Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
2001 09-10 City Council Packet
AGENDA MAPLEWOOD CITY COUNCIL 7:00 P.M. Monday, September 10, 2001 Council Chambers, Municipal Building Meeting No. 01 -19 A. CALL TO ORDER B. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE C. ROLL CALL D. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 1. Minutes of Meeting 01 -18 (August 27, 200 1) 2. Minutes of Council/Manager Workshop Meeting (August 27, 2001) E. APPROVAL OF AGENDA F. APPOINTMENTS/PRESENTATIONS 1. Minnesota Dept. of Agriculture —Food Safety Month 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. ' Amendments to the MLC Joint and Cooperative Agreement 3. Livable Communities Act — 2002 Participation 4. Conditional Use Permit Review — St. Paul Business Center West (225 -255 Roselawn Avenue East) 5. Food Safety Month 6. Change of Manager — Chipotle Mexican Grill 7. Emerald Townhomes Final Plat (County Road D) H. PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. 7:00 Bush Avenue Improvements, Project —1 -14 a. Ordering Improvement after Public Hearing 2. 7:10 Sobriety High School Conditional Use Permit (2055 White Bear Avenue) 3. 7:20 Walgreens (1706 White Bear Avenue) a. Parking Lot Setback Variances b. Parking Reduction Authorization C. Design Approval J. UNFINISHED BUSINESS 1. Code Amendment — F (Farm' Residence) District (Second Reading) 2. Code Amendment — Rezonings (Second Reading) K. NEW BUSINESS 1. Deer Management Program — Update 2. Bush Avenue Improvements, Project 01 -04 a. Approving Plans and Advertising for Bids b. Ordering Preparation of Assessment Roll C. Ordering Assessment Hearing 3. Ripley Avenue Improvements, VanDyke Street to White Bear Avenue, Project 99 -12 a. Approving Plans and Advertising for Bids 4. Water Commission Appointments 5. Set Budget Hearing Dates for 2002 Budget 6. Set Date - Canvass of Election L. VISITOR PRESENTATIONS M. COUNCIL PRESENTATIONS 1. 2. 3. N. ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS 1. 2. 3. 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. Assistant 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 ofMaplewood expects of everyone appearing at Council Meetings -elected officials, staff .ff and ff 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 or res ect p f each other, actively listen to one another, keep emotions in check and use respectful language. MINUTES MAPLEWOOD CITY COUNCIL 7:00 P.M., Monday, August 27, 2001 Council Chambers, Municipal Building Meeting No. 01 -18 AGM Arr__+txo � l -0.0"10-0 A. CALL TO ORDER: A regular meeting of the City Council of Maplewood, Minnesota was held in the Council Chambers, Municipal Building, and was called to order at 7:00 P.M. by Mayor Cardinal. Be PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE C. ROLL CALL Robert Cardinal, Mayor Present Sherry Allenspach, Councilmember Present Kenneth V. Collins, Councilmember Present Marvin C. Koppen, Councilmember Present Julie A. Wasiluk, Councilmember Present D. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Councilmember Collins seconded the motion to the Massage Therapy Ordinance. Councilmember Collins moved to approve the minutes of Meeting No. 01 -17 (August 13, 200 1) as Seconded by Councilmember Allenspach Ayes- Mayor Cardinal, Councilmembers Allenspach, Wasiluk, Collins Abstain - Councilmember Koppen Councilmember Collins was present at the meeting and arrived shortly after 6:00. Councilmember Collins moved to approve the minutes of Council /Manager Workshop (August 13, 2001) as amended. Seconded by Councilmember Wasiluk Ayes- Mayor Cardinal, Councilmembers Allenspach, Wasiluk, Collins Abstain - Councilmember Koppen E. APPROVAL OF AGENDA: M1. Preliminary Approval of Tax Levy M2. Harvest Festival N1. Announcements Open House New Fire Station Councilmember Wasiluk moved to approve the Agenda as amended. Seconded by Councilmember Collins Ayes -All F. APPOINTI!'VIENTS /PRESENTATIONS None G. CONSENT AGENDA: Councilmember Collins moved to approve the Consent Agenda items 1 -2 and 4 -10. Seconded by Councilmember Wasiluk Ayes -All Councilmember Koppen moved to approve Consent Agenda item 3. Seconded by Councilmember Wasiluk 1. Approval of Claims ACCOUNTS T% A X T A T% T T'! $ 1,666.00 $505 $77,544.40 $2,401.25 $118,283.38 $166 Ayes- Councilmembers Allenspach, Wasiluk, Kopp en and Collins Abstain -Mayor Cardinal Checks #55018 thru #55019 dated 8/7 thru 8/9/01 Checks #55 020 thru #55106 dated 8/10 thru 8/14/01 Disbursements via debits to checking account dated 8/7 thru 8/10/01 Checks #55107 thru #55108 dated 8/14/01 Checks #55109 thru #55166 dated 8/21/01 Disbursements via debits to checking account dated 8/13 thru 8/20/01 $872,650.34 Total Accounts Payable T% A T TTl l%T T $353,519.71 Payroll Checks and Direct Deposits dated 8/17/01 $25,937.64 Payroll Deduction check #85309 thru #85313 dated 8/17/01 $379,457.35 Total Payroll $1,252,107.69 GRAND TOTAL 2 2. Annual Maplewood Historical Society Payment Authorized a $2000 payment to the Maplewood Historical Society in the city's budget each year. 3. Conditional Use Permit Review -Feed Products (Bulk Storage) (1300 McKnight Road) Approved the review of the conditional use permit for Feed Products and Service, 1300 McKnight Road, in one year. 4. Independent Estates Final Plat (Tilsen Court, west of Lakewood Drive) Approved the Independent Estates Final Plat: This approval is subject to the county recording the deed restriction and covenants required by the city. 5. Recreation Program Donation Accepted the donation and the requests that the finance department place t ofinds the proper account for future distribution. 6. Lease Purchase -Ricoh Copier Approved the recommendation for the city manager and the city clerk to enter into a lease agreement with Metro Sales for a new copier. 7. Temporary Food and Beer License -St. Jerome's Catholic Church Approved the applications for temporary beer and food to St. Jerome's Catholic Church. 8. Request from U.S. Bench Corporation Approved the transfer of the currently licensed benches from American Courtesy Bench to United States Bench Corporation. 9. Special Use Permit- Ramsey County Sheriff's Department - Fright Farm Approved the permit for the Ramsey County Sheriff s Department to hold their annual "Fright Farm ", October 19 -20 and October 26 -31. 10. Transfer of Funds - Contingency Account - General Fund Election Approved the transfer of $700 from the city contingency account to the City Clerk Election Budget to cover the cost of notification mailing. H. PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. 7:00 P.M. Maplewood Business Subsidy Policy 3 a. Mayor Cardinal convened the meeting for a public hearing. b. City Manager Fursman introduced the staff report. C. Assistant City Manger Coleman presented the specifics of the report. d. Mayor Cardinal opened the public hearing, calling for proponents or opponents. The following persons were heard: Dan Hartman, Springstead Financial Advisor George Rossbach, 1406 E. County Road C, Maplewood e. Mayor Cardinal closed the public hearing. Councilmember Collins moved to adopt: the following business subsidy policy that has Maplewood's criteria and project review policies, procedures and criteria for any project or property that would receive a subsidy from Maplewood: MAPLEWOOD BUSINESS SUBSIDY POLICY PURPOSE AND AUTHORITY 1.01 The purpose of this document is to establish the criteria for the City of Maplewood (the "Grantor ") for granting of business subsidies for private development. Maplewood shall use the criteria as a guide in the processing and reviewing applications requesting business subsidies. 1.02 The City's ability to grant business subsidies is governed by the limitations established in Minnesota Statutes 116J.993 through 116J.994 (the "Statutes "). 1.03 Unless specifically excluded by the Statutes, business subsidies include grants by state or local government agencies, contributions of personal property, real property, infrastructure, the principal amount of a loan at rates below those commercially available to the recipient of the subsidy, any reduction or deferral of any tax or any fee, any guarantee of any payment under any loan, lease, or other obligation, or any preferential use of government facilities given to a business. 1.04 These criteria are to be used in conjunction with other relevant policies of the Grantor. 1.05 The City may deviate from these criteria by documenting in writing the reason(s) for the deviation. The documentation shall be submitted to the Department of Trade and Economic Development with the next annual report. 1.06 The Grantor may amend this document at any time. Amendments to these criteria are subject to public hearing requirements contained in the Statutes. 2 PUBLIC PURPOSE REQUIREMENT 2.01 All business subsidies must meet a public purpose. 4 2.02 The creation or retention of jobs may be, but is not required to be, a public purpose for granting a subsidy. The determination that jobs are not a public purpose for the subsidy and that the related wage and job goals are zero shall be made following a public hearing. 2.03 Job retention may only be used as a public purpose in cases where job loss is specific and demonstrable. The City shall document the information used to determine the nature of the job loss. 2.04 The creation of tax base shall not be the sole public purpose of a subsidy. 2.05 The wage floor for wages to be paid for the jobs created shall be $10.50 hour. The $10.50 wage floor is the minimum that the city will accept. In most cases the city will require higher than minimum wages in order to meet the intent and public purpose of the subsidy policy. 3 BUSINESS SUBSIDY APPROVAL CRITERIA 3.01 All new projects approved by Maplewood should meet the following minimum approval criteria. However, it should not be presumed that a project meeting these criteria would automatically be approved. Meeting these criteria creates noncontractual rights on the part of any potential developer. 3.02 To be eligible to receive a business subsidy, the recipient must meet the following minimum requirements: a. The subsidy must achieve a public purpose. b. The project must meet local plans and ordinances. c. The recipient shall provide information demonstrating that granting the subsidy is necessary for the proposed development to occur. d. The recipient enters into an agreement pursuant to these criteria and th Statutes. 3.03 The business subsidy shall be provided within applicable state legislative restrictions, debt limit guidelines, and other appropriate financial requirements and policies. 3.04 The project must be in accord with the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Ordinances, or required changes to the plan and Ordinances must be under active consideration by the City at the time of approval. 3.05 Maplewood will not provide business subsidies to projects that have the financial feasibility to proceed without the benefit of the subsidy. In effect, the city will not provide business subsidies solely to broaden a developer's profit margins on a project. Before considering a business subsidy request, the Grantor may undertake the help of independent firms before underwriting the project to help ensure that the request for assistance is valid. 3.06 Before approval of a business subsidy, the developer shall provide any required market and financial feasibility studies, appraisals, soil boring, information provided to private lenders for the project, and other information or data that the Grantor or its financial consultants may require in order to proceed with an independent underwriting. 3.07 Any developer requesting a business subsidy should be able to demonstrate past successful general development capability as well as specific capability in the type and size of development proposed. 3.08 The developer must retain ownership of the project at least long enough to complete it, to stabilize its occupancy, to establish the project management, and to initiate repayment of the business subsidy, if applicable. 3.09 A recipient of a business subsidy must enter into a subsidy agreement with the Grantor as described in Section 4. 3.10 A recipient of a business subsidy must make a commitment to continue operations within the City for at least five years after the benefit date. 3.11 Any business subsidy will be the lowest possible level and least amount of time necessary, after the recipient maximizes the use of private debt and equity financing first. 4 SUBSIDY AGREEMENT 4.01 In granting a business subsidy, the Grantor shall enter into a subsidy agreement with the recipient that provides the information, wage and job goals, a commitment to provide necessary reporting data and recourse for failing to meet goals required by the Statutes. 4:02 The subsidy agreement maybe incorporated into a broader, development agreement for a project. 4.03 The subsidy agreement will describe the requirements for the recipient to provide the reporting information required by the Statutes. Seconded by Councilmember Koppen Ayes -All 2. 7:10 P.M. Alamo Car Rental Conditional Sue Permit (2525 White Bear Avenue) a. Mayor Cardinal convened the meeting for a public hearing. b. City Manager Fursman introduced the staff report. C. Assistant City Manger Coleman presented the specifics of the report. d. Commissioner Eric Ahlness presented the Planning Commission report. e. Mayor Cardinal opened the public hearing, calling for proponents or opponents. The following person(s) was /were heard: Steve Lewis, District Manager of Alamo Car Rental, 8000 Knox Ave., Bloomington, MN f. Mayor Cardinal closed the public hearing. R Councilmember Allenspach moved to adopt the following resolution that approved a conditional use permit for rental of motor vehicles at Maplewood Auto Center, 2525 White Bear Avenue. RESOLUTION 01 -08 -68 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION WHEREAS, Alamo Car Rental applied for a conditional use permit for the rental of motor vehicles at the Maplewood Auto Center: WHEREAS, this permit applies to property located at 2525 White Bear Avenue. The legal description is: SUBJECT TO EASEMENTS: N 280 FEET OF LOT 2.& ALL OF LOT 4 BLOCK 1, MAPLE RIDGE MALL (PIN 11- 29 -22 -22 -0040) WHEREAS, the history of this conditional use permit is as follows: 1. On August 6, 2001, the planning commission recommended that the city council approve this permit. 2. On August 27, 2001, 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 approves the above - described conditional use permit based on the building and site plans. The city approved this permit because: 1. The use would be located, designed, maintained, constructed and operated to be in conformity with the city's comprehensive plan and code of ordinances. 2. The use would not change the existing or planned character of the surrounding -are- a.- - - 3. The use would not depreciate property values. 4. The use would not involve any activity, process, materials, equipment or methods of operation that would be dangerous, hazardous, detrimental, disturbing or cause a nuisance to any person or property, because of excessive noise, glare, smoke, dust, odor, fumes, water or air pollution, drainage, water runoff, vibration, general unsightliness, electrical interference or other nuisances. 5. The use would generate only minimal vehicular traffic on local streets and would not create traffic congestion or unsafe access on existing or proposed streets. 6. The use would be served by adequate public facilities and services, including streets, police and fire protection, drainage structures, water and sewer systems, schools and parks. 7. The use would not create excessive additional costs for public facilities or services. 8. The use would maximize the preservation of and incorporate the site's natural and scenic features into the development design. 9. The use would cause minimal adverse environmental effects. Approval is subject to the following conditions: 1. All construction of the Alamo Car Rental business shall follow the site plan approved by the city. The director of community development may approve minor changes. 2. The proposed motor vehicle rental use must be substantially started within one year of council approval or the permit shall become null and void. The council may extend this deadline for one year. 3 ' The city council shall review this permit in one year. 4. The owner of the Maplewood Auto Center at 2525 White Bear Avenue will do the following on the site as required by city code and community design review board original conditions prior to Alamo Car Rental obtaining a conditional use permit: a. Ensure that there is no illegal parking on the site including no parking on the grass and no stacking of vehicles (i.e., two vehicles to one stall). b. Ensure that the entire site is cleared of trash including all illegally dumped material located within the drainage ditch behind the auto mall. C. Ensure that the trash dumpster is placed inside the dumpster enclosure at all times. d. Ensure that the site is in compliance with the city's temporary sign ordinance including obtaining a sign permit for all temporary signs over 16 square feet and only allowing one temporary sign per business located within the center. e. Ensure that all landscaped areas are maintained including removing all weeds from the landscaped area around the base of the center's pylon sign. f. Replace the following missing signs on the site as specified in the community design review board's conditions for approval of the development: a stop sign and a no left turn sign to be located at the exit onto White Bear Avenue. g. Submit a revised landscape plan to the city for approval. The landscape plan must show the replacement of 14 trees and 28 shrubs (species and location may vary from original plan). h. Submit a, letter of credit to the city to cover the installation and materials required by the approved landscape plan. 5. The required landscaping must be installed by May 1, 2002, or earlier. Seconded by Councilmember Koppen Ayes -All 8 3. 7:20 P.M. Family Service Center Conditional Use Permit (2525 White Bear Ave.) a. Mayor Cardinal convened the meeting for a public hearing. b. City Manager Fursman introduced the staff report. C. Assistant City Manger Coleman presented the specifics of the report. d. Mayor Cardinal opened the public hearing, calling for proponents or opponents. The following person(s) was /were heard: George Rossbach, 1406 E. County Road C, Maplewood e. Mayor Cardinal closed the public hearing. Councilmember Wasiluk moved adopt the following resolution that changes the conditions of approval for the Ramsey County Family Service Center at 2001 Van Dyke Street: RESOLUTION 01 -08 -69 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REVISION RESOLUTION WHEREAS, Maplewood city staff initiated a revision to the conditional use permit for the Ramsey County Family Service Center. WHEREAS, this permit applies to the facility at 2001 Van Dyke Street that is northeast of the Ramsey Nursing Home. The legal description is: SUBJ TO AVE THE W 620 FT OF N 438 FT OF SW 1/4 AND W 620 FT OF S 235 8/10 FT OF NW 1/4 ALSO N 52 FT OF S 287 8/10 FT OF W 160 05 1100 SD NW 1/4 ALL IN SEC 14 TN 29 RN 22 UZED SUBJ TO AVES AND ESMTS AND EX W 620 FT OF N 438 FT THE W 810 FT OF N 2 OF SW 1/4 OF SEC 14 TN 29 RN 22 WHEREAS, the history of this conditional use permit is as follows: 1. On January 25, 1999, 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. The city council approved the conditional use permit for this facility at this meeting, subject to several conditions. 2. On August 27, 2001, the city council held a public hearing to consider a change to the conditions of approval for the conditional use permit. 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. x NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the city council approve 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 runoff, vibration, general unsightliness, electrical interference or other nuisances. 5. The use would generate only minimal vehicular traffic on local streets and would not create traffic congestion or unsafe access on existing or proposed streets. 6. The use would be served by adequate public facilities and services, including streets, police and fire protection, drainage structures, water and sewer systems, schools and parks. 7. The use would not create excessive additional costs for public facilities or services. 8. The use would maximize the preservation of and incorporate the site's natural and scenic features into the development design. 9. The use would cause minimal adverse environmental effects. Approval is subject to the following revised conditions: 1. All construction shall follow the site plan approved by the city. The director of community development may approve minor changes. 2. The proposed construction must be substantially started within one year of council approval or the permit shall become null and void. The council may extend this deadline for one year. 3. The city council shall review this permit in one year. 4. The county shall add more parking to the site if the city council deems it necessary. - - . . .. Y.. . . .. - . . .. - . Wig - - •• • • • - . MMA . - Y• •• • - . • • . . . • . • • •• . • • Y - . AM d &X r= - . • •■ • - - - - • v M a - us 56. There shall be no increase in size or capacity of the structure. 6-7. The County shall assume financial responsibility for all services provided to the residents of the Shelter that would normally be charged to the citizens (Example: Ambulance and paramedic 1111 PUT1S) 7 All elements of the listed Emergency Housing Program Parameters shall remain in force unless a change is agreed to by the City Council at a subsequent CUP review. • ••• •■ • 8. Ramsey County agrees to spend at least $70,000 on imurovements to the county fairgrounds and campus such as new lighting, a sign plan, a pedestrian/traffic safety plan and staff /consultant time for working on grants for the restoration of the county barn. All such plans or improvements shall be reviewed and approved by city staff. It is further requested that the County Fair Board Review and comment on improvements on the campus. Ramsey County also shall donate $70,000 to Maplewood for building repair or improvements at the Bruentrup farm at 2170 County Road D. The County shall make this payment to Maplewood by October 1 2001 unless the city council agrees to a time extension. 9.44. Parking spaces on the North side of the designated East - West Van Dyke Ave. Shall be redesigned in accordance with the concerns of the Fair Board in the use of this area. The new layout shall meet the approval of the fair Board and the City. Each year at a prearranged time before and during fair week, all these new parking areas shall be evacuated from the use of the fair board at their discretion, if the use of these is to be an advantage to them. Me trzm . -• I - - . • . • - - . ..- . .... - - - - - - _ - • . ra Z 70 ra KIM . • - I I • 10 44. If at any time, the City Council determines there is a need, the County will contract for, or provide from their own staff, security patrols in the complex bounded by the Willard Munger Trail, White Bear Avenue, Ripley Street, and the Goodrich Golf course. Times and extent of the patrol will be established at that point in time. 11 44. This Conditional Use Permit will be reviewed annually, and if in the opinion of the City Council, any evidence of negative repercussion to the area, or valid reason that the facility has caused undue hardship to the residents, the city may revoke the Conditional Use Permit with no financial obligation to the city, and the normal amortization process would not apply. The County would then have one hundred and twenty (120) days to cease operations as a homeless shelter and devote the structure to an acceptable planned backup use such as elderly care. 11 12 4-6. Ramsey County shall be responsible for the maintenance and plowing on the sidewalk along White Bear Avenue from the County facilities to the Gateway Trail. Seconded by Councilmember Koppen Ayes -All 4. 7:30 P.M. Farm Zoning a. Mayor Cardinal convened the meeting for a public hearing. b. City Manager Fursman introduced the staff report. C. Assistant City Manager Coleman presented the specifics of the report. d. Commissioner Eric Ahlness presented the Planning Commission. e. Mayor Cardinal opened the public hearing, calling for proponents or opponents. f. Mayor Cardinal closed the public hearing. Councilmember Collins moved to adopt the following ordinance amendment in order to allow landscaping and other similar businesses in the farm zone with a conditional use permit: ORDINANCE 814 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE FARM RESIDENCE DISTRICT The Maplewood City Council approves the following changes to the Maplewood Code of Ordinances: Section 1. This amendment adds subdivision (5) to Section 36 -52 (Farm Residence District Conditional Uses) (additions are underlined): Section 36 -52. Conditional uses. The following uses may be permitted by conditional use permit: (1) Any use allowed by conditional use in the R -1 Residence District, except that equipment and vehicles used for on -site farming or equipment and vehicles used for an on -site landscaping business or any other similar business approved with a conditional use permit as described in Section 36 -52(5) below, shall be a permitted use. (5) As an accessory use to residential property, a l andscaping business, or any other similar use that is determined to be the same general character as a landscape business, if on a parcel of land which is four (4) acres or larger. Where there is a question concerning the appropriateness of a similar use as a conditional use within the farm residence district, the planning commission shall review the question and forward a recommendation to the I city council for final determination. The landscaping or similar type business must meet the findings for a conditional use permit as well as the following: a. No exterior storage of commercial vehicles, equipment, or material associated with the business. Storage of these items must be in an approved accessory structure that meets the findings below: 12 1. The accessory structure must meet the size and height requirements as sDecified in Section 36 -77 (Accessory Structures). 2. When adjacent a residential lot, the accessory structure must comply with the setback requirements specified in Section 36- 28(c)(6)(b) (Additional Design Standards). When adjacent to a commercial lot, the accessory structure must comply with Section 36 -71 and 36 -72 (Residential Side and Rear Setbacks for Accessory Structures). 3. When adjacent a residential lot, the accessory structure, and other areas of the lot where deemed necessary, shall comply with Section 36- 27(a), (b), (c), and (d) (Landscaping and Screenin b. No more than one (1) nonresident employee shall be allowed to work on the premises. C. The hours of operation are limited to 7 a.m. to 7 p.m., Monday through Saturday. Seconded by Councilmember Koppen Ayes -All 5. 7:40 P.M. Code Amendment- Rezoning (First Reading) a. Mayor Cardinal convened the meeting for a public hearing. b. City Manager Fursman introduced the staff report. C. Assistant City Manager Coleman presented the specifics of the report. d. Mayor Cardinal opened the public hearing, calling for proponents or opponents. d. Mayor Cardinal closed the public hearing. Councilmember Wasiluk moved adopt the following ordinance amendment changing the voting requirement for zoning code amendments and zoning map changes: ORDINANCE 815 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE AMENDMENTS AND CHANGES ARTICLE Section 1. This amendment revises Section 36 -484 (Council Vote Required) (additions are underlined and deletions are stricken): Section 36 -484. Council vote required. The city council may adopt and amend a zoning ordinance, including an amendment to this chapter which includes the zoning map, by a majo rity two -third L vote of all its members. An exception to this requirement is the adoption or amendment of any portion of a zoning ordinance that changes all or part of the existing classification of a zoning district from residential to commercial or industrial. In this case, the city council must approve such a change by a two- thirds majority vote of all its members. Seconded by Councilmember Koppen Ayes -All 13 I. AWARD OF BIDS None J. UNFINISHED BUSINESS 1. Adopt Resolution Accepting Preliminary Report and calling For Public Hearing for Bush Avenue Improvements City Project 01-04 a. City Manager Fursman introduced the staff report. b. Assistant City Engineer Chris Cavett presented the specifics of the report. Councilmember Allenspach moved to adopt the following resolution that accepts the preliminary report and calling for a public hearing for September 10, 2001 for the Bush Avenue Reconstruction Project RESOLUTION O1 -08 -70 ACCEPTING REPORT AND CALLING FOR PUBLIC HEARING WHEREAS, pursuant to resolution of the council adopted July 9, 2001, a report has been prepared under the direction of the city engineer by TKDA Engineers with reference to the improvement of Bush Avenue between Bartelmy Lane and Stillwater Road, City Project 01-04, and this report was received by the council on August 27, 2001, and WHEREAS, the report provides information regarding whether the proposed project is necessary, cost - effective, and feasible, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA: 1. The council will consider the improvement of such street in accordance with the report and the assessment of abutting property for all or a portion of the cost of the improvement pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 429 at an estimated total cost of the improvement of $325,000. 2. A public hearing shall be held on such proposed improvement on the l Otn day of September, 2001, in the council chambers of city hall at 7 p.m. and the clerk shall give mailed and published notice of such hearing and improvement as required by law. Seconded by Councilmember Koppen Ayes - All K. NEW BUSINESS 1. Preliminary Approval for Issuance of Equipment Certificates, Improvement Bonds, and Refunding Bonds a. City Manager Fursman introduced the staff report and presented the specifics of the report. b. The following people were heard: 14 Dan Hartman, Briggs & Morgan Councilmember Collins moved to approve the following resolution for option two, the General Obligation Equipment Certificate: RESOLUTION 01 -08 -71 RESOLUTION PROVIDING FOR THE COMPETITIVE NEGOTIATED SALE OF $690,000 GENERAL OBLIGATION EQUIPMENT CERTIFICATES OF INDEBTEDNESS, SERIES 2001A A. WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Maplewood, Minnesota (the "City "), has heretofore determined that it is necessary and expedient to issue its $690,000 General Obligation Equipment Certificates of Indebtedness, Series 2001A (the "Certificates ") to finance the cost of acquisition andinstallation of equipment for the City's Communication Center; and B. WHEREAS, the City has retained Springsted Incorporated, in Saint Paul, Minnesota ( "Springsted "), as its independent financial advisor and is therefore authorized to sell these obligations by a competitive negotiated sale in accordance with Minnesota Statutes, Section 475.60, Subdivision 2(9); and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Maplewood, Minnesota, as follows: 1. Authorization The City Council hereby authorizes Springsted to solicit proposals for the competitive negotiated sale of the Certificates. 2. Meeting; Proposal Opening This City Council shall meet at the time and place specified in the Terms of Proposal attached hereto as Exhibit A for the purpose of considering sealed proposals for, and awarding the sale of, the Certificates. The Clerk or designee, shall open proposals at the time and place specified in such Terms of Proposal. 3. Terms of Proposal The terms and conditions of the Certificates and the negotiation thereof are fully set forth in the "Terms of Proposal" attached hereto as Exhibit A and hereby approved and made a part hereof. 4. Official Statement In connection with said competitive negotiated sale, the Clerk and other officers or employees of the City are hereby authorized to cooperate with Springsted and participate in the preparation of an official statement for the Certificates, and to execute and deliver it on behalf of the City upon its completion. Mayor Cardinal seconded. Ayes -Mayor Cardinal, Councilmembers Allenspach, Wasiluk and Collins Nays - Councilmember Koppen Councilmember Koppen moved to approve the following resolution providing for the competitive negotiated sale of $3,280,000 General Obligation Improvements Bonds, Series 2001B. 15 RESOLUTION PROVIDING FOR THE COMPETITIVE NEGOTIATED SALE OF $3,280,000 GENERAL OBLIGATION IMPROVEMENT BONDS, SERIES 2001B A. WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Maplewood, Minnesota (the "City "), has heretofore determined that it is necessary and expedient to issue its $3,280,000 General Obligation Improvement Bonds, Series 2001B (the "Bonds ") to finance the cost of various improvement projects in the City; and B. WHEREAS, the City has retained Springsted Incorporated, in Saint Paul, Minnesota ( "Springsted "), as its independent financial advisor and is therefore authorized to sell these obligations by a competitive negotiated sale in accordance with Minnesota Statutes, Section 475.60, Subdivision 2(9); and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Maplewood, Minnesota, as follows: 1. Authorization The City Council hereby authorizes Springsted to solicit proposals for the competitive negotiated sale of the Bonds. 2. Meeting; Proposal Opening This City Council shall meet at the time and place specified in the Terms of Proposal attached hereto as Exhibit A for the purpose of considering sealed proposals for, and awarding the sale of, the Bonds. The Clerk or designee, shall open proposals at the time and place specified in such Terms of Proposal. 3. Terms of Proposal The terms and conditions of the Bonds and the negotiation thereof are fully set forth in the "Terms of Proposal" attached hereto as Exhibit A and hereby approved and made a part hereof. 4. Official Statement In connection with said competitive negotiated sale, the Clerk and other officers or employees of the City are hereby authorized to cooperate with Springsted and participate in the preparation of an official statement for the Bonds, and to execute and deliver it on behalf of the City upon its completion. Councilmember Koppen seconded Ayes -All Mayor Cardinal moved to approve the following resolution accepting the General Obligation Improvement Refunding Bonds, Series 2001C: RESOLUTION PROVIDING FOR THE COMPETITIVE NEGOTIATED SALE OF $1,030,000 GENERAL OBLIGATION IMPROVEMENT REFUNDING BONDS, SERIES 2001C A. WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Maplewood, Minnesota (the "city"), has heretofore determined that it is necessary and expedient to issue its $1,030,000 approximate principal amount of General Obligation Improvement Refunding Bonds, Series 2001C (the "Bonds ") to currently refund on February 1, 2002, the 2003 through 2008 maturities, totaling $1,835,000 in principal 16 amount of the City's outstanding General Obligation Improvement Refunding Bonds, Series 1992A, dated December 1, 1992; and B. WHEREAS, the City has retained Springsted Incorporated, in Saint Paul, Minnesota ( "Springsted "), as its independent financial advisor and is therefore authorized to sell these obligations by a competitive negotiated sale in accordance with Minnesota Statutes, Section 475.60, Subdivision 2(9); and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Maplewood, Minnesota, as follows: 1. Authorization The City Council hereby authorizes Springsted to solicit proposals for the competitive negotiated sale of the Bonds. 2. Meeting; Proposal Opening This City Council shall meet at the time and place specified in the Terms of Proposal attached hereto as Exhibit A for the purpose of considering sealed proposals for, and awarding the sale of, the Bonds. The Clerk or designee, shall open proposals at the time and place specified in such Terms of Proposal. 3. Terms of Proposal The terms and conditions of the Bonds and the negotiation thereof are gully set forth in the "Terms of Proposal" attached hereto as Exhibit A and hereby approved and made a part hereof. 4. Official Statement In connection with said competitive negotiated sale, the Clerk and other officers or employees of the City are hereby authorized to cooperate with Springsted and participate in the preparation of an official statement for the Bonds, and to execute and deliver `it on behalf of the City upon its completion. THE CITY HAS AUTHORIZED SPRINGSTED INCORPORATED TO NEGOTIATE THIS ISSUE 'ON ITS BEHALF, PROPOSALS WILL BE RECEIVED ON THE FOLLOWING BASIS: TERMS OF PROPOSAL $1 CITY OF MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA GENERAL OBLIGATION IMPROVEMENT REFUNDING BONDS, SERIES 2001C (BOOK ENTRY ONLY Proposals for the Bonds will be received on Thursday, October 4, 2001, until 10:00 A.M., Central Time, at the offices of Springsted Incorporated, 85 East Seventh Place, Suite 100, Saint Paul, Minnesota, after which time they will be opened and tabulated. Consideration for award of the Bonds will be by the City Council at 5:00 P.M., Central Time, of the same day. SUBMISSION OF PROPOSALS Proposals maybe submitted in a sealed envelope or by fax (651) 223 -3046 to Springsted. Signed Proposals, without final price or coupons, maybe submitted to Springsted prior to the time of sale. The bidder shall be responsible for submitting to Springsted the final Proposal price and coupons, by telephone (651) 223 -3000 or fax (651) 223 -3046 for inclusion in the submitted Proposal. Springsted 17 will assume no liability for the inability of the bidder to reach Springsted prior to the time of sale specified above., All bidders are advised that each Proposal shall be deemed to constitute a contract between the bidder and the City to purchase the Bonds regardless of the manner of the Proposal submitted. DETAILS OF THE BONDS The Bonds will be dated November 1, 2001, as the date of original issue, and will bear interest payable on February 1 and August 1 of each year, commencing August 1, 2002. Interest will be computed on the basis of a 360 -day year of twelve 30 -day months. The Bonds will mature February 1 in the years and amounts as follows: 2003 $290,000 2004 $270,000 2005 $255,000 2006 $120,000 2007 $55,000 2008 $40,000 * The City reserves the right, after roposals are opened and prior to award, to increase or reduce the n principal amount o the Bonds o eyed � or sale. An such increase or reduction will be in a total amount ot to exceed $50, 000 and will e made in multiples of $S, 000 in any of the maturities. In the event the o � principal amount the Bonds is increased or reduced, any premium offered or any discount taken Py Me successful bidder will be increased or reduced by a percentage equal to the percentage by which the principal amount of the Bonds is increased or reduced. Proposals for the Bonds may contain a maturity schedule providing for a combination of serial bonds and term bonds, provided that no serial bond may mature on or after the first mandatory sinking fund redemption date of any term bond. All term bonds shall be subject to mandatory sinking fund redemption and must conform to the maturity schedule set forth above at a price of par plus accrued interest to the date of redemption. In order to designate term bonds, the proposal must specify "Last Year of Serial Maturities" and "Years of Term Maturities" in the spaces provided on the Proposal Form. BOOK ENTRY SYSTEM The Bonds will be issued by means of a book entry system with no physical distribution of Bonds made to the public. The Bonds will be issued in fully registered form and one Bond, representing the aggregate principal amount of the Bonds maturing in each year, will be registered in the name of Cede & Co. as nominee of The Depository Trust Company ( "DTC "), New York, New York, which will act as securities depository of the Bonds. Individual purchases of the Bonds may be made in the principal amount of $5,000 or any multiple thereof of a single maturity through book entries made on the books and records of DTC and its participants. Principal and interest are payable by the registrar to DTC or its nominee as registered owner of the Bonds. Transfer of principal and interest payments to participants of DTC will be the responsibility of DTC; transfer of principal and interest payments to beneficial owners by participants will be the responsibility of such participants and other nominees of beneficial owners. The purchaser, as a condition of delivery of the Bonds, will be required to deposit the Bonds with DTC. REGISTRAR The City will name the registrar which shall be subject to applicable SEC regulations. The City will pay for the services of the registrar. 