Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2004 07-12 City Council PacketAGENDA MAPLEWOOD CITY COUNCIL 7:00 P.M. Monday, July 12, 2004 Council Chambers, City Hall Meeting No. 04-14 A. CALL TO ORDER B. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE C. ROLL CALL D. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 1. Minutes from the CounciUManager Workshop-June 28, 2004 2. Minutes from City Council Meeting-June 28, 2004 E. APPROVAL OF AGENDA F. APPOINTMENTS/PRESENTATIONS G. CONSENT AGENDA All matters listed under the Consent Agenda are considered to be routine by the City Council and will be enacted by one motion. If a member of the City Council wishes to discuss an item, that item will be removed from the Consent Agenda and will be considered separately. 1. Approval of Claims 2. Indianhead CounciUBoy Scouts of America -Fee Waiver for Temporary Food 3. Conditional Use Permit Review -Legacy Village PUD (County Road D and Kennard Street) 4. Conditional Use Permit Review - Woodlynn Ponds Townhomes PUD (County Road D) 5. Conditional Use Permit Review - St. Paul Regional Water Services (1900 Rice Street) 6. County Road DImprovements -Existing Roadway (Walter St. to New Cty Rd D Alignment) -City Project 04-06 -Resolution Approving Plans and Authorizing Receipt of Bids with City Project 02-08 7. Transfer to Close Fund for Project 03-OS 8. Amended Agreement for Project 03-26 H. PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. 7:00 p.m. Cahanes Estates Preliminary Plat (2415 Minnehaha Avenue) 2. 7:15 p.m. Mapletree Townhouses (Southlawn Drive) a. Preliminary Plat b. Design Approval 3. 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 R3(M) (4 votes) b. Collector Street Designation -County Road D (4 votes) Conditional Use Permit for Planned Unit Development Preliminary Plat 4. 8:00 p.m. Interstate 94 Improvements -Consider MnDOT Proposed Project I. AWARD OF BIDS None J. UNFINISHED BUSINESS 1. 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 2. Code Amendment -Public Hearings at Planning Commission (Second Reading) 3. Electric Franchise Fee K. NEW BUSINESS 1. Charitable Gambling Fund Requests-2005 2. Police and Fire EMS Study-NO REPORT 3. Legacy Village Sculpture Park: Approval of Plans and Specifications 4. County Road D Extension (Hazelwood to TH 61), City Project 02-07: Resolution Authorizing Condemnation Proceedings on Property for Purposes of Right-of--Way Acquisition 5. County Road D Extension (Hazelwood to TH 61), City Project 02-07: Resolution Authorizing Modification of Existing Construction Contract, Change Order No. 1, (Contractor guarantee of current bid prices into 2005). 6. IT Technician Position L. VISITOR PRESENTATIONS M. COUNCIL PRESENTATIONS N. ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS O. ADJOURNMENT Sign language interpreters for hearing impaired persons are available for public hearings upon request. The request for this service must be made at least 96 hours in advance. Please call the City Clerk's Office at (651) 249-2001 to make arrangements. Assisted Listening Devices are also available. Please check with the City Clerk for availability. RULES OF CIVILITYFOR OUR COMMUNITY Following are some rules of civility the City of Maplewood expects of everyone appearing at Council Meetings -elected offzcials, staff and citizens. It is hoped that by following these simple rules, everyone's opinions can be heard and understood in a reasonable manner. We appreciate the fact that when appearzng at Council meetings, it is understood that everyone will follow these principles: Show respect for each other actively listen to one another keep emotions in check and use respectful language. MINUTES CITY COUNCIL/MANAGER WORKSHOP Monday, June 28, 2004 Maplewood Room, City Hall 6:05 p.m. A. CALL TO ORDER B. ROLL CALL Robert Cardinal, Mayor Present Kathleen Juenemann, Councilmember Present Marvin Koppen, Councilmember Present Jackie Monahan-Junek, Councilmember Present Will Rossbach, Councilmember Present Others Present: Assistant City Manager Coleman City Attorney Kelly City Clerk Guilfoile C. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Councilmember Juenemann moved to approve the agenda as submitted. Seconded by Councilmember Monahan-Junek Ayes-All D. NEW BUSINESS 1. Code of Conduct at Public Meetings City Clerk Guilfoile and City Attorney Kelly provided information already in place in the Policy and Procedure Manual for Code of Conduct at Public Meetings. Councilmember Monahan-Junek suggested that these policies and procedures also be implemented by the cities Commissions. Councilmember Rossbach concurred that at the very least basic guidelines should be in place and more so for the Planning Commission since they are now conducting public hearings. 2. Update/Direction with Larpenteur-Adolphus Property Assistant City Manager Coleman provided an update on the Larpenteur-Adolphus property and requested direction from the council on how to proceed with the negotiations and density desired for the area. City Council/Manager Workshop 06-28-04 E. FUTURE TOPICS F. ADJOURNMENT Councilmember Koppen moved to adjourn at 6:47 p.m. Seconded by Councilmember Juenemann Ayes-All City Council/Manager Workshop 06-28-04 DRAFT--MINUTES MAPLEWOOD CITY COUNCIL 7:03 P.M. Monday, June 28, 2004 Council Chambers, City Hall Meeting No. 04-13 A. B. C. D. E. CALL TO ORDER: A meeting of the City Council was held in the Council Chambers, at the Municipal Building, and was called to order at 7:03 P.M. by Mayor Cardinal. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ROLL CALL Robert Cardinal, Mayor Present Kathleen Juenemann, Councilmember Present Marvin Koppen, Councilmember Present Jackie Monahan-Junek, Councilmember Present Will Rossbach, Councilmember Present APPROVAL OF MINUTES 1. Minutes from the City CounciUManager Workshop-June 14, 2004 Councilmember Juenemann moved to approve the minutes from the June 14, 2004 City CounciUManager workshop as presented. Seconded by Councilmember Koppen Ayes-All 2. Minutes from the City Council Meeting-June 14, 2004 Councilmember Monahan-Junek moved to approve the minutes from the June 14, 2004 City CouncilManager workshop as amended. Seconded by Councilmember Koppen Ayes-All APPROVAL OF AGENDA Ml. 800 MHz M2. National Night Out M3. Historical Commission M4. South Leg Group M5. Commission Rules of Conduct Nl. White Bear Business Association July 4~ Parade N2. 494 Project Update Councilmember Monahan-Junek moved to approve the a,~enda as amended. Seconded by Councilmember Koppen Ayes-All City Counci106-28-04 F. APPOINTMENTS/PRESENTATIONS None G. CONSENT AGENDA 1. Approval of Claims ACCOUNTS PAYABLE: $ 471,766.90 Checks # 64078 thru # 64129 dated 6/15/04 $ 276,704.77 Disbursements via debits to checking account dated 6/04/04 thru 6/10/04 $ 211,040.70 Checks # 64130 thru # 64187 dated 6/22/04 $ 127,660.25 Disbursements via debits to checking account dated 6/11/04 thru 6/17/04 $ 1,087,172.62 Total Accounts Payable PAYROLL $ 429,698.03 Payroll Checks and Direct Deposits dated 6/18/04 $ 4,481.77 Payroll Deducrion check # 97763 thru # 97766 dated 6/18/04 $ 434,179.80 Total Payroll $ 1,521,352.42 GRAND TOTAL 2. Conditional Use Permit Review - A-Gem Auto Sales (2720 Maplewood Drive) Approved to review the conditional use permit for A-Gem Used auto Dealers at 2720 Maplewood Drive again only if problems arise or changes are proposed. 3. Conditional Use Permit Review -Beaver Lake Townhomes (Maryland Avenue and Lakewood Drive) Approved to review the conditional use permit for the planned unit development for the Beaver Lake Town Houses at Maryland Avenue and Lakewood Drive again in one year. City Counci106-28-04 2 4. Big Brothers Big Sisters -Temporary Food Permit -Fee Waiver Waived the $47.00 per day permit fee. Parks and Recreation -Firework and Noise Control Permit Approved the permits for fireworks and noise control for the City Parks and Recreation Department for the Fourth of July celebration. 6. Approval of Program Supervisor Position-Maplewood Community Center Authorized the hiring and creation of one regular part-time position at the MCC entitled Program Supervisor. The pay range has been established by the Union and City Council at $11.89-$15.00/hour for 20 to 32 hours per week with the position budgeted out of the MCC enterprise fund. Councilmember Koppen moved to approve the consent agenda items 3-6 as presented. Seconded by Councilmember Monahan-Junek Ayes-All Councilmember Koppen moved to approve the consent agenda items 1-2 as presented. Seconded by Councilmember Juenemann Ayes-All H. PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. 7:15 p.m. Existing County Road D Realignment, Walter Street to T.H. 61, Project 04-06 -Public Hearing and Resolution Ordering Project and Authorizing Preparation of Plans and Specifications Assistant City Manager Coleman presented the report. b. City Engineer Ahl presented specifics from the report. Mayor Cardinal opened the public hearing, calling for proponents or opponents. The following person was heard: Jennifer Bouthilett, Hillcrest Animal Hospital, Maplewood d. Mayor Cardinal closed the public hearing. Councilmember Rossbach moved to adopt the following resolution authorizing the preparation of plans and specifications for the existing County Road D Improvements, Walter Street to T.H. 61, Cit~proj ect 04-06: RESOLUTION 04-06-113 AUTHORIZING PREPARATION OF PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS 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 Existing County Road D Improvements, Walter Street to T.H. 61, City Project 04-06, and this report was received by the City Counci106-28-04 council on June 14, 2004, and WHEREAS, the report provides information regarding whether the proposed project is necessary, cost-effective, and feasible, WHEREAS, a resolution of the city council adopted the 14~ day of June 2004, fixed a date for a council hearing on the proposed street improvements Existing County Road D, Walter Street to T.H. 61, City Project 04-06, and WHEREAS, ten days mailed notice and two weeks published notice of the hearing was given, and the hearing was duly held on June 28, 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 Existing County Road D, Walter Street to T.H. 61, City Project 04-06. 2. Such improvement is hereby ordered as proposed in the council resolution adopted the 28~' day of June 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 finance director is hereby authorized to make the necessary financial transfers to implement the financing plans as follows: Ramsey County CSAH Funds $150,000.00 Ramsey County Turnback Funds $ 64,099.62 MnDOT Cooperative Agreement Funds $ 25,000.00 City of Vadnais Heights (through Joint Powers Agreement) $145,916.13 Maplewood Property Assessments $ 73,324.76 Maplewood General Levy Debt Service Funds $ 32,760.50 Total Project Financing $491,101.01 Seconded by Councilmember Koppen Ayes-All 2. 7:25 p.m. Code Amendment -Public Hearings (First Reading) Assistant City Manager Coleman presented the report and specifics from the report. b. Mayor Cardinal opened the public hearing, calling for proponents or opponents. The following persons were heard: Lorraine Fischer, Chair of the Planning Commission Diane Longrie-Kline, 1771 Burr Street, Maplewood George Rossbach, 1406 East County Road C, Maplewood Mayor Cardinal closed the public hearing. Councilmember Juenemann moved to adopt the proposed ordinance amendment about public City Counci106-28-04 hearings: ORDINANCE NO. 848 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING VARIOUS SECTIONS OF THE MAPLEWOOD CITY CODE ABOUT PUBLIC HEARINGS The Maplewood City Council approves the following changes to the Maplewood Code of Ordinances: Section 1. This amendment changes Section 12-310 (f)(1). Variances. (additions are underlined and deletions are crossed out): (f) Variances. Procedures for granting variances from this section are as follows: (1) The city council may approve variances to the requirements in this section. Before the city council acts on a variance, the planning commission shall hold a public hearing and shall make a recommendation to the city council. .The city staff shall notify the property owners within 500 ~@ feet of the buffer at least ten days before the hearing. The city may require the applicant to mitigate any buffer alteration. Section 2. This amendment changes Section 14-57. License application approval procedure. (additions are underlined and deletions are crossed out): Sec. 14-57. License application approval procedure. An application for a home occupation shall be filed with the director of community development. Upon receipt of a complete application, the director of community development or his or her desi ig iee, shall prepare a report and recommendation to send to the planning commission. The planning commission shall hold a public hearing for each home occupation license request. The city shall mail a notice to all property owners within 500 feet of the proposed home occupation at least 10 days before the hearing. The city also shall publish the public hearing notice in the official newspaper at least ten days before the hearing, The planning commission will consider the proposal and then shall make a recommendation. The planning commission's recommendation shall be forwarded to the city council. The city council will make the final decision about all home OCCUllatlori 11Cerise reQUeStS. c,... .t.i:,, t,.,.°:"" -rt,.,..._,.:i ,.t,.ii t"ia ,. "..t.i:,, t,.,.°:"~@" (Code 1982, § 17-22) Section 3. This amendment changes Section 34-5(c). (additions are underlined and deletions are crossed out): Sec. 34-5. Preliminary plat procedure. (c) The director of community development shall deliver to the finance director for deposit any moneys received as fees required in this chapter with each preliminary plan. The finance director shall credit the money to the general fund of the city. All moneys so received shall be used to defray the expenses of processing the application. The director of community development shall prepare a report and recommendation. This report shall then be forwarded to the planning commission. The planning commission shall hold a public hearing about the proposal and thex shall forward a recommendation to the city council. .The hearing shall be held following publication of notice of the time and place thereof in the official newspaper at least ten days before the day of the hearing. The applicant, property owner, and all other property owners within 500 ~@ feet of the property to be subdivided shall be notified by mail at least ten days before the day of the hearing. When a division or subdivision to which this chapter does not apply is presented to the city, the city clerk shall with in ten days certify that this chapter does not apply to the particular division. If the city fails to preliminarily approve or disapprove an application within the review period, the application shall be deemed preliminary approved, and upon demand the city shall execute a certificate to that effect. Section 4. This amendment changes Section 44-10. Zoning map. (additions are underlined and deletions are crossed out): City Counci106-28-04 Sec. 44-10. Zoning map. (a) Generally. The boundaries of the districts designated in section 44-9 will be shown on a map, and the map is hereby made part of this chapter, which map shall be known as the zoning map of the City of Maplewood. The map shall include any zoning changes recommended by the planning commission wand adopted by the city council. . The planning commission shall hold a public hearing to consider all zoning map changes and shall make a recommendation about such changes to the city council. The city shall notifx all property owners within 500 feet of the proposed zoning map change about the public hearing and shall publish a public hearing notice in the official newspaper at least ten days before the public hearing, .All interested persons shall be heard at the hearing or any adjournment thereof. After the hearing, the planning commission shall forward a recommendation to the city council. The city council shall adopt the zoning map and and eg s to it; and all notations, references and data shown thereon are hereby incorporated by reference into this chapter and shall be as much a part of this chapter as if all were fully described. The map shall be kept up to date as provided in subsection (c) of this section. Section 5. This amendment changes Section 44-1093(c). (additions are underlined and deletions are crossed out): (c) The development shall conform to the plan as filed with the city. Any substantive changes in the plan shall require a recommendation by the planning commission after they hold a public hearing and requires the approval ~ of the city council. Section 6. This amendment changes Section 44-1096(b). (additions are underlined and deletions are crossed out): Sec. 44-1096. Procedure. (b) The planning commission ~ shall hold at least one public hearing on each application for a conditional use permit. . The director of community development shall have a notice of the hearing published in the official newspaper at least ten days before the hearing. The director shall also cause a notice to be mailed to each of the owners of property within 500 ~@ feet of the boundary lines of the property upon which such use has been requested, which notices are to be mailed to the last known address of such owners at least ten days before the date of the hearing. Such notice shall include the date, time and place of the hearing and shall describe the conditional use request. Failure of property owners to receive notice shall not invalidate any of the proceedings in this section. Section 7. This amendment changes Section 44-1240(b). (additions are underlined and deletions are crossed out): Sec. 44-1240(b). (b) The city shall send a copy of approved amendments, subdivisions, variances or conditional uses under this article to the commissioner. The city shall mail all such approvals within ten days of final action. When the city approves a variance after the commissioner has recommended denial, the notification of the approved variance shall include the minutes of the public hearing and of the city council's action. Section 8. This amendment changes Section 44-1283(a). (additions are underlined and deletions are crossed out): Sec. 44-1283. Permit termination. (a) The material extraction permit may be terminated for violation of this article of any conditions of the permit. No permit may be terminated until the planning commission has held a public hearing and the city council has determined whether the permit shall be terminated, at which time the operator shall be afforded an opportunity to contest the termination. The city council may establish certain conditions which, if not complied with by the o ep rator, will result in immediate suspension of operations until the planning commission holds a public hearing and the city council considers terminating_'~ ~~_~:a~_ `~----=--~'~~-- `the permit ~. Section 9. This ordinance shall take effect after publishing in the official newspaper. Seconded by Councilmember Koppen Ayes-All City Counci106-28-04 7:38 p.m. Code Amendment -Commission Chairperson Appointments (First Reading) a. Assistant City Manager Coleman presented the report and specifics from the report. b. Mayor Cardinal opened the public hearing, calling for proponents or opponents. The following person was heard: Linda Olson, Community Design Review Board George Rossbach, 1406 East County Road C, Maplewood Diana Longrie-Kline, Community Design Review Board Lorraine Fischer, Planning Commission Chair Dale Trippler, Planning Commission Peter Fischer, Parks and Recreation Chair Mayor Cardinal closed the public hearing. Councilmember Rossbach moved to deny the ordinance a~roving the proposed code amendments re ag rding the planning commission and communi . design review board and to continue to allow the commissions to appoint their own chairs. Seconded by Councilmember Koppen Ayes-Mayor Cardinal, Councilmembers Juenemann, Koppen and Rossbach Nays-Councilmember Monahan-Junek 4. 8:10 p.m. Heritage Square Second Addition (Legacy Village -Kennard Street and Legacy Parkway) Planned Unit Development Revision Preliminary Plat Design Approval Councilmember Koppen moved to table this item per the applicants request until the July 26, 2004 City Council Meeting. Seconded by Councilmember Juenemann Ayes-All I. AWARD OF BIDS County Road D Realignment (East), T.H. 61 to Southlawn Drive, Project 02-07 - Resolution for Award of Bids Assistant City Manager Coleman presented the report. b. City Engineer Ahl presented specifics from the report. Councilmember Juenemann moved to adopt the following resolution accepting the bids and awarding the contract to Shafer Contracting Co., Inc. for the Base Bid and Bid Alternate No. 1 in the amount of $2,364,326.51: RESOLUTION 04-06-114 City Counci106-28-04 FOR AWARD OF BIDS BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA, that the bid of Shafer Contracting Co., Inc. for the Base Bid and Bid Alternate No.l, in the amount of $2,364,326.51 is the lowest responsible bid for the construction of County Road D Realignment East (T.H. 61 to Southlawn) City Project 02-07, and the mayor and clerk are hereby authorized and directed to enter into a contract with said bidder for and on behalf of the city. The finance director is hereby authorized to make the financial transfers necessary to implement the financing plan for the project. Seconded by Councilmember Monahan-Junek Ayes-All J. UNFINISHED BUSINESS 1. County Road D Realignment (East), T.H. 61 to Southlawn Drive, Project 02-07 - Resolution for Adoption of Assessment Roll Assistant City Manager Coleman presented the staff report. b. City Engineer Ahl presented specifics from the report. Councilmember Monahan-Junek moved to adopt the following resolution for the Adoption of the Assessment Roll for the County Road D Realignment Improvements, City Project 02-07: RESOLUTION 04-06-115 ADOPTION OF 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 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 obj ections to their assessments according to the requirements of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 429, summarized as follows: 1. Eric J. Palmer, 1645 County Road D East: PIN 343022430018 2. Country View Golf Center, Inc., 2926 Highway 61: PIN 032922230009 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA: A. That the City Engineer and City Clerk are hereby instructed to make the following adjustments to the assessment roll for the County Road D Realignment (East), T.H. 61 to Southlawn Dr., Project 02-07: 1. Eric J. Palmer, 1645 County Road D East; PIN 343022430018; Deny revision to assessment as benefit received. Accept assessment as originally proposed. 2. Country View Golf Center, Inc., 2926 Highway 61; PIN 032922230009; Make no adjustment. Accept assessment as originally proposed. B. Such assessments shall be payable in equal annual installments extending over a period of 15 City Counci106-28-04 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. C. The owner of any property so assessed may, at any time prior to certification of the assessment to the county auditor, but no later than October 1, 2004, pay the whole of the assessment on such property, with interest accrued to the date of the payment, to the city clerk, except that no interest shall be charged if the entire assessment is paid within 30 days from the adoption of this resolution; and they may, at any time after 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 Councilmember Koppen Ayes-All K. NEW BUSINESS 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 Assistant City Manager Coleman presented the staff report. b. City Engineer Ahl presented specifics from the report. Councilmember Juenemann moved to adopt the following resolutions for the County Road D Reali,~nment (West), Walter Street to T.H. 61, City Project 02-08: A~provin,~ Plans and Advertising for Bids and Ordering the Preparation of the Assessment Roll: RESOLUTION 04-06-116 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: Such plans and specifications, a copy of which are attached hereto and made a part City Counci106-28-04 hereof, are hereby approved and ordered placed on file in the office of the city clerk. 2. The city clerk shall prepare and cause to be inserted in the official paper and in the Construction Bulletin an advertisement for bids upon the making of such improvement under such approved plans and specifications. The advertisement shall be published twice, at least ten days before the date set for bid opening, shall specify the work to be done, shall state that bids will be publicly opened and considered by the council at 10:00.m. on the 30~ 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 August 9, 2004. RESOLUTION 04-06-117 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. Seconded by Councilmember Monahan-Junek Ayes-All 2. English Street Improvements, Frost to Cope, Project 01-14 -Approve Settlement Agreement with William Diesslin, 2115 English Street a. Assistant City Manager Coleman presented the staff report. b. City Engineer Ahl presented specifics from the report. Councilmember Koppen moved to approve the settlement agreement with William Diesslin, 2115 English Street, in the amount of $7,486.00 and to authorize payment from the Legal Pro,~ram of the General Fund (101-103-4970 Seconded by Councilmember Monahan-Junek Ayes-All Kennard Street Improvements, Beam to County Road D, Project 03-04 -Approve Engineering Agreement for Streetlight Study and Authorize Project Funds Assistant City Manager Coleman presented the staff report. b. City Engineer Ahl presented specifics from the report. City Counci106-28-04 10 Councilmember Juenemann moved to authorize the City Engineer to enter into a work order agreement with Kimley-Horn Associates in the amount of $29,700 for preparation of the street li~htin proposal for the Legacy Village Project and the Master Lighting plan' Seconded by Councilmember Koppen Ayes-All 4. Trunk Highway 61 Improvements, Beam to I-694, Project 03-07 -Resolution Authorizing Preparation of Preliminary Report and Approving Agreement with Kline Volvo Assistant City Manager Coleman presented the staff report. City Engineer Ahl presented specifics from the report. Councilmember Koppen moved to table until the July 12, City Council Meeting. Seconded by Councilmember Juenemann Ayes-All 5. White Bear Avenue Improvements, Radatz to Buerkle Road, Project 02-21--Authorize Funding for Engineering Expenditures Assistant City Manager Coleman presented the staff report. b. City Engineer Ahl presented specifics from the report. Councilmember Rossbach moved to adopt the following resolution approving a motion authorizing a bud,~et increase of $150,000 as part of the joint project with Ramsey County for the White Bear Avenue Improvements between Radatz and Buerkle Road, Project 02-21: Seconded by Councilmember Koppen Ayes-All L. VISITOR PRESENTATIONS Diana Longrie-Kline-1771 Burr Street-commented on the recent Channel 15 Suburban Cable Committee meeting regarding the code of ethics for journalists. M. COUNCIL PRESENTATIONS 1. 800 MHz-A public hearing for 800 MHz is scheduled for the July 12, 2004 City Council Meeting. 2. National Night Out-Mayor Cardinal commended everyone for doing so well with National Night Out last year, and encouraged all to participate on August 3rd 3. Historical Commission-Discussion was held regarding the interview and appointment process for the Historical Commission. 4. South Leg Group-Councilmember Rossbach noted that 42 residents attended the last South Leg Group Meeting and that there will not be a July meeting of the group. 5. Commissioner Policy-Staff was directed to create a policy and procedure manual for commission members. City Counci106-28-04 11 N. ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS 1. White Bear Business Association-Discussion was held regarding councils' participation in the parade. 2. City Engineer Ahl gave a brief update on the I-494 project. This item will be on the next agenda. O. ADJOURNMENT Councilmember Juenemann moved to adjourn the meeting at 8:58 p.m. Seconded by Councilmember Koppen Ayes -All City Counci106-28-04 12 AGENDA NO. G-1 AGENDA REPORT TO: City Council FROM: Finance Director RE: APPROVAL OF CLAIMS DATE: July 12, 2004 Attached is a listing of paid bills for informational purposes. The City Manager has reviewed the bills and authorized payment in accordance with City Council approved policies. ACCOUNTS PAYABLE: $ 12,000.00 Checks # 64188 dated 6/23/04 $ 464,205.75 Checks # 64189 thru # 64251 dated 6/29/04 $ 1,759,472.97 Disbursements via debits to checking account dated 6/18/04 thru 6/23/04 $ 460,194.61 Checks # 64252 thru # 64316 dated 7/06/04 $ 150,381.96 Disbursements via debits to checking account dated 6/24/04 thru 7/01/04 $ 2,846,255.29 Total Accounts Payable PAYROLL $ 438,833.11 Payroll Checks and Direct Deposits dated 7/02/04 $ 5,905.60 Payroll Deduction check # 97899 thru # 97904 dated 7/02/04 $ 444,738.71 Total Payroll $ 3,290,994.00 GRAND TOTAL Attached is a detailed listing of these claims. Please call me at 651-249-2902 if you have any question on the attached listing. This will allow me to check the supporting documentation on file if necessary. ds attachments c:\My Documents\Excel\Miscellaneous\04-AprClms 06-25, 07-02 1 Check Register City of Maplewood vchlist 06/25/2004 12:53:39 PM Check Date Vendor Description/Account Amount 64188 6/23/2004 01284 POSTMASTER POSTAGE FOR CITY NEWS -JULY 12,000.00 64189 6/29/2004 03125 AAA PRINTING REPAIR WALL 90.00 64190 6/29/2004 00111 ANIMAL CONTROL SERVICES INC PATROL & BOARDING FEES 6/5 - 6/14 855.83 64191 6/29/2004 03114 APR COMPUTERS INC DOCUMENT SCANNER PANASONIC KV-S2045C 2,623.00 64192 6/29/2004 00178 BERGGREN, GORDON NAME SIGN 40.00 64193 6/29/2004 01811 BERNATELLO'S PIZZA INC MERCH FOR RESALE 156.00 64194 6/29/2004 00198 BOARD OF WATER COMMISSIONERS MONTHLY WATER UTIL -BILL DATE 6/23 2,131.70 64195 6/29/2004 03020 BRADLEY R BEHNKE GOLF MGMT LLC GOLF INSTRUCTORS 1,800.00 64196 6/29/2004 00211 BRAUN INTERTEC CORP. PROJ 03-04 PROF SRVS THRU 5/14 1,166.50 PROJ 01-16 PROF SRVS THRU 6/11 353.25 PROJ 03-04 PROF SRVS THRU 6/11 341.00 64197 6/29/2004 03130 CAMPBELL KNUTSON PROJ 02-07 LEGAL SRV THRU 5/31/2004 1,095.00 64198 6/29/2004 03131 CIRCUITWORKS UPS REPAIR 150.00 64199 6/29/2004 00300 CLAREYS SAFETY EQUIPMENT AIR CYLINDER HYDRO-TESTED 2,584.00 64200 6/29/2004 02974 CORBAN GROUP INC, THE RMS PROJ CONSULTANT FEE 398.60 64201 6/29/2004 02791 DAVIS & LAGERMAN INC APPRAISAL SRVS 1,200.00 64202 6/29/2004 00382 DAVIS LOCK & SAFE KEYS 24.50 64203 6/29/2004 00418 DOREE, KURT REIMB FOR MILEAGE & MEALS 6/10 - 6/13 157.05 64204 6/29/2004 00103 EARL F ANDERSON INC INSTALL PARK EQUIPMENT 11,736.00 64205 6/29/2004 00463 EMERGENCY APPARATUS MAINT STEP LIGHT 83.24 64206 6/29/2004 00477 ESS BROTHERS & SONS INC MAINT SUPPLIES 1,150.20 64207 6/29/2004 00499 FAUST, DANIEL REIMB FOR MEALS & TAXI 6/12 - 6/16 125.67 64208 6/29/2004 03126 FIRE INSTRUCTION & RESCUE EDUC CONFINED SPACE TRAINING 480.00 64209 6/29/2004 02642 GALLES CORP REPAIR POWER WASHER 334.58 CREDIT REPAIR LABOR -60.00 CREDIT REPAIR LABOR -50.00 64210 6/29/2004 00543 GE CAPITAL MONTHLY COPIER LEASE 293.94 64211 6/29/2004 00611 GUNDERSON CONSTRUCTION INC REFUND PAC FEE 39,870.00 64212 6/29/2004 03134 HUGO ANIMAL FARM INC FARM FIELD TRIP 6/2 170.50 64213 6/29/2004 00718 INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DIST #622 VOLLEYBALL BUILDING SUPV 401.25 64214 6/29/2004 00720 INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DIST #623 POOL RENTAL 105.00 64215 6/29/2004 03127 LOVEGREEN MECH SRVS LLC MECH SYSTEM PREV MAINT - 1ST PYMT 523.50 MECH SYSTEM PREV MAINT - 2ND PYMT 523.50 64216 6/29/2004 00928 MANTYLA WELL DRILLING INC 3 WELL ABANDONMENT- HAZELWOOD ST 2,250.00 64217 6/29/2004 00932 MAPLEWOOD BAKERY MERCH FOR RESALE 391.14 BIRTHDAY CAKES 82.25 BIRTHDAY CAKES 61.00 64218 6/29/2004 01012 MILLER, NICK REIMB MILEAGE,MEALS,LODGING,REG 344.39 64219 6/29/2004 01023 MN COUNTY ATTORNEYS ASSN DWI TRAINING 155.00 64220 6/29/2004 01126 MN NCPERS LIFE INSURANCE PERA LIFE INS -JUN 213.00 64221 6/29/2004 01382 MUELLER, RON PAINT INSPECTIONS AREA, DRIVERS LICENSE 1,910.00 64222 6/29/2004 01135 NALIPINSKI, STEPHEN REIMB MEALS, LODGING, & TAXI 283.75 64223 6/29/2004 03128 ND CHAPTER IAAI INVESTIGATION TRAINING 180.00 64224 6/29/2004 01173 NORTH METRO AUTOMOTIVE REPAIR UTILITY#2 VEHICLE 262.97 64225 6/29/2004 00001 ONE TIME VENDOR REF WHITE BEAR LAKE DIST -GROUP 160.00 64226 6/29/2004 00001 ONE TIME VENDOR REF HILL MURRAY HS -MCC OVRPYMT 140.00 64227 6/29/2004 00001 ONE TIME VENDOR REF ANTHONY WALSH -TREE REIMB 117.15 64228 6/29/2004 00001 ONE TIME VENDOR REF AVIS WEGNER -MEMBERSHIP 27.80 64229 6/29/2004 00001 ONE TIME VENDOR REF JUSTIN COLEMAN -MCC ERROR 25.00 64230 6/29/2004 00001 ONE TIME VENDOR REF DJ LAWAL -MCC PROGRAM 23.21 64231 6/29/2004 00001 ONE TIME VENDOR REF BARBARA FARRELL - NC FEE 10.00 64232 6/29/2004 00001 ONE TIME VENDOR REF MARGIE JONES - NC PROGRAM 10.00 64233 6/29/2004 01560 ONYX WASTE SRVS MIDWEST INC RECYCLING -MAY 18,991.64 64234 6/29/2004 01254 PEPSI-COLA COMPANY MERCH FOR RESALE 352.45 64235 6/29/2004 01337 RAMSEY COUNTY-PROP REC & REV FILING FEES -MAR 400.00 TIF ADMIN EXPENSES 1,991.31 PROJ 02-05 TRAFFIC SIGNALS & EVP 250.00 64236 6/29/2004 01359 REGAL AUTO WASH DETAIL XX CAR WASHES -MAY 95.76 64237 6/29/2004 01340 REGIONS HOSPITAL PARAMEDIC PROGRAM SUPPLIES 1,152.28 64238 6/29/2004 01360 REINHART FOODSERVICE MERCH FOR RESALE 560.06 MERCH FOR RESALE 637.32 2 Check Date Vendor 64239 64240 64241 64242 64243 64244 6/29/2004 03133 6/29/2004 01387 6/29/2004 01403 6/29/2004 02056 6/29/2004 01903 6/29/2004 01504 6/29/2004 01574 6/29/2004 01698 6/29/2004 01709 6/29/2004 01734 6/29/2004 01750 6/29/2004 02838 6/29/2004 01805 RICE, DAN ROSSINI, DR. JAMES SCHADT,JEFFREY SMITH, RICHARD SPANGLER,EDNA ST PAUL, CITY OF 64245 64246 64247 64248 64249 64250 64251 64 Checks in this report T.A. SCHIFSKY & SONS, INC UNITED WAY OF THE ST. PAUL VASKO RUBBISH REMOVAL WALSH, WILLIAM P. WATSON CO INC, THE WHITE, JOEL A ZIEGLER INC. Description/Account Amount EMT TEST 20.00 FITNESS PROGRAM -JUN 100.00 REIMB FOR MILEAGE 6/11 TO 6/12 87.00 REIMB MEALS, LODGING & MILEAGE 359.91 REIMB FOR FOOD - PROJ 02-10 131.05 PROJ 02-08 SEAL AUTO FIRE SUPPLY 75.00 PROJ 02-08 SEAL AUTO FIRE SUPPLY 75.00 PROJ 03-18 HAZELWOOD PYMT #1 352,644.72 QUARTERLY PYMT 688.00 ROLL-OFF DUMPSTERS (40 YARDS) FOR HOUSE 3,066.50 COMMERCIAL PLUMBING INSP 588.00 MERCH FOR RESALE 351.50 REIMB MEALS, LODGING & MILEAGE 253.78 RENTAL OF 320 TRACK EXCAVATOR FOR 2 3,834.00 Total checks : 476,205.75 3 CITY OF MAPLEWOOD Disbursements via Debits to Checking account Transmitted Settlement Date Date Payee 06/ 17/04 06/ 18/04 06/08/04 06/ 17/04 06/ 18/04 06/ 18/04 06/ 18/04 06/21 /04 06/ 18/04 06/21 /04 06/ 18/04 06/08/04 06/ 18/04 06/22/04 06/21 /04 06/ 18/04 06/ 18/04 06/ 18/04 06/ 18/04 06/21 /04 06/21 /04 06/21 /04 06/21 /04 06/21 /04 06/22/04 06/22/04 06/22/04 06/22/04 06/23/04 06/23/04 MN State Treasurer ICMA (Vantagepointe) MN Dept of Revenue MN Dept of Natural Resources MN State Treasurer U.S. Treasurer P.E.R.A. Wells Fargo Investments Orchard Trust MN State Treasurer MN State Treasurer MN Dept of Revenue MSA/Dispatcher Unions MN State Treasurer ARC Administration TOTAL Description Drivers License/Deputy Registrar Deferred Compensation Sales Tax DNR electronic licenses Drivers License/Deputy Registrar Federal Payroll Tax P.E.R.A. Investment reverse repo Deferred Compensation Drivers License/Deputy Registrar State Payroll Tax Fuel Tax Union Dues Drivers License/Deputy Registrar DCRP & Flex plan payments Amount 17,182.89 8,066.59 5,756.00 850.00 7,384.50 90,258.83 48,848.91 1,509,244.77 21,590.78 13,516.04 17,068.94 219.00 208.00 18,235.80 1,041.92 ~~ , /by,4/L.y/ 4 Check Register City of Maplewood vchlist 07/01/2004 2:30:26 PM Check Date Vendor Description/Account Amount 64252 7/6/2004 01908 ADMINISTRATION, DEPT OF HARBOR BACKUP -MAY 1,386.79 WIDE AREA NETWORK USAGE -MAY 392.00 64253 7/6/2004 00111 ANIMAL CONTROL SERVICES INC PATROL & BOARDING FEES 6/15 - 6/25 1,438.91 64254 7/6/2004 00174 BELDE, STAN K-9 HANDLER -JUL 35.00 64255 7/6/2004 00178 BERGGREN, GORDON NAME SIGN 20.00 64256 7/6/2004 01936 BERGO, CHAD CABLE INTERNET SRV -JUL 7.49 64257 7/6/2004 00186 BEST SOFTWARE, INC. ANNUAL SUPPORT 8/3 - 8/2/05 1,059.63 64258 7/6/2004 02914 BLUECROSS BLUESHIELD OF MN MONTHLY PREMIUM -JULY 107,347.50 64259 7/6/2004 00198 BOARD OF WATER COMMISSIONERS MONTHLY WATER UTILITIES 65.27 64260 7/6/2004 00210 BRAUER & ASSOCIATES, LTD PROF SRVS TRAIL DESIGN 103.88 LEGACY PARK PROF SRVS 2,108.97 JOY PARK MASTER PLAN SRVS 2,959.75 AFTON HTS PARK PLANNING &DEV 32.50 LEGACY PARK DESIGN DEV 4,307.88 LEGACY PARK DESIGN DEV 10,286.13 AFTON HTS PARK PLANNING &DEV 552.46 64261 7/6/2004 00221 BROCK WHITE COMPANY, LLC. GROUT 588.07 64262 7/6/2004 02929 CNAGLAC LONG TERM CARE INS -JUL 772.00 64263 7/6/2004 03136 DATABASE RESOURCES INC DP SERVICES 500.00 64264 7/6/2004 00384 DE LACE LANDEN FINANCIAL SRVS LEASE COPIER 511.20 64265 7/6/2004 00384 DE LACE LANDEN FINANCIAL SRVS COPIER LEASE 326.54 64266 7/6/2004 00384 DE LACE LANDEN FINANCIAL SRVS LEASE COPIER 161.88 64267 7/6/2004 00103 EARL F ANDERSON INC 6' X 3# GALVANIZED CHANNEL POST 2,098.05 GALVANIZED POST 984.06 64268 7/6/2004 03140 ELLIS, ABHA YOGA CLASS INSTRUCTOR 350.00 64269 7/6/2004 00477 ESS BROTHERS & SONS INC MAINT SUPPLIES 3,026.73 64270 7/6/2004 01401 FIRST STUDENT INC BUS FEE 3/26 277.30 64271 7/6/2004 03139 FLOORS BY STEVE REFINISH GYM, RACQUETBALL CRTS, AEROBIC 4,375.00 64272 7/6/2004 00529 FORTIS BENEFITS INSURANCE CO MONTHLY LTD PREMIUM 2,065.29 STD PLAN 4043120-0-1 -JUL 1,321.73 64273 7/6/2004 00647 HARDWOOD CREEK LUMBER INC LATH & HUBS FOR PROJECTS 707.56 64274 7/6/2004 00668 HIEBERT, STEVEN K-9 HANDLER -JUL 35.00 64275 7/6/2004 00483 IDEACOM MID-AMERICA PHONE SERVICE 1,058.88 ADD 4 NEW EXTENSIONS 509.34 PHONE SERVICE 716.22 PHONE SERVICE 268.92 HANDSET 101.74 64276 7/6/2004 00718 INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DIST #622 BUS FEE 146.36 64277 7/6/2004 00719 INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DIST #622 FIELD TRIP LUNCHES 6/2 175.00 64278 7/6/2004 02995 INTEGRATED LOSS CONTROL INC HEALTH & SAFETY SRVS - 3RD QTR 2,763.00 64279 7/6/2004 00489 INTEREUM INC DESIGN FEE 178.75 DESIGN FEE 786.89 5 -HERMAN MILLER ACTION OFFICE 2 PANEL 1,755.63 5 -HERMAN MILLER ACTION OFFICE 2 PANEL 2,159.07 5 -HERMAN MILLER ACTION OFFICE 2 PANEL -201.29 INSTALLATION FEE 60.71 INSTALLATION & DELIVERY SRVS 85.73 64280 7/6/2004 03137 IT ADVANTAGE CORP TICKETMAKER ANNUAL SUPPORT 649.00 64281 7/6/2004 02728 KIMLEY-HORN & ASSOCIATES INC PROJ 02-21 PROF SRVS THRU 5/31 4,404.63 PROJ 02-07 PROF SRVS THRU 5/31 10,836.18 PROJ 03-22 PROF SRVS THRU 5/31 21,110.88 PROJ 03-26 PROF SRVS THRU 5/31 41,862.79 64282 7/6/2004 00908 M R P A DIST/STATE SOFTBALL TOURNEY 650.00 64283 7/6/2004 03141 MAXWELL HOMES REF GRADING ESC - 2705 PINKSPIRE LN 1,042.88 64284 7/6/2004 01819 MCLEOD USA LOCAL PHONE SRV 5/16 - 6/15 2,008.07 64285 7/6/2004 00964 MEDICAL RESEARCH LAB INC BATTERIES -SUPER PAC 3,015.00 64286 7/6/2004 02872 METLIFE SBC MONTHLY DENTAL PREMIUM 7,313.58 64287 7/6/2004 00985 METROPOLITAN COUNCIL WASTEWATER -JUL 156,400.33 64288 7/6/2004 01032 MN BOARD OF AELSLAGID PROF ENGINEERING LICENSE 120.00 64289 7/6/2004 01085 MN LIFE INSURANCE MONTHLY PREMIUM 3,762.70 64290 7/6/2004 01160 NEWMAN TRAFFIC SIGNS R1-1 30"VIP STOP 2,200.60 36" OCT BLANKS 5,292.62 64291 7/6/2004 00001 ONE TIME VENDOR REF GINA WOOD -MCC PROGRAMS 98.00 64292 7/6/2004 00001 ONE TIME VENDOR REF TRISHA OLSEN -MCC PROGRAM 86.00 64293 7/6/2004 00001 ONE TIME VENDOR REF TRACY SEITZ -SNORKELING CLASS 60.00 64294 7/6/2004 00001 ONE TIME VENDOR REF BUILDING PRMT 04-01361 40.50 64295 7/6/2004 00001 ONE TIME VENDOR REF MICHELE GRAN - DUP PET LICENSE 16.00 Check Date Vendor 64296 7/6/2004 00001 ONE TIME VENDOR 64297 7/6/2004 00001 ONE TIME VENDOR 64298 7/6/2004 00001 ONE TIME VENDOR 64299 7/6/2004 02889 PERFORMANCE TRANS & MACHINE 64300 7/6/2004 03107 PROCRAFT 64301 7/6/2004 02010 RAMSEY CTY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE 64302 7/6/2004 01346 RAMSEY-WASHINGTON METRO DIST 64303 7/6/2004 01392 RUFFRIDGE JOHNSON EQUIP. CO. 64304 7/6/2004 01418 SAM'S CLUB DIRECT 64305 7/6/2004 03138 SHOCK ME APPAREL 64306 7/6/2004 01504 ST PAUL, CITY OF 64307 7/6/2004 03058 STAR, BARRY 64308 7/6/2004 01526 STATE TREASURER 64309 7/6/2004 02981 STORK TWIN CITY TESTING CORP 64310 7/6/2004 01572 SYSTEMS SUPPLY, INC. 64311 7/6/2004 01574 T.A. SCHIFSKY & SONS, INC 64312 7/6/2004 01683 UNIFORMS UNLIMITED INC 64313 7/6/2004 02464 US BANK 64314 7/6/2004 01734 WALSH, WILLIAM P. 64315 7/6/2004 01740 WASHINGTON COUNTY ATTORNEY 64316 7/6/2004 01789 WOODBURY, CITY OF 65 Checks in this report Description/Account Amount REF REBECCA MARANDA -MCC PROGRAM 11.00 REF MICHELLE DANSKY -MCC PROGRAM 11.00 REF SANDY EWALD -MCC PROGRAM 6.00 A/C REPAIR 163.95 EXTERIOR PAINTING STATION 4 3,745.00 20% ADMIN FEE FORFEITURE #04-005-005 23.00 RAIN BARRELS 404.00 PUMP 5,825.25 BIRTHDAY SUPPLIES 67.70 PROGRAM SUPPLIES 197.00 PROGRAM SUPPLIES 311.03 PROGRAM SUPPLIES 180.49 MERCH FOR RESALE 157.74 MERCH FOR RESALE 241.35 MERCH FOR RESALE 117.88 MERCH FOR RESALE 73.42 T-SHIRTS 191.40 SHIRTS 298.50 MEDICAL SUPPLIES 7,286.41 REF GRADING ESC - 1784 PHALEN PL 1,550.00 10% ADMIN FEE FORFEITURE #03002443 8.70 10% ADMIN FEE FORFEITURE #04-005-005 11.50 PROJ 02-SERVICES THRU 4/30 5,419.69 PROJ 02-07 SRVS THRU 6/11 3,863.00 INK & TONER CARTRIDGES 272.71 INK CARTRIDGES 373.05 VARIOUS BITUMINOUS- 2,900.48 SHIRT & PANTS 120.84 BULLETPROOF VEST 769.50 BELT 19.95 PANTS 71.06 SHIRT 41.50 PANTS & SHIRTS 195.90 PANTS 5.86 VEST & COVER 839.94 PAYING AGENT FEE 100.63 COMMERCIAL PLUMBING INSP 1,471.00 20% ADMIN FEE FORFEITURE #03002443 17.40 REIMB FOR SAFE & SOBER GRANT 1,090.50 Total checks : 460,194.61 6 CITY OF MAPLEWOOD Disbursements via Debits to Checking account Transmitted Settlement Date Date Payee 06/23/04 06/21 /04 06/24/04 06/ 18/04 06/24/04 06/25/04 06/25/04 06/28/04 06/29/04 06/30/04 06/25/04 06/24/04 06/24/04 06/25/04 06/25/04 06/25/04 06/28/04 06/28/04 06/29/04 06/30/04 07/01 /04 07/01 /04 MN State Treasurer ARC Administration MN State Treasurer WI Dept of Revenue MN Dept of Natural Resources MN State Treasurer Pitney Bowes MN State Treasurer MN State Treasurer MN State Treasurer Elan Financial Services* TOTAL Description Drivers License/Deputy Registrar DCRP & Flex plan payments Drivers License/Deputy Registrar State Payroll Tax DNR electronic licenses Drivers License/Deputy Registrar Postage Drivers License/Deputy Registrar Drivers License/Deputy Registrar Drivers License/Deputy Registrar Purchasing card items *Detailed listings of Elan purchasing card items are attached. Amount 13,673.63 1,041.92 11,052.15 1,387.36 1,219.00 12,947.53 2,985.00 20,553.80 17,197.53 20,553.64 47,770.40 7 Transaction Review For Transactions posted between 06/12/2004 to 06/18/2004 Post Date Vendor Name 06/ 14/2004 06/ 14/2004 06/ 16/2004 06/ 17/2004 06/ 18/2004 06/ 18/2004 06/ 18/2004 06/ 14/2004 06/ 14/2004 06/ 15/2004 06/ 15/2004 06/ 16/2004 06/ 16/2004 06/ 17/2004 06/ 18/2004 06/ 18/2004 06/ 18/2004 06/ 16/2004 06/ 14/2004 06/ 17/2004 06/ 17/2004 06/ 17/2004 06/ 18/2004 06/ 18/2004 06/ 17/2004 06/ 18/2004 06/ 17/2004 06/ 16/2004 06/ 15/2004 06/ 14/2004 06/ 14/2004 06/ 18/2004 06/ 18/2004 06/ 15/2004 06/ 15/2004 06/ 17/2004 06/ 14/2004 06/ 18/2004 06/ 17/2004 06/ 14/2004 06/ 14/2004 06/ 18/2004 06/ 14/2004 06/ 14/2004 06/ 16/2004 06/ 18/2004 06/ 14/2004 06/ 14/2004 06/ 14/2004 06/ 14/2004 06/ 14/2004 06/ 14/2004 DISCOVERY TOYS CUB FOODS, INC. CUB FOODS, INC. JOANN ETC #1970 KMART 00071068 CUB FOODS, INC. BIFFS INC POOLSIDE AQUA LOGIC INC ALL MAIN STREET ELECTRIC VOSS LIGHTING NORTHERN TOOL EQUIPMNT CONTINENTAL RESEARCH PAIN ENTERPRISES INC. THE HOME DEPOT 2801 EL REINHARDT COMPANY INC WIRELESS UP, LLC MENARDS 3059 MICHAELS #2744 MICHAELS #2744 MICHAELS #2744 KINKO'S #0617 MICHAELS #3701 DGI DYNAMIC GRAPHICS VERIZON WRLS I2KW RE3 ST PAUL AREA CHAMBER PARTYPRO.COM SENSIBLE LAND USE COAL MN PHOTO VRZN WRLS VZSRVE W RE3 GOVERNMENT FINANCE OFFIC ROCK BOTTOM 1068 HYATT HOTELS MILWAUKEE BREEZY POINT RESORT/RES-C BREEZY POINT RESORT/RES-C GLENWOOD-INGLEWOOD EXCELLCOM PC FURNITURE STORE LLC B & H PHOTO-VIDEO.COM LANDSCAPE ALTERNATIVES IN CINDERS GREENHOUSE INC MARCUS OAKD.CIN #488 Q25 VERIZON WRLS I2KW RE3 PROPERTYKEY.COM, INC. THE OLIVE GARD00012005 METRO SALES INC S & T OFFICE PRODUCTS UNIFORMS UNLIMITED INC UNIFORMS UNLIMITED INC ATHLETIC GYM MATS HENRIKSEN ACE HARDWARE NEXTEL WIRELESS SVCS Settlement Amt Cardholder Name 6/21/2004 78.21 MANDY ANZALDI 13.04 MANDY ANZALDI 11.72 MANDY ANZALDI 11.49 MANDY ANZALDI 12.17 MANDY ANZALDI 12.76 MANDY ANZALDI 285.52 JOHN BANICK 160.07 JIM BEHAN 787.59 JIM BEHAN 96.00 JIM BEHAN 72.76 JIM BEHAN 63.89 JIM BEHAN -145.34 JIM BEHAN 210.21 JIM BEHAN 17.98 JIM BEHAN 215.31 JIM BEHAN 90.00 JOSEPH BERGERON 28.39 ROGER BREHEIM 8.51 HEIDI CAREY 17.00 HEIDI CAREY 16.11 HEIDI CAREY 6.39 HEIDI CAREY 17.00 HEIDI CAREY 79.00 HEIDI CAREY 40.97 CHRISTOPHER CAVETT 9.00 MELINDA COLEMAN 64.48 LINDA CROSSON 40.00 ROBERTA DARST 14.97 VIRGINIA ERICKSON 73.39 DANIEL F FAUST 415.00 DANIEL F FAUST 12.37 DANIEL F FAUST 655.93 DANIEL F FAUST 296.08 DAVID FISHER 296.08 DAVID FISHER 106.34 DAVID FISHER 85.16 MYCHAL FOWLDS 113.20 MYCHAL FOWLDS 497.45 PATRICIA FRY 51.12 VIRGINIA GAYNOR 518.06 VIRGINIA GAYNOR 31.00 MIKE GRAF 130.46 KAREN E GUILFOILE 50.00 KAREN E GUILFOILE 91.44 KAREN E GUILFOILE 1,920.00 LORI HANSEN 90.10 LORI HANSON 89.91 STEPHEN HEINZ 30.68 STEPHEN HEINZ 110.11 RON HORWATH 10.61 RON HORWATH 55.84 STEVE HURLEY 8 Post Date Vendor Name 06/ 17/2004 06/ 14/2004 06/ 17/2004 06/ 14/2004 06/ 14/2004 06/ 14/2004 06/ 14/2004 06/ 14/2004 06/ 14/2004 06/ 15/2004 06/ 14/2004 06/ 14/2004 06/ 14/2004 06/ 14/2004 06/ 17/2004 06/ 17/2004 06/ 18/2004 06/ 14/2004 06/ 14/2004 06/ 16/2004 06/ 16/2004 06/ 17/2004 06/ 15/2004 06/ 17/2004 06/ 14/2004 06/ 18/2004 06/ 14/2004 06/ 16/2004 06/ 14/2004 06/ 17/2004 06/ 16/2004 06/ 17/2004 06/ 17/2004 06/ 14/2004 06/ 14/2004 06/ 14/2004 06/ 14/2004 06/ 16/2004 06/ 16/2004 06/ 16/2004 06/ 16/2004 06/ 18/2004 06/ 18/2004 06/ 18/2004 06/ 18/2004 06/ 18/2004 06/ 18/2004 06/ 18/2004 06/ 15/2004 06/ 18/2004 06/ 18/2004 06/ 14/2004 06/ 14/2004 06/ 14/2004 06/ 14/2004 06/ 16/2004 BEST BUY 00000075 NEXTEL WIRELESS SVCS HENRIKSEN ACE HARDWARE NAPA AUTO PARTS WOLF CAMERA #1541 MICHAELS #9401 MARSHALLS #0161 UNIFORMS UNLIMITED INC DALCO ENTERPRISES, INC FRATTALLONE'S ACE HDWE AJ FORLITI PHOTOGRAPHY NEXTEL WIRELESS SVCS REED BUS INFO ACCT REC REED BUS INFO ACCT REC VERIZON WRLS I2KW RE3 HEAD LITES CORPORATION METRO SALES INC HUGOS TREE CARE HUGOS TREE CARE AMERICAN FASTENER00 OF 00 ON SITE SANITATION, IN VERIZON WRLS I2KW RE3 AIRTRANAIR 9990032916011 VERIZON WRLS I2KW RE3 YOCUM OIL COMPANY SPRINTPCS AUTOPYMT RC1 UNIFORMS UNLIMITED INC QWEST COMMUNICATION PROPERTYKEY.COM, INC. NORTHERN TOOL EQUIPMNT HENRIKSEN ACE HARDWARE OFFICE MAX 00002204 ETRONICS O1 OF O1 BOYER TRUCKS-PARTS AUTO GLASS SPECIALISTS-MN MERIT CHEVROLET KATH AUTO PARTS AMERICAN FASTENER00 OF 00 SUNRAY BTB SUNRAY BTB CARQUEST EAT INC EAT INC BAUER BULT TRE33200023 BAUER BULT TRE33200023 ELLIOTT AUTO SUPPLY MTI DISTRIBUTING, INC.-PL NATIONAL PARTS CORPORATIO SPARTAN PROMOTIONAL GRP NEXTEL WIRELESS SVCS INTEREUM INC DALCO ENTERPRISES, INC DALCO ENTERPRISES, INC CUB FOODS, INC. MICHAELS #2744 WONDER/HOSTESS #63 Settlement Amt Cardholder Name 308.83 STEVE HURLEY 50.22 ANN E HUTCHINSON 14.90 DAVID JAHN 6.49 FLINT KARIS 10.69 HEATHER KOS 10.17 HEATHER KOS 12.78 HEATHER KOS 701.70 DAVID KVAM 328.99 MICHAEL LIDBERG 26.59 MICHAEL LIDBERG 63.69 STEVE LUKIN 812.93 STEVE LUKIN 126.06 STEVE LUKIN 126.06 STEVE LUKIN 130.03 STEVE LUKIN 1,414.85 STEVE LUKIN -1,920.00 STEVE LUKIN 266.25 MARK MARUSKA 692.25 MARK MARUSKA 149.76 MARK MARUSKA 255.60 MARK MARUSKA 34.05 MARK MARUSKA 292.40 JON A MELANDER 61.59 ED NADEAU 85.10 BRYAN NAGEL 73.45 BRYAN NAGEL 138.40 JULIE OLSON 629.00 MARSHA PACOLT 50.00 DENNIS PECK 47.91 ROBERT PETERSON 8.24 PHILIP F POWELL 11.91 PHILIP F POWELL 47.87 PHILIP F POWELL 180.86 STEVEN PRIEM 157.28 STEVEN PRIEM 160.78 STEVEN PRIEM 48.40 STEVEN PRIEM 77.60 STEVEN PRIEM 17.16 STEVEN PRIEM 45.98 STEVEN PRIEM 21.67 STEVEN PRIEM 59.91 STEVEN PRIEM 160.92 STEVEN PRIEM 331.34 STEVEN PRIEM 977.29 STEVEN PRIEM 177.25 STEVEN PRIEM 62.26 STEVEN PRIEM 997.33 STEVEN PRIEM 462.39 KEVIN RABBETT 1,890.37 KEVIN RABBETT 151.23 TERRIE RAMEAUX 1,976.98 MICHAEL REILLY 13.85 MICHAEL REILLY 16.55 AUDRA ROBBINS 180.59 AUDRA ROBBINS 6.99 AUDRA ROBBINS 9 Post Date Vendor Name 06/ 16/2004 06/ 17/2004 06/ 17/2004 06/ 17/2004 06/ 18/2004 06/ 14/2004 06/ 18/2004 06/ 15/2004 06/ 16/2004 06/ 16/2004 06/ 17/2004 06/ 17/2004 06/ 14/2004 06/ 15/2004 06/ 14/2004 06/ 14/2004 06/ 14/2004 06/ 15/2004 06/ 18/2004 06/ 17/2004 06/ 17/2004 06/ 17/2004 06/ 16/2004 06/ 17/2004 TARGET 00011858 SEARS ROEBUCK 1122 THREE RIVERS PARK TARGET 00011858 TCT M&N INTERNATIONAL TAYLOR SALES LLC BROOK WHITE COMPANY-ST PA MENARDS 3022 SOURCE, INC. S & T OFFICE PRODUCTS VERIZON WRLS I2KW RE3 S & T OFFICE PRODUCTS THE OFFICE SHOP AITKIN VZW MESSAGING OVERHEAD DOOR OF NORTH HENRIKSEN ACE HARDWARE HIRSHFIELD'S MAPLEWOOD DALCO ENTERPRISES, INC EL REINHARDT COMPANY INC TARGET 00002402 UNIFORMS UNLIMITED INC VIKING ELECTRIC-ST. PAUL PIZZA MAN FRANKS 00501759 Settlement Amt Cardholder Name 115.55 AUDRA ROBBINS 74.30 AUDRA ROBBINS 50.00 AUDRA ROBBINS 22.85 AUDRA ROBBINS 35.49 AUDRA ROBBINS 177.43 RUSSELL L SCHMIDT 123.06 SCOTT SCHULTZ 26.70 GERALD SEEGER 215.00 ANDREA SINDT -56.23 ANDREA SINDT 45.46 ANDREA SINDT 171.98 ANDREA SINDT 596.37 PAULINE STAPLES 120.30 PAULINE STAPLES 284.25 LYLE SWANSON 525.65 LYLE SWANSON 180.45 LYLE SWANSON 283.30 LYLE SWANSON 32.94 LYLE SWANSON 42.59 DOUGLAS J TAUBMAN 89.90 DAVID J THOMALLA 119.41 SUSAN ZWIEG 74.50 SUSAN ZWIEG 44.69 SUSAN ZWIEG 24,705.21 10 Transaction Review 6/ z s/ z o 04 For Transactions posted between 06/19/2004 to 06/25/2004 Post Date Vendor Name Settlement Amt Cardholder Name 06/21/2004 S & T OFFICE PRODUCTS 158.73 BRUCE K ANDERSON 06/22/2004 TASTE OF SCANDINAVIA 1 143.62 BRUCE K ANDERSON 06/22/2004 PULSTAR 76.68 SCOTT ANDREWS 06/21/2004 CUB FOODS, INC. 21.12 MANDY ANZALDI 06/23/2004 KMART 00071068 32.82 MANDY ANZALDI 06/24/2004 RAINBOW 1-8852 1.05 MANDY ANZALDI 06/23/2004 LAMETTRY'S COLLISION 1,996.28 JOHN BANICK 06/25/2004 MERIT CHEVROLET 51.35 JOHN BANICK 06/24/2004 MATRX MEDICAL 469.54 JOHN BANICK 06/25/2004 CENTURY COLLEGE CONTINUIN 516.00 JOHN BANICK 06/21/2004 HENRIKSEN ACE HARDWARE 6.35 JIM BEHAN 06/24/2004 AQUA LOGIC INC 527.18 JIM BEHAN 06/25/2004 VERIZON WRLS OT I2KW 136.06 JIM BEHAN 06/21/2004 KPS UNDER ARMOUR APPRL 86.95 BRIAN BIERDEMAN 06/25/2004 AMOCO OIL 07847502 6.19 OAKLEY BIESANZ 06/25/2004 KWIK TRIP 81000008102 25.79 OAKLEY BIESANZ 06/25/2004 WINDOM PARK BED AND BREAK 746.48 OAKLEY BIESANZ 06/25/2004 ENTERPRISE RENTACAR 199.84 OAKLEY BIESANZ 06/22/2004 TARGET 00011858 98.94 ROGER BREHEIM 06/24/2004 MENARDS 3059 42.39 ROGER BREHEIM 06/24/2004 MENARDS 3059 19.16 TROY BRINK 06/23/2004 MICHAELS #9401 8.54 HEIDI CAREY 06/25/2004 HELMER PRINTING 475.00 HEIDI CAREY 06/21/2004 UNITED RENTALS/HTG #229 163.49 CHRISTOPHER CAVETT 06/22/2004 TARGET 00011858 28.19 MELINDA COLEMAN 06/25/2004 FRANKLIN COVEY #7069 14.80 MELINDA COLEMAN 06/24/2004 ANCHOR BLOCK COMPANY 505.66 THOMAS DEBILZAN 06/21/2004 AMERICAN IRRIGATION 4.65 DAVE EDSON 06/21/2004 AMERICAN IRRIGATION 15.19 DAVE EDSON 06/21/2004 AMERICAN IRRIGATION 49.27 DAVE EDSON 06/22/2004 HYDROLOGIC WATER MANAGEME 21.30 DAVE EDSON 06/24/2004 INT'L CODE COUNCIL INC 57.99 DAVID FISHER 06/25/2004 PANERA BREAD #3459 15.51 DAVID FISHER 06/21/2004 UNIFORMS UNLIMITED INC 12.73 TIMOTHY FLOR 06/22/2004 BEST BUY 00000109 191.68 MYCHAL FOWLDS 06/25/2004 BEST BUY 00000109 127.78 MYCHAL FOWLDS 06/21/2004 KINKO'S #0617 103.78 CLARENCE GERVAIS 06/21/2004 S & T OFFICE PRODUCTS 59.53 JEAN GLASS 06/21/2004 MILLS FLEET FARM #27 30.66 MIKE GRAF 06/21/2004 ANDON INC. 84.14 MIKE GRAF 06/21/2004 ORIENTAL TRADING CO 85.00 MIKE GRAF 06/24/2004 MENARDS 3059 30.61 MIKE GRAF 06/21/2004 THE HOME DEPOT 2810 73.31 JANET M GREW HAYMAN 06/23/2004 TOUSLEY FORD I27200039 13.63 JODI HALWEG 06/21/2004 NAPA AUTO PARTS 4.45 GARY HINNENKAMP 06/21/2004 TARGET 00011858 14.45 RON HORWATH 06/23/2004 WM SMITH AND ASSOC INC 80.49 RON HORWATH 06/23/2004 WM SMITH AND ASSOC INC 80.48 RON HORWATH 06/21/2004 COPY EQUIPMENT, INC. 127.65 STEVE HURLEY 06/21/2004 HENRIKSEN ACE HARDWARE 53.21 DAVID JAHN 06/23/2004 TARGET 00011858 114.01 KEVIN JOHNSON 06/21/2004 UNITED RENTALS/HTG #229 105.76 MICHAEL KANE 11 Post Date Vendor Name 06/25/2004 06/21/2004 06/22/2004 06/24/2004 06/22/2004 06/21/2004 06/22/2004 06/21/2004 06/22/2004 06/24/2004 06/24/2004 06/21/2004 06/21/2004 06/22/2004 06/24/2004 06/21/2004 06/22/2004 06/25/2004 06/25/2004 06/21/2004 06/22/2004 06/23/2004 06/23/2004 06/24/2004 06/21/2004 06/21/2004 06/21/2004 06/21/2004 06/21/2004 06/23/2004 06/23/2004 06/23/2004 06/23/2004 06/24/2004 06/21/2004 06/24/2004 06/24/2004 06/21/2004 06/21/2004 06/21/2004 06/22/2004 06/23/2004 06/24/2004 06/24/2004 06/24/2004 06/25/2004 06/21/2004 06/25/2004 06/22/2004 06/23/2004 06/24/2004 06/21/2004 06/23/2004 06/23/2004 06/21/2004 06/21/2004 CERTIFIED LABORATORIES UNIFORMS UNLIMITED INC DENT WIZARD CUB FOODS, INC. NORTHERN TOOL EQUIP-MN CLAREY'S SAFETY EQUIPM AMERITECH MOBILE PA ON SITE SANITATION, IN LTG POWER EQUIPMENT HUGOS TREE CARE HUGOS TREE CARE TRUGREEN CHEMLAWN 0000 UNITED RENTALS/HTG #229 BROOK WHITE COMPANY-ST PA ARCH WIRELESS YOCUM OIL COMPANY KATH AUTO PARTS KWIK TRIP 81000008102 EXCELLCOM WALGREEN 00016873 WALGREEN 00016873 TARGET 00011858 NATIONAL CAMERA EXCHANGE PAYPAL TERASCOUT METRO SALES INC METRO SALES INC TOUSLEY FORD I27200039 TOUSLEY FORD I27200039 TOUSLEY FORD I27200039 SUNRAY BTB SUNRAY BTB FACTORY MOTOR PARTS KATH AUTO PARTS BAUER BULT TRE33200023 AT&T WIRELESS SERVICES SPARTAN PROMOTIONAL GRP SPARTAN PROMOTIONAL GRP WONDER/HOSTESS #63 MICHAELS #2744 RAINBOW FOODS 1-886 TARGET 00011858 MICHAELS #2744 AMERICAN RED CROSOI OF O1 AMERICAN RED CROSOI OF O1 AMERICAN RED CROSOI OF O1 S & T OFFICE PRODUCTS ROWS VIRTUE PRINTI KWE KIPLINGER EDITORS TARGET 00011858 JOANN ETC #1970 MENARDS 3059 EAT INC LABSAFE INTL ASSOC OF FIRE CHIEFS OFFICE MAX 00002204 ELAN COMPANIES O1 OF O1 Settlement Amt Cardholder Name 980.93 MICHAEL KANE 68.00 DAVID KVAM 149.00 DAVID KVAM 5.99 SHERYL L LE 10.64 DENNIS LINDORFF 66.05 STEVE LUKIN 17.61 STEVE LUKIN 463.00 MARK MARUSKA 13.83 MARK MARUSKA 1,250.00 MARK MARUSKA 1,331.25 MARK MARUSKA 755.09 ED NADEAU 213.73 ED NADEAU 253.16 ED NADEAU 37.46 ED NADEAU 95.94 BRYAN NAGEL 100.11 BRYAN NAGEL 23.35 JEAN NELSON 31.90 ERICK OSWALD 263.97 KURT PARSONS 8.49 KURT PARSONS 62.11 KURT PARSONS 121.79 PHILIP F POWELL 35.97 PHILIP F POWELL 347.31 WILLIAM J PRIEFER 95.58 WILLIAM J PRIEFER 141.87 STEVEN PRIEM -21.30 STEVEN PRIEM 138.48 STEVEN PRIEM 48.35 STEVEN PRIEM 60.07 STEVEN PRIEM 122.26 STEVEN PRIEM 50.64 STEVEN PRIEM 461.77 STEVEN PRIEM 147.00 KEVIN RABBETT 337.61 KEVIN RABBETT 405.37 KEVIN RABBETT 10.09 AUDRA ROBBINS 84.51 AUDRA ROBBINS 88.28 AUDRA ROBBINS 65.06 AUDRA ROBBINS 65.65 AUDRA ROBBINS 601.00 AUDRA ROBBINS 137.00 AUDRA ROBBINS 151.00 AUDRA ROBBINS 60.04 DEB SCHMIDT 63.90 ANDREA SINDT 59.00 ANDREA SINDT 24.78 JOANNE M SVENDSEN 5.27 RONALD SVENDSEN 6.37 RONALD SVENDSEN 24.75 RUSTIN SVENDSEN 595.68 RUSTIN SVENDSEN 820.00 RUSTIN SVENDSEN 40.53 LYLE SWANSON 148.80 LYLE SWANSON 12 Post Date Vendor Name 06/23/2004 INDUSTRIAL SUPPLY CO INC 06/25/2004 TWIN CITY FILTER SERV. 06/25/2004 INTEREUM INC 06/25/2004 INTEREUM INC 06/25/2004 INTEREUM INC 06/21/2004 QWESTCOMM TN651 06/25/2004 CINDERS GREENHOUSE INC 06/21/2004 VIKING ELECTRIC-ST. PAUL 06/21/2004 NPC