Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
2003 04-14 City Council Packet
Council /Manager's Workshop 6: 00 p. m. AMENDED AGENDA MAPLEWOOD CITY COUNCIL 7:00 P.M. Monday, April 14, 2003 Council Chambers, Municipal Building Meeting No. 03 -07 A. CALL TO ORDER B. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE C. ROLL CALL D. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 1. Minutes from the March 31, 2003 Council/Manager's Workshop 2. Minutes form the March 31, 2003 City Council Meeting, Meeting No. 03 -06 E. APPROVAL OF AGENDA F. APPOINTMENTS /PRESENTATIONS 1. Proclamation- National Public Safety Telecommunications Week G. CONSENT AGENDA All matters listed under the Consent Agenda are considered to be routine by the City Council and will be enacted by one motion. If a member of the City Council wishes to discuss an item, that item will be removed from the Consent Agenda and will be considered separately. 1. Approval of Claims 2. Conditional Use Permit Review- Rose/Rice Auto Sales (1908 Rice Street) 3. Kennard/Frost Area Street Improvements, Project 02 -10- Resolution Ordering Assessment Hearing 4. Maplewood Drive /Keller Parkway Street Improvements, Project 03- 02- Resolution Ordering Assessment Hearing 5. RHS Trust and Welfare Plan Revisions 6. National Investor Relations Institute -Twin Cities Chapter - Temporary Gambling for Educational Purposes 7. Temporary Gambling Resolution - Carver Elementary PTO H. PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. 7:00 p.m. Home Occupation License -Hair Salon (2697 Pinkspire Lane) 2. 7:15 p.m. Van Dyke Village Town Houses (Van Dyke Street, north of County Road B) Land Use Plan Change (BC and R -3 (M) to R -3 (H)) (4 Votes) Conditional Use Permit for Planned Unit Development Design Approval 3. 7:30 p.m. Hazelwood Street Improvements, City Proj ect 01 -16- Resolution Ordering Improvement after Public Hearing (4 Votes) I. AWARD OF BIDS J. UNFINISHED BUSINESS K. NEW BUSINESS 1. On -Sale Liquor License - Donald Standley- Maplewood Moose Lodge 2. Temporary Liquor License - Aldrich Arena -St. Paul Winter Carnival 3. County Road D Realignment Project, City Project 02 -07- Presentation and Discussion of Roadway Alignment Options and Stormwater /Wetland Issues - Discussion Only; No Action Proposed 4. Legacy Village of Maplewood, City Project 02 -18- Resolution Approving Distribution of a Final Alternative Urban Area -Wide Review (AUAR) Document and Mitigation Plan for Legacy Village 5. County Road D Realignment, Hazelwood to TH 61, City Project 02 -07 and 02 -08 Resolution Approving Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) and Declaring Finding of No Further Need for Additional Environmental Study 6. Tilsen South Street Improvements, City Project 00- 04- Resolutions for: Directing Modification Existing Construction Contract (Change order No.4) Acceptance of Project 7. Gladstone West Street Improvements, City Project 00 -05- Resolutions for: Directing Modification of Existing Construction Contract (C.O. Nos. 3 & 4) Acceptance of Project 8. Increased Front Yard Setback Request -2317 Arlington Avenue L. VISITOR PRESENTATIONS M. COUNCIL PRESENTATIONS N. ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS 1. May 26 2003 - Change of Meeting Date - Memorial Day 2. Set Date for Special Meeting- Hartford O. ADJOURNMENT Sign language interpreters for hearing impaired persons are available for public hearings upon request. The request for this service must be made at least 96 hours in advance. Please call the City Clerk's Office at (651) 770 -4523 to make arrangements. Assisted Listening Devices are also available. Please check with the City Clerk for availability. RULES OF CIVILITY FOR 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 respectful language. AGENDA lTBAd� DRAFT — MINUTES A. CALL TO ORDER B. ROLL CALL C. 19 CITY COUNCIL /MANAGER WORKSHOP Monday, March 31, 2003 Council Chambers, City Hall 6:00 p.m. Action by Council Robert Cardinal, Mayor Present Kenneth V. Collins, Councilmember Present Kathleen Juenemann, Councilmember Present Marvin C. Koppen, Councilmember Present Julie A. Wasiluk, Councilmember Present Others Present: City Manager Fursman Assistant City Manager Coleman City Clerk Guilfoile Public Works Director Ahl Finance Director Faust Human Resources Director Le Police Chief Thomalla Fire Chief Lukin APPROVAL OF AGENDA Councilmember Wasiluk moved to approve the agenda as presented. Seconded by Councilmember Koppen Ayes -All NEW BUSINESS 1. Review of 2002 Budget Objectives Date_ Ends scdl Rejected Each department head provided the council with highlights of their departments activities and accomplishments for the year 2002. E. F. FUTURE TOPICS 1. Exploring the Possibilities of a Sister City 2. Sidewalk Study - Overall City Plan 3. Street Scape Plan ADJOURNMENT With their being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 6:58 p.m. 03 -31 -03 DRAFT -- MINUTES A GENDA ITEM 0 MAPLEWOOD CITY COUNCIL � 7:00 P.M., Monday, March 31, 2003 Council Chambers, Municipal Building Action by Council Meeting No. 03 -06 Date A. CALL TO ORDER: Nloc I nCic d Rejected ' A meeting of the City Council was held in the Council Chambers, at the Municipal Building, and� was called to order at 7:00 P.M. by Mayor Cardinal. B. C. 3 E. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ROLL CALL Robert Cardinal, Mayor Kenneth V. Collins, Councilmember Kathleen Juenemann, Councilmember Marvin C. Koppen, Councilmember Julie A. Wasiluk, Councilmember Present Present Present Present Present APPROVAL OF MINUTES 1. Minutes from the March 10, 2003 Council /Manager's Workshop Councilmember Wasiluk moved to approve the Council /Manager Workshop Minutes of March 10, 2003 as presented. Seconded by Councilmember Juenemann Ayes -All 2. Minutes from the March 10, 2003 City Council Meeting, Meeting No. 03 -05 Councilmember Wasiluk moved to approve the City Council Minutes of the March 10, 2003 meeting as presented. Seconded by Councilmember Juenemann Ayes -All APPROVAL OF AGENDA Ml. Sibley Cove Apartment Building M2. Missing Children M3. League of Minnesota Cities M4. Budget Presentation Councilmember Wasiluk moved to approve the Agenda as amended. Seconded by Councilmember Juenemann Ayes -All Citv Council 03 -31 -03 F. APPOINTMENTS /PRESENTATIONS None G. CONSENT AGENDA Councilmember Collins moved to approve the Consent Agenda as presented. Seconded by Councilmember Juenemann Ayes -All 1. Approval of Claims ACCOUNTS Tl A 'N T A TIT T $62,527.79 Checks #60365 thru #60406 dated 3/7 thru 3/11/03 $219,961.71 Disbursements via debits to checking account dated 3/3 thru 3/6/03 $455.00 Checks #60407 dated 3/11/03 $402,767.98 Checks #60408 thru #60471 dated 3/18/03 $120,143.62 Disbursements via debits to checking account dated 3/7 thru 3/13/03 $70.00 Checks #60472 dated 3/14/03 $239,379.07 Checks #60473 thru #60524 dated 3/25/03 $227,749.51 Disbursements via debits to checking account dated 3/14 thru 3/20/03 $1,273,054.68 Total Accounts Payable PAYROLL $403,614.17 Payroll Checks and Direct Deposits dated 3/14/03 $26,066.87 Payroll Deduction checks #92941 thru #92948 dated 3/14/03 $429,681.04 Total Payroll $1,702,735.72 GRAND TOTAL 2. Church of the Presentation of the Blessed Virgin Mary - Temporary Gambling, Temporary 3.2 Beer and Carnival License for Annual Spring Festival Approved the temporary intoxicating liquor and food permit for the Church of the Presentation of the Blessed Virgin Mary, 1725 Kennard Street for their annual Spring Festival event to be held May 3 rd and 4 th Citv Council 03 -31 -03 2 3. Vietnam Restaurant -3035 White Bear Avenue -3.2 Malt Liquor License Approved the 3.2 Malt Liquor License for the Vietnam Restaurant located at 3035 White Bar Avenue. 4. Final Plat- Beaver Lake Townhomes Second Addition (Sterling Street North) Approved the Beaver Lake Townhomes second addition final plat. This approval is subject to the county recording the deeds, deed restrictions and covenants required by the city. 5. Final Plat -Towns of New Century Third Addition (New Century Boulevard and Highwood Avenue) Approved the final plat for the Towns of New Century Third Addition. This approval is subject to the county recording the deeds, deed restrictions and covenants required by the city. 6. Conditional Use Permit Review - Choice Auto Rental (2923 Highway 61) Agreed to review the conditional use permit for Choice Auto Rental located at 2923 Highway 61 North again only if a problem arises or if a revision to the conditional use permit is proposed. 7. Conditional Use Permit Review - Maplewood Toyota (2873 Maplewood Drive) Agreed to review the conditional use permit for Maplewood Toyota at 2873 Highway 61 again in one year or sooner if the owner proposes a major change to the site. 8. Conditional Use Permit Review -St. Jerome's Church (380 Roselawn Avenue) Agreed to review the conditional use permit for St. Jerome's Church located at 380 Roselawn Avenue East again only if a problem arises or if a revision to the conditional use permit is proposed. 9. Conditional Use Permit Review - Hillcrest Animal Hospital (1320 County Road D) Approved to review the conditional use permit for the Hillcrest Animal Hospital at 1320 County Road D again in one year or sooner if the owner proposes a major change to the site. 10. Conditional Use Permit Review - Jehovah's Witness Kingdom Hall (925 Century Avenue) Agreed to review the conditional use permit for Jehovah's Witness Kingdom Hall at 925 Century Avenue North again only if a problem arises or if a revision to the conditional use permit is proposed. 11. Resolution of Support -CDBG Funds for Beaver Creek Carriage Homes (Ferndale Street) Citv Council 03 -31 -03 Adopted the following resolution of support for the Beaver Creek Carriage Homes CDBG application: RESOLUTION 03 -03 -035 FOR A CDBG PROJECT LOAN FROM RAMSEY COUNTY FOR THE BEAVER CREEK CARRIAGE HOMES WHEREAS, the Beaver Creek Carriage Homes Association has applied to Ramsey County for a low — interest loan in the amount of $250,000 in Community Development Block Grant funds; WHEREAS, the Beaver Creek Carriage Homes Association would use this money to preserve and rehabilitate 60 condominium homes and garages located at 1215, 1225 and 1235 Ferndale Street North; WHEREAS, these funds would be used to repair, re -side and re -roof the garages and three residential buildings with 60 condominium units. Further, these funds would be used to repair and refinish decks, relocate and screen the trash enclosures and replace the security /intercom system in three buildings; WHEREAS, these improvements will alleviate blight in a high - traffic area, help maintain the property tax base and preserve 60 units of affordable housing and generally enhance the quality of life for the owners of this low to moderate income condominium neighborhood. WHEREAS, the Maplewood City Council supports these plans for needed improvements and supports this request to Ramsey County for CDBG funding; THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Maplewood City Council hereby expresses their support that this loan be granted to the Beaver Creek Carriage Homes Association to undertake this unique pilot program for the preservation and rehabilitation of affordable, owner - occupied condominiums for low and moderate income residents of the City of Maplewood. 12. Retiree Health Savings Plan Revision Adopted the following resolution amending the City's Vantage Care Retirement Health Savings Plan: RESOLUTION 03 -03 -036 AMENDING A VANTAGECARE RETIREMENT HEALTH SAVINGS PLAN Plan Number: 800183 Name of Employer: City of Maplewood State: MN Resolution of the City of Maplewood ( "Employer ") WHEREAS, the Employer has employees rendering valuable services; and WHEREAS, the Employer has established a retiree health savings plan in the form of the VantageCare Retirement Health Savings Plan (the "Plan ") for such employees that serves the interest of the Employer by enabling it to provide reasonable security regarding such employees' health needs during retirement, Citv Council 03 -31 -03 4 by providing increased flexibility in its personnel management system, and by assisting in the attraction and retention of competent personnel; and WHEREAS, the Employer has determined that the continuance of the Plan serves the above objectives; NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Employer hereby amends and restates the Plan as outlined in the attached Declaration of Amendment to the VantageCare Retirement Health Saving Plan; BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the assets of the Plan shall be held in trust, with the Employer serving as trustee ( "Trustee ") for the exclusive benefit of Plan participants and their beneficiaries, and the assets of the Plan shall not be diverted to any other purpose prior to the satisfaction of all liabilities of the Plan. The Employer hereby amends the June 24, 2002 Declaration of Trust of the City of Maplewood Integral Part Trust. 13. Maplewood 2003 Shape Up Challenge Approved the Maplewood 2003 Shape Up Challenge. 14. Public Safety Dispatching Center - Equipment Upgrade Purchase Approved a $10,600 appropriation to the Public Safety Dispatching Center Fund to make this final purchase for the Communications Center. 15. Oakdale Sewage Agreement Adopted the changes in the agreement with the City of Oakdale and filed the amended agreement with the Metropolitan Council Environmental Services (MCES) for adjusted billing. 16. Dial Tone Agreement Renewal Approved the renewal of McLeod USA's dial tone service agreement for $4,091.10 per month for a period of one year. 17. English Street Roundabout Landscape Improvements, Proj ect 01 -14- Resolution Approving Plans and Advertising for Bids Adopted the following resolution for the English/Frost Roundabout Landscape Improvements, Proj ect 01 -14: Approving Plans and Advertising for Bids. RESOLUTION 03 -03 -037 APPROVING PLANS ADVERTISING FOR BIDS WHEREAS, pursuant to resolution passed by the city council on February 24, 2003, plans and specifications for the English Street Landscape Improvements, Project 01 -14, have been prepared by (or under the direction of) the city engineer, who has presented such plans and specifications to the council for approval, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA: Citv Council 03 -31 -03 1. Such plans and specifications, a copy of which are attached hereto and made a part hereof, are hereby approved and ordered placed on file in the office of the city clerk. 2. The city clerk shall prepare and cause to be inserted in the official paper and in the Construction Bulletin an advertisement for bids upon the making of such improvement under such approved plans and specifications. The advertisement shall be published twice, at least ten days before the date set for bid opening, shall specify the work to be done, shall state that bids will be publicly opened and considered by the council at 11:00 a.m. on the 2nd day of May, 2003, at city hall and that no bids shall be considered unless sealed and filed with the clerk and accompanied by a certified check or bid bond, payable to the City of Maplewood, Minnesota for five percent of the amount of such bid. The city clerk and city engineer are hereby authorized and instructed to receive, open, and read aloud bids received at the time and place herein noted, and to tabulate the bids received. The council will consider the bids, and the award of a contract, at the regular city council meeting of May 12, 2003 18. Markham Pond Outlet and Utility Improvements, Project 02- 02- Resolution Acceptance of Project Adopted the following resolution for the Markham Pond Outlet and Utility Improvements, City Project 02 -02 for Acceptance of Project. RESOLUTION 03 -03 -038 ACCEPTANCE OF PROJECT WHEREAS, the city engineer for the City of Maplewood has determined that the Improvements of the Markham Pond Outlet and Utilities, City Project 02 -02, are complete and recommends acceptance of the project; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA, that City Project 02 -02 is complete and maintenance of these improvements is accepted by the city. Release of any retainage or escrow is hereby authorized. 19. Hazelwood Street Improvements (Phase 1- County Road C to Beam Ave), Proj ect 01-16 - Resolution Receiving Feasibility Study and Ordering Public Hearing Adopted the following resolution accepting the report and calling for a public hearing for 7:30 p.m., Monday, April 14, 2003 for the Hazelwood Street Improvements project. RESOLUTION 03 -03 -039 ACCEPTING REPORT AND CALLING FOR PUBLIC HEARING WHEREAS, pursuant to resolution of the council adopted June 10, 2002, a report has been prepared by the city engineering division with reference to the improvement of Hazelwood Street (Phase I - from County Road C to Beam Avenue), City Project 01 -16, and this report was received by the council on March 31, 2003, and WHEREAS, the report provides information regarding whether the proposed project is necessary, cost - effective, and feasible, Citv Council 03 -31 -03 6 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 for Phase One of the improvement of $1,282,000. 2. A public hearing shall be held on such proposed improvement on the 14th day of April 2003 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. 20. Municipal State Aid Advance — Resolution for Advance of State Aid Funds Adopted the following resolution requesting an advance encumbrance of $1,000,000 to the Municipal State Aid account. RESOLUTION 03 -03 -040 ADVANCE OF STATE AID FUNDS WHEREAS, the City of Maplewood is planning on implementing Municipal State Aid Street projects in 2003 which will require state aid funds in excess of those available in its State Aid Construction Account, and WHEREAS, said city is prepared to proceed with the construction of said project through the use of advance encumbrances from the General State Aid Construction Account to supplement the available funds in their State Aid Construction Account, and WHEREAS, repayment of the funds so advanced will be made in accordance with the provisions of Minnesota Statutes 162.13, Subdivision 6, and Minnesota Rules, Chapter 8820. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Commissioner of Transportation be and is hereby requested to approve this advance for financing approved Municipal State Aid Street projects of the City of Maplewood in an amount of up to $1,000,000 in accordance with the Minnesota Rules 8820.1500, Subparagraph 9, and to authorize repayments from the following year's accruals to the construction account of the Municipal State Aid Street fund for said city. H. PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. 7:00 p.m. Schmelz Countryside VW /Saab Expansion (1180 Highway 36) Parking Lot Setback Variance Resolution — Conditional Use Permit (CUP) for Expansion of Motor Vehicle Repair Facility - Conditional Use Permit (CUP) for Expansion of Motor Vehicle Sales Lot a. City Manager Fursman presented the staff report. b. Associate Planner Finwall presented specifics from the report. C. Commissioner Trippler presented the Planning Commission Report. Citv Council 03 -31 -03 7 d. Associate Planner Finwall presented the Design Review Board Report. e. Mayor Cardinal opened the public hearing, calling for proponents or opponents. The following persons were heard: John Schmelz, Owner of Schmelz Countryside William McCully, Glen Rehbein Companies Gordon Anderson, 2255 Duluth Street, Maplewood Dale Trippler, 1201 Junction Avenue, Maplewood Jean Anderson, Gordon Anderson's daughter Will Rossbach, 1386 E. County Road C., Maplewood Greg Juenemann, 721 Mt. Vernon, Maplewood f. Mayor Cardinal closed the public hearing. Councilmember Collins moved to deny John Schmelz's request for a 15- foot - parking lot setback variance form a public right -of -way for the expansion of the sales /storage lot at this Countryside Motors automobile dealership at 1180 Highway 36 east. Seconded by Councilmember Juenemann Ayes - Councilmember Collins, Juenemann, and Wasiluk Nays -Mayor Cardinal and Councilmember Koppen Councilmember Koppen moved to adopt the following resolution ap rp oving a revision to the conditional use permit for John Schmelz's Count ryside Motors automobile dealership located at 1180 Highway 36 east. The revision is for the expansion for the nonconforming automobile repair and automobile sales (both located closer than the required 2350 feet to the residential property). A friendly amendment was a dded to strike condition 4 (staff should studv and bring recommendations back to council): RESOLUTION 03 -03 -041 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REVISION RESOLUTION WHEREAS, John Schmelz applied for a conditional use permit revision to expand his nonconforming automobile repair and automobile sales (both located closer than the required 350 feet to residential property). The revision includes an addition to the Saab building and an expansion of the automobile sales /storage lot. WHEREAS, this permit applies to Countryside Motors Automobile Dealership at 1180 Highway 36 East. The legal description is: Existing Dealership Legal Description The west 105.00 feet of the east 135.00 feet of the north 3 0. 00 feet of Block 10, Clifton Addition and vacated street accruing. The east 240.00 feet of Block 15, Clifton Addition, except the south 30.00 feet lying west of the east 135.00 feet thereof. Together with that part of vacated Cope Avenue accruing. The east 240.00 feet of that part of Block 16, Clifton Addition, lying southerly of State Trunk Highway Number 36. Citv Council 03 -31 -03 8 The west 110. 00 feet of that part of Block 17, Clifton Addition, lying southerly of State Trunk Highway Number 36. The west 110.00 feet of Block 14, Clifton Addition, together with that part of vacated Cope Avenue accruing. The west 225.00 feet of east 255.00 feet of Block 10, Clifton Addition, together with that part of vacated Duluth Street accruing, except the south 174.00 feet and except the north 30.00 feet thereof. Proposed Sales Lot Legal Description That part of east 114 feet of the west 400 feet of Block 17, lying south of the southerly right -of -way line of Trunk Highway 36 and the east 114 feet of the west 400 feet of Block 14, lying north of the south 128 feet; and the east 290 feet of the west 400 feet of the north 98 feet of the south 128 feet of Block 14, all in Clifton Addition, Ramsey County, Minnesota, subject to roads. WHEREAS, the history of this conditional use permit revision is as follows: 1. On March 3, 2003, the planning commission recommended that the city council approve this permit. 2. On March 31, 2003, the city council held a public hearing. The city staff published a notice in the paper and sent notices to the surrounding property owners. The council gave everyone at the hearing a chance to speak and present written statements. The council also considered reports and recommendations of the city staff and planning commission. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the city council approved the above - described conditional use permit revision because: 1. The use would be located, designed, maintained, constructed and operated to be in conformity with the City's Comprehensive Plan and Code of Ordinances. 2. The use would not change the existing or planned character of the surrounding area. 3. The use would not depreciate property values. 4. The use would not involve any activity, process, materials, equipment or methods of operation that would be dangerous, hazardous, detrimental, disturbing or cause a nuisance to any person or property, because of excessive noise, glare, smoke, dust, odor, fumes, water or air pollution, drainage, water run -off, vibration, general unsightliness, electrical interference or other nuisances. 5. The use would generate only minimal vehicular traffic on local streets and would not create traffic congestion or unsafe access on existing or proposed streets. 6. The use would be served by adequate public facilities and services, including streets, police and fire protection, drainage structures, water and sewer systems, schools and parks. 7. The use would not create excessive additional costs for public facilities or services. Citv Council 03 -31 -03 9 8. The use would maximize the preservation of and incorporate the site's natural and scenic features into the development design. 9. The use would cause minimal adverse environmental effects. Approval is subject to the following conditions: 1. All construction shall follow the site plan approved by the city. The director of community development may approve minor changes. 2. The construction of the proposed addition to the Saab building must be started within one year of city council approval or the approval for this addition shall end. The city council may extend this deadline for one year. 3. There shall be no automobile access, except emergency vehicles, to or from Duluth Street. 4. Automobiles shall only be parked on designated paved or engineered porous surfaces. 5. The applicant will enter into a formal easement agreement with St. Paul Regional Water Services and the City of Maplewood which satisfies both agencies' conditions for access to the public utility easements for water main (SPRWS) and sanitary and storm sewer (City of Maplewood). 6. The city council shall review this permit in one year. Seconded by Councilmember Juenemann Ayes -All Councilmember Collins m oved to approve the plans date - stamped January 24, 2003, for the proposed Saab building addition and sales /storage lot expansion to Countryside Motors automobile dealership at 1180 Highway 36 east, subject to the following conditions: a. Repeat this review in two years if the city has not issued a building permit for this project. b. Signs shown on the site plan and building elevations are not part of this approval and will require separate sign permits. C. Submit the following for staff approval before the city issues a grading or building permit: 70' . .. ._ -- - _ F;2 VA 11 . -. .. . __ (1) Final grading and drainage plan for the proposed Uni Eco -Stone Paving System and final utility and erosion control plans The grading _plan must show no grading within 10 feet of the watermain. These plans must meet the requirements Citv Council 03 -31 -03 10 of the city engineer and city code. If, in the opinion of the city engineer, the Uni Eco -Stone Paving System is not functioning as described by the property owner, as documented by drainage problems in the area or to public drainage facilities, the property owner shall have the Uni Eco -Stone Paving System removed and replaced with an asphalt paving and drainage pond system that would be subject to the city engineer's review and approval. (2) Verification that John Schmelz is the fee owner of the 30 -foot wide portion of the vacated Cope Avenue right -of -way that runs along the south portion of the expanded sales /storage lot property. (3) A revised site plan showing the following: (a) The new sales /storage lot is setback 20 feet from the eastern residential property line. (b) The new sales /storage lot is set back 15 feet from the frontage road right - of -way. (c) The proposed fence along the south property line of the new sales /storage lot is set back at least 10 feet from the watermain. (d) The existing chain -link fence in front of the Saab building be removed and replaced with a fence compatible with the required north sales /storage lot fence described below. (e) The location of a 20 -foot wide fire access drive aisle running from the frontage road to the entrance of the existing lot. This fire access aisle does not need to be striped on the new Uni Eco -Stone Paving System, however, the access aisle must be maintained at all times. (4) Elevations of the proposed fence and gate. The north fence, along the frontage road, shall include decorative pre -cast concrete columns. (5) Revised roof plan showing that all rooftop equipment and vents are located as close to the highest parapet wall as possible. (6) A revised landscape plan to include: ( Trees and shfub . Low- growth landscaping to be planted in front of the sales /storage lot, along the frontage road. (b) A row of columnar trees (narrow trees such as arborvitae or lindens) between Ember's parking lot and the new sales /storage lot. Citv Council 03 -31 -03 11 (c) Replacing the Colorado blue spruce with Black Hills spruce, increasing the number of spruce along the south side of the new sales storage lot to increase screening, and continuing the row of Black Hills spruce and Isanti dogwood along the top of the entire retaining wall (both south and east, adjacent both residential properties). (d) T o ensu' the tAilitte r eas el# of within 20 feet of the existing eastem fenee in the south par-king lot and-re- � � ova °n + ent o f tuf or - shrabs. To ensure no parking on top of the utility easement in the existing south parking lot, the re- establishment of all required landscape material on the existing south parking lot, over the utility easement, is required. (e) A row of 6- foot -high Black Hills spruce spaced 15 feet on center to be planted on the south side of the existing parking lot within the required 20- foot buffer area adjacent 2255 Duluth Street. (f) The requirement for an underground irrigation system is waived for the new sales /storage lot if the applicant submits an agreement to the city that ensures that the landscaping will be hand - watered and replaced if it dies. (7) A revised outdoor lighting and photometric plan. The revised plan shall show the height and style of all outdoor lights (including relocated lights), and that the light illumination from all outdoor lights does not exceed .4 foot candles at all property lines. (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. d. Complete the following before occupying the sales /storage lot: (1) Install all approved parking lot surface (i.e., bituminous and curb and gutter, or engineered porous surface). (2) Stripe _dri� n �S (2) Install the approved fence. (3) Install all required landscaping by June 1 if the sales /storage lot is finished in the fall or winter, or within six weeks of completion of the sales /storage lot if it is finished in the spring or summer. (4) Install all required exterior lights. (5) Enter into a formal easement agreement with St. Paul Regional Water Services and the City of Maplewood which satisfies both agencies' conditions for access to the public utility easements for watermain (SPRWS) and sanitary and storm sewer (City of Maplewood). (6) Install no- parking signs at the 20 -foot setback along the eastern fence in the existing south lot to ensure that there is no parking over the utility easement. e. Complete the following before occupying the Saab building: (1) Install all required exterior improvements. Citv Council 03 -31 -03 12 (2) Screen all roof - mounted equipment visible from streets or adjacent residential property. All roof -top equipment and vents should be located as close to the parapet walls as appropriate to provide the best screening possible. (3) Ensure all trash dumpsters are enclosed in a trash enclosure, subject to staff approval, if there would be outside trash storage. f. If any required work is not done, the city may allow temporary occupancy if: (1) The city determines that the work is not essential to the public health, safety or welfare. (2) The above - required letter of credit or cash escrow is held by the City of Maplewood for all required exterior improvements. The owner or contractor shall complete any unfinished exterior improvements by June 1 if occupancy of the building is in the fall or winter, or within six weeks of occupancy of the building if occupancy is in the spring or summer. g. All work shall follow the approved plans. The director of community development may approve minor changes. Seconded by Councilmember Koppen Ayes -All Councilmember Collins moved to table Public Hearing Item #2, to the last public hearing. Seconded by Councilmember Juenemann A five- minute break was taken. Ayes -Mayor Cardinal, Councilmembers Collins and Juenemann Nays - Councilmembers Koppen and Wasiluk Mayor Cardinal announced Public Hearing Items 3 and 4 were combined into one Public Hearing. 3. 7:15 p.m. Legacy Village of Maplewood, City Project 02 -18- Resolution Approving AUAR and Authorizing Final Distribution 4. 7:20 p.m. County Road D Realignment, City Project 02 -07 and 02 -08 — Resolution Receiving Comments and Responses on EAW and Finding of No Significant Impact a. City Manager Fursman presented the staff report. b. City Engineer Ahl presented specifics from the report. C. Courtney Bot, with SRF Consulting Group provided further specifics on the Legacy Village AUAR. d. Beth Kunkel, with URS consultants provided further specifics on the County Road D EAW. Citv Council 03 -31 -03 13 e. Commissioner Trippler presented the Planning Commission Report. f. Mayor Cardinal opened the public hearing, calling for proponents or opponents. The following persons were heard: Will Rossbach, 1386 E. County Road C, Maplewood Dale Trippler, 1201 Junction Avenue, Maplewood Gerald Peterson, 3016 Hazelwood Street N., Maplewood Courtney Bot, SRF Consulting Group At 10: 26 p. m. Councilmember Collins moved to continue the meeting until all agenda items are addressed. Seconded by Councilmember Koppen Ayes All ( Councilmember duenemann temporarily absent from diaz) George Supan, 3050 Hazelwood, Maplewood George Rossbach, 1406 E. County Road C, Maplewood Chris Johnson, 2654 Keller Parkway, Maplewood Gary Olson, 2330 Maple Lane East, Maplewood Mark Gurness, 1837 McKnight, Maplewood Bruce Mogren, 1805 Gervais, Maplewood Dale Trippler, second appearance g. Mayor Cardinal closed the public hearing. Mayor Cardinal moved to table this agenda item (gp roving distribution of a Final Alternative Urban Area -Wide Review Document and Mitigation Plan for Legacy Village) until the April 14 City Council Meeting with a friendly amendment added that the AUAR be distributed to all affected neighbors. Seconded by Councilmember Collins Ayes -All A five- minute break was taken. 2. 7:10 p.m. Larpenteur Avenue Redevelopment Site (City of Maplewood) Land Use Plan Change (R -1 to R -3 (M)) (4 Votes)- Zoning Map Change (R -1 to R -3) a. City Manager Fursman presented the staff report. b. Associate Planner Finwall presented specifics from the report. C. Commissioner Rossbach presented the Planning Commission Report. d. Mayor Cardinal opened the public hearing, calling for proponents or opponents. The following person was heard: None Citv Council 03 -31 -03 14 e. Mayor Cardinal closed the public hearing. Councilmember Koppen moved to adopt the following resolution for a zoning map change changing the zoning map for five city -owned properties from single- dwelling residential (R -1) to multiple- dwelling residential (R -3): RESOLUTION 03 -03 -042 ZONING MAP CHANGE WHEREAS, the City of Maplewood has proposed a change to the city's zoning map from single - dwelling residential (R -1) to multiple - dwelling residential (R -3). WHEREAS; this change applies to 189, 209, 211 and 215 Larpenteur Avenue and 1701 Adolphus Street, Maplewood, Minnesota. WHEREAS, the history of this change is as follows: 1. On February 19, 2003, the planning commission recommended that the city council approve the rezoning change. 2. On March 31, 2003, the city council held a public hearing. City staff published a notice in the Maplewood Review and sent notices to the surrounding property owners. The council conducted the public hearing whereby all public present were given a chance to speak and present written statements. The city council also considered reports and recommendations from the city staff and planning commission. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the city council approve the above - described change in the zoning map for the following reasons: 1. The proposed change is consistent with the spirit, purpose and intent of the zoning code. 2. The proposed change will not substantially injure or detract from the use of neighboring property or from the character of the neighborhood, and that the use of the property adjacent to the area included in the proposed change or plan is adequately safeguarded. 3. The proposed change will serve the best interests and conveniences of the community, where applicable, and the public welfare. 4. The proposed change would have no negative effect upon the logical, efficient, and economical extension of public services and facilities, such as public water, sewers, police and fire protection and schools. Seconded by Councilmember Wasiluk Ayes -All Councilmember Koppen moved to adopt the following resolution changing the comprehensive land use plan map for five city -owned properties from single- dwelling residential to medium multiple- dwelling residential: Citv Council 03 -31 -03 15 RESOLUTION 03 -03 -043 LAND USE PLAN CHANGE WHEREAS, the City of Maplewood has proposed a change to the city's land use plan from single- dwelling residential (R -1) to medium multiple - dwelling residential (R -3M). WHEREAS, this change applies to 189, 209, 211 and 215 Larpenteur Avenue and 1701 Adolphus Street, Maplewood, Minnesota. WHEREAS, the history of this change is as follows: 1. On February 19, 2003, the planning commission held a public hearing. City staff published 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 March 31, 2003, 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: 1. The site serves well as a transition between the double - dwelling property to the west and the commercial property to the east. 2. The site meets the city's policies for medium multiple- dwelling residential uses since it: a. Includes a variety of housing types for all types of residents. b. Supports innovative subdivision and housing design. 3. The site meets the city's goals for medium multiple- dwelling residential uses since it: a. Provides for orderly development. b. Protects and strengthens neighborhoods. C. Preserves significant natural features where practical. d. Minimizes the land planned for streets. e. Minimizes conflicts between land uses. f. Provides a wide variety of housing types. g. Integrates developments with open space areas, community facilities and significant natural features. Citv Council 03 -31 -03 16 Seconded by Councilmember Wasiluk Ayes -All I. AWARD OF BIDS None J. UNFINISHED BUSINESS None K. NEW BUSINESS 1. Champp's of Maplewood -One Time Event a. City Manager Fursman presented the staff report. b. City Clerk Guilfoile presented specifics from the report. Councilmember Wasiluk moved to approve the permit request from Champp's of Maplewood to hold a one -time event of July 26, from 7 -11 p.m. to benefit Second Harvest Food Shelf Seconded by Councilmember Koppen Ayes -All 2. Atlantic Street Water Main Extension North of Frost, Project 03 -16 — Receive Petition and Resolution Ordering Preparation of Feasibility Study. a. City Manager Fursman presented the staff report. b. City Engineer Ahl presented specifics from the report. Councilmember Collins moved to adopt the following resolution ordering the Preparation of a Feasibility Study for the Atlantic Street Water Main and Utility Improvements North of Frost Avenue, City Project 03-16: RESOLUTION 03 -03 -044 ORDERING PREPARATION OF A FEASIBILITY STUDY WHEREAS, it is proposed to make water main and utility Improvements to Atlantic Street, north of Frost Avenue, City Project 03 -16, and to assess the benefited properties for all or a portion of the cost of the improvement, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 429, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA: That the proposed improvement be referred to the city engineer for study and that he is instructed to report to the council with all convenient speed advising the council in a preliminary way as to whether the proposed improvement is necessary, cost effective and feasible and as to whether it should best be made as proposed or in connection with some other improvement, and the estimated cost of the improvement as recommended. FURTHERMORE, funds in the amount of $5,000 are appropriated to prepare this feasibility Citv Council 03 -31 -03 17 report. Seconded by Councilmember Wasiluk Ayes -All 3. Carver Avenue Trunk Sewer Main Improvements, Project 03 -17 - Resolution Ordering Preparation of Feasibility Study. a. City Manager Fursman presented the staff report. b. City Engineer Ahl presented specifics from the report. Councilmember Collins m oved to adopt the following resolution Ordering the Preparation of a Feasibility Study for the Craver Avenue Trunk Sanitary Sewer Improvements, City Project 03- 17: RESOLUTION 03 -03 -045 ORDERING PREPARATION OF A FEASIBILITY STUDY WHEREAS, it is proposed to make sanitary sewer Improvements along Carver Avenue, east of Sterling Street, City Project 03 -17, and to assess the benefited properties for all or a portion of the cost of the improvement, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 429, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA: That the proposed improvement be referred to the city engineer for study and that he is instructed to report to the council with all convenient speed advising the council in a preliminary way as to whether the proposed improvement is necessary, cost effective and feasible and as to whether it should best be made as proposed or in connection with some other improvement, and the estimated cost of the improvement as recommended. FURTHERMORE, funds in the amount of $10,000 are appropriated to prepare this feasibility report. Seconded by Councilmember Juenemann Ayes -All 4. Parkway Lift Station Removal Improvements, Project 02 -14 Resolution Approving Plans and Advertising for Bids Resolution Ordering Preparation of Assessment Roll Resolution Ordering Assessment Hearing Approval of Joint Powers Agreement with St. Paul a. City Manager Fursman presented the staff report. b. City Engineer Ahl presented specifics from the report. Councilmember Wasiluk moved to approve the following resolution for the Parkway Avenue Lift Station Removal Improvements, Project 02 -14• Approving Plans and Advertising for Bids: Citv Council 03 -31 -03 18 RESOLUTION 03 -03 -046 APPROVING PLANS ADVERTISING FOR BIDS WHEREAS, pursuant to resolution passed by the city council on February 10, 2003, plans and specifications for Parkway Lift Station Removal Improvements, Project 02 -14, have been prepared by (or under the direction of) the city engineer, who has presented such plans and specifications to the council for approval, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA: 1. Such plans and specifications, a copy of which are attached hereto and made a part hereof, are hereby approved and ordered placed on file in the office of the city clerk. 2. The city clerk shall prepare and cause to be inserted in the official paper and in the Construction Bulletin an advertisement for bids upon the making of such improvement under such approved plans and specifications. The advertisement shall be published twice, at least ten days before the date set for bid opening, shall specify the work to be done, shall state that bids will be publicly opened and considered by the council at 10:00 a.m. on the 18th day of April, 2003, at the city hall and that no bids shall be considered unless sealed and filed with the clerk and accompanied by a certified check or bid bond, payable to the City of Maplewood, Minnesota for five percent of the amount of such bid. 3. The city clerk and city engineer are hereby authorized and instructed to receive, open, and read aloud bids received at the time and place herein noted, and to tabulate the bids received. The council will consider the bids, and the award of a contract, at the regular city council meeting of April 28, 2003. RESOLUTION 03 -03 -047 ORDERING PREPARATION OF ASSESSMENT ROLL WHEREAS, the city clerk and city engineer will receive bids for the Parkway Lift Station Removal Improvements, City Project 02 -14. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA that the city clerk and city engineer shall forthwith calculate the proper amount to be specially assessed for such improvement against every assessable lot, piece or parcel of land abutting on the streets affected, without regard to cash valuation, as provided by law, and they shall file a copy of such proposed assessment in the city office for inspection. FURTHER, the clerk shall, upon completion of such proposed assessment notify the council thereof. RESOLUTION 03 -03 -048 ORDERING ASSESSMENT ROLL HEARING WHEREAS, the clerk and the engineer have, at the direction of the council, prepared an assessment roll for the Parkway Lift Station Removal Improvements, City Project 02 -14, and the said assessment is on file in the office of the city engineer. Citv Council 03 -31 -03 19 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA: 1. A hearing shall be held on the 28th day of April 2003, at the city hall at 7:00 p. m. to pass upon such proposed assessment and at such time and place all persons owning property affected by such improvement will be given an opportunity to be heard with reference to such assessment. 2. The city clerk is hereby directed to cause a notice of the hearing on the proposed assessment to be published in the official newspaper, at least two weeks prior to the hearing, and to mail notices to the owners of all property affected by said assessment. 3. The notice of hearing shall state the date, time and place of hearing, the general nature of the improvement the area to be assessed, that the proposed assessment roll is on file with the clerk and that written or oral objections will be considered. RESOLUTION 03 -03 -049 APPROVING JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT WHEREAS, the City of Maplewood and the City of Saint Paul mutually agree and desire to enter into a joint powers agreement for the Parkway Lift Station Removal Improvements, Maplewood City Project 02 -14, and WHEREAS, the City of Maplewood and the City of Saint Paul mutually wish to eliminate the Parkway Lift Station and construct a gravity sanitary sewer, and WHEREAS, the City of Maplewood is the lead agency for this project; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA: that the Mayor and City Manager are herby authorized and directed to execute on behalf of the City of Maplewood, a Joint Powers Agreement between the cities of Maplewood and Saint Paul, a copy of which is attached and incorporated herein by reference. Seconded by Councilmember Koppen Ayes -All 5. Kennard/Frost Area Street Improvements, Project 02 -10 Resolution Approving Plans and Approve Ad for Bids Resolution Ordering Preparation of Assessment Roll a. City Manager Fursman presented the staff report. b. City Engineer Ahl presented specifics from the report. Councilmember Juenemann moved to approve the following resolutions for the Kennard/Frost Street Improvements, Project 02 -10: Approving Plans and Advertising for Bids and Ordering the Preparation of the Assessment Roll: RESOLUTION 03 -03 -050 APPROVING PLANS ADVERTISING FOR BIDS WHEREAS, pursuant to resolution passed by the city council on January 13 2003, plans and specifications for Kennard/Frost Street Improvements, Project 02 -10 have been prepared by (or under Citv Council 03 -31 -03 20 the direction of) the city engineer, who has presented such plans and specifications to the council for approval, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA: 1. Such plans and specifications, a copy of which are attached hereto and made a part hereof, are hereby approved and ordered placed on file in the office of the city clerk. 2. The city clerk shall prepare and cause to be inserted in the official paper and in the Construction Bulletin an advertisement for bids upon the making of such improvement under such approved plans and specifications. The advertisement shall be published twice, at least ten days before the date set forbid opening, shall specify the work to be done, shall state that bids will be publicly opened and considered by the council at 10:00 a.m. on the 2nd day of May, 2003, at the city hall and that no bids shall be considered unless sealed and filed with the clerk and accompanied by a certified check or bid bond, payable to the City of Maplewood, Minnesota for five percent of the amount of such bid. 3. The city clerk and city engineer are hereby authorized and instructed to receive, open, and read aloud bids received at the time and place herein noted, and to tabulate the bids received. The council will consider the bids, and the award of a contract, at the regular city council meeting of May 12th, 2003. RESOLUTION 03 -03 -051 ORDERING PREPARATION OF ASSESSMENT ROLL WHEREAS, the city clerk and city engineer will receive bids for the Kennard/Frost Street Improvements, City Project 02 -10. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA that the city clerk and city engineer shall forthwith calculate the proper amount to be specially assessed for such improvement against every assessable lot, piece or parcel of land abutting on the streets affected, without regard to cash valuation, as provided by law, and they shall file a copy of such proposed assessment in the city office for inspection. FURTHER, the clerk shall, upon completion of such proposed assessment notify the council thereof. Seconded by Councilmember Wasiluk Ayes -All 4. Maplewood Dr./Keller Pkwy. Street Improvements, Project 03 -02 Resolution Approving Plans and Approve Ad for Bids Resolution Ordering Preparation of Assessment Roll a. City Manager Fursman presented the staff report. b. City Engineer Ahl presented specifics from the report. C. Maplewood Resident George Rossbach, 1406 E. County Road C, spoke about the project. Citv Council 03 -31 -03 21 Councilmember Koppen moved to adopt the following resolutions for the Maplewood Drive West /Keller Parkway Resurfacing, Cily Project 03 -02: Approving Plans and Advertising for Bids, and Ordering the Preparation of the Assessment Roll: RESOLUTION 03 -03 -052 APPROVING PLANS ADVERTISING FOR BIDS WHEREAS, pursuant to resolution passed by the city council on March 10, 2003, plans and specifications for Maplewood Drive West /Keller Parkway Resurfacing, City Project 03 -02, have been prepared by the city engineer, who has presented such plans and specifications to the council for approval, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA: 1. Such plans and specifications, a copy of which are attached hereto and made a part hereof, are hereby approved and ordered placed on file in the office of the city clerk. 2. The city clerk shall prepare and cause to be inserted in the official paper and in the Construction Bulletin an advertisement for bids upon the making of such improvement under such approved plans and specifications. The advertisement shall be published twice, at least ten days before the date set for bid opening, shall specify the work to be done, shall state that bids will be publicly opened and considered by the council at 10:30 a.m. on the 2nd day of May 2003, at the city hall and that no bids shall be considered unless sealed and filed with the clerk and accompanied by a certified check or bid bond, payable to the City of Maplewood, Minnesota for five percent of the amount of such bid. 3. The city clerk and city engineer are hereby authorized and instructed to receive, open, and read aloud bids received at the time and place herein noted, and to tabulate the bids received. The council will consider the bids, and the award of a contract, at the regular city council meeting of May 12, 2003. RESOLUTION 03 -03 -053 ORDERING PREPARATION OF ASSESSMENT ROLL WHEREAS, the city clerk and city engineer will receive bids for the Maplewood Drive West /Keller Parkway Resurfacing, City Project 03 -02. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA that the city clerk and city engineer shall forthwith calculate the proper amount to be specially assessed for such improvement against every assessable lot, piece or parcel of land abutting on the streets affected, without regard to cash valuation, as provided by law, and they shall file a copy of such proposed assessment in the city office for inspection. FURTHER, the clerk shall, upon completion of such proposed assessment notify the council thereof. Seconded by Councilmember Wasiluk Ayes -All Citv Council 03 -31 -03 22 5. Support of Local Sales Tax Resolution a. City Manager Fursman presented the staff report. b. Finance Director Faust presented specifics from the report. Mayor Cardinal moved to table the resolution to authorize Maplewood voters to approve a one- half percent sales tax for the City. Seconded by Councilmember Koppen Ayes -Mayor Cardinal and Councilmember Koppen Nays - Councilmembers Wasiluk, Collins and Juenemann Motion Failed. Councilmember Collins m oved to adopt the following resolution to authorize Maplewood voters to approve a one -half percent sales tax for the City RESOLUTION REQUESTING THE MINNESOTA LEGISLATURE TO AUTHORIZE THE CITY OF MAPLEWOOD TO COLLECT A SALES TAX FOR CITY REHABILITATION AND REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION NEEDS. WHEREAS, the City of Maplewood is home to a regional shopping mall and 3M headquarters which draw tens of thousands of people each day to the City roadways, and WHEREAS, the City of Maplewood's road system is over - utilized and is beginning to fail rapidly in and around regional centers, and WHEREAS, the City of Maplewood has several scattered economically stressed sites in the City, and WHEREAS, the City of Maplewood is practicing infill development and redevelopment using models established by the Metropolitan Council, and WHEREAS, the City of Maplewood has several regional parks and open spaces in need of development and restoration, and WHEREAS, the City of Maplewood does not have the financial resources to meet the park, development, redevelopment and transportation needs of both the City and the surrounding region, and WHEREAS, promised State Aid funding sources are being completely eliminated, and WHEREAS, the City Council believes that it is in the best interests of the City and the citizens and the businesses of Maplewood to request the Minnesota Legislature to grant the City the authority to conduct a referendum to allow it to impose an additional one -half of one percent sales and use tax to provide it with the means to pay for the needed projects. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Maplewood, Minnesota as follow: Citv Council 03 -31 -03 23 1. The City Council hereby requests that the Minnesota Legislature grant the City of Maplewood the authority to conduct a referendum to allow it to impose an additional one - half of one percent sales and use tax to provide it with the funds to pay for the following proj ects: a. Construction of road improvements on regionally significant collector streets throughout the City. b. Redevelopment of blighted commercial and housing areas throughout the City. c. Restoration of natural vegetation and environment in designated regional open spaces purchased by the City pursuant to an Open Space referendum approved by the voters in 1993. d. Development and upgrades of regional park facilities to meet growing demands. 2. The City expects that the total amount to be raised before the tax would expire would not exceed thirty million dollars ($30,000,000) and it is expected the tax would be in effect for 15 years. Seconded by Councilmember Koppen Ayes - Councilmembers Collins and Juenemann Nays -Mayor Cardinal and Councilmembers Wasiluk, and Koppen Motion Failed. Mayor Cardinal m ove to adopt the following resolution in support of the transportation utility bill: RESOLUTION 03 -03 -058 RESOLUTION IN SUPPORT OF MINNESOTA HOUSE FILE 965 AND SENATE FILE 825 THE TRANSPORTATION UTILITY FEE BILL INTRODUCED TO AUTHORIZE MINNESOTA CITIES THE AUTHORITY TO ESTABLISH A TRANSPORTAION UTILITY FOR LOCAL AND REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION NEEDS. WHEREAS, The City of Maplewood is home to a regional shopping mall and 3M headquarters which draw tens of thousands of people each day to the City roadways, and WHEREAS, The City of Maplewood's road system is over utilized and is beginning to fail rapidly in and around regional centers, and WHEREAS, The City of Maplewood has several scattered economically stressed sites in the City, and WHEREAS, The City of Maplewood is practicing infill development and redevelopment using models established by the Metropolitan Council, and WHEREAS, The City of Maplewood does not have the financial resources to meet the development, redevelopment and transportation needs of both the City and the surrounding region, and Citv Council 03 -31 -03 24 WHEREAS, Promised State Aid funding sources are being completely eliminated, and WHEREAS, Maplewood tax collections are taken from the City and given to neighboring Cities, and WHEREAS, The Maplewood City Council believes that it be in the best interests of the City and the Citizens and the businesses of Maplewood to request the Minnesota Legislature to pass legislation authorizing the establishment and use of transportation to provide cities with the means to pay for the needed transportation projects. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Maplewood, Minnesota as follows: The City Council hereby requests that the Minnesota Legislature pass legislation known as HF 965 and Senate file 825 authorizing the establishment and use of a transportation utility fee to provide cities with the means to pay for the needed transportation projects. Seconded by Councilmember Juenemann Ayes -All 8. 2003 Budget Changes for State Aid Reductions a. City Manager Fursman presented the staff report. b. Finance Director Faust presented specifics from the report. Councilmember Collins moved to approve 2003 expenditure reductions for 14 items identified by the management team and the appropriate budget changes that are necessary due to anticipated state aid reductions of $938,740. Seconded by Councilmember Juenemann L. VISITOR PRESENTATIONS Ayes -Mayor Cardinal, Councilmembers, Juenemann, Collins and Koppen Nays - Councilmember Wasiluk 1. Jan Steiner -1876 East Shore Drive -Spoke on legislation regarding Group Homes. 2. Ruth Trapold -2477 Brenner Avenue East, Maplewood -Spoke on the concentration level of Group Homes in Maplewood and Ramsey County. M. COUNCIL PRESENTATIONS M1. Sibley Cove Apartments Mayor Cardinal moved council reconsideration and a public hearing on April 28, 2003 for Sibley Cove Apartments. Seconded by Councilmember Koppen Ayes -All Citv Council 03 -31 -03 25 M2. Missing Children -Mayor Cardinal provided Police Chief Thomalla with information from a Missing Children Agency. Police Chief Thomalla noted that the Amber Alert plan is now in place in Minnesota (at no cost). M3. League of Minnesota Cities -Mayor Cardinal announced that City Day at the Capital is April 9 City Manager Fursman will be attending and anyone else interested in attending should sign up with Mr. Fursman. M4. Budget Presentation - Councilmember Juenemann expressed appreciation of staff for their 2003 budget preparation efforts. N. ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS 1. City Council/Planning Commission Joint Meeting -April 7- Maplewood Room -6:00 p.m. O. ADJOURNMENT Manor Cardinal moved to adjourn the meeting at 12:37 a.m. Seconded by Councilmember Juenemann Ayes - All Citv Council 03 -31 -03 26 AGENDA rr°M NO mmwml AGENDA REPORT Action by Council To: City Manager Richard Fursman EnIl-o ed From: Chief of Police David J. Thomae; Fire Chief Steve Lukin NIod i fl;c d J Subject: National Public Safety Telecommunications Week Rejected Date: April 8, 2003 National Public Safety Telecommunications Week is April 13 -19, and it is requested that the attached resolution recognizing the service of our public safety dispatchers be approved by the City Council. Background Every year a week is set aside to honor those who provide dispatching services to police, fire and emergency medical services personnel. The dedicated, - experienced and professional public safety dispatchers who work for the City of Maplewood deserve to be recognized for the outstanding service they provide to the residents, visitors, employees and volunteers of Maplewood. Recommendation It is recommended that the City Council pass the attached resolution. Action Required Submit to the City Council for review and approval. DJT:js Attachment National Public Safety Telecommunication Week April 13 -19, 2003 Whereas emergencies can occur at any time that require police, fire or emergency medical services; And whereas when an emergency occurs, the prompt response of police officers, firefighters and paramedics is critical to the protection of life and preservation of property; And whereas public safety dispatches are the first and most critical contact our citizens have with emergency services; And whereas public safety dispatchers are the single vital link for our police officers, firefighters and paramedics by monitoring their activities by radio, providing them information and ensuring their safety; And whereas public safety dispatchers for the Maplewood Emergency Communications Center have contributed substantially to the apprehension of criminals, suppression of fires and treatment of patients; And whereas each dispatcher has exhibited compassion, understanding and professionalism during the performance of their job in the past year; Therefore, be it resolved that the City Council of Maplewood declares the week of April 13 -19, 2003, to be National Telecommunications Week in honor of the men and women whose diligence and professionalism keep our city and citizens safe. Signed this day of April 2003 Mayor Robert Cardinal Maplewood City Council AGENDA NO. G -1 AGENDA REPORT Action by Council TO: City Council FROM: Finance Director Date Endorsed RE: APPROVAL OF CLAIMS Modified DATE: April 9, 2003 Rejected 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 $239,230.50 $122,237.19 $740.48 $255,990.73 Checks #60625 thru #60590 dated 3/28 thru 4/1/03 Disbursements via debits to checking account dated 3/21 thru 3/27/03 Checks #60591 thru #60592 dated 3/31/03 Checks #60593 thru 960634 dated 4/8/03 $365,664.31 Disbursements via debits to checking account dated 3/28 thru 4/4/03 $983,863.21 Total Accounts Payable PAYROLL $407,437.83 Payroll Checks and Direct Deposits dated 3/28/03 $24354.69 Payroll Deduction checks #93089 thru #93094 dated 3/28/03 $431,592.52 Total Payroll $1,415,455.73 GRAND TOTAL Attached is a detailed listing of these claims. Please call me at 770 -4513 if you have any questions on the attached listing. This will allow me to check the supporting documentation on file if necessary. hu attachments PARNANCE\WORMAGMApCIAR 040803.doc 1 vchlist Check Register Page: 1 03/28/2003 11:25:07AM City of Maplewood Check 60525 60526 60527 60528 60529 60530 Date 4/1/2003 4/1/2003 4/1/2003 4/1/2003 4/1/2003 4/1/2003 Vendor 00055 AFFORDABLE ENGRAVING 00111 ANIMAL CONTROL SERVICES INC 02439 BADEN, MATHIAS 00159 BARTZ, PAUL 00174 BELDE, STAN 01811 BERNATELLO'S PIZZA INC 60531 4/1/2003 00198 BOARD OF WATER COMMISSIONERS 60532 4/1/2003 00283 CENTURY COLLEGE 60533 4/1/2003 00300 CLAREYS SAFETY EQUIPMENT 60534 4/1/2003 02746 CLOVER SUPER FOODS INC 60535 4/1/2003 02207 DELTA DENTAL PLAN OF MN 60536 4/1/2003 00103 EARL F ANDERSON INC 60537 4/1/2003 00463 EMERGENCY APPARATUS MAINT. 