18 OPTIONAL REDEMPTION The City may elect on February 1, 2006, and on any day thereafter, to prepay Bonds due on or after February 1, 2007. Redemption may be in whole or in part and if in part at the option of the City and in such manner as the City shall determine. If less than all Bonds of a maturity are called for redemption, the City will notify DTC of the particular amount of such maturity to be prepaid. DTC will determine by lot the amount of each participant's interest in such maturity to be redeemed and each participant will then select by lot the beneficial ownership interests in such maturity to be redeemed. All prepayments shall be at a price of par plus accrued interest. SECURITY AND PURPOSE The Bonds will be general obligations of the City for which the City will pledge its full faith and credit and power to levy direct general ad valorem taxes. In addition the City will pledge special assessments against benefited property previously pledged to the City's General Obligation Improvement Refunding Bonds, Series 1992A. The proceeds will be used to refund the 2003 through 2008 maturities of the City's General Obligation Improvement Refunding Bonds, Series 1992A, dated December 1, 1992. TYPE OF PROPOSALS Proposals shall be for not less than $1,022,790 and accrued interest on the total principal amount of the Bonds. Proposals shall be accompanied by a Good Faith Deposit ( "Deposit ") in the form of a certified or cashier's check or a Financial Surety Bond in the amount of $10,300, payable to the order of the City. If a check is used, it must accompany the proposal. If a Financial Surety Bond is used, it must be from an insurance company licensed to issue such a bond in the State of Minnesota, and preapproved by the City. Such bond must be submitted to Springsted Incorporated prior to the opening of the proposals. The Financial Surety Bond must identify each underwriter whose Deposit is guaranteed by such Financial Surety Bond. If the Bonds are awarded to an underwriter using a Financial Surety Bond, then that purchaser is required to submit its Deposit to Springsted Incorporated in the form of a certified or cashier's check or wire transfer as instructed by Springsted Incorporated not later than 3:30 P.M., Central Time, on the next business day following the award. If such Deposit is not received by that time, the Financial Surety Bond may be drawn by the City to satisfy the Deposit requirement. The City will deposit the check of the purchaser, the amount of which will be deducted at settlement and no interest will accrue to the purchaser. In the event the purchaser fails to comply with the accepted proposal, said amount will be retained by the City. No proposal can be withdrawn or amended after the time set for receiving proposals unless the meeting of the City scheduled for award of the Bonds is adjourned, recessed, or continued to another date without award of the Bonds having been made. Rates shall be in integral multiples of 51100 or 1/8 of 1 %. Rates must be in level or ascending order. Bonds of the same maturity shall bear a single rate from the date of the Bonds to the date of maturity. No conditional proposals will be accepted. .::X The Bonds will be awarded on the basis of the lowest interest rate to be determined on a true interest cost (TIC) basis. The City's computation of the interest rate of each proposal, in accordance with customary practice, will be controlling. 19 The City will reserve the right to: (i) waive non - substantive informalities of any proposal or of matters relating to the receipt of proposals and award of the Bonds, (ii) reject all proposals without cause, and, (iii) reject any proposal which the City determines to have failed to comply with the terms herein. BOND INSURANCE AT PURCHASER'S OPTION If the Bonds qualify for issuance of any policy of municipal bond insurance or commitment therefore at the option of the underwriter, the purchase of any such insurance policy or the issuance of any such commitment shall be at the sole option and expense of the purchaser of the Bonds. Any increased costs of issuance of the Bonds resulting from such purchase of insurance shall be paid by the purchaser, except that, if the City has requested and received a rating on the Bonds from a rating agency, the City will pay that rating fee. Any other rating agency fees shall be the responsibility of the purchaser. Failure of the municipal bond insurer to issue the policy after Bonds have been awarded to the purchaser shall not constitute cause for failure or refusal by the purchaser to accept delivery on the Bonds. CUSIP NUMBERS If the Bonds qualify for assignment of CUSIP numbers such numbers will be printed on the Bonds, but neither the failure to print such numbers on any Bond nor any error with respect thereto will constitute cause for failure or refusal by the purchaser to accept delivery of the Bonds. The CUSIP Service Bureau charge for the assignment of CUSIP identification numbers shall be paid by the purchaser. SETTLEMENT Within 40 days following the date of their award, the Bonds will be delivered without cost to the purchaser through DTC in New York, New York. Delivery will be subject to receipt by the purchaser of an approving legal opinion of Briggs and Morgan, Professional Association, of Saint Paul and Minneapolis, Minnesota, and of customary closing papers, including a no- litigation certificate. On the date of settlement, payment for the Bonds shall be made in federal, or equivalent, funds which shall be received at the offices of the City or its designee not later than 12:00 Noon, Central Time. Except as compliance with the terms of payment for the Bonds shall have been made impossible by action of the City, or its agents, the purchaser shall be liable to the City for any loss suffered by the City by reason of the purchaser's non - compliance with said terms for payment. CONTINUING DISCLOSURE On the date of actual issuance and delivery of the Bonds, the City will execute and deliver a Continuing Disclosure Undertaking (the "Undertaking ") whereunder the City will covenant for the benefit of the owners of the Bonds to provide certain financial and other information about the City and notices of certain occurrences to information repositories as specified in and required by SEC Rule 15c2- 12(b)(5). OFFICIAL STATEMENT The City has authorized the preparation of an Official Statement containing pertinent information relative to the Bonds, and said Official Statement will serve as a nearly -final Official Statement within the meaning of Rule 15c2 -12 of the Securities and Exchange Commission. For copies of the Official Statement or for any additional information prior to sale, any prospective purchaser is referred to the 91 Financial Advisor to the City, Springsted Incorporated, 85 East Seventh Place, Suite 100, Saint Paul, Minnesota 55101, telephone (651) 223-3000. The Official Statement, when further supplemented by an addendum or addenda specifying the maturity dates, principal amounts and interest rates of the Bonds, together with any other information required by law, shall constitute a "Final Official Statement" of the City with respect to the Bonds, as that term is defined in Rule 15c2 -12. By awarding the Bonds to any underwriter or underwriting syndicate submitting a proposal therefor, the City agrees that, no more than seven business days after the date of such award, it shall provide without cost to the senior managing underwriter of the syndicate to which the Bonds are awarded 40 copies of the Official Statement and the addendum or addenda described above. The City designates the senior managing underwriter of the syndicate to which the Bonds are awarded as its agent for purposes of distributing copies of the Final Official Statement to each Participating Underwriter. Any underwriter delivering a proposal with respect to the Bonds agrees thereby that if its proposal is accepted by the City (i) it shall accept such designation and (ii) it shall enter into a contractual relationship with all Participating Underwriters of the Bonds for purposes of assuring the receipt by each such Participating Underwriter of the Final Official Statement. Seconded by Councilmember Koppen Ayes – All Councilmember Allenspach moved to schedule the second special meeting for October 4, 2001. Seconded by Councilmember Koppen. Ayes -All 2. Schroeder Milk Expansion —Final Development Agreement (2080 Rice Street) a. City Manager Fursman introduced the staff report. b. Assistant City Manger Coleman presented the specifics of the report. Councilmember Koppen moved to approve the following development agreement for the tax increment financing for the expansion of the Schroeder Mild processing plant at 2080 Rice Street. DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT BY AND BETWEEN CITY OF MAPLEWOOD AND SCHROEDER MILK CO. DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT, made as of the 27 day of August, 2001, by and between the City of Maplewood, Minnesota (the "City "), a municipal corporation existing under the laws of the State of Minnesota end Schroeder Milk Co. (the "Developer "), a Minnesota corporation. WITNES SETH: WHEREAS, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.124 to 469.134, the City has heretofore established Development District No. 1 (the "Development District ") and has adopted a Development Program therefor (the "Development Program "); and 21 WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.174 through 469.179, as amended (hereinafter, the "Tax Increment Act "), the City has heretofore created on August 13, 2001, within the Development District, Economic Development District No. 1 -5 (the "Tax Increment District ") and has adopted a tax increment financing plan therefor (the "Tax Increment Plan ") which provides for the use of tax increment financing in connection with certain development within the Development District; and WHEREAS, in order to achieve the objectives of the Development Program and particularly to make the land in the Development District available for development by private enterprise in conformance with the Development Program, the City has determined to assist the Developer with the financing of certain costs of a Project (as hereinafter defined) to be constructed within the Tax Increment District as more particularly set forth in this Agreement; and WHEREAS, the City believes that the development and construction of the Project, and fulfillment of this Agreement are vital and are in the best interests of the City, the health, safety, morals and welfare of residents of the City, and in accordance with the public purpose and provisions of the applicable state and local laws and requirements under which the Project has been undertaken and is being assisted; and WHEREAS, the requirements of the Business Subsidy Law, Minnesota Statutes, Section 1161993 through 116J.995, apply to this Agreement; and WHEREAS, the City has adopted criteria for awarding business subsidies that comply with the Business Subsidy Law, after a public hearing for which notice was published; and WHEREAS, the Council has approved this Agreement as a subsidy agreement under the Business Subsidy Law. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises and the mutual obligations of the parties hereto, each of them does hereby covenant and agree with the other as follows: ARTICLE I DEFINITIONS Section 1.1. Definitions All capitalized terms used and not otherwise defined herein shall have the following meanings unless a different meaning clearly appears from the context: Agreement means this Agreement, as the same may be from time to time modified, amended or supplemented; Business Day means any day except a Saturday, Sunday or a legal holiday or a day on which banking institutions in the City are authorized by law or executive order to close; City means the City of Maplewood, its successors and assigns; Developer means Schroeder Milk Co., a Minnesota corporation, its successors and assigns; Development District means the real property included in the Development District No. 1 heretofore established; 22 Development Program means the Development Program approved in connection with the Development District; Development Property means the real property described in Exhibit A attached to this Agreement; Event of Default means any of the events described in Section 5.1 hereof; Prime Rate means the rate of interest from time to time publicly announced by U.S. Bank National Association in St. Paul, Minnesota, as its "prime rate" or "reference rate" or any successor rate, which rate shall change as and when that rate or successor rate changes; Pro'ect means the development of an approximately 55,000 square foot expansion of the Developer's existing manufacturing facility to be constructed by the Developer on the Development Property; Site Imp rovements means the site improvements constructed or installed on the Development Property described in Exhibit B attached to this Agreement; State means the State of Minnesota; Tax Increments means 90% of the tax increments derived from the Development Property which have been received by the City in accordance with the provisions of Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.177; Tax Increment Act means Minnesota Statutes, Sections 469.174 through 469.179, as amended; Tax Increment District means Economic Development District No. 1 -5 located within the Development District, a description of which is set forth in the Tax Increment Financing Plan, which was qualified as an economic development district under the Tax Increment Act; Tax Increment Financing Plan means the tax increment financing plan approved for the Tax Increment District by the City on August 13, 2001 and any future amendments thereto; and Unavoidable Delays means delays, outside the control of the party claiming its occurrence, which are the direct result of strikes, other labor troubles, unusually severe or prolonged bad weather, acts of God, fire or other casualty to the Proj ect, litigation commenced by third parties which, by injunction or other similar judicial action or by the exercise of reasonable discretion, directly results in delays, or acts of any federal, state or local governmental unit (other than the City) which directly result in delays. ARTICLE II REPRESENTATIONS AND WARRANTIES Section 2.1. Representations and Warranties of the City The City makes the following representations and warranties: (1) The City is a municipal corporation and has the power to enter into this Agreement and carry out its obligations hereunder. 23 (2) The Tax Increment District is an "economic development district" within the meaning of Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.174, Subdivision 12, and was created, adopted and approved in accordance with the terms of the Tax Increment Act. (3) The development contemplated by this Agreement is in conformance with the development objectives set forth in the Development Program. (4) To finance certain costs within the Tax Increment District, the City proposes, subject to the further provisions of this Agreement, to apply Tax Increments to reimburse the Developer for a portion of the costs of the Site Improvements paid by the Developer as further provided in this Agreement. Section 2.2. Representations and Warranties of the Developer. The Developer makes the following representations and warranties: (1) The Developer is a Minnesota corporation an d has the power to enter into this Agreement and to perform its obligations hereunder and is not in violation of the laws of the State. (2) The Developer shall cause the Project to be constructed in accordance with the terms of this Agreement, the Development District, and all local, state and federal laws and regulations (including, but not limited to, environmental, zoning, energy conservation, building code and public health laws and regulations). (3) The construction of the Project would not be undertaken by the Developer, and in the opinion of the Developer would not be economically feasible within the reasonably foreseeable future, without the assistance and benefit to the Developer provided for in this Agreement. (4) Neither the execution and delivery of this Agreement, the consummation of the transactions contemplated hereby, nor the fulfillment of or compliance with the terms and conditions of this Agreement is prevented, limited by or conflicts with or results in a breach of, the terms, conditions or provision of any contractual restriction, evidence of indebtedness, agreement or instrument of whatever nature to which the Developer is now a party or by which it is bound, or constitutes a default under any of the foregoing. (5) The Developer will cooperate fully with the City with respect to any litigation commenced with respect to the Project. (6) The Developer will cooperate fully with the City in resolution of any traffic, parking, trash removal or public safety problems which may arise in connection with the construction and operation of the Project. (7) The construction of the Project will commence on September 1, 2001 and, barring Unavoidable Delays, the Project will be substantially completed by August 1, 2002. ARTICLE III UNDERTAKINGS BY DEVELOPER AND CITY Section 3.1. Reimbursement of Costs. As consideration for the execution of this Agreement and the construction of the Project by the Developer, subject to the further provisions of this Agreement, 24 including but not limited to the limitations on source of reimbursement and amount set forth in Section 3.3 hereof, the City agrees to reimburse the Developer for $500,000 of the cost of the Site improvements paid by the Developer (the "Reimbursement Amount "). The Developer shall upon installation or construction of the Site Improvements provide the City with paid invoices reflecting the cost of the Site Improvements in an amount not less than the Reimbursement Amount. Section 3.2. Limitations on Undertaking of the City Notwithstanding the provisions of Sections 3. 1, the City shall have no obligation to the Developer under this Agreement to reimburse the Developer for the Reimbursement Amount, if the City,. at the time or times such payment is to be made is entitled under Section 4.2 to exercise any of the remedies set forth therein as a result of an Event of Default which has not been cured. Section 3.3. Limitation of Costs; Methods of Payment (1) The sole source of funds from which the City is obligated to reimburse the Developer for the Reimbursement Amount is limited to Tax Increments and nothing herein shall be construed to obligate the City to use any of its general funds or other municipal funds to reimburse the Developer for such costs. (2) Provided that the Developer has supplied the City paid invoices required by Section 3.1 and no Event of Default shall have occurred and be continuing hereunder, the City shall reimburse the Developer the Reimbursement Amount from Tax Increments in the following manner: On February 1 and August 1 in each year, commencing on August 1, 2003, the City shall pay to the Developer Tax Increments that it received and retained during the preceding 6 month period. Such payments by the City to the Developer shall continue until the earlier of February 1, 2012 or the date that the Developer has received the Reimbursement Amount (the "Termination Date "). Section 3.4. Business Subsidies Act (1) In order to satisfy the provisions of Minnesota Statutes, Sections 116J.993 to 116J.995 (the "Business Subsidies Act "), the Developer acknowledges and agrees that the amount of the "Business Subsidy" granted to the Developer under this Agreement is the Reimbursement Amount which is the Site Improvements paid by the Developer and reimbursed by Tax Increments and that the Business Subsidy is needed because the Development Property is not sufficiently feasible for the Developer to undertake without the Business Subsidy. The Tax Increment District is an economic development district and the public purpose of the Business Subsidy is to encourage the construction of manufacturing facilities in the City. The Developer agrees that it will meet the following goals (the "Goals "): It will create at least 30 full time jobs in connection with the development of the Development Property at an hourly wage of at least $15.00 per hour within two years from the "Benefit Date ", which is the date the Development Property is acquired by the Developer. (2) If the Goals are not met, the Developer agrees to repay all or a part of the Business Subsidy to the City, plus interest ( "Interest ") set at the implicit price deflator defined in Minnesota Statutes, Section 275.70, Subdivision 2, accruing from and after the Benefit Date, compounded semiannually. If the Goals are met in part, the Developer will repay a portion of the Business Subsidy (plus Interest) determined by multiplying the Business Subsidy by a fraction, the numerator of which is the number of j obs in the Goals which were not created at the wage level set forth above and the denominator of which is 30 (i.e. number of jobs set forth in the Goals). 25 (3) The Developer agrees to (i) report its progress on achieving the Goals to the City until the Goals are met, or the Business Subsidy is repaid, whichever occurs earlier, (ii) include in the report the information required in Subdivision 7 of the Jobs Act on forms developed by the Minnesota Department of Trade and Economic Development, and (iii) send completed reports to the City. The Developer agrees to file these reports no later than March 1 of each year commencing March 1, 2002, and within 30 days after the deadline for meeting the Goals. The City agrees that if it does not receive the reports, it will mail the Developer a warning within one week of the required filing date. If within 14 days of the post marked date of the warning the reports are not made, the Developer agrees to pay to the City a penalty of $100 for each subsequent day until the report is filed up to a maximum of $1,000. (4) The Developer agrees to continue operations within the City for at least five (5) years after the Benefit Date. (5) There are no other state or local government agencies providing financial assistance for the Project other than the City. (6) There is no parent corporation of the Developer. .ARTICLE IV EVENTS OF DEFAULT Section 4.1. Events of Default Defined The following shall be "Events of Default" under this Agreement and the term "Event of Default" shall mean whenever it is used in this Agreement any one or more of the following events: (a) Failure by the Developer to timely pay any ad valorem real property taxes assessed with respect to the Development Property. (b) Failure of the Developer to observe or perform any covenant, condition, obligation or agreement on its part to be observed or performed under this Agreement. (c) The holder of any mortgage on the Development Property or any improvements thereon, or any portion thereof, commences foreclosure proceedings as a result of any default under the applicable mortgage documents. (d) If the Developer shall: (A) file any petition in bankruptcy or for any reorganization, arrangement, composition, readjustment, liquidation, dissolution, or similar relief under the United States Bankruptcy Act of 1978, as amended or under any similar federal or state law; or (B) make an assignment for the benefit of its creditors; or (C) admit in writing its inability to pay its debts generally as they become due; or (D) be adjudicated a bankrupt or insolvent; or if a petition or answer proposing the adjudication of the Developer, as a bankrupt or its reorganization under any present or future federal bankruptcy act or any similar federal or state law shall be filed in any court and such petition or answer shall not be discharged or denied within sixty (60) days after the filing thereof; 26 or a receiver, trustee or liquidator of the Developer, or of the Project, or part thereof, shall be appointed in any proceeding brought against the Developer, and shall not be discharged within sixty (60) days after such appointment, or if the Developer, shall consent to or acquiesce in such appointment. Section 4.2. Remedies on Default Whenever any Event of Default referred to in Section 4.1 occurs and is continuing, the City, as specified below, may take any one or more of the following actions after the giving of thirty (30) days' written notice to the Developer, but only if the Event of Default has not been cured within said thirty (30) days: (a) The City may suspend its performance under this Agreement until it receives assurances from the Developer, deemed adequate by the City, that the Developer will cure its default and continue its performance under this Agreement. (b) -The City may cancel and. rescind the Agreement. (c) The City may take any action, including legal or administrative action, in law or equity, which may appear necessary or desirable to enforce performance and observance of any obligation, agreement, or covenant of the Developer under this Agreement. Section 4.3. No. Remedy Exclusive No remedy herein conferred upon or reserved to the nondefaulting party is intended to be exclusive of any other available remedy or remedies, but each and every such remedy shall be cumulative and shall be in addition to every other remedy given under this Agreement or now or hereafter existing at law or in equity or by statute. No delay or omission to exercise any right or power accruing upon any default shall impair any such right or power or shall be construed to be a waiver thereof, but any such right and power may be exercised from time to time and as often as may be deemed expedient. Section 4.4. No Implied Waiver In the event any agreement contained in this Agreement should be breached by any party and thereafter waived by any other party, such waiver shall be limited to the particular breach so waived and shall not be deemed to waive any other concurrent, previous or subsequent breach hereunder. Section 4.5. Agreement to Pay Attorney's Fees and Expenses Whenever any Event of Default occurs and the City shall employ attorneys or incur other expenses for the collection of payments due or to become due or for the enforcement or performance or observance of any obligation or agreement on the part of the Developer herein contained, the Developer agrees that it shall, on demand therefor, pay to the City the reasonable fees of such attorneys and such other expenses so incurred by the City. Section 4.6. Indemnification of Cit . (1) The Developer covenants and agrees that the City, its governing body members, officers, agents, including the independent contractors, consultants and legal counsel, servants and employees thereof (hereinafter, for purposes of this Section, collectively the "Indemnified Parties ") shall not be liable for and agrees to indemnify and hold harmless the Indemnified Parties against any loss or damage to property or any injury to or death of any person occurring at or about or resulting from any defect in the Project, provided that the foregoing indemnification shall not be effective for any actions of the Indemnified Parties that are not contemplated by this Agreement. 27 (2) Except for any willful misrepresentation or any willful or wanton misconduct of the Indemnified Parties, the Developer agrees to protect and defend the Indemnified Parties, now and forever, and further agrees to hold the aforesaid harmless from any claim, demand, suit, action or other proceeding whatsoever by any person or entity whatsoever arising or purportedly arising from the actions or inactions of the Developer (or if other persons acting on its behalf or under its direction or control) under this Agreement, or the transactions contemplated hereby or the acquisition, construction, installation, ownership, and operation of the Project; provided, that this indemnification shall not apply to the warranties made or obligations undertaken by the City in this Agreement or to any actions undertaken by the City which are not contemplated by this Agreement but shall, in any event and without regard to any fault on the part of the City, apply to any pecuniary loss or penalty (including interest thereon from the date the loss is incurred or penalty is paid by the City at a rate equal to the Prime Rate) as a result of the Project causing the Tax Increment District to not qualify or cease to qualify as an "economic development district" under Section 469.174, Subdivision 12, of the Act or to violate limitations as to the use of Tax Increments as set forth in Section 469.176, Subdivision 4c. (3) All covenants, stipulations, promises, agreements and obligations of the City contained herein shall be deemed to be the covenants, stipulations, promises, agreements and obligations of the City or the City and not of any governing body member, officer, agent, servant or employee of the City. ARTICLE V DEVELOPER'S OPTION TO TERMINATE AGREEMENT Section 5.1. The Developer's Option to Terminate This Agreement may be terminated by Developer, if (i) the Developer is in compliance with all material terms of this Agreement and no Event of Default has occurred; and (ii) the City fails to comply with any material term of this Agreement, and, after written notice by the Developer of such failure, the City has failed to cure such noncompliance within ninety (90) days of receipt of such notice, or, if such noncompliance cannot reasonably be cured by the City within ninety (90) days, of receipt of such notice, the City has not provided assurances, reasonably satisfactory to the Developer, that such noncompliance will be cured as soon as reasonably possible. Section 5.2. Action to Terminate. Termination of this Agreement pursuant to Section 5.1 must be accomplished by written notification by the Developer to the City within sixty (60) days after the date when such option to terminate may first be exercised. A failure by the Developer to terminate this Agreement within such period constitutes a waiver by the Developer of its rights to terminate this Agreement due to such occurrence or event. Section 5.3. Effect of Termination. If this Agreement is terminated pursuant to this Article V, this Agreement shall be from such date forward null and void and of no further effect; provided, however, the termination of this Agreement shall not affect the rights of either party to institute any action, claim or demand for damages suffered as a result of breach or default of the terms of this Agreement by the other party, or to recover amounts which had accrued and become due and payable as of the date of such termination. Upon termination of this Agreement pursuant to this Article V, the Developer shall be free to proceed with the Project at its own expense and without regard to the provisions of this Agreement; provided, however, that the City shall have no further obligations to the Developer with respect to reimbursement of the expenses set forth in Section 3.2. ARTICLE VI DITIONAL PROVISIONS Section 6.1. Restrictions on Use Until termination of this Agreement, the Developer agrees for itself, its successors and assigns and every successor in interest to the Development Property, or any part thereof, that the Developer and such successors and assigns shall operate, or cause to be operated, the Project as a manufacturing facility and shall devote the Development Property to, and in accordance with, the uses specified in this Agreement. Section 6.2. Conflicts of Interest No member of the governing body or other official of the City or the City shall have any financial interest, direct or indirect, in this Agreement, the Development Property or the Project, or any contract, agreement or other transaction contemplated to occur or be undertaken thereunder or with respect .thereto, -nor shall any such member of the governing body or other official participate in any decision relating to the Agreement which affects his or her personal interests or the interests of any corporation, partnership or association in which he or she is directly r indirectl y interested.: No member, .official or employee of the City shall be personally liable to the City in the event of any default or breach by the Developer or successor or on any obligations under the terms of this Agreement. Section 6.3. Titles of Articles and Sections Any titles of the several parts, articles and sections of the Agreement are inserted for convenience of reference only and shall be disregarded in construing or interpreting any of its provisions. Section 6.4. Notices and Demands. Except as otherwise expressly provided in this Agreement, :a notice, demand or other communication under this Agreement by any party to any other shall be sufficiently given or delivered if it is dispatched by registered or certified mail, postage prepaid, return receipt requested, or delivered personally, and (a) in the case of the Developer is addressed to or delivered personally to: Schroeder Milk Co. 2080 Rice Street Maplewood, MN 55113 (b) in the case of the City is addressed to or delivered personally to the City at: City of Maplewood 1830 East County Road B Maplewood, MN 55109-2702 or at such other address with respect to any such party as that party may, from time to time, designate in writing and forward to the other, as provided in this Section. Section 6.5. Counterparts This Agreement may be executed in any number of counterparts, each of which shall constitute one and the same instrument. Section 6.6. Law Governing This Agreement will be governed and construed in accordance with the laws of the State. 29 Section 6.7. Expiration This Agreement shall expire on the Termination Date, unless earlier terminated or rescinded in accordance with its terms. Section 6.8. Provisions Surviving Rescission or Expiration Sections 4.5 and 4.6 shall survive any rescission, termination or expiration of this Agreement with respect to or arising out of any event, occurrence or circumstance existing prior to the date thereof. Section 6.9. Assignability of.Agreement This Agreement may be assigned only with the consent of the City. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the City has caused this Agreement to be duly executed in its name and on its behalf, and the Developer has caused this Agreement to be duly executed in its name and on its behalf and its seal - to be hereunto affixed, on or as of the date first above written. Seconded by Councilmember Wasiluk Ayes —.,All 3. Cable Commission Resolution a. City Manager Fursman introduced the staff report and presented the specifics of the report. Councilmember Collins moved to adopt the following resolution which supports the elimination of the dual voting procedure utilized by the Ramsey- Washington Cable Commission II in lieu of the proportional /Weighted methods of voting: RESOLUTION 01 -08 -74 SUPPORTING ELIMINATION OF THE DUAL VOTING PROCEDURE UTILIZED BY THE RAMSEY- WASHINGTON CABLE COMMISSION II IN LIEU OF THE PROPORITONAL /WEIGHTED METHOD OF VOTING WHEREAS, the Ramsey- Washington Cable Commission II will be considering a proposal to change its voting procedure; and WHEREAS, the City of Maplewood is opposed to the current dual voting procedure that is utilized by the Cable commission; and WHEREAS, the Maplewood believes that the weighted/proportional voting represents the most appropriate voting methodology. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Maplewood hereby deems that should the voting procedures not be properly modified, the City of Maplewood recommends elimination of the dual voting process and support proportional /weighted voting procedures. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Maplewood hereby deems that should the voting procedures not be properly modified, the City of Maplewood will have to consider other options with respect to its relationship with the Ramsey - Washington Cable Commission. 30 L. M Seconded by Mayor Cardinal VISITOR PRESENTATIONS Ayes -Mayor Cardinal, Councilmember Collins Nays - Councilmembers Wasiluk, Koppen, Allenspach 1. Handicapped Parking -- Caroline Peterson, 1999 Jackson Street, thanked the city for the handicapped parking that was installed at City Hall. 2. Joy Park - -Dave Johnson, 2587 Lydia, voiced a complaint about Joy Park. 3. Dispatch Referendum--Jerry arki, 1247 Neuman Road questioned why �y , q y was brought back when the citizens of Maplewood voted it down in November of 2000. COUNCIL PRESENTATIONS 1. Preliminary Approval of Tax Levy Councilmember Collins moved to accept the recommendation and adopt the resolution that will give preliminary ap of the tax levy of pp y $10, 348,230 which will be a ceiling and which the prepared budget as presented is under the limit by $ 920,330. Councilmember Allenspach seconded . Ayes - Mayor.. Cardinal, Councilmember Collins, Allenspach Nays - Councilmembers Koppen, Wasiluk 0 A 2. Harvest Festival The Payne /Arcade Harvest Festival will take place September 13 -15. ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS 1. The open house for the new fire station on Clarence Street will be on September 8, 10:00 — 2:00 p.m. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 9:50 p.m. 31 AGENDAMEMNOo I J CITY COUNCIL /MANAGER WORKSHOP Monday, August 27, 2001 Council Chambers, City Hall 6:00 p.m. A. CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by Mayor Cardinal at 6:00 p.m. B. ROLL CALL Mayor Robert Cardinal Present Councilmember Sherry Allenspach Present Councilmember Kenneth Collins Present Councilmember Marvin Koppen Present Councilmember Julie Wasiluk Present Others Present: Assistant City Engineer Chris Cavett Assistant City Manager Melinda Colemars , City Attorney Patrick Kelly Attorney Song Lo Fawcett Attorney Kathleen Loucks City Clerk Karen Guilfoile Assistant Community Development Director Torn Ekstrand D. NEW BUSINESS 1. Bus Shelter Discussion Assistant Communit y Dei o p ment Director Ekstrand introduced a proposal from Outdoor Promotions Inc. " at wishes to install 10 g lass enclosed covered bus shelters in the city. Staff was directed by council to proceed with meeting with the company and bringing back additional information for council consideration. 