Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2009 01-26 City Council Packet AGENDA MAPLEWOOD CITY COUNCIL 6:30 P.M. Monday, January 26, 2009 City Hall, Council Chambers Meeting No. 02-09 A. CALL TO ORDER B. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 1.Acknowledgementof Maplewood Residents Serving the Country. C. ROLL CALL Mayor?s Address on Protocol: ?Welcome to the meeting of the Maplewood City Council. It is our desire to keep all discussions civil as we work through difficult issues tonight. If you are here for a Public Hearing or to address the City Council, please familiarize yourself with the Policies and procedures and Rules of Civility, which are located near the entrance. When you address the council, please state your name and address clearly for the record. All comments/questions shall be posed to the Mayor and Council. I then will direct staff, as appropriate, to answer questions or respond to comments.? D. APPROVAL OF AGENDA E. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 1. Approval of January 12, 2009, City Council Workshop Minutes 2. Approval of January 12, 2009, City Council Minutes F. VISITOR PRESENTATIONS ? PART I (Note: Visitor Presentations shall not extend past 7:00 p.m.; if time is not available to complete this item; all presenters will be instructed to remain at the meeting until this item is re-opened following Award of Bids, or return to the next Regular Meeting of the Council.) G. ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS (Note: Items G-H shall not extend past 7:00 p.m.; if time is not available to complete these items, they shall be extended by Council motion to the end of the meeting following Visitor Presentation ? Part II.) 1. 60-Day Review of Stargate Dance Club H. COUNCIL PRESENTATIONS I. APPOINTMENTS AND PRESENTATIONS 1. Presentation of Legislative Issues a. State Senator Chuck Wiger b. State Representative Nora Slawik c. State Representative Leon Lillie 2. Re-appointment to Planning Commission 3. Re-appointment to Community Design Review Board 4. Re-appointment to Police Civil Service Commission J. PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. Carsgrove Meadows Area Street Improvements, City Project 08-10 a. Public Hearing 7:00 p.m. b. Resolution Ordering Improvement and Authorizing Preparation of Plans after and Specifications after Public Hearing (4 Votes) 2. Castle Avenue Improvements, City Project 08-12 a. Public Hearing 7:15 p.m. b. Resolution Ordering Improvement After Public Hearing (4 Votes) K. UNFINISHED BUSINESS 1. Richie Place, South of Labore Road and East of Arcade Street. Action Requested: a. Comprehensive Land Use Plan Amendment from OS, Open Space to R1, Single Dwelling Residential b. Lot Division 2. Report on Request for Retaining Wall at North End of Clarence Street 3. City Manager Search Process ? Selection of Candidate and Authorization for HR Attorney to Negotiate Contract 4. Reconsideration of the Approval of the Council Policy and Procedures Passed on January 12, 2009. (Mayor Longrie) L. NEW BUSINESS 1. Feed Products North Office Building Proposal, 1300 McKnight Road. Action Requested: a. Conditional Use Permit to Build an Office Building Next to Residential Property b. Lot Division c. Design Approval 2. Menard?s Lumber-Storage Building Proposal, 2280 Maplewood Drive. Action Requested: a. Conditional Use Permit Revision b. Design Approval 3. Consideration of Approval of Personal Service (Massage) Premise License ? Blue Diamond Health Center 4. County Road C Area Street Improvements, City Project 08-11, Resolution Accepting Preliminary Report and Consideration of Canceling the Project 5. County Road D Improvements ? City Project 02-07 ? Consider Extending Agreement to Sell Bruce Vento Trail Property to Ramsey County Regional Rail Authority 6. Approval of Claims M. CONSENT AGENDA 1. Request Council Authorization To Purchase Four Used Vehicles ? Fire Department. 2. Conditional Use Permit Review ? Hydrologic Outdoor Storage Facility, 1261 Highway 36. 3. Conditional Use Permit Review ? Countryside Volkswagen, Inc., 1180 and 1200 Highway 36. 4. Conditional Use Permit Review ? Maple Leaf Business Center, 2475, 2485 and 2495 Maplewood Drive. 5. Conditional Use Permit Review ? Maplewood Toyota, 2905 Maplewood Drive and the Open Parking Lot South of 2999 Maplewood Drive. 6. Conditional Use Permit Review ? Commercial Truck Parking and Storage, 1003 Century Avenue North. 7. Conditional Use Permit Review ? Household Hazardous Waste Collection Site at Aldrich Arena, 2015 Van Dyke Street North 8. Conditional Use Permit Review ? 3M Leadership Development Institute, 2350 Minnehaha Avenue 9. Transfer to Close Funds for Public Improvement Project 01-28. 10.Transfer to Close Funds for Public Improvement Project 02-10. 11.Transfer to Close Funds for Public Improvement Project 03-26. 12.Transfer to Close Funds for Public Improvement Project 03-36. 13.Transfer to Close Funds for Public Improvement Project 05-10. 14.Transfer to Close Funds for Public Improvement Project 06-10. 15.Consider Approval of Purchase of Squad Car Cameras. 16.Consider Approval of Purchase of Police Vehicles. 17.ConditionalUse Permit Review ? The Regent at Legacy Village, Southeast Corner of Legacy Parkway and Kennard Street. 18.Consider Approval of the 2009 Pay Equity Implementation Report N.AWARD OF BIDS O.VISITORPRESENTATION ? PART II (NOTE: This is a continuation of VISITOR PRESENTATIONS from earlier in the meeting and is intended to make time available if the item is not completed by 7:00 p.m. -Not intended for new visitor presentation items.) P. ADJOURNMENT Sign language interpreters for hearing impaired personsare 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 651.249.2001 to make arrangements. Assisted Listening Devices are also available. Please checkwith the City Clerk for availability. RULES OF CIVILITY FOR OUR COMMUNITY Following are some rules of civility the City of Maplewood expectsof 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 everyonewill follow these principles: Show respect for each other, actively listen to one another, keep emotions in check and use respectful language. Agenda Item E1 MINUTES MAPLEWOOD CITY COUNCIL MANAGER WORKSHOP CLOSED SESSION 5:00 p.m., Monday, January 12, 2009 Council Chambers, City Hall Meeting No. 01-09 A. CALL TO ORDER A meeting of the City Council was held in the City Hall Council Chambers and was called to order at 5:05 p.m. by Mayor Longrie. B. ROLL CALL Diana Longrie, Mayor Present Erik Hjelle, Councilmember Present Kathleen Juenemann, Councilmember Present John Nephew, Councilmember Present Will Rossbach, Councilmember Present C. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Councilmember Rossbach moved to approve the agenda as submitted. Seconded by Councilmember Hjelle. Ayes ? All The motion passed. D.UNFINISHED BUSINESS None E. NEW BUSINESS 1. Interviews for Vacancy on Parks Commission 5:00 p.m. Mary Mackey, 3027 Lakewood Drive North, Maplewood, addressed and answered questions of the council. 5:15 p.m. Daniel Maas, (no address given) addressed and answered questions of the council. 5:30 p.m. Therese Sonnek (Term Expired: Reappointment) (no address given) addressed and answered questions of the council. 2. Declaration of Intent to Close Meeting a. Discussion/Review of 2009-2010 Contract Negotiations i. Labor Relations Attorney, Chuck Bethel, addressed the council and introduced the item before the meeting was closed. January 12, 2009 1 City Council/Manager Workshop Closed Session Minutes Packet Page Number Page 4 of 408 Mayor Longrie closed the meeting session pursuant to Minnesota State Statute, Chapter 13 relating to Attorney/Client privilege for the purpose of discussion. Mayor Longrie opened the closed meeting session up. F. ADJOURNMENT Mayor Longrie adjourned the meeting at 7:00 p.m. January 12, 2009 2 City Council/Manager Workshop Closed Session Minutes Packet Page Number Page 5 of 408 Agenda Item E2 MINUTES MAPLEWOOD CITY COUNCIL 6:30 p.m., Monday, January 12, 2009 Council Chambers, City Hall Meeting No. 01-09 A. CALL TO ORDER A meeting of the City Council was held in the City Hall Council Chambers and was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Mayor Longrie. B. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE C. ROLL CALL Diana Longrie, Mayor Present Erik Hjelle, Councilmember Present Kathleen Juenemann, Councilmember Present John Nephew, Councilmember Present Will Rossbach, Councilmember Present D. APPROVAL OF AGENDA G1. Acting City Manager, Public Works Director, Chuck Ahl said item G1. Report on Sletten Request for Retaining Wall at North End of Clarence Street is being tabled until January 26, 2009 city council meeting. H1. Ramsey County League of Local Governments ? Councilmember Rossbach H2. Cable Commission Report ? Councilmember Nephew H3. Ramsey County Study Dispatch Center ? Councilmember Juenemann H4. Smoke Task Force Meeting ? Thursday, January 15, 2009, 7 p.m. ? Mayor Longrie & Councilmember Rossbach I1. Tabled Parks Commission ? Acting City Manager, Public Works Director Chuck Ahl I3. Mayor Longrie ? Tabling I3. Recognition of Paramedic Response by Area Hospital due to schedule conflicts. Councilmember Nephew moved to approve the agenda as amended. Seconded by Mayor Longrie. Ayes ? All The motion passed. Mayor Longrie recommended moving Visitor Presentations 20 minutes. Seconded by Councilmember Hjelle. Ayes ? All The motion passed. E. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Councilmember Nephew moved to approve the December 1, 2008, City Council Manager Workshop Minutes as submitted. January 12, 2009 1 Packet Page Number Page 6 of 408 City Council Meeting Minutes Seconded by Councilmember Hjelle. Ayes ? All The motion passed. Councilmember Nephew had corrections to page 2, 3, 8, and 9. On page 2, correct the spelling of i.res J4. from Andreoleto Andreol On page 3, J7. change the spelling from Gohrs to Go. On page 8 in the motion made by Councilmember Nephew at the bottom of the page take the word or out between density and residential. And on page 9, in the motion remove the word or between density and residential. Councilmember Nephew moved to approve the December 8, 2008, City Council Meeting Minutes as amended. Seconded by Mayor Longrie. Ayes ? All The motion passed. Councilmember Hjelle moved to approve the December 15, 2008, A Continuation of December 8, 2008, City Council Meeting Minutes as submitted. Seconded by Councilmember Rossbach. Ayes ? All The motion passed. Councilmember Nephew moved to approve the December 18, Special City Council Closed Session Meeting Minutes as submitted. Seconded by Councilmember Rossbach. Ayes ? Councilmember Hjelle Juenemann, Nephew & Rossbach Abstain - Mayor Longrie The motion passed. Councilmember Nephew moved to approve the December 29, 2008, Special City Council Meeting Minutes as submitted. Seconded by Mayor Longrie. Ayes ? Councilmember Juenemann, Nephew & Rossbach Abstain ? Councilmember Hjelle The motion passed. January 12, 2009 2 Packet Page Number Page 7 of 408 City Council Meeting Minutes F. VISITOR PRESENTATIONS ? PART I (Moved 20 minutes) 1. Bob Zick, 2515 White Bear Avenue, Maplewood, addressed the council. Mr. Zick discussed the hiring of the future City Manager and spoke of the request he made for copies of the resumes of the applicants for the City Manager position for the City of Maplewood. 2. Dave Schilling, 1955 Greenbrier Street, Maplewood, addressed the council. Mr. Schilling discussed the extension of Gethsemane Park. He also spoke of repeat items that he has brought up at past council meetings. 3. Elizabeth Sletten, 2747 Clarence Street North, Maplewood, addressed the council. Ms. Sletten handed a packet of information out regarding a formal investigation. Ms. Sletten discussed a letter dated January 7, 2009, from Acting City Manager, Chuck Ahl for an invoice for a data practice request. Ms. Sletten said she included a copy of her check indicating she paid her bill for $14.50 for copies and was disturbed in the error made that she had not paid her invoice. 4. Frederica Musgrave, 1949 Greenbrier Street, Maplewood. Ms. Musgrave spoke as the publisher of the newspaper The Citizens Reporter. This is an independent non-partisan newsletter published monthly she said. The website is www.thecitizensreporter.com. You can contact The Citizens Reporter C/O Maplewood Voters LLC, Community Resource Center, 1321 Frost Avenue East, Suite B, Maplewood, MN 55109. She is concerned about some infractions of the first amendment freedom of the press. One of her reporters had received some personal emails attacking the reporter from a staff member at the City of Maplewood at the home address. 5. DelRay Rokke, 454 O?Day Street, Maplewood. Mr. Rokke spoke regarding the task force meeting coming up and having the ability to go home and burn a fire if you so chose. G. ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS 1. Report on Sletten Request for Retaining Wall at North End of Clarence Street (This Item has been tabled until January 26, 2009) H. COUNCIL PRESENTATIONS (MOVED TO THE END OF THE MEETING) H1. Ramsey County Local governments ? Councilmember Rossbach H2. Cable Commission Report ? Councilmember Nephew H3. Ramsey County Study Dispatch Center ? Councilmember Juenemann H4. Smoke Task Force ? Thursday, January 15, 2009, 7 p.m. ? Mayor Longrie & Councilmember Rossbach I. APPOINTMENTS AND PRESENTATIONS 1. Appointment to Parks Commission a. Acting City Manager, Public Works Director, Chuck Ahl gave the report. (This item has been tabled until January 26, 2009) January 12, 2009 3 Packet Page Number Page 8 of 408 City Council Meeting Minutes 2. Recognition of Capstone Project Report by University of Minnesota Students (Mayor Longrie) a. Mayor Longrie gave the report in Environmental Planner, Shann Finwall?s absence. Mayor Longrie moved to accept the report by the University of Minnesota Students Recognizing the Capstone Project. Seconded by Councilmember Nephew. Ayes ? All The motion passed. 3. Recognition of Paramedic Response by Area Hospital (Mayor Longrie) (Rescheduled until further notice) J. PUBLIC HEARINGS None. K. UNFINISHED BUSINESS 1. City Manager Search Process ? Discussion of Schedule a. Presentation of Interview Finding by Citizen Business Panel b. Presentation of Interview Findings by Employee Panel c. Discussion of Council Review Schedule i. Acting City Manager, Public Works Director, Chuck Ahl gave the report. ii. Ginny Yingling gave the report as Chairperson for the Citizens Business Panel. iii. Maplewood Police Chief, Dave Thomalla gave the report as Chairperson for the Employee Panel. iv. John Gore, gave the report as Chairperson for the Citizen Panel. 1. Bob Zick, 2515 White Bear Avenue, Maplewood commented about the City Manager Process. Councilmember Nephew moved to adopt the schedule for the city council interviews changing the ending time of the social reception to end at 5:30 p.m. Seconded by Councilmember Hjelle. The council discussed the remaining schedule for the city manager hiring process and the upcoming January 26, 2009, city council meeting. Councilmember Nephew withdrew his motion. Councilmember Nephew moved to call a special meeting on Wednesday, January 21, 2009, from 4:30 p.m. ? 6:30 p.m. for the purpose of discussing the city manager candidates in the City Council Chambers at the City of Maplewood. Seconded by Councilmember Hjelle. Ayes ? All The motion passed. January 12, 2009 4 Packet Page Number Page 9 of 408 City Council Meeting Minutes Councilmember Hjelle moved to extend the social reception until 5:30 p.m. on January 14, 2009. Seconded by Councilmember Nephew. Ayes ? All The City Council took a 10-minute break at 9:00. Mayor Longrie recommended moving L5 and L6 ahead in the agenda for New Business. Seconded by Councilmember Hjelle. Ayes - All The motion passed. 5. Request for a Conditional Use Permit to Build a Two-Car Residential Garage on Property Zoned M1 (Light Manufacturing) at 2080 Prosperity Road. Action Requested a. Conditional Use Permit to Expand a Non-Conformity Use i. Senior Planner, Tom Ekstrand gave the report. 1. Planning Commissioner, Lorraine Fischer gave the Planning Commission report. 2. Ken Berwald, 2080 Prosperity Road, Maplewood addressed the council. Councilmember Hjelle moved to approve the Resolution approving a Conditional Use Permit to Construct a 24 by 28 foot, two-car garage at 2080 Prosperity Road. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION 09-01-004 WHEREAS, Kenneth Berwald applied for a conditional use permit to build a two-car garage on property the City of Maplewood has zoned M1 (light manufacturing). WHEREAS, Section 44-12(e) of the city ordinances states that: ?No existing building or premises devoted to a use not permitted in the district in which such building or premises is located shall be enlarged, reconstructed or structurally altered, unless: required by law or government order; or There would not be a significant effect, as determined by the city through a conditional use permit, on the development of the parcel of land. WHEREAS, Section 44-637(b) states that, in an M1 district, a CUP is required for any building within 350 feet of a residential district. WHEREAS, this permit applies to the property located at 2080 Prosperity Road. The legal description is: SABIN GARDEN LOTS PART OF LOTS 4, 5 & 6 BLK 6 DESCRIBED AS COMMENCING AT SW CORNER OF SAID LOT 6 NORTHEASTERLY ON WESTERLY LINE OF SAID LOT 6 FOR 28 FEET TO BEGINNING; THENCE SOUTHEASTERLY PARALLEL TO SOUTHERLY LINE OF SAID LOT 6 FOR 391.56 FEET THENCE NORTHEASTERLY DEFLECT LEFT 90 DEGREES FOR 263.26 FEET THENCE NORTHWESTERLY DEFLECT LEFT 90 DEGREES FOR 270.39 FEET TO THE POINT ON WESTERLY LINE. WHEREAS, the history of this conditional use permit is as follows: January 12, 2009 5 Packet Page Number Page 10 of 408 City Council Meeting Minutes 1. On December 2, 2008, the planning commission held a public hearing. The city staff published a notice in the paper and sent notices to the surrounding property owners. The planning commission gave everyone at the hearing a chance to speak and present written statements. The planning commission also considered the report and recommendation of city staff. The planning commission recommended that the city council approve this permit. 2. On January 12, 2009, the city council considered reports and recommendations of the city staff and planning commission. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the city council passed the above-described conditional use permit, because: 1. The use would be located, designed, maintained, constructed and operated to be in conformity with the City's Comprehensive Plan and Code of Ordinances. 2. The use would not change the existing or planned character of the surrounding area. 3. The use would not depreciate property values. 4. The use would not involve any activity, process, materials, equipment or methods of operation that would be dangerous, hazardous, detrimental, disturbing or cause a nuisance to any person or property, because of excessive noise, glare, smoke, dust, odor, fumes, water or air pollution, drainage, water 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. 10. There would not be a significant effect on the redevelopment of the parcel as it is currently zoned (light manufacturing). 11. There would be no negative impact on the surrounding properties that are zoned for residential use. Approval is subject to the following conditions: 1. All construction shall follow the site plan approved by the city. Community Development staff may approve minor changes. 2. The proposed construction must be substantially started within one year of council approval or the permit shall become null and void. The council may extend this deadline for one year. 3. The city council shall review this permit in one year. 4. The applicant shall verify that the existing slab has the minimum thickness of six to twelve inches of footing depth around the perimeter of where the new garage would be placed. January 12, 2009 6 Packet Page Number Page 11 of 408 City Council Meeting Minutes The Maplewood City Council passed this resolution on January 12, 2009. Seconded by Councilmember Rossbach. Ayes ? All The motion passed. 6. Maplewood Toyota Utility Easement Vacations at 2905 Maplewood Drive, Action Requested. a. Vacation of Public Utility Easements i. Senior Planner, Tom Ekstrand gave the report. 1. Planning Commissioner, Lorraine Fischer, gave the Planning Commission report. Councilmember Juenemann moved to approve the Resolutions Vacating the Four Utility Easements North of Beam Avenue at 2905 Maplewood Drive. EASEMENT VACATION RESOLUTION 09-01-005 WHEREAS, Steve McDaniels, of Maplewood Toyota, applied for the vacation of a utility easement on his Maplewood Toyota property, located at 2905 Maplewood Drive. This easement is described as follows: Document No. 2428118. A permanent easement for public utilities over, across and through that part of the South 350 feet of the West 115 feet of the East 723.4 feet of the Southeast Quarter of the Northeast Quarter of Section 4,Township 29, Range 22. Said easement being described as the North 30 feet of the South 63 feet of the aforesaid property subject to Beam Avenue and easements of record. WHEREAS, on December 2, 2008, 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 the report and recommendation from the city staff. The planning commission recommended that the city council approve this request. WHEREAS, on January 12, 2009, the city council passed this request after considering the recommendations of staff and the planning commission. WHEREAS, after the city passed this vacation, the public interest in the property will go to the adjoining property. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the city council passed the above-described vacation because it is not needed and, therefore, would serve no public purpose. January 12, 2009 7 Packet Page Number Page 12 of 408 City Council Meeting Minutes The vacation of this easement is conditioned upon the property owner first rededicating a new easement which would fully cover all public utilities on this property. The Maplewood City Council passed this resolution on January 12, 2009. EASEMENT VACATION RESOLUTION 09-01-008 WHEREAS, Steve McDaniels, of Maplewood Toyota, applied for the vacation of a utility easement on his Maplewood Toyota property, located at 2905 Maplewood Drive. This easement is described as follows: Document No. 2182862. A permanent easement for underground utilities over, across and through the following described property, to wit: That part of the South 253.0 feet of the East 608.4 feet of the Northeast ¼ of Section 4, Township 29, Range 22. Lying West of S.T.H. 61 that lies 10 feet on either side of the following described center line, to wit: Beginning at a point in the South line of the NE ¼ said Section 4, 468.4 feet West of the East line thereof; thence North 33 feet to a point in the North right-of-way line of Beam Avenue; thence Northwesterly to a point in the West line of the East 608.4 feet of the NE ¼, said Section 4, that lies 73 feet North of the South line of the NE ¼, said Section 4, and there terminating. WHEREAS, on December 2, 2008, 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 the report and recommendation from the city staff. The planning commission recommended that the city council approve this request. WHEREAS, on January 12, 2009, the city council passed this request after considering the recommendations of staff and the planning commission. WHEREAS, after the city passed this vacation, the public interest in the property will go to the adjoining property. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the city council passed the above-described vacation because it is not needed and, therefore, would serve no public purpose. January 12, 2009 8 Packet Page Number Page 13 of 408 City Council Meeting Minutes The vacation of this easement is conditioned upon the property owner first rededicating a new easement which would fully cover all public utilities on this property. The Maplewood City Council passed this resolution on January 12, 2009. EASEMENT VACATION RESOLUTION 09-01-009 WHEREAS, Steve McDaniels, of Maplewood Toyota, applied for the vacation of a utility easement on his Maplewood Toyota property, located at 2905 Maplewood Drive. This easement is described as follows: Document No. 2173015. A permanent easement for the construction and maintenance of underground utilities, and their appurtenances, over, under, across and through the following described property, to wit: That part of the South 350 feet of the West 115 feet of the East 723.4 feet of the Southeast ¼ of the Northeast ¼ that lies 10 feet on either side of a line running parallel to and 73 feet North of the South line of said Southeast ¼ of the Northeast ¼, Section 4, Township 29N, Range 22W, Ramsey County, Minnesota, according to the U.S. Government Survey thereof. WHEREAS, on December 2, 2008, 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 the report and recommendation from the city staff. The planning commission recommended that the city council approve this request. WHEREAS, on January 12, 2009, the city council passed this request after considering the recommendations of staff and the planning commission. WHEREAS, after the city passed this vacation, the public interest in the property will go to the adjoining property. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the city council passed the above-described vacation because it is not needed and, therefore, would serve no public purpose. The vacation of this easement is conditioned upon the property owner first rededicating a new easement which would fully cover all public utilities on this property. The Maplewood City Council passed this resolution on January 12, 2009. January 12, 2009 9 Packet Page Number Page 14 of 408 City Council Meeting Minutes EASEMENT VACATION RESOLUTION 09-01-010 WHEREAS, Steve McDaniels, of Maplewood Toyota, applied for the vacation of a utility easement on his Maplewood Toyota property, located at 2905 Maplewood Drive. This easement is described as follows: Document No. 772664. Parcel No. 2: 2905 Maplewood Drive, Maplewood, Minnesota 55109 A permanent easement for the construction and maintenance of underground utilities, and their appurtenances, over, under, across and through the following described property, to wit: That part of the South 350 feet of the West 115 feet of the East 723.4 feet of the Southeast ¼ of the Northeast ¼ that lies 10 feet on either side of a line running parallel to and 73 feet North of the South line of said Southeast ¼ of the Northeast ¼, Section 4, Township 29N, Range 22W, Ramsey County, Minnesota, according to the U.S. Government Survey thereof. Together with: A temporary construction easement to expire December 31, 1981 for the purpose of constructing underground utilities and their appurtenances, over, under, across and through the following described property, to wit: That part of the first above described tract lying 10 feet on either side of the previously described permanent easement. WHEREAS, on December 2, 2008, 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 the report and recommendation from the city staff. The planning commission recommended that the city council approve this request. WHEREAS, on January 12, 2009, the city council passed this request after considering the recommendations of staff and the planning commission. WHEREAS, after the city passed this vacation, the public interest in the property will go to the adjoining property. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the city council passed the above-described vacation because it is not needed and, therefore, would serve no public purpose. The vacation of this easement is conditioned upon the property owner first rededicating a new easement which would fully cover all public utilities on this property. January 12, 2009 10 Packet Page Number Page 15 of 408 City Council Meeting Minutes The Maplewood City Council passed this resolution on January 12, 2009. Seconded by Councilmember Hjelle. Ayes ? All The motion passed. L. NEW BUSINESS 1. Approval of 2009, 2010 Contracts Between City of Maplewood and Its Collective Bargaining Associations a. American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, Council No. 5, Local 2725 b. International Association of Firefighters, Local 4470 c. International Association of Firefighters, Local 4470-O d. Law Enforcement Labor Services, Inc. (Local 153) e. Law Enforcement Labor Services, Inc. (Local 173) f. Maplewood Confidential and Supervisory Association g. Metro Supervisory Association i. Human Relations Attorney, Chuck Bethel addressed and answered questions of the council as well as gave the report. ii. Acting City Manager, Public Works Director, Chuck Ahl answered questions of the council. Councilmember Hjelle moved to Approve the 2009, 2010 Contracts Between City of Maplewood and Its Collective Bargaining Associations. It is further recommended that the Acting City Manager be authorized to accept any minor revisions to such contracts if needed, which do not change any material term or condition or financial obligation of the city in order to expedite execution of the contracts by the city and the unions. Seconded by Councilmember Juenemann. Ayes ? Councilmember Hjelle, Juenemann, Nephew, & Rossbach Nay - Mayor Longrie The motion passed. Mayor Longrie requested that her comments be included for the record. Mayor Longrie said the people that she has a duty to represent the highest and the most are the citizens of Maplewood and in order for her to do that she needs to be fully informed and to understand what she is voting on. She has not had the appropriate time to be able to fully review the documents to compare things to last year?s contracts. To understand all the numbers that has been talked about here this evening. She thinks it?s important that we focus on the fact that when the city council approved the budget a few weeks ago the council set the budget based upon having a 2% raise. She understands that changing some of the medical health care cost may balance out somehow. But the city still ends up over the end goal budget that the council budgeted for. When you look at $25,000, keep in mind that you have many different funds where money comes from and it can be shuffled from here to there. Then changing from the Administrative Sergeant to Deputy Police Chief. There are administrative costs in everything you do. She said maybe the contracts are fine, maybe the numbers are fine but in good conscience she can?t vote yes without knowing that and having the time to read it and understand it. January 12, 2009 11 Packet Page Number Page 16 of 408 City Council Meeting Minutes Mayor Longrie said she spent a lot of time at City Hall this past week. There was plenty of opportunity for staff to be able to let her know there are a lot of contracts coming down the line and we know Mayor Longrie enjoys looking at the contracts. She said she also knows when she votes no potentially her no vote could be used against her. Because these are union contracts for employees at city hall. Mayor Longrie said she is voting no because she doesn?t have sufficient information to be able to vote yes. Mayor Longrie said she runs the risk that by voting her conscience and voting no when next fall comes around to run for Mayor again there are going to be all kinds of information that will go against her because she voted no. Mayor Longrie wants it on the record that she will not abstain from voting like some councilmember?s do when they don?t want it to shown they voted yes or no. Mayor Longrie said she doesn?t agree with that either. That?s why she wants to be clear her reasoning for voting no. Mayor Longrie said she thought it should be written in the agreements that there may be a provision within them that if the city has to lay somebody off they have to go back to the negotiation table to ask union members what they want to do. Mayor Longrie said there are other things that aren?t in the contracts that she would have suggested but didn?t have the time to talk about these things. 2. County Road D (McKnight to Bellaire) ? Consider Resolution Authorizing Preparation of Preliminary Report to Advance Project for 2009 Construction a. Acting Public Works Director, Michael Thompson gave the report and answered questions of the council. b. Acting City Manager, Public Works Director answered questions of the council. Councilmember Nephew moved to the Resolution Ordering the Preparation of the feasibility study for the County Road D Improvements from McKnight Road to Lydia Road to Lydia Avenue, Project 08-20. RESOLUTION 09-01-011 ORDERING PREPARATION OF A FEASIBILITY STUDY WHEREAS, it is proposed to make improvements to the County Road D, McKnight Road to Lydia Avenue, City Project 08-20, and to assess the benefited property for all or a portion of the cost of the improvement, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 429, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA: That the proposed improvement be referred to the city engineer for study and that he is instructed to report to the council with all convenient speed advising the council in a preliminary way as to whether the proposed improvement is necessary, cost effective and feasible and as to whether it should best be made as proposed or in connection with some other improvement, and the estimated cost of the improvement as recommended. FURTHERMORE, funds in the amount of $30,000 are appropriated to prepare this feasibility report. th Approved this 12 day of January 2009 Seconded by Councilmember Rossbach. Ayes ? All The motion passed. January 12, 2009 12 Packet Page Number Page 17 of 408 City Council Meeting Minutes 3. Carsgrove Meadows Area Street Improvements, City Project 08-10, Resolution Accepting Preliminary Report and Calling Public Hearing a. Acting Public Works Director, Michael Thompson gave the report and answered questions of the council. b. Acting City Manager, Public Works Director, answered questions of the report. c. Civil Engineer II, Steve Love answered questions of the council. Councilmember Rossbach moved to approve the Resolution Accepting the Report and Calling for a Public Hearing for 7:00 p.m. Monday, January 26, 2009, for the Carsgrove Meadows Area Street Improvements, City Project 08-10. RESOLUTION 09-01-012 ACCEPTING REPORT AND CALLING FOR PUBLIC HEARING th WHEREAS, pursuant to resolution of the council adopted August 25, 2008, a report has been prepared by the city engineering division with reference to the improvement of Carsgrove Meadows Area Street Improvements, City Project 08-10, and this report was received by the th council on January 12, 2009, and WHEREAS, the report provides information regarding whether the proposed project is necessary, cost-effective, and feasible, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA: 1. The council will consider the Carsgrove Meadows Area Street Improvements in accordance with the report and the assessment of abutting property for all or a portion of the cost of the improvement pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 429 at an estimated total cost of the improvement of $2,857,000. th 2. A public hearing shall be held on such proposed improvement on the 26 day of January, 2009 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. th Approved this 12 day of January 2009 Seconded by Councilmember Juenemann. Ayes ? All The motion passed. 4. Castle Avenue Improvements, City Project 08-12 a. Resolution Accepting Preliminary Report and Calling Public Hearing b. Resolution Authorizing Preparation of Plans and Specifications i. Acting City Manager, Public Works Director introduced the item. ii. Acting Public Works Director, Michael Thompson gave the report. Councilmember Nephew moved to approve the Resolution Accepting Preliminary Report and Calling for a Public Hearing and Authorizing Preparation of Plans and Specifications. January 12, 2009 13 Packet Page Number Page 18 of 408 City Council Meeting Minutes RESOLUTION 09-01-013 ACCEPTING REPORT, AUTHORIZING PREPARATION OF PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS, ANDCALLING FOR PUBLIC HEARING th WHEREAS, pursuant to resolution of the council adopted August 25, 2008, a report has been prepared by city staff, with reference to the improvement of the Castle Avenue th Improvements, City Project 08-12, by and this report was received by the council on January 12, 2009. WHEREAS, the report provides information regarding whether the proposed project is necessary, cost-effective, and feasible, NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCILOFMAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA: 1.The Council will consider the improvement of such streets in accordance with the report and the assessment of abutting property for all or a portion of the cost of the improvement pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 429 at an estimated total costof the improvement of $1,361,200. 2. The city engineer is the designated engineer for this improvement and is hereby directed to prepare final plans and specificationsfor the making of said improvement. 3. The finance director is hereby authorized to make the financial transfers necessary for the preparationof plans and specifications. A project budget of $1,361,200 shall be established. The proposed financing plan is as follows: SourceProposed Amount GO Improvement Bonds$422,900.00 MSA$401,600.00 Mn/DOT (Turnback)$75,000.00 Assessments$251,000.00 Sanitary SewerFund$25,700.00 WAC Fund$25,000.00 Environmental Utility Fund$150,000.00 Driveways$10,000.00 Total$1,361,200.00 th 4. A public hearing shall be held on such proposed improvement on the 26 day of January, 2009 in the councilchambers of Maplewood City Hall at 7:15 p.m., and the clerk shall give mailed and published notice of such hearing and improvement as required by law. Seconded by Councilmember Juenemann.Ayes ? All The motion passed. January 12, 2009 14 Packet Page Number Page 19 of 408 City CouncilMeeting Minutes Councilmember Nephew moved to extend the council meeting past the curfew time to complete the remainder of the agenda. Seconded by Councilmember Hjelle. Ayes ? Councilmember Hjelle, Nephew and Rossbach Nays ? Mayor Longrie, Councilmember Juenemann The motion passed. 7. Consideration of 2009 City Council Appointments a. City Clerk, Director of Citizen Services, Karen Guilfoile gave the report. Councilmember Hjelle moved to Approve the 2009 City Council Appointments. Appointing Will Rossbach as the Acting Mayor for 2009. Seconded by Councilmember Juenemann. Ayes ? All The motion passed. 8. Annual Review of the Rules of Procedure for City Council and Council Meetings Manual a. Acting City Manager, Public Works Director Chuck Ahl answered questions of the council. b. City Attorney, Alan Kantrud answered questions of the council. Councilmember Hjelle moved approval to Direct Staff to Make the Appropriate Changes to the City Council Rules of Procedure for Council Meetings and Council Administrative Policies as decided by the council. Individuals may have one photo per councilmember along with contact information below the photo name telephone number and email address. Seconded by Councilmember Nephew. Ayes ? All The motion passed. 9. Annual Review of Policy and Procedures for a Public Hearing City Clerk, Director of Citizen Services Karen Guilfoile gave the report. a. Acting City Manager, Public Works Director Chuck Ahl answered questions of the council. Councilmember Nephew moved to Approve the 2009 Rules of Procedure for Public Hearings. Seconded by Councilmember Hjelle. Ayes ? All The motion passed. January 12, 2009 15 Packet Page Number Page 20 of 408 City Council Meeting Minutes 10. Approval of Claims Councilmember Rossbach moved Approval of Claims. ACCOUNTS PAYABLE: $ 304,991.74 Checks # 77278 thru # 77323 Dated 12/23/08 thru 12/23/08 $ 289,917.62 Disbursements via debits to checking account Dated 12/11/08 thru 12/18/08 $ 474, 544.60 Checks # 77324 thru # 77381 Dated 12/23/08 thru 12/30/08 $ 112,208.02 Disbursements via debits to checking account dated 12/24/08 thru 01/06/09 $ 321,314.42 Checks #77382 thru #77428 Dated 12/24/08 thru 12/31/08 __________________ $ 1,805,466.07 Total Accounts Payable PAYROLL $ 498,318.92 Payroll Checks and Direct Deposits dated 12/26/08 $ 3,400.60 Payroll Deduction check #1006589 thru #1006590 dated 12/26/09 ___________________ $ 501,719.52 Total Payroll GRAND TOTAL $ 2,307,185.59 Seconded by Councilmember Hjelle. Ayes ? All The motion passed. M. CONSENT AGENDA 1. Councilmember Juenemann moved to approve item 1. Seconded by Councilmember Rossbach. Ayes ? All The motion passed. 2. Councilmember Nephew moved to approve items 2-19, 21, 24, 26-28, 30, 33. Seconded by Councilmember Hjelle. Ayes ? All The motion passed. January 12, 2009 16 Packet Page Number Page 21 of 408 City Council Meeting Minutes 3. Councilmember Nephew moved to approve item 20 with amended language. Seconded by Councilmember Hjelle. Ayes ? All The motion passed. 4. Mayor Longrie moved to approve item 22. Seconded by Councilmember Hjelle. Ayes ? All The motion passed. 5. Mayor Longrie moved to approve item 23. Seconded by Councilmember Rossbach. Ayes ? All The motion passed. 6. Mayor Longrie moved to approve item 25. Seconded by Councilmember Nephew. Ayes ? All The motion passed. 7. Councilmember Juenemann moved to approve item 29. Seconded by Councilmember Nephew. Ayes ? All 8. Councilmember Juenemann moved to approve item 31. Seconded by Councilmember Hjelle. Ayes ? All The motion passed. 9. Councilmember Hjelle moved to approve item 32. Seconded by Councilmember Nephew. Ayes ? All The motion passed. 1. Approval of 2009 Liquor License Renewals a. City Clerk, Director of Citizen Services, Karen Guilfoile answered questions of the council. Councilmember Juenemann moved to approve the 2009 Liquor License Renewals. Seconded by Councilmember Rossbach. Ayes ? All The motion passed. 2. Lawful Gambling License for Merrick, Inc. at The Chalet. Councilmember Nephew moved to approve the Resolution for the Lawful Gambling License for Merrick, Inc. at The Chalet. January 12, 2009 17 Packet Page Number Page 22 of 408 City Council Meeting Minutes RESOLUTION 09-01-006 BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED, by the City Council of Maplewood, Minnesota, that the premise license for lawful gambling is approved for Merrick Inc. to operate at The Chalet, located at 1820 Rice Street, Maplewood, Minnesota. FURTHERMORE, that the Maplewood City Council waives any objection to the timeliness of application for said permit as governed by Minnesota Statute §349.213. FURTHERMORE, that the Maplewood City Council requests that the Gambling Control Division of the Minnesota Department of Gaming approve said license application as being in compliance with Minnesota Statute §349.213. NOW, THEREFORE, be it further resolved that this Resolution by the City Council of Maplewood, Minnesota, be forwarded to the Gambling Control Division for their approval. Seconded by Councilmember Hjelle. Ayes ? All The motion passed. 3. Lawful Gambling License for Merrick, Inc. at Bleechers Bar and Grill. Councilmember Nephew moved to approve the Resolution for the Lawful Gambling License for Merrick, Inc. at Bleechers Bar and Grill. RESOLUTION 09-01-007 BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED, by the City Council of Maplewood, Minnesota, that the premise license for lawful gambling is approved for Merrick Inc. to operate at Bleechers Bar & Grill, located at 2220 White Bear Avenue, Maplewood, Minnesota. FURTHERMORE, that the Maplewood City Council waives any objection to the timeliness of application for said permit as governed by Minnesota Statute §349.213. FURTHERMORE, that the Maplewood City Council requests that the Gambling Control Division of the Minnesota Department of Gaming approve said license application as being in compliance with Minnesota Statute §349.213. NOW, THEREFORE, be it further resolved that this Resolution by the City Council of Maplewood, Minnesota, be forwarded to the Gambling Control Division for their approval. Seconded by Councilmember Hjelle. Ayes ? All The motion passed. 4. Resolution Supporting Maintenance of Local Title and Registration Services for Deputy Registrar. Councilmember Nephew moved to approve the Resolution Supporting Maintenance of Local Title and Registration Services for Deputy Registrar. January 12, 2009 18 Packet Page Number Page 23 of 408 City Council Meeting Minutes RESOLUTION 09-01-003 SUPPORTING MAINTENANCE OF LOCAL TITLE AND REGISTRATION SERVICES WHEREAS , the State of Minnesota established a public/private deputy registrar system to provide citizens convenient locations to conduct title registration services for motor vehicles and DNR recreational vehicles; and, WHEREAS , the State of Minnesota in 1949 established a user service fee on motor vehicle transactions to be retained by the deputy registrar to defray the cost of providing the local service; and, WHEREAS , the State of Minnesota has shifted increased costs and responsibilities onto the deputy registrar such as regular replacement schedules of computers and associated electronic equipment, printing of previously supplied state forms, and expanded auditing tasks with additional risks and potential liability that was previously the responsibility of the State; and, WHEREAS , the State of Minnesota now competes with deputy registrar offices for the retention of some user fees that were traditionally retained primarily by deputy registrars; and, WHEREAS , collectively the deputy registrar system handles over one billion dollars of state funds for the State of Minnesota annually on a cash basis only with considerable risk whereby dishonored checks are the responsibility of the deputy registrar in the full amount tendered after remitting the bulk of those funds to the State; and, WHEREAS , the user service fee that should fully support the cost for providing motor vehicle transactions no longer covers the operational costs to maintain most deputy registrar offices. Public deputy registrars must use property tax levy proceeds to subsidize this service. Rural areas with lower volumes are in jeopardy of losing service. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City of Maplewood supports the State Legislature authorizing the acceptance of more secure alternative payments at deputy registrar offices; and to achieve a greater retention of existing fees or a user service fee increase in the year 2009 to maintain local title and registration service to the citizens of Minnesota. Passed and adopted this 12th day of January, 2009. Seconded by Councilmember Hjelle. Ayes ? All The motion passed. 5. Transfers to Close Funds for Public Improvement Projects 02-11, 03-34, 05-11 Councilmember Nephew moved to approve the Transfers to Close Funds for Public Improvement Projects 02-11, 03-34, 05-11 for a transfer of $2,205.56 for the Environmental Utility Fund to the fund for the Dearborn Heights Drainage Improvement Project 02-11, and a $212.84 from the General Fund to the fund for the Lakewood Drive Trail Improvement Project 03-34, and a $438.59 transfer from the fund for Project 07-19 to the fund for Project 05-11 and the appropriate budget changes. Seconded by Councilmember Hjelle. Ayes ? All The motion passed. January 12, 2009 19 Packet Page Number Page 24 of 408 City Council Meeting Minutes 6. Transfer to Close Funds for Public improvement Project 03-04. moved to approve the Transfer to Close Funds for Public Improvement Councilmember Nephew Project 03-04. For a $394,507.37 from the fund for Project 03-04 to the fund for Project 02-08 and the appropriate budget changes. Seconded by Councilmember Hjelle. Ayes ? All The motion passed. 7. Transfer to Close Funds for Public Improvement Project 03-09. Councilmember Nephew moved to approve the Transfer to Close Funds for Public Improvement Project 03-19. For a $215,868.11 transfer from the fund for the County Road D Water Improvements Project 03-09 to the fund for the Highway 61 improvements between Beam and 694 Project 03-07 and the appropriate budget changes. Seconded by Councilmember Hjelle. Ayes ? All The motion passed. 8. Transfer to Close Funds for Public Improvement Project 03-18. Councilmember Nephew moved to approve the Transfer to Close Funds for Public Improvement Project 03-18. For a $93,974.25 transfer from the fund for Project 03-18 to the fund for Project 02- 08 and the appropriate budget changes. Seconded by Councilmember Hjelle. Ayes ? All The motion passed. 9. Transfer to Close Funds for Public Works Building Addition Project 03-19. moved to approve the Transfer to Close Funds for Public Works Councilmember Nephew Building Addition Project 03-19. For a $1,534.37 transfer from the fund for Project 03-19 to the General Fund and the appropriate budget changes. Seconded by Councilmember Hjelle. Ayes ? All The motion passed. 10. Transfer to Close Funds for Public Improvement Project 03-27. Councilmember Nephew moved to approve the Transfer to Close Funds for Public Improvement Project 03-27. For a $17,300.83 transfer from the Environmental Utility Fund to the fund for the Edgerton/Roselawn Drainage Improvement Project 03-27 and the appropriate budget changes. Seconded by Councilmember Hjelle. Ayes ? All The motion passed. January 12, 2009 20 Packet Page Number Page 25 of 408 City Council Meeting Minutes 11. Transfer to Close Funds for Public Improvement Project 03-31. moved to approve the Transfer to Close Funds for Public Improvement Councilmember Nephew Project 03-31. For a $5,779.06 transfer from the General Fund to the fund for the Trail Improvements at Highway 36 and Hazelwood Project 03-31 and the appropriate budget changes. Seconded by Councilmember Hjelle. Ayes ? All The motion passed. 12. Transfer to Close Funds for Public Improvement Project 03-39. Councilmember Nephew moved to approve the Transfer to Close Funds for Public Improvement Project 03-39. For a $57,680.28 transfer from the fund for Project 03-39 to the fund for Project 02- 07 and the appropriate budget changes. Seconded by Councilmember Hjelle. Ayes ? All The motion passed. 13. Transfer to Close Funds for Public Improvement Project 04-15. Councilmember Nephew moved to approve the Transfer to Close Funds for Public Improvement Project 04-15. For a $148,289.99 transfer from the fund for Project 04-15 to the fund for Project 02-07 and the appropriate budget changes. Seconded by Councilmember Hjelle. Ayes ? All The motion passed. 14. Transfer to Close Funds for Public Improvement Project 05-16. Councilmember Nephew moved to approve the Transfer to Close Funds for Public Improvement Project 05-16. For a $180,000.00 transfer from the fund for Project 01-15 to the fund for Project 05-16, and a $90,697.06 transfer from the fund for Project 04-15 to the fund for Project 05-16, and the appropriate budget changes. Seconded by Councilmember Hjelle. Ayes ? All The motion passed. 15. Transfer to Close Funds for Public Improvement Project 05-36. Councilmember Nephew moved to approve the Transfer to Close Funds for Public Improvement Project 05-36. For a $22,183.03 transfer from the fund for Project 05-36 to the Environmental Utility Fund and the appropriate budget changes. Seconded by Councilmember Hjelle. Ayes ? All The motion passed. January 12, 2009 21 Packet Page Number Page 26 of 408 City Council Meeting Minutes 16. Transfer to Close Funds for Public Improvement Project 06-04. Councilmember Nephew moved to approve the Transfer to Close Funds for Public Improvement Project 06-04. For a $3,044.88 transfer from the fund for Project 07-15 to the fund for Project 06- 04, a $36,252.88 transfer from the fund for Project 06-04 to the Environmental Utility Fund and the appropriate budget changes. Seconded by Councilmember Hjelle. Ayes ? All The motion passed. 17. Transfer to Close Funds for Public Improvement Project 06-15. Councilmember Nephew moved to approve the Transfer to Close Funds for Public Improvement Project 06-15. For a $50,825.06 transfer from the fund for Project 06-15 to the Environmental Utility Fund and the appropriate budget changes. Seconded by Councilmember Hjelle. Ayes ? All The motion passed. 18. Transfer to Close Funds for Public Improvement Project 06-21. Councilmember Nephew moved to approve the Transfer to Close Funds for Public Improvement Project 06-21. For a $407.47 transfer from the fund for Project 06-21 to the General Fund for indirect overhead costs and the appropriate budget changes. Seconded by Councilmember Hjelle. Ayes ? All The motion passed. 19. Transfer to Close Funds for Public Improvement Project 07-03. Councilmember Nephew moved to approve the Transfer to Close Funds for Public Improvement Project 07-03. Seconded by Councilmember Hjelle. Ayes ? All The motion passed. 20. Write-Off Uncollectible Ambulance Bills for 2006. a. Finance Director, Bob Mittet answered questions of the council. Councilmember Nephew moved to approve that $1,225,514.67 of ambulance bills are written off directedto report and as uncollectible and that the Finance Director be authorizedto write off uncollectible accounts annually. Seconded by Councilmember Hjelle. Ayes ? All The motion passed. January 12, 2009 22 Packet Page Number Page 27 of 408 City Council Meeting Minutes 21. Priory Public Improvements (St. Paul?s Monastery), City Project 07-24, Resolution for Modification of the Existing Construction Contract, change Order No. 2. Councilmember Nephew moved to approve Priory Public Improvements (St. Paul?s Monastery), City Project 07-24, Resolution for Modification of the Existing Construction Contract, Change Order No. 2. RESOLUTION 09-01-014 DIRECTING MODIFICATION OF EXISTING CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT PROJECT 07-24, CHANGE ORDER NO.2 WHEREAS, the City Council of Maplewood, Minnesota has heretofore ordered made Improvement Project 07-24, Priory Public Improvements (St. Paul?s Monastery), and has let a construction contract pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 429, and WHEREAS, it is now necessary and expedient that said contract be modified and designated as Improvement Project 07-24, Change Order No.2. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA that: 1. The mayor and city engineer are hereby authorized and directed to modify the existing contract by executing said Change Order No.2 in the amount of $1,475.00. The revised contract amount is $708,955.79. Seconded by Councilmember Hjelle. Ayes ? All The motion passed. 22. Mayor Longrie moved to approve Authorization to Make Payment for Eden Systems Yearly Support Contract in the amount of $51,404.17. Seconded by Councilmember Hjelle. Ayes ? All The motion passed. 23. Mayor Longrie moved to adopt the ordinance change which contains housekeeping and clarifying language for various elements of the city?s code provisions for building construction. BUILDING CODE ORDINANCE CHANGE 837 Corrections to Chapter 12 Buildings and Building Regulations Sec 12-36. Application, administration and enforcement. The application, administration, and enforcement of the code shall be in accordance with Minnesota State Building Code. The code shall be enforced within the extraterritorial limits permitted by Minnesota Statutes, 326B.121 Subdivision 2(d) 16B.62, subdivision 1, when so established by this ordinance. The code enforcement agency of this municipality is called the building official. January 12, 2009 23 Packet Page Number Page 28 of 408 City Council Meeting Minutes This code shall be enforced by the Minnesota Certified Building Official designated by this Municipality to administer the code (Minnesota statute 326B.133, Subdivision 1.16B.65) subdivision 1. Sec 12-37. Permits and fees. The issuance of permits and the collection of fees shall be as authorized in Minnesota Rules Chapter 1300.Statues, 16B.62, subdivision 1. Permit fees shall be assessed for work governed by this code in accordance with the fee schedule adopted by the municipality by resolution. In addition, a surcharge fee shall be collected on all permits issued for work governed by this code in accordance with Minnesota Statute 326B.148.16B.70. Sec 12-38. Violations and penalties. A violation of the code is a misdemeanor (Minnesota Statutes 326B.082, Subdivision 16.16B.69) Sec. 12-39. Adoption. An ordinance adopting the Minnesota State Building Code. This ordinance: provides for the application, administration, and enforcement of the Minnesota State Building Code by regulating the erection, construction, enlargement, alteration, repair, moving, removal, demolition, conversion, occupancy, equipment, use, height, area, and maintenance of all buildings and/or structures in this municipality; provides for the issuance of permits and collection of fees thereof; provides penalties for violation thereof; repeals all ordinances and parts of ordinances that conflict therewith. This ordinance shall perpetually include the most current edition of the optional appendix chapters. Optional appendix chapters shall not apply unless specifically adopted. This municipality does ordain as follows: Codes adopted by reference (a). The Minnesota State Building Code, as adopted by the Commissioner of Labor and IndustryAdministration pursuant to Minnesota Statutes chapter 326B,16B.59 to 16B.75, including all of the amendments, rules and regulations established, adopted and published from time to time by the Minnesota Commissioner of Labor and Industry Administration, through the Building Codes and Standards Unit,Division is hereby adopted by reference with the exception of the optional chapters, unless specifically adopted in this ordinance. The Minnesota State Building Code is hereby incorporated in this ordinance as if fully set out herein. Building Code Optional Chapters (b). The Minnesota State Building Code, Chapter 1300 established pursuant to Minnesota Statutes 16B.59 to 16B.75 allows the municipality to adopt by reference and enforce certain optional chapters of the most current edition of the Minnesota State Building Code. (c) The following optional provisions identified in the most current edition of the State Building Code are hereby adopted and incorporated as part of the building code for this municipality. 1. Option Grading 2006 IBC Appendix J. 2. Option 1306.0020 Subpart 3, Option #2, Special Fire Protection system. Existing & New Buildings Special Fire Protection System. 3. Option 1335, Flood Proofing Regulation. Update was on May 27, 2003. Ayes-All January 12, 2009 24 Packet Page Number Page 29 of 408 City Council Meeting Minutes Update was on August 27, 2007. Ayes-All Seconded by Councilmember Rossbach. Ayes ? All The motion passed. 24. Consider Approval to Extend Lease Agreement with Gethsemane Church Thru April 2009. Councilmember Nephew moved Approval to Extend Lease Agreement with Gethsemane Church in the amount of $2,200 a month for the period from January 1, 2009 thru April 30, 2009, with the following provision: The $2,200 per month lease payment ($8,800 total) will be credited back to the City as an offset against the purchase price of the proposed park land. ADDENDUM: GETHSEMANE CHURCH LEASE AGREEMENT EXTENSION BEGINNING JANUARY 1, 2009 AND ENDING ON APRIL 30, 2009 The provisions within the existing executed lease agreement, authorized by City Council at the July 14, 2008 City Council, will be in force with the following two exceptions: Item 1. Term of Lease.The Lease shall start on January 1, 2009 and continue to April 30, 2009. Item 2 Rent. Tenant shall pay rent to Landlord in the amount of $2,200 a month for the lease period that runs from January 1, 2009 thru April 30, 2009. In addition, the $2,200 per month lease payment shall be credited back to the City as an offset against the purchase price of the proposed park land. If an agreement is not reached between the two parties regarding the purchase of the park land, this offset provision would be nullified. Notices 15.. Whenever it shall be required or permitted by this Agreement that notice or demand be given or served by either party to or on the other party, such notice or demand shall be delivered personally or mailed by United States mail to the addresses hereinafter set forth by certified mail. Such notice or demand shall be deemed timely given when delivered personally or when deposited in the mail in accordance with the above. The addresses of the parties hereto for such mail purposes are as follows, until written notice of such address has been given: As to the City: City of Maplewood 1830 County Road B East Maplewood, MN 55109 As to the Landowner: Gethsemane Lutheran Church Mr. Douglas A. Angerer Congregation President 2410 Stillwater Road Maplewood, MN 55119 January 12, 2009 25 Packet Page Number Page 30 of 408 City Council Meeting Minutes IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Landlord and Tenant have signed this Addendum to the Lease Agreement between Gethsemane Church and the City of Maplewood. GETHSEMANE LUTHERAN CHURCH By: Congregational President THE CITY OF MAPLEWOOD By: Diana Longrie, Mayor City of Maplewood 1830 County Road B East Maplewood, MN 55109 And By: Chuck Ahl, Acting City Manager, City of Maplewood 1830 County Road B East Maplewood, MN 55109 And By: Alan Kantrud, City Attorney, City of Maplewood 1830 County Road B East Maplewood, MN 55109 By: Karen Guilfoile, City Clerk City of Maplewood 1830 County Road B East Maplewood, MN 55109 Seconded by Councilmember Hjelle. Ayes ? All The motion passed. January 12, 2009 26 Packet Page Number Page 31 of 408 City Council Meeting Minutes 25. Consider Approval of 2009 SCORE Funding Grant Application. Mayor Longrie moved Approval of 2009 SCORE Funding Grant Application in the amount of $72,570. SAINT PAUL - RAMSEY COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH SECTION 2009 SCORE FUNDING GRANT APPLICATION CITY/TOWNSHIP: City of Maplewood CONTACT PERSON: Bill Priefer ADDRESS 1902 County Road B East, Maplewood, MN 55109 PHONE: 651-249-2406 FAX: 651-249-2409 EMAIL: bill.priefer@ci.maplewood.mn.us SCORE GRANT REQUEST 1. What measurable goals does your municipality have for waste reduction and recycling activities in 2009? Please describe how progress toward these goals will be measured and evaluated. At least ONE measurable goal must be listed. Continue to increase participation at multi-family locations. Progress will be measured by examining pulls from these locations and determining if increases in material recycling tonnage were observed. Away from home recycling and recycling at large events and in other public spaces will be studied. Pilot programs will be initiated to determine the best approach to increase recycling away from home. 2. Describe the activities a SCORE grant would be used for in your municipality and how these funds will enhance your existing waste reduction and recycling programs. Identify expenses for activities within each applicable budget category. Recycling collection containers (clear streams, ?pop bottle? container etc) will be purchased to initiate the th public space recycling initiative in our parks and at community events (i.e.: The Taste of Maplewood, 4 of July etc). PROPOSED SCORE BUDGET?SCORE EXPENSES ONLY ADMINISTRATION Total: $_____________ Please detail activities and expenses: PROMOTION ACTIVITIES Total: $_____________ Please detail activities and expenses: EQUIPMENT Total: $________2,000 Please detail activities and expenses: January 12, 2009 27 Packet Page Number Page 32 of 408 City Council Meeting Minutes COLLECTION OF RECYCLABLES Total: $70,570 Please detail activities and expenses: TOTAL SCORE GRANT Requested $72,570 RECYCLING BUDGET 3. Attach a copy of your 2009 municipal budget for all recycling activities, including all funding sources. If your governing body has not adopted the budget, attach the most current draft budget. PUBLIC ENTITIES LAW COMPLIANCE 4. Attach a copy of the disclosure from your hauler(s) , or a copy of the relevant portion of any contracts with haulers, that specifies the facility at which waste collected from municipal facilities is deposited. Minn. Stat. § 115A.9302 requires haulers to disclose this information to customers annually. RESOLUTION 5. Attach a resolution from your governing body requesting the SCORE funding allocation, or a certified copy of the official proceedings at which the request was approved. SCORE grants agreements cannot be issued without such an attachment. ________________________________________ NAME OF PERSON AUTHORIZED TO SUBMIT GRANT ________________________________________ SIGNATURE (electronic signature is acceptable) _________________________________________ TITLE ________________________________________ DATE Applications will be considered complete when items 1 ? 5 above are submitted and a signature is on file. SCORE Program Saint Paul ? Ramsey County Department of Public Health Environmental Health Section 2785 White Bear Avenue N., Suite 350 Maplewood, MN 55109-1320 Seconded by Councilmember Nephew. Ayes ? All The motion passed. January 12, 2009 28 Packet Page Number Page 33 of 408 City Council Meeting Minutes 26. Council Consider Approval of Acceptance of Donation From Friends of Maplewood Nature Center. Councilmember Nephew moved to approve the Resolution Accepting the $480 Donation From Friends of Maplewood Nature Center. RESOLUTION 09-01-015 ACCEPTANCE OF DONATION WHEREAS the Maplewood Nature Center has received a $480 donation from the Friends of Maplewood Nature for the development of energy conservation curriculum, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Maplewood City Council authorizes the Community Development and Parks Department to accept this $480 donation. I certify that the above resolution was adopted by the City Council of the City of Maplewood, Minnesota, on ___________________________. SIGNED: WITNESSED: __________________________ ___________________________ (Signature) (Signature) Mayor ____________________ City Clerk____________________ __________________________ (Date) ____________________________ (Date) Seconded by Councilmember Hjelle. Ayes ? All The motion passed. January 12, 2009 29 Packet Page Number Page 34 of 408 City Council Meeting Minutes 27.Consider Approval of Extension of Metro Gang Strike Force Agreement. Councilmember Nephew moved to approve the Extension of Metro Gang Strike Force Agreement through December 31, 2009. January 12, 2009 30 Packet Page Number Page 35 of 408 City CouncilMeeting Minutes January 12, 2009 31 Packet Page Number Page 36 of 408 City CouncilMeeting Minutes Seconded by Councilmember Hjelle. Ayes ? All The motion passed. 28.Consider Approval of Acceptance of Donation to the Police Department From Schmelz Countryside. Councilmember Nephew moved to approve Consider Approval of Acceptance of Donation to the Police Department From Schmelz Countryside. January 12, 2009 32 Packet Page Number Page 37 of 408 City CouncilMeeting Minutes Resolution 09-01-016 Seconded by Councilmember Hjelle. Ayes ? All The motion passed. 29.Consider Approval of 2009 Animal Control Services Contract. Councilmember Juenemann moved to approve the 2009 Animal Control Services Contract. January 12, 2009 33 Packet Page Number Page 38 of 408 City CouncilMeeting Minutes January 12, 2009 34 Packet Page Number Page 39 of 408 City CouncilMeeting Minutes _____________________________ Richard L. Ruzicka Animal Control Services City of Maplewood By:_________________________ Its:_________________________ January 12, 2009 35 Packet Page Number Page 40 of 408 City CouncilMeeting Minutes Seconded by Councilmember Nephew.Ayes ? All The motion passed. January 12, 2009 36 Packet Page Number Page 41 of 408 City CouncilMeeting Minutes 30. Temporary/Seasonal Employees ? Consider Resolution Establishing 2009 Pay Rates Councilmember Nephew moved to approve the Temporary/Seasonal Employees ? Consider Resolution Establishing 2009 Pay Rates. RESOLUTION 09-01-017 WHEREAS, according to the Minnesota Public Employees Labor Relations act, part-time employees who do not work more than 14 hour per week and temporary/seasonal employees who work in positions that do not exceed 67 days in a calendar year, or 100 days for full-time students, are not public employees and are therefore not eligible for membership in a public employee union. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the following pay ranges and job classifications are hereby established for temporary/seasonal, casual part-time (14 hours or fewer/wk) and paid-per-call employees effective January 1, 2009 upon Council approval. Accountant $10.00-30.00 per hour Accounting Technician $9.00-22.00 per hour Administrative Assistant $9.00-23.00 per hour Background Investigator $25.00-35.00 per hour Building Inspector $14.00-35.00 per hour Building Attendant $6.55-15.00 per hour Clerk $7.50-15.00 per hour Customer Service Assistant $6.55-15.00 per hour CSO $8.00-16.00 per hour Data Entry Operator $8.00-12.00 per hour Election Judge $6.55-12.00 per hour Election Judge - Assistant Chair $9.00-15.00 per hour Election Precinct Chair $9.00-16.00 per hour Engineering Aide $7.00-16.00 per hour Engineering Technician $10.00-16.00 per hour Fire Department Custodian $600-690 per quarter Firefighter?Paid-Per-Call $9.00, $11.26, $15.77 per run $18.00 per drill Firefighter?Paid-Per-Call ? Paramedic Call Pay 31.54 per run Intern $6.55-20.00 per hour IT Technician $15.00-20.00 per hour Laborer $6.55-14.00 per hour Lifeguard $6.55-14.00 per hour Manager on Duty Differential $1.00 per hour Office Specialist $8.50-18.00 per hour Paramedic $17.00-22.00 per hour Receptionist $8.00-16.00 per hour Recreation Instructor/Leader $6.55-32.00 per hour Recreation Official $6.55-30.00 per hour Recreation Worker $6.55-18.00 per hour Theater Technician $20.00-30.00 per hour Vehicle Technician $9.00-15.00 per hour Video Coordinator* $11.00-19.00 per hour Video Technician* $10.00-18.00 per hour Water Safety Instructor (WSI) $7.50-16.00 per hour WSI & Head Lifeguard Differential $1.00 per hour (Lifeguards or WSIs working as Head Lifeguards; Lifeguards working as WSIs) January 12, 2009 37 Packet Page Number Page 42 of 408 City Council Meeting Minutes *Video positions shall be paid a guaranteed minimum flat fee of $50 for 4 hours or less. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the City Manager shall have the authority to set the pay rate within the above ranges. Seconded by Councilmember Hjelle. Ayes ? All The motion passed. 31. Resolution Approving Certification of Special Assessments for Unpaid Miscellaneous Charges. Councilmember Juenemann moved to approve the Resolution adopting to certify $9,203.23 of unpaid miscellaneous charges for collection with 2009 property taxes with interest at the rate of eight percent on the total amount for one year. RESOLUTION 09-01-001 Approving Certification of Special Assessments for Unpaid Miscellaneous Charges RESOLVED, that the City Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to certify to the Auditor of Ramsey County the following miscellaneous charges totaling $9,203.23 for collection with the taxes of said property owner for the year 2008, collectible in 2009, with interest at the rate of eight percent (8%) on the total amount for one year. Seconded by Councilmember Hjelle. Ayes ? All The motion passed. 32. Resolution Approving Certification of Special Assessments For Unpaid Ambulance Bills Councilmember Hjelle moved to approve the Resolution Approving Certification of Special Assessments for Unpaid Ambulance Bills in the amount of $43,339.55 as special assessments for collection with 2009 property taxes with interest at the rate of eight percent on the total amount for one year. RESOLUTION 09-01-002 RESOLVED, that the City Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to certify to the Auditor of Ramsey County the attached ambulance service charges totaling $43,339.55 for collection with the taxes of said property owner for the year 2008, collectible in 2009 with interest at the rate of eight percent (8%) on the total amount for one year. Seconded by Councilmember Nephew. Ayes ? All The motion passed. January 12, 2009 38 Packet Page Number Page 43 of 408 City Council Meeting Minutes 33.Resolution Designating Depositories For Investments Councilmember Nephew moved to approve the Resolution DesignatingDepositories For Investments. 09-01-018 RESOLUTION Seconded by Councilmember Hjelle. Ayes ? All The motion passed. N.AWARD OF BIDS None. O.VISITORPRESENTATIONS ? PART II None. January 12, 2009 39 Packet Page Number Page 44 of 408 City CouncilMeeting Minutes (*COUNCIL PRESENTATIONS MOVED TO THE END OF THE COUNCIL MEETING) H. COUNCIL PRESENTATIONS H1. Ramsey County League of Local Governments ? Councilmember Rossbach Councilmember Rossbach said the RCLCG is having an upcoming meeting on January 22, 2009, to meet with legislators. The RCLCG is cutting back on the number of printed booklets to handout. An electronic version of the booklet will be available. (Mr. Ahl requested 10 paper copies of the booklet.) H2. Cable Commission Report ? Councilmember Nephew Councilmember Nephew said the City of North St. Paul is doing an $18 million bond referendum to build a fiber optic network to every business and resident in North St. Paul if it passes along with operating cable telephone and data as a City Utility. There was also a discussion regarding future web casting of city meetings. More information will be available in the near future regarding this. H3. Ramsey County Study Dispatch Center ? Councilmember Juenemann Councilmember Juenemann gave an update regarding the Ramsey County Dispatch Center. (Maplewood Police Chief Thomalla gave a brief update as he serves on the board) H4. Smoke Task Force Meeting ? Thursday, January 15, 2009, 7 p.m. ? Mayor Longrie & Councilmember Rossbach. Councilmember Rossbach gave an update that there is a Smoke Task Force meeting at Thursday, January 15, 2009, at 7 p.m. at Maplewood City Hall. P. ADJOURNMENT Mayor Longrie adjourned the meeting at 12:14 a.m. January 12, 2009 40 Packet Page Number Page 45 of 408 City Council Meeting Minutes Memo Agenda #G-1 To: Chuck Ahl, Acting City Manager From: David J. Thomalla,Chief of Police Date: January20,2009 Re: Report on StargateDanceClub OnNovember 23, 2008, theMaplewood City Council issueda liquor license to Ms.Mai Yang, the new owner of Stargate. I was directed tomonitor the activityatthe establishment,meet with Ms. Yangand report back to the City Council in 60 days and 6 months. Although60days have passedsince the license was issued, Ms. Yang did not assume ownership of the establishment until December 5, 2008. I have met andspokenwith Ms. Yang many timessincesheassumed ownership and did a site visit of thebusiness onJanuary 12, 2009. As of January 12, Ms. Yang had madesomeminorchanges to thephysical layout of the club. She removed the walls of whatusedto beafrontoffice and opened up the areaof the former Club Cristal entrance. Directly behind this area, a small dance floor was added, alongwith a smallDJbooth.Thischange allows themtocater to two separate music tastesat the same time. Ms. Yang is also in the process of making a small kitchen area into a largerspaceto serve light appetizer-type food. In the mainarea of theclub, a stage hasbeen erected to accommodate live bands; and many more tablesand chairs have replaced sofas from theVIPseating areas of the former club. Ms. Yang has changed thename of the business from StargateNight Club to Stargate Dance Club. Shehaseliminated hip hop musicand has closedentirelyon Thursdaynights.The business is currently openon Wednesday, Friday, Saturday and Sunday evenings. Music is providedbya DJ onWednesday anda live band theothernights.Ms. Yang intends to begin salsa musicon Thursday nights as of January 22, 2009. Stargate still hires off-dutyRamsey Countydeputieson Friday and Saturday nights.They have reduced the number of deputies to two each night.They alsoemploy about ten internalsecurity personnel. A dresscode is in effect for the club; and a cover charge is collected for those entering after11:00 p.m. There is no covercharge on Sunday nights. Ms. Yang reports that on Friday andSaturday nightsthey haveallowed an 18+crowd, with delineation between ?of-age? and ?under-age?patrons clearlyidentified. Calls forservice to Stargate have decreasedsignificantly as of January 20, 2009. Since Ms. Yangassumed ownershipof the business, there have beenseven calls there. This is a bit misleading becausefourofthose calls werein relationtoa contract dispute a promoter had with the previous owner. The policewere called four times in relation to this civil issue, for which Ms. Yang obtained an injunction. It is scheduled for a courthearing on January 27, 2009. Regarding the otherthree calls, officers were calledintheearly-morning hoursof December25,2008, on an assault in the parking lot.The participantscould notbe located.OnDecember27,2008,an intoxicated manwas arrested in the parking lot for urinatingin public and onJanuary 9, 2009, Maplewood officers assistedthe off-duty RamseyCounty deputybytransporting two individuals the deputy arrested for disorderly conduct involving a fight. 1 Packet Page Number Page 46 of 408 As compared to the periodof December5, 2007, to January 20, 2008, there were 15 calls to Stargate.Of those, twowere ambulancecalls, threewere assaultcomplaints, onewascriminal damage to property, twowereDWI arrests, onewasa traffic crash, one wasa disturbance call, onewasa weapons violation and fourwere theft calls. Page 2 Packet Page Number Page 47 of 408 Agenda Item I1 AGENDA REPORT TO : City Council FROM: Charles Ahl, Acting City Manager SUBJECT: Presentation on Legislative Issues a. State Senator Chuck Wiger b. State Representative Nora Slawik c. State Representative Leon Lillie DATE: January 21, 2009 INTRODUCTION/SUMMARY The City Council will be hosting our local Senator and Representatives to hear from them about upcoming issues that may impact Maplewood in the 2009 Legislative Session. Senator Wiger, Representative Slawik and Representative Lillie have been invited to attend, although all of the individuals are still working to clear their schedules. Each will make a brief presentation and then will be available for a short period of time to respond to Council questions or discussion of issues. RECOMMENDATION No action is required. Packet Page Number Page 48 of 408 Agenda Item I2, I3, I4 AGENDA REPORT TO : City Council FROM: Charles Ahl, Acting City Manager SUBJECT: Re- Appointments to Commissions DATE: January 21, 2009 INTRODUCTION/SUMMARY The City Council will be considering candidates for re-appointment to the Planning Commission; Community Design Review Board and the Police Civil Service Commission. The following individuals have terms that have expired and are requesting re-appointment to their respective Board or Commission. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the City Council make motions to re- appointment members to the Board or Commission as noted: Planning Commission Robert Martin Gary Pearson Jeremy Yarwood Community Design Review Board Matt Ledvina Police Civil Service Commission Marlene Palkovich Attachment: Candidate Applications (included with Work Session Packet) Maps of Commissioner Locations within City (included with Work Session Packet) Packet Page Number Page 49 of 408 Agenda Item J1 AGENDA REPORT TO: Charles Ahl, Acting City Manager FROM: Michael Thompson, Acting Public Works Director Steven Love, Civil Engineer II SUBJECT: Carsgrove Meadows Area Street Improvements, City Project 08-10 a. Public Hearing 7:00 pm b. Resolution Ordering Improvement and Authorizing Preparation of Plans and Specifications after Public Hearing (4 votes) DATE: January 15, 2009 INTRODUCTION The public hearing for this project is scheduled for 7:00 p.m., Monday, January 26, 2009. Notices of the public hearing have been mailed and published. The feasibility study was accepted by council on January th 12 allowing for the public hearing to be called. The feasibility study is provided as a supplement to the packet. The city council will consider ordering the improvement and authorizing the preparation of plans following the public hearing. BACKGROUND The Carsgrove Meadows Area is scheduled for street and utility improvements in the 2009 Capital Improvement Plan (CIP). The feasibility report was ordered by the council at the August 25, 2008 council meeting. A letter was mailed to residents on September 4, 2008 to provide information on the council?s action that preliminary engineering activities such as soil borings and a topography survey would commence within the neighborhood. On September 22, 2008 a letter was mailed out to residents to inform them that a consultant would be in the area to delineate wetlands. On October 8, 2008 an informational packet was sent to all residents which contained a questionnaire, information about the questionnaire, information about the construction process, a driveway reconstruction program pamphlet, a copy of the driveway warranty, a rain garden pamphlet, a project location map, and a cover letter addressing the project and the information contained in the packet. A summary of the questionnaires was provided to the council members at the last meeting. An informational neighborhood meeting was held on Thursday, December 11, 2008 from 5-8 P.M., at Fire Station #7. Items discussed at the neighborhood meeting included the public improvement process, the construction process, existing conditions, proposed improvements, proposed assessments, and an estimated project timeline. After the presentation residents asked questions and noted relevant concerns. Overall the proposed project was well received at the neighborhood meeting and residents feel improvements to the streets are needed. Approximately 35 residents attended, which is roughly one third of the neighborhood. A couple of residents in attendance indicated concerns with the proposed assessments. Staff will meet with these individuals regarding their concerns. On January 13, 2009 a letter was mailed to residents informing them of the time, location, and purpose of the public hearing. The letter also reiterated that staff is available to meet and discuss questions or concerns prior to the public hearing. Packet Page Number Page 50 of 408 Agenda Item J1 DISCUSSION The proposed project area is illustrated on the attached project location map and consists of Brooks Court, Connor Avenue lying west of Cypress Street, Connor Court, Cypress Street lying between County Road C and Connor Avenue, Demont Avenue, Forest Street, Palm Circle, and Palm Court. The streets associated with this project have a combined length of approximately 1.3 miles. There is existing concrete curb and gutter on all of the streets with the exception of Cypress Street which has bituminous curb. The bituminous curb would be removed and replaced with new concrete curb and gutter. All roadway sections, including the existing concrete curb and gutter throughout the neighborhood, need to be removed and replaced as part of the street reconstruction due to the poor soil conditions, lack of an adequate existing road cross-section, and low permeability of the sub-base material as detailed in the feasibility report and the geotechnical engineering report. The existing pavement section and aggregate base under all of the neighborhood streets are proposed to be removed and replaced. Also the majority of areas have poor sub-grade soils that will need to be removed and replaced with a granular material to allow proper sub-surface drainage and limit potential frost action effects. The neighborhood streets are generally 32 feet wide and are proposed to remain the same width. City staff will be looking into narrowing Forest Street, in coordination with its residents, from 36 feet to 32 feet. Possible benefits associated with narrowing Forest Street include a cost savings, reduction of impervious surface, reduction of required storm water treatment area, and providing some degree of traffic calming. There is an existing storm sewer system that services the majority of the project area. New storm structures and piping will be needed to address drainage issues and to reroute drainage to proposed water treatment areas within this basin, which consists of the impaired water bodies of Kohlman and Gervais Lakes. These treatment areas in combination with constructing residential rainwater gardens will reduce contaminated runoff to local water bodies. Repairs will be made to the existing structures as needed and sumps will be added to structures just upstream from the proposed treatment basin areas. Repairs to the sanitary sewer system are proposed as identified through televising of the mainline and services. Saint Paul Regional Water Services (SPRWS) does not plan on any major improvements in the project area. However, SPRWS does anticipate some minor modifications to the existing system such as gate valve adjustment/repair and removal of unused copper services. ASSESSMENTS / PAST DEVELOPER AGREEMENT Out of 111 assessable parcels in the neighborhood, 102 are at the partial reconstruction rate of $4,500. The 9 parcels along Cypress Street, that do not have concrete curb and gutter, are currently proposed at the $6,000 rate. All parcels are available for the one-time storm sewer assessment of $990. According to the developer agreement there was no waiver of future storm sewer assessments and city records do not indicate this neighborhood as being assessed previously for storm sewer. On exploring contributing factors to why the streets failed prematurely, it was found that the developer agreement executed in the early 1980?s allowed the developer to hire its own inspector for quality control. This likely contributed to the early street failure due to inadequate testing of support materials and poor compaction and construction methods. The materials currently supporting the street are not adequate and the poor sub-grade soils were never excavated which has exacerbated the frost action effect. Packet Page Number Page 51 of 408 Agenda Item J1 BUDGET The total project budget as reported in the feasibility study is $2,857,000. The project budget detailed in the City?s Capital Improvement Plan is $1,620,000. The project budget is significantly higher than the Capital Improvement Plan estimate due to extremely poor soils and roadway support as discussed in detail during the staff presentation at the last council meeting, and further detailed in the attached feasibility report. With the required full reconstruction for the neighborhood streets, the following is a funding source comparison between the feasibility recommendations and the adopted Capital Improvement Plan: FEASIBILITY 2009-2013 CIP FUNDING SOURCE RECOMMENDATIONSESTIMATE G.O. IMPROVEMENT BONDS$1,637,210$579,000 SANITARY SEWER FUND$300,000$385,600 ENVIRONMENTAL UTILITY FUND$170,000$84,000 SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS$624,390$486,000 ST. PAUL WATER$32,400$32,400 W.A.C. FUND$53,000$53,000 DRIVEWAY REPLACEMENT PROGRAM$40,000$0 TOTAL FUNDING$2,857,000$1,620,000 Over the past year the city has received favorable construction bids on several projects translating to an overall project savings as part of the Series 2008A General Obligation Bonds. It is possible that once these street improvement projects constructed in 2008 are accepted and closed the excess bond sale proceeds can be transferred into City Project 08-10 according to discussions with the finance director. This will be further explored with the assistance of the finance director. Also there is a possibility that the County Road C Area Street Improvements could be delayed indefinitely, making the total G.O. Improvement Bonding source less than the adopted 2009-2013 CIP amount. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the city council approve the attached resolution ordering the improvement and preparation of plans and specifications for the Carsgrove Meadows Area Street Improvements, City Project 08-10 (Four affirmative votes are required to approve this resolution). Attachments: 1. Resolution Ordering Improvement and Preparation of Plans 2. Executive Summary 3. Location Map 4. Feasibility Study Packet Page Number Page 52 of 408 Agenda Item J1 Attachment 1 RESOLUTION ORDERING IMPROVEMENT AND AUTHORIZING PREPARATION OF PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS WHEREAS, a resolution of the city council adopted the 12th day of January, 2009, fixed a date for a council hearing on the proposed street improvements for the Carsgrove Meadows Area Street Improvements, City Project 08-10. AND WHEREAS, ten days mailed notice and two weeks published notice of the hearing was given, and the hearing was duly held on January 26, 2009, and the council has heard all persons desiring to be heard on the matter and has fully considered the same; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA, as follows: 1. That it is necessary, cost-effective and feasible, as detailed in the feasibility report, that the City of Maplewood make improvements to Carsgrove Meadows Area Street Improvements, City Project 08-10. 2. Such improvement is hereby ordered as proposed in the council resolution adopted the 26th day of January, 2009. 3. The city engineer is the designated engineer for this improvement and is hereby directed to prepare final plans and specifications for the making of said improvement. 4. The finance director is hereby authorized to make the financial transfers necessary to implement the financing plan for the project. A project budget of $2,857,000 shall be established. The proposed financing plan is as follows: Financing Plan - Carsgrove Meadows Area Street Improvements FEASIBILITY FUNDING SOURCE% RECOMMENDATIONS G.O. IMPROVEMENT BONDS$1,637,21057% SANITARY SEWER FUND$300,00011% ENVIRONMENTAL UTILITY FUND$170,0006% SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS$624,39022% ST. PAUL WATER$32,4001% W.A.C. FUND$53,0002% DRIVEWAY REPLACEMENT PROGRAM$40,0001% TOTAL FUNDING$2,857,000100% Packet Page Number Page 53 of 408 Agenda Item J1 Attachment 2 FEASIBILITY REPORT EXECUTIVE SUMMARY CARSGROVE MEADOWS AREA STREET IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT 08-10 BC,CA,CC,CS,D ROOKSOURTONNORVENUEONNOROURTYPRESSTREETEMONT A,FS,PC,PC VENUEOREST TREETALMIRCLE AND ALMOURT Project Summary This feasibility report has been prepared for the Carsgrove Meadows Area Street Improvements Project, City of Maplewood Project 08-10. The above referenced streets total approximately 1.3 miles in length. The project area is generally bounded by County Road C to the north, Gervais Avenue to the south, Cypress Street to the east, and Keller Parkway to the west. The proposed improvements include the following: 1) The full reconstruction of Brooks Court, Connor Avenue, Connor Court, Cypress Street (between Connor Avenue and County Road C), Demont Avenue, Forest Street, Palm Circle, and Palm Court. The street reconstruction will include removal and replacement of the existing aggregate base and bituminous. The street reconstruction will also include a sand sub base and a geotextile fabric. 2) Full replacement of the existing concrete curb and gutter. 3) A majority of the streets currently have existing storm sewer. Additional storm sewer will be added in a few areas to improve the existing drainage system. This will include additional catch basins and storm sewer pipe. Staff will be working with Ramsey-Washington Metro Watershed District to meet infiltration requirements. Staff will be evaluating and implementing storm water best management practices as required. As part of this project, repair and replacement of damaged sections of the existing storm sewer will be performed. 4) A small amount of sanitary sewer repair work will be necessary as part of this project as identified in the televising report. This work would entail replacement of a 10 foot section of sanitary sewer main, two services, and sealing of two sanitary sewer manholes. Individual services that are known to be causing problems for residents will be televised and replaced as needed. 5) At this time Saint Paul Regional Water Services (SPRWS) has indicated that no watermain replacements along the project streets will be needed. As a matter of maintenance, several main line water valves will need to be repaired and the removal of unused 1 inch copper services will be necessary as part of the proposed project. iv Packet Page Number Page 54 of 408 Agenda Item J1 Attachment 2 Cost The estimated costs for the proposed improvements are detailed below. These costs include a 10% construction cost contingency and a 31.5% allowance for indirect costs. ESTIMATED PROJECT COST SUMMARY PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTSAMOUNT% STREET IMPROVEMENTS$2,201,40077% DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS$268,0009% SANITARY SEWER IMPROVMENTS$295,00010% WATER SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS$52,6002% DRIVEWAY REPLACEMENT PROGRAM$40,0001% TOTAL ESTIMATE OF PROJECT COSTS$2,857,000100% Finance The improvements are proposed to be financed through a combination of special assessments to the benefiting properties, G.O. Improvement Bonds, W.A.C. funds, other City of Maplewood funds, and City of St. Paul funds. The following is a summary of the estimated financing for the proposed project. ESTIMATED PROJECT COST RECOVERY FUNDING SOURCEAMOUNT% G.O. IMPROVEMENT BONDS$1,637,21057% SANITARY SEWER FUND$300,00011% ENVIRONMENTAL UTILITY FUND$170,0006% STORM SEWER ASSESSMENTS$109,8904% STREET ASSESSMENTS$514,50018% ST. PAUL WATER$32,4001% W.A.C. FUND$53,0002% DRIVEWAY REPLACEMENT PROGRAM$40,0001% TOTAL FUNDING$2,857,000100% Schedule The following schedule may be implemented, should it be determined to proceed with the project: Receive feasibility study and order public hearing 01/12/2009 Public hearing 01/26/2009 Authorize preparation of plans and specs 01/26/2009 Approve plans and specs/authorize advertisement for bids 03/23/2009 Bid date 05/01/2009 Assessment hearing 05/11/2009 Accept bids/award contract 05/11/2009 Begin construction 06/01/2009 Assessments certified to Ramsey County 10/01/2009 Complete construction 10/31/2009 v Packet Page Number Page 55 of 408 Agenda Item J1 Attachment 3 Packet Page Number Page 56 of 408 Agenda Item J1 Attachment 4 FEASIBILITY REPORT CARSGROVE MEADOWS AREA STREET IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT 08-10 BC,CA,CC,CS,D ROOKSOURTONNORVENUEONNOROURTYPRESSTREETEMONT A,FS,PC,PC VENUEOREST TREETALMIRCLE AND ALMOURT I hereby certify that this report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Licensed Professional Engineer under the laws of the State of Minnesota. Signature: ____________________________ Steven W. Love, P.E., P.L.S. Date: _______________________________ License No. 41349 City of Maplewood Department of Public Works 1902 East County Road B Maplewood, Minnesota 55109 i Packet Page Number Page 57 of 408 Agenda Item J1 Attachment 4 CONTENTS CERTIFICATION...........................................................................................................................i TABLE OF CONTENTS................................................................................................................ii EXHIBITS......................................................................................................................................iii EXECUTIVE SUMMARY.............................................................................................................iv 1.0 INTRODUCTION..................................................................................................................1 1.1 General...................................................................................................................1 1.2 Property History.......................................................................................................1 1.3 Resident Correspondence......................................................................................1 2.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS.....................................................................................................2 2.1 General...................................................................................................................2 2.2 Geotechnical Summary...........................................................................................4 2.3 Existing Curb...........................................................................................................5 2.4 Street And Utility History.........................................................................................6 2.41 Palm Court.....................................................................................................6 2.42 Carsgrove Meadows ? Additions I and II.......................................................7 2.43 Cypress Street (County Road C to Connor Avenue).....................................8 2.44 Cypress Street (south of Connor Avenue).....................................................9 2.5 Summary..................................................................................................................9 3.0 PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS...........................................................................................9 3.1 Street.......................................................................................................................9 3.2 Concrete Curb And Gutter.....................................................................................11 3.3 Storm Sewer Repair..............................................................................................12 3.4 Storm Water Management....................................................................................13 3.5 Watermain.............................................................................................................14 3.6 Sanitary Sewer......................................................................................................14 ii Packet Page Number Page 58 of 408 Agenda Item J1 Attachment 4 3.7 Driveway Replacement Program ..........................................................................14 4.0 MISCELLANEOUS PRIVATE UTILITIES...........................................................................14 5.0 EROSION CONTROL........................................................................................................15 6.0 WETLAND DELINEATION.................................................................................................15 7.0 TRAFFIC CONTROL.........................................................................................................15 8.0 PROJECT COST...............................................................................................................16 9.0 COST RECOVERY............................................................................................................16 10.0 PROJECT SCHEDULE......................................................................................................17 11.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS..................................................................18 EXHIBITS Exhibit 1: Project Location Map Exhibit 2: Plat Location Map Exhibit 3: Soil Boring Location Map Exhibit 4: Geotechnical Engineering Report Summary Exhibit 5: Curb Design Exhibit 6: Approximate Drainage Areas Contributing To Existing Storm Sewer System Exhibit 7: Proposed Storm Sewer Improvements Exhibit 8: Existing Sanitary Sewer Map Exhibit 9: Wetland Location Map #1 Exhibit 10: Wetland Location Map #2 Exhibit 11: Preliminary Cost Estimate Exhibit 12: Proposed Assessment Roll (Preliminary) Exhibit 13: Assessment Map iii Packet Page Number Page 59 of 408 Agenda Item J1 Attachment 4 FEASIBILITY REPORT EXECUTIVE SUMMARY CARSGROVE MEADOWS AREA STREET IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT 08-10 BC,CA,CC,CS,D ROOKSOURTONNORVENUEONNOROURTYPRESSTREETEMONT A,FS,PC,PC VENUEOREST TREETALMIRCLE AND ALMOURT Project Summary This feasibility report has been prepared for the Carsgrove Meadows Area Street Improvements Project, City of Maplewood Project 08-10. The above referenced streets total approximately 1.3 miles in length. The project area is generally bounded by County Road C to the north, Gervais Avenue to the south, Cypress Street to the east, and Keller Parkway to the west. The proposed improvements include the following: 1) The full reconstruction of Brooks Court, Connor Avenue, Connor Court, Cypress Street (between Connor Avenue and County Road C), Demont Avenue, Forest Street, Palm Circle, and Palm Court. The street reconstruction will include removal and replacement of the existing aggregate base and bituminous. The street reconstruction will also include a sand sub base and a geotextile fabric. 2) Full replacement of the existing concrete curb and gutter. 3) A majority of the streets currently have existing storm sewer. Additional storm sewer will be added in a few areas to improve the existing drainage system. This will include additional catch basins and storm sewer pipe. Staff will be working with Ramsey-Washington Metro Watershed District to meet infiltration requirements. Staff will be evaluating and implementing storm water best management practices as required. As part of this project, repair and replacement of damaged sections of the existing storm sewer will be performed. 4) A small amount of sanitary sewer repair work will be necessary as part of this project as identified in the televising report. This work would entail replacement of a 10 foot section of sanitary sewer main, two services, and sealing of two sanitary sewer manholes. Individual services that are known to be causing problems for residents will be televised and replaced as needed. 5) At this time Saint Paul Regional Water Services (SPRWS) has indicated that no watermain replacements along the project streets will be needed. As a matter of maintenance, several main line water valves will need to be repaired and the removal of unused 1 inch copper services will be necessary as part of the proposed project. iv Packet Page Number Page 60 of 408 Agenda Item J1 Attachment 4 Cost The estimated costs for the proposed improvements are detailed below. These costs include a 10% construction cost contingency and a 31.5% allowance for indirect costs. ESTIMATED PROJECT COST SUMMARY PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTSAMOUNT% STREET IMPROVEMENTS$2,201,40077% DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS$268,0009% SANITARY SEWER IMPROVMENTS$295,00010% WATER SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS$52,6002% DRIVEWAY REPLACEMENT PROGRAM$40,0002% TOTAL ESTIMATE OF PROJECT COSTS$2,857,000100% Finance The improvements are proposed to be financed through a combination of special assessments to the benefiting properties, G.O. Improvement Bonds, W.A.C. funds, other City of Maplewood funds, and St. Paul Water fund. The following is a summary of the estimated financing for the proposed project. ESTIMATED PROJECT COST RECOVERY FUNDING SOURCEAMOUNT% G.O. IMPROVEMENT BONDS$1,637,21057% SANITARY SEWER FUND$300,00011% ENVIRONMENTAL UTILITY FUND$170,0006% STORM SEWER ASSESSMENTS$109,8904% STREET ASSESSMENTS$514,50018% ST. PAUL WATER$32,4001% W.A.C. FUND$53,0002% DRIVEWAY REPLACEMENT PROGRAM$40,0001% TOTAL FUNDING$2,857,000100% Schedule The following schedule may be implemented, should it be determined to proceed with the project: Receive feasibility study and order public hearing 01/12/2009 Public hearing 01/26/2009 Authorize preparation of plans and specs 01/26/2009 Approve plans and specs/authorize advertisement for bids 03/23/2009 Bid date 05/01/2009 Assessment hearing 05/11/2009 Accept bids/award contract 05/11/2009 Begin construction 06/01/2009 Assessments certified to Ramsey County 10/01/2009 Complete construction 10/31/2009 v Packet Page Number Page 61 of 408 Agenda Item J1 Attachment 4 FEASIBILITY REPORT CARSGROVE MEADOWS AREA STREET IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT 08-10 BC,CA,CC,CS,D ROOKSOURTONNORVENUEONNOROURTYPRESSTREETEMONT A,FS,PC,PC VENUEOREST TREETALMIRCLE AND ALMOURT 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1.1 General The Carsgrove Meadows Area is scheduled for street and utility improvements in 2009 by the Maplewood Capital Improvement Plan (CIP). On August 25, 2008 the city council ordered the preparation of the feasibility study. The existing streets in this neighborhood (Exhibit 1) present an ongoing maintenance problem for the City of Maplewood Street and Utility Departments. Of the infrastructure elements the city maintains (sanitary sewer, storm sewer and streets) the bulk of the maintenance activities consist of patching the roadway and filling potholes. The streets included in this project are local streets and serve only local neighborhood traffic. Garbage trucks and school buses are generally the heaviest vehicles that use the streets within the project area. 1.2 Property History The above referenced streets are referred to in this report as the Carsgrove Meadows Area Streets. As shown on Exhibit 1,the project area is generally bounded by County Road C to the north, Gervais Avenue to the south, Cypress Street to the east, and Keller Parkway to the west. The Carsgrove Meadows Area neighborhood as defined in this study is comprised of primarily of residential plated properties as shown on Exhibit 2 and listed as follow: PETER?S ADDITION 1) (plat recorded 1950) CAR-DON ESTATES 2) (plat recorded 1978) CARSGROVE?S MEADOWS FIRST ADDITION 3) (plat recorded 1983) CARSGROVE?S MEADOWS SECOND ADDITION 4) (plat recorded 1983) MAPLELEAF ESTATES 5) (plat recorded 1995) Non-Platted Property 6) 1.3 Resident Correspondence The feasibility report for this project was ordered at the August 25, 2008 city council meeting. Subsequently a letter was mailed to the residents on September 4, 2008 to provide information on the council?s action and that preliminary engineering, such as soil borings and a topographic survey would begin within the neighborhood. On September 22, 2008 a letter was mailed to residents to inform them that a consultant would be in the 1 Packet Page Number Page 62 of 408 Agenda Item J1 Attachment 4 area to delineate wetlands. On October 8, 2008 an information packet was sent to the residents containing a questionnaire, information about the questionnaire, information about the construction process, a driveway reconstruction program pamphlet with a copy of the driveway warranty, a rain garden pamphlet, a project location map, and a cover letter addressing the project and the information contained in the packet. An informational neighborhood meeting was held on Thursday December 11, 2008 from 5-8 P.M., at Fire Station #7. Items discussed at the neighborhood meeting included the public improvement process, the construction process, existing conditions within the project area, proposed improvements, proposed assessments, and an estimated project timeline. After the presentation residents were given the opportunity to ask questions, express concerns, and give input about the project. 2.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS 2.1 General The streets associated with this project have a combined length of approximately 1.3 miles. The Pavement Condition Index (PCI) method was used to determine the condition of the existing roads. The PCI rating is based on a visual survey of the pavement and is a number between 0 and 100 indicating the condition of a roadway, with 0 being the worst possible pavement condition and 100 being the best possible condition (i.e. a new road). The PCI method was developed by the United States Army Corps of Engineers and is widely used in transportation civil engineering. According to the pavement condition survey the streets range from a PCI rating of 56 to 23, with an average PCI rating of 35. A summary of the streets and their corresponding PCI ratings are shown in Table A. TABLE A CARSGROVE MEADOWS AREA PAVEMENT CONDITION INDEX STREETFROM / TO2004 PCI BROOKS CT.FOREST ST. TO CUL-DE-SAC33 CONNOR AVE.DEMONT AVE. TO CYPRESS ST.23 CONNOR CT.CONNOR AVE. TO CUL-DE-SAC34 CYPRESS ST.CONNOR AVE. TO COUNTY ROAD C52 DEMONT AVE.CONNOR AVE. TO CUL-DE-SAC24 FOREST ST.COUNTY ROAD C TO DEAD END36 PALM CIR.FOREST ST. TO CUL-DE-SAC23 PALM CT.KELLER PKWY. TO CUL-DE-SAC56 VERAGE PCI = 35 A 2 Packet Page Number Page 63 of 408 Agenda Item J1 Attachment 4 The existing road has failures including, but are not limited to, transverse and edge cracking, medium to high severity patching, fatigue (alligator) and block cracking, and potholes as shown in Figures #1, #2, #3, and #4. FIGURE #1 FIGURE #2 Brooks Court Demont Avenue FIGURE #3 FIGURE #4 Connor Ave. & Cypress St. Forest Street 3 Packet Page Number Page 64 of 408 Agenda Item J1 Attachment 4 It is the city?s general goal to have streets at a 70 rating. The existing street widths vary from street to street and are described in the Street and Utility History section of this report. 2.2 Geotechnical Summary To determine the existing road cross-section, including pavement thickness, aggregate base thickness, and subgrade soil type, 29 soil borings were taken. See Exhibit 3 for soil boring locations and Exhibit 4 for a summary of the soil borings. The following is a summary of the existing conditions as described in the Geotechnical Engineering Report prepared by Terracon, Inc.: 1) Cypress Street Cypress Street had 5 borings (B-1 thru B-5) drilled for evaluation. o The current road cross section consists of 1.5 to 3.5 inches of bituminous o pavement, 5.5 to 10.5 inches of aggregate base, and about 2 feet of sand fill. This road cross-section lies on a subgrade that consists of clayey sands to o sandy lean clay soils with various amounts of gravel. It noted in the Geotechnical Engineering Report that the subgrade support is o relatively low. However, the approximately 2 feet of sand fill will help provide support and drainage to the future section. Testing on the existing sand fill indicates that the fill was variably compacted o and it is recommended that the aggregate base be removed and the sand fill be surface compacted and proof rolled prior to the aggregate base being replaced and recompacted. 2) Brooks Court, Connor Avenue, Connor Court, Demont Avenue, Forest Street, and Palm Circle These streets had a total of 22 borings (B-6 thru B-27) drilled for o evaluation. Generally, the road cross-sections consist of 2 to 5 inches of bituminous o and 5 to 8 inches of a recycled bituminous aggregate sub base. This road cross section lies on a sub grade that consists of clayey sand to o sandy lean clay with various amounts of gravel. The estimated hydraulic conductivity for the sub grade soils is very low. o Water can enter the aggregate sub base through cracks in the bituminous and can become trapped causing the road to fail due to freeze/thaw cycles. It is stated in the Geotechnical Engineering Report that the recycled o bituminous material should not be relied upon for pavement support as an aggregate base although it can be reused as sub grade material. 4 Packet Page Number Page 65 of 408 Agenda Item J1 Attachment 4 3) Palm Court Palm Court had 2 borings (B-28 and B-29) drilled for evaluation. o The current road cross section consists of 3 inches of bituminous, 9 to o 14.5 inches of recycled bituminous aggregate sub base. This road cross section lies on a sub grade that consists of clayey sand to o sandy lean clay with various amounts of gravel. The estimated hydraulic conductivity for the sub grade soils is very low. o Water can enter the aggregate sub base through cracks in the bituminous and can become trapped causing the road to fail due to freeze/thaw cycles. It is stated in the Geotechnical Engineering Report that the recycled o bituminous material should not be relied upon for pavement support as an aggregate base although it can be reused as sub grade material. The Geotechnical Engineering Report by Terracon, Inc. found that on average the existing pavement sections and the bituminous thickness (in particular) are variable and overall too thin for reliable support. Also the sub grade soils are generally poor with respect to drainage or infiltration properties.There is a high level of surface cracking along with a large amount of patches and potholes on the existing streets. For most of the streets the high level of surface cracking and poor drainage characteristics of the sub grade soils allows water to penetrate the bituminous surface and become trapped below the bituminous in the recycled bituminous aggregate sub grade which can further accelerate the deterioration process. Most of the existing streets have inadequate crowns allowing water to pond and traverse the street section causing further deterioration of the roadway. Therefore proper surface and subsurface drainage is considered critical to the performance of any road cross section for this project area. Providing adequate surface and subsurface drainage is important to limit the potential frost action effects as the subgrade soils are considered frost susceptible to highly frost susceptible. 2.3 Existing Curb The existing concrete curb and gutter consists of D412 (Design D on Exhibit 5). Based on field measurements 43% to 56% of the existing concrete curb and gutter is cracked, broken, or sunken. The curb and gutter, as noted in the geotechnical engineering report, lies upon a recycled bituminous material that should not be relied upon for support as an aggregate base. The lack of support from the recycled bituminous material and the poor drainage/infiltration properties coupled with the potential frost susceptibility of the sub base material, as discussed in the Geotechnical Engineering Report, is responsible for a large amount of the observed curb failure. Figures #5 and #6 are two examples of existing damaged curb and gutter located in the Carsgrove Meadows project area. The first example (Figure #5) shows how the subsurface conditions have caused the road to crack and that the failure has also cause the concrete curb and gutter to crack. The second example (Figure #6) shows how the subsurface conditions have lead to a general failure of both the road section and the concrete curb and gutter. 5 Packet Page Number Page 66 of 408 Agenda Item J1 Attachment 4 FIGURE #5 FIGURE #6 2.4 Street And Utility History The following is a summary of the street and utility history (Exhibit 6: for all drainage areas): 2.41 Palm Court Palm Court was constructed in 1980 and included the construction of a bituminous roadway with concrete curb and gutter, sanitary sewer, storm sewer, and water main. The existing sanitary sewer for Palm Court (Exhibit 8) consists of an 8? Polyvinyl Chloride (PVC) sanitary sewer line that flows west from the east end of Palm Court to the intersection of Palm Court and Keller Parkway. From there, the sewer line flows south along Keller Parkway. Palm Court is serviced by a 6? water main that runs along Palm Court and is fed off of an 8? water main that runs along Keller Parkway. The existing storm sewer for Palm Court consists of one drainage areaas shown on Exhibit 6 and is briefly described below: Area #9 - The storm sewer for Palm Court consists of a series of curb inlet catch basins located at the intersection of Palm Court and Keller Parkway. These catch basins are connected by an 18? Reinforced Concrete Pipe (RCP) pipe that discharges south to a drainage swale. The drainage swale runs south along Keller Parkway and ultimately discharges into Gervais Lake. The bituminous road for Palm Court consists of a 32 foot wide bituminous road, measured from face of curb to face of curb, with concrete curb and gutter. The cul-de-sac at the end of Palm Court measures 46 feet from center of cul-de-sac to face of curb. Palm Court was seal coated in 1998. 6 Packet Page Number Page 67 of 408 Agenda Item J1 Attachment 4 2.42 Carsgrove Meadow ? Additions I and II Work began in 1982 on Brooks Court, Connor Avenue, Connor Court, Forest Street, Demont Avenue, and Palm Circle. This work included bituminous roadway, concrete curb and gutter, sanitary sewer, storm sewer, and water main. The existing sanitary sewer for the Carsgrove Meadow additions (Exhibit 8) consists of 8? PVC sanitary sewer branch lines servicing Brooks Court, Connor Court, Demont Avenue, Palm Circle, Connor Avenue lying west of Forest Street, and Connor Avenue lying approximately 320 feet east of Forest Avenue. These branch lines flow to an 8? PVC collector line in Forest Avenue that flows north to a 12? PVC main line that flows east along County Road C. The east portion of Connor Avenue is serviced by an 8? vitrified clay pipe (VCP) that flows east to an 8? VCP pipe that flows north along Cypress Street. The existing water main for the Carsgrove Meadow additions consists of a 12? water main that runs from County Road C south along Forest Street then east along Brooks Court and connects to the 12? water main in Cypress Street. Palm Circle, Connor Court, Connor Avenue lying west of Forest Street, and Demont Avenue are served by 6? water mains that are fed off of the 12? water main in Forest Street. Connor Avenue lying between Forest Street and Cypress Street is served by a 6? water main that connects to the 12? water main in Forest Street and the 8? water main in Cypress Street. The existing storm sewer for the previously listed streets are broken into several drainage areasas shown on Exhibit 6 and are briefly described below: Area #1 ? Storm water is collected by a curb inlet catch basin at the west end of Connor Court and then flows northwest through a 12? RCP pipe and then flows through a series of water bodies and RCP pipes that ultimately discharges into Gervais Lake. Area #2 ? Storm water is collected by curb inlet catch basins at the intersection of Forest Street and Brooks Court, Forest Street and Demont Avenue, and Forest Street and Connor Avenue. A 15? RCP pipe in Forest street flows north connecting these catch basins. From Forest Street and Connor Avenue an 18? RCP pipe flows west 260 feet to a series of curb inlet catch basins on Connor Avenue. From there storm water flows northwest through a 15? RCP and then through a series of water bodies and RCP pipes that ultimately discharges into Gervais Lake. Area #3 - Storm water is collected by a series of curb inlet catch basins located on Palm Circle and at the intersection of Palm Circle and Forest Street. A 12? RCP pipe connects these catch basins and flows to the northwest into a series of water bodies and RCP pipes that ultimately discharges into Gervais Lake. Area #4 ? Storm water is collected by a series of curb inlet catch basins located on Forest Street 300 feet south of County Road C. From there storm water flows west and south through a 12? RCP pipe and then through a series of water bodies and RCP pipes that ultimately discharges into Gervais Lake. 7 Packet Page Number Page 68 of 408 Agenda Item J1 Attachment 4 Area #5 ? Storm water flows north along Forest Street to a swale that runs east along County Road C and then north, crossing County Road C, through a 24? storm sewer pipe. Area #6 ? Storm water is collected at the intersection of Connor Avenue and Cypress Street by a series of curb inlet catch basins. From there storm water flows southeast through a 18? RCP into a series of water bodies and RCP pipes that ultimately crosses County Road C to the north. Area #7 ? Storm water is collected at the east end of Demont Avenue by a curb inlet catch basin. From there storm water flows to the east through a series of RCP pipes and into a series of water bodies and RCP pipes that ultimately crosses County Road C to the north. Forest Street consists of a 36 foot wide bituminous road, measured from face of curb to face of curb, with concrete curb and gutter. Connor Avenue, Connor Court, Palm Circle, Demont Avenue, and Brooks Court consist of a 32 foot wide bituminous road, measured from face of curb to face of curb, with concrete curb and gutter. The cul-de-sacs for these streets measure 36-38 feet from center of cul-de-sac to face of curb. Brooks Court, Connor Avenue, Connor Court, Demont Avenue, Forest Street, and Palm Circle were seal coated in 1995. 2.43 Cypress Street (County Road C to Connor Avenue) Work began in 1991 on Cypress Street lying south of County Road C and north of Connor Avenue. The work was done as part of the citywide water main extensions and miscellaneous improvements (City Project No. 90-07) which included bituminous roadway, minor storm sewer improvements, and water main installation. The sanitary sewer that services this section of Cypress Street (Exhibit 8) was completed in 1969 and consists of an 8? VCP sanitary sewer line that flows north along Cypress Street to a 12? VCP sanitary sewer main and from there flows east along County Road C. This section of Cypress Street is serviced by an 8? water main that runs along Cypress Street from County Road C south to Sextant Avenue. The storm sewer for this section of Cypress Street is broken into two drainage areas as shown on Exhibit 6 and briefly described below: Area #6 ? Storm water is collected at the intersection of Connor Avenue and Cypress Street by a series of curb inlet catch basins. From there storm water flows southeast through a 18? RCP into a series of water bodies and RCP pipes that ultimately crosses County Road C to the north. Area #8 - The storm sewer for this section of Cypress Street consists of a drainage swale that runs north along the east side of Cypress Street through a series of culverts to a drainage swale along County Road C. Ultimately the water crosses County Road C to the north. There is also a small section of RCP storm sewer and catch basins that service the area south of the intersection of Knollwood Court and Cypress Street. 8 Packet Page Number Page 69 of 408 Agenda Item J1 Attachment 4 This section of Cypress Street consists of a 30 foot wide bituminous road with bituminous curbing. This section of Cypress Street was seal coated in 1998. 2.44 Cypress Street (south of Connor Avenue) Work began in 1995 on Cypress Street from the intersection of Cypress Street and Connor Avenue to the south. This work included bituminous roadway, concrete curb and gutter, sanitary sewer, storm sewer, and water main installation. The sanitary sewer that services Cypress Street (Exhibit 8) consists of an 8? PVC sanitary sewer line that flows north along Cypress Street. This 8? PVC line connects to an 8? VCP sanitary sewer main that continues north along Cypress Street and connects to a 12? VCP sanitary sewer main that flows east along County Road C. Cypress Street is serviced by an 8? water main that runs along Cypress Street from County Road C south to Sextant Avenue. The storm sewer for northerly portion of Cypress Street collects storm water by curb inlet catch basins located on the south side of the intersection of Connor Avenue and Cypress Street. From these catch basins an 18? RCP discharges the storm water into and through a series of water bodies and RCP pipes that ultimately crosses County Road C and discharges to the north. The bituminous road consists of a 32 foot wide bituminous road, measured from face of curb to face of curb, with concrete curb and gutter. 2.5 Summary The streets within the proposed project area have deteriorated past the point where reactionary maintenance is no longer effective. Given the subsurface conditions, as explained in the Geotechnical Summary, crack sealing, seal coating and overlaying are no longer cost effective solutions to maintain these streets. To be cost effective it is recommended that these streets be reconstructed. 3.0 PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS 3.1 Street Staff is recommending upgrading the existing road sections to a standard street section of 3.5 inches of bituminous, 8 inches of aggregate base, 24 inches of select granular fill, and a separation geotextile fabric. Staff is also recommending installing drain tile at all low point and catch basin locations to promote subsurface drainage and thereby minimizing frost heaving action to the new road. The Geotechnical Engineering Report, prepared by Terracon, concluded that this standard street section will be suitable for the anticipated future traffic loads and the existing soil conditions. This standard street section was used for calculating the estimated project cost. 9 Packet Page Number Page 70 of 408 Agenda Item J1 Attachment 4 As discussed in Section 2.2 the existing subgrade soils are frost susceptible to highly frost susceptible and have poor drainage characteristics. Providing adequate subsurface drainage will be extremely important in providing a more reliable pavement section. The recommended layer of select granular fill and proposed drain tile will provide subsurface drainage helping to keep water out of the aggregate base layer and reducing the potential frost action effects. As stated in Section 2.2 the existing recycled bituminous material should not be relied upon for pavement support as an aggregate base although it can be reused as sub grade material. The recommended aggregated base material will be per City of Maplewood engineering standards. This will material will provide more reliable support for the bituminous layer. The Geotechnical Engineering Report also provided several alternative recommended pavement cross sections as shown in Table B. City staff will review these alternatives and their cost impacts to the project during the design phase. TABLE B RECOMMENDED STREET SECTIONS CYPRESS STREET MATERIAL THICKNESS, INCHES STANDARD COMPONENTALT. 1ALT. 2 SECTION FULL DEPTH PAVEMENT BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT3.546.5 MnDOT CLASS 5 AGGREGATE BASE880 MnDOT SELECT GRANULAR FILL24LEAVE IN PLACE0 GEOTEXTILE FABRICYESNONO RECOMMENDED STREET SECTIONS ALL OTHER STREETS MATERIAL THICKNESS, INCHES STANDARD COMPONENTALT. 1ALT. 2 ALT. 3 SECTION FULL DEPTH BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT3.5447 MnDOT CLASS 5 AGGREGATE BASE8790 MnDOT SELECT GRANULAR FILL24600 GEOTEXTILE FABRICYESYESYESYES 10 Packet Page Number Page 71 of 408 Agenda Item J1 Attachment 4 The majority of the horizontal alignment and vertical elevations for the street will remain the same. Minor changes may be necessary to improve drainage characteristics. The average existing street widths and proposed street widths for each of the streets within the project area are tabulated and shown in Table C. TABLE C AVERAGE STREET WIDTH (FACE OF CURB TO FACE OF CURB) AVERAGE EXISTING PROPOSED STREETSTREET WIDTH STREET (feet)WIDTH (feet) BROOKS COURT3232 CONNOR COURT3232 CONNOR AVENUE (DEMONT 3232 AVENUE TO CYPRESS STREET) CYPRESS STREET (COUNTY ROAD 3032 C TO CONNOR AVENUE) DEMONT AVENUE3232 FOREST STREET (SOUTH OF 3636 COUNTY ROAD C PALM CIRCLE3232 PALM COURT3232 The average existing street widths were used for calculating the estimated project costs, with the exception of Cypress Street. Cypress street is highly used by residents to gain access to County Road C. Therefore, staff is recommending widening Cypress Street by 2 feet to a total width of 32 feet. As part of the design phase staff will be reviewing the benefits of narrowing Forest Street from the existing width of 36 feet to the city standard of 32 feet. Some of the benefits associated with narrowing Forest Street include a cost savings, reduction of impervious surface, and possible traffic calming. 3.2 Concrete Curb And Gutter Staff is recommending the removal and replacement of all of the existing concrete curb and gutter associated with the project. The estimated project cost is based upon this recommendation. The following factors were considered when making this recommendation: 1) The significant amount of damaged concrete curb and gutter. 11 Packet Page Number Page 72 of 408 Agenda Item J1 Attachment 4 2) To construct the proposed road cross-section the concrete curb and gutter will need to be removed. 3) Prevent differential settlement between the new road and the concrete curb. 4) The lack of support from the recycled bituminous material and the poor drainage/infiltration properties of the sub base material coupled with its potential frost susceptibility there is a high probability that areas fixed by spot repair will end up failing in the same manner. For the full curb replacement staff recommends replacing the existing curb with B618 (Design B on Exhibit 5) concrete curb and gutter. The B618 design provides the following advantages over the D412 design: 1) Pedestrians, as well as landscaping, utilities, and signs are better protected. 2) The B618 curb design establishes a definite limit to vehicle encroachment onto the boulevard areas, minimizing rutting of grass areas and reducing the probability of vehicles sliding off the roadway under unfavorable pavement and weather conditions. 3) Under snow conditions the B618 curb design protects the grass boulevard areas and mailboxes from damage by snowplows. 4) A curb depression is required at driveway locations. This provides clear identification of the driveways and limits blockage of the driveway by vehicles parking on the street. 5) With properly installed depressed curbs across a driveway, there is less chance of a vehicle scraping its bottom compared to accessing a driveway with D412 curb. 3.3 Storm Sewer Repair The current drainage system consists of several storm sewer segments (Exhibit 6). Most of the existing structures will need to have the existing castings replaced to meet current standards. Also, many of these structures will need to be adjusted or refurbished due to an excessive number of rings or deteriorated rings. As part of the design phase staff will review the storm sewer outlets to determine if improvements are required. A storm sewer televising report has indicated several areas that will need to be repaired as part of this street project. These areas include cracked joints and offset joints as shown in Figure #7 and #8. 12 Packet Page Number Page 73 of 408 Agenda Item J1 Attachment 4 FIGURE #7 FIGURE #8 Cracked Joint Offset Joint 3.4 Storm Water Management Best Management Practices (BMPs) such as bio-filtration basins and/or rainwater gardens are proposed to improve the water quality treatment levels in the area. These BMPs will be designed to meet Ramsey-Washington Metro Watershed District (RWMWD) requirements and city treatment goals. The current drainage system provides little to no treatment, so any treatment created as part of this project will result in an improved quality of the runoff waters to Kohlman and Gervais Lakes, which are impaired water bodies. The city?s plan is to install at least two larger bio-filtration basins or rainwater gardens (Exhibit 7) at select locations as well as offering the option of individual rain water gardens to residents to help provide additional treatment for their properties. Permanent energy dissipation and erosion protection measures will be provided at all outlets for the 2 large bio-filtration basins. The RWMWD requires volume reduction BMPs for the new impervious areas created by the project and for the impervious surface in any areas where significant disturbance of the road sub-grade will occur. The areas where volume reduction requirements apply to this project result in a total area of approximately 5.7 acres. Based on staff?s preliminary assessment of the treatment requirements, installation of two larger rainwater gardens or bio-filtration areas (one south of Forest Street and one at the southeast corner of Cypress Street and County Road C see Exhibit 7) will meet or exceed the requirements of the RWMWD. In order to direct more storm water to the proposed south bio-filtration basin located at the south end of Forest Street as seen in Exhibit 7, it is proposed to remove the existing storm sewer system from Demont Avenue to Brooks Court. A new storm sewer system will be constructed at the intersection of Brooks Court and Forest Street to capture the water and direct it south to the proposed bio-filtration basin. Additional storm sewer is proposed at the intersection of Palm Court and Forest Street and the intersection of Connor Court and Connor Avenue to provide better drainage at the existing intersections (Exhibit 7). 13 Packet Page Number Page 74 of 408 Agenda Item J1 Attachment 4 In all sections where storm sewer will be replaced, or where new systems are installed, sump manholes will be installed at selected locations. Sump manholes or other pre- treatment methods will also be used directly upstream of the proposed large rainwater gardens. In discussions with RWMWD staff there are no other significant treatment or drainage issues that must be completed in this area. 3.5 Watermain At this time, Saint Paul Regional Water Services (SPRWS) does not plan on any watermain replacements along the project streets. As a matter of maintenance, replacement of approximately 14 main valves will be required. It will also be necessary to remove approximately 22 unused 1? copper services as part of the proposed project. This work would be done by the water utility personnel at no cost to the city. Maplewood will only be responsible for water system expenses that are directly the result of the street construction. 3.6 Sanitary Sewer City staff has reviewed city sewer maintenance records and televising reports and have identified the need for one spot repair on an 8-inch sanitary sewer main and two manholes that are in need of refurbishing. Residents have been asked, as part of the questionnaire that was sent out, if they have experienced any sanitary sewer service problems that they are aware of. Residents that provided information on problems they have had will be contacted during the design phase to determine if there is damage or a problem with the service and where that problem lies with respect to the road right-of-way. Any damaged sanitary sewer main and services under the roadway or within the road right-of-way will be repaired as part of the street reconstruction.This work would be performed as part of the overall project with repairs covered by the sewer utility fund. 3.7 Driveway Replacement Program The city will be offering the Driveway Replacement Program which is available to all residents that are part of the city street improvements. This program allows property owners to use the city?s selected street reconstruction contractor to replace existing substandard driveways. Preliminary information on this program was mailed to the residents with the initial residential questionnaire. This program will be coordinated by city staff similar to past reconstruction projects. 4.0 MISCELLANEOUS PRIVATE UTILITIES Private utility companies have been notified of the proposed improvements by city staff th through a September 26, 2008 mailing. A meeting was held with the utility providers on th December 4, 2008 to discuss the scope of the proposed project. The meeting also covered possible work planned by the utility providers in the area. Additional meetings 14 Packet Page Number Page 75 of 408 Agenda Item J1 Attachment 4 will be held with all utility providers in the project area after the design process begins in order to identify utility conflicts and plan for utility relocation or upgrades as needed. 5.0 EROSION CONTROL As part of the project plans and specifications, staff is required to prepare a storm water pollution prevention plan (SWPPP) for the purposes of enforcing erosion and sediment control rules. The SWPPP will include erosion and sediment control methods that will to be implemented throughout the project. Silt fence, bio-rolls, erosion control blanket, and other best management practices will be utilized where direct runoff might occur. Inlet protection will be used to protect both the existing and new catch basins during construction. Street sweeping will occur, as needed, on all paved street surfaces throughout the project, including intersecting streets. Watering of exposed soils and aggregate material would be done as a dust-control measure. An erosion and sediment control plan sheet and storm water pollution prevention plan will be created during the design phase of this project. Immediate turf establishment in areas of soil disturbance will be required such as placing seed and erosion control blanket. After street and utility work is completed, sod will be placed as the permanent turf establishment in all disturbed areas. The City in coordination with the watershed district will closely monitor all erosion and sediment control measures throughout the construction process. The selected contractor will be required to install all preventative measures and maintain them as required by the City and RWMWD. 6.0 WETLAND DELINEATION A wetland delineation report was performed by SEH, Inc. in order to identify wetland areas within the vicinity of the proposed project. This is important information for estimating project costs associated with protection and mitigation (if required). It is also important when reviewing existing and proposed stormwater systems. Eight wetlands were identified in the report and are shown on Exhibit 9 and Exhibit 10. Care will be taken to ensure these wetlands are protected during construction. 7.0 TRAFFIC CONTROL Traffic from outside the neighborhood should not be greatly impacted by the construction except for those vehicles using Cypress Street to access County Road C. Access will be maintained for Knollwood Court throughout the project. The neighborhood lying south of the intersection of Connor Avenue and Cypress Street will have uninterrupted access by way of Gervais Avenue and Maplewood Drive. A construction project of this magnitude will result in some inconvenience and disruption to the neighborhood and its residents. Signage will be installed noting that streets are for local traffic only. Emergency access for vehicles will be available 24 hours a day throughout the project. During short periods of time, however, some segments of the project may not be passable while certain work is being executed. In these instances, access would be 15 Packet Page Number Page 76 of 408 Agenda Item J1 Attachment 4 available from another direction. Streets would always be reopened at the end of the day. An alternate route for the emergency vehicles will be determined for short periods of time when access may be blocked due to construction. Residents with concrete curb work or concrete driveway apron replacements will not be able to use their driveways during the week the concrete is curing. During that time Maplewood police will be notified of the arrangement in order to add patrols while residents are required to park on the streets. 8.0 PROJECT COST The estimated project cost is $2,857,000 and is outlined below. ESTIMATED PROJECT COST SUMMARY PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTSAMOUNT% STREET IMPROVEMENTS$2,201,40077% DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS$268,0009% SANITARY SEWER IMPROVMENTS$295,00010% WATER SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS$52,6002% DRIVEWAY REPLACEMENT PROGRAM$40,0002% TOTAL ESTIMATE OF PROJECT COSTS$2,857,000100% The estimated costs includes 10% contingencies and 31.5% overhead, which include engineering, administrative, legal, and fiscal expenses. Exhibit 11 provides a more detailed construction and project cost estimate. 9.0 COST RECOVERY Based on the City of Maplewood?s Pavement Management Policy, a portion of the project cost is assessed on an equal ?unit? basis. The ?unit? would be based on an average residential lot, as has been used in the past.There are 111 assessable units within the project area. Exhibit 12details the preliminary assessment roll. Exhibit 13shows the properties proposed to be assessed for street and storm. There are no commercial lots within the project area. Residential properties located on streets with existing concrete curb and gutter will be assessed at the partial reconstruction amount. Residential properties on streets without existing concrete curb and gutter, located on Cypress Street as shown on Exhibit 13, will be assessed at the full reconstruction amount. It is the general understanding that the storm sewer assessment is a one time assessment similar to water and sanitary sewer assessments. Staff is researching records to make sure that any property that had previously been assessed for storm sewer will not be assessed as part of this project. At the time of this report all properties are planned to be assessed for storm sewer. 16 Packet Page Number Page 77 of 408 Agenda Item J1 Attachment 4 The city?s 1999 pavement management policy identifies certain improvement options with established assessment rates for each of those options. The 2009 assessment rates were set by the city council and the following assessment rates would apply: Residential Rates: $6000 /unit for full street reconstruction (adding curb & gutter). $4500 /unit for partial street reconstruction (repairing or replacing existing curb & gutter). $990 /unit for storm drainage improvements. The improvements are proposed to be financed through a combination of special assessments to the benefiting properties, G.O. Improvement Bonds, W.A.C. funds, other City of Maplewood funds, and St. Paul Water fund. The following is a summary of the estimated financing for the proposed project. ESTIMATED PROJECT COST RECOVERY FUNDING SOURCEAMOUNT% G.O. IMPROVEMENT BONDS$1,637,21057% SANITARY SEWER FUND$300,00011% ENVIRONMENTAL UTILITY FUND$170,0006% STORM SEWER ASSESSMENTS$109,8904% STREET ASSESSMENTS$514,50018% ST. PAUL WATER$32,4001% W.A.C. FUND$53,0002% DRIVEWAY REPLACEMENT PROGRAM$40,0001% TOTAL FUNDING$2,857,000100% 10.0 PROJECT SCHEDULE The following schedule may be implemented, should it be determined to proceed with the project: Receive feasibility study and order public hearing 01/12/2009 Public hearing 01/26/2009 Authorize preparation of plans and specs 01/26/2009 Approve plans and specs/authorize advertisement for bids 03/23/2009 Bid date 05/01/2009 Assessment hearing 05/11/2009 Accept bids/award contract 05/11/2009 Begin construction 06/01/2009 Assessments certified to Ramsey County 10/01/2009 Complete construction 10/31/2009 17 Packet Page Number Page 78 of 408 Agenda Item J1 Attachment 4 11.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS From the results of the feasibility study and investigations, it can be concluded that: 1. The project is feasible as it relates to general engineering principles, practices and construction procedures as it has been presented in this report. 2. The project is necessary for economic and safety reasons and is cost effective when all the related costs are considered ? environmental, private and public. 3. The proposed improvement is necessary to maintain the city?s infrastructure. 4. The total cost estimate for the project is $2,857,000. 5. The total share proposed to be assessed to the benefited properties is $624,390. 6. The total city share of these costs is proposed to be $1,637,210 G.O. Improvement Bonds. 7. Sewer and environmental utility fund will contribute $470,000 to the project. 8. The total share for the driveway replacement program is $40,000. 9. The total share proposed for the WAC fund and SPRWS is $85,400. In consideration of the above conclusions, it is recommended that: 1. If the city council deems the project feasible, a public hearing should be held as soon as possible. 2. The proposed improvements should be constructed as outlined in this report. 3. The cost of the improvements will be recovered through assessments to the benefited properties or parcels and through city contributions. 18 Packet Page Number Page 79 of 408 )<,-&-8 463.)'803'%8-321%4 Packet Page Number Page 80 of 408 )<,-&-8 4)8)67%((-8-32 1%40)0)%*)78%8)7 Packet Page Number Page 81 of 408 )<,-&-8 Packet Page Number Page 82 of 408 )<,-&-8 +)38)',2-'%0)2+-2))6-2+6)43687911%6= 79&+6%()73-07 %4463<-1%8)4%:)1)288,-'/2)77 MRGLIW 786))8;%8)60):)0 3&7)6:%8-32 &36-2+03'%8-32&-891-2397%++6)+%8)&%7)79&&%7)73-08=4) &']TVIWW7XVIIXJIIXWERH7' '0JIIX &']TVIWW7XVIIXJIIXWERH7' '0RE &']TVIWW7XVIIXJIIXWERH7' '0RE &']TVIWW7XVIIXJIIXWERH7' '0RE &']TVIWW7XVIIXJIIXWERH7' '0RE & 6" 1/2" R. ~~ w ~ ~ J 3" R. ~? a USE 2-5 /8" R. W x ~ a FOR 4" CURB EXHIBIT 5 CURB DESIGN TABULAR VALUES DESIGN N0. CURB HEIGHT CU. YD. CONC. PER LIN. FT. LIN. FT. PER CU. YD. CONCRETE 83 3" 0.0049 206.2 84 4" 0.0068 147.3 86 6" 0.0108 92.8 BS 8" 0.0151 66.4 89 9" 0.0173 57.7 B10 10" 0.0197 50.8 DESIGN B 1/2" R. 1-1/2" R. ~~ USE 1" R. FOR 4" CURB w = m a w ~ 3" R. =Q ~ °.• :.. TABULAR VALUES DESIGN N0. CURB HEIGHT CU. YD. CONC. PER LIN. FT. LIN. FT. PER CU. YD. CONCRETE V4 4" 0.0064 156.b V6 b" 0.0094 105.9 VS 8" 0.0125 79.8 V9 9" 0.0141 71.1 V10 10" 0.0156 64.0 DESIGN V CUBIC YARDS OF CONCRETE PER LINEAL FOOT = 0.0062 LINEAL FEET PER CUBIC YARD OF CONCRETE = 162.0 DESIGN D NOTESo ALL CURB SLOPE MEASUREMENTS ARE IN RELATION TO ADJACENT PAVEMENT SLOPE. WHERE SAWED TRANSVERSE JOINTS ARE USED IN THE PAVEMENT SLAB, THE JOINTS IN THE CURB MAY BE SAWED WHERE THE CURB HEIGHT IS 4" OR LESS. AT LOCATIONS WHERE TRANSVERSE JOINTS IN THE CURB SECTION ARE SAWED, THE PREFORMED JOINT MATERIAL WILL NOT BE REQUIRED. SAWED JOINTS IN THE CURB SECTION SHALL BE 1/8" WIDER THAN THE PAVEMENT SECTION. m = ~ ~ 3 ~ \ U = PREFORMED JOINT MATERIAL ~~ - - ~ m ~ ~ _ ~W I x J PREFORMED JOINT MATERIAL 12" -~~ ~ 1 Q PREFORMED JOINT MATERIAL ALL JOINTS SHALL BE FILLED WITH JOINT SEALER. JOINT MATERIAL SHALL BE OF 1/2" THICKNESS. 1 THICKNESS REQUIRED AT CONTRACTION JOINTS, 2 THICKNESSES REQUIRED AT 1/2" EXPANSION JOINTS AND 3 THICKNESSES REQDIRED AT 1" EXPANSION JOINTS. O1 1/2" LESS THAN CURB DIMENSIONS FOR APPLICATION OF SEALER. APPROYEDSept~13~1973 STATE OF MINNESOTA SPECIFICATION STANDARD DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION REFERENCE PLATE N0. _ _ ~~ ..~~--~~-- INTEGRANT CURBS 2301 ~ASSr~coMrnlSSlor~Rf~~ DESIGN B, DESIGN V AND DESIGN D Packet2Palge Nu be~GGGE RF.SEARCFi aNU STANDARDS Page 84 of 08 3" R. 1:3 BATTER m X W 9 1191 H X~ 9666 i 7 ~. I. .. v :r ~ O i J t~'ii l ',, ',,. J - i J ~ 1H ~~ Q d n. ~ ~ ~ ' ' Z ~ ~ L'O A~VIOiN7PJ Y ~ t _ fi • 9~ dl _ %~ ~~~6~ ~.,~.. Q W ~~ ~ ~ ;~ ~~6 __ ,,~~ ~W W ~,, 4 N , W L ~ •~ o r_, ~_z~ ~~~~~ ~~~~ Q maw mr~z _ ° w¢X ~...b - ~~ ~ W N - ~ ~ ~~ K ~ O ~ ~~ a z a u ~ S l~ ~ w ~ ^1~~. h z r' ~ ~ ®® ~_ ~ ~© ~~ ri~_ ~. ~~ .. ?-< n _~ h88 - ~ ® r (/ a ltipl nr'a ~ i 7 L _71 ® ~~ /~ ~ ~ V ~~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 3NF'~ SIF/18~`~ Packet Page Number Page 85 of 408 L 1181 HX~ G I. L I. ',. ',, iJ I.I.I. O iJ I.I. ',. si i ''~ V ~~5 T ~ }'I.1J ~ ',, ',,. .1 - i 1 ~.. o ~ ~, o a >s-c ~ ~~,.. ~. . r Z ^~ ~~ _ - ~~ - z ~~ ~' _ ° o • ~,~oi o - - "' ~ ~ ~ra~ ^~ ypr:~~~ sr ~ ~^ ~ ~ f r ~~ ~s~ ~oz w ~ ~ ~, ~=a nnni u, ~ m ~ o z ~ ~ z `,' w _ p w ~ w ~ ~ ~~-i. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Z z ~ W z 1^ ~1 w .., i7 ~ ~ ~ o_ ^ ~ t.'. rwow ~ZZ X°ro r K p~> Q w w U ^ w ^ w 0 ^~~ w W ~ ~ mw __ ~w^ Off'. W O^d ~.~ W~ N ~ uJ ^ _. ~ W Z K K ^ C/J ~ r - K 1 ^ _ ~ ~ 1_ (/7 ~ _= ^ ~~Sl~ ~ ,`'J W ~ C 1 r,. a z ~_ 7ir~ Q m ~ ^ z t6K w O ~ ~ 2 a ~ O ~ ~ ~ ^ ~ ~, w ~~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ? z _ '_~ ~ ^ w h88 - ~ - _. ~ p d w ~ ',,. J d ',,. ~ d ~ s n h ~ ~~~~ ~~ ~it0 '. I I _ _'; '.. y nt8 U ~ ~ \\h 1d ~ V ~`1 ~ ~ ~ 7 3NF'~ SIF/18~`~ Packet Page Number Page 86 of 408 F. 1191 HX~ h~ ~~ ~8 Q} y~ U} ~•ri~ vJ y~ ~° ttQt}~ v,r 1 .~ t~ CyJ Q} Q ~ 0 ~~ U N _ ~ D f0 ~ D O N ~ cn a y p d p 7 N V y o ~ m o m p ~ s ~ 'V ~ m m x c ~ ~ ~ O („) ~ ~ c ~ m m - ~ a ~ ~ a ~ ~ ~ 3 9 ~ r_ r_ ~ `m `m ~ - °- ° m cn cn o j ~ Q .°o E ~ ~ s ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ m m m m J o o .> > ~ C7 u_ ¢ ~ a` a` ~ ~ e ~ v d ~ a ~ 'a °° ~ ~r d naornrn '~ (sayoui) as;aweip m N ~ U ~ ti) U K U ~ r}ii a C7 O a a Packet Page Number Page 87 of 408 m_ x w Packet Page Number Page 88 of 408 o_ m_ X w Packet Page Number Page 89 of 408 l l L51HX~ F ~F Fp 0U W~ Q K z w w K w w ° wa' w o ~ w w ~ r > F ~ r a 3w~O r a ao~~ ~ V ~ U T >a°z°o C~~7 ~ w w a w ~ a Uar~p~ wo ~S ~ vAv°, -- _ _ - 0 w o ', m - ` _ - a - - ', . '., - - '., ', ~ ', ', '', ~ °m a o ',, ',. ~ o o LL ~ o - '., '., '., _ '., ',, ',, '. _ N N ~ u - - N a o ~ o o 0 ~ - I,, - - - I,, - _ ',,, ? O - O w O ° ¢ - - - _ u~ m N rv O ~ ~ O _ - - '.... ~.... ~ '.... '.... _ ~. O O - ~ U U m O U ' ' ' u E m ~ .. .. . U ~ O '.... v 3 '.,. - ''., ~ v d " E °' E w ` E w ° z3 aa. a 33 ~ ~ 3 A ~ o _ 3 r = 3 p p - N E r 1 . 3 0. ~° >.w a~ ~ uG a ~.~rc 30 3 ~ a z ~ o ~ ~ o '. 3 rc °0 3 3 m F °' ~ ~ $ $ ~~~ ~ ~ 3 o z ~ ~ rc o ° F o p ~'~ 'c M 'c 0 3 W W 3 0 6 o F a rc w - _ ~.a a o ~ ~ ~ ~ .~~3 a ~ 3 ~ ° a 3 3 3 - ~ w'~ ~ - - - - - - - Packet Page Number Page 90 of 408 EXHIBIT 12 PRELIMINARY ASSESSMENT ROLL CITY PROJECT 08-10 PARCEL ID TAXPAYER STREET NUMBER STREET RESIDENTIAL UNITS STORM ASSESSMENT STREET ASSESSMENT TOTAL ASSESSMENT 092922240034 MARK E PETERS 948 BROOKS CT E 1 $990.00 $4,500.00 $5,490.00 092922240033 MARY B LEAFGREN 954 BROOKS CT E 1 $990.00 $4,500.00 $5,490.00 092922240022 JOHN F WIEREMANN 955 BROOKS CT E 1 $990.00 $4,500.00 $5,490.00 092922240023 BRUCE A NOVOTNE 959 BROOKS CT E 1 $990.00 $4,500.00 $5,490.00 092922240041 JOEL E VARBERG 960 BROOKS CT E 1 $990.00 $4,500.00 $5,490.00 092922240024 ALISON L COCHRANE 965 BROOKS CT E 1 $990.00 $4,500.00 $5,490.00 092922240040 PETER H DEY 966 BROOKS CT E 1 $990.00 $4,500.00 $5,490.00 092922240025 DAVID J THOMALLA 971 BROOKS CT E 1 $990.00 $4,500.00 $5,490.00 092922240030 JAMES P WAHLSTRAND 972 BROOKS CT E 1 $990.00 $4,500.00 $5,490.00 092922240026 GEOFFREY W BARKER 977 BROOKS CT E 1 $990.00 $4,500.00 $5,490.00 092922240029 MARY PENNY JOHNSON 978 BROOKS CT E 1 $990.00 $4,500.00 $5,490.00 092922240027 SCOTT M HAGBERG 983 BROOKS CT E 1 $990.00 $4,500.00 $5,490.00 092922240028 DENNIS G BERRY 984 BROOKS CT E 1 $990.00 $4,500.00 $5,490.00 092922230007 SHARONAH ANN JACOBUS 908 CONNOR AVE E 1 $990.00 $4,500.00 $5,490.00 092922220044 PAUL CHRISTIAN 921 CONNOR AVE E 1 $990.00 $4,500.00 $5,490.00 092922220033 RICHARD L BALDWIN 929 CONNOR AVE E 1 $990.00 $4,500.00 $5,490.00 092922210041 ALLEN P CARLSON 946 CONNOR AVE E 1 $990.00 $4,500.00 $5,490.00 092922210040 WILLIAM J SIEVERS 952 CONNOR AVE E 1 $990.00 $4,500.00 $5,490.00 092922210030 ROBERT M FLOYD 955 CONNOR AVE E 1 $990.00 $4,500.00 $5,490.00 092922210039 DANIEL L KERAN 958 CONNOR AVE E 1 $990.00 $4,500.00 $5,490.00 092922210031 THOMAS H KEARNS 961 CONNOR AVE E 1 $990.00 $4,500.00 $5,490.00 092922210038 DAVID A ANDERSON 964 CONNOR AVE E 1 $990.00 $4,500.00 $5,490.00 092922210032 HOA B TIENG 967 CONNOR AVE E 1 $990.00 $4,500.00 $5,490.00 092922210037 THOMAS R LINDSKOG 970 CONNOR AVE E 1 $990.00 $4,500.00 $5,490.00 092922210036 BARBARA L OLSON 976 CONNOR AVE E 1 $990.00 $4,500.00 $5,490.00 092922210033 LAWRENCE N REEVE 981 CONNOR AVE E 1 $990.00 $4,500.00 $5,490.00 092922210035 ELLEN MIKE 982 CONNOR AVE E 1 $990.00 $4,500.00 $5,490.00 092922210034 DANIEL P ROSS 990 CONNOR AVE E 1 $990.00 $4,500.00 $5,490.00 092922220028 ANNA J RABCEVICH 873 CONNOR CT E 1 $990.00 $4,500.00 $5,490.00 092922230009 MICHAEL A SANTORO 874 CONNOR CT E 1 $990.00 $4,500.00 $5,490.00 092922230008 CAROL H ENGEL 882 CONNOR CT E 1 $990.00 $4,500.00 $5,490.00 092922220029 JAMES J BYERS 883 CONNOR CT E 1 $990.00 $4,500.00 $5,490.00 092922220030 WILLIAM A ERAL 893 CONNOR CT E 1 $990.00 $4,500.00 $5,490.00 092922220046 MARK D CARSON 894 CONNOR CT E 1 $990.00 $4,500.00 $5,490.00 092922220031 DEREK J DESHLER 903 CONNOR CT E 1 $990.00 $4,500.00 $5,490.00 092922220045 WILLIAM A BRINKER 904 CONNOR CT E 1 $990.00 $4,500.00 $5,490.00 092922220032 AMANDA R SHEAHAN 913 CONNOR CT E 1 $990.00 $4,500.00 $5,490.00 092922210051 WILLIAM G GOFF II 1000 COUNTY ROAD C E 1 $990.00 $6,000.00 $6,990.00 092922210062 JAY R REEVES 2570 CYPRESS STN 1 $990.00 $6,000.00 $6,990.00 092922210010 CHA TOU THAO 2571 CYPRESS STN 1 $990.00 $6,000.00 $6,990.00 092922210061 HEATHER A CAMPBELL 2574 CYPRESS STN 1 $990.00 $6,000.00 $6,990.00 092922210060 LAUREEN A MCGINLEY 2578 CYPRESS STN 1 $990.00 $6,000.00 $6,990.00 092922210009 DOROTHY HECKMANN 2579 CYPRESS STN 2 $1,980.00 $12,000.00 $13,980.00 092922210008 JOHN M THOMSEN TRUSTEE 2591 CYPRESS STN 1 $990.00 $6,000.00 $6,990.00 092922210007 JOHN R SWENSON 2595 CYPRESS STN 1 $990.00 $6,000.00 $6,990.00 092922210054 MATTHEW C SMITH 2611 CYPRESS STN 1 $990.00 $6,000.00 $6,990.00 092922230006 PATRICK E SNELSON 912 DEMONT AVE E 1 $990.00 $4,500.00 $5,490.00 092922230005 TORE DETLIE 918 DEMONT AVE E 1 $990.00 $4,500.00 $5,490.00 092922230002 KEVIN H JACOBSON 927 DEMONT AVE E 1 $990.00 $4,500.00 $5,490.00 092922230004 DAVID A HENSELER 928 DEMONT AVE E 1 $990.00 $4,500.00 $5,490.00 092922230003 PAUL G JONDAHL 938 DEMONT AVE E 1 $990.00 $4,500.00 $5,490.00 092922240019 MARK KRETSCHMAR 942 DEMONT AVE E 1 $990.00 $4,500.00 $5,490.00 092922240018 KIRK D DAVIS 950 DEMONT AVE E 1 $990.00 $4,500.00 $5,490.00 092922240008 GERARD A LANGER 951 DEMONT AVE E 1 $990.00 $4,500.00 $5,490.00 092922240017 MATTHEW J MCDONOUGH 956 DEMONT AVE E 1 $990.00 $4,500.00 $5,490.00 092922240009 LISA M GRUSZKA 957 DEMONT AVE E 1 $990.00 $4,500.00 $5,490.00 092922240016 ROBERT M BLAUFUSS 962 DEMONT AVE E 1 $990.00 $4,500.00 $5,490.00 092922240010 LOUIS SICA JR 963 DEMONT AVE E 1 $990.00 $4,500.00 $5,490.00 092922240015 THOMAS W HUTCHINGS 968 DEMONT AVE E 1 $990.00 $4,500.00 $5,490.00 092922240011 REX L KIEKHOEFER 969 DEMONT AVE E 1 $990.00 $4,500.00 $5,490.00 F- 00 X w Page 1 of 2 Packet Page Number Page 91 of 408 EXHIBIT 12 PRELIMINARY ASSESSMENT ROLL CITY PROJECT 08-10 PARCEL ID TAXPAYER STREET NUMBER STREET RESIDENTIAL UNITS STORM ASSESSMENT STREET ASSESSMENT TOTAL ASSESSMENT 092922240014 CLAYTON A GORE 974 DEMONT AVE E 1 $990.00 $4,500.00 $5,490.00 092922210042 STEVEN B PRIMOLI 975 DEMONT AVE E 1 $990.00 $4,500.00 $5,490.00 092922240013 CHARLES M WANSTROM 980 DEMONT AVE E 1 $990.00 $4,500.00 $5,490.00 092922210043 DANIEL J OGARA 981 DEMONT AVE E 1 $990.00 $4,500.00 $5,490.00 092922240012 MARCIA H MOORE FOSTER 986 DEMONT AVE E 1 $990.00 $4,500.00 $5,490.00 092922210044 GARY A VANBEEK 987 DEMONT AVE E 1 $990.00 $4,500.00 $5,490.00 092922230025 WILLIAM J SIEVERS 0 FOREST STN 1 $990.00 $4,500.00 $5,490.00 092922230026 WILLIAM J SIEVERS 2451 FOREST STN 1 $990.00 $4,500.00 $5,490.00 092922240021 RICHARD M SEPPALA 2462 FOREST STN 1 $990.00 $4,500.00 $5,490.00 092922230024 DAVID KORNMANN 2471 FOREST STN 1 $990.00 $4,500.00 $5,490.00 092922240020 TRUNG T NGUYEN 2472 FOREST STN 1 $990.00 $4,500.00 $5,490.00 092922230001 CRAIG J CAPEDER 2507 FOREST STN 1 $990.00 $4,500.00 $5,490.00 092922240007 WATOU T MOUA 2508 FOREST STN 1 $990.00 $4,500.00 $5,490.00 092922220043 STEVEN D KRAUSE 2517 FOREST STN 1 $990.00 $4,500.00 $5,490.00 092922210029 KEVIN R MARSCHEL 2530 FOREST STN 1 $990.00 $4,500.00 $5,490.00 092922210028 MARLENE D MOSS 2540 FOREST STN 1 $990.00 $4,500.00 $5,490.00 092922210027 MARK D NICHOLS 2550 FOREST STN 1 $990.00 $4,500.00 $5,490.00 092922210026 JAMES HARDENBROOK 2560 FOREST STN 1 $990.00 $4,500.00 $5,490.00 092922210025 ROBERT W SMITH 2570 FOREST STN 1 $990.00 $4,500.00 $5,490.00 092922220040 JAMES R MALSOM 2571 FOREST STN 1 $990.00 $4,500.00 $5,490.00 092922210024 DENNIS S BALLARD 2578 FOREST STN 1 $990.00 $4,500.00 $5,490.00 092922220041 DALE A SOBERG 2579 FOREST STN 1 $990.00 $4,500.00 $5,490.00 092922220042 FLETE W GRAY 2585 FOREST STN 1 $990.00 $4,500.00 $5,490.00 092922210023 ROBERT E SHAW 2586 FOREST STN 1 $990.00 $4,500.00 $5,490.00 092922210022 CHRISTOPHER J KRIER 2596 FOREST STN 1 $990.00 $4,500.00 $5,490.00 092922210068 MICHAEL G SELIGA 2597 FOREST STN 1 $990.00 $4,500.00 $5,490.00 092922210021 HAI MINH TRAN 2604 FOREST STN 1 $990.00 $4,500.00 $5,490.00 092922210048 SOKUNTHEA SOEUN 2605 FOREST STN 1 $990.00 $4,500.00 $5,490.00 092922210020 CHRISTOPHER T CARROLL 2612 FOREST STN 1 $990.00 $4,500.00 $5,490.00 092922220058 MARY ANN OBERG 2613 FOREST STN 1 $990.00 $4,500.00 $5,490.00 092922210046 MAIZUAG A THAO 2619 FOREST STN 1 $990.00 $4,500.00 $5,490.00 092922210019 RICHARD G STAHL 2620 FOREST STN 1 $990.00 $4,500.00 $5,490.00 092922210045 KOU YANG 2629 FOREST STN 1 $990.00 $4,500.00 $5,490.00 092922210018 CATHERINE R MORRISON 2630 FOREST STN 1 $990.00 $4,500.00 $5,490.00 092922220037 KURT M GEISER 915 PALM CIR E 1 $990.00 $4,500.00 $5,490.00 092922220036 DAVID M OCONNOR TRUSTEE 916 PALM CIR E 1 $990.00 $4,500.00 $5,490.00 092922220038 CLYDE E BILLINGTON JR 925 PALM CIR E 1 $990.00 $4,500.00 $5,490.00 092922220035 JEFFREY A SEVERSON 926 PALM CIR E 1 $990.00 $4,500.00 $5,490.00 092922220039 PATRICIA A WALSH 935 PALM CIR E 1 $990.00 $4,500.00 $5,490.00 092922220034 MARGARET C TEAL 936 PALM CIR E 1 $990.00 $4,500.00 $5,490.00 092922220014 WILLIAM S HALLORAN 821 PALM CT E 1 $990.00 $4,500.00 $5,490.00 092922220023 CY THAO 822 PALM CT E 1 $990.00 $4,500.00 $5,490.00 092922220015 GARY C FOUTY 829 PALM CT E 1 $990.00 $4,500.00 $5,490.00 092922220022 MARIANNE G NEWELL 830 PALM CT E 1 $990.00 $4,500.00 $5,490.00 092922220016 GEORGE A HENLY 837 PALM CT E 1 $990.00 $4,500.00 $5,490.00 092922220021 JEANETTE A VASILAKES 838 PALM CT E 1 $990.00 $4,500.00 $5,490.00 092922220017 TIMOTHY C MCMAHON 845 PALM CT E 1 $990.00 $4,500.00 $5,490.00 092922220020 WILLIAM S HALLORAN 846 PALM CT E 1 $990.00 $4,500.00 $5,490.00 092922220018 RICKI L STRASSMAN 853 PALM CT E 1 $990.00 $4,500.00 $5,490.00 092922220019 RAYMOND P KRUSE 854 PALM CT E 1 $990.00 $4,500.00 $5,490.00 TOTALS 111 $109,890.00 $514,500.00 $624,390.00 2009 ASSESSMENT RATES: TOTAL = $624,390.00 RESIDENTIAL STORM SEWER ASSESSMENT = $990 PER UNIT RESIDENTIAL FULL STREET RECONSTRUCTION = $6,000 PER UNIT RESIDENTIAL PARTIAL STREET RECONSTRUCTION = $4,500 PER UNIT Page 2 of 2 Packet Page Number Page 92 of 408 `;~ 1i9iHx~'. ~ u Nage y3 of aos Agenda Item J2 AGENDA REPORT TO: Charles Ahl, Acting City Manager FROM: Michael Thompson, Acting Public Works Director Steve Kummer, Civil Engineer II SUBJECT: Castle Avenue Improvements, City Project 08-12 a. Public Hearing 7:15 pm b. Resolution Ordering Improvement after Public Hearing (4 votes) DATE: January 15, 2009 INTRODUCTION The public hearing for this project has been scheduled for 7:15 p.m., Monday, January 26, 2009. Notices of the public hearing have been mailed and published in accordance with state statute. The feasibility study was distributed to council members prior to January 12, 2009 and is also attached as a supplement to the packet. The study includes information on the proposed improvement, proposed financing and probable assessments. The city council should consider ordering the improvement following the public hearing. BACKGROUND The city council ordered the preparation of this feasibility study at the August 25, 2008 regular meeting. On January 12, 2009, the city council accepted the feasibility report and ordered the public hearing for January 26, 2009. A neighborhood meeting was held on January 8, 2009 at the Maplewood Community Center. The meeting covered the public improvements process, scope of improvements, construction process, rainwater gardens, and proposed assessments. Staff answered questions after the presentation. Six residents attended the meeting. Staff has also been in contact with representatives of Goodwill (2250 White Bear Avenue) and New Horizon Academy (2251 Van Dyke Street) due to plan considerations for realigning Castle Avenue with the intersection of White Bear Avenue while maintaining all access points to the two businesses. The proposed project seems to be well-received by local businesses and residents. As part of the design process, staff mails out questionnaires to residents regarding issues such as sanitary sewer service problems and drainage issues. Staff does not ask if residents are for or against projects in these questionnaires but rather asks about issues that will help successfully design and build the project. A tabulated response form was provided to the council at the last meeting. Staff only acts as a facilitator for capital improvement projects and the merits of this project should be discussed at the public hearing. DISCUSSION A half-mile section of Castle Avenue from White Bear Avenue to the City of North Saint Paul corporate limits is planned for complete reconstruction. The proposed project area is illustrated on the attached project location map. Street improvements for this neighborhood are scheduled in the City's 5-year Capital Improvement Plan for 2009 construction. Drainage improvements, roadway improvements, and minor sanitary sewer and water main improvements are proposed as part of the project. Proposed financing sources for this project include Municipal State Aid, Mn/DOT funds, Sewer Fund, WAC Fund, Packet Page Number Page 94 of 408 Agenda Item J2 Environmental Utility Fund, general tax levy, driveway program funds, and special assessments. There are a total of 28 assessable parcels, which includes 15 town home units considered as double-dwelling residential, 4 parcels considered as multi-family residential, 2 parcels considered as commercial properties, and the remaining 7 parcels considered as single-dwelling residential. The existing pavement surface is in poor condition with severe transverse cracking and deterioration of the pavement edges. Improper sealing of the pavement surface has allowed water into the pavement section thereby allowing frost heave of underlying soils. As well, geometric alignment challenges exist at the intersection of White Bear Avenue and Castle Avenue, where Castle Avenue meets the intersection at a sharp tangent relative to White Bear Avenue. Plans are being considered for the realignment of the street with the intersection while maintaining all accesses to the local businesses. The existing curb and gutter on the highway side of the roadway will be repaired as necessary. Several resident requests have indicated a need for a sidewalk along the Maplewood Care Center property connecting to White Bear Avenue and a trail along the Cope Avenue right-of-way east of White Bear Avenue. Also of importance to residents is providing landscape screening between the properties and TH 36. Staff is exploring a Mn/DOT grant opportunity to offset costs. Storm sewer and storm water treatment improvements are also proposed. Storm water runoff is currently untreated in the area, and runoff flows directly into pipes into Wicklander Pond and a ditch south of TH 36 that carries drainage to the west. The City's residential rainwater garden program and driveway replacement program will be continued for this project. The proposed project schedule anticipates construction beginning in early July 2009 and with completion in November 2009. BUDGET The total project budget as reported in the feasibility study is $1,361,200. The project budget detailed in the City's Capital Improvement Plan is $850,000. A comparison is shown in the following table: CIP Funding Feasibility Funding GO Improvement Bonds $ 493,500.00 $ 422,900.00 M SA $ - $ 401,600.00 Mn/DOT (Turnback) $ 75,000.00 $ 75,000.00 Assessments $ 170,000.00 $ 251,000.00 Sanitary Sewer Fund $ 43,000.00 $ 25,700.00 WAC Fund $ 25,500.00 $ 25,000.00 Environmental Utility Fund $ 43,000.00 $ 150,000.00 Driveways $ - $ 10,000.00 Total $ 850,000.00 $ 1,361,200.00 The project budget as identified in the feasibility study is $511,200 over the total project cost estimated in the CIP. There are a couple reasons for this budget increase. o The feasibility budget includes an allowance of $50,000 for the construction of berms and landscaping along Castle Avenue. Packet Page Number Page 95 of 408 Agenda Item J2 o The feasibility study includes significant improvements to the alignment of the intersection of Castle Avenue with White Bear Avenue. Included in these costs are the construction of additional drainage facilities, construction of a roundabout and right-of-way acquisition costs. o The intersection improvements are estimated at $401,000 including easement /land acquisition. These costs are likely state aid eligible, which is reflected in the feasibility funding, but not in the 2009 C.I.P. There is a possibility that the city could receive the $401,000 upfront as part of a 2009 Federal Public Works Stimulus package. The city has submitted this project for consideration and continues to work with Mn/DOT on state aid funding issues. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the City Council approve the attached resolution ordering the Castle Avenue Improvements, City Project 08-12 (Four affirmative votes are required to approve this resolution). Attachments: 1. Resolution 2. Executive Summary 3. Location Map 4. Feasibility Study Packet Page Number Page 96 of 408 Agenda Item J2 Attachment 1 RESOLUTION ORDERING IMPROVEMENT AFTER PUBLIC HEARING WHEREAS, a resolution of the city council adopted the 12th day of January, 2009, fixed a date for a council hearing on the proposed street and utility improvements for the Castle Avenue Improvements, City Project 08-12, AND WHEREAS, ten days mailed notice and two weeks published notice of the hearing was given, and the hearing was duly held on January 26th, 2009, and the council has heard all persons desiring to be heard on the matter and has fully considered the same; AND WHEREAS, the city engineer is the designated engineer for this improvement and has been duly directed on January 12th, 2009 to prepare final plans and specifications for the making of said improvement; NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA, as follows: 1. That it is necessary, cost-effective and feasible, as detailed in the feasibility report, that the City of Maplewood make improvements to Castle Avenue from White Bear Avenue to the City of North Saint Paul city limits, City Project 08-12. 2. Such improvement is hereby ordered as proposed in the council resolution adopted the 26tH day of January 2009. 3. The finance director is hereby authorized to make the financial transfers necessary to implement the financing plan for the project. A project budget of $1,361,200 shall be established as previously approved on January 12th, 2009. The proposed financing plan is as follows: Source Proposed Amount GO Improvement Bonds $ 422,900.00 M SA $ 401,600.00 Mn/DOT (Turnback) $ 75,000.00 Assessments $ 251,000.00 Sanitary Sewer Fund $ 25,700.00 WAC Fund $ 25,000.00 Environmental Utility Fund $ 150,000.00 Driveways $ 10,000.00 Total $ 1,361,200.00 Packet Page Number Page 97 of 408 Agenda Item J2 Attachment 2 Castle Avenue Improvements City Project 08-12 Executive Summary This feasibility report has been prepared for the Castle Avenue Improvement Project, City of Maplewood Project 08-12. The total street mileage is approximately 0.50 miles and is bounded by White Bear Avenue on the west and the City of North Saint Paul city limits on the east. The proposed improvements include the following: o The full reconstruction of Castle Avenue, including the installation of concrete curb and gutter, new bituminous pavements, recycled aggregate base, granular sub base, geo-textile fabric, and drain-tile. o Installation of a trunk storm sewer system to property route storm water runoff to treatment basins and reduce erosion. o Installation of sidewalks to connect pedestrians with the Cope Avenue trail and White Bear Avenue sidewalk. o Installation of rainwater gardens, ponds, and other best management practices to filter and improve the quality of runoff prior to its discharge into nearby lakes and ponds. o Spot repairs to sanitary sewer services and minor repairs to the water main system. o Realignment of the intersection at White Bear Avenue and Castle Avenue including the installation of traffic control devices to provide better access, vehicles movements, and traffic flow. o Restoration of all disturbed areas. The estimated costs for the proposed improvements are detailed below. These costs include a 10% construction cost contingency and a 31.5% allowance for indirect costs. Estimated Project Cost Summary Water S stem Im rovements $ 21,000 1.5% Sanitary Sewer Improvements $ 25,700 1.9% Storm Water Drainage Improvements $ 198,300 14.6% Street Improvements $ 816,200 60.0% Land Acquisition $ 290,000 21.3% Driveway Program $ 10,000 0.7% Total Estimate (Project Costs): $ 1,361,200 100% The improvements are proposed to be financed through a combination of special assessments to the benefiting properties, G.O. Improvement Bonds, W.A.C. funds, various City of Maplewood funds, and Saint Paul Regional Water Services funds. The following is a summary of the estimated funding for the proposed project. Packet Page Number Page 98 of 408 Agenda Item J2 Attachment 2 ESTIMATED PROJECT COST RECOVERY FUNDING SOURCE AMOUNT BONDS-MUNICIPAL STATE AID $401,600 29.5% BONDS-GENERAL OBLIGATION $422,900 31.1% MN/DOT ROADWAY TURNBACK FUNDS $75,000 5.5% SANITARY SEWER FUND $25,700 1.9% ENVIRONMENTAL UTILITY FUND $150,000 11.0% STREET ASSESSMENTS $251,000 18.4% W.A.C. FUND $25,000 1.8% DRIVEWAY REPLACEMENT PROGRAM $10,000 0.7% TOTAL FUNDING $1,361,200 100% The following schedule may be implemented, should it be determined to proceed with the project: Receive feasibility study and order public hearing January 12, 2009 Authorize preparation of plans and specs January 12, 2009 Public hearing January 26, 2009 Approve plans and specs/authorize advertisement for bids May 11, 2009 Bid date June 12, 2009 Assessment hearing June 22, 2009 Accept bids/award contract June 22, 2009 Begin construction July 6, 2009 Complete construction October 30, 2009 Assessments certified to Ramsey County October 8, 2009 Based upon the analysis completed as part of this report, the proposed Castle Avenue Improvements, City Project 08-12, are feasible, necessary, and cost effective and would be a benefit to the City of Maplewood. Packet Page Number Page 99 of 408 Agenda Item J2 4++~nhmon+'2 r~ V J ~ AVE. 1 1 th AV E Q ~ P . S o ~ ~ z ~ ~ ~ ~ Q ~ ~ GERVAIS mom. ~" CT. ~ ~ ~S ~ AVE. 1 2 ~~ ~ ~ Q AVE. ~~^` ~' ~ ~ COPE AVE. ~ - ~ ~v ~ K o AVE F ~ ~ . z c~r> cn Q LAURIE RD. E ~ RD. ~ ~ ~ w ~ ~ w ~ ~ ~ z = v RD. ~ B A VE. z ~PJ S Community G~ 64 65 Center ~P~~' ~ ~ ]_E~/-~ ~, City Hall ~ PROPOSED STREET IMPROVEMENT NO SCALE Capital Improvement Project for 2009 Castle Avenue Improvements City Project 08-12 Packet Page Num ei Oi: I Agenda Item J2 Attachment 4 FEASIBILITY REPORT CASTLE AVENUE STREET IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT 08-12 CASTLE AVENUE FROM WHITE BEAR AVENUE TO NORTH SAINT PAUL CITY LIMITS I hereby certify that this report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Licensed Professional Engineer under the laws of the State of Minnesota. Signature: Steven L. Kummer, P.E. Date: License No. 44296 City of Maplewood Department of Public Works 1902 East County Road B Maplewood, Minnesota 55109 Packet Page Number Page 101 of 408 Agenda Item J2 Attachment 4 TABLE OF CONTENTS CERTIFICATION .............................................................................................................. i TABLE OF CONTENTS ................................................................................................... ii EXHIBITS ........................................................................................................................ iv EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ................................................................................................. v 1.0 INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................... 1 1.1 Neighborhood Development History ............................................................... 1 2.0 RESIDENT /PROPERTY OWNER CORRESPONDENCE ...................................... 2 3.0 EXISTING INFRASTRUCTURE AND CONDITION SURVEYS ................................ 3 3.1 Sanitary Sewer ............................................................................................... 3 3.2 Water Main ..................................................................................................... 3 3.3 Storm Sewer and Drainage ............................................................................ 4 3.4 Streets, Walks and Trails ............................................................................... 5 4.0 PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS AND GOALS .......................................................... 7 4.1 Street .............................................................................................................. 8 4.2 Drainage and Storm Water Management .................................................... 12 4.3 Sanitary Sewer and Water Main ................................................................... 13 4.4 Sidewalks and Trails .................................................................................... 13 4.5 Street Lighting .............................................................................................. 14 4.6 Noise Migitation along Highway 36 .............................................................. 14 4.7 Private Driveway Program ............................................................................ 14 ii Packet Page Number Page 102 of 408 Agenda Item J2 Attachment 4 5.0 PRIVATE UTILITY WORK ...................................................................................... 14 6.0 CONSTRUCTION OPERATIONS AND CONTROLS .............................................. 15 6.1 Erosion Control .............................................................................................. 15 6.2 Traffic Control and Access ............................................................................ 15 6.3 Boulevard and Driveway Restoration ............................................................ 16 6.4 Tree Impacts ................................................................................................. 16 7.0 PROJECT COSTS .................................................................................................. 16 8.0 COST RECOVERY ................................................................................................. 17 8.1 Special Assessments ................................................................................... 17 8.2 Storm Drainage Assessments ...................................................................... 17 8.3 Funding Summary ........................................................................................ 17 9.0 PROJECT SCHEDULE ........................................................................................... 18 10.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ..................................................... 19 iii Packet Page Number Page 103 of 408 Agenda Item J2 Attachment 4 EXHIBITS Exhibit 1: Vicinity Map and Proposed Project Area Exhibit 2: Proposed Castle Avenue Improvements Project Limits Exhibit 3: Plats and Land Use Exhibit 4: Existing Sanitary Sewer Exhibit 5: Existing Water Main Exhibit 6: Existing Storm Sewer Exhibit 7: Existing Drainage Patterns Exhibit 8: Storm Sewer Removals/Repairs Exhibit 9: Soil Boring Locations Exhibit 10: Soil Boring Logs (3 pages) Exhibit 11: Cope/Castle and White Bear Ave Intersection Close-Up Exhibit 12: Cope/Castle and White Bear Ave Intersection: Traffic Counts Exhibit 13: Existing Walks Exhibit 14: Existing vs. Proposed Typical Street Sections Exhibit 15: Scenario #1: Roundabout at Van Dyke and Castle Exhibit 16: Scenario #2: Median with Van Dyke Entrance to Goodwill Site Exhibit 17: Scenario #3: Goodwill Access Closure Exhibit 18: Proposed Storm Drainage Exhibit 19: Proposed Walks Exhibit 20: Detailed Cost Estimate Exhibit 21: Preliminary Assessment Roll iv Packet Page Number Page 104 of 408 Agenda Item J2 Attachment 4 Castle Avenue Improvements City Project 08-12 Executive Summary This feasibility report has been prepared for the Castle Avenue Improvement Project, City of Maplewood Project 08-12. The total street mileage is approximately 0.50 miles and is bounded by White Bear Avenue on the west and the City of North Saint Paul city limits on the east. The proposed improvements include the following: o The full reconstruction of Castle Avenue, including the installation of concrete curb and gutter, new bituminous pavements, recycled aggregate base, granular subbase, geotextile fabric and draintile. o Installation of a trunk storm sewer system to property route storm water runoff to treatment basins and reduce erosion. o Installation of sidewalks to connect pedestrians with the Cope Avenue trail and White Bear Avenue sidewalk. o Installation of rainwater gardens, ponds, and other best management practices to filter and improve the quality of runoff prior to its discharge into nearby lakes and ponds. o Spot repairs to sanitary sewer services and minor repairs to the water main system. o Realignment of the intersection at White Bear Avenue and Castle Avenue including the installation of traffic control devices to provide better access and traffic flow. o Restoration of all disturbed areas. The estimated costs for the proposed improvements are detailed below. These costs include a 10% construction cost contingency and a 31.5% allowance for indirect costs. Estimated Project Cost Summary Water S stem Im rovements $ 21,000 1.5% Sanitary Sewer Improvements $ 25,700 1.9% Storm Water Drainage Improvements $ 198,300 14.6% Street Improvements $ 816,200 60.0% Land Acquisition $ 290,000 21.3% Driveway Program $ 10,000 0.7% Total Estimate (Project Costs): $ 1,361,200 100% The improvements are proposed to be financed through a combination of special v Packet Page Number Page 105 of 408 Agenda Item J2 Attachment 4 assessments to the benefiting properties, G.O. Improvement Bonds, W.A.C. funds, various City of Maplewood funds, and Saint Paul Regional Water Services funds. The following is a summary of the estimated funding for the proposed project. ESTIMATED PROJECT COST RECOVERY FUNDING SOURCE AMOUNT BONDS-MUNICIPAL STATE AID $401,600 29.5% BONDS-GENERAL OBLIGATION $422,900 31.1% MN/DOT ROADWAY TURNBACK FUNDS $75,000 5.5% SANITARY SEWER FUND $25,700 1.9% ENVIRONMENTAL UTILITY FUND $150,000 11.0% STREET ASSESSMENTS $251,000 18.4% W.A.C. FUND $25,000 1.8% DRIVEWAY REPLACEMENT PROGRAM $10,000 0.7% TOTAL FUNDING $1,361,200 100% The following schedule may be implemented, should it be determined to proceed with the project: Receive feasibility study and order public hearing Public hearing Authorize preparation of plans and specs Approve plans and specs/authorize advertisement for bids Bid date Assessment hearing Accept bids/award contract Begin construction Complete construction Assessments certified to Ramsey County Based upon the analysis completed as part of this report, Improvements, City Project 08-12, are feasible, necessary be a benefit to the City of Maplewood. vi January 12, 2009 January 26, 2009 January 12, 2009 May 11, 2009 June 12, 2009 June 22, 2009 June 22, 2009 July 6, 2009 October 30, 2009 October 8, 2009 the proposed Castle Avenue . and cost effective and would Packet Page Number Page 106 of 408 Agenda Item J2 Attachment 4 FEASIBILITY REPORT CASTLE AVENUE IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT 08-12 CASTLE AVENUE FROM WHITE BEAR AVENUE TO NORTH SAINT PAUL CITY LIMITS 1.0 INTRODUCTION Castle Avenue from White Bear Avenue to the City of North Saint Paul limits is scheduled in the 2009 Maplewood Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) for street and utility improvements. Maps indicating the vicinity and proposed project limits are shown in Exhibit 1 and Exhibit 2 respectively. The intent of this report will be to provide an assessment of existing infrastructure conditions for this street and its underlying utilities. The report will also outline proposed improvements, costs, and a proposed financing plan for the improvements. 1.1 Neighborhood Development History The area surrounding this section of Castle Avenue and Trunk Highway 36 was originally platted in 1887 as Dearborn Park and Smith and Taylor's Addition to North St. Paul. Most lot dimensions were platted to 40 ft x 180 ft with alley access between properties presumably for small single family homes. Based on past aerial photos, it appears that the area still remained predominately farm residential, maintaining the character of the large lots that were in the area combining the smaller platted 40x180 lots. In 1933, Highway 36 (also known then as Viking Drive) was constructed as a two lane highway connecting the cities of Stillwater and Minneapolis and bisected blocks 6,7 and 8 of the Dearborn Park development. Several houses were built along the new Highway 36 east of White Bear Avenue in the mid-1930's and had direct access from Highway 36. Later in 1940, Highway 36 was paved. In 1962 Highway 36 was converted to a 4-lane divided highway with an interchange built at White Bear Avenue. Castle Avenue (formerly known as Service Road) was built as a frontage road to provide access for the properties that originally had full access to Highway 36. With the introduction of the newly built highway, the land use changed in the area of the Highway 36 -White Bear Avenue interchange. Documents from properties in the area seem to indicate that the general zoning in the area turned to commercial and higher- density residential development between 1968 and 1972. Packet Page Number Page 107 of 408 Agenda Item J2 Attachment 4 With the changes in zoning, apartment buildings and businesses began to occupy the area. In 1969, Maplewood Care Center, a nursing home, built a facility at 1910 Castle Avenue. Later, in 1995, the nursing home expanded to the lot at 1890 Castle Avenue. As well, Two businesses occupied lots near the corner of White Bear Avenue and Cope Avenue. Two small subdivisions also developed along Castle Avenue: o Dearborn Meadow and Dearborn Meadow East, platted in 2003 and 2005: Eight 2-plex attached townhome buildings east of 1930 Castle Avenue. o North Glen 4t" Addition, platted in 1996: Four single-family homes east of the Dearborn Meadow development. 2.0 RESIDENT /PROPERTY OWNER CORRESPONDENCE The feasibility study for this project was ordered on August 25, 2008 by the city council. A letter was mailed to residents shortly thereafter to provide information on the council action and that preliminary engineering, such as topographic surveying and soil borings would begin in the area. A questionnaire and information packet was also mailed to all property owners to provide details on the public improvement and construction process as well as to gather information from property owners regarding the improvements. A tabulation of questionnaire results to date is available. Two questionnaires from residents have requested a sidewalk along a portion of Castle Avenue that fronts the Maplewood Care Center property and connects to the sidewalk along White Bear Avenue. After the letters and questionnaires were sent out, two residents have contacted the city by phone regarding the improvements to Castle Avenue. The residents have concerns about the proposed assessment to their properties but acknowledge that Castle Avenue is in need of reconstruction. City staff has also initiated contact with the property owners at 2250 White Bear Avenue and 2251 Van Dyke Street. Goodwill-Easter Seals Minnesota and New Horizon Academy, respectively, lease these two properties. Discussions with the two property owners and lessees are in regard to challenges related to the traffic flow and poor alignment of Castle Avenue at its intersection with White Bear Avenue. The property owners have indicated their concerns about safety and access in the area and are willing to work with staff in order to balance their needs with the need to improve the intersection. City staff has explained to the property owners and their respective lessees that several options for improving the intersection geometrics and traffic flow are being explored and that their input is needed in order to settle on a proposed design. 2 Packet Page Number Page 108 of 408 Agenda Item J2 Attachment 4 To obtain input from all residents within the project area, staff has scheduled a neighborhood meeting with all property owners along Castle Avenue for January 8, 2009 at the Maplewood Community Center. 3.0 EXISTING INFRASTRUCTURE AND CONDITION SURVEYS As mentioned previously, Castle Avenue was constructed around 1966 along with the project that expanded Highway 36 from a 2-lane road to a 4-lane divided highway. The Minnesota Department of Transportation has been responsible for the maintenance of Castle Avenue since it was built. 3.1 Sanitary Sewer No sanitary sewer main has been installed in Castle Avenue. The existing residences, senior home and commercial buildings are serviced by sanitary sewer main extending from Cope Avenue in the residential neighborhood to the south (refer to Exhibit 4). These mains were constructed in 1988 as part of City Project 85-26. The Dearborn Meadow development and North Glen has sewer service that is connected to Cope Avenue as well. Easements for these sewer lines have been documented and certified with Ramsey County. 3.11 Sanitary Sewer Condition Survey. Sanitary sewer maintenance personnel have analyzed video tapes and have indicated that there are no repairs needed to the sewer system at this time. Staff has mailed out a survey to residents asking if they have had problems with their sewer service. If there is an indication of an issue with the sewer line, staff will have a contractor televise the sewer service and repair the service as necessary should the project move forward. 3.2 Watermain An 8-inch water main was extended along Castle Avenue in 1991 as part of City Project 90-07 (see Exhibit 5). The installed water main provides service to 6 properties west of the Dearborn Meadow development. A 16-inch trunk water main also crosses Castle Avenue at Castle Place and services the Dearborn Meadow development. 3.21 Water Main Condition Survey. Saint Paul Regional Water Services (SPRWS) operates and maintains the water main system along Castle Avenue. SPRWS personnel have examined water main break and maintenance records and have indicated that water main replacements are not required as part of the reconstruction. Depending on the field condition of certain water main appurtenances (such as gate valve boxes and hydrants) SPRWS has indicated that repairs on these items may be required. Packet Page Number Page 109 of 408 Agenda Item J2 Attachment 4 3.3 Storm Sewer and Drainage Castle Avenue has an existing storm sewer system that was installed when Highway 36 was expanded and the frontage road was built. Most of this system lies uphill and east of the Maplewood Care Center (refer to Exhibit 6) and accepts drainage from several storm drains along the north side of Castle Avenue and Highway 36. The runoff from this system drains into a ditch east of White Bear Avenue. Along this same stretch, there is a ditch with culverts along the south side of the roadway which takes drainage from the street overland. (Refer to Exhibit 7 which illustrates general directions of drainage in the area of Castle Avenue). When the frontage road was built, it appears that the roadway designer took care to slope the front portion of the existing residential driveways toward the street, inhibiting drainage and erosion of the driveways that have negative slope toward the homes. However, in several areas, the water from the edge of the roadway drains into yards, especially on the south side of the street. At the entrance to the Dearborn Meadows development, a portion of the roadway drainage is directed into a private storm sewer system within the development. West of the Maplewood Care Center, where Castle Avenue approaches White Bear Avenue (refer to Exhibit 6), a ditch and culvert system channels water from the Maplewood Care Center property and Castle Avenue into the ditch along White Bear Avenue. Further to the south, near the Goodwill and New Horizon Day Care, storm drainage is picked up by two culverts that are tributary to a trunk storm sewer system draining into Wicklander Pond. 3.31 Storm Sewer Condition Survey. Street maintenance personnel completed a review of the existing storm sewer structures in the area. Several items pertaining to the existing storm sewer system need to be addressed (refer to Exhibit 8 for illustration): o Two brick structures along Castle Avenue that capture runoff from the Maplewood Care Center should be replaced. o Top portions of several existing structures are deteriorating and in need of refurbishing. City staff also conducted televising of the existing storm sewer piping and culverts within Castle Avenue. The following was discovered during the televising of the sewer lines: o An existing concrete storm sewer under the north curb line of Castle Avenue where the street parallels Highway 36 is clean, in good shape and not in need of repair at this time. Several connecting structures, however, are in need of refurbishing and repairs. o An existing corrugated metal culvert crossing under Castle Avenue in the area of the Maplewood Care Center is full of water and debris due to a sag 4 Packet Page Number Page 110 of 408 Agenda Item J2 Attachment 4 in the line caused by corrosion and deterioration of the pipe wall. o Another corrugated metal culvert near the corner of Castle Avenue and Van Dyke Street is partially collapsed and filled to the top with debris and will need replacement. 3.4 Streets, Walks and Trails The street pavement surface has been maintained by Mn/DOT since it was built with the expansion of Highway 36. Maintenance of the roadway has been turned over to the City of Maplewood as of December 1, 2008. The City received $75,000 toward the reconstruction of the roadway. With the exception of patch repairs made to the roadway to fill potholes and severe cracks, no record of preventative maintenance work such as a sealcoat or overlay has been performed on this roadway. 3.41 Geotechnical Study. City staff commissioned Braun Intertec Corporation to conduct a geotechnical investigation of the streets within the project area. In all, 10 borings were drilled within the project limits as shown in Exhibit 9. The geotechnical investigation provided insight as to the ability of underlying subgrade soils to support the street pavement section and utilities. The investigation also provides insight on whether or not the existing pavement sections were built to a standard to support vehicular traffic loads on the subgrade soils. The results of the study are summarized in a report dated October 14, 2008. The soil boring logs are attached in Exhibit 10 for reference. The soil profile generally consists of deposits of existing fill overlaying glacial outwash and glacial till. Generally, fill depths from the pavement section down to glacial soils tend to be in the range of 4-5 feet deep. Areas below the fill layer generally consist of clayey and silty sands. Buried organic soils are more prevalent in off-road borings taken for the purposes of building storm water treatment areas (SB-8, SB-9 and SB-10). The report suggests a design infiltration capacity of 0.20 inches/hour for storm water infiltration and rain garden design. It can be concluded that the soils over the majority of the project area are poorly drained and have cohesive properties. Generally, cohesive soils are highly susceptible to frost heaving from seasonal freeze-thaw cycles. If pavement surfaces are not property maintained to seal out water, the pavement surface deteriorates more rapidly with each freeze-thaw cycle. Pavement thicknesses appear to be relatively consistent according to the geotechnical study. Generally, the bituminous pavement section is 5 inches thick over the length of the street. Aggregate base thicknesses vary from 5 inches to 8 inches over the length of the project area. The consistency in pavement section thickness seems to indicate that the roadway was built to a design standard. This conclusion seems justified given that the road was constructed by Mn/DOT with the conversion of Highway 36 from a 2-lane to a 4- lane highway. 5 Packet Page Number Page 111 of 408 Agenda Item J2 Attachment 4 Overall, the Braun investigation indicates pavement design R-values in the range of 20 to 40. R-values evaluate soils suitability for use in supporting the pavement section. An R- value is a number (0-100) that represents the ability of a soil to resist lateral deformation when a vertical load is applied. On this scale water would have an R-value of 0 and steel an R-value of 100. 3.42 Street Surface Condition Survey. The Pavement Condition Index (PCI) method was used to determine the condition of the existing roads. The PCI rating is based on a visual survey of the pavement and is a number between 0 and 100 indicating the condition of a roadway, with 0 being the worst possible pavement condition and 100 being the best possible condition (i.e. a new road). The PCI method was developed by the United States Army Corps of Engineers and is widely used in transportation civil engineering. The current pavement condition index rating for this section of street is 30, which is indicative of a rough and severely deteriorated driving surface. Since the roadway was built, a minimum amount of maintenance (i.e. patching potholes and crack sealing) has been performed on the roadway. In 1991, a portion of the roadway west of the Dearborn Meadows development was replaced with the extension of water service to several properties. The lack of regular roadway maintenance together with the infiltration of water through pavement cracks has contributed to the severe degradation of the road bed. The current roadway does not have a definable crown along the centerline and inhibits water from effectively draining toward the pavement edges. 3.43 Street Geometrics Assessment. In general, the horizontal and vertical street geometrics provide good visibility and access to residential driveways. Minor adjustments with the street geometrics are needed to best match existing boulevard grades and improve roadway drainage. One significant challenge associated with the geometrics of Castle Avenue is the intersection of Castle Avenue with White Bear Avenue north of the Goodwill store at 2250 White Bear Avenue (refer to Exhibit 11). Castle Avenue east of White Bear Avenue meets the intersection of White Bear Avenue and Cope Avenue at a 35-degree tangent with no straight roadway meeting at White Bear Avenue. This inhibits lead vehicles on westbound Castle Avenue from meeting squarely with the intersection causing very sharp and wide right-turning movements onto northbound White Bear Avenue, especially for sem i-trucks. The geometrics problem at the intersection of White Bear Avenue is further complicated by the entrance to the Goodwill at 2250 White Bear Avenue. The centerline of the entrance is about 15 feet east of White Bear Avenue on Castle Avenue (refer to Exhibit 12). According to a Goodwill representative, the store receives between 300 and 400 customers per day mostly by vehicular traffic making drop-offs. A traffic count of 108 ingress-egress trips from the parking lot was taken by city staff on September 24, 2008 6 Packet Page Number Page 112 of 408 Agenda Item J2 Attachment 4 from 3-4pm. This is significant considering that about 25% of the 1,679 trips per day on the section of Castle Avenue from White Bear Avenue to Van Dyke Street is generated by the Goodwill. A recurring issue with the Goodwill driveway entrance from Castle Avenue is vehicles turning left out of the driveway to westbound Castle to get onto White Bear Avenue. When the signal to westbound Castle Avenue is red, vehicles attempt to pull into the west bound lane but cannot fully straighten out causing a partial blockage of eastbound Castle Avenue. Furthermore, the angle and placement of the driveway relative to the alignment of Castle Avenue with White Bear Avenue is very constricted for large trucks causing problems with semi-vehicles in need of a wide turning radius to get onto eastbound Castle Avenue. 3.44 Trails and Walks. There is an existing bituminous trail that traverses the existing Cope Avenue right-of-way and meets up with Castle Avenue near Van Dyke Street (refer to Exhibit 13). The trail surface appears to be in good condition, but needs to be upgraded for ADA requirements. No existing trails connect the Cope Avenue trail to White Bear Avenue. 4.0 PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS AND GOALS Proposed improvements to Castle Avenue will accomplish the following: o Improve the driving surface of Castle Avenue through the reconstruction of the pavement surface and addition of new concrete curb and gutter; o Improve the geometrics of the east leg of the intersection of Castle Avenue at White Bear Avenue through realignment of the roadway; o Maintain an overall roadway width that is similar to existing conditions; o Provide a sidewalk along Castle Avenue that connects the Cope Avenue trail with White Bear Avenue and also provides a walkway adjacent to the Maplewood Care Center property; o Improve street drainage through the addition of concrete curb and gutter, modifications/additions to the existing storm sewer system, and minor adjustments to the street vertical profile; o Provide storm water best management practices (BMP's) for treatment and control of street runoff; 7 Packet Page Number Page 113 of 408 Agenda Item J2 Attachment 4 o Provide repairs to sanitary sewer services and above-ground features of the water main system as needed. o Comply with agency rules and regulations regarding sediment and erosion control, construction storm water management, and wetland protection. o Treat all private property owners fairly according to state statue and established city policies regarding the application of special assessments to private property. 4.1 Street A full reconstruction of the pavement section is recommended for the following reasons: o Maintenance burdens on street maintenance staff are reduced due to the increased serviceability of the reconstructed roadway. Future roadway maintenance activities are less intense, less invasive on abutting properties, and less costly. o An overlay on the roadway in its current deteriorated condition would crack within 5 years after the overlay was applied. This recreates the cycle of roadway deterioration, patching and causes o Reactionary maintenance is not cost effective for the long term. Based on a 50-year roadway design with a preventative maintenance program in place, reactionary maintenance may cost 2 to 2-1/2 times the cost of a complete roadway reconstruction planned fora 50-year design. o Reconstruction of the roadway allows for the addition of curb and gutter, proper channeling of drainage within the road section and vertical profile adjustments. 4.11 Street Cross-Section Design Full reconstruction of the roadway pavement will include full removal of the pavement section. In areas where the roadway subgrade soils have failed or are frost-susceptible, a subgrade correction that includes the replacement of in-situ material with free-draining granular material is recommended. Due to the consistency in thickness of the current pavement section, this roadway may be a candidate for pavement surface reclamation. Reclaiming entails pulverizing the existing asphalt pavement surface and reusing the material on site. The material can be utilized for several different applications such as pipe bedding, temporary roadway stabilization and for use in the gravel base of the pavement. A cost savings to the City is realized through the process of reclaiming as the cost of trucking is reduced when the material is retained on site. 8 Packet Page Number Page 114 of 408 Agenda Item J2 Attachment 4 The proposed street design will utilize a modified urban design with a crown and a B618 concrete barrier curb and gutter (refer to Exhibit 14). (In some areas, staff may modify the design and install a concrete ribbon curb to utilize existing ditch areas for rainwater garden installations.) There are a number of long-term advantages to constructing concrete curb and gutter as follows: o Drainage is contained within the street section and can be channeled to curb- inlet catch basins or rain gardens. A concrete curb is durable for channeling water and typically does not deteriorate or scour like bituminous material does when water runs over it for a long period of time. o Delineation is created between the street and boulevard virtually eliminating long-term erosion and reducing snow plow and vehicle encroachment into front yards. o Curbs prevent water from entering the pavement section under the pavement edges. o Horizontal and vertical alignment of the streets is better controlled for construction of the street surface. o Future pavement management operations are simplified, less expensive, less disruptive and helps to improve overall maintenance operations. It should be noted that an existing concrete curb and gutter was constructed along the north side of Castle Avenue abutting Highway 36. Spot repairs of the curb are recommended, but the curb is recommended to remain in place. 4.12 Street Pavement Section Design Traffic volumes for Castle Avenue range from about 1,200 to 1,700 average daily trips (ADT). Semi-Truck and transit vehicle traffic comprises about 2% of all trips. City staff recommend the following pavement section design, based on the Minnesota Pavement Design Method, for proper support of the roadway: ^ 1-1 /2-inch lift of bituminous wear course ^ 2-inch lift of bituminous base course ^ 8-inch aggregate base (Class 6 recycled or reclaim) layer ^ 24-inch thick layer of Select Granular Borrow where needed. Due to the majority heavy vehicle trips experienced west of the Maplewood Care Center and relatively frost-susceptible soils, staff is recommending a full 24-inch thick select granular borrow placement for the length of Castle Avenue from the Maplewood Care Center to White Bear Avenue for long-term support of the roadway. An allowance for additional soils correction east of the Maplewood Care Center is included in the cost estimate to cover poor soil stability encountered in the field. 9 Packet Page Number Page 115 of 408 Agenda Item J2 Attachment 4 4.13 Proposed Street Widths It is recommended that Castle Avenue be constructed to a uniform width. The current width of Castle Avenue ranges from 22 to 24 feet along the Maplewood Care Center Frontage. The roadway is about 26 feet wide along the residential properties east of the Maplewood Care Center. To keep the width consistent with the residential leg of the roadway and to improve safety and turning radii coming out of the Maplewood Care Center, staff recommends a consistent roadway width of 26 feet. Staff feels that resident driveways and area businesses along Castle Avenue appear to accommodate regular parking needs given their land use. Therefore no additional parking restrictions along the roadway are needed at this time. Parking restrictions near the intersection may be required due to State Aid funding of the reconstruction of the roadway and intersection layout near White Bear Avenue. The new width of the roadway near the intersection of White Bear Avenue will vary depending on recommendations for turning lanes and recommendations for the layout of intersection improvements. These proposed improvements are explained in more detail under sections 4.14, 4.15 and 4.16 and are illustrated with attached exhibits. 4.14 Street Geometric Design The proposed horizontal and vertical alignment of Castle Avenue is likely to remain similar to existing conditions. Staff is recommending several corrections to the overall street geometrics: o It is recommended that Castle Avenue at its intersection with Castle Place (accessing the Dearborn Meadow development) be lowered to decrease the incline of Castle Place leading up to Castle Avenue and to also eliminate drainage from Castle Avenue entering the Dearborn Meadow storm sewer system. o Castle Avenue curves to the south near the Maplewood Care Center. Currently the roadway is banked. Staff recommends that the banking (or superelevation) of the roadway be eliminated. This design revision will act as traffic calming and may slow vehicular traffic traveling down hill toward White Bear Avenue. Geometric improvements are also proposed for the intersection of Castle Avenue at White Bear Avenue. Staff is proposing to realign Castle Avenue such that the east leg of the intersection lines up more squarely with White Bear Avenue (refer to Exhibit X). Several reconfiguration scenarios are under consideration as follows: o Scenario #1: Construct a roundabout at Van Dyke Street and Castle Avenue and limit the Castle Avenue entrance to the Good Will to a right- 10 Packet Page Number Page 116 of 408 Agenda Item J2 Attachment 4 in/right-out traffic only (Exhibit 15). In essence, the roundabout would provide a channelized U-turn for traffic indirectly providing full access to the Goodwill. o Scenario #2: Construct a median only restricting left turns out of the good will driveway onto Castle Avenue. Afull-access driveway onto Van Dyke Street would be built for vehicles attempting to get back to White Bear Avenue via Van Dyke Street (refer to Exhibit 16). o Scenario #3: The same as Scenario #2 only the entrance to the Goodwill from Castle Avenue is closed-off completely (refer to Exhibit 16). 4.15 Property Owner/Lessee Contact at Goodwill and New Horizon Academy Staff has been in contact with the lessees and landowners of both properties at 2251 Van Dyke Street (New Horizon Academy) and 2250 White Bear Avenue (Goodwill). Contact with both parties is in regard to the proposed intersection improvements at White Bear Avenue and Castle Avenue. Both landowners and lessees have indicated their concerns about safety and traffic flow at the intersection of White Bear Avenue and Castle Avenue and seem willing to work with staff on a viable option that will improve the situation. Staff has met with representatives from both the lessees and has met with the two landowners. During meetings with each of the parties, staff showed several design options for the intersection indicative of the three scenarios as stated in section 4.14 Responses from the meetings were as follows: o The landowner of 2250 White Bear Avenue (Goodwill), indicated concerns about the intersection at White Bear Avenue and is willing to work with staff on a proposed solution. o The Director of Store Design and Property Management for Goodwill Easter Seals of Minnesota indicated concerns about access to the property. They indicated that Scenario #3 (complete closure of access from Castle Avenue and re-route of access to Van Dyke Street) is not a workable option as the influx of business into the Goodwill is highly dependent on the relatively easy access from Castle Avenue. Goodwill was supportive of any scenario that did not involve complete closure of their Castle Avenue access. o The landowner of 2251 Van Dyke Street is willing to work with staff on a proposed solution as long as the current lessee of his property (New Horizon Academy) is supportive of the proposed improvements. 11 Packet Page Number Page 117 of 408 Agenda Item J2 Attachment 4 o The Area Director with New Horizon Academy indicated concerns about access to the property and the effect that the proposed improvements would have on their parking lot. New Horizon had concerns about Scenarios #2 and #3 given that traffic entering and exiting the Goodwill would now be directed near the playground area of their facility thereby causing a perceived safety issue for parents coming to their business. Scenario #1 (the roundabout) was a workable option for New Horizon as long as full access is provided to their parking lot. 4.16 Right-of-Way/Easement Acquisition For the purposes of improvements to the intersection of Castle Avenue at White Bear Avenue, as stated in section 4.14, staff is recommending aright-of-way or easement acquisition from the property owners at 2251 Van Dyke Street and 2250 White Bear Avenue. As well, staff is recommending the use of an adjacent portion of a property at 2272 Van Dyke Street that was acquired by the City in 1974. Both landowners of 2251 Van Dyke Street and 2250 White Bear Avenue have been notified of this proposal and are initially supportive of this as long as fair compensation is received for the property to be acquired and that the proposed solution is workable for their current and future lessees. Negotiations involving the City Attorney would commence should the project move forward. 4.2 Drainage and Storm Water Management Drainage along Castle Avenue is mostly overland along the south side of the street and captured by a storm sewer along the north side of the street (Exhibit 6). 4.21 Storm Sewer Drainage System It is recommended that: o The existing storm sewer system under the curb line of Castle Avenue be kept in place and that the storm sewer structures are refurbished. o Existing corrugated metal culverts be removed and replaced by a storm sewer system as necessary. o Additional curb inlet catch basins be placed along the south side of Castle Avenue with the construction of the curb and gutter. This would require constructing an additional trunk storm sewer to connect these catch basins. o An area between Castle Avenue and the on-ramp to Highway 36 that has eroded due to storm water discharge be repaired. Refer to Exhibits 7 and 18 for illustrations of these proposed repair/replacement areas and the addition of new storm sewer. 12 Packet Page Number Page 118 of 408 Agenda Item J2 Attachment 4 4.22 Storm Water Management and Treatment The following is recommended for storm water treatment and management as part of this project (refer to Exhibit 18 for illustrations): o Construct an infiltration/ponding basin within the `triangular' area between Castle Avenue, White Bear Avenue and the Highway 36 on-ramp to the f - inch of infiltration treatment standard. The storm drainage system from Castle Avenue would be directed into this area where treatment and runoff rate control would occur. o Construct and infiltration/ponding basin on an existing City of Maplewood owned lot. Storm drainage from this pond would be treated prior to discharge into a storm sewer system conveying runoff to Wicklander Pond. o Take advantage of an existing ditch along the Maplewood Care Center property and convert the area to rain water gardens. Runoff would be conveyed to the gardens by catch basins or via overland flow from a constructed ribbon curb. Staff will work with the Ramsey-Washington Metro Watershed District in order to meet infiltration, treatment and rate control requirements. 4.3 Sanitary Sewer and Water Main No sanitary sewer main repairs within this area are proposed as part of this project. Staff will investigate any problems with sewer services. The City will offer to televise problem sewer services and have them repaired within the City right-of-way if needed. Water main improvements include replacement of hydrants and gate valve covers by Saint Paul regional water services. No other water main improvements along Castle Avenue are anticipated at this time. 4.4 Sidewalks and Trails Several residents have inquired into building a sidewalk along Castle Avenue. At this time, it is recommended that a concrete sidewalk be built along the east side of Castle Avenue connecting the sidewalk along White Bear Avenue and ending at the easternmost point of the Maplewood Care Center property (refer to Exhibit 19). City staff will consider extending this sidewalk further to the east if other residents are in favor of doing so. 13 Packet Page Number Page 119 of 408 Agenda Item J2 Attachment 4 4.5 Street Lighting Staff will explore street light requests and will investigate the resident requests for additional lighting. Additional lighting will be installed where warranted. 4.6 Noise Mitigation along Highway 36 Several residents living on Castle Avenue have asked about noise mitigation to reduce traffic noise from Highway 36. Staff has reviewed several options along these lines including the use of a natural shrub buffer, berm or sound wall. The elevation of Highway 36 relative to properties west of the Dearborn Meadow development is generally higher. East of Dearborn Meadow, Highway 36 is at about the same level if not slightly higher than the properties. Given the elevation differential of the Dearborn Meadow development and other properties relative to Castle Avenue, some mitigation of noise has already been achieved with the natural grade. Berming and landscaping along Castle Avenue is recommended for additional noise mitigation. An allowance for this has been included in the cost estimate. 4.7 Private Driveway Program All neighborhood residents will have the opportunity to take advantage of the City's Driveway Replacement Program which allows property owners to use the city's selected street reconstruction contractor to replace existing substandard driveways. City staff will provide free quotes to those residents considering driveway replacement. This program will be coordinated similar to past reconstruction projects for convenience, options, and a competitive bid. 5.0 PRIVATE UTILITY WORK Private utility companies have been notified of the proposed improvement by city staff through a standard mailing. Utility coordination is of high priority especially with the proposed installation of storm sewer systems and rainwater gardens throughout the project area. Meetings will be held with all utility holders in the project area once the design process begins in order to identify utility conflicts and plan for utility relocation or upgrades if needed. A preliminary meeting was held on December 4, 2008 to give the private utility companies an idea of the scope of the proposed projects, as well as have them identify any areas of potential conflicts. 14 Packet Page Number Page 120 of 408 Agenda Item J2 Attachment 4 6.0 CONSTRUCTION OPERATIONS AND CONTROLS 6.1 Erosion Control As part of the project plans and specifications, staff is required to prepare a storm water pollution prevention plan (SWPPP) for the purposes of enforcing erosion and sediment control rules. The SWPPP will include directions for implementation of erosion and sediment control methods throughout the project. Silt fence, bio-rolls, erosion control blanket, and other best management practices will be utilized where direct runoff might occur. Inlet protection will be used to protect both the existing and new catch basins during construction. Street sweeping will occur, as needed, on all paved street surfaces throughout the project, including intersecting streets. Watering of exposed soils and aggregate material would be done as adust-control measure. Immediate turf establishment in areas of soil disturbance will be required such as placing seed and erosion control blanket. After street and utility work is completed, sod will be placed as the permanent turf establishment in all disturbed areas. The City in coordination with the watershed district will closely monitor all erosion and sediment control measures throughout the construction process. The selected contractor will be required to install all preventative measures and maintain them as required by the City and RWMWD. 6.2 Traffic Control and Access A construction project of this magnitude will result in inconvenience and disruption to area residents and businesses. A traffic control plan will be created to allow for proper access and detours. Signage will be installed noting that Castle Avenue will be closed to all through traffic. Proper signage will also be provided to accommodate local businesses such as Goodwill and New Horizon and will facilitate access to the Maplewood Care Center senior home. Emergency access for vehicles will be available 24-hours a day throughout the project. During periods of time, however, some segments of the project may not be passable while certain work is being executed. In these instances, notification will also be given to residents and a plan will be prepared to accommodate emergency vehicles. Construction access will also be maintained for local businesses and the senior home. If needed, posted detours will be available. Construction activities such as deep utility repairs, concrete or driveway installations, or street sub-cutting will prevent vehicular access to properties at times. City staff will work with the contractor to ensure that these times are kept to a minimum and that access to properties is available by the end of each day. When the concrete curb is installed, or when a concrete driveway apron is replaced, residents will not be able to use their driveways during the week the concrete is curing. During that time, Maplewood police will be notified in order to add patrols while residents are required to park on the streets. 15 Packet Page Number Page 121 of 408 Agenda Item J2 Attachment 4 Mail service and mailbox removals and replacement will be coordinated with each resident and the delivering post office. 6.3 Boulevard and Driveway Restoration Boulevards areas that have been disturbed as part of the construction process will be restored after the curbing and first lift of pavement has been installed. Areas that have been disturbed will be excavated to accommodate topsoil and smoothed. Topsoil will be added to bring the areas up to grade. Depending upon the time of year and site conditions the areas will be restored with either sod or seed. 6.4 Tree Impacts The City as well as its' resident value the aesthetic and environmental attributes of the trees within the neighborhood. This project will be designed to save as many trees as possible as well as minimize the impacts to trees near the construction activities. In certain instances tree impacts may be unavoidable. It is anticipated that tree removals will be required in proposed storm water treatment areas. Boulevard trees that are 8 feet or more from the proposed work area would be left in place. If tree impacts or removals are imminent (such as for a sewer service repair), staff will contact the homeowners to discuss these impacts. 7.0 PROJECT COSTS The estimated costs for the proposed project are tabulated. The estimated costs include 10% contingencies and 31.5% overhead, which include engineering, administrative, legal, and fiscal expenses. Exhibit 20 provides a more detailed construction and project cost estimate. Estimated Project Cost Summary Water S stem Im rovements $ 21,000 1.5% Sanitary Sewer Improvements $ 25,700 1.9% Storm Water Drainage Improvements $ 198,300 14.6% Street Improvements $ 816,200 60.0% Land Acquisition $ 290,000 21.3% Driveway Program $ 10,000 0.7% Total Estimate (Project Costs): $ 1,361,200 100% Relative to initial conversation with the landowners and lessees of New Horizon Academy and Goodwill properties, this cost estimate reflects the intersection design Scenario #1 as described under section 4.14 of this report. 16 Packet Page Number Page 122 of 408 Agenda Item J2 Attachment 4 8.0 COST RECOVERY Following is a summary of the funding and cost recovery mechanisms for the Castle Avenue Improvements. 8.1 Special Assessments Based on the City of Maplewood's Pavement Management Policy, a portion of the project cost is assessed on an equal "unit" basis. The "unit" would be based on an average residential lot, as has been used in the past. There are 28 assessible parcels within the project area. Of these 28 parcels, the uses are the following: 0 7single-dwelling residential properties 0 15double-dwelling residential properties 0 4multiple-dwelling residential properties 0 2 commerical/business properties All single-dwelling residential properties will be assessed by unit, while the double- and multiple-dwelling and commercial properties will be assessed by front-foot. The preliminary assessment roll is included in this report as Exhibit 21. The City's 1999 Pavement Management Policy identifies certain improvement options with established assessment rates for each of those options. The 2009 assessment rates were set by the city council and the following assessment rates currently apply. Maplewood 2009 Residential Rates: • $6,000 per unit: Full Street Reconstruction (new concrete curb & gutter) Maplewood 2009 Commercial and Multiple-Dwelling (including Double-Dwelling) Rates: • $120.00 per Front-Foot: Full Street Reconstruction (new concrete curb & gutter) The commercial rates are computed by taking the residential unit rate, dividing it by 75 (average residential lot width) and multiplying by 1.5 (commercial properties are assessed at 1.5 times the residential rate). 8.2 Storm Drainage Assessments Based on past project records, all properties abutting Castle Avenue have been assessed for storm drainage improvements as part of City Project 85-26. No properties receiving benefit from the improvements to Castle Avenue will receive a storm drainage assessment levy. 17 Packet Page Number Page 123 of 408 Agenda Item J2 Attachment 4 8.3 Funding Summary This project is proposed to be financed through multiple funding sources. The project is eligible for Municipal State Aid (MSA) funding. The following is a preliminary financing plan for the project. ESTIMATED PROJECT COST RECOVERY FUNDING SOURCE AMOUNT BONDS-MUNICIPAL STATE AID $401,600 29.5% BONDS-GENERAL OBLIGATION $422,900 31.1% MN/DOT ROADWAY TURNBACK FUNDS $75,000 5.5% SANITARY SEWER FUND $25,700 1.9% ENVIRONMENTAL UTILITY FUND $150,000 11.0% STREET ASSESSMENTS $251,000 18.4% W.A.C. FUND $25,000 1.8% DRIVEWAY REPLACEMENT PROGRAM $10,000 0.7% TOTAL FUNDING $1,361,200 100.0% It is understood that the federal government may introduce a public works stimulus package for 2009 and that funding may be distributed through a similar process as Municipal State Aid funding. Staff is currently working with Mn/DOT State Aid to secure federal stimulus funds for this project if it becomes available. 9.0 PROJECT SCHEDULE The following schedule may be implemented, should it be determined to proceed with the project: Receive feasibility study and order public hearing January 12, 2009 Public hearing January 26, 2009 Authorize preparation of plans and specs January 12, 2009 Approve plans and specs/authorize advertisement for bids May 11, 2009 Bid date June 12, 2009 Assessment hearing June 22, 2009 Accept bids/award contract June 22, 2009 Begin construction July 6, 2009 Complete construction October 30, 2009 Assessments certified to Ramsey County October 8, 2009 18 Packet Page Number Page 124 of 408 Agenda Item J2 Attachment 4 10.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS From the results of the feasibility study and investigations, it can be concluded that: 1. The project is feasible as it relates to general engineering principles, practices and construction procedures as it has been presented in this report. 2. The project is necessary for economic and safety reasons and is cost effective when all the related costs are considered -environmental, private and public. 3. The proposed improvement is necessary to maintain the city's infrastructure and to provide storm sewer to relieve drainage problems and provide storm water treatment in compliance with the City's NPDES permit and Non-Degradation protocols. 4. The total cost estimate for the project is $1,361,200 5. The total share proposed to be assessed to the benefited properties is $251,010. 6. The total share proposed from the WAC fund is $25,000. 7. The total bonding for Municipal State Aid funding is $401,600. 8. General obligation bonds will fund $422,900. 9. Sewer and the environmental utility fund will contribute $175,000 to the project. 10. Mn/Dot will contribute $75,000 in turnback funds. 11. The total share from the driveway replacement program is $10,000. In consideration of the above conclusions, it is recommended that: 1. If the city council deems the project feasible, a public hearing should be held as soon as possible. 2. The proposed improvements should be constructed as outlined in this report. 3. The cost of the improvements should be recovered through assessments to the benefited properties, and through city contributions and funds. 19 Packet Page Number Page 125 of 408 ~- ~_ -_,r ra ~ ~,_~~, /;:,. ..~~f r, ~~ ~.~ ~~. .... 1 i~ Y°^,~ ~. ~ w '~ `` : a ` ~~ ~' ~~ i= ..`" n a~ ~I Q. i .~ s ~" k 1 i L pe _ i „~ ~, '~ r~ EIi ~ t f r Packet Paae Nu MiamiI�All 1 1.I Tl�ck- a W 7 W 7W% iV, W 7W% i 0 iV, W 7W% I i V, ,r. �.; # 1 �� ,,, II �� i �_� .�-� - .. i ~~ I~~ ~~ ~~~ ~~ .~~ ~' ~~ ~~ +4~ f~ t~ ~~ I I !f __ ~acket~ i i is i r' I~. ~i ~~ ~. ket ~ge Number - - - ' ' Pa 137 of 408 _t~..,1 .._ - ~.~ ~ Imo. t~..,~ -~ .~ 1~ 4: 1 - -" _ ~ ~,,' i i ti,_ -- 4 yT iGdffi11[ '. [:: ~ f .e ..'P4 1~Jffi ~; , _ .~ ~ ~ ~`~~ '~ ~~~ . ;' Packet Page Number Page 141 of 408 k ~• i `... '4' ~ ~ ~ I ya ' ids 9 I ~ ~' ~- L. - ~ - s~aa ~ ~Ar~T il/1P niii~r ~ ■ ..� i�� �� ., _ ;=� _ !� �; h.= .f - •- i I i Y f i' � _. 'l ■ ..� i�� �� ., _ ;=� _ !� �; h.= .f - � '_ ., i � i Y f i' � _. 'l I L!l .~ _ . n ,, :~~ : _~ M- ~ •~ qp - ~ - 1 4 -'~~UO ~' T5p~uG ~~- _ F" r _ n i~' r :1 r .4 ~,,,,, al u~ Irl I - '4#'~ ~mOp, 1d~ i ~ l r _ ~ - ~,+ ~~ ~ ~~ ~ _ ~ ~~ _- .a ^I _ { I i 1117 ru , _~# ,~a~Y ~ I - +_..-- _ ' .~-.._. ~ I »-. ~ I t aa~.~ '- P ~ I ~ « Td~ T ~« E' ~. T f~ .«~,WK.«3..~r f _I ~ ~ __ - - - - ~r ~r ~r - r~4~ ,~~ ~~ .~ ~ -~.~a.- ~... ~~ ~ ~ Y - rtg S4 sr- ~ ,- ~~~ ~ _~ ._.~ - - t r, ~y{y a`T ~. .} ~ ~ . UII i S4 ... v J ..mix ~. _ aJ .~. ~»-- .~ ~ -six»..,..,... »xw ....i. Ti '#4~.TV'~ `t'f.;~Yl3:f~$ I ».- .. ,: k LI ~.... I - ~ ~ I ~-~~' .. a ~, Y~~ , ~ - Y. ~. ..- __~_ __~_ _ _ - - 11 - .- I ~ - - ' 9. X . ~f` + .. t r ~• ~ ~ ~.7. .-n-~h - ,{ 7 ~w _,. ~ - ~~_ L 1 - I L Iglu kl; ~I ~t$ fl I . .". - .: ,.,. - ~ t. ~. .. .:~ ~ ~ '~ .:~ ' ~~ ~^ r I . ~ a ~ ~• r, . .. -~• .w~ Gr. i I ~y' r ~ ,a,W~ _~ ~~ _~ .,..~ - l~ ry?C"NT.C --- - $ • _. ~ GLt4kn at&Ti,Li.G7~9Y!'3Ciin 1* GL3Ys; t'{5,1?_E1 €"~ya§. .. ~ ~_~•}~ ~~. J` - _. -e~`+~. - ri I .Ir, f ..1r _, y IP~ - ~ -~ it n a~ ~ , ~ q; ~ L I Packet Page Number Page 147 of 408 MEMORANDUM TO: Chuck Ahl, Acting City Manager FROM: DuWayne Konewko, Director of Community Development and Parks SUBJECT: Comprehensive Plan Amendment and a Lot Division APPLICANTS: Lauren Development and Company LOCATION: South of Labore Road and East of Arcade Street DATE: January 16, 2009 INTRODUCTION Project Description Lauren and Company Development has proposed to develop 16 single-family detached homes in Maplewood and Little Canada. Thirteen lots would be within Little Canada, south of Labore Road. The remaining 3 lots would be in Maplewood, northwest of the Kohlman Marsh Open Space. Requests In order to proceed with the project the applicants are requesting the following city approvals: Comprehensive Plan Amendment: The lot is currently guided by the Comprehensive Plan as "OS -Open Space." The request is to have the lot guided as "R1 -Single Dwelling" in order to be consistent with the existing zoning and residential areas nearby. 2. Lot Division: Subdivision approval to split the existing lot into three single-family lots. BACKGROUND The two requests were originally considered at the December 8, 2008 city council meeting. City Attorney Alan Kantrud requested that the council table the item until January 2009 so that he could do research into comprehensive plan and ownership issues. Mr. Kantrud is satisfied with the status of both situations and is comfortable with the council taking action on the requests. Mr. Kantrud will be available at the January 26, 2009 city council meeting for any questions. DISCUSSION Lot Division City staff met with applicant Phil Soby, of Lauren and Company Development, to discuss the possibility of eliminating a lot due to environment concerns on the southeast portion of the development. Mr. Soby indicated to city staff that he would be open to the possibility of eliminating a lot, Lot 2, Block 2, in order to lessen the impact of the proposed development. Mr. Soby submitted a letter to the city confirming his agreement to eliminating one lot. The letter is attached to this report. There were also concerns stated at the last council meeting regarding ownership, due to this property being in foreclosure. Lakeland Construction Finance is the lending institution involved Packet Page Number Page 148 of 408 with this foreclosure. Richard Lerew, vice president of Lakeland Construction Finance, submitted a letter to the city stating its belief that Lauren & Company Development still has ownership rights to the property and its support of the application. This letter is also attached to this report. Comprehensive Plan Amendment The Metropolitan Council has stopped reviewing comprehensive plan amendments for communities who have yet to adopt its 2030 update. Maplewood has submitted its update to surrounding communities to review and to the Metropolitan Council for a preliminary review. As instructed by the Metropolitan Council, any approvals of a comprehensive plan amendment need to be conditioned on Metropolitan Council's approval and subsequent city council adoption of the 2030 Comprehensive Plan update. CONCLUSION Staff feels that the concerns stated at the last council meeting have been adequately addressed. It is also staff's assertion that Lauren and Company Development's willingness to eliminate a lot from the proposed development will work to balance environmental protection and development rights. Staff is recommending approval of the comprehensive plan amendment and the lot division. The staff report from the December 8, 2008 city council meeting is attached to this report. RECOMMENDATIONS Adopt the resolution approving a comprehensive land use plan amendment from OS - Open Space to R1 -Single Dwelling for the 2.24-acre site, located south of Labore Road and East of Arcade Street. Approval is based on the following guiding principles and reasons as noted in the comprehensive land use plan: a. The proposed Future Land Use Guide would be consistent with existing zoning b. The proposed development would provide a wider range of housing types in this neighborhood. c. The proposed future land use guide would be consistent with the comprehensive plan of Little Canada. This action is subject to the approval of this land use plan amendment by the Metropolitan Council. 2. Approve the lot division request to subdivide the 2.24 acre lot located south of Labore Road and East of Arcade Street. This lot division approval is subject to the following conditions: a. Satisfy the requirements set forth in the staff report authored by Mr. Kummer, dated November 5, 2008. b. Satisfy the requirements set forth in the staff report authored by Ms. Finwall, dated December 1, 2008. c. Satisfy the requirements set forth in the staff report by Ms. Gaynor, dated November 10, 2008. 2 Packet Page Number Page 149 of 408 d. Receive approval of final plat from the City of Little Canada for the rest of the development. e. Submit to the city a revised plat showing the elimination of a single lot, reducing Maplewood's portion of the development from 3 lots to 2 lots. Subject to staff approval. The applicant shall pay cash connection charges for the new vacant single-family lots for connection to the water main and sanitary sewer main. g. Deeds describing the three new legal descriptions, including the required drainage and utility easement descriptions, must be drafted and stamped by the city. Ramsey County requires this acknowledgment of approval to record the deeds. These must be recorded with Ramsey County within one year of the date of the lot division approval or the lot split will become null and void (city code requirement). h. The City of Maplewood entering into a joint powers agreement with the City of Little Canada for the provision of police and fire services and utilities. Metropolitan Council's approval and subsequent city council adoption of the 2030 Comprehensive Plan update. Prior to issuance of a grading or building permit for the new homes on the new lots the following must be submitted to staff for approval: 1) Proof that Ramsey County has recorded the lot division. 2) A signed certificate of survey showing the location of all property lines and the location of the new homes. 3) Grading and drainage plan. 4) All necessary permits for sanitary sewer and water must be obtained. 3 Packet Page Number Page 150 of 408 REFERENCE INFORMATION SITE DESCRIPTION Existing Use: Undeveloped SURROUNDING LAND USES North: Undeveloped Lot in Little Canada East: Kohlman Marsh Open Space South: Kohlman Marsh Open Space West: Single-Family House and Neighborhood Preserve PLANNING Land Use: OS -Open Space Zoning: R1 -Single Dwelling Application Date The city received the complete application for lot division request on August 25, 2008. The initial 60-day review deadline was October 23, 2008. 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 an application. The revised, extended deadline for the city to complete the review and take action on the request was December 22, 2008. At the December 8, 2008 city council meeting the applicant Phil Soby, of Lauren and Company Development, verbally agreed to extend the deadline to review this application to January 26, 2009. City staff followed up with a letter to Mr. Soby confirming this extension. This letter is attached to this report. P:\SEC4\Richie Place -Lot Split\Richie Place_CC_011609.doc Attachments: 1. December 8, 2008 City Council Minutes 2. Letter to Mr. Soby Confirming Review Deadline, dated December 11, 2008 3. Letter from Mr. Soby, dated December 29, 2008 4. Letter from Mr. Lerew, dated January 9, 2009 5. Staff report, dated December 1, 2008 6. Location Map 7. Zoning Map 8. Future Land Use Map 9. Shoreland Overlay Map 10. Mr. Kummer's Report, November 5, 2008 11. Mr. Kummer's Report, April 3, 2008 12. Ms. Finwall's Report, December 1, 2008 13. Ms. Gaynor's Report, November 10, 2008 14. Mr. Kantrud's Report, December 2, 2008 15. October 7, 2008 Planning Commission Minutes 16. November 18, 2008 Planning Commission Minutes 17. Little Canada City Council Minutes October 24, 2007 18. Preliminary Plat, dated August, 20, 2008 19. Land Use Plan Amendment Resolution 4 Packet Page Number Page 151 of 408 Attachment 1 MINUTES MAPLEWOOD CITY COUNCIL 6:30 p.m., Monday, December 8, 2008 Council Chambers, City Hall Meeting No. 34-08 L. NEW BUSINESS 4. Richie Place Subdivision Proposal on Labore Road. Action Requested: a. Comprehensive Land Use Plan Amendment to Change from OS (Open Space) to R1 (Single Family Residential) -Four Fifths Vote Required b. Approval of a Lot Division -Simple Majority Vote Required i. Planner, Michael Martin addressed and answered questions of the council as well as gave the report. ii. City Attorney, Alan Kantrud addressed and answered questions of the council. iii. Jeremy Yarwood, Planning Commission member addressed the council and gave the planning commission report. iv. Phil Soby, Lauren and Company Development, P.O. Box 187, Stillwater, addressed and answered questions of the council. v. Environmental Planner, Shann Finwall addressed and answered questions of the council. Mayor Longrie asked if anyone wanted to speak regarding this agenda item. 1. David Himmelbach, 2970 Labore Road, Little Canada, addressed the council. 2. Bill Schorn, 2940 Labore Road, Little Canada, addressed the council. 3. John Gohrs, 2870 Arcade Street, Maplewood, addressed the council. 4. Joleen Gohrs, 2870 Arcade Street, Maplewood, addressed the council. 