NEW PIG CORP 06/23/2004 PIZZA MAN 06/24/2004 VIKING OFFICE PRODUCTS 06/25/2004 ROS RELIABLE OFFICE SU Settlement Amt Cardholder Name 122.86 LYLE SWANSON 98.45 LYLE SWANSON 123.33 DOUGLAS J TAUBMAN 169.61 DOUGLAS J TAUBMAN 1,881.27 DOUGLAS J TAUBMAN 343.01 JUDY TETZLAFF 29.92 JOSEPH WATERS 224.17 SUSAN ZWIEG 68.20 SUSAN ZWIEG 49.00 SUSAN ZWIEG 51.09 SUSAN ZWIEG 42.73 SUSAN ZWIEG 23,065.19 13 CITY OF MAPLEWOOD EMPLOYEE GROSS EARNINGS REPORT FOR THE CURRENT PAY PERIOD CHECK # CHECK DATE EMPLOYEE NAME AMOUNT dd 07/02/04 CARDINAL, ROBERT 406.78 dd 07/02/04 JUENEMANN, KATHLEEN 358.00 dd 07/02/04 KOPPEN, MARVIN 358.00 dd 07/02/04 MONAHAN-JUNEK, JACQUELINE 358.00 dd 07/02/04 ROSSBACH, WILLIAM 358.00 dd 07/02/04 COLEMAN, MELINDA 3,967.88 dd 07/02/04 DARST, ROBERTA 1,499.68 dd 07/02/04 FURSMAN, RICHARD 4,629.25 dd 07/02/04 SWANSON, LYLE 1,952.13 dd 07/02/04 LE, SHERYL 3,824.76 dd 07/02/04 RAMEAUX, THERESE 2,197.61 dd 07/02/04 FAUST, DANIEL 3,982.97 dd 07/02/04 SCHMIDT, DEBORAH 1,348.44 dd 07/02/04 ANDERSON, CAROLE 642.02 dd 07/02/04 BAUMAN, GAYLE 3,072.70 dd 07/02/04 JACKSON, MARY 1,766.85 dd 07/02/04 KELSEY, CONNIE 934.91 dd 07/02/04 TETZLAFF, JUDY 1,766.84 dd 07/02/04 ERHARDT, DANIELLE 407.00 dd 07/02/04 FRY, PATRICIA 1,647.12 dd 07/02/04 GUILFOILE, KAREN 2,826.07 dd 07/02/04 OSTER, ANDREA 1,713.07 dd 07/02/04 CARLE, JEANETTE 1,584.27 dd 07/02/04 FIGG, SHERRIE 1,141.51 dd 07/02/04 JAGOE, CAROL 1,620.31 dd 07/02/04 JOHNSON, BONNIE 963.65 dd 07/02/04 OLSON, SANDRA 393.18 dd 07/02/04 SCHACHT, BARBARA 814.20 dd 07/02/04 WEAVER, KRISTINE 1,685.28 dd 07/02/04 BANICK, JOHN 3,445.97 dd 07/02/04 CORCORAN, THERESA 1,672.68 dd 07/02/04 POWELL, PHILIP 2,156.41 dd 07/02/04 SPANGLER, EDNA 308.00 dd 07/02/04 THOMALLA, DAVID 3,817.59 dd 07/02/04 ABEL, GLINT 1,984.14 dd 07/02/04 ALDRIDGE, MARK 2,434.62 dd 07/02/04 ANDREWS, SCOTT 3,101.59 dd 07/02/04 BAKKE, LONN 2,470.21 dd 07/02/04 BELDE, STANLEY 2,604.24 dd 07/02/04 BIERDEMAN, BRIAN 2,056.86 dd 07/02/04 BOHL, JOHN 3,208.07 dd 07/02/04 BUSACK, DANIEL 2,305.93 dd 07/02/04 COFFEY, KEVIN 1,897.84 dd 07/02/04 GROTTY, KERRY 2,481.82 dd 07/02/04 DOBLAR, RICHARD 2,748.39 dd 07/02/04 HEINZ, STEPHEN 2,415.62 dd 07/02/04 HIEBERT, STEVEN 2,413.41 dd 07/02/04 JOHNSON, KEVIN 3,074.22 dd 07/02/04 KARIS, FLINT 2,849.75 dd 07/02/04 KONG, TOMMY 2,212.31 dd 07/02/04 KROLL, BRETT 1,984.14 14 CHECK # CHECK DATE EMPLOYEE NAME AMOUNT dd 07/02/04 KVAM, DAVID 3,488.43 dd 07/02/04 CARSON, DANIEL 2,493.18 dd 07/02/04 LU, JOHNNIE 2,583.40 dd 07/02/04 MARINO, JASON 2,002.32 dd 07/02/04 MARTIN, JERROLD 2,222.49 dd 07/02/04 MCCARTY, GLEN 1,864.74 dd 07/02/04 METRY, ALESIA 1,993.23 dd 07/02/04 OLSON, JULIE 2,215.78 dd 07/02/04 PIKE, GARY 2,222.71 dd 07/02/04 RABBETT, KEVIN 3,124.61 dd 07/02/04 STEEPEN, SCOTT 3,035.11 dd 07/02/04 SZCZEPANSKI, THOMAS 2,327.57 dd 07/02/04 THIENES, PAUL 2,388.54 dd 07/02/04 TRAN, JOSEPH 2,375.01 dd 07/02/04 WENZEL, JAY 2,399.55 dd 07/02/04 XIONG, KAO 1,911.42 dd 07/02/04 BARTZ, PAUL 2,533.80 dd 07/02/04 BERGERON, JOSEPH 2,855.28 dd 07/02/04 DUGAS, MICHAEL 2,408.43 dd 07/02/04 DUNN, ALICE 2,921.07 dd 07/02/04 ERICKSON, VIRGINIA 2,650.69 dd 07/02/04 EVERSON, PAUL 2,291.39 dd 07/02/04 FLOR, TIMOTHY 2,776.52 dd 07/02/04 ERASER, JOHN 2,534.55 dd 07/02/04 HALWEG, JODI 1,644.91 dd 07/02/04 L'ALLIER, DANIEL 1,590.82 dd 07/02/04 LANGNER, SCOTT 1,660.10 dd 07/02/04 PALMA, STEVEN 2,471.52 dd 07/02/04 PARSONS, KURT 2,186.83 dd 07/02/04 DAWSON, RICHARD 1,914.84 dd 07/02/04 DUELLMAN, KIRK 1,803.54 dd 07/02/04 JOHNSON, DOUGLAS 1,803.54 dd 07/02/04 NOVAK, JEROME 1,882.11 dd 07/02/04 PETERSON, ROBERT 1,935.82 dd 07/02/04 SVENDSEN, RONALD 1,935.82 dd 07/02/04 GERVAIS-JR, CLARENCE 2,575.00 dd 07/02/04 BOYER, SCOTT 400.00 dd 07/02/04 FEHR, JOSEPH 1,808.44 dd 07/02/04 FLAUGHER, JAYME 2,045.97 dd 07/02/04 HERMANSON, CHAD 833.00 dd 07/02/04 JACKSON, LINDA 1,512.44 dd 07/02/04 LAFFERTY, WALTER 2,139.24 dd 07/02/04 LINN, BRYAN 1,690.44 dd 07/02/04 PACOLT, MARSHA 2,142.40 dd 07/02/04 RABINE, JANET 2,470.04 dd 07/02/04 STAHNKE, JULIE 2,139.25 dd 07/02/04 LUKIN, STEVEN 3,353.68 dd 07/02/04 SVENDSEN, RUSTIN 2,678.00 dd 07/02/04 ZWIEG, SUSAN 1,710.84 dd 07/02/04 DOLLERSCHELL, ROBERT 266.30 dd 07/02/04 AHL, R. CHARLES 4,220.84 dd 07/02/04 NIVEN, AMY 1,147.53 dd 07/02/04 PRIEFER, WILLIAM 2,462.94 dd 07/02/04 WEGWERTH, JUDITH 1,715.29 dd 07/02/04 BRINK, TROY 1,786.33 dd 07/02/04 DEBILZAN, THOMAS 1,778.64 15 CHECK # CHECK DATE EMPLOYEE NAME AMOUNT dd 07/02/04 EDGE, DOUGLAS 1,856.36 dd 07/02/04 JONES, DONALD 1,788.04 dd 07/02/04 KANE, MICHAEL 2,722.50 dd 07/02/04 LUTZ, DAVID 1,790.50 dd 07/02/04 MEYER, GERALD 1,857.33 dd 07/02/04 NAGEL, BRYAN 1,981.87 dd 07/02/04 OSWALD, ERICK 1,961.87 dd 07/02/04 TEVLIN, TODD 1,814.31 dd 07/02/04 CAVETT, CHRISTOPHER 3,056.22 dd 07/02/04 DUCHARME, JOHN 2,230.85 dd 07/02/04 ENGSTROM, ANDREW 1,585.34 dd 07/02/04 JACOBSON, SCOTT 1,902.38 dd 07/02/04 LABEREE, ERIN 2,325.16 dd 07/02/04 LINDBLOM, RANDAL 2,277.07 dd 07/02/04 MURRA, AARON 1,230.27 dd 07/02/04 PECK, DENNIS 2,597.38 dd 07/02/04 PRIEBE, WILLIAM 3,450.25 dd 07/02/04 SMITH III, DONAVAN 928.63 dd 07/02/04 VERMEERSCH, CHARLES 2,065.24 dd 07/02/04 ANDERSON, BRUCE 3,939.03 dd 07/02/04 CAREY, HEIDI 1,952.44 dd 07/02/04 HALL, KATHLEEN 1,715.29 dd 07/02/04 BORGLUM, DUSTIN 1,014.00 dd 07/02/04 GERVAIS, DAVID 880.00 dd 07/02/04 MARUSKA, MARK 2,513.20 dd 07/02/04 NAUGHTON, JOHN 1,622.04 dd 07/02/04 SCHINDELDECKER, JAMES 1,788.27 dd 07/02/04 BIESANZ, OAKLEY 1,369.42 dd 07/02/04 HAYMAN, JANET 1,036.39 dd 07/02/04 HUTCHINSON, ANN 2,092.14 dd 07/02/04 KOS, HEATHER 636.00 dd 07/02/04 NELSON, JEAN 1,076.66 dd 07/02/04 SEEGER, GERALD 565.22 dd 07/02/04 GAYNOR, VIRGINIA 2,128.82 dd 07/02/04 MULHOLLAND, NANCY 1,120.00 dd 07/02/04 EKSTRAND, THOMAS 2,740.62 dd 07/02/04 KROLL, LISA 1,096.68 dd 07/02/04 LIVINGSTON, JOYCE 950.56 dd 07/02/04 SINDT, ANDREA 1,554.04 dd 07/02/04 THOMPSON, DEBRA 632.82 dd 07/02/04 YOUNG, TAMELA 1,378.84 dd 07/02/04 PINWALE, SHANN 2,126.04 dd 07/02/04 ROBERTS, KENNETH 2,559.67 dd 07/02/04 CARVER, NICHOLAS 2,561.82 dd 07/02/04 FISHER, DAVID 3,022.43 dd 07/02/04 MENNENGA, JOHN 1,040.00 dd 07/02/04 RICE, MICHAEL 1,456.44 dd 07/02/04 SWAN, DAVID 1,810.04 dd 07/02/04 KONEWKO, DUWAYNE 2,548.44 dd 07/02/04 ANZALDI, MANDY 1,036.00 dd 07/02/04 BJORK, ALICIA 101.50 dd 07/02/04 BJORK, BRANDON 684.00 dd 07/02/04 FINN, GREGORY 2,011.89 dd 07/02/04 GRAF, MICHAEL 1,728.26 dd 07/02/04 HADDAD, JULIE 373.50 dd 07/02/04 KELLY, LISA 1,263.41 16 CHECK # CHECK DATE EMPLOYEE NAME AMOUNT dd 07/02/04 NIEMCZYK, BRIAN 82.00 dd 07/02/04 OHLHAUSER, MEGHAN 800.00 dd 07/02/04 ROBBINS, AUDRA 1,872.13 dd 07/02/04 SHERRILL, CAITLIN 166.50 dd 07/02/04 TAUBMAN, DOUGLAS 2,639.27 dd 07/02/04 WERNER, KATIE 85.00 dd 07/02/04 ZIELINSKI, JOSEPH 77.75 dd 07/02/04 BREHEIM, ROGER 1,790.49 dd 07/02/04 NORDQUIST, RICHARD 1,982.00 dd 07/02/04 SCHULTZ, SCOTT 2,003.18 dd 07/02/04 CRAWFORD - JR, RAYMOND 430.00 dd 07/02/04 CROSSON, LINDA 2,338.51 dd 07/02/04 FONTAINE, ANTHONY 719.13 dd 07/02/04 MOY, PAMELA 389.27 dd 07/02/04 PELOQUIN, PENNYE 533.46 dd 07/02/04 SCHMIDT, RUSSELL 1,778.19 dd 07/02/04 STAPLES, PAULINE 2,720.85 dd 07/02/04 ABRAHAMSON, DANIEL 335.00 dd 07/02/04 ABRAHAMSON, REBECCA 127.20 dd 07/02/04 BRENEMAN, NEIL 362.33 dd 07/02/04 EDSON, JAMIE 189.00 dd 07/02/04 ERICKSON, CAROL 42.50 dd 07/02/04 GREDVIG, ANDERS 211.80 dd 07/02/04 GUZIK, JENNIFER 396.63 dd 07/02/04 HALEY, BROOKE 193.20 dd 07/02/04 HORWATH, RONALD 1,783.14 dd 07/02/04 IRISH, GRACE 168.00 dd 07/02/04 IRISH, KARL 609.75 dd 07/02/04 KOEHNEN, AMY 42.70 dd 07/02/04 KOEHNEN, MARY 740.35 dd 07/02/04 KRONHOLM, KATHRYN 461.25 dd 07/02/04 LAWSON, JOSHUA 106.75 dd 07/02/04 LINDSTROM, AMANDA 280.85 dd 07/02/04 OVERBY, ANNA 37.30 dd 07/02/04 SCHAEFER, ROB 441.72 dd 07/02/04 SCHULTZ, PETER 184.95 dd 07/02/04 SHAW, KRISTINA 94.25 dd 07/02/04 SMITH, ANN 18.00 dd 07/02/04 TUPY, HEIDE 126.10 dd 07/02/04 TUPY, MARCUS 275.58 dd 07/02/04 WILHELM, MELISSA 410.00 dd 07/02/04 GROPPOLI, LINDA 348.75 dd 07/02/04 KURKOSKI, STEPHANIE 187.25 dd 07/02/04 BEHAN, JAMES 1,668.76 dd 07/02/04 LONETTI, JAMES 959.73 dd 07/02/04 MILES, LAURA 139.00 dd 07/02/04 PATTERSON, ALBERT 1,023.72 dd 07/02/04 PRINS, KELLY 915.33 dd 07/02/04 REILLY, MICHAEL 1,505.24 dd 07/02/04 STEINHORST, JEFFREY 54.25 dd 07/02/04 AICHELE, CRAIG 1,842.73 dd 07/02/04 PRIEM, STEVEN 2,008.44 dd 07/02/04 BERGO, CHAD 2,071.54 dd 07/02/04 FOWLDS, MYCHAL 2,153.91 dd 07/02/04 HURLEY, STEPHEN 2,991.95 wf 97776 07/02/04 INGVOLDSTAD, CURTIS 68.75 17 CHECK # CHECK DATE EMPLOYEE NAME AMOUNT wf 97777 07/02/04 KARSTENS, BRAD 50.00 wf 97778 07/02/04 JAHN, DAVID 1,595.06 wf 97779 07/02/04 MALDONADO, JUANA 704.79 wf 97780 07/02/04 MORIN, TROY 229.50 wf 97781 07/02/04 MATHEYS, ALANA 1,847.41 wf 97782 07/02/04 GENNOW, PAMELA 617.50 wf 97783 07/02/04 HANSEN, LORI 1,646.05 wf 97784 07/02/04 PALANK, MARY 1,734.19 wf 97785 07/02/04 RICHIE, CAROLE 1,687.40 wf 97786 07/02/04 SVENDSEN, JOANNE 1,750.13 wf 97787 07/02/04 GABRIEL, ANTHONY 798.41 wf 97788 07/02/04 SHORTREED, MICHAEL 3,404.29 wf 97789 07/02/04 STEINER, JOSEPH 483.00 wf 97790 07/02/04 WELCHLIN, CABOT 2,349.59 wf 97791 07/02/04 ESTREM, LYNNETTE 251.25 wf 97792 07/02/04 GERARD, JAMIE 296.00 wf 97793 07/02/04 BAUER, MICHELLE 778.44 wf 97794 07/02/04 FREBERG, RONALD 1,825.31 wf 97795 07/02/04 HAAG, ROBERT 800.00 wf 97796 07/02/04 STEWART, RYAN 800.00 wf 97797 07/02/04 GROVER, MICHAEL 540.69 wf 97798 07/02/04 JAROSCH, JONATHAN 1,048.70 wf 97799 07/02/04 EDSON, DAVID 1,820.09 wf 97800 07/02/04 HELEY, ROLAND 1,830.31 wf 97801 07/02/04 HINNENKAMP, GARY 1,801.16 wf 97802 07/02/04 LINDORFF, DENNIS 1,790.50 wf 97803 07/02/04 NAUGHTON, RYAN 648.00 wf 97804 07/02/04 NOVAK, MICHAEL 1,693.64 wf 97805 07/02/04 GERNES, CAROLE 592.56 wf 97806 07/02/04 SOUTTER, CHRISTINE 635.94 wf 97807 07/02/04 ANZALDI, KALI 834.63 wf 97808 07/02/04 BALLESTRAZZE, THAD 829.50 wf 97809 07/02/04 BENSON, CARLA 439.00 wf 97810 07/02/04 DAMIANI, ROBERT 100.00 wf 97811 07/02/04 EGGIMANN, LINDSEY 445.50 wf 97812 07/02/04 GEBHARD, JILLIAN 920.00 wf 97813 07/02/04 GEBHARD, MADELINE 720.00 wf 97814 07/02/04 GOODRICH, CHAD 613.05 wf 97815 07/02/04 GRAF, ASHLEY 56.00 wf 97816 07/02/04 HAGSTROM, LINDSEY 119.00 wf 97817 07/02/04 HJELMGREN, NICOLE 60.75 wf 97818 07/02/04 KYRK, ASHLEY 392.50 wf 97819 07/02/04 KYRK, HALEY 88.00 wf 97820 07/02/04 OHLHAUSER, MOLLY 120.00 wf 97821 07/02/04 ROBBINS, EMERALD 560.00 wf 97822 07/02/04 SIKORA, LEAH 90.00 wf 97823 07/02/04 SPIELMAN, CHRISTA 620.00 wf 97824 07/02/04 UNGAR, KRISTOPHER 60.00 wf 97825 07/02/04 GERMAIN, DAVID 1,794.93 wf 97826 07/02/04 HAAG, MARK 1,669.24 wf 97827 07/02/04 NADEAU, EDWARD 2,722.50 wf 97828 07/02/04 BROWN, LAURIE 396.00 wf 97829 07/02/04 DISKERUD, HEATHER 156.25 wf 97830 07/02/04 GLASS, JEAN 1,677.66 wf 97831 07/02/04 SCHULZE, BRIAN 409.50 wf 97832 07/02/04 TOLBERT, FRANCINE 304.00 18 CHECK # CHECK DATE EMPLOYEE NAME AMOUNT wf 97833 07/02/04 UNGER, MARGARET 466.62 wf 97834 07/02/04 WEISMANN, JENNIFER 397.80 wf 97835 07/02/04 ANDERSON, CALEB 351.35 wf 97836 07/02/04 BACHMAN, NICOLE 577.60 wf 97837 07/02/04 BOTHWELL, KRISTIN 265.33 wf 97838 07/02/04 BRENEMAN, SEAN 490.45 wf 97839 07/02/04 BRIN, LAUREN 86.13 wf 97840 07/02/04 COSTA, JOSEPH 169.20 wf 97841 07/02/04 DEMPSEY, BETH 112.00 wf 97842 07/02/04 DUNN, RYAN 542.95 wf 97843 07/02/04 ESTRADA, KIEL 350.00 wf 97844 07/02/04 FALKENSTEIN, MONICA 252.00 wf 97845 07/02/04 FENCER, JUSTIN 56.35 wf 97846 07/02/04 FONTAINE, KIM 658.10 wf 97847 07/02/04 GESKERMANN, MARK 292.50 wf 97848 07/02/04 GRANT, MELISSA 112.00 wf 97849 07/02/04 GRUENHAGEN, LINDA 344.25 wf 97850 07/02/04 HOLMGREN, LEAH 887.18 wf 97851 07/02/04 HOULE, DENISE 66.90 wf 97852 07/02/04 HUPPERT, ERIN 487.07 wf 97853 07/02/04 JOHNSON, ROBERT 295.80 wf 97854 07/02/04 JOHNSON, STETSON 590.76 wf 97855 07/02/04 KERSCHNER, JOLENE 1,020.50 wf 97856 07/02/04 MCMAHON, MELISSA 626.64 wf 97857 07/02/04 MILLS, ANNE 384.00 wf 97858 07/02/04 OLSON, ABIGAIL 88.64 wf 97859 07/02/04 OLSON, MARGRET 216.15 wf 97860 07/02/04 PEHOSKI, JOEL 491.49 wf 97861 07/02/04 PROESCH, ANDY 257.21 wf 97862 07/02/04 RODEN, JASON 29.60 wf 97863 07/02/04 ROSTRON, ROBERT 58.50 wf 97864 07/02/04 SCHMIDT, EMILY 22.75 wf 97865 07/02/04 SCHOENECKER, SAMANTHA 234.00 wf 97866 07/02/04 SCHULTZ, MATTHEW 250.25 wf 97867 07/02/04 SMITLEY, SHARON 230.00 wf 97868 07/02/04 STAHNKE, AMY 315.25 wf 97869 07/02/04 WARNER, CAROLYN 138.00 wf 97870 07/02/04 WEDES, CARYL 134.70 wf 97871 07/02/04 WELTER, ELIZABETH 481.78 wf 97872 07/02/04 WHITE, NICOLE 189.45 wf 97873 07/02/04 WOODMAN, ALICE 124.20 wf 97874 07/02/04 BOSLEY, CAROL 244.80 wf 97875 07/02/04 PARLEY, JAMIE 312.38 wf 97876 07/02/04 HAGSTROM, EMILY 24.00 wf 97877 07/02/04 HANSEN, ANNA 182.76 wf 97878 07/02/04 ODDEN, JESSICA 149.51 wf 97879 07/02/04 OIE, REBECCA 212.88 wf 97880 07/02/04 QUINN, KELLY 27.00 wf 97881 07/02/04 VAN HALE, PAULA 107.30 wf 97882 07/02/04 DOUGLASS, TOM 976.36 wf 97883 07/02/04 HER, CHONG 373.05 wf 97884 07/02/04 HORNER, SCOTT 25.40 wf 97885 07/02/04 NAGEL, BROOKE 201.55 wf 97886 07/02/04 NEWCOMB, GENNA 79.80 wf 97887 07/02/04 O'GRADY, VICTORIA 114.30 wf 97888 07/02/04 O'GRADY, ZACHARY 133.00 19 CHECK # CHECK DATE EMPLOYEE NAME AMOUNT wf 97889 07/02/04 RYDEEN, ARIEL 315.88 wf 97890 07/02/04 SIMPSON, KIMBERLYN 50.80 wf 97891 07/02/04 THEESFELD, CALEB 19.05 wf 97892 07/02/04 VANG, CIA 133.00 wf 97893 07/02/04 VERDELL, TRAQUEZ 53.20 wf 97894 07/02/04 WAGNER, KEVIN 95.25 wf 97895 07/02/04 WILLIAMS, NICK 99.75 wf 97896 07/02/04 ZIEMER, NICOLE 277.50 wf 97897 07/02/04 MULVANEY, DENNIS 1,967.73 wf 97898 07/02/04 FRANZEN, NICHOLAS 540.00 438,833.11 20 Agenda Report G2 AGENDA REPORT TO: Richard Fursman, City Manager FROM: Karen Guilfoile, City Clerk DATE: July 2, 20042003 RE: Food Permit Fee Waiver Introduction Cub food stores of Minnesota are hosting a fundraising opportunity this summer in partnership with the Boy Scouts of Indianhead and Viking councils in support of their Outreach programs for at-risk youth. Indianhead Scouting has provided the city with a copy of their Workman's Compensation insurance policy and proof of their non-profit status. The Scout Troop will be running a root beer float sale at the Cub Foods located at 2390 White Bear Avenue and 100 West County Road B on July 16-18. The proceeds raised from the event will be used to offset the cost of providing program assistance to low- income Scout packs, troops, and crews and in support of the "Scoutreach" program for at- risk youths. They are requesting that the City waive the $47.00 permit fee as has been done in past years. Recommendation It is recommended that the City Council waive the $47.00 temporary food permit fee. MEMORANDUM TO: City Manager FROM: Tom Ekstrand, Senior Planner SUBJECT: Legacy Village-Planned Unit Development Review APPLICANT: Hartford Group DATE: July 1, 2004 INTRODUCTION Agenda #G3 The conditional use permit (CUP) for the Legacy Village planned unit development (PUD) is due for its one-year annual review. The PUD allowed this 85-acre mixed-use development consisting of townhomes, seniors assisted-living housing, apartments, corporate offices and assorted restaurants, retail shops, tot lot and sculpture park. Refer to the maps on pages 2-3. BACKGROUND July 14, 2003: The city council approved the Legacy Village PUD, land use plan changes, preliminary plat and tax-abatement financing. Since this initial approval, the city council approved the final plat for Legacy Village. The council also approved the Heritage Square plans, PUD and plat for the first phase of townhomes now under construction. The council has also granted several approvals for the Kennard street improvements. The community design review board approved the site and architectural plans for Ashley Furniture at the southwest corner of Southlawn Drive and County Road D. Ashley Furniture has not started construction. DISCUSSION City code requires that the city council review CUPs after the first year to check on the projects status. This development has just begun. The first building for Heritage Square townhomes is under construction. The Hajicek homestead and farm buildings have been removed and the new street system and utility construction is under way. Construction is progressing according to the plans at Legacy Village. The city council should review this permit in one year to check on the progress of the development. RECOMMENDATION Review the conditional use permit for the Legacy Village PUD in one year. p:sec3\Legacy Village CUP Rev 7-04 Attachments: 1. Location Map 2. PUD Development Plan Attachment 1 VADNAIS HEIGHTS J~~ coLiNTY RD_ p HIGHRIDGE Ci pt o~ ° W H ' 3 4. W 1. ~ ~ ~'~ 2 x ~ G~ 3 ~ C ~+- o ~ - /// 1 % ! /~ 1 ~~ ahimon ` t~e1 ~ ~~ t COUNTY ~ W ~ 5 3 _ ~ U ~~ H ANi AVE ~i /.; { 1. ~~ . ~~ ~ - ° Q: 0 COUNTY ROAD LEGACY VILLAGE, wooDLY L - LYDIA <la~ Y a ~: Si. JOHN'S ~ J- ~ 1. W fl I m I i BLVD. z ~ S ~!r' ~ ~ _®Q W!> m 2 COUNTRYVIEW CIR_ 3. DULUTH CT Y U ~ v . 4. LYDIA AVE. rj ~ 1~ ~. w u a BEAM AVE 4~ ' BEAM ^ 4R rvR . - ~ ~' 1AAP1~ 3 yrn RADATZ ` ¢ ~t } ~ A(ESA9 AV Z ~ Markham ° 1 Q - W, F Pond t RAAdSE?' W N - _ ~ 3 ~~~ COUNTY ~ ~ ~ I:~ ' ~ couRT o KOHLWWU AVE ~ h v ~ ~ W KOHLAUW ~ICcxy ~- z F W F U ~ ~~°°1 ~W Z ~ Ate. l~ ~~ ~~/ ROAD 41 C (/! ~ U 3 Td" 3 ~~ y, ~ N g > .J ~ Z W ~C Z ~ ~ N ' 7 ~ W ~ ~ ~ W z ~ EDGfl-nLL RD. Co A~OR ~ c ~ ~ DEMONT AVE ~o '~ rr r~..1 BROOKS AVE. ~n BROOKS w N ~ ~ o AVE, > ELEy 3 ~ SIX T VE. ~ ~ Ps~c z ~`'~ A ~Tl•1 GERVAIS AVE } GERVAIS W ~ .`~ 5 ~ v < ~ GER1/AIS GRANDNIEW AVE , z Cf- l HKING DR. Y SHERREN AVE, ~r~ ~ v ~ Knucf eJ~leod Lake ~E A~ z COP COPE l F u' 1 AVE ~ COPE AVE R~'~ p ~,'~- _C ~ LARK 5 W ° ~ - AVE. . , ~ ~ LARK . < AvE_ ~ ~ ~ ° ~- ~ ~- v=i ~ cFi ~ ~ z ~ ~~ d LAURIE RD. ~ LAURIE RD. Zs..r.omp LAURIE Z RD w v ~ ~ FALAND - RD. U ° Fork ¢ J Z v SAN URST ~ ~ AVE. ~ p W p ~ v JUNCT)ON AVE '" ~ ~' < t~F~ ~ B ~ v Y CO. RD. ~ B ~ ~n ~ j a~ ~ ~ o BURKE AVE. °o ~ ® ~ BURKE AVE ~ ~?, v . ~ ° r~ '= ELDR IDGE AVE 3 ~+~+ ~ J SS~ p~-~ W ~ LN. y <A / I t _ LQCAT[QN [tl[AP 2 Attachment 2 y o a~ o y ° ~ ~ T r ~ ~~~ ~ i't3i ~ ~ ~;Yr~1 ~ ~~i ~ ~ ~ W ~ $ 7 u F = f Q Q LL 3 ?~. - a ~ : ~ ®! 3~~1 it ~~' a °~ ¢ _ ~ O ~ ~ ~ s ~ c p ~ d s e i i ~ I .I W r - I1 t .~ `: .... ., ------ W -- - - ~ ` ___ _ ~ - ii E F p y ii I ~i ~ N ~ j i` W 9~ - `Yt1 `Q --~~4 i, ~ . i s I: <_ _ ~o: ---------~- - - -.... - - I I: -- ~~~ Usk ~ -< ,;d ~ °vi~~~ W C7 )l,a~ -,; ~ '' 'n 1. ~I f~ .F. Q 9 (T~ ~,., ,.-~ .. -=' F~ I'` :~ _ ee .' ti,, ~ rl ,~ I 'tl //~ _ ~i~i ~ Q - i .' i ©} -::::: -_ ~: =i . ~: , -~~ - _ I 1' I: i j~ O D I ,: -- ® ® .. I Wq E ~ ~ ~~ii ~`: i l l W I -~ ® J' i I :1 ~ ^~ L ~~; '. ; I ~~ , ~ I.L. ~: Q (n ~ ~; , ~ w I I ' 'I '~~~ V ~W~) SkC ~~ ~, o W I , ;: a ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ a '' !'~ w ~ -a is ~ O ~; `, ; _ ~~ ~~ f ~ '~ ~ _ ;I ~ , r I / £ / i. ~ .. -~ ~ I ,. <. ,.. . ~ ,. - ~, ... :: ,~ ~ : ~... _ •., ' c. , ` - ~'t:, i c ~._.-.-... ..t. -... ... ,..~I-, ~~ - I ~ - 'I \~~` . ~ .. '~' r - s pG i 6 3 MEMORANDUM Agenda G4 TO: City Manager FROM: Tom Ekstrand, Senior Planner SUBJECT: Woodlynn Ponds Towhhomes-Planned Unit Development Review DATE: July 1, 2004 INTRODUCTION The conditional use permit (CUP) for the Woodlynn Ponds Townhomes planned unit development (PUD) is due for its one-year annual review. The PUD allows this 26-unit townhome development with 10 buildings fronting on a private roadway running south from County Road D to the Xcel power line easement. There would also be three twin homes fronting on Woodlynn Avenue south of the Xcel easement. Refer to the maps on pages 2-3. BACKGROUND July 8, 2003: The community design review board approved the design plans. July 14, 2003: The city council approved the preliminary plat, awetland-encroachment variance, a planned unit development and the design plans for Woodlynn Ponds. Refer to the PUD conditions on pages 4-5. September 8, 2003: The city council approved the final plat. DISCUSSION City code requires that the city council review CUPs after the first year to check on the project status. This development is under construction and there are four buildings underway so far. This project is in its early stages and staff is monitoring the construction. The city council should review this project in another year to evaluate its progress. RECOMMENDATION Review the conditional use permit for the Woodlynn Ponds Townhomes PUD in one year. p:sec2N\Woodlynn Ponds CUP Rev 7-04 Attachments: 1. Location Map 2. PUD Development Plan 3. July 14, 2003 PUD Conditions Attachment 1 _ : _ ~ .~~ ,:. `~~ , _ ,.. _ _ < ~~. i. :r~vav -_~__ _~_~__----= I-G94 , t ~ -- ~ ~ ~,n COUNTY ROAD D ~~ .~ w w :::;; ~ :.:.... ~ WOODLYN AVENUE w `4 Q LYDIA AVENUE MAPLEWOOD MALL ~ ¢. 4~ 2 ~~'' V ~. ~ ~r Y ~~ LOCATION MAP 2 4 N max, ~` ~~ Attachment 2 r +^-~---s+.,rs-.mac Ree'I Z'zrw ~.a~ .'.:All c.e.w •.Rn ~~ .. n~s9.. ...Mrc~-~'', .[..ref ----- ` ----' ~ CvSIwC Gay ~w --------------------- ~~-~,.-~- ^' n' .art v>• ~ ~" _ i. COUNTY ROAD D" ~- .. ,.. a t i '' C. . i . ILLLL~ .. ~ r ~ 1" r 7 T~ ~. l !~ f i ,.f, ~" 6 ° F` f ~ I ,~,~ ~ ii ~ ~I ~ ~ ~ ~ ! v1 C ~! I T ~: G f _~ ~Ii e tl, ~" I - S / I _!. f, y. Ir ~, I ~jCi I v IS ~ I ; ~" ~~ I- i ~L ~~ I ~~ , [i7 „ ,,,~ . z ---- - d .v y _ --: ------ _ -- _'~ - f - : I ----_ - _-- - 9 ~-3 1 r ~ _~ •r------ - _. ..~_ 1 ~~..__ xO ~;1 i O 'i7 I . ~ 1' CrJ ~ _so ~ f~0 ~1 ~ .. - ------ ----•-- _= _ ~^ ;?a I ~'~ ~ I i ~ d ~;~( I OUTLOT A ~'~.. I I ! "-`• f ~` _ ...-- -~ •-- -1_ it I a-- ~ ~:~~I I j 1 1 ,, , ~ i 1 ~ ..-.. ' ... ~ r °a Is ~ ~ x ss;,. r,s _ T M - I '. I ~1 R R r •r-:` '-l~t'~'.. ~.k::' Tom... _~.~-~ I I Vv~~.01 H~-_ )FI IJ -_ ~ _ I y ~ Aprpy[p~w~lir..~w 1 ' . t i f. S' S0 rY w.-w -i ~ .I \ v 1 ~ 1 J . .. ti•,t ~.. ~ F " A- °w •: ~ _ ~ .rte Y }T i ~ ~ ~ _ 4 ..' 1, Q ~` '''~ ~ ~ i WOODLYNN AVENUE I I , ''~ ~ _____~.1.____-_ ~_I _~_rtr_____~~~_L.-I-----_____ ~ ~ .I a u. ~uv...SR.o'• I i M S 17 M vpn~lll •I ,j ... .. .. ~= 'I I ~ ~ - 3 `~..~ ,..J Attachment 3 WHEREAS, Section 36-438(b) of the city code provides a means to allow flexibility in design by the planned unit development process. WHEREAS, this permit applies to the property at 2090 County Road D East. The legal description is: TRACT A, REGISTERED LAND SURVEY N0.463, RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA. WHEREAS, the history of this conditional use permit is as follows: 1. On June 16, 2003, the planning commission recommended that the city council approve this permit. 2. On July 22, 2003, the city council held a public hearing. The city staff published a notice in the paper and sent notices to the surrounding property owners. The council gave everyone at the hearing a chance to speak and present written statements. The council also considered reports and recommendations of the city staff and planning commission. NOW, THEREFORE, BE TT 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 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 natuxal and scenic features into the development design. 9. The use would cause minimal adverse environmental effects. Approval is subject to the following conditions: All construction shall follow the plans date-stamped May 20, 2003. 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. The city council shall review this permit in one year. 4. The applicant shall provide a noise evaluation for this site to determine if freeway noise would impact their proposed units above the maximum noise levels required by the MnPCA. If freeway noise does exceed these levels, the applicant shall reduce the outside noise within the units. 5. The homeowners association documents shall state that the visitor parking lot shall be kept open for visitor parking and shall not be a storage area for RVs, trailers, campers and the like. 6. The applicant shall post the north-south private roadway for no parking on both sides. 7. The applicant shall make buyers aware, by a statement in the homeowners association documentation hat the city will periodically burn the prairie grass on the abutting Maplewood Open space property. Seconded by Mayor Cardinal Ayes-All Councilmember Koppen moved to adopt the preliminaryplat for the Woodlyn Ponds Twin Homes The developer shall complete the following before the city council approves the final plat: 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. Pay the city for the cost of traffic-control, street identification and no-parking signs. c. Provide all required and necessary easements, including ten-foot drainage and utility easements around the perimeter of the property, the wetland buffer easement and the_10-foot pedestrian easement along the north of the property. d. Cap and seal any wells on site. e. Have Xce1 Energy install street lights. The exact location and type of light shall be subject to the city engineer's approval. Install permanent signs around the edge of the wetland buffer easement. These signs shall mark the edge of the easements and shall state that there shall be no mowing, vegetation cutting, filling, grading or' dumping beyond this point. City staff shall approve the sign design and location before the contractor installs them. The developer or contractor shall install these signs before the city issues building permits in this plat. g. Install survey monuments along the wetland boundaries. 2.*Have the city engineer approve final construction and engineering plans. These plans shall 5 MEMORANDUM Agenda #G5 TO: Richard Fursman, City Manager FROM: Rose Lorsung, Planning Intern SUBJECT: Conditional Use Permit Review APPLICANT: St. Paul Regional Water Services (McCarron's Building Expansion) LOCATION: 1900 Rice Street DATE: June 30th, 2004 INTRODUCTION The conditional use permit (CUP) for the St. Paul Regional Water Services facilities at 1900 Rice Street is due for review. The CUP allowed for the expansion of the facility which includes three new buildings: (1) a two-story 36,000-square-foot office building with 240 parking spaces, (2) a one-story 11,230-square-foot meter shop and warehouse, and (3) a one-story 17,350-square-foot vehicle maintenance and storage building with associated parking and landscaping features. In addition, a future plan to build a cold vehicle storage building was included. BACKGROUND December 15, 1988: The city council approved a CUP to construct aclear-water pond to be located west of Sylvan Street and north of Larpenteur Avenue. June 10, 1996: The city council approved a CUP and design plans for the expansion of the solids dewatering facility. August 11, 1997: The city council approved a CUP and design plans for the construction of two building additions and a new building at the water treatment plant. December 10, 2001: The city council approved a CUP and design plans for the expansion and renovation of the water treatment plant (refer to 12/10/01 city council minutes attached on pages 8 through 10). June 23, 2003: The city council approved a CUP and design plans for the construction of three new buildings on the water services campus. DISCUSSION The St. Paul Regional Water Service's three new buildings are still under construction, with the office building and meter shop nearing completion and the heated vehicle storage underway. The new parking lot is also near completion as well as the landscaping. Work has not yet begun on either the cold vehicle storage or the adjacent buffer and trout stream restoration, which will include native trees and grasses. Because the applicant has not yet finished the project construction and the associated site work, the city should review this conditional use permit again in one year. RECOMMENDATION Review the conditional use permit for the St. Paul Regional Water Services' campus at 1900 Rice Street again in one year. P:sec 18\st paul water utility cup 2 Attachments: 1. Location Map 2. Property Line/Zoning Map 3. Site Plan 4. June 23, 2003, City Council Minutes Attachment 1 O r A g LITTLE CANADA ~' ,~ W W O O 0 0 ~ o r- ~ C 2400N 3 ---nAq DR. ~ ; LARK AVE. ~ , ~ VIKING ~ - - LAUR IE RD. ~ ~ ~ W < J W o ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ LAURIE ~n ~n ~ ~`~ C~ w ~ x COUNTY RD. O B . ,, . ;r ., ' N COUNTY ~ ~ RD. B V a ~ ELD R1DGE AV E p l~ ~ E1DR11 "Sandy,: - ~ Lcke ., v~ ~_ N ~ 9E1MON'T LN. ~ W Oehrt' vii fake BELMa N SKILLMAN ~ AVE ~ t~` fj~ SKILLMAN A` ~ SKILL~IMI AVE ai ~n _ n ~ ~ _ ~ ~ ~ W Q ~ MT. VERNON = a o ~ v ~ S~ m ~ ~ m 3 G J J -~~ DOWNS AVE °, < W MT~ VERNON AV ~ ZW 4J ~ \ j a':~ . ~ Q p< OJ ~ ~ ~ f~~ W P'°'i` E~~ ® ROSELAWN < d W J Q' c~ ~ - ~ ~ (~ ~ KELLWOOD AVE BELL WOO o AVE KELLWOOD AVE Y MMER AVE ~ ~ o SUS E R O z FENTON v ~ ~ ~ Z MGA LN. ~ ~ W U ~ ~ z ~c W ', ~n `~, ~ . ~n -~ o ~ J m ~ _ ` s ~' NO t n ~ AVE ~ c ~ RIPLEY AVE G~ x I KING W ~ ~ m KINGSTON~AVE ~°~„' i S TON ~ ~ ~ ~ O~G H ~ ~ = AVE ~ ~ ~ W ? ~ W y ~ PR1CE ~AVE ~ ~ m LARPE NTEUR g . W ~ AVE ~ I °' SAINT LOCATION MAP 2 N -r , ,~e ~ k~ROSELAWN AVENUE ~~--ne >; s ~: ~' -~ FORMER `~' .~. _ T :.;•. .,. iAMUSEMENT CITY ~ °i •'-~• ~,_ - _ - , ~ 1 ~~AMUSEMENT PARK ) '4 '~ .~.~ sf.'_!~•• 1`ii`-^f's`a _ ail f yl 'Js h ~ . Iz y ~ I _ •• ~ •1 I ) ~~ w' W ~ U ~ .~ .y =i ,'~4 U_{ .,~ Il IL A .i M OQ 'u Is ~'~ ~\ _ •-..'~. "- '~ ` .. ~..... M ~ r ov .. > , T. s L $ d rx ~ ~ a ~ T 7 ~ I I ~ w, :.~ • s ~ . J I a' -µe s- _ ~'• - IN ! T ,, Y ~ 1 ~ '` ; ST PAUL ~. , : : ~ t . ;' ; j ~o~R W~WATER UTILITY ' R ~E ' Ja " ' ~ ~ ~ ~ PROPERTY t /~ e q (5.50 ou.) r sr! ^' = ti K !. tl n ' h 3 i°. J I- 1 ~ I ,i 3T rA v L \v 'C~ R ~rV O R K S 1s. ...) c ~ I 1 • l724 _ ,, (f~ ,.) ,~~• X11 ~ ~,~ <f~ 2 e..,..• .. ~- ;2J) ~~..~ (s) ~ 2 I 1 _ S ... ~ ,,,. ~ ~ L z --- o --- --2- a - -- t'_QP . ~~/._ _a _. Q.o a•) ~ c•+~ . s . I~.J c;ty of st.va• s «~ ~(~) la .7' J ~ ~ L 4 7i 1 ':a ! • G S ] ~ , [' G(2.) _ ''/~^~ 1 ~ V~• v/ f• S 3'~ ;{~I) a + t K IJ '~ = ~ Y= .. .. .: ~ r f 2J) i C 1 .aJ /! Y. ~ .~ U,L :1 •~ ~ ~ , L, h :i S 'i ''' !; ' ~ ;-r`-°`ra;i:~~ S 7~. /~) AVE. • • • ' '• i 1 c r a 4 a ! c s • t I,I~ J 24 ~° a x . 9r/~ m s. ~ 1 w ~ $ A ~ as 4 u a. (.1) ~ t . ~ •~ (.1)ir y t] u .1 11 It » '! A ~ aL(31) L JI it i .IJ L! ~ /. .. ~ Z • ' ' F' K a] : .,, , as ~, C R OWN PLAZA - ' . ... I Q u ls) , ae , , ~ a Xi! S HOPPING CENTER S ~ ~ ' -~ ~ '°"') ~ w : a~ . ~~ , ~~ 6 7 e. as as • °~ I n I w 14 i r ~~~ ~, ~ ~T(r e i.~ CJ! ( ~ 17 w, ~ 1 ~ ~u) = w -LARPENTEUR AVENU E -~~~~~= ~~ ~' -'~-' '~- •~"' ~~'s- '°`''` "• ` - . _.. . M E R 41 LL's . . ~ '~ -~• ;• ~ 1 V. SAINT PAUL - ; ,- . ,~~~ .: _ . .. _ . - PROPERTY LINE /ZONING MAP 3 N 0 Attachment 3 - - - - - - i / _ _ ICr ~~ J .......................................... D ^ G`j ^ °~ ^ ° a . ~~ ~~ e~ o ~ B ........................................... . ~ o 0 .~ Cr`~ oo ~ ~ ag ^o ° ° ~ a o ®® ~ o ~, . a ~ o o ~ x _ ^ ~ O I a .... G - V.. Q O. Q .: :. ::: .:t: :: :; is W u ~ a U _ Cp` ~~ o ~ ~ .....:::......::. ^ 0 ^ ^ ~ d W °~ ^ ~ Ca ~^ a~ OQ ~ ~ ~ 7d~ ~ P4~ ado°~ Q ~7 ,mac fl >C~a ~ a^ qa,~ ~ o tl ~ ~ ~ p o ~ Q ~ ° ~ ~ 0 0 ~ ~ Q ~ ~ ~~o['a Q ~ ~ ~ q ~ ,--, ,-, A --, --~ r--,°~-~ ~- D o° Overall Site Plan 4 4 N Attachment 4 MINUTES MAPLEWOOD CITY COUNCIL 7:30 P.M., June 23, 2003 Council Chambers, Municipal Building Meeting No. 03-13 H. PUBLIC HEARINGS 3. 8:55 p.m. St. Paul Regional Water Services -McCarron's Water Treatment Plant a. City Manager Fursman presented the staff report. b. Associate Planner Roberts presented specifics from the report. c. Commissioner Fischer presented the Planning Commission Report. d. Boardmember Olson presented the Design Review Board Report. e. Jim Butler, architect for the project provided further specifics. Councilmember Koppen moved to adopt the following resolution approving a stream setback variance at the St. Paul Water Regional Water Service at the McCarron's Water Treatment Plant: RESOLUTION . 03-06-117 STREAM SETBACK VARIANCE WHEREAS, David Wagner, of the Saint Paul Regional Water Services, asked the city to approve a stream setback variance from the zoning ordinance. WHEREAS, this variance applies to the water utility property at 1900 Rice Street. The legal description is: SECTION 18, TOWNSHIP 29, RANGE 22 IN THE VILLAGE OF MAPLEWOOD REVISED DESCRIPTION NUMBER 175 A SPECIFIC PART OF SEC 18, TN 29, R 22. (PIN 18-29-22-31- 0042) WHEREAS, Section 36-196(h) of the wetland protection ordinance requires a 60-foot-wide stream buffer area next to streams. WHEREAS, the applicant is proposing a 40-foot-wide stream buffer. WHEREAS, the history of this variance is as follows: On June 2, 2003, the planning commission recommended that the city council approve this variance. 2. The city council held a public hearing on June 23, 2003. City staff published a notice in the Maplewood Review and sent notices to the surrounding property owners as required by law. The City Council Meeting 06-23-03 5 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 TT RESOLVED that the city council approve the above-described variance for the following reasons: 1. Strict enforcement of the code would cause undue hardship because of circumstances unique to the property. The 60-foot-wide stream buffer requirement would make development of this site difficult. 2. The variance would be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the ordinance, since the applicant would greatly improve a portion of the stream buffer over its present state and the proposed development plans will treat storm water from the site with rainwater gardens, bio-retention basins and other best management practices. Approval is subject to the applicant doing the following: Dedicating a 40-foot-wide stream protection buffer easement along the west property line of the site adjacent to the future cold storage building and creating a buffer along the entire length of the stream contained or bordering their property. The buffer shall be 50 feet wide in all possible areas. This easement shall be prepared by a land surveyor, shall describe the boundary of the buffer and shall prohibit any building, mowing, cutting, grading, filling or dumping within the buffer. The applicant shall record this easement before the city issues a building permit. 2. Submitting a revised landscape plan for the restoration of all the stream-protection buffer on the west side of the site, including all the day-lighted parts of Trout Brook. This plan shall show extensive use of native plantings and grasses and shall be subject to city staff and watershed district approval. 3. Installing city approved signs at the edge of the stream-protection buffer that prohibit any building, mowing, cutting, grading, filling or dumping within the buffer. Seconded by Councilmember Wasiluk Ayes-All Councilmember Koppen moved to adopt the following resolution approving a conditional use permit revision for the addition of four buildin ag new parking lot and associated site plan changes for the St. Paul Regional Water Services McCarron's Water Treatment Plant at 1900 Rice Street North: CONDITIONAL USE PERNIIT REVISION RESOLUTION 03-06-118 WHEREAS, the Saint Paul Water Utility has requested a revision to their conditional use permit to add four new buildings, parking and landscaping to plant facilities at the St. Paul Water Utility McCarron's Water Treatment Plant. WHEREAS, this permit applies to the property at 1900 Rice Street North. The legal description is: SECTION 18, TOWNSHIP 29, RANGE 22 IN THE VILLAGE OF MAPLEWOOD REVISED 6 City Council Meeting 06-23-03 2 DESCRIPTION NUMBER 175 A SPECIFIC PART OF SEC 18, TN 29, R 22. (PIN 18-29-22-31- 0042) WHEREAS, the history of this conditional use permit is as follows: 1. On June 2, 2003, the planning commission recommended that the city council approve this permit. 2. On June 23 2003, the city council held a public hearing. The city staff published a notice in the paper and sent notices to the surrounding property owners. The council gave everyone at the hearing a chance to speak and present written statements. The council also considered reports and recommendations of the city staff and planning commission. NOW, THEREFORE, BE TT RESOLVED that the city council approves the above-described conditional use permit based on the building and site plans. The city approves this permit because: 1. The use would be located, designed, maintained, constructed and operated to be in conformity with the city's comprehensive plan and code of ordinances. 2. The use would not change the existing or planned character of the surrounding area. 3. The use would not depreciate property values. 4. The use would not involve any activity, process, materials, equipment or methods of operation that would be dangerous, hazardous, detrimental, disturbing or cause a nuisance to any person or property, because of excessive noise, glare, smoke, dust, odor, fumes, water or air pollution, drainage, water run-off, vibration, general unsightliness, electrical interference or other nuisances. 5. The use would generate only minimal vehicular traffic on local streets and would not create traffic congestion or unsafe access on existing or proposed streets. 6. The use would be served by adequate public facilities and services, including streets, police and fire protection, drainage structures, water and sewer systems, schools and parks. 7. The use would not create excessive additional costs for public facilities or services. 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: All construction shall follow the site plan approved by the city. The director of community development may approve minor changes. 2. The proposed construction must be substantially started within one year of council approval or the permit shall become null and void. The council may extend this deadline City Council Meeting 06-23-03 for one year. 3. The city council shall review this permit in one yeaz. Seconded by Councilmember Wasiluk Ayes-All Councilmember Koppen moved to adopt the design plans for the St. Paul Regional Water Services McCarron's Water Treatment Plant at 1900 Rice Street North: Approve the plans (date-stamped Apri124, 2003) for the proposed office building, meter shop and vehicle maintenance buildings (with the associated pazking and landscaping) at the St. Paul Regional Water Services McCarron's Water Treatment Plant at 1900 Rice Street North. This approval does not include the future cold vehicle storage building shown on the plans along the west side of the site. The city bases this approval on findings required by the code. The property owner or contractor shall do the following: 1. Repeat this review in two yeazs if the city has not issued a permit for this project. 2. Provide the following for city staff approval before the city issues a grading or building permit: a. Building material and color samples of the plaster, metal panels, roofs, trim, and gazage doors. b. A revised landscape/screening plan that shows the following: (1) The spruce trees proposed for the south and east sides of the pazking lot and the property revised from 6 feet in height to 8 feet in height. (2) The planting of more coniferous trees along the south and east sides of the proposed parking lot to help screen the parking lot from the houses to the south and east. (3) Landscaping details for the stream buffer area and for the proposed rainwater gardens. If the basin area will only be seeded, the azea must be vegetated with e native grasses and forbes. The mix design must be approved by the city before the contractor does the seeding. (4) An in-ground irrigation system (including sprinkler heads) for the areas that would have sod. The city does not require irrigation for areas with native grasses or for the rainwater gardens. c. Detailed grading, drainage, paving, utility and erosion control plan for approval by the Assistant City Engineer. These plans shall meet all the requirements of the Assistant City Engineer. d. A detailed photometric plan for all proposed outdoor lighting showing the location, style, height and design of the proposed light fixtures. All freestanding lights shall not be taller than 25 feet, and the illumination from any outdoor light must not exceed 0.4-foot candles at all property lines. 8 City Council Meeting 06-23-03 4 e. Plans for any trash-dumpster enclosures. The gates for such enclosures shall be 100 percent opaque, and the materials and colors of the enclosure shall be compatible with those of the new buildings. These plans shall be subject to staff approval. Proof of recording of a 40-foot-wide stream protection buffer easement along the west property line. This easement shall be prepared by a land surveyor, shall describe the boundary of the buffer and shall prohibit any building, mowing, cutting, filling or dumping within the buffer. The applicant shall record this easement before the city issues a building permit. g. A letter of credit or cash escrow for all required exterior improvements. The amount shall be 150 percent of the cost of the work. 3. Complete and install all required exterior improvements, including the approved landscaping and any dumpster enclosures before occupying the buildings. 4. If any required work is not done, the city may allow temporary occupancy if: a. The city determines that the work is not essential to the public health, safety or welfare. b. The above-required letter of credit or cash escrow is held by the City of Maplewood for all required exterior improvements. The owner or contractor shall complete any unfinished exterior improvements by June 1 if occupancy of the building is in the fall or winter, or within six weeks of occupancy of the building if occupancy is in the spring or summer. 5. All work shall follow the approved plans. The director of community development may approve minor changes. Seconded by Councilmember Wasiluk Ayes-All 9 City Council Meeting 06-23-03 AGENDA ITEM G6 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 Approving Plans and Specifications and Authorizing Receipt of Bids with City Project 02-08 DATE: July 6, 2004 Introduction The realignment of County Road D, west of TH 61, requires improvements to the existing sections of County Road D between Walter Street and TH 61 as a joint project with Vadnais Heights and Ramsey County. A Public Hearing was held on June 28, 2004. The Council approved the project. One segment of the project, between Walter Street and the new alignment has been found to be best coordinated if bid with the new alignment project. Approval of the resolution approving the plans and specifications for this segment and authorizing the receipt of bids with the new alignment project on July 30, 2004 at 10:00 am is recommended. 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's water utilities. 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's 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 required for the TH 61 improvements funded by MnDOT. The first segment will be best constructed with the new alignment project. The new alignment project (City Project 02-08) had plans and specifications approved for bidding on June 28, 2004. This west segment is proposed to be overlaid as a temporary fix until County Road D is reconstructed after Mn/Dot completes work on the "Unweave the weave" I-694 project in 5 or 6 years. Budget Impacts Western Portion (New Cty Rd D to Walter St.) Roadway Improvements: (Highridge Ct. to Walter St.) _ $ 80,160.17 Vadnais Heights Water Main = $ 83,873.50 Total Segment 1 $164,033.67 Recommendation It is recommended that the city council approve the attached resolution approving the plans and specifications and authorizing the receipt of bids with City Project 02-08 for the Western Segment of the Existing County Road D Improvements, Walter Street to T.H. 61, City Project 04- 06. RCA Attachments 1. Resolution Accepting Report and Calling Public Hearing 2. Location Map RESOLUTION APPROVING PLANS ADVERTISING FOR BIDS WITH CITY PROJECT 02-08 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 URS Engineers, Inc. under the direction of the city engineer, who presented such plans and specifications to the city council for approval on June 28, 2004, and WHEREAS, pursuant to resolution passed by the city council on June 28, 2004, plans and specifications for the Western Segment of Existing County Road D Improvements, Walter Street to the new alignment for County Road D, City Project 04-06, have been prepared by SEH Engineers, Inc. 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 for the Western Segment of Existing County Road D, Walter Street to the new alignment for County Road D, a copy 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 include said plans and specifications with the bid documents for City Project 02-08 and 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 combined improvement under such approved plans and specifications. The advertisement shall be published twice, at least three weeks 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 30t" 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 August 9, 2004. Approved this 12t" day of July 2004. UO AGENDA NO. G-7 AGENDA REPORT TO: City Manager FROM: Finance Director RE: Transfer to Close Fund for Project 03-05 DATE: July 2, 2004 On January 13, 2003 the City Council authorized the South Maplewood Comprehensive Sewer Study (Project 03-05) that was financed by the Sewer Fund. The study has been completed and the final cost was $32,954. It is recommended that the Council approve a transfer of $14,998 from the Sewer Fund to the fund for Project 03-05 and the appropriate budget changes to close the fund. P\agn\close fund for 03_05.doc AGENDA ITEM AGENDA REPORT TO: Richard Fursman, City Manager FROM: Charles Ahl, Public Works Director/City Engineer SUBJECT: Legacy Parkway Improvements -City Project 03-26 -Approve Amended Lease at 3062 Hazelwood Street DATE: July 6, 2004 Introduction On March 22, 2004, the City Council approved a Lease Agreement for the property at 3062 Hazelwood Street. This was one of the five homes along Hazelwood Street that were to be acquired with tax abatement funds from the Legacy Village project. The terms of the lease allowed the property owners to stay until the end of August 2004, with an option to extend if necessary due to problems with the family relocating. The adjacent developer has deposited $25,000 with the City for the purpose of cooperative grading and expediting the Legacy Parkway project. The homeowners at 3062 Hazelwood, as part of the final purchase agreement arrangements, will be vacating their home at the end of July 2004 with this money being "passed through" the City. Termination of the lease is required to complete the expedited project. Background The Legacy Village project includes the extension of Legacy Parkway between Southlawn Drive and Hazelwood Street, intersecting with Kennard Street in the center of the proposed development. On the western edge of the Legacy Village development were five single-family homes that were adjacent and abutting Hazelwood Street. The southern three homeowners (Kincaid, Peterson and Supan) have entered into purchase contracts with a private developer (Southwinds Builders). The Kincaid and Peterson property have been purchased by Southwinds and demolished. The Supan propert~r will be purchased by Southwinds on July 27, 2004 and the Supans will vacate the home on July 29t . The northern two properties were not included in the private development proposal and negotiated with the city for the sale of their property. Those agreements were approved by the Council on March 22, 2004. Final negotiations resulted in a purchase value of $266,500 for the Gebhard property. Relocation expenses of $50,000 were paid as required by statute for a public purchase. The Gebhard's were granted 5 months of free rent as part of the negotiations. The adjacent developer, Town and Country Homes, proposed a grading and construction plan that required significant grading on the Supan, Gates and Gebhard properties. In order to expedite their work and save money on retaining wall construction, Town and Country Homes deposited $25,000 with the City. This $25,000 will be paid to the Gebhards to terminate their lease early. Approval of the lease termination conditions is recommended. Budget Impact The entire cost of the purchase for all expenses is estimated at $800,000 and is covered by tax abatement bonds included in the entire abatement process. The $25,000 payment to the Gebhards does not impact the City as it is a pass through cost. Recommendation It is recommended that the city council approve a termination of the Lease with Daniel and Mickele Gebhard at 3062 Hazelwood in exchange for the payment of $25,000 received from Town and Country Homes, City Project 03-26. RCA SUMMARY MEMORANDUM TO: City Manager FROM: Ken Roberts, Planner SUBJECT: Cahanes Estates Preliminary Plat LOCATION: 2415 Minnehaha Avenue DATE: June 29, 2004 INTRODUCTION Project Description Agenda #H1 Mr. Kelly Conlin, representing Homesites LLC, is proposing a 10-lot plat for single dwellings in a new development called Cahanes Estates. It would be on a 3.39-acre site on the north side of Minnehaha Avenue on the property at 2415 Minnehaha Avenue. Request To build this project, Mr. Conlin is requesting that the city approve a preliminary plat for 10 lots for the 10 single dwellings. DISCUSSION Staff dis not find any major issues or problems with this proposal. The developer will need to work out several engineering-related issues with the construction of the development, but these do not appear to present a major problem. The city engineering department has been working with the applicant's engineering consultant in reviewing this proposal and plans. Erin Laberee's comments are included in the project review memo. RECOMMENDATION Staff is recommending approval of the Cahanes Estates preliminary plat (as received by the city on June 28, 2004). This approval would be subject to several conditions, as listed in the staff report. MEMORANDUM TO: City Manager FROM: Ken Roberts, Planner SUBJECT: Cahanes Estates Preliminary Plat LOCATION: 2415 Minnehaha Avenue DATE: July 1, 2004 INTRODUCTION Project Description Mr. Kelly Conlin, representing Homesites LLC, is proposing a 10-lot plat for single dwellings in a new development called Cahanes Estates. It would be on a 3.39-acre site on the north side of Minnehaha Avenue on the property at 2415 Minnehaha Avenue. Refer to the maps on pages 10-18. Request To build this project, Mr. Conlin is requesting that the city approve a preliminary plat for 10 lots for the 10 single dwellings. (See the map on page 13.) DISCUSSION Compatibility Staff does not find a problem with this proposal in terms of compatibility and land use. It would bean in- fill plat for houses surrounded by single-family homes on three sides with a new street intersecting with Minnehaha Avenue. Preliminary Plat Subdivision Ordinance Chapter 34 of the city code (subdivisions) regulates the platting or subdividing of property in Maplewood. The purpose of this part of the code is "to protect and promote the public health, safety and general welfare, to provide for the orderly, economic and safe development of land... ". As such, the city must balance many interests when reviewing and considering a subdivision in Maplewood. These inGude the interests of the property owner, the developer, the neighbors and the city as a whole. To this end, Section 34-6 of the code says that °the planning commission may recommend and the city council may require such changes or revisions of a preliminary plat as deemed necessary for the health, safety, general welfare and convenience of the city." Density and Lot Size As proposed, the 10 lots on the 3.39-acre site means there would be 2.95 units per acre. This is consistent with the density standards in the comprehensive plan and zoning code for single dwelling residential development. As proposed, each lot will be above the 10,000-square-foot minimum lot area that the city requires for each single-family lot. Lot Sizes and Dimensions As proposed, the lots in the plat will range from 10,016 square feet to 16,611 square feet with an average lot size of about 11,917 square feet. (See the proposed plat on page 13.) The city requires each single dwelling tot in the R-1 (single dwelling) zoning district to have at least 75 feet of width at the front setback line and be at least 10,000 square feet in area. In addition, the code requires comer lots to be at least 100 feet wide on each street side. As submitted, the proposed plat meets or exceeds all these standards. City Engineering Department Comments The city engineering department has been working with the applicant's engineering consultant in reviewing this proposal and plans. Erin Laberee's comments are inGuded starting on page 19. Public Utilities Sanitary sewer and water are in Minnehaha Avenue and are available to serve the proposed development. The developer will extend the sanitary sewer and water main into the site from the existing systems in Minnehaha Avenue. The Saint Paul Regional Water Services (SPRWS) will need to approve the plan for the water main before the start of construction. In addition, the applicant is proposing to build new small storm water ponds and rainwater gardens on the southeast and southwest comers of the site and at the intersection of the new street and Minnehaha Avenue. As designed, the storm water from this development would go into the new ponds and then discharge to the existing city storm water system in Bartelmy Lane. The city designed and built the storm water system in the area to accommodate the drainage from a large area, including this site. The developer's plans will connect their pipes to the existing storm and sanitary sewer pipes. As noted in the engineering comments, the city is going to install the improvements on this site as part of a public improvement project -including utilities, street and curbing. This, however, requires the property owner to petition the city to install the public improvements. After the city receives such a petition, the city will do the final design of the project plans and the developer or applicant will pay the city back for all costs. Drainage Concerns Two of the neighbors expressed concern over the potential for increased runoff and flooding due to this development. Speafically, 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 engineering department comments from Erin Laberee starting on page 19.) As proposed, the grading plan shows most of the storm water from the site, including the street and driveways, going first into new storm water ponds on the southeast and southwest comers of the site before it discharges into the existing city storm water system. Most of the site drains to the east and to the south. The developer's engineer told me that by using the proposed ponds on the site as storm water detention facilities, they want the development to not increase the rate of storm water runoff from the site. That is, the runoff leaving the site will be at or below current levels. This standard is a requirement of the city engineering department. 2 Minnehaha Avenue ROW The engineering department noted that Ramsey County will need ten feet of additional right-of-way for Minnehaha Avenue. The developer will need to dedicate this additional right-of-way on the final plat. 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 3.39-acre site, the applicant's plans show a total of 45 large trees on the site and that they would save 12 of the existing trees on the property (primarily on the perimeter of the site). (See the site survey on page 12). The plans show the removal of 33 large trees inGuding ash, oak, maple and elm trees. As proposed on the preliminary tree plan (page 18), the developer would plant 30 trees on the site. These include 20 Colorado or black-hills spruce near the rear property line of the lots and 10 maple trees on the site, primarily at the front comer of each lot. As I noted above, the code requires there be at least 10 trees per acre on the site. For this 3.39-acre site, the code requires there be at least 34 trees on the property after the constnaction is complete. As such, the proposed tree planting plan, along with the trees that the developer would save, would meet the requirements of the tree replacement code of the city. Watershed District The Ramsey/Washington Metro Watershed District is reviewing the development proposal and will have to issue Mr. Conlin a permit before the contractor starts construction. 