2. 2002 Legal Services A presentation was made by Patrick Kelly and Kathleen Loucks regarding an increase in fees for prosecution services for the 2002 budget. A motion was made by Councilmember Collins and seconded by Mayor Cardinal to table until the first budget hearing. They asked Mr. Kelly to provide additional information about the prosecution process and budget. Ayes - all 3. Legal Fees to Date Mayor Cardinal had requested information regarding current cost of city legal fees. A report was submitted from the League of Minnesota Cities. This document is a public document and is accessible from the City Manager's office. 4. Maplewood in Motion —A motion was made by Mayor Cardinal and seconded by Councilmember Collins that incumbents seeking reelection should not submit articles for the Maplewood In Motion during the election process. E. FUTURE TOPICS 1. Exploring the Possibilities of a Sister City 2. Reviewing the Community Center Catering Contract 3. One Time Events F. ADJOURNMENT Councilmember Wasiluk moved to adjourn the meeting at 6:56 p.m Seconded by Councilmember Collins. AGENDA NO. G -1 AGENDA REPORT TO: City Council FROM: Assistant Finance Director a? fl u RE: APPROVAL OF CLAIMS DATE: September 4, 2001 Action b� Council Date Endorsed Modified 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 $196,220.63 Checks #55167 thru #55228 dated 8/28/01 $77,340.89 Disbursements via debits to checking account dated 8/21 thru 8/27/01 $320,841.82 Checks #55229 thru #55231 dated 8/30/01 $568,824.77 Checks #55232 thru #55298 dated 8/31 thru 9/4/01 $4%817.88 Disbursements via debits to checking account dated 8/28 thru 8/31/01 $1,213,045.99 Total Accounts Payable PAYROLL $343,682.64 Payroll Checks and. Direct Deposits dated 8/31/01 $23 Payroll Deduction check #85487 thru #85490 dated 8/31/01 $366,792. Total Payroll $1 GRAND TOTAL Attached is a detailed listing of theseaims. Please call me at 770 -4513 if you have an questions , y any the attached listing. This will allow me to check the supporting documentation on file if necessary. a hu Attachments SAAGENDMAKL0104.SEP vehlist . Check Register Page: 1 08/24/2001 12:38:30PM City of Maplewood Check Date Vendor Description /Account Amount 55167 8/28/01 00099 ANCHOR SCIENTIFIC INC 55168 8/28/01 01981 ANCOM TECHNICAL CENTER 55169 8/28/01 00111 ANIMAL CONTROL SERVICES, INC. 55170 8/28/01 00131 ASPEN EQUIPMENT CO. 55171 8/28/01 00171 BEHAN, JAMES 55172 8/28/01 02076 BETKER, RYAN 55173 8/28/01 01974 BLUE CROSS REFUNDS 55174 8/28/01 00196 BLUEBIRD RECOVERY PROGRAM 55175 8/28/01 00198 BOARD OF WATER COMMISSIONERS 55176 8/28/01 00211 BRAUN INTERTEC CORP. 55177 8/28/01 02167 BUNCE, LARRY 55178 8/28/01 00272 CARVER, NICHOLAS 55179 :8/28/01.:;- - 00305-:, COLEMAN, MELINDA 55180 8/28/01 00341 CRAWFORD DOOR SALES OF THE TWI 55181 8/28/01 00412 DONALD SALVERDA & ASSOCIATES 55182 8/28/01 00447 ECOPRINT GRAPHICS SERVICES 55183 8/28/01 00463 EMERGENCY APPARATUS MAINT. 55184 8/28/01 00510 FIRE MARSHALS ASSN. OF MINN. 55185 8/28/01 02071 FISHER, DAVID 55186 8/28/01 00519 FLEXIBLE PIPE TOOL CO. 55187 8/28/01 00550 GAM ETI M E 55188 8/28/01 00582 GOPHER BEARING CO. 55189 8/28/01 00589 GRAF, DAVE 55190 8/28/01 00653 HEJNY RENTALS, INC 55191 8/28/01 00681 HORSNELL, JUDITH 55192 8/28/01 00684 HOWARD R. GREEN COMPANY 55193 8/28/01 00483 IDEACOM MID - AMERICA 55194 8/28/01 00719 INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DIST. #622 55195 8/28/01 00753 JEANE THORNE TEMPORARY SERVICE 55196 8/28/01 00789 KATH FUEL OIL SERVICE CO 55197 8/28/01 02137 KENNEDY & GRAVEN CHARTERED 55198 8/28/01 00828 L.M.C.I.T. 55199 8/28/01 00843 LANDSCAPE ALTERNATIVES 55200 8/28/01 00891 M.A.M.A. 55201 8/28/01 00972 MENARDS 55202 8/28/01 01023 MN COUNTY ATTORNEYS ASSOC 55203 8/28/01 01111 MOTOROLA, INC 55204 8/28/01 00395 NATURAL RESOURCES, DEPT OF 55205 8/28/01 01126 NCPERS GROUP LIFE INS 612001 55206 8/28/01 02000 NORTH METRO AUTO 55207 8/28/01 01175 NORTH ST. PAUL, CITY OF ROTO FLOATS FOR STA 12 RADIO INSTALLATION PATROL & BOARDING FEES M -450 ASPHALT PAVER MILEAGE 5/25 TO 6/22 VEH ALLOW & MILEAGE 8/15 TO 8/17 REF AMB 01010500 VIRGIL JOHNSON NOTECARDS, TAGS MONTHLY WATER UTIL- BILL DATE 8/15 CONSULTING SRVS 5/19 TO 7/13 LAKE COUNTRY CHAPTER MTG FEE NORTHSTAR CHAPTER MTG FEE WORK PLANNER INSERT REPAIR TO DOOR - STATION 3 BOOKS FOR TRAINING BUSINESS CARDS SERVICE AMB - MEDIC 3 REPAIR TRUCK - ENGINE 1 REPAIR PUMP - RESCUE VEH 1 SERVICE TRUCK - ENGINE 2 SERVICE TRUCK - RESCUE 2 SERVICE TRUCK - AIR 1 SERVICE AMB - MEDIC 1 SERVICE AMB - MEDIC 2 SERVICE AMB - MEDIC 3 SERVICE TRUCK - RESCUE 3 SERVICE TRUCK - UTILITY 3 SERVICE TRUCK - DIVE 3 MEMBERSHIPS TO FMAM - 3 CHAPTER MTGS FEES 8/15 & 8/16 SEAL KIT JETTER/PUMPER TRUCK #615 NYLON BUSHINGS /BEARINGS BUSHINGS KARATE INSTRUCTOR - AUGUST RENTAL EQUIP - CITY PICNIC MILEAGE 7/25 TO 8/20 CONSTRUCTION INSP THRU 7/27 SERVICE VOICE MAIL SYSTEM ROOM RENTAL TEMP SECRETARY TEMP SECRETARY OIL FOR ENGINE 3 LEGAL SERVICES - JULY QTRLY INS PYMT 7/01 - 9/01 PLANTS - WAKEFIELD PARK MAMA LUNCHEON MTG MAINT SUPPLIES DWI FORFEITURE FORMS THREE - POSITION RADIO CONSOLE, TA DNR FEES PERA LIFE INS (P /R DED IN AUG) REPAIR TO DC 2 CAR MONTHLY UTIL 7/5 TO 8/6 SEWER & SECURITY LIGHT 218.13 788.35 981.00 34,101.30 17.38 29.70 385.93 7.00 2,961.71 2,983.50 15.00 20.00 18.70 132.00 79.25 407.36 589.44 377.25 377.25 397.25 377.25 310.00 175.00 175.00 175.00 377.25 60.00 175.00 105.00 35.00 508.48 196.59 100.05 147.00 240.94 15.42 665.52 324.00 63.00 74.80 673.20 48.96 160.00 38,692.50 978.18 16.00 138.58 24.05 85,798.88 63.00 213.00 400.52 2,062.52 620.21 vchlist Check Register Page: 2 08124/200,1 12:38 :30PM City of Maplewood Check Date Vendor 55208 8/28/01 02169 55209 8/28/01 00001 55210 8/28/01 00001 55211 8/28/01 00001 55212 8/28/01 00001 55213 8/28/01 00001 55214 8/28/01 00001 55215 8/28/01 00001 55216 8/28/01 02061 55217 8/28/01 01409 55218 8/28/01 01463 55219 8/28/01 01491 55220 8/28/01 01494 55221 8/28/01 01504 55222 8/28/01 01527 55223 8/28/01 02170 55224 8/28/01 01578 55225 8/28/01 01580 55226 8/28/01 01683 55227 8/28/01 01750 55228 8/28/01 01793 62 Checks in this report NORTHERN BATTERY ONE TIME VENDOR ONE TIME VENDOR ONE TIME VENDOR ONE TIME VENDOR ONE TIME VENDOR ONE TIME VENDOR ONE TIME VENDOR PRAIRIE EQUIPMENT CO INC S.E.H. SISTER ROSALIND GEFRE SPECIALTY RADIO SERVICES SPECTRUM HUMAN RESOURCE SYSTEM ST PAUL, CITY OF STEFFEN, SCOTT SWIFT. CONSTRUCTION INC T.R.F. SUPPLY CO. TSE, INC. UNIFORMS UNLIMITED INC WATSON CO INC, THE XEROX CORPORATION ELECTRICAL UNIT REPAIR REF NATHAN DODGE - 5 MO MEMBERSF REF HUDSON SCH AGE CARE - GRP OV REF BEVERLY GAUSMAN - DAY CAMP REF GARY HINNENKAMP - SOCCER REF ST AMBROSE OF WOODBURY - GR REF KEN JOHNSON - OVRPD 1 MONTH REF CHARLOTTE GEVING - SWIM LESS PUMP RENTAL 6/13/01 FLOODING CONSTRUCTION ENGR PROD 00 -04 MASSAGES - JULY REPAIR RADIO REPAIR RADIO REPAIR RADIO REPAIR RADIO REPAIR RADIOS ASSISTANCE W /CUSTOM IMPORT UTIL CRIME LAB SERVICES JULY 2001 MEALS 8/13 TO 8/16 REF BUILDING PRMT #01 -01657 MAINT SUPPLIES JANITORIAL SRVS 6/14 TO 7/11 TSHIRTS MERCH FOR RESALE MERCH FOR RESALE XEROX COPIER USEAGE - JULY Total checks : 251.66 159.75 154.40 100.00 60.00 42.60 20.00 20.00 639.00 127.14 2,373.00 35.33 30.00 50.00 44.00 260.93 712.50 175.00 23.78 9,569.38 332.28 712.68 82.50 351.06 513.04 303.20 196,220.63 CITY OF MAPLEWOOD Disbursements via Debits to Checking account Transmitted Settlement Date Date Payee 08/20/01 08/21/01 08/20/01 08/21/01 08/17/01 0 8/21 /01 08/17/01 08/21/01 08/21/01 08/22/01 08/21/01 08/22/01 08/16/01 08/22/01 08/22/01 08/23/01 08/22/01 08/23/01 08/23/01 08/24/01 08/23/01 08/24/01 08/24/01 08/27/01 08/24/01 08/27/01 MN State Treasurer MN State Treasurer MN State Treasurer CBSA MN State Treasurer MN State Treasurer MN Dept of Revenue MN State Treasurer MN State Treasurer MN State Treasurer MN State Treasurer MN State Treasurer MN State Treasurer TOTAL Description Drivers License #697 Deputy Registrar #149 State Payroll Tax Dental Claims Drivers License #697. Deputy Registrar #149 Fuel Tax Drivers License #697 Deputy Registrar #149 Drivers License #697 Deputy Registrar #149 Drivers License #697 Deputy Registrar #149 Amount 729.75 12,709.93 14,071.95 1,383.40 877.00 11,820.00 184.00 677.50 12,228.11 474.50 10,705.79 528.00 10,950.96 3 vchlist Check Register Page: 1 08/31/2001 12:55:45PM City of Maplewood Check Date 55229 8/30/01 55230 8/30/01 55231 8/30/01 55232 9/4/01 55233 9/4/01 55234 9/4/01 Vendor Descriotion /Account 01645 TREASURER, STATE OF MINNESOTA 01574 T.A. SCHIFSKY & SONS, INC 02178 KATIE RIDLEHOOVER 00018 A T & T WIRELESS SERVICES 01908 ADMINISTRATION, DEPT OF 00049 ADT SECURITY SERVICES 55235 9/4/01 02171 55236 9/4/01 00111 55237 9/4/01 00174 55238 9/4/01 01811 55239 9/4/01 00244 55240 9/4/01 02172 55241 9/4/01 00280 ALLIANZ ANIMAL CONTROL SERVICES, INC. BELDE, STAN BERNATELLO'S PIZZA INC CABLING SERVICES CORP CENTENNIAL LAKES POLICE DEPT CENTRAL STORES 55242 9/4/01 00283 CENTURY COLLEGE 55243 9/4/01 00276 CORPORATE BENEFIT SERVICES 55244 9/4/01 02044 DARST, ROBERTA 55245 9/4/01 00380 DAVIES WATER EQUIPMENT CO. 55246 9/4/01 00367 DP INDUSTRIAL MARKETING 55247 9/4/01 00463 EMERGENCY APPARATUS MAINT. 55248 9/4/01 01401 FIRST STUDENT BUS COMPANY 55249 9/4/01 00529 FORTIS BENEFITS INSURANCE CO. 55250 9/4/01 00535 FRANSSEN, MARY ANN 55251 9/4/01 01890 FRY, PATRICIA 55252 9/4/01 00543 GE CAPITAL 55253 9/4/01 02108 HALE, WILL 55254 9/4/01 01867 55255 9/4/01 00644 55256 9/4/01 00668 55257 9/4/01 00683 55258 9/4/01 02037 55259 9/4/01 01897 55260 9/4/01 02173 55261 9/4/01 00932 55262 9/4/01 00936 55263 9/4/01 00949 55264 9/4/01 01819 55265 9/4/01 00966 55266 9/4/01 00985 55267 8/31/01 01027 55268 8/31/01 01027 55269 9/4/01 01085 55270 9/4/01 01611 HANSON, PERRY HEALTHPARTNERS HIEBERT, STEVEN HORWATH, THOMAS HUMAN SERVICES, DEPT OF KRAUS- ANDERSON CONSTRUCTION CO L -Z TRUCK EQUIPMENT CO INC MAPLEWOOD BAKERY MAPLEWOOD HISTORICAL SOCIETY MAUTZ PAINT CO. MCLEOD USA MEDICA CHOICE METROPOLITAN COUNCIL MINN. STATE TREASURER MINN. STATE TREASURER MN LIFE INSURANCE MOBILE PHONE COMPANY, THE AMBULANCE LICENSE PAYMENT TILSEN SO PROJ 00 -04 SEVERANCE PAY CELL PHONE CHARGES INTERNET EMAIL ACCOUNTS SECURITY SYSTEM - FIRE STATION 'SECURITY SYSTEM - FIRE STATION REFUND 01003241 R MOOSBRUGGER PATROL & BOARDING FEES K -9 HANDLER MERCH FOR RESALE DISPATCH CABLING REIMBURSE PO UNIFORM & PSYCH EX OFFICE SUPPLIES OFFICE SUPPLIES NATL EMT TEST MONTHLY ADMINISTRATIVE FEE LUNCH - SEMINAR GUIDERAIL BASE /SEAL KIT /CHAINS /SR KEYS FOR LOCKERS SERVICE TRUCK SERVICE TRUCK SERVICE AMB 4 SERVICE TRUCK & PUMP SERVICE PUMP, TRUCK & GENERATOR SERVICE TRUCK SERVICE TRUCK SERVICE AMB BUS RENTAL TO VALLEYFAIR MONTHLY PREMIUM - SEPT CLOWN - 8/2 TO 8/24 LUNCH - SEMINAR, MILEAGE 8/21 & 22 KODAK COPIER LEASE - AUGUST ENTERTAINMENT ENTERTAINMENT VOLLEYBALL OFFICIAL MONTHLY PREMIUM - SEPTEMBER K -9 HANDLER TREE INSPECTIONS 7/27 TO 8/24 REFUND DUP PYMT 01004027 M GALLA REF GRADING ESCROW - 3003 HAZELW LATCH HOOD BIRTHDAY CAKES BIRTHDAY CAKES BIRTHDAY CAKES ANNUAL CONTRIBUTION PAINT & SUPPLIES DSL DATA CONNECTION 6/26 TO 8/31 MONTHLY PREMIUM - SEPT WASTEWATER - SEPTEMBER MOTOR VEHICLE DRIVERS LICENSE MONTHLY PREMIUM - SEPT INSTALL NEW PHONE Amount 630.00 319,987.70 224.12 121.77 321.30 124.69 48.38 12.49 500.18 35.00 281.40 740.66 502.75 114.03 56.85 240.00 533.80 7.23 1,945.25 330.89 377.25 397.25 175.00 120.00 377.25 397.25 377.25 175.00 696.00 2,510.31 480.00 18.60 528.32 425.00 170.00 63.00 35,476.41 35.00 952.00 160.53 12,190.86 15.80 57.00 114.00 128.25 2,000.00 157.19 218.18 34, 799.74 149,022.20 72,888.72 706.50 2,641.18 320.35 vchlist Check Register Page: 2 08/31/2001 12:55:45PM City of Maplewood Check Date Vendor nnao%rir►finn /A^~%m ■n* 55271 9/4/01 02174 55272 9/4/01 01111 55273 9/4/01 01136 55274 9/4/01 00395 55275 9/4/01 01162 55276 9/4/01 01961 55277 9/4/01 02175 55278 9/4/01 01178 55279 9/4/01 01887 55280 9/4/01 01215 MOM'S CLUB MAPLEWOOD NORTH MOTOROLA, INC NARDINI FIRE EQUIP. CO., INC. NATURAL RESOURCES, DEPT OF NEW MECH COMPANIES, INC. NEXTEL COMMUNICATIONS NIVEN, AMY NORTH STAR TURF, INC. NORTHLAND CONCRETE & MASONARY APPROVED CHAR GAMBLING CONTR THREE - POSITION RADIO CONSOLE, TA RECHARGE FIRE EXTINGUISHER DNR FEES MECHANICAL WORK THRU 6/30/01 CELL PHONE MILEAGE 8/28/01 MEDALIST NORTH MIXTURE CONCRETE & MASONRY THRU 6/30/01 .CONCRETE & MASONRY THRU 7/31/01 LUNCH - SEMINAR & MILEAGE 5/1 TO 8 LUNCH - TRAINING & MILEAGE 8/24 TO 8 REF WAINOUA LEE - PLBG PRMT REF DENNIS KASSEN -DAY CAMP REF GORDON MALLORY - SEWER CLEA ER ID #6120-00,01 - 8/31/01 P/R CONTRACTOR THRU 6/30/01 CONTRACTOR THRU 7/31/01 REPAIR PRINTER RESET CHARGES FOR POSTAGE METE MERCH FOR RESALE MERCH FOR RESALE MERCH FOR RESALE REFUND DUPLICATE PAYMENTS CAMP SUPPLIES PROGRAM SUPPLIES PROGRAM SUPPLIES MERCH FOR RESALE CAMP SUPPLIES DURA LITE TABLES CAMP SUPPLIES PROGRAM SUPPLIES PROGRAM SUPPLIES DURA LITE TABLES MERCH FOR RESALE PROGRAM SUPPLIES CANOPY TENT MERCH FOR RESALE FACE PAINTING COACHES SOCCER CLINIC WASH FOUNTAIN TAX & FREIGHT INCL 10 HOURS WORKED BY CONTRACT REF DUP PYMT - L BENNETT 01006148 REF OVERPAID E OLSON 01001803 COMM PLUMBING INSPECTION ELECTRICAL WORK THRU 7/31/01 ELECTRICAL WORK THRU 6/30/01 FUEL FUEL OLSON, SANDRA K 55281 .9/4/01 00001 ONE TIME VENDOR 55282 9/4/01 00001 ONE TIME VENDOR 55283 9/4/01 00001 ONE TIME VENDOR 55284 9/4/01 01311 P.E. R.A. 55285 9/4/01 01909 PARKOS CONSTRUCTION CO 55286 9/4/01 00814 PC SERVICE PRO 55287 9/4/01 01270 PITNEY BOWES INC. 55288 9/4/01 01360 REINHART FOODSERVICE 55289 9/4/01 00069 RISK MANAGEMENT ALTERNATIVES 55290 9/4/01 01418 SAM'S CLUB DIRECT 55291 9/4/01 01468 SLABA, JACLEE 55292 9/4/01 01502 ST. CATHERINE'S SOCCER 55293 9/4/01 01525 STATE SUPPLY COMPANY 55294 9/4/01 02176 TRUHLER, REBECCA 55295 9/4/01 02177 U -CARE REFUND 55296 9/4/01 01734 WALSH, WILLIAM P. 55297 9/4/01 01755 WEBER ELECTRIC 55298 9/4/01 01798 YOCUM OIL CO. 70 Checks in this report Total checks : Amount 500.00 25, 739.66 46.86 199.00 28, 362.25 452.23 6.56 350.24 21,375.00 54, 224.10 20.82 35.61 130.50 110.00 109.00 36,229.25 21,900.35 30,134.00 271.51 28.50 297.81 373.60 155.07 2 91.46 203.23 45.90 123.49 88.73 745.43 70.12 158.77 16.36 1,011.60 280.64 36.70 212.98 35.76 480.00 750.00 2,810.16 100.00 72.68 363.38 295.00 4,649.30 7,915.40 56.96 67.60 889,666.59 5 CITY OF MAPLEWOOD Disbursements via Debits to Checking account Transmitted Settlement Date Date Payee Description Amount 08/27/01 08/28/01 MN State Treasurer Drivers License #697 628.50 08/27/01 08/28/01 MN State Treasurer Deputy Registrar #149 10,835.52 08/24/01 08/28/01 CBSA Dental Claims 557.00 08/28/01 08/29/01 MN State Treasurer Drivers License #697 807.25 08/28/01 08/29/01 MN State Treasurer Deputy Registrar #149 11 08/29/01 08/30/01 MN State Treasurer Drivers License #697 507.00 08/29/01 08/30/01 MN State Treasurer Deputy Registrar #149 12 08/30/01 08/31/01 MN State Treasurer Drivers License #697 310.50 08/30/01 08/31/01 MN State Treasurer Deputy Registrar #149 11,988.25 TOTAL 49,817.88 [I* CITY OF MAPLEWOOD EMPLOYEE GROSS EARNINGS REPORT FOR THE CURRENT PAY PERIOD 7 CHECK # CHECK DATE EMPLOYEE NAME AMOUNT dd 08/31 /01 ALLENSPACH, SHERRY 339.27 dd 08/31 /01 COLLINS, KENNETH 339.27 dd 08/31/01 KOPPEN, MARVIN 3 3 9.27 dd 08/31/01 MCGUIRE, MICHAEL 197.48 dd 08/31/01 DOLLERSCHELL, ROBERT 251.25 dd 08/31/01 OSTER, ANDREA 1,555.14 dd 08/31/01 CARLSON, THERESE : 2 dd 08/31/01 LE, SHERYL 3,361.92 dd 08/31/01 FAUST, DANIEL 3,505.30 dd 08/31/01 URBANSKI, HOLLY 1 dd 08/31/01 ANDERSON, CAROLE 877.12 dd 08/31/01 BAUMAN, GAYLE 2481.89 dd 08/31/01 JACKSON, MARY 1,575.94 dd 08/31/01 KELSEY, CONNIE 778.51 dd 08/31/01 TETZLAFF, JUDY 1,391.94 dd 08/31/01 DARST, ROBERTA 1,080.75 dd 08/31/01 FRY, PATRICIA 1 dd 08/31/01 GUILFOILE, KAREN 2,203.38 dd 08/31/01 CAROE, JEANETTE 1 dd 08/31/01 JAGOE, CAROL 1464.53 dd 08/31/01 JOHNSON, BONNIE 869.55 dd 08/31/01 OLSON, SANDRA 1,167.62 dd 08/31/01 WEAVER, KRISTINE 1,049.40 dd 08/31/01 CORCORAN, THERESA 1,567.50 dd 08/31/01 MARTINS ON, CAROL 1 dd 08/31/01 POWELL, PHILIP 1 dd 08/31/01 THOMALLA, DAVID 2,893.94 dd 08/31/01 WINGER, DONALD 3 dd 08/31/01 ALDRIDGE, MARK 2,049.52 dd 08/31/01 ANDREWS, SCOTT 2 dd 08/31/01 BAKKE, LONN 2 dd 08/31/01 BANICK, JOHN 2,743.10 dd 08/31/01 BELDE, STANLEY 2 dd 08/31/01 BOHL, JOHN 2,377.73 dd 08/31/01 BOWMAN, RICK 2,239.56 dd 08/31/01 BUSACK, DANIEL 1 dd 08/31/01 DOBLAR, RICHARD 1,620.50 dd 08/31/01 HALWEG, KEVIN 2,564.64 dd 08/31/01 HEINZ, STEPHEN 2,143.46 dd 08/31/01 HERBERT, MICHAEL 2,407.02 dd 08/31/01 HIRBERT, STEVEN 2,332.42 dd 08/31/01 JOHNSON, KEVIN 2 dd 08/31/01 KARIS, FLINT 2 dd 08/31/01 KROLL, BRETT 1 7 CITY OF MAPLEWOOD EMPLOYEE GROSS EARNINGS REPORT FOR THE CURRENT PAY PERIOD E001 CHECK # CHECK DATE EMPLOYEE NAME AMOUNT dd 08/31/01 KVAM, DAVID 2,467.35 dd 08/31/01 LARSON, DANIEL 1,761.01 dd 08/31/01 LU, JOHNNIE 1 dd 08/31/01 MARTIN, JERROLD 1 dd 08/31/01 OLSON, JULIE 1 dd 08/31/01 PIKE, GARY 2 dd 08/31/01 RABBETT, KEVIN 2,353.70 dd 08/31/01 STEFFEN, SCOTT 2 dd 08/31/01 STOCKTON, DERRELL 2,123.94 dd 08/31/01 SZCZEPANSKI, THOMAS 2,373.04 dd 08/31/01 WATCZAK, LAURA 2,104.74 dd 08/31/01 WENZEL, JAY 1 dd 08/31/01 BERGERON, JOSEPH 2,758.44 dd 08/31/01 CROTTY, KERRY 2 dd 08/31 /01 DUNK, ALICE 2,388.43 dd 08/31/01 ERICKSON, VIRGINIA 2,200.74 dd 08/31/01 EVERSON, PAUL 1 dd 08/31/01 FLOR, TIMOTHY 2 dd 08/31/01 FRASER, JOHN 2 dd 08/31/01 HALWEG, JODI 1 dd 08/31/01 MORNING, TIMOTHY 1410.02 dd 08/31/01 PALMA, STEVEN 2,670.84 dd 08/31/01 PARSONS, KURT 1,603.93 dd 08/31/01 ROSSMAN, DAVID 2,104.74 dd 08/31/01 THIENES, PAUL 2 dd 08/31/01 GERVAIS -JR, CLARENCE 2321.83 dd 08/31/01 CALLAHAN, COLLEEN 1,860.93 dd 08/31/01 SPANGLER, EDNA 482.20 dd 08/31/01 LUKIN, STEVEN 2 dd. 08/31/01 SVENDSEN, RUSTIN 2,227.89 dd 08/31/01 ZWIEG, SUSAN 1,553.37 dd 08/31/01 AHL, R. CHARLES 3,3 87.11 dd 08/31/01 PRIEFER, WILLIAM 1 dd 08/31/01 DEBILZAN, THOMAS 1,385.54 dd 08/31/01 EDGE, DOUGLAS 1 dd 08/31/01 KANE, MICHAEL 2 dd 08/31/01 LUND STEN, LANCE 2 dd 08/31/01 LUTZ, DAVID 1 dd 08/31/01 MEYER, GERALD 1,741.94 dd 08/31/01 NAGEL, BRYAN 1,217.54 dd 08/31/01 OSWALD, ERICK 1 dd 08/31/01 TEVLIN, TODD 1,270.34 dd 08/31/01 CAVETT, CHRISTOPHER 2,634.33 dd 08/31/01 DUCHARME, JOHN 1 dd 08/31/01 PECK, DENNIS 2 dd 08/31/01 PRIEBE, WILLIAM 2,614.98 E001 CITY OF MAPLEWOOD EMPLOYEE GROSS EARNINGS REPORT FOR THE CURRENT PAY PERIOD r CHECK # CHECK DATE EMPLOYEE NAME AMOUNT dd 08/31/01 ANDERSON, BRUCE 3 dd 08/31/01 DOHERTY, KATHLEEN 1 dd 08/31/01 MARUSKA, MARK 2 dd 08/31/01 SCHINDELDECKER, JAMES 1,611.94 dd 08/31/01 GREW- HAYMAN, JANET 925.17 dd 08/31/01 HORSNELL, JUDITH 1470.37 dd 08/31/01 KOS, HEATHER 826.20 dd 08/31/01 NELSON, JEAN 934.09 dd 08/31/01 GAYNOR, VIRGINIA 1,510.34 dd 08/31/01 COLEMAN, MELINDA 3 dd 08/31/01 EKSTRAND, THOMAS 2 dd 08/31/01 KROLL, LISA 907.47 dd 08/31/01 LIVINGSTON, JOYCE 863.00 dd 08/31/01 SINDT, ANDREA 1,226.34 dd 08/31/01 THOMPSON, DEBRA 553.58 dd 08/31/01 YOUNG, TAMELA 1 dd 08/31/01 BERGO, CHAD 1 dd 08/31/01 FEgWALL, SHANN 1 dd 08/31/01 ROBERTS, KENNETH 2,164.68 dd 08/31/01 CARVER, NICHOLAS 2 dd 08/31/01 FISHER, DAVID 2 dd 08/31/01 ANZALDI, MANDY 413.00 dd 08/31/01 FLUG, MEGAN 155.00 dd 08/31/01 GRAF, MICHAEL 1 dd 08/31/01 KELLY, LISA 1 dd 08/31/01 ROBBINS, AUDRA 1,447.14 dd 08/31/01 TAUBMAN, DOUGLAS 2,272.59 dd 08/31 /01 BREHEIM, ROGER 1,630.42 dd 08/31/01 NORDQUIST, RICHARD 1,623.94 dd 08/31/01 OTIS, MARY ELLEN 634.54 dd 08/31/01 SCHULTZ, SCOTT 1 dd 08/31/01 CROSSON, LINDA 1,881.54 dd 08/31/01 EASTMAN, THOMAS 2 dd 08/31/01 ERICKSON, KYLE 501.83 dd 08/31/01 HERSOM, HEIDI 1,516.74 dd 08/31/01 MCCLUNG, HEATHER 615.87 dd 08/31/01 RODEN, AARON 285.64 dd 08/31/01 STAPLES, PAULINE 2,472.00 dd 08/31/01 ATKINS, KATHERINE 188.63 dd 08/31/01 CORNER, AMY 80.40 dd 08/31/01 HASSENSTAB, DENISE 41.00 dd 08/31/01 HORWATH, RONALD 1,185.54 dd 08/31/01 KOEHNEN, AMY 39.60 dd 08/31/01 MARUSKA, ERICA 93.00 dd 08/31/01 WHITE, NICOLE 338.85 dd 08/31/01 WORWA, LINDSAY 414.65 r CITY OF MAPLEWOOD EMPLOYEE GROSS EARNINGS REPORT FOR THE CURRENT PAY PERIOD 10 CHECK # CHECK DATE EMPLOYEE NAME AMOUNT dd 08/31/01 RENSLOW, RITA 139.20 dd 08/31/01 REILLY, MICHAEL 1 dd 08/31/01 SCHLINGMAN, PAUL 1,882.34 dd 08/31/01 SEEGER, GERALD 448.27 dd 08/31/01 STEINHORST, JEFFREY 690.73 dd 08/31/01 SWANSON, LYLE 1 dd 08/31/01 YOUNG, DILLON 522.80 dd 08/31 /01 HURLEY, STEPHEN 2 Wf 85317 08/31/01 CARDINAL, ROBERT 385.50 Wf 85318 08/31/01 WASILUK, JULIE 339.27 Wf 85319 08/31/01 FURSMAN, RICHARD 4 Wf 85320 08/31/01 HENSLEY, PATRICIA 168.00 Wf 85321 08/31/01 INGVOLDSTAD, CURTIS 250.00 Wf 85322 08/31/01 CUDE, LARRY 403.46 Wf 85323 08/31/01 EDSON, KAREN 315.63 Wf 85324 08/31 /01 GENNOW, PAMELA 300.00 Wf 85325 08/31/01 MATHEYS, ALANA 1 Wf 85326 08/31/01 HANSEN, LORI 1 Wf 85327 08/31/01 VIETOR, LORRAINE 1 Wf 85328 08/31/01 BECKER, RONALD 315.00 Wf 85329 08/31/01 PALANK, MARY 1 Wf 85330 08/31/01 RICHIE, CAROLE 1 Wf 85331 08/31/01 SVENDSEN, JOANNE 2 Wf 85332 08/31/01 TICHY, PAMELA 132.00 Wf 85333 08/31/01 BARTZ, PAUL 2 Wf 85334 08/31/01 HALEY, BRANDON 1 Wf 85335 08/31/01 KONG, TOMMY 1,605.78 Wf 85336 08/31/01 MAYNARD, WILLIAM 420.00 Wf 85337 08/31/01 STEINER, JOSEPH 892.38 Wf 85338 08/31/01 STEVENS, ERIC 312.00 Wf 85339 08/31/01 WELCHLIN, CABOT 2 Wf 85340 08/31/01 MEEHAN, JAMES 2 Wf 85341 08/31/01 SHORTREED, MICHAEL 2 Wf 85342 08/31/01 SCHWAB, TAHIRAH 433.66 Wf 85343 08/31/01 NIVEN, AMY 762.65 Wf 85344 08/31/01 WEGWERTH, JUDITH 1 Wf 85345 08/31/01 ELIAS, BENJAMIN 460.00 Wf 85346 08/31/01 ELIAS, BRIAN 460.00 Wf 85347 08/31/01 FREBERG, RONALD 1 Wf 85348 08/31/01 JONES, DONALD 1 Wf 85349 08/31/01 BETKER, RYAN 560.55 Wf 85350 08/31/01 ELIAS, JAMES 2 Wf 85351 08/31/01 GROVER, CAROLYN 468.45 wf 85352 08/31/01 LINDBLOM, RANDAL 2 Wf 85353 08/31/01 BORGLUM, DUSTIN 800.00 Wf 85354 08/31/01 CARVER, JUSTIN 470.25 10 CITY OF MAPLEWOOD EMPLOYEE GROSS EARNINGS REPORT FOR THE CURRENT PAY PERIOD 11 CHECK # CHECK DATE EMPLOYEE NAME AMOUNT Wf 85355 08/31/01 EDSON, DAVID 1,639.14 Wf 85356 08/31/01 FINNEGAN, TIMOTHY 320.00 Wf 85357 08/31/01 HELEY, ROLAND 1,639.14 Wf 85358 08/31/01 HINNENKAMP, GARY 1,619.85 Wf 85359 08/31/01 LINDORFF, DENNIS 1,609.54 Wf 85360 08/31/01 NAUGHTON, JOHN 1,270.34 wf 85361 08/31/01 NOVAK, MICHAEL 1 Wf 85362 08/31/01 GERNES, CAROLE 558.00 wf .85363 08/31/01 MACY, RITA 37.50 Wf 85364 08/31/01 WORDEN, KRISTEN 195.50 Wf 85365 08/31/01 BUNCE, LARRY 1,645.54 Wf 85366 08/31/01 WENGER, ROBERT 2 Wf 85367 08/31/01 ANGLES, JERI 770.50 Wf 85368 08/31/01 BALDWIN, MAUREEN 127.50 Wf 85369 08/31/01 BALLESTRAZZE, THAD 578.00 Wf 85370 08/31/01 BJORK, BRANDON 258.75 Wf 85371 08/31/01 DYKES, ADRIENNE 480.00 Wf 85372 08/31/01 FINN, GREGORY 1 Wf 85373 08/31/01 FRANK, LAURA 680.00 Wf 85374 08/31/01 GEBHARD, JILLIAN 614.63 Wf 85375 08/31/01 KRUMMEL, JOSEPH 105.00 Wf 85376 08/31/01 MARKIE, RACHEL 128.00 Wf 85377 08/31/01 MERGENS, DEBBIE 551.25 Wf 85378 08/31/01 NELSON, HEATHER 209.63 Wf 85379 08/31/01 NELSON, MELISSA 133.00 Wf 85380 08/31/01 NELSON, STACEY 303.50 Wf 85381 08/31/01 OHLHAUSER, MEGHAN 486.00 Wf 85382 08/31/01 PALANK, MALADY 150.00 Wf 85383 08/31/01 SIKORA, LEAH 32.00 Wf 85384 08/31/01 WERNER, KATIE 180.00 Wf 85385 08/31/01 GERMAIN, DAVID 1,637.98 Wf .85386 08/31/01 HAAG, MARK 1 Wf 85387 08/31/01 NADEAU, EDWARD 2,235.14 Wf 85388 08/31/01 GLASS, JEAN 1 Wf 85389 08/31/01 HABLE, NATASHA 525.40 Wf 85390 08/31/01 HOIUM, SHEILA 899.93 Wf 85391 08/31/01 HOOGE, NICK 129.20 Wf 85392 08/31/01 MOY, PAMELA 376.56 Wf 85393 08/31/01 PARTLOW, JOSHUA 337.25 Wf 85394 08/31/01 POWERS, NICOLE 52.15 Wf 85395 08/31/01 RIDLEHOOVER, KATE 263.97 Wf 85396 0 8/31 /01 SALZB RENNER, HEIDI 97.63 Wf 85397 08/31/01 SCHMIDT, RUSSELL 1,289.54 Wf 85398 08/31/01 SHOBERG, CARY 522.77 Wf 85399 08/31/01 SMITH, AMY 133.95 Wf 85400 08/31/01 UNGER, MARGARET 673.26 11 CITY OF MAPLEWOOD EMPLOYEE GROSS EARNINGS REPORT FOR THE CURRENT PAY PERIOD 12 CHECK # CHECK DATE EMPLOYEE NAME AMOUNT Wf 85401 08/31/01 VELASQUEZ, ANGELA 318.15 Wf 85402 08/31/01 ABRAHAMSON, REBECCA 499.33 Wf 85403 08/31/01 AHL, KAREN 206.38 Wf 85404 08/31/01 ANDERSON, TIMOTHY 105.40 Wf 85405 08/31/01 BACHMAN, NICOLE 457.24 Wf 85406 08/31/01 BERINGER, JASON 16.31 Wf 85407 08/31/01 BITTNER, KATIE 384.56 Wf 85408 08/31/01 BODZIAK, MICHAEL 27.00 wf . 85409 08/31/01 CHAPMAN, JENNY 531.09 Wf 85410 08/31/01 CMIEL, NICHOLAS 75.90 Wf 85411 08/31/01 COSTA, JOSEPH 333.00 Wf 85412 08/31/01 CRONIN, CHAD 336.00 Wf 85413 08/31/01 DEGRAW, KRYSTAL 748.81 Wf 85414 08/31/01 DEMPSEY, BETH 144.35 Wf 85415 08/31/01 DIERICH, ANDREA 53.63 Wf 85416 08/31/01 ESTES, KERI 50.63 Wf 85417 08/31/01 FALKENSTEIN, MONICA 325.25 Wf 85418 08/31/01 FIERRO WESTBERG, MELINDA 34.13 Wf 85419 08/31/01 FRETZ, SARAH 369.50 Wf 85420 08/31/01 GRUENHAGEN, LINDA 205.50 Wf 85421 08/31/01 HAGGERTY, KATHRYN 78.40 Wf 85422 08/31/01 HAGSTROM, LINDSEY 231.00 Wf 85423 08/31/01 HAWKE, ASHLEY 381.53 Wf 85424 08/31/01 HEINN, REBECCA 708.96 Wf 85425 08/31/01 HOLMGREN, LEAH 680.60 Wf 85426 08/31/01 HOULE, DENISE 120.30 . wf 85427 08/31/01 HUPPERT, ERIN 568.38 Wf 85428 08/31/01 IRISH, KARL 44.53 Wf 85429 08/31/01 JOHNSON, ROBERT 244.75 Wf 85430 08/31/01 JOHNSON, ROLLAND 338.88 Wf 85431 08/31/01 JOHNSON, STETSON 593.85 wf 85432 08/31/01 JOYER, MARTI 53.63 Wf 85433 08/31/01 KERSCHNER, JOLENE 23.75 Wf 85434 08/31/01 KOEHNEN, MARY 432.49 Wf 85435 08/31/01 KRONHOLM, KATHRYN 243.75 Wf 85436 08/31/01 LABER, JILL 186.45 Wf 85437 08/31/01 MCMAHON, MELISSA 312.00 Wf 85438 08/31/01 MILLS, ANNE 52.00 Wf 85439 08/31/01 MOSSONG, ANDREA 262.95 Wf 85440 08/31/01 MOTZ, ERIN 22.50 Wf 85441 08/31/01 OLSON, ABIGAIL 265.22 Wf 85442 08/31/01 OWEN, JONATHAN 74.38 Wf 85443 08/31/01 PEHOSKI, CAITLIN 137.50 Wf 85444 08/31/01 PEHOSKI, JOEL 438.30 Wf 85445 08/31/01 QUISTAD, ELISABETH 18.00 Wf 85446 08/31/01 SCHAEFER, ROB 190.08 12 CITY OF MAPLEWOOD EMPLOYEE GROSS EARNINGS REPORT FOR THE CURRENT PAY PERIOD 13 CHECK # CHECK DATE EMPLOYEE NAME AMOUNT wf 85447 08/31/01 SIMONSON, JUSTIN 350.37 wf 85448 08/31/01 SMITLEY, SHARON 247.20 wf 85449 08/31/01 WWANER, JESSICA 225.68 wf 85450 08/31/01 TIBODEAU, HEATHER 26.25 wf 85451 08/31/01 TUPY, MARCUS 90.00 wf 85452 08/31/01 WARNER, CAROLYN 173.95 wf 85453 08/31/01 WEDES, CARYL 120.60 wf 85454 08/31/01 WELTER, ELIZABETH 319.53 wf 85455 08/31/01 WHITING, ROBIN 76.45 wf 85456 08/31/01 WOODMAN, ALICE 222.35 wf 85457 08/31/01 ZIELINSKI, JENNIFER 290.60 wf 85458 08/31/01 BOSLEY, CAROL 227.06 wf 85459 08/31/01 GLASS, GILLIAN 207.60 wf 85460 08/31/01 GROPPOLI, LINDA 227.23 wf 85461 08/31/01 HANSEN, ANNA 241.20 wf 85462 08/31/01 HUPPERT, ERICA 196.88 wf 85463 08/31/01 LARKIN, JENNIFER 184.00 wf 85464 08/31/01 SCHROEDER, KATHLEEN 330.00 wf 85465 08/31/01 SHERRILL, CAITLIN 13.70 wf 85466 08/31/01 VAN HALE, PAULA 60.00 wf 85467 08/31/01 BEHAN, JAMES 1 wf 85468 08/31/01 DOUGLASS, TOM 388.50 wf 85469 08/31/01 HEGG, MICHELLE 88.90 wf 85470 08/31/01 JAHN, DAVID 1,442.27 wf 85471 08/31/01 KOSKI, JOHN 1,005.54 wf 85472 08/31/01 KYRK, ASHLEY 62.55 wf 85473 08/31/01 LANGEVIN, KRISTINA 63.18 wf 85474 08/31/01 LESLIE, DUSTIN 205.50 wf 85475 08/31/01 LONETTI, JAMES 784.37 wf 85476 08/31/01 MORIN, TROY 168.00 wf 85477 08/31/01 PATTERSON, ALBERT 808.91 wf 85478 08/31/01 PETERSON, LYNDSAY 26.60 wf 85479 08/31/01 PRINS, KELLY 490.31 wf 85480 08/31/01 SARPONG, SEAN 485.55 wf 85481 08/31/01 SCHMIDT, WILLIAM 158.75 wf 85482 08/31/01 SEVERSON, HOLLY 146.30 wf 85483 08/31/01 ZIEMER, NICOLE 25.40 wf 85484 08/31/01 AICHELE, CRAIG 1,441.54 wf 85485 08/31/01 MULVANEY, DENNIS 1 wf 85486 08/31/01 PRIEM, STEVEN 1,649.22 343,682.64 13 Agenda Item 1 AGENDAITEjdNo.�1 �I Act i on by Council Date - Endorsed Modified Rejected CITY OF MAPLEWOOD RESOLUTION A RESOLUTION RELATING TO JOINT AND COOPERA'TIVE'AGREEMENT BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Maplewood, Minnesota, as follows: WHEREAS, Minnesota Statutes Section 471.59 permits two or more governmental units, by agreement of their governing bodies, to jointly and cooperatively exercise any power common to each of them, and WHEREAS, the parties have entered into this Joint and Cooperative Agreement to develop programs on matters of mutual concern and interest and identify, review and actively oppose proposals which may be in conflict with the interest of the members. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVE that the mayor and City Manager are hereby authorized and directed to execute the Joint and Cooperative Agreement as amended and attached hereto. ADOPTED this day of , 2001. Agenda # TO: City `Manager FROM: Ken Roberts, Associate Planner SUBJECT: Livable Communities Act - 2002 Participation DATE: August 29, 2001 INTRODUCTION A --- ____ by E'pt1pCll �dt�rscd Modified Rejected As a city participating in the Metropolitan Livable Communities Act, the Metropolitan Council P requires Maplewood to adopt a resolution each year to participate- in the Local Housing Incentives Program. BACKGROUND On November 13, 1995, the Maplewood City Council adopted a resolution to participate in the Metropolitan Livable Communities Act. On December 18, 1995, the city council adopted the housing goals agreement and benchmarks for Maplewood. The city council adopted these with the understanding that the city will make its best efforts to meet or exceed the established housing benchmarks. On October 14, 1996, the city council adopted a resolution to continue to participate in Metropolitan Livable Communities Act programs in 1997. On October 13, 1997, the council adopted a resolution to continue to participate in the Metropolitan Livable Communities Act programs in 1998. On September 28, 1998, the council adopted a resolution to continue to participate in the Metropolitan Livable Communities Act programs in 1999. On November 22, 1999, the council adopted a resolution to continue to participate in the Metropolitan Livable Communities Act programs in 2000. On November 13, 2000, the council adopted a resolution to continue to participate in the . p Metropolitan Livable Communities Act programs in 2001. DISCUSSION The attached resolution continues Maplewood's participation in the Local Housing Incentives Program under the Metropolitan Livable Communities Act. This makes Maplewood eligible for grants and loans for housing programs available through this act. The Hillcrest Village study is one example of such a grant that the city has received recently. RECOMMENDATION Adopt the resolution on page 2. This resolution is for Maplewood's 2002 participation in the Local Housing Incentives Program under the Metropolitan Livable Communities Act. kr /p: miscell /Ica -7. mem Attachment: 2002 Resolution j: RESOLUTION ELECTING TO CONTINUE PARTICIPATING IN THE LOCAL HOUSING INCENTIVES ACCOUNT PROGRAM UNDER THE !METROPOLITAN LIVABLE COMMUNITIES ACT CALENDAR YEAR 2042 WHEREAS, the Metropolitan Livable Communities Act (Minnesota Statutes Section 473.25 to 473.254) establishes a Metropolitan Livable Communities Fund intended to address housing and other development issues facing the metropolitan area defined by Minnesota Statutes Section 473.121; and WHEREAS, the Metropolitan Livable Communities Fund, comprising the Tax Base Revitalization p g at on Account, the Livable Communities Demonstration Account, the Local Housing Incentive Account and the Inclusionary Housing Account is intended to provide certain funding and other assistance t . .. . g o metropolitan area municipalities; and WHEREAS, a metropolitan area municipality is not eligible to receive grants or loans under the Metropolitan Livable Communities Fund or eligible to receive certain polluted sites cleanup funding from the Minnesota Department of Trade and Economic Development unless the municipality is participating in the Local Housing Incentives Account Program under the Minnesota Statutes Section 473.254; and WHEREAS, the Metropolitan Livable Communities Act requires the Metropolitan Council to negotiate with each municipality to establish affordable and life - cycle housing goals for that municipality that are consistent with and promote the policies of the Metropolitan Council as provided in the adopted Metropolitan Development Guide; and WHEREAS, each city must identify to the Metropolitan Council the actions the city plans to take to meet the established housing goals through preparation of the Housing Action Plan; and WHEREAS, the Metropolitan Council adopted, by resolution after a public hearing, negotiated affordable and life -cycle housing goals for each participating municipality; and WHEREAS, a metropolitan area municipality that elects to participate in the Local Housing Incentives Account Program must do so by November 15 of each year; and WHEREAS, for calendar year 2002, a metropolitan area city that participated in the Local Housing Incentive Account program during the calendar year 2001 can continue to participate under Minnesota Statutes Section 473.254 if: (a) the city elects to participate in the Local Housing Incentives Account Program by November 15, 2001; and (b) the Metropolitan Council and the city have successfully negotiated affordable and life -cycle housing goals for the city. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT Maplewood elects to participate in the Local Housing Incentives Program under the Metropolitan Livable Communities Act during 2002. By: Mayor By: City Clerk The Maplewood City Council adopted this resolution on September 10, 2001. 2 Agenda # Action by Council MEMORANDUM Date Endorsed Modified ...�. TO: City Manager Rejected FROM: Ken Roberts, Associate Planner SUBJECT: Conditional Use Permit Review - Saint Paul Business Center West LOCATION: 225 -255 Roselawn Avenue East DATE: September 1, 2001 INTRODUCTION 4 The conditional use permit (CUP) for Saint Paul Business Center West is due for review. This permit allows a 108,000 square -foot commercial office and warehouse development north of Roselawn Avenue and west of Interstate 35E. Refer to the maps on pages two and three and the site plan on page four. BACKGROUND On February 19, 1981, Ramsey County District Court ruled that the city must issue a CUP for this office /warehouse center. On December 28, 1987, the council approved a revision to the CUP subject to the original conditions of approval. This revision allowed the business center to add parking. On August 12, 1991, the council granted a five -year time extension to the CUP. On September 23, 1996, the council granted another five -year time extension to the CUP. DISCUSSION Staff is not aware of any problems at this location. RECOMMENDATION Review the conditional use permit for the Saint Paul Business Center West at 225 -255 Roselawn Avenue again in five years. PA ... lsec' fficentwest. rev Attachments: 1. Location Map 2. Property Line / Zoning Map 3. Site Plan Attachment 1 2 1 � S WERR)m M 3 < Q Q 240ON J O LITTLE CANADA (� 1 7 1 O O �fl Y ST. PAUL 10 LOCATION MAP 2 4 N Ati_ 's o� -110L nor ,S) (14) ST. PAUL BUSINESS CENTER WEST l T 1992-(1 .::. ..t.....::......::.J... ...:.... 15 Cis i : rri•:r::� : s ii:❖:i • : :•: r: - •:::i�ii i •A•i'• : • r• i• ::if ❖• •• :i ; 1 f C ( r 15 • •: i ❖�• : ?i fr�i •• iYi�: • :v:':i • :•i li :•'• W e •• • •: • r• • :: i • :•: ••• •• : a • • : ••: rr• i t - - •• - • • 7 - 715 • A t� i • •• :: r:• i :: • : i •• •% 1 . ............. '�" • =: • •. :•.•:. :•.•.:•.•... ❖....:•.:v v :•. e. 1 p '75 1778 (8, ............... ..... r:..... ter.: ❖ :. s•:.• ❖• • ❖• s':s•; � •r•.•.. � .•�. �0 6 4 3 �. I �i 970 C�) 7 ...�.•r: ❖..•..�•. } .,�r, ` �,. . ,. u) 1 {• ;•� {•;ti•Y•;ri;ti��► k Y• .� :•r• :• • ...r.• , •..•....v... .. .. .. 1 - ... ..s . ... , r It1 1 a M e i : ii .:❖f •i•. •g:.�i:ir.:• • j' .r / •.•...•.•r .Y. ..JL •. - -A V E ,..•..• •.•.• ....• • • 1 1 1934 - is 5f• /1+ x«. »joa o , / EIA as ?4 277 � W I OG I ( j Cwf� (i!J) r /I, \II 1928 T3 tNa• 1•: �.. d • '� N `�_* -- RO SELAWN AVENUE - � 1 �.• �• :�.�• - 6 r SO g = e5 q ' 1 — 5 �32) (Z3) CS) �� 5 • . 1 CJ3� �Zs 4 co 6 1 • 2.3 • 77 (34) (3l0� (5 7) 9 ) TT 10 • • 1°� I 10 • 1 ( (18) (,) it 18 tl • a 9 7) Q z) 1 Q � Q 1 , �4*)20 4 _ X2055 0 204 6- X2047 t B' � ► 1 N • ;�� .Yi is ��.•. ;} � • • ••i : • •�•�•� Yip 1 :r • }s�'•r 1.' PARKS I DE FIRE STATIO: • O ••. .,.. ::r R) t }'•fir ffilnmi } s�. �:� . • 1�;:g rte.. L �' : ;. :V � C • •ti . xr•�•.. • .,. �} :x s. L • • ;•tip;•; 1� y` n 1 Y 0 1.3G �'�oac• _ 1 N 3 NCR Igo m .39 0AL . o,6 o 1 (9) - A70 OFFICE BUILDING= 4 1 -01 – - � ` 8. 1 Q . p 1. i 234 B r j3 .� � �t L• 72/1 '• � .�. f � PROPERTY LINE /ZONING MAP 3 4 N r �1 I I I le I I I i i i i e� 1 t I i i i i i W Attachmel 3 m y • lu W t- Z I I ST . PAUL BUSINESS CENTER WEST Q N 4 AGO MEMORANDUM Action by Council Date- E TO: City Manager � '"+*�► FROM: Assistant City Manager K(. SUBJECT: Food Safety Month DATE: September 4, 2001 INFORMATION Attached is a letter from Michael Rygwalski, from the Dept. Of Agriculture, asking for support of Food Safety Education Month. A proclamation, prepared by the Governor's office has been submitted for City Council support. The purpose of Food Safety Education Month is to reinforce food safety education and training among restaurant and foodservice workers and to educate the public and to handle and prepare food properly at home. RECOMMENDATION Adopt the attached proclamation, declaring the month of September, 2001 as Food Safety Month. p Y Minnesota Department of A AUG 3 0 2001 Au 22,, 2001 Melinda Coleman Cit of Maplewood Dear Melinda: M a the Minnesota Department of A Food Inspection Division.., alon with other health related a throu Minnesota, participate in the Governor's Food Safet Advisor Committee. Their function is to promote food safet As part of that initiative, Governor Jesse Ventura has declared September to be Food Safet Education Month. As a fiuther step, I as a Maplewood resident and a Food Inspector, am re that the Cit of Maplewood also declare September to be Food Safet Education Mouth. In m conversation with y ou last week, y ou stated that this issue could be brou up at the nekt Cit Council meetin on September 10. This would be g reatl y appreciated. I have included a cop of Governor Ventura" s proclamation for reference. If y ou have an q uestions or need further assistance, please feel free to contact R Benbo, at (651) 284- 0279. Sincerel PA Michael G. R Food Inspector H MN Department of A Food Inspection Division • 90 West Plato Boulevard • St. Paul, Minnesota 55107-2094 • (651 297-2200 • TTY (651) 297-5353/1-800-627-3529 • An e opportunit employer 5 WHEREAS: Poor food handlin ractices are a lea di g . ding cause of fo and od -borne illness; WHEREAS: Food and its safe handling nd preparation • g p . p anon are imperative to the health of every Minnesotan; and WHEREAS: More than 20 states have roclaimed Food d Safety Education Month; and WHEREAS: We can each increase our understanding f factors ctors that cause food - borne illness; and WHEREAS: The purpose of Food Safe Education Month is t Safety o reinforce food safety education and training among restaurant and foodservice workers and to educate the public and to handle and prepare food ro erl p p y at home. Now THEREFORE, I, JESSE VENTURA, Governor of Minnesota September 20 , do hereby proclaim, the month of Se p 01 shall be observed as: Food Safe ty Education Month in the State of Minnesota. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and caused the Great Seal of the State of Minnesota to be affixed at the State Capitol this 7th day of August in the year two thousand and one, and of the State the one hundred forty - third. _L; GOVERNOR i Agenda # Action by Council ' MEMORANDUM Date TO: Richard Fursman, City Manager indorsed Modified FROM: Karen Guilfoile City Clerk Rejected DATE: August 31, 2001 RE: Intoxicating & Sunday Liquor License for Chi p otle Mexican Grill Introduction Matthew A'Lan Willius has submitted an application for an intoxicating nd Sunda liquor license g y q for Chipotle Mexican Grill located at 2303 White Bear Avenue. Back round As required by City ordinances, the necessary background investigation was completed b the g p Y Police Department on Mr. Willius. There was nothing found that would prohibit him from holding a liquor license in the City. Mr. Willius has been iven a co of the City Code of g copy y Ordinances that apply to being an intoxicating liquor license holder and he has met with Chief Winger. Recommendation It is recommended that the City Council approve the liquor license application. Agenda # 6 q MEMORANDUM . Action bY Council TO: City Manager er Datc FROM: Shann Finwall, Associate Planner Endorsed SUBJECT: Final Plat Modified PROJECT: Emerald Townhomes Rejected LOCATION: North Side of County Road D, West of the Maple Ridge Apartments p g p DATE: September 4, 2001 INTRODUCTION 4 Mr. Kim Tramm of Tramm Builders and Realtors is requesting that the city council approve the final plat for Emerald Townhomes. This plat is located on the north side of County Road D, west of the Maple Ridge Apartments and south of 1 -694. The plat creates 12 townhouse lots. BACKGROUND On December 11; 2000, the city council approved a preliminary plat and the project plans for the Emerald Townhome development (see the minutes starting on page 7). DISCUSSION The city's engineering department has issued a grading and utility permit for the Emerald Townhome plat. The developer has met all the plat conditions including submittal of homeowner's association documents, grading of the site and installation of utilities. The developer is now ready to start the construction of. all three, four -unit townhouse buildings once the final plat is approved by the city council and recorded with the county. RECOMMENDATION Approve the Emerald Estates Townhome final plat. This approval is subject to the developer recording the plat and homeowner's association documents with the county. Y p:sec34 /emerald townhomes final plat Attachments: 1. Location Map 2. Property Line/Zoning Map 3. Approved Preliminary Plat 4. Proposed Final Plat 5. Building Elevations 6. 12/11/00 City Council Minutes 7. Proposed Final Plat (Separate Attachment) m I I liki n IVItIN I 1 VADNAIS HEIGHTS couHnr Q oouNm NO. o O � --j ; 4.. ST. JOHN'S 1� L 2. SA 00 N8R1 E1M CR. otxvrm "Nftft 4 LY AVE BEAy ' � AVE RAQAIZ KoMman Pond AWSEY COUNTY COW KOHLi1M1 AVE � � � � � iii � KOILINN ooc�rrr �a�c � c ti na�c o mOF]HLL OOIONf AVE Q w000�»� IT AVE. SEX TAW AVE AVE Q 'EYEi1fTM 1 SEW CE7tYW5 � MAPLE l� LOCATION MAP 4 N 2 mOF]HLL OOIONf AVE Q Btt00K5 IT AVE. SEX TAW AVE AVE Q 'EYEi1fTM 1 OERVAIS AVE CE7tYW5 � (J') &V*QVMW AVE. CT. VIM � Sri rii W*Rao+AVE K n� COPE /�_ � � AVE c�snF AvE. O COPE � �, • Z LOCATION MAP 4 N 2 A l l AUHMLN I Z c cc�rJ+ No k4w.460 ~ O I ~ 300 3 lo to i o Q ;t N r 7t) s o nto t'� GGFF HOME'S r:..:.: �.:.:::r.. o PINEVIEW ESTATES' MAPLERIDGE ' APPROVED 'APARTMENT S M A '...:�.::...� - ::t:::: 4 C RO D _ . 49 PROPOSED EMERALD ESTATES SITE PROPERTY LINE /ZONING MAP c 4 N 3 ATTACHMENT 3 EMERALD ESTATES TOWNHOMES TRUNK HIGHWAY 393 -694 s 8a•5a•1a•t 165,01 I I... F qr c".P i I L� 4 I, CAR 3 1 ';AQ CAA I 7 '" I ;� 9 7A- a O I vAi. I ti l` y :�w' • • GAA I o I O 1 1 1 2 1 --rzr --- :— i.�s -r. � �zT — : s: - sir— �- .s�:..r COUNTY ROAD D __ — _•: —s -ter S 89.46 *W 164.81 - r sss=. -nc�.: sit , 7.c - rr_— sr•�.= �.�a�rt�trrs.� -: _.. _T —r..a APPROVED Q PRELIMINARY PLAT w T 1V 4 ATTACHMENT 4 ' I f -_- _1557.77.......... 0 ° 50'34 "_ _ "` _ _ _ _. _ - - _ .___ - ._ _ - - - - . _ 103.86 - j O ' M N ' : - - - SOUTHERLY RIGHT OF WAY OF LINE INTERSTATE HIGHWAY 694 PER DOC. NO. 1875950 ----INTERSTATE HIGHWAY 694 -. Lo N 88 ° 37'11 "W 164.88, . ::47.43 -' - -S 88 ° 32'45 "E 164.88 -. . •.. 47.43 N 00'15'02 "W - 23.89 - S 00 ° 15'02 "E N 89"44'58"E 70.00 21'80 VICINITY IIIAP NO SCALE 35.00 35.00 , 0 0 00 a 0 \ 1 00 M I M 2 M Qj � `' 3 35.00 35.00 !� f + o S o 3 4 o $ Z M M I E', N 00'15'02"W 35.00 35.00 ° S 89 44 58 "W 70.00 ° S 00 15'02"E = '12.00 NTMTATE Hr-4IWAY 694 ; 1 \ + + 12.00 N 89 ° 44'58 "E 70.00 1 = y, 35.00 35.00 1 OpWTY ROAD C ' b SECTION 3/, TOWNSHIP 30, RANGE 22 co M 5 M 6 M �: 0 00 0 yv 60 • L 3 35.00 35.00 ` • I ! O Lo cli 2 p f P7 0 00 o°O °O ° SCALE IN CA - 3�� FEET w M 7 K; 8 �; `^ N r� 0 35.00 35.00 N ti07E: ` N 00 0 15'02 "W S 00 ° 15'02 "E 0 A DRA:` A.GE ANC) ;;'i' -IT'S EASE T IS DEDCATEO L17 S 89`44'58 "W 70.00 12.00 - -12.00 THROUGHOUT LCT i3. KOCK T 0 N 89 ° 44'58"E 70.00 35.00 35.00 0 I _= 0 FOR 7r6S P AT, THE 1 SC 1 INE OF L � I 0 O O O O 1iJ TNC 54!i4,SEI / 34 ' 30 22 = C6 M 9 M O M O Q Z IS ASSUMED TO 3:R N: RTH . 80 �+ r. w DEGQHc 4 M! MUTES 4 5 SECC'dCS `y ; EAST p ' i- • ' 3 35.00 35.00 o _1 N N D 0 O Z O tlI J �- C DENOTES i/2 INCH, 6 - t ;4 !NCH J . 0 0 0 0 o a 0 iRGr: ?;PE IV!��ti: "'Cr: SET AND I - • `✓ z M M 12 M N Q = klARw;EC BY LICENSE ti:). 2v27O Q Z§ V __j :z C'E *TOTES n ^ ^ A!vIEY LC'v'N'• CAST :RvN y!J'�J!v'E "�T (� 35.00 35.00 0 ►- '✓ S W44 "W 70.00 WEST LINE OF THE EAST .5 ACRES-. _ SW 1/4, SE 1/4, SEC. 34,T.30.R.22 N 00 "W S 00 015'02 "E - EAST LINE 0 T EAST 5 ACRES : 33.64 3 -33.67 SW 1/4, SE 1/4, SEC. 34,T.30.R.22 .... ... 47.41- 70.00- - - 47.41- ; N 89 "46'45 "E 164.82 5 1/4 CORNER SEC.34, T.30, R.22 C, , " COUNTY ROAD RAM SEY CO. CAST IRON MONUMENT - - - - N 89 `46'45 "E 1154.89 - - l ` , Y r^ N 89 164.81 r_ SE CORNER SEC.34, T.30, R.22• - - - D Q M RAMSEY CO. CAST IRON MONUMENT - N 89 `46'45 "E 1319.70 • . • • . • . A PROPOSED FINAL PLAT 5 � rru U ww i �. •wit ARAZW17-2 ,, ATTACHMENT 5 ATTACHMENT 6 MINUTES MAPLEWOOD CITY COUNCIL 7:00 P.M., Monday, December 11, 2000 Council Chambers, Municipal Building Meeting No. 00 -26 H. PUBLIC HEARINGS: 2. 7:15 P.M. Q.<33 P.M.) Emerald Estates (County Road D) Preliminary Plat Design Approval a. Mayor Cardinal convened the meeting for a public hearing. b. City Manager Fursman introduced the staff report. C. Community Development Director Coleman presented the specifics of the report. d. Boardmember Jon LaCasse presented the Community Design Review Board report. e. Commissioner Lorraine Fischer presented the Planning Commission report. f. Mayor Cardinal opened the public hearing, calling for proponents or opponents. The following person was heard: Kim Tramm, Tramm Builders & Realtors, the Applicant g. Mayor Cardinal closed the public hearing. Councilmember Allenspach moved to approve the plans date- stamped October 25. 2000 for the Emerald Estates preliminary pla #. The developer shall complete the following before the city council approves the final plat: 1. Sign an agreement with the city that guarantees that the developer or contractor will: a. Complete all grading for overall site drainage, complete all public improvements and meet all city requirements. 7 b.* Place temporary orange safety fencing and signs at the grading limits. c. Pay the city for the cost of any traffic- control or no parking signs. d. Provide all required and necessary easements. 2.* Have the city engineer approve final construction and engineering plans. a. , _ The erosion control plans shall be consistent with the city code. b. The grading plan shall show: (1) The proposed building pad elevation and contour information for each home site. The lot lines on this plan shall follow the approved preliminary plat. (2) Contour information for all the land that the construction will disturb. (3) The driveway grades. (4) No grading beyond the plat boundary without temporary grading easements from the affected property owner(s). C. The street, driveway and utility plans shall show: (1) All the parking areas and driveways with continuous concrete curb and gutter. (2) The coordination of the water main alignments and sizing with the standards and requirements of the Saint Paul Regional Water Services (SPRWS). Fire flow requirements and hydrant locations shall be verified with the Maplewood Fire Department. (3) All utility excavations located within the proposed right -of- ways or within easements. The developer shall acquire easements for all utilities that would be outside the project area. 3. Pay the costs related to the engineering department's review of the construction plans. 8 4. Change the plat as follows: a. Add drainage and utility easements as required by the city engineer. b. Show drainage and utility easements along all the site perimeter property lines on the final plat. These easements shall be ten feet wide along the front and rear property lines and five feet wide along the side property lines. 5. Secure and provide all required easements for the development including any off -site drainage and utility easements. 6. The developer shall complete all grading for public improvements and overall site drainage. The city engineer shall include in the developer's agreement any grading that the developer or contractor has not completed before final plat approval. 7. Submit the homeowner's association bylaws and rules to the director of community development. These are to assure that there will be one responsible party for the maintenance of the private utilities, driveways and structure. 8. Record the following with the final plat: a. All homeowner's association documents. b. A covenant or deed restriction that prohibits any further subdivision or splitting of the lots or parcels in the plat that would create additional building sites unless approved by the city council. The applicant shall submit the language for these dedications and restrictions to the city for approval before recording. 9. If the developer decides to final plat part of the preliminary plat, the director of community development may waive any conditions that do not apply to the final plat. *The developer must complete these conditions before the city issues a grading permit or approves the final plat. Seconded by Councilmember CollinsAyes - all 9. Councilmember Allenspach moved to approve the plans date- stamped October 25, 2000 for the Emerald Estates Townhomes, based on the findings required by the code. The developer, Tramm Builders and Realtors shall do the following: 1. Repeat this review in two years if the city has not issued a building permit for this project. 2. Before getting a building permit the applicant shall: a. Submit a grading, drainage, utility and erosion control plan to the 4 _ city engineer for approval. b. Submit the building color scheme to staff for approval if the community design review board has not already approved the colors. C. Submit a revised site plan showing the closing of the old easterly driveway opening. This opening must be curbed over and the boulevard restored. The proposed curb cut shall be 30 feet wide with l0 -foot turning radii. The applicant shall also revise the site plan to show sidewalks from the driveways to the front doors of each unit. 3. Complete the following before occupying the building: a. Replace property irons that are removed because of this construction. b. Restore and sod damaged boulevards. Sod all landscaped areas, except the hillside to the north which shall be sodded or seeded. C. Install a reflectorized stop sign at the exit. d. Install an automatic in- ground irrigation system with a rain sensor for all landscaped areas, except for the hillside to the north. e. Install continuous concrete curbing. f. Close the old easterly driveway opening. This old opening must be curbed over and the boulevard restored. g. Post "no parking" signs on site in locations required by the fire marshal. 10 4. If any required work is not done, the city may allow temporary occupancy if • p �Y p Y a. The city determines that the work is not essential to the public health, safety or welfare. b. The city receives a cash escrow or an irrevocable letter of credit for the required work. The amount shall be 200 percent of the cost of the unfinished work. Any unfinished landscaping shall be completed by June 1 if the building is occupied in the fall or winter - or within six weeks if the building is occupied in the spring or summer. 5. All work shall follow the approved plans. The director of community development may approve minor changes. 6. The city engineer must review and approve the location of the curb cut for the site access from a vehicle safety perspective. Consideration for the location shall be given to the slope to the west and shall take into account the existing curb cut for the property to the east. 7. The applicant shall revise the site plan to show sufficient sidewalks to the guest entrance subject to staff approval. 8. The patios for units eleven and twelve should be landscaped and/or screened, subject to staff approval. Seconded by Councilmember CollinsAyes - all 1.1 AGENDA ITEM TO: City Manager FROM: Assistant City Engineer AGENDA REPORT SUBJECT: Bush Avenue Street Improvements, Project 01 -04 a. Public Hearing, 7 p.m. b. Resolution Ordering Improvement after Public Hearing (4 votes) DATE: September 4, 2001 Introduction The public hearing for this project has been scheduled for 7 p.m., Monday, September 10, 2001. 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 will consider ordering the improvement following the public hearing. Background A neighborhood meeting was scheduled for September 6, 2001, with the affected property owners, as well as with residents from throughout the neighborhood. The meeting was scheduled prior to the public hearing to provide an informal setting to discuss the findings of the feasibility study and to answer any questions the neighborhood might have. A petition for public improvement was received by the city from the residents of Bush Avenue. The petition was not published for public comment, pursuant to MN Statute 429 therefore a 4/5 vote is required to order the project at this time. Recommendation It is recommended that the city council approve the attached resolution ordering the improvement of Bush Avenue, from Stillwater Road to Bartelmy Lane. Budget Impact The proposed resolution calls for establishing a project budget of $325,000. Financing is proposed to be $111,800 from assessments and $213,200 from general city tax levy. CIVIC jw Attachment RESOLUTION ORDERING IMPROVEMENT AFTER PUBLIC HEARING WHEREAS, a resolution of the city council adopted the 27th day of August, 2001, fixed a date for a council hearing on the proposed improvements of Bush Avenue, from Stillwater Road to Bartelmy Lane, City Project 01 -04, AND WHEREAS, ten days mailed notice and two weeks published notice of the hearing was given, and the hearing was duly held on September 10, 2001, and the council has heard all persons desiring to be heard on the mutter 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 on Bush Avenue, from Stillwater Road to Bartelmy Lane, City Project 01 -04. 2. Such improvement is hereby ordered as proposed in the council resolution adopted the 10th day of September, 2001. 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 $325,000 shall be established. The proposed financing plans is as follows: Assessments $111,800 (34.4 %) General city tax levy $ (65.6 %) Total $325,000 Agenda # MEMORANDUM Action by Counc TO: City Manager FROM: Ken Roberts, Associate Planner ]Date High School Conditional a E n do r se d Modifie SUBJECT: Sobriety g Use Permit M odifie d LOCATION: 2055 White Bear Avenue od�fied 7077". DATE: August 28, 2001 Rejected INTRODUCTION Project Description Mr. Lew Moran, representing Sobriety High School, is proposing to open a high school for 44 students. The proposed location for this school is in the existing ASI office /warehousing building at 2055 White Bear Avenue. (See the location and property line maps on pages 4 and 5 and the maps on pages 6 - 8.) This would be a new location for the school that is now operating in Oakdale near Highway 36 and Century Avenue. Request To have the school in this location, Mr. Moran is asking that Maplewood approve a conditional use permit (CUP). The Maplewood City Code requires a CUP for schools. (Refer to the applicant's statement on pages 9 -11.) DISCUSSION The proposed school meets the city's findings of approval for a conditional use permit. As proposed, the school would lease about 6,200 square feet of space in the existing 82,000 square -foot building. With a staff of 7 and 44 students, the existing parking lot should be adequate to handle the parking needs of the school and the existing tenants. There are about 120 total parking spaces with 60 in the front of the building and the others around the building The applicant should note that the city will require permits for any remodeling of the existing space. This will include having sprinklers and a fire alarm system that meet code requirements. COMMISSION ACTION On August 20, 2001, the planning commission recommended approval of the conditional use permit for Sobriety High School. RECOMMENDATION Adopt the resolution on pages 12 and 13. This resolution approves the conditional use permit for the Sobriety High School to operate in the building at 2055 White Bear Avenue. Maplewood bases this permit on the findings required by the code and subject to the following conditions: 1. All construction shall follow the plans dated July 25, 2001, as approved by the city. The director of community development may approve minor changes. 2. The proposed school must be started in this location within one year after council approval or the permit shall end. The council may extend this deadline for one year. 3. The school shall have no more than 50 students. 4. The property owner or manager shall sweep and restripe the parking lot before the school occupies their space. 5. The city council shall review this permit in one year. CITIZENS' COMMENTS City. staff surveyed the owners of the 40 properties within 350 feet of the site of the proposed school. Of the four replies, one was for the project, two objected and one had comments. For 1. Sounds great - unless the size changes (increase). (Lehmann - 2053 Prosperity) Opposed 1. 1 do not want any kind of school behind me. Why do they need a different school? Why can't they go to the two high schools we already have in Maplewood? (Savage - 1699 Rosewood Avenue) 2. Don't you think we have a lot of program type things going on one area? The shelter, this, the proposed single family housing on B - why are we so blessed to have all these things in our neighborhood? You are putting all our families at risk, but yet you don't take the responsibility of stopping all this in our neighborhood. At least spread it out. Give us a break. We do not expect you to do anything. You allowed Excel to expand and they are a noisy nuisance to everybody. (Marty - 2049 Prosperity Road) Comments 1. We have no objection to this and hope it will help to straighten out some of these youngsters. (Oswald -1700 Rosewood Avenue) 2 REFERENCE INFORMATION SITE DESCRIPTION Site size: 8.8 acres Existing land use: Existing 82,000 square -foot office /warehouse building (17,712 square feet of office space and 64, 288 square feet of warehouse /light manufacturing space) SURROUNDING LAND USES North: Vacant property planned and zoned M -1 (light manufacturing) South: DNR Gateway Trail West: Asingle - dwelling and Excel Air across Prosperity Road East: Maplewood Community Center across White Bear Avenue PLANNING Zoning: M -1 (light manufacturing) ORDINANCE REQUIREMENTS Section 36- 437(3) requires a CUP for schools. p: sec l 5 /sobriety. cu p Attachments: 1. Location Map 2. Property Line /Zoning Map 3. Area Map 4. Site Plan dated 7 -25 -01 5. Floor Plan dated 7 -25 -01 6. Conditional Use Permit Statement T. Conditional Use Permit Resolution 8. Plans date - stamped July 25, 2001 (separate attachment) 0? Attachment 1 LOCATION MAP I ? N Attachment 2 R 0r ., D S 3 t40 �� 5 , 4 R �31� T , °,r�. ecl o�c �. •4 I,q V j • l j 9 . ---� -- 9'3.o w -. c , -� o• cook au � .. . T q�9 n ' I o v o qp .. .1 ` 91 i }Ito 2) i I I � ,o �1 ,v ��`` `6 ^ o ( (Z� 3 (45 -10 k, � c I! I( i � � 1 t ,` c � 1 �� z ,1 2 3 I •4 5 Ca , 7 6 9 10 . 1I IZo' \ o �► r IS li 13 12 it to 8 S Z ! o '-� � 2 . ( 1 N � �' � �.} ' � ' .1 • I ,.t' l r— o c 4 40J 40— fV7 t b l3� { (•4� 1~ �( ( - T \�' 18 , ` r „ S 1 �' c. � t. 1 23 24 is zG 246 25 1 26 i N ,' ! 31 1 ; 28I 27 I Z6± Z5 24 73 22 �1 20 \ • �� 6C�1� K° � > 1 401 t ya (30? 7 ,Z �J / /2 ao� 40 i 40 V I 1� /I . N 11 1, , • • . • • • • • • .1 • q 1 1 -3oo -2 0� =pip 0 a AVE. °'� • 0 z 8 U R K E �'b 3693 l590•L = T.S 455so5 5 t -�, �t 524 it 60 �[� / p \ too- a 1• .. w 1• 4Q „ - �' •' )• 4j D"<< q3 ! 1.9 ,� !1 t .1,+ + - 115 s! % ( ,2 � 9`�;K ,p 1 H C� o l F t 8; �; D _ 3 ! i a o 12 ! 3 1 4 .. 1 5 '`6a i ,(33'\ ,:o I� 19;'1 (1l� (IS) 0 ? 1 I I N - • 1 1� I r'- 7 . , ( ( (G)� (�) . i ji 11 ti logo. _ �. ,� ( +taa� 1 074.3 ao N ; Z4 I 2 26 ..:.� e?� i8 2111 0 — -- 1 yc 7S 1 .44 . 1 40 ►. to i 4d tib.cr ti � �9 ■ `� 3 0 ; ■ z � ' _ , 1 5105. ► O l-�5z y'� �3 125• 25C 42 ac 2095 4 _ c - 3 N 3 l � 0� ( i A� ,G) r , Iwo ;( I . �" 10 Esac 2075- p' ! 07 2080 2080 w �st+>t t. h' ` 7.6 3 wt. ra �8) 6b 151 -' Z OF Nkft ,4 SITE --�' = > 3 ° T 2055 !2! `°'` y k ? 6 Q L_ Aft � k W _ Zn% In ui 20447 '� 1665 o� 3 %b ac 4511` lit W 969.0 7 W - ' 16 S.Co ►St E � 9a`' 3a r GREAT LAKES PIPE LINE � �- _ `�. ;•` 'I rr, - / r. 93 ,? l 14) ;, M : I '�" al CO -4 � � 1�• �� 03 ? r 20 , •� ! Co � � 4 . , a t B 201 1721 ti 1 I 7!i 75 ?r 7 -ic, ) I ,�� D / 7 O 1� ROSEWOOD AVE. It 2 '38 115; \ o to s .c o I b . o N 173 ) 7, (41) ` X40) (3 9� X 38 7 � 0 3 , 3 N ,� (3 - x• •'� � I o Z Uj (4?- , ( - .� - \ (a�; C�'t5: ,40� o f ,,� 1732 ;s? o ° 41 o 7 8 9 10 1 I ° 12 , , y +^' a+ ! 2 v I o �{� 3 (17: �.� i2o ► loo loci roc t�3 ` ,� ti 3 ° °>� - a9 -T- ROSEWOOD -- — ���,.. -- AVE. p �0 / 14 i ► 1 . E'o � � ii 25 2 ' 2 20 1 19 I 18 I 17 I 16 St (23 I ( ?Z? ( i % ;1.0. l 1 a 1 a6 �S ' 3 '� � - oe _ N .. .., c� ! „�5 ( 1 75 1 75+ 7 5.. ' �834fo - 2 v S _ . � � � e9 � L?i � , fS 2 3 PROPERTY LINE /ZONING MAP 4 N Attachment 3 . M 4 All F7-1/ / 4JP / J J �� Gatew :�= Trail �q j Communit Center L 0 Sobriety H < L . CU cum L 0 Sobriety H Attachment 4 •rte _ ' 1 r ' f -XISTING POND EXISTING BU'.LDING CA 1 1 - DNR TRAIL `rt f Q N N �.:.. _ - s 00 SITE PLAN 4 N 7 Attachment 5 1 M • f • . 0 .. C B RIETY yry �. Attachment 6 Application for Conditional Use Permit Planned Use Sobriety High, a nonprofit corporation chartered by the state of Minnesota, requests a conditional use permit to operate a four -year secondary school in 6,200 square feet of the office portion. of the facility located at 2055 White Bear Avenue. The school provides 9th through 12th grade educational opportunities for 44 students (maximum.) and would be operated as the East Campus of Sobriety High under a contract with the Maplewood -North St. Paul- Oakdale school district (ISD #622). It wilLFeplicate the west Campus of Sobriety High located in Edina, Minnesota, and operated since 1991 under contract to thhe Edina Public Schools (ISD 4273). The property will be used to support the educational and administrative needs of the Sobriety High East students and staff. The facility will include 4 classrooms supporting science, math, social. studies and English as well as the offices for the four full -time staff, the school's director and Sobriety High's CEO and program development supervisor. In addition to these spaces will be a commons area where group activities are held as well as functions that include p arents and members of the community. There are no physical recreation facilities contained within the building. Adjacent land will be used for volleyball and ice 'hockey during the school year. The wetlands on site will be used as outdoor areas for science and biology. Introducti Sobriety High provides high school education to students recovering from alcohol and drug addiction in grades 9-12. The school is not a residential facility and operates under similar conditions as do other public and private high schools. However, there is a substantial difference in Sobriety High School's program that is worth noting; no student is admitted to the ram ro p g until he /she has completed treatment for their addiction. The school does not administer treatment programs and does not permit a student who is using chemicals or alcohol to attend classes. Therefore, all students on campus are drug and alcohol free at all times, assuring a safe and productive educational environment. Hours of operation are similar to the public schools, classes begin at 8AM and conclude at 3PM. In addition to normal daily class time, extracurricular activities are conducted during afternoons and occasional PTO and committee meetings with staff and parents, in attendance are hosted weekday evenings. Need for Facility There is a tremendous need for this new campus. According to the Minnesota Department of Children, Families, and Learning, there are more than 27,000 chemically dependent teens in Minnesota. Fewer than 2,500 complete treatment for this illness in any given year; the eleven sober schools in Minnesota (including the two operated by Sobriety High) have a combined capacity of 290. According to the Hazelden Center for Youth and Families, if a recovering student returns to their former high school, their chance of relapse exceeds 90 %. Sobriety High's 0 relapse rate for the past five years averages less than 22 %, suggesting that a change of environment, both physical and psychological, is one of the factors in Sobriety High's success. Teens who complete treatment and remain sober, go on to contribute much to our society: they continue their schooling, work productive jobs, many raise families, and all contribute to the well -being of their communities. According to Fred LaFleur, former Minnesota Commissioner of Corrections, those who don't, will drain society, the health care and criminal justice systems, often turning to crime and eventual incarceration, each costing Minnesota up to $42,000 per year. Criteria for Approval 1. Sobriety High is committed to the satisfaction of all applicable regulatory requirements and will work with Maplewood officials to assure that conformance is maintained throughout its operational term in the community. Sobriety High has never had an accident caused by failure to comply with local requirements and is committed to the maintenance of a clean, attractive and healthful facility. 2. The use of the property for a small public high school would not change the character of the building or community. In fact, it would be unlikely that anyone would know that students were on the premises during the day, other than at the times when there is supervised outdoor recreation. Sobriety High is a closed campus, students are not free to leave unless accompanied by staff or with the express permission of staff. 3. Property values should not be affected in any way. No additional activities that are not currently tolerated will be allowed on site, and- current facilities (in other locations) have had a positive impact on the surrounding community. 4. There will be no activities that are dangerous or potentially harmful in any way. The science curriculum is thoughtfully constructed so as to provide no potential hazards to students or the surrounding environment. 5. Sobriety High students rarely drive their own cars, and faculty and staff comprise only 7 cars, so that the potential use of the parking facility will be minimal; in fact less than if it were an office or industrial facility. 6. There is no increased demand for the use of public facilities which are more than adequate to maintain the schools needs. The school has never had need of public fire or police facilities in the past. There has never been a complaint filed against Sobriety High students by a member of the community. 7. There should be no additional cost for public facilities. 10 8. -9. Sobriety High is very conscious of the need to maintain the environment. The use of the facility for a school will not detract from the environment. Students will be required to contribute to the maintenance of the environment and will work with the building owner to enhance the environment where possible. 11 Attachment 7 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION WHEREAS, Mr. Lew Moran, representing Sobriety High School, is requesting that Maplewood approve a conditional use permit for a high school to operate in an existing office /warehouse building. WHEREAS, this permit applies to the property at 2055 White Bear Avenue. The legal description is: SABIN GARDEN LOTS, SUBJECT TO ROAD; EXCEPT PART OF LOTS 4 & 6 BLK 6 DESCRIBED AS COM AT SW CORNER OF SAID LOT 6 THEN NELY ON WESTERLY LINE SAID LOT 6 FOR 28 FT TO BEG; THEN SELY PAR TO SOUTHERLY LINE SAID LOT 6 FOR 391.56 FT THE NELY DEF -LEFT 90 DEGREES FOR 263.26 FT THEN NWLY DEF LEFT 90 :DEG FOR-270.39 FT TO POINT ON WLY LINE SAID LOT 4 SAID POINT BEING 318 FT NE OF SAID SW CORNER OF SAID LOT 6 THE SWLY TO BEGINNING; THE FOLLOWING PART OF SAID LOTS 4.6 & 6 LYING SLY OF A LINE DESCRIBED AS BEGINNING AT POINT ON WL SAID LOTS 368 FT NLY FROM SW CORNER SAID LOT 6 THEN SELY TO POINT ON EL OF SAID LOT 5 SAID POINT BEING 368 FT NORTH FROM SE CORNER OF SAID LOT 6 & THERE TERMINATING (PIN 15- 29 -22 -11 -0050) WHEREAS, the history of this conditional use permit is as follows: 1. On August 20, 2001, the planning commission recommended that the city council approve this permit. 2. On September 10, 2001, 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 council approve the above- described conditional use permit based on the building and site plans. The city approves this permit because: 1. The use would be located, designed, maintained, constructed and operated to be in conformity with the Maplewood'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. 12 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 city council may waive any of the above requirements provided the council determines that the balancing of public interest between governmental units would be best served by such a waiver. Approval is subject to the following conditions: 4 1. All - construction shall follow the plans dated July 25, 200.1, as approved by the city. The director of community development may approve minor changes. 2. The proposed school must be started in this location within one year after council approval or the permit shall end. The council may extend this deadline for one year. 3. The school shall have no more than 50 students. 4. The property owner or manager shall sweep and restripe the parking lot before the school occupies their space. 5. The city council shall review this permit in one year. The Maplewood City Council adopted this resolution on 2001. 13 MINUTES OF THE MAPLEWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION 1830 COUNTY ROAD B EAST, MAP LEWOOD, MINNESOTA MONDAY, AUGUST 20, 2001 VI. NEW BUSINESS 6. a. Sobriety High School Conditional Use Permit (2055 White Bear Avenue) Mr. Roberts stated Sobriety High School is proposing to open their school for 44 students in the existing ASIoffice /warehouse building at 2055 White BearAvenue. The site is zoned (M -1). This request requires a conditional use permit to be approved by the city council as our city code requires a conditional use - permit for any school in any zoning district. The staff felt the school would meet the findings for an approval of a conditional use permit. The school would be leasing about 6,200 square feet of the existing 82,000 square -foot building. With a staff of seven and 44 students, 120 parking spaces on site, 60 in the front of the building, there is adequate parking on site. Chairperson Fischer asked the applicant representing Sobriety High School to come forward. The applicant addressed himself as Jim Czarniecki as CEO of Sobriety High School. Mr. Czarniecki stated they are delighted to be moving to Maplewood and he hopes that Maplewood finds their presence an asset rather than 'a liability. They have had very good relationships with the neighbors in Edina and Oakdale. If there are neighbors that are concerned, we have invited them to come to an informational meeting August 28, 2001, to learn more about Sobriety High and meet some of the students. The entire faculty and staff will be there as well to answer questions. Commissioner Mueller asked Mr. Czarniecki how the students get to the program offered at Sobriety High School? Mr. Czarniecki replied that after a student completes a treatment program either for drug or alcohol abuse, the student recognizes after completing treatment that they need a safe and secure place to finish their academic studies. The 68 % who complete the program, go on to higher education, the military, and the balance go to work in the workforce. Commissioner Mueller asked what is the success rate in terms of relapse for the students? Mr. Czarniecki stated that in the last 6 years (which are the years he has very good statistics for) the retention has been about 78 %, so relapse in that case would be less than 22 %. They do lose some students because they move away and because they academically drop out of school. Commissioner Mueller asked Mr. Czarniecki what kind of a support system does the school have for the students? Mr. Czarniecki said they have a very small student to staff ratio and they have had less than 5% t irnover in the staff. The student has the same teachers for 3 or 4 years depending on which grade they begin at Sobriety High. There is a remarkable bonding and relationship that develops between the student and staff. The families of the students are extremely important to the school. The PTA attendance is 60 -80 %. Community support is voluntary, the board of directors, and the board of trustees are people who work in the community, support the school and help raise funds for the school. Presently about 55% of the school income comes from private sector contributions. Commissioner Trippler commented that he thinks it is wonderful there are alternatives and other opportunities for trouble youth to get an education. When he looked at the concerns that were expressed from the neighborhood, he sensed the neighbors' concern. One of the comments made by a neighbor was "you are putting our families at risk ". How does the school know if a student is on drugs or alcohol? Mr. Czarnieck stated that each campus has a program director and a program assistant who are not faculty members but are involved in counseling the students. Everyday one of the academic periods is devoted to pees counseling and is facilitated by eitherthe program director or program assistant and occasionally by both. During that time there is a discussion about how each student is doing in their recovery program. They also require each of the students to have a sponsor either through alcoholics anonymous or narcotics anonymous or some other outside program. That sponsor has to work with the student and the school as well. They do not require a urine analysis of the students. They provide an environment and condition of trust and they build that trust between the staff and the students. The faculty is not trained in chemical dependency, they do have on -the- job - experience that they have gained by working with the program directors so that they are alert to the signs of abuse. The program is one of self - reporting and if the. student does not self - report the abuse within 48 hours their peers are required to report it. It has not failed Sobriety High in the 12 years that they have been in business. Commissioner Tdppler asked if a student is identified as being on drugs or on alcohol, what happens then? Mr. Czarniecki replied that the student must return to treatment. There are rare cases on a case - by -case basis. If the relapse is explained, it is immediately reported, there is a peer group review, and the staff, faculty and parents review the case. There may be a rare case where a student may be allowed to stay because the reporting was done immediately. Of course the second time the student is expelled from the school. In most cases the first incident of abuse the student is expelled. The students know if Ahey are going to stay at Sobriety High School and receive their diploma,. they must remain drug and alcohol free. Commissioner Ahlness stated he noticed in the letter that most of the students do not drive themselves and it is a closed campus, so how does a student get there and are they allowed to leave the building for lunch? Mr. Czarniecki replied that about 2/3 of the students do not drive to school. Some of the senior students do own cars and they may carpool with other students. The remaining students are either dropped off and picked up by the parents, depend on public transportation, or the public school system provides transportation. Under the open enrollment legislation in the State of Minnesota, if the student can make their way to the district 622 border, then the district will transport the student to Sobriety High School. Commissioner Mueller asked how far away the students are coming from? Mr. Czarniecli -replied that they are serving eight counties through the two campuses. Commissioner -Mueller stated that he and his wife have worked for the public school system for years and he wishes the public school system could enforce the same rules for students as they do at Sobriety High. In regards to one of the comments made by neighbors in the survey "you are putting our families at risk" he himself would rather have kids that have recognized the problem and are doing something about it than kids who haven't recognized the problem and aren't doing anything about it. In other words he would feel safer with Sobriety High School in his backyard then a public high school in his backyard. In his opinion the comment made by one of the neighbors reflects that they really haven't thought the whole thing through. Chairperson Fischer closed the public input portion of this item. Commissioner Pearson moved to recommend approval of Sobriety High School's conditional use permit. Commissioner Ledvina seconded the motion. Ayes — All Chairperson Fischer asked staff when this goes to the city council? Mr. Roberts replied September 10, 2001, and he will send out an updated report. City Manager Shann Finwall, Associate Planner Semper Development, Ltd. Walgreens 1706 White Bear Avenue (Old Burger King Site) September 4, 2001 INTRODUCTION Project Description Agenda # Date Endorsed Modified Dejected Semper Development is proposing to develop a Walgreens at the old Burger King site at 1706 White Bear Avenue. The proposal includes demolishing the existing approximately 4,600 square -foot building and constructing a 15,035 square -foot drugstore with a drive - through pharmacy. The building will include a corner entry with stucco finish and glass box tower with the remaining elevations constructed of face brick. This design is Wlfalgreens' standard building design as seen constructed in several other cities within the metropolitan area (most recently at 1965 Donegal Drive in Woodbury and 1401 Maryland Avenue East in St. Paul). Requests The applicant is requesting: 1. A 3 -foot side yard setback variance for the parking lot (5 -foot setback required -- 2 -foot setback proposed). 