60538 60539 60540 60541 60542 60543 60544 60545 60546 60547 60548 60549 60550 60551 60552 60553 60554 60555 60556 60557 60558 60559 60560 60561 60562 60563 60564 60565 60566 60567 60568 60569 60570 Description /Account NAME TAGS PATROL & BOARDING FEES YOUTH COACH REIMB FOR MEALS & LODGING 3/21 - 3 K -9 HANDLER - APR MERCH FOR RESALE MERCH FOR RESALE MERCH FOR RESALE MONTHLY WATER UTIL- BILL DATE 3/18 ACLS PARAMEDIC TRAINING STROBE LIGHT & POWER PAK MERCH FOR RESALE MERCH FOR RESALE MONTHLY PREMIUM LINELAZER 3900 III WITH 2 GUNS 6'X 3# GALV CHANNEL POST REPAIR VEHICLE - ENGINE 4 REPAIR VEHICLE - AMB MEDIC 1 REPAIR RESCUE 7 REPAIR VEHICLE - ENGINE 2 INSTALL RHINO PUSHBUMPER BUS FEE TO TARGET CENTER OAK BOARD BASKETBALL COORDINATOR REIMB FOR RUINED SLACKS 5 GALLON PAIL REFUND - DELTA DENTAL P/R DEDUCTI RICOH COPIER - 3/13 TO 4/12 KARATE INSTRUCTOR - 3/5 TO 3/26 REIMB TUITION & BOOKS TUNE PIANO YOUTH COACH REF AMB M WEIST 03001982 MONTHLY PREMIUM K -9 HANDLER - APR PARAMEDIC TRAINING - 2 REIMB FOR WORKSHOP & MILEAGE 3/ W/C INS APRIL -JUNE INSURANCE APR-JUN LAW ENFORCEMENT EXPLORER CONF MERCH FOR RESALE LOCAL PHONE SERVICE - 2/16 TO 3/15 MONTHLY PREMIUM PLASTIC LAMINATE MAINT SUPPLIES CISM CONFERENCE FFII RECERTIFICATIONS - 44 MONTHLY PREMIUM MEMBERSHIP DUES REPAIR BELT TENSIONER ASSEMBLY REF NANCY COLOMBO - AMB 03001807 REF ROSE JACOBSEN - TICKETS MERCH FOR RESALE Amount 64.70 1,347.91 300.00 171.18 35.00 156.00 117.00 195.00 715.44 190.00 601.00 73.23 121.50 7,496.90 4,346.77 2,734.92 474.36 708.47 667.83 174.12 82.50 215.00 25.00 1,500.00 29.99 27.96 375.18 293.94 112.75 310.92 75.00 150.00 881.30 1,155.74 35.00 2,614.28 137.60 31,914.00 43,766.50 1,400.00 951.29 4,737.60 93,150.65 20.00 1,125.66 75.00 660.00 3,402.70 260.00 137.36 667.44 30.00 375.90 2 4/1/2003 3/28/2003 4/1/2003 4/1/2003 4/1/2003 4/1/2003 4/1/2003 4/1/2003 4/1/2003 4/1/2003 4/1/2003 4/11/2003 4/1/2003 4/1/2003 4/1/2003 4/1/2003 -4/1/2003 4/1/2003 4/1/2003 4/1/2003 4/1/2003 4/1/2003 4/1/2003 4/1/2003 4/1/2003 4/1/2003 4/1/2003 4/1/2003 4/1/2003 4/1/2003 4/1/2003 4/1/2003 4/1/2003 00464 01401 00527 00533 01890 02642 00555 00543 00589 00621 02763 02438 01965 00644 00668 00736 00807 00827 00828 00904 00932 01819 00966 00969 01610 02452 01044 01085 01057 01173 00001 00001 01254 EMERGENCY AUTOMOTIVE TECH, INC FIRST STUDENT BUS COMPANY FOREST PRODUCTS SUPPLY CO FRANK, PETE -FRY, PATRICIA GALLES CORP GAYNOR, VIRGINIA GE CAPITAL GRAF, DAVE HALWEG JR, KEVIN R HARDEN, RUSS HAWKENSON, HANNAH HEALTH PARTNERS HEALTHPARTNERS HIEBERT, STEVEN INVER HILLS COMMUNITY COLLEGE KOEHNEN, MARY LMCIT LMCIT MLEEA MAPLEWOOD BAKERY MCLEOD USA MEDICA CHOICE MEIDLINGER'S INC METAL DOCTOR, THE METRO CISM TEAM MN FIRE SERVICE CERT BD MN LIFE INSURANCE MN SAFETY COUNCIL NORTH METRO AUTOMOTIVE ONE TIME VENDOR ONE TIME VENDOR PEPSI -COLA COMPANY vchlist Check Register Page: 2 03/28/2003 11:25:07AM City of Maplewood Check Date Vendor Description /Account Amount 60570 4/1/2003 01254 PEPSI -COLA COMPANY (Continued) MERCH FOR RESALE 207.05 MERCH FOR RESALE 281.10 60571 4/1/2003 01295 PREMIER BANK RENTAL SAFE DEPOSIT BOX #424 120.00 60572 4/1/2003 01340 REGIONS HOSPITAL ACLS INSTRUCTOR COURSE - 2 500.00 60573 4/1/2003 01340 REGIONS HOSPITAL PARAMEDIC SUPPLIES - FEB 72.80 60574 4/1/2003 01360 REINHART FOODSERVICE MERCH FOR RESALE 604.82 JANITORIAL SUPPLIES 822.13 MERCH FOR RESALE 416.06 60575 4/1/2003 02741 ROETTJER EMBROIDERY EMBROIDERED HAT 12.00 EMBROIDERED HATS 36.00 60576 4/1/2003 01418 SAM'S CLUB DIRECT MERCH FOR RESALE 226.09 CART 208.09 PROGRAM SUPPLIES 283.52 VENDING MACHINE SNACKS 180.80 MERCH FOR RESALE 194.36 MERCH FOR RESALE 343.00 COFFEE FILTERS 6.05 60577 4/1/2003 01504 ST PAUL, CITY OF CRIME LAB FEES - FEB 390.00 60578 4/1/2003 01564 SUZANNE'S CUISINE, INC. FIRE FIGHTER DINNER 4,636.36 60579 4/1/2003 01578 T.R.F. SUPPLY CO. WORK GLOVES & EAR PLUGS 422.85 60580 4/1/2003 02164 TOLTZ, KING, DUVALL, ANDERSON PROJ 01 -16 PROF SRVS THRU 2/22/03 8,447.35 PROJ 01 -29 PROF SRVS THRU 2/22 253.44 60581 4/1/2003 01649 TRI -STATE BOBCAT,INC. 753G SERIES BOBCAT . 2,012.85 60582 4/1/2003 01580 TSE, INC. JANITORIAL SERVICES 1/23 TO 2/19 1,001.63 60583 4/1/2003 01669 TWIN CITIES TRANSPORT & TOW FORFEITURE VEHICLE 159.75 60584 4/1/2003 02177 U -CARE REFUND REF U -CARE - G PETERSON 02022451 361.83 60585 4/1/2003 01683 UNIFORMS UNLIMITED INC UNIFORM PANTS 89.90 60586 4/1/2003 01698 UNITED WAY OF THE ST. PAUL QUARTERLY PYMT 763.00 60587 4/1/2003 02203 UNUM LIFE INSURANCE - LTD MONTHLY PREMIUM 2,912.51 60588 4/1/2003 02290 UNUM LIFE INSURANCE - STD SHORT TERM DISABILITY - APR 1,186.17 60589 4/1/2003 01750 WATSON CO INC, THE MERCH FOR RESALE 429.32 MERCH FOR RESALE 251.58 60590 4/1/2003 02462 WEMYSS, SCOTT D NAME TAGS 10.50 66 Checks in this report Total checks : 239,230.50 I 3 CITY OF MAPLEWOOD Disbursements via Debits to Checking account Transmitted Settlement Date Date Payee 03/20/03 03/21/03 MN State Treasurer 03/20/03 03/21/03 DCRP /Flex account 03/13/03 03/21/03 MN Dept of Revenue 03/20/03 03/21/03 MN Dept of Natural Resources 03/21/03 03/24/03 MN State Treasurer 03/24/03 03/25/03 MN State Treasurer 03/25/03 03/26/03 MN State Treasurer 03/26/03 03/27/03 MN State Treasurer 03/21/03 03/27/03 Elan Financial Services* 03/26/03 03/27/03 Pitney Bowes TOTAL Description Drivers License /Deputy Registrar DCRP & Flex plan payments Fuel Tax DNR electronic licenses Drivers License /Deputy Registrar Drivers License /Deputy Registrar Drivers License /Deputy Registrar Drivers License /Deputy Registrar Purchasing card items Postage *Detailed listings of Elan purchasing card items are attached. Amount 15,484.03 665.90 264.00 746.50 14,224.85 14,907.40 20,520.51 15,595.55 36, 828.45 3,000.00 122,237.19 Transaction Review 3/24/2003 For Transactions posted between 03/08/2003 to 03/14/2003 I Tran Date Post Date Vendor Name Settlement Amt Cardholder Name 1 03/12/2003 03/14/2003 UNIFORMS UNLIMITED INC $129.00 CLINT R ABEL 2 03/12/2003 03/14/2003 MN PHOTO $29.34 JOHN BANICK 3 03/12/2003 03/14/2003 ARDEN SHOREVIEW AN HOSPT $415.18 JOHN BANICK 4 03/13/2003 03/14/2003 INVER HILLS COMMUNITY $33.27 JOHN BANICK 5 03/13/2003 03/14/2003 INVER HILLS COMMUNITY $146.04 JOHN BANICK 6 02/12/2003 03/10/2003 RAY DAVIS & SONS LOCKS $168.75 JIM BEHAN 7 03/07/2003 03/10/2003 MUSKA LIGHTING CENTER $629.71 JIM BEHAN 8 03/10/2003 03/11/2003 VERIZONWIRELESSWR $79.18 JIM BEHAN 9 03/07/2003 03/14/2003 AIR FILTERS UNLIMITED $554.23 JIM BEHAN 10 03/10/2003 03/12/2003 UNIFORMS UNLIMITED INC $102.22 JOSEPH A BERGERON 11 03/06/2003 03/10/2003 UNIFORMS UNLIMITED INC $64.50 BRIAN L BIERDEMAN 12 03/13/2003 03/14/2003 KNOWLAN'S SPRMKT. #2 $11.40 OAKLEY BIESANZ 13 03/10/2003 03/11/2003 THE STAR TRIBUNE - ADVERTIS $514.30 TERRIE CARLSON 14 03/07/2003 03/10/2003 FACTORY CARD OUTLET #284 $83.10 LINDA CROSSON 15 03/12/2003 03/13/2003 ANDON INC. $19.17 LINDA CROSSON 16 03/07/2003 03/10/2003 SENSIBLE LAND USE COAL $30.00 ROBERTA DARST 17 03/10/2003 03/12/2003 RENEE'S CAFE AND DELI $65.00 ROBERTA DARST 18 03/11/2003 03/13/2003 VIDEO SERVICES OF AMERICA $173.03 ROBERTA DARST 19 03/06/2003 03/10/2003 MN PHOTO $8.51 RICHARD DOBLAR 20 03/12/2003 03/14/2003 MN PHOTO $8.51 RICHARD DOBLAR 21 03/11/2003 03/12/2003 S & T OFFICE PRODUCTS $12.64 KATHLEEN DOHERTY 22 03/13/2003 03/14/2003 S & T OFFICE PRODUCTS $7.47 KATHLEEN DOHERTY 23 03/10/2003 03/11/2003 MENARDS MAPLEWOOD $3.70 ROBERT J DOLLERSCHELL 24 03/06/2003 03/10/2003 MERVYN'S 00003053 $13.49 ALICE DUNN 25 03/11/2003 03/12/2003 G & K SERVICES 006 $404.64 TOM EASTMAN 26 03/06/2003 03/10/2003 THE HOME DEPOT 2801 $27.57 DOUG EDGE 27 03/12/2003 03/14/2003 HENRIKSEN ACE HARDWARE $23.70 DOUG EDGE 28 03/06/2003 03/10/2003 ICBO 01 OF 01 $14.99 DAVID FISHER 29 03/14/2003 03/14/2003 TONERWORLD.COM $149.99 MYCHAL FOWLDS 30 03/10/2003 03/12/2003 TRUCK UTILITIES & MFG $213.00 RONALD FREBERG 31 03/11/2003 03/13/2003 THE HOME DEPOT 2801 $2.95 RONALD FREBERG 32 03/11/2003 03/13/2003 TRUCK UTILITIES & MFG ($106.50) RONALD FREBERG 33 03/11/2003 03/12/2003 KNOWLAN'S SPRMKT. #2 $9.98 VIRGINIA GAYNOR 34 03/06/2003 03/10/2003 BLUE RIBBON BAIT & TACKLE $11.72 CAROLE GERNES 35 03/11/2003 03/12/2003 CREATIVE PROMOTIONS INTL $246.60 MIKE GRAF 36 03/11/2003 03/13/2003 CUB FOODS, INC. $23.10 MIKE GRAF 37 03/12/2003 03/13/2003 BUYCOSTUMES.COM $136.98 MIKE GRAF 38 03/07/2003 03/10/2003 USPS 2663650009 $37.00 JANET M GREW HAYMAN 39 03/07/2003 03/10/2003 TARGET 00006940 $9.56 JANET M GREW HAYMAN 40 03/07/2003 03/10/2003 RITZ CAMERA #468 $31.94 JANET M GREW HAYMAN 41 03/10/2003 03/11/2003 REMAP INC $50.00 KAREN E GUILFOILE 42 03/12/2003 03/13/2003 VIKING INDUSTRIAL CENTER $36.62 MARK HAAG 43 03/07/2003 03/10/2003 PULSTAR DISTRIBUTING INC $136.01 KEVIN HALWEG 44 03/07/2003 03/10/2003 ST PAUL STAMP WORKS IN $96.92 LORI HANSON 45 03/12/2003 03/14/2003 INT'L INST OF MUNI CLE $105.00 LORI HANSON 46 03/06/2003 03/10/2003 UNIFORMS UNLIMITED INC $25.00 STEPHEN J HEINZ 47 03/11/2003 03/13/2003 TRUCK UTILITIES & MFG $72.42 GARY HINNENKAMP 48 03/06/2003 03/10/2003 DICK BLICK800 447 1892 $36.48 ANN E HUTCHINSON 49 03/06/2003 03/10/2003 TOYS R US #6046 $25.06 ANN E HUTCHINSON 50 03/06/2003 03/10/2003 KINKO'S #0617 $18.21 ANN E HUTCHINSON 51 03/12/2003 03/13/2003 KNOWLAN'S SPRMKT. #2 $28.46 ANN E HUTCHINSON 52 03/11/2003 03/13/2003 BLIMPIES SUBS SALADS $7.76 KEVIN JOHNSON 53 03/12/2003 03/14/2003 ARBY'S #1152 Q52 $6.79 KEVIN JOHNSON 54 03/12/2003 03/14/2003 AMERICAN FASTENER $175.05 MICHAEL KANE 55 03/11/2003 03/13/2003 GOODYEAR AUTO SRV CT 6920 $39.00 FLINT KARIS 56 03/08/2003 03/10/2003 CUB FOODS, INC. $23.26 MARY B KOEHNEN 57 03/10/2003 03/11/2003 VERIZONWIRELESSWR $42.45 SHERYL L LE 58 03/06/2003 03/10/2003 THE HOME DEPOT 2801 $50.48 DENNIS LINDORFF G 59 03/08/2003 03/11/2003 JOHN FRYE DISTRIBUTING $125.74 DENNIS LINDORFF J 60 03/11/2003 03/12/2003 MENARDS OAKDALE $63.41 DENNIS LINDORFF '61 03/13/2003 03/14/2003 MENARDS OAKDALE $36.11 DENNIS LINDORFF 62 03/07/2003 03/10/2003 THE IDEA BANK $195.00 STEVE LUKIN 63 03/06/2003 03/10/2003 WEBER ELECTRIC $808.92 STEVE LUKIN 64 03/10/2003 03/12/2003 CENTURY BKSTR $28.00 STEVE LUKIN 65 03/11/2003 03/13/2003 WEBER ELECTRIC $323.35 STEVE LUKIN 66 03/11/2003 03/12/2003 G & K SERVICES 006 $445.70 MARK MARUSKA 67 03/11/2003 03/13/2003 LTG POWER EQUIPMENT $87.89 MARK MARUSKA 68 03/12/2003 03/13/2003 S & T OFFICE PRODUCTS $56.81 JEAN NELSON 69 03/11/2003 03/12/2003 G & K SERVICES 006 $231.54 AMY NIVEN 70 03/11/2003 03/12/2003 G & K SERVICES 006 $397.68 AMY NIVEN 71 03/11/2003 03/12/2003 G & K SERVICES 006 $121.20 AMY NIVEN 72 03/11/2003 03/12/2003 DAVIS WATER EQUIPMENT CO $99.20 RICHARD NORDQUIST 73 03/12/2003 03/14/2003 LADY FOOTLOCKER #6155 $39.99 JULIE S OLSON 74 03/10/2003 03/11/2003 REMAP INC $50.00 DENNIS PECK 75 03/12/2003 03/14/2003 HENRIKSEN ACE HARDWARE $16.48 PHILIP F POWELL 76 03/05/2003 03/10/2003 GOPHER BEARING COMPANY IN $153.21 STEVEN PRIEM 77 03/07/2003 03/10/2003 KATH AUTO PARTS $13.77 STEVEN PRIEM 78 03/10/2003 03/12/2003 TOUSLEY FORD I27200039 $20.94 STEVEN PRIEM 79 03/11/2003 03/13/2003 SUNRAY BTB $48.16 STEVEN PRIEM 80 03/11/2003 03/14/2003 MERIT CHEVROLET ($745.50) STEVEN PRIEM 81 03/11/2003 03/13/2003 EXCELLCOM $15.92 KEVIN RABBETT 82 03/12/2003 03/14/2003 LILLIE SUBURBAN NEWSP $1,099.04 KEVIN RABBETT 83 03/05/2003 03/10/2003 DALCO $948.85 MICHAEL REILLY 84 03/08/2003 03/11/2003 HENRIKSEN ACE HARDWARE $58.35 MICHAEL REILLY 85 03/09/2003 03/11/2003 MICHAELS #9401 $26.33 AUDRA ROBBINS 86 03/13/2003 03/14/2003 MENARDS MAPLEWOOD $16.58 JAMES SCHINDELDECKER 87 03/11/2003 03/12/2003 G & K SERVICES 006 $740.80 PAUL SCHLINGMAN 88 03/11/2003 03/12/2003 G & K SERVICES 006 $700.77 PAUL SCHLINGMAN 89 03/11/2003 03/12/2003 G & K SERVICES 006 $257.46 PAUL SCHLINGMAN 90 03/11/2003 03/12/2003 G & K SERVICES 006 $234.68 PAUL SCHLINGMAN 91 03/11/2003 03/12/2003 FREDPRYOR/CAREERTRACK $195.00 PAUL SCHLINGMAN 92 03/11/2003 03/12/2003 FREDPRYOR/CAREERTRACK $195.00 PAUL SCHLINGMAN 93 03/11/2003 03/13/2003 DELL CATALOG SALES, L.P. $222.26 PAUL SCHLINGMAN 94 03/08/2003 03/10/2003 TARGET 00011858 $7.65 RUSSELL L SCHMIDT 95 03/11/2003 03/12/2003 G & K SERVICES 006 $199.99 GERALD SEEGER 96 03/07/2003 03/10/2003 S & T OFFICE PRODUCTS $69.11 ANDREA SINDT 97 03/07/2003 03/10/2003 APA MEMBERSHIPS AND SUBS $65.00 ANDREA SINDT 98 03/12/2003 03/13/2003 S & T OFFICE PRODUCTS $1.59 ANDREA SINDT 99 03/11/2003 03/12/2003 FACTORY CARD OUTLET #284 $6.33 PAULINE STAPLES 100 03/10/2003 03/12/2003 TICKETS.COM 05000021 $628.18 PAULINE STAPLES 101 03/11/2003 03/12/2003 TARGET 00011858 $71.87 PAULINE STAPLES 102 03/11/2003 03/13/2003 CUB FOODS, INC. $47.88 PAULINE STAPLES 103 03/12/2003 03/13/2003 S & T OFFICE PRODUCTS $669.44 PAULINE STAPLES 104 03/12/2003 03/14/2003 CUB FOODS, INC. $209.18 PAULINE STAPLES 105 03/10/2003 03/11/2003 S & T OFFICE PRODUCTS $32.11 JOANNE M SVENDSEN 106 03/10/2003 03/11/2003 TARGET 00011858 $83.34 JOANNE M SVENDSEN 107 03/10/2003 03/12/2003 K LOG INCORPORATED $197.15 JOANNE M SVENDSEN 108 03/12/2003 03/14/2003 MAIL BOXES ETC. #2171 $15.83 JOANNE M SVENDSEN 109 03/07/2003 03/10/2003 ASPEN MILLS, INC ($6.40) RUSTIN SVENDSEN 110 03/08/2003 03/10/2003 CIC CREDIT MONITOR SVC ($70.50) RUSTIN SVENDSEN 111 03/07/2003 03/10/2003 CRAWFORD DOOR SALES COMPA $1,248.25 RUSTIN SVENDSEN 112 03/10/2003 03/13/2003 3M EMPLOYEE STORE #3 $153.74 RUSTIN SVENDSEN 113 03/11/2003 03/13/2003 STRYKER SALES CRP MED $239.63 RUSTIN SVENDSEN 114 03/07/2003 03/10/2003 MUSKA LIGHTING CENTER $78.13 LYLE SWANSON 115 03/10/2003 03/11/2003 TWIN CITY HARDWARE $121.35 LYLE SWANSON 116 03/10/2003 03/12/2003 HENRIKSEN ACE HARDWARE $417.19 LYLE SWANSON 117 03/12/2003 03/14/2003 ARMCOM DISTRIBUTING CO. $279.67 LYLE SWANSON 118 03/12/2003 03/14/2003 HIRSHFIELD'S MAPLEWOOD $21.69 LYLE SWANSON 119 03/08/2003 03/10/2003 QWESTCOMM TN509 $57.51 HOLLY URBANSKI 120 03/09/2003 03/10/2003 QWEST COMMUNICATIONS $57.51 HOLLY URBANSKI 121 03/09/2003 03/10/2003 QWEST COMMUNICATIONS $86.27 HOLLY URBANSKI 122 03/09/2003 03/10/2003 QWEST COMMUNICATIONS $86.27 HOLLY URBANSKI 123 03/09/2003 03/10/2003 QWEST COMMUNICATIONS $86.27 HOLLY URBANSKI 6 124 03/09/2003 03/10/2003 QWEST COMMUNICATIONS $86.27 HOLLY URBANSKI 125 03'/09/2003 03/10/2003 QWEST COMMUNICATIONS $115.02 HOLLY URBANSKI 126 03/09/2003 03/10/2003 QWEST COMMUNICATIONS $138.45 HOLLY URBANSKI 127 03/09/2003 03/10/2003 QWEST COMMUNICATIONS $233.71 HOLLY URBANSKI 128 03/09/2003 03/10/2003 QWEST COMMUNICATIONS $340.88 HOLLY URBANSKI 129 03/07/2003 03/10/2003 PIONEER PRESS SUBSCRIPTI $17.33 SUSAN ZWIEG 130 03/07/2003 03/10/2003 KATH AUTO PARTS $13.70 SUSAN ZWIEG 18,949.16 7 Transaction Review 3/24/2003 'For Transactions posted between 03/15/2003 to 03/21/2003 # Tran Date Post Date Vendor Name Settlement Amt Cardholder Name 1 03/16/2003 03/17/2003 VERIZONWIRELESSWR $59.56 R CHARLES AHL 2 03/18/2003 03/20/2003 JOANN ETC #1970 $214.23 MANDY ANZALDI 3 03/19/2003 03/21/2003 CUB FOODS, INC. $7.27 MANDY ANZALDI 4 03/13/2003 03/17/2003 AIRGAS NORTH CENTRAL 302 $689.31 JOHN BANICK 5 03/13/2003 03/18/2003 INFINITY WIRELESS INC $245.00 JOHN BANICK 6 03/14/2003 03/17/2003 THERMO -DYNE INC $570.00 JIM BEHAN 7 03/13/2003 03/17/2003 PAIN ENTERPRISES INC. $110.71 JIM BEHAN 8 03/14/2003 03/17/2003 THERMO -DYNE INC $971.87 JIM BEHAN 9 03/14/2003 03/17/2003 MUSKA LIGHTING CENTER $302.78 JIM BEHAN 10 03/14/2003 03/17/2003 MUSKA LIGHTING CENTER $73.49 JIM BEHAN 11 03/14/2003 03/17/2003 MUSKA LIGHTING CENTER $60.56 JIM BEHAN 12 03/14/2003 03/17/2003 MUSKA LIGHTING CENTER $685.72 JIM BEHAN 13 03/16/2003 03/18/2003 BED BATH & BEYOND #482 $58.49 MELINDA COLEMAN 14 03/13/2003 03/17/2003 RAINBOW FOODS #61 $5.92 LINDA CROSSON 15 03/18/2003 03/20/2003 AMERICAN RED CROSOI OF 01 $235.40 LINDA CROSSON 16 03/14/2003 03/17/2003 BLANKS U.S.A. $215.72 ROBERTA DARST 17 03/17/2003 03/19/2003 CUB FOODS, INC. $7.92 ROBERTA DARST 18 03/17/2003 03/19/2003 PAPA JOHN'S # 00418384 $47.69 ROBERTA DARST 19 03/18/2003 03/19/2003 S & T OFFICE PRODUCTS $39.27 ROBERTA DARST 20 03/19/2003 03/20/2003 S & T OFFICE PRODUCTS $13.23 ROBERTA DARST 21 03/20/2003 03/21/2003 S & T OFFICE PRODUCTS ($13.30) ROBERTA DARST 22 03/13/2003 03/17/2003 CENTURY COLLEGE CONTINUIN $59.00 KATHLEEN DOHERTY 23 03/14/2003 03/17/2003 S & T OFFICE PRODUCTS ($7.21) KATHLEEN DOHERTY 24 03/18/2003 03/19/2003 S & T OFFICE PRODUCTS $70.11 KATHLEEN DOHERTY 25 03/19/2003 03/21/2003 KEEPRS $158.90 MICHAEL J DUGAS 26 03/17/2003 03/19/2003 CUB FOODS, INC. $18.07 THOMAS G EKSTRAND 27 03/18/2003 03/20/2003 HENRIKSEN ACE HARDWARE $8.67 PAUL E EVERSON 28 03/14/2003 03/17/2003 TIG TIGERDIRECT.COM $89.99 MYCHAL FOWLDS 29 03/17/2003 03/18/2003 TIG TIGERDIRECT.COM $218.16 MYCHAL FOWLDS 30 03/20/2003 03/21/2003 BEST BUY 00000109 $138.43 MYCHAL FOWLDS 31 03/13/2003 03/17/2003 GANDER MOUNTAIN $119.99 JOHN FRASER 32 03/17/2003 03/18/2003 S & T OFFICE PRODUCTS $32.80 PATRICIA FRY 33 03/20/2003 03/21/2003 KNOWLAN'S SPRMKT. #2 $15.12 CAROLE GERNES 34 03/15/2003 03/17/2003 MENARDS OAKDALE $12.49 MIKE GRAF 35 03/12/2003 03/18/2003 ABLE HOSE & RUBBER, INC $78.60 MARK HAAG 36 03/17/2003 03/18/2003 S & T OFFICE PRODUCTS $52.46 LORI HANSON 37 03/20/2003 03/21/2003 MSP COMMUNICATIONS $250.00 HEIDI HERSOM 38 03/19/2003 03/21/2003 AMERICAN RED CROSOI OF 01 $396.11 RON HORWATH 39 03/15/2003 03/17/2003 NEXTEL WIRELESS SVCS $63.72 STEVE HURLEY 40 03/14/2003 03/17/2003 KAM COM TECHNOLOGIES INC $1,251.38 STEVE HURLEY 41 03/17/2003 03/18/2003 ACD SYSTEMS 800 - 563 -71 $34.95 STEVE HURLEY 42 03/17/2003 03/19/2003 WWW.ELENMNT51NFO.COM $99.95 STEVE HURLEY 43 03/17/2003 03/19/2003 ESRI INC $1,013.06 STEVE HURLEY 44 03/19/2003 03/21/2003 VECTOR INTERNET/VISI.0 $31.45 STEVE HURLEY 45 03/15/2003 03/17/2003 NEXTEL WIRELESS SVCS $32.48 ANN E HUTCHINSON 46 03/14/2003 03/17/2003 FORESTRY SUPPLIERS $382.28 ANN E HUTCHINSON 47 03/17/2003 03/19/2003 TARGET 00011858 $35.56 DAVID JAI-IN 48 03/13/2003 03/17/2003 ARBY'S #1152 Q52 $7.97 KEVIN JOHNSON 49 03/13/2003 03/20/2003 GALLES CORPORATION $51.08 MICHAEL KANE 50 03/13/2003 03/17/2003 TOUSLEY FORD I27200039 $13.76 FLINT KARIS 51 03/19/2003 03/20/2003 BEST BUY 00000109 $425.99 FLINT KARIS 52 03/16/2003 03/17/2003 TARGET 00000521 $12.54 HEATHER KOS 53 03/16/2003 03/18/2003 HANCOCK FABRICS 6001 $6.37 HEATHER KOS 54 03/19/2003 03/21/2003 INTOXIIvIETERS, INC. $203.30 DAVID KVAM 55 03/19/2003 03/21/2003 CUB FOODS, INC. $28.85 SHERYL L LE 56 03/12/2003 03/17/2003 DALCO 01 OF 01 $296.39 MICHAEL LIDBERG 57 03/14/2003 03/17/2003 MENARDS OAKDALE $5.33 DENNIS LINDORFF 58 03/15/2003 03/17/2003 NEXTEL WIRELESS SVCS $879.96 STEVE LUKIN 59 03/20/2003 03/21/2003 ANOKA - HENNEPIN TECHNICAL $255.00 STEVE LUKIN 60 03/20/2003 03/21/2003 AMERITECH MOBILE PA $42.82 STEVE LUKIN (5163/13/2003 03/17/2003 ON SITE SANITATION, IN $60.65 MARK MARUSKA 62 03/14/2003 03/17/2003 MENARDS MAPLEWOOD $22.84 MARK MARUSKA 63 03/14/2003 03/18/2003 AUTOMOTIVE FINISHES #33 $101.53 MARK MARUSKA 64 03/17/2003 03/20/2003 LTG POWER EQUIPMENT $637.94 MARK MARUSKA 65 03/17/2003 03/19/2003 PUMP & METER SERVICE INC $164.01 ED NADEAU 66 03/20/2003 03/20/2003 SPRINTPCS AUTOPYMT RCSPRT $94.95 BRYAN NAGEL 67 03/18/2003 03/19/2003 ROAD RUNNER TRANSPORTATIO $19.02 AMY NIVEN 68 03/19/2003 03/20/2003 S & T OFFICE PRODUCTS $191.39 AMY NIVEN 69 03/11/2003 03/17/2003 NENA $75.00 MARSHA PACOLT 70 03/17/2003 03/19/2003 NORTHLAND BUSINESS SYSTE $53.25 MARSHA PACOLT 71 03/20/2003 03/21/2003 JCPENNEY CO 2253 $17.50 STEVEN PALMA 72 03/14/2003 03/17/2003 FACTORY MOTOR PARTS $66.29 STEVEN PRIEM 73 03/14/2003 03/17/2003 KATH AUTO PARTS $27.14 STEVEN PRIEM 74 03/17/2003 03/19/2003 SUNRAY BTB $22.92 STEVEN PRIEM 75 03/18/2003 03/20/2003 SUNRAY BTB $28.91 STEVEN PRIEM 76 03/15/2003 03/17/2003 NEXTEL WIRELESS SVCS $1,196.32 KEVIN RABBETT 77 03/14/2003 03/17/2003 AMERICAN TIRE AND AUTO C $131.97 KEVIN RABBETT 78 03/17/2003 03/20/2003 DALCO 01 OF O1 $1,309.33 MICHAEL REILLY 79 03/17/2003 03/19/2003 SPORTMART #701 $9.12 AUDRA ROBBINS 80 03/17/2003 03/19/2003 ZANY BRAINY #510 $28.72 AUDRA ROBBINS 81 03/10/2003 03/17/2003 CRAMER BLDG SERVICES INC $294.25 PAUL SCHLINGMAN 82 03/20/2003 03/21/2003 ANOKA- HENNEPIN TECHNICAL $185.00 PAUL SCHLINGMAN 83 03/20/2003 03/21/2003 ANOKA - HENNEPIN TECHNICAL $185.00 PAUL SCHLINGMAN 84 03/17/2003 03/19/2003 ARAIVIARK REF SVS #6013- $291.00 RUSSELL L SCHMIDT 85 03/19/2003 03/20/2003 LAB SAFETY SUPPLY INC $46.42 ANDREA SINDT 86 03/19/2003 03/21/2003 CUB FOODS, INC. $47.88 PAULINE STAPLES 87 03/19/2003 03/21/2003 CUB FOODS, INC. $301.86 PAULINE STAPLES 88 03/14/2003 03/17/2003 S & T OFFICE PRODUCTS ($32.11) JOANNE M SVENDSEN 89 03/20/2003 03/21/2003 S & T OFFICE PRODUCTS $196.17 JOANNE M SVENDSEN 90 03/20/2003 03/21/2003 ANCOM TECHNICAL CENTER IN $214.87 RUSTIN SVENDSEN 91 03/17/2003 03/19/2003 EXCELLCOM $21.25 LYLE SWANSON 92 03/18/2003 03/20/2003 OLIVE GARDEN 00012005 $27.00 DAVID J THOMALLA 93 03/18/2003 03/20/2003 CURTIS 1000 ($21.97) HOLLY URBANSKI 94 03/20/2003 03/21/2003 SHRED IT $26.64 HOLLY URBANSKI 95 03/17/2003 03/19/2003 LYNN CARD CO $127.78 SUSAN ZWIEG 96 03/18/2003 03/20/2003 PELOUZE.COM/PELSTAR $14.30 SUSAN ZWIEG 97 03/18/2003 03/20/2003 QUILL CORPORATION $97.43 SUSAN ZWIEG 98 03/20/2003 03/21/2003 USPS 2663650015 $111.00 SUSAN ZWIEG 17,879.29 vchlist Check Register Page: 1 04/07/2003 11:47:07AM City of Maplewood Check Date 60591 3/31/2003 60592 3/31/2003 60593 4/8/2003 60594 4/8/2003 60595 4/8/2003 60596 4/8/2003 60597 4/8/2003 60598 4/8/2003 60599 4/8/2003 60600 4/8/2003 60601 4/8/2003 60602 4/8/2003 60603 4/8/2003 60604 4/8/2003 60605 , 4/8/2003 Vendor Description /Account 02764 SEILER, RENEE L 01389 LROSSMAN, DAVID 00198 BOARD OF WATER COMMISSIONERS 01869 BOETCHER, DALE 01865 BOWMAN, DON 02766 BOWMAN, KATHERINE 00264 CARLSON, TERRIE 01871 COOPER, KENNETH 00384 DE LAGE LANDEN FINANCIAL SRVS 01867 HANSON, PERRY 02578 HAUENSTEIN AND BURMEISTER 01965 HEALTH PARTNERS 02758 ID PRESS 02767 INGALLS, TINA 02728 KIMLEY -HORN & ASSOCIATES INC 60606 4/8/2003 01874 KULAS, RONALD C. 60607 4/8/2003 01873 LAYMAN, KART 60608 4/8/2003 00932 MAPLEWOOD BAKERY 60609 4/8/2003 00959 MCLAUGHLIN, BILLY 60610 4/8/2003 00985 60611 4/8/2003 00998 60612 4/8/2003 01977 60613 4/8/2003 01028 60614 4/8/2003 00001 60615 4/8/2003 00001 60616 4/8/2003 01863 60617 4/8/2003 01269 60618 4/8/2003 01300 60619 4/8/2003 01313 60620 4/8/2003 02249 60621 4/8/2003 01337 60622 4/8/2003 01341 60623 4/8/2003 01386 60624 4/8/2003 02769 60625 4/8/2003 02664 60626 4/8/2003 01915 60627 4/8/2003 02623 60628 4/8/2003 01550 60629 4/8/2003 01635 60630 4/8/2003 02241 60631 4/8/2003 02177 60632 4/8/2003 02069 METROPOLITAN COUNCIL MIDWEST COCA -COLA BOTTLING CO MN PUBLIC WORKS ASSOCIATION MN STATE TREASURER STAX ONE TIME VENDOR ONE TIME VENDOR PACKER, ROGER PIPE SERVICES INC PRIEBE, WILLIAM M PUMP AND METER SERVICE INC QWEST GOVERNMENT SRVS INC RAMSEY COUNTY -PROP REC & REV RAMSEY CTY FIRE CHIEFS ASSN RO -SO CONTRACTING, INC. SAARION, BEN SCHWICTENBERG, HEIDI STEFFEN, NANCY STEINKE, DAVID SUMMIT INSPECTIONS TOWER ASPHALT INC TRI TECH DISPENSING INC U -CARE REFUND ULTIMATE DRAIN SERVICES INC REF R SEILER - TIRE REPAIR CLAIM MCC POLICE OFFICER - 4/1 EVENT QUARTERLY WATER VOLLEYBALL REFEREE - 6 VOLEYBALL REF COORDINATOR VOLLEYBALL REFEREE - 12 REIMB MILEAGE & MTG FEE 3/14 - 3/28 VOLLEYBALL REFEREE - 15 COPIER COSTS VOLLEYBALL REFEREE - 12 REPAIR BASKETBALL HOOP REF DUP AMB PYMT 03002337 ID CARD SYSTEM VOLLEYBALL REFEREE 3 PROJ 02 -14 PROF SRVS THRU 2/28 PROJ 02 -18 PROF SRVS THRU 2/28 PROJ 03 -05 PROF SRVS THRU 2/28 PROJ 02 -07 PROF SRVS THRU 2/28 PROJ 02 -21 PROF SRVS THRU /28 VOLLEYBALL REFEREE - 9 VOLLEYBALL REFEREE - 6 BIRTHDAY CAKES CONCERT-3/14 CONCERT-3/15 WASTEWATER - APR REFRESHMENTS - AIR & REHAB TRUCK MUNICIPAL UTIL INSP SCH - 2 MONTHLY SURTAX - MAR REF HUDSON SCHOOL AGE CARE - GR REF ROSE JACOBSEN - ORCH TKTS VOLLEYBALL MATCHES OFFICIATED - 4 TV INSP OF SANITARY SEWER MAINS. REIMBURSE FOR OVERALLS PETRO VEND 20 -8042 FUEL SITE CONT 911 SYSTEM MAINT - MAR TAX INCREMENT RECORDS LAMPING SERVICES LAMPING SERVICES RAMSEY CHIEF DINNER & MTG - 21 PROJ 0202 MARKHAM POND - FINAL PY VOLLEYBALL REFEREE - 24 VOLLEYBALL REFEREE - 6 VOLLEYBALL REFEREE - 13 REPAIR SNOWBLOWER ELECTRICAL INSPECTIONS 'WINTER PATCHING MIX REPAIR FLOAT REF DUP AMB PYMTS - 5 PATIENTS PROJ 02 -10 TELEVISED MAIN LINES PROJ 02 -10 TELEVISED MAIN LINES PROJ 02 -10 TELEVISED MAIN LINES PROJ 02 -10 TELEVISED MAIN LINES PROJ 02 -10 TELEVISED MAIN LINES PROJ 02 -10 TELEVISED MAIN LINES Amount 620.48 120.00 99.61 120.00 407.50 245.00 46.14 300.00 326.54 240.00 274.24 559.12 3,810.66 60.00 12,066.16 6,393.31 6,841.68 1,097.20 1,339.85 180.00 120.00 109.75 3,862.00 " 4,017.00 181,064.00 333.00 230.00 1,983.44 163.40 30.00 940.00 1,697.36 41.88 2,844.68 587.00 4,084.12 55.21 30.88 262.50 3,816.25 480.00 120.00 260.00 30.00 4,693.20 1,047.09 85.00 256.94 170.00 170.00 170.00 170.00 170.00 170.00 vchlist Check Register Page: 2 04/07/2003 11 :47:07AM City of Maplewood Check Date Vendor 60632 4/8/2003 02069 ULTIMATE DRAIN SERVICES INC 60633 4/8/2003 02666 WATERS, KERMIT 60634 4/8/2003 01872 WEBER, MARK Description /Account Amount (Continued) PROJ 02 -10 TELEVISED MAIN LINES 170.00 PROJ 02 -10 TELEVISED MAIN LINES 170.00 PROJ 02 -10 TELEVISED MAIN LINES 170.00 PROJ 02 -10 TELEVISED MAIN LINES 325.00 PROJ 02 -10 TELEVISED MAIN LINES 170.00 PROJ 02 -10 TELEVISED MAIN LINES 170.00 PROJ 02 -10 TELEVISED MAIN LINES 170.00 PROJ 02 -10 TELEVISED MAIN LINES 170.00 PROJ 02 -10 TELEVISED MAIN LINES 280.00 PROJ 02 -10 TELEVISED MAIN LINES 465.00 PROJ 02 -10 TELEVISED MAIN LINES 170.00 PROJ 02 -10 TELEVISED MAIN LINES 230.00 PROJ 02 -10 TELEVISED MAIN LINES 170.00 PROJ 02 -10 TELEVISED MAIN LINES 170.00 PROJ 02 -10 TELEVISED MAIN LINES 195.00 PROJ 02 -10 TELEVISED MAIN LINES 170.00 PROJ 02 -10 TELEVISED MAIN LINES 170.00 PROJ 02 -10 TELEVISED MAIN LINES 170.00 PROJ 02 -10 TELEVISED MAIN LINES 170.00 PROJ 02 -10 TELEVISED MAIN LINES 170.00 PROJ 02 -10 TELEVISED MAIN LINES 170.00 PROJ 02 -10 TELEVISED MAIN LINES 170.00 PROJ 02 -10 TELEVISED MAIN LINES 170.00 PROJ 02 -10 TELEVISED MAIN LINES 170.00 PROJ 02 -10 TELEVISED MAIN LINES 170.00 PROJ 02 -10 TELEVISED MAIN LINES 280.00 PROJ 02 -10 TELEVISED MAIN LINES 170.00 WRITING PADS 1,774.02 VOLLEYBALL REFEREE - 10 200.00 44 Checks in this report Total checks : 256,731.21 CITY OF MAPLEWOOD Disbursements via Debits to Checking account Transmitted Settlement Date Date Payee 03/27/03 03/28/03 03/27/03 03/27/03 03/28/03 03/28/03 03/28/03 03/31/03 03/28/03 04/01/03 04/01/03 04/02/03 04/03/03 03/28/03 04/03/03 03/28/03 03/28/03 03/28/03 03/28/03 03/31/03 03/31/03 03/31/03 04/01/03 04/01/03 04/01/03 04/02/03 04/03/03 04/04/03 04/04/03 04/04/03 MN State Treasurer ICMA (Vantagepointe) DCRP /Flex account MN. Dept of Natural Resources MN State Treasurer U.S. Treasurer P.E.R.A. MN State Treasurer MN State Treasurer U.S. Bank MN State Treasurer MN State Treasurer MN State Treasurer WI Dept of Revenue MN Dept of Natural Resources TOTAL Description Drivers License /Deputy Registrar Deferred Compensation DCRP & Flex plan payments DNR electronic licenses Drivers License /Deputy Registrar Federal Payroll Tax P.E.R.A. Drivers License /Deputy Registrar State Payroll Tax Debt service Drivers License /Deputy Registrar Drivers License /Deputy Registrar Drivers License /Deputy Registrar State Payroll Tax DNR electronic licenses Amount 17,476.00 6,948.86 431.09 815.00 13,164.05 87,239.76 46,521.79 14,269.14 16,689.61 103,025.00 20,273.23 21,168.95 15,783.71 1,066.12 792.00 365,664.31 12 CITY OF MAPLEWOOD EMPLOYEE GROSS EARNINGS REPORT FOR THE CURRENT PAY PERIOD CHECK # CHECK DATE EMPLOYEE NAME AMOUNT dd 03/28/03 COLLINS, KENNETH 357.47 dd 03/28/03 JUENEMANN, KATHLEEN 357.47 dd 03/28/03 KOPPEN, MARVIN 357.47 dd 03/28/03 DARST, ROBERTA 1,386.79 dd 03/28/03 FURSMAN, RICHARD 4,419.60 dd 03/28/03 SCHLINGMAN, PAUL 2,026.23 dd 03/28/03 SEEGER, GERALD 526.32 dd 03/28/03 SWANSON, LYLE 1,651.65 dd 03/28/03 CARLSON, THERESE 2,133.34 dd 03/28/03 LE, SHERYL 3,592.64 dd 03/28/03 FAUST, DANIEL 3,745.90 dd 03/28/03 URBANSKI, HOLLY 1,661.45 dd 03/28/03 ANDERSON, CAROLE 1,613.00 dd 03/28/03 BAUMAN, GAYLE 2,758.75 dd 03/28/03 JACKSON, MARY 1 dd 03/28/03 KELSEY, CONNIE 717.32 dd 03/28/03 TETZLAFF, JUDY 1,683.05 dd 03/28/03 FRY, PATRICIA 1,608.65 dd 03/28/03 GUILFOILE, KAREN 2,546.16 dd 03/28/03 OSTER, ANDREA 1,663.75 dd 03/28/03 CARLE, JEANETTE 1,566.94 dd 03/28/03 JAGOE, CAROL 1,557.64 dd 03/28/03 JOHNSON, BONNIE 970.97 dd 03/28/03 OLSON, SANDRA 1,000.27 dd 03/28/03 WEAVER, KRISTINE 1 dd 03/28/03 CORCORAN, THERESA 1 dd 03/28/03 MARTINSON, CAROL 1,622.92 dd 03/28/03 POWELL, PHILIP 1,916.62 dd 03/28/03 SPANGLER, EDNA _ 286.00 dd 03/28/03 THOMALLA, DAVID 3,546.50 dd 03/28/03 ABEL, CLINT 1,918.39 dd 03/28/03 ALDRIDGE, MARK 2,218.78 dd 03/28/03 ANDREWS, SCOTT 2,963. dd 03/28/03 BAKKE, LONN 2,197.35 dd 03/28/03 BANICK, JOHN 3,201.24 dd 03/28/03 BELDE, STANLEY 2,218.78 dd 03/28/03 BIERDEMAN, BRIAN 1 dd 03/28/03 BOHL, JOHN 2 dd 03/28/03 BUSACK, DANIEL 2,115.21 dd 03/28/03 COFFEY, KEVIN 1,493.80 dd 03/28/03 DOBLAR, RICHARD 2,115.21 dd 03/28/03 HALWEG, KEVIN 3,022.32 dd 03/28/03 HEINZ, STEPHEN 2,312.21 dd 03/28/03 HIEBERT, STEVEN 2,487.39 13 CITY OF MAPLEWOOD EMPLOYEE GROSS EARNINGS REPORT FOR THE CURRENT PAY PERIOD dd dd dd dd dd dd dd dd dd dd dd dd dd dd dd dd dd dd dd dd dd dd dd dd dd dd dd dd dd dd dd dd dd dd dd dd dd dd dd dd dd dd dd dd dd dd CHECK # CHECK DATE EMPLOYEE NAME AMOUNT 03/28/03 JOHNSON, KEVIN 3,306.44 03/28/03 KARIS, FLINT 200.11 03/28/03 KONG, TOMMY 1,908.07 03/28/03 KROLL, BRETT 1,700.93 03/28/03 KVAM, DAVID 2,594.47 03/28/03 LARSON, DANIEL 2,115.21 03/28/03 LU, JOHNNIE 2,089.19 03/28/03 MARINO, JASON 1,700.93 03/28/03 MARTIN, JERROLD 2,187.67 03/28/03 METRY, ALESIA 1,972.54 03/28/03 OLSON, JULIE 2,348.22 03/28/03 PALMA, STEVEN 2,535.49 03/28/03 PIKE, GARY 2,177.35 03/28/03 RABBETT, KEVIN 2,783.47 03/28/03 STEFFEN, SCOTT 3,206.46 03/28/03 STOCKTON, DERRELL 2,301.63 03/28/03 SZCZEPANSKI, THOMAS 2,449.79 03/28/03 THIENES, PAUL 201.72 03/28/03 TRAN, JOSEPH 1,684.06 03/28/03 WATCZAK, LAURA 8,656.01 03/28/03 WENZEL, JAY 2,115.21 03/28/03 XIONG, KAO 1,700.93 03/28/03 BARTZ, PAUL 2,280.92 03/28/03 BERGERON, JOSEPH 2,798.52 03/28/03 CROTTY, KERRY 2,473.15 03/28/03 DUGAS, MICHAEL 2,229.04 03/28/03 DUNN, ALICE 2,735.60 03/28/03 EVERSON, PAUL 205.85 03/28/03 FLOR, TIMOTHY 2,472.26 03/28/03 FRASER, JOHN 2,492.92 03/28/03 HALWEG, JODI 1,737.13 03/28/03 KATZMAN, BARBARA 2,142.75 03/28/03 PARSONS, KURT 1,799.97 03/28/03 ROSSMAN, DAVID 2,700.32 03/28/03 DAWSON, RICHARD 1,628.85 03/28/03 DUELLMAN, KIRK 1,634.80 03/28/03 JOHNSON, DOUGLAS 1,628.85 03/28/03 NOVAK, JEROME 1,628.85 03/28/03 PETERSON, ROBERT 1,705.85 03/28/03 SVENDSEN, RONALD 1,628.85 03/28/03 GERVAIS -JR, CLARENCE 2,358.29 03/28/03 BOYER, SCOTT 1,756.65 03/28/03 FEHR, JOSEPH 2,077.85 03/28/03 FLAUGHER, JAYME 1,820.89 03/28/03 LAFFERTY, WALTER 1,756.65 03/28/03 LINN, BRYAN 1,635.85 IV CITY OF MAPLEWOOD EMPLOYEE GROSS EARNINGS REPORT FOR THE CURRENT PAY PERIOD 15 CHECK # CHECK DATE EMPLOYEE NAME AMOUNT dd 03/28/03 PACOLT, MARSHA 1,999.85 dd 03/28/03 RABINE, JANET 1,756.65 dd 03/28/03 STAHNKE, JULIE 2,093.91 dd 03/28/03 LUKIN, STEVEN 3,115.54 dd 03/28/03 SVENDSEN, RUSTIN 2,487.66 dd 03/28/03 ZWIEG, SUSAN 1,676.62 dd 03/28/03 DOLLERSCHELL, ROBERT 268.49 dd 03/28/03 AHL, R. CHARLES 3,896.70 dd 03/28/03 NIVEN, AMY 1,053.00 dd 03/28/03 PRIEFER, WILLIAM 2,391.25 dd 03/28/03 WEGWERTH, JUDITH 106.06 dd 03/28/03 BRINK, TROY 1,449.45 dd 03/28/03 DEBILZAN, THOMAS 1,668.65 dd 03/28/03 EDGE, DOUGLAS 1,750.25 dd 03/28/03 KANE, MICHAEL 2,643.39 dd 03/28/03 LUTZ, DAVID 1,738.86 dd 03/28/03 MEYER, GERALD 1,819.08 dd 03/28/03 NAGEL, BRYAN 2,409.61 dd 03/28/03 OSWALD, ERICK 1,990.67 dd 03/28/03 TEVLIN, TODD 1,433.45 dd 03/28/03 BOHMBACH, JOSHUA 3 10.05 dd 03/28/03 CAVETT, CHRISTOPHER 2,967.22 dd 03/28/03 DUCHARME, JOHN - - _ - 2;124.65 dd 03/28/03 LINDBLOM, RANDAL 2,670.93 dd 03/28/03 PECK, DENNIS 2,218.68 dd 03/28/03 PRIEBE, WILLIAM 3,513.58 dd 03/28/03 SCHACHT, ERIN 2,520.37 dd 03/28/03 TATE, FRANK 1,551.85 dd 03/28/03 VERMEERSCH, CHARLES 1,912.65 dd 03/28/03 ANDERSON, BRUCE 3,607.47 dd 03/28/03 DOHERTY, KATHLEEN 1,666.06 dd 03/28/03 HERSOM, HEIDI 1,772.71 dd 03/28/03 MARUSKA, MARK 2,439.86 dd 03/28/03 NAUGHTON, JOHN 1,433.45 dd 03/28/03 SCHINDELDECKER, JAMES 1,734.25 dd 03/28/03 BIESANZ, OAKLEY 1,174.28 dd 03/28/03 GREW- HAYMAN, JANET 950.89 dd 03/28/03 HUTCHINSON, ANN 2,031.16 dd 03/28/03 KOS, HEATHER 520.00 dd 03/28/03 NELSON, JEAN 969.95 dd 03/28/03 GAYNOR, VIRGINIA 1,792.65 dd 03/28/03 COLEMAN, MELINDA 3,682.46 dd 03/28/03 EKSTRAND, THOMAS 2,558.53 dd 03/28/03 KROLL, LISA 1,016.20 dd 03/28/03 LIVINGSTON, JOYCE 923.37 dd 03/28/03 SINDT, ANDREA 1,439.85 15 CITY OF MAPLEWOOD EMPLOYEE GROSS EARNINGS REPORT FOR THE CURRENT PAY PERIOD ive CHECK # CHECK DATE EMPLOYEE NAME AMOUNT dd 03/28/03 THOMPSON, DEBRA 602.82 dd 03/28/03 YOUNG, TAMELA 1,270.25 dd 03/28/03 BERGO, CHAD 1,933.93 dd 03/28/03 FINWALL, SHANN 1,979.76 dd 03/28/03 ROBERTS, KENNETH 2,378.80 dd 03/28/03 CARVER, NICHOLAS 2,346.15 dd 03/28/03 FISHER, DAVID 207.06 dd 03/28/03 SUNDE, JOEL 988.00 dd 03/28/03 SWAN, DAVID 1,415.05 dd 03/28/03 KONEWKO, DUWAYNE 2,211.05 dd 03/28/03 ANZALDI, MANDY 854.00 dd 03/28/03 BJORK, BRANDON 53.63 dd 03/28/03 FINN, GREGORY 1,776.22 dd 03/28/03 FLUG, ELAINE 85.50 dd 03/28/03 GAETZ, HOLLY 84.00 dd 03/28/03 GRAF, MICHAEL 1,678.82 dd 03/28/03 KELLY, LISA 1,245.78 dd 03/28/03 MCBRIDE, PATRICK 100.00 dd 03/28/03 NIEMCZYK, BRIAN 80.00 dd 03/28/03 ROBBINS, AUDRA 1 dd 03/28/03 TAUBMAN, DOUGLAS 2,513.20 dd 03/28/03 ZIELINSKI, JOSEPH 200.00 dd 03/28/03 BREHEIM, ROGER 1,738.86 dd 03/28/03 NORDQUIST, RICHARD 1,735.76 dd 03/28/03 SCHULTZ, SCOTT 1,951.58 dd 03/28/03 CROSSON, LINDA 2,162.18 dd 03/28/03 DIAZ, SUSAN 331.06 dd 03/28/03 EASTMAN, THOMAS 2,345.93 dd 03/28/03 ERICKSON, KYLE 808.87 dd 03/28/03 LEIER, SARA 134.90 dd 03/28/03 PARTLOW, JOSHUA 328.66 .dd 03/28/03 PELOQUIN, PENNYE 461.97 dd 03/28/03 RIDLEHOOVER, KATE 120.13 dd 03/28/03 STAPLES, PAULINE 2,641.74 dd 03/28/03 COLE, NANCY 31.59 dd 03/28/03 CORNER, AMY 83.20 dd 03/28/03 ERICKSON, CAROL 45.00 dd 03/28/03 GUZIK, JENNIFER 78.00 dd 03/28/03 HALEY, BROOKE 139.75 dd 03/28/03 HORWATH, RONALD 1,648.82 dd 03/28/03 IRISH, KARL 162.88 dd 03/28/03 KOEHNEN, AMY 20.55 dd 03/28/03 KOEHNEN, MARY 598.12 dd 03/28/03 KRONHOLM, KATHRYN 473.16 dd 03/28/03 MARUSKA, ERICA 147.00 dd 03/28/03 OVERBY, ANNA 72.00 ive CITY OF MAPLEWOOD EMPLOYEE GROSS EARNINGS REPORT FOR THE CURRENT PAY PERIOD 17 CHECK # CHECK DATE EMPLOYEE NAME AMOUNT dd 03/28/03 POWERS, JESSICA 40.93 dd 03/28/03 SCHULTZ, PETER 39.00 dd 03/28/03 SIMONSON, JUSTIN 322.55 dd 03/28/03 THOEMKE, MARIE 101.56 dd 03/28/03 GROPPOLI, LINDA 321.98 dd 03/28/03 RENSLOW, RITA 334.13 dd 03/28/03 CRAWFORD - JR, RAYMOND 53.20 dd 03/28/03 LONETTI, JAMES 905.55 dd 03/28/03 PATTERSON, ALBERT 1,122.28 dd 03/28/03 PRINS, KELLY 848.29 dd 03/28/03 REILLY, MICHAEL 1,704.67 dd 03/28/03 STEINHORST, JEFFREY 499.10 dd 03/28/03 AICHELE, CRAIG 1,710.25 dd 03/28/03 PRIEM, STEVEN 1,950.25 dd 03/28/03 FOWLDS, MYCHAL 1,703.53 dd 03/28/03 HURLEY, STEPHEN 207.06 wf 92955 03/28/03 CARDINAL, ROBERT 406.20 wf 92956 03/28/03 WASILUK, JULIE 357.47 wf 92957 03/28/03 INGVOLDSTAD, CURTIS 137.50 wf 92958 03/28/03 MOMSEN, ADAM 50.00 wf 92959 03/28/03 JAHN, DAVID 1,562.75 wf 92960 03/28/03 MALDONADO, JUANA 671.89 wf 92961 03/28/03 MORIN, TROY 191.25 wf 92962 03/28/03 MATHEYS, ALANA 1,793.85 wf 92963 03/28/03 HANSEN, LORI 1,509.45 wf 92964 03/28/03 VIETOR, LORRAINE 1,650.00 wf 92965 03/28/03 PALANK, MARY 1,564.64 wf 92966 03/28/03 RICHIE, CAROLE 1,611.24 wf 92967 03/28/03 SVENDSEN, JOANNE 1,700.28 wf 92968 03/28/03 TICHY, PAMELA 102.00 wf 92969 03/28/03 STEINER, JOSEPH 453.00 wf 92970 03/28/03 WELCHLIN, CABOT 2,548.56 wf 92971 03/28/03 SHORTREED, MICHAEL 2,920.51 wf 92972 03/28/03 MONROY, JON 326.40 wf 92973 03/28/03 OLINGER, SHELLEY 1,578.25 wf 92974 03/28/03 FREBERG, RONALD 1,881.34 wf 92975 03/28/03 JONES, DONALD 1,707.65 wf 92976 03/28/03 ELIAS, JAMES 2,218.68 wf 92977 03/28/03 EDSON, DAVID 2,208.77 wf 92978 03/28/03 HELEY, ROLAND 1,770.77 wf 92979 03/28/03 HINNENKAMP, GARY 1,752.61 wf 92980 03/28/03 LINDORFF, DENNIS 1,736.56 wf 92981 03/28/03 NOVAK, MICHAEL 1,863.15 wf 92982 03/28/03 GERNES, CAROLE 418.75 wf 92983 03/28/03 SOUTTER, CHRISTINE 172.13 wf 92984 03/28/03 ADAMS, CAILIN 24.00 17 CITY OF MAPLEWOOD EMPLOYEE GROSS EARNINGS REPORT FOR THE CURRENT PAY PERIOD wf wf wf wf wf wf wf wf wf wf wf wf wf wf wf wf wf wf wf wf wf wf wf wf wf wf wf wf wf wf wf wf wf wf wf wf wf wf wf wf wf wf wf wf wf wf CHECK # CHECK DATE EMPLOYEE NAME AMOUNT 92985 03/28/03 ANDERSON, MIKE 30.00 92986 03/28/03 ANZALDI, KALI 217.25 92987 03/28/03 BOTHWELL, KRISTIN 165.25 92988 03/28/03 DEGREE, AMANDA 121.13 92989 03/28/03 DRESSEN, EMILY 28.00 92990 03/28/03 FEUCHT, KENNETH 60.00 92991 03/28/03 FRANK, LAURA 309.00 92992 03/28/03 FRANK, SARAH 114.00 92993 03/28/03 HELKAMP, KAYLA 106.00 92994 03/28/03 HOIUM, PHILIP 228.00 92995 03/28/03 KLEM, AMANDA 13.00 92996 03/28/03 KLEM, JOSH 60.00 92997 03/28/03 O'SHEA, CASSANDRA 32.50 92998 03/28/03 OHLHAUSER, MEGHAN 127.81 92999 03/28/03 RAYE, HOLLY 19.50 93000 03/28/03 SHOBERG, KARI 78.00 93001 03/28/03 SIKORA, JACOB 114.00 93002 03/28/03 SIKORA, PAUL 75.00 93003 03/28/03 TARR -JR, GUS 135.00 93004 03/28/03 GERMAIN, DAVID 1,742.68 93005 03/28/03 HAAG, MARK 1,891.05 93006 03/28/03 NADEAU, EDWARD 2,643.39 93007 03/28/03 BEHR, HEATHER 184.60 93008 03/28/03 BROWN, LAURIE 280.45 93009 03/28/03 DISKERUD, HEATHER 288.60 93010 03/28/03 GLASS, JEAN 1,353.38 93011 03/28/03 HOIUM, SHEILA 1,544.42 93012 03/28/03 JACK, NICOLE 127.80 93013 03/28/03 MOFFAT, ETHAN 333.00 93014 03/28/03 MOY, PAMELA 379.47 93015 03/28/03 SCHMIDT, RUSSELL 1,643.88 93016 03/28/03 SHOBERG, CARY 697.58 93017 03/28/03 TOLBERT, FRANCINE 162.80 93018 03/28/03 UNGER, MARGARET 671.75 93019 03/28/03 ABRAHAMSON, DANIEL 83.51 93020 03/28/03 ANDERSON, CALEB 65.00 93021 03/28/03 BACHMAN, NICOLE 25.20 93022 03/28/03 BRENEMAN, NEIL 269.57 93023 03/28/03 CHAPMAN, JENNY 419.94 93024 03/28/03 COSTA, JOSEPH 193.33 93025 03/28/03 DIERICH, ANDREA 48.30 93026 03/28/03 DOTY, JANET 207.41 93027 03/28/03 DUNN, 'RYAN 244.27 93028 03/28/03 FENGER, JUSTIN 621.64 93029 03/28/03 FIERRO WESTBERG, MELINDA 16.60 93030 03/28/03 FINNEGAN, KAREN 90.00 It • CITY OF MAPLEWOOD EMPLOYEE GROSS EARNINGS REPORT FOR THE CURRENT PAY PERIOD wf wf wf wf wf wf wf wf f wf wf wf wf wf wf wf wf wf wf wf wf wf wf wf wf wf wf wf wf wf wf wf wf wf wf wf wf wf wf wf wf f wf wf wf wf CHECK # CHECK DATE EMPLOYEE NAME AMOUNT 93031 03/28/03 FONTAINE, KIM 550.73 93032 03/28/03 GRANT, MELISSA 58.95 93033 03/28/03 GRUENHAGEN, LINDA 277.55 93034 03/28/03 HEINN, REBECCA 33.56 93035 03/28/03 HOLMGREN, LEAH 140.84 93036 03/28/03 HOULE, DENISE 332.80 93037 03/28/03 IRISH, GRACE 147.38 93038 03/28/03 JOHNSON, ROBERT 20.70 93039 03/28/03 JOVONOVICH, TODD 64.00 93040 03/28/03 JOYER, MARTI 107.73 93041 03/28/03 KERSCHNER, JOLENE 242.84 93042 03/28/03 KROLL, MARK 96.00 93043 03/28/03 LINDSTROM, AMANDA 61.75 93044 03/28/03 MATHISEN -JR, DEAN 538.13 93045 03/28/03 MCMAHON, MELISSA 70.35 93046 03/28/03 MELCHER, ROBERT 73.13 93047 03/28/03 MISEMER, BENJAMIN 55.25 93048 03/28/03 MOES, EMILIA 81.60 93049 03/28/03 O'REAGAN, CHRISTINE 97.38 93050 03/28/03 OLSON, ABIGAIL 54.75 93051 03/28/03 OLSON, MARGRET 22.75 93052 03/28/03 OTTESON, JANET 18.00 93053 03/28/03 OWEN, JONATHAN 110.50 93054 03/28/03 PALMER, JESSICA 12.50 93055 03/28/03 PEHOSKI, JOEL 80.65 93056 03/28/03 PROESCH, ANDY 101.53 93057 03/28/03 QUISTAD, ELISABETH 76.65 93058 03/28/03 RENSTROM, KEVIN 13.70 93059 03/28/03 RODEN, JASON 99.75 93060 03/28/03 SMITLEY, SHARON 305.60 93061 03/28/03 TUPY, HEIDE 72.00 93062 03/28/03 TUPY, MARCUS 288.15 93063 03/28/03 WAGNER, ERIC 215.60 93064 03/28/03 WARNER, CAROLYN 89.60 93065 03/28/03 WHITE, NICOLE 153.16 93066 03/28/03 WOODMAN, ALICE 40.00 93067 03/28/03 BOSLEY, CAROL 269.10 93068 03/28/03 ESALA, HOPE 32.50 93069 03/28/03 HAGSTROM, EMILY 18.00 93070 03/28/03 KELLY, MICHAEL 31.50 93071 03/28/03 KNODL, KEVIN 672.00 93072 03/28/03 KURKOSKI, STEPHANIE 130.00 93073 03/28/03 ODDEN, JESSICA 42.00 93074 03/28/03 OIE, REBECCA 81.00 93075 03/28/03 SHERRILL, CAITLIN 369.75 93076 03/28/03 VAN HALE, PAULA 32.50 19 CITY OF MAPLEWOOD EMPLOYEE GROSS EARNINGS REPORT FOR THE CURRENT PAY PERIOD 20 CHECK # CHECK DATE EMPLOYEE NAME AMOUNT wf 93077 03/28/03 BEHAN, JAMES 1,590.16 wf 93078 03/28/03 CHIGINSKY, APRIL 103.08 wf 93079 03/28/03 COLLINS, ASHLEY 204.49 wf 93080 03/28/03 DOBLAR, STEVE 113.05 wf 93081 03/28/03 DOUGLASS, TOM 1 wf 93082 03/28/03 KYRK, ASHLEY 203.85 wf 93083 03/28/03 LOGAN, HEATHER 72.60 wf 93084 03/28/03 PIEPER, THEODORE 26.60 wf 93085 03/28/03 SARPONG, SEAN 137.26 wf 93086 03/28/03 SCHULZE, BRIAN 190.40 wf 93087 03/28/03 YOUNG, MATTHEW 55.60 wf 93088 03/28/03 MULVANEY, DENNIS 1,911.48 407,437.83 20 Agenda #_ MEMORANDUM TO: City Manager FROM: Tom Ekstrand, Assistant Community Development Director SUBJECT: Conditional Use Permit Review — Rose /Rice Auto LOCATION:. 1908 Rice Street DATE: April 7, 2003 INTRODUCTION Acttor by Council I��te w E? ckmed 111oc ?ifi °d Rejected On December 9, 2002, the city council reviewed the conditional use permit for Rose /Rice Auto at 1908 Rice Street. Refer to the maps on pages 3-5. The CUP allowed used car sales as well as the expansion of the used car lot. As a condition of the December 9 review, the council required that the applicant, Brad Beatty, get a cross easement for drainage from the owner of the property to the south, Lee Rossow of Comfort Bus. They required that Mr. Beatty obtain this easement by March 31, 2003.. We felt that this deadline was feasible and would be a step toward. fulfilling the council's CUP requirements. Refer to the original CUP conditions on pages 6-7.. Mr. Beatty is now requesting that the city council extend this deadline for obtaining the cross easement. BACKGROUND November 26, 2001:. The city council granted this CUP. December 9, 2002: The city council reviewed the CUP and required that the applicant obtain a cross easement for drainage across the Comfort Bus site by March 31. If the applicant has not. obtained the easement by this time, the city council would review the CUP again. DISCUSSION Mr. Beatty attempted to get a drainage easement from Mr. Rossow. Mr.. Rossow, however, though he is proceeding with his site development, has not finalized his site grading. He does not want to negotiate an easement with Mr. Beatty until he has established his grades. Refer to the applicant's letter on page 8. In an earlier letter from Mr. Beatty on page 9, he explains that he is willing to satisfy the city council's conditions (e.g. removal of a five -foot strip of asphalt and curb installation) but was trying to coordinate this with his and Mr. Rossow's drainage- system work. He wanted to avoid getting his contractor. out twice to do. all the needed work. Staff can appreciate the applicant's desire to schedule his work in the most economical way possible. The uncertainty, however, of coordinating this work with Mr. Rossow's project indicates that there is no assurance of getting compliance with the CUP requirements any time soon. To ensure that Mr. Beatty satisfies the city council's CUP requirements, staff feels that the council should set a final deadline. We recommend that the city council review this permit again in September 2003. By that time, the applicant should have accomplished all of the council's requirements. If the applicant has not met all of the CUP conditions by that time, the city council should consider terminating this permit for used car sales. G�- RECOMMENDATION Review the conditional use permit for Rose /Rice Auto in September 2003. By that time the applicant shall have complied with all of the city council's November 26, 2001 conditions of approval, or the council should consider termination .of this conditional use permit. p: sec18Wlenards.cup.rev2 Attachments 1. Location Map 2. Property tine. Map 3. Site Plan 4. City Council Minutes dated November 26, 2001 5. Letter from Brad Beatty dated March 25, 2003 6. Letter from Brad Beatty dated November 26, 2002 1 2 LITTLE CANADA .j TA C OMM t Attachment 2 I 1 ! � 1 _ - _ -- ------------- ----= .RO_SEL_ AWN AVENUE - ------- -- 1 ROSE -•RICE ' I 1 1 t , AUTO SALES ' , . 1 1 / 1 I � l+ t , I r••{ fff 1 i AMUSEMENT CITY i 1870 t • 7 1 ' I / \ 16 W W W �J Attachment 3 x: 1 l ie x t 4 mss.• ij � •� � � O �. • • . f ::': n r os LAS u _ APT A - Iv - v °EIVED f} 'f o 0se a SEP 2 02001 J 4 N 3. The use would not depreciate property values. Attachment 4 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 airpollution,. drainage, water run -off, vibration, general unsightliness, electrical interference or other nuisances. 5.' The use would generate only minim vehicular traffic on local streets and would not create traffic congestion or unsafe access on existing or proposed streets. acilities and services, 6. The use would be served by adequate public f 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. 10. The reduced front parking lot setback would meet the spirit and intent of the code since it would be a continuation of the existing pavement setback. Approval is subject to the following conditions: 1. 2. All construction shall follow the site plan approved by the city, except as stated below. The director of community development may approve minor changes. The applicant shall revise the site plan for staff approval as follows:' a. Cut away the part of the new easterly parking lot that encroaches into the required five - foot side -yard setback area along the east edge. The applicant shall backfill and sod this five -foot setback area. b. The excess pavement material shall be removed from the site and properly disposed of. C. The edges of the new parking lot shall be curbed with upright continuous concrete curbing. The plan for this curbing shall be submitted to staff for approval by the city engineer who will evaluate the parking lot for drainage control. The curbing requirement may be waived if deemed necessary for drainage purposes by the city engineer. d. The required five -foot setback shall be measured to the back of the curb, if the engineer requires curbing, not to the parking lot edge. e. Stripe. the parking spaces as required by code. Parking stall widths for the inventory parking may be less than nine feet wide since code only addresses customer or employee parking. f The applicant shall complete these parking lot corrections by June 30, 2002. The city council shall review this permit at that time to check on the progress and compliance with these conditions. g. The applicant shall obtain a cross easement from the abutting property owner to drain their parking lot onto the neighbor's property. The applicant shall provide the city with a copy. of the written easement documentation before the June 30, 2002 deadline for compliance with parking lot. corrections. h. This permit allows the construction of the proposed 10- by 12 -foot shed. If the applicant's storage needs increase, this permit would also allow the construction of a 6 l�J� (0 J FROM : FB OPTICAL FAX N0. Mar.- 25 2003 12 :11 PM P1 Attachment 5 March 25-,2003 Mr. Tom Bkstrand City of Maplewood Dear Torn: This letter is a fallow -up to our conversation. from last week regarding the cross easement between our property and Comfort Bus Company. I spoke to Lee. Rossow from Comfort Bus, and he is still in agreement the eascment, but feels he wen } t be doing anything.:with the drainage until June at the earliest. As you and I discussed our hands are tied.uzdl he starts his drainage project. I am staying in constant contact with Mr. Rossow and will complete the project as soon as we can- Any questions please feel free to contact. me at 512- 581 -8920. Thank you. Brad Beatty Rose -Rice Auto RECEWED MAR 2 5 2003 Attachment 6 RECEIVED November 26:20 2 DEC 0 2 2002 Mr. Tom Ekstrand City. of Maplewood Dear Tom: Thanks. for meeting - at - Rose -Knee - Auto Monday afternoon. As you observed several of the site revisions you requested-have not yet completed. But as you are also aware . of the reason they have not been completed loss to do with Comfort Bus Company running about 6 months behind schedule on their new building. Since we have to tie. into their draining system we can't really do a lot on the back .lot of the property. As for items Acft E, it doesn't Win to make economic sense to hire someone to come in and -do partial. eating up the -lot only to have them come back again when we do the drainage _ We will addresst1=e- issues- ss-soon- as-f%.' f1we" eir drainage preparation and we can tie in with them. Lee Rossow from Comfort says he will contact nee when they are ready to start that part of the project. I wilt aYs© stay in touch with him. Any question- please- _c to contactme. Thanks, Brad Beatty ate =lee Auto BB /ml 9 _ AGENDA ITEM - AGENDA REPORT Action by Council Date TO: Richard Fursman, City Manager Endorsed Modified FROM: Charles Ahl, Public Works Director /City Engineer Rejected Chris Cavett, Assistant City Engineer SUBJECT: Kennard /Frost Area Street Improvements, City Project 02 -10 — Resolution Ordering Assessment Hearing - DATE: April 7, 2003 Introduction At the 3/31/03 city council meeting, the city council approved the final plans and advertising for bids for this project, as well as ordered the preparation of the assessment roll. The assessment roll has been prepared and the next step in the improvement process is to order the assessment hearing. The city council shall consider ordering the assessment hearing for this project. Background The amounts proposed to be assessed are not directly dependent on the actual amount of the bid, rather on a predetermined assessment rate established in the city's pavement management policy. The method of assessment is the same as was outlined in'the feasibility study. A completed assessment roll is available in the office of the city engineer. It is recommended that the assessment hearing be scheduled for 7:00 p.m., Monday, May 12, 2003. Recommendation It is recommended that the city council approve the attached resolution for the Kennard /Frost Area Street Improvements, Project 02 -10 — Ordering the Assessment Hearing for 7:00 p.m., Monday, May 12, 2003. CIVIC jW Attachments: Resolution Ordering Assessment Roll Hearing Location Map RESOLUTION ORDERING ASSESSMENT ROLL HEARING WHEREAS, the clerk and the engineer have, at the direction of the council, prepared an assessment roll for the Kennard /Frost Area Street Improvements, City Project 02 -10, and the said assessment roll is on file in the office of,the city engineer. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA: 1. A hearing shall be held on the 2nd day of May 2003, at the city hall at 7:00 p.m. to pass upon such proposed assessment and at such time and place all persons owning property affected by such improvement will be given an opportunity to be heard with reference to such assessment. 2. The city clerk is hereby directed to cause a notice of the hearing on the proposed assessment to be published in the official newspaper, at least two weeks prior to the hearing, and to mail notices to the owners of all property affected by said assessment. 3. The notice of hearing shall state the date, time and place of hearing, the general nature of the improvement the area to be assessed, that the proposed assessment roll is on file with the clerk and that written or oral objections will be considered. Kennard 'F�- 1 /1 los, Ar�--o L' Vc p.1 ew o o d,, M' n n e Iz-s 0 2 0 0 o n st- Ali ti t o n AGENDA ITEM AGENDA REPORT Action by Council TO: FROM: SUBJECT: DATE: Introduction Richard Fursman, City Manager Date — Endorsed Charles Ahl, Public Works Director /City Engineer Modified Chris Cavett, Assistant City Engineer Rejected Maplewood Drive /Keller Parkway Roadway improvements, City Project 03- 02-- Resolution Ordering Assessment Hearing April 7, 2003 At the 3/31/03 city council meeting, the city council approved final plans and advertising for bids for this project, and ordered the preparation of the assessment roll. The assessment roll has been prepared and the next step in the improvement process is to order the assessment hearing. The city council shall consider ordering the assessment hearing for this project. Background The proposed amounts to be assessed are not directly dependent on the actual amount of the bid, rather on a predetermined assessment rate established in the city's pavement management policy. The method of .assessment is the same as was outlined in the feasibility study. A completed assessment roll is available in the office of the city engineer. It is recommended that the assessment hearing be scheduled for 7:15 p.m., Monday, May 12, 2003. Recommendation It is recommended that the city council approve the attached resolution for the Maplewood Drive /Keller Parkway Roadway Resurfacing, City Project 03 -02 — Ordering the Assessment Hearing for 7:15 p.m., Monday, May 12, 2003. CIVIC - jw Attachments: Resolution Ordering Assessment Roll Hearing Location Map RESOLUTION ORDERING ASSESSMENT ROLL HEARING WHEREAS, the clerk and the engineer have, at the direction of the council, prepared an assessment roll for the Maplewood Drive /Keller Parkway Roadway Resurfacing, City Project 03 -02, and the said assessment roll is on file in the office of the city engineer. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA: 1. A hearing shall be held on the 2nd day of May 2003, at the city hall at 7:15 p.m. to pass upon such proposed assessment and at such time and place all persons owning property affected by such improvement will be given an opportunity to be heard with reference to such assessment. 2. The city clerk is hereby directed to cause a notice of the hearing on the proposed assessment to be published in the official newspaper, at least two weeks prior to the hearing, and to mail notices to the owners of all property affected by said assessment. 3. The notice of hearing shall state the date, time and place of hearing, the general nature of the improvement the area to be assessed, that the proposed assessment roll is on file with the clerk and that written or oral objections will be considered. �\ O W Kohlman v v `\ Q p I i <e � KOHLMAN ( AVE. �. COUNTY ROAD C Cn LJ O 23 0 - tii<< Top = � o �- U, PALM C/) � C/O K Pa ' k an �� S CT _1 J � Trailer 'o J c� CT. P ABM o w Court �' acEy/ w 2 C 1R. NpR � 5 3 CT En CONNOR CON ��. 4 CO NOR L P AVE. w CT. a DEMON AVE.. [if 22 C/) �' a o g z � J U J O BROOKS L � o 4 w CT. Q 4 Q SEXTANT Q 112 AVE.- �F RVAIS AVE. k 00 p WY r� F 36 1 e k Keller w . 60 La k o e F. ry COPE CT COPE LARK 25 C) Co. RD. Z v W ° LEALAND F-- 11 rs Project location no scale Exhibit 1 p. \SDSK°ROJ \02 -10 \DWG \FEAS LOCATON,DWG 07/19/2002 03;31 ?M CDT Project Location Maplewood Drive C.P. 03 -02 r AGENDA KEF UK I t - EnU TO: City Manager. . Rejected FROM: Human Resource Director. RE: RHS Trust and Welfare Plan Revisions DATE: April 3, 2003 Last June the City Council approved the Integral Part Trust and Retiree Medical and Dental Expense Reimbursement Plan (Employee - Welfare Benefit Plan) - required to put our Retiree Health Savings Plan in place. The IRS issued a ruling .about that time which impacted our program. ICMA has provided guidance on how to revise our Integral Part Trust and Employee Welfare Benefit Plan to comply with the IRS ruling. These changes have been made -and the revised documents are attached. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the City Council adopt the revised Integral Part Trust document and Retiree Welfare Benefit Plan entitled "Retiree Medical and Dental Expense Reimbursement Plan." VANTAGECARE RETIREE HEALTH SAVINGS PLAN ARTICLE I PREAMBLE THIS INSTRUMENT made and published by the City of Maplewood called "Employer ") on the 24th day of June, 2002, creates the City of Maplewood Retiree Medical and Dental Expense Reimbursement Plan, as follows: 1.01 Establishment of Plan The Employer named above hereby establishes a Retiree Medical and Dental Expense Reimbursement Plan as of the 1 st day of July, 2002. 1.02 Purpose of Plan This Plan has been established to reimburse the eligible Retirees of the Employer for medical and dental expenses incurred by them, their Spouses and Dependents, pursuant to the Employer's VantageCare Retiree Health Savings (RHS) Plan. ARTICLE II DEFINITIONS - The following words and phrases as used herein shall. have the following meanings, unless a different meaning is plainly required by the context: 2.01 "Benefits" means any amounts paid to a Participant in the Plan as reimbursement for Eligible Medical and Dental Expenses incurred by the Participants, their spouses or their dependents during a P1an 2.02 "Code" means the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended. 2.03 "Dependent" means any individual who is a dependent of the Participant within the meaning of Code Sec. 152. 2.04 "Eligible Medical or Dental Expenses" means those expenses designated by the Employer. as eligible for reimbursement in the VantageCare Retiree Health Savings Plan Adoption Agreement. 2.05 "Employer" means the unit of state or local government creating this Plan, or any affiliate or successor thereof that likewise adopts this Plan. 2.06 "Entry Date" means the first day the Participant meets the eligibility requirements of Article III as of such Date. 2.07 "Participant" means any, former employee who has met the eligibility requirements set forth in Article III. VANTAGECARE RETIREE HEALTH SAVINGS PLAN 2.08 "PIan Administrator" means the Employer or other person appointed by the Employer who has the authority and responsibility to manage and direct the operation and administration of the Plan. 2.09 "Plan Year" means the annual accounting period of the Plan, which begins on the 1 st day of July, 2002, and ends on the 31" day of December, 2002, with respect to the first Plan Year; and thereafter as long as this Plan remains in effect, the period that begins on January 1, and ends on December 31. 2.10 "Retiree" means any individual who, while in the service of the Employer,. was considered to be in a legal employer- employee relationship with the Employer for federal withholding tax purposes, and who was part of the classification of employees designated as covered by the Employer's VantageCare Retiree Health Savings Plan. 2.11 "Spouse" means the Participant's lawful spouse as determined under the laws of the state in which Participants have their primary place of residence. All other defined terms in this Plan shall have the meanings specified in the various Articles of the Plan in which they appear. ARTICLE III ELIGIBILITY 3.01 General Requirements Each Retiree who meets the eligibility requirements outlined in the Employer's VantageCare Retiree Health Savings Plan shall be eligible to participate in this Plan. ARTICLE IV AMOUNT OF BENEFITS 4.01 Annual Benefits Provided by the Plan Each Participant shall be entitled to reimbursement for documented, Eligible Medical or Dental Expenses incurred during the Plan Year in an annual amount not to exceed the account balance of the Participant in the Employer's VantageCare Retiree Health Savings Plan. 4.02 Cost of Coverage The expense of providing the benefits set out in Section .4.01 shall be contributed as outlined in the Employer's VantageCare Retiree Health Savings Plan. VANTAGECARE RETIREE HEALTH SAVINGS PLAN ARTICLE V PAYMENT OF BENEFITS 5.01 Eligibility for Benefits A. Each Participant in the Plan shall be entitled to a benefit hereunder for all Eligible Medical and Dental Expenses incurred by the Participant on or after the Entry Date of his or her participation, (and after the effective date of the Plan) .subject to the limitations contained in Article V, regardless whether the mental or physical condition for which the Participant makes application for benefits under this Plan was detected, diagnosed, or treated before the Participant become covered by the Plan. B. In. order_ to be eligible for benefits, the Participant must meet the benefit eligibility criteria outlined in the Employer's VantageCare Retiree Health Savings Plan Adoption. Agreement. C. A Participant who dies or becomes totally and permanently disabled (as defined by the Social Security Administration) will become immediately eligible to receive medical benefit payments from the Plan. Pursuant to Section 9.02 and Employer's VantageCare Retirement Health Savings Plan Adoption Agreement, the surviving Spouse and -Dependents, or Beneficiary(ies) shall become immediately eligible to receive or to continue receiving medical benefit payments from the Plan upon the death of the Participant. 5.02 Claims for Benefits No benefit shall be paid hereunder unless a Participant, or their Spouse, Dependent, or Beneficiary has first submitted a written claim for benefits to the Plan Administrator on a form specified by the Plan Administrator, and pursuant to the procedures set out in Article VI, below. Upon receipt of a properly documented claim, the Plan Administrator shall pay the Participant, Spouse, Dependent, or Beneficiary the benefits provided under this Plan as soon as is administratively feasible. ARTICLE VI PLAN ADMINISTRATION 6.01 Allocation of Authority The Employer shall control and manage the operation and administration of the Plan. The Employer shall have the exclusive right to interpret the Plan and to decide all matters arising thereunder, including the right to remedy possible ambiguities, inconsistencies, or omissions. All determinations of the Employer with respect to any matter hereunder shall be conclusive and binding on all persons. VANTAGECARE RETIREE HEALTH SAVINGS PLAN Without limiting the generality of the foregoing, the Employer shall have the following powers and duties: (a) To decide on questions concerning the Plan and the eligibility of any Employee to participate in the Plan, in accordance with the provisions of the Plan; (b) To determine the amount of benefits that shall be payable to any person in accordance. with the provisions of the Plan; to inform the Plan Administrator, as appropriate, of the amount of such Benefits; and to provide a full and fair review to any Participant whose claim for benefits has been denied in whole or in part; and (c) To designate other persons to carry out any duty or power which would otherwise be a fiduciary, responsibility of the Plan Administrator, under the terms of the Plan. (d) To require any person to furnish such reasonable information as it may request for the purpose of the proper administration of the Plan as a condition to receiving any benefits under the Plan; (e) To make and enforce such rules and regulations and prescribe the use of such forms as they shall deem necessary for the efficient administration of the Plan. 6.02 Provision for Third -Party Plan Service Providers The Plan Administrator, subject to approval of the Employer, may employ the services of such persons as it may deem necessary or desirable in connection with, the operation of the Plan. The Plan Administrator, the Employer (and any person to whore it may delegate any duty or power in connection with the administration of the Plan), and all persons connected therewith may rely upon all tables, valuations, certificates, reports and opinions furnished by any duly appointed actuary, accountant, (including Employees who are actuaries or accountants), consultant, third party administration. service provider, legal counsel, or other specialist, and they shall be fully protected in respect to any action taken, not taken, or permitted in good faith in reliance thereon. All actions so taken or permitted shall be conclusive and binding as to all persons. 6.03. Several Fiduciary Liability To the extent permitted by law, neither the Plan Administrator nor any other person shall incur any liability for any, acts or for failure to act except for this own willful misconduct or willful breach of this Plan. 6.04 Compensation of Plan Administrator Unless otherwise agreed to by the Employer, the Plan Administrator shall serve without compensation for services rendered in such capacity, but all reasonable expenses incurred in the performance of these duties shall be paid by the Employer. VANTAGECARE RETIREE HEALTH SAVINGS. PLAN 6.05 . Bonding Unless otherwise determined by the Employer, or unless required by any Federal or State law, the Plan Administrator shall not be required to give any bond or other security in any jurisdiction in connection with the administration of this Plan. 6.06 Payment of Administrative Expenses All reasonable expenses incurred in administering the Plan, including but not limited to administrative fees and expenses owing to any third party administrative service provider, actuary, consultant, accountant, attorney, specialist, or other person or organization that may be employed by the Plan Administrator in connection with the administration thereof, shall be. paid by the Employer, provided, however that Participants shall bear the monthly cost (if any) charged by a third party administrator for maintenance of their Benefit Accounts. 6.07 . Timeliness of Payments Payments shall be made as soon as administratively feasible after the required forms and documentation have been received by the Plan Administrator. 