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, noted that the cul-de-sac must have a turning radius of at least 42 feet (for equipment) and that there be fire hydrants in proper locations. The proposed plans show these features. COMMISSION ACTION On June 7, 2004, the planning commission recommended approval of the proposed preliminary plat. 3 RECOMMENDATION Approve the Cahanes Estates preliminary plat (received by the city on June 28, 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 inGuding: (1) all utility and drainage easements. (2) ten-foot-wide drainage and utility easements along the front and rear lot lines of each lot and five-foot-wide drainage and utility easements along the side lot lines of each lot. (3) Any off-site easements. e. Have Xcel Energy install a street light at the intersection of Minnehaha Avenue and the proposed street (Cahanes Court). The exact location and type of light shall be subject to the city engineer's approval. f. Demolish or remove the existing house, garages and sheds from the site, and remove all other buildings, fencing, scrap metal, debris and junk from the site. g.Cap and seal all wells on site and remove septic systems or drainfields, subject to Minnesota rules and guidelines. h. Complete all curb on Minnehaha Avenue on the south side of the site. This is to replace the existing driveways on Minnehaha Avenue, and restore and sod the boulevards. 2.* Have the city engineer approve final construction and engineering plans. These plans shall inGude grading, utility, drainage, erosion control, driveway, trail, tree, and street plans. The plans shall meet all the conditions and changes listed in the memo from Erin Laberee dated July 1, 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. 4 (3) Show house 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. (c) Shows the spruce trees to be planted as a mix of black hills spruce or Austrian pines that are at least eight feet tall. (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. (7) Show all proposed slopes. 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. (8) Show all retaining walls. Any retaining walls taller than 4 feet require a building permit from the city. (9) Show the sedimentation basins or ponds as required by the watershed district or by the city engineer. (10) Show no grading beyond the plat boundary without temporary grading easements from the affected property owner(s). c. The street, driveway 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 (Cahanes Court) with continuous concrete curb and gutter, except where the city engineer determines that concrete curbing is not necessary. (3) The completion of the curb on the north side of Minnehaha Avenue and the restoration and sodding of the boulevards. (4) The repair of Minnehaha Avenue (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 Service (SPRWS). (6) All utility excavation located within the proposed right-of--way or within easements. 5 The developer shall acquire easements for all utilities that would be outside the project area. (7) A water service to each lot. (8) The plan and profiles of the proposed utilities. (9) A detail of any ponds, the pond outlets and the rainwater gardens. The contractor shall protect the outlets to prevent erosion. (10) The cul-de-sac with a minimum pavement radius of at least 42 feet. (11) A label for Minnehaha Avenue and the new street as Cahanes Court on all construction and project plans. 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 new street as Cahanes Court and label Minnehaha Avenue on all plans. c. Show the north one-half of the right-of--way for Minnehaha Avenue at 43 feet. 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. 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 Minnehaha Avenue (street, curb and boulevard) after the developer connects to the public utilities. d. Meet all the requirements of the city engineer. 9. Submit the homeowners' association documents for review and approval by city staff. These shall include provisions for the maintenance and use of the rainwater gardens. 6 10. Record the following with the final plat: a. The homeowners' association documents. b. A covenant or deed restriction with the final plat that prohibits any driveways on Lots 1 and 10 from going onto Minnehaha Avenue. c. A covenant or association documents that addresses the proper installation, maintenance and replacement of the retaining walls and the gardens or drainage systems. The applicant shall submit the language for these dedications and restrictions to the city for approval before recording. 11. Obtain a permit from Ramsey County for the new street access. 12. Obtain a NPDES construction permit from the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA). 13. The owner or contractor shall get demolition permits from the city to remove the house, garage and the other structures from the property. 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. 7 CITIZENS' COMMENTS I surveyed the owners of the 82 properties within 500 feet of this site. All six of the replies had comments about the proposal. For Objections Comments/Questions/Concerns 1. I was at the first meeting and was favorably impressed with the developers. Aside from the prospect of higher taxes, I have no adverse feelings about the development since I am not right next door to it. (Johnson - 756 Mary Street) 2. More should be done to conserve existing trees. 72 percent tree loss is too great. Also concerned about the silt fence all away around the property -with this being a higher property, the flow of neighbor to neighbor is unjust. (Gilman - 770 Mary Street) 3. I am not happy about 10 units going in -maybe 8 would be better. I hope crime rate and property taxes do not go up. There are already new units across from Beaver Lake going up. How about traffic - it is already bad on Minnehaha from 3M and Century is already crowded. I feel sony for the people who have to live next door to something like that. 3M traffic goes pretty fast down our street as a through way to Stillwater. There is already too much traffic on our street. Our friend was trying to turn in our driveway on a left hand turn and was hit by a 3M lady worker. Teenagers driving through too fast at 9-10 at night during the summer. I always worry about my children being hit. (Smith - 795 Mary Street) 4. I do not see how you can get ten houses in there unless they are very close together. Are these 2-story houses in the midst of one story ranch houses/ramblers? 1 thought Maplewood was about preserving open space. This is going to be way too crowded. (Samuelson - 800 Bartelmy Lane) 5. See the notes from the Meyers on page 21. 6. Also, see the e-mail message from Linda Stevens on pages 22 and 23. 8 REFERENCE INFORMATION SITE DESCRIPTION Site size: 3.39 acres Existing land use: A single dwelling and accessory buildings SURROUNDING LAND USES North: Single dwellings South: 3M property across Minnehaha West: Single dwellings East: Single dwellings PLANNING Existing Land Use Plan designation: R-1 (single dwellings) Existing Zoning: R-1 (single dwellings) Application Date The city received all the application materials for this request (including the proposed plans) on May 18, 2004. In addition, city staff received revised plans from the developer on June 28, 2004 that address many of the staff concerns and that showed several of the changes suggested by staff. State law requires the city to take action on this request by July 16, 2004, unless the applicant agrees to a time extension. p:sec 25\Cahanes Estates - 2004.mem Attachments: 1. Location Map 2. Property Line/Zoning Map 3. E~asting Site Survey 4. Proposed Preliminary Plat 5. Site Plan 6. Proposed Grading Plan 7. Erosion Control Plan 8. Proposed Utility Plan 9. Tree Planting Plan 10. Engineering Comments from Erin L. dated July 1, 2004 11. Comments from the Meyers dated May 25, 2004 12. E-mail message From Linda Stevens dated May 31, 2004 13. Project Plans (separate attachments) 9 Attachment 1 LOCATION MAP 10 4 N Attachment 2 csa5 7.338 827 2334 &19'' 2332 813 R1 2328 805' 2322 799_! 793' fi 2367 ~ 2'371 2375 785' 14 834. 2418 $39 2410 8~2 !833 827 2. 2456 2480 834 2472. 2466' ;833 822 R 1 827 81~ 821 R'I 812 _' 828 821 821 804 815 806 81.5 808 813 796 794 809` g~ 800 8D3 809 ~\~G ,~~~ 81 5 2427 792 795 2403 '_ 2915 784 784 7$7 BUSH AVE 776 783 776 `779 2384- 777 '-2404 ...2410 _24'18 2424' 770' 777 768 R 1 771 762 11NNEHAHA AVE 1 .~ 3M M 1 2301 761 R 1. 760 7g7 ?56 751' 752_ _, 749 __ 750 743 ~ -7d4 '743 D 744 D ~ ', ~ ~ -{ - 735 m ~ I 736 735 cn ~ 736 -~ z 2447 '2461 2471 2485 PROPERTY LINE I ZONING MAP 11 N Attachment 3 I ~ r ~ ~ ~ 2 N I ~ I I ~ ~ I I I F- I W I ~- - VI I N I ~ ~ I ~ w i ~ ~ I ~ I I I ~~ I I i I l i I - ~ I \ ;I I \ I, I I III ~ I ~- i i TRS3' lNYBNTORY LIST: r --T----I- i ~ 783 \ 404 ~ 2410 ~ 2418 ~ 2424 \ / \ ~ ~ ~ \ / \ \ \ .- I I I ., I I I_ _ _' _ _ _ ~ ., 777 \ \ ~ -~ ~ ~ ~ ~ LJI__- ~ LJ r '.__ -- ~ yam- ___ ~ --+~ ~ ~ ~ i +~ - ~ - ~ ~ ~ _- ,see-~' - _ - N89'99 58'"E X18,49 \ 'Fe ~ ~/ ~ \ \ ~\ I ~'6 \ lase / 1 \ ~\ ` ~ \\ \ ~\ ~\ \ \ I I \ ~ ~ \\ \\ \\ \ ~ \ ,~e I I\ \\ I~ \ \ \ \ \ ~ 3 ` 761 ~ ~ _ ~2i ~-~ ~-~ ~ I < ~_ 751 ~ } ~ - - ,~ ~ -i `, z, _ ; ~ '~ ~ ,' J , of ",; ~ ~ ' i1z3 ,z5 ,~ ~ - ~I Fes; ~ I j ~ I ~I _ 743 ~ m ~ ~ 110 1 4 NO / ! - 27 Fg1N1ATpN 1 B I / / II ~ 1 / / < I 7_i -T- ,z ~/ ~~ , / jLr~' ~ ' ~~ \ 735 , ~ I ~ \ \~ IgUSF ---yyy I J I` I 2405 ICI ~ ` i~i~~ I~~ ~ 2415 j I ~ I ri ~ _ \\ I ~,~~ -~I 1 y/ I ~ I ~ I ~I ~ ~ I -~ _ ~ , y; ,o, ~ ~' ~ ~ ~ ; ~ ~, , ~ 2447 ~ I -w w~ wm - - _. w wm w wrV+w~--t- MINNEHAHA AVENUE ~ .4 _ - ,' OE OE OE OE OE -~ " ~OE SITE SURVEY 12 4 N Attachment 4 I I ~ _, \/ ~ :; ~ ~ f ~ ~ ~ 11 \~ ~ L / \\ 1\\ 1 1 ~ / \ \ • 1 1 ~ L/ •I 180 \ I« I ~ ~~ ~ I s J n sam / ~~ ~ ~~~/// I / / I / / I :; / / /-. ,' ~ I -- C io,ao sax. I R <,1, :; __ 1 f -TJ ~~ 7 I -y- w , ~. N I I ___ ---- -.= _._ .,r -,= _._ 1 ~ 1 A A ~~, 11 PROPOSED PRELIMINARY PLAT 13 6 ~ Z~'~ ul N 1 111.1. ~_ 1 1,-,1 1 /-, /-, .._ . Attachment 5 W W W W ~.~ ;? ~------ ~ -----J '_ U -== 0 ------- - ----- --------- --------- MILAN HAHA AVE. :: ~ ~ ~ - I v l l ~ \~ ~ \~ 1. 1. 1. `I F~ l ~l ' t V V ~~ i f 4 t- ;'\, I\ 1 I `I ` J '''/ \ ~. -~ --~ I I -..--..--.. I ~i I' I ~~ 5 ~I I~ s J J ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ lesel sart. ~ I I ~ le.ell syrt. / ~ ji ~ 1 I ~\ \~. \ i I I ~'\ '/ / I '% ~ I ~ ~~ ~~ ~~~~~ ~ I ~_: I >> ~~ I i =~1: :: I I 10.074 SaR I / \ 10.010 SaR. I I I I ~ -,' 7 -•- I w --- -,- L------, ~------J -i- r------~ ~ ~-------~ I \ \~ ~ i~ I lo.aw syrt. ~ /. lame sqn. I I a a~-~I ~ I e I \~ Z I I V I I g -, - J r--_-- -..--~ ~--_-__~~-~ I ~ I ~ t0,0Qi SqR. I ROW I 10.0!1 SqR I J l ~ z I FzF I s V/ ~, m I ~:; ' I ~ ~L ~ I I 12975 Spft. ~ l 'O I .~i SITE PLAN ~- z~ o~ 14 4 N Attachment 6 "~ I "; _ -' _ :; I II I I ~ LJ _--- ~-J ~ *_ _ ` ~ ~ ~ ~- - - ~ ~ i ~ ~ ~ .-, I ~~o '~i ~ ~~~ ~ g i _~_ ~ I ~ _ J ,, / .~ ~. r~ n § u o / _ I I ~ u I I ~~ ~ ~ - - I ~~, I ~ j I I~ _1_ -T_ 1 ~ / ~~~ - - ~ , Ti / LLJ I I / 1p , I O f ~ p 8 ~ ~ wr. ___ _ ~ I / ~ ~i i \ .__ I i ~ ~ 1 \ \ I I o~ I ~~ ~ I ~ 0 ~ bl ~I ~ ~ .~~~ Yr~ ~ gi L _ ~ \ T .~ \ I I g w \ ~~ \ ~ 99D ~ ' ~ ~ 80Tr9o7.4 ~ E79ST. RET. WALL I ~ / ~ 10 ~ . TOP~B97.8 BOT.~996.9 ~- ~ / -`7~p ~ fl ` /\ \/ h- / PROPOSED GRADING PLAN ~- z8'-~y 15 N MINNEHAHA AVENUE 9a Attachment 7 I ~;_ I ~ ; .. I _* I I -- -- _ I I~ LJI_ - LJ ~ --- 1 ~ _ _ J - ~ ~ ~ ~\ i I a • , r ~- ~ ~ i r -~. ~-C I ~ s~r frivcr/ I I ,J L~ .~ ~. ~ ~/ i / ^ ~ 13 I 33 ~ ~ ~~ -~\- (4 ----~ a -~ ~` ~ L / / \ \ ~ Yb04 2 ~. ~ '1\ ~ ~~_ \~ - -~--~ i --- - ~ -~-- _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _MINNEHAHA AVENUE; °'~ OE OE OE OE :; •~ .• ~i i /~\ L J •• ~ I ~ - ~; < L_ __; J 'T- -1 ~ _ rf1 I I . I `-/ -1- I •~ Ir _ ~ (~- - I < ~I -r- _1. ~~, =1= Ti L1J A.. ~ i ~i \ _~ __ •__ ~ . ,~1\ L ~ _ ~, ;, ~ I - - - ~ -- -- . i - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -r - - - OE OE DOE "~' EROSION CONTROL PLAN ~-zgo~ 16 i ~ N Attachment 8 -' .; I II - -~ ~ ~ I LJI LJ '~ ~ ~ +~ -~-- " \ I -..--..--.. I I -..--.._-.. I I ~ ~I I~ i I ;; I ~I I' I ~ ~ s ~I I~ s J J r- ~ ~'~ I I /'i~~ I :; I I I / T-1008.7 \~ ~ I I - I 4 ~ I-9Be.e I 7 I ~ r-~ I I I I L- L_, -; ~------J L------~ `~-- ----- \-~\\ _ //r------ i _TJ _1_ I I 1 ~ r / I , ~. _. I~ s I ~ I s I r- 'T' . LJ A7 < 1_1 \'q\ z I ~ I 9 ~ ~~ L1J ~i ~ I ~ o I ~_- _~ ~ I _ ~ I I --- I I x I ~ - w LLI _~ II ~ /~ v ~ ~ ~o I - - - - - s .~ } ~~ r-iooo.o ~ - - - - - ToP-997.9 1-9323 ~ BoT.-997.4 C-7000.5 l~998.0 i X99&0 (:-99S.S D0S7. ~. Why I-998.3 » I-994.0 I-993.5 " I-991.3 TOP-997.8 0057. MH T-994.0 BOT.-996.9 _ - -- T-999.4 ( I-990.0 c 1-987.4 'ISi0J5 !` Y.CP. S0.HiT.+" 5'eW[A W WhA w Wulf =%.IJiN{~` !' 0.1.?'.W iYFiEHH.4iY W~WfY~ MINNEHAHA AVENUE '~, ;'~ ~% ~_ , ---------- ------ ----------- OE OE OE OE OE ~'{5T4° '`~`H"~'`0OE'`E`~"" - - - - OE W Z g J m PROPOSED UTILITY PLAN > > ~ -2~ o~ 4 N Attachment 9 ~ 1 ,, ,. :: I- - _ -I - - ~_ -_- -- _ _- ~ ~ IVI11\Ilut fy /\ -r I\ J ~ ftill ~FyIC/'\ 1\~`I ` ~ .Y 1-r--I u /~- _ _~~ 1 1 1 .1 i 5 ~ , - ~ ~s~ ~ ~ ~ / , J L ,~ ~ / I ,~ ~ \ 7 ~. - \ ~ -~ w _~FBi1Q= ~/ ------r---- MI1V~A~A f -c-- AVE. iui i i\i i\i -- -r it i~gpF ' ~ it Ili -- 1 .~1 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ -' \ 1 -~ --- _~_ ~ == ~ -,- ~ .1- 1 ~ 1 A w l1J 1 1 \ ~_- \ __ - ~,- TREE PLANTING PLAN 18 ~-~'-~ ', N LJ ~ ~I 2405 ~i -J Attachment 1'0 Engineering Plan Review PROJECT: Cahanes Estates PROJECT NO: 04-17 REVIEWED BY: Erin Laberee, Maplewood Engineering Department DATE: July 1, 2004 Homesites LLC is proposing to develop the property at 2415 Minnehaha Avenue into 10 residential lots on a cul-de-sac street. The developer is proposing several rainwater gardens as part of the drainage system. In addition, the developer is proposing that the streets and utilities be public infrastructure and is requesting city-approval to prepare the plans and to administer the construction of the utilities and street. It has generally been the city's policy to prepare the plans and specifications for public infrastructure and perform the construction inspection duties. Due to the short length of the street, the city is approving the developer's request to prepare the plans and to administer the construction of the utilities and street. The developer and the project engineer must strictly follow Maplewood's Engineering Standards. These standards include a construction inspection schedule that outlines erosion control, grading, utility and street construction, and testing requirements. The developer shall ensure that all construction activities conform to Maplewood's standards by entering into a Development Agreement with the city. City staff will keep a close watch on the site during all construction activities -especially those relating to the construction of the public street and utilities. The developer or the project engineer shall make the changes to the plans and to the site as noted below and shall address the following issues: Drainage 1. All of the rainwater gardens shall have overflow swales. The contractor shall construct the overflow swales with a permanent soil stabilization blanket (Enkamat or NAGC350 or equal). The overflow elevation shall be marked on the plans. 2. The applicant shall reduce the amount of runoff that is flowing offsite onto adjacent properties, specifically at the northeast corner and west part of the site. The owners or contractors of the houses on Lots 3,4,6,7 and 8 shall direct the roof gutters towards the street. 3. The project plans shall show a detail of how the contractor is to construct the rainwater gardens. Rainwater gardens typically include rock sumps. The engineer shall design the gardens to include rock sumps to improve infiltration. The sumps should consist of 1.5" of clean, clear rock wrapped in Type 5 geotextile filter fabric, (felt). The contractor shall place the top of the rock infiltration sumps about 12 inches below the finished bottom of the basin. The project engineer shall provide a detail and description in the plan of how the contractor will prepare the rock sumps. Grading & Erosion Control 1. Since the street is to be public, the plans shall show the curb cuts replaced with catch basins. 19 2. Protect the existing retaining wall east of the property during construction. Utilities 1. Submit final plans to SPRWS for their review and approval. 2. Show proposed sewer and water service locations on the final plans. 3. Show existing sanitary and sewer service locations on the plans. The contractor shall remove or abandon all existing services. Landscaping 1. Provide additional landscaping in the upland and lowland areas around the rainwater gardens. This is to keep the soils open and promote infiltration. 2. A native seed mix shall be used around garden areas. The applicant shall provide seed mix details to the city for approval. Misc. The developer shall implement a homeowners association as part of this development. This requirement is to ensure there is a responsible party for the maintenance and care of the rainwater gardens. The proposed drainage system is dependent on the rainwater gardens and it is important that future homeowners do not compromise the function of the gardens or fill them in. 20 Attachment 11 QUESTIONS AND COMMENTS MAY 25, 2004 1. The back of our lot line is at 996' - 10' or so to the west it's at 1004. The grading plan shows no change except for insertion of darker lines - need clarification, please. 2. Tree # 140 is an Elm, not a Box Elder - why cut it down? It's reasonably close to the lot line. 3. Are all maps drawn to scale? Does map 5 define size of site 'building'? 4. Will future developement houses be limited to height? 5. What's a silt 'fine dirt' fence? 6. Does map 6 show any appreciable elevation changes? If so, where? 7. Will proposed street be named Chris or Cahanes Court? 8. Map 9 shows new tree planting at about 50g less than stated at our initial meeting. 9. Who do we contact if we have a question or concern during the de- velHpement phase? 10. Wi~ the planned destruction of the existing vegetation, what assurance do we have that our lower elevation will not be in- undated with run off? 11. Will we have any input regarding the placement of trees in back of our adjourning yards? y • r^ 21 MAY 2 6 2004 Attachment 12 Ken Roberts From: sydhannah@att.net Sent: Monday, May 31, 2004 11:01 PM To: Ken Roberts Cc: sydhannah@att.net; banabean~hotmail.com Subject: URGENT re: Cahanes estates Development 2415 Minnehaha May 31st Dear Mr. Roberts, I spoke with you by phone last week regarding the above mentioned development. I live at the 777 Bartelmy Lane N address. You were extremely patient and helpful with explanations that I could easily understand and I appreciated it very much. Thank you. I intended to get a letter off to you right away, but I got distracted and completely forgot about it until tonight. I hope it is not too late to turn in my comments as I believe they are worthy of further discussion and re-working of parts of the plans for the development. As I stated in our telephone discussion, the prior owner, as well as myself have had problems with water that drains down the hill, (the proposed site of Cahanes Estates) which has caused flooding in the basement as well as in the garage. I've spent a great deal of money landscaping and building up dirt and rock around the foundation of my house to avert the water. There are 45 trees listed of which 72~ will be cut down. These massive trees have helped to absorb the rain water that would otherwise run onto mine and other's properties. With the removal of all these trees there will be a huge impact on water drainage. Naturally, the proposed development is of GREAT CONCERN to me. How will the new development impact the drainage of water onto my property? What will be done to ensure that my property remains unaffected in a negative manner, from this development? Additionally, you told me that a straight line from the corner of my garage to the corner of the proposed house, directly next to my property was 70 feet. I and my daughter actually went outside and measured the 70 feet from the two points you stated and I must tell you, the 'proposed house' IS VERY CLOSE TO MY HOUSE! I truly don't think the people who are thinking about buying it, will want their home that close to another home. Regardless, of the fact that it is the back of the home. I know I DO NOT WANT it that close to my home. If there is ANY WAY POSSIBLE, that this particular house could be moved just 10 more feet forward, I think the developer would have a much easier time selling it and for the price he/she wants and I would be a much happier neighbor! Thank you again for your help and for taking the time to read this. I sincerely hope that these issues will be taken into account, as I am getting them in writing to you after the date mentioned in your letter. However, the drainage concern was discussed by phone prior to the deadline. Sincerely, Linda Stevens 777 Bartelmy Lane N Maplewood, MN 55119 651-738-3439 P.S. I know that this will not matter to the city or the developer, but I feel that I must say again, how extremely sad and disappointed I and my daughter are that we are losing so many trees! (72$ of 45 trees!) ` Trees that are probably at least 100 years old. Along with the loss of the trees is the loss of wildlife such as deer, rabbits and many, many different species of birds. I know that this does not matter when it 22 comes to making money. But it will have a huge impact on my family as we have enjoyed this part of living here for the past 10 years. 23 MINUTES OF THE MAPLEWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION 1830 COUNTY ROAD B EAST, MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA MONDAY, JUNE 7, 2004 VI. NEW BUSINESS a. Cahanes Estates Preliminary Plat (2145 Minnehaha Avenue) Mr. Roberts said Mr. Kelly Conlin, representing Homesites LLC, is proposing a 10-lot plat for single dwellings in a new development called Cahanes Estates. It would be a 3.39-acre site on the north side of Minnehaha Avenue on the property at 2415 Minnehaha Avenue. To build this project Mr. Conlin is requesting that the city approve a preliminary plat for 10 lots for the 10 single dwellings. Mr. Roberts said staff recently discovered that Ramsey County is requiring an additional ten feet for a right of way on Minnehaha Avenue and that condition has been added as part of the final plat on page six of the staff report. Commissioner Trippler said lot number six concerned him in the northeast corner. It drops off substantially to the garage on the other side of the lot line. When looking at the plan he wasn't sure how the landscaping would keep runoff from leaving the property. He asked if the developer would bring fill in for that area? Ms. Laberee said they could use a rainwater garden or a swale in the area to control volume and runoff to the property. During large rains they may receive some runoff but additional measures can be made to reduce the runoff. Commissioner Trippler said he noticed the property at 2405 Minnehaha Avenue which runs the length of the property was for sale and he wondered if the owner was interested in selling to the developer to be included in the development? Mr. Roberts said he worked with the buyer of that property and the city recently approved a lot split to create two more lots fronting on Meyer Street. The person selling the property at 2405 Minnehaha Avenue recently bought the property from an estate and has approval for two more lots. Mr. Roberts said the property could still be incorporated into this development but maybe the applicant can address that issue. Chairperson Fischer asked the applicant to address the commission. Mr. Kelly Conlin, representing Homesites LLC, residing at 11855 Isleton Avenue, Stillwater, addressed the commission. They held a neighborhood meeting to find out their concerns and the main concern was the drainage in the area. They have been working with Hedlund Engineering regarding the drainage issues and have come up with a new drainage plan that will improve the drainage situation. His partner, Mr. Keith Koecher, representing Homesites LLC, addressed the commission. Commissioner Trippler asked if the developer had checked into acquiring the property at 2405 Minnehaha Avenue? Mr. Conlin said Homesites was interested in acquiring the property but when he spoke to the owner of the property he stated he would be developing the property himself. Chairperson Fischer asked if item e. on page 4 of the staff report should be stricken? Mr. Roberts said yes item e. is a duplicate of item i. and that would be corrected and updated for the city council. Chairperson Fischer asked if the road should be called Chris Court or Cahanes Court? Mr. Roberts said public safety would like the road labeled Cahanes Court and that is a condition listed on page 6, item 4. b. Commissioner Pearson moved to approve the Cahanes Estates preliminary plat (received by the city on May 18, 2004). The developer shall complete the following before the city council approves the final plat: (changes or additions are in bold and deletions are stricken) 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- footdrainage and utility easements along the front and rear lot lines of each lot and five- footdrainage and utility easements along the side lot lines of each lot). e. Have Xcel Energy install a streetlight at the intersection of Minnehaha Avenue and the proposed street (Cahanes Court). The exact location and type of light shall be subject to the city engineer's approval. ~. f. Provide all required and necessary easements, including any off-site easements. #. g. Demolish or remove the existing house, garages and sheds from the site, and remove all other buildings, fencing, scrap metal, debris and junk from the site. +: h. Cap and seal all wells on site; and remove septic systems or drainfields, subject to Minnesota rules and guidelines. i. Complete all curb on Minnehaha Avenue on the south side of the site. This is to replace the existing driveways on Minnehaha Avenue, and restore and sod the boulevards. 2. *Have the city engineer approve final construction and engineering plans. These plans shall include grading, utility, drainage, erosion control, driveway, trail, tree, and street plans. The plans shall meet all the conditions and changes listed in the memo from Erin Lal3eree dated June 1, 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 house 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. (c) Shows all spruce trees as a mix of black hills spruce or Austrian pines. (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. (7) 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. (8) All retaining walls on the plans. Any retaining walls taller than 4 feet require a building permit from the city. (9) Sedimentation basins or ponds as required by the watershed district or by the city engineer. (10) No grading beyond the plat boundary without temporary grading easements from the affected property owner(s). c. The street, driveway and utility plans shall show the: (1) Street with a width a 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) New street (Cahanes Court) with continuous concrete curb and gutter, except where the city engineer determines that concrete curbing is not necessary. (3) Completion of the curb on the north side of Minnehaha Avenue and the restoration and sodding of the boulevards. (4) Repair of Minnehaha Avenue (curb, street and boulevard) after the developer connects to the public utilities and builds the new street. (5) Coordination of the water main alignments and sizing with the standards and requirements of the Saint Paul Regional Water Service (SPRWS). (6) All utility excavation located within the proposed right-of-way or within easements. The developer shall acquire easements for all utilities that would be outside the project area. (7) A water service to each lot. (8) The plan and profiles of the proposed utilities. (9) A detail of any ponds, the pond outlets and the rainwater gardens. The contractor shall protect the outlets to prevent erosion. (10) The cul-de-sac with a minimum pavement radius of at least 42 feet. (11) Label Minnehaha Avenue and the new street as Cahanes Court on all construction and project plans. 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 new street as Cahanes Court and label Minnehaha Avenue on all plans. c. Show any additional required right-of-way for Minnehaha Avenue. 1. Secure and provide all required easements for the development including any off-site drainage and utility easements. 2. 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. 3. Obtain a permit from the Ramsey-Washington Metro Watershed District for grading. 4. 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 Minnehaha Avenue (street, curb and boulevard) after the developer connects to the public utilities. d. Meet all the requirements of the city engineer. 5. Submit the homeowners' association documents for review and approval by city staff. These shall include provisions for the maintenance and use of the rainwater gardens. 6. Record the following with the final plat: a. The homeowners' association documents. b. A covenant or deed restriction with the final plat that prohibits any driveways on Lots 1 and 10 from going onto Minnehaha Avenue. c. A covenant or association documents that addresses the proper installation, maintenance and replacement of the retaining walls and the gardens or drainage systems. The applicant shall submit the language for these dedications and restrictions to the city for approval before recording. 7. Obtain a permit from Ramsey County for the new street access. 8. Obtain a NPDES construction permit from the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA). 9. The owner or contractor shall get demolition permits from the city to remove the house, garage and the other structures from the property. 10. The property owners shall submit a petition to the city requesting the installation of the public improvements. 11. If the developer decides to final plat part of the preliminary plat, the director of community development may waive any conditions that do not apply to the final plat. *The developer must complete these conditions before the city issues a grading permit or approves the final plat. Commissioner Trippler seconded. Ayes - Desai, Dierich, Fischer, Grover, Lee, Mueller, Pearson, Trippler The motion passed. This item goes to the city council on June 28, 2004. SUMMARY MEMORANDUM TO: City Manager FROM: Ken Roberts, Planner SUBJECT: Mapletree Townhomes LOCATION: Southlawn Drive, south of Beam Avenue DATE: June 23, 2004 INTRODUCTION Project Description Agenda #H2 Mr. Jon Brandt is proposing to build nine townhouses (in three, 3-unit buildings) and ten additional detached garage spaces in a development called Mapletree Townhomes. It would be on a 1.51- acre site on the west side of Southlawn Drive, south of Beam Avenue. Refer to the applicant's statements and the maps in the staff memorandum for more details about the proposal. The proposal would have three, 3-unit townhouse buildings, two detached garage buildings (with a total of 10 parking stalls) and a 20-foot by 40-foot maintenance/community building. Each town house would have atwo-car attached garage, a deck and a patio area. There also would be 11 open parking spaces. Requests To build this project, Mr. Brandt is requesting that the city approve: A preliminary plat to create the lots for the buildings. (See the map on page 24.) 2. The design plans for the site, landscaping and buildings. DISCUSSION The primary issues with the proposal involve the sanitary sewer and the grading and drainage plan. The engineering staff review included in the project review memorandum very thoroughly addresses these two areas of concern and notes the ways that the developer can resolve the issues. RECOMMENDATIONS Staff is recommending approval of the proposed preliminary plat and the design plans for the Mapletree Townhomes, subject to several conditions as outlined in the staff memorandum. MEMORANDUM TO: City Manager FROM: Ken Roberts, Planner SUBJECT: Mapletree Tovvnhomes LOCATION: Southlawn Drive, south of Beam Avenue DATE: June 25, 2004 INTRODUCTION Project Description Mr. Jon Brandt is proposing to build nine townhouses (in three, 3-unit buildings) and ten additional detached garage spaces in a development called Mapletree Townhomes. It would be on a 1.51-acre site on the west side of Southlawn Drive, south of Beam Avenue. Refer to the applicant's statements on pages 14 - 21 and the maps on pages 22 - 34. A homeowner's association would own and maintain the common areas. The proposal would have three, 3-unit townhouse buildings, two detached garage buildings (with a total of 10 parking stalls) and a 20-foot by 40-foot maintenance/community building. Each town house would have atwo-car attached garage, a deck and a patio area. Each building would have brown shingles, horizontal-lap vinyl siding, white aluminum soffits and fascia and brick or stone accents on the fronts. (See the elevations on page 34 and the enGosed plans.) There also would be 11 open parking spaces. Requests To build this project, Mr. Brandt is requesting that the city approve: 1. A preliminary plat to create the lots for the buildings. (See the map on page 24.) 2. The design plans for the site, landscaping and buildings. BACKGROUND On December 22, 1988, the city council approved the following for Mr. Brandt's property (west of Southlawn Drive): 1. A change to the land use plan from low density residential to medium density residential. 2. A rezoning from F (farm residence) to R-2 (single and double dwellings) and R-3(C) multiple dwellings -townhouses for the area west of Southlawn Drive. The R-2 zoning is for the single and double dwellings on Southlawn Drive and the R-3(C) zoning is for the townhouse area of his property. In April 1989, the community design review board approved the plans for the duplex at 2831 Southlawn Drive. DISCUSSION Land Use and Zoning With the actions of the city council in 1988, the city has planned this property R-3 (M) (medium density residential) and zoned it R-3(C) (multiple dwelling -townhouses). These designations allow townhouses with up to six units per gross acre on the site. The proposed plan is consistent with these land use and zoning designations. Densi As proposed, the nine units on the 1.51-acre site means there would be six units per acre. This is consistent with the R-3(M) land use designation for the property and with density standards in the comprehensive plan for medium density residential development. Compatibility Staff does not find a problem with this proposal in terms of compatibility and land use. The proposed townhouses would be on property that the city has planned and zoned for townhouses. The site is near Beam Avenue and next to double dwellings and commercial property. Developers will often build townhomes next to single or double 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, Dearborn Meadows and the Carriage Homes of Maple Hills where this is the case. Preliminary Plat Density and Lot Size As proposed, the nine units on the 1.51-acre site means there would be six units per acre. This is consistent with the zoning designation and the density standards in the comprehensive plan for medium density residential development. Public Utilities There are sanitary sewer, storm sewer and water in Southlawn Drive to serve the proposed development. The developer's plans will connect their pipes to the existing storm and sanitary sewer pipes. (See the proposed utility plans on pages 27 and 28). In addition, the applicant is proposing to build a new storm water pond on the southwest 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 west of the site. (See the proposed grading plan on page 25.) Tree RemovallReplacement 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 1.51-acre site, the applicant's plans show a total of eight large trees on the site and that they would save three of the existing large trees on the property. The plans show the 2 removal of five large trees (ash, oak, and elm), but they would preserve three existing trees (primarily on the perimeter of the site). As proposed on the preliminary landscape and lighting plan (page 29) and the applicant's statement, the developer would plant eleven trees on the site. These include honey locust and five maple trees, primarily near the driveway and parking lot. As I noted above, the code requires there be at least 10 trees per acre on the site. For this 1.51-acre site, the code requires there be at least 15 trees on the property after the construction is complete. As such, the applicant will need to add trees to the proposed landscape plan to meet the requirements of the tree replacement code of the city. The Gty should require the developer to plant at least four more trees in this development (for a total of 15) to replace at a two-to-one ratio the nine trees that he will be removing. Watershed District The Ramsey/Washington Metro Watershed District reviewed and approved the development and has issued Mr. Brandt a permit. Drainage Concerns At least two of the neighbors expressed concern over the potential for increased runoff and flooding due to this development. Specifically, there are properties to the south and west of the site 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. Erin Laberee of the City Engineering department reviewed the proposed project plans and has several comments about the proposed grading, drainage and sewer plans. (Please see the comments from Erin starting on page 35.) As proposed, the utility plan shows most of the storm water from the site, including the parking areas and driveways, going first into a new storm water pond or rainwater garden on the southwest comer of the site before it discharges into the existing ponding area to the west of the site. In times of large storms, storm water may overflow out of this ponding area to the west into Kohlman Creek. The city will not need a drainage and utility easement over the ponding area, as it will be a private ponding area. The city engineering department will require the applicant and his engineer to make all the necessary changes to the plans and to design the project to meet all their comments before they start construction. Design Review Building Design and Exterior Materials The proposed buildings should be attractive and would be compatible with the design of the existing nearby homes. The town houses would have two stories above grade and each unit would have an attached two-car garage. As proposed, the buildings would have an exterior of horizontal vinyl siding with briGc veneer or stone accents, white vinyl-Gad windows, and the roof would have brown asphalt shingles. (See the applicant's statement starting on page 14, the 3 building elevation drawings on page 34 and the proposed project plans.) The developer has proposed earth tone colors for the siding. As proposed, the buildings and their colors would be compatible with those in the area. The site and grading plans also show three additional buildings on the site including two sets of garages and a communitylmaintenance building. The applicant's statement notes that these buildings will have brick or stone accents, siding and shingles to match the triplexes. The city code requires such accessory buildings to be at least 10 feet apart. While it makes sense for the developer to include such buildings on the site, the city will need to approve the plans, elevations and materials for each of the accessory buildings. Landscaping The proposed project plans keep many of the existing trees around the perimeter of the site. As proposed, the developer would plant 11 larger (replacement) trees in the development. These include honey locust and maple trees, primarily near each unit. (See the plan on page 29.) The landscape plan (page 29) and details (pages 30 - 33) also show the proposed plantings near the driveway and parking areas will include a spires, junipers, dogwoods and arborvitaes. While the landscape plan is a good start, the developer should add more trees for screening along the north and east sides of the site. The purpose of these plantings is to screen the new townhouses from the businesses to the north and from the existing houses to the east. The applicant should revise the landscape plan to show additional trees in these areas so they are consistent with Maplewood ordinance standards (for size and height). The plantings proposed around foundations of the units and in the proposed detail areas should remain on the plan. In addition to the above, all yard areas should be sodded (except for mulched and edged planting beds). Fencing/Scnening This site has commercial properties on its north side, including the Outback Steakhouse and the US Bank with its drive-up teller lanes. It would be prudent for and helpful to the residents of the new town houses if the developer installed screening along the north and east sides of the project to help ensure that the new residents and the parking areas are separated from the adjacent commercial properties and residential properties. Staff is recommending that Mr. Brandt add several black hills spruce and Austrian pines in detail areas C and D to provide additional screening between this site and the adjacent properties. Site Lighting The applicant prepared a site lighting plan for the development that shows the installation of six light posts to provide lighting for the parking areas. The city code requires the light fixtures to have a design that hides the bulb and lens from view. This plan, however, does not show any detail about the height or style of these poles or about the proposed lighting on the buildings. In addition, the proposed plan shows little, if any, lighting along the driveway into the site. The applicant should revise the lighting plan in several ways. First, the plan should show how the lighting on the buildings would add to the site lighting. Secondly, the plan should have additional lighting near the driveway, so it is adequately lit. Finally, the plan should show details about the proposed light poles and fixtures to ensure they meet the city code requirements and so they are a design that hides the bulb and lens from view to avoid nuisances. 4 Police Department Comments Lt. Kevin Rabbett of the Maplewood Police Department noted no public safety concerns and that the extra garage space is a good idea and should deter theft from vehicles. Fire Marshal Comments Butch Gervais, the Maplewood Fire Marshal, wants the city to make sure the driveways and parking lots are large enough for proper snow removal and for the maneuvering of emergency vehicles. He also noted that if a townhouse building has more than 8,500 square feet of space that the code requires sprinkler protection throughout the building. Mr. Gervais also recommended that the city not allow overnight sleeping in the community room unless the owner puts in place all necessary life/safety features and requirements. COMMISSION ACTIONS On June 21, 2004, the planning commission recommended approval of the proposed preliminary plat for the development. On June 22, 2004, the community design review board (CDRB) recommended approval of the design plans for the proposed development. RECOMMENDATIONS A. Approve the Mapletree Townhomes preliminary plat (received by the city on May 24, 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). 2. Have the city engineer approve final construction and engineering plans. These plans shall include grading, utility, drainage, erosion control, tree, and street plans. The plans shall meet all the conditions and changes listed in the memo dated June 14, 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. 5 (2) Include contour information for all the land that the construction will disturb. (3) Show housing pads that reduce the grading where the developer can save large trees. (4) Show the parking lot 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 inGude 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 site and from the surrounding areas. c. The driveway, parking lot and utility plans shall show the: (1) Water service to each lot and unit. (2) Repair of Southlawn Drive (street and boulevard) after the developer connects to the public utilities and builds the private driveways. 3. Paying for costs related to the engineering department's review of the construction plans. 4. Change the plat as follows: a. Add drainage and utility easements as required by the city engineer. This shall include an easement for the water main and easements for any other public utilities on the site. The Saint Paul Regional Water Services (SPRWS) shall approve the description and location of the easement for the water main. b. Show drainage and utility easements along all property lines on the final plat. These easements shall be ten feet wide along the front and rear property lines and five feet wide along the side property lines. c. Label the common area as Outlot A. 5. Secure and provide all required easements for the development including any off-site drainage and utility easements. 6. The developer shall complete all grading for public improvements and overall site drainage. The city engineer shall include in the developer's agreement any grading that the developer or contractor has not completed before final plat approval. 7. If necessary, obtain a permit from the Ramsey-Washington Metro Watershed District for grading. 8. If the developer decides to final plat part of the preliminary plat, the director of community development may waive any conditions that do not apply to the final plat. 6 9. Submitting 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 private utilities, parking areas, driveways, landscaping and common areas. 10. 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 any retaining walls. The applicant shall submit the language for these dedications and restrictions to the city for approval before recording. 11. Obtain a NPDES construction permit from the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA). B. Approve the plans date-stamped May 24, 2004, (site plan, landscape plan, grading and drainage plans and building elevations) and the elevation for the maintenance building submitted at the June 22, 2004, community design review board meeting for the Mapletree Townhomes on the west side of Southlawn Drive. The city bases this approval on the findings required by the code. The developer or contractor shall do the following (changes made by the community design review board to the original conditions are underlined if added and stricken if deleted): 1. Repeat this review in two years if the city has not issued a building permit for this project. 2. Complete the following before the city issues a building permit: a. Have the city engineer approve final construction and engineering plans. These plans shall include: grading, utility, drainage, erosion control, tnre, sidewalk and driveway and parking lot plans. The plans shall meet the following conditions: (1) The erosion control plan shall be consistent with city code. (2) The grading plan shall: (a) Include building, floor elevation and contour information. (b) Include contour information for the land that the construction will disturb. (c) Show sedimentation basins or ponds as may be required by the watershed board or by the city engineer. (d) Show 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 mowA vegetation rather than using sod or grass. 7 (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 and tree removal as possible on the west and south sides of the site (near the park). (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. In addition, this plan shall show the planting of at least 10 replacement 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 red and white oaks and sugar maples. (d) Be consistent with the approved grading and landscape plans. (e) 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 design of the ponding area and the rainwater garden(s) shall be subject to the approval of the city engineer. The developer shall be responsible for getting any needed off-site utility, grading or drainage easements and for recording all necessary easements. (6) The driveways shall meet the following standards: 24foot width-no parking on either side and 28-foot width-parking on one side The developer or contractor shall post the driveways with no parking signs to meet the above-listed standards. (7) The developer shall disturb as little as possible of the area along the west and south property lines. The applicant shall change the grading plan for this part of the site as recommended by the city engineer. b. Submit a certificate of survey for all new construction and have each building staked by a registered land surveyor. c. Submit a revised landscape plan to staff for approval that incorporates the following details: (1) All trees would be consistent with city standards for size, location and species. 8 (2) The manicured or mowed areas from the natural areas. This shall include planting (instead of sodding) the disturbed areas around the ponding area and the rainwater gardens with native grasses and native flowering plants. The native grasses and flowering plants shall be those needing little or no maintenance and shall extend at least four feet from the ordinary high water mark (OHWM) of the pond. This is to reduce maintenance costs and to reduce the temptation of mowers to encroach into the gardens. Specifically, the developer shall have the natural areas seeded with an upland mixture and lowland mixtures as appropriate. (3) The maple trees must be at least 2 1/2 inches in caliper, balled and burlapped. (4) The plantings proposed around the front of the units shown on the landscape plan date-stamped May 24, 2004, shall remain on the plan. (5) In addition to the above, the contractor shall sod all front, side and rear yard areas (except for mulched and edged planting beds and the area within the ponding area). (6) The contractor shall restore the Southlawn Drive boulevard with sod. (7) Adding ten more evergreen trees (Black Hills spruce or Austrian pines) along the north and east property lines of the site (in Detail areas C and D). These trees are to be at least six feet tall and the contractor shall plant these trees in staggered rows on the berm. (8) As much of the existing vegetation (including the trees) remaining along the westerly and southerly property lines as possible. (9) Foundation plantings near and around the buildings and additional screening (with trees and other materials) between the proposed buildings and Southlawn Drive. (10) The in-ground lawn-irrigation system. d. Submit an in-ground lawn-irrigation plan to staff showing the location of sprinkler heads. e. Get the necessary approvals and permits from the watershed district. Submit a revised site lighting plan for city approval. This plan shall show how the lighting on the buildings would add to the site lighting, and the plan should have additional lighting along the main driveway, so it is adequately lit. This plan also shall show details about the proposed light fixtures to ensure they are a design that hides the bulb and lens from view to avoid nuisances. The light fixtures must have concealed lenses and bulbs to properly shield glare from the adjacent street right-of- ways and from adjacent residential properties. This plan shall also show details about the w_h_ite-colored. freestanding lights that were displayed and approved at the June 22, 2004, community design review board meeting. g. Have the Saint Paul Regional Water Services (SPRWS) approve the proposed utility plans. h. The fire chief shall approve the access to the back (west side) of the buildings for firefighting needs. i. Submit plans for city staff approval for any outdoor trash or recycling containers and enclosures. If the developer wants to build such facilities, the enclosure shall have materials that are compatible with the buildings, and they shall have gates that are 100 percent opaque. Submit for city staff approval revised building plans and elevations that show or include (but are not limited to) white shutters, white window grids, white balcony railings, awhite-colored trim band located between the two stories on the north, west, and east elevations of the townhouses that separates the two beige colors of vinyl siding, and that provide more detail about the brick or stone accents. These plans also should reflect that all utility meters are located on the north side of each townhouse, on the lower level, within the recessed area. k. Submit for city staff approval the site and building plans and elevations for the garage buildings. These buildings shall be at least 10 feet apart and shall have a style, finish, materials and colors consistent with the main buildings on the site. Present to staff for approval color building elevations or building material samples of all elevations of the townhouses, maintenance/community building, and garages. These elevations should show that the townhouses will have iwo-tones of beige- colored vinyl siding on the north, west, and east elevations with a white trim band separatinst the two stories; have two-tones of beige-colored vinyl siding on the second story and either brick or stone accents on the first stony of the south elevation. These elevations also should show that the maintenance/community building and Starages would have a beige-colored vinyl siding with a wainscot of brick or stone. m. Provide the city with a letter of credit or cash escrow for all required exterior improvements. The amount shall be 150 percent of the cost of the work. 3. Complete the following before occupying each building: a. Replace property irons that are removed because of this construction. b. Restore and sod damaged boulevards. Sod all landscaped areas, except for the area within the easement, which may be seeded. c. Install continuous concrete curb and gutter along all interior driveways and around all open parking stalls. d. Install reflectorized stop signs at the exit, ahandicap-parking sign for each handicap- parking space and addresses on each building for each unit. In addition, the applicant shall install "no parking" signs within the site, as required by staff. 