIN SVENDSEN 65.41 LYLE SWANSON 15.34 LYLE SWANSON 750.68 LYLE SWANSON 66.60 LYLE SWANSON 26.09 LYLE SWANSON 104.62 DOUGLAS J TAUBMAN 46.81 TODD TEVLIN 58.28 PAUL THIENES 29,702.92 10 Transaction Review For Transactions posted between 05/08/2004 to OS/ 14/2004 Post Date Vendor Name Settlement Amt Cardholder Name OS/ 11 /2004 OS/ 14/2004 OS/ 12/2004 OS/ 11 /2004 OS/ 12/2004 OS/ 14/2004 OS/ 14/2004 OS/ 10/2004 OS/ 10/2004 OS/ 13/2004 OS/ 14/2004 OS/ 10/2004 OS/ 10/2004 OS/ 12/2004 OS/ 13/2004 OS/ 14/2004 OS/ 14/2004 OS/ 13/2004 OS/ 10/2004 OS/ 14/2004 OS/ 14/2004 OS/ 14/2004 OS/ 12/2004 OS/ 14/2004 OS/ 11 /2004 OS/ 12/2004 OS/ 10/2004 OS/ 12/2004 OS/ 14/2004 OS/ 13/2004 OS/ 13/2004 OS/ 13/2004 OS/ 10/2004 OS/ 12/2004 OS/ 13/2004 OS/ 14/2004 OS/ 10/2004 OS/ 13/2004 OS/ 10/2004 OS/ 13/2004 OS/ 13/2004 OS/ 10/2004 OS/ 12/2004 OS/ 13/2004 OS/ 12/2004 OS/ 13/2004 OS/ 10/2004 OS/ 11 /2004 OS/ 10/2004 OS/ 12/2004 OS/ 14/2004 OS/ 13/2004 VERIZON WRLS I2KW RE3 INTOXIMETERS, INC. CUB FOODS, INC. HSS INC. GRAFIX SHOPPE CUB FOODS, INC. GRAFIX SHOPPE STREICHER'S POLICE EQP CRAMER BLDG SERVICES INC ALL MAIN STREET ELECTRIC HENRIKSEN ACE HARDWARE MICHAELS #2744 KINKO'S #0617 KINKO'S #0617 THE STAR TRIBUNE-ADVERTIS S & T OFFICE PRODUCTS GRAND VIEW LDG&TNS CLB STREICHERS POLICE EQUIPM UNIFORMS UNLIMITED INC BROOK WHITE COMPANY-ST PA MENARDS 3022 CENTURY COLLEGE CONTINUIN VRZN WRLS VZSRVE W RE3 BFI OF ST PAUL BUSINESS OBJECTS CRYSTAL UNIFORMS UNLIMITED INC PITNEY BOWES SUPPLY GOODIN COMPANY NORTHERN TOOL EQUIPMNT ORIENTAL TRADING CO VERTICAL ENDEAVORS S S S ARTS CRAFT ZYWIECS BERRYLAND FARMS PROPERTYKEY.COM, INC. VERIZON WRLS I2KW RE3 LILLIE SUBURBAN NEWSP HENRIKSEN ACE HARDWARE PSW FRONTIER PRO SHOP METRO SALES INC NEXTEL WIRELESS SVGS NEXTEL WIRELESS SVGS UNIFORMS UNLIMITED INC NAT ASSO OF TOWN WATCH BLUE RIBBON BAIT & TACKLE MEXICAN VILLAGE GREEN MILL-ST CLOUD HENRIKSEN ACE HARDWARE NORTHERN TOOL EQUIPMNT METRO SALES INC RICHARDS MARKET INC RAINBOW FOODS 1-886 NEXTEL WIRELESS SVGS 5/18/2004 62.13 R CHARLES AHL 192.60 SCOTT ANDREWS 3.52 MANDY ANZALDI -700.00 JOHN BANICK 340.00 JOHN BANICK 6.00 JOHN BANICK 340.00 JOHN BANICK 202.30 PAUL BARTZ 784.75 JIM BEHAN 576.00 JIM BEHAN 2.75 JIM BEHAN 17.02 HEIDI CAREY 111.45 HEIDI CAREY 92.21 HEIDI CAREY 956.67 HEIDI CAREY 7.72 HEIDI CAREY 200.00 CHRISTOPHER CAVETT 46.75 KEVIN COFFEY 24.97 KERRY GROTTY 105.69 THOMAS DEBILZAN 270.58 THOMAS DEBILZAN 62.00 VIRGINIA ERICKSON 73.04 DANIEL F FAUST 463.35 DAVID FISHER 41.63 MYCHAL FOWLDS 186.52 JOHN FRASER 56.38 PATRICIA FRY 43.56 DAVID GERMAIN 23.36 DAVID GERMAIN 72.20 MIKE GRAF 100.00 MIKE GRAF 119.05 MIKE GRAF 12.62 JANET M GREW HAYMAN 50.00 KAREN E GUILFOILE 194.59 KAREN E GUILFOILE 1,984.22 LORI HANSON 19.14 RON HORWATH 478.90 RON HORWATH 288.00 STEVE HURLEY 58.46 STEVE HURLEY 35.77 ANN E HUTCHINSON 35.54 KEVIN JOHNSON 99.25 FLINT KARIS 8.79 HEATHER KOS 9.67 DAVID KVAM 11.00 DAVID KVAM 7.20 RANDY LINDBLOM 11.17 DENNIS LINDORFF 274.54 STEVE LUKIN 26.95 STEVE LUKIN 33.10 STEVE LUKIN 1,924.35 STEVE LUKIN 11 OS/ 14/2004 OS/ 10/2004 OS/ 12/2004 OS/ 10/2004 OS/ 13/2004 OS/ 10/2004 OS/ 10/2004 OS/ 11 /2004 OS/ 11 /2004 OS/ 14/2004 OS/ 12/2004 OS/ 12/2004 OS/ 13/2004 OS/ 11 /2004 OS/ 10/2004 OS/ 14/2004 OS/ 13/2004 OS/ 13/2004 OS/ 14/2004 OS/ 13/2004 OS/ 13/2004 OS/ 13/2004 OS/ 14/2004 OS/ 14/2004 OS/ 10/2004 OS/ 14/2004 OS/ 14/2004 OS/ 10/2004 OS/ 10/2004 OS/ 10/2004 OS/ 13/2004 OS/ 14/2004 OS/ 12/2004 OS/ 13/2004 OS/ 12/2004 OS/ 11 /2004 OS/ 14/2004 OS/ 14/2004 OS/ 11 /2004 OS/ 12/2004 OS/ 14/2004 OS/ 10/2004 OS/ 10/2004 OS/ 11 /2004 OS/ 12/2004 OS/ 12/2004 OS/ 13/2004 OS/ 14/2004 OS/ 10/2004 OS/ 10/2004 OS/ 10/2004 OS/ 10/2004 OS/ 10/2004 OS/ 10/2004 OS/ 10/2004 OS/ 10/2004 OS/ 10/2004 ON SITE SANITATION, IN CENTURY COLLEGE CONTINUIN ICI-DULUX-PAINTS #0092 THE HOME DEPOT 2801 DIAMOND VOGEL PAINTS#807 S & T OFFICE PRODUCTS S & T OFFICE PRODUCTS S & T OFFICE PRODUCTS S & T OFFICE PRODUCTS WW GRAINGER 497 UNIFORMS UNLIMITED INC PROPERTYKEY.COM, INC. S & T OFFICE PRODUCTS MIKES LP GAS INC PRO AM SAFETY INC PEAVEY CORPORATION FORNEY INCORPORATED FORNEY INCORPORATED COPY EQUIPMENT, INC. BAUER BULT TRE33200023 BAUER BULT TRE33200023 PIONEER RIM & WHEEL CO KATH AUTO PARTS FREDPRYOR/CAREERTRACK PIONEER PRESS ADVERTISIN DALCO ENTERPRISES, INC DALCO ENTERPRISES, INC THREE RIVERS PARK BEST BUY 00000109 U OF M CCE ON LINE S S S ARTS CRAFT INGENIX ST ANTHONY PUBLIS ARAMARK REF SVS #6013- ELDREDGE TRADING INC EMERGENCY MEDICAL PROD S & T OFFICE PRODUCTS S & T OFFICE PRODUCTS ROSEDALE AUTOMOTIVE IN TARGET 00011858 RAINBOW FOODS 1-886 S & T OFFICE PRODUCTS JEFFERSON FIRE & SAFETY I ALL MAIN STREET ELEC DAMS LOCK AND SAFE EL REINHARDT COMPANY INC HIRSHFIELD'S MAPLEWOOD HIRSHFIELD'S MAPLEWOOD VIKING ELECTRIC-ST. PAUL U OF M CCE ON LINE QWESTCOMM TN612 QWESTCOMM TN612 QWESTCOMM TN612 QWESTCOMM TN612 QWESTCOMM TN612 QWESTCOMM TN612 QWESTCOMM TN612 QWESTCOMM TN612 340.02 MARK MARUSKA 171.00 JON A MELANDER 48.46 ED NADEAU 85.14 BRYAN NAGEL 1,462.03 BRYAN NAGEL 7.09 AMY NIVEN 21.50 AMY NIVEN -21.79 AMY NIVEN -29.63 AMY NIVEN 43.76 RICHARD NORDQUIST 296.25 JULIE OLSON 50.00 DENNIS PECK 23.89 KATHLEEN PECK HALL 12.18 ROBERT PETERSON 294.95 PHILIP F POWELL 83.70 PHILIP F POWELL 81.45 WILLIAM PRIEBE 8.67 WILLIAM PRIEBE 181.05 WILLIAM PRIEBE 759.60 STEVEN PRIEM 532.50 STEVEN PRIEM 52.70 STEVEN PRIEM 13.01 STEVEN PRIEM 195.00 KEVIN RABBETT 488.00 TERRIE RAMEAUX 45.35 MICHAEL REILLY 1,512.23 MICHAEL REILLY 575.00 AUDRA ROBBINS 101.16 AUDRA ROBBINS 55.00 AUDRA ROBBINS 238.51 AUDRA ROBBINS 95.90 DEB SCHMIDT 248.00 RUSSELL L SCHMIDT 79.80 RUSSELL L SCHMIDT 449.69 MICHAEL SHORTREED 87.04 ANDREA SINDT 19.79 ANDREA SINDT -41.00 SCOTT STEFFEN 71.25 JOANNE M SVENDSEN 32.85 JOANNE M SVENDSEN 272.94 JOANNE M SVENDSEN 248.00 RUSTIN SVENDSEN 145.00 LYLE SWANSON 30.55 LYLE SWANSON 82.55 LYLE SWANSON 11.04 LYLE SWANSON 34.66 LYLE SWANSON 66.89 LYLE SWANSON 55.00 DOUGLAS J TAUBMAN 57.51 JUDY TETZLAFF 57.51 JUDY TETZLAFF 57.51 JUDY TETZLAFF 86.27 JUDY TETZLAFF 86.27 JUDY TETZLAFF 86.27 JUDY TETZLAFF 86.27 JUDY TETZLAFF 115.02 JUDY TETZLAFF 12 05/10/2004 QWESTCOMM TN612 05/10/2004 QWESTCOMM TN612 05/10/2004 QWESTCOMM TN612 138.45 JUDY TETZLAFF 236.80 JUDY TETZLAFF 367.84 JUDY TETZLAFF 21,540.91 13 Check Register City of Maplewood vchlist 06/04/2004 10:39:46 AM Check Date Vendor Description/Account Amount 64029 6/8/2004 02106 ADVANCED BUSINESS SYSTEMS, INC TYPEWRITER MAINT 6/1 TO 5/31/05 470.00 64030 6/8/2004 02846 B T BUILDERS INC REF BT BUILDERS - 700 FERNDALE ST 1,067.67 64031 6/8/2004 00152 BANICK, JOHN REIMB FOR BOOKS & TUITION 3/31 - 5/25 341.84 64032 6/8/2004 00178 BERGGREN, GORDON NAME SIGN FOR COUNCIL CHAMBERS 20.00 64033 6/8/2004 03108 BOWMAN, TRACY VOLLEYBALL COORDINATOR 150.00 64034 6/8/2004 00494 CHILDREN HOME & FAMILY SERVICE YTH DIVERSION SRVS -JAN 3,423.42 YTH DIVERSION SRVS - FEB 3,423.42 YTH DIVERSION SRVS -MAR 3,423.42 YTH DIVERSION SRVS -APR 3,423.42 YTH DIVERSION SRVS -MAY 3,423.42 YTH DIVERSION SRVS -JUN 3,423.42 64035 6/8/2004 00298 CITY ENGINEERS ASSOC OF MN ANNUAL MEMBERSHIP DUES 60.00 64036 6/8/2004 03109 CLIA LABORATORY PROGRAM PARAMEDIC CERTIFICATE FEE 150.00 64037 6/8/2004 00319 CONCRETE FORM ENGINEERS INC CONCRETE FORMS RENTAL 311.26 64038 6/8/2004 00384 DE LACE LANDEN FINANCIAL SRVS COPIER LEASE 511.20 COPIER LEASE 161.88 64039 6/8/2004 00358 DGM INC. TOW FORFEITURE VEHICLE 90.53 TOW FORFEITURE VEHICLE 90.53 TOW FORFEITURE VEHICLE 90.53 TOW FORFEITURE VEHICLE 90.53 TOW FORFEITURE VEHICLE 90.53 TOW VEHICLE 181.50 TOW FORFEITURE VEHICLE 90.53 TOW FORFEITURE VEHICLE 90.53 TOW FORFEITURE VEHICLE 90.53 64040 6/8/2004 00449 EDEN SYSTEMS INC ADDL USER LICENSES -EDEN SOFTWARE 17,500.00 64041 6/8/2004 00479 EULL'S MANUFACTURING CO., INC. CATCH BASINS, MORTAR MIX, MISC 828.23 64042 6/8/2004 00526 FOREST LAKE CONTRACTING INC PROJ 03-04 KENNARD ST PYMT #3 138,314.89 64043 6/8/2004 00529 FORTIS BENEFITS INSURANCE CO MONTHLY LTD PREMIUM 2,085.66 64044 6/8/2004 02958 GOODPOINTE TECHNOLOGY INC DATA CONSULTING 5,600.00 SOFTWARE ANNUAL MAINT AGREEMENT 1,500.00 64045 6/8/2004 00589 GRAF, DAVE KARATE INSTRUCTOR 211.25 64046 6/8/2004 01867 HANSON, PERRY VOLLEYBALL OFFICIAL 120.00 64047 6/8/2004 01039 HEALTH, DEPT OF FOOD SAFETY WORKSHOP 15.00 64048 6/8/2004 02728 KIMLEY-HORN & ASSOCIATES INC PROJ 02-07 PROF SRVS THRU 4/30 2,368.48 PROJ 02-21 PROF SRVS THRU 4/30 2,352.65 PROJ 02-07 PROF SRVS THRU 4/30 12,168.12 PROJ 03-26 PROF SRVS THRU 4/30 43,847.17 PROJ 03-22 PROF SRVS THRU 4/30 10,474.59 64049 6/8/2004 03112 KNAPP, BRETT REIMB FOR EMT TEST 6/1 20.00 64050 6/8/2004 03110 L'ALLIER, DANIEL REIMB FOR SHOES 5/26 120.99 64051 6/8/2004 02047 CARSON, DAN REIMB FOR MEALS 5/18 - 5/27 45.15 64052 6/8/2004 01032 MN BOARD OF AELSLAGID PROF ENGINEER'S LIC RENEWAL 120.00 64053 6/8/2004 01035 MN CHAPTER IAAI MEMBERSHIP RENEWAL 25.00 64054 6/8/2004 01028 MN STATE TREASURER STAX MONTHLY SURTAX -MAY 4,078.36 64055 6/8/2004 02629 NOVACARE CBO PRE-EMPLOYMENT PHYSICAL 80.00 64056 6/8/2004 03113 NOWICKI, PAUL REIMB FOR EMT TEST 6/1 20.00 64057 6/8/2004 03055 OLSON, KEVIN REF GRADING ESC - 2591 KNOLLWOOD 1,041.64 64058 6/8/2004 00001 ONE TIME VENDOR REF LINDA MELCHER -MEMBERSHIP 159.75 64059 6/8/2004 00001 ONE TIME VENDOR REF KATHLEEN PAVEL - REC PROG 45.00 64060 6/8/2004 00001 ONE TIME VENDOR REF VIRGINIA ERICKSON -MCC PROG 14.00 64061 6/8/2004 00001 ONE TIME VENDOR REF INDIAN YTH ENRICH -MCC GROUP 8.40 64062 6/8/2004 01941 PATRICK GRAPHICS & TROPHIES FLOOR HOCKEY PARTICIPANT AWARDS 517.32 FLOOR HOCKEY PARTICIPANT AWARDS 35.68 64063 6/8/2004 01283 POST BOARD POLICE OFFICER LIC 90.00 14 Check Date Vendor Description/Account 64064 64065 64066 6/8/2004 6/8/2004 6/8/2004 01337 RAMSEY COUNTY-PROP REC & REV 02010 RAMSEY CTY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE 01409 S.E.H. 64067 64068 64069 64070 64071 64072 64073 64074 64075 64076 64077 6/8/2004 01418 SAM'S CLUB DIRECT 6/8/2004 01526 STATE TREASURER 6/8/2004 01915 STEEPEN, NANCY 6/8/2004 01550 SUMMIT INSPECTIONS 6/8/2004 01574 T.A. SCHIFSKY & SONS, INC 6/8/2004 03086 TAHO SPORTSWEAR 6/8/2004 02164 TOLTZ, KING, DUVALL, ANDERSON 6/8/2004 03111 UNIVERSAL TITLE 6/8/2004 01734 WALSH, WILLIAM P. 6/8/2004 03103 WASHINGTON CTY CHIEF OF POLICE 6/8/2004 01764 WESTLING, TOM 49 Checks in this report PROJ 01-08 INTERSECTION IMPRVMNTS 20% ADMIN FORE PROP CASE#0936302545 PROJ 02-22 PROF SRVS -APR PROJ 02-07 PROF SRVS -APR PROJ 02-07 PROF SRVS -APR PROJ 03-04 PROF SRVS -APR PROJ 03-03 PROF SRVS -APR PROJ 03-26 PROF SRVS -APR PROJ 03-04 PROF SRVS -APR PROJ 03-07 PROF SRVS -APR AZURE PROP GEN TRANS SRVS -APR MERCH FOR RESALE PROGRAM SUPPLIES VENDING MACHINES COFFEE PROGRAM SUPPLIES MERCH FOR RESALE MERCH FOR RESALE MERCH FOR RESALE PROGRAM SUPPLIES MEMBERSHIP FEES ANNUAL ADMIN FEE 10% ADMIN FORE PROP CASE#0936302545 VOLLEYBALL OFFICIAL - 17 ELECTRICAL INSPECTIONS VARIOUS BITUMINOUS- REIMB FOR SOFTBALL SHIRTS PROJ 01-16 PROF SRVS THRU 4/24 PROJ 01-29 PROF SRVS THRU 4/24 REF GRADING ESC - 946 FERNDALE ST COMMERCIAL PLUMBING INSP MEMBERSHIP DUES TENNIS INSTRUCTOR 12,170.03 430.00 102.62 2,385.28 22,580.69 14,491.17 501.58 4,341.71 6,879.52 15,272.01 2,406.11 61.67 209.19 308.61 172.77 63.37 90.23 137.72 110.54 220.83 285.00 100.00 215.00 340.00 4,891.20 1,722.96 603.00 362.68 1,154.78 1,037.12 98.00 100.00 667.50 Total checks : 363,010.33 15 CITY OF MAPLEWOOD Disbursements via Debits to Checking account Transmitted Settlement Date Date Payee Description 05/27/04 05/28/04 MN State Treasurer Drivers License/Deputy Registrar 05/21/04 05/28/04 WI Dept of Revenue State Payroll Tax 05/27/04 05/28/04 MN Dept of Natural Resources DNR electronic licenses 05/28/04 06/01/04 MN State Treasurer Drivers License/Deputy Registrar 06/01/04 06/01/04 U.S. Bank Trust Debt Service 06/01/04 06/02/04 MN State Treasurer Drivers License/Deputy Registrar 06/02/04 06/03/04 MN State Treasurer Drivers License/Deputy Registrar 05/28/04 06/03/04 Elan Financial Services* Purchasing card items TOTAL *Detailed listings of Elan purcha sing card items are attached. Amount 21,897.24 1,242.05 1,265.50 17,584.18 19,707.50 21,338.56 27,064.08 38,492.23 148,591.34 16 Transaction Review 5/24/2004 For Transactions posted between 05/15/2004 to 05/21/2004 Post Date Vendor Name Settlement Amt Cardholder Name 05/17/2004 GRAND VIEW LDG&TNS CLB 252.19 R CHARLES AHL 05/19/2004 GRAFIX SHOPPE 420.00 JOHN BANICK 05/20/2004 DOWNTOWNER CAR WASH 80.25 JOHN BANICK 05/20/2004 SHRED IT 193.14 JOHN BANICK 05/21/2004 ARDEN SHOREVIEW AN HOSPT 88.45 JOHN BANICK 05/19/2004 AQUA LOGIC INC 892.26 JIM BEHAN 05/20/2004 POOLSIDE 25.88 JIM BEHAN 05/20/2004 PAIN ENTERPRISES INC. 359.84 JIM BEHAN 05/21/2004 HENRIKSEN ACE HARDWARE 22.71 JIM BEHAN 05/21/2004 ALL MAIN STREET ELECTRIC 290.00 JIM BEHAN 05/17/2004 UNIFORMS UNLIMITED INC 160.26 STANLEY BELDE 05/19/2004 LISPS 2663650015 6.90 ROGER BREHEIM 05/17/2004 UNIFORMS UNLIMITED INC 44.95 DANIEL BUSACK 05/17/2004 TIGER OAKS PUBLICATION 695.00 HEIDI CAREY 05/17/2004 KINKO'S #0617 56.39 HEIDI CAREY 05/19/2004 MICHAELS #2744 133.92 HEIDI CAREY 05/19/2004 DGI DYNAMIC GRAPHICS 79.00 HEIDI CAREY 05/21/2004 MILLS FLEET FARM #27 54.78 HEIDI CAREY 05/18/2004 VERIZON WRLS I2KW RE3 50.55 CHRISTOPHER CAVETT 05/18/2004 S & T OFFICE PRODUCTS 53.24 ROBERTA DARST 05/17/2004 MILLS FLEET FARM #27 35.94 THOMAS DEBILZAN 05/18/2004 RAY ALLEN MFG. CO. INC. 164.95 RICHARD DOBLAR 05/19/2004 NORTHERN TOOL EQUIPMNT 47.91 JOHN DUCHARME 05/18/2004 MERVYN'S 00003145 17.99 ALICE DUNN 05/18/2004 SUN TURF METRO POWER 167.12 DOUG EDGE 05/19/2004 OAKDALE RENTAL CENTER 253.47 DOUG EDGE 05/17/2004 THE HOME DEPOT 2801 92.22 ANDREW ENGSTROM 05/20/2004 LATTER PACKAGING EQUIP 159.58 PAUL E EVERSON 05/18/2004 F7783 MCDONALD'S 5.69 DAVID FISHER 05/20/2004 APPLEBEE'S MET00151019 16.81 DAVID FISHER 05/19/2004 PANERA BREAD #2701 9.09 DAVID FISHER 05/20/2004 HEREFORD HOUSE 50.00 DAVID FISHER 05/20/2004 SHERATON CONV CTR FB 4.30 DAVID FISHER 05/20/2004 PANERA BREAD #2701 10.58 DAVID FISHER 05/21/2004 FRED OTT'S #403 9.84 DAVID FISHER 05/17/2004 AMERICAN APPAREL -250.00 MYCHAL FOWLDS 05/21/2004 GO SOFTWARE INC 169.00 MYCHAL FOWLDS 05/17/2004 S & T OFFICE PRODUCTS 110.04 PATRICIA FRY 05/19/2004 S & T OFFICE PRODUCTS 97.72 PATRICIA FRY 05/19/2004 S & T OFFICE PRODUCTS -84.18 PATRICIA FRY 05/17/2004 CRAGUNS LODGE AND GOLF RE 305.42 RICHARD FURSMAN 05/20/2004 TARGET 00011858 10.04 CAROLE GERNES 05/20/2004 KINKO'S #0617 56.93 CLARENCE GERVAIS 05/19/2004 XPEDX 361.45 JEAN GLASS 05/17/2004 THE HOME DEPOT 2801 9.55 MIKE GRAF 05/17/2004 MENARDS 3059 29.66 MIKE GRAF 05/17/2004 TARGET 00011858 13.36 MIKE GRAF 05/18/2004 S & T OFFICE PRODUCTS 13.38 LORI HANSON 05/17/2004 SPARCO COM 791.61 STEVE HURLEY 05/17/2004 KAM COM TECHNOLOGIES INC 238.56 STEVE HURLEY 05/21/2004 FACILITY SYSTEMS INC 244.48 STEVE HURLEY 05/18/2004 KNOWLAN'S SPRMKT.#2 21.93 ANN E HUTCHINSON 17 Post Date Vendor Name Settlement Amt Cardholder Name 05/20/2004 HENRIKSEN ACE HARDWARE 34.31 ANN E HUTCHINSON 05/20/2004 THE HOME DEPOT 2801 31.89 DAVID JAHN 05/21/2004 THE HOME DEPOT 2801 44.15 DAVID JAHN 05/17/2004 HENRIKSEN ACE HARDWARE 9.76 DON JONES 05/17/2004 OXYGEN SERVICE CO INC 31.14 DON JONES 05/18/2004 CC SHARROW CO INC 160.99 DON JONES 05/17/2004 NORTHERN TRAFFIC SUPPLY 384.47 MICHAEL KANE 05/18/2004 VERIZON WRLS I2KW RE3 32.79 MICHAEL KANE 05/20/2004 MAYFLOWER DISTRIBUTING 35.45 FLINT KARIS 05/17/2004 BEST WESTERN HOTELS 347.20 DAVID KVAM 05/17/2004 MILLS FLEET FARM #27 21.25 DENNIS LINDORFF 05/18/2004 VERIZON WRLS I2KW RE3 57.01 STEVE LUKIN 05/20/2004 KINKO'S #0617 370.62 STEVE LUKIN 05/21/2004 AMERITECH MOBILE PA 17.61 STEVE LUKIN 05/17/2004 METRO ATHLETIC SUPPLY 1,434.87 MARK MARUSKA 05/17/2004 HUGOS TREE CARE 798.75 MARK MARUSKA 05/17/2004 KATH AUTO PARTS 85.50 MARK MARUSKA 05/18/2004 VERIZON WRLS I2KW RE3 28.86 MARK MARUSKA 05/19/2004 GRUBERS POWER EQUIPMENT 113.49 MARK MARUSKA 05/20/2004 MOGREN BROTHERS 57.51 MARK MARUSKA 05/17/2004 THE HOME DEPOT 2801 24.46 JON A MELANDER 05/20/2004 KINKO'S #0626 252.41 JON A MELANDER 05/20/2004 CUB FOODS-SUN RAY 40.77 JON A MELANDER 05/18/2004 VERIZON WRLS I2KW RE3 61.59 ED NADEAU 05/19/2004 SPRINTPCS AUTOPYMT RC1 58.12 BRYAN NAGEL 05/18/2004 S & T OFFICE PRODUCTS 55.92 JEAN NELSON 05/21/2004 MINNESOTA PARENT 643 105.00 JEAN NELSON 05/18/2004 S & T OFFICE PRODUCTS 136.69 AMY NIVEN 05/18/2004 VERIZON WRLS I2KW RE3 28.80 ERICK OSWALD 05/21/2004 HEJNY RENTALS INC 40.43 ERICK OSWALD 05/17/2004 HENRIKSEN ACE HARDWARE 1.91 KURT PARSONS 05/17/2004 S & T OFFICE PRODUCTS 8.29 KATHLEEN PECK HALL 05/19/2004 S & T OFFICE PRODUCTS 67.71 KATHLEEN PECK HALL 05/21/2004 MODEL INC 247.58 PHILIP F POWELL 05/18/2004 COPY EQUIPMENT, INC. 92.81 WILLIAM PRIEBE 05/17/2004 KATH AUTO PARTS 10.50 STEVEN PRIEM 05/19/2004 MERIT CHEVROLET 55.19 STEVEN PRIEM 05/18/2004 KATH AUTO PARTS 43.93 STEVEN PRIEM 05/19/2004 SUNRAY BTB 34.05 STEVEN PRIEM 05/19/2004 BAUER BULT TRE33200023 127.29 STEVEN PRIEM 05/20/2004 MERIT CHEVROLET 133.19 STEVEN PRIEM 05/21/2004 ZARNOTH BRUSH WORKS INC 573.50 STEVEN PRIEM 05/17/2004 KC MO POLICE DEPT 405.00 KEVIN RABBETT 05/20/2004 PIONEER PRESS ADVERTISIN 869.00 TERRIE RAMEAUX 05/17/2004 DALCO ENTERPRISES, INC 439.07 MICHAEL REILLY 05/20/2004 DALCO ENTERPRISES, INC 65.56 MICHAEL REILLY 05/17/2004 CARLTON CARDS #0379 5.33 AUDRA ROBBINS 05/17/2004 MICHAELS #2744 15.12 AUDRA ROBBINS 05/21/2004 COACHING CARDS PRESS 23.90 AUDRA ROBBINS 05/17/2004 CURTIS 1000 21.63 DEB SCHMIDT 05/19/2004 SWEET COMPUTER SERVICES I 600.00 DEB SCHMIDT 05/17/2004 MENARDS 3022 29.64 GERALD SEEGER 05/18/2004 VERIZON WRLS I2KW RE3 45.46 ANDREA SINDT 05/18/2004 NEXTEL WIRELESS SVGS 534.53 ANDREA SINDT 05/21/2004 RAPID PACKAGING 124.40 ANDREA SINDT 18 Post Date Vendor Name 05/17/2004 VERIZON DIRECTORIES 05/19/2004 METRO SALES INC 05/17/2004 EMERGENCY MEDICAL PROD 05/18/2004 WALGREEN 00073882 05/19/2004 OFFICE MAX 00002204 05/17/2004 DALCO ENTERPRISES, INC 05/17/2004 OVERHEAD DOOR OF NORTH 05/17/2004 THE HOME DEPOT 2801 05/17/2004 ENGRAPHICS INC 05/17/2004 RADIO SHACK 00161133 05/17/2004 WW GRAINGER 500 05/21/2004 HENRIKSEN ACE HARDWARE 05/21/2004 DALCO ENTERPRISES, INC 05/21/2004 ALL MAIN STREET ELECTRIC 05/20/2004 SHRED IT 05/18/2004 DIAMOND VOGEL PAINTS#807 05/21/2004 THE HOME DEPOT 2801 05/17/2004 OFFICE MAX 00002204 05/21/2004 POSTAL STORE 05/21/2004 QUILL CORPORATION Settlement Amt Cardholder Name 40.50 PAULINE STAPLES 813.00 JOANNE M SVENDSEN 319.39 RUSTIN SVENDSEN 21.38 RUSTIN SVENDSEN 31.35 RUSTIN SVENDSEN 269.98 LYLE SWANSON 114.93 LYLE SWANSON 143.60 LYLE SWANSON 254.27 LYLE SWANSON 28.43 LYLE SWANSON 43.20 LYLE SWANSON 330.28 LYLE SWANSON -13.85 LYLE SWANSON 288.00 LYLE SWANSON 33.30 JUDY TETZLAFF 71.46 TODD TEVLIN 84.12 CHARLES J VERMEERSCH 30.87 JUDY WEGWERTH 112.00 SUSAN ZWIEG 215.15 SUSAN ZWIEG 19,851.91 19 Transaction Review For Transactions posted between 05/22/2004 to 05/28/2004 Post Date Vendor Name 05/24/2004 05/25/2004 05/24/2004 05/24/2004 05/24/2004 05/25/2004 05/28/2004 05/24/2004 05/24/2004 05/24/2004 05/26/2004 05/27/2004 05/28/2004 05/27/2004 05/28/2004 05/28/2004 05/24/2004 05/24/2004 05/28/2004 05/24/2004 05/26/2004 05/25/2004 05/24/2004 05/24/2004 05/26/2004 05/24/2004 05/26/2004 05/24/2004 05/24/2004 05/25/2004 05/24/2004 05/25/2004 05/28/2004 05/24/2004 05/24/2004 05/27/2004 05/28/2004 05/28/2004 05/24/2004 05/24/2004 05/28/2004 05/27/2004 05/26/2004 05/26/2004 05/24/2004 05/24/2004 05/24/2004 05/24/2004 05/24/2004 05/24/2004 05/24/2004 05/26/2004 S & T OFFICE PRODUCTS S & T OFFICE PRODUCTS TARGET 00011858 TARGET 00011858 TARGET 00011858 AWARDS BY HAMMOND, INC AIRGAS NORTH CENTRAL 302 WW GRAINGER 500 WW GRAINGER 500 SEELYE PLASTICS, INC. STATE SUPPLY CO. INC MINNESOTA ELEVATOR INC HENRIKSEN ACE HARDWARE KINKO'S #0617 THE HOME DEPOT 2801 KINKO'S #0617 BACHMANS MAPLEWD 004 SENSIBLE LAND USE COAL CUB FOODS, INC. MERVYN'S 00003145 HEJNY RENTALS INC TARGET 00011858 WASTE MANAGEMENT WASTE MANAGEMENT INT'L CODE COUNCIL INC SHERATON HOTEL CONV CTR GLENWOOD-INGLEWOOD PITNEY BOWES INVOICE THE WEED WRENCH CO MENARDS 3089 THE WEED WRENCH CO IAAI OFFICE MAX 00002204 KWIK STOP #1 CUB FOODS, INC. TAHO SPORTSWEAR METRO ATHLETIC SUPPLY FACTORY CARD OUTLET #284 NADA APPRAISAL GUIDES MOGREN BROTHERS LTG POWER EQUIPMENT THE HOME DEPOT 2801 UNIFORMS UNLIMITED INC UNIFORMS UNLIMITED INC BLUE RIBBON BAIT & TACKLE TARGET 00000521 DALCO ENTERPRISES, INC FRATTALLONE'S ACE HDWE NORTHERN TOOL EQUIP-MN WASTE MANAGEMENT ADVANCED GRAPHIX INC ANCOM TECHNICAL CENTER IN Settlement Amt Cardholder Name 6/2/2004 83.35 BRUCE K ANDERSON 127.65 BRUCE K ANDERSON -21.22 MANDY ANZALDI 21.22 MANDY ANZALDI 6.98 MANDY ANZALDI 125.40 JOHN BANICK 550.64 JOHN BANICK 104.57 JIM BEHAN 34.89 JIM BEHAN 203.34 JIM BEHAN 65.94 JIM BEHAN -200.00 JIM BEHAN 6.39 JIM BEHAN 82.01 HEIDI CAREY 3.68 HEIDI CAREY 53.40 HEIDI CAREY 48.56 ROBERTA DARST 30.00 ROBERTA DARST 25.33 ROBERTA DARST -17.99 ALICE DUNN 15.02 DOUG EDGE 43.08 PAUL E EVERSON 412.94 DAVID FISHER 325.82 DAVID FISHER 105.56 DAVID FISHER 781.30 DAVID FISHER 106.34 DAVID FISHER 1,408.00 PATRICIA FRY 332.50 VIRGINIA GAYNOR 58.08 VIRGINIA GAYNOR 177.50 CAROLE GERNES 50.00 CLARENCE GERVAIS 35.02 CLARENCE GERVAIS 26.63 MIKE GRAF 8.97 MIKE GRAF 1,200.00 MIKE GRAF 103.40 MIKE GRAF 31.19 MIKE GRAF 115.00 LORI HANSON 39.41 ROLAND HELEY 3.54 GARY HINNENKAMP 26.19 RON HORWATH 5.33 FLINT KARIS 193.50 FLINT KARIS 5.59 HEATHER KOS 10.69 HEATHER KOS 243.71 MICHAEL LIDBERG 8.46 MICHAEL LIDBERG 591.04 DENNIS LINDORFF 235.20 STEVE LUKIN 126.18 STEVE LUKIN 281.83 STEVE LUKIN 20 Post Date Vendor Name 05/27/2004 05/24/2004 05/28/2004 05/28/2004 05/24/2004 05/24/2004 05/28/2004 05/28/2004 05/24/2004 05/24/2004 05/26/2004 05/27/2004 05/28/2004 05/25/2004 05/24/2004 05/25/2004 05/26/2004 05/27/2004 05/26/2004 05/26/2004 05/24/2004 05/26/2004 05/25/2004 05/24/2004 05/24/2004 05/26/2004 05/27/2004 05/27/2004 05/27/2004 05/28/2004 05/28/2004 05/28/2004 05/24/2004 05/24/2004 05/28/2004 05/28/2004 05/24/2004 05/28/2004 05/28/2004 05/24/2004 05/24/2004 05/27/2004 05/27/2004 05/28/2004 05/28/2004 05/28/2004 05/27/2004 05/28/2004 05/26/2004 05/27/2004 05/28/2004 05/24/2004 05/26/2004 05/26/2004 05/27/2004 TIRES PLUS813800503912 WASTE MANAGEMENT AMERICAN FASTENER00 OF 00 ON SITE SANITATION, IN PIZZA H013823 48238232 NORTHERN TOOL EQUIP-MN MILLS FLEET FARM #27 ARCH WIRELESS RYCO SUPPLY COMPANY S & T OFFICE PRODUCTS BROOK WHITE COMPANY-ST PA BROOK WHITE COMPANY-ST PA GEMSTONE PRODUCTS CO COPY EQUIPMENT, INC. S & T OFFICE PRODUCTS S & T OFFICE PRODUCTS S & T OFFICE PRODUCTS S & T OFFICE PRODUCTS KMART 00071068 RICHARDS MARKET INC HENRIKSEN ACE HARDWARE GEMPLER 1004735507 ALL MAIN STREET ELECTRIC TRUCK UTILITES INC BAUER BULT TRE33200023 SUNRAY BTB AMERICAN FASTENER00 OF 00 COMO LUBE & SUPPLOI OF O1 ZIEGLER INC -RETAIL CATCO PARTS AND SERVICE BAUER BULT TRE33200023 MTI DISTRIBUTING, INC.-PL THE MEN'S WEARHOUSE #4107 UNIFORMS UNLIMITED INC THE STAR TRIBUNE-ADVERTIS DALCO ENTERPRISES, INC TARGET 00006197 FACTORY CARD OUTLET #284 PARTY AMERICA 1008 MINUTEMAN PRESS S & T OFFICE PRODUCTS S & T OFFICE PRODUCTS S & T OFFICE PRODUCTS S & T OFFICE PRODUCTS S & T OFFICE PRODUCTS S & T OFFICE PRODUCTS GOPHER SPORT SUPERIOR PROD CAT CO S & T OFFICE PRODUCTS S & T OFFICE PRODUCTS S & T OFFICE PRODUCTS S & T OFFICE PRODUCTS S & T OFFICE PRODUCTS S & T OFFICE PRODUCTS KMART 00030346 Settlement Amt Cardholder Name 25.37 STEVE LUKIN 1,324.50 MARK MARUSKA 296.72 MARK MARUSKA 613.00 MARK MARUSKA 35.34 JON A MELANDER 3.18 JON A MELANDER 31.44 JON A MELANDER 37.46 ED NADEAU 26.73 JEAN NELSON 89.68 AMY NIVEN 255.77 ERICK OSWALD 15.38 ERICK OSWALD 362.95 ERICK OSWALD 161.41 DENNIS PECK 13.66 KATHLEEN PECK HALL 21.03 KATHLEEN PECK HALL -13.66 KATHLEEN PECK HALL 18.83 KATHLEEN PECK HALL 42.89 ROBERT PETERSON 6.74 ROBERT PETERSON 16.37 PHILIP F POWELL 55.65 PHILIP F POWELL 526.50 WILLIAM J PRIEFER 34.77 STEVEN PRIEM 88.82 STEVEN PRIEM 66.00 STEVEN PRIEM 17.79 STEVEN PRIEM 101.18 STEVEN PRIEM 83.52 STEVEN PRIEM 95.34 STEVEN PRIEM 97.17 STEVEN PRIEM 8.54 STEVEN PRIEM 420.99 KEVIN RABBETT 29.50 KEVIN RABBETT 863.25 TERRIE RAMEAUX 180.88 MICHAEL REILLY 20.92 AUDRA ROBBINS 32.88 AUDRA ROBBINS 21.79 AUDRA ROBBINS 477.68 DEB SCHMIDT 117.06 DEB SCHMIDT 99.36 DEB SCHMIDT 49.52 DEB SCHMIDT 5.44 DEB SCHMIDT -24.67 DEB SCHMIDT -117.06 DEB SCHMIDT 258.68 RUSSELL L SCHMIDT 156.50 RUSSELL L SCHMIDT 157.64 ANDREA SINDT 6.22 ANDREA SINDT -22.60 ANDREA SINDT 58.88 JOANNE M SVENDSEN 351.28 JOANNE M SVENDSEN 137.96 JOANNE M SVENDSEN 35.74 RUSTIN SVENDSEN 21 Post Date Vendor Name 05/24/2004 05/24/2004 05/24/2004 05/24/2004 05/24/2004 05/24/2004 05/24/2004 05/24/2004 05/25/2004 05/28/2004 05/24/2004 05/28/2004 05/25/2004 05/24/2004 DALCO ENTERPRISES, INC DALCO ENTERPRISES, INC DALCO ENTERPRISES, INC DALCO ENTERPRISES, INC NSC NORTHERN SAFETY CO SEARS ROEBUCK 1122 OFFICE MAX 00002204 OFFICE MAX 00002204 ALL MAIN STREET ELECTRIC NORTHERN TOOL EQUIPMNT QWESTCOMM TN651 HEJNY RENTALS INC CIRCUIT CITY SS #3134 PIONEER PRESS SUBSCRIPTI Settlement Amt Cardholder Name 72.40 LYLE SWANSON 184.07 LYLE SWANSON 170.19 LYLE SWANSON 795.76 LYLE SWANSON 82.40 LYLE SWANSON 75.56 LYLE SWANSON 46.68 LYLE SWANSON -10.65 LYLE SWANSON 336.00 LYLE SWANSON 30.63 LYLE SWANSON 337.63 JUDY TETZLAFF 144.37 TODD TEVLIN 47.91 DAVID J THOMALLA 8.30 SUSAN ZWIEG 18,640.32 22 CITY OF MAPLEWOOD EMPLOYEE GROSS EARNINGS REPORT FOR THE CURRENT PAY PERIOD CHECK # CHECK DATE EMPLOYEE NAME AMOUNT dd 05/21/04 CARDINAL, ROBERT 406.78 dd 05/21/04 JUENEMANN, KATHLEEN 358.00 dd 05/21/04 KOPPEN, MARVIN 358.00 dd 05/21/04 ROSSBACH, WILLIAM 358.00 dd 05/21/04 COLEMAN, MELINDA 3,792.87 dd 05/21/04 DARST, ROBERTA 1,499.68 dd 05/21/04 FURSMAN, RICHARD 4,629.25 dd 05/21/04 SWANSON, LYLE 1,731.93 dd 05/21/04 LE, SHERYL 3,699.76 dd 05/21/04 RAMEAUX, THERESE 2,197.61 dd 05/21/04 FAUST, DANIEL 3,857.97 dd 05/21/04 SCHMIDT, DEBORAH 1,348.44 dd 05/21/04 ANDERSON, CAROLE 935.52 dd 05/21/04 BAUMAN, GAYLE 3,072.70 dd 05/21/04 JACKSON, MARY 1,766.84 dd 05/21/04 KELSEY, CONNIE 716.32 dd 05/21/04 TETZLAFF, JUDY 1,766.84 dd 05/21/04 FRY, PATRICIA 1,647.64 dd 05/21/04 GUILFOILE, KAREN 2,701.07 dd 05/21/04 OSTER, ANDREA 1,713.07 dd 05/21/04 CARLE, JEANETTE 1,641.93 dd 05/21/04 FIGG, SHERRIE 1,141.51 dd 05/21/04 JAGOE, CAROL 1,649.14 dd 05/21/04 JOHNSON, BONNIE 1,014.10 dd 05/21/04 OLSON, SANDRA 393.18 dd 05/21/04 SCHACHT, BARBARA 1,056.99 dd 05/21/04 WEAVER, KRISTINE 1,753.86 dd 05/21/04 BANICK, JOHN 3,445.97 dd 05/21/04 CORCORAN, THERESA 1,664.68 dd 05/21/04 POWELL, PHILIP 2,156.41 dd 05/21/04 SPANGLER, EDNA 401.50 dd 05/21/04 THOMALLA, DAVID 3,817.59 dd 05/21/04 ABEL, GLINT 2,065.95 dd 05/21/04 ALDRIDGE, MARK 2,392.21 dd 05/21/04 ANDREWS, SCOTT 3,211.06 dd 05/21/04 BAKKE, LONN 2,382.97 dd 05/21/04 BELDE, STANLEY 2,519.43 dd 05/21/04 BIERDEMAN, BRIAN 1,768.60 dd 05/21/04 BOHL, JOHN 2,723.80 dd 05/21/04 BUSACK, DANIEL 2,181.10 dd 05/21/04 COFFEY, KEVIN 1,760.52 dd 05/21/04 GROTTY, KERRY 2,415.17 dd 05/21/04 DOBLAR, RICHARD 2,609.38 dd 05/21/04 FRASER, JOHN 2,264.08 dd 05/21/04 HEINZ, STEPHEN 2,481.66 dd 05/21/04 HIEBERT, STEVEN 2,636.04 dd 05/21/04 JOHNSON, KEVIN 3,313.74 dd 05/21/04 KARIS, FLINT 2,773.75 dd 05/21/04 KONG, TOMMY 2,189.55 23 CHECK # CHECK DATE EMPLOYEE NAME AMOUNT dd 05/21/04 KROLL, BRETT 1,911.42 dd 05/21/04 KVAM, DAVID 2,917.78 dd 05/21/04 CARSON, DANIEL 2,513.98 dd 05/21/04 LU, JOHNNIE 2,118.86 dd 05/21/04 MARINO, JASON 1,984.14 dd 05/21/04 MARTIN, JERROLD 2,246.78 dd 05/21/04 MCCARTY, GLEN 1,767.81 dd 05/21/04 METRY, ALESIA 2,011.41 dd 05/21/04 OLSON, JULIE 2,305.93 dd 05/21/04 PALMA, STEVEN 2,518.79 dd 05/21/04 PIKE, GARY 2,201.91 dd 05/21/04 RABBETT, KEVIN 3,124.61 dd 05/21/04 STEFFEN, SCOTT 3,164.33 dd 05/21/04 SZCZEPANSKI, THOMAS 2,338.58 dd 05/21/04 THIENES, PAUL 2,388.54 dd 05/21/04 TRAN, JOSEPH 1,920.51 dd 05/21/04 WENZEL, JAY 2,181.10 dd 05/21/04 WINGATE, DAVID 1,571.62 dd 05/21/04 XIONG, KAO 1,911.42 dd 05/21/04 BARTZ, PAUL 2,615.11 dd 05/21/04 BERGERON, JOSEPH 2,923.70 dd 05/21/04 DUGAS, MICHAEL 2,245.36 dd 05/21/04 DUNN, ALICE 2,814.56 dd 05/21/04 ERICKSON, VIRGINIA 2,453.26 dd 05/21/04 EVERSON, PAUL 2,465.73 dd 05/21/04 FLOR, TIMOTHY 2,985.58 dd 05/21/04 HALWEG, JODI 1,696.93 dd 05/21/04 KATZMAN, BARBARA 1,838.15 dd 05/21/04 L'ALLIER, DANIEL 1,245.00 dd 05/21/04 LANGNER, SCOTT 1,660.10 dd 05/21/04 PARSONS, KURT 1,969.61 dd 05/21/04 DAWSON, RICHARD 1,921.39 dd 05/21/04 DUELLMAN, KIRK 1,790.44 dd 05/21/04 JOHNSON, DOUGLAS 1,869.01 dd 05/21/04 NOVAK, JEROME 1,875.56 dd 05/21/04 PETERSON, ROBERT 1,922.14 dd 05/21/04 SVENDSEN, RONALD 1,949.49 dd 05/21/04 GERVAIS-JR, CLARENCE 2,575.00 dd 05/21/04 FEHR, JOSEPH 2,800.84 dd 05/21/04 FLAUGHER, JAYME 1,808.44 dd 05/21/04 HERMANSON, CHAD 697.00 dd 05/21/04 JACKSON, LINDA 1,512.44 dd 05/21/04 LAFFERTY, WALTER 2,139.24 dd 05/21/04 LINK, BRYAN 2,018.94 dd 05/21/04 PACOLT, MARSHA 2,142.40 dd 05/21/04 RABINE, JANET 2,139.24 dd 05/21/04 STAHNKE, JULIE 2,139.24 dd 05/21/04 LUKIN, STEVEN 3,353.68 dd 05/21/04 SVENDSEN, RUSTIN 2,678.00 dd 05/21/04 ZWIEG, SUSAN 1,710.84 dd 05/21/04 DOLLERSCHELL, ROBERT 266.30 dd 05/21/04 AHL, R. CHARLES 4,045.84 dd 05/21/04 NIVEN, AMY 1,141.54 dd 05/21/04 PRIEFER, WILLIAM 2,462.94 dd 05/21/04 WEGWERTH, JUDITH 1,840.30 24 CHECK # CHECK DATE EMPLOYEE NAME AMOUNT dd 05/21/04 BRINK, TROY 1,549.84 dd 05/21/04 DEBILZAN, THOMAS 1,751.64 dd 05/21/04 EDGE, DOUGLAS 1,811.05 dd 05/21/04 JONES, DONALD 1,806.04 dd 05/21/04 KANE, MICHAEL 2,722.50 dd 05/21/04 LUTZ, DAVID 1,790.49 dd 05/21/04 MEYER, GERALD 1,857.33 dd 05/21/04 NAGEL, BRYAN 1,961.87 dd 05/21/04 OSWALD, ERICK 2,070.72 dd 05/21/04 TEVLIN, TODD 1,645.44 dd 05/21/04 CAVETT, CHRISTOPHER 3,056.22 dd 05/21/04 DUCHARME, JOHN 2,230.85 dd 05/21/04 ENGSTROM, ANDREW 1,453.24 dd 05/21/04 JACOBSON, SCOTT 1,572.13 dd 05/21/04 LINDBLOM, RANDAL 2,233.08 dd 05/21/04 MURRA, AARON 117.50 dd 05/21/04 PECK, DENNIS 2,513.74 dd 05/21/04 PRIEBE, WILLIAM 2,446.57 dd 05/21/04 SCHACHT, ERIN 2,166.04 dd 05/21/04 VERMEERSCH, CHARLES 2,065.24 dd 05/21/04 ANDERSON, BRUCE 3,764.03 dd 05/21/04 CAREY, HEIDI 1,896.44 dd 05/21/04 HALL, KATHLEEN 1,715.30 dd 05/21/04 MARUSKA, MARK 2,513.20 dd 05/21/04 NAUGHTON, JOHN 1,622.04 dd 05/21/04 SCHINDELDECKER, JAMES 1,788.27 dd 05/21/04 BIESANZ, OAKLEY 1,329.00 dd 05/21/04 HAYMAN, JANET 872.45 dd 05/21/04 HUTCHINSON, ANN 2,092.14 dd 05/21/04 KOS, HEATHER 493.56 dd 05/21/04 NELSON, JEAN 1,038.22 dd 05/21/04 SEEGER, GERALD 533.42 dd 05/21/04 GAYNOR, VIRGINIA 2,005.87 dd 05/21/04 MULHOLLAND, NANCY 504.00 dd 05/21/04 EKSTRAND, THOMAS 2,740.62 dd 05/21/04 KROLL, LISA 1,084.25 dd 05/21/04 LIVINGSTON, JOYCE 950.56 dd 05/21/04 SINDT, ANDREA 1,554.04 dd 05/21/04 THOMPSON, DEBRA 632.83 dd 05/21/04 YOUNG, TAMELA 1,370.84 dd 05/21/04 FINWALL, SHANN 2,126.04 dd 05/21/04 ROBERTS, KENNETH 2,570.44 dd 05/21/04 CARVER, NICHOLAS 2,561.82 dd 05/21/04 FISHER, DAVID 3,022.43 dd 05/21/04 MENNENGA, JOHN 1,040.00 dd 05/21/04 RICE, MICHAEL 1,456.44 dd 05/21/04 SWAN, DAVID 1,810.04 dd 05/21/04 KONEWKO, DUWAYNE 2,548.44 dd 05/21/04 ANZALDI, MANDY 637.00 dd 05/21/04 BJORK, ALICIA 25.38 dd 05/21/04 BJORK, BRANDON 302.50 dd 05/21/04 FINN, GREGORY 2,011.89 dd 05/21/04 GRAF, MICHAEL 1,728.26 dd 05/21/04 HADDAD, JULIE 272.25 dd 05/21/04 KELLY, LISA 1,224.97 25 CHECK # CHECK DATE EMPLOYEE NAME AMOUNT dd 05/21/04 OHLHAUSER, MEGHAN 222.00 dd 05/21/04 ROBBINS, AUDRA 1,872.13 dd 05/21/04 SHERRILL, CAITLIN 195.75 dd 05/21/04 TAUBMAN, DOUGLAS 2,639.27 dd 05/21/04 BREHEIM, ROGER 1,790.49 dd 05/21/04 NORDQUIST, RICHARD 1,875.19 dd 05/21/04 SCHULTZ, SCOTT 2,003.19 dd 05/21/04 CROSSON, LINDA 2,338.51 dd 05/21/04 FONTAINE, ANTHONY 713.73 dd 05/21/04 MOY, PAMELA 394.67 dd 05/21/04 PELOQUIN, PENNYE 483.60 dd 05/21/04 SCHMIDT, RUSSELL 1,778.19 dd 05/21/04 STAPLES, PAULINE 2,720.85 dd 05/21/04 ABRAHAMSON, DANIEL 94.50 dd 05/21/04 ABRAHAMSON, REBECCA 145.91 dd 05/21/04 BENDTSEN, LISA 80.33 dd 05/21/04 BRENEMAN, NEIL 395.17 dd 05/21/04 EDSON, JAMIE 278.63 dd 05/21/04 ERICKSON, CAROL 46.50 dd 05/21/04 GREDVIG, ANDERS 79.20 dd 05/21/04 GUZIK, JENNIFER 154.20 dd 05/21/04 HALEY, BROOKE 149.40 dd 05/21/04 HORWATH, RONALD 1,783.14 dd 05/21/04 IRISH, GRACE 168.00 dd 05/21/04 IRISH, KARL 271.13 dd 05/21/04 JONES, LACEY 58.50 dd 05/21/04 KOEHNEN, AMY 64.05 dd 05/21/04 KOEHNEN, MARY 812.65 dd 05/21/04 KRONHOLM, KATHRYN 341.00 dd 05/21/04 LINDSTROM, AMANDA 171.25 dd 05/21/04 MARTINEZ, AMY 38.00 dd 05/21/04 MARUSKA, ERICA 51.50 dd 05/21/04 OVERBY, ANNA 74.60 dd 05/21/04 SCHULTZ, PETER 44.53 dd 05/21/04 SHAW, KRISTINA 157.25 dd 05/21/04 SMITH, ANN 36.00 dd 05/21/04 TUPY, HEIDE 101.85 dd 05/21/04 TUPY, MARCUS 358.43 dd 05/21/04 GROPPOLI, LINDA 335.25 dd 05/21/04 KURKOSKI, STEPHANIE 206.50 dd 05/21/04 BEHAN, JAMES 1,668.77 dd 05/21/04 CRAWFORD - JR, RAYMOND 294.20 dd 05/21/04 LONETTI, JAMES 1,013.77 dd 05/21/04 MILES, LAURA 99.75 dd 05/21/04 PATTERSON, ALBERT 1,044.14 dd 05/21/04 PRINS, KELLY 959.43 dd 05/21/04 REILLY, MICHAEL 1,560.02 dd 05/21/04 STEINHORST, JEFFREY 113.93 dd 05/21/04 AICHELE, CRAIG 1,794.84 dd 05/21/04 PRIEM, STEVEN 2,008.44 dd 05/21/04 BERGO, CHAD 2,071.54 dd 05/21/04 FOWLDS, MYCHAL 1,850.70 dd 05/21/04 HURLEY, STEPHEN 2,991.94 dd 05/21/04 ARNOLD, DAVID 0.00 dd 05/21/04 BECKER, RONALD 0.00 26 CHECK # CHECK DATE EMPLOYEE NAME AMOUNT dd 05/21/04 BURKE, MYLES 0.00 dd 05/21/04 CAHANES, ANTHONY 0.00 dd 05/21/04 CLAUSON, DALE 0.00 dd 05/21/04 DREGER, RICHARD 0.00 dd 05/21/04 EASTMAN, THOMAS 0.00 dd 05/21/04 ELIAS, JAMES 0.00 dd 05/21/04 EMBERTSON, JAMES 0.00 dd 05/21/04 HALWEG, KEVIN 0.00 dd 05/21/04 MARTINSON, CAROL 0.00 dd 05/21/04 MEEHAN, JAMES 0.00 dd 05/21/04 MELANDER, JON 0.00 dd 05/21/04 MOESCHTER, RICHARD 0.00 dd 05/21/04 MORELLI, RAYMOND 0.00 dd 05/21/04 NELSON, CAROL 0.00 dd 05/21/04 OSTROM, MARJORIE 0.00 dd 05/21/04 ROSSMAN, DAVID 0.00 dd 05/21/04 RYAN, MICHAEL 0.00 dd 05/21/04 SKALMAN, DON 0.00 dd 05/21/04 STAFNE, GREG 0.00 dd 05/21/04 STOCKTON, DERRELL 0.00 dd 05/21/04 URBANSKI, HOLLY 0.00 dd 05/21/04 VIETOR, LORRAINE 0.00 dd 05/21/04 VORWERK, ROBERT 0.00 dd 05/21/04 WINGER, DONALD 0.00 wf 97434 05/21/04 MONAHAN-JUNEK, JACQUELINE 358.00 wf 97435 05/21/04 INGVOLDSTAD, CURTIS 125.00 wf 97436 05/21/04 JAHN, DAVID 1,637.24 wf 97437 05/21/04 MALDONADO, JUANA 694.78 wf 97438 05/21/04 MORIN, TROY 233.75 wf 97439 05/21/04 MATHEYS, ALANA 1,847.41 wf 97440 05/21/04 GENNOW, PAMELA 65.00 wf 97441 05/21/04 HANSEN, LORI 1,399.55 wf 97442 05/21/04 PALANK, MARY 1,582.04 wf 97443 05/21/04 RICHIE, CAROLE 1,759.47 wf 97444 05/21/04 SVENDSEN, JOANNE 1,781.95 wf 97445 05/21/04 SHORTREED, MICHAEL 3,589.93 wf 97446 05/21/04 STEINER, JOSEPH 558.00 wf 97447 05/21/04 WELCHLIN, CABOT 2,327.57 wf 97448 05/21/04 HASKINS, KEVIN 42.03 wf 97449 05/21/04 PLANK, DANIEL 196.14 wf 97450 05/21/04 SEDLACEK, JEFFREY 96.00 wf 97451 05/21/04 FREBERG, RONALD 1,822.31 wf 97452 05/21/04 EDSON, DAVID 1,820.09 wf 97453 05/21/04 HELEY, ROLAND 1,822.31 wf 97454 05/21/04 HINNENKAMP, GARY 1,795.77 wf 97455 05/21/04 LINDORFF, DENNIS 1,790.49 wf 97456 05/21/04 NOVAK, MICHAEL 1,669.24 wf 97457 05/21/04 BERGREN, KIRSTEN 73.13 wf 97458 05/21/04 GERNES, CAROLE 386.00 wf 97459 05/21/04 SOUTTER, CHRISTINE 319.69 wf 97460 05/21/04 ANZALDI, KALI 448.25 wf 97461 05/21/04 FREYBERGER, RACHEL 144.00 wf 97462 05/21/04 GEBHARD, MADELINE 204.75 wf 97463 05/21/04 GOODRICH, CHAD 571.88 wf 97464 05/21/04 GRAF, ASHLEY 25.00 27 CHECK # CHECK DATE EMPLOYEE NAME AMOUNT wf 97465 05/21/04 HJELMGREN, NICOLE 64.13 wf 97466 05/21/04 NIELSEN, ABBY 130.69 wf 97467 05/21/04 ROME, JESSICA 27.50 wf 97468 05/21/04 SHOBERG, KARI 109.31 wf 97469 05/21/04 WERNER, KATIE 48.88 wf 97470 05/21/04 GERMAIN, DAVID 1,794.94 wf 97471 05/21/04 HAAG, MARK 1,670.33 wf 97472 05/21/04 NADEAU, EDWARD 2,722.50 wf 97473 05/21/04 DISKERUD, HEATHER 185.25 wf 97474 05/21/04 GLASS, JEAN 1,677.66 wf 97475 05/21/04 TOLBERT, FRANCINE 176.00 wf 97476 05/21/04 LINGER, MARGARET 534.12 wf 97477 05/21/04 WEISMANN, JENNIFER 397.80 wf 97478 05/21/04 ANDERSON, CALEB 244.89 wf 97479 05/21/04 BOTHWELL, KRISTIN 156.08 wf 97480 05/21/04 BRIN, LAUREN 22.75 wf 97481 05/21/04 DEMPSEY, BETH 67.20 wf 97482 05/21/04 DUNN, RYAN 291.18 wf 97483 05/21/04 ESTRADA, KIEL 350.00 wf 97484 05/21/04 FENGER, JUSTIN 28.18 wf 97485 05/21/04 FONTAINE, KIM 596.26 wf 97486 05/21/04 GRANT, MELISSA 133.05 wf 97487 05/21/04 GRUENHAGEN, LINDA 461.00 wf 97488 05/21/04 HOULE, DENISE 22.30 wf 97489 05/21/04 JOHNSON, ROBERT 277.45 wf 97490 05/21/04 JOYER, MARTI 42.75 wf 97491 05/21/04 MCMAHON, MELISSA 449.52 wf 97492 05/21/04 OLSON, MARGRET 117.60 wf 97493 05/21/04 PEHOSKI, JOEL 65.60 wf 97494 05/21/04 PROESCH, ANDY 175.25 wf 97495 05/21/04 RENSTROM, KEVIN 124.60 wf 97496 05/21/04 RODEN, JASON 31.45 wf 97497 05/21/04 SCHOENECKER, SAMANTHA 58.50 wf 97498 05/21/04 SMITLEY, SHARON 253.00 wf 97499 05/21/04 WARNER, CAROLYN 138.00 wf 97500 05/21/04 WEDES, CARYL 112.25 wf 97501 05/21/04 WELTER, ELIZABETH 217.00 wf 97502 05/21/04 WHITE, NICOLE 39.40 wf 97503 05/21/04 WOODMAN, ALICE 82.80 wf 97504 05/21/04 BOSLEY, CAROL 265.20 wf 97505 05/21/04 HAGSTROM, EMILY 12.00 wf 97506 05/21/04 HANSEN, ANNA 40.38 wf 97507 05/21/04 KELLY, MICHAEL 220.50 wf 97508 05/21/04 ODDEN, JESSICA 65.00 wf 97509 05/21/04 OIE, REBECCA 55.25 wf 97510 05/21/04 QUINN, KELLY 24.00 wf 97511 05/21/04 SATTLER, MELINDA 21.00 wf 97512 05/21/04 SCHUELLER, JAY 399.00 wf 97513 05/21/04 VAN HALE, PAULA 129.50 wf 97514 05/21/04 COLLINS, ASHLEY 88.80 wf 97515 05/21/04 DOUGLASS, TOM 1,130.71 wf 97516 05/21/04 HER, CHONG 264.80 wf 97517 05/21/04 NAGEL, BROOKE 19.95 wf 97518 05/21/04 NEWCOMB, GENNA 155.58 wf 97519 05/21/04 O'GRADY, ZACHARY 79.80 28 CHECK # CHECK DATE EMPLOYEE NAME AMOUNT wf 97520 05/21/04 RHODE, ERIC 105.80 wf 97521 05/21/04 RYDEEN, ARIEL 104.78 wf 97522 05/21/04 SCHULZE, BRIAN 445.50 wf 97523 05/21/04 VANG, CIA 95.25 wf 97524 05/21/04 VERDELL, TRAQUEZ 182.88 wf 97525 05/21/04 WILLIAMS, NICK 44.45 wf 97526 05/21/04 ZIEMER, NICOLE 263.55 wf 97527 05/21/04 MULVANEY, DENNIS 1,979.61 29 CITY OF MAPLEWOOD EMPLOYEE GROSS EARNINGS REPORT FOR THE CURRENT PAY PERIOD CHECK # CHECK DATE EMPLOYEE NAME AMOUNT dd 06/04/04 CARDINAL, ROBERT 406.78 dd 06/04/04 JUENEMANN, KATHLEEN 358.00 dd 06/04/04 KOPPEN, MARVIN 358.00 dd 06/04/04 MONAHAN-JUNEK, JACQUELINE 358.00 dd 06/04/04 ROSSBACH, WILLIAM 358.00 dd 06/04/04 COLEMAN, MELINDA 3,967.87 dd 06/04/04 DARST, ROBERTA 1,499.68 dd 06/04/04 FURSMAN, RICHARD 4,629.25 dd 06/04/04 SWANSON, LYLE 1,702.57 dd 06/04/04 LE, SHERYL 3,824.76 dd 06/04/04 RAMEAUX, THERESE 2,197.61 dd 06/04/04 FAUST, DANIEL 3,982.97 dd 06/04/04 SCHMIDT, DEBORAH 1,348.44 dd 06/04/04 ANDERSON, CAROLE 898.83 dd 06/04/04 BAUMAN, GAYLE 3,072.71 dd 06/04/04 JACKSON, MARY 1,766.84 dd 06/04/04 KELSEY, CONNIE 744.34 dd 06/04/04 TETZLAFF, JUDY 1,766.85 dd 06/04/04 FRY, PATRICIA 1,662.08 dd 06/04/04 GUILFOILE, KAREN 2,826.07 dd 06/04/04 OSTER, ANDREA 1,713.07 dd 06/04/04 CARLE, JEANETTE 1,641.93 dd 06/04/04 FIGG, SHERRIE 1,128.35 dd 06/04/04 JAGOE, CAROL 1,613.10 dd 06/04/04 JOHNSON, BONNIE 978.06 dd 06/04/04 OLSON, SANDRA 393.18 dd 06/04/04 SCHACHT, BARBARA 964.21 dd 06/04/04 WEAVER, KRISTINE 1,677.66 dd 06/04/04 BANICK, JOHN 3,445.97 dd 06/04/04 CORCORAN, THERESA 1,551.64 dd 06/04/04 POWELL, PHILIP 2,156.41 dd 06/04/04 SPANGLER, EDNA 357.50 dd 06/04/04 THOMALLA, DAVID 3,817.59 dd 06/04/04 ABEL, GLINT 2,293.20 dd 06/04/04 ALDRIDGE, MARK 2,508.82 dd 06/04/04 ANDREWS, SCOTT 2,855.28 dd 06/04/04 BAKKE, LONN 2,492.02 dd 06/04/04 BELDE, STANLEY 2,519.43 dd 06/04/04 BIERDEMAN, BRIAN 1,784.76 dd 06/04/04 BOHL, JOHN 2,789.84 dd 06/04/04 BUSACK, DANIEL 2,181.10 dd 06/04/04 COFFEY, KEVIN 2,083.62 dd 06/04/04 GROTTY, KERRY 2,326.31 dd 06/04/04 DOBLAR, RICHARD 2,516.71 dd 06/04/04 HEINZ, STEPHEN 2,426.63 dd 06/04/04 HIEBERT, STEVEN 2,625.44 dd 06/04/04 JOHNSON, KEVIN 3,796.29 dd 06/04/04 KARIS, FLINT 2,735.74 dd 06/04/04 KONG, TOMMY 2,227.00 30 CHECK # CHECK DATE EMPLOYEE NAME AMOUNT dd 06/04/04 KROLL, BRETT 1,911.42 dd 06/04/04 KVAM, DAVID 2,917.78 dd 06/04/04 CARSON, DANIEL 2,181.10 dd 06/04/04 LU, JOHNNIE 2,425.32 dd 06/04/04 MARINO, JASON 2,138.67 dd 06/04/04 MARTIN, JERROLD 2,221.33 dd 06/04/04 MCCARTY, GLEN 1,792.15 dd 06/04/04 METRY, ALESIA 1,984.14 dd 06/04/04 OLSON, JULIE 2,208.84 dd 06/04/04 PALMA, STEVEN 2,471.52 dd 06/04/04 PIKE, GARY 2,264.32 dd 06/04/04 RABBETT, KEVIN 3,124.61 dd 06/04/04 STEFFEN, SCOTT 2,828.35 dd 06/04/04 SZCZEPANSKI, THOMAS 2,305.56 dd 06/04/04 THIENES, PAUL 2,388.54 dd 06/04/04 TRAN, JOSEPH 2,047.77 dd 06/04/04 WENZEL, JAY 2,274.72 dd 06/04/04 WINGATE, DAVID 2,632.25 dd 06/04/04 XIONG, KAO 1,911.42 dd 06/04/04 BARTZ, PAUL 2,737.29 dd 06/04/04 BERGERON, JOSEPH 3,293.16 dd 06/04/04 DUGAS, MICHAEL 2,552.32 dd 06/04/04 DUNN, ALICE 2,673.82 dd 06/04/04 ERICKSON, VIRGINIA 2,430.03 dd 06/04/04 EVERSON, PAUL 2,202.92 dd 06/04/04 FLOR, TIMOTHY 3,195.09 dd 06/04/04 FRASER, JOHN 2,644.21 dd 06/04/04 HALWEG, JODI 1,696.93 dd 06/04/04 KATZMAN, BARBARA 1,786.13 dd 06/04/04 L'ALLIER, DANIEL 1,323.75 dd 06/04/04 LANGNER, SCOTT 914.02 dd 06/04/04 PARSONS, KURT 1,881.12 dd 06/04/04 DAWSON, RICHARD 1,829.73 dd 06/04/04 DUELLMAN, KIRK 1,796.99 dd 06/04/04 JOHNSON, DOUGLAS 1,803.54 dd 06/04/04 NOVAK, JEROME 1,796.99 dd 06/04/04 PETERSON, ROBERT 1,874.28 dd 06/04/04 SVENDSEN, RONALD 1,894.79 dd 06/04/04 GERVAIS-JR, CLARENCE 2,575.00 dd 06/04/04 FEHR, JOSEPH 2,800.84 dd 06/04/04 FLAUGHER, JAYME 1,874.60 dd 06/04/04 HERMANSON, CHAD 357.00 dd 06/04/04 JACKSON, LINDA 1,705.15 dd 06/04/04 LAFFERTY, WALTER 2,420.42 dd 06/04/04 LINK, BRYAN 1,705.44 dd 06/04/04 PACOLT, MARSHA 2,142.40 dd 06/04/04 RABINE, JANET 2,139.24 dd 06/04/04 STAHNKE, JULIE 2,470.04 dd 06/04/04 LUKIN, STEVEN 3,353.68 dd 06/04/04 SVENDSEN, RUSTIN 2,678.00 dd 06/04/04 ZWIEG, SUSAN 1,773.34 dd 06/04/04 DOLLERSCHELL, ROBERT 266.30 dd 06/04/04 AHL, R. CHARLES 4,220.84 dd 06/04/04 NIVEN, AMY 1,141.53 dd 06/04/04 PRIEFER, WILLIAM 2,462.94 31 CHECK # CHECK DATE EMPLOYEE NAME AMOUNT dd 06/04/04 WEGWERTH, JUDITH 1,715.29 dd 06/04/04 BRINK, TROY 1,556.84 dd 06/04/04 DEBILZAN, THOMAS 1,879.68 dd 06/04/04 EDGE, DOUGLAS 1,851.36 dd 06/04/04 JONES, DONALD 1,801.04 dd 06/04/04 KANE, MICHAEL 2,722.50 dd 06/04/04 LUTZ, DAVID 1,792.49 dd 06/04/04 MEYER, GERALD 1,857.33 dd 06/04/04 NAGEL, BRYAN 1,961.87 dd 06/04/04 OSWALD, ERICK 2,033.69 dd 06/04/04 TEVLIN, TODD 1,546.84 dd 06/04/04 CAVETT, CHRISTOPHER 3,056.22 dd 06/04/04 DUCHARME, JOHN 2,230.84 dd 06/04/04 ENGSTROM, ANDREW 1,691.02 dd 06/04/04 JACOBSON, SCOTT 1,611.76 dd 06/04/04 LINDBLOM, RANDAL 2,499.57 dd 06/04/04 MURRA, AARON 721.08 dd 06/04/04 PECK, DENNIS 2,283.73 dd 06/04/04 PRIEBE, WILLIAM 3,087.81 dd 06/04/04 SCHACHT, ERIN 2,166.04 dd 06/04/04 VERMEERSCH, CHARLES 2,065.24 dd 06/04/04 ANDERSON, BRUCE 3,939.03 dd 06/04/04 CAREY, HEIDI 1,896.44 dd 06/04/04 HALL, KATHLEEN 1,715.29 dd 06/04/04 GERVAIS, DAVID 980.00 dd 06/04/04 MARUSKA, MARK 2,513.20 dd 06/04/04 NAUGHTON, JOHN 1,622.04 dd 06/04/04 SCHINDELDECKER, JAMES 1,788.27 dd 06/04/04 BIESANZ, OAKLEY 1,329.00 dd 06/04/04 HAYMAN, JANET 1,270.59 dd 06/04/04 HUTCHINSON, ANN 2,092.14 dd 06/04/04 KOS, HEATHER 318.00 dd 06/04/04 NELSON, JEAN 999.78 dd 06/04/04 SEEGER, GERALD 517.52 dd 06/04/04 GAYNOR, VIRGINIA 1,918.04 dd 06/04/04 MULHOLLAND, NANCY 168.00 dd 06/04/04 EKSTRAND, THOMAS 2,740.62 dd 06/04/04 KROLL, LISA 1,096.68 dd 06/04/04 LIVINGSTON, JOYCE 950.56 dd 06/04/04 SINDT, ANDREA 1,554.05 dd 06/04/04 THOMPSON, DEBRA 632.82 dd 06/04/04 YOUNG, TAMELA 1,370.84 dd 06/04/04 FINWALL, SHANN 2,126.04 dd 06/04/04 ROBERTS, KENNETH 2,721.22 dd 06/04/04 CARVER, NICHOLAS 2,561.82 dd 06/04/04 FISHER, DAVID 3,022.43 dd 06/04/04 MENNENGA, JOHN 1,040.00 dd 06/04/04 RICE, MICHAEL 1,456.44 dd 06/04/04 SWAN, DAVID 1,810.04 dd 06/04/04 KONEWKO, DUWAYNE 2,548.44 dd 06/04/04 ANZALDI, MANDY 763.00 dd 06/04/04 BJORK, ALICIA 88.81 dd 06/04/04 BJORK, BRANDON 207.50 dd 06/04/04 FINN, GREGORY 2,011.89 dd 06/04/04 GRAF, MICHAEL 1,728.26 32 CHECK # CHECK DATE EMPLOYEE NAME AMOUNT dd 06/04/04 HADDAD, JULIE 234.00 dd 06/04/04 KELLY, LISA 782.91 dd 06/04/04 OHLHAUSER, MEGHAN 200.00 dd 06/04/04 ROBBINS, AUDRA 1,872.13 dd 06/04/04 SHERRILL, CAITLIN 189.00 dd 06/04/04 TAUBMAN, DOUGLAS 2,639.27 dd 06/04/04 BREHEIM, ROGER 1,790.49 dd 06/04/04 NORDQUIST, RICHARD 1,786.04 dd 06/04/04 SCHULTZ, SCOTT 2,024.96 dd 06/04/04 CROSSON, LINDA 2,338.51 dd 06/04/04 FONTAINE, ANTHONY 742.08 dd 06/04/04 MOY, PAMELA 397.90 dd 06/04/04 PELOQUIN, PENNYE 519.95 dd 06/04/04 SCHMIDT, RUSSELL 1,778.19 dd 06/04/04 STAPLES, PAULINE 2,720.85 dd 06/04/04 ABRAHAMSON, DANIEL 105.00 dd 06/04/04 ABRAHAMSON, REBECCA 67.04 dd 06/04/04 BENDTSEN, LISA 170.10 dd 06/04/04 BRENEMAN, NEIL 339.25 dd 06/04/04 CORNER, AMY 67.20 dd 06/04/04 EDSON, JAMIE 210.94 dd 06/04/04 ERICKSON, CAROL 46.50 dd 06/04/04 GREDVIG, ANDERS 23.10 dd 06/04/04 GUZIK, JENNIFER 58.23 dd 06/04/04 HALEY, BROOKE 37.95 dd 06/04/04 HORWATH, RONALD 1,783.14 dd 06/04/04 IRISH, GRACE 155.13 dd 06/04/04 IRISH, KARL 520.88 dd 06/04/04 JONES, LACEY 58.50 dd 06/04/04 KOEHNEN, AMY 64.05 dd 06/04/04 KOEHNEN, MARY 971.71 dd 06/04/04 KRONHOLM, KATHRYN 585.95 dd 06/04/04 LINDSTROM, AMANDA 119.88 dd 06/04/04 MARTINEZ, AMY 99.75 dd 06/04/04 MARUSKA, ERICA 82.40 dd 06/04/04 OVERBY, ANNA 74.60 dd 06/04/04 SCHAEFER, ROB 112.38 dd 06/04/04 SHAW, KRISTINA 194.25 dd 06/04/04 SMITH, ANN 76.50 dd 06/04/04 TUPY, HEIDE 126.10 dd 06/04/04 TUPY, MARCUS 318.48 dd 06/04/04 GROPPOLI, LINDA 337.50 dd 06/04/04 KURKOSKI, STEPHANIE 113.75 dd 06/04/04 VERNER, JEAN 100.00 dd 06/04/04 BEHAN, JAMES 1,668.76 dd 06/04/04 CRAWFORD - JR, RAYMOND 290.45 dd 06/04/04 LONETTI, JAMES 967.45 dd 06/04/04 MILES, LAURA 73.15 dd 06/04/04 PATTERSON, ALBERT 1,023.72 dd 06/04/04 PRINS, KELLY 915.33 dd 06/04/04 REILLY, MICHAEL 1,505.24 dd 06/04/04 STEINHORST, JEFFREY 56.96 dd 06/04/04 AICHELE, CRAIG 1,797.00 dd 06/04/04 PRIEM, STEVEN 2,008.44 dd 06/04/04 BERGO, CHAD 2,071.54 33 CHECK # CHECK DATE EMPLOYEE NAME AMOUNT dd 06/04/04 FOWLDS, MYCHAL 1,850.70 dd 06/04/04 HURLEY, STEPHEN 2,991.94 wf 97540 06/04/04 INGVOLDSTAD, CURTIS 143.75 wf 97541 06/04/04 KARSTENS, BRAD 50.00 wf 97542 06/04/04 JAHN, DAVID 1,686.42 wf 97543 06/04/04 MALDONADO, JUANA 668.10 wf 97544 06/04/04 MORIN, TROY 238.00 wf 97545 06/04/04 MATHEYS, ALANA 1,847.41 wf 97546 06/04/04 GENNOW, PAMELA 334.75 wf 97547 06/04/04 HANSEN, LORI 1,878.77 wf 97548 06/04/04 PALANK, MARY 1,697.36 wf 97549 06/04/04 RICHIE, CAROLE 1,716.23 wf 97550 06/04/04 SVENDSEN, JOANNE 1,877.41 wf 97551 06/04/04 SHORTREED, MICHAEL 3,047.76 wf 97552 06/04/04 WELCHLIN, CABOT 2,569.71 wf 97553 06/04/04 ESTREM, LYNNETTE 240.00 wf 97554 06/04/04 GERARD, JAMIE 184.00 wf 97555 06/04/04 FREBERG, RONALD 1,822.31 wf 97556 06/04/04 JAROSCH, JONATHAN 1,015.25 wf 97557 06/04/04 EDSON, DAVID 1,820.09 wf 97558 06/04/04 HELEY, ROLAND 1,822.31 wf 97559 06/04/04 HINNENKAMP, GARY 1,797.92 wf 97560 06/04/04 LINDORFF, DENNIS 1,790.50 wf 97561 06/04/04 NAUGHTON, RYAN 276.00 wf 97562 06/04/04 NOVAK, MICHAEL 1,669.24 wf 97563 06/04/04 BERGREN, KIRSTEN 33.75 wf 97564 06/04/04 GERNES, CAROLE 548.50 wf 97565 06/04/04 SOUTTER, CHRISTINE 419.38 wf 97566 06/04/04 ANZALDI, KALI 396.00 wf 97567 06/04/04 FREYBERGER, RACHEL 248.00 wf 97568 06/04/04 GEBHARD, MADELINE 234.00 wf 97569 06/04/04 GOODRICH, CHAD 347.70 wf 97570 06/04/04 GRAF, ASHLEY 30.00 wf 97571 06/04/04 HJELMGREN, NICOLE 54.00 wf 97572 06/04/04 ROME, JESSICA 33.00 wf 97573 06/04/04 SHOBERG, KARI 121.69 wf 97574 06/04/04 WERNER, KATIE 295.38 wf 97574 06/04/04 WERNER, KATIE 85.00 wf 97575 06/04/04 GERMAIN, DAVID 1,794.94 wf 97576 06/04/04 HAAG, MARK 1,669.24 wf 97577 06/04/04 NADEAU, EDWARD 2,722.50 wf 97578 06/04/04 BROWN, LAURIE 32.00 wf 97579 06/04/04 DISKERUD, HEATHER 140.50 wf 97580 06/04/04 GLASS, JEAN 1,677.66 wf 97581 06/04/04 TOLBERT, FRANCINE 565.00 wf 97582 06/04/04 LINGER, MARGARET 486.52 wf 97583 06/04/04 WEISMANN, JENNIFER 267.75 wf 97584 06/04/04 ANDERSON, CALEB 107.25 wf 97585 06/04/04 BACHMAN, NICOLE 22.80 wf 97586 06/04/04 BOTHWELL, KRISTIN 138.69 wf 97587 06/04/04 BRENEMAN, SEAN 445.55 wf 97588 06/04/04 BRIN, LAUREN 66.63 wf 97589 06/04/04 DEMPSEY, BETH 61.60 wf 97590 06/04/04 DUNN, RYAN 287.12 wf 97591 06/04/04 ESTRADA, KIEL 280.00 34 CHECK # CHECK DATE EMPLOYEE NAME AMOUNT wf 97592 06/04/04 FENGER, JUSTIN 52.33 wf 97593 06/04/04 FONTAINE, KIM 663.75 wf 97594 06/04/04 GRANT, MELISSA 52.50 wf 97595 06/04/04 GRUENHAGEN, LINDA 461.50 wf 97596 06/04/04 HOULE, DENISE 66.90 wf 97597 06/04/04 JOHNSON, ROBERT 308.00 wf 97598 06/04/04 JOHNSON, STETSON 21.00 wf 97599 06/04/04 KERSCHNER, JOLENE 543.95 wf 97600 06/04/04 MCMAHON, MELISSA 610.57 wf 97601 06/04/04 MILLS, ANNE 67.05 wf 97602 06/04/04 PEHOSKI, JOEL 238.15 wf 97603 06/04/04 PROESCH, ANDY 272.15 wf 97604 06/04/04 RENSTROM, KEVIN 22.20 wf 97605 06/04/04 SCHOENECKER, SAMANTHA 133.25 wf 97606 06/04/04 SMITLEY, SHARON 230.00 wf 97607 06/04/04 WARNER, CAROLYN 115.00 wf 97608 06/04/04 WEDES, CARYL 112.25 wf 97609 06/04/04 WELTER, ELIZABETH 237.68 wf 97610 06/04/04 WHITE, NICOLE 140.68 wf 97611 06/04/04 WOODMAN, ALICE 82.80 wf 97612 06/04/04 BOSLEY, CAROL 137.70 wf 97613 06/04/04 HAGSTROM, EMILY 97.50 wf 97614 06/04/04 HANSEN, ANNA 153.00 wf 97615 06/04/04 ODDEN, JESSICA 66.63 wf 97616 06/04/04 OIE, REBECCA 27.63 wf 97617 06/04/04 SCHUELLER, JAY 189.00 wf 97618 06/04/04 VAN HALE, PAULA 79.55 wf 97619 06/04/04 COLLINS, ASHLEY 90.65 wf 97620 06/04/04 DOUGLASS, TOM 1,130.71 wf 97621 06/04/04 HER, CHONG 197.50 wf 97622 06/04/04 HORNER, SCOTT 50.80 wf 97623 06/04/04 NAGEL, BROOKE 212.80 wf 97624 06/04/04 NEWCOMB, GENNA 25.40 wf 97625 06/04/04 O'GRADY, ZACHARY 53.20 wf 97626 06/04/04 RHODE, ERIC 136.45 wf 97627 06/04/04 RICHTER, MICHAEL 19.05 wf 97628 06/04/04 RYDEEN, ARIEL 57.15 wf 97629 06/04/04 SCHULZE, BRIAN 540.25 wf 97630 06/04/04 SIMPSON, KIMBERLYN 57.15 wf 97631 06/04/04 THEESFELD, CALEB 25.40 wf 97632 06/04/04 VANG, CIA 101.60 wf 97633 06/04/04 VERDELL, TRAQUEZ 179.55 wf 97634 06/04/04 WAGNER, KEVIN 114.30 wf 97635 06/04/04 WILLIAMS, NICK 123.83 wf 97636 06/04/04 ZIEMER, NICOLE 258.85 wf 97637 06/04/04 MULVANEY, DENNIS 1,967.73 35 Agenda #G2 AGENDA REPORT TO: Richard Fursman, City Manager FROM: Karen Guilfoile, City Clerk DATE: June 8, 2004 RE: Miscellaneous Permit-Parade Introduction The White Bear Avenue Business Association (WBABA) holds an annual parade on White Bear Avenue and has applied for a Miscellaneous Permit to conduct the parade on July 15, 2004 from 7:00 p.m. to approximately 9:30 p.m. The parade route will begin at Larpenteur and White Bear Avenues ending at Aldrich Arena. Scott Venne, Executive Director of WBABA, has requested that Council waive the permit fee of $100.00. Recommendation It is recommended that Council approved the Miscellaneous Permit to conduct a parade for the White Bear Avenue Business Association and waive the fee. Agenda G3 AGENDA REPORT TO: Richard Fursman, City Manager FROM: Karen Guilfoile, City Clerk DATE: June 8, 2004 RE: Miscellaneous Permit-3.2% Beer Rice Street Boxing and Fitness Association, 661 Western Avenue, St. Paul is sponsoring a boxing match at Aldrich Arena, 1850 White Bear Avenue, on June 18, 2004 from 7:30 to approximately 11:30 p.m. They have requested a miscellaneous permit for temporary 3.2 % beer to sell at the event. The proper liability coverage has been obtained and a waiver of exclusivity to sell has been received from Ramsey County Parks and Recreation. It is requested that council approve the temporary 3.2% beer permit. AGENDA ITEM G4 AGENDA REPORT DATE: June 7, 2004 TO: Richard Fursman, City Manager FROM: Sherrie Le, Human Resource Director RE: 2004 PAY RATES FOR TEMPORARY/SEASONAL & CASUAL PART-TIME EMPLOYEES Please forward the attached resolution to the City Council for approval I recommend this resolution be adopted to replace the existing resolution establishing pay rates for temporary, seasonal, and casual part-time employees. There are only a couple changes from 2003. RECOMMENDATION Adoption of the attached resolution is recommended. tr Attachment RESOLUTION WHEREAS, according to the Minnesota Public Employees Labor Relations act, part-time employees who do not work more than 14 hour per week and temporary/seasonal employees who work in positions that do not exceed 67 days in a calendar year, or 100 days for full-time students, are not public employees and are therefore not eligible for membership in a public employee union. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the following pay ranges and job classifications are hereby established for temporary/seasonal and casual part-time (14 hours or fewer/wk) employees effective June 1, 2004, upon Council approval. Accountant $10.00- 29.00 per hour Accounting Technician $9.00- 22.00 per hour Administrative Assistant $9.00- 20.00 per hour Background Investigator $25.00- 35.00 per hour Building Inspector $14.00- 35.00 per hour Building Attendant $6.00- 12.00 per hour Clerk $6.50- 11.00 per hour Clerk-Typist $8.50- 15.00 per hour Customer Service Assistant $6.00- 10.00 per hour CSO $8.00- 16.00 per hour CSO/Paramedic $12.00- 20.00 per hour Data Entry Operator $8.00- 12.00 per hour Dispatcher $15.00- 20.00 per hour Election Judge $6.50- 12.00 per hour Election Precinct Chair $7.50- 14.00 per hour Engineering Aide $7.00- 11.00 per hour Engineering Technician $10.00- 16.00 per hour Fire Department Custodian $575-690 per quarter Fire Inspector $9.00- 15.00 per hour Intern $6.50- 20.00 per hour IT Technician $15.00- 20.00 per hour Laborer $6.50- 12.00 per hour Lifeguard $6.00- 14.00 per hour Receptionist $7.50- 11.00 per hour Recreation Instructor/Leader $6.00- 30.00 per hour Recreation Official $7.00- 25.00 per hour Recreation Worker $6.00- 18.00 per hour Secretary $9.00- 18.00 per hour Theater Technician $20.00- 30.00 per hour Vehicle Technician $9.00- 15.00 per hour Video Coordinator* $11.00- 19.00 per hour Video Technician* $10.00- 18.00 per hour Water Safety Instructor (WSI) $7.50- 14.00 per hour WSI & Head Lifeguard Differential $1.00 per hour (Lifeguards or WSIs working as Head Lifeguards; Lifeguards working as WSIs) *Video positions shall be paid a guaranteed minimum flat fee of $50 for 4 hours or less. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the City Manager shall have the authority to set the pay rate within the above ranges. Agenda #G5 MEMORANDUM TO: City Manager FROM: Ken Roberts, Planner SUBJECT: Revised Final Plat PROJECT: Towns of New Century Third Addition DATE: June 1, 2004 INTRODUCTION Beth Altman is requesting that the city council approve a revised final plat for the Towns of New Century Third Addition. Ms. Altman represents the builder, New Century Country Homes, LLC. This final plat is for the third phase of the town houses for the New Century development and will create 26 lots for town houses. This plat will be east of New Century Boulevard, north of Highwood Avenue and south of New Century Lane. (See the maps on pages 3 - 6.) BACKGROUND On July 12, 1999, the city council made several approvals for the New Century PUD. These included changes to the comprehensive plan, a conditional use permit (CUP) for a planned unit development (PUD) fora 178-unit housing development and street right-of--way and easement vacations. The approvals also included a code variation for a substandard cul-de-sac, reduced building setbacks for the existing houses at 2610 and 2611 Schaller Drive, a variation from the city code to reduce the required street right-of-way width, a variation from the city code to reduce the required street pavement width, a preliminary plat to create the lots in the development, having no parking for both sides of some of the streets and no parking for one side of other streets. On January 24, 2000, the city council approved the first final plat for the New Century development. This final plat created 80 lots for houses, 3 outlots for open space and one outlot for future phases of the development (including the town houses). On May 23, 2000, the community design review board (CDRB) approved the project plans for the New Century Townhomes. This approval was for the site, building and landscape plans and was subject to eight conditions. (See the site plan on page 6.) On August 14, 2000, the city council approved the Towns of New Century final plat. This plat created the first 30 town house lots in the New Century PUD. On July 22, 2002, the city council approved the Towns of New Century Second Addition final plat. This plat created 22 lots for town houses in the New Century PUD. On March 31, 2003, the city council approved the Towns of New Century Third Addition final plat. This plat created 29 lots for town houses in the New Century PUD. The developer, however, never recorded the approved final plat with Ramsey County. DISCUSSION The developer is progressing with this phase of the plat. The contractor has installed the utilities and has completed the rough grading in this part of the development. This revised plat has three fewer units than the final plat that the city approved in 2003. Chris Cavett, the Assistant City Engineer, noted the following conditions that the applicant still needs to complete: The city will not issue a building permit for either of the two southeasterly units, (Blocks 5 & 6), until the applicant has submitted revised final utility plans that the city engineer and SPRWS have approved. Contact Chris Cavett, Maplewood Assistant City Engineer, 651- 249-2403 and Mike Anderson, from SPRWS, 651-266-6284 with questions. 2. Lot 1, Block 5 as shown on the proposed plat drawing submitted on 2/17/04 shows the lot line encroaching into the existing drainage and utility easement. The applicant's surveyor shall redescribe the lot so it does not encroach into the drainage and utility easement. While the above listed issues are matters that still need to be resolved, the developer has finished all the conditions the council required for final plat approval. RECOMMENDATION Approve the final plat for the Towns of New Century Third Addition date-stamped February 17, 2004. This approval is subject to the county recording the deeds, deed restrictions and covenants required by the city and the developer meeting all the conditions of the city engineer. p:sec13-28/newcen townhouses and fin rev.doc Attachments: 1. Location Map 2. Properly Line Map 3. Proposed Final Plat 4. Site Plan dated March 11, 2004 5. 7-12-99 Council Minutes 6. Proposed Final Plat (Separate Attachment) 2 } Attachmen': 1 1 C ~~ Q~ ~' ~ LONDIN LN. ~ f RD ~ 5 J ~~ -cr-oM.w POND s~3 ~ Parr ~ o~Y ~~ '~' ~• p O'DAY >- ui 8 O S ~MAILAND KIN sT. CIR. -o° a 25~ . ° _ O ~ O ~ ~ ~ ~ 1~FOREST~ ~q~( p Park ~ DR. ~"' WOOD ~ 7. 2' ZDEER RIDGE ~' ~ woa DR. tlr. ~ g IDGE DR, m 16 °~ HILLWOOD Z q~ D .) O ® N 2. ~ DR. oq ~ ~ IU ~ lpGf a= ~ ° v ~ ~ ~ CT ~ ~). 1. HUNTINGTON CT. Z ~ 2. OAKRIDGE LN. zSP~~CSlOE ~ ~ v ~ p ~ ~ ° LINWOOD R' mv~' ~ AVE. 7 2 0 S ~ Qp,HL AVE. UNW D C o~~ rN ~ ~3ai S~ ~r C~ Z ~"~ "q' ~svtD J Q ~ ~ ~J ~?' ~ SP ER 7 TIMBER TR. ~ (f TIMBER qR. 71M ~ ~ z CT R DR. ~~ °~ ]~ 17 PHYLI CT.' ~' ~ ~ U A DR. v ~. NEW CErI1LRY PL 1. CURRIE CT. Vu~ Q' V LEY VIEW AVE. ~ NEW CENTURY TER 2. VALLEY VIEW CT. ~ ~~ W 3. LAKEWOOD CT. ~ AV• 3' ~; F pR+ 9 6 0 S ``74' T. y 2. HIGHWOOD h~ cn t t t t '~+i ~ v ° o ~ 74' 25 IAAMI ~It~ Off: Qom. AVE. ~n ~ ~ W O 0 ~ ~ ~~ ° ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ sT. 494 25 Q ~ ~ ~vE. o ~ ®~ NEMI Z '~ 1 8 ~ ax ocfrrsC~cr. ~ N ~.~~°"~"' s0U'fNCRESS Pte. © ~ 8 U ~' MOR ~~ CT. ~~~ 4, SN~ v v ~ C rva er 3 PpZ Q'` ~ ~ Lake 12 0 0 S eoxwooD sc`I` oR '-~' ~~ AVE. Pork ~ z ~~ ~ ~ 43, ° CARVER AVE. ~~72) 1 ~ OVERLOO ~ 19 GIR. ~' z ~F/cyTS W O 144 0 S z (,/~ ~ LOCATION MAP 3 1 r Attachment 2 ~~ ~~~ ON aJ r ou 2 asa 1 7~ 2 1+3a7• 1 mJ 7~.~ •^1 2 .3 .~.v' ~ ~ (179 3 :¢ 1.9:,.c a S fl7.y j -.. 72 :9:e ~ R7 ' ~ ~ AA N 4 ~ drsJ - ~ ~ _ 3 7 ~ 7ss 7ss ~°~ ti «7a31H ~~ - ~ Z W A a ""~ ' 7 ~,~ OU SLOT A i ^ .7snc. JaL+ ab n71 "~° 4 ^ 6 ~ ~x ~~ TOWNS OF gyp, r . r 8 99 ~ ~ d[IYQM ° ~ ~ 7.17 K. S r1 ~~ ~ 10 ~~~ _---_-_ ~~/~~ O LOT B ~~G`,~~0 `~ nu a~~ „t8 non #~~ 11 ` ~ ,~ ~ QOO` y,~Gj G~~O j ~' ' "° 12 ~ Q .~O 5~' oa ,~O~~Q~ sso ~ 1 ~.6---- fO -------------7---;----- HIGHWOOD AVENUE ---~s+---- -- pT 107• 1 - i ,1 ° i .7z ~c n» 1 fag a 37wc ~ir ~ au ~ N o71 _ 1 S• 76• 1 656.6' 1 ~ 21 I r ~ _J I ' pl ~ PROPERTY LINE MAP 4 4 N _ ~~ 1os.76 ,,._ n~ 6 ~~ 6 .. .. ~„ .6I AC. ~ ~ mJ roan 6 .ee nn ~ I :: } 4. ~}~ 65.0 0 65.00 17 47 ~ y O~J ynV~ _ o _ "~'Z~ ! N .S ~Sa - ~4_ ~O.e ~-lld9e'--T17>O~ ` ~ g ~ iu.n ~.rr HLg CIXCl L~ 671 e 17 ~ d ~~ ~ ~ e 14 asJ i .` , 3 N .. _R b O #: ~ Ov o 3 2 nS 2 3 r.7e.~ 0!1 W/ N 1 ° 6n _ w ~ ° b 12 3 pU S a° 0,1 ff/l s ~ "' 7 a7 ~ ; 6 . b i t 1 4 - v a n ~ Rn B R 1 -. '~~ n~ a 4 neJ ,~ 97~ R9 7 7 ~ 10 5 a ~ ~~ b 90.7 .i 031 w 0!! ~ ~ ` ti ~Sa ~Y1>~ ~~ a '~! ~ 6 i ~ ~~ Y s s ~ asJ ~ nov '. , ~ .2 "J ".1 5 ' 6 ~ e~7n ~ f1YD ~ ,~ ~ 8 an = a W 4 a .t ;, ~. :a ± J Z ~ 3 ~ W ti OUTLOTD ' °w"w"a""'°u'" Jnu mur"T ,r Attachment 3 ~. Jam/ G V 'r~- / ~ ~/ J 2 U ~/ N/ .gt 1°+'b~Rs / /~~ ~~_ ~ / J~ I ~~~ ~ C,~~ ~ a~:~ i\ cn r~ 1 !! ~!i ~ I ~~.~ I ~ I w z~,l N ~- s N :-- ~` so s M M M ~ HIGHWOOD ESTATE N0. 3 ~O ~~' . J~ a'` O 0 Oo SNfW CENTiJRY~ ~~ `~ 4~4,5,.. ~`~~!/~"?U O M r _ ..__ 2-~-~-ay South Iles of Outlot C, TOWNS OF NEW CENTURY 2ND ADDITION HIGHWOOD AVENUE W rn U~ PRQPQSED FINAL PLAT TOWNS OF NEW CENTURY 3RD ADDITION COMMON /N~RFSl fi QOM ~, ~ MU Ni S89'' 5'23"`rV ~" °p7it °g_oo ,,.. ~ tr ~ L 4 V? ~G,,au ' r~ i i P~ 5 ~~ ~' 4 ~_...~ ___. 2 N _ ~N ~0 3 N o .,_...._... O S pF .rp1~1 m `` ,~ `vim GoNO P°a _. S~ I- O f ~ 1 0 N 0 5 Attachment 4 4 ~'~ .. ~,> Rf CIR~p~Nf ~~r ~St ~, G H H H H H H I ~ z 1 z ~ ~~~N ~ OQ~ ST. P ~ G~N~v A C A p ~ ~•~~ FN~~ F E E E E E F RNs o ~o`H 12 2 2 ~ B~ tom. _ I. I ~ /- / / D C~ ST, ~~~ ,Q ~ JJ ~ 6 j r ~ ~ H H m~ ~ ~ ~ `O~ */ 5 • ~ a C~ O~ ~ O V . ~ = Q~P 3 ~ _ ~`t~ 2 ~ ~JQ~~ _ G~~ _ `~ ca ? C7 N O~ 24' lyp. ~~ I x c~ ,~ ~ N ~ lO 2nd QO 2 o a y w ~J a w w ~ ~2 U w ~.) I - w a ~'' ?~ w w ~ o ~ O i t w w O U z~- C1 1~1 ~ `~--Q~~ N S.T.H. 100 - 117 (HIGH WOOD AVENUE) I SITE PLAN 3 i~-d~ 6 .~ Attachment 5 MINUTES MAPLEWOOD CITY COUNCIL 7:00 P.M., Monday, Juty 12,1999 Council Chambers, Municipai Buiiding Meeting No. 99-15 J. UNFINISHED BUSINESS 1. New Century PUD (Highwood and Century Avenues) -Comprehensive Plan Changes - (4 votes) - Conditional Use Permit for Planned Unit Development Street Right-of--Way Vacations - Easement Vacations - Code Variation -Street Right-of--Way Width - Code Variation -Street Pavement Width -Preliminary Plat - No Parking on Streets -Early Start of Construction of Model Homes a. Manager McGuire introduced the staff report. b. Associate Planner Ken Roberts presented the specifics of the report. Mayor Rossbach moved to allow the developer to answer questions posed by the council since this was not a public hearing. Seconded by Councilmember Carlson Ayes -all c. Jack Buxell, architect representing the Robert Engstrom Companies for New Century Development answered questions posed by the Council. Councilmember Kettrdige introduced a resolution for the Comprehensive Plan change. Seconded by Councilmember Carlson Ayes - Councilmembers Carlson, Kettrdige, and Allenspach Nays -Mayor Rossbach &Councilmember Kopper. MOTION FAILED Mayor Rossbach moved to reconsider the vote for the Comprehensive Plan Change. Seconded by Carlson Ayes - Councilmembers Carlson, Kittredge, and Allenspach, Mayor Rossbach Nays -Councilmember Koppen 7-12-99 7 Mayor Rossbach introduced the following changing the land use plan for the New Century residential development, Wort o tg -woo venue, west o entury venue. ese c anges are om - single we tags an open space to - singe we tugs , - rest entta enstty an open mace, or a site. is reso utton a so tops t ep anne minor co ector street etween a east en o challer nve an entury venue. . 99-07-055 LAND USE PLAN CHANGE RESOLUTION WHEREAS, Robert Engstrom proposed changes to the city's land use plan from R-1 (single dwellings) and OS (open space) to R-1 (single dwellings), to OS (open space) and R-3H (residential high density). WHEREAS, this change applies to property for the New Century PUD north of Highwood Avenue and west of Century Avenue in Section 13, Township 28, Range 22, Ramsey County, Minnesota. WHEREAS, the applicant also requested a change to the land use plan to drop the planned minor collector street between the east end of Schaller Drive and Century Avenue. WHEREAS, the history of this change is as follows: 1. On June 7, 1999, the planning commission held a public hearing. The city staff published a hearing notice in the Maplewood Review and sent notices to the surrounding property owners. The planning conu-~ission gave o~~ ryone at rh: hearira u i:h. ~ ~c~ to sp=a!; and present wriitea statements. The planning commission recommended that the city council not approve the plan amendment. 2. On June 28, 1999, the city council discussed the proposed land use plan change. They considered reports and recommendations from the planning commission and city staff. 3. On July 12, 1999, the city council again considered the proposed land use plan changes. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the city council approve the above-described change for the following reasons: I. The development would be consistent with the goals and objectives of the comprehensive plan. 2. This town house site in the development is proper for and consistent with the city's policies for high-density residential use. This includes: a. Creating a transitional land use between the existing and proposed Iow density residential and commercial land uses. b. It is on a collector street and is near an arterial street, parks and open space. 3. This development will minimize any adverse effects on surrounding properties because: a. The proposed on-site pond and large setback from the street will separate the town houses from nearby homes. 7-12-99 I3 b. Studies have shown there will be no adverse effect on property valucs. c. There would be no traffic from this development on existing Local residential streets. 4. The city nor the developer plan to build the proposed collector street between the east end of Schaller Drive ~~u 4-~' • _-~-~..- s' •~"_ -":°`'r^ =vetl,.n..., and ~crs ~,n~_ld maleP ~t c~i~cult xc~~uild a~treet in this ~l~ii V 11VG11LlC. U~batiJl+ Ulb ~.AIJ~~ ~~.. area. Seconded by Councilmemher Kittrddge Ayes -Mayor Rossbach, Councilmembers Allenspach, Kittredge, Carlson Nays - Councilmember Koppen Councilmember Carlson moved to approve the following resolution approving a conditional use permit for a planned unit development or t e ew entury ousing eve opment. a city aces t is approva on t e tndings require y co e. 99-07-056 CONDITIO)\`AL USE PERT\ZIT RESOLUTION WHEREAS, Mr. Robert Engstrom, representing the Robert Engstrom Companies, applied for a conditional use permit (CUP) for the New Century residential planned unit development (PUD). WHEREAS, this change applies to undeveloped property for the New Century PUD north of Highwood Avenue and west of Century Avenue in Section 13, Township 28, Range 22, Ramsey County, Minnesota. (PINS 13-28-22-I 1-0008, 0015, 0014, 0013 and 0022, 13-28-22-14-OOIB, 0019, 0020 and 0021.) WHEREAS, the history of this conditional use permit is as follows: I. On June 7, 1999, the planning commission recommended that the city council approve this permit. 2. On June 28, 1999, the city council held a public hearing. The city staff published a notice in the paper and sent notices to the sunrounding 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. 3. On July 12, 1999, the city council again considered this request. 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 7-I2-99 14 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 con¢estion or unsafe access on existing orproposed 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. S. The use would maximize the preservation of and incorporate the site's natural and scenic features into the development design. 9. The use would cause minimal adverse environmental effects. Approval is subject to the following conditions: 1. All construction shall follow the plans date-stamped March 29, 1999, the revised grading plans dated May 24, 1999 and the revised plat plans dated July 7, 1999, except where the city requires changes. The city council may approve major changes. The director of community development may approve minor changes. 2. The proposed construction must be substantially started within one year of council approval or the permit shall end. The council may extend this deadline for one year. 3.* Have the city engineer approve final construction and engineering plans. These plans shall include: grading, utility, drainage, erosion contrgl, tree and driveway and parking lot plans. 4. The design of the ponds shall be subject to the approval of the city engineer. The developer shall give the city an easement for this pond and shall be responsible for getting any needed off-site pond and drainage easements. 5. The developer or contractor shall: a. Complete all grading for the site drainage and the pond, complete all public improvements and meet all city requirements. b.* Place temporary orange safety fencing and signs at the grading limits. c. Install permanent signs around the edge of the wetland buffer easements. These signs shall mark the edge of the easements and shall state there shall be no mowing, vegetation cutting, filling or dumping. d. Install survey monuments along the wetland boundaries. e. Remove any debris, junk or fill from the wetlands. and site. 6.* The developer shall give the city wetland easements over the wetlands. The easements shall cover the wetlands and any land within 50 feet surrounding a wetland These easements shall prohibit any building, mowing, cutting, filling or dumping within riventy feet of the wetland or within the wetland itself. The purpose of this easement is to protect the water quality of the wetlands from 7-12-99 15 10 fertilizer and to protect the wetland habitat from encroachment. The owners of the single dwellings in the PUD may have one mother-in-law (accessory) apartment with sheirnroperty. Such accessory units shall be subject to the following: a. Such accessory units maybe occupied by one or two persons. b. The accessory units shall not be more than 800 square feet. c. The city will not allow separate or different ownership for tax or identification purposes of the accessory unit from the primary residence. d. The owners shall only rent their accessory units to those related by blood or mamage. The approved setbacks for the principal structures in the Ncw Century PUD shall be: 1. Front yard setback: minimum - 20 feet, maximum - 50 feet 2. Front yard setback (side street): minimum -15 feet, maximum - 30 feet 3. Rear yard setback: minimum - 30 feet, maximum -none 4. Side yard setback: as the zoning code requires This approval does not include final design approval for the duplexes, townhomes or for the village green. The developer shall submit the final building, landscaping and site plans for these to the community design review board (GDR]:3) for approval by the CDRB. 10. The city council shall review this permit in one year. Seconded by Councilmember Kittrdige Ayes - Councilmembers Allenspach, Kittrdige, & Carlson Nays - Mayor Rossbach &Councilmember Koppen Councilmember Carlson moved to approve the following resolution vacating parts of the unused Tim Avenue, Mayhill Road and Phyllis venue ytng Wort o tg ~voo venue an west o entury venue tote ew entury ass own on t e map on page o eve opers app tcatton materta s . 99-07-057 STREET RIGHT-OF-~VAY VACATION RESOLUTION WHEREAS, Mr. Robert Engstrom, representing the Robert Engstrom Companies, applied for the vacation of the following described street right-of--ways: I. The south 30 feet of the NE 1/4 of NE 1/4 of Section 13, Township 28, Range 22, Ramsey County, Minnesota, except the east 288.17 feet. (Tim Avenue) 11 7-12-99 I6 2. The east and north 30 feet of the east 343.60 feet of the east two-thirds of the west 3/4 of the SE 1/4 of the NE 1/4 of Section 13, Township 28, Range 22, Ramsey County, Minnesota. 3; .P.}~.y 1;, ,,venue in A. BERG ADDITION. 4. That part of Mayhill Road in A. BERG ADDITION and that part of Mayhill Road lying between Tim Avenue and the north right-of--way Line of Highwood Avenue. 5. The south 60 feet of the north 190 feet of the west third of the west three-quarters of the SE 114 of the NE 1/4 of Section 13, Township 28, Range 22, Ramsey County, Minnesota. All in Section 13, Township 28, Range 22 in Ramsey County. WHEREAS, the history of these vacations is as follows: 1. On June 7, 1999, the planning commission recommended that the city council approve these street vacations. On June 28, 1999, the. city council held a public hearing. City staff published a notice in the Maplewood Review and sent notices 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 recomriiendations from the city staff and planning commission. 3. On July 12, 1999, the city council again considered this request. WHEREAS, after the city approves this vacation, public interest in the property will go to the following abutting properties: 1. Lots 1, 7, and Lots 8-14, A. BERG ADDITION. 2. Except the North 657 feet and Except the South 243 feet of the North 900 feet of the east 240 feet and except the east 288.17 feet of the part South of the North 900 feet, the East''/z of the NE 1/4 of the NE 1/4 (Subject to Road) in Section 13, Township 28, Range 22 (PIN 13-28-22-11-0013) 3. The SW 1/4 of the NE 1/4 of the NE 1/4 (Subject to Road) in Section 13, Township 28, Range 22 (PIN 13-28-22-11-0014) 4. Subject to Roads; the East 343.6 feet of the West 3/4 of the SE 1/4 of the NE 1/4 in Section 13, Township 28, Range 22, Ramsey County, Minnesota. (PIN 13-28-22-14-0019) 5. Except the South 657 feet; The West 1/4 of the SE 1/4 of the NE 1/4 in Section 13, Township 28, Range 22, Ramsey County, Minnesota.. (PIN 13-28-22-14-0020) All in Section 13, Township 28, Range 22, Maplewood, Ramsey County, Minnesota. 1 Z 7-12-99 17 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the city council approve the above-described vacation since it is in the public interest based on the following reasons: r,y.~ . ,~.....,a.«... w.~:w.e. {+n~ra n/tsmin+n CY-PAt O/`/`PCC ~~ 1~(C d11~dLGlll U1VUHl UbJ tl4r~.. YVVY4JIilV uU VVY .1vv ~.../• 2. These right-of-ways are not needed for the public purpose of street construction. 3. The developer will be dedicating new public street right-of--ways with the plat. 4. Mayhill Road and Phylis Avenue are too narrow for street construction. Seconded by Councilmember Kittridge Ayes - Councilmembers Allenspach, Kittridge, Carlson Nays - Mayor. Rossbach and Councilmember Koppen Councilmember Carlson moved to approve the following resolution vacating the unused drainage and roadway easements lying east of Sc a er ve, west o entury venue an Wort o ig woo venue in t e ew cntury ass own on t e map on page o eve opers app icauon matena s . t is tot a pu is interest to vacate t ese easements or t e o owing reasons: 99-07-058 EASEMENT VACATION RESOLUTION WHEREAS, Mr. Robert Engstrom, representing Robert Engstrom Companies, applied for the vacation of the following-described easements: 1. The narth 100 feet of the east two-thirds of the west three-quarters of the SE 1/4 of the NE 1/4 of Section 13, Township 28, Range 22, Ramsey County, Minnesota, except the east 343.60 feet. 2. That part of the West 1/3 of the West 3/4 of the SE 1/4 of the NE 1/4 of Section i3, Township 29, Range 22, Ramsey County, Minnesota described as follows: Commencing at the Southwest comer of said SE 1/4 of the NE 1/4; thence North 00 degrees 36 minutes 28 seconds East, on an assumed bearing along the West line of said SE 1/4, a distance of 452.04 feet to the point of beginning of the land to be described; thence continuing North 00 degrees 36 minutes 28 seconds East a distance of 597.82 feet; thence East a distance of 70.00 feet; thence South 09 degrees 30 minutes East a distance of 61.00 feet; thence East a distance of 150.00 feet; thence South 33 degrees 40 minutes East a distance of 54.00 feet; thence South a distance of 130.00 feet; thence South 67 degrees 20 minutes West a distance of 123.73 feet; thence South a distance of 110.00 feet; thence South 36 degrees 10 minutes West a distance of 105.36 feet; thence South 119.93 feet; thence West 90 feet to the point of beginning. All lying north of Highwood Avenue and west of Century Avenue in Section 13, Township 28, Range 22, Maplewood, Minnesota. 13 7-12-99 18 WHEREAS, the history of this vacation is as follows: I. On June 7, 1999, the planning commission recommended that the city council approve these vacations. 2. On June 28, 1999, 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. 3. On July 12, 1999, the city council again considered this request. WHEREAS, after the city approves these vacations, public interest in the property will go to the following abutting properties: I. Subject to roads and easements and except the East 343.6 feet; the East 2/3 of the West 3/4 of the SE 1/4 of the NE 1/4 in Section I3, Township 28, Range 22, Ramsey County, Minnesota. (PIN 13-28-22-14-0018) 2. Except the South 657 feet; The West 1/4 of the SE 1/4 of the NE 1/4 in Section 13, Township 28, Range 22, Ramsey County, Minnesota. (PIN 13-28-22-14-0020) 3. The South 657 feet of the West 1/4 of the SE 1/4 of the NE 1/4 (Subject to road} of Section 13, To«~nship Z8, Range 22, Rarrrsey County, Minnesota: (PIN 13-28-22-14-0021) All in Section 13, Township 28, Range 22, Ramsey County, Minnesota NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the city council approve the above-described vacations for the following reasons: 1. It is in the public interest. 2. The city and the adjacent property owners have no plans to build a street or utilities in these locations. 3. The adjacent properties have access to public streets and utilities. Seconded by Councilmember Kittredge Ayes - Councilmembers Allenspach, Kittredge, Carlson Nays - Mayor Rossbach and Councilmember Koppen Councilmember Carlson moved to approve the following resolution for a Code variation for a substandard cul-de- sac where Schaller Drive meets t e eve oper s west property me. 7-I2-99 19 14 99-07-059 SUBSTANDARD CUL-DE-SAC CODE VARIATION RESOLUTION WHEREAS, Mr. Robert Engstrom, of the Robert Engstrom Companies, requested a variation from the city code. WHEREAS, Ehis code variation applies to the existing cul-de-sac at the east end of Schaller Drive at the west property line for the proposed New Century PUD that is north of Highwood Avenue and west of Century Avenue. WHEREAS, Section 30-8 (b)(3) of the Maplewood City Code requires that cul-de-sacs have aright-of- way diameter of 120 feet and a pavement diameter of 94 feet. WHEREAS, the applicant is proposing to change a temporary cul-de-sac into a permanent cul-de-sac with aright-of--way diameter of 100 feet and a reduced street pavement diameter. WHEREAS, this requires a variation for the right-of--way diameter of 20 feet. WHEREAS, the history of this variation is as follows: The Maplewood Planning Commission reviewed this request on June 7, 1999. The planning commission recomtnended that the council approve the proposed code variation. The Maplewood City Council held a public hearing on June 28, 1999. City staff published a notice in the Maplewood Review and sent notices to the surrounding property owners. The council gave everyone at the hearing a chance to speak and to present written statements.. The council also considered reports and recommendations from the city staff. The Maplewood City Council again considered this request on July 12, 1999. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Maplewood City Council approve the above- described variation subject to the city engineer approving the construction plans. Seconded by Councilmember Kittridge Ayes - Councilmembers Allenspach, Kittridge & Carlson Nays -Mayor Rossbach &Councilmember Koppen Councilmember Carlson moved to approve the reduced building setbacks for 2610 and 2611 Schaller Drive. Seconded by Councilmember Kittridge Ayes - Councilmembers Allenspach, Kittridge & Carlson Nays -Mayor Rossbach &Councilmember Koppen 15 7-I2-99 20 Councilmember Carlson moved to approve the following resolution approving a city code variation to have 50-foot- wide street right-of--ways mstea o t e - aot-wt a ng t-o -ways to a ew entury 99-07-060 STREET RIGHT-OF-WAY WIDTH CODE VARIATION RESOLUTION WHEREAS, Mr. Robert Engstrom, of the Robert Engstrom Companies, requested a variation from the city code. WHEREAS, this code variation applies to the New Century PUD that is north of Highwood Avenue and west of Century Avenue. WHEREAS, the legal description for this property is: The south'/z of the north'/: of the west 1/z of the N.E. 1/4 of the N.E. 1/4 of Sec. 13, T.28, R.22, Ramsey County, MN. and: The south'/: of the west'/z of the N.E. 1/4 of the N.E. 1/4 of said Sec. 13. And: That part of the N.E. 1/4 of said Sec. 13 described as commencing at the northeast corner of said N.E. 1/4; thence south along the east line thereof 657 feet to the point of beginning; thence westerly 110 feet; thence southerly 70 feet; thence :vesterly 87 feet; thence southerly 20 feet; thence westerly 50 feet; thence southerly 60 feet; thence easterly 24C i::~t mor or less, to ttie easi lint, of said N.E. 1/4 thence north along the east line thereof 150 feet to the point of beginning. Subject to Century Ave. and: Lots 6, 7, 8 and 9, Block 1, A. Berg Addition. And: The south'h ofthe east'/z of the N.E. 1/4 of N.E. 1/4: of said Sec. 13, except that part described as follows: commencing at the northeast corner of said N.E. 1/4; thence south along the east line thereof 807 feet to the point of beginning:' thence westerly parallel to the north line of said N.E. 1/4 240 feet; thence southerly parallel to the east line of said N.E. 1/4 93 feet; thence westerly parallel to said north line 48.17 feet; thence southerly parallel to said east line of 415.95 more or less to the south line of said N.E. 1/4 of N.E. 1/4; thence east along the south line thereof to the southeast corner of said N.E. 1/4 of N.E. 1/4; thence north to the point of beginning. Subject to Century Avenue and: The west 3/4 of the S.E. 1/4 of the N.E. 1/4 of said Sec. 13, T. 28, R. 22, Ramsey Co. MN., subject to roads and easements. And: Ail that part of the east'/2 of the N.E. 1/4 of the N.E. 1/4, Sec. 13, T. 28, R. 22, described as follows: Commencing at a point on the East line of said Sec. 13, distant 657 feet south of the N.E. Cor. of said Sec. 13, thence West and parallel with the North line of said Sec. 13, 110 feet, thence South and parallel with the East Iine of said Sec. 13, a distance of 70 feet; thence West 80 feet, to the point of beginning to the Land to be described; thence South and parallel to said east line 20 feet, thence West 50 feet, thence North 20 feet; thence easterly to the point of beginning. And: 7-12-99 21 16 The south 249 feet of the west 419 feet ofthe N %: of the E %: of the N.E. 1/4 of the N.E. 1/4 of said Sec. 13. Allan CP.ctenn ] ~, Tnwn~hin2R;Range22,Ramsev Coun~v.. Minnesota. (PINS 13-28-22-11- 0008, 0015, 0014, 0013 and 0022, 13-28-22-14-0018, 0019, 0020 and 0021.) WHEREAS, Section 29-53 of the Maplewood Ciry Code requires that local residential streets have 60 feet ofright-of--way. WHEREAS, the applicant is proposing several local. streets in the PUD with 50-foot-wide right-of- ways and reduced street pavement widths. WHEREAS, this requires a variation of ten feet. WHEREAS, the history of this variation es as follows: The Maplewood PIanning Commission reviewed this request on June 7, 1999. The planning. commission recommended that the council approve the proposed code variation. The Maplewood City Council held a public hearing on June 28, 1999. City staff published a notice in the Maplewood Review and sent notices to the sun;ounding property owners. The council gave everyone at the hearing a chance to speak and to present written statements. The council also considered reports and recommendations from the city staff. The Maplewood City Council considered this request again on July 12, 1999. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Maplewood City Council approve the above- described variation subject to the city engineer approving the construction plans. Seconded by Councilmember Kittredge Ayes - Councilmembers Allenspach, Kittredge & Carlson Nays -Mayor Rossbach &Councilmember Koppen Councilmember Carlson moved to approve the fallowing resolution approving a city code variation to have 24 & 28 foot-wide street instead o t e - oot-wt a streets tote ew entury 99-07-061 STREET PAVEMENT ~VIDTH CODE VARIATION RESOLUTION WHEREAS, Mr. Robert Engstrom of the Robert Engstrom Companies requested a variation from the city code. WHEREAS, this code variation applies to the Ne~v Century PUD that is north of Highwood Avenue, and west of Century Avenue. 17 7-12-99 22 WHEREAS, the Iegal description for this property is: The/,~~,s~iouth''/2 of the north'/: of the west'/: of the N.E. 1/4 of the N.E. I/4 of Sec. 13, T.28, R.22, Ramsey r~~4n F`r. ~'S:l. p..n~~ aJ . The south %: of the west'/: of the N.E. 1/4 of the N.E. 1/4 of said Sec. 13. And: That part of the N.E. 1/4 of said Sec. 13 described as commencing at the northeast comer of said N.E. 1/4; thence south along the east line thereof 657 feet to the point of beginning; thence westerly 110 feet; thence southerly 70 feet; thence westerly 80 feet; thence southerly 20 feet; thence westerly 50 feet; thence southerly 60 feet; thence easterly 240 feet more or less, to the east line of said N.E. 1/4 thence north along the east line thereof 150 feet to the point of beginning. Subject to Century Ave. and: Lots 6, 7, 8 and 9, Block 1, A. Berg Addition. And: The south'/: of the east %: of the N.E.. 1/4 of N.E. 1/4: of said Sec. 13, except that part described as follows: commencing at the northeast corner of said N.E. 1/4; thence south along the cast line thereof 807 feet to the point of beginning: thence westerly parallel to the north line of said N.E. 1/4 240 feet; thence southerly parallel to the east line of said N.E. 1/4 93 feet; thence westerly parallel. to said north line 48.17 feet; thence southerly parallel to said east line of 415.95 more or less to the south line of said N.E. 1/4 of N.E. 1/4; thence east along the south line thereof to the southeast corner of said N.E. 1/4 of N.E. 1/4; thence north to the point of beginning. Subject to Century Avenue. and: The west 3/4 of the S.E. 1/4 of the N.E. 1/4 of said Sec. 13, T. 28, R. 22, Ramsey Co. MN., subject to roads and easements. And: All that part of the east'/: of the N.E. 1/4 of the N.E. 1/4, Sec. 13, T. 28, R. 22, described as follows: Commencing at a point on the East line of said Sec. 13, distant 657 feet south of the N.E. Cor. of said Sec. 13, thence West and parallel with the North line of said Sec. 13, 110 feet, thence South and parallel with the East line of said Sec. 13, a distance of 70 feet; thence West 80 feet, to the paint of beginning to the land to be described; thence South and parallel to said east line 20 feet, thence West 50 feet, thence North 20 feet; thence easterly to the point of beginning. And: The south 249 feet of the west 419 feet ofthe N'/: of the E'/~ of the N.E. 1/4 of the N.E. 1/4 of said Sec. 13. All in Section 13, Township 28, Range 22, Ramsey County, Minnesota. (PINS 13-28-22-11-0008, 0015, 0014, 0013 and 0022, 13-28.22-I4-0018, 0019,.0020 and 0021.) WHEREAS, Section 29-52(a)(9) of the Maplewood City Code requires that local residential streets shall be 32 feet in width, measured behveen faces of curbs. WHEREAS, the applicant is proposing 28-foot-wide, 24-foot-wide and 20-foot-wide streets with no parking on one side and no parking on both sides . WHEREAS, this requires a variation of four feet, eight feet and twelve feet. WHEREAS, the history of this variation is as follows: 18 7-12-99 23 The Maplewood Planning Commission reviewed this request on June 7, 1999. The planning commission recommended that the council approve the proposed code variation. ?~,~ Maplewnod City Council held aDUblic hearing; on June 28, 1999. City staffpublished a notice in the Maplewood Review and sent notices to the surrounding property owners.Tne council ga~ie tv~yofic ~tTh~'nPal'ittg ~ chance to speak and to present written statements. The council also considered reports and recommendations from the city staff. The Maplewood City Council again considered this request on July 12, 1999. NOW, TIiEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Maplewood City Council approve the above-described variation subject to no parking on one side of the 28-foot-wide streets, no both sides of the 24-foot wide streets and the developer paying the city for the cost of no•parking signs. Seconded by Councilmember Kittridge Ayes -Councilmembers Allenspach, Kittridge & Carlson Nays -Mayor Rossbach &Councilmember Koppen Councilmember Kittridge moved to approve the following resolution approving a city code variation for 28-foot- wide and 24-foot-wide public streets to t e ew entury Seconded by Councilmember Kittridge Ayes -Councilmembers Allenspach, Kittridge & Carlson Nays -Mayor Rossbach &Councilmember Koppen Councilmember Kittridge moved to eliminate access to Highwood Avcnue. Seconded by Councilmember Carlson Ayes -Councilmembers Kittridge & Carlson Nays -Mayor Rossbach, Councilmembers Allenspach &Koppen MOTION FAILED 1 L ~ l C O i~l ~ ~ 1 (~J -~~ Councilmember Carlson moved to approve the New Century preliminary plat (received by the city on March 26, 1999 and the revised grading p ans receive y t e city on ay an t e revise pre imtnary p at receive y t e tty on u y a eve oper s a comp etc t e o owing a ore t o city counct approves a tna plat: 1. Sign an agreement with the city that guarantees that the developer or contractor will: a. Complete all grading for overall site drainage, complete all public improvements and mect all city requirements. b.* Place temporary orange safety fencing and signs at the grading timits. c. Have NSP install Group V rate street lights in at least nine locations -primarily at street 7-12-99 24 19 intersections. The exact style and location shall be subject to the city engineer's approval.. d. Pay the city for the cost oftraffic-control, street identification and no parking signs. e. Provide all required and necessary easements. f. Demolish, remove or move the existing house and buildings at 2665 Highwood Avenue, and all other buildings, scrap metal, debris, vehicles and junk from the site. g. Cap, seal and abandon all wells on site and remove any septic systems or drainfields within the plat, subject to Minnesota rules and guidelines. h. Complete all the curb and gutter on the Schaller Drive cul-de-sac to the west side of the site, repair the cul-de-sac pavement and restore and sod the boulevards. I. For the trails, do the following: (1) Construct an tight-foot-wide paved walkway between Lots 4 and 5, Block 2 as shown on the plat date-stamped May 24, 1999. This trail shall be in an 18-foot-wide trailway or pedestrian way. (2) The developer also shall build the wood-chip trails and sidewalks as shown on the application materials and project plans. (3} The developer shall install posts at the end of the trails to prevent cars or trucks from using the trail. (4) The developer shall build the trails and sidewalks with the streets. (5} The city engineer must approve these plans. j. Install permanent signs around the edge of the wetland buffer easements. These signs shall mark the edge of the easements and shall state 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. k. Install survey monuments along the wetland boundaries. 1. Install signs where the driveways for the twin homes and for the town houses intersect the public streets indicating that they are private driveways. m. Have an independent qualified geotechnical engineering and soil testing firm monitor and inspect the pond during its construction. The city shall pre•approve the inspection firm(s) before they start their work. 2."` Have the city engineer approve final construction and engineering plans. These plans shall include grading, utility, drainage, erosion control, tree, trail, sidewalk and street plans. The plans shall meet the. following conditions: 20 7-12-99 25 a. The erosion control plans shall be consistent with the city code. b. The grading plan shall show: (1) The. proposed building pad elevation and contour information for each 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 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. (~ All retaining walls on the plans. Any retaining walls taller than 4 feet require a building permit from the city. (7) Sedimentation basins or ponds as required by the watershed board or by the city engineer. c.'` The tree plan shall: (1) Be approved by the city engineer before site grading or final plat approval. (2) Show where the developer will remove, save or replace large trees. This plan shall include an inventory of all existing Large trees on the site. (3) Show the size, species and location of the replacement 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, ash and sugar maples. The coniferous trees shall be at least eight (8) feet tall and shall be a mix of Austrian pine and other species. (4) Show no tree removal beyond the approved grading and tree limits. (5} Include far city staff a detailed boulevard tree planting plan and material list. d. The street and utility plans shall show: (1) Paved walkways in a trailway or pedestrian way as shown on the proposed plans and between Lots 4 and 5, Block 2. The parks and recreation director shall approve their design. (2) The public streets shall be a 9-ton design with a maximum street grade of eight percent and the maximum street grade within 75 feet of all intersections at two percent. 21 7-12-99 26 (3) All the streets, parking areas and driveways with continuous concrete curb and gutter except where the city engineer decides that it is not needed for drainage purposes (4) All public streetright-o~f ways snail be ai ieas't'ou-feet-wide,-urrlc~s'tht; pity t;U1ltt~ii approves a narrower street right-of--way. (5) The completion of the curb and gutter on the existing Schaller Drive cul-de-sac, the repair or replacement of the cul-de-sac pavement and the restoration and sodding of the boulevards around the cul•de-sac. e. The drainage plan shall ensure that there is no increase in the rate of storm water run-off leaving the site above the current (predevelopment) levels. f. A qualified geotechnical engineer shall design the storm water pond proposed at the southeast corner of the site. The proposed design shall be subject to a quality engineering peer review and recommendation by a geotechnical engineer approved by the city engineer. The developer shall pay for this review. The developer's consultants shall complete this review and approval before submitting the final construction plans to the city engineer. Additional subsurface. soil evaluations also shall be required within the proposed pond and berm areas. 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 lot lines in Block Two so there is an 1$-foot•wide trail or pedestrian way between Lots. 4 and 5 to accommodate the trail and watermain to Schaller Drive. d. Show the wetlarid boundaries on the final plat as approved by the watershed district. e. Show all public street right-of--ways at 60 feet wide, unless the city council approves narrower street right-of--ways. f. Make as many of the property lines as is reasonably possible radial to the cul-de-sacs or perpendicular to the street right-of--ways. g. Change the 40-foot-wide trail easement at the west end of Promontory Place (Dahl Avenue) (between Lots 12 and 13, Block 1) to a 40-foot-wide trail or pedestrian way. 4. Secure and provide all required easements for the development. These shall include: a. Any off-site drainage and utility easements. b. Wetland easements over the wetlands and any land within 56 feet surrounding a Class II 22 7-12-99 27 wetland. The casement shall prohibit any building or structures within 50 feet of the Class II wetland or any mowing, cutting, failing, grading or dumping within 50 feet of the wetland or within the wctland itself. The purpose of these easements is to protect the water quality of the wetianas from fec'tilit~tr and runoff. They also are to protect the wetland habitat from encroachment. 5. 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. 6. Record the following with the final plat: a. All homeowners association documents. b. A covenant or deed restriction that prohibits driveways on Lots 11 and 12, Block 4 from. going onto Highwood Avenue. c. Deeds dedicating the necessary wetland buffer easements sun;ounding any wetland. d. A covenant or deed restriction that prohibits any further subdivision or splitting of the lots or parcels in the plat that would create additional building sites unless approved by the city council. The applicant shall submit the language for these dedications.and restrictions to the city for approval before recording. 7. Show the wetland boundaries on the plat as approved by the watershed district. A trained and qualified person must delineate the wetlands. This person shall prepare a wetland delineation report. The developer shall submit this wetland information to the Watershed District office. The Watershed District must approve this information before the city approves a final plat. If needed, the developer shall change the plat to meet wetland regulations. Obtain a permit from the Ramsey-Washington Metro Watershed District for grading. 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. The Council took no action on the request to waive the Park Access Charges (PAC) for the building permits for the New Century residential PUD. This development would be north of Highwood Avenue and west of Century Avenue. Councilmember Carlson moved to approve the following resolution for the on-street parking standards and no on-street parking requirements or t e ew entury nort o ig woo venue an west o entury venue. 23 7-12-99 28 99-07-062 NO PARKING RESOLUTION WHEREAS, Maplewood has approved a residentiai'ri~f3 andptc~~ ~ ~ a '~~~y WHEREAS, the developer wants to have reduced street right-of--way widths and reduced street pavement widths in this development WI~IEREAS, the city has approved reduced street right-of--way widths and reduced street pavement widths in the development, subject to on-street pazking restrictions. WHEREAS, Section 29-52(b) of the city code allows variations from the city code standards if they do not affect the general purpose of the city code. NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED that Maplewood prohibits the pazking of motor vehicles on both sides of all public streets less than 28 feet wide and prohibits parking on one side of the public streets that are 28 feet to 32 feet wide in the New Century PUD north of Highwood Avenue and west of Century Avenue in Section 13-28-22. Seconded by Councilmember Kittredge Ayes - Councilmembers Allenspach, Kittredge & Cazlson Nays -Mayor Rossbach & Councilmember Koppers Councitmember Kittredge moved to approve the developer's request to start the construction of up to four model homes on Red Pine Circle (Va ey iew trc e e ore a city approves t e tna pat. is is su }ect to e 1. There shall be utilities and a hard surface street or driveway to each building location before the city issues a building permit. 2. The builder shall have each structure surveyed into place by a registered land surveyor. Seconded by Councilmember Allenspach Ayes. - Councilmembers, Kittredge, Carlson and Allenspach Nays -Mayor Rossbach and Councilmcmbcr Kopgcn 7-12-99 29 24 Agenda Item G6 AGENDA REPORT To: Richard Fursman, City Manager From: Steve Hurley, IT Director Date: June 9, 2004 Re: Copier Replacement Introduction The main copier used in City Hall, a Ricoh Aficio 850, is nearing the end of its 3 year lease. The City has a opportunity to upgrade to a new model, Ricoh Aficio 2090, before the end of the lease term by renewing our contract for another 3 years. Background There are several advantages to upgrading now. The biggest are lower lease rate of $194 per month and lower per page copy cost. In addition the new copier has a higher copy and scan speed, higher resolution, larger hard drive, larger paper capacity, more Random Access Memory (RAM), and several standard networking features not available on our current copier. By upgrading now the City also saves the difference in lease and per copy cost it would incur by staying with the current copier till the end of the normal lease period at which point another agreement would need to be negotiated anyway. Recommendation It is recommended that the City approve the replacement of its current high volume copier with a new model from Metro Sales, Inc. by authorizing a new 3 year lease agreement. Agenda G7 MEMORANDUM TO: Richard Fursman, City Manager FROM: Bruce K. Anderson, Director of Parks and Recreation DATE: May 28, 2004 for the June 14, 2004 City Council Meeting SUBJECT: RecWare Safari Software Package Introduction Maplewood Parks and Recreation Department currently utilizes software developed by a California company named RecWare. RecWare is one of two major recreation registration and facility management software programs for municipal parks and recreation departments and private athletic clubs. RecWare was installed and has been utilized for the past eight years at the M.C.C. The system has proven to work satisfactorily for program registration, but does not have the capability of online registration or many new features nor make use of current technology. In addition, RecWare no longer supports the current version, as it is starting to degenerate. Background The Parks and Recreation Department handles over 500,000 transactions annually between program registrations, community center participants, community center sales, and building and room reservations. We are able to manage this large number of transactions due to technology and the use of computer software. Our department currently utilizes a number of software packages including RecWare, ticket registration software, facilities software, and snack bar software. During the past year a committee of representatives from the community center, recreation division and I.T. Department have been meeting to review software packages and provide a recommendation regarding a new online registration system. RecWare Safari is the recommendation of the group. RecWare Safari will not only provide us the current technology, but more importantly online registration. It will also consolidate all of the aforementioned software packages into one integrated system with the exception of the ticket registration module, which RecWare Safari does not have. The Parks and Recreation Department will be the first city agency to go online for direct consumer registration. We cun'ently accept email queries online, but all program registrations and facility reservations must be done in person or mailed. A complete listing of the RecWare Safari software package and services are attached. A brief breakdown of the major applications for the system is as follows: • Activity registration • Membership management • League scheduling • Point of sale (premium upgrade) • Fully integrated client/server recreation software • Compatible with Microsoft SQL server or oracle • Integrated customer account management • Integrated financial tracking system • Integrated data reporting engine • Integrated "standard" point of sale • Integrated AVI video help/video training • Base/included concurrent user licenses • Safari core system investment The software will also allow us to do online registration at off-site locations. We currently do all program registrations at the community center. The new RecWare Safari system will allow us to accept registrations at city hall, Carver and Edgerton community gyms, as well as the nature center. This flexibility will obviously enhance service to our customers, as well as permitting registrations from residents' homes at their convenience. Based on past comparisons of other community centers, we anticipate that approximately 50 percent of registrations will eventually be done online. This automation will reduce the need for increased staff and more importantly, provide improved customer service. The total cost for the RecWare Safari package (including training) is $54,000-plus. We will also need $4,000 for a stand alone server. The monies ($59,000) will be allocated from the data processing fund. In addition to the background work and meetings with RecWare developers, the research committee has done background checks of existing agencies using RecWare Safari. All of the feedback we've received to date has been positive. Recommendation Staff recommends that the I.T. Department be authorized to purchase the RecWare Safari software package with the monies to be allocated from the data processing fund to not exceed $59,000. khVecware.men c: Dan Faust, Finance Director Steve Hurley, I.T. Director 2 RecWare, by The Active Network, Inc. Safari Professional Price Quote Prepared by: Description Customer Information Number of Geographic Sites/Locations Number of Workstations Max Workstations Needed for Simultaneous Use Anticipated Number of Concurrent User Licenses Safari Core Svstem Safari Central, includes: Fully Integrated ClientYServer recreation software Compatible with Microsoft SQL Server or Oracle Integrated Customer Account Management Integrated Financial Tracking System Integrated Data Reporting Engine Integrated "Standard" Point of Sale Integrated .AVI Video Help/Video Training Base/Included Concurrent User Licenses Safari Core System Investment _Software Applications (Client/Server) Activity Registration Facility Reservation Membership Management League Scheduling Tournament Scheduling Point of Sale (premium upgrade) Inventory Control Financial Interface Crystal Reports (single user license) Entity Relationship Diagram/Encyclopedia Touch Tone Registration (English) Touch Tone Registration (Spanish) 4-line Touch Tone expansion Software Applications Investment Toll Free 1-888-732-9273 www.recware.com EXHIBIT A City of Maplewood, MN Robert Apodaca Unit Extension Notes 2 N/A N/A 16 N/A N/A 50% N/A N/A 8 N/A N/A $9,995 Incl. Incl. Incl. Incl. Incl. Incl. Incl. Incl. 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 $3,995 N/A $3,995 $3,995 N/A $3,995 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A $9,995 A B C D E $9,995 $3,995 F $3,995 H $3,995 I $3,995 K $15,980 Prepared on: 4/22/2004 Pricing is valid for 90 days. RecWare, by The Active Network, Inc. Toll Free 1-888-732-9273 Safari Professional Price Quote www. recware.com Internet Registration ProActive Internet Registration, includes: 1 $0 S Web Hosting by The Active Network, Inc. No charge Internet Registration No charge Credit card processing No charge Internet Registration Investment $0 User Licenses Base Concurrent User Licenses (shown above) 5 N/C N/C Recommended Concurrent User License Adjustment 3 $1,000 $3 000 Other Concurrent User License Adjustment 0 N/A , Total User Licenses & User License Investment 8 $3,000 T Software Product Subtotal ' $28 975 Current Customer Bridge Promo Discount , ($10 120) SOFTWARE PRODUCT & LICENSES TOTAL , $18,855 Staff Traininp & Consulting Trips to Customer Location* 1 $1,000 $1 000 V Four Hour Web-Session- Software Setup Review 1 $500 , $500 Service days- On-Site at Customer Location 8 $1,250 $10 000 W Project Management Days (Active's offices) 1 $1,000 , $1 000 X Training & Consulting Investment * , $12 500 Current Customer Bridge Promo Discount , ($4 368) TRAINING & CONSULTING TOTAL * , $8 132 ( Travel fees are all-inclusive) , Software Maintenance** "Requires Separate Software Maintenance Agreement 1 $6 490 SOFTWARE MAINTENANCE TOTAL , $6,490 Y TOTAL SYSTEM INVESTMENT*** $33,477 ("'Includes 1st Year Annual Maintenance) ("' Quote is subject to "Notes" explanation which is attached) Payment Schedule Due Upon Shipment of Software-- Software License Fees $18,855 Due Upon Shipment of Software-- Software Maintenance Fee $6,490 Due Upon Rendering of Services-- Training and Consulting Fees $8,132 (Note: Contract total to be invoiced within 120 days of order acceptance) Prepared on: 4/22/2004 Pricing is valid for 90 days. EXHIBIT A-1 City of Maplewood, MN Prepared by: Robert Apodaca Description ~ Unit Extension Notes RecWare Online Server Engine 1 $9,995 $9,995 1 RecWare Online Activity Display 1 $3,995 $3,995 2 RecWare Online Activity Registration 1 $3,995 $3,995 3 RecWare Online Facility Display 0 N/A RecWare Online Facility Reservation 0 N/A RecWare Online Sports Display 0 N/A Less Credit for One Online Application 1 ($3,995) ($3,995) Software Applications Investment $13,990 Staff Trainina Services Trips to Customer Location" 1 $1,000 $1 000 V Service days- On-Site at Customer Location 2 $1,250 , $2 500 Four Hour Web-Session- Software Setup Review 1 $500 , $500 Project Management Days (Active's offices) 0 $1,000 $0 Services Investment " $4,000 ( Travel fees are all-inclusive) Software Maintenance Software Maintenance (annual) 1 $2 798 Y Software Maintenance Investment $2,798 RecWare Online Total System Investment $2D~788 Payment Schedule Due Upon Shipment of Software- Software License Fees $13,990 Due Upon Shipment of Software- Software Maintenance Fee $2,798 Due Upon Rendering of Services- Training & Consulting Fees $4,000 (Note: Contract total to be invoiced within 120 days of order acceptance) Agenda Item G8 AGENDA REPORT To: Richard Fursman, City Manager From: Steve Hurley, IT Director Date: June 9, 2004 Re: Purchase of Software Enterprise Agreement Introduction The City needs to account for and license all software used by the City. Over the years we have purchased on an as needed basis. A more structured approach is necessary to make sure all software is properly licensed and to provide current upgrades. Background A company called Software House International (SHI) has contracted with the State of Minnesota to provide software and upgrade path. It is understood that since SHI is on a State contract the appropriate bid process has been fulfilled. The agreements offered have asign-up period ending June 30 h. The Enterprise Agreement which provides various server software licensing and CALs (Client Access License) and user based application software like Microsoft Office Pro is the option we are pursuing. There are several features of the Enterprise Agreement in addition to the licensing which make it valuable. The agreement covers a term of 6 years and during that time all upgrades to existing licensed software are automatically included. Individual purchases of upgrade versions would no longer be necessary. Pricing is locked in during the 6 years making budgeting easier. Training, both on-line and through provided vouchers is available at no additional charge. For example, Microsoft Office which includes Word, Excel, Power Point, Access and Outlook would all have on-line training available for users. Users can also purchase the same version of software for their home computer at a considerable discount. The agreement can be cancelled at any time. Cost to the City for 6 years using the server and user licenses we require is $191,779.20. Annual cost is $31,963.20. This is not a budgeted amount as IT has only this year been made aware of the program. Recommendation It is recommended that the Finance Director be given authority to make the appropriate budget adjustments for purchase of the Enterprise Agreement by moving the first year cost of $31,963.20 into fund 703-118-000-4430. AGENDA ITEM G-9 AGENDA REPORT TO: City Manager FROM: Ed Nadeau, Utility/Fleet Superintendent Chuck Ahl, Public Works Director/City Engineer SUBJECT: Purchase of Snowplow and Wing DATE: May 28, 2004 Introduction The Public Works Fleet Management Division has funds included within the approved 2004 budget available to purchase an additional Henke snowplow and wing attachment fora 928G Caterpillar front-end loader. Background Our snowplowing operation has been more efficient by having our front-end loader plow cul de sac routes. This saves both truck plow drivers' time and excessive wear on plow trucks. Equipping our second loader with a plow and wing attachment will add another piece of equipment to our plowing operation and thus give our residents better service. The state bid price from Ziegler Inc. for the Henke plow and wing is $37,533.24. Recommendation It is recommended that the city council approve the purchase and contract with Ziegler Inc. under State Contract 432521 for the purchase of a Henke plow and wing attachment for $37,533.24. EN Jw AGENDA ITEM G-10 AGENDA REPORT TO: City Manager FROM: Charles Ahl, Public Works Director/City Engineer Chris Cavett, Assistant City Engineer SUBJECT: Holloway Avenue (County Road 119) from North St. Paul Road to Century Avenue-- Resolution Approving Jurisdictional Transfer of County Road to City DATE: June 8, 2004 Introduction Ramsey County and the cities in Ramsey County have had an ongoing program to jurisdictionally transfer certain low volume Ramsey County roadways to the local level. This process has been occurring for many years on all levels (Mn/DOT, County and cities) to improve efficiency and public service. The city council will consider approving the attached resolution to jurisdictionally transfer Holloway Avenue, from Ramsey County to the City of Maplewood. The segment of roadway under consideration is Holloway Avenue between North St. Paul Road and Century Avenue. Background This proposed segment of Holloway will actually be a jointly shared road with North St. Paul and the City of Maplewood. As part of the turn back agreement, Ramsey County will be upgrading Holloway Avenue. The segments between North St. Paul Road and Furness Street, as well as McKnight Road and Century, will be milled and overlaid. Originally, the County had planned to do a cold-in-place pavement recycling to the segment of Holloway between Furness and McKnight Road. However, through discussions with Ramsey County, North St. Paul and Maplewood, it was agreed that such a pavement treatment would not provide a substantial pavement life due to drainage and subgrade conditions at that location. It was decided through discussions with County and City staff that it would be appropriate for the County to contribute towards funding of a reconstruction of Holloway in the near future. At some later date, Maplewood and North St. Paul would reconstruct Holloway between Furness and McKnight Road. Ramsey County has agreed to provide $56,000 toward this future reconstruction work. Even though Holloway is currently a County road, it is also a jointly designated Municipal State Aid Street (MBAs) by North St. Paul and Maplewood and is eligible for financing through these state aid funds. This designation supports the justification for the jurisdictional transfer. Recommendation It is recommended that the city council approve the attached resolution approving the jurisdictional transfer of Holloway Avenue (North St. Paul Road to Century Avenue) from Ramsey County to the Cities of North St. Paul and Maplewood. Attachments: Resolution Location Map RESOLUTION APPROVING JURISDICTIONAL TRANSFER OF COUNTY ROAD TO CITY WHEREAS, The 1991 Minnesota Legislature established a Ramsey County Local Government Services Study Commission to "report on the advantages and disadvantages of sharing, cooperating, restructuring, or consolidating..." activities in areas of public service including public works; and WHEREAS, The consolidation plan provides for reclassification of roadways and corresponding changes in jurisdiction including the transfer of local and State Aid roadways between the County and municipalities; and WHEREAS, Holloway Avenue (County Road 119) from North St. Paul Road to Century Avenue, located in the City of Maplewood, is presently under the jurisdiction of Ramsey County as a County Road; and WHEREAS, This roadway has been determined to serve a local function only; and WHEREAS, Revocation of "County Road" status may be accomplished by resolution of the Ramsey County Board of Commissioners pursuant to Minnesota Statutes §163.11; and WHEREAS, The consolidation plan stipulates that Ramsey County shall improve the roadway to acceptable levels prior to transferring jurisdiction over roadway segments from Ramsey County to municipalities, and the Ramsey County Capital Improvement Program provides funding for these improvements; and WHEREAS, The City of Maplewood desires Ramsey County to mill and overlay Holloway Avenue from North St. Paul Road to Furness Street and from McKnight Road to Century Avenue, and to contribute financially to the reconstruction of Holloway Avenue from Furness Street to McKnight Road, and fund the improvement projects with up to $300,000 from Capital Improvement Funds for Ramsey County Roadway Consolidation; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, The Ramsey County Board of Commissioners hereby revokes "County Road" status of Holloway Avenue (County Road 119) from North St. Paul Road to Century Avenue; and transfers jurisdiction over this roadway to the City of Maplewood, effective after the Ramsey County Office of Budgeting and Accounting has encumbered the funds necessary to fund this recycle and overlay project, and after the County is in receipt of an adopted resolution from the City of Maplewood concurring with the County revoking the "County Road" status of Holloway Avenue from North St. Paul Road to Century Avenue; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, That as just compensation for this jurisdiction transfer the County will mill and overlay Holloway Avenue from North St. Paul Road to Furness Street and from McKnight Road to Century Avenue, and contribute $56,000 towards the reconstruction of Holloway Avenue from Furness Street to McKnight Road, and fund the improvement projects at an estimated total cost of $300,000; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, The Ramsey County Engineer is authorized within the limits of this resolution to take actions necessary to have the identified jurisdiction change executed. Location Map Holloway Avenue, North St. Paul Road to Century Avenue AGENDA REPORT AGENDA ITEM G-11 TO: Richard Fursman, City Manager FROM: Charles Ahl, Public Works Director/City Engineer Chris Cavett, Assistant City Engineer SUBJECT: Hazelwood Street Improvements (County Road C to Beam Ave.), Project 01-16 Resolution for Modification of Existing Construction Contract, Change Order No. 1 DATE: June 7, 2004 Introduction On August 25, 2003, the city council awarded a construction contract to Park Construction in the amount of $672,408.95. There have been changes required during construction that require a modification of the construction contract. The city council will consider approving the attached resolution directing the modification of the existing construction contract, Change Order #1. General Changer Order Discussion Public works construction contracts are bid and paid for based on a unit price schedule. The unit bid items are specific work items that have been estimated by the engineer. In other words, a contractor is paid for the exact number of cubic yards of material excavated, the length of pipe installed and the tons of bituminous pavement placed, etc. A change order is required when the engineer has requested that the contractor perform work that was not covered by any particular bid item, or for which such a change will cause a particular item to greatly exceed the original estimate for that item. The engineer must often request that the contractor perform work that is not covered under the original contract. The reasons for such a request are: • To adapt to changed or unforeseen field conditions; i.e, the design of a particular section of street might be altered during construction to account for unanticipated poor soils in a particular area of the project. • A necessary item may have been inadvertently omitted by the engineer during the design process that must be included in the contract. On occasions, a change order request might be initiated by the contractor for expenses they feel they have incurred because of a delay or a change in contract condition. Such claims are strongly reviewed and negotiated between the engineer and the contractor and only brought before the city council if the engineer determines that they are justifiable. Background The items requested in this change order are all for extra work performed by the contractor at the request of the engineer. The exception was the extra depth asphalt removal, which was an unforeseen change in conditions from what had been anticipated. Some items such as Extra Depth Asphalt Removal are governed by the city's specifications and are to be paid for on an individual basis by change order. The contractor had made a number of additional claims that were reviewed and denied by the engineer. Budget Impact With the exception of the Water Manhole, all the change order items are eligible for state aid funding. The water manhole will be paid for by SPRWS. No increase in the project budget is required as these extras still fall within the original approved budget and the amount budgeted for construction. Recommendation It is recommended that the city council approve the attached resolution for Change Order No. 1 in the amount of $27,565.15 with Park Construction for Hazelwood Street Improvements, Project 01-16. CMC Attachments: Resolution Change Order No. 1 Location Map RESOLUTION DIRECTING MODIFICATION OF EXISTING CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT WHEREAS, the City Council of Maplewood, Minnesota has heretofore ordered made Improvement Project 01-16, Hazelwood Street Improvements, and has let a construction contract pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 429, and WHEREAS, it is now necessary and expedient that said contract be modified and designated as Improvement Project 01-16, Change Order No. 1. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA that the mayor and city clerk are hereby authorized and directed to modify the existing contract by executing said Change Order No. 1 in the amount of $27,565.15. The revised contract amount is $699,974.10 No revisions to the project budget are proposed at this time, as these changes fall within the original project budget. CHANGE ORDER DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA Project Name: Hazelwood Street Change Order No.: 1 Project No.: 01-16 Date: April 26, 2004 Contractor: Park Construction Company The following changes shall be made in t he contract documents: Unit Description Unit Quantity Price Total 4-Way stop at Hazelwood & Cty Rd C Day 50 Day $15 Day $ 750.00 Install silt fence LF 811 $2.50 $ 2,027.50 Extra depth asphalt removal T 1,108 $9.71 $10,758.68 Revised signal system LS 1 $12,326.77 $12,326.77 Add surface drain @ 2759 Hazelwood 21" RCP FES Section @ west pond (#11-3) EA 1 $524.20 $ 524.20 Water Dept MH reconstruct & provide casting, new top slab LS 1 $1,178.00 $1,178.00 Original Contract: $672,408.95 Net Change of Prior Change Order Na. to No. Change This Change Order: $27,565.15 Revised Contract: Approved Mayo ~ - ~„s,~wt ~' C Recommended ~~'~ gineer ,,~~~ ~- a Agreed to by Contractor by ~">/ ~ ~'`p'/ ° i+~ Title Location Map Hazelwood Street Improvements, Project 01-16 (from County Road C to Beam Avenue) Agenda G12 AGENDA REPORT TO: Richard Fursman, City Manager FROM: Karen Guilfoile, City Clerk DATE: June 8, 2004 RE: Farmer's Market -Maplewood Mall Karl Oliver has applied for a miscellaneous permit for an outdoor farmers market at the Maplewood Mall. We have obtained the lease agreement with Mr. Oliver and the Maplewood Mall Associates Limited Partnership, which requires the lessee to have proper insurance coverage. The flea market will be located on the West side of the building (see attached map) in an area that occupies 400 parking stalls. The market will run from 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Friday through Sunday beginning June 18~ through October 17, 2004. Mr. Oliver is anticipating approximately 30 to 50 vendors. Food vendors will be required to apply for a temporary food permit. Environmental Health Officer, DuWayne Konewko will work with vendors ensuring that proper food handling procedures are followed. It is requested that council approve the Miscellaneous Permit for the farmers market. Agenda #H1 MEMORANDUM TO: City Manager FROM: Ken Roberts, Planner SUBJECT: Tax-Exempt Revenue Financing -Good Samaritan Society LOCATION: 550 Roselawn Avenue DATE: June 1, 2004 INTRODUCTION The Evangelical Lutheran Good Samaritan Society is requesting that the city council give host approval for up to $2.1 million in tax-exempt revenue bond financing. They would use this financing io refinance existing bonds for the Good Samaritan Center at 550 Roselawn Avenue. This facility is a 117-bed nursing care center and a 23-bed sub-acute care center. (See the location map on page two and the property line/zoning map on page three.) The applicant's are requesting that the city approve this financing so the bond interest will be tax-exempt. The state and federal governments require local government approval of tax-exempt financing. DISCUSSION This request should meet the city's requirements for tax-exempt financing. The Colorado Health Facilities Authority will issue the revenue bonds and Maplewood will not be liable for this financing. The applicant plans to use the money to refinance previously approved financing for improvements at the Good Samaritan Center and to create a reserve fund for the facility. RECOMMENDATION Approve the attached tax-exempt financing resolution starting on page four. This resolution is for Maplewood giving host approval for up to $2.1 million in tax-exempt revenue financing for the Evangelical Lutheran Good Samaritan Society for the Good Samaritan Care Center at 550 Roselawn Avenue. This approval is subject to the applicant: 1. Meeting the city's tax-exempt financing requirements. 2. Paying all city-related attorneys and other costs. p/Sec 17/good Samaritan refin. - 2004 Attachments: 1. Location Map 2. Property Line2oning Map 3. Finanang Approval Resolution Attachment 1 i ~ ~) - ,~ _ I '„' KINGSTON AVE ~_ LOCATION MAP z 1 N Att~.ch~-1^nt 2 Edgerton Park 1946 R 1 1193$ 1930 ROSELAWN AVE 510 ~ 520 Ii-__~ ~._ ~ 515 523 ,529 '._-, -----a~9 ' 549 557 ,, --' SfaS - _~_ - ~~, i , -~, ~ 1 i I i __, -__- _..1855 t ._ _.. _- 19Q'S 189 -- ; `:1889---~: 1881 r " BELLWOOD AVE ,512 522 - 526 - -- 556 i -_ ', 564 _ ~i 4~.~2_ ; '5816_, m 0 G7 m O z 1800 PROPERTY LINE /ZONING MAP 3 N Attachment 3 RESOLUTION NO. 2004 RESOLUTION CONSENTING TO THE ISSUANCE OF REVENUE BONDS BY THE COLORADO HEALTH FACILITIES AUTHORITY ON BEHALF OF THE EVANGELICAL LUTHERAN GOOD SAMARITAN SOCIETY BE IT RESOLVED by the Maplewood City Council (the "City"), as follows: SECTION 1 Recitals 1.1 The Evangelical Lutheran Good Samaritan Society (the "Society") has advised this Council of its desire to (i) refinance the costs previously incurred in the connection with the acquisition, construction, improvement and equipping of 117 bed nursing care center, 23 bed sub-acute care center, (ii) fund a reserve fund and (iii) pay certain costs of issuing the bonds at the Maplewood Good Samaritan Center, located at 550 Roselawn Avenue in the City (the "Project'). 1.2 The Society has represented to the City that the Project will assist the Society in improving its facilities in the City, for the benefit of the residents of the City and surrounding area; that the issuance of tax-exempt revenue bonds is essential to the successful completion of the Project; and that the Colorado Health Facilities Authority has evidenced a willingness to issue tax-exempt revenue bonds and loan the proceeds thereof to the Society to finance the proposed Project. 1.3 In order to facilitate the financing of the Project by the Society, the City wants the Colorado Health Facilities Authority to issue its Health Facilities Revenue Bonds (The Evangelical Lutheran Good Samaritan Society Project) to finance the Project, among other things. 1.4 The city published a public hearing notice on May 26, 2004, in the Maplewood Review. Pursuant to such notice, the city held a public hearing before the City Council on the proposal of the Society to finance the Project through the issuance of revenue bonds by the Colorado Health Facilities Authority. The city allowed all those who desired to speak at the hearing to be heard, and in connection with which written comments were taken in advance. 2474305x1 4 SECTION 2 Consent to Issuance 2.1 On the basis of the information given to the City to date, the City hereby consents to the issuance by the Colorado Health Facilities Authority of approximately $2,040,000 of its revenue bonds, and the loan of the proceeds thereof to the Society to finance the Project. The adoption of this resolution shall not be deemed, however, to establish a legal obligation on the part of the City, its Council or the Colorado Health Facilities Authority to issue or to cause the issuance of such bonds. The bonds, if issued by the Colorado Health Facilities Authority, shall not constitute a charge, lien or encumbrance, legal or equitable, upon any property of the City or the Colorado Health Facilities Authority. The bonds shall be payable solely from said revenues and property of the Society specifically pledged to the payment thereof, and shall not constitute a debt or pecuniary liability of the City or the Colorado Health Facilities Authority within the meaning of any constitutional or statutory limitation. The Maplewood City Council adopted this resolution on June 14, 2004. Mayor Attest: City Clerk 2474305v1 5 Agenda #H2 REPORT SUMMARY Applicant: Site Address: Existing Zoning: Existing Land Use: Proposed Zoning: Proposed Land Use: City Council Hearing Date: 60-Day Deadline: Ronald Rygwalski 2086 Edgerton Street North Neighborhood Commercial (NC) Neighborhood Commercial (NC) Double Dwelling Residential (R-2) Double Dwelling Residential (R-2) June 14, 2004 June 18, 2004 Project Description: Ronald Rygwalski owns the property at 2086 Edgerton Street. This property is zoned Neighborhood Commercial (NC). Mr. Rygwalski operates a motor vehicle repair service business (Ron's Service) out of a garage on the front of the property, and has two single-family houses on the back of the property. Mr. Rygwalski occupies the larger, front house and his son and grandchildren occupy the smaller, back house. Mr. Rygwalski proposes to build an addition to the smaller, back house to make the house more livable for his son and grandchildren. Requests: To build an addition to the smaller house on the property, Mr. Rygwalski originally requested a conditional use permit to expand the legal nonconforming single-family structure. After review of the project, however, city staff is requesting that the city council approve a change to the land use plan and zoning from Neighborhood Commercial (NC) to Double Dwelling Residential (R-2). Recommendations: On May 17, 2004, the planning commission unanimously recommended approval of a comprehensive land use plan and zoning change for 2086 Edgerton Street from Neighborhood Commercial (NC) to Double Dwelling Residential (R-2). City staff also recommends approval of the land use plan and zoning change. MEMORANDUM TO: Richard Fursman, City Manager FROM: Shann Finwall, Planner APPLICANT: Ronald Rygwalski SUBJECT: Comprehensive Land Use and Zoning Change LOCATION: 2086 Edgerton Street DATE: June 7, 2004 INTRODUCTION Project Description Ronald Rygwalski owns the property at 2086 Edgerton Street. This property is zoned Neighborhood Commercial (NC). Mr. Rygwalski operates a motor vehicle repair service business (Ron's Service) out of a garage on the front of the property, and has two single-family houses on the back of the property. Mr. Rygwalski occupies the larger, front house and his son and grandchildren occupy the smaller, back house. Mr. Rygwalski proposes to build an addition to the smaller, back house to make the house more livable for his son and grandchildren. (Refer to the narrative and maps on pages 10 through 14.) Request To build an addition to the smaller house on the property, Mr. Rygwalski originally requested a conditional use permit to expand the legal nonconforming single-family structure. After review of the project, however, city staff is requesting that the city council change the land use plan and zoning from Neighborhood Commercial (NC) to Double Dwelling Residential (R-2). BACKGROUND 1985 Rezoning Both the single-family houses and the business were in place when Mr. Rygwalski purchased the property 27 years ago. Prior to his purchase, the business was in operation as both a motor vehicle repair and a gasoline fuel station since 1930. The oldest zoning map on record is dated 1959 and reflects the zoning on this property as Business Commercial (BC). In 1984 city staff proposed to downzone the property from its original zoning of BC to Double Dwelling Residential (R-2). (Refer to the 1984 staff report on page 15.) The downzoning was part of a city-wide program to give a clear signal as to how the city desired properties to be used, in this case to guide the land toward a residential use to reflect the predominance of residential properties in the neighborhood. The rezoning would have created the houses as conforming uses and the business as a nonconforming use, thereby ensuring controls over the expansion of the business. Because of the city council's concerns regarding the creation of a nonconforming business and what that would mean for the business owner, the city council decided to rezone and reguide the property from BC to NC. (Refer to the February 11, 1985, city council minutes on page 16.) The intent of the NC zoning district is to preserve land for the use of businesses that are compatible with adjacent residential land uses. No residential uses or motor vehicle repair businesses are allowed within the NC zoning district. However, the code does allow uses that the city council finds compatible with the neighborhood as a conditional use. In 1985, the city council may have felt that the motor vehicle repair use was compatible with the surrounding residential properties because it was, and still is, a small business. 2004 Conditional Use Permit In March 2004, Mr. Rygwalski discussed the proposed addition to the small house with city staff. Mr. Rygwalski was informed that the city council would need to approve a CUP for the expansion of a nonconforming structure prior to the city issuing a building permit. On April 19, 2004, Mr. Rygwalski applied for a CUP. DISCUSSION Conditional Use Permit The small house is 480 square feet in area. The proposed addition is 624 square feet in area and will be constructed on the west side of the house, away from the lake. The addition meets all of the required setbacks of the zoning code and impervious surface coverage maximums allowed by the Shoreland Overlay District for Oehrlein Lake. Since the house is a legal nonconforming structure within the NC zoning district, a CUP is required to expand, regardless of the size of expansion. Rezoning After reviewing the proposal carefully, rather than process the addition as a CUP, city staff is recommending that the city change the land use plan and zoning of the property to R-2. With the current zoning of NC, both the business and the single-family houses would require a CUP to expand. Processing a CUP every time Mr. Rygwalski or a future owner proposes to build an addition, deck, or garage onto the residential portion of the property seems unnecessary considering the predominance of single-family houses in the neighborhood. Requiring a CUP for the expansion of a nonconforming business as the zoning change would require, however, would allow the city controls on that expansion to ensure adequate protection to the surrounding single-family houses. Permitted uses within the R-2 zoning district include single and double dwellings. The minimum lot size in the R-2 zoning district for double dwellings is 12,000 square feet in area and 85 feet in width. Mr. Rygwalski's lot exceeds these dimensions. With the rezoning and reguiding of the property to R-2, both single-family houses could be expanded without a CUP and only with the required building permits. Mr. Rygwalski plans to turn his business over to his son once he retires. He indicated that he would be supportive of the rezoning as long as he can retain the business. Rezoning the property to R-2 would cause the business to be nonconforming. However, since a motor vehicle repair business is not permitted within the NC zoning district, the Ronald Rygwalski 2 June 7, 2004 business is already a nonconforming use. Therefore, rezoning the property will not change the status of the business as a nonconforming use, but will bring the single- family houses into conformity with the R-2 zoning. State law allows nonconforming uses to remain until such time as the business is no longer in operation for one year, or has been destroyed up to 50 percent of its fair market value. Patrick Kelly, city attorney, has indicated that it would be up to the city to determine the definition of "fair market value," leaving some leniency in this regard. City code would also allow a nonconforming business to expand with a CUP. Therefore, Mr. Rygwalski can be assured that the nonconforming business can remain, and the city can be assured that if it expands city controls can be put in place to protect surrounding residential properties. OTHER COMMENTS Dave Fisher, Building Official: The building code needs to be met for the expansion of the single-family house. Chuck Vermeersch, Engineer: Mr. Vermeersch states that there is no engineering basis to deny Mr. Rygwalski's proposal. If the proposal is approved, the city engineering department recommends that a sewer access charge (SAC) be included in the building permit fees for the expansion of the smaller house, since the property has never paid for this service in the past. COMMITTEE ACTION On May 17, 2004, the planning commission unanimously recommended approval of a comprehensive land use plan and zoning change for 2086 Edgerton Street from Neighborhood Commercial (NC) to Double Dwelling Residential (R-2). (Refer to attached May 17, 2004, planning commission minutes.) RECOMMENDATIONS Adopt the Comprehensive Land Use Plan change resolution on page 17. This resolution changes the Land Use Plan from Neighborhood Commercial (NC) to Double Dwelling Residential (R-2) for property located at 2086 Edgerton Street. The city is making this change because the proposal will meet the following city comprehensive plan goals and policies: a. Provide for orderly development. b. Minimize conflicts between land uses. Protect neighborhoods from activities that produce excessive noise, dirt, odors or which generate heavy traffic. d. Protect neighborhoods from encroachment or intrusion of incompatible land uses by adequate buffering and separation. Ronald Rygwalski 3 June 7, 2004 2. Adopt the rezoning resolution on page 18. This resolution changes the zoning map from Neighborhood Commercial (NC) to Double Dwelling Residential (R-2) for property located at 2086 Edgerton Street. The city is making this change because: a. The proposed change is consistent with the spirit, purpose and intent of the zoning code. b. The proposed change will not substantially injure or detract from the use of neighboring properties or from the character of the neighborhood, and that the use of the property adjacent to the area included in the proposed change or plan is adequately safeguarded. c. The proposed change will serve the best interests and conveniences of the community, where applicable, and the public welfare. d. The proposed change would have no negative effect upon the logical, efficient, and economical extension of public services and facilities, such as public water, sewers, police and fire protection and schools. e. The property has a motor vehicle repair garage and two single-family dwellings located on it. The proposed zoning change would make the two single-family houses on the property conforming and no longer nonconforming. Ronald Rygwalski 4 June 7, 2004 CITIZEN COMMENTS Staff surveyed the 69 surrounding property owners within 500 feet of this site for their comments. Of the 17 replies received, all were supportive of Mr. Rygwalski's proposal to build an addition to the small house. Patricia and Thomas Galligher, 1989 Payne Avenue North: We think it's fine for Mr. Rygwalski to add on to the small house as long as it doesn't affect the lake, i.e. changing the shoreline, water, sewer. 2. Marilyn and Dr. Joe Norquist, 2087 Greenbrier Street: Expansion of a nonconforming single-family house at 2086 Edgerton Street. We think that, in a residential neighborhood on Lake Oehrlein, it is a reasonable request for enlarging their home. It would seem appropriate also to ensure in some way that the two homes on that plot (rated commercial) will not in the future be used for commercial business. It is appropriate to have the commercial business on Edgerton Street, but on the lakeside of that long plot, it would be most detrimental to have a commercial business located there. 3. Ricci J. & Marlys A. Casadecalvo, 2167 Edgerton Street N.: I see no problem at all with the addition described. It shouldn't affect anyone in the neighborhood, as the smaller house is not visible from the street. The Rygwalskis keep their property in immaculate condition. 4. Myron Bjornstad, 2074 Edgerton Street: I do not have a problem with Ron and Bill adding onto their home. 5. Martha B. Oviatt, 2032 Edgerton Street N.: Ron and family have been good neighbors and responsible property owners. Please approve this request. 6. Robert D. & Donna R. Clemens, 2177 Edgerton Street N.: Ron has been a good neighbor -the addition to the home will be a positive addition to our neighborhood. 7. Judith A. Southwick, 547 Skillman Avenue E.: I have no objection to his building expansion. 8. Dianne M. Delgiorno, 655 Belmont Lane E.: I have no objections to the request. 9. George A. & Marian A. Toren, 678 Eldridge Avenue E.: The request will in no way affect my property value -the addition goes to Edgerton Street rather than towards the lake. It is also completely hidden from my view by many mature trees. Ron is a very good neighbor - I recommend a vote for the permit. 10. Candy Staples, 2045 Edgerton Street N.: My name is Candy Staples. I live at 2045 Edgerton. I have lived here for 17 years. Mr. Rygwalski's business and house are just kitty-corner from me. The only thing that prevents me from seeing his property is the hill in front of our townhouse building. Until receiving this survey, I did not know the small house existed. I cannot believe its expansion would be detrimental to the neighborhood in any way. I hope Mr. Rygwalski is given the permit to expand as he has requested. Thank you. Ronald Rygwalski 5 June 7, 2004 11. Robert W. Skowronek, 2180 Edgerton Street: Let him do it. 12. Colleen Oftedahl, 567 Skillman Avenue E.: That's fine with me. Let him do it. He doesn't use the property as commercial much anyway. 13. Jon and Sharon Nelson, 2106 Bradley Street North: I don't care. 14. Thomas and Rita Johnson, 2139 Edgerton Street North: We don't see a problem with this. They keep things nice -yard/house. Good people. 15. Joseph Norquist, 2087 Greenbrier Street North: This feels like a reasonable request and appropriate for a residential neighborhood around Lake Oehrlein. It would seem appropriate also to ensure that the residencies, although that plot of land will not in the future be ever used for commercial business. If that were to ever happen, it would be detrimental to the area. 16. Michelle Brechon, 563 Skillman Avenue East: I think that Mr. Rygwalski's request is reasonable. I strongly feel that if this helps his family with their living situation and does not bother the community I feel he should be allowed to do this expansion even though the zoning requirements are an issue. Quite honestly, does this hurt anyone? And if it does not then I feel he should be allowed to improve his families' life. 17. Floyd Erickson, 2094 Edgerton Street North (telephone conversation with neighbor directly to the north of Mr. Rygwalski): Mr. Erickson originally had concerns with the project considering how many buildings are on the property already, i.e., business, two houses, and two residential garages. After Mr. Erickson discussed his concerns with Mr. Rygwalski he felt the addition to the smaller house would not pose a negative impact to his property, especially since the exterior building materials of the addition will match the existing building materials, i.e., white vinyl siding. Ronald Rygwalski 6 June 7, 2004 REFERENCE SITE DESCRIPTION Site size: 1.4 Acres as Platted (Approximately 1 Acre Above Water Level) Existing Use: Motor Vehicle Service and Repair Business and Two Single- Family Houses SURROUNDING LAND USES North: Single-Family Houses South: Single-Family Houses East: Oehrlein Lake West: Edgerton Street, Single-Family Houses, Townhouses, and Apartments PLANNING Land Use Plan Designation: Neighborhood Commercial (NC) Zoning: Neighborhood Commercial (NC) Criteria for Rezoning Section 44-1165 requires that the city council make the following findings to rezone property: 1. The proposed change is consistent with the spirit, purpose and intent of the zoning code. 2. The proposed change will not substantially injure or detract from the use of neighboring property or from the character of the neighborhood, and that the use of the property adjacent to the area included in the proposed change or plan is adequately safeguarded. 3. The proposed change will serve the best interests and conveniences of the community, where applicable, and the public welfare. 4. The proposed change would have no negative effect upon the logical, efficient, and economical extension of public services and facilities, such as public water, sewers, police and fire protection and schools. Comprehensive Land Use Plan Amendment There are no specific criteria for land use plan changes. Any change, however, should be consistent with the goals and policies in the comprehensive plan. Two specific goals apply to this proposal: 1. Provide for orderly development. Ronald Rygwalski 7 June 7, 2004 2. Minimize conflicts between land uses. In addition, two specific residential development policies apply to this proposal: Protect neighborhoods from activities that produce excessive noise, dirt, odors or which generate heavy traffic. 2. Protect neighborhoods from encroachment or intrusion of incompatible land uses by adequate buffering and separation. Criteria for Expansion of a Legal Nonconforming Use Section 44-12 (nonconforming buildings or uses) states that no existing building devoted to a use not permitted in the district in which such building is located shall be enlarged, reconstructed or structurally altered, unless: Required by law or government order; or 2. There would not be a significant effect, as determined by the city through a conditional use permit, on the development of the parcel as zoned. Criteria for Conditional Use Permit Section 44-1097 states that the city council may grant a CUP subject to the nine standards for approval: 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. Ronald Rygwalski 8 June 7, 2004 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. Application Date We received the complete application and plans for this proposal on April 19, 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 18, 2004, unless the applicant agrees to a time extension. P:Com-Dev\Sec1712086 edgerton (Rygwalski) Attachments: 1. Letter from Applicant 2. Zoning/Location Map 3. Existing Conditions 4. Proposed Addition 5. Building Footprint 6. November 7, 1984, Staff Report 7. February 11, 1985, City Council Minutes 8. Comprehensive Land Use Plan Change Resolution 9. Zoning Map Change Resolution Ronald Rygwalski 9 June 7, 2004 Attachment 1 City OfMaplewood Apri12, 2004 1830 County Road B East Maplewood, Mn 55109 Dear City County: Ronald Rygwalski 2086 Edgerton St. Maplewood, Mn 55117 We would like to add an addition to our home to make living conditions more Suitable. From a one bedroom to a two bedroom home. So my Son and his family can have more comfortable living conditions. Sincerely, t c~,~~'U~1 ,~, Ronald Rygwalski 10 2155 ~~ - 2185 -~ 2136 2181 2130 I --- 2177 2124 2167 2118 R1 215 1, 211 210 209 2088 2139 ~ i R2 -. 2080 2D75 2074 2072 ~~ 1~~377 j ~Q5" I ~575 20531 57 2051G ,) r~ ~ 571 2049` 'gyp 2047f (~I R3 !2o4s 5 4~ , 565 . _ 4 563 5 242 SKILLMAN AVE r _~ ,s--, _~- -U- , ~. ,-,~, __ i ~ ~ i 1 ~~ ~ ` 0 R~20Z1~~ ~ ~ N Httacnment 2 Co R~ 3 - 2~ ~ __ 64~ 667 ~_ ~ ~ ~_ - `J m r X190 608 8?8 ' 628 636 ~~ 66! O ~'(~ 650 9L F X180 - 2170 ~~ 2166 ~ ~- / \ ~/ ~ 670 ~- r. 2160 - Oeh~l; ~~ ~'""1' 1~ _~ - 2094 !___.,___! 2 - _ 2086+ 1 ~ ~C ~ _ ~ ~ ~ ~~ o ~ m ~ -- _ ~ ~ 673 O _ / / /' Z ~ 2074 ~/ 661 - i /~ / ~ 655 ~ ~ ~~ 1 ~ ~~ 2054 650 i 5Ei 2044 660 /~ ~ ~ ~ R1 ~ 2 2 ~`' '' Q3 ~ ~/ ~i / 2010 r/ !~ ` ~ / X -- ' l 2001 `, /~ wit Zoning/Location Map s 11 Attachment 3 ~~9.5 ~~ uJ ~. 0 W O C 0. R D. B so 0 ono o, 1 hereby certify that this survey, plan, of report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Registered Land Surveyor under the laws of the State of Minnesota. ----J Date ~~ i ~ ~'= ~ Reg. No. 11561 Go7, ~~ Soo. 55 0 0 0 - ~ X'f'~ //i n 9 statiar~-Homes e f~ou5e --~ o/"q e ~---9 9 3 9/. S 7 - `900 ~4 T ?~- o~, ~ ` O ,. ~` Q1 N W E S 1 ~~- // ~'i ~• 4 / Q` o ~~ V o ~ ~ Existing Conditions 12 STATION P n ~° ~ r / -}-o south ~prop2c~ I in~Q N W E S 6a Attachment 4 ~•.__ . - - ---, LIT TAE ' o HOUSE ~ ~ I 1 __ 2 4' b' 1 I _. I -to south Pro'PQ~J 11 nQ Proposed Addition 13 3 07'.~ T~ iwKe. ~36'- Attachment 5 r~ l N ~ W .,. ~ N (O~ O O _ _ _ - -- 24~ _ . - -__ _ ~.-:_ _ _ __ _ _ 24~ _- - _- __a -::2.6., ~,z.. _. X3.6.. ~ 7•q^ . •=- ---- . -- se _ y-- __ 12 - --- ---~ .~. x ,~ ~4~ c~ ~QOtCJrn .m - -- ~ }_ ft l ~ ° A ~' ~,- RrP ~ r .} q -.. T ~ m - N zt• ~ I~ ~~ . !'.. i j _.,, ~... ~ - `.:.ago- 4.6 ~,. . - . _.. 13• ... -_ ... /~ -~~t;+; d~ ~x ~ sr -N v t~o~.s~ N W E S ~loSC$ ~! q x'? 1 ,' 1 1 ', ,1 Building Footprint (Small House) Attachment 6 MEMORANDUM T0: City Manager FROM: Associate Planner, Jo'nnson SUBJECT: Zone Change (BC to R-2) LOCATION: 2086 Edgerton Street APPLICANT: City of Maplewood OWNER: Ronald S Rygwalski DATE: November 7, 1984 SUMMARY Request Downzone this property from BC, business commercial to R-2, double dwelling. Reason for this Request This site is part of the city-wide down-zoning program. The RL, residential lower density land use plan and BC, business commercial zoning designations are incompatible. The proposed change is to give a clear signal as to how the city desires the property to be used. Comments This is predominantly a lower density residential neighborhood. The BC zoning on this site should be changed to a residential designation to control any expansion of the existing use. This action would be consistent with the land use plan policy of "maintaining and, where possible, strengthening the character of individual neighborhoods." As a legal nonconforming, use the business use of the site could not be expanded or changed to a more intensive use without council approval. Downzoning the site would also move toward eventually bringing the property into conformance with another land use plan policy of having dissimilar uses abut along rear property lines where possible so that like uses front one another. Expansion of the single dwellings would continue to require council approval until one of the dwellings is removed. When downzoning a property, council should grant the property owner a zoning classification that permits the most flexibility for using the site consistent with the land use plan and the location of the site. In this case, this would be the R-2, double dwelling district. The site's frontage on an arterial roadway and proximity to land planned for residential medium density use make this a suitable site for the R-2 classification. Single dwellings are, a permitted use in the R-2 district. The property owner would prefer to retain the BC zoning but as long as the business use of the property can be continued, he will not object to this proposal. Recommendation Approve the enclosed resolution (page 8), approving a downzoning from BC, business commercial to R-2 double dwelling for 2086 Edgerton Street. 15 Attachment 7 1^ 3. 7:20 P.M. Rezoning 2086 Edgerton (4 Votes) ~_ ~/-~.~ `I a. Mayor Greavu convened the meeting for a public hearing regarding the proposed rezoning of 2086 Edgerton from BC business commercial to NC neighborhood commercial. b. Manager Evans presented the staff report. c. Mr. Ronald Rygwalski, owner of 2086 Edgerton, spoke on behalf of the proposal. d. Mayor Greavu called for proponents. None were heard. e. Mayor Greavu called for opponents. None were heard. f. Mayor Greavu closed the public hearing. g. Councilmember Maida introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: 85 - 2 - 17 WHEREAS, the City of Maplewood initiated a rezoning from BC, business com- mercial to NC, neighborhood commercial for the following-described property: Lot 12, Thiede's Edgerton Villas, Section 17, Township 29, Range 22. This property is also known as 2086 Edgerton Street, Maplewood; WHEREAS, the procedural history of this rezoning is as follows: 1. This rezoning was initiated by the City of Maplewood, pursuant to Chapter 36, Article VII of the Maplewood Code of Ordinances. 2. This rezoning was reviewed by the Maplewood Planning Commission on November 19, 1984. The planning commission recommended to the city council that said property be rezoned to R-2, residence district (double dwelling). 3. The Maplewood City Council held a public hearing on February 11, 1985,_ to consider this rezoning. Notice thereof was published and mailed pursuant to law. All persons present at said hearing were given an opportunity to be heard and present written statements. The council also considered reports and recom- mendations of the city staff and planning commission. _-- - - -- __ - -_ NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE MAPLEWOOD CITY COUNCIL that the above- described rezoning be approved on the basis of the following findings of fact: 1. The proposed change is consistent. with the spirit, purpose and intent. of the zoning code. 2. The. proposed change will. not substantially injure or detract from the use: of: neighboring property or from the character of the neighborhood, and that. the use of the property adjacent to the area included in the proposed change or plan is adequately safeguarded. 3. The proposed change will serve the best interests and conveniences of the community, where applicable and the public welfare. 4. The proposed change would have no negative effect upon the logical, efficient,. and economical extension of public services and facilities, such as public water, sewers,. police and fire protection and schools. Adopted this 11th day of February, 1985. 16 Seconded by Councilmember Wasiluk. Ayes - all. Attachment 8 COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE PLAN CHANGE RESOLUTION WHEREAS, the City of Maplewood proposes to change the city's land use plan from Neighborhood Commercial (NC) to Double Dwelling Residential (R-2) for a property located at 2086 Edgerton Street. WHEREAS, the legal description for the property located at 2086 Edgerton Street is Lot 12, Thiede's Edgerton Villas, Section 17, Township 29, Range 22. WHEREAS, the history of this change is as follows: 1. On May 17, 2004, the planning commission discussed the land use plan changes and recommended that the city council approve the plan amendments. 2. On June 17, 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 approve the above- described land use plan change because the proposal will meet the following city comprehensive plan goals and policies: 1. Provide for orderly development. 2. Minimize conflicts between land uses. 3. Protect neighborhoods from activities that produce excessive noise, dirt, odors or which generate heavy traffic. 4. Protect neighborhoods from encroachment or intrusion of incompatible land uses by adequate buffering and separation. The Maplewood City Council adopted this resolution on June 17, 2004. 17 Attachment 9 ZONING MAP CHANGE RESOLUTION WHEREAS, the City of Maplewood has proposed the following change to the City of Maplewood's zoning map: Neighborhood Commercial (NC) to Double Dwelling Residential (R-2). Street. WHEREAS, the change is proposed for a property located at 2086 Edgerton WHEREAS, the legal description for the property located at 2086 Edgerton Street is Lot 12, Thiede's Edgerton Villas, Section 17, Township 29, Range 22. WHEREAS, the history of this change is as follows: 1. On May 17, 2004, the planning commission discussed the zoning map change and recommended that the city council approve the proposed zoning map change. 2. On June 17, 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 approve the above- described change in the zoning map for the following reasons: 1. The proposed change is consistent with the spirit, purpose and intent of the zoning code. 2. The proposed change will not substantially injure or detract from the use of neighboring property or from the character of the neighborhood, and that the use of the property adjacent to the area included in the proposed change or plan is adequately safeguarded. 3. The proposed change will serve the best interests and conveniences of the community, where applicable, and the public welfare. 4. The proposed change would have no negative effect upon the logical, efficient, and economical extension of public services and facilities, such as public water, sewers, police and fire protection and schools. 5. The property has a motor vehicle repair garage and two single-family dwellings located on it. The proposed zoning change would make the two single-family houses on the property conforming and no longer nonconforming. The Maplewood City Council adopted this resolution on June 17, 2004. 