6.08 Annual Statements The Plan Administrator shall furnish each Participant with an annual statement of his medical and dental expense reimbursement account within ninety (90) days after the close of each Plan Year. ARTICLE VII CLAIMS PROCEDURE 7.01 Procedure if Benefits are Denied Under the Plan Any Participant, Spouse, Dependent, or Beneficiary, or their duly authorized representative may file a claim for a plan benefit to which the claimant believes that he or she is entitled. Such a claim must be in writing on a form provided by the Plan Administrator and delivered to the Plan Administrator, in person or by mail, postage paid Within thirty (30) days after receipt of such claim, the Plan Administrator shall send to the claimant, by mail, postage prepaid, notice of the granting or denying, in whole or in part, of such claim, unless special circumstances require an extension of time for processing the claim. In no event may the extension exceed ninety (90) days from the end of the initial period. If such extension is necessary, the claimant will be given a written notice to this effect prior to the expiration of the initial 30 -day period. The Plan Administrator shall have full discretion to deny'or grant a claim in whole or in part. If notice of the denial of a claim is not furnished in accordance with this Section, the claim shall be deemed denied and the claimant shall be permitted to exercise his right to review pursuant to Sections 7.03 and 7.04.. VANTAGECARE RETIREE HEALTH SAVINGS PLAN 7.02 Requirement for. Written Notice of Claim Denial The Plan Administrator shall provide, to every claimant who is denied a claim for benefits, written notice setting forth in a manner calculated. to be understood by the claimant: (a) The specific reason or reasons for the denial; (b) Specific reference to pertinent Plan provisions on which the denial is based; (c) A description of any additional material or information necessary for the claimant to perfect the claim and an explanation of why such material is necessary, and (d) An. explanation of the Plan's claim review procedure. 7.03 Right to Request Hearing on Benefit Denial _ Within sixty (60) days after the receipt by a claimant of written notification of the denial (in whole or in part) of the claim, a claimant or their duly authorized representative, upon written application to the Plan Administrator, in person or by certified mail, postage prepaid, may . request a review of such denial, may review pertinent documents, and may submit issues and comments in writing. 7.04 Disposition of Disputed Claims Upon its receipt of notice of a request for review, the Plan Administrator shall make a prompt decision on the review. The decision on review shall be written in a manner calculated to be understood by the claimant and shall include specific reasons for the decision and specific references to the pertinent plan provisions on which the decision is based. The decision on review shall be made not later than sixty (60) days after the Plan Administrator's receipt of a request for a review, unless special circumstances require an extension of time for processing, in which case a decision shall be rendered not later than one hundred- twenty (120) days after receipt of a request for review. If an. extension is necessary; the'claimant shall be given written notice of the extension prior to the expiration of the initial sixty (60) day period. If notice of the decision on the review is not furnished in accordance with this Section, the claim shall be deemed denied and the claimant shall be permitted to exercise his right to legal remedy pursuant to Section 7.05. 7.05 Preservation of Other Remedies After exhaustion of the claims procedures provided under this Plan, nothing shall prevent any person from pursuing any other legal or equitable remedy otherwise available. VANTAGECARE RETIREE HEALTH SAVINGS PLAN ARTICLE VIII AMENDMENT OR TERMINATION OF PLAN 8.01 Permanency While the Employer fully expects that this Plan will continue indefinitely, due to unforeseen, future business contingencies, permanency of the Plan will be subject to the Employer's right to amend or terminate the Plan,. as provided in Sections 8.02 and 8.03, below. 8.02 Employer's Right to Amend The Employer reserves the right to amend the Plan at any time and from time -to -time, and retroactively if deemed necessary or appropriate to meet the requirements of the Code, or any similar provisions of subsequent revenue or other laws, or the rules and regulations in effect under any of such laws or to conform with governmental regulations or other policies, to modify or amend in whole or in part any or all of the provisions of the Plan or as deemed appropriate by the Employer, subject to requirements. to negotiate with designated union representatives. 8.03 Employer's Right to Terminate The Employer reserves the right to discontinue or terminate the Plan at any time without prejudice. ARTICLE IX GENERAL PROVISIONS 9.01 No Employment Rights Conferred Neither this Plan nor any action taken with respect to it shall confer upon any person the right to be. continued . in the employment of the Employer. 9.02 Payments to Beneficiary Any benefits otherwise payable to a Participant following the date of death of such Participant shall be paid as outlined in the Employer's VantageCare Retiree Health Savings Plan Adoption Agreement. 9.03 Nonalienation of Benefits No benefit under the Plan shall be subject in any manner to anticipation, alienation, sale, transfer, assignment, pledge, encumbrance or charge, and any attempt to do so shall be void. No benefit under the Plan shall in any manner be liable for or subject to the debts, contracts, liabilities, engagements or torts of any person. If any person entitled to benefits under the Plan becomes bankrupt or attempts to anticipate, alienate, sell, transfer, assign, pledge, encumber or VANTAGECARE RETIREE HEALTH SAVINGS PLAN charge any benefit under the Plan, or if any attempt is made to subject any such benefit to the debts, contracts, liabilities, engagements or torts of the person entitled to any such benefit, except as specifically provided in the Plan, then such benefit shall cease and terminate in the discretion of the Plan Administrator, and it may hold or apply the same or any part thereof to the benefit of any dependent or beneficiary of such person, in such manner and proportion as the Plan Administrator may deem proper. 9.04 Mental or Physical Incompetency If the Plan Administrator determines that any person entitled to payments under the Plan is incompetent by reason of physical or mental disability, the Plan Administrator may cause all payments thereafter becoming due to such person to be made to any other person on the Participant's behalf, without responsibility to follow the application of amounts so paid. Payments made pursuant to this Section shall completely discharge the Plan Administrator and the Employer. 9.05 Inability to Locate Payee If the Plan Administrator is unable to make payment to any Participant or other person to whom a payment is due under the Plan because the Plan Administrator cannot ascertain the identity or whereabouts of such Participant or other person after reasonable efforts have been made . to identify or locate such person (including a notice of the payment so due mailed to the last known address of such Participant or other person as shown on the records of the Employer), such payment and all subsequent payments otherwise due to such Participant or other person shall be escheated under the laws of the State of the last known address of the Participant or other persons eligible for benefits. 9.06 Requirement of Proper Forms All communication in connection with the Plan made by a Participant shall become effective only when duly executed on forms provided by and filed with the Plan Administrator. 9.07 Source of Payments The Employer shall be the sole source of benefits under the Plan. No Employee or beneficiary shall have any right to, or interest in, any assets of the Employer upon termination of employment or otherwise, except as provided from time to time under the Plan, and then only to the extent of the benefits payable under the Plan to such Employee or beneficiary. 9.08 Tax Effects Neither the Employer nor the Plan Administrator makes any warranty or other representation as to whether any payments received by a Participant, Spouse, Dependent, or Beneficiary hereunder will be treated as includible in gross income for federal or state income tax purposes. VANTAGECARE RETIREE HEALTH SAVINGS PLAN 9.09 Multiple Functions Any person or group of persons may serve in more than one fiduciary capacity with respect to the Plan. 9.10 Headings The Article and Section headings contained herein are for convenience of reference only, and Shall not be construed as defining or limiting the matter contained thereunder. 9.11 Applicable Laws The provisions of the Plan shall be construed, administered and enforced according to the laws of the State of Minnesota. 9.12 Severability Should any part of this plan subsequently be invalidated by a court of competent jurisdiction, the remainder thereof shall be given effect to the maximum extent possible. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, we have executed this.revised Plan Agreement retroactive to June 24, 2002. (Employer) By: ATTEST VANTAGECARE RETIREE HEALTH SAVINGS PLAN DECLARATION OF TRUST OF THE City of Maplewood INTEGRAL PART TRUST Declaration of Trust made as of the 24th day of June, 2002, by the City of Maplewood, Minnesota a municipal corporation, serving as Trustee (hereinafter referred to as the "Employer "). RECITALS: WHEREAS, the Employer is a political subdivision of.the State of Minnesota exempt from federal income tax under the Internal Revenue Code of 1986; and WHEREAS, the Employer provides for the security and welfare of its eligible employees (hereinafter referred to as "Participants "), their Spouses, Dependents and Beneficiaries by the maintenance of one or more post- retirement welfare benefit plans, programs or arrangements which provide for life, sickness, medical, disability, severance and other similar benefits through insurance and self - funded reimbursement plans (collectively the "Plan "); and WHEREAS, it is an essential function and integral part of the exempt activities of the Employer to assist Participants, their Spouses, Dependents and Beneficiaries by making contributions to and accumulating assets in the trust, a segregated fund, for post- retirement welfare benefits under the plan; and WHEREAS, the authority to conduct the general operation and administration of the Plan is vested in the Employer or its designee, who has the authority and shall be subject to the duties with respect to the trust specified in the Declaration of Trust; and WHEREAS, the Employer wishes to establish this trust to hold assets and income of the Plan for the exclusive benefit of Plan Participants,. their Spouses, Dependents and Beneficiaries; and NOW, THEREFORE, the parties hereto do hereby establish this trust, to be known as the Declaration of Trust of the City of Maplewood Integral Part Trust (hereinafter referred to as the "Trust "), and agree that the following constitute the Declaration of Trust (hereinafter referred to as the . "Declaration "): ARTICLE I DEFINITIONS 1.1 Definitions. For the purposes of this Declaration, the ,following terms shall have the respective meanings set forth below unless otherwise expressly provided. (a) "Account" means the individual recordkeeping account maintained under the Plan to record the interest of a Participant in the Plan in accordance with section 7.3. VANTAGECARE RETIREE HEALTH SAVINGS PLAN (b) "Account Transfer" means a transfer of the Participant's Account upon his or her death to be used for the payment of benefits for the Participant's Spouse and Dependents. . (c) "Administrator" means the Employer. The Employer may contract for such administrative services as are necessary to implement the Plan. . (d) "Beneficiary" means the person or persons designated by the Participant pursuant to the terms of the Plan, or, if the Plan provides otherwise, the Spouse and Dependents, who will receive any benefits payable hereunder in the event of the Participant's death. (e) "Code" means the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended from time .to time. (f) "Covered Employment Classification" means the group or groups of Participants eligible to have contributions to this Plan made on their behalf, as specified by the Employer. (g) "Dependent" means an individual who is a person described in Code Section 152(a). (h) "Investment Fund" means any separate investment option or vehicle selected by the Employer in which all or a portion of the Trust assets may be separately invested as herein provided. The Trustee shall not be required to select any Investment Fund. (i) "Nonforfeitable Interest" means the interest of the Participant or the Participant's Spouse, Dependent or Beneficiary (whichever is applicable) in the percentage of Participant's Employer's contribution which has vested pursuant to the vesting schedule specified in the Employer's Plan. (j) "Spouse" means the Participant's lawful spouse as determined under the laws of the state in which the Participant has his primary place of residence. (k) "Trust" means the trust established by this Declaration. (1) "Trustee" means the person or persons appointed by the Employer to serve in that capacity. ARTICLE Ii ESTABLISHMENT OF TRUST 2.1 The Trust is hereby established as of the date set forth above for the exclusive benefit of Participants, their Spouses, Dependents and Beneficiaries. VANTAGECARE RETIREE HEALTH SAVINGS PLAN ARTICLE III CONSTRUCTION 3.1 This Trust and its validity, construction and effect shall be governed by the laws of the State of Minnesota. 3.2 Pronouns and other similar words used herein in the masculine gender shall be read as the feminine.gender where appropriate, and the singular form of words shall be read as the plural where appropriate. . 3.3 If any provision of this Trust shall be held illegal or invalid for any reason, such determination shall not affect the remaining provisions, and such provisions shall be construed to effectuate the purpose,of this Trust. ARTICLE IV BENEFITS 4.1 Benefits. This Trust may provide benefits to the Participant, the Participant's Spouse, Dependents, and Beneficiaries pursuant to the terms of the Plan. 4.2 Form of Benefits. This Trust may provide benefits by cash payment. This Trust may reimburse the Participant, his Spouse or Dependents for insurance premiums or, other payments expended for permissible benefits described under the Plan. This trust may reimburse the Employer, or the Administrator for insurance premiums. ARTICLE V GENERAL DUTIES 5:1 It shall be the duty of the Trustee to hold title to assets held in respect of the Plan in the Trustee's name as directed by the Employer or -its designees in writing. The Trustee shall not be under any duty to compute the amount of contributions to be paid by the Employer or to take any steps to. collect such amounts as maybe due to be held intrust under the Plan. The Trustee shall not be responsible for the custody, investment, safekeeping or disposition of any assets comprising the Trust, to the extent such functions are performed by the Employer or the Administrator, or both. 5.2 It shall be the duty of the Employer, subject to the provisions of the Plan, to pay over to the Administrator, or other person or entity designated hereunder from time to time, the Employer's contributions under the Plan and to inform the Administrator in writing as to the identity and value of the assets titled in the Trustee's name hereunder and to keep accurate books and records with respect to participants of the Plan. VANTAGECARE RETIREE HEALTH SAVINGS PLAN ARTICLE VI INVESTMENTS 6.1 The Employer may appoint one or more investment managers to manage and control all or part of the assets of the Trust. 6.2 The Trustee shall not have any discretion or authority with regard to the investment of the Trust and shall act solely as a directed Trustee of the assets of which it holds title. To the extent directed by the Employer (or Participants, their Spouse and Dependents, or Beneficiaries to the extent provided herein) the Trustee is authorized and empowered with the following powers, rights and duties, each of which the Trustee shall exercise in a nondiscretionary manner: (a) To cause stocks, bonds, securities, or other investments to be registered in its name as Trustee or in the name of a nominee, or to take and keep the same unregistered; (b) To employ such agents and legal counsel as it deems advisable or proper in connection with its duties and to pay such agents and legal counsel a reasonable fee. The Trustee shall not be liable for the acts of such agents and counsel or for the acts done in good faith and in reliance upon the advice of such agents and legal counsel, provided it has used reasonable care in selecting such agents and legal counsel; (c) To exercise where applicable and appropriate any rights of ownership in any contracts of insurance in which any part of the Trust may be invested and to pay the premiums thereon; and (d). At the direction of the Employer (or Participants,. their Spouses, their Dependents, their Beneficiaries, or the investment manager, as the case may be) to sell, write options on, convey or transfer, invest and reinvest any part thereof in each and every kind of property, whether real, personal or mixed, tangible or intangible, whether income or non- income producing and wherever situated, including but not limited to, time deposits (including time deposits in the Trustee or its affiliates, or any successor thereto, if the deposits bear a reasonable rate of interest), shares of common and preferred stock, mortgages, bonds, leases, notes, debentures, equipment or collateral trust certificates, rights, warrants, convertible or exchangeable securities and other corporate, individual or government securities or obligations, annuity, retirement or other insurance contracts, mutual funds (including funds for which the Trustee or its affiliates serve as investment advisor, custodian or in a similar or related capacity), or in units of any other common, collective or commingled trust fund. 6.3 Notwithstanding anything to the contrary herein, the assets of the Plan shall be held by the Trustee as titleholder only. Persons holding custody or possession of assets titled to the Trust shall include the Employer, the Administrator, the investment manager, and any agents and subagents, but not the Trustee (except in cases in which the Employer is the Trustee). The Trustee shall not be responsible or liable for any loss or expense which may arise from or result .from compliance with any direction from the Employer, the Administrator, the investment manager or such agents to take title to any assets nor shall the Trustee be responsible or liable VANTAGECARE RETIREE HEALTH .SAVINGS PLAN for any loss or expense which may result from the Trustee's refusal or failure to comply with any direction to hold title, except if the same shall involve or result from the Trustee's negligence or intentional misconduct. The Trustee may refuse to comply with any direction from the Employer, the Administrator, the investment manager, or such agents in the event that the Trustee, in its sole and absolute discretion, deems such direction illegal. 6.4 The Employer hereby indemnifies and holds the Trustee harmless from any and all actions, claims, demands, liabilities, losses, - damages or reasonable expenses of whatsoever kind and nature in connection with or arising out of (i) any action taken or omitted in good faith by the Trustee in accordance with the directions of the Employer or it agents and subagents hereunder, or (ii) any disbursements of any part of the Trust made by the Trustee in accordance with the directions of the Employer, or (iii) any action taken by or omitted in good faith by the Trustee with respect to an investment managed by an investment manager in accordance with any direction of the investment manager or any inaction with respect to any such investment in the absence of directions. from the investment manager. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary herein, the Employer shall have no responsibility to the Trustee under the foregoing indemnification if the Trustee fails negligently, intentionally or recklessly to perform any of the duties undertaken by it under the provisions of this Trust. 6.5 Notwithstanding anything to the contrary herein, the Employer or, if so designated by the Employer, the Administrator and the investment manager or another agent of the Employer, will be responsible for valuing all assets so acquired for all purposes of the Trust and of holding, investing, trading and disposing of the same.. The Employer will indemnify and hold the Trustee harmless against any and all claims, actions., demands, liabilities, losses, damages, or expenses of whatsoever kind and nature, which arise from or are related to any use of such valuation by the Trustee or holding, trading, or disposition of such assets. 6.6 The Trustee shall and hereby does indemnify and hold harmless the Employer from any and all actions, claims, demands liabilities, losses, damages and reasonable expenses of whatsoever kind and nature in connection with or arising out of (a) the Trustee's failure to follow the directions of the Employer, the Administrator, the investment manager, or agents thereof, except as permitted by the last sentence of Section 6.3 above; (b) any disbursements made without the direction of the Employer, the. Administrator, the investment manager or agents thereof; and (c) the Trustee's negligence, willful misconduct, or recklessness with respect to the Trustee's duties under this Declaration. ARTICLE VII CONTRIBUTIONS 7.1 Employer Contributions. The Employer shall contribute to the Trust such amounts as specified in the Plan or by resolution. VANTAGECARE RETIREE HEALTH SAVINGS PLAN 7.2 Accrued Leave and Personal Holiday. Contributions up to an amount equal to the value of accrued sick leave, vacation leave, annual leave and /or personal holidays are permitted under the Plan. The Employer'.s Plan must provide a formula for determining the value of the Participant's contribution of accrued leave. The Employer's Plan must contain a forfeiture provision that will prevent Participants from receiving the accrued leave in cash in lieu of a contribution to the Trust. 7.3 Accounts.. Employer contributions and contributions of accrued sick leave or vacation leave, or both, all investment income and realized and unrealized gains and losses, and forfeitures allocable thereto will be. deposited. into. an Account in the name of the Participant for the exclusive benefit of the Participant, his Spouse, Dependents and Beneficiaries. The assets in each Participant's Account maybe invested in Investment Funds as directed by the Participant from among the Investment Funds selected by the Employer. 7.4 Receipt of Contributions. The Employer or, if so designated by the Employer, the Administrator. or investment manager or another agent of the Employer, shall receive all contributions paid or delivered to it hereunder and shall hold, invest, reinvest and administer such contributions pursuant to this Declaration, without distinction between principal and income.. The Trustee shall not be responsible for the calculation or collection of any contribution under the Plan, but shall hold title to property received in respect of the Plan in the Trustee's name as directed by the Employer or its designee pursuant to this Declaration. 7.5 No amount in any Account maintained under this Trust shall be subject to transfer, assignment, or alienation, whether voluntary or involuntary, -in favor of any creditor, transferee, or assignee of the Employer, the Trustee, any Participant,. his Spouse, Dependent, or Beneficiaries. 7.6 Upon the satisfaction of all liabilities under the Plan to provide such benefits, any amount of Employer contributions, plus accrued earnings thereon, remaining in such separate Accounts must, under the terms of the Plan, be returned to the Employer. ARTICLE VIII OTHER PLANS 8.1 If the Employer hereafter adopts one or more other plans providing life, sickness, accident, medical, disability, severance, or other benefits and designates the Trust hereby created as part of such other plan, the Employer or, if so designated by the Employer, the Administrator or an investment manager or another agent of the Employer shall, subject to the terms of this Declaration, accept and hold hereunder contributions to such other plans. In that event (a). the Employer or, if so designated by the Employer, the Administrator or an investment manager or another agent of the Employer, may commingle for investment purposes the contributions received under such other plan or plans with the contributions previously received by the Trust, but the books and records of the Employer or, if so designated by the Employer, the Administrator or an investment manager or another agent of the Employer, shall at all times show the portion of the Trust Fund allocable to each plan; (b) the term "Plan" as used herein shall be deemed to refer separately to each other plan; and (c) the term "Employer" as used VANTAGECARE RETIREE HEALTH SAVINGS PLAN herein shall be deemed to refer to the person or group of persons which have been designated by the terms of such other plans as having the authority to control and manage the operation and administration of such other plan. ARTICLE IX DISBURSEMENTS AND EXPENSES 9.1 The Employer or its designee shall make such payments from the Trust at such time to such persons and in such amounts. as shall be authorized by the provisions of the Plan provided, however, that no payment shall be made, either during the existence of or upon the discontinuance of the Plan (subject to Section 7.6), which would cause any part of the Trust to .be used for or diverted to purposes other than the exclusive benefit of the Participants, their Spouses, Dependents and Beneficiaries pursuant to the provisions of the Plan. 9.2 All payments of benefits under the Plan shall be made exclusively from the assets of the Accounts of the Participants to whom or to whose Spouse, Dependents, or Beneficiaries such payments are to be made, and no person shall be entitled to look to any other source for such payments. 9.3 The Employer, Trustee and Administrator may be reimbursed for expenses reasonably incurred by them in the administration of the Trust. All such expenses, including, without limitation, reasonable ,fees of accountants and. legal counsel :to. the extent not otherwise reimbursed, shall constitute a charge against and shall be paid from the Trust upon the direction of the Employer. ARTICLE X ACCOUNTING 10.1 The Trustee shall not be required to keep accounts of the investments, receipts, disbursements, and other transactions of the Trust, except as necessary to perform its title - holding function hereunder. All accounts, books, and records relating thereto shall be maintained by the Employer or its designee. 10.2 As promptly as possible following the close of each year, the Trustee shall file with the Employer a written account setting forth assets titled to the Trust as reported to the Trustee by the Employer or its designee. ARTICLE XI MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS 11.1 Neither the Trustee nor any affiliate thereof shall be required to give any bond or to qualify before, be appointed by, or account to. any court of law in the exercise of its powers hereunder., VANTAGECARE RETIREE HEALTH SAVINGS PLAN herein shall be deemed to refer to the person or group of persons which have been designated by the terms of such other plans as having the authority to control and manage the operation and administration of such other plan. ARTICLE IX DISBURSEMENTS AND EXPENSES 9.1 The Employer or its designee shall make such payments from the Trust at such time to such persons and in such amounts as shall be authorized by the provisions of the Plan provided, however, that no payment shall be made, either during the existence of or upon the discontinuance of the Plan (subject to Section 7.6), which would cause any part of the Trust to be used for or diverted to purposes other than the exclusive benefit of the Participants, their Spouses, Dependents and Beneficiaries pursuant to the provisions of the Plan. 9.2 All payments of benefits under the Plan shall be made exclusively from the assets of the Accounts of the Participants to whom or to whose Spouse, Dependents, or Beneficiaries such payments are to be made, and no person shall be entitled to look to any other source for such payments. 9.3 The Employer, Trustee and Administrator may be reimbursed for expenses reasonably incurred by them in the administration of the Trust. All such expenses, including, without limitation, reasonable ,fees of accountants and legal counsel to. the extent not otherwise reimbursed, shall constitute a charge against and shall be paid from the Trust upon the direction of the Employer. ARTICLE X ACCOUNTING 10.1 The Trustee shall not be. required to keep accounts of the investments, receipts, disbursements, and other transactions of the Trust, except as necessary to perform its title - holding function hereunder. All accounts, books, and records relating thereto shall be maintained by the Employer or its designee. 10.2 As promptly as possible following the close of each year, the Trustee shall file with the Employer a written account setting forth assets titled to the Trust as reported to the Trustee by _ the Employer or its designee. ARTICLE XI MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS 11.1 Neither the Trustee nor any affiliate thereof shall be required to give any bond or to qualify before, be appointed by, or account to� any court of law in the exercise of its powers hereunder., VANTAGECARE RETIREE HEALTH SAVINGS PLAN 11.2 No person transferring title or receiving a transfer of title from the Trustee shall be obligated to look to the propriety of the acts of the Trustee in connection therewith. 11.3 The Employer may engage the Trustee as its agent in the performance of any duties required of the Employer under the Plan, but such agency shall not be deemed to. increase the responsibility or liability of the Trustee under this Declaration. 11.4 The Employer shall have the right at all reasonable times during the term of this Declaration and for three (3) years after the termination of this Declaration to examine, audit, inspect, review, extract information from, and copy all books, records, accounts, and other documents of the Trustee relating to this Declaration and the Trustees' performance hereunder. ARTICLE XII AMENDMENT AND TERMINATION 12.1 The Employer reserves the right to alter, amend, or (subject to Section 9.1) terminate this Declaration at any time for any reason without the consent of the Trustee or any other person, provided that no amendment affecting the rights, duties, or responsibilities of the Trustee shall be adopted without the exception of the Trustee to the amendment. Any such amendment shall become effective as of the date provided in the amendment, if requiring the Trustee's execution, or on delivery of the amendment to the Trustee, if the Trustee's execution is not required. 12.2 Upon termination of this Declaration and upon the satisfaction of all liabilities under the Plan to provide such benefits, any amount of Employer contributions, plus accrued earnings thereon, remaining in such separate Accounts must, under the terms of the Plan, be returned to the Employer. ARTICLE XIII SUCCESSOR TRUSTEES 13.1 The Employer reserves the right to discharge the Trustee for any or no reason, at any time by giving ninety (90) days' advance written notice. 13.2 The Trustee reserves the right to resign at any time by giving ninety (90) days' advance written notice to the Employer: 13.3 In the event of discharge or resignation of the Trustee, the Employer may appoint a successor Trustee who shall succeed to all rights, duties, and responsibilities of the former Trustee under this Declaration, and the terminated Trustee shall be deemed discharged of all duties under this Declaration and responsibilities for the Trust. VANTAGECARE RETIREE HEALTH SAVINGS PLAN ARTICLE XIV LIMITED EFFECT OF PLAN AND TRUST 14.1 Neither the establishment of the Plan and the Trust or any modification thereof, the creation of any fund or account, nor the payment of any benefits, shall be construed as giving to any person covered under the Plan or other person any legal or equitable right against the Trustee, the Administrator, the Employer or any officer or employee thereof, except as may otherwise be.- expressly provided in the Plan or in this Declaration. ARTICLE XV PROTECTIVE CLAUSE 15.1 Neither the Administrator, the Employer, nor the Trustee shall be responsible for the validity of any contract of insurance or other arrangement maintained in connection with the Plan, or for the failure on the part the insurer.or provider to make payments provided by such contract, or for the action of any person which may delay payment or render . a contract void .or unenforceable in whole or part. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the City of Maplewood as the Employer and Trustee have executed this amended Declaration by their respective duly authorized officers, retroactive to June 24, 2002. CITY OF MAPLEWOOD AS EMPLOYER AND TRUSTEE: LOWN Mayor M City Manager City Clerk Agenda Item # (�� MEMORANDUM TO: Richard Fursman, City Manager FROM: Karen Guilfoile, City Clerk RE: Temporary Gambling Resolution DATE: April 8, 2003 Action by Council Date Endorsed Modified Rejected ' Karen Snedeker, representing NIRI (National Investor Relations Institute), has applied for a temporary gambling license to be used on May 14, 2003 from 12:00 noon to 9:00 p.m. to conduct a raffle. The raffle will be conducted at the Keller Golf Course by the local Chapter of NIRI, represented by Ms. Snedeker, 3014 Edgewater Drive, Woodbury Proceeds from the raffle will be used for programs for educational purposes for area businesses. In order for the State of Minnesota to issue a temporary license, approval of the following resolution from the City is required: RESOLUTION BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED, by the City Council of Maplewood, Minnesota, that the temporary permit for lawful gambling is approved for the National Investor Relations Institute (NIRI), 8020 Towers Crescent Drive, Vienna, Virginia. 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. Agenda Item # L7 7 MEMORANDUM TO: Richard Fursman, City Manager FROM: Karen Guilfoile, City Clerk i RE: Temporary Gambling Resolution DATE: April 10, 2003 Catherine Boehm, representing Carver Elementary PTO, has applied for a temporary gambling license to be used on April 12, 2003 from 10:00 noon to 2:00 p.m. to conduct a raffle. The raffle will be conducted at the school located at 2680 Upper Afton Road. Proceeds from the raffle will be used for programs for educational purposes. In order for the State of Minnesota to issue a temporary license, approval of the following resolution from the City is required: RESOLUTION BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED, by the City Council of Maplewood, Minnesota, that the temporary permit for lawful gambling is approved for Carver Elementary PTO, 2680 Upper Afton Road. 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. Fy' Together We Can City of Maplewood —1830 East County Road B — Maplewood, MN 55109 TEMPORARY GAMBLING - 2003 Permit Fee _ $550.00 Receipt Number. Permit Number 63 _ 7'G ` oa 3 State License Number Applicant Name* a �h e 6 y) - e, r m Phone .Number. G 0 '731 - Applicant Address 6 - /J o6w `)w . �5 9 * Applicant must serve as the gambling manager. Organization Name A,e E)-P-~ ry P Tb Phone Number Organization Address 7 d MW f-ew6yd /YJx) 5 No. of Active Members Va r i� -- a, How Long Has Organization Been in Existence? -' a.r ��J P s Where Are Meetings Held? Purpose of Organization r a r" l r» 1c 514 X ao Does organization currently hold a valid lawful gambling license with any other city? Yes No y� If "Yes ", list city and license number Event Location U l UQr 1 erg dYl� I19 Phone Number ( Co 51 ) 7 0,i - y P 0 U Date(s) .'1 10 Time: From Id: 00 To ) O Date(s) Time:. From To Comments: a q- eeml . amine 2 , 0� 6Z&E1. 7�& The event specified in this permit on the above described property is subject to all rules and regulations and provisions of the City Code of Ordinances' all other applicable rules, regulations and provisions of law enacted and promulgated by municipal, state and/or federal authority, and may be revoked upon. violation of any of the above stipulations. PENALTY FOR VIOLATIONS OF ANY OF THE CITY CODE OF ORDINANCES MAY BE A PETTY MISDEMEANOR OR A MISDEMEANOR. FINES RANGE FROM $200.00 FOR A PETTY MISDEMEANOR TO $700.00 FOR A MISDEMEANOR AND /OR 90 DAYS IN JAIL. SIGNATURE:r��, Applicant (Gambling Manager) l�tU lc� For the CITY OF MAPLE WOOD ,t� 4 011h_3 Av'�A Use Approved by City Council'on Date /o / Date LIM State Form completed on By (City Clerk) Fee Paid J /� - �C� Receipt No. 4 / ` ( / Date w Page 1 of 2 3/01 minnesOia LaWTUI UdInUffli J LG220 Application for Exempt Permit Fee - $25 T o _ r __ B _ o _ aR1 Use Only pee Paid Check No. Organization Information Organ name Previous lawful gambling exemption number E L EM E AMA K.y P7Z Street Z apitr A �4on City m ap le o0o State/Zip Code 5 5 - 119 County T0,m'se. Name of chief executive officer (CEO) (!0 - 0\ffir' First name Last name ` Daytime phone number of CEO e mi lice-Ik)e t o &� �'73!,2% Name of treasurer Daytime phone number of First name Last name :� d 5 Vr1 treasu : Type of Nonprofit Organization mia Check the box that best describes your organization: ❑ Fraternal ❑ Religious Veteran [Q"'Other nonprofit organization -Check the box that indicates the type of proof your organization attached to this application: ❑ IRS letter indicating income tax exempt status ❑ Certificate of Good Standing from the Minnesota Secretary of State's Office ❑ A charter showing you are an affiliate of a parent nonprofit organization ❑ Proof previously submitted and on file with the Gambling Control Board Gambling Premises Information Name of premises where gambling activity will be conducted (for raffles, list the site where the drawing will take place) Address (do not use PO box) City State /Zip Code County Vp t q f ( m,� Date(s) of activity (for raffles, indicate the date of the drawing) 0q /ja /o3 Check the box or boxes that indicate the type of gambling activity your organization will be conducting: ❑ *Bingo E f Raffles (cash prizes may not exceed $12,000) [] *Paddlewheels ❑ "Pull -Tabs ❑ *Tipboards *Equipment for these activities must be obtained from a licensed distributor. This form will be made available in alternative format (i.e. large print, Braille) upon request. The information requested on this form (and any attachments) will be used by the Gambling Control Board (Board) to determine your qualifications to be involved in lawful gambling activities in Minnesota. You have the right to refuse to supply the information requested; however, if you refuse to supply this information, the Board may not be able to determine your qualifications and, as a consequence, may refuse to issue you a permit. If you supply the information requested, the Board will be able to process your application. Your name and and your organization's name and address will be public information when received by the Board. All the other information that you provide will be private data about you until the Board issues your permit. When the Board issues your permit, all of the information that you have provided to the Board in the process of applying for your permit will become public. If the Board does not issue you a permit, all the information you have provided in the process of applying for a permit remains private, with the exception of your name and your organization's name and address which will remain public. Private data about you are available only to the following: Board members, staff of the Board whose work assignment requires that they have access to the information; the Minnesota Department of Public Safety; the Minnesota Attorney General; the Minnesota Commissioners of Administration, Finance, and Revenue; the Minnesota Legislative Auditor, national and international gambling regulatory agencies; anyone pursuant to court order; other individuals and agencies that are specifically authorized by state or federal law to have access to the information; individuals and agencies for which law or legal order authorizes a new use or sharing of information after this Notice was given; and anyone with your consent. LG220 Applicat Organization Name_ for Exempt Permit 19w., e NO Page 2 of 2 3/01 Local Unit of Government Acknowledgment If the gambling premises is within city limits, the city must sign this application. On behalf of the city, I acknowledge this application. Check the action that the city is taking on this application. The city approves the application with no waiting period. ❑ The city approves the application with a 30 day waiting period, and allows the Board to issue a permit after 30 days (60 days for a first class city). The city denies the application. Print a of city Citv of Ma plew ood (Signature of city personnel receivi plication) Title City Cl erk Date 04 / 10 / 03 If the gambling premises is located in a township, both the county and township must sign this application. On behalf of the county, I acknowledge this application. Check the action that the county Is taking on this application. The county approves the application with no waiting period. The county approves the application with a 30 day wafting* period, and allows the Board to issue a permit after 30 days. 11 The county denies the application. Print name of county (Signature of county personnel receiving application) . Title Date TOWNSHIP: On behalf of the township, I acknowledge that the organization is applying for exempted gambling activity within the township limits. [A township has no statutory authority to approve or deny an application (Minn. Stat. sec. 349.213, subd. 2).] Print name of township (Signature of township official acknowledging application) Date_ Chief Executive Officer's Signature The information provided in this application is complete and accurate to the best of my knowledge. Chief executive officer's signature Name (please print) LR l�& �Q / ?'I'1 Date 4 / 4g 0`� _ __ lam' _ Mail Application and Attachments At least 45 days prior to your scheduled activity date send: • the completed application, • a copy of your proof of nonprofit status, and • a $25. application fee (make check payable to "State of Minnesota "). Application fees are not prorated, refundable, or transferable. Send to: Gambling Control Board 1711 West County Road B, Suite 300 South Roseville, MN 55113 If your application has not been acknowledged by the local unit of government or has been denied, do not send the application to the Gambling Control Board. Agenda# MEMORANDUM TO: :FROM: SUBJECT: APPLICANT: LOCATION: DATE: INTRODUCTION. City Manager Ken Roberts, Associate Planner Home Occupation License Debra Siedenburg 2697 Pinkspire Lane March 18, 2003 Project Description Action by Council Vic; cI Rejected J Ms. Debra Siedenburg is requesting a home occupation license to start and operate a hair salon in her new home at 2697 Pinkspire Lane. Please see applicant's home. occupation questionnaire on pages 5 and 6 and the maps on pages 7 through 12. DISCUSSION Hair Salon Business The applicant's business would, be cutting, styling, perming and coloring hair of individuals. Ms. Siedenburg would be using a 13 -foot by 13 -foot living room on the first floor of her home as the hair salon. She also would be using a sink in the room for the. hair salon. Ms. Siedenburg will be living in the home and would be the only employee in the ho m e'occupation. The applicant states that she would receive customer visits between the hours of 10`a.im and 6 p.m., Monday through Friday, and she expects about 10 -15 customers per week. Neighborhood Comments Of the 23 neighbors the city surveyed, we received two written replies. One was for the request, and one was against. The one neighbor against the proposal said that he did not want to live in a business district. Ms. Siedenburg told me that she expects an average of two or three customers per day. If the city approves the hair salon business, the city's home occupation ordinance allows only residents of the home, plus one outside employee, to be employed within the business. In addition, the city council may place conditions on the business to ensure that surrounding residential properties are not negatively impacted. Planning. Commission's Concerns At the planning commission meeting March 3, 2003, the commission expressed concerns about recommending approval of the proposed home occupation if it would be in violation of the homeowner association rules. Because of this concern, the commission tabled action on this request to allow staff time to contact the city attorney and to .review the homeowner documents. The city attorney advised me that it is the city's and the commission's responsibility to review and to act on the city's rules and ordinances and not those of the homeowner association. In addition, Ms. Siedenburg provided me with a copy of the homeowner documents. (See them on pages 17 - 19.) Section 7.5.1 of these rules allows the owner of a dwelling in New Century to have a home occupation, subject to the four conditions that they have listed. It is my opinion that the proposed hair salon, with its three or four visitors a day, will meet these requirements and would, in fact, generate less vehicular traffic than a home with two or three teenaged drivers. Other Comments Butch Gervais, the Maplewood Fire Marshal, stated, "Provide a five -pound ABC dry chemical fire extinguisher. SUMMARY The city council has approved home occupation licenses for hair salons in the past. There are.. now two hair salon home occupations in operation in Maplewood — one on. Minnehaha Avenue and another on Maryland Avenue. Although many home occupation requests generate concerns from neighbors, our office has found hair salons to be a good fit in residential neighborhoods. In addition, we have not received complaints about them. COMMISSION ACTION On March 17, 2003, the planning commission recommended approval of this home occupation. RECOMMENDATION Approve the home occupation license for Ms. Debra Siedenburg of 2697 Pinkspire Lane to have a hair salon in her home - This=approval-_ -shall be subject to the following conditions: 1: Meeting all conditions of the city's home. occupation ordinance. This includes that the area of the home occupation is limited in size to 20 percent of the floor area of the house. 2. Customer hours for this home occupation are limited from 9 a. m. to 6.p.m., Monday through Saturday. 3. There shall be no more than 20 customers visiting the home per week. 4. All customers or visitors to the business shall- park on the driveway. 5. Provide a five -pound ABC dry chemical fire extinguisher in the room. 2 CITIZEN COMMENTS I surveyed the owners of 23 properties within 350 feet of this site and received two written replies. The written replies were as follows: For 1. We support the proposed objectives as set forth by Ms. Debra Siedenburg. (Stock — 269.9 New Century Lane) In addition, one person on the telephone said that the proposal was fine. AGAINST 1. I respectfully protest this venture based on the premise that I purchased my home in a, residential neighborhood, not in a business district. (Henry — 2687 New Century Lane) 3 REFERENCE INFORMATION SITE DESCRIPTION Existing Land Use: Single- Family Home (under construction) SURROUNDING LAND USES Single- family homes to the north, east and west Town houses across Pinkspire Lane PLANNING Existing Land Use Designation: Single Dwelling Residential Existing Zoning: Single Dwelling Residential CRITERIA FOR APPROVAL Article 11, Section 17 -21(b) of the. city's zoning code gives 12 requirements for approval of a home occupation license. I have attached these requirements on pages 13 -16. Application Date .a We- received he complete application for this home occupation license on January.29, 2003. State law requires that the city take action within 60 days of receiving complete applications for any land use proposal, unless the applicant agrees to a time extension. The usual 60 -day requirement on this proposal ends March 28, 2003. However, the applicant agreed at the March 3, 2003, planning commission meeting to a time extension. Therefore, city council action is required on this proposal by April 14, 2003. P /sec13- 28 /Siedenburg Attachments: 1. Home Occupation Questionnaire 2. Location Map 3. Property Line Map 4. Site Plan 5. House Elevation 6. Floor Plan 7. Room Plan Detail 8. Home Occupation Ordinance 9. New Century Homeowner Documents 4 Attachment 1 HOME OCCUPATION QUESTIONNAIRE (Attach a separate page if additional space is needed) 1. Describe your home occupation: 64-14 l,: 2. How many nonresident employees would work on -site? 0 How many nonresident employees would work off - site? How often would off -site employees visit your home? N.0 -Pr -i-hcre- "e-, n d .pm,26 jee,sa 3. What percentage of each level of your home's floor area, including the basement, woul you use in conducting the home occupation? r w,A) Ltsl O"Kal room is 4 whiol2. rvtaKe,s L,-p Ce% &F - 4. Where on the premises would the home occupation be conducted? 5. Describe any changes in the outside appearance of the building or property, other than one wall - mounted sign, of not more than two square feet? .6. What percentage of gross sales would come from the sale of a product(s) produced off t;- site ?' Yl b n 7. How many customer or employee vehicles would be parked on the. premises at any one time? - 0+ et- 4-i rn e &n d Lod I kv-1 �r � >n ,TVew 8. Describe the type, payload capacity and number of each type of vehicle to be used in the home occupation and where they would be parked. np Yt i 9. What would be the average number of customers expected to visit the premises each week? 10 The average number of employee /subcontractor visits to the premises each week? 0 What time of day and which days of the week would you expect these visits to occur? 10. Describe any delivery vehicles that will make deliveries or ship _products. from the property. Include the type, amount, hours and frequency of deliveries. 5 11. Describe the type of equipment, including ventilation systems, that would be used. Describe how you would keep the use of this equipment unnoticeable to your neighbors. UjiU � ,� n K 1-16 LL 'q a l SD ha )-p-, tu a te , � X c��ld,..1 � .�'. Albi'I / Qi 64 1 L ;,U~"n 12. Describe the amount and type of any chemicals; gasoline, hazardous substances or similar material that would be e J used. Also, describe where these ) m - aterials w_ ill be stored. PZr rn,,-S asi d 13. Describe how you would dispose of any hazardous materials. Applicant's Signature Date Revised: 12/01 P \com_dvpt \word\homeocc.app Attachment Z CQ POND MAIV 0 a a O ,� .16 1. HUNTINGTON CT. 2. OAKRIDGE LN. 20S �7 1. CURRIE CT. 2. VALLEY VIEW CT. 3. LAKEWOOD CT. I� 50S F— ta z Y v `ti 8 REST SOUTHC LU OAK HEIGHTS CT. U J MORC CT: � SNO �� u .BOXWOOD SC�`� AVE. 0 43 ° CAR OVERL00 CIR. 9b"tti f?ve W � CIS C� 1 4465 19. Attachment 3 a (66) 93' U DR rC 16 291 956 so S - 95.63 130.00 bsw � Llv a BL 3.e9 I 4 90.0 1 D. 96.65 1607 I I N41 c 22 not 4 3 0 ' J (95) �fije) 13 1 N V 105. 6 60 u n11 w 40.90 65.00 34.6 `vt 65.00 6 .00 c� 7 rim q la lie N 641 (551 8 ( 197.93 I: 63) o �p C -JRCZE r2S.49 .4FDR 6.5 X L+ 1 60 '41 AC. I na► I I zae. it L - - o51.2S9 I .64AC I' (111 I I -1168.259 I _64 AC I (121 1 I' :f= Y� 4 k Y Q 0. 2 W Z W 'a Z ui V asi 1 . _ • $ 4 ''6a ' �' :%. OUTLOT A rt29) (146) a AC 143.01 99.83 sp� 24) ; ` 16.60 G � n ^ .75 ' --+ -- - - L _ . _ > .. Irl 12j7p 343 73 T�. A E. 2 u' b , _ y +Ow >�� a - �I MOO I S CXNQ 404 r- t 30 - 609 i 9 ry 871 �- (311 9 � -- . __rw - � - -- -- c ' 7 'ba 6 + 261 • 7 _ 251 v M - ;" - loo.00 247 AC 1 o 140• 143.01' lU ; iel e ry� I a �e �d o - •- - OUTLOT 8 20' non `30 (14) u 110.01' 33 Q O 602 ~ ' z p1• - -- C N D' o ., co co J Ca rn o 29r 12 $ - y O 83' 155.50 ° n 60 134.60 "' - 634.58 - . -- ---- -` --- 6 "-- ---- --- --- -� - --- HIGHWOOD AVENUE 656.6' -- 1 - 173' .101' I 14(r 2517 157 :f= Y� 4 k Y Q 0. 2 W Z W 'a Z ui V Attachment 4 i I I I t , 992:0 w I I 9 o I I W r- Lo � MM W. ° M , of I I tai p� 993.3 49q:4' 992.4 I S � ° p r' 10 00 39.00 -- 5 V O 8 14 PROPOSED HOUSE to VAC !a!V'1� 1 8' POURED BSMT. .- I 992.6 I .ACS N'r M /7 L .. -- M G� to GARAGE 14.67 13.00c4 N o 9 993.2 I 10.00 992.9 PORCH 22.33 � 5.0 992.4 5 992.5 9 9 4 5 i 5 EB 1 1( s, 1 BENCHMARK N - -c- - - - - N - -: - *33' .i C4 N BENCHMARK TOP OF PIPE TOP OF PIPE 993.5 B �- o c DRIVEWAY ^ 993. EL = 992.42 EL = 993 � 993.4 sRy 65 00 992.3 S89q 8'10 "W /t 9993.3 -►� 992.6 992.2 - --� IL PINKSPIRE LANE - Attachment 5 HOUSE ELEVATION 10 Attachment 6 I y i _ I _ y . _ - 1 Handrails shall be continuou I - - �► .. len h of tie stairs, the full � grippable by design & retM t TL_ J �� WL°r �li(L. � — f, _. �L - .i_ 1: .1�. �'.•`.tPw.o .�. ice.. �.�..k�! I� lG_fe Gaz'age door must.br a Seii- ^l��;Rts tilt MAng sclid wood door l -3133" { — _ i T , � trig: o. a f .- . "- '� �� elf-cl -in tight fitting door 1 - �L_�,� a.: _K:ca o �' /a! fir�prcrtccdon rating of 20 mind e r �I PROPOSED'-- -- lI]Ll$� •.: _ 4 Gf LAvL?.p1L''f .-ol ' HAIR SALON safety gl. z i o 3 _ 09��ti U /8" Type 'X' Sypsum board on common walls, Y 17 �`► g and support walls. .r FLOOR PLAN 11 4 N I i Attachment 6 I y i _ I _ y . _ - 1 Handrails shall be continuou I - - �► .. len h of tie stairs, the full � grippable by design & retM t TL_ J �� WL°r �li(L. � — f, _. �L - .i_ 1: .1�. �'.•`.tPw.o .�. ice.. �.�..k�! I� lG_fe Gaz'age door must.br a Seii- ^l��;Rts tilt MAng sclid wood door l -3133" { — _ i T , � trig: o. a f .- . "- '� �� elf-cl -in tight fitting door 1 - �L_�,� a.: _K:ca o �' /a! fir�prcrtccdon rating of 20 mind e r �I PROPOSED'-- -- lI]Ll$� •.: _ 4 Gf LAvL?.p1L''f .-ol ' HAIR SALON safety gl. z i o 3 _ 09��ti U /8" Type 'X' Sypsum board on common walls, Y 17 �`► g and support walls. .r FLOOR PLAN 11 4 N 1 J t U� s 'v U J \r r_ �J y �/ Attachment 8 LICENSES § 17 -21 �- license will be automatically suspended or revoked five (5) days after date of hearing. (Ord. No. 324, § 8, 6- 22 -72) Sec. 17 -5. Same— Period of suspension. i When a license is suspended under section I7 -4 of this article, the period of suspension shall be not less than-thirty (30) days nor more than one (1) year, such period being determined by the city council. (Ord. No. 324, § 9, 6- 22 -72) i Sec. 17 -6. Same- Mandatory revocation for certain Code violations. When any person, partnership, firm or corporation holding a license issued under this Code has been convicted for the second time by a court of competent jurisdiction for violation of any of the I provisions of this Code relating to the subject matter of such N license,` the city council shall revoke the license of the person, ` partnership, firm or corporation so convicted. Such person, part- nership, firm or corporation may not make application for a new license for a period of one (1) year. (Ord. No. 324, § 10, 6- 22 -12) Secs. 17- 7- 17 -20. Reserved. ARTICLE II. HOME OCCUPATIONS* Sec. 17 - 21. License requirements. (a) Home occupations shall require a license approved by the city council if any of the following circumstances would occur more than thirty (30) days each year: (1) Employment of a nonresident in the home occupation. *Editor's note— Section 8 of Ord. No. 627, adopted June 27, 1988, amended Art. II in its entirely to read as set out herein. Formerly, Art. II comprised §§ 17- 21- 17 -25, pertaining to licenses for home occupations and deriving from Ord. No. 521, § 1, adopted Aug. 23, 1982. Cross reference —Fee for home occupation permit, § 36 -26. Supp. No. 11 1045 § 17 -21 MAPLEWOOD CODE z (2). Customers or customers' vehicles on the premises. � I ' ; (3) Manufacture, assembly or processing of products or mate- rials on the premises. (4) More than one vehicle associated with the home occupation which is classified as a light commercial vehicle. (5) A velucle(s) used in the home occupation, and parked on the premises, which exceeds a three - quarter -ton payload capacity. (6) If the home occupation produces any waste that should be , treated or regulated. (b) Home occupations .requiring a license shall be subject to, but not limited to, the following requirements: (1) No traffic shall be generated by a home occupation in greater volumes than would normally be expected in a residential neighborhood. The need for off - street parking shall not exceed more than three (3) off - street parking. spaces for home occupation at any given time, in addition to the parking spaces required by the residents. (2) No ' .more than one (1) nonresident employee shall be allowed to work on the premises. Nonresident employees who work off - premises may be allowed to visit the prem- ises. If an on -site employee is parking on -site, off -site employees shall not leave their vehicles on -site. If there is no on-site employee vehicle parked on -site, one (1) off -site employee vehicle may be parked on -site. (3) 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 requirement. (4) An area equivalent to no more than twenty (20) percent of each level of the house, including the basement and garage, shall be used in the conduct of a home occupation. (5) There shall be no change visible off- premises in the outside appearance of the building or premises that would indicate the conduct of a home occupation, other than one (1) sign meeting the requirements of the city sign code. Supp. No. 11 1046 14 LICENSES § 17 -22 (6) No more than twenty (20) percent of business income shall come from the sale of products produced ofd site unless i approved by the city council. (7) No equipment. or process shall be used in such home j occupation which creates noise, vibration, light, glare, fumes, smoke, dust, odors or electrical interference detect- able to the normal senses off the lot. In the case of electrical interference, no equipment or process shall be used which creates visual or audible interference in any radio or television receivers off the premiser or causes fluctuations in line voltage off the premises. (8) . There shall be no fire, safety or health hazards. (9) A home occupation shall not include the repair of internal combustion engines, body repair shops, spray painting, machine shops, welding, ammunition manufacturing or sales, the sale or manufacture of firearms or knives or other objectionable uses as determined by the city. Ma- chine shops are defined as places where raw metal is fabricated, using machines that operate on more than one hundred twenty (120) volts of current. (10) . Any noncompliance with these requirements shall consti- tute grounds for the denial or revocation of the home occupation license. (11) The city may waive, any of these requirements if the home occupation is located at least three hundred fifty (350) feet from a residential lot line. I (12) The city council may add any additional requirements that it deems necessary to insure that the operation of the home occupation will be compatible with nearby land uses. (Ord. No. 627, §8, 6- 27 -88; Ord. No. 729, § 1, 11- 14 -94) Sec. 17 -22. Original license approval procedure. An application for home occupation shall be filed with the director of community development. Upon receipt of a complete application, the director of community development shall prepare A recommendation to the planning commission. The planning commission's recommendation, shall be forwarded to the. city I Supp. No. 11 1047 § 17 -22 MAPLEWOOD CODE council for a public hearing. The city council shall hold a public hearing on the request. Notice of the hearing shall be mailed to the owners of all properties located . within three hundred fifty (350) feet of the home occupation at least ten (10) days prior to the date of the hearing. The notice. shall also be g published in the official newspaper at least ten (10) days prior to the date of i hearing., (Ord. No.. 627, § 8 6- 27 -88) Sec. 17 -23, Renewal. Each license holder shall apply to the city. clerk each January for renewal. Prior to issuance of a license renewal, the city.shall determine that all licensing conditions and city 'ordinances are being met. The city clerk shall revoke the license where compli- ance with the licensing conditions or city ordinances cannot be obtained or where the home occupation has been discontinued. Revocation, may occur at any time . that compliance with license conditions or city ordinance cannot be obtained. (Ord. No..627, § 8, 6- 27 -88) Sec. 17 -24. Appeal. ! The owner or his assign of a home occupation whose license has been revoked by the city clerk may appeal the decision to the city council. To request an appeal, a written letter or request must be submitted to the city clerk within thirty (30) days of the license revocation. The city council may revoke, approve or add addi- tional conditions to the license. The city council shall hold a public `hearing, using the notification procedures in section 17 -22, before deciding on the appeal. _ (Ord. No. 627, § 8, 6- 27 -88) Sec. 17 -25. Transfer of license. No license granted for a home occupation shall be _transferable from person to person or place to place. (Ord. No. 627, § 8, 6- 27 -88) [The next page is 10571 Supp. No. 11 1048 16 V I L V V .1 N L. I\ I v I far , ktic, A 't, IV C VVCIVIu I�1 N commu ITY. ASSOC.IATION' M. bil J � y ,U 4e 7:7 far , ktic, A 't, any other Person acquiring or owning an interest in the Prop their personal representatives, successors and assigns. , heirs,. 7.2 Residential - Use. The Property s designed gned and intended exclusively as a residential area. Except as provided in Section 7.5, the Units shall be used .Owners and Occupants and th exclusively guests as by y _private, residential Dwellings, and not for transient, hotel, commercial, business or of residential purposes; subject to the respective Member Association Gov non Documents, and to applicable governmental laws, regulations and- ordinancesn 7.3 Environmental Restrictions. The Property contains and borders on a variety of environmentally sensitive wetlands, ponds and related open spaces. Ce ' Units, are subject to recorded Conservation Easements, which im ose s calm restrictions on those Units. No P p ial Person shall take or cause to be taken any action which may materially disturb, pollute or otherwise adve rsely affect such environmentally sensitive .areas, or which violates the Conservation 7.4 Architectural Restrict' .Easements. ions, All Improvements or other physical changes . to the Property shall be made in compliance with the archit procedures set forth in Section 8. ectural standards and 7.5 Permitted Business Activities. Notwithstanding anything to the contrarX -in the Master Governing Documents, the following business activities sl ...., fall be permitted: 7.5.1 An Owner or Occupant residing in a Dwelling may mai occupation in the Dwelling, a h ome some g, an Auxiliary Dwelling located within the same Unit, and handle ,matters relating to such home occ telephone or correspondence therefrom; provided, that such uses a y incidental to the residential use; (ii) do not involy O e the. Dwelling or Auxiliary D hysical alteration of Dwelling visible from the exterior; (ill) are in compliance with all governmental laws, ordinances and regulations; and {iv) do not involve any observable business activity such as advertising displays, frequent deliveries, or disturbing pedestrian o vehicular traffic to and from the Dwelling or Auxiliary Dwellin b r customers, vendors or em to ees. g y 7.5.2 The Master Association ma maintain. Y n offices and other facilities on the Property for management and related purposes. 7.5.3 Master Declarant, Member Association Decla Association Developers may maintain offices and other rel to Member -- on the Property in connection with the exercise of their ri g hts u nder this f � Master Declaration or the Member Association Governing Documents. 7.5.4 The Member Association Governing Documents may, with of Master Declarant so long as it has the unexpired right add the approval Property, authorize similar types of business activities d additional ' Association or Member Associations; provided m a Member b t. =" � p d the activities (i) do no materially and adversely affect the residential character of the Pro ert and (ii) comply with Section 7.5.1. p y' 7.6 Auxiliary Dwellings An Auxiliary Dwelling may be occupied accordance with Rules and Regulations authorized b p by residents in y the Master Board. 1.8 than 7 days, or any occupancy which includes any services customarily furnished to hotel guests, shall be presumed to be for transient purposes. Each Dwelling shall have a garage sufficient to accommodate at least two cars and additional on -site parking for an additional 2 cars. 7.4. Business Use Restricted. Home office and business activities are permitted to the extent that they are compatible with a residential neighborhood and comply with all local zoning ordinances. The Board. of Directors shall have the right to restrict home office and/or business activities that 'create an excessive traffic flow in the area, or that create outside storage of vehicles, equipment or materials for business purposes. 