Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
2015 09-14 City Council Meeting Packet
AGENDA MAPLEWOOD CITY COUNCIL 7:00 P.M. Monday, September 14, 2015 City Hall, Council Chambers Meeting No. 17-15 A. CALL TO ORDER B. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE C. ROLL CALL Mayor’s Address on Protocol: “Welcome to the meeting of the Maplewood City Council. It is our desire to keep all discussions civil as we work through difficult issues tonight. If you are here for a Public Hearing or to address the City Council, please familiarize yourself with the Policies and Procedures and Rules of Civility, which are located near the entrance. Before addressing the council, sign in with the City Clerk. At the podium please state your name and address clearly for the record. All comments/questions shall be posed to the Mayor and Council. The Mayor will then direct staff, as appropriate, to answer questions or respond to comments.” D. APPROVAL OF AGENDA E. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 1. Approval of August 24, 2015 City Council Workshop Minutes 2. Approval of August 24, 2015 City Council Meeting Minutes 3. Approval of August 31, 2015 Special City Council Meeting Minutes F. APPOINTMENTS AND PRESENTATIONS 1. Resolution Approving Commission & Board Appointments 2. Rush Line Corridor Project Update 3. GreenStep Cities Step Four Award G. CONSENT AGENDA – Items on the Consent Agenda are considered routine and non- controversial and are approved by one motion of the council. If a councilmember requests additional information or wants to make a comment regarding an item, the vote should be held until the questions or comments are made then the single vote should be taken. If a councilmember objects to an item it should be removed and acted upon as a separate item. 1. Approval of Claims 2. Approval of Temporary Lawful Gambling – Local Permit for the Greater Twin Cities United Way, 3M Center 3. Approval of a Conditional Use Permit Review – Beaver Lake Town Houses, Maryland Avenue and Lakewood Drive 4. Approval of a Conditional Use Permit Review – Keller Golf Course, 2166 Maplewood Drive 5. Approval of a Conditional Use Permit Review – LCS Lawn Service, 1177 Century Avenue 6. Approval of a Conditional Use Permit Review – Used-Car Sales at Maplewood Office Park, 1705 Cope Avenue 7. Approval of School Resource Officer Agreement Between ISD 622 and the City of Maplewood H. PUBLIC HEARINGS None Sign language interpreters for hearing impaired persons are available for public hearings upon request. The request for this must be made at least 96 hours in advance. Please call the City Clerk’s Office at 651.249.2000 to make arrangements. Assisted Listening Devices are also available. Please check with the City Clerk for availability. RULES OF CIVILITY FOR OUR COMMUNITY Following are some rules of civility the City of Maplewood expects of everyone appearing at Council Meetings – elected officials, staff and citizens. It is hoped that by following these simple rules, everyone’s opinions can be heard and understood in a reasonable manner. We appreciate the fact that when appearing at Council meetings, it is understood that everyone will follow these principles: Show respect for each other, actively listen to one another, keep emotions in check and use respectful language I. UNFINISHED BUSINESS None J. NEW BUSINESS 1. Approval of an On-Sale Intoxicating Liquor License for ARKAK, LLC – the Tiki Hut, 1820 Rice Street 2. Consider Approval of Amendments to the Ordinance Pertaining to Liquor Served at the Maplewood Community Center and Resolution Establishing a Temporary Liquor Service Permit Fee - First Reading 3. Consideration of Vacation of Public Easement, Jack Schwartz, 2105 English Street North 4. Consideration of Conifer Ridge Apartments, County Road D East, between Hazelwood Street North and Kennard Street a. Comprehensive Plan Amendment (Four Votes Required for Approval) b. Planned Unit Development Revision c. Public Easement Vacations d. Lot Division e. Design Review 5. Consider Resolution Accepting Feasibility Study, Authorizing Preparation of Plans & Specifications, and Calling for Public Hearing, Bellaire Avenue Improvements (Beam to Lydia), City Project 15-16 6. Consider Preliminary Approval of Proposed Tax Levy Payable in 2016 and Setting Budget Public Hearing Date 7. Meeting of the Economic Development Authority (EDA) - The City Council Serves as the EDA K. AWARD OF BIDS None L. VISITOR PRESENTATIONS – All presentations have a limit of 3 minutes. M. ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS 1. Council Calendar Update N. COUNCIL PRESENTATIONS O. ADJOURNMENT E1 August 24, 2015 City Council Workshop Minutes 1 MINUTES MAPLEWOOD CITY COUNCIL MANAGER WORKSHOP 6:00 P.M. Monday, August 24, 2015 Council Chambers, City Hall A. CALL TO ORDER A meeting of the City Council was held in the City Hall Council Chambers and was called to order at 6:06 p.m. by Mayor Slawik. B. ROLL CALL Nora Slawik, Mayor Present Marylee Abrams, Councilmember Present Robert Cardinal, Councilmember Present Kathleen Juenemann, Councilmember Present Marvin Koppen, Councilmember Present C. APPROVAL OF AGENDA City Manager Coleman requested that the agenda be amended to move agenda item E2 before E1. Councilmember Abrams moved to approve the agenda as amended. Seconded by Councilmember Koppen Ayes – All The motion passed. D. UNFINISHED BUSINESS None E. NEW BUSINESS 1. 2016 Budget Discussion City Manager Coleman introduced the staff report. Finance Director Bauman gave an overview of the 2016 Budget and answered questions of the council. City Manager Coleman gave additional information and answered additional questions of the council. 2. Commission & Board Interviews Dorothy Molstad was unavailable to attend this meeting, so this item will be rescheduled to the next workshop meeting. F. ADJOURNMENT Mayor Slawik adjourned the meeting at 6:49 p.m. Packet Page Number 1 of 200 E2 August 24, 2015 City Council Meeting Minutes 1 MINUTES MAPLEWOOD CITY COUNCIL 7:00 p.m., Monday, August 24, 2015 Council Chambers, City Hall Meeting No. 16-15 A. CALL TO ORDER A meeting of the City Council was held in the City Hall Council Chambers and was called to order at 7:05 p.m. by Mayor Slawik. Mayor Slawik reported on the Public Works Open House that took place on Tuesday, August 18, 2015. Police Chief Schnell reported on the incident that happened over the weekend. B. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE C. ROLL CALL Nora Slawik, Mayor Present Marylee Abrams, Councilmember Present Robert Cardinal, Councilmember Present Kathleen Juenemann, Councilmember Present Marvin Koppen, Councilmember Present D. APPROVAL OF AGENDA The following items were added to the agenda: N1 Planning Commission Report, August 18th N2 Former Maplewood Employee from Ramsey County Communication Center N3 Parks Update N4 TAB Update N5 Employee Picnic The following item was removed from the agenda: F1 Resolution Approving Commission & Board Appointments Councilmember Juenemann moved to approve the agenda as amended. Seconded by Councilmember Koppen Ayes – All The motion passed. E. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 1. Approval of August 10, 2015 City Council Workshop Minutes Councilmember Juenemann moved to approve the August 10, 2015 City Council Workshop Minutes as submitted. Packet Page Number 2 of 200 E2 August 24, 2015 City Council Meeting Minutes 2 Seconded by Councilmember Ayes – All The motion passed. 2. Approval of August 10, 2015 City Council Meeting Minutes Councilmember Cardinal moved to approve the August 10, 2015 City Council Meeting Minutes as submitted. Seconded by Councilmember Abrams Ayes – All The motion passed. 3. Approval of August 14, 2015 Special City Council Meeting Minutes Councilmember Juenemann moved to approve the August 14, 2015 Special City Council Meeting Minutes as amended. Seconded by Councilmember Abrams Ayes – Mayor Slawik, Council Members Abrams, Juenemann and Koppen Abstain – Councilmember Cardinal The motion passed. F. APPOINTMENTS AND PRESENTATIONS 1. Resolution Approving Commission & Board Appointments This item was removed from the agenda. 2. Presentation of Tuj Lub Partnership at Keller Park Parks Manager Taylor introduced the staff report. The following individuals spoke on the new Tuj Lub Courts that will be installed at Keller Park in Maplewood: 1. Victoria Reinhardt, Ramsey County Commissioner 2. Leon Lillie, State Representative 3. Elizabeth on half of Foung Hawj, State Senator 4. Chia Chue Yang, President of the Hmong Tuj Lub Club 5. Jon Oyanagi, Ramsey County Parks and Recreation Director G. CONSENT AGENDA Councilmember Juenemann requested agenda item G6 be highlighted. Councilmember Juenemann moved to approve consent agenda items G1-G6. Seconded by Councilmember Koppen Ayes – All Packet Page Number 3 of 200 E2 August 24, 2015 City Council Meeting Minutes 3 The motion passed. 1. Approval of Claims Councilmember Juenemann moved to approve the Approval of Claims. ACCOUNTS PAYABLE: $ 170,449.21 Checks # 95554 thru # 95581 dated 8/11/2014 $ 3,598,765.25 Disbursements via debits to checking account dated 08/03/15 thru 08/07/15 $ 555,255.42 Checks #95582 thru #95633 dated 08/11/15 thru 08/18/15 $ 8,784,474.56 Disbursements via debits to checking account dated 08/10/15 thru 08/14/15 $ 13,108,944.44 Total Accounts Payable PAYROLL $ 531,704.12 Payroll Checks and Direct Deposits dated 08/14/15 $ 1,151.53 Payroll Deduction check # 9995505 thru #9995506 dated 07/31/15 $ 532,855.65 Total Payroll $ 13,641,800.09 GRAND TOTAL Seconded by Councilmember Koppen Ayes – All The motion passed. 2. Approval to Enter into Agreements with Enterprise Fleet Management for Leasing of City Vehicles Councilmember Juenemann moved to approve staff to enter into agreements with Enterprise Fleet Management for the purpose of leasing City vehicles. Seconded by Councilmember Koppen Ayes – All The motion passed. 3. Approval of a Public Easement, Fire Station 1 Improvements, City Project 12-14 Councilmember Juenemann moved to approve the public easement for roadway, sidewalk, drainage and utility purposes over a portion of the Fire Station 1 property and Packet Page Number 4 of 200 E2 August 24, 2015 City Council Meeting Minutes 4 authorize the Mayor to sign the easement. Minor changes to the easement can be made if reviewed and approved by the City Attorney. It is further approved that the City Engineer record the above listed document. Seconded by Councilmember Koppen Ayes – All The motion passed. 4. Approval of Cooperative Agreement (PW 2014-32) with Ramsey County, Arkwright-Sunrise Area Improvements, City Project 12-09 Councilmember Juenemann moved to approve the Cooperative Agreement with Ramsey County (PW 2014-32) related to the sidewalk and trail improvements along County Road B and Edgerton Street as part of the Arkwright-Sunrise Area Improvements, City Project 12-09, and authorize the Mayor and City Manager to sign the agreement signifying the City Council approval. Minor revisions as approved by the City Attorney are authorized as needed. Seconded by Councilmember Koppen Ayes – All The motion passed. 5. Approval of Funding for the Tuj Lub Project at Keller Park Councilmember Juenemann moved to approve the Tuj Lub Project at Keller Park and authorizes payment of $75,000 from the Park Development Fund to Ramsey County to cover the City’s cost share. The Finance Director is also authorized to establish a budget of $75,000 in the Park Development Fund for this project. Seconded by Councilmember Koppen Ayes – All The motion passed. 6. Approval of Resolution Accepting a Donation to Maplewood Nature Center Councilmember Juenemann moved to approve the resolution accepting the donation of $25.00 to the Maplewood Nature Center from the Olson family. Resolution 15-8-1247 ACCEPTANCE OF DONATION WHEREAS the City of Maplewood and the Parks and Recreation Department has received a donation of $25; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Maplewood City Council authorizes the City of Maplewood, Parks and Recreation Department to accept this donation. Seconded by Councilmember Koppen Ayes – All The motion passed. Packet Page Number 5 of 200 E2 August 24, 2015 City Council Meeting Minutes 5 H. PUBLIC HEARING 1. Consideration of an Ordinance Amendment to Allow Temporary Exterior Sales in Business Commercial Districts – Second Reading Building Official Carver introduced the staff report. Planning Intern Lorenz addressed the council to give the staff report and answer questions of the council. Mayor Slawik opened the public hearing. No one spoke. Mayor Slawik closed the public hearing. Councilmember Abrams moved to approve the ordinance amending Section 44-511 adding an additional permitted use allowing temporary exterior sales in BC (business commercial) districts and the period be limited to 4 months. Ordinance 952 An Ordinance Amendment to Allow Temporary Exterior Sales in BC (Business Commercial) Zoning Districts The Maplewood City Council approved the following revision to the Maplewood Code of Ordinances. Section 1. Section 44-511 of the Maplewood Code of Ordinances is hereby amended as follows: Sec. 44-511. Permitted Uses. The city shall only permit the following uses by right in a BC business commercial district: (18) Temporary exterior sale of goods, up to 4 months per year, pursuant to licensing and permitting requirements in chapter 14, article VI, chapter 20, article IV and chapter 28, article II. Section 2. This ordinance shall take effect after the approval by the city council and publishing in the official newspaper. Seconded by Councilmember Koppen Ayes – All The motion passed. I. UNFINISHED BUSINESS None J. NEW BUSINESS Packet Page Number 6 of 200 E2 August 24, 2015 City Council Meeting Minutes 6 1. Consideration to Proceed with Design Work, Fish Creek Improvements, City Project 15-19 Parks Manager Taylor gave the staff report and answered questions of the council. Councilmember Juenemann moved to approve to proceed with the design work for Fish Creek Improvements, City Project 15-19. Seconded by Councilmember Abrams Ayes – All The motion passed. 2. Consideration of Century Link Franchise City Manager Coleman gave the staff report and answered questions of the council. City Attorney Kantrud gave additional information and answered additional questions of the council. Patrick Haggerty, Representative from Century Link addressed the council and spoke on the Century Link Product, Prism and answered questions of the council. Councilmember Abrams moved to approve to proceed with the opportunity to enfranchise CenturyLink in the City through the statutory application process. Seconded by Councilmember Juenemann Ayes – Mayor Slawik, Council Members Abrams, Juenemann and Koppen Nays – Councilmember Cardinal The motion passed. 3. Consideration of Purchase Agreement with Scooters Coffee, 2228 Maplewood Drive N a. Intent to Close Meeting (§13D.05 subd. 3c) City Attorney Kantrud gave the staff report and requested the council go into closed session to discuss the Purchase Agreement with Scooters Coffee as permitted by State Statute 13D.05 Subd. 3c. Councilmember Juenemann moved to go into closed session to discuss Purchase Agreement for the property at 2228 Maplewood Drive with Scooters Coffee as permitted by State Statute 13D.05 Subd. 3c. Seconded by Councilmember Koppen Ayes – All The motion passed. Mayor Slawik closed the meeting at 6:17 p.m. Mayor Slawik opened the meeting at 8:25 p.m. City Attorney Kantrud summarized the closed session for the purchase of Maplewood Packet Page Number 7 of 200 E2 August 24, 2015 City Council Meeting Minutes 7 property located 2228 Maplewood Drive in the purchase price of $285,000. Councilmember Juenemann moved to approve the consideration of the purchase agreement with Scooters Coffee for the sale price of $285,000 for property located at 2228 Maplewood Drive and the Mayor and City Manager sign said purchase agreement. Seconded by Councilmember Koppen Ayes – All The motion passed. K. AWARD OF BIDS None L. VISITOR PRESENTATION 1. Suzanne Madison, Maplewood Resident M. ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS 1. Council Calendar Update City Manager Coleman gave the update to the council calendar. N. COUNCIL PRESENTATIONS 1. Planning Commission Report, August 18th Councilmember Cardinal reported on the Planning Commission Meeting he attended on Tuesday, August 18th. 2. Former Maplewood Employee from Ramsey County Communication Center Councilmember Juenemann reported that Marsha Pacolt, past Maplewood Dispatch Employee passed away over this past weekend from cancer. 3. Parks Update Councilmember Abrams reported on the Parks & Recreation Commission Meeting she attended on August 19th. 4. TAB Update Mayor Slawik reported on the TAB meeting she attended. Public Works Director/City Engineer reported on the Rush Line meeting he attended. 5. Employee Picnic Councilmember Juenemann reported on the employee picnic that took place on Tuesday, August 18th in the Public Works Building. Packet Page Number 8 of 200 E2 August 24, 2015 City Council Meeting Minutes 8 O. ADJOURNMENT Mayor Slawik adjourned the meeting at 8:54 p.m. Packet Page Number 9 of 200 AGENDA MAPLEWOOD CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING 4:00 P.M. Wednesday, August 31, 2015 City Hall, Council Chambers A. CALL TO ORDER A special meeting of the City Council was held in the City Hall Council Chambers and was called to order at 4:00 p.m. by Mayor Slawik. B. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE C. ROLL CALL Nora Slawik, Mayor Present Marylee Abrams, Councilmember Present Robert Cardinal, Councilmember Present Kathleen Juenemann, Councilmember Present Marvin Koppen, Councilmember Present D. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Councilmember Abrams moved to approve the agenda as submitted. Seconded by Councilmember Juenemann Ayes – All The motion passed. E. UNFINISHED BUSINESS None F. NEW BUSINESS 1. Discussion of Personnel Matters a. Intent to Close Meeting (§13D.05 subd.3b) Attorney Client Privilege City Attorney Kantrud requested that the meeting be closed as permitted under section 13D.05, subdivision 3(b), to discuss personnel matters. This special meeting was property noticed and the following people were present: Mayor Slawik, Councilmember Abrams, Councilmember Cardinal, Councilmember Juenemann, Councilmember Koppen, City Manager Melinda Coleman, Assistant City Manager/Human Resource Director Mike Funk; City Clerk Karen Haag, Police Chief Paul Schnell, Human Resource Attorney Susan Hansen Councilmember Juenemann moved to close the meeting for discussion of personnel matter. Packet Page Number 10 of 200 E3 Seconded Councilmember Koppen Ayes – All The motion passed. Mayor Slawik closed the meeting at 4:02 p.m. Mayor Slawik opened the meeting at 4:37 p.m. G. ADJOURNMENT Mayor Slawik adjourned the meeting at 4:38 p.m. Packet Page Number 11 of 200 E3 MEMORANDUM TO: Melinda Coleman, City Manager FROM: DATE: Lois Knutson, Senior Administrative Assistant September 8, 2015 SUBJECT: Resolution Approving Commission & Board Appointments Introduction Currently there is one opening on the Heritage Preservation Commission and there are two openings on the Parks & Recreation Commission. The openings are due to resignations and term expirations. The City has advertised and accepted applications from interested individuals. The City Council then interviewed the candidate for the commissions and filled out ballots during the Workshop prior to this meeting. Staff has tallied the ballots. Recommendation Staff recommends the City Council approve the attached resolution to appoint the candidate, Dorothy Molstad, to one of the commissions indicated. Heritage Preservation Commission (one opening) term expires April 30, 2018 Parks & Recreation Commission (two openings) term expires April 30, 2018 *Note: Recommendation will be modified to reflect the Council votes. Attachment: 1. Resolution for Appointment F1 Packet Page Number 12 of 200 RESOLUTION BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE CITY COUNCIL OF MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA: Hereby appoints Dorothy Molstad, who has interviewed with the Maplewood City Council, to serve on the following commission: Heritage Preservation Commission (one opening) term expires April 30, 2018 Or Parks & Recreation Commission (two openings) term expires April 30, 2018 *Note: Recommendation will be modified to reflect the Council votes. F1, Attachment 1 Packet Page Number 13 of 200 MEMORANDUM TO: Melinda Coleman, City Manager FROM: Michael Martin, AICP, Economic Development Coordinator DATE: September 8, 2015 SUBJECT: Rush Line Corridor Project Update Introduction Michael Rogers from the Ramsey County Regional Rail Authority will be providing an update to the city council regarding the Rush Line Corridor. Discussion The Rush Line Corridor is an 80-mile travel corridor between St. Paul and Hinckley. A Pre- Project Development Study is underway to analyze bus and rail transit alternatives between Forest Lake and Union Depot in St. Paul. The study builds upon previous work completed for the corridor and will identify one mode and one alignment for adoption as the corridor’s Locally Preferred Alternative. The Pre-Project Development Study is a joint local and regional planning effort conducted by the Rush Line Corridor Task Force and led by the Ramsey County Regional Railroad Authority. Budget Impact No budget impacts to the City. Recommendation No action required. Attachments 1. Study Timeline 2. Alignment Alternatives F2 Packet Page Number 14 of 200 PROJECT TASKS 2014 2015 MAR APR MAY JUNE JULY AUG SEPT OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUNE JULY AUG SEPT OCT NOV DEC Review of Previous & Work In-Progress Transportation Planning Initiatives Committee Meetings • Technical Advisory Committee • Policy Advisory Committee Stakeholder and Public Involvement • Community Outreach • Public Open Houses Transit Travel Demand Market Analysis Problem Statement/Goals and Objectives Development and Screening of Initial Alternatives Detailed Definition of Alternatives Report Technical Evaluation of Detailed Alternatives Final Pre-Project Development Study Report Implementation Plan Locally Preferred Alternative Report Rush Line Corridor Pre-Project Development Study Approximate Schedule Timeline June 2015Meeting(s) held this monthOngoing activities WE ARE HERE F2, Attachment 1Packet Page Number 15 of 200 94 35E ANOKA COUNTY RAMSEY COUNTY WASHINGTON COUNTY35E 35W 94 694 35 SEE INSET 94 694 61 61 97 97 8 14 36 36 61 96 10 10 10 10 94 51 51 10 MANNING TRL LAKE DR LAKE DRLEXINGTON AVE CENTERVILLE RDHODGSON RDFOREST BLVD RICE STSCANDIA TRL 75TH ST BIRCH ST DELLWOOD RD GRAND AVE DALE ST MAIN ST20TH AVE HIGHWAY 61 122ND ST VICTORIA ST OTTER LAKE RDJAMACA AVE UNIVERSITY AVE COUNTY ROAD C 9TH ST SNELLING AVE MARSHALL AVE COUNTY ROAD 96 POTOMAC STLEXINGTON AVE HAMLINE AVE MINNEHAHA AVE ARCADE STCO M O A V E 109TH AVE APOLLO DRLARPENTEUR AVE LAKE ELMO AVE JACKSON STFROST AVE BEAM AVE PIERCE BUTLE R R T E COUNTY ROAD C 17TH AVE LABORE RDKETTL E RI VE R BL V D WHITE BEAR AVE 85TH AVE MCKNIGHT RD HIGHWAY 61MCMENEMY RDHILTON TRLD E L LW O O D A V E 117TH ST LAKE STVADNAIS B L V D WILDWOOD RD MARYLAND AVE COUNTY ROAD E GOOS E L A K E R D COUNTY ROAD I BROADWAY AVE SELBY AVE HADLEY AVE EDGERTON ST 110TH ST COUNTY ROAD B 120TH ST ASH ST PLATO BLV D COUNTY ROAD J 120TH ST RICE STLEXINGTON AVE021Miles KELLOGG BLVD 5TH ST 6TH ST 12TH ST WARNE R R D 7TH STC E D A R S T 5TH ST P I N E S T 2ND ST 10TH ST DESOTO STUNIVE R SI T Y A V E S A I N T P E T E R S T CEDAR STJ A C K S O N S T ARCH S T EMPIRE DR 10TH ST BEDFORD ST 4TH ST 10 INSET Alignments from the 2008/2009 Alternatives Analysis Alignment Options Public Engagement METRO Green Line METRO Gold Line (Gateway Corridor) Alignment Alignment Alternatives Moving Forward M ississi p pi Ri v er 94 35E ST PAUL 52 10 61 5TH STHS5 6TH ST6TH STWARNE R R D R C E D A R S T C E D RSS T 5TH STT 2ND ST22ND22NDS2NDS2NDSDS10TH ST0THTH SHH 1S A I N T P E T E R S T S T S A E R I N T N T 10TH STST0THTHST10TH 4TH ST 4TTH ST PAULULAPATLSTPAPPAPALAUSSUULT TT LAU S T T EETETTTETEEEEEETTETTETSSEE ESEEEEE NNNNEESSSSESESENSSESEEEEINNSSEINSNSSEEENSTSEESEE INSET 10 Potential alignment will be defined as the alternatives are refined in Maplewood Potential alignment will be defined as the alternatives are refined METRO Green Line Potential alignment will be defined as the alternatives are refined in downtown Forest Lake F2, Attachment 2 Packet Page Number 16 of 200 MEMORANDUM TO:Melinda Coleman, City Manager FROM:Shann Finwall, AICP, Environmental Planner DATE:September 9, 2015 SUBJECT:GreenStep Cities Step Four Award Introduction Minnesota GreenStep Cities is a challenge, assistance, and recognition program to help cities achieve their sustainability and quality-of-life goals. This free continuous improvement program is based on 28 best practices that are tailored to Minnesota cities, focus on cost savings and energy use reduction, and encourage civic innovation. Maplewood has been participating in the program since December 2010. As one of 86 participating cities, Maplewood is helping to lead the way in sustainably across the State of Minnesota. Background Recognition in the form of “Steps” is given to cities as they complete sustainability best practices outlined in the program. Each best practice is implemented by completing one or more actions at a 1, 2, or 3-star level, from a list of four to eight actions. The actions are tailored to all Minnesota cities, focus on cost savings and energy use reduction, and encourage civic innovation. There are currently three formal Step awards in the program. Maplewood has been recognized as a Step 3 City since 2013. Discussion In 2015 the City of Maplewood was one of six cities in the State that participated in a Step 4 pilot project involving metrics. Step 4 provides guidance and recognition for cities that maintain the Step 3 level of participation and want to progress to the next stage of achieving sustainability and quality-of-life goals. It also allows a City to mitigate and adapt to a changing climate. The metrics provide a scientific approach to gauge baseline conditions and take actions to see if those actions “move the needle” forward. The primary purpose and benefit of Step 4 is self-evaluation, not peer-city comparison. Examples of metrics measured by the City during the Step 4 pilot project include City fleet vehicle efficiency, solid waste/energy/water use from government operations, residential density, complete streets, safe routes to school, urban tree canopy, etc. Now that the City’s baseline conditions are measured, we can set specific sustainability goals and re-measure the metrics yearly to gauge progress or regression towards meeting those goals and respond most effectively. Budget Impact None F3 Packet Page Number 17 of 200 2 Summary Maplewood was awarded the Minnesota GreenStep Cities Step 4 award at the June 26, 2015, League of Minnesota Cities Conference. This award spotlights Maplewood’s leadership in maintaining City-wide environmental sustainability efforts. Attachments 1. Step 4 Press Release 2. Step 4 Certification F3 Packet Page Number 18 of 200 The City of Maplewood had the honor of being recognized as a Minnesota GreenStep City and received a certiÀcate honoring exceptional eorts at the League of Minnesota Cities Conference on June 26th. Maplewood was recognized as a Step 4 Pilot City in the Minnesota GreenStep Cities program. “This recognition shows community members and other cities across Minnesota that the City of Maplewood is taking great steps in the direction of energy and resource conservation and innovation,” shared Shann Finwall, the Minnesota GreenStep Cities Coordinator for the City of Maplewood. Minnesota GreenStep Cities is a challenge, assistance, and recognition program. As one of 83 participating cities, the City of Maplewood is helping to lead the way in sustainabilty across the state of Minnesota. The City of Maplewood has worked hard to implement best practices in order to fulÀll their sustainability goals. Actions that are taken within the program focus on cost savings, energy use reduction, and the encouragement of civic innovation. <ou can learn more about Maplewood’s eorts at greenstep.pca. mn.us. “This award is a great achievement for Maplewood,” said Mayor Nora Slawik of Maplewood. “And by being part of the program, Maplewood and our 82 peer cities are helping to secure Minnesota’s natural beauty for the future while also helping our cities thrive economically and socially.” Maplewood Receives GreenStep Cities Step 4 Award Councilmember Kathleen Juenemann accepts Maplewood’s award for the Minnesota GreenStep Cities at the League of Minnesota Cities Conference F3, Attachment 1 Packet Page Number 19 of 200 F3, Attachment 2 Packet Page Number 20 of 200 TO:Melinda Coleman, City Manager FROM:Gayle Bauman, Finance Director DATE: SUBJECT:Approval of Claims 457,199.33$ Checks #95634 thru # 95680 dated 08/25/15 584,307.61$ Disbursements via debits to checking account dated 08/17/15 thru 08/21/15 474,504.95$ Checks # 95683 thru # 95725 dated 08/26/15 thru 09/01/15 273,352.13$ Disbursements via debits to checking account dated 08/24/15 thru 08/28/15 242,663.89$ Checks #95726 thru #95762 dated 09/01/15 thru 09/08/15 606,885.35$ Disbursements via debits to checking account dated 08/31/15 thru 09/04/15 2,638,913.26$ Total Accounts Payable 537,381.39$ Payroll Checks and Direct Deposits dated08/28/15 1,495.33$ Payroll Deduction check # 9995522 thru # 9995524 dated 08/28/15 538,876.72$ Total Payroll 3,177,789.98$ GRAND TOTAL Attachments Attached is a detailed listing of these claims. Please call me at 651- 249-2902 if you have any questions on the attached listing. This will allow me to check the supporting documentation on file if necessary. PAYROLL MEMORANDUM September 9, 2015 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: G1 Packet Page Number 21 of 200 Check Description Amount 95634 05114 PROJ 14-02 CNTY RD B TRAIL IMPRV 14,154.90 95635 00519 REPAIR OF CCTV CAMERA MODULE 2,416.60 95636 03516 SECURITY OFFICER MCC JUNE 27 320.00 03516 SECURITY OFFICER MCC AUG 15 240.00 95637 00585 NET BILLABLE TICKETS - JULY 929.45 95638 04206 ATTORNEY SERVICES - SEPTEMBER 8,000.00 95639 00393 MONTHLY SURTAX - JULY 23022123035 3,402.33 95640 05311 SOFTBALL OFFICIALS JULY 14 50.00 05311 SOFTBALL OFFICIALS JULY 21 35.00 95641 00985 WASTEWATER - SEPTEMBER 245,317.42 95642 04316 WORKFORCE DIRECTOR - 2ND QTR 1,785.00 95643 05513 REIMB FOR TUITION 5/11 - 6/27 1,615.00 95644 01337 911 DISPATCH SERVICES - JULY 30,453.91 01337 CAD SERVICES - JULY 5,824.07 95645 01497 BOND FEES 2015C 25,998.46 01497 BOND FEES 2015B 14,358.76 95646 01190 ELECTRIC & GAS UTILITY 2,242.23 01190 ELECTRIC & GAS UTILITY 1,995.83 01190 ELECTRIC & GAS UTILITY 205.52 01190 FIRE SIRENS 50.70 95647 01047 ROLL GOODS FOR SIGN FABRICATION 4,016.25 95648 05563 BASKETBALL CAMP INSTRUCTION 2,440.00 95649 05434 REPAIR OF VEHICLE 2,716.91 95650 01811 MDSE FOR RESALE 51.00 95651 01974 REFUND TRANS MEDIC PATIENT 90.60 95652 05160 GUITAR INSTRUCTION SUMMER 2015 95.60 95653 03645 EMERGENCY GENERATOR RENT 7/8 - 8/5 1,037.50 95654 00003 ESCROW REL S HENTZE 2340 CASE AVE E 600.00 95655 02506 REPAIR LIGHTING AT GOODRICH PARK 349.30 95656 04152 OPEN SWIM/WATER EXERCISE 5/4-6/2 627.00 95657 00750 ESCROW REL 1850 WHITE BEAR AVE N 500.00 95658 04558 ELECTION JUDGE - PRIMARY ELECTION 136.44 95659 05156 ESCROW REL 46066 PW-14-02660 4,169.20 95660 00846 PD PHONE-BASED INTERPRETIVE SRVS 113.18 95661 04584 ANNUAL PD POLICY MANUAL SUB SRVS 3,550.00 95662 05562 PARTIAL ESCROW REL 1285 COPE AVE E 15,634.38 95663 04318 DISPOSAL OF CLEAN SWEEPINGS 824.00 95664 01079 LEADERSHIP ACADEMY - 3 OFFICERS 1,620.00 95665 01175 MONTHLY UTILITIES - JULY 4,030.93 01175 FIBER OPTIC ACCESS CHG - AUGUST 1,000.00 95666 00001 REFUND C J DUNN TRANS MEDIC 250.00 95667 00001 REFUND SITEWORX EXC SEWER PERMIT 110.00 95668 00001 REFUND M HOUSE TRANS MEDIC 72.93 95669 00001 REFUND J ROY SOCCER 68.00 95670 02903 PROJ 14-02 CO RD B TRAIL PMT#1 19,603.25 95671 05338 WASTE & RECYCLING SRVS - AUGUST 1,366.00 95672 02001 PHONE SERVICE - AUGUST 2,757.70 95673 04578 TREE INSPECTION SERVICES 960.00 95674 05265 SWEEPING DISPOSAL AT LANDFILL 4,715.36 95675 05462 CONDEMNATION HEARING 250.00 95676 01536 T-BALL & YOUTH SOFTBALL UNIFORMS 3,077.00 01536 T-BALL UNIFORMS 100.00 01536 T-BALL UNIFORMS 90.00 95676 01536 T-BALL UNIFORMS 72.00 95677 05382 MARKETING FOR CITY 7/13 - 8/14 4,000.00 08/25/2015 FLEXIBLE PIPE TOOL CO. 08/25/2015 ANTHONY GABRIEL 08/25/2015 ANTHONY GABRIEL Check Register City of Maplewood 08/20/2015 Date Vendor 08/25/2015 BOLTON & MENK, INC. 08/25/2015 WILLIE MCCRAY 08/25/2015 WILLIE MCCRAY 08/25/2015 METROPOLITAN COUNCIL 08/25/2015 GOPHER STATE ONE-CALL 08/25/2015 H A KANTRUD 08/25/2015 MN DEPT OF LABOR & INDUSTRY 08/25/2015 RAMSEY COUNTY-PROP REC & REV 08/25/2015 SPRINGSTED INC 08/25/2015 SPRINGSTED INC 08/25/2015 CITY OF MINNEAPOLIS RECEIVABLES 08/25/2015 MARIA MULVIHILL 08/25/2015 RAMSEY COUNTY-PROP REC & REV 08/25/2015 XCEL ENERGY 08/25/2015 3M 08/25/2015 43 HOOPS BASKETBALL ACADEMY 08/25/2015 XCEL ENERGY 08/25/2015 XCEL ENERGY 08/25/2015 XCEL ENERGY 08/25/2015 JOSE D CARBAJAL 08/25/2015 CUMMINS NPOWER LLC 08/25/2015 ESCROW REFUND 08/25/2015 AUTONATION COLLISION CENTER 08/25/2015 BERNATELLO'S PIZZA 08/25/2015 BLUE CROSS REFUNDS 08/25/2015 WARREN JOHNSON 08/25/2015 KETTLER CONSTRUCTION INC. 08/25/2015 LANGUAGE LINE SERVICES 08/25/2015 HUNT ELECTRIC CORP 08/25/2015 ISD 622 COMMUNITY EDUCATION 08/25/2015 JAMES STEELE CONSTRUCTION 08/25/2015 MN CHIEFS OF POLICE ASSN 08/25/2015 CITY OF NORTH ST PAUL 08/25/2015 CITY OF NORTH ST PAUL 08/25/2015 LEXIPOL LLC 08/25/2015 LINN INVESTMENT PROPERTIES LLC 08/25/2015 MILLER EXCAVATING, INC. 08/25/2015 ONE TIME VENDOR 08/25/2015 PARK CONSTRUCTION CO 08/25/2015 REPUBLIC SERVICES #923 08/25/2015 ONE TIME VENDOR 08/25/2015 ONE TIME VENDOR 08/25/2015 ONE TIME VENDOR 08/25/2015 STONEWOOD CORPORATION 08/25/2015 STRAUSS SKATES & BICYCLES 08/25/2015 STRAUSS SKATES & BICYCLES 08/25/2015 CITY OF ROSEVILLE 08/25/2015 S & S TREE SPECIALISTS, INC 08/25/2015 SKB ENVIRONMENTAL 08/25/2015 STRAUSS SKATES & BICYCLES 08/25/2015 STRAUSS SKATES & BICYCLES 08/25/2015 TURNING POINT CONSULTING GROUP G1, Attachments Packet Page Number 22 of 200 95678 04179 PROGRAM DISPLAY SIGN MCC - JULY 325.00 95679 02159 AQUATIC REV SHARING - Y 75%/MCC 25%14,167.12 95680 05013 SPRING START UP ON CHILLERS 1,915.75 05013 AHU CHECK 301.75 457,199.3347Checks in this report. 08/25/2015 YALE MECHANICAL LLC 08/25/2015 YALE MECHANICAL LLC 08/25/2015 VISUAL IMAGE PROMOTIONS 08/25/2015 WHITE BEAR AREA YMCA G1, Attachments Packet Page Number 23 of 200 Settlement Date Payee Description Amount 8/17/2015 MN State Treasurer Drivers License/Deputy Registrar 45,421.70 8/17/2015 US Bank Merchant Services Credit Card Billing fee 91.50 8/17/2015 U.S. Treasurer Federal Payroll Tax 100,892.44 8/17/2015 P.E.R.A.P.E.R.A.100,426.21 8/17/2015 Empower - State Plan Deferred Compensation 30,675.00 8/18/2015 MN State Treasurer Drivers License/Deputy Registrar 41,691.38 8/18/2015 MidAmerica HRA Flex plan 13,825.09 8/18/2015 MN State Treasurer State Payroll Tax 20,433.90 8/18/2015 Labor Unions Union Dues 2,205.27 8/19/2015 MN State Treasurer Drivers License/Deputy Registrar 52,040.61 8/19/2015 MN Dept of Revenue Sales Tax 6,186.00 8/19/2015 Delta Dental Dental Premium 936.48 8/20/2015 MN State Treasurer Drivers License/Deputy Registrar 121,347.96 8/20/2015 MN Dept of Revenue Fuel Tax 514.14 8/21/2015 MN State Treasurer Drivers License/Deputy Registrar 45,845.40 8/21/2015 MN Dept of Natural Resources DNR electronic licenses 811.50 8/21/2015 Optum Health DCRP & Flex plan payments 963.03 584,307.61 CITY OF MAPLEWOOD Disbursements via Debits to Checking account G1, Attachments Packet Page Number 24 of 200 Check Description Amount 95683 05538 75% DESIGN FEES FOR JOY PARK PROJ 12,384.00 95684 02149 MARKETING & ADVERTISING - AUGUST 4,000.00 95685 04572 ROOF REPAIRS - CITY HALL 972.00 04572 INFRA-RED SCANNING/ROOF REPAIR PW 900.00 04572 ROOF REPAIRS - PW 417.00 95686 01160 BRACKETS FOR SIGN ASSEMBLY 1,180.22 95687 02043 REPAIR GARAGE DOORS STATION #2 4,649.03 95688 01819 LOCAL PHONE SERVICE 07/15 - 08/14 694.30 95689 01409 REVIEW WETLAND/CONIFER RR MEM0 1,362.55 95690 01546 T-SHIRTS FOR BLDG ATTENDANTS 263.50 95691 05488 PREMIUM - LIFE,LTD,STD - AUGUST 6,946.28 95692 01574 BITUMINOUS MATERIALS 1,138.50 01574 BITUMINOUS MATERIALS 1,093.65 01574 BITUMINOUS MATERIALS 756.70 01574 BITUMINOUS MATERIALS 236.90 95693 04845 RECYCLING FEE - JULY 38,939.25 95694 05305 CONTRACT 500-0371083 743.71 05305 CONTRACT 500-0371999 721.22 05305 CONTRACT 500-0264717 325.71 05305 CONTRACT 500-0264726 279.21 05305 CONTRACT 500-0294743 252.79 05305 CONTRACT 500-0328559 226.56 05305 CONTRACT 500-0395052 206.19 05305 CONTRACT 500-0395065 120.77 05305 CONTRACT 500-0380041 104.83 05305 CONTRACT 500-0373496 81.90 05305 CONTRACT 500-0349366 71.39 05305 CONTRACT 500-0264705 61.66 95695 01190 ELECTRIC & GAS UTILITY 22,216.25 01190 ELECTRIC & GAS UTILITY 8,821.89 95696 01047 ROLL GOODS FOR SIGN FABRICATION 656.26 95697 05385 ONLINE EMS PROTOCOL AP 9/15-8/16 1,500.00 95698 01830 MOVIE IN THE PARK SET UP 660.93 95699 04047 CHARITABLE GAMBLING 760.00 95700 03310 SMARTNET RENEWAL 2015-2016 12,000.00 95701 00036 SENIOR ROYALTY ALUMNI C GAMBLING 420.00 95702 03645 GENERATOR RENTAL 8/5 - 8/10 345.83 95703 04156 DETERGENT FOR TURNOUT GEAR 250.94 04156 DETERGENT FOR TURNOUT GEAR 125.47 95704 04846 MEDICAL SUPPLIES 476.90 95705 05565 EMS SURVEY HOSTING & DIST FEE 172.50 95706 05259 REPAIR/UPGRADE SURVEY EQUIP 1,768.63 95707 04584 ONLINE POLICY/PROCEDURE 07/15-06/16 4,038.00 04584 ONLINE FIRE PROCEDURE 7/15-6/16 1,488.00 95708 00532 HR ATTORNEY FEE - JULY 68.78 95709 00936 CHARITABLE GAMBLING 4,060.00 95710 03818 MONTHLY PREMIUM - SEPTEMBER 167,669.08 95711 05200 VOLLEYBALL CLINIC INSTRUCTION 1,015.00 95712 01126 MONTHLY PREMIUM - SEPTEMBER 464.00 95713 05356 VIDEOGRAPHER SRVS - JULY 961.40 95714 03903 NOTARY COMMISSION FEE S SHEA 120.00 95715 00001 REIMB K BALDWIN DRIVEWAY APRON 2,975.00 95716 00001 REFUND S HAWKINSON BCBS CREDITS 218.59 95717 00001 REFUND J LINDSTROM HP CREDITS 40.00 95718 02903 PROJ 14-02 CO RD B TRAIL PMT#2 121,642.1009/01/2015 PARK CONSTRUCTION CO 09/01/2015 ONE TIME VENDOR 09/01/2015 ONE TIME VENDOR 09/01/2015 ONE TIME VENDOR 09/01/2015 NCPERS MINNESOTA 09/01/2015 NORTH SUBURBAN ACCESS CORP 09/01/2015 OFFICE OF SECRETARY OF STATE 09/01/2015 MAPLEWOOD AREA 09/01/2015 MEDICA 09/01/2015 MN VOLLEYBALL HEADQUARTERS 09/01/2015 LEXIPOL LLC 09/01/2015 LEXIPOL LLC 09/01/2015 MADDEN GALANTER HANSEN, LLP 09/01/2015 ECOLAB INC. 09/01/2015 ECOLAB INC. 09/01/2015 HEALTHEAST 09/01/2015 HEALTHSTRING LLC 09/01/2015 LEICA GEOSYSTEMS INC. 09/01/2015 CDW GOVERNMENT INC 09/01/2015 CHARITABLE GAMBLING 09/01/2015 CUMMINS NPOWER LLC 09/01/2015 ACID REMAP LLC 09/01/2015 ALPHA VIDEO & AUDIO INC 09/01/2015 ASHLAND PRODUCTIONS 09/01/2015 XCEL ENERGY 09/01/2015 XCEL ENERGY 09/01/2015 3M 09/01/2015 TOSHIBA FINANCIAL SERVICES (1) 09/01/2015 TOSHIBA FINANCIAL SERVICES (1) 09/01/2015 TOSHIBA FINANCIAL SERVICES (1) 09/01/2015 TOSHIBA FINANCIAL SERVICES (1) 09/01/2015 TOSHIBA FINANCIAL SERVICES (1) 09/01/2015 TOSHIBA FINANCIAL SERVICES (1) 09/01/2015 TOSHIBA FINANCIAL SERVICES (1) 09/01/2015 TOSHIBA FINANCIAL SERVICES (1) 09/01/2015 TOSHIBA FINANCIAL SERVICES (1) 09/01/2015 TOSHIBA FINANCIAL SERVICES (1) 09/01/2015 TOSHIBA FINANCIAL SERVICES (1) 09/01/2015 TOSHIBA FINANCIAL SERVICES (1) 09/01/2015 T A SCHIFSKY & SONS, INC 09/01/2015 T A SCHIFSKY & SONS, INC 09/01/2015 TENNIS SANITATION LLC 09/01/2015 SUN LIFE FINANCIAL 09/01/2015 T A SCHIFSKY & SONS, INC 09/01/2015 T A SCHIFSKY & SONS, INC 09/01/2015 PAETEC 09/01/2015 S E H 09/01/2015 SUBURBAN SPORTSWEAR 09/01/2015 ETTEL & FRANZ ROOFING CO. 09/01/2015 NEWMAN TRAFFIC SIGNS 09/01/2015 OVERHEAD DOOR COMPANY 09/01/2015 HEIDI CAREY 09/01/2015 ETTEL & FRANZ ROOFING CO. 09/01/2015 ETTEL & FRANZ ROOFING CO. 08/26/2015 FIREFLIES PLAY ENVIRONMENTS Check Register City of Maplewood 08/27/2015 Date Vendor G1, Attachments Packet Page Number 25 of 200 95719 01261 MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT-LUCAS 2 6,528.24 01261 EMS REPORTING SOFTWARE - AUG 738.67 95720 05338 TRASH PICK UP AUG/SEPT 160.28 95721 01397 SAFETY TEST/OR REPLACE RPZ VALVES 3,153.00 01397 SAFETY TEST/OR REPLACE RPZ VALVES 960.00 01397 SAFETY TEST/OR REPLACE RPZ VALVES 675.00 01397 SAFETY TEST/OR REPLACE RPZ VALVES 560.00 01397 SAFETY TEST/OR REPLACE RPZ VALVES 450.00 95722 01418 FOOD FOR EMPLOYEE PICNIC 906.25 01418 MDSE FOR RESALE 449.88 01418 MDSE FOR RESALE 313.12 01418 MICRWAVE FOR SNACK BAR 272.85 01418 DAY CAMP SUPPLIES 224.98 01418 MDSE FOR RESALE 145.99 01418 MDSE FOR RESALE 94.86 01418 MDSE FOR RESALE 86.87 01418 ITMES FOR BANQUET ROOM MEETINGS 62.08 01418 MDSE FOR RESALE 47.96 95723 04074 TAI CHI INSTRUCTION - 8/5 - 10/07 267.60 95724 03642 POOL SHUTDOWN 23,200.00 95725 05528 CONTRACT 7950665-003 392.98 05528 CONTRACT 7950665-001 307.75 05528 CONTRACT 7950665-002 257.31 05528 CONTRACT 7950665-004 183.9109/01/2015 TOSHIBA FINANCIAL SERVICES (2) 474,504.9543Checks in this report. 09/01/2015 TOSHIBA FINANCIAL SERVICES (2) 09/01/2015 TOSHIBA FINANCIAL SERVICES (2) 09/01/2015 TOSHIBA FINANCIAL SERVICES (2) 09/01/2015 SAM'S CLUB DIRECT 09/01/2015 ELAINE SCHRADE 09/01/2015 SWANSON & YOUNGDALE 09/01/2015 SAM'S CLUB DIRECT 09/01/2015 SAM'S CLUB DIRECT 09/01/2015 SAM'S CLUB DIRECT 09/01/2015 SAM'S CLUB DIRECT 09/01/2015 SAM'S CLUB DIRECT 09/01/2015 SAM'S CLUB DIRECT 09/01/2015 SAM'S CLUB DIRECT 09/01/2015 SAM'S CLUB DIRECT 09/01/2015 SAM'S CLUB DIRECT 09/01/2015 RYAN PLUMBING & HEATING CO. 09/01/2015 RYAN PLUMBING & HEATING CO. 09/01/2015 RYAN PLUMBING & HEATING CO. 09/01/2015 REPUBLIC SERVICES #923 09/01/2015 RYAN PLUMBING & HEATING CO. 09/01/2015 RYAN PLUMBING & HEATING CO. 09/01/2015 PHYSIO-CONTROL, INC. 09/01/2015 PHYSIO-CONTROL, INC. G1, Attachments Packet Page Number 26 of 200 Settlement Date Payee Description Amount 8/24/2015 MN State Treasurer Drivers License/Deputy Registrar 46,114.21 8/25/2015 MN State Treasurer Drivers License/Deputy Registrar 32,666.37 8/26/2015 MN State Treasurer Drivers License/Deputy Registrar 84,052.57 8/26/2015 Delta Dental Dental Premium 2,457.51 8/27/2015 MN State Treasurer Drivers License/Deputy Registrar 45,747.82 8/28/2015 MN State Treasurer Drivers License/Deputy Registrar 52,606.00 8/28/2015 MN Dept of Natural Resources DNR electronic licenses 509.00 8/28/2015 Optum Health DCRP & Flex plan payments 5,313.65 8/28/2015 ICMA (Vantagepointe)Deferred Compensation 3,885.00 273,352.13 CITY OF MAPLEWOOD Disbursements via Debits to Checking account G1, Attachments Packet Page Number 27 of 200 Check Description Amount 95726 05566 DOWN PMT MNC ENTRANCE SIGN 2,492.50 95727 02639 PROJ 04-21 GLADSTONE AREA FINAL PMT 59,080.96 95728 00211 PROJ 15-11 PROF SRVS THRU 8/14 4,718.60 00211 PROJ 15-11 PROF SRVS THRU 8/8 -600.00 95729 00216 2015C BOND ISSUE COSTS 9,015.51 00216 2015B BOND ISSUE COSTS 7,023.97 95730 05339 TRAILER RENTAL 6/22 - 7/22 125.00 95731 04316 AUTO PAWN SYSTEM - JULY 689.40 95732 02043 SERVICE GARAGE DOORS STATION #1 484.95 95733 01409 PROJ 11-19 RECORD DRAWING PREP 1,605.57 01409 PROJ 15-14 CONIFER RIDGE-TRAFFIC SVC 920.84 01409 MCC AQUATIC CENTER HVAC SYSTEM 730.00 95734 01574 BITUMINOUS MATERIALS 3,749.55 01574 MATERIALS REPAIR MAPLE HILLS 847.09 95735 01190 ELECTRIC UTILITY 14,624.95 01190 ELECTRIC UTILITY 980.06 01190 ELECTRIC UTILITY 95.06 01190 GAS UTILITY 56.61 01190 ELECTRIC UTILITY 49.02 01190 ELECTRIC UTILITY 15.39 95736 04848 MONTHLY PREMIUM - SEPTEMBER 218.95 95737 05369 ULTRA CLEAN SERVICE - CITY HALL 462.53 05369 CLEANING SUPPLIES - CITY HALL 85.99 95738 00460 BASE SLAB FOR C/B REBUILD MTVERNON 273.00 95739 01372 DELIVERY OF DOC TO HR ATTORNEY 91.77 95740 05538 JOY PARK PROJ 76,468.00 95741 00531 BLACK DIRT FOR RESTORATION WORK 70.00 95742 00550 REPLACEMENT SWING HANGERS 1,339.00 95743 04337 CONCRETE PUMP FOR C/B REPAIRS 2,709.17 95744 02929 LTC MONTHLY PREMIUM - SEPTEMBER 201.38 95745 00830 BAG KIT & VAC FOR TORO MOWER 2,620.72 95746 00857 2015-2016 MEMBERSHIP DUES 24,589.00 95747 00857 MMA MEMBERSHIP SEPT 15 - SEPT 16 30.00 95748 05567 FUEL CARDS FOR CITY VEHICLES 272.47 95749 00942 JANITORIAL SERVICES - SEPTEMBER 2,776.00 95750 05437 ESCROW RELEASE 3135 FURNESS 1,500.32 05437 ESCROW RELEASE 3133 FURNESS 1,500.32 05437 ESCROW RELEASE 3122 FURNESS 1,500.32 05437 ESCROW RELEASE 3120 FURNESS 1,500.32 95751 04373 SPOT TREATMENT GLADSTONE SAVANNA 950.00 95752 05364 ACUPUNCTURE SESSIONS JULY-AUG 1,962.00 95753 02629 PRE-EMPLOYMENT PHYSICAL - PD 110.00 95754 00001 REIMB G SOLER SPRINKLER SYS REPAIR 812.63 95755 00001 REIMB M STELLA SPRINKLER SYS REPAIR 544.40 95756 01338 NOTARY REGISTRATION - CHING LO 20.00 95757 03446 DEER PICK UP - AUGUST 115.00 95758 02653 REPAIR FIRE ALARM SYS AT 1902 3,178.31 95759 00198 WATER UTILITY 5,338.40 95760 01550 ELECTRICAL INSPECTIONS - AUGUST 4,530.20 95761 01669 TOW VEHICLE CN: 15024558 180.00 95762 05568 SALES TAX FOR PURCHASE IN 2012 8.66 242,663.8937Checks in this report. 