18 MINUTES OF THE MAPLEWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION 1830 COUNTY ROAD B EAST, MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA MONDAY, MAY 17, 2004 VI. NEW BUSINESS a. Conditional Use Permit - 2086 Edgerton Street (Rygwalski) Mr. Roberts said Ronald Rygwalski owns the property at 2086 Edgerton Street. This property is zoned Neighborhood Commercial (NC). Mr. Rygwalski operates a motor vehicle repair service business (Ron's Service) out of a garage on the front of the property, and has two single-family houses on the back of the property. My Rygwalski occupies the larger, front house and his son and grandchildren occupy the smaller, back house. Mr. Rygwalski proposes to build an addition to the smaller, back house to make the house more livable for his son and grandchildren. To build an addition to the smaller house on the property, Mr. Rygwalski is requesting a conditional use permit to expand the legal non-conforming single-family structure. Mr. Roberts said instead of the CUP, staff is recommending that the city change the Land Use Plan and zoning of the site to R-2. This change would make the business non-conforming but would make the residential uses conforming with the zoning. Chairperson Fischer asked the applicant to address the commission. Mr. Rygwalski, 2086 Edgerton Street, Maplewood, addressed the commission. He said it's a family operation and they have operated it for 27 years. They have put a lot of time and effort into the property and they want to continue living there and keep the family together. Commissioner Trippler moved to adopt the Comprehensive Land Use Plan change resolution on page 17 of the staff report. This resolution changes the Land Use Plan from Neighborhood Commercial (NC) to Double Dwelling Residential (R-2) for property located at 2086 Edgerton Street. The city is making this change because the proposal will meet the following city comprehensive plan goals and policies: a. Provide for orderly development. b. Minimize conflicts between land uses. c. Protect neighborhoods from activities that produce excessive noise, dirt, odors or which generate heavy traffic. d. Protect neighborhoods from encroachment or intrusion of incompatible land uses by adequate buffering and separation. Commissioner Trippler moved to adopt the rezoning resolution on page 18 of the staff report. This resolution changes the zoning map from Neighborhood Commercial (NC) to Double Dwelling Residential (R-2) for property located at 2086 Edgerton Street. The city is making this change because: a. The proposed change is consistent with the spirit, purpose and intent of the zoning code. b. The proposed change will not substantially injure or detract from the use of neighboring properties or from the character of the neighborhood, and that the use of the property adjacent to the area included in the proposed change or plan is adequately safeguarded. c. The proposed change will serve the best interests and conveniences of the community, where applicable, and the public welfare. d. The proposed change would have no negative effect upon the logical, efficient, and economical extension of public services and facilities, such as public water, sewers, police and fire protection and schools. Commissioner Desai seconded. Ayes - Bartol, Desai, Dierich, Fischer, Mueller, Pearson, Trippler The motion passed. This item goes to the city council on June 14, 2004. AGENDA ITEM H-3 AGENDA REPORT TO: Richard Fursman, City Manager FROM: Charles Ahl, Public Works Director/City Engineer Chris Cavett, Assistant City Engineer SUBJECT: County Road D Realignment (East), T.H. 61 to Southlawn Dr., Project 02-07 1. Assessment Hearing, 7:15 p.m. 2. Approve Resolution for Adoption of Assessment Roll DATE: June 7, 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 28th 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 County Road D (East) Realignment total $3,808,957.68. The vast majority of the assessments will be recovered from the Legacy Village (Hartford) Development ($3.3 million - 86%), as established in the Developer's Agreement between the city and the Hartford. Five properties west of Hazelwood Street are proposed to be assessed for new street construction. Existing properties on the north side of existing County Road D and east of Hazelwood are not being assessed for new construction; rather, they are being assessed at a lower pavement replacement rate as defined in the City's Pavement Management Policy. A pavement replacement would have been the improvement method that would have been proposed for the existing segment of County Road D, if the realignment project were not taking place. One property on the west side of Hazelwood (Schreier property) is also proposed to be assessed for the improvement of the Hazelwood frontage at the reconstruction rate as defined in the city's Pavement Management Policy. The Slumberland Furniture property, 1755 County Road D (PIN 343022440013), is located at the eastern limits of the construction project. In fact, only'/2 of their frontage will be affected by this project. For this reason, staff has recommended that this property be assessed in the near County Road D Realignment (East), Project 02-07 Page 2 June 7, 2004 future when the remainder of County Road D is upgraded. This proposal was also brought to the property owner's attention during recent easement negotiations. A complete assessment roll is attached. Property Owner Contact Staff has continued to have direct contact with the property owners west of Hazelwood Street during the development of this project. However, there had not been much discussion with the property owners east of Hazelwood Street. For that reason, staff sent an informational letter in April and held a project review open house on May 5, 2004 to give the property owners along the existing County Road D an opportunity to review the project. Most notable, these are the Pineview and Emerald Estates Townhomes and the Mapleridge Apartments. The only persons to attend the meeting were two townhome property owners and the manager of Mapleridge Apartments. Staff has received almost no calls of inquiry from the existing residential property owners. Objections Filed No objections have been filed as of June 7t", 2004. Recommendation It is recommended that the city council approve the attached resolution for the adoption of the assessment roll for the County Road D Realignment (East), T.H. 61 to Southlawn Dr., Project 02-07. 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 Location Map Assessment Map Assessment Roll 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 County Road D Realignment (East), T.H. 61 to Southlawn Dr., Project 02-07, was presented in a Public Hearing format, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 429, and WHEREAS, the following property owners have filed an objections to their assessments according to the requirements of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 429, summarized as follows: No objections have been received as of June 7, 2004 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA: The assessment roll for the County Road D Realignment, (East), T.H. 61 to Southlawn Dr., Project 02-07 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. 4. 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 14~' day of June 2004 .~~ ~ cuu, ~~ County Road D Realignment, (East), T.H. 61 to Southlawn Dr., Project 02-07 Properties Assessed Fmj "r IIS -"TW% IM Ml �.. I a I I m 1 FIR6 TRUMM I !'iii jKwo � WTM " V Tol-MM IN um M'Alimlm�� MIN Qwiwiiw 14 iMW w i w r -M "- IWWN" X—I�M—m Is 12 W-2 M" V. T T-1 IMN Em n !T V 1%" 002 YIN a �WMM I WMAMI �Wikhff" lm�Ml m I I n I M�M .7 T, M im" PrTT-1 "Twm-t�,,T- FN UFO a� '�R I M UT "T" � "T M- M I I N 1 , M , � M M � M, I V �- T M- IIS .011INTIT171"M �V" LWIT!'"l- 1-3 a," - IIS I I ............ . . . . . . . . . ........ 011 MWM uY "M 7 �u � !lam ��! R � ..� - - �... Agenda #H4 REPORT SUMMARY TO: City Manager FROM: Tom Ekstrand, Senior Planner SUBJECT: Trout Land Planned Unit Development LOCATION: West Side of Highway 61-North and West of Gulden's Roadhouse DATE: June 7, 2004 PROPOSAL Jim Kellison, of Kelco Real Estate Development Services, is proposing amulti-use development west and north of Gulden's Roadhouse. This property is an assemblage of lots totaling 23.3 acres and would be bisected by the proposed County Road D extension. The proposed residential portion of this development would consist of 91 townhomes and one existing single dwelling that would remain for a total of 92 units. The proposed commercial portion would inGude an automobile dealership, a gas station/convenience store and retail. The applicant is requesting that the city approve the following: 1. A comprehensive land use plan amendment from R1 (single dwelling residential) and M1 (light manufacturing) to R2H (medium density residential). Staff is also requesting that the Major Street System & Potential Transit Plan of the comprehensive plan be amended to show the County Road D extension as a Collector street. 2. A conditional use permit (CUP) for a PUD for this multi-use development. 3. A preliminary plat. DISCUSSION The proposed PUD has been reviewed by the planning commission and recommended for approval at medium density. Since the planning commissions action, the applicant has revised his proposal by lowering the requested density from R3H (high density residential) to R3M (medium density residential). He also omitted a proposal fora 55- unitapartment building and relocated the proposed fuel station/convenience store further away from the future proposed townhomes. The neighboring property owners found these changes an improvement over the original proposal. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of these changes and the applicant's proposal as stated in the attached memorandum. MEMORANDUM TO: City Manager FROM: Tom Ekstrand, Senior Planner SUBJECT: Trout Land Planned Unit Development LOCATION: West Side of Highway 61-North and West of Gulden's Roadhouse DATE: June 7, 2004 INTRODUCTION Project Description Jim Kellison, of Kelco Real Estate Development Services, is proposing amulti-use development west and north of Gulden's Roadhouse. This property is an assemblage of lots totaling 23.3 acres and would be bisected by the proposed County Road D extension. The proposed residential portion of this development would consist of 91 townhomes and one existing single dwelling that would remain for a total of 92 units. The proposed commercial portion would include an automobile dealership, a gas station/convenience store and retail. Refer to the maps and letter on pages 14-19. The applicant does not have any residential or commercial developers at this time. He is proposing this PUD (planned unit development) in conceptual form and requesting land- use and density approvals. As part of this proposal, the owners of the northerly 5.67 acres, Joe and Mary June Prokosch, would continue living in their residence at 1272 County Road D. The applicant also proposes to deed a .2-acre parcel to Sparkle Auto to the north. Sparkle Auto's parking lot is presently encroaching onto the applicant's land. This deeding will eliminate disruption to Sparkle Auto's operation. Revised Proposal The applicant initially proposed 133 units of housing that would have been at the city's high density housing ratio. There were to be 78 townhomes and an apartment building with 55 units. After the planning commission meeting on May 17, 2004, the applicant revised his proposal so not to exceed the planning commission's recommendation for medium density. Refer to the applicant's letter on page 20. Requests The applicant is requesting that the city approve the following: A comprehensive land use plan amendment from R1 (single dwelling residential) and M1 (light manufacturing) to R2H (medium density residential). This change is needed to develop townhomes on property currently designated for single dwellings or commercial/industrial uses. Staff is also requesting that the Major Street System 8 Potential Transit Plan of the comprehensive plan be amended to show the County Road D extension as a Collector street. 2. A conditional use permit (CUP) for a PUD for this multi-use development. 3. A preliminary plat to create lots for sale. The developer of the townhomes will propose the further subdivision of that property to create the individual unit sites. BACKGROUND Mining Permit: Much of the subject property had been mined for sand and aggregate since 1982 by Frattalone Excavating. This operation ended in 2001. Apartment Proposal Denied: On August 14, 2000, the city council approved the Highpoint Ridge development west of the subject property. This approval included 29 single dwelling home sites on Duluth Street and Carey Heights Drive as well as 36 town houses on Highridge Court. This proposal had also included a request for 122 apartment units on the proposed Trout Land property. The city council did not approve the apartments. DISCUSSION Land Use Plan Amendment Request Land Use The neighbors near this proposed development had two main concerns. First, they unanimously felt that the apartments were inappropriate and should not be allowed. Second, the density was too high at 133 units (134 counting the remaining home). The planniri~ commission concurred and denied both the apartments and the high-density housing ratio that the applicant originally requested. The planning commission's recommendation for medium density fits the goals of the comprehensive plan in that it: • Minimizes conflicts between land uses, and • Is more compatible with the existing neighborhood Density As stated, high-density housing would have allowed 133 units-78 townhomes and 55 apartments. This would have been at the maximum density of 10.4 units per gross acre. At the medium density ratio, the applicant could build 91 townhomes plus retain the single dwelling. Medium-density housing is six units per gross acre. "Gross acres" includes street rights-of-way, the ponding area and the Prokosch home site. For comparison, the net acreage totals 11.86 acres; gross acres totals 15.38 acres. 2 Collector Street When the city council approved the Highpoint Ridge development in 2000, they amended the comprehensive plan to delete the collector-street designation from this neighborhood. Refer to the map on page 21. The previous collector-street location was a connection to County Road D closely following the proposed County Road D extension alignment. Unfortunately, the County Road D extension study had not yet occun'ed and it was unknown that the city would be planning this roadway in 2004. Staff is recommending that the transportation element of the comprehensive plan be amended to again show a collector street in this area. Refer to the map on page 22. The new collector designation would follow the proposed location of the County Road D extension. Planned Unit Development Request With the elimination of the apartments from the proposal and the proposed change to medium density, staff feels that this is a good development plan. One other change the applicant agreed to make is the relocation of the fuel station/convenience store to the comer of Highway 61 and the County Road D extension. This would lessen the potential for nuisances for the future townhome residents. In an M1 district, the city code requires that commercial buildings be at least 350 feet from residential lot lines unless the city council approves a conditional use permit. The proposed commercial uses would be closer than that. At the closest points, the auto dealership, fuel station/convenience store and retail building would be 250 feet, 130 feet and 265 feet from the proposed townhome property. Staff feels that these setbacks would be acceptable in this development since: • The future town house owners would know up front that they are buying into a development that has these nearby commercial uses. The applicant and property owner must market and sell these lots. They are confident that they have a marketable development plan. • Substantial landscaping would also be required when each site development proposal is submitted to ensure proper buffering and screening for the residents. Landscaping and Design Considerations Staff feels that if the city council approves this proposal, there should be serious consideration given to requiring substantial landscaping and improved building design for the commercial segment of this project. For example, staff has observed a new mixed-use development presently being built in the City of Stillwater called Pine Hollow at Liberty on the Lake on Manning Avenue. This town house development has a fuel station and other associated commercial uses incorporated into it in close proximity to the town houses. The architectural design of this development is excellent in terms of aesthetic appeal. The fuel-island canopy, as well, is designed to be compatible with the buildings with a gable roof and decorative design elements. 3 Auto Dealership The proposed auto dealership poses some potential nuisance concerns. Site lights on the display lot have a nuisance potential as does noise from the repair garage. If approved, staff recommends that the M1 zoning standards apply to this site for control of potential nuisance-causing activities. Since, at this time, we have nothing more than a conceptual site plan to review, staff feels the city should reserve the authority to review the specific plans for the dealership when it is proposed. The applicant would like to have a blanket approval to market his sites with as few encumbrances as possible. At this time, though, there has been no data provided for the city to comfortably approve conceptual plans without considerably more detail. Staff, therefore, recommends that the auto dealership be required to apply for a CUP to review the typical site details like site lights, nuisance-noise potential, building and parking lot placement, screening, etc. This PUD would allow an auto dealership, in concept, on this site. It would allow the commercial buildings with less than a 350-foot setback from residential lot lines, but the planning commission and council should reserve the review authority to review specific plans when they are proposed. Fuel Station and Retail Building The fuel station and retail building are compatible businesses in a mixed-use development. Staff feels, though, that the fuel station/convenience store should be placed in the northwest corner of the County Road D extension and Highway 61 to be as far from the townhomes as possible. As stated, the applicant has agreed to do this. Compatibility also relates to the application of proper building design and architectural appeal. This approval should require improved architectural design for neighborhood compatibility. Preliminary Plat Chris Cavett, Maplewood Assistant City Engineer, reviewed the proposal and has written his comments in the report on pages 23-25. In summary, Mr. Cavett has addressed issues such as: • The council actions that have taken place regarding the unused/excess Highway 61 right-of-way property to be exchanged with the applicant for the dedication of County Road Dright-of-way. • Right-of-way, stormwater, utility and pedestrian easement-dedication requirements. • Grading and retaining wall concerns. • The developer shall sign a developer's agreement prior to final plat approval. • Outlot B should be labeled as "lot" instead of as an "outlot." 4 Site Considerations/Concerns Retaining Walls Mr. Cavett addressed the extensive amount and substantial height of the retaining walls that are proposed. With walls of this length and height, their design, appearance and safety are major concerns. Mr. Cavett suggested a requirement for asix-foot-tall, black- colored, vinyl-coated chain fencing on top of all walls that exceed four feet in height. Staff will recommend this as a condition of approval. Appearance is another important factor. The city council should require that the applicant submit a design plan for the retaining walls before obtaining a grading permit to ensure an attractive design and quality materials. Staff will make this determination. The applicant may appeal staff's decision to the community design review board for their review if they choose. Pedestrian Trails Staff is suggesting that the applicant dedicate two trail easements. One, as noted in Mr. Cavett's memo, would be a 50-foot-wide pedestrian easement in the same location as a utility easement along the south 50 feet of Lot 3. This would eventually serve as part of the regional Lake-Links Trail system. Part of this trail is already in place south of the Highpoint Ridge Townhomes beneath the power lines abutting the westerly half of that site. The second one would be a pedestrian-trail connection along the old Lydia Avenue alignment. In July 2001, the city council vacated Lydia Avenue north of 2986 Duluth Street in the single-family neighborhood to the west. The city retained a pedestrian easement over the northerly 25 feet of vacated right-of-way for future trail purposes. The owner of 2986 has stated that they do not want a trail constructed in this vacated right-of-way. They feel the trail would pose a security risk to the neighborhood. Refer to the comments from Ms. Lambert in Citizen Comments on page 11. Wetland Mitigation Some neighbors responded that the wetland on the south side of existing County Road D should be preserved. They expected this wetland to remain when they built their homes on Highridge Court. This Class 5 wetland was allpkwed to be mitigated by the watershed district as part of the County Road D extension project. The mitigation will occur with the establishment of a wetland on the north side of the proposed apartment site and also across the highway on the Countryview Golf Course property as part of the County Road D extension east of Highway 61. Noise from Highway 61 One neighbor commented that they felt that a noise study should be performed as part of this proposal. staff will consider the need for this when we receive specific development proposals for the housing elements of this PUD. Neighborhood Park Some neighboring residents questioned the need for a neighborhood park on part of the development site. Bruce Anderson, the Park and Recreation Director, commented on this. Mr. Anderson stated that this area is served by Sunset Ridge Park and there is no need for an additional park in the proposed development. The developer should be required, however, to make sure there is a trail connection from the neighborhood to the west down to Highway 61. Landscaping and Screening A buffer between the existing neighborhood and the proposed development should be paramount in the city's reviews when the specific site-development proposals are submitted. Architectural Design and Building Materials As mentioned earlier, the city should ensure that a high quality of building design is applied in the commercial portions of this development. The commercial elements should also be compatible with the townhome site architectural design to create a compatible and cohesive project. This will take coordination between the individual developers and the city. RamseyNVashington Metro Watershed District Eric Korte, of the Ramsey/Washington Metro Watershed District, commented that their major concern is to make sure there is adequate erosion and sediment control along with TSS and phosphorus removal according to normal standards. The developer must also obtain a permit from the watershed district. Building Official's Comments Building Official, David Fisher, had the following comments: • The developer should verify the screening of roof-top units. • Provide fire department access. • Buildings are required to be sprinklered. • Buildings must meet 2000 IBC, 2000 IFC and state building codes. Police Department Comments Lieutenant Kevin Rabbett commented that there are no significant public safety concerns. However, there may be a nuisance issue regarding noise with the southern end of the town houses being so close to the Gulden's parking lot. Also, I am not able to find in the document the total number of new units/residents that the project will generate. This would be helpful in assessing the need for any required increased police personnel. 6 RECOMMENDATIONS A. Adopt the resolution on page 37 amending the Maplewood Comprehensive Land Use Plan from R1 (single dwelling residential) and M1 (light manufacturing) to R3M (medium density residential). This amendment also reestablishes the collector street designation on the Major St-eet System & Potential Transit Plan in the comprehensive plan along the new County Road D extension alignment. Approval of this amendment is based on the following reasons: 1. The development would be consistent with the goals and policies of the comprehensive plan. 2. The proposed town houses would be consistent with the city's policies for medium-density residential uses, since they would create a transitional land use between commercial property and single dwelling property. 3. Town houses would be compatible with the abutting town house development. 4. The difference in grade between the proposed townhomes and the existing homes to the west will create a natural buffer between developments. 5. There would be no significant impact on the existing neighborhood streets to the west. B. Adoption of the resolution on pages 38-0 approving a conditional use permit for a planned unit development for the Trout Land multi-use PUD. Approval is based on the findings required by the ordinance and subject to the following conditions: Development shall follow the plans date stamped April 15, 2004, except where the city requires changes. The applicant, master developer and subsequent developers shall submit any plan revisions noted by Chris Cavett in his memo dated May 11, 2004 as included in the staff report. The city council shall be responsible for reviewing any major changes that may be proposed. The director of community development may review minor changes. 2. The proposed construction must be substantially started within one year of council approval or the pem~it shall end. The council may extend this deadline for one year. 3. This planned unit development shall allow townhomes at a maximum of a medium-density ratio on the residential portion of the development. Apartments are not allowed without an amendment to this approval. The 7 commercial segment of this development may include the following uses as proposed: retail, a fuel station with convenience store and an auto dealership. Other similar uses may be permitted if found to be of the same character and approved by city staff. The city council may make this determination if the applicant disagrees with staff s decision. 4. The developer of the auto dealership shall submit a request for a conditional use permit for the planning commission and city council's review. Any automotive use that may be proposed must comply with the requirements outlined in the BC (business commercial) and M1 (light manufacturing) zoning requirements. The auto dealership is allowed, however, to be closer than 350 feet to residential lot lines as shown on the concept plan. 5. The development plan shall be revised to place the fuel station next to Highway 61 to keep it further from the homes. 6. All individual development proposals must meet all city development requirements. No variances have been included in this PUD approval. The only exception, as stated, is to be within 350 feet of residential lot lines. 7. The applicant, master developer and subsequent developers shall comply with the following site and design requirements: a. Screening from the townhomes is paramount. All commercial properties shall provide considerable landscaping to buffer and screen their sites from the proposed townhomes. b. Building design throughout this development shall be of an improved quality and should strive for a compatibility of design. c. The design of the retaining walls shall be submitted to staff for approval of design and materials before the issuance of a grading permit. Retaining walls over four feet tall shall have a black-colored, vinyl-covered chain link fence on top. The fence height shall be six feet. Retaining walls over four feet in height must have a building permit. Appeals of staff's wall-design approval shall be submitted to the community design review board. d. The master developer shall construct the retaining walls that span across lot lines as part of the mass grading of the site. 8. The applicant shall dedicate all easements noted in the memo dated May 11, 2004 by Chris Cavett. These shall be dedicated prior to the issuance of a grading permit. 9. The applicant shall sign a developer's agreement with the city before final plat approval. 8 10. The house at 1272 County Road D may remain. If it is removed, this site shall only be used in the future as a site for one residential housing unit. C. Approval of the Trout Land preliminary plat date-stamped April 15, 2004. The developer shall complete the following before the city approves the final plat. 1. Meet all requirements in the memo by Chris Cavett dated May 11, 2004. 2. Rename Outlot B with a lot number. 9 CITIZEN COMMENTS Staff surveyed the 42 surrounding property owners within 500 feet of this site for their comments. Of the 21 replies, one was in favor (except for the apartment element), 17 were opposed and three took no clear position but offered comments. In favor • I support this proposal with the exception of the apartments. (Turner, 1251 Highridge Court) Opposed • This is stupid. (no name or address given) • NO APARTMENTS. We have too many in area already. Town homes are fine. (no name or address given) We are opposed particularly to the apartment building in this plan and would like to see Maplewood officials pay closer attention to density issues. In our opinion, the Countryview Summit Neighborhood has already been developed beyond what one may consider to be ideal. An additional housing project along the highway will only add to the traffic problems we currently encounter in the north part of Maplewood. Thank you. (Herold, 1247 Countryview Circle) • The development seems extremely dense-especially with the apartments. I have strong reservations regarding the appropriateness of the apartments. It seems like a rather small area for that many townhouses. (Redin, 1229 Highridge Court) Too high density development. No need for apartments so close to Highridge. Town house too dense. 30 + good number not 65. Back up to %Z million dollar homes. City is selling out to developers for high density tax base. Look out 20 years down the line. Will there be adequate drainage pond and landscaping between Highridge and Trout Land? Like the overall development and access off of County Road D. Good extension of bike path etc. Good landscape would make this nice. If not, don't vote it in! (Erikson, 1241 Highridge Court) Totally inappropriate intrusion!! The road destroys the wetlands and now the developers want to take the peace and quite from the neighborhood. I am seriously opposed. We are strongly opposed to any zoning change. The classification should remain R1. When we bought, we were protected by wetlands and by R1 zoning to the east. Prices where higher for our lots because of this advantage. We paid top dollar for our place because of the quiet of other seniors and the protection of intrusion from all edges of the property. This change in zoning would change all that. Not Good! We Oppose. Please take all of us in Highridge seriously. If you do not we will certainly take what you do seriously in future elections. (Bunkowske, 1249 Highridge Court) 10 • We are strongly opposed to any change to present zoning regulation. One reason for purchasing our present lot was the R1 zoning to our east. (Trelander, 1256 Highridge Court) • I would prefer to have lower density residential rather than the 55 unit apartment building. Townhouses would be a better option if single family homes aren't a possibility. (Whalin, 1224 Highridge Court) We OPPOSE this development!! When we built our home-we were told that the property was zoned commerciahtherefore the closest a property (commercial) could be was 600 feet from our property line. This proposal does not fit into the neighborhood, especially the apartments! We live in an executive development, townhomes and esp. apartments would bring down our home values. I know everyone on our block is not in agreement with this development. (no name or address given) • Refer to the letter on page 26 from Robert J. Kranz. • Refer to the letter on page 27 from John R. Naughter. • Refer to the letter on page 28 from Kenneth Halverson. • Refer to the letter on page 29 from Hal Tetzlaff. • Refer to the letter on page 30 from Joe and Jane Gerard, 1248 Highridge Court. • Refer to the letter on page 31 from Ed and Darline Trolander. • Refer to the letter on page 32 from Edward V. Franzmeier. • Refer to the letter on page 33 from Kelly Lenz, 3027 Duluth Street. • Refer to the letter and petition from the Highpoint Ridge Townhome Association on pages 34-36. Comments (no clear position for or against) • How high of a structure is being planned? What is the traffic plan for Beam/61 ? Already there is 4-6 minutes between tights. Would this help reduce our tax base? (no name or address given) • I think an earlier MnDOT study indicated that noise levels in that area may exceed residential standards. That should be tested. (no name or address given) • Do not want a "trail" or "walking path" going into/through my n~i~hborhood. Security is my main concern. People from County Road D and Gulden's having direct access to a family community of expensive homes that pay high property taxes. (Lambert, 2986 Duluth Street) 11 REFERENCE SITE DESCRIPTION Site size: 23.2 acres Existing Use: Undeveloped, except for an old bam and trailer SURROUNDING LAND USES North: County Road D and single dwellings in the City of Vadnais Heights South: Undeveloped M1 property East: Highway 61, Gulden's Restaurant and the approved site for Venburg Tire West: Single dwellings and townhomes PLANNING Land Use Plan Designation: R1 and M1 Zoning: R1 and M1 Criteria for CUP Approval Section 44-1097(a) states that the city council may grant a CUP for a PUD subject to the nine standards for approval noted in the resolution on pages 38-40. APPLICATION DATE We received the complete applications and plans for these requests on April 15, 2004. State law requires that the city take action within 60 days of r~eiving complete applications for a proposal. City council action is required on this propQSal by June 14, 2004 unless the applicants agree to a time extension. 12 p:sec 4\Trout Land PUD 6-04 Attachments: 1. Location Map 2. Property Line/Zoning Map 3. Land Use Map 4. Site Plan 5. Applicant's Letter of Project Description/Request dated April 7, 2004 6. Applicant's Revised Letter of Request dated June 4, 2004 7. Previous Collector-Street Location 8. Proposed Collector-Street Location 9. Chris Cavett's memo dated May 11, 2004 10. Letter from Robert J. Kranz 11. Letter from John R. Naughter 12. Letter from Kenneth Halverson 13. Letter from Hal Tetzlaff 14. Letter from Joe and Jane Gerard 15. Letter from Ed and Dariine Trolander 16. Letter from Edward V. Franzmeier 17. Letter from Kelly Lenz 18. Letter and petition from the Highpoint Ridge Townhome Association 19. Land Use Plan Resolution 20. PUD Resolution 21. Plans date-stamped April 15, 2004 (separate attachment) 13 N _ ~ J-r'~ ~~ ~pR Sunset Ridge Park ~G~' ~~ a - ,~. _: _ . r ~~ "^~Pi~ROA~ C PROPOSED TROUT LAND DEVELOPMENT m SITE ~ m 0 - _ _ _. _ _ T o VENBURG `O . _ ~ c TIRE Q ! ~ - .. _ _ 2 GULDEN'S ~ ~ - ~, ROADHOUSE _ ~_ - __. _ I _. ~- __~t _ _ _ __. , County View Golf Course ~ -n ~- ~ _:-_ .- y _' -' <- -- - - -- ~- , . 2 .._ i _ r.. - -. ncenn epic LOCATLON` MAP 14 4 N Attachment 2 ____._ -. _. _.__ Y__ ~y' t ~~ 1 - ~-- ---- .~. -- ----- ~• ~ ~ r~ ~;~~ N~1~ ~ ~ J _ _ ~, ~t. PROPERTY LINE'l ZONING MAP 15 4 N Attachment 3 ''ur~i ~' - :ao :~ LAND USE MAP 16 4 N Attachment 4 o~~ COUNTY ROAD D - - - - i/ ,!.,; ~< ~' ai ~ C ~'- _ ~' ~~ ~'- ~ `~ -- PROPOSED ~~'~~~~ APARTMENTS ~ ~ ~~;. ~1~111.IU11~L~tt`]~ii~r ~ ~ ~ ' / ~~ ,- ~~~.= - ,~ ~~i ~~ $ ~!~ ~ _ a" i i - - _. _ ... !.:-_, ~~ h ~ i i '\~• q i ,i ~ ii ~ ~ ~~ ~ /~ ii ,~ , i ~, ~;~ - - I~ $,'~r,i i ~1, i ~ '?3o i ' ~ ~~ ~ ~ <, `~\ ~ Q~ i '! ~ I :- ,,; i L~~ / I I ~ ~~ RJipTjjj ~'`' ~, ~' ~/ f /// ~~ ,, '~, APPROVED ~~` VENBURG ~ ~ ' ' ~ %TIRE /; /// ,=' GULDEN'S ROADHOUSE i ilI ~ ~ 1 l l l r ~.., ~ 1 / 1 / I i _~' 1 / r ~ SITE PLAN 17 4 N -PROPOSED 'Y'~ COMMERCI~ ~~- ~,~~,_ Q _~ _ . .K~a !/ _.... __. ~-' ~~~ ., ~, '~ ~ ~ ~ ~,. . ~ ~ ~ ~ i // Attachment 5 RECEIVED APR 0 9 2004 7300 Hudson Blvd. Suite 245 Oakdale, MN 55128 Office: [651] 730-2020 Fax: [651] 730-2055 Real Estate Development Services Apri17, 2004 Mr. Tom Ekstrand City Maplewood 1830 East County Road B Maplewood, MN 55109 RE: Trout Land, LLC Dear Mr. Ekstand: Please accept this letter along with the other information submitted as our applications to the City for approval of the above referenced project for the preliminary plat, the comprehensive plan amendment and the preliminary PUD. Please contact me directly if there is any additional information that has not been submitted that you require for processing of these applications. As you are aware, the applications cover three pieces of property that will be owned by Trout Land, LLC for development purposes. The primary lot is approximately 15.5 acres comprised of the old Frattalone site and the excess property along Highway 61. The second site is approximately 2.03 acres which will be purchased from LMcD Property which is currently zoned residential. The third piece of property is approximately 5.67 acres that is currently owned by Joe and Mary June Prokosch and is zoned residential. It is our intent, with cooperation from the City, to develop this land as a Planned Unit Development in conjunction with the extension of the new alignment of County Road D from Highway 61 to its existing east/west location adjacent to the northerly property line of the Prokosch property. This PUD, in conjunction with the new alignment of County Road D, will be of significant benefit to the City and the surrounding neighborhood in many ways. First, it allows for multi- family housing along the western portion of County Road D inclusive of the 2.03 acres at the southern end as a buffer from the single-family and other multi-family residential properties to the west. Incorporated into this plan is the 50' setback requirement from the multi-family residential to the west property line allowing for a significant potential landscape buffer and the ability to provide necessary retaining walls to accommodate the grade differentials across the property. Also this allows for the extension of the water main from the new Country Road D to connect to Country View Summit and concurrently, allows for the continuation of the trail down to the new road. Although a portion of this land is currently zoned residential, the largest piece of it is currently zoned manufacturing. The reduction in the intensity of the use of this property is a significant enhancement to the City and, the residential units will have a significantly higher tax base for the City than the prospects of alight-manufacturing industrial park in this same location. 18 Mr. Tom Ekstrand Apri18, 2004 Page 2 As a consideration in assisting Trout Land and the City in having County Road D cross their property, the Prokosch's as a part of their sale are being allowed a life estate to continue living in their existing residence. Their ability to remain in their residence has been of paramount importance to them and we are happy to be able to accommodate them and to help the City with the extension of new County Road D at the same time. Trout Land also has worked in conjunction with the City to provide for access from new County Road D for a frontage road that will provide all-way access to the Gulden's Restaurant and the new Venberg Tire store. The land identified as Lot 1 on the PUD plan (sheet C2 of the Passe Engineering drawings) is being held for development of retail and auto sales uses. This land will be developed by Trout Land either in actual construction and development or will be sold after the land is properly prepared and developed for the users. As an accommodation to the Sparkle Auto Sales facility to the north of the property a small parcel identified as Outlot B (consisting of .2 acres) will be transferred to Sparkle so that they do not have to disrupt their existing auto display parking lot. As a part of Lot 1, there would be a retail development and a potential gas and convenience store which would be complimentary to the Gulden Restaurant and Venberg Tire store on the south side of County Road D both in size and usage. The retail uses would be neighborhood service related which are currently not available to the immediate surrounding neighborhood. The balance of Lot 1 would be sold for an auto sales facility and would consist of approximately 6 acres. This use is also very compatible with other uses that are occurring along Highway 61 in the City of Maplewood as well as its neighboring cities to the north. Obviously all of the uses on this combined project would have to be reviewed and approved through the standard City approval process. Trout Land is working in close conjunction with several potential buyers of property within this PUD at the present time. Hopefully we will be able to identify them and they will be able to meet with the City shortly to discuss their intended usages of the property. Thank you for your attention in this matter. Please contact me directly should you have any questions or required additional information. Respectfully yours, ames E. Kellison President JEK/jjv Enclosures C: Gonzalo MedinalTrout Land 19 Ub/U4/ZUU4 lU:Ub Pi'11 bbll3ULU55 lir:LGll l~ 0 01 Attachment 6 7300 Hudson Blvd. Suite 245 ~~ Oakdale, MIJ 55128 ~~ Of&ce: ]651 ] 730-2020 Fax: 1651 J 730-2055 Real Estate Development Services June 4, 2004 Mr. Tom Ekstrand City Maplewood 183E} East County Road l~ Maplewood, MN 55109 RECEIVED JUN 0 4 204 RE: Trout Land, LLC Dear Tom: After review of the recommendations of the Planning Commission and discussion with the property owners, we concur that the-housing portioir ofthe project, inclusive of the land that was designed for apartments, should be rezoned to R-3M with a maximum of six units per gross acre. We further concurwith your $ndings that this would support 91 residential units. Wehave also have come-to ttre-coaclusion that it will Lye most beneScial for the project to have thegas/convenience store Located at the intersection of County Road D and Highway b 1 and would therefore move the retaiX component westerly along County Road D to the portion of Land that is currently shown as the gas/convenieace store sit, I look forward to an opportunity to present our project and answer any questions that the City Council may have at the meeting ofTune l4, 2004. If you require any additional information from me prior to that time. please feeLfree_ to- call on rng-directly, Respectfully yours, James E. Kellison President JEIU~jv Enclosures C: Gonzalo Medina/Trout Land 20 Attachment 7 County Rd. D Vadnai~ fights 694 principal arterial R-1 J interChanQe Little Canada T ___.. , m m c m v m «_ J m 0 T 0 'm. E li ~ ` \ ~ ! , i `'fi i ~ I , ' ~ T~l~. gllect ~~~. ty Rd. C ?'~~ ~ M-1 ~y R-1 n ~_ ` R-3(M)= c ,` R1 - M'L ~ ; ~~ v ~; F31- .`. ~ }S~ ~ m~ r . ~ 9 ,. "fir'" f~ ~~ KEY `. R-1 =SINGLE DWELLINGS R-3(M) =MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL OS _ OPEN SPACE M=1 = L1G'}HT MANUFACTURING tj_oc ~olle`ctor \, .~ Gervals LAND USA MAP PROJECT SITE 21 1 y FIGURE 22 ._ , t c - "~4. Tole We ~'an . Yadnais Height . ~ ~ ~ '~ Lr~~ ' 1 ___--~ I ,~ ~ _ PROPOSED REDESIGNATION OF A COLLECTOR STREET ~ ~. _ - i - ~ ,• ,•~ ~, Major Street System Potential Transit Plan • Station location ~ Potential Transit Corridor Water 'Stream Principal Arterial N Interstate N Highway N Minor Arterial Collector City Limits ~••• Attachment 8 _ e® moire Be r, 1 = T ~ Qke _ ~ ~ ,^ w 1 North SQL Paul N J , ~.'~~~ _. a' _o ~ a; ~~ ~1 ~ ~ r a l~y~ ~ I ~J ~ ~~'~t. ~, a. ~.~_. ~.. sr. Pout !.I ~j _ Po~~'~ ' ~~ J~ Q ~~~JJJ ~~I~~~ r i T(, ~ ~,Illll °~^ ' . o• -~' 9~ ~"'~ 7 ~~°O b . ~- o ,~ ,-.-, o Q i(p~ o ~, `r o o' "''~ ~. +4 ~- i , O.S'• 0 0.5 t 1.5 Mlles _ T1vs map is for plannveg. purposes only and should not be used where Jciltuw'y~'01 prerase measicrement is required 22 1.<: Neuiport Attachment 9 En~ineerine Plan Review PROJECT: Trout Land Development, (Kelco Real Estate) Project No.: 04-11 Reviewed by: Chris Cavett, Assistant City Engineer Date: May 11, 2004 Background: The Maplewood Engineering Department and the city's engineering consultants have been working very closely with the developer, as their site and the County Road D west realignment are directly dependent on each other. In addition to working with Kelco, city staff has facilitated the inter-cooperation of multiple property owners in the immediate area to bring together the logistics of the County Road D west realignment, Project 02-08. On February 9, 2004 the city council ordered the construction of the County Road D Improvement (west of T.H. 61 to Highridge Court). On February 23, 2004, the city council approved two additional actions directly related to this property and the subsequent development. The first action was the authorization to initiate the proceeding subsequent action in Ramsey County District Court which was required to obtain fee title to the old unused Highway 61 property. The second action was the approval of an exchange agreement between the city and Trout Land Development for the purpose of exchanging property for the acquisition of right-of- way for the County Road D west realignment project. Inclusion of Parcels 1 & 2, into the proposed plat are contingent on the city's completion of the Proceeding Subsequent. The Proceeding Subsequent has been filed in district court and is expected to be complet by early-June. The current engineering review is mostly related to the plat, easement conditions and land dedication requirements. Drainage for the overall development is governed by an overall storm water master plan for the area. There is a class 5 wetland at the northerly end of County Road D that will be impacted as part of the city's street construction and subsequently will be mitigated as part of the city's project. Most of the engineering details related to the plat, and localized drainage will be reviewed in depth when individual proposals are submitted for each of the lots. Engineering Review Comments: EasementlRight-of--Way requirements: 1. The developer shall coordinate the final alignment with the city engineer and shall dedicate the necessary right-of--way for the County Road D realignment. 2. The developer shall dedicate Outlot A and Outlot C to the city, (fee title). (Outlot A in turn, will be dedicated to Venburg Tire as part of an exchange agreement for right-of- way). 23 3. A storm pipe will need to be installed across lot 2, between the pond on the adjacent Highridge development and new County Road D. The developer shall dedicate the necessary drainage and utility easement over lot 2. If the exact size and location of the easement has not been determined at final plat, the developer will be required to pay an escrow for surety for the easement. 4. Dedicate a 30-foot utility easement across lot 2 for a proposed water main between the water main stub east of Duluth St. and the proposed new main on the new County Road D. If the exact size and location of the easement has not been determined at final plat, the developer will be required to pay an escrow for surety for the easement. Dedicate a drainage and utility easement for ponding purposes on that portion of lot 3 as required by the city engineer. If the exact size and location of the easement has not been determined at final plat, the developer will be required to pay an escrow for surety for the easement. 6. Dedicate by separate document a pedestrian and trail easement across Lot 2, between the new County Road D and the existing trail easement east of Duluth Street. If the exact size and location of the easement has not been determined at final plat, the developer will be required to pay an escrow for surety for the easement. 7. Dedicate by separate document a minimum 50-foot-wide pedestrian and trail corridor easement located in the utility easement along the common lot line of Lots 2 & 3. The easement should extend from the County Road Dright-of--way on the east to the west property line. If the exact size and location of the easement has not been determined at final plat, the developer will be required to pay an escrow for surety for the easement. 8. Include on the plat, 10-foot drainage and utility easements along all internal and external lot lines. Grading: Before a grading permit will be issued for the site, the applicant shall submit a more detailed erosion control plan. The plan shall include: a. additional silt fence and/or wattles in areas that slope toward the proposed County Road D and T.H. right-of--way. b. interim silt fence on long continuous slopes. a Indicate locations of erosion control blanket for slopes 3:1 or greater or areas of concentrated flow. d. Location of rock eirtrance pads. e. Plan for temporary turf establishment for erosion control. 2. Grading of County Road D shall be the requirement of the Developer. The grading of the roadway shall be done within a 0.5-foot tolerance of the bottom of the road subgrade. 3. The developer shall grade both trail easements. The graded areas shall be 12-feet wide and The preliminary plan states: "Future trail and retaining wall by city" -This is not necessarily the case. It should be noted that the developer of the site shall grade the site to accommodate the trail. If retaining walls are required for the site to fit the trail, then the retaining walls shall be the responsibility of the developer. The developer shall 24 provide an open, 12-feet-wide corridor, shall be graded to accommodate the construction of a 10-foot gravel base and an 8-foot trail. 4. Grading and contours along the west property line seem questionable. What is the source of the contour information? Has grading taken place during the High Point Ridge Development that is not reflected on the current plan? 5. The developer shall construct the retaining wall along Lot 4 during the mass grading of the site. 6. Any retaining walls that span across lot lines shall be constructed by the developer as part of the mass grading of the site. 7. Any walls located exclusively on their own lot and where grading and wall construction will not impact adjacent properties or the road construction, may be built with the development of the respective lots. The slopes at these locations shall be graded out at 3:1 slopes and be blanketed and seeded for erosion protection. 8. The retaining walls as shown on the plan seem somewhat extensive and unrealistic. The walls in a number of areas are in excess of 16', 20' and 26-feet, while being shown 20- feet from the property line. 9. There is approximately an 18-foot difference in elevation at the location where the trail is presumed to pass by the wall. How is this elevation difference to be managed? 10. All retaining walls in excess of 4-feet require a building permit. 11. Submit detailed retaining wall plans certified by a structural engineer. Retaining walls as high as are shown on the plan will not a "typical" wall design and will require extra measures. 12. A permanent 6-foot-high Chain Link fence, (Coated, Black-vinyl) shall be installed along the top of all walls of excess height. Exact locations shall be approved by the engineer and building official. 13. Obtain grading/construction permits from: a. Ramsey-Washington Metro Watershed District b. MPCA, (NPDES Construction Permit) 14. Obtain a grading permit from the Maplewood Engineering Department. An application for grading permit is available on the city's website. Go to the Public Works - Engineering Division section. Miscellaneous: 1. The developer shall sign a developer's agreement with the city before final plat approval. 2. Consider including ivy in the landscaping above and below the wall and along the fence to break the monolith appearance of the wall. 25 Attachment l0 ROBERT J. KRANZ CYNTHIA J. KRANZ 1264 HIGHRIDGE COURT MAPLEWOOD, MN 55109 April 29, 2004 City of Maplewood Attn: Tom Ekstrand, Senior Planner 18,30 E. County Road B Maplewood, MN 55109 RE: Trout Land Development Proposal This letter is in response to your letter of April 21 and the planned unit development being proposed by Kelco. We are strongly opposed to the rezoning of the residential property owned by Joe and Mary June Prokosch to accommodate a proposed 55 unit apartment building. The proposal appears to allocate at least one half of the proposed residential density of the total development on less than 3 acres of the Prokosch property. The 50 foot setback buffer appears to be totally inadequate for this level of density. Our townhouse overlooks the subject property which has always been zoned residential R-1. We understand that the 55 unit apartment building will consist of one and two bedroom apartments that will be rented at market rates. There will be at least 55 parking spaces underground in the building and probably about 55 spaces in an open parking lot adjacent to the building. There are no artist renderings of the proposed apartment building but it will probably be three stories high. This size structure will surely have a negative esthetic impact for the Highridge Court townhouses and the expensive single family dwellings on Duluth Street above. We respectfully request you and your staff, as well as the Maplewood Planning Commission, to carefully review the Kelco proposal and determine appropriate levels of density which will not have such a negative impact on the residential properties to the West of the proposed development. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, ~~~ Robert J. Kran 26 Attachment 11 April 29, 2004 Tom Ekstrand Senior Planner Office of Community Development 1830 East County Road B , Maplewood, Minnesota, 55109 Re: Proposed Development behind Duluth Street in Maplewood Dear Mr. Ekstrand: I am in the process of building a new home at 2994 Duluth Street, Maplewood, Minnesota, abutting the proposed development of town homes and apartments. I want to be informed of all future meetings, notices, etc., concerning this matter. Please contact me at my current address: 1955 West Kenwood Drive, Maplewood, Minnesota, 55117. The following constitutes my objections to the proposed townhouse and apartment development as requested: 1. THE DENSITY OF THE PROPOSED TOWN HOUSE DEVELOPMENT SHOULD BE REDUCED AS IT WILL OVER POPULATE AND CONGEST THE AREA AND THE BURM AREA SHOULD BE INCREASED. 2. THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT SHOULD CONSIST OF LUXURY TOWNHOMES AND LUXURY APARTMENTS TO SUPPORT THE PROPERTY VALUES OF THE EXISTING NEIGHBORHOOD. 3. THE DEVELOPER SHOULD BE FORCED TO PLANT MATURE TREES, LANDSCAPE AND CONTINUALLY MAINTAIN THE BURM AREA TO ACHIEVE AN AESTHETICALLY PLEASING PRIVACY BARRIER BETWEEN THE EXISTING LUXURY HOMES AND THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT. Thank you for your time and attention to these matters. You t , ~~ John R. ughter ~~/-~ ~2-o~oS' 27 Attachment ~"2 Tom Ekstrand From: KennethHalverson cL'Daol.com Sent: Monday, May 03, 2004 8:44 PM To: Tom Ekstrand Subject: Trout Land Development Proposal Dear Mr. Ekstrand: I have reviewed the information you sent regarding the proposed development and must oppose the proposed use of the R1 parcel just south of the current Co. Rd. D. When this development was created, it was with the understanding that the area to the east of the High Ridge Court development was a wetland. We were told by the city that it was not a high quality wetland, apparently a collector basin that restores ground water is not as good as a wetland that serves to filter surtace water. That is acceptable, rules are rules. The city is now seeking comment on the proposal to turn the large area zoned R1, into an R3 zoning for apartments. This is not in keeping with the land use in this part of Maplewood. The area to the south of this is townhomes and single family homes on the Ridge and to the west is an area of twin homes and beyond those are single family residences. In keeping with the surrounding area the zoning should stay the same as it is currently. If there is a need for R3 housing in Maplewood, then it should be a change in zoning for the M1 area of the proposed development. Respectfully, Ken 5/4/2004 213 Attachment l3 Tom Ekstrand From: Hal [htetzlaf~ties2.net) Sent: Wednesday, April 28, 2004 11:50 AM To: Tom Ekstrand Subject: Trout Land Development Tom, My name is Hal Tetzlaff at 1260 Highridge Court E. and I'm just following up on our telephone conversation on Wednesday morning, April 28. As I said over the phone, my objection to the 55-unit apartment proposal is that it is completely out of character with the development in the surrounding area in that it is very high density use. If the city wants to see the land used for residential use, why not more in keeping with the rest of the area, i.e. single-family units or more townhouses? I assume that when the Planning Commission meets on May the 17th people like ourselves may attend. Could you please inform me what your recommendation will be before this meeting so as to help me prepare my self better? My email is >htetzlaf@ties2.net< or call me at 651-429-6932. Thank you. Hal Tetzlaff 29 Attachment 14 Tom Ekstrand From: Joe Gerard ~gerard~nationwidewash.com] Sent: Saturday, April 24, 2004 10:26 PM To: Tom Ekstrand Subject: Trout Land Development Proposal My wife and I would like to respond to your memo and the application letter from Kelco Real Estate Development Services for the new proposed Trout Land project along the new County Road D. We have a few concerns regarding this project, one of particular concem. In looking at the planned project we are somewhat confused as it was our initial thought that the purpose of the newly realigned County Road D was to relieve some of the massive congestion occurring at the intersection of Hwy 61 and Beam Avenue and eliminate the very difficult existing left hand turn off Hwy 61 for those of us that need to go west on D to go home. It seems as though the relief that will be achieved will be quickly eliminated with the full development of this project. We would be interested in an explanation for that. Living in a town home and experiencing the life style one enjoys in this environment we have no problem with an additional town home development, as generally people having a personal investment in a residence seem to take on responsibility for their properties and immediate communities. We also have no objection to the retail possibilities as it would seem to benefit all of us a great deal, however, our biggest concern, and something we are extremely opposed to is the apartment complex proposed. This apartment building will butt right up to the east end of High Point Ridge. Apartments have a way of attracting a variety of families and individuals that have a history of showing far less responsibility for upkeep and care for their dwelling than owners of homes, generally are not very committed to the community they live in and some families and individuals are a source of various problems for the immediate area around them. Something city staff, as well as the city council, needs to consider is there is no lack of apartments in this general area. One only needs to drive west from Hwy 61 on Couni Road D and, although it is the City of Vadnais Heights, realize there is an abundance of apartments lining County Road D from the beginning of the eastern edge of the High Point Ridge area to Labors Road. Vacancies are a constant in those apartments. It is not unusual to see, at least twice to three times a week, the Ramsey County Sheriff patrol vehicles on site at one of the complexes to address domestic disputes, drug issues and gang related activities that seem to go on and on. This is the very last thing any of us High Point Ridge residents need to have is an additional apartment building. Again, we realize this is Vadnais Heights, but we're only talking across the street from Maplewood. Additional rows of apartment complexes continue west of Labors Road to Edgerton St., and they, too, have vacancies and similar problems. We are also concerned about the construction of this apartment building that, as it becomes occupied, our values of our homes will reduce in value. It is a known fact that if you are in a close proximity to an apartment building your value will go down $15,000 - $20,000. We are absolutely opposed to this portion of the development. If they want to extend the development of the town home project that would be fine with us, just don't subject us to "apartment-like" issues with new apartment buildings. My wife and I have resided in Maplewood for eighteen years, fifteen of those years in a single family home east of Maplewood Mall. At the time we considered selling our home it was our hope to continue to reside in Maplewood for our remaining years. What we currently have in this NW corner of Maplewood is a quiet area of upscale single family homes and our town home development. We would like to keep it like that. Should the proposed apartment complex be approved at the Trout Land project we will consider an alternative area for residing as while we have enjoyed living in Maplewood we have also seen the city make some poor decisions on behalf of existing residents. We ask you to exert any influence you have in discouraging this proposed apartment building. There are certainly other ideas that could benefit the immediate residents, as well as the City of Maplewood, other than this. We are sure you willl likely hear from others and I suspect your public hearing will be well attended when this issue comes up. Thank you for asking for our opinion and I hope the city makes the correct choice for its residents. Joe and Jane Gerard 1248 Highridge Court E. Maplewood, MN 55109 651 /494-3785 jgerard ~nationwidewash.com 30 Attachment 15 Tom Ekstrand From: ed trolander [etrolanderaG+imindspring.coral Sent: Monday, April 26, 2004 8:14 PM To: Tom Ekstrand Cc: Ed Franzmeier Subject: Proposed Development Apri127,2004 Dear Mr. Ekstrand, I have your letter dated April 21.2004 regarding a proposal from Kelco Real Estate for development of property to the east of my home.I live at 1256 Highridge Crt.. We ask that the you consider and evaluate our concerns; 1. Nearly all homeowners in our community paid a premium for our lots and those of us in the east end paid more than the others as these were considered more valuable. One reason was that the land directly to our east would remain zoned R1. Had we any idea a zoning change might be granted or even requested we would not have purchased the lot we did. Not to mention our dismay when we learned Cty Rd D was to be realigned. 2. Does our area need more apartments when we already have "half a mile" or more spread along Cty Rd D to our north and west? Maplewood will have many apartments when the land west of the mall is developed. 3. It appears to me the townhomes proposed are what I would call the cluster type. The townhome community we live in has plenty of open space and separation. Should not the new townhomes be likewise? 4.If the apartment building is approved, over our objections,then we expect some accommodation to the existing nationhood be made--at least a highend structure of no more than two stories and a setback from our property line of at least 100 ft. The apartments be of a value in keeping with the surrounding area. Lastly. Can nothing be done to preserve the small "greenbelt" we now have to our east? Must every square foot of this property be torn up and paved over merely for the sake of few more tax dollars? We appreciate your time know you will consider what we have written. Your truly, Ed and Darline Trolander 4/28/2004 31 Attachment 16 Tom Ekstrand From: GoIfEd14~aol.com Sent: Tuesday, April 27, 2004 12:35 PM To: Tom Ekstrand Subject: TROUT LAND DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL I am the President of the Highpoint Ridge Townhome Association. Out property joins the Proposed development. I wish to first let it be known that I object to the short period of time that we homeowners have been allocated to reply. Your letter is dated Apri121, 2004, and we were asked to reply by May 1, 2004. While I believe we will be allowed input after May 1st, your letter does not state that fact. Unfortunately, I returned from out of town on Monday, Apri126th. My mail box was full of letters from Angry and concerned homeowners, my voicemail was full of messages from concerned homeowners and within 20 minutes of my return from out of town, I had a few visitors who were outraged by the proposed development. Suffice to say, opposition to this development as presented in the letter from Mr. Kellison from Kelco is going to be very strong. While I have not had time to Poll the association as a group to determine their feelings, I get the impression from the many who have contacted me that we will have a near universal position on this proposal. We will have someone from our association at every meeting that will have anything to do with this development. Because of this, please notify meat this a mail address of the date and time of the meetings. You may also contact me in the following manner: Office telephone 651-738-9600 Home Telephone 651-770-0200 Cell Telephone 651-398-8526 Fax number 651-738-2421 e-mail address golfed!4Qaol.com You may also contact our association Vice President, Mr. Ed Trolander 65194-3704. Please keep in mind that not all development is good development if the proposal will negatively effect neighbors. We at Highpoint Ridge feel that the County Rd D changes will detrimentally effect our property value, and approving the proposed development as proposed will have a very very negative impact on out property values for a second time. Sincere regards, Edward V. Franzmeier I-Iighpoint Ridge Towi~lioine Association 4/28/2004 32 Attachment 17. Tom Ekstrand From: Kelly Lenz [kellylenz@comcast.net] Sent: Wednesday, May O5, 2004 4:39 PM To: Tom Ekstrand Subject: Trout Land Development Proposal Comments Mr. Ekstrand - We received a letter dated April 21, 2004 regarding our opinion on the application the city received for the Trout Land Development being proposed by Kelco Real Estate Development Services. Here are our opinions on the matter: . Why are we building so many town homes - I believe 63 in total? Why don't we build have as many and make them nicer. We live in the Highpoint Ridge development where the lowest home value is $375,000 and they go up from there. This just doesn't make any sense to us. We didn't build in this wondertul neighborhood to have low value town homes and an apartment building built right across the street. I would think it would be in the city's interest to have higher value homes be built to increase the tax basis in the area. . I haven't seen the plans for the town homes, but do we need to ruin our entire view? Couldn't they be one story?? Why do we have to populate this tiny area with 63 town homes and apartments? . What will the city require the developer to do with the landscape between the Trout Land Development and the Highpoint Ridge development? I sure hope the town homes will have to be set back from the property lines up here and be landscaped accordingty. . Why an apartment building? Do we realty need additional rental space in this area? Aren't we adding a bunch right by Maplewood Mall for the future Legacy Village? . Isn't there a better use for this space than housing? Legacy Village seems to have a great concept in blending the area with community areas and open spaces? I don't see a park for the Idds in the development? Where are they going to play? I'm sure I have more and will present them at future public meetings. Sincerely, Kelty Lenz 3027 Duluth St 651.771.5453 5/6/2004 33 Attachment 18 ~polntRlc~ TownhomeAssocla~orl ~s9r~~c~ Maplecc~1MN55109 May 4, 2004 City of Maplewood Attn: Tom Ekstrand, Senior Planner 1830 E. County Road B Maplewood MN 55109-2797 RE: Trout Land Development Proposal Dear Sir: The High Point Ridge Townhome Association which represents the residents of the townhomes located along Highridge Court, just to the west of a portion of the development held an emergency meeting on the evening of May 3, 2004 for the express purpose of developing a corporate response to your letter of April 21, 2004 and to the attached planned unit development proposed by Kelco. The carefully considered concerns of the association members are formally expressed by the attached signatures of the association members and their leadership. This letter is the High Point Ridge Townhome Associations corporate response to your letter of April 21 and the planned unit development being proposed by Kelco. The association and the undersigned residents are strongly opposed to the zoning change of the northernmost parcel of land (away from the R1 designation) called for by this proposal. Many of the residents purchased the land based on the current R1, single-family zoning of the adjacent area. There are a significant number of apartment complexes to the north and west of High Ridge Court, albeit located in Vadnais Heights and Little Canada; we do not see the need for any additional multi-family units in the immediate area. The High Point Ridge development is comprised largely of residents who are retired or are approaching retirement age. Most of us deliberately chose to locate in this neighborhood because it was surrounded on three sides by land zoned for low-density development and would remain relatively quiet. We feel that the zoning change and the proposed apartment complex will only be detrimental to our quality of life. The residents whose property is adjacent to the proposed development purchased the land at a premium based on the proximity to the woods and on the builder's assertions that it was a wetland and was not buildable. Due to the County Road D reroute, those residents have already had the unpleasant discovery that the land is not considered ahigh-quality wetland and is therefore eligible for development. Reducing the zoning on the land from the single-family R1 zoning to the multi-unit designation, and allowing the proposed apartment complex in addition to having a negative effect on the quality of life could also have a significant negative effect on the property values for these residents. Sincerely, (Attached Signatures) Residents of High Point Ridge Townhomes ~/ anzmeier, esident of High Point Ridge Townhomes H 651-770-0200 Work 651-738-9600 34 i v. rviaNicwvuu l..ltY I.UUnC,II _ __- i . _ __ - -- - - - 1------- aplewood Planning Development Committee ---- - --- L -- aplewood Senior Planner -Tom Ekstrand --- ~- - -T----- __ - - ------------- - ------ --- - _ _ From ~ g p ` _ _ _ _i h oint Ridge Townhome Association - -- - ------- ----- -W---- _am an ow_n_er of Highpoint Ridge Townhome Assoc iation. I com letel su its of the P Y PPort the effo _ _____ Association Board of Directors and their efforts to implement positive change involving the -- ------ proposed_TROUT _ LAND DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL. ---- - -- --_------- -r- - - --} r-- --- -.._ _ . _ - treet ~ Date ~ Number __ _ _ 1: /~~ ~1a s9 _Highridge Court ;Highridge Court Signed Printed Name Signatur -- _ ~`s03 Q ~,/ ~, ~/. ~;ZA~ 2syF_.t~6/L 6s D ~~~'l t SC1n ~NQh Zw~ e Ci[ ---_ _ ~ . - ~ __ - 3~__/Q137 4; /oZ 3~ _ __-. --- -_-- - -- _51_ ~.Z~ - - 6 ~ ~~3 ~` - _Highridge Court jHighridge Court - ~ Highridge Court i Highridge Court --__ l ~Q_c~ ~~ ~_ ~,_ ~~~-_~_-~_ llsa~_q~ ~ - 5 3 0~ ~ 6111'_ ~ 0.r1v~ i, r~ t _ •~' .3 G ~ ,~ V ~~ $, ~, N - - - - - ,~,~ D y ~ f "~ON/i9~~ ~ ~ j Q~U .~ ---- ------ _ 7 __~ ,Z ~, b - ;Highridge Court ,~ 3 d `~ ~ ~~ uG/~/L? y _ _8~--_f a~, °lV Highridge Court - - ---- - -- - Sl3~ d `t i ~~~c~.--~• ~, ~Q ~.. ~ ~1 u-1~ ~ ._... C~-. Q~- -- 9 / 2 ld s- --t------- 'Highridge Court -~- ~ ~~3 ~~ `~ ,J ~~ cl c~ ~ o - T _ 10_~ ~ - '._Highridge Courtj Sf3~ay act ~~~~i. -~PaO~~ 11T~~ g 12 j $~~ / !Highridge Court I .r'~-Q~{- ' ~pt,. ~ ~ ~- p ~S - - __ - Hi h d C t ~ 3 ` ' r-- ~ _- , __ - g ri ge our ; GkSe_ / D !y/ ~y ?R } PEAL,; - - ~ / ~ 13 14 ~ Z - - -2--~ --- - T i - - -- -- - --- - --- - Highridge Court ~ ~~ ~ I ~C Hi hrid e Court S" - -x~ ~~ -- 9 9 - - I 3 ~ m-~- °-~~~f ~ ~ ~--v-~~ 15~~ ~~Z_ e - ;Highridge Court, S =.3 -v~ ~,.~-•~~ yae:(~c-c,~ . 16 _ _ - ~Z ~ `~ - !Highridge Court ~ ~J " 3 - C' _- -i --- ~ - lz~~-~~1-5_a -,aJ - ---- - ---- 17 _~~~ ~ 18 6 ._Highridge Court I ~~ '' i~1 ~j~ajY42_ -~ 1~ -- S3o~--- Hi hrid e Court - ---- ¢ 19 ~pZ O - - ~~ '~ --- _ _ / _ -------- ~ Hlghndge Court i _ 3 t Sl ~ ~~ 20 / - . Hlghndge Cour 3_ V ~ 21 Cf~ 22 ~_~-~~ _ -- II 3 23 Highridge Court ~~ G~_ ~, ,Highridge Court , ~_~~ / ~ ~~ ~,~J~j ~~ ~ ,c> - - ~ ''-1N--f - --- - sf~"-- Hi h i ' S~ r dge Court 3-D 24 ~~ ? ~ - _ ~ Highridge_Court 25 2 Hi hrid e Court ~ ~ ~ -- ~ y / ~ ~ 2 ` /~ /~/ ~ 26__I~ - ---= , Highridge Court_~3--~ --_r~'c~-1.---V ~ fT "L-/~V - -- - -- 27 ~ a.o1, 3 _ 8 - `~~°~--- -- ~ Highridge Court , 5.310 ' ~ i~2o-w f~~ ,- ,~~~~, JG __ -- _. _._ ~. -- --- Highridge Court_S_-'S • u~ ~ y rte. -- -~v ~NS~,C~~1~~__-_ _--'...""" __ __ __ 29 y~ ~ -- -- - - Highridge Court S 3 - ~ y aH..Jif,,,~ _ - .--- - _ _ - - /~t E _ --- i~ N hs~ - ~ _ 1 .1 r .. ---- Hi hrid a Court ~ ; ~' ~ " ~ ~ '-' ~~-~~~~ 31' /~GS(p _ ;Highridge Court S'_ ?~: j '~~~~?~~_ _~ ~_'_ ~~ ~,~ ~>~/ T--- _ - - - ~, //11 ~~77 -~- --- -- -- 32 / ~ 5~~ _ ;Highridge Court; j - 3 ~-~, '~~ ';: .CZ'LCt.~vi D, /~QQ~U4t?~~ / . u~X~~2 ~.~/Sc ~;a~a.~~~~-. 35 33____~~~~ Highridge Court a,~~~/,,,,,, -' _34: --_/(7 ~ Highridge Court G5~05 a 35' _1~~~ _ _Highridge Court ' 36; ~ ~ S /___ 'Highridge Court bS -03~~~t 37' ~ ~ eJ ~ 'Highridge Court bsw3~o~-~ __ 38 f ;~ '~~ ~ Highridge Court e5` c; 3 c; ~ 39 ~ / :L '1 N ! Hiahridae Court ~ ~ ~c; SI~~ .. ~~ CYO, clCa ~Gc.~.--~.-- r PGt r- -~- r a :~ ~~ - _ Qnv1~ L t~r~:%--- --- _ .-. ~Y\n 14 ~~ r i~ ~U~ ._-._ -__._.J---r-- - _ 40 1 ?. ~ ~Highridge Court 41~ ~/ ? (~_ _ 'Highridge Court 42 - _ / J `~_~ Highridge Court 43; _ j~ G ~i- ,Highridge Court - - - - ~~ - G' ~ ~/ ~ = ~- - U~ ~ ~-v - - - -- ~ ~ S[. • ~,~'~ ~,f' /~= nJ,~,Jc ~~~ ~~t~1 ~~ U-~ ~ / ~ z ~~ - - C ~-_-----__-._ _ 1 ~t-~ ------- ------- --- -_ _ - - ; 44 J fi< !Highridge Court _ 45 ~~~-~-_--,Highridge Court $- ~/• U 1'_ _ ~ ' ' `" ~,~ ; 1 ` .~~ 46; ~ ) 3 " 'Highridge Court - - ~ti ,~~ .c.~,~ ~ ~ ~_(i - - -47~~-~„Z Highridge Court /.;l / ~ _Highridge Courtj --- - ;,,5 ~ . `~ , ,>; l/~c~ r.~ riy ~: L lc~ J~Y~ ~ ~ ~ ~-~ / ~ /^ ~~~'~!~-~.~ ---- - ~ `~ :. 49 ~-- ~v ; --+---~- ~Hi hrid e Court -- 9 9 ~ . ~ '~; ~" //JGitIA S ~,EJ Shy/1 f' x ~ "~~ ~ - /~- ~•7 ~~ 50~ - 51: _--_ ~ Highridge Court i ,Highridge Court ~ j ~ 52T__ - Highridge Court - 53' - ;Highridge Court I , - -54' --- - 'Highridge Court ~ ~ ------ 55 ~ Highridge Court I -- - -- - -- -- - 56; ;Highridge Court; ~- ' 57 Highridge Court ~ _ ~ ' ---------- - 59 _ - - - i ri a ou_, g g ~ Highridge Court; - --- I -- -- - 60 61 r 'Highridge Court ~-___~ ' - r-- ---- -- ------ -- -- Highridge Court --- ------ ----- - __ 62 - 63 _Hi_hrid e Court 9- g ~ Highridge Court -- ---- - 64 :Highridge Court, 65 :'Highridge Court' 66 ,Highridge Court; 67 68~ Highridge Court; Highridge Court; 69, i Highridge Court 70 ~ ;Highridge Court ~ j 71 _ i Highridge Court; _ ~ ----_------ _ _ _ __ 72; ! Hi hrid e Court i - - i I __ 36 Attachment 19 LAND USE PLAN CHANGE RESOLUTION WHEREAS, Jim Kellison, of Kelco Real Estate Development Services, applied for a change to the City's land use plan from R1 (single dwelling residential) and M1 (light manufacturing) to R3M (medium -density residential). WHEREAS, city staff further requested a revision to the land use plan to redesignate a collector street which would align with the city's proposed County Road D extension on the west side of Highway 61. WHEREAS, these changes apply to the property located generally on the west side of Highway 61 south of County Road D. Refer to the attached map. WHEREAS, the history of this change is as follows: On May 17, 2004, the Planning Commission held a public hearing. The City staff published a hearing notice in the Maplewood Review and sent notices to the surrounding property owners. The Planning Commission gave everyone at the hearing a chance to speak and present written statements. The Planning Commission recommended that the City Council approve the land use plan change. 2. On , 2004, the City Council discussed the 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 changes, including the redesignation of the County Road D extension collector, for the following reasons: 1. The development would be consistent with the goals and policies of the comprehensive plan. 2. The proposed town houses would be consistent with the city's policies for medium-density residential uses, since they would create a transitional land use between commercial property and single dwelling property. 3. Town houses would be compatible with the abutting town house development. 4. The difference in grade between the proposed townhomes and the existing homes to the west will create a natural buffer between developments. 5. There would be no significant impact on the existing neighborhood streets to the west. The Maplewood City Council approved this resolution on 2004. 37 Attachment 20 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION FOR A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT WHEREAS, Jim Kellison, of Kelco Real Estate Development Services, applied for a conditional use permit to develop amulti-use planned development called Trout Land Planned Unit Development. WHEREAS, this permit applies to property located on the west side of Highway 61 and south of County Road D. The legal description is: WHEREAS, the history of this conditional use permit is as follows: On May 17, 2004 the planning commission recommended that the city council approve this permit. 2. The city council held a public hearing on June 14, 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 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. 38 6. The use would be served by adequate public facilities and services, including streets, police and fire protection, drainage structures, water and sewer systems, schools and parks. 7. The use would not create excessive additional costs for public facilities or services. 8. The use would maximize the preservation of and incorporate the site's natural and scenic features into the development design. 