Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
2004 11-22 City Council Packet
AGENDA MAPLEWOOD CITY COUNCIL 7:00 P.M. Monday, November 22, 2004 Council Chambers, City Hall Meeting No. 04-26 A. CALL TO ORDER B. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Acknowledgement of Maplewood residents serving the country. C. ROLL CALL Mayor's Address on Protocol: "Welcome to the meeting of the Maplewood City Council. It is our desire to keep all discussions civil as we work through d~cult issues tonight. If you are here for a Public Hearing or to address the City Council, please familiarize yourself with the Policies and Procedures andRules 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 CounciUManager Workshop, October 25, 2004 2. Minutes from the City Council Meeting, October 25, 2004 3. Minutes from the CounciUManager Workshop, November 1, 2004 4. Minutes from the City Council Meeting, November 8, 2004 E. APPROVAL OF AGENDA F. APPOINTMENTS/PRESENTATIONS G. CONSENT AGENDA All matters listed under the Consent Agenda are considered to be routine by the City Council and will be enacted by one motion. If a member of the City Council wishes to discuss an item, that item will be removed from the Consent Agenda and will be considered separately. 1. Approval of Claims 2. Final Plat -Trout Land (County Road D and Highway 61) 3. Conditional Use Permit Review - 5-8 Club (2289 Minnehaha Avenue) 4. Increase in Miscellaneous Service Charges for 2005 5. Financial Transfer for Unassessed Water Improvements 6. Legacy Parkway Improvements, Project 03-26--Resolution for Modification of the Construction Contract, Change Order No. 1 for Legacy Trail Retaining Wall 7. County Road D Realignment (West), City Project 02-08--Resolution for Modification of the Existing Construction Contract, Change Order No 2 8. County Road D Realignment (East), City Project 02-07--Resolution for Modification of the Existing Construction Contract, Change Order Nos. 2, 3, and 4. H. PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. 7:00 p.m. Hazelwood Street Improvements (Beam Ave. to County Rd. D), Project 03-39 Resolution Ordering Improvement after Public Hearing (4 votes) 2. 7:15 p.m. Gladstone North Area Street Improvements, Project 04-15 -Resolution Ordering Improvement after Public Hearing, (4 votes) I. AWARD OF BIDS None J. UNFINISHED BUSINESS Home Occupation License -David Gropa Photography (1994 Duluth Street) K. NEW BUSINESS 1. Conditional Use Permit -Phoenix Group Home (1936 Craig Place) 2. Emergency Medical Services Model-No Report 3. Trash Container Ordinance (First Reading) 4. Environmental Utility Rates for 2005 5. Building, Mechanical, Plumbing and Electrical Permit Fees for 2005 6. Increase in Community Development Department Service Charges for 2005 7. Recycling Rates for 2005 8. Sanitary Sewer Rates for 2005 9. Authorization to Refinance Series 1995B Bonds 10. New Fire Safety Inspection Fees 11. TH 61 East Frontage Road Improvements (New C Rd D to 694), Project 04-25-- Resolution Receiving Preliminary Report and Calling Public Hearing 12. Gladstone Redevelopment Improvements -Project 04-21 (Table until 12/13/04 Meeting) a) Approve Consultant Selection for Master Planning and Engineering Services b) Authorize Preparation of Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) c) Authorize Preparation of Master Framework Plan 13. County Road D Court Improvements (New Cty Rd D to TH 61), Project 04-06-- Resolution Receiving Preliminary Report and Calling Public Hearing 14. Century Avenue Improvements (Interstate 94 to Lake Drive), Project 03-15--Review Environmental Assessment Findings and Review Project Schedule 15. Diseased Tree Program -Report on 2004 Tree Removals L. VISITOR PRESENTATIONS M. COUNCIL PRESENTATIONS N. ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS O. ADJOURNMENT Sign language interpreters for hearing impaired persons are available for public hearings upon request. The request for this service must be made at least 96 hours in advance. Please call the Ciry Clerk's Office at (651) 249-2001 to make arrangements. Assisted Listening Devices are also available. Please check with the Ciry Clerk for availability. RULES OF CIVILITYFOR OUR COMMUNITY Following are some rules of civility the City of Maplewood expects of everyone appearing at Council Meetings -elected 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 respectfiel language. MINUTES CITY COUNCIL/MANAGER WORKSHOP Monday, October 25, 2004 Council Chambers, City Hall 5:30 p.m. A. CALL TO ORDER Called to order by acting Mayor Juenemann. B. ROLL CALL Robert Cardinal, Mayor Present (Arrived @ 6:20 p.m.) Kathleen Juenemann, Councilmember Present Marvin Koppen, Councilmember Present Jackie Monahan-Junek, Councilmember Present Will Rossbach, Councilmember Present Others Present: City Manager Fursman Assistant City Manager Coleman City Clerk Guilfoile City Engineer Ahl Parks and Recreation Director Anderson C. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Councilmember Rossbach moved to approve the agenda as presented. Seconded by Councilmember Monahan-Junek Ayes-All D. UNFINISHED BUSINESS 1. Gladstone Redevelopment Agenda Item D1 Assistant City Manager Coleman explained the redevelopment process, reviewed goals and shared feedback from the Gladstone Redevelopment advisory boards. There were concerns that the process may be moving too fast and that outside facilitation could benefit the process. Mayor Cardinal moved to allow staff to solicit a Master Planner for the purpose of Gladstone Redevelopment. Seconded by Councilmember Koppen Ayes-All E. FUTURE TOPICS F. ADJOURNMENT With there being no further business, Councilmember Juenemann moved to adjourn. City Council/Manager Warkshop 10-25-04 A. B. C. D. E. DRAFT--MINUTES MAPLEWOOD CITY COUNCIL 7:02 P.M. Monday, October 25, 2004 Council Chambers, City Hall Meeting No. 04-24 CALL TO ORDER: Agenda Item D2 A meeting of the City Council was held in the Council Chambers, at the City Hall, and was called to order at 7:02 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 CounciUManager Workshop-October 14, 2004 Councilmember Juenemann moved to approve the minutes from the October 14, 2004 City CounciUManager workshop amended. Seconded by Councilmember Koppen Ayes-Mayor Cardinal, Councilmembers Juenemann, Koppen and Rossbach Abstain-Councilmember Monahan-Junek 2. Minutes from City Council Meeting-October 14, 2004 Councilmember Juenemann moved to approve the minutes from the October 25, 2004 City Council Meeting as amended. Seconded by Councilmember Ayes-Mayor Cardinal, Councilmembers Juenemann, Koppen and Rossbach Abstain-Councilmember Monahan-Junek APPROVAL OF AGENDA K5. Hire Master Planner-Gladstone Ml . Tuition Reimbursement Policy-City Employee M2. South Leg Group M3. School District M4. Girl Scouts Councilmember Koppen moved to approve the agenda as amended. City Council 10-25-04 Seconded by Councilmember Monahan-Junek Ayes-All F. APPOINTMENTS/PRESENTATIONS Resolution of Appreciation -Paul Mueller, Planning Commission City Manager Fursman presented the staff report. b. Assistant City Manager Coleman presented specifics from the report. Councilmember Juenemann moved to adopt the following resolution commending Paul Mueller for his years of service on the Maplewood Planning Commission: JOINT RESOLUTION OF APPRECIATION 04-10-186 WHEREAS, Paul Mueller has been a member of the Maplewood Planning Commission since July 13, 1998 and has served faithfully in that capacity to the present time; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has appreciated his experience, insights and good judgment and WHEREAS, he has freely given of his time and energy, without compensation, for the betterment of the City of Maplewood,• and WHEREAS, he has shown sincere dedication to his duties and has consistently contributed his leadership, time and effort for the benefit of the City. NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBYRESOLVED for and on behalf of the City of Maplewood, Minnesota and its citizens, that Paul Mueller is hereby extended our heartfelt gratitude and appreciation for his dedicated service, and we wish him continued success in the future. Seconded by Councilmember Koppen Ayes-All 2. Resolution of Appreciation -Clayton Robinson, Police Civil Service Commission a. City Manager Fursman presented the staff report. b. Human Resources Director Le presented specifics from the report. Mayor Cardinal moved to adopt the following resolution commending Clayton Robinson for his years of service on the Maplewood Police Civil Service Commission: RESOLUTION OF APPRECIATION 04-10-187 WHEREAS, Clayton Robinson has been a member of the Maplewood Police Civil Service Commission since May 13, 2002 and has served faithfully in that capacity to the present time; and WHEREAS, the Police Civil Service Commission has appreciated his experience, City Council 10-25-04 insights and good judgment; and WHEREAS, he has freely given of his time and energy, without compensation, for the betterment of the City of Maplewood,• and G. WHEREAS, he has shown sincere dedication to his duties and has consistently contributed his leadership, time and effort for the benefit of the City. NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBYRESOLVED for and on behalf of the City of Maplewood, Minnesota and its citizens that Clayton Robinson is hereby extended our heartfelt gratitude and appreciation for his dedicated service, and we wish him continued success in the future. Seconded by Councilmember Koppen Ayes-All CONSENT AGENDA 1. Approval of Claims ACCOUNTS PAYABLE: $ 555,025.75 Checks # 65151 thru # 65214 dated 10/12/04 $ 4,089,493.23 Disbursements via debits to checking account dated 10-0 l -04 thru 10-07-04 $ 311,011.58 Checks # 65215 thru # 65253 dated 10/15 thru 10/19/04 $ 262,765.18 Disbursements via debits to checking account dated 10/08/04 thru 10/14/04 $ 5,218,295.74 Total Accounts Payable PAYROLL Payroll Checks and Direct Deposits dated 10-08- $ 425,309.47 04 $ 5,697.45 Payroll Deduction check # 99014 thru # 99019 dated 10/08/04 $ 431,006.92 Total Payroll $ 5,649,302.66 GRAND TOTAL City Council 10-25-04 3 2. Senior Citizen Deferment Request from Carl IRanum--1789 Kennard Street, Project 03- 18A Adopted the following resolution approving a senior citizen deferment for Carl L Ranum, 1789 Kennard Street: RESOLUTION 04-10-189 SENIOR CITIZEN ASSESSMENT DEFERMENT WHEREAS, Maplewood approved and ratified the final assessment roll for Public Improvement 02-10, Kennard/Frost Avenue Neighborhood on May 12, 2003, and did subsequently certify the outstanding assessment balances to Ramsey County for collection along with the annual property taxes, and WHEREAS, Maplewood property owner Carl L Ranum, 1789 Kennard Street was assessed $4,200.00 and has now declared his desire to place the assessment as levied by Maplewood for Public Improvement 02-10, Kennard/Frost Avenue Neighborhood in a Senior Citizen Deferment, and WHEREAS, Mr. Ranum qualifies for a Senior Citizen Assessment Deferment in accordance with Minnesota Statutory criteria and City of Maplewood ordinance, and WHEREAS, it is consistent with the city's past practice and policy to grant Senior Citizen Assessment Deferment to qualified property owners and said action in accordance with Minnesota State Statute 429 and all other pertinent statutes. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the city council deems it in the public interest and approves the request for a Senior Citizen Assessment Deferment retroactive from May 12, 2003 for the following assessed property: PIN LEGAL PLAT NAME Assessment 15-29-22-43-0007 Lot 12, Block 4 Maryknoll $4,200.00 Approve 2005 Assessment Rates for Public Improvement Projects Adopted the following resolution adopting the 2005 assessment rates in the Maplewood Pavement Management Policy: RESOLUTION 04-10-188 ADOPTION OF THE 2005 ASSESSMENT RATES WHEREAS, the Maplewood Pavement Management Policy has established set assessment rates based on the type of improvement procedure proposed for a given project, and WHEREAS, the policy, established in 1999, calls for the assessment rate to be adjusted each year, and City Council 10-25-04 WHEREAS, feasibility studies have been ordered for the 2005 construction season, WHEREAS, the assessment rates must be established to accurately complete the studies. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA: 1. The updated assessment rates are approved for all construction in the city of Maplewood during the 2005 construction season. 2. All rates shown are residential. Commercial rates are handled on an individual basis, but are typically figured on a front-foot basis. They are calculated by dividing the residential rate by 75 and multiplying by 1.5 (Res. Rate/75x1.5) to get the front-foot commercial and multi-family residential rate. Street Improvement Procedure 2005 1. Complete Street Reconstruction: $4380 2. Partial Reconstruction/Unit: $3280 3. Bituminous Surface Replacement/Unit: $2300 4. Mill & Overlay/Unit: $1640 Other Improvement Rates 5. Storm drainage/unit: $ 680 6. Cash connect charge -water: $2810 7. Water service w/new main construction: $1070 8. Water service w/tap to existing main: $1330 9. Cash connect charge -sewer: $2810 10. Sewer service w/new main construction $1070 11. Sewer service w/tap to existing main: $2000 4. Hazelwood Street Improvements, Project 01-16--Change Order No. 2 & No. 3 Adopted the following resolution directing the modification of the existing construction contract, change order Nos. 2 & 3: RESOLUTION 04-10-190 DIRECTING MODIFICATION OF EXISTING CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT WHEREAS, the City Council of Maplewood, Minnesota has heretofore ordered made Improvement Project 01-16, Hazelwood Street Improvements, County Rd. C to Beam Ave., and has let a construction contract pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 429, and WHEREAS, it is now necessary and expedient that said contract be modified and designated as Improvement Project 01-16, Change Order Nos. 2 & 3. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA that the mayor and city clerk are hereby authorized and directed to modify the existing contract by executing said Change Orders Nos. 2 & 3 in the amounts of $7,610.84 and $41,525.93 respectively. The revised contract amount is $749,110.86. City Council 10-25-04 budget. No revision to the financing plan is required at this time as all items fall within the proposed Hazelwood/County Road C Area Street Improvements, City Project 03-18-- Modification of Approval to Transfer Funds from Project 02-08 to Project 03-18 Approved the modification to the project budget of $34,200 of additional 6. Annual Renewal of the Currency Exchange License for Cashway Checking - 3035 White Bear Avenue Approved the annual renewal license for Cashway Checking. H. PUBLIC HEARINGS None I. AWARD OF BIDS 1. Grading at Southwinds Development Site, Project 04-31 City Manager Fursman presented the staff report. b. City Engineer Ahl presented specifics from the report. Councilmember Koppen moved to adopt the following resolution receiving the project bids and awarding a construction contract to Forest Lake Contracting Company in the amount of $183,438.50 for the rg ading of Southwinds Development, Project 04-31: RESOLUTION FOR AWARD OF BIDS O4-10-191 WHEREAS, pursuant to resolution, bids have been received for the making of Grading of Southwinds Development, City Project 04-31, and WHEREAS, the City Engineer has reported the opening and reading of said bids according to policy of the City and Laws of the State of Minnesota, as follows: Contractor Forest Lake Contracting Imperial Developers, Inc. Max Steininger, Inc. Frontier Construct. Co., Inc Veit & Company, Inc. Frattalone Companies, Inc. Arnt Construction Co., Inc. S.R. Weidema, Inc. Northwest Asphalt, Inc. Engineer's Estimate Base Bid $114,338.50 $122,634.20 $130,842.00 $132,976.00 $142,344.00 $147,317.00 $152,105.50 $161,075.50 Bid Alt. 1 $5,200.00 $5,700.00 $6,000.00 $7,500.00 $7,500.00 $9,784.69 $9,800.00 $8,880.00 Bid Rejected /Withdrawn due to errors $145,000.00 $20,000.00 City Council 10-25-04 Bid Alt. 2 $ 69,100.00 $ 97,580.00 $111,270.00 $ 81,280.00 $ 72,120.00 $ 60,484.00 $106,500.00 $107,575.00 $ 81,000.00 WHEREAS, the City Engineer has recommended an award to the low bidder Forest Lake Contracting, Inc. in the amount of the base bid of $114,338.50 and Bid Alternate No. 2 in the amount of $69,100.00 for a total construction contract award of $183,438.50. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA, that 1. The bids received on October 22, 2004 are hereby received, with the exception of the bid of Northwest Asphalt, Inc. which was found to be in error of the project specifications. 2. The bid of Forest Lake Contracting, Inc., in the amount of $183,438.50 is the lowest responsible bid for the construction of Grading at Southwinds Development, City Project 04-31, 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. 3. The City Engineer is directed to return all bid bonds received with all bids, with the exception of Forest Lake Contracting and the second low bidder. Said bonds shall be received upon the final execution of the construction contract by Forest Lake Contracting. 4. The finance director is hereby authorized to make the financial transfers necessary to implement the financing plan for the project. Seconded by Councilmember Monahan-Junek Ayes-All J. UNFINISHED BUSINESS Project Reconsideration - 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 City Manager Fursman presented the staff report. b. Planner Finwall presented specifics from the report. Councilmember Koppen moved to adopt the following resolution approving the comprehensive land use change from school (s) to hi hg multiple dwelling residential )R-3H) for the property 935 Ferndale Street: LAND USE PLAN CHANGE RESOLUTION 04-10-192 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: 1. On August 16, 2004, the planning commission held a public hearing. The city staff published a City Council 10-25-04 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: 1. This site is proper for and consistent with the city's policies for high-density residential use. This includes: 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. Seconded by Councilmember Juenemann Ayes-Mayor Cardinal, Councilmembers Juenemann, Koppen and Monahan-Junek Nays-Councilmember Rossbach Councilmember Koppen moved to adopt the following resolution approving the zoning mad change from single dwelling residential (R-1) to multiple dwelling residential (R-3) for the property located at 935 Ferndale Street: ZONING MAP CHANGE RESOLUTION 04-10-193 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. City Council 10-25-04 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 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: 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. Seconded by Councilmember Monahan-Junek Ayes-Mayor Cardinal, Councilmembers Juenemann, Koppen and Monahan-Junek Nays-Councilmember Rossbach Councilmember Koppen moved to approve the site plan, building elevations, and photometric 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: 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: City Council 10-25-04 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. 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. 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 City Council 10-25-04 10 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. Seconded by Councilmember Juenemann Ayes-All K. NEW BUSINESS Southwinds Development Site, Project 04-31-Approve Development Contract for Cooperative Grading, Right of Way Purchase, Assessment Payments and Sale of City- Purchased Property with Southwind of Maplewood, LLC City Manager Fursman presented the staff report. b. City Engineer Ahl presented specifics from the report. Councilmember Koppen moved to approve the following Development Contract with Southwinds of Maplewood, LLC for Cooperative Grading, Right of Way Purchase, Assessment Payment, and Sale of City Purchase grope as part of Legacy Parkway, C1ty Project 03-26 and Grading at Southwinds Development, City Project 04-31: AGREEMENT This Agreement, dated October 25th 2004, is between the City of Maplewood, a Minnesota municipal corporation (hereinafter "City") and Southwind of Maplewood, LLC, a limited liability company in the State of Minnesota ("Southwinds"). WHEREAS, the City is undertaking prof ects known as the Legacy Parkway Improvements, Project Number 03-26, and as Grading at Southwinds Development, Project Number 04-31; WHEREAS, Southwinds owns property in the Project Area, described by property address as: 3004 Hazelwood Street 3016 Hazelwood Street 3050 Hazelwood Street "Southwinds Property;" City Council 10-25-04 11 WHEREAS, Southwinds desires to purchase additional property that Maplewood has previously purchased as part of a tax abatement plan and said property is adjacent to the northern property line of the Southwinds Property and is described by address as: 3056 Hazelwood Street 3062 Hazelwood Street "Maplewood Property;" WHEREAS, the City has conducted public hearings for the improvement of Legacy Parkway between Kennard Street and approximately 10,400 square feet of the Southwinds Property to the City for right-of--way purposes. NOW THEREFORE, the City and Southwinds agree to make the following agreement: Southwinds represents and warrants to the City that: A. It has all requisite power and authority to execute this Agreement, and the officer of Southwinds who did or will execute the same for and on behalf of Southwinds has the power and the authority to do so and to bind Southwinds. B. It will act reasonably and exercise due diligence in the performance of the acts permitted or required under this Agreement. C. It will cooperate with all reasonable requests by the City related to this Agreement that do not detrimentally affect the basis of the terms of this Agreement. 2. Southwinds shall perform the following: A. Purchase the City Property for $150,000. B. Plat said City Property and said Southwinds Property according to documents supplied by the City such that all rights of way for Legacy Parkway are dedicated to the City. C. Grant the City aright-of--entry over the City Property and Southwinds Property in order to construct the City's public improvements. The boundaries of the right-of--entry area shall be defined by the construction limits identified in the final plans and specifications for the construction of Legacy Parkway, City Project 03-26, and Grading at Southwinds Development, City Project 04-31. This right-of--entry shall commence on the date of this agreement and terminate on August 31, 2005. Compensation by the City to Southwinds for this right-of--entry is outlined in Section 3 of this Agreement. D. The final area of the right-of--way is subject to minor alignment adjustments by the City based upon the final alignment of the roadway. E. Pay $75,000 toward the mass roadway grading of the City Property and Southwinds Property to be completed by the City. F. Pay to the City $120,418.00 in assessments for roadway, storm drainage, sanitary sewer and City Council 10-25-04 12 water main improvements for the Southwinds Property. The breakdown of assessments is as follows: Roadway -Legacy Parkway $43,680.00 Roadway -Hazelwood $48,418.00 Storm Sewer -Legacy and Hazelwood $14,090.00 Regional Ponding $14,230.00 Total $120,418.00 Southwinds has been advised of its right to notice and a public hearing and right to appeal concerning the assessments proposed against the Southwinds Property with the amount to be $120,418.00. The assessments are to be paid over a fifteen (15) year period at an interest rate of 5%. Southwinds expressly agrees to waive the notice of hearing, hearing and its right to appeal said assessments pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 429.061, et al. Minnesota case law supports waiver of assessment procedures such as the right of notice and public hearing. In Re Nemzek, 58 N.W.2d 746 (Minn. 1953). If the terms of this agreement are met by Southwinds, City shall abatement these assessments. G. Pay to the City $65,470.00 in assessments for roadway, storm drainage, sanitary sewer and water main improvements for the City Property. The breakdown of assessments is as follows: Roadway -Legacy Parkway $43,680.00 Street -Hazelwood $13,330.00 Storm Sewer $ 4,210.00 Regional Storm Sewer $ 4,250.00 Total $65,470.00 Southwinds has been advised of its right to notice and a public hearing and right to appeal concerning the assessments proposed against the City Property with the amount to be $65,470.00. The assessments are to be paid over a fifteen (15) year period at an interest rate of 5%. Southwinds expressly agrees to waive the notice of hearing, hearing and its right to appeal said assessments pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 429.061, et al. Minnesota case law supports waiver of assessment procedures such as the right of notice and public hearing. In Re Nemzek, 58 N.W.2d 746 (Minn. 1953). If the terms of this agreement are met by Southwinds, City shall abatement these assessments. H. Pay to the City park dedication fees in the total amount of $1,215 per unit at the time of building permit for the development of the Southwinds Property and City Property. The park dedication fees shall be paid at the time of building permit application. . L Provide 33 units of development on the Southwinds Property and City property according to the following schedule: 6 units constructed by September 2005; 20 units constructed by September 2006; 33 units constructed by September 2007. The average value of the units as noted on the completion date shall average $215,000. Failure of Southwinds to meet this schedule or value shall result in the City withholding and canceling the tax abatement of the levied assessments for Hazelwood Street. 3. The City shall perform the following: A. Pay to Southwinds at the time of final plat certification from Ramsey County, the sum of City Council 10-25-04 13 $50,000. B. Pay the Legacy Parkway assessments against the City Property prior to sale to Southwinds. C. Waive its storm water ponding requirements for the Southwinds Property and the City Property. This waiver is based on the City's engineering principles, studies and compliance with the Ramsey County Watershed and other agencies' requirements. D. Allow Southwinds to pay the assessments described above and any future assessments to be agreed upon over a fifteen (15) year period at an interest rate of 5.0%. If all conditions of this agreement are met, the City shall abate all Legacy Parkway and Hazelwood Street assessments. E. Pay Southwinds $50,000.00 for the City's right-of--entry onto the Southwinds Property and City Property, described in Paragraph 2 (C) of this Agreement and as payment toward grading costs of the property. F. Pay all costs for the demolition of homes at 3004 Hazelwood Street, 3016 Hazelwood Street, 3050 Hazelwood Street, 3056 Hazelwood Street and 3062 Hazelwood Street. G. The City shall pay Southwinds the amounts described above upon completion of all of Southwind's obligations under this Agreement. Upon determination by the City Engineer of satisfactory completion of all Southwinds obligations, the City shall arrange payment of all funds identified within this agreement within 30 days. 4. Severability. If any term of this Agreement is found to be void or invalid, such invalidity shall not affect the remaining terms of this Agreement, which shall continue in full force and effect. 5. Arbitration. It is agreed by the parties that any differences, dispute or claim which arises under and pursuant to this Agreement or as to the performance thereof by the parties hereto shall be submitted for arbitration to a board of arbitrators consisting of three (3) persons, one selected by the party interested in one side of the dispute, one by the party interested in the other side of the dispute, and a third person mutually selected and agreed upon by the first two arbitrators. Any party shall notify the other party in writing, served by U.S. Mail, certified or registered, postage prepaid, of a dispute, stating the nature of the claim or dispute and the name and address of selected arbitrator. The other party shall serve notice of its selected arbitrator and opposition or other interest in the claim or dispute. The two arbitrators shall select a third disinterested arbitrator within fifteen (15) days after the response notice stated above. Arbitration shall be commenced within forty-five (45) days of the original notice pursuant to the previous paragraphs hereof, and all proceedings shall be governed by Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 572. The decision of any two arbitrators shall be binding and conclusive with respect to all claims and disputes submitted in such arbitration proceedings. If a party does not respond to an arbitration notice, then the party first serving the arbitration notice under the previous paragraph shall be entitled by Motion to petition a court of competent jurisdiction for its order selecting and appointing an arbitrator for said defaulting party. Any such determination by the Court shall be fmal, binding and conclusive as to all parties in interest. Expenses for the arbitration shall be divided equally among the parties. City Council 10-25-04 14 6. The City's and Southwind's obligations under this Agreement shall be conditioned, for the sole benefit of the City and Southwind, upon the following: A. Contingent upon review and approval of final terms by the City Council. B. Contingent upon Southwind closing on the purchase of the Southwind Property. Seconded by Councilmember Monahan-Junek Ayes-All 2. Avis Rent a Car Conditional Use Permit (Sears -Maplewood Mall) City Manager Fursman presented the staff report. b. City Engineer Ahl presented specifics from the report. Commissioner Pearson presented the Planning Commission report. d. Jeff Higginbothan, representing Avis Rent-a-Car presented project specifics. Councilmember Koppen moved to adopt the following resolution a~provin~ the Conditional Use Permit for Avis Rent a Car (Sears-Maplewood Malll: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION 04-10-194 WHEREAS, Avis Rent a Car applied for a conditional use permit. The conditional use permit is to operate an automotive rental office in the BC (business commercial) zoning district. WHEREAS, this permit applies to the Sears Store at Maplewood Mall at 3001 White Bear Avenue. The legal description is: MAPLEWOOD MALL ADDITION, Nl/2, Section 02, T.29, R. 22 Ramsey County, Minnesota. WHEREAS, the history of this conditional use permit revision is as follows: 1. On October 4, 2004, the planning commission held a public hearing. The city staff published a notice in the paper and sent notices to the surrounding property owners within 500 feet, as 2. required by law. The planning commission gave everyone at the hearing a chance to speak and present written statements. The commission also considered reports and recommendations of the city staff. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the city council approve the above-described conditional use permit, because: The use would be located, designed, maintained, constructed and operated to be in conformity with the city's comprehensive plan and code of ordinances. 2. The use would not change the existing or planned character of the surrounding area. 3. The use would not depreciate property values. City Council 10-25-04 15 4. The use would not involve any activity, process, materials, equipment or methods of operation that would be dangerous, hazardous, detrimental, disturbing or cause a nuisance to any person or property, because of excessive noise, glare, smoke, dust, odor, fumes, water or air pollution, drainage, water runoff, vibration, general unsightliness, electrical interference or other nuisances. 5. The use would generate only minimal vehicular traffic on local streets and would not create traffic congestion or unsafe access on existing or proposed streets. 6. The use would be served by adequate public facilities and services, including streets, police and fire protection, drainage structures, water and sewer systems, schools and parks. 7. The use would not create excessive additional costs for public facilities or service. 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: The owner or operator shall follow the site plan approved by the city. The director of community development may approve minor changes. 2. The city council shall review this permit in one year. 3. The normal hours of operation shall be seven days a week, Monday through Friday 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., Saturday from 8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m., and Sunday 10:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m. 4. The maximum number of parking stalls, for rental cars at this site, is limited to 10. 5. The contractor must obtain the necessary building and sign permits from the city. Seconded by Councilmember Juenemann Ayes-All Public Works Building Expansion, Project 03-19 -Approve Contract with Architect City Manager Fursman presented the staff report. b. City Engineer Ahl presented specifics from the report. Councilmember Koppen moved to a~rove Oertel Architects for the architects for the Public Works Building Expansion Project, City Project 03-19, and authorized the Mayor and City Mana eg r to sign a contract in the amount of $129,500. Seconded by Councilmember Juenemann Ayes-All 4. Noodles and Company City Manager Fursman presented the staff report. b. City Clerk Guilfoile presented specifics from the report. City Council 10-25-04 16 Councilmember Koppen moved to approve the on-sale liquor license for Ms. Cori Hean Blodgett to be used at Noodles & Company located at 2865 White Bear Avenue. Seconded by Councilmember Monahan-Junek Ayes-All Hiring of Master Planner-Gladstone City Manager Fursman presented the report. b. Assistant City Manager Coleman presented specifics from the report. Mayor Cardinal moved to approved staff to solicit a Master Planner for the purpose of Gladstone Redevelopment. Seconded by Councilmember Monahan-Junek Ayes-All L. VISITOR PRESENTATIONS Diane Longrie-Kline, 1771 Burr Street, Maplewood, inquired about a liquor license fence requirement. M. COUNCIL PRESENTATIONS 1. Tuition Reimbursement-To be discussed at a future meeting. 2. South Leg Focus Group-Steve Baker from Ramsey County discussed property taxes. 3. School District 622 encouraged volunteers to participate in the strategic planning process. 4. Girl Scouts Troop 521 thanked City Clerk Guilfoile for the tour of City Hall. N. ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS 1. CounciUManager Workshop 5:00 p.m., Monday, November 1st in the Council Chambers to discuss the redevelopment of the Gladstone area. O. ADJOURNMENT Councilmember Koppen moved to adjourn the meeting at 8:05 p.m. Seconded by Councilmember Juenemann Ayes -All City Council 10-25-04 17 MINUTES CITY COUNCIL/MANAGER WORKSHOP Monday, November O1, 2004 Council Chambers, City Hall 5:16 p.m. A. CALL TO ORDER B. ROLL CALL Robert Cardinal, Mayor Present Kathleen Juenemann, Councilmember Present Marvin Koppen, Councilmember Present Jackie Monahan-Junek, Councilmember Absent Will Rossbach, Councilmember Present Others Present: Assistant City Manager Coleman Fire Chief Lukin Police Chief Thomalla Finance Director Faust Public Works Director Ahl Human Resources Director Le C. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Councilmember Juenemann moved to approve the agenda as presented. Seconded by Councilmember Koppen Ayes-All D. UNFINISHED BUSINESS 1. Emergency Medical Services Agenda Item D3 City Manager Fursman presented three Emergency Medial Services budget options. Councilmember Rossbach moved to pursue option A. Seconded by Mayor Cardinal Ayes-All City Manager Fursman will bring back the budget options which will include option A and a hybrid fire department. E. FUTURE TOPICS F. ADJOURNMENT With no further business, Councilmember Rossbach moved to adjourn at 6:20 p.m. City Council/Manager Warkshop 11-01-04 DRAFT--MINUTES MAPLEWOOD CITY COUNCIL 7:00 P.M. Monday, November 08, 2004 Council Chambers, City Hall Meeting No. 04-25 A. B. CALL TO ORDER PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE C. ROLL CALL D. E. F. Robert Cardinal, Mayor Kathleen Juenemann, Councilmember Marvin Koppen, Councilmember Jackie Monahan-Junek, Councilmember Will Rossbach, Councilmember APPROVAL OF MINUTES APPROVAL OF AGENDA Ml. Food Shelf M2. Political Yard Signs M3. Cable Commission M4. Finance Department Nl. Pre-Agenda Meetings Present Present Present Present Present Councilmember Monahan-Junek moved to approve the agenda as amended. Seconded by Councilmember Koppen Ayes-All APPOINTMENTS/PRESENTATIONS None Agenda Item D4 G. CONSENT AGENDA Councilmember Koppen moved to approve consent agenda items 1-6 as presented. Seconded by Councilmember Rossbach Ayes-All Councilmember Rossbach moved to approve consent agenda items 9-17 as presented. Seconded by Councilmember Monahan-Junek Ayes-All Councilmember Juenemann moved to approve consent agenda item 7 as presented. Seconded by Councilmember Koppen Ayes-All Councilmember Rossbach moved to approve consent agenda item 8 as presented with the City Council Meeting 11-08-04 contingency that if the a~roved sale is not closed by 01/31/05, the item will be brought back to Seconded by Councilmember Monahan-Junek 1. Approval of Claims ACCOUNTS PAYABLE: $ 379,172.38 Checks # 65254 thru # 65312 dated 10/26/04 Ayes-Mayor Cardinal, Councilmembers Juenemann, Monahan-Junek and Rossbach Nays-Councilmember Koppen $ 1,124,939.41 Disbursements via debits to checking account dated 10/15/04 thru 10/21/04 $ 300.00 Checks # 65313 dated 10/28/04 $ 778,661.21 Checks # 65314 thru # 65364 dated 11 /02/04 $ 284,921.77 Disbursements via debits to checking account dated 10/22 thru 10/28/04 $ 2,567,994.77 Total Accounts Payable $ 528,564.59 Payroll Checks and Direct Deposit dated 10/22/04 $ 4,154.20 Payroll Deduction check # 99214 thru # 99217 dated 10/22/04 $ 532,718.79 Total Payroll $ 3,100,713.56 GRAND TOTAL 2. Budget Request -Recreation Program Fund Increased expenditures from $2,100 to $3,620 in account 206-603-249-4480 and increased revenue from $3,270 to $5,610 in account 206-000-249-3641. 3. Tartan Ice Arena-Budget Increase Approved to pay $11,144.50 from the general fund for the operating shortfall in the Tartan Ice Arena Budget. City Council Meeting 11-08-04 2 4. Sterling Oaks Park-Planning Consultant Approve to retain Sanders Wacker Bergly Inc. at a cost not to exceed $40,000 for the development of preliminary concepts, final master plan, plan bids and specifications, and assistance with the construction management phase for Sterling Oaks Park. The monies will be allocated from the Sterling Oaks Park fund which was adopted by the city council as part of the 2005 Capital Improvement Program. The monies for the development and design work for Sterling Oaks Park have come form the city's area charge fund. Annual Renewal Lawful Gambling -Hill Murray Mothers Club Moved to adopt the following resolution approving the lawful gambling resolution application for the Hill Murray Mothers Club to operate at 5-8 Tavern, 2289 Minnehaha Avenue: RESOLUTION 04-11-195 BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED, by the City Council of Maplewood, Minnesota, that the premises permit for lawful gambling is approved for Hill Murray Mothers Club, to operate at 5-8 Tavern located at 2289 Minnehaha, Maplewood, Minnesota. FURTHERMORE, that the Maplewood City Council waives any objection to the timeliness of application for said permit as governed by Minnesota Statute §349.213. FURTHERMORE, that the Maplewood City Council requests that the Gambling Control Division of the Minnesota Department of Gaming approve said permit application as being in compliance with Minnesota Statute §349.213. NOW, THEREFORE, be it further resolved that this Resolution by the City Council of Maplewood, Minnesota, be forwarded to the Gambling Control Division for their approval. 6. 2005 SCORE Funding Request Moved to approve the 2005 SCORE application in the amount of $68,379. The money is a grant from the county to repay the city for a portion of the recycling costs. 7. Property Transfer -Ramsey County Suburban Court Facility (2050 White Bear Avenue) Moved to adopt the following resolution authorizing the Mayor and the City Manager to execute the deeds to transfer ownership of the city-owned parcel at 2050 White Bear Avenue to Ramsey County for the Suburban Courts Facility. These documents shall include access and maintenance agreements for the property and for the parking lots. 8. Consideration of Purchase Offer for Larpenteur/Adolphus Properties (Larpenteur Ave. and Adolphus St.) Moved to accept the bid of $400,000 submitted by Mr. Jack Krongard, of Krongard Construction Company, for the purchase of the Larpenteur/Adolphus lots to be developed City Council Meeting 11-08-04 3 with 11 townhomes. 9. Conditional Use Permit Review -Jiffy Lube (3071 White Bear Avenue) Approved to review the conditional use permit for the Jiffy Lube automobile maintenance garage at 3071 White Bear Avenue (near Maplewood Mall) again in one year or sooner if a problem arises or if the owner proposes a significant change to the site. 10. Conditional Use Permit Review -Rose/Rice Auto Sales (1908 Rice Street) Moved to approve the conditional use permit for Rose/Rice Auto and review again only if a problem develops. 11. Conditional Use Permit Review -Ponds of Battle Creek Golf Course (601 Century Avenue South) Moved to review the conditional use permit for the Ponds of Battle Creek Golf Course at 601 Century Avenue South again in one year. The council may review this permit sooner if a problem arises or if the owner proposes a significant change to the site or to the golf course. 12. TH 61 Improvements (Beam to I-694), Project 03-07Approve Quit Claim Deed to Sparkle Auto for Excess TH 61 Property Moved to approve the issuance of a Quit Claim Deed to Sparkle Auto for the excess right of way east of the Sparkle Auto property adjacent to Trunk Highway 61 and authorized the Mayor and City Manager to sign the deed. 13. Eldridge Avenue Improvements, Proj ect O l -29 -Resolutions for: a. Modification of Existing Construction Contract, Change Orders 1 & 2 b. Acceptance of Project and Modification of Project Budget Adopted the following resolution approving the Acceptance of Project for the Eldridge Avenue Improvements, City Project O l -29 and authorized the Finance Director to make the necessary financial transfers as noted in the revised financing plan: RESOLUTION 04-11-196 ACCEPTANCE OF PROJECT AND MODIFICATION OF PROJECT BUDGET WHEREAS, the city engineer for the City of Maplewood has determined that the Eldridge Avenue Improvements, City Project O l -29, are complete and recommends acceptance of the project, and WHEREAS, the project budget must be modified as noted in the revised financing plan due to an increase in project expenditures over the amount budgeted as well as due short falls in some original project funding sources. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF City Council Meeting 11-08-04 MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA, that 14 1. City Proj ect O l -29 is complete and maintenance of this improvement is accepted by the city. Release of any retainage or escrow is hereby authorized. 2. The finance director is authorized to make the necessary financial transfers as noted in the revised financing plan. Below is the revised final budget for prof ect O l -29: Current Revised Funding Source Bum Budget Assessments: $129,640 $129,640 Sewer Utility Fund $6,660 $10,700 SPRWS $0 X1,550 Private Driveway Agreements $29,500 $6,670 General Tax Levy: $234,500 $259,440 Total: $400,300 $408,000 Maple Hills Liftstation Relocation, Project 02-04 -Resolution for Acceptance of Project and Modification of Project Budget. Adopted the following resolution approving the acceptance of prof ect for the Maple Hills Lift Station Relocation Improvements, City Project 02-04 and authorized the Finance Director to make the necessary financial transfers as noted in the revised financing plan: RESOLUTION 04-11-197 ACCEPTANCE OF PROJECT AND MODIFICATION OF PROJECT BUDGET WHEREAS, the city engineer for the City of Maplewood has determined that the Maple Hills Lift Station Relocation Improvement, City Project 02-04, is complete and recommends acceptance of the project, and WHEREAS, the project budget must be modified as noted in the revised financing plan due to an increase in project expenditures over the amount budgeted. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA, that City Project 02-04 is complete and maintenance of this improvement is accepted by the city. Release of any retainage or escrow is hereby authorized. 2 The finance director is authorized to make the necessary financial transfers as noted in the revised financing plan. Below is the revised final budget for project 02-04: City Council Meeting 11-08-04 Ord Revised Funding Source Bum Bum Assessments: $151,232 $140,739 Sewer Utility Fund: $95,848 $106,661 Total: $247,080 $247,400 15. County Road D Realignment West, Project 02-08 -Resolution Approving Deferment Conditions at 1290 County Road D East, PIN 04-29-22-ll-0003, James & Mary McMahon. Adopted the following resolution approving the adoption of the assessment roll for the County Road D Realignment (West), Walter Street to T.H. 61, City Project 02-08: RESOLUTION 04-11-198 ADOPTING DEFERMENT CONDITIONS WHEREAS, pursuant to a resolution adopted by the City Council on September 13, 2004, calling for a Public Hearing, the assessment roll for County Road D Realignment (West), Walter Street to T.H. 61, City Project 02-08, was presented in a Public Hearing format, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 429, and WHEREAS, the following property owners have filed objections to their assessment according to the requirements of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 429, summarized as follows: 1. James & Mary McMahon, 1290 County Road D East, PIN 04-29-22-ll-0003, have requested an undeveloped property deferment for 5-years, or until they sell their property. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA: 1. The owners, James & Mary McMahon, 1290 County Road D East, PIN 04-29-22-ll-0003, shall be granted an assessment deferment for undeveloped property with the following conditions: a. The assessment, in the amount of $52,832.00, shall be deferred for 5-years and shall remain in a deferred status until the property is sold for redevelopment or until October 15, 2009, which ever comes first. b. The assessment shall continue to bear interest at the rate of 5.0 percent per annum from October 15, 2004 until the assessment is paid in full. c. The assessment, plus accrued interest shall be paid in full if the property is sold for redevelopment within the five year deferment period. Payment shall be the entire amount of the assessment remaining unpaid, with interest accrued to December 31 of the year in which such payment is made. Such payment must be made before November 15 or interest will be charged through December 31 of the next succeeding year. d. If the property has not been sold for redevelopment during the 5-year deferment period, the assessment shall be reactivated and the deferred status removed from the property on October 15, 2009. The assessment shall be recertified to Ramsey County as a 10-year City Council Meeting 11-08-04 assessment with an adjusted principal of $66,040, which includes the original principal of $52,832.00, plus $13,208.00 of interest accrued during the five year deferment period. Such assessment shall then be payable in equal annual installments extending over a period of 10 years, the first installments to be payable on or before the first Monday in January 2010 and shall bear interest at the rate of 5.0 percent per annum from the October 15, 2004. To the first installment shall be added interest on the entire assessment from October 15, 2009 until December 31, 2009. To each subsequent installment when due shall be added interest for one year on all unpaid installments. 16. Skywarn EOC-Ramsey County Agreement-Item pulled 17. Cahanes Estates Final Plat (Crestview Drive and Minnehaha Avenue) Approved the final plat for Cahanes Estates date-stamped September 29, 2004. This approval is subject to the county recording the deeds, deed restrictions and covenants required by the city and the developer meeting all the conditions of the City Engineer. H. PUBLIC HEARINGS None I. AWARD OF BIDS None J. UNFINISHED BUSINESS None K. NEW BUSINESS Public Safety Communications Supervisor City Manager Fursman presented the staff report. b. Police Chief Thomalla presented specifics from the report. Councilmember Monahan-Junek moved to approve the creation of the Public Safety Communications Supervisor position and the proposed pay rate. Seconded by Councilmember Juenemann Ayes-All 2. Home Occupation License -David Grupa Photography (1994 Duluth Street) a. City Manager Fursman presented the staff report. b. Planner Roberts presented specifics from the report. Commissioner Trippler presented the Planning Commission report. d. David Grupa, the applicant, addressed the council. City Council Meeting 11-08-04 Councilmember Koppen moved to table this application until the November 22nd City Council meeting so that staff can research council questions. Seconded by Councilmember Monahan-Junek Ayes-All University Auto Sales (1145 Highway 36)- a. Conditional Use Permit Revision b. Design Approval City Manager Fursman presented the staff report. b. Planner Roberts presented specifics from the report. c. Boardmember Ledvina presented the Community Design Review report. d. Commissioner Trippler presented the Planning Commission report. Hossein Aghamirzai, the applicant addressed the council. Councilmember Koppen moved to adopt the following resolution approving the conditional use permit for University Auto Sales at 1145 Highwa. USED MOTOR VEHICLE SALES CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION 04-11-199 WHEREAS, Hossein Aghamirzai, of University Auto Sales and Leasing, applied for a conditional use permit to be allowed to expand a used motor vehicle sales business. WHEREAS, this permit applies to property located at 1145 E. Highway 36. The legal description is: ALL OF BLOCK 21 EXCEPT THE EAST 480 FEET THEREOF, CLIFTON ADDITION, RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA, SUBJECT TO STATE HIGHWAY NO. 36/118, AND STATE HIGHWAY 61/l. WHEREAS, the history of this conditional use permit is as follows: On November 1, 2004, the planning commission held a public hearing. The city staff published a notice in the paper and sent notices to the surrounding property owners. The planning commission gave everyone at the hearing a chance to speak and present written statements. The planning commission also considered reports and recommendations of the city staff. 2. On November 8, 2004, the city council reviewed the conditional use permit request and considered recommendations by the planning commission and city staff. After review, the city council approved this permit. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the city council approved the above-described conditional use permit based on the site plans. The city approved this permit because: City Council Meeting 11-08-04 The use would be located, designed, maintained, constructed and operated to be in conformity with the city's comprehensive plan and code of ordinances. 2. The use would not change the existing or planned character of the surrounding area. 3. The use would not depreciate property values. 4. The use would not involve any activity, process, materials, equipment or methods of operation that would be dangerous, hazardous, detrimental, disturbing or cause a nuisance to any person or property, because of excessive noise, glare, smoke, dust, odor, fumes, water or air pollution, drainage, water runoff, vibration, general unsightliness, electrical interference or other nuisances. 5. The use would generate only minimal vehicular traffic on local streets and would not create traffic congestion or unsafe access on existing or proposed streets. 6. The use would be served by adequate public facilities and services, including streets, police and fire protection, drainage structures, water and sewer systems, schools and parks. 7. The use would not create excessive additional costs for public facilities or services. 8. The use would maximize the preservation of and incorporate the site's natural and scenic features into the development design. 9. The use would cause minimal adverse environmental effects. Approval is subject to the following conditions (and amendments to the original conditions noted): 1. All construction shall follow the site plan approved by the city. The director of community development may approve minor changes. 2. The proposed use must be substantially started within one year of council approval or the permit shall become null and void. The council may extend this deadline for one year. 3. The city council shall review this permit in one year. 4. The site shall be kept in neat and orderly condition. The applicant shall observe the striping pattern and not crowd the site by placing additional vehicles on the site beyond what can be parked in the striped parking spaces. The drive aisles shall be kept clear of vehicles. There shall be no parking on the grass or landscaped areas. 5. There shall be no vehicle delivery or transport/trailer unloading along the street. This activity shall be kept on site. 6. Outdoor storage of any new or used materials other than vehicles shall be prohibited unless such materials can be fully concealed within a screening enclosure. The design and placement of any such enclosure shall be subject to staff approval. 7. The hours of operation of this used motor vehicle sales business shall be 8 a.m. to 8 p.m. Monday through Saturday. The used motor vehicle sales business shall be closed on Sunday. City Council Meeting 11-08-04 8. There shall be no parking of motor vehicles within the drive aisles, either blocking the drive aisles for security when the business is closed or parked along the side of the drive aisles on displace Seconded by Councilmember Rossbach Ayes-All Councilmember Koppen moved to approve the site plan date-stamped September 17, 2004, for the expansion of a motor vehicle sales lot at 1145 Highway 36 East. Approval is subject to the applicant complying with the following conditions: 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 permit for the expanded used motor vehicle sales lot, the applicants must submit the following to staff for approval: 1) A grading and drainage plan which addresses all conditions required in Chuck Vermeersch's memorandum dated October 18, 2004. This plan shall include providing ponding or other water quality features in the ditch. 2) Revised site plan showing the expanded motor vehicle sales lot maintaining a 5- foot setback to the rear property line. 3) Landscape plan showing the planting of at least 7 deciduous trees (one tree per 30 feet) or 14 ornamental trees (one tree per 15 feet), 30 shrubs, and several perennial plants to be planted along the front of the expanded motor vehicle sales lot, and shrubs within the existing planting bed along the west side of the building. All other areas must be sodded or seeded with grass. The CDRB waives the city code requirement for underground irrigation. 4) Trash dumpster enclosure plans for the outside trash containers if used (code requirement). This plan must show the placement and design of the enclosure. Trash enclosures must have a 100 percent opaque closeable gate. Enclosures must be of a material that matches or is compatible with the building. 5) Photometrics plans for any new outdoor lighting. The plan must include the light illumination at all property lines not exceeding .4-foot-candles and all freestanding lights maintaining a height of 25 feet or less. 6) 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. Complete the following prior to the city conducting a final grading inspection on the site, unless the city holds the above-mentioned cash escrow or letter of credit to ensure completion of the work: 1) Painting all new and existing parking space stripes. City Council Meeting 11-08-04 10 2) Construction of a trash dumpster enclosure for any outside trash containers if used. 3) Repainting of all existing light poles white to ensure no chipped or peeling paint. 4) Installation of all required landscaping. d. All work shall follow the approved plans. The director of community development may approve minor changes. If paving of the expanded motor vehicle sales lot does not occur in 2004, the applicant shall review the need for silt fence and erosion control with the city engineering department. Seconded by Councilmember Rossbach Ayes-All 4. Sale of City-owned Property (east of 2647 Brookview Drive) City Manager Fursman presented the staff report. b. Planner Roberts presented specifics from the report. Mayor Cardinal moved to dispose of the property if it does not have adverse effect on the adjoining property owners. Seconded by Councilmember Koppen Ayes-All City Hall Campus Environmental Review -Adopt Feasibility Study Recommendations a. City Manager Fursman presented the staff report. b. Environmental Officer Konewko presented specifics from the report. Dale Tripper, representing the Environmental Committee presented the Committee's report. d. Sherri Buss, Landscape Architect for the Campus Master Plan Councilmember Juenemann moved to adopt the study recommendations and to allow staff to proceed with the staff driven projects. Seconded by Councilmember Koppen Ayes-All 6. Hazelwood Street Improvements (Beam Ave. to County Road D), Project 03-39 - Resolution Accepting Report and Calling for Public Hearing City Manager Fursman presented the staff report. b. City Engineer Ahl presented specifics from the report. Councilmember Juenemann moved to adopt the following resolution acceptin tg he report and City Council Meeting 11-08-04 11 called for a public hearing for 7:15 p.m., Monday, November 22, 2004, for the Hazelwood/County Road C Area Improvements project: RESOLUTION 04-11-200 ACCEPTING REPORT AND CALLING FOR PUBLIC HEARING WHEREAS, pursuant to resolution of the council adopted September 13, 2004, a report has been prepared by the city engineering division with reference to the improvement of Hazelwood Street Improvements, City Project 03-39, and this report was received by the council on November 8, 2004, and WHEREAS, the report provides information regarding whether the proposed project is necessary, cost-effective, and feasible, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA: 1. The council will consider the improvement of such street in accordance with the report and the assessment of abutting property for all or a portion of the cost of the improvement pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 429 at an estimated total cost of the improvement of $1,423,800. 2. A public hearing shall be held on such proposed improvement on the 22nd day of November 2004 in the council chambers of city hall at 7:15 p.m., and the clerk shall give mailed and published notice of such hearing and improvement as required by law. Seconded by Councilmember Monahan-Junek Ayes-All 7. Gladstone North Neighborhood Street Improvements, Project 04-15 -Resolution Accepting Report and Calling for Public Hearing City Manager Fursman presented the staff report. b. City Engineer Ahl presented specifics from the report. Jim Lancett, 1408 Eldridge Street, Maplewood Mayor Cardinal moved to adopt the following resolution acceptin tg he report and called for a public hearing for 7:00 p.m., Monday, November 22, 2004, for the Gladstone North Area Street Improvements project: RESOLUTION 04-11-201 ACCEPTING REPORT AND CALLING FOR PUBLIC HEARING WHEREAS, pursuant to resolution of the council adopted May 24, 2004, a report has been prepared by the city engineering division with reference to the improvement of Gladstone North Area Streets, City Project 04-15, and this report was received by the council on November 8, 2004, and WHEREAS, the report provides information regarding whether the proposed project is necessary, cost-effective, and feasible, City Council Meeting 11-08-04 12 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA: 1. The council will consider the improvement of such street in accordance with the report and the assessment of abutting property for all or a portion of the cost of the improvement pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 429 at an estimated total cost of the improvement of $2,766,605. 2. A public hearing shall be held on such proposed improvement on the 22nd day of November 2004 in the council chambers of city hall at 7:00 pm., and the clerk shall give mailed and published notice of such hearing and improvement as required by law. Seconded by Councilmember Koppen Ayes-All 8. Skywarn EOC-Ramsey County Agreement City Manager Fursman presented the staff report. b. Police Chief Lukin presented specifics from the report. Councilmember Juenemann moved to a~rove the agreement between Ramsey Coun , and Maplewood for combing Skywarn EOC. Seconded by Councilmember Koppen Ayes-All L. VISITOR PRESENTATIONS Diane Longrie-Kline, 1771 Burr Street, commented on the sale of city owned property. M. COUNCIL PRESENTATIONS 1. Food Shelf Challenge -Councilmember Juenemann asked all residents and local business's to participate in the annual food drive. Contributions are being collected at City Hall, the Community Center and Gladstone Fire Station (Frost and Clarence Streets.). 2. Political Signs-Councilmember Juenemann asked that all residents please remove the political signs from their yards. 3. Cable Commission-Councilmember Koppen asked that Maplewood commission representative, Kim Facile, provide a current commission update to the council. 4. Finance Department-Mayor Cardinal commended Dan Faust and the Finance Department for being awarded their 19~ consecutive distinguished budget preparation award. City Council Meeting 11-08-04 13 N. ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS 1. Pre-Agenda Meetings-City Manager Fursman recommended the suspension of pre- agenda meetings. Council decided to discuss this issue further at a later date. O. ADJOURNMENT Councilmember Koppen moved to adjourn at 10:03 p.m. Seconded by Councilmember Juenemann Ayes-All City Council Meeting 11-08-04 14 AGENDA NO. G-1 AGENDA REPORT TO: City Council FROM: Finance Director RE: APPROVAL OF CLAIMS DATE: November 22, 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: $ 575.00 Checks # 65365 thru # 65366 dated 11/04/04 $ 484,358.01 Checks # 65367 thru # 65426 dated 11/09/04 $ 136,389.78 Disbursements via debits to checking account dated 10/29/04 thru 11/04/04 $ 10,026.00 Checks # 65427 thru # 65428 dated 11/09/04 $ 427,752.98 Checks # 65429 thru # 65479 dated 11/12/04 thru 12/16/04 $ 827,601.65 Disbursements via debits to checking account dated 11-OS-04 thru 11-10-04 $ 1,886,703.42 Total Accounts Payable PAYROLL $ 423,969.22 Payroll Checks and Direct Deposits dated 11-OS-04 $ 5,697.45 Payroll Deduction check # 99348 thru # 99353 dated 11-OS-04 $ 429,666.67 Total Payroll $ 2,316,370.09 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 11-05 and 11-12 1 Check Register City of Maplewood vchlist 11/05/2004 12:46:04 PM Check Date Vendor Description/Account Amount 65365 11/4/2004 01044 MN FIRE SERVICE CERT BD FIRE FIGHTER ITESTS - 9 495.00 65366 11/4/2004 03261 MAPLEWOOD PRAYER BREAKFAST MAPLEWOOD PRAYER BREAKFAST - 4 80.00 65367 11/9/2004 00157 BARR ENGINEERING CO DESIGN SRVS PRIORY - 9/17 THRU 10/8 510.54 65368 11/9/2004 00162 BAUMAN, GAYLE REIMB FOR MILEAGE & PARKING 11/4 21.75 65369 11/9/2004 02862 BECKER, SHANE REPLACE AIR FILTER & BELTS 149.00 INSTALL ROOF JACK FOR GAS LINE 293.50 65370 11/9/2004 01811 BERNATELLO'S PIZZA INC MERCH FOR RESALE 162.00 65371 11/9/2004 00198 BOARD OF WATER COMMISSIONERS MONTHLY WATER UTILITIES 670.63 65372 11/9/2004 00231 BUCHE, JOETTE REIMB FOR STATION SUPPLIES 58.60 65373 11/9/2004 02114 CARL BOLANDER & SONS CO. AFTON HTS PARK THRU 9/30/2004 11,529.20 65374 11/9/2004 02746 CLOVER SUPER FOODS INC MERCH FOR RESALE 193.67 65375 11/9/2004 00340 CRAMER BUILDING SERVICES MECH SYS -SCHEDULED MAINT AGREEMENT- 2,133.00 65376 11/9/2004 00354 CUSTOM FIRE APPARATUS, INC. ELKHART MONITOR W/SHAPER 1,930.00 65377 11/9/2004 00384 DE LAGE LANDEN FINANCIAL SRVS COPIER LEASE 511.20 65378 11/9/2004 00384 DE LAGE LANDEN FINANCIAL SRVS COPIER LEASE 326.54 65379 11/9/2004 00384 DE LAGE LANDEN FINANCIAL SRVS RICOH COPIER 161.88 65380 11/9/2004 00358 DGM INC. TOW FORFEITURE 149.10 TOW FORFEITURE 90.53 TOW VEHICLE 79.88 TOW DRILL CAR 53.25 TOW FORFEITURE 160.82 TOW FORFEITURE 90.53 TOW FORFEITURE 90.53 TOW FORFEITURE 90.53 65381 11/9/2004 02743 DOBLAR, RICHARD REIMB FOR BOOKS & TUITION 623.58 65382 11/9/2004 00103 EARL F ANDERSON INC WOODFIBER 1,895.70 65383 11/9/2004 02642 GALLES CORP SOAP 43.93 65384 11/9/2004 02134 GERNES, CAROLE REIMB FOR MILEAGE 1/21 TO 10/17 127.84 65385 11/9/2004 02945 HEALTHEAST VEHICLE SERVICES INSTALL LAPTOP CONSOLE 254.71 INSTALL LAPTOP CONSOLE 254.71 INSTALL LAPTOP CONSOLE 419.71 INSTALL LAPTOP CONSOLE 254.71 INSTALL LAPTOP CONSOLE 309.71 INSTALL LAPTOP CONSOLE 254.71 INSTALL LAPTOP CONSOLE 254.71 INSTALL LAPTOP CONSOLE 229.00 INSTALL LAPTOP CONSOLE 229.00 INSTALL LAPTOP CONSOLE 229.00 INSTALL LAPTOP CONSOLES 307.83 INSTALL LAPTOP CONSOLE 576.94 INSTALL CONSOLE LAPTOP 307.83 65386 11/9/2004 00659 HENNEPIN TECHNICAL COLLEGE POLICE TRNG ADVISORY COMM TRNG 75.00 65387 11/9/2004 02237 IMPERIAL IMPRESSIONS STATEMENT FORM 194.63 65388 11/9/2004 00755 JEFFERSON FIRE & SAFETY INC TURN-OUT COATS 5,220.10 TURN-OUT COATS 1,440.07 65389 11/9/2004 00771 JOHNSON, RICK DEER REMOVAL - OCT 200.00 65390 11/9/2004 00789 KATH FUEL OIL SERVICE CO UNLEADED MID-GRADE 89 OCTANE GAS 11,848.50 65391 11/9/2004 01894 KELLY & FAWCETT PA PROSECUTION SRVS - OCT 9,825.00 LEGAL SERVICES - OCT 13,813.76 65392 11/9/2004 00856 LE, SHERRIE L REIMB FOR MEAL & PARKING 10/28 15.50 65393 11/9/2004 00908 M R P A CONFERENCE PAYMENT 330.00 65394 11/9/2004 00983 METRO SALES INC COPIER STAPLES 96.73 65395 11/9/2004 01023 MN COUNTY ATTORNEYS ASSN DUI VEHICLE FORFEITURE FORMS 114.49 65396 11/9/2004 01028 MN STATE TREASURER STAX MONTHLY SURTAX - OCT 6,608.07 65397 11/9/2004 03145 MULHOLLAND, NANCY REIMB FOR MILEAGE 10/11 TO 10/25 14.55 65398 11/9/2004 00395 NATURAL RESOURCES. DEPT OF LOGOS 56.48 2 Check Date Vendor 65399 11/9/2004 01156 NELSON, JEAN 65400 11/9/2004 01173 NORTH METRO AUTOMOTIVE 65401 11/9/2004 01192 NORTHERN WATER WORKS SUPPLY 65402 11/9/2004 01202 NYSTROM PUBLISHING CO INC 65403 11/9/2004 03263 ODESSA CONSTRUCTION INC 65404 11/9/2004 00001 ONE TIME VENDOR 65405 11/9/2004 01254 PEPSI-COLA COMPANY 65406 11/9/2004 01284 POSTMASTER 65407 11/9/2004 01360 REINHART FOODSERVICE 65408 11/9/2004 01418 SAM'S CLUB DIRECT 65409 11/9/2004 02118 SCHMIDT, RUSSELL 65410 11/9/2004 03215 SHAPER CONTRACTING CO INC 65411 11/9/2004 01455 SHORTREED, MICHAEL 65412 11/9/2004 01463 SISTER ROSALIND GEFRE 65413 11/9/2004 01504 ST PAUL, CITY OF 65414 11/9/2004 01550 SUMMIT INSPECTIONS 65415 11/9/2004 02853 SVENDSEN, JOANNE 65416 11/9/2004 01572 SYSTEMS SUPPLY, INC. 65417 11/9/2004 01574 T.A. SCHIFSKY & SONS, INC 65418 11/9/2004 01578 T.R.F. SUPPLY CO. 65419 11/9/2004 02164 TOLTZ, KING, DUVALL, ANDERSON 65420 11/9/2004 01694 UNITED PARCEL SERVICE 65421 11/9/2004 01734 WALSH, WILLIAM P. 65422 11/9/2004 01750 WATSON CO INC, THE 65423 11/9/2004 01755 WEBER ELECTRIC 65424 11/9/2004 02462 WEMYSS, SCOTT D 65425 11/9/2004 02243 WINDSOR COMPANIES INC 65426 11/9/2004 01789 WOODBURY. CITY OF 62 Checks in this report Description/Account Amount REIMB FOR MILEAGE 9/1 TO 10/29 69.83 REPAIR TO DC3 VEHICLE 196.48 GAS MONITOR CARTRIDGE 211.94 BRIDAL SERVICE BROCHURE 958.50 LEGACY VILLAGE PARK -PYMT #1 118,010.76 REF MARY ROSE -MEMBERSHIP 62.56 MERCH FOR RESALE 659.15 PARK & REC BROCHURE MAILING 4,000.00 BIRTHDAY SUPPLIES 372.16 MERCH FOR RESALE 373.02 CREDIT -MERCH FOR RESALE -52.50 CREDIT -MERCH FOR RESALE -167.69 CREDIT -MERCH FOR RESALE -18.97 MERCH FOR RESALE 173.52 MERCH FOR RESALE 108.26 MERCH FOR RESALE 117.74 CREDIT -MERCH FOR RESALE -4.68 MERCH FOR RESALE 123.77 REIMB FOR BOOKS & TUITION 1,474.50 PROJ 02-07 CTY RD D PYMT #2 249,708.69 REIMB FOR BOOKS & TUITION 1,659.16 MASSAGES - OCT 2,632.00 OFFICER SURVIVAL COURSE - 2 800.00 ELECTRICAL INSPECTIONS 8,666.00 REIMB FOR MILEAGE 5/10 TO 11/4 28.50 TONER CARTRIDGES 409.56 INK CARTRIDGES 117.46 ASP HALT 1, 866.67 ROCK 67.89 GLOVES 310.20 SAFETY GLOVES & DE ICER 656.86 PROJ 01-16 PROF SRVS 8/29 TO 9/25 600.23 PROJ 01-29 PROF SRVS 8/29 TO 9/25 265.49 UPS SHIPPING 36.14 COMMERCIAL PLBG INSPECTION 607.00 MERCH FOR RESALE 296.15 REPLACE TIME CLOCK 2,710.51 INSTALL 100 AMP RECEPTACLE 3,346.38 NAME TAG 28.00 LANDSCAPE RENOVATION 2,800.00 SAFE & SOBER GRANT REIMB 4,193.59 Total checks : 484,933.01 3 CITY OF MAPLEWOOD Disbursements via Debits to Checking account Transmitted Settlement Date Date Payee Description 10/28/04 10/29/04 MN State Treasurer Drivers License/Deputy Registrar 10/22/04 10/29/04 WI Dept of Revenue State Payroll Tax 10/28/04 10/29/04 MN Dept of Natural Resources DNR electronic licenses 10/29/04 11/01/04 MN State Treasurer Drivers License/Deputy Registrar 11/01/04 11/02/04 MN State Treasurer Drivers License/Deputy Registrar 11/02/04 11/03/04 MN State Treasurer Drivers License/Deputy Registrar 11/03/04 11/04/04 MN State Treasurer Drivers License/Deputy Registrar 10/29/04 11/04/04 Elan Financial Services* Purchasing card items TOTAL *Detailed listings of Elan purchasing card items are attached. Amount 10,305.25 1,330.28 363.50 14,841.08 18,599.60 19,297.50 27,410.21 44,242.36 4 Transaction Review For Transactions posted between 10/16/2004 to 10/29/2004 Post Date Vendor Name 10/ 18/2004 10/ 18/2004 10/21/2004 10/22/2004 10/22/2004 10/28/2004 10/29/2004 10/20/2004 10/20/2004 10/21/2004 10/22/2004 10/22/2004 10/22/2004 10/26/2004 10/28/2004 10/28/2004 10/25/2004 10/ 18/2004 10/25/2004 10/25/2004 10/25/2004 10/22/2004 10/25/2004 10/25/2004 10/25/2004 10/26/2004 10/ 18/2004 10/22/2004 10/20/2004 10/22/2004 10/26/2004 10/27/2004 10/ 18/2004 10/ 18/2004 10/27/2004 10/27/2004 10/21/2004 10/21/2004 10/ 18/2004 10/21/2004 10/28/2004 10/ 19/2004 10/25/2004 10/25/2004 10/25/2004 10/22/2004 10/27/2004 10/20/2004 10/29/2004 10/29/2004 10/20/2004 10/20/2004 HILTON HOTELS UNIFORMS UNLIMITED INC AUTO GLASS SPECIALISTS-MN ORIENTAL TRADING CO CUB FOODS, INC. CUB FOODS, INC. ORIENTAL TRADE BUSINESS A CENTURY COLLEGE CONTINUIN LAW ADVISORY GROUP INC THE UPS STORE #2171 SHRED-IT AMOCO OIL 01678812 ARDEN SHOREVIEW AN HOSPT HEALTHEAST TRANSPORTATN UNIFORMS UNLIMITED INC LA.F.C.I. UNIFORMS UNLIMITED INC PAIN ENTERPRISES INC. MINVALCO INC TREASURE ISLAND RST&CASIN TREASURE ISLAND RST&CASIN UNIFORMS UNLIMITED INC SEWARD COOP S4J MICHAELS #9401 NORTHERN TOOL EQUIP-MN RADISSON HOTELS PIONEER PRESS SUBSCRIPTI STREICHER'S POLICE EQP DGI DYNAMIC GRAPHICS S & T OFFICE PRODUCTS LAUDY E RIBAR CO INC OFFICE MAX 00002204 VERIZON WRLS I2KW RE3 URBAN LAND INSTITUTE TIME WARNER CABLE ANDON INC. S & T OFFICE PRODUCTS S & T OFFICE PRODUCTS ARBY'S #214 Q52 SPARTAN PROMOTIONAL GRP STREICHERS POLICE EQUIPM TARGET 00011858 NORTHERN TOOL EQUIPMNT UNIFORMS UNLIMITED INC BOLA CHICA INC. GLENWOOD-INGLEWOOD STREICHER'S POLICE EQP OFFICE MAX 00002204 CDW GOVERNMENT INC HGI WIRELESS INC HENRIKSEN ACE HARDWARE THE HOME DEPOT 2801 11/5/2004 Settlement Amt Cardholder Name 277.20 BRUCE K ANDERSON 160.50 SCOTT ANDREWS 193.77 SCOTT ANDREWS 61.75 MANDY ANZALDI 9.55 MANDY ANZALDI 8.39 MANDY ANZALDI 48.65 MANDY ANZALDI 178.00 JOHN BANICK 179.00 JOHN BANICK 5.40 JOHN BANICK 149.85 JOHN BANICK 26.25 JOHN BANICK 136.63 JOHN BANICK 550.00 JOHN BANICK 333.80 JOHN BANICK 85.00 JOHN BANICK 71.00 PAUL BARTZ 306.65 JIM BEHAN 719.30 JIM BEHAN 108.41 JOSEPH BERGERON 108.41 JOSEPH BERGERON 11.66 BRIAN BIERDEMAN 24.87 OAKLEY BIESANZ 32.00 OAKLEY BIESANZ 18.55 RON BOURQUIN 383.12 RON BOURQUIN 8.30 ROGER BREHEIM 52.08 DANIEL BUSACK 79.00 HEIDI CAREY 26.51 HEIDI CAREY 36.74 STEVE CARLSON 36.32 STEVE CARLSON 28.82 CHRISTOPHER CAVETT 165.90 MELINDA COLEMAN 109.79 LINDA CROSSON 71.47 LINDA CROSSON 171.97 ROBERTA DARST 8.99 ROBERTA DARST 7.34 RICHARD DOBLAR 218.44 RICHARD DOBLAR 98.74 RICHARD DOBLAR 22.56 JOHN DUCHARME 21.07 DAVE EDSON 204.90 PAUL E EVERSON 283.46 SHANN FINWALL 106.34 DAVID FISHER 169.90 TIMOTHY FLOR 9.78 MYCHAL FOWLDS 1,980.90 MYCHAL FOWLDS 1,094.51 MYCHAL FOWLDS 5.71 NICK FRANZEN 33.32 NICK FRANZEN 5 Post Date Vendor Name Settlement Amt Cardholder Name 10/27/2004 STAPLES #990 66.69 NICK FRANZEN 10/27/2004 CL MICROSOFT DMR 142.72 NICK FRANZEN 10/29/2004 COMPUSA #197 1,954.13 NICK FRANZEN 10/29/2004 COMPUSA #197 -266.24 NICK FRANZEN 10/18/2004 NYSTROM PUBLISHING 562.32 PATRICIA FRY 10/18/2004 ST PAUL STAMP WORKS IN 207.04 PATRICIA FRY 10/21/2004 S & T OFFICE PRODUCTS 29.54 PATRICIA FRY 10/21/2004 PITNEY BOWES INVOICE 1,266.00 PATRICIA FRY 10/21/2004 PITNEY BOWES INVOICE 142.00 PATRICIA FRY 10/22/2004 PITNEY BOWES SUPPLY 295.25 PATRICIA FRY 10/29/2004 S & T OFFICE PRODUCTS 113.49 PATRICIA FRY 10/25/2004 MARRIOTT 337J8 SD MARINA 1,034.42 RICHARD FURSMAN 10/18/2004 FORESTRY SUPPLIERS, INC. 191.02 VIRGINIA GAYNOR 10/21/2004 KNOWLANS #2 5.33 VIRGINIA GAYNOR 10/25/2004 RADISSON HOTELS 248.08 CLARENCE GERVAIS 10/21/2004 S & T OFFICE PRODUCTS 56.31 JEAN GLASS 10/22/2004 TARGET 00011858 14.89 MIKE GRAF 10/25/2004 OFFICE MAX 00002204 10.45 MIKE GRAF 10/28/2004 STREAMLINE DESIGN 640.00 MIKE GRAF 10/18/2004 BLUE RIBBON BAIT & TACKLE 3.73 JANET M GREW HAYMAN 10/18/2004 KNOWLANS #2 6.28 JANET M GREW HAYMAN 10/28/2004 CUB FOODS, INC. 2.63 JANET M GREW HAYMAN 10/18/2004 AMOCO OIL 07847502 9.17 KAREN E GUILFOILE 10/18/2004 INTAB INC O1 OF O1 136.54 KAREN E GUILFOILE 10/27/2004 THE OLIVE GARD00012005 77.72 KAREN E GUILFOILE 10/25/2004 RADISSON HOTELS 260.08 MICHAEL HEMQUIST 10/21/2004 NORTHERN TOOL EQUIPMNT 12.74 GARY HINNENKAMP 10/28/2004 MOGREN BROTHERS 19.70 GARY HINNENKAMP 10/28/2004 MOGREN BROTHERS 19.70 GARY HINNENKAMP 10/20/2004 ORIENTAL TRADING CO 42.70 RON HORWATH 10/21/2004 ECI GOTOMYPC.COM SVCS 132.84 STEVE HURLEY 10/21/2004 NEXTEL WIRELESS SVCS 180.23 STEVE HURLEY 10/18/2004 MINUTEMAN PRESS 294.53 ANN E HUTCHINSON 10/20/2004 WOLF CAMERA #1541 68.63 ANN E HUTCHINSON 10/20/2004 APPLEBEE'S ROS00161265 16.00 KEVIN JOHNSON 10/21/2004 TGI_FRIDAYS #0249 15.95 KEVIN JOHNSON 10/22/2004 APPLEBEE'S ROS00161265 16.00 KEVIN JOHNSON 10/22/2004 UNIFORMS UNLIMITED INC 5.33 KEVIN JOHNSON 10/26/2004 CINTAS FIRST AID #0431 38.08 MICHAEL KANE 10/26/2004 CINTAS FIRST AID #0431 13.79 MICHAEL KANE 10/21/2004 T J T-SHIRTS 33.00 MARY B KOEHNEN 10/27/2004 UNIFORMS UNLIMITED INC 64.50 BRETT KROLL 10/18/2004 ARBY'S #214 Q52 7.54 DAVID KVAM 10/28/2004 UNIFORMS UNLIMITED INC 300.00 SCOTT LANGNER 10/19/2004 CUB FOODS, INC. 4.99 SHERYL L LE 10/18/2004 DALCO ENTERPRISES, INC 328.48 MICHAEL LIDBERG 10/18/2004 TARGET 00000687 36.34 MICHAEL LIDBERG 10/20/2004 HEJNY RENTALS INC 78.53 DENNIS LINDORFF 10/22/2004 MENARDS 3022 20.77 DENNIS LINDORFF 10/18/2004 VERIZON WRLS I2KW RE3 79.20 STEVE LUKIN 10/20/2004 KINKO'S #0617 939.33 STEVE LUKIN 10/22/2004 AMERITECH MOBILE