Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
2004 09-27 City Council Packet
AGENDA MAPLEWOOD CITY COUNCIL 7:00 P.M. Monday, September 27, 2004 Council Chambers, Municipal Building Meeting No. 04-22 A. CALL TO ORDER B. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE C. ROLL CALL Mayor's Address on Protocol: "Welcome to the meeting of the Maplewood City Council. It is our desire to keep all discussions civil as we work through difficult issues tonight. If you are here for a Public Hearing or to address the City Council, please familiarize yourself with the Policies and Procedures and Rules of Civility, which are located near the entrance. When you address the council, please state your name and address clearly for the record. All comments/questions shall be posed to the Mayor and Council. I then will direct staff, as appropriate, to answer questions or respond to comments. " D. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 1. Minutes from the Special City Council Meeting-September 13, 2004 2. Minutes from the City Council Meeting-September 13, 2004 E. APPROVAL OF AGENDA F. APPOINTMENTS/PRESENTATIONS Planning Commission Appointment 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. Car Allowance - IT Director 3. Hazardous Materials Fund 4. Disaster Mitigation Plan Resolution 5. Standard Master Agreement for Professional Engineering Services between the City and Short Elliott Hendrickson, Inc. 6. County Road D West Improvements (TH 61 to Highridge Court), City Project 02-08 - Resolution Concurring with Jurisdiction Transfer by Ramsey County of Existing County Road D West of TH 61 7. 2004-2005 Winter Sand Quotes 8. Xcel Energy Franchise Ordinances -Second Reading 9. Legacy Village Agreement Amendment 10. Resolution Certifying Election Judges for the November 2, 2004 General Election 11. Resolution Establishing An Absentee Ballot Board H. PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. 7:00 pm Springside Drive Extension--West of Sterling St., Project 03-36 - Resolution Canceling Hearing and Rescheduling Hearing for 2005 2. 7:15 pm Summerhill of Maplewood (Senior Housing Cooperative) (935 Ferndale Street North) Land Use Plan Change - S (school) to R-3(H) (4 votes) Zoning Map Change - R-1 (single dwelling) to R-3 (multiple-family residential) Design Approval 3. 7:30 pm Ramsey County Suburban Courthouse (2050 White Bear Avenue) Lot Division Conditional Use Permit Design Approval L AWARD OF BIDS 1. Springside Drive, Project 03-36 -Resolution Receiving and Rejecting All Bids and Authorizing Project Rebid for 2005 2. Award Bid to Second Wind Exercise Equipment for Maplewood Community Center J. UNFINISHED BUSINESS Project Reconsideration - Mapletree Townhouses (Southlawn Drive) a. Preliminary Plat b. Design Approval K. NEW BUSINESS 1. County Road D Improvements (TH 61 to Southlawn), City Project 02-07 -Approve Settlement Agreement with Maple Ridge Apartments 2. Priory Neighborhood Park Preserve Master Plan 3. Hazelwood/County Road C Area Street Improvements, Project 03-18 and Venburg/Guldens Frontage Road, Project 04-04, (02-08) Resolutions for. Modification of Existing Construction Contract to Project 03-18, Change Order No. 1 and to Approve Transfer of Funds from Project 04-04, (02-08) to Project 03-18 4. Sister City L. VISITOR PRESENTATIONS M. COUNCIL PRESENTATIONS N. ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS October Council Meeting O. ADJOURNMENT Sign language interpreters for hearing impaired persons are available for public hearings upon request. The request for this service must be made at least 96 hours in advance. Please call the City Clerk's Office at (651) 249-2001 to make arrangements. Assisted Listening Devices are also available. Please check with the City Clerk for availability. RULES OF CIVILITY FOR O UR COMMUNITY Following are some rules of civility the City ofMaplewood expects of everyone appearing at CouncilMeetings -elected officials, staff and citizens. It is hoped that by following these simple rules, everyone's opinions can be heard and understood in a reasonable manner We appreciate the fact that when appearing at Council meetings, it is understood that everyone will follow these principles: Show respect for each other, actively listen to one another, keep emotions in check and use respectful language. Agenda Item D1 MINUTES MAPLEWOOD CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL Meeting 5:00 P.M. Monday, September 13, 2004 Council Chambers, City Hall Meeting No. 04-20 A. B. CALL TO ORDER PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE C. ROLL CALL D. Robert Cardinal, Mayor Kathleen Juenemann, Councilmember Marvin Koppen, Councilmember Jackie Monahan-Junek, Councilmember Will Rossbach, Councilmember Present Present Present Present Present Others Present: City Manager Fursman Assistant City Manager Coleman Finance Director Faust Assistant City Engineer Cavett City Clerk Guilfoile Human Resources Director Le Police Chief Thomalla Fire Chief Lukin UNFINISHED BUSINESS 1. 2005 Proposed Budget Review City Manger Fursman introduced the goals of the Council and the 2005 proposed budget. He also reviewed the city survey relating highlights to the proposed budget. Council asked questions of Mr. Fursman and city staff and discussed various budget cuts that have been proposed. E. ADJOURNMENT Mayor Cardinal moved to adjourn the meetin,~ at 6:45 p.m. Seconded by Councilmember Koppen Ayes-All DRAFT--MINUTES MAPLEWOOD CITY COUNCIL 7:05 P.M. Monday, September 13, 2004 Council Chambers, City Hall Meeting No. 04-21 Agenda Item D2 CALL TO ORDER: B. C. D. E. A meeting of the City Council was held in the Council Chambers, at the City Hall, and was called to order at 7:05 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 Special City Council Meeting-August 23, 2004 Councilmember Juenemann moved to approve the minutes from the Special City Council Meeting from August 23, 2004 as presented. Seconded by Councilmember Monahan-Junek Ayes-All 2. Minutes from City Council Meeting-August 23, 2004 Councilmember Monahan-Junek moved to approve the minutes from the August 23, 2004 City Council Meeting as amended. Seconded by Councilmember Koppen Ayes-All APPROVAL OF AGENDA Ml. Garbage Cans M2. Partnership Proclamation M3. Paul Mueller Resignation from Planning Commission M4. Courthouse M5. South Leg Councilmember Monahan-Junek moved to approve the agenda as amended. Seconded by Councilmember Rossbach Ayes-All City Counci109-13-04 F. APPOINTMENTS/PRESENTATIONS None G. CONSENT AGENDA Councilmember Rossbach moved to approve agenda items as presented. Seconded by Councilmember Monahan-Junek Ayes-All 1. Approval of Claims ACCOUNTS PAYABLE: $ 4,880.77 Checks # 64693 thru # 64694 dated 8/17/04 thru 8/19/04 $ 726,861.08 Checks # 64695 thru # 64745 dated 8/24/04 $ 270,735.26 Disbursements via debits to checking account dated 8/13/04 thru 8/20/04 $ 882,253.30 Checks #64746 thru # 64818 dated 08/31/04 $ 6,296,785.94 Disbursements via debits to checking account dated 8/23/04 thru 8/26/04 $ 1,266,735.00 Checks #64819 dated 9/01 /04 $ 675,134.54 Checks #64820 thru # 64864 dated 9/02/04 thru 9/07/04 $ 5,016,441.36 Disbursements via debits to checking account dated 8/27/04 thru 9/02/04 $ 15,139,827.25 Total Accounts Payable $ 431,040.11 Payroll Checks and Direct Deposits dated 08/27/04 $ 4,150.96 $ - dated 08/27/04 $ 435,191.07 Total Payroll City Counci109-13-04 2 $ 15,575,018.32 GRAND TOTAL 2. Conditional Use Permit Review -Liberty Classical Academy (1717 English Street) Approved to review the conditional use permit for Liberty Classical Academy at 1717 English Street again in one year. Conditional Use Permit Review -Sinclair Fuel Station (223 Larpenteur Avenue East) Approved to review the permit for Sinclair Oil Corporation to operate a motor fuel station at 223 Larpenteur Avenue East again in one year. All original conditional use permit conditions as outlined in the July 8, 2002 city council minutes apply. 4. Conditional Use Permit Review - St. Paul Hmong Alliance Church (1770 McMenemy Street) Approved to review the conditional use permit for the St. Paul Hmong Allliance Church at 1770 Mc Menemy Street again in one year. 5. Conditional Use Permit Review -Hmong American Alliance Church (2515 Maplewood Drive North) Approved to review the conditional use permit for the Hmong American Alliance Church at 2515 Maplewood Drive North again in one year. All original conditional use permit conditions as outlined in the September 22, 2003 city council minutes apply. 6. Temporary Gambling License -North Star Chapter Brewery Collectible Club of America-Aldrich Arena Adopted the following resolution approving the Temporary Gambling License for the North Star Chapter of the Brewery Collectible Club of America. RESOLUTION 04-09-158 BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED, by the City Council of Maplewood, Minnesota, that the temporary permit for lawful gambling is approved for the North Star Chapter of BCCA. FURTHERMORE, that the Maplewood City Council waives any objection to the timeliness of application for said permit as governed by Minnesota Statute §349.213. FURTHERMORE, that the Maplewood City Council requests that the Gambling Control Division of the Minnesota Department of Gaming approve said permit application as being in compliance with Minnesota Statute §349.213. NOW, THEREFORE, be it further resolved that this Resolution by the City Council of Maplewood, Minnesota, be forwarded to the Gambling Control Division for their approval. City Counci109-13-04 7. County Road D Realignment (East), Project 02-07 -Approve Easement Acquisitions Approved the acquisitions of the noted an permanent and temporary easement for the County Road D Realignment Project between Trunk highway 61 and Southlawn Drive and to authorize staff to make payment to Pineview Estates Townhome Association in the amount of $26,425 and to Larson Enterprises (Slumberland) in the amount of $30,400. County Road D Realignment (West), Project 02-08 -Resolution Ordering Assessment Hearing Adopted the following resolution for the County Road D Realignment (West), Walter Street to T.H. 61, City Project 02-08-Ordering the Assessment Hearing for 7:00 p.m., Monday, October ll, 2004: RESOLUTION 04-09-159 ORDERING ASSESSMENT ROLL HEARING WHEREAS, the clerk and the engineer have, at the direction of the council, prepared an assessment roll for the County Road D Realignment, (West), Walter St. to T.H. 61, City Project 02-08, and the said assessment roll is on file in the office of the city engineer. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA: 1. A hearing shall be held on the 1 lth day of October 2004, at the city hall at 7:00 p.m. to pass upon such proposed assessment and at such time and place all persons owning property affected by such improvement will be given an opportunity to be heard with reference to such assessment. 2. The city clerk is hereby directed to cause a notice of the hearing on the proposed assessment to be published in the official newspaper, at least two weeks prior to the hearing, and to mail notices to the owners of all property affected by said assessment. 3. The notice of hearing shall state the date, time and place of hearing, the general nature of the improvement the area to be assessed, that the proposed assessment roll is on file with the clerk and that written or oral objections will be considered. 9. Kennard Street Improvements, Project 03-04 -Resolution Directing the Modification of Existing Construction Contract for the Street Construction, (Change Order No. 4) and for the Landscaping Contract (Change Order No. 1) Adopted the following resolutions for Change Order No. 4 in the amount of $28,308.24 with Forest Lake Contracting for the road construction contract of Kennard Street, Project 03-04 and Change Order No., 1 in the amount of $33,114.59 with Nobel Nursery Retail, Inc. fort he landscaping contract of Kennard Street, Project 03-04: RESOLUTION 04-09-160 DIRECTING MODIFICATION OF EXISTING CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT City Counci109-13-04 WHEREAS, the City Council of Maplewood, Minnesota has heretofore ordered made Improvement Project 03-04, Kennard Street Improvements, and has let a construction contract pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 429, and WHEREAS, it is now necessary and expedient that said contract be modified and designated as Improvement Project 03-04, Change Order No. 4. 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. 4 in the amount of $28,308.24. The revised contract amount is $1,273,689.04. No revisions to the project budget are proposed at this time as these changes fall within the original project budget. RESOLUTION 04-09-161 DIRECTING MODIFICATION OF EXISTING LANDSCAPE CONTRACT WHEREAS, the City Council of Maplewood, Minnesota has heretofore ordered made Improvement Project 03-04, Kennard Street Landscape Improvements, and has let a landscape contract pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 429, and WHEREAS, it is now necessary and expedient that said landscape contract be modified and designated as Landscape Improvement, Project 03-04, 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 $33,114.59. The revised contract amount is $252,992.55. No revisions to the project budget are proposed at this time as these changes fall within the original project budget. 10. Increase in Records, Elections and License Department Service Charges Approved the revisions in the City Clerk Service charges. 11. Annual Maplewood Historical Society Payment Approved the $2000.00 annual payment to the Maplewood Historical Society H. PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. 7:00 p.m. Cottages at Legacy Village (Hazelwood Street) Land Use Plan Change - BC (Business Commercial) to R-3(H) Conditional Use Permit for Planned Unit Development Preliminary Plat Design Approval City Counci109-13-04 City Manager Fursman presented the report. b. Planner Roberts presented specifics from the report. Commissioner Bartol presented the Planning Commission Report. d. Boardmember Olson presented the Community Design Review Board Report. Mayor Cardinal opened the public hearing, calling for proponents or opponents. The following person was heard: Larry Alm, Southwind Builders, White Bear Lake, MN £ Mayor Cardinal closed the public hearing. Councilmember Rossbach moved to adopt the following resolution a~provin~ a change to the comprehensive land use plan from BC (business commercial) to R3H (high density residential) fora 4.6 acre site for the Cottages at Legac~ge on Hazelwood Street: LAND USE PLAN CHANGE RESOLUTION 04-09-162 WHEREAS, Larry Alm, representing Southwind Builders, applied for a change to the City's land use plan from BC (business commercial) to R3H (high density residential). WHEREAS, this change applies to the property located on the east side of Hazelwood Street, south of County Road D. The legal description is: Lots 1 through 36 inclusive, Block 6, Dorle Park, Ramsey County, and Lots 16 through 21 inclusive, Block 3, Dorle Park, Ramsey County, together with any vacated alleys and roads accruing thereto. WHEREAS, the history of this change is as follows: 1. On August 16, 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 September 13, 2004, the City Council discussed the land use plan change. They considered reports and recommendations from the Planning Commission and City staff. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council approve the above described change because: 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 is between two residential areas. City Counci109-13-04 3. This change would allow for town house that would be more compatible and in character with the adjacent townhome development. 4. This site is proper for and consistent with the city's policies for high-density residential use. This includes: a. It is on a collector street and is near arterial streets. b.Minimizing any adverse effects on surrounding properties because there would be no traffic from this development on existing residential streets. 5. It would be consistent with the proposed land use. Seconded by Councilmember Koppen Ayes-All Councilmember Rossbach moved to approve adopt the following resolution approving the 33- unit Cottages at Legac~ge PUD (planned unit development) on Hazelwood Street. The city bases this approval on the findings required b,, c CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION 04-09-163 FOR A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT WHEREAS, Larry Alm, representing Southwind Builders, applied for a conditional use permit for a planned unit development fora 33-unit detached town house development. WHEREAS, this permit applies to the 4.6-acre site on the east side of Hazelwood Street lying south of County Road D. The legal description is: Lots 1 through 36 inclusive, Block 6, Dorle Park, Ramsey County, and Lots 16 through 21 inclusive, Block 3, Dorle Park, Ramsey County, together with any vacated alleys and roads accruing thereto. WHEREAS, the history of this conditional use permit is as follows: On August 16, 2004, the planning commission recommended that the city council approve this permit. 2. The city council held a public hearing on September 13, 2004. City staff published a notice in the paper and sent notices to the surrounding property owners as required by law. The council gave everyone at the hearing a chance to speak and present written statements. The council also considered reports and recommendations of the city staff and planning commission. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the city council approve the above-described conditional use permit because: The use would be located, designed, maintained, constructed and operated to be in conformity with the City's Comprehensive Plan and Code of Ordinances. City Counci109-13-04 2. The use would not change the existing or planned character of the surrounding area. The use would not depreciate property values. 4. The use would not involve any activity, process, materials, equipment or methods of operation that would be dangerous, hazardous, detrimental, disturbing or cause a nuisance to any person or property, because of excessive noise, glare, smoke, dust, odor, fumes, water or air pollution, drainage, water run-off, vibration, general unsightliness, electrical interference or other nuisances. The use would generate only minimal vehicular traffic on local streets and would not create traffic congestion or unsafe access on existing or proposed streets. 6. The use would be served by adequate public facilities and services, including streets, police and fire protection, drainage structures, water and sewer systems, schools and parks. 7. The use would not create excessive additional costs for public facilities or services. The use would maximize the preservation of and incorporate the site's natural and scenic features into the development design. 9. The use would cause minimal adverse environmental effects. Approval is subject to the following conditions: 1. The development shall follow the plans date-stamped July 22, 2004, except where the city requires changes. The director of community development may approve minor changes. 2. The proposed construction must be substantially started within one year of council approval or the permit shall end. The council may extend this deadline for one year. The city council shall review this permit in one year. 4. The applicant shall meet all the requirements noted in the Assistant City Engineer's report dated August 6, 2004. 5. The applicant shall sign a development agreement with the city before the city issues a grading permit. 6. The applicant shall provide a copy of the homeowner's association documents to staff for approval. 7. The developer or contractor shall construct the prof ect according to the plans date-stamped July 22, 2004, except as specifically modified by these conditions. City Counci109-13-04 8. The developer shall add sidewalks and sidewalk connections in locations that city staff decides are necessary. 9. The developer or builder will provide parking spaces at the ends of the driveways wherever they may fit. 10. The developer or builder shall install asix-foot-wide concrete sidewalk on the east side of Hazelwood Street for the entire length of the project. 11. The grades of the power line trail and all public sidewalks will meet ADA guidelines for slope. 12. Provide a revised landscape plan for city staff approval. This revised plan shall include: a. Increasing the tree size to 2 ~/z inches (from 2 inches). b. Changing the Colorado Spruce to Black Hills Spruce or Austrian Pines (or a mix of these two species). c. The developer should coordinate the landscaping materials and designs along Legacy Parkway and Hazelwood Street to make sure that they are compatible with the approved landscape designs for Heritage Square and Kennard Street. d. Overstory trees to be planted along both sides of Legacy Parkway and Along Hazelwood Street shall be set at an average of 30- to 40-feet on center. 13. All setbacks are approved as shown on the plans date-stamped July 22, 2004. 14. Side yard building setbacks for all buildings that are less than required by the zoning code are specifically approved within this PUD as shown on the site plan date-stamped July 22, 2004. 15. The applicant or developer shall provide visitor-parking spaces at the minimum quantity ofone-half space per townhome unit. This works out to a minimum of 17 required visitor parking. 16. An easement over the power line trail on this parcel will be provided to the city for access and maintenance. a. 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. Seconded by Councilmember Koppen Ayes-All Councilmember Juenemann moved to approve the preliminaryplat for the Cotta,~es of Legacy Village (Date stamped July 22, 2004) based on the following conditions: 1. Sign an agreement with the city that guarantees that the developer or contractor will: City Counci109-13-04 a. Complete all grading for overall site drainage, complete all retaining walls, site landscaping and meet all city requirements. b. * Place temporary orange safety fencing and signs at the grading limits. c. Have Xcel Energy install Group V rate street lights in the development -primarily at the street and driveway intersections. The exact style and location shall be subject to the city engineer's approval. d. Provide all required and necessary easements (including all utility easements and ten-foot drainage and utility easements along the front and rear lot lines of each lot and five-foot drainage and utility easements along the side lot lines of each lot). e. Pay the city for the cost oftraffic-control, street identification, and no parking signs. f. Provide all required and necessary easements, including any off-site easements. g. Demolish or remove all 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. Seconded by Councilmember Koppen Ayes-All Councilmember Juenemann moved to approve the project plans date-stamped July 22, 2004, for the Cottages at Legac~ge on Hazelwood Street: Obtaining city council approval of a comprehensive land use plan revision from BC (business commercial) to R3H (high density residential) to build townhomes on the site. 2. Obtaining city council approval of a planned unit development for this project. 3. Obtaining city council approval of the preliminary plat for this project. 4. Complete the following before the city issues a building permit: a. Have the city engineer approve the final construction and engineering plans. These plans shall include grading, drainage, sidewalk, utility, driveway, parking lot and erosion control plans. These plans shall meet the following conditions: (1) The erosion control plan shall be consistent with the city code. (2) The grading plan shall: (a) Include building, floor elevation, water elevation and contour information. These shall include the normal water elevation and 100-year high water elevation. (b) Include contour information for the land that the construction will disturb. City Counci109-13-04 10 (c) Show sedimentation basins or ponds as 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 north, east and south sides of the site. (3) The tree plan shall: (a) Be approved by the city engineer before site grading or tree removal. (b) Show where the developer will remove, save or replace large trees. This plan shall include an inventory of all existing large trees on the site. (c) Show no tree removal beyond the approved grading and tree limits. (d) Be consistent with the approved grading and landscape plans. (4) The developer shall be responsible for getting any needed off-site grading or drainage easements and for recording all necessary easements. (5) All the parking areas and driveways shall have continuous concrete curb and gutter. (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 north, east and south property lines and the applicant shall change the grading plan for this part of the site as recommended by the city engineer. b. Submit an in-ground lawn-irrigation plan to staff showing the location of sprinkler heads. c. Submit a certificate of survey for all new construction. d. Submit a revised landscape plan for city approval showing: (1) As much of the existing vegetation (including the trees) remaining along the northern, easterly and southerly property lines as possible. City Counci109-13-04 11 (2) Foundation plantings near and around the buildings. (3) The in-ground lawn-irrigation system. (4) Larger tree sizes (2 ~/z inch-caliper instead of 2 inch). (5) Replacing the Colorado Blue Spruce with Black Hills Spruce and Austrian Pines. (6) Appropriate sized trees planted between the townhomes to ensure no overcrowding when they are full grown. B. 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 near the driveways, where they intersect the public street, so the driveways are 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. C. Have the Saint Paul Regional Water Services (SPRWS) approve the proposed utility plans. D. A letter of credit or cash escrow for all required exterior improvements. The amount shall be 150 percent of the cost of the work. Staff shall determine the dollar amount of the escrow. E. The developer shall close on the purchase of the properties with the city before the city will issue a grading or a building permit for the project. F. The contractor or builder shall meet all of the requirements of the fire marshal and building official. G. The applicant shall obtain all required permits from the Ramsey-Washington Metro Watershed District. H. The applicant shall submit an address and traffic signage plan for staff approval. L Submit revised building elevations for city staff approval. These elevations shall show the stone on the front of the attached garages to be installed as a wainscot to the height of the trim board located on the sides of the units. Submit homeowner's association documents for city staff approval. These shall specify the availability of overnight parking for the residents and guests on the private roads and driveways. 5. Complete the following before occupying the buildings: a. Install reflectorized stop signs at each driveway connection to Hazelwood Street and Legacy Parkway, ahandicap-parking sign for each handicap-parking space City Counci109-13-04 12 and an address on each building. In addition, the applicant shall install "no parking" and any traffic control signs within the site, as required by staff. b. Install and taper the concrete sidewalk along Hazelwood Street and Legacy Parkway to match the driveways. c. Install and maintain all required landscaping and an in-ground sprinkler system for all landscaped areas (code requirement). d. Install continuous concrete curb and gutter along all interior driveways and around all open parking stalls. e. 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. f. Install the trails and sidewalks as shown on the approved plans and as required by the city engineer. g. The developer or contractor shall: Place temporary orange safety fencing and signs at the grading limits. 2. Remove any debris or junk from the site. 6. Repeat this review in two years if the city has not issued a building permit for this project by that time. 7. Any identification signs for the project must meet the requirements of the city sign ordinance. 8. The city approves the setbacks as shown on the project plans. 9. All work shall follow the approved plans. The director of community development may approve minor changes. 10. The city will allow a temporary sales office until the time a model unit is available for use. Such a temporary building shall be subject to the requirements of the building official. 11. No units facing Hazelwood Street shall have utility rooms or exposed utility meters on that elevation. 12. The applicant shall work with staff to propose suitable screening for outside utility meters. This may include painting the meters and other utilities along the side of the garages plus adding landscaping in front of the meters as maybe needed. 13. 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. City Counci109-13-04 13 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. Seconded by Councilmember Koppen Ayes-All I. AWARD OF BIDS Legacy Village Lighting Improvements, Project 04-23 -Resolution for Award of Bids a. City Manager Fursman presented the report. b. Assistant City Engineer Cavett provided specifics from the report. Councilmember Monahan-Junek moved to adopt the following resolution awarding the bid for Legac~ge Lighting improvements to Forest Lake Contracting Company in the amount of $207,600: RESOLUTION FOR AWARD OF BIDS 04-09-164 BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA, that the bid of Forest lake Contracting Co., in the amount of $207,600.00 is the lowest responsible bid for the Legacy Village Lighting Improvements, City Project 04-23, 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 Koppen Ayes-All 2. County Road D Realignment (West), Project 02-08 -Resolution for Award of Bids a. City Manager Fursman presented the report. b. Assistant City Engineer Cavett provided specifics from the report. Councilmember Monahan-Junek moved to award the bid County Road D Realignment West to Palda & Sons, Inc. in the amount of $1,333,032.71: RESOLUTION FOR AWARD OF BIDS 04-09-165 BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA, that the bid of Palda & Son, Inc., in the amount of $1,333,032.71 is the lowest responsible bid for the construction of County Road D Realignment West (Walter Street to T.H. 61), City Project 02-08, 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. City Counci109-13-04 14 Seconded by Councilmember Koppen Ayes-All J. UNFINISHED BUSINESS 1. Electric Franchise Fee City Manager Fursman presented the staff report. b. Finance Director Faust presented specifics from the report. Councilmember Juenemann moved to approve the first reading of the Electric Franchise Ordinance: ELECTRIC FRANCHISE ORDINANCE ORDINANCE N0.852 CITY OF MAPLEWOOD,I2AMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA An ordinance granting to Northern States Power Company, A Minnesota Corporation, d/b/a Xcel Energy its successors and assigns, permission to construct, operate, repair and maintain in the City of MAPLEWOOD, Minnesota, an electric distribution system and transmission lines, including necessary poles, lines, fixtures and appurtenances, for the furnishing of electric energy to the City, its inhabitants, and others, and to use the public ways and public grounds of the city for such purposes. THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MAPLEWOOD, RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA, ORDAINS: SECTION 1. DEFINITIONS. For purposes of this Ordinance, the following capitalized terms listed in alphabetical order shall have the following meanings: City. The City of Maplewood, County of Ramsey, State of Minnesota. City Utility System. Facilities used for providing non-energy related public utility service owned or operated by City or agency thereof, including sewer and water service, but excluding facilities for providing heating, lighting or other forms of energy. Commission. The Minnesota Public Utilities Commission, or any successor agency or agencies, including an agency of the federal government which preempts all or part of the authority to regulate electric retail rates now vested in the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission. Company. Northern States Power Company, a Minnesota corporation, d/b/a Xcel Energy its successors and assigns. Electric Facilities. Electric transmission and distribution towers, poles, lines, guys, anchors, conduits, fixtures, and necessary appurtenances owned or operated by Company for the purpose of providing electric energy for public use. Notice. A written notice served by one party on the other party referencing one or more provisions of this Ordinance. Notice to Company shall be mailed to the General Counsel, Suite 3000, City Counci109-13-04 15 800 Nicollet Mall, Minneapolis, MN 55402. Notice to the City shall be mailed to the City Clerk, City Hall, 1830 East County Road B, Maplewood, MN 55109. Either party may change its respective address for the purpose of this Ordinance by written notice to the other party. Public Ground. Land owned by the City for park, open space or similar purpose, which is held for use in common by the public. Public Way. Any street, alley, walkway or other public right-of--way within the City. SECTION 2. ADOPTION OF FRANCHISE. 2.1 Grant of Franchise. City hereby grants Company, for a period of 20 years from the date passed and approved by the City, the right to transmit and furnish electric energy for light, heat, power and other purposes for public and private use within and through the limits of the City as its boundaries now exist or as they may be extended in the future. For these purposes, Company may construct, operate, repair and maintain Electric Facilities in, on, over, under and across the Public Ways and Public Grounds of City, subject to the provisions of this Ordinance. Company may do all reasonable things necessary or customary to accomplish these purposes, subject, however, to such reasonable regulations as may be imposed by the City pursuant to ordinance and to the further provisions of this franchise agreement. 2.2 Effective Date; Written Acceptance. This franchise agreement shall be in force and effect from and after passage of this Ordinance, its acceptance by Company, and its publication as required by law. The City by Council resolution may revoke this franchise agreement if Company does not file a written acceptance with the City within 90 days after publication. 23 Service and Rates. The service to be provided and the rates to be charged by Company for electric service in City are subject to the jurisdiction of the Commission. The area within the City in which Company may provide electric service is subj ect to the provisions of Minnesota Statutes, Section 216B.40. 2.4 Publication Expense. The expense of publication of this Ordinance will be paid by City and reimbursed to City by Company. 2.5 Dispute Resolution. If either party asserts that the other parry is in default in the performance of any obligation hereunder, the complaining party shall notify the other party of the default and the desired remedy. The notification shall be written. Representatives of the parties must promptly meet and attempt in good faith to negotiate a resolution of the dispute. If the dispute is not resolved within 30 days of the written notice, the parties may j ointly select a mediator to facilitate further discussion. The parties will equally share the fees and expenses of this mediator. If a mediator is not used or if the parties are unable to resolve the dispute within 30 days a$er first meeting with the selected mediator, either party may commence an action in District Court to interpret and enforce this franchise or for such other relief as may be permitted by law or equity for breach of contract, or either party may take any other action permitted by law. SECTION 3. LOCATION, OTHER REGULATIONS. 3.1 Location of Facilities. Electric Facilities shall be located, constructed and maintained so as not to interfere with the safety and convenience of ordinary travel along and over Public Ways and so as not to disrupt normal operation of any City Utility System previously installed therein. Electric Facilities shall be located on Public Grounds as deterniined by the City. Company's construction, reconstruction, operation, repair, maintenance and location of Electric Facilities shall be subj ect to permits if required by separate ordinance and to other reasonable regulations of the City to the extent not inconsistent with the terms of this franchise agreement. Company may abandon underground Electric Facilities in place, provided at the City's request, City Counci109-13-04 16 Company will remove abandoned metal or concrete encased conduit interfering with a City improvement project, but only to the extent such conduit is uncovered by excavation as part of the City improvement prof ect. 3.2 Field Locations. Company shall provide field locations for its underground Electric Facilities within City consistent with the requirements of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 216D. 3.3 Street Openings. Company shall not open or disturb any Public Way or Public Ground for any purpose without first having obtained a permit from the City, if required by a separate ordinance, for which the City may impose a reasonable fee. Permit conditions imposed on Company shall not be more burdensome than those imposed on other utilities for similar facilities or work. Company may, however, open and disturb any Public Way or Public Ground without permission from the City where an emergency exists requiring the immediate repair of Electric Facilities. In such event Company shall notify the City by telephone to the office designated by the City as soon as practicable. Not later than the second working day thereafter, Company shall obtain any required permits and pay any required fees. 3.4 Restoration. After undertaking any work requiring the opening of any Public Way or Public Ground, Company shall restore the same, including paving and its foundation, to as good a condition as formerly existed, and shall maintain any paved surface in good condition for two years thereafter. The work shall be completed as promptly as weather permits, and if Company shall not promptly perform and complete the work, remove all dirt, rubbish, equipment and material, and put the Public Way or Public Ground in the said condition, the City shall have, after demand to Company to cure and the passage of a reasonable period of time following the demand, but not to exceed five days, the right to make the restoration at the expense of Company. Company shall pay to the City the cost of such work done for or performed by the City. This remedy shall be in addition to any other remedy available to the City for noncompliance with this Section 3.4, but the City hereby waives any requirement for Company to post a construction performance bond, certificate of insurance, letter of credit or any other form of security or assurance that may be required, under a separate existing or future ordinance of the City, of a person or entity obtaining the City's permission to install, replace or maintain facilities in a Public Way. 3.5 Avoid Damage to Electric Facilities. Nothing in this Ordinance relieves any person from liability arising out of the failure to exercise reasonable care to avoid damaging Electric Facilities while performing any activity. 3.6 Notice of Improvements. The City must give Company reasonable notice of plans for improvements to Public Ways or Public Ground where the City has reason to believe that Electric Facilities may affect or be affected by the improvement. The notice must contain: (i) the nature and character of the improvements, (ii) the Public Ways and Public Grounds upon which the improvements are to be made, (iii) the extent of the improvements, (iv) the time when the City will start the work, and (v) if more than one Public Way or Public Ground is involved, the order in which the work is to proceed. The notice must be given to Company a sufficient length of time in advance of the actual commencement of the work to permit Company to make any necessary additions, alterations or repairs to its Electric Facilities. 3.7 Shared Use of Poles. Company shall make space available on its poles or towers for City fire, water utility, police or other City facilities whenever such use will not interfere with the use of such poles or towers by Company, by another electric utility, by a telephone utility, or by any cable television company or other form of communication company. In addition, the City shall pay for any added cost incurred by Company because of such use by City. SECTION 4. RELOCATIONS. 4.1 Relocation of Electric Facilities in Public Ways. If the City determines to vacate a Public Way City Counci109-13-04 17 for a City improvement project, or at City's cost to grade, regrade, or change the line of any Public Way, or construct or reconstruct any City Utility System in any Public Way, it may order Company to relocate its Electric Facilities located therein if relocation is reasonably necessary to accomplish the City's proposed public improvement. Except as provided in Section 43, Company shall relocate its Electric Facilities at its own expense. The City shall give Company reasonable notice of plans to vacate for a City improvement prof ect, or to grade, regrade, or change the line of any Public Way or to construct or reconstruct any City Utility System. If a relocation is ordered within five years of a prior relocation of the same Electric Facilities, which was made at Company expense, the City shall reimburse Company for non-betterment costs on a time and material basis, provided that if a subsequent relocation is required because of the extension of a City Utility System to a previously unserved area, Company may be required to make the subsequent relocation at its expense. Nothing in this Ordinance requires Company to relocate, remove, replace or reconstruct at its own expense its Electric Facilities where such relocation, removal, replacement or reconstruction is solely for the convenience of the City and is not reasonably necessary for the construction or reconstruction of a Public Way or City Utility System or other City improvement. 4.2 Relocation of Electric Facilities in Public Ground. City may require Company at Company's expense to relocate or remove its Electric Facilities from Public Ground upon a finding by City that the Electric Facilities have become or will become a substantial impairment to the existing or proposed public use of the Public Ground. 43 Proj ects with Federal Funding. Relocation, removal, or rearrangement of any Company Electric Facilities made necessary because of the extension into or through City of a federally-aided highway project shall be governed by the provisions of Minnesota Statutes, Section 161.46, as supplemented or amended. It is understood that the right herein granted to Company is a valuable right. City shall not order Company to remove or relocate its Electric Facilities when a Public Way is vacated, improved or realigned because of a renewal or a redevelopment plan which is financially subsidized in whole or in part by the Federal Government or any agency thereof, unless the reasonable non-betterment costs of such relocation and the loss and expense resulting therefrom are first paid to Company, but the City need not pay those portions of such for which reimbursement to it is not available. 4.4 No Waiver. The provisions of this franchise apply only to facilities constructed in reliance on a franchise from the City and shall not be construed to waive or modify any rights obtained by Company for installations within a Company right-of--way acquired by easement or prescriptive right before the applicable Public Way or Public Ground was established, or Company's rights under state or county permit. SECTION 5. TREE TRIMMING. Company may trim all trees and shrubs in the Public Ways and Public Grounds of City to the extent Company finds necessary to avoid interference with the proper construction, operation, repair and maintenance of any Electric Facilities installed hereunder, provided that Company shall save the City harmless from any liability arising therefrom, and subject to permit or other reasonable regulation by the City. SECTION 6. INDEMNIFICATION. 6.1 Indemni , of City. Company shall indemnify, keep and hold the City free and harmless from any and all liability on account of injury to persons or damage to property occasioned by the construction, maintenance, repair, inspection, the issuance ofpermits, or the operation of the Electric Facilities located in the Public Ways and Public Grounds. The City shall not be indemnified for losses or claims occasioned through its own negligence except for losses or claims arising out of or alleging the City's negligence as to the issuance of permits for, or inspection of, Company's plans or work. The City shall not be indemnified if the injury or damage results from the performance in a proper manner of acts reasonably deemed hazardous by Company, City Counci109-13-04 18 and such performance is nevertheless ordered or directed by City after notice of Company's determination. 6.2 Defense of City. In the event a suit is brought against the City under circumstances where this agreement to indemnify applies, Company at its sole cost and expense shall defend the City in such suit if written notice thereof is promptly given to Company within a period wherein Company is not prejudiced by lack of such notice. If Company is required to indemnify and defend, it will thereafter have control of such litigation, but Company may not settle such litigation without the consent of the City, which consent shall not be unreasonably withheld. This section is not, as to third parties, a waiver of any defense or immunity otherwise available to the City; and Company, in defending any action on behalf of the City shall be entitled to assert in any action every defense or immunity that the City could assert in its own behalf. SECTION 7. VACATION OF PUBLIC WAYS. The City shall give Company at least two weeks prior written notice of a proposed vacation of a Public Way. Except where required for a City improvement project, the vacation of any Public Way, after the installation of Electric Facilities, shall not operate to deprive Company of its rights to operate and maintain such Electric Facilities, until the reasonable cost of relocating the same and the loss and expense resulting from such relocation are first paid to Company. In no case, however, shall City be liable to Company for failure to specifically preserve aright-of--way under Minnesota Statutes, Section 160.29. SECTION 8. CHANGE IN FORM OF GOVERNMENT. Any change in the form of government of the City shall not affect the validity of this Ordinance. Any governmental unit succeeding the City shall, without the consent of Company, succeed to all of the rights and obligations of the City provided in this Ordinance. City Counci109-13-04 19 SECTION 9. FRANCHISE FEE. 9.1 Fee Schedule. During the term of the franchise hereby granted, and in lieu of any permit or other fees being imposed on Company, the City may impose on Company a franchise fee, for the sole purpose of recovering the cost to maintain and operate street lights and traffic signals, by collecting the amounts indicated in a Fee Schedule set forth in a separate ordinance from each customer in the designated Company Customer Class. The parties have agreed that the franchise fee collected by the Company and paid to the City in accordance with this Section 9 shall not exceed the following amounts. Customer Class Residential Small C & I -Non-Demand Small C & I -Demand Large C & I Public Street Lighting Muni Pumping -N/D MuniPumping -Demand Fee Per Premise Per Month $0.50 $1.00 $6.00 $45.00 $0.50 $0.50 $0.50 9.2 Separate Ordinance. The franchise fee shall be imposed by a separate ordinance duly adopted by the City Council, which ordinance shall not be adopted until at least 60 days after written notice enclosing such proposed ordinance has been served upon Company by certified mail. The fee shall not become effective until the beginning of a Company billing month at least 60 days after written notice enclosing such adopted ordinance has been served upon Company by certified mail. Section 2.5 shall constitute the sole remedy for solving disputes between Company and the City in regard to the interpretation of, or enforcement of, the separate ordinance. No action by the City to implement a separate ordinance will commence until this Ordinance is effective. A separate ordinance which imposes a lesser franchise fee on the residential class of customers than the maximum amount set forth in Section 9.1 above shall not be effective against Company unless the fee imposed on each other customer classification is reduced proportionately in the same or greater amount per class as the reduction represented by the lesser fee on the residential class. 9.3 Terms Defined. For the purpose of this Section 9, the following definitions apply: 9.3.1 "Customer Class" shall refer to the classes listed on the Fee Schedule and as defined or determined in Company's electric tariffs on file with the Commission. 9.3.2 "Fee Schedule" refers to the schedule in Section 9.1 setting forth the various customer classes from which a franchise fee would be collected if a separate ordinance were implemented immediately after the effective date of this franchise agreement. The Fee Schedule in the separate ordinance may include new Customer Class added by Company to its electric tariffs after the effective date of this franchise agreement. 9.4 Collection of the Fee. The franchise fee shall be payable quarterly and shall be based on the amount collected by Company during complete billing months during the period for which payment is to be made by imposing a surcharge equal to the designated franchise fee for the applicable customer classification in all customer billings for electric service in each class. The payment shall be due the last business day of the month following the period for which the payment is made. The franchise fee may be changed by ordinance from time to time; however, each change shall meet the same notice requirements and not occur more often than annually and no change shall require a collection from any customer for electric service in excess of the amounts City Counci109-13-04 20 specifically permitted by this Section 9. The time and manner of collecting the franchise fee is subject to the approval of the Commission. No franchise fee shall be payable by Company if Company is legally unable to first collect an amount equal to the franchise fee from its customers in each applicable class of customers by imposing a surcharge in Company's applicable rates for electric service. Company may pay the City the fee based upon the surcharge billed subject to subsequent reductions to account for uncollectibles, refunds and correction of erroneous billings. Company agrees to make its records available for inspection by the City at reasonable times provided that the City and its designated representative agree in writing not to disclose any information which would indicate the amount paid by any identifiable customer or customers or any other information regarding identified customers. In addition, the Company agrees to provide at the time of each payment a statement summarizing how the franchise fee payment was determined, including information showing any adjustments to the total surcharge billed in the period for which the payment is being made to account for any uncollectibles, refunds or error corrections. 9.5 Equivalent Fee Requirement. The separate ordinance imposing the fee shall not be effective against Company unless it lawfully imposes and the City monthly or more often collects a fee or tax of the same or greater equivalent amount on the receipts from sales of energy within the City by any other energy supplier, provided that, as to such a supplier, the City has the authority to require a franchise fee or to impose a tax. The "same or greater equivalent amount" shall be measured, if practicable, by comparing amounts collected as a franchise fee from each similar customer, or by comparing, as to similar customers the percentage of the annual bill represented by the amount collected for franchise fee purposes. The franchise fee or tax shall be applicable to energy sales for any energy use related to heating, cooling or lighting, or to run machinery and appliances, but shall not apply to energy sales for the purpose of providing fuel for vehicles. If the Company specifically consents in writing to a franchise or separate ordinance collecting or failing to collect a fee from another energy supplier in contravention of this Section 9.5, the foregoing conditions will be waived to the extent of such written consent. SECTION 10. PROVISIONS OF ORDINANCE. 101 Severability. Every section, provision, or part of this Ordinance is declared separate from every other section, provision, or part; and if any section, provision, or part shall be held invalid, it shall not affect any other section, provision, or part. Where a provision of any other City ordinance conflicts with the provisions of this Ordinance, the provisions of this Ordinance shall prevail. 10.2 Limitation on Applicability. This Ordinance constitutes a franchise agreement between the City and Company as the only parties and no provision of this franchise shall in any way inure to the benefit of any third person (including the public at large) so as to constitute any such person as a third party beneficiary of the agreement or of any one or more of the terms hereof, or otherwise give rise to any cause of action in any person not a party hereto. City Counci109-13-04 21 SECTION 11. AMENDMENT PROCEDURE. Either party to this franchise agreement may at any time propose that the agreement be amended to address a subj ect of concern and the other party will consider whether it agrees that the amendment is mutually appropriate. If an amendment is agreed upon, this Ordinance may be amended at any time by the City passing a subsequent ordinance declaring the provisions of the amendment, which amendatory ordinance shall become effective upon the filing of Company's written consent thereto with the City Clerk within 90 days after the date of final passage by the City of the amendatory ordinance. SECTION 12. PREVIOUS FRANCHISES SUPERSEDED. This franchise supersedes any previous electric franchise granted to Company or its predecessor. Seconded by Councilmember Rossbach Ayes-All Councilmember Koppen moved to approve the first reading of the Gas Franchise Ordinance: GAS FRANCHISE ORDINANCE ORDINANCE N0.853 CITY OF MAPLEWOOD, RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA AN ORDINANCE GRANTING TO NORTHERN STATES POWER COMPANY, A MINNESOTA CORPORATION, D/B/A XCEL ENERGY ITS SUCCESSORS AND ASSIGNS, PERMISSION TO ERECT A GAS DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM FOR THE PURPOSES OF CONSTRUCTING, OPERATING, REPAIRING AND MAINTAINING IN THE CITY OF MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA, THE NECESSARY GAS PIPES, MAINS AND APPURTENANCES FOR THE TRANSMISSION OR DISTRIBUTION OF GAS TO THE CITY AND ITS INHABITANTS AND OTHERS AND TRANSMITTING GAS INTO AND THROUGH THE CITY AND TO USE THE PUBLIC WAYS AND PUBLIC GROUNDS OF THE CITY FOR SUCH PURPOSES. THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MAPLEWOOD, RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA, ORDAINS: SECTION 1. DEFINITIONS. For purposes of this Ordinance, the following capitalized terms listed in alphabetical order shall have the following meanings: City. The City of Maplewood, County of Ramsey, State of Minnesota. City Utility System. Facilities used for providing non-energy related public utility service owned or operated by City or agency thereof, including sewer and water service, but excluding facilities for providing heating, lighting or other forms of energy. Commission. The Minnesota Public Utilities Commission, or any successor agency or agencies, including an agency of the federal government which preempts all or part of the authority to regulate Gas retail rates now vested in the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission. Company. Northern States Power Company, a Minnesota corporation, d/b/a Xcel Energy its successors and assigns. City Counci109-13-04 22 Gas. "Gas" as used herein shall be held to include natural gas, manufactured gas, or other form of gaseous energy. Gas Facilities. Pipes, mains, regulators, and other facilities owner or operated by Company for the purpose of providing gas service for public use. Notice. A written notice served by one party on the other party referencing one or more provisions of this Ordinance. Notice to Company shall be mailed to the General Counsel, Suite 3000, 800 Nicollet Mall, Minneapolis, MN 55402. Notice to the City shall be mailed to the City Clerk, City Hall, 1830 East County Road B, Maplewood, MN 55109. Either party may change its respective address for the purpose of this Ordinance by written notice to the other party. Public Ground. Land owned by the City for park, open space or similar purpose, which is held for use in common by the public. Public Way. Any street, alley, walkway or other public right-of--way within the City. SECTION 2. ADOPTION OF FRANCHISE. 2.1 Grant of Franchise. City hereby grants Company, for a period of 20 years from the date passed and approved by the City, the right to transmit and furnish Gas energy for light, heat, power and other purposes for public and private use within and through the limits of the City as its boundaries now exist or as they maybe extended in the future. For these purposes, Company may construct, operate, repair and maintain Gas Facilities in, on, over, under and across the Public Ways and Public Grounds of City, subject to the provisions of this Ordinance. Company may do all reasonable things necessary or customary to accomplish these purposes, subject, however, to such reasonable regulations as may be imposed by the City pursuant to ordinance and to the further provisions of this franchise agreement. 2.2 Effective Date; Written Acceptance. This franchise agreement shall be in force and effect from and after passage of this Ordinance, its acceptance by Company, and its publication as required by law. The City by Council resolution may revoke this franchise agreement if Company does not file a written acceptance with the City within 90 days after publication. 23 Service and Rates. The service to be provided and the rates to be charged by Company for Gas service in City are subject to the jurisdiction of the Commission. 2.4 Publication Expense. The expense of publication of this Ordinance will be paid by City and reimbursed to City by Company. 2.5 Dispute Resolution. If either party asserts that the other parry is in default in the performance of any obligation hereunder, the complaining party shall notify the other party of the default and the desired remedy. The notification shall be written. Representatives of the parties must promptly meet and attempt in good faith to negotiate a resolution of the dispute. If the dispute is not resolved within 30 days of the written notice, the parties may j ointly select a mediator to facilitate further discussion. The parties will equally share the fees and expenses of this mediator. If a mediator is not used or if the parties are unable to resolve the dispute within 30 days a$er first meeting with the selected mediator, either party may commence an action in District Court to interpret and enforce this franchise or for such other relief as may be permitted by law or equity for breach of contract, or either party may take any other action permitted by law. City Counci109-13-04 23 SECTION 3. LOCATION, OTHER REGULATIONS. 3.1 Location of Facilities. Gas Facilities shall be located, constructed and maintained so as not to interfere with the safety and convenience of ordinary travel along and over Public Ways and so as not to disrupt normal operation of any City Utility System previously installed therein. Gas Facilities shall be located on Public Grounds as deterniined by the City. Company's construction, reconstruction, operation, repair, maintenance and location of Gas Facilities shall be subject to permits if required by separate ordinance and to other reasonable regulations of the City to the extent not inconsistent with the terms of this franchise agreement. Company may abandon underground gas facilities in place, provided, at City's request, Company will remove abandoned metal pipe interfering with a City improvement project, but only to the extent such metal pipe is uncovered by excavation as part of the City's improvement project. 3.2 Field Locations. Company shall provide field locations for its underground Gas Facilities within City consistent with the requirements of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 216D. 3.3 Street Openings. Company shall not open or disturb any Public Way or Public Ground for any purpose without first having obtained a permit from the City, if required by a separate ordinance, for which the City may impose a reasonable fee. Permit conditions imposed on Company shall not be more burdensome than those imposed on other utilities for similar facilities or work. Company may, however, open and disturb any Public Way or Public Ground without permission from the City where an emergency exists requiring the immediate repair of Gas Facilities. In such event Company shall notify the City by telephone to the office designated by the City as soon as practicable. Not later than the second working day thereafter, Company shall obtain any required permits and pay any required fees. 3.4 Restoration. After undertaking any work requiring the opening of any Public Way or Public Ground, Company shall restore the same, including paving and its foundation, to as good a condition as formerly existed, and shall maintain any paved surface in good condition for two years thereafter. The work shall be completed as promptly as weather permits, and if Company shall not promptly perform and complete the work, remove all dirt, rubbish, equipment and material, and put the Public Way or Public Ground in the said condition, the City shall have, after demand to Company to cure and the passage of a reasonable period of time following the demand, but not to exceed five days, the right to make the restoration at the expense of Company. Company shall pay to the City the cost of such work done for or performed by the City. This remedy shall be in addition to any other remedy available to the City for noncompliance with this Section 3.4, but the City hereby waives any requirement for Company to post a construction performance bond, certificate of insurance, letter of credit or any other form of security or assurance that maybe required, under a separate existing or future ordinance of the City, of a person or entity obtaining the City's permission to install, replace or maintain facilities in a Public Way. 3.5 Avoid Damage to Gas Facilities. Nothing in this Ordinance relieves any person from liability arising out of the failure to exercise reasonable care to avoid damaging Gas Facilities while performing any activity. 