9. The use would cause minimal adverse environmental effects. Approval is subject to the following conditions: Development shall follow the plans date stamped April 15, 2004, except where the city requires changes. The applicant, master developer and subsequent developers shall submit any plan revisions noted by Chris Cavett in his memo dated May 11, 2004 as included in the staff report. The city council shall be responsible for reviewing any major changes that may be proposed. The director of community development may review minor changes. 2. The proposed construction must be substantially started within one year of council approval or the permit shall end. The council may extend this deadline for one year. 3. This planned unit development shall allow townhomes at a maximum of a medium-density ratio on the residential portion of the development. Apartments are not allowed without an amendment to this approval. The commercial segment of this development may include the following uses as proposed: retail, a fuel station with convenience store and an auto dealership. Other similar uses may be permitted if found to be of the same character and approved by city staff. The city council may make this determination if the applicant disagrees with staff's decision. 4. The developer of the auto dealership shall submit a request for a conditional use permit for the planning commission and city council's review. Any automotive use that may be proposed must comply with the requirements outlined in the BC (business commercial) and M1 (light manufacturing) zoning requirements. The auto dealership is allowed, however, to be closer than 350 feet to residential lot lines as shown on the concept plan. 5. The development plan shall be revised to place the fuel station next to Highway 61 to keep it further from the homes. 6. All individual development proposals must meet all city development requirements. No variances have been included in this PUD approval. The only exception, as stated, is to be within 350 feet of residential lot lines. 39 7. The applicant, master developer and subsequent developers shall comply with the following site and design requirements: a. Screening from the townhomes is paramount. All commercial properties shall provide considerable landscaping to buffer and screen their sites from the proposed townhomes. b. Building design throughout this development shall be of an improved quality and should strive for a compatibility of design. c. The design of the retaining walls shall be submitted to staff for approval of design and materials before the issuance of a grading permit. Retaining walls over four feet tall shall have ablack-colored, vinyl-covered chain link fence on top. The fence height shall be six feet. Retaining walls over four feet in height must have a building permit. Appeals of staff's wall-design approval shall be submitted to the community design review board. d. The master developer shall construct the retaining walls that span across lot lines as part of the mass grading of the site. 8. The applicant shall dedicate all easements noted in the memo dated May 11, 2004 by Chris Cavett. These shall be dedicated prior to the issuance of a grading permit. 9. The applicant shall sign a developer's agreement with the city before final plat approval. 10. The house at 1272 County Road D may remain. If it is removed, this site shall only be used in the future as a site for one residential housing unit. The Maplewood City Council approved this resolution on , 2004. 40 MINUTES OF THE MAPLEWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION 1830 COUNTY ROAD B EAST, MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA MONDAY, MAY 17, 2004 c. Trout Land (west of Highway 61 and new County Road D) Mr. Ekstrand said Jim Kellison, of Kelco Real Estate Development, is proposing amulti-use development west and north of Gulden's Roadhouse. This property is an assemblage of lots totaling 23.3 acres and would be bisected by the proposed County Road D extension. The proposed residential portion of this development would consist of 78 townhomes and a 55-unit apartment building. The proposed commercial portion would include an automobile dealership, a gas station/convenience store and neighborhood-service-related retail. The applicant does not have any residential or commercial developers at this time. He is proposing this PUD (planned unit development) in conceptual form as requests for land use approval and residential density approval. As part of this proposal, the owners of the northerly 5.67 acres, Joe and Mary June Prokosch, would continue living in their residence at 1272 County Road D. Furthermore, the applicant proposes to deed a .2-acre parcel to Sparkle Auto to the north. Sparkle Auto's parking lot is presently encroaching onto the applicant's land. This deeding will eliminate disruption to Sparkle Auto's operation. Commissioner Trippler asked what the staff's input would be if the commission recommended R- 3M zoning instead of R-3H? He looked in the comp plan under table 7 and R-3M fits the best. Mr. Ekstrand said in going over the various densities with the elimination of the apartment complex and if all of the proposed R-3H property was used for townhomes they could have 123 units, if it was designated R-3M they could have 71 units. Commissioner Trippler said about a year ago he was looking at townhome properties in the Liberty development in Stillwater and both of the units he looked at would have been next door to a gas station. He's sure the reason they didn't disclose that information is because it wouldn't have been a good selling point to live next door to gas fumes, car radios, screeching tires and doors slamming. He brings that fact up because of this proposal and the location of the gas station/convenience store. To assume the developer would inform potential buyers that a gas station would be built next door he wouldn't rely on that being passed onto the consumer. He also thinks the gas station should be moved from its location to where the auto dealership is proposed to be located. Commissioner Mueller asked staff if these commercial proposals were only suggestions at this point? Mr. Ekstrand said he asked the applicant if there was any certainty that these would be the types of uses and he said yes this is the use they are seeking, although they don't have any strong commitments yet. Commissioner Mueller asked if those commercial uses would have to come before the planning commission before it was developed? Mr. Ekstrand said if this is approved the commission would be approving the convenience store with the gas station as well as the retail. In his recommendation he stated the auto dealership would have to come before the planning commission because of the potential nuisances such as lighting, speaker systems, the orientation of the building, and garage door facing. Commissioner Mueller said he's always thought gas stations were more of a problem than a car dealership would be and he would prefer to have the gas station come back before the planning commission as well. Mr. Ekstrand said he only recommended the auto dealership come before the planning commission. Commissioner Mueller asked if 78 townhomes was a realistic number or was it just a number estimated by the developer? Mr. Ekstrand said the developer's goal is to propose as many units as the high density could allow. Commissioner Desai asked if there was a possibility of requiring the commercial development to build before the townhomes were built so potential buyers would know what they would be purchasing and what would surround their home? Mr. Ekstrand said he didn't believe so. The city doesn't have control over the order the development is built. The city would have to trust that the developer would inform potential buyers that a gas station and car dealership would be built in the area. However, after hearing Mr. Trippler's comment regarding looking at property and not being told there was going to be a gas station built next door, that may not happen. Commissioner Dierich asked if there would be sidewalks along County Road D so people could safely walk to the commercial areas? Mr. Ekstrand said there would be sidewalks in that area. He welcomed Mr. Ahl to speak regarding the sidewalks since he is more aware of the construction of the County Road D realignment. Mr. Ahl said the construction plans have sidewalks planned along the south and west side of County Road D. Commissioner Dierich asked what the city code was regarding the distance a gas station or car dealership could be from residential areas without a PUD? Mr. Ekstrand said the city has different categories for motor fuel stations. Minor motor fuel stations can be next door to residential, major motor fuel stations with up to 6 pumps have to be 350 feet away from residential. Commissioner Bartol asked if the gas station has to be a part of this development? In his experience the fumes from a gas station are more offensive than a car dealership. Mr. Ekstrand said from a city standpoint the gas station is not essential but it's a use in the neighborhood that would be appreciated. Commissioner Bartol said there are so many car dealerships along Highway 61 why can't a gas station be next door to one of the existing car dealerships and leave the concept for a gas station out of this development? In his opinion the proposed gas station is too close to the townhome development. Mr. Ekstrand said the city code requires a 200-foot setback from the residential lot line from fuel vents. Commissioner Trippler asked if the developer could switch the location of the car dealership and the gas station/convenience store? Mr. Ekstrand said he is recommending the gas station be moved over to the corner where the retail building is shown on the plans. Commissioner Trippler asked if that would make it 350 feet from residential? Mr. Ekstrand said yes. Chairperson Fischer asked the applicant to address the commission. Mr. Jim Kellison, President, Kelco Real Estate Development Services, 7300 Hudson Boulevard, Suite 245, Oakdale, addressed the commission. Mr. Kellison said they have been working with the city for 1'h years on this project area. There are 5.67 acres here and the Prokosch's will have 3/a of an acre where they can stay for life. By the time they take the right-of-way, the pond, and the easement they have about 1.2 acres of developable property and it is very difficult to make something work economically on this size of property. They want to move forward and they see some economic gain to move forward. They have some extreme grading issues to deal with. They will have about 140,000 yards of dirt to move around on the site and about 110,000 yards of dirt to move off the site. From a density standpoint with the R-3H zoning they would be at 80% of what they could build on that property based on the density. They wouldn't be as low as the R- 3M zoning but they can't physically put more units on the property with the requirements for the trail, the 50 foot setback on the west side of the property, the gas line, and the high tension lines on the property. Their architect drew 68 units on the plans but wrote on the plans there is a potential for 78 units, which is the maximum number of units they can put on the property. It is up to the company that decides to build these units as to how many units they put on the property not Kelco Real Estate. They want the city to agree that would be zoned R-3H. As far as the apartment complex goes he understands from reading the neighborhood comments they don't want an apartment complex here. They are willing to eliminate the plan for apartments but they would request to build high-end condominiums for sale and the values would be around $250,000. This would be up to the purchaser of the property and they would have to come back to the planning commission and get approval. He is looking for approval of the use and that the use is acceptable to the neighborhood. Regarding the commercial project, they would like to have the gas station where it's shown on the plan. They think they have a potential use for that corner and it would be an extreme benefit to the community. They believe that having a gas station and convenience store is going to fill a neighborhood requirement because there isn't another gas/convenient store any closer than 1 ~h miles north or south of this area. There are other dealerships along Highway 61 so this auto dealership would fit right in. They are looking for approval from the commission to have the dealership in this location. The owners would be required to come back to the commission for approval. In Oakdale when they had a potential development they would post signs stating this is commercial or industrial property and these are the types of uses that could occupy this parcel. They would be willing to do the same thing in this location. The developer could also put that clause in the sales agreement for the buyer to acknowledge they were told what commercial developments would be built. Commissioner Mueller asked how many units would be in the condominium complex that was mentioned in place of the apartments? Mr. Kellison said it would probably be a 3 story building with about 32 units around 1200 square feet in size with subterranean parking below grade on the west and south side and partially below grade on the north side by the pond. The apartment building was proposed to be 3-story building with 52 units and about 900 square feet in size. Commissioner Mueller asked if it would be roughly 10 condominium units per level? Mr. Kellison said that sounds correct. Chairperson Fischer opened the public hearing and the following residents spoke at the public hearing: 1. Ed Franzmeier, 1259 Hiahridae Court, Maplewood. In the 30 years he has lived in Maplewood he has lived in three different locations. Currently he lives in the Highridge townhomes next door to where the proposed apartment building would be. He thanked the commissioners for serving on the planning commission. He pointed out that he had provided a list of residents in the townhome association that do not want the apartment building built. There were 49 names on the list and an additional 11 people that were not home when they came around with the petition. Those residents later called him so potentially there would have been 60 people on the list. Any three-story building next to their townhomes would be equally opposed whether it was an apartment building or condominium building. The residents that bought units on the cul-de-sac paid bonus prices for bonus lots for the woods between their development and the Prokosch property. Now most of the woods are going to be removed due to the realignment of County Road D. 2. Cindy Kranz,1264 Hiahridae Court, Maplewood. She said the developer lied to them when they purchased their property and told them the land was on a wetland and could not be developed and the property was zoned R-1. She is happy the apartment building idea has been removed. Another issue is the R-3H verses the R-3M zoning. Whoever Mr. Kellison has develop this land under the R-3H zoning they could have 78 units and 71 units could be built under the R-3M zoning. This would force the developer to have more open space between the buildings. The Highridge townhomes were planned out very well leaving open space between the units. They want this to be medium density. She said if economics is an issue for Mr. Kellison and he has to be able to develop a certain number of units than maybe somebody paid too much for the Prokosch property. 3. Euaene Bunkowske, 1249 Hiahridae Court, Maplewood. He's happy an apartment building will not be built here. What they are really saying is that they are opposed to any zoning change from R-1 to any other designation and they would like to see the property as single-family units. The developer told the buyers that this area would be a wetland, green space and low density. Changing the density would totally change the neighborhood. He and his wife lived in Africa for over 20 years and when he moved back he wanted to see green space. 4. Hal Tetzloff,1260 Hiahridae Court, Maplewood. He thanked Mr. Ekstrand for speaking to him on the telephone and for the work he did on this proposal. He believes their point has been made regarding their opposition of the apartment building. He wants the zoning to stay R-1. The land should be kept as close to what it is already. He would suggest the city buy the 1.2 acres on the Prokosch property from Mr. Kellison and develop it into a park and call it Prokosch Park. 5. Jennifer Bouthilet, Owner of Hillcrest Animal Hospital, 1320 County Road D East, Maplewood. She said she was horrified when she heard an apartment building was proposed to be built on the property, mainly because of safety reasons on her property. With MnDot changing County Road Dinto a cul-de-sac with no turn off of Highway 61 it leaves her property on the end of the cul-de-sac. She is concerned her parking lot is going to be a gathering place for less savory members of the community. If you had to have the property high density she would rather have it be condominiums for sale rather than rental property. She would prefer to see medium density in this area. 6. Joyce Lambert, 2986 Duluth Street, Maplewood. She was at one of these meetings in the past when the neighborhood fought an apartment building in this same area and now she returned along with the other neighbors. Her concern is that the density is too crowded. The landscaping and grading is also a problem. This development removes their view and adds high density behind them and creates a different atmosphere from what they are used to. She agrees that things change and she can live with some change. She is unhappy as a Maplewood resident about how the change has came about. First Venburg Tire is moving across the street, then the realignment of County Road D, and now this proposal. The whole thing is not concrete because nobody knows who is going to be building these townhomes, who is going to build the gas station or the other commercial property, and you might not find anything out for another 6 months. There's no big picture, only bits and pieces of information. It's frustrating to live in a very expensive neighborhood with very high taxes and not have a say about what is going on in our neighborhood. She is the person who opposed the trail, which will go by Guldens, past her house, and into ahalf amillion-dollar neighborhood. This makes her neighborhood accessible especially by the people that visit Gulden's Restaurant. She has lived here for 10 years and Gulden's has had their share of problems. The police have been at Guldens, there's been a helicopter circling around looking for people that have been disorderly. The walking path would be from County Road D, through the townhomes and through her neighborhood and past her house. 7. Bob Kranz, 1264 Highridge Court, Maplewood. The public hearing they heard previously regarding Olivia Gardens had a neighborhood meeting where the developers had the specifics all finalized, they knew who would actually be building the units and they were available for questions and discussion. This plan is very incomplete and he doesn't see the reason for this meeting. Kelco Real Estate Development is trying to put the pieces together and then find developers to develop each parcel after the zoning gets changed. To him this is like a blank check. You come to the meeting and there is no drawing or plans of what this is going to look like. The developer says he has to have R-3H high density to make it economically feasible. We should be protectors of the environment and the residential communities that we live in. This proposal is not prepared properly. Why can't the city say we can't approve this proposal until you have descriptive plans and drawings of what this is going to look at and therefore, nobody can move forward or approve only sections of this plan. This isn't understandable without clear and concise information. A person couldn't operate a business like this and these decisions have a huge impact on the people that live in this community. This zoning needs to be no higher than medium density. Let the developer come back and talk to the planning commission again. He doesn't understand why this proposal has to be rushed through. 8. Elena Makhonina, 3042 Duluth Street, Maplewood. She lives in one of the eleven homes that will be looking into the back of 78 townhouses. These are $500,000 homes and across the pond was a sign that said this property is zoned M1, which means light industrial. The problem is they did not know what light industrial included. They were told that could mean a small warehouse building, an office building, or something of that nature but nothing over one story tall and nothing that would block the view. Now they find out with this proposal there could be high-density zoning and they thought they would be looking at a view of large trees. This area should improve, not worsen. 78 townhomes against 11 single family homes sounds ridiculous and too high of density. She likes the idea for a park for the whole city to enjoy rather than this plan. 9. Dawn Keenan, 3010 Duluth Street, Maplewood. She lives in one of the 11 single-family homes near the site. The zoning should be R-1 and the realignment of County Road D to alleviate the traffic seems incorrect. If you are going to build this much additional housing you are going to increase the traffic, not make it better. She was also told a huge townhome development was going to be built on the Country View Golf Course property. She moved here 6 months ago and was told it was zoned commercial and that nothing could be built 600 feet from her property line. When a person is told that and then presented with this plan you are going to have a lot of unhappy people about the development of this property. She said they were also not informed about the realignment of County Road D coming through their backyards. 10. John Jaskulske, 3019 Duluth Street, Maplewood. He too is one of the eleven homeowners above the proposed development. This is an expensive neighborhood and these residents pay high taxes, and we are not talking about low income housing in this area. If there is high density residential going into this area, has the city thought of what effect that would do to Weaver Elementary where his children attend school? He asked if the kids that came from Beaver Lake when the school closed are going to get shifted to another school to make room for these children who would have to attend Weaver Elementary? Currently Weaver Elementary is over crowded. There is already a water pressure problem and depending on what time of day it is there is no water pressure depending on how many people are showering or flushing the toilet. He said he also opposes the gas station in this development. Mr. Jaskulske said when the compost site was open they could smell it two miles away, therefore, you can count on smelling gas fumes especially living on top of the hill. His suggestion is to get rid of the industrial proposal and put townhomes in. This way it would make for a nice neighborhood that flows with what already exits in the area. He too would recommend putting in a park. Mr. Ahl said as part of the overall improvements the city is going to be extending the water main in the area and that will improve the water pressure. 11. Ed Westerdahl, 1183 Highridge Court, Maplewood. He lives in the Highridge townhomes and he thinks the density should be R-3M and not R-3H. He is opposed to the gas station proposal unless it is moved onto Highway 61. If it is on County Road D it's too close to residential homes and it will cause noise and problems with fumes. Mr. Kellison, Kelco Real Estate said he would like to comment on some of the items that have been brought up. He said he goes before people, commissions and councils all the time because it's part of his job and people don't like what is happening in the neighborhood. At one time this whole area was farmland and now there are houses. It's the demand, it's what happens, and it's progress. Having County Road D realigned through the area changes the whole complexion of the area. That is a collector street and a collector street is generally meant for commercial types of uses. There will be crosswalks at Highway 61 and County Road D. M-1 zoning can have a multiple of uses that could go into the area. Light manufacturing, warehouse, office building, commercial, even sex oriented shops. There are a lot of things that could go into that piece of property. There is a 350-foot setback to one of the buildings. What they are proposing is a far better buffer from single family residential than what could be there. He doesn't think residents want a metal stamping shop in this location. There are a lot of uses that people would find far more objectionable than this proposal. There is a sand mine on that property so there is no environment there to be concerned about. It is an unfortunate situation, however, the trees that are on the property will be taken down when County Road D is realigned. They need to do this project as part of the County Road D approval now. They can't wait until they have the four or five landowners who would have to come to the city with their projects. As part of their agreement with the city they have to mass grade the site for County Road D and as part of the grading they have to start by June 15, 2004, in order to finish grading by July 27 when the city wants to start their part for County Road D. As part of the building process in Maplewood the city will require trees and more trees and the residents that live there can plant trees on their property to screen this development as well. Nothing says the residents can't plant trees on their own property to screen the view of the development if they don't want to look at it. The grade is such that after the vegetation has grown the residents won't see the development. If it works out that the gas station/retail doesn't work in that location they would be willing to relocate it to Highway 61. With respect to the apartment building, that idea is over but they are moving forward with the idea of for sale condominiums. 12. Doug Huntley, 3020 Edward Street, Maplewood. He didn't get notified about this public hearing and he happened to be watching cable at home and saw the discussion and decided to come down to speak. Four years ago the neighborhood was put in this same situation and they petitioned to the city and they got a great response from the city. The staff went forward to the city council against the recommendations of the neighborhood and the neighbors went back to the city council and voiced their concern. The vote ended up split and Mayor Bob Cardinal withheld his vote because he had a financial stake in the property. If he has a financial stake in this property again he should withhold his vote again. The neighborhood is asking what do they get out of this development? He's not affected with this development but he cares enough about the area to come to the meeting to say this is an important issue for the neighborhood. In terms of the school district he has three kids in the Maplewood school district and his kids are at Weaver Elementary with 27 kids in a classroom. The school is not looking for more kids to fill more classrooms. Every new development in the city will add kids to the schools. He is only asking the city to look at how developments affect the city and neighborhoods and what does that do to the schools? Chairperson Fischer closed this portion of the public hearing. Commissioner Dierich said Mr. Kellison told everyone what his group has to do for the city for the County Road D realignment, she asked what the city had to promise the applicant? Mr. Ahl said the obligation of the city is for road construction. The city is acquiring right-of-way and making agreements with the developer to do the grading. That parcel of land is land that the city has an easement over that nobody owns and that has been that way since about 1934. There have been survey problems. That area is part of the old trunk highway 61 alignment. As part of this agreement with the developer, if they get approval for a development, the city has agreed to exchange the land and the city's interest in it, and vacate the underlying. The legal process is then underway to establish them as the adjacent property owner. In exchange for that the applicant will then dedicate the right-of-way for County Road D at no expense. The city cannot sell it but they can exchange their interest for right of way they would normally have had to purchase. Commissioner Dierich asked if the city can dictate whether a developer builds an owned or rented development? Mr. Ekstrand said that the city may not Commissioner Dierich asked what's stopping the city from requiring a hearing on everything that goes into this development, whether it is R-1, R-2, R-3, or M-1 ? Can the city make this a requirement of this particular proposal? Mr. Ekstrand said if you were to approve a concept plan or a PUD such as what was done for Legacy Village he would answer no. However, he would have to check with the City Attorney regarding that. For approving land use and zoning the city is making an agreement with the developer and the city should hold them to it. Commissioner Dierich said she believes the people in the audience have a legitimate concern. There is no way you can approve something sight unseen. She thinks this is lower density than what the developer is requesting. The design review board has no venue over density just as the commission does not have venue over design issues. The zoning is changing and it's not fair for the neighbors without being careful of their rights as well as landowner's rights. Commissioner Desai said in the time he has served on the planning commission he has not seen a proposal like this where the zone change is brought about without any details of what exactly is going to be put in and who is developing this. He asked if this was a normal procedure? Mr. Ekstrand said often times the city wants to see the details. In this case, the details are concepts only. We are looking at this land use plan and should we have high-density residential verses low density and M-1. Staff sees it both ways and often times the development comes in as more of a package. Legacy Village did not come in that way and it was more in the concept stage. Then all of those uses have to come before the city for approval. Chairperson Fischer said she believes the reason commissioners are uncertain about this plan is because of the Conditional Use Permit for a PUD. When the commissioners envision a PUD they envision seeing a plan with the development very clearly laid out. Once you say PUD and there is no planned unit development plans to look at that has many commissioners confused. She asked staff if we have seen anything like this in the past? Mr. Ekstrand said none that he can recall. The plat will also come through the planning commission for the townhomes so that is another item to consider. Commissioner Dierich said it seems that over the past year staff has been adamant that the commission not change zoning until they have the plat in front of them. Commissioner Mueller asked if this was all townhomes being built including where the proposed apartment/condominium would be, how many units could be built including all of the Prokosch property? Mr. Ekstrand said if the western portion of the property was R-3H the number of units would be 123 and medium density would be 71 units. Commissioner Pearson said he would not support the apartment building. The city is redesigning County Road D partially because of the traffic problems and an apartment building would add to the traffic. He cannot support the R-3H zoning and the R-3M would be a continuation of the zoning of the present neighborhood and is only a few units less that they could build. The service station could be further from the roadway and with a service station especially with a car wash this creates more of a noise problem as well as a fume problem. He wouldn't have a problem with everything on the west side of this development that is not M-1 being R-3M but short of that, he would not support this. Commissioner Trippler moved to adopt the resolution on pages 37-38 of the staff report amending the Maplewood Comprehensive Land Use Plan from R-1 (single dwelling residential) and M-1 and (light manufacturing) to R-3J4-M (J~k- medium density residential). This amendment also reestablishes the collector street designation on the Major Street System & Potential Transit Plan in the comprehensive plan along the new County Road D extension alignment. Approval of this amendment is based on the following reasons: (changes to the conditions are in bold and deletions are stricken) 1. The development would be consistent with the goals and policies of the comprehensive plan. 2. The proposed town houses would be consistent with the city's policies for k~k--medium- density residential uses, since they would create a transitional land use between commercial property and single dwelling property. 3. The proposed town houses would be on a collector street that would serve the higher number of homes proposed. 4. Town houses would be compatible with the abutting town house development. 5. The difference in grade between the proposed #~ medium-density multi-family housing and the existing single-family and town house development to the west will create a natural buffer between developments. 6. There would be no significant impact on the existing neighborhood streets to the west. Commissioner Trippler moved to approve adoption of the resolution on pages 39-41 in the staff report, approving a conditional use permit for a planned unit development for the Trout Land multi-use PUD. Approval is based on the findings required by the ordinance and subject to the following conditions: (changes to the conditions are in bold and deletions are stricken) 1. Development shall follow the plans date stamped April 15, 2004, except where the city requires changes. The applicant, master developer and subsequent developers shall submit any plan revisions noted by Chris Cavett in his memo dated May 11, 2004, as included in the staff report. The city council shall be responsible for reviewing any major changes that may be proposed. The director of community development may review minor changes. 2. The proposed construction must be substantially started within one year of council approval or the permit shall end. The council may extend this deadline for one year. 3. This planned unit development shall allow townhomes at a maximum of a #'~ medium- density ratio on the residential portion of the development. Apartments are not allowed without an amendment to this approval. The commercial segment of this development may include the following uses as proposed: retail, a fuel station with convenience store and an auto dealership. Other similar uses may be permitted if found to be of the same character and approved by city staff. The city council may make this determination if the applicant disagrees with staff's decision. 4. The developer of the auto dealership shall submit a request for a conditional use permit for the planning commission and city council's review. Any automotive use that may be proposed must comply with the requirements outlined in the BC (business commercial) and M-1 (light manufacturing) zoning requirements. 5. The development plan shall be revised to place the fuel station next to Highway 61 to keep it further from the homes. 6. All individual development proposals must meet all city development requirements. No variances have been included in this PUD approval. 7. The applicant, master developer and subsequent developers shall comply with the following site and design requirements: a. Screening from the townhomes is paramount. All commercial properties shall provide considerable landscaping to buffer and screen their sites from the proposed townhomes. b. Building design throughout this development shall be of an improved quality and should strive for a compatibility of design. c. The design of the retaining walls shall be submitted to staff for approval of design and materials before the issuance of a grading permit. Retaining walls over four-feet-tall shall have ablack-colored, vinyl-covered chain link fence on top. The fence height shall be six feet. Retaining walls over four feet in height must have a building permit. Appeals of staff's wall-design approval shall be submitted to the community design review board. d. The master developer shall construct the retaining walls that span across lot lines as part of the mass grading of the site. 8. The applicant shall dedicate all easements noted in the memo dated May 11, 2004, by Chris Cavett. These shall be dedicated prior to the issuance of a grading permit. 9. The applicant shall sign a developer's agreement with the city before final plat approval. Commissioner Trippler moved approval of the Trout Land preliminary plat date-stamped April 15, 2004. The developer shall complete the following before the city approves the final plat. 1. Meet all requirements in the memo by Chris Cavett dated May 11, 2004. 2. Rename Outlot B with a lot number. Commissioner Pearson seconded. Ayes - Bartol, Desai, Dierich, Fischer, Mueller, Pearson, Trippler The motion passed. This item goes to the city council on June 14, 2004. Agenda H5 REPORT SUMMARY T0: FROM: SUBJECT: LOCATION: DATE: INTRODUCTION City Manager Tom Ekstrand, Senior Planner Heritage Square Phase II County Road D and Kennard Street June 8, 2004 Town and Country Homes is proposing to build for-sale townhomes on the portion of the Legacy Village PUD (planned unit development) that was previously approved for rental townhomes and an executive office site. The applicant is proposing to build 178 townhomes. This site was previously approved for 198 rental townhomes and the office building The applicant is requesting that the city council approve the following: 1. A comprehensive plan amendment to build townhomes where the executive offices were previously approved. The applicant is, therefore, requesting a change from BC (business commercial) to R3H (high density residential). 2. A revision of the Legacy Village PUD for the change in ownership/rental status as well as the change from the office site to townhomes. 3. A preliminary and final plat for the new lot line configuration. 4. Site, building and landscape plans. DISCUSSION Staff is in support of this proposal. There will now be 20 fewer units on this portion of Legacy Village as well as the deletion of the office site. The office was to serve as serve as a rental office for the townhomes. This is no longer needed. The architectural design and landscaping is attractive and has been approve by the community design review board. The main point of discussion with the planning commission was to make sure that the applicant meets the visitor-parking requirements of this PUD. This was a condition of the original PUD and is still the recommendation by staff. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of these requests as stated in the attached staff report. p:sec 3\Heritage Square II CC Meeting Summary June `04 MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: SUBJECT: LOCATION DATE: INTRODUCTION Project Description City Manager Tom Ekstrand, Senior Planner Heritage Square Phase II County Road D and Kennard Street June 8, 2004 Town and Country Homes is proposing to build for-sale townhomes on the portion of the Legacy Village PUD (planned unit development) that was previously approved for rental townhomes and an executive office site. The applicant is proposing to build 178 townhomes. This site was previously approved for 198 reenta/townhomes and the office building. Refer to the maps and narrative on pages 12-25. The applicant is requesting that the city council approve the following: 1. A comprehensive plan amendment to build townhomes where the executive offices were previously approved. The applicant is, therefore, requesting a change from BC (business commercial) to R3H (high density residential). 2. A revision of the Legacy Village PUD for the change in ownership/rental status as well as the change from the office site to townhomes. 3. A preliminary and final plat for the new lot line configuration. 4. Site, building and landscape plans. BACKGROUND July 14, 2003: The city council approved the Legacy Village PUD, comprehensive plan amendment, tax-abatement plan and preliminary plat for Legacy Village. This plan included the site for the proposed Town 8~ Country townhomes. Refer to the council minutes on pages 27-40. December 8, 2003: The city council approved the applicant's PUD, preliminary plat and design plans for Heritage Square. December 16, 2003: The CDRB reviewed and approved the applicant's revised architectural plans for Heritage Square. February 9, 2004: The city council approved the final plat for Heritage Square. April 26, 2004: The city council approved a revision to the development agreement for Legacy Village to permit the construction of for sale" townhomes instead of "rental" townhomes in Heritage Square Phase II. DISCUSSION Land Use Plan Change The proposed land use plan change from BC to R3H is not a major revision. The area previously planned for the office building is 1.5 acres in size within this 20-acre site. The office, furthermore, would have been an accessory use to the townhomes if they were rentals. It would have served as a rental office. Although this office site also fit the "mixed-use" concept of the Legacy Village PUD, development of this parcel would be better suited as townhomes. Townhomes would certainty be compatible with the surrounding townhomes that were approved one year ago. Whereas the office, though acceptable in this "mixed-use" development, would not be as compatible as would the same type of development. Densi Density is not an issue since the number of units is decreasing by 20. PUD Revision For the same reason stated above, staff finds no problem with the PUD revision to substitute the office site with an extension of the townhome complex. For-sale units vs. rentals, likewise, would not pose any problem. The city, in fact, cannot regulate whether housing units are sold or rented. Nothing prevents a homeowner from renting their house, townhome or any form of housing unit, if they choose. Visitor Parking A major issue with the review of the rental townhomes last year was to require the provision of a sufficient amount of visitor parking spaces. In this review, staff applied the same visitor-parking ratio that the city applied during the original review. This requirement is that the applicant provide one visitor parking space for each two units, or one-half space for each unit. This totals 89 visitor parking spaces in addition to the driveway spaces in front of garage doors. Another requirement is that there be a group of at least five visitor parking spaces no more than a 200-foot distance from the front door of each unit. Revision of PUD Conditions Many of the original PUD conditions do not apply with this proposal. The applicant has complied with many of the previous requirements, so staff has deleted any that no longer aPPIY- 2 Preliminary Plat/Final Plat The applicant is requesting approval of the subdivision to sell the individual townhome lots. This is typical of such developments and staff does not find any unusual concerns with doing so beyond the usual requirements for platting which include the signing of a developer's agreement, the approval of final grading/drainage/erosion-control/utility plans and the dedication of any drainage and utility easements that the city engineer may require. Chris Cavett and Erin Laberee, of the city's engineering department, reviewed this proposal and had several comments. Refer to the memo on pages 42-43. Staff recommends that the city council require that the applicant comply with the statements in this memo as conditions of plat approval. In order to assist the applicant in expediting their closing on their purchase of this property, Town 8~ Country Homes is requesting that the city council approve the final plat along with the preliminary plat. Normally, the final plat is considered after the applicant has complied with the requirements of the preliminary plat. In this case, staff is comfortable with combining the preliminary and final plats in one review because of our familiarity with this development. The proposed townhouse development is conceptually the same as the plan approved by the city last year. Design Review Site and Landscapinc Considerations As stated above, there must be adequate visitor parking provided. The recommended conditions of approval should satisfy this need. The landscape plan is attractive and has been improved over the plan submitted last year. Staff's only suggestion is that the boulevard plantings along Kennard Street follow the Kennard Street planting plan that the city council has approved. Architectural The building design is attractive and the color scheme proposed would provide an appealing color variation. Ramsey/Washington Metro Watershed District The applicant must obtain all necessary permits from the watershed district before starting construction. Building Official's Comments All applicable codes must be met. Police Department Comments Lieutenant Kevin Rabbett noted there are no significant public safety concerns in the reduction in the number of the townhomes and a change to a "for sale" designation. 3 COMMITTEE ACTIONS May 25, 2004: The community design review board reviewed the applicant's design plans and recommended approval with conditions. June 7, 2004: The planning commission recommended approval of the land use plan change, PUD revision and subdivision plat. The planning commission recommended two changes. One, that the sidewalk along the south side of County Road D be constructed, not just "if at all possible," and second, that there be at least 100 visitor- parking spaces provided. RECOMMENDATIONS A. Adopt the resolution on page 44 approving the comprehensive land use plan amendment from BC (business commercial) to R3H (high density residential) fora 1.5-acre parcel previously planned for an office building in Legacy Village at Maplewood. Approval of this change is because the proposed townhomes would be more compatible and in character with the adjacent townhome development than the previously approved commercial building. B. Adopt the resolution on pages 45-49 approving a revision to the Legacy Village planned unit development as it relates to the previously approved rental- townhomes and executive-office suites and clubhouse sites. Approval of this revision is based on the findings required by the ordinance and subject to the following conditions (additions are underlined and deletions are crossed out): The development shall follow the plans date-stamped April 30, 2004, except where the city requires changes. The director of community development may approve minor changes. 2. The proposed construction must be substantially started within one year of council approval or the permit shall end. The council may extend this deadline for one year. 3. The city council shall review this permit in one year. 4. The applicant shall comply with the requirements in the Assistant City Engineer's report dated May 28, 2004. 5. The applicant shall sign a development agreement with the city before the issuance of a grading permit. 6. The applicant shall provide a copy of the homeowner's association documents to staff for approval. 7. #er~#al-Townhomes 4 a. The project will be constructed according to the plans from Town and Country Homes date-stamped April 30, 2004 #Fer~ ,except as specifically modified by these conditions. b. c. Sidewalk connections will be added connecting the power line trail to the curb of Ville Trail East (west of Kennard Street) in at least four locations and connecting the power line trail to the curb of Village Trail East (east of Kennard Street) in at least three locations to be approved by staff. d. , ffewe Nir~e~ail. e. Village Trail East (east of Kennard Street) Stfee~R and Flandrau Street East beef-~ serving the townhomes will be constructed in their entirety with the townhomes, regardless of the status of the multi-family and commercial parcels to the east. f. Parking spaces will be provided at the ends of the driveways as shown on the plans and wherever else then may fit at~efeaFe# 9~ , h. Asix-foot-wide sidewalk should be provided +€~-alt-ffessible on the south side of County Road D for the entire length of the project from Hazelwood Street live to Southlawn Drive; 5 The grades of the power line trail and all ublic sidewalks will meet ADA guidelines for slope. k. The_landscape plan is approved as proposed with the exception that the boulevard trees along Kennard Street shall be planted according to the approved Kennard Street Boulevard-Tree Planting Plan. I . m. ~~ n. The curve in the middle of Village Trail East (west of Kennard Street shall be flattened as much as possible to limit headlight lap re on aimed iflte the front of the units. o. All setbacks are approved as shown. P~ Visitor-parking spaces for the feAta~ townhomes will be added or modified as follows: 1) i'eas~-spase~ The applicant shall provide visitor-parking spaces at the minimum Quantity of one-half space per townhome unit. This works out to a minimum of 89 visitor parking spaces required. Furthermore, the visitor-parking spaces must be placed such that the front door of no unit is more than 200 feet from a group of at least five spaces. sited-bef~ u n i 1~ s. An easement over the power line trail on this parcel will be provided to the city for access and maintenance. C. Approve the preliminary and final plat for Heritage Square Phase II, subject to the following conditions: The applicant shall comply with the requirements in the assistant city engineer's report dated May 28, 2004. 7 2. The applicant shall sign a developer's agreement with the city engineer before the issuance of a grading permit. 3. The applicant shall dedicate any easements and provide any written agreements that the city engineer may require as part of this plat. 4. The applicant shall pay the city escrow for any documents, easements and agreements that the city engineer may require that may not be ready by the time of plat signing. D. Approve the plans date-stamped April 30, 2004, for the Heritage Square Second Addition, the second phase of Heritage Square TownHomes at Legacy Village. Approval is subject to the developer complying with the following conditions: 1. Obtaining city council approval of a comprehensive land use plan revision from BC (business commercial) to R3H (high density residential) to build townhomes on the previously approved office site. 2. Obtaining city council approval of a revision to the previously approved planned unit development for this project. 3. Obtaining city council approval of the preliminary and final plat for this project. 4. All requirements of the fire marshal and building official must be met. 5. The applicant shall obtain all required permits from the Ramsey- Washington Metro Watershed District. 6. All driveways and parking lots shall have continuous concrete curbing. 7. All requirements of the city engineer, or his consultants working for the city, shall be met regarding grading, drainage, erosion control, utilities and the dedication of any easements found to be needed. 8. Repeat this review in two years if the city has not issued a building permit for this project by that time. 9. Any identification signs for the project must meet the requirements of the city sign ordinance. 10. The setbacks are approved as proposed. 11. The applicant shall: • Install reflectorized stop signs at all driveway connections to Hazelwood Street, County Road D and Kennard Street. 8 • Install and maintain an in-ground lawn irrigation system for all landscaped areas. • Install all required trails, sidewalks and carriage walks. • Install any traffic signage within the site that may be required by staff. 12. The applicant shall submit a lighting plan for staff approval before getting the first building permit. 13. The applicant shall submit an address and traffic signage plan for staff approval. 14. The applicant shall provide the city with cash escrow or an irrevocable letter of credit for the exterior landscaping and site improvements prior to getting a building permit for the development. Staff shall determine the dollar amount of the escrow. 15. All work shall follow the approved plans. The director of community development may approve minor changes. 16. A temporary sales office shall be allowed until the time a model unit is available for use. Such a temporary building shall be subject to the requirements of the building official. 17. No end units facing County Road D or Hazelwood Street shall have utility rooms or exposed utility meters on that elevation. 18. The community design review board expressed concern that there should be some handicap-accessible units available in this complex. They referred this to the building official for compliance in case there are any applicable codes to this effect. 19. The applicant shall work with staff to propose suitable screening for outside utility meters. 20. The rock-face concrete block on the buildings shall be tan, not gray. 9 REFERENCE SITE DESCRIPTION Site Size: 20 acres Existing Use: Undeveloped SURROUNDING LAND USES North: County Road D, apartments and townhomes South: Heritage Square Town Homes under construction and a corporate office site East: Commercial and apartment sites West: Hazelwood Street PLANNING Land Use Plan Designation: Existing R3H and BC; Proposed all R3H Zoning: PUD Findings for PUD Approval City code requires that, to approve a planned unit development, the city council must base approval on the specific findings. Refer to the findings for approval in the resolution on pages 45-49. APPLICATION DATE We received the complete applications and plans for these requests on April 30, 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 29, 2004 unless the applicants agree to a time extension. 10 p:sec 3~Fieritage Square II PUD Review June `04 Attachments: 1. Location Map 2. Property Line/Zoning Map 3. Legacy Village PUD 4. Existing Land Use Plan Map 5. Proposed Land Use Plan Map 6. Proposed Subdivision 7. Proposed Landscaping 8. Building Elevations 9. Applicant's Narrative 10. Previous Legacy Village Rental Town House/office Plan 11. July 14, 2003 City Council Conditions of Approval 12. Approved Kennarci Street/Legacy Parkway Boulevarci Planting Plan 13. Memo from Chris Cavett and Erin Laberee dated May 28, 2004 14. Land Use Plan Resolution 15. Planned Unit Development Resolution 16. Plans date-stamped Apri130, 2004 (separate attachment) 17. May 17, 2004 CDRB minutes 18. Preliminary/Final Plat date-stamped April 30, 2004 (separate attachment) 19. Colored Plan Booklet date-stamped May 25, 2004 (separate attachment) 11 ~! ~ ,j; i ~ ~ i~ I ~ ~ --:-; _- ~-,- ~~ f .~- -- rJ- ~+ ti ~ I- ~~ i L ~~- j ~~ -~-~~~ ~ ~ j ~ ' (I ~ IT_ .t ~~ ~ ~ , ;=---~ _, ----~, a g~~, <<~ ;~, i~ + ~~ ~ I i ~ ~ ,~~ ~~ r ~ ~ ~ ~"~-~ r~ ~~r, •--{~~ I~ i, - LOCATION MAP 12 Attachment 1 -,-.-T - ~, , ~~~ PROPOSED HERITAGE SQUARE SECOND ADDITION Attachment 2 PROPERTY LINE /ZONING MAP 13 4 N Beam Avenue Baem ~ ~~I ~i~l ~ ~ ~y ~ u {1 a c ~ J1 ; n ~( ~ id $ v e~ _ >} ~~t ~ I ~ ~ C~7~ c~ ® ~~j 71 1 ~ ~ ° ~S Attachment 3 5 c ~ _ t7 N mOi°~ J~ ) W O _e~ z3o~ ~~ ~ aau.3 ~s= a ~~ ~ ~ yQ O ( O ~ ` ~ r 9 V 5 ¢ O ¢ ~ O J ' ~~ 3y a i ~ 3 7 . CQ ~ ~ 3 ~ ~~ ~ d s 1 .._. , ~,:: _. ..._......_ -caws- _, FK>b - --- -_=+ • i' - - - ~~ i ... ww. 11~ ...,. q I it 6 'i . i irl ... ~~~. .. ....F.... < I! I _ a ii 1j n LL ~Y _ :i6 i' lS y~~ W~y Ij I ;i U i ! V..... ~ K O I '~ { _ _,~. ~- ,: 1~ jj I°ali ~ Fpp1.1~i fQ ~'``\ 3 E^'`~' ~., ~\ :._. ....,i .. ii I~'I n~~o• ~ F U ~ ~ O ~~~ ~ \ v 2 4 `~ P yj ~ \ t ~; IYn If jL_p11Vlry-1 i I i ~'~ ~ eat. "~'"~' j' Se; _ ,:: .: ® t ii I ;~~' - m l 1, ~ ~ o !6 ~ ~ ~ W ® ~ ~. ~ I` J 1: t o ==~' I ~~ , 'i w "'~~ Ii~ul "r <^ '~ J Li. :..... • ual ~ it i a~i: !S~ ~ ~ I ! O u i I ... ill "T 1 ,/'~~' W ~ ~g~ uY `~~l ,iii , i J ~i'~,1 it ` ' U / tly a ~; .. II ~::: _:.. li ~~ t p+ .. .. Ilc~. -I • Il I L_ _ ... i ~ I ;'- ~~ • 1 A 1' I ~ ~ _ _ - - - ~ I ~• w ~: I: V ~l /N~/ L :I _~I . ~ I - ,' w p Q ~ ~ Z a ,~, . _..~. 1~ ' :~ ~~ I o ~ . ~ f Ii . II^''J{ _; ..~ 1 :, 1 >: /' i ...... ,. . ~,`, „ --- - ~x> i ~ fed ~ 1 'c-1 _ .:; __ .. ,~, ~' «., ii \ ~~ _ ~' y 14 i 9 Attachment 4 Jt_.~~~~~ ~~~~~~~ ~~ ~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~®~9 l~YJL~l V 1~ ~~®~~ 4~~.W~- -'-~------- LAND USE MAP EXISTING 15 4 N Attachment 5 ~~~~~~ ~Y ~~~~~~ ~~ ~~~~~ ~Y ~Y ®~~ LAND USE MAP PROPOSED 1... >. u ____'~'~.______~ ELIMINATION OF - ..... `~_~ BC DESIGNATION -t-.-:.-~:1a:.::.-a.:.es=.~.ac:_Lw'-=;c.'F'~_:"-____. 4 N 16 Attachment 6 / t ' /rts'9l~* g Q 1 __ ~ - N N ~ [ li {tl U i .II.Ii?'l [[n OIOIM+Y {PMl LuJ9dbN 1 , N:c"a:ARD N - -~F 'i..~ tla S rsra['w 1 ` Y ~ _Ia [ 1 / -- Ne ~'. i ~ .9 - 111%'9 ~ON crown-y i'!ll .B~.Ij~ --ri ~- f I 1 1 ~ ~ N .. ~~~+t i ~~ S I I! 3I w ^~ `~ o a ~ ~ a 5•y ~ y n C' ~ ~ I O ; I ~~ ' ~ i e$ ~ ~ ~~, ~ ~ I~,~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ _, ~ O ~ ~ I .~ ~i ~ I , o ~ i g IKS ~~ ! ~ I ~ ! ~ w ~, [' ~~ i t U ee! :> . ~ ~ e s ~ I y O a -, ~ 4~ ~ ! F I F rl D ~,+s f $ 11 O • ~ /~ ~ I ' -. ..u ! 1! I e 3 I^ b !' ! LJ -k i ~a g [ ( ~ 'c ¢~ Cj C .r ~ ~ !~ IJ~ ~- i S III ' ,t .. .:. 3 ..~ I ' ~ CC,, ..t ~ ~ ' S ~ f` ~ .. 6f' [ „~~~fl Tin .rur,q ~ [[i'M 11'9h ~ a ~ t ~ aM if: /~ s... . W ~ ~ pp ~+C ~Ci~ ~ I 3d~ ~~ ~ [ ` s[~ [` 'a~ l~~~ p~~~~x¢t 17 i ~y. c~ • ? ~~ w : $ tig O• 5µ~•a'aa~~ .' u~ut ~.u.trorr ~ . rru i I "~, ~I I _. I 3 1 0.l I s a I I I @ ~ I 'f e, - .~ 'gs . ~' Y I f i g 39 I I ~ . A ~ r l ~~ I ' I et I I ~ ~ I ~,. \I~~, a~ I" " {y/•e/may= / ~~ (` 1 .} I o ~ I ~> rr ~ ~. r~ 9 ~ U I _~ iG ~ . iy. ,¢ .~ w m I I ~ ~ °" ~f ~t ^' o C/1 ~ -• ~ I9 ~ ~ ~' y I s ' I I ~I ~ ! ;) it M N ~ ~ ° i n e. =# 41 :A 5 T~ ~~ . ~~ ~' ~~ ~~ ~~ v " I I ... ~i e~ `~ I ~ ~~ t t ^- I .. I r ~g¢ _ of ." ` . fo ~. ~ t.e r ~N 1 YL _ _- -- _ aerm•ei il~ gggg erMa 'a` !! ~9 cr're -oororn~r .'r.r v~ 1 g?RE~' ' _ _ 9 r t.uJalox 1 sae r 3r pp~ I =I~ t I I~~~:~:n'hv 1 ~OrYe=a'll '~ r \ a ~3Ci@ i I - 3 py { tii %~9 e~/rr pr019 ~Y Y'Bir, .Ml~ ~ ~ r ~ -~ elr ~7q I y~4~~ r _ R qq9 ~ ~t~Yd 18 ~" ~ O ff d! if ~ ~~~~~® s ~ ~ ~~ 3! 73 !! ~~~f i i ~~x~~i ' ~ ffa339 pp $ f ~ ii gg~q~ glqglq E~pjj~ 3~3 ~ ~ r ~ ~ ~ a {~ i ii it i ti9 § S ~ a as as as as a aaa 4 I'. o as k 8- a gr p•~ ~ 4 ~~~~~ l fE ~3~~~a o~ ~F~~e ~~~~ ~~l4~6 ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ 1 ~ ~~ !a ~g ~ ~ 4~ ~a a~ 3g ~ e~ 3 i ~ ~ ~g ~~ ~a a ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~I a. @ ~ <. ~~_ ~~ ~~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ y ~ p~ ~f ~ n . ~~ o~ ~~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~~ ~ ~ of ~~ ~~ & ~ ~ ~ 8~ ~ ~~ ,~ ~ ~; sit ~~~P.a~s a ~~€ ~~ a`~~ se?~~y''~~~~~~~y~ v O ~5 ~' $ 34 ~~ y~~ 7 ~ ~d E~ ;~ 8 2 ~u ~~= 8 ~~ 8 ~~ f 4 7 E ~ P gq~C~ ~~ ~~~~~gl~g~i~9~~~~! '~ ~^ ~ Q^ ©~^ 0• II Q a y i ~e f °f ~" k ~ tae e e g3 ~P ~! ~ ee y ~~ ~ i~~~ !g ~~~ r~ ~ggy~ ~~~~ ~~ i3 :~ ~ ~~~~t ~g ~~¢ ~~ ~~E ~~g! .~ ~~ ~ ~~fl °~ gy~~~ , ~~='~ gaga ~~ ~ ~e ~° ~ a~6~~ ~ f~yy~ ~~ ~t~ a ~~ e 3 ~ e ~ ~ y~f y 8~a 8' ~~ ~~ a ~~ ~~~ ~ ~~~~! $~ ~p~ ~~ ~~2~ ~~~~ § ~a z ° r ~ } r ft ~g ~~ ~l~~ , ~~ f ~ ~~ e~@ ~ ~~~k~ ~ ~~~ ~ ~~~~ $~~~ ~ ~: ~ a Z ~3 §~~ ~ ~€tlg~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~_ oe~~ ~~'~ ~~ €g~ ~ ~s~~. art ~i~$ ~~~ ~~~~ ~~~~ b ~1" ,. ~ n 5 g~~, a~Fi ~ ~ f~~~ ~ ~$~~d Attachment 7 -~ Q ~ ~ # ~ 19 a if 6 !~ ~ k w : U a I i~ I i m Q a~~ ~ ~~J~~ ~ c .1lr ~~@ ~ ~ 431f ~ g I e ad d8 d8 a$ d a~3 ~ 4 : ~ 1 ~~i 1 ~ tii C` ~:~ ~ ~ ~ ~ : tfl~~ ~ @ ypiey g~~~ y ages 2~ ~ $ &~ rgl~a ~~~~ p' 7 Eyre 97 ~eAS$ ~~~~ ~ id~~ ~~ 6~ ~ ~ 4 B5~I zx$7~~j~~EE¢~ E " ~~~~ ~~$~ ~~$3i a ~~~~ ~~~ ~ ~ ~ €a4 any `6e~~ a~ ~ ~~~~ ~' ~~~~ ~~ yyp~ ~ ~i _~ ~9 ,7~ g~ y'~ a ~g 3: ~ :a ~ "o~Yi~ ~~ ~ ~~~a~.~9: ~ ~~~ ~9~ g~ ~~ ~ 3 #g S a F ~ ~~ ~ ' a° ~ 4 ~s~a ~ as ~ as ~ ~~~ ~. ~ ~1 _? a~ $.1 ~~ a a ; i~ '~ 00 © ©00 ~' ti a s `I J pQ0 Q a~ as~ U ~~ • y i ~~ a .. 8 a4 g 4 y ?d a ~ ~t t~ ~ ~ ~~$t4 a a ~~ ~;~ ~ ~~~~~ ~ ~~3 ~~~a ~~ ~~~~~ pis ; o, ~ ~ e e ~t~ vy ~~~~ ~ ~3SH et.~~t ~ '~~tt e~~p ~~ g4j~~ ~g~ ~~~~ ~.~ }~~~~ ~ad~~R ~ ~4~ ~p~~€ ~~ ~s ~°~~ g~~ 9%~~ ag4~ ~~~~~ ~ga'y~d~~ 3ca 9~SE ~s ~~3~5~ i7~~ 9~a3~ §~~ ~~~!¢ ~13~~~ w v • Y 20 Attachment 8 LE-E1-6(2S6Rr -~~ d SSYE•Yr6~SS6T>~gd fIESi N{y'amty aapg '081 rmS aorl ~aS Sf9L S~IOH ~2~L ~ 00 ~ N~C10,L U 6NV~d 1NiLJd01i/.>1C7 N9161G NOIlD3~~O0 O1y831"PW 21 O Q w J W~ ~ , ~~ u i~ LEYE•ri6(iE6)~rd SEfE•fY6(LE6$~gd ' S~IOH I2LLl~Il10~ ~8Nr1c10,L ~~~ .~,. „' . ~ a SM,1d 1N.Wd~,N,4 fWJ14iC ~ U .~~,. N011~3'1~00 ~I183f"o'W 3 u O a w w~ a~ 22 L[YE'--6(ZS6)~nd SSYE-ftb(ZS6):~ogd S~I%~IOH I?i.LNl10~ ~NAIO,L U a w J w w 0 ~? ~yt~ (] i a w J W w ~4 ~~ ~99 Q~l eiw~d lwudo~a~ao ~iaaa Noiio~~ioo oiisarew 23 B ~_ ~~ .~ ~; ~~ ~ ~ ~~d~d~g~~ yYl'~~¢~ ~~~s~ ~~ ti ~iSSli( 9f: i! ~? s# z~ S~ Attachment 9 INTRODUCTION Town & Country Homes is requesting the following reviews for a new multiple-family community in Legacy Village called Heritage Square II: Comprehensive Plan Amendment Application We are requesting that the northeast corner of Lot 1 Block 1 of the property be reguided from a Business Commercial land use (BC), to aHigh-Density Residential land use (R- 3H) to accommodate for a an attractive multi-family residential plan. PUD Application We are requesting to rezone the northeast corner of Lot 1 Block 1 from Business Commercial (BC) to High-Density Residential (R-3H), and request that the entire Heritage Square II community be zoned as a Planned Unit Development (PUD). Community Design Review Board Application Heritage Square II has many neo-traditional elements creating a unique community and emphasizing pedestrian traffic and the streetscape. The layout and product design naturally encourages residents to walk and socialize in common green space areas. The community is interconnected by a series of sidewalks, trails, wetlands, special green spaces and complimenting rain gardens. Front door entrances face the streets, making for a charming streetscape. The most substantial entrance is on the north central side of the community off County Road D, where it intersects with Kennard Street. Kennard Street is well dressed with decorative landscaping, street lighting, and a large roundabout located next to the entrance to our Heritage Square community currently under construction. The entrance on Kennard Street into Heritage Square II will have monuments similar to the stylish monuments planned for Heritage Square. All this makes for a very welcoming and eye- catching sense of arrival into the community, and into Legacy Village as an exemplary and sophisticated mixed-use development. HOUSING STYLES • The Majestic Collection All 176 homes in Heritage Square II will be of our ground breaking Majestic Collection, a brand new row-style townhome that would make its debut in the Heritage Square II community. Conceptually, this Collection is similar in to our Hometown Collection that will be built in Heritage Square. The difference being that the Majestic Collection is a 3- level townhome with rear-loaded, tuck-under garages, front balconies, and evolution in size and architectural detail. Building the Majestic Collection in Heritage Square II carries on the smart and elegant concept of Legacy Village, and offers yet another option for homebuyers that is innovative in the marketplace. This collection contributes to a pedestrian-friendly, urban style streetscape with front entryways facing the streets. Some other features unique to the Majestic Collection are rooms located on the end units that hide meters and other equipment. A plan is attached to illustrate this nice element. Most of the striking architectural details accentuate the facades of the buildings that face PROJECT NARRATIVE HERITAGE SQUARE II - MAPLEWOOD, MN 3 24 the street, but the backsides have not been ignored. Different materials are used to break up monotony, such as vinyl shake accents, rock face block, varying rooflines, and windowed garage doors. Overhangs above the garage doors also provide undulation. There are three color packages chosen for the buildings. A matrix is included in this submittal, along with anAnti-Monotony Plan, that demonstrates the objective to provide variation in color schemes throughout the community. Preliminary Plat Application We request to re-plat three areas of the community to accommodate for requested zoning changes on the northeast corner of Lot 1 Block 1, modifications in the layout of the rental housing buildings on Lot 4 Block 2, and road alignment alterations on the western portion of Lot 1 Block 1, which leaves a 78,250 square foot open space identified as Outlot A This also signifies a formal request to review the platting of our entire proposed Heritage Square II Community. Final Plat Application We request to have the final platting of Heritage Square II reviewed concurrently. HOMEOWNER'S ASSOCIATION All private drives, sprinkler systems, monument signs, and common open space areas will be owned and maintained by one homeowner's association for the multiple family area. GUEST PARHING There are 2 parking spaces in all garages. The driveway areas for the Majestic Collection allow enough room to maneuver a vehicle, and deters guest parking. This design is meant to encourage guest parking along the street, by the front doors to enhance the character of the streetscape and common courtyards. Guest parking is designated on the private streets and driveways. Overnight guest parking will be available on private streets and parking bays. PIIASING The project is proposed for site construction in a single phase. The Developer intends to develop the property as soon as all governmental approvals and permits are in place. UTILITIES The grading and utility plans illustrate the general layout of the proposed watermain, sanitary sewer, storm sewer, rain garden and ponding areas. A central storm sewer system is planned to convey street runoff water to a storm scepter and treatment/sedimentation pond before it continues onto wetlands. Rain gardens with a superior underground infiltration system are located throughout the development. EXISTING POWER LINES There are power lines, towers, and an associated easement near the property. The lines are owned and operated by Centerpoint Energy (NSP). PROJECT NARRATIVE HERITAGE SQUARE II - MAPLEWOOD, MN 4 25 Attachment 10 PREVIOUSLY-APPROVED RENTAL-TOWN HOUSE AND OFFICE PLAN Legacy Village Townhome Buildings and Streets ~6 Attachment 11 MINUTES MAPLEWOOD CITY COUNCIL 7:00 P.M., Monday, July 14, 2003 Council Chambers, Municipal Building Meeting No. 03-14 H. PUBLIC HEARINGS 8:27 P.M. Legacy Village PUD (County Road D and Southlawn Drive) Comprehensive Plan Amendment (4 Votes) Conditional Use Permit for Planned Unit Development Preliminary Plat Tax Abatement Plan a. City Manager Fursman presented the staff report. b. Assistant Community Development Director Ekstrand presented specifics from the report. c. Phil Carlson, of Dahlgren, Shardlow and Uban, a planning consultant for the city provided further specifics of the project. d. Commissioner Pearson presented the Planning Commission Report. e. William Griffith, attorney for the Hartford Group presented further details. f. Paul Steinman, Vice President of Springsted, spoke on the abatement analysis for the project. 9:33 p.m. Athree-minute break was taken. g. Mayor Cardinal opened the public hearing, calling for proponents or opponents. The following persons were heard: Gerald Peterson, 3016 Hazelwood Street North, Maplewood George Supan, 3050 Hazelwood Street North, Maplewood Kevin Berglund, 1929 Kingston Avenue East, Maplewood Bill Griffith, attorney for Hartford Group h. Mayor Cardinal closed the public hearing. Councilmember Wasiluk moved to adopt the following resolution approving_a comprehensive land use plan amendment for the proposed Legacy Village on the south side of County Road D between Southlawn Drive and Hazelwood Street: RESOLUTION 03-07-128 LAND USE PLAN CHANGE RESOLUTION WHEREAS, the Hartford Group Inc. applied for a change to the city's land use plan from BC (business commercial) to R-3H (high density residential) and P (park). 27 WHEREAS, this change applies to the property located on the south side of County Road D between Southlawn Drive and Hazelwood Street. The legal description is: Dorle Park, Lots 1-8, 14, 15, 18, 29-36, Block 2 and Except the West 10 acres, the North'/z of the Northeast'/4 in Section 3, Township 29, Range 22 (Subject to roads and easements). WHEREAS, the history of this change is as follows: On June 2, 2003, the planning commission held a public hearing. The city staff published a hearing notice in the Maplewood Review and sent notices to the surrounding property owners. The planning commission gave everyone at the hearing a chance to speak and present written statements. The planning commission tabled action on this proposal since the applicant was in the process of revising their plans. 2. On July 7, 2003, the planning commission continued discussion of this proposal and recommended that the city council approve this land use plan change. 3. On July 14, 2003, the city council discussed the 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 changes since they would be consistent with the comprehensive plan's goals and policies such as: 1. This project would promote economic development that will expand the property tax base, increase jobs and provide desirable services. 2. It would provide a wide variety of housing types. 3. It would integrate development with open space areas, community facilities and significant natural features. 4. Adequate services would be provided such as for streets, utilities, drainage, parks and open space. 5. This project would provide attractive surroundings at which to shop, work and live. The land use plan changes described in this resolution refer to the following segments of the Legacy Village development as shown on their preliminary plat for this project: The following parcels on the Preliminary Plat would be changed to Park: a. Outlot F -public park; and b. Outlot I -public park. All other parcels on the Preliminary Plat except those noted above as Park or remaining BC would change to R-3H High Density Residential: c. Lot 1, Block 1 -rental townhomes, except for the office suites/clubhouse site; d. Lot 1, Block 2 -rental townhomes; 28 e. Lot 1, Block 3 -senior assisted living; f. Outlot B -multi-family; and g. Outlot H -for-sale townhomes; Seconded by Councilmember Juenemann Ayes-Mayor Cardinal, Councilmembers Collins, Juenemann and Wasiluk Nays-Councilmember Koppen Councilmember Wasiluk moved to adopt the following resolution approving a conditional use Hermit for the nronosed Legacy Village on the south side of County Road D between Southlawn Drive and Hazelwood Street: RESOLUTION 03-07-129 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION WHEREAS, the Hartford Group, Inc. applied for a conditional use permit for a planned unit development to develop amulti-use development called Legacy Village. WHEREAS, this permit applies to the property located on the south side of County Road D between Southlawn Drive and Hazelwood Street. The legal description is: Dorle Park, Lots 1-8, 14, 15, 18, 29-36, Block 2 and Except the West 10 acres, the North'/z of the Northeast'/a in Section 3, Township 29, Range 22 (Subject to roads and easements). WHEREAS, the history of this conditional use permit is as follows: On July 7, 2003 the planning commission recommended that the city council approve this permit. 2. The city council held a public hearing on July 14, 2003. 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 approves 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 29 operation that would be dangerous, hazardous, detrimental, disturbing or cause a nuisance to any person or property, because of excessive noise, glare, smoke, dust, odor, fumes, water or air pollution, drainage, water run-off, vibration, general unsightliness, electrical interference or other nuisances. 5. The use would generate only minimal vehicular traffic on local streets and would not create traffic congestion or unsafe access on existing or proposed streets. 6. The use would be served by adequate public facilities and services, including streets, police and fire protection, drainage structures, water and sewer systems, schools and parks. 7. The use would not create excessive additional costs for public facilities or services. 8. The use would maximize the preservation of and incorporate the site's natural and scenic features into the development design. 9. The use would cause minimal adverse environmental effects. Approval is subject to these code requirements: All construction shall follow the site plan that the city stamped June 12, 2003. The Director of Community Development may approve minor changes. • The proposed construction must be substantially started or the proposed use utilized within one year of council approval or the permit shall become null and void. The council may extend this deadline for one year. • The city council shall review this permit in one year. Approval is also subject to the following conditions: 1) Rental Townhomes and Office/Clubhouse: a. The project will be constructed according to the plans from Hartford Group dated 6/2/03 in all details, except as specifically modified by these conditions; b. A sidewalk will be provided continuously on the north or west side of Street A between Kennard Street and Hazelwood Drive, including the segment between the office/clubhouse parking lot and townhome buildings 11 and 12; c. Sidewalk connections will be added connecting the power line trail to the curb of Street A opposite townhome buildings 6 and 8; 30 d. The sidewalks serving the fronts of townhome buildings 13, 16, 17, 18, 19, and 20 will be extended south to connect with the power line trail; e. Street B and Street C serving the townhomes will be constructed in their entirety with the townhomes, regardless of the status of the multi-family and commercial parcels to the east; Parking spaces will be provided at the ends of the driveways at the rear of buildings 1, 2, 3 and 4; 15/16; 19/20; 21/22; and 25/26, and sidewalks will be provided from those parking spaces connecting to the front sidewalks of each of those buildings; g. The infiltration trenches on the south sides of buildings 13/14, 15/16, and 19/20 will be modified to accommodate a revised alignment for the power line trail, provided that reasonable grades are provided for the trail and any sidewalks connecting to it, and approval of the city engineer concerning the size and function of the trenches; h. A 6'-wide sidewalk should be provided if at all possible on the south side of County Road D for the entire length of the project from Hazelwood Drive to Southlawn Drive, through continued discussion between the city and Hartford, focusing on exact sidewalk width, location, and right-of-way needs for turn lanes and other features of the County Road D project; i. A sidewalk will be provided on the south side of County Road D and sidewalks will be provided out to that sidewalk from the north side of buildings 1, 4, 21, 22, 23, 24, and 25, as well as to the clubhouse front entry and the clubhouse parking lot; j. The grades of the power line trail and all sidewalks will meet ADA guidelines for slope; k. Overstory trees will be planted along both sides of Street A at an average of 30'-40' on center instead of the average 70' spacing shown on the plans; 1. Overstory trees will be planted along both sides of Street B and on the west side of Street C at an average of 30'-40' on center instead of the sometimes 100' spacing shown on the plans, such additional tree islands to be coordinated with modified parking bays that might be added to this street; m. Overstory trees will be planted along both sides of Kennard Street in front of the townhomes at an average of 30' -40' on center instead of the average 50' -80' spacing shown on the plans; n. The curve in the middle of Street A opposite buildings 10 and 12 will be flattened as much as possible to limit headlights aimed into the front of the units; o. Front building setbacks (clubhouse and buildings 1, 4, 5, 14, 15, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, and 26) to Hazelwood Drive, Kennard Street, and County Road D that are less than required by the Zoning Code are specifically approved within this PUD as shown on the site plan, down to a minimum of 5' for the clubhouse and 15' for the townhome buildings, in order to enhance the urban character of the streets and intersections; p. Side yard building setbacks for all buildings that are less than required by the Zoning 31 Code are specifically approved within this PUD as shown on the site plan; q. Visitor parking spaces for the rental townhomes will be added or modified as follows: Parking spaces will be added so there is a total of at least 48 spaces on the west side of Kennard and at least 51 spaces on the east side of Kennard, such that the front door of no unit is more than 200 feet from a group of at least 5 spaces. ii. Street A will be widened to 26' curb-to-curb and on-street parallel parking will be added along the north and west sides of the street except for within 100' of the pavement of Hazelwood Drive and Kennard Street. iii. The private drive immediately south of buildings 2 and 3 will be widened to 26' curb-to-curb and on-street parallel parking will be added along the north side of the drive. iv. Parking areas will be added behind buildings 1 and 4 where the driveway abuts the ponding area, consistent with the recommendation of the city engineer on providing adequate grading and functioning of the pond. v. Parking areas will be added behind buildings 15/16, 19/20, 21/22, and 25/26 to meet the parking and distance criteria cited here. vi. Street B will be widened to 26' curb-to-curb and parallel parking will be added along the north and west sides of the street, or additional angled parking will be added to meet the criteria for parking spaces cited here. r. The parking lot for the clubhouse/office building will be modified to add'"proof of parking" spaces in the green area north and east of the swimming pool, for a total of 91 spaces possible in the lot. Such spaces will only be constructed if the owner believes they are needed, or if they are needed in the future to address parking problems at the building in the opinion of the community development director, who can order the spaces to be constructed. Such spaces will maintain a sidewalk connection between the swimming pool and clubhouse building in an island in the middle of the parking bays as shown on the plans; s. An easement over the power line trail on this parcel will be provided to the city for access and maintenance. 