2. Special parking agreement for reduced parking (75 parking stalls required — 64 parking stalls proposed). 3. Design approval of site, landscape, and architectural plans. BACKGROUND In October 2000, the city council formally adopted the White Bear Avenue Corridor Study (Attachment 10). This was a joint study with the City of Maplewood, City of St. Paul, and the White Bear Avenue Business Association. The consultant team of Close Landscape Architects created a conceptual redevelopment approach for the Wilhite Bear Avenue Corridor. In general, the study calls for land use changes within the corridor to establish an inviting and safe pedestrian realm by creating a less auto - dominated physical environment. On July 9 2001, the city council formally supported the concept design for the Hillcrest Village redevelopment area (Attachment 9). Hillcrest Village is part of the Metropolitan Council's smart growth initiative to create livable neighborhoods where homes, jobs, and services are linked by walkable streets. The concept design was developed by the design firm of Calthorpe Associates from smart growth workshops held by the Metropolitan Council for the Hillcrest shopping center and contiguous commercial property in Maplewood (Hillcrest Village). f MEMORANDUM The site of the proposed Walgreens drugstore is in both the Hillcrest Village and White Bear Avenue Corridor. Therefore, any proposed development should follow the design standards as specified in the Hillcrest Village redevelopment concept and the White Bear Avenue Corridor Study. DISCUSSION Compatibility to the Hillcrest Village Redevelopment Area Calthorpe Associates have had an opportunity to review the Walgreens proposal as it relates to design standards set forth in the smart growth initiatives (Attachment 11). In general, they feel that the two most important changes would be to move the building up to the street and reduce the number of parking stalls. They feel that these changes would allow a much more attractive, environmentally sustainable, and pedestrian- friendly site design. Calthorpe Associates further stress that there is ample precedent for modern drugstores that maintain a pedestrian orientation while continuing to provide convenient auto access. Examples of other Walgreens drugstores constructed with this design theme are seen in Chicago, Illinois; Evanston, Illinois, Northfield, Illinois, and Madison, Wisconsin. In many cases the buildings were constructed right on the street Fine, not set back from it, with human - scaled architectural elements such as pillars, arcades, awnings and shop windows. They state that such precedent demonstrates that where there is a strong consumer market for their goods, corporate entities such as Walgreens should strive toward a more distinguishable design objective. Building Setback Within the business commercial zoning district, the required front yard setback is 30 feet. The proposal to bring Walgreens' building up to the right -of -way would not meet this requirement. City code requires a variance for a building constructed within a required setback. Another alternative to a variance is to review the proposal as a planned unit development (PUD). The concept of a PUD is to produce a development of equal or superior quality to that which would result from strict adherence to the provisions of the code. The city council has formally supported the concept design of the Hillcrest Village redevelopment area, which includes buildings constructed up to or near the right -of -way. For this reason, staff believes that the city council would be receptive to approving a front yard setback less than the required 30 feet in order to create a more pedestrian - friendly development as outlined in the Hillcrest Village redevelopment area. As the Hillcrest Village smart growth initiative further develops, the city will need to address the more strict front yard setback and parking requirements within this area by possibly requiring PUDs for all new construction or creating a new zoning overlay district with special design standards for the area. In the meantime, the variance or PUD processes are the only means to allow a building within the required setback. Allowing Walgreens' store to be constructed up to the right -of -way will meet the standards required for a PUD as specified in the code. In particular, the use would not change the ,planned character of the surrounding area. Walgreens 2 September 4, 2001 Deed Restriction Pne issue regarding the Walgreens building to be constructed to the right -of -way is a deed recorded on the old Burger King property in 1959. The deed states that no building shall be located nearer than 125 feet from the east right -of -way line of White Bear Avenue. It further states that this restriction will be in effect for 50 years (2009). Walgreens' proposed building would come within 127 feet of the right -of -way line. Walgreens claims that this deed restricts them from building their drugstore any closer to the street than proposed. The city's attorneys have had an opportunity to research the property records and have rendered an opinion on the validity of the deed. They state that according to Minnesota Statute and Minnesota law, all covenants, conditions, and restrictions created on or after April 27, 1937, which is more than 30 years old at the time of examination may be disregarded unless they fall within exceptions as specified in the law.. It is their opinion the setback. restriction does not fall within the allowable exceptions and believe that the setback restriction is no longer valid as it was only valid until 1989. The Ramsey County Title Examiner has confirmed this opinion. John Kohler of Semper Development has indicated that Walgreens is researching the city attorneys' claims, but at present it is Walgreens' belief that the deed is still valid. Regardless of the deed, Walgreens is not receptive to altering their site plan to conform to the Hillcrest Village concepts. Walgreens believes that the area is not "urban enough" to support a pedestrian - oriented store and insists that the front parking is necessary to sustain a viable business in this location. Special Authorization for Reduced Parking Walgreens' proposal shows 64 parking stalls; city code requires 75. Therefore, Walgreens is asking for special authorization for reduced parking. They state in their parking reduction statement (Attachment 12) that 64 stalls will be sufficient for this size of drugstore and will meet Walg reens' needs. They support their claim with traffic data from a Walgreens drugstore of the same size currently in operation at Rice Street and County Road C. Their data indicates that the largest number of cars in this parking lot at any one time is 44. Maplewood has approved parking reductions for some retailers (e.g. Slumberland and Auto Zone). The city council has supported this concept based on the merits of each project. The applicant's traffic data, furthermore, supports Maplewood's desire to not "pave over' and Calthorpe Associates' suggestion for fewer parking stalls. The community design review board and the city council should not take action on this request,` however, unless they accept the applicant's proposal. If they do not approve the Walgreens plans as proposed, the plans would have to be revised and the issue of a parking reduction revisited based on the revised drawings. Parking Lot Setback Variance A 3 -foot side yard setback variance is required for the parking lot that is proposed to come within 2 feet of the south property line. Walgreens stated that the variance is needed in order to have enough space for a drive - through pharmacy operation. Walgreens 3 September 4, 2001 Staff believes that designing the pharmacy with only one drive - through lane instead of two or reducing the number of parking stalls, or arrangement of parking stalls, could all alleviate the need for the variance. Calthorpe Associates' plan for a more pedestrian- friendly Walgreens (Attachment 11) shows the number of parking stalls reduced to 53, with two drive - through pharmacy lanes, while meeting the required 5 -foot side yard setback. Staff does not see any basis for granting a parking setback variance. Special consideration should be considered, however, if the applicant was to redesign the site to fit the Hillcrest Village redevelopment objectives. Building and Site Design The building and site proposed lacks the human scale required to achieve the Hillcrest Village concepts. For example, the windows are deficient in their placement above eye level because the pedestrians cannot experience them. The freestanding sign proposed would detract from the pedestrian character desired, and in fact would not be needed if the building were built up to the right -of -way. In addition, the proposed landscaping offers no more than decoration for the proposed front parking area and it does nothing to add to the pedestrian environment. Conclusion The Hillcrest Village concept can only come to fruition with cooperation and effective management from all disciplines involved, including the city, Metropolitan Council, and developers. Walgreens is the first development proposed within the newly created smart growth opportunity site and should be examined closely. Staff feels that a Walgreens on this site would be an asset to the area, especially if the smart growth initiatives are considered. Richard McLaughlin of HGA, Inc. (architectural firm working with Calthorpe Associates on the Hillcrest Village concept) has indicated that if Walgreens took a closer look at the local demographics, particularly age and daily needs, they may find that they would benefit from the economic opportunities of accommodating such needs in a more community- sensitive manner. They could become a proud contributor to an evolving, attractive Hillcrest town center. He further states that it seems highly unproductive -and certainly disheartening to have the first built piece of a smart growth opportunity site be a Walgreens drugstore just like everyone else has. COMMITTEE ACTIONS The community design review board (CDRB) unanimously recommended denial of Semper Development's proposal to construct a Walgreens drugstore at 1706 White Bear Avenue at the August 28, 2001, CDRB meeting (see attached 8/28/01 CDRB minutes on pages 28 -34). RECOMMENDATIONS Deny the following requests associated with Semper Development's proposal to develop a Walgreens drugstore at 1706 White Bear Avenue: 1) 3 -foot parking lot setback variance; 2) special authorization for reduced parking; and 3) overall development plans as shown on the plans date - stamped July 26, 2001. The city is denying these requests because: Walgreens 4 September 4, 2001 1. The city council has endorsed and accepted the smart growth principles as illustrated in the Hillcrest Village redevelopment concept plans. These plans were developed by Calthorpe Associates from smart growth workshops held by the Metropolitan Council for the Hillcrest Village. The proposed store is in the Hillcrest Village redevelopment area. 2. The objectives of the Smart Growth redevelopment concept are to create developments that encourage pedestrian- friendly and pedestrian- accessible projects, where the building is the prominent feature when viewed from the street, not the parking lot. 3. Semper Development's proposal to develop a Walgreens store at 1706 White Bear Avenue does not meet the above - mentioned smart growth principles for the following reasons: 4 a. The proposed building location` leads to an auto- oriented development in that it is setback from the White Bear Avenue right -of -way with parking situated toward the front of the store. This design does not reflect a pedestrian- friendly environment as envisioned in the Hillcrest Village redevelopment concept with buildings constructed closer to the street and parking situated toward the rear of the building. b.. The building elevations lack human -scale architectural elements such as pillars, arcades, awnings, and shop windows at eye - level. This design does not reflect the pedestrian - oriented town center concept envisioned in the Hillcrest Village redevelopment area. c. The landscape plan shows scattered landscape areas in an attempt to decorate the parking lot. This design does not contribute to the natural environment and to the community's sense of place as envisioned in the Hillcrest Village redevelopment area with features such as street trees with grates and landscaped plaza with seating and bicycle storage. d. The signage proposed includes a 25- foot -high freestanding sign. This design detracts from the pedestrian character envisioned in the Hillcrest Village redevelopment area. e. There are no unique hardships or circumstances that warrant approving the proposed 3- foot parking lot setback variance. f. The architectural features on the proposed design would need to be enhanced to improve the aesthetics of the site. 4. The community design review board would be willing to look at a compromised site plan where the building is moved closer to White Bear Avenue and the building and development incorporates some pedestrian- friendly features. Walgreens 5 September 4, 2001 REFERENCE INFORMATION SITE DESCRIPTION Site Size: 62,934 square feet (1.4 acres) Existing Land Use: Vacant Burger King Building SURROUNDING LAND USES North: Blockbuster (Zoned BC) South: Multi- Tenant Strip Mall - Laundromat, bar, and bagel store (Zoned BC) West: Single Family Homes (Zoned R -1) East: Maplewood Car Wash (Zoned BC) PLANNING Land Use Plan: BC (Business Commercial) Zoning: BC Code Requirements Section 36- 22(a)(6) requires that a commercial use have 1 parking space for each 200 square feet of floor area. Section 36- 22(b)(5) requires that parking spaces for "high customer turnover" use be 10 feet wide by 18 feet deep. The code requires that retail space supply high customer turnover spaces. Section 36- 28(c)(5)(b) requires that parking lots maintain a 5 -foot side yard setback. Criteria for Variance Approval State law requires that the city council make the following findings to approve a variance from the zoning code: 1. Strict enforcement would cause undue hardship because of circumstances unique to the property under consideration. 2. The variance would be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the ordinance. "Undue hardship" as used in granting of a variance, means the property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use if used under conditions allowed by the official controls. The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to his property, not created by the landowner, and the variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. Economic considerations alone shall not constitute an undue hardship if reasonable use for the property exists under the terms of the ordinance. Walgreens 6 September 4, 2001 Application Date The city received completed applications on July 26, 2001. State taw requires that the city take action within 60 days of receiving completed land use applications. City council action is required on this proposal by September 24, 2041. p:secl4 \walgreens Attachments: 1. Location Map 2. Property Line/Zoning Map 3. Existing Conditions 4. Site Plan . 5. Grading and Drainage 6. Lighting Plan 7. Landscape Plan 8. Exterior Elevations 9. Hilicrest Village Concept (Alternatives A and B) 14. White Bear Avenue Corridor Study 11. Calthorpe Associates' Review of Walgreens 12. Walgreens' Variance and Parking Reduction Statement 13. CDRB 8128101 Minutes 14. Plans date - stamped July 26, 2001 (Separate Attachment) Walgreens 7 September 4, 2001 ATTACHMENT 1 E:l CI Lj G � � I . � i Lj E l Li La r enteu i Walgreens Locato ion Ma ATTACHMENT 2 Tj>( 5.9 - - -- - - -- 13 - 4,- 95 g9 ` '3, _ z R ✓4 p 59 5. 33 1 ♦ • � _ �.awt •. X02 &X 14 o r" Oil 1 �� ' __ *87 295.87 Ln t is 3 . Ul r- . 3 W Ll ( f i — -- -- - - -- � Ul 5 p v L-0 " 2 9 5 6 - v ?moo (3 5 ,1, ,r, , 6 p r c.3 �' • --- -- --- -- � - - - -- -- --tom- a � i ' . �0 � : = • N � C�) 4 WIN � { ` 2 85.83 `�' 2 `= / 10 , a b 9 co �� % S 1 (31 - - - ® . .- - - -- - � - - - � �' 8 ., �, ��� Q s h (32 �r, ,� 9� ._ in .alp. i 8 0 o r , p O 141.18 Z ' Z9 lam i�� �, 17 ' Q (1 2.) 16 02 - 1 2 .� s. � g •� � �. 78 l 6 2 on , 1 co X27, / 9 �: 15 (2 - o 22 9 a (2(a) (15) 29 Ir -7 29 Tb �V -- — ' oa 2° o 0 • -�$- -- 23 2. � 200 � 13 (! 9) 46. co �-- - - - -��- - 24- 0 12 L - -- X ' 29 5.74 � 15 2 9 59.4 48° 38700 ° r - N x,3 p 1 l ( an 33 r N f 26 ' 2 2 , � 10 ' 4` e MI - 2 AA ' AB PROPERTY LINE /ZONING MAP 4 .N I =Z -- jz " g w Z :_ z> ;6 > FA 0 a ATTACHMENT 3 lTi BD E/A AVENUE 0 4d "24 C" W. 7c n ef:4 - .-- , . CIO, i V* WC I > 19'49 34 .. ...... . o ! --. 9, 1 1129 CONMETR So elt? • 0 %E. CAST Q. JVE << w > 2 4- OrC N z f p --------- :R S ,c L Z < 2) z W, > 71 4 I A ---------- 440 - - - - - - / : ON loo *3e 3+? + - LIZ\, fc:77777' 77. z tz 11 ♦ � � � n`n ��' > > C: .......... 01 ------------ 4E > q47 r-4 'c > > Z 4 -A! z 7 > 7 0 > N1 y �- -4q e -------------- q '162 �c r J i -- - - - -- - - - - --- T - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - --q97 � , eq-1 � ----EASEnEr�T.---' � St ___ ( o � �L IF SOO* 13'48'sE -1 -5. 557-7 af at. tltk ( NL I E-) T. OF- 27 > m - fA LOT q. CLOCK _SF --L�L 4 VS��WAY/ C Z %- 1. RAMSEY Co. Tr z z P'4 < <m x p n 0 cl PIS OF! m if Egg z Q i i I = l - `` = �_'� _, -; ;� ` << f =i, _ (_ 4; ?ti T I * � � I ;a! i I I I I �� {FI � ` 1 9t s!` ¢'���f� e � `z ° � rt > ��� � � I � __ } I ' � I I �I (, i >! � � # 4 P �J ;�= O� C _yr� S � - 3 . �� Km H 0000 ( � � ( I II � i l I � i l k !il i i � I� �'t s �f s ii d ��� � � '� I i� al � > � � I� I I�I �il 'I �� �� �! — x �I III i '' r z EXISTING CONDITIONS 10 ATTACHMENT 4 W= BEAR AVENUE r 6 PERT. CAST rZON PWE MOTH L4&tjr*Tj 0 y f I L J 2,5 ! i /ate F� 1 �T \9 �'... � 1 77 idkl) mo \� I�I mac• { r x M (_n 0 0 1 7 CA N\ in 0 0 (A Ln n8lii nNHI 3&18a 7 g❑po❑ y� �c � ig ��Bs'� '_`s3 _ � � � I I CA PH j t i n t WE U T r . H > t I ri p = 0 0 0 Oi! -1 1 E c- rj r 2 p z OL c co 0 In. IN u � "'� r' i ': � I I a I ! � i� ,s � a Fjy � � Cr1 � ��� � � __?° > � � ! ! I (� � I ! 1 ! F �� � '�� � � ' #i �: F�► � �� � � Y � � s n � D i ! ( f =1 � � r7 N I I ! '' I I I � i ( _� ! i ! f--+ � I li!! � fl�!I� iI ��� SITE PLAN 11 y� c \� C ! I X4 k \ �dAl) o ' ,� 1. �4 'kp iz Z) C > m z D 73 �' - o � IS 3 Itz > o -f A g I F: 5 2 6 R W z z f 15 Lr N > 0 > 11 > > > > > Imp g❑po❑ y� �c � ig ��Bs'� '_`s3 _ � � � I I CA PH j t i n t WE U T r . H > t I ri p = 0 0 0 Oi! -1 1 E c- rj r 2 p z OL c co 0 In. IN u � "'� r' i ': � I I a I ! � i� ,s � a Fjy � � Cr1 � ��� � � __?° > � � ! ! I (� � I ! 1 ! F �� � '�� � � ' #i �: F�► � �� � � Y � � s n � D i ! ( f =1 � � r7 N I I ! '' I I I � i ( _� ! i ! f--+ � I li!! � fl�!I� iI ��� SITE PLAN 11 - -�- = - - — - ATTACHMENT 5 - M74 CUr5 e674 cLRP -� WM l G BEAR AVENUE \ ��. C 441 ": �' . ♦. \�\ a4: O \y.0 2 3d , ` e � � u.. - Ill` • £". " P x s �� � \ �" N .. I u ' � "'•'• �' � � s ^ \ \ E AZT. C�S7 4',: *1 OI�E \\ Z $ .r.� , .SCt.•. J `" ., \ i � v cb \ '� vn ♦r � + yyt� , � _�- I �f�NDO►1T ` m m q QF 1 6 l E c I n 5 m ?` \ 4 +r R at E E \ • � O y I u I c i E E a ° 956 V I x X ro I r � a� n II si O 0 q fn f 10 N m y 4 ow o I \ \\ Ln i naHl naHL 3nlro Uia0 ig aj 2 EE s - IJ S � r. r E / O u I 9FI a pp I' ISb 5 Lt £St 46: Kb ' \ SPIU WA )I � E E � b , 'Z PC ti 964 Az a S Ij � � Y•x 9Es �.,E� nr: s^ 1� n- �' =n_�� ca. s a �lil I,I� r� 2SS � a'"_ �E �� - , z9n � i' L ?��y• - z � ? > a£ �o � o �;nm nn > ^ "n ":;��a 0 +` m ^' '� > ��m '*t�itr. �xD� !>;Rm:x =�-. =' �. v ^ � ����� �� Dmg° �fiA g �� R �T °° -mac � •� ,^��•� � n � �3 z5c`.� r, Z T n� "�` ^Z�� "a+s� �,• ��nm_ro,�5 �� �nCm ;. � � � � c. ., s � 1J ...+� .J f'•x 3V. T.• f;�•12 .' �, t<r A ��nl x 7CZy C C<Cr > • h;� Cr_ED ^. �` o_b TD�� r ¢ S> m�c; A cfim v GD Z p A ^m•�f' nss n4 n�'.- n� msk < xZmr. ±� R U1 ,ck_ '� @@ - <� C C'� •. = e 3 .1� n` ,sprre,:� � 'L+ nmc�Dt'f 5 s•. if c R A �zs K�nm 3�.'� L t : n�c ng F;F ` D_-. ; S ?, C5 C9' X' C �� `pat2 T �. � m:� ... �C> Y Z� 3 �rt� n •. 2 � C T�J. A � ^ y`� R Dy T AN! Zm Dy^ � yr'� �� 9 � ^. DCRE 5 � k D T .�`.. m rD jtim.9' a R'� Y'' S�C� tt q � rtFT^ L'i: c, � ay. > i� Aid c�z..D � ^; �� n � ��.• m � .. - � �• .. -.� • yFc � �.'>. � ^'��` w y ^m � Y �._,n vv. '^Z =Nm2 -na h �v. � n T Z ^ -yFt �_p��^,� o,� a6�� mn �, s• C �`�'.. 'yz oc c: a '"T uy ^' v,m'"� •tea >�o�c n`a.� v< � c i ^� ^ D '• a i'S ^�� ?� �Vn � c �±;� y n Y •l c•: TFO?'`J. r > ��� x - ti�.�m ^�'i�i� O�n�� _' {C�'L r S ; '�S< -'. asl�> �.c . ^,EE Cmi•n T. ' - a 1SEn v� A y: �� � rr � p L: T,A U• F y'7 TL: 1.� <' riF,eCSr,\ V. MsX ����r i Vg rt•m Dm >mF�; DmmO X`�T'•1[1C^ �N •�-�iDCC -'1e �I ' z >� �� iii, nc "2 -;x nS ^ Z :i ce r� m .-, g fim �: nK g- ." y� -� 3`''� s�^ ° � o`rv:� C x_ ? mq � ,,�•: �_,, ^�E��-s � r f �r >c 1• u: ��- J' .. G.. � > a' ;m c .,... � .; ` m Tar T.n 'S i m• gc� s Cf. 3e� iSS F u:� �zr VrZr, ;c. -�r:� �fiey.' y n•_$,.� h•. nom: a�> a >T� T bo s oc,> a �:.^��� S 'F {.ww w °t a G% D 3 K T • m. Tv;D' r � > XD�m Cam• a .-.p - rt; A @•�„J, "'^ y -: r ¢ • z r. E� g A o ry „ r sr r , �•-, �av y^' .-c tv zg" # - ^ 'brsx T m O r A t S $ - i r t=¢ �v ,•,� Zi �y �,m �' icit ? .. tip i > �n,' �. '� > y ';'F ,,.iF ># - 't =a�S."'��c� C� E=�5 ^'E "' a -n . f �� � S 4Cy � f v , s ` s�Z C o so t j r•it i i X13 ¢IN x �g��'I�I (T; - � i.x 3 � ��: I s � • li> � � r�� � _ � °�'� � � a�{ "' I y ❑ ❑ ❑ ® n v y {�a I`I FE, I I I I Y•f fi {� I.' x �I i ' i; I ►!• Ir •r � � of �'.' 9 � I cca= I r$ I ! I I i I e 1 1 '1'iR I - -- Q �t d 3! L'7 '_7 - w H II� GRADING AND DRA ,I NAG E 12 ATTACHMENT ZI -344 6 MKT. CAS? rz:44 Pipe .3 "" + L + + • + 13 �� r; I oi I I A 0000 �, I� � Irk Z � r I� ;;�� ( `° ta EF LIGHTING PLAN !,j C � + + J yr + Q� a V Cr + .4 ON CD M i j. + + + + + + W W CA IQ c, �j + + + + +N + + + -Tc P "r, O C. W LZ "r, W CF CA J CN + : + CD N ; + + 0 + + + N 1j + + + +a, + CP + + + 1-1 41 4 1 + + gQ + + X tv- G', z; 4. M ;o + CTN Un -j 31 0 + 0 co A. LA J— 03 + + C) +,j + -c C) L4 Ln OD 1z C) n"i rbH1 +rJ G� ' � N 77 136 a 3wa + + + , - 1 + + 4. + 4 i�- V. + + + + + + + + + + + 1j + i 4T ' PILLWAI m s 't c En cr c r. > V !lip III n 13 �� r; I oi I I A 0000 �, I� � Irk Z � r I� ;;�� ( `° ta EF LIGHTING PLAN ATTACHMENT 7 c m ng Z; z cn Fz !N m S; � g,:,- ,I ' T I ��s al r- F 0 m t: L CA ! P` D IL t `- ; �il= f ,, It 13 ill( f �5 , E:w M 6 !.1 4 lip 3 WW 2. �: 1 I it ^{ a C) 0 CD t .!a 111H 17' i ( ! I ! as { _ i� �i .1 I i� i i I j i!! I�III LANDSCAPE PLAN 14 0 0 V M 0 4 0Z • #A 01 0 0 c tz En CA 14 Z ez Ile v. So It c m ng Z; z cn Fz !N m S; � g,:,- ,I ' T I ��s al r- F 0 m t: L CA ! P` D IL t `- ; �il= f ,, It 13 ill( f �5 , E:w M 6 !.1 4 lip 3 WW 2. �: 1 I it ^{ a C) 0 CD t .!a 111H 17' i ( ! I ! as { _ i� �i .1 I i� i i I j i!! I�III LANDSCAPE PLAN 14 TYPICAL DECIDUOUS 0 TREE PLANTING TYPICAL CONIFEROUS 0 TREE PLANTING 5000LO AREA COW, WALK OW 'Ukli IfICU fJ!;HkQ CRAPE URI= q fff HUI i NOTE. 50I)POW COtJTk!AC1LW 5 TO ALLOW A I' f11 8kX1 CLEARANCE P(V. PKAL !x)[) f-LUVAT"J ALONG. ALL WAtV.' AtXl HAVV5a'fACL AWLA TYPICAL EDGE DETAIL 0 AT SODDED EDGE C(*JCk!L* PAVINC 4' S441'LOPC-0 l4ARVWO,1 BAPI 11OLI'll WIPTH OF 14(Af: EXCAVAIM SHAlt fXILW A I-kilri (4 (, wckci Of- 0") TM PLANT!; ROOT !;Y!iTLjL F'4'fPAf,'I.fl PtA14114C UEII At4f) VACtf-ILL & UlUk!(kXZvtf.r) AW �MW) (71 5 C ( WE ( ATE 'SAUC V ILt LQ A6201XV PLANT 1 5(X E11WIC; 1\5 tX1 CfE0 04 514tf I L 2.1 m '2 TYPICAL EDGE DETAIL EDGE 5E DET T PLANTING D 0 AT FLG - D NUTS: l(Aw LOOSEN (eOOT5 0- C(k1TAWVJ&V PIATEVLAL ( TYR ) VAM!, SEE: MAN *VUYL)Ef? HARDWOOD UARV. MA.CH � ` �:; `''t � 00C AS WUTUP ON 51 L? .i wl luu r= Im PPL, APKI PLkJTM.' OE0 AtK) SACY31L Lill —ISOL (T1kVOLk3t-f TLLHI A)t) LC ot*.NLV-17' riti. LATEr SAULf.-V AVOU14) PLANT WITH SOL wGVAf* �, � TYPICAL PERENNIAL PLANTING m um m Z 4 TYPICAL SHRUB PLANTING Ar Moo 1ph"mulc Ambs" Tmon F.•1kh— oind 200 wilmot Road D-1-1.0d• 11 60016 (847) 11411-Lfim BY ❑ wLQmo cmKTANr 0 Lmnows cmamr ALL CONIMCMN WOK W. KM WTED E] wALa®a cmw=m ED LA mcws emmm (umv coo6mwnom ww_ NEW— HaWDELML ❑ E%R*G- ❑ NI=AW.*L ❑ Nm S"aLL ONLY ❑ ODOL- ❑ Ulf; -OAGI PAS K 11:41110 TO Ilk IlAtIMM WAAC Ur) (&nk• JA5 I ltbl" 1 2001 CRUL.A PKITL-S& SEMPER DEVELOPMENT, LTD. GN FUSCAYTOWER WMAR(M'" M AYENUE SMI)i Min-EAPOUS, MINNESOTA 55402 (612)332 -1500 -1500 FAX(612)332-2428 CITY F ��MAPPLEWCOOD TO Ws Cm MINNE.NOTA AOL r e LANDIFORM PArL- WAMO 6-d—ew.NCAI& CER7MMN AM W& WHITE BEAR AVE AND LARPME(1R MAREWOM. MN PROJECT LOCATION LANDSCAPE DETAILS DATE, "XXIA)L MFE NO. IMM-- MAWM Na DPAWN BY.- --JL%— WALZ WED FELEAZED TO CONst im .m- L7. I - Lo r- • ter' D ■ii■ �S OEM IIIIIIillllllllllilllllllllllllll- IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIill lllllliliill = _ = I I11 ullll llillllllllll��� 1 i S NEW _ = = = ��f llllill�lllllllllllllllll link MEN uunumm - — I — _ = _ = 111111IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIC __ __ _ = �Illlllinlllllllllllllllllliil �V =rtnmmmu - = IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII' -I ® rt r III�II�I�IIIII � - - _ = °! IIIIIillllllllilll hllilllllllllllllllilllllillllil ■ _ _ - lilllllllllllllillllllllllllllll= _� '_I ulalliuullllllllllllullllli'' = =_ = - = (IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII _ illlll (illllllllllillllllllllll� � ■ __ —_ _ ■ � III IIIIIIIIIIIIIII = I i _ _ _ -��� I — = IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII �IIIIIIIIIIIIII IIIlillllllillllllllllllllllllll I ■ ■ llllllllllllllilllll ONE Illlllf 1111 MEN I■� OE■ ummu�umlmuumom WNW I= M E ■Ililllllllllll ■ ....... .... ... WALGREENS ° r H...► � W HITE BEAR AVENUE AT L ARPEN T EUR 5'c a� r a r EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS 16 ATTACHMENT 9 _ t Awmue t LEGEND S_F PA_RKtNG__ HILLCREST VILLAGE 1 A Mews Townhouse 16 B Office /Retail 14,950 55 C Apts /Retail 32 16,900 56 PRELIMINARY ALTERNATIVE I VE A D Commercial /Retail 10,000 52 E 1 Level Townhouse 10 S Growth Twin Cities F Commercial /Retail 13,800 56 O Senior Parking N Commercial /Retail 11,000 56 1 Townhouse 6 MAY 24 2001 J Retail 4,200 21 K Twinhouse 4 L Commercial /Retail 21,775 93 M Commercial /Retail 20,450 78 N Townhouse 16 O Transit Stop Metropolitan Council P Apts /Retail 50 26,900 City of Maplewood Q Office /Retail 24,000 122 HILLCREST VILLAGE CONCEPT �l tali �j R Commercial /Retail 8,150 Calthorpe Associates S Townhouse 45 T Gree TOTAL 179 172,125 589 AT TACHMENT 9 pe� UZI fj �lQi� ft 7- j LEGEND L UNITS SF PARKING A Office/Retail 11 . , 72 I L L C REST V ILLA C ommercial /Retail 14,300' 100 C Commer /Retail 19,500 112 H GE B c D _ ; Commercial /Retail 20,000 98 PRELIMINARY ALTERNATIVE B E Commercial/Retail 10,000 56 F Townhouse 6 Smart Growth Twin Cities G Commercial/Retail 4,200 21 H Commercial /Retail 19,800 90 I Apartments 46 J Twinhouse 4 MAY 2 4! 2001 K Commercial/Retail 26,250 144 L Apartments 22 M Transit Stop N Nei S 0 Office/Retail 41,600 P Parkin Romp 182 18 N'letropolkan Council 0 Apts/Retail 14 8,000 Citv Of M,-'Ple,�vood • R Apartments 46 CIE Of Saint Pa r U j F. 5 Apartments 70 A Calthorpe Associates T Apartments 46 U Grocer 36,000 240 HILLCREST VILLAGE . V Office/Retail 32,000 48 SMART GROWTH PLAN TO TAL 254 243,025 11, 163 18 ATTACHMENT 10 Process and Ap p roach This conceptual planning process was funded through • 9 P ough the White Bear Avenue Business Association (WBABA), with additional funds from the City f Maplewood. plewood. At the core of this process was a volunteer steering ng committee .representing the business association, residents, the City f Maplewood ty p ood planning staff, the city of St. Paul planning staff re resentin the small area • ( P g plan task force), with assistance from the Ramse y Cou traffic engineers. The joined • Y � g committee : with the consultant team in meetings and workshops to review and contri w _ P buts to all phases of the work. To include the broader communit into the process, two ' . tY p o neighborhood open houses were held, one at the earl st of the process • Y 9 p and one near the end. The first open house was held to gain an understanding f the biggest • g gg st issues facing the people who live and work along he corridor p roviding • g , an opportunity for those people to shape the direction of the emerg r g g p oject. The .second open house presented more refined concepts and gave comm P g unity members another chance to respond to design proposals. The. consultant, team then consolidated the ids • as and feedback into a conceptual approach for the White Bear Avenue corridor. white bear avenue study 2 WHITE BEAR AVENUE CORRIDOR STUDY - INTRODUCTION, GOALS, ANC } �- ......�.�....�_. �...�...,:..�:___,.�....��. � ,t...,,._._..r_� PRINCIPLES Goals and Prm*cioples The White Bear Avenue Corridor Study seeks solutions that strengthen the businesses, institutions and residential neighborhoods of the corridor, improves the driving and walking experience along the avenue and enhances the physical appearance of the street. A number of goals were established at the outset of the design study: • Respond to the unique and variable qualities of the avenue ( "A walk through time... ") • Make the street more pedestrian - friendly and "soften" the edges Farmhouse moving from its original location Vintage architectural style typical of much on White Bear Avenue in Maplewood. of White Bear Avenue's buildings. • Celebrate gateways and transitional spaces as "icons" on the avenue • Strengthen the functional and aesthetic character of the commercial areas and improve their relationships to residential areas and transit • Work with Ramsey County, St. Paul and Maplewood to improve unsafe intersections • Provide prototypical facade studies to assist businesses with redevelopment ideas • Improve signage, especially at the Hillcrest area • Improve lighting and landscaping throughout the corridor • Develop urban design recommendations for the Hillcrest/Buildees Square area and for the 80 acre site west of Maplewood Mail Commercial actWy is a sign of a healthy street. Most commercial acHAY along the vv+enue focuses Pedestrian comfort needs to be addressed. on the cxxr and ignores the pedestrian realm. white bear avenue study 3 20 The Maplewood Community Center • new construction along the avenue. Much: of the commercial development along the avenue is found in close proximity to resideEntial areas. The follow' • • followin guiding principles (adopted to thi s corndor) from th St, p Framework Plan are ' _ appropriate to the study of White Bear Avenue Maplewood: ve in both St. Pa and Evoke a strong sense of neig g boyhood identity •Invest in the public realm to • spur private investment . • : •Improve connectivit etty � ty een land uses and districts along th e a en ue New or renovated buildings should • g ould contribute to the overall cha of the street • Build on existing str engths engths •• � •Preserve and enha once heritage resources • Improve transit an m ulti -modal d multi -moda options for movement -� ement • Create a safer street • white bear avenue study a 21 f t PLANNERS URBAN DESIGNERS ARCHITECTS R Ithorpe sociates August 7, 2001 Tom Ekstrand Assistant Community Development Director City of Maplewood 1830 East CountyRoad B` Maplewood,, MN 55109 Re: Comments on Proposed Walgreens H�llcrest Village Opportunity Site Dear Tom, ATTACHMENT 11 RE CE I VE 0 AUG 0 9 2001 Thank you for forwarding the Walgreens application for the former Burger King site on VUhite Bear Avenue. The goals of the Smart Growth Twin Cities opportunity site program creating livable neighborhoods where homes, jobs and services are linked by walkable streets— can only be realized through the careful design Of individual projects such as this Walgreens. We welcome the initiative shown by Semper Development in wishing to reinvest in the Hillcrest Village community, and we appreciate the opportunity to comment On their proposal. Our comments On the proposed design follow. We understand that in the absence of any adopted Smart Growth policies for this area of Maplewood, the city cannot require compliance with our recommendations, and thus we present them purely as information for the city's use in evaluating the application. Our review is based on best practices for Smart Growth rather than for compliance with current planning and zoning requirements. Building location. We strongly agree with the statement expressed in Shann Finwall's letter that "the city would like to see the building brought forward toward the street, with all parking situated toward the back." This change would be the single most important contribution toward creating a walkable environment, and any further efforts are useless if this fundamental change is not made. As we show in the sketch attached, the proposed building could be relocated to the front of the site and still provide disabled and convenience parking directly adjacent to the entry. Further refinement of the site design could free up space for an improved pedestrian connection between the rear parking area and the entry. Building design. The proposed store design is one that can be seen all around the Twin Cities and indeed the country. But there is ample precedent, even within the Walgreens chain, for modern drugstores that maintain a pedestrian orientation while continuing to provide convenient auto access. H11crest Village deserves a Walgreens that meets community goals, like the Broadway and Ridge Walgreens store in Chicago, developed in close collaboration with the city planning department, community groups, and city officials. 739 ALLSTON WAY BERKELEY, CA 94710 510.548.6800 PETER CALTHORPE TIMOTHY ROOD JOSEPH SCANGA CALTHORPE ASSOCIATES REVIEW OF WALGREENS 22 To quote briefly from the architect's web site (www.lvrschassociates.com): "The building is located on the street line, not s et back from it, with mas onry piers, continuous windows, metal awnings and decorative lighting to enliven the streetscape. The parking lot was located away from the primary intersection and minimised in impact with landscaping. A clock tower was designed as the entrance to the store, and the drive- through located on the opposite site. The drive - through canopy was designed as a suspended marquee to give it an architectural prominence adjacent to a new landscaped pedestrian plaza at the corner, which was given to the community." Other Walgreens stores in Evanston and Northfield, Illinois, have used distinctive and high- quality building materials and pedestrian- scaled signage to meet community goals. �- Windows and entries facing the street are critical factors in establishing pedestrian orientation. Blank walls do nothing to h the pedestrian experience, but human- scaled architectural elements such as pillars, arcades, awnings and shop windows establish a visual rhythm that make pedestrians feel comfortable. The proposed elevations are most deficient in their placement of windows above eye level, where they cannot be experienced by pedestrians. If the building is to be moved up to the street, the west elevation facing White Bear Avenue should have display windows or clear windows in each structural bay along the f a�ade— with their sills a maximum of 30" above the sidewalk. Architectural lighting and awnings or an arcade are encouraged to provide greater comfort and visual .interest to pedestrians. The corner entry element should ideally feature a tower or other recognizable architectural element, rather than the generic glass box proposed as the entry identification. Signage should also be pedestrian scaled and should maintain the rhythm and spacing of the building's structural bays. A properly designed building at the street edge should not require additional freestanding signage, which would detract from the pedestrian character desired for Mcrest Village. Landscaping. Rather than being scattered about the site to decorate parking areas, landscaping should contribute to both the natural environment and to the community s sense of place. There should be a walkway with street trees connecting the rear parking area to the entry.. The proposed 5- foot walkway should be increased to 8 -10 feet in width to accommodate some landscaping along the building wall and sweet trees with grates, spaced a maximum of 30 feet apart. A landscaped plaza with seating and bicycle storage should be located between White Bear Avenue and the building entry. Such as plaza could be as small as 900 square feet (30 by 30 feet) and still provide a generous addition to the pedestrian environment. This plaza could adjoin a larger landscaped area used for groundwater recharge (as shown in the proposed site plan adjacent to White Bear Avenue.) Number of parking spaces. As the applicant notes, the 76 spaces required bythe zoning code (5 spaces per 1,000 square feet) are clearly excessive, since a comparable Walgreens was shown to have attracted a mum of 44 cars PER HOUR at the hours of highest demand. Since few if any of those customers were on s ite for the full hour, even fewer than 44 cars were actually present at any one time. The actual demand, then, was somewhat less than 3 spaces per 1,000 square feet— 40% less than the number required by the zoning. Parking standards are notoriously difficult to validate empirically, and historically, many jurisdictions have tended to use high parking requirements to be "on the safe side." But there is no free lunch— those extra spaces cost money, consume valuable land, degrade the environment through increased surface runoff, and decrease the likelihood that people will walk or bike to reach neighborhood destinations — all to avoid the possibil of "spill-over" parking on adjacent public streets, where parking is already legal! Smart Growth parking requirements are often nuxxintm rather than 23 rrLn m ums, since developers and merchants themselves have an automatic incentive to assure that their customers parking demand is met. Requiring spaces in excess of demonstrated demand serves no rational public interest. We commend the applicant's initiative in obtaining actual, recent counts from an identical fac' 'tyto support their request for a special authorization to reduce the number of space required, but we believe the applicant's own data show clearly that even 64 stalls is too many. Unless the applicant can demonstrate a need for more stalls using counts from other stores, we would recommend a maximum parking rate of 3.5 spaces per 1,000 square feet, or 53 stalls (keeping in mind that the highest demonstrated actual demand was less than 44 stalls). Reducing the size of the lot to 53 stalls from the 76 required by current zoning frees up about 8,000 square feet of site area that could be used for improved landscaping, best practices for stortnwater recharge, and a better pedestrian environment along the sidewalk and on the side of the building, connecting to the rear parking area. Our alternative site plan with 53 spaces leaves 21% of the site impervious, compared with less than 12% for the proposed design. Parking setback variance. If the parking lot is reduced to a more reasonable size, there is no need for a parking setback variance, as shown in our sketch. However, connections between adjacent parking areas are an important part of Smart Growth site design. In addition to the proposed connection shown to the south, a connection to the Blockbuster property to the north would be desirable. We hope these comments are helpful in your evaluation of the application. Thanks again for the opportunity to comment. Sincerely yours, CALTHORPE ASSOCIATES Timothy Rood AICP Principal cc: Richard McLaughlin, HGA Bob Mazanec, Metropolitan Council Patricia James, St. Paul PED Fred Dock, Meyer, Mohaddes Associates, Inc. Sarah Woodworth, ZHA 24 EXISTING BLOCKBUSTER POSSIBLE CONNECTION TO BLOCKBUSTER 1 I�► 1 EXIST TREES RETAINED LO N ALTERNATIVE SITE PLAN HILLCREST WALGREENS 0 40' 80' Metropolitan Council Calthor a Associates p St. Paul, Minnesota August 7, 2001 Berkeley, California SD01027 July 26, 2001 ATTACHMENT 12 Variance &Special Authorization Requests Narrative Walgreen's —White Bear & Larpenteur, Maplewood, MN The preliminary site plans for the proposed Walgreen's store located at White Bear Avenue and Larpenteur in Maplewood, Minnesota incorporate the need for one special authorization and one variance. A special authorization is needed for the provided number of parking stalls. Per the Zoning Code, one parking stall per 200 S. F. of building area is required. Since the proposed Walgreen's building is 15,035 S.F., 76 parking stalls are required. The proposed site plan shows that only 64 parking stalls will be provided. Sixty -four stalls are sufficient for this size of store and meet Walgreen's needs. The attached copy of a traffic analysis, dated 03/21/01, was performed on a similar size Walgreen's store that is currently in operation at Rice Street and County Road C in St. Paul, Minnesota. The analysis shows the average daily traffic during a 24 -hour period. This analysis indicates that the largest number of cars at Walgreen's during one time period is only 44 cars. Therefore, 64 parking stall is more than adequate for both employees and customers. A variance is also needed for the required 5' parking setback along the south side of the property. In order to have enough space for a drive -thru pharmacy operation, the parking setback. will be approximately 2' instead of 5' along the south property line. The existing conditions along the south property line consist of bituminous pavement right up to the adjacent building which is located at the property line. The proposed 2' setback area will provide room for a concrete median to protect the adjacent building to the south. Landform 510 First Avenue N., Suite 650 Mpls, MN 55403 (612) 252 -9070 * Fax (612) 252 -9077 26 WALGREENS' VARIANCE AND PARKING REDUTION STATEMENT RICE sT & COUN - RY RU C WALGREMS ENTRANCES & DRIVE THROUGH 31101 co -RD.0 DRIVE RIQE ST. RICE ST. -INBOUND OUTBOUND THRU INBOUND OUTBOUND i I .j TOTAL P -02 27 TOTAL 273 ;At$ u r atula ��% IF ATTACHMENT 13 Draft MINUTES OF THE MAPLEWOOD COMMUNITY DESIGN REVIEW BOARD 1830 COUNTY ROAD B EAST, MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA AUGUST 28, 2001 a. Walgreens (former Burger King) — Semper Development 1706 White Bear Avenue Ms. Finwall stated that Semper Development is proposing to develop a Walgreens at the Old Burger King site. The proposal includes demolishing the existing approximately 4,600 square -foot building and constructing a 15,035 square -foot drugstore with a drive- through pharmacy. The building will include a corner entry with stucco finish and glass box tower. The remaining elevations will be constructed of face brick. This design is Walgreens' standard building design as seen constructed in several other cities within the metropolitan area (most recently at 1965 Donegal Drive in Woodbury and 1401 Maryland Avenue East in St. Paul). The city has adopted the White Bear Avenue Corridor Study and the Hillcrest Village Smart Growth Concept. The proposed Walgreens falls within both of these study areas. Both the study and the concept are based on pedestrian - friendly developments with human -scale elements. As Walgreens would be the first development within these areas, care should be given to the design of this building. Staff feels that a Walgreens on this site would be an asset to the area only if the Smart Growth Initiatives are considered. As it stands, however, staff feels that the Walgreens proposal falls very short of that. Therefore, staff is recommending denial of the three requests due to the fact that the proposed building location leads to an auto- oriented development. And that it is setback from the White Bear Avenue right -of -way with parking situated toward the front of the store. The building elevations, staff feels, lack human -scale architectural elements such as pillars, arcades, awnings, and shop windows at eye - level. The design does not reflect the pedestrian- oriented town center concept envisioned in the Hillcrest Village Redevelopment Area. The landscape plan shows scattered landscaping throughout the site, basically as a compliment to the parking area itself. This design does not contribute to the natural environment and the community sense of place as envisioned in the Hillcrest Village Redevelopment Area with features such as street trees with grates and landscaped plaza with seating and bicycle storage. 