7.5. Leasing Leasing of Lots shall be allowed, subject to reasonable regulation by the Association, and subject to the following conditions: (i) that no Lot shall be leased for transient or hotel purposes, (ii) that no Lot may be subleased iii. that all leases shall be in writing, and (iv) that all leases shall provide that they are subordinate and subject t j o the provisions of the Governing Documents, the Rules and Regulations and the Act, and (v) that any failure of the lessee to comply with the terms of such documents shall be a default under the lease. The Association may impose such reasonable Rules and Regulations as may be necessary to implement procedures for the .leasing of Lots consistent with this Section. 7.6. Parking Garages and parking areas on the Property shall be used only for parking of . vehicles owned or leased by Owners and Occupants and their guests, and such other incidental .uses as may be authorized in writing by the Association. The use of garages, driveways and other parking areas on the Property, and the types of vehicles and personal property permitted thereon, shall be subject to regulation by the Association, including without. limitation the right of the Association to tow illegally parked vehicles or to remove unauthorized personal property. 7.7. Animals. T'ne Board shall have the exclusive authonty topro or to allow and regulate, by Rules and Regulations, the keeping of animals one the P A roperty. The. word "animal" shall be construed in its broadest sense and shall include all living creatures except humans. Common household pets may be kept, provided that they are not kept, bred or maintained for any commercial purpose. Cats must be kept on a leash or restrained within a confined area when outside the home or garage. Dogs must be kept under voice control or kept on a leash or restricted within a confined area when outside the home or garage. 7.8. Quiet Enjoyment; Interference Prohibited All Owners and Occupants and their guests shall have a right of quiet enjoyment in their respective Lots, and shall use the-Property in such a manner as will not cause a nuisance, nor unduly restrict, interfere with or impede the use and enjoyment of the Property by other Owners and Occupants and their guests. The following, in addition to others that the Association may prescribe by way of Rules and Regulation shall apply to all Lots: No clothes line or drying yards or pet control lines shall be permitted unless concealed by hedges or screening acceptable to the ARC. No weeds, or other unsightly growths shall be permitted. to grow or remain upon the premises. No refuse pile or unsightly objects shall be allowed to. be placed or suffered. to remain anywhere thereon. No Lot shall be used in whole or in part for .the storage of rubbish of any character whatsoever, nor for the storage of any property or thing that will cause such Lot to appear in an unclean or untidy condition or that will be obnoxious to the eye; nor shall any substance, thing, or material be kept upon any Lot that will emit foul or obnoxious odors, or that will cause any noise that. will or might disturb the peace, quiet, comfort, or serenity of the occupants of surrounding property. The outside storage of an unlicensed motor vehicle, campers, snowmobiles, boats and any other vehicle with a gross vehicle weight in excess of 7000 pounds, upon the premises shall also be considered a nuisance. No parking of semi - tractors, trailers or other types of large commercial trucks or buses shall be allowed on the Property or on the public right -of -ways. 19 MINUTES OF THE MAPLEWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION 1830 COUNTY ROAD B -EAST, MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA MONDAY, MARCH 3, 2003 a._ _Home Occupation License — Hair Salon (2497 Pinkspire Lane) Mr. Roberts said Ms. Debra Siedenburg is requesting a home occupation License to start and operate a hair salon in her new home at 2,697 Pinkspire Lane. The applicant's business would be cutting, styling, perming and coloring hair of individuals. Ms. Siedenburg would be using a 13- foot by 13 -foot living room on the first floor of her home as the hair salon. She also would be using a sink in the room for the hair salon. Ms.. Siedenburg will be living in the home and would be the only employee in the home. occupation. The applicant states that she would receive customer visits between the hours of 10 a.m. and 6 pm., Monday through Friday, and she. expects about 10 -15 customers per week. The city council has approved home occupation licenses for hair salons in the past. There are now two hair salon home occupations in operation in Maplewood — one on Minnehaha Avenue and another on Maryland Avenue. Although many home occupation requests generate concerns from neighbors, our office.has found hair salons to be a good fit in neighborhoods and we have not received complaints about them. Commissioner Desai asked if there has been a request for,signage at-the home for the hair salon? Mr. Roberts said there has been no request. The ordinance does allow a 2 square. foot sign by code that the applicant could put up if she chose to. Commissioner Dierich asked staff what the planning commission does when the homeowners association specifically forbids businesses like this as well as signage? Mr. Roberts said that is between the homeowners association and the homeowner. Commissioner Dierich asked staff if there was an issue as part of the PUD that you have to abide with the homeowner association rules and now. the city is going to give a license to operate a home business that she believes is prohibited. She talked to the developer Mr. Paul Engstrom tonight and they have their lawyers looking into this at this point. He said he does not think it will be allowed but he has to check into it further. She asked if this home was finished yet? Mr. Roberts said no it is. not completed yet. Chairperson Fischer asked staff . to clarify which has the binding power, the city rules or the association rules? Mr. Roberts said he couldn't say which one has binding power. That is a decision made by the lawyers. The city has in the code, which are in the staff report, that allow home -based businesses subject to city council approval. Homeowner's association rules are private contracts entered into with the lot buyer and the seller of the lot where the lot buyers agree to meet certain conditions. Typically, they deal with the size of the home, the square. footage of the home, what they can park outside of the home, if.they allow storage sheds, and what kind of fencing you can have. It is a list of do's and don'ts of the neighborhood for homeowners. It is a private contract between the private parties and the city is not part of those contracts nor is the city part of the enforcement of those contracts. If there was a conflict, he can't say who would prevail., .Commissioner Rossbach asked if there are instances in the PUD motion that reference the homeowner's association rules such as it is a private road and they need to provide their own plowing and that type of thing? Mr. Roberts said that is but the homeowners association can form their own rules above and beyond the minimum requirements of the city. They may have adopted rules saying no home businesses, .no fences, or storage sheds, where the city would allow such things. Commissioner Rossbach said he is feeling uncomfortable with this. He. would like to get some more legal input from the city attorney. He would not want to be in a position where the commission votes to approve a use that would be in direct violation of a. homeowner's association rule, if there were conseq uences for the city. He would like to see more information before going any further with this. Commissioner Pearson said he is in agreement with Mr..Rossbach. The city requires the covenants as part of these PUD's and he does not know why- a person would purchase a property with covenants if the use they wanted was in violation. He said he is concerned that what the commission decides here could become a club to be used against the homeowner's association. The legality of this should be known and this should be tabled until there is feedback given to staff from the city attorney. Chairperson Fischer asked what the timetable was for this, could be tabled and is there time for . these questions to be answered by the city attorney? Mr. Roberts said the city is on a 60 -day time restriction, unless the. applicant agrees to the time extension. He said the city is obligated to provide a decision by March 24, 2003, which means it could come back to the planning commission meeting on March 17, 2003. At that point it would go to the city council meeting on March 31, 2003. Mr. Roberts said he is not a lawyer and reminded the. commission that the charge of the planning commission is to review and use the city ordinances and the city regulations. There is no planning commission responsibility with what the homeowner's rules are. It may put the homeowner in an awkward position if there are conflicts there but that is their problem, not the planning commissions.. The planning commissions responsibility is to determine if it meets the intent and if the application meets the city's expectations for home occupations. Commissioner Trippler asked staff if they had known the homeowners association covenants and is that why that information was not included in the staff report? Mr. Roberts said no, he has not seen anything in writing relating to the covenants of the neighborhood. The developer Mr. Engstrom said he was concerned about this home occupation license but that was the extent of it. Chairperson Fischer asked staff if it is a requirement that the city keeps the homeowners association rules on file? Mr. Roberts said the city often requests that the city reviews the homeowner association rules but they don't necessarily have the final recorded documents. Commissioner Trippler asked if the homeowners association was. notified about this home occupation license? Mr. Roberts said the developer was. notified and they are .still the controlling interest in the homeowners association. Commissioner Mueller said he agrees with Mr. Roberts that the planning commission has to' make their decisions based on what they know about the city ordinances. The planning commission can't have advanced knowledge of every neighborhood homeowners association, contract or covenant before making final decisions. After the city makes a decision, it is up to - the . homeowner and the association, contractor or developer work.things out. Commissioner Pearson said he deals with rules of the neighborhood all the time. This is a nonconforming use for the-zoning that is there and until there is further information provided from the city attorney and or the homeowners association, he would not feel comfortable voting on this. Commissioner Desai asked staff if the city gets involved in complaints from the neighborhood. when the homeowner association rules get broken? Mr. Roberts said no. Commissioner Desai said that is a clear indication to him that the city should base their decision. on the city's ordinances and not on .the homeowners association. Commissioner Rossbach said which is exactly why he wonders which one. governs, the city's decision or the homeowner's association? Chairperson Fischer said she is uncomfortable with a double standard if the city uses the covenants in "addition to" or "in lieu of" the city's rules for making a recommendation. Staff would have to ask the city attorney how the planning commission avoids that. Chairperson Fischer asked .the applicant to address the planning commission. The applicant, Debra Siedenburg and her husband, Shannon Siedenburg at 5359 Heath Avenue North in Oakdale, addressed the commission. They did receive some documents from the developer stating it would be okay to have a hair salon as a home occupation. They said they would be comfortable tabling this until more information is provided to the planning commission. They don't want to do anything against the rules or illegal and would get more information for staff from the developer. Commissioner Rossbach moved to table this item until March 17, 2003. More information will need to be provided by the city attorney to provide further direction. Commissioner Trippler seconded. Ayes - Desai, Dierich, Fischer, Monahan - Junek, Mueller, Pearson, Rossbach, Trippler The motion passed and so the request is tabled until March 17, 2003. DRAFT MINUTES OF THE MAPLEWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION 1830 COUNTY ROAD B EAST, MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA MONDAY, MARCH 17, 2003 VI. UNFINISHED BUSINESS a Home Occupation License — Hair Salon (2697 Pinkspire Lane) Mr. Roberts said Ms. Debra Siedenburg is requesting a home occupation license to start and operate a hair salon in her new home at 2697 Pinkspire Lane. The applicant's business would be cutting, styling, perming and coloring hair of individuals s. Ms. Siedenburg would be using a 13 -foot by 13 -foot living room on the first floor of her home as the hair salon. She also would be using a sink in the room for the hair salon. Ms. Siedenburg will be living in the home and would be the only employee in the home occupation. The applicant states that she would receive customer visits between the hours of 10 a.m. and 6 p.m., Monday through Friday, and she expects about 10 -15 customers .per week. Mr. Roberts said this was previously presented to the planning commission at their March 3, 2003, meeting. The planning commission members had concerns regarding the homeowner's association rules for home occupation businesses conducted in a neighborhood. Staff attached a copy of the homeowner's association rules to the staff report. The city attorney told staff that the responsibility. of the planning commission" is to review the application based on the merits and the rules of the city, not what the homeowner's, association may or may not allow. Mr. Roberts said he spoke with the developer, Mr. Engstrom today and he had no concerns regarding this home occupation license. Staff recommends approval of the five conditions listed in the staff report for the home occupation license for Ms. Debra Siedenburg at 2697 Pinkspire Lane for a hair salon in her home. Commissioner Trippler asked staff if at one point there was a requirement that an applicant for a home occupation business license get approval from the neighbors within a one -block area? Mr. Roberts said not as a city. ordinance. Commissioner Trippler said when he read the homeowner's association rules it seemed to him that an owner occupant can maintain a home occupation in a dwelling if they are handling matters that are. relating to the occupation by telephone or correspondence. Commissioner Mueller said the homeowner's association rules are irrelevant to the decision that is made by the planning commission. He said the final decision needs to be made solely on the merits of what the applicant brings to the city not based on the homeowner's association rules. Commissioner Rossbach said at the last meeting the planning commission had asked for an explanation regarding when the city requires a development to handle situations like snow plowing, how does that impact future decisions made by the city and /or what impact that would have when the city requires associations to be in place? Mr. Roberts said he wasn't aware that question was brought up at the last meeting. He said that might be a good question to ask the city attorney during the second half of the meeting. The applicant, Ms. Debra Siedenburg and her husband, Mr. Shannon Siedenburg residing at 5359 Heath Avenue North,. in Oakdale, addressed the commission. The applicant said they have no problems with the conditions listed in the staff, report. Commissioner Pearson moved to approve the home occupation license for Ms. Debra Siedenburg of 2697 Pinkspire Lane to have a hair salon in her home. This approval shall be subject to the following conditions: 1. Meeting all conditions of the city's home occupation ordinance. This includes that the area of the home occupation is limited in size to 20 percent of the floor area of the house. 2. Customer hours for this home occupation are limited from 9 a.m. to 6 p.m.,. Monday through Saturday. 3. There shall be no more than 20 customers visiting the home per week. 4. All customers or visitors to the business shall park on the driveway. 5. Provide a .five -pound ABC dry chemical fire extinguisher in the room. Commissioner Rossbach seconded. Ayes - Desai, Fischer, Ledvina, Monahan - Junek, Mueller, Pearson, Rossbach, Trippler Commissioner Trippler offered a fry an amendment, stating that granting this approval shall in no way negate or overruie.Ae homeowner's association rules. He doesn't want the city to get in a legal dispute regarding -whether or not the homeowner's association rules are being overridden. by the city. Chairperson . Fischer asked fora second to the fF ; eR d l y proposed amendment made by commissioner Trippler. No second was made to the amendment so the amendment failed. Commissioner Ledvina said he understood the applicant could have one additional employee. Mr. Roberts said the home occupation license allows for an outside employee to work at the residence for this home occupation hair salon. Commissioner Ledvina said he would like to offera, firiendly an amendment, stating that no outside employees be allowed as part of this home occupation license. Commissioner Rossbac said according to the. city attorney, the planning commission is to disregard anything relating to the homeowner's association rules. He said this is the reason he had not seconded the motions made by commissioner Trippler or commissioner Ledvina. Commissioner Ledvina said it's not the homeowner's association rules that he is concerned with. He has a concern that if there were another employee, there could be two employee cars parked in the driveway and a customer possibly parking on the street. He is concerned as a homeowner, that there could be extra cars parked in the neighborhood that could potentially cause problems because of this home occupation hair salon in the neighborhood. He said this is not a typical residential neighborhood. The homes in this neighborhood have reduced setbacks and have reduced the widths of the pavement to increase the density. Mr. Roberts said if the parking became a .problem, staff would contact the applicant and try to get the problem resolved. He said the city requires an annual home occupation license that. has to be applied for through the city clerk's office. Chairperson Fischer asked for a second to thely amendment made by commissioner Ledvina. There was no second made to the amendment so the #oily proposed amendment failed. Commissioner Rossbach seconded. Ayes — Desai, Fischer, Ledvina; Monahan- Junek, Mueller, Pearson Rossbach, Trippler The original motion passed. This item goes to the city council on April 1:4, 2003. At 7:25 p.m. the public portion of the meeting ended. The remainder of the meeting was continued in the Maplewood Room. City of Maplewood Official Sign -Up Sheet By putting your name and address on this sheet, you are requesting to address the Maplewood City Council on the following topic for up to five minutes. Name (first & last) -please print Address 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. AGENDA ITEM AGENDA REPORT Action by Council TO:" Richard Fursman, City Manager Date FROM: Charles Ahl, Public Works Director /City Engineer Endorsed Chris Cavett, Assistant City Engineer Modified Rejected SUBJECT: Hazelwood Street Improvements, (County Road C to Beam Ave.), Project 71 01 -16: a. Public Hearing 7:30 p.m. b. Resolution Ordering Improvement after Public Hearing (4 votes) DATE: April 7, 2003 Introduction The public hearing for this project has been scheduled for 7:30 p.m., Monday, April 14, 2003. 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 first ordered the preparation of the feasibility study for this project on June 25, 2001. Work had begun on the study, however staff chose to delay the project by one year due to a shortage of state aid funds. Two neighborhood meetings will have been held before the public hearing. The first was held on February 13, 2003, and a second has been scheduled for April 10, 2003, to give residents a second opportunity to ask questions about the project before the public hearing. It was somewhat difficult to gauge the general opinion of the neighborhood following the first meeting. The meeting was positive and similar to meetings with residents from similar past projects, such as English and County Road D. The residents in attendance asked many good questions and wanted to know what would be proposed. In late 2001, however, a petition had been circulated around the neighborhood after an introductory letter was sent to the residents. At that time we had not met with the neighborhood, nor was the scope of the project identified. At the February 13 meeting, there were one or two individuals who commented on the petition and the issue of not wanting pay an assessment for a street project. With the reconstructions of English Street and County Road 'D in 2002, this segment of Hazelwood now has the distinction of being one of the worst stretches of road in Maplewood. From an engineering standpoint, there are basically no other practical and cost effective options for Hazelwood Street. Ironically, Hazelwood has become a fine example of why overlays placed on poor pavements are ineffective. In 1986, a project had been proposed to fully reconstruct Hazelwood, however the project was not approved. Instead of reconstructing Hazelwood, an overlay was placed 17 years ago, only to fail after a few years. Based on proper pavement management principals, an effective overlay should last in excess of 20 years, only to require a simple milling and a new overlay. Recommendation It is recommended that the city council approve the attached resolution Ordering the Improvement of Hazelwood Street, (County Road C to Beam Ave.), Project 01- 16. Budget Impact The resolution calls for establishing a project budget of $1,282,000. The financing plan is outlined specifically in the feasibility study and calls for funding from a number of sources: assessments, Municipal State Aid, Sewer Utility fund, St. Paul Regional Water Services obligation, private residential upgrades (private driveway agreements). CIVIC jW Attachments: Resolution Location Map RESOLUTION ORDERING IMPROVEMENT AFTER PUBLIC HEARING WHEREAS, a resolution of the city council adopted the 31st day of March, 2003, fixed a date for a council hearing on the proposed street improvements to Hazelwood Street (County Road C to Beam Ave.), Project 01 -16, AND WHEREAS, ten days mailed notice and two weeks published notice of the hearing was given, and the hearing was duly held on April 14, 2003, 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 (County Road C to Beam Ave.), Project 01 -16. 2. Such improvement is hereby ordered as proposed in the council resolution adopted the 14th day of April 2003. 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 $1,282,000 shall be established. The proposed financing plans is as follows: State Aid $ 916,680 Assessments $ 246,590 Sanitary Sewer Fund $ 5,800 SPRWS Obligation $ 8,500 Private Agreements $ 104.430 Total $1,282,000 is i � ,oeo is mw Vhw5a City of Maplewood Official Sign -Up Sheet By putting your name and address on this sheet, you are requesting to address the Maplewood City Council on the following topic for up to five minutes. Name (first & last) -please print i. 616t ij " �14ore_5on 2. RQAJ �i2ick5ar�.1 3. 4. v2 Za ��_:Stx% 6. 90,�_UWL-t, Hve---F� WAL11t .110 V 10. 11. 41, 12. 13. Address 26 `I ci P 7 C�� I S\,e ,zC -� � 'Jl I--, U a.�,e�.craa -fit ...�; X L .1 L - 14. 8. - TO 0._� % I f-.J.Q Q-)& t4q:ze- / uj aa J,_ Agenda # SUMMARY MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: SUBJECT: PROJECT: LOCATION: DATE: City Manager Action by Council Ken Roberts, Associate Planner Land Use Plan Change, Conditional Use Permit and DesigrP R Van Dyke Village Endorsed West side of Van Dyke Street, north of County Road B Modified April 7, 2003 Rejected INTRODUCTION Project Description Mr. Bruce Mogren is proposing to build a 24 -unit town house development on the vacant city- owned property on the west side of Van Dyke Street, north of County Road B. This development, called Van Dyke Village, would be primarily for work force housing for low and moderate - income families. There would be on -site management to help monitor and run the property and would have four, six -unit townhouse buildings. (See the plans in project memorandum.) Requests The applicant is requesting that the city council approve: 1. A change to the comprehensive plan. This change would be from BC (business commercial) and R -3(M) (residential medium density) to R -3(H) (residential high density). 2. A conditional use permit (CUP) for that pat of.-the .development that would be on property zoned BC (business commercial). The code allows multi - dwellings on BC -zoned land by CUP. (The easterly portion of the site is zoned R3 [multiple dwelling residential]. The westerly portion is zoned BC.) 3. The building, site and landscape plans. BACKGROUND The city has considered a variety of development, land use designations and zoning proposals for this area going back to 1979. 1 have included . a listing of the city's actions from 1979 through 1984 in the background part of the project memorandum. DISCUSSION This proposal requires three approvals form the. city including a land use plan change, a conditional use permit for a planned unit development and design approval. Specifically, the proposal has two more units (24 proposed) than the current land use designation of medium density residential allows (22 units). This increase in density was a concern of the planning commission and of some of the neighbors. The CDRB reviewed the proposed plans and had several changes that they wanted the developer to make. The developer has agreed to make these changes and the CDRB will be reviewing the revised plans at their April 22 meeting. RECOMMENDATIONS There are three recommendations for this proposal. They include: I. Changing the land use plan from BC (business commercial) and R -3 (M) (residential medium density) to R -3(H) (residential high density). 2. Approving a conditional use permit for a planned unit development. K MEMORANDUM TO: City Manager FROM: Ken Roberts, Associate Planner SUBJECT: Land Use Plan Change, Conditional Use Permit and Design Review ,PROJECT: Van Dyke Village LOCATION: West side of Van Dyke Street, north of County Road B. DATE: April 7, 2003 INTRODUCTION Project Description Mr. Bruce Mogren is proposing to build a 24 -unit town house development on the vacant city- owned property on the west side of Van Dyke Street, north of County Road B. Refer to the applicant's statement on page 20 and the maps on pages 21 -26. This development, called Van Dyke Village, would be primarily for work force housing for low and moderate - income families. There would be on -site management to help monitor and run the property. The proposal would have four, six -unit townhouse buildings. Each town house would have an attached garage and a patio area. There also would be 30 open parking spaces. The buildings would have exteriors of horizontal -lap steel siding with cedar trim boards. (See the plans on pages 27 -33.) Requests The applicant is requesting -that the city,council- approve: 1. A change to the comprehensive plan. This change would be from BC (business commercial) and R -3(M) (residential medium density) to R -3(H) (residential high density). Please see the existing and proposed land use maps on pages 22 and 23. 2. A conditional use permit (CUP) for that part of the development that would be on property zoned BC (business commercial). The code allows multi- dwellings on BC -zoned land by CUP. (The easterly portion of the site is zoned R3 [multiple dwelling residential]. The westerly portion is.zoned BC.) Refer to the property line /zoning map on page 25. 3. The building, site and landscape plans. BACKGROUND The city has considered a variety of development, land use. designations and zoning proposals for this area going back to 1979. i have included a listing of the city's actions from 1979 through 1984 in the background part of this report (on pages 17 and 18). The property where Mr. Mogren is proposing this development went tax - forfeit in the early 1990's. In 1995 or 1996, the city acquired use deeds on these properties from the State of Minnesota. The city originally thought that the new Gladstone. Fire Station might go on these properties or that the city would use part of the property for drainage or open space purposes. On March 27, 2000, the city council directed city staff and the Housing and Redevelopment Authority (HRA) to buy from Ramsey County the four tax - forfeited properties on the west side of Van Dyke Street for the development. of low to moderate or mixed income housing. On June 22, 2000, the city council adopted a resolution authorizing the reconveyance and .the purchase of the tax - forfeited properties on the west side of Van Dyke Street for the development of low to moderate or mixed income housing. City staff, based on this council approval, bought this property from the county for the city. On October 22, 2001, the city council, during the council /manager workshop, reviewed the proposed purchase agreement from Mr. Mogren to buy the subject property. The council was generally supportive of the proposal, subject to the applicant making changes to the purchase agreement as recommended by the city attorney. On December 17, 2001, the city council authorized city staff to finalize and prepare for signature the purchase agreement for Bruce Mogren to buy the city -owned properties on the west side of Van Dyke Street between County Road B and Cope Avenue. In June 20.02, the city council adopted a 5 -10 vision statement relating to housing. The goal states that the city will provide housing for all incomes and ages and that the city will reinvest in the redevelopment of residential and commercial properties. DISCUSSION Land Use Plan Change To build the proposed town houses, Mr. Mogren wants the city to change the land use plan for the site. This change would be from BC (business commercial) and R -3(M) (residential medium density) to R -3(H ) (residential high density). (See the existing and proposed land use maps on pages. 22 and . 23.) The city intends R -3(H) areas for a variety of housing including double dwellings, town houses or apartments of up to 16.3 units. per gross acre. For BC (business commercial) areas, the city plans for offices clinics restatirthts,"day care centers and retail businesses and R -3(M) areas are intended for residential developments with up to 6 units per gross acre. Land use plan changes do not require specific findings for approval. Any change, however, should be consistent with the city's land use goals and policies. There are several goals in the Comprehensive Plan that apply to this request. Specifically, the land use plan has eleven general land use goals. Of these, three apply to this proposal including: • Provide for orderly development. Minimize conflicts between land uses. • Provide a wide variety of housing types. The land use plan also has several general development and residential development policies that relate to this project. They include: • Transitions between distinctly differing types of land uses should not create a negative economic, social or physical impact on adjoining developments. The city coordinates land use changes with the character of each neighborhood. • Include a variety of housing types for all residents. including apartments, town houses, manufactured homes, single - family housing, public- assisted housing, low: and moderate- income housing, and rental and owner - occupied housing. 2 • Protect neighborhoods from encroachment or intrusion .of incompatible land uses. by adequate buffering and separation. The housing plan also has policies about housing diversity and quality that the city should consider with this development. They are: • 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. • The city will continue to provide dispersed locations for a diversity of housing styles, types and price ranges through its land use plan. This is a good site for town houses. It is between two collector.streets.(Cope Avenue and County Road B) is near an arterial street (White Bear Avenue) and is near shopping and other services. In addition, this property would not be a great site for a commercial or retail business as it is hidden from the main commercial area along White Bear Avenue. A reason this property went tax - forfeit and has not yet been developed is poor soils. There are areas of poor soils on the property that the builder will have to correct as part of the development Of the site. This is an expense that any developer would have to consider when putting a project together for this area. Mr. Mogren, while working with the city and the county on preparing the development proposal, told me that having at least 24 town houses is necessary to make the project feasible in financial terms. As proposed, -the 24 units on the 3.56 -acre site means there would be 6.74 units per gross acre. phis `prteot =density is higher than the currently allowed density of six units per acre but significantly less than the maximum density standard (10.4 units per acre) in the comprehensive plan for town houses in high - density residential areas. However, for consideration of the increase in density and the PUD, the city should require the developer to construct the town houses with the same or a better level of architectural design and landscaping elements as Emma's Place. This would include the view of the development from Van Dyke Street and the size and quantities of the. landscape materials. Workforce Housing Many of the neighbors who contacted me expressed concerns about the proposed housing and the residents who would live there. Mr. Mogren is proposing to have 75 percent (18) units within this development for workforce housing, which is for low-to-moderate income residents. To qualify as a resident, Ramsey County sets the income levels based on the size and their percentage of average median income of the Twin Cities area. For example, a three - person household at the 50 percent median income level has an annual income of about $34,500 per year and a three - person household at the 60 percent income level earns about $41,000 per year. These could be people working at the Maplewood Mail, Saint John's Hospital, teachers, police officers or others starting out in their careers. It is these types of working families that this development would serve. The proposed 24 town house units would have a mix of sizes and bedrooms - 16 would have 3 bedrooms and 8 would have 2 bedrooms. Each unit will have a patio on the rear, will have a 1 -car attached garage and have its own washer and dryer. 3 As a note of comparison, Emma's Place is supportive housing. This 'is housing for persons with many needs and who need support services. This may include help with chemical dependency, money management issues, abusive relationships or other problems. This is not the type of housing Mr. Mogren is proposing with these town houses. The city's long -term stability of its tax base depends upon its ability to attract and keep residents of all ages and incomes. To do so, the city must insure that a diverse mix of housing styles is available in each stage of the life cycle to . meet .housing needs. Conditional Use Permit As proposed, there would be 24 town houses on the 3.56 =acre site (for an average of 6.74 units per acre). The proposed density is consistent with the city's high- density residential guidelines and slightly above the density standard for medium density development in the comprehensive plan. For comparison, Emma's Place to the south of the site has 13 town houses on a 2.24 -acre site for and average of 5.8 units per gross acre. The comments we received from the neighbors were concerns about compatibility with the adjacent single - family neighborhood, the potential for nuisances, increased traffic, effects on property values, loss of open space and concerns relative to the management of this complex. (See the summary of the comments on page 15 and the letters on pages 37 -38.) Compatibility Staff does not find a problem with compatibility in terms of land use. Townhomes are often built next to or across the street. from single dwellings. A recent example is with the New Century Addition in south Maplewood. The developer, Robert Engstrom, is presently developing this _.... nneighborhood with a mix of single dwellings and- twnhomes. We have many other examples in = > `- Maplewood (including Southwinds along Beebe Road and Crestview Forest on Mailand Road) where this is the case as well. Nuisances A concern of some of the neighbors is unsupervised children hanging around the neighborhood. The neighbors told me that there have been more children loitering in the area and looking for places to play in their neighborhood since Emma's Place opened in. 2002. This is a potential concern with children from any development. Monitoring this depends on parental and management supervision. The developer is proposing a tot-lot and on -site management to help with this situation. Traffic Traffic-generation data from the Institute of Traffic Engineers indicates that residential units like townhomes . generate an average of seven vehicle trips per day. In this case, with 24 town houses, there would be about 168 vehicle trips per day generated by the site. In a 12 -hour period, the 168 vehicle trips would mean an average of 14 vehicles per hour or one vehicle (on average) every 4.3 minutes. This would not be a large increase to the number of vehicles added to this neighborhood nor would it cause a large impact to the area. Property Values The Ramsey County Assessor's Office has told us in the past that multiple dwellings adjacent to single dwellings are not a cause for a negative effect on property values. If properly maintained and kept up, this development should not be detrimental to the neighborhood. The required 5 i annual review of the conditional use permit is a built -in safeguard to ensure that the city council. will regularly review this development. As .stated above, it is common that residential developers mix single dwellings and townhomes in their projects. This is an indication, of their compatibility. Loss of Open Space Preserving this property as open space is not feasible. In 1992, Maplewood citizens voted to approve a $5 million referendum to purchase land throughout the city to hold as open space. This property was not one of the target sites that the city council and open space committee considered to save for open space. DESIGN AND SITE ISSUES Building Design and Exterior Materials The proposed buildings should be attractive and would have two stories above grade and each unit would have an attached garage. As proposed, :the buildings would have an exterior of horizontal steel siding with cedar trim boards and vinyl =clad windows, and the roof would have asphalt shingles. (See the building elevation drawings on pages 30 -32 and the proposed project plans). The developer has not yet proposed colors for the buildings. I would recommend that the colors of the buildings be primarily earth - toned. rusts and creams (red, brown and tan) to closely match those of Emma's Place. City staff, however, is still .concerned about the look of the development from Van Dyke Street. The applicant could do more with the buildings to make them look more interesting and more . aesthetically pleasing (especially the building sides visible from the street). Such changes could include adding shutters, window grids and dormers in the roof area, adding windows to both the µ = x `first floor and the second floor, having the - first floor and second floor each with a distinctive color and having more distinct vertical features at the common wall between the units. Since the initial submittal, the applicant's architect sent me a revised side elevation plan (page 32) that shows additional windows on the east elevation of the buildings. These windows are a welcome addition to the plans and should be required by the city. In addition, the architect told me that the buildings would have a two -tone color scheme with the lower floors having a different color than the upper floor (much like Emma's Place). These additions to the plans are good steps toward improving the look of the. development. In addition, having more landscaping near the street and around the foundation would help enhance the appearance of the building and the site. The building styles, with the proposed materials and recommended changes and colors, should be compatible with and equal in quality to the buildings in the area, including Emma's Place. City Engineer's Review Chris Cavett of the city engineering department has reviewed the proposed grading, drainage, utility and landscape plans. I have included his memo with his comments on pages 35 and 36. Public Utilities There are sanitary sewer, storm sewer and water in Van Dyke Street to serve the proposed development. Specifically, the storm sewer in Van Dyke Street was designed and installed to W accommodate drainage from a large area north of County Road B. The developer's plans will connect their pipes to the existing storm and sanitary sewer pipes. Drainage The developer has designed the storm water drainage for this site to go into three rainwater gardens on the east side of the site (near Van Dyke Street). In times of large storms; storm water may overflow out of these gardens into the existing city storm water system. The city will not need drainage and utility easements over the ponding areas, as they will be private ponding areas. This Project will need a permit. from the watershed district. Sidewalk The applicant's plans do not show a sidewalk along Van Dyke Street. The city should require the developer to install a six - foot -wide concrete sidewalk from the sidewalk at Emma's Place to the north property line of the site (near the day care center). This sidewalk would facilitate pedestrian traffic from this development to. County Road B and then to the Oasis Market and White Bear Avenue. In addition, the sidewalks should have pedestrian ramps where they intersect a driveway. Landscaping/Trees The applicant had his surveyor identify the large (greater than_ 8 inches in diameter) trees on the site. Most of the identified trees are cottonwood and elm, with a few willow and aspen as well. None of the trees that the surveyor identified meet the city's definition of a large tree that the city would have a developer try to save. The proposed site plan, however,, does show the applicant saving some of the existing trees on, the south, west and north_ sides of the site. The city should require the developer to preserve most of the existing vegetation along -the north, west and south sides of the site. This existing vegetation in these areas will help provide. screening of the existing businesses for the new residents. The proposed landscaping plan is a good start but it needs more work. It shows the developer planting at least 11 new large trees including 8 Balsam Fir and 3 Red Maple trees. In addition, the plans. show the planting of a variety of ornamental trees and shrubs on the site and the landscaping for the three proposed rainwater gardens. The proposed plans (pages 27 through 29) show most of the site being graded and the construction of three rainwater gardens along Van Dyke Street. This will remove much of the existing vegetation and many of the existing mature trees on the property. The landscape plan does not show any planting around the units — whether in trees, shrubs or foundation. plantings. In addition, the plans do not show any screening of the site and the buildings from Van Dyke Street. The city should require the developer to provide a revised landscape plan that would include the landscaping treatments for the areas around and near the town houses and to increase the landscaping /screening (including additional trees) between the proposed buildings and Van Dyke Street. Fencing /Screening This site has commercial properties on two of its sides, including an auto repair facility and a bar to the west and the Goodwill Store and parking lot and a daycare center to the north. It would be prudent for and helpful to the residents of the new town houses if the developer installed screening along the west and north sides of the project to help ensure that the new residents and the outdoor play areas are separated from the adjacent commercial properties. This fence should be solid, be F constructed of low - maintenance materials and be six -feet high. In addition, the fence should run along the north and west property lines, subject to staff approval. Site Lighting The applicant had a site lighting plan prepared for the development that shows the expected light spread from the proposed parking lot lights. The proposed poles would be 20-feet tall and would have a sharp cutoff shoebox luminaire with a 175 -watt high- pressure sodium light bulb. The city code requires the light fxtures.,have a.design that hides the bulb and lens from view. This plan, .however, does not show any of the proposed lighting on the buildings or any lighting in or near the proposed tot lot. In addition, the ;proposed plan shows little, if any, lighting where the two driveways on the site would meet the public streets.. The applicant should revise the lighting plan in several ways. First, the plan should show how the lighting on the buildings would add to the site lighting. Secondly, the plan should have additional lighting near the tot lot and the driveways,, where they intersect Van Dyke Street, so they are adequately lit. Finally, the plan should show details about the proposed light fixtures to ensure they are a design that hides the bulb and lens from view to .avoid nuisances. Other Comments Fire. Marshal's Comments Butch Gervais, the Maplewood Fire Marshal, stated that emergency vehicles must have clear passage to the site and to buildings. This includes having the driveways at least 20 feet wide. He also noted that the buildings and the individual units must have clear addressing to direct people to the buildings and-within the site. Police Department Comments Deputy Chief John Banick reviewed the proposed plans. His comments are on page 34. Watershed District Permit Required The Ramsey/Washington Metro Watershed District noted that this development requires a permit from their office. The applicant must contact Karl Hammers of the watershed district at (65.1) 704 -2089 to find out about their plan review. and permitting. requirements. COMMISSION ACTIONS On March 3, 2003, the planning commission recommended, on a 6 to 2 vote, that the city council deny the proposed land use plan amendment. The commission was concerned that the proposed _ density of the project was too much for. the site. In addition, the commission took no action on the CUP for the PUD. On March 18, 2003, the HRA recommended, on a 2 to 1 vote, that the city council approve the proposed development. On March 25, 2003, the community design review board (CDRB), on a 2 -1 vote, tabled taking action on the design plans for the proposed development. This was to allow the developer time to make changes to the plans as recommended by city staff and by the CDRB. 7 RECOMMENDATIONS A. Approve the resolution on .page 39. This resolution changes the land use plan from BC (business commercial) and R -3 (M) (residential medium density) to .R -3(H) (residential high density) for the 3.6 -acre site of the Van Dyke Village town house development.. The city bases these changes on the following findings: 1. ._This site is proper for and consistent with the city's goals, objectives and policies for high - density residential land use in the comprehensive plan. This includes: a. Creating a transitional land use between the existing residential and commercial Land. uses. b. Being between two collector streets, near an arterial street and would be near shopping and services. 2. This development will minimize any adverse effects on surrounding properties because: a. The on -site ponding and landscaping will help separate the town houses from the properties to the east and from the town houses to the south. b. 'There should be no significant increase in traffic from. this development on existing local residential streets. The existing street pattern directs the traffic from the town houses to two nearby collector streets. c. There should be less traffic from this development than from a commercial , .development on:the same site. B. Approve the resolution starting on page 40. This resolution approves a conditional use permit for a planned unit development for the Van Dyke Village town house development on the west side of Van Dyke Street, north of County Road B. The city bases this approval on the findings required by code. (Refer to the resolution for the specific findings.) Approval is subject to the following conditions: 1. All construction shall follow the plans, for 24 town houses as approved by the city. The city council may approve major changes to the plans. The Director of Community Development may approve minor changes to the plans. Such changes shall include: a. Revising the grading and site plans to show: (1) The developer minimizing the loss or removal of natural vegetation. (2) All driveways at least 20 feet wide. If the developer wants to have parking on one side of the driveway, then it must be at least 28 feet wide. (3) All parking stalls with a width of at least 9.5 feet and a length of at least 18 feet. (4) Revised storm water pond locations and designs as suggested or required by the. watershed district or city engineer. The .ponds shall meet the city's design standards. X (5) The developer minimizing the loss or removal of natural vegetation including keeping and protecting as many of the trees as possible. 2.. The proposed construction must be substantially started within one year of council approval or the permit shall end. The council may extend this deadline for one year.. 3. Have -the city engineer approve final construction and engineering plans. These plans shall meet all the conditions and changes noted in the engineer's memo dated . February 24, 2003. These shall include: a. Include grading, utility, drainage, erosion control, streets, trails, sidewalks, tree, retaining walls, driveway.and parking lot plans. b. Include a storm water management plan for the proposal. _ 4. The design of all ponds and rainwater gardens shall. meet Maplewood's design standards and shall be subject to the approval of the city engineer. If needed, the developer shall be responsible for getting any off -site pond and drainage easements. 5. The developer or contractor shall: a. Complete all grading for the site drainage and the ponds, complete all public improvements and meet all city requirements. b.* Place temporary orange safety fencing and signs at the grading limits. c. Remove any debris or junk from the site. d. Install the required sidewalk along Van Dyke Street. 6. The approved setbacks for the principal structures in the Van Dyke Village PUD shall be: a. Front -yard setback (from a public street): minimum 30 feet, maximum — 40 feet b. Rear -yard setback: 50 feet from any adjacent residential property line c.. Side -yard setback (town houses): minimum - 40 feet from the west property line and 50 feet from the south property line. 7. The developer or builder will pay the city Park Access Charges (PAC fees) for each housing unit at the time of the building permit for each housing unit. 8. The developer shall close on the purchase of the property with the city before the city will issue a grading or a building permit for the project. 9. The property owner shall see that the site is well maintained and properly managed. 10. The city council shall review this permit in one year. C. Approve the plans date - stamped February 12, 2003, and the revised side elevation date - stamped February 24, 2003, for the proposed Van Dyke Village town house development at the west side of Van Dyke Street, north of County Road B. The city bases this approval on the findings required by the code. The developer or contractor shall do the following: 9 1.. Repeat this review in two years if the city has not issued a building permit for this project. 2. Complete the following before the city issues a building permit: a. Have the city engineer approve the. final construction and engineering plans. These plans shall include grading, drainage, sidewalk, utility, driveway, parking lot and °erosion control plans. These plans. shall meet. the following conditions: (1) The erosion control plan shall be consistent with the city code. (2) The grading plan shall: (a) Include building, floor elevation, water elevation and contour information. These shall include the normal water elevation and 100 -year high water elevation. (b) Include contour information for the land that the construction will disturb. (c) Show sedimentation basins or ponds as required by the watershed board or by the city engineer. (d) Show all proposed slopes steeper than 3::1 on the proposed construction plans. The city engineer shall approve the, plans, specifications and management practices for any slopes steeper than 3:1 This shall _ _include covering these slopes with wood. fiber blankets and seeding them with a "no movV .vegeta #ion.:.rather.. han,. using sod or grass. (e) Show all retaining walls on the plans. Any retaining walls more than four feet tali require a building permit from. the city. (f) Show as little disturbance and tree removal as possible on the north, west and south sides of the site (near the businesses and the daycare center). (3)* The tree plan shall: (a) Be approved by the city engineer before site grading or tree removal. (b) Show where the developer will remove, save or replace large trees. This plan shall include an inventory of all existing large trees on the site.. In addition, this plan shall show the planting of at least 15 replacement trees on the site. (c) Show no tree removal beyond the approved grading and tree limits. (d) Be consistent with the approved grading and landscape plans. (4) The design of the rainwater gardens shall be subject to the approval of the city engineer. The developer shall be responsible for getting any needed off- site grading or drainage easements and for recording all necessary easements. 10 (5) All the parking areas and driveways shall have continuous concrete curb and gutter. (6) The driveways shall meet the following standards: 24 -foot width - -no parking on either side and 28 -foot width -- parking on one side The developer or contractor shall post the driveways with no parking signs to meet the above- listed standards. (7) The developer shall disturb as Tittle as possible of the area along the north, west and south property lines near the daycare center and businesses. Change the grading plan for this part of the site as recommended by the city engineer. (8) Include on the plans a six-foot -wid.e concrete sidewalk along Van Dyke Street between the existing sidewalk north of County Road B and the south property line of the daycare center to the north. The contractor shall taper the sidewalk to match the driveways. b. Submit an in- ground lawn- irrigation plan to staff showing the location of sprinkler heads. c. Submit a certificate of survey'for all new construction. d. Submit a revised -landscapelplan- for -city approval showing: (I)As much of the existing vegetation (including the trees) remaining along the northern, westerly and southerly property lines as possible. (2) The manicured or mowed areas from the natural areas. This shall include planting (instead of sodding) the disturbed areas around the rainwater gardens with native grasses and native flowering plants. The native grasses and flowering plants shall be those needing little or no maintenance. This is to reduce maintenance costs and to reduce the temptation of mowers to encroach into the gardens. Specifically, the developer shall have the natural areas seeded with an upland mixture and lowland mixtures as appropriate. (3) Foundation plantings near and around the buildings and additional screening (with trees and other materials) between the proposed buildings and Van Dyke Street. (4) The planting . of at least 15 replacement trees on the site that meet the city's minimum size requiremerfts. (5) The in- ground lawn- irrigation system. e. Get the necessary approvals and permits from the watershed district. 11 f. Submit a revised site lighting plan for city approval. This plan shall show how the lighting on the buildings would. add to the site lighting, and the plan should have additional lighting near the tot lot and driveways, where they intersect the public street, so the driveways are adequately lit. This plan also shall show details about the proposed light fixtures to ensure they are a design that hides the bulb and lens from view to avoid nuisances. The light fixtures must have concealed lenses and bulbs to properly shield glare from the adjacent street right -of -ways and from adjacent residential properties. g. The developer shall record the following with Ramsey County: (1) 10- foot -wide drainage and utility easements for the areas along the east and . west property. lines and five- foot -wide drainage and utility easements for the areas along the north and south property lines. (2) The documentation to combine the properties into one property for tax and identification purposes. h. Have the Saint Paul Regional Water Services (SPRWS) approve the proposed utility plans. L The fire chief shall approve the access to the back (north and south side) of the buildings for firefighting needs. J. Submit plans for city .staff approval for any outdoor trash or recycling containers and enclosures. If_the- ;developer wants to build such facilities, the enclosure shall have materials :that, are compatible with the buildings, and they shall have gates that are 1, Rp�t?que _ k. A letter of credit or cash escrow for all required exterior improvements. The amount shall be 150 percent of the cost of the work. I. Submit for city approval revised building plans and elevations that include (but not limited to) adding windows to the east elevations, adding shutters and window grids, having earth -toned colors (red, brown and tan) and adding a brick wainscot on the east building elevations and on the building sides facing the shared driveways. m. Submit for city staff approval samples of the building materials and the samples of the proposed colors. n. The developer shall close on the purchase of the property with the city before the city will issue a grading or a building permit for the project. 3. Complete the following before occupying the buildings: a. Replace property irons that are removed because of this construction. b. Restore and sod damaged boulevards. c.. Install reflectorized stop signs at each exit, a handicap- parking sign for each handicap- parking space and an address on each building. In addition, the applicant shall install "no parking" signs within the site, as required by staff. 12 d. Paint any roof -top mechanical equipment to match the uppermost part of the building.. Screen all roof - mounted equipment visible from streets or adjacent property. .(code requirement) e. Construct trash dumpster and recycling enclosures as city code requires for any dumpsters or storage containers that the owner or building manager would keep outside the building. Any such enclosures must match the materials and colors of the building. f. Install and taper the concrete sidewalk along Van Dyke Street to match the .driveways. g6 Instal and maintain all required landscaping and an in- ground sprinkler system for all landscaped areas (code requirement). h. Install continuous concrete curb and gutter along all interior. driveways and around all open parking stalls. L Install on -site lighting for security and visibility that follows'the approved site lighting plan. All exterior lighting shall follow the approved lighting plan that shows the light spread and fixture design. The light fixtures must have concealed lenses and bulbs to properly shield glare from the adjacent street right -of -ways and the nearby homes and residential properties. j. Install a six - foot -high solid screening fence or additional landscaping along the w est : property, lines of the site where the vegetation does not adequately _....;screenheo ues _from the. businesses. These additional materials are to . ensure there is at least a six-foot-tall, 80 percent opaque screen on these sides of the site. The location, design and materials of the fence or the additional landscaping shall be subject to city staff approval. k. The developer or contractor shall: (1) Complete all grading for the site drainage, complete all public improvements and meet all city requirements. Place temporary orange safety fencing and signs at the grading limits. (3) Remove any debris or junk from the site. 4. If any required work is not done, the city may allow temporary occupancy if: a. The city determines that the work is not essential to the public health, safety or welfare. b, The above - required letter of credit or cash escrow is held by the city for all required exterior improvements. The owner or contractor shall complete any unfinished landscaping by June 1 if the building is occupied in the fall or winter, or within six weeks of occupancy if the building is occupied in the spring or summer. c. The. city receives an agreement that will allow the city to complete any unfinished work. 13 CITIZENS'. COMMENTS I surveyed the 21 surrounding property owners within 350 feet of this site for their comments. Of the seven replies; two had no comment, four objected and one had a miscellaneous comment. ..Opposed 1. I do not want this townhome project here because of too much traffic, more people, cars, depreciation of home value, loss of wildlife, seclusion and privacy. (Miller, 2172 Van Dyke Street.) 2.. We would have no. problem with the proposed development or its location if not for the fact that in our area we already have a battered woman's shelter (2. mile), a troubled boys home (1/4 mile), and the housing projects by Phalen Lake (3 miles). We think it may become counterproductive to place so many havens for people with problems so close together, and despite assurances, we have some concern over the ability of management to control or evict troublesome tenants. (Hardwick, 2182 Van Dyke Street.) 3. Refer to the letter on pages 37 -38 . (Bjork, 1849 County Road B.) A summary `of the concerns expressed in the letter and in telephone calls is: The added number of living. so close together. Would the property go off of the tax rolls? How 'would More kids in the area affect the community center? - Effeofi of'tr�spassing on neighboring property. This development would hurt property values. This development will put a burden on the local schools. Save the trees. Townhomes are not compatible with the single dwellings in the area. Kids. hanging around, loitering, being noisy, causing disturbances. They need to supervised and not getting into trouble. Preserve this space. There should be a better use of this property than this proposal. Miscellaneous Comment Well, well! Mr. Mogren has found a nice piece of property to hopefully build on. I have been waiting for years for someone to develop this space (eyesore). Best wishes, good luck and no hassles. (Art Engstrom — 2525 Highwood Avenue) 15 REFERENCE INFORMATION SITE DESCRIPTION Site size (project area): 3.56 acres Existing land use: Undeveloped SURROUNDING LAND USES (surrounding the proposed development) North: Goodwill and undeveloped property owned by the adjacent daycare. center South: Emma's Place town houses West:. Finalube, NAPA Auto Parts and .Auto body shop on White Bear Avenue East: Single dwellings across Van Dyke Street PLANNING Land Use Plan designation: R3 -M (medium density residential) and BC (business commercial) Zoning: R3 and BC Land -Use Plan Provision The land use plan provides that most of the land use plan categories coordinate with the city's zoning categories. The uses permitted in these land use categories are the. same as those in the corresponding. zoning district. Ordinance Requirements Section 36- 151(b)(1) allows multiple dwellings in a BC district by CUP. Section 36 -442 states that the city council must base the approval of CUPs on the nine findings listed in the resolution on pages 40. and 41. Section 25 -70 of the city code requires that the CDRB make the following findings to approve plans: 1. That the design and location of the proposed development and its relationship to neighboring, existing or proposed developments and traffic is such that it will not impair the desirability of investment or occupation in the neighborhood; that it will not unreasonably interfere with the use and enjoyment of neighboring, existing or proposed developments; and that it will not. create traffic hazards or congestion. 