10 e. Construct trash dumpster and recycling enclosures as city code requires for any dumpsters or storage containers that the owner or building manager would keep outside the building. Any such enclosures must match the materials and colors of the building. f. Install and maintain all required landscaping and an in-ground sprinkler system for all landscaped areas (code requirement). g. Install on-site lighting for security and visibility that follows the approved site lighting plan. All exterior lighting shall follow the approved lighting plan that shows the light spread and fixture design. The light fixtures must have concealed lenses and bulbs to properly shield glare from the adjacent street right-of--ways and the nearby homes and residential properties. h. Install asix-foot-high solid screening fence or additional landscaping along the east and north property lines of the site where the vegetation does not adequately screen the town houses and the parking areas from the businesses and the existing dwellings. These additional materials are to ensure there is at least asix-foot-tall, 80 percent opaque screen on these sides of the site. The location, design and materials of the fence or the additional landscaping shall be subject to city staff approval. i. The owner shall provide all required life/safety features in the community room/building to the satisfaction of the building official and the fire marshal before allowing anyone to sleep in that space. j. The developer or contractor shall: (1) Complete all grading for the site drainage, complete all public improvements and meet all city requirements. (2) Place temporary orange safety fencing and signs at the grading limits. (3) Remove any debris or junk from the site. 4. If any required work is not done, the city may allow temporary occupancy if: a. The city determines that the work is not essential to the public health, safety or welfare. b. The above-required letter of credit or cash escrow is held by the city for all required exterior improvements. The owner or contractor shall complete any unfinished landscaping by June 1 if the building is occupied in the fall or winter, or within six weeks of occupancy if the building is occupied in the spring or summer. 5. All work shall follow the approved plans. The director of community development may approve minor changes. 11 CITIZENS' COMMENTS I surveyed the owners of the 25 properties within 500 feet of this site. The one reply had the following comments: Grade changes are too steep on the southern and east end of the property. A sidewalk or path is needed to get from the neighborhood to the library. The intersection at Southlawn and Beam Avenue is poorly designed for any more traffic. (Mielke - 2796 Southlawn Drive) 12 REFERENCE INFORMATION SITE DESCRIPTION Site size: 1.51 acres Existing land use: Vacant SURROUNDING LAND USES North: US Bank and Outback Restaurant on Beam Avenue South: Single dwelling on Southlawn Drive West: City park property East: Dwellings on Southlawn Drive PLANNING Existing Land Use designations: R-3(M) (medium density residential) Existing Zoning designation: R-3(C) (multiple dwelling -townhouses) Application Date The city received all the application materials for this request on May 24, 2004. State law requires the city to take action on this request by July 21, 2004, unless the applicant agrees to a time extension. p:sec 3Wlaple Tree TH - 2004.mem Attachments: 1. Applicant's Statement -Development Overview 2. Applicant's Statement -Grading -Watershed -Utilities 3. Applicant's Statement -Community Design Review Board 4. Location Map 5. Property Line2oning Map 6. Proposed Preliminary Plat 7. Proposed Grading Plan 8. Proposed Drainage Area Map 9. Proposed Utility Plan (No. 1) 10. Proposed Ufility Plan (No. 2) 11. Proposed Landscape Plan 12. Landscape Plan Detail -Plan A 13. Landscape Plan Detail -Plan B 14. Landscape Plan Detail -Plan C 15. Landscape Plan Detail -Plan D 16. Proposed Building Elevations 17. Comments from Erin LaBeree dated June 8, 2004 18. Project Plans (separate attachments) 13 Attachment 1 Ja,. $n~.~.,lt 2831 Southlawn Drive, Maplewood, MN 55109-1146 Fax: 651-748-1284 • jonbrnndt@aol.com • Phone: 651-777-5004 May 21, 2004 To: Community Development City of Maplewood From: Jon Brandt, owner/developer Mapletree Townhomes Development Overview Mapletree Townhomes has incorporated as anon-profit association in order to form a common interest community fora 1.51 acres site on Southlawn Drive. The property is properly zoned R- 3C, with a density for nine townhomes. The development site borders properties with zoning for different uses, and provides transition from commercial BCM (US Bank and Outback Steakhouse) to the north, to R-2 and R-1 to the east and south. To the west is the Hazelwood park reserve. The site plan considers adjacent residential and commercial development, and takes advantage of the quiet westerly exposure to the park reserve. There are a total of six buildings in the development: three triplexes, two sets of garages, and a community building. Some of the townhomes will be retained by the owner-developer as rental property. Others will be sold, with market demand. The Townhomes Each of the nine townhomes will have 2,200 ft2 finished living area on three levels, with three bedrooms and three bathrooms. The living room and dining room are west facing with views of the park reserve and sunsets. The dining room opens to an 8' x 16' deck. The living room features a 12-foot ceiling and a gas fireplace. The kitchen and dining room have nine-foot ceilings, an island workspace, and oak cabinetry. The upper-level features a computer loft balcony that overlooks the living room, two bedrooms two bathrooms, and a hallway closet. The main bedroom suite has asix-foot vanity with double sinks, oak linen cabinet, shower bay, and a large walk-in closet. The lower level has a family room with a walkout patio to the woods, a bedroom and bathroom, and alaundry-utility room. The two-car tuck-under garage has extra storage space. The Detached Garages Homeowner's today can't seem to find enough storage and garage space. Three car garages are becoming the norm for new home construction. Two buildings with single-car garages will be located at each end of the development, for a total of ten detached garages. Each building will have nine-foot ceilings and five separate 10'x20' garage stalls, to be used for cars, boats, sport vehicles, or general storage as needed by residents. The garages will initially remain under association control to be available to residents under association rules. Eventually the garages may be dedicated individually to each of the nine townhomes with the tenth garage retained by the association for grounds maintenance. APPLICANT'S STATEMENT 14 Mapletree Townhomes Development Overview -Page 2 of 2 The Community Building The Community Building is 800-ft2 with a handicap accessible bathroom, workshop and utility room. Initially the building will be a construction office, and then arental/sales office. The workshop will provide storage space for building materials and construction equipment. The utility room will have central laundry equipment and controls for landscape irrigation and outdoor lighting. Eventually the 400-ft2 community room will be available for homeowners and residents for a variety of uses, perhaps as an entertainment center, overnight housing for guests, exercise center, association meeting room, or association office. Site Development A landscaped mailbox island will define the entry to the development. This will also serve to alert traffic coming down Radatz to the private driveway. Landscaping plans have been provided by Bachman's Landscape Services. Only five large ornamental trees (as defined by the city) have to be removed, and will be replaced by at least seven trees, mostly maples. A wooded area on the SE comer of the site will be retained to provide some natural screening for the two adjacent R-1 properties. The construction schedule is to begin with preliminary surveying and soil testing, followed by clearing of trees and brush. Once approvals are in place, permits will be requested for general excavating and installation of utility lines. A temporary gravel driveway will be completed early in the construction process. The first building permit applications will be for the northern garage building, the community building, and one triplex on the northern end. In order to complete asemi-final grade, control erosion, and manage storm water runoff, the basements of the second and third triplexes may be completed early. This would allow the installation of curbing, a construction layer of asphalt paving on the driveway and parking areas, and substantial completion of the rainwater collection system. With the completion of the first triplex, some landscaping will be installed. Construction on the second and third triplex is expected to commence in the fall. The remaining triplexes, south garage building, all landscaping, and final driveway paving should be completed in 2005. 15 Attachment 2 Jam. $~.Ax 2831 Southlnwn Drive, Maplewood, MN 55109-1146 Fnx: 651-748-1284 • jonbrnndt@aol.com • Phone: 651-777-5004 May 21, 2004 To: Community Development Public Works City of Maplewood From: Jon Brandt, owner/developer Mapletree Townhomes Notes for Grading -Watershed -Utilities Grading The grading plan may need to be adjusted for soil conditions, pending a soil report. Elevations of buildings will be adjusted for stable soil. It may be necessary to remove soil or bring in fill. Elevations may also be adjusted for proper drainage, and to minimize exporting or importing soil~ll. The elevations on the second and third triplexes may have to be adjusted, up or down, from the projections on the grading plan. Watershed Our civil engineers, Metro Land Surveying and Engineering completed rainwater calculations and submitted a plan for collection, ponding, and overflow discharge to Kohlman Creek, which runs through the Hazelwood park reserve west of the property. This plan was submitted to the Ramsey-Washington Watershed District in April 2004, and according to Metro Land Surveying, it was approved pending some minor modifications. Also, according to the Watershed District, the development is of sufficient distance from the designated wetland area within Hazelwood park reserve as to not require any further permits for wetland considerations. Utilities • Water There does not appear to be any complications with supplying water lines to the property. The existing water main in Southlawn Drive has an 8° tap stubbed into the property. The Maplewood Fire Marshall reviewed the preliminary site plan and indicated that the existing fire hydrant at the driveway entrance on Southlawn is sufficient in size and location to meet the needs of the fire department. • Sewer There are complications with sewer lines. The southern most triplex lot is below the existing sewer line on Southlawn, preventing a sewer gravit}r feed east to the street. This problem could be resolved with a private lift station that would discharge sewage to manhole 22-79 at the intersection of Southlawn Drive and Radatr. An alternative was proposed a couple years ago by the City Public Works Department, to discharge sewage by gravity to manhole 22-67, just 80 yards southwest of the site, which is about 15' below the development site. There are pros and cons to each plan, described below. 16 Mapletree Townhomes Development Grading, Watershed and Utility Notes -Page 2 of 3 We are submitting two utility plans, each with an alternate sewer line discharge from the site: Plan U-1 proposes a 242' common 8" sewer line, exiting SW from the site to existing manhole 22-67. The difficulty of this plan is that the sewer line would cross approximately 25 feet of city property and approximately 205 feet of Ramsey County Open Space. Manhole 22-67 and the existing feed-through sewer lines are within a wetland area. To access this manhole would require approval from both Maplewood and Ramsey County. The major advantage of this plan is that a gravity feed sewer system is likely to require little or no maintenance for the next 200 years, or longer -the life of these townhomes and beyond. According to Larry Holmberg (651-748-2500) of Ramsey County Parks and Recreation, the county generally does not require an easement for sewer lines crossing county property, but indicated that the county does not consider requests for sewer line crossings from private individuals, only from municipalities. Therefore the proposal would have to be approved first by the city. Plan U-2 proposes a 240' common 8" sewer line from a private on-site lift-pump station, east to existing manhole 22-79. One advantage to this plan is that the sewer line on Southlawn has already been extended from the street (to serve an adjacent property). This saves the expenses of opening the street, tapping into the sewer, and repairing the street. Another advantage of this plan is that it is "the path of least resistance." In a recent discussion with a city engineer this seemed to be a preferred plan, and it doesn't require approval from Ramsey County. The major disadvantage of this plan is the sewage lift-system itself. The initial cost of installation is high, and those costs are a fraction of the on-going expenses -not just for the life of the townhomes, but in perpetuity. According to Bruce Botko, Tri-State Pumps, (763-478-2000) the initial cost of the lift-system is expected to be in the $20,000 range, depending on features. A minimal system requires a holding tank, control panel, and two pumps, which work alternately and serve as back-ups. A generator system, to avoid sewage backups during power failures, would be additional, both in upfront costs and in maintenance. The grinders inside the pumps need to be periodically replaced, and they occasionally jamb on debris, requiring emergency service to avoid sewage backups. The pumps have a life expectancy of ten to fifteen years. The system also requires dedicated electric service, with monthly electric bills. 17 Mapletree Townhomes Development Grading, Watershed and Utility Notes -Page 3 of 3 Our Proposal Both sewer proposals have significant upfront costs. A gravity sewer line to manhole 22-79 will require city and county approval, legal fees, engineering, surveying, applications, hearings, excavating, piping, manholes, connections, erosion control and restoration. It's possible that the gravity feed sewer costs could approach alift-pump system. But if one compares the long-term costs of gravity vs. lift-pump, over the life of current and future townhomes (two hundred years or longer), there's no comparison. Adding together the cost of installation, operating expenses, maintenance, and pump replacement costs over a one hundred year life of the proposed townhomes, homeowners would easily pay more than $100,000 to operate a lift pump system. It's easy to trivialize this expense by breaking it down to a monthly cost per unit, but gravity is free. A lift pump system must be maintained in perpetuity. Tri-state Pumps would like to self alift-pump system, however their rep advised that a lift pump is a poor altemative to gravity and should only be considered in those situations where there is no altemative. As a developer, if the initial costs were comparable, it would be very easy to take the path of least resistance and ignore future utility costs to residents. However dozens of future homeowners would ultimately bear all the expenses and future problems of a lift-pump system. On recommendations from our civil engineers and other consultants, we're asking the city to support Metro Ens~ineerins~ Plan U1 for a sewer connection to manhole 22-67 under Plan A or Plan B (below), or with modfications acceptable to the city: Plan A: The city council grants sewer access over the 25 feet of city property to the owner/developer and provides a resolution requesting the county and the watershed district for permission to cross county property to manhole 22-67. No large trees to be removed, and no lasting damage to the open space, park preserve or wetland. The developer will bear all costs involved in making the sewer connections and restoring the natural landscape. The owner(s) will maintain it as a private sewer line or dedicate it to the city, as the city may require. Plan B: The city council approves an 80-yard extension of the sewer line from manhole 22-67 to the property, at developer's expense. The city obtains county and watershed approval. The developer will bear all costs involved in making the sewer connections and restoring the natural landscape. 18 2831 Southlawn Drive, Maplewood, MN 55109-1146 Fnx: 651-748-1284 • jonbrandt@aol.com • Phone: 651-777-5004 May 21, 2004 To: Community Development City of Maplewood From: Jon Brandt, owner/developer Mapletree Townhomes Notes for Community Design Review Board Landscaping Attachment 3 Landscape Design There are six general landscape design areas. Bachman's Landscape Services completed landscape designs for the high-visibility areas: • Plan A: Street Entry -This plan was designed to provide both an attractive entry to the development and some screening to the residential property to the south. It might also handle some of the run-off from the private driveway. • Plan B: The Driveway Island -This landscaped island median serves several purposes: First, to provide clear indications of a private drive for traffic coming down Radatz. Second, to further define the entry to the townhomes with landscaping that is consistent with other areas of the development. Third, to provide an attractive and convenient mailbox location with easy access for both the post office and residents. The mailbox island will be curbed, with prominent landscaping and reflectors for high visibility, and low growth to ensure unobstructed views for drivers. • Plan C: North Parking Area -This plan was designed to provide attractive landscaping for ahigh-visibility area and some screening for the R-2 property to the east. The landscaping extends from the driveway to the Community Building and adjacent patio. • Plan D: Northern Property Edge -Landscaping in this area is designed to compliment both the exterior of the adjacent townhome and the view of the development for commercial traffic at the US Bank driveway. Along with existing oak trees the final landscape design will provide some screening. • Deferred Landscape Plans -There are two areas for which landscape planning has been deferred. The south parking area will require extensive grading and perhaps retaining walls. A final landscape plan for this site will be adjusted for final grading. The landscape design will be substantially similar to Plans A and C. The other area for deferred landscape planning is the pond area and the south property edge. A final plan is not available at this time for the extensive grading and ponding required for on-site rainwater collection. The southeast comer of the development is adjacent to R-1 property. The existing woods in that comer of the property are to remain as a natural screen. A set of five garages will provide additional screening at both the north and south ends of the driveway. Bachman's Landscape Services has suggested lilacs or viburnum plantings around the base of the garages. 19 Mapletree Townhomes Development CDRB Notes -Page 2 of 3 Landscaping (cont) Park Reserve Border (west property edge) The nine townhomes will all have west facing walkout lower levels to the Hazelwood Park Reserve. Because of the natural beauty of this area it is our intention to seed this area, with an undefined border with the woods. There may be some low retaining walls along this border, as desirable to control the grade. There will be a woodchip pathway and low voltage lighting along the park reserve edge, with access at both the north and south ends, and perhaps between the buildings. With permission from the city, the developer would extend the woodchip pathway into the park reserve to facilitate access to Hazelwood Park. Rainwater Pond The rainwater collection pond in the SW comer will be designed to be not just functional for collecting storm water run-off from the driveway, but also an aesthetic asset to the development. The pond will be landscaped with daylilies and natural grasses, and may be tiered with one or two retaining walls. The woodchip pathway along the park reserve border will extend around the rainwater pond. Sod Areas not designated for a landscaping plan will be sodded upon completion of each phase of development. Temporary seeding or other measures will be utilized for erosion control, when and where necessary. Trees • Trees to Remove There are only five large trees (as defined by the City) that need to be removed, as marked on the site plan. The rest of the property will be cleared of poplar, cottonwood, buckthorn, and sumac. • Trees Retained A wooded area in the SE comer of the development will be retained and left natural to provide a screen for the adjacent R-1 properties. There are several existing trees that are in locations that can be protected from excavation, roads, and buildings, including two maples, three mature oaks, and some small oaks near the north property line. • Trees to Plant The Bachman's Landscape plan calls for two ornamental trees in the landscape Plan C: a honey locust and a Japanese tree lilac. At least five additional 2'/r inch maples will be transplanted to the site. The developer's preference is for "Northwoods" maples but a variety of maples may be desirable. Irrigation System An automatic underground irrigation system will be installed at the completion of the development. Irrigation will be controlled from the utility room in the Community Building. Irrigated areas will include both sides of the driveway, and all landscaped areas (except the mailbox island). Areas not planned for irrigation include the existing woods (SE comer), the western park reserve border, and the southern border -wild/natural landscaping around the rainwater pond. 20 Mepletree Tommhomes Development CDRB Notes -Page 3 of 3 Lighting Common area lighting is designed to provide residential lighting at six locations surrounding the parking areas, as indicated on the site plan. Residential style lampposts with low wattage bulbs will accent the landscaping, provide adequate illumination for nighttime safety, and gentle enough to not be annoying to townhome residents or nearby R-1 and R-2 property. Some landscaped areas, and the western park reserve border is expected to have low-voltage pathway lighting. All lighting will be controlled from the utility room in the Community Building, or at landscape sites. The six lampposts for security lighting will be illuminated dusk to dawn. Parking The development will have eleven off-street parking places including one for handicap access adjacent to the Community Building. These parking spaces are in addition to the two parking spaces in front of each unit's double-car garage. The additional parking is customary in such developments because of the distance to "overflow" on-street parking, and desirable so that homeowner's garages are not blocked by guest parking. Buildings -Exterior Elevations There are a total of six buildings in the development: three triplexes, two sets of garages, and a community building. The three triplexes will be vinyl lap siding, with two complimentary earth-tone colors. Side and rear elevations will split the colors at the story line. Front elevation siding colors will split along the recess-cantilevers. Front elevations will have brick or stone accents, on both sides of each garage door. Entryways will be vinyl lap siding. Exterior lighting (homeowner controlled) and house numbers will be prominent between garage and entry doors. Roofing will be brown 30- year architectural shingles. Soffits and fascia will be white aluminum. Garage doors are white or sandstone raised panel steel. All windows will be double hung with white vinyl exteriors. Upper window sashes and all patio doors will have grills in the airspace. Windows on the front elevations will have shutters. Gutters and downspouts will be installed on the front and rear rooflines of the triplexes. Decks will be built with treated wood and stained. Front doors will be insulated steel recessed lower panels with brass and glass upper windows. A 20'x50' building containing five single-car garages will be located at each of the north and south ends of the development. Each garage building will have nine-foot ceilings and five raised panel white or sandstone steel garage doors. Vinyl siding will be one of the color tones to match the triplexes. Roofing will be brown 30-year architectural shingles. Soffits and fascia will be white aluminum. The front facade of the garages will have brick or stone accents to match the triplex buildings. The Community Building will architecturally match the garage buildings with one-tone color siding, nine-foot ceilings, white soffit-fascia and brown 30-year architectural shingles. The 20'x40' building will have one garage door, a patio door, and exterior doors on three sides. The main entry door, on the south side, will match the brass and glass entry doors to the townhomes. The community room will have grill-in-glass sliding windows, to maximize light and ventilation. 21 Attachment `4 MAPLEWOOD MALL m z z o ~~, ~ A~F FOOD MALL DR BEAM AVE `.`~~~ o c ~ ~ '~i y D RADATZ AVE I ~ z (; 0 I ~ ~ MESABI AVE Hazelwood Park w ~ j Q O ~ m Q `i ~ KOHLMAN AVE w -~ w r- z = D t Z '--- m ~ ~ COUNTY ROAD C D -~ Z = ~ r 17 D D ~ C Z ~ ~ ~ ~ LOCATION- MAP 22 N' 0 BEAM AVE / / //% / //~~. / i /~j j ~ ~ ~ /~ / ~ ~ ~/ /~' ' ~' ~~~~ / / j ~~~ / ,~'~~ ~ ' , . ~ ,~ f~ j ~ US BANK -'~ ' :° ;'//, j; ~ - ~ j" OUTBACK /; / /i /. ~ /% / //~'//% 'Z$39 '' F Hazelwood Park 0 c D Z ~7 0 ~ J / ~~ ~ ~ ~/ /~ ~ / % // ~ '% % ~ ~ / j // i ,~ ,///,/ ~~ ~~ -! 1 ~~~, /~/~ / jj/~. /// / / / j j ~~ / ~~~~1$~0~/i 1850 //~ / /, / i ~~, /~/~ / ~~% /~ i~ ~~ ~ ' ;'; %//i/% RADATZ AVE ~, !~% ~,, /, , ~i:' , r_ __ 2812 _ , __ `t$00 1$08 1816 ! 1806 18: :2804 2796 2786 R1 MESABI AVE PROPERTY LINE. /ZONING MAP 23 4 N 2799 _ _.__ _, Attachment 6 W 0 0 °z Nor<h lMe of South 247A0 FNt of North I I 691.00 lees of SE I/4 of Sec. 3, Tep. 29N, Rng, 22W. I S88°48'14'E I 160.18 ' 25 38'23'46'W _ N37. 3'0 ' ` ~ _ _ _ -_. - - -' - - - S89'44'12'E 24.73 . S89.47'30'E :' 1 64.00 30.00 I 3 W I "~ 6 g" 0 ~ 2839 I 3 0 ~ 1 Yo ~ z ~ I fU o~. Y 30.00 o a I N SB9.47'30'E c n W I ~0 5 g~ I 2 ~ 4.00 S 9'47'30'E N O ni I 64.00 •4 0' 0~ 30.00 I N89'47'30'V 11 11 "' 2831 I Nt, I 3 b J } ""° I 2 m^ m~. °~'~ ~i I y ` ., 1 ~ S88.46'14'E I - 125.02 _. North Bnt of South 721D0 fret of North B12A0 feet of SE V4 of Sec 3, Trp. 29N, Rnp. 22W. S26'31'39'W ;~ ~i` 125.02 ~ 3 33.8 i i N88'48'14'W Mo 3 0 a ~ S89'47'30'E ;~ I ° c 30.00 m ~ m N 0 y I 3 W 3 ~0 0~ 0 o ~4 ~ 4 ~~ d •~ N (U I h ~ 2809 64,00 0 to I i~ S89.47'30'E I m i~ 0,10o 30.00 SB9'47'30'E'nN ~., w s I 1 i24i ,; o u• I ~? •, 1 160.18 - - _ I N88°48'14'W I ZTgg I I I South One of North 812.00 feet of SE 1/4 of Sec. 3, Tep. 29N, Rnp. 22 V, I I I I II ~ I I I ~ I I I I I I I I I I I ~ i~ I 1 ~ 1 I I I I I I I ~_____ 1 i I~ o ~ ~ RADATZ N ~, o _-_ ~ ~ ~ STREET--- s i H W I» ~ ; r _ _ _ I Z I I~ I ~ Q I J I ~ ~ I _; _; I _ _ _ - I I I i I I I I I I PROPOSED PRELIMINARY PLAT 24 '~N Attachment 7 6 M LL ~, , LL w''. ~ ~ .ss n,!, y ~;;; m y LL ~~ ~~ ~-- 2831.:: o ~.. I 6 I E% MH1 RIM 920.85 i INV, 907.{5 s ~ ~ i I I---- STREET ~---- E% MN RIM 921.01 Z I INV. 908.18 (N) INV. 905.Ofi (E) INV. 904.95 (9) 9 9 sy ' ~ '. N RETAINI NG `9 9a . ~ ` 0 ~ -~ ; .o <, °~ °` J WALL 0 9~ ?. .~. ~ m ~ W~0 .- ~~ } .. o ,) ~ ~• a ''•, OZ I S F%ISTING '. FES 204 ~ 7 64<F ''. 8. Dx I - - ~ ~' S, .:~ ~ -~ '• • . `' ~ 2808 15" ENDWALL 8 ®p RC ` w . ~ ~~ v `. 9 . O INV: 892.18 Spg , ~, 09 •y;~,. (n 9 . ~ 899 90 ~ ~ ~~99~~ ~`'• , ,,9f_, ~ ` ~ ~ _9~S .~~~~~ 6 ~ .- .. .- HWL 900.09 14LF NWL 895.50 iy^ RCP ® 6.009. CBMH 203 FES 202 CBMH 200 CBMH 201 RIM: 909.89 ~- RIM: 895.50 12" ENDWALL RIM: 909.79 INV: 900.14 >, 2T~ INV: 899.00 ~ INV: 899.84 (Gt DETAIL) ' EXISPNG ~ .BUILDING ' .. _ _ _ ~~-.__ _.-____ _-___~ .-~ S PROPOSED GRADING PLAN 25 N ~• Attachment 8 - - 921---------- ------921--------_. -92t- - 91 _ __ N '9 'N ~ - 9 -- 21-______.__ N _ ^ ~ ` - - 90 120 9 ~ ---- •9eo-_ gl~ X919 ---_ _ p 90 45 Bo 51 ~ ' :~. ~f a ~ 2839 SCALE IN FEET ~ ~ N ,~ ~ , , 31 X to . ~ 9fU ' ~ ~ m .o ~+ ~~ ~~ ~ , 9114 - 0 _ ~, N N . ~9f6, ~ ~° x i 90 R o `J N - -- ~ - S. ~ -- e. R 6 ._ '-920.- ___ ~ _ - 9~6; X ~ I.SOR 1. ELEVA~S~ ARE flNRN GRADE RETAINING WALL I -l99 90 ~k r~ ~( 90~M ~ .9 ,•?• 5'pN STUB 1 `~ `~ ,`~9! _~ " `. 3-B- PVC T =906 ~~~ . ~ 0_ _ ~. ~, '9 ~.. gpy.ls92a _'--. ~.`` ~ .9 ~ ,.0 1 N .~ 900 `090_. off., 99 ~ ~, 1`'~ m ~ 1 8 `9J1,`9~ ~,~N9 q `` 909 ,9'~0.. ~•~ ~ ``. `.; - S0 ~ ` `` 9 , ``, ,` 9J9 ~ ` 9,g 6. '. -9'2.'.94,-. `~ `'~6. 9/7. 6 ~ -" - _ NWL 900.09 NWL 895.50 2799 cw~iKc ~:~BUILDING . ~ • • • • ~ RAINACE AREA PROPOSED D POND DETENTION ~ E% NH1 RIM sso.es INV. 90].5 l II 1 ~ - - ~' a '~ STREET ~ \Ex NN RNA 9Y/.Ot INV. 905.16 (N Z INV 905.06 (E INV. 9W.95 (S J VJ f PROPOSED DRAINAGE AREA MAP 2G 4 N Attd 6" 9TD6 MH 100 ~ RIM: 912.56 IN INV: 901.66 OUT INV: 901.56 RETAINING WALL FES 204 ~~ 15" ENDWALL c INV: 692.18 r~ ~ J N ~ ~ ~ 4t . ti "t ~,, 2839 n- J ~ ~~ ~ LL LL~~ -_ _ Z ~ ~y *"[?~ _" i - ;. 2831; ~ bbb LLLL LL ...... e' PLUG 6' D.I. WATERMAIN G 6'%6" RF ~- 2 ~I 3 I I J ~ 0 ~ Ijgp RS~ IL ..... ...... .. ...... I ~ Ex S.w Slt ]]-B" vVC Nv. 9M.19 ~ C 6 ~ .E%ISTINC __ _ __ .,~ ___ ". 2H09 i I I I t I I E: w~ u 99o.es 9!v 90> 95 I I I 0 I ~ : I ~ I ~ I L _ .. _ STREET ' \E~~ v ~tiro~e In I s~ ~ n I wv 9 o.. I I ~ I NWL ED53~0 l 12 4 RCF .., 1 O 6.ooz CBMH 200 I 00.40 R M: I CBMH 203 FES 202 12` ENDWALL CBMH 201 RIM: 909.69 RIM: 909 79 INV 14 900 2799 }yq. IN INV: 666.45 RIM: 695.50 INV: 699 00 . : . 84 INV: 699 I ~ ~ OUT INV: 866.35 I . (Gt~ DETAIL) . ~ ~I " I . ?~ IEDING G 6 I EYy~n ]]-e7 ee+.e~ 5 ,1~ 1~ I 99 ( 7 v: m+.et IW1 I I I __ - - I - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - , I I I I ~ I I I PROPOSED UTILITY PLAN ~,,,~. ~) 27 N Attachment 10 FES 204 15" ENDWAL IN V: 892.18 nm pp>.ao 4.~~ ~ 12 RCP e p.0oz CBMH 200 CBMH 203 FES 202 CBMH 201 RIM: 909.89 ,, 2799 RIM: 895.50 12" ENOWALL RIM: 909.79 IN V: 900.14 IN V: 892.50 IN V: 899.00 IN V: 899.84 - (Gt DETAIL) ~LKISTNc :w~nA~c I F> 4r 22-p) - Au~ pp1.8. Aviv. eii.m Swi ___v-` _1 } I _~. ~__ ________ __ ~_ I _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ I I - _ _ _ . . __, I I I I ~ I PROPOSED UTILITY PLAN 28 ~NO. Z, 4 N Attachment 11 t S~ c ~ W 1 i I ~~ a~ w c Y N _, - n~~µ- sI~ (Vi7NiWWP~ 4 ` ~. ~ L ff~ i M ~ Q we~ , ~, ~. ,.._.. i.._~._-.,__ r- n x ~ _ '-;' a ~ ~--1-~--- -r-' 1 ~ , ,! i ~ ~~ ~ s ifl ~ ~~ 1 i'-- I 1 ~ ~ ; 1 ' 1 ..; , }... i ~ * ~ , i i ai i ~ : (!Ii ~ ~ ~ t '~ H t- .._.. _-- ---- 4 a i ~ i - ~ 1 ~/ J--. '• S ~ 1 ~~ Itt ~ ~~~ "S~ Mr • ~ 1-_-----^--- ---~- I~ 1 ~ r ! ~ i 1 '• ( t ~ ~ i~ ~~,M sM~. ' X ~` ~ P"f ~ Sod , ~Y N ~~ M _ .. ... ~_~___. ~ _ ~~ ~~' (~ --{ ' ~°~ .~~. . , 'T' Ow' M -r __~ _.. _. ,f ,~ ~ r ;~~~~~ ~ 1„ (,^~ ~ - --- ?~~ ~ -- ~~,,~ I i ~, ~ ~ 1 ~ ~--- -----~ ~y. i ,,~--3 _~ __ __ _ a i i ~~ PROPOSED LANDSCAPE PLAN 29 4 N ~ ~~ J Attachment 12 LANDSCAPE PLAN DETAIL -PLAN A 30 4 N Attachment 13 -~---- ~0 0 ~~ LANDSCAPE PLAN DETAIL -PLAN B 31 4 N x .~ Attachment 14 ~3 ^~ ;a ~~ ~; J '~ N W. 2 5 ~ ~ -_ ~ - a a ~ Y _ - ., ~ ~ ? S ~~~ ~ J 4 ~ 4t1~ r~rr : r~ p -.,~ .G a 3 '~~ s ~ V 1~ 1 ~ ~ j~ J {. ~ , ~ ~ ~ ~ 3 ~~, n~ d~ ~ ~ ;,, ~o ~~ .~ ,.1 z41, `~ LANDSCAPE PLAN DETAIL -PLAN C 32 4 N Attachment 15 LANDSCAPE PLAN DETAIL -PLAN D 33 4 N I' I i I _~ - ._.. ~I !; _ Attachment 16 ,\ ~ -- ~~ ~~ , ,\~ ,~ ~ ,, ~~ l ~ I ~~ , ;~ ' ~- ~ , B °T..~.~M,°=~° M PROPOSED BUILDING ELEVATIONS 34 ~,b V...n_.~ N'~w DIMObO I KTi.R'T~'ilMt .. Attachment 17 Engineerint Plan Review PROJECT: Mapletree Townhomes PROJECT NO: REV~WED BY: Erin Laberee, Maplewood Engineering Department DATE: June 14~, 2004 Ton Brandt is proposing to develop a 1.51-acre site off of Southlawn Drive into 9 townhomes. The site is located west of three existing residential properties and east of the Hazelwood Park Preserve. The developer is proposing that runoff from the site be treated in an onsite pond before it discharges into Kohhnan Creek. Drainage The proposed pond is neither a NURP pond nor an infiltration basin. The project engineer must redesign the pond as a NURP pond or as an infiltration basin. A NURP pond must meet NURP removal rates standards and include a 10-foot bench. If the project engineer designs the pond as an infiltration basin, it must be able to store and infiltrate the runoff from a 1.5" rainfall event. The project engineer shall provide supporting drainage calculations to the city engineering department for the pond design. Infiltration basins typically include rock sumps. 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" below the finished bottom of the basin. If the developer uses rock sumps, the project engineer shall provide a detail and description of how the contractor is to construct the sumps. 2. The proposed catch basin prior to the FES 202 shall include a 2' sump. 3. The outlet structure from the pond includes a 4-inch orifice. Small orifices are prone to plugging. The city does not recommend the use of orifices smaller than eight inches. 4. The adjacent property owner at 2799 Southlawn Drive has expressed concerns regarding the grading and drainage of the proposed development. The proposed grading plan shows that the majority of runoffto the south will be captured in a Swale and routed to the pond. There will be minimal runoff from this site that will flow onto the adjacent property at 2799 Southlawn Drive. The developer shall ensure that the contractor will make every possible effort to prevent runoff from entering the property at 2799 Southlawn Drive. 5. There is a need for additional inlet capacity for storm water runoff. The project engineer shall add a catch basin upstream of the two proposed catch basins. The 35 project engineer shall ensure that there is adequate inlet capacity in the catch basins to prevent ponding in the parking lot that would overtop the curb. 6. The applicant shall provide more detailed information about the storm sewer outlet from the pond into city property. There is a need for additional contour information to know how the discharge from the pond will affect city property. The applicant shall provide supporting information as to why direct discharge from the pond into city property is necessary. It is recommended that the discharge be directed into an infiltration trench (or implement a similar method) to lessen to the impact of concentrated flows. The applicant shall ensure that adequate erosion control measures are taken to protect the city's property during and after construction. Grading and Erosion Control 1. The applicant shall provide a detailed erosion control plan. 2. The grading plan shall include top and bottom retaining wall elevations. The city will require a building permit if the retaining wall is greater than 4 feet in height. The contractor will need to submit a detailed plan of the retaining wall when applying for a building permit. Utilities The applicant has proposed two sanitary sewer alternatives. The first option involves the construction of a gravity sewer line through Ramsey County Open Space. This option would require the city to acquire an easement for the proposed sanitary sewer line from Ramsey County. The proposed sanitary sewer line would then become a public utility and would be maintained by the city. The construction of a gravity sewer line would require the removal of many trees and a portion of the sewer would be located through an existing wetland. Construction of and access to this sewer line would be very difficult. The city also is concerned that connecting the proposed sewer line to the existing manhole may cause damage during construction due to the fact that the existing manhole is located in a wetland. This alternative proposes the sewer mainline and services be located behind the buildings. This does not allow the city access to the sewer line. The city requires the sewer be located in the front of the buildings where it can be accessed by vehicles from the parking lot. This option is not preferred by the city due access and site concerns. The city is not willing to take over ownership and maintenance responsibilities for the proposed gravity sewer line. The second alternative involves the developer connecting into an existing sanitary sewer manhole on Southlawn Drive. This alternative would require the developer to install a pump station for the sewer because the proposed site and the proposed sewer would be lower than Southlawn Drive and lower than the existing sewer. 36 The city prefers this option because the sewer line would remain private and the city would not need to obtain easement rights from Ramsey County. The developer shall connect the new sewer into the existing sanitary sewer on Southlawn Drive. Misc 1. The applicant shall submit plans to Ramsey-Washington Metro Watershed District for their review and shall apply for an NPDES permit since site disturbance will be greater than 1 acre. 37 DRAFT MINUTES OF THE MAPLEWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION 1830 COUNTY ROAD B EAST, MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA MONDAY, JUNE 21, 2004 (This meeting was not cablecast) VI. NEW BUSINESS a. Mapletree Town houses (Southlawn Drive) Mr. Roberts said Mr. Jon Brandt is proposing to build nine town houses (in three, 3-unit buildings) and ten additional detached garage spaces in a development called Mapletree Townhomes. It would be on a 1.51-acre site on the west side of Southlawn Drive, south of Beam Avenue. A homeowner's association would own and maintain the common areas. The proposal would have three, 3-unit town house buildings, two detached garage buildings (with a total of 10 parking stalls) and a 20-foot by 40-foot maintenance/community building. Each town house would have atwo-car attached garage, a deck and a patio area. There also would be 11 open parking spaces. Commissioner Trippler asked if the second proposed utility plan shown on page 28 of the staff report was the preferred plan by staff? Mr. Roberts said correct. Commissioner Trippler asked if it would be possible to raise the elevation of the property so the buildings would be high enough so a gravity sewer fed line would work? Two out of the three buildings are high enough for a gravity line but the third building is too low. Commissioner Trippler asked if enough fill could be brought in to raise the third building? Ms. Erin Laberee, Maplewood Staff Engineer, said that would require structural retaining walls to be built and additional fill and that gets very expensive. However, the developer could better address the issue. Commissioner Dierich asked if there was an impervious surface allotment for medium density as there is for single family? Mr. Roberts said only if it is in a shoreland district and that this development is not. Commissioner Dierich asked who the owner is of the property behind US Bank? Mr. Roberts said the property west of Mr. Brandt's property is owned by Ramsey County open space and the other part is owned by the city as part of Hazelwood Park. Commissioner Bartol asked if the shoreland district excluded a creek? He did not see Kohlman Creek in any of the drawings in the report. He asked if the creek was supported in the city code for some type of wildlife? Mr. Roberts said a previous planning commissioner previously had much discussion about what the correct definition of a creek or a stream was. The watershed district allowed the creek to be put into a pipe near the new Tillges Medical building because some of it had been disturbed earlier. The city code about protecting creeks and streams only applies to the first 50 feet next to the water site and this is at least 100 to 200 feet away from Kohlman Creek. Commissioner Bartol said he assumed the holding pond and the sump hole would be constructed before any building began. During the construction process there is a lot of dirt and silt that gets washed into the holding pond. His concern is that the pond would be damaged before construction was complete. Mr. Roberts said it's his understanding if there were problems with the pond the developer would be responsible for digging the pond out and making it right. Staff would have to monitor the building and site construction until some type of turf establishment was done. Chairperson Fischer asked the applicant to address the commission. Mr. Jon Brandt, the applicant for Mapletree Townhomes, 2837 Southlawn Drive, Maplewood, addressed the commission. He said he didn't have a formal presentation for the commission but he was available to answer questions. Commissioner Trippler asked if the applicant had checked into raising the elevation of the third building so a gravity fed sewer line could be put in? Mr. Brandt said they had looked into that. The property is about 20 feet below the street and would require an enormous amount of fill. That end of the property would be so high above the surrounding ground and it would require significant engineering of retaining walls to hold the property above the surrounding land. Commissioner Trippler asked if that would cost more than putting in the gravity fed sewer line? Mr. Brandt said it would be about a half an acre of area that would have to be raised. From discussions with consultants he assumes that process would be cost prohibitive and that was ruled out very early in the discussion process. Commissioner Desai asked if the development would be done in phases or would certain buildings just be built in phases? Mr. Brandt said buildings 5 & 6 would be built simultaneously. He said they are hoping for an occupancy permit for Building number 1 this fall. They plan on framing buildings 2 and 3 this fall and hope to complete construction on those two buildings over the winter. Lastly, the garages on lot 4 would be constructed next spring. They are planning on having a layer of asphalt put down for the winter. Commissioner Dierich asked if Mr. Brandt could further discuss the landscape plan? Mr. Brandt said Bachman's designed the landscaping plans shown on pages 30 through 33 in the staff report. The plan is to add more spruce trees to the landscape plan and will replace some of the dogwood trees that were proposed by Bachman's along the driveway and on plan details c and d in the staff report. Commissioner Dierich said she was looking for additional height in the landscaping plan and wondered how screening would take place with the current plan. Mr. Brandt said they would be adding evergreen trees in all the landscaped areas and would be adding more deciduous trees on the plan. He wasn't aware of the tree replacement plan until Mr. Roberts pointed it out to him. Because of this they are more than willing to plant more trees on the property as there are many spots on the property for additional trees. Commissioner Bartol said the fire marshal's comments were somewhat vague. He is concerned about the maneuvering of emergency vehicles and how they would get to certain areas of the property. Mr. Roberts said access to the west of the building doesn't necessarily mean access by emergency vehicle. As long as emergency personnel can get back there by foot, that was the main concern. He said staff would double check with the fire marshal again to ensure there are no issues or concerns regarding proper access. Commissioner Mueller moved to approve the Mapletree Townhomes preliminary plat (received by the city on May 24, 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- footdrainage and utility easements along the front and rear lot lines of each lot and five- footdrainage and utility easements along the side lot lines of each lot. 2. Have the city engineer approve final construction and engineering plans. These plans shall include grading, utility, drainage, erosion control, tree, and street plans. The plans shall meet all the conditions and changes listed in the memo dated June x-14, 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 where the developer can save large trees. (4) Show the parking lot 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 site and from the surrounding areas. c. The driveway, parking lot and utility plans shall show the: (1) Water service to each lot and unit. (2) Repair of Southlawn Drive (street and boulevard) after the developer connects to the public utilities and builds the private driveways. 3. Paying for costs related to the engineering department's review of the construction plans. 4. Change the plat as follows: a. Add drainage and utility easements as required by the city engineer. This shall include an easement for the water main and easements for any other public utilities on the site. The Saint Paul Regional Water Services (SPRWS) shall approve the description and location of the easement for the water main. b. Show drainage and utility easements along property lines on the final plat. These easements shall be ten feet wide along the front and rear property lines and five feet wide along the side property lines. c. Label the common area as Outlot A. 5. Secure and provide all required easements for the development including any off-site drainage and utility easements. 6. The developer shall complete all grading for public improvements and overall site drainage. The city engineer shall include in the developer's agreement any grading that the developer or contractor has not completed before final plat approval. 7. If necessary, obtain a permit from the Ramsey-Washington Metro Watershed District for grading. 8. If the developer decides to final plat part of the preliminary plat, the director of community development may waive any conditions that do not apply to the final plat. 9. Submitting the homeowner's 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 private utilities, parking areas, driveways, landscaping and common areas. 10. 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 any retaining walls. The applicant shall submit the language for these dedications and restrictions to the city for approval before recording. 11.Obtain a NPDES construction permit from the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA). Commissioner Pearson seconded. Ayes - Bartol, Desai, Fischer, Grover, Lee, Mueller, Pearson, Trippler Nay -Dierich Commissioner Dierich said the reason she voted nay was because she believed there was too much impervious surface for the size of the site and thought the additional garages should be removed from the plan. The motion passed. This item goes to the city council on July 12, 2004. DRAFT MINUTES OF THE MAPLEWOOD COMMUNITY DESIGN REVIEW BOARD 1830 COUNTY ROAD B EAST, MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA TUESDAY, JUNE 22, 2004 b. Mapletree Townhomes -Southlawn Drive, South of Beam Avenue Ms. Finwall said Mr. Jon Brandt is proposing to build nine town houses (in three, 3-unit buildings) and ten additional detached garage spaces in a development called Mapletree Townhomes. It would be on a 1.51-acre site on the west side of Southlawn Drive, south of Beam Avenue. A homeowner's association would own and maintain the common areas. The proposal would have three, 3-unit town house buildings, two detached garage buildings (with a total of 10 parking stalls) and a 20-foot by 40-foot maintenance/community building. Each town house would have atwo-car attached garage, a deck and a patio area. Each building would have brown shingles, horizontal-lap vinyl siding, white aluminum soffits and fascia and brick or stone accents on the fronts. There also would be 11 open parking spaces. Ms. Finwall said the applicant provided a new plan for the garage design this evening. Board member Ledvina asked if the applicant provided additional plans for the garage elevations for the board to review? Ms. Finwall handed out a new garage plan to each board member. Board member Ledvina asked if there would be signage posted outside the townhome development? Ms. Finwall said the applicant isn't proposing any signage outside the townhome development, however, there will be a landscaped island with mailboxes. Chairperson Longrie-Kline asked the applicant to address the board. Mr. Jon Brandt, the applicant at 2837 Southlawn Drive, Maplewood, addressed the board. He has lived there for 14 years and intends to continue living on the site. He said there is no signage intended at either point of entry to the site. He said the landscaping plan was designed by Bachman's and is shown on pages 30-33 of the staff report. He said he is the owner of all three properties identified on the site plan in the staff report. He lives in one of the properties and rents the other two properties out. Mr. Brandt read several paragraphs from the staff report aloud. He asked Mr. Roberts to check into US Bank's obligation to provide 80% screening as a commercial property from residential and Mr. Roberts indicated US Bank should have provided the screening, however it had not been done. It's his intention to work with the city staff to make sure the landscaping plan will incorporate US Bank's requirement for appropriate landscaping along the site to be compatible and completed. Mr. Brandt provided samples of the siding and roofing materials to the board. He brought a sample lamppost to show the board that he would install in six different locations on the site. He also had a sample of the exterior lighting to be used on the garage exterior. He would use 15-watt bulbs in the fixtures to provide a gentle light and use low voltage lighting around the landscaping. Board member Shankar asked if the applicant brought a sample of the brick or stone? Mr. Brandt said he had not. At this point they are leaning towards using a manufactured stone product rather than using brick. He is hoping they can work the details out with city staff with the approval of the board. The stone accents will be done wainscot style on both sides of the garages and community building. Board member Shankar asked what product the applicant would be using? Mr. Brandt said he would be using a cement manufactured stone. Boulder Creek is the name of the manufacturer and he has used this company in the past. He personally has used this stone product around his fireplace and said it looks very real. Board member Shankar asked what color the stone would be? Mr. Brandt said they would select stone that would compliment the siding colors. Chairperson Longrie-Kline asked if the vinyl color samples the applicant provided for the board to review were the actual colors they were going to be using on the buildings? Mr. Brandt said he believed those were the colors they had planned on using or the colors would be very close to the shades they would use. Chairperson Longrie-Kline asked if the applicant would be agreeable to the board recommending the condition listed in the staff report to identify the sample colors shown to the board could be listed in the recommendations? Mr. Brandt said it is their intention to use the colors shown or colors close to those shown to the board on the building exterior. They would be using both colors on all three of the buildings and try to provide color and texture in the different units. Chairperson Longrie-Kline asked the applicant to discuss the shutters and she asked why the shutters and window grids were not shown on the plans? Mr. Brandt said the architect did not show the grids on the glass, the shutters, the stone elements, and the lighting on the plans. The shutters would be white vinyl on both sides of the windows, the window grids would be white, and the stone would be on both sides of the garage doors. Had those elements been included on the plans it would have given a better picture of what the finished product would look like. Board member Shankar asked if the two different vinyl colors would be separated? Mr. Brandt said the bedrooms are cantilevered out over the garages and they plan on splitting the two different colors along the cantilever somehow. The cantilever bedroom would be one color and the recessed area would be the other color. Board member Shankar asked if there could be a trim board separating the two colors? Mr. Brandt said they could use a white trim board to separate the colors. Board member Driscoll said the landscaping plan appears to have such a natural feel and said she would recommend using an alternate color other than white for the lamppost so it doesn't detract from the landscaping. Mr. Brandt said the lamppost comes in white, black, and an antique brass and they are open to using any of the colors. Board member Ledvina was concerned about the patio between 2831 Southlawn Drive and the patio at the Community Building on the townhome property. He asked if there was a need for landscaping around that area? Mr. Brandt said it is his hope that the homes on Southlawn Drive are compatible with the townhome development and he plans to continue living on the site. The homes are rented out currently and in the near future the landscaping will have filled out and matured so he doesn't believe there will be any issues between the properties. Board member Ledvina asked where the utility meters would be located on these townhomes? Mr. Brandt said the utility meters would be located on the west or back end of the townhomes. Chairperson Longrie-Kline asked if the railing on the deck would be white? Mr. Brandt said the decks are 8 X 16 feet and would be made of treated wood. However, they have not specified the railing material yet. Chairperson Longrie-Kline said with the white grids in the windows, the white shingles, white lampposts, and the white trim piece separating the vinyl siding colors, she felt a white railing on the deck would look more compatible with the building exterior and materials being used. Mr. Brandt said he would agree that it would be compatible with the structure. The other idea is to use a cedar railing to match the treated wood for a more natural look to blend in with nature. Chairperson Longrie-Kline asked if Mr. Brandt had an opportunity to read the fire marshal's comments? Mr. Brandt said he had read the fire marshal's comments and the width of the driveway throughout the development is to the city's specifications. Board member Driscoll asked if the community building would have shutters and window grids? Mr. Brandt said the windows would have grids but there isn't enough room to have shutters on the sides of the windows. Board member Driscoll said the door shown on the plans for the community building and the townhomes are not the same. Mr. Brandt said the doors are going to be identical, however, the draftsman drew these drawings at two different times, therefore, they are not the same on the plans. Board member Olson said in previous townhome developments the board has requested the applicant extend the stone or brick around the sides of the building exterior. She asked if the applicant intended on wrapping the stone around the building exterior or stopping the stone at the end? Mr. Brandt said they plan on using stone on the front garage facade only. There is little exposure on the side elevations of these townhomes and therefore there would be no benefit of wrapping the stone around the building exterior and feel it is not necessary. The front elevations have high visibility and that is where they plan on making visual improvements. The rear elevations would be attractive with lots of windows and decks facing the park reserve. The park reserve will be a popular place for people walking and enjoying nature. Board member Olson asked if the applicant would be installing a stop sign at the end of the driveway? Mr. Brandt said the city has required that and there would be no parking signs along both sides of the driveway. Board member Shankar asked if the CDRB should be approving the plans they have in front of them or would the applicant be submitting new plans showing the items that are missing on the plans? Mr. Brandt said the new plans would show the window grids, shutters, stone elements on the front facade, and lighting and he would add the trim board between the different vinyl colors to the plans. Board member Ledvina said he thinks the site plan is well thought out and has been designed to maximum the space they have on this difficult site. However, the ideal situation would be to have the development constructed at the same time. Board member Olson said the applicant has done his homework. She likes the fact that the applicant has additional garage space since some people never have enough garage space. She likes the lampposts and the low voltage lighting he plans on using for the landscaped areas. Chairperson Longrie-Kline likes the lampposts and the lighting and she prefers white as the consistent color in this development. Board member Ledvina moved to approve the plans date-stamped May 24, 2004, (site plan, landscape plan, grading and drainage plans and building elevations) and the elevation for the maintenance building submitted at the June 22 2004 community design review board meeting for the Mapletree Townhomes on the west side of Southlawn Drive. The city bases this approval on the findings required by the code. The developer or contractor shall do the following: (changes made by the community design review board to the original conditions are underlined if added and stricken if deleted): 1. Repeat this review in two years if the city has not issued a building permit for this project. 