28 Community Design Review Board Minutes 8 -28 -2001 The signage proposed includes a 25- foot -high freestanding sign. This design detracts from the pedestrian character envisioned in the Hillcrest Village Redevelopment Area. Staff does not feel there are any unique hardships or circumstances that warrant approving the proposed 3 -foot parking lot setback variance. Staff recommends denial of Semper Development's proposal to construct a Walgreens drug store at 1706 White Bear Avenue. Board Member Olson asked Ms. Finwall if the primary recommendation was against the building itself or the parking? Ms. Finwall answered the recommendation was to deny the proposal as submitted due to the fact that it does not meet the goals of the Hillcrest Village Redevelopment Area. Chairperson Ledvina asked if anything came out of the White Bear Avenue Corridor Study relating to building design elements? Secretary Bkstrand commented that the study mainly focused on streetscapes and elements such as pedestrian -ways, street lighting, landscaping, street widths, and medians. It didn't get into elements of building placement as much as the Hillcrest Village Redevelopment Area study did. The Hillcrest Village Redevelopment Area encourages buildings close to the street right -of -way with parking in the rear as illustrated on page 25 of the report. Mr. Tim Rood from Calthorpe Associates submitted that design to illustrate the type of layout for Walgreens that would meet the Hillcrest Village Redevelopment Area objectives. Board Member Olson stated that in her opinion the alternative layout is more appropriate for the southern end of Hillcrest. In this particular location it is very automotive - oriented and is not very pedestrian - friendly in this part of the city. Secretary Bkstrand said that is the challenge right now; this is the first opportunity we have had to look at a sight for redevelopment with these objectives in mind. The city council has accepted this concept and has directed staff to go ahead and implement the studies. The points you made are true; the first building we implement will be the toughest and will set the tone for the next buildings developed. Mr. John Kohler, the architect for Semper Development representing Walgreens came forward. Mr. Kohler stated that based on a number of the comments made, Walgreens had some very specific guidelines and criteria that they work with when they design their stores, and the plans in the packet are not really the .prototypical dimensions for a store. This store was actually narrowed and lengthened to fit on 29 Community Design Review Board Minutes 8 -28 -2001 the site. One of the primary criteria that Walgreens has for their buildings is that the parking be adjacent to the front door. It does not need to be between the street -and the front door; it needs to be adjacent to the front door. That did not come about from someone's preconception in some corporate office of what might or might not work. It actually came about through stores that Walgreens built. A good example of that would be in Edina at 50 and France Avenue where they built the store right on the street and the parking was behind the store. What they found is that store does not work because of those circumstances. When that lease is up, the building will be a vacant store until somebody else moves in. You are selling a service and a convenience and if you make customers' park in the back of the store and walk all the way to the front, they won't go into the store. People go to a store that is convenient and fast to get in and out of. This is the site plan that Walgreens has approved. They would love to have more room to build alarger - store. If they had another piece of property to the north, Walgreens could pull the building up and have the parking to the north. This site does not allow for the building to be closer to the street. Board Member Shankar asked Mr. Kohler why it shows on the site plan to have parking in the back of the store if it did not work at the other store in Edina? Mr. Kohler stated they are trying to get in as many parking spaces possible to meet the city requirements. The parking in the back of the store will probably be used as employee parking. The city ordinance requires 75 spaces for a building this size, but Walgreens would only need about 60. Board Member Olson stated that she agrees with Mr. Kohler, as a customer who is going to get a prescription, she wants to park in the front of the store and get her prescription as quick as possible and leave. She felt that parking in the front of the building is very important for this type of establishment. Board Member Shankar asked Mr. Kohler if there were any Walgreens with two store entrances? Mr. Kohler replied, no there are not, and he suspects the reason would be for loss prevention reasons. Chairperson Ledvina asked how the square footage of this building relates to other Walgreens stores? Mr. Kohler stated this store is slightly larger because it had to be elongated to fit on the site, the store is 15,035 square -feet and most stores are about 14,600 square -feet. A general store would be 105'X 138' in dimension and this store is 97'X 155. 30 Community Design Review Board Minutes 8 -28 -2001 Chairperson Ledvina asked Mr. Kohler if the building was set back to meet the 125- foot -deed requirement? Mr. Kohler replied there is a requirement in the title work that sets it back that far. Both the city attorney and the attorney at Semper Development said the expiration is in 2009, and the attorney's feelings are they can most likely get a title insurance company to insure over that because it is so old. That wasn't the driving force for why this building was back that far. It was something that Walgreens thought they had to meet, which they did meet. Walgreens would not have approved the site if the building was way up. and the parking was in the back as it was depicted in the previous plan, and it was not received well. Ms. Finwall stated that the convenience of parking in the front of the building would replace a development with a sense of place as envisioned in the Hillcrest Village Redevelopment Area. The convenience could still be achieved by placing the doors toward the rear and front of the building and incorporating architectural features to the White Bear Avenue side that will achieve a more pedestrian - friendly development. This can only happen when developers are willing contributors to the concept. A strong precedent will be set if we allow the first development within the smart growth area to be built with parking in the front. . Mr. Raleigh Nelson, one of the two owners of the former Burger King restaurant at 1706 White Bear Avenue came forward. Mr.. Nelson said he is a bit shocked at the denial of the Walgreens proposal. He said he knows the area very well running the Burger King for many years. If the building were to be put forward like staff is requesting, it would be great if the other buildings were forward. But it is going to stick out and look intrusive and nobody walks in that location. Once and awhile you may see a kid riding a bike around there. If this proposal does not go through, we are still sitting with a building with parking in the front. He does feel that Walgreens would add to the area and it would certainly be a better building than what is there right now. It would line up and work with the existing buildings that are currently there. Board Member Shankar asked staff what the time frame for the Hillcrest Village implementation for this concept was? Secretary Ekstrand said it is going to be ongoing for many years. St. Paul, which has the Hillcrest Center, has a team of real estate people looking into time- tables. What types of businesses can be supported in this area, and how many residential areas can be supported in this area. This could be a 20 -year project. Board Member Olson asked the staff, who put these plans together and how bound are we to these two alternatives? 31 Community Design Review Board Minutes 8 -28 -2001 Secretary Ekstrand said the met council gave a grant to the City of Maplewood and St. Paul to be part of this. The grant is for architectural and design services. The company that drafted this is a multi -group team. The two main facets, other than the met council who is coordinating this, is a group called Calthorpe and Associates out of California and also one in Minneapolis called HGA. Two of the lead people from those two firms were very interested in submitting their recommendations to the staff on Walgreens proposal to give suggestions on implementing the smart growth objectives. The council has given the staff the go ahead to try to strive to accomplish what is being shown in the plan. Board Member alson asked staff if they have chosen between the two Hillcrest Village alternative plans given? Secretary Ekstrand replied no they had not. A highbred is going to be decided. Probably in September in their meeting at the met council, they will discuss between Maplewood and St. Paul what alternatives and features of each were liked. The consultant would then put together an alternative plan C with the best parts of each scenario. Board Member Olson asked if there were any comments that she could make as a potential customer in Maplewood regarding the Walgreens proposal and the changes with the Hillcrest Redevelopment Project? Secretary Ekstrand said he has some forms in his office that can be filled out and staff would welcome input from anybody. Board Member Olson stated she has a real problem with one of the plans of blocking off North St. Paul road and felt that would be a real mistake. The idea of pushing businesses forward towards the road and moving parking to the back of the buildings was done in North St. Paul and did a lot of damage to the companies there because of that. The idea of eliminating the parking in the front and forcing parking to the back, will make this a narrow, unfriendly corridor. She also felt putting the entrance of Walgreens at the corner of the building right on White Bear Avenue and having the parking in the back will make for a dangerous area for pedestrians or bike riders. Chairperson Ledvina commented he thinks it is very hard to make the transition from what exists currently to what is envisioned in the future 5 -10 -15 years down the road. Board Member Olson said she has grown up in this area and feels this is the wrong place to start pushing a new concept plan. She likes the proposed Walgreens site, and she dislikes the Calthorpe alternative. 32 Chairperson Ledvina said his thought on how to make the transition is perhaps a compromise in the parking scenario. It is a matter of fitting a proposal to the area and perhaps this proposal does not fit in the area. Board Member Shankar commented he felt the plans lacked landscaping and he is not saying the building has to be pushed all the way to the front of the street, he is willing to compromise but would lake to see a site plan with a few different scenarios m6th parking and landscaping. Chairperson Ledvina said, what is proposed. is somewhat spartan for what he would expect for- a redevelopment of this site. He would like to see some interesting architectural features put into this . design, such as a pitched roof element and maybe a clock tower near the entrance. If proposals were in consideration of potential development of Walgreens at this site, he would like to see those types of elements incorporated into the proposal. Board Member Olson agreed she would like to see some height added to the building„ adding; some decorative elements, and perhaps reconfigure the entry and make it more side walk friendly. Maybe there are some things that could be done to make the plans more acceptable to everybody so the whole thing would not have to be thrown out. Chairperson Ledvina is also inclined to agree with the staff recommendation from a philosophical standpoint. Board Member Shankar made a motion that the Community Design Review Board deny the following requests associated with Sempler Development proposal to develop a Walgreens at 1706 White Bear Avenue for the following reasons: 1. The city council has endorsed and accepted the smart growth principles as illustrated in the Hillcrest Village Redevelopment Concept plans. These plans were developed by Calthorpe Associates from smart growth workshops held by the Metropolitan Council for the Hillcrest Village. The proposed store is in the Hillcrest Village Redevelopment Area. 2. The objectives of the Smart Growth Redevelopment Concept are to create developments that encourage pedestrian- friendly and pedestrian - accessible projects,, where the building is the prominent feature when viewed from the street, not the parking lot. 3. Semper Development's proposal to develop a Walgreens store at 1706 White Bear Avenue does not meet the above - mentioned smart growth principles for the following reasons: 33 Community Design Review Board Minutes 8-28-2001 a. The proposed building location leads to an auto - oriented development in that it is setback from the White Bear Avenue right -of -way with parking situated, toward the front of the store. This design does not reflect a pedestrian- friendly environment as envisioned in the Hillcrest Village Redevelopment Concept with buildings constructed closer to the street and parking situated toward the rear of the building. b. The building elevations lack human -scale architectural elements such as pillars, arcades, awnings, and shop windows at eye - level. This design does not reflect the pedestrian - oriented town center concept envisioned in the Hillcrest Village Redevelopment Area. c. The landscape plan shows scattered landscape areas in an attempt to decorate the parking lot. This design does not contribute to the natural environment and to the community's sense of place as envisioned in the Hillcrest Village Redevelopment Area with features such as street trees with grates and landscaped plaza with seating and bicycle storage. d. The signage proposed includes a 25- foot -high freestanding sign. This design detracts from the pedestrian character envisioned in the Hillcrest Village Redevelopment Area. e.. There are no unique hardships or circumstances that warrant approving' the proposed 3 -foot parking lot setback variance. f. The architectural features on the proposed design would need to be enhanced to improve the aesthetics of the site. (Added as an amendment by chairperson Ledvina.) 40 The board would be willing to look at a compromised site plan where the building is moved closer to White Bear Avenue and should also incorporate some pedestrian - friendly features. (Added as an amendment by Board Member Shankar.) Chairperson Ledvina seconded the motion. Ayes — All The motion carried. Ms. Finwall said this item would go to the city council meeting on September 10, 2001. 34 MEMORANDUM Agenda # EA TO: City Manager xe.., FROM: Shann Finwall, Associate Planner SUBJECT: Farm Zoning ,- APPLICANT: City of Maplewood DATE: September ber 4, 2001 p Rejected d INTRODUCTION Background On June 18, 2001, the planning commission directed staff to. research possible code amendments to the farm residence zone. The proposed changes were prompted by a request by Paul Schlomka of 2511 Carver Avenue for a home occupation license to operate a landscape business from a residential property as well as two conditional use permits (CUP) associated with the business including a large accessory building and the storage of commercial vehicles on residential property. As you recall, a majority of the planning commissioners felt that Mr. Schlomka's proposed landscaping business was similar to a farming business, which is a permitted use within the farm residence zoning district. Mr. Schlomka's proposal was felt to be a reasonable use of the property considering the lot size of 4.34 acres, lot location adjacent 1-494, and the construction of a pole barn in which to store the commercial vehicles and equipment. The planning commissioners stated, however, that the business did not meet the spirit and intent of the city's home occupation ordinance, which was designed to allow small businesses to operate out of residential homes, and not intended for a business with commercial vehicles. For these reasons, an amendment to the farm residence zone was suggested as a way to allow property owners an economical use of their land by permitting businesses other than farming within the farm residence zone. On August 6, 2001, the planning commission recommended approval of the farm zone amendment to allow a landscaping business, and other similar businesses, within the farm zone with a CUP. The city council approved the first reading of the amendment with no opposition at their August 27, 2001, city council meeting. The second reading of the amendment will take place at the September 10, 2001, city council meeting. Request Staff is requesting an amendment to the city code to permit a landscaping business or similar, businesses in a farm residence zone with a conditional use permit. DISCUSSION Farm Zoning Within the City of Maplewood there are 407 parcels of farm -zoned land that are used for residential purposes, totaling 690 acres. This amount does not include other non- residential farm -zoned property including the Bailey Nursery site, churches, parks, open space, and golf courses. The average parcel size within the residentially used farm zone is 1.88 acres. Uses permitted within the farm zone include: 1) single family houses; 2) commercial . farming or gardening, including the use or.storage of associated equipment 3) commercial greenhouses or nurseries; and 4) stands for the sale of agricultural products produced on the premises (Attachment 1). Within all residentially zoned land, including farm - zoned land, heavy commercial vehicles (greater than 1 ton payload rating) are allowed with a conditional tLise permit. The exceptions to this rule, as stated above, are commercial vehicles used for commercial farming or gardening that are stored on farm -zoned land. The code does not specify the size, number, or required storage location for the commercial vehicles when used for farming. Other than the Bailey Nursery site located on the southern end of Maplewood, there are no commercial farms or greenhouses within the city that are zoned farm. With a majority of the farm -zoned land having small parcel sizes (average 1.88 acres), the possibility that there will be future commercial farms within the city is minimal. However, the code does not specify a minimum lot size for farm use. A property owner with 1.88 acres of farm -zoned land could run a small farm or nursery and store any number of commercial vehicles and equipment on their property according to the ordinance. 4 Much of the original, large parcels of farm -zoned property have been subdivided into smaller, single- family lots. When this takes place the city's policy has been to rezone the property from farm to single dwelling residential. For this reason, farm -zoned property that is used for residential purposes is slowly being faded out. Attached find a map that breaks down the large farm - zoned parcels (greater than 4 acres) from the remaining farm -zoned land within the city (Attachment 2). There are a total of 35 parcels that are 4 or more acres in size. The largest farm zoned lot, excluding non - residential lots as specified above, is the Hajicek site at the north end of the city (80- acres). The Hajiceks are selling their land for development. When this happens the land will be rezoned. The remaining large farm -zoned parcels are found on the southern end of the city. There is a strong likelihood that these parcels will remain as large lots zoned farm because of the absence of sanitary sewer in this area. Paul Schlomka's property is 4.34 acres in area and is located on the southern end of the city. During the May 28, 2001, planning commission meeting there was consensus from the commissioners that a landscape -type business on a lot the size of Mr. Schlomka's lot would not create negative impacts to surrounding residential properties if the proper conditions were in place. For this reason, the city should focus proposed changes to the farm zone ordinance on lots of 4 acres or larger. As a result, the proposed ordinance change would mostly affect the southern tip of the city, where the population is less dense and the lots are larger. Farm Zone Comparisons Five other cities' farm zones were researched including Cottage Grove, Hugo, Inver Grove Heights, Lake Elmo, and Woodbury. The areas examined were the minimum lot size, permitted and conditional uses, and accessory structures (Attachment 3). r Uses Allowed: The permitted uses within all five cities' farm zones were generally agricultural and greenhouse uses, similar to Maplewood. Both Hugo and Lake Elmo found that much of their farm -zoned property was not being farmed because of smaller parcel sizes and economics. In response to this, these cities allow other types of businesses within the farm zone in order to allow the property owners an economical use of their property. Hugo allows home occupations to be conducted within an accessory structure with a conditional use permit if it meets the following criteria: must be within a farm zone; no exterior storage; cannot generate more than 10 vehicle trips per day; only one employee allowed besides family members living on site; cannot produce Farm Zone Amendment 2 September 4, 2001 noise, odor, smoke, glare, or waste. Lake Elmo allows what they term "low- impact non - agricultural uses" with a conditional use permit. Low - impact non- agricultural uses are defined as the outdoor storage of cars, trucks, boats, trailers, recreational vehicles, recreational equipment, and other vehicles or mobile equipment under 26,000 tare weight. These uses can take up only 4 percent of a 40 -acre parcel. Accessory Structures Allowed: The largest size and number of accessory structures allowed within the comparable cities is Hugo. Hugo allows up to three accessory structures with a combined square footage of 3,600 square feet if a lot is over 10 acres. The smallest size and number of accessory structures allowed in the comparable cities is Lake Elmo. Lake Elmo allows one accessory structure up to .1 000 square feet for lots under 10 acres and two accessory structures up to 2,000 square feet for lots 10 acres or larger. 4 Maplewood's accessory structure ordinance is based on the size of the lot (Attachment 4). On a lot of 42,000 square feet or larger, the maximum size of .detached accessory structures is 1,250 square feet. This square footage can be comprised of one, 1,250 square foot detached accessory structure, or a combination of detached accessory structures. Also, for lots that are 42,000 square feet or larger, there is an additional 1,000 square feet allowed for what ' is termed "all other buildings." This means that a property owner could have a 1,250 square foot "garage" and a 1,000 square foot "storage shed." The difference in the two structures would be the existence of garage doors. In addition to the detached accessory structures allowed on a lot of. this size, the combination of detached and attached accessory structures can equal 2,500 square feet (combination of 1,250 s.f. detached and 1 .250 s.f. attached). Maplewood allows pole barns in the farm zone. Cottage Grove and Inver Grove Heights are the only comparable cities that allow pole barns within their farm zone. In Maplewood, the size of the pole barn is limited to the accessory structure ordinance as stated above. Any size over that allowed by the ordinance can only be constructed with a conditional use permit, as is the case with Mr. Schlomka's request for a 4,224 square foot pole barn. Proposed Code Changes As seen in Hugo and Lake Elmo, the City of Maplewood has existing farm -zoned land that is not being used for farming or nurseries. The city should make accommodations for these property owners to enable them an economical use of their farm -zoned land, while ensuring that surrounding properties are protected with strict controls and regulations of the nonagricultural uses. The planning commissioners agreed that Mr. Schlomka's proposed landscaping business would not have a negative impact on surrounding residential properties mainly because of the large lot size of 4.34 acres. Therefore., staff recommends allowing a landscaping business, and other similar types of businesses, with a conditional use permit within the farm zone on property_ or more acres The city should consider the following when reviewing such requests: Storage of Equipment: With a landscape -type business comes commercial vehicles and equipment. Other items that may be stored on the site are landscaping materials such as soil, rock, wood chips, etc. The city should ensure that all of these items are stored indoors, out of the sight of adjacent property owners. Any amendment to the farm zone code to allow landscape -type businesses should Farm Zone Amendment 3 September 4, 2001 specify that the business must be conducted solely within the house or an accessory structure, with no exterior storage allowed. Size of Accessory Structure: Maplewood currently has a fairly lenient accessory structure ordinance. Basing the size of allowable accessory structures on the size of the lot is a fair system, as the larger the lot, the less likely a large structure will pose a negative impact on surrounding properties. Having a maximum size of one accessory structure limited to 1,250 square feet for larger lots is a way for the city to protect surrounding residential properties. For example, the larger the accessory structure, the more likely larger items, such as commercial vehicles, will be stored in them and the more likely the structure will be used for a commercial venture. Requiring conditional use permits for larger accessory structures is a mechanism for the city to control the storage and use conducted in the structure. As you will recall, Mr. Schlomka originally- applied fora conditional use. permit to construct a 4,224 square foot pole barn. It was during staff's review of his original request that the landscape business and commercial vehicles were discovered. For these reasons, staff feels that the accessory structure ordinance should remain as is, and no accommodations for larger accessory structures on lots over 42,000 square feet should be made at this time. Setback of Accessory Structure: The city's code specifies greater setback requirements for businesses that abut residential property. Staff feels that these setback requirements should also apply to an accessory structure used for a landscape -type business within the farm zone. The code bases the setback on the exterior wall area, ranging from 50 to 100 feet (Attachment 5). Accessory structures for a landscape -type business would more than likely fall into the wall area category of 0 to 1,999 square feet, and must therefore maintain at least a 50 -foot setback to residential property. When farm -zone property is adjacent .commercial, the accessory structure ordinance should apply and allow for a 5 -foot rear or side yard setback. Number and Storage of Commercial Vehicles: Mr. Schlomka is requesting permission to store two pickup trucks, one bobcat, one backhoe, one bulldozer, one front -end loader, one dump truck, and two trailers for his landscaping business. The city's farm zone does not restrict the number of commercial vehicles or equipment allowed for commercial farms or nurseries. Since the comparison has been made that a landscape -type business is similar to a farm or nursery, commercial vehicles and equipment for this type of business should not be restricted either. Mr. Schlomka is also requesting a larger accessory structure in which to store all of his commercial vehicles to ensure that they are out of sight of the neighbors. Any code amendments to the farm zone should also specify that all commercial vehicles and equipment associated with this type of business must be stored in an accessory structure. Screening and Lighting: When a business is adjacent residential property, the city's code specifies a 20 -foot screening buffer and lighting limited to 0.4 foot - candles at the adjacent residential property. The screening buffer includes one or a combination of the following: a 6 -foot high screening fence, a planting screen, and a berm. The screening requirements can be waived if the topography, existing vegetation, or other barriers create an adequate screen. Staff feels that both of these screening Farm Zone Amendment 4 September 4, 2001 and lighting requirements apply to an accessory structure used for a landscape -type business within the farm zone as well. Employees: A landscape -type business within farm -zoned property should meet the employee requirements specified in the city's home occupation ordinance. The ordinance states that no more than one nonresident employee shall be allowed to work on the premises. A nonresident employee who works off - premises may be allowed to visit the premises to pick up equipment. Hours of Operation and Noise: A landscape -type business has the possibility of creating unacceptable noise levels for adjacent property owners with commercial vehicles warming up early in the morning or being repaired late in the evening. For this - reason, the city should specify the hours of operation for this type of business and be diligent in its enforcement. Staff recommends following the city's noise ordinance, which specifies no disturbing or loud noises between the hours of 7 p.m. to 7 a.m., Monday through Saturday, and all day Sunday. COMMITTEE ACTION The planning commission unanimously recommended approval of the farm zone amendment at the August 6, 2001, planning commission meeting. The city council unanimously approved the first reading of the farm zone amendment at the August 27, 2001, city council meeting. RECOMMENDATION Approval of the ordinance amendment in order to allow landscaping and other similar businesses in the farm zone with a conditional use permit. P:ordlfarm zone amend Attachments: I. Farm Zone Ordinance 2. Farm Zone Map 3. Comparison of Farm Zoning 4. Accessory Structure Ordinance S. Setbacks Required for Business Adjacent Residential 6. Minutes of the June 16, 2001, Planning Commission Meeting 7. Minutes of the August 6, 2001, Planning Commission Meeting 8. Ordinance Amending the Farm Residence District Farm Zone Amendment 5 September 4, 2001 ATTACHMENT 1 FARM ZONE ORDINAN( § 36 -51 MAPLEWOOD CODE; DIVISION 2. F FARM RESIDENCE DISTRICT* Sec. 36 -51. Permitted uses. Thee- only uses permitted in a F, Farm Residence District are: (1) Any uses permitted in the R -1 Residence District subject to its regulations. (2) Commercial farming or gardening, including the use storage of associated equipment. (3) Commercial greenhouses or nurseries. (4) Stands for the sale of agricultural products produced on the premises. (Ord. No. 627, § 2, 6- 27 -88; Ord. No. 687, § 1, 5- 13 -91) Sec. 36 -52. Conditional uses. The following uses may be permitted by conditional use permit: (1) Any use allowed by conditional use in the R -1 Residence District, except that equipment used for on -site farmin shall be a permitted use. (2) Livestock raising and handling. (3) Manufactured home park. (4) Golf course. (Ord. No. 627, § 2 6- 27 -88) Secs. 36-53--36-65. Reserved. *Editor's note—Section 2 of Ord. No. 627, adopted June 27, 1988. ainer ded ArL. II.) D►iv. 2 in its entirety to read as seL out herein. Formerly, Div. 2, contained §§ 36 -51 and 36 -52, which lwrwined to permitted uses and automatic rezoning; or phritting in this district and derived from Coale 1965, §§ 903.010,912.020; Ord. No. 431, § 1, adopted Oct. 27, 1977; and Ord. No. 493, § 1, adopted Nov. .20. 1980. SU, No. 12 2222 6 ATTACHMENT 2 Maplewood Residential Farm one p JNHUU. _ 1� uY(/ f�WlNi p l I.�Iliti.tNlNl farm Zoned Parcels of 4 or More Acres (35) 0 Farm Zoned Parcels Less than 4 Acres (372) COMPARISON OF FARM ZONING Attachment 3 MINIMUM ACCESSORY STRUCTURES CITY L OT SIZE PERMITTED USES CO NDITIONAL USES SIZE S.F. # POLE BARNS Cottage Grove 1-1/2 acres Agricultural/ Stables and kennels 2,500 2 Yes feedlots if located at least 300' from adjacent dwelling Hugo 10 acres Agricultural/ 1 No horticultural or one structure nursery stock 2 -3,300 2 Home occupations Home occupations combined ` (if not in an access. (if in an access. (< 10 acres) structure, not more structure, no exterior than one 9,200 storage, can't generate 3 3 g.v.w. truck) more than 10 vehicle combined trips per day) (10 > acres) Inver Grove Heights 10 acres Agricultural/ Stables and kennels 1 1 Yes, with greenhouses or (< 5 acres) CUP nurseries 2,400 2 (5 > acres) Lake Elmo 40 acres Agricultural/ Greenhouse, stable, 1 2 No horticultural kennel, commercial (< 10 acres) recreation 2 2 Non - agricultural low- (10 > acres) impact uses: storage of vehicles under 26,000 tare weight (limited to 4% of 40- acre parcel) Maplewood 10,000 s.f. Agricultural/ Heavy commercial 786 -1 no Yes greenhouse/ vehicles - except if one structure limit nursery used for on -site (< 1 acre) farming 1 -2 combined (< 1 acre) 1,250 one structure (> 1 acre) 2,500 combined (> 1 acre) Woodbury 5 acres Agricultural - only Compatible use 2 2 No if pre- existing as determined by city council ATTACHMENT 4 ACCESS. STRUCTURE ORDINAW See. 36 -77. Accessory buildings. (a) The areas of accessory buildings on a lot shall be limited to the areas in the following table: (Q) (2) (3) Combination Detached Attached of detached btdgs. without garages and attached L area an attached without garage* (sq. ft.) garage bIdgs. buildirigs 1 Under 8,000 786 768 1 1 188 8,000 - 119999 1 0 000 1,000 1,420 12,000 - 15,999 1 1,000 1 16,000 - 20,999 1 1 1 21,000- 41,999 1,250 1,250 1,850 42,000 + 1,250 (garages) 1,250 2 1,000 (all other bldgs.) *The total area of all detached accessory buildings shall not ex- ceed the areas in column (2). The total of all attached garages shall not exceed the areas in column (3). (b,) A private garage shall not exceed sixteen (16) feet in height as viewed from the street. (c) The city council may approve an increase in height or area h conditional use permit. Ilowever, the maximum area of airy y one building shall not e xceed the maximum area allowed for an attached ara a in subsection (a) and the Height shall not exceed g g the height of the house. (d) Detached garages shall not include living space. No coin - merc;ial use of a garage shall occur unless authorized by the city council. Orel. N 621 § 2 2- 22 -88; Ord. No. 636, § 1, 11- 11 -88; Ord. No. 645 § I 6 -22 -8 9 ATTACHMENT 5 SETBACKS REQUIRED FOR BUSINESS ADJACENT RESIDENTI/ Sec. 36 -28. Additional design standards. (a) All construction and landscaping shall comply with the ply approved by the city. . (6) Construct all buildings, except single- and two- family homes, with the following minimum setbacks: a. Thirty (30) feet from a street right -of -way. b. Fifty (50) feet from a residential lot line. This setback shall be increased up to one hundred (100) feet based on the more restrictive of the following requirements: 1. Building height: The building setbacks shall be increased two (2) feet for each one (1) foot the building exceeds twenty -five (25) feet in height. 