5. Bill Hansen, 2836 Keller Parkway, Maplewood, addressed the council. The council asked the applicant, Phil Soby if he would be agreeable to a time extension for this project until January 26, 2009. Mr. Soby agreed to a time extension until January 26, 2009, at the latest. Councilmember Juenemann moved to table this proposal so City Attorney Kantrud can further clarify questions raised at the city council meeting until the January 26, 2009, city council meeting at the latest. Seconded by Mayor Longrie. Ayes - AI I The motion to table passed. Packet Page Number Page 152 of 408 Attachment 3 L A U R E N ~CO~iPkNY DEVELOPMENT, LTD. 12129108 Michael Martin Planner City of Maplewood 1830 Cty. Rd. B Maplewood, 1VIn. SS1O9 RE: Richie Place Dear Michael, I am writing this letter to confirm my position an the lot configuration for the Richie Place Plat as it pertains to Maplewood. As discussed in our meeting on 12123108, I am in agreement to the reduction or elimination of one (l) lat. I believe dais will eliminate any concern for the "potential" dangers of constructing and nr grading along the slope directly adjacent to the wetland on the South East /South border of the property. As you know, I have not submitted new plans showing such changes, nor will I be able to do so prior to the next scheduled meeting. Therefore I am asking for approval of the project based upon the concluded reduction and the ability of staff to guide and or ul.tinraately approve the technical aspects of the plan changes with respect to lot square footages and placement of building pads etc. Please include this letter in your packet to Council anembers for their review. Please feel free to contact me for further information and or questions if necessary. Si cerely, Phil Soby Packet Page Number Page 154 of 408 I.AKF,L,AND CONSTRUCTION FINANCE, LLC January 9, 2009 City of Maplewood c/o Mike Martin City Planner 1830 Cty. Rd. B Maplewood, MN 55109 RE: Lauren & Co. Development, LTD/Richie Place Application To Whom It May Concern: Attachment 4 Lakeland Construction Finance, LLC (Lakeland) is aware of the pending application for lot subdivision by Lauren & Co. Development, LTD (Lauren) for Richie Place in both Little Canada and Maplewood. Although the property is currently in foreclosure, Lakeland is in support of the application regardless of current and or future ownership ambiguities. It is our belief that Lauren has ownership rights to the property, as well as the right to pursue any and all efforts to improve and or market the property for sale/development, through the redemption period. Lauren and Lakeland share a common goal in seeing the property approved for the proposed development. However, Lauren is acting on its own behalf at the present time. If and at such time in the future that Lakeland is the owner and Lauren's assistance is needed in securing the approvals, an agreement and or authorization to act on Lakeland's behalf will be handled then. Enacting such an agreement now would be premature. erely, 1 ~- --..._.. Richard Lerew Vice President LAKELAND CONSTRUCTION FINANCE 860 Blue Gentian Road, Suite 135 7830 Main Street, Suite 210 22 Eastgate Building, Suite 205 • PO Box 6056 Eagan, MN 55121 Maple Grove, MN 55369 St. Cloud, MN 56302-6056 Phone: (651) 994-4606 Fax: (651) 994-7076 Phone: (763) 420-9130 Fax: (763) 420-9134 Phone: (3~8)~g~zJ(3@S~r9-1907 Page 155 of 408 Attachment 5 MEMORANDUM TO: Chuck Ahl, Acting City Manager FROM: Michael Martin, AICP, Planner SUBJECT: Comprehensive Plan Amendment and a Lot Division APPLICANTS: Lauren Development and Company LOCATION: South of Labore Road and East of Arcade Street DATE: December 1, 2008 INTRODUCTION Project Description Lauren Development and Company is proposing to develop 16 single-family detached homes in Maplewood and Little Canada. Thirteen lots would be within Little Canada, south of Labore Road. The remaining 3 lots would be in Maplewood, northwest of the Kohlman Marsh Open Space. Requests In order to proceed with the project the applicants are requesting the following city approvals: Comprehensive Plan Amendment: The lot is currently guided by the Comprehensive Plan as "OS -Open Space." The request is to have the lot guided as "R1 -Single Dwelling" in order to be consistent with the existing zoning and residential areas nearby. 2. Lot Division: Subdivision approval to split the existing lot into three single-family lots. BACKGROUND The applicant is requesting to divide an existing lot in order to create 3 individual lots. City ordinance allows for city staff to review any lot division request that results in the creation of three or fewer lots. However, in this instance staff felt it was necessary to bring this request to the planning commission because the three lots are part of a larger subdivision in Little Canada and also needs a comprehensive plan amendment. DISCUSSION Comprehensive Plan Amendment The city's comprehensive plan currently guides the lot as OS -Open Space. Staff feels that this was inadvertently done during the last Comprehensive Plan Update as the land is in private ownership. Wth the Hidden Marsh Neighborhood Preserve and Kohlman Marsh Open Space adjacent to the subject lot it is staff's assertion that it was unintentionally guided as Open Space. By approving this comprehensive plan amendment the lot would be guided with a more appropriate Future Land Use and would also be consistent with existing zoning. If the city council approves this plan amendment, city staff must forward the council's action to the Metropolitan Council for their acceptance. This motion would be subject to that review process. It should also be noted that during the planning commission's work on the proposed 2030 Packet Page Number Page 156 of 408 Comprehensive Plan this lot was guided "Low Density Residential." This was one of the several parcels identified as having inconsistencies between the future land use guide and zoning. City Attorney Comments City Attorney Alan Kantrud provided a memo in reference to this comprehensive plan amendment request. His memo is attached to this report. Lot Division Lot Division The minimum lot width for interior lots within the R1 zoning district is 75 feet at the established building setback line, not less than 60 feet at the front lot line, except that lots located on the bulbs of cul-de-sacs shall be no less than 40 feet in width at the front lot line. The minimum lot size within the R1 zoning district is 10,000 square feet. The three proposed lots in Maplewood would meet and exceed these requirements. The majority of the parcel being proposed to be divided is within the Shoreland Overlay District. The city has classified Gervais Lake, to the southwest, as a Class I I water which requires a minimum lot width of 75 feet for lots with sanitary sewer and a minimum lot size of 10,000 square feet for lots without water frontage. The city has classified Kohlman Lake, to the southeast, as a Class IV water which requires a minimum lot width of 75 feet for lots with sanitary sewer and a minimum lot size of 15,000 square feet for lots without water frontage. Under the Shoreland Overlay regulations, the maximum amount of impervious surface allowed for the proposed lots would be 30 percent. This requirement would be reviewed and enforced when building permits are applied for. The three proposed lots meet and exceed all of the Shoreland Overlay District lot requirements. The required setbacks in the R1 Zoning District are as follows: • Front Yard - 30 feet minimum and 35 feet maximum • Side Yard - 10 feet minimum • Rear Yard - 20 Percent of Lot Depth The applicant's site plan dated August 25, 2008, shows that the required setbacks would be met Utilities Sanitary sewer, storm sewer and water will be located within the proposed street right-of-way which is completely within the City of Little Canada. Little Canada approved the utilities plan as part of the preliminary plat on October 24, 2007. Density The proposed gross density for the site within Maplewood is approximately 1.36 units per acre. The proposed density for this division would be consistent with the R1, single dwelling, Future Land Use category. This proposed subdivision would be consistent with the large lot, single-family homes to the north. 2 Packet Page Number Page 157 of 408 Access Access to the site is proposed via a 1,050 foot public street extending south from Labore Road with a 50-foot right-of-way. The street itself is proposed to be 29 feet in width, measured from the back of the curb. Maplewood streets require a 60-foot right-of-way, and local residential streets are to be 32 feet in width between faces of curbs. However, the road is entirely within the City of Little Canada and meets that city's width requirements. The City of Little Canada approved a 550 foot variance for the length of the cul-de-sac. The City of Maplewood's maximum cul-de-sac length is 1, 000 feet. Department Comments Enaineerina Comments Staff engineer Steve Kummer has prepared a report that discusses issues relating to storm water runoff, grading and general drainage patterns, pond grading design, and pond treatment design. Please refer to his report dated November 5, 2008, which is attached to this memo. Also attached is a report from Mr. Kummer dated April 3, 2008, which included several comments and recommendations and compelled the developer to make several revisions to its subdivision proposal. Environment Planner Comments Environmental planner Shann Finwall has prepared a report that discusses tree preservation, slopes and wetland buffers. Please refer to Ms. Finwall's report dated December 1, 2008, which is attached to this memo. Open Space Coordinator Comments An open space area is proposed for the southern portions of the proposed three lots. The applicant should be required to dedicate conservation easements over the southern portion of the three proposed lots to preserve the open space areas to the southeast and southwest. Open Space Coordinator Virginia Gaynor has prepared a report that discusses plant species selection within the subdivision. Please refer to Ms. Gaynor's report dated November 10, 2008, which is attached to this memo. Fire Department Comments Maplewood's Fire Chief Steve Lukin said the fire department would have no issue serving the three lots. Chief Lukin did not see any problems with the length of the cul-de-sac as long as there would be hydrants at the required placements as with any street. The overall utilities plan dated August 25, 2008, shows the proposed placement of hydrants along the street in the City of Little Canada. However, Chief Lukin did point out that it might make more sense for the homes to be served by Little Canada to help alleviate confusion in the immediate area as to what city serves which home. The provision of fire, police and utilities would be worked out between the cities of Maplewood and Little Canada through a joint powers agreement if this subdivision is approved by both communities. 3 Packet Page Number Page 158 of 408 Police Department Comments Lt. Kevin Rabbett stated that in general the Police Department would have no issue with the length of the cul-de-sac or accessing the homes through Little Canada. Lt. Rabbett also mentioned that the Police Department currently uses routes that travel through North Saint Paul in order to serve areas in Maplewood. City of Little Canada Process The City of Little Canada has approved the Richie Place Preliminary Plat. A Final Plat has yet to be submitted to the City of Little Canada. The cities of Little Canada and Maplewood would need to arrange a development agreement to work out financial and services issues with the subdivision A lawsuit has been filed against the City of Little Canada by Maplewood residents John and Jolene Gores (2870 Arcade Street) claiming Little Canada's approval of a variance for cul-de-sac length was inappropriate. On October 28, 2008, Ramsey County District Court awarded Summary Judgment to the City. The order was signed by Judge J. Thomas Mott. There is an opportunity for this ruling to be appealed. CONCLUSION Regarding any environmental concerns such as complying with issues concerning wetlands, tree removal/replacement and building on or near a slope, staff has made the following determinations: Tree Removal/replacement: The developer is proposing to replace 45 caliper inches of significant trees on the site by planting 15 3-caliper inch trees. Staff recommends that in order to accurately assess this development's tree replacement requirement per city code, the applicant must revise the tree replacement plan to show that all trees which will be preserved are being protected to a minimum of the critical root zone. Slopes: The city's engineering department has reviewed the development proposal to ensure the slope ordinance is being met, and have found that appropriate erosion control and grading measures are in place to feasibly develop near the slope as proposed. Wetlands: There is a Class 1 (highest quality) wetland located on the west side of the development. The city's wetland ordinance requires a 100-foot buffer around a Class 1 wetland. Several members of the planning commission expressed concern over development near a slope adjacent one of Maplewood's highest classified wetlands during their review of the project. For this reason, a motion was made to recommend approval of the lot division on the condition that only two buildable lots are created, and that Lot 2 be included in the wetland buffer easement to ensure no development occurs near the slope. The motion did not pass but city staff finds this recommendation merits further review by the city council. In order to protect wetlands from development on or near a slope, the environmental and natural resources commission have recommended the revised wetland ordinance, which the city council will review once again in early 2009, have an increased wetland buffer of 10 feet beyond the apex of a slope, when a slope exists in the buffer. The purpose for this requirement was due to the fact that erosion control measures on a slope, while feasible, are difficult to monitor and have a higher probability of failing due to the slope. Failed erosion control measures on a slope could negatively impact the wetland. Wth the proposed wetland ordinance the additional buffer would deem Lots 2 and 3 of Richie Place unbuildable without a variance to the wetland buffer. Therefore, it could be 4 Packet Page Number Page 159 of 408 reasonable for the council to consider requiring the developer to remove Lot 2 from the subdivision proposal in order to protect the Class 1 wetland adjacent the property. Wetland Recommendation 1 and a portion of Wetland Recommendation 5 pertain only if the council were to find it reasonable to remove Lot 2 from the subdivision proposal. Wetland Recommendations: 1. In order to protect the Class 1 wetland adjacent the property, the developer must submit a revised subdivision removing Lot 2 as a buildable lot and including that land in the proposed conservation easement. 2. The developer must submit a plan for the re-establishment of all areas graded within the wetland buffer with native plants. This plan must be approved by the city's naturalist. 3. The developer must submit a cash escrow or letter of credit to cover the re-establishment of the wetland buffer with native plants. 4. The developer must sign a wetland buffer re-establishment maintenance agreement with the city which will require the developer to ensure the native plants are established within the buffer within athree-year period. 5. The conservation easement must be revised as a wetland protection buffer easement. The location of the easement must be revised to ensure that all areas within the development that are within 100 feet of the wetland edge (buffer) are included in the easement (not just the most westerly portion of the development) and that Lot 2 in the current subdivision proposal is included in the easement as well. The easement must be prepared by a land surveyor, shall describe the boundary of the buffer and shall prohibit any building, mowing, cutting, grading, filling or dumping within the buffer. The applicant shall record this easement before the city will issue a grading permit. 6. Prior to approval of a grading permit the developer shall install city approved wetland signs at the edge of the wetland buffer that specify that no building, mowing, cutting, grading, filling or dumping be allowed within the easement. These signs must be placed every 100- feet along the edge of the wetland buffer easement, or at every property line, whichever is closer. COMMITTEE ACTIONS Planning Commission October 7, 2008: The planning commission reviewed this proposal and tabled further review and action. The planning commission directed staff to provide additional information concerning: their review authority, impacts on wetlands, slopes and tree loss/replacement. November 18, 2008: The planning commission reviewed the proposal with additional information provided by staff. The planning commission also received more comments from the public at the meeting. The planning commission voted to recommend approval of the comprehensive plan amendment. The planning commission's motion in relation to the lot division failed due to a tie. 5 Packet Page Number Page 160 of 408 Historic Preservation Commission Historic Preservation Commission member Ron Cockriel spoke at the November 18, 2008 planning commission meeting. Mr. Cockriel said he did not see any artifacts on the property. Mr. Cockriel said he also researched the Minnesota Historical site and did not see where any burial grounds would have existed on the property. Mr. Cockriel's comments are further detailed in the planning commission minutes attached to this report. RECOMMENDATIONS Adopt the resolution approving a comprehensive land use plan amendment from OS - Open Space to R1 -Single Dwelling for the 2.24-acre site, located south of Labore Road and East of Arcade Street. Approval is based on the following guiding principles and reasons as noted in the comprehensive land use plan: a. The proposed Future Land Use Guide would be consistent with existing zoning. b. The proposed development would provide a wider range of housing types in this neighborhood. c. The proposed future land use guide would be consistent with the comprehensive plan of Little Canada. This action is subject to the approval of this land use plan amendment by the Metropolitan Council. 2. Approve the lot division request to subdivide the 2.24 acre lot located south of Labore Road and East of Arcade Street. This lot division approval is subject to the following conditions: a. Satisfy the requirements set forth in the staff report authored by Mr. Kummer, dated November 5, 2008. b. Satisfy the requirements set forth in the staff report authored by Ms. Finwall, dated December 1, 2008. c. Satisfy the requirements set forth in the staff report by Ms. Gaynor, dated November 10, 2008. d. Receive approval of final plat from the City of Little Canada for the rest of the 16-unit development. e. The applicant shall pay cash connection charges for the new vacant single-family lots for connection to the water main and sanitary sewer main. Deeds describing the three new legal descriptions, including the required drainage and utility easement descriptions, must be drafted and stamped by the city. Ramsey County requires this acknowledgment of approval to record the deeds. These must be recorded with Ramsey County within one year of the date of the lot division approval or the lot split will become null and void (city code requirement). 6 Packet Page Number Page 161 of 408 g. The City of Maplewood entering into a joint powers agreement with the City of Little Canada for the provision of police and fire services and utilities. h. Prior to issuance of a grading or building permit for the new homes on the new lots the following must be submitted to staff for approval: 1) Proof that Ramsey County has recorded the lot division. 2) A signed certificate of survey showing the location of all property lines and the location of the new homes. 3) Grading and drainage plan. 4) All necessary permits for sanitary sewer and water must be obtained. 7 Packet Page Number Page 162 of 408 Attachment 6 Richie Place -Request for Comp Plan Amendment and Lot Division Packet Page Number Page 163 of 408 Figure One-Location Map City of Maplewood NORTH November 5, 2008 Attachment 7 Richie Place -Request for Comp Plan Amendment and Lot Division Packet Page Number Page 164 of 408 Figure Two -Zoning Map City of Maplewood NORTH November 5, 2008 Attachment 8 Richie Place -Request for Comp Plan Amendment and Lot Division Packet Page Number Page 165 of 408 Figure Three -Future Land Use Map City of Maplewood NORTH November 5, 2008 Attachment 9 Richie Place -Request for Comp Plan Amendment and Lot Division Packet Page Number Page 166 of 408 Figure Four - Shoreland Overlay City of Maplewood NORTH November 5, 2008 Attachment 10 Maplewood Engineering Comments -Supplemental Narrative and Comments 11-5-08 Page 1 of 3 Engineering Plan Review -Supplemental Narrative and Comments PROJECT: Richie Place Subdivision PROJECT NO: 08-04 COMMENTS BY: Steve Kummer, P.E. -Staff Engineer DATE: 11-5-08 PLAN SET: City Submittal Set: Civil/Landscape Drawings Dated 7-30-07 and revised 1-25-08 COMPS: Stormwater Management Plan by Auth Consulting Assoc. Revised Computations Dated 8-20-08 The following is a supplemental narrative addressing concerns raised at the Maplewood Planning Commission Meeting on 10-7-08 regarding the Richie Place development proposal. Storm Water Runoff Concerns were raised regarding the amount of runoff from the development and whether the proposed development meets Maplewood Engineering standards. The basis for meeting this requirement is to verify that the runoff from the proposed development does not exceed pre- development conditions. Auth Consulting, the developer's engineering consultant, submitted drainage computations for review. The report bases their conclusions regarding runoff utilizing a HydroCAD model for the 2-year, 10-year and 100-year 24-hour storm events. City staff concludes that their engineering assumptions and HydroCAD computations to be reasonable given the types of ground cover in both the existing and proposed conditions. Following are the total runoff rates comparing existing vs. proposed runoff conditions: Runoff Rate Comparison Storm Event Pre Developed Rate cfs Post Developed Rate cfs 2-year (2.8 in) 0.68 0.53 10-year (4.2 in) 6.35 3.80 100-year (6.0 in) 18.52 10.91 With the storm water rate control and treatment measures proposed for the development, the post developed runoff rates are less than the pre-developed rates which meets city of Maplewood engineering standards. Grading and General Drainage Patterns Concerns were raised about runoff of water from the development onto neighboring properties. Of particular concern are impacts of runoff to the property at 2870 Arcade Street (John and Jolene Gores) and 2970 Labore Road (David Himmelbach). Packet Page Number Page 167 of 408 Maplewood Engineering Comments -Supplemental Narrative and Comments 11-5-08 Page 2 of 3 The pre-developed drainage patterns map from the drainage computations indicates the following: 0 10.07 acres, which includes the two properties at 2932 and 2934 Labore Road, is sloped toward and generally drains toward the Gore's property from the developer's parcel. 0 1.27 acres, which is exclusively from the developer's parcel, drains toward the Himmelbach property. The proposed grading plan reduces the drainage area from the developer's property toward o the Gore's property to 3.60 acres. o the Himmelbach property to 0.54 acres. Therefore, the proposed development effectively reduces overland drainage toward the two properties as noted above. The storm water pond itself has an outlet pipe that drains to the northeast corner of the site and into the Kohlman Marsh. The drainage from this pipe does not enter neighboring properties and does not revise the ultimate drainage patterns of the area. Pond Grading Design A specific concern that was raised about the pond is that if the pond were to overflow, the drainage would run off into the Gore's property. A typical design measure for any type of pond is an emergency overflow route. In case of a plugged outlet condition or a rainfall event beyond the design capacity of the pond, any overflow from the pond can take a route to prevent damage to surrounding buildings. The proposed grading plan does address this. The proposed emergency overflow route will be to the proposed low-point of the street near street station 9+30. The top elevation of the pond at which the overflow will occur is an 888.30. The engineering plans also show a 2 foot berm on the west side of the cul-de-sac and pond area with a top elevation of 890.50. Any pond overflow will go the route of the established emergency overflow point prior to topping this berm. The city's standard freeboard requirement is a minimum of 1 foot of elevation difference between a nearby critical elevation or building and the pond overflow route. The design meets this standard. Pond Treatment Design There were concerns that the pond did not meet City of Maplewood treatment or infiltration standards. The developer is utilizing the Ramsey-Washington Metro Watershed District's Volume Control Worksheet, which requires a developer to infiltrate 90% of the first 1 inch of runoff from a rainfall Packet Page Number Page 168 of 408 Maplewood Engineering Comments -Supplemental Narrative and Comments 11-5-08 Page 3 of 3 event for all new impervious surfaces for development sites over 1 acre. The City of Maplewood engineering staff abides by this standard when reviewing plans. Based on the volume control worksheet, the developer is required to infiltrate 8,494 cubic feet of storm water through the proposed rain garden. The rain garden provides 8,587 cubic feet of storage for this purpose, which meets the treatment requirement and also meets city of Maplewood standards. The developer will also be required to enter into a storm water maintenance agreement with the City of Maplewood for regular maintenance of the rain water garden. Packet Page Number Page 169 of 408 Attachment 11 Engineering Plan Review PROJECT: Richie Place Subdivision PROJECT NO: 08-04 COMMENTS BY: Steve Kummer, P.E. -Staff Engineer REVIEWERS: Virginia Gaynor -Staff Naturalist John DuCharme -Senior Technician /Inspector DATE: 4-3-08 PLAN SET: City Submittal Set: Civil/Landscape Drawings Dated 8-14-07 rev. 1-10-08 COMPS: Stormwater Management Plan by Auth Consulting Assoc. Dated 1-29-08 Lauren and Company Development is proposing to develop the formerly owned Richie property in Little Canada into 16 single-family detached townhomes. A portion of the property overlaps into Maplewood, where three (3) of the 16 lots will be developed. Most of the storm water drainage from the proposed site appears to be captured by an on-site pond on the Little Canada portion of the parcel. The pond is proposed to discharge into an existing wetland south of the site. The wetland is part of the Kohlman Lake watershed area. Sanitary sewer and water main service will be designed to Little Canada standards and will be owned and maintained by the City of Little Canada. These Engineering comments, for the most part, refer to the parcel that will be developed within the City of Maplewood. However, a majority of the drainage from the Little Canada parcel will be discharged into Maplewood. An examination of the hydrology of this site will also be done as part of this engineering review. Wetland Hydrology 1. Existing Kohlman Lake tributary wetland to the south of the development is considered a Class 1 wetland according to the existing Maplewood Ordinance Sec 12-310. According to Sec 12-310 Subpart (h)(3), a Class 1 wetland requires an average buffer width of 100 feet with a minimum no-disturb buffer width of 100 feet. Project shall show a 100-foot buffer width from the delineated wetland edge. 2. The new storm sewer outfall B and installation of the associated 12-inch pipe should be realigned such that there is no disturbance to the 100-foot buffer area. The full design flow from the outfall shall not exceed 1 ft/s velocity and will be maintained at the 865.00 elevation. The City understands that the current pipe alignment assists in energy dissipation and that erosion into the wetland will be a concern if the outlet is flared above the water level of the wetland. A drop manhole at B1 may be required to reroute the alignment out of the buffer. If rerouting the storm sewer is not practical and disturbing the buffer will be a necessity, contact Steve Kummer (651) 249-2418 to discuss. Pond Packet Page Number Page 170 of 408 Maplewood Engineering Comments 4-3-08 Page 2 of 4 Several questions about the proposed pond were raised by our City Naturalist, Ginny Gaynor and shall be addressed: Plant species selected a. Mesic Plant Species- species selected are appropriate b. Dry Plant Species i. Sedum `Autumn Joy' is anon-native ornamental so is typically not used in a prairie planting. If designer is using this massed on the edge and maintaining that portion as perennial garden, it is fine to use it. If it is part of the prairie mix, I recommend using a native prairie species instead. ii. Rudbeckia hirta -This is a short-lived perennial. If only 6 species are used on the slopes, I recommend selecting alonger-lived native prairie plant. c. # of species -This is a very large garden and it has only 12 species. QUESTION: Is there a design reason for using so few species? If yes, what it that? If no, please increase to at least 10-12 species on bottom and 10-12 species on slopes. It does not cost any more to add diversity. d. What is the ratio of grasses/sedges to flowers? (Equal amounts of all species listed?) 2. Size -- It looks like the garden is some where in the 10,000-15,000 sq ft range. At 1' centers this means they will plant 10,000-15,000 plugs. Please confirm this is the intent. If not, please explain. 3. Pond establishment: What time of erosion control measures are going to be used to establish the pond? This seems to be a very large area to mulch with wood chips and with the amount of water that will be entering. 4. First year plant maintenance. Who is maintaining this garden? Will they water seedlings during early establishment? Will there be weed management the first year? 5. Filtering outlet should be built on outfall from ponding area prior to discharge into wetland. Grading and Drainage 1. Grading for the house pads shall not encroach upon the 100-foot wetland buffer. 2. Future Lot 3 Block 4 shall be graded such that drainage is directed away from the Gores' property to the west. Construction Site Sediment and Erosion Control Plan / SWPPP Packet Page Number Page 171 of 408 Maplewood Engineering Comments 4-3-08 Page 3 of 4 1. Heavy-duty silt fence reinforced with a compost log shall be utilized for drainage toward wetland areas. Silt fence shall be doubled-up for 100 ft in each direction at low points. 2. The entire site slopes to the south and the graded roadway will act like a channel for water in a partially constructed state. One row of silt fence at the bottom of the hill will fail with a heavy rainfall and will not be sufficient to contain the site. An adequate erosion control phasing plan for this site will need to be submitted to the City showing efforts to be taken by the developer to prevent sedimentation into the wetland. Berming of dirt and adequate checks need to be in place for this to occur. Contact John DuCharme at (651) 249-2411 to discuss. 3. Locations of onsite storage of topsoil, backfill and borrow material shall be shown on the SWPPP. The plans shall also indicate the methods of erosion and sediment protection on slopes and stockpiles (i.e. seed/blanket, silt fence, straw wattles, etc.) 4. The project plans shall identify the locations for equipment material storage, debris stockpiles, vehicle/equipment maintenance, fueling, and washing areas. The plans also must show the contain area and specify that all materials stored on site shall have proper enclosures and/or coverings. 5. The project plans shall identify the locations and provide details for concrete truck washout areas. 6. Identify (on the plans) the quantity of materials that the contractor will be importing to or exporting from the site (cu-yd) along with site cut and fill quantities. 7. The project plans or their details shall describe the measures (e.g... temporary sediment basin, etc) the contractor will use during the rough grading process to intercept and detain sediment-laden run-off to allow the sediment to settle. They also must describe how the contractor will dewater the settled storm water and how it will be introduced to the public drainage system. 8. The erosion and sediment control plans should refer to Maplewood Plate No.350 for approved methods of erosion and sediment control. Utilities 1. Trash guards are not allowed on flared-end sections with a diameter of 18 inches or less. Trees 1. Refer to Tree Preservation Plan Review comments by Shann Finwall. Agency Submittals and Permitting Packet Page Number Page 172 of 408 Maplewood Engineering Comments 4-3-08 Page 4 of 4 1. The owner and project engineer shall get all necessary permits and shall satisfy the requirements of all permitting agencies. Miscellaneous The Owner shall enter into a developer's agreement with the City of Maplewood for the completion of all private site improvements. As part of the developer's agreement, the owner shall provide a letter of credit or cash escrow for 125% of the cost for all site improvements that will be serving the Maplewood portion of the development. The cost shall include excavation for the pond and the storm sewer outfall from the pond. An estimate of the total cost of improvements shall be provided to engineering staff. 2. The Maplewood lots and proposed drainage and utility easement shall be shown on the preliminary plat. 3. The developer shall submit a letter to the City of Maplewood indicating the responsibility of maintenance of utilities including the storm sewer system. Packet Page Number Page 173 of 408 Attachment 12 Tree Preservation, Slopes and Wetland Buffer Review Project: Richie Place Subdivison Date of Plan: August 25, 2008 Date of Review: December 1, 2008 Reviewer: Shann Finwall, Environmental Planner (651) 249-2304; shann.finwall(a~ci.maplewood.mn.us Background: The Richie Place Subdivision proposes to subdivide a parcel of land lying south of Labore Road in Little Canada and north of Kohlman Marsh Open Space in Maplewood. Three of the proposed 16 lots will be located within Maplewood. A. Tree Preservation Ordinance: The city'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. 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. In essence, the ordinance requires developers to plant a greater amount of smaller replacement trees because they removed a significant number of large trees. Tree Removal and Required Replacement: Tree replacement is based on the following calculation: Ordinance Calculation: [(A/B - 0.20) x C] x A = D Legend Richie Place Total A =Total Diameter Inches of Significant Trees Lost 449.0 B =Total Diameter Inches of Significant Trees on Site 1735.5 C =Tree Replacement Constant (1.5) 1.5 D =Replacement Trees (Number of Caliper Inches) 39.54 Richie Place Calculation: 449/1735.5 - .20 x 1.5 x 449 = 39.54 Cal. Inches Required Replacement Trees: 39.54/2 caliper inch replacement trees = 20 trees The tree plan indicates that there are 1735.5 caliper inches of significant trees on the site (322 trees), and 449 caliper inches of significant trees (186 trees or 57 percent) removed with the development. Based on these figures, the city's tree replacement calculation requires the developer to replace 39.45 caliper inches (20, 2 caliper inch trees). The reason the developer only has to replace 20 trees (6.2 percent) of the 57 percent removed is due to the fact that there are a large number of trees on the site. The tree replacement calculation takes into account that not as many trees can be planted on a site that is already heavily forested. Packet Page Number Page 174 of 408 Tree Preservation Plan: City code states that the tree protective areas shall be located around a tree a minimum of the critical root zone (circular area surrounding the tree trunk with a radius distance of 1 foot per 1 inch of tree diameter). When reviewing the grading plan versus the location of the trees, it appears that approximately 30 preserved trees have grading encroaching into this critical root zone, which could cause the tree to die off after grading is complete. Proposed Tree Replacement: The developer is proposing to replace 45 caliper inches of significant trees on the site by planting 15, 3-caliper inch trees. Tree Preservation Recommendation: In order to accurately assess this development's tree replacement requirement per city code, the applicant must revise the tree replacement plan to show that all trees which will be preserved are being protected to a minimum of the critical root zone. B. Slopes: The environmental protection ordinance regulates development on slopes. The ordinance applies to slopes 12 percent or greater which encompass at least 200 feet in length (top to bottom) by 500 feet in width (side to side). There is a slope that averages 20 percent grade which runs the entire width of the southern portion of the development (5,600 feet) and is 200 feet in length. Grading of the house on Lot 2 encroach into this slope. The following regulations would apply to the development of Lot 2 in relation to the slope: Development on a slope in excess of 12 percent must meet the following conditions: Controls exist uphill to ensure structures, or streets would be struck by falling rock, mud, sediment from erosion, uprooted trees or other materials. 2. The city engineer may require the developer to provide a soils engineer to certify the stability of potentially unstable slopes. The city's engineering department has reviewed the development proposal to ensure the slope ordinance is being met, and have found that appropriate erosion control and grading measures are in place to feasibly develop near the slope as proposed. C. Wetland Ordinance: There is a Class 1 (highest quality) wetland located on the west of the development. The city's wetland ordinance requires a 100-foot buffer around a Class 1 wetland. Grading Plan: The grading plan shows that the development will maintain the required 100-foot buffer with the grading of the new single family homes. However, the plan calls for the construction of a storm pipe within the buffer area. City code allows for the construction of utilities within a buffer where there is no other practical alternative. The city's engineering department has reviewed and approved of this storm water utility as being the best location. 2 Packet Page Number Page 175 of 408 Site Plan: The site plan calls out a conservation easement to be located on the western side of the development. The conservation easement is proposed as a wetland buffer protection to ensure no building, mowing, cutting, grading, filling, or dumping within the easement. Possible Impacts to Wetland with Slope Development: The city's wetland ordinance states that a wetland buffer is measured from the edge of a wetland outward to lands surrounding the wetland. In this case, there is a required 100- foot setback from the wetland edge to any allowed disturbance from the development. In addition to this requirement, the ordinance states that the city may require a variable buffer to protect adjacent habitat that is valuable to the wetland, stream, wildlife or vegetation. Several members of the planning commission expressed concern over development near a slope adjacent one of Maplewood's highest classified wetlands during their review of the project. For this reason, a motion was made to recommend approval of the lot division on the condition that only two buildable lots are created, and that Lot 2 be included in the wetland buffer easement to ensure no development occurs near the slope. The motion did not pass but city staff finds that this recommendation merits further review by the city council. In order to protect wetlands from development on a slope, the environmental and natural resources commission have recommended that the revised wetland ordinance, which the city council will review once again in early 2009, have an increased wetland buffer of 10 feet beyond the apex of a slope, when a slope exists in the buffer. The purpose for this requirement was due to the fact that erosion control measures on a slope, while feasible, are difficult to monitor and have a higher probability of failing due to the slope. Failed erosion control measures on a slope could negatively impact the wetland. With the proposed wetland ordinance the additional buffer would deem Lots 2 and 3 of Richie Place unbuildable without a variance to the wetland buffer. Therefore, it could be reasonable for the council to consider requiring the developer to remove Lot 2 from the subdivision proposal in order to protect the Class 1 wetland adjacent the property. Wetland Recommendation 1 and a portion of Wetland Recommendation 5 pertain only if the council were to find it reasonable to remove Lot 2 from the subdivision proposal. Wetland Recommendations In order to protect the Class 1 wetland adjacent the property, the developer must submit a revised subdivision removing Lot 2 as a buildable lot and including that land in the proposed conservation easement. 2. The developer must submit a plan for the re-establishment of all areas graded within the wetland buffer with native plants. This plan must be approved by the city's naturalist. Packet Page Number Page 176 of 408 3. The developer must submit a cash escrow or letter of credit to cover the re-establishment of the wetland buffer with native plants. 4. The developer must sign a wetland buffer re-establishment maintenance agreement with the city which will require the developer to ensure the native plants are established within the buffer within athree-year period. 5. The conservation easement must be revised as a wetland protection buffer easement. The location of the easement must be revised to ensure that all areas within the development that are within 100 feet of the wetland edge (buffer) are included in the easement (not just the most westerly portion of the development) and that Lot 2 in the current subdivision proposal is included in the easement as well. The easement must be prepared by a land surveyor, shall describe the boundary of the buffer and shall prohibit any building, mowing, cutting, grading, filling or dumping within the buffer. The applicant shall record this easement before the city will issue a grading permit. 6. Prior to approval of a grading permit the developer shall install city approved wetland signs at the edge of the wetland buffer that specify that no building, mowing, cutting, grading, filling or dumping be allowed within the easement. These signs must be placed every 100-feet along the edge of the wetland buffer easement, or at every property line, whichever is closer. 4 Packet Page Number Page 177 of 408 Attachment 13 MEMORANDUM TO: Michael Martin, Planner FROM: Ginny Gaynor, Open Space Coordinator RE: Richie Place Subdivision, Project 08-04 DATE: November 10, 2008 The Maplewood Planning Commission requested clarification on two comments in the Engineering Report for Richie Place Subdivision regarding vegetation in the infiltration basin proposed (comments 1c and 1d). Original comment 1c: "Number of species -This is a very large garden and it has only 12 species. QUESTION: Is there a design reason for using so few species? If yes, what it that? If no, please increase to at least 10-12 species on bottom and 10-12 species on slopes. It does not cost any more to add diversity." Response and clarification: This comment questions the developer about the number of plant species proposed for the infiltration basin. Staff recommended increasing the number of species used because the basin is over 1200 square feet. In the revised plan, the developer increased the number of species as requested. 2. Original comment 1d: "What is the ratio of grasses/sedges to flowers? (Equal amounts of all species listed?)" Response and clarification: In native prairie and wetland plantings, both grasses and flowers are used. The original plan did not list the number of each species being planted so this question was asking the developer what the ratio of grasses to flowers would be. The revised landscape proposal (08/25/08 version) addressed some of the staff comments regarding vegetation in the infiltration basin. In addition, staff recommends: 1. The landscape plan notes should indicate plug spacing be 12"-18" (not 1'-2'). 2. The landscape plan notes should indicate that final species list will be approved by Maplewood engineer or naturalist. A few of the species listed required shade and we need better information on how much shade the basin will have before approving the species. 3. The landscape plan notes should indicate whether blanket or mulch will be used in the basin. Mulch is preferred on the slopes. 4. The landscape plan notes should indicate that weeding maintenance will be necessary during the first planting season and beyond. The notes should also indicate who is responsible for maintenance during the first season -after planting and before the project is accepted. Packet Page Number Page 178 of 408 Attachment 14 Kuaak &. Kantrud P.A. A T T O R N R Y S A T L A W vr~• cor~NSrr.: Tom Dailcy Don K.ahler MEMORANDUM DATE: 1 December 2008 TO: Michael Martin, City Planner RE: Item L4: Ricliie Place Land Use Change H. Alan Kantrud halcan tc-ud C~ lcl aw. us alan.lcantrudC maplewood.ci.mn.us direct: 612-743-4242 INTRODUCTION As part of the proposal for development, the Lauren Development Company is proposing to alter the existing land guidance in the City's Comprehensive Plan from, "Open Space" to "Rl," a a single dwelling residential use/guide classification. You asked me to comment from a legal perspective on the proposed change in guidance given the private nature of the property. DISCUSSION In reviewing the project with staff it is clear that the City guided this property in the last Comprehensive Plan based on the proximity to to other open space in the area--specifically the Kuhlman Marsh and Hidden Marsh areas; both appropriately guided as Open Space as they are owned by the City and are, in fact, open space. The subject property has always been privately owned and apparently the change in guidance {to Open Space) went un-noticed at the time by the owners. While it is certainly appropriate to guide land as, "open space," where appropriate, I think the City should have guided this area differently when it made the last update. The area is bounded by a, "residential," guide classification in addition to the existing Open Space parcels, and since this project (as proposed) is in keeping with the neighborhood, the change in guidance should be approved for all the reasons stated in Mr. Martin's memo addressing this issue. As is mentioned as well, the portion of the project in Maplewood is less than 20% of the overall project at only 3 out of I6 total lots, so this is a very minor subdivision for us. Packet Page Number Page 179 of 408 Were the council to not approve this change in guidance I believe the City could be subject to litigation in the form of an, "inverse condemnation," action as we will have essentially told the underlying owner that we, "took," their land for open space in the last Comprehensive Plan update and that they are going to be forced to hold their own property as, "open space," and not be allowed to sell or build for any other purpose. The likely scenario then would be to agree to proceed with a more traditional eminent domain action pursuant to Minn. Stat. Ch. 117 rather than force the LMCIT to defend us in another land use claim. Another possible scenario would be a mandamus action brought by the Developer to compel us to make the change in guidance in the comprehensive plan as the original designation would be challenged as, "arbitrarily and capriciously," made; having been made merely by calling out the guidance based on no compelling facts or reasons to change the guidance at the time and completely ignoring the pxivate nature of the property itself. That would be a strong argument in my opinion. RECOMMENDATION Staff is recommending the project and the change in land use guidance for all the reasons stated in the memo from the planning staff. From my perspective this change is compelled as the original classification was made in error or at least not well-thaught- through at the time and all we can reasonably do is correct that mis-designation here. I recommend the change in land-use designation for all the aforementioned reasons. Packet Page Number Page 180 of 408 Attachment 15 MINUTES OF THE MAPLEWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION 1830 COUNTY ROAD B EAST, MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA TUESDAY, OCTOBER 7, 2008 V. PUBLIC HEARING a. 7:01 p.m. - Richie Place Lot Split, LaBore Road East of Arcade Street • Comprehensive Land Use Plan Amendment - OS (open space) to R1 (single dwelling) • Lot Division Planner Tom Ekstrand presented the staff report for the proposal to develop 16 single-family detached townhomes in Maplewood and Little Canada. Three of the 16 lots are within the City of Maplewood's boundaries and the remaining 13 lots are in Little Canada. Staff is bringing this proposal before the planning commission due to the majority of the project being in Little Canada and due to the proposed open space land use. Staff said it is unclear why this private property was originally planned as open space. Staff said the city attorney has advised that the city should not be planning private properties as open space and it is appropriate that these private property designations be changed to single dwelling. Commissioner Hess asked whether the requirements of the sewer standards would be the same in Little Canada as in Maplewood since Little Canada will be installing the sewer for the project. Staff engineer Steve Kummer responded saying that the drainage going into the pond would be the same as if Maplewood had reviewed the plan. Mr. Kummer said that the pipe layout was not out of the ordinary and is within Maplewood's standards. Commissioner Martin asked about street assessments for improvements on a Little Canada street with the house being in Maplewood. Mr. Kummer said that the two cities would need to create a joint powers agreement for city services. Phil Solby of Lauren and Company Development, the applicant for the project, explained plans for this proposal. Mr. Solby discussed the current down trend in the housing market and the applicant's desire to increase the value and marketability of this land. Mr. Solby said that no improvements would be done until there were a significant number of lots sold and all improvements could be done at one time. The applicant was asked what measures would be taken to protect the wetland when the development begins. Mr. Solby responded that they would follow all of the guidelines and requirements requested by the city. Mr. Solby said that in addition there is a natural buffer of trees and vegetation on the edge of the wetland that will help protect the wetland. The public hearing was opened for comments. The following people spoke: Packet Page Number Page 181 of 408 David Himmelbach, 2970 Labore Road, Little Canada, said a notice of foreclosure was pinned to his door last week. Mr. Himmelbach said the foreclosure notice included the applicant's property included in this proposal. John Gores, 2870 Arcade Street, Maplewood, said that he and his wife Jolene Gores have filed a lawsuit with the City of Little Canada claiming that an approved variance for a cul-de-sac length was inappropriate. Mr. Gores also presented to the commission a copy of the Little Canada engineer's drainage plan for this project, a copy of a notice of foreclosure, and a report from Shann Finwall discussing tree preservation and wetland buffer review. Mr. Gores asked that this request be denied by the commission due to legal and economic issues. Bill Schorn, 2940 Labore Road, Little Canada, said he owns the property west of the proposed development. Mr. Schorn commented that it would not be unusual for a homeowner with property that is designated open space use to not be able to build on that property and yet be required to pay taxes on the property. Mr. Schorn said the foreclosure issue is very important for consideration. Gary Kuam, 2934 Labore Road, Little Canada, said he is an adjacent property owner and understands that this property will be developed eventually, even if not developed by Mr. Solby. Mr. Kuam noted his concerns with this development including safety issues, length and design of the cul-de-sac and space for turnaround for fire trucks, water run off and the holding pond and swale and protection of wetlands and Gervais Lake. Bill Hanson, 2836 Keller Parkway, said he is against this proposal for many of the reasons previously addressed tonight. Mr. Batista, 951 Beam Avenue, said he is against this proposal. Mr. Batista noted that an engineer told him it would be cheaper to install sewer lift stations to Labore Road than to continue installing the sewer line to Arcade Street. David Himmelbach spoke again regarding the previous owner's excavation of the site and soil pollution issues with the property. Mr. Himmelbach said that in the past he had requested soil testing of the property by the MPCA, but was told there was no funding available to do the testing. John Gores spoke again regarding the open space designation of this property and reminded the commission that the 60-day time limit is now in effect for this proposal and it needs to be considered and addressed within that time limit. Phil Solby, the applicant for this proposal, said they are trying to cap losses with this project. Mr. Solby further explained that there is a voluntary foreclosure with confidential lender agreements in place. Mr. Solby said they have agreed to see this project through and that he will continue to act as the developer to complete this project if possible. Mr. Solby asked the commission to look at this request solely on its merits and what is relevant. Packet Page Number Page 182 of 408 Bill Schorn again spoke against this request and said Mr. Solby failed to retain his letter of credit. Commissioner Boeser noted that approval of the lot split plan for three or fewer lots is staff's purview and asked staff whether they can move forward with approval of this lot split if the commission rejects it. Mr. Ekstrand responded negatively that this request would go forward and noted that this request also includes a proposed land use plan amendment. Jolene Gores, 2870 Arcade Street, said that the city of Little Canada never approved detached townhomes for this property. Ms. Gores said Mr. Solby's financial qualification is relevant. Commissioner Yarwood said that the financial issues pertaining to the applicant discussed tonight are not the commission's purview and the commission can only consider the request before them. There were no further comments from the public; the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Martin moved to table this request in order to get a legal opinion from the city attorney. Commissioner Trippler seconded and requested the following information on: 1) whether the drainage was adequately designed, 2) whether pond calculations were correct, 3) whether the cul-de-sac criteria was met, 4) issues with the elevations and slopes on the three lots in Maplewood and whether they could be developed without having an adverse impact on the wetlands, the tree preservation matter, and the storm sewer outlet structures. Commissioner Boeser suggested that with all the issues needing clarification this request should be denied and the applicant can reapply. Commissioner Boeser suggested that if this item is tabled, it should not come back to the planning commission for consideration until after November 18, 2008. The commission then voted Ayes -all The motion passed. Packet Page Number Page 183 of 408 Commissioner Boeser said he felt that he had the wool pulled over his eyes on this project. Mr. Boeser said it was a great oversight on the part of staff, whether intentional or not, to not inform the commission of an intent to foreclose on this property. Mr. Boeser said it doesn't have to do with the financial viability of the current owner of the property, but it has to do with the standing of them as the owner of the property or the interested party in the property. Mr. Boeser said to be quite honest, this would have been a very easy decision coming forward, if we had notice that a foreclosure was going to occur on a property; we obviously don't want to make a decision on a property until we know that the owner is going to be there long term. Mr. Boeser said he was angry that he didn't receive the full deal from staff and asked if staff had a reason he should let him know. Mr. Ekstrand responded to Mr. Boeser saying that he learned about the financial issues and foreclosure at exactly the same moment as everyone else at tonight's meeting heard it and clarified that he had no previous knowledge of the foreclosure and he was not clouding or keeping anything from the commission. Commissioner Martin questioned whether this issue is with the property or the property owner and said he does not feel that staff needs to do a credit check on applicants. Commissioner Yarwood said the commission's responsibility is to make decisions based on the most appropriate land use regardless of who the applicant is. Packet Page Number Page 184 of 408 Attachment 16 MINUTES OF THE MAPLEWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION 1830 COUNTY ROAD B EAST, MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 18, 2008 VII. UNFINISHED BUSINESS a. Richie Place Lot Division and Comprehensive Plan Amendment Planner Michael Martin presented the staff report for this request from Lauren Development and Company to develop 16single-family detached homes in Maplewood and Little Canada. Three of the lots would be in Maplewood northwest of Kohlman Marsh Open Space. Commissioner Martin asked staff to comment on whether the issue of drainage from the slope flowing into the Gores' property as discussed previously has been reviewed. Staff engineer Steve Kummer responded that the grading plan shows that the grade of the slope to the Gores' property to the west will be reduced. Mr. Kummer explained that most of the grades will now flow to the street and through catch basins into the pond. Commissioner Hess asked if the 45.7-foot cul-de-sac diameter dimension applies to the Little Canada code. Mr. Kummer responded that Maplewood code calls fora 90-foot diameter for a cul-de-sac. Mr. Hess asked whether there would be enough room for fire truck access in the cul-de-sac. Mr. Kummer said that the fire chief has verified in his comments that safe and efficient fire service can be provided. Commissioner Trippler asked staff if the city could recommend that the subdivision be split into two single-family lots and designate Lot Two as an outlot and nonbuildable. Planner Martin said that it is a recommendation that can be given if that is the commission's desire. Commissioner Walton asked staff to comment on drainage controls needed to be made to Lot Two to protect the wetland area. Planner Shann Finwall responded that the impacts on Lot Two would be bound by the city's slope ordinance. Ms. Finwall said the engineering department reviewed the erosion control measures for development on the slope and found that appropriate erosion control and grading measures are in place as proposed. Commissioner Martin asked if the open space land designation can be used only for publicly owned land. Planner Martin responded that there is not a set definition of what open space means by the Metropolitan Council, but open space designation has been used within the city as public land exclusively. Commissioner Desai asked if the staff conditions recommended for engineering, wetlands, tree and open space would be included in lot division approval. Ms. Finwall responded that usually these staff requirements are noted in the recommendation, but staff could list these requirements in the recommendation specifically if desired. Mr. Desai commented that since this is such a serious situation, he would personally prefer that they be listed specifically to ensure they are complied with. Commissioner Pearson asked staff whether there have been soil borings done of the three Packet Page Number Page 185 of 408 lots. Staff engineer Kummer responded that the building code specifically requires that compressible soils would need to be excavated and filled, but it is the developer's responsibility to come up with a plan from a structural engineer to present to the building official. Commissioner Martin asked at what point the foundation is inspected by the building inspectors. Mr. Kummer responded that the contractor needs to call for a foundation inspection before the footings are covered. Chair Fischer asked the developer, Phil Soby, if he was in agreement with the conditions of the staff report. Mr. Soby replied affirmatively. Commissioner Trippler asked the developer if he was okay with making Lot Two an outlot. The developer responded that creating an outlot would be a problem, since this lot has met the conditions for development. Commissioner Hess asked the developer if soil borings have been done on the site. He responded that multiple borings were done on the property early in the process and there were no "bad soils" within any of the lots on the property. The commission agreed by consensus to open the public hearing for comments on the additional new information that has been supplied since the last public hearing was held. The following people spoke: John Gores, 2870 Arcade Street, said the Richie Place property in Maplewood being considered for development tonight was sold at a sheriff's sale today. Mr. Gores said it seems moot to be going forward with this issue. Jolene Gores, 2870 Arcade Street, said this property was intended to be open space in 1986. John and Jolene Gores said they do not want the commission to recommend approval of this proposal. Commissioner Trippler asked staff if the developer is no longer the owner of this property, do they have an interest in bringing this forward. Planner Martin responded that if a new owner desired not to go forward with this proposal they could simply pull the plans from consideration and that would be the end of the application. Planner Martin said that as it stands now, the city has accepted the developer's application and is now obligated to act on this application as it is. Tom Roycraft, 2910 Arcade Street, Little Canada, said that during a 1996 consideration of a proposal for a lot development, the City of Maplewood determined that there was no feasibility to develop due to the soils and now say that this was not correct or didn't happen. Ron Cockriel, chairperson for the Maplewood Area Historical Commission, said he walked the site on the request of some of the neighbors. Mr. Cockriel said he did not see any artifacts on the property. Mr. Cockriel said he also researched the Minnesota Historical site and did not see where any burial grounds would have existed on the property. Mr. Cockriel said he feels the property should remain guided open space and should be pursued as open space land. Commissioner Yarwood asked staff if the commission's recommendation for the 2030 Comprehensive Plan update was to be guided residential. Planner Martin responded that the commission's recommendation was to guide this parcel as low density residential. Packet Page Number Page 186 of 408 William Hansen, 2836 Keller Parkway, asked the commission to turn down this application. Ron Brown, 2776 Keller Parkway, asked how much area of the land is open space. Planner Martin said the total acreage of the lots is 2.24 acres with a portion of the acreage on the south of each lot to be converted to a wetland buffer easement. There were no further comments so the extended public hearing was closed. Commissioner Yarwood said the open space designation is appropriate for this site and that there is a reasonable argument to keep it guided open space. Commissioner Fischer commented that in past situations where a land owner may have wanted to develop a property with the city wanting to keep it guided open space, then the city would need to purchase the land if there is money available for purchase. Commissioner Hess said he is in agreement with Mr. Yarwood's comments and additionally with the wetland buffer easement and soils question it has yet to prove the land is buildable. Commission Martin commented that it is not within the purview of the planning commission to consider the ownership of the property or whether the soil borings have been done and the commission should stay within their purview. Commissioner Trippler said the open space designation has not changed and the fact that if someone new owns the property it does not change the open space designation. Mr. Trippler suggested the commission recommend that the council explore the possibility of acquiring this parcel. Mr. Trippler also suggested that if it is zoned R-1 the city approve the split into two single-family lots with Lots Three and Four with Lot Two as an outlot. Commissioner Yarwood corrected Commissioner Trippler that the property is already zoned R-1, but is being considered tonight for land use designation change from open space to R- 1. Commissioner Martin said as this property is privately owned he does not feel it should have a land use designation of open space. The developer spoke saying they have been working with the lender for both ownership and development of the property. He referred to comments from John Gore and explained that the sheriff's sale was the standard procedure for the lender to get back into ownership of the property. The developer further explained that the lender, as the owner, wants to see this property developed as proposed and will not be satisfied with half of the amount of lots. Commissioner Yarwood moved to deny the resolution approving a comprehensive land use plan amendment from OS (open space) to R1 (single dwelling) for the 2.24-acre site, located south of Labore Road and East of Arcade Street. Commissioner Hess seconded Commissioner Yarwood said his motion to deny is because he thinks it is reasonable to Packet Page Number Page 187 of 408 keep this land open space based on the surrounding land uses Commissioner Trippler said since it is private property and Lots Three and Four are developable, the city may find itself in dire straits if it tried to keep this property as open space. Mr. Trippler said he would support the motion if it included the city attempting to acquire the property to become city open space property. Commissioner Desai asked Mr. Trippler if the city council would not consider acquiring this land, would the land designation revert to changing it from open space to R-1. Mr. Trippler responded affirmatively that they would have to. Commissioner Yarwood said he would accept the friendly amendment to his motion to have the city look into the possibility of acquiring the property so the open space designation would be appropriate for that. Planner Finwall explained that it has not been the city's policy to place an open space designation on privately owned lands and it could be perceived as a taking if the land is developable. Commissioner Fischer said that in the past there have been changes in what was designated as open space. Ms. Fischer said that at one point cemeteries were designated open space, but when the cemeteries were recognized as being privately owned then the open space designation was changed. The commission then voted: Ayes - Yarwood, Trippler, Hess Nays -Martin, Pearson, Fischer, Desai, Walton The motion to deny failed. Commissioner Pearson said he feels that as part of the commission's update of the 2030 comprehensive plan that they attempted to guide privately held open space land to a residential designation. Mr. Pearson said if the city was interested in this property for purchase as open space land they should have been proactive before now and with the city's financial situation he does not think purchase will be possible. Mr. Pearson said he feels that who exists as the owner of this property is irrelevant to the commission and they need to act on this request tonight as it is proposed. Commissioner Pearson moved: Adoption of the resolution approving a comprehensive land use plan amendment from OS (Open Space) to R1 (Single Dwelling) for the 2.24-acre site located south of Labore Road and East of Arcade Street. Approval is based on the following guiding principles and reasons as noted in the comprehensive land use plan: a. The proposed future land use guide would be consistent with existing zoning. b. The proposed development would provide a wider range of housing types in this neighborhood. Packet Page Number Page 188 of 408 c. The proposed future land use guide would be consistent with the comprehensive plan of Little Canada. This action is subject to the approval of this land use plan amendment by the Metropolitan Council. 2. Approval of the lot split site plan date-stamped August 25, 2008, for a lot division request to subdivide the 2.24-acre lot located south of Labore Road and East of Arcade Street into three single family lots. This lot division approval is subject to the following conditions: a. Satisfy the requirements set forth in the staff report authored by Mr. Kummer, dated November 5, 2008. b. Satisfy the requirements set forth in the staff report authored by Ms. Finwall, dated November 7, 2008. c. Satisfy the requirements set forth in the staff report authored by Ms. Gaynor, dated November 10, 2008. d. Receive approval of final plat from the City of Little Canada for the rest of the 16-unit development. e. The applicant shall pay cash connection charges for the new vacant single-family lots for connection to the water main and sanitary sewer main. f. Deeds describing the three new legal descriptions, including the required drainage and utility easement descriptions, must be drafted and stamped by the city. Ramsey County requires this acknowledgment of approval to record the deeds. These must be recorded with Ramsey County within one year of the date of the lot division approval or the lot split will become null and void (city code requirement). g. The City of Maplewood entering into a joint powers agreement with the City of Little Canada for the provision of police and fire services and utilities. h. Prior to issuance of a grading or building permit for the new homes on the new lots the following must be submitted to staff for approval: 1) Proof that Ramsey County has recorded the lot division. 2) A signed certificate of survey showing the location of all property lines and the location of the new homes. 3) Grading and drainage plan. 4) All necessary permits for sanitary sewer and water must be obtained. Commissioner Desai seconded Packet Page Number Page 189 of 408 Commissioners Pearson and Desai accepted a friendly amendment to divide the motion and vote separately on Item 1 and Item 2. The commission then voted on the above Item 1: Ayes -Desai, Fischer, Martin, Pearson, Walton Nays - Yarwood, Trippler, Hess The motion passed. Commissioner Yarwood said his reason for voting no is he thinks it is appropriate to keep it open space based on surrounding land uses. Commissioner Trippler said his reason for voting no is he wants to send a clear message to the city that he would like to see the city acquire the property and keep it open if possible. Commissioner Hess said his reason for voting no echoes Mr. Yarwood's and Mr. Trippler's reasons. Commissioner Trippler suggested that Item 2 be changed to say "subdivide the 2.24-acre lot located south of Labore Road and East of Arcade Street into two single family lots (Lots 3 and 4) and one outlot (Lot 2)." This friendly amendment was not accepted and the commission voted on the above Item 2 as stated: The commission then voted on the above Item 2: Ayes -Desai, Fischer, Martin, Pearson Nays -Walton, Yarwood, Trippler, Hess The vote was tied and the motion failed. Packet Page Number Page 190 of 408 Attachment 17 MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING CITY COUNCIL LITTLE CANADA, MINNESOTA OCTOBER 24, 2007 Pursuant to due call and notice thereof a regular meeting of the City Council of Little Canada, Minnesota was convened on the 24th day of October, 2007 in the Council Chambers of the City Center located at 515 Little Canada Road in said City. PRELIMINARY The City Attorney reported that at its September 26, 2007 meeting PLAT & the City Council continued action on the proposed the Richie Place VARIANCE - Preliminary Plat until this evening's meeting. The Attorney also noted RICHIE since the September 26th meeting, Lauren Development applied for a PLACE Variance for cul-de-sac length. That variance request has been reviewed by the Planning Commission. The City Attorney noted that the Richie Place Preliminary Plat is now before the City Council for consideration, and the Variance request should be considered by the Board of Adjustments & Appeals. The City Attorney indicated that in considering the Variance request, the Board of Adjustments & Appeals must consider Section 1010.010 of the Subdivision Code, which is laid out in the City Planner's report dated October 5, 2007. This sections requires that a hardship exists in order to warrant the granting of a variance. Any action granting a variance should be supported by specific findings. Mayor Blesener recommended that the Council convene as the Board of Adjustments & Appeals in order to consider Lauren Development's variance request. Mr. Montour introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTIONNO. 