3.6 Notice of Improvements. The City must give Company reasonable notice of plans for improvements to Public Ways or Public Ground where the City has reason to believe that Gas Facilities may affect or be affected by the improvement. The notice must contain: (i) the nature and character of the improvements, (ii) the Public Ways and Public Grounds upon which the improvements are to be made, (iii) the extent of the improvements, (iv) the time when the City will start the work, and (v) if more than one Public Way or Public Ground is involved, the order in which the work is to proceed. The notice must be given to Company a sufficient length of time in advance of the actual commencement of the work to permit Company to make any necessary additions, alterations or repairs to its Gas Facilities. City Counci109-13-04 24 SECTION 4. RELOCATIONS. 4.1 Relocation of Gas Facilities in Public Ways. If the City determines to vacate a Public Way for a City improvement prof ect, or at City's cost to grade, regrade, or change the line of any Public Way, or construct or reconstruct any City Utility System in any Public Way, it may order Company to relocate its Gas Facilities located therein if relocation is reasonably necessary to accomplish the City's proposed public improvement. Except as provided in Section 43, Company shall relocate its Gas Facilities at its own expense. The City shall give Company reasonable notice of plans to vacate for a City improvement project, or to grade, regrade, or change the line of any Public Way or to construct or reconstruct any City Utility System. If a relocation is ordered within five years of a prior relocation of the same Gas Facilities, which was made at Company expense, the City shall reimburse Company for Non-Betterment Costs on a time and material basis, provided that if a subsequent relocation is required because of the extension of a City Utility System to a previously unserved area, Company may be required to make the subsequent relocation at its expense. Nothing in this Ordinance requires Company to relocate, remove, replace or reconstruct at its own expense its Gas Facilities where such relocation, removal, replacement or reconstruction is solely for the convenience of the City and is not reasonably necessary for the construction or reconstruction of a Public Way or City Utility System or other City improvement. 4.2 Relocation of Gas Facilities in Public Ground. City may require Company at Company's expense to relocate or remove its Gas Facilities from Public Ground upon a finding by City that the Gas Facilities have become or will become a substantial impairment to the existing or proposed public use of the Public Ground. 43 Projects with Federal Funding. Relocation, removal, or rearrangement of any Company Gas Facilities made necessary because of the extension into or through City of a federally-aided highway project shall be governed by the provisions of Minnesota Statutes, Section 161.46, as supplemented or amended. It is understood that the right herein granted to Company is a valuable right. City shall not order Company to remove or relocate its Gas Facilities when a Public Way is vacated, improved or realigned because of a renewal or a redevelopment plan which is financially subsidized in whole or in part by the Federal Government or any agency thereof, unless the reasonable non-betterment Costs of such relocation and the loss and expense resulting therefrom are first paid to Company, but the City need not pay those portions of such for which reimbursement to it is not available. 4.4 No Waiver. The provisions of this franchise apply only to facilities constructed in reliance on a franchise from the City and shall not be construed to waive or modify any rights obtained by Company for installations within a Company right-of--way acquired by easement or prescriptive right before the applicable Public Way or Public Ground was established, or Company's rights under state or county permit. SECTION 5. TREE TRIMMING. Company is also granted the permission and authority to trim all shrubs and trees, including roots, in the Public Ways of City to the extent Company finds necessary to avoid interference with the proper construction, operation, repair and maintenance of Gas Facilities, provided that Company shall save City harmless from any liability in the premises. SECTION 6. INDEMNIFICATION. 6.1 Indemni , of City. Company shall indemnify, keep and hold the City free and harmless from any and all liability on account of injury to persons or damage to property occasioned by the construction, maintenance, repair, inspection, the issuance of permits, or the operation of the Gas Facilities located in the Public Ways and Public Grounds. The City shall not be indemnified for losses or claims occasioned through its City Counci109-13-04 25 own negligence except for losses or claims arising out of or alleging the City's negligence as to the issuance of permits for, or inspection of, Company's plans or work. The City shall not be indemnified if the injury or damage results from the performance in a proper manner of acts reasonably deemed hazardous by Company, and such performance is nevertheless ordered or directed by City after notice of Company's determination. 6.2 Defense of City. In the event a suit is brought against the City under circumstances where this agreement to indemnify applies, Company at its sole cost and expense shall defend the City in such suit if written notice thereof is promptly given to Company within a period wherein Company is not prejudiced by lack of such notice. If Company is required to indemnify and defend, it will thereafter have control of such litigation, but Company may not settle such litigation without the consent of the City, which consent shall not be unreasonably withheld. This section is not, as to third parties, a waiver of any defense or immunity otherwise available to the City; and Company, in defending any action on behalf of the City shall be entitled to assert in any action every defense or immunity that the City could assert in its own behalf. SECTION 7. VACATION OF PUBLIC WAYS. The City shall give Company at least two weeks prior written notice of a proposed vacation of a Public Way. Except where required for a City improvement project, the vacation of any Public Way, after the installation of Gas Facilities, shall not operate to deprive Company of its rights to operate and maintain such Gas Facilities, until the reasonable cost of relocating the same and the loss and expense resulting from such relocation are first paid to Company. In no case, however, shall City be liable to Company for failure to specifically preserve aright-of--way under Minnesota Statutes, Section 160.29. SECTION 8. FRANCHISE FEE. The City at the time of adopting this franchise agreement does not desire to require that Company collect a franchise fee from its customers in the City. At a future date during the term of this franchise agreement, the City may determine that it desires Company to collect a franchise fee. If so, the City may give Company Notice to amend this franchise agreement to authorize collection of a franchise fee by separate ordinance in an amount and upon such terms and conditions as Company at that time is willing to incorporate in its gas franchise agreements with other cities of the second, third or fourth class in the seven- county metropolitan area. Upon receipt of such Notice Company shall negotiate in good faith with City to so amend this franchise agreement. SECTION 9. CHANGE IN FORM OF GOVERNMENT. Any change in the form of government of the City shall not affect the validity of this Ordinance. Any governmental unit succeeding the City shall, without the consent of Company, succeed to all of the rights and obligations of the City provided in this Ordinance. SECTION 10. PROVISIONS OF ORDINANCE. 9.1 Severability. Every section, provision, or part of this Ordinance is declared separate from every other section, provision, or part; and if any section, provision, or part shall be held invalid, it shall not affect any other section, provision, or part. Where a provision of any other City ordinance conflicts with the provisions of this Ordinance, the provisions of this Ordinance shall prevail. 9.2 Limitation on Applicability. This Ordinance constitutes a franchise agreement between the City and Company as the only parties and no provision of this franchise shall in any way inure to the benefit of any third person (including the public at large) so as to constitute any such person as a third party beneficiary of the agreement or of any one or more of the terms hereof, or otherwise give rise to any cause City Counci109-13-04 26 of action in any person not a party hereto. SECTION 11. AMENDMENT PROCEDURE. Either party to this franchise agreement may at any time propose that the agreement be amended to address a subj ect of concern and the other party will consider whether it agrees that the amendment is mutually appropriate. If an amendment is agreed upon, this Ordinance may be amended at any time by the City passing a subsequent ordinance declaring the provisions of the amendment, which amendatory ordinance shall become effective upon the filing of Company's written consent thereto with the City Clerk within 90 days after the date of final passage by the City of the amendatory ordinance. SECTION 12. PREVIOUS FRANCHISES SUPERSEDED. This franchise supersedes any previous Gas franchise granted to Company or its predecessor. Seconded by Councilmember Juenemann Ayes-All Councilmember Juenemann moved to approve the first reading of the Electric Franchise Fee: ORDINANCE NO. 854 AN ORDINANCE IMPLEMENTING A ELECTRIC SERVICE FRANCHISE FEE ON NORTHERN STATES POWER COMPANY, A MINNESOTA CORPORATION, D/B/A XCEL ENERGY, ITS SUCCESSORS AND ASSIGNS, FOR PROVIDING ELECTRIC SERVICE WITHIN THE CITY OF MAPLEWOOD. THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MAPLEWOOD DOES ORDAIN: SECTION 1. The City of Maplewood Municipal Code is hereby amended to include reference to the following Special Ordinance. Subdivision 1. Purpose. The Maplewood City Council has determined that it is in the best interest of the City to impose a franchise fee on those public utility companies that provide electric services within the City of Maplewood. (a) Pursuant to City Ordinance a Franchise Agreement between the City of Maplewood and Northern States Power Company, a Minnesota corporation, d/b/a Xcel Energy, its successors and assigns, the City has the right to impose a franchise fee on Northern States Power Company, a Minnesota corporation, d/b/a Xcel Energy, its successors and assigns, in an amount and fee design as set forth in Section 9 of the Northern States Power Company Franchise and in the fee schedule attached hereto as Schedule A. Subdivision 2. Franchise Fee Statement. A franchise fee is hereby imposed on Northern States Power Company, a Minnesota Corporation, d/b/a Xcel Energy, its successors and assigns, under its electric franchise in accordance with the schedule attached here to and made a part of this Ordinance, commencing with the Xcel Energy January, 2005 billing month. This fee is an account-based fee on each premise and not ameter-based fee. In the event that an entity covered by this ordinance has more than one meter at a single premise, but only one account, only one fee shall be assessed to that account. If a premise has two or more meters being billed at different rates, the Company may have an account for each rate classification, which will result in more than one City Counci109-13-04 27 franchise fee assessment for electric service to that premise. If the Company combines the rate classifications into a single account, the franchise fee assessed to the account will be the largest franchise fee applicable to a single rate classification for energy delivered to that premise. In the event any entities covered by this ordinance have more than one premise, each premise (address) shall be subject to the appropriate fee. In the event a question arises as to the proper fee amount for any premise, the Company's manner of billing for energy used at all similar premises in the city will control. Subdivision 3. Payment. The said franchise fee shall be payable to the City in accordance with the terms set forth in Section 9.4 of the Franchise. Subdivision 4. Surcharge. The City recognizes that the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission allows the utility company to add a surcharge to customer rates to reimburse such utility company for the cost of the fee and that Xcel Energy will surcharge its customers in the City the amount of the fee. Subdivision 5. Record Suuuort for Payment. Xcel Energy shall make each payment when due and, if required by the City, shall provide at the time of each payment a statement summarizing how the franchise fee payment was determined, including information showing any adjustments to the total surcharge billed in the period for which the payment is being made to account for any uncollectibles, refunds or error corrections. Subdivision 6. Enforcement. Any dispute, including enforcement of a default regarding this ordinance will be resolved in accordance with Section 2.5 of the Franchise Agreement. Subdivision 7. Effective Date of Franchise Fee. The effective date of this Ordinance shall be after its publication and sixty (60) days after the sending of written notice enclosing a copy of this adopted Ordinance to Xcel Energy by certified mail. Collection of the fee shall commence as provided in Subdivision 2. Subdivision 8. Sunset Clause. This ordinance shall automatically sunset on December 31, 2009, unless the City Council acts to renew or extend the fee at least six (6) months prior to the sunset date. The City Council may unilaterally renew or extend the fee on the same terms and conditions. Without waiver of any rights under Minnesota law, the City Council shall seek agreement from Company if the City intends to change the fee rate or fee design. SCHEDULE A Franchise Fee Rates: Electric Utility The franchise fee, for the sole purpose of recovering the cost of street lighting, shall be in an amount determined by applying the following schedule per customer premise/per month based on metered service to customers within the City: Customer Class Fee Per Premise Per Month Residential $0.50 City Counci109-13-04 28 Small C & I -Non-Demand $1.00 Small C & I -Demand $6.00 Large C & I $45.00 Public Street Lighting $0.50 Muni Pumping -N/D $0.50 MuniPumping -Demand $0.50 Franchise fees are to be collected by the Utility at the rate listed below, and submitted to the City on a quarterly basis as follows: January -March collections due by April 30. April -June collections due by July 31. July -September collections due by October 31. October -December collections due by January 31. Seconded by Councilmember Koppen Ayes-All 2. Pawn Shop Ordinance-Second Reading a. City Manager Fursman presented the staff report. b. Police Chief Thomalla presented specifics from the report. Councilmember Monahan-Junek moved to approve the second reading of the Pawn Shop (~rdinance~ Maplewood Automated Pawn System Ordinance 851 Purpose. The city council finds that use of services provided by pawnbrokers provides an opportunity for the commission of crimes and their concealment because pawn businesses have the ability to receive and transfer property stolen by others easily and quickly. The city council also finds that consumer protection regulation is warranted in transactions involving pawnbrokers. The city council further finds that the pawn industry has outgrown the city's current ability to effectively or efficiently identify criminal activity related to pawn shops. The purpose of this article is to prevent pawn businesses from being used as facilities for the commission of crimes, and to assure that such businesses comply with basic consumer protection standards, thereby protecting the public health, safety, and general welfare of the citizens of the city. To help the police department better regulate current and future pawn businesses, decrease and stabilize costs associated with the regulation of the pawn industry, and increase identification of criminal activities in the pawn industry through the timely collection and sharing of pawn transaction information, this ordinance also implements and mandates the use of the automated pawn system (APS). Definitions. When used in this ordinance, the following words shall mean: City Counci109-13-04 29 Pawnbroker. Any natural person, partnership or corporation, either as principal, or agent or employee thereof, who loans money on deposit or pledge of personal property, or other valuable thing, or who deals in the purchasing of personal property, or other valuable thing on condition of selling the same back again at a stipulated price, or who loans money secured by chattel mortgage on personal property, taking possession of the property or any part thereof so mortgaged. To the extent that a pawnbroker' s business includes buying personal property previously used, rented or leased, or selling it on consignment, the provisions of this article shall be applicable. Reportable transaction. Every transaction conducted by a pawnbroker in which merchandise is received through a pawn, purchase, consignment or trade, or in which a pawn is renewed, extended or redeemed, or for which a unique transaction number or identifier is generated by their point-of--sale software, or an item is confiscated by law enforcement, is reportable except: (1) The bulk purchase or consignment of new or used merchandise from a merchant, manufacturer or wholesaler having an established permanent place of business, and the retail sale of said merchandise, provided the pawnbroker must maintain a record of such purchase or consignment which describes each item, and must mark each item in a manner which relates it to that transaction record. (2) Retail and wholesale sales of merchandise originally received by pawn or purchase, and for which all applicable hold and/or redemption periods have expired. Billable transaction. Every reportable transaction conducted by a pawnbroker is a billable transaction except renewals, redemptions or extensions of existing pawns on items previously reported and continuously in the licensee's possession, voided transactions, and confiscations. License fees: (a) The annual license fees for licenses issued under this article shall be imposed, set, established and fixed by the city council by resolution from time to time reflecting a reasonable estimate of the actual costs of administering, processing and investigating the license application, as determined by the city council. (b) The billable transaction license fee shall reflect the cost of processing transactions and other related regulatory expenses as determined by the city council, and shall be reviewed and adjusted, if necessary, every six (6) months. Licensees shall be notified in writing thirty (30) days before any adjustment is implemented. (c) Billable transaction fees shall be billed monthly and are due and payable within thirty (30) days. Failure to do so is a violation of this article. Application required. (a) (Contents.) An application form provided by the department of licenses and consumer services must be completed by every applicant for a new license or for renewal of an existing license. Every new applicant must provide all the following information: City Counci109-13-04 30 (1) If the applicant is a natural person: a. The name, place and date of birth, street resident address, and phone number of applicant. b. Whether the applicant is a citizen of the United States or resident alien. c. Whether the applicant has ever used or has been known by a name other than the applicant's name, and if so, the name or names used and information concerning dates and places used. d. The name of the business if it is to be conducted under a designation, name, or style other than the name of the applicant and a certified copy of the certificate as required by Minnesota Statutes, Section 333.01. e. The street address at which the applicant has lived during the preceding five (5) years. f. The type, name and location of every business or occupation in which the applicant has been engaged during the preceding five (5) years and the name(s) and address(es) of the applicant's employer(s) and partner(s), if any, for the proceeding five (5) years. g. Whether the applicant has ever been convicted of a felony, crime, or violation of any ordinance other than a traffic ordinance. If so, the applicant must furnish information as to the time, place, and offense of all such convictions. h. The physical description of the applicant. i. Applicant's current personal financial statement and true copies of the applicant's federal and state tax returns for the two (2) years prior to application. j. If the applicant does not manage the business, the name of the manager(s) or other person(s) in charge of the business and all information concerning each of them required in a. through h. of subdivision (1) of this section. (2) If the applicant is a partnership: a. The name(s) and address(es) of all general and limited partners and all information concerning each general partner required in subdivision (1) of this section. b. The name(s) of the managing partner(s) and the interest of each partner in the licensed business. City Counci109-13-04 31 c. A true copy of the partnership agreement shall be submitted with the application. If the partnership is required to file a certificate as to a trade name pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 333.01, a certified copy of such certificate must be attached to the application. d. A true copy of the federal and state tax returns for partnership for the two (2) years prior to application. e. If the applicant does not manage the business, the name of the manager(s) or other person(s) in charge of the business and all information concerning each of them required in a. through h. of subdivision (1) of this section. (3) If the applicant is a corporation or other organization: a. The name of the corporation or business form, and if incorporated, the state of incorporation. b. A true copy of the Certificate of Incorporation, Articles of Incorporation or Association Agreement, and By-laws shall be attached to the application. If the applicant is a foreign corporation, a Certificate of Authority as required by Minnesota Statutes, Section 303.06, must be attached. c. The name of the manager(s) or other person(s) in charge of the business and all information concerning each manager, proprietor, or agent required in a. through h. of subdivision (1) of this section. d. A list of all persons who control or own an interest in excess of five (5) percent in such organization or business form or who are officers of the corporation or business form and all information concerning said persons required in subdivision (1) above. This subdivision (d), however, shall not apply to a corporation whose stock is publicly traded on a stock exchange and is applying for a license to be owned and operated by it. (4) For all applicants: a. Whether the applicant holds a current pawnbroker, precious metal dealer or secondhand goods dealer license from any other governmental unit. b. Whether the applicant has previously been denied, or had revoked or suspended, a pawnbroker, precious metal dealer, or secondhand dealer license from any other governmental unit. c. The location of the business premises. d. If the applicant does not own the business premises, a true and complete copy of the executed lease. City Counci109-13-04 32 e. The legal description of the premises to be licensed. f. Whether all real estate and personal property taxes that are due and payable for the premises to be licensed have been paid, and if not paid, the years and amounts that are unpaid. g. Whenever the application is for premises either planned or under construction or undergoing substantial alteration, the application must be accompanied by a set of preliminary plans showing the design of the proposed premises to be licensed. h. Such other information as the city council or issuing authority may require. (b) New manager. When a licensee places a manager in charge of a business, or if the named manager(s) in charge of a licensed business changes, the licensee must complete and submit the appropriate application within fourteen (14) days. The application must include all appropriate information required in this section. (1) An investigation fee shall be charged an applicant by the city in such amount as may be imposed, set, established and fixed by the city council by resolution from time to time reflecting an amount equal to the cost of the investigation to assure compliance with this article. (c) Application execution. All applications for a license under this article must be signed and sworn to under oath or affirmation by the applicant. If the application is that of a natural person, it must be signed and sworn to by such person; if that of a corporation, by an officer thereof; if that of a partnership, by one of the general partners; and if that of an unincorporated association, by the manager or managing officer thereof. (d) Investigation. The police department must investigate into the truthfulness of the statements set forth in the application and shall endorse the findings thereon. The applicant must furnish to the police license inspector such evidence as the inspector may reasonably require in support of the statements set forth in the application. (e) Public hearing. The council member may request a public hearing at council, or in the evening hours at a location in the approximate vicinity of the proposed location. (f) Persons ineligible for a license. No licenses under this article will be issued to an applicant who is a natural person, a partnership if such applicant has any general partner or managing partner, a corporation or other organization if such applicant has any manager, proprietor or agent in charge of the business to be licensed, if the applicant: (1) Is a minor at the time that the application is filed; (2) Has been convicted of any crime directly related to the occupation licensed as prescribed by City Counci109-13-04 33 Minnesota Statutes, Section 364.03, Subd. 2, and has not shown competent evidence of sufficient rehabilitation and present fitness to perform the duties of a licensee under this article as prescribed by Minnesota Statutes, Section 364.03, Subd. 3; or (3) Is not of good moral character or repute. Bond required. Before a license will be issued, every applicant must submit a five thousand dollar ($5,000.00) bond on the forms provided by the licensing authority. All bonds must be conditioned that the principal will observe all laws in relation to pawnbrokers, and will conduct business in conformity thereto, and that the principal will account for and deliver to any person legally entitled any goods which have come into the principal's hand through the principal's business as a pawnbroker, or in lieu thereof, will pay the reasonable value in money to the person. The bond shall contain a provision that no bond maybe canceled except upon thirty (30) days written notice to the city, which shall be served upon the licensing authority. Records required. At the time of any reportable transaction other than renewals, extensions or redemptions, every licensee must immediately record in English the following information by using ink or other indelible medium on forms or in a computerized record approved by the police department: (1) A complete and accurate description of each item including, but not limited to, any trademark, identification number, serial number, model number, brand name, or other identifying mark on such an item. (2) The purchase price, amount of money loaned upon, or pledged therefor. (3) The maturity date of the transaction and the amount due, including monthly and annual interest rates and all pawn fees and charges. (4) Date, time and place the item of property was received by the licensee, and the unique alpha and/or numeric transaction identifier that distinguishes it from all other transactions in the licensee's records. (5) Full name, current residence address, current residence telephone number, date of birth and accurate description of the person from whom the item of the property was received, including: sex, height, weight, race, color of eyes and color of hair. (6) The identification number and state of issue from any of the following forms of identification of the seller: a. Current valid Minnesota driver's license. b. Current valid Minnesota identification card. City Counci109-13-04 34 c. Current valid photo identification card issued by another state or province of Canada. (7) The signature of the person identified in the transaction. (8) Effective sixty (60) days from the date of notification by the police department of acceptable video standards the licensee must also take a color photograph or color video recording of: a. Each customer involved in a billable transaction. b. Every item pawned or sold that does not have a unique serial or identification number permanently engraved or affixed. The required photograph must be at least two (2) inches in length by two (2) inches in width and must be maintained in such a manner that the photograph can be readily matched and correlated with all other records of the transaction to which they relate. Such photographs must be available to the chief of police, or the chiefs designee, upon request. The major portion of the photograph must include an identifiable front facial close-up of the person who pawned or sold the item. Items photographed must be accurately depicted. The licensee must inform the person that he or she is being photographed by displaying a sign of sufficient size in a conspicuous place in the premises. If a video photograph is taken, the video camera must zoom in on the person pawning or selling the item so as to include an identifiable close-up of that person's face. Items photographed by video must be accurately depicted. Video photographs must be electronically referenced by time and date so they can be readily matched and correlated with all other records of the transaction to which they relate. The licensee must inform the person that he or she is being videotaped orally and by displaying a sign of sufficient size in a conspicuous place on the premises. The licensee must keep the exposed videotape for three (3) months. (9) Digitized photographs. Effective sixty (60) days from the date of notification by the police department licensees must fulfill the color photograph requirements in section (RECORDS REQUIRED) (8) by submitting them as digital images, in a format specified by the issuing authority, electronically cross- referenced to the reportable transaction they are associated with. Notwithstanding the digital images maybe captured from required video recordings, this provision does not alter or amend the requirements in subdivision (8). (10) Renewals, extensions and redemptions. For renewals, extensions and redemptions, the licensee shall provide the original transaction identifier, the date of the current transaction, and the type of transaction. (11) Inspection of records. The records must at all reasonable times be open to inspection by the police department or department of licenses and consumer services. Data entries shall be retained for at least three (3) years from the date of transaction. Entries of required digital images shall be retained a minimum of ninety (90) days. City Counci109-13-04 35 Daily reports to police. (a) Effective no later than sixty (60) days after the police department provides licensees with the current version of the Automated Pawn System Interchange File Specification, licensees must submit every reportable transaction to the police department daily in the following manner: (1) Licensees must provide to the police department all reportable transaction information by transferring it from their computer to the Automated Pawn System via modem using the current version of the Automated Pawn System Interchange File Specification. All required records must be transmitted completely and accurately after the close of business each day in accordance with standards and procedures established by the issuing authority. Any transaction that does not meet the Automated Pawn System Interchange File Specification must be corrected and resubmitted the next business day. The licensee must display a sign of sufficient size, in a conspicuous place in the premises, which informs patrons that all transactions are reported to the police department daily. (b) Billable transaction fees. Licensees will be charged for each billable transaction reported to the police department. (1) If a licensee is unable to successfully transfer the required reports by modem, the licensee must provide the police department, upon request, printed copies of all reportable transactions along with the video tape(s) for that date, by noon the next business day; (2) If the problem is determined to be in the licensee's system and is not corrected by the close of the first business day following the failure, the licensee must continue to provide the required reports as detailed in section (DAILYREPORTS TO POLICE) (b)(1), and must be charged a fifty dollar ($50.00) reporting failure penalty, daily, until the error is corrected; or (3) If the problem is determined to be outside the licensee's system, the licensee must continue to provide the required reports in (DAILYREPORTS TO POLICE) (b)(1), and resubmit all such transactions via modem when the error is corrected. (4) If a licensee is unable to capture, digitize or transmit the photographs required in (RECORDS REQUIRED) (9), the licensee must immediately take all required photographs with a still camera, cross-reference the photographs to the correct transaction, and make the pictures available to the police department upon request. (5) Regardless of the cause or origin of the technical problems that prevented the licensee from uploading their reportable transactions, upon correction of the problem, the licensee shall upload every reportable transaction from every business day the problem had existed. (6) (DAILYREPORTS TO POLICE) (b) (1) through (3) notwithstanding, the police department may, upon presentation of extenuating circumstances, delay the implementation of the daily reporting penalty. Receipt required. Every licensee must provide a receipt to the parry identified in every reportable City Counci109-13-04 36 transaction and must maintain a duplicate of that receipt for three (3) years. The receipt must include at least the following information: (1) The name, address and telephone number of the licensed business. (2) The date and time the item was received by the licensee. (3) Whether the item was pawned or sold, or the nature of the transaction. (4) An accurate description of each item received including, but not limited to, any trademark, identification number, serial number, model number, brand name, or other identifying mark on such an item. (5) The signature or unique identifier of the licensee or employee that conducted the transaction. (6) The amount advanced or paid. (7) The monthly and annual interest rates, including all pawn fees and charges. (8) The last regular day of business by which the item must be redeemed by the pledger without risk that the item will be sold, and the amount necessary to redeem the pawned item on that date. (9) The full name, current residence address, current residence telephone number, and date of birth of the pledger or seller. (10) The identification number and state of issue from any of the following forms of identification of the seller: a. Current valid Minnesota driver's license. b. Current valid Minnesota identification card. c. Current valid photo driver's license or identification card issued by another state or province of Canada. (ll) Description of the pledger or seller including approximate sex, height, weight, race, color of eyes and color of hair. (12) The signature of the pledger or seller. City Counci109-13-04 37 (13)All printed statements as required by state statute 325J.04 subdivision 2, or any other applicable statutes. Redemption period. Any person pledging, pawning or depositing an item for security must have a minimum of ninety (90) days from the date of that transaction to redeem the item before it maybe forfeited and sold. During the ninety (90) day holding period, items may not be removed from the licensed location except as provided in (BZISINESS AT ONLY ONE PLACE). Licensees are prohibited from redeeming any item to anyone other than the person to whom the receipt was issued or, to any person identified in a written and notarized authorization to redeem the property identified in the receipt, or to a person identified in writing by the pledger at the time of the initial transaction and signed by the pledger, or with approval of the police license inspector. Written authorization for release of property to persons other than original pledger must be maintained along with original transaction record in accordance with (RECORDS REQUIRED) (10). Holding period. Any item purchased or accepted in trade by a licensee must not be sold or otherwise transferred for thirty (30) days from the date of the transaction. An individual may redeem an item seventy-two (72) hours after the item was received on deposit, excluding Sundays and legal holidays. Police order to hold property. (a) Investigative hold. Whenever a law enforcement official from any agency notifies a licensee not to sell an item, the item must not be sold or removed from the premises. The investigative hold shall be confirmed in writing by the originating agency within seventy-two (72) hours and will remain in effect for fifteen (15) days from the date of initial notification, or until the investigative order is canceled, or until an order to hold/confiscate is issued, pursuant to section [b] (POLICE ORDER TO HOLD) below, whichever comes first. (b) Order to hold. Whenever the chief of police, or the chief s designee, notifies a licensee not to sell an item, the item must not be sold or removed from the licensed premises until authorized to be released by the chief or the chief s designee. The order to hold shall expire ninety (90) days from the date it is placed unless the chief of police or the chiefs designee determines the hold is still necessary and notifies the licensee in writing. (c) Order to confiscate. If an item is identified as stolen or evidence in a criminal case, the chief or chief s designee may: (1) Physically confiscate and remove it from the shop, pursuant to a written order from the chief or the chief s designee, or (2) Place the item on hold or extend the hold as provided in (POLICE ORDER TO HOLD PROPERTY) (b), and leave it in the shop. When an item is confiscated, the person doing so shall provide identification upon request of the licensee, and shall provide the licensee the name and phone number of the confiscating agency and investigator, and the case number related to the confiscation. City Counci109-13-04 38 When an order to hold/confiscate is no longer necessary, the chief of police, or chief s designee shall so notify the licensee. Inspection of items. At all times during the terms of the license, the licensee must allow law enforcement officials to enter the premises where the licensed business is located, including all off-site storage facilities as authorized in (BZISINESS AT ONLY ONE PLACE), during normal business hours, except in an emergency, for the purpose of inspecting such premises and inspecting the items, ware and merchandise and records therein to verify compliance with this article or other applicable laws. Label required. Licensees must attach a label to every item at the time it is pawned, purchased or received in inventory from any reportable transaction. Permanently recorded on this label must be the number or name that identifies the transaction in the shop's records, the transaction date, the name of the item and the description or the model and serial number of the item as reported to the police department, whichever is applicable, and the date the item is out of pawn or can be sold, if applicable. Labels shall not be re-used. Prohibited acts. (a) No person under the age of eighteen (18) years may pawn or sell or attempt to pawn or sell goods with any licensee, nor may any licensee receive any goods from a person under the age of eighteen (18) years. (b) No licensee may receive any goods from a person of unsound mind or an intoxicated person. (c) No licensee may receive any goods, unless the seller presents identification in the form of a valid driver's license, a valid State of Minnesota identification card, or current valid photo driver's license or identification card issued by the state or providence of residency of the person from whom the item was received. (d) No licensee may receive any item of property that possesses an altered or obliterated serial number or operation identification number or any item of property that has had its serial number removed. (e) No person may pawn, pledge, sell, consign, leave, or deposit any article of property not their own; nor shall any person pawn, pledge, sell, consign, leave, or deposit the property of another, whether with permission or without; nor shall any person pawn, pledge, sell, consign, leave, or deposit any article of property in which another has a security interest; with any licensee. (f) No person seeking to pawn, pledge, sell, consign, leave, or deposit any article of property with any licensee shall give a false or fictitious name; nor give a false date of birth; nor give a false or out of date address of residence or telephone number; nor present a false or altered identification, or the identification of another; to any licensee. Denial, suspension or revocation. Any license under this article maybe denied, suspended or revoked City Counci109-13-04 39 for one or more of the following reasons: (1) The proposed use does not comply with the any applicable zoning code. (2) The proposed use does not comply with any health, building, building maintenance or other provisions of the Maplewood Code of Ordinances, or state law, or other lawfully enacted legal authority. (3) The applicant or licensee has failed to comply with one or more provisions of this article. (4) The applicant is not a citizen of the United States or a resident alien, or upon whom it is impractical or impossible to conduct a background or financial investigation due to the unavailability of information. (5) Fraud, misrepresentation or bribery in securing or renewing a license. (6) Fraud, misrepresentation or false statements made in the application and investigation for, or in the course of, the applicant's business. (7) Violation within the preceding five (5) years, of any law relating to theft, damage or trespass to property, sale of a controlled substance, or operation of a business. (8) The owner of the premises licensed or to be licensed would not qualify for a license under the terms of this article. Business at only one place. A license under this article authorizes the licensee to carry on its business only at the permanent place of business designated in the license. However, upon written request, the police license inspector may approve an off-site locked and secured storage facility. The licensee shall permit inspection of the facility in accordance with (INSPECTION OF ITEMS). All provisions of this article regarding record keeping and reporting apply to the facility and its contents. Property shall be stored in compliance with all provisions of the city code. The licensee must either own the building in which the business is conducted, and any approved off-site storage facility, or have a lease on the business premise that extends for more than six (6) months. Separability. Should any section, subsection, clause or other provision of this article be declared by a court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid such decision shall not effect the validity of the ordinance as a whole or any part other than the part so declared invalid. Seconded by Councilmember Juenemann Ayes-All Councilmember Koppen moved to approve a $2.50 per transaction charge be assessed to each pawnshop City Counci109-13-04 40 Seconded by Councilmember Juenemann K. NEW BUSINESS Ayes-Mayor Cardinal, Councilmembers Juenemann, Koppen and Rossbach Nays-Councilmember Monahan-Junek On-Sale Intoxicating Liquor License - Brian Bauman -The Rock City Manager Fursman presented the staff report. b. Police Chief Thomalla presented specifics from the report. Councilmember Monahan-Junek moved to approve the on-sale intoxicating liquor license for Brian Bauman at the Rock. Seconded by Councilmember Koppen Ayes-All 2. Existing County Road D Improvements (Walter to TH 61), Project 04-06--Resolution Approving Joint Powers Agreements with Vadnais Heights and Ramsey County for Joint Funding and Roadway Turnback City Manager Fursman presented the staff report. b. Assistant City Engineer Cavett presented specifics from the report. Councilmember Monahan-Junek moved to adopt the followin,~ resolution a~provin,~ the Joint Powers Agreement with Vadnais Heights and Ramsey County for Joint funding of the County_ Road D Realignment Project between Trunk Highway 61 and Walter Street and authorizes the Mayor and Ci . Mana eg r to sign said agreement signi , ing the Cit~~proval and provides for a revised project budget fort the improvement prof ect: RESOLUTION 04-09-166 APPROVING JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT WITH VADNAIS HEIGHTS AND RAMSEY COUNTY WHEREAS, pursuant to resolution of the council adopted November 10, 2003, a report has been prepared under the direction of the city engineer with reference to the County Road D Realignment Improvements (West of TH 61 to Highridge Court), City Project 02-08, and this report was received by the council on January 26, 2004, and WHEREAS, a resolution of the city council adopted the 9~ day of February 2004, ordered the improvement on the proposed County Road D Realignment Improvements (West of TH 61 to Highridge Court), City Project 02-08, and WHEREAS, the City Council has directed the City Engineer to negotiate a joint powers agreement with the City of Vadnais Heights and Ramsey County, and WHEREAS, the project requires a j oint financing and funding plan along with maintenance responsibility and jurisdictional roadway changes. City Counci109-13-04 41 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA, as follows: 1. That said Joint Powers Agreement, a copy of which is hereby attached, is approved and the Mayor and City Manager are authorized to execute said agreement signifying the Councils approval. 2. As noted within said Joint Powers Agreement, the City Council hereby accepts the turnback of existing County Road D by Ramsey County from the new alignment of County Road D to Trunk Highway 61, as a joint border street with the City of Vadnais Heights. Said joint border street shall hereby be named County Road D Court and shall be maintained as provided by the Joint Powers Agreement. 3. The finance director is hereby authorized to make the financial transfers necessary to implement the revised financing plan for the project as follows: Municipal State Aid Street (MSAS) $ 449,616 MSAS Bond Proceeds $ 496,800 Special Assessments $1 ,077,964 City of Vadnais Heights $ 257,168 Trout Land Cash Payment $ 10,000 Ramsey County Contribution $ 690,582 TOTAL $2,982,130 Seconded by Councilmember Rossbach Ayes-Mayor Cardinal, Councilmembers Juenemann, Monahan-Junek and Rossbach Councilmember Koppen-Absent from the diaz Hazelwood Street Improvements (Beam Ave. to County Rd. D), Project 03-39 - Resolution Ordering Preparation of Feasibility Study City Manager Fursman presented the staff report. b. Assistant City Engineer Cavett presented specifics from the report. Councilmember Monahan-Junek moved to adopt the following resolution ordering the preparation of the feasibility for the Hazelwood Street Improvements (Beam Avenue to County Road D, Project 03-39): RESOLUTION 04-09-167 ORDERING PREPARATION OF A FEASIBILITY STUDY WHEREAS, it is proposed to make improvements to the Hazelwood Street from Beam Avenue to County Road D, City Project 03-39, and to assess the benefited property for all or a portion of the cost of the improvement, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 429, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF MAPLEWOOD, City Counci109-13-04 42 MINNESOTA: That the proposed improvement be referred to the city engineer for study and that he is instructed to report to the council with all convenient speed advising the council in a preliminary way as to whether the proposed improvement is necessary, cost effective and feasible and as to whether it should best be made as proposed or in connection with some other improvement, and the estimated cost of the improvement as recommended. FURTHERMORE, funds in the amount of $8,000 are appropriated to prepare this feasibility report. Seconded by Councilmember Rossbach Ayes-All 4. Trunk Highway 61 Improvements (Beam to 694), Project 03-07 -Resolution Approving Proceeding Subsequent Process for Sparkle Auto on TH 61 Right of Way City Manager Fursman presented the staff report. b. Assistant City Engineer Cavett presented specifics from the report. Councilmember Koppen moved to adopt the following resolution a~roving the proceeding subsequent process for Sparkle Auto on the Trunk Highwa. 6~ght of Wad CITY OF MAPLEWOOD RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION 04-09-168 RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING PROCEEDING SUBSEQUENT ACTION FOR OLD HIGHWAY 61 PROPERTY WHEREAS, the State of Minnesota has quit claimed its easement interest to the old Highway 61 property to the City of Maplewood, said easement interest has encumbered the City's project, Project No. 03-07 for public benefit; WHEREAS, fee title to the Property is needed for orderly development within the City and for public health, safety and welfare; WHEREAS, Sparkle Auto is the fee owner of property that is necessary for right-of--way in order to complete Project No. 03-07; WHEREAS, Sparkle Auto and the City will enter into an Exchange Agreement which provides for the necessary and proper construction of Trunk Highway 61 Improvements, where Sparkle Auto will convey to the City required right-of--way in exchange for fee title to the old Highway 61 property; WHEREAS, the exchange between Sparkle Auto and the City represents a fair market exchange of property and is in lieu of eminent domain proceedings pursuant to Minnesota Statute Section 117.01, et. al. of Sparkle Auto's property. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF MAPLEWOOD, City Counci109-13-04 43 MINNESOTA THAT: The City shall authorize the City Attorney to initiate the proceeding subsequent action in Ramsey County District Court required to obtain fee title to the old Highway 61 property. Seconded by Councilmember Rossbach Ayes-All Preliminary Approval of Proposed Tax Levy Payable in 2005 City Manager Fursman presented the staff report. b. Finance Director Faust presented specifics from the report. Councilmember Rossbach moved to adopt the following resolution setting the proposed tax levy for 2004 payable in 2005 in the amount of $13,858,000 (8%): RESOLUTION 04-09-169 RESOLUTION PROVIDING PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF A PROPOSED TAX LEVY PAYABLE IN 2005 WHEREAS, State law requires that the City Council give preliminary approval of a proposed tax levy for 2004 payable in 2005 by September 15, 2004 and WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed the Proposed 2005 Budget and has determined the amount of the proposed tax levy payable in 2005 which is the maximum amount that will be levied. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA THAT the proposed tax levy for 2004 payable in 2005 in the amount of $13,858,000 is hereby given preliminary approval. Seconded by Mayor Cardinal Ayes-All 6. Set Public Hearing Dates on Proposed 2005 Budget and Property Tax Levy City Manager Fursman presented the staff report. b. Finance Director Faust presented specifics from the report. Councilmember Koppen moved to approve the followin hg earin~ dates for the Proposed 2005 Budget and Property Tax Lever Initial Hearing-Monday, December 6~ at 7:00 p.m. Continuation Hearing (if needed)-Monday, December 13~ at 7:00 p.m. Adoption Hearing-Monday, December 13~ at 7:00 p.m. Seconded by Councilmember Rossbach Ayes-All L. VISITOR PRESENTATIONS None City Counci109-13-04 44 M. COUNCIL PRESENTATIONS Garbage Cans-Mayor Cardinal asked Assistant City Manager Coleman to reiterate the Garbage Can policy and illegal storage. 2. Partnership Proclamation Mayor Cardinal moved to adopt a National Alcohol and Drug Addition Recovery Month (September) Proclamation. Seconded by Councilmember Koppen Ayes-All 3. Resignation of Paul Mueller Councilmember Monahan-Junek thanked retiring Councilmember Paul Mueller for serving on the Maplewood Planning Commission since 1998. 4. Ramsey County Emergency Management Councilmember Rossbach moved approval to direct staff to write a letter to Ramsey County encouraging them to include room for Emergenc~gement and a Dispatch Center to be included in the proposed Courthouse Project. Seconded by Councilmember Koppen Ayes-Mayor Cardinal, Councilmembers Koppen and Rossbach Nays-Councilmembers Juenemann and Monahan-Junek South Leg Meeting Councilmember Rossbach announced there will not be a September South Leg Meeting but past attendees will receive a letter regarding the October meeting date. City Counci109-13-04 45 N. ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS 1. Volunteer Appreciation Picnic The Annual Volunteer Appreciation Picnic will be Wednesday, September 15~, 5-8 p.m. at the Battle Creek Park Pavilion. O. ADJOURNMENT Mayor Cardinal moved to adjourn the meetin,~ at 9:03 p.m. Seconded by Councilmember Juenemann Ayes -All City Counci109-13-04 46 Agenda #F1 MEMORANDUM TO: Richard Fursman, City Manager FROM: Ken Roberts, Planner SUBJECT: Interview of Applicant for Planning Commission DATE: September 20, 2004 fNTRODUCTION The planning commission has a vacancy created by the resignation of Paul Mueller. Eric Ahlness, a city resident and a former planning commission member, recently contacted me about the possibility of serving again on the planning commission. Mr. Ahlness will be at the September 27, 2004, city council workshop meeting for an interview by the city council. BACKGROUND Mr. Ahlness served on the planning commission from December 2000 through May 2002. He resigned from the commission because his military commitments were going to prevent him from effectively performing his commission duties. DISCUSSION According to the city council's policy for appointing advisory board vacancies, the city council will conduct the interviews with a representative of the advisory board available for consultation during the interview. RECOMMENDATION Interview Mr. Ahlness and decide whether to appoint him to fill the planning commission vacancy. This term would run until December 31, 2006. P:/pc/pc interview memo (2) (2004) Attachment: Eric Ahlness Application CITY OF MAPLEVV~~MEfaT 1 BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS APPLICANT INFORMATION FORM NAME Eric D. Ahlness K~CQ ~' NOV ~ 3 2000 ADDRESS 2062 English Street Maplewood MN Zlp 55109 ~. PHONE NO. Work: 651 282-4401 Home 651- 486-9402 DATE 10 Nov 2000 1) How long have you lived in the City of Maplewood? 8 years ~fi'S Bf N °U• Zoot>> 2) Will other commitments make regular attendance at meetings difficult? Yes No xx Comments: N 0 "~ ` 3 2000 3) On which Board or Commission are you interested in serving? (please check) Community Design Review Board Housing & Redevelopment Authority Human Relations Commission Park & Recreation Commission ~_ Planning Commission Police Civil Service Commission 4) Do you have any s ecific areas of interest within this Board's or Commission's scope of responsibilities? I am interested in the relationship of business placement to residential properties. Urban planning and zoning ordinances is very interesting to me and directly applicable to local issues. The community of Maplewood has special challenges due to the extensive boundaries and dynamic growth within its borders. 5) List other organizations or clubs in the Community in which you have been or are an active participant: I have actively participated in neighborhood programs since my family and I moved to Maplewood. We quickly formed a neighborhood watch group and have been block captains ever since for our area. Both my wife and I have "graduated" from the Maplewood Citizen Academy sponsored by the city's police department. I am also an active member of a local church and its outreach programs (Joseph's Coat and food shelf programs). 