2. That the design and location of the proposed development is in keeping with the character of the surrounding neighborhood and is not detrimental to the harmonious, orderly and attractive development contemplated by this article and the city's comprehensive municipal plan. 3. That the design and location of the proposed development would provide a desirable environment for its occupants, as well as for its neighbors, and that it is esthetically of good composition, materials, textures and colors. 16 Site History /Past Actions On 7 -2 -79, the Planning Commission recommended: 1. Denial of a plan amendment from SC, service commercial, to RH, residential high density, for the portion of this site between vacated Laurie and Sandhurst Avenue, because: (a) The residents in the area who signed the petition for rezoning were not adequately informed what they were signing. (b) The residents were opposed. (c) No physical changes have occurred to warrant a change in the land use designation. 2. Denial of a rezoning from BC, business commercial, to R =3, multiple dwelling, based on denial of the plan amendment and the opposition of the neighbors. On 8 -2 -79, the City. Council denied the plan amendment and rezoning, based. on the Planning Commission recommendation. On 3 -2 -81, the Planning Commission held a hearing on this site and recommended amending the plan from SC to RM, residential medium density for the existing R -3 zone, on the basis that: 1. • A buffer zone is needed between the commercial development and existing homes. 2. Council previously denied a plan amendment to RH. The residents all favored this change at the hearing. On 6- 28 -82, the Council adopted the Comprehensive Plan Update with the above change. (NOTE: This is the land use designation and zoning now in place for the site.) On 8- 15 -83, the Planning Commission recommended approval of a conditional use permit to construct multiple dwellings in the BC zone, subject to eight conditions. On 9- 27 -83, the CDRB denied a site plan for 56 units of eight- and four -plex units on this site. The Board stated in their minutes that they felt obligated to deny the plan because of the Planning 'Commission recommendation that the "the use should preserve and incorporate the site's natural and scenic features into the development design." The Board's minutes state that the landscaping and building elevation plans were acceptable, subject to minor revisions. On 11- 14 -83, the Council denied the conditional use permit (CUP) request to construct multiple dwelling units in the BC zone, on the basis that: (a) safety factor of Section 36.442 -b is not met, (b) the conditional use permit would not be compatible with the character of the zoning district, (c) depreciation of surrounding property values, (d) nuisance situations that would give rise to problems with the existing land uses, (e) vehicular traffic congestion and unsafe access, and (f) essential public services are not provided for the property. In. addition, the Council took no action on the applicant's appeal of the CDRB's 9 -27 -83 site plan denial. On 2 -6 -84, the Planning commission considered a PUD for 48 multiple dwellings, one double dwelling and four single dwellings. A motion to approve failed. No other motion was made. 17 On 2- 13 -84, the Council denied the PUD based on evidence given at the November 14, 1983 hearing and as follows: 1. The proposed use is not in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan and the purpose and standards of chapter 36 of the Maplewood code. 2. The establishment and maintenance of a PUD would not be compatible with the public health, safety or general welfare of the contiguous neighborhood or the City in general. 3. The use proposed is not compatible with the existing land uses. .4. Based upon Council experience and knowledge, the surrounding property values would depreciate if the land would be put to higher density use. 5. The use would be hazardous, detrimental and would disturb the present and potential surrounding neighborhood, due to noises, glare, smoke, dust, odor, fumes, water pollution, potential water run -off, vibration, general unsightliness, electrical interference of other nuisances. 6. There would be .a great increase of traffic on local streets, specifically Van Dyke, and traffic congestion at the intersections of Cope and White Bear and County Road B and White. Bear would pose undo burdens to the area properties and also on the City's services such as police, fire and paramedics. 7. The use would not be served adequately by essential public services, such as parks, police, fire protection, utilities and streets. 8. The intentional use of the property would create additional requirements publi6- c ►st for public facilities and services. 9. The use would cause adverse environmental effects on the present and future residents. Council also initiated a rezoning to LBC, limited business commercial and a plan amendment to LSC, limited service commercial. On April 23, 1984, the city council held a public hearing to consider a proposal to amend the plan and to rezone the property at the northwest corner of Van Dyke Street and County Road B (including what is now Emma's Place and the current proposal). The proposed plan amendment was from SC (service commercial) and RM (medium- density residential) to LSC (limited service commercial). The proposed zone change was from BC (business commercial) and R -3 (multiple- family residential) to LBC (limited business commercial). After conducting the public hearing, the council decided to make no changes to the land use designation or to the zoning of the area. Application Date We received the complete applications and materials for this proposal on February 12, 2003. State law requires that the city take action within 60 days of receiving complete applications for a proposal. As such, the city council must act on these requests by April 14, 2003, unless the applicant requests a time extension. E p:Kr/seci .I wan LJYKU vnIayV, IEUUbIIIy -UV , Attachments: 1. Applicant's Statement 2.. Location Map 3. Land Use Map (Existing) 4. .Land Use Map (Proposed) 5. Area Map 6. . Property Line /Zoning Map 7. Site Survey 8. Site Plan 9. Landscape Plan 10. Proposed Utility Plan 11. Building Elevations 12. Building Elevations 13. Revised Side Elevation 14. Floor Plans 15. 2 -21 -03 Memo from John Banick 16. 2 24 -03 Memo from Chris Cavett 17. Letter from Susanne Sjork 18. Land Use Plan Change Resolution 19. Conditional Use Permit Resolution 20. Project Plans (separate attachments) Attachment 1 EEE 12 2003 RECEIVED Van Dyke Village Planned Unit Development The intended use of this property is -for the development, of twenty -four townhomes. This. proposed development has been approved by the Minnesota Housing Financing Agency for the financing of "Workforce" housing. It is the intention of this developer to reserve many. of the townhome units, for tenants who qualify for the "Workforce." housing income criteria. The property that is under consideration in this proposal is approximately 3.62 acres. This property is currently planned "medium density residential" which allows for six housing units per acre or 21.72 units for the entire site. The developer is requesting an amendment to the comprehensive plan that would change the allowed density on this site from medium density to high density. The site plan, which is being submitted to the City of Maplewood, shows 24 units or an increase of 2.28 units .over the number of units allowed under the current density. The developer feels that the extra 2.28 units do not pose a significant additional impact on the neighborhood. The subject property is .bordered on the North and West by commercial businesses and on the South by another multi - family development. Other than the request of an amendment to change the comprehensive plan from medium to high density, no other special land use or development approvals are being requested. 21 i Attachment 2 7K f NORTH SA1 � U." AVE rn W AvE ti ' _� ®r s RY AN w : AVE S. RAMSEY COUfaY NORTH AVE OCOMWH Fi0LL04VAY . Coumw � su AVE ARENA E Wo SOP N1A All c L�j pMM AVE. Pio N � .w 4 N LAND USE MAP S17E (EXISTING) 4 N — i r i 4 N r� • X10 - ��•la Pte• - oak � E Lr= `� a r H� �g 48P -MLO woo L a� o ■ ■ 4 N izq to m ao aI lb rn l I. i. 1. I I I I I I COUNTYROADBE - —-— — — — — — — — — — — — — —— — - -— — — - - — — — — — — — — ,- — — — — —— — — — — — — — — - 24 TY 8 7 .9 5 4 3 1 2 1 1 15 14 1 � I r "E C o H 21 I r- Q " a -( f 18 19 i - -- - 23 24 25 26 27 I 1 16 !7 I� L- - - _ - - 16 U-W— C O P E r �r-�-r _ '\ 197.395 -- x47.395 r5d � Z 1 r) ns" v �J-r r 19 �, , ' `�\ , �z�) o r. 3 1 r! ?41 a 14-) o C ; 1 0 3 I � 26 .; ro / r ' _ E.-- _ - -�' - - - - oac ►► g s_oQ a 1 r i 2 5 1 LZi �, , 2251 tl1 o z r 226 . � 2 ," b3 C ; - 1 0 m 0 (z�) o� (a.b) 03 'q I re2250 VIA. r LARK 23 1 r 22 u, (0) I r '- o �c 1 2 It �- 2230 ( 0 39 LAUR W a' W. ch �31 � I t 1 ` I W, I 1 r _ U U U !'' I (33� r9 �^ 1 I7; on W 2194 r 15 �.. - 3 coo - : �, z34.�3# C� 7) 133 SANDHURST � ' m � ' ;4 x Q _7 �' i3a. z 2182 '° I�' „9 5 43 1 i (3 �j v- C4O (I 147 „ ` 30 ' • �� / h fm �3 r !.34.08 75.5 90 �F 5� 120 COUNTY ROAD B - nt I ilfr L � I 1 4$, 13.4 PROPERTY LINE /ZONING. MAP 25 4 N Attachment 7 SURVEY FOR BRUCE MOGREN KINDER KARE -EXISTING - BUILDIMG _ ._ _ ^ ._ _ ._ ._ .._ ._ ._ .- - - '-' - •- a4• • 7 (DDODN1Ll.) .I . , t p• � CENTERLINE OF ALLEY (VACAIED)_r���GE L - • --�• - e a . . Found t /2' Iron Pipe f RIT, .x3.4, 4j �, _0.4 FT. SW OF PT. COMPEO U51NG i R1 = OANLEYS 197! NOTES 9,wrt 914.71 - Fpund pw 1317Y 0\ a ', i tr 3..v '; Ran: 92320 . y �- 'Q'o + Inert 915.70 2.95•.• !FD IRON. N40,.L3239 "" - ".•...•. - ,D.D SCruTfi•-- �IALF� OF VACQ;TED AL,i EY 10.0 - n Parcel el . t: S8 +. x • 24, 1 x:.. - ' Irk� • IZ• • •,3 O 4" VALLOW , i SVFLFPC r C13` 1r B' WIL{CWu' Parcel 2: oJ e, j �tr A .144 ,, e\ Qtr i � "" i�lr : dr Parcel 3: 1 �'r PARCEL 'r 4 p 21 64 ° a 114 •, WILLOW B L 0 K I ..,' 13 1r a �r x ib i.lr • ® ee n r '', Parcel 4: H' � 10' 134SSWOOD - - - - - - - __-- - - - - -- W 7 ,�[ F` �• R ft LY he[, .. 923.d.� ` Zpjr � - -••_ R9nt i,4rt 91119'• 2 •+.. }1 •' r Rln,: 9K.79 In.4rl: 914.55 . �5 \N 4 . . +. I :. 1r Q+b 4 . . Ir .._ , 1 \ �1�► 1 ° : • tr '• ,r 1 SQlr Rnn 919.94 • S8B'52 58 E Ir 321.08° t r ° x•lr VACATED ROAD 0 r 7+rf�'.1r 929• 1, , to .�r 2•,r s P•3 h14rt 91Z9z W. r (LAURIE iA'VE NUE) 1r Q Q .. r r r p r � � � u Yu M i p W, 910.w h-t 914.63 _ ___ _________'____________ . y r - - --- _- - - - -- - �SK.- - - - __.. -_ -- W,r 1 ,r'j 2 • r + til}p• : T ++' C63 Aft 910.75 . InM: 914.44 r ® [A e s 0 WW1 N . r CCiJ1 g �4 d >,r r ° T +' 2 . ; ces ,'• 1r •'' b,- 910.74 Rkni In.�t 913s4 _ f Be,M Inmm,ntim {ctt_r 1 D' ASPEN ) " i r. 2 • i r W,r c.� °.' . ,+• W • 2 • tY •'- _J 1 1 Wit fte 219.43 t. 913.4] 092: R9n 919.33 W-1913.23 = :b. 919442 In 91136 0 3 ._ y� ..g (��y �.• �` ' 'W a 2 -2 0} , r e ll. B L 0 C / 2.14 if " `� i f C04; RM 979.3• h.M1 (1147 WM ft. 47 - .13.39 .1G� 2 O 10' ASPEN 4' r r r iJ 0,r Q,r W 1 - ^2ir +otr 11 pr r '�,r. �,4. ��r PARCEL. 3' i ,o10' ELM; 94 qr © © �, it �. Q,.• ... (� j i Fo1nd 1 /z' Irae � u' z•r oil � Sir . cop n3. 3612 . 2.48 FEET EAST OF'COMPED. POSITRON %0,.• 1 , Qx • r , Sr ,1 a 8 ELM 0 ELm - W - Q e i i w ! C:1 i NB9'52'26 321.75 'r f zss 2.85 VACATED ,r8• EL - _ :1d .•• . - 8' EL" AL L EY 2.X5 •.. _ zes { c ' z f _ � e .2'. _ W 1 N8952'26 ^W - -• - -- .. 4 x 270.00 1�� L•--- -41.00 i 49.00 tr 279. , Q+2 �il 2 • IV 8. QM - S j 1 M 12' ASPEN , 3 ° ' 2 T T N B L'. "C 4�p• 20 V �l •i2;2• -. 'D, _ �, B Q I Q, 2. 1r ,8 +• 3 �.. 12 V `, VPAR 024. 2 2 C E L , F1M ' I 14 ASPEN " ,m - - -- r o w 0 vi + r O 10 ASPEN c d � �+r r i •' ; F P 2 • 41.00 49.00 270.00 G �+• © u 2r 2.20• 2.2 r �y 319.00 4l lr 30.0 Y7, � Ir 'Ce Q 10' ELM 30.0 Found Iran Pip., 10' ELM 1r lr V r 10' ELM w 17 'B ` Intel: 917.19 ' 2 R.L.S. a, CA.1� 4 ; • ° r / • '- 4x7_._ I MI. 97211 h, t' 912.11 NO. 6612 89' r r 319.00 ,r u VACATED r RO AD -� rz� -1 , Q " • ron . - Fwnd 1/2' I Plp• my no. 8512 t"�'(7 ".'.___• -•- _ _ _ \ °''T" r •• •....__ - RYn: 92E99 0.36 FEET WEST OF _ COMPEO. POSl110N -- .._ - - -•-- ••-"••""•--"...•- -- .. _- _.._._... _ __._.. -- -4n- Inw - 97239 ................. Tn'r Rh: 921.99 EXISTING TOWNHOUSE CONCRETE BUILDING PAD I" ........ r SITE SURVEY 26 1 Attachment R si RV. ''"' Y •, y II _ -... _ .o . .o-. .0-19 .osi 1. flsi .o-sl .o -"z .o-'91 2AV 21'alnVI p �® e G 61) 1 . Nn 9 ((�� w wl P w v C, J ae t fz) .0-L6 ae e (ti) Nn 9 \ \ L N Attachment g M= CODE QUANTITY DESCRIPTION A 29 i BLACK CHOKEBERRY , B 24 ISANTI DOGWOOD C a _ ARTIC BLUE WILLOW 0 B BALSAM FIR £ J NORIHWOODS RED MAPLE F 2 RIVER BIRCH AS DENOTED " - RAIN GARDEN PLANTINGS: BLUE MO W£ MARSH VAT04 O. VAR. , CRASS RUPEE WE O G CARDINAL WE w E Sm CRASS P AG 7 MvEWS norm, )M M 4 OOP. 9100M AOR. MARSH YAItl001D LANDSCAPE PLAN 28 Attachment 10 EXISTING- BUILDING - �; % I KINDER KARE .� INSTALL DRAINAGE MANHOLE - - - - - - - - - •- - - ._ .._ 1 _ RIM: 922.2*' EXISTING BUILDING I IRV: 914.9* N -S (FIELD VERIFY) (GOODWILL) •x vii•• M EX. BIT. SURFACE tl4.ip x 12193 NY. 19/.71 i. -� �� � - �� n A -T .. _ .... • .-M.65 tl X •21.45 �_ � Dk(H 1 2 B . 5 �tl�� ' ST �- RA19 ' _ 14 iss ... _. -_ - ] 2I1 ............ . ._.._..__._fx�..c._ _ - x11211 ^ Y�' APlldl ) INV. f10.60 I. `.� - •7 _ f22.M - � x •lf'1]•. . R Maf7. - R _ W. f 'Y _ 29' - 12" HDPE ® 12.4% _ • X921.0 xM\tl 2 - CO 1 - .•• ' I 1 APRON WITH THRASH GUARD (TYPICAL) . r tlaM EX. BIT. SURFACE � x"S." xsiaf9 I _ 1. - I � � I ,'_ 86-12 CURB & GUTTER xULM _ i AROUND PARKING SPACES (TYPICAL) NIT�4; 3 BR m 6 U I - ; tl3a, a F.F. 9NIT 2 '2 BR 86 -12 CURB tr GUTTER . AROUND PARKING SPACES (TYPICAL) `. 7s X tlow •faM VALLEY GU R. FOR 122.14 PARKING SPACES (TYPICAL) . C4 fMAOC OMA2 WAQ 'i VALLEY GUTTER FOR tl]ao 92140 e - PARKING SPACES (TYPICAL) I i REPLACE PAVEMENT IN KIND ' "x9mm :ns99 ,C (TYPICAL) _ j - ( 2 6 D.I.P. 2 ) `� _ ' WET TAP EXISTING WATER MAIN Lox � � ' " INSTALL 6' GATE VALVE EX. BIT. SURFACE 2" (SIZE UNKNOWN, CHECK WITH .MfAi z•zau _ ST. PAUL WATER UTILITY) . '� MAL. 0.w fln _ •' 'T IN: 9if.94 RELOCATE EXISTING M A\ ] W 912.92 SANITARY MANHOLE x Ma03 F? 'JI1 • 1 - 0=1010 R94 92185 X 122.79 1 tl ss±- - MUM KV. SIMS I •Sf' . , it NEW MY 922N ~ 121 b "- ST 1 NEW MV 914.08 MWNTABLE CURB � ' cMAfE o ; C 1 SET ON IN POURED 6 4 Iw: 91974 CONCRETE SLAB 4f FOR MAIL BOXES 1 4 3 BR ib W. 912.04 6 -UNIT 2 BR x z dce §�f FF. 92,40 �4� ? r.l.lmo c I� RnX• mre el:. 3 . • ax * x13],221 n, I C R9n 91BA) Inwl M1 G ' 22 C S �! CBS RIX 911.7) mM1 ft12] V: Ia50 BS Aw 919.72 IXrnl M138 - n x M•. 5 ; C94: 992 919.]8 22.91 1,143 X M W :!,i u x 1 Wf: IL" 119.47 mwn 11139 $$ x f sm I t in r Mkw x { I . CORE CUT INTO 4' P.V.0 SOR 28 ® >~ 9 1 �+ # 3 1 4p� EXISTING CATCH BASIN 4 X B WYE X mn X 9n.» X fH.A x 2221* I M li INV . .918.18 NW 9 2 - . 1' COPPER TYPE IC n I �;,•,• I' X 1' CORPORATION W! , �� x M I !� 16 - 12 HDPE ®2 0% tB' SEPARATION N • . - . x ft2Y (TYP BOX .- .. ` .,. 24 W9.2' ! � 7°'D �Aa 'fi y x Y f I t ! 2 2 R 6 UNIT�4j 3 BR• 8 B S I M I: I INSTALL .3 CURB CUT F.F. 924.2b f I • WITH CONCRETE SPILLWAY I (TYPICAL) It G L ' .OARAC[ 0111AR 9AMA9E t5 N ' , ',•2278 1u79 `sa WET TAP EXISTING WATER MAIN . 4 tl1.7f S hg ! INSTALL 6" GATE VALVE N89'35'16'E2.46 - ; :. 11 ) 22 I" E (SIZE UNKNOWN, CHECK NTH ST. PAUL WATER UTILITY) 5 GATE VALVE x 6' n J INSTALL MANHOLE OVER - �Yp RANT (tYPICAL) EXISTING SANITARY SEWER \ - • I.ao (SIZE UNKNOWN) x 921./1 71°4 MNZ 336' - B" PVC SD 28 0.84 4" MH1 RIM: 921.01* `. IS If 82172, xsm31 <1 INK 912.4* (FIELD VERIFY). 'MAIL X141 INSTALL VALLEY GUTTER (TYPICAL) MOUNTABLE CURB (TYPICAL) 1 x 91x93 It MAI - 6 .... UNIT(a;• 3 BR x.:22 F.F. 924.00(2) 2 BR 6 ;1 K I m M.99 - x h1.9f X u1 \ k tl4u X 4. f '• Z iI • � SZ2 1 RN: 921.60 1 tll.3f a I 1 x 1N•� � APRON 1 WY. 910.50 � 0=01 x - 1 922 APRON WITH THRASH GUARD (TYPICAL) Y •tl.s> 1 ; ,y 1M f1AY . 319.00' J ..J.- .1.�'JJ✓J..' 1 f x22 38' - 12" HOPE ® 2.0.7 •... - ....._.. _ �At . --'-- ........ '_..... "'.....' y r• "' "' .._ .. CORE C:)T INTO CONCRETE ' 1x159 x i fa EXISTING CATCH BASIN EXISTING - TOWNHOUSE BUILDING PAD °� +y + , INV. 917.74 NW x ; I L PROPOSED UTILITY PLAN 29 4 N Attachment SIDE ELEVATION Mn•.nc� ■t SI DE ELEVATION `ene•.rc• BUILDING ELEVATIONS 30 /��R6YR•El.�4T101� U ww•.ro Attachment 12 o � 1 GOVT. RIDGE VENT - \ WXhM cAL TO VERIFY I - - vENnNG REWIIREM@!1" wx VZRM ON 5#4K SIDE — • - - -•— _..__.— . —.. —_ ASPHALT ROOF SHIN6LE --. _— _ = _ -- - _ STEEL HORZONAL TRIM BOARD PAINTED CEDAR CORNER BOARD 0 1 - = I r F r — - 1 1 1 -'- =-� - [ o — aa Hail IF F. r r 7 7 — 1 7� 7.7 \ - VINYL GLAD WINDOW i I I'x wo OD TRIM I b'.6' PANTED WOOD STEEL SIDING ST8 CLOSURE TRIM - GOI.IINN - TYP. FRONT EL YP ELEVATION T - SM SW,11M 41AS PA FTTE eo ° ^R C 1 N011S 8/16.3' -0. 3 .LOPE GRADE FROM 12 BUILDING - SEE CIVIL O AL El I/A9.APPLY - g T AL � . TO L ELEVATIONS . Tin" WAR96,1, Y uNrr I SIDE ELEVATION 3 3n6• =1=0• I r eu c't uj u;tp: �zja MKL I I I tU I UKHL Nt I WUKK bb I 4JU U 1 UU p.3 Attachment 13 TYR e- I ---err - - ADD THE TH PNIND4W DN VANDYKE STREET SIO _.._ ARCWNJE Project Bulletin No. ARpiffECTURE P(ANFIWG*L� -�.� 12#45 5% SWET Un aM. W; W042 MW 65 1 /4M-OW Date I:AX 651,143M 2/21/05 ITH 4 NOV 32 �_�- Attachment .14 n n 2 Al N4115 A� � 1105 TO ATM TO T: FIT eETPtgT4 - 7. IBAOER BEMs TO =15W O. 011 Ili LVLS V O. �`SECON� BOOR PLAN L 3. 5t£ 511E PLAN FOR BLOC. OMVffAnOR , - .1�9 : 1' - 0' rs zm TRIMM 5760 UNO. S. USE SWFWN N15A Tq/f aft EA MW 00. O. NWLDCRET4 ALL PARTY MW.L WwrRom - . rV FASTSMS a 1' Of. G ALL FR.V4% . m I 31 A5 A3 l wM AZ I. ACIM5 PAIL TO ATTIC TO BE FR BEITMN ROOF TRU95F5 .. . 1 11AM BEAMS TO CMUST OF (W 9 I*' LVL UN 5 O. . 9. SEE 517E PLAN POR ULD6. ORIEMATI 4. Ill 2o* YJNS STWO AT ALL OM'EILNB w z* TR!MER 5" 9NO. �- RR3T FLOOCt PLAN s. usE s1MPSOl4 H25A TPlFS -,EA. Tress ENO. . 6. KML?YJ" ALL PARTY MULL SNWTROC.K' - - /8• s: i. —Q• MV PASTEMIIM a 1' OC.. TO ALL PRAMIM Cl © _ �arasr.A►ar. _{�� wM AZ I. ACIM5 PAIL TO ATTIC TO BE FR BEITMN ROOF TRU95F5 .. . 1 11AM BEAMS TO CMUST OF (W 9 I*' LVL UN 5 O. . 9. SEE 517E PLAN POR ULD6. ORIEMATI 4. Ill 2o* YJNS STWO AT ALL OM'EILNB w z* TR!MER 5" 9NO. �- RR3T FLOOCt PLAN s. usE s1MPSOl4 H25A TPlFS -,EA. Tress ENO. . 6. KML?YJ" ALL PARTY MULL SNWTROC.K' - - /8• s: i. —Q• MV PASTEMIIM a 1' OC.. TO ALL PRAMIM M To: From: CC: Date: Re: 1 Mr. Ken Roberts Deputy Chief John Banick:J Chief .Dave Thomalla 2/21/2003 VAN DYKE VILLAGE — Van Dyke north of EmmWs Place I have reviewed the attached project proposal and currently have the following thoughts regarding it: 1. I am concerned about the increase in vehicle and pedestrian traffic in the area. Recently, two police department employees commented about how unsafe it has become to turn out of the City Hall ;entrance onto County Road B. However, the accident history at the intersection of._ County;,. Road B and Van Dyke Street is remarkably low. A search of poli ce records indicates that only three reported accidents have occurred at that intersection;, between 1998- 2002.. Additionally, I don't believe that the design of the intersection'of rlVhife` - Bear Avenue and Cope Avenue to the north of this project was designed to handle much more traffic than it currently does. To improve pedestrian safety in this area, I recommend that a sidewalk on the west side of Van Dyke Street be included in this project. 2. This project has the potential to increase police and medical calls.for service in this area. The population density of an area generally has a direct correlation on the amount of crime in the area. We should consider the potential increase in calls for service to the surrounding area (e.g. Maplewood Community Center, local businesses, and the entire neighborhood) that will be generated from the residents whom will reside at this location. However, the police department has not experienced a large increase in calls for service in this area due to the addition of Emma's Place. 3. Lastly, since this complex will be rental property, I recommend that the owner of this property be encouraged to participate in our local Crime Free Multi - Housing Program. To obtain further information about this program, the owner may contact me directly at 651- 770 -4502. If you have questions, you may contact me at extension 4502. 1 34 Attachment 16 Engineering Plan Review PROJECT: Van Dyke Village PROJECT NO: 03 -11 REVIEWED BY: Chris Cavett, Assistant City Engineer DATE: February 24, 2003 The applicant or his engineer shall address the.following comments: Grading and Drainage Plan; The applicant's engineer should discuss the following drainage issues with Chris Cavett, Assistant City Engineer, 651- 770 -4554. 1. Volume calculations provided by the applicant for the rainwater gardens are acceptable. However, the applicant appears to have overlooked the fact that runoff appears to be draining from of the Goodwill site.. Though the applicant is not. expected to treat the volume of runoff coming from the Goodwill site, the applicant should take measures to ensure that the rainwater garden overflow pipe and the subsequent site are not unnecessarily impacted by that amount of flow. Venfy that there is not already some type of inlet structure already located at the spllwy from Goodwill. It would seem odd that a connection was never made in the past with the storm sewer at that exact location. Maybe it has been covered over by trash and sediment? This will have to be investigated in the spring. 2. If heavier soils are located on this site, there is the likelihood of water standing in the rainwater gardens more than the 24 -48 hours that the city prefers. If this is a concern, it is recommended that the bottom of each garden be raised, by placing 1 /z - foot layer of sand on top of the scarified subsoil in the bottom of the garden before placing the bedding material and shredded mulch. This would permit a depth of only 1.0 -foot before water is able to drain out 3. Provide instruction on the plan for the proper preparation of the Rainwater Gardens: • Provide a comment on the grading plan about staging, preparation and protection of the garden areas. Once the contractor has prepared the rainwater garden areas, the contractor shall mulch.and protect them with heavy -duty silt fence. • Provide a comment on the grading plan that the entire garden area must be thoroughly and deeply scarified before the contractor places the bedding material and the shredded- mulch. Scarifying must be done with a "toothed" backhoe. 35 • On city projects, Maplewood has used a mixture of 50% salvaged topsoil and 50 % clean organic compost as bedding material • Revise the two items on the rock infiltration sump detail: revise to show geotextile "Filter" fabric, "(Felt) ", as there has been confusion in the past. And correct "slumps" to read "sumps ". 4. Submit for approval the detail of the curb cut/concrete spillway: Design is critical to ensure runoff can be diverted to the rainwater gardens in all seasons. 5. The applicant must sign a best management practices (BMP) maintenance agreement with the city. This agreement is to ensure that the applicant /property owner will maintain the storm water facilities, including the rainwater gardens. The maintenance agreement will be made part of the utility permit and must be signed and returned to the city before final site approval. Site Plan 1. In stall 6- foot -wide concrete sidewalk along the Van Dyke Street frontage. Typically the sidewalk is located 7 -feet behind the curb and it must be at least 5 feet behind the curb. This may require shifting the gardens slightly to the west. Utilities 1. Sanitary. sewer between the two northerly buildings extends further to the west according to the city base maps. Confirm the existing location with record drawings and field observations. The applicant's proposal to relocate the manhole west of the two buildings may not be possible. 2. Consider shifting the northern two buildings slightly to the south to provide more clearance between the sewer main and the building. There shall be a minimum. of 10 -feet between the main and the corner of the proposed building on the south side of the existing main. .3. City records, (resolution 66 -11 -318, Nov. 29, 1966), indicate that the easement was "vacated subject to the granting of an easement to the Village for maintenance of the sanitary sewer main constructed in the street right- of-way ". Provide or verify from title records that the appropriate easement exists over this sewer main. If there is not an easement or the main must be relocated, the applicant shall provide the city with a utility easement for the sanitary sewer main. 36 Attachment 17 The following are questions we have for the developer: 1. Why do you need so many units compared to what it is zoned .for? Is it your F 2003 profitability that you are worried about? IF THE SPACE COULD ADEQUATELY ACCOMMODATE THE EXTRA NUMBER OF PEOPLE, I C I V WOULD HAVE BEEN ZONED THAT WAY ORIGINALLY. , TRAFFIC HAS ALREADY INCREASED DUE TO EMMA'S. PLACE ON VAN ANOTHER DEVELOPMENT SO CLOSE WILL REALLY. CAUSE PROBLEMS. 2. What kind of tax breaks are you getting for developing this type of housing and when can you take them? 3. Are you entering into a contract with the city that you cannot sell the property or change tenant structure without city council approval? THE PROPOSAL LOOKS GOOD ON PAPER NOW, BUT WHO'S TO SAY THAT IN A YEAR OR TWO SOMEONE ELSE BUYS THE PROPERTY AND IT TURNS INTO A DUMP. 4. How many of the units are going to be owner occupied? 5. Are you going to have a full time person on staff for problems and emergencies. Who will be the. contact person for the issues and problems that come up? 6.' What is the number of vehicles (cars, trucks, boats, snowmobiles, etc.) residents - can have? 7. Maximum amount of people per unit? Max number of kids? 8.. How many guests can they have over at one time? What about overflow parking? 9. Are residents going to have to go through a background check? 10. What are the qualifications to live in these units? 11. How will residents that don't follow the rules be dealt with? 12. Could I get. a copy of the rules? 13. Are you requesting road improvements because of this development? What will this mean to residents that live on Van Dyke? 14. What is the rent range? Association fees`? Are there any subsidies that will be given to residents? . 15. Plans for construction crew and garbage that they generate and leave behind? THIS WAS A MAJOR PROBLEM WITH EMMA'S PLACE 16. Are you having a playground? Hours? 17. Who will take care of the unit outside as far as the lawn, plowing, etc.? General concerns and thoughts for Maplewood planners: AS RESIDENTS IN THE AREA, WE ARE REALLY CONCERNED WITH THE ADDED NUMBER OF PEOPLE LIVING SO CLOSE TOGETHER. WE ALREADY HAVE ISSUES WITH EMMA'S PLACE AND THE MANY DISTURBANCES THE KIDS ARE CAUSING. I CAN'T IMAGINE THAT THIS DEVELOPMENT WOULD BE ANY DIFFERENT. WHAT IS THE CITY OF MAPLEWOOD� GOING TO DO TO ENSURE THAT THE KIDS IN THESE UNITS ARE SUPER 1�' by CAUSING TROUBLE? ONCE EMMA'S KIDS AND THE KIDS IN THIS DEVELOPMENT GET TOGETHER, IT IS GOING BE DOUBLE THE TROUBLE. .1 FIND IT HARD TO BELIEVE THAT I WILL GET A DECENT NIGHT'S SLEEP ONCE THE WARM WEATHER COMES AND MY WINDOWS ARE OPEN. I ALREADY BATTLED THIS LAST SUMMER WITH EMMA'S PLACE. Attachment 18 LAND USE PLAN CHANGE RESOLUTION WHEREAS, Mr. Bruce Mogren, applied for a change to the city's land use plan from BC (business commercial) and R -3(M) (residential medium density) to R -3(H) (residential high density).. WHEREAS, this change applies to the undeveloped property located on the .west side of Van Dyke Street, north of County Road B and east of White Bear Avenue for the Van Dyke Village town houses. WHEREAS, the history of this change is as follows: 1. On March 3, 2003; the planning commission held a public hearing. The city staff published a hearing notice in the Maplewood Review and sent. notices to the surrounding property owners. The planning commission gave everyone at the hearing a chance to speak. and present written statements. The planning commission recommended that the city council deny the plan amendment. 2. On April 14, 2003, the city council discussed the land use plan change. They considered reports and recommendations from the planning commission and city staff. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the city council approve the above- described changes for the following reasons: 1. This site is proper for and consistent with the city`s goals, objectives and policies for high- density residential land; use in the comprehensive plan. This includes: a. Creating a transitional °land use between the existing residential and commercial land uses. b. Being between two collector streets, being near an arterial street and near shopping and services. 2. This development. will minimize any adverse effects on surrounding properties because: a. The on -site pond and landscaping will separate the town houses from the properties to the east and from the town houses to the south. b. There should be no significant traffic increase from this development on existing local residential streets. The existing street pattern directs the traffic from the town houses to two nearby collector streets. c. There should be less traffic from this development than from a commercial development on the same site. The Maplewood City Council adopted this resolution on April , 2003 39 Attachment 19 CONDITIONAL. USE PERMIT RESOLUTION WHEREAS, Mr. Bruce Mogren applied for a conditional use permit to build a 24 -unit town. house development known as Van. Dyke Village. WHEREAS, this permit applies to the property at the west side of Van Dyke Street, north of County Road B and east of White Bear Avenue. The legal descriptions are: Parcel 1: That part of the West 90 feet of the East 360 feet of Lot 2, Block 20, Smith and Taylor's Addition of North`°St. Paul, lying East of the West '41 feet thereof; including that part of the North half, of. adjoining Sandhurst Avenue, vacated, lying between the extension and across said street of the East line of the West 41 feet of the East 360 feet of Lot 2, and the West line of the East 270 feet of said Lot 2. Parcel 2: The East 270 feet of Lot 2, Block 20, together with the North 2.65 feet of said Lot 2, Block 20, except the West 233.14 feet thereof, and the South 2.65 feet of Lot 1, Block 20 except the West 233.14 feet thereof, all in Smith and Taylor's. Addition to North St. Paul, accruing thereto by reason of vacation thereof. Parcel 3: All that part of Lot 1, Block 20, Smith and Taylor's Addition to North St. Paul, except the South 2.65 feet. thereof, and except that part described as follows: Commencing at a point on the West line of said Lot 1, distant 2.65 feet North of the Southwest comer of said Lot 1; . thence East parallel to the South line of said Lot 1 a distance of 271.49 feet- North on a straight line_ to a point on the North line of said Lot 1, distant 272.06 feet Eastbf-the Northwest corner of said Lot thence West along said North line feet to said Northwest comer of said Lot 1; thence South along the West line of said Lot 1 a distance of 121.38 feet to the point of beginning, and except the South %2 of vacated Laurie Avenue lying adjacent to the North of the excepted tract and herein described. Parcel 4: All that part of Lot 2, Block 13, Smith and Taylor's Addition to North St. Paul including the North half of vacated. Laurie Avenue, lying adjacent to and South of the tract herein described, except that part of Lot 2, Block 13, described as follows: Commencing at the Southwest comer of said Lot 2, thence East along the South line of said Lot 2 a distance of 272.33 feet to a point, thence Northerly on a straight line to a point of the North line of said Lot 2, a distance of 272.01. feet to the Northwest comer of said Lot 2; thence southerly along the West line of said Lot 2, to the point of beginning and excepting there from that part taken for widening of White Bear Avenue, and except the North % of vacated Laurie Avenue lying adjacent to and south of the excepted tract herein described. WHEREAS, the history of this conditional use permit is as follows: 1. On March 3, 2003, the planning commission reviewed this request but did not make a recommendation about this permit. 2. On April 2003; the city council held a public hearing. City staff published a notice in the paper and sent notices to the surrounding property owners. The council gave everyone at the hearing a chance to speak and present written statements. The council also considered reports and recommendations from the city staff and planning commission. 40 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the city council approve the above- described conditional use permit, because: 1. The use would be located, designed, maintained, constructed and operated to be in conformity with the city's comprehensive plan and code of ordinances. 2 The use would not change the existing or planned character of the surrounding area. 3. ,The use would not depreciate property values: 4. The use would not involve any activity, process, materials, equipment or methods of operation that would be dangerous., hazardous, detrimental, disturbing or cause a nuisance to any person or property, because of excessive noise, glare, smoke, dust, odor, fumes, water or air pollution, drainage, water runoff, vibration, general unsightliness, electrical interference or other nuisances. 5. The use would generate only minimal vehicular traffic on local streets and would not create traffic congestion or unsafe access on existing or proposed streets. 6. The use would be served by adequate public facilities and services, including streets, police and fire protection, drainage structures, water and sewer systems, schools and parks. 7. The use would not create excessive additional costs for public facilities or services. .8. The use would maximize the preservation of and incorpora #e the site0s natural and scenic features into the. development design. .9. The use would cause minimal adverse environmental effects. Approval is subject to the. following conditions: 1. All construction shall follow the. plans for 24 town houses as approved by the city. The city council may approve major changes to the plans. The Director of _Community Development may approve minor changes to the plans. Such changes. shall include: a. Revising the grading and site plans to show: (1) The developer minimizing the loss or removal of natural vegetation (2) All driveways at least 20 feet wide. If the developer wants to have parking_ on one side of the driveway, then it must be at least 28 feet wide. (3) All parking stalls with a width of at least 9.5 feet and a length of at least 18 feet. (4) Revised storm water pond locations and designs as suggested or required by the watershed district or city. engineer. The ponds shall meet the city's design standards. (5) The developer minimizing the loss or removal of natural vegetation including keeping and protecting as many of the trees as possible. 41 2. The proposed construction must be substantially started within one year of council approval or the permit shall end. The council may extend this deadline for one year. 3. Have the city engineer approve final construction and' engineering plans. These plans shall meet all the conditions and changes noted in the engineer's memo dated February 24 2003. These.shall include: a.. Include grading, utility, drainage, erosion control, streets, trails, sidewalks, tree, retaining walls, driveway and parking lot plans. b. Include_ a storm water management plan for the proposal. 4. The design of all. ponds -and- rainwater gardens shall meet Maplewood's design standards and shall be subject to the approval of the city engineer. If needed, the developer shall be responsible for getting any off -site pond and drainage easements. 5: The developer or contractor shall: a. Complete all grading for the site drainage and the ponds, complete all public improvements and meet all city requirements. b.* Place temporary orange safety fencing and signs at the grading limits. c. Remove any.debris or junk from the-,site.:: _ d. Install the required sidewalk along Van Dyke-Street. 6. The approved setbacks -forth prtnc pat structures in the Van Dyke Village PUD shall be: a. Front -yard setback (from a public street): minimum - 30 feet, maximum — 40 feet b. Rear -yard setback: 50 feet from any adjacent residential property line c. Side -yard setback (town houses): minimum , 40 feet from the west property line and 50 feet from the south property line. 7. The developer or builder will pay the city Park Access Charges (PAC fees) for each housing unit at the time of the building permit for each housing unit. 8. The developer shall close on the purchase of the property with the city before the city will issue a grading or a building permit for the project. 9. The property owner shall see that the site is well maintained and properly managed. 10. The city council shall review this permit in one year. The Maplewood .City Council approved this resolution on , 2003. 42 MINUTES OF THE MAPLEWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION 1830 COUNTY ROAD B EAST, MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA MONDAY, MARCH 3, 2003 V. PUBLIC HEARING a. Van Dyke Village Town houses (Van Dyke Street, north of County Road B) Mr. Roberts said Mr. Bruce. Mogren is proposing to build. a 24 -unit town house development on ,the vacant property on the west side of . Van Dyke Street, north of County Road B. This development, called Van Dyke Village, would be for work force housing for low and moderate - income families. There would be on -site management to help monitor and run the property. Mr. Roberts said the proposal would have four, six -unit townhouse buildings. Each town house would have a one car attached garage and a patio area. There also would be 30 open parking spaces. The buildings would have exteriors of horizontal -lap siding with cedar trim boards. Mr. Roberts said this is a good site for town houses: It is between two collector streets (Cope Avenue and County Road B), is near an arterial street (White Bear Avenue) and is near shopping and other services. In addition, this would not be a great site for a commercial or retail business as it is hidden from the maincommercial area along White Bear Avenue. Mr. Roberts said as proposed Rthe 24 units on the 3.56 -acre site means there would be 6.74 units per gross acre.. This.praject Jt ;s,.� gher than the currently allowed density of six units per acre but significantly less than the : maximum density standard (10.4 units . per acre) in the comprehensive plan for town houses . in high - density residential areas. However, for consideration of the increase in density and the PUD, the city should require the developer to construct the town houses with the same or a better level of architectural design and landscaping elements as Emma's .Place. This would include the view of the development from Van Dyke Street and the size and quantities of the landscape materials. Mr. Roberts said many of the neighbors who contacted him expressed concerns about the proposed housing and the residents who would live there.. Work force housing is. for low -to- moderate income residents. To qualify as a resident, Ramsey County sets the income levels based on the household size their percentage of average median income of the Twin Cities area. For example, a three - person household at the 50 percent median income level has an annual income of about $34,500 per year and a.three - person. household at the 60 percent income level earns about $41,000 per year. These could be people working at the Maplewood Mall, Saint John's Hospital, teachers, police officers or others starting out in their careers., It is these types of working families that this development would serve. Mr.. Roberts said the proposed 24 town house units would have a mix of sizes and bedrooms -16 would have 3- bedrooms and 8 would have 2- bedrooms. Mr. Roberts.said as a note of comparison, Emma's Place is supportive housing. This is housing for. persons with many needs and support services. This may be help with chemical dependency, money management issues, abusive relationships or other problems. This is not the type of housing Mr. Mogren is proposing with these town houses. Mr. Roberts said a concern of some of the neighbors is unsupervised. children hanging around the neighborhood. The neighbors told him that there have been more children loitering in the.area and looking for places to play in their neighborhood since Emma's Place opened in 2002. This is a potential concern with children from any development. Monitoring this depends on parental and management supervision. The developer is proposing a tot -lot and on -site management to help with this situation. Mr. Roberts said traffic - generation data from the Institute of Traffic Engineers indicates that residential units like townhomes generate an average of seven. vehicle trips per day. In this case, with 241own houses, there would be about 168 vehicle trips per day generated by the'site. In . a .12 - hour period,. the 168 vehicle trips would mean an average of 14 vehicles per hour or one vehicle (on average) every 4.3 minutes. This would not be a large increase to the number of vehicles added to this neighborhood nor would it cause a large impact to the area. Commissioner Pearson said he does not see anything on the plans. for a storm shelter, he asked what those residents would do if there was a tornado? Mr. Roberts said he did not know if the applicant was. required to have a storm shelter. He said as an example, you can build slab on grade for a townhome and not be required to have a storm shelter.. Mr. Roberts said maybe the applicant, Mr. Mogren would like to answer that. Commissioner Trippler said in the Comprehensive Plan on page .44, it shows the lots as high- density multiple dwelling. Mr. Roberts saidr he had. received Mr. Trippler's message earlier in. the day and he checked into. that Tha# !a ekQ�rin the.Com pre hens ive Plan. It should be shown - medium density; the red coloring did not come out correctly. Commissioner Trippler asked staff if the Comprehensive Plan should read medium density all the way down to County Road B then? Mr. Roberts said correct. Commissioner Dierich asked staff if this proposal was going to be rental property? Mr. Roberts said yes. Commissioner Dierich said on page 32 of the Comprehensive Plan R -3 (M) says you can go to seven units per acre. She asked if any zoning changes were necessary? Mr. Roberts on page 33 of the Comprehensive Plan the chart breaks it down by the different types of units. On the townhome line, the third line.down that is six units per acre, the seven units per acre is for manufactured homes. Commissioner Dierich asked staff if they went to a higher density could Mr. Mogren increase the density if staff changes this to R -3 (H)? Mr. Roberts said no, Mr. Mogren could not increase the density. He said if this is approved by the city council, the commission would be approving a PUD and the PUD has a specific site plan with 24 units on it. Commissioner Rossbach asked staff if it takes 4 city council votes for a PUD and for a zone change it takes 5 city council votes? Mr. Roberts said it takes 3 city council votes for a PUD and 4 city council votes for a comprehensive plan change. Commissioner Rossbach said he is concerned that the city is selling. property to a developer and then working with the developer to develop a plan, all before, it ever becomes public. He said he would like to know more how that process works. Mr. Roberts said it's varied from site to site and project to project. An example would be the lots that were sold on Burke Circle and now the homes are being built that were reviewed last.year by the planning commission. The city council made the decision to sell the lots, they put a plan together and got the property prepared and the street rebuilt as part of the English Street project.. It was'a sealed bid put out for any developer or buyer to buy the lots. Whoever had the high bid that met. the requirements were awarded the bid. In this case, it was a matter of working with staff, Ramsey County and trying to find a developer that the city had a comfort level to develop a plan for low to moderate income housing. The city was bound to do such a project because the city bought the property from Ramsey County at a reduced price because the city had made a commitment to build the low to moderate - income housing. Because of that, the city was trying to find a developer that could work with Ramsey. County and their funding and financing requirements and that had a track record with the city. Mr. Roberts said he did not know if there. were other - developers. contacted or not, but Mr. Mogren could speak about the history regarding this. The other development that will be handled similarly will be the Larpenteur Avenue Redevelopment. Area Project. rn .. rte... 1 .....R S . Commissioner Rossbach asked what the density was for Emma 's Place? Mr. Roberts said the density for Emma's Place is just under 6 units per acre. Commissioner Pearson said in purchasing this land from Ramsey County, would their. requirements have allowed an R -1 (S) zoning in that area for owner occupied? Mr. Roberts said he thinks the only stipulation was for low to moderate - income housing. Commissioner Trippler said he is concerned about having one -car garages. He said hardly anybody only has one car. He said if most of the people have two cars there would not be enough parking for any visitors. He asked where do you foresee the overflow parking would. end Up? Mr. Roberts said there is enough room in front of the garage door for a car to be parked outside the garage, which was not included in the outside parking calculations and one car parked in the garage. Plus the additional 30 parking spaces for visitors above and beyond the parking. spots in the driveway. Commissioner Mueller said there are many single - family homes that only have a one -car garage plus the one parking spot in their driveway and they .do fine with that space. Chairperson Fischer said she did not find a condition referring to the addition of a sidewalk on this property. Mr. Roberts said the sidewalk is listed as a condition for the CDRB to act on. If the planning commission wanted to add a condition stating that, it would be best inserted on page 8 of the staff report, item 3. under the engineering approval as item c. Chairperson Fischer asked the applicant to address the commission. Mr. Bruce Mogren, residing at 10116 -67 Lane North in Grant City, the applicant for Van Dyke Village, addressed the commission. He said they don't have an issue with the sidewalk. Clear addresses are a great idea and they will do that. He has a telephone call into the assistant Police Chief to join the crime -free multi - house organization. He thinks that would be a very positive thing for this development. His cousin is working. with him on finalizing the landscaping requirements. There are other changes sent out by staff that the applicant has already complied with. They are asking for the additional two units over the currently allowed density. They chose to go with a mixture of two and three bedroom units. They looked at a mixture of three and four bedroom units. He has worked with the architect and these plans have been built in the past and have proven to be very effective. He said he likes that they have two stories in the middle and the single level on the ends. Mr. Mogren thinks architecturally it is more attractive laid out this way. He said regarding the issue about a storm shelter, he would ask his architect about that. He said this is 75% of the units are for work force housing and 25% of the units are for market rate rental. Commissioner Dierich asked Mr.. Mogren if he was considering having the single level units handicapped accessible? Mr. Mogren said.what ever the building inspector requires is what he has proposed at this time. i f f } 1 Commissioner Dierich said she would strongly encourage Mr. Mogren to think about building the handicapped accessible units: Mr. Mogren said he checked with the architect and four units will be handicapped accessible. He has already received one telephone call from a person in a wheel chair with spina - bifida who is getting married this fall and has requested a handicapped accessible unit if this proposal gets approved. Commissioner Rossbach said in recent actions this commission has recommended in two different properties that the development be within the existing density that is allowed on the lot. He would like to hear an explanation about what it is about this property that has changed since the city has put the R -3 (M) designation. on it that would warrant it now being able .to support a higher density. Mr: Mogren said it looks like it is currently zoned business commercial. He asked if it is the law that it has to change to medium density? Mr. Roberts said business commercial by conditional use permit would allow multiple - family housing the question becomes the density. What Mr. Rossbach is saying is the current plan allows medium density up to 6 units per gross acre. Commissioner Rossbach said what he was asking was what. has changed in the city since the city has determined that the density that is currently on the property I went into effect what has changed to make it so now that property can support a higher density then what was put on it originally? Mr. Mogren said sometimes there are mitigating circumstances in this particular case when you're taking a property in one zoning and putting it into another.zone.. There are some amenities with this particular design and they are not going with all large units.. They are going with two.and three bedrooms instead of three and four bedrooms. That is his request.. The other reason he wants the additional units is because of the on -site management. This makes it. more affordable to have the on -site management; even at that it is very expensive. He knows it impacts the neighborhood to have the additional units but it takes years to pay for the on -site management. He would be co- managing these units and if the manager is not there to. handle a problem he can send over one of the eight people that work for him. Because he works so close and because he has 260 senior housing units in the area is one of the reasons this area is so attractive to him. Commissioner Mueller asked Mr. Mogren what work force housing rent would be? Mr. Mogren said he would like Todd. Urness to answer that question. Mr. Todd Urness, 2630 Countryside Drive West Orono, addressed the commission. He said 75% of these proposed units will be work force housing and they have restrictions. The rent for work force housing will be $760 for a two - bedroom unit and $870 for three bedrooms. The other 25% of these units will have no restrictions and their rent will be higher. Comm issioner.Mueller asked why these are rental units and not units for sale? He asked if that was an arrangement with Ramsey County or is it just Mr. Mogren's decision to have these units for rent instead of to own? Mr. Urness said both answers are correct. To make it affordable for sale is very difficult if not. s impossible. These are very nice rental units proposed. They have attached single car garages., in- house heat and air conditioning units and in -house washer and dryer. Compared to a shared ` large laundry room or no laundry room, one building control for heat and air conditioning and having no garages available only a parking lot to parkin. Commissioner Rossbach asked staff if they know the vehicle capacity of White Bear Avenue in the proposed area and what is the current and projected traffic count? Mr. AN said the 1998 ADT north of County Road B traffic count is 28,000 and the traffic count for 2020 is 39,900. The typical capacity of a road with that many drive lanes and turning lanes such as that of White Bear Avenue. is 45,000 ADT. Commissioner Monahan - Junek. she asked Mr. Mogren the size of the tot -lot on page 26 in the staff report? Mr. Mogren said he is not sure of the size of the tot lot yet. He is going to get together with the playground installer and Bruce Anderson from the Parks and Recreation Department for input before a final plan can be. completed. Commissioner Monahan -Junek said the reason she is asking is because there have been some concerns voiced regarding kids running loose at Emma 's Place. She said if there was more space within .the housing area the children could be contained in their own areas instead of running around outside the commons area. Younger kids use the tot lot but the older kids need someplace to be as well, this may help alleviate the problem_ somewhat. The following people spoke regarding the Van Dyke Village Town houses: 1. John Glasow at 2271 Craig Place in Maplewood. He said Van Dyke Street cannot handle the traffic and you are just going to add to the traffic problems. A few blocks away they are building nine town homes on a larger piece of land then .what this is. The Maple Hills town homes that are being built off Larpenteur Avenue, the density was reduced because they were afraid of the. increased traffic on Larpenteur Avenue because it is only two lanes.. You are increasing the density here and it is uncalled fora He proposes the city change this area to nine senior cottages or maybe storage garages. This area cannot handle the traffic increase. Putting in 24 town homes is way out of line.. People making wages of $31,000 - $48,000 can afford a much nicer town home .then what you are proposing here such as the .nine town homes down.the street (Dearborn Meadows) Driving in a funeral procession moves faster then driving on White Bear Avenue and you are going.to add to the congestion problem. In the spring during the city's clean up day at the Maplewood Community Center you cannot drive down Van Dyke Street for three hours or longer. 2. Pat Myckleby at 2220 Craig Place in Maplewood. She has lived in this city all of her life. She. does not like. the way .people get informed of proposals in Maplewood. She knows the rule is within 350 feet but feels this is not a large enough area to notify people. She lives on Craig Place and they have a group home on that street that none of the residents were notified of. There is also a .homeless shelter. Then Emma's Place was built. She spoke to the city council and she was .told it was going to be a place like Van Dyke Village, town homes for work force housing. It ended up being for people with drug and alcohol problems. It is just troubled people and kids causing problems and crime all over the neighborhood. She does not think people are going to want to rent these town homes - because they are next to Emma's Place. There. is crime and problems there and she thinks it is sad what is happening to this community. She hears Mayor Cardinal won an award-.for affordable housing in Maplewood. Big deal, how much are the people supposed to take? There are.,.,.- too many of these types of homes in the area. It would be okay. if there were good and decent people that.didn't steal, commit crimes, throw trash in our yards, cause problems on the bus, harass the children and.steal things from them. But currently the kids can't even walk in that.area without being harassed. 3. Jeff Ruebel at 1849 County Road B East in Maplewood. He has a problem with Emma's Place and the bad element that is already there and he is afraid it is going to feed into the Van Dyke Village town homes. He thinks that whole area will be nothing but trouble. He is also concerned about the traffic in the area. The crime has increased significantly. Cars race up and down Van Dyke Street and County Road B. He can't believe the police department said in the staff report that the police calls haven't increased significantly since Emma's Place was built. Since October 2001 he personally has called the police 25 times and has a list at home. He has spoken to Chief Thomella personally and Chief Thomella knows Jeff by name he has called so many times. There is too much housing in that area. He. thinks if you. put in a house for Habitat for Humanity the people would take. more pride in their homes. In North St. Paul there is a habitat home and it is very well taken care of and the lawn is meticulous. They own the property and respect the property. Renters tend to not care about the property because they don't.own it. If you put in 24 units he thinks half of them should be owned instead of rented. 4. Gary Olsen at 2330 Maple. Lane in Maplewood. He does not live in the neighborhood but he appreciates Mr. Mogren's.efforts to put in work force housing. He thinks it would be a nice addition to the neighborhood and the community. Work force housing is for teachers, nurses, policemen and women. He hopes the planning commission will support. this proposal. 5. Jeanine Moreno at 2272 Craig Place in Maplewood She is the grand watch block captain for the area of -five blocks. She hears complaints from the neighbors. Emma's Place is not responsible for everything that has been happening but it seems like since they moved in the crime has increased a lot. The children are afraid to walk to school, they are afraid to ride the bus `and the kids are being harassed. - `There was the meth clinic they had to put up with, the group home, and Emma's Place. This is supposed to be a family community. It is just a community where kids are afraid. There is -a nursing home up the street and the residents walk the streets daily around that area. With the increased traffic it could be dangerous for those residents. She can't believe the police department says the calls have not increased because she gets. a monthly report and what the police department is reporting is not true. .6. Maggie Chalkline at 1863 East County Road B in Maplewood. She heard the reason Mr. Mogren wanted the additional two units was so he could have onsite management and if that is true, she thinks that is a good.idea. She would like the city to consider closing the north half of Van Dyke Street completely. It is a traffic hazard as it is now. A lot of the traffic on Van Dyke Street is.from the people trying to avoid going through the-stoplights on White Bear Avenue and they cut through on Van Dyke Street onto County Road "B - East. This would slow down the traffic and it would be open only to the residents that live there. 7. Art Engstrom at 2525 Highwood. Avenue in Maplewood. _ �r He owns the Goodwill Store on White Bear Avenue to the north of this property. He has seen this piece of property sit for many many years. At one time he was interested in purchasing this property but he was made aware it would cost a considerable amount to dig out the peat and put the fill in and the expense would be monumental. Here is a developer who has a good reputation in the city and an outstanding citizen in the community and he wants to build this development. There is no. economic way that by building nine senior cottages in this area. Mr. Engstrom said no one would attempt to pay that kind of a bill it would be a losable proposition. :Putting rental garages in that area would be too costly. This would improve the situation to the south that many people have complained about. He supports this proposal. 