09/08/2015 SIMPLEX GRINNELL LP 09/08/2015 ONE TIME VENDOR 09/08/2015 RAMSEY COUNTY-VITAL RECORDS 09/08/2015 RICK JOHNSON DEER & BEAVER INC 09/08/2015 ST PAUL REGIONAL WATER SRVS 09/08/2015 SUMMIT INSPECTIONS 09/08/2015 TWIN CITIES TRANSPORT & 09/08/2015 XP SOFTWARE 09/08/2015 CRYSTALIN MONTGOMERY 09/08/2015 NOVACARE REHABILITATION 09/08/2015 ONE TIME VENDOR 09/08/2015 MERKLE PROPERTIES 09/08/2015 MERKLE PROPERTIES 09/08/2015 MN NATIVE LANDSCAPES 09/08/2015 MARSDEN BLDG MAINTENANCE CO 09/08/2015 MERKLE PROPERTIES 09/08/2015 MERKLE PROPERTIES 09/08/2015 LEAGUE OF MINNESOTA CITIES 09/08/2015 LEAGUE OF MINNESOTA CITIES 09/08/2015 LUBE-TECH ESI 09/08/2015 GARY CARLSON EQUIPMENT 09/08/2015 GLTC PREMIUM PAYMENTS 09/08/2015 L T G POWER EQUIPMENT 09/08/2015 FIREFLIES PLAY ENVIRONMENTS 09/08/2015 FRA-DOR INC. 09/08/2015 GAMETIME 09/08/2015 CINTAS CORPORATION #470 09/08/2015 CRETEX CONCRETE PRODUCTS NORTH 09/08/2015 DYNAMEX INC. 09/08/2015 XCEL ENERGY 09/08/2015 AVESIS 09/08/2015 CINTAS CORPORATION #470 09/08/2015 XCEL ENERGY 09/08/2015 XCEL ENERGY 09/08/2015 XCEL ENERGY 09/08/2015 T A SCHIFSKY & SONS, INC 09/08/2015 XCEL ENERGY 09/08/2015 XCEL ENERGY 09/08/2015 S E H 09/08/2015 S E H 09/08/2015 T A SCHIFSKY & SONS, INC 09/08/2015 CITY OF MINNEAPOLIS RECEIVABLES 09/08/2015 OVERHEAD DOOR COMPANY 09/08/2015 S E H 09/08/2015 BRIGGS & MORGAN, P.A. 09/08/2015 CHRIS MASTELL TRAILER RENTALS 09/08/2015 ARNT CONSTRUCTION INC 09/08/2015 BRAUN INTERTEC CORP. 09/08/2015 BRAUN INTERTEC CORP. Check Register City of Maplewood 09/03/2015 Date Vendor 09/01/2015 IMPRESSION SIGNS AND GRAPHICS 09/08/2015 BRIGGS & MORGAN, P.A. G1, Attachments Packet Page Number 28 of 200 Settlement Date Payee Description Amount 8/31/2015 MN State Treasurer Drivers License/Deputy Registrar 45,109.01 8/31/2015 US Bank VISA One Card*Purchasing card items 44,187.23 8/31/2015 U.S. Treasurer Federal Payroll Tax 101,438.68 8/31/2015 P.E.R.A.P.E.R.A.104,255.90 8/31/2015 Empower - State Plan Deferred Compensation 30,824.00 8/31/2015 MN State Treasurer State Payroll Tax 21,100.48 9/1/2015 MN State Treasurer Drivers License/Deputy Registrar 54,698.27 9/1/2015 US Bank Merchant Services Credit Card Billing fee 79.94 9/1/2015 MN Dept of Revenue Fuel Tax (634.74) 9/1/2015 MidAmerica HRA Flex plan 21,441.67 9/1/2015 Labor Unions Union Dues 3,581.15 9/3/2015 MN State Treasurer Drivers License/Deputy Registrar 101,344.27 9/4/2015 MN State Treasurer Drivers License/Deputy Registrar 75,592.02 9/4/2015 MN Dept of Natural Resources DNR electronic licenses 422.00 9/4/2015 Optum Health DCRP & Flex plan payments 593.45 9/4/2015 Delta Dental Dental Premium 2,852.02 606,885.35 *Detailed listing of VISA purchases is attached. CITY OF MAPLEWOOD Disbursements via Debits to Checking account G1, Attachments Packet Page Number 29 of 200 Transaction Date Posting Date Merchant Name Transaction Amount Name 08/07/2015 08/10/2015 OFFICE DEPOT #1090 $22.86 REGAN BEGGS 08/10/2015 08/12/2015 OFFICE DEPOT #1090 $53.99 REGAN BEGGS 08/06/2015 08/10/2015 RED WING SHOE #727 $43.93 STANLEY BELDE 08/10/2015 08/11/2015 PRIMARY ARMS LLC $684.37 BRIAN BIERDEMAN 08/11/2015 08/11/2015 AMAZON MKTPLACE PMTS $90.90 BRIAN BIERDEMAN 08/11/2015 08/13/2015 PRIMARY ARMS LLC ($351.56)BRIAN BIERDEMAN 08/12/2015 08/12/2015 AMAZON.COM $99.40 BRIAN BIERDEMAN 08/12/2015 08/13/2015 AMAZON.COM $149.10 BRIAN BIERDEMAN 08/13/2015 08/14/2015 AMAZON.COM $49.70 BRIAN BIERDEMAN 08/08/2015 08/10/2015 BLUE RIBBON BAIT #1 $3.16 OAKLEY BIESANZ 08/18/2015 08/19/2015 MENARDS MAPLEWOOD $24.90 RON BOURQUIN 08/10/2015 08/11/2015 DICK'S CLOTHING&SPORTING $12.83 NEIL BRENEMAN 08/10/2015 08/11/2015 CUB FOODS #1599 $11.69 NEIL BRENEMAN 08/15/2015 08/17/2015 DISPLAYS2GOCOM $169.68 NEIL BRENEMAN 08/15/2015 08/17/2015 CHALLENGER SPORTS TEAM $1,030.75 NEIL BRENEMAN 08/18/2015 08/19/2015 BSN*SPORT SUPPLY GROUP $109.11 NEIL BRENEMAN 08/13/2015 08/17/2015 DIAMOND VOGEL PAINT #807 $685.00 TROY BRINK 08/13/2015 08/17/2015 DIAMOND VOGEL PAINT #807 $118.00 TROY BRINK 08/19/2015 08/21/2015 NORTHERN TOOL EQUIP-MN $113.50 TROY BRINK 08/07/2015 08/10/2015 OFFICE DEPOT #1090 $51.30 SARAH BURLINGAME 08/10/2015 08/11/2015 AMAZON MKTPLACE PMTS $31.22 SARAH BURLINGAME 08/13/2015 08/14/2015 MICHAELS STORES 2744 $41.50 SARAH BURLINGAME 08/17/2015 08/19/2015 OFFICEMAX/OFFICE DEPOT616 $32.76 SARAH BURLINGAME 08/18/2015 08/19/2015 WAL-MART #5976 $21.08 SARAH BURLINGAME 08/20/2015 08/21/2015 MENARDS OAKDALE $12.12 JOHN CAPISTRANT 08/14/2015 08/14/2015 INT'L CODE COUNCIL INC $152.19 NICHOLAS CARVER 08/11/2015 08/12/2015 MILLS FLEET FARM 2700 $154.99 SCOTT CHRISTENSON 08/18/2015 08/19/2015 BEARING DIST*$19.81 SCOTT CHRISTENSON 08/13/2015 08/13/2015 ULINE *SHIP SUPPLIES $54.99 KERRY CROTTY 08/07/2015 08/10/2015 THE HOME DEPOT 2810 $5.41 CHARLES DEAVER 08/14/2015 08/17/2015 FRATTALLONES WOODBURY AC $15.51 CHARLES DEAVER 08/15/2015 08/17/2015 STANLEY STEEMER #90R $149.00 CHARLES DEAVER 08/19/2015 08/20/2015 MENARDS OAKDALE $7.91 CHARLES DEAVER 07/24/2015 08/14/2015 KOFFLER SALES CO.$484.22 TOM DOUGLASS 08/07/2015 08/10/2015 EPIC SPORTS $13.15 TOM DOUGLASS 08/07/2015 08/10/2015 THE HOME DEPOT 2801 $67.94 TOM DOUGLASS 08/07/2015 08/10/2015 COMMERCIAL POOL & SPA SUP $52.50 TOM DOUGLASS 08/10/2015 08/11/2015 COMMERCIAL POOL & SPA SUP $374.75 TOM DOUGLASS 08/12/2015 08/13/2015 WW GRAINGER $126.36 TOM DOUGLASS 08/13/2015 08/14/2015 BROICH ARCTIC AIR $73.38 TOM DOUGLASS 08/13/2015 08/14/2015 MARCONE SUPPLY MOTO $40.28 TOM DOUGLASS 08/13/2015 08/17/2015 BREDEMUS HARDWARE CO INC $170.00 TOM DOUGLASS 08/15/2015 08/17/2015 PARTS TOWN, LLC $94.24 TOM DOUGLASS 08/17/2015 08/18/2015 HENRIKSEN ACE HARDWARE $14.80 TOM DOUGLASS 08/17/2015 08/18/2015 WW GRAINGER $20.52 TOM DOUGLASS 08/17/2015 08/19/2015 SPECTRUM PRODUCTS ($37.41)TOM DOUGLASS 08/18/2015 08/19/2015 COMMERCIAL POOL & SPA SUP $98.17 TOM DOUGLASS 08/18/2015 08/19/2015 WW GRAINGER $12.84 TOM DOUGLASS 08/20/2015 08/21/2015 CORE HEALTH & FITNESS ($5.02)TOM DOUGLASS 08/18/2015 08/19/2015 HEJNY RENTAL INC $363.82 DOUG EDGE 08/13/2015 08/14/2015 US FOODS 3F $508.29 CHRISTINE EVANS 08/14/2015 08/18/2015 US FOODS 3F ($82.94)CHRISTINE EVANS 08/18/2015 08/20/2015 OFFICE DEPOT #1090 $95.67 CHRISTINE EVANS 08/18/2015 08/20/2015 OFFICE DEPOT #1078 $2.82 CHRISTINE EVANS 08/20/2015 08/20/2015 COMCAST CABLE COMM $83.88 CHRISTINE EVANS G1, Attachments Packet Page Number 30 of 200 08/08/2015 08/10/2015 SURVEYMONKEY.COM $300.00 MYCHAL FOWLDS 08/10/2015 08/11/2015 AT&T*BILL PAYMENT $37.10 MYCHAL FOWLDS 08/19/2015 08/20/2015 AT SCENE LLC $675.00 MYCHAL FOWLDS 08/21/2015 08/21/2015 COMCAST CABLE COMM $68.95 MYCHAL FOWLDS 08/07/2015 08/10/2015 IDU*INSIGHT PUBLIC SEC $957.68 NICK FRANZEN 08/09/2015 08/10/2015 IDU*INSIGHT PUBLIC SEC $1,264.11 NICK FRANZEN 08/15/2015 08/17/2015 IDU*INSIGHT PUBLIC SEC $469.41 NICK FRANZEN 08/21/2015 08/21/2015 LIQUIDFILES $449.00 NICK FRANZEN 08/18/2015 08/20/2015 THE HOME DEPOT 2801 $280.67 VIRGINIA GAYNOR 08/19/2015 08/21/2015 THE HOME DEPOT 2801 $20.44 VIRGINIA GAYNOR 08/11/2015 08/12/2015 U OF M ARBORETUM ADLT ED $80.00 CAROLE GERNES 08/11/2015 08/12/2015 MINNESOTA STATE FIRE CHIE $250.00 CLARENCE GERVAIS 08/11/2015 08/13/2015 BIG LOTS STORES - #4585 $28.18 CHRISTINE GIBSON 08/13/2015 08/14/2015 CUB FOODS #1599 $7.98 CHRISTINE GIBSON 08/13/2015 08/17/2015 DOLRTREE 4713 00047134 $12.92 CHRISTINE GIBSON 08/14/2015 08/17/2015 A-1 LAUNDRY $154.27 CHRISTINE GIBSON 08/17/2015 08/18/2015 CUB FOODS #1599 $9.78 CHRISTINE GIBSON 08/17/2015 08/18/2015 GRANDMAS BAKERY INC $46.91 CHRISTINE GIBSON 08/19/2015 08/20/2015 FRESH AND NATURAL $15.83 CHRISTINE GIBSON 08/11/2015 08/13/2015 THE HOME DEPOT 2810 $8.55 JAN GREW HAYMAN 08/18/2015 08/20/2015 FORESTRY SUPPLIERS $159.78 JAN GREW HAYMAN 08/11/2015 08/12/2015 DISCOUNT STEEL -MN $567.63 MARK HAAG 08/13/2015 08/14/2015 MIKES LP GAS INC $14.75 MARK HAAG 08/13/2015 08/14/2015 MILLS FLEET FARM 2700 $339.01 MARK HAAG 08/13/2015 08/14/2015 MILLS FLEET FARM 2700 $9.30 MARK HAAG 08/17/2015 08/18/2015 RAINBOW #7300 $42.49 MARK HAAG 08/18/2015 08/19/2015 RAINBOW #7300 $162.94 MARK HAAG 08/18/2015 08/19/2015 PARTY CITY #768 $18.20 MARK HAAG 08/11/2015 08/13/2015 THE HOME DEPOT 2801 $4.03 MILES HAMRE 08/12/2015 08/13/2015 HENRIKSEN ACE HARDWARE $2.10 MILES HAMRE 08/12/2015 08/13/2015 HENRIKSEN ACE HARDWARE $23.93 MILES HAMRE 08/12/2015 08/14/2015 THE HOME DEPOT 2801 $17.91 MILES HAMRE 08/07/2015 08/10/2015 HENRIKSEN ACE HARDWARE $37.76 TAMARA HAYS 08/17/2015 08/18/2015 HENRIKSEN ACE HARDWARE $8.48 TAMARA HAYS 08/17/2015 08/18/2015 ROCKLER WOOD*$24.63 TAMARA HAYS 08/19/2015 08/20/2015 HENRIKSEN ACE HARDWARE ($1.92)TAMARA HAYS 08/19/2015 08/20/2015 HENRIKSEN ACE HARDWARE $53.89 TAMARA HAYS 08/19/2015 08/20/2015 HENRIKSEN ACE HARDWARE $28.91 TAMARA HAYS 08/19/2015 08/20/2015 UNIFORMS UNLIMITED INC.$4.50 STEVEN HIEBERT 08/07/2015 08/10/2015 JOHN DEERE LANDSCAPES530 $371.45 GARY HINNENKAMP 08/10/2015 08/11/2015 HENRIKSEN ACE HARDWARE $8.98 GARY HINNENKAMP 08/19/2015 08/20/2015 MILLS FLEET FARM 2700 $31.80 GARY HINNENKAMP 08/17/2015 08/18/2015 WALGREENS #01751 $17.12 TIMOTHY HOFMEISTER 08/07/2015 08/10/2015 PAWFECTION $9.63 ANN HUTCHINSON 08/07/2015 08/10/2015 IN *HUGO'S TREE CARE $1,100.00 ANN HUTCHINSON 08/07/2015 08/10/2015 DALCO ENTERPRISES, INC $493.54 DAVID JAHN 08/10/2015 08/12/2015 THE HOME DEPOT 2801 $29.20 DAVID JAHN 08/13/2015 08/17/2015 THE HOME DEPOT 2801 $36.39 DAVID JAHN 08/14/2015 08/17/2015 TWIN CITY FILTER SERVICE $161.60 DAVID JAHN 08/18/2015 08/19/2015 MENARDS MAPLEWOOD $29.98 JUSTIN JAMES 08/10/2015 08/12/2015 OFFICE DEPOT #1079 $5.58 MEGHAN JANASZAK 08/10/2015 08/12/2015 OFFICE DEPOT #1090 $74.26 MEGHAN JANASZAK 08/14/2015 08/17/2015 UNIFORMS UNLIMITED INC.$278.89 AMANDA JASKOWIAK 08/07/2015 08/10/2015 GRUBERS POWER EQUIPMENT $50.40 DON JONES 08/10/2015 08/11/2015 CUB FOODS #1599 $5.98 LOIS KNUTSON 08/10/2015 08/11/2015 CHIPOTLE 0224 $74.99 LOIS KNUTSON G1, Attachments Packet Page Number 31 of 200 08/10/2015 08/11/2015 CHIPOTLE 0224 $16.02 LOIS KNUTSON 08/12/2015 08/14/2015 OFFICE DEPOT #1090 $64.54 LOIS KNUTSON 08/14/2015 08/17/2015 EMBASSY ROW HOTEL $673.27 LOIS KNUTSON 08/14/2015 08/17/2015 EMBASSY ROW HOTEL $14.95 LOIS KNUTSON 08/19/2015 08/21/2015 FIRST SHRED $94.60 LOIS KNUTSON 08/18/2015 08/19/2015 MN RECREATION AND PARK A $440.00 DUWAYNE KONEWKO 08/10/2015 08/11/2015 SKILLPATH SEMINARS MAIN $299.00 STEVE LOVE 08/13/2015 08/13/2015 COMCAST CABLE COMM $173.72 STEVE LUKIN 08/20/2015 08/21/2015 REPUBLIC SERVICES TRASH $160.28 STEVE LUKIN 08/14/2015 08/17/2015 UNIFORMS UNLIMITED INC.$4.99 ALESIA METRY 08/19/2015 08/21/2015 THE SALVATION ARMY 11 $29.86 ALESIA METRY 08/07/2015 08/10/2015 BOUND TREE MEDICAL LLC $305.25 MICHAEL MONDOR 08/12/2015 08/14/2015 BOUND TREE MEDICAL LLC $1,745.89 MICHAEL MONDOR 08/12/2015 08/14/2015 BOUND TREE MEDICAL LLC $1,792.00 MICHAEL MONDOR 08/13/2015 08/17/2015 BOUND TREE MEDICAL LLC $5.70 MICHAEL MONDOR 08/13/2015 08/17/2015 BOUND TREE MEDICAL LLC $13.77 MICHAEL MONDOR 08/20/2015 08/21/2015 U OF M CCE NONCREDIT $65.00 BRYAN NAGEL 08/20/2015 08/21/2015 U OF M CCE NONCREDIT $65.00 BRYAN NAGEL 08/06/2015 08/10/2015 THE HOME DEPOT 2801 $174.00 RICHARD NORDQUIST 08/19/2015 08/20/2015 HENRIKSEN ACE HARDWARE $17.96 RICHARD NORDQUIST 08/12/2015 08/12/2015 GALLS $48.94 MICHAEL NYE 08/13/2015 08/14/2015 AMAZON MKTPLACE PMTS $271.98 MICHAEL NYE 08/13/2015 08/14/2015 HENRIKSEN ACE HARDWARE $12.34 JORDAN ORE 08/14/2015 08/17/2015 HIRSHFIELDS/MAPLEWOOD $141.94 JORDAN ORE 08/06/2015 08/10/2015 TRI-STATE BOBCAT $66.50 STEVEN PRIEM 08/07/2015 08/10/2015 FORCE AMERICA DISTRIBUTIN $21.04 STEVEN PRIEM 08/10/2015 08/11/2015 FASTENAL COMPANY01 $19.44 STEVEN PRIEM 08/10/2015 08/11/2015 BARNETT CHRYJEEPKIA $30.96 STEVEN PRIEM 08/10/2015 08/11/2015 AN FORD WHITE BEAR LAK $491.77 STEVEN PRIEM 08/10/2015 08/12/2015 ZARNOTH BRUSH WORKS INC $497.60 STEVEN PRIEM 08/11/2015 08/12/2015 AUTO PLUS LITTLE CANADA $160.92 STEVEN PRIEM 08/12/2015 08/13/2015 AUTO PLUS LITTLE CANADA $11.19 STEVEN PRIEM 08/13/2015 08/14/2015 AN FORD WHITE BEAR LAK $24.57 STEVEN PRIEM 08/13/2015 08/14/2015 VAN TECH CORPORATION $1,880.40 STEVEN PRIEM 08/14/2015 08/17/2015 AN FORD WHITE BEAR LAK $61.63 STEVEN PRIEM 08/17/2015 08/18/2015 BAUER BUILT TIRE 18 $515.18 STEVEN PRIEM 08/19/2015 08/20/2015 FACTORY MTR PTS #1 $286.98 STEVEN PRIEM 08/19/2015 08/20/2015 AUTO PLUS LITTLE CANADA $63.47 STEVEN PRIEM 08/20/2015 08/21/2015 POMP'S TIRE #021 $81.45 STEVEN PRIEM 08/20/2015 08/21/2015 AUTO PLUS LITTLE CANADA $139.30 STEVEN PRIEM 08/20/2015 08/21/2015 POLAR CHEVROLET MAZDA $184.72 STEVEN PRIEM 08/07/2015 08/10/2015 THE HOME DEPOT 2801 $51.00 KELLY PRINS 08/10/2015 08/11/2015 VIKING ELECTRIC-CREDIT DE $227.50 KELLY PRINS 08/10/2015 08/12/2015 THE HOME DEPOT 2801 $8.44 KELLY PRINS 08/18/2015 08/19/2015 VIKING ELECTRIC-CREDIT DE $356.50 KELLY PRINS 08/07/2015 08/10/2015 PIONEER PRESS ADVERTISING $2,717.50 TERRIE RAMEAUX 08/13/2015 08/17/2015 MINNESOTA OCCUPATIONAL HE $546.20 TERRIE RAMEAUX 08/07/2015 08/10/2015 HILLYARD INC MINNEAPOLIS $590.25 MICHAEL REILLY 08/11/2015 08/12/2015 HILLYARD INC MINNEAPOLIS $25.08 MICHAEL REILLY 08/14/2015 08/17/2015 DALCO ENTERPRISES, INC $397.97 MICHAEL REILLY 08/14/2015 08/17/2015 HILLYARD INC MINNEAPOLIS $966.61 MICHAEL REILLY 08/10/2015 08/11/2015 G&K SERVICES AR $146.95 LORI RESENDIZ 08/11/2015 08/13/2015 POWDER BLUE PRODUCTIONS $26.70 LORI RESENDIZ 08/19/2015 08/21/2015 POWDER BLUE PRODUCTIONS ($1.75)LORI RESENDIZ 08/06/2015 08/10/2015 MN RECREATION AND PARK A $609.00 AUDRA ROBBINS 08/10/2015 08/11/2015 TARGET 00011858 $53.63 AUDRA ROBBINS G1, Attachments Packet Page Number 32 of 200 08/11/2015 08/12/2015 TARGET 00011858 $30.17 AUDRA ROBBINS 08/11/2015 08/12/2015 FGA*OAKDALE - 11762 $550.00 AUDRA ROBBINS 08/12/2015 08/13/2015 GROUP SALES FRONT GATE $1,545.00 AUDRA ROBBINS 08/14/2015 08/17/2015 CTC*CONSTANTCONTACT.COM $60.00 AUDRA ROBBINS 08/17/2015 08/18/2015 TARGET 00011858 $58.35 AUDRA ROBBINS 08/17/2015 08/18/2015 MICHAELS STORES 2744 $11.63 AUDRA ROBBINS 08/19/2015 08/21/2015 GREAT CLIPS IMAX THEATRE $347.20 AUDRA ROBBINS 08/19/2015 08/21/2015 MN ZOO TARS $589.25 AUDRA ROBBINS 08/06/2015 08/10/2015 ESS BROS AND SONS $1,500.00 ROBERT RUNNING 08/10/2015 08/11/2015 LILLIE SUBURBAN NEWSPAPER $405.33 DEB SCHMIDT 08/10/2015 08/11/2015 CUB FOODS #1599 $77.83 DEB SCHMIDT 08/11/2015 08/12/2015 LEEANN CHIN #017 MAPLERID $156.83 DEB SCHMIDT 08/11/2015 08/12/2015 IN *SUN CONTROL OF MINNES $225.00 DEB SCHMIDT 08/12/2015 08/12/2015 PANERA BREAD #601305 $56.24 DEB SCHMIDT 08/18/2015 08/19/2015 LILLIE SUBURBAN NEWSPAPER $297.00 DEB SCHMIDT 08/14/2015 08/17/2015 IN *ENCOMPASS TELEMATICS,$598.00 PAUL SCHNELL 08/12/2015 08/13/2015 FLEXIBLE PIPE TOOL COMPAN $169.15 SCOTT SCHULTZ 08/12/2015 08/13/2015 FLEXIBLE PIPE TOOL COMPAN $343.00 SCOTT SCHULTZ 08/12/2015 08/13/2015 FLEXIBLE PIPE TOOL COMPAN $272.00 SCOTT SCHULTZ 08/14/2015 08/17/2015 REPUBLIC SERVICES TRASH $596.55 SCOTT SCHULTZ 08/17/2015 08/19/2015 ON SITE SANITATION INC $1,633.00 SCOTT SCHULTZ 08/10/2015 08/12/2015 OFFICE DEPOT #1079 $19.73 FAITH SHEPPERD 08/14/2015 08/17/2015 OFFICE DEPOT #1090 $29.36 FAITH SHEPPERD 08/14/2015 08/17/2015 OFFICE DEPOT #1090 $91.98 FAITH SHEPPERD 08/17/2015 08/19/2015 OFFICE DEPOT #1079 $14.06 FAITH SHEPPERD 08/19/2015 08/20/2015 ONLINE LABELS $65.10 FAITH SHEPPERD 08/14/2015 08/17/2015 GRAPHIC DESIGN $182.18 MICHAEL SHORTREED 08/10/2015 08/12/2015 SPIRIT AIRL 4870116219869 $236.18 DAVID SWAN 08/06/2015 08/10/2015 OFFICE DEPOT #1090 $42.28 KAREN WACHAL 08/10/2015 08/12/2015 OFFICE DEPOT #1079 $18.49 KAREN WACHAL 08/17/2015 08/18/2015 EDUCATIONAL INNOVATIONS I $61.35 KAREN WACHAL 08/11/2015 08/12/2015 DISCOUNT STEEL -MN $99.16 JEFF WILBER 08/10/2015 08/11/2015 MENARDS MAPLEWOOD $37.88 SUSAN ZWIEG $44,187.23 G1, Attachments Packet Page Number 33 of 200 CHECK #CHECK DATE EMPLOYEE NAME 08/28/15 DEMULLING, JOSEPH 3,405.69 08/28/15 CARNES, JOHN 2,899.44 08/28/15 CROTTY, KERRY 3,986.42 08/28/15 BIERDEMAN, BRIAN 4,028.91 08/28/15 BUSACK, DANIEL 4,104.37 08/28/15 BELDE, STANLEY 3,259.83 08/28/15 BENJAMIN, MARKESE 3,010.59 08/28/15 BAKKE, LONN 3,357.32 08/28/15 BARTZ, PAUL 3,357.32 08/28/15 ABEL, CLINT 3,129.33 08/28/15 ALDRIDGE, MARK 3,932.94 08/28/15 SHORTREED, MICHAEL 4,379.47 08/28/15 WYLIE, TAMMY 1,512.70 08/28/15 SHEA, STEPHANIE 823.17 08/28/15 SHEPPERD, FAITH 2,003.88 08/28/15 KVAM, DAVID 5,099.74 08/28/15 SCHNELL, PAUL 5,223.49 08/28/15 THOMALLA, CAROL 120.00 08/28/15 CORCORAN, THERESA 2,022.60 08/28/15 JAGOE, CAROL 156.00 08/28/15 MAHRE, GERALDINE 156.00 08/28/15 VITT, SANDRA 1,101.82 08/28/15 WEAVER, KRISTINE 2,507.39 08/28/15 OSTER, ANDREA 2,027.03 08/28/15 RICHTER, CHARLENE 1,133.02 08/28/15 MECHELKE, SHERRIE 1,212.23 08/28/15 MOY, PAMELA 1,616.30 08/28/15 CRAWFORD, LEIGH 1,888.37 08/28/15 LARSON, MICHELLE 2,020.39 08/28/15 SCHMIDT, DEBORAH 3,248.90 08/28/15 SPANGLER, EDNA 1,212.22 08/28/15 HAAG, KAREN 4,660.99 08/28/15 LO, CHING 1,138.15 08/28/15 ARNOLD, AJLA 1,894.30 08/28/15 BEGGS, REGAN 1,803.20 08/28/15 DEBILZAN, JUDY 2,257.97 08/28/15 RUEB, JOSEPH 3,180.20 08/28/15 OSWALD, BRENDA 2,023.45 08/28/15 ANDERSON, CAROLE 1,232.15 08/28/15 RAMEAUX, THERESE 3,283.59 08/28/15 BAUMAN, GAYLE 4,977.28 08/28/15 JAHN, DAVID 1,978.22 08/28/15 BURLINGAME, SARAH 2,380.50 08/28/15 KNUTSON, LOIS 2,503.61 08/28/15 CHRISTENSON, SCOTT 2,414.30 08/28/15 COLEMAN, MELINDA 5,425.56 08/28/15 FUNK, MICHAEL 4,679.30 08/28/15 SLAWIK, NORA 489.68 08/28/15 CARDINAL, ROBERT 430.99 08/28/15 JUENEMANN, KATHLEEN 430.99 CITY OF MAPLEWOOD EMPLOYEE GROSS EARNINGS REPORT FOR THE CURRENT PAY PERIOD Exp Reimb, Severance, Conversion incl in AmountAMOUNT 08/28/15 ABRAMS, MARYLEE 430.99 08/28/15 KOPPEN, MARVIN 430.99 G1, Attachments Packet Page Number 34 of 200 08/28/15 JANSEN, CHAD 321.51 08/28/15 JUREK, GREGORY 308.66 08/28/15 HUTCHINSON, JAMES 457.50 08/28/15 IMM, TRACY 237.92 08/28/15 HALWEG, JODI 4,054.06 08/28/15 HAWTHORNE, ROCHELLE 4,686.87 08/28/15 EVERSON, PAUL 4,397.71 08/28/15 HALE, JOSEPH 457.50 08/28/15 DABRUZZI, THOMAS 3,804.57 08/28/15 DAWSON, RICHARD 4,695.25 08/28/15 CRAWFORD - JR, RAYMOND 5,159.00 08/28/15 CRUMMY, CHARLES 32.15 08/28/15 CAPISTRANT, JOHN 453.75 08/28/15 COREY, ROBERT 633.37 08/28/15 BOURQUIN, RON 1,076.16 08/28/15 CAPISTRANT, JACOB 234.71 08/28/15 BAHL, DAVID 300.00 08/28/15 BAUMAN, ANDREW 5,438.25 08/28/15 ZAPPA, ANDREW 2,045.61 08/28/15 ANDERSON, BRIAN 340.81 08/28/15 WENZEL, JAY 3,129.33 08/28/15 XIONG, KAO 3,317.35 08/28/15 THIENES, PAUL 3,813.72 08/28/15 VANG, PAM 2,218.08 08/28/15 TAUZELL, BRIAN 3,198.37 08/28/15 THEISEN, PAUL 3,300.09 08/28/15 STEINER, JOSEPH 3,463.69 08/28/15 SYPNIEWSKI, WILLIAM 3,066.73 08/28/15 SLATER, BENJAMIN 2,330.22 08/28/15 SOE, EHDOH 464.00 08/28/15 REZNY, BRADLEY 3,643.33 08/28/15 SCHOEN, ZACHARY 2,330.22 08/28/15 PATRAW, AMY 464.00 08/28/15 PETERSON, JARED 2,045.61 08/28/15 OLSON, JULIE 3,198.58 08/28/15 PARKER, JAMES 3,032.00 08/28/15 NYE, MICHAEL 3,813.72 08/28/15 OLDING, PARKER 2,383.73 08/28/15 MICHELETTI, BRIAN 2,636.54 08/28/15 MULVIHILL, MARIA 2,619.66 08/28/15 MCCARTY, GLEN 3,300.09 08/28/15 METRY, ALESIA 3,543.57 08/28/15 LYNCH, KATHERINE 3,004.33 08/28/15 MARINO, JASON 3,331.19 08/28/15 LANGNER, SCOTT 3,110.55 08/28/15 LANGNER, TODD 3,066.73 08/28/15 KREKELER, NICHOLAS 1,000.19 08/28/15 KROLL, BRETT 3,244.68 08/28/15 JOHNSON, KEVIN 4,211.43 08/28/15 KONG, TOMMY 3,129.33 08/28/15 JAMES JR, JUSTIN 464.00 08/28/15 JASKOWIAK, AMANDA 480.00 08/28/15 HOEMKE, MICHAEL 2,341.04 08/28/15 HOFMEISTER, TIMOTHY 527.00 08/28/15 HER, PHENG 3,004.33 08/28/15 HIEBERT, STEVEN 3,385.94 08/28/15 GABRIEL, ANTHONY 3,462.27 08/28/15 HAWKINSON JR, TIMOTHY 3,094.98 08/28/15 FORSYTHE, MARCUS 3,004.33 08/28/15 FRITZE, DEREK 3,789.91 08/28/15 ERICKSON, VIRGINIA 3,385.94 08/28/15 FISHER, CASSANDRA 1,641.08 08/28/15 DUGAS, MICHAEL 5,220.05 G1, Attachments Packet Page Number 35 of 200 08/28/15 SALCHOW, CONNOR 616.00 08/28/15 ORE, JORDAN 1,902.67 08/28/15 RANWEILER, GABRIEL 440.00 08/28/15 NAUGHTON, JOHN 2,561.93 08/28/15 NORDQUIST, RICHARD 2,287.20 08/28/15 HAYS, TAMARA 1,719.47 08/28/15 HINNENKAMP, GARY 3,015.38 08/28/15 DELISLE JR, JACQUES 616.00 08/28/15 HAMRE, MILES 1,852.00 08/28/15 JANASZAK, MEGHAN 1,985.97 08/28/15 KONEWKO, DUWAYNE 4,722.81 08/28/15 THOMPSON, MICHAEL 4,952.44 08/28/15 ZIEMAN, SCOTT 384.00 08/28/15 LINDBLOM, RANDAL 3,022.11 08/28/15 LOVE, STEVEN 3,929.38 08/28/15 ENGSTROM, ANDREW 2,989.42 08/28/15 JAROSCH, JONATHAN 3,287.57 08/28/15 BURLINGAME, NATHAN 2,463.20 08/28/15 DUCHARME, JOHN 2,915.03 08/28/15 RUNNING, ROBERT 2,532.67 08/28/15 TEVLIN, TODD 2,300.27 08/28/15 OSWALD, ERICK 2,374.52 08/28/15 RUIZ, RICARDO 1,902.67 08/28/15 MEISSNER, BRENT 2,300.27 08/28/15 NAGEL, BRYAN 3,803.10 08/28/15 EDGE, DOUGLAS 2,272.10 08/28/15 JONES, DONALD 2,305.49 08/28/15 BUCKLEY, BRENT 2,467.49 08/28/15 DEBILZAN, THOMAS 2,305.49 08/28/15 SINDT, ANDREA 2,654.60 08/28/15 BRINK, TROY 2,532.67 08/28/15 ZWIEG, SUSAN 1,238.02 08/28/15 CORTESI, LUANNE 1,463.96 08/28/15 GERVAIS-JR, CLARENCE 4,239.86 08/28/15 LUKIN, STEVEN 4,939.44 08/28/15 STREFF, MICHAEL 4,573.80 08/28/15 SVENDSEN, RONALD 4,443.82 08/28/15 RODDY, BRETT 498.34 08/28/15 SEDLACEK, JEFFREY 4,081.81 08/28/15 RANK, PAUL 1,543.22 08/28/15 RICE, CHRISTOPHER 102.88 08/28/15 POWERS, KENNETH 411.53 08/28/15 RANGEL, DERRICK 469.41 08/28/15 PETERSON, MARK 360.00 08/28/15 PETERSON, ROBERT 4,383.96 08/28/15 PACHECO, ALPHONSE 286.15 08/28/15 PARROW, JOSHUA 437.25 08/28/15 OLSON, JAMES 5,656.81 08/28/15 OPHEIM, JOHN 198.75 08/28/15 NOVAK, JEROME 5,234.09 08/28/15 NOWICKI, PAUL 350.44 08/28/15 MORGAN, JEFFERY 473.63 08/28/15 NIELSEN, KENNETH 375.00 08/28/15 MONDOR, MICHAEL 4,149.79 08/28/15 MONSON, PETER 263.64 08/28/15 LOCHEN, MICHAEL 746.04 08/28/15 MERKATORIS, BRETT 257.22 08/28/15 KUBAT, ERIC 4,405.50 08/28/15 LINDER, TIMOTHY 5,031.81 08/28/15 KERSKA, JOSEPH 925.95 08/28/15 KONDER, RONALD 617.32 08/28/15 KANE, ROBERT 600.00 08/28/15 KARRAS, JAMIE 385.82 G1, Attachments Packet Page Number 36 of 200 08/28/15 GRUENHAGEN, LINDA 211.45 08/28/15 GUSTAFSON, BRENDA 49.00 08/28/15 ERICKSON-CLARK, CAROL 37.50 08/28/15 GARTNER, DARYL 51.00 08/28/15 BUTLER, ANGELA 241.83 08/28/15 DEMPSEY, BETH 337.89 08/28/15 BAUDE, SARAH 14.06 08/28/15 BEAR, AMANDA 141.75 08/28/15 ST SAUVER, CRAIG 388.51 08/28/15 WISTL, MOLLY 848.65 08/28/15 SKRYPEK, JOSHUA 399.25 08/28/15 SMITH, CORTNEY 255.00 08/28/15 O'CONNER, TERRINA 449.50 08/28/15 RUZICHKA, JANICE 195.00 08/28/15 KRECH, TRAVIS 229.50 08/28/15 KUHN, MATTHEW 270.00 08/28/15 GIBSON, CHRISTINE 2,130.86 08/28/15 HOFMEISTER, MARY 1,277.60 08/28/15 DIONNE, ANN 601.14 08/28/15 EVANS, CHRISTINE 2,049.31 08/28/15 BARAHONA, FREYA 360.00 08/28/15 CRANDALL, KRISTA 189.01 08/28/15 SCHULTZ, SCOTT 3,727.15 08/28/15 WILBER, JEFFREY 1,797.97 08/28/15 HAAG, MARK 2,532.67 08/28/15 JENSEN, JOSEPH 1,815.47 08/28/15 VUKICH, CANDACE 766.75 08/28/15 ADAMS, DAVID 2,464.30 08/28/15 SLAWIK, VICTORIA 594.00 08/28/15 TAYLOR, JAMES 3,400.88 08/28/15 RYCHLICKI, NICHOLE 760.00 08/28/15 SIEVERT, ALEXIS 576.00 08/28/15 LARSON, MARIAH 252.00 08/28/15 ROBBINS, AUDRA 3,570.21 08/28/15 KONEWKO, QUINN 328.50 08/28/15 LARSON, KATELYN 612.81 08/28/15 GUENTHER, THOMAS 702.00 08/28/15 JACOBS, ROCHELLE 135.00 08/28/15 ETTER, LAURA 217.00 08/28/15 GORACKI, GERALD 28.50 08/28/15 BJORK, BRANDON 1,120.00 08/28/15 BRENEMAN, NEIL 2,533.34 08/28/15 WELLENS, MOLLY 1,843.98 08/28/15 BALLESTRAZZE, THAD 160.00 08/28/15 SWANSON, CHRIS 1,951.57 08/28/15 WEIDNER, JAMES 1,760.00 08/28/15 CARVER, NICHOLAS 4,473.03 08/28/15 SWAN, DAVID 2,939.57 08/28/15 MARTIN, MICHAEL 3,338.93 08/28/15 BRASH, JASON 2,855.87 08/28/15 FINWALL, SHANN 3,518.07 08/28/15 LORENZ, DANIELA 1,113.75 08/28/15 JOHNSON, ELIZABETH 1,580.11 08/28/15 KROLL, LISA 2,092.37 08/28/15 GAYNOR, VIRGINIA 3,478.53 08/28/15 HOIER, KARA 486.46 08/28/15 SOUTTER, CHRISTINE 140.01 08/28/15 WACHAL, KAREN 1,010.19 08/28/15 HAYMAN, JANET 1,000.11 08/28/15 HUTCHINSON, ANN 2,845.81 08/28/15 DEAVER, CHARLES 561.46 08/28/15 GERNES, CAROLE 778.77 08/28/15 BIESANZ, OAKLEY 1,917.86 G1, Attachments Packet Page Number 37 of 200 9995520 9995521 537,381.39 08/28/15 CHRISTOPHER, KYLE 627.75 08/28/15 AUBUCHON, IMAGINARA 149.50 08/28/15 FOWLDS, MYCHAL 4,096.38 08/28/15 FRANZEN, NICHOLAS 3,212.56 08/28/15 XIONG, BOON 1,665.07 08/28/15 BERGO, CHAD 2,907.76 08/28/15 PRIEM, STEVEN 2,585.69 08/28/15 WOEHRLE, MATTHEW 2,484.67 08/28/15 STEFFEN, MICHAEL 108.00 08/28/15 COUNTRYMAN, BRENDA 1,224.00 08/28/15 PRINS, KELLY 2,003.89 08/28/15 REILLY, MICHAEL 2,059.39 08/28/15 MAIDMENT, COLIN 802.58 08/28/15 MALONEY, SHAUNA 121.50 08/28/15 KRECH, ELAINE 689.92 08/28/15 LOONEY, RAYJEANIA 180.00 08/28/15 DUNKEL, TYLER 234.00 08/28/15 HEINTZ, JOSHUA 180.00 08/28/15 CRAYNE, WILLIAM 207.00 08/28/15 DOUGLASS, TOM 2,066.28 08/28/15 AUSTIN, CATHERINE 171.00 08/28/15 CRAWFORD, SHAWN 437.50 08/28/15 LANGER, CHELSEA 85.50 08/28/15 MOSLOSKI, JESSICA 51.75 08/28/15 ELLISON, LELIA 141.75 08/28/15 FRANZMEIER, EILEEN 225.75 08/28/15 BUTLER-MILLER, JADE 42.75 08/28/15 CHRISTAL, JENNIFER 230.00 08/28/15 BILJAN, MERANDA 139.50 08/28/15 BOSLEY, CAROL 141.75 08/28/15 WAKEM, CAITLYN 36.00 08/28/15 YANG, JUDY 88.00 08/28/15 TUPY, MARCUS 48.00 08/28/15 WAGNER, JODY 345.00 08/28/15 TRUONG, CHAU 14.00 08/28/15 TUPY, HEIDE 46.30 08/28/15 THOMPSON, SARA 71.25 08/28/15 TREPANIER, TODD 203.45 08/28/15 SMITLEY, SHARON 287.66 08/28/15 SYME, LAUREN 50.70 08/28/15 SMITH, ANN 124.80 08/28/15 SMITH, JEROME 108.75 08/28/15 SCHERER, KATHLENE 101.01 08/28/15 SCHREIER, ROSEMARIE 215.90 08/28/15 RICHTER, DANIEL 114.90 08/28/15 ROLLERSON, TERRANCE 30.38 08/28/15 REHLING-ANDERSON, LORIE 93.50 08/28/15 RESENDIZ, LORI 2,809.47 08/28/15 OHS, CYNTHIA 186.00 08/28/15 RANEY, COURTNEY 453.95 08/28/15 MUSKAT, JULIE 123.26 08/28/15 NITZ, CARA 257.72 08/28/15 JOHNSON, BARBARA 465.35 08/28/15 MCKILLOP, AMANDA 195.02 08/28/15 HAASCH, ANGELA 85.50 08/28/15 HOLMBERG, LADONNA 153.76 G1, Attachments Packet Page Number 38 of 200 G2 MEMORANDUM TO: Melinda Coleman, City Manager FROM: Karen Haag, Director Citizen Services DATE: September 3, 2015 SUBJECT: Approval of Temporary Lawful Gambling – Local Permit for the Greater Twin Cities United Way, 3M Center Introduction On Thursday, September 3, 2015 Judy Jordan, representing the Greater Twin Cities United Way, submitted an application for a temporary Lawful Gambling – Local permit. The permit will be used for a raffle held by the organization during the 3M United Way annual campaign on October 15, 2015 from 11:00am to 1:00pm. Proceeds from the event will go to the United Way and their effort in uniting caring people to create pathways out of poverty, and improving individual lives and the community. Budget Impact None Recommendation Staff recommends that Council approve the temporary Lawful Gambling – Local Permit for the Greater Twin Cities United Way, to be on October 15, 2015 at 3M Center. Packet Page Number 39 of 200 MEMORANDUM TO: Melinda Coleman, City Manager FROM: Michael Martin, AICP, Economic Development Coordinator DATE: September 8, 2015 SUBJECT: Approval of a Conditional Use Permit Review – Beaver Lake Town Houses, Maryland Avenue and Lakewood Drive Introduction The conditional use permit (CUP) for the planned unit development (PUD) for the Beaver Lake Town Houses is due for its annual review. Background On May 28, 2002, the city council made several approvals for the Beaver Lake Town Houses. These included: 1. A conditional use permit (CUP) for a planned unit development (PUD) for a 148-unit housing development. The applicant requested the CUP because Section 44-1250 of the city code (shoreland district regulations) requires a PUD for developments with buildings having more than four units when the site is in the shoreland district of a lake. In this case, the site is in the shoreland district of Beaver Lake and will have a mix of housing with 40 single-family detached townhomes and 108 rental units in 11 8-unit and 5 4-unit buildings. In addition, having a PUD gives the city and developer a chance to be more flexible with site design and development details (such as setbacks and street right-of-way and pavement widths) than the standard city requirements would normally allow. (See the approved site plan attached) 2. Street right-of-way and easement vacations. These were for the unused street right-of-ways and easements on the site. 3. A preliminary plat to create the lots in the development. 4. Authorization for city staff to spend city open space funds and to use a $150,000 DNR grant to buy about 8.9 acres of the project site for park and open space purposes. On November 13, 2002, the city council approved the first final plat for the Beaver Lake Town Houses. This plat created six lots for detached town houses along Maryland Avenue, several outlots for future phases of the development and the park area along the creek in the center of the site. On March 31, 2003, the city council approved the second final plat for the Beaver Lake Town homes. This plat created 16 lots for detached town houses in the area west of Sterling Street G3 Packet Page Number 40 of 200 and south of the creek corridor. On September 8, 2003, the city council approved the Beaver Lake Townhomes Third Addition final plat. This plat created 18 lots for detached town houses in the area west of the creek and east of Lakewood Drive. On March 24, 2008, the city council approved the final plat for the Beaver Lake Fourth and Fifth Additions. These final plats created new lots for the construction of new units from former outlots. On June 28, 2004, June 13, 2005, June 26, 2006, June 11, 2007, January 14, 2008, August 10, 2009, August 9, 2010, August 8, 2011, August 13, 2012, August 12, 2013 and August 25, 2014 the city council reviewed the conditional use permit for this property and agreed to review it again in one year. Discussion The construction of this development is complete. During a staff visit to the site, all conditions are being met and the landscaping throughout the property is healthy. Budget Impact None. Recommendation Review the conditional use permit for the planned unit development for the Beaver Lake Town Houses at Maryland Avenue and Lakewood Drive again only if a problem arises or a major change is proposed. Attachments 1. Location Map 2. Property Line/Zoning Map 3. Site Plan 4. May 28, 2002 City Council Minutes G3 Packet Page Number 41 of 200 STERL IN G C IR S T E R L I N G C I RDE E R FIE L D D R DEERFIELD DRBOBCAT LNBEAVERDALE RDEVAR STANTELOPE WAYANTELOPE WAY BEAVER CREEK PKWYGERA NIU M A V E STERLING ST MAGNOLIA A V E ELKHART L N DOLPHIN D R MARY STSTERLING STBARTELMY LNMYRTLE STROSE A V ECOUGAR LN BISON D R COYOTE LN STERLING LN BISON DR AMBERJACK LN TILSEN A V E T IL S EN CTBEAVERDALE RDDEERFIELD DR ANTELOPE W A Y LAKEWOOD DR ILL WAT E R R D MARYLANDAVELAKEWOOD DR Geranium Park Location Map Beaver Lake Townhomes Attachment 2 SITE page #2 Attachment 1 5 Packet Page Number 42 of 200 STERL IN G C IR S T E R L I N G C I RDEERFIELD DRBEAVERDAANTELOPE WAY BEAVER CREEK PKWYGSTMAGNOLIA A V E MARY STSTERLING ST ROSE A V ECOUGAR STERLING LN AMBERJACK LN ANTELOPE W A Y LAKEWOOD DR MARYLANDAVE r1r1 ncnc pudpud r3r3 ff r2r2 Zoning Map Beaver Lake Townhomes Attachment 2 SITE page #2 Attachment 2 6 Packet Page Number 43 of 200 Attachment 3 7 Packet Page Number 44 of 200 1 City Council Meeting 05-28-02 MINUTES MAPLEWOOD CITY COUNCIL 7:00 P.M., Tuesday, May 28, 2002 Council Chambers, Municipal Building Meeting No. 02-11 A. CALL TO ORDER: A meeting of the City Council was held in the Council Chambers, at the Municipal Building, and was called to order at 7:07 P.M. by Mayor Cardinal. A. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE B. ROLL CALL Robert Cardinal, Mayor Present Kenneth V. Collins, Councilmember Present Kathleen Juenemann, Councilmember Present Marvin C. Koppen, Councilmember Present Julie A. Wasiluk, Councilmember Present 2. 9:33 Beaver Lake Townhomes (Lakewood Drive and Maryland Avenue) A. Conditional Use Permit for a Planned Unit Development (PUD) B. Street Right-Of-Way and Easement Vacations C. Preliminary Plat a. Assistant City Manager Coleman presented the report. b. Associate Planner Roberts presented the specifics of the report. c. Commissioner Rossbach presented the Planning Commission report. Councilmember Collins moved to extend the meeting until all agenda items are addressed. Seconded by Councilmember Juenemann Ayes-All d. Mayor Cardinal opened the public hearing, calling for proponents or opponents. The following persons were heard: Laurence Olson, LSJ Engineering, Representing the Developer of Beaver Lake Townhomes Mark Dorling, 1115 Sterling Street North, Maplewood Kay Peterson, 1085 Mary Street, Maplewood Margaret Lutfey, 1076 Mary Street, Maplewood Bob Zick, 1880 E. Shore Drive, Maplewood Attachment 4 8 Packet Page Number 45 of 200 2 City Council Meeting 05-28-02 Kevin Berglund, 1929 Kingston Avenue, Maplewood Joan Dorling, 1115 Sterling Street North, Maplewood Will Rossbach, 1386 E. County Road C, Maplewood Kay Peterson, Second Appearance Mark Dorling, Second Appearance Bob Zick, Second Appearance Kevin Berglund, Second Appearance e. Mayor Cardinal closed the public hearing. Councilmember Koppen moved to adopt the following resolution approving a conditional use permit for a planned unit development for the Beaver Lake Townhome development on the south side of Maryland Avenue between Sterling Street and Lakewood Drive: RESOLUTION 02-05-098 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION WHEREAS, Mr. Tony Emmerich, representing the AJE Companies, applied for a conditional use permit (CUP) for the Beaver Lake Townhomes residential planned unit development (PUD). WHEREAS, this permit applies to undeveloped property for the Beaver Lake Townhomes PUD south of Maryland Avenue between Sterling Street and Lakewood Drive in Section 25, Township 29, Range 22, Ramsey County, Minnesota. (PINS 25-29-22-21-0010 and 25-29-22-21- 0011.) WHEREAS, the history of this conditional use permit is as follows: 1. On April 15, 2002, the planning commission recommended that the city council approve this permit. 2. On May 28, 2002, 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. The council tabled action on the development request until May 14, 2001. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the city council approve the above-described conditional use permit, because: 1. The use would be located, designed, maintained, constructed and operated to be in conformity with the city's comprehensive plan and code of ordinances. 2. The use would not change the existing or planned character of the surrounding area. 3. The use would not depreciate property values. 9 G3, Attachment 4 Packet Page Number 46 of 200 3 City Council Meeting 05-28-02 4. The use would not involve any activity, process, materials, equipment or methods of operation that would be dangerous, hazardous, detrimental, disturbing or cause a nuisance to any person or property, because of excessive noise, glare, smoke, dust, odor, fumes, water or air pollution, drainage, water run-off, vibration, general unsightliness, electrical interference or other nuisances. 5. The use would generate only minimal vehicular traffic on local streets and would not create traffic congestion or unsafe access on existing or proposed streets. 6. The use would be served by adequate public facilities and services, including streets, police and fire protection, drainage structures, water and sewer systems, schools and parks. 7. The use would not create excessive additional costs for public facilities or services. 8. The use would maximize the preservation of and incorporate the site's natural and scenic features into the development design. 9. The use would cause minimal adverse environmental effects. Approval is subject to the following conditions: 1. All construction shall follow the plans date-stamped March 12, 2002 except for the following changes: a. Revising the grading and site plans to show: (1) No grading or ground disturbance in the park dedication area and in the wetland and stream buffer areas except: (a) As allowed by the watershed district. (b) For the utilities, trails and footbridge. (2) The required trails and sidewalks. (3) Revised storm water pond locations and designs as suggested or required by the watershed district or city engineer. The ponds shall meet the city’s design standards. (4) The developer minimizing the loss or removal of natural vegetation including keeping and protecting the grove of coniferous trees (pines) (an area of natural significance) that is in and near the south side of the stream corridor near the rear of proposed buildings 26-34. 10 G3, Attachment 4 Packet Page Number 47 of 200 4 City Council Meeting 05-28-02 (5) All driveways at least 20 feet wide. If the developer wants to have parking on one side of a driveway, then that driveway must be at least 28 feet wide. (6) All parking stalls with a width of at least nine feet and a length of at least 18 feet. c. The developer deeding the area labeled “Park Dedication” on the plans to the City of Maplewood. This dedication is to help protect the most sensitive natural features on the site and would protect this part of the site from building, fences, mowing, cutting, filling, grading, dumping or other ground disturbances. This dedication also would help ensure the natural linear or corridor aspect of the site (primarily around the stream) main as it is now. The Parks and Recreation Director shall approve the land or the area(s) for dedication to the city. The city shall use the Greenways grant from the DNR, while matching the state dollars with city open space money, (as is required) to buy the protected area along the stream and wetlands labeled as Park Dedication on the plan dated March 12, 2002. The city council may approve major changes to the plans. The director of community development may approve minor changes. 2. The proposed construction must be substantially started within one year of council approval or the permit shall end. The council may extend this deadline for one year. 3.* Have the city engineer approve final construction and engineering plans. These plans shall: a. Include grading, utility, drainage, erosion control, streets, trails, sidewalks, tree, driveway and parking lot plans. b. Show no grading or ground disturbance (except where utilities or trails are installed) in the: (1) Required wetland and stream buffer areas. (2) Park Dedication area. This land will be for city park and open space purposes. The developer and contractors shall protect the park dedication area, including the grove of coniferous trees (pines) (an area of natural significance) that is in and near the south side of the stream corridor, from encroachment from equipment, grading or filling. City-required trails are allowed in the buffer and park dedication areas. c. Include a storm water management plan for the proposal. d. Include a coordinated plan with the public works department for the design and 11 G3, Attachment 4 Packet Page Number 48 of 200 5 City Council Meeting 05-28-02 installation of the sanitary sewer lines or for the repair or realignment of the existing sanitary sewer line that runs through the site. 4. The design of the ponds shall meet Maplewood’s design standards and shall be subject to the approval of the city engineer. If needed, the developer shall be responsible for getting any off-site pond and drainage easements. 5. The developer or contractor shall: a. Complete all grading for the site drainage and the ponds, complete all public improvements and meet all city requirements. b.* Place temporary orange safety fencing and signs at the grading limits. c. Install permanent signs around the edge of the wetland buffer easements. These signs shall mark the edge of the easements and shall state there shall be no mowing, vegetation cutting, filling or dumping. d. Install survey monuments along the wetland boundaries. e. Remove any debris, junk or fill from the wetlands, stream corridor, park dedication area and site. f. Install a six-foot-wide concrete sidewalk along the south side of Maryland Avenue between Sterling Street and the west property line of the site. The developer’s engineer shall show this sidewalk on the grading and construction plans. The city engineer shall approve the details of these plans. g. Construct an eight-foot-wide paved public walkway and two-rail split-rail fencing in the following locations: (1) From Private Driveway A in the west side of the site between Lots 8 and 9 to near the stream in the center of the site. (2) From Private Driveway D in the east side of the site, between Lots 21 and 22 to near the stream in the center of the site. The trail must have a surface that is not impervious when the trail is in a wetland or stream buffer area. The developer’s engineer shall design the trails to follow the existing property contours and proposed utility corridors to save as many trees as possible and to minimize the amount of grading necessary to install the trails. b. Restore all disturbed areas within the stream corridor and park dedication area with a native seed mix approved by the watershed district and by the city engineer. 12 G3, Attachment 4 Packet Page Number 49 of 200 6 City Council Meeting 05-28-02 6.* The developer shall give the city wetland easements over the wetlands and the stream. The easements shall cover the wetlands and any land within 50 feet surrounding a wetland. The easements also shall cover the stream and any land within 50 feet of the top of the stream bank. These easements shall prohibit any building, mowing, cutting, filling or dumping within fifty feet of the wetland and the stream or within the wetland itself. The purpose of this easement is to protect the water quality of the wetlands and the stream from fertilizer and to protect the wetland and stream habitat from encroachment. 2. The approved setbacks for the principal structures in the Beaver Lake Townhome PUD shall be: a. Front-yard setback (from a private driveway): minimum - 20 feet, maximum - 35 feet b. Front-yard setback (public side street): minimum - 25 feet, maximum - 40 feet c. Rear-yard setback: none d. Side-yard setback (town houses): minimum - 5 feet to a property line and 10 feet minimum between buildings e. Side yard setbacks (apartments): 20 feet minimum between buildings 8. This approval does not include the design approval for the townhomes or for the apartments. The project design plans, including architectural, site, lighting, tree and landscaping plans, shall be subject to review and approval of the community design review board (CDRB). The projects shall be subject to the following conditions: a. Meeting all conditions and changes as required by the city council. b. The buildings in the shoreland district shall have a maximum height of 25 feet (unless the city council approves taller structures). c. The developer shall design the structures to reduce their visibility from the lake. This shall include using vegetation, topography, increased setbacks, color or other means to accomplish the screening. The city may require additional vegetation to help screen these facilities. d. For the driveways: (1) Minimum width - 20 feet. (2) Maximum width - 28 feet. 13 G3, Attachment 4 Packet Page Number 50 of 200 7 City Council Meeting 05-28-02 (3) All driveways less than 28 feet in width shall be posted for “No Parking” on both sides. Driveways at least 28 feet wide may have parking on one side and shall be posted for no parking on one side. e. Showing all changes required by the city as part of the conditional use permit for the planned unit development (PUD). 9. The city shall not issue any building permits for construction on an outlot (per city code requirements). The developer must record a final plat to create buildable lots for any outlot in the preliminary plat before the city will issue a building permit. 10. The developer paying the city $94,000 in Park Availability Charges (PAC fees) for this development. 11. The city council shall review this permit in one year. Seconded by Councilmember Wasiluk Ayes-All Councilmember Koppen moved to adopt the following resolution approving a street right- of-way and easement vacations for the Beaver Lake Townhomes (Lakewood Drive and Maryland Avenue): RESOLUTION 02-05-099 STREET RIGHT-OF-WAY VACATION RESOLUTION WHEREAS, Mr. Tony Emmerich, representing the AJE Companies, applied for the vacation of the following described street right-of-ways: 1. That part of the Sterling Street right-of-way as a roadway easement according to the document filed with Ramsey County lying within the West 25 feet of the East 58 feet of Lot 5, Block 2, Beaver Lake Addition. 2. That part of Magnolia Avenue (formerly known as Cherry Avenue) as platted in Beaver Lake Addition lying between the east right-of-way line of Lakewood Drive (the west line of Lot 8, Block 2, Beaver Lake Addition extended south) and the east property line of Lot 7, Block 2, Beaver Lake Addition extended south. All in Section 25, Township 29, Range 22 in Ramsey County. WHEREAS, the history of these vacations is as follows: 1. On April 15, 2002, the planning commission recommended that the city council approve these street vacations. 14 G3, Attachment 4 Packet Page Number 51 of 200 8 City Council Meeting 05-28-02 2. On May 28, 2002, the city council held a public hearing. City staff published a notice in the Maplewood Review and sent notices to the abutting 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 council tabled action on the development request until May 14, 2001. WHEREAS, after the city approves this vacation, public interest in the property will go to the following abutting properties: 1. Lot 5, Block 2, Beaver Lake Addition (PIN 25-29-22-21-0010) 2. Lots 7 and 8, Block 2, Beaver Lake Addition (PIN 25-29-22-21-0011) 3. The North 161.83 feet of the West 1/4 of the SE 1/4 of the NW 1/4 (subject to roads) of Section 25, Township 29, Range 22 (1070 Lakewood Drive North) (PIN 25-29-22-24-0072) 4. Except the North 290.66 feet of the West 1/2 North 677.06 feet of the West 1/2 of the SE 1/4 of the NW 1/4 (Subject to roads and easement) in SEC 25, TN 29, RN 22 (PIN 25-29-22-24- 0073) All in Section 25, Township 29, Range 22, Maplewood, Ramsey County, Minnesota. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the city council approved the above-described vacation since it is in the public interest based on the following reasons: 2. The adjacent properties have adequate street access. 3. These right-of-ways are not needed for the public purpose of street construction. 4. The developer will be building private streets and driveways in the project. RESOLUTION 02-05-100 EASEMENT VACATION RESOLUTION WHEREAS, Mr. Tony Emmerich, representing the AJE Companies, applied for the vacation of the following-described easements: That part of the following sanitary sewer easement according to document number 1504484 lying within Lots 7 and 8, Block 2, Beaver Lake Addition, described as follows: Beginning on the West line of the Northeast quarter of the Northwest quarter of Section 25, Township 29, Range 22, a distance of 603 feet South of the Northwest corner of said Northeast quarter of Northwest quarter; thence East 153 feet; thence South 185 feet; thence South 85 degrees, 03 minutes East 172.9 feet; thence South 1 degree 38 minutes 30 seconds West a distance of 80 feet; thence South 88 degrees 21 minutes, 30 seconds East a distance of 170.25 feet more or less to a point on the West line of the 50 foot sewer easement hereinafter 15 G3, Attachment 4 Packet Page Number 52 of 200 9 City Council Meeting 05-28-02 described, all of the foregoing being over Lot 8, Block 1 and Lots 7 and 8, Block 2, Beaver Lake Addition. All lying south of Maryland Avenue and between Lakewood Drive and Sterling Street in Section 25, Township 29, Range 22, Maplewood, Minnesota. WHEREAS, the history of this vacation is as follows: 1. On April 15, 2002, the planning commission recommended that the city council approve these vacations. 2. On May 28, 2002, the city council held a public hearing. The city staff published a notice in the Maplewood Review and sent a notice to the abutting 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 council tabled action on the development request until May 14, 2001. WHEREAS, after the city approves these vacations, public interest in the property will go to the following abutting property: Lot 8, Block 1, Beaver Lake Addition and Lots 7 and 8, Block 2, Beaver Lake Addition (PIN 25-29-22-21-0011) All in Section 25, Township 29, Range 22, Ramsey County, Minnesota NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the city council approve the above- described vacations for the following reasons: 1. It is in the public interest. 