PA 17.61 STEVE LUKIN 10/22/2004 EMERGENCY APPARATUS MAINT 265.38 STEVE LUKIN 10/28/2004 MENARDS 3059 70.28 DAVID LUTZ 10/29/2004 HENRIKSEN ACE HARDWARE 4.76 DAVID LUTZ 10/18/2004 UNIFORMS UNLIMITED INC 73.74 JASON MARINO 6 Post Date Vendor Name 10/ 18/2004 10/ 18/2004 10/20/2004 10/20/2004 10/26/2004 10/27/2004 10/28/2004 10/28/2004 10/28/2004 10/28/2004 10/29/2004 10/29/2004 10/29/2004 10/29/2004 10/29/2004 10/ 18/2004 10/26/2004 10/26/2004 10/29/2004 10/ 18/2004 10/20/2004 10/28/2004 10/ 19/2004 10/29/2004 10/21/2004 10/27/2004 10/ 18/2004 10/20/2004 10/20/2004 10/29/2004 10/29/2004 10/ 18/2004 10/26/2004 10/25/2004 10/25/2004 10/25/2004 10/25/2004 10/ 18/2004 10/29/2004 10/20/2004 10/21/2004 10/21/2004 10/21/2004 10/20/2004 10/20/2004 10/22/2004 10/25/2004 10/29/2004 10/ 18/2004 10/ 19/2004 10/21/2004 10/25/2004 10/22/2004 10/25/2004 10/25/2004 10/25/2004 VERIZON WRLS I2KW RE3 DAMS LOCK AND SAFE KRINKIE HEATING & A/C VIKING INDUSTRIAL CENTER LTG POWER EQUIPMENT ON SITE SANITATION, IN VIKING INDUSTRIAL CENTER LAUDY E RIBAR CO INC TWIN CITY SAW NORTHERN DOOR COMPANY LTG POWER EQUIPMENT HUNT ELECTRIC CORPORATION HUNT ELECTRIC CORPORATION HUNT ELECTRIC CORPORATION DAMS/SUN TURF/ST. PAUL FIREHOUSE SUBSCRI01 OF O1 MICHAELS RADISSON HOTELS UNIFORMS UNLIMITED INC VERIZON WRLS I2KW RE3 THE HOME DEPOT 2801 ARCH WIRELESS SPRINTPCS AUTOPYMT RC1 MENARDS 3059 S & T OFFICE PRODUCTS USPS 2663650009 S & T OFFICE PRODUCTS TARGET 00011858 TARGET 00011858 S & T OFFICE PRODUCTS S & T OFFICE PRODUCTS THE HOME DEPOT 2801 COUNTRY INN & SUITES MENARDS 3059 GRAND CASINO HINCKLEY GRAND CASINO HINCKLEY GRAND CASINO HINCKLEY MOTRE MEDICAL CUB FOODS, INC. SDP LITERATUREDISPLAYS S & T OFFICE PRODUCTS S & T OFFICE PRODUCTS MENARDS 3059 NATIONAL CAMERA EXCHANGE NATIONAL CAMERA EXCHANGE MEDCO SUPPLY HENRIKSEN ACE HARDWARE RITZ CAMERA #396 SUNRAY BTB BAUER BULT TRE33200023 KATH AUTO PARTS MERIT CHEVROLET PARTS ASSOCIATES INC TRUCK UTILITES INC TOUSLEY FORD I27200039 FACTORY MOTOR PARTS Settlement Amt Cardholder Name 8.76 MARK MARUSKA 14.49 MARK MARUSKA 3,895.00 MARK MARUSKA 244.39 MARK MARUSKA 217.27 MARK MARUSKA 909.75 MARK MARUSKA 226.41 MARK MARUSKA 406.60 MARK MARUSKA 192.33 MARK MARUSKA 98.75 MARK MARUSKA 71.74 MARK MARUSKA 272.00 MARK MARUSKA 272.00 MARK MARUSKA 3,334.81 MARK MARUSKA 61.18 MARK MARUSKA 52.00 JON A MELANDER 115.56 JON A MELANDER 382.55 JON A MELANDER 27.64 JON A MELANDER 61.63 ED NADEAU 18.32 ED NADEAU 37.46 ED NADEAU 81.41 BRYAN NAGEL 5.30 JOHN NAUGHTON 145.75 JEAN NELSON 37.00 JEAN NELSON 262.27 AMY NIVEN 13.83 AMY NIVEN 7.46 AMY NIVEN 1.44 AMY NIVEN 85.75 AMY NIVEN 26.48 RICHARD NORDQUIST 540.04 JULIE OLSON 70.28 ERICK OSWALD 148.26 MARSHA PACOLT 98.34 MARSHA PACOLT 98.34 MARSHA PACOLT 399.20 KURT PARSONS 11.44 KURT PARSONS 193.49 KATHLEEN PECK HALL 52.20 KATHLEEN PECK HALL 15.13 KATHLEEN PECK HALL 21.13 ROBERT PETERSON 16.99 PHILIP F POWELL 59.59 PHILIP F POWELL 60.95 PHILIP F POWELL 47.15 PHILIP F POWELL 50.02 PHILIP F POWELL -3.67 STEVEN PRIEM 878.63 STEVEN PRIEM 72.08 STEVEN PRIEM 42.10 STEVEN PRIEM 114.89 STEVEN PRIEM 67.76 STEVEN PRIEM 176.37 STEVEN PRIEM 113.61 STEVEN PRIEM 7 Post Date Vendor Name 10/25/2004 10/27/2004 10/28/2004 10/28/2004 10/28/2004 10/28/2004 10/29/2004 10/ 19/2004 10/ 18/2004 10/ 18/2004 10/25/2004 10/20/2004 10/20/2004 10/21/2004 10/25/2004 10/25/2004 10/26/2004 10/27/2004 10/28/2004 10/28/2004 10/20/2004 10/28/2004 10/27/2004 10/25/2004 10/ 18/2004 10/ 18/2004 10/21/2004 10/21/2004 10/27/2004 10/27/2004 10/26/2004 10/25/2004 10/ 18/2004 10/22/2004 10/29/2004 10/20/2004 10/20/2004 10/20/2004 10/21/2004 10/22/2004 10/25/2004 10/26/2004 10/27/2004 10/27/2004 10/28/2004 10/29/2004 10/29/2004 10/29/2004 10/ 18/2004 10/22/2004 10/22/2004 10/22/2004 10/22/2004 10/25/2004 10/28/2004 10/ 18/2004 BOYER TRUCKS-PARTS SUNRAY BTB TOUSLEY FORD I27200039 EAT INC BOYER TRUCKS-PARTS MAC QUEEN EQUIPMENT IN KATH AUTO PARTS TWIN CITY SCOOPS SUPERCIRCUITS INC SUPERCIRCUITS INC AT&T WIRELESS SERVICES THE UPS STORE #2171 TARGET 00007518 RAINBOW 1-8854 AMF BOWLING CENTERS, I ORIENTAL TRADE BUSINESS A CAMP SNOOPY ADMISSIONS TARGET 00011858 MICHAELS #2744 ACME COMEDY STICKS RESTAU MENARDS 3022 ARAMARK REF SVS #6013- VIKING INDUSTRIAL CENTER TREASURE ISLAND RST&CASIN CUB FOODS, INC. VERIZON WRLS I2KW RE3 S & T OFFICE PRODUCTS S & T OFFICE PRODUCTS T-MOBILE NEXTEL WIRELESS SVCS SUZANNES CUISINE, INC THE OFFICE SHOP AITKIN CUB FOODS, INC. CUB FOODS, INC. CUB FOODS, INC. METRO FIRE METRO FIRE METRO FIRE METRO FIRE EXCELLCOM ANCOM TECHNICAL CENTER IN RADISSON HOTELS METRO FIRE BEST BUY 00000109 ANCOM TECHNICAL CENTER IN METRO FIRE EDEN PRAIRIE TUITION OFFI EDEN PRAIRIE TUITION OFFI INDUSTRIAL SUPPLY CO INC HENRIKSEN ACE HARDWARE HIRSHFIELD'S MAPLEWOOD INDUSTRIAL SUPPLY CO INC MAUTZ #3525 DALCO ENTERPRISES, INC DALCO ENTERPRISES, INC QWESTCOMM TN651 Settlement Amt Cardholder Name 137.51 STEVEN PRIEM 119.20 STEVEN PRIEM 271.80 STEVEN PRIEM 57.21 STEVEN PRIEM 13.53 STEVEN PRIEM 81.31 STEVEN PRIEM 134.62 STEVEN PRIEM 485.90 KEVIN RABBETT 85.15 KEVIN RABBETT -5.20 KEVIN RABBETT 147.00 KEVIN RABBETT 19.09 TERRIE RAMEAUX 10.65 AUDRA ROBBINS 22.69 AUDRA ROBBINS 208.94 AUDRA ROBBINS 38.14 AUDRA ROBBINS 239.40 AUDRA ROBBINS 35.57 AUDRA ROBBINS 63.83 AUDRA ROBBINS 200.00 AUDRA ROBBINS 24.52 JAMES SCHINDELDECKER 92.95 RUSSELL L SCHMIDT 77.55 SCOTT SCHULTZ 108.41 MICHAEL SHORTREED 24.29 ANDREA SINDT 45.49 ANDREA SINDT 18.24 ANDREA SINDT 10.96 ANDREA SINDT 28.79 ANDREA SINDT 410.84 ANDREA SINDT 905.25 PAULINE STAPLES 212.99 PAULINE STAPLES 47.07 JOANNE M SVENDSEN 24.94 JOANNE M SVENDSEN 44.83 JOANNE M SVENDSEN 40.62 RUSTIN SVENDSEN 86.60 RUSTIN SVENDSEN 652.46 RUSTIN SVENDSEN 310.89 RUSTIN SVENDSEN 26.57 RUSTIN SVENDSEN 222.53 RUSTIN SVENDSEN 550.19 RUSTIN SVENDSEN 617.27 RUSTIN SVENDSEN 95.83 RUSTIN SVENDSEN 387.99 RUSTIN SVENDSEN 37.96 RUSTIN SVENDSEN 20.00 RUSTIN SVENDSEN 60.00 RUSTIN SVENDSEN 102.61 LYLE SWANSON 249.25 LYLE SWANSON 11.70 LYLE SWANSON 28.52 LYLE SWANSON 33.44 LYLE SWANSON 353.11 LYLE SWANSON 440.21 LYLE SWANSON 60.34 JUDY TETZLAFF 8 Post Date Vendor Name 10/25/2004 QWESTCOMM TN651 10/27/2004 501 OPUS #0003 10/29/2004 STREICHERS POLICE EQUIPM 10/20/2004 MYR MYRON MANUFACTURIN 10/22/2004 VIKING #1090 10/22/2004 VIKING #1170 10/25/2004 PIONEER PRESS SUBSCRIPTI Settlement Amt Cardholder Name 343.71 JUDY TETZLAFF 16.00 DAVID J THOMALLA 89.43 CABOT WELCHLIN 207.94 SUSAN ZWIEG 161.37 SUSAN ZWIEG 1.58 SUSAN ZWIEG 8.30 SUSAN ZWIEG 44,242.36 9 Check Register City of Maplewood vchlist 11/12/2004 12:48:08 PM Check Date Vendor Description/Account Amount 65427 11/9/2004 01284 POSTMASTER REPLENISH ADVANCE DEPOSIT ACCT 505.03 65428 11/9/2004 01337 RAMSEY COUNTY-PROP REC & REV SPEC ASSESS PAYOFF PIN#032922110003 9,520.97 65429 11/16/2004 00014 A T & T MANAGED INTERNET SRV - OCT 1,013.60 65430 11/16/2004 01908 ADMINISTRATION, DEPT OF NETWORK DATA BACKUP - OCT 1,952.15 WIDE AREA NETWORK - SEP 392.00 65431 11/16/2004 02106 ADVANCED BUSINESS SYSTEMS, INC PRINTER REPAIR 285.64 65432 11/12/2004 01809 AGGREGATE INDUSTRIES SAFETY GRIT (WINTER SAND) TAX INCL 8,531.04 SAFETY GRIT (WINTER SAND) TAX INCL 16,230.40 65433 11/16/2004 00111 ANIMAL CONTROL SERVICES INC PATROL & BOARDING FEES 10/23 TO 11/1 1,112.40 65434 11/16/2004 02639 ARNT CONSTRUCTION INC PROJ 01-29 ELDRIDGE AVE FINAL PYMT 21,422.94 65435 11/16/2004 01810 BARNA GUZY & STEEPEN LTD EMPLOYMENT LAW COUNSELING 1,892.00 65436 11/16/2004 01869 BOETCHER, DALE VOLLEYBALL REFEREE - 3 66.00 65437 11/16/2004 01865 BOWMAN, DON VOLLEYBALL REF COORDINATOR 486.00 65438 11/16/2004 03108 BOWMAN, TRACY VOLLEYBALL REFEREE - 3 66.00 65439 11/16/2004 02735 CITRIX SYSTEMS INC GO TO MY PC SUBSCRIPTION 1,680.00 65440 11/16/2004 00413 DON MARTY'S LANDSCAPING RESOD HAZELWOOD SOCCER FIELDS 4,200.00 65441 11/16/2004 02533 DON ZAPPA & SON EXCAVATING INC PROJ 02-04 MAPLE HILLS LS FINAL PYMT 13,807.49 65442 11/16/2004 02921 DUGAS, MICHAEL J REIMB FOR TUITION 573.75 REIMB FOR TUITION 573.75 65443 11/16/2004 00103 EARL F ANDERSON INC GALV POSTS 1,096.95 65444 11/16/2004 02113 FURSMAN, RICHARD REIMB FOR TUITION 3,263.00 REIMB MILEAGE, MEALS, TAXI 10/16 - 20 271.34 65445 11/16/2004 01867 HANSON, PERRY VOLLEYBALL REFEREE - 15 330.00 65446 11/16/2004 00684 HOWARD R GREEN COMPANY PROJ 02-04 PROF SRVS THRU 4/7/04 4,201.20 65447 11/16/2004 01605 IFP TEST SERVICES INC CANDIDATE PSYCH EXAM 350.00 65448 11/16/2004 02136 JOHNSON, DOUGLAS REIMB FOR FIELD INTERNSHIP 100.00 65449 11/16/2004 03021 KIMLINGER, JENNIFER VOLLEYBALL REFEREE - 11 242.00 65450 11/16/2004 02938 KORTERRA INC ANNUAL SUPPORT 383.40 65451 11/16/2004 00780 KRUEGER INTERNATIONAL INC AISLE LIGHTS FOR THEATER AREA 2,464.41 65452 11/16/2004 01874 KULAS, RONALD C. VOLLEYBALL REFEREE - 15 330.00 65453 11/16/2004 03261 MAPLEWOOD PRAYER BREAKFAST MAYOR'S PRAYER BREAKFAST - 2 40.00 65454 11/16/2004 03023 MELANDER, JON VOLLEYBALL REFEREE - 12 264.00 65455 11/16/2004 02906 METRO LAND & SURVEYING & ENG PROJ 03-18 RELOCATE PROP IRONS 143.33 65456 11/16/2004 03270 MILLER, MIKE VOLLEYBALL REFEREE - 18 396.00 65457 11/16/2004 01018 MINNEAPOLIS FINANCE DEPT FIRE TRNG FACILITY RENTAL 1,675.00 65458 11/16/2004 01058 MN SHREDDING LLC PAPER SHREDDING 49.95 65459 11/16/2004 03022 MOTT, RANDALL VOLLEYBALL REFEREE - 9 198.00 65460 11/16/2004 03269 NCO FINANCIAL SYSTEMS INC REPAIR HEATER 218.15 ANNUAL INSPECTION 443.50 65461 11/16/2004 02909 NORTH AMERICAN SALT CO DEICING SALT 13,594.49 DEICING SALT 6,431.01 DEICING SALT 9,096.46 DEICING SALT 955.16 65462 11/16/2004 01202 NYSTROM PUBLISHING CO INC NEWSLETTER - NOV 2,320.00 65463 11/16/2004 00001 ONE TIME VENDOR REF GRANT UTIL -ESCROW 2317 CASE 1,000.00 65464 11/16/2004 00001 ONE TIME VENDOR REF ALLAN SIEKMEIER -MEMBERSHIP 21.00 65465 11/16/2004 00001 ONE TIME VENDOR REF JULIE CAZETT -GYM RENTAL 5.00 65466 11/16/2004 01225 OSWALD HOSE & ADAPTERS COUPLING SET 335.00 65467 11/16/2004 01863 PACKER, ROGER VOLLEYBALL OFFICIAL - 33 726.00 65468 11/16/2004 01267 PIONEER PRESS ADVERTISING 781.80 65469 11/16/2004 00396 PUBLIC SAFETY, DEPT OF 5000 RECERTIFICATION CLASS 45.00 5000 RECERTIFICATION CLASS 45.00 65470 11/16/2004 02227 RABINE, JANET REIMB FOR MILEAGE 10/15 TO 10/20 55.50 REIMB FOR PANTS 43.98 65471 11/16/2004 02663 SAARION, CARL VOLLEYBALL REFEREE - 12 264.00 10 Check Date Vendor 65472 11/16/2004 03073 SANDERS WACKER BERGLY INC 65473 11/16/2004 02664 SCHWICTENBERG, HEIDI 65474 11/16/2004 03215 SHAPER CONTRACTING CO INC 65475 11/16/2004 01574 T.A. SCHIFSKY & SONS, INC 65476 11/16/2004 01709 VASKO RUBBISH REMOVAL 65477 11/16/2004 01734 WALSH, WILLIAM P. 65478 11/16/2004 01754 WEBER & TROSETH INC. 65479 11/16/2004 01872 WEBER, MARK 53 Checks in this report Description/Account Amount LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURAL SRVS 4,677.92 VOLLEYBALL REFEREE - 15 330.00 PROJ 02-07 CTY RD D PYMT #3 289,969.67 ASPHALT 158.95 CLEANUP DAY 4,077.35 COMMERCIAL PLUMBING INSP 1,124.95 FIRE EXTANNUAL CERTIFICATION 491.35 FIRE EXTANNUAL CERTIFICATION 128.00 VOLLEYBALL REFEREE - 15 330.00 Total checks : 437,778.98 11 CITY OF MAPLEWOOD Disbursements via Debits to Checking account Transmitted Settlement Date Date Payee 11 /04/04 11 /05/04 11 /05/04 11 /04/04 11 /05/04 11 /05/04 11 /05/04 11 /05/04 11 /08/04 11 /05/04 11 /05/04 11 /09/04 11 /05/04 11 /05/04 11 /05/04 11 /05/04 11 /08/04 11 /08/04 11 /08/04 11 /08/04 11 /09/04 11 /09/04 11 /09/04 11/10/04 MN State Treasurer ICMA (Vantagepointe) Wells Fargo Investments MN Dept of Natural Resources MN State Treasurer U.S. Treasurer P.E.R.A. Orchard Trust MN State Treasurer MN State Treasurer Pitney Bowes MN State Treasurer TOTAL Description Drivers License/Deputy Registrar Deferred Compensation Investment purchase DNR electronic licenses Drivers License/Deputy Registrar Federal Payroll Tax P.E.R.A. Deferred Compensation Drivers License/Deputy Registrar State Payroll Tax Postage Drivers License/Deputy Registrar Amount 8,306.25 7,728.59 595,708.00 147.50 12,871.78 84,122.10 49,336.94 22,268.78 13,688.25 16,456.66 2,985.00 13,981.80 ZSL/,1~U I.bb 12 CITY OF MAPLEWOOD EMPLOYEE GROSS EARNINGS REPORT FOR THE CURRENT PAY PERIOD CHECK # CHECK DATE EMPLOYEE NAME AMOUNT dd 11/05/04 CARDINAL, ROBERT 406.78 dd 11/05/04 JUENEMANN, KATHLEEN 358.00 dd 11/05/04 KOPPEN, MARVIN 358.00 dd 11/05/04 MONAHAN-JUNEK, JACQUELINE 358.00 dd 11/05/04 ROSSBACH, WILLIAM 358.00 dd 11/05/04 COLEMAN, MELINDA 3,967.87 dd 11/05/04 DARST, ROBERTA 1,499.68 dd 11/05/04 FURSMAN, RICHARD 4,629.25 dd 11/05/04 SWANSON, LYLE 1,746.61 dd 11/05/04 LE, SHERYL 3,824.76 dd 11/05/04 RAMEAUX, THERESE 2,237.62 dd 11/05/04 FAUST, DANIEL 3,982.97 dd 11/05/04 SCHMIDT, DEBORAH 1,354.92 dd 11/05/04 ANDERSON, CAROLE 737.41 dd 11/05/04 BAUMAN, GAYLE 3,072.70 dd 11/05/04 JACKSON, MARY 1,766.85 dd 11/05/04 KELSEY, CONNIE 1,444.97 dd 11/05/04 TETZLAFF, JUDY 1,766.84 dd 11/05/04 FRY, PATRICIA 1,669.55 dd 11/05/04 GUILFOILE, KAREN 2,826.07 dd 11/05/04 OSTER, ANDREA 1,713.07 dd 11/05/04 CARLE, JEANETTE 1,584.27 dd 11/05/04 FIGG, SHERRIE 1,073.83 dd 11/05/04 JAGOE, CAROL 1,591.48 dd 11/05/04 JOHNSON, BONNIE 970.85 dd 11/05/04 MOY, PAMELA 748.59 dd 11/05/04 OLSON, SANDRA 1,301.33 dd 11/05/04 WEAVER, KRISTINE 1,737.54 dd 11/05/04 BANICK, JOHN 3,445.97 dd 11/05/04 CORCORAN, THERESA 1,664.68 dd 11/05/04 POWELL, PHILIP 2,156.41 dd 11/05/04 SPANGLER, EDNA 462.00 dd 11/05/04 THOMALLA, DAVID 3,817.59 dd 11/05/04 ABEL, GLINT 2,075.04 dd 11/05/04 ALDRIDGE, MARK 3,060.09 dd 11/05/04 ANDREWS, SCOTT 3,512.28 dd 11/05/04 BAKKE, LONN 2,993.65 dd 11/05/04 BELDE, STANLEY 2,625.44 dd 11/05/04 BIERDEMAN, BRIAN 1,978.08 dd 11/05/04 BOHL, JOHN 2,690.78 dd 11/05/04 BUSACK, DANIEL 2,181.10 dd 11/05/04 COFFEY, KEVIN 2,280.18 dd 11/05/04 GROTTY, KERRY 2,496.77 dd 11/05/04 DOBLAR, RICHARD 4,103.84 dd 11/05/04 GABRIEL, ANTHONY 1,785.75 dd 11/05/04 HEINZ, STEPHEN 2,437.64 dd 11/05/04 HIEBERT, STEVEN 2,445.22 dd 11/05/04 JOHNSON, KEVIN 3,895.43 dd 11/05/04 KARIS, FLINT 2,647.07 dd 11/05/04 KONG, TOMMY 2,233.11 dd 11/05/04 KROLL, BRETT 2,324.20 13 CHECK # CHECK DATE EMPLOYEE NAME AMOUNT dd 11/05/04 KVAM, DAVID 3,063.63 dd 11/05/04 CARSON, DANIEL 2,742.84 dd 11/05/04 LU, JOHNNIE 3,169.13 dd 11/05/04 MARINO, JASON 2,371.33 dd 11/05/04 MARTIN, JERROLD 2,222.49 dd 11/05/04 MCCARTY, GLEN 1,767.81 dd 11/05/04 METRY, ALESIA 2,247.75 dd 11/05/04 NYE, MICHAEL 1,552.39 dd 11/05/04 OLSON, JULIE 2,545.19 dd 11/05/04 RABBETT, KEVIN 3,347.14 dd 11/05/04 STEFFEN, SCOTT 3,216.02 dd 11/05/04 SZCZEPANSKI, THOMAS 2,415.62 dd 11/05/04 TRAN, JOSEPH 2,389.25 dd 11/05/04 WENZEL, JAY 2,274.72 dd 11/05/04 XIONG, KAO 1,965.96 dd 11/05/04 BARTZ, PAUL 2,859.47 dd 11/05/04 BERGERON, JOSEPH 3,224.92 dd 11/05/04 DUGAS, MICHAEL 2,149.44 dd 11/05/04 DUNN, ALICE 2,620.57 dd 11/05/04 ERICKSON, VIRGINIA 2,430.03 dd 11/05/04 EVERSON, PAUL 1,996.42 dd 11/05/04 FLOR, TIMOTHY 3,929.06 dd 11/05/04 FRASER, JOHN 2,538.43 dd 11/05/04 HALWEG, JODI 1,382.29 dd 11/05/04 L'ALLIER, DANIEL 1,578.74 dd 11/05/04 LANGNER, SCOTT 1,875.52 dd 11/05/04 PALMA, STEVEN 2,743.29 dd 11/05/04 PARSONS, KURT 1,760.44 dd 11/05/04 THIENES, PAUL 2,388.54 dd 11/05/04 DAWSON, RICHARD 1,790.44 dd 11/05/04 DUELLMAN, KIRK 1,790.44 dd 11/05/04 GJERTSON, MARK 96.00 dd 11/05/04 JOHNSON, DOUGLAS 1,790.44 dd 11/05/04 NOVAK, JEROME 1,803.54 dd 11/05/04 PETERSON, ROBERT 1,867.45 dd 11/05/04 SVENDSEN, RONALD 1,867.44 dd 11/05/04 GERVAIS-JR, CLARENCE 2,575.00 dd 11/05/04 BAUER, MICHELLE 1,526.21 dd 11/05/04 FLAUGHER, JAYME 2,139.24 dd 11/05/04 HERMANSON, CHAD 1,039.13 dd 11/05/04 JACKSON, LINDA 1,681.88 dd 11/05/04 LAFFERTY, WALTER 2,139.24 dd 11/05/04 LINK, BRYAN 1,646.04 dd 11/05/04 PACOLT, MARSHA 2,238.81 dd 11/05/04 RABINE, JANET 1,808.44 dd 11/05/04 STAHNKE, JULIE 2,139.25 dd 11/05/04 LUKIN, STEVEN 3,487.99 dd 11/05/04 SVENDSEN, RUSTIN 2,798.30 dd 11/05/04 ZWIEG, SUSAN 1,710.84 dd 11/05/04 DOLLERSCHELL, ROBERT 266.30 dd 11/05/04 AHL, R. CHARLES 4,220.84 dd 11/05/04 NNEN, AMY 1,159.53 dd 11/05/04 PRIEFER, WILLIAM 2,462.94 dd 11/05/04 WEGWERTH, JUDITH 1,715.29 dd 11/05/04 BRINK, TROY 1,589.34 dd 11/05/04 DEBILZAN, THOMAS 1,806.05 14 CHECK # CHECK DATE EMPLOYEE NAME AMOUNT dd 11/05/04 EDGE, DOUGLAS 1,822.56 dd 11/05/04 JONES, DONALD 1,833.04 dd 11/05/04 KANE, MICHAEL 2,748.86 dd 11/05/04 LUTZ, DAVID 1,790.50 dd 11/05/04 MEYER, GERALD 1,857.34 dd 11/05/04 NAGEL, BRYAN 1,991.87 dd 11/05/04 OSWALD, ERICK 1,977.87 dd 11/05/04 TEVLIN, TODD 1,652.04 dd 11/05/04 CAVETT, CHRISTOPHER 3,056.22 dd 11/05/04 DUCHARME, JOHN 2,274.84 dd 11/05/04 ENGSTROM, ANDREW 1,549.64 dd 11/05/04 JACOBSON, SCOTT 1,453.24 dd 11/05/04 LABEREE, ERIN 2,166.04 dd 11/05/04 LINDBLOM, RANDAL 2,277.07 dd 11/05/04 MURRA, AARON 253.00 dd 11/05/04 PECK, DENNIS 2,471.92 dd 11/05/04 PRIEBE, WILLIAM 2,279.29 dd 11/05/04 VERMEERSCH, CHARLES 2,065.24 dd 11/05/04 ANDERSON, BRUCE 3,939.03 dd 11/05/04 CAREY, HEIDI 1,952.44 dd 11/05/04 HALL, KATHLEEN 1,715.29 dd 11/05/04 MARUSKA, MARK 2,513.20 dd 11/05/04 NAUGHTON, JOHN 1,622.04 dd 11/05/04 SCHINDELDECKER, JAMES 1,788.27 dd 11/05/04 BIESANZ, OAKI,EY 1,329.00 dd 11/05/04 HAYMAN, JANET 1,083.23 dd 11/05/04 HUTCHINSON, ANN 2,092.15 dd 11/05/04 NELSON, JEAN 1,019.00 dd 11/05/04 SEEGER, GERALD 501.62 dd 11/05/04 GAYNOR, VIRGINIA 1,918.04 dd 11/05/04 MULHOLLAND, NANCY 679.00 dd 11/05/04 EKSTRAND, THOMAS 2,740.62 dd 11/05/04 KROLL, LISA 1,149.81 dd 11/05/04 LIVINGSTON, JOYCE 950.57 dd 11/05/04 LORSUNG, ROSE 880.00 dd 11/05/04 SINDT, ANDREA 1,554.04 dd 11/05/04 THOMPSON, DEBRA 632.82 dd 11/05/04 YOUNG, TAMELA 1,445.24 dd 11/05/04 FINWALL, SHANN 2,249.64 dd 11/05/04 ROBERTS, KENNETH 2,495.05 dd 11/05/04 CARVER, NICHOLAS 2,561.82 dd 11/05/04 FISHER, DAVID 3,022.43 dd 11/05/04 MENNENGA, JOHN 420.00 dd 11/05/04 RICE, MICHAEL 1,810.04 dd 11/05/04 SWAN, DAVID 1,898.04 dd 11/05/04 KONEWKO, DUWAYNE 2,548.44 dd 11/05/04 ANZALDI, KALI 602.25 dd 11/05/04 BJORK, ALICIA 237.69 dd 11/05/04 FINN, GREGORY 2,011.89 dd 11/05/04 GRAF, MICHAEL 1,813.14 dd 11/05/04 KELLY, LISA 1,282.63 dd 11/05/04 OHLHAUSER, MEGHAN 328.13 dd 11/05/04 ROBBINS, AUDRA 1,872.13 dd 11/05/04 SHERRILL, CAITLIN 182.25 dd 11/05/04 TAUBMAN, DOUGLAS 2,639.27 dd 11/05/04 WERNER, KATIE 229.51 15 CHECK # CHECK DATE EMPLOYEE NAME AMOUNT dd 11/05/04 BREHEIM, ROGER 1,790.49 dd 11/05/04 NORDQUIST, RICHARD 2,230.49 dd 11/05/04 SCHULTZ, SCOTT 1,981.41 dd 11/05/04 ANZALDI, MANDY 1,092.64 dd 11/05/04 COLEMAN, PHILIP 342.50 dd 11/05/04 COLLINS, ASHLEY 61.60 dd 11/05/04 CRAWFORD - JR, RAYMOND 130.90 dd 11/05/04 CROSSON, LINDA 2,338.51 dd 11/05/04 KAZISTOVA, ALEKSANDRA 111.00 dd 11/05/04 PELOQUIN, PENNYE 542.29 dd 11/05/04 SCHMIDT, RUSSELL 1,790.55 dd 11/05/04 STAPLES, PAULINE 2,720.85 dd 11/05/04 BENDTSEN, LISA 179.55 dd 11/05/04 BRENEMAN, NEIL 395.41 dd 11/05/04 ERICKSON-CLARK, CAROL 89.00 dd 11/05/04 FONTAINE, KIM 731.61 dd 11/05/04 GREDVIG, ANDERS 169.20 dd 11/05/04 HORWATH, RONALD 1,783.14 dd 11/05/04 IRISH, GRACE 31.45 dd 11/05/04 JONES, LACEY 58.50 dd 11/05/04 KOEHNEN, AMY 72.45 dd 11/05/04 KOEHNEN, MARY 1,051.24 dd 11/05/04 KRONHOLM, KATHRYN 409.12 dd 11/05/04 MATHEWS, LEAH 22.75 dd 11/05/04 MURDOCK, ELIAS 284.75 dd 11/05/04 NELSON, SIERRA 73.13 dd 11/05/04 OVERBY, ANNA 38.60 dd 11/05/04 POTTRATZ, DIANE 22.93 dd 11/05/04 SCHMIDT, LINDSEY 76.38 dd 11/05/04 SHAW, KRISTINA 65.63 dd 11/05/04 SMITH, ANN 198.00 dd 11/05/04 TUPY, HEIDE 155.20 dd 11/05/04 TUPY, MARCUS 303.23 dd 11/05/04 WERNER, REBECCA 29.25 dd 11/05/04 GROPPOLI, LINDA 362.25 dd 11/05/04 KURKOSKI, STEPHANIE 73.50 dd 11/05/04 BEHAN, JAMES 1,727.48 dd 11/05/04 LONETTI, JAMES 987.33 dd 11/05/04 MILES, LAURA 3.48 dd 11/05/04 PATTERSON, ALBERT 1,023.72 dd 11/05/04 PRINS, KELLY 915.33 dd 11/05/04 REILLY, MICHAEL 1,549.24 dd 11/05/04 STEINHORST, JEFFREY 59.68 dd 11/05/04 AICHELE, CRAIG 1,851.64 dd 11/05/04 PRIEM, STEVEN 2,008.44 dd 11/05/04 BERGO, CHAD 2,071.54 dd 11/05/04 FOWLDS, MYCHAL 1,850.70 dd 11/05/04 FRANZEN, NICHOLAS 1,483.20 dd 11/05/04 HURLEY, STEPHEN 3,116.94 wf 99227 11/05/04 INGVOLDSTAD, CURTIS 100.00 wf 99228 11/05/04 KARSTENS, BRAD 65.63 wf 99229 11/05/04 CARLSON, STEVEN 1,802.91 wf 99230 11/05/04 JAHN, DAVID 1,672.37 wf 99231 11/05/04 MALDONADO, JUANA 421.31 wf 99232 11/05/04 MORIN, TROY 182.75 wf 99233 11/05/04 MATHEYS, ALANA 1,847.41 16 CHECK # CHECK DATE EMPLOYEE NAME AMOUNT wf 99234 11/05/04 GENNOW, PAMELA 208.00 wf 99235 11/05/04 HANSEN, LORI 1,706.10 wf 99236 11/05/04 PALANK, MARY 1,699.59 wf 99237 11/05/04 RICHIE, CAROLE 1,730.64 wf 99238 11/05/04 SVENDSEN, JOANNE 2,036.51 wf 99239 11/05/04 SHORTREED, MICHAEL 3,408.32 wf 99240 11/05/04 STEINER, JOSEPH 453.00 wf 99241 11/05/04 SYPNIEWSKI, WILLIAM 1,552.39 wf 99242 11/05/04 WELCHLIN, CABOT 2,305.56 wf 99243 11/05/04 BAUMAN, ANDREW 192.00 wf 99244 11/05/04 GERARD, JAMIE 168.00 wf 99245 11/05/04 FREBERG, RONALD 2,058.57 wf 99246 11/05/04 HAAG, ROBERT 775.00 wf 99247 11/05/04 STEWART, RYAN 765.00 wf 99248 11/05/04 EDSON, DAVID 1,820.09 wf 99249 11/05/04 HELEY, ROLAND 1,822.31 wf 99250 11/05/04 HINNENKAMP, GARY 1,794.68 wf 99251 11/05/04 LINDORFF, DENNIS 1,790.50 wf 99252 11/05/04 NOVAK, MICHAEL 1,718.04 wf 99253 11/05/04 GERNES, CAROLE 378.63 wf 99254 11/05/04 SOUTTER, CHRISTINE 291.25 wf 99255 11/05/04 BAKER, BRITTANY 22.00 wf 99256 11/05/04 BOTHWELL, SHEILA 33.00 wf 99257 11/05/04 BRADLEY, SAMANTHA 56.00 wf 99258 11/05/04 BROZAK, ANNA 11.00 wf 99259 11/05/04 CONLIN, NICOLE 14.00 wf 99260 11/05/04 ERICKSON, AMY 143.00 wf 99261 11/05/04 FRANK, SARAH 50.00 wf 99262 11/05/04 FRANK, STEVE 140.00 wf 99263 11/05/04 FREYBERGER, RACHEL 186.00 wf 99264 11/05/04 GEISER, SARAH 30.00 wf 99265 11/05/04 HAWKINS, COURTNEY 33.00 wf 99266 11/05/04 HOBBS, KENDRA 33.00 wf 99267 11/05/04 KLEM, JOSH 105.00 wf 99268 11/05/04 KYRK, HALEY 22.00 wf 99269 11/05/04 LAMBERT, KEITH 11.00 wf 99270 11/05/04 LANG, THOMAS 26.00 wf 99271 11/05/04 LO, CHUEPHENG 104.00 wf 99272 11/05/04 O'SHEA, CASSANDRA 34.00 wf 99273 11/05/04 OLSON, KRISTIN 33.00 wf 99274 11/05/04 PREW, WILLIAM 33.00 wf 99275 11/05/04 SHOBERG, KARI 152.63 wf 99276 11/05/04 URBANIAK, MALLORY 135.00 wf 99277 11/05/04 YORKOVICH, BRADLEY 50.75 wf 99278 11/05/04 GERMAIN, DAVID 1,811.26 wf 99279 11/05/04 HAAG, MARK 1,769.34 wf 99280 11/05/04 NADEAU, EDWARD 2,748.86 wf 99281 11/05/04 DISKERUD, HEATHER 137.50 wf 99282 11/05/04 GLASS, JEAN 1,677.66 wf 99283 11/05/04 SARPONG, SEAN 672.00 wf 99284 11/05/04 TOLBERT, FRANCINE 208.00 wf 99285 11/05/04 LINGER, MARGARET 543.10 wf 99286 11/05/04 WEISMANN, JENNIFER 181.70 wf 99287 11/05/04 ZERWAS, CRYSTAL 362.60 wf 99288 11/05/04 ANDERSON, CALEB 118.44 wf 99289 11/05/04 ANDERSON, JOSHUA 143.00 17 CHECK # CHECK DATE EMPLOYEE NAME AMOUNT wf 99290 11/05/04 ANDERSON, JUSTIN 143.00 wf 99291 11/05/04 BRENEMAN, SEAN 176.23 wf 99292 11/05/04 COSTA, JOSEPH 313.95 wf 99293 11/05/04 DEMPSEY, BETH 89.60 wf 99294 11/05/04 DUNN, RYAN 656.79 wf 99295 11/05/04 FENGER, JUSTIN 136.85 wf 99296 11/05/04 FIERRO WESTBERG, MELINDA 79.50 wf 99297 11/05/04 GRANT, MELISSA 99.60 wf 99298 11/05/04 GRUENHAGEN, LINDA 481.95 wf 99299 11/05/04 HOULE, DENISE 111.50 wf 99300 11/05/04 JOHNSON, MAGGIE 65.00 wf 99301 11/05/04 LAUMER, MELISSA 16.88 wf 99302 11/05/04 PETERSON, ANNA 104.00 wf 99303 11/05/04 PROESCH, ANDY 230.89 wf 99304 11/05/04 RODEN, JASON 23.40 wf 99305 11/05/04 ROSTRON, ROBERT 117.00 wf 99306 11/05/04 SCHMIDT, EMILY 47.13 wf 99307 11/05/04 SCHOENECKER, SAMANTHA 240.50 wf 99308 11/05/04 SCHRAMM, BRITTANY 120.25 wf 99309 11/05/04 SCHREINER, MICHELLE 73.69 wf 99310 11/05/04 SMITLEY, SHARON 345.00 wf 99311 11/05/04 STAHNKE, AMY 113.75 wf 99312 11/05/04 TRUE, ANDREW 71.40 wf 99313 11/05/04 WARNER, CAROLYN 234.80 wf 99314 11/05/04 WEDES, CARYL 134.70 wf 99315 11/05/04 WELTER, ELIZABETH 237.90 wf 99316 11/05/04 WHITE, NICOLE 745.32 wf 99317 11/05/04 WOODMAN, ALICE 107.25 wf 99318 11/05/04 BOSLEY, CAROL 216.75 wf 99319 11/05/04 DOBBS, SYDNEY 45.00 wf 99320 11/05/04 HAGSTROM, EMILY 48.00 wf 99321 11/05/04 HANSEN, ANNA 46.75 wf 99322 11/05/04 KELLY, BRYAN 168.00 wf 99323 11/05/04 ODDEN, JESSICA 51.38 wf 99324 11/05/04 OIE, REBECCA 71.93 wf 99325 11/05/04 PARAYNO, GUAI 107.30 wf 99326 11/05/04 QUINN, KELLY 6.50 wf 99327 11/05/04 SATTLER, MELINDA 22.50 wf 99328 11/05/04 SCHUELLER, JAY 336.00 wf 99329 11/05/04 VAN HALE, PAULA 202.80 wf 99330 11/05/04 WALKER, DAPHINE 140.60 wf 99331 11/05/04 BALDWIN, JANA 76.20 wf 99332 11/05/04 DOUGLASS, TOM 976.36 wf 99333 11/05/04 FLEISCHHACKER, JACOB 101.60 wf 99334 11/05/04 HER, CHONG 196.53 wf 99335 11/05/04 NAGEL, BROOKE 273.43 wf 99336 11/05/04 NEWCOMB, GENNA 26.60 wf 99337 11/05/04 O'GRADY, VICTORIA 106.40 wf 99338 11/05/04 O'GRADY, ZACHARY 113.85 wf 99339 11/05/04 RYDEEN, ARIEL 106.40 wf 99340 11/05/04 SIMPSON, KIMBERLYN 109.73 wf 99341 11/05/04 THEESFELD, CALEB 53.20 wf 99342 11/05/04 VANG, CIA 53.20 wf 99343 11/05/04 VANG, KAY 79.38 wf 99344 11/05/04 VERDELL, TRAQUEZ 161.59 wf 99345 11/05/04 WILLIAMS, NICK 139.00 18 CHECK # CHECK DATE EMPLOYEE NAME wf 99346 11/05/04 ZIEMER, NICOLE wf 99347 11/05/04 MULVANEY, DENNIS AMOUNT 35.75 1,967.73 423,969.22 19 Agenda #G2 MEMORANDUM TO: City Manager FROM: Tom Ekstrand, Senior Planner SUBJECT: Trout Land Final Plat LOCATION: West Side of Highway 61-North and West of Gulden's Roadhouse DATE: November 15, 2004 INTRODUCTION Project Description Jim Kellison, of Kelco Real Estate Development Services, is requesting that the city council approve the Trout Land Final Plat. The Trout Land development is a 23.3-acre development proposal consisting of one existing single family home, 91 townhomes and an eight-acre commercial/industrial piece conceptually proposed for an auto dealership, retail building and gasoline/convenience store. Refer to the attachments. There have not been any specific proposals yet for this project. BACKGROUND July 12, 2004: The city council approved: • A rezoning to R3 (multiple dwelling) and a land use plan change to R3M (multiple dwelling medium density) for the townhouse portion of this plat. A land use plan change to denote a collector street on the plan for the County Road D Extension. The preliminary plat. The preliminary plat was conditioned on meeting all requirements in the city engineer's report and changing the name of Outlot B to a lot number. That portion of the property east northeast of the County Road D Extension is zoned M1 (light manufacturing) and was not changed during the previous review. DISCUSSION Chuck Ahl, the city engineer, has reviewed this plat and has determined that it is ready for final plat approval. The applicant has not relabled Outlot B with a lot number, but staff will see that this revision is made before the plat is signed by the city prior to recording. Mr. Ahl has also stated that there are several easements, agreements and dedications that the applicant must provide. These are noted in the attached Engineer's report. The applicant must provide escrow for these documents if they are not submitted by the time the plat is ready for signing. The city engineer will determine the amount of the escrow. RECOMMENDATION Approval of the Trout Land final plat date-stamped November 11, 2004. The developer shall comply with the following before the city will sign the final plat: 1. Revised the plat relabling Outlot B with a lot number. 2. Provide all required easements, agreements and dedications or provide escrow subject to the requirements of the city engineer. p:sec 4\Trout Land Final Plat Attachments: 1. Location Map 2. Final Plat 3. Engineer's Report dated May 11, 2004 2 LOCATION MAP Attachment 2 ~1 ~ ~ _~~oea~ ors' "~ !F [` yy k iCAL7ViT}' .-~' i ~J/Y `~ _ k.~. ~:.,r ~~~~.y..{'«''.. -~ - ~ +r. D ..r ~ J ~F ti' t / / / I~ ~ ~ t' I ~ _ ~ s ~ II ~ ~ ~ ~a ~• I~ / '- ~~ [ II f ~~ ~f1 ~ ~ ,~r~w ~ ,. / ~ i ~r~a~"-- • e AAI1Y ~M ~ _ 1 "~~ ~ ..N_ ~ ~-- - _ . ` ?-- • - ~ ~ ,,'~ r dj~ ~ - - -- r. ~, 4 .. t t ~ t ~ ~ '' t ~+ t ~ + ~~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ I I 1 f' ~ 1 ~~ _~ I t S I 1 1 n f ! - ~ ~ ~-,._._._~. t, I -- y,... I __ ;',rte --- ~ k '` ~~ ~ j 1~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ p0 s~ `"i Q I rl ' ! ~ ~ ~ :k_ t ~ M a t I~ ~_ _~ Final Plat 4 Attachment 3 En~ineerin~ Plan Review PROJECT: Trout Land Development, (Kelco Real Estate) Project No.: 04-11 Reviewed by: Chris Cavett, Assistant City Engineer Date: May 11, 2004 Background: The Maplewood Engineering Department and the city's engineering consultants have been working very closely with the developer, as their site and the County Road D west realignment are directly dependent on each other. In addition to working with Kelco, city staff has facilitated the inter-cooperation of multiple property owners in the immediate area to bring together the logistics of the County Road D west realignment, Project 02-08. On February 9, 2004 the city council ordered the construction of the County Road D Improvement (west of T.H. 61 to Highridge Court). On February 23, 2004, the city council approved two additional actions directly related to this property and the subsequent development The first action was the authorization to initiate the proceeding subsequent action in Ramsey County District Court which was required to obtain fee title to the old unused Highway 61 property. The second action was the approval of an exchange agreement between the city and Trout Land Development for the purpose of exchanging property for the acquisition of right-of- way for the County Road D west realignment project. Inclusion of Parcels 1 & 2, into the proposed plat are contingent on the city's completion of the Proceeding Subsequent. The Proceeding Subsequent has been filed in district court and is expected to be complet by early-June. The current engineering review is mostly related to the plat, easement conditions and land dedication requirements. Drainage for the overall development is governed by an overall storm water master plan for the area. There is a class 5 wetland at the northerly end of County Road D that will be impacted as part of the city's street construction and subsequently will be mitigated as part of the city's project. Most of the engineering details related to the plat, and localized drainage will be reviewed in depth when individual proposals are submitted for each of the lots. Engineering Review Comments: Easement/Right-of--Way requirements: 1. The developer shall coordinate the final alignment with the city engineer and shall dedicate the necessary right-of--way for the County Road D realignment. 2. The developer shall dedicate Outlot A and Outlot C to the city, (fee title). (Outlot A in turn, will be dedicated to Venburg Tire as part of an exchange agreement for right-of- way). 5 3. A storm pipe will need to be installed across lot 2, between the pond on the adjacent Highridge development and new County Road D. The developer shall dedicate the necessary drainage and utility easement over lot 2. If the exact size and location of the easement has not been determined at final plat, the developer will be required to pay an escrow for surety for the easement. 4. Dedicate a 30-foot utility easement across lot 2 for a proposed water main between the water main stub east of Duluth St. and the proposed new main on the new County Road D. If the exact size and location of the easement has not been determined at final plat, the developer will be required to pay an escrow for surety for the easement. Dedicate a drainage and utility easement for ponding purposes on that portion of lot 3 as required by the city engineer. If the exact size and location of the easement has not been determined at final plat, the developer will be required to pay an escrow for surety for the easement. 6. Dedicate by separate document a pedestrian and trail easement across Lot 2, between the new County Road D and the existing trail easement east of Duluth Street. If the exact size and location of the easement has not been determined at final plat, the developer will be required to pay an escrow for surety for the easement. 7. Dedicate by separate document a minimum 50-foot-wide pedestrian and trail corridor easement located in the utility easement along the common lot line of Lots 2 & 3. The easement should extend from the County Road Dright-of--way on the east to the west property line. If the exact size and location of the easement has not been determined at final plat, the developer will be required to pay an escrow for surety for the easement. 8. Include on the plat, 10-foot drainage and utility easements along all internal and external lot lines. Grading: Before a grading permit will be issued for the site, the applicant shall submit a more detailed erosion control plan. The plan shall include: a. additional silt fence and/or wattles in areas that slope toward the proposed County Road D and T.H. right-of--way. b. interim silt fence on long continuous slopes. c. Indicate locations of erosion control blanket for slopes 3:1 or greater or areas of concentrated flow. d. Location of rock entrance pads. e. Plan for temporary turf establishment for erosion control. 2. Grading of County Road D shall be the requirement of the Developer. The grading of the roadway shall be done within a 0.5-foot tolerance of the bottom of the road subgrade. 3. The developer shall grade both trail easements. The graded areas shall be 12-feet wide and The preliminary plan states: "Future trail and retaining wall by city" -This is not necessarily the case. It should be noted that the developer of the site shall grade the site to accommodate the trail. If retaining walls are required for the site to fit the trail, then the retaining walls shall be the responsibility of the developer. The developer shall 6 provide an open, 12-feet-wide corridor, shall be graded to accommodate the construction of a 10-foot gravel base and an 8-foot trail. 4. Grading and contours along the west property line seem questionable. What is the source of the contour information? Has grading taken place during the High Point Ridge Development that is not reflected on the current plan? The developer shall construct the retaining wall along Lot 4 during the mass grading of the site. 6. Any retaining walls that span across lot lines shall be constructed by the developer as part of the mass grading of the site. 7. Any walls located exclusively on their own lot and where grading and wall construction will not impact adjacent properties or the road construction, may be built with the development of the respective lots. The slopes at these locations shall be graded out at 3:1 slopes and be blanketed and seeded for erosion protection. The retaining walls as shown on the plan seem somewhat extensive and unrealistic. The walls in a number of areas are in excess of 16', 20' and 26-feet, while being shown 20- feet from the property line. 9. There is approximately an 18-foot difference in elevation at the location where the trail is presumed to pass by the wall. How is this elevation difference to be managed? 10. All retaining walls in excess of 4-feet require a building permit. 11. Submit detailed retaining wall plans certified by a structural engineer. Retaining walls as high as are shown on the plan will not a "typical" wall design and will require extra measures. 12. A permanent 6-foot-high Chain Link fence, (Coated, Black-vinyl) shall be installed along the top of all walls of excess height. Exact locations shall be approved by the engineer and building official. 13. Obtain grading/construction permits from: a. Ramsey-Washington Metro Watershed District b. MPCA, (NPDES Construction Permit) 14. Obtain a grading permit from the Maplewood Engineering Department. An application for grading permit is available on the city's website. Go to the Public Works - Engineering Division section. Miscellaneous: 1. The developer shall sign a developer's agreement with the city before final plat approval. 2. Consider including ivy in the landscaping above and below the wall and along the fence to break the monolith appearance of the wall. 7 Agenda #G3 MEMORANDUM TO: Richard Fursman, City Manager FROM: Shann Finwall, AICP, Planner SUBJECT: Conditional Use Permit Review LOCATION: 2289 Minnehaha Avenue PROJECT: 5-8 Tavern and Grill DATE: November 15, 2003 INTRODUCTION The conditional use permits (CUPs) for the 5-8 Tavern and Grill, 2289 Minnehaha Avenue, are due for review. The CUPs are for a restaurant in the BC-M (business commercial modified) zoning district and for the expansion of a nonconforming structure. BACKG ROU N D On September 24, 2001, the city council made several approvals for the 5-8 Tavern and Grill. They included: A comprehensive land use plan amendment from single-dwelling residential (R-1) to business commercial modified (B-C(M)); 2. A rezoning from R-1 to B-C(M); 3. Two CUPs including: a. A CUP to allow a restaurant within the B-C(M) zoning district; and b. A CUP for the expansion of a nonconforming structure (deck addition) (50-foot setback toward residential property required, 10-foot setback approved; and a 30- foot front yard setback required, 11-foot setback approved); 4. A parking lot setback variance (20-foot setback required, 5-foot setback approved); 5. The design approval for exterior improvements. (See the attached city council minutes.) DISCUSSION The restaurant has been in operation for three years. During this time the city has not received any complaints regarding the business. Last year°s CUP review inspection found three areas which needed improvement including a dumpster stored on the north side of the parking lot, outside of the enclosure; boards located on the screen patio needed to be stained; and some of the required landscaping had died. During this year°s inspection of the site, staff found that all of the above-mentioned areas of concern have been addressed. Therefore, staff recommends that the CUPs for the 5-8 Club be reviewed again in the future only if a problem arises or if a significant change is proposed. RECOMMENDATION Review the conditional use permits for the 5-8 Tavern and Grill at 2289 Minnehaha Avenue again only if a problem arises or if significant changes are proposed to the site. p:sec25/5-8 Tavern and Grill review 04 Attachments: 1. Location Map 2. Site Plan 3. September 24, 2001 City Council Minutes 5-8 Tavern and Grill November 15, 2004 2 '• - Attachment 2 ifi Plr~ Attachment 3 MAPLEWOOD CITY COUNCIL 7:00 P.M. Monday, September 24, 2001 Council Chambers, Municipal Building Meeting No. 01-22 H. PUBLIC HEARINGS 2. 7:10 5-8 Club Inc. (Beaus) (2289 Minnehaha Avenue) a. Land Use Plan Amendment (Rl- to BC-M) b. Zonging May Change (R-1 to BC-M) c. Conditional Use Permit (Restaurant) d. Conditional Use Permit (Expansion of Nonconforming Use) e. Parking Lot Setback Variance f. Design Approval a. Assistant City Manger Melinda Coleman introduced the staffreport. b. Associate Planner Finwall provided specifics of the report. c. Boardmember Shankar presented details from the August 28, 2001 Design Review Board. d. Commissioner Rossbach provided details from the August 20, 2001 Planning Commission Meeting. e. Mayor Cardinal opened the public meeting. The following people were heard: Jill Skogheim, the applicant, 9531 West 78~' Street, Eden Prairie Kathleen Juenemann, 721 Mount Vernon Ave. E., Maplewood f. Mayor Cardinal closed the public hearing. Councilmember Koppen moved to a~rove the following resolution a~roving the land use flan amendment for the 5-8 Club Restaurant from single-dwelling residential (R-1) to business commercial modified (B-C (M~: RESOLUTION 01-09-84 LAND USE PLAN CHANGE RESOLUTION WHEREAS, Food Services, Inc., d/b/a 5-8 Club, made application to the City of Maplewood for a change to the city's land use plan from single dwelling residential to business commercial (modified) (BC(M)) for the remodeling and expansion of an existing restaurant located at 2289 Minnehaha Avenue. WHEREAS, this change applies to 2289 and 2299 Minnehaha Avenue, Maplewood, Minnesota. WHEREAS, the history of this change is as follows: On August 20, 2001, the planning commission held a public hearing. City staffpublished a hearing notice in the Maplewood Review and sent notices to the surrounding property owners. The planning commission conducted the public hearing whereby all public present were given a chance to speak and present written statements. The planning commission recommended that the city council approve the plan amendments. 2. On September 24, 2001, the city council discussed the land use plan changes. 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 land use plan change for the following reasons: This site is proper for and consistent with the city's policies for commercial use. This includes: a. Require adequate off-street parking and loading facilities. b. Avoid disruption of adjacent or nearby residential areas. c. Require commercial developers to make all necessary improvements to ensure compatibility with surrounding residential uses. d. Require adequate screening or buffering of new or expanded commercial areas from any adjacent existing or planned residential development. 2. This development will minimize any adverse effects on surrounding properties because: a. Expansion of the parking area will supply adequate off-street parking and loading facilities for the site. b. Expansion of the restaurant/bar has been designed in the best manner to avoid disruption of adjacent or nearby residential areas including placing the new deck in the front of the building as opposed to the rear, installing a 6-foot high privacy fence along all shared residential property lines, and locating the dumpster along the building wall which is away from the residential property lines. c. Expansion and remodeling of the restaurant/bar improves upon the existing structure, creating a neighborhood restaurant which is compatible with surrounding residential uses. d. Expansion and remodeling of the restaurant/bar includes adequate screening from adjacent existing residential properties with a 6-foot high privacy fence. Seconded by Councilmember Collins. Ayes-All Councilmember Koppen moved to a~rove the following resolution a~roving the zoning mad change (R-1 to BC-M~ RESOLUTION 01-09-85 ZONING MAP CHANGE RESOLUTION WHEREAS, Food Services, Inc., d/b/a 5-8 Club has proposed the following change to the City of Maplewood~s zoning map: single dwelling residential (R-1) to business commercial (modified) (BC(M)). WHEREAS, this change applies to 2289 and 2299 Minnehaha Avenue, Maplewood, Minnesota. WHEREAS, the legal description of these properties are: Minnehaha Suburb Heights: Subject to the highway, the E 60~ of Lot 13, the S 148.5 of Lot 14, and the S ~/z of Lot 15. WHEREAS, the Ramsey County Property Identification Numbers for these properties are as follows: 25-29-22-33-0066 and 25-29-22-33-0028, respectively. WHEREAS, the history of this change is as follows: On August 20, 2001, the planning commission recommended that the city council approve the rezoning change. 2. On September 24, 2001, the city council held a public hearing. City staffpublished a notice in the Maplewood Review and sent notices to the surrounding property owners. The council conducted the public hearing whereby all public present were given a chance to speak and present written statements. The city council also considered reports and recommendations from the city staff and planning commission. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the city council approve the above-described change in the zoning map for the following reasons: 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. The proposed change will reflect the existing land use on the property. Seconded by Councilmember Allenspach Ayes-All Councilmember Koppen moved to approve the resolution (O1-09-86) approving a Conditional Use Permit (Restaurant Seconded by Councilmember Wasiluk Ayes-All Councilmember Koppen moved to approve the resolution (O1-09-87) approving a Conditional Use Permit (Expansion of Nonconforming Used Seconded by Councilmember Collins Ayes-All RESOLUTIONS 01-09-86 & 87 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTIONS WHEREAS, Food Services, Inc., d/b/a 5-8 Club applied for two conditional use permits including: Expansion of a nonconforming building; and 2. Operate a restaurant within the business commercial (modified) (BC(M)) zoning district. WHEREAS, these permits apply to property located at 2289 and 2299 Minnehaha Avenue, Maplewood, Minnesota. The legal description is: Minnehaha Suburb Heights: Subject to the highway, the E 60~ of Lot 13, the S 148.5 of Lot 14, and the S ~/z of Lot 15. WHEREAS, the Ramsey County Property Identification Numbers for these properties are as follows: 25-29-22-33-0066 and 25-29-22-33-0028, respectively. WHEREAS, the history of this conditional use permit is as follows: On August 20, 2001, the planning commission recommended that the city council approve the conditional use permits. 2. On September 24, 2001, the city council held a public hearing. City staffpublished a notice in the Maplewood Review and sent notices to the surrounding property owners. The council conducted the public hearing whereby all public present were given a chance to speak and present written statements. The city council also considered reports and recommendations from the city staff and planning commission. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the city council approves the above-described conditional use permits based on the building and site plans. The city approved this permit because: The use would not change the existing or planned character of the surrounding area. 2. The use would not depreciate property values. 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. 4. 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. 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. 6. The use would not create excessive additional costs for public facilities or services. 7. The use would cause minimal adverse environmental effects. Approval of the two conditional use permits is subject to the following conditions: All construction of the 5-8 Club shall follow the site plan approved by the city. The director of community development may approve minor changes. 2. The proposed restaurant/bar remodeling must be substantially started within one year of council approval or the permit shall become null and void. The council may extend this deadline for one year. 3. The city council shall review this permit in one year. 4. The use of the deck is limited to the following hours: Sunday through Thursday opening of business until 10 p.m.; Friday and Saturday opening of business until 11 p.m. Councilmember Koppen moved to a~rove the following resolution a~roving the Parking Lot Setback Variance for the 5-8 Club Inc: RESOLUTION 01-09-88 VARIANCE RESOLUTION WHEREAS, Food Services, Inc., d/b/a 5-8 Club, applied for a variance from the zoning ordinance. WHEREAS, this variance applies to 2289 and 2299 Minnehaha Avenue, Maplewood, Minnesota. The legal description is: Minnehaha Suburb Heights: Subject to the highway, the E 60~ of Lot 13, the S 148.5 of Lot 14, and the S ~/z of Lot 15. WHEREAS, the Ramsey County Property Identification Numbers for these properties are as follows: 25-29-22-33-0066 and 25-29-22-33-0028, respectively. WHEREAS, Section 36-26(a) of the zoning code requires a 20-foot-wide landscaped and screened buffer when a commercial property abuts a residential property. WHEREAS, the applicant is proposing a 5-foot-wide buffer between commercial and residential property. WHEREAS, this requires a variance of 15 feet. WHEREAS, the history of this variance is as follows: On August 20, 2001, the planning commission recommended that the city council approve the conditional use permits. 2. On September 24, 2001, the city council held a public hearing. City staffpublished a notice in the Maplewood Review and sent notices to the surrounding property owners. The council conducted the public hearing whereby all public present were given a chance to speak and present written statements. The city council also considered reports and recommendations from the city staff and planning commission. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the city council approve the above-described variance for the following reasons: Strict enforcement of the code would cause undue hardship because of circumstances unique to the property and not created by the property owner. The 20-foot-wide buffer requirement would not allow the creation of a sufficient number of parking spaces for the facility. 2. The variance would be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the ordinance, since the applicant is providing adequate screening and buffering to protect the adjacent homeowners. Approval is subject to the applicant providing a 6-foot high screening fence as proposed. Seconded by Councilmember Collins. Ayes-All Councilmember Koppen moved to approve the Design Plans for the 5-8 Club Inc. The city is approving these plans based on the findings required by the code. The applicant, Food Services, Inc., shall do 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 permit for the parking lot expansion, the city engineer must approve a final grading and drainage plan. This plan shall include: water retention calculations and the location of all existing trees on the site to be preserved and the means of protecting the trees. c. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant must supply the city with the following: (1) A revised landscape plan to staff for approval that incorporates the following details: (a) Obtain approval from the Minnesota Department of Transportation and Ramsey County to install landscaping within the Stillwater Road and Minnehaha Avenue rights-of--way. Any required landscape revisions in these areas must also be approved by the city. (b) Details for the perennial garden to be located on the north side of the deck. (c) In-ground sprinkler for all landscaped areas. If the installation of a sprinkler system is not feasible because of existing pavement, the applicant must submit written agreement to hand water all landscaping. (d) In addition to the above, all common grounds shall be sodded (except for mulched and edged planting beds). d. Prior to certificate of occupancy the applicant must: (1) Complete all required exterior improvements including landscaping and underground irrigation, parking lot, screening fence, exterior lighting. (2) Install stop signs at both driveway exits. e. If any required work is not done, the city may allow temporary occupancy if: (1) The city determines that the work is not essential to the public health, safety or welfare. (2) The city receives cash escrow or an irrevocable letter of credit for the required work. The amount shall be 150 percent of the cost of the unfinished work. Any unfinished landscaping shall be completed by June 1 if the building is occupied in the fall or winter, or within six weeks of occupancy if the building is occupied in the spring or summer. (3) The city receives an agreement that will allow the city to complete any unfinished work. f. All work shall follow the approved plans. The director of community development may approve minor changes. Seconded by Councilmember Allenspach Ayes-All AGENDA NO. G-4 AGENDA REPORT TO: City Manager FROM: Finance Director RE: INCREASE IN MISCELLANEOUS SERVICE CHARGES DATE: November 16, 2004 INTRODUCTION It is proposed that the attached miscellaneous service charges be increased by 1.3% effective January 1, 2005. BACKGROUND It has been past practice to raise service charges annually to keep up with inflation. Attached is a listing of present and proposed fees. The proposed fees represent a 1.3% increase as anticipated in the 2005 Proposed Budget. Most fees are rounded off to the nearest $1 except for fees in excess of $1,000 which are rounded off to the nearest $10. Excluded from this report are Community Development Department and City Clerk Department service charges as these fees are covered in separate reports. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the Council increase the attached miscellaneous service charges by 1.3% effective January 1, 2005 to keep up with inflation. Attachment P:\FINANCE\WORD\AGN\USERFEE MISC.DOC GENERAL SERVICE CHARGES Estimated Annual 2003 2004 2005 Volume Fee Fee Fee Dog/Cat Impound Fee $34 $35 $35 Fire Dept. False Alarm Charge ° 100-400 100-400 100-400 Police Dept. False Alarm Charge a 25-100 25-100 25-100 Occupancy Permit 13 13 13 Police Accident Report Copies 5 5 5 Fire Report Copies 5 5 5 Fire Inspection of Day Care/Foster Care Facilities 44 45 46 Tax-Exempt Mortgage Revenue Financing -Commercial: Amount Paid with Application (non-refundable)* 3,170 3,220 3,260 Base Charge (% of bond issue) 1 % 1 % 1 Maximum (in addition to application fee) b 28,600 28,600 28,600 Tax-Exempt Mortgage Revenue Financing -Residential (multiple-family dwellings): Amount Paid with Application (non-refundable)* 3,170 3,220 3,260 Base Charge (% of bond issue) 1 % 1 % 1 Maximum (in addition to application fee) ° 28,600 28,600 28,600 Tax Increment Financing: Application Fee (non-refundable) 6,310 6,410 6,490 Tax Abatement Financing: Application Fee 6,310 6,410 6,490 *No application fee on refinancing bonds. a Set by ordinance adopted 8-28-95 b Set by Council on 9-23-96 ° Set by ordinance adopted 12-17-01 P:\Finance\Excel\Misc\FEE MISC 11 /16/2004 2 AGENDA NO. G-5 AGENDA REPORT TO: City Manager FROM: Finance Director RE: FINANCIAL TRANSFER FOR UNASSESSED WATER IMPROVEMENTS DATE: November 16, 2004 A $33,460 transfer is made annually from the Water Availability Charge Fund-St. Paul Water District to the Debt Service Fund for the 1993 Improvement Refunding Bonds to amortize the cost of unassessed water improvements over the term of the bonds that were issued to finance the improvements. When the tax levy for 2003 was adopted, a reduction was made in the debt service tax levy for the anticipated transfer scheduled for 2003. Therefore, it is recommended that the City Council authorize a $33,460 transfer from the Water Availability Charge Fund-St. Paul Water District to the Debt Service Fund for the 2002 Improvement Refunding Bonds. p\wo rd\ag n\u n ass ess edwate r AGENDA ITEM G-6 AGENDA REPORT TO: Richard Fursman, City Manager FROM: Charles Ahl, Public Works Director/City Engineer SUBJECT: Legacy Parkway Improvements (Southlawn to Hazelwood), Project 03-26 Resolution for Modification of Existing Construction Contract, Change Order No. 1 for Legacy Trail Retaining Wall DATE: November 15, 2004 Introduction On May 24, 2004, the city council awarded a construction contract to Ryan Contracting Co. in the amount of $1,154,703.70 for the Legacy Parkway Improvements. A retaining wall needed for the trail improvements was not designed at the time of the construction award due to the need coordination with other area improvements. A change order to implement the retaining wall construction will require a modification of the construction contract. It is recommended that the city council consider approving the attached resolution directing the modification of the existing construction contract. Background The extra work described in Change Order No. 1 is for the construction of the retaining wall at the underpass at Kennard Street. The trail construction was included within the original project but, due to the coordination with the Kennard Street construction project, the design could not be completed until work on that project was completed, along with coordination with the adjacent residential units being constructed by Hartford and Town and Country Homes. These private parties are paying for a portion of the trail construction and coordination with their plans was a condition of the payment provisions. The coordination is complete along with the retaining wall design. The cost of the retaining wall construction is $75,647.50. The construction cost of the retaining wall was included in the overall project planning. The cost of the retaining wall construction was reviewed with the Kennard Street and the Legacy Parkway contractors to ensure that the cost was competitively reviewed. Ryan Contracting provided the lowest cost proposal at $75,647.50. Approval of the change order is recommended. Budget Impact The funding for this change order has previously been received. Hartford and Town and Country Homes have deposited funds as part of their development approvals that total $40,000. The remainder of the cost, $35,647.50, was budgeted as city share and paid by debt service dollars generated by the development. No budget increase is needed for this change order. Recommendation It is recommended that the city council approve the attached resolution directing the modification of the construction contract with Ryan Contracting by $75,647.50 for the Legacy Parkway Improvements, City Project 03-26, by approving Change Order No. 1. Attachments: Resolution Change Order 1 RESOLUTION DIRECTING MODIFICATION OF EXISTING CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT WHEREAS, the City Council of Maplewood, Minnesota has heretofore ordered made Improvement Project 03-26, Legacy Parkway Improvements, Southlawn to Hazelwood, and has let a construction contract pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 429, and WHEREAS, the City Engineer has reported that it is now necessary and expedient that said contract be modified and designated as Improvement Project 03-26, 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 amounts of $75,647.50. The revised contract amount is $1,230,351.20. No revision to the financing plan is required at this time as all items fall within the proposed budget. CHANGE ORDER CITY OF MAPLEWOOD DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS PROJECT NAME: PROJECT NO: CONTRACTOR: CHANGE ORDER NO.: DATE: Legacy Parkway Improvements City Project 03-26 Ryan Contracting Company One (1) November 22, 2004 The following changes shall be made in the contract documents: ADD BID SCHEDULE I -CHANGE ORDER NO.1 RETAINING WALL Item No. Item Description Unit Unit Quantity Price Amount 1 Common Excavation (EV) CY 2150.00 $4.00 $8,600.00 2 Temporary Excavation Support LS 1.00 $2,500.00 $2,500.00 3 Modular Block Retaining Wall SF 3,500.00 $16.50 $57,750.00 4 Chain Link Fence, Vinyl Coated LF 315.00 $16.50 $5,197.50 5 Turf Establishment LS 1.00 $1,600.00 $1,600.00 TOTAL CHANGE ORDER NO. 1 $75,647.50 CONTRACT STATUS: Original Contract: $1,154,703.70 Net Change of Prior Change: $0.00 (Change Order No. ~ Change this Change Order: $75,647.50 Revised Contract: $1,230,351.20 Recommended By: Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. By: Date: Agreed to By: Ryan Contracting Company By: Date: Approved By: City of Maplewood By: Date: Mayor By: Date: City Engineer AGENDA ITEM G-7 AGENDA REPORT TO: City Manager FROM: Chuck Ahl, Public Works Director/City Engineer Chris Cavett, Assistant City Engineer SUBJECT: County Road D Realignment (West) Improvements (TH 61 to Walter Street), City Project 02-08: Resolution for Modification of the Existing Construction Contract, Change Order 2 DATE: November 15, 2004 Introduction The city council will consider approving the attached resolution directing the modification of the existing construction contract, Change Order No. 2. Background On September 13, 2004, the City Council approved the award of a construction contract to Palda & Sons, Inc. for the amount of $1,333,032.71. The project included construction of utilities and roadway for the entire County Road D West improvement. Unfortunately, the County Road D West project did not begin as anticipated due to problems related to both the constructability of the Vadnais Heights sewer and the availability of the Troutland site. Palda requested an increase in the bid in excess of $300,000 to have the delays extended into 2005. Negotiations with the contractor resulted in the elimination of the street construction portion of the contract. Change Order No. 1 resulted in a reduction to said contract by an amount of $710,915.03. The street construction portion of the project will be in 2005. As part of Change Order No. 1, approved on 10/14/04, the street construction items were eliminated from this contract. It was agreed to during negations that any roadway restoration quantities would be done by change order. Change Order No. 2 is based on the estimate to restore existing County Road D after the utility work. These costs were originally budgeted, however the construction items were eliminated under Change Order No. 1. The items listed in the current Change Order (No. 2) are for the restoration of existing County Road D as a result of the utility work. The restoration of the roadway will allow for the reopening of existing County Road D over the winter and elimination of the Walter Street detour until roadwork continues next spring. Budget Impact Approval of this resolution will increase the construction contract by $25,042.40. As these work items were planned and budgeted, there will be no impact to the project budget for this work. No revision to the budget or financing plan is required at this time. Recommendation It is recommended that the city council approve the attached resolution directing the modification of the existing construction contract, Change Order No. 2, for the County Road D West Improvements (TH 61 to Walter Street), City Project 02-08. CMC Attachments: Resolution Change Order No. 2 RESOLUTION DIRECTING MODIFICATION OF EXISTING CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT PROJECT 02-08, CHANGE ORDER No. 2 WHEREAS, the City Council of Maplewood, Minnesota has heretofore ordered made Improvement Project 02-08, County Road D Realignment (West) Improvements (TH 61 to Walter Street), and has let a construction contract pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 429, and WHEREAS, the City Engineer has reported that it is now necessary and expedient that said contract be modified and designated as Improvement Project 02-08, Change Order No. 2, as an increase to said contract by an amount of $25,042.40, such that the new contract amount is now and hereby established as $647,160.08. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA that the mayor and city manager are hereby authorized to sign on behalf of the City of Maplewood to signify and show that the existing contract is hereby modified through said Change Order No. 2 as a contract increase in the amount of $25,042.40. The revised contract amount is $647,160.08. No revisions to the project budget are required at this time, as these changes fall within the original project scope and budget. H mnuuW-TXatvkps'� xymw mmmi C', Akt A9° 111iix U rl IM -2 —M -NUM, a M, 0% :t a, OA &N Erb d bArN �jl Lli RAN -0 R c-4" N -M -15i 01,14 m M!" gunj' I V I -al 13"Ifflul-B, 2R�Izmaml 041 N uu-- "PF,-lTR0V,-F g I',' IMMMOTI T '19-IMMIll wr : t:tO QI AM k" OIL, ........ .. WIRPOI RAMP-5 K C', lK AGENDA ITEM G-8 AGENDA REPORT TO: City Manager FROM: Chuck Ahl, Public Works Director/City Engineer Chris Cavett, Assistant City Engineer SUBJECT: County Road D East Improvements (TH 61 to Southlawn Drive), City Project 02-07: Resolution for Modification of the Existing Construction Contract, C.O.s 2, 3 and 4 DATE: November 15, 2004 Introduction The city council will consider approving the attached resolution directing the modification of the existing construction contract (Change Order Nos. 2, 3 and 4). Background On June 28, 2004, the city council awarded the construction contract for the utility and roadway construction to Shafer Contracting, Inc. in the amount of $2,364,326.51. On July 12, 2004, the city council approved Change Order No. 1, which only revised the completion dates to the project as a result of delays in the availability of the site. The work between Hazelwood and TH 61 (Phases 2, 3 & 4) was delayed due to the soil correction work taking longer than anticipated, as well as a delay in the final agreement with the Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad and Minnesota Commercial Railroad on the abandonment of the railroad. Shafer Construction has agreed to the revised completion dates with no claims for a revision in contract prices. Change Orders 2, 3 and 4 are for items not covered in the original construction contract and for which staff has determined that the contractor is justifiably due compensation. The change orders are summarized below: ~~ Change Order No. 2 ($938.00) is for the difference in increased insurance premium cost for the additional coverage required by the railroad. The amount of insurance coverage required by the railroad was not known at the time the project specifications were written. This cost is covered by the project contingency and is state aid eligible. ~~ Change Order No. 3 ($3,800.00) is for sanitary sewer services added to the project after construction had begun. These services were installed to serve the new Heritage Square II and Hartford Row Homes Developments. The locations or need of the services were not known during plan development. The cost of these services will be recuperated 100°/o from the respective developers. ~~ Change Order No. 4 ($3,431.76) is for work required to deal with an alignment conflict between the existing water main and the proposed storm sewer. As a result, the water main was offset to accommodate the storm sewer. This cost is covered by the project contingency and is state aid eligible. Budget Impact Approval of this resolution will increase the construction contract by $8,169.76. These costs all fall within the original project budget and no revision to the budget is required at this time. Recommendation It is recommended that the city council approve the attached resolution directing the modification of the existing construction contract, Change Order Nos. 2, 3 and 4, for the County Road D West Improvements (TH 61 to Southlawn Drive), City Project 02-07. CMC Attachments: Resolution Change Order Nos. 2, 3 and 4 RESOLUTION DIRECTING MODIFICATION OF EXISTING CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT PROJECT 02-07, CHANGE ORDER Nos. 2, 3 & 4 WHEREAS, the City Council of Maplewood, Minnesota has heretofore ordered made Improvement, Project 02-07, County Road D Realignment (East) Improvements (TH 61 to Southlawn Dr.), and has let a construction contract pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 429, and WHEREAS, the City Engineer has reported that it is now necessary and expedient that said contract be modified and designated as Improvement Project 02-07, Change Order Nos. 2, 3 and 4, as an increase to said contract by an amount of $8,169.76, such that the new contract amount is now and hereby established as $2,378,031.87. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA that the mayor and city manager are hereby authorized to sign on behalf of the City of Maplewood to signify and show that the existing contract is hereby modified through said Change Order Nos. 2, 3 and 4 as a contract increase in the amount of $8,169.76. The revised contract amount is $2,378,031.87. No revisions to the project budget are required at this time, as these changes fall within the original project scope and budget. §x RmA Md1i.�l. s qrm- Et Map �� h.4 �di �f d; • � a ' aa� € a •..°"� ti `�'e r-.tk.`.�P..a�..'.,.�x$A;,lsjU ..asC�s° ajar �a a _ A I °, >�'�'�^'�N�a { p� r ,G �'Z%a.•�wr' `.p-.'.�az�'-'�s�'&aosa�$��1� ��7v}k��a i_�Y.�a$.�LaF� A�.'... 111�2INStdl prIF�'r 31 i rp' �G b� s � S- Im ' ki 5 -Tv REA10 WNW k } g€ a MR: Mt—� gy"'�p�6 j� j'N'�"`°r, 8 "S 7 d•- ,karr�t�sv..ria-�.:..t � ...�r.�.f. .,..,�... Ui i , MEN -l-P PUP, Z13 -TUM ON "Air. M 171 t 2 - M I tPlam-9 a aw � 01- r Sl aK ME A M M-1—LAWMIR-Mill if A 221 WILL vho-.M-f&RAM "RNY'd Axk, m Mir -Lt,, -91 MR ra , "mm sm, if A WILL vho-.M-f&RAM RAME-4-1131, EX'145K OKRO � gv,,,T� a f xcqpp IDIOU.11A, W; MEE I, MIMW VD�. 4 -IN R -15-i gfg. .Nno -NIT-9-9TIMIM allima m.PIMIX - 0 �q 3T-, V m -,� m 3 i 77 r`?` ku 5- ,,Zmi wgmummsu M" seug, �pumuanar Lka ormakm L� IM, a -lo 174y— - X%rvmoll AP 1 11 F.Ifn . . ............... 0t" � - M I M ON71"I'M A—',� 412MI, RD MWX -NIF, MOF IN& IAME WRII-Ij ago, Irklm Ur b Hill,- �Mmi 'N' IFur", n m �mm KA mm �7 "In 7�','TrwcmR fftA Ul C RMI urv,�, t f kui! iL- elium .Nno -NIT-9-9TIMIM allima m.PIMIX - 0 �q 3T-, V m -,� m 3 i 77 r`?` ku 5- ,,Zmi wgmummsu M" seug, �pumuanar Lka ormakm L� IM, a -lo 174y— - X%rvmoll AP 1 11 F.Ifn . . ............... 0t" � - M I M ON71"I'M A—',� 412MI, RD MWX -NIF, AGENDA ITEM H-1 AGENDA REPORT TO: Richard Fursman, City Manager FROM: Charles Ahl, Pubic Works Director/City Engineer Chuck Vermeersch, Civil Engineer I SUBJECT: Hazelwood Street Improvements (Beam Ave. to County Rd. D), Project 03-39 a. Public Hearing 7:00 pm b. Resolution Ordering Improvement after Public Hearing (4 votes) DATE: November 15, 2004 Introduction The public hearing for this project has been scheduled for 7:00 p.m., Monday, November 22, 2004. Notices of the public hearing have been mailed and published. The feasibility study has been provided as a supplement to the council packet. The study includes information on the proposed improvement, proposed financing and probable assessments. The city council should consider ordering the improvement following the public hearing. Background The city council ordered the preparation of the feasibility study at the September 13, 2004, regular meeting. An informational meeting was scheduled for November 18, 2004 with the residents of Cardinal Pointe to discuss the project and the findings of the feasibility study prior to the public hearing. Staff has met with the residents of Cardinal Pointe in the past to discuss the other area improvements and some discussion of Hazelwood Street also took place at those meetings. Cardinal Pointe residents represent 108 of the 111 property owners proposed to be assessed under this project. Ongoing communication with the other three property owners (Richard Schreier, Southwinds Builders, and St. John's Hospital) has been maintained throughout the process. Hazelwood Street has been identified on the city's capital improvement plan for many years. The proposed project area is illustrated on the attached project location map. The Hazelwood Street Improvements from Beam Avenue to County Road D was originally part of a project that encompassed Hazelwood Street from County Road C to County Road D. Due to a number of factors, which included funding, traffic control and construction coordination issues, the project was divided into two phases. Phase 1 was designed by TKDA, one of the city's consultants, and is now complete. Phase 2 will be designed in house by the city's engineering staff. The project involves the reconstruction of Hazelwood from Beam Avenue to the newly aligned County Road D, as well as the connection to Legacy Parkway. Included in the project are signal improvements at Beam Avenue, drainage improvements, construction of turn lanes, parking bays, sidewalks on both sides of the street and lighting and signal improvements. Recommendation It is recommended that the city council approve the attached resolution ordering the improvement of the Hazelwood Street Improvements, City Project 03-39. Budget Impact The resolution calls for establishing a project budget of $1,423,800. The financing plan is outlined specifically in the feasibility study and calls for funding from two sources: assessments and municipal state aid bonds. CJV/CMC Attachment: Resolution Location Map Feasibility Study RESOLUTION ORDERING IMPROVEMENT AFTER PUBLIC HEARING WHEREAS, a resolution of the city council adopted the 8th day of November, 2004, fixed a date for a council hearing on the proposed street improvements for the Hazelwood Street Improvements, City Project 03-39, AND WHEREAS, ten days mailed notice and two weeks published notice of the hearing was given, and the hearing was duly held on November 22, 2004, and the council has heard all persons desiring to be heard on the matter and has fully considered the same; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA, as follows: 1. That it is necessary, cost-effective and feasible, as detailed in the feasibility report, that the City of Maplewood make improvements to Hazelwood Street under Hazelwood Street Improvements, City Project 03-39. 2. Such improvement is hereby ordered as proposed in the council resolution adopted the 22nd day of November 2004. 3. The city engineer is designated engineer for this improvement and is hereby directed to prepare final plans and specifications for the making of said improvement. 4. The finance director is hereby authorized to make the financial transfers necessary to implement the financing plan for the project. A project budget of $1,423,800 shall be established. The proposed financing plan is as follows: Street and Storm Assessments: $ 407,200 (29 %) Municipal State Aid Bonds: $1,016,600 (71 %~ Total: $1,423,800 (100%) FEASIBILITY REPORT HAZELWOOD STREET IMPROVEMENTS PHASE II FROM BEAM AVENUE TO COUNTY ROAD D CITY PROJECT NO. 03-39 CITY OF MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA I hereby certify that this Report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Licensed Professional Engineer under the laws of the State of Minnesota. Christopher M. Cavett, P.E. License No. 24719 HAZELWOOD STREET IMPROVEMENTS CITY OF MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA CITY PROJECT NO. 03-39 TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................. 1 NEIGHBORHOOD MEETINGS ....................................................................................... 1 IMPROVEMENTS ........................................................................................................... 1 Sanitary Sewer ............................................................................................................ 1 W ate rma i n ................................................................................................................... 2 Storm Sewer ............................................................................................................... 2 Street Improvements ................................................................................................... 2 RI G HT-OF-WAY .............................................................................................................. 3 MISCELLANEOUS PRIVATE UTILITIES ........................................................................ 3 EROSION CONTROL ..................................................................................................... 3 TRAFFIC CONTROL ....................................................................................................... 4 REQUIRED PERMITS AND APPROVALS ..................................................................... 4 PROJECT COSTS .......................................................................................................... 4 COST RECOVERY ......................................................................................................... 5 PROJECT SCHEDULE ................................................................................................... 5 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ............................................................... 