8. Connie Launderville at 2194 Van Dyke Street in Maplewood. She thinks Mr. Mogren has done an excellent job on his homework and she sees nothing wrong with this proposal. Her problem is more of a social issue from Emma's Place, which has created hardships in the neighborhood. When she walks out into her yard she sees litter everywhere and she has to pick it up. The residents at Emma's Place are loud, there are no activities for the children to do and they go out into the neighborhood and cause problems. Her grandchildren cannot even walk around the pond without being harassed by children from Emma's Place. There are school bus issues with the kids from Emma's Place. The kids riding the bus are harassed by kids living at Emma's Place at the bus stop as well as on the bus. They steal things from the other kids, they knock backpacks off of the kids, they take kids books and throw them in the aisles on the buses etc. and now the kids don't even want to ride the buses anymore. She thinks the renters at Van Dyke Village will find out it will not be a nice place to live next to. There will be issues that will have to be dealt with daily. She knows Mr. Mogren will do.a real good job on his part but she is concerned about his renters living next to Emma's Place. Commissioner Mueller said it sounds like the issue is Emma's Place and not really this proposed development. He asked if the city thought about doing something about the problems at Emma's Place? It sounds like there are many problems the neighbors deal with which will directly affect this proposed development. Mr. Roberts said he has not heard any.specific actions or directions that the city council wants city staff to take with Emma's Place or its management. Through the testimony tonight and when it goes to the city council meeting, the city staff may get some direction regarding these problems. He .knows the police department has been working with. the staff at Emma's Place but he does. not know, if they. been successful. Until -direction -is given from the city council he is not ..aware of anything that can be done. When the CUP at Emma's Place comes up for review, some of these issues can be looked at. Kids acting badly on the bus and kids loitering and stealing are not land use issues. Mr. Roberts said these are not things the city council can -put control on. There has to be parental involvement and management involvement. A lot of the issues that are being discussed here probably go back to management and the tenants. If there are bad people living at Emma's Place, then those people should be evicted. Commissioner Dierich said she is concerned about rental property verses ownership property. It seems this neighborhood has been hit harder then others and she is concerned about this. Three weeks ago there was discussion about the density and a setback and community property for the Highwood Farms development. She agrees with the residents that there needs to be more consistency. There is great land left in Maplewood and there is not much of it left. Whether it is work force housing or not it needs to be quality- housing and it needs to be a quality neighborhood. She has a P g the densit y for problem lowering one ' end of town in Maplewood and not for the other. Her daughter just bought a town home with the'same payment of $800 plus dollars a month with the same amenities and she does not know why these can't be owner occupied Commissioner Dierich.said it would help the tax structure in Maplewood in the long run. She would like to see the neighborhood input taken into consideration for this proposal. Mr. Mogren should be held to the same standards as the other developers in the city such as the situation in south. Maplewood. Commissioner Pearson said the density is too high here and the use is wrong for the area. A better transition from commercial to R -1 is R -S single - family housing with smaller lots. It would be affordable and owner occupied and a better solution for the neighborhood. He will not be supporting this proposal. Commissioner Rossbach, moved to deny the resolution on pages 36 of the staff report. This resolution would change the land use plan from BC (business commercial) and R -3 . (M) (residential medium density) to R -3 (H) (residential high density) for the 3.6 -acre site of the Van Dyke Village town house development. The planning commission is making this recommendation because: (changes are in bold and deletions have a strike through them). a. The density is too high. b. The type of development is not the best choice for the transition. c. The existing land use designation would be a better fit for the neighborhood. stalls with a width Gf at least 9.5 feet and A. I.e.p.clith. ef at least 18 feet. WIN . . . . ^ . M O . .. . . . ... . . . . . . e . . . stalls with a width Gf at least 9.5 feet and A. I.e.p.clith. ef at least 18 feet. WIN . . Commissioner Pearson seconded. Ayes — Desai, Dierich, Monahan - Junek, Pearson, Rossbach, Trippler Nays — Fischer, Mueller tho normit shall e The GGURGiI mA W P-,Xt this deadline fnr ono dear Those shall innlW, • e > > streets �. sidewalks > • ro r�nn 'hip fnr W& The develepeF OF • G. e m 9 v e ontt %nnv off_G;to GG .mtrAr-tnr shall- v rl S�nTi� � nnnrl_And _dF iRage oasomonts from_ tho_s4 , • foot from th nnort��lin� f ee t , M pt the IAN 'Ir-linrr Hermit for oanh_ hnu sinn i snit i 0 6H o grading nr a bui itfGF t he @.rejer--t Commissioner Pearson seconded. Ayes — Desai, Dierich, Monahan - Junek, Pearson, Rossbach, Trippler Nays — Fischer, Mueller Chairperson Fischer. asked if it was the consensus to not make a recommendation or to recommend denial for the CUP? Planning commission members said that is correct. Chairperson Fischer said she did not feel adding the additional two units above what is currently allowed would be destructive to the neighborhood and if it would allow on -site - management to the development she would be in favor of it. Commissioner Mueller said adding the additional units are not a problem for him. The- motion to deny was approved. Commissioner Rossbach said his opinion.is that the city needs to review the PUD ordinance as a whole. It is being used on small lots to get around rezoning which is a tougher way to go and .requires fewer votes from. the city council. The zoning for the property should be changed, you are not combining uses It should be done in assistance to develop pieces of property that had unique circumstances. He feels that PUD's are being asked for too often and being asked for the_ wrong reasons. Commissioner Trippler said he does not have a problem with the development. He has a problem with constantly givin ''variances to the rules and regulations. It is pushing the envelope just a little more. He is- certainly not the commission never grant variances. He asked what the pu.rpose_was ;to push_Jt to two additional units. The property is already zoned. R -3(M). If the developer came in and said they wanted to put in 21 or 22 units on the property he would have , agreed to it. But developers want to push the limit just to see how much more they can get. You need to be consistent, if you are going to apply a standard to one part of the city it needs to be applied to all parts of the city. If the developer wants to come back and take 3 units out he would say great. Commissioner Mueller said the planning commission has always had people come before . the commission and ask for changes. And the planning. commission decides if it is a good or bad thing. Follow the rules or you won't get approved. We have always said bring your proposal to us and we will take a look at it and see if we will agree to it or not. This item goes to the city council on March 31 or April 14, 2003, and staff will be sending out a notice when that is determined. DRAFT MINUTES OF THE MAPLEWOOD HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY 1830 COUNTY ROAD B EAST, MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA TUESDAY, MARCH 18, 2003 7:00 P.M. CITY HALL CONFERENCE ROOM A b. Van Dyke Village Town House Development (Van Dyke Street, north of County Road B) Mr. Roberts said Mr. Bruce Mogren is proposing to build a 24 -unit townhouse development on the vacant property on the west side of Van Dyke Street, north of County Road B. This development, called Van Dyke Village, would be primarily for workforce housing for low and moderate - income families. There would be on -site management to help monitor and run the property. Mr. Roberts said on March 27, 2000, the city council directed .city staff and the Housing and Redevelopment Authority (H RA) to buy from Ramsey County the four tax - forfeited properties on the west side of Van Dyke . Street for the development of low to moderate or mixed income housing. On June 22, 2000, the council adopted a resolution authorizing the reconveyance and the purchase of the tax - forfeited properties on the west side of. Van Dyke Street for the development of low to moderate or mixed income housing. City staff, based on this council approved, bought this property from the county for the city. : Mr. Roberts °said a reason this property went tax - forfeit and has not yet been developed is poor soils. There are areas of poor soils on the property that the builder will have to correct as part .of the development of the site. Mr. Roberts said this is an expense. that a developer would have to consider when putting a project together for this area. Mr. Mogren, while working with the city and the county on preparing the development proposal, told him that having at least 24 town houses is necessary to make the project financially feasible. Mr. Roberts said many of the neighbors who contacted him expressed concerns about the proposed housing and the residents who would live there. Mr. Mogren is proposing to have 75 percent (18) units within this development for workforce housing, which is for low -to- moderate income residents. Mr. Roberts said to qualify as a resident, Ramsey County sets the income levels based on the household size and their percentage of average median income of the Twin Cities area. For example, a three - person household at the 50 percent median income level. has an annual income of about $34,500 per year and a three - person household at the 60 percent income level earns about $41,000 per year. Commissioner Pearson said he has received telephone calls from neighbors complaining about the problems occurring in the neighborhood since Emma's Place has opened. The neighbors have said homeowners have to keep their belongings under lock and key or it gets stolen. They can't leave their garage doors open or things get stolen. They told him the kids that live in the neighborhood. are being harassed by the kids at Emma's Place that hang out in the neighborhood. If the kids walk on the trail or around the pond, the kids at Emma's Place harass them. Kids on the bus are being harassed to the point they don't want to ride the bus anymore. He feels if this proposal is built, there will be even more problems for the. neighborhood. The neighbors that live there have gone through enough since Emma's Place was built. Commissioner Pearson said he voted against the Van Dyke Village proposal at the planning commission meeting and he is voting against this proposal for the HRA as well. The traffic at Cope Avenue and White Bear Avenue is bad enough. He feels the city has done a disservice to this area and he can't .vote for it. He said the police.report is totally. inaccurate in the staff report and in his opinion it is not a report at all. He feels the city should have received a detailed report of the nature of the complaints occurring in the area from the police department. Chairperson Fischer asked staff if Mr. Mogren has a problem with putting in a sidewalk? Mr. Roberts said no, Mr. Mogren agreed to. put in the sidewalk. Commissioner O'Brien said since the city put in the sidewalk on White Bear Avenue underneath Highway 36 he has seen many people use the sidewalk. In the past he has seen people trying to get down White Bear Avenue in the snow with traffic coming and going to Cub and Rainbow, and not having a sidewalk made it very difficult for people. This sidewalk is used often and he thinks it will be just as important to have this sidewalk by Van Dyke Village proposal. In his opinion, the sidewalk was money well spent for the area. The residents will be using the sidewalk to get to the bus stop, to the Goodwill, and to cross White Bear Avenue to Cope Avenue to get to restaurants across the street. He said he thinks people will be using the bus for transportation. This will increase the pedestrian traffic. If the residents will be driving that live in the Van Dyke Village, then that will increase the vehicle traffic in the area. This particular intersection is a hazard with many :near miss accidents. There is already a no left turn sign there because of the traffic hazards. Mf_,,. Roberts said there is a bus stop on White Bear-Avenue and County Road B by Health Partners -that people will probably be using. Commissioner O'Brien said there is also a bus stop in front of the Amoco station on White Bear Avenue so people may be cutting through those commercial properties. Commissioner O'Brien said having 22 or 24 units in this development, in his opinion, does not make that big of a difference. He feels the traffic is already a large problem and the 24 or more cars coming from that development will not make that big of.a difference. Chairperson Fischer said she wonders if the Van Dyke Village development proposal should be penalized because of the bad experience with Emma's Place and the problems that have occurred in the neighborhood. She said years ago, before Emma's Place was built, the neighborhood was in opposition of building town homes in that area, so there is.a history of opposition of building in that area of the neighborhood. Commissioner Pearson said he thinks it would be better for the neighborhood to have slab on grade single - family dwellings zoned R -1(S) instead of this proposal. He doesn't think the city is serving the neighborhood with this proposal at all. Maplewood. has already exceeded their necessary limit for affordable housing. Mr. Roberts said he did some checking and there would only be enough land to build eight single - family. dwellings on R -1(S) sized lots in that area. Because of the cost of the land and the cost to correct the soil conditions, it is not cost effective to build eight homes there. He said this proposal would be more cost effective.with the 22 or 24 rental units proposed to be built there. Chairperson Fischer said the city -has already exceeded the amount of affordable housing expected by the met council but they are supposed to keep adding to the affordable housing stock.. She said she is fine with this proposal just as she voted on this at the planning commission. She felt having the two units over the density would not make much difference. She likes the fact that having the two.additional units would allow Mr. Mogren to have the on -site management there. So for that reason, she approves this proposal. Commissioner Pearson said he wants the commission to understand that on -site management is not the same as it is in a manufactured park. In a manufactured park on -site management includes people that are there every day and they enforce the rules. The residents that would live in_ the Van Dyke Village units for on -site management are getting a break on their rent. They might even go to work every day and not be there in the daytime. So basically they may not be there to make sure rules are,enforced. The on -site management personnel will probably not get involved with Emma's Place and the problems that could occur. Chairperson Fischer .said the on -site management people may be timelier and call the police department and get the incidents documented. This would immediately take care of some of the problems that keep occurring at Emma's Place. She said Emma Norton's board of governance has been around for a long time and if their board was notified along with a. list of documented problems the people that cause these problems may be evicted or a change in management may occur. Commissioner Pearson said he would be interested in' knowing what teeth (so to speak) the management at Emma's Place has to correct these problems and get the guilty people moving out. Mr. Roberts said he's aware that one. family was evicted from Emma's Place. He said. he was not y sure if there were still problems occurring there or not. Chairperson Fischer said years ago, the HRA and the HRC were instructed by the - city council to call the residents at the apartments on Beebe Road. The reason the committee had to make the telephone calls was because of the history of problems. at that location. The committee called the residents to find out how things were going there and if there were any solutions to the problems. Chairperson Fischer said the committee found out there had been problems but management put a stop to them. The management called the police every time they thought a problem was going to occur or when it was occurring and the police responded immediately. Because this was a low - income rental building, the residents found out that if they had any complaints against them they were going to lose their apartment. Soon there were no more problems because the management put a stop to them immediately by contacting the police. department. She said sometimes management or a change in management could make a big difference in how buildings are cared for. Many times the history of problems goes with the location for a while but that can be changed. Commissioner O'Brien said he thinks Maplewood needs this price range of housing available. Not everyone can afford a $200,000, home. People need a safe, affordable place to live. He thinks the project will make a large impact on that site. He doesn't think the Van Dyke Village project should be penalized because of the problems that are occurring at Emma's Place. The Board of Directors at Emma Norton's needs to be made aware of the problems and maybe the management needs to be changed in order to fix the problems. Maybe having this facility at Van Dyke Village will help make the problems go away by reporting them to the police department. Getting things documented with the police department will help prove if or if not the problems are arising from the residents at Emma's Place, since the police department said they could not prove that they were. Chairperson Fischer said she. received a telephone call from a resident that complained about Emma 's Place and wondered if workforce housing was the same type of housing as Emma 's Place. She said she explained to the resident the difference between.the two. Commissioner O'Brien moved. to approve the resolution on page 36 of the staff report. This resolution changes the land use plan from BC (business commercial) and R -3(M) (residential medium density) to R -3(H) (residential high density): for the 3.6 -acre site of the Van Dyke. Village town house development. The city bases these changes on the following findings: 1. This site is proper for and consistent with the city's goals, objectives andpolicies for high- density residential land use .in the comprehensive plane. This includes: a. Creating a transitional land use between the existing residential and _commercial Land uses. b. Being between two collector streets, near an arterial street and would be near shopping and services. 2. This development will .minimize any adverse effects on surrounding properties because: a. The on -site ponding and landscaping will help separate the town houses from the properties to the east and from the town houses to the south. b. There should be no. significant increase in traffic from this development on existing local residential streets. The existing street pattern directs the traffic from the town houses to _ two nearby collector streets. c.. There should be less traffic from this development than from a commercial development on the same site. Commissioner O'Brien moved to approve the resolution on page 37 of the staff report. This resolution approves a conditional use permit for a planned use development for the Van Dyke. Village town house development on the _west side of Van Dyke Street, north of County Road B. The city bases this approval on the findings required by code. (Refer to the resolution for the specific findings.) Approval is subject to the following conditions: 1. All construction shall follow the plans for 24 town houses as approved by the city. The city council may approve major changes to the plans. The Director of Community Development may approve minor changes to the plans. Such changes shall include: a. Revising the grading and site plans to show: (1) The developer minimizing the loss or removal of natural vegetation. (2) All driveways at least 20 feet wide. If the developer wants to have parking on one side of the driveway, then it must be at least 28 feet wide. (3) All parking stalls with a width of at least 9.5 feet and a length of at least 18 feet. (4) Revised storm water pond locations and designs as suggested or required by the watershed district or city engineer. The ponds shall meet the city's design standards. (5) The developer minimizing the loss or removal of natural vegetation including keeping and protecting as many of the trees as possible. 2. The proposed construction must be substantially started within one year of council approval or the permit shall end. 3..Have. the city .engineer approve final construction and engineering plans. These plans shall meet all the conditions and changes noted in the engineer's memo dated February 24, 2003. .These shall include: a. Include grading, utility, drainage, erosion control, streets; trails, sidewalks, tree, retaining walls, driveway and parking lot plans. b. Include a storm water management plan for the proposal. 4. The design of all ponds and rainwater gardens shall meet Maplewood's design standards and shall be subject to the approval of the city engineer. If needed, the developer shall be responsible for getting any off -site pond and drainage easements. 5. The developer or contractor shall: a. Complete all grading for the site drainage and the ponds, complete all. public improvements and meet.all city requirements. b. *Place temporary orange safety fencing and signs at the grading, limits C. Remove any debris, or junk from the site. - 6. The approved setbacks for the principal structures in the.Van Dyke Village PUD shall be: a. Front -yard setback (from a public street): minimum — feet, maximum — 40 feet b. Rear -yard setback: 50 feet from any adjacent residential property line , c. Side -yard setback (town houses): minimum — 40 feet from the west property line and 50 feet from the south property line. 7. The developer or builder will pay the city Park Access Charges (PAC fees) for each housing unit at the time of the building permit for each housing. unit. 8. The developer shall close on the purchase of the property with the city before the city will issue a grading unit at the time of the building permit for each housing unit. 9. The property owner shall see that the site is well maintained and properly managed. 10. The city council .shall review this permit in one year. Commissioner Fischer seconded. Ayes - Fischer, O'Brien Nays — Pearson Commissioner Pearson said the reason for his nay vote, is that he prefers R -1(S) for this location and there is far too much density for this proposal. Especially for the northern routes of traffic are reports in the area from not good at all. Based on the existing neighborhood. complaints and police Emma's Place residents as well. Commissioner O'Brien said he thinks it would be a good idea to make Van Dyke Street a cul -de- sac instead of a thru street to eliminate traffic congestion, accidents and make things safer. This goes to the city council on April 14, 2003. Commissioner O'Brien asked if there was something that can be done regarding the. problems with Emma's Place. Because of the problems at Emma's Place, it is making it difficult for the developer to build another complex on the same street because of actions that are occurring down the street. _He said the_ building is a decent looking facility and a lot of work went into the design. of it.. The name is being ruined by the social-characteristics of what is. happening there. Mr. Roberts said maybe the commission wants to make a motion to ask the city council to. write a letter to the foundation of Emma Norton's Residence? Chairperson Fischer said she wondered if.Emma Norton knewher good name was being tarnished because. of the complaints that are being voiced in the neighborhood and to the police department? Commissioner O'Brien made a motion to recommend that the city council consider sending a letter to the Board of Directors at Emma. Norton's Residence. This letter would - express the concern from the city relating to the complaints from the neighborhood regarding Emma's Place. Commissioner O'Brien said the city wants the Board of Directors. -to know. Emma Norton's good name is being tarnished from activities that are.occurring at Emma's Place on,.,.,-,Van Dyke Street. Commissioner Pearson seconded. Ayes — Fischer, O'Brien, Pearson DRAFT MINUTES OF THE MAPLEWOOD COMMUNITY DESIGN REVIEW BOARD .1830 COUNTY ROAD B EAST, MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA. TUESDAY, MARCH 25, 2003 VI. DESIGN REVIEW a. Van Dyke Village Town homes — West Side of Van Dyke Street, North of County Road B. Ms Finwall said Mr. Bruce Mogren is proposing to build a 24 -unit town house development on the vacant property on the west -side of Van Dyke Street, north of County Road B. This development; called Van Dyke Village would be primarily for work force housing for low and moderate- income families. There would be on -site management to help monitor and run. the property. Ms. Finwall said the proposal would have four, six -unit townhouse buildings. Each town house would have an attached garage and a patio area. There also would be 30 open parking spaces. The buildings would have exteriors of horizontal -lap steel siding with cedar trim boards and vinyl -clad windows, and the roof would have asphalt shingles. The developer has not yet proposed colors for the buildings.. Staff recommended that the colors of the buildings be primarily earth -toned rusts and creams (red, brown and tan) to closely match those of Emma's Place. Staff is recommending approval. of the design review. of the Van Dyke Village Townhomes with several conditions. Board member Olson asked staff if the board would be wasting time in reviewing this design if the planning commission denied this proposal? Ms. Finwall said no, the planning commission helps guide the city council's decision and the planning commission has recommended denial with concerns regarding the density. The city council will take the planning commission's and all other recommendations into consideration when they make their final decision. Chairperson Ledvina said the charge of the CDRB is to review the proposal despite what other commissions have recommended or denied. He asked staff about the existing trees on the site. He knows it's a condition to save as many trees as possible. He asked if staff knew where the grading limits were and where the construction fence would be placed to ensure that the most trees are saved? He also said the landscape. plan shows the placement of new vegetated material where existing trees are located in the northwest corner of the site. Ms. Finwall said in the revised landscape and grading plan, staff should require that the developer indicate the exact area of vegetation to remain and install the required fencing to ensure no grading is done in that area. Chairperson Ledvina asked staff where the dumpsters will be located on the property? Ms. Finwall said she would have to defer that question to the applicant. Board member Olson asked staff if the site drainage is going to be diverted into the city storm sewer? She does not see any ponds established on the site and it seemed it is a wet site. Ms. Finwall said she would refer board member Olson to the engineering report on page 32 of* the staff report. She knows there are rainwater gardens proposed on the site, but without, the benefit of having an engineer to answer the question she would refer to the engineering report for more information. Board member Olson said there was a question from the engineering staff on page 32 of the staff report regarding the drainage the Goodwill site and she believes that is something that needs to be addressed. Ms. Finwall said prior to issuance of a grading or building permit a revised.grading plan would have to be submitted and approved by the engineering department. Chairperson Ledvina asked staff about the fence that is proposed along the north and west property boundaries. He asked what staff's opinion was regarding the use of a six -foot fence compared to using a berm and planted material for screening? Ms. Finwall said staff would be concerned with a berm on the .west side of the property because of the trees they are trying to save. However, a berm on the north property is something the applicant could explore. She said fencing. is something you have to maintain, where as a berm and landscaping is something that once it's established, it would reqiore less maintenance. Board. member. Olson said she feels a six -foot fence is more - appropriate for the site. There will be on -site management there to take care of the property including the fence. Chairperson Ledvina asked the applicant to address the board. Mr. Bruce Mogren, Mogren Development Company at 1801 Gervais Avenue, Maplewood addressed the board Mr. Mogren said the planning commission recommended denial.for this proposal because of the concerns with the proposed density. Mr. Mogren said he understood that the major reason the planning commission denied this proposal was because he requested 24 units' verses 22 units. However, the staff recommended the site plan with 24. units. Chairperson Ledvina asked Mr. Mogren if he has any problems. with the staff conditions that have been outlined? Mr. Mogren said many of the conditions are fine. No final decisions regarding the color scheme have been .made. He said although the project is on the same street as Emma's. Place, it is a totally different project. He would like to distinguish this project from Emma's Place. He said he likes to go with quality, durable products. This building will have children. and will endure more wear and tear. They are looking at using steel on the bottom half of the building and vinyl on the top half of the building, but nothing has been finalized yet. He and his architect will.come up with a product board consisting of all the products and colors used for this project. Board member Olson asked Mr. Mogren he would be coming back to the CDRB with his final products that are chosen? Mr. Mogren said it may be easier to work with staff on the. final products. Chairperson. Ledvina asked staff to comment on a condition that may exist regarding building colors and materials for staff approval? Ms. Finwall said on page 12 of the staff report, it mentions a revised building plan. The board could. add to the condition that the colors and building materials be approved by staff prior to issuance of a building permit. Another option would be to table this proposal until it was finalized and bring back to the CDRB. Chairperson Ledvina asked Mr. Mogren to describe how the trash will be enclosed? Mr. Mogren said originally they planned for a trash: enclosure and then they decided each unit would have their own garbage container. .Chairperson Ledvina asked Mr. Mogren if he had any comments regarding the staff's proposal for_fencing? Mr. Mogren said they have looked at the fencing condition and they are not sure what materials they would use at this time * - :His development includes mainly senior housing where he has used berms and landscapin for screening instead of fencing. In this proposal he thinks the fencing is probably necessary for safety and security issues. Board member Longrie - Kline asked Mr. Mogren if he had to construct 24 units in order to get his MHFA financing? Mr. Mogren said having 24 units helps them bring on -site management. He said dedicating on -site management to 22 units is very uncommon for something that size. Board member Longrie -Kline asked Mr. Mogren -if he thought he would qualify for the MHFA financing ,regardless if it is 24 units or 22 units? Mr. Mogren said he would have to check with his finance attorney on that. Board member Longrie - Kline said the reason she is asking is if there were 22 units instead of 24 units the building elevations would change. She is trying to get a broader view of the project. Board member Longrie -Kline said if Mr. Mogren doesn't qualify for financing for the 22 units verses the 24 units he may have to change the proposal. Mr. Mogren said this proposal lays into the site pretty well. His assistant lives in a building with this exact plan in Stillwater. He said it is a very attractive building and is built as four, six -unit buildings. He said he could've proposed building four bedroom units but he chose to build two and three bedroom units for more room. Regarding the financing question he. would have to defer that to the finance attorney. Board member Longrie -Kline said she would like to know more about the materials and colors he plans to use, a more developed landscaping plan, and a more developed design and feel for the project. She feels that if this proposal gets passed onto the staff for the final decision, the CDRB. will not get to see the finalized plans. She said staff does a good job making the final decision on things but staff can't always take the responsibility of doing it all. She feels. that if the board allows proposals to come before them with half of the project formulated it is requesting too much of city staff to follow up on all of the conditions. Board member Olson asked Mr. Mogren if he : feels he did a good job of addressing the neighbors' concerns? Mr. Mogren said yes. He had a neighborhood meeting and addressed many of the neighbors' concerns. He. said most of the concerns are regarding Emma's Place. Emma's -Place is a , different type of housing than Van Dyke Village. He is sure that any concerns that the neighbors: still had would be voiced at the city council meeting when the final decision is made. Board member Olson asked Mr. Mogren if it would be practical to reduce the number of units to 22? Mr. Mogren said he would have to defer the question of reducing the number of units to the finance attorney to see what kind of affect that would have on the financing. Board member Longrie -Kline said she thinks what board member Olson is trying to say is if the- n umber of units were reduced- that would change the elevations the board is reviewing. Mr. Mogren said he would..have to defer question that to the architect. He is not sure how the reduction in units would. - affect -the elevations. Chairperson Ledvina suggested a recommendation be added that states if the elevations are changed due to the reduction in the number of units that the proposal should come back to the CDRB for review. Board member Olson said she thinks the CDRB should table this proposal. She said the board would be recommending approval on the condition that a revised site plan, a revised landscape plan, a revised lighting plan, and a revised grading plan be submitted. She feels nothing is "final" in this proposal. She stated there are eight pages of staff recommendations in the report. Chairperson Ledvina said his opinion is staff has done a good job in .detailing the conditions in the staff report. If the applicant follows the conditions, it should meet the board's needs. Chairperson Ledvina said he does not have any issues with the staff conditions and he is comfortable moving this proposal forward by allowing staff to make the final decision. Chairperson Ledvina said a condition could be added that if the applicant changes the number of units from 24 to 22 units that it will be required to come back to the CDRB for review. Board member Longrie -Kline said if there were small changes that needed to be _finalized, she would be comfortable having staff make those. She feels there is a large amount of revisions being recommended. There are no final building materials or colors, there are lighting questions, the soil is very poor and there are a number of grading questions and issues to be discussed as well. Board member Olson said she would Like to add. a. few minor changes. She recommends a solid fence be built around the whole property. She believes the neighbors would appreciate that. She would recommend that the building colors not match Emma's Place. She would like to see more of a distinction between Emma's Place and the Van Dyke Village development because these are two different projects. She thinks if the building colors are too similar to Emr - ha's Place, the stigma that already exists for Emma's Place is going to be carried over into this. development, she would prefer not to see that happen. She would ,like to see the revised grading plan and the engineer's comments because of the soil conditions and grading . problems as well as the revised lighting plan. Mr. Mogren said they have taken four major.soil borings plus twenty other borings on the site. He. said they are studying this problem intensely. There were comments about the Goodwill site draining water onto this site.. The Goodwill has to either solve that problem or work with him regarding the drainage. He thought the grading plan was presented to the board in their report as part of the submittal. Ms. Finwall said there was a grading plan submitted and the city engineering department looked at that and submitted a report with some revisions: Board member Olson said none of the grading information is in her staff report. Chairperson Ledvina said he agreed with the earlier comments from the board that the colors should not match Emma's Place. They are two totally different areas and should not look similar. He did not see a strong need to cantilever the. building out one foot. He would like to see soM rick elements added to this building. The brick wainscoting could be added up to the window height. -The applicant said there would be children living there so product durability is a concern. He recommends Mr. Mogren consider using brick. It is a very durable material and it adds aesthetics to the project. Board member Longrie -Kline said she agrees. Board member Olson asked where the house numbers would be placed,.where the mailboxes would be located and. where the utility meters would be located? She asked if the residents have to keep their. garbage containers inside their one -car garage? She asked if there would be enough space for the storage of the garbage can with a car in there? She stated none of this is indicated on the plans: Board member Olson moved to table this proposal until there are more comprehensive plans for the board to review. Board member Longrie -Kline seconded. Ayes — Longrie- Kline, Olson Nay - Ledvina The motion .is tabled until further information is provided to the board. This item will go to the city council on April 14, 2003, and will come back to the CDRB - on Tuesday, April 22, 2003. City of Maplewood Official Sign -Up Sheet By putting your name and address on this sheet, you are requesting to address the Maplewood City Council on the following topic for up to five minutes. Name (first &last) - please print 3. �'� i w - 4. 0 13. 14 0 Address isv9 C'o IZ'� 3 t � ?7 t 9`18 C -eQ� Av<- - AV, -A - L2 1 -6/ - 7 D�6_?e) D 97'1 Zz3a �� 197c, Agenda # l MEMORANDUM TO: Richard Fursman, City Manager FROM: Karen Guilfoile, City Clerk , DATE: April 8, 2003 RE: Intoxicating Liquor License Introduction Action by Council Date Donald Standley has submitted an application for an intoxicating liquor license for the Maplewood Moose Lodge located at 1946 English Street. Background Mr. Standley resides in Inver Grove Heights and was a twenty -year employee of Eco Lab. He has been a member of the Maplewood Moose Lodge since 1986 and is currently the district president. He has had no previous experience in the liquor or restaurant business. Chief Thomalla has met personally with the applicant to discuss measures to eliminate sale of alcohol to underage persons, general security, retail crime related issues, and Maplewood liquor ordinances. As required by city ordinances, the necessary background investigation was completed by the Police Department on Mr. Standley. The following checks were completed: State and Federal criminal history files, State motor vehicle and driver's license file, contacts and warrants in Ramsey and Hennepin Counties and the Inver Grove Heights Police Department. There was nothing found that would prohibit Mr. Standley from holding a liquor license in the City. Recommendation The off -sale liquor license is submitted for council approval. Agenda # MEMORANDUM TO: Richard Fursman, City Manager FROM: Karen Guilfoile, City Clerk DATE: April 8, 2003 RE: Temporary Intoxicating Liquor License An application has been submitted for a temporary intoxicating liquor license by Joe Murphy on behalf of Aldrich Arena. Mr. Murphy has a request from the St. Paul Winter Carnival Vulcan's Association which meets the non - profit requirements of the code, to hold a fund raising event on October 24 2003, from approximately 3:00 p.m. to 11:30 p.m. The event is in the early planning stages. The initial plans are to have three bands at the event. Before reserving the entertainment, the temporary intoxicating liquor license is requested for approval. Initial estimates are that approximately 1,500 to 2,000 people will attend the event throughout the day and evening. Mr. Murphy and John Maslowski, representing the Winter Carnival Vulcan's Association will be present to answer questions from Council. Mr. Murphy is aware that before the event is held, he will need to meet with Chief Thomalla to discuss concerns regarding underage drinking, security and traffic concerns. I also informed Mr. Murphy that as the date of the event approaches he would be requested to come before Council and give final details of the event. AGENDA REPORT - - -. AGENDA - REP - -O -RT -- - -_ TO: Richard Fursman, City Manager Action by Council Date Dat FROM: Charles Ahl, Director of Public Works /City Engineer D a t z sed_ SUBJECT: County Road D Extension (Hazelwood to TH 61) — City Project 02- o�tiied J i Ke ecte County Road D Extension (West of TH 61) — City Project 02 -08 d Presentation and Discussion of Roadway Alignment Options and Storm Water/Wetland Issues — Discussion Only; No Action Proposed DATE: April 7, 2003 Introduction The realignment of County Road D between Hazelwood and TH 61 and also from TH 61 to Highridge Court has been discussed for over 16 months. Various alignments have been discussed.and debated. There are numerous reasons that alignments will work, and won't work. There are a number of variations on each alignment that can be `tradeoffs' to minimize impacts for one item; but may impact other issues. Our engineering team is prepared to present a number of the alignment issues and the storm water /wetland planning issues for consideration and discussion by the city council. There is no action proposed by the city council on this issue this evening. The intent is for the city council to receive the information, discuss areas of issue, begin to receive public comment, and direct staff on any changes they view needed in the process or design details. Background On December 9, 2002, the city council approved a resolution to proceed with a project to realign County Road D from Hazelwood Street to TH 61 at the Venburg Tire intersection and then realign County Road D west of TH 61 through the vacant property to the existing alignment on the east side of the Highridge Court development. That resolution was the culmination of many hours of discussion and debate with staff, agencies, other communities and property owners. A number of conclusions were reached in selecting the alignment and project approach. Project and Alignment Findings /Conclusions • A detailed alignment study was prepared over a 16 -month period. • The alignment report studied eight options and concluded that the best traffic option considering mall traffic would be a direct connection of County Road D to 1 -694. Other alignments were found to have acceptable traffic solutions that approached traffic patterns of a direct connection to the freeway. • Approval of alignments along existing County Road D or directly to 1 -694 were concluded to have negative impacts to TH 61 and 1 -694 and were unlikely to be approved by MnDOT or the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), as noted in the attached MnDOT letter. • Mitigating the impacts to TH 61 and 1 -694 of a proposed alignment along County Road D would exceed $12.0 - $15.0 million dollars. These would likely require 8 -15 years to receive approval and construct. This mitigation has a 50% likelihood of being approved by FHWA under the best circumstances. • An alternative alignment south of existing County Road D has been shown to significantly improve Mall Area Traffic flow without the negative impact to traffic flow on TH 61 and 1 -694. MnDOT and Ramsey County concur and support this finding. • This alignment has wetland impacts that must be mitigated. An environmental review has shown general agency support and minimal public opposition to the proposed mitigation. • A development has been proposed on the Hijacek property, called Legacy Village of Maplewood, which will impact area roadways. • Studies show that a realigned County Road D will adequately accommodate the traffic from Legacy Village past 2010 and will .coordinate with the improvements to TH 61 and 1 -694 that MnDOT is planning for 2011 -2015. City Council Agenda Report April 7, 2003 - -- -County - Road -D- Realignment - - -- -- - = -- - -- -- - Page Two • Legacy Village will help pay the $6.0 million cost of realigning County Road D. Realignment Consideration The possibility of reconsidering other alignments for County Road D has been discussed and proposed. The following are offered as items of consideration in reviewing the options: • Alignments at existing County Road D with direct connections to 1 -694 or near the TH 61/1 -694 intersection have a 25 -50% chance of receiving approval. • The direct connection approval process would require $200,000 to $300,000 of funds to pay a traffic consultant due to the need to create a traffic model of the operational impacts to 1 -694 and TH 61, a Federal Highway Administration requirement. • This process would likely take 4 -5 years, during which the Hartford Group, the developer of the Hijacek property, withdraws from development. • The 4 -5 years of study, plus 3 -5 years of construction results in a 7 -10 year delay in addressing the Mall Area traffic problems. The Mall Area Traffic study indicated that 25 of 36 intersections in the Mall Area would be failing by 2010 if no improvements were implemented. • The direct connection issue has previously been discussed, studied and debated by the City of Maplewood as early as 1984. Each study concluded that direct connections are beneficial to the Mall Area traffic but detrimental to the freeway and highway system and thus would not be approved by MnDOT. Process Enclosed with this report are a number of attachments that will be reviewed with the city council. The first sets of attachments are maps of various alignment options. The alignment options are shown as W -1 and EA through W -3 and E -5. This means that there are three options west of TH 61 shown on the various drawings and five options shown east of TH 61. Specific revisions to the options will be discussed and provided at the April 14 meeting. Included will be variations on the crossing at TH 61 that have varying impacts on the area businesses and property owners. Following Figure 3A is a draft Technical Memorandum that begins to identify the land use impacts and opportunities, along with the identified positives and negatives of each alignment option. These alignment options will be reviewed in detail with the council. Following the alignment options information is a map of the storm water management for the area. Included on the map are proposed locations for wetland mitigation and proposed storm pond locations. A preliminary design report is attached that begins to identify the storm water and wetland issues. This report will also be presented by our engineering team on April 14. NOTE: Our consulting team will have updated versions of the alignment plans and storm water plan available at the April 14 meeting as part of the start of the review process. These final reports were not available when this report was written. Recommendation It is recommended that the City Council review the alignment options and the storm water management and wetland mitigation plan for the County Road D Realignment Project (City Projects 02 -07 and 02 -08) and table further consideration until April 28, 2003. Attachments: MnDOT Letter on 1 -694 Impact Five Figures showing Alignment Options with Technical Memorandum (Draft) Draft Storm Water and Wetland Mitigation Plan Property Owner Letters �NNESp o Minnesota Department of Transportation - - - - -- -- - - - - -- - -- V OF � Metropolitan Division Waters Edge RECEIVED 1500 West County Road 132 Roseville, MN 55113 February 5, 2003 Mr. R. Charles Ahl Director of Public Works /City Engineer City of Maplewood 1830 East County Road D Maplewood, MN 55109 Dear Mr. Ahl: Re: County Road D Extension — City Project No. 02 -07 Thank you for your letter in which you express appreciation for our participation in the County Road D Task Force. We appreciate the opportunity to participate. It is through these types of j oint efforts that allow good projects to develop despite limited resources. Mn/DOT's position is to support the preferred alternative ( 4B) as described in the Feasibility Study and Report for County Road D Realignment Improvements. Alternative .3 has limited appeal. It would improve the access into Maplewood Mall from westbound I -694 and traffic operations on Trunk Highway (TH) 61. Southbound TH 61 traffic will be able to make left turns at County Road D and Beam Avenue instead of just Beam Avenue. In addition, moving the eastbound County Road D intersection to the south would be an improvement. However, Mn/DOT believes that these improvements are only minimal. The increase in left turns that would occur at the new eastbound County Road D and TH 61 intersection will negate any benefit. Rebuilding the south half of the TH 61/ I -694 interchange does not improve the traffic operations on I -694 and as such, receiving Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) approval is an ikeiy. Spending approximately $5,000,000 on a project with very minimal improvement in traffic operations makes alternative 3 undesirable. Sinc ?af . -d Fran o Area Manager Minnesota Department of Transportation Cc: M. Goess C. Isackson D. Solar — Ramsey County An equal opportunity employer w LL z �- w LL Y p 2 4XUph _" q i LLJ CO o�W�= azog E Q, W Q J �(Z7ZF _ w Z m W L)af00 iL W w D cD LL w z N W LL W N i of5'tl fn °rx Q Z 0 otiW;� J o Q J a � E- �" lJl W O Z Z _OZ O w a- ~ 0 X 0 a N W LL co W Of D 9 LL y W : w cn W c? W MI i fA 3 m sYa 2k3 D. ( 2 4Y C7 n�o � z m�2 2 QQ Q Z _ _._ - -- - - -- -- -- --- - .J -- Ufic?-._ - - - -- ch _Q Z z O Z W 0WCL0 t c� c� 0 a co W Of D 9 LL \ E E {\ / ° k .�....... \WWI© /.: Z rc 7 7 < / ® ® 322 2 g/ K / -j /Ia\ . oD�ocL \ E T' 4 C cs Y,{"' � a 5 -Ir�� �. 've+r5 = t �•LV "i; t t�`tfPY'�$asn 3 11 �•t� a r m c• µii � � y � � ' s r+ , 7 ♦ �,.� l . 1 F y 5' a •r �'� :� T °t5l +,41 add ?fialtSR ry.�q .P,1 . �,L. :4. S�E� §`T 'j'N�ta"[rr�YtJ'• � t a°Ec 5 •.` �� + ;i 1 :S 41i`?, :. •� tip A gi. " P 9 1tr31"J p a.J. 'r •xlgg ��. 1 � r � t J ay •1'F't. J'nl 5 1J � ��, ,,, - -�+�C k` "'Pi i'1 �' �'�•,R M�° 'F�y t ti:"a9„y it nN yY mt?, 5 I�t � 1 n4 J Y.'•ag4 `kJ3 U t t�`tfPY'�$asn 3 1 n4 J Y.'•ag4 Technical Memorandum City of Maplewood County Road D Realignment Opti - Land Use Impacts and Opportunities A number of potential alignments are under consideration for ood Drive. Hazelwood Street and the area immediately west of Maplewood Driv Road D between Purposes the alignments are labeled as WI -W4, and E1 -E5, referring to our different For s options to the west of Maplewood Drive and five to the east of Ma p lew t alignment . General Description of Land Use and Realigned County Road D The study area between I -694 and Beam Avenue is experiencing the following land uses: P mg significant redevelopment with • New single - family and townhomes west of Maplewood Drive (TH 61 alon Court, Duluth Street, and Carey Heights Driver. ) g Flighridge • Expansion of automobile related uses along Maplewood Drive (TH 61 , includ' dealerships, an auto body shop, and tire store. ) in9 automobile • New senior housing along Hazelwood Street. • A proposal for a major new mixed residential and commercial developme to Hazelwood Street and south of County Road D, known as the Legacy the east of Y Villa g project. • Potential development of a vacant parcel to the west of Maplewood Drive TH ( 61). Major and minor constraints in the study area include: • Significant areas of wetlands and poor soils, including small wetlands alon e edge of the existing County Road D, a large wetland area owned by the Watershed hed District in the middle of the study area, and poor soils on the Country View Golf Course. • An Xcel Energy power substation, which requires access to a railroad spur i the Vento Trail Corridor in order to switch out transformers, and associated ower li Bruce towers. p r lines and • An existing tire store, a proposed tire store site, and an existing automobile deal proposed intersection of the realigned County Road D and Maplewood Drive. ership at the • Existing single - family homes fronting County Road D west of Maplewood Drive. • Zoning regulations constrain automobile related land uses, such as dealershi s maintenance garages, within 350 feet of existing or planned residential areas. or DRAFT REPORT General Area of Proposed Realigned County Road D In general the proposed realignment of County Road D would create an 'S cu e of Highridge Court and realign the east to west portion of the new road a roxi beginning east p south of the existing County Road D. The road cuts northeast diagonall through a ely 1500 feet owned by the Watershed District, past an Xcel Energy ower substation y g wetland area alignment at Hazelwood Street. This general alignment P Ion and rejoins the existing Council following the review of numerous alternative r adwa yali mentshe Maplewood City summarized in the "Ali P y This review was gnment Stud y and Report for Count Road D Realignment" completed in December 2002. General Land Use Planning Concepts • All of the options share certain common elements and the suggested land these general concepts: gg d use options follow • Highway commercial, especially automobile related uses are most Maplewood Drive (TH 61). appropriate along • Residential uses are appropriate west of the new County Road D in the area we Maplewood Drive (TH 61). st of • Business Co is appropriate along Beam Avenue between Maplewood and Hazelwood Street: P Drive (TH 61) • Higher density residential is appropriate to the south of the new Count Road D Maplewood Drive (TH 61) and the Bruce Vento Trail. y between Wetland areas should be conserved as greens ace. Replacem wetl water facilities should be designed as amenities to exiting and future lands and new storm nd uses. • Urban design amenities should be created along the two -lane 'S' curve road west of Maplewood Drive (TH61) to create an attractive buffer b tw nn proposed residential and proposed commercial development. P p sed • It would be appropriate for the City to consider reducing the setback of 350 feet Proposed new residential uses west of the new Proposed auto County Road D and between the east of the new alignment. P mobile uses Potential Land Uses in Relation to the Realignment Options The area where the options vary most is the 'S' curve west of Maplewood Drive. Iand to the west or east of the new road vanes in relation to how the road curve The amount of aligned. A table summarizing the relative benefits and disadvantages of each option and where it is _ ptI on are attached. Option "W -1" In option W1 the realignment leaves approximateI two-thirds o f road, roughly 475 feet, and one -third to the west, roughly 200 feet hThis d s the east of the new acceptable for creating residential development to the west of the road, however tt e may be be somewhat shaIIow. he 200 feet may DRAFT REPORT This option has a major impact on the small wetland east of Highridge Court. Option "W -2" In option W2 the realignment creates a very Iarge undivided piece of land between the ne and Maplewood Drive, rougly 750 feet. This is too large for any single uses without addit o r oad roadway development. Such a configuration also precludes residential to the nal any other use of that space. west of the road, or Option "W -3" Option W3 creates a balance between land to the west and east of the new roadwa The potential residential space to the west of the road is approximately 280 feet, while he otential commercial space is also deep enough for a variety of uses. p Impacts to the small wetland are avoided. Option "W -4" Option W4 is nearly the same as W3, with a b alance between land to the west-and east of- t - roadway. The potential residential space to the west of the road is approximately 286 feet wh ew the potential commercial space is also deep enough for variety of uses. ile Impacts to the small wetland are avoided. Option El -E5 The main issue of land use to the east of Maplewood Drive is the potential redevelopme existing golf course. Given the excellent visibility along Beam Avenue, business comer is the uses are appropriate. The amount and timing of such development depends on the market for new retail and office in the area. Given the large wetland conservancy to the north of the new County Road D, land along the northern portion of this site may be best uses as hi residential with units offering views into the wetland. A major issue on this site is he arge�a of poor soils, which may limit the development potential. g area The eastern options vary slightly in the impacts to . wetland areas. Option E1 has the lar e impact on wetlands owned by the Watershed District and a small wetland at the corner o f st Road D and Hazelwood Street. Options E2 and E4 have a smaller impact on wetlands bu o unty , access problems to the Xcel.Energy property from the railroad spur. Option E3 may allow t create to the Xcel Energy property, while have a small impact on wetlands.. Options E2, E3 and Eaccess 4 reduce the design speed of the roadway to 30 MPH. Considering the proposed CSAH desi of the roadway and the need to efficiently move traffic, a design speed of less tha gnation not be desirable. n 35 MPH may Option ES is a refinement of Option E1. This option provides a minimum design seed of MPH. The intersection with Hazelwood Street is located to provide adequate site distance r future pedestrian bridge along the Bruce Vento Trail Corridor. It also allows for a future from a ra il to the Xcel Energy substation. On the negative side, this option impacts the lower quality il spur wetland at the corner of County Road D and Hazelwood Street and requires the removal of a larger segment of the rail embankment that provides screening to the senior housing com I Hazelwood Street. g p ex .on DRAFT REPORT Recommended Alignments West of MaPlwood Drive (TH 61) Option W -3 is the preferred alignment for the following reasons: • Avoids wetland impacts • Provides reasonable depth development parcels on both the east and west o roadway f the new • Proposes residential development west of the new roadway provides a good buffer to existing residential development to the west. • Provides access to existing commercial properties along Maplewood Drive (TH 61) The major disadvantage of this option is that it requires the acquisition of three sin le properties along County Road D. g family East of Mapewood Drive (TH 61) Option E -5 is the preferred alignment for the following reasons: • Maintains a minimum 35 MPH design speed. • Allows for a future rail spur to be constructed to the Xcel Energy substation. • Adequate site distance (420') is provided between the new signalized intersection at Hazelwood Street and a future pedestrian bridge along the Bruce Vento Trail Corridor. Disadvantages to this option include increased wetland impacts and removal embankment that screens existing landuses to the east. of the railroad DRAFT REPORT _ r "East'' Segment Alignment Option Comparison �• �� � '' �-� _, � �° .mot t E -1 35 MPH roadway design • More wetland impact • Good sight distance at Potential bridge /intersection Hazelwood connection conflict E -2a • Old Co. Rd. D not connected • Minimum wetland impact • 30 MPH roadway design • Maximum protection of railroad • Close proximity to Xcel substation berm — Requires removal of rail • Developable Schri er property • Allows connection to old Co. Rd. D • Avoids potential conflicts between'signal and powerlines E -2b • Minimum wetland impact 0 30 MPH roadway design • Allows connection to old Co. • Close proximity to Xcel substation Rd. D - Requires removal of rail • Increases Legacy Village • May require at -grade trail crossing p roject at Hazelwood E -3 • Minimum wetland impact 30 MPH roadway design • Avoids potential conflicts • Removes a large portion of between signal and powerlines railroad berm E • No connection to old Co. Rd. D -4 . Minimum wetland impact • 30 MPH roadway desi • Maximum protection of railroad • Complicated bridge/signal e /si P g final design berm • Potential cut - through on Co. Rd. D • Allows connection to old Co. to TH6I Rd. D (signalized) • Close proximity to Xcel • Avoids potential conflicts Substation between signal and powerlines E -5 • 35 MPH roadway design • More wetland impact • Good sight distance at • Loss of Railroad Berm Hazelwood connection • No Bridge /Intersection Conflict County Road D Extension — Alignment Options City Project 02 -07, 02 -08 "West" Segment Alignment Option Comparison W -1 . Avoids single family ... • Wetland impact homes on Co. Rd. D • Minimum depth (200') west of • Only 1 property acquisition roadway along Co. Rd. D • Comfortable depth east of roadway • Allows for future redevelopment along D W-2 • Largest parcel east of • Wetland impact roadway along TH 61 • Lost property west of roadway • Strip west of roadway acts . Depth of east parcel (750') may as buffer to single family require additional roadways • Least impact to existing single family homes along Co. Rd. D • Good access to Lametti property behind Gulden's W -3 • No wetland impact Requires acquisition of 3 single • Allows development family properties around wetland • Balances size of development lots east and west of roadway • Access provided to Sparkle Auto Dealership property W -4 • No Wetland Impact T- intersection on CSAH • Balances Size of • Need to screen single family Development Lots East and property north of Co. Rd. D West of Roadway • Noise/Pollution at stop sign • Requires acquisition of only 1 single family home along Co. Rd.` D • Traffic calming on Co. Rd. D would be supported by immediate neighborhood County Road D Extension — Alignment Options City Project 02 -07, 02 -08 TAI 61 Intersection Alignment Option Comparison 1 Acquisition from minimum Does not allow new lot at number of parcels Gulden's (Venburg and Guldens) • Intersection at slight skew 2 • Moves as far north as • ROW acquisition from 4 possible without significant properties impacts to Lexus • 90 degree intersection • Allows for new Gulden's lot 3 • Spreads impact equally to Significant impacts to all properties (roadway numerous parcels centered on property line) • Intersection at slight skew • Least impact to Venburg More wetland impact Tire County Road D Extension — Alignment Options City Project 02 -07, 02 -08 r, r - - - --------- -- -- - -- - 4 /r----- _7 ----- - -- -------- ---- t - _ - -- - -- ( - -- % APPROX WETLAN I f `- BOUNDRIES I APPROX WETLAND BOUNDRIES I CLOSE MEDIAN AT TH 61 ' RIGHT IN/RIGHT OUT AT - EAST COUNTY ROAD D ONLY _- -__ --, L � - � 1 -- C ROAD _D �- NE POND r D E D ' F I / 1 �// � •� I ' I II . EXI STING TOWER i / I APPROX WETLAND (TYP.) I II BOUNDRIES i 1 / WETLAND B APPROX WETLAND BOUNDRIES MITIGA AREA lIf 'BITUMINOUS j (j - ' D PATH 1 rr IIII I i I PROPOSED STORM 1 11 r r! SEWER Z i l 1 r II 1 Il 1 WI� i ( - 1 / f� N I I - POND r / v / w SE WETLAND = I� l r 1l / AREA TIDN � _ 1 lull ,1 �/^}}�+� 111 / I BE A VENUE E. / - - --- - - - - -- - -- -- - - - - -- -- - - - - - -- - - - - - -- _ - -- - D ----------=------------------ --` ! 1 r 111 0 9 00 .100 SG1LE IN FEET AA atyarm- plewood DEP.fRTMEM'OFPLBIlC iYORKS ENGfrVEERlNG D_MSJOIV .. ' • • 0 0 STORM WATER NIANAGEME rlr County Road D Realingnment Stormwater Management Preliminary Design Summary of County Road D Stormwater: East Side of TH 61: Drainage Area: 29.3 acres (13± acres from existing County Road D) NURP Volume Required: 4.27 acre -ft NURP Volume Provided: 4.81 acre -ft Wetland Disturbed: 1.3 acres Wetland Replacement: 5.11 acres West Side of TH 61: - Drainage Area: 11.21 acres - NURP Volume Required: 2.15 acre -ft - N JRP Volume Provided: 1.81 acre -ft (does not include mechanical treatment) - Wetland Disturbed: 1.13 acres - Wetland Replacement: 0 acres Data Related to County Road D Stormwater East Side of TH 61 • SE Pond - Drainage Area: 12.66 acres - NURP Volume Required: 1.42. acre -ft - NURP Volume Provided: 1.81 acre -ft • Wetland Mitigation Area SE - Surface area of 3.77 acres - Combined with SE Pond achieve 76% removal of phosphorus based on PondNet - Buffering requirement for newly created wetlands? • NE Pond - Drainage Area: 16.64 acres (13± acres from existing County Road D) - Two -Cell Pond to allow existing utilities to remain in current alignment - NURP Volume Required: 2.85 acre -ft - NURP Volume Provided: 3.00 acre -ft - Combined with Existing Wetland achieve 81% removal of phosphorus based on PondNet • Wetland Mitigation Area NE - Need to add Pond to remove sediment before discharging to wetland mitigation area - Surface area of 1.34 acres - Buffering requirement for newly created wetlands? • Wetland B - Disturb 1.14 acres of Wetland - Inadequate buffering to meet 100' requirement February 25, 2003 • Wetland E Disturb 0.16 acres of wetland Inadequate buffering to meet 50' requirement • Wetland F No disturbance based on project Provide 18' of buffer not the 25' required West Side of TH 61 • Southwest Pond - Drainage Area: 3.97 acres - NLTRP Volume Required: 1.42 acre -ft - NURP Volume Provided: 1.81 acre -ft - Achieve 66% removal of phosphorus based on PondNet • Northwest Treatment Area - Drainage Area: 7.24 acres - NURP Volume Required: 0.73 acre -ft - Mechanical Treatment to be provided instead of pond due to space constraints - Unclear if existing pipe is size properly or if it is plugged • Wetland A - Disturb 1.13 acres of wetland - Inadequate buffering to meet 100' requirement Issues: Wetland Buffering Possible Joint Ponding with adjacent projects Coordination _with Watershed District & Barr — project by project or more globally? Does KL95 treat the existing CR D Runoff? Need better information for existing drainage area to wetland KL95. Flooding occurs for one time increment on Hydrocad model on two of the wetlands— probably due to assumptions made February 25, 2003 - - - - -- - - 7300 Hudson Blvd. Suite 245 LCO. Oakdale, MN 55128 Office: [651] 730 -2020 Fax-: [651] 730 -2055 Real Estate Development Services March 26, 2003 Mr.- Jon Horn Kiml -Horn & Associates, Inc. Suite 345N 2550 University. Avenue West St. Paul, MN 55114 RE: County Road D Extension City of Maplewood Project 02 -08 Trout Land, LLC Dear Mr. Horn: Thank you for forwarding the five options that are being discussed for the extension of County Road D west of Highway 61 in the City of Maplewood. I also appreciate your informing me of the Planning Commission and City Council meeting dates. Please let me know if these dates do change. The following constitute the comments of Trout Land, LLC as owner of that land of approximately 14.4 acres directly west of Highway 61 which will be impacted by the right -of- way required for the extension of County Road D. Option #1: This right -of -way alignment most closely follows the alignment which we had anticipated. This is the best alternative for us, by far. Option 92: In this alignment the north/south element of County Road D is further to the east which limits the amount of land available to us on the east side of the new alignment and increases the land on the west side which is contrary to the development requirements for the parcel. Option #3: This alignment is absolutely contrary to our ability to subdivide and utilize the property. In the first place, the area west of the new alignment becomes totally unusable and not developable. We would require that the City acquire this land from us as being so adversely impacted that it would be useless to us. Also, the balance of the land to the east then becomes -- - __ Mr. JonHorn_.