2. The city and the adjacent property owners have no plans to build a street or utilities in these locations. 3. The adjacent properties have access to public streets and utilities. Seconded by Councilmember Collins Ayes-All Councilmember Koppen moved to adopt the preliminary plat for Beaver Lake Townhome development on the south side of Maryland Avenue between Sterling Street and Lakewood Drive. 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: 16 G3, Attachment 4 Packet Page Number 53 of 200 10 City Council Meeting 05-28-02 a. Complete all grading for overall site drainage, complete all public improvements and meet all city requirements. b.* Place temporary orange safety fencing and signs at the grading limits. c. Have Xcel Energy install Group V rate street lights in at least 15 locations - primarily at street and driveway intersections and street or driveway curves. The exact style and location shall be subject to the city engineer’s approval. d. Pay the city for the cost of traffic-control, street identification and no parking signs. e. Provide all required and necessary easements. f. Cap, seal and abandon any wells that may be on the site, subject to Minnesota rules and guidelines. g. Complete and replace as necessary all curb and gutter on Sterling Street and on Maryland Avenue. This is to replace the existing driveways and driveway aprons on these streets. This shall include the repair of the pavement and the restoration and sodding of the boulevards. h. For the trails and sidewalks, complete the following: (1) Construct an eight-foot-wide paved public walkway and two-rail split-rail fencing in the following locations: a. From Private Drive A in the west side of the site between Lots 8 and 9 to near the stream in the center of the site. b. From Private Drive D in the east side of the site, between Lots 21 and 22 to near the stream. All trails between lots shall be in a publicly-owned pedestrian way or outlot. (2) The developer also shall build a six-foot-wide sidewalk along the south side of Maryland Avenue between Sterling Street and the west property line of the site. (3) The developer shall install a two-rail split-rail fence on both sides of each trail and posts at the end of the trails to prevent motorized vehicles from using the trail. (4) The developer shall build the trails, sidewalks and fencing with the driveways and streets before the city approves a final plat. (5) The city engineer must approve these plans. 17 G3, Attachment 4 Packet Page Number 54 of 200 11 City Council Meeting 05-28-02 i. Install permanent signs around the edge of the wetland and stream buffer easements. These signs shall mark the edge of the easements and shall state there shall be no mowing, vegetation cutting, filling, grading or dumping beyond this point. City staff shall approve the sign design and location before the contractor installs them. The developer or contractor shall install these signs before the city issues building permits in this plat. j. Install survey monuments along the wetland boundaries. k. Install survey monuments and signs along the edges of the area labeled “Park Dedication.” These signs shall explain that the area beyond the signs is a public park area and that there shall be no building, fences, mowing, cutting, filling, dumping or other ground disturbance in that area. The developer or contractor shall install these signs before the city issues building permits in this plat. b. Install signs where the driveways for the apartments and for the town houses intersect the public streets indicating that they are private driveways. 2.* Have the city engineer approve final construction and engineering plans. These plans shall include grading, utility, drainage, erosion control, tree, trail, sidewalk, driveway and street plans. The plans shall meet the following conditions: 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 building site. The lot lines on this plan shall follow the approved preliminary plat. (3) Contour information for all the land that the construction will disturb. (4) Building pads that reduce the grading on site where the developer can save large trees. (5) The street, driveway and trail grades as allowed by the city engineer. (5) All proposed slopes on the construction plans. The city engineer shall approve the plans, specifications and management practices for any slopes steeper than 3:1. On slopes steeper than 3:1, the developer shall prepare and implement a stabilization and planting plan. These slopes shall be protected with wood fiber blanket, be seeded with a no-maintenance vegetation and be stabilized before the city approves the final plat. 18 G3, Attachment 4 Packet Page Number 55 of 200 12 City Council Meeting 05-28-02 (6) All retaining walls on the plans. Any retaining walls taller than four feet require a building permit from the city. The developer shall install a protective rail or fence on top of any retaining wall that is taller than four feet. (2) Sedimentation basins or ponds as required by the watershed board or by the city engineer. (3) No grading beyond the plat boundary without temporary grading easements from the affected property owner(s). (4) Additional information for the property south of the project site. This shall include elevations of the existing ditch, culverts and catch basins and enough information about the storm water flow path from the proposed ponds. (5) Emergency overflows between Lots 8 and 9, Lots 21 and 22 and south of proposed building 42 (out of proposed ponds 1, 3 and 4). The overflow swales shall be protected with permanent soil-stabilization blankets. (11) Restoration in the stream corridor and park dedication area being done with native seed mix or vegetation as approved by the city engineer and by the watershed district. c.* The tree plan shall: (1) Be approved, along with the landscaping, by the Community Design Review Board (CDRB) before site grading or final plat approval. (2) Show where the developer will remove, save or replace large trees. This plan shall include an inventory of all existing large trees on the site. 19 G3, Attachment 4 Packet Page Number 56 of 200 13 City Council Meeting 05-28-02 (3) Show the size, species and location of the replacement and screening trees. The deciduous trees shall be at least two and one half (2 ) inches in diameter and shall be a mix of red and white oaks, ash, lindens, sugar maples or other native species. The coniferous trees shall be at least eight (8) feet tall and shall be a mix of Black Hills Spruce, Austrian pine and other species. (4) Show no tree removal in the buffer zones, park dedication areas or beyond the approved grading and tree limits. (5) Include for city staff a detailed tree planting plan and material list. (6) Group the new trees together. These planting areas shall be: (a) near the ponding areas (b) on the slopes (c) along the trails (d) along the east side of Lakewood Drive to screen the proposed buildings from Beaver Lake (e) along the south side of the site (west of Sterling Street) to screen the development from the existing house to the south The developer may use the tree groupings to separate the different types of residences. (7) Show the planting of at least 270 trees after the site grading is done. d. The street, trail, sidewalk and utility plans shall show: (1) An eight-foot-wide paved public walkway and two-rail split-rail fencing in the following locations: a. From Private Drive A in the west side of the site between Lots 8 and 9 to near the stream in the center of the site. b. From Private Drive D in the east side of the site, between Lots 21 and 22 to near the stream. The parks and recreation director shall approve their locations and design. (2) The public streets and driveways shall be a 9-ton design with a maximum street grade of eight percent and the maximum street grade within 75 feet of all intersections at two percent. (3) All the streets, parking areas and driveways with continuous concrete curb and gutter except where the city engineer decides that it is not needed for drainage purposes. 20 G3, Attachment 4 Packet Page Number 57 of 200 14 City Council Meeting 05-28-02 (4) The removal of the unused driveways and driveway aprons and the completion of the curb and gutter on Sterling Street and on Maryland Avenue and the restoration and sodding of the boulevards. (5) The coordination of the water main locations, 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. (6) 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. (7) The plan and profiles of the proposed utilities. (8) Details of the ponds and the pond outlets. The outlets shall be protected to prevent erosion. (9) A coordinated sewer realignment and reconstruction plan. The city engineer must approve the sanitary sewer realignment plans. (10) A six-foot-wide concrete sidewalk along the south side of Maryland Avenue between Sterling Street and the west property line of the site. e. The drainage plan shall ensure that there is no increase in the rate of storm water run-off leaving the site above the current (predevelopment) levels. The developer’s engineer shall: (1) Verify inlet and pipe capacities. (2) Have the city engineer verify the drainage design calculations. 3. Pay the costs related to the engineering department’s review of the construction plans. 4. Change the plat as follows: a. Show drainage and utility easements along all property lines on the final plat. These easements shall be ten feet wide along the front and rear property lines and five feet wide along the side property lines. b. Show the wetland boundaries on the final plat as approved by the watershed district. c. Show the park dedication boundary and area on the final plat. d. Make as many of the property lines as is reasonably possible radial to the cul-de-sacs or perpendicular to the driveways and street right-of-ways. e. Show street names for the driveways as follows: (1) Private Driveway A in the west one-half of the site shall be called “Beaver Creek Parkway.” (2) Private Driveway B in the west one-half of the site shall be called “Beaver Creek Lane.” (3) Private Driveway D in the east one-half of the site shall be called “Sterling Circle.” 21 G3, Attachment 4 Packet Page Number 58 of 200 15 City Council Meeting 05-28-02 (4) Private Driveway E in the east one-half of the site shall be called “Sterling Lane.” f. Show the existing pipelines and pipeline easements on the final plat. g. If necessary, increase the lot widths for the lots next to the pipeline to ensure that the building pads will be at least 100 feet away from the pipeline. (code requirement) h. Label the common areas as outlots. B. Show the trails in publicly owned property or easements. j. Show the area between buildings 8 and 9 and buildings 21 and 22 as separate outlots and dedicate each of these to the city. 5. Secure and provide all required easements for the development. These shall include: C. Any off-site drainage and utility easements. D. Wetland and stream easements over the wetlands and any land within 50 feet surrounding a wetland and a stream. The easement shall prohibit any building or structures within 50 feet of the wetland or stream or any mowing, cutting, filling, grading or dumping within 50 feet of the stream, wetland or within the wetland itself. c. A stream buffer easement that is at least 50 feet wide on each side of the stream that crosses the site. The easement shall prohibit any building, structures or any mowing, filling, cutting, grading or dumping within 50 feet of the ordinary high water mark (OHWM) of the stream. The purpose of these easements is to protect the water quality of the stream and wetlands from fertilizer and runoff. They also are to protect the stream and wetland habitat from encroachment. d. Any easements the city needs for the realignment of the sanitary sewer through the site. 6. Sign a developer’s agreement with the city that guarantees that the developer or contractor will: a. Complete all grading for overall site drainage, complete all public improvements and meet all city requirements. b.* Place temporary orange safety fencing and signs at the grading limits. c. Provide for the repair of Lakewood Drive, Maryland Avenue and Sterling Street (street, curb and gutter and boulevard) after the developer connects to the public utilities and builds the driveways. d. Work with the city as necessary for the realignment of the sanitary sewer through the site. This sewer project also will require an assessment agreement between the developer and the city to compensate the city for the benefit that the developer receives from the city sewer construction. 7. Record the following with the final plat: 22 G3, Attachment 4 Packet Page Number 59 of 200 16 City Council Meeting 05-28-02 a. All homeowners’ association documents. b. A covenant or deed restriction that prohibits any additional driveways (besides the one new driveway shown on the project plans) from going onto Lakewood Drive and onto Maryland Avenue. c. A deed restriction prohibiting the construction of a dwelling or its attachments within 100 feet of the Williams Brothers pipeline. This affects Lots 1 through 3, Lots 19 through 24 and buildings 41 and 42 of the proposed preliminary plan the city received on March 12, 2002. The developer also shall notify the purchasers of the pipeline location. d. A deed dedicating a stream buffer easement (50 feet from the top of each stream bank) for the stream that crosses the site. e. Deeds for the stream and wetland buffer easements surrounding the stream and the wetlands. f. 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. E. A deed that transfers the ownership of the park dedication area to Maplewood. F. Deeds that transfer the ownership of the outlots between buildings 8 and 9 and buildings 21 and 22 to the city. The applicant shall submit the language for these dedications and restrictions to the city for approval before recording. 8. Submit the homeowners’ 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 structures. 9. Show the wetland boundaries on the plat as approved by the Watershed District. A trained and qualified person must delineate the wetlands. This person shall prepare a wetland delineation report. The developer shall submit this wetland information to the Watershed District office. The Watershed District must approve this information before the city approves a final plat. If needed, the developer shall change the plat to meet wetland regulations. 10. 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. 11. Obtain a permit from the Ramsey-Washington Metro Watershed District for grading. 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. 23 G3, Attachment 4 Packet Page Number 60 of 200 17 City Council Meeting 05-28-02 Seconded by Councilmember Collins Ayes-Mayor Cardinal, Councilmembers Collins, Koppen, Wasiluk Nays-Councilmember Juenemann Councilmember Koppen moved to adopt the following resolution approving the on street parking standards for the Beaver Lake Townhome development: RESOLUTION 02-05-101 NO PARKING RESOLUTION WHEREAS, Maplewood has approved a residential PUD and preliminary plat known as Beaver Lake Townhomes. WHEREAS, the developer wants to have reduced street right-of-way widths, reduced street pavement widths and reduced private driveway widths in this development. WHEREAS, the city has approved reduced street right-of-way widths, reduced street pavement widths and reduced driveway widths in the development, subject to on-street parking restrictions. WHEREAS, Section 29-52(b) of the city code allows variations from the city code standards if they do not affect the general purpose of the city code. NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED that Maplewood prohibits the parking of motor vehicles on both sides of all public streets and driveways less than 28 feet wide and prohibits parking on one side of the public streets and driveways that are 28 feet to 32 feet wide in the Beaver Lake Townhome PUD south of Maryland Avenue between Sterling Street and Lakewood Drive in Section 25-29-22. Seconded by Councilmember Collins Ayes-Mayor Cardinal, Councilmembers Collins, Wasiluk, Koppen Nays-Councilmember Juenemann Councilmember Koppen moved to authorize city staff to spend up to $400,000 of the open space funds for the 8.9 acres which would include the $150,00 matching grant form the DNR Greenways Program. Staff was also directed to make the developer aware that the city would like to see his participation in the open space program. Seconded by Councilmember Collins Ayes-All 24 G3, Attachment 4 Packet Page Number 61 of 200 MEMORANDUM TO:Melinda Coleman, City Manager FROM:Michael Martin, AICP, Economic Development Coordinator DATE:August 26, 2015 SUBJECT:Approval of a Conditional Use Permit Review – Keller Golf Course, 2166 Maplewood Drive Introduction The conditional use permit for Keller Golf Course is due for its annual review. Background On August 13, 2012, the city council approved a conditional use permit amendment, design review and a wetland map amendment for the redevelopment of the Keller Golf Course. On August 26, 2013 and August 25, 2014, the city council reviewed the conditional use permit for Keller Golf Course and agreed to review it again in one year. Discussion This is the second full summer since construction of the new clubhouse and pro shop buildings were completed. Staff is not aware of any neighborhood complaints or concerns. Budget Impact None. Recommendation Review the conditional use permit for the Keller Golf Course at 2166 Maplewood Drive again only if a problem arises or a major change is proposed. Attachments 1. Location Map 2. Site Plan 3. City Council Minutes, dated August 13, 2012 G4 Packet Page Number 62 of 200 2166 Maplewood Drive Keller Golf Course Location Map Attachment 1 Low Density Residential Keller Golf Course G4, Attachment 1 Packet Page Number 63 of 200 $WWDFKPHQWG4, Attachment 2 Packet Page Number 64 of 200 Attachment 7G4, Attachment 3 Packet Page Number 65 of 200 Attachment 7G4, Attachment 3 Packet Page Number 66 of 200 Attachment 7G4, Attachment 3 Packet Page Number 67 of 200 Attachment 7G4, Attachment 3 Packet Page Number 68 of 200 Attachment 7G4, Attachment 3 Packet Page Number 69 of 200 MEMORANDUM TO: Melinda Coleman, City Manager FROM: Michael Martin, AICP, Economic Development Coordinator DATE: September 8, 2015 SUBJECT: Approval of a Conditional Use Permit Review – LCS Lawn Service, 1177 Century Avenue Introduction The conditional use permit (CUP) for 1177 Century Avenue, LCS Lawn Service, is up for its annual review. Background This property was the site of Maplewood Fire Station No. 1. It was placed for sale due to its replacement with the new fire station on McKnight Road. The city council approved a purchase agreement from LCS Lawn Service to purchase this property from the city. On August 25, 2014 the city council approved a comprehensive plan amendment to allow for the property to move from government (G) use to commercial (C) use and a conditional use permit to allow for exterior storage on the property and agreed to review it in one year. Discussion Upon staff’s site visit, all conditions of approval are being met. There were no building modifications related to this approval. Budget Impact None Recommendations Review the conditional use permit for 1177 Century Avenue again only if a problem arises or a major change is proposed. Attachments 1. Aerial and Location Map 2. Land Use Map 3. August 25, 2014 City Council Minutes G5 Packet Page Number 70 of 200 Sources: Esri, HERE, DeLorme, TomTom, Intermap, increment P Corp., GEBCO, USGS, FAO, NPS, NRCAN, GeoBase, IGN, Kadaster NL, Ordnance Survey, Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), swisstopo, MapmyIndia, © OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS User Community, Maplewood, Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, i-cubed, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AEX, Getmapping, Aerogrid, IGN, IGP, swisstopo, and the GIS User Community 1177 Century Avenue North -Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Conditional Use Permit Request Aerial and Location Map ¯ 0 250 500125 Feet 1177 Century Ave G5, Attachment 1 Packet Page Number 71 of 200 Sources: Esri, HERE, DeLorme, TomTom, Intermap, increment P Corp., GEBCO, USGS, FAO, NPS, NRCAN, GeoBase, IGN, Kadaster NL, Ordnance Survey, Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), swisstopo, MapmyIndia, © OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS User Community, Maplewood 1177 Century Avenue North -Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Conditional Use Permit Request Future Land Use Map ¯ 0 250 500125 Feet Legend Low Density Residential Rural/Low Density Residential Medium Density Residential High Density Residential Park Institution Open Space Government Mixed Use Commercial Industrial 1177 Century Ave G5. Attachment 2 Packet Page Number 72 of 200 MINUTES MAPLEWOOD CITY COUNCIL 7:00 p.m., Monday, August 25, 2014 Council Chambers, City Hall Meeting No. 15-14 1. Approval of the Following Requests for LCS Lawn Service Inc at the Former Maplewood Fire Station, 1177 Century Avenue: a. Approval of a Resolution for a Comprehensive Plan Amendment b. Approval of a Resolution for a Conditional Use Permit for Exterior Storage City Planner Martin gave the staff report. Planning Commissioner Allan Ige addressed the council and gave the report from the planning commission. Jeff Meyer, applicant from LCS Lawn Service addressed and answered questions of the council. Councilmember Koppen moved to approve the resolution adopting a comprehensive land use plan amendment from G (government) to C (commercial) for 1177 Century Avenue North. Approval is based on the following reasons: 1. The property is presently dormant and is proposed to be sold to and utilized by a private business which would be compatible with a land use classification of C (commercial). 2. The site is already zoned business commercial which is compatible with the land use designation of C (commercial) and the other commercial properties to the south. This action is subject to the approval of a comprehensive plan amendment by the Metropolitan Council. Resolution 14-8-1113 Comprehensive Plan Amendment WHEREAS, Jeff Meyer, of LCS Lawn Service, has requested a change to the City of Maplewood’s land use plan from G (government) to C (commercial) for consistency between the plan and actual use of the land. WHEREAS, this change applies to the property located at 1177 Century Avenue North. The property identification number is: 25-29-22-11-0059 WHEREAS, the history of this change is as follows: 1. On August 19, 2014, the planning commission held a public hearing. The city staff published a hearing notice in the Maplewood Review and sent notices to the surrounding property owners. The planning commission gave everyone at the hearing a chance to speak and present written statements. The planning commission recommended that the city council approve the land use plan change. 2. On August 25, 2014 the city council discussed the land use plan change. They G5, Attachment 3 Packet Page Number 73 of 200 considered reports and recommendations from the planning commission and city staff. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the city council approve the above described change for the following reasons: 1. The property is presently dormant and is proposed to be sold to and utilized by a private business which would be compatible with a land use classification of C (commercial). 2. The site is already zoned business commercial which is compatible with the land use designation of C (commercial) and the other commercial properties to the south. This action is subject to the approval of this land use plan amendment by the Metropolitan Council. The Maplewood City Council approved this resolution on August 25, 2014. Seconded by Councilmember Juenemann Ayes – All The motion passed. Councilmember Juenemann moved to approve the Resolution Approving a Conditional Use Permit for exterior storage at 1177 Century Avenue. The storage area will be located directly west of the building. Approval is subject to the findings required by ordinance and subject to the following conditions: 1. All exterior storage must be contained to the area indicated by the site plan, date- stamped July 21, 2014. Staff may approve minor changes. 2. The city council shall review this permit in one year. 3. The proposed use must be substantially started within one year of council approval or the permit shall become null and void. The council may extend this deadline for one year. 4. The proposed fence must be 100 percent opaque and be built with either cedar boards or a maintenance-free vinyl material. 5. Broken or knocked down fence portions shall be repaired. 6. Comply with the building permit requirements of the city’s building inspection department. 7. The applicant shall work with the building official, fire marshal and environmental planner to ensure compliance with applicable codes. 8. The open area to the north of the building shall not be used for any exterior storage purposes. 9. Any future changes to the site or building will require design review by the city. Resolution 14-8-1114 Conditional Use Permit G5, Attachment 3 Packet Page Number 74 of 200 WHEREAS, Jeff Meyer, of LCS Lawn Service, has applied for a conditional use permit for exterior storage within the business commercial zoning district for a lawn service business; WHEREAS, this permit applies to the property located at 1177 Century Avenue North. The property identification number is: 25-29-22-11-0059 WHEREAS, the history of this conditional use permit is as follows: 1. On August 19, 2014, the planning commission held a public hearing. The city staff published a hearing notice in the Maplewood Review and sent notices to the surrounding property owners. The planning commission gave everyone at the hearing a chance to speak and present written statements. The planning commission recommended that the city council approve the conditional use permit. 2. On August 25, 2014 the city council discussed the conditional use permit. They considered reports and recommendations from the planning commission and city staff. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the city council approve the above- described conditional use permit, because: 1. The use would be located, designed, maintained, constructed and operated to be in conformity with the City's Comprehensive Plan and this Code. 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 not exceed the design standards of any affected street. 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 no more than minimal adverse environmental effects. G5, Attachment 3 Packet Page Number 75 of 200 Approval is subject to the following conditions: 1. All exterior storage must be contained to the area indicated by the site plan, date- stamped July 21, 2014. Staff may approve minor changes. 2. The city council shall review this permit in one year. 3. The proposed use must be substantially started within one year of council approval or the permit shall become null and void. The council may extend this deadline for one year. 4. The proposed fence must be 100 percent opaque and be built with either cedar boards or a maintenance-free vinyl material. 5. Broken or knocked down fence portions shall be repaired. 6. Comply with the building permit requirements of the city’s building inspection department. 7. The applicant shall work with the building official, fire marshal and environmental planner to ensure compliance with applicable codes. 8. The open area to the north of the building shall not be used for any exterior storage purposes. 9. Any future changes to the site or building will require design review by the city. The Maplewood City Council approved this resolution on August 25, 2014. Seconded by Councilmember Koppen Ayes – All The motion passed. G5, Attachment 3 Packet Page Number 76 of 200 MEMORANDUM TO: Melinda Coleman, City Manager FROM: Michael Martin, AICP, Economic Development Coordinator DATE: September 8, 2015 SUBJECT: Approval of a Conditional Use Permit Review – Used-Car Sales at Maplewood Office Park, 1705 Cope Avenue Introduction The conditional use permit (CUP) for used auto sales at 1705 Cope Avenue is up for its annual review. Dennis Newcomb, of 4 Seasons Auto Sales, sought approval of a conditional use permit (CUP) to sell used cars out of the rental office in the northerly space of the easterly building. Background April 8, 1976: The city council approved the development plans for the Maplewood Office Park. June 9, 2014: the city council approved a CUP to allow for used auto sales. Discussion When the city council approved the CUP last year it required the following site improvements: • Remove brush/debris pile along the west side of the property. • Remove all unapproved signs immediately. • Install a trash enclosure with a closeable (100 percent opaque) gate. • Restore existing “Maplewood Office Park” signage to visually presentable condition. Staff has worked with both the property owner and the applicant, Mr. Newcomb, throughout the last year to address these issues. The debris has been cleared and a trash enclosure has been built. Temporary signs have been an on-going issue – not with Mr. Newcomb but with other tenants in the office park. The main freestanding sign facing Highway 36 is in the middle of being restored but the “Maplewood Office Park” lettering has not been returned. In addition, staff has received complaints throughout the last year of cars for sale being parked on the grass. When brought to Mr. Newcomb’s attention the issue in the past the issue is taken care of but this has tended to be a reoccurring theme. Overall the site is being improved incrementally. Staff would like to see these issues taken care of quicker but enough progress has been made over the last year that staff would like to use the next year to continue to work with the property owner and applicant to address the remaining issues. G6 Packet Page Number 77 of 200 Budget Impact None Recommendations Review the conditional use permit for 1705 Cope Avenue again in one year. Attachments 1. Location Map 2. June 9, 2014 City Council Minutes G6 Packet Page Number 78 of 200 G6, Attachment 1 Packet Page Number 79 of 200 Seconded by Councilmember Cardinal Ayes – All The motion passed. 5. Approval of a Conditional Use Permit for Used-Car Sales at the Maplewood Office Park, 1705 Cope Avenue City Planner Martin gave the staff report and answered questions of the council. Planning Commissioner Trippler addressed the council to give the Planning Commission report. Applicant Dennis Newcomb addressed the council to give additional information and answer questions of the council. Councilmember Koppen moved to approve to approve the conditional use permit resolution to allow a used-car sales business located at 1705 Cope Avenue. Approval is based on the findings required by ordinance and subject to the following conditions: 1. All construction shall follow the site plan date-stamped April 14, 2014 approved by the city. Staff may approve minor changes. 2. The proposed use must be substantially started within one year of council approval or the permit shall become null and void. The council may extend this deadline for one year after review and good-cause is shown. 3. The city council shall review this permit in one year. 4. The property owner shall prepare the site in the following manner to accommodate the added attention and traffic to the area (completed no later than 180 days from approval unless otherwise noted): • Remove brush/debris pile along the west side of the property. • Remove all unapproved signs immediately. • Install a trash enclosure with a closeable (100 percent opaque) gate. • Restore existing “Maplewood Office Park” signage to visually presentable condition. 5. New signs, if not in compliance with the comprehensive sign plan, shall be submitted to the community design review board as an amendment to the current sign plan. This approval must be obtained prior to the installation of any signs that do not comply with the current sign criteria. 6. No use of attention-getting advertising devices including, but not limited to: banners, flags, stingers, streamers or similar (unless they are allowed by the city’s sign ordinance). 7. A maximum of ten cars for sale at any one time. 8. All vehicles and the site shall always be kept in neat, clean and orderly condition. G6, Attachment 2 Packet Page Number 80 of 200 9. The allowed hours of operation shall be as follows: Monday through Friday from 10 a.m. to seven p.m.; Saturdays from 10 a.m. to six p.m. and Sundays closed. Seconded by Councilmember Juenemann Ayes – All The motion passed. 6. Approval of the Following Requests for a Holiday Station Store, 1285 Cope Avenue East a. Approval of a Resolution for a Conditional Use Permit Revision to Allow a Motor Fuel Station to be Open 24 hours a Day and to Have a Reduced Proximity to a Residential District b. Approval of a Resolution for Building and Parking Lot Setback Variances c. Approval of Design Plans City Planner Martin gave the staff report and answered questions of the council. Planning Commissioner Trippler gave the Planning Commission report. Applicant Stephen Lins of Linn Companies addressed the council to give additional information and answer questions of the council. Public Works Director Thompson answered additional questions of the council. The following people spoke: 1. Ann Cleland, Maplewood Resident 2. Roger Franz, Maplewood Resident 3. Bob Zick, North St. Paul Resident Councilmember Cardinal moved to approve: 1. Adopt the resolution approving a conditional use permit revision for a major motor fuel station to be located at 1285 Cope Avenue. This CUP allows the Holiday Station Store to be open 24 hours a day and to be constructed closer than 350 feet to a residential district. Approval is based on the findings required by ordinance and subject to the following conditions (additions are underlined and deletions are crossed out): a. Adherence to the site plan, dated May 27, 1988 date-stamped April 25, 2014, unless a change is approved by the City's Community Design Review Board City Council. Staff may approve minor changes. b. The right-turn lane proposed along English Street shall be subject to the City Engineer's and MnDOT’s approval. c. The applicant shall restripe repair any damage to the sidewalk and curbs along English Street and Cope Avenue, and widen it if necessary, to provide a left-turn lane for west-bound Highway 36, subject to the MnDOT’s and the City Engineer's approval. G6, Attachment 2 Packet Page Number 81 of 200 MEMORANDUM TO: City Manager Melinda Coleman FROM: Chief of Police Paul P. Schnell DATE: September 8, 2015 SUBJECT: Approval of School Resource Officer Agreement with Independent School District 622 Introduction The City of Maplewood Police Department would like to enter into a contract with North St. Paul- Maplewood-Oakdale School District 622 to provide School Resource Officer services, and City Council approval is required. Background For the past several decades, the Maplewood Police Department has provided School Resource Officer services to School District 622. The School District, in return, has paid the City of Maplewood part of the salary costs for the officer assigned to this position. City Council approval is requested to enter into a Contract for Services with School District 622 for School Resource Officer services from September 1, 2015, through August 30, 2016. The School District will pay $65,000 over the term of this agreement. The contract is for the officer’s salary only and does not include any fringe benefits, unemployment compensation, or Workers Comp. Both parties have the right to cancel the contract at any time should funding for this position cease for any reason. The agreement also provides for reimbursable special event overtime of up to 30 hours at a rate of $75.00 per hour. Budget Impact The City will receive a minimum payment of $65,000 for the 2015-2016 academic year for School Resource Officer services to School District 622. Recommendation It is recommended that the City Council approve the agreement between the City of Maplewood and North St. Paul-Maplewood-Oakdale School District 622 for School Resource Officer services and that the Finance Director be authorized to make any necessary budget adjustments. Attachments School District 622 School Resource Officer Agreement. G7 Packet Page Number 82 of 200 S⊂hool District 622 NORTH 5T. PAUL I vRpIewoOD I oAKDALE Reodgfor tomorrow SCHOOL RESOURCE OFFICER AGREEMENT This School Resource Officer Agreement (the "Agreement") dated September 1,2015 is by and between the City of Maplewood and Independent School District No. 622 ("School District"). RECITALS WHEREAS, the School District and the City are both corporate bodies politic under the Laws of the State of Minnesota; and WHEREAS, both the City and District desire to enter this agreement for the provision of law enforcement services by the Maplewood to the District; and WHEREAS, this Agreement is authorized and provided for by Minn. Stat. $ 471.59. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants and conditions contained in this Agreement, the School District and City agree as follows: 1. Purpose The City and School District will collaborate on a law enforcement services provided by a School Resource Officer. Both the City and School District have determined that the law enforcement provided by the SRO is beneficial to school and community safety and promotes collaboration between the City, District, parents and students. This Agreement is intended, in part, to set forth the terms and conditions, to create, fund, and implement the position of a police School Resource Officer ("SRO"). The SRO reports to Maplewood designated Police Supervisor in collaboration with school administrators. 2. Job Duties The SRO will work towards carrying out the mission of the Maplewood Police Department within the school community as per the City's job description for the position [INSERT JOB DESCRIPTION AS EXHIBIT Al. The SRO will act in their capacity and authority as a Police Officer for the City of Maplewood Police Department to provide a safe learning environment, to prevent crime, and to investigate and solve crimes. 2520 East 12th Avenue I North St. Paut, MN 55109 | 651.748.7411 I 651 .748.7413 (fax) | www.isd622.org G7, Attachment 1 Packet Page Number 83 of 200 S⊂hool District 622 NoRTH 5T, PAUL I URPITwOOD I OAKDALE Reodgfor tomorrow 3. Funding- SRO Program The City is responsible for hiring the SRO and paying his or her salary, benefits and training costs and the District will contribute $65,000 to the city for those costs. Overtime for special events as may be required for the safety of students, staff, and visitors to School District facilities. 4. Services The City shall provide the services of one primary police officer to assist the School District. The School District agrees to provide adequate office space, telephone access, computer and printer for use by the SRO(s). The SRO will be on duty during regular school hours in the school district all student contact days and also comply with the City of Maplewood job description [see EXHIBIT A]. While on duty with the school district, the SRO is primarily engaged in school district services; however, the Police Chief has the authority to redeploy the SRO should a specific emergency or public safety necessity require such deployment. The SRO will respond to calls to all schools in the City of Maplewood although maybe based primarily at one school in the city. Selection of SRO. The City will assign someone who already is currently employed by the City to the SRO position and the District will provide input on the assignment, with the Chief having final authority to select the SRO. The City of Maplewood has the authority of determining the rotation of the SRO assignment. Dress Code: The SRO may wear Police Department issued uniform or civilian clothing attire in compliance with the Police Department Uniforms and Appearance Policy. 5. Performance Issues: The School District shall promptly report to the Chief of Police any issues or concerns it has regarding the assigned officer's work perforrnance. The School District may also provide annual input to the Chief of Police regarding the officer's work performance. 6. Incidents: Incidents occurring on or about school premises that require police intervention, should be primarily investigated by the SRO. The assigned and/or participating officer shall prepare b. C. 2520 East 12th Avenue I North St. Pau[, MN 55109 | 651.748.7411 | 651.748.7413 (fax) | www.isd622.org G7, Attachment 1 Packet Page Number 84 of 200 S⊂hool District 622 N0RTH sr. pAUL lr,,tlplewooo loRroRlr Reodgfor tomorrow customary police incident report(s) and perform investigations in accord with Maplewood Police Department Policy and Procedure. 7. School Discipline Rules: The SRO shall not enforce any school disciplinary rules or policies. 8. Coordinating Representatives: Representatives of the City, the Police Department and School District will meet as necessary to discuss, coordinate and recommend revisions, if necessary, to the SRO services/agreement. 9. Pavment The City shall provide billing statements to the School district for services provided herein on a semi-annual basis on June 30 and January I of each year. Such statements will be due and payable by the School District to the City no more than thirty (30) days after receipt of the same. The billing to the School district shall be done so in arrears of service provision (January billing shall cover the immediately preceding period of July I through December 31). 10. Term This Agreement shall commence on the l't day of September2Ol5, and shall end onthe 31st day of August. 2016. 11. Independent Contractor The City, through its Chief of Police, will remain free to exercise judgment in this Agreement. The City acknowledges that no withholding for state or federal benefits or taxes will be made from the payments due the City by the School District. The City also acknowledges that it has the sole obligation to comply with state, local and federal tax provisions with regard to these services and the employees hired by the City to perform services described herein, including workers compensation laws. 12. Scheduling The SRO will be on duty during regular school hours in the school district all days while school is in session and also comply with the City of Maplewood job description [see EXHIBIT A]. 2520 East 12th Avenue I North 5t. Paut, MN 55109 | 651.748.7411 I 651 .748.7413 (fax) | www.isd622.org G7, Attachment 1 Packet Page Number 85 of 200 S⊂hool NORTH 5T. PAUL I vIPIEwOOD I OAKDALE Reodg for tomorrow During non-student contact days during the school year and during the summer months the SRO's schedule will be determined by the Chief of Police. Overtime As requested by the school district with the approval of the Chief of Police and/or hisftrer Designee, the SRO is authorized to work special events (prom, homecoming, school dances, special athletic events, etc.) outside of the regular schedule to promote public safety and enhance safety for students, staff, and visitors. Recognizingthejoint nature of the SRO program, and the desire to provide the School District with a fixed cost of the SRO program, the City shall invoice the School District up to 30 hours of special event overtime at aflat rate of $75 per hour. Any additional overtime needed would be the responsibility of the individual school organization to cover the costs. Scheduling of police coverage for special events will be completed between the police department and the Athletic/Activities Director at the respective school. 13. Termination of this Agreement Either party may terminate this Agreement by providing written notice to the other party no less than six months prior to the effective termination date. 14. Temporary Emergency Reassignment If, in the discretion of the Chief of Police, it becomes necessary to remove the SRO from the district, whenever possible, the Chief of Police will inform the School District officials in advance ofsuch action. 15. Security/Linking The SRO(s) office will be locked and secured by a key issued only to the SRO(s). The SRO(s) will be provided a suitable computer, monitor, and printer and any other items or services necessary, at the expense of the School District, so that the SRO will have full access to the City email and network system and the School District's email and network system at all times the SRO(s) is working pursuant to this Agreement. Any additional equipment costs to be borne by the City. 16. Indemnity and Hold Harmless The District and the City agree that they will be responsible for their own acts and omissions and those of their officials, employees, representatives and agents in carrying out the terms of this 2520 East 12th Avenue I North St. Paut, MN 55109 I 651.748.7411 | 651 .748.7413 (fax) | www.isd622.org G7, Attachment 1 Packet Page Number 86 of 200 S⊂hool District 622 NORTH ST. PAUL I MAPLEWOOD I OAKDALE Reodgfortomorrow Agreement and the results thereof to the extent authorized by law and shall not be responsible for the acts or omissions of the other party and the results thereof. It is understood and agreed that each party's liability shall be limited by the provisions of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 466 (Tort Liability, Political Subdivisions) or other applicable law. Nothing contained in this Agreement shall waive or amend, nor shall be construed to waive or amend any defense or immunity that either party, their respective officials and employees, ffioy have under said Chapter 466, or any common-law immunity or limitation of liability, all of which are hereby reserved by the District and the City. 17. Complete Agreement It is understood and agreed that this is the entire agreement between the parties and this Agreement supersedes all oral agreements and negotiations between the parties relating to this subject matter. 18. Amendments This Agreement contains the full understanding and agreement between the parties and may not be amended except in writing agreed to and executed by both parties. If any provision of this Agreement is found invalid by a court or agency, it shall not invalidate any remaining provisions. 