2. Exterior wall area: Where an exterior wall faces a residentially zoned property, the wall setback from the residential lot line shall be as follows: Minimum Setback Wall Area (square feet) (feet) 0 -1999 50 2000 -2999 75 3000 or more 100 (7) The city council may approve a conditional use permit to allow an addition within a required setback if: a. The required findings in section 36 -442 for a condi- tional use permit are met. b. The setback would be consistent with the setbacks for surrounding properties. C. At least eighty (80) percent of the addition would be screened from property that is used or shown on the city's land use plan for residential use. r 10 ATTACHMENT 6 MINUTES OF THE MAPLEWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION 1830 COUNTY ROAD B EAST, MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA MONDAY, JUNE 18 2001 Vim NEW BUSINESS A. Schlomka Landscaping Inc. (2511 Carver Avenue Conditional Use Permit -- Oversized Accessory Structure Conditional Use Permit — Commercial Vehicles and Equipment Home Occupation License Shann Finwall gave the staff presentation. She stated Paul Schlomka of 2511 Carver Avenue is requesting a conditional use permit to build a pole barn larger and taller than code allows; a home occupation license to operate a landscaping business from residential property; and a conditional use permit to store heavy commercial vehicles and equipment on residential property. She stated Mr. Schlomka's property is zoned farm residence, as are the surrounding properties. Within this zoning district pole barns are allowed. The size of the pole barn is based on the size of the lot. In this case, Mr. Schlomka has a five -acre lot and is limited to a 1,250 square foot pole barn at 16 -feet in height. Mr. Schlomka's proposed pole barn would be 4,234 square feet in area and 18.5 feet in height. Within the farm residence zoning district, commercial farming or gardening is allowed. However, Mr. Schlomka runs a landscaping business, which requires the storage of heavy commercial vehicles. Therefore, a home Occupation license is required as well as a conditional use permit for the storage of the heavy commercial vehicles, which will be used within the business and stored on this residential property. Ms. Finwall stated that Mr. Schlomka noted that his pole barn will be similar to a pole barn that was Constructed at 2405 Carver Avenue. The City Council did approve this 4,200 square. foot pole barn in 1997. Mr. Schlomka feels that that pole barn is somewhat of a precedence for approving his request. Staff noted that the size and exterior materials will be similar, but Mr. Schlomka proposes his pole barn will be for business purposes and not the storage of personal equipment, which was the intent of the approved pole barn at 2405 Carver Avenue. The location of the proposed pole barn is well hidden. It will be located in a wooded area behind the house and screened from Interstate 494. Ms. Finwall stated that Mr. Schlomka will be the sole employee of this business, and no customers will be coming and going to the property. The commercial vehicles that would be stored within the proposed pole barn are two pick -up trucks, one bobcat, one backhoe, one bulldozer, One front -end loader, one dump truck, and two trailers. Staff is sympathetic with Mr. Schlomka as his business is his livelihood and relocation could cause financial hardship. Staff does however feel that this business within residentially zoned property could lead. to future code enforcement problems. Furthermore, the home occupation request does not meet the. intent of the city's home occupation guidelines. It will generate a greater volume of traffic than is normally seen in a residential neighborhood, the area devoted by the home Occupation does exceed the 20% allowed, and the equipment used in the home occupation would create noise, dust, and vibration not normally seen within a residential neighborhood. Based on these findings, staff recommends denial of all three requests. Commissioner Frost asked if the pole barn's size is based on the lot size of the property. Ms. Finwall stated that the largest pole barn allowed in Maplewood is 1,250 square feet. Mr. Roberts stated that the sizes of the pole barns are based on a sliding scale of five sizes which is determined by lot size. A small lot of about 7,500 square feet is allowed a 700 square foot accessory building, and lots at one - acre or more are allowed 1,250 square feet of accessory buildings. This code has been on the books since about 1988. 11 Planning Commission Minutes of 06 -18 -01 Chairperson Fischer asked staff is this code has been looked at recently. She recalled that the code was put into place because of the proliferation of home businesses that were the auto maintenance type. She also stated concerns regarding unsightly storage of items in people's yards. It would be preferable to store unsightly items within an accessory building rather than in the yard area in sight of the neighbors. With that, she questioned if any effort has been made to look at the allowable garage sizes. Mr. Roberts indicated that staff has not received any directive from the Planning Commission, City Council or city management to review that code. He also stated that a factor in the amount of garage space allowed is whether there is a detached or attached garage to the main structure. If you have some attached and some detached, you are allowed more total square footage than if there is only detached garages. 4 Commissioner Rossbach asked staff the size of Mr. Grand's property at 2405 Carver Avenue. Mr. Roberts stated that it was almost five acres. Commissioner Dierich questioned how Mr. Grand received approval for the 4,200 square foot pole barn in light of the fact that the ordinance was enacted in 1988. Commissioner Dierich felt that it was an inconsistent application of code and that perhaps another evaluation or discussion is warranted regarding our code on this issue. She also stated that there were four other businesses in that neighborhood besides Mr. Schlomka's that have heavy traffic. She also added that Mr. Grand does store heavy equipment similar to what Mr. Schlomka will be storing. Mr. Roberts stated that Mr. Grand received approval for a conditional use permit by the City Council. He added that there have been no complaints in reference to what he is storing in his pole building, therefore, there has been no investigation. Commissioner Dierich added that she felt Mr. Schlomka's business will not generate additional traffic or additional noise. The area is surrounded by small businesses using large vehicles, which generate noise and traffic. Commissioner Dierich strongly disagrees with the staff findings regarding the traffic. She stated that Mr. Schlomka is a one - person business. She also disagreed with the second finding regarding the visible changes to the property, she stated that Mr. Schlomka has improved his property. Regarding the noise and dust in the area, she stated that 1494 is very noisy already and that there are construction trucks rolling through every morning at 6:00 a.m. for the two developments further down the street. She also pointed out that there is a significant amount of Woodbury traffic in this neighborhood already. She stated that she felt that Mr. Schlomka did not meet city code home occupation requirement b)4 regarding the area allowed to be used for a home occupation. She also felt Mr. Schlomka did not meet code under Section 36 -442, Item a)1 regarding conformity with the city's comprehensive plan. Chairperson Fischer asked staff what was the thought of the City Council when they approved Mr. Grand's request to replace his damaged structure with a pole barn double in size. Mr. Roberts did not recall specifically. He did state that it was a situation where none of the neighbors were concerned about the size of the structure, and City Council was sympathetic with his request and granted approval. Commissioner Rossbach recalled that there were no objections and that Mr. Grand had the support of his neighbors. He feels that the Council found it attractive that Mr. Grand wanted to do something to clean up his yard by using the new pole barn for storage. 12 Planning Commission Minutes of 06- 18 -01 The applicant, Mr. Paul Schlomka, addressed the Commission. He stated that ideally he would prefer to have a piece of commercial property for his business. In his current position, however, he cannot afford it and that is why he is working out of his home. He stated that the property has been family owned since 1963 and virtually nothing has changed in that area. He stated that he would be willing to limit the time he leaves in the morning and when he returns and when he runs his equipment if that is an issue. He added that his secluded location next to a major interstate makes the site suitable for this type of building and business. Commissioner Trippler stated that if this application was granted approval, what is to prevent additional people from requesting oversized pole barns citing Mr. Grand's and Mr. Schlomka's applications as precedence. He asked staff if changing the zoning of the property to commercial would be possible. Mr. Roberts indicated that crearly that area is a large lot or farm type setting and felt that there may be opposition by members of the Commission to a zoning change. He added if the zoning was changed and then sold by Mr. Schlomka, the house might be removed and perhaps some undesirable development may occur there. Ms. Finwall added that would be considered a spot zoning, but a possible amendment to the city's farm residence district which would allow this type of business to be a permitted use might be a thought. Chairperson Fischer asked staff if someone was actually doing farming on this piece of property, wouldn't they also have similar types of heavy equipment. Mr. Roberts stated, yes that is possible. Commissioner Rossbach stated has issue is not about the equipment, it is about the home occupation and he stated that granting this application would set a terrible precedence. He stated that the spirit and intent of the home occupation ordinance is to allow small businesses to operate out of their home. It was not intended to have a big equipment situation. Chairperson Fischer asked if there was additional accessory building square footage allowed in a farm zone versus a R1 zone. Mr. Roberts indicated that pole barns are not allowed in R1 zones. The issue is the size of the pole barn requested, which is too large and too high. He added that the maximum size of a detached accessory building in a farm zone would be 1,250 square feet, which is for properties one -acres and higher. Commissioner Dierich asked staff if the conditional use permit for the heavy equipment would be transferred with the property, or would a new owner have to apply for a new conditional use permit to have heavy equipment on the property. Ms. Finwall stated that the conditional use permit would run with the land. However, Mr. Schlomka has agreed to, make a condition that this conditional use permit would end with his ownership of the property. Mr. Roberts stated that if the City Council dies approve this conditional use permit, they could set any number of conditions, such as the number of pieces of equipment or hours of operation. Commissioner Rossbach asked the applicant about the doors on the pole barn. One of the neighbors had requested that the doors face the west instead of the east. The staff report indicated that the doors would be moved to the south because of the concern over vandalism. Mr. Schlomka stated that if the garage doors were facing the freeway, it would be open to see what is inside of the garage. He stated that they have had vandalism problems in the past because of the seclusion. 13 Planning Commission Minutes of 06 -18 -01 Commissioner. Pearson asked staff if a home occupation license would allow any retail or wholesale sales on this site. Ms. Finwail stated this home occupation could not have retail or wholesale. The home occupation that is before the commission is for a landscape contractor's office and storage. Commissioner Pearson stated that this use of the property seems to be right for the area. The neighbors are not opposing it, the noise from the highway is in excess of anything that would be generated from Mr. Schlomka's business, and additional traffic does not seem to be an issue. Commissioner Pearson stated that this request should be something that we could accommodate, but a home occupation license does not seem to be the right vehicle to get there. Mr. Roberts stated, as Ms. Pi - nwall suggested, that a code amendment to the farm zone would be something to consider to accommodate this type of business, and /or similar businesses. Mr. Jay Libby, of 2591 Carver, a neighbor to the applicant, addressed the Commission. He stated that he fully supports Mr. Schlomka's proposal. He stated that there are only three residences in that area that would be affected by this ,proposal. He stated that with Interstate 494 adjacent to Mr Schlomka's property any additional noise that may be generated by Mr. Schlomka's business would be unnoticeable. Ms. Judy Schlomka, the owner of 2511 Carver, addressed the Commission. She stated that she has owned the property since 1963, and nothing has changed in the area. She stated that they have always had trucks. and also have had race cars, and have never had any complaints. They have always taken pride in the ownership of their property and have always kept it neat and in order. Commissioner Mueller listed nine reasons why the Commission should allow the applicants proposal: 1) Due to Interstate 494, no extra noise will be added; 2) it is a wooded lot, and the structure will be built where it is not visible; 3) it is on a 5 -acre lot, the size of the pole barn is based on a 1 -acre lot; 4) it is zoned farm; 5) farming requires equipment; 6) farming is somewhat a home occupation; 7) a new owner would need to apply for a home occupation license; 8) conditions can be set on a CUP; and 9) all but one neighbor is in favor of this proposal. Commissioner Dierich stated that she lived in this neighborhood. She said that this is a very tight knit neighborhood and that the neighbors themselves would control much of what goes on there and would go directly to Mr. Schlomka if there was a problem. She stated that she felt that Mr. Schlomka is very aware of that and he has been a good neighbor for many years. She stated that she would not want to deprive someone of their livelihood because the Commission cannot find a way to make this conditional use permit amenable without setting precedence. She stated that the Commission needs to be more creative with their thinking in this situation. Commissioner Rossbach stated that looking at the farm zone might be advisable and perhaps combine some of the thoughts that Commissioner Mueller stated. He feels that using a home occupation. licenses is not the intent of that ordinance. He suggested denying this application and asking staff to research what could be done to the farm zoning ordinance to make this type of situation allowable. Commissioner Ledvina stated that he would support the conditional use permit with specific conditions that tie the activity to the current property owner. He stated that he would have a problem with this CUP if we were giving a long -term approval for this use. For this specific situation, it does seem to make good sense that Mr. Schlomka is able to continue his operation and his livelihood. 14 Planning Commission Minutes of 06 -18 -01 Commissioner Rossbach asked if we could use the conditional use permit to allow the building and the storage of equipment, and not grant the home occupation license. He stated that Mr. Schlomka is not actually doing his business on his property, only storing the equipment. 'Mr. Roberts cited the home occupations code, 17 -21A 5, states that "Home occupations shall require a license approval by the city council if any of the following occur more than 30 -days each year." Mr. Roberts stated that of the six, number 5 states "a vehicle or vehicles used in the home occupation and parked on the premises which exceeds a 3 / ton payload capacity." Mr. Roberts stated that this is one of the reasons that Mr. Schlomka is required to have a home occupation license. If the farm code was amended, to say that a landscape business or similar type business was either permitted or a conditional use, then that would supersede the home occupation requirements. Chairperson Fischer asked if the present code exclude farm operation from having to have a home occupation permit. Mr. Roberts stated that the code does not specifically state that, but the farm code permitted uses include commercial farming or gardening, including the use or storage of associated equipment. He stated that farming is a permitted use, and overrides the home occupation requirements. Commissioner Trippler asked staff if the applicant decided to start farming could he drop the home occupation. Mr. Roberts indicated that yes, as long as he was farming. Commissioner Trippler asked what the size requirement of the land farmed would have to be. Mr. Roberts indicated that the code is silent on the size requirements. Commissioner Trippler asked if growing sod would be considered a farming operation. Mr. Roberts indicated that yes, it would be. Commissioner Pearson asked if procedurally, would it be better to lay this application on the table and give staff and the applicant time to come back with a different zoning request. Ms. Finwall stated that staff could take some time to look at the existing farm zoning, the size of the lots in much of the zoning district, and make a determination on allowing this type of business as either a permitted use or a conditional use within the farm zoning district. With that option, staff would request the applicant to sign a waiver giving up his sixty -day rights as required by the city to make a determination on this application. It could be tabled for possibly a month to review this option. Commissioner Rossbach stated that if we were to explore changing the farm zone, that we may not want to approach it under the thought that landscaping businesses would be a permitted use in that zone. We should look at it as permitting the storage of larger equipment on farm zoned property and also escalating the building size scale so that a five -acre lot would be allowed a larger type storage building than a one -acre lot. Mr. Roberts stated that reviewing this change may take up to three or four months. Commissioner Rossbach moved that the Planning Commission table the consideration of home occupation and conditional use permits for Mr. Schlomka's application for approximately four weeks to allow staff time to research additional options of amending the farm residential zone to allow larger pole barns beyond the one -acre size limitation, to allow the storage of more commercially oriented equipment on property zoned farm and also to consider what type of screen that would be appropriate if a larger building were allowed on the property. Also, setbacks should be looked at. Staff should also explore and clarify the permitted uses or conditional uses that would be allowable in the farm zone. If heavy equipment is being allowed, it should be housed and specific hours of use should be reviewed. Commissioner Frost seconded the motion. Ayes — All 15 ATTACHMENT 7 MINUTES OF THE MAPLEWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION 1830 COUNTY ROAD B EAST, MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA MONDAY, AUGUST 6, 2001 6. b. Code Amendment — F (Farm Residence) District Ms. Finwall stated that on June 18, 2001, the planning commission directed staff to research possible code amendments to the cities farm zone. The proposed changes were prompted by Paul Schlomka's request for a home occupation license to conduct a landscaping business from his farm zone property at 2511 Carver Avenue. This request included two conditional use permits that were associated with the business (one for a 4,224 square foot pole barn and one for the storage of commercial vehicles on residential property). Mr. Schlomka has agreed to delay his request until staff's research, into possible farm -zone code changes is complete. Staff does not propose any changes to Maplewood's accessory structure ordinance, but does propose a change to the farm zone ordinance to allow landscaping or similar business with a conditional use permit within the farm zone on property of 4 or more acres. The conditional use permit would be subject to the following: a. No exterior storage of commercial vehicles, equipment, or material associated with the business. Storage of these items must be in an approved accessory structure, which must comply with the strict setback requirements of commercial buildings adjacent residential property, which specify a minimum setback of 50 feet. 1. The accessory structure and any other areas of .the lot, which are associated with the business, must comply with the landscaping and screening requirements of commercial buildings adjacent residential property. b. No more than one (1) nonresident employee shall be allowed to work on the premises. C. The hours of operation are limited to 7 a.m. to 7 p.m., Monday through Saturday. Ms. Finwall noted that Commissioner Ledvina, who is excused from tonight's meeting, expressed a concern that an individual property owner could acquire a conditional use permit for such a business on a property that is 4 acres, and then want to subdivide the property at a later time and not have the required acreage for the business. Ms. Finwall noted that all subdivisions must be approved by the city and no subdivision could take place unless the property owner with this type of landscaping business applied for and received a variance from the strict 4 -acre size tot required for this type of business, or the business would have to close. ` Commissioner Frost asked for clarification on staff's proposed changes to the accessory structure ordinance. Ms.. Finwall replied staff is not proposing any changes to the cities accessory structure ordinance. Commissioner Dierich asked for clarification on staff's recommendation for the minimum to size for this type of business. 16 Planning Commission Minutes 8 -6 -2001 Ms. Finwall replied that for a business such as this staff is recommending that the lot size be a minimum of 4 acres. Commissioner Dierich asked if that include things like easements that may run through the property. Ms. Finwall replied that is correct. Commissioner Dierich stated that she is uncomfortable with that because she would Like to see the easements excluded because the person can't really use that land even though they own it. There is a lot of property in that southern portion of the city that there are easements on and that would make those properties less than 4 acres. 4 Mr. Roberts replied that one thing those easements do is to make those lots more difficult to subdivide and also it creates space between homes and structures. Commissioner Trippler asked how staff decided that 4 acres was the cutoff. Ms. Finwall stated that since most of the Planning Commissioners felt that what Mr. Schlomka was proposing for his lot was reasonable, but were uncomfortable allowing it with a home occupation, Mr. Schiomka's lot at 4.34 acres was used as a guide. Commissioner Pearson stated you have to set a line someplace. Below that line it would be up to that applicant to apply for a variance which the city can weigh the validity of that application. Commissioner Trippler stated nothing in this really changes the 2,500 square feet of building structure regardless if it is 4 acres or 12 acres. He was under the impression that we were asking staff to come up with some kind of a recommendation on sizing the accessory structures more to the lot sizes. On a 1 -acre plot of land a 2,500 square foot building takes up 5.7% of that total acreage. Chairperson Fischer clarified that the city would look not only at the size of the building but also at the number of acres that the applicant had when reviewing a conditional use permit for a larger accessory structure. Mr. Roberts stated that it would be part of the conditional use permit review. Because clearly you would like to think there would be more options of where that building could fit on a 5 -acre parcel verses a 1 -acre parcel and what they could do for setbacks and the impact on them. Commissioner Dierich asked Mr. Roberts to explain the setback of accessory structures she is not clear on that language. Does that mean that the front of the accessory structure has to be behind the residence. Ms. Finwall answered that staff is proposing that the accessory structure meet the setback requirements for a commercial building when adjacent to residential property. This code now states that the commercial has to be at least 50 feet from a residential property line. The accessory structure ordinance also requires that an accessory structure be placed behind the residential building itself. Commissioner Dierich says that clarifies things for her. Commissioner Frost asks what the setbacks are for a building next to a right -of -way. `f7 Planning Commission Minutes 8-6-2001 Ms. I'inwall answered that in the farm zone the front yard setback is 30 feet from the front property line and if it was on a comer lot it would be 34 feet for the side line adjacent a right -of- way as well. Commissioner Pearson thanked the staff for the work they have done on this and also to Mr. Schlomka for allowing the city additional time to come to this type of proposal. Commissioner Pearson moved approval of the ordinance amendment in order to allow landscaping and other similar businesses in the farm zone with a conditional use permit with the conditions as specified by staff. Commissioner Frost seconded the motion. 4 Motion carried. Ayes —All 18 ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE FARM RESIDENCE DISTRICT ATTACHMENT The Maplewood City Council approves the following changes to the Maplewood Code of Ordinances: Section 1. This amendment changes subdivision (1) and adds subdivision (5) to Section 36 -52 (Farm Residence District Conditional Uses) (additions are underlined): Section 36 -52. Conditional uses. The following uses may be permitted by conditional use permit: (1 } Any use allowed by conditional use in the R -1 Residence District, except that equipment and vehicles used for on -site farming ®r equipment and vehicles used for an on -site landscaping business, or any other similar bus, iness approved with a conditional use permit as described in Section 36 -52(5) below, shall be a permitted use. ,(5) As an accessory use to residential property, a landscaping business, or any other similar use that is determined to be the same general character as a landscape business, if on a parcel of land that is _L4 acres or larger. Where there is a question concerning the appropriateness of a similar use as a conditional use within the farm residence district, the planning commission shall review the question and forward a recommendation to the city council for final determination. The landscaping or similar type business must meet the findings for a conditional use permit and the foilowing: a There shall be no exterior storage of commercial vehicles, equipment, or material associated with the business. Storage of these items must be in an approved accessory structure that meets the findings below: 1. The accessory structure must meet the size and height requirements as specified in Section 36 -77 sso!y Structures). 2. When adjacent a residential lot, the accessory structure must comply with the setback requirements specified in Section 36- 28(c )(6)(b) (Additional Design Standards ). When adjacent to a commercial lot, the accessory structure must comply with Section 36 -71 and 36 -72 (Residential Side and Rear Setbacks for Accessory Structures). 3. When adjacent a residential lot, the accessory structure, and other areas of the lot where deemed necessary, shall comply with Section 36- 27(a), (b), (c), and (d) (Landscaping and Screening,). b No more than one (1) nonresident employee shall be allowed to work on the premises. C. The hours of operation are limited to 7 a.m. to 7 p.m., Monday through urday. Section 2. This ordinance shall take effect after the city publishes it in the official newspaper. The Maplewood City Council approved this ordinance on September 10, 2001. Mayor Attest: City Clerk Ayes - Nays - Wel MEMORANDUM Agenda # "�J TO: City Manager Action by Council FROM: Shann Finwall, Associate Planner SUBJECT Voting Requirements for Zoning Ordinance Amendments Map C QYC9,,,, -_ DATE: September 4 2001 Endorsed Modified INTRODUCTION Rejected --_0 At the June 25, 2001, city council meeting, staff discussed the changes made by the 2001 Legislature to Minnesota's planning and enabling law. As you recall, the Legislature amended the voting requirements for zoning code amendments and zoning map changes. The amended law went into effect May 30, 2001, and takes precedence over the city's current zoning ordinance. As a housekeeping measure, and to comply with the new state requirements, staff is proposing a zoning code amendment. 4 BACKGROUND The City's Zoning Code, Article VII, Section 36-484 states that the city council may adopt and amend the city's zoning ordinance or map by a two- thirds majority vote of all its members. To summarize, Maplewood's city council would have to vote at least 4 to 1 in favor of a requested amendment to a zoning ordinance or change to the zoning map for approval. This section of the zoning ordinance is mandated by Minnesota's planning and enabling law (Section 2000, Chapter 462) which gives municipalities the power to conduct and implement municipal planning. During the 2001 Minnesota Legislative Session, the Builders' Association of Minnesota (BAM) and the Minnesota Association of Realtors (MAR) requested changes to the above - mentioned law. The BAM and MAR proposed changes to building code interpretation, plan review fees, and zoning ordinances. These changes were proposed in a attempt to reduce market barriers to building more affordable homes. The changes were adopted by the Legislature and signed into law by the Governor. A section of the new law affects the voting requirements for zoning ordinance amendments and zoning map changes. Minnesota Statutes 2000, section 462.357, subdivision 2 (attached) was amended to require a majority vote (at least 3 out of 5 in favor) of all governing body members for amendments to zoning ordinances or changes to zoning maps. An exception to this requirement is the adoption or amendment of any portion of a zoning ordinance that changes all or part of the existing classification of a zoning district from residential to commercial or industrial. In this case, the governing body must have a two- thirds majority vote (at least 4 out of 5 in favor) of all its members. COMMITTEE ACTION The planning commission unanimously recommended approval of the ordinance amendment at the August 6, 2001, planning commission meeting. The city council unanimously approved the first reading of the ordinance amendment at the August 27, 2001, city council meeting RECOMMENDATION Approve the proposed ordinance amendment on page 8. This amendment changes the voting requirements for zoning code amendments and zoning map Changes. Attachments: 1. Minnesota Statutes 2000, section 462.357, subdivision 2 2. Ordinance Amending the Amendments and Changes Article i ATTAUMEN 1 bA ?Q(`A-CA10'10S 1 o - zoo In Qme0 -e o +s ........ .. t • , tQjstature N ae�e � S�teroh � Help. (Ltnka t►o the Wo rld rid House of Re r esen ta tives • �t.A-rte � old language to b un a removed .d = new language to be added Na E: If you GaiIm0t SM ,3I1 (�' ' y if - erence in the key above, you need to khan di play undcrscored lan e, - �c the dxs�l�y of s�zic�en g Authors and S List versi s� ®ns 4 . T No.1310, 4th Eng Sind Legrtslattve session (20 Post on May 23, 2001 l . ` A bill for an act relating to construction; giving the state bu' ld • 1.3 official final. a uthority for interpreting the State �' '` 1.4 Building Code and prescribing its enforcement; 1. regulating construction-related • 6 on- related fees; requiring �' municipalities to submit annual 2.7 construct�.On- -rel reports on 1,e ed fees; providing for adoption of J-9 9 certain amendments to the mechanical code; limitin g ordinances; clarifying 1.10 p i certain municipal buil ding code Certain terms; ; modi f in 1,11 Y 9 provisions relating to construction warranties; limiting certain waivers 1.12 rights; modifying rov' of x ..13 Y 9,p isions relating to Zoning ordinances; amending Minnesota Statutes 2000 se 1.14 168.62, subdivisions �. 2 • , , ctions � . 15 .- Z 6B 62, subdivis �. 16.s. 63, 4y adding a subdivision; 326. 5 . 1.16- 1; 327A.p1, subdivision �• on 2, 327A.02, subdivisions 1, 3 1 ' l7 462-353, subdivision sio � - • ons 2, 5; 18 n 4; 4 62.357 s subdivisi 1. proposing coding for new 1.15 g law in Minnesota Statutes, chapters 168; 462. 1'20 BE IT D S THE LEGI SLATURE SLATURE OF THE STATE OF MINNEECI A Section. Mtinnesota Statutes 20oo, section R 168 ♦ 61, - 22 sub l • ivision 1, is amended t � �c.� � ��� �c.� • �,t-S� o read 1.2 vision 1. [ADOPTION OF CODS. a Subject to secti n 1 1.65.5 to 16�. 75, the commission o s e er shall by rule establish a 1-25 code of standards fo th � - - 26 alteration, and re ail o cons reconstruct 1.27 structural mater• p buildings•`governing on, matters of ials, design and cons tructi fire rdtecti 1.28 health, sanitation, and safet p on, �- - � 9 construction standards r Y' including design and 1 illurninatiQn regarding heat loss control, and, climate control. The code must eonfo . 1-31 insofar as practicab rm 1 e to model building codes generall 1.32 accepted an Y d in use throughout the United States, including ... �- code for building conservation. In 9 2.2 consideration mu be iven the preparation of the code, 2.3 codes presently in u5e tO t he a istIna statewide specia�.t in the state. Model codes with necessay 2.4 modi,ficat�.ons and s tatewide s eci ry 2.5 reference The code must be based on the application of P alty codes may be adopted by 2.6 scientific - 2.7 principles, approved tests, and professional. judgment. To the extent possible th 2.8 terms of desired results in$ Lead of th code must be adopted in 2. results, avoiding wherev e m,earzs of achieving those wh erev er possible the incorporation of 2.20 specifications of anti 2.11 the code must enc P ular methods or materials. To that e ourage the use of new methods and new nd htt • / /v� ' p. ►. revs nor. deg. state.mn.us&gi- biD/,aefbitt. 1 ?se = p ssxon Ls82&version=latest�nu 310 61510 1 2 2.12 materials. Except as otherwise 2.13 168 the commissioner shall px'ovided in sect ions 168 , 5 to 2 -14 provisions of 1 administer and enforce the. 2.15 T e those sect 2.15 _ c. Omm i a i-Q r Q u a. s n v w d t o 2.17 .t • nS � 2.18 a v e s - faz use 0 em . 2.19 n tr Rod s 2.20 9 7 view e 2.21 a w d' c i c s r 2.22 Se 2_ h v • Minnesota Statutes 2000, section 16B. 61 �.�. 2.23 subdivision 2, is amended to re l 2.24 Subd. 2_ ad ' 2.25 dir supervision of the eornmissione [ENFORCEMENT BY CERTAIN BODIES.] Under tion and the 2 the code relating to electrical r, the provisions of installations shall be- .enforc 2,27 by the state board of electricity, p ursuant • 2 . 2 8 Electrical pct the P t to the Minnesota 2.29 enforCed b the` provisions relating to plumbing shall be 2.34 to high y commissioner of health, the provisions g pressure_ steam i i relating .2.31 enforced by the de art P g and ` appurtenanoes shall be 2.32 inspeCtitans conduc nt of labor an industry. Fees for ted by the state board of electricit sh e rule Y all be 2.33 paid in accordance with th 2.34 electricity. Under dire ction " of the state board of 2.35 safety, ection of the commissioner of public the state fire marshal 2.36 Uniform Fi Code a$ r shall enforce the Minnesota p ovided in chapter 299F. 3 .1 - cons '1.2� t at io'i - ; w' th 3.2 a o t a the G ommiss :one. of � ��,n,- and n ustr s t 3o3 of the Bid 3.4 dp n � f 3.5 tEFFECTM DATE ,. ] � • 316 �t 1lowin i ai �on 1 e fective the dam c ment . 3 .7 Sec. 3 . Minnesota. Statute • r 3 .g subdz s 2Ua0, section x.58.62, �f -��� :�'� 19 i,� �.�.5� ". on I, is amended to read: 3 . 9 Subdivision 1 _ (MUNYCIP��h 3 = Code a ENF ORCEMENT . ) The State Build .ng 3.11 . PPl•ies statewide and supersedes the bu' municipality. �, un • ilding code of any 3.12 eve o me G t di or • n t agreemen ---- 3.23 r a n com neat I nc codes royisi ns . 3 .14 e e s -o ys e $ of anv resident is r t u L r a n v �. 3.15 Cod m i gi -State 8uil_di -n _ _3_,16 _•_1 � _ ma w '� he _ v _ _ t coo a d P at e 3.1? J_tStat n r i nce h ism a es ; e Bu�.ld, no �_ 3 -18 a m i s con es t ct ive o di, • 3 .19 a a rn al.Y mati ap c l h t ............ 11 °f$ °e �•t'vec nce 3.20 is ' one,. �.n h 3.21 eal n r hi 'v' ' h srhedLle. fee, e u s t • s s t 3.22 ou 1 v o -- and ame- 3.23 not ap 1 to n scctlon ,� The State B uildin g P Y agricultural build, t with ngs exce g Code does 3.24 inspections required or rul p h respect to state 3 2S 103F.141, ezr,8king authorized by sections 3.26 mun • , 2 16C.19, subdivision 8, and 326.244 lc3pal�.ties shall adopt and enforce h � All 3.27 with respect to new constr t e State Building Code 3.•28 uction � urisc�ictions .. within their respective 3 if a city has ado zed or . 3.30 Code on June 3, 39 ?7� '-s enforcing the State Building 3.31 to undertake enfor , or determines by ordinance .after t hat 3.32 city, c cement, it shall enforce the cod hat dare it may by ordinance extend the e e with the 3 code t enforcement of the o contiguous unincorp 3.34 miles distant from its cor porated territory not more than two . 3.35 two poste Limits in any direction. or mare noncontiguous cities which have here 3.36 the code have boundaries less elected to enforce 4 . 1 authorized to enfo code on less than four miles apart, each is 4.2 between therm. the its side. of a line e u • m. Once enforc q i diatant ement auth . orl.ty is extended http / /vr"w.rwisor.Ie , state.mn. '.. • us /cgs bin/getb�.pl ?session= ls82&v -� e rs�on -- Iatest�;nu,rnber =Hl3 f +D 6151 4.3 eXtraterritorially by ordinance, e, the authority may continue to 4.4 be exercised in the designated territory even though another ¢• city less than four miles distant 4 . 