6) Why would you like to serve on this Board or Commission? First, I want to participate in my community and continue to make Maplewood an excellent place to live and raise a family. I believe that citizens have a responsibility to involve themselves in their local government to facilitate continued community development. Second, I have an undergraduate degree in Geography that includes courses in community development and urban geography. I also have a Masters degree in Political Science that includes courses in local government. My practical experience is in working with zoning administrators as a graduate assistant. My role as the coordinator ADDITIONAL COMMENTS: for the Minnesota Association of County Planning and Zoning Administrators was to develop professional accreditation programs, seminars, and newsletters for the association. I have extensive recent experience in facilitating a major building project between the city of Mankato, Blue Earth County, and the Minnesota National Guard. I facilitated discussion, design, funding, and approval of this $7.5 million facility. The project was a cooperative effort between federal, state, and local officials and staff. THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS APPLICATION SHALL BE CLASSIFIED AS PUBLIC. FORMS16RD8COMM.APL ~ 0/96 2 AGENDA NO. G-1 AGENDA REPORT TO: City Council FROM: Finance Director RE: APPROVAL OF CLAIMS DATE: September 27, 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: $ 214,830.00 Check # 64865 dated 9/07/04 $ 394,785.45 Checks # 64866 thru # 64931 dated 9/14/04 $ 325,906.65 Disbursements via debits to checking account dated 9/03/04 thru 9/09/04 $ 3,678.00 Checks # 64932 dated 9/10/04 $ 352,107.26 Checks # 64933 thru #65010 dated 9/17 THRU 9/21/04 $ 1,251,018.11 Disbursements via debits to checking account dated 9/10/04 thru 9/17/04 $ 2,542,325.47 Total Accounts Payable PAYROLL $ 424,409.82 Payroll Checks and Direct Deposits dated 09-10-04 $ 5,673.37 Payroll Deduction check # 98629 thru # 98634 dated 9/10/04 $ 430,083.19 Total Payroll $ 2,972,408.66 GRAND TOTAL Attached is a detailed listing of these claims. Please call me at 651-249-2902 if you have any questior 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 9-10 and 9-17.x1s 1 Check Register City of Maplewood vchlist 09/10/2004 11:45:44 AM Check Date Vendor Description/Account Amount 64865 9/7/2004 00354 CUSTOM FIRE APPARATUS, INC. PUMPER/TANKER TRUCK 214,830.00 64866 9/14/2004 03212 ACCESS INFORMATION SYSTEMS INC DEF ASSESS-985 CO RD C-042922340008 628.04 64867 9/14/2004 00111 ANIMAL CONTROL SERVICES INC PATROL & BOARDING FEES 8/24 - 9/3 1,477.69 64868 9/14/2004 00174 BELDE, STAN K-9 HANDLER -SEP 35.00 64869 9/14/2004 01936 BERGO, CHAD REIMB FOR CABLE INTERNET SRV -SEP 7.49 64870 9/14/2004 00183 BEST ACCESS SYSTEMS INSTALL DEADBOLT 361.90 64871 9/14/2004 03213 BJORK, BRANDON REIMB FOR PARKING & MILEAGE 8/11 33.25 64872 9/14/2004 00210 BRAUER & ASSOCIATES, LTD LEGACY PARK DESIGN DEV 21,601.01 64873 9/14/2004 01922 BREHEIM, ROGER REIMB FOR CELL PHONE USAGE -SEP 15.00 64874 9/14/2004 02974 CORBAN GROUP INC, THE RECORDS MGMT SYS CONSULTANT 293.00 64875 9/14/2004 00384 DE LACE LANDEN FINANCIAL SRVS COPIER COSTS 326.54 64876 9/14/2004 00358 DGM INC. TOW FIRE TRUCK 213.00 TOW MEDIC VEHICLE 159.75 TOW FORFEITURE VEHICLE 90.53 TOW VEHICLE 122.48 TOW FORFEITURE VEHICLE 90.53 TOW FORFEITURE VEHICLE 143.78 TOW FORFEITURE VEHICLE 122.48 TOW VEHICLE 140.53 TOW VEHICLE 90.53 TOW FORFEITURE VEHICLE 90.53 TOW FORFEITURE VEHICLE 90.53 TOW FORFEITURE VEHICLE 90.53 64877 9/14/2004 00412 DONALD SALVERDA & ASSOCIATES ADVANCED MGMT PROG 180.36 64878 9/14/2004 00463 EMERGENCY APPARATUS MAINT REPAIR RESCUE VEHICLE 2 5,397.98 64879 9/14/2004 00529 FORTIS BENEFITS INSURANCE CO STD PLAN 4043120-0-1 1,254.32 64880 9/14/2004 00619 HAKSETH, NATHAN REIMB FOR TUITION 9/13 - 12/13 343.39 64881 9/14/2004 00668 HIEBERT, STEVEN K-9 HANDLER -SEP 35.00 64882 9/14/2004 01605 IFP TEST SERVICES INC CANDIDATE PSYCH EXAM 250.00 64883 9/14/2004 03210 J & D BUILDERS, INC REF GRADING ESC - 2349 MAPLE LN 500.00 64884 9/14/2004 01894 KELLY & FAWCETT PA PROSECUTION SRVS -AUG 9,825.00 LEGAL SERVICES -AUG 13,954.07 64885 9/14/2004 00827 L M C I T CLAIM DEDUCTIBLE #11047158 407.51 WORK COMP AUDIT PREM 7/1/03 - 7/1/04 12,447.00 64886 9/14/2004 00857 LEAGUE OF MINNESOTA CITIES 2004-2005 MEMBERSHIP DUES 16,925.00 64887 9/14/2004 00857 LEAGUE OF MINNESOTA CITIES MN MAYORS ASSN MEMBERSHIP DUES 20.00 64888 9/14/2004 01599 LODMILL, SUZANNE DRAMA CAMP INSTRUCTOR-AUG 1,900.00 64889 9/14/2004 02523 MED COMPASS PHYSICAL EXAM 127.00 64890 9/14/2004 01023 MN COUNTY ATTORNEYS ASSN DRUG & DWI FORFEITURE FORMS 21.40 64891 9/14/2004 01028 MN STATE TREASURER STAX MONTHLY SURTAX -AUG 1,497.02 64892 9/14/2004 01103 MOODY'S INVESTORS SERVICE BOND RATING 5,750.00 64893 9/14/2004 02836 MURRA, AARON REIMB VEH ALLOW & MILEAGE 7/9 - 7/14 61.40 64894 9/14/2004 01156 NELSON, JEAN REIMB FOR MILEAGE 7/1 TO 8/31 78.60 64895 9/14/2004 03214 NORTH CENTRAL NEBB EDUCATIONAL SEMINAR - 2 170.00 64896 9/14/2004 01202 NYSTROM PUBLISHING CO INC CITY NEWSLETTER -SEP 2,320.00 64897 9/14/2004 00001 ONE TIME VENDOR REF J & R DEITCH -ASSESS OVRPYMT 291.51 64898 9/14/2004 00001 ONE TIME VENDOR REF JAMES JASBERG - AMB 03007593 276.00 64899 9/14/2004 00001 ONE TIME VENDOR REF MARY STOEHR- PARKS PROGRAMS 100.00 64900 9/14/2004 00001 ONE TIME VENDOR REF REBECCA MARANDA -DAY CAMP 85.00 64901 9/14/2004 00001 ONE TIME VENDOR REF KELLY FISCHBACH -PARKS PROG 65.00 64902 9/14/2004 00001 ONE TIME VENDOR REF SHERRI GLEEKEL -PARKS PROG 45.00 64903 9/14/2004 00001 ONE TIME VENDOR REF ANGELA TRIFLE -PARKS PROG 42.00 64904 9/14/2004 00001 ONE TIME VENDOR REF LAURIE OSLIN -PARKS PROG 42.00 64905 9/14/2004 00001 ONE TIME VENDOR REF E MCNAMARA -PARKS PROG 37.00 64906 9/14/2004 00001 ONE TIME VENDOR REF PAM CUNNINGHAM -PARKS PROG 37.00 64907 9/14/2004 00001 ONE TIME VENDOR REF MARK MICKELSEN -PARKS PROG 37.00 2 Check Date Vendor 64908 9/14/2004 00001 ONE TIME VENDOR 64909 9/14/2004 00001 ONE TIME VENDOR 64910 9/14/2004 01941 PATRICK GRAPHICS & TROPHIES 64911 9/14/2004 03198 PROUD PAINTERS 64912 9/14/2004 01331 RABBETT, KEVIN 64913 9/14/2004 01337 RAMSEY COUNTY-PROP REC & REV 64914 64915 64916 64917 64918 64919 64920 64921 64922 64923 64924 64925 64926 64927 64928 64929 64930 64931 9/14/2004 01340 REGIONS HOSPITAL 9/14/2004 01397 RYAN PLUMBING & HEATING CO. 9/14/2004 03211 RYGWALSKI, RONALD 9/14/2004 01418 SAM'S CLUB DIRECT 9/14/2004 03215 SHAPER CONTRACTING CO INC 9/14/2004 01455 SHORTREED, MICHAEL 9/14/2004 01463 SISTER ROSALIND GEFRE 9/14/2004 01466 SKYHAWKS SPORTS ACADEMY 9/14/2004 02928 ST CROIX BOAT & PACKET CO 9/14/2004 01504 ST PAUL, CITY OF 9/14/2004 01059 STATE OF MN 9/14/2004 01550 SUMMIT INSPECTIONS 9/14/2004 01574 T.A. SCHIFSKY & SONS, INC 9/14/2004 02464 US BANK 9/14/2004 03019 VARDA COMPANY 9/14/2004 03194 VERNIX FORESTRY CONSULTANTS 9/14/2004 01734 WALSH, WILLIAM P. 9/14/2004 03192 WEIS BUILDERS INC 67 Checks in this report Description/Account REF JOAN MERRITT -PARKS PROG REF COMMONBOND COMM- MCC GRP 1ST PLACE SOFTBALL TROPHIES PAINTING AT MCC -BANQUET ROOM, REIMB FOR INVESTIGATION MEALS 8/7 STORM SEWER MAINT- MULCH STORM WATER -NATIVE PLANTS PROJ 02-10 MISC PLANT STORM SEWER MAINT -NATIVE PLANTS PROJ 02-10 PLANTS & SHRUBS PROJ 03-18 PLANTS & SHRUBS PROJ 02-10 & STORM MAINT -MULCH PARAMEDIC SUPPLIES REF GRADING ESC - 1187 JUNCTION AV E REF GRADING ESC - 2086 EDGERTON DAY CAMP SUPPLIES DAY CAMP SUPPLIES PROJ 02-07 CTY RD D ALIGN PYMT #1 REIMB FOR TUITION 5/5 TO 8/11 MASSAGE-AUG ELEMENTARY SPORTS 7/12 TO 8/6 FIRE FIGHTER RIVERBOAT DINNER MEDICAL SUPPLIES PRESSURE VESSEL ELECTRICAL INSPECTIONS VARIOUS BITUMINOUS MATERIALS- ASPHALT PAYING AGENT FEES S150X ALARM, CAT #2 TREE INSPECTIONS COMM PLUMBING INSP REF GRADING ESC - 1996 CO RD D E 37.00 36.10 123.54 2,250.00 47.58 213.00 486.71 477.12 495.76 4,990.06 724.20 426.00 890.78 1,000.00 2,500.00 61.72 79.59 227,923.62 573.75 1,829.00 5,317.20 3,211.44 764.21 110.00 5,121.60 1,419.05 110.61 1,849.99 2,124.29 1,946.46 686.95 26,211.44 Total checks : 609,615.45 3 CITY OF MAPLEWOOD Disbursements via Debits to Checking account Transmitted Settlement Date Date Payee Description 09/02/04 09/03/04 MN State Treasurer Drivers License/Deputy Registrar 08/27/04 09/03/04 WI Dept of Revenue State Payroll Tax 09/02/04 09/03/04 MN Dept of Natural Resources DNR electronic licenses 09/03/04 09/07/04 MN State Treasurer Drivers License/Deputy Registrar 09/07/04 09/08/04 MN State Treasurer Drivers License/Deputy Registrar 09/08/04 09/09/04 MN State Treasurer Drivers License/Deputy Registrar 09/03/04 09/09/04 Elan Financial Services* Purchasing card items TOTAL *Detailed listings of Elan purchasing card items are attached. Amount 12,895.68 1,374.80 481.50 222,001.47 23,047.06 22,402.30 43,703.84 4 Transaction Review For Transactions posted between 08/21/2004 to 09/03/2004 Post Date Vendor Name 08/27/2004 08/26/2004 08/23/2004 08/25/2004 08/26/2004 08/26/2004 08/27/2004 08/27/2004 08/23/2004 08/25/2004 08/27/2004 08/27/2004 09/01/2004 09/01/2004 09/02/2004 08/23/2004 08/26/2004 08/27/2004 08/23/2004 08/25/2004 09/01/2004 09/03/2004 09/03/2004 09/02/2004 09/03/2004 08/25/2004 09/01/2004 08/27/2004 08/27/2004 08/27/2004 08/27/2004 08/27/2004 08/27/2004 08/27/2004 08/27/2004 08/27/2004 08/27/2004 08/27/2004 08/27/2004 08/27/2004 08/27/2004 08/27/2004 08/27/2004 08/27/2004 08/27/2004 08/27/2004 08/27/2004 08/27/2004 08/25/2004 08/27/2004 08/23/2004 09/01/2004 NATIONAL RECREATION AND P TARGET 00011858 LAMETTRY'S COLLISION CENTURY COLLEGE CONTINUIN FREDPRYOR/CAREERTRACK FREDPRYOR/CAREERTRACK COMO PARK ANIMAL HOSPT GRAFIX SHOPPE PAIN ENTERPRISES INC. CONTINENTAL RESEARCH HENRIKSEN ACE HARDWARE NORTHERN TOOL EQUIPMNT HENRIKSEN ACE HARDWARE MUSKA LIGHTING CENTER HENRIKSEN ACE HARDWARE MICHAELS #9401 RIVERSIDE MARKET MICHAELS #9401 PIONEER PRESS SUBSCRIPTI HEJNY RENTALS INC MENARDS 3059 HENRIKSEN ACE HARDWARE VERSA-LOK CONTRACTOR SAL VERIZON DIRECTORIES NEXTEL WIRELESS SVCS FRANKLIN COVEY #7019 FRANKLIN COVEY #7069 WP-MP3DOWNLOADS WP-MP3DOWNLOADS PAYCOM.NET CLICKENTE PAYCOM.NET CLICKENTE PAYCOM.NET DELUXEPAS HTTP://W W W. SKYPE.NET 123EHOST.COM KIND-HEARTS KIND-HEARTS MIMOS JARING MIMOS JARING MIMOS JARING PLAYNC - NCSOFT GAMES WP-X-TRONIX CO. LT WP-X-TRONIX CO. LT DOT DOMAINREGISTRATION KIND-HEARTS KIND-HEARTS NET4INDIA.COM WP-X-TRONIX CO. LT WP-X-TRONIX CO. LT 123EHOST.COM 123EHOST.COM CUB FOODS, INC. TARGET 00011858 Settlement Amt Cardholder Name 9/7/2004 320.00 BRUCE K ANDERSON 9.94 MANDY ANZALDI 92.39 JOHN BANICK 218.00 JOHN BANICK 179.00 JOHN BANICK 99.00 JOHN BANICK 679.79 JOHN BANICK 680.00 JOHN BANICK 144.23 JIM BEHAN 360.06 JIM BEHAN 228.31 JIM BEHAN 26.61 JIM BEHAN 109.22 JIM BEHAN 1,204.77 JIM BEHAN 13.29 JIM BEHAN 44.60 OAKLEY BIESANZ 5.62 OAKLEY BIESANZ 17.48 OAKLEY BIESANZ 8.30 ROGER BREHEIM 55.44 ROGER BREHEIM 26.60 ROGER BREHEIM 27.68 ROGER BREHEIM 140.88 TROY BRINK 40.50 HEIDI CAREY 535.89 CHRISTOPHER CAVETT 35.70 MELINDA COLEMAN 7.63 MELINDA COLEMAN -9.95 LINDA CROSSON -17.88 LINDA CROSSON -29.95 LINDA CROSSON -29.95 LINDA CROSSON -29.95 LINDA CROSSON -62.80 LINDA CROSSON -99.00 LINDA CROSSON -6.00 LINDA CROSSON -6.00 LINDA CROSSON -26.76 LINDA CROSSON -26.76 LINDA CROSSON -26.76 LINDA CROSSON -49.99 LINDA CROSSON -105.92 LINDA CROSSON -113.03 LINDA CROSSON -127.95 LINDA CROSSON 6.00 LINDA CROSSON 6.00 LINDA CROSSON -23.69 LINDA CROSSON 102.81 LINDA CROSSON 109.71 LINDA CROSSON -99.00 LINDA CROSSON 99.00 LINDA CROSSON 16.50 ROBERTA DARST 17.02 ANDREW ENGSTROM 5 Post Date Vendor Name 09/01/2004 08/26/2004 09/03/2004 08/31/2004 08/23/2004 08/23/2004 08/25/2004 09/01/2004 09/03/2004 08/25/2004 08/26/2004 09/01/2004 09/02/2004 09/02/2004 09/02/2004 08/27/2004 09/03/2004 08/26/2004 08/30/2004 08/30/2004 08/23/2004 08/25/2004 08/26/2004 09/01/2004 09/03/2004 08/30/2004 08/23/2004 08/26/2004 08/27/2004 08/30/2004 09/01/2004 09/03/2004 08/23/2004 08/30/2004 08/26/2004 08/30/2004 08/23/2004 08/23/2004 08/30/2004 08/31/2004 09/02/2004 09/03/2004 08/26/2004 09/01/2004 09/02/2004 09/02/2004 09/01/2004 08/25/2004 08/30/2004 08/31/2004 08/25/2004 08/31/2004 08/31/2004 09/01/2004 08/24/2004 08/25/2004 THE HOME DEPOT 2801 GOVERNMENT FINANCE OFFIC LBF INTERNATION BEST BUY 00000109 CIRCUIT CITY SS #3137 HENRIKSEN ACE HARDWARE FILMTOOLS #2 E-FILLIATE PAYPAL LASERPRINTR B & H PHOTO-VIDEO.COM S & T OFFICE PRODUCTS S & T OFFICE PRODUCTS INTAB INC O1 OF O1 S & T OFFICE PRODUCTS S & T OFFICE PRODUCTS NWA AIR 0122106745001 SPRINTPCS AUTOPYMT RC1 GREEN MILL RESTAURANT AMOCO OIL 06042709 BEST WESTERN HOTELS CUB FOODS, INC. THE OLIVE GARD00012005 PAKORINC RAINBOW FOODS 1-886 RAINBOW FOODS 1-886 OFFICE MAX 00002204 S & T OFFICE PRODUCTS S & T OFFICE PRODUCTS S & T OFFICE PRODUCTS A PATRIOTIC HOUSE S & T OFFICE PRODUCTS S & T OFFICE PRODUCTS AMERICAN IRRIGATION MOGREN BROTHERS RECREONIC S AMERICAN RED CROSOI OF O1 METRO SALES INC HP DIRECT-PUBLICSECTOR ECI GOTOMYPC.COM SVCS HP DIRECT-PUBLICSECTOR ADT SECURITY SERVICES CABLING SERVICES CORPORAT ACTION RENTAL OFFICE MAX 00002204 OFFICE MAX 00002204 OFFICE MAX 00002204 THE HOME DEPOT 2801 HENRIKSEN ACE HARDWARE HENRIKSEN ACE HARDWARE JACK NADEL INC BEST BUY 00000109 BEST BUY 00000109 CARQUEST #2110 THE HOME DEPOT 2810 MENARDS 3022 HIRSHFIELD'S MAPLEWOOD Settlement Amt Cardholder Name 31.36 PAUL E EVERSON 300.00 DANIEL F FAUST 42.50 DAVID FISHER 47.89 MYCHAL FOWLDS 72.35 NICK FRANZEN 13.33 NICK FRANZEN 41.72 NICK FRANZEN 73.42 NICK FRANZEN 21.90 NICK FRANZEN 498.10 PATRICIA FRY 80.39 PATRICIA FRY 137.32 PATRICIA FRY 366.24 PATRICIA FRY 25.56 PATRICIA FRY 13.91 PATRICIA FRY 337.20 RICHARD FURSMAN 114.65 RICHARD FURSMAN 33.58 CLARENCE GERVAIS 33.75 CLARENCE GERVAIS 228.15 CLARENCE GERVAIS 7.58 MIKE GRAF 90.37 KAREN E GUILFOILE 2,107.60 KAREN E GUILFOILE 34.38 KAREN E GUILFOILE 34.25 KAREN E GUILFOILE 22.62 JODI HALWEG 71.98 LORI HANSON 25.96 LORI HANSON 146.21 LORI HANSON 192.78 LORI HANSON 84.72 LORI HANSON 50.69 LORI HANSON 102.18 GARY HINNENKAMP 78.81 GARY HINNENKAMP 274.45 RON HORWATH 124.00 RON HORWATH 377.44 STEVE HURLEY 531.44 STEVE HURLEY 621.60 STEVE HURLEY -582.55 STEVE HURLEY 157.28 STEVE HURLEY 241.83 STEVE HURLEY 250.00 ANN E HUTCHINSON 32.68 ANN E HUTCHINSON 23.75 ANN E HUTCHINSON 8.72 ANN E HUTCHINSON 6.29 SCOTT JACOBSON 2.52 DAVID JAHN 21.37 DAVID JAHN 556.90 FLINT KARIS 495.98 SHERYL L LE -23.43 SHERYL L LE 34.90 MICHAEL LIDBERG 31.91 MICHAEL LIDBERG 107.09 DENNIS LINDORFF 204.36 DENNIS LINDORFF 6 Post Date Vendor Name 08/30/2004 09/03/2004 09/03/2004 08/31/2004 08/23/2004 08/25/2004 08/26/2004 09/02/2004 09/02/2004 09/02/2004 09/03/2004 08/25/2004 08/24/2004 08/25/2004 08/26/2004 08/30/2004 08/30/2004 08/30/2004 08/31/2004 09/03/2004 08/31/2004 08/26/2004 09/01/2004 09/03/2004 08/23/2004 09/01/2004 08/26/2004 08/31/2004 09/03/2004 09/02/2004 08/25/2004 08/23/2004 08/30/2004 08/23/2004 09/01/2004 09/01/2004 09/01/2004 08/24/2004 08/26/2004 08/23/2004 08/23/2004 08/23/2004 08/23/2004 08/24/2004 08/25/2004 08/26/2004 08/26/2004 08/26/2004 08/26/2004 08/27/2004 08/27/2004 08/27/2004 08/27/2004 08/30/2004 08/30/2004 09/01/2004 HIRSHFIELD'S MAPLEWOOD HEJNY RENTALS INC MENARDS 3022 KPS UNDER ARMOUR APPRL AMERITECH MOBILE PA THE UPS STORE #2171 VALLEY TROPHY CENTURY COMM & TECH EMERGENCY APPARATUS MAINT EMERGENCY APPARATUS MAINT GAL GALLS INC MENARDS 3059 BROOK WHITE BROOK WHITE ON SITE SANITATION, IN COPY EQUIPMENT, INC. METRO ATHLETIC SUPPLY ICI-DULUX-PAINTS #0092 HUNT ELECTRIC CORPORATION ON SITE SANITATION, IN PEN PENNWELL BOOKS ARCH WIRELESS THE HOME DEPOT 2801 ICI-DULUX-PAINTS #0092 GEMSTONE PRODUCTS CO DIAMOND VOGEL PAINTS#807 S & T OFFICE PRODUCTS S & T OFFICE PRODUCTS NYSTROM PUBLISHING ESS BROTHERS & SONS INC. THE UPS STORE #2171 MID-AMERICA BUS SYS/EQ. S & T OFFICE PRODUCTS THE HOME DEPOT 2801 THE HOME DEPOT 2801 THE HOME DEPOT 2801 EXCELLCOM MEDTECH FORENSICS INC VIKING ELECTRIC-ST. PAUL ALL MAIN STREET ELECTRIC MERIT CHEVROLET KATH AUTO PARTS SUNRAY BTB CATCO PARTS AND SERVICE TOUSLEY FORD I27200039 CATCO PARTS AND SERVICE CATCO PARTS AND SERVICE BAUER BULT TRE33200023 CATCO PARTS AND SERVICE EAT INC SUNRAY BTB BAUER BULT TRE33200023 KATH AUTO PARTS TOUSLEY FORD I27200039 SUNRAY BTB SUNRAY BTB Settlement Amt Cardholder Name 21.29 DENNIS LINDORFF 51.97 DENNIS LINDORFF 33.08 DENNIS LINDORFF 66.95 JOHNNIE LU 17.61 STEVE LUKIN 21.45 STEVE LUKIN 465.30 STEVE LUKIN 1,818.60 STEVE LUKIN 461.86 STEVE LUKIN 1,729.74 STEVE LUKIN -330.12 STEVE LUKIN 58.87 DAVID LUTZ 375.73 MARK MARUSKA 738.30 MARK MARUSKA 363.69 MARK MARUSKA 814.73 MARK MARUSKA 256.45 MARK MARUSKA 954.24 MARK MARUSKA 632.00 MARK MARUSKA 1,245.40 MARK MARUSKA 53.00 JON A MELANDER 37.46 ED NADEAU 21.24 ED NADEAU 51.07 ED NADEAU 95.19 BRYAN NAGEL 31.95 BRYAN NAGEL 42.60 JEAN NELSON 93.94 JEAN NELSON 848.81 JEAN NELSON 820.05 ERICK OSWALD 6.60 KURT PARSONS 79.41 DENNIS PECK 44.22 KATHLEEN PECK HALL 65.83 ROBERT PETERSON -65.83 ROBERT PETERSON 42.43 ROBERT PETERSON 42.55 ROBERT PETERSON 87.00 PHILIP F POWELL 206.12 WILLIAM J PRIEFER 1,795.72 WILLIAM J PRIEFER 42.10 STEVEN PRIEM 12.06 STEVEN PRIEM 68.44 STEVEN PRIEM 240.37 STEVEN PRIEM 95.58 STEVEN PRIEM 128.29 STEVEN PRIEM 297.76 STEVEN PRIEM 208.74 STEVEN PRIEM 120.99 STEVEN PRIEM 142.18 STEVEN PRIEM 49.86 STEVEN PRIEM 100.92 STEVEN PRIEM 91.77 STEVEN PRIEM 37.17 STEVEN PRIEM 58.57 STEVEN PRIEM 22.61 STEVEN PRIEM 7 Post Date Vendor Name 09/01/2004 CATCO PARTS AND SERVICE 09/02/2004 MERIT CHEVROLET 09/01/2004 KATH AUTO PARTS 09/02/2004 SUNRAY BTB 09/02/2004 SUN TURF METRO POWER 09/02/2004 SUN TURF METRO POWER 09/02/2004 SUN TURF METRO POWER 09/03/2004 THANE HAWKINS 00430017 08/25/2004 AT&T WIRELESS SERVICES 08/24/2004 NEXTEL WIRELESS SVCS 08/27/2004 MILLS FLEET FARM #27 08/27/2004 AUTO GLASS SPECIALISTS-MN 09/02/2004 LILLIE SUBURBAN NEWSP 08/23/2004 DALCO ENTERPRISES, INC 09/03/2004 DALCO ENTERPRISES, INC 08/23/2004 SCIENCE MUSEUM BOX OFFICE 08/23/2004 MICHAELS #2744 08/23/2004 FACTORY CARD OUTLET #284 08/23/2004 RAINBOW FOODS 1-886 08/23/2004 CUB FOODS, INC. 08/23/2004 RAINBOW FOODS 1-886 08/23/2004 MICHAELS #2744 08/26/2004 TOYS R US #6046 08/25/2004 TARGET 00011858 08/26/2004 MICHAELS #2744 08/26/2004 PIONEER PRESS ADVERTISIN 08/27/2004 MN ZOO TARS 08/27/2004 TARGET 00011858 08/30/2004 CUB FOODS #155629 09/01/2004 MENARDS 3022 09/02/2004 MENARDS 3022 08/23/2004 S & T OFFICE PRODUCTS 08/30/2004 CURTIS 1000 09/03/2004 S & T OFFICE PRODUCTS 08/26/2004 TARGET 00011858 09/01/2004 ARAMARK REF SVS #6013- 09/01/2004 PETSMART 00004614 08/31/2004 T-MOBILE 08/25/2004 LIGHTING PLASTICS 08/25/2004 T-MOBILE 08/25/2004 NEXTEL WIRELESS SVCS 08/30/2004 U OF M- CCE 08/23/2004 HEJNY RENTALS INC 08/24/2004 VZW MESSAGING 08/30/2004 WORKOPTIONS.COM 09/01/2004 KINKO'S #0617 08/27/2004 S & T OFFICE PRODUCTS 08/23/2004 CUB FOODS, INC. 08/23/2004 SEARS ROEBUCK 1122 08/27/2004 EAT INC 08/27/2004 EAT INC 08/30/2004 ACTION TRAINING SYSTEM 08/30/2004 HEARTHSIDE RESTAURANT 09/02/2004 EAT INC 09/02/2004 INTL ASSOC OF FIRE CHIEFS 09/03/2004 ANCOM TECHNICAL CENTER IN Settlement Amt Cardholder Name 310.42 STEVEN PRIEM 24.74 STEVEN PRIEM 33.46 STEVEN PRIEM 14.96 STEVEN PRIEM 26.45 STEVEN PRIEM 83.99 STEVEN PRIEM 61.87 STEVEN PRIEM 15.91 STEVEN PRIEM 147.00 KEVIN RABBETT 1,819.07 KEVIN RABBETT 318.44 KEVIN RABBETT 122.46 KEVIN RABBETT 312.00 TERRIE RAMEAUX 540.78 MICHAEL REILLY 1,129.62 MICHAEL REILLY 415.50 AUDRA ROBBINS 81.90 AUDRA ROBBINS 106.02 AUDRA ROBBINS 28.30 AUDRA ROBBINS 61.87 AUDRA ROBBINS 19.60 AUDRA ROBBINS 66.90 AUDRA ROBBINS 2.12 AUDRA ROBBINS 94.84 AUDRA ROBBINS 24.82 AUDRA ROBBINS -82.50 AUDRA ROBBINS 368.40 AUDRA ROBBINS 114.01 AUDRA ROBBINS 22.30 AUDRA ROBBINS 75.23 JAMES SCHINDELDECKER 7.28 JAMES SCHINDELDECKER -19.16 DEB SCHMIDT 102.19 DEB SCHMIDT 146.82 DEB SCHMIDT 12.72 RUSSELL L SCHMIDT 352.95 RUSSELL L SCHMIDT 34.56 RUSSELL L SCHMIDT 45.99 SCOTT SCHULTZ 45.60 GERALD SEEGER 26.85 ANDREA SINDT 407.20 ANDREA SINDT 25.00 ANDREA SINDT 60.05 PAULINE STAPLES 18.50 PAULINE STAPLES 29.95 PAULINE STAPLES 38.23 PAULINE STAPLES -6.00 JOANNE M SVENDSEN 10.32 RONALD SVENDSEN 10.63 RONALD SVENDSEN 17.70 RUSTIN SVENDSEN 62.60 RUSTIN SVENDSEN 1,034.55 RUSTIN SVENDSEN 173.78 RUSTIN SVENDSEN 38.22 RUSTIN SVENDSEN 210.00 RUSTIN SVENDSEN 102.99 RUSTIN SVENDSEN 8 Post Date Vendor Name 08/23/2004 MINVALCOINC 08/26/2004 VIKING ELECTRIC-ST. PAUL 08/24/2004 BATTERIES PLUS 08/25/2004 BATTERIES PLUS 08/25/2004 ROCKLER WOODWORK 013 08/26/2004 ENGRAPHICS INC 08/26/2004 BATTERIES PLUS 08/27/2004 MUSKA LIGHTING CENTER 08/27/2004 MUSKA LIGHTING CENTER 08/30/2004 HIRSHFIELD'S MAPLEWOOD 09/01/2004 SEARS ROEBUCK 1122 09/02/2004 VIKING ELECTRIC-ST. PAUL 09/02/2004 OFFICE MAX 00002204 09/03/2004 ALL MAIN STREET ELEC 08/31/2004 T-MOBILE 08/23/2004 QWESTCOMM TN651 08/24/2004 DIAMOND VOGEL PAINTS#807 08/25/2004 DIAMOND VOGEL PAINTS#807 08/26/2004 DIAMOND VOGEL PAINTS#807 08/26/2004 DIAMOND VOGEL PAINTS#807 08/30/2004 BEST BUY 00000109 08/25/2004 NATIONAL WATERWORKS 230 09/02/2004 NATIONAL WATERWORKS 230 09/02/2004 OFFICE MAX 00002204 08/23/2004 MINUTEMAN PRESS 08/23/2004 VIKING OFFICE PRODUCTS 08/23/2004 PIONEER PRESS SUBSCRIPTI 08/23/2004 AFFORDABLE ENGRAVING 08/23/2004 PANERA BREAD #3459 08/23/2004 PARTY AMERICA 1008 08/26/2004 MINUTEMAN PRESS Settlement Amt Cardholder Name 109.91 LYLE SWANSON 22.08 LYLE SWANSON 54.28 LYLE SWANSON 51.09 LYLE SWANSON 11.90 LYLE SWANSON 116.62 LYLE SWANSON 17.03 LYLE SWANSON 12.95 LYLE SWANSON 349.87 LYLE SWANSON 29.24 LYLE SWANSON 32.98 LYLE SWANSON 126.70 LYLE SWANSON 39.15 LYLE SWANSON 426.10 LYLE SWANSON 248.30 DOUGLAS J TAUBMAN 340.60 JUDY TETZLAFF 214.38 TODD TEVLIN 142.92 TODD TEVLIN 142.92 TODD TEVLIN -71.46 TODD TEVLIN 495.97 DAVID J THOMALLA 562.32 CHARLES J VERMEERSCH 447.64 CHARLES J VERMEERSCH 6.90 JOSEPH WATERS 243.61 SUSAN ZWIEG 170.90 SUSAN ZWIEG 8.30 SUSAN ZWIEG 38.07 SUSAN ZWIEG 104.55 SUSAN ZWIEG 7.93 SUSAN ZWIEG 97.57 SUSAN ZWIEG 43,703.84 9 CITY OF MAPLEWOOD EMPLOYEE GROSS EARNINGS REPORT FOR THE CURRENT PAY PERIOD CHECK # CHECK DATE EMPLOYEE NAME AMOUNT dd 09/10/04 CARDINAL, ROBERT 406.78 dd 09/10/04 JUENEMANN, KATHLEEN 358.00 dd 09/10/04 KOPPEN, MARVIN 358.00 dd 09/10/04 MONAHAN-JUNEK, JACQUELINE 358.00 dd 09/10/04 ROSSBACH, WILLIAM 358.00 dd 09/10/04 COLEMAN, MELINDA 3,967.87 dd 09/10/04 DARST, ROBERTA 1,499.68 dd 09/10/04 FURSMAN, RICHARD 4,629.25 dd 09/10/04 SWANSON, LYLE 1,717.25 dd 09/10/04 LE, SHERYL 3,824.76 dd 09/10/04 RAMEAUX, THERESE 2,197.61 dd 09/10/04 FAUST, DANIEL 3,982.98 dd 09/10/04 SCHMIDT, DEBORAH 1,348.44 dd 09/10/04 BAUMAN, GAYLE 3,072.71 dd 09/10/04 JACKSON, MARY 1,766.85 dd 09/10/04 KELSEY, CONNIE 744.34 dd 09/10/04 TETZLAFF, JUDY 1,766.84 dd 09/10/04 FRY, PATRICIA 1,669.55 dd 09/10/04 GUILFOILE, KAREN 2,826.07 dd 09/10/04 OSTER, ANDREA 1,713.07 dd 09/10/04 CARLE, JEANETTE 1,627.53 dd 09/10/04 FIGG, SHERRIE 1,090.75 dd 09/10/04 JAGOE, CAROL 1,627.52 dd 09/10/04 JOHNSON, BONNIE 992.48 dd 09/10/04 OLSON, SANDRA 972.18 dd 09/10/04 WEAVER, KRISTINE 1,692.90 dd 09/10/04 BANICK, JOHN 3,445.97 dd 09/10/04 CORCORAN, THERESA 1,753.20 dd 09/10/04 POWELL, PHILIP 2,156.41 dd 09/10/04 SPANGLER, EDNA 407.00 dd 09/10/04 THOMALLA, DAVID 3,817.59 dd 09/10/04 ABEL, GLINT 1,911.42 dd 09/10/04 ALDRIDGE, MARK 2,879.87 dd 09/10/04 ANDREWS, SCOTT 3,621.57 dd 09/10/04 BAKKE, LONN 2,353.89 dd 09/10/04 BELDE, STANLEY 2,561.83 dd 09/10/04 BIERDEMAN, BRIAN 1,929.60 dd 09/10/04 BOHL, JOHN 2,965.94 dd 09/10/04 BUSACK, DANIEL 2,201.91 dd 09/10/04 COFFEY, KEVIN 2,212.86 dd 09/10/04 GROTTY, KERRY 2,448.49 dd 09/10/04 DOBLAR, RICHARD 2,539.88 dd 09/10/04 GABRIEL, ANTHONY 1,552.39 dd 09/10/04 HEINZ, STEPHEN 2,602.73 dd 09/10/04 HIEBERT, STEVEN 3,854.15 dd 09/10/04 JOHNSON, KEVIN 3,813.14 dd 09/10/04 KARIS, FLINT 3,951.82 dd 09/10/04 KONG, TOMMY 2,191.50 dd 09/10/04 KROLL, BRETT 2,341.03 dd 09/10/04 KVAM, DAVID 3,063.63 10 CHECK # CHECK DATE EMPLOYEE NAME AMOUNT dd 09/10/04 CARSON, DANIEL 2,236.58 dd 09/10/04 LU, JOHNNIE 2,684.39 dd 09/10/04 MARINO, JASON 2,579.69 dd 09/10/04 MARTIN, JERROLD 2,667.74 dd 09/10/04 MCCARTY, GLEN 1,767.81 dd 09/10/04 METRY, ALESIA 2,184.12 dd 09/10/04 OLSON, JULIE 2,846.86 dd 09/10/04 RABBETT, KEVIN 3,124.61 dd 09/10/04 STEFFEN, SCOTT 4,249.82 dd 09/10/04 SZCZEPANSKI, THOMAS 2,360.59 dd 09/10/04 THIENES, PAUL 2,388.54 dd 09/10/04 TRAN, JOSEPH 2,103.03 dd 09/10/04 WENZEL, JAY 2,722.03 dd 09/10/04 XIONG, KAO 1,911.42 dd 09/10/04 BARTZ, PAUL 3,603.67 dd 09/10/04 BERGERON, JOSEPH 3,457.37 dd 09/10/04 DUGAS, MICHAEL 2,450.00 dd 09/10/04 DUNN, ALICE 2,654.80 dd 09/10/04 ERICKSON, VIRGINIA 2,430.03 dd 09/10/04 EVERSON, PAUL 2,991.31 dd 09/10/04 FLOR, TIMOTHY 2,388.54 dd 09/10/04 FRASER, JOHN 2,488.10 dd 09/10/04 HALWEG, JODI 1,630.04 dd 09/10/04 L'ALLIER, DANIEL 2,128.40 dd 09/10/04 LANGNER, SCOTT 1,875.52 dd 09/10/04 PALMA, STEVEN 3,227.76 dd 09/10/04 PARSONS, KURT 2,259.23 dd 09/10/04 DAWSON, RICHARD 1,888.65 dd 09/10/04 DUELLMAN, KIRK 1,842.82 dd 09/10/04 GJERTSON, MARK 500.00 dd 09/10/04 JOHNSON, DOUGLAS 1,829.73 dd 09/10/04 NOVAK, JEROME 1,816.63 dd 09/10/04 PETERSON, ROBERT 1,867.44 dd 09/10/04 SVENDSEN, RONALD 1,867.45 dd 09/10/04 GERVAIS-JR, CLARENCE 2,575.00 dd 09/10/04 BAUER, MICHELLE 1,512.44 dd 09/10/04 FEHR, JOSEPH 1,808.44 dd 09/10/04 FLAUGHER, JAYME 1,866.44 dd 09/10/04 HERMANSON, CHAD 782.00 dd 09/10/04 JACKSON, LINDA 1,567.64 dd 09/10/04 LAFFERTY, WALTER 1,808.44 dd 09/10/04 LINK, BRYAN 1,828.95 dd 09/10/04 PACOLT, MARSHA 2,142.40 dd 09/10/04 RABINE, JANET 2,139.24 dd 09/10/04 STAHNKE, JULIE 1,808.44 dd 09/10/04 LUKIN, STEVEN 3,353.68 dd 09/10/04 SVENDSEN, RUSTIN 2,678.00 dd 09/10/04 ZWIEG, SUSAN 1,828.04 dd 09/10/04 DOLLERSCHELL, ROBERT 266.30 dd 09/10/04 AHL, R. CHARLES 4,220.84 dd 09/10/04 NNEN, AMY 1,171.53 dd 09/10/04 PRIEFER, WILLIAM 2,462.94 dd 09/10/04 WEGWERTH, JUDITH 1,715.29 dd 09/10/04 BRINK, TROY 1,546.84 dd 09/10/04 DEBILZAN, THOMAS 1,757.64 dd 09/10/04 EDGE, DOUGLAS 1,798.55 11 CHECK # CHECK DATE EMPLOYEE NAME AMOUNT dd 09/10/04 JONES, DONALD 2,067.53 dd 09/10/04 KANE, MICHAEL 3,176.38 dd 09/10/04 LUTZ, DAVID 1,797.49 dd 09/10/04 MEYER, GERALD 1,897.33 dd 09/10/04 NAGEL, BRYAN 1,961.87 dd 09/10/04 OSWALD, ERICK 1,961.87 dd 09/10/04 TEVLIN, TODD 1,642.04 dd 09/10/04 CAVETT, CHRISTOPHER 3,056.22 dd 09/10/04 DUCHARME, JOHN 379.00 dd 09/10/04 ENGSTROM, ANDREW 1,486.27 dd 09/10/04 JACOBSON, SCOTT 1,453.25 dd 09/10/04 LABEREE, ERIN 2,663.29 dd 09/10/04 LINDBLOM, RANDAL 2,423.44 dd 09/10/04 MURRA, AARON 986.70 dd 09/10/04 PECK, DENNIS 2,670.57 dd 09/10/04 PRIEBE, WILLIAM 2,530.21 dd 09/10/04 VERMEERSCH, CHARLES 2,065.24 dd 09/10/04 ANDERSON, BRUCE 3,939.03 dd 09/10/04 HALL, KATHLEEN 465.49 dd 09/10/04 LUND, ERIC 480.00 dd 09/10/04 MARUSKA, MARK 2,513.20 dd 09/10/04 NAUGHTON, JOHN 1,622.04 dd 09/10/04 SCHINDELDECKER, JAMES 1,788.27 dd 09/10/04 BIESANZ, OAKI,EY 1,389.63 dd 09/10/04 HAYMAN, JANET 1,270.59 dd 09/10/04 HUTCHINSON, ANN 2,092.14 dd 09/10/04 KOS, HEATHER 152.38 dd 09/10/04 NELSON, JEAN 1,067.05 dd 09/10/04 SEEGER, GERALD 533.42 dd 09/10/04 GAYNOR, VIRGINIA 2,035.14 dd 09/10/04 MULHOLLAND, NANCY 787.50 dd 09/10/04 EKSTRAND, THOMAS 2,740.62 dd 09/10/04 KROLL, LISA 1,132.40 dd 09/10/04 LIVINGSTON, JOYCE 950.56 dd 09/10/04 LORSUNG, ROSE 489.50 dd 09/10/04 SINDT, ANDREA 1,554.04 dd 09/10/04 THOMPSON, DEBRA 767.36 dd 09/10/04 YOUNG, TAMELA 1,437.24 dd 09/10/04 FINWALL, SHANN 2,126.04 dd 09/10/04 ROBERTS, KENNETH 2,430.43 dd 09/10/04 CARVER, NICHOLAS 2,561.82 dd 09/10/04 FISHER, DAVID 3,022.43 dd 09/10/04 MENNENGA, JOHN 988.00 dd 09/10/04 RICE, MICHAEL 1,810.04 dd 09/10/04 SWAN, DAVID 1,898.04 dd 09/10/04 KONEWKO, DUWAYNE 2,548.44 dd 09/10/04 ANZALDI, MANDY 546.00 dd 09/10/04 BJORK, BRANDON 390.00 dd 09/10/04 FINN, GREGORY 2,011.89 dd 09/10/04 GOODRICH, CHAD 434.75 dd 09/10/04 GRAF, MICHAEL 1,728.26 dd 09/10/04 KELLY, LISA 1,172.12 dd 09/10/04 OHLHAUSER, MEGHAN 400.00 dd 09/10/04 ROBBINS, AUDRA 1,872.13 dd 09/10/04 SHERRILL, CAITLIN 126.00 dd 09/10/04 TAUBMAN, DOUGLAS 2,639.28 12 CHECK # CHECK DATE EMPLOYEE NAME AMOUNT dd 09/10/04 WERNER, KATIE 51.00 dd 09/10/04 BREHEIM, ROGER 1,790.49 dd 09/10/04 NORDQUIST, RICHARD 1,829.58 dd 09/10/04 SCHULTZ, SCOTT 2,024.96 dd 09/10/04 COLLINS, ASHLEY 169.40 dd 09/10/04 CRAWFORD - JR, RAYMOND 610.23 dd 09/10/04 CROSSON, LINDA 2,338.51 dd 09/10/04 FONTAINE, ANTHONY 686.73 dd 09/10/04 MOY, PAMELA 408.17 dd 09/10/04 PELOQUIN, PENNYE 434.24 dd 09/10/04 SCHMIDT, RUSSELL 1,790.55 dd 09/10/04 STAPLES, PAULINE 2,720.85 dd 09/10/04 ABRAHAMSON, DANIEL 338.00 dd 09/10/04 ABRAHAMSON, REBECCA 90.16 dd 09/10/04 BADEN, ALISON 362.25 dd 09/10/04 BRENEMAN, NEIL 346.16 dd 09/10/04 CRONIN, CHAD 30.38 dd 09/10/04 EDSON, JAMIE 22.50 dd 09/10/04 ERICKSON, CAROL 21.25 dd 09/10/04 GREDVIG, ANDERS 210.30 dd 09/10/04 GUZIK, JENNIFER 47.75 dd 09/10/04 HALEY, BROOKE 163.65 dd 09/10/04 HORWATH, RONALD 1,783.14 dd 09/10/04 IRISH, GRACE 164.50 dd 09/10/04 KOEHNEN, AMY 42.70 dd 09/10/04 KOEHNEN, MARY 740.35 dd 09/10/04 KRONHOLM, KATHRYN 423.60 dd 09/10/04 OVERBY, ANNA 18.65 dd 09/10/04 SCHULTZ, MATTHEW 94.25 dd 09/10/04 SCHULTZ, PETER 143.00 dd 09/10/04 SMITH, ANN 58.50 dd 09/10/04 TUPY, HEIDE 63.05 dd 09/10/04 TUPY, MARCUS 140.24 dd 09/10/04 WILHELM, MELISSA 30.75 dd 09/10/04 GROPPOLI, LINDA 306.00 dd 09/10/04 KURKOSKI, STEPHANIE 45.50 dd 09/10/04 BEHAN, JAMES 2,006.40 dd 09/10/04 LONETTI, JAMES 987.33 dd 09/10/04 MILES, LAURA 156.38 dd 09/10/04 PATTERSON, ALBERT 1,023.72 dd 09/10/04 PRINS, KELLY 915.33 dd 09/10/04 REILLY, MICHAEL 1,536.04 dd 09/10/04 STEINHORST, JEFFREY 65.10 dd 09/10/04 AICHELE, CRAIG 1,830.04 dd 09/10/04 PRIEM, STEVEN 2,008.44 dd 09/10/04 BERGO, CHAD 2,071.55 dd 09/10/04 FOWLDS, MYCHAL 1,850.70 dd 09/10/04 FRANZEN, NICHOLAS 1,483.20 dd 09/10/04 HURLEY, STEPHEN 2,991.94 wf 98511 09/10/04 INGVOLDSTAD, CURTIS 50.00 wf 98512 09/10/04 KARSTENS, BRAD 50.00 wf 98513 09/10/04 CARLSON, STEVEN 1,802.91 wf 98514 09/10/04 JAHN, DAVID 1,545.87 wf 98515 09/10/04 MALDONADO, JUANA 694.78 wf 98516 09/10/04 MORIN, TROY 195.50 wf 98517 09/10/04 MATHEYS, ALANA 1,847.41 13 CHECK # CHECK DATE EMPLOYEE NAME AMOUNT wf 98518 09/10/04 GENNOW, PAMELA 728.00 wf 98519 09/10/04 HANSEN, LORI 1,646.04 wf 98520 09/10/04 PALANK, MARY 1,663.70 wf 98521 09/10/04 RICHIE, CAROLE 1,769.06 wf 98522 09/10/04 SVENDSEN, JOANNE 1,813.77 wf 98523 09/10/04 SHORTREED, MICHAEL 3,295.12 wf 98524 09/10/04 STEINER, JOSEPH 330.00 wf 98525 09/10/04 WELCHLIN, CABOT 2,312.90 wf 98526 09/10/04 FREBERG, RONALD 1,822.31 wf 98527 09/10/04 HAAG, ROBERT 800.00 wf 98528 09/10/04 STEWART, RYAN 800.00 wf 98529 09/10/04 GROVER, MICHAEL 868.73 wf 98530 09/10/04 JAROSCH, JONATHAN 981.75 wf 98531 09/10/04 JOHNSON, ROBERT 1,341.00 wf 98532 09/10/04 EDSON, DAVID 1,828.73 wf 98533 09/10/04 HELEY, ROLAND 1,822.31 wf 98534 09/10/04 HINNENKAMP, GARY 1,793.60 wf 98535 09/10/04 LINDORFF, DENNIS 1,790.50 wf 98536 09/10/04 NAUGHTON, RYAN 924.00 wf 98537 09/10/04 NOVAK, MICHAEL 1,718.04 wf 98538 09/10/04 GERNES, CAROLE 406.13 wf 98539 09/10/04 SOUTTER, CHRISTINE 460.00 wf 98540 09/10/04 ANZALDI, KALI 412.50 wf 98541 09/10/04 BALLESTRAZZE, THAD 252.00 wf 98542 09/10/04 FREYBERGER, RACHEL 313.31 wf 98543 09/10/04 GEBHARD, JILLIAN 493.50 wf 98544 09/10/04 GEBHARD, MADELINE 391.50 wf 98545 09/10/04 HJELMGREN, NICOLE 54.00 wf 98546 09/10/04 ROBBINS, EMERALD 227.50 wf 98547 09/10/04 SPIELMAN, CHRISTA 308.06 wf 98548 09/10/04 HAAG, MARK 1,669.24 wf 98549 09/10/04 NADEAU, EDWARD 3,176.38 wf 98550 09/10/04 DISKERUD, HEATHER 100.50 wf 98551 09/10/04 GLASS, JEAN 1,677.66 wf 98552 09/10/04 KAZISTOVA, ALEKSANDRA 247.90 wf 98553 09/10/04 SARPONG, SEAN 336.00 wf 98554 09/10/04 SCHULZE, BRIAN 312.00 wf 98555 09/10/04 TOLBERT, FRANCINE 448.00 wf 98556 09/10/04 LINGER, MARGARET 518.10 wf 98557 09/10/04 ZERWAS, CRYSTAL 149.85 wf 98558 09/10/04 ANDERSON, CALEB 89.38 wf 98559 09/10/04 ANDERSON, JOSHUA 13.00 wf 98560 09/10/04 ANDERSON, JUSTIN 32.50 wf 98561 09/10/04 BOTHWELL, KRISTIN 233.90 wf 98562 09/10/04 BRENEMAN, SEAN 428.93 wf 98563 09/10/04 COSTA, JOSEPH 74.03 wf 98564 09/10/04 DEMPSEY, BETH 67.20 wf 98565 09/10/04 DUNN, RYAN 408.02 wf 98566 09/10/04 ESTRADA, KIEL 315.00 wf 98567 09/10/04 FALKENSTEIN, MONICA 76.50 wf 98568 09/10/04 FONTAINE, KIM 449.78 wf 98569 09/10/04 GESKERMANN, MARK 39.00 wf 98570 09/10/04 GRANT, MELISSA 70.00 wf 98571 09/10/04 GRUENHAGEN, LINDA 437.55 wf 98572 09/10/04 HEWN, REBECCA 60.00 wf 98573 09/10/04 HOLMGREN, LEAH 77.35 14 CHECK # CHECK DATE EMPLOYEE NAME AMOUNT wf 98574 09/10/04 HOULE, DENISE 22.30 wf 98575 09/10/04 HUPPERT, ERIN 17.48 wf 98576 09/10/04 JOHNSON, MAGGIE 13.00 wf 98577 09/10/04 JOHNSON, STETSON 363.76 wf 98578 09/10/04 JOYER, MARTI 19.00 wf 98579 09/10/04 KERSCHNER, JOLENE 4.35 wf 98580 09/10/04 MCMAHON, MELISSA 166.99 wf 98581 09/10/04 MILLS, ANNE 177.63 wf 98582 09/10/04 OLSON, ABIGAIL 27.25 wf 98583 09/10/04 OLSON, MARGRET 80.60 wf 98584 09/10/04 PEHOSKI, JOEL 337.90 wf 98585 09/10/04 PETERSON, ANNA 43.88 wf 98586 09/10/04 POTTRATZ, DIANE 22.93 wf 98587 09/10/04 PROESCH, ANDY 286.87 wf 98588 09/10/04 ROSTRON, ROBERT 151.13 wf 98589 09/10/04 SCHMIDT, EMILY 121.88 wf 98590 09/10/04 SCHOENECKER, SAMANTHA 175.50 wf 98591 09/10/04 SCHRAMM, BRITTANY 134.88 wf 98592 09/10/04 SCHREINER, MICHELLE 22.93 wf 98593 09/10/04 SMITLEY, SHARON 46.00 wf 98594 09/10/04 STAHNKE, AMY 71.50 wf 98595 09/10/04 TRUE, ANDREW 40.80 wf 98596 09/10/04 WARNER, CAROLYN 115.00 wf 98597 09/10/04 WEDES, CARYL 67.35 wf 98598 09/10/04 WELTER, ELIZABETH 509.74 wf 98599 09/10/04 WERNER, REBECCA 91.00 wf 98600 09/10/04 WHITE, NICOLE 166.50 wf 98601 09/10/04 WOODMAN, ALICE 41.40 wf 98602 09/10/04 BOSLEY, CAROL 283.05 wf 98603 09/10/04 DOBBS, SYDNEY 52.50 wf 98604 09/10/04 HAGSTROM, EMILY 18.00 wf 98605 09/10/04 HANSEN, ANNA 17.00 wf 98606 09/10/04 KELLY, BRYAN 63.00 wf 98607 09/10/04 ODDEN, JESSICA 104.00 wf 98608 09/10/04 OIE, REBECCA 19.50 wf 98609 09/10/04 QUINN, KELLY 52.50 wf 98610 09/10/04 SATTLER, MELINDA 30.00 wf 98611 09/10/04 VAN HALE, PAULA 125.80 wf 98612 09/10/04 BALDWIN, JANA 95.25 wf 98613 09/10/04 DOUGLASS, TOM 976.36 wf 98614 09/10/04 FLEISCHHACKER, JACOB 63.50 wf 98615 09/10/04 HER, CHONG 238.85 wf 98616 09/10/04 NAGEL, BROOKE 205.83 wf 98617 09/10/04 NEWCOMB, GENNA 126.35 wf 98618 09/10/04 O'GRADY, VICTORIA 117.48 wf 98619 09/10/04 O'GRADY, ZACHARY 186.00 wf 98620 09/10/04 RYDEEN, ARIEL 275.98 wf 98621 09/10/04 SIMPSON, KIMBERLYN 44.45 wf 98622 09/10/04 THEESFELD, CALEB 44.45 wf 98623 09/10/04 VANG, CIA 6.65 wf 98624 09/10/04 VANG, KAY 171.45 wf 98625 09/10/04 VERDELL, TRAQUEZ 126.35 wf 98626 09/10/04 WAGNER, KEVIN 44.45 wf 98627 09/10/04 WILLIAMS, NICK 123.03 wf 98628 09/10/04 MULVANEY, DENNIS 1,985.68 424,409.82 15 vchlist 09/17/2004 11:01:50 AM Check Register City of Maplewood Check Date Vendor Description/Account Amount 64932 9/10/2004 01337 RAMSEY COUNTY-PROP REC & REV PROJ 03-26 PROP TAX 032922110011 3,678.00 64933 9/21/2004 00111 ANIMAL CONTROL SERVICES INC PATROL & BOARDING FEES 481.01 64934 9/21/2004 00130 ASIAN AMERICAN PRESS POLICE OFFICER AD 112.58 64935 9/21/2004 03199 BERMAN EXTERIORS & REMODELING REPLACE & INSTALL NEW SIDING, REPLACE 3,074.00 64936 9/21/2004 02804 BRIDGELAND DEVELOPMENT CO REF GRADING ESC -MAPLE HILLS DR 16,775.62 64937 9/21/2004 00230 BRYAN ROCK PRODUCTS, INC. ROCK 97.96 ROCK 1,311.20 64938 9/21/2004 00240 C.S.C. CREDIT SERVICES APPLICANT BACKGROUND CHECK 50.00 64939 9/21/2004 00265 CARLSON TRACTOR & EQUIP. CO. CORING TINE FOR AERATING TOOL 23.98 64940 9/21/2004 00321 CONSOLIDATED PLASTICS CO., INC PROJ 03-04 RELOCATE SPRINKLER SYS 2,994.00 64941 9/21/2004 00330 COPY SERVICE CORP. COPIER SRV MAINT AGREEMENT 141.35 64942 9/21/2004 00384 DE LACE LANDEN FINANCIAL SRVS COPIER LEASE 511.20 64943 9/21/2004 03217 DELANEY COMPANY LLC REF GRADING ESC - 644 FERNDALE ST 2,500.14 64944 9/21/2004 02713 ELLISON RECYCLING EQUIPMENT CO RED RECYCLING BINS 2,000.22 64945 9/21/2004 00477 ESS BROTHERS & SONS INC SANITARY MAN HOLES 1,959.60 64946 9/21/2004 00519 FLEXIBLE PIPE TOOL CO. UV PACKING KIT & CYLINDER COVERS 1,422.41 64947 9/21/2004 00520 FLOR, TIMOTHY W REIMB FOR TUITION 5/4 TO 6/15 630.00 64948 9/21/2004 00526 FOREST LAKE CONTRACTING INC PROJ 03-04 KENNARD ST IMP PYMT#7 43,964.33 64949 9/21/2004 00531 FRA-DOR BLACK DIRT & RECYCLE BLACK DIRT 455.29 64950 9/21/2004 00585 GOPHER STATE ONE-CALL NET BILLABLE TICKETS 586.50 64951 9/21/2004 00687 HUGO'S TREE CARE TREE TRIMMING -HAUL LOGS & BRUSH 1,402.00 64952 9/21/2004 01605 IFP TEST SERVICES INC PSYCH EXAMS - 2 PO CANDIDATES 700.00 64953 9/21/2004 02237 IMPERIAL IMPRESSIONS TOWING & IMPOUND REPORT BOOKS 425.75 AMBULANCE REPORT BOOKS 764.00 64954 9/21/2004 00721 INDEPENDENT SPORTS NETWORK SOFTBALL UMPIRING SRVS 3,818.00 64955 9/21/2004 03216 KELSEY JR, WALTER ADULT SOFTBALL UMPIRE 88.00 64956 9/21/2004 02607 KINNICKINNIC NATIVES LLC PLANTS FOR JOY PARK 631.40 PLANT MATERIAL 48.00 PLANTS 202.75 64957 9/21/2004 03218 KLINE NISSAN KLINE NISSAN ESCROW REFUND 969.68 64958 9/21/2004 00827 L M C I T WORK COMP - OCT TO DEC 46,902.50 64959 9/21/2004 02898 LAF LINES LTD PROGRAM SUPPLIES 70.32 64960 9/21/2004 03221 CARSON ENTERPRISES PROJ 02-07 PERM EASEMENT ACQUISTION 30,400.00 64961 9/21/2004 00908 M R P A AGENCY MEMBERSHIP & 11 INDIVIDUAL 1,545.00 64962 9/21/2004 00936 MAPLEWOOD HISTORICAL SOCIETY ANNUAL CONTRIBUTION 2,000.00 64963 9/21/2004 00984 METROPOLITAN 911 BOARD BEHAVIORAL HEALTH CONF FOR EMS 60.00 64964 9/21/2004 00986 METROPOLITAN COUNCIL MONTHLY SAC - JUL 21,177.45 64965 9/21/2004 00392 MN COMMERCE DEPARTMENT NOTARY COMMISSION APPLICATION 40.00 64966 9/21/2004 01023 MN COUNTY ATTORNEYS ASSN DWI & TRAFFIC LAW TRNG 15.00 64967 9/21/2004 01051 MN OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH PRE-EMPLOYMENT PHYSICALS 304.00 64968 9/21/2004 03219 NATIONAL SERVICES PHOTOCOPY CHARGE CN 04015369 16.46 64969 9/21/2004 01149 NATURAL RESOURCES RESTOR INC BUCHTHORN REMOVAL 282.23 64970 9/21/2004 02629 NOVACARE CBO PRE-EMPLOYMENT PHYSICALS 80.00 64971 9/21/2004 00001 ONE TIME VENDOR REF ST CROIX DEV-OVERPAID SAC & WAC 1,500.00 64972 9/21/2004 00001 ONE TIME VENDOR REF VY DANG - AMB 03019034 323.00 64973 9/21/2004 00001 ONE TIME VENDOR REF MARY BARNETT -MEMBERSHIP 150.44 64974 9/21/2004 00001 ONE TIME VENDOR REF MELISSA FREERS -MCC PROG 55.00 64975 9/21/2004 00001 ONE TIME VENDOR REIMB M GAMBONT-PR#00-03 SEED 51.75 64976 9/21/2004 00001 ONE TIME VENDOR REF DENISE FAUST -SWIM PROG 49.00 64977 9/21/2004 00001 ONE TIME VENDOR REIMB WAYNE LUND - PR# 02-10 EDGING 30.00 64978 9/21/2004 00001 ONE TIME VENDOR REIMB J RANUM - PR#02-10 EDGING 30.00 64979 9/21/2004 00001 ONE TIME VENDOR REIMB M ROSSEL PR#02-10 EDGING 30.00 64980 9/21/2004 00001 ONE TIME VENDOR REIMB J DEARSTYNE - PR#02-10 EDGING 30.00 64981 9/21/2004 00001 ONE TIME VENDOR REF J ROBBINS - PR#02-10 EDGING 30.00 64982 9/21/2004 00001 ONE TIME VENDOR REF RMILLER - PR#02-10 EDGING 30.00 64983 9/21/2004 00001 ONE TIME VENDOR REF J MORGAN - PR#02-10 EDGING 30.00 16 Check Date Vendor 64984 9/21/2004 00001 ONE TIME VENDOR 64985 9/21/2004 00001 ONE TIME VENDOR 64986 9/21/2004 00001 ONE TIME VENDOR 64987 9/21/2004 00001 ONE TIME VENDOR 64988 9/21/2004 00001 ONE TIME VENDOR 64989 9/21/2004 01269 PIPE SERVICES CORP 64990 9/21/2004 03094 POLICE TRNG ADVISORY COMMITTEE 64991 9/17/2004 01284 POSTMASTER 64992 9/21/2004 01289 PRAIRIE RESTORATIONS INC 64993 9/21/2004 03209 PREMIER SERVICES LLC 64994 9/21/2004 00396 PUBLIC SAFETY, DEPT OF 64995 9/21/2004 03171 QUALITY TRAFFIC CONTROL 64996 9/21/2004 01337 RAMSEY COUNTY-PROP REC & REV 64997 64998 64999 9/21/2004 9/21/2004 9/21/2004 01337 RAMSEY COUNTY-PROP REC & REV 01359 REGAL AUTO WASH DETAIL XX 01409 S.E.H. 65000 65001 65002 65003 65004 65005 65006 65007 65008 65009 65010 9/21/2004 9/21/2004 9/21/2004 9/21/2004 9/21/2004 9/21/2004 9/21/2004 9/21/2004 9/21/2004 9/21/2004 9/21/2004 02192 SCHINDELDECKER, JIM 01430 SCHROEDER MILK COMPANY, INC 03220 SCHWARTZ, CHARLES 01504 ST PAUL, CITY OF 01568 SWANSON, LYLE 01574 T.A. SCHIFSKY & SONS. INC 02686 TASERINTL 02139 TWIN CITY AREA LABOR MGMT COUN 01734 WALSH, WILLIAM P. 01789 WOODBURY, CITY OF 01190 XCEL ENERGY 79 Checks in this report Description/Account REIMB R KORTEKAAS - PR#02-10 EDGING REIMB C DUBORD - PR#02-10 EDGING REF CSTONE - PR#03-18 EDGING REF B HOLMBERG -EDGING REIMB R RUEDY -EDGING SANITARY SEWER TV INSPECTION COMPUTER CRIME INV TECHNIQUES COMPUTER CRIME INV TECHNIQUES COMPUTER CRIME INV TECHNIQUE PERMIT #4903 FOR ABSENTEE BALLOTS HERBICIDE TREATMENT -TROUT BROOK MOWING & HERBICIDE TREATMENT -PRAIRIE REF GRADING ESC - 2263 TILSEN CT TRANSFER TITLE - 2 VEHICLES PROJ 02-02 TRAFFIC CONTROL SIGNAGE NATIVE PLANTS -JOY PARK PLANTS NATIVE SEDGE CAR WASHES-AUG PROJ 02-07 PROF SRVS -JUL PROJ 04-19 PROF SRVS -JUL PROJ 02-07 PROF SRVS -JUL PROJ 03-26 PROF SRVS -JUL PROJ 02-07 PROF SRVS -JUL PROJ 03-07 PROF SRVS -JUL PROJ 01-14 PROF SRVS -JUL PROJ 04-06 PROF SRVS -JUL PROJ 04-22 PROF SRVS -JUL PROJ 03-04 PROF SRVS -JUL PROJ 03-04 PROF SRVS -JUL REIMB FOR SAFETY BOOTS TAX INCREMENT 90% OF $3997.43 REF GRADING ESC - 1518 HALLER CT S RADIO SRV & MAINT -AUG REIMB FOR SAFETY SHOES VARIOUS BITUMINOUS MATERIALS- VARIOUS BITUMINOUS MATERIALS- TASER TRAINING CO-CHAIR TRAINING COMMERCIAL PLUMBING INSP SAFE & SOBER GRANT MONTHLY UTIL -STMT DATE 9/3/04 Amount 18.94 18.07 15.75 14.86 11.84 292.50 75.00 75.00 75.00 300.00 608.88 1,075.65 1,158.05 27.00 369.77 536.76 306.72 213.00 57.47 2,326.59 10,267.91 12,340.72 1,730.81 3,488.58 36,566.89 748.57 21,204.68 301.39 3,374.96 4,158.30 129.48 3,597.69 3,447.40 904.65 69.00 1,085.32 750.57 195.00 40.00 1,586.62 2,046.64 43,122.11 Total checks : 355,785.26 17 CITY OF MAPLEWOOD Disbursements via Debits to Checking account Transmitted Settlement Date Date Payee 09/09/04 09/10/04 09/10/04 09/10/04 09/10/04 09/10/04 09/10/04 09/13/04 09/10/04 09/14/04 09/15/04 09/15/04 09/13/04 09/10/04 09/10/04 09/13/04 09/13/04 09/13/04 09/13/04 09/13/04 09/14/04 09/14/04 09/15/04 09/15/04 09/16/04 09/16/04 MN State Treasurer ICMA (Vantagepointe) MN State Treasurer U.S. Treasurer P.E.R.A. Orchard Trust MN Dept of Natural Resources MN State Treasurer MN State Treasurer MN State Treasurer JP Morgan Chase MN State Treasurer ARC Administration TOTAL Description Drivers License/Deputy Registrar Deferred Compensation Drivers License/Deputy Registrar Federal Payroll Tax P.E.R.A. Deferred Compensation DNR electronic licenses Drivers License/Deputy Registrar State Payroll Tax Drivers License/Deputy Registrar Investment Purchase Drivers License/Deputy Registrar DCRP & Flex plan payments Omni int 21,646.66 9,028.59 16,306.65 87,812.04 48,592.68 21,725.78 599.88 19,710.62 16,753.52 17,194.50 982,002.78 8,768.62 875.79 "I , L5 "I , U "I ti. "I "I 18 AGENDA NO. G-2 AGENDA REPORT TO: City Council FROM: Richard Fursman City Manager RE: Car Allowance - IT Director DATE: September 13, 2004 The IT Director is currently the only department head position in the City that does not receive a mileage allowance. I recommend that an allowance of $125 per month be established consistent with our practice for other similar department head positions. RECOMMENDATION Please establish a mileage allowance of $125 per month for the position of IT Director. Memorandum AGENDA ITEM G3 AGENDAREFORT To: Richard Fursman, City Manager CC: City Clerk From: Steve Lukin, Fire Chief Date: 9/22/2004 Re: Hazardous Materials Fund BACKGROUND ~'~'c arc in the process of integrating the EOC into Station Two. We have undertaken many projccts in order to get the new EOC up and running The last major item on our list is to put in placc a backup generator system, We plan on doing this by utilizing one of the public works porriblc generators. In order to do this, we need to have some electrical work done. Therefore, «c «ill need to transfer money from the Hazardous Materials Fund into the Emergency Management budget. RECOMMENDATION I recommend the City Council approve the budget transfer and have the Finance Department make the necessary budget changes. Memorandum AGENDA ITEM c~ AGENDAREFORT To: Richard Fursman, City Manager CC: City Clerk From: Steve Lukin, Fire Chief Date: 9/22/2004 Re: Disaster Mitigation Plan Resolution BACKGROUND The Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 requires every county and community in the nation to create a prcdisaster mitigation plan. These plans must be coordinated with neighboring communities and must address all possibilities of hazards, infectious diseases, tornados, technological hazards and terrorism. These plans are due to the Federal Government in November. In order to better serve our community, we have joined with Ramsey County Division of Emergency Management and Homeland Security, as well as other cities within Ramsey County, to develop these plans. We have already been meeting and working with Ramsey County in developing the Mitigation Plan. Together as a team, we will better meet the challenges that face us in the future. RECOMMENDATION Attached is a resolution asking us to participate in the overall Ramsey County Mitigation Plan. I am recommending that the City Council adopt this Resolution. Att City of Maplewood RESOLUTION TO PARTICIPATE IN A HAZARD MITIGATION PLANNING PROCESS WHEREAS, the County of Ramsey Division of Emergency Management and Homeland Security is participating in the all-hazard mitigation planning process as established under the Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000, Pub. L. No. 106-390; and WHEREAS, the Act requires all counties and municipalities to develop and maintain all-hazard mitigation plans either independently or on a county-wide, multi jurisdictional basis; and WHEREAS, such plans must be well integrated and coordinated to account for the fact that hazards in one jurisdiction impact on other nearby jurisdictions; and WHEREAS, the Act established a framework for the development of an all-hazard mitigation plan; and WHEREAS, the Act as part of the planning process requires public involvement and local coordination among neighboring local units of government and businesses; and WHEREAS, the plan must include a mitigation strategy including goals and objectives and an action plan identifying specific mitigation projects and costs; and WHEREAS, the plan must include an implementation and maintenance process including plan updates, integration of the plan into other planning documents and how the County will maintain public participation and coordination; and WHEREAS, Ramsey County Division of Emergency Management and Homeland Security has indicated its willingness to coordinate these efforts should the municipality so desire; and WHEREAS, the draft plan will be shared with all municipalities, the County Board of Commissioners and the State of Minnesota Department of Public Safety, Division of Homeland Security and Emergency Management for coordination of state agency review and comment on the draft; and WHEREAS, final approval of the all-hazard mitigation plan will make the municipalities and the County eligible to receive Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP) project grants; and WHEREAS, this resolution does not preclude the City of Maplewood from preparing its own plan in the future should it desire to do so; Therefore Be It RESOLVED, that the City of Maplewood supports the countywide all-hazard mitigation planning effort, and, be it further RESOLVED, that the City of Maplewood wishes to join with the County in preparing and maintaining the plan and recognizes that the final plan will apply within the City of Maplewood, and, be it further RESOLVED, that the City of Maplewood requests that the Ramsey County Division of Emergency Management and Homeland Security coordinate all-hazard mitigation planning efforts for the City of Maplewood in the future. Adopted this 27th day of September, 2004. Robert J. Cardinal Mayor of Maplewood Attest: AGENDA ITEM G-5 AGENDA REPORT TO: City Manager FROM: Charles Ahl, Director of Public Works/City Engineer Bill Priefer, Public Works Administrative Assistant SUBJECT: Standard Master Agreement for Professional Engineering Services between the City and Short Elliott Hendrickson, Inc. DATE: September 20, 2004 Introduction The city council will consider whether to enter into a master agreement with Short Elliott Hendrickson, Inc. (SEH) for professional engineering services. Background Through a competitive proposal process, the engineering consulting firm of SEH was selected to provide professional engineering services to the city in 2001. The master agreement covers standard contract procedures and conditions for any public improvement project, while allowing for more brief individual proposals for specific projects. The master agreement also allows the city to obtain miscellaneous engineering services (such as specialty services -traffic, environmental, etc.) to be provided without a separate contract for each item. Since 2001, the City and SEH have operated on specific project proposals. The Master Agreement provides for easier service delivery and standardizes services for the City with all consultants. A copy of the master agreement from SEH is available for review in the office of the city engineer. The agreement covers standard rights and responsibilities of the client and the consultant. City staff has reviewed the agreement and had required some minor revisions. Recommendation It is recommended that the City Council authorize the Mayor and City Manager to enter into the Standard Master Agreement for Professional Engineering Services from Short Elliott Hendrickson, Inc. Any subsequent project-specific contracts/proposals with SEH would be directed to the City Engineer for approval. Jw AGENDA ITEM G-6 AGENDA REPORT TO: Richard Fursman, City Manager FROM: Charles Ahl, Public Works Director/City Engineer SUBJECT: County Road D Realignment West (TH 61 to Walter Street), City Files 02-08 - Resolution Concurring with Jurisdiction Transfer by Ramsey County of Existing County Road D, West of TH 61 DATE: September 20, 2004 Introduction On September 13, 2004, the city council approved a final agreement with the City of Vadnais Heights and with Ramsey County for joint funding, maintenance and jurisdiction of the realignment of County Road D on the west side of Trunk Highway 61 to Highridge Court and eventually extending westerly on the existing alignment of County Road D to Walter Street. A resolution concurring with the jurisdictional transfer of the roadway is required as part of the joint powers agreement. Background On December 9, 2002, the city council approved a resolution to proceed with a project to realign County Road D from Hazelwood Street to TH 61 and from TH 61 to Highridge Court. That resolution was the culmination of many hours of discussion and debate with staff, agencies, other communities and property owners that occurred over many years. On May 12, 2003, the city council selected a final alignment for new County Road D. The city council received a petition from Trout Land, LLC on November 10, 2003, for the construction of County Road D between TH 61 and Highridge Court and authorized preparation of a preliminary report for the improvement. Following the public hearing on February 9, 2004, the city council authorized the preparation of plans and specifications for the project. On June 28, 2004, the council approved the final plans and specifications for the realignment of County Road D between TH 61 and Highridge Court and authorized advertisement for bids. On August 9, 2004, the City Council approved the final agreement for the right of way and cooperative grading with Trout Land, LLC. Finally, on September 13, 2004, the final Joint Powers Agreement was approved and the bids awarded for the project to proceed. The final action is to approve the resolution concurring with Ramsey County transferring the newly created cul-de-sac as a joint border street to Maplewood and Vadnais Heights. The Joint Powers Agreement provided for the new alignment to be the new County Road D under Ramsey County jurisdiction. The remaining segment of County Road D between the new alignment and TH 61 will become a cul-de-sac roadway in front of the Hillcrest Animal Hospital and will be renamed to County Road D Court. Conditions for maintenance responsibility were outlined within the Joint Powers Agreement. The final condition of Vadnais Heights is that the city council agrees to continue discussions to resolve the reconstruction of the existing County Road D alignment on the east side of Trunk Highway 61. Budget Impact and Timing There are no budget impacts for this action outside the scope of the project. The road will be transferred on the date that the new alignment is open to traffic as agreed by the City and County Engineers. City Council Agenda Background County Road D Joint Powers Agreement September 20, 2004 Page Two Recommendation It is recommended that the city council approve the attached resolution concurring with the jurisdictional transfer by Ramsey County to Maplewood and Vadnais Heights of County Road D between Trunk Highway 61 and 1,308 feet west of TH 61 and authorizes the City Engineer to forward a copy of this resolution to Ramsey County and resolve final transfer issues. RCA Attachments: Resolution Project Map RESOLUTION CONCURRING WITH RAMSEY COUNTY TO TRANSFER JURISDICTION OF COUNTY ROAD D FROM TH 61 TO 1,308 FEET WEST WHEREAS, the 1991 Minnesota Legislature established a Ramsey County Local Government Services Study Commission to "report on the advantages and disadvantages of sharing, cooperating, restructuring, or consolidating..." activities in areas of public service including public works, and WHEREAS, the consolidation plan provides for reclassification of roadways and corresponding changes in jurisdiction including the transfer of local and State Aid roadways between the County and Municipalities, and WHEREAS, County Road D (County State Aid Highway 19) from Trunk Highway 61 to a point 1,308 feet west of Trunk Highway 61, located in the City of Maplewood, is presently under the jurisdiction of Ramsey County as a County State Aid Highway, and WHEREAS, this roadway has been determined to serve a local function only, and WHEREAS, revocation of "County State Aid Highway' status may be accomplished by resolution of the Ramsey County Board of Commissioners pursuant to M.S. 162.02, and WHEREAS, it appears to the City Council of Maplewood that the street hereinafter described upon turnback from Ramsey County should be designated as a local street under the provisions of Minnesota Law, and WHEREAS, the consolidation plan stipulates that Ramsey County shall improve the roadway to acceptable levels of prior to transferring jurisdiction over roadway segments from Ramsey County to municipalities, and the Ramsey County Capital Improvements Program provides funding for these improvements, and WHEREAS, the City of Maplewood desires to reconstruct County Road D (County State Aid Highway 19) from Trunk Highway 61 to a point 1,308 feet west of Trunk Highway 61 for an estimated cost of $218,000 and fund the reconstruction project with joint municipal funds with the City of Vadnais Heights along with an estimated $64,000 from Capital Improvement Funds for Ramsey County Roadway Consolidation. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA, as follows: 1. The City of Maplewood does hereby concur with the Ramsey County Board of Commissioners revoking the "County State Aid Highway' status of County Road D (County State Aid Highway 19) from Trunk Highway 61 to a point 1,308 feet west of Trunk Highway 61 and transfers jurisdiction over the southern half of the roadway to Maplewood and the northern half of the roadway to Vadnais Heights as a joint border street, effective on the date, mutually agreed by the County Highway Engineer and the Maplewood City Engineer that the newly aligned County Road D is open and available for traffic, but not before Ramsey County is in receipt of an adopted resolution from Maplewood and from Vadnais Heights concurring with the County revoking the "County State Aid Highway' status of County Road D (County State Aid Highway 19) from Trunk Highway 61 to a point 1,308 feet west of Trunk Highway 61, and, after the Ramsey County Office of Budgeting and Accounting has encumbered the funds necessary to fund Ramsey County's share of the reconstruction project as provided by the approved Joint Powers Agreement. 2. The Maplewood City Engineer is authorized within the limits of this resolution to take actions necessary to have the identified jurisdiction changes executed. Approved this 27t" day of September 2004. AGENDA ITEM G-7 AGENDA REPORT TO: Richard Fursman, City Manager FROM: R. Charles Ahl, Director of Public Works/City Engineer Mike Kane, Street Superintendent SUBJECT: 2004-2005 Winter Sand Quotes DATE: September 20, 2004 Introduction Two quotes were received for the city's 2004-2005 sand requirements. Aggregate Industries submitted the low quote of $7.77 per ton. The other quote was from SA-AG, Inc. with a quote of $7.79 per ton. There are sufficient funds in the street maintenance budget to cover this expense. Recommendation It is recommended that the City Council approve the quote from Aggregate Industries for the 2004-2005 winter sand requirements, based on their low quote of $7.77 per ton. MK AGENDA NO. G-8 AGENDA REPORT TO: City Manager FROM: Finance Director RE: Electric Franchise Fee DATE: September 13, 2004 The City Council tabled action on implementation of an electric franchise fee at its meeting on July 12 pending receipt of additional information on proposed rates and possible other uses. Currently 33 cities have franchise fees and information on these fees was included in the last agenda report. The franchise fee is being considered to partially finance two projects in the 2005-2009 Capital Improvement Plan (CIP). 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. Initially, Mary Ippel at Briggs and Morgan indicated that public improvement bonds could not finance the burying of overhead power lines. However, she has reconsidered this issue and believes that public improvement bonds could finance the costs if 20% of the costs are assessed. Other revenues such as property taxes or electric franchise fee revenues could finance the remaining 80%. Therefore, implementation of a franchise fee to finance the Gladstone and Hillcrest projects can be delayed until these projects are approved. The proposed 2005 Budget includes a new electric franchise fee to finance the costs to maintain and operate street lights and traffic signals. Prior to 2005 these costs have been financed by the General tax levy. The new electric franchise fee will be $0.50 per month on asingle-family home and will generate annual revenues of $176,690. If the electric franchise fee is not implemented, the property tax levy for 2005 will need to be increased by 1.4%. In order to start the electric franchise fee in January, Excel Energy has the following requirements: 1. An electric franchise ordinance needs to be adopted to amend the current franchise. 2. A gas franchise ordinance needs to be adopted to amend the current franchise so that it runs for the same time period as the electric franchise. 3. An ordinance implementing the electric franchise fee needs to be adopted by October 1. Copies of these three ordinances are attached. It is recommended that the City Council approve them in order to implement the electric franchise fee. P\agn\franchise fee3 2 ELECTRIC FRANCHISE ORDINANCE ORDINANCE NO. CITY OF MAPLEWOOD, RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA AN ORDINANCE GRANTING TO NORTHERN STATES POWER COMPANY, A MINNESOTA CORPORATION, D/B/A XCEL ENERGY ITS SUCCESSORS AND ASSIGNS, PERMISSION TO CONSTRUCT, OPERATE, REPAIR AND MAINTAIN IN THE CITY OF MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA, AN ELECTRIC DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM AND TRANSMISSION LINES, INCLUDING NECESSARY POLES, LINES, FIXTURES AND APPURTENANCES, FOR THE FURNISHING OF ELECTRIC ENERGY TO THE CITY, ITS INHABITANTS, AND OTHERS, AND TO USE THE PUBLIC WAYS AND PUBLIC GROUNDS OF THE CITY FOR SUCH PURPOSES. THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MAPLEWOOD, RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA, ORDAINS: SECTION 1. DEFINITIONS. For purposes of this Ordinance, the following capitalized terms listed in alphabetical order shall have the following meanings: City. The CitST of Maplewood, CountST of Ramsey, State of Minnesota. City Utility System. Facilities used for providing non-energST related public utility service owned or operated by CitST or agency thereof, including sewer and water service, but excluding facilities for providing heating, lighting or other forms of energy. Commission. The Minnesota Public Utilities Commission, or any successor agency or agencies, including an agency of the federal government which preempts all or part of the authoritST to regulate electric retail rates now vested in the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission. Company. Northern States Power Company, a Minnesota corporation, d/b/a Xcel Energy its successors and assigns. Electric Facilities. Electric transmission and distribution towers, poles, lines, guys, anchors, conduits, fixtures, and necessarST appurtenances owned or operated by Company for the purpose of providing electric energy for public use. Notice. A written notice served by one partST on the other party referencing one or more provisions of this Ordinance. Notice to Company shall be mailed to the General Counsel, Suite 3000, 800 Nicollet Mall, Minneapolis, MN 55402. Notice to the CitST shall be mailed to the City Clerk, City Hall, 1830 East County Road B, Maplewood, MN 55109. Either party may change its respective address for the purpose of this Ordinance by written notice to the other partST. Public Ground. Land owned by the CitST for park, open space or similar purpose, which is held for use in common by the public. 1 3 Public Way. Any street, alley, walliway or other public right-of--way within the CitST. SECTION 2. ADOPTION OF FRANCHISE. 2.1 Grant of Franchise. CitST hereby grants Company, for a period of 20 years from the date passed and approved by the CitST, the right to transmit and furnish electric energST for light, heat, power and other purposes for public and private use within and through the limits of the CitST as its boundaries now exist or as they may be extended in the future. For these purposes, Company may construct, operate, repair and maintain Electric Facilities in, on, over, under and across the Public Ways and Public Grounds of CitST, subject to the provisions of this Ordinance. Company may do all reasonable things necessarST or customarST to accomplish these purposes, subject, however, to such reasonable regulations as may be imposed by the CitST pursuant to ordinance and to the further provisions of this franchise agreement. 2.2 Effective Date; Written Acceptance. This franchise agreement shall be in force and effect from and after passage of this Ordinance, its acceptance by Company, and its publication as required by law. The CitST by Council resolution may revoke this franchise agreement if Company does not file a written acceptance with the CitST within 90 days after publication. 2.3 Service and Rates. The service to be provided and the rates to be charged by Company for electric service in CitST are subject to the jurisdiction of the Commission. The area within the CitST in which Company may provide electric service is subject to the provisions of Minnesota Statutes, Section 216B.40. 2.4 Publication Expense. The expense of publication of this Ordinance will be paid by CitST and reimbursed to CitST by Company. 2.5 Dispute Resolution. If either partST asserts that the other partST is in default in the performance of any obligation hereunder, the complaining partST shall notif~T the other partST of the default and the desired remedy. The notification shall be written. Representatives of the parties must promptly meet and attempt in good faith to negotiate a resolution of the dispute. If the dispute is not resolved within 30 days of the written notice, the parties may jointly select a mediator to facilitate further discussion. The parties will equally share the fees and expenses of this mediator. If a mediator is not used or if the parties are unable to resolve the dispute within 30 days after first meeting with the selected mediator, either partST may commence an action in District Court to interpret and enforce this franchise or for such other relief as may be permitted by law or equitST for breach of contract, or either partST may take any other action permitted by law. SECTION 3. LOCATION, OTHER REGULATIONS. 3.1 Location of Facilities. Electric Facilities shall be located, constructed and maintained so as not to interfere with the safetST and convenience of ordinarST travel along and over Public Ways and so as not to disrupt normal operation of any CitST UtilitST System previously installed therein. Electric Facilities shall be located on Public Grounds as determined by the CitST. Company's construction, reconstruction, operation, repair, maintenance and location of Electric Facilities shall be subject to permits if required by separate ordinance and to other reasonable regulations of the CitST to the extent not inconsistent with the terms of this franchise agreement. Company may abandon underground 2 4 Electric Facilities in place, provided at the CitST's request, Company will remove abandoned metal or concrete encased conduit interfering with a CitST improvement project, but only to the extent such conduit is uncovered by excavation as part of the CitST improvement project. 3.2 Field Locations. Company shall provide field locations for its underground Electric Facilities within CitST consistent with the requirements of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 216D. 3.3 Street Openings. Company shall not open or disturb any Public Way or Public Ground for any purpose without first having obtained a permit from the CitST, if required by a separate ordinance, for which the CitST may impose a reasonable fee. Permit conditions imposed on Company shall not be more burdensome than those imposed on other utilities for similar facilities or work. Company may, however, open and disturb any Public Way or Public Ground without permission from the CitST where an emergency exists requiring the immediate repair of Electric Facilities. In such event Company shall notif~T the CitST by telephone to the office designated by the CitST as soon as practicable. Not later than the second working day thereafter, Company shall obtain any required permits and pay any required fees. 3.4 Restoration. After undertaking any work requiring the opening of any Public Way or Public Ground, Company shall restore the same, including paving and its foundation, to as good a condition as formerly existed, and shall maintain any paved surface in good condition for two Nears thereafter. The work shall be completed as promptly as weather permits, and if Company shall not promptly perform and complete the work, remove all dirt, rubbish, equipment and material, and put the Public Way or Public Ground in the said condition, the CitST shall have, after demand to Company to cure and the passage of a reasonable period of time following the demand, but not to exceed five days, the right to make the restoration at the expense of Company. Company shall pay to the CitST the cost of such work done for or performed by the CitST. This remedy shall be in addition to any other remedy available to the CitST for noncompliance with this Section 3.4, but the CitST hereby waives any requirement for Company to post a construction performance bond, certificate of insurance, letter of credit or any other form of securitST or assurance that may be required, under a separate existing or future ordinance of the CitST, of a person or entitST obtaining the CitST's permission to install, replace or maintain facilities in a Public Way. 3.5 Avoid Damage to Electric Facilities. Nothing in this Ordinance relieves any person from liabilitST arising out of the failure to exercise reasonable care to avoid damaging Electric Facilities while performing any activitST. 3.6 Notice of Improvements. The CitST must give Company reasonable notice of plans for improvements to Public Ways or Public Ground where the CitST has reason to believe that Electric Facilities may affect or be affected by the improvement. The notice must contain: (i) the nature and character of the improvements, (ii) the Public Ways and Public Grounds upon which the improvements are to be made, (iii) the extent of the improvements, (iv) the time when the CitST will start the work, and (v) if more than one Public Way or Public Ground is involved, the order in which the work is to proceed. The notice must be given to Company a sufficient length of time in advance of the actual commencement of the work to permit Company to make any necessary additions, alterations or repairs to its Electric Facilities. 