6 nPPF~inix Exhibit 1: Location Map Exhibit 2: Preliminary Plan Exhibit 3: Typical Section Exhibit 4: Preliminary Cost Estimate Exhibit 5: Preliminary Assessment Roll HAZELWOOD STREET IMPROVEMENTS CITY OF MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA CITY PROJECT NO. 03-39 INTRODUCTION Hazelwood Street Improvements, City Project 03-39, was originally part of a proposed project to reconstruct Hazelwood Street from County Road C to County Road D (see exhibit 1). The project was broken into two phases, with Phase 1 being the section of Hazelwood from County Road C to Beam Avenue. Known as City Project 01-16, this first phase has been completed. The reconstruction of Hazelwood Street from Beam Avenue to County Road D is one of the projects within the Maplewood Mall Area Transportation Improvements (MMATI) Project Area. Specifically, this stretch of Hazelwood will be realigned to match the new County Road D alignment and Legacy Parkway, both of which are currently under construction. NEIGHBORHOOD MEETINGS The City staff held a meeting with the property owners in Cardinal Pointe in March 2003. The property owners were concerned about the additional traffic on Hazelwood due to the new Legacy Village area development. They were also concerned about the additional noise and disruption the new County Road D will have on the area. Meetings with representatives of St. Johns Hospital have been on going throughout the MMATI planning process. Staff has also discussed the upcoming project with Richard Schreier, the owner of 3 larger parcels on the west side of Hazelwood Street. IMPROVEMENTS Sanitary Sewer The existing sanitary sewer was built between 1971 and 1975. A recent televised inspection indicated the sewers are in generally satisfactory condition with only a few mainline repairs necessary. Some manholes may need repair work and/or adjustment due to changes in the profile of the reconstructed street. Individual services will be televised prior to street reconstruction to advise property owners of the condition of their individual services. Since the north end of Hazelwood Street will be realigned to match the new alignment of County Road D, the sanitary sewer has been realigned under that project so as to follow the new Hazelwood alignment. Discussions will be held with the owners of adjacent undeveloped properties to determine the need for new services. Watermain There is an existing 16-inch watermain north of Beam Avenue. Although no watermain repairs are anticipated, it is likely there will be some hydrant relocations and/or extensions to better fit the reconstructed street. As with the sanitary sewer, discussions will be held with the owners of adjacent undeveloped properties to determine the need for new services. The watermain at the north end of Hazelwood Street has been realigned under the County Road D project to match the new Hazelwood alignment. Storm Sewer The project will include storm sewer improvements. Currently, the south portion of the street drains south, crossing Beam Avenue through existing storm sewer to the county ditch. Additional catch basins and piping will be added in this area. On the north end of Hazelwood Street near County Road D, a new pond was built as part of the overall MMATI project. New storm sewer will be built for the north portion of Hazelwood Street that discharges to the new pond. Street Improvements Hazelwood Street is a Municipal State-Aid (MSA) Street. In order to receive State-Aid funds it must be designed and built to MSA standards. At Beam Avenue the intersection would be realigned to provide a protected left turning movement. Signal modifications are proposed as part of the project. The proposed street width varies with location (see exhibit 2). At Beam Avenue three southbound lanes (left turn, through lane, and right turn), and two northbound lanes (one shared lane for through traffic on Hazelwood and left turns off Beam, and one for traffic turning right off Beam Avenue) are proposed. This lane configuration transitions to four lanes to include northbound through and right turn lanes, a southbound through lane, and a shared center left turn lane. The northbound right turn lane would be continuous in front of St. John9s Hospital to accommodate its three entrances off Hazelwood Street. Just south of the Cardinal Pointe property, a center median signals the transition from the commercial area to the residential area, and the road narrows to two lanes (28 feet total width). The center median and narrowing of the road are traffic calming measures. Further north, about midway between Legacy Parkway and County Road D, a northbound right turn lane to County Road D is proposed. The project includes the construction of 6-foot wide concrete sidewalks on both sides of the street. The sidewalks are proposed to be placed 7 feet from the back of the new curb. Driveway aprons will be replaced from the right-of-way line to the new curb to match the new grade of the street, and the boulevards will be restored with sod. RIGHT-OF-WAY Additional right-of-way must be acquired on the south end of the project to accommodate the addition of turn lanes and sidewalks. The additional right-of-way consists of a strip 17 feet wide by 693 feet long on the west side (from Desoto Associates), a strip 7 feet wide by 320 feet long on the east side (from St. John9s Hospital), and a small triangular piece at the southwest corner of St. John9s (to accommodate construction of the right turn lane). Directly north of St. John9s on the east side of Hazelwood, the Southwinds development will dedicate any additional right-of- way needed to allow for the construction of sidewalks and parking bays. The necessary right-of- way acquisition is shown on exhibit 2. MISCELLANEOUS PRIVATE UTILITIES Staff will contact the private utility companies regarding this project. Underground utilities exist throughout the project area, as well as overhead transmission lines and the British Petroleum pipeline. Staff will work with the various private utilities to avoid potential conflicts with the proposed street design. EROSION CONTROL Erosion control methods will be implemented throughout the project. Silt fence, bale checks, and other erosion protection methods will be utilized where direct runoff might occur. Inlet protection will be used to protect both the existing and new catch basins during construction. Street sweeping will occur, as needed, on all paved street surfaces throughout the project, including intersecting streets. Watering of exposed soils and aggregate material would be done as adust-control measure. TRAFFIC CONTROL Access for the residents of Cardinal Point will be maintained throughout the project. Access to St. John9s Hospital will also be maintained throughout the project as well, and may require the installation of one or more temporary entrances. Emergency access for vehicles will be available 24-hours a day throughout the project. During short periods of time, however, some segments of the project may not be passable while certain work is being executed. In these instances, access would be available from another direction. REQUIRED PERMITS AND APPROVALS ~ Ramsey Washington Metro Watershed District -Grading and Erosion Control Permit ~ St. Paul Regional Water Authority Approval of Changes to the Water System. ~ Minnesota Department of Transportation -State-Aid Funding Approval. ~ Ramsey County Highway Department Approval of Intersection and Traffic Signal Modifications at Beam Avenue. ~ Minnesota Pollution Control Agency -General Storm Water Permit. PROJECT COSTS The prices quoted herein are estimates only. The actual cost of the work would be determined through the public bidding process. A detailed cost estimate is located in the Appendix. ESTIMATED PROJECT COST SUMMARY The estimated costs for the proposed project are outlined below. The estimated costs include 10% contingencies and 31.5% overhead, which include engineering, administrative, legal, and fiscal expenses. Exhibit 4 provides a more detailed construction and project cost estimate. Estimated Proiect Cost Summa Street Improvements: $1,253,000 (85%) Drainage Improvements: $155,900 (10%) Signallmprovements $72,400 (5%~ Total Estimated Project Costs: $1,481,300 (100%) COST RECOVERY Based on the City of Maplewood9s Pavement Management Policy, a portion of the project cost is assessed on an equal ~unitm basis. The ~unitm is based on an average residential lot, as has been used in the past. Commercial and multi-family parcels are assessed on a front footage basis where the rate is based on 1-1/2 times the residential rate, divided by an average width of 75 feet. All properties bordering Hazelwood Street between Beam Avenue and County Road D are subject to be assessed at commercial and multi-family rates. Based on the rates for 2005 adopted by the city council at their October 14, 2004 regular meeting, the following rates apply: Street Reconstruction: $87.60/foot of frontage Drainage Improvements: $13.60/foot of frontage Commercial Sewer Service and Tap: Based on construction cost Commercial Water Service and Tap: Based on construction cost Exhibit 5 details the preliminary assessment roll. Estimated Project Cost Recover Street assessments: Storm assessments: Municipal State Aid Bonds Total PROJECT SCHEDULE $ 352,500 (24 %) $54,700 (4%) $1,074,100 (72%~ $1,481,300 (100%) The following schedule may be implemented, should it be determined to proceed with the project: Receive Feasibility Study and Order Public Hearing: Meetings with Property Owners Meetings Public Hearing Approve Plans and Specifications/Authorize Advertisement for Bids Bid Date Assessment Hearing Accept Bids/Award Contract Begin Construction Complete Construction 5 November 8, 2004 November 9-19, 2004 November 22, 2004 February 14, 2005 April 15, 2005 April 25, 2005 April 25, 2005 May 1, 2005 September, 2005 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS From the results of the feasibility study and investigations, it can be concluded that: 1. The project is feasible as it relates to general engineering principles, practices and construction procedures as it has been presented in this report. 2. The project is necessary for economic and safety reasons and is cost effective when all the related costs are considered environmental, private and public. 3. The proposed improvement is necessary to maintain the city9s infrastructure. 4. The total cost estimate for the project is $ 1,423,800. 5. The total share proposed to be assessed to the benefited properties is $402,700. 6. The total city share of these costs is proposed to be $ 1,016,600 and will be financed with Municipal State Aid Bonds. In consideration of the above conclusions, it is recommended that: 1. If the city council deems the project feasible, a public hearing should be held as soon as possible. 2. The proposed improvements should be constructed as outlined in this report. 3. The cost of the improvements will be recovered through assessments to the benefited and through city contributions. APPENDIX Exhibit 1: Project Location Hazelwood Street, Beam Avenue to County Road D City Project 03-39 II Ln LCD FREEDOM GAS LAKE AREA BANK <~ \, i~~~ h?~- ~ ~-~~~ t ST. JOHNS HOSPITAL BEAM AVE. Exhibit 2: Proposed Design Hazelwood Street, Beam Avenue to County Road D City Project 03-39 2A , ', ~ ,~ . _ PROPOSED DPoVEWAY ~: ST. JOHN'S BLVD. --------- ~1 ~ _ ~, ~~ W o ;, o 0 ~ ~ FUTURE DEVELOPMENT N Q Z ~ - ~ - } ti t i ST. JOHNS ~ ~~ ~ HoSPrrAL ~ ~~ o ~~ o t ~~ ~~ ~~~ ~~~~ ~ r Exhibit 2: Proposed Design Hazelwood Street, Beam Avenue to County Road D City Project 03-39 2B Exhibit 2: Proposed Design Hazelwood Street, Beam Avenue to County Road D City Project 03-39 2C Exhibit 2: Proposed Design Hazelwood Street, Beam Avenue to County Road D City Project 03-39 2D J FUTURE DEVELaPMENT BEGIN FULL CONSTRUCTION TO SOUTH W W i U~ D O O,t W N Q Z CARDINAL POINT SENIOR HOUSING I ~ ---, Exhibit 2: Proposed Design Hazelwood Street, Beam Avenue to County Road D City Project 03-39 2E ~j , ,~ / Ha~~~s LEGACY VLLAGE FUTURE DEVELOPMENT HAZELWOOD ST. PARTIALLY CONSTRUCTED. TO BE COMPLETED WITH 03-39 PROJECT Exhibit 2: Proposed Design Hazelwood Street, Beam Avenue to County Road D City Project 03-39 2F VARIES VARIES _ _ 2.5~ ~B-618 C & L2" TYPE 41 WEARING COURSE 41WEA5OO55B ( ) BITUMINOUS TACK COAT 2" TYPE 32 BASE COURSE (32 BBB5OO0OB) 12" CLASS 6 AGGREGATE BASE 24" SELECT GRANULAR BORROW (IF NECESSARY) 6" THICK x 6' WIDE CONCRETE SIDEWALK 6" CLASS 6 AGGREGATE BASE G 3~ 3•~\ '~qX Exhibit 3: Proposed Street Section Hazelwood/County Road C Area Streets City Project 03-18 R EXHIBIT 4 HAZELWOOD STREET IMPROVEMENTS PRELIMINARY COST ESTIMATES STREET AND UTILITY IMPROVEMENTS MAPLEWOOD CITY PROJECT NO. 03-39 10/2/2004 ITEM NO. SPEC NO. ITEM UNIT ESTIMATED QUANTITY UNIT PRICE TOTAL COST 1 2021.501 MOBILIZATION LS 1.00 50,000 50,000 2 2101.502 CLEARING TR 10.0 200 2,000 3 2101.507 GRUBBING TR 10.0 200 2,000 5 2104.501 REMOVE SEWER PIPE STORM LF 400.0 12.00 4,800 6 2104.501 REMOVE CONCRETE CURB LF 200.0 3.00 600 7 2104.501 REMOVE SEWER PIPE STORM LF 100.0 12.00 1,200 8 2104.505 REMOVE BIT SURFACE PRIVATE DRIVEWAY SY 100.0 4.00 400 9 2104.505 REMOVE CONCRETE DRIVEWAY SY 200.0 4.00 800 10 2104.505 REMOVE BIT SURFACE SY 8,750.0 2.00 17,500 11 2104.509 REMOVE DRAINAGE STRUCTURE EA 6.0 500 3,000 13 2104.513 SAW CUT BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT LF 280.0 2 560 14 2104.523 SALVAGE MAILBOX SUPPORT EA 5.0 50 250 15 2104.523 SALVAGE HYDRANT EA 4.0 450 1,800 17 2105.501 COMMON EXCAVATION CY 11,000.0 8.00 88,000 19 2105.523 SELECT GRANULAR BORROW CV CY 5,000.0 7.00 35,000 20 2105.525 TOPSOIL BORROW LV CY 1,100.0 9.00 9,900 21 2123.501 COMMON LABORERS HR 40.0 50 2,000 22 2130.501 WATER FOR DUST CONTROL MGAL 30.0 8.00 240 23 2211.501 AGGREGATE BASE CLASS 6 TN 6,000.0 9.00 54,000 24 2331.603 SAWED/SEALED JOINT LF 2,000.0 1.50 3,000 25 2350.501 TYPE MV AGG. 4 WEARING COURSE TN 1,200.0 32 38,400 26 2350.502 TYPE MV AGG. 3NON-WEARING COURSE TN 1,700.0 30 51,000 27 2350.503 TYPE LV AGG. 4 WEARING COURSE 2" THICK FOR DRIVEWAY OR TRAIL SY 200.0 8.00 1,600 28 2350.503 TYPE LV AGG. 4 WEARING COURSE 2" THICK FOR DRIVEWAY PRIVATE SY 200.0 8.00 1,600 29 2357.502 BITUMINOUS MATERIAL FOR TACK COAT GAL 600.0 2.00 1,200 30 2502.541 4" PE CORRUGATED PERFORATED PIPE SOCK LF 500.0 8.00 4,000 31 2503.541 15" RC PIPE SEWER CLASS V DESIGN 3006 LF 550.0 25 13,750 32 2503.541 18" RC PIPE SEWER CLASS V DESIGN 3006 LF 550.0 30 16,500 33 2503.541 12" RC PIPE SEWER CLASS V DESIGN 3006 LF 900.0 22 19,800 34 2503.541 24" RC PIPE SEWER CLASS III DESIGN 300E LF 200.0 40 8,000 35 2503.571 EXCAVATION FOR WATERMAIN INSTALLATION LF 500.0 20 10,000 36 2503.603 24" RC PIPE APRON, TIED, WITH TRASH GUARD EA 2.0 1,200 2,400 39 2504.602 CONNECT TO EXISTING SANITARY SEWER SERVICE 4" OR 6" EA 3.0 150 450 40 2504.602 ADJUST EXISTING G.V. BOX EA 8.0 150 1,200 41 2504.602 EXCAVATION FOR HYDRANT INSTALLATION EA 3.0 600 1,800 42 2504.602 ADJUST CURB STOP EA 5.0 600 3,000 43 2504.603 6" PVC SCH 40 SANITARY SEWER SERVICE LF 60.0 25 1,500 44 2504.603 4" PVC SCH 40 SANITARY SEWER SERVICE LF 100.0 20 2,000 45 2506.502 CONSTRUCT 48" SANITARY SEWER MANHOLE PLAN DEPTH EA 1.0 2,000 2,000 46 2506.502 CONSTRUCT STORM SEWER MH DESIGN SPECIAL 48" EA 8.0 2,000 16,000 47 2506.502 CONSTRUCT SPECIAL OUTLET STRUCTURE EA 1.0 6,000 6,000 49 2506.502 CONSTRUCT CATCH BASIN DESIGN 301 EA 8.0 1,500 12,000 50 2506.522 ADJUST EXISTING FRAME RING AND CASTING EA 10.0 200 2,000 49 2521.501 4" CONCRETE WALK SF 30,000.0 3.00 90,000 50 2531.501 CONCRETE CURB AND GUTTER DESIGN B618 LF 6,352.0 8.50 53,992 51 2531.507 6" CONCRETE DRIVEWAY PAVEMENT PRIVATE SY 50.0 50 2,500 52 2531.507 6" CONCRETE DRIVEWAY PAVEMENT FOR APRONS SY 200.0 40 8,000 53 2540.602 MAILBOX SUPPORT EA 5.0 135 675 55 2545.523 4" NON-METALLIC CONDUIT LF 2,850.0 8.00 22,800 56 2545.602 LIGHTING STANDARD ASSEMBLY TYPE S31 EA 18.0 6,000 108,000 57 2563.601 TRAFFIC CONTROL LS 1.0 15,000 15,000 58 2563.601 TRAFFIC CONTROL PHASE II N. OF BEAM LS 1.0 10,000 10,000 59 2563.610 FLAG PERSON HR 80.0 50 4,000 60 2564.602 PVMT MESSAGE LT ARROW LATEX EA 6.0 250 1,500 61 2564.602 PVMT MESSAGE RT ARROW LATEX EA 6.0 250 1,500 62 2564.602 PVMT MESSAGE THRU ARROW LATEX EA 6.0 250 1,500 63 2564.603 4" SOLID LINE YELLOW-LATEX LF 600.0 0.30 180 64 2564.603 4" SOLID LINE WHITE-LATEX LF 2,000.0 0.30 600 65 2564.603 TEMPORARY 4" DOUBLE SOLID YELLOW LINE PAINT LF 1,900.0 0.40 760 66 2564.603 4" DOUBLE SOLID LINE YELLOW-LATEX LF 1,500.0 0.75 1,125 67 2564.603 12"SOLID LINE YELLOW-LATEX DIAGONAL LF 200.0 15.00 3,000 68 2564.618 STREET SIGNS TYPE C INCLUDING POST SF 200.0 35 7,000 69 2564.618 ZEBRA CROSSWALK WHITE LATEX SF 750.0 15.00 11,250 70 2565.511 MODIFY FULL TRAFFIC ACTUATED TRAFFIC CONTROL SYSTEM SYS 1.0 50,000 50,000 71 2571.502 DECIDUOUS TREE 2" B&B TR 30.0 300 9,000 72 2573.530 INLET PROTECTION AT CB EA 10.0 25 250 73 2573.602 1.5" CLEAR ROCK FOR TEMP CONST. ENTRANCE TN 100.0 25 2,500 74 2575.505 SODDING TYPE 1 SY 5,000.0 3.00 15,000 SUBTOTALS $ 913,382 CONTINGENCIES (10%) $ 91,338 ESTIMATED TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COSTS $ 1,004,720 INDIRECT COSTS (31.5%) $ 316,487 RIGHT OF WAY $ 102,500 TOTAL $ 1,423,800 H m x x W J J O H Z W W a a Z_ ~_ J w a rn M c> 0 H U w a U H Z W W 0 a H w W D O w a 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O N N O O O O O O 00 ~ 67 ~ ~ CO ~ O O ~ ~ ~ 00 67 I~ 67 ~ ~ O 00 N N 67 ~ 00 ~ O I~ ~ ~ O~ N M O O ~ ~ N A M H ~ ~ U ~ ~ ~ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O N N O O O O O O 00 67 I~ ~ ~ O ~ O O ~ f/1 ~ O I~ ~ M N O O O M O ~ O ~ 67 67 O W ~ C ~ W M ~ ~ O ~ 67 CO O ~ ~~ 00 N CO O fA fA ~ ~ N U ~ w w z > m m ~ ~ ~ Q o o ~ ~ ~ ~ Q Q ~ z z O O ~ ~ O ~ O o o O O co co ~ M M ~ ~ } } p Q w o O ~ O O ~ w H z H z w ~ ~ N N ~ ~ N 2 2 X X O O = O O = = _ _ M m m CO O O O O O O O OM ~ ~ N ~ ~ M ~ ~ ~ U O z o ~ >> J Q J J ~ ~ U J J Q " w w ~ ~ ~ z z a O Q Q W = O O z ~ J ~ J ~ Z - - ~ ~ Q 0 0 ~ O O ~ ~ J J J Q Q (n ~ ~ Q Z Z = z o o o o ~ = = ~ O O O Q W W ~ ~ ~ W Q Q U ~ ~ ca U U C7 ca ca w Z Q ~ N I~ ° o o ~n ~n Q H ~ 67 ~ N ~ ~ 67 N I~ ~ O 67 N I~ ~ ~ ~ ~ N LL Q LL CO M ~ ~ I~ O 67 O ~ O ~ ~ ~ CO CO CO I~ ~ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~ ~ ~ M N N N N N Z N N N ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ N N N N N N N N N d N N N N N N N N N 67 67 67 67 67 67 67 67 67 N N N N N N N N N M M M M M M M M M 0 ~D N 0 N O N M J Z O w a a J a z O a a' LL Z_ O w J W U a a 0 w W a J O W a ~ ~ ~ ~ Z Z Z c!1 U H ~ W ~j Q Q Q ~ ~ Z Z Z ~ U o o _ ~ e0 Z ~ ~ ~ J cn z w W J ~ ~ o Q ~ ~ 00 Q J a ~ ~ c~ W Z O ~ _ ~ ~ m ~ o O O ~ ~ ~ ~ U Z (!J J ~ W J Q w ~ ~ Q ~ ~ z _ ~ - ~ U Z p ~ ~ J O O Q ~ ~ ~ Q z Q ~ O J w z Q ~ z z z ~ o LL Q LL O M N O O O O O O Z ~ N N_ N_ d ~ N ~ N ~ N N N M M M FEASIBILITY REPORT HAZELWOOD STREET IMPROVEMENTS PHASE II FROM BEAM AVENUE TO COUNTY ROAD D CITY PROJECT NO. 03-39 CITY OF MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA I hereby certify that this Report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Licensed Professional Engineer under the laws of the State of Minnesota. Christopher M. Cavett, P.E. License No. 24719 HAZELWOOD STREET IMPROVEMENTS CITY OF MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA CITY PROJECT NO. 03-39 TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................. 1 NEIGHBORHOOD MEETINGS ....................................................................................... 1 IMPROVEMENTS ........................................................................................................... 1 Sanitary Sewer ............................................................................................................ 1 W ate rma i n ................................................................................................................... 2 Storm Sewer ............................................................................................................... 2 Street Improvements ................................................................................................... 2 RI G HT-OF-WAY .............................................................................................................. 3 MISCELLANEOUS PRIVATE UTILITIES ........................................................................ 3 EROSION CONTROL ..................................................................................................... 3 TRAFFIC CONTROL ....................................................................................................... 4 REQUIRED PERMITS AND APPROVALS ..................................................................... 4 PROJECT COSTS .......................................................................................................... 4 COST RECOVERY ......................................................................................................... 5 PROJECT SCHEDULE ................................................................................................... 5 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ............................................................... 6 nPPF~inix Exhibit 1: Location Map Exhibit 2: Preliminary Plan Exhibit 3: Typical Section Exhibit 4: Preliminary Cost Estimate Exhibit 5: Preliminary Assessment Roll HAZELWOOD STREET IMPROVEMENTS CITY OF MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA CITY PROJECT NO. 03-39 INTRODUCTION Hazelwood Street Improvements, City Project 03-39, was originally part of a proposed project to reconstruct Hazelwood Street from County Road C to County Road D (see exhibit 1). The project was broken into two phases, with Phase 1 being the section of Hazelwood from County Road C to Beam Avenue. Known as City Project 01-16, this first phase has been completed. The reconstruction of Hazelwood Street from Beam Avenue to County Road D is one of the projects within the Maplewood Mall Area Transportation Improvements (MMATI) Project Area. Specifically, this stretch of Hazelwood will be realigned to match the new County Road D alignment and Legacy Parkway, both of which are currently under construction. NEIGHBORHOOD MEETINGS The City staff held a meeting with the property owners in Cardinal Pointe in March 2003. The property owners were concerned about the additional traffic on Hazelwood due to the new Legacy Village area development. They were also concerned about the additional noise and disruption the new County Road D will have on the area. Meetings with representatives of St. Johns Hospital have been on going throughout the MMATI planning process. Staff has also discussed the upcoming project with Richard Schreier, the owner of 3 larger parcels on the west side of Hazelwood Street. IMPROVEMENTS Sanitary Sewer The existing sanitary sewer was built between 1971 and 1975. A recent televised inspection indicated the sewers are in generally satisfactory condition with only a few mainline repairs necessary. Some manholes may need repair work and/or adjustment due to changes in the profile of the reconstructed street. Individual services will be televised prior to street reconstruction to advise property owners of the condition of their individual services. Since the north end of Hazelwood Street will be realigned to match the new alignment of County Road D, the sanitary sewer has been realigned under that project so as to follow the new Hazelwood alignment. Discussions will be held with the owners of adjacent undeveloped properties to determine the need for new services. Watermain There is an existing 16-inch watermain north of Beam Avenue. Although no watermain repairs are anticipated, it is likely there will be some hydrant relocations and/or extensions to better fit the reconstructed street. As with the sanitary sewer, discussions will be held with the owners of adjacent undeveloped properties to determine the need for new services. The watermain at the north end of Hazelwood Street has been realigned under the County Road D project to match the new Hazelwood alignment. Storm Sewer The project will include storm sewer improvements. Currently, the south portion of the street drains south, crossing Beam Avenue through existing storm sewer to the county ditch. Additional catch basins and piping will be added in this area. On the north end of Hazelwood Street near County Road D, a new pond was built as part of the overall MMATI project. New storm sewer will be built for the north portion of Hazelwood Street that discharges to the new pond. Street Improvements Hazelwood Street is a Municipal State-Aid (MSA) Street. In order to receive State-Aid funds it must be designed and built to MSA standards. At Beam Avenue the intersection would be realigned to provide a protected left turning movement. Signal modifications are proposed as part of the project. The proposed street width varies with location (see exhibit 2). At Beam Avenue three southbound lanes (left turn, through lane, and right turn), and two northbound lanes (one shared lane for through traffic on Hazelwood and left turns off Beam, and one for traffic turning right off Beam Avenue) are proposed. This lane configuration transitions to four lanes to include northbound through and right turn lanes, a southbound through lane, and a shared center left turn lane. The northbound right turn lane would be continuous in front of St. John9s Hospital to accommodate its three entrances off Hazelwood Street. Just south of the Cardinal Pointe property, a center median signals the transition from the commercial area to the residential area, and the road narrows to two lanes (28 feet total width). The center median and narrowing of the road are traffic calming measures. Further north, about midway between Legacy Parkway and County Road D, a northbound right turn lane to County Road D is proposed. The project includes the construction of 6-foot wide concrete sidewalks on both sides of the street. The sidewalks are proposed to be placed 7 feet from the back of the new curb. Driveway aprons will be replaced from the right-of-way line to the new curb to match the new grade of the street, and the boulevards will be restored with sod. RIGHT-OF-WAY Additional right-of-way must be acquired on the south end of the project to accommodate the addition of turn lanes and sidewalks. The additional right-of-way consists of a strip 17 feet wide by 693 feet long on the west side (from Desoto Associates), a strip 7 feet wide by 320 feet long on the east side (from St. John9s Hospital), and a small triangular piece at the southwest corner of St. John9s (to accommodate construction of the right turn lane). Directly north of St. John9s on the east side of Hazelwood, the Southwinds development will dedicate any additional right-of- way needed to allow for the construction of sidewalks and parking bays. The necessary right-of- way acquisition is shown on exhibit 2. MISCELLANEOUS PRIVATE UTILITIES Staff will contact the private utility companies regarding this project. Underground utilities exist throughout the project area, as well as overhead transmission lines and the British Petroleum pipeline. Staff will work with the various private utilities to avoid potential conflicts with the proposed street design. EROSION CONTROL Erosion control methods will be implemented throughout the project. Silt fence, bale checks, and other erosion protection methods will be utilized where direct runoff might occur. Inlet protection will be used to protect both the existing and new catch basins during construction. Street sweeping will occur, as needed, on all paved street surfaces throughout the project, including intersecting streets. Watering of exposed soils and aggregate material would be done as adust-control measure. TRAFFIC CONTROL Access for the residents of Cardinal Point will be maintained throughout the project. Access to St. John9s Hospital will also be maintained throughout the project as well, and may require the installation of one or more temporary entrances. Emergency access for vehicles will be available 24-hours a day throughout the project. During short periods of time, however, some segments of the project may not be passable while certain work is being executed. In these instances, access would be available from another direction. REQUIRED PERMITS AND APPROVALS ~ Ramsey Washington Metro Watershed District -Grading and Erosion Control Permit ~ St. Paul Regional Water Authority Approval of Changes to the Water System. ~ Minnesota Department of Transportation -State-Aid Funding Approval. ~ Ramsey County Highway Department Approval of Intersection and Traffic Signal Modifications at Beam Avenue. ~ Minnesota Pollution Control Agency -General Storm Water Permit. PROJECT COSTS The prices quoted herein are estimates only. The actual cost of the work would be determined through the public bidding process. A detailed cost estimate is located in the Appendix. ESTIMATED PROJECT COST SUMMARY The estimated costs for the proposed project are outlined below. The estimated costs include 10% contingencies and 31.5% overhead, which include engineering, administrative, legal, and fiscal expenses. Exhibit 4 provides a more detailed construction and project cost estimate. Estimated Proiect Cost Summa Street Improvements: $1,253,000 (85%) Drainage Improvements: $155,900 (10%) Signallmprovements $72,400 (5%~ Total Estimated Project Costs: $1,481,300 (100%) COST RECOVERY Based on the City of Maplewood9s Pavement Management Policy, a portion of the project cost is assessed on an equal ~unitm basis. The ~unitm is based on an average residential lot, as has been used in the past. Commercial and multi-family parcels are assessed on a front footage basis where the rate is based on 1-1/2 times the residential rate, divided by an average width of 75 feet. All properties bordering Hazelwood Street between Beam Avenue and County Road D are subject to be assessed at commercial and multi-family rates. Based on the rates for 2005 adopted by the city council at their October 14, 2004 regular meeting, the following rates apply: Street Reconstruction: $87.60/foot of frontage Drainage Improvements: $13.60/foot of frontage Commercial Sewer Service and Tap: Based on construction cost Commercial Water Service and Tap: Based on construction cost Exhibit 5 details the preliminary assessment roll. Estimated Project Cost Recover Street assessments: Storm assessments: Municipal State Aid Bonds Total PROJECT SCHEDULE $ 352,500 (24 %) $54,700 (4%) $1,074,100 (72%~ $1,481,300 (100%) The following schedule may be implemented, should it be determined to proceed with the project: Receive Feasibility Study and Order Public Hearing: Meetings with Property Owners Meetings Public Hearing Approve Plans and Specifications/Authorize Advertisement for Bids Bid Date Assessment Hearing Accept Bids/Award Contract Begin Construction Complete Construction 5 November 8, 2004 November 9-19, 2004 November 22, 2004 February 14, 2005 April 15, 2005 April 25, 2005 April 25, 2005 May 1, 2005 September, 2005 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS From the results of the feasibility study and investigations, it can be concluded that: 1. The project is feasible as it relates to general engineering principles, practices and construction procedures as it has been presented in this report. 2. The project is necessary for economic and safety reasons and is cost effective when all the related costs are considered environmental, private and public. 3. The proposed improvement is necessary to maintain the city9s infrastructure. 4. The total cost estimate for the project is $ 1,423,800. 5. The total share proposed to be assessed to the benefited properties is $402,700. 6. The total city share of these costs is proposed to be $ 1,016,600 and will be financed with Municipal State Aid Bonds. In consideration of the above conclusions, it is recommended that: 1. If the city council deems the project feasible, a public hearing should be held as soon as possible. 2. The proposed improvements should be constructed as outlined in this report. 3. The cost of the improvements will be recovered through assessments to the benefited and through city contributions. APPENDIX Exhibit 1: Project Location Hazelwood Street, Beam Avenue to County Road D City Project 03-39 II Ln LCD FREEDOM GAS LAKE AREA BANK <~ \, i~~~ h?~- ~ ~-~~~ t ST. JOHNS HOSPITAL BEAM AVE. Exhibit 2: Proposed Design Hazelwood Street, Beam Avenue to County Road D City Project 03-39 2A , ', ~ ,~ . _ PROPOSED DPoVEWAY ~: ST. JOHN'S BLVD. --------- ~1 ~ _ ~, ~~ W o ;, o 0 ~ ~ FUTURE DEVELOPMENT N Q Z ~ - ~ - } ti t i ST. JOHNS ~ ~~ ~ HoSPrrAL ~ ~~ o ~~ o t ~~ ~~ ~~~ ~~~~ ~ r Exhibit 2: Proposed Design Hazelwood Street, Beam Avenue to County Road D City Project 03-39 2B Exhibit 2: Proposed Design Hazelwood Street, Beam Avenue to County Road D City Project 03-39 2C Exhibit 2: Proposed Design Hazelwood Street, Beam Avenue to County Road D City Project 03-39 2D J FUTURE DEVELaPMENT BEGIN FULL CONSTRUCTION TO SOUTH W W i U~ D O O,t W N Q Z CARDINAL POINT SENIOR HOUSING I ~ ---, Exhibit 2: Proposed Design Hazelwood Street, Beam Avenue to County Road D City Project 03-39 2E ~j , ,~ / Ha~~~s LEGACY VLLAGE FUTURE DEVELOPMENT HAZELWOOD ST. PARTIALLY CONSTRUCTED. TO BE COMPLETED WITH 03-39 PROJECT Exhibit 2: Proposed Design Hazelwood Street, Beam Avenue to County Road D City Project 03-39 2F VARIES VARIES _ _ 2.5~ ~B-618 C & L2" TYPE 41 WEARING COURSE 41WEA5OO55B ( ) BITUMINOUS TACK COAT 2" TYPE 32 BASE COURSE (32 BBB5OO0OB) 12" CLASS 6 AGGREGATE BASE 24" SELECT GRANULAR BORROW (IF NECESSARY) 6" THICK x 6' WIDE CONCRETE SIDEWALK 6" CLASS 6 AGGREGATE BASE G 3~ 3•~\ '~qX Exhibit 3: Proposed Street Section Hazelwood/County Road C Area Streets City Project 03-18 R EXHIBIT 4 HAZELWOOD STREET IMPROVEMENTS PRELIMINARY COST ESTIMATES STREET AND UTILITY IMPROVEMENTS MAPLEWOOD CITY PROJECT NO. 03-39 10/2/2004 ITEM NO. SPEC NO. ITEM UNIT ESTIMATED QUANTITY UNIT PRICE TOTAL COST 1 2021.501 MOBILIZATION LS 1.00 50,000 50,000 2 2101.502 CLEARING TR 10.0 200 2,000 3 2101.507 GRUBBING TR 10.0 200 2,000 5 2104.501 REMOVE SEWER PIPE STORM LF 400.0 12.00 4,800 6 2104.501 REMOVE CONCRETE CURB LF 200.0 3.00 600 7 2104.501 REMOVE SEWER PIPE STORM LF 100.0 12.00 1,200 8 2104.505 REMOVE BIT SURFACE PRIVATE DRIVEWAY SY 100.0 4.00 400 9 2104.505 REMOVE CONCRETE DRIVEWAY SY 200.0 4.00 800 10 2104.505 REMOVE BIT SURFACE SY 8,750.0 2.00 17,500 11 2104.509 REMOVE DRAINAGE STRUCTURE EA 6.0 500 3,000 13 2104.513 SAW CUT BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT LF 280.0 2 560 14 2104.523 SALVAGE MAILBOX SUPPORT EA 5.0 50 250 15 2104.523 SALVAGE HYDRANT EA 4.0 450 1,800 17 2105.501 COMMON EXCAVATION CY 11,000.0 8.00 88,000 19 2105.523 SELECT GRANULAR BORROW CV CY 5,000.0 7.00 35,000 20 2105.525 TOPSOIL BORROW LV CY 1,100.0 9.00 9,900 21 2123.501 COMMON LABORERS HR 40.0 50 2,000 22 2130.501 WATER FOR DUST CONTROL MGAL 30.0 8.00 240 23 2211.501 AGGREGATE BASE CLASS 6 TN 6,000.0 9.00 54,000 24 2331.603 SAWED/SEALED JOINT LF 2,000.0 1.50 3,000 25 2350.501 TYPE MV AGG. 4 WEARING COURSE TN 1,200.0 32 38,400 26 2350.502 TYPE MV AGG. 3NON-WEARING COURSE TN 1,700.0 30 51,000 27 2350.503 TYPE LV AGG. 4 WEARING COURSE 2" THICK FOR DRIVEWAY OR TRAIL SY 200.0 8.00 1,600 28 2350.503 TYPE LV AGG. 4 WEARING COURSE 2" THICK FOR DRIVEWAY PRIVATE SY 200.0 8.00 1,600 29 2357.502 BITUMINOUS MATERIAL FOR TACK COAT GAL 600.0 2.00 1,200 30 2502.541 4" PE CORRUGATED PERFORATED PIPE SOCK LF 500.0 8.00 4,000 31 2503.541 15" RC PIPE SEWER CLASS V DESIGN 3006 LF 550.0 25 13,750 32 2503.541 18" RC PIPE SEWER CLASS V DESIGN 3006 LF 550.0 30 16,500 33 2503.541 12" RC PIPE SEWER CLASS V DESIGN 3006 LF 900.0 22 19,800 34 2503.541 24" RC PIPE SEWER CLASS III DESIGN 300E LF 200.0 40 8,000 35 2503.571 EXCAVATION FOR WATERMAIN INSTALLATION LF 500.0 20 10,000 36 2503.603 24" RC PIPE APRON, TIED, WITH TRASH GUARD EA 2.0 1,200 2,400 39 2504.602 CONNECT TO EXISTING SANITARY SEWER SERVICE 4" OR 6" EA 3.0 150 450 40 2504.602 ADJUST EXISTING G.V. BOX EA 8.0 150 1,200 41 2504.602 EXCAVATION FOR HYDRANT INSTALLATION EA 3.0 600 1,800 42 2504.602 ADJUST CURB STOP EA 5.0 600 3,000 43 2504.603 6" PVC SCH 40 SANITARY SEWER SERVICE LF 60.0 25 1,500 44 2504.603 4" PVC SCH 40 SANITARY SEWER SERVICE LF 100.0 20 2,000 45 2506.502 CONSTRUCT 48" SANITARY SEWER MANHOLE PLAN DEPTH EA 1.0 2,000 2,000 46 2506.502 CONSTRUCT STORM SEWER MH DESIGN SPECIAL 48" EA 8.0 2,000 16,000 47 2506.502 CONSTRUCT SPECIAL OUTLET STRUCTURE EA 1.0 6,000 6,000 49 2506.502 CONSTRUCT CATCH BASIN DESIGN 301 EA 8.0 1,500 12,000 50 2506.522 ADJUST EXISTING FRAME RING AND CASTING EA 10.0 200 2,000 49 2521.501 4" CONCRETE WALK SF 30,000.0 3.00 90,000 50 2531.501 CONCRETE CURB AND GUTTER DESIGN B618 LF 6,352.0 8.50 53,992 51 2531.507 6" CONCRETE DRIVEWAY PAVEMENT PRIVATE SY 50.0 50 2,500 52 2531.507 6" CONCRETE DRIVEWAY PAVEMENT FOR APRONS SY 200.0 40 8,000 53 2540.602 MAILBOX SUPPORT EA 5.0 135 675 55 2545.523 4" NON-METALLIC CONDUIT LF 2,850.0 8.00 22,800 56 2545.602 LIGHTING STANDARD ASSEMBLY TYPE S31 EA 18.0 6,000 108,000 57 2563.601 TRAFFIC CONTROL LS 1.0 15,000 15,000 58 2563.601 TRAFFIC CONTROL PHASE II N. OF BEAM LS 1.0 10,000 10,000 59 2563.610 FLAG PERSON HR 80.0 50 4,000 60 2564.602 PVMT MESSAGE LT ARROW LATEX EA 6.0 250 1,500 61 2564.602 PVMT MESSAGE RT ARROW LATEX EA 6.0 250 1,500 62 2564.602 PVMT MESSAGE THRU ARROW LATEX EA 6.0 250 1,500 63 2564.603 4" SOLID LINE YELLOW-LATEX LF 600.0 0.30 180 64 2564.603 4" SOLID LINE WHITE-LATEX LF 2,000.0 0.30 600 65 2564.603 TEMPORARY 4" DOUBLE SOLID YELLOW LINE PAINT LF 1,900.0 0.40 760 66 2564.603 4" DOUBLE SOLID LINE YELLOW-LATEX LF 1,500.0 0.75 1,125 67 2564.603 12"SOLID LINE YELLOW-LATEX DIAGONAL LF 200.0 15.00 3,000 68 2564.618 STREET SIGNS TYPE C INCLUDING POST SF 200.0 35 7,000 69 2564.618 ZEBRA CROSSWALK WHITE LATEX SF 750.0 15.00 11,250 70 2565.511 MODIFY FULL TRAFFIC ACTUATED TRAFFIC CONTROL SYSTEM SYS 1.0 50,000 50,000 71 2571.502 DECIDUOUS TREE 2" B&B TR 30.0 300 9,000 72 2573.530 INLET PROTECTION AT CB EA 10.0 25 250 73 2573.602 1.5" CLEAR ROCK FOR TEMP CONST. ENTRANCE TN 100.0 25 2,500 74 2575.505 SODDING TYPE 1 SY 5,000.0 3.00 15,000 SUBTOTALS $ 913,382 CONTINGENCIES (10%) $ 91,338 ESTIMATED TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COSTS $ 1,004,720 INDIRECT COSTS (31.5%) $ 316,487 RIGHT OF WAY $ 102,500 TOTAL $ 1,423,800 H m x x W J J O H Z W W a a Z_ ~_ J w a rn M c> 0 H U w a U H Z W W 0 a H w W D O w a 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O N N O O O O O O 00 ~ 67 ~ ~ CO ~ O O ~ ~ ~ 00 67 I~ 67 ~ ~ O 00 N N 67 ~ 00 ~ O I~ ~ ~ O~ N M O O ~ ~ N A M H ~ ~ U ~ ~ ~ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O N N O O O O O O 00 67 I~ ~ ~ O ~ O O ~ f/1 ~ O I~ ~ M N O O O M O ~ O ~ 67 67 O W ~ C ~ W M ~ ~ O ~ 67 CO O ~ ~~ 00 N CO O fA fA ~ ~ N U ~ w w z > m m ~ ~ ~ Q o o ~ ~ ~ ~ Q Q ~ z z O O ~ ~ O ~ O o o O O co co ~ M M ~ ~ } } p Q w o O ~ O O ~ w H z H z w ~ ~ N N ~ ~ N 2 2 X X O O = O O = = _ _ M m m CO O O O O O O O OM ~ ~ N ~ ~ M ~ ~ ~ U O z o ~ >> J Q J J ~ ~ U J J Q " w w ~ ~ ~ z z a O Q Q W = O O z ~ J ~ J ~ Z - - ~ ~ Q 0 0 ~ O O ~ ~ J J J Q Q (n ~ ~ Q Z Z = z o o o o ~ = = ~ O O O Q W W ~ ~ ~ W Q Q U ~ ~ ca U U C7 ca ca w Z Q ~ N I~ ° o o ~n ~n Q H ~ 67 ~ N ~ ~ 67 N I~ ~ O 67 N I~ ~ ~ ~ ~ N LL Q LL CO M ~ ~ I~ O 67 O ~ O ~ ~ ~ CO CO CO I~ ~ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~ ~ ~ M N N N N N Z N N N ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ N N N N N N N N N d N N N N N N N N N 67 67 67 67 67 67 67 67 67 N N N N N N N N N M M M M M M M M M 0 ~D N 0 N O N M J Z O w a a J a z O a a' LL Z_ O w J W U a a 0 w W a J O W a ~ ~ ~ ~ Z Z Z c!1 U H ~ W ~j Q Q Q ~ ~ Z Z Z ~ U o o _ ~ e0 Z ~ ~ ~ J cn z w W J ~ ~ o Q ~ ~ 00 Q J a ~ ~ c~ W Z O ~ _ ~ ~ m ~ o O O ~ ~ ~ ~ U Z (!J J ~ W J Q w ~ ~ Q ~ ~ z _ ~ - ~ U Z p ~ ~ J O O Q ~ ~ ~ Q z Q ~ O J w z Q ~ z z z ~ o LL Q LL O M N O O O O O O Z ~ N N_ N_ d ~ N ~ N ~ N N N M M M AGENDA ITEM H-2 AGENDA REPORT TO: Richard Fursman, City Manager FROM: Charles Ahl, Pubic Works Director/City Engineer Erin Laberee, Civil Engineer I SUBJECT: Gladstone North Area Street Improvements, Project 04-15 a. Public Hearing 7:15 pm b. Resolution Ordering Improvement after Public Hearing (4 votes) DATE: November 12t", 2004 Introduction The public hearing for this project has been scheduled for 7:15 p.m., Monday, November 22, 2004. Notices of the public hearing have been mailed and published. The feasibility study has been provided as a supplement to the council packet. The study includes information on the proposed improvement, proposed financing and probable assessments. The city council should consider ordering the improvement following the public hearing. Background The city council ordered the preparation of this feasibility study at the May 24, 2004, regular meeting. On November 8t", 2004 the city council accepted the feasibility report and ordered the public hearing. Street improvements for this neighborhood were listed on the city's capital improvements project plan. The project involves the complete reconstruction of approximately 2.25 miles of residential streets. Drainage improvements, sanitary improvements and water main repairs would also be made as part of the project. Proposed financing sources for the project are through the sanitary utility fund, Saint Paul Regional Water Services obligation, city general tax levy and street and storm sewer assessments. There are 171 assessable parcels within the project area. A neighborhood meeting was held October 13, 2004, to discuss the project with residents and they seemed generally accepting of the proposed project. A second neighborhood meeting was held November 17, 2004, to give residents the opportunity to view the completed feasibility study and discuss its findings prior to the public hearing. The proposed project schedule anticipates construction beginning as early as May 2005 and completion of the project in October of 2005. Recommendation It is recommended that the city council approve the attached resolution ordering the improvement of the Gladstone North Area Street Improvements, City Project 04-15. Budget Impact The resolution calls for establishing a project budget of $2,766,600. The financing plan is outlined specifically in the feasibility study and calls for funding from four sources: assessments, sanitary sewer utility funds, SPRWS obligation and city general tax levy. EML Attachment: Resolution Feasibility Study RESOLUTION ORDERING IMPROVEMENT AFTER PUBLIC HEARING WHEREAS, a resolution of the city council adopted the 8th day of November, 2004, fixed a date for a council hearing on the proposed street improvements for the Gladstone North Area Street Improvements, City Project 04-15. AND WHEREAS, ten days mailed notice and two weeks published notice of the hearing was given, and the hearing was duly held on November 22, 2004, and the council has heard all persons desiring to be heard on the matter and has fully considered the same; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA, as follows: 1. That it is necessary, cost-effective and feasible, as detailed in the feasibility report, that the City of Maplewood make improvements to Gladstone North Area Street Improvements, City Project 04-15. 2. Such improvement is hereby ordered as proposed in the council resolution adopted the 22nd day of November 2004. 3. The city engineer is designated engineer for this improvement and is hereby directed to prepare final plans and specifications for the making of said improvement. 4. The finance director is hereby authorized to make the financial transfers necessary to implement the financing plan for the project. A project budget of $2,766,600 shall be established. The proposed financing plan is as follows: Street assessments: Storm assessments: Sanitary Sewer Utility Fund SPRWS Obligation: City general tax levy: Total $ 905,200 (32%) $ 21,420 (1 %) $ 107,270 (4 %) $ 25,540 (1 %) $ 1,707,170 6( 2%) $ 2,766,600 (100%) FEASIBILITY STUDY GLADSTONE NORTH AREA STREETS PROJECT 04-15 RYAN, SKILLMAN, BELMONT, ELDRIDGE, CURVE, CLARENCE, BIRMINGHAM, MANTON, BARCLAY, AND DIETER STREET MAPLEWOOD ENGINEERING NOVEMBER 2004 FEASIBILITY REPORT GLADSTONE NORTH AREA STREETS PROJECT 04-15 RYAN, SKILLMAN, BELMONT, ELDRIDGE, CURVE, CLARENCE, BIRMINGHAM, MANTON, BARCLAY, AND DIETER STREET I hereby certify that this report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Licensed Professional Engineer under the laws of the State of Minnesota. Si nature: ~ ~z.~ °~~~, ____ g ---- -------------- Erin Laberee, P.E. Date: l I - - b - O`f ----------------------------- License No. 43464 City of Maplewood Department of Public Works 1902 East County Road B Maplewood, Minnesota 55109 CONTENTS Certification .................................................................................................................................. i Table of Contents ........................................................................................................................ ii Introduction .................................................................................................................................1 Streets ........................................................................................................................................2 Proposed Improvements ..............................................................................................................3 Street Design ..............................................................................................................................3 Storm Water Management ..........................................................................................................4 Water Main ..................................................................................................................................5 Sanitary Sewer ............................................................................................................................5 Miscellaneous Private Utilities .....................................................................................................6 Erosion Control ............................................................................................................................6 Traffic Control ..............................................................................................................................6 Project Cost ................................................................................................................................7 Cost Recovery .............................................................................................................................8 Project Schedule .........................................................................................................................8 Conclusions and Recommendations ............................................................................................9 EXHIBITS Exhibit 1: Project Location Exhibit 2: Proposed Street Exhibit 3: Existing and Proposed Street Section Exhibit 4: Proposed Drainage Improvements Exhibit 5: Proposed Cost Estimate Exhibit 6: Proposed Assessment Roll (Preliminary) Exhibit 7: Street Assessment Map Exhibit 8: Storm Assessment Map n FEASIBILITY REPORT GLADSTONE NORTH AREA STREETS PROJECT 04-15 RYAN, SKILLMAN, BELMONT, ELDRIDGE, CURVE, CLARENCE, BIRMINGHAM, MANTON, BARCLAY, AND DIETER STREET INTRODUCTION History The above referenced streets are referred to in this report as the Gladstone North Area Streets. As shown on Exhibit 1 the project area is generally bounded by County Road B to the north, Frost Ave. to the south, Hazelwood Street to the east and the Bruce Vento Trail to the west. The Gladstone North neighborhood as defined in this study is comprised of some very old plats. The oldest plat, Gladstone, dates back to 1886. Other plats in the neighborhood include the Sabin Addition platted in 1887 and Wakefield Manor dated1954. Municipal utilities such as sanitary and water main were brought to the neighborhood in the late °50~s and early 60~s. There are several apartment buildings in the neighborhood along with the Gladstone Education Center and Weaver Elementary School. The Islamic Institue of Minnesota and the Gladstone Fire Station are also located within the project area. The streets in this neighborhood generally were not constructed to any design standards; rather they merely evolved over time to meet the city~s demand for better streets. Once the watermain and sanitary sewer construction was complete the streets were probably graded and rolled smooth. Later a thin layer of bituminous was most likely placed on the streets that are now the existing street section. There is very little storm sewer within the project area. In 1990 storm sewer was constructed to provide an outlet from Footprint Lake. The storm sewer extends from Footprint Lake, west through Burke Avenue and then north on Birmingham Street to County Road B. Several catch basin pickups were constructed at the intersection of Burke Ave. and Barclay Street in conjunction with this project. Burke Street and a section of Birmingham were reconstructed at the same time the storm sewer improvements were completed. For this reason, Burke Street and Birmingham Street north of Burke are not included in the street reconstruction project. Additional storm sewer was also constructed on Frost Avenue but does not extend into the neighborhood. A small drainage area from the neighborhood flows into the storm system on Frost Avenue. Catch basins also exist at the intersection of Belmont Lane and Barclay Street. 1 Two storm ponds were constructed in the 1990~s as part of the Gladstone Fire Station that was constructed on Clarence Street to handle runoff from the parking lots for the fire station. The existing storm sewer is inadequate and does not extend far enough into the neighborhood to successfully manage the storm water. During a site visit in the summer of 2004 it was apparent that there were many areas of standing water in the streets due to flat grades. It was also noted that storm water crosses the street from side to side due to a lack of crown on the street section. None of the streets in this neighborhood have curb and gutter except for a short segment on the west side of Manton Street adjacent to the Gladstone Education Center. The lack of curb and gutter on the majority of the streets is causing erosion and rutting in the boulevards. Neighborhood Today The feasibility report for this project was ordered at the May 24th, 2004 city council meeting. A neighborhood meeting was held on October 13th, 2004 to discuss the proposed improvement project. Those who attended the meeting seemed to be interested in the project and there was very little negative feedback from the residents at this meeting. Several residents mentioned the need for parking adjacent to Robinhood Park and trail connections to the Gateway and Vento trails. It is proposed to incorporate additional parking bays and trail connections into the project design. A second neighborhood meeting, scheduled for November 17, 2004, will be held before the public hearing to allow residents to review the completed proposal and findings of the study. STREETS General The existing streets in this neighborhood (Exhibit 2) present an ongoing maintenance problem for the City of Maplewood Maintenance Department. Of the three infrastructure elements the City maintains (sanitary sewer, storm sewer and streets), the bulk of the maintenance activities consist of patching the roadway and filling potholes. All of the streets included in this project are local streets and serve only local neighborhood traffic. Garbage trucks and school buses are generally the heaviest vehicles that use the streets. The Gladstone fire station is located on Clarence Street. Fire truck traffic generally travels south to Frost Avenue and does not travel through the neighborhood. Existing Conditions Presently, the conditions of the streets within the scope of this project range from very 2 poor to poor. Potholes and patches are abundant on most of the streets. Longitudinal and lateral cracks are also apparent on a majority of the streets. Inadequate crown allows water to pond and traverse the street section, further deteriorating the roadway. The freeze and thaw cycles that happen every spring, combined with the old age and poor design of the streets are responsible for the declining roadway conditions. The existing street widths vary from street to street. A summary of the existing street widths are provided in the next section. To determine the existing pavement thickness and subgrade soil type, 25 soil borings were taken within the project area. The thickness of the pavement ranges from 3 to 8 inches thick. The average thickness is 4.7 inches. Soil types vary somewhat throughout the project area. Generally the borings found silty sands (SM), clayey sands (SC), or poorly graded sands (SP), all of which should provide an adequate subgrade base. Three of the borings found clay (CL) and two borings produced silt (ML). subgrade soil in these areas may need to be removed and replaced. The streets within the proposed project area have deteriorated past the point where reactionary maintenance is no longer effective. Crack sealing, seal coating and overlaying are no longer cost effective solutions to maintain these streets. A short section of Clarence Street was overlaid in 1997 when the Gladstone fire station was constructed. Although this pavement overlay looks to be in fairly good condition, the pavement beneath the overlay is in very poor condition. The overlay was a quick fix to the roadway in front of the fire station. To be cost effective it is recommended that this section of Clarence Street be reconstructed as part of this improvement project. PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS Most of the streets in this area will be reclaimed where pavement thickness and subgrade soils are adequate for this process. Reclaiming the streets is a material recycling process where the existing pavement surface, aggregate base and sandy subgrade soils are pulverized and mixed to form a new aggregate base material. This new homogeneous material is salvaged and reused. This process, where applicable, reflects a financial savings to the project since less material must be hauled from and to the site. STREET DESIGN The proposed street design will utilize a B618 barrier curb and gutter. Exhibit 3 shows the existing and proposed street section for this neighborhood. This type of curb exists on nearby streets that were in the 2004 reconstruction project area. This type of curb will be used throughout the project in conjunction with conventional storm sewer. Since the majority of this neighborhood is relatively flat other methods of storm water 3 management such as swales and ribbon curb will be utilized on streets adjacent to city property. Concrete curb will provide delineation between the street and the boulevard. There are a number of long-term advantages to constructing concrete curb and gutter. The roadway edges are strengthened and reinforced by the concrete curb. Horizontal alignment and vertical elevations for the street are fixed during paving. Future pavement management operations are simplified, less expensive and less disruptive by having a concrete curb constructed with this project. For the most part, street widths will remain relatively unchanged with a few exceptions. Average existing street widths and proposed street widths for each of the streets within the project area are tabulated below. Street Average Existing Street Width (feet) proposed Width (feet) Ryan Avenue 26.9 28 Skillman Avenue 30.5 30 Belmont Lane 29.5 30 Eldridge Avenue 25.6 28 Curve Street 30.1 30 Clarence Street 25.8 28 Birmingham Street 30.9 30 Manton Street (near school) 36.3 36 Manton Street (north of school) 30.4 30 Barclay Street (south of trail) 31.5 30 Barclay Street (north of trail) 30 30 Dieter Street 31.8 30 Based on the city~s current street design standards, streets narrower than 32 feet would have parking restrictions. However, these narrower street widths have existed for years with no parking restrictions. It is recommended that no parking restrictions be applied to the proposed streets. STORM WATER MANAGEMENT As mentioned earlier, there is very little existing storm sewer in the project area. Exhibit 4 shows the location of the existing and proposed storm sewer. There are a number of 4 issues with the existing system: The existing storm sewer on Belmont Avenue is undersized and is located on private property - As part of the proposed storm sewer improvements, runoff from Belmont Avenue would be rerouted to the north into storm sewer located on the city~s easement where runoff would outlet at Footprint Lake. Ryan Avenue between Manton and Barclay experiences flooding There is no existing storm sewer on Ryan Avenue. It is proposed that storm sewer be extended to Ryan Avenue. The existing pond north of Belmont Lane and Curve Street needs to be reshaped It is proposed that storm sewer runoff be routed to the existing pond at the corner of Belmont and Curve. To improve the quality of the pond and allow for an increase in runoff, the pond will need to be enhanced. Footprint Lake and the existing pond north of Belmont Lane and Curve Street are proposed to treat runoff from the project area. There is very little existing storm sewer throughout most of the project area. It is proposed to constructs storm sewer throughout much of the neighborhood to direct runoff to either of the two ponds. For additional storm water treatment and to reduce the amount of mowed turf, several rainwater gardens are proposed in Robinhood Park. Currently runoff from the streets north of Ryan Avene and south of the Gateway trail flow to the north. It is proposed to define a swale along the trail to direct runoff from these streets into an existing storm sewer system. As with other projects, the option of individual rainwater gardens will be offered to residents to help treat storm water from their roofs and yards. WATERMAIN At this time Saint Paul Regional Water Services (SPRWS) has not yet identified any sections of water main for replacement. As a matter of maintenance the SPRWS would propose to replace any substandard hydrants, valves, services, etc., where necessary. This work would be done by the water utility personnel prior to the street construction, and at no cost to the city. Maplewood will only be responsible for water system expenses that are directly the result of the street constructiono SANITARY SEWER No major improvements are proposed for the existing sanitary sewer system. However, city sewer maintenance records have been reviewed and various spot repairs of the sewer system have been identified for improvements. During the design phase 5 questionnaires will be sent out to residents to determine if there are any potential sanitary sewer main and service problems within the right-of-way and under the proposed street. Any damaged sanitary sewer main and services under the roadway will be repaired prior to the street reconstruction. This work would be performed as part of the overall project with repairs being paid by the sewer utility fund. MISCELLANEOUS PRIVATE UTILITIES Staff will contact the private utility companies regarding this project. Underground natural gas lines exist throughout the project area. Xcel Energy-Gas may want to replace or relocate their existing gas mains. Coordination with Xcel~s designers reduces potential conflicts with the proposed street design. Magellan pipeline exists in the neighborhood. Utility and street design will be coordinated with representatives from Magellan. In almost all areas of the project, the remaining utilities, such as cable, electric and telephone are found overhead. As such, no significant revisions are anticipated at this time. EROSION CONTROL Erosion control methods will be implemented throughout the project. Silt fence, bale checks, and other erosion protection methods will be utilized where direct runoff might occur. Inlet protection will be used to protect both the existing and new catch basins during construction. Street sweeping will occur, as needed, on all paved street surfaces throughout the project, including intersecting streets. Watering of exposed soils and aggregate material would be done as adust-control measure. TRAFFIC CONTROL Traffic from outside the neighborhood should not be impacted by construction as the streets in the Gladstone North neighborhood serve local neighborhood traffic only. However, a construction project of this magnitude will result in some inconvenience and disruption to the neighborhood and its residents. Emergency access for vehicles will be available 24-hours a day throughout the project. During short periods of time, however, some segments of the project may not be passable while certain work is being executed. In these instances, access would be available from another direction. Streets would always be reopened at the end of the day.. An alternate route for the fire trucks will be determined for short periods of time when access may be blocked due to construction. Access to and from the Gladstone fire department would remain open at all times. 6 Residents with concrete curb work, or concrete driveway apron replacements, will not be able to use their driveways during the week the concrete is curing. During that time, Maplewood police will be notified of the arrangement in order to add patrols while residents are required to park on the streets. PROJECT COST The estimated project cost is outlined below. Estimated Project Costs: $2,766,600 The estimated costs for the proposed project are outlined below. The estimated costs include 5% contingencies and 30% overhead, which include engineering, administrative, legal, and fiscal expenses. Exhibit 5 provides a more detailed construction and project cost estimate. Estimated Project Cost Summary Street Improvements: Drainage Improvements: Sanitary Sewer Improvements: Water System Improvements: $2,003,980 (72%) $610,500 (22%) $107,270 (4%) $44,850 (2%) Total estimate project costs: COST RECOVERY $2,766,600 (100%) Based on the City of Maplewood~s Pavement Management Policy, a portion of the project cost is assessed on an equal ~unitm basis. The ~unitm would be based on an average residential lot, as has been used in the past. There are 171 assessable parcels within the project area. Most of the project area has been assessed for drainage under the Footprint Lake Storm Sewer project or the Frost Avenue project. Corner properties that have been recently assessed for other improvements would not be charged a street assessment for this project. Exhibit 6 details the preliminary assessment roll. Exhibit 7 and 8 show the properties proposed to be assess for street and storm improvements. The city~s 1999 pavement management policy identifies certain improvement options with established assessment rates for each of those options. The 2005 assessment rates were approved by the city council on October 25th of 2004. Therefore, the following assessment 2005 rates would apply. $4,380 /unit for street reconstruction with curbing. $87.60 /Ft for street reconstruction on multi-family or commercial properties. 7 $680 /unit for drainage improvements. $13.60/Ft for drainage improvements to multi-family or commercial properties. $1,330 /unit for new water service installations. $2,000 /unit for new sewer service installations. Estimated Project Cost Recover Street assessments: $ 905,200 (32%) Storm assessments: $ 21,420 (1 %) Sanitary Sewer Utility Fund: $ 107,270 (4 %) SPRWS Obligation: $ 25,540 (1 %) City general tax levy: $ 1,707,170 6( 2%) Total $2,766,600 (100%) PROJECT SCHEDULE The following schedule may be implemented, should it be determined to proceed with the project: Receive feasibility study and order public hearing Public hearing Authorize preparation of plans and specs Approve plans and specs/authorize advertisement for bids Bid date Assessment hearing Accept bids/award contract Begin construction Complete construction Assessments certified to Ramsey County 11 /08/04 11 /22/04 11 /22/04 03/14/05 04/15/05 04/25/05 04/25/05 05/09/05 10/31 /05 11/15/05 8 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS From the results of the feasibility study and investigations, it can be concluded that: 1. The project is feasible as it relates to general engineering principles, practices and construction procedures as it has been presented in this report. 2. The project is necessary for economic and safety reasons and is cost effective when all the related costs are considered environmental, private and public. 3. The proposed improvement is necessary to maintain the city~s infrastructure. 4. The total cost estimate for the project is $ 2,766,600. 5. The total share proposed to be assessed to the benefited properties is $926,620. 6. The total city share of these costs is proposed to be $1,707,170. 7. Sewer and water will contribute $132,810 to the project. In consideration of the above conclusions, it is recommended that: 1. If the city council deems the project feasible, a public hearing should be held as soon as possible. 2. The proposed improvements should be constructed as outlined in this report. 3. The cost of the improvements will be recovered through assessments to the benefited and through city contributions. 9 ~~ GERVAIS ~ ~ ~ ~ COPE CT. )R' ~ J LARK `J ° CO. RD. LEALAND ~ RD. JUNCI~TION Q AVE. Timbers ~ '`v eC//~ Park ~~~~ ,~~~ F J AVE. 36 COPE W U ~ /~ ~ ~ BURKE ° ~0 CIR ~ ~S~ ~ ~~~ ~~ ~ Q ~ ~ ~ E~ ~ SKILL ~`P J~~U ~ U~ GRAN DVI EW AVE. VIKING DR. c~n ~~ SHERREN AVE. AVE. AVE. 0 Q SAND HURST ~ ~~ z_ ~ BURKE AVE. o' CD ELDR IDGE AVE. BELMON VE. o SKILLMAN SFi~y c~n AVE ~ ~ ~ J ~ W o RYAN = U U ~i J WN TRAIL J ~ Flicek ~ Park 1- ~ U =E NTON AVE. z ~ ~ Gloster ~ ° Park FRISBIE AVE. RIP LEY LN. ~ ° 0 AVE. w N /J Q AN AV. Robinhood Pa~ Z 0 W U I ~ I Q ~ ~ FR ST AVE. ~ 0 w ~ g w ~ M ER AV E. U w ~ ~ Z Knuck Head Lake ~ ~ Q ~~ LARK Q ~~ Q LAURIE Q ~ Sherwoodz ~ J Q' Park z cn AVE. w W Y CO. BURKE ~ John Gle 64 ~O' GATEWAY HARRIS AVE. ROSEWOOD ~ ,`~ ROSEWOOD ~~ AVE. S. o ~ , ~~~ ~ I ~ ~ ~ //~ SU MMER AVE. ~ Wakefield Park ~~~ n I Project location no scale Exhibit 1 Project Location Gladstone North Area Streets 04-15 ~O WI \~ CO. RD. 8 BURKE AVE. Q 2 Z m BELMONT LN. ELDRIDGE AVE ~ ~ SKILLMAN AVE. 2 - ROBINHOOD z PARK W ~- w- Y ~Rpll- z GpTE~p w - ~= ~ ~ z o z ~„ ~ no scale Exhibit 2 Project Scope Gladstone North Area Streets 04-15 i c~ Q U c~ ~ '.. O Q O m W ,N 2 ~ ~ cn "' ~ ~ Q U W ~ O m RYAN AVE. 7 FROSTAVE STREETS PROPOSED FOR RECONSTRUCTION Existing Street Section R/W C/L R/W EXAMPLE OF STANDING WATER ON STREET CROWN VARIES CROWN VARIES . I i i ~- -~ ,call= -ill-III iii -. - ---_ EXISTING SUBGRADE Proposed Street Section 30' R/W 13'-14'~ 3.~- MPX 2% _ _ rt ===f I ~ ~_ -~ - ~~ _ ~-~ B-618 C~ -~~_„_~~. ~' r & G 3 ~ '~qX. ~~ 1-1/2" TYPE 41A WEARING COURSE BITUMINOUS TACK COAT 2" TYPE 326 BASE COURSE (31 66650000Y) 8" CLASS 6 AGGREGATE BASE (RECLAIMED/RECYCLED & IMPORTED) 24" SELECT GRANULAR BORROW SUBCUT no scale Exhibit 3 Existing and Proposed Street Section Gladstone North Area Streets 04-15 \~ CO. RD. II BURKE AV I ~O ~ ; _. j ~ 2 z ELDRIDGE m BELMONT LN. 8 E. ©~ AVE. _„-.~ ~,-:, ~ ~~~ Q U c~ Q ~ m ~~ ~~ ~~ W "' N Q ~ ~ SKILLMAN AVE. ~ ~~ ROBINHOO z PARK W 'v. Y .~Rpll- w GP.~ENIP no scale Exhibit 4 Project Scope Gladstone North Area Streets 04-15 Proposed Drainage Improvements // ~-'" ~ ~ ~n ~ ~ Q U W Q m RYAN AVE. 2 z 0 7 FROSTAVE ~,~ ~~~~ EXHIBIT 5 Gladstone North Preliminary Cost Estimate STREET AND UTILITY IMPROVEMENTS MAPLEWOOD CITY PROJECT NO. 04-15 11 /04/04 TO TAL Estimated Item Description Unit Unit EST. EST. Price QTY. COST 2021.501 MOBILIZATION (5% MAXIMUM) LS 90,000.00 1.00 90,000 2101.502 CLEARING EACH 500.00 15.00 7,500 2101.507 CLEARING EACH 500.00 15.00 7,500 2104.501 REMOVE RCP STORM SEWER PIPE LF 9.00 335.00 3,015 2104.501 REMOVE CONCRETE CURB AND GUTTER LF 4.00 1,030.00 4,120 2104.505 REMOVE BITUMINOUS DRIVEWAY/TRAIL PAVEME SY 3.00 4,420.00 13,260 2104.505 REMOVE CONCRETE DRIVEWAY PAVEMENT/APR SY 6.00 1,915.00 11,490 2104.509 REMOVE DRAINAGE STRUCTURE & CASTING (FE EACH 375.00 5.00 1,875 2104.511 SAWING CONCRETE PAVEMENT LF 4.00 1,155.00 4,620 2104.513 SAW BITUMINOUS DRIVEWAY/TRAIL PAVEMENT LF 3.00 2,626.00 7,878 2105.501 COMMON EXCAVATION (SEE EARTHWORK SUMM CY 10.00 14,247.00 142,470 2105.507 SUBGRADE EXCAVATION, (EV) CY 10.00 210.00 2,100 2105.515 UNCLASSIFIED EXCAVATION (RAINWATER GARDE CY 10.00 2,800.00 28,000 2105.522 SELECT GRANULAR BORROW (SEE EARTHWORK CY 13.50 210.00 2,835 2105.526 SELECT TOPSOIL BORROW, (LV) CY 12.00 4,946.00 59,352 2123.610 STREET SWEEPER WITH PICKUP BROOM HOUR 90.00 188.00 16,920 2130.501 WATER FOR DUST CONTROL M GAL 25.00 486.00 12,150 2211.501 AGGREGATE BASE CL 6 FOR STREETS TON 10.00 17,951.00 179,510 2211.501 AGGREGATE BASE CL 6 FOR CONCRETE OR BITU TON 20.00 1,877.00 37,540 2212.601 AGGREGATE BASE CL 7 -FULL DEPTH RECLAMA SY 2.50 39,568.00 98,920 2232.501 MILL BITUMINOUS SURFACE, 1.5" DEPTH LF 3.00 285.00 855 2331.603 BITUMINOUS JOINT SAW AND SEAL LF 1.50 12,595.00 18,893 2340.508 TYPE 41 WEARING COURSE MIXTURE (41 WEA500 TON 38.00 3,493.00 132,734 2340.514 TYPE 32 BASE COURSE MIXTURE (32BBB50000PG TON 34.00 4,317.00 146,778 2340.521 TYPE 41 WEARING COURSE MIXTURE FOR DRIVE SY 13.00 4,449.00 57,837 2357.502 BITUMINOUS MATERIAL FOR TACK COAT GAL 2.50 1,934.00 4,835 2501.515 18" CORR. HDPE PIPE APRON WITH SAFETY GRAT EA 400.00 1.00 400 2501.515 21"CORR. HDPE PIPE APRON WITH SAFETY GRAT EA 500.00 1.00 500 2501.515 24" CORR. HDPE PIPE APRON WITH SAFETY GRAT EA 500.00 1.00 500 2503.602 F & I - 8"x 6" PVC WYE EA 500.00 11.00 5,500 2503.602 REPAIR 8" VCP SANITARY SEWER (8 LF) AS PER P EA 1,900.00 5.00 9,500 2503.602 RELINE 8" VCP OUTSIDE DROP AS PER PLATE 421 EA 3,000.00 3.00 9,000 2503.603 6" PVC, SCHEDULE 40 RISER FOR SANITARY SER LF 100.00 20.00 2,000 2503.603 6" PVC, SCHEDULE 40 FOR REPLACEMENT OF R LF 40.00 900.00 36,000 2503.603 TELEVISE SANITARY SEWER MAIN (CLEAN & FLU LF 1.00 10,511.00 10,511 2503.511 12" CORRUGATED HDPE PIPE SEWER, SMOOTH LF 20.00 2,082.00 41,640 2503.511 15" CORRUGATED HDPE PIPE SEWER, SMOOTH LF 21.00 3,169.00 66,549 2503.511 18" CORRUGATED HDPE PIPE SEWER, SMOOTH LF 23.00 1,169.00 26,887 2503.511 21"CORRUGATED HDPE PIPE SEWER, SMOOTH LF 26.00 35.00 910 2503.511 24" CORRUGATED HDPE PIPE SEWER, SMOOTH LF 28.00 869.00 24,332 2504.602 ADJUST VALVE BOX, WATER EA 225.00 30.00 6,750 2504.602 ADJUST CURB STOP BOX EA 110.00 155.00 17,050 2504.602 INSTALL -CURB BOX SINGLE LID COVER EA 100.00 15.00 1,500 2504.602 WATER UTILITY HOLE (EXCAVATE & BACKFILL) EA 750.00 21.00 15,750 2504.604 F & I - 2" RIGID INSULATION OVER WATER SERVIC SY 16.00 301.00 4,816 2506.502 CONNECT TO EXISTING DRAINAGE STRUCTURE EA 650.00 2.00 1,300 2506.502 CONSTRUCT DRAINAGE STRUCTURE 2' x 3' BOX C EA 1,200.00 23.00 27,600 2506.502 CONSTRUCT DRAINAGE STRUCTURE 48" MH W/ R EA 1,600.00 6.00 9,600 2506.502 CONSTRUCT DRAINAGE STRUCTURE 48" C.B. W/ EA 1,600.00 28.00 44,800 EXHIBIT 5 Gladstone North Preliminary Cost Estimate STREET AND UTILITY IMPROVEMENTS MAPLEWOOD CITY PROJECT NO. 04-15 11 /04/04 TO TAL Estimated Item Description Unit Unit EST. EST. Price QTY. COST 2506.502 CONSTRUCT DRAINAGE STRUCTURE 60" C.B. W/ EA 2,500.00 1.00 2,500 2511.502 RANDOM RIP RAP CL. II TON 100.00 49.00 4,900 2511.515 GEOTEXTLE FILTER, TYPE III SY 3.00 43.00 129 2521.501 4" CONCRETE WALK SF 6.00 1,320.00 7,920 2531.501 CONCRETE CURB AND GUTTER, DESIGN B618, D4 LF 8.00 23,265.00 186,120 2531.507 6" CONCRETE DRIVEWAY PAVEMENT, RESIDENTI SY 40.00 2,044.00 81,760 2540.602 REINSTALL MAILBOX SUPPORT (SALVAGED) EA 70.00 92.00 6,440 2540.602 FURNISH & INSTALL MAILBOX SUPPORT (SINGLE) EA 110.00 20.00 2,200 2540.602 FURNISH & INSTALL MAILBOX SUPPORT (DOUBLE EA 160.00 24.00 3,840 2563.601 TRAFFIC CONTROL LS 12,000.00 1.00 12,000 2563.602 GRADE AND LANDSCAPE DRAINAGE SWALE AND LS 10,000.00 1.00 10,000 2571.602 RAINWATER GARDEN PREPARATION EACH 900.00 52.00 46,800 2571.602 ROCK INFILTRATION SUMP FOR RAINWATER GAR TON 45.00 63.00 2,835 2573.502 SILT FENCE, TYPE PREASSEMBLED MAINTAINED LF 2.50 1,469.00 3,673 2573.505 INSTALL, MAINTAIN & SALVAGE CITY PROVIDED F LS 1,200.00 1.00 1,200 2573.530 INLET PROTECTION, TYPE C EA 200.00 18.00 3,600 2573.601 EROSION CONTROL, CONTRACTOR'S PLAN (1/2% LS 13,000.00 1.00 13,000 SEED MIXTURE 310 (NATIVE WET TALL) FOR SEEDING 20 00 2575.502 RAINWATER GARDEN LB . 732.00 14,640 SEED MIXTURE 330 (NATIVE WET TALL) FOR SEEDING 15 00 2575.502 RAINWATER GARDEN LB . 