2) Senior Assisted Living: a. Front building setbacks to Kennard Street and Legacy Parkway that are less than required by the Zoning Code are specifically approved within this PUD as shown on the site plan, down to a minimum of 5', in order to enhance the urban character of the streets and intersection; b. Emergency exits -two fronting Kennard Street and one fronting Legacy Parkway -will provide sidewalk connections to the sidewalks on the street; c. A sidewalk connection will be provided near the south side of the building connecting 32 Kennard Street to the path around the pond to the east; d. The entry at the far south end of the building will provide a sidewalk connection to the sidewalk noted above; e. The emergency exit on the southwest face of the building near the south end of the building will provide a sidewalk connection to the sidewalk noted above; f. The emergency exit on the south face of the northeastern leg of the building will provide a sidewalk connection south to the sidewalk abutting the parking lot; g. Overstory trees will be planted along the east side of Kennard Street and the south side of Legacy Parkway at an average of 30'-40' on center instead of the average 80'-100' spacing shown on the plans; h. Revise the site plan to show proof-of-parking to reduce the amount of surface parking. 3) Multi:Family Site (Outlot B): a. The multi-family site is planned in concept only within the PUD and will come in for design review and approval at a later date, but the use of the property is allowed as long as the provisions of the R-3A or R-3B zoning district (depending on the building size) and conditions outlined here are met; b. The multi-family site is approved for up to 50 units of housing; A building corner should be within 30' of the curb on the roundabout to maintain the character of the intersection; d. The building or buildings must be designed to continue the general pattern and sight lines of the townhomes to the west; Sidewalk connections must be provided to the power line trail on the south side of the parcel; f. Visitor parking must be provided at a ratio of 1/2 space per unit no more than 200' from the front door of any unit if townhomes are built, or the front entry of the apartment building if apartments are built; g. A play area or tot lot must be provided on site with easy access to the building entries and to the power line trail, within reasonable sight of as many of the units as possible; h. The architectural character and exterior building materials must be in keeping with the adjacent townhomes and other buildings if present; Overstory trees must be planted along the north side of the extension of Street B at an average of 30'-40' on center; j. An easement over the power line trail on this parcel will be provided to the city for access and maintenance. 33 4) Retail/Commercial (Outlot A): a. The retail/commercial site is planned in concept only within the PUD and will come in for design review and approval at a later date, but the use is allowed as long as the provisions of the BC zoning district and conditions outlined here are met; b. The building(s) on the retail/commercial site should be sited on the north side of the parcel within 15' of the County Road Dright-of-way with all parking to the south; c. The applicant shall submit a comprehensive sign plan. One criteria to be established, however, is that pylon signs shall not be allowed. Monument signs may be allowed, but shall not exceed 12 feet in height; d. The architectural character and exterior building materials must be in keeping with the adjacent townhomes and other buildings if present; e. Access to the site will be off the east leg of the roundabout and another access drive off Street C between the roundabout and County Road D; and to County Road D at a shared driveway with the adjacent furniture store site; f. All ground-mounted and roof-mounted mechanical equipment shall be screened according to ordinance; g. Overstory trees must be planted along the south side of the extension of Street B at an average of 30' -40' on center. h. Adequate separation, buffering and screening must be provided for the multi-family residential units from the front doors, parking areas, loading areas, and mechanical equipment of this commercial building; 5) Furniture Store (Outlot C): a. The furniture store is planned in concept only within the PUD and will come in for design review and approval at a later date, but the use is allowed as long as the provisions of the BC zoning district and conditions outlined here are met; b. The building should be sited on the north side of the parcel within 15' of the County Road D and Southlawn Drive rights-of-way with all parking to the south. The design of the corner of the building should be such that reasonable and safe sight distances are maintained at County Road D and Southlawn; c. The applicant shall submit a comprehensive sign plan. One criteria to be established, however, is that pylon signs shall not be allowed. Monument signs may be allowed, but shall not exceed 12 feet in height; d. The architectural character and exterior building materials must be in keeping with the adjacent townhomes and other buildings if present; e. Access to the site will be off the extension of the east leg of the roundabout, to County 34 Road D at a shared driveway with the adjacent retail/commercial site and up to two driveway accesses to Southlawn Drive at points to be approved by the city engineer; All ground-mounted and roof-mounted mechanical equipment shall be screened according to ordinance; g. Overstory trees must be planted along the west side of Southlawn Drive at an average of 30'-40' on center. h. Adequate separation, buffering and screening must be provided for the multi-family residential units from the front doors, parking areas, loading areas, and mechanical equipment of this commercial building. 6) Commercial Site (Outlot D): a. The commercial site is planned in concept only within the PUD and will come in for design review and approval at a later date, but the use is allowed as long as the provisions of the BC zoning district and conditions outlined here are met; b. One of the buildings on the commercial site should be sited close to the corner of Southlawn Drive and Legacy Parkway, within 30' of the Southlawn Drive right-of-way; The applicant shall submit a comprehensive sign plan. One criteria to be established, however, is that pylon signs shall not be allowed. Monument signs may be allowed, but shall not exceed 12 feet in height; d. The architectural character and exterior building materials must be in keeping with the nearby senior assisted-living building, townhomes and other buildings if present; e. Access to the site will be off Legacy Parkway and onto Southlawn if approved by the city engineer; All ground-mounted and roof-mounted mechanical equipment shall be screened according to ordinance; g. The parking lot on this site must provide through connections and cross parking easements with the parcel to the south (Outlot E); h. There must be sidewalks connecting entries to all buildings on site to Legacy Parkway, Southlawn Drive, the path around the pond to the west, and to Outlot E. Such sidewalks must be separated from the parking lot - at curb level, not parking lot level; i. Uses on the site are encouraged to take advantage of the park and trail system around the ponding area to the west by providing outdoor seating, plazas, overlooks or similar features; j. Overstory trees must be planted along the north side of Legacy Parkway and the west side of Southlawn Drive an average of 30'-40' on center. k. An easement over the power line trail on this parcel will be provided to the city for access 35 and maintenance. 7) Restaurant Site (Outlot E): a. The restaurant site is planned in concept only within the PUD and will come in for design review and approval at a later date, but the use is allowed as long as the provisions of the BC zoning district and conditions outlined here are met; b. The applicant shall submit a comprehensive sign plan. One criteria to be established, however, is that pylon signs shall not be allowed. Monument signs may be allowed, but shall not exceed 12 feet in height; c. The architectural character and exterior building materials must be in keeping with the nearby senior assisted-living building, townhomes and other buildings if present; d. Access to the site will be off a shared driveway with the shopping center property to the south, provided easements and agreements can be reached with that property owner to provide such access. Access will be provided onto Southlawn if approved by the city engineer; e. All ground-mounted and roof-mounted mechanical equipment shall be screened according to the ordinance; f. The parking lot on this site must provide through connections and cross parking easements with the parcel to the north (Outlot D); g. There must be a sidewalk on the south side of the site connecting Southlawn Drive with the trail around the ponding area to the west. There must also be sidewalks connecting the building entry to the shared driveway on the south side, Southlawn Drive, and to Outlot D. Such sidewalks must be separated from the parking lot - at curb level, not parking lot level; h. Uses on the site are encouraged to take advantage of the park and trail system around the ponding area to the west by providing outdoor seating, plazas, overlooks or similar features; i. Overstory trees must be planted along the west side of Southlawn Drive and the north side of the driveway access on the south side of the site at an average of 30'-40' on center. 8) Corporate/Commercial Site (Outlot G): a. The corporate/commercial site is planned in concept only within the PUD and will come in for design review and approval at a later date, but the use is allowed as long as the provisions of the BC zoning district and conditions outlined here are met; b. The building must be sited close to the roundabout intersection on the corner of Kennard Street and Legacy Parkway, within 15' of both rights-of-way, to maintain the character of the intersection, with parking to the north and east of the building; c. The applicant shall submit a comprehensive sign plan. One criteria to be established, 36 however, is that pylon signs shall not be allowed. Monument signs may be allowed, but shall not exceed 12 feet in height; d. The architectural character and exterior building materials must be in keeping with the nearby senior assisted-living building, townhomes and other buildings if present; e. Access to the site will be off Legacy Parkway and Kennard Street. The driveway access to Kennard Street at the northwest corner of the site may move north if needed for the realignment of the power line trail and to align with the driveway entrance to the park on the west side of Kennard; f. All ground-mounted and roof-mounted mechanical equipment shall be screened according to ordinance; g. There must be sidewalks connecting entries to all buildings on site to Legacy Parkway, Kennard Street, and through the parking lot to the power line trail; h. Uses on the site are encouraged to take advantage of the park and trail system around the ponding area to the west by providing outdoor seating, plazas, overlooks or similar features; i. Overstory trees must be planted along the east side of Kennard Street and the north side of Legacy Parkway at an average of 30'-40' on center. j. Adequate separation, buffering and screening must be provided for the multi-family residential units from the front doors, parking areas, loading areas, and mechanical equipment of this commercial building. 9) For-Sale Townhomes (Outlot H): a. The for-sale townhome site is planned in concept only within the PUD and will come in for design review and approval at a later date, but the use is allowed as long as the provisions of the R-3C zoning district and conditions outlined here are met; b. Townhome buildings must be sited close to the roundabout intersection on the corner of Kennard Street and Legacy Parkway, and close to Kennard Street, within 20' of both rights-of-way, to maintain the character of the intersection and the streetscape; c. The architectural character and exterior building materials must be in keeping with the nearby senior assisted-living building, townhomes and other buildings in the development; d. Access to the site will be off the west leg of the roundabout at Legacy Parkway and Kennard Street, plus another access to Kennard Street further south, most likely in a loop street through the site. If the properties west of Outlot H fronting Hazelwood Drive are likely to develop when Outlot H is proposed for development, then consideration will be given to a public through street connecting Kennard Street and Hazelwood Drive as an extension of Legacy Parkway; e. There must be sidewalks connecting entries to all buildings on site to Legacy Parkway, 37 Kennard Street, and the park and power line trail to the north. Such sidewalks must be designed within a clear system of open spaces and landscaping that serves all units more or less equally; Visitor parking must be provided at a ratio of 1/2 space per unit no more than 200' from the front door of any townhouse unit; g. Overstory trees must be planted along the west side of Kennard Street and along both sides of the major internal street(s) at an average of 30'-40' on center. 10) Public Park with Trail (Outlot F): a. The property will be deeded to the City as public park land, but will not be credited as land area in park dedication requirements. See Parks Director Bruce Anderson's memorandum (attached). b. Hartford will construct all the grading, ponding, and trails noted on the plans; c. Hartford will secure all necessary easements and agreements with the shopping center property owner to the south for grading and construction of the trail on the south side of the pond (and the extension of that trail west around the south side of the senior assisted living building noted previously). Once agreed to, an easement at least 5' wider than the trail surface will be dedicated to the city for access and maintenance of the trail. 11) Public Park (Outlot I): a. The property will be deeded to the City as public park land, but will not be credited as land area in park dedication requirements. See Parks Director Bruce Anderson's memorandum (attached). b. Hartford will construct all the grading, play fields, equipment, and parking noted on the plans or as negotiated with the city; c. The power line trail will be realigned to cross Kennard Street further north to accommodate sidewalk connections to the townhomes to the north; d. Sidewalk connections will be provided in several locations to the power line trail in reasonable locations to connect all major activity areas with the trail; e. Sidewalk connections will be provided in appropriate locations to the sidewalk and green space system of the townhome development to the south, at such time as that development is planned or in place; f. Hartford will secure easements and agreements with the property owner to the south for the trail on the south side of the pond (and the extension of that trail west around the south side of the senior assisted-living building noted previously). Once agreed to, an easement at least 5' wider than the trail surface will be dedicated to the city for access and maintenance of the trail. 12) The Legacy Village site as a whole: 38 a. The applicant shall dedicate wetland-protection buffers around each wetland within this development. The width of each buffer shall be according to each wetlands classification as determined by the Ramsey-Washington Metro Watershed District. These buffers shall be dedicated to the City of Maplewood and shall be dedicated to the city prior to the issuance of the first building permit for this development. b. The applicant shall install wetland-protection buffer signs around each wetland buffer. These signs shall state "there shall be no mowing, cutting, filling or dumping beyond this point." c. The community design review board shall review the landscape plans using the criteria herein as a guide. d. The architectural plans for all buildings in Legacy Village are subject to the approval of the community design review board. e. The grading, drainage, erosion control, utility and roadway plans (public and private) are subject to the approval of the city engineer. f. The applicant shall meet the tree-replacement/tree-preservation requirements of the Maplewood Code of Ordinances. g. The city will be strictly enforcing the 7 p.m. to 7 a.m. no-noise requirement and strictly enforcing dust-control efforts for all phases of this development. h. The applicant shall coordinate the installation of the sidewalk along the County Road D alignment with the city engineer. Seconded by Councilmember Koppen Ayes-Mayor Cardinal, Councilmembers Collins, Juenemann and Wasiluk Nays-Councilmember Koppen Councilmember Wasiluk moved to approve the preliminary plat date-stamped June 12, 2003, subject to the following, conditions for the proposed Legacy Village on the south side of County Road D between Southlawn Drive and Hazelwood Street: 1) Public street right-of-way will be dedicated for County Road D, Kennard Street, Legacy Parkway and Southlawn Drive as recommended by city engineering consultant Jon Horn in his memorandum. In addition, the applicant shall dedicate the necessary right-of-way for a sidewalk along the County Road D alignment, subject to the city engineer's approval. 2) Outlot f and Outlot I will be dedicated to the city for public park purposes as recommended and approved by the city parks director; 3) An easement over the power line trail will be dedicated to the city as required by the city engineer and parks director, and as modified by conditions of approval for the PUD; 4) Wetland buffer easements shall be shown around the wetlands on the site. The applicant shall dedicate these wetland buffer easements to the City of Maplewood. 39 Seconded by Councilmember Juenemann Ayes-Mayor Cardinal, Councilmembers Collins, Juenemann and Wasiluk Nays-Councilmember Koppen Councilmember Collins moved to authorize the preparation of a development agreement with the Hartford Group, Inc. providing tax abatement not to exceed a present value of $3.8 million dollars for the proposed Leery Village on the south side of County Road D between Southlawn Drive and Hazelwood Street. Seconded by Mayor Cardinal Ayes-Mayor Cardinal, Councilmembers Collins, Juenemann and Wasiluk Nays-Councilmember Koppen 40 ~--- ~> ; ~bT 1 ~; ~ '~ I - - -, -- ---- -~I~'~~.J Coo cP° laao Ic ~ \ ~- _ _ All<e of Honey Incest ---"-~ ^I in Boolcvuds on Kcnnartl ~ Ter ~~ ~~i~~ - _ _~---~~ __ ._ __ r TITITRf~xECUnv a, Colored Contxcte Paven in Medicos Mul. EnMnr ~ i ~~ ICa SUITE ( Slil _ O~ 1 ~ `` \ ^lT Ell 'l TffTf ?L ru~Y ~,RE I~I ~~~~ja_~ FN QY ~~ ~~~;~IIL~~ ~Wll , I ST~'i_ ~ ,, ; r,l~ N G~~ lfffT.,ERli ~-~-EE~,I~ ~ ~ I I CworIDUSE /\\ I : .. i- ~~ _ ~/L,1" 11L IJ w;.~_. IJy ~~ ~ JI ~~~~,~ ~ l ~L_wiur ~,;. statrii;Rea~„`r1-- - ~' (~ .~ _ I-=_ - ~- ; - ~ -,- -- ~~- --emu -~a~ ; -~ ~._,._---_~ - I r- I='~~-~~t _ I Ip ~ I 1~ C _ - _% Q Lindens Icotedm ' h_ -~ ,1 I I' II Pink and Aed SYwb Row _ --- Elm Tten Planxd in __ _ _ _ ~'--'~ ~~.`-~.-- O fl liTlTiffP~17TTT1-iffETTTIT'ITII Bode.stdsNongLeguy PokC ~ Street ttB~ I R ~~`~~ ~ f1ll1111Lt!LLuj1111fJ 11J~ ~ VoNU PARR Uifll fEll l I I I I L/ .. ~ ly ..1,` - Gna is Eoulcvuds /~ / ~ ~ ; I ~~ ; - - ^~~ I Roulsdabaut Plsnmg- CdtPORA TE/ \ ~ ~ ' _ _ LiOdent ~ y~ CDMMCRf.IAL SITE / ~. AA.~~7uu J l ~ t` Pink sod Aed Shtob Row / ./ \ ~ 4/ I v i / W (~-lUWN ~~ 1 ~~X f ROMEO-- _, - .. ~: ,_-.~.•, Y~hL-iditc_ ai~.n.~sctea~"~' .y i ~ ~ I ~ couMUtolnL I , _ ~ SENIOR SITE ~ / ~• W I ~~~_ _ ASSISTED LI~1NG I/J ~ /--+...-+.~~ PUBLIC ?ARR ~ ~ ~ ~\\ ' , _ I 'RAIL I I _ ~ Lr- O t ~~/J PONO N'r T! AND l 1,~ ~ (_ INEIIt. w // - ~C I I ~ t I ~ BASIN ` ~r /~~. Ii11 ~~E'r~~ ~y _ 1 f I~ ~ '4 \ \ `~ ~~ GI~.TfU I~U(11.L~ ,I WETLAND \> ^ a ~ UEI,~'EJ r ' I ~, ~ V \ F ' N~ la~- y a ~~ i - ~ ~~~ r .Is ` ~ I F ~. D D -. _.~ ,~ i ~ ~ li `~' O ---- --~ t:) O~Z70 11' r' eT'-tea ~""~ ~ 9 ,..,.._...a ,,,,, ttPd~ty~atea wia, Pisds aPd Red Shsub Rasa , __ ,,,,, .~-T,~ , Tosf Gass Panda /iy ~ .. ' ' -•1 u . ; . / 1/J CObted Cmacr~ V. .i_ L J~_l i /., : . ~y P'°a PLANT SCHEDULE ® Elm KENNARD MEDIANS QTY COMMON NAME/BOTANICAL NAME SIZE AOOT SPACING H°°eY ~°at D6®UOUS TREES _._ __ _ 0 ~~ _ 29 Linden -._. _-_ storm awEs 20" CAL - BdtB 25' OC :' ^ Cokxed Concre¢ Poets \ ~ Street °n'B P°Q fi56_' Pink Awes ___ _ ._ -...-- #1 Gsade _ G ' - Conc_ _ 3' OC .. I 3' C C ~ Y 658 Aed Aow_ _--._.. #1 sasic . anl _ O .. ® TarEGaa C . TtuE Gras Boulevuds ® Shrub Roe Bed ~ ~ ~ ' KENNARD BOULEVARDS S¢ea Ligkttiog ; n, ~ QTY COMMON NAME/BOTANICAL NAME- _ SIZE ROOT SPACING " : ~ DB®UOUS TREES _ ___ _ ' ~ __ _ L 152 l Hong Luaus --..._ _ 20" CAL., BdtB_30 OC KENNARD ROUNDABOUT } .~I / QTY COMMON NAME/BOTANICAL NAME SIZE AOOT SPACING . . D U 1U OUS TREES 'I I.ittdeo -...___. .. ______. _,. 20"CAL BErB Pe:Plan ., . . stmue R OSE4 i . _ '~ ~. ' 155 ~ Pick Aoua #1 Gtcde. ~ J'OC Conl ~ . ~ Lusdew uoduplwud with ---___ ._______..-_ 156 ~ Aed Row ___.._.__ #1 Gtgde i _ ______ CPac i 3' OC Pioh sad Red SFmtb Aosa __ . - .. . _ . ~ ;-, f ~ LEGACY BOULEVARD _, "x' ~I QTY COMMONNAb1E/BOTANSCALNAME SIZE ROOT SPACING v Dscrouous TREES _ ~ ~ Ee, _._. o"'SAT Bata Ego - ,.~ry Galatea Coaaete Psvea in the McdicPS I I 41 Attachment 13 Engineering Plan Review PROJECT: Heritage Square II PROJECT NO: REVIEWED BY: Erin Laberee and Chris Cavett Maplewood Engineering Dept. DATE: May 28, 2004 Town and Country Homes is proposing to develop for sale town homes on the Legacy Village planned unit development previously approved for rental town homes and an executive office site. The developer shall address the following issues. Grading & Erosion Control 1. The engineer shall provide an erosion control plan. 2. The developer must sign a maintenance agreement for the maintenance and annual cleaning of the rainwater gardens. 3. The engineer shall note the top and bottom elevations of the proposed retaining walls. A building permit will be required for the proposed retaining wall greater than four feet high. A plan and a specific soil stabilization detail for the wall design will be required as part of the building permit. 4. The proposed grades at the west end of the tunnel do not work. The proposed grades indicate a low point with no outlet, just west of Kennard Street, at the trail tunnel. The applicant shall revise the grades to eliminate the low point. The applicant shall coordinate grades for Outlot Tot Lot area with the city's plan and contractor. Utilities 1. Submit plans the Saint Paul Regional Water Services for their review. Drainage 1. The engineer shall provide drainage calculations in compliance with the storm water management plan for the Maplewood Mall Area Transportation Improvements. The engineer shall provide the "Enhanced Practices" worksheets. 2. The outlet structures in several rainwater gardens have rim elevations set at the bottom contour of the gardens. To maximize infiltration, the rim elevations of these structures shall be set approximately 0.5 feet or higher above the bottom contour elevation of the rainwater gardens. 3. Rainwater gardens typically include a rock sump. The sumps consist of 1.5" of clean, clear rock wrapped in Type 5 geotextile filter fabric, (felt). The contractor places the top of the rock infiltration sumps about 12 inches below the finished 42 bottom of the basin. If rock sumps are utilized within the proposed development, the project engineer shall provide a detail and description of how the contractor is to construct the sumps and the rainwater gardens. 4. Provide emergency overflow swales from the rainwater gardens and ponds. The overflow swales shall be lined with a permanent soil stabilization blanket, (Enkamat, NAG C350 or equal). Indicate emergency overflow elevations on the drawing. 5. The applicant shall obtain off-site drainage and utility easements. 6. The applicant shall obtain approval from the pipeline for the 27" storm sewer crossing. 7. The utility plan shows 27" HDPE being utilized. This size HDPE pipe is not manufactured. The next closest pipe sizes available in HDPE are 24" or 30". The engineer shall revise the storm sewer to reflect this. 8. The engineer shall provide storm sewer details. Landscaping 1. The applicant shall provide additional landscaping in and around the ponds and rainwater gardens. Include anative-gass seed mixture for upland and lowland areas around any rain gazdens or ponds. Misc. The applicant shall coordinate the Legacy trail alignment with the city and the city's consultant. 2. The applicant shall coordinate construction of Legacy trail with the city's contractor and provide the city with all of the necessary Right of Entry Agreements. 3. The developer will be required to enter into a developers agreement with the city. 43 Attachment 14 LAND USE PLAN CHANGE RESOLUTION WHEREAS, Town and Country Homes applied for a change to the City's land use plan from BC (business commercial) to R3H (high density residential). WHEREAS, this change applies to the property located at the southwest corner of County Road D East and Kennard Street. The legal description is: Lot 1, Block 1, Legacy Village of Maplewood. WHEREAS, the history of this change is as follows: On June 7, 2004, the Planning Commission held a public hearing. The City staff published a hearing notice in the Maplewood Review and sent notices to the surrounding property owners. The Planning Commission gave everyone at the hearing a chance to speak and present written statements. The Planning Commission recommended that the City Council approve the land use plan change. 2. On June 14, 2004, the City Council discussed the 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 because the proposed townhomes would be more compatible and in character with the adjacent townhome development than the previously approved commercial building. The Maplewood City Council approved this resolution on 2004. 44 Attachment 15 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REVISION RESOLUTION FOR A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT WHEREAS, Town and Country Homes applied for a conditional use permit to revise the Legacy Village planned unit development by eliminating a 1.5-acre commercial building site and propose townhomes instead and also to eliminate arental- housing component with for-sale townhome units. WHEREAS, this permit applies to the 20-acre site in Legacy Village lying south of County Road D East between Hazelwood Street and Southlawn Drive. The legal description is: Lot 1, block 1, lot 1, block 2 and lot 4 block 2 of Legacy Village of Maplewood. WHEREAS, the history of this conditional use permit is as follows: On June 7, 2004 the planning commission recommended that the city council approve this permit. 2. The city council held a public hearing on June 14, 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 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 conges#ion or unsafe access on existing or proposed streets. 45 6. The use would be served by adequate public facilities and services, including streets, police and fire protection, drainage structures, water and sewer systems, schools and parks. 7. The use would not create excessive additional costs for public facilities or services. 8. The use would maximize the preservation of and incorporate the site's natural and scenic features into the development design. 9. The use would cause minimal adverse environmental effects. Approval is subject to the following conditions (additions are underlined and deletions are crossed out): The development shall follow the plans date-stamped April 30, 2004, except where the city requires changes. The director of community development may approve minor changes. 2. The proposed construction must be substantially started within one year of council approval or the permit shall end. The council may extend this deadline for one year. 3. The city council shall review this permit in one year. 4. The applicant shall comply with the requirements in the Assistant City Engineer's report dated May 28, 2004. 5. The applicant shall sign a development agreement with the city before the issuance of a grading permit. 6. The applicant shall provide a copy of the homeowner's association documents to staff for approval. 7. ~ta~Townhomes a. The project will be constructed according to the plans from Town and Country Homes date-stamped April 30, 2004 #re~ ,except as specifically modified by these conditions. b. c. Sidewalk connections will be added connecting the power line trail to the curb of Village Trail East (west of Kennard Street) in at least four locations and connecting the power line trail to the curb of 46 Village Trail East (east of Kennard Street) in at least three locations to be approved by staff. d . , pewe Nir~e~ail. e. Village Trail East (east of Kennard Street) Stree~B and Flandrau Street East Stree~C serving the townhomes will be constructed in their entirety with the townhomes, regardless of the status of the multi-family and commercial parcels to the east. f. Parking spaces will be provided at the ends of the driveways as shown on the plans and wherever elns/e then mnany fit a#~nkC-en~Gea~e# b'ca'n~Q,sT~d ar~d 4 ~ ~ vr~v, ~ ~ts~v~ ~ ~~s`~ °~ ic~rs`~rs`d~r'~iv 9• , h. Asix-foot-wide sidewalk should be provided+€~a~aN-passible on the south side of County Road D for the entire length of the project from Hazelwood Street wive to Southlawn Drive; prejest. The grades of the power line trail and all ublic sidewalks will meet ADA guidelines for slope. k. The landscape plan is approved as proposed with the exception that the boulevard trees along Kennard Street shall be planted according to the approved Kennard Street Boulevard-Tree Planting Plan. 47 m. > > n. The curve in the middle of Village Trail East (west of Kennard Street shall be flattened as much as possible to limit headlight lag re on aiflae~ iflte the front of the units. o. All setbacks are approved as shown. > > p• - q. Visitor-parking spaces for the natal townhomes will be added or modified as follows: 1) IE~pases: The applicant shall provide visitor-parking spaces at the minimum ctuantity of one-half space per townhome unit. This works out to a minimum of 89 visitor parking spaces required. Furthermore, the visitor-parking spaces must be placed such that the front door of no unit is more than 200 feet from a group of at least five spaces. 48 s. An easement over the power line trail on this parcel will be provided to the city for access and maintenance. The Maplewood City Council approved this resolution on June , 2004. 49 DRAFT MINUTES OF THE MAPLEWOOD COMMUNITY DESIGN REVIEW BOARD 1830 COUNTY ROAD B EAST, MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA TUESDAY, MAY 25, 2004 V. DESIGN REVIEW a. Heritage Square Town House Development -Legacy Village Mr. Ekstrand said Town and Country Homes is proposing to build for-sale townhomes on the portion of the Legacy Village PUD (planned unit development) that was previously approved for rental townhomes and an executive office site. The office site was proposed on 1.5 acres of this 20-acre site. The applicant is proposing to build 178 townhomes. Mr. Ekstrand said this site was previously approved for 198 townhomes and the office building. This proposed change requires the following approves from the city council: A revision of the Legacy Village PUD for the change in ownership/rental status as well as revision of the commercial site to residential use. 2. A comprehensive plan amendment to build townhomes where the executive offices were previously approved. This would be a change from BC (business commercial) to R-3H (high density residential). 3. A revised preliminary plat for the new lot line configuration. 4. A revised flat plat. 5. Site, building and landscape plan approvals. The planning commission will review the first four requests. Staff will review these in a separate report. At this time, the applicant is requesting that the community design review board review the site, building and landscape plans. Chairperson Longrie-Kline said she couldn't tell by looking at the color renderings if there was any brick used on the building elevations so she asked if staff knew the answer? Mr. Ekstrand said the applicant could answer that when they have the opportunity to speak. The applicant brought a materials board for the board to see. Chairperson Longrie-Kline asked staff if they knew how many proposals the board has required brick to be used in some form on the building elevations? Mr. Ekstrand said the city has had a record of requiring brick to be used at least as an accent material and often times used as a wainscot below to replace concrete block elements. The city requires brick to be used on the building elevation to a certain degree. Mr. Ekstrand said it wouldn't be out of line to require brick to be used in some form on the buildings. He didn't mention it in his report because he thought the buildings have a lot of design and character already. Board member Olson asked if these units would be rented or sold? Mr. Ekstrand said these units would be for sale. Board member Olson asked if Phase 1 for Legacy Village was for sale or rent? Mr. Ekstrand said those units are for sale as well. Board member Olson asked how much of the Legacy Village development is handicap accessible because it appears that the plans the board has reviewed so far have all been multi-level homes. Board member Olson said she didn't bring that issue up in Phase I because she thought Phase II would have accessible housing units but now she doesn't see any in this proposal either and this concerns her. Mr. Ekstrand said perhaps the applicant could address that. Board member Olson asked if there was a minimum percentage of handicap accessible housing that the city code requires for new developments? Mr. Ekstrand said no typically there isn't. It's something that can be considered but there is no code requirement stating there needs to be so many handicap accessible units. Board member Olson said that concerns her. She expected to see some handicap accessible housing somewhere in this Legacy Village development. Board member Shankar asked how the traffic would flow through the area. He asked if the traffic would go to Kennard Street or to County Road D and Highway 61 ? Mr. Ekstrand said the extension to Highway 61 for County Road D is under construction. Phase I for the Legacy development has begun and the roadway should be drivable by the end of this year. By the time the developer has a number of units to warrant traffic circulation the roadwork will be completed. Chairperson Longrie-Kline asked what the square footage of this development would be? Mr. Ekstrand said he would ask the developer to answer that question. Chairperson Longrie-Kline asked the applicant to address the board. Mr. Kevin Clark, Director of Land Development, Town & Country Homes, 7615 Smetana Lane, Suite 180, Eden Prairie, addressed the board. He said the grading has begun for Heritage Square and is close to completion. The County Road D grading should start at the end of June to early July and should be done by the end of the construction season. As soon as the ground dries up more they will start putting in the underground elements. They are going by the plans previously approved by the Hartford Group regarding accessibility. This is the first community they would be building the Majestic Collection product in. The approval of the site was not slatted for a one level building project, which is the reason they haven't proposed a one level building product for this project area. Board member Olson said she understands it's not his fault but she would like to severely scold whomever it is that dropped the ball on this. She can't see a development of this size without one-level handicapped accessible housing. Chairperson Longrie-Kline said the design review board doesn't have control over this particular aspect of development but they can voice their concerns. Board member Shankar said he believed the city code would require a certain amount of handicap accessible units for each development and before the building permit can be released the building official would require a certain number of units to be accessible. Board member Olson said the board hasn't had an opportunity to review these plans and she knows this is not his fault. She said to have this issue come up at this late of date really bothers her. Mr. Ekstrand said this is a valid point and the city should have been looking at the handicapped accessible housing issue over a year ago. The issue over a year ago was with housing affordability and the number of affordable units to have in the development. The first project they had to provide at least 50 affordable housing units and another development will have to provide 50 additional affordable housing units. Board member Olson asked if all affordable housing homeowners have to be able to walk stairs? Mr. Ekstrand said the CDRB minutes would reflect these concerns and staff would pass these on. He said he wasn't aware of a building code requirement for a certain number of handicapped accessible units. Board member Olson asked if there was any way the city could go back to Phase I and require handicapped accessible units? Mr. Ekstrand said no it's too late. Board member Olson said there is no Phase III so apparently it's too late to require handicapped accessible housing for this large development. Mr. Clark said there is additional housing to be built in Legacy Village, which would have handicapped accessibility as an element. Mr. Ekstrand said there is an apartment that is part of the Hartford's proposal that is 50 units that east of this project. If the apartment building is a multi-story building it would have an elevator, which gives accessibility to the floors. Board member Olson said she was thinking of high quality retirement housing. If there is stairs in every single multi-level unit, retired people would have a problem, which is a concern of hers. Mr. Clark said regarding the question about brick, they are introducing stone elements on the building, which is a split-faced block along the lower four feet of the building. Because of technology the color renderings didn't make it evident that split-faced block would be on the exterior. They had proposed to use a gray split-faced block but found the color gray washed into the siding color too much and prefer the appearance of the dark tan block instead. Chairperson Longrie-Kline said because of the color copies the colors tend not be the same as the actual building sample colors. That is another reason why the board really appreciates building samples as part of the review process. Mr. Clark said the question was asked earlier regarding square footage for these units. The units are going to be 1,800 square feet to 2,500 square feet with the basement finished. The price range for the Majestic Collection is proposed at a range of $225,000 to $245,000. Board member Shankar asked what landscaping would be used under the decks? Mr. Clark said they wouldn't be laying sod; they may use mulch of some sort and possibly some plantings. Chairperson Longrie-Kline said she is assuming there would be an association for this development. Mr. Clark said they would use the same homeowner's association for both developments in Legacy Village. Chairperson Longrie-Kline asked if the applicant could discuss the room on the end of the units that would hold the utility meters? Mr. Clark introduced Mitch Littfin who would speak more on the utility rooms. Mr. Mitch Littfin, Regional Architect with Town and Country Homes, addressed the board. He said these buildings would have a fire suppression system in them so they need to put the system someplace where it can be accessible to the fire department. The can carry that stone element out and use landscaping and/or fencing to shield the gas meter, telephone and junction boxes. They can't put the gas meters in an enclosed area because there isn't enough ventilation. They are working on those dynamics with the fire life safety but understand the need to shield those meters. They will either extend the stone like a retaining wall off the edge or put a fence around that area to shield it. Chairperson Longrie-Kline said from her perspective the board wants to make sure the meters are enclosed some how and using the block elements seem consistent with what they are doing with the other enclosures. Board member Olson said she is concerned about the safety of these security boxes and how many keys would be out in the public. She wants to ensure if a corner area is built kids would hide there. Screening the meters is a priority so the meters wouldn't be visible from the street because that could attract vandalism. Mr. Clark said the fire marshal is the only person with the key for the fire suppression system. They are looking at the options of what boxes they can have on the interior and which ones have to be on the exterior. Such as cable boxes and telephone boxes so there is less stuff on the outside wall. There are certain space and distance requirements by both Xcel and the fire department so power and water is separated. The proximities of the electricity and water will dictate where the locations end up. Board member Olson said in the color handouts they received this evening there were four different color schemes to look at but she only sees three color schemes on the building materials board. Mr. Clark said there are only three colors to be used for the building materials. They aren't using the blue color scheme. The building materials board they brought this evening show the different combinations of color schemes that would be used on the buildings. Board member Shankar asked if there would be exterior lighting on the building? Mr. Clark said yes there would be entryway lighting and sensor lighting that would come on at dusk and shut off at dawn on the garage exterior. The units that have porches will also have an exterior light. Board member Driscoll asked for a clarification regarding the materials and color schemes to be used. It was hard to distinguish from the color renderings. She said it appears to be three different finishes but they show two in the color photos so she is confused. Mr. Lifftin pointed out for the front elevation the teal green color is used for the siding and is the base color and the tan color is the shake product and will offset the green. It is separated by a white band board and on some gable ends as well. Because of the shadowing effect it appears to be three finishes but really is two finishes. Board member Driscoll asked what the purpose of the retaining wall south of wetland F was and how high the wall would be? Mr. Clark said the purpose of the retaining wall is for the topography and grade of the site. Based on where the water from the site goes dictates how deep the pipes have to be. If they are able to dig the pipes deep enough will depend on the placement of the elevations. They have to work with the city engineering department on this. They also have to have the sidewalk at a certain elevation. As you move further away from the building the grade drops so the walls are holding the grade up in order to have the sidewalk in that location. In some cases they are creating the elevation and also trying to accommodate the elevation. Board member Driscoll asked if they had determined what the walls would be made of? Mr. Clark said they will use a modular retaining wall system because those types of walls allow engineering to tell you where the wall should go, what backfill is needed, and how long the fabric is that ties into the wall that holds them in. Boulder walls are not engineered. Chairperson Longrie-Kline said the rear of the property by the garage the building exterior appears to be all one-color siding. In the past the board has requested that the applicant extend the brick building material around the end of the building for added durability. Mr. Lifftin understood what the board was referring to. On the rear elevation they broke up the exterior by bringing the windows out, adding the gables, and boxing out the windows on the end units and awnings over the garages. They chose to use more architectural features to break up the back of the building rather than changing the texture or the color. To break up the middle units they chose to use a different window trim. They believe it's a nice combination of architectural details with fewer embellishments on the rear. Chairperson Longrie-Kline said in many of the developments approved by the board they have recommended that brick is added to the side and rear elevations for added durability. Board member Shankar said in previous developments the reason the board has recommended extending the brick was because they were using one color of siding and there wasn't much architectural detail on the building. In his opinion this development has more architectural enhancements and there is no need to require the extension of the block. Board member Olson said she thinks the applicant did an exceptional job with this development and it doesn't bother her that there isn't the stone element on the rear elevation. She likes the porches, overhangs and the attention to detail given to the front of the units and she is very happy with the presentation. Chairperson Longrie-Kline said she thinks the enhancements are very nice as well. Board member Driscoll said she likes the architectural details and felt this was a nice plan. Mr. Ekstrand said the front elevations are nicely enhanced, he likes that the back elevation is hidden, the end elevations are highly visible and appear to be very plain. This is a concern of his because there are a lot of end units that are exposed to both County Road D and Hazelwood. Maybe some thought could be given to what can be done to solve this problem. Board member Olson said the board has approved less appealing end units than this proposal. She is very comfortable approving this development if there is appropriate landscape provided. Mr. Littfin said the appearance of the end units is also dependent on the location of the meter rooms. The meters could be located on either the end unit A or end unit C depending on where the utilities come through. Chairperson Longrie-Kline said she is concerned with the view people will have driving by this development and it's the board's responsibility to make sure this development is as appealing as possible. Board member Shankar moved to approve the plans date-stamped April 30, 2004, for the Heritage Square Second Addition, the second phase of Heritage Square Townhomes at Legacy Village. Approval is subject to the developer complying with the following conditions: (changes to the original motion are in bold.) Obtaining city council approval of a comprehensive land use plan revision from BC (business commercial) to R-3H (high density residential) to build townhomes on the previously approved office site. 2. Obtaining city council approval of a revision to the previously approved planned unit development for this project. 3. Obtaining city council approval of the preliminary and final plat for this project. 4. Meeting the following site requirements from the Legacy Village PUD approval (these are subject to staff approval): ^ There shall be an east-west sidewalk provided between Hazelwood Street and Kennard Street on the north/northwest side of the main east-west drive. ^ There must be a sufficient number of convenient sidewalk connections from the buildings to the power line trail and from the buildings to the County Road D sidewalk. ^ The north-south driveway between the easterly edge of this site and the adjacent commercial property and apartments must be constructed in their entirety with the townhomes. ^ Parking spaces should be provided at the ends of driveways between buildings wherever possible. ^ The infiltration trenches should be placed in accordance with the city engineer's approval, taking into account proper placement to accommodate trails and sidewalks and the function of the trenches. ^ There must be a sidewalk to the south side of County Road D running from Hazelwood Street to the Southlawn Drive. ^ All trails must meet ADA requirements. ^ Over-story trees along Street A, Street B and the west side of Street C (as shown on the previous rental-housing plan) must be planted at an average of 30 feet to 40 feet on center. As an exception to this spacing requirement, the boulevard trees along Kennard Street shall be planted according to the approved planting plan. ^ The curve in the middle of Street A should be flattened as much as possible in an attempt to lessen headlight glare. ^ Building setbacks are allowed to be no less than 15 feet from a street right-of- way to enhance the urban character of this development. ^ There must be enough visitor parking spaces provided in groups of at least five that are no more than 200 feet form the front doors of all units. ^ The main private driveways within this development must be at least 26 feet wide. ^ Visitor parking areas must be installed in accordance with the city engineer's requirements of grading and drainage needs. ^ An easement over the power-line trail must be provided to the city for access and maintenance. 5. All requirements of the fire marshal and building official must be met. 6. The applicant shall obtain all required permits from the Ramsey-Washington Metro Watershed District. 7. All driveways and parking lots shall have continuous concrete curbing. 8. All requirements of the city engineer, or his consultants working for the city, shall be met regarding, grading, drainage, erosion control, utilities and the dedication of any easements found to be needed. 9. Repeat this review in two years if the city has not issued a building permit for this project by that time. 10. Any identification signs for the project meet the requirements of the city sign ordinance. 11. The setbacks are approved as proposed. 12. The applicant shall: ^ Install reflectorized stop signs at all driveway connections to Hazelwood Street, County Road D and Kennard Street. ^ Install and maintain an in-ground lawn irrigation system for all landscaped areas. ^ Install all required trails, sidewalks and carriage walks. ^ Install any traffic signage within the site that may be required by staff. 13. The applicant shall submit a lighting plan for staff approval before getting the first building permit. 14. The applicant shall submit an address and traffic signage plan for staff approval. 15. The applicant shall provide the city with cash escrow or an irrevocable letter of credit for the exterior landscaping and site improvements prior to getting a building permit for the development. Staff shall determine the dollar amount of the escrow. 16. All work shall follow the approved plans. The director of community development may approve minor changes. 17. A temporary sales office shall be allowed until the time a model unit is available for use. Such a temporary building shall be subject to the requirements of the building official. 18. The applicant shall work with the city staff to shield the gas and electric meters especially for the end units facing County Road D or Hazelwood Street. 19. The board approved the use of the tan rock face stone in place of the originally specified gray color. 20. The Board is concerned about the lack of handicapped accessible units as part of the 178 units. The applicant shall provide accessible units if required by the building code. Board member Driscoll seconded. Ayes -Driscoll, Longrie-Kline, Olson, Shankar The motion passed. This item goes to the planning commission on June 7, 2004, and to the city council on June 14, 2004. Agenda #H6 MEMORANDUM TO: City Manager FROM: Ken Roberts, Planner SUBJECT: Olivia Gardens LOCATION: 2329 and 2335 Stillwater Road DATE: June 3, 2004 INTRODUCTION Project Description Mr. Kelly Conlin, representing Homesites LLC, is proposing to build 14 townhouses (in seven twinhomes) in a development called Olivia Gardens. It would be on a 2.79-acre site on the west side of Stillwater Road, north of Bush Avenue. Refer to the applicant's statements on pages 13 and 28 and 29 and the maps on pages 14-23. A homeowners' association would own and maintain the common areas. The design of the buildings is not finalized, but I expect that each building would have horizontal- lap vinyl siding, aluminum soffits and fascia and brick veneer on the fronts. In addition, each unit would have atwo-car garage. Requests To build this project, Mr. Conlin is requesting that the city approve: 1. A change to the comprehensive plan. This would be from R-1 (single dwelling residential) to R-2 (single and double dwellings) for the site. (See the land use map on page 16.) 2. A change to the zoning map. This would be from R-1 (single dwelling residential) to R-2 (single and double dwellings) for the site. Refer to the property line/zoning map on page 15. 3. A conditional use permit (CUP) for a planned unit development (PUD). This PUD will allow the townhouses to be on smaller lots than code usually allows (in area and in width) and to have them on a private driveway. 4. A preliminary plat for 14 lots for the 14 housing units. (See the map on page 19.) The applicant has not applied for design approval for the development at this time. They told me that they would proceed with the design approval process, inGuding the approval of the plans for the site, landscaping and buildings, after the city approves the above-listed requests. BACKGROUND These two properties have a long history of land use and zoning activities. They include: On August 26, 1976, the city council approved a request to rezone from R-1 (single dwellings) to R-3 (multiple-family residential) the property at 2335 Stillwater Road. On February 7, 1980, the city council approved a plan amendment from RH (high density residential), to SC {service commercial) and a rezoning from R-1 and R-3 (multiple family residential) to BC(M) (business commercial modified) for the property at 2335 Stillwater Road. The council made this change to allow the Johns to start a construction business in this location. On October 21, 1980, the city approved plans fora 70-foot by 40-foot storage building for Mr. John (the previous property owner), subject to conditions. On February 14, 1983, the city council amended the land use plan from SC back to RH and rezoned the property from BC(M) back to R-3. The city made these changes to prevent the expansion of the construction business. On January 14, 1991, the city council again amended the land use plan for this area, inGuding the subject properties. This change was from RH to RL (residential low density). The council also changed the zoning of the property at 2335 Stillwater Road from R-3 to R-1. DISCUSSION Land Use Plan and Zoning Map Changes To build the proposed plat, Mr. Conlin wants the city to change the land use plan and zoning map for the site. These changes would be from R-1 (single dwelling residential) to R-2 (single and double dwellings). (See the property line/zoning map on page 15 and the land use plan map on page 16.) The city intends R-2 areas for small-lot (7,500 square-foot) single dwellings and for double dwellings. For R-1 areas, the city plans for single dwellings on lots of at least 10,000 square feet of area. 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. • Provide a wide variety of housing types. • 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. • Include a variety of housing types for all residents ...including apartments, townhouses, manufactured homes, single-family housing, public-assisted housing, low- and moderate- income housing, and rental and owner-occupied housing. • 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 neighbofioods from encroachment or intrusion of incompatible land uses by adequate buffering and separation. An advantage of this proposal is that an area that the city once approved for and that the owner used for commercial development would become residential. This is especially beneficial to the existing nearby residential properties. Having twinhomes near existing residences should be better neighbors than the commercial use that was on the property. 2 Compatibility Staff does not find a problem with this proposal in terms of compatibility and land use. The proposed townhouses would be near Stillwater Road and an existing apartment complex and next to single dwellings. In addition, developers will often build townhomes next to single dwellings. A recent example is with the New Century Addition in south Maplewood. The developer, Robert Engstrom, is presently developing this neighbofiood with a mix of single dwellings and townhomes. There are many other examples in Maplewood, such as Afton Ridge, Southwinds, Bennington Woods and the Carriage Homes of Maple Hills where this is the case. Densi As proposed, the 14 units on the 2.79-acre site means there would be 5.02 units per acre. This is consistent with the density standards in the comprehensive plan for double dwelling residential development. PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD) Conditional Use Permit PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT lPUD) Section 44-1093(b) of the city code says that it is the intent of the PUD code "to provide a means to allow flexibility by substantial deviations from the provisions of this chapter, including uses, setbacks, height and other regulations. Deviations may be granted for planned unit developments provided that: Certain regulations contained in this chapter should not apply to the proposed development because of its unique nature. 2. The PUD would be consistent with the purposes of this chapter. 3. The planned unit development would produce a development of equal or superior quality to that which would result from strict adherence to the provisions of this chapter. 4. The deviations would not constitute a significant threat to the property values, safety, health or general welfare of the owners or occupants of nearby land. 5. The deviations are required for reasonable and practicable physical development and are not required solely for financial reasons. The applicant has applied for a conditional use permit (CUP) for a planned unit development (PUD) for the 14unit housing development. They are requesting the CUP for the PUD because of the proposed lot widths and lot sizes. The developer is proposing a small lot around each dwelling unit. A homeowners' association would own and maintain the rest of the land, including the private driveway. Exchanging the common land for larger lot sizes would not change the location, design or number of units in this development. In other words, having a PUD gives the city and developer a chance to be more flexible with site design and development details than the standard city requirements would normally allow. It is the contention of the applicant, as they note in their project statement, that the proposed code 3 deviations meet the findings in the city code for approval of a PUD. In this case, the proposal would have 14 townhouse units in seven buildings. City staff agrees with the applicant that the development, with the proposed code deviations, would produce a development of equal or superior quality, that the proposals do not constitute a threat to the area and that the deviations are required for reasonable and practicable development of the site. Having a private driveway with reduced town house setbacks will lessen the amount of grading and tree removal on the property. If the applicant followed all the city subdivision and zoning standards and used a public street, such a plan would require more tree removal and grading because of the right-of--way requirements and the larger setbacks. In addition, it is important to note that the proposed code deviations do not increase the number of lots or the density of the housing in the development. In addition, the city has approved similar-styled developments in the past such as Holloway Ponds at Holloway Avenue and Beebe Road and for the Dearborn Meadows development on Viking Drive. For this proposal, the developer intends to sell each of the townhomes and expects that each unit will sell for at least $250,000. A homeowners' association would own and maintain the landscaping, the ponding area and retaining walls. Preliminary Plat Density and Lot Size As proposed, the 14 units on the 2.79-acre site means there would be 5.02 units per acre (an average of 8,680 square feet per unit). This is consistent with the density standards in the comprehensive plan for double dwelling residential development and is well above the 6,000 square-foot minimum lot area that the city requires for each unit in a double dwelling. Public Utilities Sanitary sewer and water are in Stillwater Road to serve the proposed development. In addition, the applicant is proposing to build a new storm water pond on the southeast comer of the site. As designed, the storm water from this development would go into the new pond and then discharge to the existing ponding area north of the site. The city designed and built the storm water pond north of the site to accommodate drainage from a large area west of Stillwater Road. The developer's plans will connect their pipes to the existing storm and sanitary sewer pipes. Drainage Concerns Several neighbors expressed concern over the potential for increased runoff and flooding due to this development. Specifically, there are properties that have low areas that tend to collect storm water and this water does not drain off quickly. The city should require that the grading/drainage plan would not increase the storm-water flow onto any neighbor's land. (Please also see the comments from Erin Laberee starting on page 24.) As proposed, the utility plan shows most of the storm water from the site, including the private driveways, going first into a new storm water pond on the southeast comer of the site before it discharges into the existing ponding area to the north of the site. 4 Tree Removal/Replacement Maplewood's tree ordinance requires there be at least ten trees per gross acre on the site after grading or the developer would have to plant trees to replace those that the contractor would remove. For this 2.79-acre site, the applicant's plans show a total of 96 large trees on the site and that they would save three of the existing trees on the property. The plans show the removal of 81 large trees (ash, oak, maple, pine, spruce, cedar and elm), but they would preserve 15 existing trees (primarily on the perimeter of the site and on the neighboring properties). As proposed on the preliminary screening plan (page 23), the developer would plant 35 trees on the site. These include 27 black-hills spruce along the west property line and eight maple trees on the site, primarily at the front comer of each unit near the driveway. As I noted above, the code requires there be at least 10 trees per acre on the site. For this 2.79-acre site, the code requires there be at least 28 trees on the property after the construction is complete. As such, the proposed screening plan would meet the requirements of the tree replacement code of the city. Watershed District The Ramsey/Washington Metro Watershed District has reviewed the development proposal and has issued Mr. Conlin a permit. (See their comments in the memo on page 26.) Design Review The developer has not yet submitted an application to the city for design approval for the proposed development. If the city approves these initial requests, the developer will need to have all the design plans for the development approved by the city. These would inGude the building elevations, building materials and the final landscape and tree plans. Other Comments Police Department Lieutenant David Kvam of the Maplewood Police Department did not note any public safety concerns with this proposal. Fire Marshal Butch Gervais, the Maplewood Fire Marshal, wants the city to make sure the end of the road is back far enough for proper snow removal and that the developer installs at least a 20-foot-wide driveway to maintain proper access to all the units. COMMISSION ACTION On May 17, 2004, the planning commission recommended approval of the proposed map changes, PUD and preliminary plat for Olivia Gardens. 5 RECOMMENDATIONS A. Approve the resolution on page 30. This resolution changes the land use plan for the Olivia Gardens plat on the west side of Stillwater Road, north of Bush Avenue. This change is from R-1 (single dwellings) to R-2 (single and double dwellings). The city is making this change because: 1. It would be consistent with the goals and objectives of the comprehensive plan. 2. This change would eliminate an area that the city had once planned for commercial uses that was between two residential areas. 3. This site is proper for and consistent with the city's policies for medium-density residential use. 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 zoning and land uses. B. Approve the resolution on page 31. This resolution changes the zoning map for the Olivia Gardens plat on the west side of Stillwater Road, north of Bush Avenue. This change is from R-1 (single dwellings) to R-2 (single and double dwellings). The reasons for this change are those required by the city code and because the owner plans to develop this part of the property for double dwellings. C. Approve the resolution starting on page 32. This resolution approves a conditional use permit for a planned unit development for the Olivia Gardens development on the west side of Stillwater Road, north of Bush Avenue. The city bases this approval on the findings required by code. (Refer to the resolution for the specific findings.) Approval is subject to the following conditions: 1. All construction shall follow the plans 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 inGude: a. Revising the grading and site plans to show: (1) The developer minimizing the loss or removal of natural vegetation. (2) All driveways at least 20 feet wide. If the developer wants to have parking on one side of the main drive (Olivia Court), then it must be at least 28 feet wide. (3) All parking stalls with a width of at least 9.5 feet and a length of at least 18 feet. (4) The driveway in front of Lots 1 and 2, Block 6 as wide as possible while still accommodating the required screening and tree planting. (5) A vehiGe tum-around in front of Buildings 4 and 7. 6 2. The proposed construction must be substantially started within one year of council approval or the permit shall end. The council may extend this deadline for one year. 3. Have the city engineer approve final construction and engineering plans. These plans shall meet al! the conditions and changes noted in Erin Laberee's memo dated April 26, 2004. 4. The approved setbacks for the principal structures in Olivia Garden shall be: a. Front-yard setback (from a public street or a private driveway): minimum - 20 feet, maximum - 35 feet b. Front-yard setback (public side street): minimum - 30 feet, maximum -none c. Rear-yard setback: 20 feet from any adjacent residential property line d. Side-yard setback (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 city council shall review this permit in one year. D. Approve the Olivia Garden preliminary plat (received by the city on April 21, 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 public improvements and meet all city requirements. b.* Place temporary orange safety fencing and signs at the grading limits. 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 Stillwater Road and the proposed private driveway (Olivia Court). The exact location and type of light shall be subject to the city engineer's approval. 2.* Have the city engineer approve final construction and engineering plans. These plans shall include grading, utility, drainage, erosion control, driveway, tree, and street plans. The plans shall meet all the conditions and changes listed in the memo dated April 26, 2004, and shall meet the following conditions: 7 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: (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. (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. c. The street, driveway and utility plans shall show the: (1) Water service to each lot and unit. (2) Repair of Stillwater Road (street, trail and boulevard) after the developer connects to the public utilities and builds the private driveways. (3) Driveway in front of Lots 1 and 2, Block 6, as wide as possible while still accommodating the necessary screening and trees. 3. Paying for costs related to the engineering department's review of the construction plans. 4. Change the plat as follows: a. Show drainage and utility easements along all property lines on the final plat. These easements shall be ten feet wide along the front and rear property lines and five feet wide along the side property lines. b. Label the private driveway as Olivia Court and label Stillwater Road on all plans. c. 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. 8 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. Obtain a permit from the Ramsey-Washington Metro Watershed District for grading. 8. Submit the homeowners' association bylaws and rules to the city for approval by the director of community development. These are to assure that there will be one responsible party for the care and maintenance of the common areas, the publicly-owned parcel to the north, private utilities, landscaping and retaining walls. 9. Record the following with the final plat: a. All homeowners' association documents. These documents shall include provisions for the care and maintenance of the publicly-owned parcel north of the project site. b. 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. 10. Obtain a permit from the Ramsey-Washington Metro Watershed District for grading. 11. Obtain a NPDES construction permit from the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA). 12. The owner or contractor shall get demolition permits from the city to remove the house, equipment building and the other structures from the two properties. 13. Obtain the necessary approvals and permits from MnDOT. 14. 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. 9 CITIZENS' COMMENTS I surveyed the owners of the 34 properties within 500 feet of this site. Of the five replies, two were for the proposal, one was against and three had comments. For 1. We think it is a good use of the land. It will improve the appearance and bring up the property values. We would be interested in living in of the new homes. (Margaret Boege, 756 McKnight Road North.) 2. I am glad to have this project go forward. It seems good for the area. However, I am concerned about my property line because I have many flowering bushes in the area and I hope I don't have to move. (Aileen Fritsch, 812 McKnight Road North.) Objections 1. I am concerned about the density of the housing as proposed. (Michael Green - 2321 Stillwater Road) Comments/Questions 1. I'm concerned about the disruption/noise in a now quiet neighborhood due to building and construction as well as future noise. With 14 units we would have rather had single-family dwellings. I am concerned mostly about the noise and disruption this well cause. Please note there is an existing hole in the fence behind my property and I'm worried about people cutting thru my yard. Can the fence be repaired by the city during this project? Can the area back there be cleaned up and tree removal be done as welt? (Angela Ogle, 840 McKnight Road North.) 2. I am concerned about additional traffic on Stillwater. It's already a busy street and many speeders. Concern on the entrance and on the property. Headlights will go right into 2322's front windows. (Brad & Kory Kesnick, 2316 Stillwater Road East.) 3. Also, see the e-mail from Jim and Kathy Mosner on page 27. 10 REFERENCE INFORMATION SITE DESCRIPTION Site size: 2.79 acres Existing land use: A single dwelling and accessory buildings SURROUNDING LAND USES North: Vacant city-owned property South: Houses on Stillwater Road West: Houses on McKnight Road East: Houses across Stillwater Road PLANNING Existing Land Use Plan designation: R-1 (single dwellings) Existing Zoning: R-1 (single dwellings) Proposed Land Use and Zoning: R-2 (single and double dwellings) Findings for Rezoning Section 44-1165 of the zoning code requires that the city council make the following findings to rezone property: 1. The proposed change is consistent with the spirit, purpose and intent of the zoning code. 2. The proposed change will not substantially injure or detract from the use of neighboring property or from the character of the neighborhood, and that the use of the property adjacent to the area included in the proposed change or plan is adequately safeguarded. 3. The proposed change will serve the best interests and conveniences of the community, where applicable, and the public welfare. 4. The proposed change would have no negative effect upon the logical, efficient, and economical extension of public services and facilities, such as public water, sewers, police and fire protection and schools. Criteria for Conditional Use Permit Approval Section 44-1097(a) states that the city council may approve a CUP, based on nine standards. (See findings 1-9 in the resolution on pages 32 and 33.) Application Date The city initially received all the application materials for this request on April 1, 2004. The applicant submitted revised plans to the city on April 21, 2004. State law requires the city to take action on this request by June 19, 2004, unless the applicant agrees to a time extension. 11 p:sec 25\Olivia Gardens - 2004.mem Attachments: 1. Applicant's Statement dated March 30, 2004 2. Location Map 3. Property Line2oning Map 4. Land Use Plan Map 5. Existing Site Survey 6. Site Plan 7. Proposed Preliminary Plat 8. Proposed Grading Plan 9. Erosion Control Plan 10. Proposed Utiliiy Plan 11. Preliminary Screening Plan 12. Engineering Comments from Erin L. dated April 26, 2004 13. Watershed District Comments dated April 14, 2004 14. E-mail from Kathy and Jim Mosner 15. Applicant's Statement dated June 3, 2004 16. Land Use Plan Change Resolution (R-1 to R-2) 17. Rezoning Resolution (R-1 to R-2) 18. Conditional Use Permit for Planned Unit Development (PUD) Resolution 19. Project Plans (separate attachments) 12 Attachment 1 MEMO DATE: March 30, 2004 TO: City of Maplewood FROM: Homesites LLC, Kelly Conlin/Keith Koecher Members ~~?~ ? `~ `~ '~ SUBJECT: Olivia's Garden Twin home Site RECEIVE D The proposed sub-division listed above, previously owned by Donald John, is currently zoned R1. Homesites recently purchased the properties and are requesting to sub-divide to a PUD. It is our understanding that this property at one time was approved fora 14-unit apartment building and at another time was zoned for commerciaUhigh density. The current zone of Rl allows for four units per acre/single family dwellings. This property is four acres (plus or minus) which allows for 16 building sites. Homesites proposed development would be a PUD which would have seven buildings (14 units) which would allow for more green space and less tree removal. The planned unit development would have a private drive and utilities which the City of Maplewood would not be responsible for. Homesites held a neighborhood meeting at city hall and discussed the proposed development with the neighbors. All in attendance agreed that they would support our proposed development. Concerns/questions presented by the neighbors were 1) value of properties, 2) grading, 3) headlights to east side, and 4) tree replacement. All issues were addressed to their satisfaction. Positive feedback included, 1) debris and trucking on property would be removed, 2) old commercial building would be removed, 3) removal of excess fill, 4) value of the new units would be higher and thus increase their property value, 5) twin homes would be one leveUmore appealing to seniors, 6) association for maintenance of the property, and 7) removal of dead trees. Attached please find a list of the neighborhood meeting attendees. It is known that this piece of property and it's owner have been somewhat troublesome in years past to the city and neighborhood and we feel our proposed development would enhance the neighborhood, lift a burden from the city, increase tax revenue, and create a more peaceful surrounding for all. Homesites looks forward to working with the City of Maplewood. Please contact me with any concerns or questions. (612-875-3226) APPLICANT'S STATEMENT 13 Attachrnent 2 ~~ ~ P ~ ~~ 2 3 4 4 B~NEI- DR 1440N ""'w° ~ ~ N~• ~~ V ~~ 5 6 7 7 1lalR~Rr t<Z1S pt G• :. _ 8 ~~ G, txt ~ ~ AVE ~ ~ ~ I~OMCTE 2 /M~ ~UY~I ~ ~ ~ AVE t~D11 Z ~ - ~ 2 4 ~ LN ~ o E MARYLAND ' 4 ,~ 5 AOOU~ER W Ft11wiHORNE A 1200N ~~ ~ o ~ AVE. ~~ ~ ~`~ c ~~ ~~ 9 ~'` _ ~' ' ~~ ' ~ 11AGNOLN AVE. a.~ . A ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~ ; `~~. ~ z ~' Lab.: f ' ~ ®,~~~ ~~% ~% -.~--- '~! ! 3 ~ ~ 8 ~ t~ARVESrFR AVE 960N j ~ ~ W ~ ~-c~` ~ ewwo lrictu~~ W- eRAN~ AVE. AVE. c ~ Z ~°° 10 a ~ nh sr. 7th sr. Z z ~ ~ o ~ ~ e~ ~ ~ AVE ~ ~~ 720N AVE MARGARET AVE. !~_ ~ 'f'_J3M` ~.`, 5th W AVE. ~L~r; •', l~''-~> ~ =-'~ _' `y c - ~ o ~ FRDA ONE O ~ W AVE. a ~ 480N coNwAY AvE. _ FROM rACE Rn. J o ~ ~° -a ~ ~ n nn LOCATION MAP 14 4 N Attachment 3 ., ~~ ~~;. -''~~ ~~~"~.~ -~f~ 2280 `~ R1 ~.> J a [ H Q ~~ 834 ^C7 rn ~ ~ ~o -i ~ 812 0 o L ~ 798 p 796 ~ I ~ 784 ~~ ©4 / I ^ 7~ C5 ~ ~6 RERNEY AVE ~` ~ ,,~,-~ ~~ ~~ /~.~ l ~~~ 112330 I 'T2410 r// rj ~~ ~,.~ ~ ~~rf`r Gethsemane Park ~r , ,~; ~; :~ ----.-~ • SEVENTH ST 2338 '834 O `sy 27 ~~ ~ ~~"" ~ ``~. 2334 2335 ~ ~~ ~.,~~v ~ SITE p~ ~~~ ~ 23~ 13 ~' _~__ ..,~~.t 2328 R1 ~ s ~~~ 2327 ~ m m 2322 9 ~ 2321 ~ -~+ `~ a ~ o 2~] 6 371 2375 2315 ~ U Q~'r-~ 2314 _- _. . _ BUSH AVE ~~,'' 10 d 23~ 23~$, ~ 23~g,4 ~7 7 u (~ 1--a [~ L.~ .,.2308 12$52 2360 X366 2372 ~ ~~( ~ 234 ° ~ ~ ~ p 2304 7 `~ R1 ~ ~~r ~ C 2302 ~~ PROPERTY LINE /ZONING MAP 15 N Attachment 4 n z_ G7 -~ J ~a F- 2 N 834 {LLB-~~~ C 830 812 ~'7§--, ° L.1 ~ss ^ 7~ 798 G 796 rr-~ c [~ '84 rv 2338 ~- ~' 2321 2327 ;'''8334 ~a ~; ~~, ~~ ~~, `'~ -. --,.. 2328 2322 2~ ~ ~ 2 2314 BUSH AVE 0 2~U.J ~~ 2308 ~~ ~ 2304 233 352 ~0 2344 o ~-L, LAND USE PLAN MAP 16 4 N 231 5 Attachment 5 ~ ~ _ _~ \1 I I__„ ,\ ~~ . \ ~. ~~\ --- -" ~ Ir\~ \\~ l~y ~ ~- `1------~r fir'\~ ~ l~ '~ L _, f / ~"' /~~~ // =~ ELSibG l ~~_ ~ ~ --"°'~ 2328 i ~. 1~ ~ BNUmY~oue Drlin~ v ~ /'~ / , ^ - ~ .yy-'- ; I I ~1'4e E 3W Il ( _ ) ~ 1 I ~ - ~ ~ ~ / ".