19. Data Practices Sharing of data will be done only pursuant to the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act and the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act. Any data shared between the two parties to this Agreement will be maintained in accordance with state and federal law. Because the City and the officer (s) are not employees of the School District, any violation of state or federal law in this regard is the sole responsibility of the City and the officer and each agrees to hold the School District harmless if a claim or action arises because of the City's action or omissions. City shall provide reasonable data privacy training to all SRO's. 20. Discrimination The City and School District agree not to discriminate in providing services under this Agreement on the basis of race, sex, creed, nation origin, age or religion. The parties agree not to discriminate as required by state and federal laws. 2520East l2thAvenue I NorthSt. Paut, MN 55109 | 651.748.7411 I 651 .748.7413 (fax) | www.isd622.org G7, Attachment 1 Packet Page Number 87 of 200 S⊂hool District 622 N0RTH sr. pAUL I vRplewooo I oaroRle Reodg fortomorrow 21. Interpretation This Agreement shall not be construed more strictly against one party than against the other party merely by virtue of the fact that it may have been prepared by counseler for one of the parties, it being recognized that both the City and the School District have contributed substantially and materially to the preparation of this Agreement. 22. Construction The headings of the sections and subsections of this Agreement are for convenience and reference only and do not form a part hereof; and in no way interpret or construe such sections and subsections. Wherever the context requires or permits, the singular shall include the plural, the plural shall include the singular and the masculine, feminine and neuter shall be freely interchangeable. It is agreed that nothing herein contained is intended or should be construed in any manner as creating or establishing the relationship as co-partners, joint venture, or joint enterprise between the parties hereto or as a constituting either party as an agent, representative or employee of the other for any purpose or in any manner whatsoever, excluding any agency relationship that may exist for purposes of educational data practices. 23. Parties in Interest This Agreement shall be binding open upon and inure to the benefit of the parties' respective heirs, representatives, successors, and assignees. This Agreement is for the sole benefit of City and the School District (including a permitted assignee), and no third party is intended to be a beneficiary of or have the right to enforce this Agreement. 24. Lttorney's Fees In the event of litigation between the parties in connection with this Agreement, the prevailing party (i.e. the party whose position is substantially upheld by the court) shall be entitled to recover its reasonable attorney's fees and costs from the non-prevailing party. The obligation in the immediately preceding sentence shall survive any termination of this Agreement or the closing. 25. Definitions If any date herein set forth for the performance of any obligations by the parties or for the delivery of any instrument or notice as herein provided should be on a Saturday, Sunday or legal holiday, the compliance with obligations or delivery shall be deemed acceptable on the next business day following such Saturday, Sunday or legal holiday. As used in this Section, the term イ 2520East l2thAvenue I NorthSt. Paut, MN 55109 | 651.748.7411 | 651 .748.7413 (fax) | www.isd622.org G7, Attachment 1 Packet Page Number 88 of 200 School District 622 NORTH 5T. PAUL I vRpIewoOD I oAKDALE Reodg fortomorrow "legal holiday" means any state or federal holiday for which financial institutions or post offices are generally closed in the State of Minnesota. The term "including" shall mean including, as an example, without limiting the generality of the foregoing. 26. Counterparts This Agreement may be executed in any number of counterparts, each of which shall be deemed to be an original, but all of which together shall constitute one and the same document. A signature page to any counterpart may be detached from such counterpart without impairing the legal effect ofthe signatures thereon and thereafter attached to another counterpart identical thereto except having attached to it additional signature pages. 27. Governing Law This Agreement shall be construed as to both validity and performance enforcement in accordance with and governed by the laws of the State of Minnesota. 28. Heading The headings contained herein are for convenience ofreference only and do not affect, define, describe or limit the scope or intent of this Agreement or any of its provisions. 29. Notices Notice to City provided for herein shall be sufficient if sent by the regular United States Mail, postage prepaid, addressed to City of Maplewood, City Administrator, 1830 County Road B East Maplewood, MN 55109. Notices sent to School District shall be sufficient if sent by the regular United State Mail, postage prepaid, addressed to ISD 622, Atlention, Superintendent, 2520 East l2ftAvenue, North St. Paul, MN 55109. Either party may designate to each other in writing from time to time a different address for notice. 2520 East'l2th Avenue I North St. Paut, MN 55109 | 651.748.7411 | 651.748.7413 (fax) | www.isd622.org G7, Attachment 1 Packet Page Number 89 of 200 S⊂hool District 622 NoRTH sr. pAUL I wlpurwooo I oRroRlr Reodg fortomorrow IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this agreement as of the day and year first written above. City of Maplewood Mayor Date City Administrator Date Independent School District 622 Randy Anderson Director of Business Services Cory Mclntyre, Director of Student Support Services, ISD 622 Date Date 2520 East 12th Avenue I North St. Paut, MN 55109 | 651.748.7411 | 651 .748.7413 (fax) | www.isd622.org G7, Attachment 1 Packet Page Number 90 of 200 J1 MEMORANDUM TO: Melinda Coleman, City Manager FROM: Karen Haag, Director Citizen Services DATE: September 3, 2015 SUBJECT: Approval of an On-Sale Intoxicating Liquor License for ARKAK, LLC – the Tiki Hut, 1820 Rice Street Introduction An application for an On-Sale Intoxicating liquor license was submitted by Andrew Kelbe, owner and manager of ARKAK, LLC – the Tiki Hut (formerly “Freddy’s Tiki Hut”), located at 1820 Rice Street. Background For the purposes of these license applications, a background investigation was conducted Mr. Kelbe. Nothing has been indentified that would prohibit the issuance of this licenses. City staff has met with Mr. Kelbe, and will be making periodic onsite visits to ensure compliance to eliminate the sale of alcoholic beverages to underage persons, and compliance with the City’s code of ordinances. In addition, the applicant has received a copy of the City Code and has familiarized himself with the provisions contained within it. Budget Impact None Recommendation It is recommended that the Council approve an On-Sale Intoxicating Liquor license for ARKAK, LLC – the Tiki Hut, 1820 Rice Street. Packet Page Number 91 of 200 J2 MEMORANDUM TO: Melinda Coleman, City Manager FROM: Karen Haag, Director of Citizen Services Regan Beggs, Business License Specialist DATE: September 09, 2015 SUBJECT: Consider Approval of Amendments to the Ordinance Pertaining to Intoxicating Liquor Served at the Maplewood Community Center and Resolution Establishing a Temporary Liquor Service Permit Fee - First Reading Introduction and Background Chapter 6, Article III, Division 5 pertains to on-sale liquor served at the Maplewood Community Center (MCC) and has been in place since September 26, 1994, shortly before the MCC opened its doors in October of the same year. The ordinance regulates how liquor is served at the MCC, and by whom. Specifically, requirements are in place that any liquor sold at the MCC must be done by a holder of a liquor license, issued by the City of Maplewood. For this reason, current practice requires that any MCC contracted caterer which provides liquor service obtain an annual liquor license. Recently, the MCC has moved away from the RFP process to contract for catering services, and instead will offer an open catering system that allows clientele the freedom to choose their own caterer—provided they are properly licensed to conduct such service. As many competitors in the area still have a preferred list of caterers, allowing the client this freedom will make the MCC a more attractive option when deciding on a facility for their event. With this new direction, staff has reviewed the current ordinance and is proposing amendments that will continue to closely regulate liquor service at the MCC, but will allow caterers providing liquor service the ability to do so without obtaining an annual license from the City. Discussion The proposed ordinance amendment combines sections 6-3116, 6-317, 6-318 of Chapter 6, Article III, Division 5 into one section that addresses the sale of wine, 3.2 percent beer and intoxicating liquor. In addition, amendments have also been proposed to remove language pertaining to the requirement that liquor may only be dispensed by a holder of a retail liquor license issued by the City, and replaces it with language that requires liquor caterers obtain a permit on a per-event basis. Replacing the requirement of an annual license with a per-event permit continues to be in line with State Statute, MN §340A.404 subd.4, allowing a city to authorize a retail on-sale licensee within the city or an adjacent municipality to dispense intoxicating liquor at any convention, banquet, conference, meeting or social affair conducted on the premise of a sports, convention or cultural facility owned by the city without requiring that license holder to obtain an additional license for service at the facility. Packet Page Number 92 of 200 J2 The permit fee for each liquor caterer will be determined by the caterer’s business location.: Caterers based in Maplewood will incur a fee of $50 per event and caterers based in adjacent municipalities will incur a fee of $100 per event. In addition, applicants will be required to provide proof that they hold the appropriate license(s) and liability insurance, and are authorized to provide liquor service at the MCC. Recommendation Staff recommends Council approve the first reading of the amen ded ordinance pertaining to Intoxicating Liquor served at the Maplewood Community Center and Resolution establishing a Temporary Liquor Service permit fee Attachments 1.Amended Ordinance Pertaining to Liquor Served at the Maplewood Community Center 2.Resolution Establishing a Temporary MCC Liquor Service Permit Fee Packet Page Number 93 of 200 DIVISION 5. - MAPLEWOOD COMMUNITY CENTER Sec. 6-316 – Sale of wine, 3.2 percent malt liquor and intoxicating liquor. The City may authorize the holder of an on sale wine, 3.2 percent malt liquor, or intoxicating liquor license issued by the City of Maplewood or a municipality adjacent to the City of Maplewood and will allow the licensee to dispense wine not exceeding 14 percent alcohol by volume, 3.2 percent malt liquor, or intoxicating liquor at any convention, banquet, conference, meeting of social affair conducted on the premises of the Maplewood Community Center. The sale of wine not exceeding 14 percent by volume, 3.2 percent malt liquor, and intoxicating liquor may be served in the Maplewood Community Center under the following conditions: (1) The licensee is engaged to dispense wine, 3.2 percent malt liquor and intoxicating liquor at an event by a person or organization permitted to use the designated room of the Maplewood Community Center. (2) Wine, 3.2 percent malt liquor and intoxicating liquor is dispensed only to persons attending the event in the designated room for which the room was rented and such dispensing is done only in the room which was rented. (3) The licensee shall serve wine, 3.2 percent malt liquor and intoxicating liquor according to this chapter and other city ordinances. (4) The licensee delivers to the city a certificate of insurance providing off-premises liquor liability coverage naming the city, in the amount of statutory limits, as an additional named insured. (5) All parties consuming wine, 3.2 percent malt liquor and intoxicating liquor in the Maplewood Community Center shall be required to conform to state liquor laws and all rules and regulations regulating the serving or consumption of wine, 3.2 percent malt liquor or intoxicating liquor as established by the city. (6) W ine, 3.2 percent malt liquor and intoxicating liquor may only be served until 12:00 midnight on all evenings, Sunday—Saturday. (7) Licensees seeking authorization to dispense wine, 3.2 percent malt liquor, or intoxicating liquor in the Maplewood Community Center shall apply to the city clerk for a per event permit on a form prescribed by the City. (8) Whenever it is determined that a specific event for which the licensee will be providing on-sale wine, 3.2 percent malt liquor, or intoxicating liquor requires special or unique conditions, the City Council may impose such additional conditions. Compliance with these additional conditions shall be a requirement of the permit. Sec. 6-316. - Sale of intoxicating liquors. Intoxicating liquor may be sold in the Maplewood Community Center only under the following conditions: (1) By the holder of a retail on-sale intoxicating liquor license issued by the city. J2, Attachment 1 Packet Page Number 94 of 200 (2) The licensee is engaged to dispense intoxicating liquor at an event by a person or organization permitted to use a designated room in the Maplewood Community Center. (3) Liquor is dispensed only to persons attending the event in the designated, room for which the room was rented and such dispensing is done only in the room which was rented. (4) The licensee delivers to the city a certificate of insurance providing off-premises liquor liability coverage naming the city, to the full extent of statutory coverage, as an additional named insured. (5) All other rules and regulations established by the city relating to the sale or dispensing of intoxicating liquor in the community center are complied with. (6) Beer, wine, and intoxicating liquor may only be served until 12:00 midnight on all evenings, Sunday through Saturday. (Code 1982, § 5-156) Sec. 6-317. - Wine licenses. The sale of wine not exceeding 14 percent alcohol by volume for consumption may be sold in the Maplewood Community Center only under the following conditions: (1) By the holder of an on-sale wine license issued by the city. (2) The licensee is engaged to dispense wine at an event by a person or organization permitted to use the designated room of the Maplewood Community Center. (3) Wine is dispensed only to persons attending the event in the designated room for which the room was rented and such dispensing is done only in the room which was rented. The licensee shall serve wine according to this chapter and other city ordinances. (4) The licensee delivers to the city a certificate of insurance providing off-premises liquor liability coverage naming the city, in the amount of statutory limits, as an additional named insured. (5) All other rules and regulations established by the city relating to the dispensing of wine in the community center are complied with. The hours of service shall be according to this chapter or other city ordinances. (6) Beer, wine, and intoxicating liquor may only be served until 12:00 midnight on all evenings, Sunday—Saturday. (Code 1982, § 5-157) Sec. 6-318. - Wine, 3.2 percent malt liquor and intoxicating liquor. Wine, 3.2 percent malt liquor, and intoxicating liquor may be served in the Maplewood Community Center under the following conditions: (1) If served pursuant to sections 6-316 and 6-317 as stated. (2) Service and consumption of wine, 3.2 percent malt liquor or intoxicating liquor is by the person or organization permitted to use the Maplewood Community Center and the wine, 3.2 percent malt liquor or intoxicating liquor must be provided by the person hosting the activity or event. (3) No compensation of any nature may be exchanged for the 3.2 percent malt liquor, wine or intoxicating liquor. Compensation for purposes of this section includes donations, advanced sales of tickets and tips and the payment of any kind or nature to the host in J2, Attachment 1 Packet Page Number 95 of 200 exchange for the wine, 3.2 percent malt liquor and intoxicating liquor, which may only be served according to the time elements established by this chapter. (4) All parties consuming 3.2 percent malt liquor, wine or intoxicating liquor in the Maplewood Community Center shall be required to conform to all state liquor laws with any and all rules and regulations regulating the serving or consumption of 3.2 percent malt liquor, wine or intoxicating liquor as established by the city. (5) The wine, 3.2 percent malt liquor or intoxicating liquor provided by the person hosting the activity or event must be served by a designated bartender registered with the city. (6) Wine, 3.2 percent malt liquor or intoxicating liquor is dispensed and consumed only to persons attending the event in the designated room for which the room was rented, and such dispensing and consuming is done only in the room which was rented. (Code 1982, § 5-158) J2, Attachment 1 Packet Page Number 96 of 200 RESOLUTION NO ______ BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED, by the City Council of Maplewood, Minnesota, that the fee for a Temporary MCC Liquor Service permit be $50.00 for Maplewood-based providers, and $100.00 for providers from an adjacent municipality. J2, Attachment 2 Packet Page Number 97 of 200 MEMORANDUM TO: Melinda Coleman, City Manager FROM: Michael Martin, AICP, Economic Development Coordinator DATE: September 8, 2015 SUBJECT: Consideration of Vacation of Public Easement, Jack Schwartz, 2105 English Street North Introduction Jack Schwartz is requesting a vacation of a public drainage and utility easement that runs through his property at 2105 English Street. The drainage and utility easement is five feet wide and is north of a 32.5 foot gas pipeline easement. Request Vacate drainage and utility easement on this property, which is located at 2105 English Street. Findings for Approval To vacate an easement, the city council must find that it is in the public interest. Vacations require a four-fifths vote from the city council to approve. Discussion Mr. Schwartz is requesting the city vacate an existing drainage and utility easement that runs under a small portion of the garage on the property he owns at 2105 English Street. The issue with the easement is causing difficulties with Mr. Schwartz’s ability to refinance his mortgage. The Magellan Pipeline Company maintains a 32.5 foot easement across the south boundary of his lot. Magellan has confirmed with the city its’ plans to vacate the portion of their easement that the garage lies over. Commission Actions August 18, 2015: The planning commission reviewed the proposed easement vacation and recommended approval. J3 Packet Page Number 98 of 200 Budget Impact None. Recommendations A. Adopt the resolution vacating the drainage and utility easement, since: 1. It is in the public interest. 2. There are no utilities located in the easement and it is not being utilized. This vacation is conditioned upon the following: 1. The applicant meets all and any conditions within Steve Love’s July 30, 2015 report. Reference Information Site Description Site Size: 0.3 Acres Existing Land Use: Single family home Surrounding Land Uses North: Single family homes South: Single family homes East: Single family homes West: Single family homes Planning Existing Land Use: Low Density Residential Existing Zoning: Single Dwelling (r1) Attachments 1. Drainage and Utility Easement Vacation Resolution 2. Location Map 3. Certificate of Survey 4. Applicant Letter 5. Assistant City Engineer Steve Love’s July 30, 2015 Report 6. Draft Planning Commission Minutes, August 18, 2015 J3 Packet Page Number 99 of 200 EASEMENT VACATION RESOLUTION WHEREAS, Jack Schwartz, applied for the vacation of a five foot wide drainage and utility easement at his property located at 2105 English Street North. The property’s legal description is: Lot 13, Block 4, Hills and Dales WHEREAS, on August 18, 2015, the planning commission held a public hearing. The city staff published a notice in the Maplewood Review and sent a notice to the abutting property owners. The planning commission gave everyone at the hearing a chance to speak and present written statements. The planning commission also considered reports and recommendations from the city staff. The planning commission recommended that the city council _________ this request. WHEREAS, on ______________, 2015, the city council reviewed this request after considering the recommendations of staff and the planning commission. WHEREAS, after the city __________ this vacation, the public interest in the property will go to the adjoining property. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the city council ___________ the above- described vacation because: 1. It is in the public interest. 2. There are no utilities located in the easement and it is not being utilized. This vacation is conditioned upon the following: 1. The applicant meets all and any conditions within Steve Love’s July 30, 2015 report. The Maplewood City Council _______ this resolution on _____________, 2015. J3, Attachment 1 Packet Page Number 100 of 200 Hazelwood Hillside Beaver Lake Parkside Highwood Gladstone Battle Creek Sherwood Glen Vista Hills Kohlman Lake Western Hills Maplewood Heights Carver Ridge Maplewood, City of Maplewood Maplewood, Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, i- cubed, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AEX, Getmapping, Aerogrid, IGN, IGP, swisstopo, and the GIS User Community, City of Maplewood, Esri, HERE, DeLorme, TomTom, MapmyIndia, © OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS user community 2105 English Street - Public Easement Vacation Overview Map J3, Attachment 2 Packet Page Number 101 of 200 碑 衝F OFSURヾ Ey FOR ス劉噺VS R IZ PROPERTY ADDRESS: 為 QttgIF‰馬t"et N。 DESCR:P￢ON: Lot 15, Block 4, HILLS AND DALES Romsey Countyo Minnesoto. … Ⅲ ●Denotes lron monument found O Denotes lron monument set ond morked with RLS No. 47223 LO丁 l N8窃 3θ "E LO丁 ＼ /Vみ 7賢 萱》句%“ Z・ Becrings ore on csstrmed dotum.S89・ 42'47"W 1440 Ande St suib250 SattPall MN 55106 Phone:654‐700‐0412 Fac 654‐760206 cr.cnthoilrrrrffi[GilaE Eflaflt i@mpcso.com ィー♪>漂 轟 讐許M「Ⅲ 率 “一二一“一 SCAttE IN FEET DRAru{ By .@_ p*qrcr NUUBER 359_2001 I hr$y orili. thot thle rmry. plcr or rrp6t ros p.lpdcd by mc c rndr my Ohcct raerfrbo dtd ihot I on o drly LJcaled l.-cd 9rnrc1c trtdr th. lon of thc gtste of M&uoto. J3, Attachment 3 Packet Page Number 102 of 200 Mr. MichaelMartin City of Maplewood 1902 County Road B East Maplewood, MN 55109 Re: Vacating an easement at 2105 English Street, Maplewood, MN 55109 Dear Mr. Martin: My name is Jack (John) Schwartz and I live at 2105 English Street. I have lived here since December of 1985. I am 81 years old and have a variety of medical problems and have lostYz of my retirement income. The application fee is beyond my means to pay. The easement I am asking to have vacated is a 5' utility easement that runs thru my yard and cuts thru part of my garage. I have enclosed a drawing for reference. I don't believe my request impacts any of my neighbors or any utilities. I am trying to remortgage my house on which I presently owe 552,000. I need approval from FHA and they won't cooperate unless the 5' easement is vacated. I will lose my home if I don't get this refina nci ng completed. As I mentioned above, I don't believe the easement has any purpose. The easement may have been here before the house was built. I have spent 51,460 to have a survey done by M&P Civil Engineering and that took most of my resources. On the drawing you will see that there is a pipeline easement also and David Means of Magellan Pipeline visited my home and indicated they will vacate the portion of their easement that cuts through the corner of my garage. Thank you for your consideration of my request. lf you would like to discuss this matter on the phone, please feel free to call me at 651-483-5357. Or, if you would like to view the situation, in person, feel free to come by 2105 English. Sincerely, 恥風 も軌ψttAf John (Jack) Schwartz J3, Attachment 4 Packet Page Number 103 of 200 Engineering Vacation Review PROJECT: 2105 English Street COMMENTS BY: Steven W. Love, Assistant City Engineer DATE: 7-30-2015 The applicant is requesting a vacation of a 5.0 foot wide drainage and utility easement that was dedicated to the public over Lot 13, Block 4, as part of the HILLS AND DALES plat. This property is located at 2105 English Street. The following are engineering review comments for requested vacation: Comments The south 32.5 feet of the property is covered by an existing gas pipeline easement. The 5.0 foot wide drainage and utility easement lies northerly of and adjacent to the gas pipeline easement. The request is being made because the resident is trying to refinance the mortgage on the existing house. A survey was done that shows the small portion of the garage was built over the drainage and utility easement and into the gas pipeline easement (see attached survey). Prior to the title company approving the refinance they are requiring the issue with the garage being within an easement to be cleaned up. Staff spoke with Megellan Pipeline Company and confirmed that Megellan plans to vacate the portion of their easement that the garage lies over. There are no existing public utilities within the 5.0 wide drainage and utility easement. Therefore, it is recommended that the city proceeds with vacating the existing 5.0 foot wide drainage and utility easement over Lot 13, Block 4, as established by the HILLS AND DALES plat. - END COMMENTS - J3, Attachment 5 Packet Page Number 104 of 200 DRAFT MINUTES OF THE MAPLEWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION 1830 COUNTY ROAD B EAST, MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA TUESDAY, AUGUST 18, 2015 5. PUBLIC HEARING a. 7:00 p.m. or later: Consideration of Vacation of Public Easement, Jack Schwartz, 2105 English street North i. Economic Development Coordinator, Michael Martin gave the report on the Consideration of Vacation of Public Easement for Jack Schwartz, 2105 English Street North. ii. The applicant, Jack Schwartz, 2105 English Street North addressed the commission about his request for the Vacation of Public Easement. Acting Chairperson Trippler opened the public hearing. Acting Chairperson Trippler closed the public hearing. Commissioner Ige moved to adopt the resolution vacating the drainage and utility easement, since: 1. It is in the public interest. 2. There are no utilities located in the easement and it is not being utilized. 3. This vacation is conditioned upon the following: 1. The applicant meets all and any conditions within Steve Love’s July 30, 2015 report. Seconded by Commissioner Dahm. Ayes - All The motion passed. This item goes to the city council on September 14, 2015. J3, Attachment 6 Packet Page Number 105 of 200 MEMORANDUM TO: Melinda Coleman, City Manager FROM: Michael Martin, AICP, Economic Development Coordinator DATE: September 8, 2015 SUBJECT: Consideration of Conifer Ridge Apartments, County Road D East, between Hazelwood Street North and Kennard Street A. Comprehensive Plan Amendment (Four Votes Required for Approval) B. Planned Unit Development Revision C. Public Easement Vacations D. Lot Division E. Design Review Introduction Project Description Peter Stalland of Conifer Ridge Apartments, LLC is proposing to build three, three-story 50-unit apartment buildings on the north end of the Legacy Village development. According to the developer, the 150 units will be upscale, market rate residential apartment units with underground parking with each building. Request The applicant is requesting the city council approve a comprehensive plan amendment, a revision to the planned unit development (PUD), vacation of two storm sewer easements, a lot division and design review. Background July 14, 2003: The city council approved the Legacy Village PUD, comprehensive plan amendment, tax-abatement plan and preliminary plat for Legacy Village. September 8, 2003: The city council approved the final plat for Legacy Village. October 23, 2006: The city council approved a preliminary plat for townhomes on this site. The plat consisted of 91 lots. The plat was never finalized or recorded. J4 Packet Page Number 106 of 200 Legacy Village Development History Since the council approved the Legacy Village PUD, the following projects have been approved or built: • Heritage Square Townhomes (220 units) • Heritage Square 2nd Addition (81 units) • Wyngate Townhomes (50 units) • The Seasons Seniors Apartment (150 units) • Ashley Furniture (completed) • Kennard Professional Building (completed) • Maplewood Legacy Park (completed) • Ramsey County Library (completed) • Legacy Shoppes Retail (pending) Discussion Comprehensive Plan Amendment Compatibility of Uses The proposed land use plan change from medium density residential (6.1 to 10.0 units per net acre) to high density residential (10.1 to 25.0 units per net acre) is compatible with the surrounding areas. The original 2003 approval, slated this site for 96 townhome units and an office building to be located on 1.5 acres in the northeast corner of the site. While the office site fits the original “mixed-use” concept of the Legacy Village PUD, development of this use has yet to be proposed since the 2003 approval. In 2006, the city council approved a 91-unit preliminary plat for townhomes but that developer left the project and final plat was never approved. The proposed use of market-rate apartment buildings provides an additional housing choice to Legacy Villages while maintaining densities consistent with the rest of the area and clustering development to preserve a large percentage of the site’s natural features. Graphic – 1 2006 – City Council approved preliminary plat, above J4 Packet Page Number 107 of 200 Density This site is 12.5 acres, of which 11.2 acres are considered developable. For 150 units, the net density of this site would be 13.4 units per acre (UPA). This density is consistent with nearby development. In addition, Sec. 44-300(1) of the city’s zoning ordinance provides density credits for underground parking. The net acreage for calculating density is allowed to be increased by 300 square feet for each parking space that is provided under the principal use structure. With 150 underground spaces being provided, 45,000 square feet can be added to the site’s net acreage. This would technically put the developable area for this site at 12.2 acres with a net density of 12.3 UPA. Displayed in the table below are densities for surrounding housing developments – for comparison purposes no density credits have been factored in. A map illustrating this table has also been attached to this report. Table – 1 Residential Plat Name Units Net Acres UPA (Density) *Cardinal Pointe 108 6.4 16.8 *Mapleridge Apts 100 4.9 20.2 *Emerald Townhomes 12 1.2 10.1 *Pineview Estates 72 5.7 12.6 PROPOSED Conifer Ridge 150 11.2 13.4 Cottages at Legacy 33 4.2 7.9 Heritage Square 220 16.2 13.6 Seasons Senior 150 3.0 50.8 Heritage Square II 131 10.3 12.7 LEGACY VILLAGE TOTAL 534 33.6 15.9 AREA TOTAL 976 63.0 15.5 *Indicates non-Legacy Village development Land Use Plan Change Summary In consideration of the compatibility of uses with the proposed change and with the little affect on the overall density, staff supports the proposed comprehensive plan revision. Planned Unit Development Revision Past Proposals As stated, the original 2003 PUD approval slated this site for 96 townhome units and an office building to be located on 1.5 acres in the northeast corner of the site. The closest this approved concept came to moving forward was in 2006 when a preliminary plat was approved by the city council. Since 2006, no official applications have been made regarding this site until now. In 2008, the original developer brought before the planning commission and city council for discussion a revised concept for this site which included: • A four-story, 113-room hotel • A three-story, 49 unit multi-family housing structure (rental or ownership not defined) J4 Packet Page Number 108 of 200 • An 18-unit townhome project • A 15,500-square-foot day care facility This concept was never forwarded for official city review. In 2013, a different developer brought before the planning commission for discussion the idea of developing workforce housing on this site. Again this concept was never submitted for official city review. Impacts on Neighboring Property Values Many of the neighborhood responses regarding this project were concerned about a negative impact on surrounding property values. Staff contacted Stephen Baker Ramsey County’s Assessor for a response. Mr. Baker had his residential appraiser Thomas Larson review this proposed project. Mr. Larson’s comments are below. The properties adjacent to the proposed Conifer Ridge Apartments are all detached townhouses or attached townhouse style condominiums. In the area of the study, there is external obsolescence from the nearby commercial properties, highway noise and overhead power lines. The proposed construction appears to be similar in usage to existing, in that it is higher density residential, and similar in construction grade to what already exists in the area. While it is impossible to predict with complete accuracy whether construction of upscale, market rent apartments will impact valuation of existing properties, we can note examples that have already occurred in the past. An example that the Maplewood city planner is likely already aware of is the Beaver Lake Townhomes project located just east of Beaver Lake. This project was built prior to the (residential) pullback that started in 2007. Prior to completion of this phased project, the developer asked the city for a variance that allowed for the construction of upscale rentals on the remaining, unbuilt sites. At the time, townhomes owners objected that it would have a detrimental impact on their valuations, especially in light of the fact that the proposed apartments would block the view of Beaver Lake for some of the townhomes owners. A review of the recent sales in the Beaver Lake Townhomes project shows that values have declined approximately 15-20% from prior to construction of the apartments to the present, which is similar to the loss in value for the market in general during this time period. Townhomes and condo units near the proposed Conifer Ridge Apts., where no apartments have been yet constructed have realized a similar loss in value over that same time period. In this case, the apartment construction near the Beaver Lake Townhomes project appears to have had very little impact on the valuation of existing property. Ordinance Review 1. Storage Space: Ordinance requires a minimum indoor storage space of 120 cubic feet per unit. The applicant’s plans have indicated the three underground parking garages will each have 20 storage units that will be at least 5 feet by 5 feet – each unit would be approximately 200 cubic feet in size. Staff would encourage the applicant to reconfigure the storage space areas of each building to maximize the number of units that would have access to these spaces. J4 Packet Page Number 109 of 200 2. Visitor Parking: Ordinance requires a minimum parking requirement of two parking spaces per unit, with half being covered spaces. The applicant’s plans meet this requirement. However, while city ordinance does not have any requirements for visitor parking previous Legacy Village PUD approvals have required one visitor parking space for every two units. The applicant submitted a letter on August 28, 2015, following the planning commission and community design review board meetings, stating the city’s multi-family parking ordinance provides enough parking for his project and additional parking should not be required. Staff concedes 75 spaces of visitor parking likely exceeds what this project requires but would like to see the applicant at lease submit an option for proof of parking in case visitor parking becomes an issue for this site in the coming years. 3. Unit Sizes: In the applicant’s letter, he states that each building would have 29 two- bedroom units, 20 one-bedroom units and one studio unit. The two- and one-bedroom units meet city ordinance for minimum unit size. The proposed studio unit would be 544 square feet where ordinance requires minimum unit sizes of 580 square feet for efficiency or one- bedroom units. It is recommended that studio units be at least 580 square feet in size. A planned unit development allows the city council to approve flexibility from the requirements above. Planned Unit Development Revision Summary Staff does not have any overall concerns with the proposed PUD revision to approve the site for three apartment buildings. The PUD conditions for the townhomes and office/clubhouse must be revised, however, if the council approves the change to apartment buildings for this site. Public Easement Vacations The applicant is requesting approval to vacate two existing storm sewer easements. These two easements were aligned to support the 2003 and 2006 approvals. Unless the exact 2003 or 2006 townhome concept was built on this site, vacations are likely needed regardless of what is developed on this site. The developer would dedicate new storm sewer easements to support this development. See the attached engineer’s report for more information. Lot Division The applicant is requesting the property be divided in three to create a parcel for each building. The proposed lot division does not create any issues with the city’s comprehensive plan or zoning ordinance. The two parcels containing the buildings accessed from Hazelwood Street will require cross access easements. Design Review Architectural The proposed apartment buildings would be attractively designed but staff would like to see more effort put into matching some of the design elements found elsewhere in Legacy Village. The applicant’s plans propose the use of cement board lap siding for the upper two floors and board and batten cement board for the lower floor. Staff would recommend the applicant add brick or stone into the elevations to match design elements found in the nearby townhomes. In J4 Packet Page Number 110 of 200 addition, some type of architectural feature should be added to the gable areas on the buildings’ third level. Building Setbacks The proposed building setbacks meet city ordinance requirements but are not consistent with the reduced-setback concept approved for the rest of Legacy Village. However, density and massing has been a stated neighborhood concern regarding this development and pushing the development away from the front property lines will help alleviate this issue. In addition, the applicant worked with the natural features of the site, including meeting the minimum setback requirements from the wetlands on site, so this worked to dictate building placement. After the planning commission meeting the applicant revised the site plan to push the parking lots and buildings near the south lot line 10 feet north to provide additional setback. The two buildings on the south end of the site will be approximately 290 feet away from the nearest residential structure. The building on east side of the site would be setback approximately 190 feet from the nearest residential structure. Graphic – 2 Sidewalks The existing sidewalks along Hazelwood Street, Kennard Street and County Road D East are to remain in place. As would the trail along the south property line of the site. Wetland Setbacks In an effort to protect the natural features located on the site, the applicant has designed the site with full wetland setbacks instead of averaging the setback dimensions which is permitted by city code. There is a Manage A and a Manage B wetland located on the northern end of the property. According to the city’s wetland ordinance Manage A wetlands require, at minimum, a 100 foot setback from any structure and Manage B wetlands require, at minimum, a 75 foot 2015 – Proposed site plan, above J4 Packet Page Number 111 of 200 setback from any structure. According to the applicant’s plan the site meets all required minimum setbacks. For more information regarding the wetland setbacks please refer to Shann Finwall’s environmental report, dated September 8, 2015, attached to this report. Soils During previous reviews of this site a stated neighborhood concern was that there were poor soils on this property. Determining soil quality for construction is a function of the building department’s review when permits are applied for. The provision of a detailed soils analysis should be provided to the building official prior to construction beginning on this project. If poor soils are found for construction, corrective measures must be taken or the site plan must be revised regarding building and possibly driveway placement. Landscaping In order to be consistent with the original 2003 Legacy Village approvals, overstory trees must be planted along the west side of Kennard Street and the east side of Hazelwood Street at an average of 30’-40’ on center. In addition, screening, either with a fence or landscaping, must be provided between the parking lots and the adjacent property lines. The ordinance requires screening to be at least 6 feet tall and 80 percent opaque and landscape screening can be done with a mixture of berming and vegetation. The landscape plan calls for 148 replacement trees, 900 native screening and foundation plants, and several other non-native shrubs that don’t count toward the tree replacement requirement. Overall, the applicant is replacing 895 caliper inches of trees on the site, with 694.30 caliper inches of replacement trees remaining. To mitigate the trees further, the applicant has agreed to remove all of the buckthorn from the site and pay for the management of that buckthorn over a three-year period. Department Comments Engineering Please see Jon Jarosch’s engineering report, dated August 10, 2015, attached to this report. Environmental Please see Shann Finwall’s environmental report, dated September 8, 2015, attached to this report. Building Official, Nick Carver Applicant must meet all Minnesota State Building Code requirements. Fire Department, Fire Marshall Butch Gervais Fire protection and alarm system will be required and the alarm system would be required to be monitored. Fire Department Lockbox would be required. Fire Department access road would be needed and can be a discussion issue when it gets to the permitting of the parking lots. J4 Packet Page Number 112 of 200 Police Department, Chief Paul Schnell No issues Parks Department, Jim Taylor This project falls into the apartments with 5+ units category, meaning it does not matter on a bedroom mix. Therefore the park availability charge for this development would be as follows: 150 Units X $1,980.00 = $297,000 Commission Review August 18, 2015: The planning commission reviewed this project and recommended approval. The planning commission did recommend the development’s three studio apartment units meet the city’s minimum square foot requirements. August 25, 2015: The community design review board reviewed this project and recommended approval. The board did recommend brick or stone elements be added to the building and the applicant should work with staff to address visitor parking. Budget Impact None. Recommendations A. Adopt the resolution approving the comprehensive land use plan amendment from MDR (medium density residential) to HDR (high density residential) for the 12.5-acre parcel in Legacy Village. Approval is based on the following reasons: 1. The proposed development is compatible in density and in character with the adjacent residential developments. 2. A goal of the Maplewood 2030 Comprehensive Plan is to strive for a variety of housing types for people of all stages of the life cycle. This action is subject to the approval of a comprehensive plan amendment by the Metropolitan Council. B. Adopt the resolution approving a revision to the Legacy Village planned unit development as it relates to the previously-approved rental townhomes and executive-office suites and clubhouse sites. Approval of this revision is based on the findings required by the ordinance and subject to the following conditions (additions are underlined and deletions are crossed out): 1. The development shall follow the plans date-stamped May 11, 2006 September 8, 2015, except where the city requires changes. The director of community J4 Packet Page Number 113 of 200 development environmental and economic development may approve minor changes. 2. The proposed construction must be substantially started within one year of council approval or the permit shall end. The council may extend this deadline for one year. 3. The city council shall review this permit in one year. 4. The applicant shall comply with the requirements in the engineer’s report dated June 1, 2006 August 10, 2015 and the environmental report dated September 8, 2015. 5. The applicant shall provide a copy of the homeowner’s association documents to staff for approval. 5. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the applicant must contribute $20,000 to the city’s tree preservation fund in order to comply with city ordinance. 