386.00 5,790 2575.505 SODDING, TYPE LAWN SY 2.50 49,468.00 123,670 2575.505 SODDING, TYPE EROSION SY 3.50 444.00 1,554 2575.523 EROSION CONTROL BLANKET, TYPE 1 (NORTH A SY 10.00 243.00 2,430 2575.532 COMMERCIAL FERTILIZER ANALYSIS 10-0-10 WITH LB 1.00 2,061.00 2,061 2575.555 TURF ESTABLISHMENT (INCLUDES OVERSEEDIN LS 5,000.00 1.00 5,000 Subtotal: 2,000,443 + 5% Contingencies: 100,022 Subtotal Estimated Construction Costs: 2,100,465 + Estimated Easement Costs: + 30% Engineering, Administrative, Legal and Fiscal Expenses: 630,140 Subtotal Estimated Project Costs: 2,730,605 + Landscaping materials, design, planning & coordination for Rainwater Gardens: 36,000 Total Estimated Project Costs: 2,766,605 Maplewood, MN Preliminary Assessment Roll Exhibit 6 Gladstone North Area Streets Project 04-15 Gladstone North Area Streets Street Assessments Storm Assessments Totals Parcel l0 Taxpayer Street Number Street Class Front Footage Res. Units Comm. Resitlential Previous Assessment Resitlential Comm. Proposetl Assessments $ 8].66 $ 4,386.66 $ 686.66 $ 13.6 1 5 29 22 21 00 02 CHESTER E EVERSON ETAL 1474 COUNTY ROAD B E S.F. 0 1 $ - $ 4,380.00 STM $ - $ - $ 4,380.0 152922210017 STEVEO BOOER 1475 BURKE AVEE S.F. 0 1 $ - $ 4,380.00 STM $ - $ - $ 4,380.0 152922210018 WILLIAM SCHMIOT 1474 BURKE AVEE S.F. 0 1 $ - $ 4,380.00 STM $ - $ - $ 4,380.0 1 5 29 22 21 00 25 JUOV WIOHOLM 1424 BURKE AVEE S.F. 0 1 $ - $ 4,380.00 STM $ - $ - $ 4,380.0 152922210026 RALPHJ WOOEN III 1425 ELORIOGE AVEE S.F. 0 1 $ - $ 4,380.00 STM $ - $ - $ 4,380.0 1 5 29 22 21 00 27 RANOALLJ MOTT 1431 ELORIOGE AVEE S.F. 0 1 $ - $ 4,380.00 STM $ - $ - $ 4,380.0 1 5 29 22 21 00 28 DONALD J WORREL 1439 ELORIOGE AVE E S.F. 0 1 $ - $ 4,380.00 STM $ - $ - $ 4,380.0 1 5 29 22 21 00 29 MERLIN J MILLER 1445 ELORIOGE AVE E S.F. 0 1 $ - $ 4,380.00 STM $ - $ - $ 4,380.0 1 5 29 22 21 00 30 BETH RVLANO COLLOVA 1453 ELORIOGE AVE E S.F. 0 1 $ - $ 4,380.00 STM $ - $ - $ 4,380.0 1 5 29 22 21 00 31 OONALOAHOULE 1461 ELORIOGE AVEE S.F. 0 1 $ - $ 4,380.00 STM $ - $ - $ 4,380.0 1 5 29 22 21 00 32 BRENT H MVSTER 1469 ELORIOGE AVE E S.F. 0 1 $ - $ 4,380.00 STM $ - $ - $ 4,380.0 1 5 29 22 21 00 33 MARGARET M OSCARSON 1475 ELORIOGE AVE E S.F. 0 1 $ - $ 4,380.00 STM $ - $ - $ 4,380.0 1 5 29 22 21 00 36 THOMAS HOPKINS 2116 BARCLAV STN OBL 0 1 $ - $ 4,380.00 STM $ - $ - $ 4,380.0 1 5 29 22 21 0046 ALLEN W FARRANKOP 2046 BARCLAV STN S.F. 0 1 $ - $ 4,380.00 STM $ - $ - $ 4,380.0 1 5 29 22 21 0047 JEFFREYT GARROW 2052 BARCLAV STN S.F. 0 1 $ - $ 4,380.00 STM $ - $ - $ 4,380.0 1 5 29 22 21 0048 JUDITH 5 MONETTE 2060 BARCLAV STN S.F. 0 1 $ - $ 4,380.00 STM $ - $ - $ 4,380.0 1 5 29 22 21 0049 JULIANA ROBVN HAVW000 2068 BARCLAV STN S.F. 0 1 $ - $ 4,380.00 STM $ - $ - $ 4,380.0 1 5 29 22 21 00 50 DANIEL G FLINT 2080 BARCLAV STN S.F. 0 1 $ - $ 4,380.00 STM $ - $ - $ 4,380.0 1 5 29 22 21 00 51 GERALOINE ANNA WALEK 2092 BARCLAV STN S.F. 0 1 $ - $ 4,380.00 STM $ - $ - $ 4,380.0 1 5 29 22 21 00 52 SAVED M EL KANOELGV 1476 ELORIOGE AVE E OBL 0 1 $ - $ 4,380.00 STM $ - $ - $ 4,380.0 1 5 29 22 21 00 53 JAMESALANCETTE 1468 ELORIOGE AVEE S.F. 0 1 $ - $ 4,380.00 STM $ - $ - $ 4,380.0 1 5 29 22 21 00 54 RONALD P MILLESON 1460 ELORIOGE AVE E S.F. 0 1 $ - $ 4,380.00 STM $ - $ - $ 4,380.0 1 5 29 22 21 00 55 JAMES M WALSH 1454 ELORIOGE AVE E S.F. 0 1 $ - $ 4,380.00 STM $ - $ - $ 4,380.0 1 5 29 22 21 00 56 GREGORY BORNOALE 1446 ELORIOGE AVEE S.F. 0 1 $ - $ 4,380.00 STM $ - $ - $ 4,380.0 1 5 29 22 21 00 57 MVRNACMATYKIEWICZ 1438 ELORIOGE AVEE S.F. 0 1 $ - $ 4,380.00 STM $ - $ - $ 4,380.0 1 5 29 22 21 00 58 LARRY R MOST 1430 ELORIOGE AVE E S.F. 0 1 $ - $ 4,380.00 STM $ - $ - $ 4,380.0 1 5 29 22 21 00 59 ROBERT ALLEN VZERMANS 1424 ELORIOGE AVE E S.F. 0 1 $ - $ 4,380.00 STM $ - $ - $ 4,380.0 1 5 29 22 21 00 60 OAVIO L PERCIVAL 1425 BELMONT W E S.F. 0 1 $ - $ 4,380.00 STM $ - $ - $ 4,380.0 1 5 29 22 21 00 61 GREGORY O ENGFER 1431 BELMONT W E S.F. 0 1 $ - $ 4,380.00 STM $ - $ - $ 4,380.0 1 5 29 22 21 00 62 MORRIS F HOLES 1439 BELMONT W E S.F. 0 1 $ - $ 4,380.00 STM $ - $ - $ 4,380.0 1 5 29 22 21 00 63 ADAM J BOBST 1445 BELMONT W E S.F. 0 1 $ - $ 4,380.00 STM $ - $ - $ 4,380.0 1 5 29 22 21 00 64 WILLIAM 0 EWALO 1453 BELMONT W E S.F. 0 1 $ - $ 4,380.00 STM $ - $ - $ 4,380.0 1 5 29 22 21 00 65 ANTHONY COMPTON 1461 BELMONT W E S.F. 0 1 $ - $ 4,380.00 STM $ - $ - $ 4,380.0 1 5 29 22 21 00 66 ANITA L SANOFORO 1469 BELMONT W E S.F. 0 1 $ - $ 4,380.00 STM $ - $ - $ 4,380.0 1 5 29 22 21 00 67 ANN RZIAN 1475 BELMONT W E S.F. 0 1 $ - $ 4,380.00 STM $ - $ - $ 4,380.0 1 5 29 22 21 00 68 GEORGE M MILLER 1474 BELMONT W E S.F. 0 1 $ - $ 4,380.00 STM $ - $ - $ 4,380.0 1 5 29 22 21 00 69 DIANE K SCHNEIOER 1466 BELMONT W E S.F. 0 1 $ - $ 4,380.00 STM $ - $ - $ 4,380.0 1 5 29 22 21 00 70 SECRETARY OF HSNG & URBAN OEV 1460 BELMONT W E S.F. 0 1 $ - $ 4,380.00 STM $ - $ - $ 4,380.0 152922210071 TAMARA LBAZILLE 1452 BELMONT W E S.F. 0 1 $ - $ 4,380.00 STM $ - $ - $ 4,380.0 1 5 29 22 21 00 72 MARY RUSTANO 1446 BELMONT W E S.F. 0 1 $ - $ 4,380.00 STM $ - $ - $ 4,380.0 1 5 29 22 21 00 73 ROGER J PACHANO 1440 BELMONT W E S.F. 0 1 $ - $ 4,380.00 STM $ - $ - $ 4,380.0 1 5 29 22 21 00 74 JOEL R JOHNSON 1432 BELMONT W E S.F. 0 1 $ - $ 4,380.00 STM $ - $ - $ 4,380.0 1 5 29 22 21 00 75 JOHN E TARNOWSKI 1428 BELMONT W E S.F. 0 1 $ - $ 4,380.00 STM $ - $ - $ 4,380.0 1 5 29 22 21 00 76 JEFFREY W JELINEK 1427 SKILLMAN AVEE S.F. 0 1 $ - $ 4,380.00 STM $ - $ - $ 4,380.0 1 5 29 22 21 00 77 JEREMY CSCHURR 1431 5KILLMAN AVEE S.F. 0 1 $ - $ 4,380.00 STM $ - $ - $ 4,380.0 1 5 29 22 21 00 78 THOMAS J LYNCH 1439 SKILLMAN AVEE S.F. 0 1 $ - $ 4,380.00 STM $ - $ - $ 4,380.0 1 5 29 22 21 00 79 CRAIGASINOT 1445 5KILLMAN AVEE S.F. 0 1 $ - $ 4,380.00 STM $ - $ - $ 4,380.0 1 5 29 22 21 00 80 MARILVN CUNNINGHAM 1451 SKILLMAN AVEE S.F. 0 1 $ - $ 4,380.00 STM $ - $ - $ 4,380.0 1 5 29 22 21 00 81 KATHLEEN P ROBBINS 1459 SKILLMAN AVEE S.F. 0 1 $ - $ 4,380.00 STM $ - $ - $ 4,380.0 1 5 29 22 21 00 82 LELANOABENOICKSON 1465 5KILLMAN AVEE S.F. 0 1 $ - $ 4,380.00 STM $ - $ - $ 4,380.0 1 5 29 22 21 00 83 DANIEL LEE OOCKEN 1473 SKILLMAN AVEE S.F. 0 1 $ - $ 4,380.00 STM $ - $ - $ 4,380.0 1 5 29 22 21 00 64 BEARD AVENUE ESTATES 2140 BARCLAV STN C 269.8 0 $ 23,634.48 $ - STM $ - $ - $ 23,634.4 1 5 29 22 21 00 86 BONNIE GEAR 2124 BARCLAV STN S.F. 0 1 $ - $ 4,380.00 STM $ - $ - $ 4,380.0 1 5 29 22 21 00 93 JANE M JACKSON 2108 BARCLAV STN S.F. 0 1 $ - $ 4,380.00 STM $ - $ - $ 4,380.0 152922220001 OPERATION5150622 2135 BIRMINGHAM STN SCH 125 0 $ 10,950.00 $ - STM $ - $ - $ 10,950.0 152922220002 RICHARD H SCHULTZ ETAL 2111 BIRMINGHAM STN S.F. 0 1 $ - $ 4,380.00 STM $ - $ - $ 4,380.0 152922220003 MARVIN 0 BLOCK 2091 BIRMINGHAM STN S.F. 0 1 $ - $ 4,380.00 STM $ - $ - $ 4,380.0 152922220011 CLARENCE J KRAEMER 1355 BELMONT W E S.F. 0 1 $ - $ 4,380.00 STM $ - $ - $ 4,380.0 152922220012 MARY C OAVIS 1361 BELMONT W E S.F. 0 1 $ - $ 4,380.00 STM $ - $ - $ 4,380.0 152922220013 MARK ABBOTT 1369 BELMONT W E S.F. 0 1 $ - $ 4,380.00 STM $ - $ - $ 4,380.0 152922220014 MICHELLE R KIHERI 1377 BELMONT W E S.F. 0 1 $ - $ 4,380.00 STM $ - $ - $ 4,380.0 152922220015 LARRY J MILLER 1383 BELMONT W E S.F. 0 1 $ - $ 4,380.00 STM $ - $ - $ 4,380.0 152922220016 JOHN M OIESSLIN 1391 BELMONT W E S.F. 0 1 $ - $ 4,380.00 STM $ - $ - $ 4,380.0 152922220017 OAVIO A JANSSEN 1397 BELMONT W E S.F. 0 1 $ - $ 4,380.00 STM $ - $ - $ 4,380.0 152922220018 RAYMOND E ROTH LE 1411 BELMONT W E S.F. 0 1 $ - $ 4,380.00 STM $ - $ - $ 4,380.0 152922220019 JOYCE M KARNOWSKI 1412 BELMONT W E S.F. 0 1 $ - $ 4,380.00 STM $ - $ - $ 4,380.0 152922220020 GENE MELVIN HOGATE 1406 BELMONT W E S.F. 0 1 $ - $ 4,380.00 STM $ - $ - $ 4,380.0 152922220021 SCOTT M OANSKV 1400 BELMONT W E S.F. 0 1 $ - $ 4,380.00 STM $ - $ - $ 4,380.0 152922220022 OENNIS A SVENOSEN 1392 BELMONT W E S.F. 0 1 $ - $ 4,380.00 STM $ - $ - $ 4,380.0 152922220023 WILLIAM JOSEPH 1364 BELMONT W E S.F. 0 1 $ - $ 4,380.00 STM $ - $ - $ 4,380.0 152922220024 JOOV L CUSHMAN 1376 BELMONT W E S.F. 0 1 $ - $ 4,380.00 STM $ - $ - $ 4,380.0 152922220025 EDWARD A FASTNER 1368 BELMONT W E S.F. 0 1 $ - $ 4,380.00 STM $ - $ - $ 4,380.0 152922220026 MICHAEL P SHIELDS 1360 BELMONT W E S.F. 0 1 $ - $ 4,380.00 STM $ - $ - $ 4,380.0 152922220027 ROGERA O55 1354 BELMONT W E S.F. 0 1 $ - $ 4,380.00 STM $ - $ - $ 4,380.0 152922220028 ROBERT J HAKALA 1348 BELMONT W E S.F. 0 1 $ - $ 4,380.00 STM $ - $ - $ 4,380.0 152922220029 SAMUELAMACKENZIE JR 134~ SKILLMAN AVEE S.F. 0 1 $ - $ 4,380.00 STM $ - $ - $ 4,380.0 152922220030 THOMAS J SPOOEN 1353 SKILLMAN AVEE S.F. 0 1 $ - $ 4,380.00 STM $ - $ - $ 4,380.0 152922220031 JOSEPH PETER POLENCHECK 1359 SKILLMAN AVEE S.F. 0 1 $ - $ 4,380.00 STM $ - $ - $ 4,380.0 152922220032 PENNY M PRAY 1367 SKILLMAN AVEE S.F. 0 1 $ - $ 4,380.00 STM $ - $ - $ 4,380.0 152922220033 DONALD L RENSTROM 1375 SKILLMAN AVEE S.F. 0 1 $ - $ 4,380.00 STM $ - $ - $ 4,380.0 Page 1 of 3 Maplewood, MN Preliminary Assessment Roll Exhibit 6 Gladstone North Area Streets Project 04-15 Gladstone North Area Streets Street Assessments Storm Assessments Totals Parcel l0 Taxpayer Street Number Street Class Front Footage Res. Units Comm. Resitlential Previous Assessment Resitlential Comm. Proposetl Assessments $ 8].66 $ 4,386.66 $ 686.66 $ 13.6 152922220034 ELEANORE W SCOTT 1383 SKILLMAN AVEE S.F. 0 1 $ - $ 4,380.00 STM $ - $ - $ 4,380.0 152922220035 BETTY I BEAROSLEV 1391 SKILLMAN AVEE S.F. 0 1 $ - $ 4,380.00 STM $ - $ - $ 4,380.0 152922220036 ROBERT J SULLIVAN 1399 SKILLMAN AVEE S.F. 0 1 $ - $ 4,380.00 STM $ - $ - $ 4,380.0 152922220037 CLVOE A COLE 1405 SKILLMAN AVEE S.F. 0 1 $ - $ 4,380.00 STM $ - $ - $ 4,380.0 152922220038 JUDITH E HARRINGTON 1411 SKILLMAN AVEE S.F. 0 1 $ - $ 4,380.00 STM $ - $ - $ 4,380.0 152922220051 ELLEN M SCHWARTZ 1384 ELORIOGE AVE E S.F. 0 1 $ - $ 4,380.00 STM $ - $ - $ 4,380.0 152922220052 WILLIAM M PRIEBE 1366 ELORIOGE AVE E S.F. 0 1 $ - $ 4,380.00 STM $ - $ - $ 4,380.0 152922220053 OENNIS G JORIMAN 1349 BELMONT W E S.F. 0 1 $ - $ 4,380.00 STM $ - $ - $ 4,380.0 152922230011 MAPLEWOOO LEASED HOUSING ASSOC 2024 CLARENCE STN C 363.5 0 $ 31,842.60 $ - STM $ - $ - $ 31,842.6 152922230013 MAPLEWOOO LEASED HOUSING ASSOC 2005 IOE STN C 124 0 $ 10,862.40 $ - STM $ - $ - $ 10,862.4 152922230014 THOMAS R WARDEN 1970 CLARENCE STN S.F. 0 1 $ - $ 4,380.00 $ 680.00 $ - $ 5,060.0 152922230015 JEFFREY MEVER 1960 CLARENCE STN S.F. 0 1 $ - $ 4,380.00 $ 680.00 $ - $ 5,060.0 152922230016 MICHAEL B MURPHY 1938 CLARENCE STN OBL 0 1 $ - $ 4,380.00 $ 680.00 $ - $ 5,060.0 152922230038 JAMES LANG 1351 FROST AVEE C 0 1 $ - $ 4,380.00 STM $ - $ - $ 4,380.0 152922230056 MICHAELLBRACKINS 2010 CLARENCE STN S.F. 0 1 $ - $ 4,380.00 STM $ - $ - $ 4,380.0 152922230075 RICHARD C WEI55 1352 SKILLMAN AVEE S.F. 0 1 $ - $ 4,380.00 STM $ - $ - $ 4,380.0 152922230076 RICHARD G ENGELSTAO 2023 CLARENCE STN S.F. 0 1 $ - $ 4,380.00 STM $ - $ - $ 4,380.0 152922230079 JOSEPHABONAIUTO JR 1991 CLARENCE STN S.F. 0 1 $ - $ 4,380.00 STM $ - $ - $ 4,380.0 152922230080 LESTER W VEAOON 2017 CLARENCE STN S.F. 0 1 $ - $ 4,380.00 STM $ - $ - $ 4,380.0 152922230081 VVONNE STOREBV 2007 CLARENCE STN S.F. 0 1 $ - $ 4,380.00 STM $ - $ - $ 4,380.0 152922230082 JEFFREY LEECH 2003 CLARENCE STN S.F. 0 1 $ - $ 4,380.00 STM $ - $ - $ 4,380.0 152922230083 GLAOVS E OLSON 1999 CLARENCE STN S.F. 0 1 $ - $ 4,380.00 STM $ - $ - $ 4,380.0 152922230084 MARK J ACOSTA 1995 CLARENCE STN S.F. 0 1 $ - $ 4,380.00 STM $ - $ - $ 4,380.0 152922230085 CELENALLONGBEHN 2002 CLARENCE ST OBL 0 1 $ - $ 4,380.00 STM $ - $ - $ 4,380.0 152922230086 JOSEPH M BALAZS 2000 CLARENCE ST OBL 0 1 $ - $ 4,380.00 STM $ - $ - $ 4,380.0 152922230087 DOUGLAS CARLSON O FROST AVEE C 115 0 $ 10,074.00 $ - STM $ - $ - $ 10,074.0 152922240001 ISLAMIC INSTITUTE OF MN 1460 SKILLMAN AVEE CRCH 464 0 $ 40,646.40 $ - STM $ - $ - $ 40,646.4 152922240003 DENISE L SOGN 2026 DIETER STN S.F. 0 1 $ - $ 4,380.00 STM $ - $ - $ 4,380.0 152922240004 LEONARD E KRAUSE 2018 DIETER STN S.F. 0 1 $ - $ 4,380.00 STM $ - $ - $ 4,380.0 152922240005 CAROLINE M WARNER 2012 DIETER STN S.F. 0 1 $ - $ 4,380.00 STM $ - $ - $ 4,380.0 152922240006 ALICIAMNELSON 2006 01ETER STN S.F. 0 1 $ - $ 4,380.00 STM $ - $ - $ 4,380.0 152922240007 JAV M DIETER 2000 DIETER STN S.F. 0 1 $ - $ 4,380.00 STM $ - $ - $ 4,380.0 152922240008 BERNARD C LONGEN 1994 DIETER STN S.F. 0 1 $ - $ 4,380.00 STM $ - $ - $ 4,380.0 152922240009 PEARL O SCHICHEL 1988 DIETER STN S.F. 0 1 $ - $ 4,380.00 STM $ - $ - $ 4,380.0 152922240010 THOMAS P MULVANEV 1984 DIETER STN S.F. 0 1 $ - $ 4,380.00 STM $ - $ - $ 4,380.0 152922240011 PAUL O HINTON 1985 HAZELWOOO STN S.F. 0 1 $ - $ 4,380.00 STM $ - $ - $ 4,380.0 152922240020 OARLENE W LISTERUO 1950 DIETER STN S.F. 0 1 $ - $ 4,380.00 STM $ - $ - $ 4,380.0 152922240021 THOMAS R GESE 1948 DIETER STN S.F. 0 1 $ - $ 4,380.00 STM $ - $ - $ 4,380.0 152922240022 ROBERT FKULT 1521 FROST AVEE S.F. 0 1 $ - $ 4,380.00 STM $ - $ - $ 4,380.0 152922240028 RICHARD J ESBOLOT 0 HAZELWOOO STN RES 0 1 $ - $ 4,380.00 STM $ - $ - $ 4,380.0 152922240029 BRIAN P OOOGE 2012 BARCLAV STN S.F. 0 1 $ - $ 4,380.00 $ 680.00 $ - $ 5,060.0 152922240030 LUCRETIA KLENK 2004 BARCLAV STN S.F. 0 1 $ - $ 4,380.00 $ 680.00 $ - $ 5,060.0 152922240031 TIMOTHY W MOLOHON 1998 BARCLAV STN S.F. 0 1 $ - $ 4,380.00 $ 680.00 $ - $ 5,060.0 152922240032 OAVIO E OAVIOSON 1984 BARCLAV STN S.F. 0 1 $ - $ 4,380.00 $ 680.00 $ - $ 5,060.0 152922240033 SHING CHEUNG SHEK 1505 RYAN AVEE S.F. 0 1 $ - $ 4,380.00 STM $ - $ - $ 4,380.0 152922240034 LORRAINE VANOERSON TRUSTEE 1993 01ETER STN S.F. 0 1 $ - $ 4,380.00 STM $ - $ - $ 4,380.0 152922240035 MARYA MBAH 1999 DIETER STN S.F. 0 1 $ - $ 4,380.00 STM $ - $ - $ 4,380.0 152922240036 KENNETHAMCCLAINE 200~ OIETER STN S.F. 0 1 $ - $ 4,380.00 STM $ - $ - $ 4,380.0 152922240037 KENNETH CROVIE 2013 01ETER STN S.F. 0 1 $ - $ 4,380.00 STM $ - $ - $ 4,380.0 152922240038 WALLACE W RISTOW 2019 DIETER STN S.F. 0 1 $ - $ 4,380.00 STM $ - $ - $ 4,380.0 152922240039 DOUGLAS H JOHNSON 1490 RYAN AVEE S.F. 0 1 $ - $ 4,380.00 $ 680.00 $ - $ 5,060.0 152922240042 JAMES E BUOKE 1948 BARCLAV STN S.F. 0 1 $ - $ 4,380.00 STM $ - $ - $ 4,380.0 152922240043 EDWARD L PERISH 1940 BARCLAV STN S.F. 0 1 $ - $ 4,380.00 STM $ - $ - $ 4,380.0 152922240044 THURSTON B TRUMBOWER JR 1938 BARCLAV STN S.F. 0 1 $ - $ 4,380.00 STM $ - $ - $ 4,380.0 152922240045 CARMEN J VAZQUEZ 1928 BARCLAV STN S.F. 0 1 $ - $ 4,380.00 STM $ - $ - $ 4,380.0 152922240047 CHARLES R BENGTSON 1503 FROST AVEE S.F. 0 1 $ - $ 4,380.00 STM $ - $ - $ 4,380.0 152922240050 EDWARD LPERISH O OIETER STN RES 0 1 $ - $ 4,380.00 STM $ - $ - $ 4,380.0 152922240051 STEPHEN W SHEA 1945 DIETER STN S.F. 0 1 $ - $ 4,380.00 STM $ - $ - $ 4,380.0 152922240052 WILLIAM CSANOERCOCK 1953 01ETER STN S.F. 0 1 $ - $ 4,380.00 STM $ - $ - $ 4,380.0 152922240053 ROBERT J OVKEMA 1961 DIETER STN S.F. 0 1 $ - $ 4,380.00 STM $ - $ - $ 4,380.0 152922240054 WARREN J COURNOVER 1973 DIETER STN S.F. 0 1 $ - $ 4,380.00 STM $ - $ - $ 4,380.0 152922240055 ROONEV C CARSON 2006 MANTON STN S.F. 0 1 $ - $ 4,380.00 $ 680.00 $ - $ 5,060.0 152922240056 CHRISTOPHER ROSE 1996 MANTON STN S.F. 0 1 $ - $ 4,380.00 $ 680.00 $ - $ 5,060.0 152922240057 JASON G CHIARELLA 1984 MANTON STN S.F. 0 1 $ - $ 4,380.00 $ 680.00 $ - $ 5,060.0 152922240058 ANDREW G OAKS 1985 BARCLAV STN S.F. 0 1 $ - $ 4,380.00 $ 680.00 $ - $ 5,060.0 152922240061 DOROTHY L PINCH 2005 BARCLAV STN S.F. 0 1 $ - $ 4,380.00 $ 680.00 $ - $ 5,060.0 152922240062 ELAINE I WELOON 1972 MANTON STN S.F. 0 1 $ - $ 4,380.00 $ 680.00 $ - $ 5,060.0 152922240063 THOMAS OIAZ 1974 MANTON STN S.F. 0 1 $ - $ 4,380.00 $ 680.00 $ - $ 5,060.0 152922240064 TIMOTHY 0 WALL 1956 MANTON STN S.F. 0 1 $ - $ 4,380.00 $ 680.00 $ - $ 5,060.0 152922240065 JANET SALOMONSON 1950 MANTON STN S.F. 0 1 $ - $ 4,380.00 STM $ - $ - $ 4,380.0 152922240066 TIMOTHY JUST 1948 MANTON STN S.F. 0 1 $ - $ 4,380.00 STM $ - $ - $ 4,380.0 152922240067 JOOV TIMPANE 1936 MANTON STN S.F. 0 1 $ - $ 4,380.00 STM $ - $ - $ 4,380.0 152922240068 PATRICIAATHOMPSON 1928 MANTON STN S.F. 0 1 $ - $ 4,380.00 STM $ - $ - $ 4,380.0 152922240069 FRED CARPENTER 1467 FROST AVEE OBL 0 1 $ - $ 4,380.00 STM $ - $ - $ 4,380.0 152922240070 FLORENCE M MORRIS 1929 BARCLAV STN S.F. 0 1 $ - $ 4,380.00 STM $ - $ - $ 4,380.0 152922240071 CAROLA VOBBIE 1939 BARCLAV STN S.F. 0 1 $ - $ 4,380.00 STM $ - $ - $ 4,380.0 152922240072 OARREN M LINOAHL 1947 BARCLAV STN S.F. 0 1 $ - $ 4,380.00 STM $ - $ - $ 4,380.0 152922240073 JOLENE CHLEBECK 1961 BARCLAV STN S.F. 0 1 $ - $ 4,380.00 STM $ - $ - $ 4,380.0 152922240074 JAMES P WERNER 1963 BARCLAV STN S.F. 0 1 $ - $ 4,380.00 $ 680.00 $ - $ 5,060.0 152922240075 RICHARD J JUKER 1965 BARCLAV STN S.F. 0 1 $ - $ 4,380.00 $ 680.00 $ - $ 5,060.0 Page 2 of 3 Maplewood, MN Preliminary Assessment Roll Exhibit 6 Gladstone North Area Streets Project 04-15 Gladstone North Area Streets Street Assessments Storm Assessments Totals Parcel l0 Taxpayer Street Number Street Class Front Footage Res. Units Comm. Resitlential Previous Assessment Resitlential Comm. Proposetl Assessments $ 8].66 $ 4,386.66 $ 686.66 $ 13.6 162922240076 BERNICE A EKLOF 1973 BARCLAV STN S.F. 0 1 $ - $ 4,380.00 $ 680.00 $ - $ 5,060.0 162922240077 INDEPENDENT SCHOOL 01ST 622 0 MANTON STN SCH 225 0 $ 19,710.00 $ - STM $ - $ 3,060.0 $ 22,770.0 162922240078 OPERATIONS 150 622 1945 MANTON STN SCH 397 0 $ 34,777.20 $ - STM $ - $ 1,360.0 $ 36,137.2 162922240079 INDEPENDENT SCHOOL GIST 622 O MANTON STN SCH 120 0 $ 10,512.00 $ - STM $ - $ 1,632.0 $ 12,144.0 152922240080 INO SCHOOL DISTRICT NO 622 O MANTON STN SCH 80 0 $ 7,008.00 $ - STM $ - $ 1,088.0 $ 8,096.0 152922240081 CHOU YANG 193~ OIETER STN S.F. 0 1 $ - $ 4,380.00 STM $ - $ - $ 4,380.0 152922240082 STEPHEN J CHLEBECK 1970 BARCLAV STN S.F. 0 1 $ - $ 4,380.00 $ 680.00 $ - $ 5,060.0 152922240083 WAGE A VARLANO 1964 BARCLAV STN S.F. 0 1 $ - $ 4,380.00 STM $ - $ - $ 4,380.0 152922240064 RUSSELL KOSTOHRVZ 1997 BARCLAV STN S.F. 0 1 $ - $ 4,380.00 $ 680.00 $ - $ 5,060.0 152922240085 RICHARD J ESBOLOT 1974 DIETER STN OBL 0 1 $ - $ 4,380.00 STM $ - $ - $ 4,380.0 162922240087 SAO LEE O OIETER ST S.F. 0 1 $ - $ 4,380.00 STM $ - $ - $ 4,380.0 TOTAL $ 200,017.08 $ 705,180.00 $ 14,280.00 $ 7,140.00 $ 926,617.08 TOTAL STREET= $ 905,197.08 TOTAL STORM= $ 21,420.00 INFORMATIONAL PARCEL DATA-NOT ASSESSABLE Street Assessments Storm Assessments Totals Parcel 10 Owner Name 1 Street Number Street Class Front Footage Res. Units Comm. Resitlential Previous Assessment Resitlential Comm. Proposetl Assessments $ 8].66 $ 4,386.66 $ 686.66 $ 13.6 152922230001 CITY OF MAPLEW000 O SKILLMAN AVEE MUNC 0 0 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - 162922230036 CITY OF MAPLEW000 O CLARENCE STN MUNC 0 0 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - 162922230036 CITY OF MAPLEW000 O UNASSIGNEO MUNC 0 0 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - Page 3 of 3 EXHIBIT 7 GLADSTONE NORTH AREA STREET IMPROVEMENTS CITY PROJECT 04-15 STREET ASSESSMENT MAP EXHIBIT 8 GLADSTONE NORTH AREA STREET IMPROVEMENTS CITY PROJECT 04-15 STORM ASSESSMENT MAP Agenda #J1 MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: SUBJECT: APPLICANT: LOCATION: DATE: INTRODUCTION Project Description City Manager Ken Roberts, Planner Home Occupation License Mr. David Grupa 1994 Duluth Street November 15, 2004 Mr. David Grupa is requesting that the city approve a home occupation license to operate a digital photography studio. If approved, the photography studio would occupy the entire detached garage located on his property at 1994 Duluth Street. Mr. Grupa would then be required by the city to obtain a building permit to remodel the structure in order to effectively operate the business. Mr. Grupa also will be making exterior improvements in the backyard of the residence to accommodate clients. These improvements will include asix-foot fence for screening and landscaping. (Please see the maps and applicant's statement beginning on page 9). BACKGROUND July 22, 2002: The city approved a home occupation for Ms. Eckhoff to start and operate a portrait photography business from her home at 2443 Montana Avenue. On November 8, 2004, the city council first considered this request and tabled action on it to allow the applicant to make changes to the proposal. DISCUSSION Home Photography Studio The applicant has been in the photography business for several years with a retail location in North Saint Paul since 1981. Due to the dissolution of a business partnership, Mr. Grupa is downsizing and requesting to move the smaller business to his residence. The digital photography studio, planned for the detached garage, will consist of an office, camera room and production studio. The applicant states that he is the only employee of the business which is mostly seasonal with the bulk of consultations in the spring and summer months. The proposed hours of operation are primarily Monday through Friday 10 a.m. to 7 p.m. Occasional weekend appointments are necessary and only on Saturday from 10 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. and on no day will there be overlapping appointments. If approved, Mr. Grupa will be requesting a building permit to remodel the garage. The applicant states there are size, structural and technical limitations that prevent him from using his house for a studio. As such, he is applying for the use of the detached garage for the digital photography studio. These needs are specific to the technical aspects of digital photography including extended space, ceiling heights and lighting needs. (Please see the garage detail and proposed structural changes beginning on page 12). Neighborhood Comments Staff surveyed the property owners within 500 feet of this residence. Of the 59 property owners that the city surveyed, there were 16 responses. Of those, seven were for the proposal and nine were against. (Please see the neighborhood survey map on page 24). Other Comments Tom Ekstrand, the Maplewood Senior Planner, proposed additional screening on the north side of the property. David Fisher, the Maplewood Building Official, stated, "Verify the garage meets the State Electrical Code. Provide a 3-foot door for egress out of the garage. Provide a fire extinguisher. If there are any additions to the garage, a building permit would be required." Dave Kvam, the Maplewood Police Lieutenant for the south district, stated, "After examining the proposal, I do not see any negative impacts on public safety. The change does not appear to be adding any development, dangerous conditions, or increasing traffic to any measurable extent." Chris Cavett, the Maplewood Assistant City Engineer, stated that there were no engineering issues. License Requirements Mr. Grupa is requesting to occupy the detached garage at the residence instead of having the home occupation inside the actual residence. Article II, Section 14-56(b) of the city's zoning code gives 12 requirements for approval of a home occupation license (see attached requirements starting on page 15). Requirement number four states, "An area equivalent to no more than 20 percent of each level of the house, including the basement and garage, shall be used in the conduct of a home occupation." City staff has calculated the percent of square footage attributed to the home occupation, and the square footage of the home, including the basement and garage with the attached screened porch is 2,569.83 square feet. 20 percent of 2,570 square feet is 514 square feet. If Mr. Grupa were to use the entire garage (597 square feet excluding the screened porch) for the proposed photography studio, the amount used would exceed the 20% limit by 3.3 percent (about 80 square feet). However, Mr. Grupa, in response to this concern, has agreed to divide the garage space to reduce the size of the studio to meet the maximum size limit of 514 square feet. (Please see his revision statement on page 26.) The applicant has provided the city with specific reasons why the residence is not suitable for a photography studio and thusly why the garage is more suited for such a business. The ceiling heights inside the home fall short of the necessary nine to ten foot ceilings, the lighting is inadequate and the residence does not have enough extra space for an office and studio. Requirement number five of the city code states, "There shall be no change visible off the premises in the outside appearance of the building or premises that would indicate the conduct of a home occupation, other than one sign meeting the requirements of the city sign code in chapter 44, article 2 IIL" The city believes that the proposed future changes to the exterior of the garage will not be highly visible to the neighbors and will not create a change in the residential neighborhood (See applicant's supplemental packet in response to the public hearing). In fact, Mr. Grupa is proposing to improve the exterior of the garage by adding a bay window, a three to four foot egress door, insulation, an interior-raised roof, and new siding on the exterior. Mr. Grupa, in response to concerns expressed by the city council, has agreed to leave the garage door on the garage structure to make it appear similar to other garages in the neighborhood. The applicant also proposes to construct asix-foot screening fence along the south side of the property line and add some landscaping to the property. SUMMARY The city is aware of one home occupation for a photography studio in the city. This business is located at 2443 Montana Avenue and was approved by the City Council on July 22, 2002. Also, after meeting with Mr. Grupa and researching the photography business, the city has been made aware of the increasing number of home-based business and specifically, photographers working at their residence (See attached Star Tribune article on page 25). There are several factors that led to the home occupation license request including the dissolution of his partnership, the cost of commercial leasing of space and the physical and structural limitations of the residence. RECOMMENDATION Approve the home occupation license for Mr. Grupa of 1994 Duluth Street to have a photography studio in the detached garage. This approval shall be subject to the following conditions: Meet all conditions of the city's home occupation ordinance. This includes: a. No traffic shall be generated by a home occupation in greater volume than would normally be expected in a residential neighborhood. b. The need for off-street parking shall not exceed more than three off-street parking spaces for home occupation at any given time, in addition to the parking spaces required by the residents. c. No equipment or process shall be used in such home occupation that creates noise, vibration, light, glare, fumes, smoke, dust, odors or electrical interference detectable to the normal senses off the lot. d. There shall be no fire, safety or health hazards. e. The studio shall not exceed 514 square feet in area. 2. Customer hours for this home occupation are limited to: Monday through Friday 10 a.m. to 7 p.m. and Saturday 10 a.m. to 5 p.m. 3. There shall be no more than 25 appointments at the business per week. 4. All customers or visitors to the business shall park on the driveway. 5. Provide afive-pound ABC dry chemical fire extinguisher in the garage. 6. The garage and studio wiring shall meet the state electrical code. 3 7. Provide a 3-foot egress exit door out of the garage. 8. Obtain a building permit before construction. 9. The remodeling of the exterior of the north and west sides of the garage shall be consistent with the adjacent properties as to not indicate the presence of a home occupation business. 10. Provide screening along the south border of the backyard from the southeast corner of the house to the south edge of the lot line and extending at least 10 feet along the east lot line. This screening is to ensure privacy and lessen the intrusion for the residence located at 1211 Ryan Avenue. This screening should be in the form of a 6-foot-high solid fence or with the planting of thick shrubs or large trees. 11. There shall be no processing or developing of film on site. 12. The city council may add additional requirements that it deems necessary to ensure that the operation of the home occupation will be compatible with nearby land uses. 13. The city council shall review this home occupation license again in one year. CITIZEN COMMENTS For 1. We have no objection. (Herron - 1106 Ryan Avenue E.) 2. No problem. (Etal -1249 Ryan Avenue E.) 3. Great Idea! I wish Mr. Grupa the best of luck with his new business endeavor. (Ohlson -1706 Barclay Street N.) 4. Mr. Grupa has our full support and endorsement. We wish him the best. (Giesecke - 2023 Duluth Street) 5. I feel no imposition to my family or myself, so long as their business doesn't get too large. I wish them the best of luck and success in their venture. (Dezelar - 1216 Shryer Avenue E.) 6. We support. Good to have neighbors home during the day. No problems. (Rostron - 1211 Skillman Avenue E.) 7. See attached response. (Pontrelli - 2092 Amy Circle, North St. Paul) 4 Against 1. The concerns I have are with the garage remodeling and that not being attractive for future homebuyers. This use may attract a similar use in the future for this residence, as the garage will not resemble a resident garage. Perhaps Mr. Grupa should incorporate the business into the new Gladstone neighborhood development. (Anderson - 2001 Duluth Street) 2. I strongly disagree with this proposal. (Hunt -1981 Duluth Street) 3. I am against the studio in the home at 1994 Duluth Street. This area is zoned as a residential neighborhood. If you let one business in the home in whatever scope, what stops anyone else from requesting a home business such as a beauty salon etc.? (Rohrbach - 2048 Duluth Street N.) 4. We are against the permit, as it will set a precedent in a residential neighborhood that will disrupt the quality of life in this area. The city is redeveloping the Gladstone area to preserve the integrity of the neighborhood and granting this permit would seem to defeat these efforts and plans. We vote no to issuing this permit. (Kelcher -1210 Ryan Avenue E.) 5. This is a residential area, that's what it should stay as. I pay taxes to live in a neighborhood that is without businesses. We have enough traffic on this street now. I do not want this in my backyard. I agree with the letter that Wayne Nelson wrote to you. Mr. Grupa can rent another place he doesn't have to have it on this personal property. I have lived here forty years and I can't believe Maplewood would ever think about giving him a license to do this! (Rasmussen - 1211 Ryan Avenue E.) 6. I know Mr. Grupa from church and have no problems with him personally. However, his business does not belong in a residential neighborhood. I believe he should take his business to a commercial area. (McNulty - 2029 Duluth Street) 7. This area is zoned R-1 ! No business of any kind! We already have multiple family residences, lawn service, auto repair, etc. Who is enforcing the zone laws? Why isn't Mr. Grupa, and the others, located in a business area? I am disappointed in the City of Maplewood. (Trustee of Tait - 2032 Duluth Street) 8. I am not in favor of the home occupation license. I am concerned about traffic and the transformation of the resident garage into a business studio. What about the resale value of the home and our homes? (Long Time Resident) 9. See attached response. (Huntoon, Nelson & Rasmussen - 1995 Duluth Street) 5 REFERENCE INFORMATION SITE DESCRIPTION Existing Land Use: Single-Family Home SURROUNDING LAND USES Single-Family homes to the north, south, east and west and open space also to the west PLANNING Existing Land Use Designation: Existing Zoning: CRITERIA FOR APPROVAL Single Dwelling Residential Single Dwelling Residential Article II, Section 14-56(b) of the city code gives 12 requirements for approval of a home occupation license. Application Date The city received the application for this home occupation license on September 20, 2004. City staff instructed the applicant to illustrate further the proposed garage changes and received such on October 11, 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 December 11, 2004. P/sec16/1994 Duluth Home Occupation PC Attachments: 1. Home Occupation Questionnaire 2. Location Map 3. Zoning Map 4. Site Plan 5. Garage Detail 6. Garage Structural Changes 7. Front V iew of Home at 1994 Duluth Street 8. Front V iew of Garage at 1994 Duluth Street 9. Side and Back View of Garage at 1994 Duluth Street 10. Applicant Statement 11. Home Occupation Ordinance 12. Survey: Huntoon, Nelson & Rasmussen 13. Survey: Pontrelli 14. Neighborhood Survey Results Map 15. Star Tribune Article October 21, 2004 16. Applicant's revision information dated 11-14-04 17. Planning Commission Minutes October 18, 2004 18. Applicant's Supplemental Packet 6 Air~ir 1 ~~~ss„pa~l~ P ~.~ona.4~sp wed): ~ ~ ~ .. . _. __ . ,__ .. ~, _._.. _. ~ ._ .,_. .. .--- i Y ~ _ .... ,Mov~r~r~t ~'~~~. _.. ~' ~i[~r oven ,.. nonr~trt ~ virdu~i ~oi~~ v~oiiid~c~f..- .. .-~- --.._ _ .._ _ ._. .._ ... . ........ .~. __ _ .. f. ~~. . employs yaur [rn~~ _ _ ... .. _ ..~. . _. .... . _..- --.. _w....._ . _ .._ ., _ .. ._ _. _ .. ...... . , ....-- ~- ~-- ~.. - ~ia~ pero~1~~ o~~el'4~ f~~jir'~vrri~.~. fir; in~liir~ I~~~~n~; ~au3d :~.,.r ..... _,_ .... ~• #1 M~4 4~~ T 7tV~R4 iJ4 ~ 9H# ~~l~i1RIF Y~11{R~ ~ UI }~ .. .... ._ " __ ~.._ _. ._. r.._ .._ __ .. .. _ ... _ . .. ... 5, V1~here on #he; pa-ernises +~eq~rld tE~e horns op~ti~n be oonducl~d7 ~ ~ - --- -- 6_ Da~scri6a any anger ~r~ the bde appe~ranc~ of the buildia~g or ~ropeRy, ~IheT than ~rre wall~tt of nova #~an two ~~~ feeC? ~~ ~ 4 7. YVhat per~rge ~f ~rgss sales wow a~rr frorr~ i#~e sal'a o~ a pr~du#(s~ ~oead at#- sate'~ .... _ _ _- - _ _ ~. Fiov~ rnjl+aE r~torrrer or ~e would be p~rrked on the prsrrrieas et ax+y ~~e time? ~ . 9, Describe the hype, payload capity and number of ea#i type Cif vgehk~e ~o used in the hams oaaupn and where fey wvoukl I parked ^~oryll,,~ _ _ ~1~. 4~he# e+ hie evara~e nor of cuaiornera expel! Vi~ft each weep ~ ~e a~sra~e nrumber~ err~p{o~yee~su~hcorrtrsrr vislb~ fo the p~ernEses each ws+e ~ 11~#rat dare of dsy end r~hi days of the weak wos~ki you ec~ vGsitix ac~cu 11. l~escre a~tyjdal~veryrvehic fw~l n~lae 1var3es arahlp pr#tnm~il~ie _ _ P- fr~d~ude type, arr~an'k, hours arrd ~requerr ai• tliekvs. ~....; : ~.,~ .. 7 7 ~3 ~. Deihe tt ~+~e ~f eq~,i~rner~t, indir~g v~n~la#lar~ syaterms, whiff ~rauld be used. Deserit FrQw!you world Icp ~,e use of #hls equlprrreri# ~noe~ibie t~ your ~~. f3escre~e Ih~ amou€~t end i~rpe of en d'~emicels, ~as~i~e~ ha~rdous b~~rwcss ar si~il~r mats~isi that w1d be~ used. ~41so, d~s~iba ~a these rr~ls w#I be shored. _ _ ~.~ 1~. Dc hG.+~rou would dispose a~ a~-y ha~rdous ~natariaJs. . ~~ - -~ .• # , f~rvlr~ 19 8 8 ~- Attachment 2 LOCATION MAP Attachment 3 ZONING MAP 10 ';~. ,,I ~ ~~ ~~ ..-r r .~ . ~s t. ~;.: _~~J ~ ~ - ~~ .. 1 a 1 ~'~. ~• ra. t~+~~ a r. ~r • . y4:. ~.' . 4._,. . ~::... ~~ ~ ~ ~Ft+~~. ?`Jb, F.. .q~ .T _J_3 '~" '~ r{r~. 4, .S~ : ~ ~ ~.k. !. - 7f .- .. ~: f~ 4 - v ~'v- ~ f #~_ ~~~r S 1~- x• Cfi~~ 4•. ^~ .. L..: ,' i~. + ~ ~~'+ • tt' ~~; * k y T. ._~~. .... ::~ ~ a ~ •T. . .,~ ` ~% .. ~. ~.~. '. , ..~'.-~ ~ ~ ., ;;, .. .:A . _:~ ;;~ ~. `~* . x .~ •' .. .:.t.. .. ~n t _ .- ~ ~ _ . .. .. ,. . .. _ ..~.. ~.~ 4.'. . :•~ ,.~~4 ,.{ ....:,;•,A':.. '.. .' ..:..: ~~ r~.~4:.f'' :.`:: ~ .:~ . ~ ... . i~' ~ ~'i..` .,.. au r.f'.ix_~"ra-i ~YY:~ V•.~'~fs Y~±1Y.tf~ ~v+~~..:K .. .r h.:. ri ...1:.1 Y ~ ~.. .... A J Y: r .... - . i :i~5d. 62 :~Y. .. t ~.. r ..~'1~ w.. t. ~ k -. ~... s . U. ~ ~- ~. L s i ~~~ ~ ~~~. V ~ F.. ~ ~ ~ r+ ~ ~ ~t} ~i .,fit ti{; y ~ .. ~:~f~ b ~ ;i ~~~ ~~~ ~ l s ' ~ . ~ + . 4 '~ ry' Y } ....: - . .i~.~'LL T' . . .. .\.S, •~F ~~ :.x.f. ~l }rr _ a~A4~[ ~ __ ~~~~ ~~ S t~i „Y `.}:.. ~r~, ~ •y-1r';r. ~~;~ `'* C:'. ~ ~ n Irirr".~`Y?+'~'~ ~ ~C . '.a ! ,r•5t~ .x. ~ ~ 4 ~ h I~ fr~ ~ +- r ~~ 13 13 ~.. . Front View of 1994 Duluth Street 14 Front View of Garage 1994 Duluth Street 15 Attachment 9 Side and Back View of Garage 1994 Duluth Street M 10 ^:~ - If~- t : _ _ _ ~~ _ r.~. - ~... `y -- ~/~',~~' Vii. ~~~y,~ 4:. ~}.~.~ y. n ~f ¢}''4~+ , ~~.•~lti{7~MM7R~. ~~~ r rti~~ f'• _'F~ l{' }J -}{ /r~~ t;. ,x.. .. t _ :}3 ..., .pF :. :r 5:. . ' Y.,#~~ ~.t~' .,~'~{ 1.~~~.~ .r: ~yx3y:. _~ ~tc~tt~'r••i. ,S .~. i"~, ,~- ~ y ........:..I ... i~V i .::,5 .~ • •~ . _. :54: k kc ~, d ;~ ~- - =Y t Yu ~ ~F~~ 5`~ It 'i h _ .. I. ~~ l.`h~' i.~ - , .~ .• ~~.. .' -.•w :S. s.. .. .,~'-..~. - ~r~ ~.~ t. ~~ . _ ~ x n ~ .., : .,,. t - •I'k r -' ~_ r 5~' - .. ~~}~~' -~ x. _ ~ i ~ +,..~' ry'.r.' - •v. fir. nl+'r_:~¢; r .3;,~~j..: :rr~'S,. ., '.: i-~ •~ Vd S' ... .. :,. f _ , I'-~-{~.rol~t~l ~ .. ~~~J~fr}F.~ r{~+ .~~`~: Y. 'ili_ t]' ~i, '~! ~f ~:' . {r ~. ~..4_Lr _ .. _ - ~s~ .. <~ - ~:.. .r,,, ,. -.. _ - ~~e ~ •'-~ 7~f~ DVS ~ ~ ~ ~ -}r kY ~: i~~ 4~'~:'r';b.:.. Yi',':•.:~. '•~~ Y. .~ :i1 }. .r.W ,'. .t.l'}r k -.~+AL_/^^~~ _~..x-~'P~`f `S; r, .. {:{4 <•}` Y.~ {~' ~ ',1' yY'r+~.;.•~~•:.':~~4yr~-~W ~F ^~1f: .'~%.5! , ., , . . _ ,~ .'. . .. s~.' _r :r .. _ F~ ~~.~'.:. a ~.~. .y ~..~ . . _ _ .. ~~.1 ~~~~,,rrR .. _ ` F. v+~t.'o' . fly, .{ `.,"t .. .. .~`.: ` ,~• ul ~ ~~ - . , .'- r. ~ "•~: - .~ , ~' ' :r , '~ "{ ~ : :, ~ r, ' t .: ".:..t'~ y l.. .: .. '. .' 'b.. ~I- :A'~~~ 1~~s _ _ - `fl 5' - s,.: ry.ry ~. ~:`. .~~ ~ r. v~*C'. . t 5'C . L :,,o;;. '~ .' ~'+ {.. ~i•°' ''{5dr~ ~>'+ yk icei,~,+' ~G• ,y.v - 'L'1 .x:.'f V~S'._~-Ny 47'~' "~~i ~-Ji'L-4'%Y: ,' ~}"Ji.~ ... ~2:. r~' :ti~ v ,,5,: .4.~~ - ~~Y '1,"` .. _. r} .i-ii~;. .n. f{. S !kkM1 ~i.. ,y;-,. ' 'i? _ ~iL:i~- '~~' ' ii 9~S+j~~~[ -'1' '~ic`1fi - - ~-'~ •{' 3 }' '~ 5 Y~r 4r x • ,{ 34 - -.} •,j. ~- : y :~, .:i~... • . r "-+r . . .} •?:;~ ^- ':_ri,' ;'2~5'~ ~ _ -s fro , _ ~~~1. k - '~ f ~'1'' ~ - {~ f. Syr .` ~ it',' . IsM1 ,- _:! - x: .i ~ .~. .. _ ~.'.' +~ ~~ - -.s-- ~ .: F'':I. .:~~ 'l+ tti - '~ri - ?I',~ ,,x_ x}. =r. - "~'.~- ice.' ' ~ ~.. "r ~r.s . ..~ .~'~ni'~ 4 '~ - .. ,~ ... .. .. ^' _ •: - Via-" ,r,- }.;,n~~ - .~} _ - _ t~~^ '~`-:': .~' .~. .. ~ .,, . <. .. r ... , ...:~~r~~~•~'~1 ~.~~7~r '. ''r''.: ~~" k'.: .. 5 y. ~. rti. w~...Y.i •'a'.~'I~P !?`f. ~r~ _i ~~ .. 0 :. s ." _ _ '. t .~ _ ~~ .. .~. .. .:. ~- ^~ ':. .' S~~"~,'yx a'~~M1~'S~ %9'~T.}`.lrhri5s y545, ~'~]?.4 y~".t~.'.i,'y~~~.n' }x:.s2+r'r•if,Xi!x~~~.]S'y '.'2.S$~_:~,~; ,{;r. ry.Tf }.'Y+T ~•S ~. 'W{. ~~K4+y'~~~1. _ ~ r il, i y~ _ ,,s~ ~~}~,. .$ a ~.}+ .:' "~ •J~"~.'F~~ "~.~ ..X 4~. . .y~.. .~' _ _ }. ? ."F s. - - ~ ~ ~'~ ~~ ~s ,.. . .. ' .' 0 . rm. :.k sJ'~ .•5t ' ~ ~ F 4~:~ ~~, ;~7' - '-9 A.'. .f lt:~~ : - f : - J~i ~.: e-' 5VV'•4 - _} . .~ ' ~'~ - :-L~:- J~' .•5.' :f _,}':i''' 'ti .~-~.'k <!..'.47"'~=t:,• `{''''S 'f: orf.{~. :; - ~ {2 - 'fir- u`- ~: ~i%-' ~ %;~~~~~; s~.~: 't';~t,' tir . •.a-r,: P w~L.'f',:~: ='i + '.K" i.:.-~._ .t.,. . x ~•~• ;~,'.. '%Yti '.i•' . 5. - "4~ ~~ ~. .+ -* }: .'~,= _ ~.~~: '~ '} ' ''i.• ~o- ' . _ ' :K~ ',lam" ~4~: ~ a --5 .. l5: ~:1~ 't __ t+ur ..r. X41. ir4 } _ '- ~~4,- '~,•r'~ _~~ - ~ - ,- ,, ..:y fig: y N ..r~ .i ,'.. ~ ri 'ir ° r' _ .p :~.. _ .~w .r 4'',~ :~ - ~~-.: ~V l~ ..}r ." •.}. - t , sk ~ F~-;j .':,4}. o__':stiY = - •~#;,~-zr* r{~~.k=•'~' ~,y+` - .4~r:~'i ~,~ ~' v' 1 .. ` .~ [~ fr J' fi' ~~: 'r. ~ ._53~..'x';'}-~ _- ~'•} ~ ~~ }' ~~~ .~{.. .:fix: S5': t'dl~' ,t.. y 7C "'v - _ i•' :~ lei .~} ~ yy .r _ ~ Tr Yr. Y.q _`~. z~4i~ -j. ~f- 54i .. ~':~~s~r - "~y;p~.. {~yy~r~+?' ~~i i~ _ a.4~' '~T -_ •~ Y. ~L~~ ASV }.~:. ,7 - - r~' .. 2 ~~. ~:el: ~_. l jj ~ ~ i.'.., _ .~ ~:~' ~ :;~ .. ''zr,: ~3'<~ ,t ~ '~~.: '.S,Fa~, •i;:z.f :s.~t~i.^ .~`'~4vtiy~',}^: •. _ir: - .'k. '?£ ~`: ~~' In _ ..~~'~: ,:. ."~F ::+~ - ' ~~h'. r a ,$rF27`'~ -•^W_W °r3,C?' 'i7f.;~a k"..•. C=ir ~' n`Yt~F'~' ~ ~i!6*~~''.'~s#•.'.. .S. ~~ "+~ '~'' I'. 'k ~,,.#. ..jL.a ~. _ i . }~ :~ _ S wrk~:~FA 1 s ~k,yt }'.: ~ 4;tir'r•~ _: •. r ~,, , .~: .} ,.h. _ ' i ~i „ . . ~~ y ti , .~ a" .~ i f~~~ ..~v ~~ ti*?' •' ~-: ~~ ~+' :f{r~ :~ ~v~"~ :.Y: .: ~: L, _~~ W -7- 7 SVC a 't,,Utot5Sru-1, Ul A7�,x KIM 1A lit . M's 0 E :f,- :-. I h.` T5?.--,!.. - - ... _.. I . "Mm _04 Ma iA r'`�. ' r't.'r _ .�rr..'. Ate' _ •r. . . . . . . . . . . . . wvW Mw` . . . . . . . . . . ......... . . piss- ur dt f" - S An! 04", Wpw G :! w" M, NOR >IQ,- r myQ; vw* 0, Ow JKV,Q jots Momy" 00. mU MOOT" ityy "+C;'l�':+�'. .... . . . . . . . _,�..s�';�_....�.�.-f..�:z�:�^:'�._i._T•:�'.�., :.,�,.:�§:'.��.J 3l�e: � ... W -7- 7 SVC a 't,,Utot5Sru-1, Ul A7�,x KIM 1A lit . M's 0 E :f,- :-. I h.` T5?.--,!.. - - ... _.. I . "Mm _04 Ma iA r'`�. ' r't.'r _ .�rr..'. Ate' _ •r. . . . . . . . . . . . . wvW Mw` . . . . . . . . . . ......... . . piss- ur dt f" - S An! 04", Wpw G :! w" r myQ; 0, Lit 2 7. .4 W0 W vaF V - 3 Ny .19 o. IA , 1% . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . '�Nfllfq Par - .4 W0 W vaF V - 3 Ny .19 o. IA , 1% . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . '�Nfllfq Par - e� ._ _x.r ,4:5Y?� Sl_:''I •4� '�Id� '���' � ''v xt1J'+ S J V *dry .+OG¢�n 3i ���,.. , s � ' k+µx �r �, u • M� .k_ ,M1.�I+�.•• l.C'�7 ".�„�:: �' '�I'f� ': 5y�'y,. .r':Y.i' �^. .t �•. � K�.� .r �`i .+r' r �l ,�ti�J-�21. - r tr, ..1'y..b,y�l.�'Y!j'��� }i'���'`' : '.f�_�. i' � �-'� .'} wr.� e+ #'..._: �'�.• �'• •. >:'�..'!. �:{da���.�s+; .�+,'��t,�Fx: � .'I� �� � Yi"' � � ,li#`•} +t#:.- '{2j] _'r` :.{.� � � +2��} }� .� •'l`.,��',..sY �.i ���'-r•��57',� ���•{'�t}'�'i-.3,[�'�y�tri:.: '�J IIl�' •y "r.. .�.,'Y �_k �r. is}, x'� •4E. :- - ,ati-• .�i.5rr¢,j`t f }ppp '•'• :w:�-.�,.:.Y<r";{ ��S',�.fr � �.��� �.rh5�'.:.'• - ,��.•wS'��r,ti: .;c•4.._..r:5.,..�,' � ... ..'i'. •��#T� '�� it �..:. }Y '.:h{ ` � • ' M1'f 'M1I� • .4 i5• .f, ! �,. }r� -�-, JLiLI'J:Sti'�tiY.'ry' 1!�.1'iry'iF^—F'•yav .�i. .v,�. .. �r:•F. - .+� � 'S .l' - �: �. rr- Pi e�fk y•�.��''�< ;�:i �'r ..�'I.F•.-�'.=' r.J'.;� 'ie±: `yy• �1'_- � _ �:r�.{.�1� �7.:M"1+1,5���rls`�i.,��+�,�. �•'a-���`�nl.d.�'"'�.1'•:���r°,��..�,� �':.'r4 w'� t. s'Y�C_ "J !L� .�� ',k'^E,�';, � r ] .?:i,. '. � i•. 'rr ': �:�-� ..A'. y{';; .:_±..x,' ..� F• . =t +� � _ k .i.. r 1 � -' � "s�.�^.`I •#�;+~ �' M1'��:�.�W. .. y'r �S. :}!; xY*'' kM1�-�J�-'�' -pt .- rs 5.'7 'tr ; - zf' _ - S � .ii�� I Y:' '� >_I •d G �J� ci� � `y�Y:l��+ya'r'� }},d -x � �'I'�^'' :�_• ra�.,.�wSx y,�'�'8� ..�"?•-' ;a' ,�-:,�;4' :�,-M1�i''� -- .ti +{"e .:�+.rS 3� l•Fp'k :•�ti � .� ��,iv.i���r+'�Irr�'' � '. F'.: f -.i.- ~, �.,. _ ��.4, �. M1'• , . -. - �}..•...�M1�: • x - - -'fix ' :' .._. :�k�: � � � � t I'' � �+ :•s� 2 � - .5, -� ��K r .i n'.j5' :,i�}` -��k �c `:.� ,X•n �� a :.� � t�. �:...' ' a � ::�rs.... r:':. � i-, e�r . - r NO .�rry - - ��i 1+9' 's��-� :_�'' `.i1'��1" n .�5 [' '.1• F• � - kn NO" p. .a ry�"tn'�"..I . .. *':.;f'. -, ,., ::f . rl; ',Y_G •'.i-.' . F" r� ..� 2 " ..I..._. �' #'..F .f V ;y1!•,y .-� .,+s'..� � ..�.:t,:' µ': e'�.�.$� ., �.�Y.�•o->•.'�-r:: L'�•`.`..�.��17i :"'' f. ..7 �:'�_ x }:';,�,;�; .,; :. _a , • i - wr4� '.:17r _sit.Sry - t+• f. :�•J ldl,i�. +d 1, .h 5. ••..•(( ' ^TY.•s :rf. _.}'2 �}'"11 + I':. ~�I `.71, �-'r.Y •.% -}' � '�v - .. � - I;} '' .µ "= ie.''}4 �-r�.- ' +, ' d�-•'�:. -¢ : �:�k'y'}Yo-� t li:asiga.`: �..i: _ _'7. ��.. I r.k ;'+•. LT �''+�: •. - �iG �, 0. +ice#,'��.'fr•: �.. � .�ir�: tF��y^�k _L•ti•I-Y �� ' {:-y�w£�... ' .. . L.�•. _-.',�J: " '' ; :..5�'" v'_i...•5-t:. {}rte _ 'K .'; .r t'•' ' ..;{?' 1• Y i• �+,. X31- '�.y+ ' � }i }f::�'Ff S+ '?,�:• y x:k� h ry� .. 4�'L }�;.'i .5 '{_ 3}'Ff.�.. .fe.•~ ^' _ -�,. i� ;:�.• �`�?.'J?fib;•' a _ v�� ;�•.`� ;'--'�f; ��r; ° �.`r � ' �d- , �ky'#'�•s wr t!;��'+L•.'^S y . S` _.'�'.d�`�' �'.y-' ,' - _ 5,:+r.r . ', . r _ 7 -�YT. L I N.. I (—; 1—`r `K r Y` r4.' sem - •�•r� . .:,, .t..,}?, :e '"}'~=ate,',- M1 ;' f. . r.p.. ,4. . .ti'-. rt , c`'4 a- .. ^ _ If ,'. ;,#w. ^.L6 red: ;, .1. .g'r.' es ' = .r.'.~ . f-' 'r.- :..-;. *,.;; •I'. %- ,<`t•' �_k:: . ,?'# ,,r'�1.?' :�'�'�" "I�r;;'r:r•'}.,. ,-. +•t..Fx•,..,=':' .JM1.. �+•rtv..ae =.?E' •> �wrr . ±; ., w. kl . t'y .. f' . ;. "'Y ''!-- . �, w,i'+t , '� , C �' . =' ,V,'I <, .' ,7'..i; : * r' .. �- ._ 4 .5 �L,.S ,:'*y,{'.: "� _-' i. f'nS �S. 'Ss .',;" �r,C,.... 5, i I -''•f r f +. f, f:.V,:.. .F - - : •moi yy..�+ _ rF',s,v µ:., .{�i�" •r;:.:,s k. ti if A,'�i'':� - a•'ii:. 'r"... z r "- -- `Y f�,.., Y' #?, LYf f`iS. ", T'+ J '.: ': ': �' 1. :'!��!I ,`�, ::k " .'.. . i. .,� : y r _ ' iG :'.tir ��5511 r '.�'�='n _x r- F'�•"" 4•'._'�{}� mai yy. �,}}%•4" ��.�. Y',JS?'' .i�,.5'. Puha - .}', :;.- r!�F, s'Sr -r,'f lc�: --'_bJ..f+1„rj_p 2. .y, rl's_' 1. ]fy_:•{"'%' _ :. .;.:},C•. ... ,{ +Y- S Y ! f. = :4 �,'.. -i Ar { 'y� -iif ., " -r.. r. ,�1 y—y}"i l - 1=}�"L .. "r'.T�,: ,; _ _ '}J'r,': y'_ '+ r1.•T.: .•.Y,::•' ri "s ', � L ;«-, - - =fin --s,,.--, ''.t I i,'?I'�'12", t rx':.� '*.'.c� 5' :' ..-; 5 }'- #i�: a..ja, it .'.'''. .r, •' "�{:rr.,� s}':,__ !, : ^ w ,_ a}",+1 '• .•F ,Ls.,;({:: 4' •�.ii }�'.=1k iti:' _ ' {'i ,:'i' .."r' ,'•."i' .]r '•xSTy '+r).`'' i• i�_• ti, .: 5.'ti.' _ M1 _ t. . . 5555 .�':J :J;..•ay , 4. rr` �. .+a :. •,'-_ -;' ; r 'k','. , ,c ,:7 •"" •a _ a, 1r i } f�',' %kM1' ' _..8 - . f'34 ,{-,}�.. a :+{' - Y' 'I 'r ti - .' 4'..:',-.. L .. �, % S - s KK. E r. ��Lyy•��� +r,: ...� ' , I } ... Sir.:. r t1_' : •~...k~ '.k'~i••',r•4'. ~'7~~'•, J. yd J~~ "-mil .l .. t _ .5 i' U.'t'AS ~~Lh~"'".'.''.y.~~y~~~ __ y f.s'.~ :Iv ~'r~'~.~3k~ ~tr: ,i: ~ .rc '..' . ~: :^ +a s. .-~;,~~r;rtr ~~ .:e i?'- - ~~}. .r~~•? ,;~`!y? `:~• ..'Iy'ya ii 'a }'L~ ~! __ >+ '.i 'Vi'i' ff _ '~i4 _.f'_ ter'"..'}i +}~~ ; - - '. i> h 1Jh . .. F.~._f,.:'' i. :',~H. ~.(';~.' ~T~ji~',:~4~k~.. ';~' '-s %:d 'f~'~a'~'~'~~' ~..~~r.+'.'e..':?;r'•~y:.~:rFr4,r. - +tli ~~:~1 ?t' .'{.M1 - }+~f 'ry `'•r+'..-'ice ~.~ x .+5v]' ~:;~s :i ' ~/" mil' ~• J~p''SC`-•,'Fl• 4 '+}? '. L' ~ - _ _ } • ..3 : :.7'~' '. ~~ +~l '2~. f{r ' - -, J~- ~' k+ ~ -; } s r''if~ 'M1Yr _ `'.'l:s. M1t ~. 4~+ ~, r~tt"-:•rk S'F'r ~'.. Y.i ~+ {f:. .. ~~ - _r;''::yiM''~ ..}e ~~ ..[ ~}. ~. S!n$~.. ~_ .`~+:,: h ~f riy'"'%~. ~''+ -~Fw n ~"_.,a .:{?,~V •~, +w. ~- '~ '~'? .t. .M1'S.~i - r ~'i ilpl } +{~... .rss1:..{ +'i: .. ? M1 ~~ ;- ~ - ~yh,: _.}tr'sy~:` ~ 'y~`•, ~:,y x•1.4 ~~~~+}~5~~~. - }v'i. ~-° ~`~ av.,'"{.z. s. ;k~p• :~~: 5:~ :t .=k = ' }y,,fr~~: 5 J: ~ r., ~ +' •+.4~.. ~.3., .~._ ~y' 1 :' h is .h F-:: ~ ~}s¢r ss~~.'.'+;...: ~'4'.:-.':'.x 5:i~'t'Te'+ _F~y Y' •iCyi •I.'S~~~xrfi- ~~~. F~-r*4' lJ''~•''x• 1~µ .i '~~~ - - .#}'`'-* ~~y f~.'t~t~..•~, ~, ~f-; •~t _ H ~. ` r'R •''.'~ ~'] ."Stl-a~ ' + M1. M1-M1 ~'"~ ~~Y `'fair,..-'?;,+~^•, c7 _ ~: y~:. ~~ ~ ..k~+~ k' I .'S . ..~}~+. ~.~ti .' a ..~~i3 :I.s~~ - / .'~ y M1 ~$ F.' S ,~4} .~~ :~.~:;; - ~:44~x. ~;;;~~ 4~-.~, "5} * r~: :~ 3.f i _ ~ fk_ .y~•~-: M1'f'f ~+ ~ . x~ .•r.L_i'4} ~. r. :' 4t.~ .~:?~ ~'v-~ ~ .~' ~`~_~ ... -- ~~~ .~? 4.~~'~~~ ~,hc-: :'~"~'~~': S .. _, ~'. tr'.4 _ t~si4~~.=, ~: ~ '~~=~ . _ t ~..'r'~.. . ~_.:-~ ~u i ~ N:M1~.4-L `$~~'kri .., ~ ~ After the November 8t" meeting with the Maplewood City Council, I am revising my request for a Home Occupation License to include the following: i. A garage door will remain on the garage structure so as to make it appear similar to other garages in the neighborhood. The door may or may not be operational, depending on the mechanics of insulating the interior. One way or another, there will be a garage door in place that can be made operational upon sale or reassignment of the structure. 2. The interior space available in the garage will be reduced by 80 square feet in order to meet the 20% maximum usage requirement. A divider will be placed to separate the personal storage space from the business. In a conversation on Friday, November 12t" with City Building Inspector Nick Carver, it was stated that as long as the area being divided is under 100 square feet, there should be no need to erect a permanent physical wall. A curtain or other divider defining the spaces would be acceptable under building codes. It is my hope that these modifications will satisfy the Maplewood City Ordinance requirements as well as current concerns of the City Council and those in my neighborhood, and that I may be granted a license to proceed with relocation of my photographic studio as a Home Occupation. Respectful) Submitted, David L. Grupa 1994 Duluth Street Maplewood MN 55109-3415 651-748-8779w 651-481-1388h 26 DRAFT MINUTES OF THE MAPLEWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION 1830 COUNTY ROAD B EAST, MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA MONDAY, OCTOBER 18, 2004 V. PUBLIC HEARING (6:06 p.m.) a. Home Occupation License -David Grupa Photography (1994 Duluth Street) Ms. Rose Lorsung said Mr. David Grupa is requesting that the city approve a home occupation license to operate a digital photography studio. If approved, the photography studio would occupy the entire detached garage located on his property at 1994 Duluth Street. Mr. Grupa would then be required by the city to obtain a building permit to remodel the structure. Mr. Grupa also will be making exterior improvements in the backyard of the residence to accommodate clients. These improvements will include asix-foot fence for screening and landscaping. Commissioner Dierich motioned for a five minute recess due to lack of technical support at 6:10 p. m. Commissioner Bartol seconded. Ayes -All Chairperson Fischer called the meeting to order again at 6:13 p.m. Commissioner Pearson wanted to make sure that if the applicant were to sell his home with the home photography business located in the garage that the license for a home occupation would no longer be valid. Ms. Lorsung said that is correct. If the applicant were to sell his home the home occupation license would no longer be valid and if the new homeowner wanted to have a home occupation license they would have to apply to the city for a new license. Commissioner Trippler said in the opening presentation staff stated that the hours of operation would be Monday through Friday 10:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. and an occasional weekend appointment. In the applicant"s letter it stated an occasional evening appointment. Which is correct, an occasional weekend or an occasional evening appointment? Ms. Lorsung said Mr. Grupa has stated there would be very few weekend appointments with no overlapping appointments. Commissioner Trippler said he wanted to make it clear that if this passes with the city council with the conditions listed as Monday through Friday 10 a.m. to 5 p.m. with an occasional weekend appointment that there are no misunderstandings. He asked if there were evening appointments after 5:00 p.m. or weekend appointments could his permit be pulled because it wasn"t in compliance with the criteria as stated by city staff. Mr. Ekstrand said if there were a violation of the rules staff would talk to the applicant. If they were proposing a change to the rules that had been established by the city council then staff would bring the item back to the city council for a revision. Planning Commission -2- Minutes of 10-18-04 Commissioner Trippler said if the applicant turned the garage into a photography business where would Mr. Grupa park his car? According to Sec. 14-57 item (3) it states no vehicle associated with the home occupation, including customers or employees, shall be parked on the street or block sidewalks or public easements. Private vehicles used by the residents shall not be included in this subsection. Commissioner Trippler asked if that meant the applicant could park on the street. Ms. Lorsung said Mr. Grupa would have limited vehicles per client and those clients would park on the driveway. There is enough space in the driveway for approximately four vehicles so there should not be a need to park on the street. Commissioner Trippler said his next question is regarding Sec. 14-57 item (4) which states: An area equivalent to no more than 20 percent of each level of the house, including the basement and garage, shall be used in the conduct of a home occupation. In his estimation the garage is more than 20% of the upper level of the house. Ms. Lorsung said the city staff has calculated the square footage and it slightly exceeds 20% at 21'/2 %. Mr. Grupa is applying for this home occupation to be located in his garage due to the physical limitations of the home. The home is about 1600 square feet and 800 square feet are not finished in the basement. Commissioner Trippler asked if staff calculated both the upper and lower level together. Mr. Trippler thought it should be calculated based on each level. Ms. Lorsung said she believed the code stated the calculation of the entire square footage of the house including the non-finished square footage. Behind the garage is a screened porch that does not include the interior square footage of the detached garage. The screened porch is around 8" X 6" and the garage roughly measures 24".9 X 22". Commissioner Trippler said according to Sec. 14-57 item (5) it states: There shall be no change visible off the premises in the outside appearance of the building or premises that would indicate the conduct of a home occupation, other than one sign meeting the requirements of the city sign code in chapter 44, article lll. Mr. Trippler said if the applicant removes the garage door, puts siding on the garage and athree-foot wide garage door facing the street, the garage would definitely appear to be no longer a standard garage. Ms. Lorsung said Mr. Grupa is proposing to remove the garage door and side that area of the garage to accommodate the home occupation business and the entrance door would be located on the south side of the garage not the front side of the garage. Commissioner Bartol said Commissioner Trippler raised some excellent points. He asked if the division 2 home occupations were rules or guidelines. Sec. 14-57 item (5) that Commissioner Trippler quoted regarding the garage door does not make sense to him. If the applicant went before the commission for approval for the building and before the design review board for approval of the sign which means a home occupation is here, item number (5) doesn"t make sense to him. Maybe it makes sense as a guideline but as a rule it doesn"t seem appropriate. Planning Commission -3- Minutes of 10-18-04 Ms. Lorsung said for a home occupation sign the guideline is the sign has to be 2" X 2" and can be posted in front of the home with the required setback. Mr. Ekstrand or Ms. Coleman would have to address the issue of this being a rule or a guideline. Staff reviews the home occupation licenses every year to ensure the applicant is following the conditions. Commissioner Bartol said reviewing the home occupation license every year is a good idea but that does not answer if these are guidelines or rules. Ms. Coleman said these are guidelines and city staff can alter them to address the concerns of the home occupation in the neighborhood and the impacts. If the commission is concerned about visibly changing the character of the garage the commission can recommend that the garage should look like a garage. There are many home occupation signs in the city and city staff has not had problems with them. Ms. Coleman said single family homes are not required to have a garage, so that information could be factored into the equation as well. Commissioner Bartol said he understands people are not required to have a garage but they could have a large storage shed which would not have a typical garage door on it. In his opinion, there is nothing aesthetically pleasing about a garage door. The fact that Mr. Grupa is going to remove the garage door and replace it with a much smaller door as well as siding is no less aesthetic, it would simply imply that cars are not parked in the garage. Ms. Coleman said that business licenses can have a subjective view point considered in their deliberations. On a side note she said she purchased a home with a tuck under garage with two garage stalls where the previous owner had a home occupation. The previous owner parked their cars outside of the garage and stored the garage doors in the shed, however, she wanted to park cars in the garages. When she purchased the home they told her the doors could easily be put back on the garages. Those types of architectural details can be changed and she just wanted the commission to be aware of that. Ms. Coleman said the situation with Mr. Grupa"s garage could be a buyer beware situation if Mr. Grupa were to ever sell his property. Commissioner Bartol had no knowledge of the city"s fencing guidelines and requirements. He said Mr. Grupa did not point out where the fence would go on his plan and asked if staff could give further information on the fencing guidelines and the fence plan. Ms. Lorsung said Mr. Grupa is proposing to have a fence on the south side of the yard and use it for screening as a backdrop and to appease the neighbors. City staff has told Mr. Grupa that the fence can be no higher than six feet tall otherwise a building permit is required along with permission from the city. He would also plant large trees or shrubs for additional screening. Commissioner Dierich said she believed codes were not a suggestion but were rules for the city to live and build by. She would hate to see codes considered a suggestion rather than the law. The city chose and selected these codes and she does not see these as guidelines. And for that reason she believed there should~ve been a variance with Sec. 14-57 number (4) and (5). Ms. Coleman said the home occupation is a license the city issues. Although it is contained in the city code the city can set conditions on the license or conditional use permit to place protections for the neighbors. Planning Commission -4- Minutes of 10-18-04 Ms. Coleman said in addition, the city staff reviews the home occupation license everyyearwhich gives the city staff additional control, because if conditions aren"t being met or activities change the city can require a new hearing and possibly revoke or change the conditions of the permit. Commissioner Dierich said she would agree with Ms. Coleman but if the commission is uncomfortable with this maybe the city should have a variance for Sec. 14-57 item number (4) and (5) or some type of exemption or prevision in the code. Ms. Coleman said the city staff could propose ordinance changes to make the home occupation permit process more flexible. Chairperson Fischer asked the applicant to address the commission. Mr. David Grupa, the applicant residing at 1994 Duluth Street, Maplewood, addressed the commission. He said he has lived in this home for one year and is looking to move his photography studio from a retail location in North St. Paul to his home. As the immediate past president of the Minnesota Professional Photographers Association and a state counselor to the Professional Photographers of America, recent data provided to them showed that nearly 50% of member photographic studios are home based. This trend is continuing nationally on an upward climb as the economy drives small business owners to become more financially responsible with their resources. He operates a low volume photographic studio. He does wedding photos and portraits. He won"t be doing any photo processing at this location. If he is allowed to have his home occupation business he would be an extra set of eyes watching out for the neighborhood while other residents are at work during the day which would increase safety in the neighborhood. His business is done by appointment only and his appointments last about 1 hour to 1-1/2 hours. This is his home and he intends on making this a warm and welcoming place for people to visit and his business wouldn"t degrade the neighborhood. Commissioner Trippler asked if it would be possible for the applicant to have the home occupation business without making the garage look like a business is being run there? Mr. Grupa said he can"t have the garage look like a garage. If people pulled up to his garage and it looked like someone was doing business out of a garage it would affect peoples opinion of the quality of his product. He has been in the industry for 28 years and has operated out of retail shops in the past because retail space was available at a reasonable rate. He is currently conducting business in a 2,400 square foot space that charges $3,000 a month for rent and he can"t afford that. He needs space to shoot photography, space to meet with clients and space to assemble wedding albums. The garage space would work well for this but would be a major change for him from what he is used to. The entrance door could be in a few different places depending on what the building code says. He spoke with the building department at the City of Maplewood and was told he has to have a minimum door size of 36-inches wide. He has been looking at doors and thinks he may want a 42-inch wide door for ease of getting things in and out of the space. The current entry door is only 30 inches wide and is too narrow. Chairperson Fischer asked the applicant if he read the conditions in the staff report and if he had any questions and if he was comfortable with the report? Planning Commission -5- Minutes of 10-18-04 Mr. Grupa said the only issue he sees is that he sees customers one evening a week, which is normally on Tuesday evenings. This is for customers that work during the day and can only come in the evening. Because he wants to spend more time with his children his hours end at 7:00 p. m. Commissioner Bartol asked how old his children were. Mr. Grupa said he has a 15 and 13 year old son. Commissioner Bartol said whether or not this passes, he applauds Mr. Grupa for wanting to work from home to be closer to his children during the critical years, his goals are admirable. Commissioner Dierich said she would recommend that the width of the door be widened for wheelchair accessibility. In the past the city has had home occupation license hours from 7 a.m. to 7 p.m. and she does not see any problems with extending the working hours. Ms. Coleman said she believes Commissioner Dierich is correct and the city looks at things on a case by case basis. Keep in mind that this is a public hearing and if people testify one way or another their feelings of hours of operation could be a factor for the commission. Commissioner Dierich asked if this item was going to go to the CDRB for design review? Ms. Coleman said no; it only goes to the Planning Commission and to the City Council. Commissioner Dierich asked the applicant if he would be amenable to putting windows in place of the garage door? Mr. Grupa said he cannot put windows on that side because it faces west and the lighting would be a problem. The north side is the side for lighting and is what a photographer dies for. He would like to put a bay window in with a seat so he can use window light in addition to studio lights. Chairperson Fischer asked others in the audience who want to speak regarding the home occupation license at 1994 Duluth Street to address the commission. Mr. Wayne Nelson, 1995 Duluth Street, Maplewood, addressed the commission. He stated the screened porch on the backside of Mr. Grupa"s garage will be used for storage but was not included in the calculation of the proportional development as part of the proposal even though it would be used. He and his wife are outraged that this proposal has gotten this far. He has discussed this with the surrounding homeowners and four out of five neighbors are against this proposal. When Mr. Grupa announced he was seeking a license to have a photography business in his basement he said he would support this as long as it would be looked at every year by the city so the neighborhood did not become commercialized. Tonight"s proposal is not what Mr. Grupa told the neighbors he planned to do. Planning Commission -6- Minutes of 10-18-04 Mr. Nelson said now Mr. Grupa is proposing to run his photography business out of his garage, make it taller than the other garages in the neighborhood, and make the front of the garage appear differently than the other garage doors in the neighborhood. He doesn"t see how Mr. Grupa is going to move from a 2,400 square foot space to a 440 square foot garage space and make it appear he is not running a business out of his garage in a residential neighborhood. He said when he looks out his living room window he would be looking at a garage that is turned into a home business if this proposal gets approved. Mr. Grupa said he would have four to five customers a week. This is a ridiculous understatement, in order to have a successful business he would have to have more than four to five customers a week. Mr. Grupa has two teenage boys that will be driving soon and where will they park their cars if customers park on the driveway. Mr. Nelson said Mr. Grupa is the newest neighbor to move into the neighborhood and he is the one that wants to change the image of the neighborhood. Last year Mr. Grupa put many bright holiday lights up which shined into Mr. Nelson"s windows at night. If he was that inconsiderate to not ask if the lights were a problem what might Mr. Grupa do with the lighting for this home occupation? If Mr. Grupa were to do a mass mailing to increase his customer base and it draws more business, where would those customers park. He is irate about this proposal and said the city should be on notice that if this home occupation license gets approved he would be moving. He researched neighborhoods before moving here and relishes the quietness and darkness of the neighborhood. He has done substantial home improvements to his home and will be getting a home evaluation to see what his home is worth. If this home occupation business gets passed and it lowers the price of his home there will be a lawsuit against the city of Maplewood. Mr. Russ Birkholz, 1989 Duluth Street, Maplewood, addressed the commission. He said that he has a problem with this proposal as well. He moved into his house 13 years ago and has a 2'/2 car garage. He has a problem with a business operating out of a garage because the neighbors will have to look at it. He hopes Mr. Grupa has a very successful photography business, but elsewhere. If he did have this photography business in his home maybe he could add onto his home to run this business. This is a great neighborhood to raise kids, there is very little traffic in the neighborhood and it is very quiet. His property backs up to Keller golf course, it is very quiet and you can enjoy the stars. Leave the garage structure as it is, he has no problem with the privacy fence, and if Mr. Grupa wants this business here he should have it inside the house so no one can tell a business is operating there. If he would"ve known that someone could operate a home occupation from their garage he might not have bought a house in this neighborhood. This home occupation would not make him move out of the neighborhood because he recently built an addition on the house and likes the neighborhood and the school district. If there were nine neighbors ~againstm this and six form this proposal this should be a sign to the city council that the neighborhood does not want this to go forward. Ms. Suzanne Anderson, 2001 Duluth Street, Maplewood, addressed the commission. The concern she and her husband have is the look of the garage. Once the garage is converted she believes it would be tough to sell the home as a residential home and no garage. It would be very difficult to put a garage door back on the structure after you have made substantial changes. She also believes this change would affect the value of the surrounding homes as well. Planning Commission -7- Minutes of 10-18-04 Commissioner Bartol said he wonders what is so aesthetically pleasing about a garage door and what is so grotesquely pleasing about a bay window? Heys at a loss after hearing the neighbors concerns. The original presentation made by Mr. Grupa was appropriate. With this home occupation Mr. Grupa would become a lookout for the neighborhood, the applicant is cognoscente of the appearance of his property and would maintain the appearance. He is willing to add additional landscaping to enhance the property which would also help his business. Commissioner Bartol said he would anticipate more traffic and obtrusiveness from a home daycare center than what this home business would generate. He wonders why this home occupation could lower property values. If Mr. Grupa were to sell his property in the future it would be in his best interest to make his property marketable with whatever measures were needed to sell the property. Commissioner Trippler said he doesn"t think people are against the photography business as a whole. He has a group home next door to his house that was built two years after he built his home. Nobody asked him for his opinion. They assured him traffic would not be a problem, it is. They assured him cars would not be parked on the street, there are. He was assured the group home would not disrupt his life, it has. This neighborhood is a single family, quiet residential neighborhood and every house and garage look like a house and a garage. He thinks the objection the commission hears is people don"t want a business across the street from where they live. It may be more aesthetically pleasing to have a nice garage door on the garage. After speaking to the neighbors they were apparently under the impression that when they were first contacted this business would operate from Mr. Grupa"s basement. After the application came out the neighbors discovered the business would be run from the garage and that the garage would be altered to look like a business is operating there. Commissioner Bartol said it sounds like if the business were run from the basement the neighbors would be more agreeable to this and if it"s in the garage then it"s not okay. What is the difference if Mr. Grupa escorts the customers to the basement or to the garage? The level of traffic hasn"t changed, the signage hasn"t changed, and the only thing that would be different is whether or not the garage door is there. A garage door is not necessarily an attractive feature. People would make appointments to see Mr. Grupa and he would have a relatively small sign outside his business so people know they are at the right place. Commissioner Dierich said she doesn"t think the issue is what the garage ~doorm looks like. The expectation is that when the neighbors moved here this was a residential neighborhood. Whether it"s a daycare in the home or another business run out of the home it is an intrusion for the neighbors. The city council will have to make the final decision based on the number of neighbors that have voiced their concern against the proposal and how many neighbors are okay with this proposal. She doesn"t see this home occupation as a problem. She is not concerned with how the garage door looks like, she doesn"t see traffic as a concern, and she suspects it boils down to what the neighbors want or don"t want. That is the right every one of us would want in our own neighborhood which is the right to say ~yesm or nom to something in the neighborhood. Commissioner Dierich moved to approve the home occupation license for Mr. Grupa of 1994 Duluth Street to have a photography studio in the detached garage. This approval shall be subject to the following conditions: (deletions are stricken and additions to the motion are in bold.) Planning Commission -8- Minutes of 10-18-04 1. Meet all conditions of the city"s home occupation ordinance. This includes: a. No traffic shall be generated by a home occupation in greater volume than would normally be expected in a residential neighborhood. b. The need for off-street parking shall not exceed more than three off-street parking spaces for home occupation at any given time, in addition to the parking spaces required by the residents. c. No equipment or process shall be used in such home occupation that creates noise, vibration, light, glare, fumes, smoke, dust, odors or electrical interference detectable to the normal senses off the lot. d. There shall be no fire, safety or health hazards. 2. Customer hours for this home occupation are limited to: Monday through Friday 10 a.m. to ~7 p. m. 3. There shall be no more than 20 appointments at the business per week. 4. All customers or visitors to the business shall park on the driveway. 5. Provide afive-pound ABC dry chemical fire extinguisher in the garage. 6. The garage and studio wiring shall meet the state electrical code. 7. Provide a 3-foot egress exit door out of the garage. 8. Obtain a building permit before construction. 9. Provide screening along the south border of the backyard from the southeast corner of the house to the south edge of the lot line and extending at least 10 feet along the east lot line. This screening is to ensure privacy and lessen the intrusion for the residence located at 1211 Ryan Avenue. This screening should be in the form of a 6-foot-high solid fence or with the planting of thick shrubs or large trees. 10. There shall be no processing or developing of film on site. 11. The city council may add additional requirements that it deems necessary to ensure that the operation of the home occupation will be compatible with nearby land uses. 12. The city council shall review this home occupation license again in one year. Commissioner Bartol seconded. Ayes Bartol, Desai, Dierich, Fischer Nays Grover, Lee, Pearson, Trippler The motion has failed due to a tie vote and therefore is denied. This item goes to the city council on November 8, 2004. Planning Commission -9- Minutes of 10-18-04 Commissioner Pearson said the planning commission has had other home occupation license applications come before them in the past but none that have altered the appearance of a building in order to do business. Because this doesn"t meet the fifth requirement of the Maplewood city code he will not be supporting this proposal. There is a 90% chance that with the future sale of this property something else could go in this location. The garage is going to be altered to the point that it will never look the same again. Commissioner Trippler said he too will not be supporting this proposal because it violates two of the conditions that are stipulated in the code Sec. 14-57 (4) and (5) and he believes that based on the fact that the applicant stated he was going to have weekend appointments that is against the recommendation being proposed. Finally he is not supporting this because the neighbors have voiced rather strong objections to having this business in the neighborhood. When there are nine people opposed to this he believes the commission has to honor the neighbor"s objections. Commissioner Dierich said if the planning commission were to see another application like this she would recommend staff require a variance for Sec. 14-57 number (4) and (5) of the code for the planning commission to vote comfortably. Commissioner Bartol said he would agree with Commissioner Dierich however, he heard from staff that these were guidelines and not the letter of the law. Because these were guidelines he thought it was the city"s responsibility to apply some judgment or some built in variances to it. He doesn"t think what makes or breaks a neighborhood is whether the percentage of the property being used for the business is 15%, 20%, or 30% or whether it is a basement or garage. He doesn"t think it has much to do with the appearance of the garage. If the property were to change hands and Mr. Grupa were to sell the property somebody could not move in and start another business there without coming before the city council. The best the planning commission can do is to provide citizens of Maplewood with sound and quiet neighborhoods but also the opportunity to bring their businesses home. Home offices and home schooling are on the increase. People are trying to reduce their commute times and the consumption of energy. He is not convinced it is wrong to bring home businesses into our neighborhoods. People have garage doors opened, they are tuning cars, cars are running and fumes are everywhere, some garages are a mess inside and in his opinion garages are not the euphoria. o~ erica David L. Grupa 2543 East 7th Avenue Saint Paul, MN 55109 Goober 28, 2004 Dear r. Grupa: Thank you for your inquiry regarding "in-home" photography studios. Since a significant number of our 14,000 members operate their businesses from their homes, the zoning and licensing issues you are facing are of particular interest to us. The concerns that most city authoritios have with any home-based business usually fall under the broad headings of public health, safety, morality and welfare. High-end, low-volume photography operations do not typically offend any of these points. Indeed, wo find that such photography operations pose significantly fewer problems in residential areas than other popular home-based businesses. Far example, private music teachers and in-home daycare providers have a far greater impact an traffic patterns and infrastructure than a photography studio. An in-home daycare with six clients will generate a rninimurn of 12 car trips per day, plus the attendant strain on the residential utilities system. Likewise, a music teacher offering private lessons every evening in 30-minute intervals will generate 8 roundtrips --double that if the child's transportation goes elsewhere during the appointment and returns at the end. The number is substantially higher for those private music teachers that offer lessons throughout the day. In contrast, ahome-based photography studio is an extraordinarily low-impact business generating very few visitors. With the limited number of clients these businesses serve, the number and frequency of visits to the home office of a photographer are indistinguishable from normal residential traffic patterns. Similarly, any impact on residential infrastructure by a home-based photographer is negligible. In opposing photographer requests to maintain a home studio, neighbors or other parties will sometimes resort to arguing the studio might cause problems at some time in the future by becoming disruptive or harmful to the surrounding community. In addition to being based solely on speculation, this type of prospective argument ignores three very important realities. The first is that professional photography is a relationship based business. It is completely against the studio owner's best interests to develop a reputation for being disruptive to his neighbors or for his home to have any sort of unsightly appearance. News of this sort will invariably get back to his clientele and causes a decrease in business. Second, even if the home-based studio decided to conduct business in an inappropriate manner, the studio owner is still subject to state and local laws regarding private nuisances. This mechanism provides neighbors faced with a truly "nuisance" home business an opportunity to litigate the matter an their own when necessary --and likely only after the neighbors have attempted to come to some resolution of the matter on their own and failed. This approach fairly targets bad behavior while permitting law-abiding ontroproneur- homeowners to continue their legitimate business activities. Finally, and perhaps most importantly, the very act of exposing themselves to public comment before a governmental body and formally seeking a license is an extraordinarily strong indicator that a business owner is not likely to be so irresponsible as to violate any appropriate ordinances or create a nuisance. This is in contrast to those owners who-either out of ignorance or willful avoidance-never make this type of investment in properly setting up their business. If you have any questions regarding this matter, I can be reached at 800-339-5451, ext. 253. Sincerely, Stephen P Morris Gperations Manager, Copyright and Government Affairs Professional Photographers of America 229 Peachtree St. 111E • Surte 2200 • Atla.ntu, GA 30303 • ~0~1522-8600 • 8001334-551 • FAX ~O~I61 ~-6400 • www.p~a.com David Grupa ~o rtra it Home Occupation Proposal 1994 Duluth Street David L. Grupa 651-748-8779 Studio 651-481-1388 Home 651-983-8880 Mobile DLGrupaCalmail.com The pages that r7pper7r in thi ~ ,va cAcet are designe ~ tv p c ovicle i n r5o rmation to 1711/1f~i7~`e~ After over 28 years in the photography business, the impending breakup of my business partnership has forced me to relocate my studio, currently located at the corner of 7t" Avenue and Margaret Street in downtown North Saint Paul. Due to the limited availability and affordability of a studio location offering an area that provides adequate physical space, I have decided to follow a rapidly increasing industry trend and move the studio into my Maplewood home. ~ A move to my residence would allow me to continue in what is a very family-oriented profession. ~ A residential studio promotes the feeling of warmth and personalized service that clients seek. ^ Maintaining the studio in my place of residence is a personally and economically responsible decision for a number of reasons. 