~ ~ / LBGSND: ' \ \ ~ \ I ` 1 \ \ / i ` ~ I I \ I L J - e / ~/ e / N/ I / y . / _ -~ _ ~ - - Ele5T.16 CONTOIxI 1 , \ - . ` I ~ I ~ , ~ % r T 1 f f ~ - %. Y20.x ///. ~ ,~ // ~~.,• EPSIWG WI~OE EIEVATW E]05TNG TNFE LINE 2321 0 -ss-ss- -bl--b~ -ST-ST- - -a- ~_~ ,~E EwsTwc sveTAnr sEWEA E%ISNIC WATFPYAW EnS)W6 STOWW SEVER EWSTMIC {EMQ RETAYWNC WALL IeWE WIYWN)O 0.Y FM IXfJ IA GMmO]a e ~ " -Ir i~IT ] K AA Ir ] ~ 9W EWW IP 32 EWr IP r e] 1P Ir 51 IP ss IruP x Ba Ebr Eba WeA+ ]P x It ed % Fetl PYU IP : AM r u w~W I z wew Iz e1 Ax EWa r u s r u I eam 11 Sher Ma 11P B 1e Aa% 1z b x 1e n I • x m Eev Ir x u IP fYn v Iru ern m% Na n eo. Ir AN 1P x l Bm 1T b EYn r x )1 Bmi Etlr 1PEIf a,. EaNr r % )s m serw~ Ean m n zr m sew,Em IP )e I 1 SersEm >1r » m.Em alr u IP m eor EWr u x E N 90nW Ern Saw }Ir u y Ir b Bss EMr P ]) By B1W 1Z A b Bas [kW W M SOwmn EN. N]'aa• % b Bm EWw Ba EWr 41P % e) EYn b 9er IT % b EM 1Z 1r ww +r a BnEW aa-Ir % m Aa U Bm EIOSr S % el /W 1P M tr % e] b M ' b ew ELIW 1T % M Bm FIY ] IT eT b 1 b lr % b tt LOLATF D A I OYbC 5.1 •e L096•b% EXISTING SITE SURVEY ,~ 4 N Attachment 6 ////// / -pr Dac Na xlxxOfx /~ /. L~--------1------------ ///// ~ ~~~~// 0 0 .; . / // / / -s 5 4 2 ~ ~ ///// / / 2 1 2 1 xo.o 2 1 / /~ / / .~ 2 1 zo.o xo.o 2 1 m.o xao 2 1 // / age / ~ / aL _~___.~ _._~ SITE DATA Totd Stte Area ~ 119,988 Sq.Ft 27545 Acres 7otd Lot Arw ~ 43,828 v 1.00 Attest Total Outlot Area ~ 78,160 ~ 1.75 Aersst Totd Number of Lots ~ 14 Total No. Units 14 Net Deneky ~ 5.1 U/A Existing Zoning b R-1 (Singls Famlly) Proposed Zoning Is R-2 (Double Dwelling Resldentlal) SITE PLAN ,8 1/ 2/` a~ /// / r ~'/ / / / ___________ PRIVATE DRIVE .-._m~_ /_ / / , / // ->L--~ ~ / , ~, T- 7 1 _ ~ ~ P~~ ~ / ° - - ,~ / _- -- ._ ~ % 2 iao /~~/// /~ /~, i //® ~ / / f~''` / 2321 //~// ~ ,<:v // / /~ =~ / // // / ®`' ,/ /®/ / ~° N Attachment 7 - - - / ~ / i /. ~ / ! ~ .~ ~ ;_ / // /. .o .o .o .o p :• /{1.~5~ / 6 5 4 3 2 ~ pad / /`~~' 8 2 r 8 2 8 l ~,PM1,~S° / ~' .~ / E 1 2 f 2 > 2 N 1 3 ,~_,~ / ~ ~ / / 7 ~ / DUTLOT A (wenap. ma uumy / / / / / Eexmnt a~,ynwt / / a e~ wuei ~) / Newm',e'E ~c.oe _ ~ 2 Nee•oru'c roan ~ / / / / / 2 -: / NeY'at'M'E ]W.01 / / / / / ~ ~ ~- 2321 / / / / ~ :>:'/ / '~~ / // / / IND6I ~) covERSeEEr/PRauurxurr Pc~r PJ S/T6 PLW JJ CR/O/NC PIJN !J EROSION CONTROL PLN 6J OTILITY PLdN 6f EIlST7NG CONOlTIONS PROPOSED PRELIMINARY PLAT OL/1//.4 GARDENS ~{- ZI-oH 19 4. N Attachment 8 ~ ~ I ~ '~ ~ ~ / ~ '~ ~ r. - - - - - `til \ ~ IL .-- / / \ - - - ~ d/ ~ _.. \ 9,.9 / / 90. _ 8.9 90.4 !1// ~\\ r/ v N s r \ \ v' /o `C` ) s• d v. 'o ~ i ~ ; i /o z ~ v' /~ 3' ~: ~ ~ //v~ ''~ 2 t a ~ ~, 2 t _ 1 \ ~ 2~ \ o ~ 2 99 z \ ~l ".~~i 4~ 1 / 2 ` .0 1 ~ L / ~ / J f , ~ \ I / ~/ ~ / I 903. /992. / ` 99. _ 919 915 ~ / , / I t.9x (\ \ d.?~ - 2ax_ wo o.ex ~vs.9 ~, / IL ~ om. \/ i ~\ ~ 0 9 ~ / /ice y,~ ~ ®/ / ~/ .l --- ~ I ~ _ J ~ ~. // / 7 1 1 N~-9 . / 1 i i / ~ ~ ~. v ~ v ~- - - 2321 / ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ' I I I / \ \ ~, ,,-~ ~~ I ~ I ~ I I ~ / \ `~ ~ \ i7 ~ 6496 2 .'°~°~ `"e"" / l \ \ \ .\ I~ ~~" ~ voan wrt. me v aser ~ oaom r.or® mtws / ~! ~ \ \ t ~If, /~ // ~ mena ow.z aw.u ~ 6 o va.r nao.- o~uw wirw~'a" ~~ ~~ E ~ ~~ rnn .roe TYPICAL LOT DETAIL PROPOSED GRADING PLAN z~-off zo N Attachment 9 - s -_-~- ~ `_ _-_ _ i l ,_- /~ ~ --- \ ~ 1 \ -'~c ~ ~ 1 ~___ -t ~, _ ~. ~ / ~ / _.«..- __ \ - - ~.-. ___ I \ ~ .,.' ~~~"m ~ ~ ~ / i ,~ I I i ~\ ,, 2321 ~'~~ J i i l `jam ~/ ,---- l ~~~~~ ~ ` ~ / L_ J ~~. ~ 1 ae ,, ~ , a ~ ~ ~ i ~ , i ~~ ~~~,/ ;, / f ro vrnax,/ ~ ~ /~ ~ ~ /i 1 9 / / ~ ; /~ ~ // /, ~~/ ~~i .. ®'~ ~/~ / s:'= 0 / 6,r,/ ~/ f.`~ ' B / :,- ® ~~ i -~/ 51l fence IMat SMYmnI illler Woos err a / McIW Stak.. ear v.M Snow F.nn arl Boards l.I F FM.k M lsrrd~ ~ . m. Fame u~n:awn oMlana. ux,Mam tz• °'Ma'°""° wu`"' r_r Belw..n Pwt. M aq ra• uwwr MYm sop 3 Frt. An Extra Pnl May Be Atltled ~t 6 r ~ On EacM1 Side. i~ elrwAie Iid ROCK CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE TYPE A SEDIMENT FILTER ~I~T FENCE TYPICAL w r. Na Seda EROSION CONTROL PLAN 21 -Z/-off 4 N Attachment 10 s 2 > ~~ ~.~~ r rear r \ IX YN4 r r ~ / T-9e1.Ot r L r YY ~'~ T-9e{.0 r re :' s 5 4 3 2 ~ r rr~~! Wet tAR EwsnYC ~ 0 WATERYAM z t 2 ~ 2 ~ ~ z ~ z ~ ~,~s/~ e~ ~~ r ~"~ ® a / ~ / d/ "~ o e C-99].0 r y ®~ I ~•- e' DW WAI TER AMM I ~~ I~ `/yq~ ~ / B' 0N: SANITARY SEWER a STORM SEWER SE ~ ~Ni~ r / / /' _ 1- I-995.] ~~900.0 FES-9e9.e 1.9 .0 / ~ ~ / 7 l ~/ ~ ~ ~ BURR YN OVER EwSiWG ~ A eANITARY SEWER z ~' / r -9ez.o EwsT9+c I-9e1.S PRORO D ~ / raj f/P®Q ~3` (. g® / / 2321 r ~~:'~ ~ / ------------ ~f:.:- , r ~/::' ~ ~ r ~~" 1, // ~ / PROPOSED UTILITY PLAN y zl~f ~ 22 N ~. Attachment 11 _ .~ ~ ~ \ \ ~ l=am,- _ - , ~ - -~ ~ ~ 1 I ~ ~ ~ I _ , ._ _ ;~ I ~ ~ \ \ \ ~ ~ \ ~ 4 - -"c 1 I I--- -~ \ ~ --- - ~ ~,~,. `_____~\ -~ \ ~\ V i i i ~\ 1 1 ~.n~rr.~ sue ~ ~~ ~~~ , +•-~ ~ ~ L / ~L .»- / / ~ r-' \ 1 i ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~~ / ~ i /, ~ ~ ~~ / ~ ®~ /i ~,~ ,1 ®~ i -I ~ -,~i -°~~-~° ~i > ~~ ~ ~ /~ / ~ % ~/ ~ ~i ~f ~~ i / ,~/ ~ /~ '/ o i / ® i ~ ;/ ~ ~/ r , d svu, c~scarraa co~.vu~~uvh ~ rnv. eg7r ® ~~ ma aiw~ea uu~ ~ uah a e.e. • °"~°°°.scn°. ,... cawso w x~« Iwu enexc Hcr xi e.e. u oewom 'soon um swwvm•sacaml PRELIMINARY SCREENING PLAN 23 1/ Zl-off 4 N Attachment 12 Engineering Plan Review PROJECT: Olivia Gardens PROJECT NO: REVIEWED BY: Erin Laberee, Maplewood Engineering Department DATE: Apri126, 2004 Homesites, L.L.C. is proposing to redevelop the properties at 2329 and 2335 Stillwater Road E. They are proposing to build 7 double unit townhomes (14 total units) along a private street. The developer shall address the following issues. Drainage 1. The proposed pond is shown as a NURP pond. If the pond is to function as a NURP pond it must be designed to meet NURP standards and include a 10-foot bench. Removal rates must meet NURP requirements. The engineer shall provide removal rate calculations. The other alternative to a NURP pond is to design the pond as an infiltration basin. Rock sumps would be required in the basin to promote infiltration. The city would require the basin to store and infiltrate a 1.5" rainfall event. Rainwater gardens typically include a rock sump. The sumps consist of 1.5" of clean, clear rock wrapped in Type 5 geotextile filter fabric, (felt). The contractor places the top of the rock infiltration sumps about 12 inches below the finished bottom of the basin. If developer uses rock sumps within the proposed development, the project engineer shall provide a detail and description of how the contractor is to construct the sumps. 2. Provide drainage calculations showing pre and post development conditions. 3. Submit plans to the watershed district for their review and approval. Grading & Erosion Control 1. The project engineer shall provide more detailed information for the retaining wall between units 3 and 4 including top and bottom of wall elevations. Streets 1. Submit the plans to Mn/Dot for curb cut and access approval. Utilities 1. Submit plans to Saint Paul Regional Water Services for their review and approval. 2. Abandon all existing private utilities such as water and sewer services. 24 3. Remove the existing flared end section and 15" storm sewer pipe at the north end of the site. Landscaping 1. The developer shall provide landscaping around the pond area. Include anative- grass seed mixture for upland and lowland areas in and around the pond. 25 Ken Roberts Attachment 13 From: Clifton Aichinger [clifft~rwmwd.org] Sent: Wednesday, April 14, 2004 1:57 PM To: Ken Roberts Subject: Review of Olivia Gardens project. Ken- Thank you for the opportunity to review this project. We have the following comments: 1. The project will require a District permit. 2. We need the hydrologic modeling and the stormwater calculations to confirm that the pond immediately north of this site was designed to handle this new development density and resulting runoff rates and volumes. This are is tributary to Beaver Lake and does require stormwater treatment prior to discharge to the lake. We need to also confirm that the increased flow will not cause any flooding concerns for this site or sites to the north. 3. There will need to be a defined overflow swale graded from the catch basin on the new road to the pond outlet structure to the north. the swale will need to lined with a permanent soil stabilization material prior to seeding or sodding. Please feel free to call if you have any questions. Cliff Clifton J. Aichinger Ramsey-Washington Metro Watershed District 2396 Helen St. Maplewood, MN 55109 Phone: 651-704-2089 fax: 651-704-2092 cell: 651-238-4448 RECEIVED 26 Page 1 of 1 Attachment 14 Ken Roberts From: Jim Mosner [j.mosner@comcast.net] Sent: Friday, April 16, 2004 9:19 PM To: Ken Robert Subject: Neighborhood Survey: Proposed Olivia Gardens Town House Development -Stillwater Road, Maplewood I am responding to the letter and enclosures dated April 5, 2004 for the subject project. Overall, I view the proposed development in a mostly favorable tight; however I have a few concerns. My property is the center lot in Auditors lot 8 which is immediately west of unit 2 in building 7 of the proposed development. As I and most of the other neighbors told the two gentlemen from Home Sites LLC at prior meeting at the Maplewood City Hatt, the concept of single level twin homes is much preferred over other alternatives that would be possible. However, I and several other neighbors felt that they were trying to pack too many units into the site. The current neighborhood is characterized by long, open lots and is of fairly low density. I acknowledge that maintaining such low density is probably not in the developer's or City of Maplewood's best interest; but perhaps a density level somewhat less than they presently plan would be more suitable to the neighborhood. At the very least, I think one less building in the row of six building should be built. If only five building were constructed in that row, they could be spaced out a little further and more buffer space could be had at the back (west) of the development which abuts Tina David's and Eileen Fritch's properties. Another concern that I have is that the back side (west) of building 7 appears to be about 20-feet from my property line. Presently there are numerous trees and brushy shrubs in this area that provide nice screening and add a lot of ambience to the area. Virtually alt the trees would need to be removed for the development. I would like to see a substantial re-vegetation plan, especially for the areas that abut the properties on the west side of the development. Please inform me of the date for the city council meeting when this topic will be discussed. Jim Et Kathy Mosner 798 N. McKnight Rd. Maplewood, MN 55119 651-735-0973 j. mosnerC~comcast. net 4/19/2004 27 i nu~ouoy, uunv w, wvr i iv rnl IlBlly UOfllir> CS51-41ti-~448 p,02 It~f E 1t~E 0 TO: Maplewood City Council FROM: Home Sites LLC SUBJECT: Olivia's Garden- 2329 and 2335 Stillwater Road East BATE: Junc 3, 2004 Attachment 15 We would like to take this oppom~nity to go over a few details in question regarding Olivia's Garden. Homesites held a neighborhood meeting. Land Title did a 500 foot radius perimeter for mailing accuracy. We had a good turnoutr These are the issues we covered and how we presented them: - Plat with seven-buildings, l ~ units were shown - We presented this idea. as our. alternative to the t~se of the properties past use for commercial business. This was cleazly stated as an alternative for this property. - Homesites will clean up, the propert}~. It was clear t© all-that this property is in much need of clean up. - The crew development woutd have one driveway. Currently there are two driveways. One driveway seems less-dangerous in regards to the busy road. - Neighbors asked for screening with tandscane plan clearly mazked. Homesites did ample screening and met withMichael.Gxeen (neighbor) to go over these details. He approved, - Ikai~geeoneerns were-actch~ssed: - Ow new plan has less road/driveway than what exists now. These were the concerns discussed with neighbors at this meeting. All issues were addressed and the meeting ended positively. Q ,... 'DIVED 28 .IUN 0 3 2004 ~ uuiv..ar, vuno v.+, wvr i. iv rive 1.611y tipf111f1 p51-g1Cf-U44C~03 Ken Roberts made it clear to the planning commission that the size of the property is 2.7 acres. Homesites is asking for 5.2 units per acre which is medxiun det>s~y. Homesites believes that this development is beneficial to the neighborhood, the community and the city. It acre asp a_greattransition from apartrnents to single family homes. We understand th$t there Iias been a tot of zoning changes, uses, and problems with the previous owners creating some lingez~$ concerns and frustration. We understand their fears and want this to be a solution to the problem, not mote grief Developers make tech development cost effective to lus or her_ business, At the same fora; they set out to make it beneficial to all affected by the development, such_as the neighbors., city ar~d cotu~ty. It is ow intent to enhance the property and the surrounding. properties and increase the values. Kerr RobeRS presented accurate facts to the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission approved the plat,- Homesites believes-this can-only 11e a win-win situation for all concerned, Please-tail me with any concerns or comments, I'd be glad tv address any questress You might have: Kelly Conlin, Member Homesites LLC 612-875-3226 - ~~"!~EIVED JUN 0 3 2004 29 Attachment 15 LAND USE PLAN CHANGE RESOLUTfON WHEREAS, Kelly Conlin, representing Homesites LLC, proposed a change to the city's land use plan from R-1 (single dwellings) to R-2 (single and double dwellings). WHEREAS, this change applies to the properties at 2329 and 2335 Stillwater Road in Section 25, Township 29, Range 22, Ramsey County, Minnesota. (The property to be known as Lots 1-14 of the proposed Olivia Gardens) WHEREAS, the history of this change is as follows: 1. On May 17, 2004, the planning commission held a public hearing. The city staff published a hearing notice in the Maplewood Review and sent notices to the surrounding property owners. The planning commission gave everyone at the hearing a chance to speak and present written statements. The planning commission recommended that the city council approve the plan amendment. 2. On June 14, 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. 2. This change would eliminate an area that the city had once planned for commercial uses that was between two residential areas. 3. This site is proper for and consistent with the city's policies for medium-density residential use. 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 zoning and land uses. The Maplewood City Council adopted this resolution on , 2004. 30 Attachment 17 RESOLUTION: ZONING MAP CHANGE WHEREAS, Kelly Conlin, representing Homesites LLC, proposed a change to the zoning map from R-1 (single dwellings) to R-2 (single and double dwellings). WHEREAS, this change applies to the property at 2329 and 2335 Stillwater Road. WHEREAS, the legal description of these properties are: 1. Auditors Subdivision No. 77, Subject to Highway and except the South 50 feet lying Easterly of the West 243 feet, the following; Lot 7. (PIN 25-29-22-33-0071) 2. Auditors Subdivision No. 77, Subject to Highway, Lot 6. (PIN 25-29-22-33-0070) All in Section 25, Township 29, Range 22, Ramsey County, Minnesota. (The property to be known as Olivia Gardens) WHEREAS, the history of this change is as follows: 1. On May 17, 2004, the planning commission recommended that the city council approve this change. 2. On June 14, 2004, the city council held a public hearing. The city staff published a notice in the Maplewood Review and sent notices to the surrounding property owners. The council gave everyone at the hearing an opportunity to speak and present written statements. The council also considered reports and recommendations from the city staff and planning commission. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the city council approve the above-described change in the zoning map for the following reasons: 1. The proposed change is consistent with the spirit, purpose and intent of the zoning code. 2. The proposed change will not substantially injure or detract from the use of neighboring property or from the character of the neighborhood, and that the use of the property adjacent to the area included in the proposed change or plan is adequately safeguarded. 3. The proposed change will serve the best interests and conveniences of the community, where applicable, and the public welfare. 4. The proposed change would have no negative effect upon the logical, efficient, and economical extension of public services and facilities, such as public water, sewers, police and fire protection and schools. 5. The owner plans to develop this property for double dwellings. The Maplewood City Council adopted this resolution on , 2004. 31 Attachment 18 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION WHEREAS, Mr. Kelly Conlin, representing Homesites LLC, applied for a conditional use permit (CUP) for the Olivia Gardens residential planned unit development (PUD). WHEREAS, this permit applies to the Olivia Gardens development plan the city received on April 21, 2004. The legal descriptions of these properties are: 1. Auditors Subdivision No. 77, Subject to Highway and except the South 50 feet lying Easterly of the West 243 feet, the following; Lot 7. (PIN 25-29-22-33-0071) 2. Auditors Subdivision No. 77, Subject to Highway, Lot 6. (PIN 25-29-22-33-0070) All in Section 25, Township 29, Range 22, Ramsey County, Minnesota. (The property to be known as Olivia Gardens) WHEREAS, the history of this conditional use permit is as follows: 1. On May 17, 2004, the planning commission recommended that the city council approve this permit. 2. On June 14, 2004, the city council held a public hearing. The city staff published a notice in the paper and sent notices to the surrounding property owners. The council gave everyone at the hearing a chance to speak and present written statements. The council also considered reports and recommendations of the city staff and planning commission. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the city council 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 sun'ounding 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. 32 8. The use would maximize the preservation of and incorporate the site's natural and scenic features into the development design. 9. The use would cause minimal adverse environmental effects. Approval is subject to the following conditions: 1. All construction shall follow the plans approved by the city. The city council may approve major changes to the plans. The Director of Community Development may approve minor changes to the plans. Such changes shall include: a. Revising the grading and site plans to show: (1) The developer minimizing the loss or removal of natural vegetation. (2) All driveways at least 20 feet wide. If the developer wants to have parking on one side of the main drive (Olivia Court), then it must be at least 28 feet wide. (3} All parking stalls with a width of at least 9.5 feet and a length of at least 18 feet. (4) The driveway in front of Lots 1 and 2, Block 6 as wide as possible while still accommodating the required screening and tree planting. 2.The proposed construction must be substantially started within one year of council approval or the permit shall end. The council may extend this deadline for one year. 3. Have the city engineer approve final construction and engineering plans. These plans shall meet all the conditions and changes noted in Erin Laberee's memo dated April 26, 2004. 4. The approved setbacks for the principal structures in Olivia Garden shall be: a. Front-yard setback (from a public street or a private driveway): minimum - 20 feet, maximum - 35 feet b. Front-yard setback (public side street): minimum - 30 feet, maximum -none c. Rear-yard setback: 20 feet from any adjacent residential property line e. 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 city council shall review this permit in one year. The Maplewood City Council approved this resolution on 2004. 33 MINUTES OF THE MAPLEWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION 1830 COUNTY ROAD B EAST, MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA MONDAY, MAY 17, 2004 V. PUBLIC HEARING b. Olivia Gardens (Stillwater Road) Mr. Roberts said Mr. Kelly Conlin, representing Homesites LLC, is proposing to build 14 town houses (in seven twin homes) in a development called Olivia Gardens. It would be on a 2.79- acre site on the west side of Stillwater Road, north of Bush Avenue. A homeowners' association would own and maintain the common areas. The applicant has not applied for design approval for the development at this time. They told Mr. Roberts that they would proceed with the design approval process, including the approval of the plans for the site, landscaping and buildings, after the city approves the above-listed requests. Commissioner Trippler said after looking at the map on page 15 of the staff report he realized that over the past year it's as if every development the commission has been reviewing has been for townhomes, twin homes, and multi-family buildings. It seems the city is packing people into neighborhoods with multi-family buildings where single-family homes used to exist. In a few years developers will be buying out single-family homes in order to build new townhomes and twin homes. He asked why staff thought it was better to change the zoning to R-2 rather than pressing the developer to build R-1 zoning? Mr. Roberts said he felt it was the city's responsibility to respond to what was presented in the application. The application seemed to be a much better plan than what had been occurring on that parcel for the past 15 years. The economics of buying and redeveloping this property probably wouldn't be feasible if the developer built four or five single-family homes compared to the proposed seven twin homes. Having more units and spreading out their cost, the developer has a better chance to make the project work and maybe make a profit. The city has had a lot of townhome developments and most of that is market driven. The Beaver Lake townhomes located up the street from this proposed development are selling for $300,000-$400,000 and the market has changed. As people are getting older people and are looking for townhomes there seem to be less of a demand for single-family homes. Commissioner Dierich said her daughter recently wrote a report for her Master's thesis regarding the demand for this type of housing and that seems to be the way the market is moving. This proposal is a nice choice especially if these are single-level townhomes and the applicant is planning these units for seniors. She said she doesn't have a problem with the number of units as much as she does the layout of the development. This type of layout is exactly what the commission turned down in the south end of Maplewood with the long narrowness of the property and now this plan comes to the commission. She would like to see a hammerhead or turnaround at the end of this development, which would also make this development visually more interesting. Mr. Roberts said to have a hammerhead turnaround most likely would involve the removal of the end unit. Mr. Roberts had asked the Fire Marshal, Butch Gervais if the fire department was concerned about not having a turnaround, he said it wasn't. His only concern was that an emergency vehicle would be able to use the driveway to turn around to exit the area. Commissioner Bartol said everything around this piece of property is zoned R-1 and he's not sure the commission is convinced they should allow this property to change the zoning to R-2. He asked why the city should deviate from the comprehensive plan? Mr. Roberts said it was staff's opinion that having the assurance the commercial property would no longer be there was a strong enough trade off to move forward with this plan. He doesn't know that asingle-family development plan would work in this proposed location. With a public street and a 10,000 square foot lot minimum they could only build four or five homes. It may not be financially feasible for the developer. Commissioner Bartol asked if the developer looked into building single-family homes to match the surrounding area? Mr. Roberts said he wasn't sure if the developer had checked into that, or if any developer had ever checked into that. If the city used an R-2 zoning with no PUD each lot would have to be 6,000 square feet or 12,000 square feet per double unit. By having the PUD each individual lot under each half of the building is less than that, but the overall density with the open space on the south side of the proposed driveway averages out to be the density standards in the comprehensive plan. Commissioner Mueller asked what the vacant parcel was and who owned it? Mr. Roberts said the vacant parcel between this proposed development and the apartment building is atax-forfeited property, which is owned by the city. The parcel is zoned R-1 and has a ponding area. Commissioner Mueller asked if that parcel could be developed or if it was just open space? Mr. Roberts said part of the frontage near Stillwater Road may be developable but Mr. Ahl may have more information on that parcel. Mr. Ahl said the ponding area has no need for expansion to meet the drainage needs of the area. There may be a small portion in the front parcel that could be sold off to be developed. The city uses the parcel as a green space to protect the ponding area. Chairperson Fischer asked the applicant to address the commission. Mr. Kelly Conlin, with Homesites, LLC, residing at 11855 Isleton Avenue, Stillwater, addressed the commission. He said they did some comprehensive sketches on single-family lots and the lots don't meet the size requirements and also you can't get a road in that location. Mr. Conlin said because of the apartment building they thought having twin homes would be a nice transition with the single family homes in the area. They had a neighborhood meeting and most of the neighbors were in favor of this proposal. Mr. Conlin said these units will be single level and senior housing so there will not be as many cars. Because this development would be a PUD it wouldn't affect the city. They are requesting the change in zoning for the city, the road, to get rid of the existing business and for the economics of the project. A lot of cleanup needs to occur on this site. They have built a site in Oakdale with a hammerhead turnaround for emergency vehicles and made it a no parking zone. With the cost of the lot and the building, these twin homes are going to be upwards of $300,000, and will add to the value of the neighborhood. Commissioner Desai asked where they propose the snow removal to go in the winter months? Mr. Conlin said many times the snow will have to be hauled off the site but that will be addressed in the homeowners association in the bylaws and covenants, which will be attached to the property. Commissioner Desai asked why units 3 & 5 are longer than the other units? Mr. Conlin said units 3 & 5 are narrower and deeper. Commissioner Trippler asked if one unit was removed would this project be economically feasible? Mr. Conlin said not really because of the cost to remove all of the concrete on the site. Some of the concrete is six feet thick so there is a lot of demolition and clean up. They have already hauled a contaminated tank off the site but there is a lot more work. Commissioner Bartol asked if they had considered acquiring the city owned lot and building a less restricted development, adding a turnaround and some curvature to the road? Mr. Conlin said they were not aware the city owned that space. He knows the site has been filled with soil but he thought the site was used for proper drainage. Chairperson Fischer asked if anybody would like to address the commission regarding this item? Mr. Jim Mosner, residing at 798 North McKnight Road, addressed the commission. He came to the neighborhood meeting and was pleased the developer wanted to do well by the neighbors. His main concern is how tightly packed the site is. He would like to see the density less than what it is. One of the homes is 25 feet from his backyard. The homes are packed in like sardines and he would like to see at least one unit less in this development. He suggested having 11 units making one of the units a tri-plex and leaving the density zoned R-1. Ms. Julie LaFleur, residing at 2322 Stillwater Road East, addressed the commission. She is concerned about the proposed property decreasing the property values of the surrounding properties. She is also concerned about the pedestrian safety because there is a lot of foot traffic along the sidewalk on Stillwater Road. There is a park, softball fields across the street at the church and the bus stops in that location. The cars in this development will drive across the only sidewalk in the area as well. Ms. LaFleur said there is a potential of 28 or more cars with the proposal of the 14 homes. There is no guarantee that seniors will be living there. If children live in these twin homes there is no green space for them to play on and they will probably go across the street to play. There is no street light in the area and it's very dark there, which is another safety issue. It was unpleasant living across the street from the commercial site so it has gotten better. She is concerned about the headlights shining into her home as well. She wasn't notified about the neighborhood meetings so this was the first time she was able to speak regarding this proposal. Mr. Conlin said seniors typically drive less than single-family homeowners. As far as the traffic concern regarding cars driving over the sidewalk, the commercial cement trucks were more of a hazard than the senior residents driving across the sidewalk would be. As he stated before they really require the approval of the 14 units in order to do the cleanup and economics of this site. Commissioner Trippler said one of the residents suggested taking one of the twin homes out and turning one of the twin homes into a tri-plex. He asked what the developer thought of that idea? Mr. Conlin said he thought maybe there was a mistake in the report, which shows they have 2.79 acres and he believed it was 4 acres, however, he would have to verify that. That would mean they could havel6 units on the property instead of the 14 units that they have proposed, which means they have proposed less units than what they could have built on the property. Commissioner Trippler asked if the city agreed to change the zoning to R-2 would it be possible to turn unit 7 north and south and make it into a three unit? Could they take unit 6 out, and space units 1 and 5 out more so it doesn't look so packed? Mr. Conlin said he would rather they have a four unit complex there instead. Those backyards abut Mike Green's backyard, which is very deep. The reason they are pushing for the 14 twin homes is because of the economics and the clean up. There is over $100,000 worth of clean up that they have to finish and pay for before they can build. Commissioner Mueller asked what the density would be if this proposed development goes R-2 without a PUD? In his opinion to eliminate one twin home wouldn't change the traffic issue. Mr. Roberts said the zoning would not change the density. The land use plan designation sets the density in the comprehensive plan for double dwellings in the low range at 5.4 units per gross acre, the medium range is 6 units per gross acre. The PUD doesn't change the density, it only changes things like setbacks, street design and driveways. Commissioner Dierich asked if it was even feasible to sell the city owned space? Mr. Ahl said the parcel is under the city's jurisdiction, which is different from city ownership. The city acquired the parcel through a tax forfeiture, which means somebody didn't pay their taxes so the property was offered to government agencies. The city put a claim in for drainage purposes so the property is listed in the state records as a lot that is needed for drainage purposes. If the city chooses to sever that agreement there is a very lengthy and expensive process to go through. The city typically doesn't do this unless they see a development in the area. They do an analysis and look at what drainage is necessary and what the final use for the land is. They would also look at future drainage needs for the roadway. Commissioner Dierich asked if the city owned property wasn't for sale would the property be available to use as a park area? Mr. Ahl said drainage and those types of open space uses are certainly appropriate for tax forfeiture projects. Commissioner Bartol said currently the city owned property is overgrown and an eyesore. He asked if there was some way to put in the PUD association who is in charge of the land and turn it into a green space or park area? That way everybody would benefit. Mr. Ahl said staff would agree. Commissioner Desai asked for clarification regarding the actual acreage for this area. He asked if it was 4 acres as the developer said or 2.79 acres as in the staff report? Mr. Roberts said staff would have to double check and they would have that information available for the city council. Commissioner Dierich moved to approve the resolution on page 28 of the staff report. This resolution changes the land use plan for the Olivia Estates plat on the west side of Stillwater Road, north of Bush Avenue. This change is from R-1 (single dwellings) to R-2 (single and double dwellings). The city is making this change because: 1. It would be consistent with the goals and objectives of the comprehensive plan. 2. This change would eliminate an area that the city had once planned for commercial uses that was between two residential areas. 3. This site is proper for and consistent with the city's policies for medium-density residential use. 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 zoning and land uses. Commissioner Dierich moved to approve the resolution on page 29 of the staff report. This resolution changes the zoning map for the Olivia Gardens plat on the west side of Stillwater Road, north of Bush Avenue. This change is from R-1 (single dwellings) to R-2 (single and double dwellings). The reasons for this change are those required by the city code and because the owner plans to develop this part of the property for double dwellings. Commissioner Dierich moved to approve the resolution starting on page 30 of the staff report. This resolution approves a conditional use permit for a planned unit development for the Olivia Gardens development on the west side of Stillwater Road, north of Bush Avenue. The city bases this approval on the findings required by code. (Refer to the resolution for the specific findings.) Approval is subject to the following conditions: 1. All construction shall follow the plans approved by the city. The city council may approve major changes to the plans. The Director of Community Development may approve minor changes to the plans. Such changes shall include: a. Revising the grading and site plans to show: (1) The developer minimizing the loss or removal of natural vegetation. (2) All driveways at least 20 feet wide. If the developer wants to have parking on one side of the main drive (Olivia Court), then it must be at least 28 feet wide. (3) All parking stalls with a width of at least 9.5 feet and a length of at least 18 feet. (4) The driveway in front of Lots 1 and 2, Block 6 as wide as possible while still accommodating the required screening and tree planting. 2. The proposed construction must be substantially started within one year of council approval or the permit shall end. The council may extend this deadline for one year. 3. Have the city engineer approve final construction and engineering plans. These plans shall meet all the conditions and changes noted in Erin Laberee's memo dated April 26, 2004. 4. The approved setbacks for the principal structures in Olivia Garden shall be: a. Front-yard setback (from a public street or a private driveway): Minimum - 20 feet, maximum - 35 feet. b. Front-yard setback (public side street): minimum - 30 feet, maximum -none. c. Rear-yard setback: 20 feet from any adjacent residential property line. d. Side-yard setback (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 city council shall review this permit in one year. Commissioner Dierich moved to approve the Olivia Garden preliminary plat (received by the city on April 21, 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 public improvements and meet all city requirements. b. *Place temporary orange safety fencing and signs at the grading limits. 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 streetlight at the intersection of Stillwater Road and the proposed private driveway (Olivia Court). The exact location and type of light shall be subject to the city engineer's approval. 2. *Have the city engineer approve final construction and engineering plans. These plans shall include grading, utility, drainage, erosion control, driveway, tree, and street plans. The plans shall meet all the conditions and changes listed in the memo dated April 26, 2004, 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: (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. (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. c. The street, driveway and utility plans shall show the: (1) Water service to each lot and unit. (2) Repair of Stillwater Road (street, trail and boulevard) after the developer connects to the public utilities and builds the private driveways. (3) Driveway in front of Lots 1 and 2, Block 6 as wide as possible to accommodate the required screening and trees. 3. Paying for costs related to the engineering department's review of the construction plans. 4. Change the plat as follows: a. Show drainage and utility easements along all property lines on the final plat. These easements shall be ten feet wide along the front and rear property lines and five feet wide along the side property lines. b. Label the private driveway as Olivia Court and label Stillwater Road on all plans. c. 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.Obtain a permit from the Ramsey-Washington Metro Watershed District for grading. 8. Submit the homeowners' association bylaws and rules to the city for approval by the director of community development. These are to assure that there will be one responsible party for the maintenance of the common areas, private utilities, landscaping and retaining walls. 9. Record the following with the final plat: a. All homeowners' association documents. b. 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. 10. Obtain a permit from the Ramsey-Washington Metro Watershed District for grading. 11. Obtain a NPDES construction permit from the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA). 12. The owner or contractor shall get demolition permits from the city to remove the house, equipment building and the other structures from the two properties. 13. The property owner shall submit a petition to the city requesting the installation of the public improvements. 14. 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. With two added conditions: a.The developer install a hammerhead turnaround by the south unit. b. Recommend that the applicant investigate developing the open space as green space next to the pond with the association being responsible for maintaining the space. Mr. Conlin said they don't have a problem maintaining the open space property although he would have to check with his attorney. There may be legal issues dealing with the green space and the liability issues. Also he would not want to hold this development up to add this space to the association agreement. Commissioner Desai seconded. Ayes - Bartol, Desai, Dierich, Fischer, Mueller, Pearson, Nay - Trippler The motion passed. This item goes to the city council on June 14, 2004. Commissioner Trippler said he likes the fact that the commercial property is going away. He likes the development concept but he thinks it's setting a precedence for this neighborhood by packing in this many parcels. Memorandum AGENDA ffEM I -1 AGENDA REPORT To: Richard Fursman, City Manager CC: City Clerk From: Steve Lukin, Fire Chief Date: 6/9/2004 Re: Award of Bid -Station 1 & Station 3 Reroofs BACKGROUND Station 1 and Station 3 have been in dire need of roof replacement. The funds were put in the 2004 budget to have them done. We started the process in May and hope to begin the replacements in mid-June with completion by the end of June. We received the following six bids: 1. United Roofing $ 80,275 2. Berwald Roofing $109,381 3. Interstate Roofing $118,191 4. Stock Roofing $ 86,390 5. Dalco Roofing $ 97,500 6. Sela Roofing $ 83,500 I asked each bidder to add an addendum of tapering the roofs to get better water flow to the drains. After further review, I found out this was only necessary on one part of station 1's roof. RECOMMENDATION I recommend that the City Council accept the low bid from United Roofing of $82,775 ($80,275 plus an additional $2,500 for the tapering of station 1's roof). United Roofing also meets our ordinance in regards to prevailing wage. 1 AGENDA NO. K-1 AGENDA REPORT TO: City Manager FROM: Finance Director RE: Preliminary Approval for Issuance of Bonds DATE: June 8, 2004 Four bond issues are planned to finance projects that the City Council has approved. Details on these bond issues are as follows: 1) Improvement Bonds totaling $13,010,000 will finance eight projects that have special assessments that total at least 20% of the project costs. Annual tax levies of $236,707-$241,614 payable 2006-2024 will be required to finance the unassessed project costs. 2) Tax Abatement Bonds totaling $5,025,000 will finance the Legacy Village and Hazelwood Redevelopment projects. The Legacy Village project includes $2,888,000 to acquire land in conjunction with the Hartford Company development, $450,000 for a city sculpture park and $150,000 for a city tot lot park. The first tax levy on this bond issue will be delayed until 2005 payable 2006 to allow time for some of the new construction to be added to the city's tax base. Annual tax levies of $47,140-$581,312 payable 2006-2020 will be required to finance the debt service costs. 3) Capital Improvement Plan Bonds totaling $700,000 will finance part of the costs for the Public Works Building Addition project. Annual tax levies of $52,138-$56,785 payable 2005-2024 will be required to finance the debt service costs. 4) State Aid Street Bonds totaling $5,355,000 will finance three projects. Bonds need to be issued to finance construction costs that will be incurred prior to receipt of state aid. No tax levies are required for these bonds as annual state street aid will be sufficient to finance the debt service costs over the next 20 years. 1 It is important to note that all of these bond issues were anticipated for 2004 when the Capital Improvement Plan was prepared in April with the exception of the State Aid Street Bonds. These bonds were anticipated to be issued in 2005 but an analysis of the city's state street aid account and construction schedules indicated a need to issue these bonds in 2004. More information on these bond issues is in the attached report from Springsted Incorporated. The report also recommends a bid award on the improvement bond sale at a special Council meeting at 5:00 p.m. on Thursday, July 22 and on the other bond issues at a special Council meeting at 5:00 p.m. on Thursday, August 5. (There are pre-agenda meetings those days.) Accepting bids on different days for these bond issues will insure that competitive bids are received. As in the past, bids will be received electronically on the bonds. However, for the improvement bonds it is proposed that bids be taken electronically using an auction process. This process is supposed to provide as good as or better than the normal bid process. After all four bond issues have been sold, an analysis of the bids will be completed to determine to what extent if any the bids are better on the improvement bonds. Since 1997 there have been over 850 issuers (including other Minnesota cities) that have used the auction process. It is recommended that the City Council (A) adopt the attached four resolutions that provide preliminary approval for the sale of bonds (B) schedule a special Council meeting at 5:00 p.m. on Thursday, July 22 for a bid award on the Improvement Bond issue and (C) schedule a special Council meeting at 5:00 p.m. on Thursday, August 5 for a bid award on the Tax Abatement, CIP and State Aid Street bonds. P:\FINANCE\WORD\PERM\04BONDS3 2 Recommendations For City of Maplewood, Minnesota $13,010,000 General Obligation Improvement Bonds, Series 20046 $5,025,000 General Obligation Tax Abatement Bonds, Series 2004C $700,000 General Obligation Capital Improvement Plan Bonds, Series 2004D $5,355,000 General Obligation State-Aid Street Bonds, Series 2004E Presented to: Mayor Robert Cardinal Members, City Council Mr. Richard Fursman, City Manager Mr. Dan Faust, Finance Director City of Maplewood 1830 East County Road B Maplewood, MN 55109-2797 Study No.: M1408H2J2K2~2 SPRINGSTED Incorporated June 7, 2004 SPRINGSTED Advisors to the Public Sector 3 RECOMMENDATIONS Re: Recommendations for the Issuance of: $13,010,000 General Obligation Improvement Bonds, Series 20048 (the "Improvement Bonds") $5,025,000 General Obligation Tax Abatement Bonds, Series 2004C (the "Tax Abatement Bonds") $700,000 General Obligation Capital Improvement Plan Bonds, Series 2004D (the "CIP Bonds") $5,355,000 General Obligation State-Aid Street Bonds, Series 2004E (the "Street Bonds") (Collectively the "Bonds" or the "Issues") We respectfully request your consideration of our recommendations for the above-named Issues. We recommend the following for the Bonds: Action Requested To establish the date and time of receiving bids and establish the terms and conditions of the offerings. 2. Sale Date and Time The Improvement Bonds will be sold using an open auction on Thursday, July 22, 2004 between 9:45 and 10:00 A.M., unless extended by the "Two-Minute Rule" with consideration for award by the City Council at 5:00 P.M. that same daye The Tax Abatement Bonds, the CIP Bonds, and the Street Bonds will be sold on Thursday, August 5, 2004 10:00 A.M., with consideration for award by the City Council at 5:00 P.M. that same day. 3. Method of Sale The Improvement Bonds will be sold through a competitive bidding process. Bids will be taken electronically through Grant Street Group's MuniAuction web site. The attached Terms of Proposal further describes the bidding process. The Tax Abatement Bonds, the CIP Bonds, and the Street Bonds will also be said through a closed campetitive bidding process. Underwriters will submit their bids electronically through the electronic bidding platform of PARITY. In addition, physical bids (by phone or fax) will be accepted at the offices of Springsted for these three issues. 4. Authority for the Bond lssues The Bonds are being issued pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapters 475. In addition, the Improvement Bonds are being issued pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 429, the Tax Abatement Bonds are being issued pursuant to Minnesota Statues 469 and the 4 Maplewood, Minnesota June 7, 2004 Street Bonds are being issued pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 162. 5. Repayment Terms The Improvement Bonds will mature annually August 1, 2005 through 2024. Interest will be payable semi-annually each February 1 and August 1, commencing August 1, 2005. The Tax Abatement Bonds will mature annually August 1, 2007 through 2020. Interest will be payable semi-annually each February 1 and August 1, commencing August 1, 2005. The CIP Bonds will mature annually August 1, 2005 through 2024. Interest will be payable semi-annually each February 1 and August 1, commencing Rugust 1, 2005. The Street Bonds will mature annually April 1, 2005 through 2024. Interest will be payable semi-annually each April 1 and October 1, commencing April 1, 2005. 6. Term Bonds We have included a provision that permits the underwriters to combine multiple maturity years into a term bond, subject to mandatory redemption on the same maturity schedule provided in the Terms of Proposal. The advantage to the underwriter is that it provides large blocks of bonds, which are more attractive to bond funds, and certain pension funds, which deal only with large blocks of bonds. This in turn is a benefit to the City since selling larger blocks of bonds reduces the risk to the underwriter, allowing them to lower their costs and the interest coupons. Since the Bonds are being offered on a competitive bid basis and awarded on the lowest true interest cost, the City will award the Bonds to the best bid regardless of whether term bonds are chosen or not. 7. Sources of Payments The Improvement Bonds will be repaid with a combination of special assessments filed against benefited properties and ad valorem property taxes. The Tax Abatement Bonds will be repaid with tax abatement revenues. The CIP Bonds will be repaid with ad valorem property taxes. The Street Bonds will be repaid from annual state-aid allotments from the Minnesota Department of Transportation. Page 2 5 Maplewood, Minnesota June 7, 2004 Further discussion regarding payment cycles for each series of Bonds can be found in the "®iscussion" section of these Recommendations. 8. Prepayment Provisions The City may elect on August 1, 2015, and on any date thereafter, to prepay the Improvement Bonds, the Tax Abatement Bonds or the CIP Bonds due on or after August 1, 2016 at a price of par plus accrued interest. The City may elect on April 1, 2015, and on any date thereafter, to prepay the Street Bands due on or after April 1, 2016, at a price of par plus accrued interest. 9. Credit Rating Comments An application will be made to Moody's Investors Service for a rating on the Bonds. The City's current general obligation credit rating is "Aa2". 10. Federal Treasury Regulations Concerning Tax-Exempt Obligations (a) Bank Qualification Under Federal Tax Law, financial institutions cannot deduct from income for federal income tax purposes, expense that is allocable to carrying and acquiring tax-exempt bonds. There is an exemption to this for "bank qualified" bonds, which can be so designated if the issuer does not issue more than $10 million of tax exempt bonds in a calendar year. Issues that are bank qualified generally receive slightly lower interest rates than issues that are not bank qualified. Since the City expects to issue more than $10 million of tax-exempt obligations in 2004 these Issues will not be designated as bank qualified. (b) Rebate Requirements All tax-exempt issues are subject to the federal arbitrage and rebate requirements, which require all excess earnings created by the financing to be rebated to the U.S. Treasury. The requirements generally cover two categories: bond proceeds and debt service funds. There are exemptions from rebate that may apply in both of these categories. Bond proceeds, defined generally as bath the original principal of the issue and the investment earnings on the principal, can qualify for the 6, 18 and 24-month spending exceptions to rebate. Both the 18-month and 24-month expenditure exceptions require a certain percentage of the proceeds be spent at 6 month intervals. If the proceeds of the Bands are spent in accordance with one of those exemption periods, the Page 3 6 Maplewood, Minnesota June 7, 2004 (c) Bona Fide Debt Service Fund proceeds are exempt from rebate and the City may retain the excess earnings. The spending exceptions are based on actual expenditures as distinguished from expectations. Springsted currently provides rebate calculation services to the City. An amendment for these Issues has been provided to City staff. The City must maintain a bona fide debt service fund for the Bonds or be subject to yield restriction. This requires restricting the investments held in the debt service fund to the yield on the Bonds and/or paying back excess investment earnings in the debt service fund to the federal government. A bona fide debt service fund is a fund for which there is an equal matching of revenue to debt service expense, with carry over permitted equal to the greater of the investment earnings in the fund during that year or 1112 the debt service of that year. Additional diligence should be exercised in monitoring the debt service fund for the Improvement Bands due to the potential accumulation of assessment prepayments, which could cause the debt service fund on the Improvement Bonds to become non-bona fide. (d) Economic Life The average life of each series of Bonds cannot exceed 120% of the economic life of the projects to be financed. The proceeds of the Improvement Bands will be used to finance street improvements which have an economic life of at least 20 years. The average life of the Improvement Bonds is 8.535 years. The proceeds of the Tax Abatement Bonds will be used to finance infrastructure projects that have an economic life of at least 20 years. The average life of the Tax Abatement Bonds is 9.924 years. The proceeds of the CIP Bonds will be used to finance a building addition with an economic life of at least 40 years. The average life of the CIP Bonds is 11.843 years. The proceeds of the Street Bonds will be used to finance street improvements that have an economic life of 20 years. The average life of the Street Bonds is 10.120 years. Therefore each series of Bonds is within the economic life requirements. (e) Federal Reimbursement Federal reimbursement regulations require the Regulations City to make a declaration, within 60 days of the actual payment, of its intent to reimburse itself from expenses paid prior to the receipt of Bond proceeds. It is our understanding the City has Page 4 7 Maplewood, Minnesota June 7, 2004 taken whatever actions are necessary to comply with the federal reimbursement regulations in regards to the Bonds. 11. Continuing Disclosure Each series of Bonds is subject to continuing disclosure requirements set forth by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). The SEC rules require the City to undertake an annual update of certain Official Statement information and report any material events to the national repositories. In the past, the City has indicated that it will manage its own continuing disclosure matters. We understand that the City will continue that practice with these Issues. 12. Attachments Improvement Bonds • Sources and Uses Schedule • Assessment Income Schedules • Net Debt Service Schedule Tax Abatement Bonds • Sources and Uses Schedule • Net Debt Service Schedule CIP Bonds • Sources and Uses Schedule • Debt Service Schedule Street Bonds • Sources and Uses Schedule • Debt Service Schedule Terms of Proposals DISCUSSION $13,010,000 General Obligation Improvement Bonds, Series 20046 Proceeds of the Improvement Bonds will be used to finance various street and utility improvements including the following: County Raad D (Hazelwood to west of Highway 81), Kennard Street (Beam to County Road D), County Raad D watermain improvements, Atlantic Street utilities (west of Frost Avenue), HazelwoodlCounty Road C area streets, Carlton Street (Conway to Minnehaha) and Legacy Parkway (Kennard to Southlawn). The sources and uses of funds for the Improvement Bonds are shown on page 9. In addition to proceeds of the Improvement Bonds, cash contributions totaling $7,464,288 will be used to pay for a portion of the improvement projects. The Improvement Bonds will be repaid with a combination of special assessments and ad valorem property taxes. Assessments for the Kennard Street project in the principal amount of $2,069,734 were filed on September 8, 2003 for collection over a term of 15 years commencing in 2004. The remaining assessments for the other projects in the principal amount of Page 5 8 Maplewood, Minnesota June 7, 2004 $7,786,310 are expected to be filed on or about October 1, 2004 for collection over a term of 15 years commencing in 2005. The interest rate charged on the unpaid balance of assessments is 5.0% for the Kennard Street project and 6.0% for each of the other projects. All assessments have been structured with even annual principal payments. The assessments schedules are shown on pages 10 through 12. Based on projected assessment income, it is expected that the City will be required to levy ad valorem taxes to pay a portion of the debt service on the Improvement Bonds. The average annual levy requirement for the Improvement Bonds will be approximately $238,400. The City will make its first levy for the Improvement Bonds in 2005 for collection in 2006. Each year's collection of assessments and taxes will be used to make the interest payment on February 1 and the principal and interest payment on August 1 in the year of collection. Debt service payments on the Improvement Bonds are due prior to the City's receipt of semi-annual assessment and tax collections. Therefore, the City will make temporary transfers of available funds to meet the principal and interest payments on the Improvement Bonds. Our recommended principal structure for the Improvement Bonds is shown on page 13 with the Improvement Bond statistic information on page 14. Debt service has been structured around the anticipated assessment income receipts. Page 13 shows the following information: ^ Columns 1 through 5 show the principal maturity dates, the annual principal payments, estimated interest rates and projected total principal and interest payments, given the current market environment. ^ Column 6 shows the 5% overlevy which is required by State statutes and serves as a protection to bondholders and the City in the event of delinquencies in the collection of assessments or taxes. ^ Column 7 shows the projected special assessment collections in 2004, which will be applied to the August 1, 2005 principal and interest payment. ^ Column 8 shows the total projected collection of special assessment income for 2005 through 2019, as developed on pages 10 through 12. ^ Column 9 shows the tax levy requirement for the Improvement Bonds, which represents the difference between the projected assessment income and 105% of debt service. $5,025,000 General Obligation Tax Abatement Bands, Series 2004C The Tax Abatement Bonds will be used to finance street, utility, right of way, and drainage improvements related to the the Legacy Village and Hazelwood Redevelopment projects. The sources and uses of funds for the Tax Abatement Bonds are shown on page 15. Principal on the Tax Abatement Bonds will be repaid from the City levy only portion of tax abatements derived from development of the Legacy Village at Maplewood tax abatement. Taxes may be abated in the Abatement District for a period of 15 years, commencing in levy year 2005 payable 2006. The projected tax abatement revenue has been prepared by Springsted and City staff. Excess abatement revenues, not used to pay principal, will be used to pay interest on the Bonds. Interest on the Bonds, not covered by abatement revenues, will be paid from ad valorem taxes. The City will make its first levy for the Bonds in 2006, for first collection in 2007. Each year's collection of taxes will be used to make the interest payment due on February 1 and the principal and interest payment due on August 1 in the year of collection. Debt service payments on the Tax Abatement Bonds are due prior to the City's receipt of semi-annual tax collections. Therefore, the City will make temporary transfers of available funds to meet the Page 6 9 Maplewood, Minnesota June 7, 2004 debt service requirements on the Tax Abatement Bonds. Since tax collections will not be available for collection until 2006, capitalized interest has been included in the principal amount of the Bonds to make the required interest payments due on August 1, 2005 and February 1, 2006 and a part of the August 1, 2006 interest payment. The debt service schedule for the Tax Abatement Bonds is shown on page 16 and includes the projected tax abatement revenues (column 8} that are expected to be available to make the principal payments on the Tax Abatement Bonds. Page 16 shows the following information: • Columns 1 thraugh 4 show the principal payment dates, annual principal amounts, estimated interest rates and total principal and interest, given the current market environment. • Column 5 shows the capitalized interest needed to pay the interest payments due through August 1, 2006. • Column 6 shows the total annual debt service awed by the City. • Column 7 shows the 5% overlevy which is required by State statutes and serves as a protection to bondholders and the City in the event of delinquencies in the collection of tax abatement revenues. • Column 8 shows the projected tax abatement revenues. • Column 9 shows the difference between column 7 and column 8, which is the projected levy requirement to cover interest payments on the Bonds. $700,000 General Obligation Capital Improvement Plan Bonds, Series 2004D Proceeds of the CIP Bonds will used to finance the City's Public Works Building addition. Page 17 shows the sources and uses of funds. Cities may issue general obligation capital improvement bonds pursuant to Minnesota Statues, Section 475.521. Under this statute, the maximum calendar year debt service on all outstanding bonds issued for this purpose (capital improvement plan), including these CIP Bonds, cannot exceed an amount equal to 0.05367% of the taxable market value of the property within the City. The statutory maximum based on the Gity's taxable market value is $1,505,395. This calculation is shown below. The maximum annual calendar year debt service payment on the CIP Bonds is projected to be approximately $59,625. Since the City has no other outstanding bonds issued under this statute, the issuance of the CIP Bands meets the statutory requirement. Market Value of Statutory Taxable Property for Principal & Statutory Maximum Taxes Payable in 2004 Interest Limitation Principal & Interest $2,804,910,000 0.05367% $1,505,395 The CIP Bonds has been structured with even annual principal and interest payments over a term of 20 years. Our recommended principal structure for the CIP Bonds is shown on page 18. Page 18 shows the principal repayment dates, the annual principal payments, estimated interest rates, the projected total principal and interest payments, given the current market environment, and the 105% overlevy mandated by State statute, which serves as a protection to Bondholders and the City in the event of delinquencies in the collection of taxes. Page 7 10 Maplewood, Minnesota June 7, 2004 The City will make its first levy for the CIP Bonds in 2004 for collection in 2005. Each year's collection of taxes will be used to make the interest payment due on February 1 and the principal and interest payment due on August 1 in the year of collection. Debt service payments on the CIP Bonds are due prior to the City's receipt of semi-annual tax collections. Therefore, the City will make temporary transfers of available funds to meet the principal and interest payments on the CIP Bonds. $5,355,000 General Obligation State-Aid Street Bonds, Series 2004E Proceeds of the Street Bonds will be used to finance state-aid street improvement projects within the City including the following: County Road D (Hazelwood to west of Highway 81) and Hazelwood (Beam to County Road D). The debt service on the Street Bonds will be paid from Municipal State-Aid allotments received annually from the Minnesota Department of Transportation. The sources and uses related to the Street Bands are shown on page 19. Pursuant to Minnesota Statues, Chapter 162, the City can issue MSA bonds if the combined average annual debt service of the new bonds and any existing MSA obligations does not exceed 50% of the City's last annual allotment for construction. The City's 2004 construction allotment from the state was $861,659 and 50% of that amount is $430,829.50. The City has no other outstanding MSA obligations and the average annual debt service on the new bonds is $390,597. Therefore, the issuance of the Street Bonds meets the statutory requirement. The debt service schedule for the Street Bonds is shown on page 20. The Street Bonds have been structured over a term of 20 years, with even annual principal payments. Allotments received each year will be used to make the April 1 principal and interest payment and the subsequent October 1 interest payment. Springsted Incorporated is pleased to again be of service to the City of Maplewood Respectfully submitted, ~>~ c". ~~ r~~ , a~ - -~~ , ~.~ SPF~INGSTED Incorporated mb Provided to Staff: Arbitrage Rebate Contract Amendment Page 8 11 13,010,000 City of Maplewood, Minnesota General Obligation Improvement Bonds Series 2004B Sources & Uses Dated 08/01/2004 ( Delivered 08!01/2004 Sources Of Funds Par Amount of Bonds ...................................................................................................................................................... $13,010,000.00 State Street Aid ............................................................................................................................................................... 5,823,148.00 Other Gov. or Develper Payments ................................................................................................................................... 1,396,290.00 Transfers from other City Funds ..................................................................................................................................... 229,000.00 Assessment Prepayments .............................................................................................................................................. 15,850.00 Total Sources ................................................................................................................................................................ $20,474,288.00 Uses Of Funds Deposit to Project Construction Fund .............................................................................................................................. 20,290,395.00 Total Underwriter's Discount (1.000%) ........................................................................................................................... 130,100.00 Costs of Issuance ........................................................................................................................................................... 49,650.00 Rounding Amount ........................................................................................................................................................... 4,143.00 Total Uses ..................................................................................................................................................................... $20,474,288.00 CAlmptnvement Bonds 200 ~ SINGLEFURPOSE ~ 6/Z/2004 ~ 70:13AM ..anion m vis ~ aSiet >.:co: Page 9 12 9,856,044 Gity of Maplewood, Minnesota General Obligation Improvement Bands, Series 2004E Total Assessment Income DATE 2004 Assessment Collection 2005 Assessment Collection TOTAL 12/31 /2004 301,146.30 - 301,146.30 12/31!2005 253,887.37 1,005,731.72 1,259,619.09 12/311?_006 245,608.43 882,448.48 1,128,056.91 12/31!2007 237,329.51 856,494.10 1,093,823.61 12131!2008 229,050.57 830,539.74 1,059,590.31 12131!2009 220,771.63 804,585.38 1,025,357.01 12/31!2010 212,492.69 778,631.00 991,123.69 12/31/2011 204,213.75 752,676.63 956,890.38 12/31!2012 195,934.83 726,722.27 922,657.10 12/31/2013 187,655.89 700,767.89 888,423.78 12/31!2014 179,376.94 674,813.53 854,190.47 12131 /2015 171,098.00 648,859.17 819,957.17 12/31!2016 162,819.06 622,904.79 785,723.85 12/31/2017 154,540.14 596,950.43 751,490.57 12131 /2018 146,261.20 570,996.07 717,257.27 12/3112019 - 545,041.69 545,041.69 Total $3,102,186.31 $10,998,162.89 $14,100,349.20 Principal Amount of Assessments 2003 Assessments 2004 Assessments 2,069,734.00 7,786,310.01 TOTAL ................................................................................................................................................ 9, 856, 044.01 Aggrgafe / 6/Z/2004 / 70.34 rU~ Page 10 13 2,069,734 City of Maplewood, Minnesota General Obligation Improvement Bonds, Series 2004E 2003 ASSESSMENT INCOME Date Principal Coupon Interest Total P+I 12/3112003 - - - - 12/31 /2004 137,982.27 6.000% 163,164.03 301,146.30 12131 /2005 137,982.27 6.000% 115,905.10 253,887.37 12/31 /2006 137,982.27 6.000% 107,626.16 245,608.43 12/31/2007 137,982.27 6.000% 99,347.24 237,329.51 12/31!2008 137,982.27 6.000% 91,068.30 229,050.57 12131 /2009 137,982.27 6.000 % 82,789.36 220,771.63 12131 /2010 137,982.27 6.000% 74,510.42 212,492.69 12131 /2011 137,982.27 6.000 % 66,231.48 204,213.75 12/31/2012 137,982.27 6.000°la 57,952.56 195,934.83 12(31 {2013 137,982.27 6.000% 49,673.62 187,655.89 12/31 /2014 137,982.26 6.000% 41,394.68 179,376.94 12/31 /2015 137,982.26 6.000% 33,115.74 171,098.00 12131 /2016 137,982.26 6.000% 24,836.80 162,819.06 12/31 /2017 137,982.26 6.000% 16,557.88 154,540.14 12!31!2018 137,982.26 6.000% 8,278.94 146,261.20 Total $2,069,734.00 - $1,032,452.31 $3,102,186.31 SIGNIFICANT DATES Filing Date .......................................................................................................................................................................... 9/08/2003 First Payment Date ............................................................................................................................................................ 12/31/2004 Z004BAssessmenfs / 20OS Assessments / 6/2/2004 / J.'S4 Ati1 :~.k~~ipi ~t1~4~xai ~ ~_. ~~' Page 11 14 7,786,310 City of Maplewood, Minnesota General Obligation Improvement Bonds, Series 2004B 2004 ASSESSMENT INCOME Date Principal Coupon Interest Total P+1 12/31/2004 - - - 12/31 /2005 519,087.34 5.000% 486,644.38 1,005,731.72 12/31 /2006 519,087.34 5.000% 363,361.14 882,448.48 12/3112007 519,087.34 5.000% 337,406.76 856,494.10 12/31 /2008 519,087.34 5.000 % 311,452.40 830,539.74 12!31 /2009 519,087.34 5.000% 285,498.04 804,585.38 12!31 /2010 519,087.34 5.000% 259,543.66 778,631.00 12131 /2011 519,087.33 5.000% 233,589.30 752,676.63 12131 /2012 519,087.33 5.000% 207,634.94 726,722.27 12/31/2013 519,087.33 5.000% 181,680.56 700,767.89 12/31 /2014 519,087.33 5.000 % 155,726.20 674,813.53 12/31 /2015 519,087.33 5.000% 129,771.84 648,859.17 12/31 /2016 519,087.33 5.000% 103,817.46 622,904.79 12/31/2017 519,087.33 5.000% 77,863.10 596,950.43 12/3112018 519,087.33 5.000% 51,908.74 570,996.07 12/31 /2019 519,087.33 5.000% 25,954.36 545,041.69 Total $7,786,310.01 - $3,211,852.88 $10,998,162.89 SIGNIFICANT DATES Filing Date ........................................................................................................................................................................ 1 0101 /2 004 First Payment Date ........................................................................................................................................................... 12/31/2005 2004BAsvesstnents (ZlT04Assessments ! 6/2/2004 / 9:54AM fa tDt~. ~~ ~i ~~~.~~'.~~ Page 12 15 -1-+ a o N m ~ G C v O ~ ~ C.~ 0 ~ Q ~ p ~ o O ~ ~ ~ ri ~ •-° 'm ~ ~' ~, cn cci ~- 0 ti- v ~ ~ U c~ ,-• ' •-• h 'V' 61 <t O O M N W c0 cp r r tt to tn... W.. W..M 'O ~ ~ t CL? cO h O N N h h V I`~ CO r <t N h M c0 r V O M O V' CO N 7 m W h O) O c0 M c0 M c0 t!i M M 7 M M N CO N M 01 [O m N O O ~.f) h ~ ~ ~ fem. cp d' CA O N ~ r CO M h '- ~A O ~O f`; ~ ~O M d 0. c0 CO h 0 0 [O O O m h 0 h 0 c0 h h h ~ 7 `~ N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N 7+ Cn } d J 01 O W O CO h T N h h O1 ' O O O O M O O M h 7 CO I.f) N cO 01 ~ 07 cO M O h M 0 I`~ M O i`~ M O h N m to tt N O y N ~ I.() N O~ N m~ N O~ c0 O CO to M r o~ t0 V r m h ~{- N O N ~= N m M M O to O N co V m to i`- t(7 ~ C I' Ol m W > ) < I.n N m~ N O~ N O In W . N r 0 0 0 m 0 01 CO M CO h h h~ ti y ~ r M N ~ r r r r y Q EfJ h ~ O M G 7 O ~ N O *- _ N Q U O O ~y. d M M Efl c°.i U O^ W M N O~~ M c0 O M M M M M M~ tf7 CO c0 M M M N O h h CO c7 In N cD c0 c7 M r N I~ M W r O O ~ (~. I~ N N M O O O M O c'? c0 M cp Q~ p M c0 M M Cn cD r h CO N W h d' N O m~ h ~ CO n V; O N r r_ O CO H LD cD [~. O CO h~ CO M N I.f) M M h M V' m M c0 M O c0 h i`. h M m c0 M 07 cD N m~ N m~ CO V' M M M M ~ O M ~ o M M N N N r r 0 0 0 m m h N N N N N r O ~ r r r r r r r r r r r CO O EH w J W U w U w H m w W Z ~ o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 in~noooo~rnoo~n~~.nir~~ooin~n~n o ~ h h In O~~ h h O to N N h h N~ N h (`~ N O ~ W m V N M M O h h GO N W~ r t!') c0 M 1~- N h ti h CO N r L(') r CO [O cD M h V, r r r~ N~ O c0 1~ 'S O O ~O M N O to V' N Q> V 7 M~ m~ (O CO c0 c0 d CO O h M O h d• O h d' O h V 1' N N N N N V Z V' N N N N r r 0 0 0 W 0 QJ h N N N N N h ~ r r r r r r r r r r r h z ~ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 may. ~n~nOOOO~n~ngoic~~n~q~rnOq~ninin O h h ~.(') O~ 1.f) h h O~ N N h h N to to h h- N O ;t• m m 7 N M M 0 I`- h M N W~ r tf) c0 M h N h 7 N to O M ' - h CO 4. ) r c0 [O t0 f~ 7 ~ r !~ N W N r lf o 0 ' r R c O O ) V N m 7 ¢t' M N m t O O iii M N O i.[ W O) i~ M O h ~f' O I`` d' O h l C' N N N N N M V' cr N N N N r r 0 0 0 m O m h N N N N N ti O ~ r r r r r r r r r r r r ffl o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 v in ~noooo~c~~oo~~n~n~nu~oou~~n~n o I" h to O~ ~.(') h~ h O~ N N I`~ h N~~ h h N O N O O 7 N M M O h h W N CO ~ r lt7 cD M h N h CO ~ n ti CO N r I,() r o~ cp Cp M h~ r r. r ~{ N C O O CY t0 c0 M h O O 6> i`~ cf m 7 c0 O 01 O r h CO d c0 c0 N O 1~- tC) N [O tf~ N W to r W 7 er M N ~ M ~ e{ ~ M M M N N N r r r y b• h V O N a o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o a a o o a a o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O H O tC! O H O 6f) O~ 0 0 0 0~~ Ui 0 0~ Q O r lf') W N 7' 1`` m r N V~ ~ cD h, h CO 6> O r r ~ r N N N ['') M M M V ct ~ d' 7 d' d' R d' ~ U'1 ~ U ' 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O R 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O Q 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 •V O tf) ~ O O t() O ~ to ~ ~ I.f) O I.[) to O ~ ~ ~ ~ O M N O O m W W c0 [O CO CA O O M M O O O = O t4 N CO CO h (`~ h h h h h h~ h c0 r r r N N O n` '' r ~} to t0 h W m O r N M V to i0 h M m 0 N M ct ~ 0 0 0 0 0 0 N N N N N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O d N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N ~- ~ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 CA CO CO CO O W CO c0 [O CO CO CO M [O c0 CO cq CO c0 ~ W 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 C N N h 4 z 0 N 4.:; { f ~ ~ 4' ~ ; h ;; J ,, O V Page 13 16 n~ W ~ O ~ ~ ~ N C N ~ ~ '~ ~- ~ (n t1S ~ O ~ .'ti+ N ~ ~ C~ r.~ W .T. V ,W V LL W N F- m W t~ F- W Z 0 O 0 0 O O O O N M tp O h~ M N N N N r ~ } tM4 Oh ~~p t 9 M CMO~ O O O r a h et Cri N f9 t'+~ ~ OQ ~ ~ tf} N M N O N tt') _ to M ' M V ~ ' ' ' fi O ed eh 5 b e! ~ m o. ~ ,.:, ~j U ~U i m ~~"`~ m v m o ~ o d` o a> M o m ai Q tl9 ° y~ U~ o U ~ U y a a ~ p ~~c°~ ~ ~v > ~ m~ s 'o ~ U ~ ~ '~ .a ~ m c - .a c u' ~ a~ c~ u w~ ~ - o>> v~o= ~~v mOti > mdd ZI-md Z~ Page 14 17 5,o25,aoo City of Maplewood, Minnesota General Obligation Tax Abatement Bonds Series 2004C Sources & Uses Dated 08/01!2004 I Delivered 0 8101 /2 0 0 4 Sources Of Funds Par Amount of Bonds ........................................................................................................................................................ $5,025,000.00 Total Sources .................................................................................................................................................................. $5,025,000.00 Uses Of Funds Deposit to Project Construction Fund ....................................................................... ......................................................... 4,553,000.00 Deposit to Capitalized Interest (CIF) Fund ................................................................ ......................................................... 375,000.00 Total Underwriter's Discount (1.200%) .................................................................... ......................................................... 60,300.00 Costs of Issuance .................................................................................................... ......................................................... 33,900.00 Rounding Amount .................................................................................................... ......................................................... 2,800.00 Total Uses ....................................................................................................................................................................... $5,025,000.00 2004C EX2 J SINGL£PUHFOSE' / 6/7/Z004 ~ 'Jr46AM ..fL~~/~i+ive.y eo sc,_l~s._. z.... Page 15 ~ $ ~~ +~ ~ (~ m ~ ~ ~ N C ~ ~ U ~ d" Q ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Q~ ~ ~ ~- ~ Cn _~ ~~ ,.,_ O -~ ~ C U~ -- ~~-.-..n o w ~o o ~i~ m c~ o o~ ~n o~ m rn ~ ~'nr.omcginNmria~nNtio ~ w 'w ' N N O M h r <f' c0 N 7 f'~ t~ M c0 o cfl w m r. ~ co m <r ~n in ~n in o~cor.ococ~chc~wcomcooom C'') v m S N '- c O O M d' O !~ tD ~ CO [+~ t!j i`~ 07 [O m t\ In M O m OJ CO V ~ N o -~ ~ ~ ~ ,,'r N N N 0 ~ ~ ' 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O ~ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O = CO 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 CO N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N N tf) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~ ~ ~ ti ~ t.t') O ttj t.[) t.t) ~ Lc> to ~ ~ tt~ to ~ N Ln h- O~ CO ~ CO OJ W M M M M M M M M '" ' *' ' .Q > ) C7 C7 07 O ) [ ) C7 C7 C'7 C7 C7 C 1 f r N C' ~ ~ % H T ~ ~ ~ i.c') O OJ CO O ~ O~ C'') O O ~ t-!] O C~ 0~ > N N ti n O C7 C7 ~ N C7 r~~ N I~ O r m m M~ r V' CO N ~i' C7 I~ M O O ' t7 Q J t.ff Ln Ln ~.(~ ~ M m ti ~ M C~ V ~ OJ t~ O M C7 C*7 [~ O] CO CO CO O O W (O OJ ~ I~ M m O N cfl O C7 c0 bJ O N c7 M d' N 0 V V o 7 01 O M CP M O tt) C7 m M o -.~ M lC) to t.!) I.C) ltd ltd i.f) ltd V <Y C V' V r ' r ~ O W Z W ~' W vi W U_ `~' "' W to m W W Z 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 , O N ~ 0 0 0 0 t17 t.c) O O LtJ i.[) O O O O O In ~ 0 t.C) t.i) O f~- I`~ O ~ f~ N O O u'i ttj O N ~ O m N m~ Ch CO t` m M m O~ O h t~ C7 $ o m o~ in co co co c~ r cq o o r` o rn cfl r cD <Y Q> ~ N t.C) C+7 m 7 W N ttj I~ O (~ O C' Z V I~ W t.c) f~ u7 C7 N O O i~ ~ ct N O Ch d' tf) ~ ~ ~ i-f) ~ d' 'd' V' <7- d' 'd' O of Z I ICI 0 Ll O . O O U ~ p N N .T M ^ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O , 0 0 0 0 to X 0 0 t.(') tt'f O O O O O ~.