2007-10-275 - RECESSING AS THE CITY COUNCIL AND CONVENING AS THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS & APPEALS IN ORDER TO CONSIDER THE LA UREN DEVELOPMENT VARIANCE REQUEST The foregoing resolution was duly seconded by McGraw. Ayes (5). Packet Page Number Page 191 of 408 Nays (0). Resolution declared adopted. Blesener opened the Public Hearing to consider Lauren Development's request for a Variance from the Subdivision Code requirement which limits permanent cul-de-sac length to a maximum of 500 feet. The City Planner reported that the Variance requested is to extend a cul-de-sac within Richie Place approximately 1,050 feet in length. The Planner noted that there are two sections of the Code relative to cul-de-sac length. The first limits permanent cul-de-sac length to a maximum of 500 feet. The second requires the developer to extend streets within the plat to provide future development access to neighboring unsubdivided properties. The City Planner indicated it does not appear there are any alternatives to provide future development access to the properties adjoining Richie Place other than the long cul-de-sac. This cul-de-sac provides for future street connections to both the east and west. The City Planner also noted that storm water management plan for Richie Place improves this storm water management within the area. The City Planner indicated that it was his opinion that the Richie Place Preliminary Plat is consistent with the goals of the City's Comprehensive Plan and that it meets Single-Family Residential (R-1) Zoning District standards. The Planner also indicated it was his opinion that the requested Variance for cul-de-sac length was consistent with the hardship requirements outlined in the Subdivision Code. The City Planner recommended approval of both the Preliminary Plat and the Variance. The City Administrator noted that in addition to the materials contained in the agenda packets, there was a considerable amount of materials that have been submitted by various parties. These materials are contained in the Additions to the Agenda packet. Kip Johnson, AC Associates, project engineer for the developer, indicated that it is Lauren Development's position that the cul-de- sac as proposed is necessary in order to provide development access for properties to the east and west of Richie Place. Johnson reviewed in detail the letter submitted by Phil Soby, Lauren Development, outlining the history of the Richie Place development proposal as well as the justification for the Variance request. Johnson also reviewed the Richie Place plat design as well as development options for the adjacent properties on the east Packet Page Number Page 192 of 408 and west. It was noted that the future easterly extension of the road would connect to the Beam Avenue/Kohlman Lane area. Allan asked if an easterly extension would benefit the Scully property. Blesener replied that it would. He also noted that extension of the road to the east would allow utilities to be looped through the area. The City Engineer reported that Little Canada is working with the City of Maplewood to loop both sewer and water main through this area. Looping of sanitary sewer will eliminate the need for lift stations. Johnson presented a diagram of a typical 500 foot cul-de-sac and noted that the City's R-1 standards would allow fora 161ot development. Even though the Richie Place cul-de-sac is proposed at 1,050 feet in length, the density is at 161ots, 13 of which are in Little Canada and 3 in Maplewood. Christopher Kalla, attorney representing Lauren Development, noted that the 500-foot diagram presented could not be developed on the Richie property given the width of the property. The diagram was being presented for illustration purposes. Allan asked if there is any chance that Maplewood will not approve the three lots proposed in that City. Johnson reported that he has had discussions with the Maplewood Planner who appears to be in support of the plat. Blesener noted for the record a July 31, 20071etter from the Watershed relative to wetland determination in the LaBore Road area. He also noted the email from Tina Carstens of the Watershed relative to the wetland delineation for the Richie Place development. Carstens noted that she reviewed this delineation with Lynda Peterson of the Board of Water & Soil Resources and Tom Peterson of the Ramsey Conservation District and both agree with her approval of the delineation. Blesener also noted for the record, a letter from three property owners to the west of proposed Richie Place asking that their property not be landlocked. At this point the meeting was opened to comments from the general public. John and Jolene Gores, 2870 Arcade Street in Maplewood, appeared. John Gores indicated that throughout this process, the City of Little Canada has taken the position that a variance was not necessary for the Richie Place proposed cul-de-sac length at 1,050 feet. Gores also noted that the City Council denied the Richie Packet Page Number Page 193 of 408 Place Preliminary Plat on September 26, 2007. Blesener noted that the plat was not denied; a resolution to approve the plat failed. Gores indicated that now the developer has requested a Variance when the City said a Variance was not necessary. Gores pointed out that the basis for a variance has to be based on inequities related to the subject property such as topography or soils. Gores noted that the developer has stated that his reason for applying for a variance is to avoid litigation. Gores pointed out a copy of the Variance application noting that no reasons for the Variance request are listed on the application. Gores indicated that the City Planner stated at the Planning Commission meeting that he could give the reasons for the Variance and that he did it all the time. Gores noted that this evening the developer has submitted ahand- written letter outlining his reasons for requesting a Variance. Gores noted that the stub road to the east stops at the edge of a ridge. He also noted that the City's ordinance prohibits dead-end streets. Gores reported that he has discussed the Richie Place Preliminary Plat with former Mayor Hanson and indicated that Hanson noted that when Minnesota Street was first developed, it was a dead end street that ended at a ravine. A car had driven off the end of the street and one of the people in the vehicle was killed. Gores felt that the stub road proposed in the Richie Plat was setting up a highly dangerous situation. Gores reported that at the Planning Commission meeting, there was no explanation given for the Variance, and the Planning Commission was told to apply the wrong standard in their consideration of the Variance. Gores noted that the Code requires that an extreme hardship be present to warrant granting a Variance. He outlined the standards that must be met as outlined in the Zoning Code. Gores felt there were no special or highly unique circumstances affecting this property that would warrant the Variance. He also felt that this particular property was no different that the neighboring properties. Gores felt that the only unique circumstance is that the Richie property is close to former Mayor Fahey's property and that Fahey wants to develop his property. Gores indicated that this is not a hardship or a special or unique circumstance to the land. Gores also felt that the fact that the developer must plan for future development is not a hardship. Gores indicated that the developer only has to provide an opportunity for future development of adj acent properties, and does not have to bring a road to the property edge. It is up to the adj acent land owners as to how to developer their land. Packet Page Number Page 194 of 408 Gores felt that holding Lauren Development to the 500 foot cul-de- sac maximum does not prevent the developer from the reasonable use of his land. Gores noted that a previous concept submittal by the developer showed a 500 foot cul-de-sac. The neighborhood was in support of that concept. Gores noted that in reviewing that concept the City Planner indicated that a future road connection to the west could be provided adjacent to Lot 10. The Planning Commission pointed out that a future road connection to the east could be provided with the loss of one lot. Gores pointed out that there are alternatives that would allow the development of the Richie property, providing development potential to the east and west, while maintaining a 500 foot limit on the cul-de-sac. Gores indicated that Lauren Development has not shown that he cannot make reasonable and minimum use of the land without the Variance. Blesener pointed out that the City of Maplewood has a maximum cul-de-sac length of 1,000 feet. Gores indicated there are other issues the development will have to address with the City of Maplewood. Gores pointed out that the Variance is also detrimental to public health and safety noting James Benshoff's, Traffic Engineer, report dated September 26, 2007 relative to emergency vehicle access. Gores pointed out that it only takes one incident where an emergency vehicle cannot get into an area. Gores stated that he realizes Mayor Blesener lives on a long cul-de-sac, but pointed out that that street was developed before the 500 foot maximum was put in place. Gores noted that the Richie property is a border property on steep, hilly, and wooded land. He noted the existence of Ramsey County and Maplewood open space in this area. Gores again raised the public safety concern, and asked why the City would want to take the chance of allowing a long cul-de-sac. He noted that a member of the Planning Commission indicated that he lived on a long cul-de-sac in St. Louis and did not have any problems. Gores pointed out that this is not St. Louis. Gores further noted that the area is environmentally sensitive. He noted that the neighbors have serious concerns with the wetland delineation that was done. Gores questioned the soil borings that were done which did not reflect the Seeleyville muck that is in this area. Gores noted that there is Seeleyville muck at the spot that the Richie Place cul-de-sac ends to the west. Gores asked why Little Canada would want to grant a variance for a 1,050 cul-de-sac when the additional length only benefits Packet Page Number Page 195 of 408 Maplewood property. He also noted that Little Canada will have to pay for the maintenance of this cul-de-sac section that serves Maplewood properties. He pointed out that access can be provided to the east and west without a Variance for cul-de-sac length. Gores also felt a shorter cul-de-sac would be preferable from an environmental standpoint. Gores commented that it appears that the City is trying to get roads to the Michael Fahey property. Gores felt that the road design would only force Mr. Quam to develop his land in a way that he might not want to. It was Gores' opinion that the Preliminary Plat as proposed would devalue the area. He pointed out that the long cul-de-sac only serves property in Maplewood and that Little Canada will pay for the maintenance of that road. Gores felt that the Preliminary Plat conflicted with the character of Little Canada. Gores reviewed Exhibit 21 of the Howard Roston correspondence dated October 10th, noting that the average cul-de-sac length in the northwest quadrant of Little Canada was 422.89 feet long. He noted that there are some longer cul-de-sacs in this area of the City, but they were put in before the current ordinance was in place. Gores noted that the Canadian Woods Preliminary Plat was granted a cul-de-sac variance of 50 feet, but the basis for that was to align the road so that Mr. Johnson could develop his property. Gores again stated that the Variance for cul-de-sac length results in a plat that is out of character with the area and undermines property values. This Variance is not being requested to correct inequities from an extreme hardship. Gores pointed out that there is no hardship present to justify the Variance. He also noted that if adj acent property owners want to develop their land, they can get together and do so. Gores stated that it was his opinion that none of the hardship tests have been met. However, he realizes that the Council will approve the Preliminary Plat anyway. Gores indicated that the developer applying for a Variance to avoid litigation, has pretty much guaranteed that litigation will occur. Gores pointed out that the developer has provided no reasons for the Variance, however, the City Planner has. Jolene Gores noted that Mike Fahey had an opportunity to develop his property in the 1990's when he subdivided a lot for Jim Olson. Blesener noted that the fact that Mike Fahey was the Mayor of Little Canada has no basis for how the Council acts on this Preliminary Plat. Blesener pointed out that Fahey pays property taxes and has the same rights as anyone else in the City. Blesener Packet Page Number Page 196 of 408 also noted that Lauren Development also has a right to developer this land. McGraw questioned Mrs. Gores' statement and asked where in the Code it states that someone only gets one chance to develop their property. Jolene Gores pointed out that there are ways to develop the Richie property that do not require a Variance and comply with City Codes. Gores noted that the City is considering a Variance for a cul-de-sac that is more than twice the maximum allowed under the Code. Mrs. Gores noted that the City first indicated that a Variance was not necessary for the cul-de-sac length, and is now considering a Variance for the cul-de-sac length. Mrs. Gores stated that they are concerned about drainage and water issues. Mrs. Gores felt that adding rooftops and a street next to their property will have an adverse impact on drainage. Montour pointed out that pond that is part of this development. Gores indicated that they would like to have the engineering verified on this pond. Gores noted that there is a ravine on the west side of this property that is lower than the proposed pond. Montour noted that if the cul-de-sac is held to a 500 foot length, a new Council could change the Code and increase maximum cul- de-sac lengths. Gores felt that this was speculative and indicated that the City has to deal with the Code that is on the books today. Gores also noted that the Code says that the City must provide for future road connections, not bring the pavement to the edge of adjoining property. Keis noted that the City must consider how to connect future streets in this area. The other option would be to allow the area to develop with a series of 500 foot cul-de-sacs. Mrs. Gores again noted the Seeleyville muck at the end of the proposed cul-de-sac. Mrs. Gores indicated that this area is saturated. She reported that they currently do not get flooding on their property from the Richie property, but was concerned that this would change given the soil types. Allan asked if the Gores have discussed their concerns with the developer. Mrs. Gores reported that the developer has not spoken with them, and has only had contact with NIr. Quam after he cut down his trees. Allan pointed out that the trees were not cut down. Mrs. Gores indicated that it looked like the developer's contractor drove over the trees. Packet Page Number Page 197 of 408 The Gores pointed out that in approving the development as proposed, the City is only speculating that the adjacent properties want to develop in the manner that will be dictated by the road connections from Richie Place. Mrs. Gores asked who will pay for the road connection. Allan replied that the developer will be required to pay for street improvements within the plat. Keis stated that he appreciates the Gores' opinion, but noted that 50 different developers could propose 50 different concept plans. Keis stated that he does not know what the best plan would be, but pointed out that the plan being considered by the Council looks to be a good one. The City Engineer indicated that the soil borings done by the developer did not indicate Seeleyville muck in the area of the proposed cul-de-sac. A boring was done in a location that would be next to the cul-de-sac curb line. The Engineer pointed out, however, that the soil conditions further west are not known. The Engineer also reported that there are ways to deal with muck. The much could be subcut and replaced and the area surcharged. Blesener asked about run-off rates. The City Engineer pointed out that the developer must maintain current rates of discharge. He noted that the drainage will be improved given the Watershed's requirements for infiltration and on-site retention. The Engineer noted that the developer is required to ensure that the first inch of run-off does not leave the site. In the event of a larger storm, run- off must be treated and no more than currently occurs. The Engineer pointed out that the overflow for the proposed pond is away from the Gores property. Water ends up in the wetland area to the south of the Richie property as currently occurs. Blesener asked about the proposed street stub to the east, asking if it would be blacktopped and curbed right away or left as a grassy area. The City Planner recommended that it be left grassy until the point that it is extended east to serve adjacent properties. The City Administrator recommended that the City escrow funds to provide for construction of this future connection to the property line. The City Administrator noted Mr. Gores' earlier comments that the developer submitted a hand written letter outlining his reasons for requesting a Variance. The Administrator noted that the letter was typed, not hand written. With regard to Gores' comments about the road to service Maplewood lots, the Administrator noted that there are two options. Either the City enter into a Joint Powers Agreement with Maplewood relative to Packet Page Number Page 198 of 408 the maintenance of this road, or that portion of the development located in Maplewood be annexed to Little Canada. The Administrator also noted that Mr. Benshoof's report mentioned by Mr. Gores said that a 1,000 foot cul-de-sac was less safe than a 500 foot cul-de-sac. He did not say that the cul-de-sac would be unsafe. The Administrator also noted that Mr. Benshoof said that the road connection to LaBore Road would not impose a traffic problem. With regard to Mr. Gores' comments about cul-de-sac length in the northeast quadrant of the City, the Administrator pointed out that Beam Avenue is a very long cul-de-sac. He felt adding that cul-de-sac length into the average number quoted by Mr. Gore would increase that average number substantially. Blesener noted that Beam Avenue is a street that is maintained by the City of Maplewood. It is an extremely long cul-de-sac serving several lots. Approximately 5 or 6 of these lots are located in Little Canada. Blesener also noted that the eventual connection of Richie Place to the Beam Avenue area will allow Little Canada to bring water main into the Beam Avenue neighborhood. The City Administrator pointed out that Little Canada and Maplewood are undertaking a feasibility study relative to the looping of water main through the area by Little Canada and sanitary sewer main through the area by Maplewood. Bringing Maplewood sewer into this area will avoid the need for multiple lift stations. Bill Schorn appeared before the Council and stated that he agreed with the concerns raised by Mr. and Mrs. Gores. Schorn questioned the validity of the wetland delineation that was done, and pointed out that given the muck to the west, it is unlikely that the road will ever be extended that direction. Schorn also pointed out that there are wetlands to the east that will make development difficult. Schorn felt that the City was skirting the issues based on their desire for a road in this area. Schorn felt that the City will continue to extend the maximum length of cul-de-sacs until Mike Fahey can develop his property. Schorn felt that there was no hardship present to justify granting a Variance. He also noted that if there is a conflict in the City Code relative to cul-de-sac length, the City is obligated to apply the most restrictive of the clauses. Schorn noted, however, that the City wants the street developed and will cram it down the neighborhood's throats just to give Mike Fahey what he wants. Schorn also noted that when Bill Richie subdivided his property, the City required a covenant be signed by Mr. Richie that there would be no further development of his land. Packet Page Number Page 199 of 408 However, the City did not follow through and put the covenant in place. The City Administrator reviewed the history of the property divisions of the Richie property. He noted that a property division was approved in February, 2000 and lapsed because Mr. Richie did not finalize the property division recording. That property division was reconsidered and approved in May of 2001. A covenant was drafted, but not executed because, again, Mr. Richie did not finalize the recording of the property division. In September of 2001, Mr. Schorn approached the City regarding subdivision of another lot from the Richie property. The covenant was discussed at that time and a motion was passed "Approving the concept of eliminating covenant agreement for Richie property based on Mr. Bill Schorn's interest in subdividing a lot on the east end of this property..." The reason that the covenant was no longer deemed necessary is the determination had recently been made not to adopt a thoroughfare plan for the area. Bill Schorn could not recall these specifics, and the City Administrator indicated that Mr. Schorn should contact him and the documentation would be provided to him. Schorn stated that the law is the law and noted that he has always had to abide by the City Code. Schorn felt that a Variance should not be approved for the Richie Place cul-de-sac as there is no hardship present. He suggested that some compromise be worked out on this development. Schorn noted that one of the concepts presented by the developer had a 500 foot cul-de-sac. It was only after the City indicated the need for road connections to the east and west and the cul-de-sac length was proposed at 1,050 feet. Schorn noted that this cul-de-sac length does not meet City Ordinance requirements. Schorn felt that approval of the Variance will put the City at risk for litigation and that the developer would be named in that litigation. Tom Roycraft, Arcade Street, indicated that he agrees with the comments of Mr. Gores and Mr. Schorn. He noted that the neighborhood did not have an issue with the concept that proposed a 500 foot cul-de-sac, and noted that it was the City that then expanded the development. Roycraft stated that he is amazed at the verbiage of the City Planner on this. Roycraft noted that when he served on the City's Planning Commission, a Variance was an exception that was based on a hardship. Roycraft felt that the City Planner was providing the developer with the basis of his Variance request, and Roycraft took exception to that. Packet Page Number Page 200 of 408 Roycraft pointed out the City Engineer's previous report that indicates that there are poorer soils as the property gets nearer to Arcade Street. Roycraft felt that the City was forgetting this fact because it wants to get development beyond the Richie Plat. Roycraft urged the Council to limit the cul-de-sac length to 500 feet and stated that there is no hardship present to justify a Variance. Roycraft also stated that he is disappointed with the meetings that have been held on this matter and felt that the City Planner has displayed a lack of professionalism. Roycraft stated that he would like to be present the next time the City Planner's contract is considered for renewal. Gary Quam, 2920 LaBore Road, reported that the developer did make an honest mistake when he cut across a corner of his property and plowed over some trees. Quam reported that the developer did apologize for it. Quam reported that he does not have any designs for the future development of his property. He indicated that he likes his neighbors and would not want to see their property landlocked. Quam felt that his neighbors did have the right to develop in the future. Quam stated that his position was that he wanted to be sure that as development of the area proceeds that it is done right. Quam also expressed concern about the current Watershed model and felt it was not working. Quam pointed out some of the retention pond leading into Gervais Lake and indicated that the quality of the water in these ponds is very poor, thus Gervais Lake water quality is deteriorating. Quam also noted that the holding pond in the Gervais Hills development is full, and thought that part of the purpose of this pond was for infiltration. Quam noted the need for holding ponds and water treatment when vegetation is being replaced with hard surface. He also pointed out the existence of a ravine through the Richie property as well as his own that is lower than the proposed holding pond in the Richie plat. Quam again pointed out that the existing Watershed models are not working. He noted that this is a very sensitive area, and wanted to make sure the prof ect was done correctly. Blesener stated the he did not necessarily disagree, but pointed out that the Richie plat as proposed meets the City's Code requirements. He pointed out that the Council held a workshop meeting to discuss Codes and the need for more stringent standards in environmentally sensitive areas. However, the Richie Place plat can only be held to the Codes that are in effect today. Packet Page Number Page 201 of 408 Quam pointed out that the current Code limits maximum cul-de- saclength to 500 feet, and felt that this limitation could be used for force a compromise with the developer. Quam indicated that he will probably not develop his property, and pointed out that he would not be opposed to new standards for the area that would require larger lots, more tree preservation, and better wetland control. McGraw questioned how the holding pond will work given that the ravine is lower. Quam replied that the developer will have to severely change the grades in this area which will result in the loss of a significant amount of trees. Quam informed the Council how some driveway improvements he made on his property changed the water dynamics on his property. The City Engineer indicated that the Watershed has reviewed the grading and drainage plans to ensure that run-off will flow into the pond. The Engineer stated that there are some back yard areas along Lots 1 through 5 that will drain to the swamp. The majority of the run-off from this development flows to the road and into the pond providing rate control and storm water treatment. The Engineer noted that drainage and ponding requirements have changed over the years becoming more restrictive. The Engineer felt these requirement changes will continue in the more restrictive direction. Roycraft again pointed out that soils conditions worsen toward the west and asked how much fill would be necessary to correct those soils. The City Engineer was not sure, and noted that while property owners have indicated there is muck to the west, the soil borings do not show much on the Richie property. The Engineer noted that at some point it is not economically feasible to do soil corrections Roycraft felt that if the Richie Place plat goes through, there should be soil improvements done to the west. He noted that there is a sink hole on the Battista property that is eroding onto his land. Blesener suggested that Roycraft discuss this situation with the City Engineer. Christopher Kalla, attorney representing Lauren Development, reminded the Council that one of the primary issues is developing land to its highest and best use. He noted the need to access the triangular piece of property in the City of Maplewood, as well as the fact that the City Code requires developers to provide future connections to adj acent undeveloped property. To accomplish this, Packet Page Number Page 202 of 408 Lauren Development has submitted a 161ot single family development. Kalla noted Mr. Gores contention that to provide access to an adjacent property does not mean that a road must be paved to the edge of the parcel. Kalla pointed out that a stub road to the east could be gated. Kalla also pointed out Gores' comments that this was speculative planning. Kalla stated that he called it planning for the future, and felt that was a goal of the City. Kalla noted that the property is zoned single-family residential, and along cul-de-sac is proposed to fully access the developable property as well as plan for the future development of adjacent properties. John Sculley, LaBore Road, pointed out that the developer proposed a concept that did not include development of the Maplewood property. He asked why the change. Blesener replied that the original wetland delineation was done utilizing aerial photography, and it has been determined that this delineation was not correct. Another delineation was done, walking the property, and the wetland boundaries were decreased. After completion of that delineation, the developer realized that the Maplewood property was developable. Blesener also noted that the City had asked that the developer provide future street access for the undeveloped parcels on the east and west of the Richie property. Sculley noted that at a previous Council meeting Dave Himmelbach asked that the City require the developer to clean up an area on the shared boundary of the Himmelbach and Richie property. The City Council had suggested that this was a civil matter. Sculley indicated that it would not be a hardship to the developer to clean up this area and suggested that the City encourage the developer to do so. Montour noted that Lauren Development did not cause the problem. Sculley agreed, but pointed out that Lauren Development purchased the property and everything that comes with it. Sculley noted the traffic on LaBore Road and asked if the City could discuss with the County the possibility of putting in a right- turn lane to the new street. The City Administrator pointed out that LaBore Road is now a City street, and stated that this suggestion could be explored. Blesener asked if Mr. Sculley wanted to develop his property at some point. Sculley replied that he did. Blesener noted that providing road access to the east in the Richie plat would provide the opportunity for future access to the Sculley property. Sculley Packet Page Number Page 203 of 408 noted that the street would first go through the Himmelbach and then the Battista property. The City Attorney noted for the record the additional documents received by the City that are included in the Additions to the Agenda. These are: Lauren & Company -Documentation for Variance Request; September 7th Planner's Report; Lauren & Company - Tree/Landscaping Proposal; Letter from David Himmelbach; Additional Neighborhood Submittals (Gores/Roycraft/Schorn); Planner's Response to Additional Neighborhood Submittals; Maplewood Interest in Cooperative Utility Project. Dave Himmelbach asked that his letter be read aloud, which the Mayor did. The City Attorney noted the standards relative to undue hardship as cited in the case of Nolan versus the City of Eden Prairie filed on May 23, 2000, and indicated that this case controls those standards. The Attorney recommended that at the conclusion of the Public Hearing, the Council acting as the Board of Adjustment & Appeals make a determination on the cul-de-sac Variance requested by Lauren Development. There was no one else present wishing to comment on the Variance. Upon motion by McGraw, seconded by Keis, the public hearing was closed. Blesener noted that the Planning Commission, City Planner, and the City Attorney have indicated that hardship test to warrant the granting of this variance has been met. Montour noted that there has been a lot of discussion relative to this Variance request. Montour felt that the City had to look toward the future and plan for the development of this area. He noted that the developments being presented to the City Council are getting harder and harder to review given that there are just the more difficult areas of the City that are undeveloped. Montour stated that he supported the Variance request. Packet Page Number Page 204 of 408 McGraw felt that the Council had to do what is right for the City into perpetuity. He also thanked Mr. Quam for his courtesy and respect that he showed the City throughout this process. Allan felt that the residents' concerns that have been presented to the Council are heartfelt, and indicated that the Council shares many of these concerns. She noted that the Council will be working to change some aspects of the ordinance requiring larger lots, more tree preservation, etc. in sensitive areas. However, these Codes have not been changed as of yet. McGraw pointed out that this is a difficult decision for the Council, given that the interests of all involved are so different. Some people are seeking to protect their property, and others are seeking to develop their property. McGraw indicated that he will vote in favor of the Variance. Keis stated that he will also vote to support the Variance and he agreed with the comments made by the other Council Members. The City must look to the future and provide for road connections to the adj acent undeveloped properties. Keis stated that he respects all the opinions that have been voiced throughout this process. While he may not agree with all the opinions, Keis indicated that he appreciated the input. Blesener noted that the City must look toward the future and consider what is best for both the Richie property and the surrounding properties. Blesener pointed out past actions of the City when street access was not provided because property owners indicated that they would never develop. He specifically noted the Melancon property and the now pending development of that land. Blesener felt that the City would be short-sighted in not providing for the future development of the properties adjacent to the Richie land. Blesener felt the Richie development was a proper development and that the Variance was justified. Mr. Blesener introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTIONNO. 2007-10-276-APPROVINGA VARIANCE FROM THE SUBDIVISION CODE ALLOWING A CUL-DE- SACLENGTH OF 1, 050 FEET FOR THE RICHIE PLACE CUL-DE-SAC AND ADOPTING THE FINDINGS OF FACT RELATIVE TO THIS VARIANCE AS PRESENTED BY THE CITY PLANNER Packet Page Number Page 205 of 408 Findings of Fact for Approval Cul-de-Sac Length Variance Richie Place Little Canada, Minnesota 1. Richie Place is a proposed plat of single family lots, all of which meet the zoning ordinance regulations for area, width, and other applicable zoning standards. 2. The proposed platted area is guided by the Comprehensive Plan for low density residential uses. 3. The proposed Richie Place plat is consistent with the land use plan. 4. Each of the proposed lots exhibits a buildable area consistent with the zoning requirements for single family homes. 5. The proposed plat complies with all requirements of the City's ordinances, and was recommended for approval by the Planning Commission, with the conditions as follows: a. Consistent with Planning Commission recommendation, the applicant provides a landscaping plan for ponding area acceptable to the City. b. Consistent with Planning Commission recommendation, the applicant provides a tree preservation and replacement plan acceptable to the City. c. Consistent with Planning Commission recommendation, the applicant complies with all final recommendations of the City Engineer. d. Consistent with Planning Commission recommendation, afinal resolution for joint utility services for the area is reached with the City of Maplewood. 6. The plat's proposed street, at a length of approximately 1,050 feet, is eligible for a variance to the Subdivision Ordinance maximum of 500 feet, based on findings as follows: Packet Page Number Page 206 of 408 a. The Subdivision Ordinance requires that subdividers extend streets within a proposed plat to neighboring property to provide opportunity for future development, per Subdivision Ordinance Section 1006.030 (a). This results in an undue hardship pursuant to Subdivision Ordinance Section 1010.010 (a). b. There are no other options for access to this property that would provide the opportunity for full development of the subject property, nor to adjoining property that would be consistent with the Subdivision Ordinance as required by Subdivision Ordinance Section 1006.030 (a). This results in an undue hardship pursuant to Subdivision Ordinance Section 1010.010 (a). c. Undue hardship is present in putting the property to a reasonable use if strict compliance with the 500 foot cul-de-sac regulation is required, per Subdivision Ordinance Section 1010.010 (c). d. Without the variance, the applicant will not be able to put his property to reasonable use since much of the area will be inaccessible, per Section 1060.030 (c). This results in an undue hardship pursuant to Subdivision Ordinance Sections 1010.010 (a) and (c). e. The proposed cul-de-sac is temporary in nature, with the possibility that the street would be extended into adjoining property in the future, per Subdivision Ordinance Section 1060.030 (b) and (d). This finding is consistent with Subdivision Ordinance Section 1010.010 (b). f. When the stub-street is extended to Beam Avenue to the east, the cul-de-sac will no longer exceed the 500 foot regulation in accordance with Subdivision Ordinance Section 1006.030 (b). This finding is consistent with Subdivision Ordinance Section 1010.010 (b). 7. The development of the proposed plat will provide an opportunity to extend both public sanitary sewer and water systems to other properties in the area which do not have access to full services, consistent with City policy, and Subdivision Ordinance Section 1008. This finding is consistent with Subdivision Ordinance Section 1010.010 (b). Packet Page Number Page 207 of 408 8. Per City Comprehensive Plan policy, the lack of current public sanitary sewer and water in the area constitutes a hazard to environmental conditions and public safety. This finding is consistent with Subdivision Ordinance Section 1010.010 (b). 9. The plat provides future access to other portions of the neighboring properties which would otherwise be landlocked and unusable as required by Subdivision Ordinance Section 1006.030 (a). This finding is consistent with Subdivision Ordinance Section Sections 1010.010 (a) and (c). 10. The proposed plat improves stormwater runoff, water quality, and flooding conditions in the area through the use of detention and infiltration ponding to divert and control stormwater which is currently a threat to adjoining property, consistent with Subdivision Ordinance Section 1006.050. This finding is consistent with Subdivision Ordinance Section Sections 1010.010 (b). 11. The conditions cited herein constitute special and unique circumstances with would deprive the applicant of the reasonable use of his land, consistent with the requirements of Subdivision Ordinance Section 1010.010 (a). 12. The granting of the variance will not only not be detrimental to public health, welfare, and nearby properties, but will improve conditions of stormwater, flooding, and utility services, consistent with Subdivision Ordinance Section 1010.010 (b). 13. The variance is intended to correct inequities resulting from extreme hardship, including topography and soils which limit location of potential connecting roads, and other physical factors including shape of the property as required by Subdivision Ordinance Section 1010.010 (c). 14. The applicant has complied with the City's requests for information and met the requirements for Preliminary Plat and variance applications as required by Subdivision Ordinance Section 1010.020. Packet Page Number Page 208 of 408 The foregoing resolution was duly seconded by Montour. Ayes (5). Nays (0). Resolution declared adopted. Ms. Allan introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTIONNO. 2007-10-277-ADJOURNING AS THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT & APPEALS AND RECONVENING AS THE CITY COUNCIL The foregoing resolution was duly seconded by McGraw. Ayes (5). Nays (0). Resolution declared adopted. Mayor Blesener brought back to the table consideration of the application for Preliminary Plat for Richie Place consisting of 16 single-family lots, 13 of which are located in Little Canada. Blesener noted that the City Planner and the Planning Commission recommended approval of the Preliminary Plat. He noted that at the City Council's September 26th meeting a motion to approve the Preliminary Plat failed. A subsequent motion recommended reconsideration of the Preliminary Plat at a future Council meeting. Blesener noted that the public hearing on the Preliminary Plat was closed on September 26th. However, the Council would consider additional comments this evening. Dave Himmelbach asked if side yard setbacks greater than 7'/z feet could be required by the Board of Adjustments & Appeal. Blesener noted that the Board only considered the Variance request. With regard to previous comments about the dumping done by Mr. Richie, Himmelbach indicated that he was not exactly sure where the property line was until this spring when the survey was done. Jolene Gores questioned whether the proposed pond was in the best location. Blesener noted that all engineering requirements will have to be complied with as part of the final plat. Kip Johnson, engineer for the developer, indicated that the pond will work in the location that is proposed. Blesener asked about the ravine that is currently lower than the proposed pond. Johnson reported that grade corrections will be done so that water will drain into the pond. He also noted that storm sewer will be installed as will curb and gutter. Packet Page Number Page 209 of 408 McGraw asked about the impact of the grading on existing trees. McGraw stated that he was concerned that grading on the Richie property will damage the root systems of trees on adjacent properties. Johnson stated that they will be doing a tree inventory, and could locate additional trees on the Quam property, if Mr. Quam will allow them to do so. This inventory will identify trees that must be saved and help identify grade limits. Keis asked if the lot areas will be clear cut. He also asked that the developer save as many trees as possible. Johnson again indicated that a tree inventory will be done and the developer will save as many trees as possible. If necessary, retaining walls could be added to help save trees. Johnson pointed out that it is to the benefit of the developer to save as many trees as possible as this makes the lots more valuable. The City Attorney noted that the Public Hearing on the Preliminary Plat for Richie Place was closed at the September 26th Council meeting. Tom Roycraft indicated that whatever action the Council takes with regard to this plat is a vote for the future. Roycraft felt that to allow a cul-de-sac over 1,000 feet in length would be opening up a Pandora's box. Roycraft also expressed concern on whether or not the developer had the financial wherewithal to see this development through to completion. Blesener noted that the City will require a letter of credit to ensure that infrastructure improvements are completed and put in to meet City standards. John Gores asked if the stub street to the east would be paved. Montour replied that it would likely stay as a grass area. Gores stated that he would like to see the engineering that has been done for the drainage, noting that the ravine area runs across his property. The City Administrator indicated that the City Engineer can furnish the Gores with the data that it has at this point. He noted that this information will likely be revised as the project moves to Final Plat. Gores indicated that he wanted all comments that he has made at previous meetings of the Planning Commission and the City Council relative to Richie Place incorporated into the record. Quam felt that the Preliminary Plat as proposed would change the feel of the area. He did not believe the density was right for this environmentally sensitive area, and encouraged the Council to Packet Page Number Page 210 of 408 deny the plat. Blesener noted that the lots as proposed meet the City's Code requirements. Quam indicated that if current Watershed models are not working, it is up to the people in the area to try to force the issue. Quam felt that this was the situation with this proposed plat. Allan asked if the developer would consider reducing the lot density. Kalla replied that the developer is not prepared to reduce the number of lots. He noted that these are difficult times for developers, and the reduction of even one lot has a significant financial impact. Allan stated that she would like to see the density reduced, however, noted that the plat meets the City's Code requirements. Allan stated that it was her understanding that the artifacts that Mr. Himmelbach has mentioned at previous meetings are lost. Mr. Himmelbach stated that they are not lost; he just does not know exactly where they are. Mrs. Gores reported that she has contacted the Minnesota Historical Society relative to the artifacts, but they have not returned her call. She suggested that the City contact them. Keis indicated that he was not happy with the density of the development, but agreed with Council Member Allan that the development meets City Code requirements. Keis indicated that the Council has been in discussions about changing the Code for future developments, but at this point must measure the project against the Code that is currently in place. McGraw that density is an issue and urged the developer to work to save as many trees as possible. He also asked that the developer be extremely careful and not damage any of the trees on adjacent properties. Mr. Montour introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTIONNO. 2007-10-278 -APPROVING THE PRELIMINARYPLATFQR RICHIE PLACE CONSISTING OF SIXTEEN (16) LOTS, THIRTEEN (13) OF WHICHARE LOCATED IN LITTLE CANADA, AND ADOPTING THE FINDINGS OF FACT RELATIVE TO THE APPROVAL OF THIS PRELIMINARYPLAT ASSTATED BELOW, AND FURTHER SUBJECT TO: Packet Page Number Page 211 of 408 *COMPLIANCE WITH THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE CITYPLANNER AS OUTLINED IN HIS REPORT DATED SEPTEMBER 7, 2007; *SUBJECT TO THE COOPERATION OF MR. DAVID HIMMELBACH WITH THE MINNESOTA HISTORICAL SOCIETY ON THE ISSUE OFARTIFACTS IN THIS AREA; *SUBJECT TO THE CITY OF LITTLE CANADA ENTERING INTO A JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT WITH THE CITY OF MAPLEWOOD ON UTILITIES ISSUES OR THE DETACHMENT OF THE PORTION OF THE PROPERTY IN MAPLEWOOD AND ANNEXING IT TO LITTLE CANADA Findings of Fact for Approval Preliminary Plat Richie Place Little Canada, Minnesota 1. Richie Place is a proposed plat of single family lots, all of which meet the zoning ordinance regulations for area, width, and other applicable zoning standards of the R-1, Single Family Residential District. 2. The proposed platted area is guided by the Comprehensive Plan for low density residential uses. 3. The proposed Richie Place plat is consistent with the land use plan. 4. Each of the proposed lots exhibits a buildable area consistent with the zoning requirements for single family homes. 5. With the exception of the street length (as discussed in finding of fact number 7) the proposed plat complies with all requirements of the City's ordinances, and was recommended for approval by the Planning Commission, with the conditions as follows: a) Consistent with Planning Commission recommendation, the applicant provides a landscaping plan for ponding area acceptable to the City. b) Consistent with Planning Commission recommendation, the applicant provides a tree Packet Page Number Page 212 of 408 preservation and replacement plan acceptable to the City. c) Consistent with Planning Commission recommendation, the applicant complies with all final recommendations of the City Engineer. d) Consistent with Planning Commission recommendation, afinal resolution for joint utility services for the area is reached with the City of Maplewood. 6. The plat's proposed street, at a length of approximately 1,050 feet provides access to adjoining unsubdivided tracts as required by Subdivision Ordinance Section 1006.030 (a). 7. The 1,050 foot long street exceeds the 500 foot length for cul-de-sacs but meets the standards for, and has received, a variance to exceed this length pursuant to the procedures and requirements of the applicable Subdivision Ordinance Variance process found in Section 1010. Approval of the preliminary plat conditioned upon separate approval of the variance 8. The proposed street has been provided with the required temporary cul-de-sac per Subdivision Ordinance Section 1006.030 (d). 9. The development of the proposed plat will provide an opportunity to extend both public sanitary sewer and water systems to other properties in the area which do not have access to full services, per the requirements of Subdivision Ordinance Section 1008.040. 10. The lack of current public sanitary sewer and water in the area constitutes a hazard to environmental conditions and public safety. 11. The plat provides future access to other portions of the neighboring properties which would otherwise be landlocked and unusable. 12. The proposed plat improves stormwater runoff, water quality, and flooding conditions in the area through the use of detention and infiltration ponding to divert and control stormwater which is currently a threat to Packet Page Number Page 213 of 408 adjoining property as required by Subdivision Ordinance Section 1006.050. 13. The applicant has complied with the City's requests for information and met the requirements for Preliminary Plat and variance applications. The foregoing resolution was duly seconded by McGraw. Ayes (5). Nays (0). Resolution declared adopted. Packet Page Number Page 214 of 408 :\epp02\5103-OD3\$103-00~'sn\5103"003"PRELIM,dwg, 8/20,12008 9:33:56 AM Attachment 18 PREPARED FoR: PFiELlnA6NAFil` PLAT' ®F: BUILDING SETBACK & EASEMENT DErwIL lclTV of urr E cANADAI: L~«I,.~ ~ cD, DewoPr,,.Dt Ltn PD BeR 837 L®cArE® !N PARa o~'rNE sw s/a ®~ TIDE Nw~ T/~ AN® PAra~ o~ Gov Loa F__,...,::.r. . _.,_ r`r'"': (Sai) ssiis 2 . ~ ®P SECSI4N 4, 'C29N, R22VY, RARASEY C®19NTY, MINNES®TA. i ,". i PREPARED BY: RUIN CONSULTING ASSOgATES PREPARED BY: S/Md LANG 9.'RVEYINO a Ip~ ~ ~ ~ ID 2920 ENIATE NDDSON, YA same SORE tm 2920 ENL.~ STREET ~ j ~ SUITE tm BUILDING SETBACK & EASEMENT HUDSON, W1 84m6 " r ` ' (715) 381-5277 (715) 385-2007 DETAIL (CITY OF MAPLEWOOD): ~ PPE CM OTS21 I n I PROPERTY DESCRIPTION: r6,. r=e,.rm. sa.n,..., Q..n.,.r,a. No..M1w,., a.,,.<, ars.,~~,,. TowHm,=9, d v . e a ~ (n.nvuf e/npnni l npbel.r,nv w ., i(e are. f~uN A vu'tlrour<bein p 59v.u rk, onDQ..n es'0uu¢r, u,rnNo apxwr ,ivn,.::~~~~~~ew.;~aQ „~„ ~~; a :: Q~:;vi~ F~i o~w~ : + ,pe. i : `U~~~n.~rvom,aa;.zomsw a ier n,R~e~mr. „D m~aDon, me mm.n~~ T'A=/nw.o/'a~<souinwes, 0von.rorm. rvonM1w=n pi=ne; otsuuon 4, rawrcnip zs, t ) Q Q n m, Q(on ~[b g Q c... rnom.,.,. s~aa ornu~~.,ew. orw riie,s~,io'm a;ti~arb<.a ~~a.in Q .,,a~.nnars~ona Tn,„„nnl= ° 0 ( - T :nu tH a oEV' H0 ~ ( ,>~ ~ ' ova m.n a m= 6nmlor / / m „ MU Ob N e~ truvr~~ sr~ x T W R : v im ~m.. U. r n . s a .m . ar . x,,,rk D<ennle p mn,mor R D .,b. .sr.,, /uc eucv ~orxs~.sw~a eMOi[ v..vva n.oee>,: reGrxpCPPROrCxTt.) SIHEET r .. _.._.Q _.. _.., I .................L.,........ I I -lo• To` I ' :I I~ ~ II I: :I i~ i I . DECK ....-.....-...ewm/u xmAa Lx / / d (i:ore: PoraICrslOftxENS eaOeearv: EOnifi=.au13'iJ<Na. »a'19Y.) ~° / _ ~ll\E6 ~ xDTnneTrt i~ ~./~ '' _ ® I ~ ' \ ~ i ~ \\~~I :'C1T~' Q~ i l 1 ~ Trs lag 4 "' TLE'I C.LN.~D~i /Ir DS' dleia~ea'¢ I CITY ®F ll \\ \ ~ 1fAPLEWQ4Dlly \ \ ~ 11\ ,~ ! \ \ ( o I r „ r p; ~ / , 1 I I i ;= I• II 1 ..1 r i r D.i 1 I'I e ~ D I 1 ~ Cj/ _ o p ~' ®2 (/) ,R S: 1*1 , 1 w ~ /I, !' ! 1 / 'I' // I 11 / 1 j////!// .! I/i //r~.r ~0 /ii/iri/t/r /~/////i/j/ YI hn I, /r ~~4//~ / , Y i /// /1 ~/,~ / ///i ///!ii ~ / /!// 6~ W J //,~ ! sD9~ 46'E ~/7 a aG Im /l,ii~/,/ // ~ / Rro. ~ w ! I I 1 ~q, N uee"' 1190 ' / a': / ~/~9 .~ /~/ l > E r i/ Irr/I ' \~:~;Y x"*.//BSI/ ~~/ '4~s, dll( '! .-y r 7 I I , e ~, 11I1n 0 a,A"~ I I I~IIc -1 ( Illlt I / /~ l~I~i I it ,o,/as vu. r~.f LL1. Il / /1* ~` / ( I r / ~3 ~ r OA,. ¢ /Im -f / ~C7' / r~ t.. {foes /_y: ~~' i~/ !!/ I / ___, +~ o / 5'da i~ i /6 / /'~ / l ~e Aq / Wr/.E~i%_ 11 r J / - -F - -- l ,¢ ~/ !' - !. / L~ /i/. ,~~.. // /// C,®'/~3."`=il" °~ a sa~F i L~%~~/ ~.~..o .er."'"i o•; i boa .. i /J!~.u _..I ~ I.._.r_.._..J ~yq \\ I.._..nss.s•...~ 9 ,s,sas a. ~. I;~ ! ~I ~ ~ I _ ! ! ~ !/~ X iJ // ;I \ ~ I e 14ysao o. v,. lr to ul '7a.t/~ __ I j ! / Eso a u.Tn / i' ~ I ~/,•o~f !I i~~ / 1 / // owcm,Fa+et 11 P ~~ [ Ip`v ,*„ i Leo o,. /°°Irynm °°F°,r i I (kr ~///~> Lr rr~"RICI .I I 11 ix .eee.! !f /~ll.no, /, tL l I OUT'EO77 1 l \ !/! tf-r l / / I I I ~; & /, // // / / ~ ! ~' e \ I 1 ill / ! ~ / ~ iii/ia i//, l // \ \ RlCH1E PLACE! ! ~`~ n°,~ ~ /i/ ~, ri //~ v .Y-P' _.. ~ 1 ! r r" / ~~c1°"a+PS ~cn IvT~\~ ..F/ii/lri/i/j~/~Rj, \ EA EvT P ~I ~ i/ //!! / / ~ SFVmnE aoAO I g I \ 2I I / / // // ~ j/!~ "~ ,,"'~N$IDN \ I P" 4~CK "T ..P ' /f "// / Y / uN ~ l I14i / / \~3!/ ~~R /!// / L.._:,.L.: v~::l....:.._..J ~ ~~ 1 i-M . I ~ L j jD +al I L.._.._.._ ._..b .. _.J STREET ..... ... ... a~cmxx w5im) 1 PROPERTY 20NING: SIE'4YSTW PROPERTY N dtt OF UTTIE CANADA ZON®:RT ADJOINMG PROPERTY ZCNED:RZ ~Q ~ PROPERTY Al qtt MAPLEWOOp Zgtl®:R1 ADJgNNG PROPERTY YddED:R9 / / ~/ AREA: /// / / it l/i /' wcYU D T0T,4L AREA~334,332 SO. FT./ 7.58 ACRES I( i / n RIGHT OF WAY-55552 S0. FT,/ 1.69 ACRES II / / i/ uNESG TOTAL LESS RIpIT OP WAY®258,480/ 8.18 ACRES 1,11/ / / „ yJ ;~'i / / / r ~;- - % q f i f / r / i / / / ~. / / ~p / I ! / / I t illl rlr rr.J Ill I I/ / ~ %. ~ .. Ilis~l d I r y. /..... I I I ~-.1. I i. . / .. .. . . I Il\'~l I-TIT 1. . VIII ICI-F-r , "Ei(ISnnggc jliiii4ii III T.".WE7LANDA. .. - Illllldl l It;.. 1111 1 1 1 l 1j 111111 l 1 1 ~ ~.' . ~ .. - . - ~I~Illll i 1 l` ~y ' ~ 11111. l \ :. \... B~,i~~~1J '•~~~~. ITEI ~ Q NOTES: ~DI(\ ; I m~• Ill ~ \ 1. BEARINGS ARE ROTRENCED 10 THE RAMSEY CWNtt I/f y COMDINATE SYSTEM. i~lYl I I'~ C \ y E1IYAAONS SHOWN ARE NAVD 1988 FWOM 11/l I 1 j I// ~' MNOOTCONTRq. MONUMENTS AHD DERIlffO FROM 6PS OBSEAVAndIS (DRIHOAIERiIG HDCN'IS USING GEgD i I I I % ~)' / ~ / ' 3. THE Fd1DWING EASEMENTS ARE TO BE EXIINWISHED I I ~ / VATH THE DREAAON OF n55 PLAT, UPON REGORDIHG 111E FlNAL PUT: I ! EASEMENTS IN DOG 3529640 Nuo "o AN ioUnutt B EASEMENTS IN DOG 3528641 E45EMENiS IN IINtRENS DOG 703 isEME P, . 030 ?, ~ 4. LOTS 2-4 ~ BLOCK Z UE W77HIN THE qTY OF i s~Rn R MAPLEWOOD AND ME SUBJECT TO RENEW AND APPROVAL BY THE dtt OF MAPlEW00D. ALL OTHER D M lATS lJE WIn11N THE qTY Cf LITTLE CANADA AND ARE SUB~F_CT TO RENEW AND APPROVAL BY THE dTY OF uTnE cANADA '" 3. TEMPORARY CON51RUCnON EASDAENIS (SJ LOTS 1&4 ~ OF BLOCK 2 AND LOT 7 OF BLOq(9 10 BE VACATID - _ "" ". _ UPdd CONPLERON OF NTVRE ADJACENT ROAD EXTENSIONS CITY OF LITTLE CANAD.I I ~arw n>SAA Wna RAWan ~ ~ ,, / m I a~ aantt PLASnc cAR ~ Nw 9/a -® 1®$44•-- "- ~-~,TD¢DD' -' `~Mewoco DN CITY OF MiiPl.E~®OD ~ = /. i / ~_,_ . ,, ~ I ,~ I I I vi /F , ' / / - a' , - -~ .~ "~ i ~i„~. %/,A~..~ ,/ .- _ LEGEND g g SI i i'/ f . . _ / ~ ' ~ ~~m~o a~ uNCIFA ~ , / i ~ / ~~U / ' / ~ ` i%/ i ~~ ~ ~ ~. ~. ~.~• ' ' ' ' ' ' ' - ' " ' - ~ .~• ® /WR® 0/D' NA1FI01 IflB.N . , , . , , . . , , , " F's /¢:. ~,,~.~.. EIS))NG ... . ~. ~ /`y / i /% i . . r~ ..WETLAND ~ ~ - . O ~ Pmt ~ rminc ~ / , / .+6 ...a .. .... E ... .... ........ /Y ~; . fit riii~~'(I .'? '1' .'.' ' ..~" : ..;.'- ... . ... - , ._" ~ - _.,_.. _.._.._ 6RAiM,¢EAmIT (T~DEVa. AeovO ~:....... ~ / /i I /; ..! . . . .. .. / i 1 ' ..................... _ _ _ _ _ . awTa sTwx <aE aT,ra ASOIET / ~:. ~. ~. . .~.~. ~. ~. ~. U1Y1P EnsEaver (AS saaoRn) ~i /. . / n' - •'"~.'.' ~ ~ _____________ -~-- -- 6BncATm eenu®aweoutt DE9WAIGG MERNU gIBAGf i / ~ .... `~ MFW®IATE anran /;' T' ".i.rierenr certify maz m'~.a plan, apecificatioq er report was 1 eeo-- ~ -NpEY®DnTTDArz ' ~i . ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ prepared by me ar under my direct supervision end thaTlam WsTaw ~, ~,A~ -'/"',',',",','." aduly Licensed LmdSUrveyor under the laws of the State of ! . . Minna ~ Rwe.eno.ro MW WA10i M'ARM / ° 2 ®' O g / Leo. eeo.>a d ~AU:OSimE ygDW ~ DDOp / yc-Liwnne Nu. 45351 DaL^ . ~ p LAUREN & C®. SW 1 /4 -NW 1 /4 & GOV. LOT 1 - l..P~ T~ omE2 9W n.mmov mn, eal aeu edPo w<n e k A 9WI~a 101 enmaode, R61161 a a8169%e Iu~ ti-¢6¢--&B Ivu 116-9AI-699E ar: mD aECnED DAID 8/73/07 DWG FlLE: 610.FU0.4PRDYI REVISED PER qTY Ct%9MENT5 REV. FOR MAPIFWO~ RENEW flENSED PEA qTY COMMENTS .RAS TRD lM/20/05 1/]3/08 ®/i2/07 RAM)SEY COUNTY. MINNESOTA mm .uNeoorvlLWto/m nasa.Reo%rommisT.am REIEASTD Fqi dTY RENEW !/27/07 PRELIMINARY PLAT Auth•Consultin /ass(~cSates S&N iand Surv i R,~~ ,o q"~A~ P°~"E'"~" °p'~°' g ey ng D ME: E Page 215 of 408 Attachment 19 LAND USE PLAN AMENDMENT RESOLUTION WHEREAS, Lauren Development and Company has applied for a change to the City of Maplewood's land use plan from OS (Open Space) to R1 (Single Dwelling) for a proposed single-family subdivision. WHEREAS, this change applies to the property located south of Labore Road and East of Arcade Street. The legal description is: SECTION 4, TOWN 29, RANGE 22, COM AT NE COR OF GOVT LOT 1 TH W ON NL SD LOT 300 FT TO BEG TH SWLY TO PT ON SLY EXT OF WL OF E 1/2 OF SW1/4 OF NW 1/4 OF SEC 4 537FT S OF NL OF GOVT LOT 1 TH N ON SD LINE 537 FT TO NL OF SD LOT 1 TH E TO BEG BEING PART OF SEC WHEREAS, the history of this change is as follows: On October 7, 2008, 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 ,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: a. The proposed Future Land Use Guide would be consistent with existing zoning. b. The proposed development would provide a wider range of housing types in this neighborhood. c. The proposed future land use guide would be consistent with the comprehensive plan of Little Canada. This action is subject to the approval of this land use plan amendment by the Metropolitan Council. The Maplewood City Council this resolution on , 2009. Packet Page Number Page 216 of 408 Agenda Item K2 AGENDA REPORT TO: City Council FROM: Charles Ahl, Acting City Manager SUBJECT: Report on Request for Retaining Wall at North End of Clarence St DATE: January 21, 2009 INTRODUCTION/SUMMARY On October 27, 2008, the City Council received a petition from Ralph, Veronica and Elizabeth Sletten from 2747 N. Clarence Street requesting the installation of a retaining wall near their property to control waters from the KSTP property wetland /storm water basin from entering their property. The item was referred to staff for investigation. I met with the Slettens on December 12th to discuss the various issues. The Slettens requested that this item be placed on the January 12th agenda for a report, but they requested that this item be continued to January 26th. Attached is a copy of the letter that has been sent to the Slettens explaining staff's position on the various issues. No action is recommended at this time. Since January 12th, the Finance staff has determined that the $14.50 check from Elizabeth Sletten was received and not coded to the invoice. A letter was sent to Elizabeth Sletten explaining the accounting error. That issue is closed. We also have received a report from an engineering firm hired by the Ramsey Washington Metro Watershed District, the government agency responsible for the wetland in question, concluding that "... it is Bar's opinion that the Kohlman Basin project has not caused the wetland area to expand onto the Sletten property." No further action on the retaining wall will be pursued. RECOMMENDATION No action is required. Attachments: January 7, 2009 Letter from Chuck Ahl to the Slettens January 5, 2009 Request to be placed on Agenda December 22, 2008 Letter from the Slettens regarding the issues December 11, 2008 Letter from the Slettens requesting data Assessment data supplied by the Slettens on 1960's improvements Map of wetland area and 100-foot buffer January 7, 2009 Barr Report to RWMWD Packet Page Number Page 217 of 408 Agenda Item K2 Attachment January 7, 2009 Ralph E., Veronica A., Elizabeth A. Sletten 2747 N. Clarence Street Maplewood, MN 55109 RE: Property Information Ralph, Veronica and Elizabeth: This is the letter that you requested that I provide you regarding a number of issues. I indicated that it would be near the end of the year before I could address the issues. It has taken slightly longer than I anticipated. In your letter of December 22, 2008 you requested the following: 1. "Confirmation of when the City of Maplewood and the Planning Department are prepared to show us a draft for the elimination of the man- madepublic water problem that is affecting our private property." In my research, I am unable to find evidence that the pond water from the KSTP property is actually touching onto your property. While the water is very close to your private property, I do not know that a requested retaining wall, berm or other features would change the fact that the water is not currently on your property. That does not mean that you are not impacted by an ordinance provision for wetland buffer. An ordinance impact and a legal taking of land due to ponding are perceived by the City and the Watershed, who operates the wetland /ponding area that is north of your property. First, Maplewood is not involved in the operation of the controls for this ponding /wetland. Any claims that you have actually should be directed to the governmental agency that has jurisdiction. That agency is the Ramsey Washington Metro Watershed District [RWMWD]. RWMWD maintains the wetland area and has the easements and agreements to operate the water features in the area. They also have wetland setback ordinance that will impact your property. Their ordinance is very similar to the Maplewood ordinance. All property within the City has been bound by the City's existing wetland ordinance since 1995. The new RWMWD classification has upgraded this wetland area from a Class 2 (which requires a 100-foot average buffer and a 50-foot minimum buffer in our current ordinance) to a Manage A, which requires a full 100-foot buffer in a future proposed ordinance. I believe that the current wetland is more than 50 feet from your property, so based upon some of the current conditions, it is possible that you would not be impacted under current conditions. Given that, your request for cannot be responded to because there is no water on your property and there is no specific impacts currently of the buffer. Packet Page Number Page 218 of 408 Agenda Item K2 Attachment Sletten Letter January 7, 2009 Page Two 2. "Confirmation that our property will not be affected by the pending City of Maplewood Wetland Ordinance." As noted above, I anticipate that the new ordinance will impact your property. I cannot provide you a confirmation to the contrary. That ordinance is currently being reviewed for the very specific issues that you raise. I do not have the authority to grant properties variances to a future proposed ordinance. As I indicated when we met, we anticipate that there will be a number of situations where the ordinance has impacts on private property that will have significant impacts. I believe that a reasonable compromise maybe available for you to continue to enjoy the full use of your property, but until that ordinance is brought forward for adoption, it is not appropriate to consider restrictions that do not exist at this time. 3. "Confirmation that our property will not be financially affected by the City Project 08-ll -County Road C Area Street Improvements." The City Council will be determined whether to proceed with the County Road C project. The staff does not have the authority to determine if a project will proceed ,nor if it should not proceed. The City policy provides for property owners to contribute to the project cost. You provided us with information that includes a payment of the street improvement assessment in 1968. The City's past practice is to indicate to our residents that each property will pay a street assessment once every 35 years. Since your property has not paid a street assessment in the past 41 years, this assessment would not indicate that our procedures would preclude your property from an assessment. The information that you provide does not indicate your property has ever paid the one-time storm sewer assessment. You have paid for sanitary sewer, not storm sewer. Again, I cannot provide you with a confirmation on the financial impact, as that is not something that the City staff has authority to provide. I will note that our staff acknowledges there is very little support for this project at this time. We have stopped our preparation of detailed plans due to this response. We anticipate approaching the Council in February to discuss cancelling the project, which would accomplish your request. 4. "Confirmation that our property is not going to be affected by the instability of the KSTP tower. This is to include a 2008 Report on the stability of the KSTP tower." Packet Page Number Page 219 of 408 Agenda Item K2 Attachment Sletten Letter January 7, 2009 Page Three Mr. Thompson from our engineering staff received a call from the KSTP personnel early this week. He assured by KSTP that a stability study will be completed early in 2009. Once that study is completed, we will provide you that information. During your phone message from January 6th, you indicated a concern with an invoice in the amount of $14.50. I have been provided the following information on that invoice: • The invoice was for copying of files from the Markham Pond project for Elizabeth Sletten. • On November 7, 2008, Elizabeth requested information on the cost of the copying. • She was informed on November 10, 2008 that we believed the cost would be under $10.00 based upon the likely number of pages. [subsequently, it was determined that there a larger number of pages to be copied] • On November 10, 2008, Elizabeth notified the City to inform her about the cost of the copies and when they would be available. • Later on November 10th, Karen Guilfoile notified Elizabeth that the copies were available at the front desk and the cost is $14.50 and that an invoice was provided with the copies. At your request, this item has been placed on the Council agenda for January 12, 2008. Please let me know if you have any questions with this information. CITY OF MAPLEWOOD Chuck Ahl Acting City Manager Packet Page Number Page 220 of 408 Agenda Item K2 Attachment DATED MATERIAL -OFFICIAL WRITTEN RESPONSE REQUIRED January 5, 2009 To: Ma lewood Ci Counci! Mayor Diana Longrie John Nephew, Council Member Erik Hjelle, Council Member Kathleen Juenemann, Council Member Will Rossbach, Council Member Chuck Ahl, Interim City Manager Karen Guilfoile, City Clerk, Citizen Services Manager City of Maplewood 1830 County Road B East Maplewood, Minnesota 55109 Fax: 651-249-2009 Eram: EIizabeth A. Sletten Ralph E. Sletten Veronica A. Sletten 2747 N. Clarence Street Maplewood, Minnesota 55 i 09 TeI: 763-783-2473 or 65 i-484-7074 elizabeth007 cotncast.net SENT VIA U.S. MAIL AND HAND DELIVERY Re: OFFICIAL FORMAL REQUEST "Item to 6e Placed Upon the City Council Agenda for the next City Council meeting scheduled for January l2, 2009 Dear Council Member(s), Mr. Ahl and Ms. Guilfoile: WE RE VEST THE FOLLOWING ITEM BE PLACED ON THE CITY COUNCIL AGENDA OF .IANUARY 12 2009 PURSUANT TO COUNCIL RULES OF PROCEDURE FOR CITIZENS RE VESTING TO BE PLACED ON THE AGENDA: Update on the City Council's request for Acting City Manager Chuck Ahl to meet with the Sletten's regardt`ng the construction of a berm, retaining wall or other protective measures on the north side of certain private properties abutting wetlands of Ditch 1$ to protect them from Packet Page Number Page 221 of 408 Agenda Item K2 Attachment the encroachment of public waters as part of the feasiGility study for the street reconstruction project including north Clarence Street and the surrounding area. Please respond an or before January 9, 2009. ~z~ Eliza eth A. Sletten Ral .Sletten Veronica A. Sletten Cc: Tom Grundhoefer, General Counsei, League of Minnesota Cities Insurance Truss Stanley S. Hubbard, Chairman and CEO, Hubbard Broadcasting, Inc. ("KSTP"} Clifton J. Aichingex, Administrator, Ramsey-Washington Metro Watershed District Plannin Commission Members Chair Lorraine B. Fischer, Vice Chair Tushar Desai, Gary A. Pearson, Dale Trippler, Joseph Walton, Jeremy Yarwoad, Harland Hess, Joe Boeser, and Robert Martin Jr. Staff Liaison Torn Ekstrand Environments! and Natural Resources Commission Members Chair Ginny Yingling, Judith Johannessen, Carole Lynne, Carol Mason Sherrill, Frederica Musgrave, Bill Schreiner and Dale Trippler Packet Page Number Page 222 of 408 December 22, 2008 To: Chuck Ahl, Interim City Manager City of Maplewood 1830 County Road B East Maplewood, Minnesota 55109 Fax: 651-249-2009 From: Ralph E. Sletten Veronica A. Sletten Elizabeth A. Sletten 2747 N. Clarence Street Maplewood, Minnesota 55109 651-484-7074 Re: Official Response Requested: December 11, 2008 meeting Mr. Ahl: SENT VIA EMAIL AND US MAIL During our meeting, you stated that you would be writing a formal letter prior to the end of December 2008 and that it would include the following: 1. Confirrmation of when the City of Maplewood and the Planning Department are prepared to show us a draft for the elimination of the man-made public water problem that is affecting our private properties. 2. Confirmation that our property will not be affected by the pending City of Maplewoad Wetland Ordinance. 3. Confirmation that our property will not be financially affected by the City Project 08-11 - County Road C Area Street Improvements. 4. Confirmation that our property is not going to be affected by the instability of the KSTP Tower. This is to include a 2008 Report of the stability of the KSTP Tower. Today, we received a phone call from your office stating that we could "pick up some information." We are in receipt~of the following: 1. Email exchanges dated Tuesday, July 08, 2008 (Page 1 of 2, excluding attachment) a. From Rose Lorsung, Senior Planner for McCombs Frank Roos Associates, Inc. to Chuck Ahl; Cc: Spann Finwall (attachment was excluded). b. From Spann Finwall to Rose Lorsung and Chuck Ahl (attachment was excluded). 2. ~ Arel photo -page 6 from a letter dated July 11, 2008 from Spann Finwall. 1 Packet Page Number Page 223 of 408 Agenda Item K2 Attachment 3. Email dated Tuesday, December 09, 2008 from Michael Thompson; sent to Chuck Ahl and Alan Kantrod; Cc: Steven Kummer and Jon Jarosch. 4. Statement of Real Estate Taxes Payable in 1968, provided to you by the Sletten's. 5. Statement of Special Assessments; As certified to Ramsey County Auditor -provided to yon by the Sletten's. 6. Data Practices request dated December 11, 2008 -- requested by the Sletten's. For clarification, within the email from Shaun Finwall dated July 8, 2008, Ms. Finwall states "1 have been working with the Slettens an this issue." Ms. Finwall on the record during a City Council meeting stated that the man-made wetland won't affect our property. However the following day after a City Council meeting, Ms. Finwall gave us a copy of a map prepared by city staff and stated "it will affect your property." Furthermore, within Ms. Finwall's letter dated July 11, 2008 she also resigned her statement from the public record. We have not had any additional direct communications from Ms. Finwall since that letter. Additionally, we have not had any direct communications with Rose Lorsung. Mr. Ahl, as you have admitted to us directly and on the public record, that the City of Maplewood, KSTP and Ramsey-Washington Watershed District have created aman-made waterway that has caused pr~blie waters onto KSTP and furthermore onto other private properties. During our meeting, you were also very adamant that you do not want to cause the City of Maplewood another federal lawsuit. We look forward to your written response with the above on ar before December 30, 2008 as you stated during our December 11, 2008 meeting. ~~ Ralp letten '~ ~- Veronica A. Sletten Eliza eth A. Sletten 2 Packet Page Number Page 224 of 408 Agenda Item K2 Attachment DATED MATERIAL -OFFICIAL WRITTEN RESPONSE REQUIRED December 11, 2008 City of Maplewood Karen Guilfoile, City Clerk, Citizen Services Manager Chuck Ahl, Interim City Manager 1$30 County Road B East Maplewood, Minnesota 55109 Re: FORMAL REQUEST{S} -Data Practices Ms. Guilfoile and Mr. Ahl: SENT VIA HAND DELIVERY AND EMAIL I am official requesting the following: 1. Complete copies of the "Statement of Special Assessment{s}" that were completed for my property in the 1960's. 2. Complete copies of all water related complaints on North Clarence Street to include: 1. Water in basements; and 2. Flooding, etc. Please respond on or before Monday, December 22, 2008. Very truly, ., ~ ~,~ -- ~ ~,~ Ralph E. Sletten 2747 North Clarence Street Maplewood, Minnesota 55109 651-484-7074 Packet Page Number Page 225 of 408 Agenda Item K2 `` Attachment ~ zpj~ ~ -~ ~ ~„ ~ n ~ ~j~ X ~~ ~1 OrR-i O ~ ona w ~~~ ~' D~~z ~ 3 .~~x ~ a 9C D= ~' ~ to sx~ n 7D ~~„ S•~r dv+m ~ ~ ~7 m-iC^ n ~ m 7v ~ ~ O ."a ,-C7 ~ .~ m m Vf z Own rZ~ y-~~O N ~~~ ~ ~~ D ~ r "~ m N0 mO ~CC .~ y 71 ~ ~ ~ -~ rTl ~ ~- ~Yy ~ ~ 12 ~ ~ R7 I n cnZ~_~ s~7y ~rnZ~ O A~ ~ D %~~ ~ ~ ~ a ""~ m ~ y : `~ -1 ,,,,,~ L~ -D ~ ...~ -G 7v ~ ; a ~-! I"" o m m ~ 3 ~ Z [7Q n N W rr- b "'~ 1'fi C ~ C S ~ "`I -~ .4 -C m ~ n rn ~ Z n ~ r ,.,~ e'!'1 m C ~ r' ~n ~ ~] ~ ~ ~ ~ D ~ ~"`~ 7o p ~ un+ ~ -DC ~ ~ R'1 ITI ~ ADZ ~ ~ ~-n-I rn ~ y vos~ _~ ~ a ZV>~ ~ ~ mz Z ~ az~ ~ m ~ 3 t„ ~ 1 ~ z m O Z ran ~ ~ ~.~ ,'" o~ ~[`-,,.~ in Z ~~ ~-I p ~ ~ sort `,A ~ ? N . _ ~ r ` -i ~ C i ~ C --I ~o ~ ~ cn cn ~ sn w ~ ~ ~ ~ N.r'. CT' ~'G~~ rf ;+ o f/7 ~ Cx1 :Ct ~ A H ~ CW ~' ~' LK ti 1V ~ ~ v r ~ ~° *I ~ n ~ ..~ ~ ~ ~ ~ n F a ~ 3-' ETT o 'v1 ~ n C7 C C7 ~ ~ ~' '.~ i m ~ ~ -v ~ - .. ~ ~ ~ 1-" Gr Z o A p''~ ,. ,C, G~ n C A -C 3 ~ p ~v r,: -~ 3' Q p, f"' v n rr1 C ,~„~ ~1 C3 -I ~ x ~ -=-I ~" CT ~ z ~ < 177 ~' 'zl ~ m •'"'f --1 ~ a lu Z b N n /~ ~ i::) "'~l ~ p -- n w~ _'I ~r Gd ~._ y ~n~~,, r -.~__---.^-"--'-~--"'-~-..._.~ _...._ a un u u . ~ ~ n ~ o a ~' . ~ y~ rt n z i ~ ~ ~1" -----------__ - .~ ~ ~" o ~ a ~ m ~ v m a D - _ _ r ~ ---- __-_._---- _-- z Z ~ m. X ~ ~a g - S Q N F+ . ~..,,~ w ~ N ~ N ' ~ ~ ~+'"`--.-~----~---..._-_-_..»__-_ n ~ - FI II II - o ~ Ll p z ~1 o m In o x = n m m m ~ . O O m om ~ % ----... ...-- ~ 4 ---.. .`~ -...----.-...---.----~-...--- ~ D {- ~ ~ r ' I n ~ Y H N N p ` !N' 'a ~ tf - 1~ p a ~ ~. f V N~ ~~ ~ N tl - ~~- • • _• f ___ Q n y ~ ~ ~ O m ~ in Z "'~. y ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ v ~ ~ ~ ~ A b m ~ , 1"~ .gym a "'="~ "'1 ~ r ""~ Packet Page Number Page 226 of 408 n Agenda Item K2 Attachment 'AID W~~.~~}~i~t =~'. ;~:-f-.~.:~:~ <; Trf°°r-ss: tt,~i~is~~by~.:°c7~cny---------r. This is 1~Ioi a Yalid Reeei~t 1Yithout Register Printed Certificatioa AlIG i~f 1:1 ~+ e y~ N lJ e' ~7 a ~ ~ ~e ~ fD K N P0. •! -.~~-6b 3rA x~n~ti~~s ~ l ~~~~~~i ~'.: ., ~: F4` 'C. ~- ~~z'` , ~ ~ a~,: ~~'~t b1 w r ~ ri ~ O ~, a P. r-i ,~~, C7 can ~ ~, ~ o '~~ N ~* a y ~ 'Sy `, r :. C. ~'' -+ ~ } ~ l~u~'f>' ay ""CJ.' M W r-i ~ ~' O ~ ~ H ti ~ 0 ...y..',, 4! (_ ~ y '~ ~ y,,; ; us •~ `~ ty o ~ p ~ ~.> ., ,,.,. Q .~ ~ v N n ~ b T} '~ ~ ~ ~ H 0, ~ "~ h .H ~ ~ L ~ ~I ~ ~ ~ ~ ~. ¢. f_ V't M ~ - 3 ~~.3~ °°~ yay w~. mY '1 ~ MA N ~~~~~ n $ m ~ C]~K H e~ ~ p' ~ y ~ `••'~ rtc ~ ~' r m ry- ~* '!l y ~~f1 w ~ hamrt ~y maN.m ~y N iD rfN i N~ `~ ~ ~ ~~ n Vs m w ~ fH ~ y ro ~~ ~ ~~ ~ M ~ H• ~ fA + _. ~ a 0 IQ !i i\`1 Packet Page Number Page 227 of 408 Agenda Item K2 ~` Attachment 7C C] o --I o O O od --1 T O Z r D ~ ,~ „ o ~ m ~ r. m z a ~ f-1 T '° rr m T F - .•' ~, -1 ~ to -! o ~ ~ y o "'1 Z r~ t ~ ~ n m ~ ~ o Z o ~ o ~ x m n --I-171 ~ ~ ] -< ~ - ~ m 3 ~ ~ m ~ o 1° = 3 m m ~ ~ --i O. -~ n c S v' ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ c a- m . a m Or ~,. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ N P ~ ~ R Q fl O S N N o ~ µ p ~ :~ .~ ~ '~ Z~ N ~ ~ ~ O O N ~~ , . O ~~ d ^.. j mo ., ~ `yG 7 en p ~ to ~ ~ ~ ~ o a m Z a n ' a o ' m o 4 m ~ ~ ~ ~ v, - d w O O ~ N ~ ~ ~ O ~ ~ p ~ ~ ~" 7 ' ~"" ~ ~ ro ~ O p « - ~ T 1 f6 ' p a- o w, ~ O '~ (] DTI tr" ~ N ] J N D O A 7 N a n ~ "~ j N O N `[ - rn ~ ~ n -~ ~ ~ ~ m ~ - ~ ~ ~ ~ m d ~ . - ~ 117 Z .t o C _ p A x n "'"" ~ ff p N O in , a Q [a ~ o m ~ '~ m o' m to p . P *~ ~ '~ ~ 7Ci O ~° a u ~ o 64 n 00 a ~ 09 .°~ ~ n `~ d o n ,[ , J x~ 7r N o 7' ~ Q ~ ~ o ~ ~ ~ ` W ~ / ~ 1 ! I~ r - 7" a Vi iC ~ ~ ~ ~ 171 ~ ~ o K ~ ^ ~ ~ T ~ `G Q ~ p C ~ < o ~ T °- ~ ~, m C 17 µ 7 ° d 4 a o f~ 0 3 Y -.. -1 r,..,. _ [77 to p p ~ ~ p ~ J O . ~.} .E ` ~ -- - N Zdj iTT Z ~ a o ~ o ~ ~ ~ °. ~ m Q ~ X 1 , ~ w r"' i~ ~ °~ ~ ~ ° o°' µ ~" U D ,-~ ~' to A '~ ~ n p- ~ ~_ ;. T' i J ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ s ~ D ~ - y rn. _. o N ~ ~" ~ ~ ~ C/1 1. ~ ~ µ 3 .~ 3 n ~- „-I _ a ~ v n ~ ~ z ~ ~ "1 ~ m o ~ o ~ . C ~ ~~ ~ ~ m O ' Q a ~ N '" ~, Z ~ to ~ ~ ~ 3 N a D p ~ o S . J ~ ~ ~ ~ N V1 O ~ '~' a° ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ (~ ` y a n N o - _ "'~ t" [~ p p' ~ - ~ m m 3 rn D, y ~ 00 rn x v n ~ u~ ~- ~ ±-~ as Q- m ~ "' ,~ a ra U7 C 1 ~ T x m ~^ ~, D ~ t" ry ~s ~ ~. rn _ rn N ~ ~ ~ ~ o ~! ~ ~ a ~ m 3 a m ' °- ~ ~4 Q 171. -[ m p a n m ~ - ~ C p ~ µ ~ ~ _. n m a n o - n N _ r1'J ~ [~ T U "~ U 7 o C ° C µ ~ - n 7 Z O ~ _ a- n s o ~5 ~ ~ ~ ~ -' O In N O to • m m ~ a p 4 m ~ O ~ X A n ~' a ~' ~ ~ m -I ~ ~ ~ rt ~, ro p ~ ~ Packet Page Number Page 228 of 408 Packet Page Number Page 229 of 408 Agenda Item K2 - - Attachment m _ . _ ~ ~ q -- _._ _ - - -- ' , ~- r Packet Page Number Page 230 of 408 _ :, - - - - - - ,_ ... _ _ `' '.~ .~ ~ ~~ _ __ _ _ , +~ .._ ,, ,. ° _ ,ate -- -,, , ~ _ _ ~'~ i._~~_'I~ w - _~- ' ~ _ _ - - ~I .~. ~ Wis. ! ~N ~ '~"~ ~ _~ _ r -- _ ~ - - Packet Page Number Page 231 of 408 Agenda Item K2 ~ Attachment Agenda Item K2 -- Attachment . 11 ~ .. i '... -- lll~Il~'~ft ~~d-~I609 r ~ ~~ • ~~ Packet Page Number Page 232 of 408 ,~ n ! ~ _ P'~ __ - ,~ _ ~ , . ~~ I ~ /- -- Agen. K2 s ; ent - ~ . _ _ y n ~~~~ ~ ~Io~~~I Agen I em K2 -I ent ~~ s _ . - -_ _ ~ tar ,~ _ _ ~; Agenda Item K3 AGENDA REPORT TO: City Council FROM: Charles Ahl, Acting City Manager SUBJECT: City Manager Search Process -Selection of Candidate and Authorization for HR Attorney to Negotiate Contract DATE: January 21, 2009 INTRODUCTION/SUMMARY The City Council will consider selecting a final candidate to offer the position of City Manager. The Council has received reports from the Citizen -Business Panel and Employee Panel at their January 12, 2009 meeting. The Council interviewed the three candidates [James Antonen, Daniel Donohue and Timothy Madigan] on January 14, 2009. The Council conducted a special meeting on January 21, 2009 for the purpose of deliberating on their findings. Selection of a finalist for the position is recommended by The Par Group, the City's consultant. Once a candidate is selected, the City Council should authorize HR Attorney Chuck Bethel to negotiate a contract for the candidate and report back on February 9, 2009. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the City Council adopt a motion designating a final candidate for the position of City Manager and authorize HR Attorney Chuck Bethel to negotiate a contract with said candidate. Packet Page Number Page 236 of 408 Agenda Item L1 SUMMARY TO: Acting City Manager FROM: Tom Ekstrand, Senior Planner SUBJECT: Feed Products North-Conditional Use Permit, Lot Division and Design Review LOCATION: 1300 McKnight Road DATE: January 15, 2009 INTRODUCTION John Fallin, owner of Feed Products North, is proposing to build a 5,800-square-foot, two-story office building for his business and possibly some lease space on the westerly portion of his property. The location of this office building would be on the east side of McKnight Road west of the Lakewood Drive Bridge. Requests Mr. Fallin is requesting approval of: • A conditional use permit (CUP) to construct an office building closer than 350 feet to residential properties. • A lot division to split the office building site from the main part of his property lying east of Lakewood Drive. • Design plans. DISCUSSION Staff does not find any significant problem with the proposed office building and its proximity to the residential neighbors. The only concern staff sees is that the applicant should provide a substantial buffer for the residents to the southeast. Code, in fact, requires asix-foot-tall, 80% opaque screen between the parking lot and drive areas and these residential neighbors. RECOMMENDATIONS 1. Adopt the resolution approving a conditional use permit for the Feed Products North office building. 2. Approve the lot split to separate the proposed office site. 3. Approve the plans date-stamped November 4, 2008. p:sec24-29\feed products CUP 1 09 #2 summary to Packet Page Number Page 237 of 408 MEMORANDUM TO: Acting City Manager FROM: Tom Ekstrand, Senior Planner SUBJECT: Feed Products North-Conditional Use Permit, Lot Division and Design Review LOCATION: 1300 McKnight Road DATE: January 15, 2009 INTRODUCTION Project Description John Fallin, owner of Feed Products North, is proposing to build a 5,800-square-foot, two-story office building for his business and possibly some lease space on the westerly portion of his property. The location of this office building would be on the east side of McKnight Road west of the Lakewood Drive Bridge. Refer to the attachments. Requests Mr. Fallin is requesting approval of: • A conditional use permit (CUP) to construct an office building closer than 350 feet to residential properties. The city code also requires a CUP for structures in M1 (light manufacturing) zoning districts that are closer than 350 feet to a residential district. The proposed office building would abut residential property on its southeasterly lot line and would be 55 feet from the nearest residential lot. Refer to the maps. • A lot division to split the office building site from the main part of his property lying east of Lakewood Drive. • Design plans. BACKGROUND November 28, 1998: The city council approved a CUP for an office building on the currently-proposed site. Mr. Fallin did not build the office at that time and this CUP ended. May 19, 2005: The city staff approved a lot division to split the proposed office site from the remainder of the Feed Products North property as is currently requested. The property owner did not submit deeds for this lot division so the lot division never took place. Packet Page Number Page 238 of 408 DISCUSSION Conditional Use Permit Staff does not find any significant problem with the proposed office building and its proximity to the residential neighbors. In 1998, the city previously approved an office at this location for the applicant which he never built. There has not been any change to the character of the neighborhood that would warrant any new concern. This proposed office building would not have any significant impact on traffic or the neighborhood in general. The only concern staff sees is that the applicant should provide a substantial buffer for the residents to the southeast. Code, in fact, requires asix-foot-tall, 80% opaque screen between the parking lot and drive areas and these residential neighbors. Regarding traffic, any new development will generate additional traffic. A small office like this, though, would produce only a minimal traffic increase. Staff, therefore, does not see this as an issue. Wetlands Shann Finwall, Environmental Planner, has reviewed the plans and found them in compliance with wetland buffer requirements. The Ramsey Washington Watershed District has made the same determination. Refer to Ms. Finwall's report. Parking Lot Encroachment/Potential Setback Variance The proposed parking meets city parking requirements with the exception of a parking lot encroachment into the required 15-foot parking lot setback from the Lakewood Drive right-of-way. The easterly parking lot is proposed to have aseven-foot setback from this right-of-way at its northerly corner. The parking lot setback, though, increases further south along the proposed parking lot edge to comply with code. This parking lot encroachment would require an eight-foot setback variance. Staff feels the site plan should be modified to meet the required 15 foot parking lot setback minimum. It appears the applicant can modify the site plan to accommodate this revision. If it becomes difficult or unfeasible, the applicant would then have to apply for a setback variance. Clean-up of Neighboring Property The neighboring property at 1262 McKnight Road needs clean up due to a lot of stored materials and debris out in the open. There are also three semi trailers and two semi tractors on site. In our review of this matter, the city's code enforcement officer has met with the property owner's son and is working with him to clean up the property. Staff has also found that Mr. Vernon Potter, the owner of this property, was granted a conditional use permit by the city council January 8, 2001 for approval to continue the operation of a nonconforming trucking business. Refer to the attached council minutes of that CUP approval. In summary, the key conditions of this permit were that: 2 Packet Page Number Page 239 of 408 • There shall be no more than two semi-tractors and one 53-foot-long trailer. • There shall be no outside storage of equipment, parts, junk or debris. • This permit shall last for 10 years and end on January 8, 2011. The clean up needed for the site is substantial. The code enforcement officer will continue to monitor this and work with the property owner. The number of trailers on site is a violation of the CUP. Staff will work with the property owner toward compliance with the CUP conditions. Ground Water/Underground Stream At the public hearing, a resident mentioned that the builder should be aware of an underground stream running through the proposed office site. Steve Kummer, Maplewood Staff Engineer, reviewed this concern with the Ramsey Conservation District. Mr. Kummer found that ground-water flow maps show a shallow ground aquifer about 50 feet below grade. The building and parking lot would not be impacting this aquifer given that the footing excavations would be about 45 feet above this ground water table. The ground water in this area is likely due to "perched" ground water, where the soils hold water that is closer to the surface. If water is encountered during excavation, the builder would have to pump their excavations dry before commencing. Lot Division It makes sense to approve this lot split since the proposed site is physically separated from the main part of the applicant's property east of Lakewood Drive. Staff's only recommendation is that the property owner dedicate cross easements on the west property that cover the utilities (sanitary and storm) which serve the lot east of Lakewood Drive. Mr. Fallin's attorney has stated that he will do so. Architectural and Site Considerations The proposed office building is attractively designed with an exterior of Harde (cement board) siding, stone and architectural shingles. The hip roof is residential in character which would be compatible with nearby homes. Parking The proposed parking meets city ordinances with the exception of the parking-setback encroachment as previously discussed. Traffic Impacts Any new use on vacant property will increase traffic. The proposed office building, however, is a low traffic volume use. Staff does not foresee any substantial impact from the proposed office building in terms of traffic generation. 