2. Complete the following before the city issues a building permit: a. Have the city engineer approve final construction and engineering plans. These plans shall include: grading utility drainage, erosion control, tree sidewalk and driveway and parking lot plans. The plans shall meet the following conditions: (1) The erosion control plan shall be consistent with city code. (2) The grading plan shall: (a) Include building, floor elevation and contour information. (b) Include contour information for the land that the construction will disturb. (c) Show sedimentation basins or ponds as may be required by the watershed board or by the city engineer. (d) Show 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" 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 and tree removal as possible on the west and south sides of the site (near the park). (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. In addition, this plan shall show the planting of at least 10 replacement 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~h) inches in diameter and shall be a mix of red and white oaks and sugar maples. (d) Be consistent with the approved grading and landscaping plans. (e) 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 design of the ponding area and the rainwater garden(s) shall be subject to the approval of the city engineer. The developer shall be responsible for getting any needed off-site utility, grading or drainage easements and for recording all necessary easements. (6) The driveways shall meet the following standards: 24-foot width-no parking on either side and 28-foot width-parking on one side The developer or contractor shall post the driveways with no parking signs to meet the above-listed standards. (7) The developer shall disturb as little as possible of the area along the west and south property lines. The applicant shall change the grading plan for this part of the site as recommended by the city engineer. b. Submit a certificate of survey for all new construction and have each building staked by a registered land surveyor. c. Submit a revised landscape plan to staff for approval that incorporates the following details: (1) All trees would be consistent with city standards for size, location and species. (2) The manicured or mowed areas from the natural areas. This shall include planting (instead of sodding) the disturbed areas around the ponding area and the rainwater gardens with native grasses and native flowering plants. The native grasses and flowering plants shall be those needing little or no maintenance and shall extend at least four feet from the ordinary high water mark (OHWM) of the pond. This is to reduce maintenance costs and to reduce the temptation of mowers to encroach into the gardens. Specifically, the developer shall have the natural areas seeded with an upland mixture and lowland mixtures as appropriate. (3) The maple trees must be at least 2'h inches in caliper, balled and burlapped. (4) The plantings proposed around the front of the units shown on the landscape plan date-stamped May 24, 2004, shall remain on the plan. (5) In addition to the above, the contractor shall sod all front, side and rear yard areas (except for mulched and edged planting beds and the area within the ponding area). (6) The contractor shall restore the Southlawn Drive boulevard with sod. (7) Adding ten more evergreen trees (Black Hills spruce or Austrian pines) along the north and east property lines of the site (in Detail areas C and D). These trees are to be at least six feet tall and the contractor shall plant trees in staggered rows on the berm. (8) As much of the existing vegetation (including the trees) remaining along the westerly and southerly property lines as possible. (9) Foundation plantings near and around the buildings and additional screening (with trees and other materials) between the proposed buildings and Southlawn Drive. (10) The in-ground lawn-irrigation system. d. e g• h Submit an in-ground lawn-irrigation plan to staff showing the location of sprinkler heads. Get the necessary approvals and permits from the watershed district. Submit a revised site lighting plan for city approval. This plan shall show how the lighting on the buildings would add to the site lighting, and the plan should have additional lighting along the main driveway, so it is adequately lit. This plan also shall show details about the proposed light poles and fixtures to ensure they are a design that hides the bulb and lens from view to avoid nuisances. The light fixtures must have concealed lenses and bulbs to properly shield glare from the adjacent street right-of-ways and from adjacent residential properties. This plan shall also show details about the white-colored freestanding lights that were displayed and approved at the June 22, 2004, community design review board. Have the Saint Paul Regional Water Services (SPRWS) approve the proposed utility plans. The fire chief shall approve the access to the back (west side) of the buildings for firefighting needs. Submit plans for city staff approval for any outdoor trash or recycling containers and enclosures. If the developer wants to build such facilities, the enclosure shall have materials that are compatible with the buildings, and they shall have gates that are 100 percent opaque. j. Submit for city approval revised building plans and elevations that show or include (but are not limited to) white shutters and white window grids, white balcony railings awhite-colored trim band located between the two stories on the north west and east elevations of the town houses that separates the two beicle colors of vinyl siding, and provide more detail about the brick or stone accents. These plans also should reflect that all utility meters are located on the north side of each town house, on the lower level, within the recessedarea. k. Submit for city staff approval the site and building plans and elevations for the garage buildings. These buildings shall be at least 10 feet apart and shall have a style, finish, materials and colors consistent with the main buildings on the site. Present to staff for approval color building elevations or building material samples of all elevations of the town houses, maintenance/community building, and _garages. These elevations should show that the town houses will have two- tones of beige-colored vinyl siding on the north, west, and east elevations with a white trim band separating the two stories; have two-tones of beige-colored vinyl siding on the second story and either brick or stone accents on the first story of the south elevation. These elevations also should show that the maintenance/community building and garages would have a beige-colored vinyl siding with a wainscot of brick or stone. m. Provide the city with a letter of credit or cash escrow for all required exterior improvements. The amount shall be 150 percent of the cost of the work. 3. Complete the following before occupying each building: a. Replace property irons that are removed because of this construction. b. Restore and sod damaged boulevards. Sod all landscaped areas, except for the area within the easement, which may be seeded. c. Install continuous concrete curb and gutter along all interior driveways and around all open parking stalls. d. Install reflectorized stop signs at the exit, ahandicap-parking sign for each handicap-parking space and addresses on each building for each unit. In addition, the applicant shall install "no parking" signs within the site, as required by staff. e. Construct trash dumpster and recycling enclosures as city code requires for any dumpsters or storage containers that the owners or building manager would keep outside the building. Any such enclosures must match the materials and colors of the building. f. Install and maintain all required landscaping and an in-ground sprinkler system for all landscaped areas (code requirement). g. Install on-site lighting for security and visibility that follows the approved site lighting plan. All exterior lighting shall follow the approved lighting plan that shows the light spread and fixture design. The light fixtures must have concealed lenses and bulbs to property shield glare from the adjacent street right-of-ways and the nearby homes and residential properties. h. Install asix-foot-high solid screening fence or additional landscaping along the east and north property lines of the site where the vegetation does not adequately screen the town houses and the parking areas from the businesses and the existing dwellings. These additional materials are to ensure there is at least six-foot-tall, 80 percent opaque screen on these sides of the site. The location, design and materials of the fence or the additional landscaping shall be subject to city staff approval. The owner shall provide all required life/safety features in the community room/building to the satisfaction of the building official and the fire marshal before allowing anyone to sleep in that space. The developer or contractor shall: (1) Complete all grading for the site drainage, complete all public improvements and meet all city requirements. (2) Place temporary orange safety fencing and signs at the grading limits. (3) Remove any debris or junk from the site. 4. If any required work is not done, the city may allow temporary occupancy if: a. The city determines that the work is not essential to the public health, safety or welfare. b. The above-required letter of credit or cash escrow is held by the city for all required exterior improvements. The owner or contractor shall complete any unfinished landscaping by June 1 if the building is occupied in the fall or winter, or within six weeks of occupancy if the building is occupied in the spring or summer. c. The city receives an agreement that will allow the city to complete any unfinished work. 5. All work shall follow the approved plans. The director of community development may approve minor changes. Board member Shankar made a friendly amendment to modify number 2. letter k., and I. Chairperson Longrie-Kline made a friendly amendment to modify number 2. letter j. Board member Olson seconded. Ayes -Driscoll, Ledvina, Longrie-Kline, Olson, Shankar The motion passed. This item goes to the city council on July 12, 2004. Agenda #H3 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: July 1, 2004 INTRODUCTION Project Description Jim Kellison, of Kelso 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. Refer to the maps and letter on pages 14-19. The applicant is working with Centex Homes to develop the townhome portion. Their application is forthcoming. There are no specific plans yet for the commercial sites. Mr. Kellison is proposing this PUD (planned unit development) in conceptual form and is 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 prevent any disruption to Sparkle Auto's operation. One additional request the applicant is making as part of this PUD is fora 15-foot setback for some units near the County Road Dright-of-way extension. 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: 1. A comprehensive land use plan amendment from R1 (single dwelling residential) and M1 (light manufacturing) to R3M (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 & 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. As stated above, as part of the PUD, the applicant is requesting approval to place townhomes within 15 feet of the future County Road Dright-of-way line. 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. County Road D Realignment Background Refer to the memorandum on pages 38-39 from Chuck Ahl, the Maplewood City Engineer. Mr. Ahl's memo gives background on the city's right-of-way negotiations for the County Road D realignment which affects this project. 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 planning 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 2 Densi 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 allows 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. 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 occurred 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 Staff feels that we have a good development plan with the elimination of the apartments and the proposed change to medium density. 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 Gosest points, the auto dealership, fuel station/convenience store and retail building would be (as estimated on the current concept plan) 250 feet, 265 feet and 130 feet from the proposed townhome property respectively. 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. • The relocated fuel station to the comer will provide a greater buffer for the future residents. 15-Foot Setback While working on a townhome development plan with Centex Homes, the applicant and Centex found that in order to fit their townhomes on the site and attain the allowed density, they would need to request a setback reduction from future County Road D. The code requires 30 feet for a front yard setback. According to the Centex concept plan on page 37, they would need approval for a front setback that ranges from 15 feet at the nearest point to County Road D to 90 feet at the furthest point. The center building along County Road D would have the least setback due to the curvature of the proposed roadway. Staff gave this considerable consideration and is supportive of this request for the following reasons: The city has approved reduced front setbacks for other townhomes developments. For example, for the townhomes at Legacy Village, the council approved the setbacks shown on their concept plan. These front setbacks for the buildings fronting County Road D and Kennard Street were as short as 12 feet. Reduced front setbacks is becoming a common feature for townhome developments due to the recent "smart growths style of development. • The center of the townhome site is quite pinched due to the alignment of future County Road D. This street curvature, along with steep grades on the west side of the property, make the center area of the site very narrow and difficult to fit units in while maintaining the typical 30 foot setback. • The reduced setback only affects the center building to any degree. The others along future County Road D either meet or exceed the 30-foot setback requirement. Landscaain4 and Design Considerations If the city council approves this proposal, staff recommends 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 other decorative design elements. 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 4 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 comer 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 developePs agreement prior to final plat approval. • Outlot B should be labeled as "lot" instead of as an "outlot.n 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. 5 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 neighbofiood 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 allowed 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 formerly-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. Neighbofiood 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 neighbofiood to the west down to Highway 61. Landscaping and Screening A buffer between the existing neighbofiood and the proposed development should be paramount in the city's reviews when the specific site-development proposals are submitted. 6 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. RECOMMENDATIONS A. Adopt the resolution on page 40 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 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: The development would be consistent with the goals and policies of the comprehensive plan. 2. The proppsed 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. 7 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 neighbofiood streets to the west. B. Adoption of the resolution on pages 41-45 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 inGuded 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 townhomes. 6. All individual development proposals must meet city development requirements. This PUD, however, allows the reduction in the front 8 setbacks from the future County Road Dright-of-way to 15 feet instead of the typical 30-foot front setback. Also, as stated, the commercial buildings in this development may be within 350 feet of residential lot lines as shown on the concept plan. 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 May 11, 2004 by Chris Cavett. issuance of a grading permit. easements noted in the memo dated These shall be dedicated prior to the 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. 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. 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 %i 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 commercial-therefore the closest a property (commercial) could be was 600 feet from our property line. This proposal does not fit into the neighbofiood, 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 lights. 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 'wvalking path" going into/through my neighbofiood. 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 41-45. 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 receiving complete applications for a proposal. City council action is required on this proposal by June 14, 2004 unless the applicants agree to a time extension. The applicant has agreed to extend. 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 Darline Trolander 16. Letter from Edward V. Franzmeier 17. Letter from Kelly Lenz 18. Letter and petition from the Highpoint Ridge Townhome Association 19. Centex Homes Concept Site Plan Reduction 20. Memo from Chuck Ahl dated June 30, 2004 21. Land Use Plan Resolution 22. PUD Resolution 23. Planning Commission Minutes dated May 17, 2004 24. Plans date-stamped April 15, 2004 (separate attachment) 25. Centex Homes Concept Site Plan date-stamped June 30, 2004 (separate attachment) 13 H _`~,~~rr ROAC D --_,_ _.. ~~ ~ ~_ L v ~pR '~ P k S t Rid `~' PROPOSED ge ar unse ~~G TROUT LAND ;~ DEVELOPMENT ~; Q • _ - SITE ~ ~ ~ ~ -~ _. ~~ _ m ~ ___ _ _ __ _ __ a VENBURG ~ TIRE - - - -~ = GULDEN'S '- -- cn, ROADHOUSE _.. ,__~, - ~_ ~ -- _ _.. __t`t ~~ _ `~ ~~~. - }r - _ -; a y~ ^ _ u ~, ~ ~ ~. ~ f LOCATIO`-N` MAP 14 4 N Attachment 2 ~:~: ~~ -~ ~., ~: _ :iii."~. Y PROPE"RTY LINES/ZONING MAP 15 N ~Q1 Attachment 3 "~' R1 R1 R3M LAND USE: MAP 16 4 N Attachment 4 COUNTY ROAD D ---_ ---~ ~, > / ..r ;~ ~ ~ 't: ~-;- - - ~'~-,--- PROPOSED APARTMEN' a ° _~pa L~c~J iii I _- 1 iii I ~r L ' _ _ '. ~^_ I' ~-- _----___ 1 ~ ~r i ---~ i i ---- ' r- _ _ ... -- -.. _. ~~ ~ / / ~ / / I / i / / / / / / i ~ ~" ~ / :~; ~~ ~ ~. _ -rr,' ~ ~ ~. =~, _~ l ~, ~,, . ~~ ^, ~~ ,, ~~ / ~/ -.~ ., ,, ,, ~~/ ' ~~ _ " I ~ ~ ww~ r /// /~ i r ~ ___. r._ I_.,.._ ' / ~ APPROVED VENBURG ~~~ ;TIRE ,_ , ,, GULDEN'S ROADHOUSE ~I ~_.... _.~ .. '~ ~ r ~.., ~ ~ i r '~~ i i / I I SITE PLAN 17 4 N Attachment 5 7300 Hudson Blvd. RECEIVED Suite 245 Oakdale, MN 55128 APR 0 9 2004 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 aze 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 prepazed and developed for the users. As an accommodation to the Spazkle Auto Sales facility to the north of the property a small parcel identified as Outlot B (consisting of .2 acres) will be transferred to Spazkle so that they do not have to disrupt their existing auto display pazking 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 aze 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 Medina/Trout Land 19 06/04/2004 10:06 FAX 6517302055 KELC~o KELCO l~ 001 Attachment 6 T300 Hudson Blvd. Suite 245 Oakdale, MN 55128 ~~: [6511 730-2020 Fax: [651] 730-2055 Real Estate Develo t Services June 4, 2004 Mr. Tom Ekstrand City Maplewood 183E} East County Road B Maplewood, MN 55109 RE: Trout Land, LLC Dear Tom: RECEIVED JUN 0 4 2004 After review of the recommendations of the Planning Commission and discussion with the property owners, we concur that the housing portiorr of the project, inclusive of the land that was designed for apartments, should be rezoned to R-3M with a maximum of six units per Boss acre. We further concarwirh your Endings that this wound support 91 residential units. We have also have-come t6 fire canclusion that it wilt lie most beneScial for the project to have the gas/convenience store located at the intersection of County Road D and Highway 61 and would therefore move the retail-component westerly along County Road D to the portion of land that is currently shown as the gas/convenience store sits I look forward to an opportunity to present our project and answer airy 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 fe~eLfreato call oc~ mg-dlr€stly, Respectfully yours, James E. Kellison President JEK/jjv Enclosures C: Gonzalo Medina/Trout Land 20 Attachment 7 County Rd. D Vadnais fights 694 principal arterial - i R-1 J Little Canada --- ---~ m c m v m :. J v m 0 sz T O E interchange \ ,~ ~~~ I I ~ ~ I~ ~ ~ ~~ y'9 i ~ ; ` , ; ~ T~14 gllect oU ty Rd. C I ~?are I~ . ^1 R-1 •"+ ~ - R-3(M): w. ~ I '~ R1 1111-a .~ r ' R1< .,, ~~ ~ ;~ :~ * 9. .. ., Gervais PROJECT SITE LAND USA MAP 21 J, J ~ ~, ~~ KEY `.. ' R-1 =SINGLE DWELLINGS R-3(M) =MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL ~' OS _ OPEN SPACE M=1 =LIGHT MANUFACTURING major. ~olle"ctor ~,, y~~ 1 7 L J Vadnais PROPOSED REDESIGNATION OF A COLLECTOR STREET ~_ ~ ~ ~'~ ~~ I ~ ~' C , iii .: 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 ® white 8e ke G ~ - ~ T~ A , ;; a J ~ ,T ;-.- ~--- _ _ ,. _ . North Sit. Paul ^' ~- ~.~ , . ~' '- ~' N ~~.~~-~ " ,~ ~ ~ o; - _~~ ' ~ ~ ; C. .A 1 G o «~;-° i i i ~ i ~o St. Paul A ~ ~ ~ a . I i.7 P;q.L. `. . %~` ~~. O~ I a ~I~I ~,... ` o, -~ . 9) ~ o ~~0o C o Q fp 0 4 +' ~. ~ ~- ~- I ~ i _L..i 0.5~ 0 0.5 1' 1.5 Mlles _ This map is forpiannbeg purposes only and should not be used where January,,01 precise measurement. is required 22 Newport Attachment 9 En~ineerin~ 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 azea 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 Pazcels 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 eazly-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: Easement/Right-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 agreemen 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. ff 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. 5. 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 comdor 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: 1. 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 entrance 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 10 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, r'1 .~, ll i'1rt i ~ Robert J. Kranz 26 Attachment 11 Apri129, 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. John R. I~ughter ~~/- 7 72 - o~oS'' 27 Attachment 1~2 Tom Ekstrand From: KennethHalversonr~aol.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 surface 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 cL'Dties2.netJ 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 Tom Ekstrand From: Joe Gerard [jgerard~nationwidewash.comj Sent: Saturday, April 24, 2004 10:26 PM To: Tom Ekstrand Attachment l4 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 concern. 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 County 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 iwice 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[i)nationwidewash.com 30 Attachment 1~ Tom Ekstrand From: ed trolander [etrolandercLDmindspring.com) 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 Home Telephone Cell Telephone Fax number e-mail address 651-738-9600 651-770-0200 651-398-8526 651-738-2421 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 Highpoint P.idge Towi~ltome Association 4/28/2004 32 Attachment 17. Tom Ekstrand From: Kelly Lenz [kellylenz cLDcomcast.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 wonderful 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 accordingly. . Why an apartment building? Do we really need additional rental space in this area? Aren't we adding a bunch right by Maplewood Mall for the future Legacy Vllage? . 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, Kelly Lenz 3027 Duluth St 651.771.5453 5/6/2004 33 Attachment 18 ~polnt~dge TownhomeAsso~clatlorl ~s~s~ c~ MAplet~MN55109 May 4, 2004 City of Maplewood Atkin: 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 Apri121, 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 Association's corporate response to your letter of Apri121 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 u. iwaNiCwwU l.lly l.OUnCII ~ ap ewood Planning Development Committee - --- - - -- - --- -----1- -------- --- - -- --- -- Maplewood Senior Planner -Tom Ekstrand -- -- --- ---- --- ---t - From ! I ` Ighpoint Ridge Townhome Association fi---- - - --- - - ------- -- I am an owner of Highpoint Ridge Townhome Association. I completely support the efforts of the ---------------- Association Board of Directors and their efforts to implement positive change involving the proposed TROUT LAND DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL. -- -------- -T- ------ ---- Street ~ Date Number 1 ~ Signed __ °'s Printed Name ; Signatur -- - _ ___ _ ~ _~ Highridge Court o3 Q ~/ ~, //. ~ZA~ 2slF_ rE'2 ' ,~ _ 2 1a .s9 ;Highridge Court ~G.Y p c~~ ~'t,~,,s4n ~Y`Q h ZH,i,e t u[ 3_-_ / 4; /oZ 3•~ ,Highridge Court jHighridge Court ___ _ _ _ l 5 3 0`~ ~ /ye-1~_ i ~nv>i~n i ~ ' - ---- _ __ _5 _ / 2.~ - ,Highridge Court f ,3 D ~ .J V ~/~ ~ e. N __ __6; ~~3~?- ,'Highridge Court ---- ,~,~ ~ y ~ ~r/QN/i'4~~ /~ ~ Q~~ ~ ----- 7 ~ ,~, ~, b ~, Highridge Court .~ j d y I ~j4R D~ K~~L? }r 8 f a ,Z.U _ --- ~ Highridge Court ~ S/.3~ 6 y~ ~~~•'*'" C n0 ~... 11 ~~ 1~ ~,,, 3- ~ _ 9~ / ~ ~ s- _}Hi hrid e Court - ~ - - - -- - -- ~3 ~ __`~ ! ,J ~~ ~ (~A c~ ~(, o - -- - - -- -- -- _ _ _10 ~ ~ ~-_-_ .Highridge Courtj S J 3 ~6 y ~ ~ 2 c ~ x'12 ~di . -~PaO/c - ~_~_~-~.g __ _'Highridge Courtj .5'~"D~' ~ ~(J~- -~__LL°_ 1~- - -- ' ~ ~ 12____j ~~, -- _- Hi hrid e Court -Q ~ / S !vl'1`~''/pb5e- P?R }~ PF~'L. g - T-~ - 9 -- ~ -- - 13 /~ ~ i ---- Highridge Court ~ ~ ~ ~- ! ~C- - -_ _ - 14 _ _Z _~ Z_Highridge_Court~ S^-;,3-~ Bm~. a ~>~~~ ~~ 15~~ ~~2 / l _ ;Highridge Court j S =3 -v~L.~t,.~.-•~ [~a~~~c~ 16 / / - ---- ---- - -- Hi hrid e Court ~ 5 ' 3 - Cr _ 17,_~~~-L~/ _ _Highridge Courtf ~~ ~ __ i _~YQ/~,Z-- ----_ - - - -1~-- oC b ~ Highridge_Court, -5-3 ~0'~ __19_~pZ g_ _ - ---- -- -- ~Hi hrid e Courtf ~j .3-D~_~,~~~~~~~ 9 9 --- ----- y 20 ~~ -- ----- --- Highridge Court l'> ! O ~ ~ _ - - -' ?~:~~ ~`'--- ll ~~//~ 22-l~---~Y-- - -Highridge Court~~ / G~ ~ Nc~ ~ ~ +-~ r - -- ~~ -- - ~ _i!~'N_ ---- __ - - Hi_hrid e Court ; v d .d ~ ~ f ---- 9 -g -----~- ---- - - - -~. ,V~/ -~ff ..._ ~~ 23 ~ - - ~ 1-~ ----- - -----_ - "" ~ _ _- ,Highridge Court' s~3-D _ _ ,~G/~- _ (w ~'"~ S ; ---- -- ---- -- -- - -- _ _24 ~~ ? _ ; Highridge_Court i -,,3 - d .J `a , 25~L-~_~_~- -- __-_. -Highridge Court,--5~..~-Q-- -- .1OfflJ--J(cSK~--- 26 ~~2- Highridge Court_~3-~ r~'c~l __ Vv~T/`~`1-/ -_- -- --- _ _ --- -_ 27 ~ a.o1, 3 _ 8- _` ~~~--- _ __ - _ _~ Highridge Court , S'~,3''O ~ i(,~t~-vU ~p 172~ccJ~NG - -- --- --_ ~. -- I =Highridge CourtTS _ 3 • u~ J y~e, --- -~u_e~~?S~.(~.~~~_- .- - -'..."".~ 'G --- 29. 1 ~_y~ Highridge Court, 5- ~ - Dy ~~~ ~ ?'~---s - '- -- -- - - ~ ~ ss /~ HS? w E - - _- K - - _. 30 ~ i_~ 7 ~-/ 31 / ~L~ cv 32 / ~ 5~' -- _ ~ r 1 _~ .. Highridge Courtf__, ,,, .~ ;~_ .;~:~~ i .a• ~ /;.%1~ I ~ .~-L ~ ~_._~__- - ~ -1----~-- ~ I Highridge Court ~ S' - ?t`-' `/ I ' '~ ~~~_ ~ , ~--~ ~ ~~ ~~/ H g nhnh dge Court;' j - 3~-~> ~~ . ~CL'L~c~vr~./~1.~~!/_tt?~v ,f~a~1~~c,~-2 ,!~~'. ~.xi~~~-~~-, 35 33__~~-s-~ Highridge Court 34 ; ____•___/l_?_~_ Highridge Court o d~ GSIOS a --- -- ~~~~'__ !Highridge Court ----- - __36; _~~S/ _ 'Highridge Court 37' 1_~S ~ ,Highridge Court ~ bS -03~oy bS~o3~~`d ~~ G--.,~( ~,,.~... ~ I~,o --- - - + J ~~ - - Gnv1~ --- bent (.~/n¢/' ___38 f~~_ ~HighridgeCourt -- c5`a=3 ~%~ ~ PC ~ ------- - ' ~ , 391 '~. ~ !Highridge Court c~~ ~S ,, /~~d~l ~ ,(~ I ` + -`- _ _ 41 1 ~ ~ ~ ,Highridge Court Hi hrid e Court 42 . / 1 _ "'-( -.,Highridge Court _ _ 43_ j~ L ~r_ ;Highridge Court __-_44, ja~(i< !Highridge Court -_ 45~~~-~ _--,Highridge Court ~~ ~ G' = z - (,~ ~ ~-v S=`/~ U 1_ _ ~ -- -__ ~ ~. • E _. ,: G I ~,~ V_ • ~ ~ ~- / ~ .~ j, ~ -- _~~ ~~_ ~' i "le ~• ~..-;, IC.~~.tl. i ` 46;' ? 3 ' !Highridge Court - _ ~~ ~ ~ cw ~2_(~_ - - _ 47T~~ h Highridge Court _.._- ~ Lw /..d / ~ Hi hrid e Court _- 48 9 9 I 49: ~'\!J ^Highridge Court - ---r--~-~=------- <.~ ~ . ~~ . J~"-U~!~ll ~ ~~_~_~ ~ `I ~ y r~ r~ ~' L (1~~ ~~ J~YZ !~ ~ ~ , ~. // //1G~~'lG S ~,(J Shy/1(~ ~ ----- _. ~^ ~~~,~_~, ~- :, ' .~ c1 --- - .__ ~ ~~a.'~ /~- ~~' 7 ~~ 50:Highridge Court I ~ ------ _-- - 51: ;Highridge Court I j 52; Highridge Court _53 _ ;Highridge Court --Y- 54; ~ Highridge Court - - - -- - ----- 1 - ------ - -- _ __ _ 55 ~ Highridge Court 56; ;Highridge Court', , 57 _ Highridge Court F _ j ' ---- - --_ i 58 Highridge Court, - - ---- - - 59 Highridge Court; - I f- --- - --- __ ___ - ------- --- --- ~ 60; ___ _ __ 'Highridge Court I _ --- -i - 61 Highridge Court - - t- ---•-- - -- -T - -- ----- -- ----- --- --------- - ----- - 62 Highridge Court ~ 63 .Highridge Court ~ ______- _ __ 64 _ _ _ ____ Hi hrid e Court ------- -- - 9 g - ' 65 ___ Highridge Court' 66 ______ _Highridge Court; -- _ __ 67`__ __ Highridge Court' 68 ~ Highridge Court __69; ____ ;Highridge Court ! ___ 70 ~ ___ _ 'Highridge Court j 71 ' _ j Highridge Court ! ~ _ 72 ~ ~ Highridge Court j 36 Attachment 20 Department of Public Works City of Maplewood MEMORANDUM TO: Tom Ekstrand, Senior Planner FROM: R. Charles Ahl, Director of Public Works/City Engineer DATE: June 30, 2004 SUBJECT: Trout Land Development Engineering Comments The information that follows is provided as background information on the current negotiations that have occurred between the developers of the Trout Land project and the City's engineering staff relating to the County Road D Realignment Project. The Trout Land project, if approved by the City Council, will help the overall implementation of the Realignment Project. While we have never negotiated land use issues or zoning agreements, we have attempted to create awin-win situation with this developer that benefits the City's improvement project. These negotiations have not committed the City to approve this development proposal; however, if approved as proposed, the development will provide the City project a benefit. The following is a summary of the project improvements and benefits that the cooperative nature of this developer and the City project could experience. The Developer has agreed to pay the City's cost for the legal proceedings to determine ownership of the vacant right of way along TH 61. The City has signed an Exchange Agreement with Trout Land that confirms for them the underlying fee ownership of the land. Upon approval of this development and confirmation from the Ramsey County Property Examiner, the City will vacate their highway easement interest in the land and the property will become a part of the Trout Land development. In exchange, Trout Land agrees to provide the City with the right of way across the Trout Land property for the County Road D extension at no cost to the City. The right of way for the Realignment is significantly larger than a normal right of way; in some sections being 120 feet in width in comparison to the normal 60-foot right of way. The exchange of right of way for the vacation of the easement is approximately equal in land acreage. Additionally, Trout Land has agreed to provide the City, again at no cost, with a deed for the Outlot adjacent to the Venburg Tire development on the southern boundary of the site. This property is necessary for the Venburg Tire development to meet the requirements for their site. The City was required to relocate the Venburg Tire business due to the location of the roadway on the eastern side of Trunk Highway 61. Without Trout Land agreeing to the dedication, the City would have acquired the property necessary for the Venburg Tire relocation. The value of this exchange appears to be a win-win for the developer and the City. Trout Land acquires property that did not have access to use, while the City exchanges property it does not own for property it uses for right of way and property relocation purposes. 38 TROUT LAND DEVELOPMENT ENGINEERING COMMENTS PAGE TWO The Trout Land Development also provides a resolution to the other right of way and easement acquisition issues that the City faced for the realignment project. The two major parcels that needed to be acquired for the alignment were the Prokosch property on the northern end of the site, and the LaMettry -McDaniel (LMCD) property on the far southern portion of the site. The Prokosch property is severed by the realignment right of way and contained a small depression /natural area that was identified by the neighborhood (mainly the Highridge Court residents) as a goal for protection. Trout Land has negotiated to acquire the Prokosch property and to dedicate the right of way to the City at Trout Land's acquisition cost. Additionally, Trout Land has agreed to dedicate a drainage easement over the low area at no cost to the City that will meet the drainage needs for the area that are not directly related to the Trout Land development. This low area will remain natural although improvements are needed to control flooding within the depression. A buffer of trees will remain to protect the Highridge Court development. Trout Land has requested that they receive density credit at the RM level for the entire Prokosch site consistent with City ordinance. The LMCD parcel was a unique issue. The ponding area was originally dedicated to the City; however, access to the pond, along with the ability to modify the pond, was never provided. The LMCD limited partnership was asking for compensation for access to the pond for the major storm drainage facilities necessary for the development of the overall area, not just the Trout Land development. Trout Land resolved this issue for the City project by acquiring a portion of the LMCD property, which is the parcel of land immediately west of Gulden's restaurant. As a condition of the acquisition of the parcel by Trout Land, LMCD agreed to three conditions: provide the ponding area to the City at no cost, provide a sale to the City at a reduced price for the expansion of the pond, and provide an agreement for the frontage road necessary for the signal system agreement and subsequent funding from MnDOT for the signal system improvements at the realigned County Road D and TH 61. In exchange for this, Trout Land is requesting the deviations to allow the Townhome construction on the LMCD parcel. Finally, if Trout Land receives the necessary approvals, they have agreed to a cooperative grading arrangement for the property. Trout Land will provide the necessary grading for the construction of the realigned County Road D at the City designed elevations. The City has agreed to split the cost of this grading. Obviously without Trout Land, this cost would have been entirely the City's expense. Included within this development an-angement agreement, Trout Land has agreed to assessments that will pay over 50% of the project costs for the realigned regional roadway. Our recommendation from the engineering perspective is that the Trout Land agreement is a good deal for both the City and Trout Land. The development needs to be completed with good planning considerations and we understand the need for issues to be considered separately. We provide this background only as information on the benefits that will accrue, if the development is approved as proposed. RCA 39 Attachment 21 LAND USE PLAN CHANGE RESOLUTION WHEREAS, Jim Kellison, of Kelso 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. 40 Attachment 22 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: The West 430.60 feet of the East 661.60 feet of the North 605.00 feet of the Northeast Quarter of Section 4, Township 29, Range 22, Ramsey County, Minnesota. AND Lot 1, Block 5, FRATTALONE's HIGHPOINT RIDGE, according to the recorded plat thereof, Ramsey County, Minnesota. AND The westerly 223.40 feet of the easterly 723.40 feet of the northerly 409.50 feet of the Southeast Quarter of the Northeast Quarter of said Section 4. AND The westerly 223.4 feet of the easterly 723.40 feet of the northerly 409.50 feet of the Southeast Quarter of the Northeast Quarter of said Section 4. AND The westerly 197.40 feet of the easterly 723.40 feet lying southerly of the southerly line of the northerly 409.50 feet of said Southeast Quarter of the Northeast Quarter of Section 4 and northerly of the southerly line of the northerly 469.50 feet of said Southeast Quarter of the Northeast Quarter of Section 4. AND That part of the westerly 197.40 feet of the east 723.40 feet of said Southeast Quarter of the Northeast Quarter of Section 4, Township 29, Range 22, Ramsey County, Minnesota lying southerly of the northerly 469.50 feet and which lies northerly of the southerly 698.00 feet of said Southeast Quarter of the Northeast Quarter of Section 4. AND All that part of the Northwest Quarter of the Northwest Quarter of Section 3, Township 29, Range 22, Ramsey County, Minnesota, which lies westerly of a line drawn parallel and concentric with and distant 135.00 feet westerly from Line "A", described as follows: From a point on the east and west quarter line of Section 4, Township 29 North, Range 22 West, distant 156.30 feet west of the east quarter comer thereof, run southwesterly at 41 an angle of 77 degrees 13 minutes 30 seconds from said east and west quarter line (measured from west to south) for 53.60 feet; thence deflect to the right at an angle of 9 degrees 52 minutes 00 seconds for 529.44 feet to the point of beginning of Line "Au to be described; thence run northeasterly along the last described course for 100 feet to tangent spiral point; thence deflect to the left on a spiral curve of decreasing radius (spiral angle 1 degrees 30 minutes 00 seconds) for 200 feet to spiral curve point; thence deflect to the left on a 1 degrees 30 minute 00 second circular curve (delta angle 6 degrees 52 minutes 00 seconds) for 457.77 feet to curve spiral point; thence deflect to the left on a spiral curve of increasing radius (spiral angle 1 degree 30 minutes 00 seconds) for 200 feet; thence on a tangent to said curve for 1638.33 feet to tangent spiral point; thence deflect to the right on a spiral curve of decreasing radius (spiral angle 2 degrees 00 minutes 00 seconds) for 200 feet to spiral curve point; thence deflect to the right on a 2 degree 00 minute 00 second circular curve (delta angle 15 degrees 15 minutes 30 seconds) for 762.92 feet to curve spiral point and there terminating. And which lies easterly of a line drawn parallel and concentric with and distant 50.00 feet westerly from Line "Ba, described as follows: Beginning at a point on the north line of Section 3, Township 29 North, Range 22 West, distant 556.6 feet east of the northwest comer thereof, run southwesterly at an angle of 58 degrees 28 minutes 00 seconds from said north section line (measured from west to south for 915.7 feet; thence deflect to the left on a 15 degree 30 minute 00 second curve (delta angle 33 degrees 57 minutes 00 seconds) for 219 feet; thence on tangent to said curve for 668.7 feet; thence deflect to the right on a 4 degree 30 minute 00 second curve (delta angle 14 degrees 40 minutes 00 seconds) for 327.4 feet and there terminating; And which lies northerly of the westerly extension of the southerly line of TRACT G, REGISTERED LAND SURVEY NO. 525, files of the Ramsey County Registrar of Titles, said westerly extension and southerly line also being the southerly line of said Northwest Quarter of the Northwest Quarter, And which lies southerly of the easterly extension of the southerly line of TRACT B, REGISTERED LAND SURVEY NO. 322, files of the Ramsey County Registrar of Titles. AND All that part of the Northeast Quarter of the Northeast Quarter of Section 4, Township 29, Range 22, Ramsey County Minnesota, which lies easterly of a line drawn parallel and concentric with and distant 50.00 feet westerly from Line "B", described as follows: Beginning at a point on the north line of Section 3, Township 29 North, Range 22 West, distant 556.6 feet east of the northwest comer thereof, run southwesterly at an angle of 58 degrees 28 minutes 00 seconds from said north section line (measured from west to south for 915.7 feet; thence deflect to the left on a 15 degree 30 minute 00 second curve (delta angle 33 degrees 57 minutes 00 seconds) for 219 feet; thence on tangent to said curve for 668.7 feet; thence deflect to the right on a 4 degree 30 minute 00 second curve (delta angle 14 degrees 40 minutes 00 seconds} for 327.4 feet and there terminating. 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. 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 42 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. 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. 43 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 townhomes. 6. All individual development proposals must meet city development requirements. This PUD, however, allows the reduction in the front setbacks from the future County Road Dright-of-way to 15 feet instead of the typical 30-foot front setback. Also, as stated, the commercial buildings in this development may be within 350 feet of residential lot lines as shown on the concept plan. 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. 44 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. 45 Attachment 23 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? 46 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. 47 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. 48 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 11h 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: 49 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. 50 6. Joyice 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 behigh-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. 51 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. 52 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 ofthe 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 53 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 noway 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 seared 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. 54 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-3#~M (tea 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 ~+g#-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 #+g# 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. 55 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. 56 AGENDA ITEM H4 AGENDA REPORT TO: Richard Fursman, City Manager FROM: Charles Ahl, Public Works Director/City Engineer SUBJECT: Interstate 94 Improvements (McKnight to Century) -City File 03-12 - 8:00 pm -Public Hearing Consider MnDOT Proposed Project DATE: July 6, 2004 Introduction The State of Minnesota Department of Transportation has requested that the City grant municipal consent for the I-94 Improvement Project (Attachment 1). The project involves the addition of a third lane to the freeway in each direction, widening of the bridges over McKnight Road and TH 120, and eliminating the scissors ramp in the northwest quadrant of I-94 and McKnight Road (within St. Paul). The City must grant municipal consent for the project to proceed. A public Hearing has been called for the purpose of reviewing the overall project. Frank Pafko and Marc Goess, representing MnDOT will be present to explain the project and process. Background The MnDOT has prepared the following history on the I-94 Corridor Improvement: In the last 30 plus years, the Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) has been looking at the I-94 Corridor, in the Maplewood area, developing various sketches/options to see if any will work for this area. No one option came through as the preferred option. In the last two years, MnDOT has been concentrating of two new options: Option 1 , to add a third lane in the median, reconfigure the existing interchanges into tight diamonds, construct a flyover from TH 94 WB onto the frontage road, realign the frontage intersections with McKnight Road and TH 120, and bituminous overlay surface; Option 2 ,add third lane in the median, reconfigure the existing interchanges into tight diamonds (maintain existing loop as the fourth leg at the McKnight Rd. interchange), maintain current TH 94 WB off-ramp to McKnight Rd., close the two current TH 94 WB on-ramp from the frontage road, realign the west frontage road intersections with McKnight Rd., and construct a roundabout at Burns Ave. and McKnight Rd. intersection, and bituminous overlay surface. In June 2003, MnDOT decided to hold off on these options and explore a new scaled-down lane addition project. This project comes with four constraints: maximum construction cost of $11.0 million, no right of way acquisition, project completion within one year, and keep removal of existing roadway surfaces to a minimum. TH 94 Addition Project: Maintain existing EB and portion of WB Alignments (approximately 0.5 miles on the west limit will be realigned about 12 feet to the north), add third lane to the median, reconstruct all four bridges, lengthen acceleration and deceleration lanes to current standards, and bituminous overlay surface. In February 2004, MnDOT decided to combine the mainline overlay project and the lane addition project into one project. The overlay project was eliminated. The project layout (Attachment 2) includes the various improvements estimated at $11.0 million. The roadway expansion is to the center of the freeway, into the median. Only one segment, the westbound lanes, will change alignment. That segment moves northerly about 12 feet. All improvements are proposed for construction to north, away from the residential area to the south of the freeway. CITY COUNCIL AGENDA BACKGROUND INTERSTATE 94 IMPROVEMENTS JULY 12, 2004 PAGE TWO The Municipal Consent Law (Attachment 3) is provided by Minnesota Statute 161. This law provides a process for a municipality to have input into the improvement process on Trunk Highways and the Interstate system. As noted within the law, an appeal process is available to MnDOT if an agreement cannot be reached on the project approval process. Also attached (Attachment 4) is background data on Sound Abatement and Noise Abatement Policy from the MnDOT web page. MnDOT prepared an Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) for this project. As part of that process, the City requested consideration of a noise wall along the southern boundary of the project (Attachment 5). MnDOT completed a detailed Noise Analysis at nine sites in June and October 2003 (Attachment 6) as part of the EAW and found three sites exceeding the current daytime noise standards of 65 dBA and all nine sites exceeding the current nighttime noise standard of 55 dBA. The Maplewood segment was described as having "... an existing noise wall that varies in height from 7-18 feet with a typical height of 10-16 feet. Monitored noise levels were about 66 dBA for nighttime and 67 dBA for daytime conditions." The noise analysis and modeling comparison found that about 1 dBA increase in noise occurs between the Build and No-Build alternatives. The 2028 nighttime Build alternative indicated that noise levels will increase less than 1 dBA over the existing nighttime noise levels. It is generally found that the human ear cannot detect noise level changes less than 3 dBA in differential. The noise wall modeling was run without the existing walls to see what mitigation the walls were presently providing. The existing walls provide noise reduction of from 2-11 dBA. The model showed that raising the height of the wall to a maximum of 20 feet reduced noise levels only 1- 3dBA. Based on noise level reductions of 1-3 dBA within the Maplewood segment, MnDOT concluded that no new or rebuilt noise walls are justified. On May 20, 2004, MnDOT issued a negative declaration regarding the need for an Environmental Impact Statement (Attachment 7). Within the negative declaration, MnDOT reiterated that "The noise levels did exceed State Noise Standards but this area would exceed MnDOT's cost guideline of $$3,250/dBA of reduction/resident for construction of a noise barrier; therefore, MnDOT will not be extending or constructing new barriers in this area. MnDOT is currently looking at the possibility of using some excess material to construct a berm, which may offer some screening for the neighborhood. Based on neighborhood and City requests, MnDOT conducted a study to determine the cost- effectiveness of a new wall that would benefit the Crestview Drive neighborhood. The wall is proposed to be 20 foot high and 682 feet in length within the MnDOT frontage (Attachment 8). The analysis (Attachment 9) indicated that only the first two homes would realize a 5 dBA reduction in noise for the $204,600 noise wall expenditure. In another calculation, MnDOT statewide policy indicates that they would only contribute $32,500 toward the construction of this wall. Other sources would need to be identified for funding the construction of the wall if desired by another agency. In lieu of a noise wall, MnDOT has offered to construction a berm of 8-12 foot height and to provide up to $50,000 (within the entire project) in a landscape partnership that could provide noise attenuation. Noise engineers will typically indicate that a berm of 10-12 feet in height provides similar noise attenuation to a 20-foot tall wall. Ms. Theresa Gunderson of 131 Crestview Drive North has been actively following this process. Her letter is attached (Attachment 10) that requests support for sound wall construction. Additionally, she has organized a petition drive that includes 258 names. Those petitions are also attached to Ms. Gunderson's submittal. Options and Discussion The City Council can consider a couple of options to proceed. Engineering staff has conducted numerous discussions with MnDOT personnel and attempts to provide information on the likely outcomes of each option. CITY COUNCIL AGENDA BACKGROUND INTERSTATE 94 IMPROVEMENTS JULY 12, 2004 PAGE THREE Option 1: Deny Municipal Consent on the Project. According to MnDOT staff, this will likely delay this improvement for a period of 3-5 years. MnDOT Management is concerned that the Unweave the Weave project, which begins full construction in 2006, will create major traffic congestion for east-west movements. The addition of this major project also in 2006 would create excessive traffic delays for travelers and commuters. They have determined that they would not likely proceed until 2008 or 2009. It is also likely that MnDOT would proceed through the appeal process. That process can take as long as 12 months to complete. Given the technical data, it is likely that a sound wall would not be included in a future project. This option would thus, only delay the needed regional improvement, not achieve noise attenuation for the neighborhood. Option 2: Grant Municipal Consent for the project. Establish a Neighborhood Work Group to pursue the berming and plantings concept to achieve noise attenuation. This appears to be the most viable option to achieve the most cost-effective noise attenuation. MnDOT is currently preparing a design that would establish an 8 - 12 foot high berm. The height of the berm is dependant upon the soil types. The project is limited to $50,000 worth of landscaping; however additional local funds could be applied to furthering the landscaping concept. As noted previously, sound engineers will typically testify that a 10- 12foot high berm with shrubbery attenuates noise equivalent to a 20-foot high noise wall. There would be minimal cost to the City for this approach, would achieve a nature noise wall, would provide for plantings along the corridor, and would provide similar noise attenuation to a noise wall. Note: MnDOT has indicated that portions of noise wall currently used at I-694 may become available within 2 years. This option may allow a cooperative effort to relocate portions of that wall. The berming is the preferred approach, but the relocated wall would be explored by the Neighborhood Work Group. Option 3: Grant Municipal Consent for the project. Order a feasibility study on the construction of a noise wall. A public improvement project would be initiated to cost share the wall. This option would propose to construct a 682-foot long and 20-foot high noise wall immediately north of Crestview Drive (See proposed wall on Attachment 8). MnDOT has indicated that they would contribute $32,500 toward this wall. The remaining +$168,000 would need to come from City funds and the neighborhood through assessments. Assuming a 50-50 split, $84,000 would need to come from general taxes, while the remainder would be assessed. The City must show benefit to properties for improvements prior to assessments. It would be very difficult to show benefit to many properties outside Crestview Drive and the western seven properties on Brookview Drive. A likely assessment area and wall location is shown on Attachment 11. Spreading the assessments evenly between these 21 properties on Crestview Drive and the 7 properties on the west end of Brookview Drive would amount to an assessment of $3,000 per property. A 15-year assessment applied to assessments would raise property tax statements by about $20 per month for the 15-year period for these 28 properties. CITY COUNCIL AGENDA BACKGROUND INTERSTATE 94 IMPROVEMENTS JULY 12, 2004 PAGE FOUR Recommendation It is recommended that the city council approve the MnDOT request to grant Municipal Consent for the proposed improvements to Interstate 94 between McKnight Road and TH 120 and direct the City Engineer to establish a Neighborhood Work Group with the intent of working out final design details for an earthen berm and plantings along the project corridor. RCA Attachments: 1. MnDOT Municipal Consent Request Letter 2. Project Improvement Maps (2) 3. Municipal Consent Statute 4. Legislative Noise Statutes and MnDOT Noise Policy 5. Maplewood EAW Letter 6. Traffic Related Noise Analysis from EAW 7. MnDOT Negative Declaration on EAW 8. Map showing Noise Monitoring Locations and Existing and Future Walls 9. MnDOT Cost Effective Analysis on Noise Wall Improvements 10. Letter from Theresa and Jim Gunderson and Petitions 11. Assessment Area for Option 3 ~~!. 4Y' ' t- ~. J ~ ~,_ r~ - - Y~ ~ r r ~~ I ~~a ,ei 1 ~~ u ~~~ - ~~ ,• i !f #' L e -.~ I. .. i~ i ~+' s 9 i. r ~~ i '4 3; "'Y t,~ ' ~ :~' ~';..~ ~~ ~~ =3 . . ~ ~ ' ~ . ~r. ~s s .~e - ~~~ ~~' .E -- ;~ ~~ j v ~~ t5~'~ '~ 4i .. . . ~~ f ' J ~ rz 4 R i :..S s.. . 1Ll _ :ty r~ - a• _ _ ~ _ _ _ .. _~ _ __ r.. A [y~ 7 .r_f ~ _ ..A ~f .-~ . ~ , y,. k.~~ - - - - ~ 5h-"`1 t _ .: ., . _ }4~ ~~ - - - - u .l. { - 1.