6 code After the exteZSi later elects to enforce the on. the cit 4.7 y may enforce the code in the .designated area to the same extent 4.8 situated within its c �crate as if the property were 11 A city which, on Ju Zimits , 4410 not commence ne 3 19? ?, had not adopted the code ma enforcement oz the code within or outside o Y 4 . 1 1 jurisdiction until it has rovi.de f its 4,12 commissioner, the coun d written notice to the ntY auditor, and the town clerk of each 4 .13 town in which it intends to enforce 4.14 on the proposed enforcement the code. A public hearing must be held not less than 30 days 4.15 after. the notice has been rovided 4-16 the city outside of its P • • on commences on the first d . Enforcement of the code by jurisdiction of January in the year followin Y 4.18 Municipalities may g the notice and hearing. 9.19 inspection and Y PrQ�'ide the issuance of permits, enfor within thei r jurisdictions b means ve 4.20 which are convenient, and lawful Y 4.21 contracts with other m , including by means of 4.22 and with unicipalsties pursuant to section 4 71.59 4.23 d • qualified individuals. The other munici a ified individuals may be reimbursed b r e t ention p ls.or 4.24 remission of some or all of t or Y or �,•25 by other means, he building permit fee collected or In areas of the state where inspect' o 4.26 enforcement is unavailable from and 4.27 municipalities, the co qualified employees of 4.28 individuals ava • mm�_ shall train and designate avai lable to carry out inspection and enforcement ment on �� a fee basis. n t is sot• • 30 n • fr om adoplg ' t rd a . 4. 31 e t n to 2oni sion,�_ or �..annina, ess � • 4.32 Ce ,can ' its with a provision Sta Suz i de t t re e 110 m 4.33 �'rs � ential. str .ur � nen�s o�yst 4.34 ems of any sec. 4. Minnesota Statu n � 4 .35 es 2000, section 1sB. �3� is amended by adding a subdivision to 4.36 reread: u . - [ INTERPRETA TIVE AUTHORITY. T 5 11 " Ste a l Ch _ o a ieV n 5.2 ��' f'ci 1 ha he Sta Bu'l e h fat 5 o es a 1 ' v a t a lic b A a 5.4 o e t fi u' d r th l,�urnbin P z ' g Ca a �,1�C he 1e n e f t ri c t A f' na 1' n 5.6 Co i to o d oret e ers 5.7 bui�.d�,n�Offi�a� f ee 5.8 � constructio ; n r torn the a fe ted fi P1��, an 5.9 o f i na 1 t _____` sV r Se .. v s l 1 r v' e n e pretations r n t fie w r a s '� � Are ue f 4� 5 . 10 �t.eM at' m o 5.11 b a_.Q a boa c v zd a pp�als The s 5 _12 mu t. - - sa e b ldsna ff _3cia 5.13 co ocd a frm rh' YTSret iye priatp comm' e r vi w S .14 a.�n_.da _�m k e a r c mitt h a 11 e e A t o t 5.15 final inter stat ild' ff ' i 1 for t 5.16 � • . �-� _ o n w ' t h ' n 3 � he ---.�� off ' mus he state 1 . 5.1. bus ' e s • he r c n=n s t a' o w' ' n - a s f m= a t 5.18 • t a e view a. 5.19 a f • is n pretats d .onn e n e thin n 4 S sua•j , to e rnrn' S �„o i 5.2 0 Th, -- ca 1 ne under 5.2 s eat �, on 16 ? 5,21 - f� .antetation � _ is issuan G with n ten urine d made av ` 5..22 bui�.d' ° he is 5.23 ,.. � �� .tnq_!Qf'Ft 101 .5 S 0141 a � ,� l-- t-e..� -.}� t i ons is$ued b drain ' �t-Ar all f' na 5.24 f l e to � _�.u' c► fici I t 5.25 St MMT e consid rpr•1 �,-►r - d • o 5,26 � 168. 6�5 � j PERMIT FEE LI 5.27 RESL IMPROVEMENTS, MzTATION oN MINOR 4 5.28 mu _ rl �t � III �--- -� ----p a t de n e n ^. 5.2 o f own ma y n t a rve --- _.'__4 s i� ' a ' ��,.. f (1 �.,,�? e rmi , fee that http: / /YY"'YW revisor. le . state. •_ . - - g mn.uslcgi �u�/getbill.pl ?session= Is82& _ - exs�on latest�number =I 131 O 6/5i0 1 4 5.30 5.33 5.32 5.33 5.34 5.35 5.36 5.l 6.2 6.3 6.4 6.5 6. 9 6.7 6.8 6.9 6.10 6.11 6.12 6'.13 6.14 6.15 6.16 6.17 6:.18 6.19 6.20 6.21 6.22 6.23 6 . 2 4 6.25 6_26 6.27 6.28 6.29 6.30 6.31 6.32 6.33 6.34 6.35 6.36 7.1 7.2 7.3 7.4 7.5 7.5 7.7 7.8 7.9 ?.10 7.11 7.12 7.13 7.14 7.15 ?.16 7.17 7.18 7.19 7.20 s percent of the cost o t impro i 8 , r�nlac me - � w i chever � rovem ri t e ' apn Z ianc :hat: do= i d' i •p e e ' services; a h a ° t fixture or pp1, ance: and the co 3 ' o ved ' ns al b e e _ o w n -- th r " v tl se d cori -n" h OILt -- •• •• • } L ANNUAL REPORT.] e w • th i e r ' ed Act each b An G t1 i 3 i o r Rartmen n m CO n e t st o ion and deve o e th v - �'-gn • a 1 es o l ed b e cn � u , r d for must include: c o T h e s f • pal which f�► -s were -� h - a mount o f buildin erm ' � 1 . admin' • ` e �a_n review fees. . Et , ees en in erina ees fe s a hez c�nst tion and de o m e n.. 1 _r � a f -�� • t�.pen�ses as a W't the mu i t e n�C1.pa1 a ti vit ies e w r c 11ec d _ec. 7 • Minnesota Statutes 2000, sectiQ ` sub . v is ion 1, is amended to read: n 326.90, -, ' - �• , '• Subdivision l . LOCAL LICE F• ' 06t Provided in sect' RISE PROI$TTED,j EKCept as a 1 lOnS 3 -9 1, o �2, , �,�. - 326.90, subdivision 2, d Political subdivis require a � licensed under sections 326.83 may not re q Person 6.83 to 326.991 to also be licensed or R�aa. t ° ° t fe rc 1 a tdto ' ordinance, law, rule, or re ulation a under any subdivision. This section do of the political e es not prohibit charges for building p er mi ts or other charges not di.rtctl, rela ted to �• Minnesota Statute . ision s 200 section 327A. 01,- subdiv �, is amended to read: Su-bd. 2. (BU ILDING STANDARDS. ) •• the g standards means •� .. • .o ssione t drn • e 8 1 erode, adoned bye in1stration pur to seCt� • 6B ' 7 �-- t -� remodelina f ect a the t ia °f .rn . a canes r � tion or Sec. 9. Minnesata Statutes 2000 sub a 1 is amended to read: section 327A. 02, Subdivision �. , ' comp ,leted dw [WARRANTIES B1' VE NDORS - 3 In ever sal d w el ling, and in every contract for the � a a dwell to be completed, the vendor sale of a that: dor shall warrant to the vendee (a) during the one --year eriod date the dwelling shall p from and after the warranty workmanshi and d be . onco free from defects caused b fain P efective materi due to nms ty building standards; . P nce with (b) during the two -year period from date, the dwelling shall be free f and after the warranty �mbin , electrical, - defects caused by faulty nstal3atian of plu s� 'stezcts du to on rn g rival,_ heating, and coaling w•th i din standard and (c) during the ten -year period from a date, the dwelling shal,�. be free a nd after the w�3zranty t o c _ e from major construction defects ; ance wi h Sec 10 u�l n st radar . Minnesota Statutes 2 000, section 327A '� ,,t , . C�C� 'abQ UIL. !or. 3 is amended to r _ 0 L� � ' read: http :l /Wwvv, revisor. Ieg. sta.te.mn- uslG '_ �; bin/getbill.pl ?session= IS82&version= latest &number= H13.10 615101 5 7.2 7.2 2 7.2 7.2 4 7.2 7.2 6 7.2 7 7,28 7.29 7,30 7.31 7.32 7.33 7.34 7.35 7.36 8.l 8.2 8.3. 8.4 8.5 8.6 8.7 8 .8 8. 9 8.10 8.11 8.12 8.13 8.1a 8.15 8.16 8.17 8.18 0.19 8.20 8.21 8.22 8.23 8.24 8.25 8.26 8.27 8.28 8.29 8.30 8.31 8.32 8.33 8.34 8 35 8.36 9.1 9.2 9.3 9.4 i Subd. 3. [HOME IMPROVEMENT WARRANTIE -in a contract for the sale- S • � � a � Ina sale or a e of home improvement work involving' 3 major structural changes or additions to a re • the home is �pro;;e�r�ent contract residential building, 5 or shall warrant to the owner than; (1) . during the one -year period from and after the date the home improvement shall from be free f .warranty faulty workmanship' and defect 'v m defects caused by P e matersals due to noncompliance with building standards; and (2) during the ten - year period from and after th date the home improvement shall be free from ma • e warranty defects to i - wi th 3or construction 1 �g s andards , Eby In a sale or in a contract for the sale of home ° provemen,t work involving the installation of lumbi e.tectr3i.cal t heating or cooling s y stems o contractor shall warrant r t P he home improvement t® the owner that r during the .two -ye ax period from and after the warranty date the ' ho m e ' shall be fre T�om.defects c , h me improvement caused by the faulty installation of' the system or systems - due o 1 . ce . ' standards . -'-ld- w ig (c) in a sale or in a contract for the sale o improvement work not covered b f any home irRproven-�ent contractor y Pa ragraph (a or (b ? , the home the one-year shall warrant to the owner that, durin -y ear period from and of ter the warranty date ' the home e improvement shall be free from defects workmanship or defective ma caused by faulty materials due to noncompliance with buildin standards . . Sec 11 Minnesota Statutes 200 s ' s uv3s�.OI9 - �( i ect 462.353, ���-��,., r s amended to read: Subd. 4. [FEES.) A prescribe sufficient to defray he cost � may p cribe fees investi atin y s incurred by it in reviewing, g g, and administering an applicati 'for an u amen to an official control. established pursuant amendment application t to sections to 4 62.364 or an application for a permit or other app roval required under an official control establis sections . prescribed e hed pursuant to those Fees as -� �,�t be b ordi ust ba Y ance b an © o a e to a ac $ of t o se v' o f w c 1- ho fe . s i ost sha a o municipalit em' n n c un ' n r r s ,� - e ensure that yes ax's in fined and use on f ire co t d* the Se for whzch they if a d .spo e • �rer a ecific fee imooseri bY: rtunc�. al t re lated o a s e i s the fee must a de s ' t a ' on • t --.� d and i es crow ., d e r 'eyed b_,t ee ma al o S o • w. an t c n a roved =T) ica ' on - may r ed -- �r sec nn 46 .36 An end.in as the ee d been ......... p a e C o n f h a �.••,r,o i 1 X20 0 .� Sec. 1 1462 [ WAIVER OF RIGHTS. wai ver of ri h • of ) C?t".- 1 n eff tl nl er sec on 42 .OB is e un of es assessme 3 a �sm�nt t mated or f ©r the t are in dye eff ctive w 'v a r ��n tS of ano cA1 n r sec `en 42 9 - n in ac�d�tiona�. con i n v' di D81 a _ a e sme S t a ti 1 nc nor lt]�reaSf -'S 2 - � w ' � 1 be g 12ifec 1 t h i ncr a s --�.° developer r ^prc r a e t- QUA s,ts mad by the ..... ..... 2 4- caner; - or /714�{I.LSF U 1* S ro p _oherwi E t d v . 5 or e ow er in a su e toper 9.6 b e ent se arat writt n d ec. 13. Min�iesota Statutes 2000 s 9.7 stab ivlsion 2 is � section 462.357, - . 9.8 amended to read: c. � V �' 1 Gu 3( . ;,200 Subd QUIREMENTS• 9 9 d • 2. [GENERAL RE l t �.. At ' • a option of a land use plan for the munic • any time after the 9.10 agency, for the pur ose of ,• 1pality, the planning 9.11 o r the 1 and use P carrying out the policies and goals plan, may prepare a proposed zon3n 9 is httpa/ g ordinance v�r�wv .rev�sor.leg.state.mn.,us/c i - bin/ etb" ? - � - g g �I.pl .session --Is82 &version= latest& . n 131 0 615101 1 4 r �• i 9.12 and submit it to the governing , it t 9.13 adoption. 9' dy with s recommendatiort; for Subject to the requirements . q irements of subdivisions 3, 4, and � 9..15 5, the governing body may adop and ame a zoning ordinance b 9.16 a mjry v a p V � 9.17 c �. -- �����'he ado • on or am ent- ?.C7?11F1C OC�na_nCe ; 9.18 o�h� e`X � n which chancres 9.19s • t� Glassif� cation of a ?on, �L f o - �- n _al to e t e - c r 1 1 - fwd-- thirds a • r a 9.21 }� d t� vote of a13 members c y ern i 9. .�c� The sand use plan must p rovid e • P ide guidelines for 9.23 timing and sequence of the the adoption of official controls to 9 -24 ensure planned, orderly, 9.25 redev Yr d staged development and nt consistent with the se plan. - 9.26 Sec.. Z Minnesota St atutes 2000, section 462.357 .� �,1�,, -'1 ' -3 �c 9.27 subdU.vision 5, is amended to" re 9 .2 8 Sub a d: � 9-29 d • 5 . DAMENDMENT; CERTAIN CITIES of THE The provisions of this subdivision a FIRST C apply to . 9.30 Q a_m�ndm�n t doAt 9.31 t € . on a wh' ha o , th existin, cl$s��f cat iQ n • • 32 r res�a Bit n Cr -. d. 9.33 prc� e t 1 ° � Qomrn rci r i i o i a c• t of the first class, except o ' 9.34 the first class in which a diff p . city of 9.35 the o Brent process is provided through operation of the city s home rule charter.. In a ' 9,36 which this subdivision a lie city to 10 shall be made in conformance s, amendments to a coning ordinance nce Kith this sect but only after 10.2 there shall have been filed i 10 writ ten consent o f the in the of fice of the city clerk a owners 10.4 of two - thirds of the several de-acripti,ons of real estate situat with 10.'5 contiguous descriptions in 100 feet of the total p s of real estate held by the same owner or 10-6 any party purchasing an such c ' 10.7 year preceding the re Y ontiguous property within one quest, and after the of firmat.ive vote in 10.8 favor thereof by a rnajorit of the me mbers of the governing bod 10. � of any such * cit�r_ The o �' g verning body of such city ms y, b a y 10.10 two th!..rds vote of its mernbe y ordinance rs, after hearing, ado t a n g ance without such written consent whenever n ew 10.13 zoning 10.12 planning commission or la never the 10.13 made a survey of t h e p lanning board of such city sh�sll have whole area of the city or of an area of not 20.14 less than 40 acres, within 10.15 amendments or site which the new ordinance the rations of the existing ordinance would 1.0 . 1 effect when ,ado fed 1.d take p � and shall have considered whether the 10.17 number of descriptions of real estate affected by such chap 1 and alterations renders the ges 10.19 impra ct i cad. , and such obtaining o f such written consent planning commission or lai planning 1 Q. 20 shall report in writin g board 10_21 proposals of the 9•as to whether in its opinion the governing body in any case are reasonabl 10.22 related to the overall ne Y eds of the community, to exi la nd 10.23 use, or to a plan for future g d 10.24 a land use, and shall have conducte P :searing on such proposed ordinance, 10 alterations, of which ance changes or r 10.26 given in a d a h hearing published. notice shall hav ally news er of a been p P general circulation at least on 10.28 which notice shall S tate weeks 10.27 each week for three s u c cessive to such hearing, 0.2.9 hearing ......_.. Mate the t; me, place and g, and sha have - reported t o the ove± purpose ,o Of such 10.30 city-its findings and reco g ing body of the 31 c. �'nendations in writing. 10. Se " 5 ' f EFFE 10.3 2 is. DATE . - a s 5 an 11 a r`e , f 10.33 ua �� • o s 8 0 _ � e t ' ve Jn 1 002 . 10.3 4 �. win A a 1 .3 . �a_�d ve the 10.35 ct mQn t S ' 10 ntrac 1 n A f ctty¢ A igust 1. 20 ._ d l Z7 p '" --�.. a I� D 7 i P q to -- - -- o�t a x_ a d a e - http: /Iwww. re��isar. . leg- state.rm.us /cgi -b�/ etbj1. l� e ' g p .. s ssia lsgZ &�fersion= latest &nu - ber . 1310 615101 Attachment 2 ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE AMENDMENTS AND CHANGES ARTICLE The Maplewood City Council approves the following changes to the Maplewood Code of Ordinances: Section 1. This amendment revises Section 36-484 (Council Vote Required) (additions are underlined and deletions are stricken): Section 36 -484. Council vote required. The city council may adopt and amend a zoning ordinance, including an amendment to this chapter which includes the zoning map, by a ma *o rity vote of all its members. An exception to this requirement is the adogti0_, amendment of any portion of a zoning ordinance that changes all or Pert of the existing classification of a zoning district from residential to commercial or industrial. In this case, the city council must approve such a change by a two - thi= ds,malo ty vote of all its members. Section 2. This ordinance shall take effect after the city publishes it in the official newspaper. The Maplewood City Council approved this ordinance on September 10, 2001. Mayor Attest: City Clerk Ayes - Nays — AGENDA M EMO Action by Council Background On August 28, 2000, the City Council adopted a five -year deer :management plan. We continue to work cooperatively with St. Paul and Ramsey County to implement various components of this plan. The management plan outlines a'number of methods for deer removal. Our first efforts are scheduled during the hunting season with coordinated hunts organized by Metro Bow Hunters Resource Base. The second method would be to utilize archery (sharpshooters), over baited sites. The third method is trap and shoot. This method is utilized by residents in highly developed areas where other methods are not feasible. These residents are reporting significant browsing which causes loss of landscaping, and have health and safety concerns. Discussion Results of 2000 -2001 Removal Efforts -- Maplewood and Ramsey County Coordinated Bow Hunts: Scheduled bow hunts occurred during the hunting season on both the Fish Creek and Prior Open Space parcels. The Fish Creek area hunters experienced some interference, by poachers and nei complaints, which impacted the overall removal effort. They were able to remove only t ee deer during three scheduled hunts. The Priory Open space hunt was more successful. There were nine deer removed from this site. In addition to hunts in Maplewood, Ramsey County also coordinated hunts in the Pigs Eye area. A total of 21 deer were removed through these hunts. Sharp Shooting Over Bait: There were no Maplewood areas where this method was implemented. However, Ramsey County was able to remove an additional 23 from the Pigs Eye Area utilizing sharpshooting over bait. Trap and Shoot: We entered into a contract with the City of St. Paul LISP Division for these services in 2000 -2001. LIEP built, installed and monitored two traps on residential properties in Maplewood. There were seven deer removed through this method in South Maplewood. The estimated budget for the 2000 -2001 removal was set at $2500. The actual removal took place March 30 through April 15 at a cost $1,300. Date To: Richard Fursman, City an Endorsed From: Colleen J. Callahan Modified Subject: Deer Management Pro a Reject Date: August 27, 2001 Background On August 28, 2000, the City Council adopted a five -year deer :management plan. We continue to work cooperatively with St. Paul and Ramsey County to implement various components of this plan. The management plan outlines a'number of methods for deer removal. Our first efforts are scheduled during the hunting season with coordinated hunts organized by Metro Bow Hunters Resource Base. The second method would be to utilize archery (sharpshooters), over baited sites. The third method is trap and shoot. This method is utilized by residents in highly developed areas where other methods are not feasible. These residents are reporting significant browsing which causes loss of landscaping, and have health and safety concerns. Discussion Results of 2000 -2001 Removal Efforts -- Maplewood and Ramsey County Coordinated Bow Hunts: Scheduled bow hunts occurred during the hunting season on both the Fish Creek and Prior Open Space parcels. The Fish Creek area hunters experienced some interference, by poachers and nei complaints, which impacted the overall removal effort. They were able to remove only t ee deer during three scheduled hunts. The Priory Open space hunt was more successful. There were nine deer removed from this site. In addition to hunts in Maplewood, Ramsey County also coordinated hunts in the Pigs Eye area. A total of 21 deer were removed through these hunts. Sharp Shooting Over Bait: There were no Maplewood areas where this method was implemented. However, Ramsey County was able to remove an additional 23 from the Pigs Eye Area utilizing sharpshooting over bait. Trap and Shoot: We entered into a contract with the City of St. Paul LISP Division for these services in 2000 -2001. LIEP built, installed and monitored two traps on residential properties in Maplewood. There were seven deer removed through this method in South Maplewood. The estimated budget for the 2000 -2001 removal was set at $2500. The actual removal took place March 30 through April 15 at a cost $1,300. Richard Fursman August 27, 2001 Page 2 Aerial Survey Results Attached is a copy of the survey results performed by Ramsey County. In the South Maplewood / Pigs Eye Area, the herd size in 1999 was 388; in 2000 it increased to 428; this winter (January 2001) there were 300 deer spotted. This is a significant decrease and is only in part due to the implementation of the deer management plan. There are other factors which effect the movement patterns of the deer. One is the return of more severe winter conditions. The unusually snowy and cold conditions may have caused the deer to winter in other areas. The Priory Site area also experienced a decrease in deer from to 2001. In 1999 there were 13 deer, 28 in 2000, and 18 in 2001. The target deer population for the South Maplewood, Pigs Eye and Battle Creek area is approximately 200. The target population for the Priory Open Space is 10. These numbers are set by the DNR and are based on formulas being utilized in less developed area. The residential and eco- system tolerance levels may be higher or lower for each of these areas. As the population level approaches the target population this may change. It is very important to note that these surveys are completed prior the birthing cycle, and do not include the spring births. 2001 -2002 Implementation Plan South Maplewood There are four bow hunts scheduled at Pigs Eye during the hunting season. The Pigs Eye removal effort will continue to decrease the herd size which impacts South Maplewood. The Managers at Union Cemetery have requested our assistance for removal on their property. Ramsey County, Metro Bow Hunters, Nature Center staff and the Cemetery Management are working together to coordinate a removal during the hunting season on the cemetery property. This site -is adjacent to the Maplewood Nature Center. Five private citizens have requested deer traps for out of season removals. Last season $2,500 was set aside from contingency to cover the costs for utilizing this method of deer removal. St. Paul LIEP charged a $250 administrative fee and an additional $150 processing and handling fee for each deer removed from the traps. There currently are no additional funds budgeted in 2002 for trap and shoot activities. There is $1,200 remaining from the 2001 budget. This will allow for the removal of six deer. If we wish to continue to offer this method of removal to citizens the City Council will have to establish a continuing budget to do so. Richard Fursman August 27, 2001 Page 3 Priory open Space Deer Management and Open Space Restoration Program Staff are working cooperatively for the Priory Open Space site. Three hunts are scheduled during the regular Bow Hunt season. The ultimate herd size, for a balanced eco system, would be ten deer for this parcel. However, the neighbors may support a larger herd size. Our initial plan is to try to maintain a zero population growth at the current herd size of eighteen. Annual hunts will be scheduled in order to achieve this goal. In addition, the open space program staff will conduct studies to determine the impact the deer have on the vegetation and restoration- efforts. These casual studies will evaluate the effects of browsing. Additional methods of removal may be introduced if the impact on the vegetation is significant. Bow Hunt Dates: September 21 -23, October 12 -14, November 2 -3 and December 3 -5. Trap and Shoot Dates: Potentially, December 15 - April .15. Neighborhood Meetings Neighborhood meetings will be scheduled or notices will be sent before the scheduled removal program is implemented. At these meetings the deer removal methods will be explained and resource people will be on hand to answer questions. Recommendation Accept the report on deer management. If Council wishes to increase the trap and shoot activities, appropriate funds should be transferred from the contingency fund. Council should also determine an appropriate annual budget for trap and shoot removals. AGENDA ITEM ' 2 " REPORT TO: City Manager FROM: Assistant City Engineer SUBJECT: Bush Avenue Improvements, City Project 01 -04 a. Approving Plans and Advertising for Bids b. Ordering Preparation of Assessment Roll c. Ordering Assessment .,Hearing DATE: September 4, 2001 Introduction Action by Council Date - Endorsed Modified Rejected—.0010 - - - Final plans and specifications for the above - referenced project have been completed by the city's consultant, TKDA, and are ready to be advertised for bids. The proposed bid opening for this project would be scheduled for 10 a.m., Friday, October 5, 2001. Award of bids would be. considered by the city council at the October 8, 2001, city council meeting. Following the approval to advertise for bids, the next step in the improvement process is to prepare the assessment roll and order the assessment hearing. Background The 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 Clerk and City Engineer. It is recommended that the assessment hearing be scheduled for 7 p.m., Monday, October 8, 2001. Recommendation It is recommended that the city council approve the attached resolutions for the Bush Avenue Improvements, Project 01 -04: a. Approving Plans and Advertising for Bids. b. Ordering the Preparation of the Assessment Roll. c. Ordering the Assessment Hearing. CIVIC jw Attachments RESOLUTION APPROVING PLANS ADVERTISING FOR BIDS WHEREAS, pursuant to resolution passed by the city council on September 10, 2001, plans and specifications for Bush Avenue Improvements, Project 01 -04, have been prepared by (or under the direction of) the city engineer, who has presented such p lans 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 cit y 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 ublished 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 a.m., on the 5th day of October, 2001, 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 October 8, 2001. RESOLUTION ORDERING PREPARATION OF ASSESSMENT ROLL WHEREAS, the city clerk and city engineer will receive bids for the improvement of Bush Avenue, from Stillwater Road to Bartelmy Lane, City Project 01 -04. 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 ORDERING ASSESSMENT ROLL HEARING WHEREAS, the clerk and the engineer have, at the direction of the council, prepared an assessment roll for the construction of Bush Avenue, from Stillwater Road to Bartelmy Y Lane, City Project 01 -04, and the said assessment is on file in the office of the city clerk. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA: I. A hearing shall be held on the 8th day of October, 2001, at the city hall at 7 p. m. to pass upon such proposed assessment and at such time and place all persons ownin 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. AGENDA ITEM .; ..,. : AGENDA REPORT TO: City Manager FROM: Assistant City Engineer Date Endorsed Modred SUBJECT: Ripley Avenue Improvements, from White Bear Ave. to VanDyke St., Project 99 -12 . Approve Plans and Advertising for Bids DATE: Introduction September 4, 2001 Final plans and specifications for the above- referenced project have been completed by the city's engineering department and are ready to be advertised for bids. The proposed bid opening for this project would be scheduled for 10 a.m., Friday, October 5, 2001. Award of bids would be considered by the city council at the October 8, 2001, city council meeting. Background This segment of Ripley Avenue, between White Bear Avenue and VanDyke Street, is part of the Ramsey County system that is being turned back to the city. Ramsey County has budgeted $170,000 for upgrades to Ripley Avenue. Under an agreement with the county, the city has prepared the plans and will let out the construction contract, for which the city will be reimbursed by the county for an amount up to $170,000. This project is proposed to be funded entirely by Ramsey County. No assessments are proposed, therefore no public hearing is required. Informational letters and questionnaires have been sent to the adjacent business. Staff has proposed to bid this project as a "package -bid" with the Bush Avenue project. The projects would be treated as separate projects under one contract, with one contractor. Recommendation It is recommended that the city council approve the attached resolution to Approve Plans and Advertising for Bids for the Ripley Avenue Improvements, Project 99 -12. CIVIC jw Attachment RESOLUTION APPROVING PLANS ADVERTISING FOR BIDS WHEREAS, pursuant to resolution passed by the city council on July 26, 1999, plans and specifications for Ripley Avenue, from White Bear Avenue to VanD ke Street, Project Y � 99 -12, 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 MAPLEINOOD, 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 a.m., on the 5th day of October, 2001, 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 October 8, 2001. 1 CITY OF WEST ST. PAUL 1616 HUMBOLDT AVENUE, WEST ST. PAUL, MN 55118 -3972 MUNICIPAL CENTER 651- 552 -4100 POLICE 651 - 552 -4200 PARKS /RECREATION 651- 552 -4150 FIRE 651- 552 -4239 FAX .651-552-4190 TDD 651- 552 -4222 AUG 2 22001 August 20, 2001 Mr. Richard Fursman, City Manager City of Maplewood 1830 County Road B Maplewood, Minnesota 55109 2702 Mr. Rick Getschow, City Administrator City of Lauderdale 1891 Walnut Street Lauderdale, Minnesota 55113 5137 Ms. Heather Worthington, City Administrator City of Falcon Heights 2077 Larpenteur Avenue W. Falcon Heights, Minnesota 55113 5551 Dear Richard, Rick and Heather: At its August 13 meeting, the West St. Paul Mayor and City Council discussed the above - captioned matter and directed me to respond to you in their behalf. The Mayor and Council decline Maplewood's proposal to have Maplewood occupy one of the two available board seats on a permanent basis. One board seat to be split between the remaining three cities is not acceptable for it would grant West St. Paul a seat on the water board only every 12 years. The Mayor and Council believe it is imperative for West St. Paul to have direct representation on the water board as often as possible. We respectfully request that the two board positions be rotated equally among our four cities, as was originally proposed in a April 26, 2001 letter sent to each city by Mr. Bernie Bullert, General Manager of the St. Paul Regional Water Services. We feel this is the most reasonable and equitable method to address the matter. Under Mr. Bullert's proposal, West St. Paul would be seated immediately and Falcon Heights would be seated on January 1, 2002. On behalf of the West St. Paul Mayor and City Council, we look forward to resolving this issue in a reasonable and timely manner so that we may take our seat on the water board. After you have had the opportunity to convey West St. Paul's position to your mayor and city council, please contact me at 552- 4101 to arrange a joint meeting between us to implement the plan. Ve Vrti. yo , Rob a o n City Manager c: West St. Paul Mayor and City Council Bernie Bullert, St. Paul Regional Water Services 80' St. E., St. Paul, MN 55101 1007 PROMOTING AND PRESERVING A COMMUNITY OF EXCELLENCE BY THE ETHICAL, RESPONSIVE, EFFICIENT AND INNOVATIVE PROVISION OF SERVICES EOE/AAE i I �wpNluARh'u9u�WG) F ' � z BOARD OF WATER COMMISSIONERS jD AUL. M r , James Reiter, President* Stephen Haselmann, Vice President Commissioners: Matt Anfang . Robert Cardinal . Pat Harris August 23, 2001 AUG Mr. Robert Larson, City Manager 4 2001 City of West Saint Paul Mr. Richard Fursman, City Manager City of Maplewood Ms. Heather Worthington, City Administrator City of Falcon Heights Mr. Rick Getschow, City Administrator City of Lauderdale Dear Robert, Richard, Heather & Rick: Commissioner Cardinal, Mayor - City of Maplewood, suggested I put a list together (see attached) of suburbs with population and consumption percentages. Pursuant to the "1996 Ordinance Adopted by the Saint Paul City Council," it is up. to you to decide how to fill the suburban seats. It is inappropriate for me to participate further in the process. If you have questions, I can reached at (651) 266 -62600 M rely, Bernie R. Bullert General Manager BRB /saj Attachmt. cc: James Reiter, President - Board of Water Commissioners Lisa Veith, Board Attorney SAINT PAUL REGIONAL WATER SERVICES Bernie R. Bullert, General Manager 84 th St E, Saint Paul MN 55101 -1007 ♦ TTY: 651- 266 -6299 Saint Paul Regional Water Services provides quality water services to the following cities: Arden Hills•Falcon Heights Lauderdale* Little Canada* Maplewood* Mendota• Mendota Heights* Roseville* Saint PauleWest St. Paul AFSCME wow a- Drinted on recvc/ed Daner 2000 Consumption and Estimated Population Roseville & Arden Hills' Maplewood West Saint Paul' Mendota Heights & City of Mendota' Little Canada Falcon Heights' Lauderdale Total 2000 consumption Population Consumption Percent of - (100 cubic feet) total consumption 43,420 3,060,665 14.0% 35,504 2 9.2% 19,437 983,098 4.5% 11,583 842,014 3.8% 9 478,552 2.2% 5,650 515,518 2.4% 2 94,552 084% 21,913,328 ' Arden Hills currently buys water through Roseville 2 Mendota currently buys water through Mendota Heights ' Currently have voting rights August 23, 2001 Memorandum TO: Mayor and City Council From: City Manager Subj : Water Commissioner Appointment Date: July 9, 2001 Agenda Item Kq x�uo.eyo�m�u ate �ndorsed� Modified Rejected,..,.,,,,.,, The general manager of the St. Paul Board of Water Commissioners has contacted Maplewood requesting that we help facilitate the placement of a new board member on the water commission. I would like direction from the council before proceeding with any negotiations on the matter. The board was recently expanded to allow one more suburban seat or vote. Maplewood presently holds the only suburban board position. The other communities involved are West St. Paul, Falcon Heights and Lauderdale. No criteria have been established regarding the placement of board members. Bernie Bullert, General lM. tnager of the commission has suggested a rotation with each representative citybe examined. He has suggested the following. g Maplewood January 1998 - December 2001 West St. Paul July 2001 - May 2005 Falcon Heights January 2002 - December 2005 Lauderdale June 2005 - May 2009 Back to Maplewood This rotation would need, to be modified in the likely event other cities joined. There may also be an argument that if more cities joined, more seats would be created to accommodate a more diversified membership. The hesitation I would have in this idea is that it looks similar to the cable commission structure where a small community would have the same opportunity to serve on the board as a community the size of Maplewood. It is requested the council consider the aforementioned option and /or provide direction so staff can negotiate on the City's behalf. AGENDA NO. I\ Action by Council AGENDA REPORT Date �... Endorse. Modified TO: City Manager Rejected.... FROM: Assistant Finance Director RE: DATES FOR PUBLIC HEARING ON PROPOSED 2002 BUDGET AND PROPERTY TAXES DATE: September 5, 2001 Due to the late enactment of the Omnibus Tax Bill and the massive changes in the property tax system for the taxes payable year 2002, Truth in Taxation public hearings in 2001 for taxes payable in 2002 are not required. The City may choose to hold a 2002 Budget public hearin g and, if so, should follow the normal procedures for publication /posting and discussion which include: • Certify to the County the date it has selected by September 17'; • Hold the meeting between November 29' and December 20'; • Hold the hearing after 5:00 p.m. if it is on a day between Monday and Friday or at any reasonable time on Saturday; and • Not to conflict with hearings for the county, metro special taxing districts or the three school districts in Maplewood. This year the City's final property tax levy and final budget need not be adopted at another hearing held on a date subsequent to the initial public hearing and the continuation hearing if one is held. The recommended hearing date is Monday, December 17' at 7:00 p.m. If the Council feels it may need more than one night for discussion, it is recommended that the initial hearing be on Monday, December 10' at 7:00 p.m. and the continuation and adoption hearing on Monday, December 17' at 7:00 p.m. P:\FINANCE\WORD\AGN\2002budgethearing.doc Property Records and Revenue Chris Samuel, Manager, Local Government August 28, 2001 830 Government Center West 50 West Kellogg Boulevard St. Paul, MN 55102 -1696 Mr. Dan Faust City of Maplewood 1830 East - County Rd B Maplewood:..:.MN 55109 RE: Truth in Taxation Process for Taxes Payable in Y 2002 Fax: 612 - 266 -2022 TTD #: 266 -2002 The Truth in Taxation process for Taxes Payable in 20 Tax Y 02 has begun. There are significant changes to the Truth in anon process this year. Counties, cities, school districts and metropolitan special taxing districts are not required to hold a public hearing for Payable 2002, some m although may choose to do so. In subsequent years, M.S. 275.065 Subd. 6 ' onl g y requires a hearing if the proposed levy for the following year has increased year "... b g Y eased over its finsl property tax levy from the current Y y a percentage increase in the implicit price deflator for con overnment expenditures and gross investment for state and local g cons on governments prepared by the Bureau of Economic Analysts of the United States Department of Commerce for the 12 - ' 12- period ending March. 31 of the current year." Other legislative changes include: 1) A phone number is required on the Truth in Taxation anon Notice for all taxing authorities, 2) The statutory deadline for mailing notices this year is ex 3 Lev lime .. Y tended to December 14, 2001, and Levy its are back and will be certified to Ramsey Count ' . Y y by the Minnesota Department of Revenue. Ramsey County has chosen to hold a hearing tent g tive date of this hearing is December 11, 2001. .Due to the significant changes this year, the soonest we anticipate mailing the .Payable 2002 Truth in Taxation notices on or around December 1, 2001. if your cit / townshi accordingly Y p chooses to hold a public hearing please Ian g y Also, Ramsey County will no longer be coordinating hearing p Date Certification" - g g dates. However, please let us know on the "Hearing fication" form if your city /township chooses to hold a ublic p hearing or not. If so, we will include it on the TNT notice as in prior years. If not, we will state "No Hearing Required ". As in prior years, the enclosed forms need to be completed and returned by September 17, 2001 . They Y are as 1) Certification of Proposed Property ax Levy Y 2) Hearing Date Certification (as explained above 3) Certification of Payable 2002 Debt Levy Schedule. This is ' only if our bond register shows a debt levy for your district. A final Debt Levy Schedule will need to be certified with the final levy in December as well. The spreadsheet with the values and other ertinent information matron used in calculating the tax rate. for the Truth in Taxation statement will be sent as soon as it is available. We apologize for the delay in sending this information and any inconvenience it may cause. Thank you for your attention. if you have any questions please feel free to call me at (651) 266 -2045. Sincerely, r . J� anne Halvors Accountant, Tax Accounting Section Minnesota's First Home Rule County printed on recycled paper with a minimum of 10% post- consumer content AFBCME Agenda K MEMORANDUM TO: Richard Fursman, City Manager FROM: Karen Guilfoile, City Clerk DATE: September 4, 2001 RE: CANVASS OF ELECTION Action by Council Date Endorsed Modified Rejected State Statute directs, within two days after an election, the governing body acting as a canvassing board shall canvass the returns of the election. It is recommended that a special meeting be held Thursday, September 13 at 5:00 p.m. in Council Chambers for the purpose of certifying the results of the primary election.