3 Packet Page Number Page 240 of 408 Landscaping and Tree Replacement Landscaping: The proposed landscaping plan should be expanded upon to provide asix-foot-tall and 80 percent opaque screen to create a buffer for the homes to the south as required by ordinance. This buffer can be a planted evergreen screen or a decorative six-foot-tall fence. Staff also feels there should be additional trees planted along the Lakewood Drive frontage for site aesthetics. Staff further recommends over-story trees to provide a taller crown of tree foliage since the roadway is at a higher grade than the proposed site. The rain garden on the McKnight Road side of the site would provide an attractive view from the street, but staff further recommends more than one decorative tree on the McKnight Road side of the building. This is the two-story elevation and additional enhancements by adding more decorative trees would be a benefit. Staff recommends two such trees on each side of the west elevation of the building for total of four in this area. Refer to the attached report from Ginny Gaynor, Open Space Naturalist. Ms. Gaynor has suggestions for the proposed rain garden which staff recommends the applicant follow. Tree Replacement Refer to the attached report from Shann Finwall, Environmental Planner. Ms. Finwall found the plans to be in compliance with tree-replacement requirements. Site Lighting The proposed light intensities shown on the photometric plan exceed the .4 foot candle maximum of light intensity at the property lines as ordinance requires. This plan must be modified to limit the lighting maximum to .4 foot candles at the perimeter of the site. The planning commission and community design review board also noted concern that care must be taken to protect the neighbors from nuisance lights. Trash Storage There is no proposed outdoor trash storage. If the applicant later wishes to provide an outdoor trash area for the building, he must propose an enclosure for staff review and approval. Additional City Department Comments Engineering Comments Refer to the engineering review comments from Steve Kummer, staff engineer. Other than recommendations for additional details and plan modifications, Mr. Kummer has determined the following: • The proposed storm water management systems shown meet city requirements 4 Packet Page Number Page 241 of 408 • The wetland delineation shown on the plans and required wetland setbacks meet city requirements. The Ramsey/Washington Watershed District has approved the plans. Building Official's Comments Dave Fisher, Maplewood's Building Official, gave the following comments: • The city will require a complete building code analysis when the construction plans are submitted to the city for building permits. • An elevator may be required. • All exiting must go to a public way. • The applicant must provide adequate fire department access to the building. • The building is required to be sprinklered. • A preconstruction meeting is recommended with the building staff, contractor and project manager. Police Comments Lieutenant Michael Shortreed reviewed this proposal and has the following comments: • There should be adequate lighting provided and security mechanisms on the building and parking lot to deter thefts and burglaries. Construction site thefts and burglaries are a large problem affecting many large and small construction projects throughout the Twin Cities metro area. The contractor/developer should be encouraged to plan and provide for site security during the construction process. On-site security, alarm systems and any other appropriate security measures would be highly encouraged to deter and report theft and suspicious activity incidents in a timely manner. Fire Marshal Butch Gervais, assistant fire chief and fire marshal, reviewed the proposal and requires the following be provided: • Afire protection system per code. • Afire alarm system per code. • A 20-foot-wide fire department access road. • Afire department key box (order from AC/FM). COMMITTEE ACTIONS January 6, 2009: The planning commission recommended approval of the CUP and lot division. The planning commission added a requirement to the CUP recommendation 5 Packet Page Number Page 242 of 408 that the site plan be revised, as shown to the commission at the meeting, with a retaining wall along the east side of the parking lot near Lakewood Drive. The retaining wall and site grades shall be subject to the approval of the city's engineering department. The planning commission also forwarded a suggested recommendation to the community design review board that they require that all site lights be required to shine inward toward the site and not toward any residential neighbors, as site and automobile lights were a concern expressed at the public hearing. January 13, 2009: The community design review board recommended approval of the design plans and recommended the following in addition to staff's motion: • They prefer a berm and landscaping south side of the parking lot and driveway. • They suggest that the applicant look at using residential-style lighting fixtures to stay consistent with the surrounding neighborhood, but recognizes the applicant needs to consider cost. RECOMMENDATIONS A. Adopt the resolution approving a conditional use permit for the Feed Products North office building, located at 1300 McKnight Road. This permit allows the construction of an office building on land zoned M1 (light manufacturing) within 350 feet of residential property. Approval is based on the findings required by ordinance and subject to the following conditions: 1. All construction shall follow the site plan approved by the city. Staff may approve minor changes. 2. The proposed construction must be substantially started within one year of council approval. The city council may extend this permit one additional year. 3. The city council shall review this permit in one year. After two years the permit shall end unless construction has started. 4. Compliance with conditions in the report by Steve Kummer, Maplewood Staff Engineer, dated December 2, 2008. The site plan shall be revised, as shown to the commission at the public hearing, with a retaining wall along the east side of the parking lot near Lakewood Drive. The retaining wall and site grades shall be subject to the approval of the city's engineering department. 5. Compliance with conditions in the report by Ginny Gaynor, Open Space Naturalist with the city, in her report dated November 26, 2008. 6. Compliance with conditions in the report by Shann Finwall, Environmental Planner with the city, dated December 26, 2008. 7. Provide wetland-protection signs along the wetland buffer as required by ordinance. The number and placement of these signs shall be determined by the 6 Packet Page Number Page 243 of 408 environmental planner. These signs shall prohibit any building, mowing, cutting, filling or dumping in or around the wetland. 8. To develop this site adjacent to residential property, the applicant shall provide a screening buffer that is at least six-feet-tall and 80 percent opaque upon installation. This buffer may be comprised of evergreen trees or a decorative wood fence. Such screening shall be subject to staff approval. B. Approve the lot split to separate the office site from the main part of the applicant's property located at 1300 McKnight Road, subject to the property owner dedicating cross easements on the west property that cover the utilities (sanitary and storm) which serve the lot east of Lakewood Drive. C. Approve the plans date-stamped November 4, 2008, for the proposed Feed Products North office building. Approval is based on the findings for approval required by ordinance and subject to the developer doing the following: 1. Repeat this review in two years if the applicant has not obtained a building permit by that time. After two years this review must be repeated. 2. Obtain a conditional use permit from the city council for the proposed office building. 3. Comply with the requirements of Shann Finwall in her report dated December 26, 2008. 4. Comply with the requirements of the engineering report by Steve Kummer dated December 2, 2008. The site plan shall be revised, as shown to the commission at the public hearing, with a retaining wall along the east side of the parking lot near Lakewood Drive. The retaining wall and site grades shall be subject to the approval of the city's engineering department. 5. Comply with the requirements of Ginny Gaynor in her report dated November 26, 2008. 6. Take into account the suggestions by Lieutenant Michael Shortreed as stated in this report. 7. Revise the site plan to provide a 15-foot parking lot setback from the Lakewood Drive right-of-way line. If a 15-foot setback cannot be provided, the applicant must apply for a setback variance. 8. Any retaining walls over four-feet-tall shall be designed by a structural engineer and have a protective guard rail or fence on top. 9. The applicant shall install in-ground lawn irrigation in formal landscaped areas. 7 Packet Page Number Page 244 of 408 10. The landscaping plan shall be revised to include the following: a. Asix-foot-tall and 80 percent opaque buffer along the south side of the property to screen the area between both parking lots and the connecting drive aisle. This screen shall be comprised of evergreen trees or a decorative wood fence. b. Five over-story trees along the east side of the east parking lot. The three evergreens can be deleted. c. Four ornamental deciduous trees on the west side of the proposed building. d. Additional landscaping in the "front yard" in front of the building's main entrance (easterly side), subject to staff approval. 11. Obtain any necessary permits from the Ramsey/Washington Metro Watershed District. 12. All work shall follow the approved plans. The city planner may approve minor changes. 13. All pole-mounted site lights shall comply with the 25-foot height maximum. The site lighting plan shall be redesigned so that the light intensity does not exceed .4 footcandles at the property lines. All lighting fixtures shall be designed so lenses and bulbs are recessed or shielded to avoid nuisance complaints. All site lights are required to shine inward toward the site and not toward any residential neighbors. 14. If outdoor trash storage is used, such containers must be kept in a screening enclosure. The design and placement of the enclosure shall be subject to staff approval. 15. Before obtaining a building permit, the applicant shall provide cash escrow or an irrevocable letter of credit in the amount of 150 percent of the cost of completing landscaping and other site improvements. An irrevocable letter of credit shall include the following provisions: a. The letter of credit must clearly indicate that it is an irrevocable letter of credit in the name of the City of Maplewood, payable on demand, to assure compliance with the terms of the developer's agreement. b. The letter of credit must allow for partial withdrawals as needed to guarantee partial project payments covered under the terms of the letter of credit. c. The letter of credit shall be for cone-year duration and must have a condition indicating automatic renewal, with notification to the city a minimum of 60 days prior to its expiration. 8 Packet Page Number Page 245 of 408 CITIZEN COMMENTS Staff surveyed the 51 property owners within 500 feet of this site for their comments. There were four replies. Two were in favor and two were opposed. In Favor 1. Refer to the letter from Gary Salkowicz. This letter speaks to his and his mothers comments about this proposal. Opposed 1. I don't think an office building belongs in my residential neighborhood. If it is built, the design enclosed here is a better style than most office buildings. I oppose it but if it is built, make it look good and fit the area. (Tara L. Gerlach and Joseph N. Jorgenson, 2317 Tilsen Avenue) 2. Refer to the letter from Lyle Puppe, 2531 Nokomis Avenue. Mr. Puppe is most concerned about traffic increase. 9 Packet Page Number Page 246 of 408 REFERENCE INFORMATION SITE DESCRIPTION Site size: 2.19 acres Existing Use: Undeveloped SURROUNDING LAND USES North: Railroad right-of-way South: Single Dwellings East: Lakewood Drive and Feed Products North West: McKnight Road and single dwellings PLANNING Land Use Plan: M1 (light manufacturing) Zoning: M 1 Applicable Ordinance Section 44-637(b) states that, in an M1 district, a CUP is required for any building within 350 feet of a residential district. Criteria for Conditional Use Permit Approval Section 44-1097(a) states that the city council may approve a CUP, based on nine standards. See findings 1-9 in the resolution. APPLICATION DATE The city received the applicants' requests on November 4, 2008. Under the provisions of state statute, staff extended the initial 60-day review period an additional 60 days. The deadline for completion of the city's review of these requests is now March 4, 2009. 10 Packet Page Number Page 247 of 408 p:sec24-29\Feed Products CUP 1 09 #2 to Attachments: 1. Location Map 2. Land Use Plan Map 3. Zoning Map 4. Site/Landscaping Plan 5. Site/Grading Plan 6. Site/Utility Plan 7. Building Elevations (2 sheets) 8. Floor Plan 9. Applicant's Project Narrative date-stamped November 4, 2008 10. Engineering Report dated December 2, 2008 11. Open Space Naturalist's Report dated November 26, 2008 12. Environmental Planner's Report dated December 26, 2008 13. Survey-Response Email Correspondence from Gary Salkowicz dated November 6, 2008 14. Survey Response Email Correspondence from Lyle Puppe dated November 18, 2008 15. CUP Resolution 16. Plans date-stamped November 4, 2008 (separate attachments) 11 Packet Page Number Page 248 of 408 Attachment 1 0 Qwq m PROPOSED OFFICE BUILDING SITE g Fn,k ~ .~. 4. ~ PLEY AV iCiNG51'dH Q ~ AVE ~ ~ W ~ Ql AVE.. LARPEIiTE1JR J ~ ~ ,~ [DAtEO AVE. ~ ~ ~~ ° ~~ ~ ~ _ iAOM AVE iIOKG~4t ~,Ip~ t41 - • ~.. ... ~~ dL/C FEED PRODUCTS SIT E ,~ N ~ ~p~ ~ ~~. 4 ~ ~~~ 3 s ~ f~t~lt ~ Ark ~i ~ RC p°'k ~~ ~ A ~ ~ p,~,. G• ~ _ :: _. •.::•'.' '~ ~ ~' AVE. ~ .~TfISEN ~ ~~ ~~ 1 ANPEE~OF+E l1G4Y ~ L^ AVE ~ ~ _ Z ~~ ~ ~ ~ { s 6 w ~m~rt~ A E F~lARYLMID AVE. E.FtQSE }~` ~ ~ ~ AVE. ~~ ~ ~~ ~ f r~ ~ ~f ~, (~MGNOL.UI AVE a~ n A~ ~. ~~ ~ ~ PL cAS~ Avg., ~ _ ~ LLW*~ ~ ~ ~ BR~WD ~r,~~~ w. - sR'wo AVE AYE. & ~~, sr. ~ ~ ~ti, s~. z ~ ~ 3~ ~ ~ ~ a ~ ~J' ausFr ~ +~, ~c• _ ~ AVE. ~ Irt{NNEHAHII AVE. L4CATIDN MAP -~~ Packet Paae i ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~ -__~ ~~vL~~ c pR~~0.5~^ SITE ~'~"°°-~ P~~ ,' :., ~ rr ~.~;. .1 ~...} ~~'~ ` t~ ~. ~- l,~~~ z ~LKHMRT k N G ~a 1 Op D~7LPHIAJ GR ~ (. ~~~~"a ~ R TlLSEN AVE ~ ~ r~~ { ~ ,3 - ,~ ~ CbYt7TE? L1~ V ~ ~ ,~ B1~Qt~ pit ~ si~;~3N t3~ ~~ q~ ';1 ~~hC~~~tJ~'~CICLN~ ~ ~ w a ~ ~~ u. lr" ~ ~ 4 ¢~y ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ f ~~, f': ) f '„ 3` ~ 7 ~t~~ I ~J ~`' p. ~ MARYLAND .4VE "' U~ ?t)SL r"tidL t Packet Page Number Page 250 of 408 ~ f Attachment Q.L. ,!i<. ,. 1 : 3 Z = ler F s W114 [.~ y :[,1 ~ , ~ ~ R1 ~ In ' ~" 1 us~.~.. sa+ IIe T 111 W~IT1G Y~ S '[~ (ul t~ [YI ,I 's ~ n. a ~, o.L. 8 2 1413 4J f= F 1, ~ ~[ t>!1 ue, ~ ral C un ',! a ] 1 ( ffX~ 16 m+'il u e ,~, nn 1e rr fm f ~ la N A R +~ [.~, ~ [,r . R r z ,~ ~~ °V; ~ ':'~"++i ''++~~ ~":;''?r7r;r77ir'tr?i: [ ~: f57'A R~ ~~, t 9 n 3 eL 6.L. fh1 5 '1 s (a0 r+:„' w r` 3" N re. ~, ° ~~~ FEED PRODUCTS SITE I.~-- -'~~' ~- ~~;;~C~ . 71 J [-tee. _ _ :,~':_ _ _ _ _ _ '/: f.+' r ~- «~ _. ~ - 4 t N `aySS~,. y I '~ ~+''~' "'6 t rat' M" - °.fu W S 3f ~ s f~ ~ ~~~~ w1 _ pu p f, ~ ,,.[ ~ ~ ~ F~ ~v' t ~; (~ a;' PROPOSED OFFICE BUILDING SITE R3 1 I ,,.,w yL~.~MA .~} 1 1 I '~~. ~. ~....} ?, PUp PROPERTY LINE 1 ZONING MAP 4 Packet Paae _~ ~ y Y ~ ~ tx ~ rav/WA cua rma~ a W s ~ ~! dp ~~e~ 3 ~~ //fr 63iei~ a:~ q [/1 ~ ~~ 9 ~ y ~ ~ n Me .x r'.~r'+ei +r~.~wt ~I~SL91tl~iif~i ~ij E ~~ Iu~I ~'~ ~ ~ \~ .a~IO xw~ar rwl ~"3'C~"~'~'i~wm Puvp+a v°l 371flallffl!! ~~~ ~.~ / s a 94$~~ ~~i~. ~ ~ f s'• m$ L a i~ 8 i ~ ~ 6S ~ C ,~ u ~ :~ , i ~ 1 @#yz_ai !d ~ ~~~e~y ~°~~ r !fir i . a ~ = y /i - ,~. i ~Vtr '~ iy. _ i g ~ §~ 7 3 3n *r era` , /~ 74 1 / \ ~j ~ 1 ~ ~~ v~ / / ~ ~tl 4 1 y$ 1 ,Kp+~ ~~ ~ ~ /~6 r ~~ " ~ ~ ~ . ~ 11 1~ ~ ` s-~ I ~i ~ ~, I! I! m ~ ~ r ~ ~a ~r _'^11'~ / ~~ o I !!!~~` ~~ ~ ~ \ 1 ~ ~~ 1 ~ / ~~~ 1 l~yl ~ ~ `~ 1 11 ~ Cg~y i ~ 1 ~ ~ R. 4... ~ c. 3~ii Li 1~ ~ i C~° s{ ~y i ~ ^~~Yi ~ i i ' ~ a ~ ~ ~ `N p ~ ' ~~ n ~~ ~ ~ -,~~ a , n~ ~, ~~ ~~ \~ ~ u 9i t4~ ~ tl ' ~ii ~ Q ~~ _ ~ ~ ~ D ~I ~ 8 ` ` . '~~ ~ ~' =.....v~ ~• 1 , ~ J 30' WftDINO $1BACK .^ -~ `, {[! ~ IJ PAR1nH6~ pc ~~ C1 'i~ ~ ~- R x ~~ y O a~N~~p 71 S '~ ~ ~ Q t c 1 { I i4'"' ~'~S i ~i 1- © ~ * ` ~~ Y ix~W A ~ = w ~ ~ S C ,yam„ ~+ ~ o ~ e ~ ~ N~ ~ __ ~ ~ o~ ~ ili r= TL 2 ~ ~ ~ ~ h ~ ~ ~ ~ a o ~ ~ ~ a ~ a a ~ 3 = e ~ E ~ y y q ~' i ~ Y g E ~ § o~ i ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ t i a ~ ~ a ~ ~ ~ ab ~~^~n~ ~ ~ t ~ ~ ~ $ tl m 0 E S a x 5~ s ~ ~S o ~99 s 9 E ~ E ~ Gi ~ ~~ r N q ~ _ R ~ a .~ _~~ ~ ~~ ~~ ~F ~; Pt! S ~ ~ ~ NCB ~uR 3 ~ i ~~5~~~~ ~ ~~~~ ~€~~~ ~$1~~ ~_ ~ `~ ~ ~~ h ~~~ nin.°r Ill ~~P.. nt...~......:..: Packet Page Number Page 252 of 408 ~e~ au ~n ~em/eVa ~um oxpq..q ~~np ~`~ ~ p ' ~,~~ ~x~~ ~~ ~ f ~""q'w`y mw ~"' ~ g~g ~ ~ ~ , N WllElllfl ~f ~~~ IE ~~ + ~~5*~~`~~ E, ~ 3 ~' "i a $Id~e~~~~a i~ ~~~F~~~i356 A A 2a J oi ) d "a~ i ~ Ea s R ~sE ~=sc ~s 9_xe s ~ ,~~ ~ 'S S ~~~$ ;~ } ~g ~Z~ ~~~~ 'YI.~ its ~~~ 6S~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ E ~ ' ~ ~ ~~~ ~ s F, ~gg .Ly ¢a " ~~ ~ . 1 ! tA v W I~i~ ~_ v ~~ ~~~ ~~a ~~=3~ ~ ~3 ~y~. ~~¢~~ ~ np~ G! ~FU ~W~s~~ ~~ ~~~~ ~~~w s ~ ~ O 0 C'=e°~ ~~ Q 0 y~ ~ iY G7 Afi.tachment 5 ' ErN ~' ~ ~~~~..JJJ _ ,/' ~ w P+s ' f ~~~u.~+ .zX xa ~n^ ' _ w '~ ~ gi~pp„ ~~~ i 1 ~ ~ ~':~ ~:?•:; ~ s ~' P ~Sa~ ~ ~s~ ~ f aP • l~ ! &R ab ~ ~ ~ f~ ~ Et ~~_ ~ a +• 1 I1 ~, '~a ~pz is xC S ~~ea ~ xa ~ ' a :. ~''''•:.-,.•..:-.. ' •.1~:• 1046. ~ i~~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ '~ f ~F ~~ s- 1 leg. 4y ' t s n ° l ~ gg J,~ ~~°' L~ G ~~ mx~K 3~~ 1 .~'x a y ~l°~vS ~ 4i ~ b a~ 9g dose /-r~/.. CC" x .} " '~ ~ ~ s~ {~ a I:" ~t.°~ ~ ~ ~ .3'i fip X x ~~~~ ~~~ ~$~~~~ ' ~ 4Ta C ~~ 9 ~' :, .~i ~~t71 . I war ~ :: ~~' •• ~N Aa $~ _7t _'•;>:.;~ ~ :fin x ~ Q •~ ~ ~ '~y~-~{~'', ~ ~ Fes{ ~ ~~ ~~~~ x 111 ~ x~- ~ sa; g _~z~ ~~ ~, mm ~ ~ l , ~ " ~ .~ u ~~ ~~ ~r^= ;,-~. u ~ .~..~_ .';~ _ _.. `~. r~ -__=~~'"- -r -~- • ~ Vi=a - ....,._,,,~ ._ ~ _ ~~~~ ~~~~ ~~~~ b~~~ s€ ~ x ~ PE~y-iYga~! g~ ~ ~~ a q ~, 5 ; r_ e Y ~ ~ ~ ~ ` ~s i k ~e~~~~ `;i ~oi~ E~~~ ~ ¢~ Ji ~ g a ~ Y z~ ~ r ~ ~ 'x ~'~~ L cis 7 $ pis' ~i'--~~~ ~ s ~ ;~ ~j'•~ E 3p ~ ens 3 ~R L F ~5~; $3 5 H ~ s se§§A8¢kS~~E~ 8w~x~z;li~;~. a L ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~: ~r g6 ~~~ ~3~~ IIi~~e ~~~i ~ ~ ~ s ~ s H ~~%x~ $ ~4~~~~4 § ~ y~4~i~ ~ # ~p~~~aFd~B ~~dij~~ ~ ~ ~ R~ ~~ ~y ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ I ~ i X35 ,y a ~' y i!~ EBj~;~~ nE3 ~'~' ;`g~6 ~3 R ~q~ 3 ~ ~ ~ E Y ~~°$e}°a`~ k;g{5 d ~~~i$~~S SFids~-'°~7 ~l~j~j~~ E~ $~ ~a ~~§`~i.~ ~~r~~~ ~ °.G~S~ ~e~ ~ ~~0~6~~~Y«, ~§i~3~~~~.gz [;~p~ i a~P~ i~aK ~$~ad°~ ~E g g f a $ ~ ~ Sl~I~g TF~; ~d S~isB~~~r~#~ L'89tB2~a~~'ss~~~i~gi4$.a~f~l9 Y ~S8'~~~83~~~fs~J gggZ~'n: ~ nL g'a axy:c s u s ~s A F B is s '1 g f 1 I . .. ~" ~ rc ~ ilt ~ .. . des Packet Page Number Page 253 of 408 ,~. ~. ~, a ~ ~ ~ ~ wwnas v arm rma.unun a ~~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ :i ~~ •'r~s'~nr..nm~~,..rM ^1WS[~lfi~1 v~ ~ ~~~ s~~ ~ ~ ~a i y O SS v+nu.r~a A+. ~i ~..Nw~.w~..noi'°,,.~~'~S. ~'~H!llllflf By$~ ~Qy ~1'r~~~ Z S ~m~ 11FlY11i XN -+n V+A w rnf wl I'+I 4u3'a AP-Y f 6.. -~ ~i ~ ~r .%' yt~ /y? + ~J ' /~y '++'~ ~ '~ ~ r! ,~7 °~; + ~ +sy~+ ~J s+ ~ ~ ,~ / ~ .~ ~ ~ , + ~,, , `! ! +.~ ' f 1 +~ ~ ! :'~` f ~ i ~ ~' \ i .r\ ~ 1 I C' ' Y 45~ ~ J ~~ rr ~ ~ ~ 1 ~ ~v $ ' ~~~ 9~q9 rr ! ~ ~ / I 1 ~ 3 ~J ' I'' ~ ~ ~ ~ ! Y ~~~ e'~/ J y , ~ ~ '' X6'6 '' ~ ~ g ~ a `~y. / / x : ~, ~ /` I ~~' ~ .~ ~ a ,~ 0 O Q W W ii ~_ e ^IA! w "mac a~~ ~ ~ ~~ ~~ ~~ W ~~ ~ r ~xs ~y, ~~ ~ 3 r iE~` ~ a ~~ ~? a ~~ ~~ ~~ ~s$i ~~st sus Saz- ~ ~~~~$3~s~~~~ E ~~P a a ~x -~ f '~ Sga, ~ .s ~ 3- $ ~ CIS • 1 r~ `~` ~ y~ 6 ~ ~ ~5~ ~ "1 r g ~ I J`t+l ~ ^ [~f~Fr 4 ~ ~~ ~A ~ ~ yyA ~~ ? ~i~~~OC2 ~ / 4 ~/ 6Q r N Ir e ~~ 1 I 1 J - l ~~~Y p6 5~~~ / .~,~ ~o~i~~ aa~~~ ~~ ' 4Vi~.Z ~FI ~QM S; ` ~2~ Z ~~ ~~ ~o a a I ` ~`r~ a ~ I I ~~/ dW~ ASa.. 1 ei3x~s .e L ~~ ~ ~~~~ :3~ a}yGS~ ^~ . ~, PS' f [i ~ ~ ~i ~;i-~ ~ ~~^ ~~s~ m ~;6~~q,~~s~ ~~~~~~~ Flea $~~~a~ ~a s is,~~..; :? _~ ~~~~~ s~FgFz~~~°~ ~ ~rl six ~~~l~rl 7~1g 1~~~~}} ,:g~~~~~'~~l~~ ~al~ °~~~~ 3i~ ~s~~3;:~3j~ as'a~'s~a~a~ ~Ss3~a..~ed ~% °',11 a et ]sF ~s$ ~ta ~'€ n~~~' I ~ ~ I~IB g0 ~~ ~~ ~ ~~ ~i k DD ~b ~E ~~$ i~F~~" ~a! ~~= t~ya ~~~~'a~;p!~~~ I ~ I ~ I t 6~1E aaoa 4 Si ~~ as3E ~~~ ~'- S~` ~ ~se{ 9f~~g I I Packet Page Number Page 254 of 408 Attachment 7 v..rn~ N+saq.o'x~n~a~-~•nxalwuao-n. ~W ~ ~~~.~ .M V;.. Crv.~ywit+r+l~Ptv~p • H.t~suy~ ww~e..wr+r ~.~m.~ ~wn.wwM ~-~~ a~ ~~ ~~ m ~ ~ ~ T ~ a ~ k ~ ' }IbtfYQ ~ bO ~ ~Q"I~~Ol~ ~ o z ° ,:~~, ~ 1 k s j 1""~ I E~~~=~ X I 4 6~2 G € q ~ 5 k R k y.1fx~ €€ ~p p ~~iE~ IGa mbe ~.,~aa...ona-v,rc~p ~.riM,.«~~w.~-~.~m~m.~ .m:o~o ~~~~°w-s."~°v.-.:"~.~ .. ~t.ercl4v .waro.u,won. y~ ~ 1 aibR/4>sQ Oo W ~~ G 4 ~° o ~ ~ ~ ,~ri ~ ~~~ r s r S ~ g o - ~~~ a Y ~ ~~ Cam! I ___;~ L~ `~ s i ~ ___~~ EI _-1l 15 J I! _-~! I _ II ~ ~ II CQ Y1 II z I i I I ~ ~~~ II I I ~ II ______ ~ ~~ i -;17 s i ~n I { V ~ ~ ~ i;z a ggb ~~ ~ ~~ n ___ I I `~ ~ it S I I fi F I I IS i ~_„-"'___ I I I! z_.y I --KJ ly"'y I I I I I II 7 II I II i II _ I I L ; I I I L I i II I ! II I - °---------~1 II ~I I I II I~ ~ II ® II I ii I II LLL~~~ I I I i !py I ~ ii I ~ _I __' ---iJ $ -.~1 I I ~. I I -- J II I >s I I it I~ II lU II i I L! J 1 I rr~~~ ; I E3 li II IE II ~" $ ~ ~ i I Q ~~ ~ ~ _ ~~ ~ ~ --z ~, Ij ~ _ • ~ ~ i I F- ~ ~IA~` I~~xI~II~ ~ ' ~ nl` ® {~J ! I L~1 i l fl I! II __J I YJ II II II ~ ~ II 1 I Y II II II n j FI b __~ I _ r~ I '-'i3 I ~ I k = E ~~ t f ~ .. _.!'l ~~ ll --`YJ +-,~~ ,, _., Packet Page Numb r Pa e 256 of 40 Attachment 8 a.pyp - t y~ i ~16 a ,~88 3 ~ Ntlld 33'dd5 l,31VNIIWR3ifd a5 i''r~ r S 8~Ee ~ €y ak~~~R~g:l~` ~ ~ Lt t 8r ~~t~~~~s i~~;~~ o€iss Nw~oooMSiawi ~ R 3~s Azamn* ~~ {@~• ~ ~ ~~ wetaNavobiFio€NH~U90~E1 ~ , ~ p~ ciY gg~ ~ 4 q~q~ ~ '3N3'H12lON Slailfl~2ld 033d ~ s £~~~~e~ii5~1~ ? ~~ I I I ~ I I I I~ I I d o~ ~ ~oQ ..mpmuamr~~m~wrom ~~~ ~ o 0 Nlllj a ~ Nn ya a U ~ m b F a F ~~ P ~n Ca 3 ~ 3 R' U 5 R ~ 6 ~- O_ 2 n, U' 2 ~ ~ - a a d ~d• ~ crn {} j~®~ ~ O Z ~~ ~J r ~ la3 K ~~ a o o r m ~ m ~ z # ~ U W d~ ~ ~a o`~ Packet Page Number Page 257 of 408 ~ ~~~ ~~~ !ado ~~Y~tG~- ~~ ~ . ~l4p tL'rwo v D, 1~~ Attachment 9 Written statement describing intended use of the property: The City should approve our request for construction of an additional office building because it is within the intended use of the property. The property is zoned M-1 (light industrial} and this office space will replace what we are currently doing on the property from our scale office. The City approved a CUP application for an off ce building previously in 1998. The building will be located, designed, maintained, constructed and operated to be in conformity with the City's comprehensive plan and Code of Ordinances. The office building will not change the existing or planned character of the surrounding area. The use will increase property values by providing a better looking structure. The office building will not involve any activity that would be a nuisance or interfere with the surrounding area. The use will not generate more vehicle traffic because it is to service our existing employees. The current public facilities are more thin adequate to service the existing conditions. ~~~~od~~ Nav o n zoos ev Packet Page Number Page 258 of 408 Attacr~ment 10 Maplewood Engineering Comments -- Feed Products North '[ 2-2-Q8 Page '# of 4 Engineering Plan Review --Supplemental Narrative and Comments PROJECT; Feed Products NarEh PROJECT NO; OS-19 CDMMENTS BY; Steve Kummer, P.E. -Staff Engineer DATE; 12-2-08 PLAN SET: City Submittal Set: Civil Drawings by Plowe Engineering Dated 9-10-08 Revised Sheet C2 Dated 9-11-08 and reed electronically 12-1-OS COMPS: Drainage Computations by Plowe Engineering Dated 7-23-08, No Documented Revisions Summary Feed Products North is proposing to develop a 2-floor office building with a parking lot on a parcel west of Lakewood Drive and east of McKnight Road. Storm Water Runoff Comments The net impervious increase of the proposed development is 0.49 acres with a net disturbed area of 1.24 acres. The site will be held to Maplewood Engineering standards for storm water management. Storm water runoff from the site wilt be managed by a rain water garden with an underdrain system. Drainage from the roof, parking lot and driveway access will drain into the rain garden via a curb cut and rip-rap swale. Based on the provided computations, the storm water management systems on the site adequately mitigate the runoff from t!~ proposed development #o city standards, which includes limi#ing proposed runoff to existing conditions and treatment/volume control for the 1.3-inch storm event. Comments 1) The pond is considered a filtration basin with an installed under drain and shall be designed to meet 90% of the 7.3-inch storm event instead of the 7.0-inch stomp event as indicated with the submitted computations. Therefore, the required volume reducfian would be 2, 071 cubic feet. The volume provided for infiltration, according to the computations is 4, T46 cubic feet, which exceeds the requirement. However, the Engineer shall resubmit computations based on the 1.3 inch standard. 2) The applicant shall submit sail borings and infiltration tests of the soils underlying the rain garden. The minimum boring depth from existing grade shall be 10 feet. 3) The rain garden basin design shall be subject to approval by the City Naturalist. 4) The applicant shall put up an escrow or letter of credit for 100% of the cost of building the proposed rain water garden and shall contact city staff 48 hours prior to construction of the rain water garden. Care must be fakers to avoid compaction of boffom area in order to avoid losing the infiltration characteristics of the soil if the rainwater garden ar Packet Page Number Page 259 of 408 Maplewood Engineering Comments -Feed Products North 12-2-08 Page 2 of 4 infiltration basin does not perform as designed, it is the responsibility of the developer's engineer and/or contractor to correct the problem. The city will withhold all escrow morales, and may coordinate with the city building department to withhold certificate of occupancies for buildings on the development site, until the proper functioning of the rainwater garden and/or infilfration basin is restored. 5) The following note shall be added to the plans: "Avoid compacting infiltration areas by limiting the use of heavy equipment in rain water garden basin area during construction. Excavation to final depth shall occur prior to installation of bedding material and after major grading activities. " Wetlands An existing wetland near the southwest corner of the site has been delineated. A report by Critical Connections Ecological Services, Inc. dated July 39, 2008 has been submitted to and approved by the Ramsey Washington Metro Watershed District. Based on Maplewood ordinance, the wetland is considered a Class 3 wetland with a 50-foot averaged and 25-foot minimum no-disturb buffer requirement. The wetland outline is shown on the plans. Comments 7) The wetland delineation, 25--foot and 50-foot offset lines shall be shown and clearly labeled on the plans. 2) No grading shall be allowed within the 50-foot buffer of the wetland The applicant shall explore possibilifies of using other areas of the property to accomplish the storm water management on the site. The applicant may want fo consider parking requirements as well. 3J A grading limits line accurate according to the contours shall be shown on the plans where grading contours tie into grades near the wetland buffer. 4) A heavy duty silt fence with compost log reinforcement shall be shown along the periphery of the wetland buffer. Grading, Drairsa~e, Erosion Control and Geometries The general I~iyaut of the parEcing lot grading is from east to west. All drainage is routed overland and concentrates in gutter lines. The drainage is eventually routed to the rain water garden near the southwest corner of the site. Comments 7) It appears that the applicant will be cutting info the Lakewood Drive embankment with the construction of the proposed parking lot and will be constructing a retaining wall. The applicant shall provide details and recommendations from a licensed geotechnical engineer for stabilization of the embankment during and after construction including engineered details on the retaining wall. Applicant shall also send plans Ramsey County Public Works far review. Packet Page Number Page 260 of 408 Maplewood Engineering Comments -Feed Products North ~ 2-2-08 Page 3 of 4 2) Grading along the south fence line of the site shall be such that fhe grades near the bottom of the fence are kept similar fo existing conditions. No mounding of dirt against the fence is allowed. The applicant shall insure that fhe runoff from the Swale is not directed toward fhe private properties to the south. 3) Capacity computations for fhe 2-72"driveway culverts shall be submitted by the applicant for review. 4) Applicant shall show the Maplewood standard plate for a concrete commercial driveway entrance with curve radii, 5) Applicant shall dimension the drive width and typical parking stall measurements. 6) Applicant shall show a rock entrance pad at the entrance to fhe site. 7) A note shall be added fo fhe plans: "Erosion control and inlet protecfion shall be in place prior to fhe start of construction. " Sanitary Sewer and Water Main The applicant is proposing a 6-inch PVC sanitary sewer service and a 6-inch D1P combined fireldomestic water service connection for the building. Both services are proposed to connect to existing water and sewer stubs from McKnight Road. Comments 7) Applicant shall consider an alternate route for the sanitary sewer service. Installation of the sanitary sewer is not allowed within the wetland buffer. It is suggested that the applicant consider connecting into the sanitary main that currently services the Feed Products property on fhe east side of Lakewood Drive. 2) Applicant shall add a note to the plans indicating that a connection to fhe sanitary sewer shall be per Maplewood standards and specihcatians and that the Utility Maintenance division shall be contacted 48 hours prior fo connection to the sanitary sewer. 3) Applicant shall consider an alternate route for the wafer service. Installafion of the water service is not allowed within the wetland buffer. Instead of utilizing fhe existing stub, the applicant may consider a 6x6 wettap into the McKnight watermain at the driveway access paint, or a 1 Sx6 weltap into the water main running through an easement on the properly. 4) Plans shall be submitted to Saint Pau! Regional Water Services for review with the city copied on review comments. Packet Page Number Page 261 of 408 Maplewood Engineering Comments -- Feed Products North ~ 2-2-08 Page 4 of 4 MisceiEaneous Comments 1. The applicant shall enter Into a Maintenance Agreement with the City of Maplewood for the maintenance of the rain garden. 2. Copley of all permit approvals (i.e. SPRWS, RWMWD, Ramsey County, etc) shall be submiffed prior to city approvaf of plans. Packet Page Number Page 262 of 408 Attachment 11 MEMORANDUM TO: Steven Kummer, Engineer FROM: Ginny Gaynor, Open Space Naturalist DATE: November 26, 2008 RE: Fallin Office -Feed Products North -filtration basin planting design I reviewed the planting designs for the filtration basin on the Fallin Office project and have the following recommendations. l . My review only relates to the planting design for the filtration basin and makes an asswnption that our engineers will approve the size, capacity, and design for the basin once soil borings are provided. 2. Plant species selected. a. Arrrnwhead. This plant requires standing water during at least a part of the season. If the basin will have standing water for less than a four days after rainfall, please replace this species. b. All other species selected should perform well in this wet basin. c. I strongly recommend you increase the diversity of the grasses and flowers in the basin since it is so large, or please indicate why the design concept called for low diversify. There are many showy flowers that would do well in these conditions and give you more in bloom in summer and fall. In addition, you may want to consider massing shrubs together in the garden and increasing the number of shrubs. 3. Number of species. The number of plants in the basin seems law, based on my rough estimate that the planted area is approximately 2400 square feet. a. Please use a line on plan to distinguish the planting bed from the surrounding turf area. (The existing design shows the countours and not the delineation between lawn and garden. b. Please indicate the number of square feet for the planted area of basin. c. Please indicate plant spacing for shrubs and for plugs. Recommended spacing is: 1) Shrubs ~ 5'-6' on center 2) Plugs -15' an center. If shredded hardwood mulch is used instead of blanket, plugs maybe spaced 18" on center. d. Flease recalculate number of plants based on the above. 4. First and second year maintenance. Many native plantings fail because people do not understand that weed cantxol is essential the first two years. Please indicate an the plan that there will be a 2-year maintenance contract for weed control in the basin. We encourage you to work with a contractor that guarantees establishment and will provide a maintenance contract. 5. Wood fiber blanket. I strongly recommend that shredded hardwood mulch is used far the basin rather than blanket, unless the basin will hold standing water for several days after rainfall The mulch will greatly reduce weeds. Because the garden design clumps species Packet Page Number Page 263 of 408 _ it is designed to be more ornamental than a native planting that mixes grasses and flowers throughout. Thus, there will be an expectation that that garden is relatively weed free. 6. Riprap. It appears that part of the riprap is surrounded by turf grass. For unproved aesthetics and ease of mowing maintenance, we reconun.end you extend the plantings in a narrow border around the riprap. 7. Edging. We encourage you to use edging on the borders of the garden that are adjacent to turf grass. Packet Page Number Page 264 of 408 Attachment T2 Tree Preservation and Wetland Buffer Review Project: Feed Products Office Building, 1300 McKnight Road North Date of Plan: September 10, 2008 Date of Review: December 2G, 2008 Reviewer: Shann Finwall, Environmental Planner {65t.) 249-2304; shaven.firnwall(a7ci.ma~plewood.mn.us Background: John Fallen of Feed Products North is proposing to build a 5,311 square foot, 2-story office building on a vacant lot located west of Lakewood Drive at 1300 McKnight Road. A. Tree Preservation Ordinance: The city'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 S inches in diameter, and a softwood tree with a minimum of 12 inches in diameter. The ordinance further described a specimen tree as any tree with a caliper inch greater than 2S inc~ies. Development on a site should attempt to preserve all healthy specimen trees. 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. In essence, it penalizes developers for removing larger trees by requiring a greater amount of replacement for those trees. Tree Rema~al and Required Replacement: Tree replacement is based on the following calculation: Ordinance Calculation: [(A!B - 0.20) x C] x A = D Legend Feed Products A =Total Diameter inches of Significant Trees Lost 111.00 B =Total Diameter Inches of Significant Trees on Sifie 506.00 C =Tree Replacement Constant (1,5) 1.50 D T Replacement Trees (Number of Galiper inches) 3.22 Feed Product's Calculation: 1111506 - .20 x 1.5 x 111 = 3.22 Cai. Inches Required Replacement Trees: 322/2 caliper inch replacement trees = 4 trees The tree plan indicates that there are 508 caliper inches of significant trees on the site (36 trees), and 111 caliper inches of significant trees (7 frees or 21.94 percent} removed with the development. Based on these figures, the city's tree replacement calculation requires the developer to replace 3.22 caliper inches (4, 2 caliper inch trees). The reason the develapEr only has to replace 4 trees (0.63 percent} of the 21.94 percent removed is due to the fact that there are a number of trees on the 2.19 acre site. The tree replacement calculation takes into account that not as many trees can be planted on a site that is already forested. Packet Page Number Page 265 of 408 Proposed Tree Replacement: The developer is proposing to replace 32 caliper inches of significant trees an the site by planting three, 2-caliper inch ornamental trees and eigh#, 6-foot high evergreen trees. Tree Preservation Recommendation: The applicant is proposing the removal of two specimen trees with the development {one 36 caliper inch and one 35 caliper inch cottonwood tree). With the relocation of the utilities as required by the city's engineering review dated December 2, 2008, the applican# should be able to preserve these trees. Therefore, the two specimen trees proposed for removal as stated above should be preserved, 2. While the planting of 32 caliper inches of replacement trees meets the city's tree ordinance far this site, the applicant should plant additional trees as required in the overall landscape review for buffering and aesthetics. 3. Tree species must be specified on the landscape plan. Currently the plan calls for 2-caliper inch ornamentals and 6-foot high evergreen trees, with no specific species called out. B. We#land ©rdinance: There is a Class 3 wetland located on the south side of the property. The city's wetland ordinance requires a 50-foot average and 25-foot minimum buffer around a Class 3 wetland. The new Ramsey-Washington Metro Watershed Distric# wetland map classifies this wetland as a Manage 3. The draft wetland ordinance the city council will be reviewing again in the near future has a 50-foot minimum buffer around a Manage 3 wetland. Grading Plan: The grading plan shows an infiltration basin and utilities being constructed partially within the 50-foot buffer. Wetland Recommendations: The following wetland recommendations are also found in the city's. engineering review dated December 2, 2008: 1. The wetland delineation, 25-foot and 50-foot offset Tines shall be shown and clearly labeled on the plans. 2. No grading shall be allowed within the 50-foot buffer of the wetland. The applican# shall explore possibilities of using other areas of the property to accomplish the storm water management on the site. 3. A grading limits line accurate according to the contours shall be spawn on the plans where grading contours tie into grades near the_wetland buffer. 4. A heavy duty silt fence with compost log reinforcement shall be Shawn along the periphery of the wetland buffer. 2 Packet Page Number Page 266 of 408 Attachment 73 Tom Ekstrand From: ~ Gary Salkowicz [salkowg@comcast.net] Sent: Thursday, November OB, 2008 9:15 AM To: Tom Ekstrand Subject: Proposal development-1300 Mc~night Tom: This morning when my mother and I went to breakfast, she showed me the letter relating to the proposed building. frIe discussed it and she has no objection to developing that parcel. I suspect I didn't get a letter because I am out of the radius. I have no objection to the building either. I walk the dog past .there 3-4 days a week and actually think it would be an asset. The policeman in me looks at the amount of illegal dumping that occurs between Ivy and Tilsen along that stretch. Not only do I live in the area but this is the eastern edge of the district where I am a supervisor. Despite my best efforts, r have never been able to catch anyone dumping. It looks to be an attractive building. Niy only qualification, and this is related to the dumping aspect, is that of lighting. I firmly believe that tsemi-aggessive)exterior lighting for the lot o£ the new building would cut the amount of illegal dumping for both the Nfaplewood and St. Paul sides of the street. Feel free to call me at 651-485-554.8 if you have any questions. Gary Salkowicz 1 Packet Page Number Page 267 of 408 ;._.:: Yage 1 ot_Z Attachment 14 Torn Eltstrand From: We Delirrer [lylepuppe@hotmail.com] Sent: Thursday, December 04, 200$ 10:34 AM To: Tom Ekstrand Subject; FW: 1300 McKnight Road North Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Red Mr. Ekstrand, Thanks for call back. Please advise if you have now gotten my note about the property we discussed. Lyle From; lylepuppe@hotmail.com To: tom,ekstrand@ci.maplewood.mn.us Subject: 1.300 McKnight Raad North Date: Tue, 18 Nov 2008 03:50:13 +0000 Mr. Ekstrand, I am in receipt of your letter about the above property. I live at 2531 Nokomis Ave., in St. Paul around the corner from the address. I also left a message on your voice mail, however when you return, I will be busy doing recount for Ramsey County. I do have a couple questions regarding the new office building. Am I correct this office building would be the office building for the site on the east side of Lakewood Dr,? That is what it appears according to the drawing. If that is correct, am I also correct, they will not have driving access from the proposed office building to the east site under Lakewood? What type of traffic will this proposal generate? . At the present time, there is the site just fio the south of this proposed office that has sort of a scattered array of semi truck that come north up McKnight and end up backing into their driveway, having to drive into Tilsen aid back east across McKnight into their driveway. With the railroad tracks stopping traffic, the semi some times stopping traffic and putting what would appear fio be another driveway on the east side of McKnight certainly will complicate matters. I guess I would Tike to have more information on this. Thank you for your information. Lyle Puppe 2531 Nokomis Ave, St. Paul, MN55119-3219 ph:6.51,739.5953 12/4/2008 Packet Page Number Page 268 of 408 Attachment 15 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION WHEREAS, John Fallin, owner of Feed Products North, applied for a conditional use permit to build an office building on property zoned M1 (light manufacturing) located within 350 feet of residentially-zoned property. WHEREAS, Section 44-637(b) of the city ordinances require a conditional use permit for a building in a M1 district closer than 350 feet to residential property. The proposed building would be on a lot abutting residential property. WHEREAS, this permit applies to the property located east of 1300 McKnight Road. The legal description is: That part of the West Half of the Southwest Quarter of said Section 24, Township 29, Range 22, Ramsey County, Minnesota bounded as follows: On the North by a line drawn parallel with and distant 95 feet Southeasterly, as measured at right angles, from the center line of the main track of said railway company, as now located and established; on the West by the East line of the West 66 feet of the Southwest Quarter of Said Section 24 to a point on the West line of said Section 24 which is distant 450 feet South of the Southerly line of the 100 foot right of way of said railway company, said Southerly line being a line drawn parallel with and 56 feet Southeasterly as measured at right angles, from the center line of the main track of said railway company as originally located and established, and on the East by the East line of the Northwest Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of Section 24; excepting therefrom that part that lies Northwesterly of a line drawn parallel with and distant 8.5 feet Southeasterly, as measured at right angles from the center line of the most Southerly side track I.C.C. No. 114 of said railway company, as now located and established all in the County of Ramsey, State of Minnesota. EXCEPT that part of said West Half of the Southwest Quarter of said Section 24, lying easterly of the centerline of the 99 foot wide road easement as described in document No. 2325930. WHEREAS, the history of this conditional use permit is as follows: On January 6, 2009, the planning commission held a public hearing. The city staff published a notice in the paper and sent notices to the surrounding property owners. The planning commission gave everyone at the hearing a chance to speak and present written statements. The planning commission also considered the reports and recommendation of city staff. The planning commission recommended that the city council approve this permit. 2. On , 2009, the city council considered reports and recommendations of the city staff and planning commission. Packet Page Number Page 269 of 408 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the city council the above- described conditional use permit, because: 1. The use would be located, designed, maintained, constructed and operated to be in conformity with the City's Comprehensive Plan and Code of Ordinances. 2. The use would not change the existing or planned character of the surrounding area. 3. The use would not depreciate property values. 4. The use would not involve any activity, process, materials, equipment or methods of operation that would be dangerous, hazardous, detrimental, disturbing or cause a nuisance to any person or property, because of excessive noise, glare, smoke, dust, odor, fumes, water or air pollution, drainage, water 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 site plan approved by the city. Staff may approve minor changes. 2. The proposed construction must be substantially started within one year of council approval. The city council may extend this permit one additional year. 3. The city council shall review this permit in one year. After two years the permit shall end unless construction has started. 4. Compliance with conditions in the report by Steve Kummer, Maplewood Staff Engineer, dated December 2, 2008. The site plan shall be revised, as shown to the commission at the public hearing, with a retaining wall along the east side of the parking lot near Lakewood Drive. The retaining wall and site grades shall be subject to the approval of the city's engineering department. 2 Packet Page Number Page 270 of 408 5. Compliance with conditions in the report by Ginny Gaynor, Open Space Naturalist with the city, in her report dated November 26, 2008. 6. Compliance with conditions in the report by Shann Finwall, Environmental Planner with the city, dated December 26, 2008. 7. Provide wetland-protection signs along the wetland buffer as required by ordinance. The number and placement of these signs shall be determined by the environmental planner. These signs shall prohibit any building, mowing, cutting, filling or dumping in or around the wetland. 8. To develop this site adjacent to residential property, the applicant shall provide a screening buffer that is at least six-feet-tall and 80 percent opaque upon installation. This buffer may be comprised of evergreen trees or a decorative wood fence. Such screening shall be subject to staff approval. The Maplewood City Council this resolution on , 2009. 3 Packet Page Number Page 271 of 408 DRAFT MINUTES OF THE MAPLEWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION 1830 COUNTY ROAD B EAST, MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA TUESDAY, JANUARY 6, 2009 V. PUBLIC HEARING a. 7:07 p.m. -Feed Products North Office Building,1300 McKnight Road • Conditional Use Permit to Build Within 350 feet of Residential Property • Lot Division Senior Planner Tom Ekstrand presented the staff report for this request by John Fallin, owner of Feed Products North, to build a 5,800-square-foot, two-story office building for his business on the westerly portion of his property, east of McKnight Road and west of the Lakewood Drive bridge. Mr. Ekstrand mentioned in reviewing this request the city observed there is a residence to the south of Feed Products North with code violations and staff is in the process of getting that property's violations resolved. Commissioner Trippler said Lakewood Drive is elevated and the plans do not include a retaining wall and asked staff if there might be a problem with Lakewood Drive sliding into the parking lot. Staff engineer Steve Kummer said a revised plan was done that includes a retaining wall, but there have also been discussions to move some of the parking spaces to the other side of the building. Commissioner Trippler asked what kind of easement the parking lot would be built over and who would need to repair the lot if maintenance needed to be done. Staff engineer Kummer said it is a water main easement and it is the responsibility of the utility owner to repave and make any needed repairs to the parking lot. Commissioner Trippler asked if runoff is planned to flow to the wetland area. Staff engineer Kummer responded that the runoff flows toward the wetlands but will be treated outside of the wetland buffer. Commissioner Martin asked staff if the applicant's 1998 plan is available and how similar it is to the current proposal. Planner Ekstrand showed the commission the 1998 plan. Mr. Ekstrand said a full review was done for the current proposal and, with the city's criteria and wetland requirements being stricter today than in 1998, he feels this is a better plan. Commissioner Yarwood asked staff to comment on the lighting plan to potentially shield the lighting from the neighbors. Staff said the proposed lighting intensities at the property lines are high and the plan must be modified to limit the lighting maximum to .4 foot candles at the perimeter of the site. Bob Moser of Moser Homes, representing the applicant, addressed the commission and apologized that applicant John Fallin was out of town and unable to attend the meeting. Mr. Moser presented to the commission an updated plan that proposes a three and one-half-foot retaining wall located between Lakewood Drive and the parking lot. Mr. Moser said another addition to the plan is that an angle has been added to the parking lot to be certain that the lot conforms to the required setback guidelines. Commissioner Hess asked if there is a lower basement level planned for the building that is not shown on the plans. Mr. Moser responded there is a lower level planned that will be unfinished, but it is intended for use by a future tenant. Packet Page Number Page 272 of 408 Planning Commission -2- Minutes of 01-06-09 Mr. Moser said he would like to go on record regarding staff's earlier comments about the city requiring the property owner to the south, who is in violation of city code, to conform to city ordinances. Mr. Moser said Mr. Fallin appreciates staff's efforts to resolve the outside storage issues and the other code violations on the adjacent property. Mr. Moser said Mr. Fallin will be doing a lot to make the area look good and he would like adjacent properties to abide by similar requirements. The public hearing was opened for comments from the public. The following people spoke: Eugene Stepaniak, of 2249 Tilsen Ave in St. Paul, was concerned about an underground stream across the street that there may be spilling in the ground area that runs to Beaver Lake. Mr. Stepaniak said he now lives in St. Paul and wondered why St. Paul is not shown on the maps used at the meeting and also, that he was not included by Maplewood in the survey. Planner Ekstrand said Mr. Stepaniak received a letter notifying him of this meeting, which is a legal requirement, and further explained that the Maplewood site maps used at the meeting do not include any properties of neighboring cities. In this case, Maplewood's property maps stop at McKnight Road and don't include St. Paul. Commissioner Pearson asked whether soil borings have been taken on this site. Staff engineer Kummer responded he has not received soil borings from the site, but they will take as many as needed to construct the building. Mr. Pearson suggested that borings be taken on this area. Mr. Kummer responded that soil borings are typically taken on every project site, including city projects. Commissioner Hess asked staff if the underground stream referred to by Mr. Stepaniak is shown on the city's maps. Engineer Kummer responded there are no maps that show groundwater flow in the city, but staff will look into the concern of an underground stream. David Thorwick, 2285 Tilsen Court, said his concern is vehicle lights from the driveway shining onto his property. Planner Ekstrand responded that city code requires an eighty percent screening with dense evergreens or a wooden fence to block headlights between the parking lot and drive. Mr. Ekstrand said this is included as one of staff's recommendations in the staff report. Bob Moser, the applicant's representative, said some soil borings have been taken on the site and he will submit them to city staff. Mr. Moser said he is not aware of a water table elevation problem, but this will be checked. Mr. Moser reiterated that they have no intention of using or disposing of any hazardous materials or unapproved matter on the site. Mr. Moser said the purpose of this building is as an office and this would include any additional tenants. Mr. Moser said they are receptive to a lighting plan that will minimize inconvenience to adjacent properties including whatever is dictated by the city. Toni Thorwick, 2285 Tilsen Court, asked for clarification on the height of the proposed parking lot as opposed to her property. Commissioner Trippler noted the elevations involved and said the proposed eighty percent opaque screening required by the city should take care of lighting on her property. There were no further comments from the public. The public hearing was closed Commissioner Yarwood suggested a lighting recommendation be included stating the lighting be shielded or directed to shine into the interior of the applicant's property. Planner Ekstrand said lighting is a community design review board recommendation, but it would be an appropriate item to add. Commissioner Yarwood also suggested a condition be added to include a retaining wall. Commissioner Trippler moved the planning commission recommend Packet Page Number Page 273 of 408 Planning Commission -3- Minutes of 01-06-09 a. Adoption of the resolution approving a conditional use permit for the Feed Products North office building, located at 1300 McKnight Road. This permit allows the construction of an office building on land zoned M1 (light manufacturing) within 350 feet of residential property. Approval is based on the findings required by ordinance and subject to the following conditions: 1. All construction shall follow the site plan approved by the city. Staff may approve minor changes. 2. The proposed construction must be substantially started within one year of council approval. The city council may extend this permit one additional year. 3. The city council shall review this permit in one year. After two years the permit shall end unless construction has started. 4. Compliance with conditions in the report by Steve Kummer, Maplewood staff engineer, dated December 2, 2008. An addition of a retaining wall east of the east parking lot shall be included. 5. Compliance with conditions in the report by Ginny Gaynor, open space naturalist with the city, in her report dated November 26, 2008. 6. Compliance with conditions in the report by Shann Finwall, environmental planner with the city, dated December 26, 2008. 7. Provide wetland-protection signs along the wetland buffer as required by ordinance. The number and placement of these signs shall be determined by the environmental planner. These signs shall prohibit any building, mowing, cutting, filling or dumping in or around the wetland. 8. To develop this site adjacent to residential property, the applicant shall provide a screening buffer that is at least six feet tall and 80 percent opaque upon installation. This buffer may be comprised of evergreen trees or a decorative wood fence. Such screening shall be subject to staff approval. b. Approval of the lot split to separate the office site from the main part of the applicant's property located at 1300 McKnight Road, subject to the following conditions: 1. The property owner shall dedicate cross easements on the west property that cover the utilities (sanitary and storm) which serve the lot east of Lakewood Drive. 2. The applicant shall dedicate a public drainage and utility easement over the 24-inch culvert on the property if it is found to belong to Ramsey County. Commissioner Pearson seconded Ayes -all The motion passed. Commissioner Yarwood asked if a motion was needed on the lighting issue or if it would be noted to the design review board. Planner Ekstrand said if time allows the addition would be made in the staff report to go out the next day if possible or would be verbally noted at the review board meeting, and also it would be revised for the city council's review. Packet Page Number Page 274 of 408 Community Design Review Board Motion Summation The community design review board (CDRB) minutes for January 13, 2009 are not completed yet. As stated in the COMMITTEE ACTIONS section of this memo, the CDRB recommended approval of the Feed Products North office building proposal with the staff recommendation but with the following considerations: • They prefer a berm and landscaping on the south side of the parking lot and driveway. • They suggest that the applicant look at using residential-style lighting fixtures to stay consistent with the surrounding neighborhood, but recognizes the applicant needs to consider cost. Staff will distribute the CDRB minutes at the meeting if they are available. p:sec24-29\feed products CUP 1 09 CDRB summation to Packet Page Number Page 275 of 408 MEMORANDUM TO: Chuck Ahl, Acting City Manager FROM: Michael Martin, AICP, Planner SUBJECT: CUP Revision and Design Approval PROJECT: Menards LOCATION: 2280 Maplewood Drive DATE: January 16, 2009 INTRODUCTION Project Description Thomas O'Neil, of Menard, Inc., is proposing to build a 16,750-square-foot (80' x 209' - 3") unheated warehouse on the south side of the Menards store. The structure would be approximately 25 feet tall. The proposed warehouse would be built where an existing treated lumber rack exists. No additional impervious surface would be created with this proposal. A screening fence, consistent with the rest of the property, is being proposed on the south side of the Menards' property. Refer to the applicant's narrative statement and the site plan attached to this memo. In addition, Menard, Inc. is proposing to replace an existing chain link fence between the store and Countryside VW/Saab on the east side of the property. This fence would be used to screen a pallet racking area. BACKGROUND March 28, 1988: The city council approved Menards' CUP and granted a parking reduction authorization. January 23, February 13, March 27 and April 6, 1989: The council changed the CUP conditions. The changes were to clarify the screening fence and storage-rack height requirements. November 14, 1994, and September 11, 1995: The council amended the CUP conditions. April 8, 1996: The council amended the CUP conditions because of a request for a seasonal outdoor greenhouse and plant sale operation. May 20, 1996: The council again reviewed the CUP and directed Menards, Citgo, staff and the neighbors to meet and discuss several issues raised by one of the neighbors. These issues were about the screening fence, engine noises, fumes, parking and cross traffic between Citgo and Menards. August 12, 1997: The council reviewed the CUP again. The previous concerns and problems have been resolved. The council moved to review the CUP again only if a problem develops. October 25, 1999: The city council approved a CUP revision for the building expansion and site plan changes. They also approved the architectural, site and Packet Page Number Page 276 of 408 landscape plans. April 9, 2001: The council approved revised plans for the exterior of the new addition and required additional landscaping on the Highway 36 side of the building. January 30, 2004: The city approved plans for expansion of the exterior storage area and relocation of the fire gate. March 27, 2006: The city council made three approvals for Menards. They included: 1. A conditional use permit (CUP) revision to enlarge the building and amend the site plan. The city code requires council approval of a CUP revision for an owner to expand or revise a store or site for which a CUP exists. 2. Aparking-reduction authorization for 50 spaces. The code requires 451 spaces for the store. Menards proposed to have 401 parking stalls. 3. The site and building design plans. September 11, 2006: The city council reaffirmed the parking reduction authorization for Menards as approved by the city council on March 27, 2006. This approval was to allow Menards to have 50 fewer parking spaces than the city code requires. Requests Mr. O'Neil is requesting city approval of: 1. A conditional use permit (CUP) revision to build a new unheated warehouse, a screening fence and amend the site plan. The city code requires council approval of a CUP revision for an owner to expand or revise a store or site for which a CUP exists. 2. The site and building design plans. DISCUSSION CUP Revision The proposed site revision with the addition of the unheated warehouse and screening fence will meet the requirements for a CUP and should improve the store and the overall site. It should not have any impact on the adjacent residential neighborhood and in fact the additional wood fence screening should visually improve Menards impact on the neighborhood. 2 Packet Page Number Page 277 of 408 Site Drainage/shoreland Requirements The site is within the shoreland boundary of Keller Lake. Presently the site has 95 percent impervious-surface coverage. The shoreland code requires a maximum coverage of 40 percent. This project will not change the amount of impervious surface on the site as the addition for the warehouse would be constructed over a part of the existing paved storage area. Also, the roof of the proposed warehouse is slanted towards the rest of the Menards' site so that it will not affect its residential neighbors to the south. Proposed Building Design and Concerns The proposed wood screening fence on the east side of the property, near Countryside VW/Saab, would consist of 14-foot tall vertical 2x8 green-treated wood planks. This fence would be consistent with the other existing wood screening fences on the site. For the warehouse Menard, Inc. is proposing to use the same materials and colors as the recently updated facade of the Menards store. The north face would have entry and exit areas as well as pallet racking for the store's materials. The east and west faces would consist of a 14-foot tall screening fence consisting of vertical 2x8 green-treated wood planks. The remaining 11 feet of the exposed warehouse would be built with emerald green steel material, consistent with the rest of the store site. Staff had stated concerns about the originally proposed appearance of the south building elevation as shown in the full plan set attached to this report. While the applicant has chosen to use materials consistent with the rest of the proposed fences and existing site staff felt the large, one-dimension blank wall the 25-foot tall wood screening fence would create would be unattractive. Staff recommended the applicant consider shortening the height on the south fence and to use materials consistent with the east and west sides of the warehouse for the exposed top portion of the warehouse. In response to this concern, the applicant has submitted an alternative south building elevation which included a 14-foot tall screening fence with the remaining 11 feet consisting of emerald green steel material. A 3D image of this elevation is attached to this report, along with other views of the proposed warehouse. The community design review board, along with staff, is recommending approval of this south building elevation. DEPARTMENT REVIEWS Fire Marshal's Comments Maplewood's Fire Marshal Butch Gervais had the following comments on the Menards' proposal. • 20 `Fire Department Access • Fire protection installed per code • Alarms installed per code Packet Page Number Page 278 of 408 Building Official Comments Maplewood's Building Official David Fisher had the following comments on the Menards' proposal. • The city will require a complete building code analysis when the construction plans are submitted to the city for building permits. • All exiting must go to a public way. • Provide adequate Fire Department access. • Verify requirements of the fire sprinkler system and stand pipes with the Fire Marshal. • I would recommend apre-construction meeting with the contractor, the project manager and the city building inspection department. City Engineer's Comment Steve Kummer, staff engineer, commented that the proposal would not impact drainage and that no additional runoff would affect neighbors. Environmental Planner's Comments Shann Finwall, environmental planner, had no additional comments on this proposal. COMMITTEE ACTION Planning Commission On November 18, 2008, the planning commission held a public hearing and recommended approval of the proposed CUP revision for the warehouse and screening fence. Community Design Review Board On November 25, 2008 the community design review board recommended approval of the site and design plans for the proposed warehouse and screening fence. RECOMMENDATIONS A. Adopt the resolution attached to this report. This resolution revises a conditional use permit revision for Menards at 2280 Maplewood Drive to add a 16,750-square-foot unheated warehouse to the existing store. The city bases this approval on the findings required by the code. Approval of this CUP revision is subject to the following conditions (additions are underlined and deletions are crossed out): 1. Adherence to the site plan date-stamped October 1, 2008 .The director of community development may approve minor changes. 2. Compliance with the following screening-fence requirements: 4 Packet Page Number Page 279 of 408 a. The property owner shall continue to have and keep, in a maintained condition, wooden screening fences as follows: (1) The eight-foot-tall screening fence west of 1071 County Road B and running east-west behind 1071, 1081 and part of 1101 County Road B between the parking lot and the residential lots shall remain. (2) All other screening fences that abut the residential lots and the new fences on the east and south sides of the property as shown on the site plan date-stamped October 1.2008 shall be 14 feet tall. (3) All screening fences shall be constructed of vertical boards of the same dimension, color and material, except for the fence on the south side of the warehouse where horizontal boards may be used. b. No material on the storage racks, adjacent to the fence behind 1101 and 1115 County Road B, shall extend above the 14-foot-tall fence. c. No more than 2 %2 feet of the 17 %2-foot-tall interior storage racks shall be visible from the homes to the south that are at street level along County Road B. This excludes those houses that sit higher on a hill. d. Menards shall be responsible for the safety of the neighbors in regard to the materials stored over the height of the fence. 3. Hours of operation in the storage yard, garden center and warehouse shall be limited to 7 a.m. to 10 p.m. 4. An exterior public address system shall not be allowed. 5. All lighting in the storage yard and warehouse that is not needed for site security shall be turned off after business hours. 6. The city council shall review this permit revision in one year. 7. Plowed snow shall be stored away from the southern and eastern property lines to avoid runoff problems on residential property. 8. Menards shall store all their materials within the fenced storage area. 9. Sanitation facilities shall be provided by Menards for the employees. 10. The proposed building addition and site work 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. 11. The perimeter of the building must be kept accessible for fire emergencies. The applicant shall arrange with the fire marshal for access through the gate behind the building in the case of emergencies. Packet Page Number Page 280 of 408 B. Approve the site plan date-stamped October 1, 2008, and the building elevations date- stamped October 1, 2008, for the 16,750-square-foot unheated warehouse addition to Menards at 2280 Maplewood Drive. Approval is subject to the following conditions: 1. Repeat this review in two years if the city has not issued a building permit for this project. 2. Submit for staff approval, an elevation for the south side of the warehouse that shows a revised design plan for the screening fence and warehouse. This south elevation shall show the wooden "fence" portion of this exterior wall matching the 14- foot height of the proposed fencing on the east and west sides of the warehouse. The area above the wooden siding shall be green, corrugated metal as proposed on the building. 3. Before getting a building permit, the applicant shall: a. Submit grading, drainage, utility and erosion control plans to the city engineering department for approval. b. Submit to city staff a cash escrow or an irrevocable letter of credit for all required exterior improvements. The amount shall be 150 percent of the cost of the work. 4. All work shall follow the approved plans. Planning staff may approve minor changes. 6 Packet Page Number Page 281 of 408 CITIZEN COMMENTS Staff surveyed the 46 property owners within 500 feet of Menards for their opinions about this proposal. Staff received one reply. That person's comments are below. In Favor This does not appear to change Menards impact on the neighborhood. The competition is fierce in this industry. If Menards can't improve and grow to meet the public demand they may be forced to relocate -that would be bad for Maplewood. (Barhan, 1174 County Road B East) 7 Packet Page Number Page 282 of 408 REFERENCE INFORMATION SITE DESCRIPTION Site Size: 13.48 acres Existing Use: Menards store with outdoor sales and parking lot SURROUNDING LAND USES North: Highway 36 East: Countryside VW/Saab and Single Dwellings South: Single Dwellings and Citgo Motor Fuel Station West: Highway 61 PLANNING Land Use: Light Manufacturing (M-1) Zoning: Light Manufacturing (M-1) Conditional Use Permit Ordinance Requirements Section 44-512(4) requires a CUP for the exterior storage of goods or materials. Section 44-637(b) requires a CUP for any building or exterior use within 350 feet of a residential district. Findings for CUP approval Section 44-1097(a) states that the city council must base approval of a CUP on nine standards for approval. Refer to the findings in the attached resolution. Design Review Ordinance Requirements Section 2-290(b) of the city code requires that the community design review board make the following findings to approve plans: 1. That the design and location of the proposed development and its relationship to neighboring, existing or proposed developments and traffic is such that it will not impair the desirability of investment or occupation in the neighborhood; that it will not unreasonably interfere with the use and enjoyment of neighboring, existing or proposed developments; and that it will not create traffic hazards or congestion. 2. That the design and location of the proposed development is in keeping with the character of the surrounding neighborhood and is not detrimental to the harmonious, orderly and attractive development contemplated by this article and the city's comprehensive municipal plan. 3. That the design and location of the proposed development would provide a desirable environment for its occupants, as well as for its neighbors, and that it is aesthetically of good composition, materials, textures and colors. Packet Page Number Page 283 of 408 Application Date The city received the complete application for a conditional use permit revision and site and design plans approval on October 28, 2008. The 60-day review deadline for a decision is December 29, 2008. 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. P:\SEC9\Menards\100808 CDRB and CUP\Menards CC 011609.doc Attachments: 1. Location Map 2. Zoning Map 3. Future Land Use Map 4. Shoreland Overlay Map 5. Applicant's Letter 6. Conditional Use Permit Revision Resolution 7. November 18, 2008, Planning Commission minutes 8. November 25, 2008, Community Design Review Board minutes 9. Site plan, dated August 22, 2008 10. Applicants' 3D Drawings (separate attachment) 11. Applicant's Plans (separate attachment) 9 Packet Page Number Page 284 of 408 Attachment 1 Menards -Request for Conditional Use Permit Revision Figure One-Location Map 1 o City of Maplewood NORTH October 21, 2008 Packet Page Number Page 285 of 408 and CDRB Review Attachment 2 Menards -Request for Conditional Use Permit Revision and CDRB Review 11 Figure Two -Zoning Map City of Maplewood NORTH October 21, 2008 Packet Page Number Page 286 of 408 Attachment 3 Menards -Request for Conditional Use Permit Revision and CDRB Review 12 Figure Three -Land Use Map City of Maplewood NORTH October 21, 2008 Packet Page Number Page 287 of 408 Attachment 4 Menards -Request for Conditional Use Permit Revision and CDRB Review 13 Figure Four - Shoreland Overlay Map City of Maplewood NORTH November 7, 2008 Packet Page Number Page 288 of 408 October 3, 2008 ~O Tom Ekstrand Senior Planner City of Maplewood 1830 County Road B East Maplewood; MN 55109 Re: Proposed Menards Warehouse Addition Dear Tom, Attachment 5 VIA OVERNIGHT MAIL (651) 249-2302 Please find enclosed herewith the Conditional Use and the Community Design Review Board applications for the proposed warehouse addition to our existing Menards location in Maplewood along with checks for the required fees and the engineering review escrow. Also enclosed are sixteen (16) full-size, collated sets of each the site plan, the warehouse elevations and a topographic survey for the City's review together with a CD containing electronic copies of all items in 8'/2" x 11" PDF format . If there are any other materials that I can provide to assist in your review of this matter, please let me know. As we have previously discussed, Menards desires to add a small warehouse within the existing enclosed yard area on the south side of our store as well as a new section of fence and pallet racking behind the store both as shown on the enclosed plans. The primary benefits of the new warehouse will be protection of our merchandise and comfort and convenience for our customers. Lumber and other building materials which are currently stored in this area by means of ground stacking will be placed inside the new warehouse so that they can be sheltered from inclement weather and loaded by customers under cover. Other benefits of the warehouse addition include better visual, sound and light screening along our southern property line for residents immediately to the south due to the enclosure of some of our operations and the roughly ten feet of added screening height in this area. Both the warehouse and pallet racking additions will also have operational benefits for our store by more efficiently storing many items that are currently stacked within the yard and along the existing chain link fence line behind the store thereby reducing clutter for employees and guests using these areas and providing a cleaner look for customers entering the rear yard enclosure. The proposed warehouse and fence additions would use the same materials and colors as the newly updated fagade of the Menards store, the new garden center addition and the existing sections of 14' high fence/pallet racking enclosing the southern and western portions of our rear yard. The remodel will not result in any changes to the impervious area of the site, the existing utilities on site, existing landscaping or drainage patterns on our property. As shown and noted on the plans, the new warehouse roof and the new fence/pallet racking overhang will be sloped into the Menards outdoor yard area and will use the existing storm sewer inlets and sheet drainage areas that currently drain these portions of the yard. There will be no additional water directed toward any neighboring property owners as a result of the remodel. Operationally speaking, the requested changes will not alter the product mix or amount of products available at the store, but will only change where and how our existing products are stored and arranged. Therefore, there will be no addition to the total retail area of our use or the resulting parking needs for the site. For these reasons, Menard, Inc. hereby respectfully requests that the City approve the proposed warehouse and fence additions as shown on the enclosed site plan and elevations. 