~. ~ d 1 •r 7 - - - ~r ~. - ~ - t ~- '~_. ti - - - ~,3 w,~ - ~ - Y.. ~~ _ ~ C ter L - y .r .~.. .. .~ ~ C' •l ._ . _ S. ;t .x ... : ~.. .. ... ~ ... ~.,. _ 1 i~ ~ 'C ~S _ _ Y .., r... ~ ~ 94 .. .. ti. _- :r{ ~'~ .. { -? ,. s +. s r~~ ~i'~ ~ - .P . i .. V~..J ~~ ~t ~r . ~ . - .. L^. .~ ..~ ~~ ._ . y _ ._ - ~ .. ~. rti~ a~ .v _ _ _ ~ _ _ __ ~ _ ~~ 4 - ~ _. 4~ .. ..x. , . ,. ~ - x .. .. J - ~va: :. - ~~ -tom _ x .. .... - k r ~ ~ .ti t R. .. s •• r- ~ w - -t - R. -~.- . - _-e ~ k - n .w • xj'1 - - a. r. - - I 1' :J 3~6 .. { ~ A ._ .A ^ N K£ ili ._ ,~ ,, - _ _ - - ,- - •~~ ~, ~~ ~;: a~J:_ k ._ b =i F .. _i~C~. z Jeri - - ~ ;q ..._ .. _ _. ..,. r.. . ~ , n ~ . 4 :. i ,[ L ~'6rf~ s ~' r ~ f ~.m_4Jr&,r0 i : ; nam....~,,..~:§.',:..f.;,:,~a..:w 2 h } ~.2.3~.: ~ ~r S `R _ n ~ . } ~4' " 5 .t. ~r. ~ .. .. ...cJ. -,, .. ;~ ~ ., _~ - - ~~- F ~ 4 ~~~ ~. ~ _. ~~~ l _ -t _ _ _ yr _R _1 _~ti _ .. .. ..:z .. x ~. '~ - .~ _, _ _ ~~ - ~~ .. :~. - ~ °I ti ~ ~ I _ if: _ -- }] . 'tii: r - 4 __ -p. I' { A _ ~ ~- -- T s~ ~k ~~ ...yam ,y~. _-.. .i ti ] s+y r. _ ti ~ ~ J r.~. r ... 1 .. r. _. =s -. VY )3 y. v .. .. _ ~ ~4 !~ ~~ ~~:: ~ • .1f.YG , t ^~ ~` ~f ._ ., rt.. ~ C __ ~ r r~ v - '~. r mfr. ~..'.. ~ -~, r:ri L r _~ :i ~; :~ o. ~- .~ ~: :. ~, ~ ~£ .. ~~ ;r~ v. :. -S >e ` ~ .. L I I s i.•~_' .~ s -ti i jl. h' _ ,T - ~4 Y 1 1 1 i~ ~ d: ..._ ~.:~ '~'.fF '2d:. :l~'h t = ,~: ~. ~ ,~ ~ Y 4 . ~ T l ~! .. a ~' ax _ , ~ ~' ~_ - z .... .~ ~~~ - .s,. ~ _ 5 .. ~ ~ J}..e .. Agenda #J1 SUMMARY MEMORANDUM TO: City Manager FROM: Ken Roberts, Planner SUBJECT: Olivia Gardens LOCATION: 2329 and 2335 Stillwater Road DATE: June 29, 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. 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. 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. 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. BACKGROUND These two properties have a long history of land use and zoning activities. I have included a listing of these in the project review memorandum. On June 14, 2004, the city council held a public hearing to consider the proposed Olivia Gardens PUD and preliminary plat. After much discussion, the developer agreed to a time extension to allow him to change the project plans to try to address the concerns of the city council. The developer submitted to staff revised plans on June 28, 2004. These are the plans that staff reviews in the full report. DISCUSSION The primary discussion of the city council on June 14, 2004, was about the proposed project density and design. In response to these concerns, the developer has revised the proposed plans. A more complete review of the latest proposal is in the project review memorandum. RECOMMENDATIONS Staff is recommending approval of the proposed land use plan change, zoning map change, PUD and preliminary plat for the revised Olivia Gardens development on Stillwater Road. These approvals would be subject to several conditions, as outlined in the complete staff memorandum. 2 MEMORANDUM TO: City Manager FROM: Ken Roberts, Planner SUBJECT: Olivia Gardens LOCATION: 2329 and 2335 Stillwater Road DATE: July 1, 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 31 through 33 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 a iwo-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 linelzoning 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 revised plat 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 inGude: 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) far 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, including 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. On June 14, 2004, the city council held a public hearing to consider the proposed Olivia Gardens PUD and preliminary plat. After much discussion, the developer agreed to a time extension to allow him to change the project plans to try to address the concerns of the city council. The developer submitted to staff revised plans on June 28, 2004. These are the plans that staff reviews in this report. DISCUSSION Land Use Plan and Zoning Map Changes To build the proposed town houses, 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 ... inGuding 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 neighborhood. Protect neighborhoods from encroachment or intrusion of incompatible land uses by adequate buffering and separation. 2 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. 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 neighborhood 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 (PUD) Section 44-1093(b) of the city code says that it is the intent of the PUD code "to provide a means to allow flexibility by substantial deviations from the provisions of this chapter, including uses, setbacks, height and other regulations. Deviations may be granted for planned unit developments provided that: 1. 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 14-unit 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, inGuding the private driveway and the ponding area. Exchanging the common land for larger lot sizes would not change the location, design or number of units in this development. 3 In addition, 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 deviations meet the findings in the aty 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 as now proposed (shown on pages 18 - 23), 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 townhouse 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 over the density in other townhouse projects. 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. Revised Plans On June 28, 2004, the applicant submitted revised plans to the city for review. (See the plans on pages 18 through 23.) The plans now show the project driveway with gentle curves, an entrance island and a turn-around in front of building seven. In addition, the plans also show the buildings staggered (instead of in a straight line) as they follow the new driveway design and seven of the 14 units with side-loaded garages. These changes make for a more interesting design and should give the development more character than the previous proposals. 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. 4 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 27.) 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. Tree Removal/Replacement Maptewood'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 39 trees on the site. These include 27 black-hills spruce along the west property line and 12 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 29.) 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. 5 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. RECOMMENDATIONS A. Approve the resolution on page 34. 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 35. This resolution changes the zoning map for the Olivia Gardens plat on the west side of Stilwater 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 36. 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: 6 (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's shall be: a. Front-yard setback (from a public street or a private driveway): minimum - 20 feet, maximum - 35 feet b. Front-yard setback (public side street): minimum - 30 feet, maximum -none c. Rear-yard setback: 20 feet from any adjacent residential property line d. Side-yard setback (townhouses): minimum - 20 feet 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's preliminary plat (received by the city on June 28, 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. 7 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: 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) InGude 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. 8 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 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 one 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) CommentsJQuestions 1. I'm concerned about the disruptioNnoise 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 well? (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 Stilwater Road East.) 3. Also, see the e-mail from Jim and Kathy Mosner on page 30. 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 neighbofiood, 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 36 and 37.) 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 and on June 28, 2004. State law would normally require the city to take action on this request by June 19, 2004, unless the applicant agreed to a time extension. On June 14, 2004, during the city council meeting, the applicant agreed to a time extension until the first council meeting in July (July 12, 2004). 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 dated 6-28-04 7. Proposed Preliminary Plat dated 6-28-04 8. Proposed Grading Plan dated 6-28-04 9. Erosion Control Plan dated 6-28-04 10. Proposed Utility Plan dated 6-28-04 11. Preliminary Screening Plan dated 6-28-04 12. Site Plan dated 4-21-04 13. Proposed Preliminary Plat dated 4-21-04 14. Proposed Grading Plan dated 4-21-04 15. Engineering Comments from Erin L. dated April 26, 2004 16. Watershed District Comments dated April 14, 2004 17. E-mail from Kathy and Jim Mosner 18. Applicant's Statement dated June 3, 2004 19. Applicant's Project timeline date-stamped July 1, 2004 20. Land Use Plan Change Resolution (R-1 to R-2) 21. Rezoning Resolution (R-1 to R-2) 22. Condfional Use Permit for Planned Unit Development (PUD) Resolution 23. Project Plans date-stamped June 28, 2004 (separate attachments) 12 Attachment 1 MEMO DATE: March 30, 2004 TO: City of Maplewood FROM: Homesites LLC Kelly Conlin/Keith Koecher Members ~~~ ~ "; Y ~ ~ "~ 1_ . ,. o 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 properly 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 Attachment 2 _ ~ ncr~ oR Q Z ~_~ W ~ ~ ~ '~ ''~ `~ ` -~ Z 3 4 4 ~IQNEM DR 1440N '~ ° ~ ~ N~. ~~ W ~ ~ ~ & '~A,,.~ A}~ElA Cf e ~ ~ s s ~ ~ eou~c -ais orr G• ..~. 8 ~ G nR ff ~" AVE. ~ ~ ~ v_, ~ ~ ~wmo~ +~r AVE ~90M 2 At~JiMCIC W Z ~ cr. s 4 e ec'~ "D o g~ 1 4 s s OOUGFIZ W ~} A 1200N E ""~11ND AVE. ~~ o ~ AVE. ~~ ~ ''' 9 ;~'' - ~, ~~ ~ YAGWOLIA AVE. ~ A ~ ~. ;j , Bscver ,'~~~ ~ ~ z ,~ j~ Lnlos - jr, ~ ®,~t~ J ~ - `'~ 3 5~~~ Z ~~ ~ S ~ ~rER AvE 960N j ~ ~ W ~ ~'~ ~ BRAND ~bjCy{~E~ LN. BRAND AVE. AVE. c iii ,~ 0 d ~ nn sT. ~ ~~ 7n, sr. z ° ~ Y ~i .~ ~~ ~ w ~ ~ AvE. ~ ~ ~ ~ 1ANNEHAWI AVE. 720N ~ ~ ~ARCARFT AVE. .. r~ ~ 1 ~ 'r'J3M~~~` a Sth W AvE tii.~os/~a`' ~ a = i -- `S ,L & '~ o ~ ~ aKr a ~ ~ AVE. o CONWAY AVE _ ° FR'aN TAGS RD. 480N ~ ~ p_ ~ J n nn ~ LOCATION MAP 14 4 N Attachment 3 r:T L~ ~J,r r~J ~.~~... f.`. ,,, f ~,, ,;` 2280 ~~~ R1 J ~a ~ ~0 H ? ~ 834 N tub [3 ~o z ~ ~ 83 a t 798 ~ 796 `~ 784 ^ D ;~' ,26~ ^ 7~ ,Z.~6 RERNEY~IAVE 2327 m I~ ~ 2322 ~ ~ 2321 ~ LLLJJJ to a ~ ~ ~ -~ ~] 2~]6 ~ ~--7 2315 ~~ ~f f 2~~ 2314 BUSH AVE __ 10 d ~~ 308 n`•-~" ~~ L?$52 2360 -2366 2372 ~ ~~ ~ 234 ° o G 2304 ~ `tom 7 C3 ^~ ~ f.. R1 ~ ~ '~ 2302 PROPERTY LINE /ZONING MAP 15 r 1 r 4 ;,:-, I f U ~ 1 ~ 1~ J~ •- ~ ~ i ~ ter„ ~! J ` ~ ~ ~ r /2330 ~ 2410 /~ ~'* r, ^ ~t_~ / j , r~ f / Gethsemane Park J /f, `~ J f,•_/ / - j ~ f `Y , l f ~ J /f ~ ~ j~ / fY ff J 1 1 - I.. SEVENTH ST 338 834 O (_! 27 ~-.r ~ ~ ~"~ 2334 ~ 822 ~~ i ~; 2335 ~ ~Q' `~~ ~• _1 SITE ~ ~~ w 23 ~.,.~ ~ 2328 R 1 05 ~ a Attachment 4 ,. 2338 ~- ~ ~ 834 C~ [~ z 830 ~r~ `e3,334 ~ Q~ 7 ~` 2335 ^ ~~ ~`~'' ~;~ ~ 1-~-` J s12 SITE ~P ~ aa~--~-, v 1 ~ g~ i Z '--' [_~ ~'~~~,~ 2328 Q d ~r N ~~ 798 2327 "-' ~ ~ ~ 2322 796 2321 ~~ `'' ~I f ` ~~ [ /yip `~ ~~ ~_J 2 2315 C 784 2314 ~/ BUSH AVE ~7 a t- ,~ a _ ~_ 23~j 2338 ~° 352 0 ~~ 2308 2344 7~ ~-~' C~ 2304 0 ~56 ~--~~ LAND USE PLAN MAP 16 4 N Attachment 5 ~ ~\ _ J~' _ ~ \'~_ I\~ FwsnNC ~\\LS ~/ it ~ ~ ~ ~--~- //' , \1 y I I__„ { .\ - ~` \ ~' \ ,- `\ ~ r V~ / ,\ / ~ ~ ~ _, \ ~ ~_ ~ .a --NeYa 2329 ~ ~ ~ \ ~' \ ~ ~~ ~J ~ s / ,~'~ ill BNUmeiux p1a~~ ~~ ~°' ~/^^~,. / % \ iii ~ \ ~ ( „aq~ ~ \ Y~•01'46'F 200.1] ~ ~/ ~ "'"~ I' - - --'~~ ~- 1 1 I I I ~\ I / ~ \ IL_~ ~ ~ ~ I I i ~~rT~ ~/ 2321 j / L6G6ND: ~® f / ~ _ -- s i ,d // r. O -~u- -W1f--WY- -ST-ST- Elesiw0 CONTOUR EJOSiwO FAME E%EVAMxI FXISTWO TREE LHE EXISTWO TREE EpST111O SNWTWRY SEWER EASIOIC WWTENYIJN F]OBTWG STONY SEWFA E%IS1x1O FENCE RETANxIG Will 1RFE WVFATO RY FOR OLN N WROfl18 8 xxYAYa 1 .Ir x-Ir x w r.n Ir So IP b 51 Ir ~ Bm EYr IP >2 Baa FYr IP Y 5] 1P EYn Ir H tP i FI Bu Fe%r r EMn 5 Vicar xT L Bm EWr ]r x 11 td SB NtlPYY 1P x WM B' W Pw 1 J Wlb ti WN r I oa. r w WN s ae+% r n,n 1 le ur xW X 1T SWa Me SIP 6 10 tae IT M 1 et ID EM % Be IP Bm FYr iS IP n r Ifu or NN rz m Ir WN X 1r b EM r X 11 Bm EW 1Pblf xT Boa FYW r X TS Boa F]Ser ]- L IP 1< ]e SIMW~Een xP n d A SIEaW Ehn 1P N 6ewiYn EYn }1T Te Bw FYx >2 b Boa EYW if X tr 1 E 1 w 9xrtW~EM IT Serr x~IP M Camr p 9err IT ew EYr P a T Boa F]a•e IT e5 Ba Eller IP Bm FYx BoaEWr 41P % t1 FYn W 1 % b EM tr x-li xd Ir tx Bm EYer !' 1P X e0 %N 1 Bm FYW i MY % Dt WN IP w Ir x o] r u Ir Wan . w Bw EYa Ir x w em Em x lr lT 1r % es eor EYW le Ir se u L T EO •1 xrne]coR s•u •] •e LOBe • M% EXISTING SITE SURVEY 17 4 N Attachment 6 ~ ~ `~ ~,~,_• ~ ~•~. _. , _ ~ -..-_..- ~ L -s 5 - - 3 _ ~ z ~ 4 2 ~ a.1 2 ~ uo u1 2 ~ za.e L. 1ao -~- ~ ~.~ u.o 8 ~ ~ a~ R e~~ ~~o ]6.3 0~ 4• 7~ O~ z ~ / •. / /i~ / i / /~/ / ///i / % ardnar EoNna,l /~ / -'pr Doc Na t17Z01t / / ,- .~. .J _ ~ / ~ `' -- - z -- '--7 ///'' / '~ /~ / i // i ~o z r zz., z ~ / / ~~~~ / / /~~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ //~/~~ j~ '/ ~o / _. PRIVATE DRIVE ~ "~' //' / ~ ~ ~ . , y ~ -- / / -><-a ~ _ _ ~ a}e ~ ~ - _ - ~ ~ //~ / ' P / '~ /~ ~ / / i~ / ~ / ,; i~ / / ,f•=' / ~ -= , 1 , o i / , ~ , , SITS DdTA Told SRe Ano ~ 11q,Y0! Sa.Ft ~ 275 AaM ietd Lot Ana ~ 40,3b ~ 0.q3 Aonet Told Outbt Ana ~ 7q,M0 ~ 1.E3 Aonet Totd Numbr of Lot9 ~ 14 Told Ne. Unlts ~ 14 Nat Oendty ~ 0.t V/A E~lhq Zonkp b R-1 (STnye Famly) Pnpawd Zonk~q b R-2 (Double OrMMq R~Ndritbl) SITE PLAN ~- z~ oy 18 i 1 N ~• Attachment 7 --- ~ / ~ ~ / ~ ~ / ~ MaY~ay~ EsNnw1 ~ / ""vim oe< w. zvzmz / -- Lf------~------------ /a-' ~.~~ ~ xia xio xio xio S' / ~~ ~ xio xio xio xio xio xio / `~ $ / s 5 xio xio 3 2 ~ ;~ ~ F ~ ~ z a ~ ~ E Z ~ ' ~ z 4 ~ z g, ' ~ ~ z ~ ~ e a 2 ~ ~ g a~ j / .l _`f~~ / ~. xio xio xio ~ ;~~/~ / / .. Y xia xio xio ~s.o xia xio s.o R xio xio .. ?~ `r ~ / ~ OUTLOT IId91'M'E wA! .--.--~--.--.--.- 7 ~1 ~' - - - ~ o ~ i 2 V 'g ~ ez~ 8 xevmva-E za.m _ f .' -I :~;' A (o~w. ma uwb Eswnnl ~~ _waaum w) //./ b / %/ / / / / ~ // - ~ / / `0 / / j/ / j ~_ / / ~~%~/ ~t:. / ~f,:' / _ / .~ / /~ / / IND6Y JJ C01S%BLdT/P%IJYWIRY PLT PJ SITd PLN JJ C/YOpC PLN IJ dROSION ODNT/10L PLW 6J OTIl.177 PLW BJ dZ)S!U'C CONDIl70NS f) LINOS'C~Pd PLN PROPOSED PRELIMINARY PLAT OL/1/1.4 GARDENS ~ z8~/ 4 N 19 Attachment 8 - ~-~ ~ `awe ~ _ -• _ I _ 1 ~ 1 I ~ l ~ I I ~ ~ / ~ ~ - - ~ /~~ -/ - -- 30. ~.. _ SI.3 J //o-/ / / \ ~ r ~~+ s / ~ 3• ~ ~ 3 who ~ .. \ \ `J p z ~ J ~ ~ i //~/ /111 //, .fq ~ - ~ ~ ~ QQ T \ 00. 01 I 001 002 002 ~ ` 2$ / / // // I~ 001. ~` - / / / 1~ ~ \~ ice- ~ \ 3~~- ~ ~/ ~ Y~/ ~ / / `/ \ / // - - Dos _ JI ~i1r~wQo~ ~ / / ` I /~ ~I~ ~ / rtlJ 1 ~' ~ ~ ~1 / ~ ~ / I r~~EnDwer o~[nrLDw swA~ = / qq/('' / _ - - / \ I ~~ /1 I I Y~ VMFNAND 1 DEEP / / ~ ~ , . ~ / / ~ ` X . 010A ~SSINCO G/iDE FIEVATION Nm NiM ENIUMAT OR ////p **~~ 1 ~ ~ d_~y-//(/f~/y'- ~ •y`+I / / -ST O 5'f- F105fY10 510101 Y~ILD +~~ ~ ~ ( ~ ~ I 1 I ~Sy/ 4 _ / / -t-~- F.105IIIIC fII/Q \~`- \ 1 ` ~ 1 I I I \ \ - ~ I G / j ~$'6Q'/;Sf., / / -~~~ PROPO® 310101 S[ME11 ~~ 1~ ~ I \ \ I I I I ~ ~ / I // ^ '~ / ~/ ® ~FlIOPOIFD OIAO[ ~ J IIETAMIf TNLL I / / \ ~ ~ ~ / ~~ ~ 10.. Dew>ES AS-NAT ORAOE I I / ~ ~~~, // / ~ j ~ ~ _~~ ~ 7` // / / ~ ,! / mom l0T ~ AT lat ~ ~~~ 3 sat ~2. 1„r® ~,~ oocm m. Tnc D I ~¢ OQ.T 0ap'~ al in1NDo Mfl~ oD101N 001IA[ ><N1Ot J IOYp® OaM ~ IP01aLAp~1 Onwi~ n0. ralmlr ar oux ~_ OD6 0m1IX . nv®>i soot:-= TYPICAL LOT DETAIL PROPOSED GRADING PLAN 20 ~ ZS-o`~ 4 N Attachment 9 _ _ ~'~ .1 ~ ~ _ ~~ ~ ~ ~~ k ~ ~ ~ ~ \ ~ ~ 4 - ~-- - -~ 1 I I__~ ~ I , \ u ~ - \ ~. - - \~ /~ --~ ~ - ~ -;,. 'i f i ~ ~ - ..._ i ~ _ ~ ~~ i / 1 / ~\ , ~' 2321 `~~~ J Sll hnd Inyt SAwnt Alar ~ Y tad 5laka Y.+ ~ wee r~1 >~ _y Sneer f~np iWx1 Y M ~' M~ iltx Fable wP0>t BaaN~ W iN w nM iV ew x.y~t IYWV MyYnum Dblarwa yYyaam 12' f.1 _ tj ruin ync ~~ ~`~ ~ oa r ~ ~ y. o.a~ Y~Y~Y ROCK CONSTRUCTION SNTRANCB TYPE A SEDIMENT FILTER sttT FENCE TYPICAL t~##fi "' ya sae. a..... ~ ~h~/~ ~~ 1 ~ ~' ~ / /~ ~ /~ rP, / / / ~ //~ / ~ ~/ ~i / ~ ~ // / y / I/~ ~/ ~ ~~ ,~,~ f:= ~ ~~ ~% EROSION CONTROL PLAN 21 ~-~o`{ 4 N Attachment 10 E% YNt / ~ r-991.a: 0 ------------------- 3 v-~~ T-9N 0 1J// 6 5 3 ~ 2 ~ z ~ z i z ~ z f z ~ 4 ~ ~ ~ / y/I z ~ 4 j ,~~ /~,}'' >~/ ~ ~4.`PSY` G-99].0 9I / ~~ OR NA yN e / 9• pp WAIERYAIN ~ I t°i I ~ ~ SMITH SEMER !• ~N` _ T-99{.3 C-99]0 T-893.1 ~~~p.e T~9].S 1.999.9 fE5-900.0 I-nm-c NET TAP pOSMIG tY R WATERNAW STORY SENfA 7~ -`•-r BU90 YN ONR! OOSTNG //~ / SMITHY SEND / 2 I-9920 SING I-992{ 9ROROSm / fi/~~~ ~~ ddd / 21 / I 23 ~. i ~~~f. 1 ~ , PROPOSED UTILITY PLAN ,~- 2SI-o y zz 4 N Attachment 11 a X 1 1 ~ ~ ~ ` \ \ \ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ I - I___ i i .\ -- ~~i -- ___„ ~~ - ~ r- I ~ I \ / I I I ~ ,/ ~ ~ ~ ~ `_-. i \ ~ ~ /~ ~~ ,~ i "' ~~ ~~~ I- ~' ~ 1 / i ~ ~~/ ~ J / / /i~~% ''~ ~ ~ ~ / IL ..- ~~ ~Ir/~%` ~ // ' i i r~~~ / ~ i / i / ~ ,' / / ~ i /, i .s ,/ /~ i ~ i %~ /i j ~/ ~ ~ ' / i ~~ ~ ~ / ' ~~ ~~/ i~ i~/ ~ /~ ~. o ~ ....per ~~ .. .~ ~ ~ merino an w~ wa swia r we a u s ncc u'imo t~um wo wwwrm7moi PRELIMINARY SCREENING PLAN 23 ~ -Zg-~`f 4 N Attachment 12 .~. // ~/ / /~ / / D.elneee Ee..,,.e, / ~ ~. ~-VV Dec. Nn 74IZ011 /~ o a •~ / // ~ / g 5 4 2 ~ / ///O! ~ '/ -. 2 1 sD.o zoo 2 f ~o.o xio 2 f zoo / ~/ / I /°/ ~' / ~ .~° /~~ ~ / ~~ / PRIVATE DRIVE / /~ _ ~a~- - ~° ~ ® ~ / i 7, o ~ p,o ~ e -_ - _- ~ ~ / o ~._. I ~____ // ~ ~ s z ~ / ~,~ ~ Paz _ ~~~ / / ~® 10.0 -------~~ /~'~;~;e a' - ~ 2321 //i~/ ~ _,,. ~® 1 '/ / ~ ~~~ /' ~ ~ / i° SITE DATA Totd Site Area 119,988 Sq.Ft 2.7545 Acree Total lot Arsa = 43,828 = 1.00 Atxaat Totaf Outlot Mea = 78,160 = 1.75 Aerost Total Number of Lots ~ 14 Total No. Units 14 Net Densky 5.1 U/A Exlat~g Zoning b R-1 (Single Family) Proposed Zoning I= R-2 (Double Dwalling Residential) SITE PLAN 24 ~/-2/-a~ i ~ N Attachment 13 _~ / - - - ~ ~ / ~ / ~ ~ ~ /~y / ~ ;. / / / UMage Eeeenent ~ j / / NeG'01'4e' 9 ~ ~:"~V~ Dec Na R433f112 ------~------------ ~:=~/.~a ~ / /s ~~ 5 3 1 2 1 2 8 1 N 1 ao^~ / ~ •~ p f $ 2 1 2 2 1 ~. ~= ~~ / ~ ~ ~ ~~/ / ?~ '~ / / " OUTLOT A (DreMepe me txmy / / / / Eexmnl N•euYeout _ - - - - - - - / / / d~ e. WDUt ~~ xee•or~e•E ~e.ee 0 7 1 ~ / / / / !e NBG'Ot'M'E A0.1] / / z ~ ~ / / v u / 4 J R G / / / - ~; -----~ ~ ---- soa.m .• 2321 _/ // `G / / / / / / / / /., ! ~ _ / :/ / / /. ~ / - /~::-~ ~ ,,,/ / / ~ / / IND6l / r) rovsRSaesr/PRaunxuer Pur PJ SITB PLN SJ GRID/NC P!/N !J SROS70N CONTROL PLN 6J O77L7TY PLIN 6J dIIST7NC CONDITIONS PROPOSED PRELIMINARY PLAT OL/1//A GARDENS ~{- 21-o`I 25 Q~. N Attachment 14 ~ IAA ~ ~~~ ~~. ~~' ~ ~ A \ \ \\\~\ ~~\ ~__~; I I I\ I ~ ~ ~-~ I I _ ~ ~ \ \ ~~ -~-,- \~~ _ __ ~ \ ~ 1 , ' I i i i ~ ~ ~, \ ~ \ \~- - - ' 2321 ~~ I i /// ~ _ ~ J y i i e j~ ®, ~~ ,. - d . '~~ ~~::~>~ . ~.: f::= ® i ~ / , ~ I ~ ~ V ~~ , ~ ~ / q~ ~, ~""" ~ ~ ~ \' // ~ ~~~~ ' ~ ~ i~ /~ i ~ i ~ ~~ ~i o ~ s ~ s ~ ~ ~ ~..~.,~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~ niono~ F wu=-~ TYPICAL LOT DETAIL PROPOSED GRADING PLAN z~-off 26 4 N Attachment 15 Engineering Plan Review PROJECT: Olivia Gardens PROJECT NO: 04-13 REVIEWED BY: Erin Laberee, Maplewood Engineering Department DATE: July 1, 2004 Homesites, L.L.C. is proposing to redevelop the properties at 2329 and 2335 Stillwater Road East. They are proposing to build 7 double unit townhomes (14 total units) along a private driveway. The develo~er shall address the following issues regarding the plans submitted to the city on June 28 , 2004. Drainage 1. The proposed pond is shown as a NURP pond. If the pond is to function as a NURP pond, the project engineer must design it to meet NURP standards and to include a 10-foot bench. Removal rates must meet NURP requirements. The engineer shall provide removal rate calculations along with calculations showing the pond meets NiJRP design requirements. 2. Provide revised drainage calculations to city staff: that reflect the latest pond design. Note the HWL on the project plans. 3. Note the emergency overflow elevation for the pond on the project plans. The proposed contours suggest that water will overtop the pond at a 990 elevation and flow to the southern property. The engineer shall ensure that water from the pond will first flow into the overflow manhole and then spill over the emergency overflow Swale to the street. Streets 1. Submit the plans to Mn/Dot for the curb cut and access approval along with approval to open cut the street for the proposed sanitary sewer and water main. Utilities 1. Submit plans to Saint Paul Regional Water Services for their review and approval. 2. Properly abandon all existing utilities on the property including the water and sewer services. Landscaping 1. The developer shall provide landscaping around the pond area. This shall include a native-grass seed mixture for upland and lowland areas in and around the pond and city staff shall approve this plan by city staff before construction starts. 27 2. The existing conditions drawing shows that the contractor will save several trees. The grading plan shows grading near and around many of these trees. Show these trees as "to be removed" or revise the grading plan to show contours that will actually save the trees. 28 Attachment 16 Ken Roberts From: Clifton Aichinger [cliff~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 2346 Helen St. Maplewood, MN 55109 Phone: 651-704-2089 fax: 651-704-2092 cell: 651-238-4448 ~i~' ~ ~ ~~ RECEI VED 29 Page 1 of 1 Attachment ~~ Ken Roberts From: Jim Mosner [j.mosnercLDcomcast.net] Sent: Friday, April 16, 2004 9:19 PM To: Ken Roberts 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 light; 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 Hall, 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 tots 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 all 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 8 Kathy Mosner 798 N. McKnight Rd. Maplewood, MN 55119 651-735-0973 j. mosnerC~comcast. net 4/19/2004 30 Thursday, .tuna 03, 20041;18 PM Kelly Conlin 851-426-0448 p.02 lt~f E 1tiE 0 TO: Maplewood- City Council FROM: Home Sites LLC SUBJECT: Olivia's Garden. 2329 and 2335 Stillwater Road East DATE: Junc 3, Attachment 18 We wotild like to tatce this opportunityr to go over a few details in question regarding E3livia's Garden. Homesites held a neighborlYOOd meeting. Land-Title did a 500 foot radius periumeter for mailing accuracy. We had a good turnout~ These are the.. issues we covered and how we presented them: - Plat -with seven- buildings, 14 units were shown - We presented. this idea as. our alternative to tka use- of tl~ properties past use #'or commercial business. This was clearly stated as an alternative for this property. - Homesites will. clean.. up flay property, It waa clear- to-all that this property is in much need of clean up. - The crew clevetopment would have one driveway. Currently there are two driveways. One driveway seems less-dangerous in regards to the busy road. - - 1Vcighfiors asked for screening with randscape plan clearly marked. Homesites did ample screening and met with 1Vlichael. C~t~een (neighbor) to go over these details. He approved. - Drau;lage concerns were addressed- - Otv new plan has less road/driveway than what exists now. Those were the concerns discussed with neighbors at this meeting. All issues were addressed and the meeting ended positively. ~,.. 'DIVED 31 JUN 0 3 2004 i nursday, tuna vs, 1U~4 1.18 PM Kelly Conlin 651-428-0448~p3 Ken Roberts made it clear to the planning corrunission that the size of the property is 2.7 acres. Hornesites is asking for 5.2 units per acre which is meditum density. Homesites b~lcvcs that this development is beneficial to the neighborhood, the community and the city.. It_acts as a greattraASit~ from apartments to Single family homes. We understand thatthere has been a tot ofzoning changes, uses, and problems with the previous owners creating ~~ ~~gering concerns and frustration. We understand their fears and want this to be a solution to the problem, not more gtie}: Developers make oach dcvelopment cost effective to Ius or titer. business, At the same time they set oat to make rt benef cial to all affected by the development, such-as the x~eigtlbo~, sitj- ~}_ y It is ow intern to enhance the property and the surrownding properties and increase the values. Kerr Roberts presented accurate facts to the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission approved the plat._ iesites believes this can-only be a win-win situation for sI! concerned, Pleasecall me with any concerns or comments. I'd be glad to address any QuestioAa-you might have. Kelly Conlin, Member Homesites LLC 612-875-3226 ~'"~:EIVED JUN 0 3 2004 32 FROM FRX N0. Mar. 11 2001 04:47RM P1 ~~ Attachment 19 U ~G_ -. ~~~ '~ { _ __ __.. .-_ - - ---. -- -.. --. -- S„_ .-~. ~p ~ ~ ou 1 -- .~. _ . ~ . ~~ .~ ~ ~ i+ erg t~~a . sr 'Ti nr.! t- 11 r~ N .?a t~J~ ._~,.- - - ~--- 1~~n r 7 ~~ ~ QoL _ .-_ ..fir' ~ro_~_-~..czr~.,.~?-~a~-~r . -fie r~7G j~ _ ~-~ _~~~~~ ~'4~rtr~ ~i4c1~ 70 4~ . ~''. Co NS ~t zs.~Grld /~ ~ECEivF~ _ ._. -- -- .._._-;;~;-~,_}...200.4.. 33 Attachment 20 LAND USE PLAN CHANGE RESOLUTION 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. 3. On July 12, 2004, the city council again considered this request. 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 inGudes: 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. 34 Attachment 2T 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. 3. On July 12, 2004, the city council again considered this request. 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. 35 Attachment22 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. 3. On July 12, 2004, 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 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. 36 7. The use would not create excessive additional costs for public facilities or services. 8. The use would maximize the preservation of and incorporate the site's natural and scenic features into the development design. 9. The use would cause minimal adverse environmental effects. Approval is subject to the following conditions: 1. All construction shall follow the plans approved by the city. The city council may approve major changes to the plans. The Director of Community Development may approve minor changes to the plans. Such changes shall include: a. Revising the grading and site plans to show: (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 Apri126, 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. 37 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- acresite 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. Gonlin 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. Agenda #J2 MEMORANDUM TO: City Manager FROM: Ken Roberts, Planner SUBJECT: City Code Amendments -Public Hearings DATE: June 30, 2004 INTRODUCTION Request Staff is proposing that the city council amend various sections of the city code about public hearings. There are several sections of the code that now say the city council will hold a public hearing when the city is considering a land use, planning or rezoning proposal. To be consistent with the recent direction of the city council, the city needs to change the code to say that the planning commission will hold such hearings. Reasons for this Request There are several parts of the current city code that are not consistent with the recent directive of the city council. The council must change the code to make it consistent with the new policy. BACKGROUND Council's Directive On May 3, 2004, the city council held a joint work session with the planning commission about public hearings. Based on the discussion during this meeting, the council decided that the planning commission should start holding the public hearings for land use or planning proposals. On June 28, 2004, the city council gave the attached ordinance first reading, including making a change to Section 44-1283 for the public hearings for terminating a mining permit. DISCUSSION As I have noted above, there are several sections of the code that the city council needs to change to meet their directive about public hearings. I have listed each of them in the proposed ordinance amendment, including the council-requested change to Section 44-1283. COMMISSION ACTION On June 7, 2004, the planning commission recommended approval of the proposed code changes about public hearings. RECOMMENDATION Adopt the proposed ordinance amendment about public hearings starting on page two. P:com_dvmt\ord\public hearings code amend. - 2004 Attachment: Public Hearings Code Amendment ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING VARIOUS SECTIONS OF THE MAPLEWOOD CITY CODE ABOUT PUBLIC HEARINGS The Maplewood City Council approves the following changes to the Maplewood Code of Ordinances: Section 1. This amendment changes Section 12-310 (f)(1). Variances. (additions are underlined and deletions are crossed out): (f) Variances. Procedures for granting variances from this section are as follows: (1) The city council may approve variances to the requirements in this section. Before the city council acts on a variance, the planning commission shall hold a public hearing and shall make a recommendation to the city council. . The city staff shall notify the property owners within 500 ~@ feet of the buffer at least ten days before the hearing. The city may require the applicant to mitigate any buffer alteration. Section 2. This amendment changes Section 14-57. License application approval procedure. (additions are underlined and deletions are crossed out): Sec. 14-57. License application approval procedure. An application for a home occupation shall be filed with the director of community development. Upon receipt of a complete application, the director of community development or his or her designee, shall prepare a report and recommendation to send to the planning commission. The planning commission shall hold a public hearing for each home occupation license request. The city shall mail a notice to all property owners within 500 feet of the proposed home occupation at least 10 days before the hearing. The city also shall publish the public hearing notice in the official newspaper at least ten days before the hearing, The planning commission will consider the proposal and then shall make a recommendation. The planning commission's recommendation shall be forwarded to the city council. The city council will make the final decision about all home occupation license requests. (Code 1982, §17-22) Section 3. This amendment changes Section 34-5(c). (additions are underlined and deletions are crossed out): Sec. 34-5. Preliminary plat procedure. (c) The director of community development shall deliver to the finance director for deposit any moneys received as fees required in this chapter with each preliminary plan. The finance director shall credit the money to the general fund of the city. All moneys so received shall be used to defray the expenses of processing the application. The director of community 2 development shall prepare a report and recommendation. This report shall then be forwarded to the planning commission. The planning commission shall hold a public hearing about the proposal and they shall forward a recommendation to the city council. . The hearing shall be held following publication of notice of the time and place thereof in the official newspaper at least ten days before the day of the hearing. The applicant, property owner, and all other property owners within 500 ~@ feet of the property to be subdivided shall be notified by mail at least ten days before the day of the hearing. When a division or subdivision to which this chapter does not apply is presented to the city, the city clerk shall with in ten days certify that this chapter does not apply to the particular division. If the city fails to preliminarily approve or disapprove an application within the review period, the application shall be deemed preliminary approved, and upon demand the city shall execute a certificate to that effect. Section 4. This amendment changes Section 44-10. Zoning map. (additions are underlined and deletions are crossed out): Sec. 44-10. Zoning map. (a) Generally. The boundaries of the districts designated in section 44-9 will be shown on a map, and the map is hereby made part of this chapter, which map shall be known as the zoning map of the City of Maplewood. The map shall include any zoning changes recommended by the planning commission o~and adopted by the city council. Q ' .The planning commission shall hold a public hearina to consider all zonina map chanaes and shall make a recommendation about such changes to the city council. The city shall notify all property owners within 500 feet of the proposed zoning map change about the public hearing and shall publish a public hearing notice in the official newspaper at least ten days before the public hearing, °~ ~"'~~~+~~~ ~"~" may. All interested persons shall be heard at the hearing or any adjournment thereof. After the hearing, the planning commission shall forward a recommendation to the city council. The city council shall adopt the zoning map and any changes to it; and all notations, references and data shown thereon are hereby incorporated by reference into this chapter and shall be as much a part of this chapter as if all were fully described. The map shall be kept up to date as provided in subsection (c) of this section. Section 5. This amendment changes Section 44-1093(c). (additions are underlined and deletions are crossed out): (c) The development shall conform to the plan as filed with the city. Any substantive changes in the plan shall require a recommendation by the planning commission after they hold a public hearing and requires the approval by of the city council. Section 6. This amendment changes Section 44-1096(b). (additions are underlined and deletions are crossed out): Sec. 44-1096. Procedure. (b) The planning commission ~ shall hold at least one public hearing on each application for a conditional use permit. d~te~ The director of community development shall have a notice of the hearing published in the official newspaper at least ten days before the hearing. The director shall also cause a notice to be mailed to each of the owners of property within 500 ~@ feet of the boundary lines of the property upon which such use has been requested, which notices are to be mailed to the last known address of such owners at least ten days before the date of the hearing. Such notice shall include the date, time and place of the hearing and shall describe the conditional use request. Failure of property owners to receive notice shall not invalidate any of the proceedings in this section. Section 7. This amendment changes Section 44-1240(b). (additions are underlined and deletions are crossed out): Sec. 44-1240(b). (b) The city shall send a copy of approved amendments, subdivisions, variances or conditional uses under this article to the commissioner. The city shall mail all such approvals within ten days of final action. When the city approves a variance after the commissioner has recommended denial, the notification of the approved variance shall include the cify minutes of the public hearing and of the city council's action. Section 8. This amendment changes Section 44-1283(a). (additions are underlined and deletions are crossed out): Sec. 44-1283. Permit termination. (a) The material extraction permit may be terminated by the city for violation of this article and of any conditions of the permit. No permit may be terminated until the city council has held a public hearing and the city council has determined whether the permit shall be terminated, at which time the operator shall be afforded an opportunity to contest the termination. The city council may establish certain conditions which, if not complied with k~ the operator, will result in immediate suspension of operations until the city council holds a public hearing to consider terminating a~ +„ ,,,,.,..;,~„r +„r..,;.,,,+;,,., .,f the permit. sa~-be Section 9. This ordinance shall take effect after publishing in the official newspaper. The Maplewood City Council approved this ordinance on , 2004. Attest: City Clerk Mayor 4 AGENDA NO. J-3 AGENDA REPORT TO: City Manager FROM: Finance Director RE: Electric Franchise Fee DATE: July 2, 2004 The City Council tabled action on implementation of an electric franchise fee at its meeting on June 14. Attached is additional information that has been provided by Excel Energy. 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 an electric franchise fee. 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 Xce~Energy Date: G~21%2U11.~ ~l'o: man l gust Company: `1laplew~~~~od ~ C~in.uxe Director From: ~,~_>]ette J~rch Company: Community Kelations i~ianager FACSIMILE 'telephone No.: Nam No.: G51/2~)-'_'909 telephone I~o.~ G51/~5R-1?28 Fax Nc~>.: bl2/~; 3-~ti39 Reference: Minnesota%I~ranchise Fee C~>LLections Pages: (including ~~ this page) llan - Attached please tend a listi~og vt electric and ~;as tri~nchise Cce collection; currentl~r implemented i^ the ota~e of hf~ini~esota Eor cities in ~icel }.nerg~~'; service tcrritoil-. T ast year v~ e i~~~plemcn~c-d a flag nuinthl~° tec~ police and 7 ~~~11 send ~~ou ~ is L'.S. maid some additional dc-icumentation regs~ding that police. I don't believe the color laages a-ill tar ~ en~ ~~-e~l. 1 had direct a>rnmunities within nw territory- ~~f resp~~~rtsihilin- in~plenlent Franchises ~L-ithin thr past ~•ear. 'Then arc Cottage Grog°e, Little l:anada and C)ak~~ale. Please let r~ne ~novv if ~•ou would line the to rerun auv calculation: for von. ~ can gciierall~ obta~. inforrnation from our rate analysis deparUr~ent in one ro two weeks. "~,olctt~• /~ ,. %~/,l ,~, ., ~, Franchise Fees Cilia's ~ Ir.z"~~~tr~c•c,l ~ti~irli I~,tl,inc'ir~~~ in~~~rnc an~f r~t~c~r«li~inc~~ ~~f~tt~n ~~,c.l: t<~r ;iiR•rr~ai~i~,c ,<,uf~~e~~ r~t~ r~~ r~nr~i~, rind ~<~mt° have in~~c~se~ti franchisr~ tfte°ti c>n t~net;~~~ ~r~~~~icirrs .~~ rc~<ir_~irc°ci I~~, tlir ti1inncsr~r{ i'uhhr t~tili~ies C~ir~in~issii~t~, frlnchi,~~ f~~c~ le~~i~~rl r,r~ ~~c'~ T:nt~r~;~ rtrc~ ~,;r.~;~~1 on ~Jircrll~ lt~ ~nu~ rus~unu~r~ ~~ithin ~,';,ur ~~if~~ T}iii f~~r is rtc~u~i;:~°~1 nn ~;ur i~rt~tu[t~~~r I~tifl~ rte a citb Icr•. A~ in :uiv c~asc ~~lterc~ !i ci~~ i~~ c~~,ri:5ide~rin~~r nc•~~~ t:_i~~°s. we rrr~~~~ c~rr~t~i~rl ~_unsic{c~r.~[i~:~n o1 tla~~ h~7.~srhlr' n;at~i~~~ in~f.~,trt; ~,f~ a fran~l~~sc~ fc~r•. ~~1~ich +~ f~Lic~cl ~.,n a i~rodur-t rFi;~[ i~ c~s~°ruial f~<~r r~~~iclcat~' aril I~rt~inc~s~~~~ti~ daily life. ~ Excessive fees on energy can lead to customers Such fees can make your city less attractive to seeking alternative Energy supplies if available. businesses looking for a new or expanded site. 1`.ither rrrrtc'r~rn~ r~'tiult5 in Cla~t ~'ity ]c,~sir~,~ tht~ I~•e an~`~~r tli~~ r,°5idt~ru ~+r hu~ir~~~,,. and ~ir~~ u~t~ifity I~rc»~idc-r l~sin~ tli{_,~c~ cr~~lnn~er~. 1 li:rr~~.:lii~~~ fec~ <~~~[~ c>r~ly I~r~ iml~lrrnc~ia,tr_~l if it i; all<>~~~rf i~~ tl~r~ rir., ~ c.~i-;tint<> Iranr_~lii~r ~,~r~<~~_•ru~~nt ~~irlr \~~cl I:rzer~~~. ](~ pcnir ~x~nui~nni~t~ ci~~tr~rr»irir_-s tla:~r;r franl~is~~ fcc i5 rr~pE~rr~lsriatc, tlaer~ strr~ ~e~~~'rat ;uic]iu,~ f,rincil~l~r5 th:ri _~~~ ~~I Fncr,<~~' f~allur~~~ a, ~~e~ disrer,,s fer <~rt]inrrnc~~ c~~)tie)nti. ~ Franchise fees are typically set fort~a in a fee ordinance authorized by but separate from the franchise agreement. • An equivalent fee should be placed on all energy supp{iers. ~ Xoel Energy should not be subject to permit fees while franchise fees are i~ effect -this saves both the city acid Xcel Energy an adrfitianall and unnecessary administrative burden. • Xcel Energy will prepare fee schedule options for° the amount of revenue sought by the city. • A flat monthly fee wiN he proposed to provide a predictable revenue stream enaftected by weather, energy price ar future market rhanges_ • Fees are paid to the city on a quarterly basis. Timeline Ir~rf:>Icrtr~ntin~.;~ frar~rlrr~e Ire, is .r rorwpl~°x 1~rcxc~s tl~~al rcrfrrire~ _iclc~i~i;rtr~ tin~i~ t~«r svs[err, I,rcrr;ra+irnrin,~; sand te~stii~~ Ttir t~~i~~tl ~e<_luera<~~ <>t~ste}?s i~s ~}~c»~n he~lc~t~: • City provides Xcel bnergy with proposed ordinance at least 60 days prior to adoption • Fee collection begins at least 60 days after Xcef Ec}ergy receives the adopted ordinarrre. Fee payment is scheduled quarterly. Sample Timeline" v ~ Enw r, c ~er.rs `~~i, aJoo'< ~r~~n3~rce ~;c~~i tnr rq~ n,,~le icy e rr:e Fritiyy ~i i u ~ ,;, r., P ~r~ns~ d ~ nh~anc= ~ rn r ~i,,,7i~ r Li'I. a. tY~f r r ri ct ' ~ m;;rtf~ i ; ~~r~~r the riu iit~i S rues r ~'Ir>C rug 21 Err F, ~G tP,e ~ iuarrc. ~:;'~ ~ ~'~~'. f5rei i~q ti~.;2r! ,~ ins i n _.-s~~r ~_~~s~~n ~_u,a n ~Be ana fr a ~ or _i ~ N 1_:a.;~-~: h:;; s:~~ Xcel Energy Sheet ~ of 6 State of Minnesota Issued: 02/06/04 CITY SURCHARGES t3M'ELECTRIC SERVICE A stir-.harge as designated will he included in the monthly bills computed under the indicated rate schedules effective in the following Minnesota commurr+ties: ~' d 2 m a 5 ~ m a Z r m ~ ti v w o c u u. r-n C V3 y ~ ti C ~% L 4 G C J C ... ~ Qr ~~ m ~ U rn ~ N - (C G • _ () ~ J ~ ~ ~ ~ al `' ~ O ~ .~ U L a, ~ u U O s Y ~. _u V ~ 4 [~ I N ui a' y 1 y U ~ yr l ~ 4" ~ cii ~ c -' ? m = a ~ i c C c m a ~ ~ i ~ ~ _ ~ Z J 7 ~° ~ d ti ¢ rn G c C~ v U ti `~ ¢ a ^ ~ F- v ~ a ] ,,, m ~ ~ _ 1~ ` a F E p ~ p: ti ~ L ( ~ , S y ~ a D~ _~ ~ ~ _ ~ ~ ~ w ~~ v r!i Q W? J 2 U? u7 ^ G '1J Q W _ V i d (/J _ U; L LL W~ Baker ~~ 53.25 X X X X X Brooklyn Center `' FS X X X X X X - X X - - X X X - B«rnsville ° FS X X X - X X X '~ X X __ _ Goon Rapids 4.0% X X X X X X X ,~. _ Cottage Grove ` FS X X X X X X X X - _ ~ ~ X ___ __-- _ Deephaven S2.50 X X X X X X X X X X X Dilworth d FS X - - - X X X --- ~ X X - Grant " FS X X X X X X ~ X X ~ X X X _ Hastings ` 4.0°,% X X X X X X X X X X X Hopkins ~ FS X X X X X X X - - - - ~ittle Canada ~' _ FS _ X _ X X X X X X X _ X X X _ Mankatn' N!A - - - - - - - -~ - - _ Minneapolis'' FS X X X X X X X X X X X X X Mound ` 52.00 X X X X X X X X X X X _ Mounds View' 4.0°!° X X X X X X X X X X X Ncw Brighton "' FS X X X X X X X _ - _ New Hope ~ FS X X X X X X -- X X -- ~ X X X --~ Oakdale ° FS X X X X X X X X - X X X Qwatonna " FS X X X X X X X X _ X X X Richfield `' FS X X X X X X X - _ - - - _ . - -_ Robbinsdale ~ 4.D°~ X X X X X X X X X X X Bartell' ' 82.00 X X X X X X X X X X X Sauk Rapids' ` 3.0°~~ X X X X X X X X X X X St. Cloud "~ 3.0°4~ X X X X X X X - X St Joseph ° FS -- X - X _ _ _ X _ _ X X X _ X X X X ~~ St Loins Park `" F5 X X X X X X X X X X X X Si. tiM1ichaet x FS X X __ _ X - X X X X X - - - X --- X X St. Pau{' ° FS X E E - X X~ X X X X X X X X South St. Paul 3.0`i6 X X - _ X _ X -. X X X - _ - _ - - Stillwater Z FS X X X X X X X ~ X ~ X X X - West St. Paul ~~ 5.26°.io X X X X _X X X ~- -r - - White Bear Lake 1.5°b, X X X X X X X X X X X Winona ~r 4.0°io _ _ X __ X X X~ X X X X X X X ._eu rd ,ter CODES: N!A Not apol ieab'~e Indn~at PS surchar ge is riot eor h ey. Ivid~ca[e c ;u~ch a~ge is app'ned- FS Indicat es fee schedule ~ Ind cater ,urcharge is app'~~ed to ener gy use. ~ Blank Space Indicates r ate s no t aval'a5le_ Xcel Energy Stafe of Minnesota Sheet 2 of 6 Isswed: 02/Ofi/04 CITY SURCHARGES ON ELECTRIC SERVICE (Continued` NOTES: d Brooklyn Center. effective w+ih the billing month of February 2004 following fee schedule: • Residential • Sma11 CommercialN~ndustriai, non-demand metered • Small Commercialibndustnal, demand metered • Large Commercial/Industrial • Public Street Lighting • Mernicipal Pumping, non-demand metered • Municipal Pumping, demand metered the monthly surcharge will be as stated on the 51.48 53.00 52Q00 596.00 512.00 512.00 512.00 Burnsville: Effective with the billing months of January 2000 through no' ~ ecer~~ber 2004, the monl~Y surcharge will be as stated on the following tee schedule: • Residential $0.35 • Small Commercial/Industrial and Municipal, non-demand meted $0.45 • Small Commercial/Industrial and Municipal, demand metered 52.60 • Large CommerciaUlndustrial 515.35 Cottage Grove: Effective with the b+rling month of February 2004 foflowiny fee schedule: • Residential • Small Comcnercialilndustrial, non-demand metered • Small Commercial/Industrial, derxiand metered • Large Commercial/industrial • Public Street Lighting • Murvcipal Pumping, non-demand metered • Municipal Pumping, deFnand metered the monthly surcharge wr!1 be as stated on the 51.00 51.00 55.00 550.00 52.00 5.50 $5.00 Dilworth: Effective with (he billing rnonih of January 1999, the monthly surcharge will be as stated on the following tee schedule: • Residential 51.75 • 5ma~ CommerciaUlndi+strial and Municipal, non-demand metered 54.00 • Small Commercial/Industrial acid Municipal. demand metered $14.00 • Large Corsrmercial/Industrial 591.00 Grant Effeci~ive with the billing month of February 2004. the monthly surcharge will be as stated on the following Schedule. Surcharge has a sunset provision of December :31, 2009. • ResidEntial 52.35 • Small Commerciallndustrial, non-demand metered 5200 • Small CommerciaUlndustrial, demand metered 514.00 • Large Commercial/Industrial $75.00 • Public Street Lighting $2.00 • h-1unlcipal Pumping, non-demand metered $2.00 • Municipal Pumping, demand metered 52.00 `Hastings: The manlhly surcharge will be as stated for the following billing months. The surcharge shall not exceed 520,000 during any calendar year for any customer account. • January 1997 through December 2005 4.0°~b • January 2006 through December 2006 3.0°,> e !-{opkins: Effective with the billing month of February 2004. the monthly surcharge wtM be as stat~'Cf~ft`r foUowi~' fee schedule. Surcharge has a sunset provision of December 31, 2005. • Residential 51.00 • Small CommerciaUlndustrial, non-demand metered S2.00 • Small CommerciaUlndustrial, demand metered $9.00 • Large Commercial.!Industrial 563.00 Xcel Energy Sheet 3 of 6 State of Minnesota Issued: OZr06l04 CITY SURCHARGES ON ELECTRIC SERVFCE (Continued c Little Canada: Effective with the billing month of October 2003, the monthly surcharge will be as slafed on the following fee schedule, Surcharge has a sunset provision of Decomber 31, 2008. • Residential $1.75 • Small Commercial/Industrial, non-demand metered 54:00 • Small CommercialFlrxiustrial, demand metered 524.00 • Large Commercial/Industrial 3.75°~o per month with ar+ annual cap of $2,400 • Public Street Lighting S15.00 • Municipal Pumping, non-demand metered 51.00 • Mtmicipal Pumping, demand metered $7.00 A 0.5°~~ City sales tax add-on to the State sales tax is applicable m general to customers subject to the State sales tax in: • Mankato effective April 1, -1992 • f~4inneapolis effective February 1. 1987 • Sartell, Sauk Rapids and St. Cloud effective January 1.2003 • St. Paul effective September 1, 1993 'Minneapolis: Beginning in the billing month of January of the respective years shown below, the following changes to the fee schedule will apply for the applicable customer classlf cations: • Residential 5.0%, 1994-2012 4.5%. 2013 and thereafter ~ l~arye (100 kW and greater) Commercial and Industrial at primary or higher voltage 5.0°~,, 1994-1997 4.5°~, 1998-2000 3.3%. 2001-2004 3.0%, 2005 and thereafter All other dassificatjons 5.75°~0, i994-2004 5.0°'°, 2005 and ihereatte~ k Mound: Effective with the billing month of November 2003, surcharge has a sunset provision of December 31, 200£x. lMounds View: Surc~targe has a sunset provision of December 31~ 2044. ~~ New Brighton: Effective with the billing months of January 2003, the monthly surcharge will be as stated on the following fee schedule: • Residential $0.0023 per kWh • Small Commercial/Industnal and Municipal, non-demand metered 50.0023 per kWh • Small Commercialllndustrial and Municipal, demand metered 50.0016 per kWh • Large Commercialllndustrial $0.0009 per kWh • Public Street Lighting $0.0023 per kWh ~~ New I-lope: Effective with the billing month of January, 2004, the monthly surcharge will be as stated on the folio fee schedule: • Residential 51.50 Small Commercial!Industriai, non-demand metered S4.50 • Small Commercialllndustriaa, demand Fnetered $9.00 • Large Commercial/industrial 536.00 • Public Street Lighting 54.50 • Municipal Pumping, non-demand metered $4.50 • hM1unicipal Pumping, demand metered 54.50 ° Oakdale: Effective with the billing month of January 2004, the monthly surcharge will be as stated on the following fee schedule: • Residential X0.50 Small Commercial/Industrial, non-demand metered $1.00 • Small CommeraaJ/Industrial, demand metered $6.00 • Large Commerciallhid~strial 550.00 • Public Street Lighting S4.Op ~ Municipal Pumping. non-demand metered 51 .00 Municipal Pumping, demand metered $S.OD Xcel Energy Sheet d of 6 State of Minnesota Issued: 02/06/04 ~~rr ®rr r~ ®r~~ ~~ e CITY SURCHARGES ON ELECTRIC SERVICE (Corrtinued~ F Owatonna: Effective with the billing month of January 2003, the surcharge will be as stated on the following fg~ schedule (of energy delivered during the calendar year): • Peak demand less than 100 kW 50.0016 per kWh • Peak demand greater than 100 kW 50.0014 per kWh " RichfiekJ: Effective with the bill+ng month of February 2004, the monthly surcharge will be as stated on the following fee schedule: • Residential 51.45 • Small Commerciallindustrial, non-demand metered 54.,50 • Small Commercialilndustrial, dema+xi rfletered 510.00 • Large Commercialilndustrial 565.00 ` Robbir~sdale: Effective wilfa the billing month of June 2003, surcharge has a sunset provision of July ~t 2005. Sartell: Effective with t#~e biM+rtg r+ionth of June 2003 and January of the respective years therea tk~~monthly surcharge will be as follows: • 2003 and 2004 52.00 ~. 2015 and 2016 53.50 • 2005 and 2006 5225 ~• 2017 and 2018 $3.75 • 2007 and 2008 52.50 ~• 2019 and 2020 $4.00 • 2009 and 2010 52.75 ~• 2021 and 2022 $4.25 2011 and 2012 S3.00 ~• 2023 54.50 • 2013 and 2014 53.25 `Sauk Rapids: Effective with the billing month of August 2003, a surcharge of 3`io is applicable to the first 550.000 of Company billed charges per customer annually; 1.5°'o is applicable thereafter. `' St Cloud, During the winter months November -April, the surcharge for residential heating customers will be 1.5°%. ` St. Joseph: Effect+,ve with the billing month of February 2004, the monthly surcharge will be as stated on the following fee schedule: • Residential 51.00 • SmaN CommercialJindustria{, non-cfamand metered 51.75 • Small Commerr_.ial/industrial, demand metered 510.00 ~ Large Commercial/Industrial 2°'o is applicable to the first S100,000 ~.5°~ is applicable thereafter PubMc Street Lighting 58.00 • Municipal Pumping, non-demand rrieered 51.00 Municipal Pumping, demand metered S1C1.00 " St. Lorns Park: E#ective with the billing month of January 2004, the monthly surcharge will be as stated on tl~e following fee schedule: • Residential 51.25 • Small Commercialilndustrial and Municipal, non-demand metered 54.00 • Smap Commercial/Industrial and Murrcipal, demand metered $10.00 • Large Commercialilndustrial and Muncipal 565.00 St. Michael Effective with the billing month of February 2004, the monthly surcharge will be as stated c~ the following fee schedule: • Residential 5250 • Small Commercialilndustrial, non-c(en~an~ metered 5250 • Small Commercial/Industrial, demand metered S2.50 • Large Commercial/Industrial 510.0t~ • PubYc Street Lighting 510.00 • Municipal Pumping, non-demand metered 52.50 • Municipal Pumping, demand metered 510.00 Xcet Energy Sheet 5 of 6 State of Minnesota Issued: 02/06/Od CITY SURCHARGES ON ELECTRIC SERVICE (Contirtued~° y St. Pau{` The monthly surcharge will be as stated on the applicable Fee Schedule attached. The residential service surcharge wiM be as stated except during the winter months.. November -April, when the+;e will he no surcharge. The surcharge shah not exceed 562U,UU0 during any calendar year from any Large Commercial and Industrial customer qualifying for service on the Competitive Market Rider The Fee Schedule effective each year will be as follows: • City of St. Paul - 1: Effective November 1996 through December 1999. • City of St. Paul - 2 Effective January 2000 through December 2001. • City of St. Patel - 3: Effective Jan~iary 2002 through December 2003_ • City of St. Paul - 4: Effective January 2004 and thereafter. Stillwater: Effective with the billing month of December 2003, the monthly surcharge will be as stated on the following fee schedule. • Residential 52.00 • Srnall Comrnercialltndustrial, non-demand metered $2.50 • Srna11 Commercial!I~ndustrial, demand metered 518.00 • Large Commercialilndustr+al 5125.D0 • Public Street Luting S4.00 • Municipal Pumping, non-demand metered S2.00 • Municipal Pumping, demand metered 518.00 `"' West 5t. Paul: Represents a gross earnings tax derived from the sale of electricity within the city pursuant to Ordinance No. 702 approved on December 29, 1966. ~b Winona: Surcharge of 4°~ is applicable to the first 5100,000 of Company hilted charges (excluding city and state taxes) per customer annually; 1.5% is applicable thereafter. Xcel Energy Sheet 6 of 6 State of Minnesota issued: Q?J06l04 ~ ~~ CITY SURCHARGES ON ELECTRIC SERVICE (Continuedf ELECTRIC FEE SCtfE0l0LES FOR CITY OF ST. PAUL: Cit y of St_Pau l - 1 Cif of St. Pau l - 2 Meter Demand Energy Meter Demand Energy Customer Class Charge Charge Char e Charge Ch, arge Charge Per Acct Per KW Per KWH Per Acct Per KW Per KWH Residential (May -October) $1.50 ~ 50.0060 $1.70 ~ 50.0068 Small Commercial & Industrial Non-Demand S200 $0.4040 52.05 -~ $0.0040 Firm Secondary 52.00 $0.90 $0.0018 52.05 $0.97 50.0018 Firm Primary 52.00 50.90 $0.0018 52.05 $0.95 S0.0018 Interruptible Secondary° ~ $2.00 50.90 50.0018 $205 $0.97 50.001 B Interruptible Primary $2.00 50.90 50.0018 5205 $0.95 $0.0018 urge Commercial & Inds+strial Specia} $4.00 ~ $0.0028 54.14 ~ $0.0028 Firm Secondary $4.00 S0.90 50.0013 $4.10 $0.97 $0.0013 Firm Primary 54.00 50.90 S0.0013 $4.10 $0.95 50.0013 Fim~ Trans, Transf. $4.00 50.90 $0.0013 $4.10 S0.95 50.0013 Interruptible Secondary $4.00 50.65 $0.0013 54.10 50.70 S0.0013 Interruptible Primary $4.00 50.55 $0.0013 54.10 50.60 $0.0013 Interruptible TT 54.00 S0.50 50.0013 S4.ti0 50.50 50.0013 Standby Service -- $0.25 -- - 50.26 -- Public Street & Highway Lighting 53.00 -- S0.0040 $4.00 -- 50.0040 Small Municipal Purnpirlg Non-Demand 52.00 -- 50.0040 52.05 ~ $O.D040 Demand Secondary $2.00 50.90 50.0018 52.05 S0.97 $0.0018 Demand Primary $2.00 50.90 50.4018 52.05 50.9._5 $0.0018 Large Municipal Ptrrnping Demand Primary 52.00 50.90 $0.0018 5205 50 95 50.0018 F're and Civrl Defense Siren Service 52.00 50.90 $0.0018 52.05 S0.95 SQ0018 C~su,mer Class Residential (May - October] Small Commercial & Industrial ~ Non-Demand Form Secondary Fkm Primary interruptible Secondary Interruptible Primary Large Commercial & fndustrial Special Firm Secondary Firm Primary Firm Trans. Transf. Interruptible Secondary' Interruptible Primary Interruptible TT Standby Service Public Street & I-Fighway Lighting Small Mr_inicipa! Pumping Non-Demand Demand Secondary Demand Primary Large Municipal Pupping Demand Primary Fire and Civit Defense Siren Service Ci w of St. Paul - 3 Meter Demand Energy C large Charge Charge e'er Acct Per KW Per KWH $2.10 ~ $0.0077 5210 - - $0.0040 52.10 $1 .03 50.0018 S2.~0 $1 .00 S0.0018 S2.i0 $] .03 S0.0018 5210 $1 .00 50.0018 54.20 - S0.0028 54.20 S1 .03 50.0013 $4.20 S1 .00 50.0013 $4.20 51 .00 50.0013 $4.20 S0 .75 S0 003 $4.20 S0 .65 50.0043 `x,4.20 50 .50 50.0013 -- S0 .28 -- $5.00 - - $0.0040 $2.10 - - 50.0040 $2.10 51 .03 $O.OD18 $2.1D $i .00 S0.0018 52.10 51 .00 50.0018 52.10 $1 .00 $0.0018 Now In Cttect __ .--. _, City of St. Paul - 4 Meter Remand Energy Charge Charge Charge Per Acct Per KW Per fCWH 52.45 -- $0.0086 52. 