6. The following changes are hereby made to the approved PUD conditions: Rental Townhomes and Office/Clubhouse Apartments: a. The project will be constructed according to the plans from Hartford Group dated 6/2/03 dated September 8, 2015 in all details, except as specifically modified by these conditions; b. A sidewalk will be provided continuously on the north or west side of Street A between Kennard Street and Hazelwood Drive, including the segment between the office/clubhouse parking lot and townhome buildings 11 and 12; c. Sidewalk connections will be added connecting the power line trail to the curb of Street A opposite townhome buildings 6 and 8; d. The sidewalks serving the fronts of townhome buildings 13, 16, 17, 18, 19, and 20 will be extended south to connect with the power line trail; e. Street B and Street C serving the townhomes will be constructed in their entirety with the townhomes, regardless of the status of the multi-family and commercial parcels to the east; f. Parking spaces will be provided at the ends of the driveways at the rear of buildings 1, 2, 3, 4; 13/14; 15/16; 17/18; 19/20; 21/22; 23/24; 25/26. Sidewalks will be provided from those parking spaces to the front sidewalks of each building; g. The infiltration trenches on the south sides of buildings 13/14, 15/16, and 19/20 will be modified to accommodate a revised alignment for the power line trail, provided that reasonable grades are provided for the trail and any sidewalks connecting to it, and approval of the city engineer concerning the size and function of the trenches; h. A 6’-wide sidewalk should be provided if at all possible on the south side of County Road D for the entire length of the project from Hazelwood Drive to J4 Packet Page Number 114 of 200 Southlawn Drive, through continued discussion between the city and Hartford, focusing on exact sidewalk width, location, and right-of-way needs for turn lanes and other features of the County Road D project; i. A sidewalk will be provided on the south side of County Road D and sidewalks will be provided out to that sidewalk from the north side of buildings 1, 4, 21, 22, 23, 24, and 25, as well as to the clubhouse front entry and the clubhouse parking lot; j. The grades of the power line trail and all sidewalks will meet ADA guidelines for slope; b. Overstory trees will be planted along Hazelwood Street and Kennard Street at an average of 30’-40’ on center instead of the average 70’ spacing shown on the plans; c. Overstory trees will be planted along both sides of Street B and on the west side of Street C at an average of 30’-40’ on center instead of the sometimes 100’ spacing shown on the plans, such additional tree islands to be coordinated with modified parking bays that might be added to this street; d. Overstory trees will be planted along both sides of Kennard Street in front of the townhomes at an average of 30’-40’ on center instead of the average 50’-80’ spacing shown on the plans; e. The curve in the middle of Street A opposite buildings 10 and 12 will be flattened as much as possible to limit headlights aimed into the front of the units; f. Front building setbacks (clubhouse and buildings 1, 4, 5, 14, 15, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, and 26) to Hazelwood Drive, Kennard Street, and County Road D that are less than required by the Zoning Code are specifically approved within this PUD as shown on the site plan, down to a minimum of 5’ for the clubhouse and 15’ for the townhome buildings, in order to enhance the urban character of the streets and intersections; g. Side yard building setbacks for all buildings that are less than required by the Zoning Code are specifically approved within this PUD as shown on the site plan; c. Visitor parking spaces for the rental townhomes apartments will be added or modified as follows: i. Parking spaces or proof of parking spaces will be added so there is a total of at least 48 spaces on the west side of Kennard and at least 51 spaces on the east side of Kennard, such that the front door of no unit is more than 200 feet from a group of at least 5 spaces 40 spaces to serve all three buildings. ii. Street A will be widened to 26’ curb-to-curb and on-street parallel parking will be added along the north and west sides of the street except for within 100’ of the pavement of Hazelwood Drive and Kennard Street. J4 Packet Page Number 115 of 200 iii. The private drive immediately south of buildings 2 and 3 will be widened to 26’ curb-to-curb and on-street parallel parking will be added along the north side of the drive. iv. Parking areas will be added behind buildings 1 and 4 where the driveway abuts the ponding area, consistent with the recommendation of the city engineer on providing adequate grading and functioning of the pond. v. Parking areas will be added behind buildings 15/16, 19/20, 21/22, and 25/26 to meet the parking and distance criteria cited here. vi. Street B will be widened to 26’ curb-to-curb and parallel parking will be added along the north and west sides of the street, or additional angled parking will be added to meet the criteria for parking spaces cited here. d. The parking lot for the clubhouse/office building will be modified to add “proof of parking” spaces in the green area north and east of the swimming pool, for a total of 91 spaces possible in the lot. Such spaces will only be constructed if the owner believes they are needed, or if they are needed in the future to address parking problems at the building in the opinion of the community development director, who can order the spaces to be constructed. Such spaces will maintain a sidewalk connection between the swimming pool and clubhouse building in an island in the middle of the parking bays as shown on the plans; d. The storage space areas of each building shall be reconfigured to allow as many units as possible to have at least 120 cubic feet for storage. e. One studio apartment is allowed in each building with a minimum floor area of 580 square feet. f. An easement over the power line trail on this parcel will be provided to the city for access and maintenance. C. Adopt the resolution vacating two storm sewer easements on this site, since: 1. The easements would serve no public purpose after the applicant redevelops the property into Conifer Ridge. This vacation is conditioned upon the following: 1. Provide the city with legal descriptions of the easement areas to be vacated and for the new areas to be dedicated for storm sewer purposes. 2. The applicant meets all and any conditions within Jon Jarosch’s August 10, 2015 report. D. Approve the lot division for Conifer Ridge, subject to the following conditions: 1. The applicant shall comply with the requirements in the city’s engineering report dated August 10, 2015. J4 Packet Page Number 116 of 200 2. The applicant shall sign a developer’s agreement with the city engineer before the issuance of a grading permit. 3. The applicant shall dedicate any easements and provide any written agreements that the city engineer may require as part of this lot division. 4. The applicant shall pay the city escrow for any documents, easements and agreements that the city engineer may require. 5. A cross access easement agreement shall be submitted to city staff covering the two parcels accessed from Hazelwood Street. E. Approve the plans date-stamped September 8, 2015, for the Conifer Ridge apartment development. Approval is subject to the developer complying with the following conditions: 1. Obtain city council approval of a comprehensive land use plan amendment from MDR (medium density residential) to HDR (high density residential) to build apartments on this site. 2. Obtain city council approval of a revision to the previously-approved planned unit development for this project. 3. Obtain city council approval of the lot division for this project. 4. All requirements of the fire marshal and building official must be met. 5. The applicant shall obtain all required permits from the Ramsey-Washington Metro Watershed District. 6. All driveways and parking lots shall have continuous concrete curbing. 7. All requirements of the city engineer, or his consultants working for the city, shall be met regarding grading, drainage, erosion control, utilities and the dedication of any easements found to be needed. All conditions of the Maplewood engineering report dated August 10, 2015 must be complied with. 8. Repeat this review in two years if the city has not issued a building permit for this project by that time. 9. Any identification signs for the project must meet the requirements of the city sign ordinance and the PUD approval. 10. The setbacks are approved as proposed. 11. The applicant shall: • Install reflectorized stop signs at all driveway connections to Hazelwood Street and Kennard Street. • Install and maintain an in-ground lawn irrigation system for all landscaped areas. J4 Packet Page Number 117 of 200 • Install all required trails, sidewalks and carriage walks. • Install any traffic signage within the site that may be required by staff. • Provide a revised landscaping plan for staff approval which include the required overstory trees along Hazelwood Street and Kennard Street and detailing how screening requirements are being met for the parking lots facing residential areas. • Provide revised building elevations for staff approval incorporating design elements at the foundation and first floor level of brick or stone into the buildings and adding architectural features to the gable areas of the buildings. • Provide a screening plan to staff for approval for any visible utility meters on the outside of the building. • Provide a detailed soils analysis to the building official and city engineer prior to applying for building permits to ensure that there is proper soil stability for construction. • The applicant will provide two additional quotes for buckthorn removal to be done by a licensed contractor with a licensed herbicide applicator. If chemicals are used it should be done by a licensed herbicide applicator through the Department of Agriculture. 12. The applicant shall ensure that site lights do not exceed a .4-foot-candle spillover at all property lines. 13. The applicant shall provide the city with cash escrow or an irrevocable letter of credit for the exterior landscaping and site improvements prior to getting a building permit for the development. Staff shall determine the dollar amount of the escrow. 14. All work shall follow the approved plans. The director of environmental and economic development may approve minor changes. 15. The applicant shall work with staff to maximize the amount of additional parking to be shown on the site plan. Citizen Comments Staff surveyed the 407 surrounding property owners within 500 feet of the proposed site for their opinion about this proposal. Staff received 78 responses – 67 against, 7 had comments, 2 were for and 2 had no comments. All neighborhood comments are included as an attachment to this report. Below is a summary of the areas of concerns gathered from the responses. Citizen Comment Trends • Loss of green space/natural area-46 mentions • Traffic Concerns- 35 mentions • Property Value Decrease Concerns-31 mentions J4 Packet Page Number 118 of 200 • Density/Over Crowding Concerns- 22 mentions • Emphasis on Homeowners-17 mentions • Safety/Crime Concerns - 13 mentions • Changes Area’s Character-11 mentions • Rental Concerns-9 mentions • Run-off/Storm water concerns- 6 mentions • Market saturation-5 mentions • Change in placement of parking spaces-5 mentions • Disruptions-4 mentions • Overdevelopment- 4 mentions • Design Concerns-3 mentions • Environmental Impacts (includes comments about trash)-3 mentions • Need for Community Space-1 mention • Privacy-1 • Lighting-1 Reference Information Site Description Site Size: 12.5 Acres Existing Land Use: Vacant Land Surrounding Land Uses North: County Road D/ Townhomes of Pineview and a Stormwater Pond South: Heritage Square East: Heritage Square II West: Vacant Commercial land Planning Existing Land Use: Medium Density Residential Existing Zoning: Planned Unit Development (PUD) Application Date The city deemed the applicant’s applications complete on August 3, 2015. The 60-day review deadline for a decision is October 2, 2015. As stated in Minnesota State Statute 15.99, the city is allowed to take an additional 60 days if necessary in order to complete the review of the application. J4 Packet Page Number 119 of 200 Attachments 1. Comprehensive Plan Amendment Resolution 2. Planned Unit Development Revision Resolution 3. Public Easements Vacation Resolution 4. Location Map 5. Land Use Map 6. Zoning Map 7. Neighborhood Density Map 8. 2003 Legacy Village Concept Plan 9. 2006 Approved Plat Plan 10. Site Plan 11. Landscape Plan 12. Building Elevations 13. Applicant’s Narrative (three letters) 14. Applicant’s Engineer’s Cover Letter 15. Jon Jarosch, engineering comments, dated August 10, 2015 16. Shann Finwall, environmental comments, dated September 8, 2015 17. Neighborhood Comments 18. Article on Rental Properties and Home Values, submitted by resident 19. Draft planning commission minutes, August 18, 2015 20. Draft community design review board minutes, August 25, 2015 21. Applicant’s plan set (separate attachment) 22. Address map (separate attachment) J4 Packet Page Number 120 of 200 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT RESOLUTION WHEREAS, Peter Stalland of Conifer Ridge Apartments, LLC, has requested a change to the City of Maplewood’s land use plan from MDR (medium density residential) to HDR (high density residential) for his proposed apartment complex. WHEREAS, this permit applies to the 12.5-acre site in Legacy Village lying south of County Road D East between Hazelwood Street and Kennard Street. The property’s legal description is: Lot 1 Block 1, Legacy Village of Maplewood WHEREAS, the history of this change is as follows: 1. On August 18, 2015, the planning commission held a public hearing. The city staff published a hearing notice in the Maplewood Review and sent notices to the surrounding property owners. The planning commission gave everyone at the hearing a chance to speak and present written statements. The planning commission recommended that the city council _________ the land use plan change. 2. On September 14, 2015 the city council discussed the land use plan change. They considered reports and recommendations from the planning commission and city staff. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the city council ___________ the above described change for the following reasons: 1. The proposed development is compatible in density and in character with the adjacent residential developments. 2. A goal of the Maplewood 2030 Comprehensive Plan is to strive for a variety of housing types for people of all stages of the life cycle. This action is subject to the approval of this land use plan amendment by the Metropolitan Council. The Maplewood City Council _________ this resolution on September 14, 2015. J4, Attachment 1 Packet Page Number 121 of 200 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REVISION RESOLUTION FOR A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT WHEREAS, Peter Stalland of Conifer Ridge Apartments, LLC applied for a conditional use permit to revise the Legacy Village planned unit development by eliminating the use of a 1.5 -acre commercial building site and 11-acre townhomes development and propose instead an apartment complex. WHEREAS, this permit applies to the 12.5-acre site in Legacy Village lying south of County Road D East between Hazelwood Street and Kennard Street. The legal description is: Lot 1 Block 1, Legacy Village of Maplewood WHEREAS, the history of this conditional use permit is as follows: 1. On August 18, 2015, the planning commission held a public hearing. The city staff published a hearing notice in the Maplewood Review and sent notices to the surrounding property owners. The planning commission gave everyone at the hearing a chance to speak and present written statements. The planning commission recommended that the city council _________ the land use plan change. 2. On September 14, 2015 the city council discussed the conditional use permit revision. They considered reports and recommendations from the planning commission and city staff. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the city council __________ the above- described conditional use permit revision because: 1. The use would be located, designed, maintained, constructed and operated to be in conformity with the City’s Comprehensive Plan and Code of Ordinances. 2. The use would not change the existing or planned character of the surrounding area. 3. The use would not depreciate property values. 4. The use would not involve any activity, process, materials, equipment or methods of operation that would be dangerous, hazardous, detrimental, disturbing or cause a nuisance to any person or property, because of excessive noise, glare, smoke, dust, odor, fumes, water or air pollution, drainage, water run-off, vibration, general unsightliness, electrical interference or other nuisances. 5. The use would not exceed the design standards of any affected street. 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. J4, Attachment 2 Packet Page Number 122 of 200 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 (additions are underlined and deletions are crossed out): 1. The development shall follow the plans date-stamped May 11, 2006 September 8, 2015, except where the city requires changes. The director of community development environmental and economic development may approve minor changes. 2. The proposed construction must be substantially started within one year of council approval or the permit shall end. The council may extend this deadline for one year. 3. The city council shall review this permit in one year. 4. The applicant shall comply with the requirements in the engineer’s report dated June 1, 2006 August 10, 2015 and the environmental report dated September 8, 2015. 5. The applicant shall provide a copy of the homeowner’s association documents to staff for approval. 5. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the applicant must contribute $20,000 to the city’s tree preservation fund in order to comply with city ordinance. 6. The following changes are hereby made to the approved PUD conditions: Rental Townhomes and Office/Clubhouse Apartments: a. The project will be constructed according to the plans from Hartford Group dated 6/2/03 dated September 8, 2015 in all details, except as specifically modified by these conditions; b. A sidewalk will be provided continuously on the north or west side of Street A between Kennard Street and Hazelwood Drive, including the segment between the office/clubhouse parking lot and townhome buildings 11 and 12; c. Sidewalk connections will be added connecting the power line trail to the curb of Street A opposite townhome buildings 6 and 8; d. The sidewalks serving the fronts of townhome buildings 13, 16, 17, 18, 19, and 20 will be extended south to connect with the power line trail; e. Street B and Street C serving the townhomes will be constructed in their entirety with the townhomes, regardless of the status of the multi-family and commercial parcels to the east; J4, Attachment 2 Packet Page Number 123 of 200 f. Parking spaces will be provided at the ends of the driveways at the rear of buildings 1, 2, 3, 4; 13/14; 15/16; 17/18; 19/20; 21/22; 23/24; 25/26. Sidewalks will be provided from those parking spaces to the front sidewalks of each building; g. The infiltration trenches on the south sides of buildings 13/14, 15/16, and 19/20 will be modified to accommodate a revised alignment for the power line trail, provided that reasonable grades are provided for the trail and any sidewalks connecting to it, and approval of the city engineer concerning the size and function of the trenches; h. A 6’-wide sidewalk should be provided if at all possible on the south side of County Road D for the entire length of the project from Hazelwood Drive to Southlawn Drive, through continued discussion between the city and Hartford, focusing on exact sidewalk width, location, and right-of-way needs for turn lanes and other features of the County Road D project; i. A sidewalk will be provided on the south side of County Road D and sidewalks will be provided out to that sidewalk from the north side of buildings 1, 4, 21, 22, 23, 24, and 25, as well as to the clubhouse front entry and the clubhouse parking lot; j. The grades of the power line trail and all sidewalks will meet ADA guidelines for slope; b. Overstory trees will be planted along Hazelwood Street and Kennard Street at an average of 30’-40’ on center instead of the average 70’ spacing shown on the plans; c. Overstory trees will be planted along both sides of Street B and on the west side of Street C at an average of 30’-40’ on center instead of the sometimes 100’ spacing shown on the plans, such additional tree islands to be coordinated with modified parking bays that might be added to this street; d. Overstory trees will be planted along both sides of Kennard Street in front of the townhomes at an average of 30’-40’ on center instead of the average 50’-80’ spacing shown on the plans; e. The curve in the middle of Street A opposite buildings 10 and 12 will be flattened as much as possible to limit headlights aimed into the front of the units; f. Front building setbacks (clubhouse and buildings 1, 4, 5, 14, 15, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, and 26) to Hazelwood Drive, Kennard Street, and County Road D that are less than required by the Zoning Code are specifically approved within this PUD as shown on the site plan, down to a minimum of 5’ for the clubhouse and 15’ for the townhome buildings, in order to enhance the urban character of the streets and intersections; g. Side yard building setbacks for all buildings that are less than required by the Zoning Code are specifically approved within this PUD as shown on the site plan; J4, Attachment 2 Packet Page Number 124 of 200 c. Visitor parking spaces for the rental townhomes apartments will be added or modified as follows: i. Parking spaces or proof of parking spaces will be added so there is a total of at least 48 spaces on the west side of Kennard and at least 51 spaces on the east side of Kennard, such that the front door of no unit is more than 200 feet from a group of at least 5 spaces 40 spaces to serve all three buildings. ii. Street A will be widened to 26’ curb-to-curb and on-street parallel parking will be added along the north and west sides of the street except for within 100’ of the pavement of Hazelwood Drive and Kennard Street. iii. The private drive immediately south of buildings 2 and 3 will be widened to 26’ curb-to-curb and on-street parallel parking will be added along the north side of the drive. iv. Parking areas will be added behind buildings 1 and 4 where the driveway abuts the ponding area, consistent with the recommendation of the city engineer on providing adequate grading and functioning of the pond. v. Parking areas will be added behind buildings 15/16, 19/20, 21/22, and 25/26 to meet the parking and distance criteria cited here. vi. Street B will be widened to 26’ curb-to-curb and parallel parking will be added along the north and west sides of the street, or additional angled parking will be added to meet the criteria for parking spaces cited here. d. The parking lot for the clubhouse/office building will be modified to add “proof of parking” spaces in the green area north and east of the swimming pool, for a total of 91 spaces possible in the lot. Such spaces will only be constructed if the owner believes they are needed, or if they are needed in the future to address parking problems at the building in the opinion of the community development director, who can order the spaces to be constructed. Such spaces will maintain a sidewalk connection between the swimming pool and clubhouse building in an island in the middle of the parking bays as shown on the plans; d. The storage space areas of each building shall be reconfigured to allow as many units as possible to have at least 120 cubic feet for storage. e. One studio apartment is allowed in each building with a minimum floor area of 580 square feet. f. An easement over the power line trail on this parcel will be provided to the city for access and maintenance. The Maplewood City Council __________ this resolution on September 14, 2015. J4, Attachment 2 Packet Page Number 125 of 200 PUBLIC EASEMENT VACATIONS RESOLUTION WHEREAS, Peter Stalland of Conifer Ridge Apartments, LLC applied for the vacation of two existing storm sewer easements. WHEREAS, this request applies to the 12.5-acre site in Legacy Village lying south of County Road D East between Hazelwood Street and Kennard Street. The legal description is: Lot 1 Block 1, Legacy Village of Maplewood WHEREAS, the history of this vacation is as follows: 1. On August 18, 2015, the planning commission held a public hearing. The city staff published a hearing notice in the Maplewood Review and sent notices to the surrounding property owners. The planning commission gave everyone at the hearing a chance to speak and present written statements. The planning commission recommended that the city council _________ the land use plan change. 2. On September 14, 2015 the city council discussed the public easement vacations. They considered reports and recommendations from the planning commission and city staff. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the city council ______ the above- described vacations for the following reasons: 1. The easements would serve no public purpose after the applicant redevelops the property into Conifer Ridge. This vacation is subject to: 1. Provide the city with legal descriptions of the easement areas to be vacated and for the new areas to be dedicated for storm sewer purposes. 2. The applicant meets all and any conditions within Jon Jarosch’s August 10, 2015 report. The Maplewood City Council __________ this resolution on September 14, 2015. J4, Attachment 3 Packet Page Number 126 of 200 Hazelwood Hillside Beaver Lake Parkside Highwood Gladstone Battle Creek Sherwood Glen Vista Hills Kohlman Lake Western Hills Maplewood Heights Carver Ridge Maplewood, City of Maplewood Maplewood, Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, i- cubed, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AEX, Getmapping, Aerogrid, IGN, IGP, swisstopo, and the GIS User Community Conifer Ridge Apartments Project Review - Overview Map J4, Attachment 4 Packet Page Number 127 of 200 Maplewood, Esri, HERE, DeLorme, TomTom, MapmyIndia, © OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS user community Conifer Ridge Apartments Project Review - Land Use Map Legend Medium Density Residential High Density Residential Industrial Park Commercial J4, Attachment 5 Packet Page Number 128 of 200 Sources: Esri, HERE, DeLorme, TomTom, Intermap, increment P Corp., GEBCO, USGS, FAO, NPS, NRCAN, GeoBase, IGN, Kadaster NL, Ordnance Survey, Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), swisstopo, MapmyIndia, © OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS User Community, Maplewood, Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, i-cubed, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AEX, Getmapping, Aerogrid, IGN, IGP, swisstopo, and the GIS User Community, Esri, HERE, DeLorme, TomTom, MapmyIndia, © OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS user community Conifer Ridge Apartments Project Review - Zoning Map Legend Multiple Dwelling (r3) Planned Unit Development (pud)Light Manufacturing (m1) Business Commercial (bc) J4, Attachment 6 Packet Page Number 129 of 200 Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, i-cubed, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AEX, Getmapping, Aerogrid, IGN, IGP, swisstopo, and the GIS User Community, Esri, HERE, DeLorme, TomTom, MapmyIndia, © OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS user community Residential Densities by Plat A - PROPOSED Conifer Ridge - 150 Units - 11.2 Net Acres - 13.4 UPA B - Pineview Estates - 72 Units - 5.7 Net Acres - 12.6 UPA UPA = units per acre Does not factor any density bonuses (i.e. for underground parking) A B C D E F GHI C - Emerald Townhomes - 12 Units - 1.2 Net Acres - 10.1 UPA D - Mapleridge - 100 Units - 4.9 Net Acres - 20.2 UPA E - Heritage Square II - 131 Units - 10.3 Net Acres - 12.7 UPA F - Seasons at Legacy - 150 Units - 2.9 Net Acres - 50.8 UPA G - Heritage Square - 220 Units - 16.2 Net Acres - 13.6 UPA H - Cottages at Legacy - 33 Units - 4.2 Net Acres - 7.9 UPA I - Cardinal Pointe - 108 Units - 6.4 Net Acres - 16.8 UPA J4, Attachment 7Packet Page Number 130 of 200 Attachment 4 LEGACY VILLAGE AT MAPLEWOOD PROPOSED TOWN HOMES 1i11Po 1 J i i i i o es 1 r COUNTY ROAD i yr44111iii r iiil COU p 1 fir Q z x3s Y i floittorA 1 F k latit7V410IR4a agir ci li Midi I i N I r f S l I f 1 1a 177Flf0M i r 4i i 1 i 1 wa w tA t 7 p J t r 27tAC 1 Ipw i76 mss r lS A111n7t0i1pianRttttnuitswy I PCJ s Lj wsrsit ri7 1riun t t v Jjj CC T I OUTLOT i Q ro DALE t J r ow GM AG I T u1 b Lu 1 f 01f 21 POND i i I k t aoMe i rL1J li iIIIMMIIMMIINK APPROVED PUD DEVELOPMENT CONCEPT PLAN JULY 14 2003 13 J4, Attachment 8 Packet Page Number 131 of 200 0 8o a 0 Yi g 2 MCI o y 7p7o oe o x w II i IC oZyI I al II o I i 11 Al II h Al eOv61k61CrI1CAlN1AljIrZDrBlDB1rIv d I jj I Cl 3 1 9c N r i o 1 vo 7 j1j C662ooe9rs m C3 B2 I 9 Cam 3 1 Al C3 I 9I l i 1 17 Bl 1 A1 II i 1 Al 1 Bl N1wCIIAI r I stleB3IC1IXC4Iqw IL133 I ir if a1 C I z I 1 pa W n p I p p1 i 000 A B1 B1 111 I o Z V i it Pa np rr 1 4A3olC2C1v1um 1 i 1 n D I 0 1 O o r 1 4 1 0 2 j 4 N H m 1 Cep W C1 I B3 l s n I Al N I C4 Cl j c M I I p B1 I I Al I n a i n 3 1 Al N 3Bl III3rIC4AlIisNm M r 4 j B3 I C1 n 1 7 i 0 Dill mmvZO I N m n le a 0 I 0 103 s 3 s 00 oo 00 1331115 RIVNIGt rn 0 J4, Attachment 9Packet Page Number 132 of 200 J4, Attachment 10 Packet Page Number 133 of 200 J4, Attachment 11 Packet Page Number 134 of 200 VW)/225QG)/225 UG)/225 522)%($5,1* *$5$*( 522)3($. )281'$7,21 ))))) )))))))) $9' - 0"23' - 6"29' - 0"29' - 0"29' - 0"29' - 0"29' - 0"29' - 0"29' - 0"29' - 0"29' - 0"9' - 0"303' - 4"9' - 0" 11' - 5"24' - 0"24' - 0"11' - 5"24' - 0"24' - 0"11' - 5"24' - 0"24' - 0"11' - 5" 11' - 5"24' - 0"24' - 0"24' - 0"11' - 5"9' - 0"303' - 4"22' - 3"8' - 0"9' - 6"11' - 6"11' - 0"4' - 0"51' - 3"62' - 3"VW)/225QG)/225 UG)/225 522)%($5,1* *$5$*( 522)3($. )281'$7,21 ))))) )))))))) $THESTUDIOurban318 South Broadway, Suite 200Rochester, MN 55904P: 507.285.5043www.theurbanstudio.com7/17/2015 11:49:33 AMMaplewood, MNConifer Ridge ApartmentsA2.0EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS ($67(/(9$7,21 :(67(/(9$7,21ROOF - GRAY HEAVY TEXTURE SHINGLE - SHAKE STYLETRIM - CEMENT BOARD MULTI-LAYER PROFILEUPPER SIDING - CREAM LAP PROFILE CEMENT BOARDMAIN FLOOR SIDING - BROWN REVERSE BOARD AND BATTEN CEMENT BOARDJ4, Attachment 12 Packet Page Number 135 of 200 Conifer Ridge Apartments, LLC K. Pe,ter Stalland, Esq. 9983 A,rcola Court North Stillwater, MN 55082 Tel#: 651-351-2963 Cell#: 651-245-7222 Fax#: 651-430-3120 Email: peterstalland@hotmail.com July 6. 2015 Mr. Michael Martin Pianner City of Maplewood 1830 County Road B East Maplewood, MN 55109 Re: Conifer Ridge Application Narrative for Community Design Review Board; PUD; and Comprehensive Plan Amendment Applications Dear Mike, l'his letter serves as the narrative requirement for the above-entitled applications to the City of Maplewood. These applications are in regard to a planned 150 unit upscale, market rate residential apartment project called Conifer Ridge Apartments. 'fhe site is undeveloped lancl located in the original Legacy PUD which consists of a variety of land uses: office, retail, and high density residential for sale and rental properties. Surrounding uses to this site also include senior housing projects and medium to high density rental townhomes and large apartment projects. Several blocks to the South from this site is the St. John's Hospital complex and to the Southeast is Maplewood Mall. All utilities and public facilities are located adjacent to the site ar-rd are sized appropriately for this project. The project woul,J not create any hazardous activity or nuisance. The site plan provides for two main traffic accesses: one on Kennard Street for the first 50 unit building, and the other on Hazelwc,od Street to access two, 50 unit buildings. These two access points would generate only miltirnal vehicular traffic and would not create congestion or unsafe conditions. One major feature of this site is cleally its unique beauty. Our design starls and ends with preserving and protecting its natural resource of wetlands, hills, and large tree stands.'l'he density of units per gross and developaple acreage is where the design of the project starts. 'l'he City's tree ordinance states ip regard to density: "'l'he City may reduce the maximutn allowed derisity on that part pf a development that has a significant natural feature." The clustering of dwellings in the fonn of apartments and other uses is recomrnended in order to preserve significant natural features. J4, Attachment 13 Packet Page Number 136 of 200 To preserve the significant natural features on this site, we chose a higher density design use. To protect the greatest amount of woodlands and wetlands, we have proposed a density of l5 units per acre and preserved and protected 52 percent of thesite.( See site plan attached to the applications ). When the project is completed, the lZ.5 acre site will have76 percent greenspace and have clustered the development with a finished impervious area of only 3.0 acres. In regard to protecting the wetland areas, we have designed the site using the full wetland setbacks rather than using an averaging of the setback dimensions. Earlier development proposals to the City for this site essentially stripped all of the trees from the site and graded the site flat, eliminating the wetlands in ordei to accommodate high density development. Our project has done the opposite by maximizing the natural and scenic features of the site into our Sesign which will benefit the City, thi neighbors, and the residents of the project. The exterior elevations of the building and materials have been designed to coordinate with the surrounding residential archit".tur. of the townhomes and senior living facilities in the area. In summary, the Conifer Ridge Apartrnent project will not depreciate property values in the neighborhood; will not change the character of the ru.rorndin g uriu; will ie consistent with the original Legacy PUD, will create a solid tax revenue for the City and County; and will protect and preserve the natural and scenic beauty of one of the last, remaining undeveloped large sites in Maplewood. Thank you for the opportunity to present these applications to the City of Maplewood. I聯 撫熟 Owner/Manager, Conifer Ridge Apartments LLC KPS encl; J4, Attachment 13 Packet Page Number 137 of 200 J4, Attachment 13 Packet Page Number 138 of 200 J4, Attachment 13 Packet Page Number 139 of 200 1 Conifer Ridge Apartments, LLC K. Peter Stalland, Esq. 9983 Arcola Court North Stillwater, MN 55082 Tel#: 651-351-2963 Cell#: 651-245-7222 Fax#: 651-430-3120 Email: peterstalland@hotmail.com August 28, 2015 Mr. Michael Martin Planner City of Maplewood 1830 County Road B East Maplewood, MN 55109 Re: Conifer Ridge Application Narrative for Community Design Review Board; PUD; and Comprehensive Plan Amendment Applications Dear Mike, In response to recommendations from the Planning Commission ( additional parking spaces) and the previous PUD development agreement (0.5 spaces per unit for visitor parking), I would like to outline why these requirements are not applicable to my project. A. City of Maplewood's parking ordinance Section 44-17 (a) (2) requires two spaces for each dwelling unit in a multi-family dwelling. One space is required to be enclosed. I provide for 100 parking spaces per each 50 unit building with one space being underground. If this project were in a currently zoned multi-family district, the parking would comply with the City's ordinance. B. Legacy PUD development agreement should not apply to my project The current, existing development agreement requires the developer to provide for 0.5 spaces per unit for visitor parking. However, the existing PUD had primarily townhouses as a housing type as opposed to apartments. Townhouses have more bedrooms and normally more residents per housing unit than apartments. Further, one needs to look at the mix of unit types in an apartment project to analyze how many residents will be living in each unit to determine how many parking spaces are appropriate. In Conifer Ridge, each 50 unit building has one studio unit; 20 one bedroom units; and 29 two bedroom units. Typical townhouse units have a minimum of two bedrooms and most have at least three or four bedrooms which translate to more persons living in a J4, Attachment 13 Packet Page Number 140 of 200 2 townhome unit than in one or two bedroom apartment project. Hence, townhomes require more parking for more residents who have more cars and more visitors. C. Apartment projects manage the number of cars per unit Conifer Ridge management, similar to most other apartment projects, will limit two cars per residential unit in the leases which will conform to the 2:1 parking ratio. Management keeps tight control of the resident's cars by requiring license numbers, make of vehicle on file; mandating that no resident can work on their cars in the spaces, no storing of non- operational cars on site, and so forth. D. The current site plan limits any increased parking spaces Given the topography of the site, the existing tree preservation negotiated requirements, the buffer zones for the wetlands, and the soil conditions, the current site plan limits my ability to add any more parking spaces. In addition, the site is already expensive to develop which puts a strain on the economics of the project. Adding more parking spaces would be expensive and cost prohibitive at this point. The result would be more construction cost; loss of additional trees, additional water runoff that has to be engineered for storm water drainage, and increased operational maintenance cost to manage the project long term. E. Examples of other area City parking ordinances as applied to Conifer Ridge Cottage Grove Code: The ordinance requires additional visitor spaces based on 1.5 spaces for every 10 units. Applied to Conifer Ridge: Units Unit Spaces Total Efficiency 1 car per unit 1 1 1 1 Bedroom 1.5 cars per unit 20 1.5 30 2 Bedroom 2 cars per unit 29 2 81 Visitors 1.5 for every 10 units 50 1.5/10 8 Total for 50 unit building 89 Burnsville Code: 1.5 parking spaces for each efficiency/studio and one bedroom unit, and 2.25 parking spaces for units with 2 or more bedrooms. A minimum of one of the required parking spaces per unit shall be an enclosed garage space. Applied to Conifer Ridge: Units Unit spaces Total Efficiency 1.5 car per unit 1 1.5 1.5 1 Bedroom 1.5 cars per unit 20 1.5 30 2 Bedroom 2.25 cars per unit 29 2.25 65.25 Total for 50 unit building 97 J4, Attachment 13 Packet Page Number 141 of 200 3 Rochester, MN Code: 1 per unit for efficiency/studio and one bedroom unit; 1.5 spaces for 2 bedroom units; 2 spaces for 3 bedroom units; and 3 spaces for 4+ bedroom units Applied to Conifer Ridge: Units Unit spaces Total Efficiency 1 car per unit 1 1 1 1 Bedroom 1 car per unit 20 1 20 2 Bedroom 1.5 cars per unit 29 1.5 44 Total for 50 unit building 65 In summary, the above codes show that the City of Maplewood's multi-family parking ordinance that requires a 2:1 ratio goes beyond what these other codes mandate for apartment complexes with smaller bedroom units. The 2:1 ratio is a standard that has been developed all over the country for decades so it apparently works. For the reasons outlined above, I request that the staff and City Council consider our submitted site plan showing 300 parking spaces (100 for each 50 unit building) to be adequate. If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact me. Thank you. Yours truly, K. Peter Stalland Owner/Manager, Conifer Ridge Apartments LLC KPS cc Dan Tilsen; Teresa McCormack J4, Attachment 13 Packet Page Number 142 of 200 G‐Cubed Inc. Engineering Surveying & Planning 285 Westview Drive, West Saint Paul, MN 55118, ph. 651.288.1100, fax. 651.455.4948 Conifer Ridge Apartment Hydrology, 7‐06‐2015 The Conifer Ridge Apartments is a planned development for three 50 unit apartments on 12.5 acres. Construction of the buildings and parking lots will create 3 acres of new impervious surfacing. Treatment of the stormwater will be subject to MPCA, City of Maplewod and Ramsey‐Washington Metro Watershed District standards. Existing Site Conditions: The property contains a mix of wooded hills and wetlands. Drainage patterns within the site are essentially split from east to west by a wooded ridge running northwesterly to southeasterly. Development will preserve much of this ridge and drainage characteristic. On the easterly portion of the property, the site drains south to north. The lower portion of the property is a wetland. Near the middle of this area is a temporary stormwater treatment pond which was constructed as part of Phase II of the Heritage Square at Legacy Village project around 2005. The plans for this pond was for it to be improved and designated as a permanent pond at the time of the development of this project. On the westerly portion of the property the site also drains south to north. The lowest portion is also a wetland near the intersection of County Road D and Hazelwood Avenue. South of this area on the adjacent property are two storm water treatment cells serving the development to the south. Proposed Site Conditions: The easterly portion of the development will contain one 50 unit building and parking area accessed from Kennard Street. Development will add 0.9 acres of new impervious surfacing. Treatment will be achieved by collecting and conveying runoff to the existing stormwater treatment pond. Final modeling will determine if additional volume is required or if the outlet structure will be required to be modified to meet criteria for wet basin designs. Treated flow will feed the existing downstream wetland. The westerly portion of the development will contain two 50 unit buildings and parking area accessed from Hazelwood Avenue. Development will add 2.1 acres of new impervious surfacing. A new treatment basin – rainwater garden will be constructed north of the buildings. Due to inadequate separation to the water table and soil factors, a simple infiltration basin will not meet design criteria. Instead a basin with an underdrain will be constructed to provide the stormwater treatment measures as required. The treated flow will feed the existing wetland. Summary: By limiting the impervious area to less than 25% of the project area and making use of two stormwater treatment basins, the Conifer Ridge Apartments is designed to meet water quality treatment and requirements, and meet existing flow rates for storm events as specified by the city and the watershed district. Upon conditional approval of the project, final hydrologic design will be modeled, calculations provided, and final construction plans submitted for approval. Mark Welch, PE G‐Cubed Inc. 507‐867‐1666 ext. 105 J4, Attachment 14 Packet Page Number 143 of 200 Engineering Plan Review PROJECT: Conifer Ridge Apartments PROJECT NO: 15-14 COMMENTS BY: Jon Jarosch, P.E. – Staff Engineer DATE: 08-10-2015 PLAN SET: Engineering plans dated 07-06-2015 REPORTS: Storm Water Summary Letter dated 07-06-2015 The applicant is proposing three (3) 50-unit apartment buildings on the currently vacant parcel at the southeast corner of Hazelwood Street and County Road D in Legacy Village. The applicant is requesting a comprehensive plan amendment, a planned unit development amendment, a review of the design, and the approval of a lot split. This review does not constitute a final review of the plans, as the applicant will need to submit construction documents, geotechnical information, and a stormwater report for final review. The following are engineering review comments on the design submitted to date and act as conditions prior to issuing permits. Drainage and Stormwater Management 1) It appears that the applicant’s concept plan can meet the requirements of the City’s stormwater management standards. The final design of this project shall meet the requirements set forth in these standards. This includes the infiltration of 1.1 inches of rainfall over all impervious surfaces and designing utilizing the Atlas-14 rainfall data. The applicant shall work with the City to meet the intent of these standards. 2) The City consulted with Ron Leaf, P.E. at S.E.H., Inc. to review the proposed stormwater management on this site. According to Mr. Leaf, the current drainage plan appears consistent with the MMATI area drainage plan. After final plans are created, the stormwater discharge rates leaving the site shall be less than or equal to those anticipated in the MMATI area drainage plan. 3) The project shall be submitted to the Ramsey-Washington Metro Watershed District (RWMWD) for review. All conditions of RWMWD shall be met. 4) The applicant is proposing the use of infiltration or filtration to meet water quality requirements. As such, the applicant shall submit copies of geotechnical information (soil borings, infiltrations tests, etc.) to support infiltration rates shown in the hydraulic calculations. J4, Attachment 15 Packet Page Number 144 of 200 5) The applicant shall provide storm sewer pipe sizing details for all onsite storm sewer. 6) Emergency overland overflows shall be identified on the plans and shall include adequate scour protection. Grading and Erosion Control 7) All slopes shall be 3H:1V or flatter. 8) The proposed infiltration/filtration areas shall be protected from sedimentation throughout construction. 9) Inlet protection devices shall be installed on all existing and proposed onsite storm sewer until all exposed soils onsite are stabilized. Additionally, storm sewer inlets along adjacent City streets shall be protected throughout construction. 10) Adjacent streets shall be swept as needed to keep the pavement clear of sediment and construction debris. 11) All pedestrian facilities shall be ADA compliant. 12) A copy of the project SWPPP and NDPES Permit shall be submitted prior to the issuance of a grading permit. 13) Stabilized construction entrances shall be placed at all entry/exit points to the site. 14) The total grading volume (cut/fill) shall be noted on the plans. 15) All emergency overland overflows shall contain adequate stabilization to prevent soils from eroding during large storm events. Sanitary Sewer and Water Service 16) Sanitary sewer service piping shall be schedule 40 PVC or SDR 35. 17) The proposed water service modifications are subject to the review and conditions of Saint Paul Regional Water Services (SPRWS). The applicant shall submit plans and specifications to SPRWS for review and meet all requirements they may have prior to the issuance of a grading permit by the City. 18) The applicant shall provide fixture unit computations verifying that the sewer service is adequate for the proposed building. J4, Attachment 15 Packet Page Number 145 of 200 19) The applicant shall be responsible for paying any SAC, WAC, or PAC charges related to the improvements proposed with this project. Traffic Analysis 20) The City consulted with Thomas Sohrweide, a traffic engineer at S.E.H., Inc., to analyze the potential traffic impacts from the proposed development. Mr. Sohrweide noted… “This additional volume of traffic (from the proposed three apartment buildings) is not indicative of any change in intersection traffic operation.” Other 21) The buildings shall be designed and constructed to be in conformance with the Minnesota State Noise standards. As the buildings are in close proximity to I-694, it is necessary to consider noise reducing construction techniques and materials as identified in the Alternative Urban Areawide Review (AUAR) and Mitigation Plan. 22) The plans shall be signed by a professional engineer currently licensed in the State of Minnesota. 