14 Packet Page Number Page 289 of 408 4777 MENARD DRIVE EAU CLAIRE, WI 54703-9625 PHONE (715) 876-5911 FAX (715) 876-5901 Thank you for your time and your attention to my request. If you have any questions or if I can be of assistance in any way, please do not hesitate to contact me using the information provided below. Very truly yours, Menarfi. Inc. Scott R. Nuttelman Real Estate Associate Phone: (715) 876-2383 Fax: (715) 876-5960 Mobile: (71 S) 577-0363 snuttelm@menard-inc. com Enclosures cc: Mark Olson; General Manager - Menards Maplewood 15 Packet Page Number Page 290 of 408 Attachment 6 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REVISION RESOLUTION WHEREAS, Scott Nuttelman, of Menards, Inc. is proposing changes to a site with an existing conditional use permit to build a 16,750-square-foot warehouse addition on the south side of the building at 2280 Maplewood Drive. The legal description is: SUB TO ESMTS; PART OF FOL TRACTS SELY OF HWYS 36 & 61; EX S 100 FT PART OF SW 1/4NOFCORDB&PARTOFSE1/4WOFCLIFTONADDSOFL107FTNOFSLOFBLK15 OF SD ADD EXTENDED & N OF HEINEMANS BELLEVIEW & IN CLIFTON ADD, EX E 240 FT; BLKS15&16&EXE255FTBLK10&ALSOW120FTOFE255FTOFN30FTOF BLK 10 (PIN 09-29-22-43-0042) WHEREAS, the history of this conditional use permit revision is as follows: On November 18, 2008, the planning commission held a public hearing. The city staff published a notice in the paper and sent notices to the surrounding property owners. The planning commission gave persons at the hearing a chance to speak and present written statements. The commission also considered reports and recommendations of the city staff. The planning commission recommended that the city council the conditional use permit revision. 2. On ,the city council discussed the proposed 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 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. Packet Page Number Page 291 of 408 Attachment 6 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. Revision is subject to the following conditions: (additions are underlined and deletions are crossed out): 1. Adherence to the site plan date-stamped October 1, 2008 ^A~rnh Q, manna The director of community development may approve minor changes. 2. Compliance with the following screening-fence requirements: a. The property owner shall continue to have and keep, in a maintained condition, wooden screening fences as follows: (1) The eight-foot-tall screening fence west of 1071 County Road B and running east- west behind 1071, 1081 and part of 1101 County Road B between the parking lot and the residential lots shall remain. (2) All other screening fences that abut the residential lots and the new fences on the east and south sides of the property as shown on the site plan date-stamped October 1, 2008 shall be 14 feet tall. (3) All screening fences shall be constructed of vertical boards of the same dimension, color and material, except for the fence on the south side of the warehouse where horizontal boards may be used.. b. No material on the storage racks, adjacent to the fence behind 1101 and 1115 County Road B, shall extend above the 14-foot-tall fence. c. No more than 2 %2 feet of the 17 %2-foot-tall interior storage racks shall be visible from the homes to the south that are at street level along County Road B. This excludes those houses that sit higher on a hill. d. Menards shall be responsible for the safety of the neighbors in regard to the materials stored over the height of the fence. 3. Hours of operation in the storage yard, garden center and warehouse shall be limited to 7 a.m. to 10 p.m. 4. An exterior public address system shall not be allowed. 5. All lighting in the storage yard and warehouse that is not needed for site security shall be turned off after business hours. 6. The city council shall review this permit revision in one year. Packet Page Number Page 292 of 408 Attachment 6 7. Plowed snow shall be stored away from the southern and eastern property lines to avoid runoff problems on residential property. 8. Menards shall store all their materials within the fenced storage area. 9. Sanitation facilities shall be provided by Menards for the employees. 10. The proposed building addition and site work 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. 11. The perimeter of the building must be kept accessible for fire emergencies. The applicant shall arrange with the fire marshal for access through the gate behind the building in the case of emergencies. The Maplewood City Council this resolution on , 2008. Packet Page Number Page 293 of 408 Attachment 7 MINUTES OF THE MAPLEWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION 1830 COUNTY ROAD B EAST, MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 18, 2008 V. PUBLIC HEARING a. 7:04 p.m. -Warehouse and Screening Fence Proposal, Menards, 2280 Maplewood Drive • Conditional Use Permit Revision Planner Michael Martin presented the staff report for the request by Menard, Inc. to build a 16,750-square-foot unheated warehouse on the south side of the Menards store. The structure would be approximately 25 feet tall and would be built where an existing treated lumber rack exists. Menards is also proposing to replace an existing chain link fence between the store and Countryside VW/Saab on the east side of their property. Commissioner Trippler asked staff to explain the seeming measurement conflict between item 2.b. and 2. c. of the staff conditions regarding the minimum 2'/2 feet of storage extended above the storage racks. Mr. Martin explained that the intent of the conditions is that the 2 '/2-foot measurement is based on the topography and sight lines from the homes. Commissioner Hess asked if the required 20-foot fire department access already exists or if this would be developed with this proposal. Mr. Martin responded that this access currently exists and the fire marshal is requiring that it be maintained. Mr. Hess asked what fire protection is proposed. Mr. Martin said that will be dictated by code and will be part of the inspections process before the building is approved for occupancy. Tom O'Neil of 4777 Menard Drive, Eau Claire, Wisconsin, was present representing Menards, Inc. Mr. O'Neil explained the site plan for this proposal and answered questions from the commission. Mr. O'Neil said Menards intention with this proposal is for additional warehousing within their existing lumber yard and an additional treated rack. Mr. O'Neil said Menards intends to internalize in the proposed warehouse the materials that already exist in the lumber yard. Chair Fischer asked Mr. O'Neil if he is in agreement with the conditions of the staff report. Mr. O'Neil responded affirmatively. The public hearing was opened for comments from the public. There were no comments; the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Trippler moved to adopt the resolution revising a conditional use permit revision for Menards at 2280 Maplewood Drive to add a 16,750-square-foot unheated warehouse to the existing store. The city bases this approval on the findings required by the code. Approval of this CUP revision is subject to the following conditions (additions are underlined and deletions are crossed out): Packet Page Number Page 294 of 408 1. Adherence to the site plan date-stamped October 1, 2008 Planning staff T~2 r!'ron+nr of nnmmi .r,.+„ ~o„o~nnrv,or,+ may approve minor changes. 2. Compliance with the following screening-fence requirements: a. The property owner shall continue to have and keep, in a maintained condition, wooden screening fences as follows: (1) The eight-foot-tall screening fence west of 1071 County Road B and running east- west behind 1071, 1081 and part of 1101 County Road B between the parking lot and the residential lots shall remain. (2) All other screening fences that abut the residential lots and the new fences on the east and south sides of the property as shown on the site plan date-stamped October 1, 2008 shall be 14 feet tall. (3) All screening fences shall be constructed of vertical boards of the same dimension, color and material. b. No material on the storage racks, adjacent to the fence behind 1101 and 1115 County Road B, shall extend above the 14-foot-tall fence. c. No more than 2'/2 feet of the 17'/2-foot-tall interior storage racks shall be visible from the homes to the south that are at street level along County Road B. This excludes those houses that sit higher on a hill. d. Menards shall be responsible for the safety of the neighbors in regard to the materials stored over the height of the fence. 3. Hours of operation in the storage yard, garden center and warehouse shall be limited to 7 a.m. to 10 p.m. 4. An exterior public address system shall not be allowed. 5. All lighting in the storage yard and warehouse that is not needed for site security shall be turned off after business hours. 6. The city council shall review this permit revision in one year. 7. Plowed snow shall be stored away from the southern and eastern property lines to avoid runoff problems on residential property. 8. Menards shall store all their materials within the fenced storage area. 9. Sanitation facilities shall be provided by Menards for the employees. Packet Page Number Page 295 of 408 10. The proposed building addition and site work 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. 11. The perimeter of the building must be kept accessible for fire emergencies. The applicant shall arrange with the fire marshal for access through the gate behind the building in the case of emergencies. Commissioner Yarwood seconded Ayes -all The motion passed. Packet Page Number Page 296 of 408 Attachment 8 MINUTES OF THE MAPLEWOOD COMMUNITY DESIGN REVIEW BOARD 1830 COUNTY ROAD B EAST, MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 25, 2008 IV. DESIGN REVIEW a. Warehouse and Screening Fence Proposal, Menards, 2280 Maplewood Drive Planner Michael Martin presented the staff report explaining the request by Menards, Inc., to build a 16,750-square-foot unheated warehouse on the south side of the Menards store. Menards is also proposing to replace an existing chain link fence between the store and Countryside VW/Saab on the east side of the property to screen a pallet racking area. Boardmember Ledvina asked staff if there was any discussion by the planning commission regarding the design of the proposed building. Mr. Martin responded that the planning commission did not have comments regarding the design of the building. Mr. Martin also said that the Menards representative was asked if he was in agreement with the required conditions of the staff report and he responded affirmatively. Boardmember Demko asked staff the height of the garden center. Mr. Martin responded that the building has two main heights and they are the entrance height and the Highway 36 side of the building height. Mr. Martin said the height of the garden center is more consistent with the Highway 36 side of the building and is within code and allowable. Boardmember Shankar asked if the applicant is planning to modify or install lighting. Mr. Martin responded that additional lighting within the warehouse building would be needed. Thomas O'Neil of Menard, Inc., 4777 Menard Drive, Eau Claire, Wisconsin, reviewed the site design for the board. Mr. O'Neil said the primary expansion is to incorporate the additional warehousing area that is currently impervious surface and enclosed with a 14-foot-high screening structure that would surround the lumber area. Mr. O'Neil said the warehouse would house the treated lumber and would allow vehicles to drive through this area and load materials without being out in the weather elements. Mr. O'Neil said the existing treated rack would be demolished. Mr. O'Neil said incorporating the larger structure that is opaque on the backside of the fence will create a further screening of the lumber yard and since it is 25 feet high it will block some of the yard lighting and sound inside the yard. Mr. O'Neil said the primary reason for the 25 feet in height was to slope the roof north and allow the runoff to flow away from the neighbors and north into their storm sewer. Mr. O'Neil said replacing the fence on the east side of the site will allow better organization and cleanup of the lumber area. Packet Page Number Page 297 of 408 Mark Olson, general manager of the store, was also present and available to answer questions from the board. Boardmember Ledvina asked if the lighting will be added on the south side of the building. Mr. O'Neil responded that they are not proposing additional lighting or much change to the lighting inside the lumber yard and no lighting packs installed on the south side. Boardmember Shankar asked if there would be lighting on the 14-foot screen wall. Mr. O'Neil said there would be lighting similar to the lighting on the other screening structures on the site. Boardmember Demko asked if the drive-through will be wide enough to accommodate two vehicles. Mr. O'Neil said the drive-through is designed for one- way traffic, but there will be enough room for one vehicle to pass another parked vehicle. Mr. Olson said the lumber yard had cone-way drive-through in the 1990s before the current remodeling in 2000. Boardmember Wse said he feels the plans seem to meet the needs of any concerns the neighbors might have and he has no problem with the plans. Boardmember Shankar asked about plantings planned for the south side of the site. Boardmember Wse said he looked over the fence on the south side of the property and there is considerable vegetation along the property line and over-story trees on the neighbors' property. Mr. Martin reviewed the plans and said there is substantial vegetation in that area. Boardmember Ledvina said he agrees with the staff recommendation and feels this modification is a much more unifying design and he does not have any issues with this proposal. The board discussed with staff how to incorporate the new elevation plan presented at tonight's meeting into the staff recommendation. Mr. Martin advised the board how this could be presented. Boardmember Shankar moved approval of the site plan date-stamped October 1, 2008 and the building elevations date-stamped November 24, 2008 as presented to the board on 11-25-08, for the 16,750-square-foot unheated warehouse addition to Mendards at 2280 Maplewood Drive. Approval is subject to the following conditions: 1. Repeat this review in two years if the city has not issued a building permit for this project. 2. The revised building elevations for the south elevation of the proposed building are approved as presented to the review board on November 25, 2008. These revisions show the south elevation with the wooden "fence" portion of this exterior wall matching the 14-foot height of the proposed fencing on the east and west sides of the warehouse. The Packet Page Number Page 298 of 408 Attachment 8 area above the wooden siding shall be green corrugate metal as proposed on the building. 3. Before getting a building permit the applicant shall: a. Submit grading, drainage, utility and erosion control plans to the city engineering department for approval. b. Submit to city staff a cash escrow or an irrevocable letter of credit for all required exterior improvements. The amount shall be 150 percent of the cost of the work. 4. All work shall follow the approved plans. Planning staff may approve minor changes. Boardmember Demko seconded Ayes -all Packet Page Number Page 299 of 408 J, N J, Z ~ ~ ~ o ~ U 0 o ~ a @ ~ 3 ~ ; ~°, ~~ ~ g R 2 o a BB g~ ~ ~~ a ~ w~~~ ~~~~ ~~~~~ §~ Y 3 ~~ ~R ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ - ii ,. t i'' i ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~ ~ ~~ 'r J ~\" ~ s~ ~~~~'t z ~ ~,~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ '~ ,'~\ ~ ~ ~~ _;~ ~ ~~ .~~~ . ~. ~~ ~~~ ~~ i ~,, ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ; ~~}. ~ - ,. s ~R ~ ~~~. , ~ - :.}. :;; } i as ~~' ~ ~ .~ ~ ;°: a ~ ~: ~ ~~ ~ `~~ ~~. ~ r ' ~ e a n '~~ ~, ~~ ~ e,,,,„~ ', ~~~ ~1 m~ ~ ~I ~I ~~ I i_ _ _ \`~. ~ -.. ~\.. \, o Z W ~ a ' ~ 13 R A A (~ a „ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ a Q U Z z " ~ ~ ~d r ~ Q Z Z ~ 6 { }~~ ~ Q ~ Oi ~ VI a 2 $ A ~ 8 6 s ~ vN-i ~ gg B W J ~ ~ ? gg y w a 6 U p ~ ~ ~ ~ 3 ~ ~3 3 J F ~ gi {pi 2 yrc~ a ~ eW~ ~ ~ ~ ~y~p¢~j ~g ~ R~ N S S i 6 ~5 F S m ~ - N ~ ~ O ~~ ~o Z p ~ O ~m ~ ~ (6 ~~ U (6 Agenda L3 MEMORANDUM TO: Chuck Ahl, Acting City Manager FROM: Karen Guilfoile, City Clerk DATE: January 14, 2009 SUBJECT: Personal Service (Massage) Premise License -Shaohui Zhang, Blue Diamond Health Center Introduction Shaohui Zhang has submitted an application for a Personal Service (Massage) Premise License to be used at Blue Diamond Health Center, 1990 County Road D East. Background Ms. Zhang was born and raised in China and came to the United States in June of 2000. She arrived in New York and has lived there since. She attended and received her massage therapy certification in April 2004 from Excel Institute for Healthcare, Closter, New Jersey. She has worked in both the massage and restaurant businesses. She has no family or friends in Minnesota and has visited the State of Minnesota on two occasions. As required by City ordinances, the necessary background investigation was completed on Ms. Zhang by the Maplewood Police Department with information gathered through Donny Cheung of the MN BCA as the applicant does not speak much English. In the course of this investigation, attempts to have the record checks done in New York were unsuccessful. Consideration There was nothing found in the background investigation that would prohibit the applicant from obtaining a Personal Service (Massage) Premise License. Packet Page Number Page 301 of 408 Agenda Item L4 AGENDA REPORT TO: Charles Ahl, Acting City Manager FROM: Michael Thompson, Acting Public Works Director Jon Jarosch, Civil Engineer I SUBJECT: County Road C Area Street Improvements, City Project 08-11, Resolution Accepting Preliminary Report and Consideration of Canceling the Project DATE: January 16, 2009 INTRODUCTION The feasibility study for the County Road C Area Street Improvements, City Project 08-11, is complete and available in the office of the city engineer. Copies will be distributed to council members prior to the meeting. The study includes information on the proposed improvements, proposed financing and probable assessments. The executive summary from the feasibility study is attached to this report. The city council will consider accepting the feasibility study and consider cancelling the project due to lack of neighborhood support. BACKGROUND The feasibility report was ordered by the council at the August 25, 2008 meeting. Subsequently, a letter was mailed to residents on September 10th to provide information on the council's action that preliminary engineering activities such as soil borings and a topography survey would commence within the neighborhood. On October 9, 2008 an informational packet was sent to all residents which contained a questionnaire, information about the questionnaire, information about the construction process, a driveway reconstruction program pamphlet, a copy of the driveway warranty, a rain garden pamphlet, a project location map, and a cover letter addressing the project and the information contained in the packet. A copy of the results of this questionnaire will be supplied to the council prior to the meeting. An informational neighborhood meeting was held on Wednesday, December 10, from 5-8 P.M., at Fire Station #7. Approximately 54 residents attended the meeting. Items discussed at the neighborhood meeting included the public improvement process, the construction process, existing conditions, proposed improvements, proposed assessments, and an estimated project timeline. The meeting was held in an open-house format which allowed residents cone-on-one opportunity to have their concerns addressed. The overall tone of the meeting reflected a deep concern by residents about the proposed assessment amounts and the current state of the economy. There were concerns from residents about the current drainage patterns within the project area. A second neighborhood meeting is scheduled for Wednesday, January 21, 2009 from 7-9 P.M., at the Maplewood Community Center Room D. This second neighborhood meeting is being held for those residents that were unable to attend the first meeting or for those wanting to provide additional feedback. All residents affected by this project were invited to both meetings. DISCUSSION The proposed project area is illustrated on the attached project location map and is generally bounded by Beam Avenue to the north, Gervais Avenue to the south, Highway 61 to the west and White Bear Avenue Packet Page Number Page 302 of 408 Agenda Item L4 to the east. Streets included in the project area include Kohlman Avenue from Fitch Road to Highway 61, Fitch Road from Kohlman Avenue to the cul-de-sac, English Street from County Road C to Kohlman Avenue, Elm Street from County Road C to Kohlman Avenue, Clarence Street from Kohlman Avenue to the cul-de-sac, Clarence Street from County Road C to the dead end, Gem Street from County Road C to the dead end, Kohlman Avenue from White Bear Avenue to Van Dyke Street, Van Dyke Street from County Road C to Kohlman Avenue, and Connor Avenue from Highway 61 to Maplewood Drive. Street and utility improvements for these streets are listed on the City's Capital Improvements Plan for 2009 construction. There is no existing concrete curb and gutter on any of the streets with the exception of Connor Avenue which has concrete curb. Connor Avenue is scheduled for a mill and overlay. All other neighborhood streets are proposed to be fully reconstructed including the installation of concrete barrier- style curb and gutter, new bituminous pavement, a new aggregate base, a granular sub-base, geo-textile fabric, and drain tile. In order to maintain the "old-charm" of the neighborhood as commented by some residents, ribbon curb may be used in certain locations in lieu of barrier curb if the project proceeds. A large portion of the project streets have areas of poor sub-grade that are susceptible to frost-heave. These areas are proposed to be sub-cut and replaced with a granular material to provide a stable, well-drained base for the road section. The project streets currently vary in width from 22.5 feet to 36 feet wide. The streets are generally proposed to remain the same width, but may vary from the existing average width by one-foot to allow for a uniform width. Kohlman Avenue from Highway 61 to Fitch Road is proposed to be increased from the current 22.5 foot width to 24 feet wide to improve maneuverability for emergency vehicles. Storm sewer is very limited throughout the project area. A handful of catch-basins and culverts exist. Wetlands are located within the project area with untreated runoff flowing directly into them. Due to the lack of curb and gutter, on-street water drainage is generally channeled toward the street edges or into ditches and swales and conveyed to low back yard areas, front yards, or wetlands by culvert or asphalt- lined channels. Many concerns about the current drainage pattern were relayed by residents through the questionnaires and at the neighborhood meeting. It is proposed that storm sewers be installed throughout the project area in order to contain stormwater runoff and relieve property owners of this runoff burden. Rainwater gardens and other best management practices are proposed to promote infiltration of runoff. These best management practices remove excess nutrients, sediment, and pollutants, prior to discharge into the area wetlands and may also reduce the overall volume of runoff from the street that is currently burdening some neighborhood residents. Repairs to the sanitary sewer system are proposed as identified through televising of the mainline and services. Saint Paul Regional Water Services (SPRWS) does not plan on any major improvements in the project area. However, SPRWS does anticipate some minor modifications to the existing system such as gate valve adjustment/repairand removal of unused copper services. RESIDENT CORRESPONDENCE /PROJECT SURVEY Due to the feedback received at the first neighborhood meeting, as well as through the resident questionnaires, staff is unsure that there is adequate resident support for this project. Staff sent out a resident survey on Tuesday, January 20, 2009 to find if there is any resident support for this project. A summary of this survey will be provided to the council at the January 26th meeting. If it is decided that there is not enough support it is suggested that the project be cancelled. If there are some streets that have overwhelming support to move forward with improvements, it is suggested that these streets be considered for improvement by calling a public hearing. Packet Page Number Page 303 of 408 Agenda Item L4 ASSESSMENTS Based on the City of Maplewood's Pavement Management Policy, a portion of the project cost is assessed on an equal "unit" basis. The "unit" would be based on an average residential lot, as has been used in the past. There are 154 parcels within the project area. Of those 154 parcels, two of them meet warrants for a split in the future. Therefore there are 156 total assessable parcels in the project area. Of these 156 parcels, 151 are residential and 5 commercial. The 151 residential properties will be assessed at the residential unit rate of $6,000 for full street reconstruction. Residential properties that have not previously been assessed for storm sewer would be assessed $990 for storm sewer. The commercial properties without concrete curb and gutter will be assessed at the full reconstruction front-foot rate of $120 per front- foot as well as the $19.80 per front-foot for storm sewer assessment. The only street with existing concrete curb and gutter in the project area is Connor Avenue. The concrete curb and gutter on this street is in good condition and does not warrant replacement. Therefore Connor Avenue will be assessed at the mill and overlay rate of $44.60 per front-foot. A small number of properties have paid the one-time storm sewer assessment on the west end of Kohlman Avenue. BUDGET The total project budget as reported in the feasibility study is $3,781,500. The project budget detailed in the City's Capital Improvement Plan is $3,380,000. The project budget is higher than the Capital Improvement Plan estimate due to the extensive storm sewer infrastructure and sub-grade improvements needed within the project area as described within the report. The following is a comparison in projection for the current feasibility and the adopted Capital Improvement Plan: FUNDING SOURCE FEASIBILITY RECOMMENDATIONS 2009-2013 CIP ESTIMATE G.O. IMPROVEMENT BONDS $2,108,564 $1,801,400 SANITARY SEWER FUND $171,000 $171,000 ENVIRONMENTAL UTILITY FUND $222,000 $222,000 SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS $1,137,036 $1,014,000 ST. PAUL WATER $56,450 $67,600 W.A.C. FUND $56,450 $104,000 DRIVEWAY REPLACEMENT PROGRAM $30,000 $0 TOTAL FUNDING $3,781,500 $3,380,000 RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the city council accept the preliminary report and consider cancelling the project (do not call public hearing) due to lack of neighborhood support. However, if there is overwhelming support on certain streets within the project, it is recommended that only these streets be considered for improvements by calling a public hearing for 7:00 p.m., Monday, February 9, 2009, for the County Road C Area Street Improvements, City Project 08-11. Attachments: 1. Resolution 2. Location Map 3. Executive Summary Packet Page Number Page 304 of 408 Agenda Item L4 Attachment 1 RESOLUTION ACCEPTING REPORT AND CALLING FOR PUBLIC HEARING WHEREAS, pursuant to resolution of the council adopted August 25t", 2008, a report has been prepared by the city engineering division with reference to the improvement of County Road C Area Street Improvements, City Project 08-11, and this report was received by the council on January 26t", 2009, and WHEREAS, the report provides information regarding whether the proposed project is necessary, cost-effective, and feasible, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA: 1. The council will consider the County Road C Area Street Improvements in accordance with the report and the assessment of abutting property for all or a portion of the cost of the improvement pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 429 at an estimated total cost of the improvement of $3,781,500. 2. A public hearing shall be held on such proposed improvement on the 9t" day of February, 2009 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 26t" day of January 2009 Packet Page Number Page 305 of 408 Agenda tem L4 ~/ 694 Attachment2 9 COTTAGE LANE LN . . 'I IS HEIGHTS 10. COTTAGE LANE LN. u ~/7l\ 11. COTTAGE LANE LN. D D COUNTY ROAD COUNTY ROAD D CT. ~ COUNTY I I D CIR. a VILLAGE TR 61 ) . g o 65 HRIDGE CT. ~ 5. CHAMBERLAIN ST. 8 LEGACY Q~~y ~ 6. GERMAIN ST. 7. HEMINGWAY TR. O ~ 6 7 R 8. COTTAGE LANE LN. I 1 O . L 1 ~ 1 Le acy O~ COUNTY ROAD D WOODLYNN AVE. ~ a e y~ 11. Sculpture ~F, G U~OFIV (% Pork PQ 1 ~ ST. JOHNS RD . 1. SUMMIT CT. Z ~ ~\, ~ BLVD. u p, 2 ~ 2. COUNTRYVIEW CIR. o ~~ ~. ,~. J 3. DULUTH CT. ~ 3 ~ ~ z ~ BEAM 19 OH Y ~ ~ AVE. n © 19 o RADATZ o ^ Q ~ ~ ~ 0 MESABI ~ Mar o PoQd RAMSEY o N w o z ~ _ , i~ COUNTY ~ ~ ~ COURT ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ g KOHLMAN ~ ~ ~ ~ Y ~ KOHLMAN AVE. >- z ~ ~ ~ Q North ~ o AVE. ~ ~ U ~ Hazelwood ~ z D~ F- ~ j (/~ ~ Pork w ~ ~ m ~ 23 ~, g Nl~~ TpP = ST 0 ~ z = CT J .~~ z ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ w w ~ O T ~ w ~ ce ~ Q ~ ~ ~ 65 D ~ C . ED EHILL R CON NOR ~ _ ~ ~ g m AVE. z , cn DEMONT AVE. ~R. ~ g v } J ~ g BROOK AVE. E. ~ U ~ Horvest U m Park rr m Four ns S AVE. 1 1 th ~ \~ JP SEXTANT ~ P~ AVE. g G~~ ~ ~ GERVAIS AVE. ~ GERVAIS GRANDVIEW AVE CT. . 36 VIKING DR. v~i v~i ~ SHERREN AVE. Knuc~ke Head Lake ~~E AVE. COPE CT. COPE AVE. UJ Q AVE. P~ COPE ~ PROPOSED STREET IMPROVEMENT NO SCALE Capital Improvement Project for 2009 County Road C Area Streets City Project 08-11 Packet Page Num ei 0~ I Agenda Item L4 Attachment 3 County Road C Area Street Improvements City Project 08-11 Executive Summary This feasibility report has been prepared for the County Road C Area Streets Improvement Project, City of Maplewood Project 08-11. The project streets total approximately 1.9 miles in length. The proposed project area is generally bounded by Beam Avenue to the north, Gervais Avenue to the south, Highway 61 to the west and White Bear Avenue to the east. Streets included in the project area include Kohlman Avenue from Fitch Road to Highway 61, Fitch Road from Kohlman Avenue to the cul- de-sac, English Street from County Road C to Kohlman Avenue, Elm Street from County Road C to Kohlman Avenue, Clarence Street from Kohlman Avenue to the cul- de-sac, Clarence Street from County Road C to the dead end, Gem Street from County Road C to the dead end, Kohlman Avenue from White Bear Avenue to Van Dyke Street, Van Dyke Street from County Road C to Kohlman Avenue, and Connor Avenue from Highway 61 to Maplewood Drive. The proposed improvements include the following: o The full reconstruction of all project streets (excluding Connor Avenue which is proposed to be a mill and overlay) including the installation of concrete curb and gutter, new bituminous pavement, a new aggregate base, a granular sub-base, geo-textile fabric, and draintile. o Installation of a trunk storm sewer system to properly manage runoff. o Installation of rainwater gardens, ponds, and other best management practices to filter and improve the quality of runoff prior to its discharge into nearby wetlands. o Repair approximately 13 sections of damaged sanitary sewer mainline as well as repair to damaged sewer services within the right-of-way. Manhole castings and lids will be upgraded to current standards. o Restoration of all disturbed areas. The estimated costs for the proposed improvements are detailed below. These costs include a 10% construction cost contingency and a 31.5% allowance for indirect costs. Estimated Project Cos t Summary Water S stem Im rovements $ 112,900 3.0% Sanitary Sewer Improvements $ 239,400 6.3% Storm Water Draina a Im rovements $ 597,900 15.8% Street Im rovements $ 2,831,300 74.9% Total Estimate (Project Costs):* $ 3,781,500 100.0% *Incor orates Storm WaterMana ement0 ion 1 for Kohlman West Area. The improvements are proposed to be financed through special assessments to the benefiting properties, G.O. Improvement Bonds, W.A.C. funds, various City of Maplewood funds, and Saint Paul Regional Water Services funds. v Packet Page Number Page 307 of 408 Agenda Item L4 Attachment 3 The following is a summary of the estimated funding for the proposed project: ESTIMATED PROJECT COST RECO VERY FUNDING SOURCE AMOUNT PERCENTAGE G.O. IMPROVEMENT BONDS $2,108,564 55.8% SANITARY SEWER FUND $171,000 4.5% ENVIRONMENTAL UTILITY FUND $222,000 5.9% STORM SEWER ASSESSMENTS $141,812 3.8% STREET ASSESSMENTS $995,224 26.3% ST. PAUL WATER $56,450 1.5% W.A.C. FUND $56,450 1.5% DRIVEWAY REPLACEMENT PROGRAM $30,000 0.8% TOTAL FUNDING $3,781,500 100.0% The following schedule may be implemented, should it be determined to proceed with the project: Receive feasibility study and order public hearing January 26, 2009 Public hearing February 9, 2009 Authorize preparation of plans and specs February 9, 2009 Approve plans and specs/authorize advertisement for bids April 13, 2009 Bid date May 29, 2009 Assessment hearing June 8, 2009 Accept bids/award contract June 8, 2009 Begin construction June 15, 2009 Assessments certified to Ramsey County October 8, 2009 Complete construction October 30, 2009 Based upon the analysis completed as part of this report, the proposed County Road C Area Street Improvements, City Project 08-11, are feasible, necessary, and cost effective and would be a benefit to the City of Maplewood. vi Packet Page Number Page 308 of 408 AGENDA REPORT Agenda Item L5 TO: City Council FROM: Charles Ahl, Acting City Manager SUBJECT: County Road D (East) Improvements (TH 61 to Southlawn), City Project 02-07, Approve Extension to Purchase Option for Ramsey County Regional Rail Authority for Burlington Northern Rail Corridor DATE: January 21, 2009 INTRODUCTION In 2005, the City finalized 30 months of negotiations by executing an agreement with Ramsey County, Ramsey County Regional Rail Authority, Burlington Northern Railroad, Minnesota Commercial Railroad, and Xcel Energy for the realignment of County Road D through the northwestern section of Maplewood. Within that agreement is a provision providing for the sale of the Burlington Northern Railroad Corridor by the Ramsey County Regional Rail Authority after it was purchased by the City of Maplewood for the County Road D Improvement project. That provision has expired and the City Council and Regional Rail Authority should authorize a 12-month extension for further property ownership investigation by the City Attorney. DISCUSSION The County Road D Realignment Agreement provided for the sale of the acquired railroad right of way to Ramsey County Regional Rail Authority prior to June 30, 2006. On June 26, 2006, the City Council approved a 6-month extension to December 31, 2006. Further extensions have been granted to allow the interests of Regional Rail to remain intact. The City Attorney and the City Engineering staff are continuing to investigate and attempt to clarify a number of title issues and legal abandonment documentation that preclude this provision from being executed. Attached is a letter from the Regional Rail Authority requesting an extension to December 31, 2009. Staff and the City attorney are working on the title issues and continuing to meet with MnDOT Freight Staff and Regional Rail staff on a final agreement. The December 31St date should provide adequate time to finalize the negotiations and clarify the title issues. Progress is being made; however, due to a number of documents and title issues that date back to the 1850's when the railroad was first constructed, this is extremely complex and time consuming. The purchase/sale price is in excess of $700,000, so this remains an important item to resolve. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that council approve an extension to December 31, 2009, of the option agreement with Ramsey County Regional Rail Authority for the Burlington Northern Rail corridor as part of the County Road D Realignment Agreement for County Road D Improvements, City Project 02-07. Attachment: 1. Letter from Regional Rail Authority Packet Page Number Page 309 of 408 .+ Agenda Item L5 Attachment `_ ~~ ~ ~~ ,~ ~ _ ~_ ' _ A .. ~ i Packet Page Number Page 310 of 408 AGENDA NO. L-6 AGENDA REPORT TO: City Council FROM: Finance Director RE: APPROVAL OF CLAIMS DATE: January 19, 2009 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: $ 436,937.66 Checks # 77429 thru # 77480 dated 12/31/08 thru 01/13/09 $ 146,452.57 Disbursements via debits to checking account dated 01/02/09 thru 01/09/09 $ 399,559.74 Checks # 77481 thru # 77539 dated 01/12/09 thru 01/20/09 $ 326,779.67 Disbursements via debits to checking account dated 01/08/09 thru 01/16/09 $ 1,309,729.64 Total Accounts Payable PAYROLL $ 468,884.69 Payroll Checks and Direct Deposits dated 01/09/09 $ 3,350.17 Payroll Deduction check # 1006633 thru # 1006634 dated 01/09/09 $ 472,234.86 Total Payroll $ 1,781,964.50 GRAND TOTAL 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. kf attachments P:WPPROVAL OF CLAIMS~2009~,4prClms 01-09-09 and 01-16-091 Packet Page Number Page 311 of 408 Check Register City of Maplewood 01 /09/2009 Check Date Vendor 77429 12/31/2008 00001 ONE TIME VENDOR 77430 01/02/2009 00001 ONE TIME VENDOR 77431 01/02/2009 00499 DANIEL F. FAUST 77432 01/06/2009 04206 H.A. KANTRUD 77433 01/08/2009 00309 COMMISSIONER OF TRANSPORTATION 77434 01/08/2009 03818 MEDICA 77435 01/08/2009 01126 MN NCPERS LIFE INSURANCE 77436 01/13/2009 01949 GARY L FISCHLER & ASSOC PA 77437 01/13/2009 01018 MINNEAPOLIS FINANCE DEPT 77438 01/13/2009 01337 RAMSEY COUNTY-PROP REC & REV 01/13/2009 01337 RAMSEY COUNTY-PROP REC & REV 77439 01/13/2009 01337 RAMSEY COUNTY-PROP REC & REV 77440 01/13/2009 01190 XCEL ENERGY 01/13/2009 01190 XCEL ENERGY 77441 01/13/2009 01798 YOCUM OIL CO. 77442 01/13/2009 04209 ALBRECHT ENTERPRISES, LLC 77443 01/13/2009 02324 APPLIED ECOLOGICAL SERVICES 77444 01/13/2009 00135 ASSN OF TRNG OFFICERS OF MN 77445 01/13/2009 00202 JOHN BOHL 77446 01/13/2009 03812 JASON BRASH 77447 01/13/2009 00216 BRIGGS & MORGAN, P.A. 01/13/2009 00216 BRIGGS & MORGAN, P.A. 77448 01/13/2009 00384 DE LAGE LANDEN FINANCIAL SRVS 77449 01/13/2009 00358 DGM INC. 77450 01/13/2009 04161 EARTHWORKS 77451 01/13/2009 03323 IDENTI-KIT SOLUTIONS 77452 01/13/2009 04095 BERNARD JUNGMANN 77453 01/13/2009 00827 L M C I T 01/13/2009 00827 L M C I T 77454 01/13/2009 00393 DEPT OF LABOR & INDUSTRY 77455 01/13/2009 02336 M A TAYLOR INC 77456 01/13/2009 01081 MCP A 77457 01/13/2009 00942 MARSDEN BLDG MAINTENANCE CO 01/13/2009 00942 MARSDEN BLDG MAINTENANCE CO 77458 01/13/2009 00901 MN GFOA 77459 01/13/2009 04208 MN SOCIETY OF PROF ENGINEERS 77460 01/13/2009 00001 ONE TIME VENDOR 77461 01/13/2009 00001 ONE TIME VENDOR 77462 01/13/2009 00001 ONE TIME VENDOR 77463 01/13/2009 00001 ONE TIME VENDOR 77464 01/13/2009 00001 ONE TIME VENDOR 77465 01/13/2009 00001 ONE TIME VENDOR 77466 01/13/2009 00001 ONE TIME VENDOR 77467 01/13/2009 00001 ONE TIME VENDOR 77468 01/13/2009 01240 STEVEN T PALMA 77469 01/13/2009 01941 PATRICK TROPHIES 01/13/2009 01941 PATRICK TROPHIES 77470 01/13/2009 01254 PEPSI-COLA COMPANY 77471 01/13/2009 02008 RAMSEY COUNTY PUBLIC WORKS 01/13/2009 02008 RAMSEY COUNTY PUBLIC WORKS 77472 01/13/2009 01373 AUDRA ROBBINS 77473 01/13/2009 00198 ST PAUL REGIONAL WATER SRVS 77474 01/13/2009 01836 CITY OF ST PAUL 77474 01/13/2009 01836 CITY OF ST PAUL 01/13/2009 01836 CITY OF ST PAUL Description EMPLOYEE REQUEST S HOLMGREN -REJECTED DIRECT FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT SERVICES PROSECUTION & LEGAL SRVS -JAN REGISTRATION FEE MONTHLY PREMIUM -JAN PERA LIFE INS MONTHLY PREMIUM-JAN FITNESS FOR DUTY EVALUATION AUTO PAWN SYSTEM - NOV 911 DISPATCH FEE -DEC MONTHLY FEE 800 MHZ RADIOS NOV-DEC OF AUCTION PROCEEDS FOR ELECTRIC UTILITY ELECTRIC UTILTIY UNLEADED MID-GRADE 89 OCT REPAIR OF IRRIGATION SYSTEM CONSULTING HOURS - NOV REGISTRATION FEE OFFICER FOR WEDDING 1/3 REIMB FOR ICC CERTIFICATION TIF STUDY TIF STUDY RICOH C2500 LEASE TOW CHARGES SUSTAINABLE LANDSCAPING ANNUAL SOFTWARE LEASE REIMB FOR TUITION CLAIM DEDUCTIBLE #11065420 EXCESS LIABILITY FOR RNC MONTHLY SURTAX -DEC 5590123035 FITNESS CONSULTANT SRVS ANNUAL DUES BASEMENT CLEANUP -SEWER BACKUP BASEMENT CLEANUP -SEWER BACKUP MEMBERSHIP FEES MEMBERSHIP DUES REIMB R DUFRESNE -DRIVEWAY REFUND D JACKSON MEMBERSHIP REFUND K KRUSE BCBS BENEFIT REFUND A NESVACIL BCBS REFUND B DAWSON UCARE BENEFIT REFUND D PERCHYSITYN BCBS BENEFIT REFUND R WESTERN BCBS BENEFIT REFUND L ASPLUND ZUMBA REIMB FOR UNIFORM TENNIS SHOES TROPHIES FOR ADULT VOLLEYBALL TROPHIES FOR YOUTH SOCCER MDSE FOR RESALE ENGINEERING SRVS ENGINEERING SRVS REIMB FOR MILEAGE DEC WATER UTILITY ANNUAL BILLINGS FOR SEWER ANNUAL BILLS FOR SEWER ANNUAL BILLINGS FOR SEWER Amount 65.58 123.82 8,202.50 16,500.00 150.00 171,606.21 464.00 1,750.00 372.00 18,147.92 673.92 284.52 1,186.13 51.16 8,660.94 795.00 258.75 175.00 227.50 225.00 3,500.00 1,750.00 300.74 1,186.01 38,645.00 408.00 562.50 23,270.58 5,859.00 477.56 1,500.00 45.00 448.35 384.30 180.00 315.00 1,000.00 128.10 40.00 20.00 20.00 20.00 20.00 14.00 76.62 89.35 62.77 653.15 21,979.25 6,126.38 25.00 1, 715.63 6,677.00 2,676.00 1,402.00 Packet Page Number Page 312 of 408 01/13/2009 01836 CITY OF ST PAUL REGISTRATION FEE 1,000.00 01/13/2009 01836 CITY OF ST PAUL WATER USAGE FOR SWEEPING - 52.62 77475 01/13/2009 01550 SUMMIT INSPECTIONS ELECTRICAL INSPECTIONS -DEC 5,881.60 77476 01/13/2009 04205 SUREFIRE, LLC TACTICAL LIGHTS FOR DEPT SHORGUNS 9,150.48 77477 01/13/2009 04071 TERRACON CONSULTANTS, INC. PROJ 07-26 ENGINEERING TESTING 11,315.75 77478 01/13/2009 01635 TOWER ASPHALT INC PROJ 07-30 TH61/FROST PARTPMT#2 57,269.02 77479 01/13/2009 03985 KAREN WACHAL REIMB FOR MILEAGE 9/26 - 1/2/09 77.57 77480 01/13/2009 01750 THE WATSON CO INC MDSE FOR RESALE 414.52 01/13/2009 01750 THE WATSON CO INC MDSE FOR RESALE 278.86 436.937.66 52 Checks in this report. Packet Page Number Page 313 of 408 CITY OF MAPLEWOOD Disbursements via Debits to Checking account Transmitted Settlement Date Date Payee Description Amount 01/02/09 01/05/09 Mon MN State Treasurer Drivers License/Deputy Registrar(city clrk) 23,873.50 01/02/09 01/05/09 US Bank VISA One Card' Credit Card Billing Fee 1,995.60 01/02/09 01/05/09 MN Dept of Natural Resources DNR electronic licenses 2,275.00 01/05/09 01/06/09 Tues MN State Treasurer Drivers License/Deputy Registrar(city clrk) 21,738.61 01/05/09 01/06/09 MN State Treasurer Drivers License/Deputy Registrar(city clrk) 2,750.75 01/05/09 01/06/09 ARC Administration DCRP & Flex plan payments 1,638.46 01/06/09 01/07/09 Wed MN State Treasurer Drivers License/Deputy Registrar(city clrk) 28,040.05 01/06/09 01/07/09 US Bank VISA One Card' Purchasing Card Items 37,964.86 01/07/09 01/08/09 Thu MN State Treasurer Drivers License/Deputy Registrar(city clrk) 15,729.35 01/08/09 01/09/08 Fri MN State Treasurer Drivers License/Deputy Registrar(city clrk) 10,446.39 TOTAL 'Detailed listing of VISA purchases is attached. 7 4b, 45Y.5 / Packet Page Number Page 314 of 408 Check Register City of Maplewood 01 /16/2009 Check Date Vendor 77481 01/12/2009 03825 VAN DYKE STREET HOMES 77482 01/12/2009 00261 CAREFREE COTTAGES OF MAPLEWOOD 77483 01/12/2009 00261 CAREFREE COTTAGES OF MAPLEWOOD 77484 01/12/2009 00261 CAREFREE COTTAGES OF MAPLEWOOD 77485 01/13/2009 02464 US BANK 77486 01/13/2009 00857 LEAGUE OF MINNESOTA CITIES 77487 01/14/2009 04203 SOUP DU JOOR 77488 01/16/2009 04000 MN JUVENILE OFFICERS ASSOC. 77489 01/16/2009 01284 POSTMASTER 77490 01/20/2009 01949 GARY L FISCHLER & ASSOC PA 77491 01/20/2009 00585 GOPHER STATE ONE-CALL 77492 01/20/2009 00687 HUGO'S TREE CARE INC 01/20/2009 00687 HUGO'S TREE CARE INC 01/20/2009 00687 HUGO'S TREE CARE INC 77493 01/20/2009 02462 SCOTT D WEMYSS 77494 01/20/2009 01190 XCEL ENERGY 01/20/2009 01190 XCEL ENERGY 01/20/2009 01190 XCEL ENERGY 01/20/2009 01190 XCEL ENERGY 01/20/2009 01190 XCEL ENERGY 77495 01/20/2009 04127 A E SIGN SYSTEMS, INC. 77496 01/20/2009 04008 AMERITAS 77497 01/20/2009 00100 ANCOM COMMUNICATIONS INC 77498 01/20/2009 00240 C.S.C. CREDIT SERVICES 77499 01/20/2009 00252 CAPITOL CITY REG FIRE FIGHTERS 77500 01/20/2009 00224 CITY OF BROOKLYN PARK 77501 01/20/2009 02929 CNAGLAC 77502 01/20/2009 04031 COMPAR, INC. 77503 01/20/2009 00382 DAVIS LOCK & SAFE 01/20/2009 00382 DAVIS LOCK & SAFE 77504 01/20/2009 00412 DONALD SALVERDA & ASSOCIATES 77505 01/20/2009 04197 ELECTRIC RESOURCE CONTRACTORS 77506 01/20/2009 02396 SHANN PINWALE 77507 01/20/2009 01965 HEALTH PARTNERS 77508 01/20/2009 02643 HITESMAN & ASSOCIATES PA 77509 01/20/2009 03597 MARY JO HOFMEISTER 77510 01/20/2009 04005 JOHN A DALSIN & SON, INC 01/20/2009 04005 JOHN A DALSIN & SON, INC 77511 01/20/2009 00789 KATH FUEL OIL SERVICE CO 77512 01/20/2009 00393 DEPT OF LABOR & INDUSTRY 77513 01/20/2009 03636 SCOTT LANGNER 77514 01/20/2009 00932 MAPLEWOOD BAKERY 77515 01/20/2009 00942 MARSDEN BLDG MAINTENANCE CO 77516 01/20/2009 01085 MN LIFE INSURANCE 77517 01/20/2009 01061 MN STATE FIRE DEPT ASSOC 77518 01/20/2009 01115 MUNICIPAL LEGISLATIVE COMM 77519 01/20/2009 04121 NODLAND CONSTRUCTION 77520 01/20/2009 03789 MICHAEL NYE 01/20/2009 03789 MICHAEL NYE 77521 01/20/2009 01202 NYSTROM PUBLISHING CO INC 77522 01/20/2009 00001 ONE TIME VENDOR 77523 01/20/2009 00001 ONE TIME VENDOR 77524 01/20/2009 00001 ONE TIME VENDOR 77525 01/20/2009 01225 OSWALD HOSE & ADAPTERS 01/20/2009 01225 OSWALD HOSE & ADAPTERS Description TAX INCREMENT DISTRICT 1-7 2ND HALF TAX INCREMENT DISTRICT 1-6 2ND HALF TAX INCREMENT DISTRICT 1-4 2ND HALF TAX INCREMENT DISTRICT 1-5 2ND HALF FUNDS FOR ATM HANDBOOKS FOR MINNESOTA CITIES CATERING -CITY MANAGER MEET & REGISTRATION FEE MAILING FEB CITY NEWS PERMIT#4903 CANDIDATE SCREENING NET BILLABLE TICKETS -DEC TREE REMOVAL TREE REMOVAL TREE REMOVAL NAMETAGS W/LABEL ELECTRIC UTILITY ELECTRIC & GAS UTILITY ELECTRIC & GAS UTILITY ELECTRIC & GAS UTILITY FIRE SIRENS NAME TAGS MONTHLY PREMIUM -JAN PAGERS APPLICANT BACKGROUND CHECKS REGIONAL DUES REGISTRATION FEES MONTHLY PREMIUM -JAN MEMORY -PANASONIC TOUGHBOOK REPAIR LOCKS REPAIR LOCKS REGISTRATION FEE ELECTRICAL WORK STATION 1 REIMB FOR TUITION 10/29 - 12/17 REFUND AMB 082320 JAMES LONG PROFESSIONAL SERVICES REIMB FOR MILEAGE 11/25 - 1/6 REPAIR ROOF LEAKS PUBLIC WORKS REPAIR ROOF LEAKS PUBLIC WORKS POLAR PLUS DIESEL ULTRA LOW FIRE STATION 1 LICENSE REIMB FOR TUITION 9/15 - 12/10 BAKERY FOR BANQUET RM RENTALS CLEANING SRVS AT MCC -DEC MONTHLY PREMIUM -JAN MEMBERSHIP DUES ANNUAL DUES PROJ 07-24 MONASTERY PARTPMT#3 REIMB FOR TUITION 10/25 - 12/09 REIMB FOR UNIFORM 1/1 MAPLEWOOD MONTHLY CITY NEWS-JAN REFUND J CHRISTENSEN AMB 083554 REFUND C HERNANDEZ HP BENEFIT REFUND Y CALDWELL HP BENEFIT HOSE & COUPLINGS HOSE & COUPLINGS Amount 9,619.67 30,666.83 16,133.02 12,296.44 6,000.00 210.00 507.06 210.00 4,500.00 1,475.00 183.00 3,301.50 1, 218.36 730.59 41.74 13,366.17 9,415.07 3,585.90 550.32 46.50 83.12 9,291.64 5,608.48 50.22 50.00 300.00 531.50 66.61 355.27 340.64 600.00 2,589.26 1,272.00 1,727.50 72.00 13.38 2,765.32 779.34 11,028.92 10.00 1,005.00 259.42 1,691.99 3,613.40 432.00 9,166.00 1,924.93 1,445.43 192.14 4,936.00 505.00 20.00 20.00 488.00 99.20 Packet Page Number Page 315 of 408 77526 01/20/2009 02043 OVERHEAD DOOR COMPANY REPAIR DOOR 296.95 77527 01/20/2009 04211 PREFERRED ONE ADMIN SRVS REFUND INS COVERAGE AMB 073806 1,246.06 77528 01/20/2009 01295 PREMIER BANK SAFE DEPOSIT BOX 00149 80.00 77529 01/20/2009 04210 PULSE LAND GROUP, INC. COMP PLAN 4,604.54 77530 01/20/2009 01340 REGIONS HOSPITAL MEDICAL SUPPLIES 1,489.62 01/20/2009 01340 REGIONS HOSPITAL MEDICAL SUPPLIES 178.98 77531 01/20/2009 01430 SCHROEDER MILK COMPANY, INC. TAX INCREMENT DISTRICTED 1-5 2ND 14,444.72 77532 01/20/2009 03616 SIBLEY COVE, LTD PARTNERSHIP TAX INCREMENT DISTRICT 1-8 2ND HALF 32,510.38 77533 01/20/2009 03869 JOE STEINER REIMB FOR TUITIION & BOOKS 9/08-12/08 1,487.33 77534 01/20/2009 04207 STRYKER POWER PRO COT DEMO 9,269.77 77535 01/20/2009 01635 TOWER ASPHALT INC PROJ 07-19 MYRTLE-STERLING 147,079.68 77536 01/20/2009 04192 TRANS-MEDIC EMS BILLING -DEC 3,495.00 77537 01/20/2009 01665 TWIN CITY HARDWARE CO INSTALLATION FO DUTCH DOOR & SHELF 1,093.94 77538 01/20/2009 00529 UNION SECURITY INSURANCE CO LTD PLAN 4043120-2 -JANUARY 2,635.94 01/20/2009 00529 UNION SECURITY INSURANCE CO STD PLAN 4043120-1 -JANUARY 1,798.76 77539 01/20/2009 01750 THE WATSON CO INC MDSE FOR RESALE 457.19 399.559.74 59 Checks in this report. Packet Page Number Page 316 of 408 CITY OF MAPLEWOOD Disbursements via Debits to Checking account Transmitted Settlement Date Date Payee Description Amount 01/08/09 01/09/09 Fri ICMA (Vantagepointe) Deferred Compensation 3,658.23 01/09/09 01/12/09 Mon MN State Treasurer Drivers License/Deputy Registrar(city clrk) 16,768.74 01/09/09 01/12/09 MN Dept of Natural Resources DNR electronic licenses 3,451.00 01/09/09 01/12/09 PERA PERA 75,848.02 01/09/09 01/12/09 US Treasurer Federal Payroll Tax (FICA) 91,423.99 01/09/09 01/12/09 Great West Deferred Compensation 24,032.00 01/09/09 01/12/09 MN Dept of Revenue Fuel Tax 1,061.31 01/12/09 01/13/09 Tues MN State Treasurer Drivers License/Deputy Registrar(city clrk) 13,522.25 01/12/09 01/13/09 MN State Treasurer Drivers License/Deputy Registrar(city clrk) 4,072.25 01/13/09 01/14/09 Wed MN State Treasurer Drivers License/Deputy Registrar(city clrk) 17,466.35 01/13/09 01/14/09 Labor Unions Union Dues 2,014.00 01/13/09 01/14/09 WI Dept of Revenue State Payroll Tax 1,060.32 01/13/09 01/14/09 MN State Treasurer State Payroll Tax 18,061.64 01/13/09 01/14/09 MN Dept of Revenue MN Care Tax 5,154.66 01/14/09 01/15/09 Thu MN State Treasurer Drivers License/Deputy Registrar(city clrk) 9,556.11 01/15/09 01/16/09 Fri MN State Treasurer Drivers License/Deputy Registrar(city clrk) 27,158.80 01/15/09 01/16/09 MN Dept of Revenue Sales and Use Tax 12,470.00 TOTAL 'Detailed listing of VISA purchases is attached. Packet Page Number Page 317 of 408 Trans Date Posting Date Merchant Name Trans Amount Name 12/19/2008 12/22/2008 PARTY CITY #768 $77.77 MANDY ANZALDI 12/22/2008 12/23/2008 PAYPAL *BENNETTPHOT $100.00 MANDY ANZALDI 12/30/2008 01/02/2009 CPS INC-DARECATALOUGE.COM $196.20 LONN BAKKE 12/19/2008 12/22/2008 GREAT LAKES SURGICAL I $347.93 JIM BEHAN 12/30/2008 01/02/2009 THE HOME DEPOT 2801 $1.38 JIM BEHAN 12/29/2008 12/30/2008 GOOGLE *EXTREMEPDA ($23.90) CHAD BERGO 12/29/2008 12/31/2008 SPRINT RETAIL #226 $149.40 CHAD BERGO 12/03/2008 12/30/2008 AIRASIA-MX7 ($351.83) JASON BRASH 12/29/2008 12/30/2008 SPRINT AQUATICS $1.01 NEIL BRENEMAN 12/29/2008 12/30/2008 SPRINT AQUATICS $130.62 NEIL BRENEMAN 01/01/2009 01/02/2009 ALL STAR HEALTH.COM $245.65 NEIL BRENEMAN 12/30/2008 01/02/2009 UNITED AIR 0167395379344 $473.01 DAN BUSACK 12/31/2008 01/02/2009 BROWNELLS INC $485.25 DAN BUSACK 12/31/2008 01/02/2009 EXPEDIA*SERVICE FEES $7.00 DAN BUSACK 12/18/2008 12/22/2008 THE HOME DEPOT 2801 $71.30 SCOTT CHRISTENSON 12/23/2008 12/26/2008 VIKING ELEC-CREDIT DEPT. $98.37 SCOTT CHRISTENSON 12/24/2008 12/26/2008 THE HOME DEPOT 2801 $7.42 SCOTT CHRISTENSON 12/26/2008 12/29/2008 VIKING ELEC-CREDIT DEPT. ($259.92) SCOTT CHRISTENSON 12/30/2008 01/02/2009 MILLS FLEET FARM #27 $119.99 SCOTT CHRISTENSON 12/20/2008 12/22/2008 BIRD HOUSE TOO $21.35 CHARLES DEAVER 12/26/2008 12/29/2008 FRATTALLONES WOODBURY ACE $4.26 CHARLES DEAVER 12/26/2008 12/29/2008 SUPERAMERICA 04848 $3.69 CHARLES DEAVER 12/30/2008 12/31/2008 RAINBOW FOODS 00088591 $19.57 CHARLES DEAVER 12/19/2008 12/22/2008 THE HOME DEPOT 2801 $27.65 LARRY PARR 12/19/2008 12/22/2008 INTERNATIONAL CHEMTEX $608.10 LARRY FARR 12/22/2008 12/24/2008 GUITAR CENTER #394 $21.34 LARRY FARR 12/29/2008 12/30/2008 OVERHEAD DOOR OF NORTH $206.20 LARRY FARR 12/30/2008 12/31/2008 COMMERCIAL FURNITURE SRVC $647.77 LARRY FARR 12/30/2008 12/31/2008 COMMERCIAL FURNITURE SRVC $132.10 LARRY FARR 12/30/2008 12/31/2008 COMMERCIAL FURNITURE SRVC $80.78 LARRY FARR 12/30/2008 12/31/2008 HILLYARD INC MINNEAPOLIS $704.55 LARRY FARR 12/19/2008 12/22/2008 FEDEX KINKO'S #0617 $115.46 SHANN PINWALE 12/19/2008 12/22/2008 FANFARE PROMOTIONS $139.00 DAVID FISHER 12/24/2008 12/26/2008 CURTIS 1000 $86.62 KAREN FORMANEK 12/31/2008 01/02/2009 CURTIS 1000 $161.40 KAREN FORMANEK 12/24/2008 12/26/2008 SPRINT *SPRINTNEXTELWB $1,132.67 MYCHAL FOWLDS 12/29/2008 01/02/2009 MAPLEWOOD PARKS AND RECRE ($65.00) MYCHAL FOWLDS 12/30/2008 01/02/2009 ADVANCED GRAPHIC SYSTEMS $253.47 MYCHAL FOWLDS 12/31/2008 01/02/2009 OFFICE MAX $92.69 MYCHAL FOWLDS 12/31/2008 01/02/2009 AT&T *8310000707190 $1,032.95 MYCHAL FOWLDS 12/18/2008 12/22/2008 SHI INTERNATIONAL CORP $489.90 NICK FRANZEN 12/22/2008 12/24/2008 SHI INTERNATIONAL CORP $115.02 NICK FRANZEN 12/22/2008 12/24/2008 SHI INTERNATIONAL CORP $178.93 NICK FRANZEN 12/23/2008 12/23/2008 HP DIRECT-PUBLICSECTOR $24.55 NICK FRANZEN 12/20/2008 12/22/2008 COMCAST CABLE COMM $89.86 LORI HANSON 12/22/2008 12/24/2008 007-WENDY'S MAPLEWOOD $4.55 LORI HANSON 12/20/2008 12/22/2008 SEARS ROEBUCK 1122 $9.60 PATRICK HEFFERNAN 12/18/2008 12/22/2008 THE HOME DEPOT 2801 $11.66 RON HORWATH 12/24/2008 12/26/2008 SWIMOUTLET.COM $460.85 RON HORWATH 12/18/2008 12/22/2008 ORIENTAL TRADING CO $28.91 ANN E HUTCHINSON 12/30/2008 12/31/2008 PETSMART INC 461 $3.73 ANN E HUTCHINSON Packet Page Number Page 318 of 408 12/30/2008 01/02/2009 MICHAELS #2744 $41.02 ANN E HUTCHINSON 12/23/2008 12/24/2008 TARGET 00021352 $531.62 DAVID JAHN 12/30/2008 12/31/2008 DALCO ENTERPRISES, INC $148.57 DAVID JAHN 12/19/2008 12/22/2008 BEAR 36 AMSTAR $60.00 DON JONES 12/22/2008 12/23/2008 ALL SAFE $88.40 BERNARD R JUNGMANN 12/26/2008 12/29/2008 BATTERIES PLUS $8.52 BERNARD R JUNGMANN 12/26/2008 12/29/2008 OFFICE MAX $44.89 BERNARD R JUNGMANN 12/30/2008 12/31/2008 BOUND TREE MEDICAL LLC $162.96 BERNARD R JUNGMANN 12/31/2008 01/02/2009 TARGET 00021352 $195.98 BERNARD R JUNGMANN 12/31/2008 01/02/2009 OFFICE MAX $23.47 BERNARD R JUNGMANN 01/01/2009 01/02/2009 BOUND TREE MEDICAL LLC $141.46 BERNARD R JUNGMANN 01/01/2009 01/02/2009 BOUND TREE MEDICAL LLC $995.00 BERNARD R JUNGMANN 01/01/2009 01/02/2009 BOUND TREE MEDICAL LLC $1,362.16 BERNARD R JUNGMANN 12/18/2008 12/22/2008 GOODYEAR AUTO SRV CT 6920 $47.00 TOM KALKA 12/27/2008 12/29/2008 MECA $135.00 DUWAYNE KONEWKO 12/30/2008 12/30/2008 U OF M WATER RESOURCES $210.00 DUWAYNE KONEWKO 12/31/2008 01/02/2009 VZWRLSS*APOCC VISN $112.48 DUWAYNE KONEWKO 12/22/2008 12/23/2008 THE UPS STORE #2171 $28.30 NICHOLAS KREKELER 12/23/2008 12/24/2008 LILLIE SUBURBAN NEWSPAPE $466.15 LISA KROLL 12/23/2008 12/26/2008 ADVANCED GRAPHIC SYSTEMS $155.49 LISA KROLL 12/19/2008 12/22/2008 MENARDS 3059 $1.47 STEVEN KUMMER 12/30/2008 01/02/2009 TRAVELOCITY PACKAGE $1,193.93 DAVID KVAM 12/22/2008 12/23/2008 ADVANCED GRAPHIX INC $49.50 STEVE LUKIN 12/24/2008 12/26/2008 EMERGENCY APPARATUS MAINT $1,222.21 STEVE LUKIN 12/30/2008 01/02/2009 ASPEN MILLS INC. $306.43 STEVE LUKIN 12/30/2008 01/02/2009 AIRGAS NORTH CENTRAL $576.37 STEVE LUKIN 12/30/2008 01/02/2009 ROAD RESCUE EMERGENCY VE $335.89 STEVE LUKIN 12/31/2008 01/02/2009 ASPEN MILLS INC. $107.51 STEVE LUKIN 12/31/2008 01/02/2009 AIRGAS NORTH CENTRAL $1,191.93 STEVE LUKIN 12/31/2008 01/02/2009 AIRGAS NORTH CENTRAL $104.16 STEVE LUKIN 12/24/2008 12/29/2008 CENTURY COLLEGE-BO $110.25 JON A MELANDER 12/23/2008 12/24/2008 QWESTCOMM*TN651 $58.02 ROBERT MITTET 12/28/2008 12/29/2008 COMCAST CABLE COMM $139.92 ROBERT MITTET 12/29/2008 01/02/2009 METROCALL/ARCH WIRE $15.97 ED NADEAU 12/24/2008 12/26/2008 ADVANCED GRAPHIC SYSTEMS $168.27 AMY NIVEN 12/30/2008 01/02/2009 MILLS FLEET FARM #27 $148.61 ERICK OSWALD 12/29/2008 12/30/2008 OFFICE DEPOT #1090 $59.61 MARY KAY PALANK 12/29/2008 12/30/2008 JP S CORNER INC $11.50 MARY KAY PALANK 01/01/2009 01/02/2009 MENARDS 3129 $14.05 ROBERT PETERSON 12/18/2008 12/22/2008 MIDWEST LASER SPECIALISTS $149.00 PHILIP F POWELL 12/20/2008 12/22/2008 WARES DIRECT $78.69 PHILIP F POWELL 12/19/2008 12/22/2008 RECYCLING ASSO OF MN $150.00 WILLIAM J PRIEFER 12/23/2008 12/26/2008 S S TREE AND HORTICULTUR $467.50 WILLIAM J PRIEFER 12/30/2008 01/02/2009 S S TREE AND HORTICULTUR $660.00 WILLIAM J PRIEFER 12/18/2008 12/22/2008 US AUTOFORCE NBW ($32.00) STEVEN PRIEM 12/18/2008 12/22/2008 US AUTOFORCE NBW ($16.00) STEVEN PRIEM 12/18/2008 12/22/2008 US AUTOFORCE NBW ($93.15) STEVEN PRIEM 12/18/2008 12/22/2008 KATH AUTO PARTS NSP $144.34 STEVEN PRIEM 12/18/2008 12/22/2008 ASPEN EQUIPMENT C/O CINDY $466.47 STEVEN PRIEM 12/18/2008 12/22/2008 ASPEN EQUIPMENT C/O CINDY $526.42 STEVEN PRIEM 12/19/2008 12/24/2008 BAUER BULT TRE33200023 $292.90 STEVEN PRIEM 12/22/2008 12/24/2008 TOUSLEY FORD 127200039 $146.41 STEVEN PRIEM Packet Page Number Page 319 of 408 12/22/2008 12/24/2008 TOUSLEY FORD 127200039 $29.84 STEVEN PRIEM 12/23/2008 12/24/2008 TRUCK UTILITIES INC $66.02 STEVEN PRIEM 12/23/2008 12/29/2008 CATCO PARTS&SERVICE $175.26 STEVEN PRIEM 12/24/2008 12/26/2008 WINTER EQUIPMENT C $705.23 STEVEN PRIEM 12/24/2008 12/31/2008 AMERICAN FASTENER & SUPPL $98.35 STEVEN PRIEM 12/26/2008 12/29/2008 POMPS TIRE SERVICE $377.47 STEVEN PRIEM 12/26/2008 12/29/2008 BOYER TRUCK PARTS $83.13 STEVEN PRIEM 12/29/2008 12/31/2008 TOUSLEY FORD 127200039 $945.29 STEVEN PRIEM 12/30/2008 01/02/2009 CARPENTERS SMALL ENGINE R $6.39 STEVEN PRIEM 12/31/2008 01/02/2009 KATH AUTO PARTS NSP $70.26 STEVEN PRIEM 12/31/2008 01/02/2009 ZARNOTH BRUSH WORKS $402.57 STEVEN PRIEM 12/18/2008 12/22/2008 SHRED-IT $49.95 KEVIN RABBETT 12/30/2008 12/31/2008 THE UPS STORE #2171 $11.42 TERRIE RAMEAUX 12/19/2008 12/22/2008 DALCO ENTERPRISES, INC $57.73 MICHAEL REILLY 12/27/2008 12/29/2008 HENRIKSEN ACE HARDWARE $56.52 MICHAEL REILLY 12/31/2008 01/02/2009 HILLYARD INC MINNEAPOLIS $681.87 MICHAEL REILLY 12/03/2008 12/30/2008 AIRASIA MYR D5NDDF ($39.64) MICHAEL RICE 12/19/2008 12/22/2008 WINDY CITY NOVELTIES $48.93 AUDRA ROBBINS 12/20/2008 12/22/2008 KOHL'S #0054 $26.13 AUDRA ROBBINS 12/22/2008 12/24/2008 OAKD.CIN #488 Q25 $75.00 AUDRA ROBBINS 12/23/2008 12/24/2008 TARGET 00011858 $52.29 AUDRA ROBBINS 12/29/2008 12/31/2008 CVS PHARMACY #1751 Q03 $22.50 AUDRA ROBBINS 12/30/2008 12/31/2008 MN TWOLVES LYNX $100.00 AUDRA ROBBINS 12/30/2008 01/02/2009 SUN RAY LANES $140.00 AUDRA ROBBINS 12/20/2008 12/22/2008 HOLIDAY STNSTORE 3836 $34.01 ROBERT RUNNING 12/19/2008 12/22/2008 CLASSIC COLLISION CENT $2,054.40 MICHAEL SHORTREED 12/19/2008 12/22/2008 CLASSIC COLLISION CENT $999.08 MICHAEL SHORTREED 12/29/2008 12/30/2008 SPECIALIZED ARMAMENT WHSE $400.00 MICHAEL SHORTREED 12/31/2008 01/02/2009 REMINGTON ARMS CO INC $725.00 MICHAEL SHORTREED 12/31/2008 01/02/2009 UNIFORMS UNLIMITED INC $1,351.32 MICHAEL SHORTREED 12/31/2008 01/02/2009 UNIFORMS UNLIMITED INC $767.95 MICHAEL SHORTREED 12/31/2008 01/02/2009 MSU EVENTS CONFERENCES WE $55.00 MICHAEL SHORTREED 12/30/2008 01/02/2009 OFFICE DEPOT #1090 $117.61 ANDREA SINDT 12/19/2008 12/22/2008 METRO SALES INC $562.00 JOANNE M SVENDSEN 12/29/2008 12/31/2008 UNIFORMS UNLIMITED INC $168.70 RONALD SVENDSEN 01/01/2009 01/02/2009 T-MOBILE RECURRING PMT $120.00 DOUGLAS J TAUBMAN 12/26/2008 12/29/2008 MACY*S EAST #236 ($18.90) DAVID J THOMALLA 12/26/2008 12/29/2008 KOHL'S #0052 $216.49 DAVID J THOMALLA 12/26/2008 12/29/2008 MACY*S EAST #236 $154.11 DAVID J THOMALLA 12/26/2008 12/29/2008 MACY*S EAST #239 $146.95 DAVID J THOMALLA 01/01/2009 01/02/2009 TI *TASER INTL $3,114.93 DAVID J THOMALLA 12/23/2008 12/26/2008 MINUTEMAN PRESS $318.22 SUSAN ZWIEG TOTAL $37,964.86 Packet Page Number Page 320 of 408 CITY OF MAPLEWOOD EMPLOYEE GROSS EARNINGS REPORT FOR THE CURRENT PAY PERIOD CHECK # CHECK DATE EMPLOYEE NAME AMOUNT 01/09/09 HJELLE, ERIK 416.42 01/09/09 JUENEMANN, KATHLEEN 416.42 01/09/09 NEPHEW, JOHN 416.42 01/09/09 ROSSBACH, WILLIAM 416.42 01/09/09 CHRISTENSON, SCOTT 1,773.35 01/09/09 FARR, LARRY 2,467.88 01/09/09 JAHN, DAVID 1,737.97 01/09/09 MORIN, TROY 102.00 01/09/09 ARNOLD, AJLA 448.00 01/09/09 PALANK, MALADY 643.50 01/09/09 RAMEAUX, THERESE 3,402.92 01/09/09 FORMANEK, KAREN 1,587.76 01/09/09 MITTET, ROBERT 3,468.22 01/09/09 ANDERSON, CAROLE 2,007.79 01/09/09 DEBILZAN, JUDY 1,028.54 01/09/09 JACKSON, MARY 1,984.57 01/09/09 KELSEY, CONNIE 2,466.66 01/09/09 LAYMAN, COLLEEN 2,662.34 01/09/09 CAREY, HEIDI 2,309.35 01/09/09 GUILFOILE, KAREN 3,841.26 01/09/09 KROLL, LISA 1,634.03 01/09/09 NEPHEW, MICHELLE 1,400.55 01/09/09 PENN, CHRISTINE 564.00 01/09/09 SCHMIDT, DEBORAH 2,214.91 01/09/09 SPANGLER, EDNA 699.45 01/09/09 CORTESI, LUANNE 1,047.26 01/09/09 JAGOE, CAROL 1,811.31 01/09/09 KELLY, LISA 937.33 01/09/09 CARSON, MICHELLE 1,036.14 01/09/09 MECHELKE, SHERRIE 850.03 01/09/09 MOY, PAMELA 1,243.55 01/09/09 OSTER, ANDREA 1,781.20 01/09/09 WEAVER, KRISTINE 1,949.36 01/09/09 CORCORAN, THERESA 478.75 01/09/09 PALANK, MARY 1,843.76 01/09/09 POWELL, PHILIP 2,765.35 01/09/09 SVENDSEN, JOANNE 1,964.99 01/09/09 THOMALLA, DAVID 4,699.27 01/09/09 YOUNG, TAMELA 1,785.56 01/09/09 ABEL, CLINT 2,737.80 01/09/09 ALDRIDGE, MARK 2,701.34 01/09/09 BAKKE, LONN 2,713.62 01/09/09 BARTZ, PAUL 2,689.06 01/09/09 BELDE, STANLEY 2,689.06 Packet Page Number Page 321 of 408 01/09/09 BENJAMIN, MARKESE 2,053.02 01/09/09 BIERDEMAN, BRIAN 3,269.32 01/09/09 BOHL, JOHN 3,015.99 01/09/09 BUSACK, DANIEL 3,116.46 01/09/09 COFFEY, KEVIN 2,772.72 01/09/09 GROTTY, KERRY 3,001.20 01/09/09 DEMULLING, JOSEPH 2,280.97 01/09/09 DOBLAR, RICHARD 3,172.01 01/09/09 FRITZE, DEREK 2,248.75 01/09/09 GABRIEL, ANTHONY 3,399.38 01/09/09 HAWKINSON JR, TIMOTHY 2,239.61 01/09/09 HEINZ, STEPHEN 2,775.33 01/09/09 HER, PHENG 1,831.14 01/09/09 HIEBERT, STEVEN 1,839.06 01/09/09 JOHNSON, KEVIN 4,696.61 01/09/09 KALKA, THOMAS 798.28 01/09/09 KARIS, FLINT 3,529.47 01/09/09 KONG, TOMMY 2,929.74 01/09/09 KREKELER, NICHOLAS 693.08 01/09/09 KROLL, BRETT 2,942.51 01/09/09 KVAM, DAVID 3,864.56 01/09/09 LANGNER, TODD 2,719.35 01/09/09 CARSON, DANIEL 2,824.96 01/09/09 LU, JOHNNIE 2,627.05 01/09/09 MARINO, JASON 2,749.07 01/09/09 MARTIN, JERROLD 2,737.80 01/09/09 MCCARTY, GLEN 2,713.43 01/09/09 METRY, ALESIA 2,591.58 01/09/09 NYE, MICHAEL 3,297.22 01/09/09 OLSON, JULIE 2,713.50 01/09/09 PALMA, STEVEN 2,932.77 01/09/09 RABBETT, KEVIN 3,864.56 01/09/09 RHUDE, MATTHEW 2,852.61 01/09/09 SHORTREED, MICHAEL 3,768.98 01/09/09 STEFFEN, SCOTT 3,830.84 01/09/09 STEINER, JOSEPH 2,742.57 01/09/09 SYPNIEWSKI, WILLIAM 2,494.74 01/09/09 SZCZEPANSKI, THOMAS 2,904.43 01/09/09 TRAN, JOSEPH 3,005.25 01/09/09 WENZEL, JAY 2,652.37 01/09/09 XIONG, KAO 2,883.96 01/09/09 BERGERON, JOSEPH 3,476.20 01/09/09 DUGAS, MICHAEL 3,121.82 01/09/09 ERICKSON, VIRGINIA 2,884.03 01/09/09 FLOR, TIMOTHY 3,367.78 01/09/09 FRASER, JOHN 3,371.38 01/09/09 LANGNER, SCOTT 2,786.54 01/09/09 THEISEN, PAUL 3,115.04 01/09/09 THIENES, PAUL 3,055.73 01/09/09 BADMAN, ANDREW 2,438.21 01/09/09 DAWSON, RICHARD 3,314.47 01/09/09 DOLLERSCHELL, ROBERT 293.39 01/09/09 EVERSON, PAUL 3,020.92 01/09/09 FOSSUM, ANDREW 2,746.17 Packet Page Number Page 322 of 408 01/09/09 HALWEG, JODI 2,431.68 01/09/09 JUNGMANN, BERNARD 3,037.77 01/09/09 NOVAK, JEROME 3,249.33 01/09/09 OLSON, JAMES 2,854.53 01/09/09 PERBIX, CHARLES 2,831.60 01/09/09 PETERSON, ROBERT 4,005.17 01/09/09 RICHARDSON, ANDREA 2,819.62 01/09/09 SEDLACEK, JEFFREY 3,016.99 01/09/09 STREFF, MICHAEL 3,003.29 01/09/09 SVENDSEN, RONALD 4,515.87 01/09/09 GERVAIS-JR, CLARENCE 3,342.04 01/09/09 LUKIN, STEVEN 4,260.90 01/09/09 ZWIEG, SUSAN 2,147.22 01/09/09 AHL, R. CHARLES 5,453.00 01/09/09 FINWALL, SHANK 2,820.55 01/09/09 KNUTSON, LOIS 1,796.55 01/09/09 NIVEN, AMY 1,375.68 01/09/09 PRIEFER, WILLIAM 2,601.27 01/09/09 BRINK, TROY 2,358.40 01/09/09 BUCKLEY, BRENT 2,244.84 01/09/09 DEBILZAN, THOMAS 2,370.40 01/09/09 EDGE, DOUGLAS 2,447.90 01/09/09 JONES, DONALD 2,374.40 01/09/09 MEISSNER, BRENT 1,632.51 01/09/09 MEYER, GERALD 2,403.52 01/09/09 NAGEL, BRYAN 3,015.02 01/09/09 OSWALD, ERICK 2,841.51 01/09/09 RUNNING, ROBERT 2,707.28 01/09/09 TEVLIN, TODD 2,504.53 01/09/09 BURLINGAME, NATHAN 1,710.96 01/09/09 DUCHARME, JOHN 2,558.86 01/09/09 ENGSTROM, ANDREW 2,108.55 01/09/09 GAYNOR, VIRGINIA 2,745.57 01/09/09 JACOBSON, SCOTT 1,799.19 01/09/09 JAROSCH, JONATHAN 2,482.95 01/09/09 KREGER, JASON 1,794.16 01/09/09 KUMMER, STEVEN 2,726.98 01/09/09 LINDBLOM, RANDAL 2,561.17 01/09/09 LOVE, STEVEN 2,598.95 01/09/09 THOMPSON, MICHAEL 3,539.90 01/09/09 ZIEMAN, SCOTT 72.60 01/09/09 EDSON, DAVID 2,384.18 01/09/09 HINNENKAMP, GARY 2,397.56 01/09/09 MARUSKA, MARK 3,000.18 01/09/09 NAUGHTON, JOHN 2,129.90 01/09/09 NORDQUIST, RICHARD 2,006.15 01/09/09 NOVAK, MICHAEL 2,006.15 01/09/09 SCHINDELDECKER, JAMES 2,008.46 01/09/09 BIESANZ, OAKLEY 1,355.25 01/09/09 DEAVER, CHARLES 784.38 01/09/09 HAYMAN, JANET 1,262.24 01/09/09 HUTCHINSON, ANN 2,472.00 01/09/09 WACHAL, KAREN 738.49 Packet Page Number Page 323 of 408 01/09/09 FRY, PATRICIA 1,844.47 01/09/09 KONEWKO, DUWAYNE 3,963.44 01/09/09 SINDT, ANDREA 1,921.35 01/09/09 THOMPSON, DEBRA 494.32 01/09/09 EKSTRAND, THOMAS 3,600.07 01/09/09 MARTIN, MICHAEL 2,277.35 01/09/09 BRASH, JASON 2,405.68 01/09/09 CARVER, NICHOLAS 3,027.38 01/09/09 FISHER, DAVID 3,580.28 01/09/09 RICE, MICHAEL 2,414.97 01/09/09 SWAN, DAVID 2,486.15 01/09/09 WELLENS, MOLLY 525.21 01/09/09 JOHNSON, GENE 280.00 01/09/09 BERGER, STEPHANIE 110.25 01/09/09 BJORK, BRANDON 484.50 01/09/09 BROZAK, KATHERINE 659.00 01/09/09 JANASZAK, MEGHAN 692.00 01/09/09 KOHLMAN, JENNIFER 72.00 01/09/09 NIEMAN, JAMES 60.00 01/09/09 ROBBINS, AUDRA 2,439.86 01/09/09 ROBBINS, EMERALD 121.50 01/09/09 SHERRILL, CAITLIN 287.13 01/09/09 TAUBMAN, DOUGLAS 3,115.54 01/09/09 TAYLOR, JAMES 2,007.26 01/09/09 ADAMS, DAVID 1,637.05 01/09/09 GERMAIN, DAVID 2,226.70 01/09/09 HAAG, MARK 2,029.66 01/09/09 NADEAU, EDWARD 3,384.17 01/09/09 SCHULTZ, SCOTT 2,202.15 01/09/09 ANZALDI, MANDY 1,798.40 01/09/09 BERGLUND, DANIEL 187.50 01/09/09 BRENEMAN, NEIL 1,741.11 01/09/09 CRAWFORD - JR, RAYMOND 797.75 01/09/09 DICKS, JOHN 220.50 01/09/09 EVANS, CHRISTINE 936.95 01/09/09 FABIO-SHANLEY, MICHAEL 96.03 01/09/09 GLASS, JEAN 1,982.54 01/09/09 HANSEN, LORI 2,490.13 01/09/09 HER, CHONG 144.00 01/09/09 HER, PETER 188.70 01/09/09 HIX, MELINDA 277.75 01/09/09 HOFMEISTER, MARY 867.14 01/09/09 NAGEL, BROOKE 281.50 01/09/09 PELOQUIN, PENNYE 610.51 01/09/09 SCHOENECKER, LEIGH 415.50 01/09/09 STAPLES, PAULINE 3,212.78 01/09/09 VANG, TIM 318.00 01/09/09 ANDERSON, JOSHUA 136.50 01/09/09 ANDERSON, JUSTIN 105.30 01/09/09 BAUDE, SARAH 102.00 01/09/09 BEITLER, JULIE 68.00 01/09/09 BRUSOE, AMY 83.95 01/09/09 BRUSOE, CRISTINA 146.12 01/09/09 BUCHMAYER, NICOLLET 160.60 Packet Page Number Page 324 of 408 01/09/09 BUCKLEY, BRITTANY 221. 13 01/09/09 CAMPBELL, JESSICA 54. 00 01/09/09 DEMPSEY, BETH 85. 75 01/09/09 DEVRIENDT, KARA 25. 00 01/09/09 DUNN, RYAN 1,003. 36 01/09/09 GIEL, NICOLE 144. 50 01/09/09 GRUENHAGEN, LINDA 150. 90 01/09/09 HOLMBERG, LADONNA 162. 00 01/09/09 HORWATH, RONALD 2,439. 86 01/09/09 JOHNSON, JAMES 25. 38 01/09/09 JOSSART, ANGELA 17. 00 01/09/09 JOYER, JENNA 20. 55 01/09/09 KOGLER, RYAN 84. 00 01/09/09 KOLLER, NINA 180. 80 01/09/09 KRONHOLM, KATHRYN 451. 54 01/09/09 KURZHAL, ALISON 54. 00 01/09/09 MATHEWS, LEAH 153. 60 01/09/09 MCCANN, NATALIE 90. 00 01/09/09 MCCARTHY, ERICA 54. 00 01/09/09 OLSON, SANDRA 40. 00 01/09/09 PROESCH, ANDY 404. 38 01/09/09 RHODY, DIANE 238. 00 01/09/09 RICHTER, DANIEL 88. 75 01/09/09 RICHTER, NANCY 1,249. 78 01/09/09 SCHAEFER, NATALIE 56. 00 01/09/09 SCHREIER, ROSEMARIE 85. 00 01/09/09 SCHUNEMAN, GREGORY 95. 85 01/09/09 SJERVEN, BRENDA 68. 00 01/09/09 SKUNES, KELLY 84. 38 01/09/09 SMITH, ANN 59. 10 01/09/09 TUPY, HEIDE 201. 80 01/09/09 TUPY, MARCUS 297. 89 01/09/09 WARNER, CAROLYN 237. 10 01/09/09 WEDES, CARYL 75. 50 01/09/09 WOLFGRAM, TERESA 57. 20 01/09/09 WOODMAN, ALICE 69. 00 01/09/09 YOUNCE, BLAISE 28. 00 01/09/09 BOSLEY, CAROL 191. 93 01/09/09 HOLMGREN, STEPHANIE 153. 00 01/09/09 LANGER, CHELSEA 66. 50 01/09/09 LANGER, KAYLYN 61. 25 01/09/09 BEHAN, JAMES 1,873. 82 01/09/09 DOUGLASS, TOM 1,240. 12 01/09/09 GROPPOLI, JOE 388. 00 01/09/09 PATTERSON, ALBERT 1,494. 60 01/09/09 PRINS, KELLY 1,162. 62 01/09/09 REILLY, MICHAEL 1,807. 75 01/09/09 VALERIO, TARA 293. 63 01/09/09 AICHELE, CRAIG 2,124. 87 01/09/09 PRISM, STEVEN 2,256. 55 01/09/09 WOEHRLE, MATTHEW 2,142. 23 01/09/09 BERGO, CHAD 2,499. 19 01/09/09 FOWLDS, MYCHAL 3,196. 06 Packet Page Number Page 325 of 408 01/09/09 FRANZEN, NICHOLAS 2,083.07 77429 12/31/08 GROPPOLI, LINDA 75.95 1006602 01/09/09 LONGRIE, DIANA 473.15 1006603 01/09/09 WELCHLIN, CABOT 2,737.80 1006604 01/09/09 GOODRICH, CHAD 681.75 1006605 01/09/09 GRAVES, CONNIE 18.00 1006606 01/09/09 LINDA, KELLIE 42.75 1006607 01/09/09 MUELLNER, CHARD 280.50 1006608 01/09/09 ROBBINS, CAMDEN 14.00 1006609 01/09/09 SERGOT, COLLIN 140.00 1006610 01/09/09 VUE, LOR PAO 204.00 1006611 01/09/09 BUESING, DYLAN 49.00 1006612 01/09/09 GRANT, MELISSA 292.00 1006613 01/09/09 HANSON, MATTHEW 101.50 1006614 01/09/09 LAMSON, KEVIN 24.50 1006615 01/09/09 MCCORMACK, MELISSA 56.00 1006616 01/09/09 MCLAURIN, CHRISTOPHER 254.28 1006617 01/09/09 OLSON, SHELBY 18.00 1006618 01/09/09 PIEPER, THEODORE 68.75 1006619 01/09/09 ROSTRON, ROBERT 247.50 1006620 01/09/09 SAUCERMAN, MICHAEL 313.63 1006621 01/09/09 SCHAEFER, JAMES 116.00 1006622 01/09/09 SCHMIDT, EMILY 187.11 1006623 01/09/09 SCHMIDT, JOHN 146.29 1006624 01/09/09 SKAAR, SAMANTHA 13.50 1006625 01/09/09 DANIEL, BREANNA 21.38 1006626 01/09/09 HER, SHILLAME 29.00 1006627 01/09/09 MCDONALD, JESSALYNN 154.00 1006628 01/09/09 ZAGER, LINNEA 50.63 1006629 01/09/09 BOWMAN, MATTHEW 159.55 1006630 01/09/09 SCHOENECKER, KYLE 32.63 1006631 01/09/09 SCHULZE, KEVIN 349.00 1006632 01/09/09 STEFFEN, MICHAEL 14.00 468,884.69 Packet Page Number Page 326 of 408 Agenda Item M 1 AGENDA REPORT TO: Chuck Ahl, Acting City er FROM: Steve L.ukin, Fire Chief SUBJECT: Purchase of Four Used Vehicles DATE: January 20, 2009 INTRODUCTION In the 2009 budget, we have $30,000 in the EMS division and $30,000 in the fire suppression division budgeted for the replacement of two vehicles. After doing some research, we found out that with the auto industry in turmoil, we could better utilize our dollars by purchasing used vehicles. This allows us the ability to expand our replacement of two vehicles to three vehicles and add ane additional vehicle for the EMS director who will be available to respond to calls from his home as a backup paramedic. In order to take advantage of the huge savings available in the used vehicle market, we decided to go through a broker who deals in used vehicles at automotive auctions. We asked Synergy Motor Car Company, a Maplewood based company, to bid on vehicles for us and we were able to pick up four vehicles; three 2006's and one 2005 in the amount of $52,163.92 (with all taxes and licenses), which gives us a savings of $7,836.08. The purchase orders are attached for your review. Three of these Dodge Durangos wil! replace a 1996 Chevrolet Suburban, a 1996 Chevrolet S10 and a 1996 Ford Crown Victoria. Ali three of these vehicles are in need of major repairs and replacement is a better alternative. In reviewing some of the recommendations from the Green Team, and as a member of the Green Team, I felt we were able to reduce our carbon footprint by replacing these three older vehicles with vehicles with updated pollution control systems for a reduction in carbon emissions. I also looked at the possibility of buying Hybrid vehicles. At this time, the used market for Hybrids is almost nonexistent and the cost of purchasing Hybrid vehicles versus non~Hybrids is cost prohibited in my opinion. Also, I was told that at some point when the batteries in Hybrid vehicles need to be replaced, the disposal of the old batteries have the potential to do more harm to the environment than that of standard vehicles with updated emissions systems. RECOMMENDATION I recommend that the city council approve the purchase of four Dodge Durangos in the amount of $52,163.92 to Synergy Motor Car Company. Att. Packet Page Number Page 327 of 408 01/13/2009 12:52 5514873749 SVNERGVMOTORCAR PAGE 05105 • 'v • • '''r ~ . • : ~ ~., . •• ,, r, 5r51~~'•'•;; ..,r • ~ •: •:,:.,,.,..., •. •Maple~aad,1N[1N • . . , • ' ,•p . `p, 3 ~ ;:; „ r , f~ ~ • ~ . E ~ r" '4J..~r •8 BE~r90~1~ ' ` ' stunk ff. ~ .,, L s „ ;,.:..~•::; ~ r : ~ ~' - •• (Mfd~la? • .,,: ~ .•' •! r. 2'r is •S'r~'~`~i-lrti`it s'.i~}f 'il r7fi 'f;I ;,; t;;:t(iltri.. ;pi :::r' •.l. Eh'~E~,1:ti'Itl:d~ ~ rk~_+': l ~ ' ;(L&9t suyaFN~ma ) . i !i•fIhl,p ri`:,s~r :I.S•. ..~ . ~ ~ , . . % ,~!•tt t+.) its91;' •sJSlks~ ~s'~J'r~ ; l'I• > ,~,~..,,,,,rr~M,~il ~,r _ ... •. . ; ';• . ia;a F';t; :, 4 ~ ' ar Noma, (Last) Co-Bo . , . . ~asr .. .., , U f~~. ~ „:, r •• ,~ • '• y'~., •~ :t rilAll~: r+ras,~lp?':.~--,-•~. r ~ I i . ,~•li,~•E~tifli~ ~ ~ ` ; y ~ . , : „ , ,.~, u-~~ ~ ,. I •~, ' ,. f~~4 f~Vi ~ hf~"' ~" '~~ [ra sr, * `;rf'a•,rti; ~6[ r : S Addtt)s ar ~~ , r .,~ . UYQ ~ , r•; r~ ,. . .QQ; " . •. .. ..... w ~ " ' BUS i?Itone: ~ . . Horne Phone ' +(~ Co•F3uyer D.L. 8; ,• •,~y~j:l.~.~ [~ .. r .;~ .i~ ~ ti . ~.~-S.?~ %~~r~r L >f J ~ d . , : Buyeri •• ~ ~ , ~ . Buyere Insur~iti+X9 ~o;' • , ;~' ,,. ! ' , ;. . ,.: • ,, ., ~ .•, • : •:• ~~ • : ~•:Addr'es ' ~ s., ta~FOR:':NAw.~1,s:Ua~dW •.Damo,liJ~r ;I:EAnybldss••• . -, .. ,o. o IN ~ PLI=ABE. ENTER MY Rq~ ............. .. .. r~ ur: ~- .: , •~,i,; . ,<. ~Tianr~~st,~ ,o .. .,.. . , . -wsnivs; 7 . ,~ ~. ~-.~._ -r~._.; •. `q ,~.v ,q,~.Y pr~l :~.y. ......~rr~. ,~t~, .~, ..~ Is :., C g y '~~ a reomont, ar an OkhAr agr9omenk o The front and baolc oT this CpNTIaACT comprlea trio nntlre CONTRACT affneting tt11s purahaee, The b1yAi.ER wII[ not rbCn nlz0 sn ,vorb,, 9 Y understanding of any nature. You c~rt,fy That no arFldlt hrsc Uesn ex1An+lc~d by Uoalar {nr tho purchase of this n~oror VBI.11CLt=. You certlfy tnrlt yeu aro 1 t3 years of nps~ er oldor, am acknowledgo rrlceSvlny a oapY of 1111; ConltQCt, Tire tonna of Ittls CONTRACT were flgrced upon and tho CONTRACT aignod In tha dsnlnralzip IPIiP1~1~TAi~'X': TF«S MAY CiE A D~NDINGr CONTRACT an thn deco notad AL top d thlts farm. It DEALER Is arranging credit Ipr YOUr IhIR CONTRACT 19 notvnild un11J a c~dJeCloaureJ rsda>18 daacrlbed In RegUlotion Z andyou h~v0 paaapked NO~ PEAS,©RM pCC{)(~D NG TOOfi'S1'ERMr.•y. the credl! e~teng0d. ' ,N0T1CE OF S LESPERSON'a Li TI•IDRfTY, Thk9 conkraal ic3 nGi valid unloss slpnsd and fRCCOp1nd by S en r f ppslers111p, ~ Packet Pa~re1 [~ n..nesnrnrr TXY~ `-"""""""^'^ auyPrn arpnnlwo "J"G"O ~~'+~8 01/13/2009 12:52 6514673749~~~~ SYNERGYMCITORCAR ' 25S ~: ~~a~sel~wi~:`~~4ve '~ ~'~ ' ~ ~ ~~~~~~ ~ ~ ~~ ~'`~' SiOOk tt: ~~' f3uydr NEtme: (LS4t} , Co-Buyer Ns3tng; •(Lg Ftdareas: ~ ~~~C ldame Pnona: ,---..~ Buyer C.t_. H: Suyars Eneurgricv ~',~ PLEASE ~NTI~R;M . • :..~ .i'.. 1 "~. ,' , ~ .Y ;, , '. r+ ~ ! s'' 1i~.49n~rvxssti'43.~:..,,;;,, • I: BUq t?h6110: .. ...i. .•i~1FyId~;3+Rn 4~4^•i< ~~ f~ Go~Buyar D, L. th . tn~ 1 PAGE 03/05 •.~ ~~`.. ' ~, ~~ v7 ryir.~f,f .i il~Ill~f~'F`:.,~:r:rt• ,,.ga~BUyor;tlOBs: 7 /~; ,.~ .• ~ I , ra v ~ ~ : ,,, , .. others raomont ar . l'he from dne bask of this Gt]taTpACT comprldc~ tho entlre CONTf~ACT affoCtfng IhIR purotta30. The DEALt»R will not reeognlae any vorb~tl flgreamant, ar ztny 9 undersianding of any tlaturo. You oarttiy thAt na orBdlt has bean oxtondod, by BoAlor for the purchtt4e of this motor vEHICLt. You certify tttal You mre 10 yrars of aqe ar attloR rynd ackndwladgo rocelving a copy al thin contract. ~ 1MP~~'~'AN~°. TI°IIS MAY f~l; A BINDING CONTRACT Ills tarmn of thta CONTRACT ware #r~lraer7 upon and the t;ONTRACT ~Ignad En tho ddalarehf on lFla d9tt3 noRed 9t top o! Rh1s farm. 1t UCALE.R fa drrdnging credit far YOUR thla CoNl'RACT Id not vtrlEd unHf,a cradlldlacioaura Es mdctd as described fn R>3gUltttldn land yAU }lave accepted AND if4U MAY ~„QSf= ANY DN=POSITS I,~ YOU D tt,m aredtt exta ~~~ NQT P1rH~ORM ACCQRDING TO ITS TEFIMS. ,NOTICE OF ALESf'f;RSA ED AUTHORITY. This cantrdcl iS not vstlld unless slgnod and ~ Packet Page, Number 9:iynC~ fifphAll~lP ~ t ~g#08 01/3.x/2009 12:52 6514873749 SYNERGYMQ70RCAR PAGE 02/05 ._ :~I•. ~l fj ' • • ~ Ida ple aod, ~l"!IV ~ i5~1~~ ~ ~ ~ . r .. r, {: < ;. Q419;r. ~%. i~i,~.,.'., ,. „ire Stock It; ~ , •.'„'.: ll~. ' '~N1fddle5( ~ ~ ~ k ~ ::rf.. . '?~4'4:.i ~ •:4' rl"`iS'. !"~ t.. 1 l r,~ blYtfw~. 1 ' •.J~ j ~ '.: ... 7~I~s1~ ~ '. i:ti. ,:2r 'S;nTKdT"f~;'~'+d~'iMtihl "F:;'j 't,tl iS :'ttiy~ ly.tl'~'I me I.aet ~y• i slrl~~9f•~l„ Ir~~:~l,:i.• • It[d BUyerI~EA ~ ~ } r ~.• , ii. t ,,.I~~'fS~r' i~... i:lS.t ~%.: ~}t'its' }`!~ ~5 r, 7r5y~,i k• i~.~ ...F~M t~'.'.f',•r. ~!" ~.. . ~.~• •• ... r.. ,5 dl' y~~~f'~,}ur~r .;i.r ~ it .,... 4 ,ti l „t~~..' I"d:.l`~7y.~b:~~.~.~ Co•Bu er Nstme:•{La.9t]; . ,.. '~•., i sc~. t+ L~U~ty7' F ~ 'r LI 4. . ~tY: N !J' I, ~. .'I il! I ~ ~~'; ~ 1 l r. ~' . r Addrgsa: f ~~=~~.~ ••~ •'~.,.,I~ ..I'~~°~ sr•rlsniy~srir~tir+r'~.ti • ~t •i~ ,• ,rCosuyar.,DOBsI 1•~• Homy Phone; • . ~ ' . ' ~r ~~r5': f ` ~ Ca-Buyer D.L. H: ~---• • _ Buyer D.L. !