3.7 Shared Use of Poles. Company shall make space available on its poles or towers for CitST fire, water utility, police or other CitST facilities whenever such use will not interfere with the use of 3 5 such poles or towers by Company, by another electric utility, by a telephone utility, or by any cable television company or other form of communication company. In addition, the CitST shall pay for any added cost incurred by Company because of such use by CitST. SECTION 4. RELOCATIONS. 4.1 Relocation of Electric Facilities in Public Ways. If the CitST determines to vacate a Public Way for a CitST improvement project, or at CitST's cost to grade, regrade, or change the line of any Public Way, or construct or reconstruct any CitST UtilitST System in any Public Way, it may order Company to relocate its Electric Facilities located therein if relocation is reasonably necessary to accomplish the CitST's proposed public improvement. Except as provided in Section 4.3, Company shall relocate its Electric Facilities at its own expense. The CitST shall give Company reasonable notice of plans to vacate for a CitST improvement project, or to grade, regrade, or change the line of any Public Way or to construct or reconstruct any CitST UtilitST System. If a relocation is ordered within five years of a prior relocation of the same Electric Facilities, which was made at Company expense, the CitST shall reimburse Company for non-betterment costs on a time and material basis, provided that if a subsequent relocation is required because of the extension of a CitST UtilitST System to a previously unserved area, Company may be required to make the subsequent relocation at its expense. Nothing in this Ordinance requires Company to relocate, remove, replace or reconstruct at its own expense its Electric Facilities where such relocation, removal, replacement or reconstruction is solely for the convenience of the CitST and is not reasonably necessary for the construction or reconstruction of a Public Way or CitST UtilitST System or other CitST improvement. 4.2 Relocation of Electric Facilities in Public Ground. CitST may require Company at Company's expense to relocate or remove its Electric Facilities from Public Ground upon a finding by CitST that the Electric Facilities have become or will become a substantial impairment to the existing or proposed public use of the Public Ground. 4.3 Projects with Federal Funding. Relocation, removal, or rearrangement of any Company Electric Facilities made necessarST because of the extension into or through CitST of a federally-aided highway project shall be governed by the provisions of Minnesota Statutes, Section 161.46, as supplemented or amended. It is understood that the right herein granted to Company is a valuable right. CitST shall not order Company to remove or relocate its Electric Facilities when a Public Way is vacated, improved or realigned because of a renewal or a redevelopment plan which is financially subsidized in whole or in part by the Federal Government or any agency thereof, unless the reasonable non- betterment costs of such relocation and the loss and expense resulting therefrom are first paid to Company, but the CitST need not pay those portions of such for which reimbursement to it is not available. 4.4 No Waiver. The provisions of this franchise apply only to facilities constructed in reliance on a franchise from the CitST and shall not be construed to waive or modif~T any rights obtained by Company for installations within a Company right-of--way acquired by easement or prescriptive right before the applicable Public Way or Public Ground was established, or Company's rights under state or countST permit. 4 6 SECTION 5. TREE TRIMMING. Company may trim all trees and shrubs in the Public Ways and Public Grounds of CitST to the extent Company finds necessary to avoid interference with the proper construction, operation, repair and maintenance of any Electric Facilities installed hereunder, provided that Company shall save the CitST harmless from any liabilitST arising therefrom, and subject to permit or other reasonable regulation by the CitST. SECTION G. INDEMNIFICATION. 6.1 Indemni ,' of City. Company shall indemnif~T, keep and hold the CitST free and harmless from any and all liabilitST on account of injury to persons or damage to propertST occasioned by the construction, maintenance, repair, inspection, the issuance of permits, or the operation of the Electric Facilities located in the Public Ways and Public Grounds. The CitST shall not be indemnified for losses or claims occasioned through its own negligence except for losses or claims arising out of or alleging the CitST s negligence as to the issuance of permits for, or inspection of, Company's plans or work. The CitST shall not be indemnified if the injury or damage results from the performance in a proper manner of acts reasonably deemed hazardous by Company, and such performance is nevertheless ordered or directed by CitST after notice of Company's determination. 6.2 Defense of Cit<T. In the event a suit is brought against the CitST under circumstances where this agreement to indemnify applies, Company at its sole cost and expense shall defend the CitST in such suit if written notice thereof is promptly given to Company within a period wherein Company is not prejudiced by lack of such notice. If Company is required to indemnify and defend, it will thereafter have control of such litigation, but Company may not settle such litigation without the consent of the CitST, which consent shall not be unreasonably withheld. This section is not, as to third parties, a waiver of any defense or immunitST otherwise available to the CitST; and Company, in defending any action on behalf of the CitST shall be entitled to assert in any action every defense or immunitST that the CitST could assert in its own behalf. SECTION 7. VACATION OF PUBLIC WAYS. The CitST shall give Company at least two weeks prior written notice of a proposed vacation of a Public Way. Except where required for a CitST improvement project, the vacation of any Public Way, after the installation of Electric Facilities, shall not operate to deprive Company of its rights to operate and maintain such Electric Facilities, until the reasonable cost of relocating the same and the loss and expense resulting from such relocation are first paid to Company. In no case, however, shall CitST be liable to Company for failure to specifically preserve aright-of--way under Minnesota Statutes, Section 160.29. SECTION S. CHANGE IN FORM OF GOVERNMENT. Any change in the form of government of the CitST shall not affect the validitST of this Ordinance. Any governmental unit succeeding the CitST shall, without the consent of Company, succeed to all of the rights and obligations of the CitST provided in this Ordinance. 5 7 SECTION 9. FRANCHISE FEE. 9.1 Fee Schedule. During the term of the franchise hereb~T granted, and in lieu of an~T permit or other fees being imposed on Company, the CitST ma~T impose on Company a franchise fee, for the sole purpose of recovering the cost to maintain and operate street lights and traffic signals, by collecting the amounts indicated in a Fee Schedule set forth in a separate ordinance from each customer in the designated Company Customer Class. The parties have agreed that the franchise fee collected by the Company and paid to the CitST in accordance with this Section 9 shall not exceed the following amounts. Customer Class Residential Small C & I -Non-Demand Small C & I -Demand Large C & I Public Street Lighting Muni Pumping -N/D MuniPumping -Demand Fee Per Premise Per Month $0.50 $1.00 $6.00 $45.00 $0.50 $0.50 $0.50 9.2 Separate Ordinance. The franchise fee shall be imposed by a separate ordinance duly adopted by the City Council, which ordinance shall not be adopted until at least 60 days after written notice enclosing such proposed ordinance has been served upon Company by certified mail. The fee shall not become effective until the beginning of a Company billing month at least 60 days after written notice enclosing such adopted ordinance has been served upon Company by certified mail. Section 2.5 shall constitute the sole remedy for solving disputes between Company and the City in regard to the interpretation of, or enforcement of, the separate ordinance. No action by the City to implement a separate ordinance will commence until this Ordinance is effective. A separate ordinance which imposes a lesser franchise fee on the residential class of customers than the maximum amount set forth in Section 9.1 above shall not be effective against Company unless the fee imposed on each other customer classification is reduced proportionately in the same or greater amount per class as the reduction represented by the lesser fee on the residential class. 9.3 Terms Defined. For the purpose of this Section 9, the following definitions apply: 9.3.1 "Customer Class" shall refer to the classes listed on the Fee Schedule and as defined or determined in Company's electric tariffs on file with the Commission. 9.3.2 "Fee Schedule" refers to the schedule in Section 9.1 setting forth the various customer classes from which a franchise fee would be collected if a separate ordinance were implemented immediately after the effective date of this franchise agreement. The Fee Schedule in the separate ordinance may include new Customer Class added by Company to its electric tariffs after the effective date of this franchise agreement. 9.4 Collection of the Fee. The franchise fee shall be payable quarterly and shall be based on the amount collected by Company during complete billing months during the period for which payment is to be made by imposing a surcharge equal to the designated franchise fee for the applicable 6 g customer classification in all customer billings for electric service in each class. The payment shall be due the last business day of the month following the period for which the payment is made. The franchise fee may be changed by ordinance from time to time; however, each change shall meet the same notice requirements and not occur more often than annually and no change shall require a collection from any customer for electric service in excess of the amounts specifically permitted by this Section 9. The time and manner of collecting the franchise fee is subject to the approval of the Commission. No franchise fee shall be payable by Company if Company is legally unable to first collect an amount equal to the franchise fee from its customers in each applicable class of customers by imposing a surcharge in Company's applicable rates for electric service. Company may pay the CitST the fee based upon the surcharge billed subject to subsequent reductions to account for uncollectibles, refunds and correction of erroneous billings. Company agrees to make its records available for inspection by the CitST at reasonable times provided that the CitST and its designated representative agree in writing not to disclose any information which would indicate the amount paid by any identifiable customer or customers or any other information regarding identified customers. In addition, the Company agrees to provide at the time of each payment a statement summarizing how the franchise fee payment was determined, including information showing any adjustments to the total surcharge billed in the period for which the payment is being made to account for any uncollectibles, refunds or error corrections. 9.5 Equivalent Fee Requirement. The separate ordinance imposing the fee shall not be effective against Company unless it lawfully imposes and the CitST monthly or more often collects a fee or tax of the same or greater equivalent amount on the receipts from sales of energy within the CitST by any other energy supplier, provided that, as to such a supplier, the CitST has the authoritST to require a franchise fee or to impose a tax. The "same or greater equivalent amount" shall be measured, if practicable, by comparing amounts collected as a franchise fee from each similar customer, or by comparing, as to similar customers the percentage of the annual bill represented by the amount collected for franchise fee purposes. The franchise fee or tax shall be applicable to energy sales for any energy use related to heating, cooling or lighting, or to run machinery and appliances, but shall not apply to energy sales for the purpose of providing fuel for vehicles. If the Company specifically consents in writing to a franchise or separate ordinance collecting or failing to collect a fee from another energy supplier in contravention of this Section 9.5, the foregoing conditions will be waived to the extent of such written consent. SECTION 10. PROVISIONS OF ORDINANCE. 10.1 Severabilit<T. Every section, provision, or part of this Ordinance is declared separate from every other section, provision, or part; and if any section, provision, or part shall be held invalid, it shall not affect any other section, provision, or part. Where a provision of any other CitST ordinance conflicts with the provisions of this Ordinance, the provisions of this Ordinance shall prevail. 10.2 Limitation on A~plicabilit<T. This Ordinance constitutes a franchise agreement between the City and Company as the only parties and no provision of this franchise shall in any way inure to the benefit of any third person (including the public at large) so as to constitute any such person as a third party beneficiary of the agreement or of any one or more of the terms hereof, or otherwise give rise to any cause of action in any person not a party hereto. 7 g SECTION 11. AMENDMENT PROCEDURE. Either partST to this franchise agreement may at any time propose that the agreement be amended to address a subject of concern and the other party will consider whether it agrees that the amendment is mutually appropriate. If an amendment is agreed upon, this Ordinance may be amended at any time by the City passing a subsequent ordinance declaring the provisions of the amendment, which amendatory ordinance shall become effective upon the filing of Company's written consent thereto with the CitST Clerk within 90 days after the date of final passage by the CitST of the amendatory ordinance. SECTION 12. PREVIOUS FRANCHISES SUPERSEDED. This franchise supersedes any previous electric franchise granted to Company or its predecessor. Passed and approved: , 2004. Mayor Attest: CitST Clerk P\agn\electric franchise(1) 8 10 GAS FRANCHISE ORDINANCE ORDINANCE NO. CITY OF MAPLEWOOD, RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA AN ORDINANCE GRANTING TO NORTHERN STATES POWER COMPANY, A MINNESOTA CORPORATION, D/B/A XCEL ENERGY ITS SUCCESSORS AND ASSIGNS, PERMISSION TO ERECT A GAS DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM FOR THE PURPOSES OF CONSTRUCTING, OPERATING, REPAIRING AND MAINTAINING IN THE CITY OF MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA, THE NECESSARY GAS PIPES, MAINS AND APPURTENANCES FOR THE TRANSMISSION OR DISTRIBUTION OF GAS TO THE CITY AND ITS INHABITANTS AND OTHERS AND TRANSMITTING GAS INTO AND THROUGH THE CITY AND TO USE THE PUBLIC WAYS AND PUBLIC GROUNDS OF THE CITY FOR SUCH PURPOSES. THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MAPLEWOOD, RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA, ORDAINS: SECTION 1. DEFINITIONS. For purposes of this Ordinance, the following capitalized terms listed in alphabetical order shall have the following meanings: City. The CitST of Maplewood, CountST of Ramsey, State of Minnesota. City Utility System. Facilities used for providing non-energST related public utility service owned or operated by CitST or agency thereof, including sewer and water service, but excluding facilities for providing heating, lighting or other forms of energy. Commission. The Minnesota Public Utilities Commission, or any successor agency or agencies, including an agency of the federal government which preempts all or part of the authoritST to regulate Gas retail rates now vested in the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission. Company. Northern States Power Company, a Minnesota corporation, d/b/a Xcel Energy its successors and assigns. Gas. "Gas" as used herein shall be held to include natural gas, manufactured gas, or other form of gaseous energy. Gas Facilities. Pipes, mains, regulators, and other facilities owner or operated by Company for the purpose of providing gas service for public use. Notice. A written notice served by one partST on the other party referencing one or more provisions of this Ordinance. Notice to Company shall be mailed to the General Counsel, Suite 3000, 800 Nicollet Mall, Minneapolis, MN 55402. Notice to the CitST shall be mailed to the City Clerk, City Hall, 1830 East County Road B, Maplewood, MN 55109. Either party may change its respective address for the purpose of this Ordinance by written notice to the other partST. 1 11 Public Ground. Land owned by the CitST for park, open space or similar purpose, which is held for use in common by the public. Public Way. Any street, alley, walliway or other public right-of--way within the CitST. SECTION 2. ADOPTION OF FRANCHISE. 2.1 Grant of Franchise. CitST hereby grants Company, for a period of 20 years from the date passed and approved by the CitST, the right to transmit and furnish Gas energST for light, heat, power and other purposes for public and private use within and through the limits of the CitST as its boundaries now exist or as they may be extended in the future. For these purposes, Company may construct, operate, repair and maintain Gas Facilities in, on, over, under and across the Public Ways and Public Grounds of CitST, subject to the provisions of this Ordinance. Company may do all reasonable things necessarST or customarST to accomplish these purposes, subject, however, to such reasonable regulations as may be imposed by the CitST pursuant to ordinance and to the further provisions of this franchise agreement. 2.2 Effective Date; Written Acceptance. This franchise agreement shall be in force and effect from and after passage of this Ordinance, its acceptance by Company, and its publication as required by law. The CitST by Council resolution may revoke this franchise agreement if Company does not file a written acceptance with the CitST within 90 days after publication. 2.3 Service and Rates. The service to be provided and the rates to be charged by Company for Gas service in CitST are subject to the jurisdiction of the Commission. 2.4 Publication Expense. The expense of publication of this Ordinance will be paid by CitST and reimbursed to CitST by Company. 2.5 Dispute Resolution. If either partST asserts that the other partST is in default in the performance of any obligation hereunder, the complaining partST shall notif~T the other partST of the default and the desired remedy. The notification shall be written. Representatives of the parties must promptly meet and attempt in good faith to negotiate a resolution of the dispute. If the dispute is not resolved within 30 days of the written notice, the parties may jointly select a mediator to facilitate further discussion. The parties will equally share the fees and expenses of this mediator. If a mediator is not used or if the parties are unable to resolve the dispute within 30 days after first meeting with the selected mediator, either partST may commence an action in District Court to interpret and enforce this franchise or for such other relief as may be permitted by law or equitST for breach of contract, or either partST may take any other action permitted by law. SECTION 3. LOCATION, OTHER REGULATIONS. 3.1 Location of Facilities. Gas Facilities shall be located, constructed and maintained so as not to interfere with the safetST and convenience of ordinarST travel along and over Public Ways and so as not to disrupt normal operation of any CitST UtilitST System previously installed therein. Gas Facilities shall be located on Public Grounds as determined by the CitST. Company's construction, reconstruction, operation, repair, maintenance and location of Gas Facilities shall be subject to permits if required by separate ordinance and to other reasonable regulations of the CitST to the extent not inconsistent with the terms of this franchise agreement. Company may abandon underground gas facilities in place, provided, 2 12 at CitST's request, Company will remove abandoned metal pipe interfering with a CitST improvement project, but only to the extent such metal pipe is uncovered by excavation as part of the CitST's improvement project. 3.2 Field Locations. Company shall provide field locations for its underground Gas Facilities within CitST consistent with the requirements of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 216D. 3.3 Street Openings. Company shall not open or disturb any Public Way or Public Ground for any purpose without first having obtained a permit from the CitST, if required by a separate ordinance, for which the CitST may impose a reasonable fee. Permit conditions imposed on Company shall not be more burdensome than those imposed on other utilities for similar facilities or work. Company may, however, open and disturb any Public Way or Public Ground without permission from the CitST where an emergency exists requiring the immediate repair of Gas Facilities. In such event Company shall notif~T the CitST by telephone to the office designated by the CitST as soon as practicable. Not later than the second working day thereafter, Company shall obtain any required permits and pay any required fees. 3.4 Restoration. After undertaking any work requiring the opening of any Public Way or Public Ground, Company shall restore the same, including paving and its foundation, to as good a condition as formerly existed, and shall maintain any paved surface in good condition for two years thereafter. The work shall be completed as promptly as weather permits, and if Company shall not promptly perform and complete the work, remove all dirt, rubbish, equipment and material, and put the Public Way or Public Ground in the said condition, the CitST shall have, after demand to Company to cure and the passage of a reasonable period of time following the demand, but not to exceed five days, the right to make the restoration at the expense of Company. Company shall pay to the CitST the cost of such work done for or performed by the CitST. This remedy shall be in addition to any other remedy available to the CitST for noncompliance with this Section 3.4, but the CitST hereby waives any requirement for Company to post a construction performance bond, certificate of insurance, letter of credit or any other form of security or assurance that maybe required, under a separate existing or future ordinance of the CitST, of a person or entity obtaining the City's permission to install, replace or maintain facilities in a Public Way. 3.5 Avoid Damage to Gas Facilities. Nothing in this Ordinance relieves any person from liabilitST arising out of the failure to exercise reasonable care to avoid damaging Gas Facilities while performing any activitST. 3.6 Notice of Improvements. The CitST must give Company reasonable notice of plans for improvements to Public Ways or Public Ground where the CitST has reason to believe that Gas Facilities may affect or be affected by the improvement. The notice must contain: (i) the nature and character of the improvements, (ii) the Public Ways and Public Grounds upon which the improvements are to be made, (iii) the extent of the improvements, (iv) the time when the CitST will start the work, and (v) if more than one Public Way or Public Ground is involved, the order in which the work is to proceed. The notice must be given to Company a sufficient length of time in advance of the actual commencement of the work to permit Company to make any necessary additions, alterations or repairs to its Gas Facilities. 3 13 SECTION 4. RELOCATIONS. 4.1 Relocation of Gas Facilities in Public Ways. If the CitST determines to vacate a Public Way for a CitST improvement project, or at CitST's cost to grade, regrade, or change the line of any Public Way, or construct or reconstruct any CitST UtilitST System in any Public Way, it may order Company to relocate its Gas Facilities located therein if relocation is reasonably necessarST to accomplish the CitST's proposed public improvement. Except as provided in Section 4.3, Company shall relocate its Gas Facilities at its own expense. The CitST shall give Company reasonable notice of plans to vacate for a CitST improvement project, or to grade, regrade, or change the line of any Public Way or to construct or reconstruct any CitST UtilitST System. If a relocation is ordered within five years of a prior relocation of the same Gas Facilities, which was made at Company expense, the CitST shall reimburse Company for Non-Betterment Costs on a time and material basis, provided that if a subsequent relocation is required because of the extension of a CitST UtilitST System to a previously unserved area, Company may be required to make the subsequent relocation at its expense. Nothing in this Ordinance requires Company to relocate, remove, replace or reconstruct at its own expense its Gas Facilities where such relocation, removal, replacement or reconstruction is solely for the convenience of the CitST and is not reasonably necessarST for the construction or reconstruction of a Public Way or CitST UtilitST System or other CitST improvement. 4.2 Relocation of Gas Facilities in Public Ground. CitST may require Company at Company's expense to relocate or remove its Gas Facilities from Public Ground upon a finding by CitST that the Gas Facilities have become or will become a substantial impairment to the existing or proposed public use of the Public Ground. 4.3 Projects with Federal Funding. Relocation, removal, or rearrangement of any Company Gas Facilities made necessarST because of the extension into or through CitST of a federally-aided highway project shall be governed by the provisions of Minnesota Statutes, Section 161.46, as supplemented or amended. It is understood that the right herein granted to Company is a valuable right. CitST shall not order Company to remove or relocate its Gas Facilities when a Public Way is vacated, improved or realigned because of a renewal or a redevelopment plan which is financially subsidized in whole or in part by the Federal Government or any agency thereof, unless the reasonable non-betterment Costs of such relocation and the loss and expense resulting therefrom are first paid to Company, but the CitST need not pay those portions of such for which reimbursement to it is not available. 4.4 No Waiver. The provisions of this franchise apply only to facilities constructed in reliance on a franchise from the CitST and shall not be construed to waive or modif~T any rights obtained by Company for installations within a Company right-of--way acquired by easement or prescriptive right before the applicable Public Way or Public Ground was established, or Company's rights under state or countST permit. SECTION 5. TREE TRIMMING. Company is also granted the permission and authoritST to trim all shrubs and trees, including roots, in the Public Ways of CitST to the extent Company finds necessarST to avoid interference with the proper construction, operation, repair and maintenance of Gas Facilities, provided that Company shall save CitST harmless from any liabilitST in the premises. SECTION G. INDEMNIFICATION. 4 14 6.1 IndemnitjT of City. Company shall indemnif~T, keep and hold the CitST free and harmless from any and all liabilitST on account of injury to persons or damage to propertST occasioned by the construction, maintenance, repair, inspection, the issuance of permits, or the operation of the Gas Facilities located in the Public Ways and Public Grounds. The CitST shall not be indemnified for losses or claims occasioned through its own negligence except for losses or claims arising out of or alleging the CitST s negligence as to the issuance of permits for, or inspection of, Company's plans or work. The CitST shall not be indemnified if the injury or damage results from the performance in a proper manner of acts reasonably deemed hazardous by Company, and such performance is nevertheless ordered or directed by CitST after notice of Company's determination. 6.2 Defense of Cit<T. In the event a suit is brought against the CitST under circumstances where this agreement to indemnify applies, Company at its sole cost and expense shall defend the CitST in such suit if written notice thereof is promptly given to Company within a period wherein Company is not prejudiced by lack of such notice. If Company is required to indemnify and defend, it will thereafter have control of such litigation, but Company may not settle such litigation without the consent of the CitST, which consent shall not be unreasonably withheld. This section is not, as to third parties, a waiver of any defense or immunitST otherwise available to the CitST; and Company, in defending any action on behalf of the CitST shall be entitled to assert in any action every defense or immunitST that the CitST could assert in its own behalf. SECTION 7. VACATION OF PUBLIC WAYS. The CitST shall give Company at least two weeks prior written notice of a proposed vacation of a Public Way. Except where required for a CitST improvement project, the vacation of any Public Way, after the installation of Gas Facilities, shall not operate to deprive Company of its rights to operate and maintain such Gas Facilities, until the reasonable cost of relocating the same and the loss and expense resulting from such relocation are first paid to Company. In no case, however, shall CitST be liable to Company for failure to specifically preserve aright-of--way under Minnesota Statutes, Section 160.29. SECTION S. CHANGE IN FORM OF GOVERNMENT. Any change in the form of government of the CitST shall not affect the validitST of this Ordinance. Any governmental unit succeeding the CitST shall, without the consent of Company, succeed to all of the rights and obligations of the CitST provided in this Ordinance. SECTION 9. PROVISIONS OF ORDINANCE. 9.1 SeverabilitjT. Every section, provision, or part of this Ordinance is declared separate from every other section, provision, or part; and if any section, provision, or part shall be held invalid, it shall not affect any other section, provision, or part. Where a provision of any other City ordinance conflicts with the provisions of this Ordinance, the provisions of this Ordinance shall prevail. 9.2 Limitation on A~plicabilit<T. This Ordinance constitutes a franchise agreement between the City and Company as the only parties and no provision of this franchise shall in any way inure to the benefit of any third person (including the public at large) so as to constitute any 5 15 such person as a third party beneficiarST of the agreement or of any one or more of the terms hereof, or otherwise give rise to any cause of action in any person not a party hereto. SECTION 10. AMENDMENT PROCEDURE. Either partST to this franchise agreement may at any time propose that the agreement be amended to address a subject of concern and the other party will consider whether it agrees that the amendment is mutually appropriate. If an amendment is agreed upon, this Ordinance may be amended at any time by the City passing a subsequent ordinance declaring the provisions of the amendment, which amendatory ordinance shall become effective upon the filing of Company's written consent thereto with the CitST Clerk within 90 days after the date of final passage by the CitST of the amendatory ordinance. SECTION 11. PREVIOUS FRANCHISES SUPERSEDED. This franchise supersedes any previous Gas franchise granted to Company or its predecessor. Passed and approved: , 2004. Mayor Attest: CitST Clerk P\agn\gas franchise(1) 6 16 ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE IMPLEMENTING A ELECTRIC SERVICE FRANCHISE FEE ON NORTHERN STATES POWER COMPANY, A MINNESOTA CORPORATION, D/B/A XCEL ENERGY, ITS SUCCESSORS AND ASSIGNS, FOR PROVIDING ELECTRIC SERVICE WITHIN THE CITY OF MAPLEWOOD. THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MAPLEWOOD DOES ORDAIN: SECTION 1. The CitST of Maplewood Municipal Code is hereb~T amended to include reference to the following Special Ordinance. Subdivision 1. Purpose. The Maplewood City Council has determined that it is in the best interest of the CitST to impose a franchise fee on those public utilit~T companies that provide electric services within the CitST of Maplewood. (a) Pursuant to CitST Ordinance a Franchise Agreement between the CitST of Maplewood and Northern States Power Company, a Minnesota corporation, d/b/a Xcel EnergST, its successors and assigns, the City has the right to impose a franchise fee on Northern States Power Company, a Minnesota corporation, d/b/a Xcel EnergST, its successors and assigns, in an amount and fee design as set forth in Section 9 of the Northern States Power Company Franchise and in the fee schedule attached hereto as Schedule A. Subdivision 2. Franchise Fee Statement. A franchise fee is hereby imposed on Northern States Power Company, a Minnesota Corporation, d/b/a Xcel Energy, its successors and assigns, under its electric franchise in accordance with the schedule attached here to and made a part of this Ordinance, commencing with the Xcel EnergST January, 2005 billing month. This fee is an account-based fee on each premise and not ameter-based fee. In the event that an entity covered by this ordinance has more than one meter at a single premise, but only one account, only one fee shall be assessed to that account. If a premise has two or more meters being billed at different rates, the Company may have an account for each rate classification, which will result in more than one franchise fee assessment for electric service to that premise. If the Company combines the rate classifications into a single account, the franchise fee assessed to the account will be the largest franchise fee applicable to a single rate classification for energy delivered to that premise. In the event any entities covered by this ordinance have more than one premise, each premise (address) shall be subject to the appropriate fee. In the event a question arises as to the proper fee amount for any premise, the Company's manner of billing for energy used at all similar premises in the citST will control. Subdivision 3. Payment. The said franchise fee shall be payable to the City in accordance with the terms set forth in Section 9.4 of the Franchise. Subdivision 4. Surcharge. The CitST recognizes that the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission allows the utility company to add a surcharge to customer rates to reimburse such utility company for the cost of the fee and that Xcel Energy will surcharge its customers in the CitST the amount of the fee. 1 17 Subdivision 5. Record Support for Payment. Xcel EnergST shall make each payment when due and, if required by the CitST, shall provide at the time of each payment a statement summarizing how the franchise fee payment was determined, including information showing any adjustments to the total surcharge billed in the period for which the payment is being made to account for any uncollectibles, refunds or error corrections. Subdivision G. Enforcement. Any dispute, including enforcement of a default regarding this ordinance will be resolved in accordance with Section 2.5 of the Franchise Agreement. Subdivision 7. Effective Date of Franchise Fee. The effective date of this Ordinance shall be after its publication and sixtST (60) days after the sending of written notice enclosing a copy of this adopted Ordinance to Xcel EnergST by certified mail. Collection of the fee shall commence as provided in Subdivision 2. Subdivision S. Sunset Clause. This ordinance shall automatically sunset on December 31, 2009, unless the City Council acts to renew or extend the fee at least six (6) months prior to the sunset date. The City Council may unilaterally renew or extend the fee on the same terms and conditions. Without waiver of any rights under Minnesota law, the City Council shall seek agreement from Company if the CitST intends to change the fee rate or fee design. Passed and approved: , 2004. Mayor Attest: City Clerk SEAL 2 18 SCHEDULE A Franchise Fee Rates: Electric UtilitST The franchise fee, for the sole purpose of recovering the cost of street lighting, shall be in an amount determined by appl~Ting the following schedule per customer premise/per month based on metered service to customers within the CitST: Customer Class Residential Small C & I -Non-Demand Small C & I -Demand Large C & I Public Street Lighting Muni Pumping -N/D MuniPumping -Demand Fee Per Premise Per Month $0.50 $1.00 $6.00 $45.00 $0.50 $0.50 $0.50 Franchise fees are to be collected by the UtilitST at the rate listed below, and submitted to the CitST on a quarterl~T basis as follows: January -March collections due by Apri130. April -June collections due by July 31. July -September collections due by October 31. October -December collections due by January 31. P\agn\Electric Fee 19 AGENDA NO. G-9 AGENDA REPORT TO: City Manager FROM: Community Development Director Finance Director RE: LEGACY VILLAGE AGREEMENT AMENDMENT DATE: September 22, 2004 On February 9 the Council approved a special assessment agreement for the Town and Country for-sale townhomes. The agreement allowed Hartford Company to sell a parcel of land to Town and Country in Legacy Village provided money to pay for levied and pending special assessments was deposited into an escrow account. It also provided that the city would deposit $912,000 into the escrow account to pay a portion of the assessments but only after a building permit was issued to Town and Country. Upon issuance of the building permit the escrow account was to be closed by disbursement of the account balance to pay off the assessments. Unfortunately, the escrow agent was not notified that the building permit was issued. Consequently, interest has been accruing on assessments totaling $1,366,680 at a rate of 5%. This has been partially offset by interest on the $912,000 due from the City. In addition, because one of the assessments had already been levied as of February 9, 2004 (Kennard Street) and the first installment of such assessments being included for payment with the 2004 taxes, some interest is due and owing on such assessment which amount must now be paid by the Developer. In order to resolve this situation and close the escrow account, it is recommended that the City Council approve the following: 1691965v2 9/22/04 1. Cancellation of interest that has accrued on assessments that were pending on February 9, 2004, which have since been levied for the period since the building permit was issued on April 23, 2004 though payment of such assessments; 2. Approve any Amendments to the Escrow Agreement which might be necessary to allow the escrow to be broken and the appropriate parties, either the County or the City, are to pay the full amount due and owing either as a payment or in the form of a credit. 3. City authorizes the escrow to be broken so long as Developer has deposited the amount of approximately $35,500.00 in the escrow so that all assessments relating to Lot 3, Block 1, will be paid in full. P:\agn\Legacy interest 1691965v2 9/22/04 MEMORANDUM TO: Richard Fursman, City Manager FROM: Karen Guilfoile, City Clerk DATE: September 21, 2004 RE: Certification of Election Judges RESOLUTION ACCEPTING ELECTION JUDGES Agenda #G10 RESOLVED, that the City Council of Maplewood, Minnesota, accepts the following list of Election Judges for the 2004 General Election, to be held on Tuesday, November 2, 2004: Anderson, Cynthia Fuller, Mary Lash, Nancy Anderson, Elsie Gelao, Beverly Lauren, Lorraine Anderson, Ronald Gierzek, Clarice Leeman, Anita Anderson, Suzanne Gilstad, Mark Leiter, Barbara Barrett, Marlis Golaski, Diane Leo, Ann Bartelt, Joan Granger, Betty Leo , Pati Belland, Jaime Grant, Guy Leonard, Claudette Berger, Carole Grant, Mary Lincowski, Steve Berger, Merv Gullickson, Ray Lincowski, Vi Berry, Bud Haavisto, Wendy Locke, Christine Bortz, Jeanne Haines, Joseph Lofgren, Delores Bowman, Kim Hayde, Walter Lofgren, Richard Breidenstein, Anna Hecht, Lloyd Lundgren, Robert Brown, Donna Heinenger, Gordon Luttrell, Shirley Bunde, Jennette Hensley, Pat Maeyaert, Paul Button, Joan Hines, Constance Mahre, Carol Cahanes, Lucille Holzemer, Mary Mahre, Geri Campbell, Lyla Horton, Shirlee Manders, Rose Marie Carr, Robert Hustings, Kevin Manthey, John Cofield, Jean Iversen, Mildred Marsch, Delores Connelly, Thomas Janacek, Jeff Maskrey, Thomas Davidson, Mae Jensen, Barbara Jean Mechelke, Geraldine Davidson, Marianne Johannessen, Judith Meyer, Jackie Dickson, Jean Johnson, Barbara Misgen, Joan Droeger, Diane Jones, Victoria Moen, Bill DuCharme, Fred Kandler, Dorothea Mollers, Katherine Duellman, Audrey Keenan, Jane Mossong, Betty Eickhoff, Carolyn Kidman, Marilyn Muraski, Gerry Elmquist, Denise King, Helen Muraski, Howard Erickson, Elizabeth Kirchoff, Harold Myster, Thomas Erickson, Elizabeth Koch, Rosemary Nieman, James Fischer, Lorraine Korolchuk, Nicole Nieters, Louise Fischer, Mary Koval, Harry Norberg, Ann Marie Fitzgerald, Delores Krekelberg, Mona Lou Olson, Mary Fitzgerald, Edward Krominga, Josephine Olson, Norman Fosburgh, Anne Kunde, Margaret Orlando, Sallye Foster, Lucille Lackner, Marvella Pederson, Vern Frederickson, Rita Lagoon ,Brad Pehl, David Fredine, Don Lally, Rita Petersen, Karyl Freer, MaryJo Larson, Anita Poleceh, Bev Radermacher, Karla Shaul, Brian Tolbert, Franklin Randolph, Linda Shore, Theresa Tomaszewski, Carmen Reeves, Heide Skluzacek, Evelyn Trippler, Dale Rempel, Lovella Sonnek, Theresa Trooien, Gerry Rossi, Rose Marie Spangler, Bob Unger, Connie Rudeen, Elaine Spies, Louis Urbanski, Holly Ryan, Kendra Stafki, Tim VanBlaricom, Beulah Sajevic, Florence Stark, David Vandeveer, Barbara Schaaf, Larry Stevens, Sandra Vangas, Vilhelmine Schneider, Mary Ann Taylor, Lorraine Vatne, Mary Schoenecker, Sandy Taylor, Rita Wagner, Connie Schroepfer, Don Thompson, Milo Wandersee, Gene Schroepfer, Harriet Thompson, Pat Wasmundt, Gayle Schulte, Paula Tillman, Leila Willy, John Witschen, Delores Agenda # G11 Memorandum TO: Richard Fursman, City Manager FROM: Karen Guilfoile, City Clerk DATE: September 20, 2004 RE: Resolution -Absentee Ballot Board By State Statute 203B.13 the city, by passing a resolution, can appoint or hire election judges to serve as an Absentee Ballot Board. The absentee ballot board has the authority to accept or reject absentee ballots at any time during 30 days before the election. In the event that an absentee ballot return envelope is incorrectly filled out, this gives Maplewood Elections the opportunity to reissue the absentee ballot, giving the voter the opportunity to correct their envelope so that their vote will be accepted and be counted in the tallying of the ballots at the precincts. It is requested that council approve the following resolution approving an Absentee Ballot Board authorizing the City Clerk to employ a suitable number of election judges and or sworn officials to serve on the board. City of Maplewood Resolution Establishing an Absentee Ballot Board An absentee ballot board is hereby authorized for the City of Maplewood as provided in Minnesota Statutes 203B.13, subdivision 1. AGENDA ITEM H-1 AGENDA REPORT TO: Richard Fursman, City Manager FROM: Charles Ahl, Public Works Director/City Engineer Erin Laberee, Civil Engineer 1 SUBJECT: Springside Drive Extension--West of Sterling St., Project 03-36 1. Resolution Canceling Hearing and Rescheduling Hearing for 2005 DATE: September 16, 2004 Introduction An assessment hearing was scheduled for 7:00 p.m. on September 27t" for the Springside Drive Extension project. The bid opening was held on September 17, 2004, and all of the bids came in much higher than the engineer's estimate. Due to the high bids, the financing for the project will not work as stated in the feasibility report. Background The Springside Drive Extension project is a relatively small construction project. The project is not located near any other ongoing city projects. These two factors made it difficult to determine an accurate engineer's estimate. The lowest bid came in $32,501.16 higher than the engineer's estimate. The assessments for this project were based on the engineer's estimate. The proposed assessments will not cover the project costs originally figured. It is recommended that the project be bid in conjunction with the 2005 neighborhood street construction project. At that time an assessment hearing should be held for the Springside Drive Extension Project. All effected property owners have been notified of this change. Recommendation It is recommended that the city council approve the attached Resolution Canceling Hearing and Rescheduling Hearing for 2005 for the Springside Drive Extension -West of Sterling Street C.P. 03-36. Budget Impact There would be no impact to the approved budget based on the above recommendation. JW Attachments: Resolution: Canceling Hearing and Rescheduling Hearing for 2005 Location Map RESOLUTION CANCELING HEARING AND RESCHEDULING HEARING WHEREAS, pursuant to a resolution adopted by the City Council on August 23, 2004, an assessment hearing for Springside Drive Extension -West of Sterling Street, City Project 03-36, was scheduled for September 27, 2004 at 7:00 pm, and WHEREAS, bids received on September 10, 2004 appear to far exceed the project financing plan, and WHEREAS, the City Engineer has recommended that the project be rebid and a new financing plan established in 2005. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT the Springside Drive Extension -West of Sterling Street, City Project 03-36, scheduled for September 27, 2004 at 7:00 pm is hereby cancelled and the City Engineer is directed to rescheduled the project for 2005. Adopted by the council on this 27t" day of September 2004. Agenda #H2 REPORT SUMMARY Applicant: Site Address: Existing Zoning: Proposed Zoning: Existing Land Use: Proposed Land Use: City Council Hearing Date: 60-Day Deadline: Transfiguration Church and Nichols Development, LLC 935 Ferndale Street Single-Dwelling Residential (R-1) Multiple-Dwelling Residential (R-3) School (S) High Multiple-Dwelling Residential (R-3H) September 27, 2004 September 27, 2004 Project Description: Transfiguration Church proposes to sell their elementary school site at 935 Ferndale Street to Nichols Development, LLC, in order to develop a senior cooperative building (age 55 and older). The proposed three- story building will have 44 units and underground parking. The development will be called Summerhill of Maplewood. Requests: The applicants are requesting a comprehensive land use plan change from School (S) to High Multiple-Dwelling Residential (R-3H) [4 Votes Required]; a zoning map change from Single-Dwelling Residential (R-1) to Multiple-Dwelling Residential (R-3); and design review. Recommendations: The planning commission recommended denial of the land use plan change and rezoning at their August 16, 2004, meeting by a vote of 5 to 3 with 1 abstention. The community design review board recommended approval of the design review of the proposed three-story, 44-unit senior cooperative building at their September 21, 2004, meeting by a vote of 4 to 0. Staff recommends approval of the land use plan change, rezoning, and design review. MEMORANDUM TO: Richard Fursman, City Manager FROM: Shann Finwall, AICP, Planner SUBJECT: Summerhill of Maplewood (Senior Cooperative Building) APPLICANTS: Transfiguration Church and Nichols Development, LLC LOCATION: 935 Ferndale Street DATE: September 21, 2004 INTRODUCTION Project Description Transfiguration Church proposes to construct an addition to their church and middle school site located at 6133 North 15"' Street in Oakdale. The addition will house their elementary school students, who currently attend school at Transfiguration Elementary School located at 935 Ferndale Street in Maplewood. Because of the relocation of the elementary students, Transfiguration Church would like to sell the elementary school site. Transfiguration Church wants to support senior housing in the community. As such, they interviewed several senior housing developers for the purchase of their elementary school site. After several months of interviewing potential developers, the church selected Nichols Development, LLC, to purchase and develop the site as a senior cooperative housing development. Nichols Development is proposing a 44-unit senior cooperative building for the 2.2-acre site called Summerhill of Maplewood. The proposed building will have three stories, 66 underground parking stalls, 12 surface parking stalls, and 14 proof of parking stalls. The units would be sold as a cooperative in which residents buy a share of the building and pay a monthly carrying fee, until the eventual sale of their unit. (Refer to the developer's narrative and project maps attached. ) Requests To build this development, the applicants are requesting that the city approve the following: Comprehensive plan change from School (S) to High Multiple Dwelling Residential (R-3H). 2. Zoning map change from Single Dwelling Residential (R-1) to Multiple Dwelling Residential (R-3). 3. Design review. BACKGROUND Original Submittal The applicants originally submitted plans fora 52-unit, four-story senior cooperative building. (Refer to original plans attached.) Due to concerns over the height of the building by city staff and the neighborhood, the applicants revised their plans to a 44-unit, three-story building. (Refer to revised plans attached.) Planning Commission Meeting The revised 44-unit, three story plans were presented during the August 16 planning commission meeting after city staff had notified the neighbors and the planning commission of the four-story building. Regardless of the last minute revision, the planning commission ultimately recommended denial of the comprehensive land use change and rezoning of the Transfiguration School site by a vote of 5 to 3 with one abstention. (Refer to the planning commission minutes attached.) Neighborhood Meetings Because of the planning commission's recommendation of denial, as well as neighborhood concerns voiced during the planning commission meeting, Transfiguration Church hoped to gain support for their revised plan during a second neighborhood meeting on August 31 and their annual church/school festival on September 11. Community Design Review Board Meeting The community design review board (CDRB) reviewed the 44-unit, three story plans during the September 21 CDRB meeting. The CDRB reviewed the plans for design elements including architectural, landscaping, and lighting. The CDRB found that the plans met all design review criteria as specified by the city code and recommended approval by a vote of 4 to 0. (The CDRB minutes are not available due to the quick turnaround time from the CDRB meeting to the city council meeting.) DISCUSSION Neighborhood Concerns City staff received several responses to a neighborhood survey sent regarding the originally proposed 55-unit, four-story senior housing development. (Refer to the Citizen Comments, e-mails, mail, and petition responses attached.) In general many neighbors supported the use of the property as senior housing, but had strong concerns about the added traffic and the proposed height of the building. I will address both issues below: Traffic: The developer states that the senior housing development will result in less traffic for the neighborhood than the property's current use as a school. They claim this is due to the fact that the number of daily trips resulting from school staff, school buses, and parents driving students to and from school as well as visitors attending the school will far outweigh the traffic generated by a senior housing development. The Institute of Transportation Engineers reports the average number of trips per day for a retirement community to be 3.3 in comparison to the average number of trips per day for an elementary school to be 1 per student. There are 274 students currently attending the Transfiguration Elementary School. The traffic comparison, therefore, is 145 trips per day for the proposed 44-unit senior housing development to 274 trips per day for the school. As the Summerhill of Maplewood 2 September 21, 2004 neighbors point out, however, the school's traffic is concentrated in the morning and evening hours during the school-year only. Height of Building: Most of the neighbors responding to the city's survey were concerned about the proposed four-story height of the building. They felt this design would take away from the privacy of their homes, may block sunlight, and would not be compatible to the surrounding one and two-story single-family houses. The developers originally proposed the four-story building to create as much green space on the property as possible. Currently the 2.2-acre Transfiguration School site is covered by 77 percent impervious surface including the school, various outbuildings, and the parking lot. The developers also felt that developing the building with four stories would allow the building to be constructed with as much distance from the existing single-family houses as possible. Based on staff and neighborhood concerns, the applicants have made several changes to their original plans including reducing the number of units from 52 to 44, reducing the height of the building from four stories to three, and relocating the location of the driveway from Ferndale Street to Harvester Avenue. Land Use and Zoning With the current land use designation the property can only be used as a school. Under its current zoning destination, with a land use change, the property could be developed with up to eight single-family houses or used for some other form of public or governmental use with a conditional use permit, i.e., church or library. In order to construct amultiple-dwelling building as proposed by the applicants, the property must be rezoned to multiple dwelling residential. The city's comprehensive plan allows for three levels of densities within a multiple dwelling zoning district including low, medium, and high. Densities for senior-only housing within each of these levels are slightly higher due to the fact that seniors tend to have less people living within one dwelling unit. In addition, the city's multiple-dwelling zoning district allows for density bonuses for such things as underground parking, green space, and landscaping allowances. The applicants' proposed 44-senior-housing units is based on the high multiple-dwelling residential land use designation as well as density bonuses for constructing 66 underground parking spaces, maintaining up to 25 percent of the lot as green space, and allocating at least 1 percent of the overall construction cost on trees. For comparison, staff has calculated the allowable densities for a variety of multiple-dwelling proposals on the 2.2-acre site: Type of Housing Land Use Apartment Building' R-3 High Senior Buildingz R-3 High Senior Buildingz R-3 Medium Senior Buildingz R-3 Low 'Based on zero density bonuses. zBased on one-bedroom units and zero density bonuses. .' Possible Number of Units 31 46 27 23 Summerhill of Maplewood 3 September 21, 2004 The developer proposes to finance this project through a 40-year housing and urban development (HUD) insured mortgage. HUD does not require a minimum number of units to be in a development; however, they do require a senior cooperative to be financially viable over the long term through the collection of monthly carrying charges that cover mortgage, taxes, utilities, fixed building and maintenance costs. More units allow these costs to be spread across a larger base and keep the monthly carrying charges lower and more affordable. The developer claims if they did fewer than the 44 senior housing units allowed on the site (based on the high multiple-dwelling land use designation, the proposed bedroom mix, and density bonuses) the monthly carrying charge would be higher and would very likely prove to be too expensive for many seniors to afford. Therefore, the applicants are requesting that the property be reguided to huh density in order to help ensure affordability of the units. Senior Housing As the baby boomers enter the age 55 to 64 age group, it will become the fastest-growing age group in the city, and the country as a whole. This represents an increasing market potential for multiple-dwelling senior housing. The city has an estimated overall housing unit number of 13,758. Of these housing units the city has developed or proposed for development 1,192 (8.6 percent) specifically designated "senior" housing units. The nearest designated senior housing development within the city to the proposed Summerhill of Maplewood development is Lakewood Estates of Maplewood on the corner of Maryland Avenue and Lakewood Drive. This development has 100 assisted-living apartments for seniors. Part of Transfiguration Church's mission statement is to help provide senior housing in their community. They believe this represents the circle of life where seniors in the community are able to move to a more carefree environment, opening up their single-family houses for new families with children, in turn creating new enrollment within their church and school. They chose to sell their school to a senior housing developer in order to leave a legacy for the community and the church. Parking One concern raised about the city's approval of yet another senior housing development is the fact that most senior housing developments do not supply the city-required number of parking stalls. This is due to the fact that there are usually less people living in one senior dwelling than a regular single ormultiple-family dwelling, creating less of a parking demand. The city's approval of these developments with a reduction in the number of parking stalls could be a problem in the future if the market no longer supports senior housing and the developments were converted to regular housing. City code requires two parking stalls per household. These parking stalls can be either within a garage, underground, or on the surface. The applicants are proposing 66 underground, 12 surface, and 14 proof of parking stalls, for an overall parking stall count of 92, exceeding the city parking requirements of 88 (44 units x 2 parking stalls = 88 required parking stalls). Summerhill of Maplewood 4 September 21, 2004 Revised Site Plan Setbacks The existing school and proposed senior cooperative building maintains or will maintain the following setbacks to the surrounding road edges: Harvester Ferndale St. Glendon St. Avenue Nature Center School 40 ft. 200 ft. 50 ft. 10 ft Senior Bldg. 90 ft., 7 in. 43 ft., 9 in. 40 ft. 28 ft. to 116 ft. to 70 ft., 2 in. City code requires multi-family housing buildings to maintain at least a 50-foot setback from adjacent residential properties, and a 30-foot setback from the right-of-ways. Because of the 60- foot right-of-ways surrounding the property on three sides, the proposed Summerhill building only needs to maintain the 30-foot setback to the right-of-way in order to achieve the 50-foot setback to the adjacent residential properties (i.e., 30-foot front yard setback + 60-foot right-of-way = 90- foot setback to adjacent residential properties). The applicants are proposing setbacks from the right-of-ways of 30 feet plus. The increased setbacks to the surrounding residential properties will help mitigate the increased height of the senior housing building compared to the existing school. The parking lot will maintain a 15-foot setback to the Ferndale Street right-of-way, as required by city code. For grading and drainage purposes, staff recommends that the applicants alter their proposed proof of parking location. The applicants should construct the northerly 14 surface parking stalls and call out the 12 southerly parking stalls as proof of parking. Drive Aisle Location Due to city staff and neighborhood concern, the applicants have revised their site plan to include only one driveway entrance off of Harvester Avenue. The proposed driveway will be located 36 feet from the Ferndale Street/HanresterRvenue intersection, which meets city code driveway clearance requirements of 30 feet from an intersection. The new drive aisle, however, will be directly across the street from an existing single-family house. This design will lead to vehicle headlights shining into the adjacent residential house. To the extent possible, city staff recommends that the drive aisle be lined up with the existing driveway on this property, which is located approximately 100 feet from the intersection. (Refer to driveway map attached on pg 28.) Trail The applicants' revised plans show a trail on the south side of the building. This trail was designed to accommodate fire truck access to the south side of the building. The city's fire marshal has since indicated that such access is not needed as the fire trucks have access to three sides of the buildings from the surrounding roads. The trail is a good concept and should be included in the plan, however, the trail should be revised to ensure minimal grading next to the nature center and that no access from the trail be allowed into the nature center. Summerhill of Maplewood 5 September 21, 2004 Sidewalks The applicants are proposing afive-foot-wide sidewalk around the perimeter of the site on Ferndale Street, Harvester Avenue, and Glendon Street. This sidewalk should be required as part of the design review conditions and should be constructed within the street right-of-ways. In addition, the applicants should install interior sidewalks from all exit doors of the building extending to the street sidewalks. Revised Building Elevations City code allows multi-family buildings to maintain a height of 35 feet, or three stories, whichever is greater. The revised building elevations for Summerhill of Maplewood meet this requirement as a three-story building with an overall height of 42 feet, 4 inches to the top, and a mean height (height to the middle of the roofline) of 35 feet, 3 inches. City code also allows single-family homes to maintain a height of 35 feet, or three stories. Attached find a cross section supplied by the applicants which represents a height comparison of the proposed senior building, existing school, and possible single-family homes. The comparison shows that the increased setbacks and landscaping of the senior cooperative building in comparison to the school will help mitigate the increased height for the surrounding residential neighbors. Because of the recent revisions made to the building, the applicants recently submitted revised building elevation lacks consistency with the submitted color elevation and site plan, and appears to be incomplete. First, the colored building elevation depicts additional decks and dormers on the east and west elevations as opposed to the building elevations. Second, the site plan shows a gazebo attached to the west side of the building and 32-foot-long drive-through entryway on the east side of the building. Third, the building materials for the underground garage and upper dormer are not called out. The developer's architect is continuing to work on these elevations and will have more accurate elevations and building samples available for the September 27 city council meeting. In general, the building materials will include brick on the first two floors, stucco on the third floor, and architectural shingles on the roof. Staff finds the building to be attractive and aesthetically of good composition, materials, textures and colors. Screen Porches The Maplewood Nature Center is located to the south of the property. Because of this, Ann Hutchinson, lead naturalist, submitted comments regarding the Summerhill of Maplewood project. (Refer to Ms. Hutchinson's memorandum attached.) Ms. Hutchinson requested that the developer consider offering an alternative to open decks on the units facing the nature center, as the nature center allows little or no control of mosquitoes. The developers have taken Ms. Hutchinson's advice and will include screen porches rather than open decks on all of the units. The proposed screen porches will also help with the privacy issues raised by the surrounding residential properties. The screen porches have not been shown on the revised elevations, but must be reflected on elevations prior to issuance of a building permit. Summerhill of Maplewood 6 September 21, 2004 Mechanical Equipment One of the concerns expressed by the neighbors over this project was the location of any exterior mechanical equipment. The revised site plan or building elevations do not depict the location of mechanical equipment. All exterior mechanical equipment must be fully screened from view of the surrounding residential properties. Landscaping The applicants submitted a revised landscape plan at the September 21 CDRB meeting. However, because of the quick turnaround time between the CDRB meeting and the city council meeting, staff has not had an opportunity to review that plan. The following comments are based on the original landscape plan. In the original landscape plan for the four-story building, the applicants proposed 83 trees and 159 shrubs on the site. After reviewing the original plan, Ann Hutchinson of the Maplewood Nature center recommends several changes to plan as follows: It would be wonderful if the nature center could extend the Oak forest a few feet onto the Summerhill property as part of the landscaping plan. This would allow extra buffering of the building from the nature center and would allow additional protection in case any of the existing trees would succumb to disease or construction damage. Larger red or white oaks are suggested along the shared property line. 2. The proposed barberry shrubs should be replaced with an alternative shrub as it is an invasive species. 