20 - - $o .DOao $2. 20 $1 .D9 $D_ DD18 $2 20.. 51 .0:5 $0 .0018 $2. 20 $1 .09 $0 .0018 $2. 20 $1 .05 $0. 0018 $4:30 - - $0:0028 $4.30 $1. 09 $O.Q013 $4.3D $1. 05 $0.0013 -$4.30 $1. 05. $0.0013. $4.30 $0. 80 $0.0013 $4.30 $0. 70 $0.0013 $4.30 $0, 50 $OA013 -- $D. 29 - $6,00 - - $0-.0040 $2.20 $2.20 $2.20 $2:20.. $2.20 $0.0040 $1.09 $0.0018 $1.05 $0.0018 $1<DS 50:0018 $1.05 _$0.0018 Xcel Energy Sheet ~ of 4 State of Minnesota ~ issued: 01115/04 CITY SURCHARGES ON GAS SERVICE A surcharge as designated will be included in the monthly hills computed under the indicated rate schedules effective in the following lvlinnesota commuivties: ~' i m E f ~o ~ (~ 4 4 ~ m Q co ,y ~ c v r v ~ o ~ _- C . m ~ E c _ ~' ~ ~ ? ~ o m a ~ ~~ y ~ n V n U r, c> in m ,,, N y ~_ -~ a - L m p j C~ ~ ~ a~ ~ ~ m?? = ti ~ a O1 Z m a' ~vl ~ cn ap ~ c7 ~ ~ `!' ,c m v c ~ a; ~ ~o = o> r ~ ~ t ~ v c c y T~ y m ._~ ~ `m ~t a ~ m u- a; m. a ~ to c~ S S _ a t o c~ `c ,° ~~ ~ Gity~ ~ ~ y E =~ ~ '_ ~ m ~ ~ ~ 2 v ' m ~~ D ~ ~~ ~ ~ v~ ~ > ~~ vl ~ U ii (r m ~ VJ S ~ W 1-- 2 H Z ,p tq U Cottage Grove " FS X X X X X X X Delano 50.0391/Therm X X X X X X X X X East Grand Forks n 3.0°~ -- X X X X X X ` X X X `take City 2.0 ;~b X X - - ~ - - ~0.405/Therm X X X X X X Moorhead 5.0% X X X X ~ X - PRS 50.005/Therm - - - -~ ~ X - X PRS Mounds 4iew ° 4.0°rb X X X X X X ~ X New Brighton `' F5 X X X X X X North St. Paul ` 275°10 „~ ~ ~ s- ~ ,~ - ~ ~. 50.005.,'Therm ~ ~ X X X X X X X Oakdale ~ FS X X X X __ _ X -- X - X Bartell h N/A - - - - - ~- - - - _- rySauk Rapids ~' FS X X X X X X X - X X St. Augusta' _ N;A M _ - - - - - - - .~ r ~_ St. Cloud `' 3.0"~b X X - X X X - - X - ~ PRS St. Joseph ~ FS X X~ X X X X X X St. Paul `' FS X X X X X ~ X ___ X X _ Stillwater FS X X X X X X X X X South St. Pauli 3.0°b X ~ X X X X X X X X 'See Notess CODES: X Indicates surcharge is applied`. Indicates surcharge is not app4ied. Blank Space Indicates rate is not available. FS Indicates fee schedule. See Notes. P'RS Indicates surcharge is based on customer's prior rate schedule. If nose, the Medium and Large Interruptible Transportation Services surcharge applies'. Xcel Energy Sheet 2 of 4 State of Minnesota Issued: 01/15/Od CITY SlJ'RCHARGES ON GAS SERVICE (Continued} NOTES: Cottage Grove: Effective with the billing month of February 2004, the monthly surcharge will be as stated on the following fee schedule: • Residential 51.00 Commercial Firm services, non-cfenaand metered $3.00 • Commercial Firm services demand metered ~ $5.00 • S~iall Interruptible $10.09 • Large Interruptible $15.00 • Firm and Interruptible Transportation 515.00 `' East Grand Forks: There will be no surcharge on any sales to accounts in the name of the City of East GranP} Forks. `Lake City: Change in fee from percentage to per therm for competitive classes effective witF~ g month of May 1999. Surcharge has a sunset provision of April 30, 2004. ~ Mounds View: Surcharge has a sunset provision of December 39, 2004. e New Brighton: Ef#ecfive with the billing month of January 2003, the monthly surcharge w`be a~ stated on the following fee schedule: • Residential 50.017 per therm • Commercial Firm services, non-demand metered 50.016 per therm • Commercial Firm services, deraiand metered 50.005 per therm Small and Large Interruptible S0.005 per therm • F+im and interruptible Transportation S0.005 per therm r t~torth 5t. Paul: Effective with the billing month o€ December 199£;. -' Oakdale: Effective with the bl~ng month of January 2004, the monthly surcharge will be as stated on the foYowing fee schedule: • Residential 50.50 • Commercial Firm sewices, non-demand metered $3.00 • Commercial Firma services, demand metered $5.00 • Small and Large Interruptible $10.00 • Firm and Interruptible Transportation 510.00 A 0.5°~o City sales tax add-on to the State sales tax pplicable in geae~~ stomers subject Mate sale tax in: • Sartell, Sauk Rapids, St. Augusta and St. Cloud effective Jar7uary ~. 2003 • St. Paul effective September 1, 1993 rSauk Rapids: Effective with the biding month of August 2003, the monthly surcharge will be as stated on the €ollowing fee schedule: Residential $2.00 • Comn~erciai Firm services, non-demand metered $8.00 • Commercial Firm services, demand metered 58.00 • Sma~ and Large Interruptible $8.00 • Firm and interruptible Transportation 58.00 ' St Cloud: During the winter- months November -April, the srxcharye for residen tial heathy customers will be ~.5°,~0. r St. Joseph: Effective with the bilking month of February 2004, the monthly surch arge will be as stated on the 4ollowing fee schedule: • Residential ;1.00 • Commercial Firm services, non-demand metered $1.75 • Commercial Firm services, demand metered $10.00 • Small and Large interruptible S0.005 per therm Xcel Energy Sheet 3 of 4 State of Minnesota Issued: 01/15/04 CITY SURCHARGES ON GAS SERVICE (Continued • ~irn~ and Interruptible Transports#ion 50.005 per therm St. Paul: The mootithly surcharge will he as stated on the applicable Fee Schedule attached The resider-tial service surcharge w~l be as stated except during the winter months, November -April when there will be no surcharge. The surcharge shah not exceed 550,000 during any calendar year from any Negotiated Transportation Service customer. The Fee Schedule effective each year will be as follows: • City of St. Paul - i : Effective November 1996 through December 1999. • City of St. Paul - 2 Effective January 2000 through Decen~er 2001 . • City of St. Paul - 3: Effective January 2002 through December 2003. ~+ City of St. Paul - 4: Effective January 2004 and thereafter. Stillwater. Effective with the billing month of December 2003, the mor+thly surcharge will be as stated on the following fee schedule: Residential $1.00 rr Commercial Finn services, non-demand metered $5.00 • Commercial Firm services, demand metered 55 00 f Small and Large Interruptible 55.00 • Firm and Interruptible Transportation 55.00 Xcel Energy State of Minnesota Sheet 4 of 4 issued: 01/15104 CITY SURCHARGES ON GAS SERVICE (Cartti~nued~ GAS FEE SCHEbUtES FOR Gf7Y OF ST. PAUL: __Crty of 5t Paul - 1__ _ City of St Paul - 2 Meter Volume Meter Volume Rate Schedule Ch. arge Charge Charge Charge Per Acct Per Therm Per Acct Per Therm Residentiaa Finn (May -October) S1.00 50.0397 51.05 50.0417 Small Commercial Firm 52.00 50.0399 52.10 50.0415 Large Commercial Finn S2.00 $0.0399 52,10 50.0415 Small Commercial Demand Billed S200 50.0399 52.10 SQ0415 Large Corm~ercial Demand Billed $8.00 $0.0180 $8.75 50.0180 Small Interruptible $6.00 50:0226 56.25 $0.0231 Medium Interruptible 58.00 $0.0038 $8.75 50.0042 Large Interruptible 58.00 50.0038 S8.75 50.0042 Large Firm Transportation- 58.00 50.0152 58.75 50.0180 Interruptible Transportation -Small 56.06 50.0226 56.25 50.0231 Interruptible Transportation -Medium 58.00 50.0038 S8.75 S0.0o42 Iflterrerptible Transportation -Large 58.00 50.0038 58.75 50.0042 Negotiated Transportation m _ Now in ~#ect City of St. Paul - 3 ~ City of St, Paui - 4 Meter Volume Meter Volume date Schedu~~ Charge Charge Ch, arge. Charge Per Acct Per Therm Per Acct Per Therm Residential Firm (May = October`s 51.15 50.4446 $1.30- $0.0466 Sr~nall Cor~irnercial Firm $2.20 50.0436 $2.30 SO.g455 Large Commercial Firm 52.20 S0.0436 52.30 $O.D455 Small Coriirnercial Demand l3~ed 52.20 50.0436 $2.30 $0.0455 Large Commercial Demand Billed 59.25 50.0046 ! $9.75 aQ.005D SmaN Interruptible $6.50 $0.0236 $f~.75 $O.fl241 Medium Interruptible 59.25 $0.0046 $9.75 $0.0050 Large Interruptible $9.25 $0.0046 $9,75 $0.0050 Large Firm Transportation $9.25 50.0200 I $9:75' $x.0220 Interruptible Transportation - Sma~ $6.50 50.0236 $6.75 $O.p241 interruptible Transportation -Medium 59.25 S0.0046 59.75 $0.0050 Interruptible Transportation Large 59.25 $0.0046 $9.75 $0:0050 Lfegotiated Transportation Surcharge is based on customer's prior rate schedule before transferring to this service. If none, the Large Interrupt[ble Transportation Service surcharge applies. ~ - Agenda No. K-1 MEMORANDUM TO: Richard Fursman 1 ~ ,. FROM: Melinda Coleman IV ~ SUBJECT: Charitable Gambling Fund Requests- 2005 DATE: July 1, 2004 INTRODUCTION Each year the Maplewood City Council solicits requests for charitable gambling funds. Every year requests for funds have exceeded the available funds. That is the case this year. The city received 13 applications with over $125,995. in requests and the amount of funds available is $51,000. PREVIOUS COUNCIL, ACTION On November 10, 2004, the City Council approved the expenditure of charitable gambling funds to purchase the historic Juker fire truck. The Council directed staff to use funds totaling $20,000 spread over 3 years to pay for the truck. Staff paid $6,000 in 2003 and will spend $7,000 in 2004 and the same in 2005. These funds have been allocated and accounted for this year. BACKGROUND Several years ago the City Council developed a policy on the award criteria. In addition, a policy was established that allows the city an opportunity to review requests on an annual basis to determine their merit and overall benefit to the community while still allowing time to include requests in the upcoming budget process. A copy of the policy is attached. The following is a listing of the organizations and groups who have submitted donation requests. Staff has attached the complete applications so that you will have a better understanding of the individual requests. In addition, at the back of the staff report and applications is a spreadsheet where each Council member can note their recommendations for funding. 1. Maplewood Historical Society $23,500. 2. American Red Cross $4,000. 3. Maplewood Police Explorers $8,000. 4. L.C. Webster PTO $5,000. tu. _ ~ - - - - . '~ r. ~ - ~i i~ i ~ ~ s r ... . f~ CITY OF M,A,gLEWOOD CITY COUNCIL POLICIES ON AWARDS FROM CHARITABLE GAMBLING FUND 1) All licensed charitable gambling organizations within the City are required to contribute 10 percent (10%) of net profits derived from lawful gambling activity in the City to a separate fund controlled by the City. These funds are dispersed by the City Council for lawful expenditures. 2) These funds shall be distributed for projects, equipment, or activities that are based in the community and which primarily benefit City residents. 3) Upon receipt of the funds, the receiving organizations shall understand that the allocation of funds may be none-time only distribution, and receipt of funds does not in any way guarantee or commit the City to funding in any subsequent year. 4) Projects which involve the purchase of equipment, supplies, or specific items will be looked upon more favorably than requests for salaries or general operating costs. 5) All funds are required to be expended for the requested project within one year of the date of receipt of the funds from the City. 6) No employee or department shall solicit a donation from a licensed charitable organization without City Manager aPP ~a~ ~a f submit a reque t t the C~ty Manager forothe use of a$ not funded In the budget, s y contingency funds or charitable gambling funds. 7) In general, requests from organized athletic groups will not be funded. It is believed that funding for these programs should be from participating fannilies or community auxiliary groups. There are so many athletic organizations witl°.zn the community that the City is not capable of funding their financial requests nor fairly determining appropriate recipients. 8) The City of Maplewood grants funds from lawful gambling profits to support City-related activities. The first priority in the granting of funds will be given to the City of Maplewood organizations The second priority or consideration will be given to funding requests from other organizations which are used for City-related purposes. revised Dezember 1998: procedur-wpd City of Maplewood Request to Spend Charitable Gambling Funds Information Name of option [equating fluids Phone Numbs Maplewood Area Historical Society ( 651) 748-8645 .4adras cty smte r~ 2170 East County Road D Maplewood MN 55109 Check Type of Organization Making Request: ^City ^ Cotmty ^ 5dtool District No. (Non-Profit ^ Other (spec (please altad~ proof of SOlc3 status) Print - thganiation Contact Petson Position Charlotte Wasiluk (651) 776-7183 Lawful Purpose Request ~e abovo-named organization requests lawful gatnblingproftts for the following purpose: Explain expenditure -attach additional sheets if necessary. Amount Requested $ 23,500.00 is r qu i i o finish off the garage, rest rooms and a we come can era a roan rup eri age arm. a ui ing is Ong cons ru a is year Nith volunteer labor. This request will cover materials and union plumber and electrician costs to complete the rest rooms and welcome center according to City requirements and environmental inspection. Cement Work Floor & Entrance Pads $ 7,500.00 Plumbing Bathrooms & Welcome Center 10,000.00 e rica -amp u an firing 23, Please see attachments. Jusrz; fieation - otttl'nte haw project mess guidelines established by City Cotmcil on Awards from Fund Funds are requested for a lawful expenditure at a city-owned facility (Bruentrup Heritage Farm) The activities at the farm primarily benefit Maplewood residents. The requested un s wi pay or materials and supplies for the building, and for contractors and equipment. By Completing sad signing this form, the organization confirms that the requested funds will be spent for a lawful purpose. This request expires one year from the date below. Title Date chargam.frm Fom, 872'C Consent Fixing Period of Limitation Upon Assessment of Tax Under Section 4940 of the Internal Revenue Code (Rev. July 1993) Department of tM Treasury Internal Revenus Ssrvica (See instructions on reverse side.) Under section 6501(c)(4) of the Internal Revenue Code, and as part of a request filed with Form 1023 that .The organization named below be treated as a publicly supported organization under section 170(b)(1)(A)(vi) or section 509(4)(2) during an advance ruling period, lewood.Area_,Hsto~i~~]...$o.CZ~ty ......... ..... ................ ... Ma .. . • • • • • • • District Director of p (Exact legal name of organization as shown in organizing document) Internal Revenue, or and the Assistant 1100 E. Co Road C, Maplewood, MN 55109 •....•.•.._•,• Commissioner . ..... • ~ ~ ~ ~ (Number, street, city or town, state, and ZIP code) (Employee Plans an Exempt Organizations) Consent and agree that the period for assessing tax (imposed under section 4940 of the Code) for any of the 5 tax years in the advance ruling period will extend 8 years, 4 months, and 15 days beyond the end of the first tax year. However, if a notice of deficiency in tax for any of these years is sent to the organization before the period expires, the time for making an assessment will be further extended by the number of days the assessment is prohibited, plus 60 days. OMB No. 1545-0056 To be used with Forth 1023. Submit in duplicate. December 31, 1997 Ending date of first tax year ............:.............................. (Month, day, and year) Name of organization (as shown in organizing document) Maplewood Area Historica;. Societ Officer or trust having authority to Signature - -2~/~YL For IRS use only ~'~' ~ ~ '~ Title - I CeS` District Director or Assistant Commissioner (Employee Plans and Exempt Organizations) Date uate B - Fnr Paoetworlt Reduction Act Notics, see page 1 of the Form 1023 Instructions. Cat. No. 169050 Attachment 3 (,A41e6 N~asc1 0 ~'Fals~ '(3,area ./~- .' - ~t G(tz ~ . .ate. r-- '~- - - ,.-,~.-~ ~^... - - ~ - - - -- =-- _ - - ~~ _ 1 ----- - ,}t ~i _ ~ ~ .'= 4, ; . ~ ~ ~ . . •"\ - ~ •- ... . . _ T __ - - _ ~~- _ -- _~ - ~ ,-~----- -, - ----;- ~ ~ ~f~cc~st ~ce~~rn--~ =r=n its Elevations /I~SaIfA I~CL~QI/IIYJ YY-'I'V 'JP rLCJ' , 1 ' P. i ''. . 's j . ~.. ~ . 7= - i ~ ~: ?i~ 1 i^I~ I, 'tom 1 w ~ ~'~ 1F'- 3~ Zq I ~~ ~Z ~~ ~ ~ o ~?C c? ^^~ 1v H - - - ~ _f_ ~•~ City of Maplewood Request to Spend Charitable Gambling Funds Information Name: American Red Cross of the St. Paul Area Phone: (651) 291-6789 Address: 176 South Robert Street Cam: Saint Paul State: MN ~: 55107 T e of Or anization: Non-Profit (see attachment: SOlc3 status) Organization Contact Person: Title: Mary Steele Senior Youth Programs Associate Lawful Purpose Request: Am t R ted: $4,000.00 Unintentional injuries or "accidents" are the leading cause of death for children 14 and under. Each year in the United States, more than 5,800 children die and nearly 120,000 are permanently disabled from preventable injuries. One in four is hurt badly enough to need medical attention. Areas with the highest risk are in fires and burns, suffocation, falls, drowning, poisoning, choking, firearm and traffic-related incidents. The American Red Cross of the St. Paul Area is a leader in injury and disease prevention and response; with help of skillfully trained staff and volunteers, we are committed to minimizing life- threatening injuries and illness in the community through prevention education, such as the When I'm In Charge Program. The American Red Cross When I'm In Charge (WIIC) Program prepares youth for the responsibilities of being home alone. It is an interactive 1.5-hour course that builds confidence and sense of responsibility through videos, group discussion, role-play activities and hands-on training. Each student will receive a student handbook, first aid kit, and a parent resource folder. The following topics are covered in the course: • Stranger Safety • Personal Safety • Responsibility • How To Handle Boredom • Calling 9-1-1 • Emergency Action Plans • First Aid • And Disaster Education (such as how to escape a home fire). It is our goal to train 250 students in the city of Maplewood. By providing the funds needed to offer this essential life-saving training, you are helping to ensure the safety of children in the Maplewood community. The request for these funds will be used as stated below. Together we can protect our most valuable possession, our children. When I'm In Charge: Item Price Per Student' Student Handbook 1.50 Parent Resource Folder 5.00 First Aid Kit 3.50 Video 1.00 Banda in Materials 2.50 Manikins 1.50 Gloves 1.00 Total Cost er Student=$16.00 Cost of Training per Student ($16.00) X Total Number of Students (250) _ $4,000 Justification: All funds will be used exclusively to train students residing in the Maplewood community. Funds will be restricted for purchase of materials need for the When I'm In Charge (WIIC) training. By Completing and signing this form, the organization confirms that the requested funds will be spent for a lawful purpose. This request expires one year from the date below. Signature• ~~ Ti le: Date• Print Name: ~-~-~ DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE r~ WASHINGTON, D.C. 20224 . X10 V 18 1998 American National Red Cross - _ c/o John D. Campbell, Chief .Financial Officer 8111 Gatehouse Rd. Falls Church VA 22042 Dear Mr. Campbell: This is to confirm that the American National Red Cross continues to hold exemption under subsection 501(c}(3} of the Internal Revenue Code. We do. apologize for the omission from Publicatior. 7°, tale Cu^,lulatlVe List Of 'Exempt L'rgcriiZatlon5, wt'iiCh resulted from an administrative error. Our computer file has been corrected, and your name will be listed in the .next hardcopy issuance of. the publication, revised September 30, 1998. Additionally, the P.merican National Red Cross has been added to the Publication 78 Special Notice' section of the electronic version of the publication found on our Internet website at www.irs.ustreas.gov, so that potential donors may immediately confirm contribution deductibility. If you have any questions regarding this matter, please call Betty Crawford at (202} 622-8001. Sincerely yours, Daniel A. Rosa Chief, Field Systems Branch (Emp_loyee Plans and Exempt Organizations) City of Maplewood Request to Spend Charitable Gambling Funds Information Name of ocpnimdon ratuesting fundt Phora Numbs ~rlaplewood Police Explorers (651) 249-2600 "~'°' ~r slue r.~ 1830 County Road B East i'iaplewood irti'J 55109 Chedt Type of Organization Making RequesL• City ^ County O School District No. o Nan-Frost (please attach proof of 501ea status) ^ Othc (specify) Pm¢ - Ocyenmdoa conLat Pason Pomtion David J. Thomalla Chief of Police Lawful Purpose Request Tha above-named organtzat:ar requests lawful gambling profris for the followutg purpose. Explain expenditure -attach additional sheets if necessary. Ai110unt Requested $ $, 000 The funds will be utilized to subsidize dollars budgeted to send the i~laplewood Police Explorers to the annual state conference, a competition in Duluth and national conferences. The will also be used to help purchase uniforms and equipment needed. As part o t eir activities at the conferences, the Explorers participate in competi- tions with Police xp orer groups sponsored by other law enforcement agencies, he funds would be used to he p send t e o ice Exp orers to these competitions. These competitions also offer the Police Explorers an opportunity to obtain scholarships for college. .IIlSt1~CQ1101! - Outline haw project mats guidelines established by City Cotmcil on Awards fivm Fund The i~iaplevrood Police Explorers are a group of high-school-aged students who belong to the Explorer Post sponsored by the i`1aplewood Police Department. In belonging to this - Post, the Police Explorers actively participate and learn about law enforcement as a career. The Advisors are ~~iaplewood Police Officers who have taken an interest in teaching these students about aw en orcement. In addition, these Police Explorers volunteer their time and assist in several City-sponsored activities (such as the fational iJight Out, Ramsey County Fair and July 4th _activities). By Completing and signing this foam, ~e organization confirms that the requested funds will be spent for a lawful purpose. This request expires one year from the date below. ~ "~"~~ Chief of Police 6-7-04 PmY Name avid J. Thomalla revised 12/98 - dtargam.titn City of 1Vlaplewood Request to Spend Charitable Gambling Funds Information Name of ixrcon reques firruit Phorre Numbs ~ i ~o ~ . `7~-h ST ~ o ~u S'r ~~lz~ m ~ s~ ~SJI ~~ Checdc Type of Organization Making Request: t7City Non-Profit ^ County ^ School DistiidNo./ L~ /~ ~y,~ ~ ~ G~ (iV r ~ ~ ~ ~y~r~tJ~:.~ ~ ~ •~ (Ple:+ee atf~oh proof of 501e3 status) ^ other (specify) - Pm¢ - Organi~rion CoruaQ Perim Paiaar Lawful Purpose Request The above-namci ora,.niz:Lio~ rt~ue~s law~u! g2mbliz-g profits for the following purpose: Explain expendittu~e -attach additional sheets if necessary. AITlOUnt Requested $ L.C. Webster Elementary is a neighborhood community school of 400 students. Approximately 65% of Webster's students live in Maplewood. L.C. Webster serves the students and neighborhood children of both North St. Paul and Maplewood. The playground and school grounds at L.C. Webster are in dire need of updating and sprucing up. This summer, the playground is being enhanced (swings, tether balls, twirl, shelter) thanks to donations from the school's PTO, charitable gambling dollars, school district support, and the sweat equity (labor and equipment time) of the parents of Webster students. We are also hopeful that the North St. Paul Athletic Association will come through with their plans to install 2 little league ball fields and a soccer field this summer ($30,000). If the plans of the Athletic Association materialize, the School District is going to finance a fence along the school's east boundary, which will ensure the safety of our communities' Idds using these fields, and the students of Webster who will enjoy the school grounds during school and after hours. There is still a lot of work to be done at Webster Elementary School. If the fields are installed, we will need to add benches, etc. In addition, the original play area is aging (10+ years) and is needs to be updated and our grounds are sadly in need of sprucing up. Our intent is to continue to improve school grounds and provide for outdoor activities that keep our students safe and benefit our students and neighborhood children. - - - e ow prnjecx meets guidelines established by City Cormcil on Awardc from Fund This request is for funds to: replace the playground equipment; enhance outdoor learning; grounds enhancements; or benches, etc. (needed for the planned balUsoccer fields). L.C. Webster is a neighborhood community school located on the border of Maplewood and North St. Paul. Approximately 260 students attending Webster live in Maplewood. The L.C. Webster Parent Teacher Organization is a chartered non-profit corporation governed by the State of Minnesota. By Completing and signing this form, the organization confirms that the requested funds will be spent for a lawful purpose. This request expires one year from the date below. L ors 12198 - ohargam.frm MAY 2 6 2004 City of Maplewood t~~~~ ~ G r,;,r r'' Request to Spend Charitable Gambling Funds Information Name of o~ganvadon raqunting funds Phone Numbs Ramsey County Fair ~ 651 777-6514 2020 White Bear Ave. Maplewood MN 55109 Check Type of Organi~tion Making Request City ^ County ^ School District No. Non-Profit 501C3 organization (please attach proof of501c3status) ^ Other (specify) emu • Ocganvahon Contact Pawn Position Joe Fox Fair Secretary/Manager Lawful Purpose Request The above-named orga[uzaGon requests lawful gamblutg profris for the following puroose: Explain expenditure -attach additional sheets if necessary. AITIOUnt Requested $ 5000.00 __Ramsey County Fair Board is requestin funds to pay for the Fireworks during the annual Ramsey County Fair. These funds cover the cost for the fireworks and the a or to per orm t e isp ay. e irewor s are genera y e on ri ay evening during the County Fair. 's Justification - Outline how project meets guidelines established byCQy Council on Awards from Fund The Ramsey County FAir has been part of the P~taplewood community for over 55 years. Over 35,000 people have attended the fair each year. The County Fair is a free rnmmnnit~ event wh'rh ttrartG an in ~er+pratinnal std' n T nGa a nio c and families come to the fair from Maplewood and many of the neighboring communities. Residents within Map ewoo eve enjoye t e ree isp ay an can view it rom many locations through-out the city. Attendance at .the Fair is not required to enjoy the benefits of the fireworks. The Fair Board makes ever effort to inform the public that the City of Maplewood is the sponsor of the Fireworks. By Completing and signing this form, the organization confirms that the requested funds will be spent for a lawful purpose. This request expires one year from the date below. Tifla txta County Fair Secretary/Manager May 25, 2004 Joan Fox ` revised 12/98 - chargam&m JUN 2 4 2004 City of Maplewood Request to Spend Charitable Gambling Funds (1 O .Il[stlfiCaholt -Outline how project meets guidelines established by City Council on Awards from Fund Chtdc Type of Organization Making Request: ^City ^ County ^ School DistriQ No. ion-Profit (Please attadt proof of SO lc3 status) Lawful Purpose Request `' The abovo-named organization requests lawful gambling profA.c for the following purpose: E:cplain expenditure -attach additional sheets if necessary. ArnoUnt Requested $~p~Q(J omp eUng d signing orm, th~ anon confirms that the requested funds will be spent for a lawful purpose. This request expires one year from the date below. NIINNESOTA Department of Revenue Certificate of Exempt Status Exempt Organizations Heritage Theatre Co. Inc. 2100 White Beaz Avenue Maplewood MN 55109 Certificate number ES 35122 Date Issued 04/12/95 Date Reissued 11/06/2001 The organization above is exempt from sales and use tax under Minnesota law on purchases, rentals, and leases of merchandise and services to be used in the performance of its charitable, religious or educational functions. For senior citizen groups, the merchandise must be used for pleasure, recreation, or other nonprofit functions of the group. This exemption does not apply to purchases of meals, lodging, waste collection and disposal services, or to purchases or leases of motor vehicles, except motor vehicles that are used primarily to transport goods or people, other than employees, as part of the organization's charitable, religious, or educational functions are exempt. Qualifying motor vehicles include those defined in Minnesota Statutes, section 168.011 as a truck or bus, or a passenger automobile that is designed and used for carrying more than nine people. (M.S. 297A.70, subd. 4) Commissioner of Revenue by i7 ~ ~ P. R. Blaisdell, Supervisor Corporate and Sales Tax Division Sales and Use Tax ST-17 Questions? Call the MN Department of Revenue at (651) 296-6181 or toll-free 1-800-657-3777. TDD users, call the Minnesota Relay Service at (651) 297-5353 or 1-800-627-3529. Ask for (651) 296-6181. Heiitage Theatre Company Page 1 of 1 HERITAGE THEATRE CO. of MAPLEWOOD 2100 White Bear Ave. Maplewood, MN 55108 (651) 773-1455 E-mail: heritagetc.~hotmaii.com Home Show Info Volunteer Info WhaYs New Want Ads HTC Board Ad Sale Patrons Contact Us Cast Members Area Ticket Prices Auditions Who We Are ~p Heritage Theatre Company (HTC) of Maplewood is a non-profit community theatre serving ~~~~~ Maplewood and the surrounding communities since 1981. We are located in the Maplewood Community Center, 2100 White Bear Ave., Maplewood, MN 55109. The mission of HTC is to sponsor and support people of all ages wishing to participate in community theatre, and to provide direction and guidance to these people in all aspects of theater production. Our objectives are to produce quality family productions, promote appreciation of community theater throughout Maplewood and surrounding communities, and to maintain financial stability. wed ]by: 31i~olf Design Read / Sign my~uestbook Check out the show information page for times and dates. ~ Ml~a~~t+ilraa'a;#4i+~ http://www.heritagetc.com/ 6/14/04 __ __ City of Maplewood Request to Spend Charitable Gambling Funds Information Name of atgartixafiart requesting fiords Phone Number 622 COMMUNITIES PARTNERSHIP, INC. ( 651)483-3201 '~'°' qty since r,~ P.O. Box 9880_or 1140 Beam Ave. Maplewood MN 55109 Chan Type of Organization Making Retlttest: oCity ^ County ^ School District No. Non-~o~ (please attach proof of SOlc3 status) ^ Other (specify) Print - OigenmROa Canhct Penal Position The taquests lawful gamblarg Ior the tbllowing purpose: Explain expenditure -attach additional sheets if necessary. Amount Requested $ 4 0 0.0 0 The Partnership requests funds in the amount of $400 to purchase and install "buckle lip" signs at parking lot exits at North, Hill-Murray, and Tartan High Schools. These signs will reinforce our recent efforts to increase seat belt awareness and use among teenagers (see attache~~ There are multiple exits from these parking lots where we propose to install signage. Lt. Dave Kvam, Ma lewood Police Dept , has been an invaluable member of our Seat Belt Awareness committee and has assisted us in arriv_ing at an estimate of the costs associated with this project The Partnership is an entirely volunteer group with no paid staff. We de end on grants and donations to fund our activities. Justification - ouRl6te haw project meets guidelines established by City Council on Awards from Fund The "Buckle Up" sians represent a durable reminder about seat belt use Hopefully, this one-time investment will have a lasting impact on our youth. Maplewood residents are heavily represented in the student bodies the three schools. Regardless of their home address, our young drivers are not limited_J~y where they live when they drive Anything we can do to to instill safe drivin habits will have benefits for the entire area We have worked cooperatively with representatives of Maplewood police in planning this project and trust you will look favorably upon our request. By Completing and signing this form, the organization confirms that the requested funds will be spent for a lawful purpose. This request expires one year from the date below. Title z>ue Kate Kovar revised 12/98 - dlargam.Em Partnership Goals for fiscal yeaz 2003-04 included, among other things, fostering healthy habits in our young people. Additionally, we would try to include youth in planning and executing our projects whenever possible. A previous survey by Search Institute found that a high percentage of our young people did not feel valued in their community, that their opinions were not respected, and that there were not opportunities for them to be meaningfully involved in issues of importance to them. The Asset Building (healthy habits) sub-committee decided to concentrate part of its efforts on increasing seat belt use among our youth. To that end we approached student groups at North and Hill-Murray High Schools to devise, administer, and tabulate a survey of seat belt use among their students. Additionally The Partnership allotted $200 to each school for education efforts or other incentives they chose to use in promoting seat belt use. Tartan High School was included in a Washington County grant for this purpose and was not part of Partnership efforts. However, we did share plans and data with them. The results were comprehensibly reported in a two-page feature in Lillie Newspapers on May 17. A few of the things we learned were: * Girls were more likely to wear seat belts than boys. * Licensed drivers were more likely to buckle up than those without licenses * Seat belt use was higher when riding with parents or other adults * Passengers were much less often belted than drivers In addition to sponsoring the surveys, The Partnership made special mention of seat belt use in its annual Prom/Graduationietter to parents of junior and senior class students. This letter urges pazents to make certain that their children participate in safe and healthy Prom and graduation activities where no alcohol or drugs are available. This year we also urged them to require seat belt use whether their child was driving or a passenger in a caz. For the first time, Hill-Murray participated in this mailing that went to about 2300 homes. We want to continue our seat belt education efforts during the coming year. We know that teens often need to hear a message repeatedly before they act. We think the "Buckle Up" signs will help us send that reminder each time they leave the pazking lot. We are also planning afollow-up survey, this time a visual one, and we are hoping for Lt. Kvam's expertise to help us in that effort. N INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE DISTRICT DIRECTOR P. O. BOX 2508 CINCINNATI, OH 45201 Date : LIAR 2 8 1997 622 COMMiJNITIES PARTNERSHIP INC C/O JOSEPH FOX 1821 MYRTLE STREET MAPLEWOOD, MN 55109 Dear Applicant: DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY Employer Identification Number: 41-1614550 DLN: 17053033841007 Contact Person: D. A. DOWNING Contact Telephone Number: (513) 241-5199 Our Letter Dated: March 1991 Addendum Applies: No This modifies our letter of the above date in which we stated that you would be treated as an organization that is not a private foundation until the expiration of your advance ruling period. Your exempt status under section 501 (a) of the Internal Revenue Code as an organization described in section 501(c)(3) is still in effect. Based on the information you submitted, we have determined that you are not a private foundation within the meaning of section 509 (a) of the Code because you are an organization of the type described in section 509(a)(1) and 170(b)(1)(A)(vi). Grantors and contributors may rely on this determination unless the Internal Revenue Service publishes notice to the contrary. However, if you lose your section 509(a)(1) status, a grantor or contributor may not rely on this determination if he or she was in part responsible for, or was aware of, the act or failure to act, or the substantial or material change on the part of the organization that resulted in your loss of such status, or if he or she acquired knowledge that the Internal Revenue Service had given notice that you would no longer be classified as a section 509(a)(1) organization. If we have indicated in the heading of this letter that an addendum applies, the addendum enclosed is an integral part of this letter. Because this letter could help resolve any questions about your private foundation status, please keep it in your permanent records. We have sent a copy of this letter to your representative as indicated in your power of attorney. Letter 1050 (DO/CG) ~j Ramsey ~~ ~~~ ~I.IBRARY Arhnotishati~ro O~cas ~ 4570 North Yrctara Street • Shorerie~r, Ill~rrresola 55126.5863 ~ (651) 486.2200 ~ FAX (651)486-2220 June 24, 2004 Melinda Coleman City Of Maplewood 1830 East County Road B Maplewood, MN 55109 RE: Charitable Gambling Fund Dear Ms. Coleman, The Ramsey County Library in Maplewood is pleased to submit this request for your review. We look forward to your partnership in our cooperative efforts in serving the residents of the City of Maplewood. Our proposal requests $16, 095.00 for the purchase of library automation that would allow the library in Maplewood to increase efficiency and provide better customer service to Maplewood patrons. The investment of Charitable Gambling Funds in the our library would be beneficial to the residents of the City of Maplewood and enable library in Maplewood to continue to provide the high-level of customer service to which Maplewood residents are accustomed. Thank you for considering the Library's request; we look forward to working with you. Sincerely, Laura John on Development Director Ramsey County Library City of Maplewood Request to Spend Charitable Gambling Funds Information Name of orgmixation raquating funds Phone Numbs Address ! / ~ ~ City glaze Zip I(o~1~7 a,rn AVP,nI ~e M nlPt,~ )~~c~-1 MN 551 c~~ Check Type of Organization Making Request: OCity i~Couaty ^ School District No. o Nan-Profit (please attach proof of SOle3 status) ^ Other (specify) Pdnt - Orgsniubon Canfact Pe~aon Position ~tur°a Johnsor~ ~yelt~t~rnerl+- .Di re rby' L_ awful.Purpose Request The abovo-named organization requests lawful gambling profits for the following purpose: Explain expenditure -attach additional sheets if necessary. Amount Requested $ t ~ t ~~ 5 ~ ~~ ~,1 F - cPt'V1f (~l~e~ l i'~Ut lrl I Y~1P -- .Titstl~Catlon -Outline how project meets guidelines established by City Council on Awards from Fund. see C~11t~'irhed ~ p ~a~ 2 -Ec~r a~t~rt-«nc~~ +n{c~rmaf:~r~ , By Completing and signing this form, the organization confirms that the requested funds will be spent for a lawful purpose. This request t:xpires ane year from the date below. Lawful Purpose Request: In an effort to better serve our Maplewood patrons, Ramsey County Library requests lawful gambling profits for the purchase of a LibramationTM self-check machine, accompanying software, and shipping costs. justification: Self-service checkout (self-check) has been used successfully by Ramsey County Library to not only add a valued service but to also address increasing business and decreasing budgets. Self-check allows library patrons to check out library materials independently through the use of automation. Use of self-check by library patrons has grown steadily since its introduction at the library in Roseville in ,January 2003. With the addition of a second self-check machine, Roseville's self-check use jumped to almost 76% of total circulation. The Maplewood branch of the Ramsey County Library has been serving the City of Maplewood for over ten years. The library in Maplewood is an integral part of the Maplewood community and prides itself on the high level of customer service it provides for Maplewood residents. Unfortunately, with increased business, staff shortages, and lack of funding, the library in Maplewood is having a difficult time keeping up with the needs of its patrons. It is not uncommon to see lines of waiting patrons at both staffed and self-check stations, which makes it difficult for staff to keep up with the circulation of materials. The library in Maplewood introduced self-check to its patrons in January 2004 and within a few months, self-check accounted for more than 25% of Maplewood's circulation. The library in Maplewood is in great need of a second self-check machine. The second self- check machine would help to alleviate wait time for patrons, allow library staff to circulate materials quickly and efficiently and provide better customer service overall. 2 1 . Ramsey County Library's request is a lawful expenditure. _ 2. Ramsey County Library is requesting charitable gambling funds for the purchase of a LibramationTM self-check machine, accompanying software, and shipping costs. 3. Ramsey County Library understands that if charitable gambling funds are awarded, the City of Maplewood is not committed to awarding funds in any subsequent year. 4. Ramsey County Library is requesting funding for library automation equipment. 5. If awarded, Ramsey County Library will purchase the needed equipment within one year of receipt of Charitable Gambling Funds. 6. Ramsey County Library is a County organization. 7. Ramsey County Library in Maplewood serves the Maplewood Community. 3 C~~;~~Ramsey ~~'~~_I Co~My ' 0!6cas ~ 4570 No~lh Y~cboria • Slwrerierw 55126.5863 ~ (651) 486-2200 ~ FAX (651) 4a6-2220 Date of Application: June 25, 2004 Name of Organization: Ramsey County Library-Maplewood Purpose of Grant: In an effort to better serve our Maplewood patrons, Ramsey County Library would like to purchase a second self-check machine for its library in Maplewood. Address of Organization: 1670 Beam Ave, Maplewood, MN 55109 Telephone Number: 651-704-2036 Library Director: Alice Jo Carlson Contact: Laura Johnson, Development Director 651-486-2207 Status: County Organization Grant Request: $16, 095.00 For: Self-Check Automation including shelf-check machine, licensing fees, and shipping costs. Total Project Budget: $14, 495.00 Libramation self-check machine $ 600.00 shipping costs $ 1,000.00 Software licensing $ 16,095.00 Total 4 The City of Maplewood Charitable Gambling Fund Maplewood City Hall 1955Clarence St. Maplewood, MN 55109 Dear Council, Erving L. Carlson 2599 Southcrest Ave. Maplewood, MN 55119 June 23, 2004 In south Maplewood there is a hockey rink at Pleasentview Park. In the winter, when there is proper weather for ice, figure skaters, hockey players and/or recreational skaters constantly occupy the rink. The rest of the year this area is only used by children who dig holes to make jumps for their bicycles. The people who use it for winter skating would also use it for the other nine months if it had a hard surface in it. Now, the only place the young skaters can go is on the tennis courts. Bruce Anderson has told me, the skaters are constant occurrences and a problem for the neighbors who want to use the courts for tennis. In my research, I have been unofficially told the cost of six inch excavation, a blacktop surface consisting of four inches of class five base and two inches of blacktop would run approximately $16,000 and adding a surface similar to the tennis courts would be approximately an additional $2000. A light surface color would be important for maintaining winter ice. In the six-block radius area of the park there are over 50 school age girls and boys who are playing hockey through Tartan Area Youth Program. There are many that belong to the local figure skating club and many more, both young and old, that participate in rollerblading. The rink would be in use year round and would be a great addition to the neighborhood. Please consider the request for funds to make our year round neighborhood rink a reality. Please call with any questions or comments. 651-739-8144 (home). Sincerely, ~.~~ ~.M Erv Carlson Name Address # of family members who would use year round rink ~~ ~~~~- I'~~~~n~ laa3 ~ec-~~g~ S-~. S. 3 a~lA ~C~ ~ 'Cl Y` U 1 11 L 1 ~ ~l '1 C {~ I.I~C~U 1 l 1~ ~~ ~ ~ ~~ k~ fit- a s 3 ~ ~ C1~-- - z ~ ~. ~ Name Address # of family members who would use year round rink ~u Br~~S ~Gv~ ~Ihcrest gut ~ S ~~ 3~. ~ ~a~-~rn~C(~f fc~l ~-~sa ~ Name Address # of family members who would use year round rink ~~ ' ~CJ~IS~ ~1~125~r %o4/S ~~n7n/;S' s- mgac.~,.•~u~a ~h/J ~-~-- • /YIn1WVl~ ~~~~ ~ ~~.~~ (~ ~_• 4 ~~ D~ ~~ ~ ~~~ City of lYlaplewood Request to Spend Charitable Gambling Funds Information Name of o~niradon requesting funds Plume Numbs i%iaplewood Police Reserves (551 ) 249-2556 Addrey City State Zip 1830 County Road ~ East i~iaplewood i-1iV 5510 Check Type of Organization Making Request: X7City ^ County ^ Sdrool District No. ~ Non-Profit (please atL~ch proofof501c3 status) ^ other (specify) Pma - O[gutiation Contact Pe[wn Positi~m r)avid J. Thomalla Chief of Police Lawful Purpose Request The above-named organization requests lawful gambling profits for the following purpose: Explain expenditure -attach additional sheets if necessary. AST1oUnt Requestt;d $ 3, OOG See attachment ,~ Justification -Outline how project meets guidelines established by City Council on Awards from Fund See attachment By Completing and signing this form, the organization confu~ms that the requested funds will be spent for a lawful purpose. This request expires ane year from the date below. T~ ~ T~Chief of Police ~~ 5-28-04 Name ua'~fd J. Tho++~alla revised 12/98 - chargam.frm Request to Spend Charitable Gambling Funds Maplewood Police Reserves Lawful Purpose Request Funds received will be used to purchase new Reserve uniform items and related equipment. Uniforms for the Reserves have not been replaced for several years. New Reserves receive previously used uniforms and equipment, and some of the longtime Reserves have uniforms/equipment needing replacement. There is also a need for additional cold-weather clothing (jackets, hats, gloves) for the Reserves to wear while on patrol, directing traffic and standing by at accident/crime scenes during the winter months. Throughout the year, we do receive some donations to purchase these items; but it's not enough to fund the needs of these volunteers. Donations that were previously received from civic groups in the City ceased with the implementation of charitable gambling. Our Reserves have a great deal of public contact, and we would like to provide them with the necessary uniforms and equipment so that they present a neat, professional appearance while conducting duties on behalf of the City of Maplewood. Justification The Maplewood Police Reserves are adults who volunteer their time and talent to the Maplewood Police Department. In 2003, the group worked almost 8,000 hours assisting with activities that would otherwise need to be performed by sworn police personnel. In addition to regular patrol shifts, the Reserves also assist with the following: • Transporting persons to the jail, hospital, detox, etc. • Unlocking vehicles. • Securing crime scenes. • Answering animal complaints. • Waiting for tow trucks at accident/crime scenes. • Traffic and crowd control at large events held in the City (such as graduations at Aldrich Arena, parades, Ramsey County Fair, July 4th celebration, MS Bike Ride, Lightning Run motorcycle event). • Assisting with community events (such as National Night Out, Landfall Splash and Spring Fling). • Conducting Safe & Sober seatbelt surveys. • Distributing fliers to residents and businesses regarding various information (parking restrictions, thefts/burglaries in the area, community meetings, etc.). • Bike patrol. It must be stressed that many of the activities performed by Reserve personnel free the sworn officers so that they may remain on patrol in the City performing their regular duties. 1 `' ~~` Dispute Resolution Center June 25, 2004 Ms. Melinda Coleman Assistant City Manager City of Maplewood 1830 East County Road B Maplewood, MN 55109 974 W 7th St st. Paul, Ntx ssio2 Dear Ms. Coleman: 651.292.7791 pn behalf of the Dispute Resolution Center (DRC), it is pleasure to submit the fax: 292-6065 enclosed request for disbursement of Charitable Gambling Funds from the City of Maplewood. The oldest community dispute resolution program in Minnesota, DRC is the only program offering volunteer-based. mediation and facilitation services in court and community settings, as well as a full range of restorative justice methods -- including victim-offender mediation, large- and small-group facilitation, circle processes, and family-group conferencing. Community conflict resolution is the process of helping people work together to define issues and reach agreements. This allows neighbors, landlords and tenants, businesses and consumers, and families to build better relationships and improve communication. In the long. run, this creates more peaceful, stable, and less- violent neighborhoods and requires less police and City intervention, and fewer City dollars, when disputes arise. I have enclosed a copy of a study conducted in Harrisburg, PA, which demonstrated an 86% reduction in police nuisance calls when referrals are made to community mediation. At present, DRC has no community volunteers who live in the City of Maplewood. We have requested an increase in funding in order to provide a 30- hourbasic mediation skills training in Maplewood. A flyer on a similar training, co-sponsored by the City of Rosemount, is also enclosed. We appreciate the City of Maplewood's past support, which helps ensure the provision of free and low-cost cost dispute resolution services throughout the City of Maplewood. Thank you for your consideration of this request. Please contact me at (651) 292-6067 or dre-administration(a~attbi.com if you require any additional information or would like me to be present at the budget hearing to answer questions. very truly yours, _ ,. k~~ Je ` e Zimme E' a tive Director City of Maplewood Request to Spend Charitable Gambling Funds Information `'`'°'°°`°'&""a°°"'°~'"~ Dispute Resolution Center ~ 651 292 6067 ~ 974 West Seventh Street `' Saint Pau1W~ ~` MN 55102 C3edc Type of Orgamizatim .Making Requesx: OC4y o Cooney a School District No. ~N°o-Profs (please attach proofaf 50 ic3 status) o afha (specify) PeAt - oReniaoon Cait~a Paean Poeibm Jeanne F. Zimmer Executive Director Lawful Purpose Request 'Ihe abovo-naated orgamz~an requests lawful gambling profits far the following pucpnsa lain expenditure -attach additional sheets if necessary. 'Amount Requested $ 5,000 The Dispute Resolution Center (DRC) is snot-for-profit community mediation program founded in 1982 to provide -" mediation, facilitation, training, and referral services in the East Metro azea of the Twin Cities. The oldest - community-based conflict resolution resource in the State of Minnesota, DRC is the East Metro's only provider of -free and low-cost dispute resolution services. DRC receives referrals from neighborhood groups, block clubs, - schools, social service providers, city administrations, courts, and police departments, and probation offices. - DRC handles as many as 700 cases annually, assisting approximately 3,500 individuals to effectively resolve - disputes and learn effective communication skills. As a community resource, DRC provides affordable, accessible _ opportunities for neighbors, families, community groups, government agencies, and businesses to resolve conflict. - No one is ever denied services for inability to pay. A majority of the individuals served by DRC are people with low incomes. DRC is able to provide free and low-cost services through the generous contributions of municipalities such as Maplewood A contribution in the amount of $5,000 for fiscal yeaz 2005 will support - services to the Maplewood community, including a 30-hour Basic Mediation Skills Training to increase the number _ - of volunteers living and working in the City of Maplewood. [Please see additional attached infommtation] Just:ficarion - otal;ne how pmjeci meets guidelines established byCity eoancit an Awardsliom Fund As the only provider of flee and low-cost mediation, facilitation, and restorative services and community education designed to teach effective conflict resolution skills, DRC has supported residents and city administrations to resolve matters that might otherwise have escalated into violence or resulted in costly litigation. Since 1999, DRC has assisted 175 residents of Maplewood in resolving conflict related to their relationships as neighbors, employers and employees, landlords and tenants, and families with parenting and communication issues. Mediation strengthens and builds community relationships by providing opportunities_lor community members to resolve differences respectfully and learn self-sufficiency in handling future conflicts. As a resource to city administrators, DRC provides an alternative to the many hours of staff and police time spent attending to disputes involving neighbors, including ordinance violations, trees, pazking, pets, and noise. [Please see additional attached information] By Complering and signing this form, the organization confums that the requested fends will be spent for a lawful purpose. This request expires one year from the dale below. ~ ~ Fee June 25, 2004 "~"'~"" Je(artne F. Zimmer Executive Director ceviaed i?J9s - abargam.frm Dispute Resolution Center Service Report Maplewood, MN 1/1/03 -12/31/03 Cases: 18 16 Cases mediated and 13 reached agreement 1 Case conciliated People Served: 24 Active Resident Mediators: 0 INTERNAI, REVENUE SERVICE P. O_ BOX 2508 CINCINNATI, OH 45201 Date: JUL 21 2003 DISPUTE RESOLUTION CENTER 974 W 7TH ST ST PAUL, MN 55102-3250 Dear Applicant: DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY Employer Identification Number: 41-1441352 DLN: 17053186748083 Contact Person: PAUL D RERR ID# 31104 Contact Telephone Number: (877) 829-5500 Public Charity Status: 170 (b) (1) {A) (vi) Our letter dated 1983, stated you would be exempt from Federal income tax under section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code, and you would be treated as a public charity during an advance ruling period_ Based on our records and on the information you submitted, we are pleased to confirm that you are exempt under section 501(c)(3) of the Code, and you are classified as a public charity under the Code section listed in the heading of this letter. Publication 557, Tax-Exempt Status for Your Organization, provides detailed information about your rights and responsibilities as an exempt organization. You may request a copy by calling the toll-free number for forms, (800) 829-3676. Information is also available on our Internet Web Site at www.irs.gov. If you have general questions about exempt organizations, please call our toll-free number shown in the heading between 8:00 a.m. - 6:30 p.m. Eastern time. Please keep this letter in your permanent records. Sincerely yours, ~~O • Lois G. Lerner Director, Exempt Organizations Rulings and Agreements Letter 1050 (DO/CG) EXERCUTIVE SUMMARY NEIGHBORHOOD DISPUTE SETTLEMENT AN EVALUATION REPORT _ OF NEIGHBORHOOD DISPUTE SETTLEMENT CENTER'S PROGRAM WITH CZTY OF HARRISBURG BUREAU OF POLICE Prepared by Roosevelt E. Shepherd . Associate Professor of Criminal Justice Shippensburg University - For Board of Directors Neighborhood Dispute Settlement of Dauphin County 1995 .. ~~• NEIGHBORHOOD DISPUTE SETTLEMENT AND THE HARRISBURG BUREAU OF POLICE Introduction As the budgets of police departments shrink and the problems they are asked to solve increase, police administrators seek ways and means to provide the highest level of services to theic clients, the pulic. One of the ways adopted by agen- cies over the past decade or so has been transferring or allowing other agencies to handle certain service functions. Often times there is a complete transfer, but in most cases the~r2lationship is a: partnership. The police provide input through referral and strategic record data. Most of these transfers have multiple purposes and create a variety of expecta- tions. All have expectations that the quality of life will be improved and that police agencies can more effectively allocate, deploy and utilize their resources in an effective manner. In the latter case, valuable resources can be saved for use in the more serious attempts to deal with crime and drugs in a democratic society. A usual goal for these shifts in emphasis is that qualitative and some quantitative savings accrue to the police agency. Neighborhood dispute settlement or resolution (NDS or NDR) is one of those cri- tical functions which police across the country are sharing with other agencies. The principle purpose of ND5/NDR is to serve as a realm of secondary prevention. That is, NDS/NDR seeks to reduce the extended violence and disruptive behavior that is spawned by smoldering neighborhood problems. Researchers assert that families and neighborhoods are the hope of improving the quality of life for the majority of people. NDS attempts to solve the precipitating problems present in our neighborhoods. These efforts eliminate provocative policing tactics, reduce blame to a more manageable issue, and solve most disputes without resorting to the use of the criminal justice system. Problem-solving at the neighborhood level creates a homogeneous-like basis for other creative ventures by communities which are still dissimilar in many ways. The Harrisburg Police and NDSC Project The City of Harrisburg Bureau of Police and Neighborhood Dispute Settlement Center (NDSC) of Dauphin County project began in June 1994. The police agency recognized the potential benefits from NDSC as an alternative resource in dealing with neigh- borhood disputes and saw its involvement as a catalyst for difussion, resolution, and prevention. City police officers were not trained in dispute resolution and, more specifically, did not have the time required for the extensive intervention strategies and other programs of reduction and elimination. A rationale judgement was made to involve NDSC in a meaningful and productive manner. (1) . Harrisburg police officers use a referral form (NDR/NDS1) to formalize the involve- ment of-NDSC. Other referrals are often times made for individual cases on an in- formal basis. NDSC also receives referrals from District Justices' Offices, City Human Relations Commission, community organizations, crisis units, churches and other individuals and groups in the Harrisburg community. These non-police refer- rals have similar impact and importance to those made by the police. Neighborhoods and their families are still the focus and prevention, resolution, defusing all 1. See Appendices A and B for explanations of NDSC of Dauphin County's Standards and Guidelines, and Chief of Police's testimony before PA House of Representa- tives' Judiciary Committee on Dispute Resolution and Conflice Management. Also refer to PA Commission on Crime and Delinquency "Quarterly" (Vol 7., No. 2, Spring 1995) for extensive explanations on NDSC operations. 