1. It allows me to keep my overhead at a manageable level and provide some financial stability in an otherwise questionable economy. 2. It reduces my consumption of petroleum products by eliminating my daily commute. 3. It allows me to be a better parent by being more available to my teenage sons. Many other types of businesses are successfully operated from a home setting, including (but not limited to): ~ Music teachers (piano, guitar, etc.) ;~ Accountants /Tax preparers ~ Attorneys ;.~ Day Care /Child Care Providers Please review the following pages regarding this business, and feel free to contact me with any questions. Your support is very necessary, and highly appreciated. David L. Grupa • _ r~ y ~ j In 1976, David Grupa helped form Spectrum Images, afull-service photography studio committed to serving the needs of clients on the Twin Cities Metro area and Greater Minnesota. A member of the Professional Photographers of America since 1977, David earned the distinction of PPA Certified Photographer in 1995. In 1998, his outstanding image making and contribution to the profession as a speaker, an author, and a mentor helped him become only the 5th individual to simultaneously earn the respected Master of Photography and Photographic Craftsman degrees from the PPA. In 2002, he added the Fellowship and Service degrees to his MPPA Accredited Photographer status, making him only the 5th member in the 76-year history of the organization to earn all three honors. His dynamic personality and high-energy approach make him a natural for artistic photography; his fun-loving style is a favorite among wedding parties. David's talents also include creative portraiture of high-school seniors, families and their young children. David's numerous award-winning wedding and children's images have been selected for display in both the PPA and MPPA Traveling Loan Collections. He serves on the Board of Directors of the MPPA (Minnesota Professional Photographers Association), and is aPast-President of both the MPPA and the TCPPA (Twin Cities Professional Photographers Association). In November 2003, he was elected as one of Minnesota's National Councilors to the PPA. Grupa also shares his industry knowledge through teaching and speaking to groups around the country. Since 2000, David has also coordinated the North Saint Paul Area Holiday Drive, an effort committed to bringing Christmas to children in the North Saint Paul / Maplewood / Oakdale school district. David Grupa with sons Mark (15), and Joseph (13). front views of 1994 Duluth Street David Grupa ~ Original letter sent to ~ Information given to ~o rtra it neighbors Planning Commission ~ Neighbor objections and responses Hi Neighbor! Perhaps we've already met, or maybe you've seen me out in the front yard playing catch with my sons at my home at 1994 Duluth St. Since 1976, I have been an owner of Spectrum Images, Inc., a photography studio specializing in wedding, children, and family portraiture. Since 1981, the studio has been operated out of retail locations, primarily out of convenience to our clients. While a retail location was highly visible, the nature of this business does not depend on walk-in or drive-by traffic. Due to recent industry trends and the impending dissolution of my business partnership, I am looking to downsize and move the business to my residential location. Many of my colleagues operate successful studios in this scenario. Photography is a personal business, and clients want a personal touch and relationship. A residential studio promotes this warmth. The City of Maplewood will be contacting you in the next few days; I ask that you support the move of my studio into my home. For the reasons I've outlined here, it would not be disruptive to this neighborhood. All studio business is handled by appointment. There is no walk-in traffic or "over-the-counter" sales. Portrait appointments and wedding consultations are normally handled between loam and Spm, with an occasional evening meeting. ~ The bulk of my clients are generally families having children photographed, and young engaged couples seeking wedding photography. Since a professional lab does all processing of photographs, there would be no resulting "waste chemistry" for disposal. Because I am able to service only one client at a time, appointments are not double-booked. Vehicle traffic will be minimal, and parking in my driveway is provided. ~ Changes in the appearance of my residence will be minimal, other than the potential addition of landscaping. ~ Minimal appropriate signage will be used according to Maplewood City Ordinance. (No larger than 2 square feet.) Please feel free to contact me with any questions or concerns. You can learn about me on my new website; www.DavidGrupaPortrait.com - I am excited about the possibilities! Regards, David L. Grupa 651-748-8779 ofc 651-481-1388 home DLGrupa@mail.com - -- z - 1994 Duluth St Maplewood, MN 55109 651-481-1388 home As the Immediate Past-President of the Minnesota Professional Photographers Association (MPPA) and a State Councilor to the Professional Photographers of America (PPA), recent data provided to us shows nearly 50% of all MPPA Member photographic studios as home-based. The trend continues on an upward climb nationally with over 53% of all member studios in the home as the economy drives small business owners to become more financially responsible with their resources. ~ Be a quiet, good neighbor. o My clients are couples seeking wedding photography, families with children, and individuals seeking professional portraiture. Have an extra set of eyes available in the neighborhood during daytime hours. o There will be activity during the daytime while many residents are working, thus improving safety and security in the neighborhood. A /n w- vn!'ume resiclen t i~/,ahvta grr7~hiC St "u cJ iol wi//not 1 Become a bustling retail outlet o My business operates •• IrF~i(~~+ o Appointments generally last around 1 hour. ~ Generate excessive traffic o Most low-volume studios have approx 100 clients annually; based on an average of 3 visits per client, this is less than 300 client-visits annually. o Compare that to a home day-care, which may experience 6-8 (or more) cars . + (AM drop-off and PM pickup) o Fewer cars and people than a neighborhood garage sale o People who have regular family get-togethers or entertain often will generate more street traffic. Be an eyesore o Clients coming in want to see a warm and inviting environment; this means my property will continue to be well-maintained. ~ Degrade the neighborhood o Please remember, this is still my home. I will continue to live and raise my boys here! Listed are concerns raised by those who spoke in opposition to the Home Occupation License for 1994 Duluth Street. Those comments are bulleted, and quoted in boldface. Below each concern is my response. ~ ~~The studio was proposed for the home's basement." At no time was the studio location proposed for the basement, due to structural limitations (low ceiling height, inadequate space) inside the home. I am not sure where Mr. Nelson and the neighbors received this information, as it was neither stated in my letters nor discussed by me in any conversation with my neighbors. ~ ~~A successful business will create traffic problems." All studio business is handled ~ • • • - I do not expect or promote ~~walk-in" traffic. Since I am able to only handle one appointment at a time, there should be minimal additional vehicles in my driveway. Piano teachers, attorneys, accountants, and other individuals with home-office space deal with this same issue very successfully. Compare this business to a home day-care, which can be visited by up to 10 cars twice daily, with most vehicles arriving during the same times of day. Delivery vehicles are the same vehicles which currently are seen daily on the street visiting other residences; UPS, USPS, and Fed Ex. ;~ ~~His clients will be parking in the driveway. I don't want to look at that." Currently, there are a number of other households in the neighborhood with numerous automobiles and recreational vehicles parked in the driveways. These vehicles are parked on a permanent basis, whereas client vehicles are for the duration of the appointment only. (See photographs located in the appendix at the rear of this booklet.) ~ ~~The property will not be attractive or pleasing to the eye." I am a professional artist. Every effort will be made to make the structure blend in to the architecture of my home. However, since beauty lies in the eye of the beholder, I cannot (and should not) be responsible for those opinions which do not reflect my own. Maplewood ordinance does not require a property to have a garage; why should the current structure be forced to fit into a mold formed by those neighbors who want to tell me what improvements I can or can not make to my own home? ~ ~~The garage will be larger than the others in the neighborhood." The garage exterior will not change in size or height. ;~ ~~Caustic or dangerous chemicals will be used on-site." I do not engage in processing and printing of finished images. This is handled by a professional lab, located off-site. No chemicals will be utilized at my studio. ~ ~~There will be hundred of customers." (I can only hope ...) As stated in myapplication, Ioperate slow-volume photographic studio. The business is highly seasonal, and while client traffic progresses from mid-May through Christmas, the months of January-Early May are considerably slower. All estimates for client visits are based on ~~~r.F~~for the entire year. As a businessperson, I would be foolish to just sit back and wait for people to come to my door. I do market my products and skills. I do use direct mail to solicit business. However, as stated previously, I still work Q*~ • • • - No matter what my offer to a prospective client, they must schedule a time to be seen. ;~ ~~There will be bright lights and excessive signage." City Ordinance allows for placement of a 2x2 foot sign to identify the location. Maplewood does not allow lighted signage, nor is it my intention to make my home studio appear to be a gaudy retail outlet. I do have a motion detector spotlight at my back door, which lights when approached. Political campaign signs which are popular in election years have no restrictions on size, color, or placement, yet many households in my neighborhood express their political affiliations and choices in this manner without any interference from other neighbors. Decorating our home for the holidays has become a family tradition for my teenage sons and me, and will continue as long as they are interested. (How many one-to-one activities are still ~~cool" for a parent to do with a teenage child?) It is certainly not with the intent to disturb the neighborhood. We are simply decorating for and celebrating the joy of the season! Lights are always on timers, and routinely turned off by shortly after 10pm nightly. ~ ~~This will make the neighborhood a bad place to raise kids." Please remember that I am still a resident of this neighborhood FTrT.Ia parent, and I will continue to live and raise my children here. I want the best for them without disrupting life as usual. Nothing about the business is bad for children or adults. ~ ~~The home will be difficult to sell with the garage converted." I AM NOT SELLING MY HOME! I am seeking approval from the City of Maplewood to run my low-volume photography business from my residence. Like my neighbors, I also have a substantial investment in this property, and would be foolish to do anything to decrease its value. ;~ ~~Most of the neighborhood opposes this business." The City of Maplewood sent out 59 letters, and received a total of 16 responses; 7 for and 9 opposing. This is a 27% response, with only 15% opposed. One can only assume that those not responding were r of this application. Arguments could be made that since only 15% are opposed, : • , ~~ , r~ In my opinion, it would appear that the many of the differences raised by those in the neighborhood are products of misinformation and neighborhood gossip, or veiled objections to other issues not directly related to the business itself. While I have openly solicited feedback from those around me, these unknown issues remain unknown to me. It was my intention to take apro-active stance and open lines of communication with those who have voiced their opinions. However, since these same individuals have already threatened legal action against the City of Maplewood, I have been advised to not approach them, as my attempt at communication could be construed as harassment. It saddens me to see people who were once-friendly neighbors so vocally band against me in my desire to earn a living from a business that is primarily family-oriented. ~ ~~Mr. Grupa should locate the studio in commercial space." While I have run the business from commercial locations previously, industry and economic trends make it difficult for a business of this type to operate successfully and profitably in expensive commercial environments. Many photographic studios in the Twin Cites area and beyond are operated in a residential setting without issue. Maplewood currently has at least one other photography studio operating as a homE occupation (2443 Montana Ave). As the owner of both the home and the business, I must make responsible economic decisions based on industry standards and statistics, along with market trends. Failure to procure a license for my home-based business will directly and adversely affect my ability to earn an income adequate enough to support my family and meet my current financial obligations. David Grupa ~o rtra it Appendix A Photographs of Neighboring Garages /Driveways The photographs appearing on Pages 1 and 2 of Appendix A are intended to show that driveway traffic is commonplace in the neighborhood. These images were all taken within 2 blocks from either direction of my home, and were taken either mid-morning or early evening on a weekday. As you can see, a client's vehicle parked in my driveway would easily blend into the surroundings of the neighborhood. ~ : ,~7~,e.~. ..1y* _ . _ _ i• David Grupa ~o rtra it Appendix B Partial Listing of MPPA Member Residential Photographic Studios located i n the Twin Cities Area The studios listed below are members of the MPPA (Minnesota Professional Photographers Association), and are currently operating portrait studios in a residential area. While this list is not complete, it does reveal a large percentage of residentially-based photographic studios. Adams Street Photography Paul Hanson Bruce Schnack Photography Plymouth Bruce Schnack Golden Valley Afton Woods Photography CF Middleton Photography Sandi Alexander Charles Middleton Afton St Louis Park An Artist's Touch Champagne Photography Jean Everson John Riddell Woodbury Hopkins Art Takes Photography Dan McMahon Photography Nora Farrell Dan McMahon Crystal Shoreview Avalon Photography Daniels Studio of Photography Jolene Bertrand Ken Ahlstrom St Louis Park Minnetonka Bayer Photography David Jones Photography James Bayer David Jones Eden Prairie Eagan *Brad Dixon Photography Deb Houston Designs Brad Dixon Deb Houston Oakdale Lakeville Brady Images Diane Hagler Photography Janet Gansmoe Diane Hagler Apple Valley Burnsville Bruce Lee Photography Everlasting Images Bruce Dynes Stacey Glockzin Andover New Brighton Ford Studio R.David Photography John and Joanie Ford Adrian Halvorson Brooklyn Park Bloomington Gallery West Rita Vannett Photography Len Dixon Rita & Mike Vannett Eden Prairie Chaska Garden View Photography S & C Photography Tammy Ackland Steve Tompkins Plymouth Chaska Johnstone Photography Scheiber Photography Wayne Johnstone Jerry Scheiber Minnetonka Woodbury Jon Dokken -Photographer Silver Images Jon Dokken David Johnson Woodbury Hopkins Jonker Portrait Gallery Sue's Studio Julie Ann Jonker Sue Heinemann Apple Valley Chanhassen *Lance Hill Photography The Imagery Lance Hill Rod Oman Shoreview Burnsville Martinez Photography Visual Impakt Gil Martinez Mark & Krish Kiefer Lakeville Waconia Mattson Studio Willow Portraits Virginia Mattson Elizabeth Nelson Coon Rapids Eden Prairie Portrait Gallery Steven Larson Anoka * David Grupa ~o rtra it Summary Comments It has been detailed that my low-volume photographic studio would be a good neighbor in this area. Its existence here will not pollute the surroundings, nor alter the quality of life. There are many people doing business from their homes in the City of Maplewood; more than likely a number of them are without the possession of a Home Occupation permit. I have not taken this process lightly, and have fulfilled every request along the way. Your ~~YES" vote on this item will affirm that the licensing process is meaningful, and that this home occupation is not being treated differently than a music teacher, a tax preparer, or a home daycare. It would be unfortunate to deny this license, essentially punishing me for following proper procedure rather than establishing a business ~~on the sly". A colleague who spent many years in the education field regularly says ~~Fair is not everyone being the same. Fair is everyone being able to get what they need." This Home Occupation License is a vital component to my ability to earn a living. Please be fair in your assessment, and vote ~~YES" on this item. Agenda #K1 MEMORANDUM TO: City Manager FROM: Ken Roberts, Planner SUBJECT: Conditional Use Permit -Phoenix Group Homes LOCATION: 1936 Craig Place DATE: November 15, 2004 INTRODUCTION Mr. Craig Ost, representing Phoenix Group Homes, is requesting that the city approve a conditional use permit (CUP) for the property at 1936 Craig Place. This request is to allow Phoenix Group Homes to have up to eight residents live in their residential facility (group home) on this property. (Please see the letter on pages six and seven and the maps on pages eight and nine). State law allows Phoenix to have up to six residents living in the group home without city approval. To have more than six residents in the home, the city must approve a CUP for the property. DISCUSSION The city regulates land uses and activities in residential areas to help insure that residential properties stay residential in use and in character. Having up to eight residents in a single dwelling in a residential area could create a disturbance to the neighbors or could change the character of the neighborhood. That being said, a house with driving teenagers (with their vehicles and their friends vehicles coming and going) also has the potential for disturbing the neighborhood. In fact, while this facility has been in operation (since 1994), staff is not aware of any major problem or significant disturbance that the residents have caused. In recent years, City staff has approved variances to the capacity limit so that Phoenix could have up to eight residents stay in the home on a temporary basis. As long as the owners continue to keep and operate the facility in a careful and respectful manner, the addition of up to two additional residents (for a maximum of eight) should not cause any more problems than six residents. For the city to approve a CUP, the city must find that the proposal would meet several findings. I have listed the required findings in the resolution starting on page 19. My review of these findings shows that the proposal would meet all the findings, except possibly number five (about traffic and congestion). Several of the neighbors expressed a concern about vehicle parking on Craig Place near the facility, especially on visiting day. They commented that the street can get crowded and sometimes it is difficult to get their own vehicles through on the street. Because of these concerns, I had the city engineer review the situation, including the existing street configuration. He provided me with the following comments: "We determined that a limited `No Parking' zone would be effective to improve visibility for on- coming cars at the curve on Craig Place. If there are no major objections from the adjacent property owners, it is recommended that the city council approve a `No Parking' restriction along the inside curve of Craig Place (adjacent to 2196 Craig Place). The `No Parking' zone would extend about 60 feet from the beginning of the curve to the end of the curve." The map on page 18 shows the proposed no parking area. OTHER COMMENTS Lieutenant David Kvam of the Maplewood Police Department reviewed this proposal and noted that he did not find any significant public safety concerns. (Please see his memo on page 11.) Butch Gervais, the Maplewood Fire Marshal, reviewed this proposal and noted "as the fire marshal I have been in this house and would not advise to add more people to the location as it is a tight fit already." If it is approved, the operators need to ensure that there are proper emergency exits and they must have state or city approval. SUMMARY This request presents challenges for the neighbors, city staff and for the city council. The city must review the proposal and determine that it would meet the findings required by the city code. In addition to the standards in the city code, the city must balance the interests of the owner, the operator and those of the neighborhood when considering this request (and all requests). In this case, eight of the 16 neighbors that responded to our survey were against the expansion of the group home. The addition of two more supervised residents in this home should not cause a negative impact on the neighborhood. To help insure that the additional residents do not cause problems, city staff is proposing several conditions of approval, including a city review of the CUP in one year. COMMISSION ACTION On November 1, 2004, the planning commission recommended that the city council deny the proposed CUP for the property at 1936 Craig Place. RECOMMENDATIONS A. Approve the resolution starting on page 19. This resolution approves a conditional use permit for Phoenix Group Homes to have up to eight residents living in their residential facility at 1936 Craig Place. This permit shall be subject to the following conditions: The owner or operator of the facility doing the following: a. Parking the vans or vehicles for this facility on the driveway or in the garage. There shall be no parking of the vans or vehicles of the facility on a public street. b. There shall be no more than eight residents living in the facility. 2. The owners or operator shall not do any maintenance or repair of their vans on the public street. 3. The operator shall get the necessary licenses or approvals from Ramsey County or from the State of Minnesota. 4. The owner or operator shall ensure that the house has the proper emergency exits before adding any additional residents above the six allowed by law. 5. The city council shall review this permit in one year. 2 B. Approve a `No Parking' zone along the inside curve of Craig Place (adjacent to 2196 Craig Place). The `No Parking' zone should extend about 60 feet from the beginning of the curve to the end of the curve. CITIZENS' COMMENTS I surveyed the owners of the 75 properties within 500 feet of this site. Of the 16 replies, three were for the proposal, eight were against and five had comments about the proposal. For 1. You have my whole-hearted approval for Mr. Ost's request. I did not even realize the group home existed there until recently, so that speaks volumes in regard to how well Mr. Ost monitors and manages the adolescents residing there. I also had the honor of working for a short time with Mr. Ettesvold at Tartan high school several years ago. He is an excellent chemical health counselor and I had the great opportunity to attend several of his lectures as well as speak with some of the high school students he works with who had completed a recovery program and were back in school. I have great respect for his knowledge and devotion to these teenagers and their recovery and I support his recommendation. Ifirmly believe Mr. Ost's request should be approved. (Douglass - 1936 County Road B) 2. My husband and I do not see any problem with them getting a permit. In fact, a couple of years ago a couple of the boys came to help me shovel snow. The group home is doing good for these boys and I think they deserve this permit. (Wormley - 1986 County Road B) 3. My husband and I have been Maplewood residents on German Street since 1988. Many of our neighbors have not been aware that they have a group home next door. I am sure this lack of knowledge is due to their great reputation and friendliness. Anything at all negative would be grossly exaggerated and spread amongst a few. Many of us are extremely proud of the young residents. Everyone benefits from their enthusiasm. (Hansen - 2215 German Street) Objections 1. See the a-mail from Bruce Funk on page 12. 2. See the a-mail from Randy Forsman on page 13. 3. See the a-mail from Jina Hendrickson on page 14. 4. Please remember that laws are made for a reason. If six is the law the law makers decided, I am sure they knew what they were doing. If there are so many children needing group homes as to require variances for 8 children, maybe there is a need for another group home. Overcrowding does not seem to be the answer. (Block - 2210 Hazel Street) 5. Noway!! No how! This area now shoulders more than its fair share of troubled souls. Please stop this madness. (Tait - 2225 Hazel Street) 6. I do not object to the group home. My concern would be to increasing the number of total people to 8 people plus staff. I assume one bedroom would be for staff. That would put 8 recovering residents in 3 rooms. I feel 2 people per room is the maximum. I object to the increase. (Willson - 1877 County Road B) 3 7. No! Already have loud music, trash in the street on a busy corner so it is a danger when visitors park there. Residential zoning and it would not be in character. Suggest another location. This variance request has no merit. It just isn't right in this locale. (Anonymous) 8. I am against increasing the density of the group home. I believe that in a residential neighborhood the number of 6 residents is high enough density and that 8 are too many. (Wray - 2167 Stanich Street) Comments/Questions/Concerns 1. See the a-mail from Tyler Messerole on page 15. 2. See the a-mail from Marie Holmgren on page 16. 3. See the letter from the Judds on page 17. 4. We have not experienced any problems with the boys - however, I think there are already enough troubled youth in our immediate neighborhood. I also would ask that they leash their dog when he is outside. (Anonymous) 5. If this increase of persons shows to be a problem in the near future, it should be withdrawn. Increases in school class sizes are said to be bad -how is an increase in residents good? Is there an additional increase in salary to the facility operator? How much? Is this the reason for the resident increase? Be watchful so as to protect the real reason for the project. Do not ruin it for 2 more people. The program is good! (Olson - 1942 County Road B) 4 REFERENCE SITE DESCRIPTION Site size: 13,068 square feet (0.30 acres) Existing Land Use: single dwelling and attached garage SURROUNDING LAND USES North: Houses on Craig Place East: Houses on Craig Place South: Houses on County Road B West: Houses on Craig Place CRITERIA FOR CUP APPROVAL Section 44-1097(a) states that the city council may approve a CUP, based on nine standards. (See findings 1-9 in the resolution on pages 19 and 20.) PLANNING Existing Land Use Plan designation: R-1 (single dwellings) Existing Zoning: R-1 (single dwellings) Application Date The city received all the application materials for this request on October 4, 2004. State law requires the city to take action on this request by December 2, 2004, unless the applicant agrees to a time extension. Attachments: 1. Applicant's Letter 2. Location Map 3. Property Line/Zoning Map 4. 2-27-04 letter from David Ettesvold (ISD 622) 5. 10-11-04 memo from Lt. David Kvam 6. E-mail dated 10-8-04 from Bruce Funk 7. E-mail dated 10-10-04 from Randy Forsman 8. E-mail dated 10-11-04 from Jina Hendrickson 9. E-mail dated 10-8-04 from Tyler Messerole 10. E-mail dated 10-17-04 from Marie Holmgren 11. Letter dated 10-11-04 from Wade and Nancy Judd 12. No-parking zone map 13. Conditional Use Permit Resolution 5 13 LOCATION MAP ATTACHMENT 3 PROPERTY LINE/ZONING MAP ~. _ ~ ~ ,~t Attachment 4 - • 1r ~c~1 I3~~~rxct ~~ ~~ Nc~llrlr ST. ]@'Al~'L. - l~i~ -- d~tiCUALE ,~ 1 I~GS sC~AE. ?r~16 E i i Avg, si'. l~t1i. ~T i51e9 2-27-04 Dear Maplea~otad City Council, Iviy ngme is David Ettesvoid aaul I'm the Chemical Health Sgt at I~ Hill. I have beea3 m t~mr District since 19~G. The purpose of this lett+ct is to show support for Fix Hcxoe to 1~e lica~od for ~ to $ adc-lesc+mts. 'When I moved ber+e over 10 years ago I was hired. ~ the house manager of the wane Phoaliac C Hoene. We had to expand and 8~ a vraivca to exceed the nuanber to 8 ~ sevexal ocp~ioaas. It was actually easier to nsaaage 8 omits' verses 3 or 5. Even numbers served m help Pair uP the ids as tlaay int~xaeted. The house has plenty of room and they are on the ~ most aughts. As far as tlae programming of Phoenix I beliei-e the guidelines set ate atrial aad very foc~sod to pr+oan~te recovery. They are active on ow community doiag volwatcer work. Anytime tit I need a rocov~ing I~th for a pmject, ali I have to do ~ callthesn fr-r a teaa willthg to share recovery with others. I have called upon thean ton nay tiffs to roarer: ThCy have helpod out with Maplewood Chemical Awaae~ C1 staff - in-services, as well as Malang to Health classes on a regular basis. Please coa~idex approving their license to escprand to 8, u this will only help there mz~e a difference to more ywma af~~led with the disease of addiction. Please feel free tra usa this ietl+~ ir- auy way and to ~ me for any additioaial infvnmation. Promoting Healthy Lifes~rles David Et~svold, Chaaitu<l Health Speciali t, ISD #622 -(651 j 748-6043 } Qa~PI(~s Vii) 7~i-6i0~ FA7~ {b31) 7~li A cQ~mu~uty pat~tners i re earning an citizenship came fret . ,. 4 t k n~~~ . ~ A,, , A~tacliment ~ ~~ e, `~I To: Kea Robexts / Fr+osn: Lt. Dave Kvam Dade: 10!11/2004 Re: Project Review, Phoenix pup I-iomes,1936 Craig Place To this date in 2004, our records system shows four case numbers gen~~ated at 1936 Craig Place. Altt,cgh this is significant in comparison to the average residence, considering the famed ~ the rasicients, that is not surprising. Twu morn residents ane unlikely to ackl sift strain to the police c>zpt or neighborl~d suety, huv~+~r, some. in that area have already ~ their disp~asure with other cleveloprn;~ts. Their p~ mgh# be that ' the numbe.~ cif amts in a neighborhood grcwp hones will only lead ~ ftnthe~r problans. r X11 Page 1 of 1 Attachment 6 Ken Roberts From: bfunk@attglobal.net Sent: Friday, October 08, 2004 10:13 AM To: Ken Roberts Subject: Pheonix group homes BFC Hi Ken, Thanks for taking the time to get our input on the Phoenix group home expansion. Debra and I are opposed to the expansion of the home for the following reasons. The housing density in this area is ridiculously too dense! The city of Maplewood has packed as many housing "units" in this area as it can all ready. As a recovering CD person myself (for 23 years last June) I am aware of the struggles the tenants face. I'm also fully aware that the "halfway house" tenants are the most likely to relapse. We have our share of housing density. Let the Phoenix Group move to another area and let a family of 6 buy the house and bring more owner ship to our neighborhood! Thanks again, Bruce L Funk Debra A Reid Maplewood, MN, 55109 V: 651-773-0726 F: 651-779-6978 Due to the amount of SPAM I have been getting You will have to include "bfc" anywhere in the subject line. If you don't your message will be blocked by my mail filter. 12 11/15/2004 Page 1 of 1 Attachment 7 Ken Roberts From: Randy Forsman [Forsm@msn.com] Sent: Sunday, October 10, 2004 8:37 PM To: Ken Roberts Subject: Phoenix Ken, I live at 1940 Craig Place, right next door to the Phoenix house. First I worked in adolescent chemical dependency for 20 years. Lets be straight about this. Phoenix house is not licensed by the Department of Human Services under rule 29 or 43. They are not a licensed chemical dependency treatment center. They are in fact licensed under the department of corrections. That makes them a correctional treatment center. The common denominator to all their residents is juvenile delinquency. A resident could not be at Phoenix House if they were not involved in the justice system. I have been a good neighbor of the Phoenix house. I have no problem with the residents even though my property value has undoubtedly been effected. Having six residents has kept them somewhat of a family like atmosphere. However, the police have been there a number of times (check your records), parking is impossible, they allow juveniles to smoke (we have young people in the neighborhood), and every Monday their garbage is overflowing. This house just can't take 8 residents. If I have to, I will go to the press on this one. This is just unacceptable. There must me a setting that would be more conducive to this type of treatment center. We have a lot of kids in this neighborhood and this would push it beyond what we should have to take. I would like the Mayor to see my a-mail. How about putting this next door to his residence. Please let me know what I need to do so that I am assured that I have done everything possible to stop this. Thank you for listening, Randy M. Forsman 1940 Craig Place 13 11/15/2004 Page 1 of 1 Attachment 8 Ken Roberts From: jina hendrickson [beanzier6@msn.com] Sent: Monday, October 11, 2004 8:02 PM To: Ken Roberts Subject: Phoenix group Home Dear Ken Roberts, This is in regards to the notice we received on the Phoenix Group Home, located at 1936 Craig Place. My husband and I reside at 1909 E. County Road B and have lived here for 10 years. In the past two to three years this neighborhood has seen a lot of changes which have made a negative impact on this area. We do not feel that adding potential problems to this area would be in the best interest of the neighborhood. We do understand they are only asking for two more people in the house, but that is two more people who need to be supervised and the notice did not state that there would be any more supervision than there already is. We do not know how supervised the residents are when they are in the neighborhood, but there has been a lot of problems in the past few years, which may or may not pertain to any of the residents of the Phoenix Home. Just last September we were robbed, and the police said it must be kids based on what was stolen, again this may or may not pertain to the residents of the Phoenix Home. We are asking you to please consider the impact on this area before making your decision. Thank-you for taking the time to read our input on this and feel free to contact us if you have any questions. Thank-you, Jina Hendrickson Dave Hendrickson 651-779-7515 14 11/15/2004 Page 1 of 1 Attachment 9 Ken Roberts From: Tyler M. Messerole [tesserole@cpride.com] Sent: Friday, October 08, 2004 12:46 PM To: Ken Roberts Subject: Phoenix House Survey Mr. Roberts, Thank you for giving the residents in our neighborhood a chance to comment on the Phoenix matter. Based on the information provided in your mailing I don't think it would be a logical decision in increase the number of kids at the group home. The house has four bedrooms and two bathrooms. Isn't that a reasonable capacity for six residents and a supervisory staff member? Two individuals to a bedroom is cozy enough for sleeping arrangements. We have a family of four, two bathrooms are barely enough for us on some mornings. I have another comment I hope you will share with the management of the home. Why are their drivers always in such a hurry? I see their big passenger van zipping by the front of our house quit often. I think an increase in capacity at the home might require they be in an even bigger hurry to get from one place to another. I don't want to see anyone get hurt. Things have been going reasonably well for the last two years. I hope you view the situation as I do, let's leave well enough alone. Crowding two more young kids with dependency problems into the home will not be a benefit the kids. Thanks for the chance to comment. Will we be provided notification if there is an approval for an increase in the number of kids? Tyler Messerole Community Pride Bank 1441 Bunker Lake Blvd NE Ham Lake, MN 55304 763-862-6500 Phone 763-862-6600 Fax Confidentiality notice THE INFORAdATION CONTAINED IN THE E-MAIL MESSAGE IS PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL. IT IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE INDIVID UAL OR ENTITY NAMED ABOVE. IF THE READER OF THIS E MAIL MESSAGE IS NOT THE INTENDED RECIPIENT OR THE EMPLOYEE OR AGENT RESPONSIBLE TO DELIVER IT TO THE RECIPIENT, YO UARE HEREBY PLACED ON NOTICE THAT YO UARE IN POSSESSION OF CONFIDENTIAL AND PRIVILEGED INFORAiL4TION. ANY DISSEMINATION, DISTRIBUTION OR COPYING OF THIS COMMUNICATIONISSTRlCTLY PROHIBITED. PLEASE NOTIFY THE SENDER IMMEDIATELY BY TELEPHONE, (763-862-6500) OF YOUR INADVERTENT RECEIPT. PLEASE RET URN THE MESSAGE BY HITTING THE REPLY BUTTON, AND THEN DELETE THE MESSAGE FROM YOUR INBOX, SENT MAILBOX, AND DELETED MAILBOX. 15 11/15/2004 Page 1 of 1 Attachment 10 Ken Roberts From: Marie Holmgren [perryholmgren@hotmail.com] Sent: Sunday, October 17, 2004 4:06 PM To: Ken Roberts Subject: 1936 Craig Place Phoenix Group Homes I have one concern if this is a 4 bedroom home and currently there are 6 residents plus one staff with a bedroom. Currently, that would leave two boys to a room plus the staff bedroom. With the new proposal of adding in two more boys, where will the extra bedroom come from and were will the staff person sleep? If the alarm system is always armed and monitored by staff from lights out until wake up, does this mean you have 24 hour/ 7 days a week staffing to releave the person that was on their shift? Thank you for your time. Find the music you love on MSN Music. Start downloading now! 16 11/15/2004 Attachment 12 ,~~~ N 18 Attachment 13 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION -PHOENIX GROUP HOMES WHEREAS, Mr. Craig Ost, representing Phoenix Group Homes, is requesting that Maplewood approve a conditional use permit to have up to 8 residents live in the residential facility (group home) on the property at 1936 Craig Place. WHEREAS, this permit applies to the property at 1936 Craig Place. The legal description is: Smith and Taylor's Addition, that part of Lot 13, Block 2, in Lark Park lying southerly of the following described line: beginning at a point on SL of said Lot 13 and 57 feet west of SE corner, then NELY to a point on NELY line of said lot, 60 feet NWLY of SE corner of said lot and there terminating and in said Smith and Taylor's Addition, the North 100 feet of the East 125 feet of the west 215 feet of the East 3/4 of Lots 1 and 2, Block 31. (PIN 11-29-22-34-0029) WHEREAS, this history of this conditional use permit is as follows: On November 1, 2004, the planning commission held a public hearing. The city staff published a notice in the paper and sent notices to the surrounding property owners. The planning commission gave everyone at the hearing a chance to speak and present written statements. The commission also considered reports and recommendations of the city staff. The planning commission recommended that the city council deny this permit. 2. On November 22, 2004, the city council discussed this request. The council gave everyone at the meeting a chance to speak and present written statements. The council also considered reports and recommendations of the city staff and planning commission. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the city council approves the above-described conditional use permit based on the building and site plans. The city approves this permit because: 1. The use would be located, designed, maintained, constructed and operated to be in conformity with the city's comprehensive plan and code of ordinances. 2. The use would not change the existing or planned character of the surrounding area. 3. The use would not depreciate property values. 4. The use would not involve any activity, process, materials, equipment or methods of operation that would be dangerous, hazardous, detrimental, disturbing or cause a nuisance to any person or property, because of excessive noise, glare, smoke, dust, odor, fumes, water or air pollution, drainage, water run-off vibration, general unsightliness, electrical interference or other nuisances. 5. The use would generate only minimal vehicular traffic on local streets and would not create traffic congestion or unsafe access on existing or proposed streets. 19 Attachment 13 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. The owner or operator of the facility doing the following: a. Parking the vans or vehicles for this facility on the driveway or in the garage. There shall be no parking of the vans or vehicles of the facility on a public street. b. There shall be no more than eight residents living in the facility. 2. The owners or operator shall not do any maintenance or repair of their vans on the public street. 3. The operator shall get the necessary licenses or approvals from Ramsey County or from the state of Minnesota. 4. The owner or operator shall ensure that the house has the proper emergency exits before adding any additional residents above the six allowed by law. 5. The city council shall review this permit in one year. The Maplewood City Council this resolution on November 22, 2004. 20 Agenda Item K3 Memo Date: 11 /16/2004 To: Richard Fursman, City Manager From: Butch Gervais, Fire Marshal RE: Trash Container Ordinance Background Currently the city has an ordinance dealing with trash containers location on a person's property. The ordinance number is (30-7-F) this has been a good ordinance but needs some changes to make it easier for our citizens to comply. After being involved with leaving notices to citizens about the trash container location I received calls from the elderly and handicap. They were concern about having to move the containers, because they would have problems moving them in the winter. There were also calls from citizens concerned because they had problems placing the container in their backyard. Than there were the calls about placing the container in the garage and that they were not going to stick the container in the garage because of the smell or they did not have room. The other concern with placing trash containers inside the garage is the chance of fire that could occur. This is why the state code prohibits trash containers over 40 gallons to be placed inside a building (MSFC 304.3.2). The major locations for trash containers were usually along side the garage or towards the front the garage or the house with the trash was inside and the lids closed. Currently the ordinance reads: Memo: Trash Container Ordinance Containers shall be placed at the rear of the premises, or in the garage, so as to be out of view from the street and in such a manner as to not interfere with the use of adjoining property. My proposed change reads: Containers shall be placed along side the garage, side of the house or at the rear of the premises and these locations shall not interfere with any adjoining property. All trash shall be in the container and the lid closed to prevent trash from falling out. Exceptions: The City Official may allow an exception to this ordinance or the homeowner/property owner can appeal to the city council. Recommendation: To make the changes to the trash container ordinance, this would make it much easier for the citizens to comply. This will still keep the city looking great and would still meet the intent of the original ordinance. AGENDA NO. K-4 AGENDA REPORT TO: City Manager FROM: Finance Director RE: Environmental Utility Rates for 2005 DATE: November 16, 2004 The proposed 2005 Budget included a 158% increase in environmental utility rates. An updated financial forecast indicates that a 96% increase is needed. The increase is needed because the rates that were initially set in 2003 will only produce 52% of the budgeted 2004 revenues. The anticipated 2005 operating expenses for the Environmental Utility Fund in 2005 total $1,008,030. The largest expenses are $442,600 for storm sewer maintenance, $273,600 for depreciation and $197,340 for street sweeping. The net income for 2005 will be $247,840 and this will eliminate the cash deficit and produce a cash reserve of approximately $100,000 on 12-31-05. The following is a comparison between the present and proposed 2005 quarterly rates for single-family homes: Present Proposed Maplewood $5.25 $10.29 Rosevi Ile 4.75 4.85 North St. Paul 15.00 15.00 Oakdale 5.00 5.00 Woodbury 15.25 15.25 Vadnais Heights 4.75 6.00 Shoreview 9.72 9.96 Burnsville 17.00 17.00 Eagan 7.00 7.20 Rates for other types of property in Maplewood are based upon a utility factorwhich serves as a multiplier of the single-family home rate. It is recommended that the environmental utility rates be increased by 96% effective January 1, 2005 to provide the revenues anticipated in the 2005 Budget. P:\FINANCE\WORD\PERM\EUC RATES FOR 2005.DOC 1 AGENDA NO. K-5 AGENDA REPORT TO: City Manager FROM: Finance Director and Community Development Director RE: Building, Mechanical, Plumbing and Electrical Permit Fees DATE: November 16, 2004 On May 24 the City Council approved a user fee study to determine if the fees charged for building, mechanical, plumbing and electrical permits cover the costs for inspections. The study has been completed and indicates that for 2003 the inspection costs exceeded permit revenues by $101,226. The following is a breakdown by type of inspection: Recoverable Units of Current Current Full Cost Total Surplus Fee Area Service Fee Revenue Per Unit Cost (Deficit) Building Inspections 1,330 $396.48 $527,321 $413.71 $550,235 ($22,914) Mechanicallnspections 730 $119.53 $87,256 $172.30 $125,779 ($38,523) Plumbing Inspections 326 $146.94 $47,904 $246.57 $80,382 ($32,478) Electricallnspections 906 $60.27 $54,606 $68.34 $61,917 ($7,311) Grand Total $717,087 $818,313 ($101,226) It is recommended that the City Council approve increases in the building, mechanical, plumbing and electrical permit fees effective 1-1-05 to cover the full cost of inspections. Attached is a detailed listing of the new permit fees. P\agn\building permit fees 2005 1 TO: Dan Faust, Finance Director FROM: David Fisher, Building Official SUBJECT: Permit Fees and increases DATE:November 10, 2004 Building Permit Fee: Permit fee to be based on j ob cost valuation. The determination of value or valuation shall be made by the building official. The value to be used in computing the building permit and building plan review fees shall be the total of all construction work for which the permit is issued, as well as all finish work, painting, roofing, electrical, plumbing, heating, air conditioning, elevators, fire-extinguishing systems and any other permanent equipment. TOTAL VALUATION FEE $1.00 to $500.00 $25.00 $501.00 to $2,000.00 $25.00 for the first $500.00 plus $3.25 for each additional $100.00, or fraction thereof, to and including $2,000.00 $2,001.00 to $25,000.00 $73.75 for the first $2,000.00 plus $14.75 for each additional $1,000.00, or fraction thereof, to and including $25,000.00 $25,001.00 to $50,000.00 $413.00 for the first $25,000.00 plus $10.75 for each additional $1,000.00, or fraction thereof, to and including $50,000.00 $50,001.00 to $100,000.00 $681.75 for the first $50,000.00 plus $7.50 for each additional $1,000.00, or fraction thereof, to and including $100,000.00 $100,001.00 to $500,000.00 $1056.75 for the first $100,000.00 plus $6.00 for each additional $1,000.00, or fraction thereof, to and including $500,000.00 $500,001.00 to $1,000,000.00 $3,456.75 for the first $500,000.00 plus $5.00 for each additional $1,000.00, or fraction thereof, to and including $1,000,000.00 $1,000,001.00 and up $5,956.75 for the first $1,000,000.00 plus $4.00 for each additional $1,000.00, or fraction thereof Other Inspections and Fees: 1. Inspections outside of normal busin ess hours .............................. $75.00 per hour (minimum charge -two hours) 2. Reinspection fees assessed under pr ovisions of the MN State Building Code .......................... ...................................$50.00 per hour 3. Inspections for which no fee is spec ifically indicated ......................$50.00 per hour (minimum charge -one-half hour) 4. For use of outside consultants for plan checking, inspections and similar costs iActual costs include administrative and overhead costs. Demolition Permit Fee: • Tenant improvement/remodeling prior to building permit • Structures not connected to utilities • Structures connected to city utilities ......Actual costsi $100.00 $65.00 $150.00 2 Electrical Permit Fee: • Set through contract with Contract Electrical Inspector 80% of the permit as it has been Add $9.25 Admin Fee to all electrical permits. Conditional Certificate of Occupancy Inspection Fee: • Residential $50.00 • Commercial $100.00 • Temporary /Seasonal C of O $50.00 Investigation Fee: Work without a Permit • Whenever any work for which a permit is required from the city has been commenced without first obtaining said permit, a special investigation shall be made before a permit may be issued for such work. An investigation fee, in addition to the permit fee, shall be collected whether or not a permit is then or subsequently issued. The investigation fee shall be equal to the amount of the permit fee required by this code. The payment of such investigation fee shall not exempt any person from compliance with all other provisions of this code nor from any penalty prescribed by law. Manufactured Home Permit Fee: • New installation or replacement $150.00 Moving Permit Fee: • Moving Over private property only $56.00 • Investigation fee $50.00/hour Plumbing Permit Fee: • Residential -Minimum fee $43.00 • Residential $43.00 Plus, $9.00 for each fixture opening • Commercial work 2.15 % of estimated job cost plus $86.00 Plan Review Fee: • When a building permit is required and a plan is required to be submitted, a plan review fee shall be paid. Plan review fees for all buildings shall be sixty five percent (65%) of the building permit fee, except as modified in M.S.B.C. Section 1300. • The plan review fees specified are separate fees from the permit fees specified and are in addition to the permit fees. When submittal documents are incomplete or changed so as to require additional plan review or when the project involves deferred submittal items an additional plan review fee shall be charged at the above rate. Expiration of plan review. Applications for which no permit is issued within 180 days following the date of application shall expire by limitation, and plans and other data submitted for review may thereafter be returned to the applicant or destroyed by the building official. The building official may extend the time for action by the applicant for a period not exceeding 180 days on request by the applicant showing that circumstances beyond the control of the applicant have prevented action from being taken. No application shall be extended more than once. In order to renew action on an application after expiration, the applicant shall resubmit plans and pay a new plan review fee. 3 Refund Fee: • The building official may authorize refunding of any fee paid hereunder which was erroneously paid or collected. The building official may authorize refunding of not more than 80 percent of the permit fee paid when no work has been done under a permit issued in accordance with this code. The building official may authorize refunding of not more than 80 percent of the plan review fee paid when an application for a permit for which a plan review fee has paid is withdrawn or canceled before any plan review is done. The building official shall not authorize refunding of any fee paid except on written application filed by the original permittee not later than 180 days after the date of fee payment. Swimming Pool Permit Fee: • Above Ground • Below Ground Permit Fee (Fences, Decks, Roofs, Siding, Draintile System): • Fence over 6 feet in height • Deck • Residential roofs • Residential siding • Utility structures (over 120s.f. but not greater than 200s.f.) • Drain the • Minimum fee Miscellaneous Fees: • Replacement inspection record card • Re-stamping j ob site plan sets $100.00 $150.00 $75.00 $100.00 $100.00 $100.00 $100.00 $75.00 $75.00 $25.00 $25.00 4 Mechanical Permit Fee: • Residential - Minimum fee $37.00 - Gas piping -Repair or new installation $15.00 - Gas or oil fired furnace or boiler $30.00 - Warm air furnace or hot water heating system $37.00 - Construction or alt. of any warm air furnace per unit $37.00 - Construction or alteration of each hot water system $37.00 - Installation or replacement of each hot water system per unit $37.00 - Per unit heaters based on first 100,000 BTU input $22.00 - Air conditioning -new or replacement $30.00 - Wood burning furnace per unit $37.00 - Swimming pool heater per unit $37.00 - Air exchanger $30.00 - Gas or oil space heater per unit $30.00 - Gas direct vent heater per unit $30.00 - Gas fireplace, Gas log or insert $30.00 • Commercial - All commercial work Proposed 1.85 % of estimated job cost Plus $74.00 - Mechanical plan review 25% of the permit fee 5 Work Sheet Building permit fees are increased by about 6% using the fee study from the Association of Metropolitan Municipalities and the League of Cities. These are fees other cities are using. Demo fees are flat fees. I changed fees based on service provided. • Tenant improvement/remodeling prior to building permit (2004) $63.00 Proposed (2005) $100.00 This fee is not in system we use the $ 63.00 demo fee. • Structures not connected to utilities (2004) $63.00 Proposed (2005) $65.00 This fee is in the system and I would like to break it down on number of inspections required. • Structures connected to city utilities (2004) $63.00 Proposed (2005) $150.00 This fee is in the system and I would like to break it down on number of inspections required by all departments that review the work. Electrical Permit Fee: • Set through contract with Contract Electrical Inspector at 80% of the permit. This has been 80% of the permit for more than 10 years. Based on 2003 fees, plus 13.39% from the fee study and 2% for the CIP = 15.39% 906 electrical permits divided by the total revenue = $60.27 average per permit. $60.27 x 15.39%= $9.28 this is where the increase came from. Add $9.25 Admin Fee to all electrical permits. Investigation Fee: Work without a Permit This has always been a double fee in the past. The language needed to be added to the City Ordinance. Conditional Certificate of Occupancy Inspection Fee: • Residential $50.00 • Commercial $100.00 • Temporary /Seasonal C of O $50.00 These are new fees for services contractors are requesting. Manufactured Home Permit Fee: • New installation flat fee (2004)$41.00 Propose$150.00 This is a change. The code has changed for more structural details and requirements There are less than 25 permits per year. This would bring our fee closer to the surrounding Cities' fees. Moving Permit Fee: • Moving (2004)$53.00 Propose $56.00 • Investigation fee (2004)$47.00/hour Propose $50.00/hour Plumbing Permit Fee: • Residential -Minimum fee (2004)$25.00 Propose $43.00 • Commercial -Minimum fee (2004)$75.00 Propose $129.00 • (2004) Residential $25.00 P1us,5.00 for each fixture opening • Proposed Residential $43.00 P1us,9.00 for each fixture opening • (2004) Commercial work 1.25 % of estimated job cost plus $50.00 • Proposed Commercial work 2.15 % of estimated j ob cost plus $86.00 This brings up fee based on city fee study. 6 Work Sheet Continued Plan Review Fee: The 65% of the permit fee is in the ordinance now. RPfnnrl FPP• Needed language added to city ordinance it was removed with the code change of the 2000 IBC. It was based on old language of 1997 UBC. Swimming Pool Permit Fee: • Utilize building permit fee schedule •Above Ground (2004) $50.00 Proposed $100.00 • In-Ground (2004) $100.00 Proposed $150.00 This closer to accurate cost for hours spent for inspection and review. Also other cities have the similar fees. Permit Fee (Fences, Decks, Roofs, Siding, Draintile Svsteml: •Deck (2004)$50.00 Proposed $100.00 •Residential roofs (2004)$50.00 Proposed $100.00 • Utility structures (over 120s.f. but not greater than 200s.f.)(2004)$50.00 Proposed $100.00 •Residential siding (2004)$51.00 Proposed $100.00 The $50.00 flat fee has been in place for about ten year and has not changed. The siding permit is new within the last three years. • Fence over 6 feet in height Proposed $75.00 • Drain the Proposed $75.00 Fences and drain are based on value now. This is good change. • Minimum fee Proposed $75.00 There is nothing on file for a minimum fee. Miscellaneous Fees: • Replacement inspection record card Proposed $25.00 • Re-stamping j ob site plan sets Proposed $25.00 In the past the city charged for these items. But there is nothing on record at this time. 7 Work Sheet Continued Mechanical Permit Fee: • Residential Minimum fee Gas piping -Repair or new installation Gas or oil fired furnace or boiler Warm air furnace or hot water heating system Construction or alt. of any warm air furnace per unit Construction or alteration of each hot water system Installation or replacement of each hot water system (2003) $25.00 (2003) $10.00 (2003) $20.00 (2003) $25.00 (2003) $25.00 (2003) $25.00 per unit Proposed $37.00 Proposed $15.00 Proposed $30.00 Proposed $37.00 Proposed $37.00 Proposed $37.00 (2003) $25.00 Per unit heaters based on first 100,000 BTU input (2003) $15.00 - Air conditioning -new or replacement (2003) $20.00 - Wood burning furnace per unit (2003) $25.00 - Swimming pool heater per unit (2003) $25.00 - Air exchanger (2003) $20.00 - Gas or oil space heater per unit (2003) $20.00 - Gas direct vent heater per unit (2003) $20.00 - Gas fireplace, Gas log or insert (2003) $20.00 • Commercial - All commercial work (2004)1.25% of estimated job cost Plus $50.00 Proposed 1.85 % of estimated job cost Plus $74.00 Proposed $37.00 Proposed $22.00 Proposed $30.00 Proposed $37.00 Proposed $37.00 Proposed $30.00 Proposed $30.00 Proposed $30.00 Proposed $30.00 - Mechanical plan review 25% of the permit fee The residential & commercial fees were increased per the city fee study. The 25% plan review fee is a new fee commercial only because there are project that have mechanical plan without building permit and now the city does a plan review for free on those jobs. 8 AGENDA NO. K-6 AGENDA REPORT TO: City Manager FROM: Finance Director and Community Development Director RE: INCREASE IN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT SERVICE CHARGES DATE: November 16, 2004 INTRODUCTION It is proposed that the Community Development Department service charges be increased by effective January 1, 2005. BACKGROUND It has been past practice to raise service charges annually to keep up with inflation. In 1993 a User Fee Study was completed for the Community Development Department to insure that service charges finance an appropriate portion of the service costs. The User Fee Study report contained recommendations on 50 individual license/permit fees and service charges for the Community Development Department. For each item, it had information on the unit volume, current fee, costs to provide the service, recommended fee, phase-in schedule covering five years for the recommended fee, estimated increased revenue from the recommended fee and subsidy amount after the recommended fee is phased in. On 5-24-93, the Council approved the recommended fees for 1993. There have been annual increases in the service charges since then. On May 24 the City Council approved a userfee study to determine if 17 planning service charges cover city costs. The study has been completed and indicates that for 2003 the city costs exceeded revenues by $98,263. The following is a listing of the revenue and costs for the 17 fees charged: FEE Zone Change Conditional Use Permit -Single or Double-Dwelling Conditional Use Permit -Other Conditional Use Permit Revisions -Single or Double Dwelling Conditional Use Permit Revisions -Other Home Occupation Comprehensive Plan Amendment Variance -Single or Double-Dwelling Variance -Other Variance -Front Yard Setback Preliminary Plat Community Design Review Board -Double Dwelling Community Design Review Board - 15 Day Design Review Planned Unit Development Temporary Sign Permit Wall Signs Free Standing Signs INCREASE CURRENT CURRENT FULL COST INCREASE TIMES 20°k PLUS 20°k 776.00 1,654.48 878.48 176.00 952.00 232.00 1,505.63 1,273.63 255.00 487.00 825.00 1,645.85 820.85 164.00 989.00 46.00 1,505.63 1,459.63 292.00 338.00 165.00 1,734.98 1,569.98 314.00 479.00 165.00 1, 344.97 1,179.97 236.00 401.00 1,130.00 1,717.48 587.48 117.00 1,247.00 152.00 1, 344.97 1,192.97 239.00 391.00 848.00 1,344.97 496.97 99.00 947.00 152.00 516.60 364.60 73.00 225.00 1,400.00 1,990.58 590.58 118.00 1,518.00 187.00 1,532.60 1,345.60 269.00 456.00 152.00 473.60 321.60 64.00 216.00 1,250.00 2,654.28 1,404.28 281.00 1,531.00 24.00 44.15 20.15 4.00 28.00 24.00 101.59 77.59 16.00 40.00 24.00 169.43 145.43 29.00 53.00 Large increases in these 17 fees are needed to produce revenues that will cover the full costs. In order to minimize complaints, the increases in these 17 fees included in the 2004 user fee study P:\FINANCE\WORDWGN\USERFEE CD.DOC could be phased in over afive-year period. Also, all other Community Development Department fees should be increased by 1.3% to keep up with inflation. All of the Community Development Department license/permit fees and services charges are listed in Exhibit A which lists the present fee and the proposed 2005 fees. The 17 fees that were in the user fee study are in bold with the 2005 fee at one-fifth of the increase listed in the user fee study. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the Council approve (1) increases in the Community Development Department fees as listed in Exhibit A effective January 1, 2005 and (2) approve first reading of an ordinance (Exhibit B) to increase the planning fees. P:\FINANCE\WORDWGN\USERFEE CD.DOC 2 Exhibit A Page 1 of 3 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Service Charges Estimated Fee Annual 2003 2004 2005 Volume Fee Fee Fee PLANNING FEES (Set by Ordinance) Zone Change 8 776 788 952 Conditional Use Permit: R1 and R2 1 232 236 487 Other 11 825 838 989 Conditional Use Permit Revision: R1 and R2 6 46 47 338 Other 8 165 168 479 Variances: R1 and R2 6 152 154 391 Other 6 848 862 947 Front Yard Setback 1 152 154 225 Vacations: R1 and R2 10 146 148 150 Other 2 567 576 583 Lot Divisions (Fee per lot created): R 1 and R2 11 81 82 83 Other 1 302 307 311 Home Occupations Initial Permit 6 165 168 401 Annual Renewal 6 55 56 Sign Erection Permit (per inspection) 100 24 24 24 Temporary Sign Permit 30 24 24 28 Wall Sign Permit 50 24 24 40 Free Standing Signs 13 24 24 53 P:\Finance\Excel\Misc\FEES CD *Plus a surcharge for each affected property to pay for the County's filing fee for resolutions. 11/16/2004 Exhibit A Page 2 of 3 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Service Charges Fee Estimated Annual Volume 2003 Fee 2004 Fee 2005 Fee Comprehensive Plan Amendment 8 1,130 1,148 1,247 Code Amendment 1 848 862 873 Planned Unit Development 8 1,250 1,270 1,531 Preliminary Plat 8 1,400 1,420 1,518 Preliminary Plat Revision or Time Extension 9 220 224 227 Final Plat 5 380 386 391 Time Extensions/Renewals 9 139 141 143 LICENSES DUE JANUARY 1st Commercial Fertilizer Application License 112 114 115 MISCELLANEOUS SERVICE CHARGES Woodlot Alteration Permit 1 14 14 14 Building Relocation 5 810 823 834 Moving Permit 3 52 53 54 Community Design Review Board: R1 & R2 15 Day Design Review Revision Other 8 1 3 16 187 152 0 682 190 154 0 693 456 216 190 702 Mobile Home Permit 1 40 41 42 On-Site Sewage Systems 6 66 67 68 Truth-In-Housing Filing Fee 100 31 31 31 Truth-In-Housing Evaluators License 29 104 106 107 Zoning Compliance Letter 24 24 24 Project Notification Sign 12 100 100 101 Front Yard Setback Authorization 0 0 154 Minor Construction Project 0 0 154 P:\Finance\Excel\Misc\FEES CD *Plus a surcharge for each affected property to pay for the County's filing fee for resolutions. 11/16/2004 Exhibit A Page 3 of 3 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Service Charges Fee Estimated Annual Volume 2003 Fee 2004 Fee 2005 Fee PUBLICATIONS (Includes Sales Tax): Zoning Code 6 6 6 Platting Code 3 3 3 Sign Code 3 3 3 Comprehensive Plan 15 15 15 Zoning Map 11 11 11 City Map 3 3 3 Section Map 3 3 3 Planning Commission or Community Design Review Board: Minutes -Per Year Agenda Packet -Per Year Property Owner List 15 112 65 15 114 66 15 115 67 P:\Finance\Excel\Misc\FEES CD *Plus a surcharge for each affected property to pay for the County's filing fee for resolutions. 11/16/2004 ORDINANCE NO. PLANNING FEES Section 1. Section 36 - 26 of the Zoning Code of the City of Maplewood is hereby amended as follow Section 36 - 26. Fees. The following nonrefundable application fees shall be required: Zone Change 952 Conditional Use Permit: R1 & R2 487 Other 989 Conditional Use Permit Revision: R1 & R2 338 Other 479 Variances: R1 & R2 391 Other 947 Front Yard Setback 225 Vacations: R1 & R2 150 Other 583 Lot Divisions (Fee per lot created): R1 & R2 83 Other 311 Home Occupation Permit (initial permit) Initial permit 401 Annual permit 56 Comprehensive Plan Amendment 1,247 Code Amendment 873 Planned Unit Development 1,531 Preliminary Plat 1,518 Preliminary Plat Revision or Time Extension 227 Final Plat 391 Time Extensions/Renewals 143 Section 2. Section 36 - 258 of the sign code is amended as follows: Section 36 - 258. Fees. (1) The sign erection permit fee shall be $24 (per inspection) Section 3. This ordinance shall be effective on January 12005 Passed by the Maplewood City Council on , 2004 Attest: Clerk Mayor Ayes -- Nayes-- Exhibit B 6 AGENDA NO. K-7 AGENDA REPORT TO: City Manager FROM: Finance Director RE: RECYCLING RATES FOR 2005 DATE: November 16, 2004 The proposed 2005 Budget included a 12% increase in recycling service rates. This will increase the rate from the present $5.40 per quarter to $6.05 per quarter. The following shows the Recycling Program Fund sources and uses of funds for the 2005 Budget compared to the 2004 Budget: 2004 2005 % CHANGE ORIGINAL PROPOSED INCREASE OVER 2004 BUDGET BUDGET (DECREASE) BUDGET Sources of funds: Recycling charges $301,350 $342,230 40,880 13.6% County grant $67,000 $68,450 1,450 2.2% Investment interest $7,070 $6,170 -900 (12.7)% Total 375,420 416,850 41,430 11.0% Use of funds: Expenditures $375,420 $387,630 12,210 3.3% Fund balance $0 $29,220 29,220 100.0% Total 375,420 416,850 41,430 11.0% Approximately $275,000 of the expenditures for 2005 will be for payments to the contractor that picks up items to be recycled. These costs are the largest portion of the 2005 Budget which is up 3.3% over 2004. Most of the rate increase is to finance an increase in the working capital in the Recycling Fund which will be increasing from 2% to 10% of the operating expenses. It is recommended that the recycling service rates be increased by $0.65 per quarter effective January 1, 2005 to provide the revenues anticipated in the 2005 Budget. P\FINANCE\WORD\PERM\RECYCLING RATES FOR 2005 AGENDA NO. K-8 AGENDA REPORT TO: City Manager FROM: Finance Director RE: Sanitary Sewer Rates for 2005 DATE: November 16, 2004 The proposed 2005 Budget included a 7.8% increase insanitary sewer utility rates. Most of the increase is needed to finance the Metropolitan Council sewage treatment charges to Maplewood that will be 63% of the operating expenses (excluding depreciation) for the Sanitary Sewer Fund in 2005. The sewage treatment charges for 2005 are anticipated to be $2,371,310 which is $214,570 and 9.9% more than the 2004 Budget. Other operating expenses (including depreciation), which account for 37% of the total, are anticipated to be $1,374,690 in 2005. This is an increase of $19,810 and 1.5% above the 2004 original budget. The balance of the rate increase is to replenish working capital. The following is a comparison between the present and proposed rates: Present Proposed St. Paul Billing District: Rate per 100 cubic feet $1.96 $2.11 Minimum Charge (per quarter) 10.99 11.85 North St. Paul, Roseville, Little Canada and Woodbury Billing Districts: Rate per 1,000 gals. 2.62 2.82 Minimum Charge (per quarter) 10.99 11.85 It should be noted that the sewer rates for 2005 are only 13% higher than the rates for 1999. In 2004 Maplewood rates were 16% less than the weighted average rate in the Twin Cities according to a survey conducted by the Metropolitan Council. It is recommended that sanitary sewer rates be increased by 7.8% effective January 1, 2005 to provide the revenues anticipated in the 2005 Budget. p\word\perm\SEWER RATES AGENDA NO. K-9 AGENDA REPORT TO: City Manager FROM: Finance Director RE: Authorization to Refinance Series 19956 Bonds DATE: November 16, 2004 The Tax Increment Refunding Bonds of 19956 are callable on 2-1-05 and can be refinanced at a lower interest rate. The anticipated present value savings on interest will be approximately $20,000. It is recommended that the Council approve a resolution which will authorize the issuance of refunding bonds to accomplish the refinancing. P\WORDWGN\REFINANCING OF 19956 BONDS Agenda K-10 MEMORANDUM TO: Richard Fursman, City Manager FROM: Steve Lukin, Fire Chief DATE: November 15, 2004 for the November 22, 2004 City Council Meeting SUBJECT: New Life Safety Inspection Fees Background Presently, the city of Maplewood provides life safety inspections to commercial businesses and apartments at no charge. These inspections are necessary in order to maintain a high level of public safety for residents and customers. These inspections can take anywhere from one to three hours depending on the size of the facility. Many times we have to go back to these locations more than one time in order to ensure that the owner has complied with the necessary code requirements that we have asked them to fix. Again, this can take anywhere from one to three hours. In checking with some of the surrounding communities, i.e., New Brighton, St. Paul, we have found that they are charging for life safety inspections and re-inspections. At this time, we feel we are justified in charging a life safety inspection fee based on the following rates: Structures under 10,000 sq. ft. @ $50.00 Structures 10,000 sq. ft. to 50,000 sq. ft. @ $100.00 More than 50,000 sq. ft. @ $150.00 Re-inspections will be done to the owner at no charge, however, if we do have to go back three or more times, there will be a flat fee charged of $100 per re-inspection. The City can benefit by recovering costs for performing the life safety inspections and would ensure that businesses within the City have a current license and/or Certificate of Occupancy. For years, the Fire Marshal's Division has been conducting life safety inspection to businesses. Recommendation I recommend that the City Council adopt an inspection fee for life safety inspections to businesses in the city of Maplewood based on the fee structure listed above. This new life safety inspection fee would go into effect January 1, 2005. C: City Clerk AGENDA ITEM K-11 AGENDA REPORT TO: Richard Fursman, City Manager FROM: Charles Ahl, Pubic Works Director/City Engineer SUBJECT: TH 61 East Frontage Road Improvements (New County Road D to 694), Project 04-25--Resolution Accepting Report and Calling for Public Hearing DATE: November 15, 2004 Introduction The city has been working on various roadway improvements along Trunk Highway 61 in cooperation with MnDOT and the local businesses. Access points and driveways are a major concern for traffic movement. All efforts to consolidate the driveways are being made to improve safety and traffic efficiency. MnDOT, Lexus, city engineering staff, Kline Volvo and Kline Nissan are jointly proposing a driveway consolidation project that will combine their driveways and provide a frontage road along the eastern section of the roadway. A preliminary report has been prepared on the improvements and a public hearing is proposed for December 13, 2004. Background The combinations of driveway points along the eastern side of TH 61 between new County Road D and I-694 are part of the long-term traffic solution for this area. MnDOT has provided the city with a cooperative agreement award of $540,000 that includes consideration of driveway consolidation. Kline Volvo is interested in providing a frontage road system that serves their property and connects to the Nissan site. Lexus has also agreed to participate in the frontage road that would consolidate three driveways into a single driveway. The frontage road would also provide an area for off-loading new vehicles that is not on the public road system. The frontage road would be a private roadway that would be maintained by the private businesses. The reason for this project being constructed by the city is that access points and median improvements need to be constructed by a public agency according to MnDOT requirements. The city will facilitate the improvements and assess the costs back to the private business. The attached preliminary report identifies the project cost at $356,085 and shows the proposed improvements connecting the three car dealers with a single frontage road. Wetland impacts have been minimized to 1,300 square feet of degraded wetland which will be mitigated as new wetland within the area. The financing plan includes assessments to each property based upon benefit received along with the use of the Cooperative Agreement Funds to be received from MnDOT for the local share. There are no city tax dollars going to this project. Engineering expenses will be paid through the Trunk Highway 61 improvements being implemented by the city, since this frontage road will benefit that project. A public hearing is proposed to be held on December 13, 2004 at 7:30 pm. Recommendation It is recommennded that the city council adopt the attached resolution approving the preliminary report for the TH 61' East. Frontage Road (New County Road D to 694, City Project ~~-25, and ca[L a public hearing for December 13, 200 at 7:30 p.m. Attachments: Resolution Preliminary Report RESOLUTION ACCEPTING REPORT AND CALLING FOR PUBLIC HEARING WHEREAS, pursuant to resolution of the council adopted July 26, 2004, a report has been prepared under the direction of the City Engineer by City consultant SEH, Inc., with reference to the improvement of TH 61 Improvements (New County Road D to 694), City Project 04-25 and City Project 03-07, and this report was received by the council on November 22, 2004, and WHEREAS, the report provides information regarding whether the proposed project is necessary, cost-effective, and feasible, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA: 1. The council will consider the improvement of such street in accordance with the report and the assessment of abutting property for all or a portion of the cost of the improvement pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 429 at an estimated total cost of the improvement of $356,085. 