(S t.C ) u7 ~ 41) O t` t~ O ~ ~ N O O t.f) ~ O N t ` '~' m O m N m h C'') CO I~ m C7 07 t0 In (O f~ (' ') a mmo~~ncowcochrc~oor_ornco c o ~ <i' rt' Q7 ~ N t!) C~ m <f' M CV ~ ti O (h ' m O N O 0 0 t~ W ~.f? M to C~ N O CA I~ ~ ~! N N [~ tt ~ ~ to t.c') i.t) i.f) V '~Y cr d' V V ti r H h E fl 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ' O f O O O O u7 t.t) O O u7 t1) 0 0 0 0 0 i.c ~ t.!) u'f ~ 0 1'h t~ O t.t) i~ N O O t.C) Ln O N I ~ N m O) O) N m t` C7 N i`~ Q> C7 O~ CD t17 (O t~ C 1 ~ cowm~nmmcoc*~rc~oor.orncfl c fl ~ V' V- ct O N O CO ~ Q> M t` O N uj (0 0~ V O O O O O) M o m C7 N O m t~ to Ch r t. c) = N N N N r r r r r r .- N = N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~ O H O to O u"l O~ 0 0 0 0~ tt~ a' u7 QJ N cr I~ o N ~ Ln M ~ ti M V N N t'7 07 Ch C7 V' V d' eY 7 ef' V V " 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O ~ O O GO 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O Q- 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O U In t1y O t.c) Ltd ~ ~ L(j l.() I.t) In LC1 t17 i.c) t .c') C P~ M O~ M M M M W M M M M M N °- ` r N C~ C*) P'1 c7 M t'1 M C7 CI C7 M C*') O a ~ d-~nmr•o~rnorNro~rinmr.wrno ro °o °o °o °o 00 °0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N~ f3 ~ O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O ~ ~ ~ ~ W W ~ ~ OJ ~ ~ W W ~ ~ ~ ~ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 °o o °o N N N O O O ~ ~ ~ :~ :o Q? c "~ a :~ >. o .> U cif (U +~- ~Ot.L 'ay'.. cC N S- o `u°o o°r~i rc°~ c ~ fl ~ ~!- O N f~- m m ~ ~ ~ O N m O ~ ~ V V N ~ O ~ ' ' rl' V V ci d T O N 7 d U ~ U U ~ •-~ Q c~ z `. ' k _ N ~ ~ ` ` m s ~ ` ~ ~ ~ w ~ o ¢ U ~ ., o ~ °- i ~ U o U ~ ~ rt O a JU in . ~, ~ ~~ ~ ~ wr ~~~ ~ a~ '~ 4 ~ V ~ i c0 cC{ 'O C N '~ G G m ~~ ;y_~ ,; N N ~ -_ O mQQ ZI-~.1Q N Page 16 ~ 9 $700,000 City of Maplewood, innesota General C3bligation Capital Improvement Plan Bands Series 2004D S®urces & Uses Dated 08101/2004 ~ Delivered 08/0112004 sources Of Funds Par Amount of Bonds ............................................................................................................._................................................... $700,000.00 Total Sources ............................................................................................................................................................................ $700,000.00 Uses Of Funds Deposit to Project Fund .............................................................................................................................................................. 667,625.00 Costs of Issuance ....................................................................................................................................................................... 19,775.00 Total Underwriter's Discount (1.800°fo} ....................................................................................................................................... 12,600.00 Total Uses .................................................................................................................................................................................. $700,000.00 GO CIPBondz 2004D J 5/NGLE PJIRtYJSE / 6/ I/2004 J 4:L?f7 PM Page 17 20 X700,000 City of Maplewood, Minnesota General Clbligatian Capital Improvement Plan Bonds Series 200403 DEBT SERVICE SCHEDULE Date Principal Coupon Interest Total P+l 105°lo Levy 08/0112004 - - - - - 08/0112005 25,000.00 1.600% 29,412.50 54,412.50 57,133.13 08/0112006 25,000.00 2.150% 29,012.50 54,012.50 56,713.13 0$101/2007 25,000.00 2.500% 28,475.00 53,475.00 56,148.75 0$/0112008 25,000.00 2.850°l0 27,850.00 52,850.00 55,492.50 08/0112009 25,000.00 3.200% 27,137.50 52,137.50 54,744.38 08/0112010 30,000.00 3.450°l0 26,337.50 56,337.50 59,154.38 08101/2011 30,000.00 3.700°10 25,302.50 55,302.50 5$,067.63 08/0112012 30,000A0 3.950°l0 24,192.50 54,192.50 56,902.13 08/0112013 30,000.00 4.100°l0 23,007.50 53,007.50 55,657.88 08/01/2014 35,000.00 4.250% 21,777.50 56,777.50 59,616.38 08101/2015 35,000.00 4.400°l0 20,290.00 55,290.00 58,054.50 08101/2016 35,000.00 4.500% 18,750.00 53,750.00 56,437.50 08/01/2017 35,000.00 4.600°l0 17,175.00 52,175.00 54,783.75 081011201$ 40,000.00 4.700°!0 15,565.00 55,565.00 58,343.25 .0$10112019 40,000.00 4.750°!0 13,685.00 53,685.fl0 56,369.25 0$101/2020 45,000.00 4.850% 11,7$5.00 56,7$5.00 59,624.25 08/0112021 45,000.00 4.950% 9,602.50 54,602.50 57,332.63 08/01/2022 45,000.00 5.000% 7,375.00 52,375.00 54,993.75 08101/2023 50,000.00 5.100°l0 5,125.00 55,125.00 57,8$1.25 0810112024 50,000.00 5.150% 2,575..00 52,575A0 55,203.75 Total $700,000.00 - $384,432.50 $1,084,432.50 $1,138,654.13 SIGPIIFICANT DATES Dated ............................................................................................................................ ............................................................ 810112004 Delivery Date ................................................................................................................ ............................................................ 810112004 First Caupon Date ......................................................................................................... ............................................................ 8/01/2005 Yield Statistics Bond Year Doilars ........................................................................................................ ............................................................. $8,290A0 Average Life ................................................................................................................. ............................................................. 11.843 Years Average Coupon ........................................................................................................... ............................................................ 4.6373040% IUet Interest Cost (NIC) ................................................................................................. ............................................................. 4.7892943°!0 True Interest Cost (TIC) ................................................................................................ ............................................................ 4.7859670°l0 Bond Yield for Arbitrage Purposes ............................................................................... ............................................................. 4.5771011 All Inclusive Cost (AIC} ................................................................................................. ............................................................ 5.1253196% IRS Form 8038 Net Interest Cost .......................................................................................................... ............................................................. 4.63730140°l0 Weighted Average Maturity .......................................................................................... ............................................................. 11.843 Years Interest rates are estimates. Changes in rates may cause signigcan# alterations to this schedule, The actual underwrriter"s discount bid may also vary. GO ClPBonds, P009L~ J SlNGff. f7JRPO.SE J 6/ !12009 J 9:00 PM Page 18 21 $5,355,OQO City of Maplewood, Minnesota General Qbliga#ion Sta#e Aid S#ree# Bands Series 2004E Sources & Uses Dated 08!01120041 Delivered 08!01!2004 Sources Of Funds Par Amount of Bonds ............................................................................................................................................................... $5,355,000.00 Total ~ources ......................................................................................................................................................................... $5,355,000.00 l9ses Of Funds County Road D - Hazelwoad to HWY 61 .................................................................................................................................. 3,709,200.00 Hazelwood ............................................................................................................................................................................... 1,048,800.00 County Road D -West of HWY 61 ........................................................................................................................................... 496,800.00 Total Underwriter's Discount (1.200°l0) .................................................................................................................................... 64,260.00 Costs of Issuance .................................................................................................................................................................... 35,150.00 Rounding Amount .................................................................................................................................................................... 790.00 Total Uses ............................................................................................................................................................................... $5,355,000.00 2OO4EMS~t Bonds J SINGLEPUXfY?5'E (6/ I/2lXI4 j 3:46PM Page 19 22 5,355,aQt1 City of Maplewood, Minnesota General Obligation State Aid Street Sands Series 2004E DEBT SERVICE SCHEDULE Date Principal Coupon interest Total P+1 Fiscal Total 08/01/2004 - - - - - 04IO112005 270,000,00 1.600% 142,096.67 412,096.67 - 10I01/2005 - - 104,412.50 104,412.50 516,509.17 04/0112006 274,000.00 2.150% 104,412.50 374,412.50 - 10/01I2006 - - 101, 510.00 101, 510.00 475,922.50 04!01/2007 270,000.00 2.500°10 101,510.00 371,510.00 10!0112007 - - 98,135.00 9$,135.00 469,645.00 04/0112008 270,000.00 2.$50% 9$,135.00 368,135.00 - 10I01/2008 - - 94,2$7.50 94,287.50 462,422.50 04101/2009 270,000.00 3.240°fo 94,287.50 364,287.50 10/01!2009 - - 89,967.50 $9,967.50 454,255.00 04/0112010 270,000.00 3.450°!0 89,967.50 359,967.50 - 10/01/2010 - - 85,310.00 $5,310.00 445,277.50 0410112011 270,000.00 3.700% 85,310.00 355,310.00 - 10/01/2011 - - 80,315.00 $0,315.00 435,625.00 04/0112012 270,000.00 3.950% 80,315.00 350,315.00 - 10101/2012 - - 74,982.50 74,982.50 425,297.50 04101/2013 270,004.00 4.100°l0 74,982.50 344,9$2.50 - 10/01/2013 - - 69,447.50 69,447.50 414,430.00 04101!2014 270,000.00 4.250% 69,447.50 339,447.50 - 10I01/2014 - - 63,710.00 63,710.00 403,157.50 04/01!2015 270,000.00 4.400°!0 63,710.00 333,710.00 10!01/2015 - - 57,770.00 57,770.00 391,480.00 04101!2016 265,000.00 4.504% 57,770.00 322,770.00 10!0112016 - - 51,807.50 51,807.50 374,577.50 04/01/2017 265,000.00 4.600% 51,$07.50 316,807.50 - 10/01/2017 - - 45,712.50 45,712.50 362,520.00 04/0112018 265,000.00 4.700°fo 45,712.50 314,712.50 - 10/01I2018 - - 39,485.00 39,485.00 350,197.50 44141!2019 265,000.00 4.750°fo 39,4$5.40 304,4$5.00 - 1010112019 - - 33,191.25 33,191.25 337,676.25 04/01!2020 265,000.00 4.$50°l0 33,191.25 298,191.25 10/01!2020 - - 26,765.40 26,765.00 324,956.25 04101!2021 265,000.00 4.950°l0 26,765.00 291,765.00 - 10/01/2021 - - 20,206.25 20,206.25 311,971.25 04/01/2022 265,004.00 5A00°lo 20,206.25 2$5,206.25 - 10I01/2022 - - 13,5$1.25 13,581.25 298,787.50 04/01/2023 265,004.04 5.100°l0 13,581.25 278,581.25 - 10141/2023 - - 6,$23.75 6,823.75 285,405.00 04/01/2024 265,000.00 5.150°fo 6,823.75 271,823.75 10!01!2024 - - - - 271,823.75 Total $5,355,004.00 - $2,456,936.67 $7,$11,936.67 - 2004EMSA Bonds / ~/.vGLEPURPOSb' f B/ 7/2004 f 3: t 6 FM Page 20 23 ~s,3ss,ooo City of Mapl~wc~ad, IVOinnes®ta General Obligation State Aid Street Bonds Series 2004E DEBT SER~IICE SCFIEL~t1LE SIGNIFIGAPIT DATES Dated ........................................................................................................................................................................................ 8/01/2004 Delivery Date ............................................................................................................................................................................ 8101/2004 First Coupon Date ..................................................................................................................................................................... 410112005 Yield Statistics Bond Year Dollars ..................................................................................................................................................................... $54,195.00 Average life .............................................................................................................................................................................. 10.120 Years Average Coupon ....................................................................................................................................................................... 4.5335117°l0 Net Interest Cost (NIC} ............................................................................................................................................................. 4.6520835°l0 True Interest Cost (TIC} ............................................................................................................................................................ 4.6274612% Bond Yield for Arbitrage Purposes ............................................................................................................................................ 4.4702312% All inclusive Cost (AIC} ............................................................................................................................................................. 4.7147127% IRS Form 8038 Net Interest Cost ....................................................................................................................................................................... 4.5335117°fo Weighted Average Maturity ....................................................................................................................................................... 10.120 Years Interest rates are estimates, Changes in rates may cause significant alterations to this schedule. The actual underwriter's discaun# bid may also vary. 2004EMSA Bc>nds / S/NGLE FURH~SE f 6/ 1/2004 / 3:50 FM Page 21 24 THE CITY HAS AUTHORIZED SPRINGSTED INCORPORATED TO NEGOTIATE THIS ISSUE ON ITS BEHALF. PROPOSALS WILL BE RECEIVED ON THE FOLLOWING BASIS: TERMS OF PROPOSAL $13,010,000 CITY OF MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA GENERAL OBLIGATION IMPROVEMENT BONDS, SERIES 2004B (BOOK ENTRY ONLY) Proposals for the Bonds will be received on Thursday, July 22, 2004. Consideration for award of the Bonds will be by the City Council at 5:00 P.M., Central Time, of the same day. SUBMISSION OF PROPOSALS Electronic proposals only for the Bonds will be received on Grant Street Group's MuniAuction web site located at www.GrantStreet.com ("MuniAuction") between 9:45 AM and 10:00 AM Central Time, unless extended by the Two-Minute Rule as more fully described in "Extension Of The Auction" herein. The use of Grant Street Group's MuniAuction web site shall be at the risk of the bidder, and neither the City nor Springsted shall have any liability with respect thereto. Springsted will assume no liability for the inability of the bidder to reach Springsted prior to the time of sale specified above. All bidders are adivsed that each electronic proposal shall be deemed to constitute a contract between the bidder and the City for the purchase of the Bonds. Registration and Admission to Proposal: To make a proposal, proposal makers must first visit the MuniAuction website where, if they have never registered with MuniAuction, they can register and then request admission to make a proposal on all of the Bonds. Proposal makers will be notified prior to the scheduled proposal making time of their eligibility to make a proposal. Only NASD registered broker-dealers and dealer banks with DTC clearing arrangements will be eligible to make a proposal. Rules of MuniAuction: The "Rules of MuniAuction" can be viewed on MuniAuction and are incorporated herein by reference. Proposal makers must comply with the Rules of MuniAuctian in addition to the requirements of this Terms of Bond Sale. Proposal Details: All proposals must be submitted on the MuniAuction website at "www.MuniAuction.com." No telephone, telefax, telegraph or personal delivery proposals will be accepted. Propasal makers are permitted to submit proposals for the Bonds only in the All-or-None ("AON") auction during the auction. Proposal makers may change and submit proposals as many times as they wish during the auction; provided, however, each and any proposal submitted subsequent to a proposal maker's initial proposal must result in a lower true interest cost ("TIC"). In the event that the revised proposal does not produce a lower TIC, the initial proposal will remain valid. During the making of a proposal, no proposal maker will see any other proposal maker's proposal, but each proposal maker will see whether their proposal is a leading proposal relative to other proposals. On the auction page, proposal makers will be able to see whether any Propasal has been submitted. Extension of the Auction: If any proposal becomes a leading proposal two minutes prior to the scheduled end of the auction, the time period for submission of proposals will be Page 22 25 automatically extended by two (2) minutes from the time such new leading proposal was received by MuniAuction (the "Two-Minute Rule"). The Two-Minute Rule will remain in effect as long as proposals received by MuniAuction meet the requirements of the Two- Minute Rule described above. Verification: Proposal makers should verify the accuracy of their final proposals and compare them to the winning proposals reported on the MuniAuction Observation Page immediately after the auction. DETAILS OF THE BONDS The Bonds will be dated August 1, 2004, as the date of original issue, and will bear interest payable on February 1 and August 1 of each year, commencing August 1, 2005. Interest will be computed on the basis of a 360-day year of twelve 30-day months. The Bonds will mature August 1 in the years and amounts as follows: 2005 $1,000,000 2010 $795,000 2015 $785,000 2020 $180,000 2006 $ 835,000 2011 $790,000 2016 $785,000 2021 $185,000 2007 $ 825,000 2012 $785,000 2017 $790,000 2022 $195,000 2008 $ 810,000 2013 $785,000 2018 $795,000 2023 $205,000 2009 $ 800,000 2014 $785,000 2019 $665,000 2024 $215,000 Proposals for the Bonds may contain a maturity schedule providing for a combination of serial bonds and term bonds. All term bonds shall be subject to mandatory sinking fund redemption and must conform to the maturity schedule set forth above at a price of par plus accrued interest to the date of redemption. In order to designate term bonds, the proposal must specify "Years of Term Maturities°' in the spaces provided on the Proposal Form. BOOK ENTRY SYSTEM The Bonds will be issued by means of a book entry system with no physical distribution of Bonds made to the public. The Bonds will be issued in fully registered form and one Bond, representing the aggregate principal amount of the Bonds maturing in each year, will be registered in the name of Cede & Co. as nominee of The Depository Trust Gompany ("DTC"), New Yark, New York, which will act as securities depository of the Bonds. Individual purchases of the Bands may be made in the principal amount of $5,000 or any multiple thereof of a single maturity through book entries made on the books and records of DTG and its participants. Principal and interest are payable by the registrar to DTC or its nominee as registered owner of the Bonds. Transfer of principal and interest payments to participants of DTC will be the responsibility of DTC; transfer of principal and interest payments to beneficial owners by participants will be the responsibility of such participants and other nominees of beneficial owners. The purchaser, as a condition of delivery of the Bonds, will be required to deposit the Bonds with DTC. REGISTRAR The City will name the registrar that shall be subject to applicable SEC regulations. The City will pay for the services of the registrar. OPTIONAL REDEMPTION The City may elect on August 1, 2015, and on any day thereafter, to prepay Bonds due on or after August 1, 2016. Redemption may be in whole or in part and if in part at the option of the City and in such manner as the City shall determine. If less than all Bonds of a maturity are called for redemption, the City will notify DTC of the particular amount of such maturity to be Page 23 26 prepaid. DTC will determine by lot the amount of each participant's interest in such maturity to be redeemed and each participant will then select by lot the beneficial ownership interests in such maturity to be redeemed. All prepayments shall be at a price of par plus accrued interest. SECURITY AND PURPOSE The Bonds will be general obligations of the City for which the City will pledge its full faith and credit and power to levy direct general ad valorem taxes. In addition, the City will pledge special assessments against benefited properties. The proceeds will be used to finance various improvement projects within the City. TYPE OF PROPOSALS Proposals shall be for not less than $12,879,900 and accrued interest on the total principal amount of the Bonds. Proposals shall be accompanied by a Goad Faith Deposit ("Deposit") in the form of a certified or cashier's check or a Financial Surety Bond in the amount of $130,100, payable to the order of the City. If a check is used, it must accompany the proposal. If a Financial Surety Bond is used, it must be from an insurance company licensed to issue such a bond in the State of Minnesota, and preapproved by the City. Such bond must be submitted to Springsted Incorporated prior to the opening of the proposals. The Financial Surety Bond must identify each underwriter whose Deposit is guaranteed by such Financial Surety Bond. If the Bonds are awarded to an underwriter using a Financial Surety Bond, then that purchaser is required to submit its Deposit to Springsted Incorporated in the form of a certified or cashier's check or wire transfer as instructed by Springsted Incorporated not later than 3:30 P.M., Central Time, on the next business day following the award. If such Deposit is not received by that time, the Financial Surety Bond may be drawn by the City to satisfy the Deposit requirement. The Deposit received from the purchaser, the amount of which will be deducted at settlement and no interest will accrue to the purchaser, will be deposited by the City. In the event the purchaser fails to comply with the accepted proposal, said amount will be retained by the City. No proposal can be withdrawn or amended after the time set far receiving proposals unless the meeting of the City scheduled for award of the Bonds is adjourned, recessed, or continued to another date without award of the Bonds having been made. Rates shall be in integral multiples of 5/100 or 118 of 1 %. Rates must be in level or ascending order. Bonds of the same maturity shall bear a single rate from the date of the Bonds to the date of maturity. No conditional proposals will be accepted. AWARD The Bonds will be awarded on the basis of the lowest interest rate to be determined an a true interest cost (TIC) basis. The City's computation of the interest rate of each proposal, in accordance with customary practice, will be controlling. The City will reserve the right to: (i) waive non-substantive informalities of any proposal or of matters relating to the receipt of proposals and award of the Bonds, (ii) reject all proposals without cause, and (iii) reject any proposal that the City determines to have failed to comply with the terms herein. BOND INSURANCE AT PURCHASER'S OPTION If the Bonds qualify for issuance of any policy of municipal bond insurance or commitment therefor at the option of the underwriter, the purchase of any such insurance policy or the issuance of any such commitment shall be at the sole option and expense of the purchaser of the Bands. Any increased costs of issuance of the Bonds resulting from such purchase of insurance shall be paid by the purchaser, except that, if the City has requested and received a rating on the Bonds from a rating agency, the City will pay that rating fee. Any other rating agency fees shall be the responsibility of the purchaser. Page 24 27 Failure of the municipal bond insurer to issue the policy after Bonds have been awarded to the purchaser shall not constitute cause for failure or refusal by the purchaser to accept delivery on the Bonds. CUSIP NUMBERS If the Bands qualify for assignment of CUSIP numbers such numbers will be printed on the Bonds, but neither the failure to print such numbers on any Bond nor any error with respect thereto will constitute cause for failure or refusal by the purchaser to accept delivery of the Bonds. The CUSIP Service Bureau charge for the assignment of CUSIP identification numbers shall be paid by the purchaser. SETTLEMENT Within 40 days following the date of their award, the Bonds will be delivered without cost to the purchaser through DTC in New York, New York. Delivery will be subject to receipt by the purchaser of an approving legal opinion of Briggs and Morgan, Professional Association, of Saint Paul and Minneapolis, Minnesota, and of customary closing papers, including a no- litigation certificate. On the date of settlement, payment for the Bonds shall be made in federal, or equivalent, funds that shall be received at the offices of the City or its designee not later than 12:00 Noon, Central Time. Unless compliance with the terms of payment for the Bonds has been made impossible by action of the City, or its agents, the purchaser shall be liable to the City for any loss suffered by the City by reason of the purchaser's non-compliance with said terms for payment. CONTINUING DISCLOSURE On the date of actual issuance and delivery of the Bonds, the City will execute and deliver a Continuing Disclosure Undertaking (the "Undertaking") whereunder the City will covenant for the benefit of the owners of the Bonds to provide certain financial and other information about the City and notices of certain occurrences to information repositories as specified in and required by SEC Rule 15c2-12(b)(5). OFFICIAL STATEMENT The City has authorized the preparation of an Official Statement containing pertinent information relative to the Bonds, and said Official Statement will serve as a nearly final Official Statement within the meaning of Rule 15c2-12 of the Securities and Exchange Commission. For copies of the Official Statement or for any additional information prior to sale, any prospective purchaser is referred to the Financial Advisor to the City, Springsted Incorporated, 85 East Seventh Place, Suite 100, Saint Paul, Minnesota 55101, telephone (651) 223-3000. The Official Statement, when further supplemented by an addendum or addenda specifying the maturity dates, principal amounts and interest rates of the Bonds, together with any other information required by law, shall constitute a "Final Official Statement" of the City with respect to the Bands, as that term is defined in Rule 15c2-12. By awarding the Bonds to any underwriter or underwriting syndicate submitting a proposal therefor, the City agrees that, no more than seven business days after the date of such award, it shall provide without cast to the senior managing underwriter of the syndicate to which the Bonds are awarded 250 copies of the Official Statement and the addendum or addenda described above. The City designates the senior managing underwriter of the syndicate to which the Bonds are awarded as its agent for purposes of distributing copies of the Final Official Statement to each Participating Underwriter. Any underwriter delivering a proposal with respect to the Bonds agrees thereby that if its proposal is accepted by the City (i) it shall accept such designation and (ii) it shall Page 25 28 enter into a contractual relationship with all Participating Underwriters of the Bands for purposes of assuring the receipt by each such Participating Underwriter of the Final Official Statement. Dated June 14, 2004 BY ORDER OF THE CITY COUNCIL /s1 Karen Guifoile City Clerk Page 26 29 THE CITY HAS AUTHORIZED SPRINGSTED INCORPORATED TO NEGOTIATE THIS ISSUE ON ITS BEHALF. PROPOSALS WILL BE RECEIVED ON THE FOLLOWING BASIS: TERMS OF PROPOSAL $5,025,000 CITY OF MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA GENERAL OBLIGATION TAX ABATEMENT BONDS, SERIES 2004C (BOOK ENTRY ONLY) Proposals for the Bonds will be received on Thursday, August 5, 2004, until 10:00 A.M., Central Time, at the offices of Springsted Incorporated, 85 East Seventh Place, Suite 100, Saint Paul, Minnesota, after which time they will be opened and tabulated. Consideration for award of the Bonds will be by the City Council at 5:00 P.M., Central Time, of the same day. SUBMISSION OF PROPOSALS Springsted will assume no liability for the inability of the bidder to reach Springsted prior to the time of sale specified above. All bidders are advised that each Proposal shall be deemed to constitute a contract between the bidder and the City to purchase the Bonds regardless of the manner in which the Proposal is submitted. {a) Sealed Biddin_g. Proposals may be submitted in a sealed envelope or by fax (651 } 223-3046 to Springsted. Signed Proposals, without final price or coupons, may be submitted to Springsted prior to the time of sale. The bidder shall be responsible for submitting to Springsted the final Proposal price and coupons, by telephone {651) 223-3000 or fax (651) 223-3046 for inclusion in the submitted Proposal. OR (b) Electronic Bidding Notice is hereby given that electronic proposals will be received via PARITY'-For purposes of the electronic bidding process, the time as maintained by PARITY° shall constitute the official time with respect to all Bids submitted to PARITY. Each bidder shall be solely responsible for making necessary arrangements to access PARITI~`' for purposes of submitting its electronic Bid in a timely manner and in compliance with the requirements of the Terms of Proposal. Neither the City, its agents nor PARITY shall have any duty or obligation to undertake registration to bid for any prospective bidder or to provide or ensure electronic access to any qualified prospective bidder, and neither the City, its agents nor PARITY shall be responsible for a bidder's failure to register to bid ar for any failure in the proper operation of, or have any liability for any delays or interruptions of or any damages caused by the services of PARITY. The City is using the services of PARITY sole) as a communication mechanism to conduct the electronic bidding for the Bonds, and PARITY`~is not an agent of the City. If any provisions of this Terms of Proposal conflict with information provided by PARITY, this Terms of Proposal shall control. Further information about PARITY, including any fee charged, may be obtained from: PARITY, 40 West 23`d Street, 5th Floor, New York City, New York 10010, Customer Support, (212) 404-8102. Page 27 30 DETAILS OF THE BONDS The Bonds will be dated August 1, 2004, as the date of original issue, and will bear interest payable on February 1 and August 1 of each year, commencing August 1, 2005. Interest will be computed on the basis of a 360-day year of twelve 30-day months. The Bonds will mature August 1 in the years and amounts as follows: 2007 $175,000 2011 $385,000 2015 $385,000 2018 $385,000 2008 $285,000 2012 $385,000 2016 $385,000 2019 $385,000 2009 $360,000 2013 $385,000 2017 $385,000 2020 $385,000 2010 $355,000 2014 $385,000 Proposals far the Bonds may contain a maturity schedule providing for a combination of serial bonds and term bands. All term bonds shall be subject to mandatary sinking fund redemption and must conform to the maturity schedule set forth above at a price of par plus accrued interest to the date of redemption. In order to designate term bonds, the proposal must specify "Years of Term Maturities" in the spaces provided on the Proposal Farm. BOOK ENTRY SYSTEM The Bonds will be issued by means of a book entry system with no physical distribution of Bonds made to the public. The Bonds will be issued in fully registered form and one Bond, representing the aggregate principal amount of the Bonds maturing in each year, will be registered in the name of Cede & Co. as nominee of The Depository Trust Company ("DTC"), New York, New York, which will act as securities depository of the Bonds. Individual purchases of the Bonds may be made in the principal amount of $5,000 or any multiple thereof of a single maturity through baok entries made on the books and records of DTC and its participants. Principal and interest are payable by the registrar to DTC or its nominee as registered owner of the Bonds. Transfer of principal and interest payments to participants of DTC will be the responsibility of DTC; transfer of principal and interest payments to beneficial owners by participants will be the responsibility of such participants and other nominees of beneficial owners. The purchaser, as a condition of delivery of the Bonds, will be required to deposit the Bonds with DTC. REGISTRAR The City will name the registrar that shall be subject to applicable SEC regulations. The City will pay for the services of the registrar. OPTIONAL REDEMPTION The City may elect on August 1, 2015, and on any day thereafter, to prepay Bonds due on or after August 1, 2016. Redemption may be in whole or in part and if in part at the option of the City and in such manner as the City shall determine. If less than all Bonds of a maturity are called for redemption, the City will notify DTC of the particular amount of such maturity to be prepaid. DTC will determine by lot the amount of each participant's interest in such maturity to be redeemed and each participant will then select by lot the beneficial ownership interests in such maturity to be redeemed. All prepayments shall be at a price of par plus accrued interest. SECURITY AND PURPOSE The Bonds will be general obligations of the City for which the City will pledge its full faith and credit and power to levy direct general ad valorem taxes. In addition the City will pledge available tax abatement revenue. The proceeds will be used to finance the acquisition of land; right of way; street, utility and drainage improvements; and park improvements within the City. Page 28 31 TYPE OF PROPOSALS Proposals shall be for not less than $4,964,700 and accrued interest on the total principal amount of the Bands. Proposals shall be accompanied by a Good Faith Deposit ("Deposit") in the form of a certified or cashier's check or a Financial Surety Bond in the amount of $50,250, payable to the order of the City. If a check is used, it must accompany the proposal. If a Financial Surety Bond is used, it must be from an insurance company licensed to issue such a bond in the State of Minnesota, and preapproved by the City. Such band must be submitted to Springsted Incorporated prior to the opening of the proposals. The Financial Surety Bond must identify each underwriter whose Deposit is guaranteed by such Financial Surety Bond. If the Bonds are awarded to an underwriter using a Financial Surety Bond, then that purchaser is required to submit its Deposit to Springsted Incorporated in the form of a certified or cashier's check or wire transfer as instructed by Springsted Incorporated not later than 3:30 P.M., Central Time, on the next business day following the award. If such Deposit is not received by that time, the Financial Surety Bond may be drawn by the City to satisfy the Deposit requirement. The Deposit received from the purchaser, the amount of which will be deducted at settlement and no interest will accrue to the purchaser, will be deposited by the City. In the event the purchaser fails to comply with the accepted proposal, said amount will be retained by the City. No proposal can be withdrawn or amended after the time set for receiving proposals unless the meeting of the City scheduled for award of the Bonds is adjourned, recessed, or continued to another date without award of the Bonds having been made. Rates shall be in integral multiples of 51100 or 1/8 of 1%. Rates must be in level or ascending order. Bonds of the same maturity shall bear a single rate from the date of the Bonds to the date of maturity. No conditional proposals will be accepted. AWARD The Bonds will be awarded on the basis of the lowest interest rate to be determined on a true interest cost (TIC) basis. The City's computation of the interest rate of each proposal, in accordance with customary practice, will be controlling. The City will reserve the right ta: (i) waive non-substantive informalities of any proposal or of matters relating to the receipt of proposals and award of the Bonds, (ii) reject all proposals without cause, and (iii) reject any propasal that the City determines to have failed to comply with the terms herein. BOND INSURANCE AT PURCHASER'S OPTION If the Bonds qualify for issuance of any policy of municipal bond insurance or commitment therefor at the option of the underwriter, the purchase of any such insurance policy or the issuance of any such commitment shall be at the sale option and expense of the purchaser of the Bonds. Any increased costs of issuance of the Bonds resulting from such purchase of insurance shall be paid by the purchaser, except that, if the City has requested and received a rating on the Bonds from a rating agency, the City will pay that rating fee. Any other rating agency fees shall be the responsibility of the purchaser. Failure of the municipal bond insurer to issue the policy after Bonds have been awarded to the purchaser shall not constitute cause for failure or refusal by the purchaser to accept delivery on the Bonds. CUSIP NUMBERS If the Bonds qualify for assignment of CUSIP numbers such numbers will be printed on the Bonds, but neither the failure to print such numbers on any Bond nar any error with respect thereto will constitute cause for failure or refusal by the purchaser to accept delivery of the Bonds. The CUSIP Service Bureau charge for the assignment of CUSIP identification numbers shall be paid by the purchaser. Page 29 32 SETTLEMENT Within 40 days following the date of their award, the Bonds will be delivered without cost to the purchaser through DTC in New York, New Yark. Delivery will be subject to receipt by the purchaser of an approving legal opinion of Briggs and Morgan, Professional Association, of Saint Paul and Minneapolis, Minnesota, and of customary closing papers, including a no- litigation certificate. On the date of settlement, payment for the Bonds shall be made in federal, or equivalent, funds that shall be received at the offices of the City or its designee not later than 12:00 Noon, Central Time. Unless compliance with the terms of payment for the Bonds has been made impossible by action of the City, or its agents, the purchaser shall be liable to the City for any loss suffered by the City by reason of the purchaser's non-compliance with said terms for payment. CONTINUING DISCLOSURE On the date of actual issuance and delivery of the Bonds, the City will execute and deliver a Continuing Disclosure Undertaking (the "Undertaking") whereunder the City will covenant for the benefit of the owners of the Bonds to provide certain financial and other information about the City and notices of certain occurrences to information repositories as specified in and required by SEC Rule 15c2-12(b)(5). OFFICIAL STATEMENT The Gity has authorized the preparation of an Official Statement containing pertinent information relative to the Bonds, and said Official Statement will serve as a nearly final Official Statement within the meaning of Rule 15c2-12 of the Securities and Exchange Commission. For copies of the Official Statement or for any additional information prior to sale, any prospective purchaser is referred to the Financial Advisor to the City, Springsted Incorporated, 85 East Seventh Place, Suite 100, Saint Paul, Minnesota 55101, telephone (651) 223-3000. The Official Statement, when further supplemented by an addendum or addenda specifying the maturity dates, principal amounts and interest rates of the Bonds, together with any other information required by law, shall constitute a "Final Official Statement" of the City with respect to the Bonds, as that term is defined in Rule 15c2-12. By awarding the Bonds to any underwriter or underwriting syndicate submitting a proposal therefor, the City agrees that, no more than seven business days after the date of such award, it shall provide without cost to the senior managing underwriter of the syndicate to which the Bonds are awarded 200 copies of the Official Statement and the addendum or addenda described above. The City designates the senior managing underwriter of the syndicate to which the Bonds are awarded as its agent far purposes of distributing copies of the Final Official Statement to each Participating Underwriter. Any underwriter delivering a proposal with respect to the Bonds agrees thereby that if its proposal is accepted by the City (i) it shall accept such designation and (ii} it shall enter into a contractual relationship with all Participating Underwriters of the Bonds for purposes of assuring the receipt by each such Participating Underwriter of the Final Official Statement. Dated June 14, 2004 BY ORDER OF THE CITY COUNCIL Isl Karen Guifoile City Clerk Page 30 33 THE CITY HAS AUTHORIZED SPRINGSTED INCORPORATED TO NEGOTIATE THIS ISSUE ON ITS BEHALF. PROPOSALS WILL BE RECEIVED ON THE FOLLOWING BASIS: TERMS OF PROPOSAL $700,000 CITY OF MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA GENERAL OBLIGATION CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN BONDS, SERIES 2004D (BOOK ENTRY ONLY) Proposals for the Bonds will be received on Thursday, August 5, 2004, until 10:00 A.M., Central Time, at the offices of Springsted Incorporated, 85 East Seventh Place, Suite 100, Saint Paul, Minnesota, after which time they will be opened and tabulated. Consideration for award of the Bonds will be by the City Council at 5:00 P.M., Central Time, of the same day. SUBMISSION OF PROPOSALS Springsted will assume no liability for the inability of the bidder to reach Springsted prior to the time of sale specified above. All bidders are advised that each Proposal shall be deemed to constitute a contract between the bidder and the City to purchase the Bonds regardless of the manner in which the Proposal is submitted. (a} Sealed Siddin_g. Proposals may be submitted in a sealed envelope or by fax (651 } 223-3046 to Springsted. Signed Proposals, without final price or coupons, may be submitted to Springsted prior to the time of sale. The bidder shall be responsible for submitting to Springsted the final Proposal price and coupons, by telephone (651) 223-3000 or fax (651) 223-3046 for inclusion in the submitted Proposal. OR (b) Electronic Biddinp• Notice is hereby given that electronic proposals will be received via PARITY~`~. For purposes of the electronic bidding process, the time as maintained by PARITY° shall constitute the official time with respect to all Bids submitted to PARITY. Each bidder steal! be solely responsible for making necessary arrangements to access PARITI~ for purposes of submitting its electronic Bid in a timely manner and in compliance with the requirements of the Terms of Proposal. Neither the City, its agents nor PARITY shall have any duty or obligation to undertake registration to bid for any prospective bidder or to provide or ensure electronic access to any qualified prospective bidder, and neither the City, its agents nor PARITY shall be responsible for a bidder's failure to register to bid or for any failure in the proper operation of, or have any liability for any delays or interruptions of or any damages caused by the services of PARITY. The City is using the services of PARITY sole) as a communication mechanism to conduct the electronic bidding for the Bonds, and PARITY``~is not an agent of the City. If any provisions of this Terms of Proposal conflict with information provided by PARITY®, this Terms of Proposal shall control. Further information about PARITY, including any fee charged, may be obtained from: PARITY, 40 West 23~d Street, 5t" Floor, New York City, New York 10010, Customer Support, (212) 404-8102. Page 31 34 DETAILS OF THE BONDS The Bonds will be dated August 1, 2004, as the date of original issue, and will bear interest payable on February 1 and August 1 of each year, commencing August 1, 2005. Interest will be computed on the basis of a 360-day year of twelve 30-day months. The Bonds will mature August 1 in the years and amounts as follows: 2005 $25,000 2010 $30,000 2015 $35,000 2020 $45,000 2006 $25,000 2011 $30,000 2016 $35,000 2021 $45,000 2007 $25,000 2012 $30,000 2017 $35,000 2022 $45,000 2008 $25,000 2013 $30,000 2018 $40,000 2023 $50,000 2009 $25,000 2014 $35,000 2019 $40,000 2024 $50,000 Proposals for the Bonds may contain a maturity schedule providing for a combination of serial bonds and term bonds. All term bonds shall be subject to mandatory sinking fund redemption and must conform to the maturity schedule set forth above at a price of par plus accrued interest to the date of redemption. In order to designate term bonds, the proposal must specify "Years of Term Maturities" in the spaces provided on the Proposal Form. BOOK ENTRY SYSTEM The Bonds will be issued by means of a book entry system with no physical distribution of Bonds made to the public. The Bonds will be issued in fully registered form and one Bond, representing the aggregate principal amount of the Bonds maturing in each year, will be registered in the name of Cede & Co. as nominee of The Depository Trust Company ("DTC"), New York, New York, which will act as securities depository of the Bonds. Individual purchases of the Bonds may be made in the principal amount of $5,000 or any multiple thereof of a single maturity through book entries made on the books and records of DTC and its participants. Principal and interest are payable by the registrar to DTC or its nominee as registered owner of the Bonds. Transfer of principal and interest payments to participants of DTC will be the responsibility of DTC; transfer of principal and interest payments to beneficial owners by participants will be the responsibility of such participants and other nominees of beneficial owners. The purchaser, as a condition of delivery of the Bonds, will be required to deposit the Bonds with DTC. REGISTRAR The City will name the registrar that shall be subject to applicable SEC regulations. The City will pay for the services of the registrar. OPTIONAL REDEMPTION The City may elect on August 1, 2015, and on any day thereafter, to prepay Bands due on or after August 1, 2016. Redemption may be in whole or in part and if in part at the option of the City and in such manner as the City shall determine. If less than all Bonds of a maturity are called for redemption, the City will notify DTC of the particular amount of such maturity to be prepaid. DTC will determine by lot the amount of each participant's interest in such maturity to be redeemed and each participant will then select by lot the beneficial ownership interests in such maturity to be redeemed. All prepayments shall be at a price of par plus accrued interest. SECURITY AND PURPOSE The Bonds will be general obligations of the City for which the City will pledge its full faith and credit and power to levy direct general ad valorem taxes. The proceeds will be used to finance an addition to the City's public works building. Page 32 35 TYPE OF PROPOSALS Proposals shall be for not less than $687,400 and accrued interest on the total principal amount of the Bonds. Proposals shall be accompanied by a Good Faith Deposit ("Deposit") in the form of a certified or cashier's check or a Financial Surety Bond in the amount of $7,000, payable to the order of the City. If a check is used, it must accompany the proposal. If a Financial Surety Bond is used, it must be from an insurance company licensed to issue such a bond in the State of Minnesota, and preapproved by the City. Such bond must be submitted to Springsted Incorporated prior to the opening of the proposals. The Financial Surety Bond must identify each underwriter whose Deposit is guaranteed by such Financial Surety Bond. If the Bonds are awarded to an underwriter using a Financial Surety Bond, then that purchaser is required to submit its Deposit to Springsted Incorporated in the form of a certified or cashier's check or wire transfer as instructed by Springsted Incorporated not later than 3:30 P.M., Central Time, on the next business day following the award. If such Deposit is not received by that time, the Financial Surety Bond may be drawn by the City to satisfy the Deposit requirement. The Deposit received from the purchaser, the amount of which will be deducted at settlement and no interest will accrue to the purchaser, will be deposited by the City. In the event the purchaser fails to comply with the accepted proposal, said amount will be retained by the City. No proposal can be withdrawn or amended after the time set for receiving proposals unless the meeting of the City scheduled for award of the Bonds is adjourned, recessed, or continued to another date without award of the Bonds having been made. Rates shall be in integral multiples of 5/100 or 118 of 1 °I°. Rates must be in level or ascending order. Bonds of the same maturity shall bear a single rate from the date of the Bonds to the date of maturity. No conditional proposals will be accepted. AWARD The Bonds will be awarded on the basis of the lowest interest rate to be determined on a true interest cost (TIC) basis. The City's computation of the interest rate of each proposal, in accordance with customary practice, will be controlling. The City will reserve the right to: (i) waive non-substantive informalities of any proposal or of matters relating to the receipt of proposals and award of the Bonds, (ii) reject all proposals without cause, and (iii) reject any proposal that the City determines to have failed to comply with the terms herein. CUSIP NUMBERS If the Bonds qualify for assignment of CUSIP numbers such numbers will be printed on the Bonds, but neither the failure to print such numbers on any Bond nor any error with respect thereto will constitute cause for failure or refusal by the purchaser to accept delivery of the Bonds. The GUSIP Service Bureau charge for the assignment of GUSIP identification numbers shall be paid by the purchaser. SETTLEMENT Within 40 days following the date of their award, the Bonds will be delivered without cost to the purchaser through DTC in New York, New York. Delivery will be subject to receipt by the purchaser of an approving legal opinion of Briggs and Morgan, Professional Association, of Saint Paul and Minneapolis, Minnesota, and of customary closing papers, including a no- litigation certificate. On the date of settlement, payment for the Bands shall be made in federal, or equivalent, funds that shall be received at the offices of the City or its designee not later than 12:00 Noon, Central Time. Unless compliance with the terms of payment for the Bonds has been made impossible by action of the City, or its agents, the purchaser shall be liable to the City for any loss suffered by the City by reason of the purchaser's non-compliance with said terms for payment. Page 33 36 CONTINUING DISCLOSURE On the date of actual issuance and delivery of the Bonds, the City will execute and deliver a Continuing Disclosure Undertaking (the "Undertaking") whereunder the City will covenant for the benefit of the owners of the Bonds to provide certain financial and other information about the City and notices of certain occurrences to information repositories as specified in and required by SEC Rule 15c2-12(b)(5). OFFICIAL STATEMENT The City has authorized the preparation of an Official Statement containing pertinent information relative to the Bonds, and said Official Statement will serve as a nearly final Official Statement within the meaning of Rule 15c2-12 of the Securities and Exchange Commission. For copies of the Official Statement or for any additional information prior to sale, any prospective purchaser is referred to the Financial Advisor to the City, Springsted Incorporated, 85 East Seventh Place, Suite 100, Saint Paul, Minnesota 55101, telephone (651) 223-3000. The Official Statement, when further supplemented by an addendum or addenda specifying the maturity dates, principal amounts and interest rates of the Bands, together with any other information required by law, shall constitute a "Final Official Statement" of the City with respect to the Bonds, as that term is defined in Rule 15c2-12. By awarding the Bonds to any underwriter or underwriting syndicate submitting a proposal therefor, the City agrees that, no more than seven business days after the date of such award, it shall provide without cast to the senior managing underwriter of the syndicate to which the Bonds are awarded 50 copies of the Official Statement and the addendum or addenda described above. The City designates the senior managing underwriter of the syndicate to which the Bonds are awarded as its agent for purposes of distributing copies of the Final Official Statement to each Participating Underwriter. Any underwriter delivering a proposal with respect to the Bands agrees thereby that if its proposal is accepted by the City (i) it shall accept such designation and (ii) it shall enter into a contractual relationship with all Participating Underwriters of the Bonds for purposes of assuring the receipt by each such Participating Underwriter of the Final Official Statement. Dated June 14, 2004 BY ORDER OF THE CITY COUNCIL lsl Karen Guifoile City Clerk Page 34 37 THE CITY HAS AUTHORIZED SPRINGSTED INCORPORATED TO NEGOTIATE THIS ISSUE ON ITS BEHALF. PROPOSALS WILL BE RECEIVED ON THE FOLLOWING BASIS: TERMS OF PROPOSAL $5,355,000 CITY OF MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA GENERAL OBLIGATION STATE-AID STREET BONDS, SERIES 2004E (BOOK ENTRY ONLY) Proposals for the Bands will be received on Thursday, August 5, 2004, until 10:00 A.M., Central Time, at the offices of Springsted Incorporated, 85 East Seventh Place, Suite 100, Saint Paul, Minnesota, after which time they will be opened and tabulated. Consideration for award of the Bonds will be by the City Council at 5:00 P.M., Central Time, of the same day. SUBMISSION OF PROPOSALS Springsted will assume no liability for the inability of the bidder to reach Springsted prior to the time of sale specified above. All bidders are advised that each Proposal shall be deemed to constitute a contract between the bidder and the City to purchase the Bonds regardless of the manner in which the Proposal is submitted. {a) Seated Bidding. Proposals may be submitted in a sealed envelope or by fax (651) 223-3046 to Springsted. Signed Proposals, without final price or coupons, may be submitted to Springsted prior to the time of sale. The bidder shall be responsible for submitting to Springsted the final Proposal price and coupons, by telephone (651) 223-3000 or fax (651) 223-3046 for inclusion in the submitted Proposal. OR (b) Eiecfronic Bidding" Notice is hereby given that electronic proposals will be received via PARITY. For-purposes of the electronic bidding process, the time as maintained by PARITY® shall constitute the official time with respect to all Bids submitted to PARITY. Each bidder shall be solely responsible for making necessary arrangements to access PARITI~' for purposes of submitting its electronic Bid in a timely manner and in compliance with the requirements of the Terms of Proposal. Neither the City, its agents nor PARITY shall have any duty or obligation to undertake registration to bid for any prospective bidder or to provide or ensure electronic access to any qualified prospective bidder, and neither the City, its agents nor PARITY shall be responsible for a bidder's failure to register to bid ar for any failure in the proper operation of, or have any liability for any delays or interruptions of or any damages caused by the services of PARITY. The City is using the services of PARITY solel as a communication mechanism to conduct the electronic bidding for the Bonds, and PARITY~is not an agent of the City. If any provisions of this Terms of Proposal conflict with information provided by PARITY, this Terms of Proposal shall control. Further information about PARITY, including any fee charged, may be obtained from: PARITY°, 40 West 23`d Street, 5th Floor, New York City, New York 10010, Customer Support, (212) 404-8102. Page 35 38 DETAILS OF THE BONDS The Bonds will be dated August 1, 2004, as the date of original issue, and will bear interest payable on April 1 and October 1 of each year, commencing April 1, 2005, Interest will be computed on the basis of a 360-day year of twelve 30-day months. The Bonds will mature April 1 in the years and amounts as follows: 2005 $270,000 2010 $270,000 2015 $270,000 2020 $265,000 2006 $270,000 2011 $270,000 2016 $265,000 2021 $265,000 2007 $270,000 2012 $270,000 2017 $265,000 2022 $265,000 2008 $270,000 2013 $270,000 2018 $265,000 2023 $265,000 2009 $270,000 2014 $270,000 2019 $265,000 2024 $265,000 Proposals for the Bonds may contain a maturity schedule providing for a combination of serial bonds and term bonds. All term bonds shall be subject to mandatory sinking fund redemption and must conform to the maturity schedule set forth above at a price of par plus accrued interest to the date of redemption. In order to designate term bonds, the proposal must specify "Years of Term Maturities" in the spaces provided on the Proposal Form. BOOK ENTRY SYSTEM The Bonds will be issued by means of a book entry system with no physical distribution of Bonds made to the public. The Bonds will be issued in fully registered form and one Bond, representing the aggregate principal amount of the Bonds maturing in each year, will be registered in the name of Cede & Co. as nominee of The Depository Trust Company ("DTC"), New York, New York, which will act as securities depository of the Bonds. Individual purchases of the Bonds may be made in the principal amount of $5,000 or any multiple thereof of a single maturity through book entries made on the books and records of DTC and its participants. Principal and interest are payable by the registrar to DTC or its nominee as registered owner of the Bonds. Transfer of principal and interest payments to participants of DTC will be the responsibility of DTC; transfer of principal and interest payments to beneficial owners by participants will be the responsibility of such participants and other nominees of beneficial owners. The purchaser, as a condition of delivery of the Bonds, will be required to deposit the Bonds with DTC. REGISTRAR The City will name the registrar that shall be subject to applicable SEC regulations. The City will pay for the services of the registrar. OPTIONAL REDEMPTION The City may elect on April 1, 2015, and on any day thereafter, to prepay Bonds due on or after April 1, 2016. Redemption may be in whole or in part and if in part at the option of the City and in such manner as the City shall determine. If less than all Bonds of a maturity are called for redemption, the City will notify DTC of the particular amount of such maturity to be prepaid. DTC will determine by lot the amount of each participant's interest in such maturity to be redeemed and each participant will then select by lot the beneficial ownership interests in such maturity to be redeemed. All prepayments shall be at a price of par plus accrued interest. SECURITY AND PURPOSE The Bonds will be general obligations of the City for which the City will pledge its full faith and credit and power to levy direct general ad valorem taxes. In addition the City will pledge annual State-aid allotments from the Minnesota Department of Transportation. The proceeds will be used to finance the cost of constructing various State-aid street projects within the City. Page 36 39 TYPE OF PROPOSA<_S Proposals shall be for not less than $5,290,740 and accrued interest on the total principal amount of the Bands. Proposals shall be accompanied by a Good Faith Deposit ("Deposit") in the form of a certified or cashier's check or a Financial Surety Bond in the amount of $53,550, payable to the order of the City. If a check is used, it must accompany the proposal. If a Financial Surety Band is used, it must be from an insurance company licensed to issue such a bond in the State of Minnesota, and preapproved by the City. Such bond must be submitted to Springsted Incorporated prior to the opening of the proposals. The Financial Surety Bond must identify each underwriter whose Deposit is guaranteed by such Financial Surety Bond. If the Bonds are awarded to an underwriter using a Financial Surety Bond, then that purchaser is required to submit its Deposit to Springsted Incorporated in the form of a certified or cashier's check or wire transfer as instructed by Springsted Incorporated not later than 3:30 P.M., Central Time, on the next business day following the award. If such Deposit is not received by that time, the Financial Surety Bond may be drawn by the City to satisfy the Deposit requirement. The Deposit received from the purchaser, the amount of which will be deducted at settlement and no interest will accrue to the purchaser, will be deposited by the City. In the event the purchaser fails to comply with the accepted proposal, said amount will be retained by the City. No proposal can be withdrawn or amended after the time set for receiving proposals unless the meeting of the City scheduled for award of the Bonds is adjourned, recessed, or continued to another date without award of the Bands having been made. Rates shall be in integral multiples of 5/100 or 1/8 of 1%. Rates must be in level or ascending order. Bonds of the same maturity shall bear a single rate from the date of the Bonds to the date of maturity. No conditional proposals will be accepted. AWARD The Bonds will be awarded on the basis of the lowest interest rate to be determined on a true interest cost (TIC) basis. The City's computation of the interest rate of each proposal, in accordance with customary practice, will be controlling. The City will reserve the right to: (i) waive non-substantive informalities of any proposal or of matters relating to the receipt of proposals and award of the Bonds, (ii) reject all proposals without cause, and (iii) reject any proposal that the City determines to have failed to comply with the terms herein. BOND INSURANCE AT PURCHASER'S OPTION If the Bonds qualify for issuance of any policy of municipal bond insurance or commitment therefor at the option of the underwriter, the purchase of any such insurance policy or the issuance of any such commitment shall be at the sole option and expense of the purchaser of the Bonds. Any increased costs of issuance of the Bonds resulting from such purchase of insurance shall be paid by the purchaser, except that, if the City has requested and received a rating on the Bonds from a rating agency, the City will pay that rating fee. Any other rating agency fees shall be the responsibility of the purchaser. Failure of the municipal bond insurer to issue the policy after Bands have been awarded to the purchaser shall not constitute cause for failure or refusal by the purchaser to accept delivery on the Bonds. CUSIP NUMBERS If the Bonds qualify for assignment of CUSIP numbers such numbers will be printed on the Bonds, but neither the failure to print such numbers on any Bond nor any error with respect thereto will constitute cause for failure or refusal by the purchaser to accept delivery of the Bonds. The CUSIP Service Bureau charge for the assignment of CUSIP identification numbers shall be paid by the purchaser. Page 37 40 SETTLEMENT Within 40 days following the date of their award, the Bonds will be delivered without cost to the purchaser through DTC in New York, New York. Delivery will be subject to receipt by the purchaser of an approving legal opinion of Briggs and Morgan, Professional Association, of Saint Paul and Minneapolis, Minnesota, and of customary closing papers, including a no- litigation certificate. On the date of settlement, payment for the Bands shall be made in federal, or equivalent, funds that shall be received at the offices of the City or its designee not later than 12:00 Noon, Central Time. Unless compliance with the terms of payment for the Bonds has been made impossible by action of the City, or its agents, the purchaser shall be liable to the City for any loss suffered by the City by reason of the purchaser's non-compliance with said terms for payment. CONTINUING DISCLOSURE On the date of actual issuance and delivery of the Bonds, the City will execute and deliver a Continuing Disclosure Undertaking (the "Undertaking") whereunder the City will covenant for the benefit of the owners of the Bonds to provide certain financial and other information about the City and notices of certain occurrences to information repositories as specified in and required by SEC Rule 15c2-12(b)(5}. OFFICIAL STATEMENT The City has authorized the preparation of an Official Statement containing pertinent information relative to the Bonds, and said Official Statement will serve as a nearly final Official Statement within the meaning of Rule 15c2-12 of the Securities and Exchange Commission. For copies of the Official Statement or for any additional information prior to sale, any prospective purchaser is referred to the Financial Advisor to the City, Springsted Incorporated, 85 East Seventh Place, Suite 100, Saint Paul, Minnesota 55101, telephone (651) 223-3000. The Official Statement, when further supplemented by an addendum or addenda specifying the maturity dates, principal amounts and interest rates of the Bonds, together with any other information required by law, shall constitute a "Final Official Statement" of the City with respect to the Bonds, as that term is defined in Rule 15c2-12. By awarding the Bonds to any underwriter or underwriting syndicate submitting a proposal therefor, the City agrees that, no more than seven business days after the date of such award, it shall provide without cost to the senior managing underwriter of the syndicate to which the Bonds are awarded 215 copies of the Official Statement and the addendum or addenda described above. The City designates the senior managing underwriter of the syndicate to which the Bonds are awarded as its agent for purpases of distributing copies of the Final Official Statement to each Participating Underwriter. Any underwriter delivering a proposal with respect to the Bonds agrees thereby that if its proposal is accepted by the City (i) it shall accept such designation and (ii) it shall enter into a contractual relationship with all Participating Underwriters of the Bonds for purpases of assuring the receipt by each such Participating Underwriter of the Final Official Statement. Dated June 14, 2004 BY ORDER OF THE CITY COUNCIL /s/ Karen Guifoile City Clerk Page 38 41 EXTRACT OF MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA HELD: JUNE 14, 2004 Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, a regular or special meeting of the City Council of the City of Maplewood, Ramsey County, Minnesota, was duly held at the City Hall on June 14, 2004, at o'clock _.M. for the purpose in part of authorizing the competitive negotiated sale of the $13,010,000 General Obligation Improvement Bonds, Series 2004B. The following members were present: and the following were absent: Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION PROVIDING FOR THE COMPETITIVE NEGOTIATED SALE OF $13,010,000 GENERAL OBLIGATION IMPROVEMENT BONDS, SERIES 2004B A. WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Maplewood, Minnesota (the "City"), has heretofore determined that it is necessary and expedient to issue $13,010,000 General Obligation Improvement Bonds, Series 2004B (the "Bonds"), to finance various improvement prof ects within the City; and B. WHEREAS, the City has retained Springsted Incorporated, in Saint Paul, Minnesota ("Springsted"), as its independent financial advisor and is therefore authorized to sell these obligations by a competitive negotiated sale in accordance with Minnesota Statutes, Section 475.60, Subdivision 2(9); and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Maplewood, Minnesota, as follows: 1. Authorization. The City Council hereby authorizes Springsted to solicit proposals for the competitive negotiated sale of the Bonds. 2. Meeting; Proposals. This City Council shall meet at the time and place specified in the Terms of Proposal attached hereto as Exhibit A for the purpose of considering proposals for, and awarding the sale of, the Bonds, which proposals were submitted at the time and place specified in such Terms of Proposal. 3. Terms of Proposal. The terms and conditions of the Bonds and the negotiation thereof are fully set forth in the "Terms of Proposal" attached hereto as Exhibit A and hereby approved and made a part hereof. 1655935x1 42 4. Official Statement. In connection with the sale, the City Clerk, Mayor and other officers or employees of the City are hereby authorized to cooperate with Springsted and participate in the preparation of an official statement for the Bonds, and to execute and deliver it on behalf of the City upon its completion. The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member and, after full discussion thereof and upon a vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: and the following voted against the same: Whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. 1655935x1 2 43 STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF RAMSEY CITY OF MAPLEWOOD I, the undersigned, being the duly qualified and acting City Clerk of the City of Maplewood, Minnesota, DO HEREBY CERTIFY that I have compared the attached and foregoing extract of minutes with the original thereof on file in my office, and that the same is a full, true and complete transcript of the minutes of a meeting of the City Council duly called and held on the date therein indicated, insofar as such minutes relate to the City's $13,010,000 General Obligation Improvement Bonds, Series 2004B. WITNESS my hand on June 14, 2004. City Clerk 1655935x1 44 F.XHTRTT A TERMS OF PROPOSAL $13,010,000 CITY OF MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA GENERAL OBLIGATION IMPROVEMENT BONDS, SERIES 20046 (BOOK ENTRY ONLY) Proposals for the Bonds will be received on Thursday, July 22, 2004. Consideration for award of the Bonds will be by the City Council at 5:00 P.M., Central Time, of the same day. SUBMISSION OF PROPOSALS Electronic proposals only for the Bonds will be received on Grant Street Group's MuniAuction web site located at www.GrantStreet.eom ("MuniAuction") between 9:45 AM and 10:00 AM Central Time, unless extended by the Two-Minute Rule as more fully described in "Extension Of The Auction" herein. The use of Grant Street Group's MuniAuction web site shall be at the risk of the bidder, and neither the City nor Springsted shall have any liability with respect thereto. Springsted will assume no liability for the inability of the bidder to reach Springsted prior to the time of sale specified above. All bidders are adivsed that each electronic proposal shall be deemed to constitute a contract between the bidder and the City for the purchase of the Bonds. Registration and Admission to Proposal: To make a proposal, proposal makers must first visit the MuniAuction website where, if they have never registered with MuniAuction, they can register and then request admission to make a proposal on all of the Bonds. Proposal makers will be notified prior to the scheduled proposal making time of their eligibility to make a proposal. Only NASD registered broker-dealers and dealer banks with DTC clearing arrangements will be eligible to make a proposal. Rules of MuniAuction: The "Rules of MuniAuction" can be viewed on MuniAuction and are incorporated herein by reference. Proposal makers must comply with the Rules of MuniAuction in addition to the requirements of this Terms of Bond Sale. Proposal Details: All proposals must be submitted on the MuniAuction website at "www.MuniAuction.com." No telephone, telefax, telegraph or personal delivery proposals will be accepted. Proposal makers are permitted to submit proposals for the Bonds only in the All-or-None ("AON") auction during the auction. Proposal makers may change and submit proposals as many times as they wish during the auction; provided, however, each and any proposal submitted subsequent to a proposal maker's initial proposal must result in a lower true interest cost ("TIC"). In the event that the revised proposal does not produce a 1655935x1 A-1 45 lower TIC, the initial proposal will remain valid. During the making of a proposal, no proposal maker will see any other proposal maker's proposal, but each proposal maker will see whether their proposal is a leading proposal relative to other proposals. On the auction page, proposal makers will be able to see whether any proposal has been submitted. Extension of the Auction: If any proposal becomes a leading proposal two minutes prior to the scheduled end of the auction, the time period for submission of proposals will be automatically extended by two (2) minutes from the time such new leading proposal was received by MuniAuction (the "Two-Minute Rule"). The Two-Minute Rule will remain in effect as long as proposals received by MuniAuction meet the requirements of the Two- Minute Rule described above. Verification: Proposal makers should verify the accuracy of their final proposals and compare them to the winning proposals reported on the MuniAuction Observation Page immediately after the auction. DETAILS OF THE BONDS The Bonds will be dated August 1, 2004, as the date of original issue, and will bear interest payable on February 1 and August 1 of each year, commencing August 1, 2005. Interest will be computed on the basis of a 360-day year of twelve 30-day months. The Bonds will mature August 1 in the years and amounts as follows: 2005 $1,000,000 2010 $795,000 2016 $785,000 2022 $195,000 2006 $ 835,000 2011 $790,000 2017 $790,000 2023 $205,000 2007 $ 825,000 2012 $785,000 2018 $795,000 2024 $215,000 2008 $ 810,000 2013 $785,000 2019 $665,000 2009 $ 800,000 2014 $785,000 2020 $180,000 2015 $785,000 2021 $185,000 Proposals for the Bonds may contain a maturity schedule providing for a combination of serial bonds and term bonds. All term bonds shall be subject to mandatory sinking fund redemption and must conform to the maturity schedule set forth above at a price of par plus accrued interest to the date of redemption. In order to designate term bonds, the proposal must specify "Years of Term Maturities" in the spaces provided on the Proposal Form. BOOK ENTRY SYSTEM The Bonds will be issued by means of a book entry system with no physical distribution of Bonds made to the public. The Bonds will be issued in fully registered form and one Bond, representing the aggregate principal amount of the Bonds maturing in each year, will be registered in the name of Cede & Co. as nominee of The Depository Trust Company ("DTC"), New York, New York, which will act as securities depository of the Bonds. Individual purchases of the Bonds maybe made in the principal amount of $5,000 or any multiple thereof of a single maturity through book entries made on the books and records of DTC and its participants. Principal and interest are payable by the registrar to DTC or its nominee as 1655935x1 2 46 registered owner of the Bonds. Transfer of principal and interest payments to participants of DTC will be the responsibility of DTC; transfer of principal and interest payments to beneficial owners by participants will be the responsibility of such participants and other nominees of beneficial owners. The purchaser, as a condition of delivery of the Bonds, will be required to deposit the Bonds with DTC. REGISTRAR The City will name the registrar that shall be subject to applicable SEC regulations. The City will pay for the services of the registrar. OPTIONAL REDEMPTION The City may elect on August 1, 2015, and on any day thereafter, to prepay Bonds due on or after August 1, 2016. Redemption maybe in whole or in part and if in part at the option of the City and in such manner as the City shall determine. If less than all Bonds of a maturity are called for redemption, the City will notify DTC of the particular amount of such maturity to be prepaid. DTC will determine by lot the amount of each participant's interest in such maturity to be redeemed and each participant will then select by lot the beneficial ownership interests in such maturity to be redeemed. All prepayments shall be at a price of par plus accrued interest. SECURITY AND PURPOSE The Bonds will be general obligations of the City for which the City will pledge its full faith and credit and power to levy direct general ad valorem taxes. In addition, the City will pledge special assessments against benefited properties. The proceeds will be used to finance various improvement prof ects within the City. TYPE OF PROPOSALS Proposals shall be for not less than $12,879,900 and accrued interest on the total principal amount of the Bonds. Proposals shall be accompanied by a Good Faith Deposit ("Deposit") in the form of a certified or cashier's check or a Financial Surety Bond in the amount of $130,100, payable to the order of the City. If a check is used, it must accompany the proposal. If a Financial Surety Bond is used, it must be from an insurance company licensed to issue such a bond in the State of Minnesota, and preapproved by the City. Such bond must be submitted to Springsted Incorporated prior to the opening of the proposals. The Financial Surety Bond must identify each underwriter whose Deposit is guaranteed by such Financial Surety Bond. If the Bonds are awarded to an underwriter using a Financial Surety Bond, then that purchaser is required to submit its Deposit to Springsted Incorporated in the form of a certified or cashier's check or wire transfer as instructed by Springsted Incorporated not later than 3:30 P.M., Central Time, on the next business day following the award. If such Deposit is not received by that time, the Financial Surety Bond maybe drawn by the City to satisfy the Deposit requirement. The Deposit received from the purchaser, the amount of which will be deducted at settlement and no interest will accrue to the purchaser, will be deposited by the City. In the event the purchaser fails to comply with the accepted proposal, said amount will be retained by the City. No proposal can be withdrawn or amended after the time set for receiving proposals unless the meeting of the City scheduled for award of the Bonds is adjourned, recessed, or continued to 1655935x1 47 another date without award of the Bonds having been made. Rates shall be in integral multiples of 5/100 or 1/8 of 1%. Rates must be in level or ascending order. Bonds of the same maturity shall bear a single rate from the date of the Bonds to the date of maturity. No conditional proposals will be accepted. AWARD The Bonds will be awarded on the basis of the lowest interest rate to be determined on a true interest cost (TIC) basis. The City's computation of the interest rate of each proposal, in accordance with customary practice, will be controlling. The City will reserve the right to: (i) waive non-substantive informalities of any proposal or of matters relating to the receipt of proposals and award of the Bonds, (ii) reject all proposals without cause, and (iii) reject any proposal that the City determines to have failed to comply with the terms herein. BOND INSURANCE AT PURCHASER'S OPTION If the Bonds qualify for issuance of any policy of municipal bond insurance or commitment therefor at the option of the underwriter, the purchase of any such insurance policy or the issuance of any such commitment shall be at the sole option and expense of the purchaser of the Bonds. Any increased costs of issuance of the Bonds resulting from such purchase of insurance shall be paid by the purchaser, except that, if the City has requested and received a rating on the Bonds from a rating agency, the City will pay that rating fee. Any other rating agency fees shall be the responsibility of the purchaser. Failure of the municipal bond insurer to issue the policy after Bonds have been awarded to the purchaser shall not constitute cause for failure or refusal by the purchaser to accept delivery on the Bonds. CUSIP NUMBERS If the Bonds qualify for assignment of CUSIP numbers such numbers will be printed on the Bonds, but neither the failure to print such numbers on any Bond nor any error with respect thereto will constitute cause for failure or refusal by the purchaser to accept delivery of the Bonds. The CUSIP Service Bureau charge for the assignment of CUSIP identification numbers shall be paid by the purchaser. SETTLEMENT Within 40 days following the date of their award, the Bonds will be delivered without cost to the purchaser through DTC in New York, New York. Delivery will be subject to receipt by the purchaser of an approving legal opinion of Briggs and Morgan, Professional Association, of Saint Paul and Minneapolis, Minnesota, and of customary closing papers, including a no- litigation certificate. On the date of settlement, payment for the Bonds shall be made in federal, or equivalent, funds that shall be received at the offices of the City or its designee not later than 12:00 Noon, Central Time. Unless compliance with the terms of payment for the Bonds has idss9ss~1 4 48 been made impossible by action of the City, or its agents, the purchaser shall be liable to the City for any loss suffered by the City by reason of the purchaser's non-compliance with said terms for payment. CONTINUING DISCLOSURE On the date of actual issuance and delivery of the Bonds, the City will execute and deliver a Continuing Disclosure Undertaking (the "Undertaking") whereunder the City will covenant for the benefit of the owners of the Bonds to provide certain financial and other information about the City and notices of certain occurrences to information repositories as specified in and required by SEC Rule 15c2-12(b)(5). OFFICIAL STATEMENT The City has authorized the preparation of an Official Statement containing pertinent information relative to the Bonds, and said Official Statement will serve as a nearly final Official Statement within the meaning of Rule 15c2-12 of the Securities and Exchange Commission. For copies of the Official Statement or for any additional information prior to sale, any prospective purchaser is referred to the Financial Advisor to the City, Springsted Incorporated, 85 East Seventh Place, Suite 100, Saint Paul, Minnesota 55101, telephone (651) 223-3000. The Official Statement, when further supplemented by an addendum or addenda specifying the maturity dates, principal amounts and interest rates of the Bonds, together with any other information required by law, shall constitute a "Final Official Statement" of the City with respect to the Bonds, as that term is defined in Rule 15c2-12. By awarding the Bonds to any underwriter or underwriting syndicate submitting a proposal therefor, the City agrees that, no more than seven business days after the date of such award, it shall provide without cost to the senior managing underwriter of the syndicate to which the Bonds are awarded 250 copies of the Official Statement and the addendum or addenda described above. The City designates the senior managing underwriter of the syndicate to which the Bonds are awarded as its agent for purposes of distributing copies of the Final Official Statement to each Participating Underwriter. Any underwriter delivering a proposal with respect to the Bonds agrees thereby that if its proposal is accepted by the City (i) it shall accept such designation and (ii) it shall enter into a contractual relationship with all Participating Underwriters of the Bonds for purposes of assuring the receipt by each such Participating Underwriter of the Final Official Statement. Dated June 14, 2004 BY ORDER OF THE CITY COUNCIL /s/ Karen Guifoile City Clerk 1655935x1 49 EXTRACT OF MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA HELD: JUNE 14, 2004 Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, a regular or special meeting of the City Council of the City of Maplewood, Ramsey County, Minnesota, was duly held at the City Hall on June 14, 2004, at o'clock _.M. for the purpose in part of authorizing the competitive negotiated sale of the $5,025,000 General Obligation Tax Abatement Bonds, Series 2004C. The following members were present: and the following were absent: Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION PROVIDING FOR THE COMPETITIVE NEGOTIATED SALE OF $5,025,000 GENERAL OBLIGATION TAX ABATEMENT BONDS, SERIES 2004C A. WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Maplewood, Minnesota (the "City"), has heretofore determined that it is necessary and expedient to issue $5,025,000 General Obligation Tax Abatement Bonds, Series 2004C (the "Bonds"), to finance the acquisition of land; right of way; street, utility and drainage improvements; and park improvement projects within the City; and B. WI3EREAS, the City has retained Springsted Incorporated, in Saint Paul, Minnesota ("Springsted"'), as its independent financial advisor and is therefore authorized to sell these obligations by a competitive negotiated sale in accordance with Minnesota Statutes, Section 475.60, Subdivision 2(9); and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Maplewood, Minnesota, as follows: 1. Authorization. The City Council hereby authorizes Springsted to solicit proposals for the competitive negotiated sale of the Bonds. 