23) The applicant shall ensure the site is navigable and accessible by emergency service vehicles. 24) A right-of way permit shall be submitted for any work within the public right-of-way. 25) The developer shall enter into a Development Agreement with the City. 26) The Owner shall sign a maintenance agreement, prepared by the City, for all storm water treatment devices (sumps, storm sewer, infiltration systems, ponds, etc.). 27) The applicant is proposing to vacate two existing storm sewer easements which cover existing storm sewer within the site. As this storm sewer is proposed to be relocated as part of the project, the applicant is proposing to create new easements over the new storm sewer locations. The applicant shall provide the easements necessary to cover the final storm sewer layout. 28) Perpetual trail easements shall be granted to the City for the existing onsite trails at the southeast and southwest corners of the property. 29) The applicant shall provide a self-renewing letter of credit or cash escrow in the amount of 125% of the proposed site improvements (or as detailed in the Development Agreement) including earthwork, grading, erosion control, site vegetation establishment, aggregate base, and paving. J4, Attachment 15 Packet Page Number 146 of 200 30) The applicant shall satisfy the requirements of all other permitting agencies. Please provide copies of other required permits and approvals. 31) The Developer is responsible to obtain any necessary permits for building and/or working within existing Power Transmission Line easements located along the southern portion of the proposed development. - END COMMENTS - J4, Attachment 15 Packet Page Number 147 of 200 1 Environmental Review Project: Conifer Ridge Apartments Date of Plans: September 3, 2015 Date of Review: September 8, 2015 Location: Legacy Village (County Road D East between Hazelwood and Kennard Streets) Reviewer: Shann Finwall, Environmental Planner (651) 249-2304; shann.finwall@ci.maplewood.mn.us Virginia Gaynor, Natural Resources Coordinator (651) 249-2416; virginia.gaynor@ci.maplewood.mn.us Background 1. Project Background - The project involves developing a 150-unit apartment complex on a 12.5 acre parcel within the Legacy Village Planned Unit Development. There are two wetlands and hundreds of significant trees on the property. The development must comply with the City’s wetland and tree preservation ordinances. 2. Wetland Background – There are two wetlands located on the property - a Manage B wetland (identified as Wetland A on the plans) and a Manage A wetland (identified as Wetland B on the plans). The applicants have had both wetlands delineated. The Ramsey-Washington Metro Watershed District has reviewed and approved of the wetland delineations. During the Mall Area Road Reconstruction Project and extension of County Road D in 2003, the Manage A wetland was identified as being fully mitigated, along with other wetlands impacted during that construction. The mitigated wetlands are located on the north and south side of Beam Avenue, east of Highway 61. Ultimately, only the north and west buffers of the Manage A wetland on the site were impacted by the road construction in 2003, with the wetland itself remaining intact. Regardless of its history, the applicant has agreed to comply with the City’s wetland ordinance and buffer requirements for the Manage A wetland with this development. The original Planned Unit Development wetland conditions for this property state that the applicant shall dedicate wetland protection buffers around each wetland within this development. The width of each buffer shall be according to each wetland’s classification as determined by the Ramsey-Washington Metro Watershed District. 3. Tree Background – There are hundreds of trees located on the site. To survey the trees, the applicant used a process called forest mensuration. This involved dividing the site into 11 plots and incorporating quantitative measurements of the J4, Attachment 16 Packet Page Number 148 of 200 2 forest stand, rather than identifying and marking each of the trees. The forest mensuration results show that the site has 86% red pine, 9.1% boxelder, 1.6% cottonwood, and 1% elms/cherry/spruce/aspen. The average size of the trees is 11.3 diameter inches. The original Planned Unit Development tree conditions for this property state that the applicant shall comply with the City’s tree preservation ordinance. Discussion 1. Wetlands: The wetland ordinance requires a 75-foot minimum and 100-foot average buffer for Manage A wetlands and a 50-foot minimum and 75-foot average buffer for Manage B wetlands. No building, grading, or stormwater structures can be located within the buffer. Wetland Impacts: a. Wetland A (Manage B Wetland – 75-foot buffer required) – The development and construction limits will not encroach into the required 75-foot buffer. This complies with the City’s wetland ordinance. b. Wetland B (Manage A Wetland – 100-foot buffer required) – 1) Stormwater Infiltration Basin - Buffer Averaging: A portion of the stormwater infiltration basin will encroach to within 75 feet of the required 100-foot buffer. A stormwater drain tile outlet will be bored under the buffer, ensuring no additional grading within the buffer. Buffer averaging is allowed on a Manage A wetland to within 75 feet if one of more of the following criteria is met: a) Undue hardship would arise from not allowing the average buffer, or would otherwise not be in the public interest. b) Size of parcel. c) Configuration of existing roads and utilities. d) Percentage of parcel covered by wetland. e) Configuration of wetlands on the parcel. f) Averaging will not cause degradation of the wetland or stream. g) Averaging will ensure the protection or enhancement of portions of the buffer which are found to be the most ecologically beneficial to the wetland or stream. The development proposal meets several of the above-mentioned criteria. The City requires wetland buffer mitigation when a buffer has been altered through averaging with one or more of the following actions: a) Reducing or avoiding the impact by limiting the degree or amount of the action, such as by using appropriate technology. J4, Attachment 16 Packet Page Number 149 of 200 3 b) Rectifying the impact by repairing, rehabilitating, or restoring the buffer. c) Reducing or eliminating the impact over time by prevention and maintenance operations during the life of the actions. d) Compensating for the impact by replacing, enhancing, or providing substitute buffer land at a two-to-one ratio. e) Monitoring the impact and taking appropriate corrective measures. f) Where the City requires restoration or replacement of a buffer, the owner or contractor shall replant the buffer with native vegetation. A restoration plan must be approved by the City before planting. g) Any additional conditions required by the applicable watershed district and/or the soil and water conservation district shall apply. h) A wetland or buffer mitigation surety, such as a cash deposit or letter of credit 150% of estimated cost for mitigation. The surety will be required based on the size of the project as deemed necessary by the administrator. Funds will be held by the City until successful completion of restoration as determined by the City after a final inspection. Wetland or buffer mitigation surety does not include other sureties required pursuant to any other provision of City ordinance or City directive. 2. Revised Civil Engineering Plans – Buildings Shifted Closer to Wetland Buffer: The revised September 3, 2015, Civil Engineering Plans reflect that the two buildings proposed on the south side of the property have been shifted approximately 10 feet to the north, toward the wetland buffer. This revision was in response to concerns from neighbors about the proximity of the parking lot and buildings to the south property line. With the revision, there is 10 feet from the foundation of the building to the edge of the required wetland buffer and proposed stormwater infiltration basin. While the grading for the buildings does not encroach into the required buffer area it should be noted that the 6-foot deep decks are not shown on the Civil Engineering Plans. The decks will come within 4 feet of the wetland buffer edge, leaving little room to walk around the building. Wetland Recommendations: a) Prior to grading, the applicant shall install City approved wetland signs at the edge of the approved wetland buffer that specify that no building, mowing, cutting, grading, filling or dumping be allowed within the buffer. The signs must be placed every 100-feet along the edge of the buffer at a minimum. The sign locations must be verified with a survey to ensure proper placement. b) The applicant shall submit a wetland mitigation plan for Wetland B (Manage A wetland) to include a detailed planting plan with native plants J4, Attachment 16 Packet Page Number 150 of 200 4 for the infiltration basin and any other disturbed areas within the 100-foot buffer. c) The applicant shall commit to a three-year maintenance plan with the City to ensure establishment of the native plantings as outlined in item b above. d) The applicant shall submit revised Civil Engineering Plans which show the location of the decks in relation to the wetland buffer. The decks or deck footings must not encroach into the wetland buffer. e) The applicant shall submit a cash escrow or letter of credit to cover 150% of the wetland mitigation mentioned in item b and c above. 2. Trees: Maplewood’s tree preservation ordinance describes a significant tree as a hardwood tree with a minimum of 6 inches in diameter, an evergreen tree with a minimum of 8 inches in diameter, and a softwood tree with a minimum of 12 inches in diameter. A specimen tree is defined as a healthy tree of any species which is 28 inches in diameter or greater. The ordinance requires any significant tree removed to be replaced based on a tree mitigation calculation. The calculation takes into account the size of a tree and bases replacement on that size. Tree Impacts: The applicant is preserving 52% of the site as protected and undisturbed land. Regardless of this preservation and due to the sheer number of trees on the site, the development will require the removal of 4,616 diameter inches of the 10,034.34 diameter inches of significant trees on the site. The City’s tree replacement calculation require the applicant to replace 1,589.30 caliper inches of trees, or 794 – 2-inch trees. Tree Replacement Program Guidelines: The City’s tree replacement program guidelines require that an applicant plant as many trees as feasible on the site. If the replacement requirement is not met, the applicant can plant native or drought tolerant shrubs that qualify towards tree replacement (#3 shrub or larger is equivalent to .5 caliper inches of replacement tree). If the replacement requirements are still not met, the remaining trees are converted to a dollar amount that will go into the Maplewood Tree Fund (each caliper inch is equivalent to $60). Tree Replacement and Mitigation: The landscape plan calls for 148 replacement trees, 900 native plant shrubs, and several other non-native shrubs. Overall, the applicant is replacing 895 caliper inches of trees/native shrubs on the site, with 694.30 caliper inches of replacement trees remaining. This equates to $41,658 toward the City’s tree fund. To mitigate the trees further, the applicant has agreed to remove all of the buckthorn from the site and pay for the management of that buckthorn over a three-year period. Buckthorn is an invasive plant that has degraded many local woodlands. Removal of buckthorn from the site will improve the remaining forest ecosystem. The applicant has received quotes for this work and City staff has agreed to allow the developer to reduce the tree fund payment with a dollar for dollar credit toward the buckthorn removal and management. This equates to a final tree fund payment of $20,000. J4, Attachment 16 Packet Page Number 151 of 200 5 Tree Preservation Recommendations: a) The applicant shall submit a revised landscape plan showing planting details for all areas required to be screened. b) The applicant shall commit to a three-year maintenance plan with the City to ensure the removal and management of buckthorn on the site. c) The applicant shall submit a cash escrow or letter of credit to cover 150% of the tree replacement requirements. d) The applicant shall submit a Tree Fund cash payment in the amount of $20,000. This money will be placed in the City’s Tree Fund which funds the City’s tree program. J4, Attachment 16 Packet Page Number 152 of 200 Against-66 Cynthia Gass- 1635 Parkway Drive #6 (green space) “We own our homes and are [sic] quite invested in this community. We have considerable interest in what happens to the property. The wooded area is a welcome respite and a major selling feature. We want the woods to stay as it is a lot of animals in their homes. Totally against any building in that area. Keep it as it is. If it gets built people around here will be moving which would be very sad, just because of this. Leave it alone.” Adam Brinkman-1613 County Road D (green space, density) “In an age of “over development” I stand by the idea that our community would benefit more from having sustained natural environments near and around our area than to “give in” to over population of our neighborhood. I am against any further development in an already clustered area.” Allyn Keller- 3003 Hazelwood St N (traffic) “We don’t need any more apartments in this area. Bringing in more commercial property is not good. Adds more traffic, we already have the hospital traffic. Do not want it to go through County Road D. Hazelwood is already highly traveled.” Current Occupant- 3003 Hazelwood St N (traffic, density) “We are against the Conifer Ridge Apartment project. It will change the character of the surrounding area. Most families have 2 cars along with visitors of people who live there, trash hauler, recycling, delivery truck, etc, will cause a real problem with traffic. We will get water runoff. Salt from the cars and road in winter, why not develop for single family homes.” Roger Christensen 3003 Hazelwood St N unit 326 (density, green space) “I believe the property East of Hazelwood is already high density. Property is buildings are close enough to touch each other. Please no more. Trees and water are nice.” Zenja Sormaz- 1681 County Road D E (green space) “I do not agree with the proposal to build a new apartment complex due to the fact that [sic] a new development would destroy green space/ecosystem.” Cecilia Consuelo Lung Rojas-1077 Lovell Lane S (green space) “We are worried about the small wild inhabitants (??) in this area. Where will they go? There is not enough green area left on County Road DE. We need to protect them and preserve a little bit of wilderness.” Chongqi Zhang 7120 Meadow Grass Ave S (green space) “I want that piece of land to stay unchanged and no apartments to be built.” Kenneth Jacka-3003 Hazelwood St N Unit 317 (green space, traffic) “I think we should keep what little wild life and tree beauty we have left in the area. We have enough traffic going on in the area now.” J4, Attachment 17 Packet Page Number 153 of 200 Suzanne Fry- 3060 Cottage Lane N (density, green space) “I feel very strongly that this parcel should REMAIN designated as Medium Density Residential. The Manage A and B wetlands and old growth forest on this site deserve a particularly “resourceful and prudent approach to development” (City Code Chapter 18), and increasing population density feels clearly inconsistent with that approach. This proposal is NOT being generous with wetland and forest preservations, but actually pushing the limits of the City’s Feb 2013 revision of Ordinance 928 to protect the environment of critical areas. The site is a rare resource. The proposed development would use every bit of the buildable land of this parcel and significantly alter the character of a heavily used walking/biking trail by abutting it to parking lots. The removal of an average of 45% of the trees on this parcel would also be of significant impact, as would 200 more car/day entering and exiting off Hazelwood. Please err on the side of prudent and sensitive as you review and consider amendments that this proposal would require. This is only the first of hopefully many proposals, to use this parcel most wisely.” (Typed letter) Alex Taylor- 1687 Village Tr E Unit 4 (green space, traffic, property values) “It’s a nice wetland area so the environmental impact should be considered first and foremost. Next we need to consider the impact the apartment units would have. I can’t imagine it would be good for neighboring home values and it would certainly cause more traffic congestion in an area that is becoming more of an issue already. In the end, I do not feel it would be a good move and my vote would be no. Turn it into a park!” Denis Dupree 1674 Village Tr E Unit 3 (renters, traffic) “I also want to express my very, very strong opposition to the project. My primary concern is that these are RENTAL properties. There are a number of garbage, crime and general nuisance issues that we deal with due to the neighboring rental condos on village trail and bittersweet (near Ashley Furniture)-- to the point that I often regret having purchased this property and I worry how I will be able to sell it in the summer when those residents are out in the street. Imagine this multiplied many fold with the new property even if at "market rates". Renters do not care about their neighborhood or community in the way that homeowners do. Apartment buildings sometimes start out looking ok, but they quickly become an eyesore...our neighborhood will become more congested with more crime and more risks for our children...imagine all the additional traffic by the playground and along key bus routes and bus stops. It may be in the village's best interest to develop this land in the future, but developing it into a RENTAL property is a disaster waiting to happen (regardless of the density)-- will require more policing and will make residents including myself want to leave our neighborhood and leave the Maplewood we currently enjoy. BETTER TO WAIT FOR THE RIGHT PROJECT to come along when the economy continues to grow -- more townhomes or maybe the city decides to make it or rather keep it a public park-like space.” (email response) Gene Dickie-Cardinal Pointe Unit 232 (Traffic, renter, density) “Worried about traffic and density that may come along if the unit is built. Would like to see the project scaled down or not built because of the potential for increased traffic and noise. Mentions that renters tend to be younger and they may be a nuisance. Would rather see a senior living community.” J4, Attachment 17 Packet Page Number 154 of 200 George Seller-3003 Hazelwood St N Unit 306 (density, rental, traffic) 1. “Already a dense community 2. 150+ cars added 3. Apartments cut down on the desirability of homeowners property “ Jeff and Heather Imsdahl- 3049 Chamberlain Street N #5 (Traffic, property value, over development, home owner) “I oppose the development of the Conifer Ridge Apartments as a homeowner in the Legacy Village area. I own my home and am invested in the community these past 10 years. This slow rebound from the home market crash of the mid 2000's is still felt; our property has not regained nowhere near where it should be. To lose potential home buyers or renters does not help with a development such as this. I do believe that traffic will be impacted in the area and as a pet owner, we walk our dog daily near the wooded area and would hate to lose that to a view of a parking lot. There is already too much development in this area! Again, it goes back to the value of our home; it is better off with the wooded area as it is now rather than another development of apartment complexes.” (email response) Jennifer (Albertson) Newton- 1683 Village Trail East #3 (property values, traffic, home owner, green space, parking) “I have a few concerns I'd like to share: 1. In Mr. Stralland's letter dated July 6, he states that surrounding uses include "medium-to-high density rental townhomes." Allow me to clarify that the townhomes within Heritage Square I and II are NOT rentals, but owned by homeowners. While some residents have chosen to rent out their properties, that is by far the exception, not the rule. So the surrounding neighbors are indeed quite vested in this community and, as such, hold considerable interest in what happens to the property bounded by us to the east and south. I want it to be very clear that this is a neighborhood of homeowners; it's not a rental community for which "one more" rental property will be added to the bunch. 2. I am a homeowner within the Heritage Square II neighborhood, and when we purchased the home (pre-construction phase) in 2007, a major attractor in our decision to buy here was the wooded area to our west. With so much commercial space surrounding us, that wooded area is a welcome respite and selling feature for those of us monitoring our home values' slow rebound from the housing crash. This wooded area is one of the last I know of in Maplewood, and while it was clearly for sale, it was something many of us were hoping would never be taken away. It seems ironic that "Legacy Village" would lose its last bit of true legacy, untouched natural woods and wetland. Shouldn't we be aiming to protect that? 3. On a related note, I see that Mr. Stralland's proposed plan does include preserving as much natural space as possible; however, by effecively blocking the view on all sides for its neighbors at Heritage Square I and II, the plan steals our view and preserves it for car traffic and apartment renters. This could be detrimental to the people with the most to lose - the homeowners with property value to consider. 4. While Mr. Stralland notes that there would be "only minimal vehicular traffic" and "would not create congestion or unsafe conditions," I can't imagine how that's possible. How can 150 households not generate considerable traffic? And with all of the children walking and biking to and from the playground (on the proposed development's southern edge), how could they not be less safe on/near Kennard Street? J4, Attachment 17 Packet Page Number 155 of 200 5. The playground is already paired with a less-than-ideal neighbor in its overhead power lines - - when I push my son on the swings, we have to listen to the crackle of the lines looming above us like a bad post-industrialist commentary. The park and trail's only redeeming scenery will be blocked by a parking lot and apartment buildings, with corresponding traffic and noise. It's not good for existing residents' quality of life. It takes the wooded area away from the people who enjoy it, reduces the value of the playground and trail, and essentially reserves it as the backyard for three apartment buildings. No one will be able to appreciate its beauty when it's effectively tucked behind parking lots and apartment buildings. That is, no current taxpaying homeowners. 6. A question: If the land MUST be sold, can't we consider single-family houses -- perhaps such as those on Hazelwood within Heritage Square I -- that would preserve the nature and maintain or elevate our property values? Aren't there enough rentals on the north side of County Road D? And what of saturation -- couldn't an additional rental property make our (presumably more expensive) townhomes less-attractive options to potential homebuyers or renters, looking to live in the area? 7. If nothing can be done about the plan, at the very least, can the parking lots not be front and center? They detract so much, and evoke a commercial resemblance vs residential feel. Could the parking be underground, as it is in the rental neighborhoods off Bittersweet and Village Trail? That builder was wise to consider the look of the neighborhood and avoided placing a large parking space directly in front of the buildings, so the homes blend in better and look like homes, not a strip mall. I look forward to your response and further information about the public hearing. This development feels like a mistake that will put our neighborhood home values -- not to mention one remaining island of green in this area of the city -- in jeopardy.” (email response) Josie McDougald- 3049 Chamberlain St N Unit 1 (property values, renters) “I currently own my townhome at Heritage Square I and have since they were built in 2005. In reading the letter you sent regarding the building of a 150 unit apartment complex is very upsetting to me. The market value of the townhomes are finally gaining ground and I believe building apartments will only bring them down again. The rental townhomes that were built after Heritage Square I and II have proven people do not care about where they live or the surrounding properties. I truly hope deep consideration for the homeowners in both Heritage Square I and II is a priority to our neighborhood and Maplewood.” (email response) Kannan Venkatesan- 1573 Legacy Parkway E unit 1 (green space, property values, home owner) “I happen to know about the proposed 3, 50 unit apartment complexes near heritage square condos. I purchased this town home mainly because the house gives us the wooded area view, I grew up in an environment similar to it back in India, and this place reminds me of home, and would like for my son to enjoy similar experience growing up. The deer that jump out of the wood during winter times are site to see, the ducks migrating back to Minnesota during summer, some do call our little pond out here their summer home. Beautiful little birds that wake us up with chirping sound would totally be missed if this proposed plan goes through. Outside of the personal/ sentimental values, financially we feel this proposal would affect our home values, already the financial downfall has caused our home values go down, as you might be very much aware we are just seeing moderate spike in the values, this proposal would be J4, Attachment 17 Packet Page Number 156 of 200 detrimental to our neighborhood home values. I kindly request you to consider this message as my Opinion or a vote as "STRONG NO" to this proposal. I would be happy if a hearing is set to hear from heritage square condominiums home owners, talking to my neighbors many of them oppose this proposal and already have reached out to you or are in the process of reaching out to you in this regard.” (email response) Kristin Schultz- 1561 Legacy Parkway E Unit 1 (Traffic concerns) “I think adding another 150 units is absolutely ridiculous!!! There is already too much traffic in the area. How is nature being preserved with the addition of three giant apartment complexes? This project makes me want to move out. We don't need the excess traffic and people in the area.” (Email response) Maureen A Burns-1686 Village Trl E Unit 1 (green space, property values) “My husband and I do not want this development. We just moved to the area and love this wooded area. In addition, rental units will being down the value of our townhomes. We do not want this!!” Paulo Munoz- 1662 Village Tr E Unit 5 (green space, home owner) “I completely disagree with this proposal as a home owner. I love the view from the front of my home and I take my dog for a walk twice a day and love to see the wood. Please stop this from happening.” Rachael Houle- 1599 County Road D E Unit K (safety, property values, density, home owner, area, design) “Let me begin by saying thank you for your notice. I am absolutely 110% against this plan amendment / proposal. I have worked very hard to buy my house. I have worked three jobs for the last four years (even while going to college at St. Thomas.) I purchased my townhouse almost a year ago - it will be one year in August. One of the reasons I chose this location was because of its 'Medium Density.' I am a 25 year old woman who lives alone. I am completely uncomfortable with the idea of having three, three- story, 50 unit buildings constructed literally right across the street from me. I am outraged by the thought of it. Not to mention, it WILL lower the value of my property, ruin the 'unique beauty' of the area, and disturb the wetlands. That rendering of what the buildings will look like is a horrible eyesore. I am sure that Peter Stalland, if he was in my situation, would also be against this ridiculous proposal. However, he is probably off living comfortably in some gated community with not a worry about being mugged or having his property damaged or stolen. All he is concerned about is creating revenue for the city and himself. If this proposal gets approved, not only will the construction ruin any type of peace and quiet, this whole area will feel overcrowded and cramped. Not to mention the crime will increase. I won't ever be able to leave my garage door open or take a run at night or leave my car parked outside. I am begging you to reconsider this proposal. This makes me extremely uncomfortable and I really hope that we can come up with an alternative plan or leave the plot as is. In addition, please keep me informed about any meetings regarding this proposal.” (email response) J4, Attachment 17 Packet Page Number 157 of 200 Richard Engel-1691 Village Trail E Unit 5 (green space, traffic) “My wife and I were quite disappointed to find out that there were plans to develop large scale residential projects on the site of the current wetlands! It is one of the last remaining “green spaces” in the area. Development of that property will certainly increase traffic, reduce the area for wildlife and beauty, etc. I can see no benefit for anyone who currently owns/resides in the immediate area. Even the time of construction for the project will result in months (or years) of excess traffic, pollution, nuisance, etc. as well. There will likely also be a need to install traffic lights at Hazelwood and County Road DE as well as at Kennard and County Road DE once these apartments were fully occupied. 150 apartments could result in up to 300 or so more cars traveling these same narrow roads. IF (and only if) that land is already designated for development (and there is no way to rescind that) legally, and will inevitably BE developed whether the surrounding residents approve or not, then I suppose a plan like the one submitted would be better than a different plan that destroys even more of the wetlands. But it would be disappointing if the city of Maplewood was unable to keep the entire wetlands area green and free from development. There is very little undeveloped space in the area to enjoy already.” (Email response) Theodore DeMatties-1563 Legacy Parkway East #4 (property values, green space) “We just bought our town home at 1563 Legacy Parkway East 4 weeks ago. We have not even made our first mortgage payment yet. The main feature we liked about the townhome was the great woodlands outside our front door. The beautiful sunsets are great and the fire flies that come out at night and light up the field are something I have never seen before. Since moving here, I have seen rabbits, deer and even a few turkeys in the wetland area. I am quite concerned about the proposed apartment development and how it will ruin these great features as well as the value of our homes. While I am highly opposed against any development of this site, at the very least I would like to see the tree line remain. I am completely against any removal of the tree line and would like to see it remain so to at the very least have a buffer area. I do not want to look out my front door and see a retaining wall, parking lot and apartment complexes. I, along with my new neighbors, plan to object the re-zoning of this area and would like to see it remain one of the few remaining undeveloped wildlife areas on Maplewood.” (email response) Thomas Carey and Elizabeth Vonderharr-Cardinal Pointe Unit 200 and 201 (Traffic, green space) “We are strongly opposed to the development proposal for Conifer Ridge Apts. We live at Cardinal Point at 3003 Hazelwood St. The traffic on Hazelwood is bad right now particularly when the shifts change at the hospital and we have a difficult time getting onto Hazelwood St. With the apartments on the north side of Ct Road D and the entire development on the east side of Hazelwood all the way to the Library and then running into Maplewood Mall there is already enough traffic and congestion. To add 150 units many with more than one car it would be a traffic disaster. Allow the beautiful wildlife area alone and stop this wild striving for more congestion. Please cancel this proposed development.”(email response) J4, Attachment 17 Packet Page Number 158 of 200 Caroline Abiaziem- 1679 Village Trl E Unit 4 (property value, traffic) “I am a home owner at the heritage square community. I am writing to oppose this proposal as it will devalue the homes in our community. We cherish the safety we experience in our homes, and would not want the severe congestion this development would bring.” (email response) Donna Hryniewicki-1567 Legacy Parkway East #4 (green space, traffic, area) “My concerns are as follows: 1. When I received the proposal in the mail I literally sat down and cried. When I come home after working with at times 500 students, I look forward coming home and sitting in my favorite chair. Daily, I look at the trees and wetlands; during much of the year, I enjoy the snowy view. I purchased this home specifically for the view that I have. I could have purchased many other homes, but I chose to settle in Maplewood because of the accessibility to the Cities, trails, proximity to work, and the beautiful trees that stand just beyond my home. With the current proposal, I would still see the wetlands directly in front of my home, but beyond that, the three story buildings would replace my cherished tree view. Not only that, but the residents in the rental properties would have the beautiful trees to the north and the wetlands to the south. I have invested tens of thousands of dollars in this community; I literally love where I live. That said, I need to have either the same view or a comparable one to keep me in the area long term. I would like nothing more than to retire here in the Heritage Community. What would you do if you were me? 2. I am very concerned about increased traffic. There are a lot of people who run, walk, bike and/or rollerblade in the area. Adding 50%+ more traffic is a hazard. 3. Part of the charm of this community is the trees and wetlands. There is very little undeveloped land left in Maplewood. At some point the community loses its charm and becomes another suburb using every inch of space. What this area has is special.” (email response) Jeff Tarnowski- 1662 Village Trl E Unit 1 (home owner, traffic, property value, area) “I am a concerned homeowner in Heritage Square association. I strongly oppose the possibility of construction of apartments across the street. K. Peter Stalland is out to make money, plain and simple. He doesn't care what the proposed construction will do to our neighborhood. He is delusional to believe the design of the apartments will benefit our neighborhood!!! It will no doubt depreciate our property values, drastically change the character of the area, and significantly add to the amount of traffic. Please preserve the last remaining undeveloped site in Maplewood.” (Email response) Keith and Jodi Rose-1670 Village Trl E unit 6 (area, traffic, property value, green space, saturation, safety, home owner) “I am a member of the Board of Directors for Heritage Square Second Edition, and I have been informed on the proposed re-zoning of the lot at the intersection of County Road D and Kennard Street, and I have many concerns with this proposal. The proposed developer of this land (K. Peter Stalland) has misrepresented himself as to what the property would be used for. In the developer’s letter, he states that the surrounding neighbors include "medium-to-high density J4, Attachment 17 Packet Page Number 159 of 200 rental townhomes." We own our homes, are quite vested in this community, and hold considerable interest in what happens to the property bounded by us to the east and south as it relates to our own home values. This would not be 'more rental units in a sea of existing rental units' as the developer is trying to frame it. Other issues I have concerns with: • With so much commercial space surrounding us, that wooded area is a welcome respite and major selling feature for those of us monitoring our home values' slow rebound from the housing crash. • By effectively blocking the natural view on all sides for its neighbors at Heritage Square I and II, the plan steals our view and preserves it for car traffic and apartment renters. This could be detrimental to the people with the most to lose — the homeowners with property value to consider. • Another factor is market saturation — with cheaper rentals available in the same location, we may lose potential buyers when/if we choose to sell or rent out our homes. • The developer notes that there would be "only minimal vehicular traffic" and "would not create congestion or unsafe conditions." Heritage Square 2 and Village Trail East already generate moderate to considerable street traffic for a community of our size. Tripling the population of the immediate area can only lead to increased traffic, and it is preposterous to declare it would not. With the amount of neighborhood children walking and biking to the playground along Kennard, safety is also obviously a concern. • Any natural view along the trail/bike path would be eliminated by the 3-story buildings and their respective parking lots that, according to the building proposal, butt up almost directly against the trail. The playground is already paired with a less-than-ideal neighbor in the power lines that crackle ominously overhead — why make it worse with parking lots? In my own experience, I have seen deer, rabbits, chipmunks, etc. in their natural setting on the undeveloped land, and being able to share it with my 1-year-old son while on a walk within a block of my home is a joy that cannot be replaced. The plan takes the wooded area away from the people who enjoy it, reduces the value of the playground and trail, and essentially reserves it as the backyard for three apartment buildings. In a place that treasures its green space and protecting nature, a move like this is a total contradiction of this concept. This development would change the dynamic of the area in a way that the current homeowners will not tolerate. I ask that you take this under consideration.” (email response) Kristina and Joseph Schleisman-1670 Village Trl E Unit 4 (property value, traffic, disruptions, green space, saturation) “I am writing in response to your letter left on our door regarding the our home value at Heritage Square II due to the Conifer Ridge Apartment complex. Yes, we completely agree with all reasons stated in your letter and are VERY concerned about the negative affect this WILL have on the resale value of our home. We do want to sell soon and now potential buyers are going to be seeing at a minimum the large signed that was posted on that property at the intersection of Village Trail and Kennard. Does that have to be there??? In addition, in the near future they will be seeing major construction happening in the area which will deter buyers. J4, Attachment 17 Packet Page Number 160 of 200 As you letters states the following are major concerns: 1. The sign at the Village Trail & Kennard intersction 2. Unsightly/major construction 3. We do not want to lose any wooded area as there is so much business already around us and again for potential buyers this is a downfall. 4. Our view of the wetlands will now be apartments - again we do not want this nor do our potential buyers 5. market saturation - we do not want more rentals in the area and especially anything cheaper than our home value!!!! There are already tons of other rentals in the area. 6. vehicle traffic - this will significantly increase traffic and we have 2 children who frequent the park and walk around this neighborhood very often. In addition, we job and bike the area often too and this just is more danger and congestion that is unneeded in an already very busy area with all the homes, apartments, mall, restaurants, Costco, etc. that are located in the area. This is a complete mistake to put this development in and is absolutely detrimental to the homeowners in the area. There is no way this is possibly a good thing for anyone other than the builder's profit.” (email response) Current Occupant- 3003 Hazelwood St N unit 332 (traffic, green space, overdevelopment) “I am not in favor of this development. 