2. A public hearing shall be held on such proposed improvement on the 13tH day of December 2004 in the council chambers of city hall at 7:30 p.m., and the clerk shall give mailed and published notice of such hearing and improvement as required by law. Feasibility Report TH 61 Frontage Road Maplewood, Minnesota City Project No. 03-07 SEH No. A-MAPLE0402.00 November 5, 2004 November 5, 2004 Mr. R. Charles Ahl, PE City of Maplewood 1830 County Road B East Maplewood, MN 5 5 1 09-2702 Dear Mr. Ahl: RE: TH 61 Frontage Road Feasibility Report Maplewood, Minnesota City Project No. 03-07 SEH No. A-MAPLE0402.00 Short Elliott Hendrickson Inc.® (SEH) is pleased to submit the enclosed Feasibility Report for the TH 61 Frontage Road improvements. This report includes specific recommendations and estimated project costs for the street and utility improvements. We are pleased to have had the opportunity to provide the report and are available for any assistance that you may require. Sincerely, Steven F. Heth, PE Project Manager nm x: \ko\maple\040200\reports&specs\r\feas_th61. doc TH 61 Frontage Road Feasibility Report Maplewood, Minnesota City Project No. 03-07 SEH No. A-MAPLE0402.00 November 5, 2004 I hereby certify that this report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision, and that I am a duly Licensed Professional Engineer under the laws of the State of Minnesota. Steven F. Heth, PE Date: November 5, 2004 Lic. No.: 20609 Reviewed by: Date Short Elliott Hendrickson Inc. 3535 Vadnais Center Drive St. Paul, MN 55110-5196 651.490.2000 Table of Contents Letter of Transmittal Certification Page Table of Contents Page 1.0 Introduction/History .................................................................................................. 1 2.0 Scope .......................................................................................................................... 2 3.0 Feasibility and Recommendations ........................................................................... 2 4.0 Proposed Improvements ........................................................................................... 2 5.0 Wetland Impact .......................................................................................................... 2 6.0 Existing Utilities ......................................................................................................... 3 7.0 Easement/Permits ...................................................................................................... 3 8.0 Estimated Project Costs ........................................................................................... 3 9.0 Financing .................................................................................................................... 3 10.0 Schedule ..................................................................................................................... 3 List of Tables Table 1 Maplewood Mall Area Studies and Reports ..............................................................1 List of Figures Figure 1 -Project Location Map Figure 2 -Typical Sections Figure 3 -Plan View Frontage Road List of Appendices Appendix A Estimated Project Costs SEH is a registered trademark of Short Elliott Hendrickson Inc. Feasibility Report A-MAPLE0402.00 City of Maplewood Page i November 5, 2004 Feasibility Report TH 61 Frontage Road Prepared for the City of Maplewood 1.0 Introduction/History In 2001, the City of Maplewood led a group effort to address the growing traffic congestion surrounding the Maplewood Mall area. The first step in this process was the completion of the "Maplewood Mall Area Comprehensive Traffic Study" in December 2001. The Study outlined a number of improvements that would help alleviate congestion, including the extension of County Road D from Hazelwood to Trunk Highway (TH) 61. The collective improvements have been called the Maplewood Mall Area Traffic Improvements (MMATI). This process has continued since 2001 with the completion of the following studies and reports: Table 1 Maplewood Mall Area Studies and Reports Study/Report Date Author Maplewood Mall Area Comprehensive Traffic Study December 2001 URS Feasibility Study for County Road D/TH 61 Water Apri12002 URS Main Extension -City Project No. 01-28 Draft Wetland Delineation Report -Country View Peterson Golf Course Property Consult. Wetland Delineation and Survey of the Hartford August 2002 AES Group Parcel Alternate Urban Areawide Review (AUAR), Legacy December 2002 SRF Village at Maplewood Alignment Study and Report for County Road D December 2002 URS Realignment -City Project 02-07, 02-08 Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the County January 2003 URS Road D Realignment Project County Road D Alignment Options -City Project 02- Apri12003 URS 07, 02-08 Wetland Delineation Report -County Road D May 2003 URS Realignment Storm Water and Wetlands Plan for the Maplewood May 2003 SEH Mall Area Transportation Improvements A-MAPLE0402.00 Page 1 As a result of the studies and by observation, it was noted that the three car dealerships located between the existing County Road D and the new alignment of County Road D currently park and unload transports on the shoulder of TH 61. This creates an unsafe situation for vehicles traveling on TH 61 and for the unloading operation. To alleviate the problem, City staff has worked with the three car dealerships to create a concept plan to serve the needs of the transport deliveries and customer traffic. The purpose of this report is to describe the proposed improvements and estimate the cost. It is anticipated that this information will be presented to the Maplewood City Council on December 13, 2004. 2.0 Scope The proposed work includes the construction of a 24-foot wide frontage road from the existing entrance to Lexus of Maplewood on the south to existing County Road D on the north. It also includes the construction of a left turn lane for south bound TH 61. 3.0 Feasibility and Recommendations This project is necessary to provide a safer location for vehicle transports to park and unload, along with a safer access point for customer traffic to access the three dealerships. This project is cost effective because it will be constructed within existing right-of--way, built to minimum required widths, and with minimal soils corrections. This project is feasible from an engineering standpoint because it is relatively simple in design, cost effective, and will provide greater safety for the traveling public. It is recommended that this project be combined with the TH 61 and County Road D intersection project for more competitive pricing and for better scheduling of construction and access. 4.0 Proposed Improvements The proposed frontage road will be designed and constructed to provide a 28- foot face-of--curb to face-of--curb road width. Storm sewer catch basins will be installed to collect surface water and discharge to the existing system on TH 61. Collected water will be treated with a storm ceptor. 5.0 Wetland Impact Every attempt will be made to minimize wetland impact during final design. It is estimated that approximately 1300 square feet of existing wetland will be filled as a result of the frontage road. Mitigation of this wetland will be accomplished at the new wetland on the adjacent property. A separate wetland report will be submitted. Feasibility Report A-MAPLE0402.00 City of Maplewood Page 2 6.0 Existing Utilities The St. Paul Water Utility has a 12-inch trunk water main running under the proposed alignment of the frontage road. Where the proposed grade varies from the existing grade by more than 1 foot, the water main will require grade adjustment. 7.0 Easement/Permits Temporary easements from all three car dealerships will need to be described and attained. A permit from Mn/DOT will be required to work within Mn/DOT right-of- way. 8.0 Estimated Project Costs The table below summarizes the estimated project cost. The project cost is based on a detailed estimate found in Appendix A. The cost includes a 2 percent contingency. The total project cost includes a 15 percent allowance for indirect costs such as engineering, administration, and legal items, as well as capitalized interest. 9.0 Financing Financing for this project will be provided by the three dealerships and Cooperative Agreement Funds. Cooperative Agreement Funds ................................................. $81,085.00 Kline Nissan .............................................................................. $145,000.00 Kline Volvo .............................................................................. $75,000.00 Lexus ......................................................................................... $55,000.00 $356,085.00 10.0 Schedule Present Feasibility Report to City Council ........... ........... November 22, 2004 Public Hearing ...................................................... ............December 13, 2004 Authorize Plans ..................................................... ............December 13, 2004 Approve Plans and Specifications ........................ .................. March 14, 2005 Bid Opening .......................................................... ......................April 8, 2005 Award Contract ..................................................... ....................Apri125, 2005 Assessment Hearing .............................................. ....................Apri125, 2005 Begin Construction ............................................... ....................... May 9, 2005 End Construction .................................................. .................August 19, 2005 Feasibility Report A-MAPLE0402.00 City of Maplewood Page 3 List of Figures Figure 1 -Project Location Map Figure 2 - Typical Sections Figure 3 -Plan View Frontage Road Appendix A Estimated Project Costs T.H.61 FRONTAGE RD MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA SEH PROJECT NO. A-MAPLE0402.00 NO. ITEM DESCRIPTION UNIT QUANTITY UNIT PRICE TOTAL COST 1 MOBILIZATION L.S. 1 $12,000.00 $12,000.00 2 REMOVE BITUMINOUS SY 581 $2.00 $1,162.00 3 REMOVE CONCRETE CURB AND GUTTER LF 150 $2.00 $300.00 4 WETLAND MITIGATION (CONSTRUCTION) SF 2600 $0.70 $1,820.00 5 LAND ACQUISITION SF 2600 6 ADJUST (MCES) SANITARY MH EACH 1 $200.00 $200.00 7 WATER MAIN TRENCH LF 600 $30.00 $18,000.00 8 12" DIP (ST. PAUL TO INSTALL) LF 600 $60.00 $36,000.00 9 15" RCP STORM SEWER, CL. V LF 100 $28.00 $2,800.00 10 18" RCP STORM SEWER, CL. V LF 300 $30.00 $9,000.00 11 21"RCP STORM SEWER, CL. V LF 50 $35.00 $1,750.00 12 36" RCP STORM SEWER, CL III LF 40 $55.00 $2,200.00 13 15" RCP APRON W/TRASH GUARD EACH 1 $1,350.00 $1,350.00 14 21"RCP APRON W/TRASH GUARD EACH 1 $1,600.00 $1,600.00 15 36" RCP APRON W/TRASH GUARD EACH 1 $1,800.00 $1,800.00 16 RANDOM RIP RAP CL. 3 CY 24 $100.00 $2,400.00 17 CATCH BASIN EACH 4 $1,350.00 $5,400.00 18 5' DIA. STORM MANHOLE LF 20 $225.00 $4,500.00 19 STORM CEPTOR W/INSTALLATION EACH 1 $15,000.00 $15,000.00 20 COMMON EXCAVATION CY 3200 $5.00 $16,000.00 21 MUCK EXCAVATION CY 1675 $5.00 $8,375.00 22 GRANULAR BORROW CY 3200 $9.00 $28,800.00 23 SELECT BORROW CY 1650 $12.00 $19,800.00 24 AGGREGATE BASE, CLASS 5 TON 1970 $15.00 $29,550.00 25 BITUMINOUS MATERIAL BASE (NON WEAR) TON 702 $33.00 $23,166.00 26 BITUMINOUS MATERIAL (WEAR) TON 731 $33.00 $24,123.00 27 BITUMINOUS MATERIAL (TACK COAT) GAL 512 $2.50 $1,280.00 28 B 6-18 CURB & GUTTER LF 2888 $8.50 $24,548.00 29 SILT FENCE HEAVY DUTY LF 1100 $2.50 $2,750.00 30 4" TOP SOIL CY 65 $14.00 $910.00 31 SODDING, TYPE LAWN SY 1200 $2.50 $3,000.00 32 4" SOLID LINE WHITE LF 305 $2.50 $762.50 33 SIGN PANELS SF 50 $30.00 $1,500.00 34 PAVEMENT MESSAGE (LEFT TURN) POLY PREFORM EACH 2 $500.00 $1,000.00 35 SALVAGE AND INSTALL SIGN PANEL EACH 5 $100.00 $500.00 36 BURY OVERHEAD ELECTRIC LS 1 $0.00 37 RELOCATE PARKING LOT LIGHT EACH 2 $500.00 $1,000.00 construction subtotal $304,346.50 2% contingencies $6,086.93 15 % Legal, Admin, Eng. $45,651.98 PROJECT TOTAL $356,085.41 X:\KO\Maple\040200\PDF\pdf11-15\Qunattakeoff2.xls PAGE 1 OF 1 N ~ ~1 PROJECT LOCATION u COUNTY F HIGHRIDGE CT. ~ F a ,., o ~ ~ - ~ o ~ ~ w ~ Q ~ ~ ~ c~ LY[ ~ 4. o w 1 o . a ~ ST. JOHN'S Q ~ 2. "IT T. BLVD. z Q ~ `~ z ' T IEW SIR. z, z Y ~ ~ ° ~ ~ AVE. BEAM BE © ; ~ Q o RA DATZ 0 o ~ ~, ~ c z N ~ ke _ Q ~~ ~ ~ z Q y '7 Q C ~U 'T m ~ v i- ~ ~ ~ KOHL MAN AVE. `` ~' ~' ~ w s KOHLMAN ~ ~ ~ r r, ~ ~ Q v e~wood w D A~/E. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Park ~ z ~ = --- JNTY ROAD w ~' C _____ m ~ Q > ~ - HILL T ~ ~ ~ ~- z ~ r man Pork Op ~~ ~ ~r ~ \ ' ~~ SEY ~ Z ~ ~ Q ~ F- W o ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ _ ~ ~ D Q ~ ~ EDGEHILL RD . CON NOR ~ ~ ~ ~ AVE. ~ ~ DEMO T AVE. ~ m _ ~ ~ - - cn o VE. ~ E ~- o ~ AVE. ~ ~ ELEVENTH Q c~, ~„ ~~ TANT z Q ~ Q ~~~~ ;EXTANT g AVE . ( /) Seosons ~ P k ~ AVE. ~ ar ~ GEI AVE, ~ G V I `'~ Q ~ V GRA E. T m VIKING DR. ~ SHERREN AVE. CASTLE AVE. ~' ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~' Lake ~ COPE COPE AVE. ~ COPE AVE. ~ z ~ ~ LARK Q CT_ ~r,U ~ ~ AVE_ ~ LARK Q AVE_ r ~ ~ U' i of i~ / , FILE N 0. LOCATION MAP PHONE: _ (651) aso-2ooo AMAPLE0402.01 TH. 61 EAST FRONTAGE ROAD EXHIBIT 3535 VADNAIS CENTER DR. ST PAUL, MN 55110 DATE: TH 61 AT TH (i.94 NO. 1 SEH 11/12/04 MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA e c u L L F F C C RAW ``` THRU LANE ~ 14' ~ - 2~~~ B618 C^NC, CURB & GUTTER THRU LANE 14' 2~~~ _~ DETAIL DETAIL A RAW 2 ~~~ MPX, y1 ~'' BACKFILL WITH SUITABLE MATERIAL 2" WEARING C^URSE 2" N^NMEARING C^URSE 6" AGGREGATE BASE CLASS 5 ~ GRANULAR MATERIAL FILL 3 TYPICAL SECTION T.H. 61 FRONTAGE ROAD PROPOSED FILE N ^, T.H. 61 FRONTAGE ROAD PHONE: C651) ago-2ooo AMAPLE0402,01 FIGURE 3535 VADNAIS CENTER DR. PROPOSED TYPICAL SECTIONS ~~~ ST. PAUL, MN 55110 DATES 2 11/12/04 MAPLEW^^D, MINNES^TA e° w _~~ fg ~~o ~3 m ~~ Op ao m m 0 ~~ ~ ~ a~ so m x w a ~.. '. _ _~,,. _ =` `i- ,~ ,_ 4. ~ ,~~~ _~ ,~ ~~,~ =~. =; _~ ~-: ~; ~~ ~~ ~ ~~ w~ _~:~T ~`` __~:_ -__~_ - T ==~= - _~~. _ + ~~'~,,.= . T. =l~~i+~= ~~ . ~ y ~ ~ ~~ -~a~~ ~~ ~ AT ~a~ ~ __, :~ -- -_=~~ -=~_ ;~ -~- _ =,= __ __ __ =_~ - __ __ _= _ '~ ~_ __ _- ~~ ~ T -_ ~- ~~ :~; ~_ _=~ __ -. ~~~: ' - _ ~.~ - =~_ - :~ ~ -_ ~ . ` = _ ~_~ - -_ -~ _ ~~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ,~~ ,r. ~~ -_ L _' ~ ~' ~~ ~ - _ ~~ =I ~ =~ -- ~_ == =_ =_- =_ __ -= .~: -~,_ ~~~~~ ~ ~ -~~~ ~_:~ _ ~Z:~ _ ~._ =„~~: ~~=:~ ~ tea. ,~.~~- . -_~;~; _~___ ~, ~_. _~ =~. "S ~~' _ ~: ~ +~ f ' - . -- ~• $- ;~ . - __ ~._ T.H.61 FRONTAGE RD MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA SEH PROJECT NO. A-MAPLE0402.00 NO. ITEM DESCRIPTION UNIT QUANTITY UNIT PRICE TOTAL COST 1 MOBILIZATION L.S. 1 $12,000.00 $12,000.00 2 REMOVE BITUMINOUS SY 581 $2.00 $1,162.00 3 REMOVE CONCRETE CURB AND GUTTER LF 150 $2.00 $300.00 4 WETLAND MITIGATION (CONSTRUCTION) SF 2600 $0.70 $1,820.00 5 LAND ACQUISITION SF 2600 6 ADJUST (MCES) SANITARY MH EACH 1 $200.00 $200.00 7 WATER MAIN TRENCH LF 600 $30.00 $18,000.00 8 12" DIP (ST. PAUL TO INSTALL) LF 600 $60.00 $36,000.00 9 15" RCP STORM SEWER, CL. V LF 100 $28.00 $2,800.00 10 18" RCP STORM SEWER, CL. V LF 300 $30.00 $9,000.00 11 21"RCP STORM SEWER, CL. V LF 50 $35.00 $1,750.00 12 36" RCP STORM SEWER, CL III LF 40 $55.00 $2,200.00 13 15" RCP APRON W/TRASH GUARD EACH 1 $1,350.00 $1,350.00 14 21"RCP APRON W/TRASH GUARD EACH 1 $1,600.00 $1,600.00 15 36" RCP APRON W/TRASH GUARD EACH 1 $1,800.00 $1,800.00 16 RANDOM RIP RAP CL. 3 CY 24 $100.00 $2,400.00 17 CATCH BASIN EACH 4 $1,350.00 $5,400.00 18 5' DIA. STORM MANHOLE LF 20 $225.00 $4,500.00 19 STORM CEPTOR W/INSTALLATION EACH 1 $15,000.00 $15,000.00 20 COMMON EXCAVATION CY 3200 $5.00 $16,000.00 21 MUCK EXCAVATION CY 1675 $5.00 $8,375.00 22 GRANULAR BORROW CY 3200 $9.00 $28,800.00 23 SELECT BORROW CY 1650 $12.00 $19,800.00 24 AGGREGATE BASE, CLASS 5 TON 1970 $15.00 $29,550.00 25 BITUMINOUS MATERIAL BASE (NON WEAR) TON 702 $33.00 $23,166.00 26 BITUMINOUS MATERIAL (WEAR) TON 731 $33.00 $24,123.00 27 BITUMINOUS MATERIAL (TACK COAT) GAL 512 $2.50 $1,280.00 28 B 6-18 CURB & GUTTER LF 2888 $8.50 $24,548.00 29 SILT FENCE HEAVY DUTY LF 1100 $2.50 $2,750.00 30 4" TOP SOIL CY 65 $14.00 $910.00 31 SODDING, TYPE LAWN SY 1200 $2.50 $3,000.00 32 4" SOLID LINE WHITE LF 305 $2.50 $762.50 33 SIGN PANELS SF 50 $30.00 $1,500.00 34 PAVEMENT MESSAGE (LEFT TURN) POLY PREFORM EACH 2 $500.00 $1,000.00 35 SALVAGE AND INSTALL SIGN PANEL EACH 5 $100.00 $500.00 36 BURY OVERHEAD ELECTRIC LS 1 $0.00 37 RELOCATE PARKING LOT LIGHT EACH 2 $500.00 $1,000.00 construction subtotal $304,346.50 2% contingencies $6,086.93 15 % Legal, Admin, Eng. $45,651.98 PROJECT TOTAL $356,085.41 X:\KO\Maple\040200\PDF\pdf11-15\Qunattakeoff2.xls PAGE 1 OF 1 AGENDA ITEM K-12 AGENDA REPORT TO: Richard Fursman, City Manager FROM: Charles Ahl, Public Works Director/City Engineer SUBJECT: Gladstone Redevelopment Improvements, City Project 04-21 a) Approve Consultant Selection for Master Planning and Engineering Services b) Authorize Preparation of Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) c) Authorize Preparation of Master Framework Plan d) Item to be tabled to December 13, 2004 DATE: November 15, 2004 Introduction On November 8, 2004, the City Council authorized City staff to begin review of master planning consultants for the Gladstone Redevelopment initiative. The staff is currently interviewing firms and is not prepared to make a recommendation. This item should be tabled to December 13, 2004, when a full report and recommendation will be made. A motion to table all action is recommended. Background The following work plan was presented to the City Council as the approach to be used for consideration of the redevelopment initiatives. The work plan is the basis that staff is using to consider consultants. A full work plan for the consultant and approach will be the basis for developing final costs for approval. RECOMMENDED PROJECT SCHEDULE October 25, 2004: City Council Authorizes Staff to Hire Master Planner December 13, 2004: City Council Authorizes: • Master Planner Contract Preparation of an Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) o Note: This extends moratorium until EAW process is completed. Preparation of Framework Plan o This will document to overall redevelopment vision through an illustrated development plan and set of design guidelines. This will guide the physical design efforts and will explore various impacts of development density, including a financial analysis of redevelopment of park land and potentially areas of the open space. o The final plan will include proposed roadway modifications, public walkways, street lighting, landscaping and special urban design features that will be proposed for implementation as public improvements. A set of design guidelines will also be developed to guide the layout and design of public and private project components such as building height, building materials, location and layout of parking lots, site and building signs. Preparation of Storm Water Master Plan o This three step plan will include a high level assessment of water resources issues and opportunities in the area. The second step will involve coordination with the Framework and Environmental Study and the third step will be a completed plan with development initiatives identified. City Council Agenda Background Gladstone Redevelopment November 22, 2004 Page Two Preparation of Traffic Study o This studywill include a preliminary phase, evaluating existing studies and incorporating levels of future development included within the Framework Plan. Adjustments to the Framework Plan maybe needed depending upon traffic volumes and roadway capacities. Overhead Utility Line Burial Study o This feasibility study will include discussions with local utility companies and development of the scope, costs and schedule for the proposed placing of the utilities underground. March 28, 2005: City Council receives the Master Framework Plan The results of this plan will include a financial analysis of the various development scenarios, along with preliminary environmental and traffic findings. The City Council will refer this preliminary study to Commissions and Committees of the City for reaction and recommendations. April/May 2005: Commissions and Committees review and analyze impacts of Master Framework Plan and develop recommendations for the City Council. May/July 2005: Final Master Framework Plan and EAW approved. • Development Moratorium ends June/July 2005: Overhead Utility Burial Project Begins August -Sept 2005: First phase of public improvements from Master Framework Plan begins. Recommendation It is recommended that the city council approve a motion to table all action for consideration of a master planner, Environmental Assessment Worksheet, and preparation of a Master Framework Plan to December 13, 2004. RCA AGENDA ITEM K-13 AGENIDA REPQRT `yO: Richard ~u~rsr~7an. City Manage+~ FROM: Charles Ah#. Pubic Works director/City Engine SUBJECT: County Raad D Court Ina~provements (New County Road D to~M 61 j. Project 04- 06, Resol~trtion Accepting Report a+~cf Calling far public Hearr,ng DATi= ~k~vem~~er fi5. 20()4 Introduction fps part of the realignment of County Road ~. west of Trunk Highway 61- the existing portion of County Road D will become a local street and uvill becor~~e a cu~ldesac. Rarr~sey County will provide funds as part of the tumbacl: ofi the roadway and b~CaUSE the roadway is ors the Maplewood - Vadnais Heights bonier. a joint ii~~provemen# project is required. A prelii~~ii~ary report identifyi~~g the necessary improvements has been prepared on the improvements aa~d a public tearing is proposed fa~ December 13. 2004. Background The culdesaci~ng of this roadway is a requirement of ir~~pravenaents being proposed by N1nD0~, ThESE r,i7~~roverr~er~ts include an acceleration IanE from the exit ran~~p fro~7~ I-6f34 to sor+th~ound ~H b1 . MnDO7 will be providing a cooperative agreement award of S312.062 that pays 100`%, of khe cost of the acceleration lave work. Additionally, N1n~0T will be providing $25.,000 toward the construction of the culdesac. Ramsey County policy calls fa~ a roadway upgrade coat+~ibution of S64.099. The remainder of fhe {~raject is a s{~iit of i~n~provements between Maplewood and Vad~nais Heights. The Alad+~ais Heights contribution is ~62,0~32. The final Maplewood share is 5190.537. Of this amo~+nt assessment under thy; City's roadway reconstruction policy ar~d provisions for new water i~zai~n service wild justify assessments of 575.270. The rer~~aining funds 0115.267) is proposed to be paid through City cJebt s~rvicE, although staff is pursr+ing an aUacatian of 520.250 from St_ ~'atil regional UVater Services for water rr~a~in costs tlhat will reduce the debt service amount. 'The attached prelirni~~ary report identifies the projer;trost at X653.740 and s~1Z~ws tf~e propose ir7~~provements in two segments: the culdesac roadway and the acceleration lane. A public hearing is proposed to k~e held an December 13. 20{)4 at 7:15 prn for the Maplewood portion of the work. Vadnais Meights will be conducting a sepa~-ate i~rl~provement hearing for their portion of phis project. Maplewood will administer phis project for ~ad'~~ais Heights for a small fEe added to their portion of the work- Recommendation It is recommended that the city' council adopt the attached resolution approving the preliminary report for fihe County Road D Court Improvements (New County Raad D to TH 61), City Project 84-06, and call a public hearing for December 13, 2U04 at 7:15 p.m. A,ttachr~~ents: ResolrFtion ~relimina~ry Report RESOLUTION ACCEPTING REPORT AND CAL'LI~NG FOR PUBLIC HEARING WIREAS, pursuant to resoluitior~ ofi-the council ad-opted February 9, 2004. ac report has been prepared under the direction o~f the City Erig~neer by City consultant SEH. Inc... wifh reference to the improvement of County Road D Court Improvements (New Corsnty Road D to TH 61). City Project 04-06. and TH 61 Acceleration Lane Improvements, City Project 03-07 and this report was received by the cau~~~cil o~n [Jovember 22, 2004, and WHIEREAS. the report provides in~formatior~ regard~ip~~ whether the propose project is necessary, cost-effective. and feasible. NOW. THEREFORE. EE I~T RESOLVED EY THE CITY COQ ~NCIL OF MAPLEWOOD. MINNESOTA; The couc~cil wiUU consider tihe improvement o~ such streef in accordance with the report and the assessment of abutting property for all or a portion of the cost ofi the improvement pursuant to Minnesota Statutes. Ci~apter 429 at an estimated total cost of the improvement of $653,740. 2. A public hearing shall be held ors suc~~r proposed improvement ors the 13`r' day of December 2004 in the council chambers of city ball apt 7:15 p.m.. and the clerk shall give mailed and pt,blished notice of such hearing and improvement as required by I'aw. easi~i~li~y 'Report C~~rrntl~ RuurC D Cnrirt ~H6I atTHG9=~ Maplewood, Mi~n~nesota City Pi~ojec~ No. 04-06 SEH No. A-MAPL'E0405.00 November 5. 2004 ~~~lr. tZ. C~h~u~h~ Ohl, P1,- C'it~ ~~~f ~A1<~~~1~~~~~~xl I~.;ii (~~~unt~~ IZ~.~a;l 13 1-.<3>t D~a+~ ~\~la~..~li~l: <<I~:: C'nuiat~~ h~~~nl I) (~~nu~t I N i~ 4 ~n I H (~~1-3 Fc~~~i~~il~ia~ R~~~w-t \la~~l~~~,~~~,j. ~~linn~,ata C~1t~~ Pru~rct \~,. U~1-(i(; tihrrt 1_Ilie~tt S-len~lrick~~~n Irt..!'. ~til-1ll is ~~l~n~~~l ti> >tlhlnit tl~e eizri~~~~~1 lea>ihilit~ R~~~oit for lh~ ~ tHllliV ~~i+8i~ ~) t ~~Pll~l I~II~I~?I~U~~clllclll>. J fTlj I~~l~~l~l IIIC~I'I(~~`~ `~~,)cCl~~l~ I~Ct?Illlllcll~~lilli~llti L1111~ CS11111Li1~C{ Ofi)~iJl'C Ct?tit`~ t~)} Tft~ jt~fc~l L][t~l t9Tl~ll~' I I]l~~a 1'U b ~ I l7 ~ I l~l>. ~~~~' ~ll~c ~?~CFtSc.~~ [i~ ~t~t~~l' ~l.~lil lilt t~~>~h~f~l~Ulla\ ~l? ~~f~?~'Ll~i' the f~c'~li~li tllli~ tll~~ ~~\tll.~Ft~l~l' t~?C <Ifll- ~la~l~i2tlll'c 1~1~1~ \t)U IlY]V CcI~LIII'~. ~fll~cl~~1 ~tcF~Ll ~ . S-~Cl~l_ ~~~ I'ri;j~ct 11~t+~a~~~r I~llll County Road D Court TH 61 at TH 69~ Feasibility Report Maplewood. Min~~esota City Project ~o. 04-06 SEH No. A-MAPLE0405.00 ~lovem ber 5. 200 ~ ~1cI'C~~~ C~f(f~~1 l~l,]l l~~l~l~ I'~~)~.~P[ 1A~1~ ~~Tc°~~~II'Ci~ ~~~ plllti i~l~ llflr~~:~ 111A i~~glf~:Ci ~ll~~c`I'V I~li!n. ;lilil 111211 ~ ;111 ~l (~U~V ~--1Ct115c;C~ ~~i~t?s~c:~~li?Il~ll ~'-I~'lld~'~I~ Ulll~i'C ~~d~' 1;1A~ i~# the tit~u~ ~>t \:}inni>or~. ~r~~~~n ~~. II~tI~. ~'~- I: ~'` i~~~~ ~~i~l 1,~ nf)~~ t ~s Short ~Ilott Henrckson Inc. 3535 Vad~~ais Center DrivE St Paul. MN 551 ~0-5196 6 ,1. X90.2000 Table of Content ~,~ltl`C ~!t i f1~Il~lilFli2il C~efntlli1t1011 ~~~1L'~ I ~l~~ic° ul ( ul}l~l}t5 ~~21~C' 'I.0 Introduction/History ..........:: ......::.......::.......::.......:........::........::.......::..::..:....1 2.0 Scope ........................................................................................................................~.2 3.0 Feasi~bidity and Recornmendafiions ...........................................................................2 4.0 Proposed bmprovements.----------------~----~----~----~----~---------------------~----~----~----~----~-----------2 4.1 Trail .....................................................................................................................2 ~.2 Acceleration Lane ...............................................................................................3 5.0 Easerments/Perm~its ....................................................................................................3 6.0 Estimated Project Costs ...........................................................................................3 7.0 Financing ....................................................................................................................3 8.0 Sched~ule .....................................................................................................................4 List of Tables Ta~brc ~ ~lapficwood Mali Area Studies and fepor~s........ ~ ~~ ~.~ ~~. ~ ~ ~~~ List of ,Fi~gu~re~ ~id~ire F'roj~ct'L' ocation Map ~IC~~lre ~ LOllnty hoad ~ LOUI't Fic~tire 3 °~'H 61 and Coun#y Road D Areas of Constructio~~ ~Fig~tire ~1~~ Typical Section fist of Appendlices Appendix A 'estimated Project Costs proposed Assessir~ents SI'11 i- i~ r~~zia~r~J Fta,9~iiiar6; ,~I~li~~ri I Ibi~~i~ I I~~n lu~'I:;;~i~ Ins. Fe;islhiltty ReJ'~ ~It A CJIHPLEC!-1±"i,~ i1~"~ ;its; ~ f (~4_,r:d=.,coil Fa~~e November 5, 2004 feasibility Report County Road D Cout `T'FI 61 at TH 694 1 bn~firod~uction/History ~11 ?(111.. l'~l~ ~ 1LV 0~ ~'~<1~~~~AAl)i-~l~ ~~1~ ~l "f01~1~~~ ~:~~t~f`~ lU 23i~l~IC>~ 1~1C~fi-\111!' CI~~I~'~IC C~~17s'c?Unn ~tl~l~C'~ll[3i~lll!! C'~lc 1~;1~1~i A1Ut?i~ 11~~~~ ~ll~~`~l. ~ X12 ~lC~t ~1C~~ Li] t~hi ~~n,~~~~ ~~a~ t11~ con~~~kCivn vt the "tilaE~I~~~i~o~l Mall ~r~,~ C'uii~~~r~li~n~i~~ Ir~~ll~ic ti~r~~i~~ in Uec~mhr+~ ~~iit)l. It~~~ ~~r~i~i~ ~~~~~irl~n~~i ~~ I1LlI1l~~~T i?I Illl~~ll)Aclllclll> 41,14 ~\i?L}~i~ ~l~l~~ tl~~~A~I~IIc ~i?ll~'~`~UQI1. IIIC~Ui~lll`! 1~1C ~~~i~n~~~?i~ ~~#~ l~a~+nt~' IZua~l L) fr~~m 11<iz~l~~~~~~il t~_~ ~I~f~~~u~~k 1{~~~li~~<<>>' (Il I) ~~">I. ~~h~ ~c~lll~~~ti~c iti~}~rc~~~~~i~~~~t~ Il~~~~ h~~c~i c~~ll~xl ih~ Ai~iE~l~~~~w~l ~lal~ ~rc~~ r.]{~)li' ~Ill~?I~U~~clllclll> ~ ~'~~'~ 1 ~ ~ 1. ~ ~ll> ~)T"t)~~:» ~l;l> i (?Ilillllhl~ ~Illi'~ '~)~) 1\111 ltlc ~i~rlll~~~~ll~?Id ii~ l~d~ fi)~~i)V1111 >lUt~ic> allt~ I~~I~~Ct>: Table 1 Maplewood Maul Area Studies and Reports i Stud /Re ort Date ~ ^ Author \~'.1~~~~~~q~,~~~~ V'1~1~~ ~fc.i ~ ~?I1"I~,{~~fl~fl>t~~ ~I~,llh~ 1ilf~~\ ~~~C17]nc~`1 =~ifi~ ~~}Zj 1- ',i~l~?L~II ~ ~lLtijV I !1 (_~~?UI1L\ fZ i_~L1C~ ~) 1 ~-~ (? ~ ~~ L11<`I 1~~ril '~i(~' I R I)niti ~V'~ti~u~~l i)~=lin~<3ri~_~n K~.~~~-art - C~~;i_intr~ l~i~~~ 1'~~<<r~~_~n C~~;ifC~uu~r~r I'ro,~'r[', C~_~n:,~.iit_ II ~~ ctl:nul I)~~liuc,3ti~~n ,iu~l `,~.ir~ e~~ ~~f rho I~arii~~r;l ~7k~t ~!I~ ~~,1FC C~ 1~_~~!~,t ,~i(~' ~F_ II ~Ite~n.ltr I_ rh,t~n ~ie~r~.~i~lc' IZ~~,ie~r ~ ~i,~~1Z~, Lre.l~~ 11[~>>u~. ni_ titu~l~ ~~ui~] f:~}~< <i I~~i (~~~uni~ IZ~~~~i~} L) ~Z~',I ~IJIt111C11~ ~ llA- ~~l~i~~c~l ~!~-~! ~1.~ ~1.~ ~)~>~~inl~cr ' ,, I }Z ~~ f..~l~.ilV-~~lllh`~1[~l~ -1,.c=»ill~'lll ~~~.![~~~{il`~l ~~.?I l~l~' ~. ~!l.Illl_A ~~ fZ~~llt~ ~) f~t°~1~6~; Yi llil'Ili ~'I~~1 ~=~;I .~',111~J'JY~ ~ 1ii; I_.~Z\ ~. iIRTV- ~Z~?,1~~ ~) ~~1~11111c1ll (_)~~If011~ ~, IT~~ ~~1~i~~~Cl {''- ~~ _, 1~~ril ~~ ~~. , I. 1Zj II ~~~l~~lali~ ~)~'jlll~~til~!I1 ~~c=~~~!I~l -f~C~~_{IIlV ~y~!'1i~ E~ f2~'~1~ I ~IIIIICII~ ~'~. U. Tit 1.1 ~_, ~Z~ ~~ ti1i~CIl7 ~~',1'T~I L111~~ ~~'c[~~lll.~~ ~~~,111 IC!1~ 1_}lc '1~~1~~~~~i~iUi~ \I,11~ _~[c°:3 ~riil,~~~rt;in,~n Im~rn~~ir~~i~~ ~.~, ,; i, ~ ~~_~.~ P<1~= 1 ~.0 Scope ,~~PC f)f~t?~)t?~~~1~ tAi)I~~ ~t?f ~ t~1~Ull_~ i~~!ali ~) t i~UfT ]L9C~1~1(i~~ f~li)IISt~I~UlTlt~l,_' ~ t~l~ll?l~ ~~Ual~ ~) (~) ald Uf~~all ~~~11i'~I1, IId~~Hi~I1]S' <<?17C`I~~`1C ~llCf7 aldlj ~!UI~~C allt~ ~~Ufti] ~c~~~r, t~i~~~n~~ the n~~~ al~i~nnxnt „j (r,~1nt~~ R<~ad I_) h~ ,i,}I C~I..~ 11~ pr1?~~~>~~J ~al~r~nrn~°nt ~~III tcn~~~i~at~ ~~ith ~l cul-~t~->;~c. dater main ~~iill h~ in~~tall«1 h~ tt~c (~it~ ~,f~ ~a~11i~1i~ II~~i<<11t~ x1111 h~ ih fit. I'at11 ~~~a1cl' ~rtil~ih. ,~~L~' ~>l~U~~~!~i'ci VA~?f~ t?Il I i I ~~ I al L I I fJ~1-~ ii)IlS1~T~ i~t lilt Ci)IlSt~fUl'tlt?L~l t?~ afl aC'C~~~ra[li?I1 ~i1~d~ fUC ~,1~T~~~)lllh~ ~~~ ~?~~-~ \~i11C'~~~ [i7i'f:'lll!! i?I1G) ~l7lll~d~li?lllll~ J~ ~ ~~~. ~ ilc ~~f0~c~'[ a'~>~~ 11'lli'l9(~c:`~ Int(~lall I'lt?~~ Ill+*~iIt~ICaU~)}l~: t?[7 ~ ~ ~ Vi C~i tilt?CC 1TlUf~ ~i?U1ii~~i?lliltl lfaf~~.l~ ~~?I~ lily c;'1>l~~l~llli~~ CUClllll" ili~'~~~1~n~111 al l)1)~ ... 3.0 Feasibility and' Recommendations ,~~1~7~ ~>R?~l'~~. lil C~?L~l~~llfliTlt?11 VAlCi1 file' 1'Cll~~l.~'lllll~'fll i~t ~ i?Lll}l~ f~~_?211~ ~-). ] Il~l'C~ti~ar~' I~) i~l0~l~i~ a ~al~er allij Ill~~~rc` ~~~ICL~IdI I~~?a1i~1111 ~~i?I~ lilL Iral~il111' i~Ui) ~ li . ~il'C i~li?~i:Cl l~ li?~[ Cf~el[1\~ i~t'la~l~l>C ll lMUi9le~ <t?I1CI~LiIllh~!n~ if~t?L71 tilF1tC llnt~ ~.t)Llllll ~iill~~C~~ Tii t?ff~ti~j ~U~Y> ~~? ~il~ ~ IT\`. ~li i1C~~~eCl I~ ~~a>Ii~iC {rUlll 811 ell"Ill~~f}II`; ~~ian~i~k~}Il~~i~~aU~C Pl Ullil/~~ 2111 ~'y]~hn ' 21~U'_`lll]1CG1T a~]LCi ila~ iltli~' i'~?L]liliey]I~ T~! C~?I1~TPlfi'l. it i re~~~nlm~ia~ie~l rlrlt tl~i ~~r~~j~c~ hr cva'TVhine~l ~~r•th r11~ 1~{I (~l~ an~i C'~~~1~mt~ i~i>a(~ ~~ Ilil~r~cCll1?Il Ilni)11?\cfllcfll> [,t Ili i'r1)~~C~ f)_'-~) 1. iii ili~lll,' fit). file ~ [~1' ~~l~~l~li(i f~l'C~'l~'~' L]l~~f~l' ~~~fl}~~i'UCI~'~' ~~I(i~~ alli~ i1a~-c Int?I~~ i'~?I1d~P~!~ i?1'C'f~ 4.0 Proposed Improvements iil~ ~~"Inclll t?t ~ i?PIIIC~' izi~a~i ~) ~l~t?I1~1 C~lt IleA1 a~f"Illl'lc[11 i~t ~ i?t'lll<<' {ZOLh~ ~_) Ci~~ .~ ~-{ lr ~ \~ I~~ Zit' 1'CC~~I~~IrIICl~1i li? 2111 ldd'ha~l >~Clii!tl VV I~id ~i?IU'1'~li' Cldl~h a~llt~ ~'lll4~`I~ allij ~Ti?I'In ~e1li:[~. ~ilc ~a>LCI'il ~Ilii ~){ file f~Ci?11>U~UCY~ii fi)8iiv121v V1`li~ [lfl~llllllalc LII. a ~U~i-~i~-~~1~. ~ti)I~III >\~~f Cil3iil il;l>Ild~ t1 I~i i?C C(?II,~II~rIC1Cti V113 id >l~?1'ITl 5~A} ~1' i~~I~C~~al'f'lll~ l~l r11~ c~`1~lur~>v~kclll i_?n 1 ~~ (>f. ~~alcl~ 11121111 111~~ ~?c Ilhlaii~~i 23~OIlL' 1i~7~ ti<~Ul~il tii~i~ ~~~ C~1~` fQa(~lta~~ C~~Ilil~~'UI1~' 1~1`C? ~`~I~U~113: (~Ca(~-c'll~~ 5c'I'lil~lll~. ~ ilC ~ Its," D~' ~ a(~Ilal~ ~1C1~-~~115 ~1'1~~~ ili~l21~~ 1!8{~I' 11121111 8ii?n~' Tile Ili~rCil ~li~~` i?~ R121~iV1a~~ 4.1 Traiil i~lc ~~lUlil ~tiiC ~?f llle 1'ilal{~\21~ 1bi~~~ ~]C i~~`~IS'Ll~`Ci l~~ :_I~'~'i~llllll~~ti81~ all i?11-1'~~a+.~ t~fa l i. F~ 3sIf~Iltt~J ~P~i,~lt A ~'JIHPLE~! 1 ~:~ iJl`~ ~i1 ~ f (~~1a~l~.~oocJ P-,~ Acceleration 'Lane ~'lll l)(> I Ilan i~C~l'!Iltl~ Llllij v1`111 fU1H~ CII~ Ci?11>U'UClli?11 ~?I ~PII A~C~I~T~PII~)Il ~~t11C 4i?l~ ~a~lhul}Ill ~ I ~ IJ~~-~ T~! ~i?LlY~lht]I~UIC~ I l I f,>I. [~Il aCl~l}Ylul}. ]17~~~9a911}i~ti~~ ^1 T~19 ~il~~~i VAIII ~~~` r~l'U[3>h~U~teil l~? aI~V1~ Illtli-c A~`~ld~li~ l~? I)~ RtVl~eil ~i'~I~ 1~3~ I~`ft ~'aantl t~urnin~~ n~~~.~~~}1}~~~t ~2f Ill h'i-~ a+~ ~uuthhuula~i Ili lil. Ih~ ~1}~~lia+~ uh~l'I~i~~ at izl~l Cuul~n K~~ai~ l) ~~ nll' h~° rlu>~~~. 5.0 Easements/Permits III ~~~~i~l~ ',ill h< arcorn~~I~i~I1~~~ ~~ith~~1 ~,~iti~n~ ri~~~~~-~~f~-~~a~° ai~~i n c8~~lllclll~ ~ll~c 81111C11?~1T~'~{. ~, ~ h~illllt 1~f(?ill tld~' ~)LI)aitl}1L1}t ~~I ~Ic<lllh ~I~ tllalil II1 era l~l C]lfull. 0.0 Est~i~mated Project Costs ~,~1~ T,JhI~ h~~O1\ til'lll1~119a1-11c~ t~}c` ~~Tllllatci~ ~ll'(1~~<'} C!'~l. ~ I~lc ~~I~i?~cCt CC~~t Iti hil~Cil ~~~Il a ~ICI<ll~l~(I C~U~Ildal~ IC?ll~lil 111 .~I)f~~li(115 ,~. I ~d~ ~C~~[ 111CIUil~~ a °~l) h~r-r~nt rol~t~li~~~nc~. The t~~t,~l hrc~~~~ct root ~a~c'Iu~l~~~ a _ I _~ h~rc~nl ,~II~~~~ ua~c'~ #t?l~ {11lIII~cCt (i~<T~ ~Ul li aJ ~'Il"lflclfl~lll~'. Fjlllll}Illti~ll]31i~71. Fil}ll LC^a~ 1C~IllS. a~ 1\~'~~I ,iti La}~1t~1~~I7~ll IIdT~I'C>t. IZir~1~lV1aA' l'i>>l> Lik'IU~I~ ~illdil~Ca~llll~' C~iulnn i:~~a;l T) (~~urt R~>a~i~~a~ ................................. fit. Paul \V~adcr~ ~~lai1}.... aiinai~ ] Icis~t~t~ \~'ai~r (\~laila.. I?stinuifieel ~Cutal (~~~~s1 ' Ir~~n~~ ~~,ICln~,ii~ II~~i~l~t: ~lni>C)1~ ~cce~~ratit~~ia I.a+~~~ K,,<<,1~~a~ ......................................................... S_'~t4. ~~t= ~h-i.ll-~? ~: w ~-11,b?S '' ~' l~r~.m1 ~11n I)O1 ~.0 Financing I~il~all~ I11L Il_~1~ t~l~l~ }~i~i?~cl'1 v} Ill ~~~ ~~f~~~ li~c~~ 17v a P:11'li'ly' i?~~ >OUI~C~'>. I IdC> {URA{~ 1RC~Ul{C ~_~~I_LLl'tV f~eulil>. ~ ~~~?hcI214P~c ~`!fc~`ll]~`llt ~l_Illij~. I'll{I1::IL~~~c1~11I Sul}ll`~. ti~~~~ I,1~ ~i`~~`~,~L]P~'l~IT~. aui~ fl?Llll~ll'll)<i~ `.Y,Iti' alll (ul}~~:~. ~_ ~?Llfll\ ~"1111(I~ ........................................................................ E u~il)~C<ICIA~ .~'~I~CCU1Cllt t-ttnil~ I'~lf (UI-IjiJ-~CIC ..................... \fn. L){)l ~c~~l~rat~i~?~~i Lanr ................................................. ~ ~Iiinais 1 Iii,~t~t~ .................................................................... ~I~c'~ 1231 ~~,~~ ~,~I~lc I}(~ ............................................................. \iah~~°~~~~ixl L)~ht ti~nic~°....... 51,4.U~7'j ~'~,IN)tl ti? l ,l)r, ~'~ "(} F~ 3sIf~Iltt~J ~Pli,~lt A ~'JIHPLE~! 1 ~:~ iJl`~ wit; ~ f ('v~1a~l~.~oocJ P-,~~ ~', X3.0 S c'fi ed~u~l a ~~ryry L'C~ti~nC }~eti~l~lll9t~ ~ZC~h?It t~! ~_~1C~' ~ i?ulrC+I'.... '~)'t~7171~~1' ~ ' ~1f)~ I'bbl?~dC {-I~ilflll' .......................................... ~)~C~Ildl?~f I_'. ~l)O~ ~U(~li?I~I/~ I'la1~ti ............................. ....... ~~~C~Illh~'I~ I ~. pP _'(_~K)-F .~I)I)1~~.~1~ h~~lli~ tlllil ~h~'CIIICa~It)f1S...... --~ .............~I<llz~l ~-~. ~llO~ E3id Ohvnin~ ........................................... .............. ......~hril ~;. ........... ?(1(i 1~~arc (nirtr;ac( .................................................... ..................... ~=>r+ ;, Oily ~i~3:lll ~ ~~R~~II~+IC11C~l1....... .......~~~1A ~). ~(_)O ~.Il~j ~ t)11>T7~GLitl01~ ,.~tIL`LI>i I ~). ~f)(1~ F~ 3sIf~Iltt~J ~Pli,~lt A ~'JIHPLE~! 1 ~:~ iJl`~ ;its; + f J~4_,~:d=.,cocJ P.,~T 4 LFsf of Figures Figure ~ ~~ Project location Map Figure 2 = Camty Road D Court ~" nd County Road D Areas of Construction figure ~ Typical Section Appendix A Estimated Project Costs proposed Assess«~e«t MAPLEWOOD. MINNESOTA TH 61 State Project SP 6286-46 City Project 04-06 SEH FILE A-MAPLE0402.00 STATEMENT aF ESTIMITATED QUANTITIES ~fl,~i nrP.1 r~~~~. ii~r,.i ~ ~ ~~r~l~~;~1~~~ ~_~t~~,r~n i i If s ~trar~ i>r-;IC:~ i F;i,:;i- _ J} , trl '~1~.IIJ:~ ,~I ~'~~~~ ~-UP,11' °UP,1 ~L ~, .11:~J5`~ :,1!rLb ~;I I_l'~f~ilN! ~ E1C~-i:l '( ,~ - ~ %1~i1 ~1 .~kl~Nl !fly:; i~~_~hl 1 1 2- ~ ~> 11 ~ ~. 1~~~4 ~ 1~f f 1C ~`,`I f 'i'~i'I I~ f'll'f. ~~ f f.P~;'1`~ I ITd f i ~ II II ~ 1~3 -1:, ~ :1r~~ts 1~t11~~~~-.~i_i~il~l r.i!i_~~thts i_irlfd ;:~a ~~~~,~~ ~ i'~4 ~ I,I L} ~VF_ t;l!I;I r~fJf) ~.lU F 1 I-.I~ ~JPJ I ~ 1(l~:"i 1 '~_ 1 ~ !ri ~ ~.1~~~4~ 1~f f 1C1`,`I_I',IfUA91fJ'~iiti~.`;'~^,iR ~~)1''I) 1`~1~1 ~~ ~~~1:3 ~ 1:, ~ I il~i~1,1 I I f~} i`Jk ~.!RdCkk_F1- I'i 'df=(~,}l=fJ~ ~ ~~!,~ ~~~{~ i _i:1;t i:1i<. l~~l "; I %1~i~1 ~1 I,I L} ~VF .U~dCF1F FI `;'lll K i~C.~ `~'{) i . fi ~ %1'~4 `~1 1~f f 1C~~`,`I.1',IfUA91fJ'-~lfS I'~,.'i_r~l{ PJi ~~) 1''I) 1111 1 ~; 1 i,i~.~'1Pi ~ i1~i~1,1 ~ ~ f~} .~`„k_I~I;~UNr ,'~l= 51I,ui;Fll~l-a= ~=11~;1i 1 } '.'1 r t ~1~~.1 ~~1 1~~ ~ i~_~,~i ~i~ ~r~ Ivf~l_ i~ I ~~~.~:_;ii 1 1 ~ ~~ ~~: ~ ~,iv1 ~,1 1~t 11~~~~-.~i_ i~il~l ~'~.1~1~~_~r,i I ~'~.~._;r~ ~ ~,~~ s:~ i ~~ ~-~~ %1~i~1 ~1 I,I L} ~VF Gdn:IL l ,~; ~IJ~G'I':'~I; ~ ~ I-:'~C;ii 1 1-1~1 111 -'r~ Fi iio~i,l , ~,~;~~~ir~~,~~ ~r~l~;i;~ ri i~~~~.i-r.li=ral ~r~_~i-x.111=i~rFl~ ~.ir1i ~ ,;s3s i_a~~~. i ~.~~~~~~.;~ H ~1:~~9 `~1 /~'.vR~J~7 F~II f'!~.`;~{ A9LFII it l?I L f~Ll'lF{i I Ird f i 1~!c~ 1 .1£s °'.~9:i ~ i 1 u 1 .,7 ~~I : ~'~~ f SI"fJ I',~d~SF_I 1'~ i'I ~_; I-~'v_;i i 1 1 u~ i 1 ~ ~ !!i i ~l 4 `, I Ldr'~.(,1 ~I!;r~J l1'f'f L1 f r'~.C;11 ~ ~ ~ .~ .. ~- ; 1u1.,7 / I .!.d f Sk'~fJ IYI'1= t, 1=i'~,~_;ii 3 ~ _ ~~ rsy l /1u1.;2 ,~~I:~'~~ f SI"fJ IYI'I-SI'I-iat~! I-~'v_;ii 1:~;<~ 1 ~~ fJ ~l 4 `,L I Ldr'~.(~1 SLf;`;~i~;f i:F11~IfJl_ I f i~(;11 1 ?( %;I~ ~:~i 4 1'r, v ~. '~P,94~1! PJ I ~~'C;ii ~/111r,{~I !l=`i`, l! YI ~ .>f5p=1 t ~1 ~t, `~1 U{1C~{rllil I_XLI'.'%AI I~?N ~{ `l'~ i;+.1 1'fi 31u~i 1 i 1 ,1:~ ~~L ~l _ ,f I_f ~;1 .I/~~}lq ~~Ii I;!~I~I~~ .r' ~C`~`'~ :U 1'fi __i?i'~ ~ 1 l~l "~ ~. /1u _ ~~~I'S~.~II I-i~'I;I; !;l! YU :;i l r;~~~. ,~,+`_+-4t i', 7,(11 S ~ ! ~I?I_ ~l~.fl Ii~~Si ~C'~`~ ~.I ~\SS F, CY1 1'fi 1:;:%~; 1 .{`:~ 1 1J11 i;;, f'. 'J} v ~, ~~;F1F_~-\FI silUl;'L[)IF11PJ~~~ ~;I:'~SS; I!YU J~-1 1 1. f', ~ ~; v I-il FlJh91[~l .I i° t~,rl~~ 11=F21i~1_ I ~ %! IP ~ I ; ,~' +~\ f ~ i;l~,i-L' ,N v _ ~_t;1 1 i', ,~,i;;~ I il'1 SI 1. c°~,{ ~~I?IfJF,~;~)UfSi PIIX i~11 i IC?N 1~i}'.; 1i~: .1.1~,L f'. ~„r~ ~~r"I'F ~I' 1i ~ f! ,[1 `rl-i~l. ;iil ll'.,I f~11X ~~1,1-) l ~ ,N ,?(~"~ ,; i~ ~~~ ~"~~~~ K ~'~1 '~1 1'~ ~;ti I~If'f i:1!I_`;~f It ~Ird f ~ Olaf) ; ~1 ic. 14.E f]1 MAPLEWOOD. MINNESOTA TH 61 State Project SP 6286-46 City Project 04-06 SEH FILE A-MAPLE0402.00 STATEMENT aF ESTIMITATED QUANTITIES ~fl,~i nrr.i P~~~~. ii~r,.i ~ ~ ~~r~l~~;~1~~~ ~_~t~~,r~n i i If s ~tParl i>r-;IC:~ i F;i,:;i- K. ;,, ~i1 ,1 1 ." kt; I'll'I=. (;I )l JL=F21 ~.~~~ f5f~ ;'i<a ~'-1'a_:'i~l K ~~ ,i~1 '~~1 ;" Ia; I'll't_ GUI Jf i? (~ %_IAP'~` ~ Li?~1 ~ ~' ~) 1 K ~ iL~,- 1: ' I:(; ti,~f C I`i' '~I'I~(iM f /U;I~ II II . K ~1 ,'~ ~ 1 _ " I:~; ti~'~f I_ I `i ~.I'I~(iM { i\C'ri :~ ~l li !F, sir 1;~ K. i~ ~i1 ~i ~i" kt; s~11 I fi'r' ~I'I, ~~d 111~;1i 1 1 } ~<~ 11 u~, K '~ `~1 1 ~~~ I:(; I'll'f. Sf '7C1~ ~JA1 f ~ ~~ ~~ ~ 1 ,; :y f<. ;~ ~ :,1 1 ~~~ kt, 1 11I.,;f=~,.'I I; ~ ~JPJ I ~ i 1~> >.'f.s; K. dui~ •~diFUf,~'~PPdl1~Is~F2ilC;l1!I;I-I'~I~I<;fJ,: 'rF,~; IJPJI~ I 1'i",~, ,_,,r~ K __ i^~~IIM iti.5f f!;lf;i''( f i~C;l~ I i~~ i 11 (=~1 - I ,~~~i4;. II-J. ;t,N;If:IIC~ [~I;i~IPJid;f=511.!I(`IilF:k_ ~JPJI ~ ~'~i~l ~'-1 ~~?i __ K. ~l} ~ I,r~PJf)t,f l hIf'h~~I' .I ~~SS !I ~;I! YU I ~ i?~-', '1-1 < ~ K ~~~1 L'~1 ~I:l~.NUI l~.f; J Id I f l; i:U 1'fi ~ 1" =,~_~, ..~ ~1 5 ~ 'iMCla fl _;{ II;L :`~ C~! I I I~I_I~ li) ;-1~~N J'.~9%-4 IJTd f i 17~i ~'~~1 1 1 ~~ ~ :%~ I ..~IL~ iMC;la fl _;{II;L:`~C~!III~I_I~lil;-iGNI)~li-1 IJTdfi i-11 1i/-1 ';:s~l Pd i . 1 .. " I;I::~I~D S~ l-f I .;~ ,NI ~i-~I ~ ~Jf1 I ~ <~C? ~~_1> , Sri PJ ~', 1,:, ~"N~iN-A9f.1l~.ll I~:C!!NfiUll !1)11:1 ;fl')PJI LaF~Uf;C'~ .:., ~4'.~1 ~ 'ii;i', PJ ~, lr `~,:; ~f•(1(~IZI U t;A.F~I J 1 ;i)PJI i Fly? ~'1 ~ IJrd f i L1:i? ~ 1 ~~ iii~~ PJ ~'c 1',`~-1 f {;-lI~'a iAI',INf I til L~~~NfJ~^~f~'Y I'i'I'{ I_l f /~CI~ 1 ;~~ ~-1?'~ t_I:i.'i~i PJ . `~ L~~ i~ 1-iiAFlfit7~?I I _ { /U;ri 1 ~ ~, ~:r, ~~if) l % t~ 1 ,3 ;,I„~d I'~,~ll-I_~ I'r I I i.; S_r~ F 1 %~~ 1 ~ ~<~ ~ 1 ~>`~ ~,=1 ~- i' E~1,=1 1~75F~:PI ~lC~fJ I'i1PJ4=1 f`r'I'l= (; 1=I1C;ii 1 1~1;~i3 } 1 3'f i:;1 `~-1 IPIti'f /11 I ;SIGN I'r f~'I _ U { ~'~.~~;rd 1 7 "~'l rE', ~~i U~1 ~ ~, r rdt~ ~'!I I _~~,t~'i ,'~.ti' ft~1EU;I<~ _f; :~.~ ~ 1 I /u;~ d - ~ ?~; I I,; I~~ I ~i`~~,~4i~ I'l~': (_P~11 P! I P,91_' ti'~..;i i l J f i .'-'~f~:{ ';~'~ I_I'r !:/`r f r'~.~._;ri ' ; '1~ 11 :,. ~.; ,~,~ ~; ~° ti~ ,l IU l_!NI- `r'I I I ~;`rl I'~ ~k`r' I IPJ I ~ 1~~ ,3 i_~:~ 1. i ~,i?~ ~ir~,~46 1 ,~C?I IU LiNf `.^tllll_-I I iX''( I IN f i L~~~1(1 Ci 1 i ~11 ,~~4 Si ~ ti~,l-IU I_lNl='.','fllfl I-1 %'1' I IPJ I ~ ,J~:"i )_`i~1 1 9_ri(i MAPLEWOOD. MINNESOTA TH 61 State Project SP 6286-46 City Project 04-06 SEH FILE A-MAPLE0402.00 STATEMENT aF ESTIMITATED QUANTITIES ~fl,~i nrr.i r~~~~. ii~r,.i ~ ~ ~~r~l~~;~1~~~ ~_~t~~,r~n i i If s ~trar~ i>r-;IC:~ i F;i,:;i- _ t~~ I~L',!I~i til ~PJiU ~ i s fCl`~1 El ; (~ I LP~;'1 ~ '~',!~ 7 ~ . ,, ~!~ .~ ~ .511 I f I PlCt I"fl I f~1=~.C;IiIfJL SI flJAI f i ,, .. II II 15~ 1, `~i;i', I) ~ `~1 I i L1I'~:7{:E1R1` UI I „Ii is-it ;F. Il'f'{ :~ IJrd f i 'Ai; ~9 ~1 ~~u i1? D ~ , ,:i(1 1~~11I1 If, ~fFi;~lt,N ~'r'I'F iv I-~'~~_;li i, r1 I i~.?~ll I) ~ 5f { Uld'J~; Fly-il i ~ ~ 'J 1'~~ `, 11.~,,~;~, ~ o >~., ,,I t,rlu~i_~.;Fit;l~~,rF=i;ln:~.i~ri~i=~~ ~ ~~~~d t~~~. I~,,.a~ ~~ ,~ ~ ~ D i~., .. I-Ii~,~l~ ~{.l ~~~~Pd~li~ ~I f~sl:~~P~JKI- fs ~~.FI~,~?F2'r" 1 ~,!.~ ~r'{~ q~,,11 1.1:; }`~ ~ 'f3 I) P.liw'll fiCl~^~i I f I:i l'~PJl~I'r51.~,! `~, Ii ~;'~UNfi ~ 1?l c;~i D i'., , ~.1 SL=f=U f~91'~ I L1kk_ . ~a(~ I'~ ~I!NU Esi 1_I-1 1 ~ ~_ MAPL€WOOD, MINNESOTA County Road D Court Improvemen~tS City Project 02-08 SEH FILE A-MAPLE0405.00 I E ITEM N uQ~ESCRIPT~~i~ U(flili SNIT PRIDE TOTAL OUANT~ITY TOTAI,v COST %1 '.'.Q i - Ia',i it ~ ~ `~ CiP.i I `-, - r ~ ~ (u) -- 11'I.I - '- 111 ~~:i i)j~ ~I..I ''J, ,~. I_; \~11~~''._~ ~I~~:I_ ~~I l!I..I -~i-.il.~ ~;~~~~~~i II I~~I ~.'„~ i~~~. ~~'I flt~r-~ ~ ~~I'~~- '~ '~-~~~' I'j~l ': I ~ 1 i it l-~ ~ ~ ? I ,I ~~or ~r;i=l:~ti~~~ r ;~)t~~:~,Rrl F (I rE~.i; n~~i; ~:_~~_n i i=f~~. i E ~ ,.~ _ a. ~~ o~:, ~It ~;oti I,f r~ac,,,~-r:~~ I i.f_r.~i ~~,II<:I-, i r .I.,t~~:~~ l r _I -,~,r~.. ~RL6.U rk_ L}h:i+.IfJ~~,~~.~f_ Sl NUCa ~_INI. I_?,~' ~I I n r~;, I i~fi '1..a';1: ~/`~:%IN'~~L?I~Uf.ll~! i1~~~,,-Ef.1~EN~(EUU Ii~~'~H1 I_I ':ii' ,n 1 ~~ {. ~ 1 ~" ~)i) I , v. , :;r;~ ~ _~I:~u,l r~i r-~~. ,~ r=.1 i~_~rl ;r~~ ~ ~'r , ,~, ~ i ., ,~, ~~ -~ ~,,. ~ ~,I ~,r,~ti ~I~rn~_ ~ ~~,~~;~~u~il~~ ~~I~ ~~zl,~l; ~r I~,.e~o I I •_~;,~ Lit ~;;r)} ~.~~C.~hl ,;i,lf_I I. C:I ~,-; l~,>Pd ~1~ r;1, i i00 ~,t !li!10 ,1 `d1~: 4;Iltlf,1111~ ll;~' 'I r.l? I''I I ~11ir, UI?IVI ` ~~ !'.`N ~ -'~~~ nri '1 1,i,!)n ~ 1 ';-,? i'~IIUf,llf~d !~_l~', [ /~R X11 I f.l~;'~ f _~~[; I~.~DI :-li~_U(? ti+1(~ 19 ~ih'7(~(~ I '~1 G1~1 I'~Il+.!h,lll! US fJ fJ ''.'I`~~I; iYl'r t ` N..'~> ><~ ~"Hi il'.% -~[ '~ i ~ :f~l ~ Qii << r;~ - r;~ _ -_'rz 81I+JF.IIPJ~`U~f1!`~.fLRir~Lr~-N I~r h'_;~_'~-~I _ ~~~:~ I t~~,,I~~ ~.Liiu ~ t' 1 -1'~ 'b7" I:~. I'~11'I ,i+.I I ."~fd ';~-1 f V I IF:,i+, ,i 1 ~,I.1/~I'.f) i :1~.:1 I .li)il ii ~,?1 ' L'" ~:~r1 1'll'I I)I;l~Ihl I I lr ]~i i ~C 'll! .. I' li.. ~11~ i:~ ~:'.I~I~~~. '. fit. _~ ~."J I:IV '. II i;,'lJ (I', '.;.I I ~~i~~ ~~~1 I ~I-'I 1~1 ~. ~ r 'i t)l/ I ~lfi '~ I iI i_1 f~~ ~~ ~ lr I `„~ Iii. ~'If ~E i~.} ~ E I ~~" I ) i~' ~i." II ~ i ~.i?(1t ~~~~. ,~~~I I ~~~: ~\I~ 'N JI"~' I;\'.:II ~~~.i;!' ~ l)ii j; ~,j~;1 I ~;,;:~ 7° cui;r ~ r~_~i ~,r~~ ~ i;~_,s. E f~.~: I I z I ,,,.~ : I< <~ ~~~~ I , ~~ , I ,„. [;I!i I I f,.l-~ !~I „[ ' ~JI_? Ci' 'i\ ~!~c;l-I ~ 1 . I ~ n... - ,1 I r1,lJ _~:~~II .~!1 ail "{~`-~~)~i~~'i'.. ~ ~'','..~II ~ , _. l~r,i y J..i i li 7 f. 1 n(~i a .~ ~C~fi~11_._ ~ I ~,/ I . _I.~ ~ INS ^, I L I~ f:l 1_/-,' ,I I 1 .!_~7~) I flr!i ~{ I i I)~ii `, E`1 ~ I ~~..'. ~,I I ~ l .'.(!I.~ I 1 '.ll,' ;I1 f!I"P ~II~ ~`.ij~: I,~ 171'I ~\ (,f _-~~'~'1-: ~~ ~'~~'~. I ~ '~__~~Ifl ll~~.) i'~I,) (I~_1~?"~. 1.1~~1)l b,. ~~~~ ~.~ ~~I-I~I,:1'll~'~ ~r ~.Q'-1 LIJ i'rl '.1 ~, 1 ills I ~~(}". ,.;" f)l ir ; I II !~ Ifs N ~','~i I {' h,9~~JtJ I r i..~rl 1 `~ ~ , iiG t l :SG;-~ d)l)('.l I I ~. 11:~)td ~ II f I~Ji,:=~ LI', - .. i i iii ~t~ :)'J x.01 ,C ~P~1:~ A Rll!' I 1 I.. It~U,~SI ~ I f-a I ' I Uf-:1 l ,, I !\['.I I if. Oii 1 ,i(i ~ ~ ~ ;i~! MAPL€WOOD, MINNESOTA County Road D Court Improvemen~tS City Project 02-08 SEH FILE A-MAPLE0405.00 I E ITEM Nt'~. ITI~M DESCRIPT~~i~ U(~t' 1TNIT PRIDE TOTAL OUANT~ITY TOTAI,v COST 71 ~~ L~.i; } I I%f'.~-~ ~~ ~ f_-'r~ I I':~ .'~ t,~ '• ill. r. ~;~1 I l,il I ~ ~ 1 i it l-~ . _ ~ I ~50~' F ~-;~`~I YF~i I IN1= ~,;'I IIT1= Ff ~.~~;~~,~~ ~ F - I ~~r~ ;~,;,~ ~ ~~n ;f)I)If 1 ~ ~(Yf f i ~:~l~N _~~r' )r) r~~~ ;1 i 1;7n r~~~ 41 nhi 4'f_UL ~I I;L",~J l:A,f.il' I_P,~..,~I I .,_0~.! ,, ,,~r~ ? I , ~ r~~i x:11 ~~, R! I'll'I ~;;L ~,~ I I , ii0 ; (ir. _, I _~,, ~,~~r~~ Q1 51S 1.,~~ fi f II~'r -11 I- ~f~J ,;.' I!„~..til I „~ i,11;1) I l-~,i;l I ~ ~~~ ~'~!? ~ ~'(i? r ~ ~}n :: 1 `~1 ` 0" I( I'll'r ='.f I f~-1 l'< 1 f:'~.>f I . ± i "~.fa) k !`~,(`f { 1 ~.'~ ran 1 i)il °1 : ti (r! SISBTOTAL 1'+"+ :;1'+ i_~n I I+1E~ ~.~_~D.t:~~Ih.t~-.~l ~_~Pd C~_>PdI hJ~. ]L I~-1(~ f__~~ 1' s`-,1 ; ,_., ~~ 1,_~il :~~ ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COST ~,,.I,>,;~.~I ;I , ~~ f',4IUf.I~IPJ, I_l:r. E I fil~__'~lf-I IN_;ll.~tJL~~I I ~ CAP..}f l~__'fd LX~ %, ~(I~)N TOTAL ; -; ~;~r~; .- U, I- Z LL1 ~ Vi Q W F- I- ~ Z ~ ~ O ~ LL1 d /fj Z ~ U Z - [iJ G U, G U? o Q a ~ ~ r ~~F== w ~ m a~`n Q O ~ ~ U ~ PROJECT LOCATION ~~ 1 r 6 ;ONC. R~~ AND GUTTER 4° TOPSOIL AND ~ SUiTABEE MAfERI VARIES RAW VARIOUS ~E VARIOUS I ~ 861$ CONC. R/W 1 16'-50'I 16'-50' CURB AND GUTTER + 4" TOPSOILA AND SOD-- ~~ I ~UiTABLE MATERIAU~~ L-DETAIL A COUNTY ROAD D COURT STA. 8+00 TO 9+57.83 DETAIL A ~ m s n i 4 w 5F 3~~ ~o~ ;" TYPE ~V 2350 WEARING COURSE 'UMfNOUS MATERIAL FOR TACK COAT i° HYPE iV 2350 BASE COURSE _° AGGREGATE CL 6 (M00. 5~) oi~~ No. "TYPICAL SECTIONS l P,~~,N~ ~~~,~ ¢~a_~G~~ A~AP~EO4o5.ao C~NTY ROAD D COURT ~ ~ ~ 355 vA~NA.IS cEN><E~ oR. ~~~ ST. PAUL, MN' 55110 ~AT~. 1i~12/04 ~y1AP~EW00D, MINNESO1fA COUNTY RdAD D COURT STA. 3+56.58 TO S+OQ AGENDA ITEM K-14 AGENDA REPORT TO: Richard Fursman, City Manager FROM: Charles Ahl, Public Works Director/City Engineer SUBJECT: Century Avenue Improvements (I-94 to Lake Drive), Project 03-15--Review Environmental Assessment Findings and Review Project Schedule DATE: November 15, 2004 Introduction Ramsey and Washington Counties are jointly proposing a major reconstruction of Century Avenue from Interstate 94 southerly to Lake Drive. This is part of a turnback of old Trunk Highway 120 from MnDOT to the Counties. The Counties have prepared an Environmental Assessment Worksheet as a preliminary investigation into the proposed project. A review of the proposed EAW comments and the project schedule is recommended. Background On October 15, 2002, Century Avenue and Valley Creek Road (in Woodbury) were transferred from the Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) to Washington and Ramsey Counties. The section of Century Avenue south of Valley Creek Road (known as Lower Afton Road in Maplewood) to Lake Drive was added to the project as part of overall planning discussions. The total length of the project improvement is 2.6 miles with 1.8 miles on Century Avenue and 0.6 miles on Valley Creek Road. Approximately 0.2 miles of Lower Afton Road will be improved as an approach to the Century Avenue intersection. Traffic volumes range from 18,000 vehicles per day north of Upper Afton Road to 7,500 vehicles per day south of Lower Afton Road. Posted speeds are 40-45 MPH. The last major construction improvement on this section of roadway was 1962. Summary of EAW and Schedule Identified project issues: • Increasing traffic volumes (to as high as 28,000 ADT in 25 years) • Poor intersection operations (mainly at Lower Afton Road) • Poor pavement conditions • Access issues • Lack of walk/trail system • Drainage issues Proposed improvements • 4-lane section with center median and turn lanes • Eight-foot-wide trail on the east side (Woodbury) • Six-foot sidewalk on west side (Maplewood) from 94 to Lower Afton Road • No trail/sidewalk on west side south of Lower Afton due to impacts Estimated Project Cost = $7,600,000 • Maplewood share has not been determined. City Council Agenda Background Century Avenue Improvements November 22, 2004 Page Two Proposed Project Schedule • Environmental Review and Pre-Design 2003 -June 2005 • Detail Design 2005 - 2006 • Right of Way Process 2006 - 2007 • Contract Bid Award November 2007 • Construction 2008 EAW Issues • Wetland impacts: o A number of wetlands, mainly on Ramsey County property, are identified as possibly impacted by the proposed project. No acknowledgement of the Maplewood ordinance on wetlands and buffer requirements is identified as a project need during the detail design segment of the project. This should be added. • Traffic /access impacts: o The construction of a center median will have local impacts on businesses within the corridor. The main impact will be at the Upper Afton Road/Century Avenue intersection. A proposal needs to be explored as part of the detail design segment that addresses alternative access issues at this intersection. This should be added as a comment. • Trail impacts: o The proposed trail south of Lower Afton Road on the west side has been removed from consideration due to wetland impacts and golf course impacts. Maplewood would like a further review and public comment phase to occur during the detail design phase priorto agreeing to this improvement plan. This should be added as a comment. • Noise impacts: o The noise mitigation analysis indicates that Washington County maintains a standard for noise mitigation that exceeds the state no standard. While Ramsey County does not have a stated policy, it does not appear appropriate that different approaches for noise mitigation be applied from the east side to the west side of the proposed improvement. The same standards for noise mitigation should be applied as a condition of the detail design segment of the project. This should be added as a comment. Public Involvement Phase • May 29, 2003: • August 5, 2003: • July 18, and 24, 2003 • November 17, 2004: • November 29, 2004: • Future • Future Open House Open House Stakeholder Meetings Public Information Hearing on EAW Final Comment Period on EAW Information Meetings during Detail Design Phase Maplewood Public Hearing on Improvement/Plans Recommendation It is recommended that the city council approve a motion to approve the comments on the Century Avenue EAW and direct the City Engineer to forward the comments as Maplewood's position on the project. C: Environmental Assessment Worksheet ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT CENTURY AVENUE/VALLEY CKEEK ROAD (formerly TH 120) KECONSTRUCTION PROJECT State Project: SP 82-625-02 CTB and SP 62-672-04 CTB (Century Avenue) SAP 82-616-16 CTB (Valley Creek Road) Minnesota Project: Century Avenue from Brookview Drive/Woodbine Avenue to Lake Road/Century Avenue, Valley Creek Road from Century Avenue to Weir Drive, and Lower Afton Road for 0.2 miles west of Century Avenue in City(ies): Maplewood and Woodbury, in County(ies): Ramsey and Washington of Minnesota Section(s), 't'ownship(s), Range(s): Sections 1,12, and 13, Township 28N Range 22W Sections 6, 7, and 18, Township 28N Range 21 W Submitted pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 4332 and M. S. 116D By the U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration and Minnesota llepartment of Transportation for Reconstruction of an approximately 2.6 mile segment of roadway as a four-lane divided urban section, with a separated sidewalk and pedestrian/bicycle path, traffic control signals, and stormwater ponds. Contacts: FHWA: David Graeber Washington County: Christine Manthey Transportation Engineer Design Coordinator Galtier Plaza, Box 75 11660 Myeron Road 175 East 5th Street, Suite 500 Stillwater, MN 55082 St.PauI,MN 55101-2904 Phone: 651-430-4316 Phone: 651-291-6108 Recommended: Dodd Theisen, P.E. Date Wachinotnn ('nnnty i~ennty T)irectnr/C'nnnty F.n~ineer Kenneth Haider, P.E. Date Ramsey County llepartment of Public Works Director/County Engineer Reviewed and Recommended: ~. ~ ~%'~'~ Mn/D T -Metro is nct State Ai ngineer Approved by: Director, ate Aid for Loc Transportation Approved b~~ l~fJ L FHWA ~'~ Date zZ D¢- Date ~~ g Z 7 /D~ Date r Table of Contents Page Area Location Map ........................................................................................................ ........... v Project Tocation Map .................................................................................................... ........... vi I. REPORT PURPOSE ......................................................................................... ........... 1 IL PURPOSE AND NEED FOR PROJECT ......................................................... ........... 1 A. EXISTING ROADWAY DESCRiPTiON ............................................ ........... 1 B. NEED FOR THE PROJECT ................................................................. ........... 3 III. ALTERNATIVES .............................................................................................. .......... 4 A. PROPOSED ROADWAY DESCRTPTiON ........................................... .......... 4 B. ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED BUT REJECTED .......................... .......... 7 1. "No-Build" Alternative .............................................................. .......... 7 2. Design Alternatives .................................................................... .......... 7 a. Roadway Design -Century Avenue ............................... .......... 7 i. Three-Lane Roadway ......................................... .......... 7 ii. Four-Lane Undivided Section ............................ .......... 7 iii. Four-Lane Divided Section ................................ .......... 8 iv. Five-Lane Section with Center Left-Turn Lane. .......... 8 b. Roadway Design -Valley Creek Road .......................... .......... 9 c. Urban versus Rural Section ............................................ .......... 9 C. COST AND FUNDING ......................................................................... .......... 9 1. Project Costs ............................................................................... .......... 9 a. Century Avenue .............................................................. .......... 9 b. Valley Creek Road ......................................................... .......... 10 2. Funding ....................................................................................... .......... 10 D. PROPOSED PROJECT SCIIEDULE ..................................................... ......... 10 IV. SOCIAL, ECONOMIC AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS (SEE) ............. ......... 10 A. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET .......................... ......... B. ADDITIONAL FEDERAL ISSiJES ....................................................... ......... 50 1. Social Impacts ............................................................................. ......... 50 2. Environmental Justicc ................................................................. ......... ~0 a. Project Area Demographics ............................................ ......... ~ 1 b. Environmental Justice Findings and Determinations ...... ......... 54 Environmental Assessment Page i Century Avenue/Valley Creek Read Reconstruction Project Table of Contents continued c. Impact Assessment ................................................................... 54 i. Air Quality .................................................................... 55 ii. Noise ............................................................................. 55 iii. Aesthetic Values ........................................................... 55 iv. Destruction or Disruption of Community Cohesion .... 55 v. Destruction or Disruption of the Availability of Community Services or Facilities ................................ 55 vi. Displacement of Persons and Businesses ..................... 56 vii. Increased Traffic Congestion ....................................... 56 viii. Isolation ........................................................................ 56 d. Environmental Justice Findings ............................................... 56 3. Economics ............................................................................................ 56 a. Fiscal Impacts ........................................................................... 56 b. Impacts to Commercial Business ............................................. 57 4. Relocation ............................................................................................. 57 5. Right of Way ........................................................................................ 58 6. Noise ..................................................................................................... 58 V. PUB LIC AND AGENCY INVOLVEMENT (AND PERMITS/APPROVALS)........ 59 A. INFORMATIONAL PROCESS ...................................................................... 59 1. Public Involvement Plan ...................................................................... 59 2. Coordination Meeting and Contacts ..................................................... 59 3. Project Management Team ................................................................... 62 4. Summary of Early Coordination .......................................................... 62 B. PERMITS AND APPROVAL REQUIREMENTS ......................................... 63 C. PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD AND PUBLIC HEARING ........................... 64 D. REPORT DISTRIBUTION .............................................................................. 64 E. PROCESS BEYOND THE HEARING ........................................................... 65 APPENDIX A-1 Exhibit 3A Proposed Improvements (Century Avenue) Exhibit 3B Proposed Improvements (Century Avenue) Exhibit 3C Proposed Improvements (Valley Creek Road) Exhibit 4A Typical Section (Century Avenue) Exhibit 4B Typical Section (Valley Creek Road) Exhibit 5 Project Location - USGS Map Exhibit 6 DNR Natural Heritage correspondence (3 pages) Exhibit 7 Mn/DOT-OES correspondence Exhibit 8A Wetland Impacts (Century Avenue) Exhibit 8B Wetland Impacts (Century Avenue) Exhibit 8C Wetland Impacts (Valley Creek Road) Exhibit 9A Proposed Stormwater Drainage Plan Environmental Assessment Page ii Century Avenue/Valley Creek Road Reconstruction Project Exhibit 9B Proposed Stormwater Drainage Plan Exhibit 10 Noise Monitoring and Modeling Receptor Locations Exhibit 11 S1iI'O Correspondence Exhibit 12 Mn/DOT-CRU con~espondence (2 pages) Exhibit l3 Parklands Exhibit 14 Section 4(f) -Temporary Impacts Agreement Letter Exhibit 15 2000 Census Tracts and Block Groups Exhibit 16 Summary of Open House and Stakeholder Meeting Comments (3 pages) APPENDIX A-2 Floodplain Assessment DRAFT SECTION 4(I) EVALUATION Battle Creek Re,ional Park Ponds at Battle Creek Golf Course LIST OF TABLES Page Table 1 - Century Avenue Proposed Improvements -Access ........................................... .. 5 Table 2 - LUST Sites in the Project Area ............................................................................ .. 15 Table 3 - Cover Types ......................................................................................................... .. 16 Table 4 - Welland Impacts ................................................................................................... .. 19 Table 5 - Soil Types ............................................................................................................. .. 25 Table 6 - Groundwater Sensitivity to Pollution ................................................................... .. 26 Table 7 - Existing (2003) Capacity Analysis LOS Results .................................................. . 28 Table 8 - Existing and Future Average Daily Traffic Volumes ........................................... . 29 Table 9 - Year 2030 No-Build Capacity Analysis LOS Results .......................................... . 30 'fable 10 - Year 2030 Build Capacity Analysis LOS Results ................................................. . 31 Table 1 I Mimiesota State Noise Standards .......................................................................... . 34 Table 12 - Federal Noise Abatement Criteria ......................................................................... . 34 'fable 13 - Noise Monitoring and Modeling Results -Daytime ............................................ . 36 Table 14 - Noise Monitoring and Modeling Results -Nighttime .......................................... . 37 Table 15A -Population, Household and Race - 2000 Census (Ramsey County) .................. . 52 Table 15B -Population, Household and Race - 2000 Census (Washington County) ........... . 52 Table 16A - U.S. Census Data, Ramsey County Income and Poverty - 2000 Census .......... . 53 Table 16B - U.S. Census Data, Washington County Income and Poverty - 2000 Census.... . 53 I I:1Projects\4740~EP~I2eportslGAW~inalEA1EA-CenturyVCR-07sep04.doc Environmental Assessment Page iii Century Avenue/Valley Creek Road Reconstruction Project AREA LOCATION MAP CENTURY AVENUENALLEY CREEK ROAD RECONSTRUCTION PROJECT Ramsey~lNashington Counties - SP# 82-625-02CTB, 62-672-04CTB; SAP# 82-616-16CTB a~ao a,~a,~aa Exhibit 7 BEEEN~ST. ~ 34 d ~ MAR u ~ ~ r o -~1 ~I =/ ~ s h I~~~. _sl. se, M?sPLEWOOD - GAflET sr. 91F sTZ rs ; m '~ ~ S.r ~' i~=..~'~YRS'- sj~l\ E. 6 sr. ~ 00 POP. 34,947 Q em BT• ~` _ ~~ E. STO Si. ~ a v _ 69. FOREST MTS. ~ 3 4MERW:I N ST. <~\ 1~ ^~ a °ItM1 ST. io. GaROEN /LIB ~ VERv ST, ~Y~?~7~ FR[N ONT rr\\~~ I3. IVV TNER Wn fit„ Si. ~1H P~~ ERV -~ - H6.ly i]. SNIPER CURVE ~. k I. xr` ~ .NGv a AL'E. i ~ Si, a a s 40 \ CvE 5 w Cl IINLV]F] 61h Si. q ER ~\ 65. DFLLw000 LOVF PRESERVd ' AVE.° Si4 vICE OP. 5 65}N Si. ~ " S Sy ST, h sT. 66.5tn AV& 9]Y] LLNWA~ _ rh A Si, ~ 109. PRESERV ST. T 45' - S>~' a v 61. 41t, IVF. 109. PPRK511 WAR Begin N ` l n~ ~\9'~ ,V~ N.~wQ I~ ~f z }~ 68. EVERGREEN OP. LA. __y 120 / xA Sf ~ N~ a°¢i `y\ ~~. `J-(1~~~' -Y+~ 110. PRESER' °E SP#82-625-02CTB and ' /~ ~ LT. ~P - `\ 1\]~~ rr\\_ Si 14R S su ~a Si ~ r ST. n 1' ~ ^ ° ST. N. 62-672-O4CT6 Y - ~kn(~/\ ~~~ ` T.. ~~e AvE. T9.IS1 AVE. I ~ AAIUFi1L~s;~ , ~~ w 694 s. aw~N w r9. oE<LwaoD LA __ ~ ~ ,4" RD. Dtuwooo sa ~E_NUD50N J l ` 20D0 POP. r00~ ~~ m AD } " ~~i 6+ T. CEDaR UR. ei. l"oEN ~ Sl. ai:. 51. N c L T ~ 94 u_ f re. a 80~ rvunsoN ~i eLVD. NvasoN atvC..W°. ~E ~- _ - ° NuosoN sli~R~ ASHriooD RL. ~/ HuosoN a°_ _W~ ' " 6<. Ear,LE R1ocE atcovE of `_'~^ ~~~'u ~y~9 0 ..n ~ BR DOWVIEN ~ `~ B¢~~ ` I. EICLF RIDGE Pf WOOCB~ J p'T'~89. FONTAINE CT. 3L DR. ~ ' / 0\/- ° --_- cO~ENpCa \~ CF2¢k aVICNON Ci. oPDf1U.f0L~lE ~Q~OtrGN _ ~ ~,tle A/[~(e' ~ MnrER < a ~ r ~~ I a r. A. wco~ o_uR. ~'" ~ anMESffi oR.~ w R1DCE eke Lcr RIA R - ;e TPOWERS P"E' ~3 m 55. ~ V y 494 G(ROND CI. ALCWE o 1 Y I Li ° F \, /// - GT.~ _ ALA. IT LH aR8` AVE. ~ wO0 ~l 8B' <LCBlRO ~ _ / 1 End FTDN o ~~EEL Ga °> ~/ ~ aLLGN p~LE 6T. _ -Y~LIII sH. oarc KNOLL aR.L SP#82-625-O2CT6 and A ~ T.~ ~ _ _ ~ SS. UPPER FTGN IH. , ~ a.LLN R; '~ ..°~;~,L 62-672-04CTB '" f MtA00~0 y ~~EiCRIOCE AvE 93"OG'00" a"O\°nsPeN ~ o' ziw ~ ~i ~~ ° tlarcE NGRD. ~~~ Nx FALCON avE.AVE. FLEW OOD E. +11 p0 T2y ¢ inM0.4ACK / OR y Wo MOpDOUC LLENgrrce w . 69 z 7000 OP. 34947 `/. <POpga- ~~ ~ pF°c' EPL eD. ~ J k uR a HRLSDALE AVE. /~Zx (~ z ~W N tp® '^ tEJYti~~i ANBERWJ00 ~ m -~ A'// fp ~ / 4LCOVt 56. SILVERWD' ~ 6]. D S LENDER G1R. U SPRUCEWDOD T~ ° GaNOLEWp NATURE Pa/a, pv ¢ IIGH 89. W EPDAK CIR. 1INOEN DP p0~ \o Inu tlEH WOOD~w 0.0~i3. SCHOONER + ^ PC. O LO ~/L~ - SNO RIFT CIO. OAKW000 ~~~ o o ~a CT. "^~^ ~ GPLwgY II CC~~ P1NKS F R0~ ~b~~Ja _ R;~ ~ 0[PCN uODO -Q y a `~ 50~0.5FV ~ N~~`~ z tiW /O V 9~~He NII WOOOMEfiF z ~/o o gy ~Y CC. °6" a' C(CREST RD. PINENURST ~ s Nn o End ~°I ~ >: /' ~l_MER. FLDNDI4 y Ln. 'TO PL. \~0£? ~ o ROaiI _ PONp a ~"~ AVE. ~ p'OPYO~rp' ~~ ~ ° SAP#82-616-16CTB / ~P ~';eA a ~C MONT 6~ _J AVE. ~° w I'O~~w PfiV PDAU1 i^ PWaDD CR. `=' o~~` UR. ~ ~M III AP ~ Q1 ~ ~6 //\J/ J ~'~ __ x sHM' t+>+ ~z J, KINCa ~ la ~~lP. O'OAY >E "~W Nl~ / / / ~ ~ CONE?0 ~ MnttAND RD. u N° ~'^ 'f+ PS -i / ~ o~~~ '' 3 as y` ~~ Begin ~~ ~;c - z KWDDD° ~ . VqC N, a. W DDDP °¢ ~~~ ~ I° ~" RD~~ u, 7o~a LENTNi'! L:R. (/,~ ~7CV-C_'P*; wExFO oSAP#82-616-16CT6 -/ ® _ l DR. ~' / - I ~ J ~ ~ \9[~ p p fR~R Eb" 11.ODNE'.AL M 3 a w wu woGD ~. wesvlEw DR. - H.. -AI / C <o, 1z. MCwrosH ;NyHROPi O~ L ~ ROLtIPT ~W ~ 00~ i SA NEL ~ ~ Ae. LDRTLANC 77 LT. ST \\0 ~`a' ~ .¢I° DAKRICC~~DR. '^ Ilt °~JoAKRmc~ dry ~~ 3EO+~RO J¢ \ ~~\\,°b ~.~ E P~3~° °' u.- 'cr. ~ ~, La rAO!L sr.. r6~~~v~ w -A T~./~;11 68 ' S~INCSIDE OF. ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ W[NnGATE J nICOVE ~\~~ ~ RD. ~~a o9i cF' a- uNWa o ~'^AV . _ 25 gl / / sTEEPIFViEw Ro. 1 L r~F ~~ o'A ~_ IAN - ~ I R0. m `< ~' AvL ¢~J``NDDG C~. ~ °PRONC ~' <v ~ ~ ~'~' ~ RDL nnHl /41-T\ '~ ~NTOR EL VO. rf V S/~yfRn ~9'~ ~p~o \ \\ ~' f i J ~¢ ~ W~ 6 h~ x'S MAriEtTHO PNO fHNOkN LL PL.¢ ~ / ~GOy YB a? ` e.~°19 ~WtR [T. \ R 19.{HUNTCNCTON cr. _ n]. T2 d ~ ~' RR.FUnR IN. ~ ~ s, zo. ~~E. wiulA ~~ ~ °RnMe~ a ~ _w es.~ yf ~q~ ~< aEROEEN p~°~oR. g 16. ~01. ~~ ~°Rloce e n-TEMENAOO _ s`a ~.iM ems, r. °~'", ua F-- '~ Nruaa °~ c,~~: cLENaDSS aD. ~ rc1NCS c1R. 'i o jra. R ->, a T P rus n. - nvE. - 1 e. Ea ~ ~ e, ~ J y w Tr91 ~ C~ vI. CORIA JYAM WAY u ~ a W ¢/1~H~104 VJ3 'TE D' P RIOG~ -" EYYIt PL YPLLtY/ 8 VALLEY v w a~E. pFD gD r i:c a I,e Noi it \C''t~ nVE-`IfW r NFI 92. 72 /~ z'° .r LCIIRTLY ~s FU l,cl2 OUL RD \\ s1°~' ~ `7 °uccewoDD E.: - crR.'j( ~ 7 _L cD ~ = 5~ RD_~~-r. o ~ J° cq Rv.- nuomr~ ~'~w - ~ ~ a ~ ~ I-F1 _~ R Y ~.i~' ANE. - - ~e~"'o f~MEW ~ ~ ~~, U ~~R' i' r"~;R, IF LT. J) J RU. pgPis~P; a s M. NE uViz= L~1= 4~_ FTrvra_. Av F. y ° o~~~ a E•F wyi N 2/AVE. ~ ~_ e ~--{ (IIIV °~9cePPF R F TR. J. caP+tH UPrcs A_care y e-L4. ~~ ~ SDEA Ci. SOUL /~ ~`J ` Q. 9 1 Oax IG 5 LEST PVF_ / ~/ /~T \C\. /ro a l Y 2 SOD OJIBWAY R ' °~ ~~ MORELANO _ P / 1 y~ P k '~ mm Q ~ ep ; 4\ WpO~/NF, ~ ~l1 J ~I~w", A94 ~ ~ ~~~~~~ ~e s~fr~f ~r ~R.