2. Meeting; Proposal Opening. This City Council shall meet at the time and place specified in the Terms of Proposal attached hereto as Exhibit A for the purpose of considering sealed proposals for, and awarding the sale of, the Bonds. The City Clerk or designee, shall open proposals at the time and place specified in such Terms of Proposal. 3. Terms of Proposal. The terms anal conditions of the Bonds and the negotiation thereof are fully set forth in the '"Terms of Proposal" attached hereto as Exhibit A and hereby approved and made a part hereof. idss99a~1 50 4. Official Statement. In connection with the sale, the City Clerk, Mayor and other officers or employees of the City are hereby authorized to cooperate with Springsted and participate in the preparation of an official statement for the Bonds, and to execute and deliver it on behalf of the City upon its completion. The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member and, after full discussion thereof and upon a v ote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: and the following voted against the same: Whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. idss99a~1 2 51 STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF SEY CITY OF ALEOOD I, the undersigned, being the duly qualified and acting City Clerk of the City of Maplewood, Minnesota, DO HEREBY CERTIFY that I have compared the attached and foregoing extract of minutes with. the original thereof on file in my office, and that the carne is a full, true and complete transcript of the minutes of a meeting of the City Council duly called and held on the date therein indicated, insofar as such minutes relate to the City's $5,025,00(:) General Obligation Tax Abatement Bonds, Series 20040. WETNESS my hand on June 14, 2004. City CEerk idss99a~1 52 EI-i IBIT A ~M, '-. ;~ .® ~ .® Proposals far the onds will be received an Thursday, August 5, 2 04, until 1 :0 A. ., Central T;ri, ++he offices of cnr;nsr~+~,~1 Incorporated, 85 East Seventh Place, Suite 1(:)0, Saint Paul, Mna~ 7ta, after which __nn V .any will be opened and tabulated. ~ansidratia far award of the on ' , will be by the City Council at 5:0 P. ., Central Time, of the same day. SUBMISSIQN C7F P1zC}PC}SAI.S Springsted ..11 a r+e na liability far the inability of the bidder to reach Springs__d prior to the time of„ 1 iii d above. All bidd~~ rs are advised that each Prapasa' iur'11 rr d to c~ ' ~' ;t between the 1 ~ d the City to purchase the ~', s of the ~, ' Prapa~"' is Huh ~~~1. (~~} , ~ , ~ Ls may be s~zl , tted in ~ sealed en~~ 1 ~e nr by fax (651} 223- ~ to ~ l _ _~, ut ~. ~ caupo ., r ~~, a. zitted t ~., prig to ~ `` ;ale. T 7 - „ 1 ~ ~ar subs ', ,;stc ` ~ 1 Prapos~ rice and coupons, by t~ ] °~hone {651} 223-. 300 ar fax {651} 223-. X46 far ' ~ in the submitted Proposal. ~'') _ Gn 0` fw r e- - F_ ® . rTe.,.n„ :,~ +,,,..,,~.., ~..,,~ E~r,~,,,..n.,.n ~,.~ari,.r„ls °- • 1...~ receive°`~ `,.,, ~, ~' ~' 1,' ~ ~ ~~ htr P ~ ~~?~ .~ -~~ ~~ be r ~~ _f I all __, - ~ _ _ _- a C__/ fi ~~- ~ith thF ' ' have r ~ to prov d ? d'"S.1\. 1..1. wands, a.~~ f mhe C~ ®. i ~~.. ~.~ not 1655992x1 A- 1 53 E~TA1 L QF TI i ~ ~' 'I ~ - 11 be dated ' 1, ?004, as tl- ~ of ~ __~ nd will be t '~' on February 1 ~ 1 of each year, comma `._. 1, 2005. 1nt~- ~ ~ ~t will be c puteci on the basis c f ~, ay year of twelVC .~0-day The Bonds will mature august 1 in the years and amounts wv _ _u p. s: 2007 $50,000 2011 $350,000 2015 $410,000 2018 X470,000 2008 $150,000 2012 $365,000 2016 X430,000 2019 $490,000 2009 $285,000 2013 $380,000 2017 X445,000 2020 X515,000 2010 $290,000 2014 $395,000 Proposals 1`or the Bonds may + ~ ~ ~ a turity schedule providing for a coni anon of wrial bonds and ter bonds. AL _~ bo_ _ _re subject to nlaz~d tory sinkil ~ ~ re ~E__ ~ on and must conforr ~ ~ _T sc'~ ~,~ a forth abo~ e ;c c `~ ~, to the date of order to ~ tarn bonds, t1 - a "' . of Ter aturities" in ~ - ,es pro~rided ~ e Proposal For BQOK E1~ITPY SYSTEIi?l Tie gnY ~ ~,,;77 ~e issued by means of a book entry system ~s,;th ~ , ' .al distribution of F r d, »>blic. The Bonds will be issued in fi~l ~ f --rn and one Bond, ,+ ate principal amount of the Bona; ~ • y ar, will e r~ _ ` 7 ` i of C ° c~ Co. as no inee of The L~F _ • ory Tr Company {'°DTC°'}, New York, New ~_ 11 act as securiti~_ _epository of the Bonds. Indi i ual purc'~ ;es of the lc in the pr ~ ~ nount of ~S,C" or any 1 '~ o` 1 maturity pug'- ` _,. entries mad ~ books and ~- - cf ' ,~' party .-.ants. Principal and ` -~•est are payable b~ ~ - ~ egi, r to L~"f C or its non l~,e as registered owner " '' T' ~ ,. ~ransfe ~ "princ~ ~ ' ` Est ; yment~, ' parlicipai ' of DTC~ :_,;>> ~.,, ,~,,.. ~ ~ D-rr+, ,,,. ~fl - .r„~,, .,, ,,,~.,„ to t., c:,,:al o~r~, ~--r ~ u4 L..e rc~r7c ~Ly of a . . p~.t:v:r7~ 4, ° C ~ ,. b___4_ _ __ _. _ _-~m_aser, as a c~r_K_.ion ofd~'ivery oftl_e _ ___, .. i__ be rl _ere~ to depo ~ ~ ~~on.; L3TC. The City will name ___ _ will pay for the; services - " F .~" AR __ ~ ~ ~, _ _e ~ -, _ The City idss99a~1 A- 2 54 SF - ~ ~"~ A1~TD I'L1_ _'C~S~ TYI~F C}F Pl "V ,LS Proposals shall be for not less than $4,964,700 and accrued interest on the total principal amount of the Bonds. Proposals shall be accompanied by a Good Faith Deposit ("Deposit") in the form of a certified or cashier's check or a Financial Surety Bond in the amount of $50,250, payable to the order of the City. If a check is used, it must accompany the proposal. If a Financial Surety Bond is used, it must be from an insurance company licensed to issue such a bond in the State of Minnesota, and preapproved by the City. Such bond must be submitted to Springsted Incorporated prior to the opening of the proposals. The Financial Surety Bond must identify each underwriter whose Deposit is guaranteed by such Financial Surety Bond. If the Bonds are awarded to an underwriter using a Financial Surety Bond, then that purchaser is required to subnut its Deposit to Springsted Incorporated in the form of a certified or cashier's check or wire transfer as instructed by Springsted Incorporated not later than 3:30 P.M., Central Time, on the next business day following the award. If such Deposit is not received by that time, the Financial Surety Bond may be drawn by the City to satisfy the Deposit requirement. The Deposit received from the purchaser, the amount of which will be deducted at settlement and no interest will accrue to the purchaser, will be deposited by the City. In the event the purchaser fails to comply with the accepted proposal, said amount will be retained by the City. No proposal can be withdrawn or amended after the time set for receiving proposals unless the meeting of the City scheduled for award of the Bonds is adjourned, recessed, or continued to another date without award of the Bonds having been made. Rates shall be in integral multiples of 5/100 or lib of 1%. Rates must be in level or ascending order. Bonds of the same maturity shall bear a single rate from the date of the Bonds to the date of maturity. No conditional proposals will be accepted. AWARD The Bonds will be awarded on the basis of the lowest interest rate to be determined on a true interest cost (TIC) basis. The City's computation of the interest rate of each proposal, in accordance with customary practice, will be controlling. idss99a~1 A- 3 55 The City will reserve the right to: (i} waive non-substantive informalities of any proposal or of matters relating to the receipt of proposals and award of the Bonds, (ii) reject all proposals without cause, and (iii) reject any proposal that the City determines to have failed to comply with the terms herein. BOND INSURANCE AT PURCHASER'S OPTION If the Bonds qualify for issuance of any policy of municipal bond insurance or commitment therefor at the option of the underwriter, the purchase of any such insurance policy or the issuance of any such conunitment shall be at the sole option and expense of the purchaser of the Bonds. Any increased costs of issuance of the Bonds resulting from such purchase of insurance shall be paid by the purchaser, except that, if the City has requested and received a rating on the Bonds from a rating agency, the City will pay that rating fee. Any other rating agency fees shall be the responsibility of the purchaser. Failure of the municipal bond insurer to issue the policy after Bonds have been awarded to the purchaser shall not constitute cause for failure or refusal by the purchaser to accept delivery on the Bonds. CUSIP NUMBERS CONTINUING DISCLOSURE On the date of actual issuance and delivery of the Bonds, the City wilt execute and deliver a Continuing Disclosure Undertaking {the "Undertaking"} whereunder the City will covenant for the benefit of the owners of the Bonds to provide certain financial and other information about the City and notices of certain occurrences to information repositories as specified in and required by SEC Rule ISc2-12{b}{5}. idss99a~1 A- 4 56 Dated June 14, 20(:)4 FFICIAL STATE. :ENT Y E F THE CITY C`NCL isl Karen Gic~iie City C~'ier idss99a~1 A- 5 57 EXTRACT OF MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA HELD: JUNE 14, 2004 Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, a regular or special meeting of the City Council of the City of Maplewood, Ramsey County, Minnesota, was duly held at the City Hall on June 14, 2004, at o'clock _.M. for the purpose in part of authorizing the competitive negotiated sale of the $700,000 General Obligation Capital Improvement Plan Bonds, Series 2004D. The following members were present: and the following were absent: Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION PROVIDING FOR THE COMPETITIVE NEGOTIATED SALE OF $700,000 GENERAL OBLIGATION CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN BONDS, SERIES 2004D A. WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Maplewood, Minnesota (the "City"), has heretofore determined that it is necessary and expedient to issue $700,000 General Obligation Capital Improvement Plan Bonds, Series 2004D (the "Bonds"), to finance an addition to the City's public works building; and B. WHEREAS, the City has retained Springsted Incorporated, in Saint Paul, Minnesota ("Springsted"), as its independent financial advisor and is therefore authorized to sell these obligations by a competitive negotiated sale in accordance with Minnesota Statutes, Section 475.60, Subdivision 2(9); and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Maplewood, Minnesota, as follows: 1. Authorization. The City Council hereby authorizes Springsted to solicit proposals for the competitive negotiated sale of the Bonds. 2. Meeting; Proposal Opening. This City Council shall meet at the time and place specified in the Terms of Proposal attached hereto as Exhibit A for the purpose of considering sealed proposals for, and awarding the sale of, the Bonds. The City Clerk or designee, shall open proposals at the time and place specified in such Terms of Proposal. 3. Terms of Proposal. The terms and conditions of the Bonds and the negotiation thereof are fully set forth in the "Terms of Proposal" attached hereto as Exhibit A and hereby approved and made a part hereof. 1656009v1 58 4. Official Statement. In connection with the sale, the City Clerk, Mayor and other officers or employees of the City are hereby authorized to cooperate with Springsted and participate in the preparation of an official statement for the Bonds, and to execute and deliver it on behalf of the City upon its completion. The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member and, after full discussion thereof and upon a vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: and the following voted against the same: Whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. 1656009v1 2 59 STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF RAMSEY CITY OF MAPLEWOOD I, the undersigned, being the duly qualified and acting City Clerk of the City of Maplewood, Minnesota, DO HEREBY CERTIFY that I have compared the attached and foregoing extract of minutes with the original thereof on file in my office, and that the same is a full, true and complete transcript of the minutes of a meeting of the City Council duly called and held on the date therein indicated, insofar as such minutes relate to the City's $700,000 General Obligation Capital Improvement Plan Bonds, Series 2004D. WITNESS my hand on June 14, 2004. City Clerk 1656009v1 60 EXHIBIT A TERMS OF PROPOSAL $700, 000 CITY OF MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA GENERAL OBLIGATION CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN BONDS, SERIES 2004D (BOOK ENTRY ONLY) Proposals for the Bonds will be received on Thursday, August 5, 2004, until 10:00 A.M., Central Time, at the offices of Springsted Incorporated, 85 East Seventh Place, Suite 100, Saint Paul, Minnesota, after which time they will be opened and tabulated. Consideration for award of the Bonds will be by the City Council at 5:00 P.M., Central Time, of the same day. SUBMISSION OF PROPOSALS Springsted will assume no liability for the inability of the bidder to reach Springsted prior to the time of sale specified above. All bidders are advised that each Proposal shall be deemed to constitute a contract between the bidder and the City to purchase the Bonds regardless of the manner in which the Proposal is submitted. (a) Sealed Bidding Proposals maybe submitted in a sealed envelope or by fax (651) 223-3046 to Springsted. Signed Proposals, without final price or coupons, maybe submitted to Springsted prior to the time of sale. The bidder shall be responsible for submitting to Springsted the final Proposal price and coupons, by telephone (651) 223-3000 or fax (651) 223-3046 for inclusion in the submitted Proposal. OR (b) Electronic Bidding Notice is hereby given that electronic proposals will be received via PARITY°. For purposes of the electronic bidding process, the time as maintained by PARITY° shall constitute the official time with respect to all Bids submitted to PARITY°. Each bidder shall be solely responsible for making necessary arrangements to access PARITY° for purposes of submitting its electronic Bid in a timely manner and in compliance with the requirements of the Terms of Proposal. Neither the City, its agents nor PARITY° shall have any duty or obligation to undertake registration to bid for any prospective bidder or to provide or ensure electronic access to any qualified prospective bidder, and neither the City, its agents nor PARITY° shall be responsible for a bidder's failure to register to bid or for any failure in the proper operation of, or have any liability for any delays or interruptions of or any damages caused by the services of PARITY°. The City is using the services of PARITY° solely as a communication mechanism to conduct the electronic bidding for the Bonds, and PARITY° is not an agent of the City. idsdoo9~1 A- 1 61 If any provisions of this Terms of Proposal conflict with information provided by PARITY°, this Terms of Proposal shall control. Further information about PARITY°, including any fee charged, maybe obtained from: PARITY°, 40 West 23rd Street, 5~ Floor, New York City, New York 10010, Customer Support, (212) 404-8102. DETAILS OF THE BONDS The Bonds will be dated August 1, 2004, as the date of original issue, and will bear interest payable on February 1 and August 1 of each year, commencing August 1, 2005. Interest will be computed on the basis of a 360-day year of twelve 30-day months. The Bonds will mature August 1 in the years and amounts as follows: 2005 $25,000 2010 $30,000 2015 $35,000 2020 $45,000 2006 $25,000 2011 $30,000 2016 $35,000 2021 $45,000 2007 $25,000 2012 $30,000 2017 $35,000 2022 $45,000 2008 $25,000 2013 $30,000 2018 $40,000 2023 $50,000 2009 $25,000 2014 $35,000 2019 $40,000 2024 $50,000 Proposals for the Bonds may contain a maturity schedule providing for a combination of serial bonds and term bonds. All term bonds shall be subject to mandatory sinking fund redemption and must conform to the maturity schedule set forth above at a price of par plus accrued interest to the date of redemption. In order to designate term bonds, the proposal must specify "Years of Term Maturities" in the spaces provided on the Proposal Form. BOOK ENTRY SYSTEM The Bonds will be issued by means of a book entry system with no physical distribution of Bonds made to the public. The Bonds will be issued in fully registered form and one Bond, representing the aggregate principal amount of the Bonds maturing in each year, will be registered in the name of Cede & Co. as nominee of The Depository Trust Company ("DTC"), New York, New York, which will act as securities depository of the Bonds. Individual purchases of the Bonds maybe made in the principal amount of $5,000 or any multiple thereof of a single maturity through book entries made on the books and records of DTC and its participants. Principal and interest are payable by the registrar to DTC or its nominee as registered owner of the Bonds. Transfer of principal and interest payments to participants of DTC will be the responsibility of DTC; transfer of principal and interest payments to beneficial owners by participants will be the responsibility of such participants and other nominees of beneficial owners. The purchaser, as a condition of delivery of the Bonds, will be required to deposit the Bonds with DTC. REGISTRAR The City will name the registrar that shall be subject to applicable SEC regulations. The City will pay for the services of the registrar. idsdoo9~1 A- 2 62 OPTIONAL REDEMPTION The City may elect on August 1, 2015, and on any day thereafter, to prepay Bonds due on or after August 1, 2016. Redemption maybe in whole or in part and if in part at the option of the City and in such manner as the City shall determine. If less than all Bonds of a maturity are called for redemption, the City will notify DTC of the particular amount of such maturity to be prepaid. DTC will determine by lot the amount of each participant's interest in such maturity to be redeemed and each participant will then select by lot the beneficial ownership interests in such maturity to be redeemed. All prepayments shall be at a price of par plus accrued interest. SECURITY AND PURPOSE The Bonds will be general obligations of the City for which the City will pledge its full faith and credit and power to levy direct general ad valorem taxes. The proceeds will be used to finance an addition to the City's public works building. TYPE OF PROPOSALS Proposals shall be for not less than $687,400 and accrued interest on the total principal amount of the Bonds. Proposals shall be accompanied by a Good Faith Deposit ("Deposit") in the form of a certified or cashier's check or a Financial Surety Bond in the amount of $7,000, payable to the order of the City. If a check is used, it must accompany the proposal. If a Financial Surety Bond is used, it must be from an insurance company licensed to issue such a bond in the State of Minnesota, and preapproved by the City. Such bond must be submitted to Springsted Incorporated prior to the opening of the proposals. The Financial Surety Bond must identify each underwriter whose Deposit is guaranteed by such Financial Surety Bond. If the Bonds are awarded to an underwriter using a Financial Surety Bond, then that purchaser is required to submit its Deposit to Springsted Incorporated in the form of a certified or cashier's check or wire transfer as instructed by Springsted Incorporated not later than 3:30 P.M., Central Time, on the next business day following the award. If such Deposit is not received by that time, the Financial Surety Bond maybe drawn by the City to satisfy the Deposit requirement. The Deposit received from the purchaser, the amount of which will be deducted at settlement and no interest will accrue to the purchaser, will be deposited by the City. In the event the purchaser fails to comply with the accepted proposal, said amount will be retained by the City. No proposal can be withdrawn or amended after the time set for receiving proposals unless the meeting of the City scheduled for award of the Bonds is adjourned, recessed, or continued to another date without award of the Bonds having been made. Rates shall be in integral multiples of 5/100 or 1/8 of 1%. Rates must be in level or ascending order. Bonds of the same maturity shall bear a single rate from the date of the Bonds to the date of maturity. No conditional proposals will be accepted. AWARD The Bonds will be awarded on the basis of the lowest interest rate to be determined on a true interest cost (TIC) basis. The City's computation of the interest rate of each proposal, in accordance with customary practice, will be controlling. 16s6oo9~1 A- 3 63 The City will reserve the right to: (i) waive non-substantive informalities of any proposal or of matters relating to the receipt of proposals and award of the Bonds, (ii) reject all proposals without cause, and (iii) reject any proposal that the City determines to have failed to comply with the terms herein. CUSIP NUMBERS If the Bonds qualify for assignment of CUSIP numbers such numbers will be printed on the Bonds, but neither the failure to print such numbers on any Bond nor any error with respect thereto will constitute cause for failure or refusal by the purchaser to accept delivery of the Bonds. The CUSIP Service Bureau charge for the assignment of CUSIP identification numbers shall be paid by the purchaser. SETTLEMENT Within 40 days following the date of their award, the Bonds will be delivered without cost to the purchaser through DTC in New York, New York. Delivery will be subject to receipt by the purchaser of an approving legal opinion of Briggs and Morgan, Professional Association, of Saint Paul and Minneapolis, Minnesota, and of customary closing papers, including a no- litigation certificate. On the date of settlement, payment for the Bonds shall be made in federal, or equivalent, funds that shall be received at the offices of the City or its designee not later than 12:00 Noon, Central Time. Unless compliance with the terms of payment for the Bonds has been made impossible by action of the City, or its agents, the purchaser shall be liable to the City for any loss suffered by the City by reason of the purchaser's non-compliance with said terms for payment. CONTINUING DISCLOSURE On the date of actual issuance and delivery of the Bonds, the City will execute and deliver a Continuing Disclosure Undertaking (the "Undertaking") whereunder the City will covenant for the benefit of the owners of the Bonds to provide certain financial and other information about the City and notices of certain occurrences to information repositories as specified in and required by SEC Rule 15c2-12(b)(5). OFFICIAL STATEMENT The City has authorized the preparation of an Official Statement containing pertinent information relative to the Bonds, and said Official Statement will serve as a nearly final Official Statement within the meaning of Rule 15c2-12 of the Securities and Exchange Commission. For copies of the Official Statement or for any additional information prior to sale, any prospective purchaser is referred to the Financial Advisor to the City, Springsted Incorporated, 85 East Seventh Place, Suite 100, Saint Paul, Minnesota 55101, telephone (651) 223-3000. The Official Statement, when further supplemented by an addendum or addenda specifying the maturity dates, principal amounts and interest rates of the Bonds, together with any other information required by law, shall constitute a "Final Official Statement" of the City with respect to the Bonds, as that term is defined in Rule 15c2-12. By awarding the Bonds to any underwriter or underwriting syndicate submitting a proposal therefor, the City agrees that, no more than seven business days after the date of such award, it shall provide without cost to the senior managing underwriter of the syndicate to which the Bonds are awarded 50 copies of the Official 1656009v1 A- 4 64 Statement and the addendum or addenda described above. The City designates the senior managing underwriter of the syndicate to which the Bonds are awarded as its agent for purposes of distributing copies of the Final Official Statement to each Participating Underwriter. Any underwriter delivering a proposal with respect to the Bonds agrees thereby that if its proposal is accepted by the City (i) it shall accept such designation and (ii) it shall enter into a contractual relationship with all Participating Underwriters of the Bonds for purposes of assuring the receipt by each such Participating Underwriter of the Final Official Statement. Dated June 14, 2004 BY ORDER OF THE CITY COUNCIL /s/ Karen Guifoile City Clerk 16s6oo9~1 A- 5 65 EXTRACT OF MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA HELD: JUNE 14, 2004 Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, a regular or special meeting of the City Council of the City of Maplewood, Ramsey County, Minnesota, was duly held at the City Hall on June 14, 2004, at o'clock _.M. for the purpose in part of authorizing the competitive negotiated sale of the $5,355,000 General Obligation State-Aid Street Bonds, Series 2004E. The following members were present: and the following were absent: Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION PROVIDING FOR THE COMPETITIVE NEGOTIATED SALE OF $5,355,000 GENERAL OBLIGATION STATE-AID STREET BONDS, SERIES 2004E A. WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Maplewood, Minnesota (the "City"), has heretofore determined that it is necessary and expedient to issue $5,355,000 General Obligation State-Aid Street Bonds, Series 2004E (the "Bonds"), to finance the construction of various state-aid street projects within the City; and B. WHEREAS, the City has retained Springsted Incorporated, in Saint Paul, Minnesota ("Springsted"), as its independent financial advisor and is therefore authorized to sell these obligations by a competitive negotiated sale in accordance with Minnesota Statutes, Section 475.60, Subdivision 2(9); and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Maplewood, Minnesota, as follows: 1. Authorization. The City Council hereby authorizes Springsted to solicit proposals for the competitive negotiated sale of the Bonds. 2. Meeting; Proposal Opening. This City Council shall meet at the time and place specified in the Terms of Proposal attached hereto as Exhibit A for the purpose of considering sealed proposals for, and awarding the sale of, the Bonds. The City Clerk or designee, shall open proposals at the time and place specified in such Terms of Proposal. 3. Terms of Proposal. The terms and conditions of the Bonds and the negotiation thereof are fully set forth in the "Terms of Proposal" attached hereto as Exhibit A and hereby approved and made a part hereof. 1656018v1 66 4. Official Statement. In connection with the sale, the City Clerk, Mayor and other officers or employees of the City are hereby authorized to cooperate with Springsted and participate in the preparation of an official statement for the Bonds, and to execute and deliver it on behalf of the City upon its completion. The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member and, after full discussion thereof and upon a vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: and the following voted against the same: Whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. 1656018v1 2 67 STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF RAMSEY CITY OF MAPLEWOOD I, the undersigned, being the duly qualified and acting City Clerk of the City of Maplewood, Minnesota, DO HEREBY CERTIFY that I have compared the attached and foregoing extract of minutes with the original thereof on file in my office, and that the same is a full, true and complete transcript of the minutes of a meeting of the City Council duly called and held on the date therein indicated, insofar as such minutes relate to the City's $5,355,000 General Obligation State-Aid Street Bonds, Series 2004E. WITNESS my hand on June 14, 2004. City Clerk 1656018v1 68 EXHIBIT A TERMS OF PROPOSAL $5, 355, 000 CITY OF MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA GENERAL OBLIGATION STATE-AID STREET BONDS, SERIES 2004E (BOOK ENTRY ONLY) Proposals for the Bonds will be received on Thursday, August 5, 2004, until 10:00 A.M., Central Time, at the offices of Springsted Incorporated, 85 East Seventh Place, Suite 100, Saint Paul, Minnesota, after which time they will be opened and tabulated. Consideration for award of the Bonds will be by the City Council at 5:00 P.M., Central Time, of the same day. SUBMISSION OF PROPOSALS Springsted will assume no liability for the inability of the bidder to reach Springsted prior to the time of sale specified above. All bidders are advised that each Proposal shall be deemed to constitute a contract between the bidder and the City to purchase the Bonds regardless of the manner in which the Proposal is submitted. (a) Sealed Bidding Proposals maybe submitted in a sealed envelope or by fax (651) 223-3046 to Springsted. Signed Proposals, without final price or coupons, maybe submitted to Springsted prior to the time of sale. The bidder shall be responsible for submitting to Springsted the final Proposal price and coupons, by telephone (651) 223-3000 or fax (651) 223-3046 for inclusion in the submitted Proposal. OR (b) Electronic Bidding Notice is hereby given that electronic proposals will be received via PARITY°. For purposes of the electronic bidding process, the time as maintained by PARITY° shall constitute the official time with respect to all Bids submitted to PARITY°. Each bidder shall be solely responsible for making necessary arrangements to access PARITY° for purposes of submitting its electronic Bid in a timely manner and in compliance with the requirements of the Terms of Proposal. Neither the City, its agents nor PARITY° shall have any duty or obligation to undertake registration to bid for any prospective bidder or to provide or ensure electronic access to any qualified prospective bidder, and neither the City, its agents nor PARITY° shall be responsible for a bidder's failure to register to bid or for any failure in the proper operation of, or have any liability for any delays or interruptions of or any damages caused by the services of PARITY°. The City is using the services of PARITY° solely as a communication mechanism to conduct the electronic bidding for the Bonds, and PARITY° is not an agent of the City. idsdola~i A- 1 69 If any provisions of this Terms of Proposal conflict with information provided by PARITY°, this Terms of Proposal shall control. Further information about PARITY°, including any fee charged, maybe obtained from: PARITY°, 40 West 23rd Street, 5~ Floor, New York City, New York 10010, Customer Support, (212) 404-8102. DETAILS OF THE BONDS The Bonds will be dated August 1, 2004, as the date of original issue, and will bear interest payable on April 1 and October 1 of each year, commencing April 1, 2005. Interest will be computed on the basis of a 360-day year of twelve 30-day months. The Bonds will mature April 1 in the years and amounts as follows: 2005 $270,000 2010 $270,000 2015 $270,000 2020 $265,000 2006 $270,000 2011 $270,000 2016 $265,000 2021 $265,000 2007 $270,000 2012 $270,000 2017 $265,000 2022 $265,000 2008 $270,000 2013 $270,000 2018 $265,000 2023 $265,000 2009 $270,000 2014 $270,000 2019 $265,000 2024 $265,000 Proposals for the Bonds may contain a maturity schedule providing for a combination of serial bonds and term bonds. All term bonds shall be subject to mandatory sinking fund redemption and must conform to the maturity schedule set forth above at a price of par plus accrued interest to the date of redemption. In order to designate term bonds, the proposal must specify "Years of Term Maturities" in the spaces provided on the Proposal Form. BOOK ENTRY SYSTEM The Bonds will be issued by means of a book entry system with no physical distribution of Bonds made to the public. The Bonds will be issued in fully registered form and one Bond, representing the aggregate principal amount of the Bonds maturing in each year, will be registered in the name of Cede & Co. as nominee of The Depository Trust Company ("DTC"), New York, New York, which will act as securities depository of the Bonds. Individual purchases of the Bonds maybe made in the principal amount of $5,000 or any multiple thereof of a single maturity through book entries made on the books and records of DTC and its participants. Principal and interest are payable by the registrar to DTC or its nominee as registered owner of the Bonds. Transfer of principal and interest payments to participants of DTC will be the responsibility of DTC; transfer of principal and interest payments to beneficial owners by participants will be the responsibility of such participants and other nominees of beneficial owners. The purchaser, as a condition of delivery of the Bonds, will be required to deposit the Bonds with DTC. REGISTRAR The City will name the registrar that shall be subject to applicable SEC regulations. The City will pay for the services of the registrar. idsdola~i A- 2 70 OPTIONAL REDEMPTION The City may elect on April 1, 2015, and on any day thereafter, to prepay Bonds due on or after April 1, 2016. Redemption maybe in whole or in part and if in part at the option of the City and in such manner as the City shall determine. If less than all Bonds of a maturity are called for redemption, the City will notify DTC of the particular amount of such maturity to be prepaid. DTC will determine by lot the amount of each participant's interest in such maturity to be redeemed and each participant will then select by lot the beneficial ownership interests in such maturity to be redeemed. All prepayments shall be at a price of par plus accrued interest. SECURITY AND PURPOSE The Bonds will be general obligations of the City for which the City will pledge its full faith and credit and power to levy direct general ad valorem taxes. In addition the City will pledge annual State-aid allotments from the Minnesota Department of Transportation. The proceeds will be used to finance the cost of constructing various State-aid street projects within the City. TYPE OF PROPOSALS Proposals shall be for not less than $5,290,740 and accrued interest on the total principal amount of the Bonds. Proposals shall be accompanied by a Good Faith Deposit ("Deposit") in the form of a certified or cashier's check or a Financial Surety Bond in the amount of $53,550, payable to the order of the City. If a check is used, it must accompany the proposal. If a Financial Surety Bond is used, it must be from an insurance company licensed to issue such a bond in the State of Minnesota, and preapproved by the City. Such bond must be submitted to Springsted Incorporated prior to the opening of the proposals. The Financial Surety Bond must identify each underwriter whose Deposit is guaranteed by such Financial Surety Bond. If the Bonds are awarded to an underwriter using a Financial Surety Bond, then that purchaser is required to submit its Deposit to Springsted Incorporated in the form of a certified or cashier's check or wire transfer as instructed by Springsted Incorporated not later than 3:30 P.M., Central Time, on the next business day following the award. If such Deposit is not received by that time, the Financial Surety Bond maybe drawn by the City to satisfy the Deposit requirement. The Deposit received from the purchaser, the amount of which will be deducted at settlement and no interest will accrue to the purchaser, will be deposited by the City. In the event the purchaser fails to comply with the accepted proposal, said amount will be retained by the City. No proposal can be withdrawn or amended after the time set for receiving proposals unless the meeting of the City scheduled for award of the Bonds is adjourned, recessed, or continued to another date without award of the Bonds having been made. Rates shall be in integral multiples of 5/100 or 1/8 of 1%. Rates must be in level or ascending order. Bonds of the same maturity shall bear a single rate from the date of the Bonds to the date of maturity. No conditional proposals will be accepted. AWARD The Bonds will be awarded on the basis of the lowest interest rate to be determined on a true interest cost (TIC) basis. The City's computation of the interest rate of each proposal, in accordance with customary practice, will be controlling. A- 3 - 71 The City will reserve the right to: (i) waive non-substantive informalities of any proposal or of matters relating to the receipt of proposals and award of the Bonds, (ii) reject all proposals without cause, and (iii) reject any proposal that the City determines to have failed to comply with the terms herein. BOND INSURANCE AT PURCHASER'S OPTION If the Bonds qualify for issuance of any policy of municipal bond insurance or commitment therefor at the option of the underwriter, the purchase of any such insurance policy or the issuance of any such commitment shall be at the sole option and expense of the purchaser of the Bonds. Any increased costs of issuance of the Bonds resulting from such purchase of insurance shall be paid by the purchaser, except that, if the City has requested and received a rating on the Bonds from a rating agency, the City will pay that rating fee. Any other rating agency fees shall be the responsibility of the purchaser. Failure of the municipal bond insurer to issue the policy after Bonds have been awarded to the purchaser shall not constitute cause for failure or refusal by the purchaser to accept delivery on the Bonds. CUSIP NUMBERS If the Bonds qualify for assignment of CUSIP numbers such numbers will be printed on the Bonds, but neither the failure to print such numbers on any Bond nor any error with respect thereto will constitute cause for failure or refusal by the purchaser to accept delivery of the Bonds. The CUSIP Service Bureau charge for the assignment of CUSIP identification numbers shall be paid by the purchaser. SETTLEMENT Within 40 days following the date of their award, the Bonds will be delivered without cost to the purchaser through DTC in New York, New York. Delivery will be subject to receipt by the purchaser of an approving legal opinion of Briggs and Morgan, Professional Association, of Saint Paul and Minneapolis, Minnesota, and of customary closing papers, including a no- litigation certificate. On the date of settlement, payment for the Bonds shall be made in federal, or equivalent, funds that shall be received at the offices of the City or its designee not later than 12:00 Noon, Central Time. Unless compliance with the terms of payment for the Bonds has been made impossible by action of the City, or its agents, the purchaser shall be liable to the City for any loss suffered by the City by reason of the purchaser's non-compliance with said terms for payment. CONTINUING DISCLOSURE On the date of actual issuance and delivery of the Bonds, the City will execute and deliver a Continuing Disclosure Undertaking (the "Undertaking") whereunder the City will covenant for the benefit of the owners of the Bonds to provide certain financial and other information about the City and notices of certain occurrences to information repositories as specified in and required by SEC Rule 15c2-12(b)(5). A-4- 72 OFFICIAL STATEMENT The City has authorized the preparation of an Official Statement containing pertinent information relative to the Bonds, and said Official Statement will serve as a nearly final Official Statement within the meaning of Rule 15c2-12 of the Securities and Exchange Commission. For copies of the Official Statement or for any additional information prior to sale, any prospective purchaser is referred to the Financial Advisor to the City, Springsted Incorporated, 85 East Seventh Place, Suite 100, Saint Paul, Minnesota 55101, telephone (651) 223-3000. The Official Statement, when further supplemented by an addendum or addenda specifying the maturity dates, principal amounts and interest rates of the Bonds, together with any other information required by law, shall constitute a "Final Official Statement" of the City with respect to the Bonds, as that term is defined in Rule 15c2-12. By awarding the Bonds to any underwriter or underwriting syndicate submitting a proposal therefor, the City agrees that, no more than seven business days after the date of such award, it shall provide without cost to the senior managing underwriter of the syndicate to which the Bonds are awarded 215 copies of the Official Statement and the addendum or addenda described above. The City designates the senior managing underwriter of the syndicate to which the Bonds are awarded as its agent for purposes of distributing copies of the Final Official Statement to each Participating Underwriter. Any underwriter delivering a proposal with respect to the Bonds agrees thereby that if its proposal is accepted by the City (i) it shall accept such designation and (ii) it shall enter into a contractual relationship with all Participating Underwriters of the Bonds for purposes of assuring the receipt by each such Participating Underwriter of the Final Official Statement. Dated June 14, 2004 BY ORDER OF THE CITY COUNCIL /s/ Karen Guifoile City Clerk A- 5 - 73 AGENDA NO. K-2 AGENDA REPORT TO: City Manager FROM: Finance Director RE: Franchise Fee DATE: June 8, 2004 Two projects in the 2005-2009 Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) are proposed to be partially financed by revenues from an electric franchise fee. The projects are the Gladstone Area Streetscape and the Hillcrest Area Streetscape which include burying overhead power lines. The Gladstone project will cost $2,515,000 and electric franchise fee revenues proposed for the project are $725,000. The Hillcrest project will cost $2,150,000 and electric franchise fee revenues proposed for the project are $1,290,000. Attached are excerpts from the CIP which provide additional information on these projects. A franchise fee is a charge that the City can impose on the gross revenues of Excel Energy and these charges would be passed on to its customers. Preliminary information from Excel Energy indicate that an electric franchise fee of approximately 1 % would produce annual revenues of approximately $322,000 and amount to an additional $1.00 per month for residential customers. The maximum franchise fee allowed in the franchise agreement with Excel Energy is 4%. If franchise fee financing is approved for these projects, the size of the fee would depend on when it is started, how soon the money would be needed and whether or not revenue bonds would be issued. Implementation of an electric franchise fee would probably be controversial. However, it appears to be the only way to finance the costs associated with burying overhead power lines. It is requested that the City Council determine if they want to bury the overhead power lines for these projects and if they want to finance the costs with a franchise fee. AGENDA ITEM K-3 AGENDA REPORT TO: Richard Fursman, City Manager FROM: Charles Ahl, Public Works Director/City Engineer SUBJECT: Existing County Road D Improvements, Walter Street to T.H. 61, City Project 04-06: Resolution Accepting Report and Calling for Public Hearing DATE: June 7, 2004 Introduction The realignment of County Road D, west of TH 61, requires improvements to the existing sections of the County Road D pavement between Walter Street and TH 61 as a joint project with Vadnais Heights and Ramsey County. A preliminary report has been prepared identifying the necessary improvements and a financing plan for the project. Approval from the City Council to proceed with this project to a public hearing is requested. Background The realignment of County Road D on the west side of TH 61, south from existing County Road D at Highridge Court, has necessitated the improvement of the existing roadway. The road is currently a County State Aid Highway (CSAH) that is jointly within the cities of Vadnais Heights and Maplewood. It is also a utility corridor for each city water utilities. The new alignment has created a segment of roadway, east of the new road, that will no longer meet the criteria of a CSAH roadway and will become a joint city street. Additionally, the intersection of Highridge Court and County Road D was identified as needing improvements for site distance as part of the public hearing process for the realignment. All these improvements are identified in the attached preliminary report prepared by the City consultant engineers, SEH, Inc. The improvements have been divided into two segments: one west of the location where the roadway will be realigned to the south, which will remain on the CSAH system and under Ramsey County jurisdiction; and a second, east of the new alignment, that will be turned back to Vadnais Heights and Maplewood once a cul de sac is constructed as needed for the TH 61 improvements funded by MnDOT. Additionally, water main extensions are required by Vadnais Heights to serve their residents and by Maplewood, jointly through the St. Paul Regional Water Services (SPRWS). Following are the estimated costs of each segment: Western Portion (New Cty Rd D to Walter St.) Roadway Improvements: (Highridge Ct. to Walter St.) _ Vadnais Heights Water Main = Total Segment 1 Eastern Portion (TH 61 to new Cty Rd D) Roadway Improvements = Maplewood Water Improvements = Vadnais Heights Water Improvements = Total Segment 2 $ 80,160.17 $ 83,873.50 $164,033.67 $217,608.44 $ 47,416.27 $ 62,042.63 $327,067.34 Total Estimated Project Cost = $491,101.01 City Council Agenda Background Existing County Road D Improvements June 14, 2004 Page Two Project Financing Funding for this project will be from a number of joint sources: Ramsey County CSAH Funds Ramsey County Turnback Funds MnDOT Cooperative Agreement Funds City of Vadnais Heights (through Joint Powers Agreement) Maplewood Property Assessments Maplewood General Levy Debt Service Funds Total Project Financing Recommendation $150,000.00 $ 64,099.62 $ 25,000.00 $145,916.13 $ 73,324.76 $ 32,760.50 $491,101.01 It is recommended that the city council approve the attached resolutions for the Existing County Road D Improvements, Walter Street to T.H. 61, City Project 04-06: Accepting Preliminary Report and Calling a Public Hearing for June 28, 2004 at 7:00 pm. CMC Attachments 1. Resolution Accepting Report and Calling Public Hearing 2. Location Map 3. Preliminary Report RESOLUTION ACCEPTING PRELIMINARY REPORT CALLING PUBLIC HEARING WHEREAS, pursuant to resolution of the council adopted May 12, 2003, a report has been prepared under the direction of the City Engineer with reference to the improvement of County Road D between Walter Street and TH 61, City Project 04-06, and this report was received by the council on June 14, 2004, and WHEREAS, the report provides information regarding whether the proposed project is necessary, cost-effective, and feasible, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA: 1. The council will consider the improvement of such street and utilities in accordance with the report and the assessment of abutting property for all or a portion of the cost of the improvement pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 429 at an estimated total cost of the improvement of $491,101.01. 2. A public hearing shall be held on such proposed improvement on the 28th day of June 2004 in the council chambers of city hall at 7:00 p.m., and the clerk shall give mailed and published notice of such hearing and improvement as required by law. ~~ ~ i~ ,. ,. ~~~ ~i _ < .., 2 ~ } .~ F CITY OF MAPLEWOOD CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN 2005-2009! PROJECT TITLE:! Gladstone Area Streetscape TOTAL COST:! $2,515,000! PROJECT CD04.010! PROJECT CATEGORY: Redevelopment! NUMBER:! DESCRIPTION:! Gladstone Area (Frost and English Streets) Streetscape Improvements! JUSTIFICATION: t The redevelopment of the Gladstone area is proposed to begin with a streetscape improvement. The roundabout was the start of this reconstruction. The next phase will include streetscape improv ements to Frost Avenue from Flicek Park to Prosperity and to English Street from the Gateway Trail to R ipley. Proposed improvements include the burying of the overhead power lines, installation of sidewal ks, decorative streetlights with banners and flower baskets, entry monuments, street side landscaping, and colored concrete crosswalks. PROJECT COSTS AND FUNDING SOURCES BY YEARS:! Project Funding Prior Source Years 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 Total! Bonds-M.S.A.! 50,000! 200,000! ! $250,000 Bonds-Sp. Asmt. 600,000 600,000 Bonds-Tax Abatement ! 700,000! 240,000! 940,000 Electric Franchise Fee! ! 725,000! _ ! - ! . ! .- ! 725,000! . ~ PROJECT COSTS! PROJECT STARTING DATE:! July 2004! Preliminaries! $750,000 ! ! Land Acquisition! PROJECT COMPLETION November 2006! Construction! 1,765,000 DATE:! ! ! Equipment and Other! NEIGHBORHOOD: #07 -Gladstone! Total! $2,515,000 CITY OF MAPLEWOOD CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN 2005-2009! PROJECT TITLE:! Hillcrest Area Streetscape TOTAL COST:! $2,150,000! PROJECT CD04.050! PROJECT CATEGORY: Redevelopment! NUMBER:! DESCRIPTION:! Hillcrest Area (Larpenteur at White Bear Avenue) Streetscape Improvements! JUSTIFICATION: t The redevelopment of the Hillcrest area is proposed to begin with a streetscape improvement The first phase will include streetscape improvements to Larpenteur Avenue from Kennard to Stanich and to White Bear Avenue from Larpenteur to the Gateway Trail. Proposed improvements include the burying of the overhead power lines, installation of sidewalks, decorative streetlights with banners and flowerbaskets, entry monuments, streetside landscaping, and colored concrete crosswalks. PROJECT COSTS AND FUNDING SOURCES BY YEARS:! Project Funding Prior Source Years 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 Total! Bonds-M.S.A.! ! ! ! 50,000 250,000 $300,000 Bonds-Sp. Asmt. 200,000 200,000 Bonds-G.O.Imp.! ! ! ! 360,000 360,000 Electric Franchise Fee! ! ! ! ! 1,290,000! ! 1,290,000! PROJECT COSTS! PROJECT STARTING DATE:! January 2008! Preliminaries! $650,000 ! ! Land Acquisition! PROJECT COMPLETION November 2009! Construction! 1,500,000 DATE:! ! ! Equipment and Other! NEIGHBORHOOD: #08 -Hillside! Total! $2,150,000 County Road D Maplewood, Minnesota City Project No. 04-06 SEH No. A-MAPLE0405.00 June 3, 2004 Feasibility Report June 3, 2004 Mr. R. Charles Ahl, PE City of Maplewood 1830 County Road B East Maplewood, MN 55109-2702 Dear Mr. Ahl: RE: County Road D Feasibility Report Maplewood, Minnesota City Project No. 04-06 SEH No. A-MAPLE0405.00 Short Elliott Hendrickson Ina C7 (SEH) is pleased to submit the enclosed Feasibility Report for the County Road D improvements. This report includes specific recommendations and estimated project costs for the street and utility 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:Vco~napleA040500Veports&specsU\feas.doc County Road D Feasibility Report Maplewood, Minnesota City Project No. 04-06 SEH No. A-MAPLE0405.00 June 3, 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: June 3, 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 3.0 Feasibility and Recommendations ................................... ........................................2 4.0 Proposed Improvements ................................................... ........................................3 4.1 West Segment ............................................................ ........................................3 4.2 East Segment ............................................................. ........................................3 4.3 Trail ............................................................................. ........................................3 5.0 Easement/Permits ......................................................................................................3 6.0 Estimated Project Costs ...........................................................................................3 7.0 Financing ....................................................................................................................4 8.0 Schedule .....................................................................................................................4 List of Tables Table 1 Maplewood Mall Area Studies and Reports ..............................................................1 List of Figures Figure 1 -Project Location Map Figure 2 -County Road D Improvements West Mill & Overlay Figure 3 -County Road D Improvements East Road Reconstruction List of Appendices Appendix A Estimated Project Costs Proposed Assessments SEH is a registered trademark of Short Elliott Hendrickson Inc. Feasibility Report A-MAPLE0405.00 City of Maplewood Page i June 3, 2004 Feasibility Report County Road D Prepared for the 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 Stud /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 Crroup 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 Reali nment Storm Water and Wetlands Plan for the Maplewood May 2003 SEH Mall Area Trans ortation Im rovements A-MAPLE0405.00 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 to existing County Road D 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 improvements to existing County Road D. This information is presented in anticipation of a public hearing to be held by the Maplewood City Council on June 28, 2004. 2.0 Scope The proposed work includes the regrading and pavement replacement of existing County Road D from Walter Street to High Ridge Court to improve sight distance. The portion of existing County Road D east of the new alignment of County Road D will be reconstructed to an urban section terminating with a cul-de-sac at Trunk Highway (TH) 61. Water main will be installed by the City of Vadnais Heights and by the St. Paul Water Utility. 3.0 Feasibility and Recommendations This project is necessary to provide safer and more efficient roadway to the traveling public. This project will, in conjunction with the proposed intersection of the new County Road D alignment, provide safer access to TH 61. This project is cost effective because the proposed improvements are within the existing right-of--way. County and State contributions to the work will offset costs to the City. It is recommended that the work for the western portion of County Road D be combined with the new County Road D project. Doing this will allow better traffic control and construction scheduling. The eastern portion of existing county Road D should not be combined with any other projects. This will allow closing of the existing connection with TH 61 after the new intersection and new alignment of County Road D are completed. Feasibility Report A-MAPLE0405.00 City of Maplewood Page 2 4.0 Proposed Improvements 4.1 West Segment The existing grade of County Road D is non-compliant for required sight distance standards. It is proposed to lower the crest of the hill by approximately 1.5 feet to improve the sight distance. The existing pavement will be milled off and replaced. The City of Vadnais Heights intends to construct a water main on the north side of County Road D as part of this project. 4.2 East Segment This segment will be reconstructed to an urban section. The west end of the east segment will be realigned to create a perpendicular intersection with the new alignment of County Road D. The east end will terminate at TH 61 with a cul-de-sac. Concrete curb and gutter will be installed. Storm sewer catch basins will be constructed with the storm sewer discharging to the existing system on TH 61. Water main will be installed along the south side of the roadway connecting two existing dead-end segments. The City of Vadnais Heights intends to construct a water main on the north side of County Road D as part of this project. 4.3 Trail The north side of the roadway will be designed to accommodate an on-road trail. 5.0 Easement/Permits All work will be accomplished within the existing public right-of--way and no easements are anticipated to be required. A permit from the Department of Health will be required for the water main extension. 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 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. County Road D -Western Portion Roadway .............................................................. $80,160.17 Vadnais Heights Water Main ............................... $83,873.50 Estimated Total Cost -Western Portion $164,033.67 Feasibility Report A-MAPLE0405.00 City of Maplewood Page 3 County Road D -Eastern Portion Roadway .............................................................. $217,608.44 St. Paul Water Main ............................................. $47,416.27 Vadnais Heights Water Main ............................... $62,042.63 Estimated Total Cost -Eastern Portion $327,067.34 7.0 Financing Financing for this project will be provided by a variety of sources. These funds include County Funds, Cooperative Agreement funds, Vadnais Heights funds, special assessments, and municipal state aid funds. County Funds ............................................................................ $214,099.62 Cooperative Agreement Funds ................................................. $25,000.00 Vadnais Heights ........................................................................ $145,916.13 Special Assessments ................................................................. $73,324.76 Maplewood Debt Service .......................................................... $32,760.50 $491,101.01 8.0 Schedule Present Feasibility Report to City Council ................................June 14, 2004 Public Hearing ...........................................................................June 28, 2004 Authorize Plans ..........................................................................June 28, 2004 Approve Plans and Specifications Western Portion ....................................................................June 28, 2004 Eastern Portion ............................................................... February 14, 2005 Bid Opening Western Portion ..................................................................... July 16, 2004 Eastern Portion ................................................................. ...March 18, 2005 Award Contract Western Portion ............................................................... ...... July 26, 2004 Eastern Portion ................................................................. ...March 28, 2005 Assessment Hearing ............................................................. ...March 28, 2005 Begin Construction Western Portion ............................................................... ....August 9, 2004 Eastern Portion ................................................................. ........May 1, 2005 End Construction Western Portion ............................................................... October 31, 2004 Eastern Portion ................................................................. ......June 30, 2005 Feasibility Report A-MAPLE0405.00 City of Maplewood Page 4 List of Figures Figure 1 -Project Location Map Figure 2 - County Road D Improvements West Mill & Overlay Figure 3 -County Road D Improvements East Road Reconstruction 8 PROJECT LOCATION a a 8 z g 03 _gs Q~~ sa 8 i ~ ~ - ~~ - ~ OBN V ROAD D i ~Ul~-`. L 4VE. HIG RIDGE Ci. rc WOODLVNN AVf Q N 9hQ i Vr w ~n rc ~ ~ ~ ~!!Q LVDIA Q a Y ~z 3 Sr. JOHN'S s Y~ m1 0 BLVD. b m L }~~ d JR. ~ /b ~, 3 ii ~i. - ~~ LA. Q V" H BEP ABEAM ~ AVf.o BEAM ~I~r ~ w ~ © 9MAPlE V~EM i //( BADATZ - - / g~ C. ~~ ~ KOULMAN~ AVE. ,~ LI w o,l~ rr f ~ lQ ~r Po, a a~3 -- ~~ ~ _~_ ~, ~ ~~ s~ ~ EDGEHILL RD. ~ D~. /DEI' ~t AVf. vo,k BROOKS A EL ~•CNTIE ~ E 5 o SEX iPNT - AVf. SEXiANi AVE. Z4 AVf. ~ PE- GERVAIS AVE. G V S GRA E. m VIKIN(; DR. ~' SHERREN F CPSILE AVE. G N APE ~ ~ - coaE AVE. P~ DR. vimNC DR. ~~ AvE. e. z LAUBe BD. Avf. o LnueiE RD. E ~ eD. iE eo. I~ re - J L CIE CT. LELAND a~ SANDH URSi dL ~. e y co. eD. B G G ~ o DOUNT,' tt BURKE AV ¢ ~ m BURKE AVE. oo Q ~~ BURKE AVE. ~ ~PNG\"' ~ / (1) CHPMBERS ' RIDGE ~ AV _- ELp RIDGE ~ e ~ ELDR IDGE AVE. 3 ~a^" _'" o LN. i LN. w BEL" N1 CN s F BOURSE BELMONi AVE. pa N E.w SKILLMAN AV_ NE LER GOL SKILL MP' ~ AV E. SKILL MAN AVE. Q~ KENN p SH~ ~ E. N. , ` LN. 3~ o. pYAN vl RV PN S ~ m~ ~ AVG ~ ~ / JJ VERNON AV / ao.k R cA~ ~ FROST ~o~i N a C' ~ C' HOLLOWAY V PEDi Beuwo ~ AVE. w~ ~ Ee N1oN aaAVf. ° vl SU "wR C E M ~~ ~ S vo~~e~ SU MMER AV EN I Sll ~I MF-R AVE. PRENA Q p '~ z ~' FR SBIE AVE. - a _ 1 2PLfY~ 0/ ~ RIP LEV f. S ~ ~ N e W A ` ,RIPLEV RI PLEY~ KI O a r E. I N RIPLEV AV 21 P' ~ PH v N I \ r - m _ AVE. r ~ N ~ \ _ SOP HIA _ ~~ F E. _ PI ~ \~ T PWCC I~ 3 x 3 ~~ A~ w~~ ~ o //// ~ ~ I~~I i i w~~ I I I ~ i i i ~l HD~C ~A ~ NFF 1500 0 1500 3000 750 SCALE 1'= 3000' Fi LE N o. LOCATION MAP PHONE: (651) aso-2ooo AMAPLE0405.00 COUNTY ROAD D EXHIBIT _ 3535 VAUNAIS CENTER DR. NO. SEH ST. PAUL, MN 55110 DATE: 6/4/04 MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA 7 __________ iz Appendix A Estimated Project Costs Proposed Assessments O u o C O ~ ~ O ~ O U Z y O z W ~ Q r r ~ Q W w O Q ~ O pa O ~ w O r 0 3 a w a 0 ° ~ w o 0 00 a LL ~ a LL o _ _ _ _ _ _ _ z c~ o o z ~ O U ~ ~ O U - LL > j U U O O O O O O ~ Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q U > j Q ~ o ° W w Q O O ~ O ¢ ~ ~ ¢ K > O K O U (~ Z w ~ v U (7 a U (7 ~ U (7 O - U W W H ~ N K m O m X_ X w K X w K Q K W K K W 0 _ W 0 _ W 0 _ ~ W U X W d = U Q ° ~ ~ w ~ N w N - W a ~ Z ¢ 7 7 7 m ~o ~ d w _ 00 Z F Z ° O >i 7 0 K 0 K H K Q ~ O D d U - O w U U U ~ Q w w d >i ¢ ~ ° > O ~ > ~ d d N N U ¢ J O K ¢ >i ¢ >i O 7 I K K K N O N K > m > m ~ X X ~ K O K O K O ~ J w H (~ W > O d U a d O O > U ~ U _ j ¢ >i Z Z Q ¢ w w vi w vi ° F ° F W - v i v i - w m m m 0 (~ (~ (~ w O i O ~ H U K Z H U Q K W m ~ v 0 ~ 2 o 0 0 W ~ >i ~ ~ O O w w ~ Z Q ¢ Q ¢ U ~ O ¢ H w Z O Z O Z O ~ w N ¢ >i Q ~ K w ? ~ H =2~ ° ~ ~ ~ ° j w ° i v i v i Z D > w ~ ~ ~ ¢ ~ o ° m m m ~ o ~ Z z z Z a a_ a s U U w a a ~ w m w ¢ F K K K (~ N a F ° z w w m J a ~ ~ > o > 0 > 0 > 0 O O ~ ~ ° " ~ W > J ~ > w J J w ~ ¢ o d 0 d 0 d o z w z i d o d o w ¢ H = w O w z Z¢ " m m - ~ N ° ~ - K z LL ° 0 o ~ ¢ o ~ ~ ~ ~ 3 ~ 0 o ¢ ~ ~ - ~ - ~ - ~ - o o ~ a a 3 `° c~ - x _ ~ o o 0 0 0 ¢ ¢ m o o ~ ~ tt tt tt tt ¢ ° 0 o ~ 0 ¢ ~ o ~ - m - N o o N ~ ~ o > x o 0 0 0 °¢ ~ o o ~ ~ Q w J = W N z W _ E E K U H Z W ~ ~ Z ~ Z G ~ G ~ ~ Q ~ ~r W H J Z ~ ~U ~ O O O O O O c0 c0 N ~ O O O O O O I~ r W z O O O O O c0 N V I~ J W O O O N N ~ O N O V V N M ~ Q~ Ef} EA EA EA ~ Q ~ ~ EA EA EA ~ W Q ~ U W O ~ ~ J J ~ N V r _ O N O fn N 'O ~ O M M V I~ EA O_ V _ N V O N ~ ~„ EA EA EA N O. ~ C N ~ a O U rNi N o ~ N X ° W o 0 0 0 0 0 C ~ O O O O O O W N O O M I~ c0 O I~ ~ O r O ~ r O O c6 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ O ~ T EA EA EA EA _ N ~ C O N O O = O U N ~ Z rn N O r W O O O O O C ~ O O O I~ O O O ~ O r O ~ N ch L c`') c0 I~ O O r O O (6 ~ ~ ~ ~ O ~ y} EA EA EA EA U T _ N ~ ~ ~ ~ O U N ~ (6 ~ ~ N O O O O O O ~ L O O O O O O I~ U O O O O O O N m O W ~ ~ ~ O ~ r O ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ V o a 'o EA EA EA <» e» ° o ~ m ~ .. N ~ j N 'O O rn ~ U N ~ c6 ~ L O - y N ~ O ~ ~ W W ~ W Z O (n ~ ~ ii W a O ¢ O ~ ~` co ~ U ~ ~ Z z H O H O v z o° ~ O J J O N U O ~ °r U ~ ~ J O O ~ O O co ~ .~ ~ .~ ~ (n (n Z W (~ ~ N W W (n O ~ ~ Z ~ ~ U U Z o. w ~ ~ ~ Z > _ > ~ ~ ~ W ~ _ W Q W W ~ _ W ~ ~ C7 ~ ~ ~ C7 W W W Q d' d' d' W Q (n (n W z W W W J W Z (n (n O O z (n ~ ~ ~ (n ~ (n ~ O O W W N N ~ ~ Q Q O O O ~ AGENDA ITEM K-4 AGENDA REPORT TO: Richard Fursman, City Manager FROM: Charles Ahl, Public Works Director/City Engineer Chris Cavett, Assistant City Engineer SUBJECT: County Road D Realignment (West), Walter Street to T.H. 61, City Project 02-08: 1. Resolution Approving Plans and Advertising for Bids 2. Resolution Ordering Preparation of Assessment Roll DATE: June 7, 2004 Introduction Final plans and specifications for the above referenced project have been completed and are ready to be advertised for bids. Following the approval to advertise for bids, the next step in the improvement process is to prepare the assessment roll. The city council will consider approving the attached resolutions for approving plans and advertising for bids, as well as ordering preparation of the assessment roll. Background The proposed bid opening for this project is scheduled for 10:00 p.m., Friday, July 16, 2004. Award of bids would be considered by the city council at the July 26, 2004, city council meeting. Phase one of this project is the construction of the Venburg/Guldens Frontage Road, which was awarded on April 12, 2004 and is well under construction at this time. The assessment roll may now be prepared as costs are not directly dependent on the actual amount of the bid, rather on a predetermined assessment rate as defined in the feasibility study. As defined in the feasibility study, assessments will be levied against benefiting properties, with the largest share going to the Troutland Development property. The calculated assessment roll will be brought back to the city council at the June 28, 2004, council meeting. Recommendation It is recommended that the city council approve the attached resolutions for the County Road D Realignment (West), Walter Street to T.H. 61, City Project 02-08: Approving Plans and Advertising for Bids and Ordering the Preparation of the Assessment Roll. CMC JW Attachments 1. Resolution Approving Plans and Advertising for Bids 2. Resolution Ordering Preparation of Assessment Roll 3. Location Map RESOLUTION APPROVING PLANS ADVERTISING FOR BIDS WHEREAS, pursuant to resolution passed by the city council on February 9, 2004, plans and specifications for County Road D Realignment (West), Walter Street to T.H. 61, City Project 02-08, have been prepared by (or under the direction of) the city engineer, who has presented such plans and specifications to the city council for approval, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA: 1. Such plans and specifications, acopy of which are attached hereto and made a part hereof, are hereby approved and ordered placed on file in the office of the city clerk. 2. The city clerk shall prepare and cause to be inserted in the official paper and in the Construction Bulletin an advertisement for bids upon the making of such improvement under such approved plans and specifications. The advertisement shall be published twice, at least ten days before the date set for bid opening, shall specify the work to be done, shall state that bids will be publicly opened and considered by the council at 10:OO.m. on the 16t" day of July, 2004, at the city hall and that no bids shall be considered unless sealed and filed with the clerk and accompanied by a certified check or bid bond, payable to the City of Maplewood, Minnesota for five percent of the amount of such bid. 3. The city clerk and city engineer are hereby authorized and instructed to receive, open, and read aloud bids received at the time and place herein noted, and to tabulate the bids received. The council will consider the bids, and the award of a contract, at the regular city council meeting of July 26, 2004. RESOLUTION ORDERING PREPARATION OF ASSESSMENT ROLL WHEREAS, the city clerk and city engineer will receive bids for the County Road D Realignment (West), Walter Street to T.H. 61, City Project 02-08. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA that the city clerk and city engineer shall forthwith calculate the proper amount to be specially assessed for such improvement against every assessable lot, piece or parcel of land abutting on the streets affected, without regard to cash valuation, as provided by law, and they shall file a copy of such proposed assessment in the city office for inspection. FURTHER, the clerk and city engineer shall, upon completion of such proposed assessment notify the council thereof. ~~ ~ i~ ,. ,. ~~~ ~i _ < .., 2 ~ } .~ F AGENDA ITEM K-5 AGENDA REPORT TO: Richard Fursman, City Manager FROM: Bill Priefer, Public Works Administrative Assistant Charles Ahl, Director of Public Works/City Engineer SUBJECT: Municipal State Aid Street System: Resolution Approving Authorization to Advance Municipal State Aid Street Funds DATE: June 7, 2004 Introduction Planned construction costs on our Municipal State Aid Street system during 2004 through 2005 will exceed the current funding available in our State Aid Construction Account. In order to address this shortfall, we are able to apply for and receive an advance on future funds. Background Each year a certain amount of money at the state level is available to cities in our situation for advance encumbrances. An advance encumbrance is essentially an interest-free loan to the city to be repaid with future allotments. This is a good program for cities like ours that have aggressive construction programs as it allows the utilization of funds that other cities are not using. The advance funding guidelines were revised during October 2003 to allow cities to request up to three times their total state aid allotment or $4,000,000, whichever is less. The revision also allows cities up to five years to repay the advance rather than the previous three-year payback. The city's 2004 total allotment of $1,230,942 allows us to request up to $3,692,826. We will be requesting $1,661,298 which will allow us to fund the State Aid eligible portions of Project 03-22, Carlton Street-Conway Avenue to Minnehaha Avenue; Project 03-07, T.H. 61 Improvements-Beam Avenue to I-694, and final balances due on several old completed State Aid projects. Recommendation It is recommended that the city council approve the attached resolution requesting an advance encumbrance of up to $1,661,298 to our Municipal State Aid account. MUNICIPAL STATE AID STREET FUNDS ADVANCE RESOLUTION WHEREAS, the Municipality of Maplewood is planning to implement Municipal State Aid Street Projects in 2004 which will require State Aid funds in excess of those available in its State Aid Construction Account, and WHEREAS, said municipality is prepared to proceed with the construction of said projects through the use of an advance from the Municipal State Aid Street Fund to supplement the available funds in their State Aid Construction Account, and WHEREAS, the advance is based on the following determination of estimated expenditures: Account Balance as of June 1, 2004 $7,513 Less estimated disbursements: Project 138-105-01 $884,322 Project 138-010-011 $447,435 Project Finals $337,054 Total Estimated Disbursements $1,668,811 Advance Amount $1, 661,298 WHEREAS, repayment of the funds so advanced will be made in accordance with the provisions of Minnesota Statutes 162.14, Subd. 6 and Minnesota Rules, Chapter 8820.1500, Subp. 10b, and WHEREAS, the Municipality acknowledges advance funds are released on afirst-come-first-serve basis and this resolution does not guarantee the availability of funds. NOW, THEREFORE, Be It Resolved: That the Commissioner of Transportation be and is hereby requested to approve this advance for financing approved Municipal State Aid Street Projects of the Municipality of Maplewood in an amount up to $1,676,324. I hereby authorize repayments from subsequent accruals to the Municipal State Aid Street Construction Account of said Municipality in accordance with the schedule herein indicated: Repayment in 5 equal annual installments I HEREBY CERTIFY that the above is a true and correct copy of a resolution presented to and adopted by the Municipality of Maplewood, County of Ramsey, State of Minnesota, at a duly authorized Municipal Council Meeting held in the Municipality of Maplewood, Minnesota on the 14th day of June, 2004, as disclosed by the records of said Municipality on file and of record in the office. Municipality of Maplewood Municipal Clerk