150 units would bring an additional 150+ cars to the area which already has much traffic and higher in the morning and evenings coming and going. I would love to keep this green space as is. There is already too much commercial and not enough empty land which we need a good balance, keep nature in the area and the green spaces buffers the traffic noise from County Road D and 694. Please consider the denial of this development.” Vivian B Anderson-3003 Hazelwood St N Unit 105 (Density, design) “There is enough high density housing in this area. Leave it nature. The apartment buildings leave much to be desired esthetically. Very ugly” Sarona Development LLC-1264 Driving Park Rd Stillwater (density, greenspace) “Absolutely opposed, 1. The city should only accept applications within zoning to be fair 2. Density is too high 3. Locations of buildings block the view of owner occupied townhomes” Dekran Baltaian-4933 Bald Eagle Ave White Bear Lake (density, renters, property value) “The area is already congested and the low income housing in the area is bad enoug h. Most of all the value of my townhouse has gone down. Overall it’s a bad idea.” Ben Lavine-1666 Village Trail 1 (home owner, green space, overdevelopment, market saturation, traffic, playground, home values) J4, Attachment 17 Packet Page Number 161 of 200 “Speaking as the president of the board representing Heritage Square Second Addition we unanimously are against the re-guiding of the property mentioned in the proposal. Robert Newton a fellow board member has put together some points of our concern. Please see below. In the developer’s letter, he states that the surrounding neighbors include "medium-to-high density rental townhomes." We own our homes, are quite vested in this community, and hold considerable interest in what happens to the property bounded by us to the east and south as it relates to our own home values. This would not be 'more rental units in a sea of existing rental units' as the developer is trying to frame it. • With so much commercial space surrounding us, that wooded area is a welcome respite and major selling feature for those of us monitoring our home values' slow rebound from the housing crash. • By effectively blocking the natural view on all sides for its neighbors at Heritage Square I and II, the plan steals our view and preserves it for car traffic and apartment renters. This could be detrimental to the people with the most to lose — the homeowners with property value to consider. • Another factor is market saturation — with cheaper rentals available in the same location, we may lose potential buyers when/if we choose to sell or rent out our homes. • The developer notes that there would be "only minimal vehicular traffic" and "would not create congestion or unsafe conditions." Heritage Square 2 and Village Trail East already generate moderate to considerable street traffic for a community of our size. Tripling the population of the immediate area can only lead to increased traffic, and it is preposterous to declare it would not. With the amount of neighborhood children walking and biking to the playground along Kennard, safety is also obviously a concern. • Any natural view along the trail/bike path would be eliminated by the 3-story buildings and their respective parking lots that, according to the building proposal, butt up almost directly against the trail. The playground is already paired with a less-than-ideal neighbor in the power lines that crackle ominously overhead — why make it worse with parking lots? The plan takes the wooded area away from the people who enjoy it, reduces the value of the playground and trail, and essentially reserves it as the backyard for three apartment buildings.” (email response) Ben Villnow- 1565 Legacy Parkway E (home values, traffic, market saturation, area, home owner) “I am against this proposed development for these reasons: • I disagree with the proposal when it states that building 3 50-unit complexes "would generate only minimal vehicular traffic and would not create congestion or unsafe conditions." Is there any factual evidence that this would be the case? • The proposal states that a major feature of the site is its "unique beauty" and that the design would preserve and protect it. But for whom? Current residents would have their beautiful natural views replaced with views of large rental complexes and traffic. The wooded area is a major selling feature and this will surely be diminished with this proposed development. J4, Attachment 17 Packet Page Number 162 of 200 • The addition of high density rental complexes will cause market saturation, increasing the supply of cheaper rentals and thus lowering the market value of our homes if we chose to sell or rent them. • Another point in the proposal that I take issue with is the statement that the proposed development is surrounded by "medium and high density rental townhomes." I, myself, as well as many of my neighbors, own and live in our homes. We have a vested interest in our community and its future. For these reasons, I am concerned that the proposed development of Conifer Ridge Apartments may not be in the best interest of the community and feel you should consider this while reviewing the application.” (email response) Bob Fix-1600 Legacy Parkway East #4 (density, home values, green space, home owner) “As a 9+ year townhome original owner in Heritage Square 1 townhome association and the president of the board of directors for the past 4+ years, I am concerned about the development of the high density apartment units in the proposal. I have known that this parcel of land has been a topic of development proposals for a number of years, so I’m not surprised that with the economy where it is at and a recent article this week in the Star Tribune citing the lack of available apartments in the suburbs, we have now reached this point. Here is an outline of the concerns of myself and the community at large with the proposal. · First, the community takes issue with the proposal’s assessment that the high density apartments are located in close quarters with high density senior living and “high density rental townhomes”. Heritage Square 1 and 2 have worked very hard over the past 4 years to keep rental rates lower in the association and brand ourselves as a home “OWNERS” community. Rental units certainly increased due to the foreclosure crisis, however, renewed strength in the economy has now led to more homes being sold in our community and less rentals. Whether we want to admit this or not, rental units have historically had lower sale prices and home values, my goal on the board is to preserve and increase homeowner value. This proposal would not do that, in fact, much the opposite – more on that later. · I applaud that the proposal recommends preserving much of the tree strand by having high density units instead of lower density units. However, from our association’s point of view, it is more loss than gain – here is why: The tree strand as it currently stands is not only very beautiful, but it serves as an excellent noise barrier to nearby Interstate 694. My wife used to live in Mendota Heights about a similar distance from Interstate 494 with no barrier and there is a marked decrease in noise having the mature trees as a barrier. While the proposal plans to keep most of that tree strand in place – I remain skeptical. Additionally, the proposed apartment buildings would be facing Legacy Village, therefore the highway noise would be replaced with residents of 100+ apartments coming and going and associated noise with that and not the peacefulness of the wetlands. To me – it is the equivalent of having a house overlooking the lake and then someone comes in and builds a house in between you and the lake. I would imagine that the townhome owners that currently enjoy the park and wetlands overview currently would have their property values and enjoyments of their homes reduced due to the proposal. J4, Attachment 17 Packet Page Number 163 of 200 High density populations cause stress within a community. Our association is 220 units on 7 acres of land. The developer of our association decided mid stream to maximize unit construction and add more buildings at the cost of parking and green space. This is the primary complaint and reason for homeowners leaving our community. To further increase the density of people and traffic in the neighborhood would further increase homeowners leaving, increasing townhome rentals and lowering property values. The increased traffic on Hazelwood and County Road D would likely necessitate a traffic light at that interchange. It is already a dangerous intersection and I am VERY surprised that there have not been more incidents there. During the holiday season and winter weather I would expect the traffic increase to be most problematic. I don’t agree with the proposals assessment of minimal additional traffic. Adding 150 more units coming and going from this space will further necessitate traffic controls in the area. I also think that there is some flawed logic in the type of renters that this new unit would bring in. From reading the proposal, it appears that the apartments would be on the high end of market rate? Based on the information from the Gladstone redevelopment project that would be around $900-$1000 per month? I cannot speak intelligently to the market rates, but don’t believe that the new apartments would be able to sustain long term upper end market rates primarily because of the lack of professional commerce and light manufacturing surrounding the area. Hospital workers are not going to live there and the service industry employees that work in the area generally cannot afford an upper market rate apartment. Finally – if an apartment can be had for $900 per month rent, and you can purchase a townhome in our community for around $1000-$1100 per month mortgage (based on current sell prices in our community), that would drive down rental rates. All said, the result of the proposal passing and the construction beginning would mark a race against the clock personally to sell my home and move out of Maplewood and that feeling resides with many of the homeowners here. I don’t believe that approving the proposal would immediate create any of these situations, but long term, high density housing is very hard to maintain and promote as a place to live unless you are a true urban environment such as downtown Minneapolis or St. Paul. These will be things that the developer does not care about as he will be paid and moving on. You may be able to kick this can down the road as well to the next City Manager to deal with. This would have been a wonderful development to have where CarMax currently stands, or perhaps across the street from Costco and next to Lexus, but to cram it in on top of an already heavily populated area would in my opinion be a mistake. I do not disagree with the idea of adding apartment units to the north Maplewood area, but in this location, the loss would be worse than the gain.” (email response) Carol Njogu- 1573 Legacy Parkway East unit 5 (home values, green space, area) “As the owners of a townhouse on 1573 Legacy parkway, we are concerned about the proposed the development of the Conifer Ridge apartments We do not want these apartments in our area - we have suffered enough as it is with the recession of 2008; many of us bought the townhomes when the prices were inflated. Having these apartments will only make things worse for us. But most importantly, the playground, the greenery, the view will be compromised, destroying our beautiful neighborhood. I am sure there are plenty of other areas in the twin cities where you can take the proposed development to.” (email response) J4, Attachment 17 Packet Page Number 164 of 200 Danielle Iverson-1667 Village Trail East #1(traffic, safety, area) “I am a resident in the townhouses off of Kennard and County Rd D. Our front door faces Kennard and my family and I would be directly across the street from the Conifer Ridge Apartments if they get built. There are numerous reasons why this should not be approved. And indeed, it is personal, so I will make this email that way. My husband and I bought our home six years ago with the plan to raise a family here. We now have two little girls and a dog. We are frequent visitors (along with many other kids) to the park near the site you are considering. To get there we obviously have to cross the street. Kennard is already fairly busy, putting in this proposed development would make it even more so. It is simply not safe. I personally work in pediatric trauma, I have seen firsthand the often deadly repercussions of dense neighborhoods built on busy streets. I understand that this proposition is dubbed as being "only minimal vehicular traffic". It does not seem like that is possible, you are significantly increasing the number of residents in a small area. The school buses also stop right on Kennard. There is already a long line of cars waiting for the bus to go each morning. This "minimal vehicular traffic" would only increase this. One reason we bought our home is because the location is convenient but it still does feel like we have privacy because of all the trees and nature around us. If the apartments get built this will be lost. For us, these things are important enough that if the apartments do get approved we would be planning on moving. Please take this all into consideration and say no to the proposal for the Conifer Ridge Apartments.” (email response) Ankita Patel Bhalla- 1678 Village Trail East #4(home values, safety, green space) “I am currently a home owner in the Heritage Hills Townhouse, and I have been since it was first built. You are probably well aware that the housing market crashed 8 years ago, and our homes are not anywhere near what they were worth then. We have already suffered a loss, however over the years the market has become better and our homes are slowly but surely appreciating. Breaking even may not even be in the question, but nevertheless the value has increased. I am telling you this as I read the proposal for the new conifer ridge apartments. I am very concerned about this proposal and am definitely not in favor. I understand that I may only be one vote, but this proposal not only devalues our home, takes away the only natural beauty that we have left in this area, but increases traffic and puts the safety of our children at risk. There is currently a playground nearby that we take our child to, and it is quiet and peaceful. I rarely have to worry about cars or too many strangers walking by. I am very concerned and kindly request that you reconsider this proposal. The value of our homes will be reduced to nothing should those apartments and parking lots be built. Please consider this a plea from a homeowner, mother and resident of maplewood to preserve the natural environment and help save the homes in the area.” (email response) Kathryn Engel-1635 Legacy Parkway E #2 (green space, environmental impacts, traffic, renter, home owner, design, disruption) “I am vehemently against these new apartment buildings. If this is really one of the last undeveloped bits in Maplewood, it is certainly worth preserving without a monstrous set of buildings. I take issue with the developer claiming that these J4, Attachment 17 Packet Page Number 165 of 200 townhouses are rentals- the fact is they are individually owned. Some owners do rent them out, but I take pride in the fact I own this place and I'm not alone. The addition of these rental apartments would devalue our homes and would destroy the view we enjoy of the park. Their design says they incorporate the beauty of the area, but for those of us here, it destroys it and replaces it with a direct view of only ugly buildings and parking lots. The developer also says it would have little impact on the traffic on Kennard- FALSE. I live directly on that street and it is busy as it is. People who work at St. John's hospital come and go and it is extremely busy. The addition of 50 or so cars as they suggest (yet the reality is that there are going to be multiple people and vehicles in many of these units so more than 50 for sure) would be a nuisance. Back to the sustainability bit since that is your department- let's look at what the carbon impact and footprint would be of the building process- rather large. A 48% reduction in the green space is a terrible thing to see as there is so little pristine green space left in the city. Also, the existing greenery and trees does a wonderful job muting sound especially from Myth and the nearby freeway. If you remove the tree barrier between our homes and this new building it will be louder and more disruptive. Also construction crews in the past in this area have been very disruptive and disrespectful of the current inhabitants and no one is looking forward to that. It would also be upsetting to see the nature of the existing development corrupted and made more transient with shorter term rental apartments (as opposed to purchasing and creating a community feel). Please know that this proposal is highly upsetting to a fairly large population that already lives in the area. Please scrutinize what they are proposing- it looks rather "green-washed" with "benefits" that detract from what we who live in the area have at this time.” (email response) Luke Swatell – address not confirmed (green space, area) “Thank you for taking the time for letting me voice my concerns. I live in the townhouses directly across from the proposed development on County Road D and Hazelwood in Maplewood. There are numerous reasons why I think a development is bad idea for our residents. Even though we live in a first ring superb, the adjacent woods and wildlife offer a breath of fresh air from the visually stunning pines that block our view of the highway. My kids play at the local park that is serene, beautiful, and relaxing. Replacing that scenery with a development and parking lot would completely change the dynamics of the neighborhood. As I understand that development is a way of life, so is the necessity for a place to relax, gather our thoughts, play with our kids, and enjoy what nature we have within our community. Please join us in our fight to keep the development off our land! Thank you again for your time, it's greatly appreciated” (email response) Marc Betinsky – address not confirmed (traffic, green space, density) “I am a resident of Cottages at Legacy Village, immediately adjacent to the proposed development on the south side. As you know, Cottages is already surrounded by a significant number of larger density developments, including townhomes to the east and a senior living center to the west. In addition, a large hospital is to the south, along with medical offices and the mall slightly further east. As a result, a fair amount of traffic already traverses Hazelwood Street, either proceeding south from County Road D or north from Beam Avenue. The proposed development not only destroys a large green space for an otherwise already densely populated and used area, but also would permit a high-density development (through re-zoning) that would significantly add to vehicle traffic along Hazlewood. J4, Attachment 17 Packet Page Number 166 of 200 Moreover, the intersection at Hazelwood and County Road D is served only by a 4-way stop, and an entrance to the development as proposed, slightly south of this intersection on Hazelwood, would likely cause traffic delays and a traffic hazard (including a hazard getting people in emergency situations to the hospital). And that hazard is only exacerbated by the trail to the west, posing a danger to bikers and pedestrians alike. Given the significant number of multi-family units already constructed in this area, an additional one in this area -- particularly one that requires modification of a PUD and a zoning change -- is neither needed nor desirable. I hope the City agrees and turns down the project.” (email response) Michael Pontius- 1615 Legacy Parkway E Unit 5 (property values) “I currently own a home at Heritage Square and I'm writing to express my opinion as it relates to the proposed usre of undeveloped land adjacent to the Heritage Square condominium complex. I am completely against the use of the property to build housing of any kind. The development of this land in such a capacity would destroy the natural landscape and the value of my home. I have been here for 7 years and have ridden out the mortgage crisis to find our home value finally even with our mortgage - a new complex would destroy that equity. Note that if this progresses I will seek legal counsel to understand my lawful rights in such a circumstance.” (email response) Nicole Bisco 1632 Legacy Parkway E unit 1225 (property value, area, renters) “As a resident of Heritage Square townhomes I am not happy to hear of the proposed development of Conifer Ridge Apartments. My biggest concerns are around property values, no matter what you say this will diminish the value for many reasons. First there will be more car and foot traffic in the area, second residents in a rental property like you are proposing do not take pride or care of the area they are living. Most importantly a big reason for purchasing my townhouse was because of the park. It provided a peaceful area with a walking trail. Based on the images you provided it appears that walking trail will be removed, is that correct? Removing the walking trail would be motivation enough for me to move even though I have only lived here for one year. The small trail near the library is simply not large enough to make up for removing the trail near the townhomes. I hope if this project moves forward that they consider moving it back so there is more space and park area between them. That would benefit residents of both areas.” (email response) Pamela Shones- 1662 Village Trail East Unit 4(property value, renters, trash, traffic, green space, home owner) “150 units potentially could mean 300 or more people living across the street from me along with their cars, noise and all the pollution. Traffic would be terrible and crossing Kennard to get to the park would be unsafe for children. This part of Maplewood is already saturated with multi- dwelling homes. We do not need more. The view from my unit, which I own, will no longer be trees and green space. It will view a parking lot and apartment building. The green space that is being preserved is on the other end of property. Owning my unit, I am invested in my home and neighborhood. I take pride in both. Renters do not always share these values. There was no mention about how many units will be subsidized. Renters can be transient and don’t have a reason to care about their home, neighborhood or community as a whole. I use the trails and walk almost daily. I pick up garbage along the way because I don’t like unsightly trash to look at. More rents means, more trash. Whether it’s the City of Maplewood or the Heritage Square J4, Attachment 17 Packet Page Number 167 of 200 Association, no one seems able to keep the neighborhood picked up as it is. The value of my property will go down no matter what the developers try to say. Buyers won’t be willing to pay to look at an apartment complex and parking lot. Thank you for the opportunity to voice my concern about this proposed development. I truly believe it would be a detriment to this area.” (email response) Pat Boone-1594 Woodlynn Ave #4 (green space) “Please be aware that there are MANY residents at Heritage Square that are extremely opposed to this development. For sure myself, Eileen Nelson, Sandy Podratz, Gayle Nelson, Kari Thimjon, and Mary Nelson. This is just a FEW. There has already been way too many trees torn down in this area. It needs to stay wooded. There’s got to be other places in Maplewood that they could put this. If you need signatures, addresses anything, please let us know so we can help stop this.” (email response) Robert Newton-1683 Village Trail East #3 (green space, traffic, playground safety, area) “After reviewing the letter I received outlining the proposal, I have a number of concerns about misrepresentations and inaccuracies put forth by the developer, not the least of which have to do with sugar-coating the negative impact such a dense development would have on the community, which consists of individual homeowners in the Heritage Square neighborhood (NOT other high-density rental properties as described). As a resident of Heritage Square and Vice President of our homeowners association (the "2nd Addition" which runs along Village Trail East), I can attest to the already considerable street traffic in the neighborhood generated by a community of our size (there are just over 80 townhouse units along Village Trail East). It is preposterous to suggest that adding 150 more dwellings across Kennard St., essentially tripling the number of residents in a small area, would not impact traffic or noise levels in any way. The fact that this area directly borders a neighborhood playground is also cause for concern due to the number of children and families going to and from the playground, crossing Kennard St. and/or Legacy Pkwy. Secondly, the proposed layout of the development seems to purposely reserve any views of the remaining natural elements specifically for residents of the apartment buildings (and drivers along County Road D - likely to keep "curb appeal" for passerby along that street). Meanwhile, parking lots butt up almost directly to the existing bike path, and three- story buildings would block the view from the playground and existing homes. We already have one less-than-ideal aspect of the playground in the crackling power lines that tower above. Anything more to decrease the appeal of that area could incite real devaluation of not only the playground area, but the surrounding neighborhood. I am happy to discuss these and other concerns more in-depth if you wish to contact me. But please know that the developer at the very leaset seems to be purposefully obfuscating facts to serve his own interests in furthering this development, which as proposed, is not a solution or a reasonable resolution to anything. I ask that the City rejects the Conifer Ridge Apartments as currently proposed.” (email response) Sarah and Thomas Hackworthy- 1613 Legacy Parkway E unit 5(property value, green space, rentals, disruptive, home owner) We are writing in response to the proposed development within the Legacy Village planned unit development. As members of the Heritage Square community and home owners, we strongly oppose this development plan. J4, Attachment 17 Packet Page Number 168 of 200 This project proposal steals our beautiful views, saturates the market with cheaper housing options, causes great disruption in our community, decreases the noise buffer between our homes and the freeway, and reduces our property values. Conifer Ridge Apartments proposes that their project will generate “only minimal vehicular traffic”. With the addition of 150 apartments, there is also the addition of 150 cars. With most households owning more than one car, we are looking at a likely addition of 300 vehicles going in and out of the neighborhood. That does not match “minimal vehicular traffic”. We have many children playing at the neighborhood park and crossing the streets; safety is a concern. Conifer Ridge Apartments is proposing changing the zoning from medium density to high density. We already live in a well populated area. The purpose of the ordinance is to protect the health, safety and welfare of the community. Changing to a high density residential area is not protecting the welfare of the community. Conifer Ridge Apartments states, “One major feature of this site is clearly its unique beauty”. They know it is a beautiful and attractive lot – yet they want to destroy most of it and reserve the little that is left for their own tenants. This is one of the few areas left where families can spend time together and enjoy what nature has to offer. Yes, it is unique, and our community wants to keep it that way. Conifer Ridge Apartments states that they are going to maximize “the natural and scenic features of the site into [their] design which will benefit the City, the neighbors, and the residents of the project”. This project will in no way benefit us, the neighbors. They are looking at the best interest of their project and pocketbook rather than the best interest of the community. They are stealing our views and our property values. Everything that we lose, they gain. I currently look out my front windows and see a beautiful park and wooded area. In fact, my husband and I paid more for our lot because of the location and views. Going from a beautiful view to a parking lot and rental apartments will most definitely impact us negatively. The project removes our beautiful view and puts it in their backyard. While we are now looking at apartments and parking lots, their residents now have nature and views. Conifer Ride Apartments states their project “... will not depreciate property values in the neighborhood; will not change the character of the surrounding area…” It is irresponsible to say that the project will not change the character of the surrounding area. It is insulting to say that the addition of these apartments will not depreciate our property values. While we appreciate their attempt to preserve as much nature as possible, this proposed development and preservation benefits only themselves and their tenants. It does not in any way preserve the beauty and nature of the community, or the views and scenery of the homeowners who are invested in the community. We are not rental townhomes, as their proposal letter states. We own our homes and we are invested in their values and the value of the community as a whole. As a community, we are just now starting to see our property values recover and come up to a place where early homeowners are no longer ‘under water’. It would be devastating to see these apartments come in and knock our values down even further. J4, Attachment 17 Packet Page Number 169 of 200 When you start to destroy the beauty and environment of a neighborhood, you start to destroy the financial value of the neighborhood. While it appears that Maplewood is interested in this project simply because it is one of the few that have been proposed in the past number of years, I ask you to look beyond the immediate financial gain and look at the bigger picture of greater community loss and fewer financial gains for Maplewood decades into the future. We want to see our neighborhood grow and prosper as much as the City of Maplewood, but this is not the project that is going to do that. We want to see a proposal that will not take away our views and put in rentals, but will build homes for ownership within the trees that does not take away from those already invested in the community. At the very least, there is room for compromise within the current proposal. There is a way for our community to retain our views and nature like setting along the walking paths (one of the most important issues with us) and for the city to move forward with completing the Legacy Village development. The plan is simple; build on the other side of the trees. Allow all those beautiful trees to stay along the park, as well as those outside townhomes on Kennard and western end of County Rd D. No views will be affected if the developer builds along the east end of County Rd D and the far north end of Hazelwood. I ask that you deny this development’s multiple requests for change in the community and wait for the right plan that will add to our community rather than take away. Tracy Karth-1613 Legacy Parkway unit 713(traffic, green space, area character market saturation) “I am firmly against the proposed development for the following reasons: • Market Saturation - with cheaper rentals available in the same location, I could potentially lose buyers if/when I choose to sell my home. • With the number of proposed units, I can't help but think of the added traffic around the neighborhood. • Three years ago, when searching for a town home to buy, I was looking for a place that had a nice view. To me, this meant not looking into my neighbors unit. After an exhaustive search, I found my current town home. One of the biggest selling points for me was the view of the wooded area and the natural space that accompanies it- something that is quite rare in the cities, especially among town homes. The developer's proposed plan does include preserving as much natural space as possible; however, the new buildings would block the view and preserve it for car traffic and apartment renters. I believe this would be detrimental to my property value. Not only would I lose the view, I would also lose the wooded area and all that comes with it. To me, this development feels like a mistake that will put my home value, and one of the only remaining green spaces in the area, in jeopardy.” (email response) Brad Bergman – address not confirmed (greenspace) “I am writing you today to express my concern with the proposed development of the Confer Ridge apartments in Legacy Village. I feel preserving the very few natural landscapes left in Maplewood is extremely more important than adding another apartment building. I am not alone in the opposition to build in legacy park. Thank you for your time.” (email response) J4, Attachment 17 Packet Page Number 170 of 200 Robin Sedivy-1587 Co Rd D East (green space, density, traffic, safety, disruption) “I live with my wife, Tracia, at the Townhomes of Pineview Estates, across the street on County Road D East, across from the proposed development area. Her and I purchased our home about 6 years ago and since then we’ve settled in quite well so far. We enjoy using the Bruce Vento trail which extends out to us all the way down to CHS field in St. Paul and intersects with other great trails including the Gateway trail to Stillwater. My wife also enjoys the convenience of the Metro Transit park & ride which was recently installed nearby as she is able to use it for her daily commute to downtown Minneapolis. Furthermore, the natural undeveloped area surrounding our residence is one of its most redeeming qualities. Our initial reaction when we saw the proposal was adversity to it. After reviewing the proposal further, I was relieved to see that it would preserve the wetland area and some trees immediately adjacent to County Rd D and immediately across the street from my residence. However still, given the location, scope and nature of the development project, I would like to express our disapproval of the proposed project. We feel that, while some trees in our immediate vicinity will remain intact, since the larger expanse of trees to the south of the wetland area of the proposed development zone would have to be cut down, it will significantly detract from the natural vista we currently enjoy when stepping outside of our front door. Instead of lush, forested area just over the wetland pond from us, instead would be a series of large buildings. This would be a significant downgrade in this aspect of the enjoyment of our surroundings and the tranquility it provides us. Furthermore, the scope of the project is ambitious. While a relatively temporary problem, seemingly the construction of the units will create a considerable amount of noise, smoke and construction traffic to the intersection in our immediate vicinity and at the adjacent intersection of Hazelwood and County Road D, which is fairly quiet and peaceful at the moment. This portion of the experience would create disappointment for us as vested homeowners, as it would likely create negative and perhaps unexpected disruptions that have not existed since we purchased our home. Finally, the nature of the development as 150 medium-density rental apartment dwellings is going to create other problems for us. While any residential development in the proposed zone would likely have similar negative effects as the ones I have listed so far in this writing, this type of development will drastically increase the number of residents packed into our immediate surrounding area. This would likely drastically increase traffic on County Road D East and Hazelwood St, which will contribute to increased noise and the potential for auto accidents involving injury and property damage. Also, while crime is relatively low at our townhomes, with the potential for up to 150 families being added across the street on leases, undoubtedly will cause an increase in criminal incidents. Not only are auto accidents and crime inconveniences, but they would also increase the cost of living in the area, including through an increase in insurance rates for ourselves and our neighbors. In summary, while perhaps a less ambitious proposal would garner a different sentiment, my wife and I are opposing the development of the Conifer Ridge Apartments in Maplewood. The reasons for our opposition are highlighted above and include the location, scope & nature of the proposed project. Thank you very much for allowing us to have a say in this matter which would have measurable and concrete effects on the quality and ultimately the bearing of our lives.” (email response) Steve Kheckler-1671 Village Trail East #1 “We just moved into the heritage in June. We are not in favor of an apartment complex being built on Kennard. Thank you” (email response) J4, Attachment 17 Packet Page Number 171 of 200 Keele Coleman- 1671 Village Trail E unit 5 (property values, community area) “I am one of several owners of a town home in Heritage Square, who has been informed of your plans to build an apartment complex in my area. My concern with your plan, if in fact this is your intent, is that our property value is in recovery from the down ward spiral of 2008, and I would like to see my property value return / exceed my original purchase value. Which, I don’t see happening if your plans are implemented. There is no way I would’ve purchase my home if I knew it was or would be surrounded by rental properties. What is needed, is a common area for Heritage Square/ our community that would provide our families a place to recreate, and also build our value by increasing our community area. I am asking you to please reconsider your plans. We do not want or need more rental properties in our area!” (email response) Lisa Mutchler- 1567 Legacy Parkway E unit 3 (green space, overdevelopment, traffic) “I am writing to you with concerns regarding the new proposed development of land adjacent to our units. I moved to this area, in large part, because of the view, proximity to work, the parks & trails and the location to the cities. I believe that the proposed development will greatly impact the view to the north out my front door. I feel that any development of this last piece of undeveloped land of Maplewood would be sad. We have a beautiful view right now, and I feel that many others feel the same way about this area. The city should be preserving the little bit of undeveloped land that it can within its city limits. I feel this development would be a sad use of money that would impact this area with much more traffic and congestion. Thank you for hearing my concerns regarding this matter. I look forward to any hearings regarding this proposed development.” (email response) Emily Swift- 1617 Legacy Parkway E #6(property values, green space, density, home owner) “I own 1617 Legacy Parkway E #6. It is the first home I purchased, and one of the biggest selling points to me was the unique view of the park, trees, and pond. The wooded area creates separation from the busy roads and interstate. The proposed development would take that away and would create more traffic in an already clustered neighborhood, destroy the natural beauty and wildlife we have left in this community, and decrease the value of my home.” (email response, included photo of view) Georgette Jacque-1683 Village Trl E #4 (traffic, density, green space, safety, homeowner) “Please stop the building of Conifer Ridge Apartments! 1st) We do own our own homes! This decreases the value of our homes on the market. We already have rental housing next to us. 2nd) Losing one of the last largest wooded areas in Maplewood. I walk 3-5 times a week on the Bruce Vento Trail (this would be there back yard! ). Where mine? 3rd) We have had many battles over the years over the kids playing in driveways and streets. We all live way to close already. They scream / fight / destroy utilities / throw rocks. 4th) Traffic? I leave at 6:30am each day and the traffic is horrible. Kennard Street is used for St. John's employees off of county road D to race to work when they late (40-50mph). When they leave work they do the same thing. I been in a few close calls with cars almost hitting me running or walking. This development does not make sense. Help save our neighborhood together!” (email response) Holly Sagstetter- 1627 County Road D E(traffic, property values) “I have serious reservations about this proposal and would like to explain why. The traffic on County Road D is quite heavy. There are times where it is difficult for me to exit my J4, Attachment 17 Packet Page Number 172 of 200 development due to the heavy traffic. Turning left is nearly impossible in the winter/holidays. I only see this getting worse by adding apartments to this vicinity. If there are 150 units that would mean (most likely) 100-300 additional cars coming in and out of this area. I also seriously doubt that adding these apartments would not negatively affect our property value (as your letter suggests). Also please note that many of our neighbors are renters and may not take the time to respond to this proposal letter. They perhaps are living here on a short-term basis. Please don't let a small response (if that is what you have received) make you think that this isn't a big deal.” (email response) Justin Iverson-1667 Village Trail E unit 1(density, green space, traffic, safety, trash, property values, home owner) “I and my family of four are residents of one of the town homes off Kennard Street. I am an owner of our town home (not a renter) and the proposed development going into Legacy Village is a concern to my family and I. I have listed my concerns Yes the developer is stating that these new developments are saving the wet land area and surrounding trees but for those of us in the surrounding town homes we will not be able to enjoy these beautiful looking wet lands as these three, three story apartments will block our view. The developer says many of the trees and wet lands will be spared but I don’t see how that is possible for the 2 units going between Kennard and Hazelwood as there are high voltage power lines along that stretch of land plus there is a pipe line underground. That means the parking lot plus 2 unit apartments on that stretch of land will have to go farther north into the forest/wetland area. What is government code for building multifamily building that close to a pipe line and high voltage electric lines? Another concern is traffic. Right now County Road D is very congested and Kennard is looking no better. Kennard is only a 2 lane road (County D is 4 lanes). Putting in 150 units in that small of an area and not expanding the roads will cause a tremendous more amount of traffic. Let’s say 150 units X 3 people per. unit that is 450 more people on Kennard, Hazelwood, and County D. Our town house unit sits right on Kennard St. and with my 2 young daughters it is already unsafe to cross Kennard with drivers going over 45 mph down the road like they shouldn’t, this large addition of human traffic will only make these roads more unsafe. With the increase in population comes crime and garbage. Right now I am going outside once a week to pick up litter/trash people have thrown out of their cars while driving or out walking. Unless the city is going to include more public garbage disposal or community led trash pickup I don’t see this getting better but worse with such a high density of residents. I have had to pick up old tires, parts of bikes, fast food meals, and other personal trash items that should not be thrown out into our beautiful environment/wet land area. I have lived in the area now more than 6 years and have notice more crime in the area where vandalism has increased dramatically. And an increase in child/young adult harassment from those stopping by the neighborhood or those who rent nearby. I only see these two crimes getting worse and I haven’t been a victim of theft yet but I in vision that happening once these units are established. Another point is market value and moral of the local residential area. These 150 units would be favored by the surrounding retail industry but disliked highly by potential buys of the surrounding town homes. And obviously disliked by current town home J4, Attachment 17 Packet Page Number 173 of 200 owners, meaning high turnover in the ownership of the townhomes and increasing the transient traffic greater than just the apartment units. This in turn means the townhome community would not be as invested at keeping up their townhouse units or yards or association equating to a worse looking exterior environment that will be surrounding these new 3 building apartment. Families or individuals that enjoy their community invest in their surrounding community more thus presenting a community that cares for itself to outside viewers. My last point is the Legacy Village property was zoned for medium density residential for a reason. I mentioned earlier the current community is not equipped to accommodate such a large increase in traffic. Such as roads, traffic patrol, garbage/environment, surrounding park is also too small. Also off Kennard are 3 bus stops which are already over populated, these apartments would only make school bus stops more congested and dangerous. Simon Mittal-1675 Village Tr E unit 6 (home owner, density, crime, property values, green space, run-off, traffic) “I please ask the Maplewood City Planning Commission to consider all of these points and others as they make their decision to rezone the current land space. I believe the current zoning in place on that land is there for a reason and rezoning it would be a mistake for the city and surrounding area.” (email response) We own and live in a town home on Village Trail Heritage Square 2 development. We are opposed to the new proposal for the development of apartments in the area bounded by Hazelwood, County D and Kennard for the following reasons 1. Although there has been information sent that there would not be a decrease in property values, no information can guarantee that. Also there were condos that were built on the east end of village trail that ended up being section 8 housing which has had an impact in values 2. Changes to the existing infrastructure would be needed and no explanation of how this would be done and how it would be paid for has been made. Existing infrastructure already causes some flooding on County D as it goes west toward Highway 61. 3. The public green space is an important part of the community and important to the quality of life for families and their children as it gives them an opportunity to enjoy the wetlands and forest, to see wildlife including geese, deer, rabbits, birds, etc that are not commonly seen in other communities. 4. As tax paying citizens we have a right to protect our living areas and spaces that directly impact our views, our quality of lives and our community. Increasing the number of people in an already dense population area has the potential to increase risk of crime. 