~`~T~_ ~o "et`°e.,~ ~ ~ owsrvDF ,ta/ o-`--la a I 1_ake ~1~~"e D,V /1_J, ~ crR~ ~ ~Isaye oa` E~ ~ RO M-/~W"V~ ~ e xwooD~ avE s HNOT R ~R. vi (''r' a ` T INS ~-~ ~° 1ynM r _ _ i,~ ~~ ~ o c a eaoot m 1~A R .. L_ ~~y Y ~~~~(('- ~"°rK~~°~ ~` ~ae + ~'W tl M ~~- ~ cT.l ~ 'l~ ~~ °v ~~ ,if to s"GwsNDF c E ENT Ur ER ~J ToR~ 3-~ .1 (aD ¢ t D qPN / ~~, cT w // o ~vd w) C i' < EADUW ~ ~ ~~r P ~_ 07 ~ z raw cFNTURY ~ _ ) ~Q % _ .' I ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ R ! e ooK R~ ~~~ ~ a_ 4VE. lit ~ - iR R CGPP ~ t I\ \ a `11`~r~ca PvE. ~ - W C- ~ vR C ~ '.6Y RGy L ~ uI~ `~1 a \\ ER ~,- ~//r '~ U ~ J R eP~ .REJ°~ F T-~, ~ i I _ \~ Ervccq~f e~ ovFRLOOK! EIR. PROJECT LOCATION CENTURY AVENUENALLEY CREEK ROAD RECONSTRUCTION PROJECT Exhibit 2 Ramsey,NVashington Counties - SPA 82-625-02CTB, 62-672-04CT6; SAPS 82-616-16CTB a;ao 8.13/04 REPORT PURPOSE This Environmental Assessment (EA) provides background information including • need for the proposed project • alternatives considered • environmental impacts and mitigation • agency coordination and public invoh~ement This EA was prepared as a part of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) process and state environmental review process to fulfill requirements of both 42 USC 4332 and M.S. ll6D. At the federal level, the EA is used to provide sufficient environmental documentation to determine the need for an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) or that a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) is appropriate. At the slate Level, the EA is used to provide sufficicnt environmental documentation to determine the need for a state EIS or that a Negative Declaration is appropriate. At the state level, this document also serves as an Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW). Minnesota Rules 44101340 allows the EA to take the place of the EAW form, provided that the EA addresses each of the environmental effccts idcntified in the EAW form. This EA includes each of the environmental effects identified in the EAW form. Washington County is the proposer and Responsible Governmental Unit for this project. Preparation of an EAW is considered mandatory under Minnesota Rules 4410.4300 subp. 1, and under the following subsection(s): 4410.4300 subp. 22 (B) -construction of additional travel lanes on an existing road for a length of one or rnore miles. This document is made available for public review and comment in accordance with the requirements of 23 CFR 771.119 (d) and Minnesota Rules 4410.1500 through 4410.1600. II. PURPOSE AND NEED FOR PROJECT A. Existing Roadway llescription Century Avenue is located along the border of Washington and Ramsey Counties, as well as the municipalities of Maplewood and Woodbury. Valley Creek Road is located in Washington County from Century Avenue to Interstate 494 (I-494), continuing east through Woodbury (Exhibit 2). On October 15, 2002, Century Avenue and Valley Creek Road, formerly known as Trunk Highway 120 (TH 120), werc transferred from the Minnesota Department of Transportation (Mn/DOT) to Washington and Ramsey Counties. The project area includes Century Avenue south oC I-94 from 13rookview Drive/Woodbine Avenue to the Lake Road/Centuiy Avenue interscction, and includes Valley Creek Road from the intersection with Century Avenue to Weir Environmental Assessment Page l Century AvenueNalley Creak Road Reconstruction Project Drive in Woodbury. The project area also includes a small portion of Lower Afton Road at the intersection with Century Avenue as part of the intersection reconstruction (Exhibit 2). The existing roadway sections for the proposed project are classified as minor arterials. The length of the existing sections being improved is 2.6 miles. The length of the section along Century Avenue is 1.8 miles, and the length of the section along Valley Creek Road is 0.6 miles. Approximately 0.2 miles of a section of Lower Afton Road, west of its intersection with Century Avenue, is also included as part of the proposed project. The existing roadway along Century Avenue consists of a rural section with two 12-fool lanes and 4- to 8-foot paved shoulders. An urban section with a paved median is located at the north end of the project corridor near Brookview Drive/Woodbine Avenue. Left-turn lanes are not provided at side-street intersections, whereas right-turn lanes are provided at several side street intersections. The Century Avenue/Upper Afton Road intersection is signalized with tutu lanes provided for right and left turns from northbound and southbound Century Avemie to Upper Afton Road. Turn lane widths at this intersection vary from 12 to 13 feet. The Century Avenue/Valley Creek Road intersection is an all- way stop control intersection with aright-turn lane provided from Valley Creek Road to northbound Century Avenue. The two-lane roadway transitions to four lanes approaching T-94 at the north and approaching Lake Road at the south. The posted speed on Century Avenue north of Willow Lane is 40 miles per hour (mph). The posted speed south of Willow Lane is 45 mph. The existing roadway along Valley Creek Road and Lower Afton Road consists of a rural roadway with two 12-foot lanes and paved shoulders ranging in width from six to ten feet. Right-tum lanes are provided from Valley Creek Road to intersecting side streets. An eight-foot paved trail is located along Valley Creek Road from Weir Drive to Parkwood Drive, approximately S0 feet north of the roadway centcrlinc. The posted speed on Valley Creek Road between Century Avenuc and Weir Drive is 40 mph. The existing right of way width varies from 65 feet l0 80 feet along a majority of Century Avenue. Additional right of way exists at several specific locations (e.g., Battle Creek crossing). The existing right of way width varies from 100 feet near Weir Drive to 150 feet for a majority of Valley Creek Road within the project area. The existing right of way on Lower Afton Road is 100 feet. Year 2003 Average Daily Traffic (APT) volumes ranged from 18,000 vehicles on Century Avenue north of Upper Afton Road to an estimated 7,500 vehicles south of Valley Creek Road, and 11,450 vehicles on Valley Creek Road. The land along Century Avenuc consists of a mixture of commercial, institutional (i.e., church), residential, open space, and government. A majority of this land is Environmental Assessment Page 2 Ccutury Avenue/Valley Creek Road Reconstruction Project residential. The land along Valley Creek Road is also primarily residential, with commercial and institutional (i.e., schools) land use near Weir Drive. Century Avenue crosses Battle Creek approximately 1,600 feet south of I-94. An existing 72-inch reinforced concrete pipe (RCP) box culvert conveys water under the roadway to the west from Battle Creek Lake. B. Need for the Proiect Century Avenue and Valley Creck Road provide local connections in the Cities of Maplewood and Woodbury, as well as regional connections to I-94 and I-494. Washington and Ramsey Counties, along with the Cities of Maplewood and Woodbury, have identified a need for transportation improvements in this area. This need is based on increasing traffic volumes, poor intersectio^ operations, safety concerns, access issues, poor pavement conditions, lack of a walk/trail system connecting neighborhoods, recreational facilities, and businesses, and drainage problems along the corridor. • Increasing Traffic Volumes Current daily traffic volumes along Century Avenue range between 11,000 at Valley Creck Road and 18,000 approaching T-94. Volumes on Valley Creek Road are between 11,000 at Century Avenue to over 20,000 at the I-494 Interchange. In the next 25 years traffic volumes on Century Avenue are projected to increase to approximately 15,000 at Valley Creek Road and 28,000 south of I-94. Traffic volumes on Valley Creek Road will range from 17,000 near Century Avenue to over 30,000 vehicles per day near the west ramps of I-494. Engineering studies show that two-lane roadways begin to experience unacceptable operations at 10,000 to 12,000 vehicles per day, depending on individual roadway characteristics and access conditions. As traffic volumes increase beyond roadway capacity, drivers can expect increasing travel times due to congestion and decreased safety as greater numbers of motorists present greater potential for traffic conflicts. • Poor Intersection Operations Traffic operational problems exist at several intersections in the study area, with the Century Avenue/Valley Creek Road intersection being the worst. During the morning and afternoon peak times, vehicles approaching this intersection experience congestion and delays. As traffic volumes increase, drivers will experience greater delays at this and other area intersections. • Poor Pavement Conditions Vallev Creek Road was constructed in 1962. There are no records of when Century Avenue was built. Both roadways received maintenance overlays in the late 1980's. The pavement is in poor condition and will continue to deteriorate with the increasing traffic volumes. The pavement on Century Avenue south of Environmental Assessment Pale 3 Century Avenue/Valley Creek Road Reconstruction Projeet Valley Creek Road was in such poor condition that a maintenance overlay was needed in 2003 to keep the road together for another few years until reconstruction can be done. • Access Issues There are 30 driveways and streets on Century Avenue and 7 driveways and streets on Valley Creek Road. Many of these driveways and streets on both roadways do not line up across from each other. • Lack of Walk/Trail System The project corridor lacks a walk or trail system to connect the area neighborhoods, businesses, schools, parks, and recreational facilities. • llrainage Issues Backyard drainage problems have been reported for several residences along Century Avenue and Valley Creek Road. Another drainage concern is with debris collecting on the upstream side of the culvert at Battle Creek causing flooding problems. ALTERNATIVES A. Pronosed Roadway Descrintion Proposed reconstruction of Century Avenue and Valley Creek Road will result in a four-lane arterial roadway, separated by a center median with center left-turn lanes. Design will consist of an urban section roadway with raised medians, curbs and gutters along Century Avenue and Valley Creek Road. Paved shoulders and right-turn lanes will also be located on Valley Creek Road within the project corridor. Exhibits 3A, 3B, and 3C depict the preliminary design layout for the project corridor; Exhibit 4 shows a typical section for the proposed Century Avenue and Valley Crcck Road improvements (see Appendix A-1). The proposed reconstruction project also includes other improvements to intersections, access changes, ponding locations, and new pedestrian bicycle trails. More detail about these improvements can be found below. See Section IV.A. Item 17 for a discussion of ponding locations. Century Avenue (CSAH 25/72) SP 82-625-02 CTB and SP 62-672-04 CTB Roadway The proposed reconstruction of Centwy Avenue (CSAH 25 in Washington County and CSAH 72 in Ramsey County) from the Lake Road/Century Avenue intersection to Brookview Drive/Woodbine Avenue will result in a four-lane roadway with a concrete center median. The roadway will be built as an urban section with a curb and gutter and storm sewer to collect stormwater nrnoff. A Environmental Assessment Page 4 Century AvenueNalley Creek Road Reconstruction Project 160-foot long retaining wall is proposed just north of Oakwood Drive along the east side of Century Avenue. Left-turn lanes will be provided along Century Avenue at alt intersecting roadways. Right-turn lanes will be provided at the Century Avenue/Lake Road and Century Avenue/Valley Creek Road intersections. The existing traffic signal at Upper Afton Road will be replaced. Access to Century Avenue for intersecting streets and residences along the road will be modified, and range from closure to full access. Table 1 identifies the proposed access to Century Avenue from intersecting streets and adjacent residences and businesses. Additional access modifications will be considered for existing businesses on the west side of Century Avenue north of Upper Afton Road, including shared drn~es, frontage roads, or access off other city streets. TABLE 1 CENTURY AVENUE PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS -ACCESS Intersection/Residences/Ilusinesses Existing Access to Proposed Access to Centur Avenue Centurv Avenue Lake Road Full access Full access for A lewood Pointe A lewood Pointe emer enc ~ access N/A Ri ht-in/ri ht-out Pouliot Parkwa ~ Full access Full access Centur Circle Full access Closed (no access) Packwood Drive Full access Full access Valley Creek Road Stop control Traffic signal Existing intcrscclion Intersections with Oakwood Road/Ramsey County Full access Pull access Century Avenue Corrections Facilit Future city street north of Oakwood N/A Full access Road Willow Lane Fu11 access Cul-de-sac (no access) U er Afton Road Traffic signal 'frafiic si anal Ride Drive Full access Full access Woodbine Avenue Full access Full access Brookview Drive Full access Full access Three residences north of Lake Road Pull access Right-ir>/right-out on east side of Centurv Avenue Existing Six residences south of Willow Lane Residential Access (Four on east side and two on west Pull access Right-in/right-out along Century A side of Centur Avenue) venue Centur Ridee A artments Full access Ri ht-in/ri ht-out Brookview Manor A artments Full access Right-in/ri ht-out Ponds at Battle Creek Golf Course Full access Full access Lutheran Church of Yeace Full access '~a Access (right- Existing in/rioht-out and left-in) Business/Church MnHealth, Super America, Marathon Access along Gas, A-1 Liquor, Go For It Gas, Car Full access Kight-in/right-out Century Avenue Quest Minnesota Motors Ri ht-i~ilri ~ht-out Ri lit-icdright-out Sodality of St. Peter Claver Full access Right-in/right-out Environmental Assessment Paee S Century AvenueNalley Creek Road Reconstruction Project Pedestrian/Bicycle Trails An eight-foot wide trail is proposed as part of the roadway reconstruction. 'The trail would extend from Woodbine Avenue to Ridge Drive and from Willow Lane to Valley Creek Road along the east side of Century Avenue. The trail would connect to the proposed cut-de sac at Willow Lane and continue on City streets between Willow Lane and Ridge Drive. A six-foot wide sidewalk is proposed along the west side of Century Avenue from Brookview Drive to Lower Afton. Road. South of Valley Creek Road, an eight-foot wide trail would be located along the east side of Century Avenue. A sidewalk would he provided at the southwest quadrant of the Century Avenue/Valley Creek Road intersection for pedestrians and bicyclists crossing the intersection. Century Avenue/Valley Creek Road Intersection The proposed project also includes the reconstruction of the intersection at Century Avenue and Valley Creek Road/Lower Afton Road as a signalized intersection. The existing intersection is ew7-ently regulated by all-way stop control. The proposed intersection would be signalized and incorporate geometric improvements to accommodate two lanes for northbound and southbound through traffic. Northbound and southbound right-turn lanes are proposed on Century Avenue for movements to Lower Afton Road and Valley Creek Road. A raised median and curb would separate this turn lane at the intersection from through traffic (free-right turn movement). Northbound and southbound left-turn lanes would also be provided on Century Avenue for access to Lower Afton Road and Valley Creek Road. Similar geometric improvements are proposed for Lower Afton Road and Valley Creek Road. Two lanes would be provided for eastbound and westbound traffic on Lower Afton Road and Valley Creek Road at the intersection. Right- and left- turn lanes would also be provided for access to Century Avenue. A median would separate eastbound and westbound traffic on Lower Afton Road for approximately 750 feet west of the intersection. Approximately 300 feet of this would be a raised median. Westbound traffic on Lower Afton Road would merge to one lane and eastbound traffic would be provided two lanes approximately 500 feet west of the intersection. A paved shoulder would also be constructed along Lower Afton Road west of the intersection. Valley Creek Road (CSAH 16) SAP 82-616-16 CTB Roadway The proposed reconstruction of Valley Creek Road (CSAH 16) from Century Avenue east to Weir Drive will result in a four-lane urban roadway with a paved center median and curb and gutter. A paved shoulder and/or right-turn lanes would be constructed along the both sides of Valley Creek Road. Driveways Environmental Assessment Page 6 Century Avenue/Valley Creek Road Reconstruction Project r along the north side of Valley Creek Road would have right-in/right-out access. Direct access to Park Hills Court from Valley Creek Road would be removed and consolidated with the full access at Parkwood Drive. Woodhill Drive would maintain full access with Valley Creek Road. Pedestricrn/Bicycle Trail Trails would continue from Century Avenue to the east along both sides of Valley Creek Road. An existing trail is presently located along the north side of Valley Creek Road. Portions of this trail may be left in-place and portions reconstructed as part of the roadway reconstruction. An eight-foot wide trail would also be constructed along the south side of Valley Creek Road to Weir Drive. B. Alternatives Considered But Rejected 1. No-Build Alternative The No-Build Alternative would maintain the existing two-lane rural roadway along Century Avenue and Valley Creek Road. The No-Build Alternative was not chosen as the preferred alternative as it would not address traffic capacity, operational, and safety concerns along the existing roadways Design Alternatives Several roadway design alternatives were :;onsidered for Century Avenue and Valley Creek Road to avoid and/or minimize impacts to businesses, residences, and parkland. The alternatives to avoid/minimize impacts to parkland are discussed in detail in the Section 4(f) evaluations completed for this project in the Appendix. Alternatives considered included addressing roadway design and urban versus rural roadway sections. Below is a brief discussion of each design alternative as it relates to the reconstruction of Century Avenue. a. Roadway llesign -Century Avenue Three-Lane Roadway This alternative would involve providing one through lane in each direction on Century Avenue, a continuous two-way left-turn lane, and signalizing the Century Avenue/Valley Creek Road intersection. This alternative was rejected because it would not address the future capacity concerns and the need to control access to Century Avenue via a center median. Four-Lane Undivided Section The four-lane undivided section would involve expanding the existing two-lane facility to a tour-lane facility, with no center median. This alternative was rejected because, similar to the Environmental Assessment Page 7 Century Avenue/Valley Creek Road Reconstruction Project three-lane roadway, it would not address future traffic volume concerns, safety concerns (accident rates are relatively higher for this type of facility), and the need for access control to Century Avenue via a center median. iii. Four-Lane Divided Section Several options of a four-lane divided section were evaluated for Century Avenue. From this, the proposed roadway reconstruction was selected. Earlier alternatives included a conventional, four- lane divided section with designated turn lanes, center medians, shoulders, a 10-foot boulevard and 10-foot path on both sides of Century Avenue, and 12-foot wide through lanes to improve capacity and safety. While this "conventional" four-lane divided section would address future traffic capacity concerns and trail improvements, it would have substantial environmental impacts as well as having the greatest property impacts. In addition, this option would also result in substantial impacts to Section 4(f) resources along Century Avenue (refer to the Section 4(f) evaluation in the appendix for further information). For these reasons, this option was rejected from consideration. A second four-lane divided section was evaluated to minimize environmental and property impacts. This four-lane divided section included minimum State Aid roadway standards with an eight-foot boulevard, asix- to eight-foot walk/trail on both sides of Century Avenue, and designated turn lanes at the Valley Creek Road intersection. This reduced section provides one through lane and a combined lhrough/right-turn lane in each direction, and reduces the through lane width north of Willow Lane from 12 feet to 11 feet. This four-lane section would accommodate future traffic volumes, and significantly decrease environmental and property impacts compared to a conventional section. To minimize environmental and property impacts even further, additional walk/path sections were evaluated (e.g., six-foot walk on the west side of Century Avenue, eight-foot path on the east side), resulting in the proposed roadway improvements described above. iv. Five-Lane Section with Center Lcft-Turn Lane A five-lane section alternative with two through lanes in each direction and a center left-turn lane was evaluated. Although a five-lane section with a center left-turn lane would address future capacity concems, it was rejected because of safety and traffic flow concerns. It would also not address the need for access control to Century Avenue via a center median. Environmental Assessment Page 8 Century Avenue/Valley Creek Road Reconstruction Projc ct U. Roadway Design -Valley Creek Road Existing right of way along Valley Creek Road east of Century Avenue was adequate for a majority of the roadway to provide for a conventional four-lane divided section (designated turn lanes, eight-foot boulevard and eight-foot trail on both sides of roadway) or a conventional five-lane section with two through lanes in each direction and a center left-turn lane. Both options would meet future traffic and could be designed to minimize potential environmental and property impacts. However, similar to Century Avenue, safety and traffic flow concerns eliminated the five-lane section from consideration. Drainage and water quality impacts to wetlands south of Valley Creek Road were addressed through evaluating an urban versus rural section roadway (see Section IILB.2.c below). Alignment adjustments relative to the existing roadway were considered to match the intersection alignment with Century Avenue, to provide adequate access to local residents, and minimize impacts to the properties on the north side of Valley Creek Road. c. Urban Versus Rural Section Century Avenue and Valley Creek Road were analyzed in consideration of an urban versus rural typical section as it pertains to surface water runoff and treatment prior to discharge. A rural typical section for this analysis included a paved median and ditches adjacent to the trails. An urban section for this analysis included a paved median and curb and gutter at the outside edge of the roadway shoulder. While infiltration within ditches of a rural roadway may be beneficial for surface water runoff, a rural section would require substantially more right of way. Because the project corridor is constrained by residences and businesses located adjacent to the existing roadway, a rural section would have increased the project's right of way impacts. An urban sections conversely, would require additional right of way only at specific locations, minimizing right of way impacts throughout the cor77dor. An urban section would also linut stormwater runoff across the sidewalks and trails adjacent to the proposed roadway and reduce potential impacts to the wetlands adjacent to Century Avenue and Valley Creek Road. See Section IV.A. Item 17 for further discussion of surface water runoff. C. Cost and Funding Project Costs a. Century Avenue The estimated construction costs are $7,600,000 for the reconstruction of Century Avenue from Brookview DrivclWoodbine Avenue to the Lakc Environmental Assessment Page 9 Century AvenueNalley Creek Road Reconstruction Project Road/Century Avenue intersection, the Century Avenue/Valley Creek Road intersection, and reconstruction along Lower Afton Road west of the intcrsection. b. Valley Creek Road The estimated construction costs are $1,900,000 for the reconstruction of Valley Creek Road from the Century Avenue intersection to Weir Drive. 2. Fundins This project was selected for $2,827,000 in federal funding in the 2003 solicitation and is proposed to be included in the 2006-2008 State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) in fiscal year 2008. The remainder of the cost will be funded by County turnback, Washington County, Ramsey County, Maplewood, and Woodbury State Aid and local funding. D. Proposed Proiect Schedule The following is a tentative schedule of activities for the project: Public Information Meetings Environmental Assessment Public Hearing Negative Declaration FONSI Dctai 1/Desi gn Right-of-Way Process Contract Letting Construction May 2003, August 2003 May 2004 October 2004 December 2004 June 2005 2005-2006 2006-2007 November 2007 2008 IV. SOCIAL. ECONOMIC AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS (SEE This section discusses environmental impacts of alternatives identified in the Alternatives section. It contains two sub-sections; • State Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) • Additional Federal lssues The EAW is a standard format used in Minnesota for environmental review of projects meeting certain thresholds at Minnesota Rule 4410.4300. Federal environmental regulations not addressed in the EAW are addressed in the separate sub-section. Environmental Assessment Page 10 Century Avenue/Valley Creek Road Reconstruction Project ENVIRONMENTAL riSSESSMENT ~ORKSHEET The Environmental Assessment Worksheet provides information about a project that may have the potential for significant environmental effects. The EAW is prepared by the Responsible Govermnenta] Unit or its agents to determine whether an Environmental Impact Statement should be prepared. The project proposer must supply any reasonably accessible data for -but should not complete -the final worksheet. If a complete answer does not fit in the space allotted, attach additional sheets as necessary. The complete question as well as the answer must be included if the EAW is prepared electronically. Note to reviewers: Comments must be submitted to the RGU during the 30-day comment period following notice of the EAW in the L'QB Monitor. Comments should address the accuracy and completeness of information, potential impacts that warrant further investigation and the need for an EIS. Project title: Century Avenue/Valley Creek Road Reconstruction Project 2. Proposer: Washington County Department of Transportation and Physical Development Contact Person: Sandy Cullen Title: Transportation Manager Address: 11660 Myeron Road City, State, Zip: Stillwater, MN 5508? Phone: (651) 430-4330 Fax: (651) 430-4350 Email: sandy.cullen@co.washington.mn.us RGU: Washington County Contact Person: Don Theisen Title: County Engineer/Deputy Director Address: 11660 Myeron Road City, State, Zip: Stillwater, MN 55082 Phone: (651) 430-4300 Fax: (651) 430-4350 Email: don.thciscn@co.washington.mn.us 4. Reason for EAW preparation: (check one) EIS scoping - Mandatory EAW X Citizen petition RGU discretion _ Proposer volunteered _ Environmental Assessment Page I 1 Century AvenueNalley Creek Road Reconstruction Project If EAW or EIS is mandatory give EQB rule category subpart number and subpart name: Response: Part 4410.4300 Subp. 22(B) Highway Projects -Construction of additional travel lanes on an existing road for a Length of one or more miles. Project location: County: Ramsey and Washington City: Maplewood and Woodbury Sections: 6, 7, 8 Township: 28N Range: 21 W Section: 1, 12, 13 Township: 28N Range; 22W Attach each of the following to the EAW: County map showing the general location of the project (See Exhibit 1 on page (v) -Area Location Map) U.S. Geological Survey 7.5 minute, 1:24,000 scale map indicating project boundaries (See Exhibit 5 in Appendix A-I) Site plan showing all significant project and natural features. (See Exhibits 3A, 3B, and 3C in Appendix A-1) Description a. Provide a project summary of 50 words or less to be published in the L'QB Monitor. Response: The proposed project will reconstruct 1.8 milts of Century Avenue from Brookview llrive/Woodbine Avenue to Lake Road/Century Avenue along the boundary between Ramsey and Washington Counties, and approximately 0.6 miles along Valley Creek Road from Century Avenue to Weir Drive in Woodbury. The proposed project will also reconstruct the Century Avenue/Valley Creek Road intersection, reconstructing approximately 02 miles of Lower Afton Road to the west of the intersection. Reconstruction will result in a four-lane divided, urban roadway for both Century Avenue and Valley Creek Road. The project also includes the redesign of other side-street intersections and roadway access as well as the addition of trails and sidewalks along Century Avenue and Valley Creek Road. U. Give a complete description of the proposed project and related new construction. Attach additional sheets as necessary. Emphasize construction, operation methods and featm-cs that will cause physical manipulation of the environment or will produce wastes. Include modifications to existing equipment or industrial processes and significant demolition, removal or remodeling of existing structures. Indicate the timing and duration of construction activities. Environmental Assessment Page 12 Century AvenueNalley Creek Road Reconstruction Project Response: Project Description Refer to Section III.A. for a description of the proposed project. Refer to Section IV.A. Item 20 for a discussion on removal of the existing roadway pavement and soil excavation. Construction Sta~in~ Specific details for construction staging will be determined during detail design. Project Schedule Refer to Section III.D. for the proposed project schedule. c. Explain the project purpose; if the project will be carried oul by a governmental unit, explain the need for the project and identify its beneficiaries. Response: Refer to Section II, Purpose and Need for the Project. d. Are future stages of this development including development on any outlots planned or likely to happen? _Yes X No If yes, briefly describe future stages, relationship to present project, timeline and plans for environmental review. Response: Not Applicable (N/A) e. Is this project a subsequent stage of an earlier project? _Yes X No If yes, briefly describe the past development, timeline and any past environmental review. Response: N/A 7. Project magnitude data Total project acreage: 48.9 acres Total project length: 2.6 miles (Century Avenue: 1.8 miles; Valley Creek Road: 0.6 miles; Lower Afton Road: 0.2 miles) Number of residential units: N/A unattached: NA attached: NA maximum units per building: NA Environmental Assessment Page 13 Century AvenueNalley Creek Road Reconstruction Project Commercial, industrial or institutional building area (gross floor space): total square feet: N/A Indicate areas of specific uses (in square feet): Office: N/A Manufacturing: N/A Retail: N/A Other industrial: N/A Warehouse: N/A Institutional: N/A Light industrial: N/A Agricultural: N/A Other commercial (specify): N/A Building height: N/A If over 2 stories, compare to heights of nearby buildings: NA Permits and approvals required. List all known local, state and federal permits, approvals and financial assistance for the project. Include modifications of any existing permits, governmental review of plans and all direct and indirect forms of public financial assistance including bond guarantees, Tax Increment Financing and infrastructure. Response: Refer to Section V.B. for a list of permits and approvals required. Land use. Describe current and recent past land use and development on the site and on adjacent lands. lliscuss project compatibility with adjacent and nearby land uses. Indicate whether any potential conflicts invoh~e environmental matters. ldentify any potential environmental hazards due to past site uses, such as soil contamination or abandoned storage tanks, or proximity to nearby hazardous liquid or gas pipelines. Response: Land Use and Compatibility The proposed project area passes along the corporate boundary between the Cities of Maplewood and Woodbury along Century Avenue and east from the boundary into Woodbury along Valley Creek Road in the southeast metro. Land uses adjacent to the Century Avenue corridor are varied and include predominantly residential development, with limited commercial and institutional (e.g., Lutheran Church of Peace) land uses. In the western portion of the corridor in Maplewood along Century Avenue, a large portion of the adjacent land is undeveloped and classified as open space. At the northwest and southwest quadrants of the Century Avenue/Valley Creek Road intersection, Ramsey County owns large parcels of land, portions of which are used to operate the Ramsey County Correctional Facility. South of this intersection along the west side of Century Avenue is the Ponds at Battle Creek Golf Course, apublicly-owned course operated by Ramsey County Parks and Recreation. Land use in Woodbury along Valley Creek Road is also predominately residential, with commercial development and institutional land uses (Woodbury Junior High School) at the castem terminus of the corridor at Wcir Drive. The function of Century Avenue and Valley Creek Road are not changing as a result of the reconstruction project. According to the City of Woodbury Comprehensive Plan, Century Avenue is an important north-south alternate route to Interstate 494/694. As designated minor arterials, they will retain their functional designation as a minor arterial. Access patterns to adjoining land uses will in some cases be more indirect by creating partial P,nvironrnental Assessment l age 14 Century Avenue/Valley Creek Road Reconstruction Project access (e.g., right-in, right-out). The roadway's capacity is being improved to meet forecasted demand arising from growth in daily traffic volumes and to improve intersection operations (see Section IV.A. Item 21 ). Parcels adjacent to the roadway will be immediately affected by the reconstruction due to the fact that the roadway width will increase along most of the corridor, combined with the addition of new trails parallel to the roadway. Land uses that are nearby the corridor will also realize some change due to changes in access, intersection geometry, and traffic patterns on intersecting cross streets. Changes to roadway width, increased traffic volumes, and redesigned intersections or access points will not create conflicts with either adjacent or nearby land uses. The roadway is located entirely within the boundaries of the Ramsey Washington Metro Watershed District. Battle Creek passes under Century Avenue south of Brookview Drive/Woodbine Avenue. An intermittent stream is located adjacent to Century Avenue to the south of Upper Afton Road. No other rivers or creeks cross the project corridor. Section N.A. Item 12 contains a description of the wetlands in the project area. The nearest lake is Battle Creek Lake, located approximately 2,000 feet northeast of the project corridor. Potential Environmental Hazards According to information available from the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA), there are no known landfills, contaminated sites, or spills of contaminated substances within or directly adjacent to the proposed project corridor. Three leaking underground storage tank (LUST) sites were identified adjacent to the project area. LUST sites are those sites where a petroleum product leak has occurred from a storage tank and has been reported to the MPCA. These site locations are summarized in Table Z. Two of the three sites have received "closed" status from the MPCA (no further investigation and/or remediation is necessary). The third, site 4333, has not been closed by the MPCA. Further investigation of this site and coordination with the MPCA will occur prior to construction- Tf any potential contamination is disturbed during construction, it will be managed and treated in accordance with applicable state and federal regulations. No past land uses have been identified that could result in environmental hazards during road construction. TABLE 2 LUST SITES IN THE PROJECT AREA MPCA LUST Location/Address Release Current Status Ill Number Discover ~ Year 4333 Super America - 1991 `T'anks replaced -continued 11 Century Ave. S. Ma lewood remediation for past contamination 8970 Sinclair - 175 Century Ave. S. 1995 Closed -2002 " Woodbury 2333 Fina - 6661 Valley Creek Road 1990 Closed - 1996 Woodbury "' Ywr Lhc site was cloned by the MPCA Contanu~mtion may still be presaul. Environmental Assessment Page IS Century AvenueNalley Creek Road Reconstruction Project Letters were sent to the City of Maplewood and the City of Woodbury requesting a review for potential landfills, spills, or contaminated sites within or near the study area. Both cities confirmed that there were no known landfills, spills, or other contaminated sites within the project area. 10. Cover types. Estimate the acreage of the site with each of the following cover types before and after development: Response: TABLE 3 COVER TYPES Before -acres After -acres T es 1-8 wetlands 1.4 0 Wooded/forest 3.7 0 Brush/Grassland 3.2 1.0 Cro land 0 0 Lawn/landsca ing 24.6 15.2 Im ervioussurfaces I5.5 31.0 Other ( onding locations) 0.5 1.7 TnTAL: 48.9 48.9 If Before and After totals are not equal, explain why: 1 I. Fish, Wildlife and Ecologically Sensitive Resources a. Identify fish and wildlife resources and habitats on or near the site and describe how they would be affected by the project Describe any measures to be taken to minimize or avoid impacts. Response: The majority of the proposed roadway improvements will occur in developed areas that have been previously disturbed by residential, commercial and institutional development and previous roadway construction. A portion of the open space associated with Ramsey County and Battle Creek Regional Park is located along the west side Century Avenue. Further to the west in Battle Creek Regional Park are wooded areas, dominated by deciduous free species. Wildlife in these areas, and areas along the project coi7idor, arc limited to those species that have adapted to urban areas. Typical examples of such species may include whitetail deer, raccoons, squirrels, rabbits, other small mammals and various birds. A wetland complex located south of Valley Creek Road may also act as wildlife habitat for species adapted to urban areas. Waterfowl may congregate at this wetland during periods of migration. Environmental Assessment Page 16 Century Avenue/Valley Creek Road Reconstruction Project Since the project is fully within an urban area, is along an existing roadway, and does not include the conversion of open space to developed land, no significant concerns regarding wildlife habitat have been identified. Valley Creek Road will be constructed as a curb and gutter section, minimizing sedimentation and water quality impacts to the wetland complex to the south (see Section IV.A., Item 17 for further discussion). The nearest water body to provide fish habitat is Battle Creek Lake, located approximately 2,000 feet east of the project area. No impacts to fish are anticipated as a result of the project due to the distance between the lake and project area. b. Are any state-listed (endangered, threatened or special concern) species, rare plant communities or other sensitive ecological resources such as native prairie habitat, colonial waterbird nesting colonies or regionally rare plant communities on or near the site? X Yes No If yes, describe the resource and how it would be affected by the project. Indicate if a site survey of the resources has been conducted and describe the results. If the DNR Natural Heritage and Nongame Research program has been contacted give the correspondence reference number: Describe measures to minimize or avoid adverse impacts. Response: Stale-Listed The Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR) Natural Heritage and Nongame Research Program was contacted (ERllB 20030940) to determine if any rare plant or animal species or other significant natural features are known to occur within an approxin~~atc one-mile radius of the proposed project. The Natural Heritage database identified eleven occurrences of natural communities and rare species within a one-mile radius of the project area as identified by section on USGS 7.5 minute quadrangle maps. For example, rare species and communities associated with Battle Creek Park to the west near St Paul were identified by the DNR database. These sites are within one mile of the western edge of the section(s) containing Century Avenue. However, the actual project corridor is greater than one mile from these locations. Thus, only three of the rare species and community occurrences are within one-mile of the actual project corridor along Century Avenue and Valley Creek Road: the Tamarack Swamp, Shrub Swamp and Cattail Marsh. More specifically, these natural communities are located to the east of the project area and Interstate 494. The DNR concluded for all occurrences that based on the nature and the location of the proposed project, the DNR does not believe the proposed project will affect any known occurrences of rare features. Refer to Exhibit 6 in Appendix A-I for the correspondence from the DNR. Environmental Assessment Page 17 Century Avenue/Valley Creek Road Reconstruction Project Federal-Listed The Mn/DOT Office of Environmental Services was contacted to review the project area for federally threatened and endangered species. Although Washington County is within the distribution range of the bald eagle (Huliaeetus leucocephalus) and Higgins' eye pearly mussel (Lamsilis iaiggins), it has been determined that the proposed project will not have an adverse effect on this or any other federally listed threatened or endangered species (see correspondence from Mn/DOT Office of Environmental Services (Exhibit 7) in Appendix A-1). 12. Physical impacts on water resources. Will the project involve the physical or hydrologic alteration -dredging, filling, stream diversion, outfall structure, diking, and impoundment - of any surface waters such as a lake, pond, wetland, stream or drainage ditch? X Yes No If yes, identify water resource affected and give the DNR Protected Waters inventory number(s) if the water resources affected are on the PWI. Describe alternatives considered and proposed mitigation measures to minimize impacts. Response: Existing Wetlands Thirteen wetlands are located on or partially in the project area. These wetlands were delineated in June and October, 2003. Afield walk with personnel from Ramsey Washington Metro Watershed District (RWMWD) was done and concurrence was obtained. The complete delineation report is available at Washington County Department of Transportation and Physical Development offices. Three wetlands (l, 2 and 3) are associated with Battle Creek, a DNR protected waterway. Wetland 4 is a ditch wetland hydrologically connected to the large wetland complex (Wetland 5, DNR 438W) at the southeastern corner of Century Avenue and Willow Lane. Wetland 6 is cattail wetland located south of the Battle Creek Regional Park property. Wooded and agricultural upland borders the wetland to the west. Wetland 7 is a cattail marsh located between residences on the north and forest on the south. Wetland 8 is located south of the regional prison facility, and is vegetated primarily with reed canary grass. Wetlands 9 and 11 are constructed wetlands located within the golf course; they are vegetated mainly with recd canary grass. Wetland 10 is a constructed wetland vegetated with cattails located to the east of the golf course. Wetland 12 is a ditch wetland, draining into a large wetland complex (DNR wafer 440W) south of Valley Creek Rd- Wetland l3 is a ditch vegetated primarily with reed canary grass bordered by residences to the north and Valley Creek Road to the south. All of the wetlands within the project limits have been degraded by runoff from the surrounding developments and contain large monocultures of reed canary grass and cattails. The large DNR protected wetland complex that ditch Wetland 12 drains into is relatively undisturbed and contains healthy populations of sedges and has more diverse vegetation. This wetland will not be disturbed by the proposed project. Environmental Assessment Page 1S Century Avenue/Valley Creek Road Reconstruction Project Tablc 4 shows the impacts to the wetlands within the project area, and Exhibits 8A, 8B, and 8C in Appendix A-1 show the wetland locations. A total of 1.35 acres of wetland will be filled upon completion of this project. TABLE 4 WETLAND IMPACTS tl W d Area (in acres) Wetland Type Type of t N an e Total Im act Impact o es Wetland 1 N/A 0.03 Channel Fill Stream channel Wetland 2 0.06 0.04 ] Fill Wetland 3 N/A 0.10 1 Fill Wct meadow associated with stream channel Wetland 4 0.12 0.12 1 Fill Ditch wetland associated with Wetland 4 Wetland 5 6.5 0.10 4 Pill Lacustrine wetland Wetland 6 0.65 0.06 3 Fill Wetland 7 2.2 0.13 3 Fill Wetland 8 0.22 0.04 1 Fill Wetland 9 0.42 0.22 3 Fill Wetland 10 1.12 0.16 3 Fill Wetland 11 0.16 0.16 1 Pill Wetland 12 N/A 0.05 Channel Fill Culvert channel connected to large wetland com lex Wetland 13 0.14 0.14 1 Pill Ditch wetland 'Dotal Im act (acres) 1.35 Acoidance/Minimization of Wetland Impacts The proposed project has been designed to avoid or minimize impacts to existing wetlands to the greatest extent possible. Roadway profile grades will be kept as low as possible, and embankment side slopes will be kept as steep as possible, consistent with safe roadway and bikeway design standards or to match existing conditions. The roadway section along Century Avcnuc was narrowed by the elimination of the shoulder and right-turn lane, driving lane widths were reduced north of Willow Lane, a walking path was eliminated on the west side of Century Avenue south of Valley Creek Road and the road moved to the east by eight feet These methods minimize the width of the roadway corridor and therefore also minimize wetland impacts. Impacts to wetland water quality will be minimized by the use of water quality improvement features otherwise known as Best Management Practices (BMP). Erosion prevention and sediment control during construction will include silt fences and traps, temporary seeding and mulching and use of erosion control blankets on slopes. Permanent ponds will he constructed as early in the project as practicable in order to trap sediment during construction. Excess fill material will not he deposited in wetlands or other environmentally-sensitive areas. Environmental Assessment Pace 19 Century Avenue/Valley Creek Road Reconstruction Project Environmental permits relating to wetland impacts will be received from the U.S. Army Corps of l;ngineers and the RWMWD (see Section V.B.). Impacts to a DNR regulated wetland are likely. As such, the DNR has the opportunity to require a permit or waive their jurisdiction of the WCA. Mitigation for wetland impacts is anticipated to be provided through the Botu•d of Soil and Water Resources (BWSR) wetland replacement program for public transportation projects. Washington County also has a General Permit from the DNR (#96-6142) to allow the construction/replacement of bridges and culverts for roads that cross lakes and wetlands that arc depicted on the DNR Protected Waters Inventory for Washington County. 13. Water use. Wil] the project involve installation or abandonment of any water wells, connection to or changes in any public water supply or appropriation of any ground or surface water (including dewatering)? _Yes X No If yes, as applicable, give location and purpose of any new wells; public supply affected, changes to be made, and water quantities to be used; the source, duration, quantity and purpose of any appropriations; and unique well numbers and DNR appropriation permit numbers, if known. Identify any existing and new wells on the site map. If there, are ao wells known on site, explain methodology used to determine. Response: If temporary dewatering is needed during project consh•ucrion, the appropriate. DNR groundwater appropriation permits would be obtained for any temporary dewatering activities. Both the City of Woodbury and St. Paul Water Utility have water lines widlin the project area. Construction of the proposed roadway would be coordinated with the public utilities of both cities to ensure that these facilities have been identified and would not be impacted by construction activities. Any realignment of water lines for the proposed roadway would also be coordinated with both the City of Woodbury and St. Paul Water Utility. Wells adjacent to and within the project area were identified from the Minnesota Geological Survey County Well Index database. Several wells are located adjacent to the project corridor. The greatest concentration of wells near the proposed project is located in a Maplewood residential area, just west of the project corridor, between Brookview Drive/Woodbine Avenue and Upper Afton Road. Wells were a]so identified adjacent to the project area in the Ramsey County Geologic Atlas (1992) and Washington County Geologic Atlas (1990). If any additional wells arc discovered during construction of the proposed project, they will be sealed according to state and local regulatory requirements. 14. Water-related land use management district. Does any part of the project involve a shoreland zoning district, a delineated 100-year flood plain, or a state or federally designated wild or scenic river land use district? X Yes _No Environmental Assessment Page 2O Century AvenueNalley Creek Road Reconstruction Project If yes, identify the district and discuss project compatibility with district land use restrictions. Response: Wild and Scenic River Land Use District No part of the project involves a state or federally designated wild or scenic river land use district. shoreland Overlay District The Cities of Maplewood and Woodbury both have shoreland overlay districts associated with Battle Creek, which is classified as a tributary stream by both cities. Century Avenue crosses over Battle Creek just south of Brookview Drive/Woodbine Avenue. On the west side of Century Avenue for the City of Maplewood, all alterations are subject to the City's wetland and stream protection and erosion control ordinances. These ordinances will be addressed in the erosion control plans and NPDES permitting as part of the roadway reconstruction. On the east side of Century Avenue for the City of Woodbury, the shoreland overlay district extends 300 feet from either side of Battle Creek. The regulations require a shore impact plan for fill that must be placed within the shoreland area of Battle Creek. The plan must address erosion control issues, which will be handled through the detailed erosion cvntrol plans that are part of the roadway reconstruction plan. Flood lp ains The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) available for the City of Maplewood and Ramsey County (Community Number 270378- Map 03) identifies x narrow 100-year flood plain associated with Battle Creek. The FIRM does not indicate a base (100-year) flood elevation. 1'he RWMWD, the City of Woodbury and the City of Maplewood have management and regulation authority over floodplain encroachment and land use within 100-year floodplains. The Maplewood Comprehensive Plan (2002) also identifies land adjacent to Battle Creek as "areas of potential flooding". The existing Century Avenue roadway crosses perpendicularly to this 100-year flood plain. No new right of way would he needed at the Battle Creek crossing. Based on initial field surveys and analysis, it is not anticipated that the existing culvert for the Battle Creek crossing at Century Avenue will require replacement for the roadway reconstruction. However, the culvert will be extended to accommodate the roadway widening and the culvert inlet may be reconstructed to reduce clvgging due to debris and the resulting flooding problems upstream of the culvert. Refer to Appendix A-2 for a discussion of floodplain impacts. 15. Water surface use. Will the project change the number or type of watercraft on any water body? _Yes X No Environmental Assessment Pa~c 21 Century AvenaeNalley Creek Road Reconstn~ction Project If yes, indicate the current and projected watercraft usage and discuss any potential overcrowding or conflicts with other uses. N/A 16. Erosion and sedimentation. Give the acreage to be graded or excavated and the cubic yards of soil to be moved: Response: Acres to be graded: 48.9 acres Cubic yards of soil to be moved: Approximately 80,000 cubic yards Describe any steep slopes or highly erodible soils and identify them on the site map. Describe any erosion and sedimentation control measures to be used during and after project construction. Response: The EAW Guidelines identifies steep slopes as slopes of 12 percent or greater. There are several locations of steep slopes (e.g., along Battle Creek and the intermittent stream to the south) within the project area based on information from the Washington and Ramsey Counties Soil Survey (sec Section IV.A., Item 19b). Tt is also noted in the Washington and Ramsey Counties Soil Survey that for these soils with steep slopes, the hazard of erosion can range from high to severe. Construction activities that impact steep slope soils require appropriate erosion control measures. The potential for erosion during construction will exist as soils are disturbed by excavation and grading. Erosion and sedimentation of all exposed soils within the project corridor will be minimized by utilizing the appropriate Best Management Practices (BMPs) during construction. Implementation of BMPs during final construction greatly reduces the amount of construction-related sedimentation and helps to control erosion and runoff. Ditches, dikes, siltation fences, bale checks, sedimentation basins and temporary seeding will be utilized as temporary erosion control measures during construction grading. Temporary and permanent erosion control plans will be identified in the final site grading and construction plans for each stage as required by the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permitting for construction sites in accordance to the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) and watershed erosion/sediment control standards. A Storm Water Pollution Prevention Permit (SWPPP) that includes erosion control and sediment management practices is required to be submitted in partial fulfillment of the NYllES permit. Erosion control measures will be in place and maintained throughout the entire construction period. Removal of erosion measures will not occur until all disturbed areas have been stabilized. Environmental Assessment Page 22 Century AvenueNalley Creek Road Reconstruction Project 17. Water quality: surface water runoff a. Compare the quantity and quality of site nmoff before and after the project. Describe permanent controls to manage or treat runoff. Describe any stonnwater pollution prevention plans. Response: Century Avenue system lowpoints are located at Battle Creek, existing wetland complexes, and minor water courses. Currently, the stonnwater runoff from Century Avenue is generally conveyed via storm sewer to outfall areas and discharged without water quality treatment. No rate control BMPs have been incorporated into the existing system. The existing drainage conditions along Valley Creek Road include a rural roadway drainage system where stonnwater is conveyed through ditches and culverts to a creek which discharges directly into the MnDNR protected wetland, south of the corridor. Pretreatment of the stonnwater occurs in the swales prior to discharging to the wetland complex. No rate control BMPs have been incorporated into the existing system. Proposed reconstruction of the corridor includes a full urban storm sewer plan 1'or Century Avenue and Valley Creek Road. Stormwater is conveyed to proposed wet detention basins, designed to meet watershed district and National Urban Runoff Program (NURP) ponding standards. Approximately 1.5 acres of new ponds will be constructed. An existing 0.3-acre pond on the west side of Century Avenue in the Ponds at Battle Creek Golf Course will also be utilized Cor stonnwater treatment. Three infiltration basins, with a combined area of O.l-acre, will be located along the west side of Century Avenue. Refer to Exhibits 9A and 9B in Appendix A-1 for the locations of the proposed ponding and infiltration sites. Pollutant removal meets watershed district standards for total suspended solids removal rates and total phosphorus removal rates. stonnwater rate control is applied where downstream conveyance capacity is limited and where necessary to ensure water quality BMPs provide efficienC pollutant removal. The complete water resources technical memorandum is available for review at the Washington County Department of Transportation and Physical llevelopment offices. b. Identify routes and receiving water bodies for runoff from the site; include major downstream water bodies as well as the immediate receiving waters. Estimate impact runoff on the quality of receiving waters. Kesponse: The existing general drainage pattern for Century Avenue north of Pouliot Parkway is from east to west across the corridor. South of Pouliot Parkway, the drainage pattern is from west to east across the corridor- The primary receiving water bodies include Battle Creek and various interconnected ponding and wetland Environmental Assessment Century Avenue/Valley Creek Road Reconstruction Project Page 23 areas adjacent to the corridor. Battle Creek eventually drains to the west to Pigs Eye Lake and the Mississippi River. The existing drainage pattern for the Valley Creek Road corridor is from north to south. A MnDNR protected wetland is located as close as 140 feel from the existing roadway along the south side of the corridor and receives most of the stormwater runoff from Valley Creek Road. An increase in the impervious area throughout the project will result in an increase of discharge rates and pollutant loading. However, discharged stonnwatcr will be conveyed to proposed wet detention ponds, which significantly reduce pollutant loadings and provide rate control. Therefore, no significant increase in pollutant loading to receiving streams, ponds, and wetlands is anticipated from the reconstruction project. 18. Water quality: wastewaters a. Describe sources, composition and quantities of all sanitary, municipal and industrial wastewater produced or treated at the site. Response: N/A b. Describe waste treatment methods or pollution prevention efforts and give estimates of composition after treatment. Identify receiving waters, including major downstream water bodies, and estimate the discharge impact on the quality of receiving waters. If the project involves on-site sewage systems, discuss the suitability of site conditions for such systems. Response: N/A >f wastes will be discharged into a publicly owned treatment facility, identify the facility, describe any pretreatment provisions and discuss the facility's ability to handle the volume and composition of wastes, identifying any improvements ncccssary. Response: N/A d. If the project requires disposal of liquid animal manure, describe disposal techniyue and location and discuss capacity to handle the volume and composition of manure. Identify any improvements necessary, Describe any required setbacks for land disposal systems. Response: N/A 19. Geologic hazards and soil conditions Approximate depth (in feet.) to ground water: minimum: 0 average: 20 to bedrock: minimum: 50 feet average: 150 feet Environmental Assessment Page 24 Century Avenue/Valley Creek Road Reconstruction Project Source: Ramsey County Geologic Atlas, 1992 ~'Vashington County Geologic Atlas, 1990 Minnesota Geological Survey County Well Index Survey Describe any of the following geologic site hazards to ground water and also identify them on the site map: sinkholes, shallow limestone formations or karst conditions. Describe measures to avoid or minimize environmental problems due to any of these hazards. Response: According to the Geologic Atlas for Washington County (1990), there are no known geologic site hazards (e.g., sink holes) within the proposed project area. Describe the soils on the site, giving NRCS (SCS) classifications, if known. Discuss soil granularity and potential for groundwater contamination from wastes or chemicals spread or spilled onto the soils. Discuss any mitigation measures to prevent such contamination. Response: According to the Washington and Ramsey Counties Soil Survey (1980), the project area consists of mainly of silt loam or sandy loam soil types. The soil types are mostly well-drained, with slopes ranging from nearly level to steep. Table 5 includes a list of NRCS-classified soil types found in the project area. TABLE 5 SOIL TYPES Soil Name Soil Symbol Slo e Antioo silt loam 49D 12°l0 - 1890 Santia n silt loam* 153B 2% - 690 Santiaoo silt loam 1530 6% - 15°Io Rounebv fine sandy loam* 166 n/a Freeon silt loam* 264 190 - 4% Freer silt loam* 266 n/a Prebish loam 325 n/a Kin sle sand loam* 342B 290 - 690 Kin slcy sandy loam 3420 690 - 1290 Kingsley sandy loam 342D 12% - 16% Comstock silt loam* 452 nla Demontreville loamy fine sand 453D L2% - 2590 Duluth silt loam* 504B I% - 690 Duluth silt loam 5040 690 - 1290 Duluth silt loam 5041) 21% - 259c Urban land -Kingsley com lex 861C 3% - 15"Io Udorthents, wet substratum 1027 nla Urban land 1039 n/a Source: washingtoo and Ramsey Counties Soil Survey, USDA Soil Conservation Service, 1980 * Prime farmland soils. Environmental Assessment Page 25 Century Avenne/Valley Creek Road Reconstruction Project Sensitivity to groundwater system pollution is identified in the Geologic Atlas for Ramsey County (1992) and the Geologic County Atlas for Washington County (1990). The sensitivity to pollution of aquifers and the water-table in the project area is shown in Table 6. The majority of the water-table in the project area is identified as having moderate sensitivity to pollution. A moderate sensitivity to pollution rating means the estimated time for water-borne contaminants to reach the upper-most ground water resource is years to decades. Soil survey information identifies the soils as having slow to moderately rapid permeability. TABLE 6 GROUNDWATER SENSITIVITY TO POLLUTION Karnsey County Geologic Atlas Washington County Geologic (1992) Atlas (1990) A uifers Verv low to moderate sensitivit Low to moderate sensitivit Water-table System Low to very high (i.e., along Battle Moderate or very high Creek] sensitivity The proposed project involves limited use of contaminants (primarily fuel for construction activities) and thus there is limited potential for soil contamination. If a spill were to occur during conshuction, appropriate action to remediate would be taken immediately in accordance with MPCA guidelines and regulations (see Section IV.A. Item 20). 20. Solid wastes, hazardous wastes, storage tanks a. Describe types, amounts and compositions of solid or hazardous wastes, including solid animal manure, sludge and ash, produced during conshuction and operation. Identify method and location of disposal. For projects generating municipal solid waste, indicate if there is a source separation plan; describe how the project will be modified for recycling. If hazardous waste is generated, indicate if there is a hazardous waste minimization plan and routine hazardous waste reduction assessments. Response: No municipal solid waste or hazardous waste will be generated by the proposed project If a spill of hazardous or toxic substances should occur during or after construction of the proposed project, it is the responsibility of the transport company to notify the Minnesota Department of Public Safety, Division of Emergency Services, to arrange for corrective measure to be taken pursuant to 6 MCAR 4.900_SE. Any contaminated spills or leaks that occur during constntction would be responded to according to MPCA containment and remedial action procedures. Cnvironmental Assessment Page 26 Century Avenue/Valley Creek Road Reconstruction Project The removal of existing roadway pavement and the excavation of soil materials for the new improvements will be necessary. Removed materials will become the property of the contractor, who may recycle the materials for use in the project or may use the materials for another project. Any contaminated materials identified within the construction area would be treated in accordance with Ml'LA requirements prior to reuse or disposal. If suitable, topsoil removed for the construction of the project would be salvaged for reuse and placed in areas where turf and landscaping would be located. Any disposal of excess materials would he done in compliance with state and local solid waste regulations. There would be no disposal of exccss materials into wetlands, floodplains or other sensitive areas. b. Identify any toxic or hazardous materials to be used or present at the site and identify measures to be used to prevent them from contaminating groundwater. If the use of toxic or hazardous materials will lead to a regulated waste, discharge or emission, discuss any alternatives considered to minimize or eliminate the waste, discharge or emission. Response: Toxic or hazardous materials would not be present at the site, except for fuel and oil necessary for the construction equipment during construction. Indicate the number, location, size and use of any above or below ground tanks to store petroleum products or other materials, except water. Describe any emergency response containment plans. Response: N/A 21. Traffic Parking spaces added: N/A Existing spaces (if project involves expansionj: iv/A Estimated total average daily traffic generatcd: Rcfer to Table 8, page 30 for existing and future (2030) ADT on Century Avenue and Valley Creek Road within the project arca. Estimated maximum peak hotu traffic generated (if known) and time of occurrence: N/A Provide an estimate of the impact on traffic congestion on affected roads and describe any traffic improvements necessary. If the project is within the Twin Cities metropolitan area, discuss its impact on the regional transportation system. Response: lntroduction A traffic study was completed for the proposed reconstruction of i/eniury Avenue and Valley Creek Road to determine how these roadways currently operate and what improvements are needed in order for traffic to operate at acceptable levels under future conditions. This traffic study included a.m. and p.m. peak-hour traffic operations analyses performed at key intersections to determine how traffic currently operates within the Euvirorunental Assessment Pa_e 27 Century Avenue/Valley Crcek Road Reconstruction Project project area, a review of historical growth rates, and traffic volume forecasts. The complete traffic study technical memorandum, which includes operations analysis for Valley Creck Road east of Weir Drive, is available at the Washington County Department of Transportation and Physical Development. The existing conditions, results, and findings are summarized below. Existing Conditions Existing (2003) average daily traffic (ADT) volumes within the study area range from 18,000 vehicles on Century Avenuc north of Upper Afton Road to an estimated 7,500 vehicles on Century Avenue south of Valley Creek Road. ADT volumes on Valley Crcek Road between Century Avenue and Weir Drive are approximately 11,450 vehicles. Intersection operations were analyzed at nine intersections within the project area (see Table 7). Current traffic controls at these intersections include side-street stop control for intersecting residential streets, an all-way stop control at Century AvenueNalley Creek Road, and a signalized intersection at Century Avenue/iJpper Afton Road. Peak hour turning movements (a.m. and p.m.) were collected in March and July 2003 at all intersections with the exception of Century Avenue/Ridge Drive and Century Avenue/Oakwood Road. Peak hour turning movements for these intersections was provided by the City of Woodbury. An operations analysis was conducted for the a.m. and p.m. peak hour at each intersection to determine how traffic currently operates within the project area. Signalized intersections were analyzed using Synchro with the SimTraffic software, whereas unsignalized intersections were analyzed using the Highway Capacity Software. Capacity analysis results identify a Level of Service (LOS), which indicates the quality of traffic flow through an intersection. Intersections are given a ranking from LOS A through LOS F. LOS A indicates the best traffic operation, with vehicles experiencing minimal delays. LOS F indicates an intersection where demand exceeds capacity, or a breakdown of traffic flow. llr-ivers generally consider LOS A through D acceptable. LOS E indicates that an intersection is operating at, or very near its capacity and that vehicles experience substantial delays. Results of the analysis are shown in Table 7. For the unsignalized intersections, the overall LOS is shown followed by the worst roadway approach LOS. TABLE 7 EXISTING (2003) CAPACITY ANALYSIS LOS RESULTS I t ti Level of Service (LOS) n ersec on A.M. Peak P.11I. Pcak Ccntur Avenue/Rid e Drive _ A/C A/C Century Avenue/U er Afton Road* B B Centur Avenue/Oakwood Road A/C A/C Century Avenue/Valley Creek Road GE F/F ~ Century AvenuelParkwood Drive A/B A/B Centw'v Avenue/Pouliot Parkway _ AB A/B Environmental Assessment Page 28 Century AvenueNalley Creek Road Reconstruction Project TABLE 7 -continued EXISTING (2003) CAPACITY ANALYSIS LOS RESULTS Level of Service (LOS) Intersection A.M. Peak P.M. Peak Ceutur Avenue/Lake Road AB A/Ii Valley Creek Road/Parkwood Drive NC A/C Valley Creek Road/Woodhill Drive AB A/B "' Indicates a signalized intesec lion. The remaining intersections, wiUt the exception of Century AvenueNalley Creek Road, are side- strect stop control intersections. ~~~ The southbouud approach experiences an average delay per vehicle of two minutes. All nine intersections, with the exception of Century Avenue/Valley Creek Road intersection, operate at an overall acceptable LOS of C or better with existing traffic controls and geometric layout. The all-way stop control intersection at Century Avenue/Valley Creek Road currently operates at an unacceptable overall LOS F during the p.m. peak hour. The poor level of service at this intersection is due to the high southbound and westbound traffic volumes during this period. Traffic Forecasts and Future No-Build Traffic Operations Analysis A review of the year 2030 daily traffic forecasts indicates an annual growth rate from year 2000 to 2030 of approximately two percent per year. Year 2030 travel demand forecast volumes represent the demand that would desire to use the roadway system in the project area. Year 2030 traffic volumes estimated for Century Avenue range from 28,500 vehicles between Brookview Drive/Woodbine Avenue and iJpper Afton Road to 13,000 vchiclcs between Valley Creek Road and the Lake Drive/Century Avenue intersection. Traffic volumes on Valley Crcek Road between Century Avenue and Weir Drive are estimated to be 18,000 vehicles. This represents a 57 percent to 73 percent increase over existing (2003) conditions. See Table 8 for a summary of these traffic volumes within the project area. The results of the intersection operations analysis under existing geometric conditions for year 2030 are shown in Table 9. TABLE 8 EXISTING (2003) AND FUTURE AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC VOLUMES Existing Ycar 2030 Percent (%) Roadway Roadway Segment (2043) ADT ADT Increase Between Brookview Drive and Upper 18,000 28,500 58~ Afton Road Bctwccn Upper Afton Road and Valley l 1,400 18,500 62r~o Century Avenue Creek Road Between Valley Creek Koad and Lake 7,500 13,000 7390 Road t'~ Lower Afton Road At of the intersection with Centur ~ Avenue 10,600 14,500 37% Valley Creek Road Between Century Avenue and Weir Drive 11,450 IS,000 57%a Astima~cd 2003 ADT linvironmental Assessment Page 29 Century AvenueNalley Creek Road Reconstruction Project TABLE 9 YEAR 2030 NO-BUILD CAPACITY ANALYSIS LOS RESULTS Intersection Level of Service (i.OS) A.M. Peak P.M. Peak nl Centur - AvenueBrookview llrive -- F/F Centurv Avenue/Rid e Drive A/F E/F Centurv Avenuc/U cr Afton Road * E F Century Avenue/Meadow Road "~ A/D F/F Century Avenue/Oakwood Road A/D F/F Century Avenue/Valle Creek Road t I F F Century .Avenue/Parkwood Drive A/C P/F Centur Avenue/Pouliot Parkwa A/C F/F Century Avenue/Lake Road A/C E/F Valle Creek Road/Parkwood Drive A/F F/F Valle Creek Road/Woodhill Drive GF F/F * Indicates a signalized intersection. The remaining intersections, with the exception of Century Avcnuclvalley Creek Road, aze side-street stop control intersections. The overall LOS is shown a[ the side-sweet stop control intersections followed by [hc worst approach LOS. o' All inlerscctiuus were impacu;d 6y queue spillback from the intersections in the interchange azea between Weir Drive aad Woodlaue Dri vc. ~' 2030 No-Build and Build cooditious assume the same level of development, including a new residential development that would construct Meadow Road at a T-intersection with Century Avenue. "~ This intersection was upgraded to a signal for analysis purposes. "' The southbound approach experiences an average delay per vehicle of 8U seconds. The a.m. peak hour analysis indicates that all intersections within the study area would operate at an acceptable LOS of C or better, with the exception of Century AvenuelUpper Afton Road and Century Avenue/Valley Creek Road. These two intersections would operate at an unacceptable LOS of E or worse. The worst approaches at unsignalized intersections (Century Avenue/Ridge Drive, Valley Creek Road/Parkwood Drive, Valley Creek Road/Woodhill Drive) would also operate at an unacceptable LOS of F. The p.m. peak hour analysis under the existing roadway conditions with no roadway or intersection improvements in year 2030 indicate that all intersections would operate at an unacceptable LOS E or worse (see Table 9). On Century Avenue, queues would extend through 13rookview Drive/Woodbine Avenue for southbound vehicles and through the Lake Drive/Century Avenue intersection for northbound vehicles. Queues for eastbound vehicles on Valley Creek Road would begin at the I-494 interchange area and extend west to Century Avenue. As a result, all side-street traffic on roadways that intersect with Valley Creek Road would experience extensive queues as well. Future Build Traftic Operations Analysis An intersection operations analysis was completed for year 2030 to determine how well the roadway system will accommodate future traffic volumes under the proposed improvements. Eleven intersections were analyzed in the project study area with the proposed geometries and traffic controls. All intersections were analyzed using Synchro with the SimTraftic traffic simulation software to model the intersection operations. The ?030 level of service results with the proposed roadway improvements are shown in Table 10. Environrnental Assessment Page ~0 Century AvenueNalley Creek Road Reconstruction Project TABLE 10 YEAR 2030 BUILD CAPACITY ANALYSIS LOS RESULTS I t ti Level of Service (LOS) n ersec on A.M. Yeak P.b1. Peak Centur - Avenue/Brookvicw Drive -- B/F 1 Century Avenue/Rid e Drive* A/B A/B Cenhuy Avenue/U per Afton Road B B Century Avenue/Meadow Road ~ * A/B A/B Century Avenue/Oakwood Road* A/B A1C Centur Avenue/Valle Creek Road C C Centur Avenue/Parkwood Drive* A/B A/B Century Avenue/Pouliot Parkwa -* A!B AJB Century Avenue/Lake Road* A/D C/E Valle Creek Road/Parkwood Drive* A/E A/D Valle Creek Road/Woodhill Drive* A/li `1 B/E * Indicates an nnsignaliaed intersectlon. Overall LOS is followed by the worst approach LOS. ~~~ Refer to footnote 2 of Table 9 for a discussion of Meadow Road. ~~~ The worst approach experiences an average delay per vehicle of 45 seconds. ~'~ The eastbound approach experiences an average delay per vehicle of 95 seconds. All intersections within the project area arc anticipated to operate at LOS C or better under year 2030 Build conditions. However, motorists on the worst side-street approach at some intersections (i.e., Century AvenueJBrookview Drive - p.m. peak hour; Century Avenue/Lake Drive - p.m. peak hour; Valley G-eck RoadlParkwood Drive - a.m. peak hour; Valley Creek Road/Woodhill Drive - a.m. and p.m. peak hour) will experience LOS E or worse. These poor levels of service are attributed to the high traffic volumes on Century Avenue and Valley Creek Road. 22. Vehicle-related air emissions. Estimate the effect of the project's traffic generation on air quality, including carbon monoxide levels. Discuss the effect of traffic improvements or other mitigation measures on air quality impacts. Note: if the project involves 500 or more parking spaces, consult EAW Guidelines about whether a detailed air quality analysis is needed. Response: The proposed improvement is not anticipated to have significant air quality impacts and is considered consistent with the approved State Implementation Plan (SIP). A Memorandum of Understanding with the MPCA specifies an air quality analysis, which demonstrates that the project is considered consistent with the approved SIP and is considered as accomplished for highway proposals inside of the Standard Metropolitan Statistics] Area where the increase in the annual Average Daily Traffic (ADT) is not expected to exceed 10,000 vehicles per day (including the intersecting traffic) within IO years following construction. This proposed project meets these criteria. 