3. Consider adding a native prairie butterfly garden to the plan. 4. We hope that the storm water ponds will be planted as rain gardens, or with deep rooted native plants, as this will fit in better with the neighborhood and provide better infiltration. The nature center will be happy to help plant the gardens with school children as part of our educational storm water program. Grading/Drainage Because of the recent revisions made to the building, the applicants have not had an opportunity to revise the grading and drainage plan for the three-story building. The revised site plan does indicate that the existing impervious surface on the site is 77 percent and the proposed impervious surface after development of the senior cooperative building to be only 40 percent. This is a vast improvement for the water runoff and water quality. Erin Laberee of the city's engineering department reviewed the original grading and drainage plan. (Refer to Ms. Laberee's memorandum attached.) The engineering department has stated that the revised three-story building plans appear to have addressed most of Ms. Laberee's original concerns regarding grading and drainage. However, a final grading and drainage plan must be submitted for city engineering approval prior to issuance of a grading permit. Summerhill of Maplewood 7 September 21, 2004 Play Area The applicants are proposing a play area for the residents' grandchildren and the neighborhood children. This will be an asset to the development and the community as a whole, and should be required as part of the design review conditions. Lighting The revised lighting plan for the three story-building shows a total of 18 exterior lights. Six are freestanding lights, four of which are 20 feet high and two of which are 12 feet high. Both of these lights are abox-style, downcast light, dark bronze in color. Overall, the lighting plan meets the city's requirements for freestanding light height and light illumination not exceeding .4-foot- candles at all property lines. However, since Summerhill of Maplewood will be developed in close proximity to surrounding single-family residential homes, staff recommends a lower light pole and a more decorative light which is architecturally compatible to the building. Dumpster Enclosure The applicants propose to store all dumpsters within the underground parking area, out of the sight of the adjacent property owners. However, if trash containers are ever proposed to be stored on the outside of the building, the applicants must submit a dumpster enclosure plan which includes the location, enclosure height, and enclosure building materials for staff approval prior to issuance of a building permit. OTHER COMMENTS Lieutenant David Kvam, Maplewood Police Department (comments received after review of the original four-story building): 1. While underground parking provides a measure of security, once a thief gains entrance, he/she typically has free reign. The developer should consider installing security cameras or other measures intended to dissuade or identify potential thieves at the entrance and in the underground parking area. 2. With a 52-unit building of senior residents, the developer's assertion that there will probably be a reduction in traffic moving through the neighborhood might be correct. Even if it is not, what it should do is help spread the level of traffic out, as many residents would probably not be arriving and leaving at the same time as is the case with the school. 3. Regarding concerns about additional emergency medical services to a senior building: While it is true that elderly people generally require more medical responses, Summerhill of Maplewood will not be a nursing home or assisted living facility, but a facility for individuals who are 55 years or older. Seniors as young as 55 years old should be reasonably healthy, with no added burden to the emergency medical system. The city does not have the resources currently to handle the medical responses we need to cover now. Summerhill of Maplewood may technically be able to pay for their share of the emergency medical response use with the added tax base, but the truth is that the city simply needs more paramedics to cover the number of medical calls we receive each year. Summerhill of Maplewood 8 September 21, 2004 Butch Gervais, Fire Marshal (comments received after review of the original four-story building): (Refer to Mr. Gervais' memorandum attached.) Dave Fisher, Building Official (comments received after review of the original four-story building): (Refer to Mr. Fisher's memorandum attached.) RECOMMENDATION Approve the comprehensive land use change resolution attached. This resolution changes the land use plan from School (S) to High Multiple Dwelling Residential (R-3H) for the property at 935 Ferndale Street. The city bases these changes on the following findings: a. This site is proper for and consistent with the city's policies for high-density residential use. This includes: 1) Having a variety of housing types for all types of residents, regardless of age, ethnic, racial, cultural or socioeconomic background. A diversity of housing types should include apartments, town houses, manufactured homes, single-family housing, public-assisted housing and low- to moderate-income housing, and rental and owner-occupied housing. 2) Promote a variety of housing types, costs and ownership options throughout the city. These are to meet the life-cycle needs of all income levels, those with special needs and nontraditional households. 3) The city will continue to provide dispersed locations for a diversity of housing styles, types and price ranges through its land use plan. 4) The city's long-term stability of its tax base depends upon its ability to attract and keep residents of all ages. To do so, the city must insure that a diverse mix of housing styles is available in each stage of the life cycle of housing needs. 5) It is on a collector street and is near an arterial street, parks and open space. 2. Approve the zoning map change resolution attached. This resolution changes the zoning map from Single Dwelling Residential (R-1) to Multiple Dwelling Residential (R-3) for the property located at 935 Ferndale Street. The city is making this change because: a. The proposed change is consistent with the spirit, purpose and intent of the zoning code. b. The proposed change will not substantially injure or detract from the use of neighboring 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. Summerhill of Maplewood 9 September 21, 2004 c. The proposed change will serve the best interests and conveniences of the community, where applicable, and the public welfare. d. The proposed change would have no negative effect upon the logical, efficient, and economical extension of public services and facilities, such as public water, sewers, police and fire protection and schools. e. The owner plans to develop this property for multiple-dwelling senior housing. 3. Approve the site plan, building elevations, and photometrics plans date-stamped September 10, 2004; for the 44-unit, three-story Summerhill of Maplewood senior housing cooperative to be located at 935 Ferndale Street. Approval is subject to the applicant doing the following: a. Repeat this review in two years if the city has not issued a building permit for this project. b. Prior to issuance of a grading or building permit, the applicant must submit to staff for approval the following items: 1) Revised grading and drainage plan for the three-story building. 2) Revised landscape plan for the three-story building as follows: a) Locate and protect existing nature center trees adjacent to the site. b) Expansion of the nature center oak savanna a few feet into the Summerhill property with the addition of large red or white oak trees. c) Rain gardens planted in the storm ponds. d) Allocation of at least 1 percent of the overall construction cost to trees. e) Barberry shrub replaced with an alternative shrub. f) The addition of a native butterfly garden. 3) Revised building elevations showing the following: a) Gazebo/porch located on west side of the building. The gazebo and porch must be constructed of quality building materials, screened, and be consistent with the proposed senior cooperative building. b) Front entry overhang with a clearance of at least 12 feet to accommodate ambulances and fire vehicles. The front entry must be constructed of quality building materials and be consistent with the proposed senior cooperative building. c) Screen porches for all 44 units. d) Consistent building and color elevations showing additional dormers and porches on the east and west elevation. e) Screening of all exterior mechanical equipment from surrounding residential properties. Summerhill of Maplewood 10 September 21, 2004 f) The north elevation revised to reflect the change in the driveway location. 4) Site plan to scale ensuring a 15-foot setback from the parking lot to the right-of-way; construction of 14 northerly parking stalls and 12 southerly parking stalls designated as "proof-of-parking"; Harvester Ave. driveway lining up, to the extent possible, with the existing driveways across Harvester Avenue; trail grading width reduced to ensure no disturbance of nature center trees; no trail access to Nature Center; interior sidewalks leading to exterior sidewalks; play area. 5) Registered land survey of the property. 6) Watershed district approval. 7) Building material samples. 8) A cash escrow or an irrevocable letter of credit for all required exterior improvements. The amount shall be 150 percent of the cost of the work. c. The applicant shall complete the following before occupying the building: 1) Replace any property irons removed because of this construction. 2) Provide continuous concrete curb and gutter around the parking lot and driveways. 3) Install all required landscaping and an in-ground lawn irrigation system for all landscaped areas. 4) Install all required outdoor lighting. 5) Install all required sidewalks and trails. d. If any required work is not done, the city may allow temporary occupancy if: 1) The city determines that the work is not essential to the public health, safety or welfare. 2) The 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 of the following year 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. e. All work shall follow the approved plans. The director of community development may approve minor changes. Summerhill of Maplewood 11 September 21, 2004 CITIZEN COMMENTS surveyed the owners of properties within 500 feet of this site as well as properties outside of the 500-foot area if requested. Of the 68 surveys sent, 20 were returned, of which 4 were in favor of the senior housing project, 12 were in favor of senior housing but had concerns about the project, and 4 were opposed the project. (Comments were received after review of the original four- story building.) In Favor Alvin & Dorothy Geerdes, 987 Glendon Street North: We have been retired for 10 years and have lived in the same house for 40 years. We have a strong attachment to the area because it is so close to everything, 3M, schools, churches, shopping, freeways, etc. Our house is not too large and we're ready to rid ourselves of the maintenance requirements. We attended the June 17th meeting at Transfiguration and are excited about the proposed development. The units seem to be adequate for our needs and somewhat reasonable in price. We hope the project will proceed as scheduled and we believe the building will be a plus for the community. We intend to be at the council meeting to monitor the progress. 2. William 8~ Marlene Fye, 973 Glendon Street North: We are firmly in favor of this project and highly recommend Maplewood to okay its plans. This is a very attractive and meaningful addition to the neighborhood. We look forward to meeting many new seniors to our neighborhood. 3. Jean Hoffer, 973 Ferndale Street North: I received the notice over the weekend that the Transfiguration school might be sold and a senior cooperative building would be constructed. How would I get information on this senior building as to how much a unit would cost and how to get signed up for a unit? My folks are elderly and might be interested. 4. R.E. and Renee Sauerbrey, 1000 Ferndale Street North: This is such a great thing for our neighborhood. My husband has lived here since he was 7 years old. He is now 63 years old and we have been in our home for 38 years. It would be so nice for us to move into a place like this and stay in our neighborhood. In Favor with Concerns Luis Lopez, 2523 Harvester Avenue East: I have a few concerns, first of all, special assessments and property taxes. In the flier I received there was no mention of assessments (so far) or whether property taxes would increase. I would like this issue clarified. Secondly I live at 2523 Harvester Avenue and I do not want the increased traffic. The flier mentions that the development will result in less traffic. For one, I don't believe it and I'm sure there are no studies that say it would be true. It bases it results from when the school is open, not in the evenings or the weekends or during the summer when school is out. I see very few cars during these times and that cannot be said when there is an apartment complex in the neighborhood. Lastly, if this development comes to pass, why must it be a four floor building? I would rather look at a two or three story building. () Kate Lopez: I would like to express my families concern over the proposed building of the Summerhill of Maplewood Development on Harvester Avenue. We are relatively new to Summerhill of Maplewood 12 September 21, 2004 Harvester Avenue and one of the reasons we chose to move to this area of Maplewood was for the quiet area. I know your assessment of the street traffic will not increase the traffic. The bus traffic was during off times of the day, I am not home during school hours and my two young kids were at daycare. Now with this increased traffic and our daughter starting kindergarten this year she is going to be more at risk with the increased car volume. Nothing against older people. Some day it's going to be me but some of them should not have a driver's license. I don't want to have to worry every day she gets on the bus, if someone is going to forget to stop for the bus and not see her cross the street. If you have ever spend time on Harvester Avenue, we have so many people using it as a short cut to get to Century Avenue because they do not want to have to wait at the stoplight at Stillwater and Century. People don't drive slow on Harvester Avenue, everyone is in a hurry to get somewhere. There are young kids who live in the area and it's just a matter of time before someone gets hit because of the increased traffic. We are not opposed to the building but we would like to see it in a smaller scaled back version. 2. David Schultz, 2651 Midvale Place East: Too many times once a project like this is complete the landscapes are allowed to deteriorate. Management must be held accountable to maintaining the grounds as proposed. Dead plant material and weeds cannot be tolerated. 3. Gail Zaun, 2658 Harvester Avenue: I live at 2658 Harvester and was unable to make the June meeting regarding this project. Maybe my question was answered then, but I will ask it again. My concern is the rezoning. How much of this area is going to be rezoned? I wouldn't want to see the whole neighborhood rezoned and have it fill up with multi-family dwellings, which seems to be the new trend. And how wilt this affect our property taxes? Your letter said the question was asked but it doesn't include the answer. 4. Sue Forrest, 2515 Harvester Avenue East: I am for the proposal, but would like to share a couple of concerns I have... I live very near the proposal site on Harvester.. so I am concerned about the traffic all year long... I know there is more traffic now during the school year, however, this will be all year long... But what I do oppose is the height of the building for this area... I feel that 3 stories would be tall enough... I am totally against 4 stories... especially for the neighbors who live across the street from this building. They would be without any sunshine half of the day. And I would like to know how this would effect my property value...We just built our house 3 years ago on Harvester, and I am very concerned about what this will do to our property value in this area... I would also like to attend the city council meeting however, I fail to see when or where it would be... Please let me know when it would be. Thank you. 5. Dave Picard, 2672 Harvester Avenue East: After several conversations with my neighbors I have come to the conclusion that the project is favored if the height of the building was not four stories tall and mature trees were used in the landscaping. 6. Jeff & Elizabeth Kringle, 910 Ferndale Street North: We received your survey, dated July 30, 2004. We wish to be included in the information about the upcoming city meeting that discusses this issue. We have two issues with the proposed development of the 935 Ferndale Street North property. 1. We are not in favor of the four-story construction. We feel four stories is too tall large and will detract from the natural beauty and general elevation of the neighborhood. It will stick out too much. We would be amenable with a three-story structure. A two-story structure would be optimal and fit best into the Summerhill of Maplewood 13 September 21, 2004 neighborhood. 2. We are not in favor of the main entrance to the facility being on Ferndale Street North. We propose that the main entrance be on Harvester Avenue for the following reasons: 1. Harvester Avenue is a direct link to and from Century and Stillwater Road/Highway 5. Ferndale is not a direct link. 2. Harvester Avenue @ Century Avenue has the stop/go lights, which control the flow of traffic into the neighborhood. 3. We don't agree that the traffic to and from this facility will be minimal. 4. Our understanding when the roads in this area were resurfaced a few years ago, that more federal/state funding were received for the resurfacing of Harvester Avenue because it is a thoroughfare to and from the school and into the neighborhood. During the resurface project Harvester Avenue was widened and more sophisticated curbing was installed with the intention of having it bear the majority of traffic into the neighborhood. For the resurfacing project all residents were assessed some $4,000 however, the residents on Harvester Avenue received $8,000 worth of work done on the street fronting their homes. Harvester Avenue is literally twice the street Ferndale Street is. As such, the same reasoning should be applied to the building of this structure, so that it fronts Harvester Avenue. We understand and are in agreement that this survey response becomes public information. We agree that this is the right type of development for this neighborhood, with the exceptions noted above. 7. Abigail Bour, 957 Edith Street: (Refer to Ms. Bour's a-mail attached.) 8. Chris Reeves, 2654 Brand Street: (Refer to Mr. Reeves' correspondence attached.) 9. J.M. and Zoe Hruby, 2659 Harvester Avenue: (Refer to Mr. and Mrs. Hruby's a-mail attached.) 10. Janet and John Heroff, 940 Ferndale Street North: (Refer to Mr. and Mrs. Heroff's correspondence attached.) 11. Mark McKenzie, 2676 Harvester Avenue: (Refer to Mr. McKenzie's a-mail attached.) 12. Jesse Sampair, 2658 Midvale Place: (Refer to Jesse's a-mail attached.) Opposed 1. Peter Feist, 950 Ferndale Street North: As owner of 950 Ferndale Street North, I am not in favor of a four-story building proposed at 935 Ferndale Street North. This does not belong in this single-family home neighborhood. I am especially opposed to having balconies overlooking my property restricting my privacy. 2. Margaret Kunde, 937 Glendon Street North: Do not approve this please! This would change the neighborhood from a quiet family dwelling to a busy commercial type of street of which there are already too many! This large building belongs in a different type of neighborhood than this. This area is unique and there are too few spots left for normal families to live in peace & quiet. There should be family homes built here instead. I am opposed to this because of the height. The height would block out the sight of sunrise for some and sunset for others. It would darken all surrounding homes and be an unacceptable sight from the nature center that shows us the beauty of nature. Not the way humans are robbing us of the beauty of nature. I am opposed to the water run off Summerhill of Maplewood 14 September 21, 2004 into the nature ponds that are able to stop run off from homes but not such a large building with so many occupants. The sewer system hardly handles homes here as we needed to have drainage spots put in all lots with wild flowers to cover up the large drains. The cost to all surrounding homeowners would be too high as we just had all our roads redone at a large expense and the equipment needed to build this building would certainly damage them. Even to the need to repair or resurface them and all the other unseen so called needed things by all these people the curbing and etc. We simply cannot afford any more raise in any type of taxes or unseen expenses! Our loss of privacy which is why we all love living here now would be overwhelming with traffic alone both cars and people walking by and driving constantly. The upper floors will all be able to see into our back yards even and much more! Who among you would want this enormous building with numerous people no matter what their age across from your house? Think of that or even in your neighborhood! Thank you for reading this and I hope you will consider all of these comments. 3. Joe and Mary Erickson, 932 Ferndale Street North: (Refer to Mr. and Mrs. Erickson's correspondence attached.) 4. Dan Zschokke, 924 Ferndale Street North: (Refer to Mr. Zschokke's correspondence attached.) Summerhill of Maplewood 15 September 21, 2004 REFERENCE INFORMATION SITE DESCRIPTION Site Size: 2.2 Acres Existing Land Use: School SURROUNDING LAND USES North: Single Family Houses South: Maplewood Nature Center East: Single Family Houses West: Single Family Houses PLANNING Existing Land Use Plan: School Existing Zoning: Single Dwelling Residential (R-1) Proposed Land Use Plan: High Multiple Dwelling Residential (R-3H) Proposed Zoning: Multiple Dwelling Residential (R-3) CRITERIA FOR APPROVAL Land Use Plan Chanoe: There are no specific criteria for a land use plan change. Any land use plan change should be consistent with the goals and policies in the city's comprehensive plan. The land use plan has eleven general land use goals. Of these, three apply to this proposal including minimize land planned for streets, minimize conflicts between land uses and provide many housing types. 2. The land use plan also has several general development and residential development policies that relate to this project including: a. Transitions between distinctly differing types of land uses should not create a negative economic, social or physical impact on adjoining developments. b. Include a variety of housing types for all types of residents, regardless of age, ethnic, racial, cultural or socioeconomic background. A diversity of housing types should include apartments, town houses, manufactured homes, single-family housing, public-assisted housing and low- to moderate-income housing, and rental and owner-occupied housing. c. Protect neighborhoods from encroachment or intrusion of incompatible land uses by adequate buffering and separation. 3. The housing plan also has policies about housing diversity and quality that the city should consider with this development including: Summerhill of Maplewood 16 September 21, 2004 a. Promote a variety of housing types, costs and ownership options throughout the city. These are to meet the life-cycle needs of all income levels, those with special needs and nontraditional households. b. The city will continue to provide dispersed locations for a diversity of housing styles, types and price ranges through its land use plan. c. The city's long-term stability of its tax base depends upon its ability to attract and keep residents of all ages. To do so, the city must insure that a diverse mix of housing styles is available in each stage of the life cycle of housing needs. Rezonin4: Section 44-1165 of the Zoning Code requires that the city council make the following findings to rezone property: 1. The proposed change is consistent with the spirit, purpose and intent of the Zoning Code. 2. The proposed change will not substantially injure or detract from the use of neighboring property or from the character of the neighborhood, and that the use of the property adjacent to the area included in the proposed change or plan is adequately safeguarded. 3. The proposed change will serve the best interests and conveniences of the community, where applicable, and the public welfare. 4. The proposed change would have no negative effect upon the logical, efficient, and economical extension of public services and facilities, such as public water, sewers, police and fire protection and schools. Design Review: Section 2-290 of the city code requires that the CDRB make the following findings to approve plans: 1. That the design and location of the proposed development and its relationship to neighboring, existing or proposed developments, and traffic is such that it will not impair the desirability of investment or occupation in the neighborhood; that it will not unreasonably interfere with the use and enjoyment of neighboring, existing or proposed developments; and that it will not create traffic hazards or congestion. 2. That the design and location of the proposed development is in keeping with the character of the surrounding neighborhood and is not detrimental to the harmonious, orderly and attractive development contemplated by this article and the city's comprehensive municipal plan. 3. That the design and location of the proposed development would provide a desirable environment for its occupants, as well as for its neighbors, and that it is aesthetically of good composition, materials, textures and colors. Summerhill of Maplewood 17 September 21, 2004 Application Date We received the complete applications and plans for this development on July 23, 2004. State law requires that the city take action within 60 days of receiving complete land use applications unless the applicant agrees to an extension. Because of revisions made to the building by the applicant, the applicants have agreed to extend city review until September 27, 2004. P\Sec25\Summerhill of Maplewood Attachments: 1. Applicant Narrative 2. Location Map 3. Zoning Map 4. Land Use Map 5. Existing Conditions 6. Original Site Plan 7. Original Grading Plan 8. Original Landscape Plan 9. Original Building Elevations 10. Revised Site Plan 11. Revised Building Elevations 12. Driveway Map 13. Comparison Cross Section 14. Nature Center Review 15. City Engineering Review 16. Fire Marshall Review 17. Building Official Review 18. Neighborhood Comments 19. Neighborhood Petition 20. Land Use Plan Change Resolution 21. Zoning Map Change Resolution Summerhill of Maplewood 18 September 21, 2004 Attachment 1 PROPOSED SUMMERHILL OF MAPLEWOOD DEVELOPMENT Background Quite some time ago, Transfiguration Church began experiencing over capacity and operational issues relating to their school. The school operations are divided between two campuses with students in grades K-4 going to class at the building located at 935 Ferndale and grades 5-8 attending class in the facility adjacent to the church itself. It became evident that the two campuses needed to be combined into one for a number of reasons all relating to a positive and effective educational experience for the students as well as the long-term feasibility of this educational opportunity that has proven to be such a strong value to the community. In response to this need, the Church established an Expansion Committee to review the situation and to identify and explore various options, with an emphasis on finding a buyer who is willing to pay a reasonable price for the parcel as well as providing a benefit to the overall community. After several months of hard work and diligence and hearing from and interviewing several potential developers, this group of volunteers recommended to Farther Bob Hart and the Church Council that Nichols Development, LLC should be selected as the purchaser so that they could build a senior cooperative building. Nichols Development, LLC was chosen by the Church for their quality work, experience (they have financed over 27 senior cooperatives and personally developed three others), and their willingness to adapt their concept to a smaller redevelopment/in-fill site. Nichols Development, LLC, formed in March 2000, is a developer with a broader perspective and a deep understanding of both the development and financing sides of the business and operates in the following areas: • Land and site location and acquisition; • Demographics ,research and marketing; • Site planning and development; • Innovative and effective negotiations with municipalities; • Overall project management and direction; and • Management The Church and its leadership are very excited to be able to be a part of adding to the number of senior housing units to the community and Nichols Development is pleased with the opportunity to be part of the Maplewood community. Nichols Development takes pride in listening to the communities in which they build as well as the surrounding neighbors and, as a result, numerous changes were incorporated into this project's design that has changed it from being a very good proposal to one that is outstanding. Proposed Project Nichols Development is proposing to build athree-story, 44-unit senior cooperative building that would be restricted to individuals age 55 and older. A cooperative is ownership housing that provides maintenance-free living, while guaranteeing awell-maintained building (inside and out). It is financed through a 40-year HUD-insured mortgage. The insurance by HUD allows for a lower interest rate that benefits the seniors purchasing homes in the development by making it even more affordable to them. Cooperatives also become increasingly affordable over time (individual units will appreciate at apre-established rate - 2.5% per year in the case of their Summerhill of Apple Valley cooperative -compared to recent 20% annual appreciation in single family homes in the neighborhood). The reality from other cooperatives in similar areas of the ~ 9 APPLICANT NARRATIVE metro is that seniors from the neighborhood move in to these cooperatives and free up more single family housing stock for families. The development will have a strong team of experience bringing this cooperative to reality, including the azchitects at Miller Hanson Partners and the general contractor will be Frana and Sons, Inc. Furthermore, once the building is open for occupants, Ebenezer, who have been working in the field of senior services since 1917, will be the designated building management company. In order to bring this high-quality, yet affordable, senior housing to this unique site in Maplewood, a few actions by the City will be necessary, including a change in zoning as well as the designated land use. This development of senior ownership housing and will provide great value to this neighborhood and the City as a whole. The building would feature: • 1 and 2 bedroom homes, including many with dens; featuring full kitchens with standazd equipment as well as dishwashers, disposals and microwave ovens, lazge bedrooms and living azeas. • The breakdown of unit types, as proposed, would be: 1 Bedroom/1 Bath - 12 1 Bedroom+Den/1 Bath - 14 2 Bedroom/2 Bath - 18 • Amenity azeas for cooperative residents, such as a community room, woodshop, library, game room, exercise room, etc. • Underground pazking. • Extensive landscaping and restoration of green space on the site as well as maintaining a play azea for the children in the neighborhood as well as the grandchildren of the cooperative's owners. • The green azea for the site would increase from now what is estimated to be about 23% up to nearly 56%. Furthermore, a strong and ongoing relationship with the Maplewood Nature Center is desired through activities such as design and planting of the proposed rain gazdens that will handle water run-off. • The exterior will be created of handsome and low maintenance materials of brick and James Hazdie cementitious siding, and metal facia and will be enhanced by extensive high-quality landscaping. The exterior design will have a human scale and will fit well into the surrounding neighborhood. This project would provide: • an alternative living arrangement for seniors who want to remain in the neighborhood • ownership housing • housing that is affordable over the long-term • multi-family senior housing on one of the few sites in the neighborhood that is appropriate for such a development Parking and Traffic This proposed senior cooperative development would have at least 62 underground parking (possibly as high as 67 is space set aside for mechanical is not needed) spaces for use by the 20 owners as well as 26 surface parking spaces in the front of the building. In regards to traffic, this senior housing development will likely result in less traffic than the property's current use as a school when you take into consideration the number of daily trips resulting from school staff, school buses, parents driving students to and from school as well as visitors. Action Requested In order to bring this quality senior cooperative housing development to fruition, Nichols Development, LLC, in partnership with Transfiguration Church, has submitted the following applications to the City of Maplewood for review and consideration: • Comprehensive Plan Amendment to change land use classification from School to Multi-Family • Rezoning to change zoning from School to Senior Housing Cooperative/Multi- Family • Community Design Review Board for review of project design details • Project Sign Placement to promote this development in the City of Maplewood. Community Input On Thursday, June 17, 2004 at 7:00 p.m., Transfiguration Church hosted a meeting, at the school site itself, of the neighbors residing around this property. Written notification was sent to all the property owners within 500 feet of the parcel. At that meeting, of which approximately 20 - 25 people attended, Father Bob Hart described the process of why the Church has chosen to sell the property and why they selected Nichols Development to build a senior cooperative on the site. Tim Nichols, President and CEO, and Chuck Armstrong, Director of Business Development described the history of Nichols Development and their work and explained the nuances of a senior cooperative. They were assisted by their architect, Link Wilson, from Miller Hanson Partners. The meeting went very well and a great number of questions were raised from which interactive dialog resulted. With the exception of concerns that this development would unfairly increase property taxes for the neighboring homes as well as if this would result in any assessments, of which there would be none, the meeting was very positive and at least two of the attendees later contacted Nichols Development and inquired about purchasing a unit in the proposed building. Since that time, one residence has raised questions regarding what is being proposed and why amulti-family building is being considered for the site rather than single- family homes. Staff of Nichols Development met with these neighbors and discussed their concerns and both sides agreed to maintain an ongoing dialog as the project proceeds through the review and approval process. Following the August 16 Planning Commission meeting and in an effort to address the concerns raised by some of the neighbors as well as to clarify some facts regarding the proposed project, Transfiguration Church hosted a second community meeting, once again at the school site, on August 31. At that meeting, which around 50 people attended, Father Bob Hart and the Nichols Development team had a productive dialog with the attendees that lasted approximately 2 hours and, as a result, believe that all reasonable questions were addressed and concerns resolved. Follow-up and continued dialog has occurred with individual neighbors since that meeting as well as both tie Church and l~hols Development having a visible presence throughout the Ch~eh's Fal)~Fe~stival, that was,~ld from September 10th to thel2th, to explain the project and answer any quests. 21 attachment 2 2648 1060 2628 2642 1047 R ~~ 5~~~~.`~ P~~`~~2610 1040 2634 2689 1037 -2588 43 1039 5g0 4'1~24J~ 1b2J w 1036'' 2677681 2697 03 2715., a ~ 27 1019 Q 2675 -, ~ - L ~ ~ 2671 - - 552¢02566 f,, 01~ r1d10 _ 400 D' 110 2663 `- 1069 2550 ~ 2546' ~ QTY ~ ~Y0 ~ J 100;1 264951655 ' _ ~ .., 708 2712 1 Q©~ 1 1 2 _, ti 53~ 9951 0 9 6 999 8 995 'r - _ 264? ~. 2686 269 ~ ' z ~ l4)~0~ ~ Q 98R, ~ sg88 987' 99~ \O~ P~ .?676 _ ~ 2668 985 2658 ~98~ c~ _~82 9$9' 256125672573 2'650 ~ 977, 2541 2551 ~ 7, 27 67 ~ - 2859 2667 2687 2695 3 2 g~ 2604_ ~~ 233 2 271. 967 ,~ HARVESTER AVE 95$ - _937_, 9 4 . ._ 9~7 i ~ ~ ~.. '~~~ ` ~~ ti ~4, 2's1@ .953 2~$~ ~ 'Z7~ 270 - 50 X65 _' r ~. , gg{~ 61~ o '950 94~ ~ ~ 95026352~~4226-~ - ~ 8 2672 2676 26$4 2700 ~ ~ 943~~ ~ - 938 9~`4 cn 942 937j 935 ~ ~ ~~ 935 _ r 925 34 `, :,, 931 ,1 _ 934- 9 ' X32 X126 ~ ~N ,, : 925 :. M~GN P ' 924 _J ~~~ 2669 '~6>37 2695 915 2641 ' _; 910 2679 270h 2707, 895 ~~ v~ ^ ST BRA ~~ - _"', 2722! 27~,(~1 ~~~ 26b0 2654 2668 " 2690 ` X69 27 ~~ r. 4 8$3 Nature Center j 1/ 875 865.._ ~~ 2659 ~ 2669 PQ77 2687 2695 $51 ' ~~~,...~~,/// ~ .270327`07 - ~; ;~ ~ ~ ~~ 113 . _ ~ ,~7~25 ~r~ ~ ~~~ SEVENTH ST N W E S Location Map n m z c D m R 1 1060 ~~ ~~ ... ~\~~~ P 8602 2610 s -2588 43 2580 _ 1b24 `125 ~ ~ ~, w 1017 ,.10,18 1 b17 p ,.J X5$0 ; ~ '-~~552`t 2566~~1Q~ i - ~1~10 ~,1~0~ 'r z w _, ~ 2550 ~ 1~(~p~ 25 i d ~ h0 900 ~ Y~1 ~ ,1 ~.~ ~-_. Z -_ g~6 -_J99g ' o r ___. 9~7 ~ }988 967' W 9~1~ J c7 j X82 981.? 2561 25672573 ~ _ f ~ '541 2551 9va, sus 260' '~ I X5.85 , ~ `._,~~~ 958 ~§7, 194'.. ] ~ 967 'Q _' m -~ ) _1 ~ 949 ~ ~9~oR1 sas z 935 938~~ 9~'1 cn 9k12 93f' ', ~ - 934 -9~5's ,934, ~ ; 931,`: ~i X26 L LN __. M~CN P~ N W E S 2628 2642 1040 2634 Attachment 3 1oa7 R1 2689 ~~ 103>. 10$9 1030'', 2681 2697 2703 2715 2677 ~ 1q'19 2675 _ ,_, 2671 j~}10 2663;. _ -' 2655 ~, 1Q03 2651 2649 2 '', `3708 271 -~ ,~~ 2641'' Q~ 2698 99~ ~ ~ 26$6 ~ ~-. ~ P ~?67S O _ ~`~ .2668 985 9~0 2s5s R 1 9 7' - 2650 ' 26~7~ 2687 2695 713 2799' Z 2633 2659 2667, _ _ 967 HARVESTER AVE R1 925 2669 2687 2695 915 2679 = z7o7 2707 s9~ BRAND ST ,. __ . ~ ~ _ ,~ _', ~ 1 _ . _~ X7221 27,3A . _i a _? ~ ~ '_~ !_ ~ IJ~ _ . I. 2712 ' ' 26b0 2654 2668 "2690`2694 883 2659 875 s~Rl1e Dwclitn T~id~~~l' ` c~ 9 ) 2669 2677 26$7 2695 851 - 27032747 r Z71$ ~ "725 SEVENTH ST Zoning Map 23 27;4 ~3~3 r r ~ ~ ~_~;-' ~r7b427¢~ 9~26~2~3,6{{ _ ~_ 2$8$ '26422650 ' 658 2672 2676 26'84. 2700 943~~ 935 ; , , ~40 9~2 924 _- , -i 2651 n m z c D m ~ ~~~ ~P 2602 2610 ~ \~~ 2588 i43 2580 '102' 1n25 w 101-7 h018 1017 J p -r i ; i 560'`. ; -- I {552 `~ 2566 1 ~~ r t 1 X110 1 ~ 190 ~ w __ _ ~ . ~ , ~ _i ,~ L ~~ 25550 ' r _ 1 ¢0~ L~~ 1;0(1,1 53~ 995, F- Z J9~6 -'995 O ~ ~ -, g8y, Z ~~88 987- w 98i ~ ''._982 981.`: . 2561 25672573 ``- 2551 2541 7~ ~ ,zso4 .2607 958 9,5.0 9bg 938 9#'1; ~ 9$4 g25 926 E~ ~N M~~N P ~J 9~4`~._ ~ 967 ~ ~__. X950 94~ f9~i2 987; ;984,__ 93'~s • -, Nature Center ('~a~K~ 2634 ~ttdChnl@nt 4 1037 1040 2689 1029 1030', 2681 2697 2703 271.5 2677 119 2675 2671 ~10 2663 , 2655 ~ _ ~ ' ~' 10©3 2651 ~ ~ ~~ 2649 ~~ 708 2712 100 264'1 P~ 2698 68 9~5 P~~ 2 6 ~I ~ 267f ~`~ 2608 985 ~ X2658 97.7; 2'650 2687 263b 2677••• 2709 2713 2€33 2659 2667,.. .,. 967 HARVESTER AVE ~ ~ l_~ _ ~ ' u ~ ~ 2r7~4 270$ 9~026"302~3~ ~-., ~ ~ _, 2088 '~ 126422650 - X658 2672 2676 26$4,; 2700 943 ,, 93'5 -9,,40 932 ILI ~- 924 ~,~-~ ~2GS1 2669 ~~~~6$7 2695 916 910 2641 _ 26T9 2701 2707- 896 BRAND ST --~ ~ 273p 2722) _., ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ 2712 ,, 2600 2654 2668 "2690'-2694 '883 ~"' CS~~jle ~WQ~~IA 75 _,' 'Qesidtrr~iq~ `_ - 1~ ~5 ~i^ _ 2659 .--} 2669 2677 2687 2695 851 ~~ 27032707 2713 2725 SEVENTH ST -~ ~~ h ~ x ~~ '~~ 83'3 ~ D -~ = 831 .4 825 n m z c D m w~E Land Use Map s 24 Attachment 6 ~\ 1 I I 1 I I I 1 1 I I I I I I N I p I a 1 I ~ 1 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ti'' I 1 ~F< I I I ~ 1 -rr~ _ . ~ m i ~~ ~ ~__,. GGZ .-•- G FG 0 Z N W E S ~` PERF:lHaS vr~~r FiAn`r'cSTcR AV'c. 26 I ~~ ~ I w 47 ~ w I S I 4 I c I a s 1 ~ I ~ ~ I = I I I I I I I I 1 f I I I I I I I I 1 I I ORIGINAL SITE PLAN (FOUR-STORY BUILDING) ,_:~+~ ~\ l~ I I' /attachment 7 ~\ , ~ PEP.F:INQS VIEVi _ ~ f ~ \ HARVESTER A4'E. ~ ~ _ e~r _~\ i ~\ r. \ ~ 1 \ 1 1 ~ 1 I i~~ I I 1 I 1/ ~ 1 j I I ' 1 I I 1 I I 1 I I I I I 1 j I I I I 1 I I I I j ~ I I z I ° I j ~ I I j ~ I I I I I I I I I I ~ I I I lou ice, ,~` ~_ 62~---_-~\ ' l I _ ~ . ~~` ~ ~ ~ 1 I ~~ f ~ r ' II ~ 'i ~ v ~ ~ I.-' ~ ~ - . I ~ ~ ~ \\ !~ ~ ~~ ' `1 ~ 1 1 t 1 I , s~ I ~ ~ ~4e / 1 5 iFE-1031A I Oy 1 b ~ ciw. n..-ioz~ls x w+. 1 ~ ~ ~ / r ~ o I j / r I ~~ f ~ ~ 1 1 7/ pip, \ I I j `Y1 \ 9 ~ ~i ~~ g~.~ I I 11 „' \ \rt I S i I ~ ~ ! \ ~ I ~~ ~ r ~ I gym` I ~~~~ _. ~ ~~ ~ u _ ~ ~ m .~ 1 1 ' 8 hao~ ~$ ma an. j ~ fir---~ i~ ~ _ _.. - ozr< ~~ p ~~..~~ yp __==~ _ _'~ __-\ = CHx; LAND - _- _ 'J N W E S a\ ~/ \ 1 I ! I / I I ' I II i I i~ I , 1 1 ~ I I ! I ` I ~ 1 7 1 I I \~I I 1 o2e. I I I ~ I ~ N 1 u1 I '' ~ 1 4 1 iil J 1 ~ \ to I o ~ I ~ \ me. 1 / I ~ I j j I I I I I I 1 I~ ~~ I \~~~/ I11 I 1 II I I 1 ,\ 11 1 II I 11 I 1\ ~\ J~ i\ ~ I~ 1\ I ~~ J f''-' I ~'I I I I ,~~~~~ I ORIGINAL GRADING PLAN (FOUR-STORY BUILDING) 27 attachment 8 F~ 'C ~~- ~~/ ~~\ ~ I~ ~ r t ~~I I 1 v v 1 I i ~~ I I ~ ~~ I I I 1 I I I I I }1 ( $ I I I 1 I I I ' I l 2 I I a I I ? I I u: I I ~ I I I I I I I I I ~ I I ~"'~~ I I I ~; ,. I I ~ I I , I I I I 1 I i I I i I I / I -vt _ ~ ~ ~ u } ~ r~ ~/ /~J \` ~~_- -- t`,~x G -_-~ ^~~-_w_ac_-___ ~ _~ ~ ~ _ ~ PLANS USL• 9t~ Pltntlttq ttn. tttr twrw.rx tt.tc aauot rat[ vaitaor TREES ~ AOI ~.... h..mwnt •J.rtw.r.d Au4.m Bltm M.vr !-t/3' w It PA fitoamw t~dw+~ 'Patm.n' Pee.on Adt 7t-1/2' w s ~ tu. oora.t. •~ti' or..nyt. taw.. 1-t/Y w • tPo W.raw dip..wdtt tt.rM~n Pti Ot4 tt-t/Y w is tat ts.t..Pw ~.-adt w.,,u. tt~r_ ~• ttww.m t-t/i^ w : Pre Hw. 1roM.ttr1 PrdiMM1. traeeop. t-t/t w s save Y.4. 'spna sno: sy'wy sn.. tSoeappt. t-t/Y w s m sttey. t.um.t. +~tt.. n.. u.. t-t/i" w to ttHS wns yw~m e.~~a a.d~ H~. saw r-tr w : ats t+a. v~v~. ~ cadaa. e4. sPr... r~o- w t. Pines ~...~... Hof tm. r-0' w SNItU85 ~ wte trew,wn a~.w.. awwtou~ Htaaw.n Oiv~lwry s O.l -.e : ttrc c...~w..bt.. 'c.~w.sm.' n..n ~trd ttw.~. s or_ ttit to off Pnr.~w..vdndW. twwie' otowo NYMak s tK P.t 2 aH Htd'vnW. orb.r..nn. 'AnnabA.' AwwOt4 Xy6a~tMO ! ~ ht s PPL stag. ~• Aatt. P.tn.' PratN P.ul. u.o s tk nt sa nu tt.e.r a..e.yi dtw~.a... ~r ta....r evs..r : or. ttit 6 FS Ill.w aan.tl.o 'tre-Iw' Crrlw Frgent Swnx ] Od. M e tvs snt..o pPdt~ 1nu. PrYio.w' Ultl. Mnar ~ : o.t -ot e aI5 SbY.w a lumdA. 'CdOn..oC Oalbnana 3P-.a 2 Cd M m Sf'iJ .FwlP.ru. a1Nan.4 Sw fb..n' 7.a 6.tn .Nnt~ S Cd. Pot 10 SJ ,awtynw .d~Yw 'Sos~AO' saenA..two. s Cd. Pot s n t..,. , w.a. '1'wwtanf Te.ntsn rwr s od. Pot s m nwp .odatnWO. 'idw~ r«tar wa.dra w. tut. s o.l Pat is H tla.b 'aM Wpul.' Ate.-~ttwM~.~. tl..b 2 Cd. -ot ~~ I r I / I I y ~ I I I t \ I I ll I I ,~ , ~ 1 I ~ ~~~ I I I I ~, ~ I w to I ~ L•: I s ~ I ~ I \ ~ i o ~ I 3: `~ I I I ~ I I I I I I i I I II ~ I' \~~~/ I ~ I I II f 1 I ,1 I II I II I ~ ~~ ~ ~..~ \ N I ~~,~,~ N W E S ORIGINAL LANDSCAPE PLAN 28 ~ (FOUR-STORY BUIDLING) t `~~ _ ~`---_ ~ ~_PERF:IFIQS YIEW i :~ Attachment 9 EAST ~:.o ~:,o NORTH i:1o WEST 1:10 ORIGINAL BUILDING ELEVATIONS 2g (FOUR-STORY BUILDING) -t S a ~}arves~~~ Ave. 30 Attachment 10 Q' v c v L REVISED SITE PLAN (THREE-STORY BUILDING) Summerhill - Maplewood Attachment 11 ARCHITECTURAL SHINGLES SCREEN PORCHES EAST NORTH WEST REVISED BUILDING ELEVATIONS 31 (THREE-STORY BUILDING) Attachment 12 i _ _j ~, ~ - ~ ~~~ z ' -- --' o ___, Q~ 973 ~ 3 ~ ~~Q~ P c~ ~..J __ ---- _ 2601 '--"-"" r I _._. __._. __. ~ ~ -- i ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ - ~ 2633 2585 `_-' _~ li s 26©7_ _~ ~ ~j ~ 1 ~~ 3 ~_ HARVESTER AVE N w~E Driveway Map Attachment 13 33 ~~`~b ~~ ~3 ~ ~1. 5~~ov ~~ . ~.. COMPARISON CROSS SECTION si~~~ -~~,M~~Y ~EVE.wP ~~~- Attachment 14 Memo Ta Shann Finwall Prone Ann Hutchinson CC: Nature Center Staff Da~ee 8!9/2004 Ree Proposed Summefiill of Maplewood Development Shann, here are our comments and concerns regarding the proposed devebpment on the Transfiguration property adjacent to the Maplewood Nature Center. Our first choice would be to have someone use the existing building; and landscape to reduce the impervious surfaces( parking lot). Second choice, would be to see the area use as single family housing as it is currently zoned-why not small one -two story starter homes for either seniors or singles. Third choice would be this collective housing but only at two or at most three stories high. I think that four stories is too high for the neighbofiood. Three would be better -but not in the c-shape section they propose -keep it to the existing shape to reduce impervious surfaces. Things we like about the plan: Returning the parking lot to green space. The rock construction entrance (on erosion control plan). Using their own land to take care of the storm water run off -especially in the form of rain gardens using Minnesota native plants. (This shoukl be designated as such on the landscaping plan-see comment 13 bekyw.) Concerns about the plan: 1. The building is too high. However, it would be better to retain the existing shape rather than create more impervious surfaces for water to run off. Can the building be three stories high and retain its shape or something close to iY? 2. The underground parking entrance we believe would better protect the nature center if it were on the north side rather than the south side. This would also protect the view for residents looking to the nature center. 3. It would be helpful to have the engineers do a volume calculation of the water that will come off the site down Ferndale. We already have a problem with excess water flowing down the hillside on the street to the raingarden, then washing over and eroding the trails. We want insurance that this problem will not be exacerbated by the partcing lot- another reason to move the parking krt to the north. Another option would be to move the whole building including the drive to the north several feet. NATURE CENTER REVIEW (BASED ON THE ORIGINAL 34 FOUR-STORY BUILDING SUBMITTAL) 4. The Landscaping plan shows a pipe draining storm water from the parking lot grate to the nature center hillside. This is completely unacceptable. We suggest the runoff from the grate be directed to a rain garden on the developments own property, not the nature center's property. It would be even better if this driveway were not so close to the nature center property line. 5. I have questions about Michael lane -has it been formally vacated by the city? If so how much does the nature center retain, and how much does the development retain? We may need to do a more accurate survey of the property line. The fence is not actually on the property line - I believe the city owns several feet on the north side of the fence. This needs to be determined. 6. Where exactly are the storm water down spouts for the building and where is that water being directed? This should tie noted on the plan. Hopefully all are being directed into grass, or vegetated areas, not pavement or the nature center. Would the development consider the use of rain barrels or cistern? 7. Although the legends indicate that there are tree lines none are actually shown on the plans. Please show them. We also suggest a tree locate along our fence line to delineate existing mature trees. How will the company protect the trees during construction? How will digging for underground parking affect the trees? This is another reason to move the drive farther from the property line; preferably to the north east comer of the lot. These tines are crucial to aesthetically buffer the proposed structure. 8. It would be wonderful if we could extend the Oak forest a few feet onto the property as part of the landscaping plan. This would allow extra buffering of the building from the view of folks on the opposite side of the pond. And would also be extra protection incase any of the existing trees would succumb to disease or construction damage. The trees should be tall trees like red or white oak or basswood. 9. Will the existing parking lot be replaced? Can all the new construction be done with out affecting the fence or spilling over onto nature center properly? The current erosion control plan shows the fence line being disturbed due to the pipe from the driveway grate. We would prefer no disturbance of the nature center property. 10. Consider offering an alternative to open decks on the apartments facing the nature center. The nature center allows little or no control of mosquitoes. Screen porches might be a good option. 11. Currently there exists an old storm water drainage system from the school to the nature center hillside (similar to the one proposed) Can the city arrange some kind of clean up of the old cement culvert, and officially close up that pipe? City engineers have seen that area. 12. We ask that barberry be eliminated from the landscaping plan. I believe Ginny sent their landscaper a list of invasive species not to use, but am not sure if that was on the list. Consider adding a Native Prairie Butterfly garcien to the plan. 13. We hope that the storm water ponds will be planted as rain gardens, or with deep rooted native plants, as this will frt in better with the neighborhood, and provide better infiltration. The nature enter will be happy to help plant the gardens with school children as part of our educational storm water program. I hope this helps, and please call should you or anyone have any questions! ANN • Page 2 35 Attachrent 15 Engineering Plan Review PROJECT: Summerbill of Maplewood PROJECT NO: REVIEWED BY: Erin Laberee, Maplewood Engineering Department DATE: August 6, 2004 Nichols Financial Development and Transfiguration Church are proposing to develop 935 Ferndale into a senior building with 52 units and 61 underground parking stalls. The Maplewood Nature Center is located directly south of the proposed development. Currently, there is no storm sewer or ponding on site and a majority of the site is impervious surface (parking lot and buildings). The developer is proposing to construct a pond to treat runoff from the site. The following issues shall be addressed: Drainage 1. Runoff from a portion of the driveway is proposed to outlet into the nature center, via storm sewer. There is an existing erosion problem on the north slope of the nature center property. The engineer shall revise the plans to avoid direct discharge of storm water runoff into the nature center property. No pipe outlet will be permitted on Nature Center property. 2. The proposed pond outlet is shown to connect into an existing manhole at the corner of Glendon Street and Harvester Ave. The proposed storm sewer should connect into the existing catch basin on Glendon St. to eliminate disruption of the street. 3. The drainage calculations show that the post development runoff rate and the volume of runoff discharged from the site are greater than predevelopment conditions. The engineer must design the storage and treatment facilities to reduce the runoff rate and the volume of runoff discharged to be less than the predevelopment conditions for the 10-year and 100-year storm events. Infiltration basins or other best management practices are recommended to meet this requirement. If additional Best Management Practices are not used and the NURP pond remains the only treatment for storm water runoff, it must be designed to meet NURP standards. The pond must include a 10-foot safety bench around the entire pond. The pond must meet NURP removal rate requirements. The NURP pond must remove 80% of the total suspended solids and 60% of the total phosphorus. 4. The engineer shall provide a detail for the pond outlet. CITY ENGINEERING REVIEW (BASED ON THE ORIGINAL 36 FOUR-STORY BUILDING SUBMITTAL) 5. An emergency overflow swale shall be constructed. The overflow swale shall be lined with a permanent soil stabilization blanket, (Enkamat, NAG C350 or equal). Indicate emergency overflow elevations on the drawing. 6. Note the NWL and HWL on the plans. Grading The developer must contain the grading within the property limits. There shall be no grading allowed on the Maplewood Nature Center property. 2. The engineer shall note the top and bottom elevations of the proposed retaining walls. A building permit will be required for the proposed retaining wall greater than four feet high. A plan and a specific soil stabilization detail for the wall design will be required as part of the building permit. Landscaping 1. The engineer shall specify a native seed mix and planting plan to be used around the pond. Misc 1. The developer shall provide sidewalk connections from the building to the proposed sidewalk along Glendon St. and Harvester Avenue. 2. The applicant shall submit plans to Ramsey Washington Metro Watershed District for their review and approval. A NPDES construction permit will also be required from the MPCA. 37 Attachment 16 Project Review Comments Date: August 4, 2004 From: Butch Gervais, Fire Marshal Project: Sr. Apartment Complex (935 Ferndale) Building: Apartment Planner: Shann Finwall Comments: 1. Monitoring all parts of the fire protection system and fire alarm system will be required 2. Maintain 20 foot emergency access clearance to the building for emergency vehicles 3. Installation of fire protection system (NFPA 13) 4. Installation of fire alarm system (NFPA 72) 5. Location of fire protection needs to be accessible and clearly marked 6. Standpipes for fire department use only placed in stairwells from garage to top floor 7. Fire Department lockbox required to be mounted on the building the form for the lockbox can be obtained from the Fire Marshal Any questions or concerns please contact me. Butch Gervais, Fire Marshal City of Maplewood (651)-249-2804 FIRE MARSHALL REVIEW (BASED ON THE ORIGINAL 38 FOUR-STORY BUILDING SUBMITTAL) Attachment 17 Memo Date: July 30, 2004 To: Shane Finwall, Assoc. Planner From: David Fisher, Building Official Re: Transfiguration Church, 935 Ferndale Street An architect will be required to provide a detailed code analysis to verify the type of construction, occupant load, exit width, bathroom counts and other information required by code. The building will be required to be 100 percent in compliance with the 2000 IBC and the Minnesota State Building Code. This building will be required to be 100 percent in compliance with Minnesota State Building Code 1341 Accessibility. Provide Fire Department access around building. Van accessible parking may be required in the under ground parking. The building is required to be sprinklered per NFPA 13 and to have a fire alarm system per NFPA 72. BUILDING OFFICIAL REVIEW (BASED ON THE ORIGINAL 39 FOUR-STORY BUILDING SUBMITTAL) Page 1 of 1 Shann Finwall Attachment 18 From: It Figures of Maplewood, Inc. [itfiguresofmaplewood@worldnet.att.net] Sent: Monday, August 02, 2004 11:32 AM To: Shann Finwall Subject: Transfiguration School Comments Hello I have read through the information that you sent regarding a senior coop being built in our neighborhood. First and foremost, I do not object to the Senior coop. I do not believe that this building will have any negative effects on us financially. If we can achieve no tax increases as a result along with a higher value home due to the new construction, then I would welcome this coop. However, putting financial values aside, I don't necessarily want to look at a 4 story building in my neighborhood. I do not want any type of apartment, coop, 4-plexes, condos or any of that. I would rather have the developer purchase the lot and sub-divide it and put new homes on it instead. I feel the neighborhood would be a great place for new homes. I would think that this type of use for the lot would also increase the values on our homes. Another alternative would be for the city to purchase the lot and create a park for our children to play at. Currently, this is where they go to play. Our children would not have a neighborhood park if the one at Transfiguration is torn down. We do not allow our children to cross the busy Stillwater or McKnight to get to the parks across the way and as the nature center is a wonderful, peaceful, place to visit. It is not a place for our children to play. I understand an undertaking like this is probably not financially possible and it would certainly create more assessments. Before the senior coop is approved, I would hope that some alternatives such as these were looked at for a park or a few more homes on the lot would more asthetically pleasing than a 4 story building. Abigail Bour 957 Edith Street Maplewood, MN 55119 (651) 739-1415 FREE Emoticons for your email! Click Here! 1~ ~ , ' ~ J 6r ~. 8/3/2004 NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS (BASED ON THE ORIGINAL 40 FOUR-STORY BUILDING SUBMITTAL) Dear Shann, 03 August, 2004 My name is Chris Reeves, my wife Tina and I live at 2654 Brand Street along with our four children ages 11, 9, 7, and 3. I would like to give you a quick history of myself. I grew up at 2566 Stillwater Road, attended Transfiguration School as a child in the same classes as City Council member Jackie Monahan-Junek and currently live only feet away from this proposed project. As you can understand, I along with my family love this neighborhood and the Nature Center which our property abuts. My entire life of 42 years has been spent within a one block radius of Transfiguration School. This will be a big change for all involved and implore you and all others with the Community Design Review Board will take our opinions and/or suggestions seriously as we in the neighborhood will have to continue living with the decisions that are made, the developers will have moved on to the next project. In reading the Proposed Development Summary there are a few points I would like clarified. I quote: 1) "finding a buyer who is willing to pay a reasonable price for the parcel" What do we mean by reasonable. Relative to what, the size of the project? 