2 remain critical objectives. Evaluation and Findings This report is an independent evaluation of NDSC's activities with the Harrisburg Bureau of Police. Anecdotal responses and previously referenced reports have all been kind and favorable to the Center for its work in the City of Harrisburg. Most of the philosophy and program goals of NDS have been met. It also seems certain that the specific intentions of those who provided the City of Harrisburg/NDSC match have been satisfied. Both sides appear to be pleased with the results. While a small number of the police bureau's patrol officers are using the NDSC referral, sufficient utilization is evident to allow for an effective evaluation. I have tested the NDSC efforts against several evaluation models. 'the remaining pages of this report are used to explain the findings. ND Generally, I believe the NDSC experience in Harrisburg has been and is yet a successful exercise. The Chief of Police made a wise policy choice in providing the field officers with an alternative that works. NDS relieves officers of a critical function. And while dispute resolution is important to patrol officers, the external agency's involvement frees them for more specific patrol time to do the emergency responses, handle other problem solving functions, and meet the visi- bility requirement for doing good police work. Officers have more time available for "proactive policing" and dealing with other community hazards. Police managers are continually seekings ways to preserve valuable patrol time for critical events. NDSC does this in an effective and Effect significant way. Table 1 illustrates ~. how many officers are involved in ND ~ related calls-for-services. It also ~ PT = PATRUL covers the time factors involved in \~~ TIM E the two time frames covered in the PT ~ CFS CFS = CALLS FOR study. Figure 1 provides some indica- SE RVIC E tion of NDS's practical application. ADT = ADMIN TIME As calls for services are reduced, DvT enrt PRT = PERSONAL TIME patrol time is increased. Summative evaluation asks, "Does the Figure 1. Effect of ND Related program work?" If one of the major Call Reductions on Patrol and goals of NDSC in Harrisburg is to re- Incident (CFS) Response duce the number of return calls through intervention by trained specialists in dispute resolution, the answer is affirmative and the program works. Appendices C, D, E and F illustrate that NDSC intervention in dispute related calls resulted in an appreciable reduction in return calls to the~same address. The reductions of 86.SZ in the first time frame and 75.2 in the second series is quite significant. The pre and post analysis supports the finding that the program works. The tabu- lated results explain the program and costs issues sufficiently. That is, the analysis and statements of monetary savings can be supported by the retardation or elimination of repeat activities. Formative evaluation asks, "What is needed to make a policy or program work better?" Is sufficient information and knowledge available? I believe the project is sound in terms of its philosophy, intentions, processes and creative support. Perhaps an increase in the number of participating patrol officers would be an improvement. 3 NEIGHBORHOOD DISPUTE CALLS FUR SERVICE AND RELATED DATA TABLE 1 CITY OF HARRISBURG BUREAU OF POLICE PROJECT 1993 1994 Total Calls Identified as/for NDSC Services 49.0 93.0 Number of Officers Involved 77.0 167.0 Average Number of Officers 1.6 1.8 Responding to Call _ Average Minutes Per Officer 23.3 24.2 on/at the Call Total Minutes for All Calls 1,795 4,056 Total Hours for All Calls 30.0 67.6 Total'Costs in Salary for. $480.00 $1,182.00 Responding Officers (Using $16.00 per hour as base pay) Maximum One-time Court $1,536.00 $5,344.00 Costs for NDSC Cases Based on Minimum of Two Hours Pay Total Monetary Costs $2,016.00 $6,526.00 Source: City of .Harrisburg Bureau of Police and Department of Human Resources The NDSC staff seems to be flexible and capable of handling more cases. In an overall context, information and knowledge sufficiency is consistent with a con- sistent with a successful effort. Process evaluation asks, "What is happening in the program delivery?" I believe, with a few minor exceptions, that the NDSC project is working as planned and as expected. There is a strong monitoring system in place. The dispute resolution personnel are not only implimenters, but do a great job as critiquers and as feed- back barometers. They seem to know how to fix the system where break-downs occur, and continue to provide the appropriate services (counseling, mediation, defusing and others). Finally, but most importantly, NDSC needs to know how much .its involvement has saved the city in terms of costs. Is the program's worth illustratable in dollars and cents? In Table I, I have provided some costs figures for the 1993-94 and the 1994-95 cases. These are the costs to "go to the door." My analysis shows a likely cost of $1,536.00 and $5,344.00 respectively. Some qualifications are in order. The calculations could increase, or decrease depending on the actual requirements (in numbers and cases) for police officers to move the incidents or cases to court 4 hearings. Certainly all the calls will not rise to that level; and perhaps all responding officers would not be required to attend any required district justice hearings or subsequent District Court trials. However, the potential for court proceedings is still significant to include these costs as likely expenses. To make the circumstances more likely to be consistent with what will probably occur, an upper and lower limit of costs have been established (Table III). The upper limit presumes that each call to the door would lead to some court action; while the lower limit reduces the potential costs by one-half. All cases where dispute resolution or settlement worked should provide some savings in court costs. Appendices C, D, E and F illustrates NDSC's numbers on reduction in return calls. Earlier, I used this data to show that the project works. That is, NDSC met its major goal of reducing police involvement on a regular basis in repeat incidents involving neighborhood residents. My analysis now moves on to provide evidence that these reductions can provide monetary savings. Table 1 was necessary to por- tray cost figures. It is significant to say here that incident/case data in Table 1 are summations of NDSC's Appendices C, D, E and F. This means that the informa- tion utilized to establish costs is consistent with the information which estab- lished the call data. Both can now be used to look at savings. When costs figures in Table 1 are fused with call data from the Appendices, a calculation of savings can be made.. We can suggest that an upper limit of $480.00 and X1,182.00, respectively, was saved through the nonrepetitive or escalation nature of the cases in the two time-frames. The assumption here is that police continuous intervention would be required if the NDSC halting action had not been applied. If all of these cases occur again without defusing and mediation, the sums listed above would accrue as costs. NDSC's involvement results in savings. Costs involving the District Justices's offices and potential injury to police officers from dispute confrontations and interventions are other non-calculable expenses that go away when mediation works and thus reduces the criminal justice system involvement. NDSC's voluntary staff of professionals from the community makes neighborhood dispute resolution a less costly proposition. Transfer of some costs from police involvement in dispute resolution to other police functional areas should also create cost-effective policing on a twenty-four hour basis. To place the savings or cost-reduction concern in a more visual and managerable context, Table II and III have been drafted to further illustrate what NDSC has meant to the Harrisburg Bureau of Police. Table II consolidates some of the con- tents of the attached appendices. It brings to the summary the vital information on the effort(s) of NDSC in reducing return calls and thus extensive involvement in neighborhood dispute and related incidents. Table III provides up-close data on costs per call, total calls saved, costs for all calls, and (most importantly) the dollar savings per case. Tables II and III are based on an assumption that the number of future calls would have been the same as the number of past calls without mediation. Table III suggests that the sixty-five cases resulted in a savings of 180 calls. When the 180 calls are couched in a dollar value, savings of $105.00 to $180.00 per case are realized. Again, the upper limit is based on a more liberal deter- mination of the .costs involved in the police "responding to .the door" in the neighborhood dispute settlement/resolution process.. The lower limit in costs and thus savings~is the more (mid-point) position. This position is reflective of lower expection of the police officers' required participation in the court process. S RECORD OF NDSC'S INVOLVEMENT IN HARRISBURG BUREAU OF TABLE II POLICE ND RELATED CASES (CALL REDUCTION) 1993 1994 Total Cases 28 37 65 Calls Before NDSC 83 120 203 Involvement Calls After NDSC Involvement (Mediation) 6 17 23 Calls Eliminated or 77 103 •180 Saved Source: Harrisburg Bureau of Police and Neighborhood Dispu[e Settlement Center There are other factors which could easily effect the data and conclusions con- tained in Tables 1 and III. The mid-range hourly salary for patrol officers was used. Officers' base pay could have been somewhat higher. The possibility of overtime was not considered. Some of the tesponding officers might have been supervisors (corporals or sergeants) whose salaries are much higher than the patrol officer. Fringe benefits, which are a real cost in determining the mone- tary outlay for municipal employees, were not included. It is also possible that the officers' appearance-in-court costs could be higher than that reflected in the projections. Certainly some of these factors have potentially contrary or limiting qualities. However, I believe the totality of what they mean is favor- able to the descriptions contained in the tables. SAVINGS FROM REDUCTION UR ELIMINATION UF.RETURN CALLS TABLE III IN ND RELATED INCIDENTS/CASES UPPER LIMIT LOWER LIMIT Costs per Call ~ $65.00 $38.00 Total Calls Saved 180 180 Total Costs $11,700.00 $6,840.00 for All Calls Savings Per $180.00 $105.00 Case (65) Source: Calculations developed from datafurnished by Harris- burg Bureau of Police and Neighborhood~Dispute Settle- ment Center APPENDIX A, ' , NEIGHBORHOOD DISPUTE SETI'LEMENNT STANDARDS AND GUIDELINES Mediation is a process through which parties to a dispute develop their own solutions and remedies within the limits of the law. The mediation meeting is conducted by two trained mediators. The mediators make no judgement relevant to the case, therefore the disputants are encouraged to address each other rather than the mediators. Through the process disputants explain their experience of the dispute in terms of their feelings, values and the facts as they see them. The process also requires that each side hears the other's point of view. The goal of the process is for the parties to develop, with the aid of the mediators, a written agreement addressing their dispute and signed by all parties to the dispute. In order for individuals to be qualified to mediate for NDS they must complete 24 hours of training in an NDS approved training program, co-mediate two disputes with current NDS mediators and be approved by a majority vote of the NDS Board. Parties contacting NDS by phone will be interviewed and their cases screened to determine the appropriateness of their case for mediation. Characteristics of cases which should not be handled by NDS are: - cases suspected to involve clinical psychiatric issues or spouse or child abuse; - cases involving disputes between family members living in the same house; - cases involving or with the potential to involve felony charges; - cases involving personal injury claims. Mediation Procedural Guidelines Two mediators conduct each mediation meeting; - Disputants must agree, at the beginning of the mediation, to stay seated and to not interrupt any speaker; - The parties are charged 34.00 at the beginning of the session. 'Ihis~fee can be waived upon request. - Confidentiality of the proceedings of the mediation meeting on the part of the mediators is assured. Notes are destroyed at the meeting's adjournment. - All parties to the dispute should attend. Witnesses however, are not-- needed. If an attorney attends he/she will be asked to speak only to their client and not to speak on behalf of their client. - The agreement and two carbon copies are written in specific, measurable terms with stated time frames when applicable. It is signed by all parties to the dispute and the mediators. Copies are provided to the parties to the dispute; Agencies referring cases to NDS, such as police departments, district justices, attorneys, etc., will receive prompt response on the results of each case they have referred to NDS as to whether or not the parties attended the scheduled mediation and whether or not an agreement was reached The contents of the agreement itself is considered to be the confidential property of the parties and will not be made public by NDS. 6 I believe it is significant to look at one final piece of evidence. NDSC's Appen- dices D and F contain information about ND cases which were not mediated. In the two time frames studied, there were call reductions of 2.3~ and 5.87, respectively. These results are as telling and significant as are the reports of call reduction results in Appendices C and E. The. question can be asked, "What if NDSC was in- volved in these cases by providing the mediation and negotiation so necessary to break the cycle of conflict?" Appendices D and F contain critical facts. They point to the effectiveness of NDSC by illustrating 'how the absence of its involve- ment creates a void in problem-solving and dispute resolution. In summary, this report shows that NDSC can bring about real cost reductions; and provide transferrable resources for other police applications. NDSC can and does save other dollars and time because it is involved in the system ~ a voluntary replacement and enhancer. I believe NDSC impacts in both a qualitative and quanti- tative manner. Unfortunately, monetary figures are so often not calculable in most of the qualitative areas. Where quantifiable, the._costs and savings calculations stand by NDSC as a viable and cost-effective alternative to neighborhood problem- solving and consequential improvements in the Quality of life in these communities. These findings should be sufficient to show the benefits of the NDSC's dispute resolution programs. They should support agencies in their deliberations in making choices and decisions about moving to this nationally acclaimed response to dispute settlement. APPENDIX B Testimony of Chief Richard Shaffer of the Harrisburg Police Bureau, 9-29-94, for The Pennsylvania House of Representatives, Judiciary Committee on HB 2960, An Act Establishing the Commission on Dispute Resolution and Conflict Management State and municipal law enforcement has long had to address the problem of neighborhood dispute with very little resource or time available to adequately -resolve the particular issue in question. Time and time again officers respond to the same complaint with no resolution developed. ~ time passes we saw these disputes escalate into criminal and sometimes violent results. Most law enforcement agencies do not have the time or expertise to set down and work with those in the coimminity who are in need of dispute resolution and conflict management assistance. When this Bureau was approached by the Neighborhood Dispute Settlement Center (NDSC), I realized this was the tool by which I could decrease the member of times a police officer must respond to the same neighborhood problem and, thus, improve the utilization of police services to the City of Harrisburg. Prior to the Neighborhood Dispute Settlement Center there was really no alternative for local law enforcement in handling neighborhood disputes. Today, the Center has become a viable and productive alternative to prior practice. In addition to law enforcement, services provided by the Neighborhood Dispute Settlement Center are utilized by local District Justices, Human Relations Coamnissions, apartment managers and other non-profit groups. -2- while working closely with the Neighborhood Dispute Settlement Center staff, the Harrisburg Police Bureau developed a computerized system that allows us to identify and forward to NDSC those persons seemingly engaged in non-violent, neighborhood problems that, with the exception of the issuance of a few stumaary citations, have gone both unattended and unresolved in many cases for years. Since we have coordinated efforts with the Neighborhood Dispute Settlement Center, police officers have come to realize the crime prevention benefits of conflict management and dispute resolution that has evolved through the skills of the mediators that have been available to us. Through the NDSC referral network, dealing with inter- personal and neighborhood problems has benefitted the Harrisburg Police Bureau by fewer calls to the same persons; fewer prosecutions at the district justice courts; more available patrol time for emergencies, and an increased rapport between the police and the carnnunity for the utilization of this new, c~+~r~ ty oriented solution to an old problem. rssll/speech APPENDIX C TAQLE A: CASES W~IERE NIEUfA7'lON WAS HELU~ CASE # # of calls 6 months before # of calls 6 months after 1 2 0 2 5 0 3 1 0 4 6 0 5 5 3 6 1 0 7 2 0 8 12 0 9 1 0 10 5 0 11 2 1 12 5 1 13 6 0 14 1 0 15 2 0 16 1 0 17 1 0 18 1 0 19 2 0 20 3 0 21 1 0 22 2 0 23 1 0 24 1 ~ 25 1 0 26 7 1 27 3 0 28 3 0 TOTAL 83 6 CHANGE IN PERCENTAGE OF CALLS, 6 MONTHS BEFORE AND RFTER -86.52 all cases reported by rIDR form from May 1993 through July 1994 APPENDIX.U TABLE B: CASES WITH NO 1~IEDIATION~ all cases reported by pIDR form from May 1993 through July 1994 APPENDIX E "CABLE A: Gases with mediation E # #~f calls 6 months before # of calls 6 months after 1 2 U 2 5 0 3 1 0 4 6 0. 5 S 3 0 1 0 7 2 0 *8 12 0 9 1 0 l0 5 0 11 2 1 iZ 5 1 13 6 U 14 1 0 IS 2 0 16 1 0 1? ~ 1 ~ 18 1 0 19 2 0 20 3 0 21 1 0 22 2 ~ 0 23 1 0 24 1 0 E-1 A E # # of calls 6 months before # of calls 6 months after 25 ( ~ 26 7 1 27 3 0 28 3 0 29 2 p zn 9 ~ -. 31 1 0 32 g ~ 33 2 0 3 `~ 1 0 *35 4 1 36 2 p 37 $ 4 T TAL• l20 l7 NOTE:75.2% decrease in calls, 6 months after as compared to 6 months before *same pair(s) of disputants, multiple mediations E-2 APPPENDIX F TABLE B• 'a~pc with no mediation .. `.. • -=: F-1 ;.. 25 1 0 26 ~ 1 0 27 ~ 1 0 28 1 0 29 1 1 30 1 ~ i 3i 1 0 32 1 ~ 33 l 0 3 ~1 1 0 35 2 1 36 1 5 37 1 1 38 ~ 2 39 1 0 X10 2 i 41 . 2 0 X12 1 10 ~t3 - 2 - 0 T L- 57 64 NOTE:5.8% increase in calls 6 months after as compared to 6 months before F-2 .. , THE DISPUTE RESOLUTION CENTER ~~ ~~ THE RICE COUNTY DISPUTE RESOLUTION PROGRAM AND THE CITY OF ROSEMOUNT Present 30 HOUR BASIC MEDIATION SgILLS TRAINING TRAINING OVERVIEW This training introduces participants to the process of mediation and the skills of the mediator. Participants will learn the practical applications of conflict resolution theory through ahands-on, experiential approach. The training employs extensive skill practice and role-plays, and all participants receive direct feedback to enhance their skills. This training is offered through the Dispute Resolution Center (DRC) and the Rice County Dispute Resolution Program (RCDRP) community mediation programs in association with the City of Rosemount. TRAINING CERTIFICATION This training meets requirements for mediating court- referred cases and for placement on the Minnesota Supreme Court Rule 114 Civil Law Roster of Neutrals. Under Rule 114 of the Minnesota General Rules of Practice, you must complete 30 hours of certified mediation training to qualify for the roster. Application has been made for certification to the Minnesota State Supreme Court ADR Office of Continuing Education. T[1Pi('S AND $KII.i.R C'nVF.RF.D This training will cover the following areas related to mediation: • mediation history • listening skills • problem-solving skills • personal conflict styles • co-mediation • facilitation skills • caucus sessions • agreement drafting • termination of mediation Each participant will receive a training manual, all necessary course materials, training exercises, statutes, and a valuable reference list of additional resources. REGISTRATION Please return the registration form by July 5 f lirlr hPTP to an to the raaictratinn fnrm THE TRAINING TEAM Mediation is about collaboration, and DRC employs a team approach to mediation. To provide an optimal experience, the training also involves a team approach. Guest experts provide special input on topics such as restorative justice and rules specific to Minnesota. Lead Trainer Milt Thomas has been practicing, studying, and training in conflict management and mediation for over two decades. He has been a trainer with U.S. Arbitration and Mediation of Minnesota since 1992, and with DRC since 1996. Milt has considerable experience mediating workplace conflicts, community disputes, visitation issues in divorce cases, and conciliation court cases. Milt is a consultant with the MN Pollution Control Agency's Organization Development and Training Program. He also teaches part-time for the Master's in Business Communication program at the University of St. Thomas. Milt earned a master's degree in interpersonal communication from the University of Montana, focusing on conflict management. Doctoral study in cultural conflict and dialogue at the University of Washington was accompanied by mediation training from Harvazd's W.F. Lincoln. Experienced mediators will coach participants as they practice their skills. WHO SHOULD ATTEND? Community members, attorneys, social workers, city administrators, educators, human resource professionals, and others interested in gaining practical skills in mediation and conflict resolution should attend. Those who successfully complete the training and are accepted for placement on the programs' volunteer panel will benefit from hands~n eXpe~leACe. Volunteers are needed in the City of Rosemount, and Ramsey and Rice Counties! Z'TMF.C AND j,(1CATi[lN The training will be held at the Rosemount Fire Station and the Rice and Ramsey County Courts. July 9th, 10th, 23rd and 24th 8:00 AM -- 5:00 PM Further directions will be provided upon registration. Mediation and Communication Skills Summer 2004 FOR MORE INFORMATION .. . Call or email Jeanne Zimmer at 651-292-6067 or - ~ji.GTCTRATiON FnRM Name: Address: Daytitne Phone: Evening Phone: Email address: Occupation: __ _ Please return this form to: "Professional and knowledgeable trainers. " "The training was vexyc well organized, flowed well, and was fun!" "This was a wonderful experience. " Please indicate below your registration choice and enclose a check for the corresponding fee payable to Dispute-Resob~n Centez. ^ Community volunteer $200.00 ^ Rule 114 Qualification $300.00 ^ + CLE credits $400.00 The fee for this training includes all course materials, Iuncb, and refreshments throughout the sessions. There is a X25.00 cancellation fee. SCHOLARSHIPSAREAVAILABLE RJR COMNf[INITY VO LUIVTEEBS ^ I am interested in DRC scholarships. Dispute Resolution Center 974 West 7`~ Street St. Paul, MN 55102 fax 651 292 6065 email drr-~dm~n~-~ ntinn~Q CClll1C'nct nvt CenturyCollege A Community and Technical College June 28, 2004 Melinda Coleman City of Maplewood 1830 East County Road B Maplewood, MN 55119 Re: Application for Award from Charitable Gambling Fund Dear Ms. Coleman: Enclosed is a full proposal from the Dental Hygiene Department at Century College in White Bear Lake requesting funding support for the establishment of a Children's Dental Outreach Program to be conducted in the city of Maplewood. The request in the amount of $8800.00 will fund necessary capital equipment, dental supplies and overhead expenses to be incurred with the start up of the outreach program "Smiles of Maplewood". The program will provide dental hygiene students and faculty the opportunity to provide an underserved dental population in the City of Maplewood with access to available and affordable preventive oral health care. If you have any questions concerning this concept paper, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, Mary Morales, RDH, BS, MHSA Dental Hygiene Department E3501 Home: 2444 Montana Ave E. Maplewood, MN 55119 m. morales Cc~ century. mnsccu.edu 779-5814 office 748-0716 home 3300 Century Avenue North, White Bear Lake, Minnesota 55 I I 0 • (612) 779-3200 An Equal Opportunity Community and Technical College. Member, Minnesota State Colleges and Universities Formerly Lakewood Cam~nunity College and Northeast Metro Technical College City of Maplewood Request to Spend Charitable Gambling Funds L r NDA Tc+~.fiENSoK, ,P~+/, BS if o~ganaaflan raNesun6 funds GEI'VTi~R'~f GoC,c,CG-~C- DE~/T,~-c. Hy6rlGJ~/~ Z~6~F,27'M~NT 65~' ~ ~xl' -3983 __ - -_ 3300 GEtilrv~?y ~vc:NVE /JoR7-fl ~ W~~~ ~~R ~K~:=m~M,V S~i~o Chock Type of Organization Making Request: ^City ^ County ^ Sdiooi District No. ~ Non-Profit (please attach proof of 501 c3 status) p(ocherc~~r) GEAlTURy Goc,c.C~yc-~ - M~M8E~2~M~~1rtlESot~ sT~z~ coc.c.E~i~s~s ~ J Pma- O~n~an Canted Peron ~.A..n... MARY MORA-t.CS Rr~K ~S MNs~k D~NTA~c. Ny~~~IVE iN5?,e~a?D~ Lawful Purpose Request 77G -581 r'ce. 'Zy~ -o7~e amp The above~named organization requests lawful gambling profits for the following Purpose: 00 Explain expeaditnre -attach additional sheets if necessary. Amount Requested $ 8, 8~• GHl[.DREN;S D~iJTA-L ©(>7-RE"Rf~-1 /°iZOE7R~4-IVj ~ Sc~'~ A-7l~Gf-/(~ D .l11SITfICat10/1 - (~iline haw project mess guidelines established byCity Council on Awards from Fund ~ SEc" ~ ~r ~GNEl~ By Completing and signing this form, the organization confums that the requested funds will be spent for a lawful purpose. This request expires are year from the date below. sib 'btla Date RaNt 35~ MK5~4 AENTA~- Ny6,i~NE iN5-~ycT'o,Q 6-Z~.-Dc~L ~N~ MARY tiloR~-C..~S, R.1~~/, .Bs, ~NS>4 12/98 - ohazgamfrm Century College Dental Hygiene Department Proposal for a Children's Dental Outreach Program "Smiles of Maplewood" PROJECT DESCRIPTION Century College Dental Hygiene Department wishes to establish a community outreach program for a portion of the underserved dental population in the City of Maplewood. This outreach measure would provide access to affordable Preventive Oral Health Care. The program is needed by the community to address a significant underserved population present in the City. This population has a high rate of dental disease and a high dental appointment cancellation rate due to a lack of affordability and adequate insurance to cover needed Preventive Dental Care. It is proposed that preventive services associated with the Dental Hygiene Department be provided as an integral part of the students' Community Dental Health Course and their clinical experience in the local Maplewood Community. The students and a faculty advisor, in groups of three or four, would travel to a site of need in Maplewood. They would then provide preventive services using portable equipment, to the population. Staffing, with the exception of a dentist when necessary, will be on a rotational basis as part of their course requirements. This grant request is needed to acquire necessary funding of startup expenses, dental supplies and to pay for capital equipment needs to adequately equip the Century College Dental Hygiene Program to handle the preventive dental care needs of some of Maplewood's underserved population. It is hopeful, that in the future, Medical Assistance and MN Care could be charged for the services performed and this reimbursement would be sufficient to cover the ongoing operating expenses and continuation of the project. 1. EXPLANATION OF EXPENDITURES 1. Hours of Service During the course of study at Century College, a Dental Hygiene Student is required to complete a Community Dental Health Course and Rotation. As part of this course, service to the local communities surrounding the College is stressed. Hours of service are required by the students' curriculum and no payment is expected by the students for services that they may provide. Hours of service would be expanded as students and additional dental professionals in Maplewood commit to provide services. 2. Detailed Budget Century College is requesting $ 8800.00 to support start-up costs associated with the establishment of a Community Dental Outreach Program for the City of Maplewood that would provide preventive services to underserved populations. To support this request, the following preliminary budget for the project is provided. Portable dental unit with compressor Portable patient chair Portable dental light Portable operators stools 5300.00 1200.00 1000.00 600.00 8100.00 Disposable Dental Supplies Total Amount Requested 3. Proposed Proiect Services 700.00 8800.00 ^ Oral Hygiene Education ^ Dental Health Screening ^ Fluoride Varnish Applications ^ Dental Sealants ^ Referral to dental offices for restorative needs 4. Proposed Proied Personnel Dental Hygiene Faculty Dental Hygiene Students Staff Dentist when necessary 11 Justification Century College is alearning-centered community committed to providing quality lifelong educational opportunities for a diverse citizenry. It was formed in 1996 by uniting Lakewood Community College and Northeast Metro Technical College. Through consolidation, the colleges became a comprehensive 2 community and technical college with an established track record of success. The college offers a solid liberal arts and sciences program designed for transfer to four-year institutions and over 60 challenging technical and occupational programs. In addition, Century College's Continuing Education and Customized Training Division, the largest in Minnesota, serves more than 20,000 individuals each year. Furthermore, Century College supports the economic development of the area by sharing its resources in the following ways: ^ Providing custom training programs and technology. ^ Participating in partnerships with higher education, business, industry, labor, and government agencies, and ^ Offering flexible use of the college facilities, personnel, and services. The Dental Hygiene Program has a ten (10) year history of serving low income populations in the area. Cher the years, many residents of the City of Maplewood have been faculty and staff at the College, and in the Dental Hygiene Program. At this time, approximately thirty percent of our patients in the Dental Hygiene Clinic are residents of Maplewood. Rationale for Action Oral Health in America: A Report of the Surgeon General alerted Americans to the importance of oral health in their daily lives. The Report, issued in May 2000 provided State-of-the-science evidence on the growth and development of oral, dental, and craniofacial tissues and organ; the diseases and conditions affecting them; and the integral relationship between oral health and general health, including reports of associations between chronic oral infections and diabetes., osteoporosis, heart and lung conditions, and certain adverse pregnancy outcomes. It also detailed how oral health is promoted, how oral diseases and conditions are prevented and managed, and what needs and opportunities exist to enhance oral health. Major findings and themes of the report include: ^ Oral health is more than healthy teeth ^ Oral diseases and disorders affect health and well-being throughout life. ^ The mouth reflects general health and well being. ^ Oral diseases and conditions are associated with other health problems. ^ Safe and effective measures exist to prevent the most common dental diseases -dental decay and gum disease. ^ There are profound and consequential oral health disparities within the U.S. population. 3 Oral diseases are progressive and cumulative and become more complex over time. They affect our ability to eat, the foods we choose, how we look, and the way we communicate. These diseases can affect economic productivity and compromise our ability to work at home, at school, or on the job. Health disparities exist across population groups at all ages. The following are highlights of oral health data for the target population of low- income children for this proposal: ^ Tooth decay is the single most common chronic childhood disease - 5 times more common than asthma and 7 times more common than hay fever. ^ There are striking disparities in dental disease by income. Poor children suffer twice as much dental decay as their more affluent peers, and their disease is more likely to be untreated. These poor-nonpoor differences continue into adolescence. One out of four children in America is born into poverty, and children living below the poverty line have more severe and untreated decay. ^ Professional care is necessary for maintaining oral health, yet 25 percent of poor children have not seen a dentist before entering kindergarten. ^ Medical insurance is a strong predictor of access to dental care. Uninsured children are 2.5 times less likely than insured children to receive dental care. Children from families without dental insurance are 3 times more likely to have dental needs than children with either public or private insurance. For each child without medical insurance, there are at least 2.6 children without dental insurance. ^ Medicaid has not been able to fill the gap in providing dental care to poor children. Less than one in five Medicaid covered children received a single dental visit in a recent year long study period. ^ More than 51 million school hours are lost each year to dental related illness. The Dental Hygiene Department would like to initiate this preventive outreach program in Maplewood to address some of these disparities. This program would specifically target low-income children. The Program would provide preventive services for the residents at Emma's Place and underserved students at the two elementary schools (Carver and Weaver) that school district 622 has within the city of Maplewood. Emma's Place in Maplewood opened in May of 2002. The thirteen unit town home development for homeless families with children currently has twelve women and fi three children living at the facility. 4 The children who would be targeted at the Maplewood schools for this program are those at Carver and Weaver Elementary that are on the free or reduced lunch program. Participation in the free or reduced lunch program is an income based qualification. As outlined in this proposal, low-income children are twice as likely to have dental problems and for these problems to be untreated. With the expected influx of Hmong refugees into the St. Paul and more specifically Maplewood area, many of the children can be expected to be included in the school based portion of this program. This proposed program could significantly benefit the dental health status of this minority group. The initial primary expense for this project is in purchasing the portable equipment. Once purchased, this equipment could be utilized for many years in the future to provide ongoing preventive services to these and other significantly underserved populations in Maplewood. Potential for expansion to include the elderly in nursing homes does exist. EVALUATION PLAN The proposed Children's Dental Outreach Program by the Dental Hygiene Department at Century College will measure increased access to dental care through the establishment of patient encounter data collected and placed in patient dental files. The Program intends on reporting this measuring data to the Minnesota Department of Human Services and the Ramsey County Health Department for ongoing study regarding the need for dental health services in the Maplewood area. Ongoing assessment of the effectiveness of the Children's Dental Outreach program will be conducted by the Dental Hygiene Department on a yearly basis. Mary Morales, RDH, BS, MHSA Dental Hygiene Instructor Century College Date: June 28, 2004 5 City of Maplewood Request to Spend Charitable Gambling Funds ~~ 9-. ~ ~ ~Cil}• ^ County o Sdrool District No. ^ Non-Profit (please atladr proof of SOlc3 status) ^ Olher (sP~Y) - ' T ~ t Lawful Purpose Request The abo~•e~named organizatiar requegs la~cful gatnblingprofits for the folla~ingpurpose: Explain eepcnalitttre -attach additional sheets if necessary. AIT1OUrit Requested $ ~/` (J~O . DO I3}' Completing and signing this form, the organization conf-ums that the requested funds ~~•ill be spent for a la~~•ful purpose. This request exp~s one year from,~Le date below. ~~ ~ ~ ~~~ ~ ~A ~ ~ ~/~ C //,t .tQotifD~ n~n,11/~1] ~ /~ SiAuhce Title fAte Chuic T}pe of Organisation A4aking Request: .)•uStif CatlO/i - Outline hmv project meets guidelines esiablislred b}• City Council on Awards from Fund. n N Q 0D (D N 3 Q ~~ (~ fD C 0D N ~ ~ < v ~ ~ ~ -~ C1 n ~ ~ 'd ~ N 'a ~ N 3 -v N 0D ~ N ~ (~ ~ N v_ ~ ~p N 'O ~ ~ ~. ~ 0 N ~ C .~ „ „ 0D 0D ~ ~ ~ N fD (7 O N O f/1 CD < 0p ~ ~ (~ 0p ~ ~ ~ W * ~1 ° o m p a `G o ~ fD ~ o (D O a N ~ a N n i o ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ o ~. N 3 c1 ~ ~ fD O ~ O - ~ OD ~ ~' .-_+ .~.. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ a _2 w 3 ~ 0D > ,~ ~ ~ n m N w r ~ ~ fD (7 v -I ~ , n ~ ~ ~ o ~• 0 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 7 ~ ~ ~ ~• X ~ ~ ~ O N z ~ N v ~ n f~A ~ ? ~. ~ V1 ~ ~ _ N i N ~ ~ N Q ~ I CJi O cfl Cn 0 0 O C7D 0 Cn OH 0 W O 0 OD O 0 ~ O 00 A 0 A IN 0 CJt O 0 0TH O 0 00 ~ O 0 A O 0 W Cn 0 ~ ~ H Cn O O O O O CJ7 O O O O O O O y n 3 I ~~ ~ ` ~ 3 I, i i i ep ,~ o w 3 3 Q O p~ n N v D' N N ~ O O ~ ~~ to T1 (D c fD N MEMORANDUM Agenda # K3 TO: Melinda Coleman Assistant City AAana FROM: Bruce K.14nd rs Director of P and c tion DATE: June 30, 2004 fo a 12t ity Council Meeting SUBJECT: Legacy Village Sculpture Park Introduction Legacy Village Sculpture Park is an 11-acre site located in the southeast comer of the Legacy Park Development Project. The Parks and Recreation Commission and City Council have provided preliminary approval of the concept developing a passive park/sculpture garden as a part of the Legacy Park Development Project. The City Council has approved the sale of tax abatement bonds in the amount of $450,000 for construction and landscaping of the 11-acre site. The initial grading is currently underway as a part of Legacy Parkway and the retaining wall and sidewalks are scheduled to be completed by August 15, 2004. Legacy Sculpture Park will be an integral part of the overall master plan for the Legacy Development being planned by Hartford Companies. Background The 11-acre site was originally dedicated to the city as wetlands and open space to meet the storm water holding requirements for the entire site. After a series of meetings with both the engineers and landscape architects, the concept of developing a passive park/sculpture garden has become a reality. The project has been reviewed by the Parks and Recreation Commission on three separate occasions and was a featured part of the Park Tour on June 21, 2004. The initial grading and retaining walls are scheduled for completion as a part of Legacy Parkway on August 15, 2004. The final plans have been prepared for construction and installation of plant materials by city staff in cooperation with Brauer and Associates. Enclosed is a copy of the master layout plans for both landscape materials and overall park construction. Bids are scheduled to be opened on July 22, 2004 and will be awarded at the July 26th City Council Meeting. The initial grading and construction is currently ahead of schedule and we hope to begin construction of the park on Monday, August 2"d. The estimated budget for the project is $425,000 plus engineering fees. Phase one development of Legacy Sculpture Park will be paid by the proceeds from the tax abatement bonds approved by the City Council on June 14, 2004. Recommendation Staff recommends that the City Council approve the concept plans for Legacy Park as presented and authorize staff to proceed with the bid opening schedule on July 22, 2004, and funding allocated from the proceeds of the approved tax abatement bonds. s~so •1w~rWsDlos-a eN.1 4M~W-a-,p.a~w uiwr. aw w.s ! ~ i ~ ~~ ~~~~~ I mt 'I ~ i~~ ~ 1 .... 3 i ;' j ~ ~~ 3 ~ ~~ x~ ~~z~ ~~ ~, +~~ ~~ ,~~ ~ ~i k :x . ~~ Q a ~~ ~ ~ ~~ ~. ~t ~+ ~ ~ 8~ i i f`~ \.~ ~A~~ f ~.f ~~s ~aai ~ ~ ~ --- =~ x. ~~_ ; -~ , i ~ ~ ~; E~~~ ~w ~ ! r r ~ ~ _ ~„-, r ? ~ ..~ ~ ~ - ~ za r _ i Q ar ~ ~. ~ j' k i I~ ~~ ~f> ~~~ ;~ .,e~i ~~ ~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~° ~° ~~I 8 ~~ ~~ . ~ r x_ ~. _.... f 3 ' ~ + ,.. ~~~ i ~ ~ ~ ~~ - ~ 5' 4~ ~ ~ r } ~' ` ,ti -v ~ ~ ~ ~~ i ~ ~ ~ ~ r ~ . ,. _--- - ----------f -.-~ ___ - ~ ~ ~~ ~ t t ~ rP _ c ,y} ~ .~ , ; i r ~ y O , 7 ~ ~ ~ ( `~ .~~ i ~ f ~ ~ ,~ ~ ~ . i r,. V~ _ 1 ~:~ ~ r: ~ .; ~ ~".~ ~ ~ ,. rrl ~ , m i~ ,' '~.. °'ti.,, Age - ~ -~~ r ~, ~ s ~ "" ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ,~ ~ _ _ - t ~ r _ , ., .. a ° ", ~ ~~ ~ v s 3 (~ ~ W _ ~ {.w 4 ( ~ l F\/ j' ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Y n ~ .a~ ~ ! / ~~ ~ S K r..q~ \ i ~ ~ ~ ~ / ~f /r 1 '~ ~ x~ ~ ~ f l _ _ x f ~ . ~ ~ A t ~ ~ ~T~t ~ 4 ~` ~~ M. [ 4 J f r y q ~ S C ~ ; r ~, r r Q ~~ ~. 4 ~t ~. ){ ....~..c~ G F _. _v....~ ,~-~- t r t r z.~ +w. ~~ ~. (~ - c r *. f r .-„ . -a _:~ ~ t ~ 1 ~ 1.4. ~ ..~ ~„ , _ ap tt 4 A f 1 ` E r tr ` ;-) ! f . "...... ~` Ott ~ .~'. '~• L , f r / . `~ _ _, ~ ,.. ^ j i x / f ~ r t ~ ~~ ~~ ' .~ ` ' ,- .._ L acy V~lage Park r ~ City of~iAaplewood, Minnesota ~~Ovorall La out Plan, ~ ---_ ~ #~~ ~f ~;. .wn wr '°" ~I{ II Lawn UsP Pw++nwl nsra 41IIO~ ,~.. , ~ ~p.~',~~t.,,.'~y~~~y ~, ~.~~~~p~~~ a~ ~~ ~ ~~ ~~ a ~8~ i ~'. ~~~ ~p ~~ : ~ ~ ~~ ~~ g$=~~ ~ ~~ A ~~~~~ a I ~` >, ~~,+ , ~~,` ''F :~ _..._.._,,..,......,. ~` r Z -_ _..__..._,____m.,.~..____m.....~..,..,_.,., ....... ______,.~.. ~._,.~...e.., ,.. _... _......._.._ Laga y Park Landscape Project ~ity of Maplewood MFI _.>... .,,.,,,.. ~~~ 1}`~ ~ _}} ~ H„+n,_ ~ { ~ - ___ _ L wn l.sr P~~~ r.iHU xf.n W.slf~ g ~ ~ ( ~ ~ ~ IV , OVERALL LANDSCAPE PLAN ~ ~~ E~; ~~ , , . ~~~~~~~ . AGENDA ITEM AGENDA REPORT TO: Richard Fursman, City Manager FROM: Charles Ahl, Director of Public Works/City Engineer Chris Cavett, Assistant City Engineer SUBJECT: County Road D Extension (Hazelwood to TH 61)-City Project 02-07 Resolution Authorizing Condemnation Proceedings on Property for Purposes of Right-of-Way Acquisition for: 1. PIN 34-30-22-44-0013, Owner: Larson Enterprises -Slumberland 2. PIN 34-30-22-44-0002, Owner: Theis Talle -Mapleridge Aptartments DATE: July 2, 2004 Introduction Staff has been in ongoing discussions with both of the above property owners regarding acquisition of right-of-way however they are not proceeding as expected and neither property owner has yet agreed to sign aright-of-entry to allow the city to begin construction. Staff is continuing to work with the property owners to address their concerns and is optimistic that a mutual agreement will be worked out shortly. However, to avoid continued delays, provide some leverage to continue negotiations and to encourage the property owners to provide the necessary rights-of entry, staff is recommending that the condemnation process begin on the two referenced properties. The city council will consider approving the attached resolution authorizing eminent domain proceedings on property for purposes of right-of-way acquisition. Background As part of the proposed realignment of County Road D, the existing roadway between Hazelwood Street and Southlawn Drive will be widened 8-feet on either side of the road to accommodate enough width to allow a center median with turn lanes. The center median and turn lanes are an important safety and traffic flow element to the new roadway, as the new roadway will carry a much larger volume of traffic than it does currently. The current right-of-way is a narrow 33-feet. The city has proposed to acquire and additional 10-feet of right-of-way from the adjacent property owners to accommodate the widening. Both properties have had concerns about what possible impacts a permanent easement dedication might have to site setback requirements. These issues are addressed in Maplewood City Ordinance Sec. 44-14: "Reductions in lot sizes through street widening by condemning authorities; adjustments to lot size requirements of chapter" (see enclosed). Basically, the ordinance states that the site would continue to be in conformance as if the widening had not occurred. The ordinance has been shared with both property owners. Price has been an obstacle with both property owners. In any case, staff will be obtaining an updated appraisal for the Slumberland property. Mapleridge Apartments has a concern about access to their west drive. City staff and the city's City Council Agenda Background County Road DExtension-Property Condemnation Page 2 consultant are working with the property owner and their engineer develop some possible options and to address their concerns. Construction on the actual roadway is expected to begin in mid-July 2004. Obtaining these easements prior to beginning construction is important, but not imperative. The work and function of the roadway can continue, though there could be some added claims by the contractor for delays in the flow of their operations. Actually, failure of the property owners to provide right-of-entry will likely cause the properties more inconvenience than it will to the project or the contractor. Staff is continuing to negotiate with these property owners; however, if an agreement cannot be reached shortly, it will be important that the lengthy condemnation process is started now to continue to move the process along. The condemnation process, which legally is defined as the eminent domain proceeding, is also used as a negotiating tool. The filing of the legal papers requires the parties to meet a deadline for compromise, and allows for discussion to proceed without the project deadlines being impacted. Budget Impact Right-of-way acquisition is included in the approved project budget. Recommendation It is recommended that the City Council adopt the attached resolution Authorizing Eminent Domain Proceedings on Property for Purposes of Right-of-Way Acquisition, City Project 02-07, and direct staff to continue negotiations to acquire the property necessary for right- of-way purposes. CMC/RCA Jw Attachment: Resolution Location Map RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING EMINENT DOMAIN PROCEEDINGS ON CERTAIN PROPERTY FOR RIGHT-OF-WAY PURPOSES WHEREAS, on December 9, 2002, the City Council selected an alignment for County Road D between Hazelwood Street and Trunk Highway 61 (TH 61), and WHEREAS, pursuant to resolution of the council adopted May 12, 2003, a report had been prepared under the direction of the city engineer with reference to the improvement of County Road D between Hazelwood Street and Trunk Highway 61, City Project 02-07 and said feasibility report was received by the council on July 22, 2003, and WHEREAS, the report provided information regarding whether the proposed project is necessary, cost-effective, and feasible, and WHEREAS, to construct said improvement it was deemed necessary to acquire property for right-of-way purposes from the following properties: a. PIN 34-30-22-44-0013, Owner: Larson Enterprises - (Slumberland) b. PIN 34-30-22-44-0002, Owner: Theis Talle - (Mapleridge Apartments) WHEREAS, a public hearing for said improvement was held on September 8, 2003, and WHEREAS, it is necessary to begin eminent domain proceedings to expedite the acquisition of right-of-way and to ensure that the project remains on schedule. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA: 1. The city engineer and city attorney are hereby authorized to acquire through eminent domain proceedings the following properties for purposes of right-of-way acquisition: a. PIN 34-30-22-44-0013, Owner: Larson Enterprises - (Slumberland) b. PIN 34-30-22-44-0002, Owner: Theis Talle - (Mapleridge Apartments) Approved this 12th day of July 2004. LOCATION MAP County Road D Extension (Hazelwood to TH 61)-City Project 02-07 Authorizing Condemnation Proceedings on Property for Purposes of Right-of-Way Acquisition AGENDA ITEM K5 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), City Project 02-07--Resolution Approving Modification of Existing Construction Contract, Change Order No. 1 DATE: July 6, 2004 Introduction Bids for this project were received and opened on June 4, 2004 and the construction contract was awarded to Shafer Construction on June 28, 2004. The contract documents establish defined interim and final completion dates for various phases of the project. Staff is recommending revisions to some of these completion dates. The city council will consider approving the attached resolution Directing the Modification to the existing construction contract. Background Phase One of the contract calls for the reconstruction of County Road D between Hazelwood Street and Southlawn Drive. This first phase is proposed to be completed by October 2004. The work between Hazelwood and TH 61, (phases 2, 3 & 4) are being delayed due to the soil correction work taking longer than anticipated), as well as a delay in the final agreement with the Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad and Minnesota Commercial Railroad on the abandonment of the railroad. Shafer Construction has agreed to the revised completion dates with no claims for a revision in contract prices. The purpose of this change order, (C.O. #1), is to revise the conditions of the contract completion dates. Discussion/Budget Impact This change order has no contract costs associated with it; rather it is a modification of the construction milestone dates only. Modification of Existing Construction Contract, Project 02-07 Page 2 July 6, 2004 Recommendation It is recommended that the city council approve the attached resolution Directing the Modification of the Existing Construction Contract, Change Order No.1, with the approval of the recommended revisions of contract completion dates. Attachments: Resolution Change Order No Location map RESOLUTION DIRECTING MODIFICATION OF EXISTING CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT WHEREAS, the City Council of Maplewood, Minnesota has heretofore ordered the Construction of County Road D Realignment East (T.H. 61 to Southlawn Dr.) City Project 02-07, 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 02-07, 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 $0.00. The revised contract amount is $2,369,862.11. No revisions to the project budget are proposed at this time as Change Order No. 1 is for the purpose of modifying the contract completion dates only. . ~ _ _ '4 - - ~• ~ „ ., ti ~ .l :4A .. .{ 3% }• Y k ~ -r 4 - . ~t ~ } ,I ~ a ~ A4 ~ Y { Agenda # AGENDA REPORT TO: Richard Fursman, City Manager FROM: Steve Hurley, IT Director DATE: July 12~ Council Meeting RE: IT Technician Introduction• The Information Technology department provides and maintains the technology tools for smooth operation of all departments. The increase in users, hardware, so$ware and new projects and programs has placed LT in a reactive mode. We can no longer keep up with the increased workload and are falling behind daily. We are using the services of a part time LT. Technician working 1-2 days per week but still cannot keep up. Duties in the IT department have grown with the addition of the ADT security system, phone system, new printers, copiers, scanners and a four year PC replacement schedule requiring the replacement of about 40 computers each year plus another 20 new or unscheduled replacements. Each replacement requires several hours to install new so$ware, move existing data from the old PC and configure networking and printing. Becoming more common are malicious virus and worm attacks to our network requiring hours or even days to clean up taking away valuable time from IT to handle the dozens of Help Desk requests for service each month. Information Technology has been identified by Council and management as vital to City operation. Department heads have strongly voiced the need for full-time help in the LT. Department so that their department technology needs can be addressed on a timely basis. Recommendation: Authorize the creation of one regular full-time position entitled IT Technician with a pay range established at $35,313 to $44,486. Funding for the position to come from the IT Fund. It is recommended that the Finance Director be given authority to make the appropriate budget adjustments.