23. Stationary source air emissions. Describe the type, sources, quantities and compositions of any emissions from stationary sources of air emissions such as boilers, exhaust stacks or Environrnental Assessment Page 31 Century Avenue/Valley Creek Road Reconstruction Project fugitive dust sources. Include any hazardous air pollutants (consult EAW Guidelines for a listing) and any greenhouse gases (such as carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide) and ozone-depleting chemicals (chloro-fluorocarbons, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons or sulfur hexafluoride). Also describe any proposed pollution prevention techniques and proposed air pollution control devices. Describe the impacts on air quality Response: N/A 24. Odors, noise and dust. Will the project generate odors, noise or dust during construction or during operation? X Yes _No If yes, describe sources, characteristics, duration, quantities or intensity and any proposed measures to mitigate adverse impacts. Also identify locations of nearby sensitive receptors and estimate impacts on them. Discuss potential impacts nn human health or quality of life. (Note: fugitive dust generated by operations may be discussed at item 23 instead of here.) Response: Odors, Noise and Dust During Construction The proposed project would not generate any odors during construction. Noise and dust normal to construction would occur as a result of this project. Construction noise would be limited to daytime hours in accordance with City and County ordinances. Construction equipment would be fitted with mufflers that would be maintained during the construction process. Dust generated during construction would be minimized through standard dust control measures such as watering. After construction is complete, dust levels are anticipated to be minimal because all soil surfaces would be in permanent cover (i.e., pavement or grassed areas). Traffic-Related Noise Analysis Background Noise is defined as any unwanted sound. Sound travels in a wave motion and produces a sound pressure level. This sound pressure level is commonly measured in decibels. Decibels represent the logarithmic measure of sound energy relative to a reference energy level. Por highway traffic noise, an adjustment, or weighting, of the high- and Low-pitched sounds is made to approximate the way that an average person hears sounds. The adjusted sound levels are stated in units of "A-weighted decibels" (dBA). A sound increase of three dBA is barely perceptible to the human ear, a Cive dBA increase is clearly noticeable, and a 10 dBA increase is heard twice as loud. For example, if the sound energy is doubled (e.g. the amount of traffic doubles), there is a three dBA increase in noise, which is just barely noticeable to most people. On the other hand, if the source of the sound increases to where there is 10 times the sound energy level over a reference level, then there is a 10 dBA increase and it is heard as twice as loud. Environmental Assessment Yage 32 Century Avenue/Valley Creek Road Reconstruction Project In Minnesota, traffic noise impacts are evaluated by measuring and/or modeling the traffic noise levels that are exceeded 10 percent and 50 percent of the time during the hour of the day and/or night that has the heaviest traffic. These numbers are identified as the Lto and L5~ levels. The Llo value is compared to FHWA noise abatement criteria. The following chart provides a rough comparison of the noise levels of some common noise sources: Sound Pressure Level (dBA) 140 --------------------- 130 -------------------- 120----------------------------- 110----------------------------- 1.00 90 ----------------------------- 80 -- ----------------- 70 ----------------------------- 60 ----------------------------- 50 ----------------------------- 40 ----- ------------------------ 30 --------------- 20 ----------------------------- Noise Sow-ce Jet Engine (at 75 feet) Jet Aircraft (at 30U feet) Rock and Roll Concetrt Pneumatic Chipper Jointer/Planer Chai nsaw Heavy Truck Traffic Business Office Conversational Speech Library Bedroom Secluded Woods Whisper Source: "A Guide to Noise Control in Minnesota," Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, http://www.pca-state. mn. us/programslpubs/noi se.pdf and "highway Traffic Noise," FHWA, hltp://www.lhwa.dot.gov/environment/htnoise.htm. Along with the volume of traffic and other factors (i.e., topography of the area and vehicle speed) that contt7bute to the loudness of traffic noise, the distance of a receptor from a sound's source is also an important factor. Sound levels decrease as distance from a source increases. The following rule of thumb regarding sound decreases due to distance is commonly used: `Beyond approximately 50 feet, each time the distance between a line source (such as a road} and a receptor is doubled, sound levels decrease by three decibels over hard ground, such as pavement or water, and by four and one half decibels over vegetated areas." Minnesota State noise standards have been established specifically for daytime and nighttime periods. For residential land uses (Noise Area Classification 1 or NAC-1), the Minnesota State standards for L,o are 65 decibels for daytime and 55 decibels for nighttime; the standards for Lsa are 60 decibels for daytime and 50 decibels for nighttime. State noise standards are depicted in Table 11. Environmental Assessment Page 33 Century Avenue/Valley Creek Road Reconstruction Project TABLE 11 MINNESOTA STATE NOISE STANDARDS MPCA State Noise Standards Land Use Code Dav (7 a.m -10 .m.) dRA Ni ht (10 .m. - 7 a.m.) dB.4 Residential NAC-1 Llo of 65 Lsa of 60 Lso of ~5 Lso of ~0 Commercial NAC-2 Lio of 70 Lsu of 65 Lra of 70 Lsa of 65 Industrial NAC-3 Lso of 80 LSa of 75 Lea of 80 Lso of 7~ For residential uses (Federal Land Usc Category B), the Federal Lto standard is 70 dBA for both daytime and nighttime. Locations where Horse levels are "approaching" (defined as being within one decibel of the criterion threshold, i.e., 69 dBA) or exceeding the criterion level, must be evaluated for noise abatement reasonableness. Federal Noise Abatement Criteria (NAC) are shown in Table 12. TABLE 12 FEDERAL NOISE ABATEMENT CRITERIA FHWA Noise Abatement Criteria Cate or Lro dBA Land Use A 60 S ecial areas re uirin serenity B 70 Residential and recreational areas C 75 Commercial and industrial areas D NA Undevelo ed areas E 55* Residential, hos itals, libraries, etc. * Applies to interior noise levels. All other land uses ere cxtcriar levels. In addition to the identified noise criteria, the FHWA also defines a noise impact as a "substantial increase" in the future noise levels over the existing noise levels. Mn/DOT considers an increase of five dBA or greater a substantial noise level increase. Monitoring Noise level monitoring is commonly performed during a noise study to document existing noise levels. Existing noise levels can be used as a "baseline" against which future seenar-ios are compared. In addition, when studying future noise levels projected by computer models, monitored noise levels for existing conditions are compared to modeled results for existing conditions to validate the computer modeling techniques and results. Existing noise levels were monitored at two sites in the project corridor, chosen to represent areas of outdoor human activity, i.e., residential yards (refer to Exhibit 10 in Appendix A-1). Noise levels were monitored on August 13, 2003. Monitoring methods used in this study comply with state and federal guidelines. A trained noise monitoring technician was present at each session for the entire monitoring session to ensure correct operation of the instrumentation. Environmental Assessment Page 34 Century Avenue/Valley Creek Road Keconstruction Project Noise monitoring results are presented in Table l3. Monitoring results are presented along with the results of computer modeling for existing daytime noise conditions. The monitored Lia noise levels are within three decibels of the modeled levels; monitored Lso noise levels are within one to two decibels of modeled levels, validating the model . Modeling Traffic noise impacts were assessed by modeling noise levels at receptor sites (i.e., residences) likely to be most affected by changes in roadway alignment resulting from construction of the proposed project Twelve noise modeling receptors were selected to represent existing residential sites in the project area. Noise modeling receptors were selected to represent those areas most sensitive to potential traffic noise impacts resulting from construction of the proposed project. Receptor locations are shown on Exhibit 10. All receptor sites are classified within the definition of Federal Land Use Category B and State Land Use Residential (NAG 1). Noise modeling was done using the noise prediction program "MINNOISE",aversion of the FHWA "STAMINA" model adapted by Mn/DOT. This model uses vehicle numbers, speed, class of vehicle, and the typical characteristics of the roadway being analyzed. Posted speed limits were used to model all roads. Noise monitoring and modeling results for existing residential receptors for existing (2003) conditions and for the year 2030 are presented in Tables 13 and 14. Both daytime and nighttime Lip and L;~ arc shown for the existing (year 2003) condition and for year 2030 with two project alternatives: No-Build and Build. Modeling Results Increased traffic by year 2030 will result in an increase of two to four decibels (daytime - all receptors except R1 and R9; nighttime -all receptors) over existing levels for the No- Build conditions. Construction of the project will not change the volumes along the roadways; therefore differences in Build and No-Build noise levels are due to minor realigmment of the roads. Minor realignment of the roads will result primarily from reconstructing the non-divided highway into a divided highway. Future noise levels do ^ot approach or exceed the federal noise abatement criterion (69 decibels), nor does the project result in a substantial increase (5 dBA) in noise; therefore there will not be a traffic noise impact based on Federal standards. Minnesota Statute 116.07, Subd. 2a. states that municipal and county roads without full access control, except in the cities of Minneapolis and St. Paul, are exempt from state noise standards. ALl affected roads in the project area are county or city roads without full access control and are therefore exempt from standards. Fnvironmen[al Assessment Page 35 Century AvenueNalley Creek Road Reconstruction Project w F= } a 0 J W '~ V Z J W O O Z a Z Q ~_ Z th ~ T W W J N ~- Z 0 N ~ ~, ~., N ~.; ~ N N ~ ~ ~ - N C b ~ C 3 ~ y M ~ O d N (J ~ ~ o y~ y 'C a --~ N ~--~ N N --~ .. N ~ ~ O N y 'x r~ C W K1 ~ ~C ~. ~ :O ~ 4J '~ ~ V~ v~ ~O .~ O M O c oc oo [~ ~ C- t t` -~ v-, -.O O i 01 v1 O O e7 N I.a nl N tYt M M M N N N N N N ~ ~ 3 .~ y M ~ O y N ^ OC b o ~~ y a a N N N N N N N ~ N N N w z A ~. o v z C O N ~ p] oa VJ w ~D ;/~ .~ [~ ., r` ~- ~ m `~O [~- a ~r, .. ~ ~O ~7 ~D N ~D O~ V1 Vl ~D O I~ ~' p N V ~ CJ '~ N ~.? a ~. •- C ~G _~ .~ _ _ C ~- O V1 ~ V1 ~ h C` v'] ~ in O ~ _ _. ___ . ~ ~ [~ ~ •~ ~r, ~~ ~~; m cry N D l~ ul ~ iC W ~ .~ ~. ~C V' ~D ~ ~ ' ~ ~ ~ ~ N ~ f~ '° v L ,.a rj .[ O ~ o ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ z Q °~ ~ > > O ~ Q ~ b .b > r .. . ~ ' ' ~ L C ~ . ,~, C = ~ C ~ G ~ U G N C aJ ~ ~ '~ ~ c} N ~ C « U u ~ `= U .~ ~' ~ ~ ~ o ~ N ~ GC p 'x ~ cVa ~ oo mp '-~ `. v x n~ ~ 00 ~ ~ ~ i- .'~-. - ~ Q0.' -~ ~ C~-, '.: ~ a --~ - R' -~ .c x N ~ V] [=. ' m U N F~-I O u ~, 0 U ~i '7 O Rai k ai y U :~ y G C u y by c3 a. W ~_ 2 z J W (~ Z J W O Z a Z O F- z ~o r ~ W J N ~"' Z d ~ d ~ ~ d ~ ' <Y V m c~ ~t N N N N ~'Y c+i r'i to ~ O N . ~ d C b0 ~^rj °~ ~ Fa ~ ~ C ~ N m N m - N V N A ~ N 'b r-7 ~ - ~ i - ` .~ .vim,, ~ .~ Fa ~ . ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ O M ~ ~ ~ ~ _ ~- ~_- . _ O i N ~.] ~ ~ - ~ - r- - - `~ -r ~ ~ ~r. ~ O ~ xT !/a vl ~ O ~ C ~ v G ~ cG o 3 a v c-~ c-~ er v a m m m ~ ~ cn ~ o 'd o •~ u ~ Ga c on o L ~ z ~ ~y ~ M k .~ M M M N M M N N N c+'1 M N Q w O 'O 'a ° .a v ; ~o -t ~ m~ ~ _ _ - .t b ~ ,~ ~ - a, n rte. .n . p v~ ' ra -._ -~ -- -- -- _-- _ _ . _ z c ~ ~ x oo w ~ i- ~ U '.~n ~T -7 d- ca T ~ O N a ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~, ~ ~ ~ '~C ~ ~ o ~ ~ ~~ ~a in c 'L w ~r; r u, oo ul i- v-, v, ~ -r ~t, o vl ' N w ~ 0 ~ ~ U U a U ~ ~_ V a a z x ~ a a ~ a a O a ~ ~J x ~ ~ .b ~ ~ u c a a 0 0 Q~i b 0 a ~, u ~ T .y i ti n ~ a~ v O >> >' y ~v Noise Mitigation Analysis Federal Standards Future noise levels do not approach or exceed the federal noise abatement criterion (69 decibels) nor does the project result in a substantial increase (5 dBA) in noise. Based on the results of Chis analysis, the proposed project will not cause noise impacts as defined by federal criteria. No noise mitigation measures are proposed as part of the project. State Standards Although all affected roads in the project area are county or city roads without full access control and are exempt from state noise standards, Washington County has recognized that this is an important issue to residents. Washington County's policy adopted on November 18, 2003, stales: I) Encourage Cities to plan adjacent land uses to County Highways that are compatible and provide adequate right of way when land is developed to mitigate transportation related impacts through plat review processes. 2) Construct, where determined feasible and to a reasonable extent, earth berms as part of highway construction projects to provide visual and/or noise mitigation if the daytime State noise standard is exceed or predicted to be exceeded in the life of the project. Berms may be feasible in areas that are zoned residential, where adequate right of way is available, the elevation difference between the roadway and the receptor allows some visual and/or noise blocking, and a continuous berm can be constructed without breaks for roadways or entrances. It appears that berms arc not feasible in the residential areas on the east side of Century Avenue or along Valley Creek Road because of limited right of way, topography being such that the properties are higher than the roadway, or the spacing and number of entrances preclude the construction of a continuous berm. Other potential noise mitigation measures include replacement of existing fencing with solid fencing where existing fencing must be removed to accommodate slopes and drainage improvements. Potential locations include: 1) East side of Century Avenue between Valley Creek Road and approximately 600 feet north of Oakwood Drive; and 2) East side of Century Avenue between Willow Lane and Ridge Drive. The feasibility and locations of replacement fencing will be determined during the detail design phase. Ramsey County does not have a similar policy regarding noise along county roads and therefore no mitigation is proposed. Environmental Assessment Page 38 Century Avenue/Valley Creek Road Reconsn~uction Project Alternative Noise Abatement Noise abatement measures, including traffic control devices, signing for prohibition of certain vehicle types, time-use restrictions for certain vehicle types, modified speed limits, exclusive land use designations, and other methods as listed in 23 CFR 772.13c. would not be feasible or practical for this project. To limit the vehicle types, time of use, and speeds on the roadway would not be consistent with the function of Century Avenue or Valley Creek Road. Much of the land has already been developed along the corridor, so exclusive land use designation and acquisition of property to serve as a buffer zone would not be reasonable in these areas. Conclusions In general, noise levels along the Century Avenue/Valley Creek Rd. corridor will increase by one to four dBA over existing levels by the year 2030. Construction of the project (comparing the No-Build to Build conditions) will increase noise by an imperceptible amount (zero to two dBA) in some areas, and decrease noise in other areas where the road is moved farther away from residences. 25. Nearby resources. Arc any of the following resources on or in proximity to the site? Archaeological, historical or architectural resources? _Yes X No Prime or unique farmlands or land within an agricultural preserve? X Yes _No Designated parks, recreation areas or trails? X Yes _No Scenic views and vistas? _Yes X No Other uniyue resources? _Yes X No If yes, describe the resource and identify any project-related impacts on the resource. Response: Archaeological, historical or architectural resources The Minnesota Historical Society, State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) reviewed the project (SHPO Number: 2003-3590) to determine if any properties eligible or listed on the National Register of Iistoric Places (NRI-IP) would be impacted within the project area. The SHPO concluded that "no historic properties eligible for or listed on the National Register of Historic Places will be affected by this project." (See correspondence with the SHPO (Exhibit ll) and Mn/DOT Cultural Resources Unit (CRU) (Exhibit 12) in Appendix A-1.) Prime or unique farmlands or land within an agricultural preserve Table 5 in Section IV.A. Item 19b identifies the soil rnapping units within the project area that are identified as prime farmland. As noted in Section IV.A. Item 9, the project area is within an urban suburban environment with no agricultural land uses. Land to be impacted is primarily residential, commercial, and open space. Therefore, the proposed project will not have any farmland impacts. Environmental Assessment Page 39 Century Avenue/Valley Creek Road Reconstruction Project Desi ng ated parks, recreation areas or trails There are 14 perks located near the project area south of i-94 and east of 1-494, including athletic and playground facilities associated with Woodbury Elementary and Junior High Schools (refer to Exhibit 13 in Appendix A-1). These facilities include: Ramsey County artd Maplewood • Afton Heights Park Crestview Park • Mailand Park • Vista Hills Park Applewood Park • Battle Creek Indian Mounds Park • Battle Creek Regional Park The Ponds at Battle Creek Golf Course Washington County and Woodbury Menomini Park • Shawnee Park • Cree Park • Odawa Park Potawatomi Park • Woodbury Elementary and Junior High Schools Three parks, Cree Park, Battle Creek Regional Park and The Ponds at Battle Creek Golf Course, arc located along the project corridor. The boundaries of these three parks in relation to the project area are shown in Exhibit 13. A discussion of the potential impacts to each park is discussed in the following sections. Valley Creek Road is designated as a major trail corridor by the City of Woodbury. Temporary impacts will result to the trail on the north side of Valley Creek Road between Weir Drive and Parkwood Drive, however, the proposed project will benefit the trail by providing both a southern and northern trail along Valley Creek Road from Century Avenue to the I-494 interchange. The City of Woodbury, having jurisdiction over the resource, has documented their agreement regarding the temporary impacts (see support letter in Appendix A-l, Exhibit 14). Cree Park Cree Park is a small, linear neighborhood park facility (approximately 4.6 acres) owned by the City of Woodbury Located north of Linden Drive on the east side of Century Avenue. Approximately 14> feet of the park, including the electric transmission line easement at the north end of the property, is located along Century Avenue. Public access to the park is available from Sprucewood Drive at the east end of the park property. Facilities, located at the east end of the park, include paved trails, tables, and playground structures. The trail connects from Sprucewood Drive to a park access nn iinvironmenlal Assessment Page ~~ Century AvenueNalley Creek Road Reconstruction Project Linden Drive. No park facilities are located west of this trail toward Century Avenue. The proposed roadway improvements would not impact the park property. The proposed trail located along the east side of Century Avenue would be located within existing right of way. Preliminary construction limits are also located within existing right of way. Noise levels modeled under year 2030 conditions for receptors nearest the park (RS and R6 -see Section N.A. Item 24) are below the federal criteria (70 dBA). Access to the park would also not be impacted. A possible future connection from the existing park trail to the proposed trail along Century Avenue could be constructed at a future date. Battle Creek Regional Park Approximately LS acres (1.4 acres fora 0.5-acre stormwater pond; 01-acre for roadway expansion, boulevard, and sidewalk) would be required for permanent acquisition. Refer to the Section 4(f) evaluation in the Appendix for a discussion of impacts and methods to minimize impacts to Battle Creek Park. Because Metropolitan Council funds were used to purchase land for Battle Creek Regional P~uk, the Metropolitan Council must approve the proposed permanent acquisition of park property and subsequent nvtigation. Washington County and Ramscy County will work with Ramsey County Parks to identify appropriate mitigation for the permanent acquisition of park land for the proposed project. The Ponds at Battle Creek Golf~Course Approximately 1.3 acres of new right of way would be required for pei-mauent acquisition along Century Avenue at the Ponds of Battle Creek Golf Course to accommodate the expanded roadway. The reconstruction of Lower Afton Road, part of the intersection reconstruction with Century Avenue, would be located within existing road right of way and would not require additional right of way from the golf course. Refer to the Section 4(f) evaluation in the Appendix for a discussion of impacts to the Ponds at Battle Creek Golf Curse and strategies used to minimize impacts. 26. Visual impacts. Wili the project create adverse visual impacts during construction or operation'? Such as glare from intense lights, lights visible in wilderness areas and large visible plumes from cooling towers or exhaust slacks? _Yes X No If yes, explain. Response: N/A 27. Compatibility with plans and land use regulations. Is the project subject to an adopted local comprehensive plan, land use plan or regulation, or other applicable land use, water, or resource management plan of a local, regional, state or federal agency? Environmental Assessment Page 41 Century Avenue/Valley Creek Ruad Reconstruction Project X Yes _No if yes, describe the plan, discuss its compatibility with the project and explain how any conflicts will be resolved. If no, explain. Response: Both counties and municipalities have comprehensive plans adopted between 1997 and 2002. They are referenced as: • Strategic Planning Guide to the Future of Ramsey County, ] 998 • City of Maplewood Comprehensive Plan, 2002 • Washington County Comprehensive Plan: A Policy Guide to 2015, October 1997 • Washington County Capital Improvement Program 2004-2008 • City of Woodbury Comprehensive Plan, May 2000 The compatibility of the proposed roadway reconstruction with these planning guides is described below, and focuses on land use, transportation, and parks, trails and open space. Ramsey County and the City of Maplewood Land Use Ramsey County does not have land use jurisdiction and has a limited role in land use issues and decisions. Land use in Ramsey County is established by the municipalities in the county. However, a Land Use Vision Statement is outlined in the County's Strategic Plan. This vision statement emphasizes the protection of natural resources and the thoughtful and sensitive use of land in Ramsey County. The proposed project is consistent with this vision statement. The City of Maplewood comprehensive plan divides Maplewood into 13 neighborhood planning areas. Two neighborhood planning areas, the Battle Creek and Vista Hills neighborhood planning areas, are adjacent to the proposed project corridor. Land use in the Battle Creek neighborhood is dominated by open space/parks, but also includes residential, commercial, church, and school/government land uses. Conversely, the Vista Hills neighborhood is dominated by residential land uses. In addition, as noted in the comprehensive plan, there is approximately 30 acres of undeveloped land (residential and commcrcialbffice) in the Vista Hills neighborhood and no undeveloped land available in the Battle Creek neighborhood. As noted in Section N.A. Item 9, impacts associated with the proposed project are not incompatible with the existing land uses or future land uses in undeveloped land. Transpurtulion. According to the Ramsey County Strategic Plan, the County thoroughfare vision notes that all County roadways will be designed to a maximum of four travel lanes. The proposed reconstruction of Century Avenue to a four-lane urban section is consistent with this plan. The vision also notes that the maximum level of service should be achieved while minimizing the impact of roadway facilities on the social and physical environment. Impacts of the proposed reconstruction were minimized to the extent possible, consistent I/nvironmental Assessment Page a2 Century Avenue/Valley Creek Road Reconslruclion Project with the County's plans Century Avenue reconstruction is also identified in the Ramsey County Five Year Transportation Improvement Program (2003-2007) for reconstruction from Lake Road to Lower Afton Road in 2006 and Lower Afton Road to Woodbine Road in 2007. Century Avenue is identified as a minor arterial in the City of Maplewood Comprehensive Plan. The comprehensive plan acknowledges the traffic growth in the area and projects traffic volume growth by the year 2020. The transportation plan also notes that transportation facilities (i.e., roadways, transit, and trails) should be planned in concert with other aspects of the City's comprehensive plan to ensure mobility, access, and safety. While the proposed reconstruction would modify some access for residents and businesses in Maplewood, it does provide for increased mobility and safety along this portion of Century Avenue. Parks, Trails, and Opezz Space The proposed roadway improvements will directly impact Battle Creek Park and the Ponds at Battle Creek Golf Course in Ramsey County and the City of Maplewood. These impacts include the acquisition of new right of way to accommodate the expanded roadway, sidewalk, and ponding sites. However, even with these encroachments, both the Battle Creek Park open space and the Ponds at Battle Creek Golf Course will continue to function as park facilities. In addition, the sidewalk along the west side of Century Avenue from Lower Afton Road to Upper Afton Road will provide a connection to the sidewalk along the south side of Upper Afton Road. Washington County and the City of Woodburv band Use The predominant land use in Washington County and the City of Woodbury along Century Avenue and Valley Creek Road is residential (i.e., suburban housing). The road reconstruction is not incompatible with these residential land uses. The reconstruction will serve to improve safety and access from these properties to Century Avenue and Valley Creek Road. Moreover, because the proposed project is located within a suburban area surrounded by residential uses, it is also not incompatible with the land use goals (suburban housing; conunercial/industrial properties) highlighted in the comprehensive plan. The City of Woodbury Land Use Plan map identifies high intensity residential development and mixed-use development along the south side of Valley Creek Road. Further to the south, the map identifies "places to work" along Century Avenue. Both of these land uses are compatible with the proposed roadway improvements because it will serve to improve safety and access to the existing and future residential and business uses in the area. Transportation Century Avenue is designated as a minor arterial reliever and Valley Creek Road is Environmental Assessment Page 43 Century AvenueNalley Creek Road Reconsu~uction Project designated as a minor arterial augmenter as both pass through Washington County. The capacity deficiencies of both roads are noted in the comprehensive plan as having a volume/capacity ratio of greater than 1.25. The jurisdictional transfer of TH 120 from TH 244 to I-494, which includes the portions of Century Avenue and Valley Creek Road for this project, from the Minnesota Department of Transportation (Mn/DOT) to Washington County is recommended as part of the 2015 Transportation Plan. The reconstruction of Century Avenue and Valley Creek Road is also included in the Washington County Five Year Capitol Improvement Program (CIP) 2004 to 2008. The City of Woodbury Comprehensive Plan recognizes TH l20 (Century Avenue and Valley Creek Road) as an "an important north-south route providing an alternative route to the parallel I-494/I-694" and also recognizes the high volumes of traffic on Century Avenue to the north and Valley Creek Road to the east of their intersection. The plan identifies improvements to Century Avenue south of Valley Creek Road for the period of 2000-2005 as part of their recommended major transportation system improvements. Parks, Trails, and Open Space Construction of the proposed roadway improvements will not have a negative impact to parks and trails in Washington County or the City of Woodbury. The addition of a trail along Century Avenue and both sides of Valley Creek Road will improve trail connectivity in the project area, and improve connectivity to the Battle Creek Park trail system. The addition of a trail along the east side of Century Avenue and along both the north and south sides of Valley Creek Road are also consistent with the City of Woodbury's Comprehensive Plan to encourage the use of transportation easements for trail development. 28. Impact on infrastructure and public services. Will new or expanded utilities, roads, other infrastructure or public services be required to serve the project? X Yes No If yes, describe the new or additional infrastructure or services needed. (Note: any infrastructure that is a connected action with respect to the project must be assessed in the EAW; sec EAW Guidellnes for details.) Response: No new additional infrastructure or services will be needed for the proposed project. However, numerous existing utilities are located along the project corridor. Below is a discussion of these utilities in relation to the project corridor; construction will be coordinated with the utility owners to avoid impacts and address relocation. Electric Transmission Lines Aboveground high-voltage transmission lines run parallel to the west side of Century Avenue. These lines cross over Century Avenue south of Willow Lane. At least one-year lead time would be needed to relocate the electric transmission lines prior to roadway construction. Environmental Assessment Page 44 Century Avenue/Valley Creek Road Reconstruction Project Electric Distribution Lines and Fiber Ootic and Coaxial Cables Both overhead and underground electric distribution lines are located along the east and west sides of Century Avenue. A feeder line is located along the entire length of the west side of Century Avenue, with connections to the transmission line. Overhead distribution lines are also located along the north side of Valley Creek Road from Century Avenue to School Drive. A majority of the coaxial cable along Century Avenue and Valley Creek Road are overhead lines. Natural Gas Lines Several natural gas lines (distribution and transmission) with various sizes are located within the project corridor along Century Avenue and Valley Creek Road. Other natural gas facilities (e.g., valve pits, regulator stations) are also located in the project corridor. Storm Sewer, Sanitary Sewer, and Water Lines Both the City of Woodbury xnd the City of Maplewood have various storm sewer, sanitary sewer, and water line facilities within the project limits. Metropolitan Council Environmental Services (MCES) also has three interceptors within the study area. An interceptor meter is located at the northwest quadrant of the Century AvenueNalley Creek Road intersection. This meter will need to be relocated to acconunodate the expanded roadway and intersection; this relocation process will be coordinated with MCES. Surveys will also be needed to confirm the elevxlion of these utilities prior to reconstruction, and they will need to be protected during construction. 29. Cumulative Impacts. Minnesota Rule part 4410.1.700, subpart 7, item B requires that the RGU consider the "cumulative potential effects of related or anticipated future projects" when determining the need for an environmental impact statement. ldentify any past, present or reasonably foreseeable future projects that may interact with the project described in this EAW in such a way as to cause cumulative impacts. Describe the nature of the cumulative impacts and summarize any other available information relevant to determining whether there is potential for significant environmental effects due to cumulative impacts (or discuss each ca~mulative impact tender appropriate item(s) elsewhere on rltis form). Response: Additional activities currently anticipated near the project area include: Century Avenue Intersection with I-94 and lludson Road Mn/DOT is currently studying roadway improvements to Century Avenue at the interchange with I-94 and the Hudson Road intersection to address safety concerns. Prior to reconstruction of this portion of Century Avenue, an environmental review would be performed and appropriate pcrn~its would be obtained within applicable regulations. Environmental Assessment Page 45 Century Avenue/Valley Creek Road Reconstruction Project Mn/DOT Additional Travel Lanes on Interstate 94 Mn/DOT has prepared an EAW for a project to expand I-94 to three lanes in each direction between McKnight Road and Century Avenue. This project would also include a median barrier, bridge reconstruction, realignment of the westbound entrance ramp to I-94 at McKnight Road, ne~v ponding areas, and replacement of lighting and signs. A notice of availability of the EAW for this project was published in the February 2, 2004 edition of the EQB Monitor. Construction is anticipated to begin in the Fa112004-2005. Valley Creek Road/I-494 Inlerchang_e An Environmental Assessment (EA) re-evaluation is currently being prepared for the Valley Creek Road/I-494 interchange. The original EA for this interchange was completed in 1990 and a record of decision (ROD) was approved in 1991. This interchange is being redesigned to accommodate the traffic volumes. According to the City of Woodbury Comprehensive Plan, this interchange is over capacity and has been identified as a concern by the City of Woodbury. The design for this interchange includes three through-lanes in both directions on Valley Creek Road and the overpass on I-494 and amodified-diamond type interchange with a loop in the northwest quadrant for westbound Valley Creek Road to southbound I-494 traffic (see Figure 3C for the connection of the Century AvenuelValley Creek Road reconstruction project to the Valley Creek Road/ I-494 interchange project). The project is anticipated to begin in 2006 and be completed in 2007-2008. Cumulative impacts from this project will include temporary construction impacts to the traffic system. Other cumulative impacts include erosion and sedimentation impacts during construction and water quality impacts to surface water during and following construction. Development South of Valley Creek Road Two residential development projects are currently planned within Woodbury south of Valley Creek Road (Applewood Pointe of Woodbury and Valley View Estates -See Exhibit 3B in Appendix A-1). Both of these developments have already been approved by the City of Woodbury Planning Commission and City Council. The proposed roadway improvements will help accommodate trips generated by these residential developments. Conclusion The impacts identified as potential cumulative impacts have been realized and addressed with mitigation for each of the projects therefore no significant cumulative impacts arc anticipated to result from the Century Avenue/Valley Creek Road reconstniction project. 30. Other potential environmental impacts. If the project may cause any adverse environmental impacts not addressed by items 1 to 28, identify and discuss them here, along with any proposed mitigation. Response: No potential environmental impacts are anticipated other than those discussed above. Environmental Assessment Page 46 Century Avenue/Valley Creek Road Reconstruction Project 31. Summary of issues. Do not complete this section if the EAW is being done for EIS scoping; instead, address relevant issues in the draft Scopzng Decision document, which must accompany the F.AW. List any impacts and issues identified above that may require further investigation before the project is begun. Discuss any alternatives or mitigative measures that have been or may be considered for these impacts and issues, including those that have been or may be ordered as permit conditions. Response: Item 6: Project Description The proposed roadway reconstruction will modify access to some residences and businesses along Century Avenue and Valley Creek Road. Full access would be maintained with most side streets, however, access to Century Avcnuc would be eliminated at Century Circle and Willow Lane. Residences with existing access along Century Avenue would he provided right-in/right-out access under the proposed roadway reconstruction. Specific details regarding construction staging and right of way acquisition will be determined during detailed design. Item 9: Land Use -Potential Environmental Hazards Three LUST sites were identified along the project corridor in a review of data available from the MPCA. Two of these sites have been officially closed by the MPCA. A third site near the Century Avenue/Upper Afton Road intersection has not been closed. Additional research and coordination wish the MPCA regarding this site will proceed prior to roadway construction. Item 12: Physical Impacts on Water Resources Approximately 1.35 acres of -wetlands would be impacted by the proposed project along Century Avenue and Valley Creek Road. Impacts to wetlands were minimized to the extent possible through modifications to the, roadway design. Environmental permits relating to wetland impacts will be obtained from the federal, state, and local regulatory agencies. Item 14: Water-Related Land Use Management llistrict The proposed project will result in a transverse impact to the 100-year floodplain adjacent to Battle Creek. Battle Creek crosses under the existing roadway, however, the existing culvert is not anticipated to be replaced. The culvert will be extended to accommodate the roadway widening and the culvert inlet may be reconstructed to reduce clogging and alleviate the resulting Hooding problems upstream of the culvert. Environmental Assessment Pagc 47 Century Avcnuc/Vallcy Creek Road Reconstruction Project Item 16: Erosion and Sedimentation Based on information available from the Washington and Ramsey Counties Soil Survey, there are several soil types within the project area with steep slopes that are susceptible to erosion. The potential for erosion and sedimentation also exists during construction as soils are disturbed by excavation and grading. Construction plans will incorporate Best Management Practices (BMPs) to minimize soil erosion and sedimentation during and after roadway reconstruction. Item 17: Water Quality: Surface Water Runoff The proposed roadway improvements will increase the impervious surface area by approximately 15.5 acres compared to the existing facilities. This increase in impervious area following construction will result in an increase in stonnwater runoff volumes generated from the project area. To compensate for the increased runoff, stormwater will be treated in retention ponds adjacent to both Century Avenue and Valley Creek Road. Design of these facilities will be in accordance with City, County, RWMWD, and NPDES requirements. Item 21: Traffic Traffic volumes are expected to increase by year 2030 along Century Avenue and Valley Creek Road. These traffic volume increases would result in unacceptable tevels of service (LOS E or F) during the p.m. peak hour at intersections along Century Avenue under the 2030 No-Build scenario. Under the 2030 Build scenario, the proposed roadway improvements would result in improved operations (LOS C or greater) at the p.m. peak hour for all key intersections within the project area. Item 25: Nearby Resources -Designated parks, recreation areas, or trails Reconstruction of Century Avenue would have relatively minor impacts to Battle Creek Regional Park and the Ponds at Battle Creek Golf Course in Ramsey County. A discussion of impacts and methods to minimize impacts at both park properties is included in the Section 4(f) evaluations. Washington County and Ramsey County will work with Ramsey County Parks to identify appropriate mitigation for park impacts. Item 28: Impact on Infrastructure and Public Services Several existing utilities (e.g., electric transmission and distribution lines, natural gas lines, etc.) are located along the project corridor. Existing utilities located along the project corridor will require additional investigation prior to construction to avoid impacts and coordinate relocation. Environmental Assessment Pabe 48 Century Avenue/Valley ('reek Road Reconstruction Project RGU CERTIFICATION. The Environmental Quality Board will only accept SIGNED Environmental Assessment Worksheets for public notice in the EQB Monitor. I hereby certify that: • The information contained in this document is accurate and complete to the best of my knowledge. • The EAW describes the complete project; there are no other projects, stages or components other than those described in this document, which are related to the project as connected actions or phased actions, as defined at Minnesota Rules, parts 4410.0200, subparts 9b and 60, respectively. Copies of this EAW are((b~~eing sent to the entire EQB distribution list. Signature ~.~-~i , ~~~-- Date `~ I ~ ~ 'T'itle County En~inecr Environmental Assessment Worksheet was prepared by the staff of the Environmental Quality Board at Minnesota Planning. por additional information, worksheets or for EAW Guidelines, contact: Environmental Quality Board, 658 Cedar St., St. Paul, MN 55155, 651-296-8253, or www. mnplan.state.mn.us Environmental Assessment Page 49 Century Avenue/Valley Creek Road Reconstruction Project B. Additional Federal Issues Discussed below are the federal issues not discussed in the EAW. Social Imnacts The proposed project is not expected to cause any adverse impact to any community or neighborhood. No categories of people uniquely sensitive to transportation (e.g., children, elderly, minorities, persons with mobility impairments) will be unduly impacted. As discussed in the Section 4(t) Evaluation for Battle Creek Park included in the Appendix, the proposed roadway improvements will require the acquisition of approximately 1.5 acres of public parkland (approximately 0.1-acre; for the sidewalk and roadway expansion and approximately 1.4 acres for stormwater ponding). The proposed project will not impact access to the parkland. As discussed in the Section 4(f) Evaluation for the Ponds al Battle Creek Golf Course included in the Appendix, the proposed roadway will require the acquisition of approximately 1.3 acres of public parkland. The proposed project will not change the access to the golf course and will not impact use of the facility. A left-turn lane into the golf course will be provided for northbound traffic on Century Avenue. The far right lane for southbound trafl`ic on Century Avenue will provide for right turn movements into the golf course. Although improvements to Century Avenue will result in land being acquired from the golf course, the proposed improvements will reduce congestion and improve safety for access to the park. Businesses and residents within the study area will experience some changes in access with the proposed project. 'These impacts are discussed in detail in Section IILA. and Section 1V.B.3.6. Although these access changes result in a more circuitous travel routes for some properties, the increased travel distances are offset by improved safety and decreased delays at intersections within the study area (compared to the No-Build Alternative). 1/nvironmental Justice F,xecutive Order 12898, "Federal Actions to Address linvirorunenlal Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations," dated February 1, 1994, requires that environmental justice be addressed (to the greatest extent practicable and permitted by law) in all federal planning and programming activities. The purpose of Rxecutive Order 12898 is to identify, address and avoid disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects of programs, policies and activities on minority populations and low-income populations. The proposed project has federal permit requirements and will Environmental Assessment Page 50 Century Avenue/Valley Creek Road Reconstruction Project receive federal funding. As such, it is considered a federal project for the purpose of compliance with this Executive Order. a. Project Area Demographics Land use along both Century Avenue and Valley Creek Road is primat-ily residential, with cornrnercial development concentrated along the west side of Century Avenue from Brookview Dr-ive/Woodbine Avenue to Upper Afton Road. Battle Creek Park and property owned by Ramsey County associated with the Ramsey County Corrections Facility is located on the west side of Century Avenue across from Willow Lane south to Lower Afton Road/Valley Creek Road. The Ponds at Battle Creek Golf Course is located along the west side of Century Avenue south of Lower Afton Road/Valley Creek Road. Several residential developments are planned for the east side of Century Avenue south of Lower Afton Koad/Valley Creek Road in addition to the existing residential properties. An area of open space/wetland complex is located south of Valley Creek Road between residential property at Packwood Drive and Valley Creek Mall. To obtain a better understanding of the demographic composition of the project area, the 2000 Census was reviewed for population, racial, and economic data. The Census was reviewed at the block group level. The study area encompasses two census tracts which contain a total of five block groups (see Exhibit 15 in Appendix A-1). Table 15A and Table 15B show the year 2000 population and racial data for Ramsey and Washington Counties, respectively. Tables 16A and 1GB show year 2000 economic data for Ramsey and Washington Counties. The 2000 Census data did not indicate a high percentage of minority populations within the study area in Ramsey County compared to Ramsey County averages. The 2000 Census data did indicate a higher percentage of minority populations adjacent to the study area in Washington County compared to Washington County averages, although the actual percentages were low in both Block Groups. As a percentage of the population in tic Block Groups compared to percentages for the county, minority and low-income persons within both Block Groups adjacent to the study in area were approximately twice the percentage compared to the county as a whole. Further study of the 2000 Census Block Group data indicates that the Block Groups in the Washington County portion of the study area have a poverty level of 6.8 and 3.9 percent, respectively, compared to the 4.9 percent for the tract as a whole and the Washington County average of 29 percent. Environmenta: Assessment Page 51 Ccutury Avenue/Valley Creek Road Reconstruction Project F-' Z 0 U •W~ CVJ C Q N Z W U 0 0 0 N W U a 0 Z a J 2 W N Z ~_ r Q J J ~ Q ~ E- a 0 0 ~• C m , C ° ~ ~ ° ~ ~~ G" ~ L° ~ C ~ U ~ sr ~-' O . ~ N ~ h oo O Co ~ v1 N rfi ~/l O~ N G a O ° - U ~' U V: C ~ m ~ M ~n M ~ O a N O + ~ ~ ~ M R+ O V V ~ N ~ M . -i ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ . -~ , v > ~ ~ 00 ~ z o N ~n ~ M ,--~ m ,, 7 N --~ N -~ O p C cJ Q ~ ~ ~ ~ S ~ ~q ~ ,c M . M B ~D ~ ~D in ~ N N ~° U 'J ~ z O -. ~ ° ~ o ~ o ~ NL c 0.a e ~ L U C ~ M O ~ oo ~} vl ~ O N M N M N V, - - ,~ K ~,~ ~ N N M -~ z o c C •~d Q ~ 8° ~ o ~ E° E° N N~ u~ z 0 V p~ `D 7 v-~ vl O ~ M eS O 7 N [~ p N O ~ 0 a Cw _, ~ 7 ~ Y {,~ V `~ C ~ M Ol W ^" ~ N N ..ti Qi M ~ M ~ C ~ Z ~ N N N .--i y 7 4. ^ 0 0 a ~ ~; se e ~~ s° s ~• z:° ~° s° ~ ~o ~~ z g - ~" ~ ~ ~ o ~ o o ~ ~ --~ N M o -. N d O 0. ~ ~ ~ a c. C7 u {~.r V - F ~ Y . ~ ~ ~ o0 0 ~ C ~ t z a i C ~ o o ~ y -o ~ `7 =~ W c ~ - - ~ ~ ~ .c ~ ~ ~ ~ f L C U N O Fy C CJ 0.. U ~ O ~_ ~ C u C ~, J - ~ ._ V ~ `~ x ~ L _ " C .. .. ~ c v ~ _ ~ ~ 1 1 1 1 1 1 'T P. • _ Z 0 U Z f~ V Z N Z W U 0 Q N W U a 0 Z a J 2 W Z m w W J J ~ ao F- a O p .+ G cd Q ~~ ~ ~ ~ G` ~ U ~ 7 00 7 N ~O G ~ ~ C G i 1. ~ ,-. ~ ~ ~p ,~ O N O - U c~', ~°, a 0 C X ~ ~ OM -+ ~' L'^. M Vr N O ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ M - i N ~ ~ lJ t~ z ~ 0 N 0o --+ N ~ M I ~Y -• ~~ N o ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ h '. ~ v ~ z o O i. r o ~ ~ o ~ N o o N p V r, a M ~ M ° ~ O a' a -I [~ V ~ L U E' L ~ O ~ ~, d' O M N N O O N M N m [~ N ~O oo M -. O~ Vl N V Z 0 c ~ ~ S ~ v o ~ ~ oo o r+ ~ 7 'z O ,~ M i o ~ o ~ .~ ~ ,~ v, ~t M N O ~ L U c0 y .. F ~ d ~^ N h ` Qa E cq a` ~F o o O t~ M. ~7 M ~' , O O ~ Q~ '.p C ~ N N M z c ~ ° ~ . i . ~ ~° C~ ~ ~ ~ _ ' 's ~ G :ti u w q U ~ -. L C U C ~ ' b0 C _ C ~ ,N n O U G ` U C ~ ~ i d A .D = ~ ~ .s ~ ~ C ~ „ ~J O r o . r .~ m ¢ ~ O x [--- ~ .~ C / ~ I I I I I .~-, P. • • N v~ b0 Q+ U .~ 0.. G a 0 U x b 0 P' 1 a~ ~ >, a: V] ^ U m N rU C v G r ?~ y d c >, o ~ 'j F LJ ~~ F = Z N = Z OW UV O O W N N II Q L W ao oa ~ 0 ~ fn Q r W W 0 a~'~ f., ~ z w C C vl ~ ~ N (~ ~ J M o M cu o N r ~ r M ~n G ~ ~p o ~ ~ O ~1 [~ ri O ~ - -i V1 O N N .--~ 7 Yi ~n (A N fN ,_, ~ W a M d ~ it ~ M ~ C ~D ~ ~ ~ ~t O~ C o ~ ~ ~ ~ W ~ ~ V N 69 69 N ~Fi C O N O N L' ~ ~ O i' O~ M N e{ ~ Q ~ M G G U' ~n '-' ~ o ~ [~ M U h ~ N -- ~ J SS o0 ~. M Ef3 M N H V C7 e-I C C ~ M ~ O O M ~ [~ ~ oC v ~ v~ 7 ~ u ~--~ ~ M ~ Y s9 7 ~ ~ v3 00 ~p _O CG A c~ P C c~ ~ ~ I c ~ ~E - c ~ ~ b ~ ~ o ~ ,~ ~ C7 ~ `C ~ ~ ~ U ;~ ~ - « v L ~ _ _ ~ ~ ~ ~ 'O G L' N ~ '. Q 5 O f ~ ~ C , ~ v ~ c `~ 3 ' 4 ~ ~ p y ~ ~ ° '-' O . G ~' ° 7 rn °~ _- o ~ ~ .~_ ~ a~, 8 d G 0 0 ° L .a ~ `~ G ' C C J ~ ~ `~' `~' V ~ ~ a C i. C 'rJ "O ~ a i o F ~ 3 U C i a z - z ~ ~ ~ c a ° - a .~,~ } Z ~N O~ U N ZZ ~w F- C.1 (~ O Z ~ 0 = N F.. aW Q Q oa °~°c=na r Z W W -~ U O QviU F- ~ ? ~' 0 CJ O O ~ O ~ V ~ ~D M ~! L~ ~ , ~ ,--~: 7 ' ~ r N O~ N O N ~ N ~ V 1 64 69 69 s y G ~ ~D ~D O V't \O C oo ~ ~ ~ Y V N ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ N 64 ~ ,.. C C ~ ~--i n U V ~ E. a ~ ~ a ~ ~' N ~ ~ O ~ X :1 N ~ ~ ~ '~`: ~ ~: N :f7 ~p N _O b F 1 ~ I . . ~ u a ~ ~ v c c °' o a C7 ~ ~ a V a ~ i,^. .M+ b v , i v ~ ~, O `! ~ O ~ ~ N bfi ~, p~ ~ b O~ ~ ~ G a; ~ >. > P. A C ~ 'p L ~ ~ D ~ ~ ~` w , 4 5 ~ .o ~ ~ 3 ti c ~ o . . c o v s ~ ~ o v ~ .a ~ ~ L ?; c ~ o '~ .° E ~~ a. ._ ~ ~ ~ " ~ ~ J .c a ° ~ a ,., w a~; ; o a o c F y `' c . G ~ . ~ ._ J ~ ~ ~ ,n ~' .n C ~_ b ~_ ~ n J v ~ ` 'J a=i y ° ~ ~ ~ ~ a z :~ z i ~ a S ri M, V'1 5A 7 Cti U .O a c 0 U i. c x `~ 0 N y C ~" ¢~ c ~' G > ~ ~L City of Maplewood and City of Woodbury officials were consulted to determine if there were any known concentrations of minority or low- income persons within the project area; they were not aware of any such populations. b. Environmental Justice Findings and Determinations It is reasonable to assume that the project area contains minority individuals and/or low-income individuals based on the information provided in the demographic statistics. Although not all of the individuals within residential areas adjacent to the project corridor are classified as either minority or low-income, for purposes of this analysis it has been assumed that any potential impacts to these areas could affect concentrations of minority and/or low-income individuals. Therefore, all residential areas that have the potential to be either directly or indirectly impacted by the project were considered in this environmental justice assessment. c. Impact Assessment An assessment of the proposed project was completed to determine if there are any adverse social, economic, or environmental impacts associated with the proposed project, and to what extent, if any, they would be borne disproportionately by the residential areas in the project area. This determination was balanced against potential mitigation and enhancements shat may be introduced with the project and all other offsetting benefits to the affected minority and/or low-income populations. Potential environmental justice impacts are defined as either direct or indirect effects. Examples of possible effects associated with this proposed project include: • Air quality; • 1Voise; • Aesthetic values; • Destruction or disruption of community cohesion; • Destruction or disruption of the availability of conm~unity services or facilities; • Displacement of persons and businesses; • Increased traffic congestion; and • Isolation. The potential effects that are applicable to minority and/or low-income populations for the proposed reconstruction are discussed below. En~~ironmenta] Assessment Page 54 Century Avenue/Valley Creek Road Reconstruction Project Air Quality No adverse impacts associated with air quality are anticipated (see discussion in Section N.A., Item 22.). Based on this discussion, the project will not create disproportionately high or adverse impacts to any population in the study area. Noise Impacts associated with noise are discussed in Section IV.A., Item 20. In the year 2030, it is estimated that sound levels at a number of locations along the project corridor will increase by one to four dBA above existing conditions. However, sound levels will still be below the FHWA Lto guidelines of 70 dBA. The noise analysis also indicated that noise impacts are balanced throughouC the study area and do not disproportionatcly affect any one residence or residential area. iii. Aesthetic Values The proposed project will contain some adverse as well as beneficial impacts to the aesthetic environment. Possible adverse impacts may result from widening the roadway. Conversely, widening the roadway will result in less congestion and improve safety with the inclusion of turn lanes. The impact to aesthetics, whether adverse or beneficial, will be evenly distributed throughout [he project area. It can be assumed that no minority populations or low-income populations will be disproportionately impacted. iv. Destruction or Disruption of Community Cohesion No adverse impacts related to neighborhood/community cohesion are anticipated (see discussion in Section V.B1.). Destruction or Disruption of the Availability of Corrununity Services or Facilities The proposed project will impact Battle Creek Park and the Ponds at Battle Creek Colf Course. The impacts are discussed in the Section 4(f) evaluations. No other impacts to community services or facilities are known to exist. The impacts to both park properties will he experienced by all who visit xnd use these facilities and will not disproportionatcly affect minority or low- income populations. Environmental Assessment Page SS Century Avenue/Valley Creek Road Reconstruction Project vi. Displacement of Persons and Businesses Residential and business relocations for the proposed project are discussed in Section 1V.B.4. vii. Increased Traffic Congestion Traffic operations and safety are anticipated to improve with the roadway reconstruction. No disproportionate adverse impacts from traffic congestion to any population group are expected. viii. Isolation The proposed project will not isolate any of the residential properties in the project area. While access to some properties may be changed as a result of the reconstruction, these access changes are located throughout the project corridor and do not completely eliminate access for any one property. The proposed project also includes provision for new sidewalks and paths along Century Avenue and new and reconstructed paths on Valley Creek Road. d. Environmental Justice Findings Populations adjacent to the roadway alignment of the proposed project are not considered to be predominately low-income or minority communities. Project impacts are distributed evenly throughout the corridor and the preposed improvements will help improve safety, roadway access, and trail access for all people who use the facility. Therefore, the proposed project will not have a disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects to any minority and/or low-income populations. 3. Economics The proposcd reconstruction is not anticipated to result in any broad changes to existing land use patterns or diversion or significant traffic volumes from commercial routes. However, the Build Alternative would result in the conversion of some commercial and residential property to public right of way and minor access changes to business areas. These impacts are discussed below. a. FiscalImpacts The proposed reconstruction will result in the acquisition of two to four residential properties within the City of Woodbury, and the potential acquisition of one business in the City of Maplewood. These properties Environmental Assessment Yage 56 Century Avenue/Valley Creek Road Keconslruction Project would be permanently lost to the cities' tax bases. However, as compared with the total value of the cities' tax bases, these loses would not be substantial. b. Impacts to Commercial Businesses The Build Alternative will result in minor changes to local access for business located along Century Avenue Crom Broolcview Drive/Woodbine Avenue to Upper Afton Road. These access modifications are discussed in Section III.B. The modifications, while limiting access to some businesses, will improve safety and traffic conditions along Century Avenue. Business relocation as a result of right of way impacts is discussed in Section iV.B.4. Existing and proposed access for businesses to Century Avenue are listed in Section III.A. Business access along Century Avenue may also include cross easements where necessary. A goal of the proposed project is to maintain business access both during construction and following project completion. Access concerns will be addressed in consultation with property owners and resolved during detail design. Reconstruction of Century Avenue will be at the existing roadway grade and does not involve any new visual obstructions. Thus, the proposed project will not result in visibility impacts to the businesses located within the project area. Relocation The proposed roadway reconstruction would potentially require the relocation of two to four residential properties and one commercial property. The commercial property is located at the northwest quadrant of the Century Avenue/Upper Afton Road intersection. While the proposed reconstruction would not necessitate the removal of the buildings on this parcel, the reconstruction of the Century/Upper Afton Road intersection would impair access to the property. The acquisition and relocation of property due to the proposed project will be conducted in accordance with the Uniform Relocation and Real Property Acquisition Act of 1970, as amended by the Surface Transportation and Uniform Relocation Assistance Act of 1987 and 49 Code of Federal Regulations, Part 24, and effective April 1989. Environmental Assessment Page 57 Century AvenueNalley Creek Road Reconstruction Project 5. Right of Way Century Avenue. Century AvenueNalley Creek Road intersection, and Lower Afton Road The existing right of way along Century Avenue ranges from 65 to 80 feet for a majority of the corridor along Century Avenue, but does expand to approximately 200 feet at the Battle Creek crossing. In platted areas, the City of Woodbury owns outlots and/or drainage and utility easements adjacent to the right of way corridor. Additional right of way from adjacent property owners will need to be acquired. Permanent right of way totaling 1.84 acres will be acquired from 13 residential/institutional and 5 conuncrcial propcrtics; approximately 0.68 acres will be acquired for ponding and drainage and utility easements. Acquisition from Ramsey County totals 3.94 acres for right of way and 2.52 acres for storm ponding easements. The additional right of way needs do not include propcrtics where the entire parcel will be required as discussed above. No additional right of way is needed to reconstruct the section of Lower Afton Road west of the intersection with Century Avenue. Vallev Creek Road The existing right of way along Valley Creek Road is approximately 100 to 150 feet. An additional 50 feet of property owned by the City of Woodbury is located along the south side of Valley Creek Road from 500 feet east of Century Avenue to 300 feet east of Parkwood Lr7ve. Permanent right of way totaling 1.09 acres will be acquired from one undeveloped parcel and one commercial property. An additional 1.45 acres of easement for storm ponding will be acquired from the undeveloped parcel. Temporary easements will be required along both sides of Century Avenue and Lower Afton Road and along the south side of Valley Creek Road to enable construction of slopes, ditches, and stonnwater ponds. All right of way acquisition will be in accordance with the Uniform Relocation and Real Property Acquisition Act of 1970, as amended by the Surface Transportation and Uniform Relocation Assistance Act of 1987 and 49 Code of Federal Regulations, Part 24, and effective April 1989. 6. Noise See Section IV.A., Item 24 for a discussion of noise. Environmental Assessment Page 58 Century AvenueNalley Creek Road Reconstruction Project V. PUBLIC AND AGENCY INVOLVEMENT (AND PERMITS/APPROVALS A. Informational Process I. Public Involvement Plan A Project Management Team (Pl~TT) was created early in the project development phase to facilitate communication between local jurisdictions (Ramsey and Washington Counties (Counties); Maplewood and Woodbury (Cities)), Mn/DOT, and FHWA. Refer to Section V.A.3. for further discussion of the PMT. A public involvement plan was also developed and implemented early in the project development process. This plan has helped to establish communication between the Counties and Cities and the public and has given the Counties and Cities a better understanding of the concerns that the public and agencies have about the proposed project. It has also given the public and agencies knowledge about what it is that the Counties and Cities are trying to accomplish with the project, and the standards, procedures, and constraints that the Counties and Cities need to consider while developing the project. Elements of the public involvement plan include coordination and contact meetings, newsletters, and a web-site. Public hearings and the public comment period related to the Environmental Assessment (EA) have not yet been initiated. 2. Coordination MCCt1nQ and Contacts Several public and agency meetings were held and newsletters sent out for the Century Avenue and Valley Creek Road improvements between May 2003 and August 2003. Open Houses Two public open houses were held during the completion of the EA as well as three stakeholder meetings which included business owners and other interested parties. Below is a summary of these meetings. May 29, 2003 Public Open House The first open house was held on May 29, 2003 at the Woodbury City Hall from 4:30 to 7:30 p.m. The purpose of this meeting was to provide the public preliminary information regarding the Century AvenuelValley Creek Road improvements including preliminary design information and information regarding the review/approval process for the project. Attendees were provided the opportunity to view information relating to the project and provide input (both verbally and by written response). Comments were also accepted by Washington County from those unable to attend the meeting. City and county representatives lnvironmental Assessment Page 59 Century Avenue/Valley Creek Road Reconstruction Project as well as consulting staff were available to answer questions. The meeting was held in open house format with no formal presentation. Approximately 50 persons signed in at the meeting, although more may have attended. August 5, 2003 Public Open House The second open house held during the completion of the EA was held August 5, 2003 at the Lutheran Church of Peace in Maplewood from 4:00 to 7:00 p.m. The purpose of this meeting was to provide more detailed information regarding the Century Avenue/Valley Creek Road roadway reconstruction project. Attendees were again provided the opportunity to submit comments verbally to city and county representatives as well as the consulting staff or on a written form. The open house was held in open house forn~at, allowing attendees to ask questions of the project representatives throughout the three hour information meeting. Approximately 55 persons signed in at the meeting, although more may have attended. Both the May 29 and August 5 open houses were held in conjunction with the Valley Creek Road Interchange EA Reevaluation project. July 18, 2003 and July 24, 2003 Stakeholder Meetings Representatives from Washington County and the City of Woodbury along with consultant staff presented information to area businesses and other interested parties regarding the proposed project. One meeting was held on July 18, 2003 at the Ponds at Battle Creek Golf Course in Maplewood (along the project corridor) and two meetings were held on July 24, 2003 at the Woodwinds Health Campus in Woodbury (east of the proposed project). The intent in having three meetings was to accommodate the varying schedules of the attendees. The purpose of this meeting was to present project information, answer questions and receive input on the project. Topics addressed included: existing and future traffic needs and levels; roadway design principles; roadway redesign alternatives; construction staging and project schedule/coordination with other area projects. Approximately 60 persons attended these meetings. A summary of comments received at the May and August open houses and the 7uly stakeholder meetings is shown as Exhibit 16 in Appendix A-1. Newsletters Two newsletters were distributed prior to the publication of the EA. • May 29, 2003 (Newsletter #1) The first newsletter was distributed to inform the public of the proposed project, information pertaining to the project and invite them to the May 29, 2003 open house. The newsletter was mailed to approximately 1,700 recipients (including Environmental Assessment Pace 60 Century AvenueNal(ey Creek Road Keconstruction Project residents and business owners in the project area and other interested persons) and an additional 400-500 newsletters were hand delivered to additional area businesses and apartment complexes. • August 5, 2003 (Newsletter #2) The second newsletter was distributed to inform the public of information developed since the first open house and first newsletter and to invite them to the August 5, 2003 open house. The newsletter was mailed to approximately 2,000 recipients (including residents and business owners in the project area and other interested persons). In addition, the newsletters were provided during the stakeholder meetings July 18 and 24, 2003. Press Releases Washington County distributed press releases to newspaper, magazine, radio, and television media resources prior to the two public open houses. Website Information about the project can be found on Washington County's website at www.co.washington.mn.us/. The information provided includes a summary of project activity, open house dates and summaries, as well as copies of newsletters distributed. Agency Coordination Several agencies were contacted during the environmental report preparation. Following is a list of these agencies. • Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) • Minnesota llepartment of Transportation (Mn/DOT) • Minnesota Department of Transportation -Office of Environmental Services (Mn/DOT - OES) • Minnesota Department of Transportation -Cultural Resources Unit (Mn/DOT - CRLJ) • Minnesota Dcpartmalt of Natural Resources (DNR) • Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) • Minnesota Historical Society -State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) • Metropolitan Council • Ramsey Washington Metro Watershed llistrict • Washington County Environmental Assessment Page U1 Century Avenue/Valley Creek Road Reconstruction Project • City of Woodbury • Ramsey County • City of Maplewood 3. Project Management Team A Project Management Team (PMT) was formed prior to the first PMT kick-off meeting on April 28, 2003 to review and provide input on the proposed project consistent with the policies of the agencies in which they represent. The PMT met biweekly to review the environmental process approach, traffic analyses, preliminary design, public involvement opportunities, etc. Following is a list of the agencies represented on the PMT. • rIIWA • Mn/DOT Metro Division • Washington County • Ramsey County • City of Woodbury • City of Maplewood A Project Advisory Committee (PAC) was also formed for the proposed project concurrent with the PMT to help provide community input into the project process and to encourage communications between Washington County and the affected communities. The PAC held three meetings between May 2003 and Fcb~uary 2004. The PAC is composed of the following rcprescntativcs. • Ramsey Washington Metro Watershed District • Ramsey County Correctional Facility • Ramsey County Parks and Recreation • Metropolitan Council • City of Woodbury • City of Maplewood 4. Sumrnarv of Earlv Coordination Comments As a result of the above early coordination meetings and contacts, comments and concerns about the proposed project were received, both verbally and in writing. Comments from the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources arc discussed in Section N.A. Item 11. Comments from the Minnesota State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) are discussed in Section IV.A. Item 25. Environmental Assessment Page G2 Century AvenueNalley Creek Road Reconstruction Project The Metropolitan Council and Ramsey County Parks were also contacted during the early coordination period. Their comments are highlighted below: • METROPOLITa1V COUNCIL - Metropolitan Council Environmental Services (MCES) - MCES has three interceptors within the study area. Two are located at the Century AvenueBattle Creek Crossing and one is located at the Century Avenue/Lower Afton Road intersection. See Section IV.A., Item No. 28 for a discussion of impacts to infrastructure. - Runoff should be properly treated before being discharged from the project site and potential impacts of increased runoff on Battle Creek should be addressed. See Section IV.A., Item No. 14 and 17 for a discussion of Battle Creek and surface water runoff. - The roadway design should be coordinated with the Cities of Maplewood and Woodbury to ensure consistency with local comprehensive plans. See Section IV.A., Item No. 29 for a discussion of project compatibility with local plans. • RAMSEY COUNTY PARKS AND RECREATION Ramsey County Parks was contacted during the development of the ponding location and walk on Battle Creek Park and the roadway impacts to the Ponds at Battle Creek Golf Course. Washington County and Ramsey County will continue to meet with Ramsey County Parks to identify potential mitigation for park impacts. B. Permits and Approval Requirements Permit Agency Action Required N'ederal F,nvironmental Assessment FHWA Approval EA Update/I~ONSI SHWA Approval Section 4(t} determination FHWA Approval Section 404 Authorization -General Permit/Letter of Permission (GP/LOY) U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Permil State Environmental Assessment Mn/DOT Approval EA Update/Request for FONSI Mn/DO"r Approeal Construction Plans hIn/DOT Approval Protected Waters Minnesota Department of Natural Resources Permit Environmental Assessment Page 63 Century Avenue/Valley Creek Ruad Reconstructiun Project Permit Agency Action Required State continued Temporary Water Appropriation Permit (if needed) Minnesota Department of Natural Resources Permit Wetland Conservation Act Minnesota Department of Natural Resources and/or Ramsey Washington Metro Watershed District ApprovaUPermit Section 401 Minnesota Pollution Control Agency Certification National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Minnesota Pollution Control Agency Permit Section 106 (Historic /Archeological) Minnesota State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) Concurrence (Completed) Section 106 Mn/DOT Cultural Resources Unit (CRU) Determination of Effect Local EIS Need Decision Washington County Negative Declaration Ex ected Plan Approval Ramsey and Washington Counties; Cities of Ma Lewood and Woodbury Approval Floodplain Permit Cities of Maplewood and Woodbury Permit Shore Impact Plan City of Woodbury Permit Watershed District Permit Ramsey Washington Metro Watershed District Permit C. Public Comment Period and Public Hearin Comments from the public and agencies affected by this project are requested during the public comment period described on the transmittal letter distributing this Environmental Assessment. A combined public informational meeting/public hearing will be held after this Environmental Assessment has been distributed to the public and to the required and interested federal, Native American Tribes, state and local agencies for their review. At the informational meeting/public hearing, preliminary design layouts for the alternatives under consideration along with other project documentation will be available for public review. The public will also be given the opportunity to express their comments, ideas and concerns about the proposed project. These comments will be received at the hearing and during the remainder of the comment period, and will become apart of the official hearing record. D. Report Distribution Copies of this document have been sent to agencies, local government units, libraries and others as per Minnesota Rule 4410.1500 (Publication and Distribution of an EAW). Environmental Assessment Page 64 Century Avenue/Valley Creek Road Reconstruction Project E. Process Beyond the Hearing Following the comment period, Washington County and the FHWA will make a determination as to the adequacy of the environmental documentation. If further documentation is necessary it could he accomplished by preparing an Environmental impact Statement (EIS), by revising the Environmental Assessment, or clarification in the Findings of Fact and Conclusion, whichever is appropriate. If an EIS is not necessary, as currently anticipated, Washington County will prepare a "Negative Declaration" for the state environmental requirements. Washington County will also prepare a request fora "Finding of No Significant Impacts" (FONSI) that will be submitted to the FHWA. If the FHWA agrees that this finding is appropriate, it will issue a FONSI. Notices of the federal and state decisions and availability of the above documents will be placed in the Minnesota Environmental Quality Board (iVIEQB) Monitor. Washington County will also distribute the Negative Declaration and FONSI to the Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) dis*.ribution list and publish notices in local newspapers announcing the environmental and project alternative decisions that were made. Environmental Assessment Page 65 Century AvenueNalley Creek Road Reconstruction Project PROJECT LOCATION - USGS MAP Exhibit 5 CENTURY AVENUE/VALLEY CREEK ROAD RECONSTRUCTION PROJECT RamseyMashington Counties - SP 82-625-02CTB, 62-672-04CTB; SAP# 82-616-16CTB ' 4740 4ao;a4 AGENDA ITEM K-15 AGENDA REPORT TO: Richard Fursman, City Manager FROM: Charles Ahl, Public Works Director/City Engineer Bill Priefer, Administrative Assistant SUBJECT: Diseased Tree Program-Report on 2004 Removals DATE: November 15, 2004 Introduction Dutch elm disease (DED) made a strong comeback this summer in most parts of the metro area, including Maplewood. This has been one of the worst years for DED since the 1970s, and next year is expected to be just as bad. The following is a summary of our efforts to deal with DED in Maplewood. Background The Public Works Department has expended resources on the diseased tree sanitation program since the first infestation of DED in the 1970s. However, fewer resources have been required over the last twenty years since our elm population was nearly depleted thirty years ago; and we have had an effective tree sanitation program in place to protect the few hundred elms left in Maplewood. The average annual DED mortality rate has been less than six trees per summer for the last fifteen years. Although timely sanitation of diseased trees is crucial to an effective control program, this summer's infestation was difficult to forecast as well as combat. The unexpected high level of DED this year was the culmination of many factors. A droughty fall and a low snow cover winter brought more elms into spring leaf-out in stressful conditions. The warmer winter also increased beetle survival. The beetles then found a vast amount of pre-stressed trees to feed on and breed in. In late June, Public Works received several calls from residents who suspected that their elms were diseased since the leaves were wilting and turning brown. A certified tree inspector/forester was hired from Vernix Forestry Consultants to inspect for DED. The cost for these services is $4,096 to date and was not included in the budget for 2004. A total of 203 elms, with a cumulative diameter of 3,487 inches, were marked for removal. Tree removal costs are typically based on the size of a tree as expressed in breast height diameter inches. The breast height diameter inches of a tree is determined by measuring four feet up the tree (about breast height) and at that point the circumference is measured and divided by Pi. Twenty-two percent of the diseased trees marked, or 765 diameter inches, were in public right- of-way or on park land. Our street maintenance and park crews were able to remove the smaller trees totaling 260 diameter inches, while a private contractor removed 505 diameter inches at a cost of $10,515. This is more than double the amount budgeted in the Street Maintenance budget. The other 78% of diseased trees, or 2,722 diameter inches, were removed by private land owners or other public agencies. The approximate cost to the private Diseased Tree Report Page 2 November 15, 2004 landowners was $68,050 which is based on an average estimated removal cost of $25 per diameter inch. While inspecting for DED, the forester also marked 94 oak trees that are suspected of having oak wilt. Return visits next February by the forester will be necessary to confirm oak wilt and whether removal will be required. An update will be provided to council at that time if any oaks are in public right-of-way or on city property. Summary In most cases, Maplewood residents have worked hard to do their part in controlling the devastation felt by Dutch elm disease and oak wilt. Residents have been especially proactive in treating oaks suspected of having oak wilt. All but two of the 203 diseased elms have been removed. Out of 103 owners of private trees, only two owners are still not in compliance with the order to remove. If the trees are not removed by the end of November, a private contractor will remove both trees at a cost of approximately $500 which will then be certified to their property taxes. WJP