- - -- - - - - - -- -- - - - - -- - -- - - - - -- . March 26, 2003 Page 2 very large and would have to be subdivided into at least four lots which would probably require additional service roads to provide access thereby making the project economically infeasible. Option #4: This also is an unacceptable option for us. The land to the west of the new alignment is too large and the land to the east of the alignment is too small. It would be extremely difficult to develop the land on the west side of the new alignment in uses that would be compatible with the residential property further to the west, but the land is too large to be developed as a senior's co -op apartment development. The land left to the east of the alignment is also adversely impacted because it is too small to be properly developed for commercial uses with Highway 61. frontage. Option #5: This option, as it impacts the Trout Land property, is similar to Option #4 and has all of the same negatives. There is no question that Option #1 will be the preferred option by Trout Land, LLC. Minor alternations to this such as a minor realignment of the intersection at Highway 61 more to the north and the location of the roadway exiting across the north boundary line being somewhat further to the west of its configuration as shown would be acceptable Jon, I very much appreciate the opportunity for us to provide our comments with respect to this future right -of -way. Obviously it has a significant impact oii our development plans for the property and request a discretionary right -of- approval on the final alignment. We look forward to continuing working with the City in an effort to find the best alignment .for all parties concerned. Respectfully yours, mes E. Kellison President . JEK/jjv C: Gonzalo Medina/Trout Land, LLC R. Charles Ahl/City of Maplewood V.ENBURG TIRE CO. - -- Division- of Mercon - C — orporation — 2990 Hwy. 61 North Maplewood, MN 55109 651- 483 -2601 Fax 651- 483 -2881 March 28, 2003 To: City of Maplewood: Mayor Robert Cardinal, City Council Members: Ken Collins, Kathleen Juenemann, Marvin Koppen & Julie Wasiluk, City Manager Richard Fursman, Public Works Director Chuck Ahl, Engineering & Planning Depts. From: Pat & Carol McFarlane Venburg Tire Co. Owners RE: County Rd. D Realignment Project We would like to take this opportunity to share our support of the City's recommendation for County Rd. D realignment project west of Hwy 61 (the URS, Inc.'s plan W -2 proposal at the intersection of Hwy. 61 and plan W -3 for the northern part of that proposed road.) Venburg Tire has been located at its present location for over 30 years Carol's father, Keith Venburg, founded the company and we are the owners of the business. We are currently leasing the land and building from Carol's brother, Keith Venburg II. We employ 11 full time and 4 part time staff. Our son's are actively involved in this family business and plan continuation of the third generation. The impact of all of the proposals for the project east of Hwy. 61 severely inhibit us from continuing to conduct business at that location. Upon early review of the proposal and thorough exploration of our options, we feel it is our best interest to move to a new location. We have met several times with City officials during this process. The loss of access to Hwy. 61, loss of land to the new road, soil issues and the age of our current facility at our present site has lead us to explore other options. We have been working with Mike & Brenda Gengler of Gulden's and have an agreement to purchase approx. 1 1 /2 acres of the northern part of their property to build a new state of the art facility. We are both excited about this joint venture and have a very cooperative working relationship. The alignment of the intersection immediately west of Hwy. 61 on the city's proposed plan is the oni option allowing us to go forward with these plans. Venburg Tire Co. and Gulden's appear to be the only existing businesses in the project area whose day - to -day operations are impacted by construction. We would like to align our projects, so that there is no interruption of our businesses. Timing is crucial! Because of this, we ask that the city give priority to completion of construction west of Hwy. 61 so that we can prepare soil corrections, develop additional parking behind Gulden's and proceed with construction of our new building. This would also avoid interruption of business to us at our present site that would be caused by construction vehicles passing through our parking lot while we are conducting business. The traffic in that area is already treacherous and this could help avoid unnecessary accidents. After completion of our new building, there would be only minor conflicts to surrounding businesses with the construction on the project east of Hwy. 61. We appreciate your consideration of our concerns. We are supportive of this improvement for Maplewood and the process that you are using. If you have any questions, please do no hesitate to contact us at 651- 483 -2601. AGENDA ITEM / 1 AGENDA REPORT TO: Richard Fursman, City Manager Action by Council Darc FROM: Charles Ahl, Director of Public Works /City Engineer, „{ SUBJECT: Legacy Village at Maplewood (Hajicek Property), City Project 02 -18 dejected Alternative Urban Areawide Review (AUAR) Resolution Approving Distribution of a Final Alternative Urban Area -Wide Review Document and Mitigation Plan For Legacy Village DATE: April 7, 2003 Introduction On March 31, 2003, the city council considered the final approval of the AUAR for the Hartford property. After discussion, the city council tabled action until April 14. Following is the staff summary to the city council from the March 31 meeting. The assumptions of the AUAR do not imply approvals of density only an analysis of the environmental impacts of such a proposal. The AUAR is intended to establish the limits of environmental impact. Approval of the resolution is recommended that would establish a timetable for final approval of the AUAR and the mitigation plan. Background On November 25, 2002, the city council authorized the preparation of an Alternative Urban Areawide Review (AUAR) of the Hijacek property in north Maplewood for a mixed land -use development proposed on the site. A development of the size proposed exceeds the threshold for environmental review, which required that the city council designate a process for an environmental review process. The developer of the property is the Hartford Group. Hartford hired SRF to prepare the AUAR environmental study and have a draft Alternative Urban Areawide Review (AUAR) prepared for the development scenario. The AUAR document has been circulated for comments and has been available on the city's website for inspection since January 2003. The final action on the AUAR for the city council is adoption of the Mitigation Plan and approval to distribute the final plan for comment. The Hartford Group has proposed development of the Hijacek site in north Maplewood with a mixture of single - family, senior housing, high- density residential property, retail property, medical office, and corporate office property. The proposed mixed -use development is consistent with the goals of the comprehensive plan for this area of the city. The attached drawing shows a draft concept for the proposed development. The AUAR is an extensive review of the environmental impacts of the proposed development. The following page includes a number of the specific impacts identified. The AUAR provides a mitigation plan that the council, acting as the Regulatory Governmental Unit (RGU), will be required to adopt. The EQB guidelines for an AUAR state: `7t must be- understood that the mitigation plan in the final document takes on the nature of a commitment by the RGU (City Council) to prevent potentially significant impacts from occurring from specific projects. It is more than just a list of ways to reduce impacts — it must include information about how the mitigation will be applied and assurance that it will. Otherwise, the AUAR may not be adequate and /or specific projects may lose their exemption from individual review." City Council Agenda Report AUAR For Legacy Village At Maplewood April 7, 200 P age Two The council consideration of the proposed resolution is making a major commitment that the mitigation identified will occur, either as a requirement by the developer through the development contract, by a commitment to a public improvement, or involvement of other agencies, if appropriate. This includes the extension of County Road D, west of Hazelwood, which will be shared by the city and the developer in terms to be established in the development agreement. While the actual final alignment of County Road D is not set by the adoption of the resolution, the city council is stating their commitment to construct a County Road D extension at some location, as well as the other mitigation improvements such as water main improvements, wetland mitigation, and the noise abatement requirements, which are all listed in the attached final AUAR. AUAR Summary Development scenario includes 318 units of multi - family townhomes; 244 units of multi - family row houses; 88 units of multi - family residential; 200 units of senior housing; 7.3 acres of retail/ restaurant; 9.8 acres of commercial /office; �.1 acres of medical office; and 9.8 acres of green/ public space. Proposed construction of the development is assumed to begin during spring of 2003 and anticipated completion is 2006. Approval of the AUAR establishes these as a maximum development scenario and does not suggest an approved land use scenario. • The traffic analysis indicates that the extension of County Road D west from Hazelwood Street must be installed for roadway impacts from the development to be mitigated. An extension of Kennard Street north from Beam is also required. Future improvements to White Bear Avenue, as recommended in the Mall Area Comprehensive Traffic Study, will be needed to mitigate area traffic growth and to solve the long- standing Mall area traffic problems. Improvements are also suggested at the TH 61 and 1 -694 intersection. The White Bear Avenue and TH 61 improvements are not a required mitigation listed within the AUAR because traffic growth was determined to have a much greater impact on traffic volumes than traffic from the proposed development. Both improvements will continue to be a high priority for the city due to the area growth- related traffic impacts and importance to the region. • Sanitary sewer capacity is adequate in local sewers; however, the site is proposed to generate more flow than allocated by Metropolitan Council Environmental Services (MCES) in the 2000 Sanitary Sewer Comprehensive Plan. An error was discovered in the calculations of the Comprehensive Plan and a commitment to correct the plan is required. • Water supply is adequate if a 12 -inch water main is extended from TH 61 along the existing County Road D alignment as recommended by the TH 61 /County Road D (Hillcrest Animal Hospital) Water Study in 2002. • A comprehensive storm water plan is required and is underway as part of the development process. The development is required to limit post - development runoff to pre - development levels using infiltration and storm ponds on -site. No new storm water infrastructure is anticipated off -site due to development related runoff increases. • Significant tree removal is anticipated due to project development and grading. The developer has proposed that existing trees be "...evaluated by an urban forester to identify important specimens that should be preserved and /or existing trees that could be relocated within the development using a tree spade." This mitigation strategy will be a requirement of the development agreement. City Council Agenda Report AUAR For Legacy Village At Maplewood April 7, 2003 - - - - - -- Page • The DNR has noted that areas of the development have habitat similar to that preferred by the Blanding's turtle, a species listed as threatened in Minnesota, but no Blanding's turtles have been observed on the site. The DNR notes that the project site is not designated as an area of statewide importance for Blanding's turtle and no impact is anticipated. • Wetland impact is anticipated on the site. A total of six wetlands were identified during the site review. Included in the AUAR document are maps that identify Wetlands A through F. Wetlands A and B are proposed to be filled and mitigated within the site. The drainage ditch connecting to Wetland C will be filled and mitigated. All mitigation will be proposed on the project. The development is not proposed to impact the main, basin of Wetland C, and is not proposed to impact Wetlands D, E or F, although the requirement to realign County Road D will likely impact Wetland E. That wetland impact is covered in the EAW prepared for the County Road D extension project. Wetland buffer requirements have been identified and are proposed to be implemented. Storm water will be required to be pre- treated before discharge to the wetlands • A study of the air quality in the area indicates that no problems are anticipated. • A study of the noise in the area indicates that the northern -most portion of the site does not currently meet state nighttime noise standards due to the 1 -694 freeway noise. The residential units will be required to be designed to minimize noise impacts by providing climate - controlled units, increasing wall insulation and by providing common areas within the building courtyards. • The need for increased fire and police protection is identified within the AUAR. The fire and police departments have determined that the proposed development will likely require two police officers based upon 1.5 officers per 1000 people and fire has estimated a need for eight new firefighters /paramedics throughout the city, of which two may need to be dedicated to this development. Additional study of financial commitment of the development's related tax base toward police and fire protection will occur as part of the PUD and Tax Abatement hearings. Recommendation It is recommended that the City Council adopt the attached resolution approving distribution of a Final Alternative Urban Area -Wide Review Document and Mitigation Plan for Legacy Village, City Project 02 -18. tww jw Attachments: Preliminary Development Concept Plan Final Alternative Urban Areawide Review (Previous Attachment) Project Schedule Resolution 0 0 d Ll I l - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - _ _ o 1 ! I II Z I Z f' I� -° r � 4cc 1 I III W i �� Z 1 O tia K FT 1 I I 6� � IL- • i F � � I ° �� I i I I I I I (9 # S S ' ✓�- ' ff i 1� c I H:, ! 1 UllllllliTTTU JTFI I I _ -- _ — °= �z, ao 1 "� w I f ILI A x ---------- - - - - -- - I t W N of �% I It 1 / to M O O � N .—r a� w �+ t1+ O O (U cd p } U. wJ r-� Cd O • r--1 m _ ✓-i U -b � o 0 H HARTFORD SITE PROPOSAL _ W/ COUNTY ROAD D EXTENSION PROJECT TIME LINE PLAN March 25, 2003 Critical Items /Tasks Due Date Requirements Alignment Study Task Force 09/19/02 Adopts Alignment 4B Draft AUAR to City staff 11/26/02 21 days for review Planning Commission — Rvw of Align Study 12/03/02 Recommends Option City Council Auth Prep of AUAR 12/09/02 Study Area Defined Final Roadway Align Study to Council 12/09/02 Draft Rpt by 11 /01 Roadway Align Public Hearing @ Council 12/09/02 ROW Map Authorize AUAR to Council 12/23/02 Sent for Pub Review AUAR Notice Published in EQB Monitor 01/06/03 30 days for review County Rd D EAW Approve Publish 01/27/03 City Council Action County Rd D EAW Publish in EQB 02/03/03 30 days for review AUAR Comment Period Ends 02/06/03 Tax Abatement Info to Council 02/10/03 Developer & Pub Needs $$ AUAR Responses Prepared 2/10 to 3/03 21 days Hartford Plans submitted for Review 03/03/03 60 day Review Clock Starts Planning Comm — Rvw AUAR and EAW 03/03/03 No Public Comment EAW Comment Period Ends 03/05/03 Council Calls Hearing on AUAR and EAW 03/10/03 No testimony received City Council Review of Prel Development Plan 03/10/03 Planning Commission Prel Development Rvw 03/17/03 City Council — Pub Hearing — AUAR & EAW 03/31/03 Public testimony welcome City Council - Discuss -Cty Rd D Align Options And Authorizes Distribution of AUAR 04/14/03 Public Comment Welcome Planning Commission — Review ROW Map for County Road D Alignment 04/21/03 Public Comment Welcome Council adopts Final Legacy Village AUAR w/Mitigation Plan 04/28/03 Approves Project to Next Phase City Council Approves Final Alignment for County Road D — Approves ROW Map And Authorizes Prep of Prel Report 04/28/03 Public Comment Welcome Planning Commission Reviews Prel Plat, Land Use Plan Amend, PUD Zone Change, And Transportation Plan Amend 05/05/03 Public Comment Welcome City Council holds Public Hearing Approves preliminary plat, land use plan change and PUD Rezoning and holds Tax Abatement Public Hearing 05/12/03 Public Hearing — Special Meeting? City Council receives Prel Report on Cty Rd D 05/12/03 No Public Testimony Design Rvw Committee Reviews Bldg Design Details 05/20/03 Details of Building Appearance City Council approves final bldg. Plans 05/27/03 Final Legacy Village Approval City Council holds Public Hearing on Cty Rd D 05/27/03 Public Testimony Welcome CITY OF MAPLEWOOD COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. XX -XX' A RESOLUTION APPROVING DISTRIBUTION OF A FINAL ALTERNATIVE URBAN AREA -WIDE REVIEW DOCUMENT AND MITIGATION PLAN FOR LEGACY VILLAGE WHEREAS, on December 12, 2002, the City Council approved resolution #XX -XX, authorizing that an Alternative Urban Areawide Review.( "AUAR ") be initiated and completed for Legacy Village at Maplewood; and WHEREAS, on January 6, 2003, the City of Maplewood prepared and distributed a draft AUAR environmental analysis document and draft Mitigation Plan on the Legacy Village at Maplewood in accordance with Minnesota Environmental Quality Board Environmental Review Program procedures; and WHEREAS, the 30 -day public review and comment period on the draft AUAR document and draft Mitigation Plan ended on February 5, 2003; and WHEREAS, the City of Maplewood revised the draft AUAR document and Mitigation Plan based on comments received during the public review comment period; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds the revised AUAR environmental analysis document to be complete, including a plan for mitigation specifying the measures that will be imposed upon further development within the study area in order to avoid or mitigate potential environmental impacts; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Maplewood, Minnesota, that the final AUAR environmental analysis document and mitigation plan for Legacy Village at Maplewood be distributed in accordance with Minnesota Environmental Quality Board Environmental Review Program procedures. PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MAPLEWOOD THIS 31 st DAY OF March 2003. MAYOR CITY MANAGER AGENDA ITEM AGENDA REPORT TO: Richard Fursman, City Manager FROM: Charles Ahl, Director of Public Works /City Engineer SUBJECT: County Road D Extension (Hazelwood to TH 61) — City Project 02 -07 County Road D Extension (West of TH 61) —City Project 02 -08 Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) Resolution Receiving Comments and Responses on EAW and Finding of No Significant Impact DATE: April 7, 2003 Introduction On March 31, 2003, the city council tabled final action until April 14 on the EAW for the County Road D Extension. Similar to the AUAR document, this is an environmental study of this alignment. The findings of fact for the EAW have previously been provided. Approval of the recommended resolution would find that the city council has determined that additional environmental study on this alignment is not required. The resolution does not approve the alignment; it only makes the environmental finding. Background The city council has directed the preparation of an Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) for the County Road D realignment project between Hazelwood and TH 61 and the realignment of County Road D west of TH 61. The EAW was completed and circulated for comment. The comments have been reviewed and responses prepared. The city's consultant has concluded that there is no significant impact from the proposed project and that further environmental study is not warranted. On December 9, 2002, the city council approved a resolution to proceed with a project to realign County Road D from Hazelwood Street to TH 61 at the Venburg Tire intersection and then realign County Road D west of TH 61 through the vacant property to the existing alignment on the east side of the Highridge Court development. The length of this new roadway met the threshold for preparation of an Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW). The EAW has been prepared by the consultant for the project, URS, Inc. The process required that the document be routed to the various agencies and be provided for public comment. The EAW identifies potential for environmental impacts. Specific impacts are to wetlands, where 2.43 acres will be impacted but are proposed to be replaced by 4.86 acres of wetlands to be created by restoring a portion of the golf course and by expanding wetlands at the County Road D and Hazelwood intersection. A major grading operation will be required at the Burlington Northern Railroad crossing, which will impact area slopes. Appropriate construction controls should mitigate this impact. Blandings turtle and White Wild Indigo are threatened species within the area; however, the DNR has concluded that the project likely will have no impact. Sediment ponds are proposed to upgrade the area storm water flows, which are currently untreated. Standards for the 1.44 acres of storm ponds to be created include providing for 60 percent phosphorus and 90 percent total suspend solid removal for runoff flows generated within the project area. City Council Agenda Report April 7, 2003 _ Countyy- -Road D Realignment EAW Page Two A 30 -day comment period expired on March 5, 2003. The EAW was posted on the city's website and was available for inspection at city hall and at the local library. A summary of the findings and comments /responses received from individuals and agencies was previously provided to the council. If the city council` approves the finding of no significant impact, the findings of the EAW will be incorporated into the County Road D improvement project if this alignment is selected. No additional environmental study is recommended. Should the city council feel additional study is warranted, they could specify items for study, or if significant impacts are identified, could specify preparation of an Environmental Impact Study (EIS). An EIS is an alternatives study that thoroughly reviews all impacts and mitigation. An EIS for this project would take 2 years to complete and cost in excess of $300,000. Process Consideration of the alignment is part of a process to implement the findings of the Mall Traffic Study. The City of Maplewood has established a goal of opening the County Road D extension project for traffic by November 2004. The following process is provided for consideration: • Alignment Study Task Force Report September 9, 2002 • Planning Commission Review of Alignment Study December 3, 2002 • Council Public Hearing on Alignment Study December 9, 2002 • Council Authorizes Preparation of AUAR for Legacy Village December 9, 2002 • Council Authorizes Distribution of Draft AUAR for Comment December 23, 2002 • Council Authorizes Preparation of EAW on Cty Rd D Alignment January 27, 2003 • Planning Commission Review of EAW and AUAR March 3, 2003 • EAW Approved for New Roadway in Coordination with AUAR March 31, 2003 • County Road D Alignment Options Reviewed with Council April 14, 2003 • Right of Way Map Reviewed with Planning Commission April 21, 2003 • County Road D Alignment Selected ,Feasibility Study ordered And Right of Way Map Approved by City Council April 28, 2003 • Council Calls Public Hearing on Improvements to County Road D May 12, 2003 • Public Hearing on County Road D Project May 27, 2003 • Right of Way Acquisition /Plan Preparation June — Sept. 2003 • Assessment Hearing /Plan Approval September 22, 2003 • Construction Award (Hazelwood to TH 61) October 27, 2003 • Begin Construction (Hazelwood to TH 61) November 2003 • Complete Construction (Hazelwood to TH 61) November 2004 • Assessment Hearing /Plan Approval (west of TH 61) September 2003 • Construction Award (west of TH 61) February 2004 • Begin Construction (west of TH 61) April 2004 • Complete Construction (west of TH 61) September 2004 Recommendation It is recommended that the City Council adopt the attached resolution receiving the Findings of Fact for the Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) on the County Road D Realignment Project (City Projects 02 -07 and 02 -08) and approving the Finding of No Additional Environmental Study Required. Attachments: County Road D Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) Findings of Fact Resolution CITY OF MAPLEWOOD - COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. XX -XX A RESOLUTION APPROVING A NEGATIVE FINDING OF THE NEED FOR FURTHER ENVIRONMENTAL STUDY FOR THE EXTENSION OF COUNTY ROAD D BETWEEN HAZELWOOD AND TH 61 (City Project 02 -07) AND FROM TH 61 TO HIGHRIDGE COURT (City Project 02 -08) AND AUTHORIZING DISTRIBUTION OF THE NEGATIVE FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT WHEREAS, the City of Maplewood is the Responsible Governmental Unit for the Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) for the Extension of County Road D from Hazelwood to TH 61 (City Project 02 -07) and from TH 61 to Highridge Court (City Project 02- 08); and WHEREAS, the EAW was prepared and distributed to all parties on the State Environmental Quality Board (EQB) distribution list, as well as local agency representatives and the petitioners' representative; and WHEREAS, the EAW Notice of Availability was published in the EQB Monitor on February 3, 2003, beginning a 30 -day comment period that ended on March 5, 2003; and WHEREAS, written comments on the EAW were received and considered from all parties; responses were developed, and findings were prepared; and WHEREAS, the City Council has the authority to make the final determination on the adequacy of an EAW and the related negative or positive declaration as to the need to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS); and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the EAW requires that plans pertaining to stormwater, grading, erosion control, and buffer /turf management be submitted for approval as part of the design process. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the City Council has determined, based on the findings contained in the Record of Decision, that the environmental review requirements have been met by the Environmental Assessment Worksheet prepared for the Extension of County Road D from Hazelwood to TH 61 (City Project 02 -07) and from TH 61 to Highridge Court (City Project 02 -08), and the potential environmental effects are not considered significant enough to warrant preparation of an EIS; and BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED, that the City Council requests that the negative declaration be distributed to all parties on the State Environmental Quality Board distribution list and all persons commenting in writing on the EAW. Owe Ommed Owe b"W Owe 53W 40 ° � o � � Ol Wei. CA 0— owe Mode Owde wele *do t7� owe 1 . 1 Ow Onud *We OZ P owe Immow Ommed ell. 0-ow Owed Odo Ommid 0 � !_� owe Ommid =W Odo mow cC i ►' W..5 �' ' i i ►0-r �C J J N N i i N N N i i * 00 O d y r Z O �d �d C N C N \O \O N J \O N � N N N ►--i � to N N N N 00 00 4, x r r� r d - r r AGENDA ITEM AGENDA REPORT TO: Richard Fursman, City Manager FROM: Charles Ahl, Public Works Director /City Engineer Chris Cavett, Assistant City Engineer SUBJECT Tilsen South Neighborhood Street Improvements, City Project 00-04- - Resolutions for: 1. Directing Modification of Existing Construction Contract (C.O. No. 4) 2. , Acceptance of Project DATE: April 7, 2003 Introduction /Summary The Tilsen South Neighborhood street improvement project was constructed in 2001. Final construction expenses and financing have been determined. There were still some extra work items that were not part of the original bid and had not been invoiced by the contractor until recently. These items have been reviewed and are part of Change Order #4 and are attached for approval consideration. The city council will consider approving the attached resolutions directing the modification of the existing construction contract and acceptance of the project. Background The project is final and complete and ready for final payment. The final construction cost, and the amount to be paid to the contractor,. is $1,729,507.51. The difference between the amount to be paid ($1,729,507.51) and the final contract amount ($1,740,450.77) is the result of some final quantities for certain bid items being less than originally estimated. The change orders were for work items that were not part of the original bid. The final project cost has been estimated at $2,070,000 based on current account balance and an estimation of remaining fees and final engineering expenses. Budget Impact There was an increase of more than $220,000 in the project budget since initial project approval. The majority of this increase was from private driveway agreements. All increases have been funded increases, as there was no increase the general tax levy portion of the financing plan. Below are the original approved budget and the revised final budget: Funding Source Original Budget Revised Budget North St. Paul Obligation: $355,000 $389,000 Maplewood Sewer Utility: $43,000 $74,600 North St: Paul WAC Fund, (408- 1010): $0 $10,000 Street & Storm Assessments: $777,000 $778,470 Supplementary Assessments (Drives): $0 $143,910 Utility Assessments: $0 $6,100 General Tax Levy: $671,000 $667,920 Total: $1,846,000 $2,070,000 Recommendation It is recommended that the city council approve the two attached resolutions for the Tilsen South Neighborhood Street Improvements, City Project 00 -04: Directing the Modification of the Existing Construction Contract (Change Order No. #4) and Acceptance of Project. CMC jw Attachments: Resolutions (2) Final Pay Estimate /Change Order No. 4 RESOLUTION DIRECTING MODIFICATION OF CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT WHEREAS, the City Council of Maplewood, Minnesota has heretofore ordered made Improvement Project 00 -04, Tilsen South Neighborhood Street Improvements, and has let a construction contract pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 429, and WHEREAS, construction has now been completed with increases in the quantity of some contract unit price items that have resulted in a final project cost greater than the original contract amount, and WHEREAS, it is now necessary that said final contract be modified and designated as Improvement Project 00 -04, Change Order No. 4. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT`RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA that the mayor and city clerk are hereby authorized and directed to modify the existing contract by executing said Change Order No. 4 in the amount of $29,796.42. The final contract amount is $1,740,450.77. The finance director is hereby authorized to make the financial transfers necessary to implement the revised financing plan for the project. The revised financing plan is as shown below: Funding Source Original Budget Revised Budget North St. Paul Obligation: $355,000 $389,000 Maplewood Sewer Utility: $43,000 $74,600 North St. Paul WAC Fund, (408- 1010): $0 $10,000 Street & Storm Assessments: $777,000 $778,470 Supplementary Assessments, (Drives): $0 $143,910 Utility Assessments: $0 $6 General Tax Levy: $67 1,000 $667,920 Total: $1,846,000 $21070,000 - - RESOLUTION ACCEPTANCE OF PROJECT WHEREAS, the city engineer for the City Maplewood has determined that the Tilsen South Neighborhood Street Improvements, City Project 00 -04,, are complete and recommends acceptance of the project; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA, that City Project 00 -04 is complete and maintenance of these improvements is accepted by the city. Release of any retainage or escrow is hereby authorized. TILSEN SOUTH NEIGHBORHOOD STREETS PROJECT 00 -04 PROJECT PAYMENT REQUEST ESTIMATE NO. 5 (FINAL) PERIOD ENDING: FEBRUARY 28 2003 CONTRACTOR: T.A. SCHIFSKY & SONS, INC. CONTRACT AMOUNT: $1,318,554.73 EST. QUANTITY UNIT I o DESCRIPTION UNIT C.O. QTY. TO DATE PRICE TOTAL Material Testing LS 1.00 1.00 5000.00 $5,000.00 Mobilization (5% Max.) LS 1.00 1.00 15000.00 $15,000.00 Clear & Grub TREE 10.00 11.00 200.00 $2,200.00 Remove Pipe Culvert (Storm) LF 550.00 577.00 6.90 $3,981.30 Remove Bituminous Driveway & Bike Path Pavement SY 1 1600.00 1600.00 1.25 $2,000.00 Remove Concrete Pavement (Driveway & Sidewalk) SY 1 1900.00 2078.00 1.25 $2,597.50 Remove Catch Basin or Manhole (Storm, Sanitary or Water) EACH 33.00 38.00 477.00 $18,126.00 Remove Hydrant Assembly EACH 12.00 12.00 291.00 $3,492.00 Sawing Concrete Pavement (Full Depth) LF 240.00 313.50 4.00 $1,254.00 Abandon Existing Water Main LS 1.00 1.00 3710.00 $3,710.00 Salvage Manhole Casting (Sanitary) EACH 14.00 13.00 15.00 $195.00 Abandon Existing Sanitary Sewer LF 520.00 520.00 4.77 $2,480.40 Common Excavation (P) CY 2 3415.00 3415.00 4.50 $15,367.50 Subgrade Excavation CY 900.00 29.00 4.50 $130.50 Select Granular Borrow- Mod. 5% (CV) (P) CY 1665.00 1665.00 8.80 $14,652.00 Geotextile Fabric, Type V SY 1200.00 0.00 1.40 $0.00 Street Sweeper w /Pick -up Broom HOUR 30.00 120.00 85.00 $10,200.00 Water for Dust Control MGAL 230.00 175.00 30.00 $5,250.00 Agg. Base Placed, Saly. Bit. & CI. 5 (CV) (P) CY 1 4725.00 4725.00 4.10 $19,372.50 Mill Pavement Edge LF 1450.00 1240.00 1.50 $1,860.00 Pulverize Bituminous Pavement (P) SY 67968.00 58060.00 1.70 $98,702.00 Sawed /Sealed Joint LF 14500.00 17150.00 1.00 $17,150.00 Type 41, Wearing Course Mixture (41 WEA50055Y) TON 2 6170.00 6170.00 30.25 $186,642.50 Type 31, Base Course Mixture (31BBB50000Y) TON 2 6510.00 6510.00 26.50 $172,515.00 Type 41, Wearing Course Mixture (Driveway or Trail) (41WEA50055Y) SY 1 1600.00 1600.00 5.50 $8,800.00 Bit. Material for Tack Coat GAL 3400.00 3463.00 1.25 $4,328.75 Granular Pipe Foundation (C.V.) CY 250.00 0.00 0.01 $0.00 Crushed Rock Pipe Foundation TON 150.00 51.00 0.01 $0.51 Replacement Backfill TON 2000.00 0.00 0.01 $0.00 4" Perf. PE Pipe Drain.w /Geo Filter Sock w/ Filter Agg. LF 3100.00 3100.00 5.50 $17,050.00 Connect to Existing Storm Sewer Pipe EACH 1.00 1.00 795.00 $795.00 8" PVC (SDR 35) San Sewer LF 70.00 70.00 44.25 $3,097.50 12" RCP Sew, CI. 5, Des. 3006 LF 250.00 347.00 28.70 $9,958.90 15' RCP Sew, Cl. 5, Des. 3006 LF 535.00 597.50 30.25 $18,074.38 24" RCP Sew, CI. III, Des. 3006 LF 143.00 146.00 37.30 $5,445.80 Replace Protruding Tap With New Wye, Ferncos and 6" & 8" PVC EACH 3 3.00 2.00 1429.00 $2,858.00 Saddle Tap 6" PVC onto 8" VCP, Reconnect Ex. Service W/ Ferncos & 6" PVC EACH 6.00 4.00 1407.90 $5,631.60 4" PVC Sanitary Sewer Service LF 3 335.00 271.00 17.15 $4,647.65 6" PVC Sanitary Sewer Service LF 220.00 85.50 18:14 $1,550.97 EST. QUANTITY UNIT E DESCRIPTION UNIT C.O. QTY. TO DATE PRICE TOTAL Connect to Existing Sanitary MH EACH 2.00 4.00 795.00 $3,180.00 Connect to Existing VCP'Wye EACH 2.00 1.00 689.00 $689.00 Sanitary Sewer Spot Repair LF 10.00 25.50 90.90 $2,317.95 Televise Existing Sanitary Sewer Main Prior to Paving Wear Course LF 3 18406.00 18406.00 0.53 $9,755.18 Maintain Existing Water Service LS 1.00 1.00 10070.00 $10,070.00 Connect to Existing Water Service EACH 108.00 107.00 185.50 $19,848.50 6" Gate Valve & Box (w /Grip) EACH 9.00 12.00 785.50 $9,426.00 Adjust Valve Box EACH 22.00 21.00 _ 100.00 $2,100.00 Connect to Existing Water Main EACH 6.00 6.00 1060.00 $6,360.00 Furnish and Install Casting for Curb Stop (Ford A -32) EACH 3 11.00 12.00 131.50 $1,578.00 Furnish and Install up to 1" Corp. Stops (Ford F -600 or A.Y. McDonland 4701) EACH 108.00 107.00 145.54 $15,572.78 F &I 9' Bury Pacer WB -67 Fire Hydrant w/16" Barrel & Blue Flexstake EACH 12.00 12.00 1715.90 $20,590.80 8" GV & MH EACH 25.00 25.00 2455.55 $61,388.75 6" Hydrant Extension EACH 13.00 9.00 371.75 $3,345.75 12" Hydrant Extension EACH 5.00 1.00 440.90 $440.90 Repair Gate Valve Box LF 40.00 3.00 80.00 $240.00 6" DIP Water Main (Hydrant Leads) LF 150.00 203.50 21.32 $4,338.62 8" DIP Water Main LF 5710.00 5718.50 22.37 $127,922.85 F &I up to 1" Type K Copper Water Service Pipe LF 1000.00 782.50 21.40 $16,745.50 2" Rigid Insulation SY 60.00 0.00 18.53 $0.00 Repair /Adjust Curb Stop Box (Laborer) HR 40:00 .57.25 50.00 $2,862.50 Repair /Adjust Curb Stop Box (Tractor Backhoe) HR 15.00 26.00 45.00 $1,170.00 DIP Watermain Fittings LB 2300.00 2549.00 5.47 $13,943.03 Reline Outside Drop & Reconnect 8" VCP (See Maplewood Standard Plate 421) EACH 1.00 1.00 3621.00 $3,621.00 F &I Casting Assembly 1642 -B (water) for Water Flushing Pit or Curbstop , EACH 6.00 6.00 282.41 $1,694.46 Adjust Frame and Ring Casting for Catch Basin EACH 14.00 17.00 30.00 $510.00 Adjust Frame and Ring Casting for Storm Manhole EACH 20.00 20.00 150.00 $3,000.00 Adjust Frame and Ring Casting for Sanitary Manhole EACH 61.00 63.00 150.00 $9,450.00 Adjust Frame and Ring Casting for Gate Valve Manhole with Neoprene Boot EACH 13.00 11.00 250.00 $2,750.00 Const CB Type X EACH 3 11.00 11.00 1080.77 $11,888.47 Const CB Type -y EACH 3 16.00 16.00 947.00 $15,152.00 Const MH Type B EACH 4.00 4.00 1284.00 $5,136.00 Const CB MH Type C -1 EACH 1.00 2.00 1992.00 $3,984.00 Casting Assembly, R- 3067 -V EACH 3 29.00 29.00 300.00 $8,700.00 Casting Assembly R- 1422 -0004 w/ R- 1422 -A1 Lid (Sanitary) EACH 11.00 11.00 300.00 $3,300.00 Casting Assembly R- 1422 -0004 w/ R- 1422 -0009 Lid (Radial) EACH 4.00 1.00 110.00 $110.00 Casting Lid R- 2422 -0009 (Radial) For R- 1422 -0004 EACH 9.00 9.00 300.00 $2,700.00 Connect 4" PE Drain Tile to Existing Drainage Structure EACH 25.00 20.00 160.00 $3,200.00 Reconstruct Catch Basin or Manhole (Storm & Sanitary) LF 9.00 9.00 450.50 $4,054.50 4" Concrete Walk SF 1 480.00 689.00 4.08 $2,811.12 6" Concrete Pavement - Driveway SY , 1 1725.00 1879.70 34.40 $64,661.68 Epoxy Grout Cracks in Concrete Curb and Gutter (Epoxy Grout @ 2' each) EACH 250.00 339.00 430 $1,457.70 Remove & Replace Concrete C & G (All types) LF 2 8500.00 8525.00 13.00 $110,825.00 Epoxy Grout Cracks in Concrete Driveway Pavement LF 200.00 114.50 2.15 $246.18 Traffic Control LS 1.00 1.00 3500.00 $3,500.00 Comm Fertilizer, Analysis 10 -10 -10 LBS. 100.00 955.00 0.40 $382.00 Contractor: v u � pves i&cAt Date: 3 -- .�L(� 7 , Engineer: Dater �� 0 EST. QUANTITY UNIT I DESCRIPTION UNIT C.O. QTY. TO DATE PRICE TOTAL Erosion Control, Contractor's Plan (1/2% Minimum) LS 1.00 1.00 7000.00 $7,000.00 Select To Borrow, LV CY 2 &3 830.00 830.00 12.80 $10,624.00 Seeding (Substitue for Sod) SY 2 &3 5000.00 5000.00 1.77 $8,850.00 TOTAL $1 ,307,611.47 Original contract amount $1,318,554.73 Change Order 1 $187,042.74 Change Order 2 $154,798.35 ChangerOrder 3 $50,258.53 Changer0rder 4 $29,796.42 Revised contract amount $1,740,450.77 Total earned to date $1,729,507.51 Less 0% retainage $0.00 Plus incentives Less liquidated damages Subtotal $1,729,507.51 Less previous payments $1,561,516.73 Amount due this estimate $167,990.78 Contractor: v u � pves i&cAt Date: 3 -- .�L(� 7 , Engineer: Dater �� 0 CHANGE ORDER DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA Project Name: Tilsen South Neighborhood Streets Project No.: 00 -04 Contractor: T. A. Schifsky & Sons, Inc. The following changes shall be made in the contract documents: Item Description N/A 18" RC Sew., Cl. III, Des. 3006 (4.5 LF @ $58.85/1-F) N/A 18" H. D. P. E. Storm Sewer (3 LF @ $42.35/LF) Invoice 30417 Miscellaneous Storm Sewer Repairs and Additions Invoice 30416 Miscellaneous Sanitary Sewer Repairs and Additions N/A Water — 1" Curb Stop (3 EA @ $14.43/EA) N/A Water — '1.25" Curb Box (7 EA @ $25.44/EA) Invoice 30419 Miscellaneous Water System Repairs and Additions Invoice 30411 Replace Bituminous Driveway at 2929 Mary St. N. N/A Final Landscaping (1 LS @ $ 1,200.00 /1-S) Total Original Contract: Net Change of Prior Change Order No. 1 Net Change of Prior Change Order No. 2 Net Change of Prior Change Order No. 3 Change This Change Order: Revised Contract: Approved Change Order No.: 4 Date: February 28, 2003 Total $ 264.83 $ 127.05 $ 1.0,341.87 $ 13,749.07 $ 43.29 $ 178.08 $ 2,448.23 $ 1,444.00 $ 1,200.00 $ 29,796.42 $1,318,554.73 $ 187,042.74 $ 154,798.35 $ 50,258.53 $ 29,796.42 $1,740,450.77 May f Recommended ngineer Agreed to by Contractor by Its Title AGENDA ITEM AGENDA REPORT Action by Council TO: Richard Fursman, City Manager FROM: Charles Ahl, Public Works Director /City Engineer Chris Cavett, Assistant City Engineer Date Endcrscci . Moclifi -d _ Rejected SUBJECT: Gladstone West Neighborhood Street Improvements, City Project 00 -05: Resolutions for: 1. Directing Modification of Existing Construction Contract (COs 3 & 4) 2. Acceptance of Project DATE: April 7, 2003 Introduction /Summary The Gladstone West Neighborhood street improvement project was constructed in 2001. Final construction expenses and financing have been determined. The attached change orders are for items that were not part of the original bid (CO #3), and for an item that had a large over -run (CO #4). These items have been reviewed and are attached for approval. consideration. The city council will consider approving the attached resolutions directing the modification of the existing construction contract and acceptance of the project. Background The project is final and complete and ready for final payment. The final construction cost, and the amount to be paid to the contractor, is $1,102,946.34. There will be $0.09 left on the contract between the amount to be paid and the revised contract amount of $1,102,946.43. The final project cost has been estimated at $1,477,000 based on current account balance and an estimation of remaining fees and final engineering expenses. Change Order No. 3 is for the work done this past spring of 2002 to remove and revise the bituminous curb on Duluth and Atlantic Streets and was not part of the original contract. Change Order No. 4 is simply for a complete miscalculation, rather than an underestimation, of the quantity of sod required for this project. Budget Impact There was an increase of approximately $7,000 in the project budget since initial project approval. This increase was basically the result of private driveway agreements. Overall there has been a savings to the general tax levy portion of the financing plan of approximately $47,000. Below are the original approved budget and the revised final budget for project 00 -05: Funding Source Original Budget Revised Budget 8PRWS Obligation: $27,345 $19,900 Sewer Utility: $48,388 $111,422 Assessments: $676,845 $615,862 Supplementary Assessments, (Drives): $0 $59,405 General Tax Levy: $717,422 $670,411 Total: $1,470,000 $1,477,000 Recommendation It is recommended that the city council approve the two attached resolutions for the Gladstone West Neighborhood Street Improvements, City Project 00 -05: Directing the Modification of the Existing Construction Contract (Change Order Nos. 3 & 4) and Acceptance of Project. CIVIC jw Attachments: Resolutions (2) Final Pay Estimate /Change Order Nos. 3 & 4 RESOLUTION DIRECTING MODIFICATION OF CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT WHEREAS, the City Council of Maplewood, Minnesota has heretofore ordered made Improvement Project 00 -05, Gladstone West Neighborhood Street Improvements, and has let a construction contract pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 429, and WHEREAS, construction has now been completed with increases in the quantity of some contract unit price items that have resulted in a final project cost greater than the original contract amount, and WHEREAS, it is now necessary that said final contract be modified and designated as Improvement Project 00 -05, Change Order Nos. 3 & 4. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA that the mayor and city clerk are hereby authorized and directed to modify the existing contract by executing said Change Order Nos. 3 & 4 in the amount of $47,314.24 & $22- ,578.34 respectively. The final contract amount is $1,102,946.34. The finance director is hereby authorized to make the financial transfers necessary to implement the revised financing plan for the project. The revised financing plan is as shown below: Funding Source Original Budget Revised Budget SPRWS Obligation: $27,345 $19,900 Sewer Utility: $48,388 $111 Assessments: $676,845 $615,862 Supplementary Assessments, (Drives): $0 $59,405 General Tax Levy: $717,422 $670,411 Total: $1,470,000 $1,477,000 RESOLUTION ACCEPTANCE OF PROJECT WHEREAS, the city engineer for the City of Maplewood has determined that the Gladstone West Neighborhood Street Improvements, City Project 00 -05, are complete and recommends acceptance of the project; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA, that City Project 00 -05 is complete and maintenance of these improvements is accepted by the city. Release of any retainage or escrow is hereby authorized. GLADSTONE WEST NEIGHBORHOOD STREETS MAPLEWOOD PROJECT 00 -05 PROJECT PAYMENT REQUEST - - ESTIMATE - NO.: FINAL CONTRACTOR: T.A. SCHIFSKY & SONS, INC. ITEM DESCRIPTION 2013.601 TESTING 2021.501 MOBILIZATION (5% MAXIMUM) 2101.502 CLEARING 2101.507 GRUBBING 2104.501 REMOVE CMP STORM SEWER PIPE 2104.501 REMOVE BITUMINOUS CURB 2104.501 REMOVE CONCRETE AND GUTTER 2104.505 REMOVE BITUMINOUS DRIVEWAY PAVEMENT 2104.505 REMOVE CONCRETE DRIVEWAY PAVEMENT /APRON /SIDEWALK 2104.509 REMOVE DRAINAGE STRUCTURE & CASTING (FES,LP4 OR 4' DIA CB /MH) 2104.511 SAWING CONCRETE PAVEMENT 2104.513 SAW BITUMINOUS DRIVEWAY PAVEMENT , 2104.521 SALVAGE EXISTING CHAIN LINK FENCE AND APPURTENANCES 2104.521 SALVAGE WOOD RAIL FENCE 2104.523 SALVAGE BRICK SIDEWALK 2104.525 ABANDON DRAINAGE STRUCTURE 2105.501 COMMON EXCAVATION (SEE EARTHWORK SUMMARY SHEET), (P), (EV) 2105.507 SUBGRADE EXCAVATION, (EV) 2105.515 UNCLASSIFIED EXCAVATION (SEE EARTHWORK SUMMARY SHEET), (EV) 2105.526 SELECT TOPSOIL BORROW, (LV) 2123.610 STREET SWEEPER WITH PICKUP BROOM 2130.501 WATER FOR DUST CONTROL 2211.501 AGGREGATE SURFACING CLASS 5 (100% CRUSHED LIMESTONE) 2211.501 AGGREGATE BASE CLASS 6 FOR STREETS 2211.501 AGGREGATE BASE CLASS 6 FOR CONCRETE OR BITUMINOUS WALK OR DRIVEWAY 2212.601 AGGREGATE BASE CLASS 7 - FULL DEPTH RECLAMATION 2232.603 MILL BITUMINOUS SURFACE, 1.5" DEPTH 2331.603 BITUMINOUS JOINT SAW AND SEAL 2340.508 TYPE 41 WEARING COURSE MIXTURE (41 WEA50055PG58 -28) 2340.514 TYPE 32 BASE COURSE MIXTURE (32BBB50000PG58 -28) 2340.521 TYPE 41 BITUMINOUS MIXTURE FOR DRIVEWAYS (41 WEA50055PG58 -28) 2357.502 BITUMINOUS MATERIAL FOR TACK COAT 2411.604 DRY -CAST SEGMENTAL MASONRY BLOCK RETAINING WALL 2501.515 12" CORRUGATED SMOOTH WALL HDPE PIPE APRON WITH SAFETY GRATE AND TYPE V GEOTEXTILE WRAP 2501.515 1'8" CORRUGATED SMOOTH WALL HDPE PIPE APRON WITH SAFETY GRATE AND TYPE V GEOTEXTILE WRAP 2503.602 SADDLE TAP 4" PVC ONTO 8" VCP AS PER PLATE 412 2503.602 F & I- 8 "x 4" PVC WYE 2503.602 F & I- 8 "x 6" PVC WYE 2503.602 REPAIR 8" VCP SANITARY SEWER AS PER PLATE 409 2503.602 SPECIAL REPAIR OF 8" VCP SS AS PER PLATE 409 ON LARPENTEUR AV. AT ATLANTIC 2503.603 4" PVC, SCHEDULE 40 SANITARY SERVICE 2503.603 6" PVC, SCHEDULE 40 SANITARY SERVICE PERIOD ENDING: CONTRACTAMOUNT: $961,863.58 EST. QUANTITY UNIT UNIT QTY. TO DATE PRICE TOTAL LS 1.00 1.00 5,000.00 $5,000.00 LS 1.00 1.00 25,000.00 $25,000.00 EACH 45.00 75.00 110.00 $8,250.00 EACH 45.00 72100 110.00 $7,920.00 LF 631.00 565.00 6.20 $3,503.00 LF 5058.00 5058.00 0.66 $3,338.28 LF 100.00 241.00 1.10 $265.10 SY 2974.00 2974.00 1.10 $3,271.40 SY 1344.00 1354.00 1.10 $1,489.40 EACH 11.00 11.00 510.00 $5,610.00 LF 1292.00 1185.00. 3.00 $3,555.00 LF 1276.00 1651.00 3.00 $4,953.00 LF 40.00 2.20 $0.00 LF 140.00 50.00 2.20 $110.00 EACH 1.00 165.00 $0.00 EACH 1.00 1.00 810.00 $810.00 CY 9180.00 9265.00. • 4.95 $45,861.75 CY 290.00 949.00 4.95 $4,697.55 CY 885.00 885.00 4.95 $4,380.75 CY 1210.00 1312.78 13.00 $17,066.14 HOUR 120.00 98.00 85.00 $8,330.00 M GAL 550.00 678.00 30.00 $20,340.00 TON .111.00 67.68 10.00 $676.80 TON 7108.00 3816.49 7.75 $29,577.80 TON 1343.00 932.00 10.00 $9,320.00 SY 26841.00 26841.00 1.60 $42,945.60 . LF 275.00 1119.00 4.00 $4,476.00 LF 4630.00 5791.00 1.25 $7,238.75 TON 2526.00 2571.06 30.50 $78,417.33 TON 3996.00 3874.07 27.00 $104,599.89 SY 2974.00 2974.00 12.00 $35,688.00 GAL 1326.00 1300.00 1.25 $1,625.00 SF 820.00 915.00 18.00 $16,470.00 EA 5.00 4.00 244.25 $977.00 EA 5.00 5.00 370.80 $1,854.00 EA 2.00 1.00 2,060.00 $2,060.00 EA 3.00 2.00 2,060.00 $4,120.00 EA 1.00 5.00 2,009.00 $10,045.00 EA 7.00 8.00 1,984.00 $15,872.00-, - LS 1.00 1.00 1,984.00 $1,984.00 LF 116.00 66.00 26.65 $1,758.90 LF 749.00 841.00 30.85 $25,944.85 GLADSTONE WEST NEIGHBORHOOD STREETS MAPLEWOOD PROJECT 00 -05 PROJECT PAYMENT REQUEST - - ESTIMATE NO.: FINAL CONTRACTOR: T.A. SCHIFSKY &SONS, INC. PERIOD ENDING: CONTRACT AMOUNT: $961,863.58 ITEM DESCRIPTION UNIT EST. QTY. QUANTITY TO DATE UNIT PRICE TOTAL 2503.603 TELEVISE SANITARY SEWER MAIN (CLEAN & FLUSH AS DIRECTED) 2503.603 PIPE BEDDING FOR HDPE @ STREET OR DRIVEWAY CROSSING 2503.511 12" CORRUGATED HDPE PIPE SEWER, SMOOTH WALL 2503.511 15" CORRUGATED HDPE PIPE SEWER, SMOOTH WALL 2503.511 18" CORRUGATED HDPE PIPE SEWER, SMOOTH WALL 2503.511 24" CORRUGATED HDPE PIPE SEWER, SMOOTH WALL 2503.511 30" CORRUGATED HDPE PIPE SEWER, SMOOTH WALL 2504.602 ADJUST VALVE BOX, WATER 2504.602 ADJUST CURB STOP BOX 2504.602 F & I - CURB BOX SINGLE LID COVER 2504.602 WATER UTILITY HOLE (EXCAVATE & BACKFILL) 2504.603 WATER UTILITY SERVICE TRENCH (EXCAVATE & BACKFILL) 2504.604 F & 1- 2" RIGID INSULATION OVER WATER SERVICE OR MAIN 2506.602 F & I- 12 "x45 DEGREE H.D.P.E. BEND 2506.602 F & I- 15 "x45 DEGREE H.D.P.E. BEND 2506.602 F & I - 12 "x12 "x12" H.D.P.E. WYE 2506.602 F & I -15 "x15 "x12" H. D. P. E. WYE 2506.602 CONSTRUCT DRAINAGE STRUCTURE 12 "x45 DEGREE H.D.P.E. ELBOW & 12" H.D.P.E. DRAIN GRATE LF LF LF LF LF LF LF EA EA EA EA LF SY EA EA EA EA EA 10231.00 524.00 2750.00 776.00 168.00 717.00 826.00 30.00 59.00 14.00 8.00 645.00 106.50 3.00 1.00 5.00 1.00 5.00 11318.00 527.00 2767.00 776.00 162.00 717.00 826.00 32.00 39.00 15.00 9.00 651.00 96.10 3.00 1.00 6.00 1.00 5.00 1.44 2.70 20.30 20.90 24.60 28.95 41.47 100.00 50.00 50.00 432.00 16.75 16.20 116.10 142.55 202.80 243.00 223.00 $16,297.92 $1,422.90 $56,170.10 $16,218.40 $3,985.20 $20,757.15 $34,254.22 $3,200.00 $1,950.00 $750.00 $3,888.00 $10,904.25 $1,556.82 $348.30 $142.55 $1,216.80 $243.00 $1,115.00 2506.602 CONSTRUCT DRAINAGE STRUCTURE 12 "x90 DEGREE H.D.P.E. ELBOW & 12" H.D.P.E. DRAIN GRATE DRAINAGE STRUCTURE 12 "x12 "x12" H.D.P.E. TEE & 12" H.D.P.E. 2506.602 CONSTRUCT TE 2506.602 CONSTRUCT DRAINAGE STRUCTURE 15 "x15 "x12" H.D.P.E. TEE & 12" H.D.P.E. DRAIN GRATE EA EA EA 7.00 6.00 2.00 7.00 6.00 2.00 243.00 316.00 352.00 $1,701.00 $1,896.00 $704.00 2506.602 CONSTRUCT DRAINAGE STRUCTURE 24 "x24 "x12" H.D.P.E. TEE & 12" H.D.P.E. DRAIN GRATE 2506.502 CONSTRUCT DRAINAGE STRUCTURE 2'x 3' BOX C.B. W/ R- 3067 -V CASTING (MAPLEWOOD PLATE 306) 2506.502 CONSTRUCT DRAINAGE STRUCTURE 48" MH W/ R- 1422 -0004 CASTING AND R- 2422 -0009 LID (PLATE 303) 2506.502 CONSTRUCT DRAINAGE STRUCTURE 48" C.B. W/ R- 3067 -V CASTING (MAPLEWOOD PLATE 302) 2506.502 CONSTRUCT DRAINAGE STRUCTURE 48" C.B. W/ R-4342 CASTING (MAPLEWOOD PLATE 302) EA EA EA EA EA 1.00 16.00 1.00 16.00 1.00 1.00 18.00 1.00 17.00 1.00 432.00 1,073.00 1,384.00 1,471.00 1,296.00 $432.00 $19,314.00 $1,384.00 $25,007.00 $1,296.00" 2506.502 CONSTRUCT DRAINAGE STRUCTURE 27" SURFACE DRAIN W/ R-4342 CASTING (MAPLEWOOD PLATE 307) EA 4.00 4.00 842.00 $3,368.00 2506.502 CONSTRUCT DRAINAGE STRUCTURE 60" MH W/ R- 1422 -0004 CASTING AND R- 2422 -0009 LID (PLATE 303) EA 1.00 1.00 2,754.00 $2,754.00 2506.502 CONSTRUCT DRAINAGE STRUCTURE 60" C.B. W/ R- 3067 -V CASTING (MAPLEWOOD PLATE 302) EA 2.00 2.00 2,857.00 $5,714.00 2506.502 CONSTRUCT DRAINAGE STRUCTURE 60" C.B. W/ R-4342 STOOL GRATE 2506.503 RECONSTRUCT DRAINAGE STRUCTURE 2506.516 F &I CASTING ASSEMBLY R -1422 -0004 FRAME & R -2422 -0009 RADIAL GRATE EA LF EA 1.00 20.00 2.00 1.00 20.00 2.00 2,754.00 351.00 300.00 $2,754.00 $7,020.00 $600.00 2506.516 F &I CASTING ASSEMBLY R- 3067 -V EA 4.00 4.00 400.00 $1,600.00 2506.522 ADJUST FRAME AND RING CASTING EA 30.00 32.00 150.00 $4,800.00 2506.601 F &I : V2131 STORMWATER TREATMENT SYSTEM @ EDWARD & LARPENTEUR LS 1.00 1.00 13,966.00 $13,966.00 2506.602 CONNECT TO EXISTING DRAINAGE STRUCTURE EA 4.00 6.00 810.00 $4,860.00 2511.502 RANDOM RIPRAP, CLASS II TON 32.00 32.00 49.00 $1,568.00 2511.515 GEOTEXTILE FILTER, TYPE III SY 50.00 50.00 6.00 $300.00 GLADSTONE WEST NEIGHBORHOOD STREETS MAPLEWOOD PROJECT 00 -05 PROJECT PAYMENT REQUEST ESTIMATE NO.: FINAL PERIOD ENDING: CONTRACTOR: T.A. SCHIFSKY & SONS, INC. CONTRACT AMOUNT: $961,863.58 EST. QUANTITY UNIT ITEM DESCRIPTION UNIT QTY. TO DATE PRICE TOTAL 2521.501 4" CONCRETE WALK SF 340.00 340.00 4.40 $1,496.00 2521.602 REINSTALL BRICK SIDEWALK (SALVAGED) EACH 1.00 100.00 $0.00 2531.501 CONCRETE CURB AND GUTTER, DESIGN B618 LF 100.00 234.00 15.40 $3,603.60 2531.507 6" CONCRETE DRIVEWAY PAVEMENT, RESIDENTIAL SY 1316.00 1325.00 35.00 $46,375.00 2540.602 REINSTALL MAILBOX SUPPORT (SALVAGED) EA 49.00 97.00 50.00 $4,850.00 2540.602 FURNISH & INSTALL MAILBOX SUPPORT (SINGLE) EA 41.00 19.00 80.00 $1,520.00 2540.602 FURNISH & INSTALL MAILBOX SUPPORT (DOUBLE) EA 25.00 5.00 100.00 $500.00 2557.603 REINSTALL CHAIN LINK FENCE AND APPURTENANCES (SALVAGED) LF 40.00 15.00 $0.00 2557.603 REINSTALL WOOD RAIL FENCE (SALVAGED) LF 140.00 15.00 $0.00 2563.601 TRAFFIC CONTROL LS 1.00 1.00 6,000.00 $6,000.00 2571.602 RAINWATER GARDEN PREPARATION EACH 46.00 43.00 125.00 $5,375.00 2571.602 ROCK INFILTRATION SUMP FOR RAINWATER GARDEN W/ TYPE V - GEOTEXTILE FABRIC TON 103.00 105.00 14.00 $1,470.00 2573.502 SILT FENCE, TYPE PREASSEMBLED MAINTAINED LF 2170.00 645.00 1.65 $1,064.25 2573.505 INSTALL CITY PROVIDED FLOTATION SILT CURTAIN, TYPE STILL WATER, 2 DEPTH LS 1.00 1.00 550.00 $550.00 2573.53 INLET PROTECTION, TYPE A (EROSION CONTROL BARRIERS) EA 6.00 7.00 300.00 $2,100.00 2573.53 INLET PROTECTION, TYPE A (FOR USE @ BEEHIVE OR FLAT CB'S) EA 4.00 4.00 300.00 $1,200.00 2573.53 INLET PROTECTION, TYPE B (FOR USE @ CB'S W/ FLAT GRATE) EA 3.00 7.00 300.00 $2,100.00 2573.53 INLET PROTECTION, TYPE C (FOR USE @ CB'S W/ HOOD) EA 6.00 12.00 300.00 $3,600.00 2573.53 INLET PROTECTION, TYPE D (FOR USE @ FLARED ENDS) EA 4.00 300.00 $0.00 2575.505 SODDING, TYPE LAWN SY 14971.00 14971.00 1.94 $29,043.74 2575.604 TURF ESTABLISHMENT W/ SEED MIX 60A @ 100 # / ACRE SY 1600.00 2310.00 0.50 $1,155.00 2575.601 EROSION CONTROL, CONTRACTOR'S PLAN (1/2% MIN) LS 1.00 1.00 5,000.00 $5,000.00 TOTALS Original Contract Amount: Change Order No. 1 Change Order No. 2 Change Order No. 3 Change Order No. 4 Revised Contract Amount Pay Items: Change Order 1: Change Order 2: Change Order 3: Change Order 4: Total Earned to Date: Less previous payments: Amount due this estimate: $961,863.49 $961,863.58 $9,520.15 $61,670.12 $47,314.24 $22,578.34 $1,102,946.43 $961,863.49 $9,520.15 $61,670.12 $47,314.24 $22,578.34 $1,102,946.34 $1,003,316.52 $99,629.82 GLADSTONE WEST NEIGHBORHOOD STREETS MAPLEWOOD PROJECT 00 -05 PROJECT PAYMENT REQUEST ESTIMATE - NO.' -FINAL PERIOD ENDING: CONTRACTOR: T.A. SCHIFSKY & SONS, INC. CONTRACT AMOUNT: $961,863.58 ITEM EST. QUANTITY UNIT DESCRIPTION UNIT QTY. TO DATE PRICE TOTAL Contractor. C ..+ Date: r-. �— fr p F Engineer: s f ` Date: 7- 03 CHANGE ORDER DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA Project Name: Gladstone West Neighborhood Streets Change Order N Project No.. 00 -05 g o.. 3 Date: 4/03/03 Contractor: T.A. Schifsky & Sons, Inc. The following changes shall be made in the contract documents: This is regarding bituminous curb change as directed by city council Description Unit - Quantity Unit Total Milling /Labor /Leveling Machine Rental $ 6 20 0.00 41A Mix 5,265.00 Sodding/Topsoil 2,462.32 Labor /Machinery to Apply Curb 8,910.00 Trucking 32,351.16 3,867.50 Deduction for Warranty Work Subtotal $59,055.98 - 11.741.74 Total $47,314.24 Original Contract: $961,863.58 Net Change of Prior Change Orders Change Order No. 1 $ 9,520.15 Change Order No. 2 61.670.12 Subtotal $71,190.27 Change This Change Order: $47,314.24 Revised Contract: $1,080,368.09 Approved Mayor Recommended Engineer 4 Agreed to by Contractor by ��f73� Its Title CHANGE ORDER DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS MAPLEWOOD,- MINNESOTA Project Name: Gladstone West Neighborhood Streets Change Order No.: 4 Project No.. 00 -05 Date: 4/03/03 Contractor: T.A. Schifsky & Sons, Inc. The following changes shall be made in the contract documents: This is regarding bituminous curb change as directed by city council. Unit Description Unit Quantity Price Total Sodding SY 10,692 1.94 $20,742.48 Topsoil CY 141.22 13 1,835.86 Total $22,578.34 Original Contract: $961,863.58 Net Change of Prior Change Orders Change Order No. 1 $ 9,520.15 Change Order No. 2 61,670.12 Change Order No. 3 47.314.24 Subtotal $118,504.51 Change This Change Order: $22,578.34 Revised Contract: 1,102,946.43 Approved �., Mayor Recommended ngineer Agreed to by Contractor by 4 Its sf` f��f � - C Title A enda g # Action by Council j i REPORT SUMMARY A10clifie Reiecteci Applicant: Kevin and Darla Stebbins Site Address: Lot 3, Block 3, Oakridge Estates (Arlington Avenue) Zoning: Single- Dwelling Residential Land Use: Single- Dwelling Residential City Council Hearing Date: April 14, 2003 60 -Day Deadline: May 3, 2003 Project Description: Kevin and Darla Stebbins are proposing to construct a new single- family house on Lot 3, - (Block 3, Oakridge Estates (Arlington Avenue). The new house is. proposed with �a 270 -foot front yard setback. Request: In order to construct the house as proposed, the Stebbins request the city council approve an increased front yard setback of 270 feet as opposed to the required 151 feet. Recommendations: Staff recommends approval of the proposed 270 -foot front yard setback with several conditions to help mitigate neighborhood concerns regarding the new house location. MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: SUBJECT: APPLICANT: LOCATION: DATE: Richard Fursman, City Manager Shann Finwall, Associate Planner Increased Front Yard Setback Kevin and Darla Stebbins Lot 3, Block 3, Oakridge Estates (Arlington Avenue) April 7, 2003 INTRODUCTION . Project Description Kevin and Darla Stebbins are proposing to construct a new single- family house on Lot 3, Block 3, Oakridge Estates (see enclosed maps and house elevations on pages 7 through 11). The new house is proposed with a 270 -foot front yard setback. Front Yard Setback Ordinance The city's single-family front yard setback ordinance (Section 36 -70) requires that each dwelling and accessory structure have a front yard setback of at least 30 feet; except that lots next to existing dwellings must maintain a minimum setback of the adjacent dwelling closest to the street and a maximum setback of the adjacent dwelling farthest from the street. Mr. and Mrs. Stebbins' lot requires a 151 -foot front yard setback due to ..the setback of the adjacent house at 2320 Arlington Avenue. The code allows. city staff to approve a different setback than described above if it would not adversely affect the - drainage of surrounding properties and if any of the following conditions apply: 1. The proposed setback would not affect the privacy of the homes. 2. The proposed setback would save significant natural features. 3. The proposed setback is necessary to meet city, state, or federal regulations, such as the pipeline setback or noise regulation. 