2) "providing a benefit to the community" "provide great value to this neighborhood and the City as a whole." Please quantify these statements, because I also believe 8-10 single family homes qualify just as well. The concept as a whole we feel is a sound and good use for the property with some reservations. It is much better than Multi-Family low income alternatives. We understand the existing school, convent, and parking lot can not be razed and cost effectively build only 8 single family homes. That said, the scale of the project seems excessive. A four story complex is much too much. We would not be in favor of approval of the conditional use permit. Although the rezoning from R-1 to Multi-Family is acceptable. There are also concerns related to the claims that a 52 unit housing complex with support staff will have LESS TRAFFIC than an underutilized school which operates only nine months per year. I'm sorry but B.S. When planning for 109 parking spaces we find it hard to compare to an Elementary school with maybe a dozen teachers who drive, bus service for most students, some 41 parents driving, and visitors. Let us compare, 52units- not every resident will drive, but most will, some may have more than one car (husband, wife), service and support staff, deliveries and visitors. Our main concern revolve around these traffic claims, the impact on the Nature Center water quality and the traffic on Brand Street. Currently the school traffic via Harvester Avenue which was built with curb and gutter, striped shoulders for pedestrians and bicyclists, and a stop light at Century Avenue. Harvester is a main artery meant to handle traffic volume and dispersal. SAFETY The design plan shows the entrance for the entire facility on Ferndale street. This means all traffic coming and going to the south and east will be utilizing Brand Street which is not as safe as Harvester Avenue. Ferndale turns into Brand Street at a 90 degree angle at the bottom of a hill, the corner is posted at 15 MPH, but many have gone through the corner, most at night, many in icy conditions, and one young girl last year actually smashed through the fence of the Nature Center. Currently only school busses with pick-ups on Brand Street use Brand Street. If the schools entrance was on Ferndale as the Summerhill proposal is we are sure traffic patterns would be totally different. ENVI~tONMENTAL Ferndale and Brand Streets were reconstructed about four years ago without curb and gutter, preferring the rain water gardens to handle runoff. The unplanned increase in traffic to this corridor will have adverse affects to the water quality of the Nature Center that is the focus of the neighborhood. We all know most vehicles leak fluids of some sort, be it oil, antifreeze, and other toxic liquids that will eventually end up in the rainwater gardens. Our proposed solutions for both safety and environmental issues would be as follows. Change the vehicle entrance for the parking garage to the north side, the same as the current use for the school. The underground parking would enter from north and the surface parking could be moved to the northeast corner of the property with the southeast corner held for reserve surface use. We know that Harvester was built as an arterial road with a wider right of way, curb and gutter, and is much safer to move traffic. At the west end of Harvester Avenue at Sterling Street the city constructed a large holding/filtering pond designed specifically to take road runoff and deal with the volume that curb and gutter can generate. The rainwater gazdens do the same thing only on a smaller scale, but the Sterling/Harvester pond is perfectly suited to take the excess pollutants. 42 We are attaching revised site plans so you, the Planning Commission, and the Community Design Review Board can visualize our suggestions. We are looking forward to hearing from you and discussing this further. Sincerely, - ----_._ Chris an Tina Reeves 2654 Brand Street Maplewood, MN 55119 Chris Home: 651-738-2503 tit 2 P.M. Work: 651-490-4470 3 P.M. til 11 P.M. 43 i ~\ t 1 I I I 1 I 1 I I I f I 1 1 I I I I I I V I 7,6 I 1 S I F...~ /' ~~ :~ V~ N W E S `~` PERF;INQS YIEW ~ HARYESTER AYE. ~\ 1 I i 1 I I 1 1 t o~ F t W ~'~ t J W t '~ I W x I a W I _a y t S t t I 1 t I t I I t 1 1 I I I I I I I t 1 I t Site Plan ~4 P2oPo~ ~~ ~\` PERT;1k75 VIE , HAFVESTER AYE. ~\ 1 I I 1 I 1 v 7;c T <? s,~ ~~~ 'Vn N w E s 7~ a 'Uy R~~~S~,~ 1 I I 1 I I 1 I I 1 I 1 .,l \i I I 1 I I 1 I I I I I I I 1 I I I I ~ a ~ 1 w N W 1 4 .3 1 ~ 1 J ~ I a y 1 Q ti 1 S I I I I I I I 1 1 I I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I I Site Plan 45 Page 1 of 1 Shaun Finwall From: J. Hruby (jhruby@fredcomm.com] Sent: Wednesday, August 04, 2004 9:40 PM To: Shaun Finwall Subject: Proposed Development Comments - 935 Ferndale Street Ms. Finwall, I would like to voice my concerns about the proposed development at 935 Ferndale Street in Maplewood. My wife Zoe and I own a house just down the block at 2659 Harvester Avenue. Specifically, our concems are: • Height of the proposed building - A four-story building is massively out of scale with the rest of the neighborhood. There is good reason for the three-story limit in the current planning restrictions-to keep buildings to a scale that is reasonable for the existing neighborhood. This concern is amplified by the fact that this four-story dwelling would sit on a hill above the Maplewood Nature Reserve. In my view, the height of this proposed building will impose on the peace of the Nature Reserve. • Number of units -Again, 52 units are simply out of scale with the current neighborhood. . Traffic - I do not agree that the proposed development will result in "less traffic than the property's current use as a school." Adding 50-80 cars to the neighborhood will result in a significant increase in traffic. Currently there is effectively no traffic for the four months of the year that the school is in recess. The traffic when school is in session amounts to only 10-15 cars per day on the average day, plus a few bus drop-offs per day. Obviously, traffic would increase dramatically were the restrictions to be lifted for this project. Only five years ago, the City of Maplewood closed the west end of Harvester Avenue with a cul-de-sac to solve the exact traffic problem that this large proposed development would now re-introduce to the neighborhood. As you know, the residents were assessed for the cost of this project and many of us were happy to pay because of the promise of calming what had become a significant traffic problem. Overall, I think there are positive aspects to this proposed development. It would supply housing to an important population. I simply think the scale of the development needs to be reduced to fit within the current zoning restrictions regarding height and the number of units needs to be lowered to reduce traffic congestion. Thank you for the opportunity to voice my concerns. Jason Hruby J.M. and Zoe Hruby 2659 Harvester Avenue Maplewood, MN 55119 Home: 651-578-0649 Mobile: 651-387-1233 8/5/2004 46 August 5, 2004 Dear Ms. Finwall, We received your information regarding the Transfiguration School proposed development and have significant concerns with the proposed project. We live at 940 Ferndale Street N. We are directly across from the proposed entrance to the project so this project has significant impact on our home and property. We have the following reservations related to the proposed development. 1. We live in a neighborhood of single family homes. The homes surrounding the project azea are all one or two story homes. In the neighborhood there is nothing over two stories. A four story fifty plus foot high building on that site is completely out of chazacter with the surrounding neighborhood. 2. A four story building directly across the street with 25 balconies facing our home will significantly decrease our privacy not only in our front yard and our living room, dining room, and bedroom windows but because of its very height will also intrude on our privacy in the back yazd. It will also block the afternoon sunshine that we value in the winter months and will have a negative impact on recent landscape projects that we have installed. 3. The front entrance is directly across from our home. All traffic into and out of the complex will pass by our home and driveway. Pazking on the property will be facing our living and bedroom windows with headlights shining in our windows after dark. When improvements were made to Ferndale Street we were told that curb and gutter were unnecessary on our streets because the traffic on Ferndale Street did not warrant curb and gutter and it was expensive. I believe with 52 units and a potential for 75 to 100 new individuals in that development that there will be a significant increase in the motor vehicle and emergency services vehicles in front of my home throughout the day and night. Harvester Avenue has curb and gutter and was designed to be the main thoroughfaze connecting the neighborhood to major arteries. It would seem that the main entrance to the proposed development and the pazking should also be on Harvester Avenue. 4. The statement in your enclosed literature proposed that there would actually be a decrease in traffic near the existing property related to the motor vehicle traffic from the school. I would counter that fallacious azgument with the fact that the traffic for the school occurs within the 15 minutes before and after the start and dismissal of school classes. There is rarely evening or nighttime traffic, no weekend, traffic, and no traffic during the summer months when school is not in session. There is also no emergency services traffic, no one coming or going in the middle of the night as there would likely be with the senior housing. With the main entrance directly across from our home that is another issue with the peace, serenity, and privacy that we have enjoyed in this single family neighborhood for 29 years. 5. We purchased a home in this neighborhood 29 years ago because it was a neighborhood that was zoned single family residence. It was close to neighborhood schools and work. We have raised our children, paid taxes and stayed here because we have not found other residences in second tier suburbs that afforded the convenience, 47 privacy and livability that has existed for us in this Maplewood neighborhood. We feel that this project threatens that peace, privacy, and livability in our neighborhood. 6. We have significant concerns related to our property value should the proposed development be approved. We also have concerns related to assessments that may need to be done to up grade the existing streets to accommodate the traffic related to the development and the increase in property taxes that may ensue. 7. We have concerns related to the environmental impact that the size of this development will have on the Maplewood Nature Center. With the parking entrance so close to the Nature Center we have concerns with the run-off of petroleum products and exhaust from the cars in the development. It appears that one of the rainwater outlets on the south side of the building near the parking entrance goes directly into the Nature Center. 8. The overwhelming neighborhood sentiment when we canvassed our immediate neighborhood was not in favor of this proposed development in its present form. (We will have a copy of that petition available at the next meeting regarding this proposal. ) 9. According to the city web site, Maplewood has 956 senior housing units in the city of Maplewood. There are two senior housing facilities within 6 blocks of the present proposed development. We have nothing against senior housing. I do believe this project would have merit in Maplewood but not at this site in the size and scope described in the proposal related to Transfiguration's property size and our neighborhood. In closing, we ask you to sit down in your living room tonight, look out your window and imagine a four story building with 25 balconies looking back at you and then tell me that this is right for our neighborhood! We urge you to deny the present proposal because it is too big for the proposed site, does not fit the character or tenor of the established neighborhood, overall negative neighborhood sentiment, and issues related to privacy and traffic. Sincerely, ~~~ Janel & John Heroff 940 Ferndale Street N Maplewood, MN 55119 48 Message Page 1 of 2 ~.s., Shann Finwall From: Mckenzie, Mark [Mark.Mckenzie@gwest.com] Sent: Thursday, August 05, 2004 11:11 AM To: Shann Finwall Subject: proposed project on Harvester ave Good morning Shann, I wanted to share my thoughts, and those of my neighbors, about the proposed project on Harvester Ave. Unfortunately all of the information I have seen about this project has been provided by my neighbors as I have not received any notices or otherwise in my mail. As I understand it the proposed project would include: • removing the current school and buildings owned by Transfiguration church. • modifying the current site to accommodate multi family /high density housing • building a new structure including 1 level for parking and 4 levels for residences . creating residence for 50+ new housing units My concerns are about the impact of these changes to the neighborhood (traffic, noise, "style", traditions) and the size of the structure and it's impact on the views from the existing residences. As I review the neighborhood, for at least several blocks, the only structure that would be at a similar height would be the water tower at the Beaver Lake Elementary School site. If t am missing any other 4+ story buildings please let me know. As I see it there are a few 2 story structures within a few miles, and one at 2.5 stories, but that's about it. would certainly enjoy an opportunity to better understand the proposed project. I am concerned that the proposal has become this mature without my neighbors and myself having heard about it. While I understand that the Church and the developers are looking for the greatest return on investment, and the city would be able to add 50+ more tax payers to the current base, I think the project I have heard about is just too large for this neighborhood. If the area is to be developed as high density housing I think it would be appropriate to make the project fit it's surroundings. would not be in favor of any project that would place the tallest building in the area in the middle of an established residential neighborhood. Please reply or call me so that I can gain a better understanding of the proposal and where it is in iYs decision making process. As I understand, there are variances required to proceed with this project, as proposed. My neighbors and I will want to be involved in those discussions. Thanks for listening, Mark McKenzie 2676 Harvester Ave 651-739-8264 Mark McKenzie Senior Account Executive 8/5/2004 49 Page 1 of 1 Shann Finwall From: Jesse Sampair [jsampair@sampaircos.com] Sent: Monday, August 16, 2004 4:14 PM To: Marvin Koppen; Robert Cardinal; Kathleen Juenemann; Jackie Monahan-Junek; Will Rossbach Subject: Transfiguration Development Thank you and/or the city staff for mailing out information to neighbors regarding the proposed multi-family redevelopment of the Transfiguration school site. The developers appear to have a first class track record, and the general concept would be a welcome land use change in our neighborhood. However, I oppose the plan in its current format for the following reasons: 1) Four stories is too tall. One of the primary purposes of zoning districts and land use classifications is to buffer land use accordingly. I believe that is specifically why the proposed rezoning class (before variances) calls for athree-story maximum height and lower unit density than the proposed project. A four-story multi-family building-which would be one of the tallest buildings in Maplewood-that is plopped in the middle of 1 to 2-story single family neighborhood, and which exceeds density standards, is not buffering land use. 2) I find the proposed development very inconsistent with existing city planning. How can the city take the environmental high road with the adjacent nature park and demand that park visitor's can not even walk their dog in the park (presumably under the guise of somehow not wanting to upset nature), but then in the same breath approve afour-story development that exceeds the city's own density standards on the adjacent parcel. This point gets back to the lack of buffer issue. I suggest the developers scale back the development to three-stories, which would also bring the unit density down to a level within city zoning standards, and make the project more compatible with neighboring property uses. Therefore, I implore you to VOTE NO for the project in its current form. Besse Sampair 2658 Midvale Place E Maplewood, MN 55119 651-735-1343 50 8/16/2004 August 4, 2004 Jce and Mary Erickson 932 Ferndale Street North Maplewood; MN 55119 City of Maplewood Attn: Shaun Finwall Office of Community Development 1830 County Road B East Maplewood, MN 55109 RE: Neighborhood Survey -Transfiguration School, 935 Ferndale Street We just received the survey sent out from your office regarding the proposed four-story building to replace Transfiguration School. As a resident of this neighborhood, we have many concerns regarding this extreme change to our neighborhood. We aze very compelled to express our dismay and objections to this project. As stated in the survey all residents within 500 feet of the school had been sent written notice of the meeting that was held on June 17, 2004. This was not the case for us, as we did not receive any notification via the U.S. Mail and I believe that we aze within the 500 as we are directly right across the street. Had we received this notice, we would have been in attendance to this meeting to voice our concerns and our strong objections to this four-story building in our neighborhood. We have been in this neighborhood for 8 years and one of the main reason to purchase our house was we were told about the "inability" for any new construction at the school would not be taking place. We am sure that the church and its leadership aze very excited to be able to sell this land and have this four-story building put up, but they will not have to look out their windows and -see a parking lot and this four-story building each and every day. This is only a profit for the church and its members. The amount of traffic will not decrease; our streets during the summer months are exceptionally quiet and aze less traveled when school is not in session. With the "senior" building across the street, I believe we will see much more traffic along with many, many more emergency vehicles to contend with. It's a minimum of 55 vehicles for this building and that would not betaking irno account any visitors to the building. This would be a yeaz round problem, not seasonal as it is right now. Some of our main concerns are that we see a loss of the nature center; we get to look at this four- story building daily and not to mention how this building will block sunlight. Addition of another road or re-construction of Michael Lane at the "square" corner of Ferndale and Brand Streets will only cause accidents and/or vehicles to get stuck in the wintertime. This is a very poorly constructed corner, cars do not stay to their respective side of the road now, and what will this new road also create? How many vehicles will need to turn around, need assistance to get unstuck, or how many accidents do we need to contend with? 51 Page 2 August 4, 2004 Neighborhood Survey -Transfiguration School, 935 Ferndale Street They also believe that this building will free up single family dwelling, well there aze many young families in the neighborhood now, and with the increase of property taxes and now afour- story building right out your window, who would want to purchase a dwelling in this neighborhood? Most homes in our neighborhood aze at least 50 years old, yet maintained very well; we will not be able to sell the house for close to market value with this "eye sore" in the neighborhood We have already been through the construction of the streetlcurbing etc that was to say the least a "nightmare". Our streets were left in disarray many times during that construction, dirt not graded, mounds of dirt to try to maneuver around or through, sometimes not access to Ferndale either from Brand or Harvester. No parking on the streets, per city ordinance, yet attempting to get into your own driveway was unattainable some days. Now again, we will have to live and go azound another big construction project that will not better us by auy means. Does this project take in two counties? We believe that Century Avenue is the dividing line for Ramsey and Washington Counties; the enclosed map does not show the church on the Washington County side, as we believe that the church is in Washington County. How will this affect us? This is a Residential zone; why not keep it that way? Instead of putting up some ridiculous four-story building, put in some single family dwelling equivalent to the surrounding dwellings? We have over the years tried to better our residence both inside and outside for our benefit as well as our neighbors, and for re-sale had we made the choice to sell, now if we made that choice, we have to contend with this project and more than likely lose money on the sale. Who compensates us for our monetary loss? We cannot express how much we aze against this proposed project enough and still feel that we have not been kept apprised of all activities. This is a lose, lose situation for all people in our neighborhood, and it is very unjust that we have to pay the price for someone else's choice and for the church to profit from this and jump to another county, they aze off Scott-free from the mess they leave behind This project does not belong in my front yard or my neighborhood Strongly Opposed, ,7ve anQSX3fary ~'src~ron 52 Regarding the proposed development of 935 Ferndale St. North: My name is Dan Zschokke and I live at 924 Ferndale St. North, directly across from the proposed developmento. Firs d ~ whatever like to say that I am all for an owner of any pr perty they would like on their land. I think if the owners wanted to put another school on the property or develop the property as single family dwelling it would be fine. The rezoning of the property, however, is upsetting to me and to many others in our neighborhood. We moved into this neighborhood with a school across the street. If there was a four story apartment building across the street, we would have looked elsewhere. This attitude makes us believe that our property values would go down as a result of this building going up. My family would definitely be moving as a result and not getting the equity out of our house that we might have. I think there are many families in this community and neighborhood that are in the same situation as we are. Please do not rezone this property to allow for a building of this size and purpose. Thank you for your tune. ~e~~e ~~ 2~ ~~ '~ECE~~EC AUK 1 0 2004 53 Attachment 19 'f'o: lbfaplewot~d City C'o~rneil i~iupi~`v`dvvd Diur'ulilib olio c~..vliul~ iiiifi'iii$;iv~i We the undersigned feel that the proposed se«ior cooperative devetop~~~e~~t pr ~~~t of tli~ l~Tir,~;nle TI~~~Pin~ mint (~'nrnnratinn an~ tHP TranU~~`~rat;nn catholic Church un the property bordered by Ferndale Street, Harvester .Avenue, ~'ilendon Street, and the l~aplewaod Nature tenter does- nat. fit the ~harar_,tPr of the nPiDhhnrh~ncl. ThP nrnnncPrl ~iPVPlnnn~Pni is a fn~}r ct~ry #~fty unit senior woperdtive housing buiidu~g. The sulTOUnding con~l~Yiu~ity is a neighborhood of single family homes of no more than two stories.. W e are concerned about the effect of the development on property values in the neighhonc~x~d a~3d tl~e et~vironn~e~~tal injpact on tl~e 3~laple~vt~c~d ~+Tature ~~i1tti°.i, Ti l'ii }rrvj~cr ill iw pr~~~li+{. iv1•iu 1'x'111 Slgiliii.Ciulii~' u fruit the uui C vil Ferndale and Brand Streets and Harvester Avenue. A four story building will si'gnif~icantly decreasse tl~e privacy of the existing homes in t~~oarea There apre ulreC~i~y ~'\~In ~PT-1nT' H/iliiS~i~!b +r taavi~i~ii aPiu i7~7it~71'~ u ui~i bivv': ui•vu va ±:iv pi~vp vciLu development. We the undersigned urge you to deny this present proposal and limit the .height of any development on .that sire to no .more than the present nPiahbcarh~c) ctanclard ~f twn ctnriPC. Date Signed-O'T~25120©4 IVa<iie Siallatuxe r-, Address Ylione 1. C ~~ ~ i~~sr~ 2. ~~~ n ~e s.~~~~~ 6. ~ ~CE< f 7. ~OSePhitie /,ec~~vzo LCD s'/ ~lLra'`~ 1) ~ ~7~'3~3y b S I -?l~f -g7lo lv drl 73g-Z~ti~ ~~~ a ~~~ ~~~~~1 ~T ~.~Y- 8~9 ~ ~~ ~~ ~3f~/~ ~-~~r ~~ NEIGHBORHOOD PET1TlON (SUBMITTED AT THE 8/16/04 54 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING -BASED ON A FOUR-STORY BUILDING) ~' 3 Z I'~ ~~~ /~.st~ G's~.sa/ v 9; J To: Maplewood City Council Maplewood Planning and Zoning Commission We the undersigned feel that the proposed senior cooperative development project of the Nichols Development Corporation and the Transfiguration Catholic Church on the property bordered by Ferndale Street, Harvester Avenue, Glendon Street, and the Maplewood Nature Center does not fit the character of the neighborhood. The proposed development is a four story fifty unit senior cooperative housing building. The surrounding community is a neighborhood of single family homes of no more than two stories. We are concerned about the effect of the development on property values in the neighborhood and the environmental impact on the Maplewood Nature Center. The project in its present form will significantly impact the traffic on Ferndale and Brand Streets and Harvester Avenue. A four story building will significantly decrease the privacy of the existing homes in the area. There are already two Senior Housing facilities within a six block area of the proposed development. We the undersigned urge you to deny this present proposal and limit the height of any development on that site to no more than the present neighborhood standard of two stories. Date Name iature Address Phone l .~jU ~ ,D~S,~' s~f~~,t~1D ~~ *~~.~- ~~~~.~~- ~ ~ y38_a ~ b'l ~3 ~r ~~, ~.70 d ~`~~s ~~ l~L 1D ~-- o ~~-o Z. ~ ~" ~ . ~` / 9S3 G~T'~~~ ~~~ 3st~'~77~ 3. l~ ~~N ~+~5-u~ ~ ~ 73~ Y~ ~ 4.8/03 ~~~~ ~oRey '~'~~ ~,~.r- G3~d 4 ~~rrc~~~G~'ci~ _ yss ~L f~ r ~ ~~-~~ 5~~~~ a~~3 ~ ~~ ~iT~^~ o~~ 7.~ y ~s S ~~ ~L l s ~~f~C 7. ` 8.~/~ ~(,~~ (~iZ11i ~ tST~~tJ !~cvL~ -z~77 ~~~vEs~~P~ / ~ 739-I38 9.~by ~~~~ ~ ~ ~~~-~~-~ 55 Y• To: Maplewood City Council Maplewood Planning and Zoning Commission We the undersigned feel that the proposed senior cooperative development project of the Nichols Development Corporation and the Transfiguration Catholic Church on the property bordered by Ferndale Street, Harvester Avenue, Glendon Street, and the Maplewood Nature Center does not fit the character of the neighborhood. The proposed development is a four story fifty unit senior cooperative housing building. The surrounding community is a neighborhood of single family homes of no more than two stories. We are concerned about the effect of the development on property values in the neighborhood and the environmental impact on the Maplewood Nature: Center. The project in its present form will significantly impact the traffic on Ferndale and Brand Streets and Harvester Avenue. A four story building will significantly decrease the privacy of the existing homes in the area. There are already two Senior Housing facilities within a six block area of the proposed development. We the undersigned urge you to deny this present proposal and limit the height of any development on that site to no more than the present neighborhood standard of two stories. ~.a _ p y Date Name Sign ure Address Phone 1. ~ ~ ~-`f ~-~~1e ~sl 73S -SS~S 2. \, ~ ~ Z.S~~~~-. ~~ ~ ~ `t ~cr~,..~•-1-e. 7 3 S - 5 S 5s ~_ ~( aJ~~~Gnc~ ST ~- 3. `~C Ile ~~~C~S~~ `~c>-e.~ ~ . - 9 ,~n~ ~ ~ia~~es ~ f c/~-~/l~-2~ /.30 ~ v y U 5.~r1~~ r,0.., l~.~Qc-d %~<,v~-~-`'` ~.~ 6. ~, s. ~ ~ KC (~~+V2 d~~ ~~° lip-~i1~ ~ ~~ ~j5~1 Eli Tt{ 739-IU15 56 To: Maplewood City Council Maplewood Planning and Zoning Commission We the undersigned feel that the proposed senior cooperative development project of the Nichols Development Corporation and the Transfiguration Catholic Church on the property bordered by Ferndale Street, Ha~+Vester Avenue, Glendon Street, and the Maplewood Nature Center does not fit the character of the neighborhood. The proposed development is ~ four story fifty unit senior cooperative housing building. The surrounding community is a neighborhood of single family homes of no more than two stories. We are concerned about the effect of the development on property values in the neighborhood and the environmental impact on the Maplewood Nature Center. The project in its present form will significantly impact the traffic on Ferndale and Brand Streets and Harvester Avenue. A four story building will significantly decrease the privacy of the existing homes in the area. There are already two Senior Housing facilities within a six block area of the proposed development. We the undersigned urge you to deny this present proposal and limit the height of any development on that site to no more than the present neighborhood standard of two stories. Date Nance Signature Address Phone N~. Y ~ n g ~ 3. ~~~f'c~lC~ S~r~M (C'l~ 5~l G~P~~or~~ 5~~. 731~5~~~ S 1 ,~ `~ l~ 4, T•~. ~~/Ki~~s~'w 511. ~ l~. `~90 ~i~n~~ Sa,~ ~3%-Oly~ , , /DI U ~G.lr/~~CC -a~ ,~ rr~~ ~ ~ UaSS~'~~ ~ ~ ~ ~~9 ~~ `;~ ~~ G~~~ ~~~ers ~°~~ ~~~~ 6. -~ ~ ~ ~'3~ ~l ~~ ~~~ ~ 7~y ~~9~z ~~ p ~, ~,VO,g~Lr~ S f 7 g-~ - a~f 8. lJ 1 ~'~Z G~~~~1 5F 5 ~S ,G~( S 57 To: Maplewood City Council Maplewood Planning and Zoning Commission We the undersigned feel that the proposed senior cooperative development project of the Nichols Development Corporation and the Transfiguration Catholic Church on the property bordered by Ferndale Street, Harvester Avenue, Glendon Street, and the Maplewood Nature Center does not fit the character of the neighborhood. The proposed development is a four story fifty unit senior cooperative housing building. The surrounding community is a neighborhood of single family homes of no more than two stories. VJe are concerned about the effect of the development on property values in the neighborhood and the environmental impact on the Maplewood Nature Center. The project in its present form vuill significantly impact the traffic on Ferndale and Brand Streets and Harvester Avenue. A four story building will significantly decrease the privacy of the existing homes in the area. There are already two Senior Housing facilities within a six block area of the proposed development. We the undersigned urge you to deny this present proposal and limit the height of any development on that site to no more than the present neighborhood standard of two stories. Date Name Signature Address Phone 1. ~oc,Fvte.~.4~, ~~~ ~. 9~_ `~' ~l ~cr~a~ (eS~-It1a ~S ~ ~-ca~~~$Y~~ccq ~~ -53Z3 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 58 To: Maplewood City Council Maplewood Planning and Zoning Commission We the undersigned feel that the proposed senior cooperative development project of the Nichols Development Corporation and the Transfiguration Catholic Church on the property bordered by Ferndale Street, Harvester Avenue, Glendon Street, and the Maplewood Nature Center does not fit the character of the neighborhood. The proposed development is a four story fifty unit senior cooperative housing building. The surrounding community is a neighborhood of single family homes of no more than two stories. We are concerned about the effect of the development on property values in the neighborhood and the environmental impact on the Maplewood Nature Center. The project in its present form will significantly impact the traffic on Ferndale and Brand Streets and Harvester Avenue. A four story building will significantly decrease the privacy of the existing homes in the area. There are already two Senior Housing facilities within a six block area of the proposed development. We the undersigned urge you to deny this present proposal and limit the height of any development on that site to no more than the present neighborhood standard of two stories. Date Natn Signatur Address Phone 1. ~' `f ° ~ ~,,,~~cE~sc~~,.~ ~~~_ ,~~~~~ „26 To ~fr.~~~•~s~.. rP ~f~ 7~ ~~T66 2. ~ • i/ -~ y ~i~Te r ~ ~ ~d z ~ ~~~ ~yz NAY v-~~~.r ~v~ ~~'/-7~~,~,°~Sr 3. ~ ~~~ o ~ ~ t-~-z-~-•~h a ~~~~ z. G s S r~%c~y~L~ 73~ 33 qG s,~c~~~ 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 59 To: Maplewood City Council Maplewood Planning and Zoning Commission We the undersigned feel that the proposed senior cooperative development project of the Nichols Development Corporation and the Transfiguration Catholic Church on the property bordered by Ferndale Street, Harvester Avenue, Glendon Street, and the Maplewood Nature Center does not-fit the character of the neighborhood. The proposed development is a four story fifty unit senior cooperative housing building. The surrounding community is a neighborhood of single family homes of no more than two stories. We are concerned about the effect of the development on property values in the neighborhood and the environmental impact on the Maplewood Nature Center. The project in its present form will significantly impact the traffic on Ferndale and Brand Streets and Harvester Avenue. A four story building will significantly decrease the privacy of the existing homes in the area. There are already two Senior Housing facilities within a six block area of the proposed development. We the undersigned urge you to deny this present proposal and limit the height of any development on that site to no more than the present neighborhood standard of two stories. Da a ne is 3. 8(~~ L'~v~c.~ ~~~-w~e.~r Address Phone ~ bs ~ ~ ~ d ~~. I~~PI. ~ ~S- l3 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 60 LAND USE PLAN CHANGE RESOLUTION Attachment 20 WHEREAS, Transfiguration Church and Nichols Development, LLC, applied for a change to the city's land use plan from School (S) to High Multiple-Dwelling Residential (R-3H). WHEREAS, this change applies to the property at 935 Ferndale Street. WHEREAS, the legal description is Lots 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8, Block 4, Bartelmy Acres Second Addition, according to the record plat thereof, Ramey County, Minnesota, together with the North Half of Michael Lane, as dedicated in said plat, lying between the southerly extensions of the east line of said Lot 4 and the west line of said Lot 5. WHEREAS, the history of this change is as follows: On August 16, 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 deny the plan amendment, subject to neighborhood concerns regarding the compatibility of a 44-unit, three story senior housing building next to single-family residential homes. 2. On September 27, 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 approved the above-described change for the following reasons: This site is proper for and consistent with the city's policies for high-density residential use. This includes: a. Having a variety of housing types for all types of residents, regardless of age, ethnic, racial, cultural or socioeconomic background. A diversity of housing types should include apartments, town houses, manufactured homes, single-family housing, public-assisted housing and low- to moderate-income housing, and rental and owner-occupied housing. b. Promote a variety of housing types, costs and ownership options throughout the city. These are to meet the life-cycle needs of all income levels, those with special needs and nontraditional households. c. The city will continue to provide dispersed locations for a diversity of housing styles, types and price ranges through its land use plan. d. The city's long-term stability of its tax base depends upon its ability to attract and keep residents of all ages. To do so, the city must insure that a diverse mix of housing styles is available in each stage of the life cycle of housing needs. e. It is on a collector street and is near an arterial street, parks and open space. The Maplewood City Council adopted this resolution on September 27, 2004. 61 srnrv senior nousina nuunma near ro sinaie-ramnv resioennai nomes_ Attachment 21 ZONING MAP CHANGE RESOLUTION WHEREAS, the Transfiguration Church and Nichols Development, LLC, is proposing the following change to the City of Maplewood's zoning map: Single-Family Residential (R-1) to Multiple-Dwelling Residential (R-3). WHEREAS, this change applies to the property located at 935 Ferndale Street. WHEREAS, the legal description is Lots 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8, Block 4, Bartelmy Acres Second Addition, according to the record plat thereof, Ramey County, Minnesota, together with the North Half of Michael Lane, as dedicated in said plat, lying between the southerly extensions of the east line of said Lot 4 and the west line of said Lot 5. WHEREAS, the history of this change is as follows: On August 16, 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 deny the plan amendment, subject to neighborhood concerns regarding the compatibility of a 44-unit, three story senior housing building next to single-family residential homes. 2. On September 27, 2004, the city council held a public hearing. City staff published a notice in the Maplewood Review and sent notices to the surrounding property owners. The city council conducted the public hearing whereby all public present were given a chance to speak and present written statements. The council also considered reports and recommendations from the city staff and planning commission. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the city council approve the above- described 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 multiple-dwelling senior housing. The Maplewood city council adopted this resolution on September 27, 2004. 62 MINUTES OF THE MAPLEWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION 1830 COUNTY ROAD B EAST, MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA MONDAY, AUGUST 16, 2004 VI. PUBLIC HEARING a. Summerhill Senior Housing Cooperative (935 Ferndale Street North) Ms. Finwall said Transfiguration Church pro~oses to construct an addition to their church and middle school site located at 6133 North 15 h Street in Oakdale. The addition will house their elementary school students, who currently attend school at Transfiguration Elementary School located at 935 Ferndale Street in Maplewood. Because of the relocation of the elementary students, Transfiguration Church would like to sell the elementary school site. Transfiguration Church wants to support senior housing in the community. As such, they interviewed several senior housing developers for the purchase of their elementary school site. After several months of interviewing potential developers, the church selected Nichols Development, LLC, to purchase and develop the site as a senior cooperative housing development. Nichols Development is proposing a 44-unit senior cooperative building for the site called Summerhill of Maplewood. The proposed building would have three stories, 61 underground parking stalls and 26 surface parking stalls. The units would be sold as a cooperative in which residents buy a share of the building and pay a monthly carrying fee, until the eventual sale of their unit. City staff recommends approval of the land use plan change and rezoning for the new senior cooperative from school and single dwelling residential to high multiple dwelling residential. Commissioner Dierich asked Ms. Finwall what the percentage of seniors was in the City of Maplewood and how that percentage would change in the next 20 years? Ms. Finwall said off hand she did not have those statistics or the met council's projections for seniors but perhaps the applicant could give statistics from the Maxfield Research study when he comes forward to speak. Commissioner Dierich asked who would be responsible for the street repair after the site was built? Mr. Chris Cavett, Assistant City Engineer, addressed the commission. He said the developer would be responsible for the street repair. The city wants to see that any work done fits in with the work that was done to the street in 1998-1999. Commissioner Dierich asked if the issues brought up by the engineering department regarding the grading and drainage going into the Nature Center had been resolved? Mr. Cavett said the original plan had not addressed that concern. With the new three story building this change would address that issue and city staff would ensure that is taken care of properly. Commissioner Dierich asked what the soils were in the area and if it would be difficult to excavate that deeply? Mr. Cavett said the city found the soils were variable but generally were sandy in nature. Commissioner Dierich asked if the zoning was changed to R-3M would the proposed density be okay or would the city have to give a variance? Ms. Finwall said the city's comprehensive plan is divided into three levels. High, medium and low and the applicants are requesting the high level, which would allow for the requested 44 units. In the R-3M zoning, the maximum number of units the developer could build is 27. Commissioner Trippler thanked Ms. Finwall for including the map in the packet that represented the residents who were opposed and the people who were in support. This makes it easier to review the site to see where the public opinion lies relative to the property. He would recommend staff include information like this in future packets. He said when staff mentioned there would be fewer vehicle trips with the senior coop compared to the existing elementary school he heard moans from the audience. According to the information provided in the packet on a yearly basis he calculated the senior housing would have 62,415 vehicle trips per year and the school would have 53,430 vehicle trips per year. That is assuming the school is closed for three months out of the year and closed on weekends. The overall impact on the neighborhood would consist of more traffic in the neighborhood with the senior housing proposal. When he looks at the zoning map he sees mostly R-1 zoning and doesn't believe this proposal is a good fit for the neighborhood. He believes senior citizen housing is important and needed, however, not in this particular neighborhood. Commissioner Mueller said mixed housing is being built all over and seems to be a trend. This is basically mixed housing put in the middle ofsingle-family housing. Someone mentioned schools are not busy in the summer and on weekends. He is an educator and the school is always busy at night, on the weekends and in the summer months. He would prefer to have traffic in his neighborhood spread out throughout the day as it would be with senior housing located here compared to busy traffic in the morning and in the evening when he is driving around. Commissioner Grover asked as a point of clarification if the footprint of the building was spread out more since revising the plan from a four story building to a three story building, which would mean less green space for this proposal? Ms. Finwall said the footprint of the building is larger so there is less green space. Commissioner Grover asked how the financing has changed with the decrease in units? Ms. Finwall said with the city's density calculations for senior housing the applicant was able to add more two-bedroom units with the 44-unit proposal, which made it financially feasible. She said she would ask the applicant to address that issue when coming forward to speak. Commissioner Trippler said he is in favor of mixed use housing but he thought what the city was trying to accomplish with zoning was to have a gradual increase or decrease from one zoning to another. In this particular case the applicant wants to go from School (S) to (R-3H), which is the highest residential zoning the city allows. If this proposal was for (R-2) he would not have a problem with it. He asked staff if the city had a zoning jump like this anywhere else in the City of Maplewood? Ms. Finwall said staff would review the zoning map and respond in a moment. However, one example Ms. Finwall thought of was the Resoto Senior Housing on Roselawn Avenue that has 70 units adjacent single-family housing to the south. Mr. Roberts offered two more examples Gere Apartments at the corner of County Road B and Hazelwood Avenue west of John Glenn Middle School, which is a 70-unit apartment building with single-family homes on three sides and a school across the street and apartments on the west side of English between Ripley and Frisbie Avenue, which is a 30-unit apartment building south of the open space mixed with single-family homes. Chairperson Fischer said the city has been looking at mixed uses in the Hillcrest Area and the Gladstone Area. She asked if there were any buffer zones built into the mixed-use zoning? Ms. Finwall said in the new mixed-use zoning district the city requires buffering of 50 feet to the mixed-use building. With multiple dwelling units adjacent single-family homes the city has the same required setback. In this case both proposals meet the increased setbacks due to the fact that this proposal would be across the street from single-family homes. The setback would bean average of 115 feet from the residential properties. Commissioner Desai asked if this proposal went through as senior housing and the units didn't sell, would the applicant have to come back to the city to convert it to an apartment building or condominiums? Ms. Finwall said the planning commission is approving the zoning and comprehensive land use change. This won't be a PUD approving senior housing, however, the developer is proposing a senior cooperative and with the financing it cannot be converted to other housing for 40 or more years. It would not require city approval to convert the building from seniors to apartments because they meet the current parking requirements, but it would require major financial approvals. Commissioner Dierich said with mixed-use zoning the city is talking about planning for businesses and housing to be in the same area together, which is different than this. You can have mixed uses, however, mixed-use zoning is different. She asked how many units in this proposal are due to density units for underground parking? Ms. Finwall said she doesn't have the answer to that. City code allows an additional 300 square feet per unit, per underground parking stall, which can be added onto the gross acre of the lotto increase the density. Perhaps the applicant can answer that. Commissioner Dierich said this is a land use change and a zoning change, which means if the applicant gets R-3H zoning it's possible the applicant could come back and say they are building something other than senior housing. The city has a proposal but not a plan yet. Ms. Finwall said any newly proposed multiple dwelling would have to go through he CDRB process so it's not a done deal yet. But with rezoning and a comprehensive land use change they are not necessarily bound to this senior housing project. Chairperson Fischer asked the applicant to address the commission. Mr. Chuck Armstrong, Director of Business Development, Nichols Development, 350 West Burnsville Parkway, Burnsville, addressed the commission. The information from Maxfield Research states that the Census for 1990 to 2000 in the City of Maplewood for residents 65 and older went from 3,680 to 5,257, which is an increase of 43% over 10 years. In 1990 Maplewood residents 75 and older was 1,577 and in 2000 was 2,674, which was a 70% increase. He printed demographics off the Internet for the year 2000 and Maplewood residents ages 55 and older was 16% of the population. 8% of the Maplewood residents were 75 and older in 2000. The impact for reducing the units is quite large with this building being a senior cooperative. The financing is based on a HUD insured 40-year fixed rate mortgage and is not subsidized in any way. The residents that have ownership in the building will pay for the building insurance. When Nichols Development proposed 52 units it was more financially feasible for HUD with the payments for the mortgage and insurance. That could be better balanced for the monthly mortgage payments including the cost of operations for the building. With the reduction of units from 52 to 44 that is the least amount of units they can have for units of this size and they are confident they can make it work with 44 units. Anything less than 44 units would not be long term financially feasible and you would see spikes in the monthly carrying charges for the seniors as time goes on. With the HUD insurance at the point the "shovel hits the ground" 90% of the units must have a reservation on them at which point 60% of the minimum share payment must be in hand. Minimum share payment is approximately 1/3 of the cost of the unit. A $150,000 unit means a prospective owner must put up $50,000 and once 60% of that is collected they can break ground and move forward. Mr. Armstrong said it would be close to an act of god to switch this senior cooperative building to a rental building because it is registered with the State of Minnesota, listed as a corporation, and because of the 40-year mortgage financing. Mr. Armstrong introduced Father Bob Hart and asked him to speak. Father Bob Hart, Pastor at Transfiguration Church, 935 Ferndale Street North, Maplewood, addressed the commission. The parish was founded in 1939 and one of their primary goals has been to educate the children. They realized several years ago that the property at 935 Ferndale Street North was not accomplishing that goal because the building was not large enough. They started building at the 15'h street and Century Avenue corner in Oakdale and they are now in the last stage of a three-stage process. Father Hart said the Archdiocese of St. Paul/Minneapolis is strongly dedicated to senior housing. He was at a meeting a few months ago where that fact was reiterated. When the church started looking at selling the property they decided senior housing would make a lot of sense to the neighborhood but also to the community. They looked at several developers and when Nichols Development came forward with their proposal, the church had people review the sites that Nichols Development were involved with. One of the church's fears was that someone would buy the property and they would have a building that would be half full and the building would not be used to the fullest. Then the neighbors would be really upset that the building was not full. The church looked at their goal to have senior housing and this plan made sense to the church to go this direction with a company that had a proven track record. Mr. Armstrong gave a brief description of the Nichols Development and then introduced Ms. Dena Rae Meyer. Ms. Dena Rae Meyer, Director of Sales and Marketing, Nichols Development, 350 West Burnsville Parkway, Burnsville, addressed the commission. Nichols Development started mentioning Summerhill of Maplewood in their ads and because of that she has received approximately 50 telephone calls inquiring about this development proposal in Maplewood. Those people are from the Maplewood community and 5 of those callers want to put money down now to reserve a unit. Two of the five callers live in the immediate area and want to stay in the immediate area. As part of the HUD requirement there cannot be anyone younger than 55 years old living here. Because the people that would live in this building would be part owners they take great pride in both the inside and outside of the building. They have taken comments from the neighborhood and are now going to put screened in porches off the decks of the units. Other developments would love to have screened in porches with the bugs in Minnesota, this allows people to enjoy the outdoors longer. They will have nine-foot ceilings, full sized washers and dryers in each unit and the square footage has ranged from 1,100 to 1,800 in some of their other developments, however, in Maplewood the units would be a bit smaller. There is a great room for gatherings, fitness center, guest suite, underground heated parking and a car wash. Security is an important concern with residents and they take great pride in the extra security. Every resident receives a key card that allows them entrance to the building and garage. These key cards are individually programmed in case someone looses their key card then one card can be programmed instead of having to re-key the whole building. A lot of residents that take up residence in Summerhill buildings go south for the winter. Many also have cabins and are gone most of the summer. For this reason there is less traffic coming and going from the building and traffic concerns shouldn't be a problem. Mr. Armstrong said Summerhill has built units in Eden Prairie, which is a 44-unit building that opened in 2001, Summerhill of Bloomington, which is a 44-unit building that opened in January 2002, Summerhill of Apple Valley with 70-units that opened in November 2003, they will be breaking ground in October for Summerhill of Cottage Grove fora 56-unit building and are currently working on a building in Hamline Park in St. Paul fora 44-unit building and they are looking at some additional communities as well. He added the Nichols Development has listened to the community with their concerns and have made several changes including moving the building, reducing the number of units from 52 to 44 units, and reducing the size of the building from four stories to three stories. They have also reduced the slope of the building and are screening the decks, as well as some other changes. Mr. Armstrong introduced the architect, Mr. Link Wilson and asked him to come forward. Mr. Link Wilson, Architect, Miller Hanson Partners, 1201 Hawthorne Avenue, Minneapolis, addressed the commission. Miller Hanson Partners, a housing design firm was established in 1939. They have a long track record with the Nichols Development and are aware of the problems and concerns that arise with designing and constructing buildings in different communities. Mr. Wilson reviewed the building design plans for both the audience and the commission. Chairperson Fischer asked with the reduction of units from 52 to 44 units, how many units had one bedroom verses two bedrooms? Mr. Armstrong said with the 44-unit building they are proposing to have 12one-bedroom, one- bath units, 18two-bedroom, two-bath units, and 14one-bedroom, plus a den and a bath units. Ms. Finwall said the applicant could get up to 46 units without any density bonuses with this proposal. Commissioner Dierich asked if the applicant went to a flat roof with a mansard edge on it how much lower would that make the building for the neighborhood? Mr. Wilson said it is not a style that they prefer and he spends a lot of time out on construction sites and he sees roof leaks and problems with that style of roof. Flat roofs do not last as long and they have problems with ice dams. From the mid point of the roof you would gain about 8 feet but with a mansard edge that would change it to about 5 feet. In his opinion, a flat roof would not be as visually appealing on this building design. Commissioner Dierich said because this neighborhood was built in the 1950's many apartment buildings at that time had a garden level. She asked if they could have a garden level in this building to lower the building. Mr. Wilson said in his experience this type of homebuyer would not particularly like to live in a half submerged home. With a garden level home a person could not have a deck or screened porch either. There are also security issues to deal with for the seniors, and buyers like their units built up and off the ground. Commissioner Dierich asked what the average income level was for people that buy these types of units? Ms. Meyer said off hand she did not know the average income level, however, HUD requires that individuals can't spend more than 46% of their annual income on their monthly carrying charges, which range from $1,000 to $1,500 a month. Commissioner Bartol said the gables are stepped back and he is not sure what Commissioner Dierich was trying to accomplish with a mansard roof because that casts a greater shadow because the mansard roof adds an immediate four feet where a gable roof ads a gradual 8 feet. Mr. Wilson said they have a 4-12 slope and a shadow cast off of that would be less than a mansard roof. Commissioner Pearson asked if the underground parking would ingress and egress from the north? Mr. Wilson said that is correct. Commissioner Pearson asked if they planned on having a "safe room" for the residents? Mr. Wilson said the garage is considered to be a (S3) structure and is made of 12-inch reinforced concrete block and has a 12-inch precast concrete lid on it. If there were a tornado, he believes the entire neighborhood would want to be in the underground garage because it would be a very safe place to be. Commissioner Pearson asked if the 18 foot-wide garage door on the north side needed to be required to handle 100 mph winds? Mr. Wilson said the 18 foot-wide garage door probably could not withstand the 100 mph winds. However, there are two different egress and ingress to the garage and there are safe refuge areas within the garage area. Commissioner Trippler said as part of any type of retirement community he would be looking at pathways and other recreational areas for seniors to enjoy. He asked where the trail shown on the plans led? Mr. Wilson said the trail connects to the sidewalk. This is also a way into the Nature Center and is also a way for emergency vehicles to gain access to the property by driving on the sidewalk. Commissioner Trippler asked if there would be any benches for people to sit on around the grounds? He also asked if the water shown on the plans were ponds or would they be storm catch basins? Mr. Wilson said those are not ponds they are more of an overflow. There will be a playground area for the neighborhood as well as visitors or relatives of the residents. There is also a patio area for residents to enjoy. About 1/3 of the floor area in these buildings is common area. It is a community room, guest suite, business center, office, craft room, a billiard room etc. Commissioner Trippler asked what the size of the patio area was because it looked quite small. Ms. Meyer said it is not a patio it's afour-season gazebo with some soft seating and a big screen television and outside of the gazebo is a slab of concrete with some exterior seating and a gas grill. They wait until the residents move in and get comfortable and allow the residents to have input as to where they believe the benches should be placed instead of placing them haphazardly. Mr. Wilson said his design plan did not show this gazebo that Ms. Meyer is referring to but it will be brought to the community design review board at their meeting for review. Commissioner Bartol said in Mr. Wilson's defense he would venture to say the drawing shown was put together very quickly for tonight's meeting? Mr. Wilson said correct. Commissioner Bartol asked about the ramp going down into the underground garage. He is concerned with ice and Minnesota winters and would like Mr. Wilson to address that. Mr. Wilson said the ramp is four foot, six inches out of the ground and the building is up and out of the ground. However, the slope is still steep at about 9% grade and you don't want to go over 10%. The slope is on the north side of the building and they have experienced two different ways of dealing with ice. They have installed a Wirsbo system, which he doesn't prefer because that type of system can be punctured by trash vehicles. They have also installed some thick electrical cables that can heat the ground, which helps to keep ice off the slope. Commissioner Grover said given the residential density in the area he asked if there were other styles of development that Summerhill has built that are not so dominating in presence so that the building would be more in line with the architecture and the layout? Mr. Wilson welcomed commissioners to visit the Summerhill buildings around the twin cities. Each building is different and even though the same architect designed the buildings you would never guess it because each building is so unique. They try to suit the buildings to the neighborhood along with building materials and colors and there are also cost issues that they have to deal with when designing a building. You are also locked into certain design features with cars parking underground and homes above that. Commissioner Bartol said another issue with trying to fit 44 units in a building, is you have to build at least two levels if not three levels otherwise your building pad takes up a large portion of the property. Remember we are talking about senior housing and typically seniors don't want to walk far or have to go up and down stairs so you have to install elevators. You really can't spread a building out and make it look less oppressive and still have elevator access. This is about the only design you could have and accomplish 44 units. The following Maplewood residents spoke at the public hearing: 1. Jay Hruby, 2659 Harvester Avenue. 2. Gene Kunde, 937 Glendon Street North. 3. Margaret Kunde, 937 Glendon Street North. 4. Janel & John Heroff, 940 Ferndale Street North. 5. Laura Schweiker, 2607 Harvester Avenue. 6. Abby Bour, 957 Edith Street. 7. Dave Picard, 2672 Harvester Avenue East. 8. Kristen Bowers, 2677 Harvester Avenue East. 9. Willard Ginkel 1001 Ferndale Street North. 10. Frank Fleischlacker, 2650 Harvester Avenue. 1. Jay Hruby, 2659 Harvester Avenue He is not against senior housing. The developer is asking the city to change this property from the lowest zoning possible Single Family (S) to the highest zoning possible (High Multiple Dwelling Residential (R-3H). He and his neighbors are against this proposal even with the revised scale of the building from a four story to athree-story building and from the 52 units to the reduction of 44 units. The city has zoning for a good reason and this building is still inappropriate for this neighborhood. Mr. Hruby is also concerned about the increase in traffic since the current location is vacant 25% of the year. In 1999 the City of Maplewood and the residents paid very good money in tax dollars and assessments to have a cul-de-sac on Harvester Avenue on the west end. That cul-de-sac was specifically to reduce traffic in the area and now the developer wants to build this development, which would add another 60 cars a day. That is a very strong about face from the intention of the city's policy to cul-de-sac Harvester Avenue to reduce traffic. The school does not have a gymnasium or any sport fields so there are no extracurricular activities taking place. 2. Gene Kunde, 937 Glendon Street North. He lives directly across from this proposal. He asked what the height, width, and length of this proposed building was? (Ms. Finwall said the height is 37 feet high and she didn't know the width and length off hand.) He asked the commission how they would like looking out their door everyday and face this large building? It takes away all his privacy and that's the reason they moved into Maplewood to begin with. They knew the school was there but there wasn't traffic in the area. 3. Margaret Kunde, 937 Glendon Street North. The developer did a beautiful job designing the building and she appreciates all the work they did in the building proposal, but it doesn't belong in this neighborhood. You should not change the zoning for this either. She appreciated the commission allowing her to speak her peace and Maplewood would make a big mistake by granting this building to be built and changing the zoning. 