5. Increased traffic flow near the park presents an increased safety hazard to the families and children that use that area. 6. This area is still trying to recover from the recession in 2008 ad just now we are starting to see property values climb and foreclosures decrease J4, Attachment 17 Packet Page Number 174 of 200 7. The area on Flandrau and County D is open and has less impact on the environment as well as current property values. Keeping green space in our neighborhoods is how a community can develop, it is how crime goes down and how we can come together, by reducing that space we would be inviting further problems. I am also concerned about the potential for increased flooding as the wetlands provide significant protection from flooding.” (email response) Maren Mittal-1675 Village Trail E unit 6 (property values, run-off, safety) “My concerns are: -Devalued property by bringing in lower income housing. High end apartments would rent for $1500-$2000. Is that what is proposed? -Is the sewer and drainage system set up to accommodate more housing in that area? The streets are already struggling to contain the water during a heavy rain and the proposed lot has several drainage ponds. Will our housing be at risk for future flooding? -I am concerned with additional vandalism. We often see police cars on our street, Village Trail, and bringing in more families who are not invested in this neighborhood, rental vs. ownership, could likely increase the crime rate. -Green space is important and our neighborhood has an appeal because of this wooded area, along with the residing animals. I’m asking that the lot off of cty D and Flandrau be considered for development. It is a field of weeds which is not maintained, therefore an eye sore to our neighborhood.” (email response) Steven Richardson-1617 Legacy Parkway E Unit 2 (parking lots, lighting, green space) “My main concern in the lighting for visitor parking. I would like to see the developments rotated 180° so as the lighting of the lot does not shine or glare into existing housing, I appreciate the saving aspect of the woodland, but it will be primarily for Conifer Ridge residents. Nobody else will benefit from this!” Tammi Veale-3050 Hazelwood St N (density, safety, green space) “I own the property at 3050 Hazelwood, which I purchased new back in December 2005. A lot has changed in the neighborhood since I bought my home. A lot of housing has been built in this area and the area in question is one of the few remaining undeveloped areas in my neighborhood. I agree that progress is good, or I wouldn’t have my own house, but I believe that putting three apartment buildings in that area is excessive, especially in an area currently labeled as medium density residential. I think another townhome community would be a better solution. My other concern in that there would now be a parking lot by the walking path instead of the current lovely landscape. This would not only be unattractive, it could potentially be a safety concern. My opinion is not to allow the building of the Conifer Ridge Apartments.” Rita Dombrovska-1567 County Road D E Unit 1(traffic, property value, green space, privacy) J4, Attachment 17 Packet Page Number 175 of 200 “I do not approve of this proposal due to my property value will go down. We will lose our present nature area. There will be no more privacy, also it will create so much more traffic on County Road D. I believe that city should not approve any changes to this CUP.” Ashley Berger-1670 Village Trail East Unit 3 (traffic, green space) “I do not approve or appreciate tearing down the small amount of nature we in this neighborhood. Also, the congestion it would create in this area. Please continue to fight for this not to happen.” Mark Stevenson- 7987 63rd St S Cottage Grove (density) “I am opposed to changing the zoning from medium to high density and would like to keep apprised of the situation.” Concern/ Comments- 7 John Olson-3003 Hazelwood St N Unit 333 (run-off) “I live at Cardinal Pointe. My big concern is run off which may back up into our rain garden. If this gets too full it will back up into our garage basement.” Ronald and Shirley Schilla- 3003 Hazelwood St N Unit 312 (run-off, traffic) “This will effectively double Hazelwood traffic, may need signal light a County Road D and Hazelwood. Will watershed flow to Cardinal Pointe rainwater garden causing drainage into our garage? Increased service vehicle delays, ie trash, school bus, mail, etc How about an info meeting for Cardinal Pointe and surrounding residents?” Richard Fursman-1666 Village Trail E #7 (reduce density, increase covered parking) “The area allows for multi-family housing, but the density requested is significantly higher than what was adopted in the original PUD when Owner Occupied Townhomes were promised. The preliminary design of the Apartments doesn’t reflect the design features of Legacy Village and will diminish the overall value of our development and will negatively change the feel of the PUD. Legacy Village requires each unit to have 2 covered and enclosed parking spaces per unit. The proposed project will introduce a high volume of exterior parking that will further change and diminish the look, feel, and character of the development we bought into in 2006. I respectfully request the developer be required to upgrade the structure, increase covered parking and cut down on the density. Otherwise, stick with the original PUD.” Chris and Diane Johnson- 2654 Keller Parkway, St Paul (storm water/runoff concerns) “We do have some concerns regarding the Conifer Ridge Apartment Development and would like to get more details on the project. Our main concern can be taken care of by a commitment letter from the City of Maplewood ensuring us that the Conifer Ridge project would maintain the pre-construction storm water discharge volume and rate to the pond north of County Road D. This pond drains into a wetland that, in turn, drains through our property. We don't want see J4, Attachment 17 Packet Page Number 176 of 200 any increase in the rate or duration of storm water flow through our site. Please let us know when we can meet.” (email response) Jennifer Strei-1613 Legacy Parkway East unit 4(increase setback, storm water concerns) “To start on a positive note, I appreciate that the proposed development has proposed a building design that is consistent with the other homes in the neighborhood and is preserving a fair amount of natural green space. The developer's description of the apartments as "upscale" and the inclusion of underground parking is encouraging as well. Yet as a homeowner near the proposed development I have a few concerns that I hope will be addressed during the planning commission and city council review process. • My preference would be to maintain the medium density zoning designation. There is little to no street parking available for the proposed apartments resulting in more of the land being devoted to surface lot parking. This is inconsistent with the surrounding developments that have very limited surface parking. • I hope the proposed rain garden for the development will be reviewed to determine if it is sufficient to handle the runoff from the addition of impervious surfaces. • Please note that while the developer characterizes the surrounding properties to include "...medium to high density rental townhomes..." the vast majority of townhomes in our neighborhood are owner-occupied. • Finally, I'm concerned with the lack of green space/treeline proposed along the existing trail that runs around the south border of the proposed development, running parallel to County Road D and Legacy Parkway East. I am requesting a set-back between the lot line and the surface lot parking, preserving about 50 feet of wooded area between the trail and the proposed development. This would serve as a buffer between the two developments and offer an aesthetic benefit to residents of both the adjacent townhomes and the proposed apartments.” (email response) Scott and Sarena Zabilla -1613 Legacy Parkway (parking lot, safety) “I am a resident of 1613 Legacy Parkway and received the notice regarding the proposed housing development. I am pleased at the initial design phase maintaining a maximum of 3 levels and the 3 buildings comprising of 150 total units. My concern with the proposed layout is the placement of the buildings and parking lot. Currently the children's park is going to be adjacent to the parking lot of the apartment units. I think this serves as a hazard for the children at the park, disrupts the tranquility of the walking path and PS the apartments further from the park. Why is the parking lot not closer to County Road D?” (email response) Emily and Tony Schafer 1666 Village Trail East #6 (density, parking, green space) “I would prefer a medium density zoning designation rather than rezoning to high density. I would like to see more of the parking underground rather than larger surface parking lots. This would have a particularly negative impact on the townhomes along Kennard. If a parking lot is necessary along Kennard I would like to see a significant amount of landscaping to shield this view. Also, I would like to see more green space along the existing trail that runs around the south border of the proposed development. This would provide a buffer between the two developments.” (email response) J4, Attachment 17 Packet Page Number 177 of 200 For- 2 Barb A Hart- 3003 Hazelwood St N Unit 207 “Go for it!” There is space and the existing housing area looks good- buildings and landscaping make the area attractive to new residents-easy marketing.” Florence L Bye-3003 Hazelwood St N unit 137 (Included question/concern) “It looks like a good plan, while preserving tree, pond and natural setting. Does Maplewood need more rentals?” J4, Attachment 17 Packet Page Number 178 of 200 July 29, 2015 Theodore DeMatties 1563 Legacy Parkway E #4 Maplewood, MN 55109 Dear Mr. DeMatties: I have reviewed the proposal for the Conifer Ridge Apartments submitted to the city. I know you are a recent resident to Maplewood and chose this city because of its neighborhoods, location and ease of travel for your family. However, the close proximity of the proposed apartments to your property you will have an impact on your view, an increase noise, vehicle and pedestrian traffic. It is my opinion that the changes to the landscape and adding 150 units may adversely affect the value of your property and is a significant change in the property’s intended use and your expectation of use when moving into Maplewood. Given this, I would strongly urge the city to deny the change in zoning to accommodate this large complex from being built on your front steps. I’m sure you and your neighbors agree that this will be a vast change to the neighborhood you wanted to live in. As permanent residents and taxpayers, the city should heed your concerns and stay with the current plans for tempered growth to Maplewood. Luis Pena, Realtor 612-991-6867 loupena@kw.com J4, Attachment 17 Packet Page Number 179 of 200 ffilL r decrease nearby home vatues? By Michael Estrin. Bankrate.com It's a long-held belief that rental properties hurt the values of nearby homes. CONNECT WITH US REFINANCE RATES AVERACES Product Rate Change tatt tek 30 year nxed re, 3.99% ψO.03 4.02X 15 year fixed ref1 3.13% サ0.01 3.14% 10 year ixed re■ 3.07% サ0.01 3.08Z "Buyers are definitely concerned about too many renters," says Herman Chan, a real estate broker in San Francisco. "People are less inclined to make an offer on a house that is in a sireet filled with apartment buildings (because) they perceive (the area) to be more congested, have less parking, and consider the residents more transient." Although those perceptions are often true - and sometimes valid - it's hard to quantify the ", impact that rental properties have on home values, according to \Mlliam Rohe, the director of I the Center for Urban and Regional Studies at the University of North Carolina at ChaOel Hill. IJ N,rtrl r*kall fr{'[z.Ll !'Prrru- { 6]'u4,' う喰γ?J → いハ0「ι →し6S edは nЪ っこ鉢 "よ 鼻侃 \zeSiJ*r^'ls \' 髄陣託 キ郡うヽくば キ l CLヽ ∫″`らキルしり "l think there is a stigma about renters, bui the research just isn't there to say for certain that a given amount of rental properties in a neighborhood brings values down by a specific amount," Rohe says. What data there are on the topic comes from a study Rohe co-authored in 1996 that looked \ at homeownership. For every single percentage point increase an area saw in I homeownership, Rohe and his colleagues found a corresponding increase in value, over the I course ofa decade, ofabout $1,600. J "lt's possible that the converse is true, that renters bring values down," Rohe says. But he cautions that a lot of factors go into a home's value, and those findings may not have the same weight in a post-crisis market- For now, the hard evidence remains elusive. Cause for concern Historically, Rohe acknowledges, the stigma against renters often has been a stand-in for discrimination on racial, ethnic and class lines. Although those prejudices still can be seen in some mar*ets, Rohe says homeowners sometimes have valid reasons to be concerned about an abundance of renters. In general, says Rohe, renters don't participate in their neighborhoods the same way that homeowners do. Because they are more transient, renters are less SHARE THiS STORY Adv: Re■22500/。′2370%APR Know your complete credit history. Get informed for free. Get Started 理露露饉test t.L.1■|amce_ CO MOST READ J4, Attachment 18 Packet Page Number 180 of 200 Iikely to participate in neighborhood associations. At the same time, homeowners are more likely to be a political force to be reckoned with because thet're expected to remain in their neighborhoods. "Homeowners just have a greater ability to efied the kinds of changes that make a neighborhood desirable," Rohe says. Its not necessarily true that the presence of renters, even in large numbers, is a bad thing. There is no identifiable tipping point at which renters change a neighborhood or affect values, Rohe says. "There's a lot of research to show that rental properties are kept up as well as homes, and when theyre not, it's usually the landlord, not the renter, who is to blame," Rohe says. A dwelling's condition counts for a lot 回 “ 二:ke 34"申 L ttDu魔 .Be the ttrstrpurmm“ ロロ回hrD●●ous cR“dn O St―etpn ■_Ema lstow l Celebn∥es scammed by ttadJ 2 5 weatthyfam∥ ies who lostttdr bnanes 3. The 9 youngest bi∥bnaims in the mrld 4 8 rnagnates who wontleave、Meatth to ttds 5 Cdeb∥ty house for sale:LeB●n」arrles 6 8 kitchen remode“ng deas fbr underS500 7 5 1chest gorё rsin the、Mand 8. 10 dogs most often b:acldisted by instlrers 9、 10 ce:ebs with insured body paJs 10 5 highes卜 paid oo:lege fooba::ooanes MORTGASE&REAL ESTATE NEVrSLETTER Timely market news and advice for corr9lnErs ready to buy, sell or invest in rBal estate. Delhrered ureeHy. First Name Zip Codc Email 'Yar data will nol bo shar€d wiul oths arld you en umuu*.ib6 at any lim. BLOG Builders grow more confident in market Builder confidence in August rose to its highest level in nearly a decade, according to the National Association of Home Builders. ... Read rmre 8+1 Io.D On Homavalucar llap: Fird hocr values by state Arc *e a natirn of renters? LaHsr horne value tsnds Cr-.rm.L.ttor'lrdC.t-' Kurt Wannebo, CEO of San Diego Real Estate & lnvestrnents, sap he's never encountered a buyer who tumed up his nose at a property iust becarse it was ned rental housing. 'They tend to look more at the condition of the nearby horne and the neighborhood in general," Wannebo says. "Renters can be very responsible peoptre, so ifs rmre on the landlords, and whether they keep the poperties they rent out rmintained and looking good.' The local market is an important factor. ln areas with rent conH laws, renters are more likely to behave like homeowners, Rohe says, because they have an incenti\re to stay for the bng haul. But you don't necessarily need rent contsol b rndte that happen. lf the rental housing market is tight, you're also more likely to see rcnters acting like horneowners. Condos could be a different story Although the rente/s stigma may be overblown in the singbfamily horne market, ifs a difierent story when it comes to condominiums, whk$ ae sdfect b a tighter set of financing rules. 'With condos, it the owner occupancy rate is too high fur sorne tlpes of financing, then we would need to make a price adjustment to compensaG,'Wannebo sals. Usually, when a condo has more than 30 percent of the units occu6irerl by renters, lenders tend to worry that the residents in the building don't have enoqgh skin in the game to keep up the property, Chan says. 'lf l'm pricing a condo listing where the renter occupancy b approacfiing 30 percent or more, I must advise my sellers that the inventory of qualified bt yers tups significantly, which can impact desirability, and in tum, value," Chan says. 'Only a$-cash buyers or peoph with specialized lenders who can look past the number of renters wi[ be de b make an offer.' ln both scenarios, the sale price usually fulls, either becarse lhe cash b,uyer demands a discount or the lender who's able to work around the ocanpancy issue npst likely charges a higher interest rate. Find the Lowest 2015 lnsurance Rates We'vs partn€rsd with the natbn's top €ri€E to pdid€ fE h$lm qr*s3. CarFr mllide quol6 & sve! I Auto&Home Enter Z:P Code GET FREE QUOTES Relatcd Unke: Top l0 DIY misld(Bs by tlqle fsdf:gr' 8 erie ghGt btxns Re6l estaE rcd flag3 Rel.ted Artkh.3 Lands€pe hmb sel Liff forex-lowl,sd€h? 5 home wallet{u8iBrE PARTNER CEヽ TER 躙 蹴識 Gα 轟鷹〕[redit.com Welh Fargo Cet preap_d mth WeR FaF9● Getpreepred 輸 Wens F叩wens adveftisemefrt J4, Attachment 18 Packet Page Number 181 of 200 DRAFT MINUTES OF THE MAPLEWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION 1830 COUNTY ROAD B EAST, MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA TUESDAY, AUGUST 18, 2015 5. PUBLIC HEARING b. 7:00 p.m. or later: Consideration of Comprehensive Plan Amendment, Planned Unit Development Revision, Public Easement Vacations and Lot Division, Conifer Ridge Apartments, County Road D East, between Hazelwood Street North and Kennard Street i. Economic Development Coordinator, Michael Martin gave the presentation for the Conifer Ridge Apartments, County Road D East, between Hazelwood Street North and Kennard Street. ii. Public Works Director, Michael Thompson addressed and answered questions of the commission. iii. The applicant, owner, manager, Conifer Ridge Apartments LLC, Peter Stalland addressed and answered questions of the commission. iv. The architect, Urban Studio, Teresa McCormak, addressed and answered questions of the commission. Acting Chairperson Trippler opened the public hearing. 1. Suzanne Fry, 3060 Cottage Lane, Maplewood, addressed the commission and she is against the proposal. Ms. Fry doesn’t approve of many things including the tree removals or the number of trees they plan to replace. Ms. Fry has concerns about the screening, environmental concerns, traffic, noise, lighting standards, construction hours, landscaping, fencing, trail system. This is a large impact, she appreciates the staff reports, but she wants more studies done and wants the land treated with respect. 2. Jennifer Newton, 1683 Village Trail East, #3, Maplewood, addressed the commission against the proposal. Most people are homeowners not renters in the area. This development would block the view of the people that live there currently. Having this development built as rentals may be harder for homeowners to sell their properties. She has concerns about traffic and safety concerns. She has concerns about the power lines. People in the area are invested in the community and take pride as homeowners and this does affect home values negatively and the perception as pride in being a homeowner verses being a renter and there is a concern of additional traffic in the area. 3. Sarah Hackworthy, 1613 Legacy Parkway East, Unit 5, Maplewood addressed the commission against the proposal. Ms. Hackworthy sent a lengthy letter which she handed out to the commission. As a community they feel this is not a good fit for this area. This is a setback to the area. It steals the beautiful views, the neighborhood is against this project, as a community they are saying no to this proposal, it saturates the market with cheaper housing options, it causes vehicular and population disruption, and it decreases the noise buffer between the homes and the freeway. J4, Attachment 19 Packet Page Number 182 of 200 With other home owners she is concerned about her property value. It is unrealistic that there will only be one car for a one bedroom. She is concerned about where more parking is going to go and that they have to look at more parking spaces in a parking lot. This is an attractive site and this project will in no way benefit the neighbors. The homeowners paid more for these views and to be in this location. If this project was in your front yard you would find that this proposal would negatively impact your neighborhood too. There will be greater demand to live in a neighborhood without rental units in the neighborhood. The neighborhood would like to keep the wetlands and the area as it is. At the very least they would like to see something that won’t negatively destroy the area. She would like this plan to be denied and to wait for the right plan. 4. Rachael Houle, 1599 County Road D East, Unit K, Maplewood, addressed the commission against the proposal. One of the main reasons she purchased this home was for the view and for the area and feels this will be overcrowded and a bad idea. 5. Les Koutela, 3003 Hazelwood, Unit number unknown, Maplewood, He is against this project and feels the developer is trying to crowd too many people into a small area. It will be overcrowded with cars and there will be visitors and he is against the proposal. 6. Kannan Venkatesan, 1573 Legacy Parkway Unit 1, Maplewood. He opposes this proposal. He comes from India and he lives in a community the view is gone and his other neighbors he is concerned about the home values and the safety of the children. He is against this proposal. Acting Chairperson Trippler closed the public hearing. Commissioner Kempe moved to deny the resolution approving the comprehensive land use plan amendment from MDR (medium density residential) to HDR (high density) for the 12.5-acre parcel in Legacy Village. Approval is based on the following reasons: 1. The proposed development is compatible in density and in character with the adjacent residential developments. 2. A goal of the Maplewood 2030 Comprehensive Plan is to strive for a variety of housing types for people of all stages of the life cycle. This action is subject to the approval of a comprehensive plan amendment by the Metropolitan Council. Commissioner Kempe moved to deny the resolution approving a revision to the Legacy Village planned unit development as it relates to the previously-approved rental townhomes and executive office suites and clubhouse sites. Approval of this revision is based on the findings required by the ordinance and subject to the following conditions (additions are underlined and deletions are crossed out): There are a long list of conditions but because the motion died for a lack of a second they are not listed here. J4, Attachment 19 Packet Page Number 183 of 200 Acting Chairperson Trippler stated he wanted to add language to condition b. 6. e. changing the square footage of the studio apartments from 544 square feet to 580 square feet. Acting Chairperson Trippler moved to approve the resolution approving the comprehensive land use plan amendment from MDR (medium density residential) to HDR (high density) for the 12.5-acre parcel in Legacy Village. Approval is based on the following reasons: 1. The proposed development is compatible in density and in character with the adjacent residential developments. 2. A goal of the Maplewood 2030 Comprehensive Plan is to strive for a variety of housing types for people of all stages of the life cycle. This action is subject to the approval of a comprehensive plan amendment by the Metropolitan Council. Acting Chairperson Trippler moved to approve the resolution approving a revision to the Legacy Village planned unit development as it relates to the previously-approved rental townhomes and executive office suites and clubhouse sites. Approval of this revision is based on the findings required by the ordinance and subject to the following conditions (additions are underlined and deletions are crossed out): Commission Additions are in bold. 1. The development shall follow the plans date-stamped May 11, 2006 August 7, 2015, except where the city requires changes. The director of community development environmental and economic development may approve minor changes. 2. The proposed construction must be substantially started within one year of council approval or the permit shall end. The council may extend this deadline for one year. 3. The city council shall review this permit in one year. 4. The applicant shall comply with the requirements in the engineer’s report dated June 1, 2006 August 10, 2015 and the environmental report dated August 12, 2015. 5. The applicant shall provide a copy of the homeowner’s association documents to staff for approval. 5. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the applicant must contribute $20,000 to the city’s tree preservation fund in order to comply with city ordinance. 6. The following changes are hereby made to the approved PUD conditions: Rental Townhomes and Office/Clubhouse Apartments: a. The project will be constructed according to the plans from Hartford Group dated 6/2/03 dated August 7, 2015 in all details, except as specifically modified by these conditions; J4, Attachment 19 Packet Page Number 184 of 200 b. A sidewalk will be provided continuously on the north or west side of Street A between Kennard Street and Hazelwood Drive, including the segment between the office/clubhouse parking lot and townhome buildings 11 and 12; c. Sidewalk connections will be added connecting the power line trail to the curb of Street A opposite townhome buildings 6 and 8. d. The sidewalks service the fronts of townhome buildings 13, 16, 17, 18, 19, and 20 will be extended south to connect with the power line trail; e. Street B and Street C serving the townhomes will be constructed in their entirety with the townhomes, regardless of the status of the multi-family and commercial parcels to the east; f. Parking spaces will be provided at the ends of the driveways at the rear of buildings 1, 2, 3, 4, 13/14; 15/16; 17/18; 19/20; 21/22; 23/24; 25/26. Sidewalks will be provided from those parking spaces to the front sidewalks of each building; g. The infiltration trenches on the south sides of buildings 13/14, 15/16. And 19/20 will be modified to accommodate a revised alignment for the power line trail, provided that reasonable grades are provided for the trail and any sidewalks connecting to it, and approval of the city engineer concerning the size and function of the trenches; h. A 6’ wide sidewalk should be provided if at all possible on the south side of County Road D for the entire length of the project from Hazelwood Drive to Southlawn Drive, through continued discussion between the city and Hartford, focusing on exact sidewalk width, location, and right of way needs for turn lanes and other features of the County Road D project; i. A sidewalk will be provided on the south side of County Road D and sidewalks will be provided out to that sidewalk from the north side of buildings 1, 4, 21, 22, 23, 24, and 25, as well as to the clubhouse front entry and the clubhouse parking lot; j. The grades of the power line trail and all sidewalks will meet ADA guidelines for slope; b. Overstory trees will be planted along Hazelwood Street and Kennard Street at an average of 30’- 40’ on center instead of the average 70’ spacing shown on the plans; c. Overstory trees will be planted along both sides of Street B and on the west side of Street C at an average of 30’ – 40’ on center instead of sometimes 100’ spacing shown on the plans, such additional tree islands to be coordinated with modified parking bays that might be added to this street; J4, Attachment 19 Packet Page Number 185 of 200 d. Overstory trees will be planted along both sides of Kennard Street in front of the townhomes at an average of 30’ – 40’ on center instead of the average 50’ – 80’ spacing shown on the plans; e. The curve in the middle of Street A opposite buildings 10 and 12 will be flattened as much as possible to limit headlights aimed into the front of the units; f. Front building setbacks (clubhouse and buildings 1, 4, 5, 14, 15, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, and 26) to Hazelwood Drive, Kennard Street, and County Road D that are less than required by the Zoning Code are specifically approved within this PUD as shown on the site plan, down to the minimum of 5’ for the clubhouse and 15’ for the townhome buildings, in order to enhance the urban character of the streets and intersections; g. Side yard building setbacks for all buildings that are less than required by the Zoning Code are specifically approved within this PUD as shown on the site plan; c. Visitor parking spaces for the rental townhomes apartments will be added or modified as follows: i. Parking spaces will be added so there is a total of at least 48 spaces on the west side of Kennard and at least 51 spaces on the east side of Kennard, such that the front door of no unit is more than 200 feet from a group of at least 5 spaces 75 spaces to serve all three buildings. ii. Street A will be widened to 26’ curb to curb and on street parallel parking will be added along the north and west sides of the street except for within 100’ of the pavement of Hazelwood Drive and Kennard Street. iii. The private drive immediately south of buildings 2 and 3 will be widened to 26’ curb to curb and on street parallel parking will be added along the north side of the drive. iv. Parking areas will be added behind buildings 1 and 4 where the driveway abuts the ponding area, consistent with the recommendation of the city engineer on providing adequate grading and functioning of the pond. v. Parking areas will be added behind buildings 15/16, 19/20, 21/22, and 25/26 to meet the parking and distance criteria cited here. vi. Street B will be widened to 26’ curb to curb and parallel parking will be added along the north and west sides of the street or additional angled parking will be added to meet the criteria for parking spaces cited here. d. The parking lot for the clubhouse/office building will be modified to add “proof of parking” spaces in the green area north and east of the swimming pool, for a total of 91 spaces possible in the lot. Such spaces will only be constructed if the owner believes they are needed, or if they are needed in the future to address parking problems at the building in the opinion of the community development director, who can order the spaces to be constructed. Such spaces will maintain J4, Attachment 19 Packet Page Number 186 of 200 a sidewalk connection between the swimming pool and clubhouse building in an island in the middle of the parking bays as shown on the plans; d. The storage space areas of each building shall be reconfigured to allow as many units as possible to have at least 120 cubic feet for storage. e. One studio apartment is allowed in each building with a minimum floor area of 544 580 square feet. f. An easement over the power line trail on this parcel will be provided to the city for access and maintenance. Acting Chairperson Trippler moved to adopt the resolution vacating two storm sewer easements on this site, since: 1. The easements would serve no public purpose after the applicant redevelops the property into Conifer Ridge. This vacation is conditioned upon the following: 1. Provide the city with legal descriptions of the easement areas to be vacated and for the new areas to be dedicated for storm sewer purposes. 2. The applicant meets all and any conditions within Jon Jarosch’s August 10, 2015 report. Acting Chairperson Trippler moved to approve the lot division for Conifer Ridge, subject to the following conditions: 1. The applicant shall comply with the requirements in the city’s engineering report dated August 10, 2015. 2. The applicant shall sign a developer’s agreement with the city engineer before the issuance of a grading permit. 3. The applicant shall dedicate any easements and provide any written agreements that the city engineer may require as part of this lot division. 4. The applicant shall pay the city escrow for any documents, easements and agreements that the city engineer may require. Seconded by Commissioner Ige. Ayes – Acting Chairperson Trippler, Commissioner’s Dahm, Desai, Donofrio & Ige Nay – Commissioner Kempe The motion passed. Commissioner Kempe said he voted nay because he has concerns about the lack of parking in the development, he has concerns about the traffic and there are 66 people J4, Attachment 19 Packet Page Number 187 of 200 who wrote in opposition to the project and those who came to speak against the meeting tonight. He believes a project with less density would be better for the neighborhood. Chairperson Trippler said there were 407 notices sent out to the surrounding residents and around 70 people responded. Either people are ok with the proposal or they didn’t care to reply or attend the meeting to voice their concerns about this proposal. Acting Chairperson Trippler said it’s not that the resident’s opinions are not important but 82% did not say anything about the proposal. The planning commission makes the recommendation to the city council and the council will make the final decision at the September 14, 2015 city council meeting. If you have concerns about the cost or the traffic you need to find somebody who is a recognized expert to talk about those things at the city council meeting. This item goes to the city council on September 14, 2015. Commissioner Kempe will be the PC representative. J4, Attachment 19 Packet Page Number 188 of 200 DRAFT MINUTES OF THE MAPLEWOOD COMMUNITY DESIGN REVIEW BOARD 1830 COUNTY ROAD B EAST, MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA TUESDAY, AUGUST 25, 2015 6. DESIGN REVIEW a. Consideration of Design Review, Conifer Ridge Apartments, County Road D East, between Hazelwood Street North and Kennard Street i. Building Official, Nick Carver gave the report for Conifer Ridge Apartments, County Road D East between Hazelwood Street North and Kennard Street and answered questions of the board. ii. Architect, Urban Studio, Teresa McCormak, addressed and answered questions of the board. iii. Civil Engineer, Dan Tilsen, addressed and answered questions of the board. iv. Owner, Manager, Conifer Ridge Apartments LLC, Peter Stalland, addressed and answered questions of the board. Residents who addressed the board were: 1. Suzanne Fry, 3060 Cottage Lane, Maplewood. Ms. Fry spoke in opposition of this proposal. She also spoke in opposition during the public hearing at the August 18, 2015, Planning Commission meeting. 2. Jason Sagstetter, 1627 County Road D East, Maplewood. Mr. Sagstetter spoke in opposition of the proposal. He and his wife sent comments included in the staff report. Boardmember Shankar wanted to add an amendment adding a condition number 15. The applicant shall work staff to maximize the amount of additional parking to be shown on the site plan. Chairperson Kempe requested an amendment under condition 11 adding another bullet point – The applicant will provide two additional quotes for buckthorn removal to be done by a licensed contractor with a licensed herbicide applicator. If chemicals are used it should be done by a licensed herbicide applicator through the Department of Agriculture. Boardmember Lamers moved to approve the plans date-stamped August 7, 2015, for the Conifer Ridge apartment development. Approval is subject to the developer complying with the following conditions: (changes or additions are underlined and in bold): 1. Obtain city council approval of a comprehensive land use plan amendment from MDR (medium density residential) to HDR (high density residential) to build apartments on this site. 2. Obtain city council approval of a revision to the previously-approved planned unit development for this project. 3. Obtain city council approval of the lot division for this project. 4. All requirements of the fire marshal and building official must be met. J4, Attachment 20 Packet Page Number 189 of 200 5. The applicant shall obtain all required permits from the Ramsey-Washington Metro Watershed District. 6. All driveways and parking lots shall have continuous concrete curbing. 7. All requirements of the city engineer, or his consultants working for the city, shall be met regarding grading, drainage, erosion control, utilities and the dedication of any easements found to be needed. All conditions of the Maplewood engineering report dated August 10, 2015 must be complied with. 8. Repeat this review in two years if the city has not issued a building permit for this project by that time. 9. Any identification signs for the project must meet the requirements of the city sign ordinance and the PUD approval. 10. The setbacks are approved as proposed. 11. The applicant shall: ● Install reflectorized stop signs at all driveway conditions to Hazelwood Street and Kennard Street. ● Install and maintain an in-ground lawn irrigation system for all landscaped areas. ● Install all required trails, sidewalks and carriage walks. ● Install all traffic signage within the site that may be required by staff. ● Provide a revised landscaping plan for staff approval which include the required overstory trees along Hazelwood Street and Kennard Street and detailing how screening requirements are being met for the parking lots facing residential areas. ● Provide revised building elevations for staff approval incorporating brick design elements at the foundation and first floor level of brick or stone into the buildings and adding architectural features to the gable areas of the buildings. ● Provide a screening plan to staff for approval for any visible utility meters on the outside of the building. ● Provide a detailed soils analysis to the building official and city engineer prior to applying for building permits to ensure that there is proper soil stability for construction. ● The applicant will provide two additional quotes for buckthorn removal to be done by a licensed contractor with a licensed herbicide applicator. If chemicals are used it should be done by a licensed herbicide applicator through the Department of Agriculture. J4, Attachment 20 Packet Page Number 190 of 200 12. The applicant shall ensure that site lights do not exceed a .4-foot-candle spillover at all property lines. 13. The applicant shall provide the city with cash escrow or an irrevocable letter of credit for the exterior landscaping and site improvements prior to getting a building permit for the development. Staff shall determine the dollar amount of the escrow. 14. All work shall follow the approved plans. The director of environmental and economic development may approve minor changes. 15. The applicant shall work with staff to maximize the amount of additional parking to be shown on the site plan. Seconded by Boardmember Shankar. Ayes – All The motion passed. This item goes to the city council on September 14, 2015. J4, Attachment 20 Packet Page Number 191 of 200 MEMORANDUM TO: Melinda Coleman, City Manager FROM: Michael Thompson, City Engineer/Public Works Director DATE: September 2, 2015 SUBJECT: Consider Resolution Accepting Feasibility Study, Authorizing Preparation of Plans & Specifications, and Calling for Public Hearing, Bellaire Avenue Improvements (Beam to Lydia), City Project 15-16 Introduction The feasibility study for the Bellaire Avenue Improvements, City Project 15-16, is complete and available in the office of the city engineer. A copy will be sent to all council members with the packet information and will also be available in council chambers during the meeting on Monday night. The study includes information on the proposed improvements, costs, and proposed financing . The council will consider accepting the feasibility study, authorizing the preparation of plans and specifications, and ordering a public hearing to be held on October 12, 2015. Background The section of Bellaire Avenue (aka Helen St) between Beam Avenue and Lydia Avenue is a border street with the City of North St. Paul (NSP). NSP is leading a large neighborhood reconstruction project in 2016 of which this section of Bellaire is included for pavement rehabilitation and spot curb repair. Maplewood, in anticipation of this joint project, planned for this work in the currently adopted 2016-2020 Capital Improvement Plan. Discussion WSB & Associates, Inc. acts as the City Engineer for NSP and produced the feasibility study which covers both the NSP and Maplewood improvements. The feasibility study found that the project is feasible, necessary, and cost effective from an engineering standpoint. If the study is accepted along with authorization for preparation of plans and specifications, then a Public Hearing will be scheduled for October 12, 2015. The Public Hearing is the meeting in which the residents have the opportunity to comment on the project. In order to proceed with the project a super majority vote is needed for ordering of the improvement after public testimony is received. The total project cost is estimated at $5,271,000.00 however Maplewood’s share is estimated at $93,250.00. Maplewood and NSP would enter into a joint powers agreement (JPA) prior to awarding of a construction contract outlining cost share and responsibilities. This is a similar process conducted in the past, for example, with the Beam Avenue border street project in 2008. J5 Packet Page Number 192 of 200 Budget Impact The Maplewood cost share is estimated at $93,250.00; $44,850.00 from special assessments and the remaining $48,400.00 from a combination of utility funds and G.O. Bonds. Recommendation It is recommended that the City Council approve the attached Resolution Accepting the Feasibility Report, Authorizing the Preparation of Plans and Specifications, and Calling for a Public Hearing for 7:00 p.m. on October 12, 2015 for the Bellaire Avenue Improvements, City Project 15-16. Attachments 1. Resolution 2. Project Map J5 Packet Page Number 193 of 200 RESOLUTION ACCEPTING FEASIBILITY STUDY, AUTHORIZING PREPARATION OF PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS, AND CALLING FOR PUBLIC HEARING WHEREAS, pursuant to a resolution of the council adopted August 10, 2015, a joint feasibility report in coordination with the City of North St. Paul has been prepared with reference to the improvement of Bellaire Avenue Improvements, City Project 15-16, and this report was received by the council on September 14, 2015, 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 City Council will consider the Bellaire Avenue Improvements, City Project 15-16 in accordance with the report and the assessment of abutting property for all or a portion of the cost of the Maplewood portion of the improvement pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 429 at an estimated total cost of $93,250.00. 2. The City Engineer for North St. Paul is the designated engineer for this joint improvement project and is hereby directed to prepare final plans and specifications for the making of said improvement. 3. The Finance Director is hereby authorized to make the financial transfers necessary for the preparation of plans and specifications. A proposed budget of $93,250.00 shall be established. The proposed financing plan is as follows: Special Assessments = $44,850.00 Utility Funds/G.O. Bonds = $48,400.00 4. A public hearing shall be held on such proposed improvement on the 12th day of October, 2015 in the council chambers of city hall at 7:00 p.m., and the clerk shall give mailed and published notice of such hearing and improvement as required by law. Approved this 14th day of September, 2015. J5, Attachment 1 Packet Page Number 194 of 200 1 inch = 500 feet ± Pavement Management CIP Project - 2016 City of North St. Paul MN Path: K:\01887-420\GIS\Maps\2016_Street_Util.mxd Date Saved: 5/27/2015 1:32:22 PM Parcels Project Years 2016 J5, Attachment 2 Packet Page Number 195 of 200 J6 MEMORANDUM TO: Melinda Coleman, City Manager FROM: Gayle Bauman, Finance Director DATE: September 8, 2015 SUBJECT: Consider Preliminary Approval of Proposed Tax Levy Payable in 2016 and Setting Budget Public Hearing Date Introduction State law requires that cities certify their proposed property tax levies to the county auditor by September 30th. The proposed tax levy that is given preliminary approval cannot be increased. Therefore, it is important that the proposed tax levy provides adequate revenues to finance the 2016 Budget. The Proposed 2016 Budget requires a City tax levy of $19,662,000. This levy combined with the proposed tax levy for the EDA of $89,270 brings us to a total tax levy of $19,751,270 which is a 4% increase over 2015 (see breakdown attached). The City Council needs to decide the maximum levy that it is willing to approve and then adopt the attached resolution. Background Workshops on the 2016 budget were held with the Council on 8/24/15 and 9/14/15. Information on the 2016 draft Operating Budget was included in the workshop packet for the meeting held earlier tonight. There are currently no levy limits in place so the City is able to increase its levy over the 2015 amount. The total maximum levy needs to be approved by September 2015, but how the levy is allocated between funds can be adjusted up until the final levy is adopted in December. Recommendation It is recommended that the City Council adopt the attached resolution setting the maximum City tax levy for payable 2016 at $19,662,000 and setting the date for the Public Hearing on the 2016 Levy and Budget for Monday, December 14, 2015 at 7:00 pm as part of the Regular City Council Meeting. This levy, combined with the proposed EDA levy of $89,270, will result in a total levy of $19,751,270 which is a 4% increase over 2015. Attachments 1. Tax Levy for 2015-2016 2. Impact on Property Taxes of Maplewood Homes 3. Resolution Packet Page Number 196 of 200 J6, Attachment 1 TAX LEVY FOR 2015-2016 Proposed 2015 2016 Change Levy Levy Amount Percent Operations: General Fund $12,469,520 $13,099,180 $629,660 5.0% Ambulance Service Fund $335,000 $310,000 ($25,000) (7.5)% Community Center Operations Fund $500,000 $500,000 $0 0.0% Recreation Programs Fund $160,000 $200,000 $40,000 25.0% Operations Total $13,464,520 $14,109,180 $644,660 4.8% Capital Improvements: C.I.P. Fund $140,000 $75,000 ($65,000) (46.4)% C.I.P. Fund – Street Projects $250,000 $250,000 $0 0.0% C.I.P Fund – PD Squad/Equipment $255,000 $300,000 $45,000 17.6% Fire Truck Replacement Fund $0 $60,000 $60,000 100.0% General Bldg Replacement Fund $0 $50,000 $50,000 100.0% Redevelopment Fund $0 $25,000 $25,000 100.0% Capital Improvements Total $645,000 $760,000 $115,000 17.8% Debt Service: Debt Service Fund $4,792,820 $4,792,820 $0 0.0% TOTALS-CITY $18,902,340 $19,662,000 $759,660 4.0% EDA Fund $89,270 $89,270 $0 0.0% TOTALS-ALL FUNDS $18,991,610 $19,751,270 $759,660 4.0% Packet Page Number 197 of 200 J6, Attachment 2 TAX IMPACT ON MAPLEWOOD HOMES The annual impact of different levels of the city levy increase to Maplewood homes is as follows based on information received from Ramsey County on 08/13/15. The scenarios are based on the assumption that a homes’ value is increasing by 1.9%, which is the median amount. Set levy at $19,561,360 (a 3.0% increase over 2015): Value of Property for Pay 2015 Value of Property for Pay 2016 Taxable Market Value for Pay 2016 2015 City Tax 2016 City Tax $ Increase (Decrease) % Increase (Decrease) $100,000 $101,900 $73,800 $ 342 $ 352 $10 2.9% $125,000 $127,300 $101,500 $ 470 $ 482 $12 2.7% $187,300 $190,800 $170,700 $ 790 $ 809 $19 2.4% $250,000 $254,700 $240,400 $1,112 $1,138 $26 2.3% $350,000 $356,500 $351,300 $1,626 $1,662 $36 2.2% Set levy at $19,751,270 (a 4.0% increase over 2015): Value of Property for Pay 2015 Value of Property for Pay 2016 Taxable Market Value for Pay 2016 2015 City Tax 2016 City Tax $ Increase (Decrease) % Increase (Decrease) $100,000 $101,900 $73,800 $ 342 $ 355 $13 4.1% $125,000 $127,300 $101,500 $ 470 $ 488 $18 3.8% $187,300 $190,800 $170,700 $ 790 $ 818 $28 3.6% $250,000 $254,700 $240,400 $1,112 $ 1,151 $39 3.4% $350,000 $356,500 $351,300 $1,626 $1,680 $54 3.3% Set levy at $19,941,190 (a 5.0% increase over 2015): Value of Property for Pay 2015 Value of Property for Pay 2016 Taxable Market Value for Pay 2016 2015 City Tax 2016 City Tax $ Increase (Decrease) % Increase (Decrease) $100,000 $101,900 $73,800 $ 342 $ 359 $17 5.2% $125,000 $127,300 $101,500 $ 470 $ 493 $23 4.9% $187,300 $190,800 $170,700 $ 790 $ 827 $37 4.7% $250,000 $254,700 $240,400 $1,112 $ 1,163 $51 4.6% $350,000 $356,500 $351,300 $1,626 $1,699 $73 4.4% Packet Page Number 198 of 200 J6, Attachment 3 RESOLUTION PROVIDING PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF A PROPOSED TAX LEVY PAYABLE IN 2016 and SETTING BUDGET PUBLIC HEARING DATE WHEREAS, State law requires that the City Council give preliminary approval of a proposed tax levy for 2015 payable in 2016 by September 30, 2015 and WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed preliminary information on the Proposed 2016 Budget and has determined the amount of the proposed tax levy payable in 2016 which is the maximum amount that will be levied. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA THAT: 1. The proposed tax levy for 2015 payable in 2016 in the amount of $19,662,000 is hereby given preliminary approval and shall be certified to the Ramsey County Auditor. 2. The date for consideration of the final levy and consideration of the 2016 Budget shall be set as Monday, December 14, 2015 at 7:00 pm in the Maplewood City Council Chambers. Packet Page Number 199 of 200 MEMORANDUM TO: City Council FROM: Melinda Coleman, City Manager DATE: September 9, 2015 SUBJECT: Council Calendar Update Introduction/Background This item is informational and intended to provide the Council an indication on the current planning for upcoming agenda items and the Work Session schedule. These are not official announcements of the meetings, but a snapshot look at the upcoming meetings for the City Council to plan their calendars. No action is required. Upcoming Agenda Items & Work Session Schedule 1. September 28th a. Workshop – Re-publication of City Codes, Follow-up on Strategic Plan, City Attorney Updates (Civil and Prosecution) b. City Council Meeting – RWSCC Participation 2. October 12th a. Workshop – Kid City Program, EEDD Strategic Objectives b. City Council Meeting – Century Link Franchise Public Hearing Budget Impact None. Recommendation No action required. Attachments None. M1 Packet Page Number 200 of 200