4. The proposed setback is necessary for energy - saving, health, or safety reasons. As directed by code, on March 4, 2003, city staff informed the adjacent property owners and the city council of the different front yard setback. Fifteen days were given in which to receive comment or an appeal. On March 7, 2003, city staff received. an appeal of the proposed setback. The code requires all appeals on different front yard setbacks to be heard by the city council for final determination. Request In order to construct the house as proposed, the Stebbins request the city council approve an increased front yard setback of 270 feet as opposed to the required 151 feet. . BACKGROUND Oakridge Estates Plat In December 1992 the planning commission reviewed the Oakridge Estates preliminary plat.. (Refer to the November 20, 1992, preliminary plat map on page 12.) The planning commission recommended that Arlington Avenue become a through street by connecting the two proposed Arlington Avenue cul -de -sacs across the pipeline. This condition was recommended due to concerns regarding the length of the westerly cul -de- sac: During the January 25, 1993, city council meeting the developer submitted a revised preliminary plat showing the reduction in the length of the westerly cul -de -sac, as opposed to a through street on Arlington Avenue. (Refer to the January 25, 1993, preliminary plat map on page 13.) This revision created two long and odd - shaped lots at the end of the new cul -de -sac (Lots 3 and 6, Block 3, Oakridge Estates). On February 8, 1993, the city council approved the Oakridge Estates preliminary plat with the two. long and odd- shaped lots. From the city records, it does not appear there was any discussion or condition relating to the placement of future houses on these lots. On March 23, 199.3, the city accepted the developer's preliminary grading /drainage/ erosion- control plan for the Oakridge Estates plat. (Refer to the March 23, 1993 preliminary grading plan on page 14.) This plan shows proposed ,building pads for houses in the plat. The purpose of showing the building pads is to ensure that each lot can be developed in conjunction'with the design of the overall sanitary sewer, water, and elevations. The city's front yard setback ordinance described above_:.also states that the city council may approve special setbacks for.developments. How y er, approval of a Preliminary plat with building pads does not constitute approval of setbacks Lot 6, Block 3, Oakridge Estates August of 1995 Bob McAdam of Landmark Custom Homes requested approval of a different front yard setback for a house on Lot 6, Block 3, Oakridge Estates (2320 Arlington Avenue).. The preliminary grading and drainage plan submitted by the developer of the plat, referred to above and attached on page 14, shows the building pad of this house with an approximate 200 -foot front yard setback. Mr. McAdam requested a 151 -foot front yard setback for the new house. As stated above, approval of a preliminary plat with building pads does not constitute approval of setbacks. Therefore, city staff reviewed the setback request administratively and routed the request to the city council and adjacent property owners for comment or appeal. After allowing 15 days for city council and neighborhood comment, the increased setback was approved and the house was constructed with a 151 -foot front yard setback. According to the city's front yard setback ordinance described above,. this setback then became the required setback for the adjacent subject lot at Lot 3, Block 3, Oakridge Estates. In 1995 Katherine and Kenneth Smart purchased the new house at 2320 Arlington Avenue and the adjacent subject lot at Lot 3, Block 3, Oakridge Estates. The Smarts lived in the house and owned the vacant lot from 1995 to 2002 when Mr. Smart's employer, 3M, transferred him to Austin, Texas. , Stebbins' Front Yard Setback 2 April 7, 2003 The Smarts relocated to Austin, Texas, last fall. Their house at 2320 Arlington Avenue is vacant, but is maintained by 3M until they can sell it. The house is currently listed with Edina Realty. Lot 3, Block 3, Oakridge Estates Prior to relocating to Austin, Texas last fall, Mr. and Mrs Smart offered to sell the subject lot (Lot 3; Block 3, Oakridge Estates) to all adjacent property owners. None of these property owners were interested in purchasing the lot. The Smarts eventually sold the lot to the applicants, Kevin and Darla Stebbins. Since the purchase of the lot. the Stebbins have worked with an architect, engineer,. and land surveyor on the proposed house plans. During preliminary building permit review,, and prior to the appeal of the front yard setback, the city's engineering department reviewed the plans. The engineering department, had several concerns with the initial grading and drainage plan including potential:. problems with drainage sheeting south into the street and adjacent lot (2320 Arlington Avenue). Since that time, Kemper and Associates, the engineering firm, resubmitted a revised grading and drainage plan that addressed all measures to betaken to protect and alleviate drainage problems in the street or the adjacent property. The Stebbins outline reasons for the location of their house with a 270 -foot front yard setback in their letter dated March 19, 2003, attached on page 15. One explanation is the location of the house at 2320 Arlington Avenue. ,This house is placed with its front elevation parallel to, and only approximately 23 fleet from the property line. The Stebbins state that if they place their house at the 151 -foot front: yard setback, the front elevations of the two houses would be very close each other, for a total lack of privacy for both parties. In addition, the lot has a� steep hill. that would be immediately behind the house where they feel drainage would be a problem, and they would not have a backyard view. For review, staff has included a site plan showing the required location of the house with a 151 -foot front yard setback and the possible front and rear house elevations with this setback. (Refer to the site plan and elevations on pages 16 through 18.) DISCUSSION Neighborhood Support Karen Baden, listing agent with Edina Realty for the house at 2320 Arlington Avenue, submitted a letter of support for the Stebbins' proposed house location. (Refer to April 7, 2003, letter attached on page 19.) Ms. Baden states that she is writing as a representative of a future neighbor to the Stebbins. She states that the house at 2320 Arlington was designed with. its front windows facing the Stebbins' lot. Because of this, the Stebbins' house placed on top of the hill would allow this house a degree of privacy that would not be obtained if the house were built with the required setbacks. Neighborhood Concerns There are seven properties surrounding the Stebbins' lot. (Refer to the surrounding properties map on page 20.) Three of these neighbors have expressed concerns over the location of the house. In order to ensure future good- neighbor relations, staff has agreed to refer to their concerns in an anonymous manner. Stebbins' Front Yard Setback 3 April 7, 2003 1. The first neighbor states that prior to purchasing their lot, they came .to the City of Maplewood to inquire about the possible future location of a house on the vacant subject lot behind them (Lot 3, Block 3, Oakridge Estates). These neighbors were given a copy of the preliminary grading and drainage plan referred to above and attached on page 14. This plan shows the building pad for Lot 3, Block 3, Oakidge Estates with an approximate 180 -foot front yard setback. From the description from the neighbor on the previous conversation with city staff staff believes the requirement for a 15 -day administrative review for a different front yard setback was discussed with this neighbor. However, this neighbor was .under the impression that any alteration from the building pad found on -the preliminary grading and drainage plan must be approved by them. As described above; a .different front yard setback can be approved by the city council with comment and recommendation from the neighbors and city staff, but it is not dependent on one neighbor's approval or denial. This neighbor would prefer that the house be located closer to the road. They have indicated that they designed their house with large windows looking into the back yard on the premise that no house would be built behind them. In addition to having a house behind them, they have expressed. concern over the location of the garage doors on the side of the house, which may cause headlight glare into their windows and the possible devaluation of their house next to a house with an unpaved driveway. 2. The second neighbor expressed concerns over slopes, pipeline setback, wetlands, the original Corp of Engineer's permit for the plat, grading and drainage, location of garage doos.on the side of the house, and surface of driveway. City staff has researched these concerns and finds that the house and driveway meet the allowable slopes. The house will be located further than the required 100 feet from the Williams' Brother pipeline and there will be no wetland impacts or impacts to the original Corp of Engineer's permit. In addition, these neighbors expressed concern over the health of the oak trees on the lot. It should be noted that the Stebbins have hired an arborist to diagnose oak wilt and make a recommendation for the possible control or reduction in the spread of this disease on their lot. The arborist's report is attached on pages 21 through 23. 3. The third neighbor expressed concerns over the location of the driveway and garage doors on the side of the house. This neighbor states that the garage location on the east side of the house will allow the neighbors on Myrtle Court a certain degree of privacy, as opposed to house windows overlooking their back yards. However, a garage door and driveway next to their lots will not. SUMMARY Staff finds that the Stebbins' lot poses many difficult development challenges including: length of the lot, shape of the lot, extreme grade differences,. and drainage and utility easements. Staff does not feel that the house as proposed will affect the privacy of homes because the house will maintain a 100 -foot setback to the closest house located at 1468 Myrtle Stebbins' Front Yard Setback 4 April 7, 2003 Court North. On average, the rear yard setbacks from house to house in developments within the city is 56 feet and the side yard setbacks from house to house is 20 feet. In addition, constructing the house on top of the hill with the increased setback, as opposed to into the hill with the required setback, will allow privacy for the house at 2320 Arlington Avenue, which was designed with its front windows facing into the Stebbins' lot. For the above- mentioned reasons, staff recommends approval of the requested front yard setback with mitigating conditions to help alleviate neighbors' concerns including relocating the garage doors to the front of the house, moving the house as far to the east side of the lot as possible, paving the driveway,. and requiring the planting of 14, six -foot high evergreens for screening. (Refer to staffs proposed site plan attached on page 24.) RECOMMENDATION Approve Kevin and Darla Stebbins' request for an increased front yard setback of approximately 270 feet, as opposed to the required 151 feet, for a new house to be built on Lot 3, Block 3, Oakridge Estates. Approval is based on the following findings: • The lot has many difficult development challenges including: length of the lot, shape of the lot, extreme grade differences, and drainage and utility easements. The applicants have worked closely with an engineer and land surveyor on the best location for the house on the lot. • There are mature frees located on the north and west sides of the lot that will help�to screen -1 is nevv house from the surrounding neighbors on Myrtle Court and = Nebraskan ` Avonue • Constructing the house on top of the hill with the increased setback, as opposed to into.the hill with the required setback, will allow privacy for the house at 2320 Arlington Avenue, which was designed with its front windows facing into the Stebbins' lot. • The house will be set back over 100 feet from the nearest residential structure (with the required relocation of the toward the east property line as described below). . Approval is subject to the applicant doing the following: 1. The applicants must submit the following for staff approval prior to issuance of a building permit: a. Revised survey showing: 1) the house relocated as far toward -the east property line as possible; 2) the garage doors and driveway relocated toward the front of the house (south); 3) the entire length of the driveway relocated in front of the garage doors and paved with a bituminous surface. b. Revised grading /drainage /erosion control plan. Stebbins' Front Yard Setback 5 April 7, 2003 C. Revised house elevations and footprints showing the garage doors relocated to the front of the house (south). d. Landscape plan showing: 1) flour six- foot -high evergreen trees located on the southeast comer of the lot; 2) five six - foot -high evergreen trees located on the west side of the house; 3) five six- foot -high evergreen trees located on the northwest corner of the lot. e. A letter of credit or cash escrow to cover 150. percent of the cost of planting the above - mentioned 14 six - foot -high evergreen -trees. 2. Prior to certificate of occupancy for the house, the applicants must install all required landscaping and pave the driveway with a bituminous surface. P:com- dev\24 -29 \Stebbins Attachments 1. Location Map 2.- Site Plan 3. Front Elevation 4. Rear Elevation 5: Oakridge Estates Preliminary Plat Dated 11/20/92 6. Oakridge Estates Preliminary Plat Dated 1/25/93 7. Oakridge Estates Preliminary Grading Plan Dated 3/23/93 8 Stebbins' Letter Dated March 19, 2003 9. Required Setback Map 10 Front.Elevation Built at Required Setback 11 Rear.Eleyation Built at Required Setback Z`1<6 . te h Baden Letter Dated April 7, 2003 13 'Svrrounding Properties Map 14. Kunde Company, Inc., Letter Dated April 4, 2003 1.5. Staff Proposed Site Plan Stebbins' Front Yard Setback 6 April 7, 2003 siorwi I [slim kyj role Attachment 2 �- - - —� \ o 0 q �.p 1 f'• tn LOT 10. BLOCK -3' - I \ 'ry• �� Arf 0 - OAK RIDGE ESTATES � y I 3 t 50.5 08 �' iol 09 r 2.00— g ' 21.00' ° zoo' � 8 8 0 E W . PROPOSED NOME . 13.34' - WA - 9.593,5WME FEET . .MAIN FLOOR ELEVATION BASEMEN I 0.0aR 100.00 ELEVATNIN.I002.0a h n I UP 7I1N E55 91NDOW5 y FLOOR 111 . LOT $, BLOCK 3 N � O u0. /' 8 \ OAK RIDGE ESTATES L1 S + GARAGE FLOOR Do . N �e. E 10096 5 �0 W 50. •' Z 0 Tape O 0 6 Ta0? � 109'7 � tom . 1009 PROPOSED , 1 Qm WALL I r AUq %LL.MATEIOAL . - MA 1[CJ:51Mr 9EVON0 AT EECAVATED FGI Tt1E . 9ASEYFIJT MAY 9E RE FOR TM AREA. LOT .8, BLOCK' 3 OAK RIDGE ESTATES O q aLq�t'sMh 4 n y J\ I , AIRVE MONUMENT • 1 f ' ff M I Miw Tear T0. LOT K I 9LOCK 3' - / 992. OAK RIDGE ESTATES , ? M I D2VAWpl�� / 995.21 990.91 N.�R)) - %am rtNT 9ah O �.L 1"�1 e I Tp pT AWI _ 4� ''` /^ ADJAOF7IT �fUMR}EA/S a9w¢WAM :'- 93�20 � A z •,I / t t. 7 10.. p."pppp��11 /�1�•`:.� ..4�. .:l. ELT , )i ' ,'960.91. • t • "� ' Std MONUMENT _KEMPER tear N W E S Site Plan FINISM GRADE F E evation 11 Attachment 5 1 Ilhrtt',2101a1,0. Attachment 6 _« '.��,`„ .- �• wwrM t«« A- A1.. Fr A," Fr .r.. Fr A ~ww . two orw. CIT a 10 Iw.q 1.«:.= (.a «I 1.4 53 3 r e r.a flow ,.0 11.11 a es 221 ' ? 1 '.2 1 - e a oa, •a= co ` t t ii / i ( f ° 55 f E a...a ,.w =.» Got e.N a:e F 2.6 e.ar 4.at 0.a 4.00 4.e: .•J l E E iI ti f a r 4.11 e.11 0.01 4.05 e.01 54 N 2.3.• 2.2W a13, ,.w S.a, a. N \✓ • 1 1 / f I a e.N a.N 6.611 •• _ L`F f - J 2.6 - 6.» 0.24 e.» t:w 4,1: 45 / a 3.6 146 .1.,. a ae e,aa as 46 (// ii .� , ,oh u t a6p a.» 0.6 � :.:Y.= �! E• . ]Il` N 2 a.N e.N o.N 1. (; 2 3 4 S 1 58 r 3.11 2uw 6 ».N :.» e.el o .7 ' 8 I E =r Iw = =a en• a •. 11.6 I I I I. :ii 1.• Ir ( � 4 JI i 1 ♦ i s 6 a.N a.6 4.00 I I _ _ I • 1. �.. ;i 1 " E ii • • ' + 5 9 .T - 11.6" " 4.47 0.64 e.34 •.ta as ii= I J* 160 .. ,e a 7 e61 0116 e.6 O " ,,; �' "' �- _ J _ .. .. e• •R. E i 1 1 s a rM 214101' M 513 0.44 4.411 4.6 NEo1{/1JKA AVE. ,2�1�-,,s- _= 1 l Ati f r t top" us tea t.11 11.6 st1 sIr Sliiewai I E=1 / w 1 E l fs / TOTAL 42.13 1.11 6.84 e.3 MAL arm It? 1 1 s w Twa IBM 9.9% 1 12 1 7 IOUiLOT Q 1 ;. .. 1 �, x . • , = .., n 41 1 1 y 6 1 - -- -' 3 i 11_ X ♦♦ 1 f,• . ,F.Irr es �' �� ♦ . � \ ♦ 1 Ei= r. t.wl i a rnww wr n.4.. a. fl�rw+o M ,� PH 63 ! $ � Ei10 62 , rz m • a I I is aru t>•1 1 w LOT 1aa On 1 00 Vt. tai a11 o i, 1 ! EXISTING I P ARK s E ` - I ° a ii i,i 111.300 111.300 is ;7.6" i;a as 113 TOl'e� to Ia / 1 1 ».t6 114 .._Z6 Xi 7. 11.IM 104 34 ,1 ' 1 tl a 1 11 I 11 ► rya, s 11,.,6 ,s 11.we 11• , ,. »9 .a S r . {y. .,u 1 .1,• 91 12 (r. s ,•.,ae 644,6 ,a 611.•6 4.46 lot is. , eN u I : y r ,a.»• ,2 611 w.aN a 22tiW .. ` wl a °�' 9 I1. »a ,a 11.16 P 11• a 6e u OD #813 � .i _ F: y t ` . ,..u. ,. ,11.46 1.. w.oil ,. I . eJ r:i ,. Is,ua ae »116 Its »,»e )NORMAL 988.0 73 „ IT,rer 111 /6.117 1111 16.16 I Bt on 100YR 91172.0 .' f 1 ' '. ♦ 111 21.114 sa 311aI 114 11.x1 ' 8 F I 11 ts.rs/ 43 11.6• II3 CTO Is.a6 PoNO w a 13 ' r : Fa 1 '74 6` 1. 1411 :. �e,,00 a Is.I.. 11. 11.06 I' 11 34.4 11.76 1,, I, "1, 11 i 1 1 7 i 1 E i I $ / Ia re. »a Ia.,6 ca , I ,,,, ns 11.46 . -�. /• .•: • I / „� tet 1 1. "Eli - 1S / � Ir vaN 11.16 aT ,11116 114 n.o6 ,: ........... .. ..• ♦ f I - / �• .0 - 11.81 ,ed6 a• 11,.6 n• 1r.70e u •• b11:•'P/�tll ` / .a Is Is. IN 6, "IS.76 11• IS.am _._. 75 :; . a; :;;: ;;:$' / f 1 1 • / 211 Is.s6 I:.see ra 0446 Its Is P" r �\ L•' SeTdlscK ! i•.- 1 // * /•!! 1 I ` :3 ' n :116 - ai ;a. sa saw 211 1 111.46 rs n..» Its 1 r1.e6 bb 7' 117 \� // �t� ♦,' I F9E 1 = 4• » *11.600 re ».t6 =a• 111.,6 s r E 7y YI .I� /�� r•�' 1 F:'s I » Is.e6 12.400 rr 2444 sap IS. 1 Ia.. 76 7 » 44.16 Ia:WOOD r: I111,2011 I» I111.109 :1111.109 1 1• te.r6 11.26 1e 11.ree 1» 11.06 E.: + 1. _ 21 24.4.11 Ia.r6 111 Is.a6 12 s M i t �/ 1 t .22 r1.,e1 17116 ar 11,46 77 ? as 1144« 11.46 sa 111.16. roa 11.16 .e , ,- _.` ��� � �r�• r. -J� _ _ _ i ( s�M - •n.a 1 E:� _ N 2• 14.46 ,. 116. 1N I I Jy as rs.40e a 4 .06 , 16 ,31 1 1 ��: •1 ae Is.a � 'v I , E . t 1 - 1 11 1 1.34 3 1..e6 / 11.117 111 64.06 rl -9so 142 Ir.ISr _ ' \i6 OtTTLOT B 1, . t ;: ;:�� :; 11-3011 ;; . ;;:H: I g g. . _ ` ' / : , . t0 _ L,,laa 11.66 t o - H.1,r. 1,44 21.91, 2 , : ` µ .eoo ., I, L.1.1 1., 14.302 I< - 5 24 .. '� �• 1 / ' r .r Is.,6 I.s6 a a.»a u: 11.121 I w ' \ 13 22.16. ,a n.e3r 00 t 1� 1 M 981.2 VON / 111 23.06 1. 410 n 3411 v 17�'��� . wF tU:rm H 1 { 26 Ia . F 23 �, aln )z�2w 9i 1/6 ..4111.4 �••::. .. ,,.004 .. - .,6 t Cfff POND /B13A ISJI3 II 1 E::. I /f i .• ,1..6 H 1 11 11.104 f NORMAL 978.4 11E 1 ` Mt11CAT10fl.AREA �/ so vs. a6 16 Is.1.. ...Go OL raa.r3..1 10.7 t il: � r «.n 1s,.N " wl:a2e 11+111 j 4 (�•_i POW #015) I, % / p t Es. 1. 1 1 8 1 Et, 1 / TOW «« N 1. 1r1 2.161111 nr« 1 « G r «r .. w w 1aI r1r« 7 at I L 27 ♦ 1 j % 1 �.:. t` n tall ..LMlls \ ,.. �.*. Iw It" Tall 19.214 /M1w a 31 - I u � a „� r1„�• � � :, a.I1.: Yal:rss•n to w t_ t ` Q�IY C : a: r s ;: :; a: w 19 2 \ .21 A \ r W. rATx ty� :w ,� RR Irn► G - C ,�� - wIr o 211» .I •.N s - " ` `` • :t: OMIo E 34.100 11 0411 .e i MUM boo : / 1'rr. 1.116.400 .1 .a ,a s La l n` wEn am #2 1 s «r sw s.Iae.>rs..= In.29.a 111111 MRICATION AREA J.I . wat lam% .rat " \4 to 1 /� WETLAND E \ / 30 � �� ��/ i o /. / Property Description V / - That pan of Section 24. Tow 00 /• �' - * The Southeast Quaner of the - t .. CAVES LAKEWOOD SECOND Al /• , That pan of the Northwest I grnniREn ME" Llt%HT LOCATIONS ft bevalener a U Quancr of the Southwest Qu: - McKn 1 Rd. i Arkol;Man Ave Quarter which tie northerly a. Arfitgloe Ave. i Currie St Thal pan of the South IR c -i Wgft.81. O oul Chicago, St. Paul. Mpis. and / -' Arrtgtoll Am O.4111 CA -� point o. t north line of sa SNIMrtp SC i IlrirMirl� Am point line of Century Avcnw '- MoxltwMN•iQkndort8l. distant 1043.5E feet southwcv S& q St i Oek CkW Armin1tin6. 81.. i MaY St i Ar.WOM-A". O. Oad 00 plewood. Ramsey Mary' i %iN•6secow Oakr Estates 6A•ry SL Rldp• cow 4 644 _ ; T`: slNe'LE "•FAUILY spSInENTiAL zerlwe ' 7 v v Tt,��,, too yr. ) �..d .1.1,.) x. _ Prelimi Plat cWyan,' - 711 30• troll »Ib•dt , . �.. f oiii Y" !bed' 30• Inex. md. 10• li tot 911 0•.'3 on li"at side) �of>« =� Dated 11/20/92 � 30X1 of lot at" euadlno etEat k�onl Pbebw 100• Bliudwq , a:� stole w•Iland tnrr -SIZE Fs I R ell O 1' •1•ve0otl .bq+l. too yr. flood N•v.j 0 r q �u! Ilmtl;'wltioliwir I gre w" q. 1 2 CA' m MAgI• . Attachment 7 5V v wee, e 5 -- Z L IP , ws I ti •- r � te l: Mentana Ave. o- -- :, - - 1 1 r 1= se �� toCS3 ri} I � t xrr ram ix ,oars Q• N -- - - -- -- -- -- �' I I` LI i �l �� � • t� ti 4'.. A. , Nebraska Ave. -- ; p El caw A 1 4 y 1 •�:�• em 1"00 •11 -�.. i l:ki � � _ lw 1 • y 7 wkauL ..moo _ �' /?�•1 \ .. ' � 1 - ,.,; , i / a I �' -_ -- -�'- -� i. [• ',m nl. era '- / \ //�� •� y .� 1 / r ' o - • ' ' .ice/ . _' I/ I W YI nvrLor f L - o .� 1 FM JE Cryr PAP - I / _ ; •ii ,�,�si.k� � _ - x•56 1 .• - -- AV -6 LO COT ram � 1 \ l _ 1 1 -2 LOTS p`y� \,• a J I , E1lM . lO C poll Oakrid E state s cA P43.0 ,• , OUTLOT A Preliminar Plat C `- ,� .•, . ,,,__,.- a Dated 1/25/93 j �:� �.• `� 13 Attachment 8 NOU 999 y� 44 kv 'TAIL) ' e . lo f OT 1..O Oil Ll { j �r51� . i t� i X •� '�.'7l':� i j•i -�i, ""' _ /.. ' .�7y/ Li ol U jz or T it x�- .... '- ' • �-� • `•; ♦ ` �` `� �t ` } ,`� `.` l '�. l ` . ,r� -7-� . ' /� . -•� . Z GT E- 1'' • � ..r �..1 f• mil'" � / rte"'- + .� '♦ ♦ ;�••''' � • • ; � � ` • M1 .�J� 'r \ —�•�. :.... ,• a . __ 1 ,... �'� :. �; ; _ �'.• u ROSS G. � NTA( f y t ; ; : - OUTLO:,B DITCH O Er ELI; V4 r OONSTR D� �' . - � :�, .,. =- -•,' • `1 :• ; .. W DRA1 BAs 7 DRAIN @ APP 7 1 y) V V " OAKRIDGE ESTATES W PRELIMINARY GRADING/ j DRAINAGE/E CONTROL PLAN DATED 3/23/93 4 Attachment 9 March 19, 2003 City of Maplewood, .Kevin and Darla Stebbins 1426 Kohlman Ave Maplewood, MN 55109 (651)483 -8576 This letter is in preparation for the upcoming City Council meeting on April 14, in which we will be asking for a variance to the City of .Maplewood's front yard setback regulations. We have been Maplewood residents for 15 years and want to stay here. It was difficult to find a lot to build on here. We`have 3 kids and want to keep them within their current schools. We have put years of dreams and planning. into building anew home. The property we have purchased on Arlington Ave is an irregular shape, surrounded on 2 sides by steep hills and difficult grading. The front portion of the property has various drainage and city easements which make it too small to place the house, and would prohibit us from ever adding a deck or porch. It has a steep hill upward immediately behind it, where drainage would be a problem, and we would have no backyard view. The lot then moves back in a long narrow strip, suitable only for a driveway. This portion is bordered entirely on the left side by a steep hill, and on the right by the driveway for the house at 2320 Arlington. The house at 2320 is setback roughly 180 feet, which according to Sec 36 -70 1 a, suggests that our house should be setback at a minimum of 180ft also.. The house at 2320 is placed with its front elevation parallel to, and only approximately 23 ft from the property line. If we place our house at this setback, the front elevations of the 2 houses would be very close together and facing each other for a total lack of privacy for both parties. It would mean making major structural changes to our house plans. It would also place our house in a hole, surrounded on 2 sides by steep hills going up This makes for drainage problems and no views from 50% of our house. Excavating into the hill toward the rear would also take away from the attractiveness of the .yard for the side and rear neighbors and would be difficult in spots related the drainage system going through the hill. We initially had the surveyor place `the house midway up the hill. The grade of the hill forced large retaining walls on three sides of the house and it essentially - ended up sitting m a hole with no view from 3 sides. We were advised to move the house back farther on the top of the hill. This location provided significantly more privacy for our home and the home at 2320, and by increasing the driveway length,- tt 'alsir -makes the driveway grade more acceptable. Locating on the top of the hill also provides more appropriate and pleasing views of the surrounding area of yards and ponds for our enjoyment, and for the safety and supervision of our children. We look forward to moving into a neighborhood with lots of young children. We realize that careful attention needs to be paid to drainage issues, regardless of where the house is placed. Our surveyor is working with the Maplewood city. engineers to assure proper drainage. The site at the top of the. hill still provides the backyard neighbors with more distance between houses than many city yards have, and definitely more yard than we would be allowing the house at 2320 if we built at the bottom of the hill. There would still be 100 -200 ft between our house the houses in the rear. And a large, wooded, undeveloped area still exists to the east of the back portion of the lot. We feel we have done everything we can to determine the best location for our house, there really are no other suitable options. Before signing the land purchase agreement, we made phone calls to ask if there was any reason we couldn't build on the hill. The setback variance requirement was never mentioned. We would not have bought the lot if we knew there would be a problem building on the hill. The lot is part of a city development and was intended to be built on, unfortunately the shape and grading make it difficult. The lot is also covered with buckthorn and many diseased trees that need to be removed regardless of house placement. The house will be attractive and we plan to landscape and replant healthy trees for an attractive yard. We are open to suggestions for landscaping ideas to make it attractive to neighbors. We are in contact with a tree specialist to help us preserve the healthy trees. Thank you for your attention to this matter, Sincerely, 4 Kevin and Darla Stebbins W INE- 11 , 15 h t I. 1 • 1 164Wr COT 6, oAK OLOCK F a' OAK RIDGE ESTATES RIN - : - : ppyy V61M (0.) 7RY666.61 R, (R) 66f.76 SW R) I , J, � 1 666 .' 9 I� .' ,r �•NLm. i :666.0 RINUYfNT - r6wr Required 16 S ck 1� - 1 "INT 61T+ MU11♦ IMF 'WAIe► U1/'" ac A � ra- t j r rl- _.rte '�" # . ' t . _ f ++ ' s _ - a., • � .} � '; x .21 P+r :° Y y o '' s'a ,,. f ) . -.. � - _"•`rte ,y. . -:- ` •e r., i 'w > + x{ r r __ .. .��� - ;' fya. yrT 5. y •.: ,-r�+ °� '� ly _.++ '? ��' � �' °��ti�w _.dam +L... F�,. �..r r - � � .• i !: -. '•!.'�."� �i •4, #; - f + .•,• , �,� '�.PR�i.'�P'�� _ ,.F.'`:.•.^i"`�•.�i�, �. +. s 5 s 1 a : ,r4rz ,.,.�y S..• .ti.P" , �• ^r:;�'_r4 -.1'- '� _ ! `.r5- '�'..°_ ,,��•?''y' a•' SW� T S' a.-s,, ,1'+a�'✓"'yDgr .C�'"�`,w•'w``°_ _��.'�°f _'_"'.t,� _ Z'r'',� ,9:. r�w•',P, i ,�y�T.v"' �t. r '�.tv;`,�� ` r• �Zr. sty }.° -`''t .'S. t' -�: t ++ :•�•� ,t-.. �i f. tea; - :... �.tf ...li±t -�Sf- .w ?"!`d - vS _ r "d• �.'a .t _ ..- .*je*�=dl�•'.+ t'�r.Ra"r'++t�. � ,, =5'.. : +5`j•. '_ I.srur 'v,. "'ter •. h , : y s . y- "' �-��'�� � * • =�t�"� •"�. -- rr � � � ..t """+�.`��" J�'� i s+ E �"� �.`. �� � A �,�J� •��ti�, ` e' � �'+ t.,+�s -r„t�, .7 � °PG - -- a�` 7e';'S�,t�1�� i � "- ` �:��� t� ,!' .'$9�.. ,� .rlg 3��L..� `� -� "%_ '. L; .. -. 'gam + � rR � s; � .� � � Fw A .�� � .r �' :� :.•y �'�:.._[3J `r'� � -,- �4s. - �;` ,, s,�,R7 --!� .��. _ "'-� _ 3 �• �. ,,,.� -t � � 1'�...- fir: r ,.,uf' .3�P',,,,,�y,��i.ac.. r eqq+101) g��lt Attachment 13 April 7, 2003 In reference to the building site of: Darla and Kevin Stebbins Lot 3 Block 3, Oak Ridge_ Estates Maplewood, MN 55119 current address: 1426 KohIman Avenue Maplewood, MN 55109 Mr. and Ms. Stebbins, Ma plewood City Officls, and neighbors, I am writing as the representative for "the nei hbor who will be moving into the house next door" at 2320 Aftgwn Avenue aptewood (next door to Stebbins' lot / new home). I am.a.Realtor who has wor edlh the Maplewood area for over 21 years and currently has 232 sale. - -CJ mately, there will be a new neighbor, which is why I am concerned with tie location of the new building site. When I listed this home the 3 party comp-an a who actually owns the house on behalf of 3M Co.'s relocation department, info rmed me that the previous seller had split and sold the lotr- 0xahe- Stebbins}, T lot splittsale will negatively impact the sale of the existing home.. Potent i [-buyers ALL wonder "What's going in next door ?" It does 1i new h The home at 2320 faces 1 - Whe ' , tlTe of the house was angled very close to their lot line... where it is now split. 'Therefore with the lot split, 2320 has limited - front yard - space. 1 understand that the Stebbins desired buildi g site is "on top of the hill." As a otential site, that.is.tha_o pLas to bui /d a houss.that will not totally destroy the view and use of the home at 2320 Arlington venue. As it is, the driveway goes right in front of the-1 ivin ee - �cicidowsi. u is much more desirable than having a new home built in th "front yard." If the house is built "on top of the hill," it will not cerrrpz -for th yard -space available, as it would if it is placed "next to" or in "front of this hom closer to the street. (The problem here is really tt the odgfrT, EWkft that we platted.) I hope you will thoughtfully consider approvi g the S request to. build in their desired location - -on top of the hill. For further input, you can reach me at Edina Realty's Maplewood Office. Cordial Karen Bade , Real r Edina Realty 651- 779 -2430 19 i Nebraska Avenue East z 1480 2376, 2384 0 U r 1476 , 472 V Stebbin's 1468 Lo 35 . b9' 2320 1464 0 �ngton Venue N wE Surrounding Properties s c Attachment 15 Forestry Consultants 2489 RICE ST. +#teo • ROS EVILLE, MINNESOTA 66113 (651) 484 -0114 UNDE CO. INS. ..01 .April 4, 2003 Darla and Kevin Stebbins 1426 Koleman Ave Maplewood MN 55109 RE: Oak Ridge Estates lot adjace�to 2320 Arlington Ave, Maplewood Dear Ken & Darla, On March 17 2003, 1 visited-t13e$beve- refeFeneed site -with you for the purpose of consulting on the issue of Oak Wilt. The most .commonly used diagnosis of this disease is the typical pattern of defoliation during the summer months. - - At - ttrWtime of year when the trees are still dormant, the other evidence that one can use to =onfirm the disease would be old spore mats formed:�n ` trees that died the previous year, a bluish staining' in the cambium layer, a distinctiyc fruity odor, or the pattern of death imong red oaks over time. A number of standing dead red ouks were present in a pattern consistent wiffi"G k Wit in the northwest corner of the lot. Other indicators were not found at this time. The adjacent neighbor to the west at - .1472 Myrtle Court had consulted with an arborist from Rainbow Treecare last year. The arborist, Russell Kennedy did- not- specifically...diagnasc.oak wilt either, but his client, the homeowner, informed him that there was oak wilt on the adjacent lot. In a conversation with Tom 4k w►", the co #ratted= city- 1ne_Inspector, he had not marked any specific case of oak wilt on that. site, but did recall significant mortality in the general area that he attributes - Twu- lined ehcstnut Bom mother common secondary pathogen of oak trees. I noted one other possible pathogen known as armilaria root rot on stumps further south on the slope of the hiTr, those cleared for the house, which you informed me was begun in November (too late to have caused any risk of new Oak wilt infections). Therefore, at this time the- pFe-seiwe -cCa - 6ould-aQt-br.,-coa5rmed, however there is a strong possibility that it does exist. As this is a fungus -ghat spreads underground through the roots, if subsequently -- would-be- speeifteafly to other Red oaks within root - grafting distance, at a rate of spread of about 30 feet per year. There are 5 or 6 trees on this lot and to the west at r4r2 V!ytKtc might be candidates for injection of 4 MEMBER: Minnosoto Fores N-A ;g So ��, � esote Society of Arboriculture I Intorrialional SQCiet�Lt7lArt)oricultUle !_American Forestry Association L� D 21 P 1 11 4 2003 • •� V.1 LL. V V . 1 11 `r . 'C> -0 1 It C> -t V.4 G O T r.nJ the fungicide Alamo because_ofpr0X=ity toAhe disease. Beyond this minimum circumference, root cutting with a vibratory- ..plow can protect the additional trees extending to the north other adjacent-lot, and south-along the western edge of the house clearing. Sanitation of trees that die and may produce spore mats is also a concern. This control w ork could nit m until - ,� aRer._thaw, in the case of any root cutting, and after leaf -out, in the case of injections. Field-_symptoms or lab cultures that might confirm the disease would need tawcait_until_cni _juue.also. If there are any further questions on this matter, please - contact me at 651,484 -0114. Sincerely, Glen Olson Arbonst Kunde.Company Cc: SF, ,City of Maplevuood__ .._ -._ . AREA SKETCH Drawn by Dace sprinkler smpun� W O LL 5lccaic Phone Ty - - - ooa recce o.. oft.`, Red and Pin oaks, and Elms Bur and White oaks All ocher tree species Discaaed tree, dead tree or scu, Proposed or actual control lino .-an didate for lwcction nu - 63 309- KundeCo- DiseasedTree a � � _ VED . APR n 4 2003 = ams 23 SEt "%a MOWANUT MMNFO 'wcwni tsar Staff Proposed Site Plan 24 U LM ' (w� Sm �. �r D&CW 3M Attachment 16 i f DRAFT MINUTES OF THE MAPLEWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION 1830 COUNTY ROAD B EAST, MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA MONDAY, APRIL 7, 2003 I. CALL TO ORDER There was a joint city council and planning commission workshop held in the Maplewood room from 6:00 p.m. to 7:05 p.m. Chairperson Fischer called the meeting to .order at 7:11 p.m. II. ROLL CALL Commissioner Tushar Desai Present Commissioner Mary Dierich Present Commissioner Lorraine Fischer Present Commissioner Matt Ledvina Present Commissioner Jackie Monahan -Junek Present Commissioner Paul Mueller Present Commissioner Gary Pearson Present Commissioner William Rossbach Present Commissioner Dale Trippler Absent ; Staff Present: Melinda Coleman Assistant City Manager Chuck Ahl Public Works Director Tom Ekstrand Assistant Commun.ity;,Development Director. Ken Roberts Associate Planner Lisa Kroll Recording Secretary III. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Commissioner Pearson moved to approve the agenda as submitted. Commissioner Rossbach seconded. Ayes — Desai, Dierich, Fischer, Ledvina, Monahan- Junek, Mueller, Pearson, Rossbach The motion passed. IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Approval of the planning commission minutes for March 17, 2003. The recording secretary submitted a new set of revised minutes at the planning commission meeting. Commissioner Ledvina moved to approve the planning commission minutes for March 17, 2003, as distributed at the planning commission meeting. Commissioner Pearson seconded. Ayes — Desai, Fischer, Ledvina, Monahan - Junek, Mueller, Pearson, Rossbach Abstention — Dierich ( Planning Commission -2- Minutes of 04 -07 -03 ) V. PUBLIC HEARING None. VI. NEW BUSINESS a. Utility Easement Vacation Schroeder Milk - (2080 Rice Street) Mr. Roberts said Mr. Bob Banken, of Schroeder Milk Company, is requesting that the city council vacate a water utility easement on the Schroeder.. Milk property. There was once a water.main located within this easement. It has since been removed and the water main rerouted. Mr. Roberts said this easement now remains in place and lies beneath the applicant's building addition. Chairperson Fischer asked the applicant to address the commission Mr. Bob Banken, Plant Manager for Schroeder Milk Company, 2080 Rice Street, Maplewood, addressed the commission. Mr. Banken said he did not have any questions for the commission. There were no questions by the commission for the applicant. Commissioner Rossbach moved to approve the resolution on pages 7 and 8 of the staff report for the vacation of the water utility easement on the Schroeder Mrlk property. The reason for this vacation is because the easement is no longer needed duce' td ffie';rerouting of the water main:' Commissioner Pearson seconded. Ayes — Desai, Dierich, 'Fischer, Ledvina, Monahan -Junek Mueller, Pearson, Rossbach The motion passed. This item will go to the city council on April 28, 2003. VII. UNFINISHED BUSINESS a. County Road D Extension EAW Review — Chuck Ahl Mr. Chuck Ahl, Director of Public Works said that on March 31, 2003, the city council tabled final action until April 1 - 4 on the EAW for the County Road D Extension. The city council directed that the findings of fact on the EAW be sent to the planning commission for comment. Similar to the AUAR document, this is an environmental study of the proposed road alignment. The planning commission's opposition to this alignment has been noted. The commission's role is to comment on the environmental impacts should this road alignment be selected by the city council. The commission should review and provide a recommendation on the EAW as it relates to this particular road alignment. Commissioner Dierich asked Mr. Ahl if this EAW is for this suggested alignment and if the city council decided to go with a different alignment would the commission review another report? Planning Commission -3- Minutes of 04 -07 -03 Mr. AN said that is correct. Chairperson Fischer asked Mr. AN if the desire was to have the access to the auto dealerships stay on TH 61 or come out onto County Road D instead? Mr. AN said MnDot noted in their letter that they are adamant about closing both access points at County =Road D. Minnesota case law states closing of a median is non compensatory. In other words, a governmental unit can put a median on and provide reasonable access, which word mean aright in and a right out. However, if MnDot closed either access point to the east or the west of existing County Road D, they are opening themselves up to some type of litigation so they -have carefully worded their letter. Mr. AN said he would anticipate that happening in the near future as 1. MnDot proceeds and identifies the funding options for this area. Chairperson Fischer said if the access would be coming off County Road D, which would mean driveways- disturbing some wetlands, has that been computed in the figures as the worse case scenario? Mr. AN said because there are a number of options for access, staff has not calculated that yet. Additionally, they .,zee that a frontage road might be necessary to provide access, however, a frontager road would to a private roadway and any mitigation and applications would be the responsibility of the property owners. Therefore, the government funding would not be involved in that.and,_staff has�n'ot included it. They believe a frontage road is something that,would need to be a MnID6t4iffialiv Commissioner _Rossbach asked Mr. AN what method the city uses to keep the sewer pipes from sinking in -poor soils? Mr. AN said the city is currently looking at that issue. The water main would probably use restrained joints to get a longer length through that area. The city may have to go to a steel pipe system for the sanitary system. Both the city and Mr. Mogren are checking to determine if the city needs to go through the wetland area of the golf course property or not. The city may not put the piping under the roadway segment. The roadway segment will sink slowly over time. If the city keeps the sanitary sewer and water main out of the roadway embankment, the hope is that the sinking will occur in the roadway and not in the piping system. Commissioner Rossbach asked when the public would hear about this and voice any concerns? Mr. AN said the intent is to have this item at the April 14 city council meeting, have it come back to the planning commission on April 21, and then there will be notices sent out notifying residents of the public hearing at the city council meeting on Monday, April 28, 2003. Commissioner Rossbach said in the report there is discussion about work hours and waivers for working outside the 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. timeframe. He asked what the waiver means and if this is common for the city to grant? Mr. AN said the waiver provision is noted in the document and it is in the code. Maplewood tries to stay within the Monday through Saturday 12 -hour timeframe from 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. with no work done on Sunday. r' Planning Commission -4- Minutes of 04 -07 -03 Mr. Ahl said, however, because of utilities and traffic impacts, the city will authorize work outside those hours. The city tries to notify the neighbors if those hours should happen to change. When it gets late in the season, and there are weather conflicts, the city occasionally grants those types of waivers. Commissioner Rossbach said he noticed in the report that the construction will begin in November 2003. He asked why construction would :begin :in November when they ground. is hard? Mr. Ahl said to construct a roadway project through wetlands it is best.to surcharge: the site - through a freeze -thaw cycle so there is less sinking.; .The goal is to get the filL material, on the surface by November 2003, so it would go through the freeze -thaw cycle. Commissioner Ledvina asked Mr. Ahl about the evaluation of the zoning for the area west of TH 61 and when the- evaluation would take place? Mr. Ahl said assuming things are approved the evaluation would be presented to city council on April 14 and to the planning commission April 21. He said those dates can change .as both the city council and the planning commission request more time to review these particular .items.. - Commissioner Dierich said on page 9 of the EAW states there is a possibility that.the city, wo.p d be denied a stop light by MnDot at the intersection of County Road D and TH 61. Mr. Ahl said MnDot said they w opid deny a stoplight at the current intersection -t- , of-Co-a�.ty -Road D and TH 61. However, MnDot stated that they would app_ rove a stoplight for the reali� riment of County Road D to the south and the intersection of TH 61. Commissioner Dierich said on page 10 of the EAW it says the road would be designed to accommodate all forms of traffic. She asked Mr. Ahl what exactly did all forms of traffic mean? Mr. Ahl said all forms of traffic means pedestrian movement, transit movem and - vehicular turning movements. He said it means that all turn lanes will be provided for the vehicles at the new intersection. Commissioner Dierich said regarding the statement on page 12 of the EAW, has MnDot given the city any decision on that interchange? Mr. Ahl said MnDot is stating that they don't have the funds available. Governor Pawlenty submitted a billion dollar proposal to move road improvement - projects ahead, but it will also move some projects back. The Unweave the Weave Project will be moved forward That project will include some improvements to the Highway 61 and Highway 694 interchange. Because that interchange will handle some detour traffic of the Unweave the Weave project (which will separate Highway 35E and Highway 694) there will be some road improvements. That project is in the MnDot work plan for the years 2011 to 2015. e ti Planning Commission -5- Minutes of 04 -07 -03 Commissioner Ledvina moved to recommend that the planning commission recommended to the city council adoption of the attached resolution receiving the findings of fact for the environmental assessment worksheet (EAW) on the County Road D Realignment Project (city projects 02 -07 and 02 -08) and approving the finding of no significant impact for the projects. Commissioner Pearson seconded. Ayes - Desai, Dierich, Fischer, Ledvina, Monahan- Junek, Mueller, Pearson, Rossbach The motion passed. b. Legacy Village AUAR Review Mr. Chuck Ahl, Public Works Director', said that on March 31, 2003, the city council considered the final approval of the AUAR for the Hartford Group. After discussion, the city council tabled action until April 14 and requested that the planning commission and the five property owners along Hazelwood Avenue receive a full copy of the report and mitigation plan. Previously, planning commission members had received a staff summary of the report. The planning commission had previously stated their opposition to the current alignment of County Road D and the intensity of the density of the Hartford Group proposal for the Legacy Village site. This opposition has -been noted. - The planning commission's rote, at- -this point is to review the AUAR as the environmental ,review - .document that it is intended not as a-land :use document. The assumptions of the AUAR do not imply approvals of density, only an analysis of the potential environmental impacts _of:such a proposal. The AUAR_ is it t6M`b" �to eg'rffb lvsh the limits of environmental impact.: T1`10 p commissions comments should `be 6"d' to review of the mitigation for the impact and `the% subsequent plans. The comments regarding the intensity of development and alignment of roadways.will be the subject of future meetings when the city reviews the actual proposal potential for Legacy Village. Commissioner Mueller said looking at the Hartford Group document north of the power lines it shows townhouses and condominiums for sale. He asked if those housing units were included in the total number of housing units? Mr. AN said yes, those are included in the total number of housing. Chairperson Fischer asked what does the water commission or the wastewater sewer board say on getting the sewage capacity under this proposal? Mr. AN said they are currently on their way to having those particular items resolved. Chairperson Fischer asked if the planning commission recommended this plan that it in no way obligates the commission to approving any particular item in this proposal? Mr. AN said this is not a land use approval document. It is only one part of the list. It doesn't mean that if there 850 housing units and they revise it to have 1,000 housing units that it would not have to come before the commission for a review because it most definitely would need to come back for review. �7 Planning Commission -6- Minutes of 04 -07 -03 Commissioner Ledvina asked about the wastewater flow data. He is wondering why the applicant estimated the wastewater flow using the sewer access charge method and why it was viewed. as inaccurate? He said on page 25 of the AUAR report there is a table of wastewater flow and the numbers they are using relates to the Woodbury meter readings. He wondered why they disagreed with the developers in the calculation of the wastewater flow calculation? Mr. AN said the discussion with the Metropolitan Council: Environmental Services was Ghat in the year 2000 it was found that the city was estimating nearly double the amount of sewage to be generated by the city's land uses. He said in raw numbers the city was- estimating 2000 gallons per acre. Mr. AN said what the city has found is, that the city was taking more capacity out of the interceptors or (SAC). What that does, is buy the community capacity and interceptors and. the, _ was taking more than their share. Basically the city was using numbers that were double than that of other communities. The Metropolitan Council recommended that city staff use the Woodbury,and Plymouth Comprehensive Plans and the sewage figures in those plans when developing Maplewood's numbers. - Commissioner Desai said there have been environmental studies done for the Blanding's turtles and native plants but he asked what the plans were with displacing animals such as deer that live in the area? : Mr. AN said there is a section in the report on page 11 that talks about the displacement of wildlife. in the area. He said as the city urbanizes the area; they are finding many of the animals such as deer . . are adapting to the changes just like thbe Zanadjan , goose has: iN t Commissioner Rossbach asked what multi- family really means and what the difference is between row houses, townhouses, and multi - family residential? Mr. Roberts said it is all a combination. Row houses are connected together and town homes are typically connected, but not always, and are run by an association. Multi- family housing includes rental apartments; row houses can be rental or owner occupied, and senior housing is usually rental. Commissioner Rossbach asked because of the freeway and other noise levels, is there a need for additional insulation in the walls? He said the standard wall is 5'/2 inches in depth and he asked if staff is considering requiring the developer to build thicker walls on the north side? Mr. AN said the city would not require a thicker wall but would require the developer to use a higher grade of insulation to provide better soundproofing. He said there would also be a requirement of the developer to use a higher quality window to reduce noise levels. Chairperson Fischer asked if the - city can developers to use a higher -level product than what is required by the UBC code or does the UBC code say you can require higher standards because of the level of noise in the area? Mr. AN said it is his understanding that the UBC code can require a higher class of insulation and better quality window then the normal UBC code. He said the city has the option to require that the developer follow these codes because of the noise mitigation and it is strongly recommend because of future litigation. Commissioner Mueller asked if the city is fond of this plan so far? kl P1 Planning Commission -7- Minutes of 04 -07 -03 Ms. Coleman said the plan date- stamped February 12, 2003, is only a beginning point. She said the Hartford Group has paid for an outside planning consultant, Phil Carlson from DSU to review the plans. Mr. Carlson has been working with city staff evaluating the plan that the commission sees before them. Ms. Coleman said the city staff's initial reaction is that there is too much there for the density. Staff is checking what other communities are doing in terms of density and where the density does and doesn't work. She said the first meeting between the Hartford Group and the city staff would'be on Friday, April 11 j 2003. ThOJ first concern is there are too many units for the density and-the units are too close together. Commissioner Dierich. asked if the land will be. developed one piece at a time or will this be an overlay district? She.saidshe thought this area required a PUD? Ms. Coleman said this would be a PUD and the land will be developed in phases. As Mr. Ahl said, the first phase will be the row houses, senior housing, multi- family and the Ashley Furniture Store. The city does not have a corporate developer yet for the pieces of. land to the north. She said the city will give an overall ballpark density and they will come in and have individual phases approved. So the city will be negotiating separate parcels as developers.come forward, which is the way the market- works. She said the city wanted to see more corporate in the area and the city is disappointed that there hasn't been anyone interested in the --corporate site. Commissioner Dierich said on page 31 of the AUAR it - states bno: matter what alignment the city chooses for County Road D, the AUAR is going to be okay f ®rhe whole area. She asked if that is �.'. changes, ondin and - `the casewi11" the city have to do new reports for seve -st0�lies dlraina e , g g p g- mitigation pieces if a different alignment is chosen . Mr. Ahl said he would anticipate the city would be required to..have new drainage studies if the alignment is changed: He said what that statement says Is. all of the alignments considered provide the adequate traffic mitigation for this site. The EAW study is only for one alignment. The storm water plan would have be revised and the sewer and water would likely have to be redone as well. Commissioner Dierich asked what would a typical noise decibel level be? Mr. Ahl said a guess is in the 45 to 50 decibel level for a typical neighborhood, which is fairly common with normal background noise. He said an example of a higher decibel level is a lawnmower, which can get up to 65 to 70 decibels. The issue is the freeway noise that is generated, which will be a 60 to 70 decibel level of noise a day. The current state acceptable noise level for daytime noise is 65 decibels. However, that standard changes at 10:00 p.m. when it goes down to a noise decibel level of 55. Unfortunately, the freeway noise doesn't go below 55 decibels until after 11:00 p.m. when the traffic level goes down significantly. He said that is where the noise levels are at almost all the locations along the freeway systems in Maplewood. Commissioner Dierich said on page 52 of the AUAR it states the city is not anticipating substantial impacts on the Maplewood, North St. Paul, Oakdale school system. She asked if the estimated 800 units being built there in the near future, wouldn't you estimate that possibly 50% of those families would have children? She asked if that would impact the school system and inquired what schools would those children attend school? Planning Commission -8- Minutes of 04 -07 -03 -Mr. Ahl said the information received from District 622 is that there - is a declining enrollment of students at Maplewood, North St. Paul and Oakdale. The school district has been iv p given information on the Legacy Village proposal and the district is counting on the potential.of children enrolled in the school district in the near future. Commissioner Dierich said the Metropolitan Council stated in the report that they wanted a tree "inventory done; she asked when the city might see that plan? Mr. Ahl said he was informed the tree inventory is currently being prepared. Chairperson Fischer asked if anyone in the audience wanted to speak regarding this item? City council-' member, Kathleen Juenemann, residing at 721 Mt. Vernon Avenue, Maplewood, addressed the commission. She said the city council would be having much discussion. about the Legacy- Village proposal. The city council has many questions and concerns regarding the density and the wetland issues as well. Commissioner Rossbach moved to recommend that the planning commission recommend that the -city :council adopt --the resolution approving distribution of a Final Alternative Urban Area -Wide Review Docurnentand Mitigation Plan for Legacy Village, City - Project 02 -18. Commissron'er M—Vwina' seconded. Ayes – Desai, `Dier_ich, Fischer;_ L_edvi.na, - _ ona an une ; _ uer - -, eerson; Rossbach The motion passed. This item goes`to the city council on April 14, 2003 and will come back to the planning commission on May 5, 2003. c. Zoning Code Amendment – New Mixed Use District (Hillcrest Village) Mr. Roberts said the planning commission tabled this item on March 17, 2003. He is now bringing it back to the planning commission for further discussion. Mr. Roberts said last October, the Maplewood city council extended a development moratorium for the Hillcrest Village redevelopment area so that staff could draft zoning and design standards based' on "smart- growth" development principles. Staff's goal is to have an ordinance submitted to the city council for their acceptance before the moratorium ends on October 28, 2003. To accomplish this, staff proposes a series of meetings with the planning commission and community design review board (CDRB) to receive comments and guidance from each committee in the preparation of these standards. Mr. Roberts said staff recommends that the planning commission offer comments and guidance on land uses proposed within the Hillcrest Village redevelopment area. Staff will use this feedback to draft a new Mixed -Use zoning district for the Hillcrest Village redevelopment area, as well as other redevelopment sites within the city. Commissioner Rossbach said staff must have determined that to accomplish what the wanted to p Y the current zones would not work and therefore, a new zone needed to be created. His concern is creating a new zone could be used against the city. He wondered what would happen if a person came in and wanted to change the zoning for their proposal? Planning Commission -9- Minutes of 04 -07 -03 Mr. Roberts said he does not envision the newly created zone being used against the city. He said the reason is, that when the intent and purpose is written for the newly reated zone, anyone that Y Y would want to use the new zone elsewhere in the city would have to convince the city council that what they are proposing meets that intent and purpose and they would be bound by those rules. Ms. Coleman said our current zoning classifications would not fit for this redevelopment area. She said the city is trying to get a handle on what was planned years ago with the City of St. Paul and the Metropolitan Council. She said the city council has made the Hillcrest Redevelopment Area one of their top. priorities. On May 5, 2003, the planning commission will review the Capital Improvement plan, which takes into account heavy. investments into this neighborhood. Staff would like the Hillcrest area to redevelop but are trying to determine if the Hillcrest area or the Gladstone area should be developed first. She said there seems to be more interest from the property owners in the Gladstone neighborhood over the Hillcrest area. The city is trying to work_thro_ugh a new zoning classification that would apply (at least in theory) in either of those neighborhoods.. Looking ahead for the Hillcrest Redevelopment area the city came up with a new mixed -use development,_ a denser development, which keeps with the Met Council's goals. The city's objective is when businesses get relocating some of the businesses to make room for redevelopment that those businesses could be relocated in- the Gladstone area or elsewhere in the city. Staff is interested in---knowing if the planning commission thinks the land use is in the right ballpark because if_there -are..-things- that are objectionable, then staff -needs to know if they are going down the wrong, :Rath : Commissioner Rossbach said he does not think staff is going down the wrong path} } a agrees with. the statemen ` hJhe` report -, `thatthere needs , to be some detailed architectural dbs gns Chairperson Fischer said she agrees with Mr. Rossbach's comment. She asked staff : which item on the planning spectrum is the item that the planning commission will be faced with first? Mr. Roberts said it the staff's intent to have a complete ordinance with the. uses and the design elements in place by the end of the moratorium in October 2003. He said. the city council would adopt the ordinance, set it on the Hillcrest area stating here are the new standards and the zoning for that zoning district. He said once the moratorium goes off, any of the properties within that area will be subject to the new zoning code. Ms. Coleman said the Walgreen's proposal that was rejected by the city council was denied by Maplewood because the developers weren't willing to bring the building up to the street close enough and they did not listen to the city's concerns regarding architectural details such as windows on the street and other details that the city embraced. She said this was all addressed in the White Bear Avenue Corridor Study and the Hillcrest Redevelopment Area plan done in conjunction with the City of St. Paul. In her opinion, the most important thing would be the design characteristics. The city would want to prepare the boulevard and street- scaping and also require the buildings to be built up to the street, be pedestrian friendly, and provide for transportation. She said there could be a joint meeting between the planning commission and the community design review board to review these types of issues. Chairperson Fischer asked staff how far east or west the city is referring to for this redevelopment plan? Ms. Coleman said the redevelopment would be basically from Van Dyke Street to White Bear Avenue. i 1, i Planning Commission -10- Minutes of 04 -07 -03 Commissioner Pearson said one of the items discussed in the White Bear Avenue. Corridor Study.. was the issue of parking on the streets. He said the City of Maplewood does not allow vehicles to be parked on the streets overnight and the City of St. Paul does. He said he wondered which parking rules would take effect for this redevelopment. Chairperson Fischer said she did.not believe there were any carriage houses in Maplewood and she wondered why -they were included in the new TN2 zoning definition on page 16 of the staff report? Commissioner Rossbach said since Ms. Fischer brought up the issue of carriage houses, he said maybe he needs a better understanding of what a carriage house is. He thought a carriage house was a separate garage with living quarters above it for the servants to live in. Ms. Coleman said the way -a carriage house was presented to her was that it was basically a townhouse with an accessory residence above the garage. She said in today's world this type of home could -be applicable. - Many adults find the need to move their elderly parents into their homes. A so- called carriage house would .be a good example of that use. The carriage house idea -was something that was accepted by the people in the working groups when this was written in the planning process. She said the market will drive the idea of a carriage house and if- there is - a developer that wants to build these :carriage houses the city will entertain the idea, ,if -they come -up with an alternative plan tho - will,1.1.00kat that as well. Commissioner Rossbach..a- sked= f"th.1 olty means there will be a development of carriage houses.? Ms. Coleman said no, this was'only a'bMall piece of land on the west side of Larpenteur Avenue and White Bear Avenue. The carriage homes were referred to as the Mews townhome. It was defined as a row of townhomes, with: a row ofgarages, with accessory apartments on top. Mr. Roberts said a carriage house would be subordinate. He said it would almost be an accessory use to the primary townhouse. Commissioner Mueller said he attended a meeting today and heard the new Ventura Village located in Minneapolis recently approved such carriage homes. He asked staff if the City of St. Paul has considered changes in their zoning regulations? Ms. Coleman said the City of St. Paul is in the process of approving this plan and they are looking at approving their plan sometime this fall. Planning commission members had an open discussion regarding the proposed land uses (permitted, conditional and prohibited) on pages 5 through 7 in the staff report. Planning commission members agreed with the recommended land uses in the staff report. VIII. VISITOR PRESENTATIONS None. t `' Planning Commission Minutes of 04 -07 -03 X. COMMISSION PRESENTATIONS Mr. Trippler was the planning commission representative at the March 31, 2003, city council meeting. a. -11- Mr. Trippler was absent from the planning commission meeting. Mr. Rossbach attended the March 31, 2003, city council meeting and he gave a presentation on it. Items discussed- included. Schmelz Countryside storage /sales lot was approved "3 to 2. Th applicant will no longer. - have the pond but they have planned on installing the ecosystem parking lot: Larpenteur Avenue Redevelopment area was approved ayes all. The AUAR for Legacy Village and the EAW for the County Road D Realignment was tabled. On July 26, 2003, there will be a party at Champp's Restaurant, which is a one - time event. The city council discussed the sewer, water main improvements, and lift station improvements. The city council discussed street improvements to Keller Parkway. The city council gave an update on the discussion of group homes in Maplewood. The Sibley Cove apartments will be reconsidered at the April 28, 2003, city council meeting. t The city council discussed support for a local sales tax resolution for the City of Maplewood but it was tabled. The city council said they are looking `for new ways to funds for making c�fy improvements because of all the cutbacks for the city and state the city needs a new way 11 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. r 9. 10. r to replenish the funds. b. Mr. Desai will be the planning commission representative at the April 14, 2003, city counci meeting. Items to be discussed will be the Home Occupation Hair Salon license on Pinkspire Lane and the Van Dyke Townhomes on Van Dyke Street. c. Mr. Mueller will be the planning commission representative at the April 28, 2003, city council meeting. Items to be discussed will be the Utility Easement Vacation for Schroeder Milk and the Sibley Cove apartment proposal will be reheard. Chairperson Fischer said there was a handout given to all planning commission members for the upcoming workshops on Land Use Planning. Ms. Coleman said money has been set aside for these workshops, so if members are interested in one of these workshops, contact Andrea Sindt or herself. y Planning Commission -12- Minutes of 04 -07 -03 �X. STAFF PRESENTATIONS J Ms. Coleman said the handout given to - commission members at the workshop has some action priority work plans in it. The commission should look through the handout because it relates to the redevelopment of the Gladstone and Hillcrest areas. Ms. Coleman said this would be coming before the planning commission at the May 5, 2003, .meeting to discuss the capital improvement plan. With the Hartford Group and the Legacy Village propo sal ; the city council may have to meet on a weekly basis. Because the Legacy Village plan is soy large; the city council may have meet more then twice a month. Staff will keep the planning commission aware of discussions regarding this proposal. - However., the planning commission 'may -be asked to attend additional meetings along with the city council so all interested people can -hear the discussion at one time. XI. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 9:32 p.m. { April 14 2003 Attention Maplewood City Council: I am once again informed of the creeping urban, (low income) sprawl moving with ever increasing speed into our once quite, peaceful, safe, and profitable neighborhood. It has become quite obivious in the last five to ten years that this city council has not only forgotten about the values of the long term, well cared for neighborhoods, and the sacrifices hard working people make to become home owners . Instead you have all but passed every developers request, somebody is making money somewhere. From establishing a methadone clinic close to John Glenn School with little or no regard for the children safety or the, property values of the business's or the home owners. Your willingness includes increasing the already the huge traffic problem. The children in the neighborhood call It ( "Dooms Day Corner ") Castle Ave, Cope and Whitebear Ave. caused by once again low income influx, the store Goodwill? I , and my neighbors have notified the police several times as to the danger and risks of trying to cross or even turn onto Whitebear Ave. One only has to sit and watch as 9 out of 10 cars leaving Goodwill's low income store will break the law and turn left into oncoming traffic from castle,cope , and whitebear. When the police were notified they replied by stating it was Goodwill's responsibility. All in all this seems to be the uncaring mind set for the neighborhood. Are you willing to increase the traffic at this death trap corner by allowing another increase in the many vehicles the housing would bring, are you willing to be named in a wrongful death suit? (check the weekly reports and debris at these stop lights) The city council never gave a second thought to the 40 car per day x 3 increase due to the new 15 town homes that are just now being built at 19 40 -1980 Castle Ave. Not to be undone , then came the Sweet named Emma "s once again for the low income and all the law and policing problems that come with the mind set of low income sprawl. Now here we are again wanting to add more low income, high traffic,high policing and security problems. r 4 I don't know the reason why the city would want to invest in looming security traffic and safety problems when it is quite evident that there is not a tax base involved. Am I wrong , are there any funds being awarded or funneled to the city for all of this low income sprawl. Or are the taxes being paid for this venture by the neighbors whose Property values fall. Resident of Maplewood, MN 55109 Name Held By Request.........