4. Janel & John Heroff, 940 Ferndale Street North. They live directly across from the driveway of the proposed project. If this building were built with three stories you would be looking into her back and her front yard because their house is a 1'/2- storyhouse. They moved into this neighborhood 29 years ago near a school so they could raise their children in Maplewood. This is a neighborhood that needs to stay single family residential. They have lived by the school building, which is 1'h-stories tall because one level is at garden level. She is concerned about the trees on the nature center side and she believes those trees will be damaged during the construction process. Those trees are hundreds of years old and she doesn't believe the city can afford to damage the nature center because it is a "jewel" in Maplewood! They have been knocking on doors and talking to their neighbors. They have been collecting signatures for a petition against the development and have 42 signatures. Some people could not be here tonight and some people did not respond to the survey they were sent. She presented the petition to Chairperson Fischer and passed it around and then gave it to staff for the record. Mr. and Mrs. Heroff said this has been a wonderful experience going door to door and meeting the people in the neighborhood. She can live with a two story senior housing building but not with a three or four story building. She agrees with senior housing and she agrees with senior housing in that location but not a building that size. She is a senior and she could not afford to move into the building. According to the pricing sheet it costs $150,000 a unit. She doesn't believe that the seniors that live in the neighborhood are going to be able to afford to sell their homes and move into units that cost this much either. 5. Laura Schweiker, 2607 Harvester Avenue. She did not sign the petition that came around their neighborhood because she did not know all the details, but that is why she is here tonight. She is concerned what "would be" built in this location if this senior housing building were not approved. Realistically the church is going to sell the property and prefers the property would be a park but that is not going to happen. She would rather have senior housing across the street rather than Section 8 housing. The residents have to be real careful what they wish for in their neighborhood. She grew up in the neighborhood and she and her husband bought her parents house because they love the neighborhood. You have to be realistic that changes are going to happen. They just don't want a huge building built across the street. She is concerned where the garbage dumpsters would go and where the mechanical equipment would be. People have said nothing happens at the school 25% of the time. The reality is the school has activities all year long day and night. The traffic is not as much of a concern to her as much as what is going to be built there. (Ms. Finwall replied that the property could be used by another type of school without any city approvals including a charter or junior high school.) 6. Abby Bour, 957 Edith Street. She believes the neighborhood could use a nice park for the children to play. Currently children have to cross two major intersections to play at the park. The Nature Center is lovely and they walk down there. She understands there is a small park planned with this proposal and she would welcome that. She wants something to be put there that would increase her home value and she believes this proposal would increase the value, as any new construction would increase the value of the neighborhood. She and her husband have done many improvements to their home and they don't want anything to go in that would decrease her home value. She doesn't want to look at this building and thinks that is not aesthetically pleasing nor does she want to drive down the street and look at this building either. She would welcome senior homes or townhomes in the area. 7. Dave Picard, 2672 Harvester Avenue East. He said he had several conversations with Ms. Finwall and found her to be impartial to the proposal and very informative with the questions he asked. Ms. Finwall also spent a lot of time sending information out to residents, way beyond the 500 feet that is required. North St. Paul closed their library because they did not have enough money to run it any longer. This property is 2.13 acres of land that they want to put senior housing on and the only other cooperative nearby is in North St. Paul and is on about 2 acres and on a busy road. Mr. Picard said the Cardinal Pointe cooperative in north Maplewood is on 5 acres and other high rises are on even more acreage. This would be the only senior housing (he could find) that would be surrounded by residential homes. Because of this, the residents find this difficult to handle having this development on such a small piece of land. Mr. Picard said if this was zoned R-2 he would have nothing against it. He still likes the idea of having a library in this location. (Commissioner Bartol said he is confident that having a library in this location would increase the traffic more than the proposed senior housing would.) 8. Kristen Bowers, 2677 Harvester Avenue East. She has a great concern for the residents on Ferndale Street because those residents will virtually have no sun shining on their property. She is "for" senior housing and she realizes something will have to go there. R-2 zoning would not be out of the question and this is a single- family neighborhood. Most people have '/2-acre lots so that lot is the size of four of their properties and the developer is talking about putting 44 units on the same size parcel. Most of the kids are bused to school and the parents do not drive the children, so there is not that much traffic. She would be interested in knowing the school's current building height compared to the proposed building height. (Commissioner Bartol said with the building setback and the landscape the senior building may look nicer than what is currently there.) (Ms. Finwall added that the building would be setback 30 feet from the right-of-way with an overall setback of 90-115 feet from residential property.) (Commissioner Trippler asked staff to let the residents know what R-2 zoning meant since it has been referred to so many times this evening.) (Ms. Finwall said she believes residents meant to say (R-3M) which means medium density and they could have 27 units. R-2 zoning is double dwelling residential which would allow for duplexes and would require 12,000 square feet per double unit and they could have up to 16 units or 8 double dwellings on this property under that zoning.) 9. Willard Ginkel, 1001 Ferndale Street North. He said they live in the speedway of Minnesota! The church is going to sell this land regardless if it is a high-rise or something else. There could be affordable housing built here just like in Beaver Lake. The residents need to be very careful what they wish for on this piece of property. Instead of the property benefiting anyone, it could end up being a detriment to the community. 10. Frank Fleischlacker, 2650 Harvester Avenue. He is trying to raise a family of five kids and it is a nice area for kids to ride their bike. Now you are talking about increasing the traffic and it would be unsafe for the kids to ride their bike. He moved here to raise the kids in a nice residential neighborhood. Mr. Fleischlacker said the school is closed in the summer and he likes that. His backyard is the best part of the house and now he can't have pit fires in his backyard because it will bother people in the senior housing who would complain about it. This is absurd, and why don't you people think of the families. Commissioner Trippler said he likes the idea of senior housing. This is an attractive design in his opinion. He appreciates that the applicant tried to listen to the neighborhood's concerns and reduced the height of the building. This neighborhood is unified in character, all R-1, fairly uniform in size, well maintained and in a quiet neighborhood. The proposal is an excellent proposal but he doesn't think it fits in this neighborhood and for that reason he will vote no. Commissioner Mueller assumed if the developer was asked to build atwo-story building that it would not be financially feasible. If a two-story building were built, it would have to be spread out over a larger area of the property, which would not be the answer either. Mr. Armstrong said they could not make atwo-story senior cooperative building financially feasible on the site. Commissioner Mueller said he knows the church wanted to build a senior cooperative on the site but he wanted to know what they would do if that did not happen? It sounds like the residents don't want it built in their neighborhood. He asked if the church had other options? Father Hart said when they first looked into selling the property they hired a developer to market the property. Some of the proposals that were put forth were another church renovating the building, one developer was going to expand it and turn it into a senior property, and other than that the church doesn't have a plan b. He is a neighborhood resident as well and lives kitty corner from the proposed area. It is not as quiet of a neighborhood as the residents have stated. There are loud cars that go up and down the street with loud radios, pipes on their cars and frankly he does not think it is a very quiet neighborhood. Regarding the traffic, there are lots of activities that occur in the church during the summer and on the weekends. The traffic would be less if the senior housing were to be built than the traffic that occurs now. Commissioner Dierich admitted she and her family are members of the Transfiguration Church and her kids attended school all eight years so she is very aware of the traffic situation. She likes the idea of the senior housing and she likes it in this neighborhood. She has a mother that could not afford to buy a unit in the coop at this price. She likes the idea of a senior coop however, because this is high density it does not belong in this neighborhood. On the other hand, given the fact that the church would be having this land developed it would be built well just like the Transfiguration school was done well. The developer would do their best to meet the neighbors' concerns and needs. She would like to see the architect be more flexible with the design especially with the height of the building and having a garden level could shave height off the building. She would not want to look at a three-story building either even though she already looks at three story homes in her neighborhood. She would strongly recommend that Transfiguration and the developer withdraw for the time being and work with the neighborhood a little longer. Commissioner Bartol said the need for senior housing is going to increase. The seniors are increasing and they are going to need to live somewhere. If not in a neighborhood that is vastly R-1 zoned, then where? Does the city lump all the multiple level, high density or high-rise buildings in one area? Then you will really have a traffic problem. He thinks this is an ideal place for senior housing because of the location and the Nature Center. If not senior housing then what should be built in this location? It may be 8 duplexes. They may be three story duplexes, they wouldn't be a setback like this building would have, it wouldn't have a playground area, and it probably wouldn't have nice landscaping or sitting areas outside. It is not going to stay a school and it won't be a park. Commissioner Bartol said as far as the traffic count estimates are that would equal one car every ten minutes. It would be a benefit to the neighborhood and it would increase the property value in the neighborhood. They would be very quiet neighbors and he would vote "for" this proposal. Commissioner Mueller said as a planning commission does the commission have any authority to say how tall a house can be built on this property? Ms. Finwall said no. Commissioner Mueller said having a senior building in this location would be nice, close to the Nature Center and with this being a family neighborhood with children, seniors love children, it would be a great combination and a great way to make "community". Commissioner Pearson said he serves on the HRA (housing redevelopment authority) and this proposal tugs on his heartstrings. The HRA has tried to provide senior housing in the City of Maplewood. There is going to be a tremendous shortage of senior housing. He lives across the street from Lakeview Senior Housing and it has less of a setback than what this proposal would have. It's less attractive than this proposal and when the building was built the CDRB did not look at where the mechanical equipment would go so consequently he has to listen to the mechanical units. All in all they are good neighbors to live next to. They keep the property up and the traffic on Maryland Avenue is ten times more than this neighborhood would ever see. He has a hard time going against such a large block of neighbors whose will is to keep the neighborhood as it is and to keep the existing zoning what it is. Even though this is a good proposal and development he has to vote against it and "with" the neighbors. Commissioner Mueller said he likes this proposal and it would do great things for the property but he has a hard time going against "the people". Commissioner Dierich said senior housing is a good idea and the neighbors are saying maybe if you made it two stories they may approve of the proposal. She reviewed the findings of fact document for this proposal and based on these findings this is the reason she is not voting for this. Ms. Finwall did a great job working on this proposal and working with the neighborhood, as did the Nichols Development. Chairperson Fischer said a person raising a family might look at having this development in their neighborhood differently than someone who is a senior and looking for a development to move into. For seniors this development has a lot of amenities that a person would be looking for. The population for seniors is increasing and they will be looking for housing. Many times people that have family in Maplewood want to move here to be closer to family members. Commissioner Mueller asked what the timeframe was for this development with the city process? Ms. Finwall said the city has to process this within 60 days, which would be September 21, 2004, unless the applicant agrees to an extension. Mr. Armstrong said that is a complex question because there is a series of steps that need to be completed. They need to close on the land so Transfiguration Church can move forward with their construction. Transfiguration would keep the elementary school open one more year and then the building would be demolished next summer so they could begin construction. He is concerned about the comments from the neighbors. Mr. Armstrong said first they proposed afour-story building. The neighbors were concerned about the height of the building so Nichols Development agreed to reduce it to three stories. Now the neighbors say if it was a two-story building they would be more agreeable but what guarantee does the developer have that they won't ask for another change and never come to an agreement? It's disheartening. The other Summerhill sites that they have built projects on have been smaller than 2.16 acres in size with similar number of units and others larger in size with more units. He would ask the commission to consider the three-story building and Nichols Development would continue to make modifications and work with the neighbors. They could reduce the height from nine-foot ceilings toeight-foot ceilings. It is possible to have a flat roof but there are too many problems with ice dams and roof problems. He has that problem himself at his home and would not want to see this building encounter similar problems. Commissioner Mueller moved to aeve deny the comprehensive land use change from School (S) to High Multiple Dwelling Residential (R-3H) for the property at 935 Ferndale Street. Commissioner Mueller moved to ade~-deny the rezoning from Single Dwelling Residential (R-1) to Multiple Dwelling Residential (R-3) for the property located at 935 Ferndale Street. .) The reason for Commissioner Mueller's denial was the community was overwhelmingly not in favor of the development and despite his approval of the development, his vote is based on the neighbors concerns for their neighborhood. Commissioner Pearson seconded. Ayes - Desai, Grover, Mueller, Pearson, Trippler Nays - Bartol, Fischer, Lee Abstention -Dierich The motion is denied. This item goes to the city council on September 13, 2004. Commissioners Desai, Grover and Trippler said they did not vote for this item because they did not feel this was a good fit in the neighborhood. Commissioners Mueller and Pearson said they voted against this item because they listened to the concerns of the neighborhood and voted with the wishes of the residents. Commissioners Bartol, Fischer, and Lee thought this was a good proposal and a good fit in the neighborhood. Agenda #H3 MEMORANDUM TO: City Manager FROM: Ken Roberts, Planner SUBJECT: Lot Division, Conditional Use Permit and Design Review PROJECT Ramsey County Suburban Courts Building LOCATION: 2050 White Bear Avenue DATE: September 22, 2004 INTRODUCTION Project Description David Chase of Kraus-Anderson Construction and Ramsey County, is proposing to build a 15,150 square-foot suburban courts building on the vacant city-owned property at 2050 White Bear Avenue. Refer to the applicant's statement on page 10 and the maps on pages 11 - 19. The proposed building would replace the existing county court space in the building at 2785 White Bear Avenue. As proposed, the exterior of the courts building would have colored jumbo brick, prefinished cement fiber board panels (with a look similar to EIFS), colored rock face block, metal panel siding and a standing seam metal roof. In addition, it would have two courtrooms, office space, meeting rooms and associated space for the suburban courts operation. Refer to the project plans. Requests Mr. Chase is requesting that the city approve: 1. A lot division to create a new, separate lot for the courts building. (Please see the site survey on page 14.) 2. A conditional use permit (CUP) to construct a public building. Section 44-1092 of the city code requires a CUP for a public service or public building uses in any zoning district. 3. The project design, site and landscape plans. BACKGROUND On March 8, 2004, the Maplewood City Council agreed to offer the city-owned property south of the Maplewood Community Center to Ramsey County at no cost for a new suburban court facility. On May 11, 2004, the Ramsey County Board picked the site south of Maplewood Community Center for the new suburban court facility. DISCUSSION Conditional Use Permit The city council should approve this permit. The proposed building should be attractive and would be an improvement for the courts over their existing space. This would benefit the county by improving their courts space and facilities and would be a complimentary facility to the city and county's campuses. Design Considerations Lot Division As I noted above, the city council agreed to donate the land for the new courts building to the county. To accomplish this land donation, the city must approve the splitting of its property to create a new, separate parcel with its own legal description. However, the proposed parcel (as shown on pages 13 and 14) would be landlocked. Because of this, the city and the county should enter into maintenance and access agreements for the use of the existing parking lot that is between White Bear Avenue and the new building. These agreements should clarify who is to repair the parking lot, plow the snow from the driveways, sidewalks and trails, liability responsibilities and that the users or visitors to both the community center and to the courts building may use the parking lot for ingress and egress purposes. Parking The city code does not have a specific parking standard for this type of facility. The city code, however, would require 76 parking spaces if the city considered this building as all office space. As proposed, the site plan shows 25 parking spaces to the east of the new building that the county has designated for the courts staff. In addition, the plan shows an additional 26 spaces to the east of the east lot for proof-of-parking, about 55 parking spaces in front of the proposed building for 105 total spaces next to or near this building. The project architect provided city staff with a narrative (on page 20) explaining the expected parking needs for the court facility. This narrative notes that the county now reserves 100 spaces at their current facility and that they expect to need a similar amount of parking with the new building. As I noted above, the county will have at least 76 spaces near the building (with 26 more available with the proof of parking), which should be enough parking for most days at this facility while leaving enough parking for the community center. In addition, there should not be any reason for any parking on the landscape areas or along the driveways. Building Elevations It is important that the new court building have a design and materials that are close to or complimentary to the style and materials in Maplewood City Hall and in the Maplewood Community Center. This is especially critical on the west and north (pond) sides of the building as they will be the most visible elevations. For reference, Maplewood City Hall has an exterior that is primarily brick and tan rock-faced block and the exterior of the community center is brick, tan colored concrete block and with small areas of metal siding. The proposed exterior building materials raises some concerns for staff. As proposed, the building would have a variety of materials and colors. (See the plans on page 18 and the enclosed project plans.) They include jumbo brick veneer, tan-colored rods-faced block, gray corrugated metal siding, areas with prefinished cement fiber board panels (with a look similar to EIFS) and a flat roof. Specifically, the architect has proposed to use the corregated metal siding on a large portion of the building's elevations. Since city hall and the community center have exteriors with brick as the predominant material, it is city staff's preference that the exterior of this building have more brick and possibly more red-colored concrete block and much less (if any) metal siding. The project architect should revise the elevations accordingly. 2 Sprinkling/Irrigation Code requires that the developer or owner install an in-ground sprinkler system for any new landscaped areas. The city can waive the sprinklering requirement if there is an alternative method for watering plantings. In this case, however, the county should have the project contractor install an in-ground irrigation system for the new sod and landscape areas near and around the new building. This is a requirement that the city has for all new commercial and institutional buildings. Landscaping The county had a landscape plan prepared for the site. (See the landscape plan on page 17 and the attached plan date-stamped August 3, 2004.) This plan shows the county planting a variety of plant materials around the new building, including maple, linden and black hills spruce trees, lilac, spirea and juniper shrubs and a variety of annuals and perennials. Staff would like to compliment the county's plan, as it appears that the proposed landscaping should be a nice addition to the building and to the campus. This plan, however, was based on an earlier site plan for the project. It would be a nice addition to the site to have outdoor seating areas in front of the building (for public use) and on the east and north sides of the building (for building staff use). The applicant should revise the landscape plan to reflect the current site plan and to incorporate the recommendations of the city engineer. In addition, the project designers should inGude the amenities 1 noted above, with additional landscaping for screening and shade, into the final landscape plan. Dumpster Enclosure The project plans do not show how the county would handle or store the trash from the building. The city should require Ramsey County to install a dumpster enGosure that matches the building as apart of this project to meet current code standards. Lighting The county did not supply city staff with an outdoor lighting plan for the building and for the area around the building. It is important that the city review and approve such a plan before the contractor starts the site construction. Other Comments Building OfFcial A building permit is required. We suggest having a meeting with the architect and the owner and will be happy to work with them. Fire Marshal 1. Monitoring all parts of the fire protection system and fire alarm system is required. 2. Provide and maintain 20-foot-wide emergency vehiGe access to the building and to the site. 3. The contractor shall install a fire protection (sprinkler system) that is monitored. 4. The contractor shall install a fire alarm system that is monitored. 5. The contractor shall install a fire department lockbox on the building. The owner or contractor may get the request form for the lockbox from the fire marshal. 3 Police Department Lieutenant Dave Kvam of the Maplewood Police Department stated that the only issue that he identified with the proposal has to do with the impact on traffic. He noted, "the increase in the number of vehicles trying to tum in and out of or into the parking lot at the court building will add to the problem" (of traffic flow on White Bear Avenue). He also noted that there are a fair number of accidents on White Bear Avenue involving vehicles waiting to tum into the parking lot and that it is not an easy task to safely make a left tum onto White Bear Avenue. He conGuded with °I would like to see the traffic issues given some consideration, however, even with no lane or other traffic control changes, keeping the court in Maplewood is a benefit to the police department." Ramsey County Public Works Dan Soler, the Ramsey County traffic engineer, reviewed the proposal. His comments are in the memo on page 23. In summary, Mr. Soler does not think any traffic control changes to White Bear Avenue or to the existing parking lot are warranted at this time. He did tell me on the telephone that he expects that the county will eventually need to add a fifth lane to the section of White Bear Avenue from Frost Avenue to County Road B. This section of road would then have a design similar to the parts of White Bear Avenue south of Frost Avenue and north of County Road B. City Engineering Department Chris Cavett and Erin LaBeree have reviewed the proposal. Their comments are on pages 21 and 22. COMMISSION ACTIONS On September 8, 2004, the planning commission recommended approval of the proposed lot split and the conditional use permit. On September 21, 2004, the community design review board recommended approval of the project design plans. RECOMMENDATIONS A. Approve the lot division shown on the survey on page 14. This lot division creates a new, separate parcel for the Ramsey County Suburban Courthouse facility at 2050 White Bear Avenue. This lot division approval is subject to the city and the county signing access and maintenance agreements for the property and for the parking lot(s). B. Approve the resolution on pages 24 and 25. This resolution approves a conditional use permit for the Ramsey County Suburban Courts facility at 2050 White Bear Avenue. The council bases the permit on the findings required by code and it 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. Any future expansions or major changes to the building require the approval of a revision to the conditional use permit by the city council. 2. The city council may require the county to construct the additional parking shown on the site plan east of the east parking lot if a parking problem develops. 3. The applicant must begin construction within one year after the council approves this permit or the permit shall end. The city council may extend this deadline for one year. 4 4. The city council shall review this permit in one year. C. Approve the project plans date-stamped September 10, 2004, and the landscape plan submitted to the city on September 21, 2004, for the Ramsey County Suburban Courts building at 2050 White Bear Avenue. The city is making this approval subject to the findings required by the city code. The county or the developer shall do the following: 1. Repeat this review in two years if the city has not issued a building permit for this project. 2. Complete the following before the city issues a grading permit or 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, water elevation and contour information. These shall include the normal water elevation and 100-year high water elevation. (b) Include contour information for the land that the construction will disturb. (c) Show sedimentation basins or ponds as required by the watershed board or by the city engineer. The ponds or basins shall meet the city's design standards and shall include best management practices and rainwater gardens wherever practical. (d) Show all proposed slopes steeper than 3:1 on the proposed construction plans. The city engineer shall approve the plans, specifications and management practices for any slopes steeper than 3:1. This shall include covering these slopes with wood-fiber blankets and seeding them with a "no mow° vegetation rather than using sod or grass. (e) Show all retaining walls on the plans. Any retaining walls more than four feet tall require a building permit from the city. (f) Show as little disturbance as possible on the north and south sides of the site to minimize the loss or removal of natural vegetation. (3)* All the parking areas and driveways shall have continuous concrete curb and gutter, except where the city engineer decides it is not necessary for drainage purposes. (4) A storm water management plan, including drainage and ponding calculations, for the proposal. (5) Make all the changes and meet all the conditions noted by the city engineer in the memo dated September 13, 2004. b. Submit alawn-irrigation plan to staff showing the location of sprinkler heads. 5 c. Submit a certificate of survey for all new construction. d. Submit a revised landscape plan for city staff approval showing the: (1) Planting of native grasses, flowering plants and low-level shrubs around any storm water pond(s). These materials shall extend at least four feet from the ordinary high water mark (OHWM) of each pond. (2) Planting details (including flowering plants and shrubs) for any rainwater gardens on the site. (3) Changes recommended by the city engineering department. e. Get the necessary approvals and permits from the watershed district. f. Submit a detailed photometric plan for all proposed outdoor lighting for city staff approval. This plan shall show how the lighting on the building would add to the site lighting. This plan also shall show details about the proposed light fixtures to ensure they are a design that hides the bulb and lens from view to avoid nuisances. The light fixtures must have concealed lenses and bulbs to properly shield glare from the adjacent street right-of--ways and from adjacent properties. g. The applicant shall record the following with Ramsey County: (1) The deeds creating the new lot for the courthouse. (2) Athirty-foot-wide permanent easement for the public trail across the east part of the lot. (3) The ingress and egress easement agreements between the two properties. h. Have the Saint Paul Regional Water Services (SPRWS) review and approve the proposed utility plans. i. Submit plans for city staff approval for any outdoor trash or recycling enclosure, if the county is going to have an outdoor dumpster. These shall include a revised site plan to show the location and elevations of all four sides of the enGosure. The gates shall be 100 percent opaque and the materials and colors of the enclosure shall be compatible with those of the new courts building. This plan shall be subject to city staff approval. j. Meeting all the conditions of the city engineering department as outlined in the memo dated September 13, 2004. k. 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 the building: a. Install new property irons to designate the comers of the new lot. b. Restore and sod damaged boulevards. 6 c. Install reflectorized stop signs at each exit, ahandicap-parking sign for each handicap-parking space and an address on the building. In addition, the applicant shall install "no parking" signs within the site, as required by staff. d. Paint any roof-top mechanical equipment to match the uppermost part of the building. Screen all roof-mounted equipment visible from White Bear Avenue. (city code requirement) 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 enGosures must be 100 percent opaque, match the materials and colors of the building and have a closeable gate that extends to the ground or driveway. f. Install all required landscaping. g. Install and maintain an in-ground sprinkler system for all landscaped areas. h. Install continuous concrete curb and gutter along all interior driveways and around all open parking stalls. i. 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 from adjacent properties. j. Installing an outdoor drinking fountain near the outdoor public seating area. k. 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. 7 5. This approval does not include the signs. All signs need permits from the city. 6. All work shall follow the approved plans. The director of community development may approve minor changes. 7. This approval does not inGude any future additions on the east end of the building. The developer or builder shall submit all necessary plans to the CDRB and the city council for their approval before the city may issue a building permit for such an addition. 8. This approval does include the proof or parking area shown on the site plan. The city engineer must approve the construction plans for this parking before the county starts constructing the additional parking. CITIZENS' COMMENTS I surveyed the owners of the 11 properties within 500 feet of this site and received one reply. Ms. Ira Schroeder at 1997 White Bear Avenue expressed concerns about the loss of green space and the possible negative impacts to traffic on White Bear Avenue. REFERENCE INFORMATION SITE DESCRIPTION Site size: About 2 acres Existing land use: Vacant SURROUNDING LAND USES North: Maplewood Community Center and ponding area East: Ponding area and Maplewood City Hall South: Ramsey County Campus across the DNR Gateway Trail West: Multi-tenant commercial/industrial building across White Bear Avenue PLANNING Land Use Plan designation: G (government) Zoning: F (farm residence) 8 CRITERIA FOR APPROVAL CUP Section 44-442(a) states that the city council shall base approval of a CUP on the findings listed in the resolution on pages 24 and 25. Design Review Section 2-290(b) of the city code requires that the community design review board make the following findings to approve plans: 1. That the design and location of the proposed development and its relationship to neighboring, existing or proposed developments and traffic is such that it will not impair the desirability of investment or occupation in the neighborhood; that it will not unreasonably interfere with the use and enjoyment of neighboring, existing or proposed developments; and that it will not create traffic hazards or congestion. 2. That the design and location of the proposed development is in keeping with the character of the surrounding neighborhood and is not detrimental to the harmonious, orderly and attractive development contemplated by this article and the city's comprehensive municipal plan. 3. That the design and location of the proposed development would provide a desirable environment for its occupants, as well as for its neighbors, and that it is aesthetically of good composition, materials, textures and colors. Application Date We received the complete plans and applications for this request on August 3, 2004. The county submitted revised site plans and building elevations on September 10, 2004. State law requires that the city take action within 60 days of receiving complete applications for any land use proposal. The 60-day requirement on this proposal ends October 2, 2004. Therefore, city council action is required on this proposal by October 2, 2004. p:sec14/Ram Co Court bldg - 2004.doc Attachments: 1. Applicant's Statement 2. Location Map 3. Land Use Plan Map 4. Property Line Map 5. Site Survey 6. Site Plan (Proposed) 7. Proposed Grading Plan 8. Landscape Plan 9. Proposed Building Elevations 10. Proposed Floor Plan 11. Architect's Parking Narrative 12. Erin Laberee's comments dated September 13, 2004 13. Dan Soler's comments dated August 13, 2004 14. Conditional Use Permit Resolution 15. Project plans date-stamped September 10, 2004 (separate attachment) 16. Project Landscape Plan dated September 21, 2004 (separate attachment) 9 Attachment 1 Conditional Use Statement The intended property use would serve as the new location for the Ramsey County Suburban Courts Facility. It would replace the existing facility currently located in Maplewood several miles to the north of the proposed property. This property allows for continued location and operation with in the City of Maplewood with easy access and accessibility from the surrounding areas on a site that is appropriate in size and scale for such a judicial facility. The facility will include two courtrooms as well as administrative offices and services to the public from Maplewood as well as other surrounding areas. This property use would compliment the adjacent public functions provided by the City Hall and Community Center while also further developing and enhancing the area. It is asked that a conditional permit be granted for this property to allow for this particular use in addition to the proposed property division as suggested on the provided survey. Additional preliminary information is provided as scripted out by the conditional use and community design review applications. It was predetermined that no photometric plan would be necessary at this time given the agreed shared use of the existing parking lot. APPLICANT'S STATEMENT ~o Attachment ,? y `J ~ ~ - _ `.~~ 5 - ----- ---- '1 ® AVE. gF,y1 ~~ AVE. o v . BEAM ~' 1111PLE VIEW AVE. z ~ AVE. ~ RAQATZ ~ ` ~ ooh ~ NORTH SAINT PAUL WW~ AVE. ~ ~ ~ ~~:;. ~ ~ m KOFILAYW ~ ICwY' iii ~ -- ~ ~ o ~ ~ AVE. ~ '.i.olm.,. ~ C n S ~ ~ w Kn. ~ ~ o ~~ ~' ~ ~ o OEMONT AVE Q ~ N '~^'~" BROOKS AVE. ~ ~~ ~ ~ a P AvE. ,s a~'artk F- '~Df TANT~ ~ ~s ~. $ Sv A~'E Z ~ °~ ! Q AVE SSr ~ ~ ~ ~ GERVAIS ~ CRMIDNEIN AVE. W ~ VMONG DR Y ~- SFiERRQll1VE CASi1.E AVE. ~y ~~ COpE ~'~ ~~ AVE. ~ COPE AVE. !r ~, • Z ~ - ~ ~ LARK ~ ~ ~ 1 ~ L"i ~ AVE. ~~ < AVE. ~ ~ ~ UIUFLE RD. UIURIE Rn. ~i~....° ,~~ Z ~ W ~ ~ ~ 0' 1700' 340C ~ wlsr " ~ ~ ~ AvE. ~ ~ ~ ° ° ~ ~ ' e ~ o ~ co. Ro. ~ e ~ ®m AVE 8 ® ~ BURL ar. ~~ ~ / 0 > 1 » 2 „ ~ ~ anR mc~ AVE. ~ ~••• a.. ~ ~~ ~ ~ SCAL eELroKr AvE. _~ ~'' ~,,~,~ I E SKILLMAN AVE. '- FMRRfS A m Ip ~ ItO5EW0 AVE N. ~ ~+ Ax A~ ~ AvE 5. ~~TE NORTH SAINT ~ ~ t ~ ~ ! ~ ~' ~• NowowAr / AVE _ ALDRIL~i . w ~ ri- ® m COURSEQ~ ~1• ~ ®~ ~ AV E ~ ~ ~ ~ SU N11~ AVE ~ ARENA ~ ® ~' aim i-ti iii & ~ ~ b RPLEY AVE i~~ R! PLEY AV z m \~L~ ~ ~ ~ ® ~n IO1~GSfON AVE. ~ 1~~ `~ ~ 1 ~~ r~ W W PRICiE AVE. ~ ° o NIA AVE V~ ~~liti ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ W ~ PRK:E ~ , ~~' Y S ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ YClNCFR W ~ ~ 3 ~ ~ ~ ~ u~xrEUR y ~ ~ J LOCATION MAP ~4 Attachment 3 1890- 19 1850 1858 1866, 1884 1896 (~~ 1721 1731 1997 1732 1726 1720 1959 19$9- 1695 1955. 1949 1947 c~~ 1975 PJ r CITY HALL ~", Golf Course 1820 LAND USE MAP N 0 12 Attachment 4 ! ` u,~ ~,gy I ~ ~ %9a't i ~a t ~~" 3325' I I 73~.aa' t 755' 1 90' ! Y9a+ I 74' ~-I 7 I COUNTYROADB --------- --- - ~T--- -'~ T' ! i T i ~~ ~ A h 111 Y . T G O , A_ ^e .60K °a l.77AC . + .33 AG + + ly y + + dal a rn ,~ al ru cu ar a 8 .23 K da 25a s2.~G st.~G Y.as~ ~ -!'r ~a2~c S2 AG G69 nG1 452 AC.) 452 AG) r ~~ ~ ~ - , ~.' 333 '~~ COMMUNITY CENTER _ J J ~=%'~ ~%~ r%J~f~~~~ :x,11-` ~~~"•:i r ~:~ C71Y OF NMIPA[JOD 12-29-76 ~ 33' 7.12 AG ` l_~I .r f.~ ~~~l •'__r-~.~ ' _ _ iY~`'~ i'%~'.. ~`'t?~~ POND .-: ~~~'^ .`~' i~v~~li Z _ - i f ^iiii~ ~; F _ ~. > ==%~ '= ~~=~`-~='-' ~ - - MAPLEWOOD CITY HALL t~ ~ r~YJ I uz~c -f Z~ ~-~; I~ ~ SITE _ ~'j - ~ ---- r• ~ 6aa - -.~~- ~ rt- ~- r- ~- , - ~`- - ~. I COUNTY CAMPUS PROPERTY LINE MAP 13 4 N ~_ _~ r 5.~,_ 1 ~~' - -' - - DNR TRAIL -- - A''" Attachment 5 1 Ile NW ror, al $ec. 1/, EnbOne (Ygv1y 0wcrlptbn : GrlMwl• vl TU• No. ]0WH Rwhir.tl Prgvly. V I T. 29 N., R. 22 W. Tl• SwU 16l 1••1 al q• MMl e]J f••t of M• Ms\hw•t Ouerly of q• Nvlhewl 9uvlw el 9•etbn 11, T•.n.nb 2c. Nwp• 2; RvnwY CwnlY, YFMwIe. SMlrol Found Ramsey County Monument e• vlY• 9.w Aw. PrgwN D••wptlm •f 1•rew 1: Lh• Swth 16).00 \M of \M w•el 31J.OO Nrt el N• Nvlhwwl Qrertv •1 tll• Nvtaw•1 0wrty el f•et4n 11, T•.n.nb 10, wmq 22, NorrlwY CwnlY. YYewwle SuONct la Mll• Bwr Aw + + +.~ + RYI b ]I NV. e 2 RIY lull N .E. +cN V. ege.e) - Tw - e ee+. wu 2 InU R /~ L Meh pA e1V, eeaA1 e0e.0 O 1-h 3 V.E a .0! Ji vV.6 ! ).oe «v:Ni ): °i `~ Q POND + PARKING LOT ED + V. N9.11 T e !! MV, a .e) e0p / 8 w WOOD efC ~ BltumNw• .c a ~ a enuminw. + E 3 73 ~ + ] 6]]01- + + + "~ + + + +~ + 0 3 217.0 l2 ~ + + + 70 Fool Drain lllAity antl Troll Easement ~ 8 SITE + e 8 ~ ,m/ + PON e' a _ + + + + ~ e n • ~ Poral 2 wv. eN. a ~' 78,!61.87 eq. Il Q - oafs 'm 1.76 Aar +1 veal + 8 + + + + 7B, 79.85 q. tt + + B9 Ae e + + + O• + t + + + +` • NW 1 4 0(N 1/ / Sw. 1t + + I V. / ~6m + + + _ ]3011 IIO.W efo + + + ~ eas---~-7 ~ + e6s e\ ENE + _ + ~~~ to e~ eyD~ 9\5 s ~ /'p' ;_ euu„lti ago fit n 925 1 enwe'°~"6 BltwnYwV• th. W ,/. Dar. aY 9.a. ,.. DNR TRAIL 'My. •36w T. 29 N., R. 22 W. Found Ramsey County MmVmml SITE SURVEY 14 4 N Prgw•0 D•wrbtlal el Porch 1 _ _ RwnwY ICwn % YFnwelal Sd}N `20c0psmmvlf tUim•m~ ~'1ar01rahoyl nd utMtY aM P•G•ebknl nl NvlMwt OuMV sl 5•etlen 11. Twn•Ilb 29. rwy 32 t •a••rrl•n\ Iv H Pegew• ewr M• Ewt ]0.00 Ml Ihveof. Tee•MV eiM wY 5•etbn 11, T•.n•n4 ~. Rm~3L Rmm~~y hGglY• 4Fn•••t•.,SUepet la whM B•s \Aw. M• wal 21].00 of M• NaNwal Wslw el U• MvUwt Ouvly el Attachment 6 `~? ~~ ~^ /~ ~O 1 /// _~a I V4 Yn ~~ I ` WETLANDS - ~ '"' .- POND p k .:w4 g - ...- ' ~ ~ ' 'w '~•_ _ : ~ ^ 438'-0' . . - 4'-0• 45'-0' '-0' 198'-0' W[ ^„Yh 1 ~4ti ~yj _ _ SHARED PUBLIC *~ PARKING ® ° ~~ ; } .~~' µ, Q 4 ~ ~ R4'-0• O ._ _- j Y4 I w m I O ~ 15,150 SF o m --~ - -- 4, ~i',- ~ FOOT PRINT G , ARK NG ' ~•=-j g ~ FFE = 907.5 ° - R4'-0' -8 1 ___- -~ 4~~1Y ® ~°~"` :0000000000 00000000 ~ _._J --_-~ ~~%~/~'-*}. G . 1' '26'-0' 20'-0'8'-0' 30'-0' 136'-0' 9'-0'S'-0'19'-b' 24'-0' 19'fi' 60'-0' 81'-0' 21'-0' 26'-b' S8'-0' 213'-0' 91'-0' 30'-0' IBO'-0' 420 -0' SITE PLAN 1 i•.aa-0' SITE PLAN 15 4 N Attachment 7 ,. \~ ( RIMY a9 M S~faM1{B F ~ Wv. 0f93> C R!I !0)31 4 INV •Pa, I RIM fOL.)S 1NVE. 900A0 ~ , ' 10]i2 ~"r S2 Inch RCP INV. 09L.9o 51 Inch CM ~ ~ ~' ~ - / / / Ril 90613 ~ArvE. n>G Rrvs. mat ` ,}~ :~ =. F ~' ~~~~ ~ . '- yry,NV H AB IINK 9012) ,,_ ~ ` ~ I'i . ~ i ~ ~ >rc~'sns9 \` `.\~(DODED ~~~ S: III 1 , ~ INV. 40 9 Il\ ~~` v~ . ~ ~ I r I Z i ~ ~~ \ 7 ~ I ~ e ' ~ \ I~ I. < \ I ~ . \ ~;\ t y. I g \ I ®~ 5 W \ S /~ • ~ ~~ ~\ ~ ~ ~ ~ INV09620 ! ~ > ; ? • v ~ ~. .. / \1 I \ ' . . `~ INV. BNM PROPOSED BUILDINQ- j ~ r' ; c -" FFE%~°':~° .990 ~ ~~ I ~,; - / ~~ +~ ~ g - ---- - ~ ~ ~` Iun. ~_-_ ~'---9o>--1L-1L "~-900--_ -~-~~ `-909- .__,___,_ii--~~910 9 t!lILRY NOTES - . ae06 S' tmn pyawd Nu0fe9. - Yank) N aanha lace0ena N OMrla eM maeONJetl aryONar Mbn ewlnNlbn. - M eMrnbh b Owa a Mnbxan al )3' el eenr. - Renon od.0n9 J .ab. mdn ee.ww end wl tee W Wp f wta main. - N nw0 eM h bn N0N N eq b S aw OY lM Clb el SL Pwl Rpbml 0blar Sher. - Ry.: el~t. eel a gen.n .ne .a9. b enoln.i Rm.nrnt a.euena - W W' NIUNm MMi b sNOiN MCI wda~. GRADING NOTES p - rR .NnuNN N.an a. b mw .aN.e.. ®- CenbeaM b ragw~N M ebaNip, 0 aaeaavy, a Natlwgl ae9wat a'aaeai9n O9nYnelbn 9/abm (M0a6) OavW Slam Ra1r YernR Tar Cre1MM aCNW1 Men fr+buc4en Oa9W. f iaRymyieelOHemwlbn w pprb M Snsn Nenbkrss~. 104 NbmroSn net Oaan nr0laa m b A arnnxy w aenybb~m M Rws. t aaaeWta, 9c \ &<Wno~a ~ INV. 925.ao N SeaN In F9N =~ I n PROPOSED GRADING PLAN 16 N Attachment 8 ~ I ;,.. , .- . ,: < .., .. , , ~- _ : `, ~ . - SEER --~=-~ • ~ - - - - - - ~ - -- - t- -~ - '. S IUPO ~ U~ .. - - -. `3 SPGO ` 1 ...._ ~ 15VRE ~~ , e ' ~ 5 ISP 13 HOFW - ~HDFw 3 FEMA - 7 HOFW ~ ' , ~ _zreMA S IUPO ' ' ~ 5 DISP ~ C~o3 3 FENU1 _. ~ .. 11 RUHI E ,.~ 7 FEMA - :D - - _ - _ - _- - i i ' 7 SCSC 31UBR ' P UN7ER ~ ~ ! 31UBR IB' STMU B~jtDER (TYPJ ~` ~ 31UBR 7 EUCO I I ' !~ 3 SYME. 5' BORDER OF STMU - ! ' AM 0. 1~ ~W, TI NNU ! ' ~• ~ O ~ C? ~ ~ -~ , I ' SB' S7MU BORDER (MJ } ~, I ~ I SEED • ~ LLARD ... . p5, 9 t . • GFi~1NG . .. 1 EUCO SOD ~. 7ACRU \ ,. i i 7CAKA ACME 5 RUHI 31UP0 9XENIp- 1 AMGR 31F1BR i 11 SIUPO " 3 SPGO ~11 HEMO 1 AMGR ! , i ¢ PIBH 1AMGR 35YME SSVME RU I ~ I ~ :, ' ~ i i 9' 5 UKA ~ ~ 5 SVME 75CSC ... SS RUHI 31UP0 H 13 31UBR' PG CAKA , ., ~- ._.. _. _ ,`\ ZS UKA ` X _ - ` ~ 1 PIBH . p - ~. ; I 1 nAM _.._ _ i : __ __ _ , 9 " `'' p ° _ _. _._ _. _.. __ ~ r - _ ._ ' ~ ~ ____._.. _._..-.._ STIdU . __ _ _ ____ , _. ..._.._.,r ~ ~ 18 STMU BORDER (IYPJ _ __ ..... , . _. _.. _.. __ • 1 SYRE i ,, ~ _.. .. 9 . ... ..... ruxt uY fi ' i ~ '. a O 8 . - 38`STMU BORDER (TVPJ e ...e. gnu .<...~..~. •x......x. x.... x.. . x.... rug ... ,,~ ' a s.,....rw.e..r eo.e. .. n,... ~ ..~ _.. _ -~ ________._ ., I ~ - __ -a _~ rvro _ _ _ 4\ _T~ ,__ __... _- _._.-._._ -. ___ . __._ ~' _ 3t fa .....:............ f[Y• 9 ~g +.. LANDSCAPE PLAN 17 4 N Attachment 9 ~ ar oal~maw /~• yo..uu. o.m. cx. w~n. ~•X~t•ao• .wa wwa. /uin r.cnxi.xm cwmxn x/ x ~~ m ~n..ai ~mao .~ __ . uwn o $ri~ _ ` ~m ~= ~ _--zo sa- E-,-a= ~ SEP ~ 0 2004 ~»n..~ -/ ~ RECElVfli ....x.~w/.muxo r~o•.>'e ea•xra• x.v.. v.xn. o9w.. v.x... cow.. r[ a o rn cow r.xnox x... .x.. W ST EXTERIOR ELEVATION FRON ~a n.nn.xw`r/uoo uux wwa xeia~..wurtw/ b r..nxiwwL l.ww~uux .wu wmo ww. ~ra~..uuxrw/ 0 _ ~l~ p'm u.xr -' ~- ~ B'-0'[]]' 1'w'x)'n mxc.u[ xvx.oxlemM r[xm ww.. r.asAO.~ w ww.[ v.xn. ww.• wx.ow uxnow.r .nv. .nxoow ww.. MM.u v.x.u ww.• N RTH EXTERIOR ELEVATION POND SID 3 ~ [a , w. rl~w[ /.o9iu~/ ww. uuM Y nYx xa w To[ $~a= d I - • ~ lro.moxf M/olro xR wxt W[ rtM.v ww.. v[x[n wn.. cow.• TERI R ELEVATION R R . _ _ wa ww.o r.iW o/ w _ _ _ - [~/.~xo 90 o[..LL.oxM wlw w'i[M. 4u~nw/ Y MQ.t uaxf i 1 A _ ~. ... ~nf u ~ ?. wxoow[ Mxua ww.. Nxn. cow.. i~w•ow:10• nxmxA~ /~• fro..nroxr x~]'~IO' UTH EXTERI R ELEVATI N ID i BUILDING ELEVATIONS 18 4 N Attachment 10 T- Tnlw~ ~~ ,~. ._-:_.. ____~_ _. -- _»..~.,> .a _ __-<_, -- - ,,.. ...$.__ _ - .... ---_ Talm ._ _ --_ •~ JiS J 4 ' JF }F I .~} } ~JI~~ING /SITE SECTION SEF I 0 2004 R < D E f G RECEIVED I K ~ - - - I I WO ENS I ENS I x.x V ~ _ _ _ '~, _. x ox x ». .., xu ~ ~ Y I NIBUC I 5 _ URRY __ __I_ _ -___ ~_ _ PUBUC -_ t-_ _ _ _ _ _ PURUC DFF WA111NG L 0 I 0 I I E I x - ------ - ------------- FARIxG CONF' Wrn w mxG Ess coxF. ~T. O coxF. co F. i ~ vueuc I WOG I RECEPTION I XFARING x' xxx [01 TIT. O O (] i CONF. xsx - - T I _-- ---- , S I~ 1 I ------- COXu O DNF. (] CD O ONF. O CONE. NON# S GNMENT TNG CONF. CONF. ARMIGXMENi SEATING [ONF. R 0 0 o --- cox . ~ oxF. O co v O oNR "~' I wo - NODDING X 101NG W RK I OmCE ~ NON#R IGNMENf O (] ARRMGNMEM O O O COD OOM H ING COURTRDOM I EE O I ~ TES ROOM R I I Q MECN. O 7 DGE u ~ ATA IDDGE O I _ _ _ -' _ _ _ O 0 0 I I L NALL I O _ I _ _ I _ _ - NALL O _ _- _ _ I y T _ _ _ ' FiICE ONE. B _ ' VEST. I x~iR ryDGE' CNAMR ~ - _ _ _ R~ CIERK _ MN. " TRY Stt1R w ~ _ E U [IERK _ IUDGE'S CHAMBER xORR _ _ _ _ VEST. i ('] x EIEC R O ~ ~ ' TL . O Tl . T. O T. o __ ~ - _ o 0 NO TN I g ~% F R PLAN D +n••ra ~~ ELIMNARY FLOOR PLAN FLOOR PLAN 1y 4 N Attachment 11 5q8 Apolb tMVe, Suite to lino lakes, Minnesota 55otq bt 65~-7a4-79~4 Js+~ 65~-78~-79s5 mwo.d~aw.eow enrirl~inK rnmmnnr(ir. '~ , M tlirou~h nrrGilrrlure Parking Narrative .R E C E ~ V E One of the attractive offerings of this proposed property was the ability to utilize existing parking in a joint venture with the City of Maplewood. It was understood by both parties that although this parking could not be solely dedicated towards the courts specific use it would be feasible for shared use given the high use times would not likely overlap, The Courts operational hours are weekdays between Sam and 5pm. On evenings and weekends where the most likely use of the Community Center would involve higher concentrations of people, the Courts Facility is not in use. For certain dates when the Community Center may need maximum parking the Courts could adjust the case loads as needed to reduce the likely hood of conflict. A certain amount of lead time is necessary to accomplish this however such an event would likely be well planned prior to its occurrence allowing coordination to occur. It is believed that the parking requirements for the proposed Ramsey County Suburban Courts Facility are as follows. Currently the Courts reserve 100 total spaces for staff, -egal professionals and the public at the existing facility. Little change is expected with relocation to the proposed property. Staff specific parking will be added to accommodate the current needs of the facility. Currently (21) stalls proposed. Future needs could increase this requirement to a maximum of (25) stalls. This includes spaces for: (14 to 18) dedicated staff, (6) for two Judges and each of their two personal staff and (1) HCAP. This area will be accessed through the existing parking lot but be separate and secure from the public. Legal professionals and the public will utilize the existing parking, Under normal circumstances (4) total public defenders and or prosecutors would utilize the existing parking in addition to any private attorney's representing any given number of clients whose court appearance was scheduled that day. Other users would include individuals paying fines, utilizing hearing services or appearing in court. This number fluctuates daily depending on case loads, and is typically highest on Monday and Thursday mornings. These needs appear to be accommodated by the Courts existing parking provisions as addressed above. The southern most area of the parking lot consists of (31) stalls (2) of which are HCAP. The area located immediately in front of the proposed property would serve as the facilities primary parking and would likely be utilized fully during operating hours. The area to the north would serve as overflow parking as needed, Page 2a 2 20 Attachment 12 Engineering Plan Review PROJECT: Ramsey County Suburban Courts PROJECT NO: 04-19 REVIEWED BY: Erin Laberee, Maplewood Engineering Department DATE: September 13, 2004 Ramsey County is proposing to construct a 15,150 square foot suburban courthouse on a site just south west of Wicklander's pond on the city hall campus. The site is now a community garden used by the nature center. Ramsey County is proposing the construct additional parking spaces east of the proposed building. The proposed plans show storm water runoff discharging from the site into Wicklander's pond. The applicant or their representative's shall address the following issues: Drainage The city is working on plans to retrofit the existing storm sewer system on city hall campus with best management practices. It is important that the project designer's incorporate best management practices into the drainage plan for this site. This shall include treating the runoff from impervious surfaces in an infiltration basin or in a defined Swale before it discharges into Wicklander's pond. Roof scuppers should not be attached to the storm sewer; rather, flow into a swale or basin. It is recommended that runoff from the north portion of the parking lot and the roof flow into an infiltration basin and overflow into a Swale before discharging into the pond. 2. The developer is proposing to grade a drainage swale in the city's property to the south. The developer must obtain a drainage easement from the city before doing any grading done on the city's property. Utilities 1. The contractor shall directionally bore the sanitary force main to preserve the wooded areas. 2. The project engineer shall submit plan and profile drawings of the force main construction. This shall include all existing utilities and utility crossings. The project engineer shall submit as-built drawings to the city after the contractor has completed the construction of the force main. 3. The applicant shall obtain the necessary easements for the sanitary sewer force main from the City of Maplewood and from the MN DNR (for the area by the Gateway Trail). 21 4. The project engineer shall verify with Ramsey County the plans for the installation of the water service in White Bear Avenue. The applicant should assume that the contractor will need to directionally bore the water service. Misc 1. The applicant shall submit plans to Ramsey Washington Metro Watershed District for their review and approval. 2. The contractor or applicant shall submit a traffic control plan to Ramsey County for their approval for the water main construction on White Bear Avenue. 3. The Gateway Trail right of way shall be shown on the plans. 4. The proposed layout disconnects the trail on the west side of the property (on the east side of the existing parking lot) from the Gateway Trail. The applicant shall connect the existing trail on the north and east sides of the project site to the existing trail south of the proposed building. This new trail connection shall be installed south of the proposed driveway that will be on the south side of the new building. The maximum allowable grade on a trail is 8%. 22 Attachment 13 RAMSEY COUNTY Department of Public Works Kenneth G. Haider, P.E., Director and County Engineer ADMINISTRATION/LAND SURVEY 50 West Kellogg Blvd., Suite 910 St. Paul, MN 55102 • (651) 266-2600 • Fax 266-2615 E-mail: Public.Works@co.ramsey.mn.us ENGINEERING/OPERATIONS 3377 N. Rice Street Shoreview, MN 55126 (651) 484-9104 • Fax 482-5232 MEMORANDUM TO: Ken Roberts City of Maplewood au6 ~ 7 zooa FROM: Dan Soler ~ Ramsey C unty Public Works SUBJECT: Ramsey County Court Building 2050 White Bear Avenue DATE: August 13, 2004 ~~~~~vEo The Ramsey County Public Works Department has reviewed the proposed conditional use permit and site plan for the proposed Ramsey County Court Building at 2050 White Bear Avenue. Ramsey County has the following comments regarding this proposal. 1. The County is proposing to construct a new court facility at the south end of the existing Maplewood Community Center site. The addition of the new building is not anticipated to create operational problems on White Bear Avenue. The existing roadway has adequate capacity to handle additional trips generated by the site. 2. Two access points currently serve the Maplewood Community Center on White Bear Avenue. Access to the court building will be from the south Community Center driveway. This access should be adequate for the new building. 3. The proposed project will require a utility permit from Ramsey County for work within White Bear Avenue right of way. Thanks for the opportunity to make comments regarding this issue. If you have any questions or need any additional information please give me a call. 23 Minnesota's First Home Bale County printed on recycled paper with a minimum or 10%post-consumer crontent Attachment 14 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION WHEREAS, Ramsey County applied for a conditional use permit to build a new suburban county court facility. WHEREAS, this permit applies to the property located at 2050 White Bear Avenue. The proposed legal description is: The south 183 feet of the East 420 feet of the West 633 feet of the Northwest Quarter of the Northwest Quarter of Section 14, Township 29, Range 22, Ramsey County, Minnesota. Subject to a permanent easement for drainage and utility and pedestrian trail purposes over the East 30 feet thereof, together with a permanent easement for ingress, egress and parking over, under and across the South 183 feet of the West 213 feet of the Northwest Quarter of the Northwest Quarter of Section 14, Township 29, Range 22, Ramsey County, subject to White Bear Avenue. WHEREAS, the history of this conditional use permit is as follows: 1. On September 8, 2004, the planning commission held a public hearing to review this request. City staff published a notice in the paper and sent notices to the surrounding property owners. The commission gave everyone at the hearing a chance to speak and present written statements. The commission also considered reports and recommendations from the city staff. The commission recommended that the city council approve this permit. 2. On September 27, 2004, the city council discussed and considered this proposal. The council gave everyone at the meeting a chance to speak and present written statements. They also considered reports and recommendations from the city staff and from the Planning Commission. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the city council approve the above-described conditional use permit, because: 1. The use would be located, designed, maintained, constructed and operated to be in conformity with the City's Comprehensive Plan and Code of Ordinances. 2. The use would not change the existing or planned character of the surrounding area. 3. The use would not depreciate property values. 4. The use would not involve any activity, process, materials, equipment or methods of operation that would be dangerous, hazardous, detrimental, disturbing or cause a nuisance to any person or property, because of excessive noise, glare, smoke, dust, odor, fumes, water or air pollution, drainage, water runoff, vibration, general unsightliness, electrical interference or other nuisances. 5. The use would generate only minimal vehicular traffic on local streets and would not create traffic congestion or unsafe access on existing or proposed streets. 24 6. The use would be served by adequate public facilities and services, including streets, police and fire protection, drainage structures, water and sewer systems, schools and parks. 7. The use would not create excessive additional costs for public facilities or services. 8. The use would maximize the preservation of and incorporate the site=s natural and scenic features into the development design. 9. The use would cause minimal adverse environmental effects. Approval is subject to the following conditions: 1. All construction shall follow the site plan approved by the city. The director of community development may approve minor changes. Any future expansions or major changes to the site or to the building require the approval of a revision to the conditional use permit by the city council. 2. The city council may require the county to construct the additional parking shown on the site plan east of the east parking lot if a parking problem develops. 3. The applicant must begin construction within one year after the council approves this permit or the permit shall end. The city council may extend this deadline for one year. 4. The city council shall review this permit in one year. The Maplewood City Council approved this resolution on , 2004. 25 AGENDA ITEM I-1 AGENDA REPORT TO: City Manager FROM: Charles Ahl, Public Works Director/City Engineer Erin Laberee, Civil Engineer 1 SUBJECT: Springside Drive Extension--West of Sterling St., Project 03-36 Resolution Receiving and Rejecting All Bids and Authorizing Project Rebid for 2005. DATE: September 16, 2004 Introduction Final plans and specifications for the Springside Drive Extension-West of Sterling St. were approved by the city council on August 23, 2004, and authorization was given to advertise for bids. Those bids were received and opened on Friday, September 17, 2004. Background The bids were received and publicly read aloud at 10:00 a.m., on Friday, September 17, 2004. The following three bids were received: 1. T. A. Schifsky $151,373.66 2. Forest Lake Contracting $153,037.50 3. Danner, Inc. $161,236.60 The engineers estimate for the project was $118,872.50. T.A. Schifsky's low bid of $151,373.66 is over the engineer's estimate by an additional 27% or $32,501.16. Discussion Due to the small size of the project and the fact that the proposed project is not located near any ongoing projects, it was difficult to estimate the unit prices of the bid items. It is recommended that the project be rebid in 2005 in conjunction with the city's neighborhood street reconstruction project, Gladstone North. It is expected that the unit prices for the Gladstone North project will be much lower due to the large size of the project and the construction cost of the project will be closer to the engineer's estimate. Recommendation It is recommended that the city council approve the attached resolution receiving and rejecting all bids and authorizing the project to be rebid in 2005. Budget Impact There would be no impact to the approved budget based on the above recommendation at this time. Attachments: Resolution Location Map RESOLUTION RECEIVING AND REJECTING BIDS AND AUTHORIZING PROJECT REBID WHEREAS, pursuant to resolution passed by the city council on August 9t", 2004, plans and specifications for Springside Drive Extension, West of Sterling Street, City Project 03-36, have been prepared under the direction of the city engineer, and WHEREAS, pursuant to resolution passed by the city council on August 23, 2004, bids were received for said project on September 10, 2004 as follows: 1. T. A. Schifsky $151,373.66 2. Forest Lake Contracting $153,037.50 3. Danner, Inc. $161,236.60 WHEREAS, the engineer's estimate for said project was $118,872.50, which is significantly less than all bids received. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA: that the bids for the construction of Springside Drive Extension - West of Sterling St., City Project 03-36, are hereby received and rejected and that the city engineer is hereby authorized to arrange for the project to be rebid in 2005. Adopted by the council on this 27t" day of September 2004. Agenda I-2 MEMORANDUM TO: Richard Fursman, City Manager FROM: Bruce K. Anderson, Director of Parks and Recreation DATE: September 21, 2004 for the September 27 City Council Meeting SUBJECT: Maplewood Community Center Fitness Equipment Introduction The Maplewood Community Center opened to the public in October 1994.One of the highest used facilities is the exercise equipment located on the third floor. The Maplewood City Council allocated $75,000 for fitness equipment replacement in 2004. Background The Maplewood Community Center serves over 300,000 patrons annually. One of the most popular components of the community center is the third floor fitness equipment. It is not unusual for individuals to be three to five deep waiting to get onto a particular piece of equipment. The 2004 budget provides for $75,000 to replace the community center fitness equipment that is currently 10 years old. The city received two formal quotations and/or bids for fitness equipment. Staff recommends that Second Wind Exercise Equipment be awarded the low bid in the amount of $37,378.31. The new equipment will include three treadmills, eight bikes and seven pieces of strength equipment. In addition to the two formal quotations, additional replacement pieces will be purchased as well that will not require city council approval. It is anticipated that the new equipment will be available to the public in mid October. Recommendation Staff recommends that the city council award the fitness exercise equipment bid to Second Wind Exercise Equipment in the amount of $37,378.31. kh~fitness equipment.mcc Aug • 4. 201)4 2: 27PM i ~~~~~ Company: Maplewood Community Center Contact: Mary Koehnen Address: 2100 White Sear Ave. City; Maplewood State; MN Zip Code: 55'109 Phone #: 651-249-2207 .....-------Fax-t~65'1-~4~2249-'-----•------._~_......-----.._...._..._._._~--_-..._. ~_ Email: No.1955 P• 1/1 Eric Johnson 1420 East 78th Street Richfield, MN 55423 Phone: 612-861-8$48 Fax: 612-866-9634 e ohnsan 2ndwindexercise.com Date: 6/2/2004 Version: RV s lS rtce lsG. Price 2014Ef0 • Troadrnills" HR Rating 1 TR~510 Star Track Programmable Treadmill Up 6010 ;5,995.00 ;4,800.00 • (Elliptical Cross Trainers • 2 CT-9500HR Life Fitness Cordless Tobl W / HR No Limmlt 35,195.00 ;3,900,00 ' Bikes' 3 90C Lice Fitness Cordless Upd ht Standard Featur+s 52,195.00 $1,575.00 5 90R Life Fitness Cordless Rec. Spndard Feature $2,595.00 ;1,850.00 1 C-4850 x VR Seated Leg Press White $3,995.00 ;3,300.00 53 300A0 ~ C-5341 C bex Linear Smith W /Storage Reeks White $2,995.00 52,550.00 , ;2 550 OD 2 Ham tort 2 Trer XL Tra l76 Racks Numbered ;595.00 $375.00 , . ;750,00 1 Hampton Rubber DB's Set 551bs to 1001bs $2,595.00 $1,350.00 31 350 D0 1 r. Hampton Rubber DB's Set 31b, 51b, 81b, 121bs $99.00 ;54.00 , . ;54 00 1 Hare ton Tricep Rope $39.85 518.00 . 518.00 " ~ Supermat ~ Mab 8 Wal Charts for Cardio Equlpmertt $1,800.00 NUC Illl~mm~ in„~w~~n Special lnstruetlons: Equipment Total: $34,597,00 Factory Freight: 6 Month Preventative Maintenance Visit included at N1C Delivery/lftstallation: 5775.00 $325.00 Disposal Fee; Trade In; Subtotal: 535,D97.00 TeX: $2,289.31 Maintenance Agreement: Layout Y TOTAL: S37.375 3~ AUG-06-2004 00:07 FROM: T0:612 779 9608 P.002~002 .; r ~~ Quote = vuswmer Name Maplewood Community Center _ Address 2100 White Bear~AVe ~ ~ ~ ' City Maplewood State MN ZIP 55109 ~~ _ Phone Mary Koehnen 651-249»2207 Fax-651.249-2249 Cty 1 2 3 5 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 Description _ TR-4510 Star Trac Treadmill CT-9500HRR Life Fitness Cross Trainer 9oC life Fitness Uprigh# Bike 90R Life Fitness Recumbent Bike C-4860 Cybex VR Seated Leg Press C-5341 Cybex Linear Smith Machine Hampton 2 tier XL Tray D9 Rack Hampton Set Rubber DB's 55i1~100# Pr Hampion Rubber DB'S 3#,5#,8#,12# Hampton Tricep Rope Supermat Mats and Wall charts .Freight and Inside lnstaliation Payment Details ~ Cash Q Check O Credit Card Name Expires ~ ~~~~ Date 8/4!2004 Rep Tony Giordano Phone 585-244-5094 Fax 585-271-3476 Unit price $5,595,00 $4,395,00 $1,695.00 $2,095.00 $3,495.00 $2,79S.Op $395.00 $1,395.00 $59.95 $19.95 $0.00 $1,125.00 Shipping $ Handling Taxes State TOTAL Office Use Only Thank You fior Choosing G&G Fitness! If I TOTAL $5,595.00 $8,790.00 55,085.Oa $10,475.00 $3,495.00 $2,795.00 $790.00 51,395A0 $59.95 $19.95 $0.00 $1,125.00 $39,624, 90 Corpa~ate Addross ~~~ ,~~~ 7350 Transit Road • Williamsville, NY 14221 Phone [800) 537.0516 • Fax (716) 204.(1113 T~a~^T~~ Agenda #J1 SUMMARY MEMORANDUM TO: City Manager FROM: Ken Roberts, Planner SUBJECT: Mapletree Townhomes LOCATION: Southlawn Drive, south of Beam Avenue DATE: September 16, 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 and the maps in the staff memorandum for more details about the proposal. The proposal would have three, 3-unit townhouse buildings and two detached garage buildings (with a total of 10 parking stalls). Each town house would have a two-car attached garage, a deck and a patio area. There also would be nine open parking spaces. Requests To build this project, Mr. Brandt is requesting that the city approve: 1. The revised preliminary plat to create the lots for the buildings. 2. The revised design plans for the site, landscaping and buildings. BACKGROUND On July 12, 2004, the city council considered Mr. Brandt's requests to develop his property with nine townhouses. The council, however, expressed concerns about the amount of asphalt and impervious surface on the proposed plans and denied the requests on a 3-2 vote. On July 26, 2004, the city council voted 5-0 to reconsider Mr. Brandt's development request and gave him 60 days to bring revised plans back to the city council. DISCUSSION Since the city council actions in July, Mr. Brandt has made several revisions to the proposed project plans. These changes were to address the council's concerns about the amount of impervious surface on the site and the design of the townhouses. The primary issues with the proposal involve the sanitary sewer and the grading and drainage plan. The engineering staff review inGuded 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 Townhomes LOCATION: Southlawn Drive, south of Beam Avenue DATE: September 16, 2004 INTRODUCTION Project Description Mr. Jon Brandt is proposing to build nine townhouses (in three, 3-unit buildings) and five 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. In response to concerns expressed earlier this year by the city council, Mr. Brandt has submitted revised project plans. (Please see his latest statement on page 37, the new plans on pages 38 through 41 and the enclosed project plans.) In addition, please refer to the applicant's original 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 and one or two detached garage buildings (with a total of up to 10 parking stalls). Each town house would have a two-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 revised building elevations on page 41 and the enclosed plans.) The revised plans now show nine open parking spaces (instead of 11) and no longer show the proposed community building. 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 39.) 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. On July 12, 2004, the city council considered Mr. Brandt's requests to develop his property with nine townhouses. The council, however, expressed concerns about the amount of asphalt and impervious surface on the proposed plans and denied the requests on a 3-2 vote. On July 26, 2004, the city council voted 5-0 to reconsider Mr. Brandt's development request and gave him 60 days to bring revised plans back to the city council. 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. Density 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. The revised preliminary plat (on page 38) shows one less lot than the earlier proposal as Mr. Brandt has dropped his plans for a community building on the site. 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 revised utility plans on page 40). 2 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 revised grading plan on page 39.) 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 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 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 city 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 revised 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 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. 3 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 brick veneer or stone accents, white vinyl-clad windows, and the roof would have brown asphalt shingles. (See the applicant's statement starting on page 37, the revised building elevation drawings on page 41 and the revised 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 latest site and grading plans (pages 38 - 40) also show two separate garage buildings on the site and no longer show the community/maintenance building that Mr. Brandt had proposed earlier. 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 the extra garages 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/Screening 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 4 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. 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. (Mr. Brandt has now dropped this building from his plans.) COMMISSION ACTIONS On June 21, 2004, the planning commission recommended approval of the originally-proposed preliminary plat for the development. On June 22, 2004, the community design review board (CDRB) recommended approval of the original design plans for the proposed development, subject to several conditions. RECOMMENDATIONS A. Approve the Mapletree Townhomes preliminary plat (received by the city on September 8, 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). 5 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 September 16, 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 atl 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. 6 5. Secure and provide all required easements for the development including any off-site drainage and utility easements. 6. The developer shall complete all grading for public improvements and overall site drainage. The city engineer shall include in the developer's agreement any grading that the developer or contractor has not completed before final plat approval. 7. If necessary, obtain a permit from the Ramsey-Washington Metro Watershed District for grading. 8. If the developer decides to final plat part of the preliminary plat, the director of community development may waive any conditions that do not apply to the final plat. 9. Submitting the homeowners' association bylaws and rules to the 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 September 8, 2004, (site plan, grading and drainage plans and building elevations) 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: 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. 7 (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. (b) Include an inventory of all existing large trees on the site and shall show where the developer will remove, save or replace large trees. (c) Show the size, species and location of the replacement trees. The 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 and shall 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. 8 b. Submit a certificate of survey for all new construction and have each building staked by a registered land surveyor. c. Submit revised landscape and tree plans to city staff for approval that incorporates the following details and that meet the following requirements: (1) All trees would be consistent with city standards for size, location and species. (2) The maple trees must be at least 2 1/2 inches in caliper, balled and burlapped. (3) 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. (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) Foundation plantings near and around the buildings and additional screening (with trees and other materials) between the proposed buildings and Southlawn Drive. (6) 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). (7) The contractor shall restore the Southlawn Drive boulevard with sod. (8) 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 and shall show as much of the existing vegetation (including trees) remaining along the westerly and southerly property lines. In addition, this plan shall show the planting of at least 10 replacement trees on the site. (9) 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. (10) Shows 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. (11) Shows the in-ground lawn-irrigation system. (12) Shall be approved by the city engineer before site grading and shall be consistent with the approved grading and landscape plans. 9 (13) Shows no tree removal beyond the approved grading and tree limits. 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 white-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 Tower 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 and garages. These elevations should show that the townhouses 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 garages would have abeige-colored vinyl siding with a wainscot of brick or stone. 10 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 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 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. 11 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. All work shall follow the approved plans. The director of community development may approve minor changes. CITIZENS' COMMENTS I surveyed the owners of the 25 properties within 500 feet of this site in June 2004 about the original proposal. 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 the application materials for the original requests on May 24, 2004. The city council held a public hearing for the original proposal on July 12, 2004 and denied the applicant's requests. This action was done by the city within the 60-day timeframe as state law requires. 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 Utility 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 September 16, 2004 18. Statement from Mr. Brandt dated September 8, 2004 19. Proposed Preliminary Plat dated September 8, 2004 20. Proposed Grading Plan dated September 8, 2004 21. Proposed Utility Plan dated September 8, 2004 22. Revised Building Elevations dated September 8, 2004 23. Colored Site Plan (separate attachment 24. Colored Building Elevation (separate attachment) 13 Attachment 1 ate,. B~.,cz 2831 Southlawn Drive, Maplewood, MN 55109-1146 Fax: 651-748-1284 • jonbrnndt@nol.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 2831 Southlawn Drive, Maplewood, MN 55109-1146 Fax: 651-748-1284 • jonbrandt@aol.com • Phone: 651-777-5004 May 21, 2004 To: Community Development Public Works City of Maplewood From: Jon Brandt, ownerldeveloper 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/fill. 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 Apri12004, 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 gravity 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 Lany 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 cun'ent 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 sell 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 Enstineerins~ 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 Southlnwn Drive, Maplewood, MN 55109-1146 Fax: 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 pefiaps 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 (contj 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 Mapletree Tovmhomes 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 fighting 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 _ _ ~q~ - ~.I - I - ~ i I ~ i - , - ~ -' - - I , i I . ~ 11. ~~= ,, ~ ~ , t . ~ f ti 11 1 - _ T _ ~ - . r - - -- - - - - _... _ ~ 1 I • ~ ' - - __- i _ li L I r_ i ~ II Q = ~ ~ ~ • t _~ _ - ~ ~ ~ ~ 'I ~~ r' ii ,i~ ' ~ ~ i II ~ ' 9 t - I 1. r F I _ ~ . ' f :C ~. _ _ _ -_ I I ~ , , ~ I ,, ^ I _ - - 6 i~ _ ~ ^ ~ - -4s~ ' ~ _~ ~. ~~ ~_ r ~ • F - I lS~ - ~~ 11 rY ~ I ^ -' ~ ^ ^ ~ _ _ I ~j ~ y . ~ ~~ r Y _..., ~.k _ .\ J ` L' I 1 _ ^~ 1-' II I 1 ~ L I I - ~ .A F ~ ~ ~ ~ i ~ • -- ~~ - - I ie1 __ . _ I ^ ~ 4 i ' - -_-.. _ i ~ ~ 'I r I d ,n~~.~ _- _~_ ,_ - t - - r ~ # ~~ l 151 I - ~I _ Jr I~~ _ I ~I _ ~ I r I. - l I _ .-.I 'S s~ _ ~ i ~ - ~ j _ _ _- I I I :~; ;~ ~~ ~~ A-~~- - ~. ~~~ Attachment 6 W 0 N_ 0 °z Nortn line of South 247A0 Feet of North I 691.00 ieet of SE 1/4 of Sec. 3, Trp. 29N, Rng. 22V. S88°48'14'E 160.18 _ 27.25 N37'33'09' - - ~ '- - - - - - - N38.23'46'W 24.73 ' '~ S89.44'12'E . SH9.47'30'E 64.00 30.00 3 w 0 0 "^~ 6 ~o m 2839 ~ 3 3 0 ~0 ~m ~ Z ~ ~ 1 oa. mo 30.00 o w a SB9'47'30'E Vi 3 W ~0 5 $° ~ $ oy e o -- ------ -- ~ N g Z M O 64.00 589'47'30' 64.00 •47' 0' Q+ 30.00 ! N89'47'30'V 11 .l "~ 2831 ~ • ~:i_1 I D 3 o'.o ~1c c°' G P ~. tn.l y ~ t 't I S88'46'14'E 125.02 o ~o :~ _ - North 1Yle of South 721.00 Pert of Ibrth 812AD fret of SE V4 of Src 3, Trp. 29N, R np, 22V, ---__--_ _-_- S26'31'39'V ' '~ ~ 125.02 ~ 3 33.8 .~ N88'48'14'W °'o ~ mf'' S89'47'30'E ,i c m mN. 30.00 0 N 0 y 3 W 3 °mo ^ °m o 0 No (7 ~D o :p o N S rn g ~ b 2809 ' 64.00 ~ ~ ~ S89.47'30'E ~~ f.im ~: ti o ;o° 30.00 S89'47'30'E'nN'•, s i 2 „ 0.•. e~ 1 r N'., 1 - - -- _ c^ -- 160,18 ~ - ---' -- - N88°48'14'W ~ 2799 ~ South IMe of North 812.00 feet of SE 1/4 of Sec. 3, Trp. 29N. Rnp. 22V, 1 - ~ ~ i ~ ~ ~ ~ i i i i~ ~~ ~ '~ i I L - - - - - i I~ I ..F 3 H ~__ RADATZ o ~ - - ---' i ~ STREET 0 a ~ V! .z ~ ~Q I IJ ~ ~ U~ ~ - .; --`_-- i _. PROPOSED PRELIMINARY PLAT ~ Mir ~~ 24 4 N Attachment 7 - - - " ----.. ..._921 ................... -521- I I -°-----.__.._.I-921- - I ' I I 5 I glS _.... _ . -~.g 21 - irJy RIM 92o.es INV 907 {5 s •, m I y13 `. `. _~ ~. I I ~ 9 1_ooz. , 92p_.. :. ....:: .__._... j6 •'919- N P~1. ~- . 1~ 91 :9 O- ~ ~ , Ekl$rNG I ~ aD ~' LL ~~; 2839 ' ~ o rn ~ ~ ., . . , :~; .. ' -', . ~ ~, ~ I ~~ ~ ~ W ~~ N ~ '~ ~ `' ~ . ti I - 9Qg ro . ~. ~ LL.. 0 f ~ ~ I ~: I : 9J i ~' n ~ ; ;~ 9 ~ Ns. I 9 q T:OOR 6' , I ~~ID ~ ~ ~9, _ . I~ r, ~ 2831 ti °' _ I I s ''._.. QS ~, •., N y.......• ~y . 'OFF ~ I oo... ~.I ~, LLLL ~.~ _ 9 .: ,.• t '. ', L_ _ . _ . . PVC WALLNING co ',90o y.~°c ,~o~ ., ~ _, o ( ''. B DS ~•. Ot < f - 'f>.1511NG ;I • ~ ~ 9J ' 2809 FES 204 / 7e64(F _ __ _.~I7 '• '' 9JW 15' ENDWALL ®0 RC 'v ''- 9 ., ''., ~~, I INV: 892.18 `501. '~. ~9 CO '~. ~'. 6 ~ .. .. .. ~, .. .. - HWL 900.09 NWL 995.50 1'4 R I CP 12 CBMH 200 -_ ® e.oo~ CBMH 203 FES 202 CBMH 201 RIM: 909.89 I I RIM: 695.50 72" ENDWALL RIM: 909.79 INV: 900.14 ~. 2T99 I INV: 899.00 INV: 899.64 I (Gt DETAIL) Exisnuc G? I I ~ -- .BUILDIN I I I I I I I Z Q J V, STREET ____ \Ek MN RIM 921.01 I INV. 904.16 (N) INV. 905.06 (E) INV. 904.95 (5) PROPOSED GRADING PLAN ~m~ z~) 25 N Attachment 8 I p 30 45 80 90 120 .4~'.AT.TS IN N 6 X11 ',~ ~, gyp s ,~ ` 9s ~°4, f '. ~` ~ . 0 N S S Or _o- O~ ~. - ---921-'------- -9. -'-'--921'------- - ~`~~ ~2838~~ ~~d I' NI N ~ ~ i ~,~~- : ~ K ..~>_ ___ ..9~ _ - - .f / _ ___. ~. 9 igi~, UUI.J u 158)°o m S. °~ SAN SiuB 1. ELEVATIONS ARE FINISN GRADE m :9° ~ 9Ip =':- ,•_ B' voc Q ~, 111xxx I ~. ~. ~9 ~ gO5.t99zD_--__`. C S° 9 0 ~~ 9y S ~.o ~ N RETAINING 's ``9°- v p 1~ 4~ WALL `~ °0 ~:9° N °v' ~ V ~"~~ o f e ' 9l , s ~, . 2809 `~°9 9! ~ EOF - S ~ '9~ , ^~ ~ `` ```` \9Jg ; _ ~', ~.',9J~~,,9J~ ', ~..,~ __ __ __ '- ~6-9J7. 6 ~ - - NWL 900.09 NWL 895.50 2799 ,[XISANC 9UIlDING.. . ~ ~ ... ~ . CE AREA PROPOSED DRAINA POND DETENTION ~ ' ~E% NHf RIN 920.85 1NV. 807.45 i Q Y ~--- 3 J s VJ STREET \EZ NN RIM 911.01 INV. 905.18 (N IMV 905.06 (E NiV. 901.95 (5 I PROPOSED DRAINAGE AREA MAP Mn~ zo~ 26 4~ lN, Attachment 9 ~ ' STUB ~~~~ ~.. I ~ I I I I ~ ~ ~ I 1 I I uHi E ~ m I u v O]+5 g v! B I p O I I MH 100 RIM: 912.56 a ~Y -' '" I IN INV: 901.66 ~ ~° ~ - ""~ . I OUT iNV: 901.56 c~ ~ ~? p ~ ~ : 3930 2 V 1 I 1R ~~ ~ ~_ ~ ~ I 1 ~ ~ z i ~ ~ w 1 < I ., " . ~ ~ i ~ i - x831 = ~ I _. _ ~~ I 4 ~ 4. I _ I m ..... ; l ~ ...........; --- I-- --- -- i e~ aYc 6" D.I. wATERMAIN ~ ~ 6"%6" REDUCER i ~ STREET '~ ~ ;_ i ~ Ex 5.w SIUB E~ - - - _..... I ... T I wv. w n Zst I Q I RETAINING ..: J 1 WALL ~ rn LL ~ .Ewsriw ~ 9 > I I FES 204 ~ sa<F ' __ ___ ___ . 8~ ,,, F O ENDWALL ®p HEp 15 ~ I INV: 892.18 ; !9B 90 I I I - - _ - - I NWL 900.08 NWL OYS.bD 12La RCG CBMH 200 1 I I 40 R M: 1 00 CBMH 203 FES 202 ~ e.ooz CBMH 201 RIM: 909.89 ", 2 . .yq. IN INV: 886.45 I RIM: 895.50 12" ENDWALL 00 099 RIMS 909.79 INV: 900.14 Ba 899 INV 799 - I 1 Y~ • OUT INV: 886.351 . ~ DETAIL) INV: (G . : ,Ewsnec " ~ I I Q,IC. t 9uiLOntc I ~ 0 ~ 1 I Ex YH 22-6] ~ EB .y 1Y ]8~99 (e) w V. v. e)wel Iwl 1 I I I 1 I __ I ______________~ _ I I I __~ I I I I j I I I ~ 1 ~ PROPOSED UTILITY PLAN ~,~,~. ~ z~ M~YZ~F 4 N Attachment 10 ~ ~ ~ i I i i ~ i ~ ~~ RETAINING WALL FES 204 ~~ 15" ENDWALL o INV: 892.18 ' LL K I~~p[y2( L LL~LL i L LL _~ N ~ ~ s I~~~I MH 102 RIM: 918.20 OUT INV: 906.99 .. ~-.. - y ~~ `, 2839 ~* ,,~, m.... n'~~. ~~~ ~_ 2831 ; LIFT STATION MH 101 RIM: 913.00 IN INV: 903.74(Nl IN INV: 901.83(51 "---~ E> ~~~ RW 9ao.es aa+ s @ 2 k " ~ I L---- e' vEUC 8'%6' REDUCER -- ~ /t n/L rJ \ STREET MH 103 MH 100 RIM: 912.00 NIMNV 190530 OUT INV: 902.28 OU7 INV: 905.19 BUILD OVER E%- 1 bEw'stmc ~ .I ': 2809 Q J 1 - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ NWL 900.09 ' NWL 895.50 L~ 12 RCP e e.oox CBMH 200 CBMH 203 FES 202 CBMH 201 RIM: 909.89 2799 RIM: 895.50 12' ENOWALL RIM: 909.79 INV: 900.14 INV: 892.50 INV: 899.00 INV: 899.84 (Gt DETAIL) - 'EXISTING 't.Bli4;umG , ; E> un Z3-e) RMI ee~.e. Hv-. eii.el ~wj \1 ___ \_, I _ ~ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ~ _ I _ ___ _ _ _ ___ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __, I I I I I ~ _ _ _ _ I \wW 9R1 Ot 9W.te 1e1 WV. 9ee.96 E) Nv 9M 9r S) PROPOSED UTILITY PLAN ~No. 2~ 28 M PI `~ ?~~' N ~• Attachment 11 =. - - arv~4 'S ^ -- -~_- --- -- ~----- ~~,,,,i- ~.~a .~d..y.~.a -----'- Q ~_ ~~ £~ `N S~ ~~ E i 4} l w u i MAb O r M ,~~ ~ j ;i i. ----N----- -- ~ '. i ~ t 1~ ~ -~~.. __ 2 • ~ ~ i l ~' iI ~i •--~~---~ r ~, ," --, :~ ~ 17e1e Awro o~ •~,set {M• j(~{ '~ t Flo J '" ~ p! d ~- ` --T\\-aaJJ..- -- i ~ i I ~~ ! ~ I r ~'~ r='~' ~-_ ~8 ~ l ~ : P-` • a ' ~. a ~ ,, , ~ ~~ r------L^ ~, ---'-- -~-~ - -- - .. 7. _. __. .-~._--------. ~-'r=_--1=- n I~ ~s I •,n ~~ ~ e T-' ----- I~- i ~ ' ~ is w I ~~ ,r i~ S Y ~. ~~. :~ .-~ s _ ssed ' 2x P v ,~I r`~_....__~_~. ~;, ~I~ ~ ~ ~ I VI ~ : I 3 'Y ~-- 1 ~ , ~ ~ V ~ ` ~ J` ~ I-- - - - ~--- 1 R ! i ~~- r~ ~ ~ _r, p s -~~ J ~ __ {(~''~ v sy y~J ~ 1Z/ • ~ ~ ~ t ' ~ ~ 1 -~ tyy~ ---- -- ~~ 7 .~',` f _ ~~ i ~- ~ i Y a y _; - a c 1-'-- F-« i ~ I PROPOSED LANDSCAPE PLAN 29 4 N ~ ~~ 3 _.__. Attachment 12 LANDSCAPE PLAN DETAIL -PLAN A 30 4 N Attachment 13 LANDSCAPE PLAN DETAIL -PLAN B 31 r N Attachment 14 LANDSCAPE PLAN DETAIL -PLAN C 32 4 N Attachment 15 LANDSCAPE PLAN DETAIL -PLAN D 33 4 N __ f~~ Attachment 16 ~~~ _ ~ ~ \~~ __ i I 1 d~ I ' ~~ \ 4 (( ,\~~ 1 \\ ± \, I ' P~„ I 11111 11::,111 III . jIl ` i -' I_..~ ~ -i_... _.__-...__ _ f'~_.. II 1 '' ~ I ' ` Ii ~ it 1 + I ,: 1 ~LIC1~ ~ -' ' ' I ~ I ~ 1 II ~ I I I ~ x ~1 i .' I1 II ~ ~ii ~,_ , 1 I I /; ~__-- ~; ' I i! 1.: 1; it - 1 1 r I I / --..~~: I q 11n ~ l 1~I ~ ~+ t l ~`jli .I ~ ~b~ I _~ 'III FV' i I~ i ~ 11 I ~R I I! :'~ ' ~ 1 ~ I: 1 ~~i I 11 3'r f11II ~ 11i .~ II '~ it l~ 1 11. 111, 1 j I i /~~ li I II 1 , r~ i I f.~ I:.j I I I~ y 1 I i i I 1lp 1 i~ 1 ~~`il~}~IfikS~ll ' ;I I ' 1I i li i l ~I~~ i~ }I Mu f I ~ p I, I' ' ~-~i ° 1 t I q LIL.f ~'. i ~ 1i I' q'1 LYr -~ f 1 ~Q-••~ ~~i ~ I~ ' iLj , !i ~ L:7 ! i , 1 I Lj I ~ 1If ~ 1 1111, -- -,. t l ~ rill ~ '.J I Ir'+ I'II1 n ~,I~ ~ 1 11111(:11 I I. ~ 1 ' ~i , fl' 1 II'I' III t i ' i ~.~ 1}a. ' '1'1 4 I 1 1 ~" I 't ,.III , ~ h - - I i ' i I 1 11 ,~ III j I ~ _-y1 \ ! i i 1.. , j r 1,11 y ;~ I I 1~\ _.-"~. ' III 11 ' ~; I 1 . j I .I '' ' '\ ~ I - I' i' ( I I ,, ~~' I i'' 111 l i ' \I I i 'Hi (1' !11111 1 ` 'I I iitl ,il 111 If:fl I I ~',11 1.1 i~1 f' II II II~ I ~.i! ~ r' ..1 I I q I I' ri 1, 11'i .i'tl I i I I ~ ~, Ali ~ ~ ~ a 1 - ., i ~ l~j; 1~1~~ `11111 .j~~1 1111 Ii; ' I 1 If~ I~ 1: II J 1 1 I1, 1 I , .. /- 1 .1 1 ~ I `11 i ~ 1 1•. 11:11 r 'I 1 ~`;n .2 it I. J ~~ 111 ' IL.- I'I~ I! i~~p 1 i1' ~ ( ~+ I , 6' I ~' 1 r/~, / 1 1 ' ~ /6 MAY 7~ ~l~l. auia..en .~X+1.S :_1JRAN DT -I` i~jSty. /~^,_'jj-]-[~,.~/'~pw .a ~ _-._~ *rs~'.¢v~w inV ~'-. ,_ -. . o ~ ~~~ilniaa ry.est~,o. w~we ~m~i ... -PROPOSED BUILDING ELEVATIONS --i-- 34 n>.v.. w'.w.'nroanort 11n~aw'<rw ~v-n' ~' s:py-1CS~z .. Attachment 17 Engineering Plan Review PROJECT: Mapletree Townhomes PROJECT NO: REVIEWED BY: Erin Laberee, Maplewood Engineering Department DATE: September 16, 2004 Jon Brandt is proposing to develop a 1.51-acre site offof 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 prior to discharging into Kohlman 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 adjacent property owner at 2799 Southlawn Drive has expressed concerns to city staff about the grading and drainage of the development. The proposed grading plan shows that the majority of the runoff to the south will be captured in a swale and routed to the new pond. There will be minimal runoff from this site that will flow onto the adjacent property at 2799 Southlawn Drive. The project site has been designed to prevent runoff from entering the property at 2799 Southlawn Drive. 3. The applicant shall provide more detailed information about the storm sewer outlet from the pond into city property. City staff needs additional contour information to know how the discharge from the pond on the project site will affect the 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. 35 Grading and Erosion Control 1. The applicant shall provide a detailed erosion control plan. Misc The applicant shall submit plans to Ramsey Washington Watershed for their review and apply for an NPDES permit since site disturbance will be greater than 1 acre. 36 Ja. B~.~z Attachment 18 2831 Southlawn Orive, Maplewood, MN 55109-1146 Fnx: 651-748-1284 • jonbrandt@aol.com • Phone: 651-777-5004 September 8, 2004 To: Ken Roberts, Community Development ~ ~ ~ ~; ZQ~~ City of Maplewood ~ E C ~' ~ E ~ From: Jon Brandt, Developer, Mapletree Townhomes I have attached revised site plans and blueprints for the Mapletree Townhomes project proposed for Southlawn Drive. As you are aware, in July the city council expressed three general areas of concern about the project: too much impervious surface, not enough grass or green-space, and an exterior design for the townhomes that was too boxy and unbecoming. I believe the attached revisions mitigate if not resolve these objections, while retaining the strength of the original plans. I commissioned an architecture artist to provide color renderings of both the new townhome design and an aerial layout of the overall project. Color copies are attached for each council member. The original full size renderings (12x18) will be available for presentation at the council meeting. Revised plans provide for the following modifications: • The architect has adapted the townhome designs to change the rooflines and all four elevations, to eliminate the boxy-appearance, and create more dramatic facades. We have removed the "Community Building" from the site plan, and reduced the number of parking spaces from 11 to eight or nine. These changes have a rather remarkable effect on the overall site plan: a reduction in the impervious surface area, a diminished sense of "crowding," a reduction in the amount of driveway (asphalt) to service the garages and parking, a better grading plan, more landscaping/grass, and space for outdoor gatherings east of the pond. • We will defer the construction of the south garage building to provide additional grass and landscaping, and allow future residents to choose between green space and garage space. • Additional trees (maples and black hills spruce), plants (perennials & annuals), and berms have been added to the site plan. The landscape plans, originated by Bachman's Landscape Design Services, will be expanded and replicated throughout the project. The above changes enhance the original strength of the development: The townhomes are all oriented toward the park reserve. The original floor plans have been retained, which allows living areas to be surrounded by the natural beauty of the park reserve. It's our intention that there is a graceful continuity, rather than abrupt transition between the existing homes, commercial development, the new townhomes, the garage building(s) and the park reserve. The townhomes will be complimented with extensive landscaping, ponding, and a lighting design that creates apark-like setting. ... 37 Attachment 19 1 1 l North Ikle or sovtn ze~m tees er North i ~ 6lI.e0 feet of SE VI of Sec 3, Tp, 29N, Rnp. ity. 1 SB8.48'14'E ~ ~ 160.18 -~ l --------------------------------a 18.23'46'4 N17.20'28'E 1 l S89'aa'12'E 50.92 j s "'~ 1 'g P N W O ~j ~ ~ O ~ fU OD ~D o f`'1 o Z 2 I 1 I 1 I S89.47'30' 3 30.00 l O s m I ~ ~ ~ 7 W I ° 1 1 ~0 5 0° y I e ~ N ~ l ' N Z t {~ -________~~_____________________~ ~ Q ~ I 11 30.00 ° ' I 1 N89'4T30'W ~ 1 II I 1 ~ j I ' ~ u N 1 l N c i ~ ¢ ~ I 1 1 1 3 ,. `t' l ~ o• N ~ 1 ~ l S88'48'14'E 158.02 3 ~: 3 °~ ~; P c N OUTLOT A North floe or South 121.00 Peet of North 812A0 Feet or SE L4 or Sec 3, Tep i!9N, Rrp, 22V, N'S•t5.52'E 1553 3o.ao j 158.02 N88'48'14'W 4 °" e^ i 160.18 N88'48'14'W I I ' Soutn IM or North 812m reef 1 1 of SE VI of Sec. 3, Tp. 29N, Rnp 22 V. 1 I I i 1 1 _______1_________________~___________. ~8 3 (L ° O M 30.00 ti S89•a7.30'E '. ° _ N i 1 I 1 I I I I I 1 --------------------i i i i l I 1 1 ~ ~ 1 d. .' 3 _RADATZ_ ° "' STREET --- r 0'1 0 I ~ r----------------------------• i 1 1 1 ' ~~ I `_ a ' 1 J ' t I 1 1 i f' Iil 1 r - ; O ' r ~I ~. I 1 ~I ' ~i I I ! l ~~__~ ! r------------------------ I j ~ I ~ ~ ' 1 l I 6~6 l I ~ ~ i t 1 ~1 i 1 i~~• 1./ I L ............................. I 1 I I :~ I 1 PROPOSED PRELIMINARY PLAT 9"-~-0~ 38 N C Attachment 20 71011 P1190G LOT 9F!C11011 ~ R usi ,...~ w.r< w. aw ~ olrlrn B.W. N tt.: ~. - .,~.~~ yea 0 30 46 80 90 120 SCALE IN FEET ..~ ~~~ ~RI1V wo tw[ RETMcI Gam! W~ T.W. 903.0 B.W. = 9020 RETAI=ING W .w. 903.0 B.W.: 902.0 ~~ ~.~ Mf ia~it:~r. ~S Z 9¢ROC (011111 wa (M.1 Nrt m au FES 204 ~~ 18" ENDwALL INV: 892.18 EOF. 999.90 NWL Nwl o ~~ ~ 0~1 ._. P \ /I ~.. ; ,: I ~`s ~/ ~ I ~~.. I ~ /' ; I I i r` I N la I m ~ I: ---------P-%--~ 1'11 ~^I .,\\' ~ 41'1 / I Y / I ` ;'/1 +` I W k 1_ I i I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I L-----' STREET °o, (41 " l ~ "` ""- - PIPE RUN OUTLET STR<CTURE 6 ~ " ' I OUTLET STRUCTURE 70 FES 204 ~ 64LF 18' R.C.P. PIPE INC. I I SAFETY APRON 8 GRATE O 0.508 I FES 203 CBMH 202 CBMH 201 CB 200 P PIPE INC IOLF 15" R C 72" ENDWAIL RIM: 907.50 RIM: 908.30 RIM: 910.80 I . . . INV: 899.00 INV OUT 899.68 INV OUT: 901.80 INV: 902.68 I SAFETY APRON kIGRATE BOTTOM: 897.70 BOTTOM: 899.70 BOTTOM: 900.60 DROP F00T11~: k EkPOSED BLOCK NEENAH R-3067 NEENAH R-3238 NEENAH R-32J8 i0 BE USED IfS RETAINING WALL I R T.w. = 907.0 PIPE RUN CBMH 202 TO CBMH 207 PIPE RUN ~ CBMH 201 TO C8 2P0 ~ B.W. = 903.0 PIPE RUN 75LF i2" R.C P. PIPE 291E 12" R.C.P. PIPET I FES 203 TO C8 202 ®2.702 ®2.707. I 22LF 12' R.C.P. PIPE MC. i I SAFETY APRON k GRATE O 3.1R I --------'L----------------------------- I --------~ Z, is ~. Q ~~ ~------ I I I I I I I I I I ~ _: ~______ I I I I I I L____- I I I I I I PROPOSED GRADING PLAN 9-~°~ 4 N Attachment 21 B.W. s 915.0 t.w, s rua.u ~ B.W. s 902.0 RETAINING WA T Y!. =905.0 B.W. = 902.0 I.N. = H10.U B.W. = 915.0 102 912.85 INV: 900.18 E~~~~ f0 U_ W 0 3 sr d bI WI 9Y 99M0 9W. 90].15 /-CE) STREET 8 _~ >< SL O `~ ~ g MH 103 RIM: 908.50 m d ~ OUT INV: 896.05 iv. 905.18 / T MH 100 RIM: 919.90 IN INV: 906.19 OUT INV: 905.79 BUILD OVER EX-STUB 3 J 'O'^ V, E% 1111 9\1 951.01 wv. 9o5.ts N NV. 905.09 E WV. 90x.95 FES 204 ce o 18" ENDWALL INV: 892.18 RETAINING W = 907.0 B.W. = 905.0 COF 899,90 HWL 899.67 NWL 897.50 PIPE RUN OUTLET STRUCTURE OUTLET STRUCTURE TO FES 204 641E 18' R.C.P. PIPE INC. SAFETY APRON & GRATE O 0.508 FES 203 CBMH 202 CBMH 201 CB 200 ' 12" ENDWALL RIM: 907.50 RIM: 906.30 RIM: 910.80 R.C.P. PIPE INC. IOLF 15 00 INV OUT: 699.68 INV OUT: 901.80 INV: 899 INV: 902.68 SAFETY APRON k GRATE . BOTTOM: 897.70 BOTTOM: 899.70 BOTTOM: 900.60 DROP FOOTING 9: E%POSEO BLOCK NEENAH R-3067 NEENAH R-3238 NEENAH R-3238 TO BE USED AS RETAINING WALL - PIPE RUN PIPE RUN a I W T.w.:907.0 CBMH 202 TO CBMH 201 CBMH 201 TO CB 200 B.w. 905.0 PIPE RUN 75LF 12' R.C.P. PIPE 291E 12' R.C.P. PIPE FES 203 TO CB 202 O 2.70 O 2.70 221E 12" R.C.P. PIPE INC. SAFETY APRON k GRATE O 3.IR PROPOSED UTILITY PLAN 9-g-~ 40 F N lent 22 ,;. ~ ~~ I , I_ -i ~ ~I j ~r -- I! ' r ,-- • ~~ . ; TTI~ L ,,=~ ! - _ I ~ I ~~ ~~' 11V ,i ,~ ~'~ ~I i I { ~ I - I ~Ij~-- ' _ .-.!! ~ ! NI - ~ ~~ ~._,, ~ ~ I ,,, .. I:. f , - . .~. __ ~; ~ ~ ~, , i ~~~ ~ ~ n I, _ ., i ~ i ~ a~ ~rl ,~ iI rl;:~ I j r--~ fl 1 1:i l ~ I --~ ~~I~jiil- L _' G.I ~ c., - VIII ~, I _ .. !.i.j. r".:.:- ---~- , 6 r L1' V _. ~ ' ` ~~ I !I CCC ~.- d r--- _-~~ Fa ___ ~ ____r-, _~-i,at.l I'SE Na,p+ _-_ Ienu~T..~.os .. v~•rr e« t ~1.tc. ~~ ~_~al i :uj~~ae.n on. :Np~+inaavt..rew.va.,~.+ i I lY 3i~ iai.`i^~'e.ni Iinm~m~rr.~..~^:,s <ar^~ r - - REVISED BUILDING ELEVATIONS 9-8-04 -~-~^~-•--~- -~--~~~~---~- 41 - ' ~~, i _~ ~~ :\u ~:,, ~ ~~,, 1 j .. I i ~+ ~ ,,;; ,` _ ;. .' ~ ~, :_ I ~ it I " I I~ ,i I ~" h i 1. ,~ ~~ ;- {` ' i ~ I -- ~I ' I ,, (il ~, I. ~' I Ir. ;I I I t a i ~ ~ ~ ~' it ~. a i~ I~, III /,,i i i~, ~~. Sir j ~ 1 i r <7 -r' ~ 11,7 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- 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 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 fagade 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 applicant has additional garage space since She likes the lampposts and the low voltag areas. done his homework. She likes the fact that the some people never have enough garage space. e lighting he plans on using for the landscaped 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 21h 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. 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 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. 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 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 beige 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 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 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 ITEM K-1 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 (TH 61 to Southlawn), City File 02-07 - Approve Settlement Agreement with Maple Ridge Apartments DATE: September 20, 2004 Introduction On June 28, 2004, the city council awarded the construction contract for the realignment of County Road D on the east side of Trunk Highway 61 to Southlawn Drive. Staff has obtained rights-of entry on all properties. Staff recently finalized another agreement for the acquisition of permanent easement from Theis Talle Enterprises, (Mapleridge Apartments). The city council will consider approving payment for this easement acquisition. Background On December 9, 2002, the city council approved a resolution to proceed with a project to realign County Road D from Hazelwood Street to TH 61. That resolution was the culmination of many hours of discussion and debate with staff, agencies, other communities and property owners that occurred over many years. On May 12, 2003, the city council selected a final alignment for the new roadway and authorized preparation of a preliminary report on the improvement. Following a public hearing on September 8, 2003, the city council approved the realignment of County Road D between TH 61 and Southlawn Drive. The city council approved the first phase of construction with the award of bid on November 10, 2003, for soil correction and wetland creation. On June 28, 2004, the city council awarded the final contract for the roadway improvements for the roadway realignment project. In order to safely accommodate the expected increases in traffic volumes on the new County Road D, the roadway has been designed with center medians and protected left turn lanes. The design, however, requires County Road D to be widened 16 feet, or 8 feet on both the north and south sides of the road. The city must acquire additional right-of-way from the existing properties east of Hazelwood Street. Legacy Village and Emerald Townhomes dedicated the additional right-of-way as part of their plat approval process; however, right-of-way was still needed from Pineview Estates, Mapleridge Apartments and Slumberland. On September 13, 2004, the city council approved the agreements reached between staff and Pineview Estates Townhome Association and Larson Enteprises (Slumberland). On Thursday September 16, 2004, an agreement was finally reached with Theis Talle Enterprises for the easement along Mapleridge Apartments. Summary of Negotiations and Agreement Negotiations for the easement from Theis Talle Enterprises has been difficult and time consuming. Staff first approached the owners with an offer in April of 2004. There did not appear to be any major problems until staff met in June to discuss the detail of the County Road D design. The property owner had concerns about the effect of the revised road design on an already tight turn into a garage entrance. Staff reviewed the situation and felt that, although the turn would continue to be tight for large vehicles, it would continue to be very manageable for the regular users. The owner disagreed. City Council Agenda Background Easement Acquisition Agreement -Theis Talle September 20, 2004 Page Two The biggest roadblock in negotiations was the partial loss of access to the apartment's west parking lot. Due to the location of Kennard Street in relation to this property and the proposed addition of center medians for left turn lanes, the western parking lot of the Mapleridge Apartments loses their left-in and left-out access. Though a partial loss of access would not be desirable, for safety reasons there was no option to allow a median opening at that location. Various options were reviewed and discussed, but there were few technical options that were feasible or acceptable. Staff tried to present the benefits that the new roadway and new access to T.H. 61 would provide, but they had little merit with the property owner. With construction nearing and the owner refusing to grant aright- of-entry while negotiations continued, staff recommended that condemnation be considered. On July 12, 2004, the city council authorized the city attorney to use condemnation to acquire the necessary right-of-way from the Mapleridge Apartments. Negotiations continued while the condemnation process proceeded. During negotiations in July, the owner stated that the drive entrance and the monument signing and fencing was his asking price for the easement. The value of such a proposal was estimated at $90,000. The difference between the City's original easement offer of $28,300 and the cost of the owner's proposal ($90,000) appeared far apart. The biggest debate on compensation was a legal issue related to whether loss of an all-way turning access should be compensated. It was obvious that a long and expensive legal battle would have been necessary to resolve this issue at the proposed City's compensation level. The staff reviewed each of the proposals as part of a final negotiation session prior to proceeding with the eminent domain option. The City's original offer was based on data for other sites. In comparing the dollars likely awarded in a condemnation setting, it was determined that the City's offer was significantly below other area settlements. Other area settlements were as high as twice the City's original offer due to the fast increasing property values in the area. Additionally, the city would likely have proposed landscaping within the area that could be possibly replaced or at least enhanced by the Maple Ridge proposal. Finally, the cost of delay and litigation expense was factored into the final settlement offer. An agreement was negotiated with the property owner that they would be paid $30,000 at this time for the right-of-entry easement and the balance of $60,000 would be paid after the final permanent easement document is signed and the monuments, signs, fencing and landscaping have been installed by the owner. It is staffs' opinion that the owner's proposal to add entrance monuments, signage and fencing will be incorporated well into the project. While the dollar amount of the settlement is much higher than originally budgeted in 2002, the factors of this negotiation, including the unknown cost of litigation and settlement, the ability to incorporate the landscaping into the overall project plan, the fast rising property values of the area, and the potential for construction delay costs, this appears to be a reasonable and fair settlement with the property owner and for the City. Staff recommends approval of the agreement and suspension of the eminent domain proceedings. Budget Impact The $90,000 expense exceeds the amount assumed within the project budget. Easement costs for this project have exceeded estimates, as property in this project area has increased rapidly in value beyond expectations this past year. The bids for this project were very favorable and resulted in a $1,000,000 savings. At this time, it appears that adequate funds still remain to keep this project fund on budget. City Council Agenda Background Easement Acquisition Agreement -Theis Talle September 20, 2004 Page Three Recommendation It is recommended that the city council approve the acquisition agreement for the above property as it relates to the County Road D Realignment Project between Trunk Highway 61 and Southlawn Drive and authorize staff to make a total payment of $90,000 to Theis Talle Enterprises in two payments: $30,000 at this time and later $60,000 per the acquisition agreement. CMC Attachments: Acquisition Agreement Location Map AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT, made this 16TH day of August, 2004, by and between Maple Ridge Partnership, a limited partnership in the State of Minnesota, hereinafter called the OWNER, and the City of Maplewood, Ramsey County, Minnesota, a Minnesota municipal corporation, hereinafter called the CITY. WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, the City undertakes to construct new public streets and utilities as part of the County Road D Realignment, Project 02-07; and WHEREAS, the Owner is fee owner of record of the hereinafter described real property, situated within the City of Maplewood, County of Ramsey, State of Minnesota, described as follows, to wit: Section 34, Township 30 North, Range 22 West, part lying south of Highway 694 of West'/2 of East'/2 SE'/4 of Sec 34, Township 30 North, Range 22 West. PIN 34-30-22-44-0002 WHEREAS, said construction project will necessitate the changing, disturbance, and disruption of certain designated areas of the above-described property; and WHEREAS, in order to accomplish the proposed project, it will be necessary to enter on certain portions of the Owners' property, generally described as the southerly 20-feet of said property, as temporary easement and permanent right-of-way, and WHEREAS, the City Council, through Resolution No. 03-09-173, has authorized the City Engineer to enter into direct negotiations with property owners for the acquisition of right of way and easements for the making of this improvement, and WHEREAS, the property owner and the city have agreed to provisions for the city to acquire said permanent right-of-way. NOW, THEREFORE, it is agreed by and between the parties hereto as follows: 1. The City Council shall consider for approval an acquisition agreement in the amount of $90,000 for acquisition of said easements and right of way on September 27, 2004, which shall include the following terms: a. The City shall pay Maple Ridge Partnership in installments with the first $30,000 payable on September 28, 2004. The second installment of $60,000 shall be paid to Maple Ridge Partnership upon the successful installation of the fencing and landscaping described below. b. The Owner shall contract and have installed fencing and landscaping according to plans from Elements, Inc. previously provided to the City. Said fencing and landscaping shall require a sign permit to be applied for and paid by the Owner, but will not require a variance or building permit if installed according to plans. Said fencing and landscaping shall be installed before June 30, 2005. c. The City agrees to pay for costs related to the property grounds irrigation system that are damaged or required to be relocated due to the roadway construction. Any irrigation system work damaged by the fencing and landscaping work listed in Item 1 b. above, shall be at the cost of the Owner. d. The City shall, at no cost to the Owner, construct a new driveway entrance into the underground parking garage at a location approved by the City Engineer and agreed to by the Owner. e. The City shall prepare, at no cost to the Owner, an agreement that provides for execution of a deed by Owner for the necessary right of way dedication contemplated by this agreement. 2. The property owner shall execute and have delivered to City a temporary easement agreement that authorizes City and it's representatives to enter onto the property to construct said improvements beginning on September 17, 2004. 3. This agreement may be terminated by the Owner if the settlement contemplated in Item 1 above, is rejected by the City Council on September 27, 2004 or if parties are unable to complete agreement as contemplate in Item 1 e above. If Owner exercises right to terminate for cause, it is hereby agreed that, at the sole expense of the City, all disturbed property shall be restored within a period of 5 working days to a condition of equal or better condition than prior to the execution of said right of entry agreement. 4. This agreement shall terminate on the first day of October 2005. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have set their hands and seal all of the day and year first above written. MAPLE RIDGE PARTNERSHIP CITY OF MAPLEWOOD By It's General Partner R. Charles Ahl, Its City Engineer STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ss COUNTY OF RAMSEY ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of 2004, by R. Charles Ahl, City Engineer, of the City of Maplewood, a municipal corporation. Notary Public STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ss COUNTY OF RAMSEY ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of 2004 by Ken Talle, General Partner representing the owner. Notary Public Location Map 1. Pineview Estates 2. Larson Enterprises, (Slumberland) 3. Mapleridge Apartments 4. Richard Schreier Agenda K2 MEMORANDUM TO: Richard Fursman, City Manager FROM: Bruce K. Anderson, Director of Parks and Recreation DATE: September 21, 2004 for the September 27 City Council Meeting SUBJECT: Priory Neighbofiood Preserve Master Plan Introduction The Priory open space property was acquired in 1995 and is located northwest of Larpenteur and Century Avenues. The Priory site is one of the three premiere open space properties within the city and was acquired from the Sisters of St. Benedict. The city retained Barr Engineering to assist and coordinate the park planning process. The master plan park planning process occurred during the spring and summer of 2004 and involved three public meetings, as well as a number of onsite visits. The Maplewood Parks and Recreation Commission was intimately involved in the Priory master plan process and have formally reviewed and unanimously adopted the Priory Neighbofiood Preserve master plan as submitted. The city council has allocated $200,000 for phase one construction in 2005. Background The Priory property was dominated by oak savanna prior to European settlement. In the late 1800s, portions of the site were developed for agriculture and a farmstead can be identified south of Larpenteur Avenue in a 1940s photo. Unfortunately, the ecological quality of the preserve has been degraded by invasive species, primarily buckthorn and canary grass. The need to restore the site is critical. The park planning process outlined five guiding principles: 1. Nature first-but preserve protection over all other concerns 2. Provide safe access 3. Encourage walking and nature watching 4. Offer places for rest and reflection 5. Offer educational opportunities The proposed master plan was developed with input from city residents as well as the consultant, Barr Engineering. The proposed master plan is the first extensive master plan adopted for city open space property. The plan is fairiy straight forward and includes a series of trail loops ranging in distance from .15 mile to loops over 2 miles. One of the major issues that was discussed was trail surfacing. Following extensive discussions with not only the consultant but onsite visits also, it was determined that trails should be done with small machinery or by hand which will minimize the disturbance during the construction process. The end product of the trail would be a dirt trail that would reduce erosion issues and provide a surface that would be compatible with the natural environment. The trail path itself would be 3 to 4 feet wide with a 4'/r to 5-foot clear zone. The trail discussion was adapted by all parties involved with strong inpuk from abutting prapert~r owners. ~n addition to the trails and proposed restoration of the site, minimal amenities and peripheral features are being proposed including a small pull-off parking lot on Larpenteur Avenue, large sign or kiosk at the entry point, and minimal benches-na more than one per trail Ivvp. Recommendation Staff recommends that the city council formally adopt the proposed Priory ~eighbarhood Preserve plan as presented and that Barr Engineering be retained tv provide the final plans and specifications for construction ar~d restoration of the Priory site. €ch~.priory2.parks-oper~sp. mem AGENDA ITEM K-3 AGENDA REPORT TO: Richard Fursman, City Manager FROM: Charles Ahl, Public Works Director/City Engineer Chris Cavett, Assistant city Engineer SUBJECT: Hazelwood/County Road C Area Street Improvements, City Project 03-18 and Venburg/Guldens Frontage Road Improvements, City Project 04-04 (02-08) Resolutions for: 1. Modification of Existing Construction Contract for Project 03-18, Change Order No. 1 2. Approve Transfer of Funds from Project 02-08 to Project 03-18 DATE: September 20, 2004 Introduction During the construction of the Venburg/Guldens frontage road, an urgent issue related to the proposed rear parking lot at Guldens had to be resolved promptly. Staff elected to have this work completed by T.A. Schifsky and Sons, Inc., who currently have a contract with the city for the Hazelwood/County Road C Area Streets, Project 03-18, rather than by the city's contractor for the project, Imperial Developers. The council will consider approving the attached resolutions approving the modification of the existing construction contract for Project 03-18, Change Order No. 1, and approving the transfer of funds from Project 02-08 to Project 03-18 to cover these expenses. Background As part of the County Road D realignment projects, agreements were made with regards to the relocation of Venburg Tire to a new location on the west side of T.H. 61 on a lot split off from Guldens, along with aright-of-entry, dedication of right-of-way and the construction of the frontage road. The city was required to rough grade the site as part of the frontage road construction and leave the Venburg site ready to be built upon. A condition of the Gulden's lot split was that a new rear parking lot would be constructed, as a good percentage of the Guldens parking would be removed by the construction of the new Venburg building and the construction of the frontage road. The construction of the rear parking lot became a very critical element in the coordination of all the construction taking place in that immediate area (Venburg, Guldens and the frontage road), as well as the ability of Guldens to function as an open and operating business. It was discovered that the soils beneath the parking lot area were unsuitable to build the parking lot on top of. The condition of the soils was mostly due to an excessive amount of rain at a critical time. In addition, the condition of the soils was caused by disturbance of those wet soils during the city's utility and grading work taking place in the immediate area. Guldens was critically low on available parking spaces because of the ones being lost to the frontage road construction. The city's contractor for the frontage road (Imperial Developers) was nearing completion with their work and did not have the proper equipment to do such work. The engineering staff explored quotes from other city contracts to complete the work quickly and as cheaply as possible. T.A. Schifsky and Sons, Inc. was very helpful in resolving the issue and provided reasonable price quotes in advance of the work. Final invoicing was based on the amount of material that had to ultimately be removed from the parking lot area. City Council Agenda Background Venburg/Guldens Frontage Road Improvements September 20, 2004 Page Two The city has an active contract with T.A. Schifsky and Sons, Inc. for the Hazelwood/County Road C Area Streets, Project 03-18. Therefore, staff is recommending that payment for the work be paid as a change order to Project 03-18 and a budget transfer be made from Project 02-08 to cover these construction related expenses. The amount of Change Order No.1 is $34,215. The revised financing plan for project 03-18 would be as follows: Street assessments: $ 734,200 (25 %) Storm assessments: $57,800 (2%) Sanitary Sewer Utility Fund: $174,000 (6 %) Environmental Utility Fund: $665,800 (23%) SPRWS Obligation: $164,400 (6%) City debt service: $ 1,102,000 (37%) Transfer from Project 02-08: $34, 200 (1 %) Total $2,932,400 (100%) Budget Impact No increase in the project budget for the Venburg/Guldens Frontage Road, Project 04-04 (02- 08) is required as these extras still fall within the original approved budget. The project budget for the Hazelwood/County Road C Area Streets, Project 03-18, will be increased by $34,200 with a transfer of funds from Project 04-04 (02-08) into the 03-18 project fund. Recommendation It is recommended that the city council approve the attached resolutions approving the transfer of $34,200 from Project 04-04 (02-08) and into Project 03-18, approving the modification of the existing construction contract for Project 03-18 in the amount of $34, 215. Attachments: Resolutions (2) Change Order No. 1 RESOLUTION APPROVING TRANSFER OF FUNDS FROM CITY PROJECT 04-04 (02-08) TO CITY PROJECT 03-18 WHEREAS, the City Council of Maplewood, Minnesota has heretofore ordered the construction of the Venburg/Guldens Frontage Road, Project 04-04, (02-08) and Hazelwood/County Road C Area Street Improvements, Project 03-18, and authorized the finance director to implement a financing plan for both projects, and WHEREAS, it was necessary to expedite the correction of poor soils at the Guldens new west parking lot to prevent delays to the Frontage Road construction and Venburg site preparation as required by agreement, and WHEREAS, the City Council of Maplewood, Minnesota has heretofore ordered the construction of Hazelwood/County Road C Area Street Improvements, and City Project 03-18, and has let a construction contract pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 429, and WHEREAS, it was necessary to contract said soil correction work with the contractor under contract for the construction of City Project 03-18, and WHEREAS, Change Order No.1 for Project 03-18 has been prepared as a summary of construction expenses incurred for the correction of soils at the Guldens property, and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA that the finance director is hereby directed to transfer funds from the Venburg/Guldens Frontage Road, Project 04-04 (02-08) and into the project fund for Project 03-18 for the Hazelwood/County Road C Area Street Improvements project as follows: Street assessments: $ 734,200 (25 %) Storm assessments: $57,800 (2%) Sanitary Sewer Utility Fund: $174,000 (6 %) Environmental Utility Fund: $665,800 (23%) SPRWS Obligation: $164,400 (6%) City debt service: $ 1,102,000 (37%) Transfer from Project 02-08: 34 200 (1 %) Total $2,932,400 (100%) RESOLUTION DIRECTING MODIFICATION OF EXISTING CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT WHEREAS, the City Council of Maplewood, Minnesota has heretofore ordered made Improvement Project 03-18, Hazelwood/County Road C Area Street Improvements, and has let a construction contract pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 429, and WHEREAS, it is now necessary and expedient that said contract be modified and designated as Improvement Project 03-18, 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 $34,215.00. The revised contract amount is $1,574,287.23. The Finance Director is authorized to make the necessary transfers to the necessary implement the revised financing plan: The revised financing plan for Project 03-18 would be as follows: Street assessments: $ 734,200 (25 %) Storm assessments: $57,800 (2%) Sanitary Sewer Utility Fund: $174,000 (6 %) Environmental Utility Fund: $665,800 (23%) SPRWS Obligation: $164,400 (6%) City debt service: $ 1,102,000 (37%) Transfer from Project 02-08: $34,200 (1 %) Total $2,932,400 (100%) CHANGE ORDER DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA Project Name: Hazelwood/County Road C Area Streets Change Order No.: 1 Project No.: 03-18 Date: Sept. 20, 2004 Contractor: T.A. Schifsky & Sons, Inc. The following changes shall be made in the contract documents: Unit Description Unit Quantity Price Total B. Soil Correction L.S. 1 $17,696 $17,696 C. Remove Unsuitable C.Y. 2000 $4 $8,000 D. Haul off Additional Unsuitable C.Y. 600 $4 $2,400 (6000Y @ $4.00/CY) E. Level Dump Site L.S. 1 $1,764 $1,764 F. Import Add'I Structural Fill C.Y. 600 $3 $1,800 G. Rock Construction Entrance EA. 1 $1,000 $1,000 H. Silt Fence at Dump Site L.S. 1 $300 $300 G. Remove & Replace 118LF Curb L.F. 118 $10.64 $1,255 $34,215 Original Contract: $1,540.072.23 Net Change of Prior Change Order No. to No. Change This Change Order: $34,215.00 Revised Contract: $1,574,287.23 Approved Mayor Recommended Engineer Agreed to by Contractor by Its Title Memorandum Agenda Item #K4 To: Mayor and City Council From: Richard Fursman City Manager Date: September 27, 2004 Subj: Sister City with Zhejiang Province, China The City council is requested to react to a letter from Vice Mayor Huiqin He, inviting Mayor Cardinal to Zhejiang Province, China. The purpose of the trip would be to foster a possible "sister city' relationship. The City council had previously, through the urging of council member Ken, Collins, put sister cities on the agenda for future considerations. The LGA cuts of 2002 - 04 postponed any planning for exchanges and the issue was shelved. A recent visit from Chinese officials has put the idea back in front of the Council. Zhejiang Province is situated along the shore of the East Sea. It has a total area of over 100,000 square kilometers (38,600 square miles) and a population of 46 million. Zhejiang is home to many minority ethnic groups including Han, Hui, Manchu and Miao. Zhejiang is the province with the most islands in China, with more than 200 islands along its coast. Why have a sister city? A sister city program enables citizens to become directly involved in international relations in a unique and meaningful way, bringing long-term benefits to both the U.S. community and its partner abroad. On the most basic level, sister city relationships allow citizens to exchange ideas, gain an international perspective and increase their understanding of global issues. Many sister city programs go much further, lending economic growth and development to both their home and partner communities, or humanitarian support to regions in need. While sister cities build the foundations for increased tourism, reliable business contacts, and cross cultural awareness, they also create a desire to reach out to the world's less developed regions and build personal bridges to world peace. Elements of a successful sister city p~og~am: The strongest and most successful programs are the ones that incorporate three main sectors of a vibrant, productive community. Those elements include: • Support and involvement from city hall and the business sector. • Broad-based support and involvement from the community. • Alliances with like-minded organizations. • Strong communication links. • Cross Cultural Awareness. • Clear Objectives. • Willingness to grow and take risks. • Regular, ongoing exchanges Zhejiang also enjoys a tremendous reputation in the long history of Chinese Buddhism. In Hangzhou, there is Lingyin Temple, which is one of the ten most famous ancient Buddhist temples in China. On the Putuo Mountain, there are three famous temples, Puji Temple, Huiji Temple and Fayu Temple. Choosing a sister city: Communities find each other in many different ways. Sometimes it is a top-down process, where two mayors meet, initiate the process and then involve the rest of the communities in the relationship. Other times, it is a bottom-up process, where a group or an individual form the community takes the lead. Whichever process is used, the sister city partnership is a long-term commitment and thus requires a lot of time or "courting" to ensure that the best partner is chosen. Generally, it is recommended by Sister Cities International for cities to pursue a relationship with a community that is similar in geography, population, industry or interest. ;; ~~r~ Other factors to consider: ~ ~ ~,~ ~ ~ ~~ Is there genuine interest on both sides? Is there along-term commitment to the relationship? Is there adequate financial support for exchanges and maintenance of the relationship? It is important to try to make a realistic assessment of what makes a successful relationship, and capitalize on the existing strengths of both communities. A desire to learn and share experiences with a sister city can often balance the lack of similar characteristics with a potential partner. Some general characteristics to consider for both communities: • What are the goals and objectives of each partner? • Are there similarities in population, geographic location, key industries or ethnic population? • Does the city have sister cities in other countries and are they successful? • What will be the role of the city and the sister cities committee in the relationship? Sister city programs are as unique as the communities developing them. One thought is for Maplewood to consider a type of city commission: A city commission is put together formally by ordinance and would act like the other commissions the City has established. The sister city commission would be responsible for recommending policy and direction of the program. How would the sister city program be funded? The program could be funding in a variety of ways, however it would be most likely that a commission would be receive the majority of funding through the City budget. Other fund raising activities could be incorporated as well. Local program budgets vary wildly from a few hundred dollars millions depending on the community, the structure and program goals. Request of Mayor and Council: 1. Determine if there is interest in developing sister city program. 2. Determine structure. 3. Indicate type of response to Zhejiang Province. Should this be a workshop item?