}: ~-~7 w~ ~4' •' ~:., .; :. ,:. n ri '~~ ~`~` The front 9n# brick of ibis CONTAAGT Compose mc• ~~~,~~n ~~~~ ~' •w ~ ••'~••~•° •~ •• -- r--'- undnrafending of eny natura. You cartlfy thnk no cr~dli has boen ext9ndod by da~llor for the Qurchaee of Ihls motor VEHICLE. You ce y a ° ' eclcnawtgdpa receiving a copy o! this conireCl, 7ha terms of this CONTRACT were ogrcod upon and the CO>JrpAGT dlgnrd In the timaEarehlp II~APs~ER~AA,NT: "('HIS MAY B~ A FINDING CONTRAC'~ an tho data notOd nt top ai this farm. ttl DEAL-ER Ie nrrAnging•G`aerlt tdr YqU, this CONTRACT ~Np YOU MAX LOS£ ANY Cf £Ppgl;~ I~ YOU pC Ea not VAlld untit o Crodlt rJiscloauro la mode A9 dnscribsd in Regul9lldn X god you hnvw acoeptocl NOT PERI*C?I'iM ACCORDING TO l"I'S T£RMS. the crndEt axtnn - NOTICE OF LESWE S LIMITED AUTN10F11TY. This pantrdal 13 not va11d unles9 slgnod csnd ~rlecopted b Safes er or ffteer of pgs~terAtll Q~N^^__•, Packet Pa~ge~/~ Nru,,~~mIber ,.........1 __._- alry6f h.. I~nnSUroM1 ~":7:7~V7'I}~'~8 01/13/2009 12:52 6514873749 SVNERGYt~Sf]TDRCAR PAGE 04/05 _... w. _,,,..,r • --._..... .,_,.._.,,.,~.~ ~--._. -•-••-• •:! i~' °i ;.Y !,I;~~,f ?'~4'I'f'f' ~y~,~ c?.;l'~~:'?.'}' •,ii'' . .. ~ . ' :~~~' • .fl••' auto ,•i ~ . •s;:.'Sil~'•r ,. ~..tj~::;4i1 ..i: rr. i f1t6t)t +, ~, ~ ,~1~ fir'{;+ri::~ ., ~,~t• , ` ~ •:. li' ''~~Iret .y, e.+~' ;i,h.,s.I;!`: !i'41 fd'RfJ$'sjll~t~ ~ .~ f' r s.A+ ~ ~ Buyer Name: (tow^t) +~;r::•r~,;. ,~~:~{ t:~ :~~'~~< a~~ritc; •.,,~lt , zres;t+-~s ,. ,r~M[ ). ~,..... ,., , . , ,. '.,. i~~r.. ~ . r..,,, , I .. Cb•r3uyerName:{Last. ~,~, :•h,' , ,. )r ~ ~~a I~ Y°~~~'YRf~4yi~rfy1~''~'4r(;~'~rl~:t~. .,, A~, , r,~ , yti.~ ~,+'~ I.~~~, ~~ J ~ ta` ~r~' ~ih~. ~ ~'"l .~ ;I' {t Sr %~1~ '~! i••• '• •' Adeir^ss: " ~ `' , , , ,il~,,;l.e, fyiillYlul~slii+A!4.++a~ ~y~'~ ~,+..' '" .. •'C~%~~uY~r~QOF7i~ ht4ma phane• •~ . .. „ .r. ..,, , Co-t3uyer f?.L. tf: ,,, . ~ 1~,Q1 y `rti.:G~ •~;...`~.,, Q/,-,.~A ~ . ~• . ~ J I~oIICy!~I~ ~ .: _ _ The front pstid hnctc of thl>"' CONTRACT compriSC"I me snore wrv++~ru+~ a+•vu+•~•:a ••'•- r-•°••••--• understand[ng of any naiura. You cerllfy 111th no credit has been exlor+dod by dealer for the pur^hes^ at thfa motor V~HICLR, You cenlfy that you ere y ~ . + [tcknowledg9 roco~vln~ a copy of lhl3 aontreci. p IMSr~OEF~T~11~T; 'CHiS MAY BE A SiNl~ING CONTRACT The tArmB of th1R CONSRAG7 were agreed upon sod tito QONTRAC? signed In the daalor3hl pTt the date riatact qt tap o! thla forrh. If faEA1.ER is nrranghtg Credit for YflU, thin GONTRAGT le not votld until a cretll~sllscloaure fe mode as daz3orlbad in Ct^guEatlan z and you haw aaoopted NNOOT p ~RFOFiM AGCORA NG "i'O IITS TERMS ~ p the Gr~dtt s ~ . ,N07iCt: 9Ai.F~ ON' Nlll"~p AUTIiORl7Y. Thte c^nlra^t 13 oat vtilld un1439 signed and fsocepie gar r Offlc~r ^f Dealorshlp, ..~. ~ ® Packet Pa e Numb !h'remnra -__ •.. ,uynr'n 9fpnnlWO .~~T~•pl ~I~®8 Agenda Item M2 MEMORANDUM TO: Acting City Manager FROM: Tom Ekstrand, Senior Planner SUBJECT: Hydrologic Outdoor Storage Facility-Conditional Use Permit Review LOCATION: 1261 Highway 61 DATE: January 16, 2009 INTRODUCTION In December of 2007, Mitch Keogh, representing Hydro Logic, proposed adding afenced-in outdoor storage area in the parking lot of his business at 1261 Highway 36. Five parking spaces in the corner of the parking lot adjacent to the Maplewood Business Center were eliminated. That area is now being used as an outdoor storage space for PVC pipe and poly pipe (on pallets) that his business distributes to irrigation companies. BACKGROUND February 11, 2008: The city council approved the Hydrologic CUP. DISCUSSION A building permit for the installation of an eight foot fence to enclose the storage area was pulled by Century Fence Company on April 10, 2008. A final inspection of the fence was done on May 14, 2008 and the work was approved. A site inspection was done on January 12, 2009 to verify that the site was being used in conformance to the CUP conditions (attached). All conditions are being met. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends future review of this CUP only if a problem arises or if a major change is proposed to the site. p:\sec9\Hydrologic CUP Rev 01 09 Attachments 1. City Council minutes dated February 11, 2008 2. Location Map Packet Page Number Page 332 of 408 Attachment 1 MINUTES MAPLEWOOD CITY COUNCIL 7:00 p.m., Monday, February 11, 2008 Council Chambers, City Hall Meeting No. 4-08 1. Conditional Use Permit -Hydrologic (1261 Highway 36 East). a. Planner, Ken Roberts presented the report. b. Planning Commissioner, Gary Pearson gave the planning commission report. c. Mitch Keogh, Hydrologic, 1261 Highway 36 East, Maplewood addressed the council. Councilmember Hjelle moved to approve the Conditional Use Permit Resolution for Hydrologic (1261 Highway 36 East). CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION 08-02-020 WHEREAS, Mitch Keogh, representing Hydrologic, is requesting city-approval of a conditional use permit to add an outdoor storage area on the northwest part of the property at 1261 Highway 36 East. The legal description is: Clifton Addition, Ramsey County, subject to Highway; except the east 353 feet of Block 24, except the south 100 feet thereof; except the north 40 feet; part of Blocks 19 and 24 which lie east of a line described as beginning 658 feet west of the NE corner of Block 24, the south 240 feet, then east 36.67 feet, then south to the south line of Block 19 and there terminating. (PIN 09- 29-22-41-0026) WHEREAS, the history of this conditional use permit revision is as follows: 1. On January 15, 2008, the planning commission held a public hearing. The city staff published a notice in the paper and sent notices to the surrounding property owners. The planning commission gave persons at the hearing a chance to speak and present written statements. The commission also considered reports and recommendations of the city staff. The planning commission recommended that the city council approve the conditional use permit. 2. On February 11, 2008, the city council discussed the proposed 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 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. Packet Page Number Page 333 of 408 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 and activities on the site shall follow the site and project plans as approved by the city. City staff may approve minor changes to these plans and the city council must approve major changes to the approved plans. 2. The fence design and the slats in the fence shall provide 100 percent screening of the materials inside the enclosure. 3. Any fence over six feet tall requires a building permit issued by the city. The city building official will require the submittal of a structural plan for the proposed fence approved by a registered engineer with the building permit materials. 4. Hydrologic shall store all their materials and supplies in the fenced storage area or within the building. There shall be no storage visible above the top of the fence. 5. The proposed fence and storage area shall not alter the existing drainage patterns or obstruct surface run off from flowing into the existing drainage inlets within the parking lot. 6. Hydrologic shall store all their materials and supplies in the fenced storage area or within the building. 7. The proposed outdoor storage area and site work 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. 8. The city council shall review this permit in one year. The Maplewood City Council approved this resolution on February 11, 2008. Seconded by Mayor Longrie. Ayes -All The motion passed. Packet Page Number Page 334 of 408 /~ Attachment 2 L~C?d CONNORAVE I ~ \ ~ Q y ~~~t ,~- ~~t tip {~ ~ Ud~ ~ ~I ~1 ~~ LE DR I ~ ~o~ ~~ ~~h ~ ~~ L1 3 fit ~ Ll~... ,~ a ~ r°i W U ~~ ~ ~© ~ ~ ~ ~ U ~ ~, I, ~_ I E i ~ - ~ r I ~;~ 1 '. I ',.. _ GERVAIS AVE F r I ~ .- ~ ~ Z ~ ~ I ~- ~~ SIT a ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ / ~1 '' , I~~~~ ~ -- ' .....SERVICE RD. 1 1= ~ ~ __- ~~: I/ ~ ~ ~ + I~ COPE AVE LJ r ~ T ~ r 0 L] ~ mr1 fl i~ f] o r, E n r I ~ v U LAFK AVE ~ I I ~ r `~' t~ L LJ ' 1. ¢ f.-:. I y.. COUNTY ROAD 6 ~ ~ '_' ... -~~~_' ^%- f ` ~ ~ 'r7 I ~ ~ ~I ~ I ,. i~ - [` ~ L ~ ~ C~ 0~ ~ ~ ,.. FP . Il I L7 ~~ 1 r \ ~ 1 Location Map 1261 Highway 36 Hydrologic Packet Page Number Page 335 of 408 MEMORANDUM Agenda Item M3 TO: Acting City Manager FROM: Tom Ekstrand, Senior Planner SUBJECT: Countryside Volkswagen, Inc.-Conditional Use Permit Review LOCATION: 1180 and 1200 Highway 36 DATE: January 16, 2009 INTRODUCTION In November of 2007 John Schmelz, of Countryside Volkswagen, Inc., had the opportunity to purchase the Ember's Restaurant site at 1200 Highway 36 which abuts his auto dealership. Before buying the property, Schmelz wanted to expand the existing CUP to allow him to use the property either to operate a new automobile franchise or to expand his existing Volkswagen dealership. Since the approval of the CUP Revision in January of 2008, Schmelz purchased the property, demolished the Embers restaurant and currently uses the site for storage of vehicles. No additional proposal for development of the property has been received by the city at this time. BACKGROUND January 9, 1995: The city council granted a CUP for the expansion of Countryside Volkswagen's automobile dealership facility. February 12, 1996: The city council reviewed this CUP and scheduled review again in one year. November 23, 1998: The city council reviewed this CUP and decided to review it again if a problem developed or if the applicant proposed any changes. October 23, 2000: The city council revised the CUP to allow the expansion of the facility including a front setback variance for an addition to the Volkswagen showroom. October 22, 2001: The city council reviewed the CUP and scheduled review again in one year. October 14, 2002: The city council reviewed the CUP and scheduled review again in one year. March 31, 2003: The city council approved a CUP revision for the expansion of Countryside Volkswagen's use onto excess land owned by the Ember's Restaurant. April 26, 2004 and September 12, 2005: The council reviewed the CUP and scheduled review again in one year. November 13, 2006: The council reviewed the CUP and moved to review it again only if a problem developed or the applicant proposed a change. January 14, 2008: The city council passed a resolution approving a Conditional Use Permit Revision for the expansion of Schmelz Countryside auto dealership onto the property at 1200 Highway 36 (former Ember's Restaurant) incorporating the resolutions previously applied to the applicant's current site and his future use of the Ember's Restaurant property. (attached) Packet Page Number Page 336 of 408 DISCUSSION Mr. Schmelz has removed the Embers building but has not submitted plans for any new construction. Staff recommends reviewing this CUP in one year to check on the progress of Mr. Schmelz's expansion plans. RECOMMENDATION Review this conditional use permit for Countryside Volkswagen in one year to check progress. p:sec9\Countryside Motors CUP 01 09 Attachments 1. Council conditions dated 1 /14/2008 2. Location Map Packet Page Number Page 337 of 408 Attachment 1 MINUTES MAPLEWOOD CITY COUNCIL 7:00 p.m., Monday, January 14, 2008 Council Chambers, City Hall Meeting No. 1-08 J. NEW BUSINESS Conditional Use Permit Revision -Schmelz Countryside Motors - 1180 - 1200 Highway 36 East. a. Senior Planner, Tom Ekstrand presented the report. b. Robert Martin, Planning Commissioner, 2329 Londin Lane, Maplewood addressed the council and gave the planning commission report. c. John Schmelz, Owner of Schmelz Countryside Motors, 1180 Highway 36 East, Maplewood addressed the council. Councilmember Hjelle moved to adopt the resolution approving a Conditional Use Permit Revision for the expansion of an auto dealership with sales and service Schmelz Countryside onto the property at 1200 Highway 36 (currently the Ember's Restaurant property). This revision incorporates the resolutions previously applied to the applicant's current site and his future use of the Ember's Restaurant property. This approval is based on the findings reauired by code and subject to the following conditions (additions are underlined and deletions are crossed out CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION 08-01-009 WHEREAS, John Schmelz, of Countryside Volkswagen, Inc., applied for a conditional use permit revision to expand his automobile sales and service business onto the Ember's Restaurant site adjacent to his property. WHEREAS, this permit applies to the Countryside Volkswagen, Inc., Automobile Dealership at 1180 Highway 36 East and to the expanded site located at 1200 Highway 36. The legal description is: Existing Dealership Legal Description: The west 105.00 feet of the east 135.00 feet of the north 30.00 feet of Block 10, Clifton Addition and vacated street accruing. The east 240.00 feet of Block 15, Clifton Addition, except the south 30.00 feet lying west of the east 135.00 feet thereof. Together with that part of vacated Cope Avenue accruing. The east 240.00 feet of that part of Block 16, Clifton Addition, lying southerly of State Trunk Highway Number 36. The west 110.00 feet of that part of Block 17, Clifton Addition, lying southerly of State Trunk Highway Number 36. The west 110.00 feet of Block 14, Clifton Addition, together with that part of vacated Cope Avenue accruing. The west 225.00 feet of east 255.00 feet of Block 10, Clifton Addition, together with that part of vacated Duluth Street accruing, except the south 174.00 feet and except the north 30.00 feet thereof. That part of east 114 feet of the west 400 feet of Block 17, lying south of the southerly right-of-way line of Trunk Highway 36 and the east 114 feet of the west 400 feet of Block Packet Page Number Page 338 of 408 14, lying north of the south 128 feet; and the east 290 feet of the west 400 feet of the north 98 feet of the south 128 feet of Block 14, all in Clifton Addition, Ramsey County, Minnesota, subject to roads. Expanded Site Located at 1200 Highway 36, East: Ex E 114 Ft and Ex S 128 Ft; The E 290 Ft of W 400 Ft of Blks 14 & 17 Lying S of Hwy 36. (Property I.D. No 09-29-22-41-0027) WHEREAS, the history of this conditional use permit is as follows: On December 4, 2007, the planning commission held a public hearing to review this request. City staff published a notice in the paper and sent notices to the surrounding property owners as required by law. The planning commission gave everyone at the hearing a chance to speak and present written statements. The planning commission also considered reports and recommendations of the city staff. 2. The city council reviewed this proposal and considered the planning commission's recommendation on January 14, 2008. The council also considered reports and recommendations of the city staff and those in attendance. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the city council passed the above-described conditional use permit revision because: The use would be located, designed, maintained, constructed and operated to be in conformity with the City's Comprehensive Plan and Code of Ordinances. 2. The use would not change the existing or planned character of the surrounding area. 3. The use would not depreciate property values. 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. Packet Page Number Page 339 of 408 9. The use would cause minimal adverse environmental effects. Approval is subject to compliance with the following conditions (additions are underlined and deletions are crossed out): Previously Required Countryside Volkswagen Conditions 1. All construction shall follow the site plan approved by the city. The ~'~~°^+„r ^f ,.,,,,,,,,,,,,;+., de~relspme~ city planning staff may approve minor changes. 2. The construction of the proposed addition to the Saab building must be started within one year of the city council approval or the approval for this addition shall end. The city council may extend this deadline for one year. 3. There shall be no automobile access, except emergency vehicles, to or from Duluth Street. 4. Automobiles shall only be parked on designated paved or engineered porous surfaces. 5. The applicant will enter into a formal easement agreement with St. Paul Regional Water Services and the City of Maplewood which satisfies both agencies' conditions for access to the public utility easements for water main (SPRWS) and sanitary storm sewer (City of Maplewood). 6. The city council shall review this permit in one year. Conditions Applicable to the Countryside Volkswagen, but Specific to the 1200 Highway 36 Expanded Site (formerly Ember's Restaurant) 7. No building permit shall be issued for the auto dealership expansion onto 1200 Highway 36 until the applicant receives city approval of all required plans. 8. This conditional use permit shall be reviewed by the city council in one year as required by ordinance. The city council may grant extensions of this permit for the commencement of this proiect. Normally one one-year extension is permitted by ordinance. Since the applicant has no specific design plans prepared at this time, the city council may grant up to three one-year extensions, for a total of four years of permit approval, to allow the applicant time to present plans for city approval. If the city has not issued a building permit, or construction has not substantially started by that time, this permit shall expire. 9. The proiect plans shall be designed to be sensitive to nearby residential properties in regards to aesthetics, lighting and noise. 10. This permit allows the use of this site for a new or expanded automobile dealership with sales and motor-vehicle service with outdoor motor-vehicle sales. The Maplewood City Council approved this resolution on January 14, 2008. Seconded by Mayor Longrie. Ayes -All The motion passed. Packet Page Number Page 340 of 408 t'®RMF. R M S ., ~_ I ', ~ ~~ o I~ :~ - '~_ Expanded Sales/Stora e g Lot _ ~ -,~-:~"~ l~ /~ ~ ~ ~ ~ i i i I ~ i Countryside Motors 1180 Highway 36 I~ i ~;, ~ ar ar - ca a ~ AIL I I~~ ~ ~I ~~~i I I ~ 1 ~ L~~ Location Map Countryside Motors N Packet Page Number Page 341 of 408 Agenda Item M4 MEMORANDUM TO: Acting City Manager FROM: Tom Ekstrand, Senior Planner SUBJECT: Maple Leaf Ridge Business Center-Conditional Use Permit Review LOCATION: 2475, 2485 & 2495 Maplewood Drive DATE: January 16, 2009 INTRODUCTION The conditional use permit (CUP) for the Maple Leaf Ridge Business Center is due for its annual review. This development consists of three office condominium buildings. These buildings have all been built and the site work is complete. This CUP allowed a reduced setback from the residential lot property to the west. The code requires that buildings in M1 (light manufacturing) districts be no closer than 350 feet to any abutting residential property unless a CUP is granted. The westerly building is 250 feet from the abutting residential property. BACKGROUND November 28, 2005: The city council approved the CUP. November 27, 2006: The council reviewed the CUP and moved to review it again in one year. November 26, 2007: The council reviewed the CUP and moved to review it again in one year. DISCUSSION In the past two years, staff has worked with the developer to replace dead evergreen trees on the back berm by the abutting single dwellings. Arun of very hot summers made it difficult to maintain these trees. Last summer, the developer was successful in keeping the then newly planted last six replacement trees to live through the summer by diligent watering. The survival of those six trees were the only remaining incomplete site improvement for this project. As of last August, all six trees were healthy. Staff then refunded the remaining escrow for this project. The Maple Leaf Ridge Business Center is now fully completed. Staff recommends no further review unless a problem develops or the property owners propose a change to the development. RECOMMENDATION Review the CUP for the Maple Leaf Ridge Business Center only if a problem arises or if a change is proposed to the project. p:\sec9\Mapleleaf\Maple Leaf Ridge Office Condos CUP Rev 0109 Attachments 1. City Council minutes dated November 28, 2005 2. Location/Zoning Map Packet Page Number Page 342 of 408 Attachment 1 MINUTES MAPLEWOOD CITY COUNCIL 7:00 P.M. Monday, November 28, 2005 Council Chambers, City Hall Meeting No. 05-26 2. Maple Leaf Ridge Business Center (2483 and 2497 Maplewood Drive) a. Conditional Use Permit b. Design Approval a. City Manager Fursman presented the report. b. Planner Finwall presented specifics from the report. c. Commissioner Trippler, presented the Planning Commission Report d. Boardmember Heights presented the Community Design Review Board report e. Jim Kellison, Kelco Real Estate Development Services, was present for council questions. Missy O'Connor, 2506 Adele Street, Maplewood Councilmember Rossbach moved to adopt the following resolution approving a conditional use permit for a proposed building setback of 250 feet from the rear lot line for an office/industrial condominium development at 2488 and 2497 Maplewood Drive. The motion includes the limitation of delivery times to exclude early morning and evening hours: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION OS-11-069 WHEREAS, Kelco Real Estate Development Services has applied for a conditional use permit to be allowed to build an office/industrial complex 250 feet from the abutting residential district. The code requires 350 feet. WHEREAS, this permit applies to the property at 2488 and 2497 Maplewood Drive. The legal description is: W. H. HOWARD'S GARDEN LOTS EX STH 61-1 N 85 FT OF LOT 3. W. H. HOWARD'S GARDEN LOTS EX STH 61-1 AND EX N 85 FT LOT 3. WHEREAS, the history of this conditional use permit is as follows: 1. On October 17, 2005, the planning commission recommended that the city council approve this permit. The planning commission held a public hearing. City staff published a notice in the paper and sent notices to the surrounding property owners as required by law. The planning commission gave everyone at the hearing a chance to speak and present written statements. The planning commission considered the recommendations of city staff and the public. 2. The city council reviewed this request on November 28, 2005 and considered the recommendations of the planning commission and city staff. Packet Page Number Page 343 of 408 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the city council approve the above- described conditional use permit because: 1. The use would be located, designed, maintained, constructed and operated to be in conformity with the City's Comprehensive Plan and Code of Ordinances. 2. The use would not change the existing or planned character of the surrounding area. 3. The use would not depreciate property values. 4. The use would not involve any activity, process, materials, equipment or methods of operation that would be dangerous, hazardous, detrimental, disturbing or cause a nuisance to any person or property, because of excessive noise, glare, smoke, dust, odor, fumes, water or air pollution, drainage, water 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 site plan that the city has date-stamped October 11, 2005 and the lighting plan date-stamped November 21, 2005. The director of community development may approve minor changes. 2. The proposed construction must be substantially started, or the proposed use utilized, within one year of council approval or the permit shall become null and void. The council may extend this deadline for one year. 3. The city council shall review this permit in one year. 4. The city's hours for noise control as stated in Section 18-111 of the city code shall be complied with. This means that there shall be no noise generated between the hours of 7 p.m. and 7 a.m. Monday through Saturday and all day Sunday. The applicant's sale or lease agreements should specify this. 5. The site lights, west of Building #3, the westerly building, shall be turned off after 10 Packet Page Number Page 344 of 408 p.m. unless required to be on by the police department for security reasons. The lights on the west side of Building #3 shall also be of a design that conceals the lens and bulbs of these light fixtures. Light-intensity maximums must meet code requirements. The lighting plan must be coordinated with the Police Department. 6. Combine the two legal descriptions into one legally-described lot prior to obtaining a building permit for this development. 7. The applicant must provide a revised landscaping plan for Community Design Review Board approval that provides alandscaping/screening plan, including a double row of trees along the west boundary, which provides a visual screen that is at least 80 percent opaque and six feet tall upon installation. If the double row of trees does not accomplish this, additional screening must be provided. This screen shall be an all-season screen that may include decorative fencing, berming and evergreen trees. This visual screen shall be provided along the rear of the property and shall extend from there along both side lot lines to the rear setback line of Building #3. This plan may take into account existing vegetation and existing screening. 8. Meet all requirements of the community design review board and city code for architectural design, landscaping, site lighting and parking. 9. Meet all requirements of the city engineer for site grading, drainage, erosion control, dust control, utilities and removal of roadway dirt build-up. 10. Outdoor storage of any materials shall not be allowed unless a conditional use permit for outdoor storage is obtained from the city council. Seconded by Councilmember Koppen Ayes-Councilmembers Bartol, Juenemann, Koppen and Rossbach Abstain-Mayor Cardinal Councilmember Koppen moved to approve the site plan date-stamped October 11, 2005, and the lighting plan date-stamped November 21, 2005. Approval is subject to the applicant/developer complying with the following conditions: 1. Repeat this review in two years if the city has not issued a building permit for this project. 2. Comply with all conditions of Chuck Vermeersch's engineering report dated October 17, 2005. 3. Obtain necessary permits from the Minnesota Department of Transportation before the issuance of a building permit. 4. Obtain a permit from the Ramsey/Washington Metro Watershed District before the issuance of a building permit. Packet Page Number Page 345 of 408 5. Provide fencing on the top of all retaining walls that exceed four feet in height. The fencing shall be a black chain link fence at least 3.5 feet tall. Retaining walls that exceed four feet in height must be designed by a structural engineer, and the applicant must obtain a building permit. 6. The applicant must provide a revised landscaping plan for Community Design Review Board approval that provides alandscaping/screening plan, including a double row of trees along the west boundary, which provides a visual screen that is at least 80 percent opaque and six feet tall upon installation. If the double row of trees does not accomplish this, additional screening must be provided. This screen shall be an all-season screen that may include decorative fencing, berming and evergreen trees. This visual screen shall be provided along the rear of the property and shall extend from there along both side lot lines to the rear setback line of Building #3. This plan may take into account existing vegetation and existing screening. 7. Obtain approval of a comprehensive sign plan from the community design review board before any sign permits may be issued. 8. Submit a complete lighting plan to staff for approval. The site lights, west of Building #3, the westerly building, shall be turned off after 10 p.m. unless required to be on by the police department for security reasons. The lights on the west side of Building #3 shall also be of a design that conceals the lens and bulbs of these light fixtures. Light-intensity maximums must meet code requirements. The lighting plan must be coordinated with the Police Department. 9. Provide a revised landscaping plan for approval by the Community Design Review Board for the area along the street frontage, increasing the amount of plantings in this area. 10. The applicant must provide an in-ground irrigation system as required by code. The area around the pond does not need to be sprinklered. 11. The rear elevations of all buildings, and any parts of the side elevations that are rock-face block, must be painted to match the front building colors. 12. Provide cash escrow, in the amount of 150 percent of the cost of completing the landscaping and exterior site improvements, before the applicant shall obtain a building permit. 13. All customer parking spaces must be at least 9 %2 feet wide. Employee parking spaces may be nine feet wide if signs are posted identifying them as employee parking only. 14. The community design review board shall approve major changes to these plans. Minor changes may be approved by staff. 15. On Building #3, the west, north and south elevations shall incorporate the same CMU (concrete masonry unit) band as proposed on the front to wrap around the Packet Page Number Page 346 of 408 entire building. Seconded by Councilmember Rossbach Ayes-Councilmembers Bartol, Juenemann, Koppen and Rossbach Abstain-Mayor Cardinal Packet Page Number Page 347 of 408 Attachment 2 yg~~, ~ ;,~ -~ - ~ = Att ch en E - i9 7 ~ ~ r' s ~e~ P1 ~~io ~s ~ ' ~'np 7 - ~~ 'es~ 1 ~ ~{ 5 arrr ~ .~. D ~` ~ ~ ~ e~ ~ ~ ~ _ C NNOR AVE ~~ z Q~ - a i 4 ~'~ ~ ~. ~ BELLECREST DR '~ € r;Y j "~,, H ~~fi~ 5 ~- ~~ .~; ~,i, ~~N s ~~ 7 hD E.M O N T~ Av E ~_.: ,:n O. n j 4 ~ 2. ., ~ r ~, ~ Site zas3 ~ T ~• ~- o _ p i ~3 ~'if ~I ~ _ C m ~ ~ !95 ~ r- ~ " ~ u ~- ®® ~ ~i - ~ j _,r -~ z i ~ 4t - ® 1 J ~ ~~~~„ II ~ u, I ~ - 3 2 3G' 3 SEXTANT AVM `~" ~ - m ~ \~ ~1 ®~ (~ ~ ~_ p ~~ ~~~ 24-}0 2, 1 2 ~ ~ ~ ^ - ~~ ' x;,11//t// u j ~,. ... / ~ F,~ .J G / 81 o - ~ _ _ ~~Gb~' ._ ,.,.~ Zoning Map Maple Leaf Ridge Business. Center Packet Page Number Page 348 of 408 Agenda Item M5 MEMORANDUM TO: Acting City Manager FROM: Tom Ekstrand, Senior Planner SUBJECT: Conditional Use Permit Review-Maplewood Toyota LOCATIONS: 2905 Maplewood Drive and the Open Parking Lot South of 2999 Maplewood Drive DATE: January 16, 2009 INTRODUCTION Maplewood Toyota has two conditional use permits (CUPs) due for review for their facility. One was for the Maplewood Toyota parking ramp at the northwest corner of Maplewood Drive (Highway 61) and Beam Avenue. The other allowed the open parking lot between LaMettry Collision and Gulden's Roadhouse. The original approval specified two conditions with deadlines for Steve McDaniels, the owner of Maplewood Toyota. These were to: • Provide "low-impact" environmental improvements on the original Maplewood Toyota site south of Beam Avenue. The specific low-impact improvements were to be worked out with the city engineer. The purpose was to enhance the quality of the abutting wetland. Improvements were to be accomplished by September 30, 2007. • Start construction on a future building south of Gulden's by September 30, 2007. The council allowed the gravel parking lot temporarily since it was proposed to be removed in the near future when Mr. McDaniels develops this site. Refer to the attached minutes from August 8, 2005. BACKGROUND Parking Ramp On August 8, 2005, the city council approved: • A CUP revision for a parking ramp with car sales within 350 feet of residential property. • The site and architectural plans. • A setback variance from the street right-of-way lines reducing the ramp's setback. Open Parking Lot On August 8, 2005, the city council approved a CUP for the temporary gravel parking lot south of Gulden's Roadhouse. Packet Page Number Page 349 of 408 CUP Review On February 26, 2007, the council reviewed the CUPs for the parking ramp and the open parking lot. The council did not specify when to review these permits again. DISCUSSION Low-Impact Environmental Improvements Mr. McDaniels has met this requirement. He has worked with the city's engineering department who developed a plan for the installation of pervious pavers in the southeasterly portion of the Maplewood Toyota parking lot. Refer to the attached map. Future Building Mr. McDaniels would still like to construct a new building south of Gulden's as he had originally planned. Plans for this building were delayed due to the extended length of time it took for the parking ramp to be completed at Beam Avenue and Maplewood Drive. Now, with the current down turn in the auto industry, Mr. McDaniels is not able to proceed with his plans to construct the future building south of Guldens. He is hopeful, though, that he will be able to do so in a year or so. Mr. McDaniels is requesting that the city council extend the deadline for starting this building project two more years with the understanding that if he does not precede with those plans that he would pave, curb, stripe and landscape this parking lot. RECOMMENDATION Extend the deadline for two years for the owner of Maplewood Toyota to apply for a building permit or to begin construction of his future building south of Gulden's Restaurant by January 1, 2011. If the property owner has not completed the city's planning review process, and gotten a building permit by then, he shall pave, curb, stripe and landscape the parking lot as required by ordinance. Plans for a future building must follow the usual review process. Plans for the permanent development of the site as a parking lot would be subject to staff approval. The deadline for parking lot completion, in that event, shall be June 1, 2011. p:sec4\Maplewood Toyota CUP Revs 12 08 to Attachments: 1. Location Map 2. Site/Landscaping Plan for Parking Ramp Site 3. Site Plan for Open Parking Lot 4. Landscaping Plan for Open Parking Lot 5. Map of Southerly Maplewood Toyota Site Showing Area of Pervious Pavers 6. City Council Minutes dated August 8, 2005 Packet Page Number Page 350 of 408 i -- ~.. _ _ .- ri i `-~~ 7 .` _ ` _ 1 ~,. ~;~~ Location Map Maplewood Toyota Packet Page Number Page 351 of 408 _ AE~achment 2 A e f' f ~ r li ~~~~ J. r ~ `h .. ~. ~ ~ ~~ximnl ,~3-iI' MArL;RE c~ua~u Trea~ Exurru+a3w,uEnEarturs E7n]71NGi17[:iti'fEY fLANTI~ TXI[A f -tkW T11El7 E7E11FEx0U 7 SRE}~ i • ~ EaEyTY16AH14RE T~lLf7 tXfs71HG~[ttiT+RY rL,ArtT[P 11itE3 I~ HEW iRElf OECErJUOitf fHRU~# ^ ~WfilHRW7 FREE iCE~'c Mon~rY ExLSr~NC ~RU~~ArioN to CPti11'iErEIY CO~'EA ANY GRIEN SPA[r5. NGTREIS-AEt'#tiTy".,pr,Ahi~ ti _~,~, .,, _ ~: ~~ PA~RlC1NG ~ ~- '', RAMP _ e ~~. ~ t} r NEw ! v r' ,i, .. VaRal[ so~J~t~DaTllAO[oART EIE+UA AYENIIE ANY TREES DISTURBED DURING COlXtT7EUGT10N ETHER ~~~ REL[~ATE OR REPLACI WiIH NTW YLANIINGS TO MAr[E6 LAfVbSCAPE pLtSN: 1#G LANDSCAPEN~ PI..A~ Packet Page Number Page 352 of 408 SITE PLAN 4 N Packet Page Number Page 353 of 408 Qttact~me~t 4 ~r~ouQUS rAeu ilgci7fMG,WtIlRi711LC'1 l7El~TTWGAiCIlIT1.7 lR.WtiQ 7RCi! .~r •r~~wrxie~- . -.. - cav~-iAa~q Fxus ex~Trwa~+~auei7tter.~ ~xirn+vn~iarmr rw~mrsrud - Niw•nar~ ~ltCpvaus ~~~~__~.... Uaiiu'~Gi}3i4#! TR~~ KF(: 3Y:d QTY COMArION NAtAE SCIENT'~IC NAME 5~ CQNT CQM ENiS aEGA;U0475 i#iEE5 Ft9 3 17FVL~f769tCN 8e-'Ual rpgfa iT 4SGT 086 GLt3MP ~~~~~~1~~ ~~~~ Packet Page Number Page 354 of 408 LA~V[3.5CAPE SC1iE17ULE: ~_ ~_l 1 -~-, Attachment 5 Packet Page Number Page 355 of 408 Attachment c. Maplewood Financial Center is not an exclusive owner of this property, and there is not agreement between the owners regarding the zoning map change_ Seconded I,y Gouncilmember Juenemann Ayes-AN Councilmember Juenemann moved to direct staff to investi ate the histo of the arcel when the zani wa than ed and wh and if there are an ocher situations where a arcel was than es from LBC to BC for historic ers ective. Seconded by Caunciimember Rossbach Ayes-All Councilmember Monahan-JuneK moved to den the deli n review based on the fact that the use is oat allowed in the existin tom rehensive Ian and zanin district deli nation of limited business commercial (LBC) since the city council did oat initiate the comprehensive land use and zonina~ map change. Seconded by Councilrnember Juenemann Ayes-All Councllmember Juenemann mover} to extend the meetin until the tom letian of the aaende at ?0:55 ~._m. ~ -'~~~ Seconded by Councilmember Rossbach Ayes-AA r. 90. Maplewood Toyota Vehicle Parking and Sales Facility ~sauth site - NW corner of ~,~ Hrghway fit and Beam Avenue) a. Conditional Use Permit (CUP) Revision (for parking ramp and for motor vehicle safes within 35(7 feet of residential district b. Setback variance for parking ramp from public right-of--way c. Design Approval a. Gity Manager F'ursman presented the report. b. Planner Ekstrand presented specifics from the reparl. c. Boardmerrrl?er Qlson presented the Community Design f~eview Board repot!. d. Commissioner Trippler presented the Planning Gommissian Report, e. Steve McDaniel, applicant, was present to address council questions, Councilmember Rossbach moved to adogi the following resolution approving a conditianai use ermi# revision for a parking ramp with car sales within 350 feel of residential property. AFaroval_ is based ort the findings required by ordinance and subject to the foilowinct conditions fAdditians are underlined and deletions are crossed out CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REVISION RESOI_UTfON 05-U8-929 WHEREAS, BWBR Architec#s, on behalf of Steve McDaniels of Maplewood Toyota, applied for a conditional use permit revision to canstrucl a parking ramp with car safes within 350 feet of residential properly. The proposed ramp would be 200 feet from the nearest neighbors' residential properly line_ 11VHEREAS, this permit applies to property located at the northwest comer of Beam Avenue and Highway 61, The legal description is; Subject to road and highway, part wesieriy of centerline of said highway of South 253 feet of the east 608.4 feet of the NE'l.. of Section 4, Township 29, Range 22. WHEREAS, the history of this conditional use permit is as follows: Packet Page Number Page 356 of 408 Un June 20, 2005, the planning commission held a public hearing to review this proposal. City staff published a native in the paper and sent notices to the surrounding property owners as required by law. The planning commission gave everyone at the hearing a chance to speak and present written statements. The planning commission also considered the report and recrammendation of the city staff. The planning commission recommended that the city council approve this permit, 2. The city council held a public meeting on August 6, 2QOa, to review this proposal. The council considered the report and recommendations of the city staff and planning commission. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the city council approve the above-described conditional use permit because: ~ . The use would be located, designed, maintained, constructed and operated to be in conformity with the City's Camprehensiue Plan and Code of Ordinanoes_ 2. The use would oat change the existing ar planned character of the surrounding area. 3. The use would not depreciate property values. 4, The use wau#d oat involve any activity, process, materials, equipment ar methods of operation that would be dangerous, hazardous, detriments€, disturbing or cause a nuisance to any person or property, because of excessive noise, glare, smoke, dust, odor, fumes, water or air pollution, drainage, water run-off, vibration, general unsightliness, electrical interference or other nuisances, ~. The use would generate only minimal vehiculartraffic on local streets and would not create traffic congestion or unsafe access an 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. 10. Automotive sales and repair facilities are accepted uses in M'1 districts subject to appropriate carsditions. Approval is subject to the following conditions (additions are underlined and deletions are crossed out): 9. Al ' . All construction shall follow the site elan date-stamoed Mao 26, 2005, with the_exception that the street-side setbacks for the proposed aaricing ramta shall be set further back to meet the required 30-foot setback re uirement. The director of communi develo meat ma a rove minor than es to the Mans. Packet Page Number Page 357 of 408 2. The proposed construction must be substantially started or the proposed use utilized within one year of council approval or the permit shall become null and void. The council may extend this deadline for one year_ 3, The city council shaft review this permit in one year. ~ , T-fie-fesatie d-tk~e p~n~ .Maplewood Toyota shall stop the use of Beam Avenue far employee parking. The site and ramppa_rkinq plan shaft be revised io incorporai~ a_ sufficient number of parkinCi spaces for employees and customers. This plan must be submitted to staff for approval before the city will issue a building permit, n~F~~? 7F.a .~.y..l':n.~n1 n~.nEl r~~a r~~nn.~+..nrL fnr iMie• nnrr,L.i.+r,~i.,.+ 4,r.Fsm . Vehicle-trans ort deliveries shall continue to be handled on-site and not within the right-of-way. 5, The applicant shall submit a detailed site-lighting plan that includes fixture design, pole heights and light-spread intensities at residential lot lines. This plan shall ensure that neighbors cannot see any light b~,lbs or lenses directly and that light intensity and light spread meet the parameters of the city's lighting ordinance. This plan should be submitted for staff approval. 7'. The applicant shall change their on-site,~p.~irtq system tc~ utilize personal electronic pagers instead of a broadcast system to stop broadcasts that can be heard in the adiacent residential net hbofiood_ 13, The applicant shall sign an agreement with the_ City Engineer agreeing to perform environrr~ental improvements on their site south of Beam Avenue. The details of these improvements shall be worked ouk with the City Engineer. 9. The ci staff shall assess the traffic #iovr tort Beam Avenue west of Hi t~ 61 after the Coupi~r Raad D extension, is operaiionaf. If traffic congestion remains, the City Engineer short pffer corrective suggestions to the Citv Council. 1 d. The ramp parlcinct shat! be striped as a typical parking lot. That is, no more than two cars deep, Seconded by Mayor Cardinal Ayes-All Councilmember Rossbach moved to a rove the re oast for a setback variance from the street ri ht-of- way Imes for the reduced setbacks for the nronased parking rarnv_ Approval is because it would cause the applicant. undue hardship by reducing the number of parking spaces on the site if setbacks were adhered to. ~. .. ~ ~~ . Seconded by Mayor Cardinal Ayes-Mayor Cardinal, Councilmembers IUforiahan- Juenemann, Rossbach Nays-Councilmemb~r Juenemann Councilmember Manahan-Junek moved to approve the pa~rki_ng-rarrtp plan revisions, the lighting plan and the landsca~ing~ofan_date-stamped July,15, 2005, and July 29, 2005, for the proposed parking ramp prv_~gsal for Ma Ip ewpnd_ Toyota at the noRhwest corner of Beam Avenue and Highway 61..The a~cant sha11 comply with the following conditions before the issuance of a building aermit: 1. The approved color shall be the smooth white option with a textured red stripe Packet Page Number Page 358 of 408 2. Submit a detailed lighting plan to staff for approval showing the proposed fixture design and pole heights. There shall be no tights that shine toward the west_ There shall be no lights mounted on the west of the proposed ramp that shine to the west. 3. Submit a revised landscaping plan to staff for approval that states that the proposed evergreen trees would be at least six fee# tail and be balled and burlapped. 4. Submit an irrevocable letler of credit ar cash escrow in the amount of 150 percent of the co s# of completing tt~e fartdscaping and site lighting. 5. These items must be provided before the city shall issue a building permit. Seconded by Cauncilmember Rossbach Ayes-A11 11. Maplewood Toyota Expansion north site -north of LaMettry's Collision-2923 Highway 61) a, Conditional Use F'ermil (CUP) far outdoor motor vehicle storage b. Qesign Approval a. Ci#y Manager Fursman presented the report. b. Planner Ekstrand presented specifics from the report. c, ~ioardtt'iember Qlsan presented the Community [?esign Review Hoard report. d. Commissioner Trippler presented the Planning Commission report. Cauncilmember Rossbach moved to adapt the following resolution anoroving a conditional use permit to stare cars on the property between LaMettry Collision and Gulden's Roadhouse. 1 ^,~ llawirlg cpnditions: Approval is based on the findings required by ordinance and sub'ect to the fo , CONQITtf?NAL USE PERMIT RESQLUTION 05-0t3-13q WHI=REAS, BWBR Architec#s, nn behalf of Steve McDaniels of Maplewood Tay©ta, applied for a conditional use permit to construct a parking lot before constructing a building on the same lat. WHEREAS, this permit applies to property Located between LaMettry Collision and Guidert's Roadhouse. The legal description is: SECTION 4, TOWNSHIP 29, RANGE 22, EX N 409.5 FT & EX W 197.4 FT OF NWLY 469.5 FT 8 E~ S 698 FT THE FOL; THEE 723.A FT LYING WLY OF HWY OF SE % OF NE'/ (SUB.I TO RQ & EASEMENTS) IN SEC 04, TN 29, RN 22. WHEREAS, the htstary of this conditional use permit is as follows: 1, Qn .tune 2Q, 2D05, the planning cQmmissian held a public hearing to review this proposal. Ci#y staff published a notice in the paper and sent notices to the surrounding property owners as required by law_ The plarning commissiort gave everyone at the hearing a chance to speak and present written statements. The planning commission also considered the report and recommendation of the city staff. The planning commission recommended that the city council approve this permit. - 2. The city council held a public meeting on August 8, 2005, to review this proposal. The council considered the report and recommendations of the city staff and planning commission. NOW, THEREFORE, BE lT RESOLVED that the city council approved the above-described Packet Page Number Page 359 of 408 conditional use permit because: 1. The use would be located, designed, maintained, corns#ructed and operated to be in conformity with the City's Comprehensive Plan and Cade of Qrdinanees. 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 meth©ds of operation that would be dangerous, haaardous, delrimental, disturbing ar cause a nuisance to any person nr property, because of excessive noise, glare, smoke, dus#, odor, fumes, wateror air pollution, drainage, water run-off, vibration, general unsightliness, electrical interference ar a#her nuisances. 5. The use would generate only minimal vehiculartraffc 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 facili#ies and services, including streets, poiiceand fire protec#ion, drainage structures, water and sewer systems, sctrools and parks. ?. The use would not create excessive additional costs for public facilities ar services. 8. The use would maximize the preservation of and incorporate the site's natural and scenic features into the development design. 9. The use would cause minimal adverse environmental effects. 10. Automotive sales and repair facilities are accepted uses in M'I districts subject to appropriate conditions, Approval is subject fa the following conditions: 'I. All construe#ion shall follow the site plan date-stamped May 26, 2005, and also shall follow any conditions attached herein. The director of community development may approve minor changes to the plans. 2. The proposed construction must be substantially started or the proposed use utilized within one year of council approval or the permit shall became null and void, The council may extend this deadline for one year. 3. The city council shall review this permit in one year, 4. The applicant shall comply with the impervious-surface requirements of the Shareland Ordinance and the impervious-surface area requirements determined by the Maplewood Engineering Department in their report dated June 7, 2005. The applicant shall either decrease the aggregate surface parking or increase the pervious parking surface by 2Q feet to meet the requirements of the shoreland ordinance. 5. The applicant shall incorporate low impact development improvements an the parcel south of Beam Avenue by September 30, 2007, as outlined in the June 7, 2005, Engineering Plan Review by the city's engineering department, The applicant andfor his engineer should Packet Page Number Page 360 of 408 meet on site with the ci#y engineering staff to discuss what options would be appropriate and effective. 6. The property owner shall obtain city approvals and begin construction of a permanent building on this site by September 3©, 2p07, to coincide with the deadline for gravel removal. This is because this parking lot is considered to be needed for the applicant's desired future building. Parking lots by themselves as a primary use mus# be set back at least 350 feet from residential' districts. Parking tots that are accessary to a building may be 20 feet from residential property lines. Seconded by Councilmember Monahan-Junek Ayes-All Counciimember Monahan-,~unek mr~ved to apprave_the olans,,date-stamped, Mao 26, 2005, and the revised ram and landsca in deli ns date-stain ed Jul 15 2005 for the Vila lewood To ota arkin lot between LaMett Collision and Gulden's Roadhouse. A roval is sub'ect to the applicant dainty the follawin~~ 1. The applicant shall submit a detailed site-lighting p}an tha# includes fixture design, pole heights and light-spread intensities at residential lot lines. This plan shall ensure that neighbors cannot see any light bulbs or lenses directly end that tight intensity and light Spread meet the parameters of the city's lighting ordinance. This plan should be submitted to staff for approval. 2. The landscaping plan shall #ae resubmitted to staff for approval providing for additional overstory trees along with the evergreens proposed for the northwest comer of the Site. The sits shall also have an ire-ground irrigation system instaJJed when the future bujldirtg is built. The landscaping plan shall also provide sod on the east, north and south sides of the parking lot. The pond area to the west can remain natural. 3. The design of the retaining wail is approved. Areas where the retaining wall exceeds four feet in height must be designed by a structural engineer and have a protective fence on #op. The design of the fence shat! be submitted to s#aff far approval. 4. The applicant shall assure that there will be no negative effect to the Guiden's parking Jot or property clue to their parking lot construction and retaining wall. 5. The Class-5 gravel mix for the temporary parking lot is not allowed. A clean aggregate may be used subject to the approval of the city engineer and the RamseyfWashington V1r'atershed ^istrict. This gravel parking lot shall not be. used longer than two construction seasons, but no later than September 30; 2007, after which time, it must be remoued or replaced with a permanent surface, At tha# time, if the parking lot remains in use, the perking !ot must be upgraded with concrete curbing as required by ordinance, 6. The applicant shall submit cash escrow or an irrevocable letter of credit before the issuance of a grading permit to cover the cost of installing ail required landscaping. This escrow shall be in the amount of 150 percen# of the cost of all landscaping. Seconded by Mayor Cardinal Ayes-All L. VISITQR PRESENTATf~NS None M. Cal1NClL PRESENTATI~MS National Night Oui - Councilmember Juenemann thanked everyone for their participation and involvement in National lVight Oui. Packet Page Number Page 361 of 408 MEMORANDUM TO: Chuck Ahl, Acting City Manager FROM: Michael Martin, AICP, Planner SUBJECT: Conditional Use Permit Review -Commercial Truck Parking and Storage LOCATION: 1003 Century Avenue North DATE: January 16, 2009 INTRODUCTION The conditional use permit (CUP) to park and store a commercial truck at 1003 Century Avenue North is due for review. The city code requires a conditional use permit to keep a heavy commercial vehicle (more than one ton) on a residential property. BACKGROUND On November 26, 2007, the city council approved a CUP for 1003 Century Avenue North to keep a heavy commercial vehicle (more than one ton) on a residential property. This CUP contains seven conditions of approval, including reviewing the permit in one year. DISCUSSION The city regulates the keeping of commercial vehicles in residential areas to help insure that residential properties stay residential in use and in character. Keeping commercial trucks and other commercial equipment in a residential area could create a disturbance or could change the character of the neighborhood. Section 44-102 of the city code lists the potential conditional uses for property owners to have in the R-1 (single dwelling) residential district. Specifically, Section 44-102(1) states "the storage or parking of heavy commercial vehicles or commercial equipment or more than one light commercial vehicle on a residential property as follows: a. The storage or parking is subject to the approval of the city council and subject to the following standards: The owner or operator of the vehicle or commercial equipment must reside on the property. 2. The vehicle or commercial equipment shall be parked in an enclosed structure or on a driveway that meets the applicable zoning district requirements. 3. Noise from idling the engine shall not exceed the L50 standards provided for in state statutes. The owner or operator shall not let the vehicle's engine idle for more than 30 minutes in any one-hour period. In no circumstances may the owner or operator run or let the engine idle for more than two periods, lasting 30 minutes each, in one 24 hour period." Staff has not heard of any concerns from any neighbors concerning this CUP since it was originally issued in November of 2007. In addition, staff made a site visit to ensure that the conditions of approval were being met and found no problems. As long as the owner continues Packet Page Number Page 362 of 408 to keep and operate the truck in a respectful and peaceful manner, staff does not foresee any problems. To help insure that the truck will continue to not cause any problems, city staff is proposing to review the CUP again in five years. RECOMMENDATION Review the permit for 1003 Century Avenue North in 5 (five) years. Sec 25/1003 Century Avenue -Truck CUP Review_011609 Attachments: 1. Location Map 2. Property Line Map 3. Aerial Photo 4. Approved Site Plan 5. November 26, 2007 City Council Minutes 2 Packet Page Number Page 363 of 408 ~ ~~ ~4AGNGLIA_ ^ ~ ~ ~ I ~I 1 II I~ ~ I ~~ ~, Icy ' ~ I I ^ ~ I~ II i is ~ ~ ~ ~ • III I ^ I I r ~, I ~ ~ i i ~ ' I I . ~^ ~ I I r'" ~,.. r I --'° I i I N~ ~• t 'I Attachment 1 •. - ~-a i i --- ~ ~~ a~ i'~ r~f~ ~ i ^ ~ ~___ --- __~~_~ ! I I ~ ~~ _ ~_- _l ~ I~ ~ ~ I I ~ ~~ ~ ~ i~ 111 ~ ~ i ~~ _ __- ~ ~~ ~ • i ~ '~ ___ I ~ ~ s r ~~' ~ ~~ ~ I ^ ~' •• ~ I ~r ~ I rJ ~'~ ~~ ~, r .' r r i . r s"~ i I ~ ~ ~ r"~ ~ I ~ ! _- i ~ ~ ~ • - ~ ~ r"~ I I .- ~~ r`tr ~ I II ~ ~ ~° I ~ ( I' ~ • f ~ ~ ~ .l ff sr ~ . ~ ~t-----. I I I f ~ i r._-_ _- i -°f, - I i ^ r .- ~- „- ~' -- °° i I ~, ~j ; I r~ ~.`' f ^ ~ i ' ~ ~~ ' ~ ~. I ! ~ ~ i _ II j i i I ~ ~ i I f r. i ~ ~ i = ~` ~ ^~ i '^~ ~ i+~rr ~ r-- - ~ , - w <c z w U ---- -~ _- -- -==BRAN D ~r~r ~ I ~ ~ II I ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ I --- ~ ----~ECST-= ~ z I ~/ ^~ ~ ~••~ I I I =LE PL FkP,RVESTEg-~=== ^ ' ~ * ~ ~ ~ , ^~ ~ ^i ^ , ^ . • ^ ^ ~ ~~ ~^ ~ ~~~ ~ • •~ ^ ^ Location Map 1003 Century Ave N 3 Packet Page Number Page 364 of 408 I r , ~ I r I ~ r. ~ rr `r I I ~ .~'" rrr I r'- ~ r' ~ I '" 6~ N z r ~ ~P rn ~ S~~V'"" _` ( N .- ~~ o0 N ^ 10~ ~25 i ~17 I I I ~09 i w i IQ, 001 ~~ ~~ I I ~95 i ~87 I I I I ~81 i i I ~ I Attachment 2 iii i i i I ? I I lti I I ~ r~---- I I I I I I 1059 i ! ! i I i 1047 1037 i I ~ ~ i' i 1~;a ~ I ~~ MIDVALE ~ N ..SITE ~aa~' ~73 ~ i ~~_'' .--''rte - ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ! i i i ~ . I ,•- ~ ~ ~ I I r% ~ ~ ~ ~ ,.~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 967 i ~ I N N N N N N N N j ~~~ HARVESTER AVE - --------------------------------------------- - - -_~ r" ~ ----- r" i ! i ~ ~ M N ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ O O O ~ ~ ~ 953 ~ ~ ! ~ ! ~ 9 ~ ~ , ^ ^ ~ ^ ~ 943 940. ~ 935 I ~ 932. ~ ~ 925 ~ , ^' 92~ ~ ~ - ~ n~c Address Map 1003 Century Ave N 4 w a i ~ I ~ z i w U 1 I I I Packet Page Number Page 365 of 408 Aerial Photo 1003 Century Ave N Attachment 3 Packet Page Number Page 366 of 408 Attachment 9 1 1 1 P f { 1 -r---------_.___~.-----~ ------~-___..._.~-..._...------------- ---~~'~ put1DVALE P!. -------_ ____....._---- --__.-_____.. -___..._.__~.---------~---_-._ ~r.-~ t6'~? ~Q ~~ ~~ r I i I i i i I I I I I t I I I~ I t G J t E .~ E I 1 I I I a SITE PLAN ~~~. 6 Packet Page 1. I I I J . ~~ I \\\ f k ~ ~, i Attachment 5 MINUTES MAPLEWOOD CITY COUNCIL 7:00 p.m., Monday, November 26, 2007 Council Chambers, City Hall Meeting No. 20 L. NEW BUSINESS 4. Conditional Use Permit -Commercial Truck Parking - 1003 Century Avenue North a. Planner, Ken Roberts presented the report. b. Joe Boeser, 3054 Hazelwood Street, Maplewood, Planning Commissioner, addressed the council and gave the planning commission report. c. Thomas Tachney, 1003 Century Avenue North, Maplewood, addressed the council. Councilmember Hjelle moved to approve the resolution which approves a conditional use permit for Mr. Thomas Tachney to store or park one heav~ commercial vehicle (one enclosed delivery truck) on the property at 1003 Century Avenue North. Changing condition 6. from a 6 month review to 1 (one) year and that the aroaerty owner shall maintain the veaetative screenina alona Century Avenue. RESOLUTION 07-11-201 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT HEAVY COMMERCIAL VEHICLE STORAGE AND PARKING WHEREAS, Mr. Thomas Tachney is requesting that Maplewood approve a conditional use permit (CUP) to store a heavy commercial vehicle (one enclosed delivery truck) on the property he owns at 1003 Century Avenue North. WHEREAS, this permit applies to the property at 1003 Century Avenue North. The legal description is: Midvale Acres, the east one-half of Lot 1, Block 2 (PIN 25-29-22-14-0034) WHEREAS, the history of this conditional use permit is as follows: On November 5, 2007, the planning commission held a public hearing to review this request. City staff published a notice in the paper and sent notices to the surrounding property owners as required by law. The planning commission gave everyone at the hearing a chance to speak and present written statements. The planning commission also considered reports and recommendations of the city staff. The planning commission did not make a recommendation about the proposed permit to the city council. 7 Packet Page Number Page 368 of 408 2. The city council reviewed this proposal and considered the planning commission's review and action on November 26, 2007. The council gave everyone at the meeting a chance to speak and present written statements. The council also considered reports and recommendations of the city staff and planning commission. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the city council approves the above-described conditional use permit based on the building and site plans. The city approves this permit because: The use would be located, designed, maintained, constructed and operated to be in conformity with the city's comprehensive plan and code of ordinances. 2. The use would not change the existing or planned character of the surrounding area. 3. The use would not depreciate property values. 4. The use would not involve any activity, process, materials, equipment or methods of operation that would be dangerous, hazardous, detrimental, disturbing or cause a nuisance to any person or property, because of excessive noise, glare, smoke, dust, odor, fumes, water or air pollution, drainage, water run-off vibration, general unsightliness, electrical interference or other nuisances. 5. The use would generate only minimal vehicular traffic on local streets and would not create traffic congestion or unsafe access on existing or proposed streets. 6. The use would be served by adequate public facilities and services, including streets, police and fire protection, drainage structures, water and sewer systems, schools and parks. 7. The use would not create excessive additional costs for public facilities or services. 8. The use would maximize the preservation of and incorporate the site's natural and scenic features into the development design. 9. The use would cause minimal adverse environmental effects. Approval is subject to the following conditions: 1. The owner or operator of the truck doing the following: a. Residing on the property. b. Parking the truck on the existing driveway or on the gravel parking pad. 8 Packet Page Number Page 369 of 408 c. Not parking the truck on a public street. d. Maintaining the driveway and parking pad in good condition. 2. The owner or operator shall not let the truck's engine idle for more than thirty (30) minutes in any one (1) hour period. In no circumstances may the owner or operator idle the engine for more than two periods, lasting thirty (30) minutes each, in one twenty-four (24) hour period. There shall not be any engine idling that disturbs the neighbors between 9 p.m. and 7 a.m. 3. The owner or operator shall not do any maintenance or repair of the truck or commercial equipment on the property. 4. The owner or operator shall not load or unload the truck on the property or on adjacent properties. 5. The owner or operator of the truck shall not have any hazardous materials stored in the truck when he has it on the residential property. 6. The city council shall review this permit in 1 (one) near. 7. The property owner shall maintain the vegetative screening along Century Avenue. The Maplewood City Council adopted this resolution on November 26, 2007. Seconded by Councilmember Juenemann. Ayes -All 9 Packet Page Number Page 370 of 408 MEMORANDUM TO: Chuck Ahl, Acting City Manager FROM: Michael Martin, AICP, Planner SUBJECT: Conditional Use Permit Review-Household Hazardous Waste Collection Site at Aldrich Arena LOCATION: 2015 Van Dyke Street North DATE: January 16, 2009 INTRODUCTION The conditional use permit for Saint Paul -Ramsey County Department of Public Health, Environmental Health Section's household hazardous waste collection site is due for review. The site is on the north side of Aldrich Arena, west of Van Dyke Street (refer to the maps attached on pages 3 and 4). BACKGROUND On May 11, 1992, the city council approved a CUP for a household hazardous waste collection site, subject to 11 conditions. On May 28, 1992, the city council approved a request for temporary signs for this facility, subject to six conditions. On June 28, 1993, the city council reviewed this CUP, but took no action on the permit. On December 31, 1993, the CUP ended. On March 28, 1994, the city council approved another CUP for a household hazardous waste collection site, subject to 11 conditions. On September 28, 1998, the city council approved the extension of the CUP to December 31, 2003. On November 24, 2003, the city council approved the extension of the CUP, subject to 10 conditions which included reviewing the CUP every five years. (refer to the 11/24/03 city council minutes attached on pages 7 and 8). DISCUSSION Wth city council approval, the St. Paul -Ramsey County Department of Public Health has been operating a household hazardous waste site in the parking lot next to Aldrich Arena since June 1992. Under the current CUP, from 2003 through 2008, the site has been open for a total of 73 days (an average of about 15 days per year) and served over 17,000 households, resulting in the removal and proper management of an estimated 905,000 pounds of paint, used oil, old gasoline, used antifreeze, weed killer and bug spray, mercury, and other household wastes. All wastes collected at the site are taken to the year-round household hazardous waste facility at Bay West, Inc., in St. Paul, at the end of each operating day. Packet Page Number Page 371 of 408 Beginning with the city council's initial approval of Ramsey County's household hazardous waste site in 1992, the CUP had a sunset clause on its expiration. Initially the city council approved the CUP for one year and for five-year increments thereafter. When the city council reviewed this CUP in 2003, it removed the sunset clause and directed staff to review the permit every five years. Because Ramsey County has been operating the household hazardous waste site from this location for more than 16 years without incident, staff recommends that the CUP be reviewed in the future only if a problem arises or if a major change is proposed to the site. DEPARTMENT COMMENTS Fire Department Comments Maplewood's Assistant Chief/Fire Marshal Butch Gervais stated that he is aware of no issues relating to this CUP. He stated that he would reiterate his comments from 2003 when this CUP was extended. Those comments are below: • Advise the fire marshal of the dates the site will be open. • Shall comply with all state and local codes concerning hazardous waste collection. • Continue to make sure area is clear to allow emergency equipment into the area in case of a problem. • Make sure area is clearly marked indicating hazardous waste area and collecting containers are clearly marked as to what is in the containers. • Make sure only experienced personnel are handling the collection of the hazardous waste. • Any required license should be available on-site. • Bay West is knowledgeable of the regulations. Police Department Comments Lieutenant Michael Shortreed of the Maplewood Police Department stated that his department is not aware of any issues concerning this CUP. RECOMMENDATION Review the permit for Saint Paul -Ramsey County Department of Public Health, Environmental Health Section's household hazardous waste collection site, located at Aldrich Arena, 2015 Van Dyke Street North, in the future only if a problem arises or if a major change is proposed to the site. com-dev/sec 14/ramsey co hhw site_011609 Attachments: 1. Location Map 2. Property Line/Zoning Map 3. December 8, 2008, Correspondence from Ramsey County 4. November 24, 2003, City Council Minutes Household Hazardous Waste Site January 16, 2009 Packet Page Number Page 372 of 408 Attachment 1 KOHIMAN AVE. r` ~ ~ ~ w y r~ ~v IAD C T N ~~ Z 0 HIS/ ~ W l '` ~O gb`, ~ v P 0 ~' AVE. ~ork~ V ~~ ~ W KOHI.AdAN ~ cagey Hazes ~ o AVE. ~~ ~~ ~1 ® ~ ~ ~ f/1 ~ Z ~ ° ~ EDGEHILL R0. ° DEMONT w AVE. ~ AVE. N BROOKS F adr AVE. ° EL ~~NTH TANT AVE z Fa„ • • ~ o s a ~,. q VE: . p~ P w ~ ~ ~ GERVAIS z CT GRANDVIEW AVE. w ' a~ VIKING DR. Y SHERREN AVE. J Q f-- Q f-- ~ Kn cde fad Lake ~•-- ~ ~~" Z COPE L-~-~ AVE. ~ ^COPE AVE. P4 (`, ' o ~ ~ T 4r v ~ ~ AVE. - \v,/ ~ URK Q AVE. ~ ~ a z UUR1E R0. 0• N ~ v UURIE RD. ~ ~ ° UURIE ° RD. w o ~ N O ~ q ~ Z ~Y ~ Park I ~. ~ °_ SANG URST ~ AVE. g ° w ~ ~ Z ~ ~ Z N /E. ~' ~ ®z B ~n ~ Y CO. RD. ~ B ~ ~i vRKE qVE m BURKE AVE. $ ® ~ BURKE AVE. ~< ~~y~G~ ~ ~ O» 1 ' S 'pHT ~ ~ ELDR IDGE AVE. ~ ~"' ~""' Ot\ BELMONT AVE. ~ ~O Gotewo ~N 1t AV E• SKILL MAN AVE HARRIS AVE. &~' ROSEWOOD AVE. N. a ~ V R Pahk~hood ~l RO$EW D /~' R AN AV. Q~~ ~ AVE. S. ~J NU~NG COE AND , v, n ~ P O FAlR GROUNDS ~ ~ ~ S ~ ~ AVE. ~ ~ ALORICH , l~CH ~O• HOLLOWAY v ® ~ } ~~+ ® Sri CO E J~. ~ U R A ~ vI-i ~ SU MMER AVE. ARENA w QP ~ N ° ® ~' AVE. ~ N ~ ~ ~ ° zd ~• a & ~ C' ~ Y ? ~ ~ ~ RIPLEY AVE. ~~ RI PLEY ~ G Waketi,eld ° 0 o m !O Loke ~ ~ ~ m O ~ KINGSTON AVE. ~ p $ SO HIA AVE J SOU ~ ~ ~ w w ~ w N PRK:E AVE. ~ _ Y Y W 3 Y Mc ~ ~ PRICE AV `~~ 3 0 ~ ~ ~ j w o ~ w ~ ~ za ~ d ~ m S ~ LOCATION MAP 3 ~acKet Nage "I N Page 373 of 408 ~lttachrlcnt 2 9 t I (~~ f•j "'/ I RAMSEY COUNTY - NUR$IN~a HOME 135 + ~ (sc) I es ~ •o~ ~ ~1Pf`~ (3~ I O ~) (31) s 1 m e~ ~ 16.°.10 ne.. ae~ - - :~ PROJECT LOCATION ~~, G ~~) $_ 1 1 'z (~) 29s.s~ I RAMSEY (tb) ~ I 7 (j0~ ' (z~) ~ _ ~~„ 1 ( (~ zs) ~ 1a8S ~ _ I !SL - _~3s~._ __ _ (u) 1a4t~'i (1~ ~ ~~ I~ ~ ~ ~~ (ZZ) 1831 (1~. "' 'i ~ ,w - I (1-~ _ (19). 11 ~YZ~ ~ I ~I (11~ r 7) ur w (w'~ 1805 ~'~ . i , 1 ~ ~-~43,' - - ~~ -~ I ~ 4 2 ° 10l (4J (I) 17~ Q~ ~ I ~ 3 ~ ~ ~~~ r `~) `2~ IS ~ i 1 ~ I I r 4 (~~ L r ~ ~ -- - - --~- , ~ g o I (~, $ ~5~ I 1 ~s) 10 0 7 1 (~) ('J~ 0 1 I ~ .1N~. I ~ t - .... 7n i ~ ~ ~ I v~ / w Y v 0 RAMSEY COON n ALDRICH AIICNA ~' ; 4 , N l2) .,~ f w ^` ,J Go L-_ ~~ -. . PERKINS .w4~ ~' ~ 1 ~1 j V~ ~~) Mm 1!•R1 ~/ / 14' 'i; . 1 ~' oF`'~~'~ ` i ~di$ ' ~ ~ ~o) N /' ' •~ I ' 1Lfl6~~_ I / 2 Ig(~I)~ I 3 I ~ 41. , 1. , 17 GOLF COURSE c ~- i • ~-• t> 3 g6_ 1 I~ 190 SO PROPERTY LINE / ZONING MAP -' J N 4 Packet Page Number Page 374 of 408 Attachment 3 g r z r~ r E ~ ~L~" ~: ` ~ ~;e~ ~,~~ ~ ~~„~'~' ~ !r, Dili r ~ ,~i~,`t ~ ~ 5 )(cu ~ ro,~S ~7 nr v' ~ ~ r ~ .~r.. x ~ ~ '~Aa,.~_ .~c,e ~~ ~ au ~, f~,~nir~--,;~ ~ a~ Y"~ Y",~,a ~ "~ ~,,;t:~~u{,~ -:~~.:~<i, ~~k. S§~~' .,,...~ 4 ..vim '~u ~,3~ ~ _ ~.~ .. _.,.i . a ~.-.~ .~. ~,. Sy ., ~..~r _~ tl_' ~ o "L-' ~, ~lL~,'..~~-rt? ~~~ 1n`~~iY - -s `'~~~~e rp~._r ~ "~ ~ ~ ~',..r~.;.lr rC.:~1iwirf [=fir- r c Attachment 4 MINUTES MAPLEWOOD CITY COUNCIL 7:17 P.M., Monday, November 24, 2003 Council Chambers, Municipal Building Meeting No. 03-28 Review-Ramsey County Household Hazard Waste Site (Aldrich Arena) Adopted the following resolution approving a revision for the conditional use permit for a household hazardous waste collection site. The permit is subject to the following conditions (changes to the original conditions are underlined if added and stricken if deleted): CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION 03-11-225 WHEREAS, Ramsey County is requesting a conditional use permit for a temporary household hazardous waste collection site. WHEREAS, this permit applies to the site that is southeast of the Ramsey Nursing Home. The legal description is: Subject to avenues and easements and except the West 620 feet of the North 438 feet, the West 810 feet of the North one-half of the SW 1/4 of Section 14, Township 29, Range 22 WHEREAS, the history of the permit is as follows: On March 21, 1994, the Planning Commission recommended that the City Council approve the original permit. 2. On March 28, 1994, 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 from the City staff and Planning Commission. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council approves the above- described permit with the following conditions: 1. All construction shall follow the site plan, dated February 10, 1992. The city council may approve major changes after they hold a public hearing. The director of community development may approve minor changes. 2. The hours of public operation shall be from 10 a.m. to 6 p.m. Thursdays and Fridays and 9 a.m. to 4 p.m. on Saturdays. This collection site shall only be open for eight weekends in the spring-summer 7 Packet Page Number Page 377 of 408 and eight weekends in the summer-fall. 4. There shall be an emergency response coordinator on the site during all operating hours. 5. The operator shall remove the canopy on each Saturday night after a weekend operation. 6. The county shall mark the traffic lanes to the site from the intersection of Van Dyke Street and Ripley Avenue. 7. Trained household hazardous waste technicians may combine gasoline and other flammable liquids into a 55-gallon closed-head drum. The operator shall surround the drum with a material that will absorb any spills. The operator shall place the drum on heavy plastic sheeting. The plastic shall cover the absorbent material so that the plastic will act as a basin to contain any spills. The operator shall surround the plastic with orange traffic cones. The operator shall keep the drum at least twenty feet from any source of ignition, and ground the drum. Waste containers from the public shall not be opened on the site, except to allow the operator to inspect the contents inside. The site operator shall place waste containers in leak-proof plastic tubs. The operator shall remove the containers from the tubs and pack the containers in drums or plastic bins. The operator shall place the drums or bins into a truck for transport. The Minnesota Department of Transportation must approve the truck to haul hazardous waste. The operator shall remove the materials collected from the site at the end of each day. 8. The operator or county shall notify the fire department and the emergency preparedness director when the site will be in operation. 9. The city council shall review this permit every five years. 10. People may pick up latex paint and other waste materials approved by the director of community development. Councilmember Juenemann moved to approve the consent agenda items 1-7 as presented. Koppen Ayes-All Councilmember Koppen moved to approve the consent agenda item 8 as presented. Juenemann Ayes-All 8 Packet Page Number Page 378 of 408 Agenda Item M8 MEMORANDUM TO: Charles Ahl, Acting City Manager FROM: Shann Finwall, AICP, Environmental Planner SUBJECT: Conditional Use Permit Review - 3M Leadership Development Institute LOCATION: 2350 Minnehaha Avenue DATE: January 16, 2009 for the January 26 City Council Meeting INTRODUCTION The conditional use permit (CUP) for 3M's Leadership Development Institute (LDI) building located at 2350 Minnehaha Avenue is due for review. The CUP was required in order to construct the building closer than 350 feet to a residential zoning district. BACKGROUND On May 9, 2005, the city council approved the construction of the 3M LDI building (Attachment 4). Approvals included a CUP to construct a building closer than 350 feet to a residential zoning district (350-foot setback to residential required for all buildings within the light manufacturing zoning district -the 3M LDI building is located 325 feet to residential), street vacations to vacate two unused street right-of-ways located within the 3M campus property, a utility easement vacation to vacate a portion of the existing utility easement located within the 3M campus property, and design review. On January 28, 2008, the city council approved an extension to the 3M LDI CUP. The city council requested review again to ensure that the native plantings are established, rainwater gardens are functioning properly, and that all other required exterior improvements are maintained. DISCUSSION The 3M LDI building opened in the fall of 2006. The building is attractively designed and constructed. All exterior improvements were complete in 2006 including the construction of rainwater gardens and seeding native grasses and flowers on the berm along Minnehaha Avenue and around the parking lot. The original native grass seeding around the parking lot did not take, so in 2007 3M reseeded these areas and have been managing them through mowing in the fall in order to kill off the nonnative plants and allow establishment of the natives. Native seeding can take three years to become fully established. As such, city staff will continue to work with 3M to ensure successful native plantings in this area as required by the original site plan. In addition to difficulties with the native grasses on the west side of the parking lot, 3M has also experienced difficulty maintaining the native plantings within three of the four rainwater gardens located in the center of the parking lot. Many of the original plantings have died off due to standing water. 3M will be planting additional water-tolerant plants in these rainwater gardens in the spring. The water-tolerant plants should thrive in these areas and will help infiltrate water from the gardens. City staff will continue to monitor the rainwater gardens to ensure they meet city standards. Packet Page Number Page 379 of 408 3M proposed, and the city council approved, native trees and flowers on the berm in front of the parking lot (Attachment 2). The native flower seed mix never established and the weeds have overtaken the native flowers. In an effort to improve the aesthetics of the landscaping along Minnehaha Avenue, 3M is now proposing to replant the berm with a more manicured looking landscape including 31 trees (spruce, maple, and birch), 10 shrubs, and perennials planted in a bark mulch and turf grass (Attachment 3). This landscaping will require that 3M add irrigation to the berm. Staff finds that the modified landscape plan is a reasonable alternative considering the problems 3M has had establishing the native flowers and the unkept appearance of the berm over the last few years. The city holds a letter of credit and maintenance agreements to ensure all of the above- mentioned work is complete. RECOMMENDATION Approve the conditional use permit for the 3M Leadership Development Institute at 2350 Minnehaha Avenue, including the modified landscape plan for the berm dated August 27, 2008. Review the conditional use permit for the 3M Leadership Development Institute at 2350 Minnehaha Avenue again in one year to ensure that the native plantings are established, rainwater gardens function properly, and that all other required exterior improvements are maintained. p:sec36/LDI Review 09 Attachments: 1. Location Map 2. Original Berm Landscaping 3. Proposed Berm Landscaping 4. May 9, 2005, City Council Minutes Packet Page Number Page 380 of 408 Attachment 1 3M Campus N E ^ oca ion a S Packet Page Number Page 381 of 408 ^„ ~\l.: i'..::i.}.'~.{~ ~]: r ~II~I 'I'I'I ~l~l ~ Y:A': - r-: \ ~ r ,~ ~ -\Ii>~;#"+_,.2~'T-:11i__ i'`v i. ~ ~3 z•. I I I +i ,If V II I I Iki+ 4`\. JA 'Yy \\~ -. •.K~. .- -...r.s.ll ~- I ^~~'w f~' r_ .! ~If II '~` f .Ill rll~~ 7s _ _ _~ \ ~4~ ~ \ \ ~" <>w• '"!i r--- ~_iils-..~ ~ ~\\ ; i ~ -- =x fi • l f--; I ~ ~~;~~ \\~.: ~. ,;~-- -~ ~ iT.~: _:: ~ Att ent -- - ' '\ s.-._'L'm~:• '~--` 'r'R- ,..-. o-s :' . s i{.'I ,~ -- \~`[~ `- ~ _ -'~ - {1. \\-M-'- I IF~i'~ ?i:F-. 7 ':.i.i, \~5::-q..., Se:i:~:.-~.,..(._.. . Ilr. •.'~ ~M. °°°.ae- ii': :'•~.... PdSav- _'.. _.. _{.%:~~:...~1 ....+ai.C.... :':':. ~'::':':: :: 1 1 i-'"I _ .- Y`a I i,i - w - )' i ~ r .F.:..~.trr .::~.li : .. .{ :.i ~.....:. (.i '.... i % S ~~ ....f+k{ ::.:.:. .-..i f.i.i' •l' .'-,.nisi l`~~`,f 3~a...: „ ~. - ... _. :. .. ;t,Y:::<~ ~. .'. ..... #':. ._ \ I I 1 .\ 1 S :arr.... or ...x L~.:I .-.•. •.~..., tgps -I f . ~,. ~ I~i ~i~ 11_ ... _ - 1 'ii F ,•Ily_`i.i ~b...:.:~~~i.~.''..r~ ~l r -., 1° ~ ..~..f li 'aEi:i ~~ I I - I I, °~b I ~ +..:; ... rssa.;~' o~ ~4 ' ~ t 1 ~.,z $v ` :x ~ . t-1;--:1 . a...... t...__1 .: : ~ ' • t ~~-~ :~d I I I ~t Ill I •'_ ~ \ ~11~ - A¢ r.~F~...-Sh i~ II~~I: ..~i~r~ \:'-I ~. :. j., ~-. ... ~..-.~ I. : ~=:n i i I i I .~ ~~ lI _ ~_{.l`.F`_xLFi~..: y. ~ .;'.• •lj~~tV«- 1il`,II I 1 ~ L y`~ ` M !~ [ 1 I f ~ ~. . _ t' k..Fiii--...~ '."~~ •]'kjsY~~M Ilillll~llll ll Ilill'll l - ~;~ ! ~ :t ,Y. I l tl \ ` 7 I -1•- : a ~ -: E •. ~r ~I Il ill li I t 1 ll ltll 111 .LII;I II -)-4'<1-t Ji4' I I I 1 1 1 1 1 ,~ ,f_r.,~'~ ~ - ;'l~ ~~~1''l' I ` l ll III; tjJ .'~ ~ .fj ~;`v`A-. ~y ~a't-1lll ll~l ~; l1l Ill ll I;. Il IIII ll 1k -L /6f ~ ~ _ nM1~ lI'II III I \\ \ \\ II '\ ~ •''' lJ ,1 III II III III 111511 III'l l' \ _k`~ E \ \ \ ,' 4 S j: ~, IIII 1 IIII I;II,I Il ~ \ ('i `pIf y~ t I \ \ \ \ \ I'Frl1 ~*rl `I,I i,i ~f~I111 \ \ ~ 1 ,y ci> 1 , \' \ I ~I~~L'~y~t~ISIII II Itl rl \1 \ •; \ JF~ ~ I (~ ~\ I \ I I117,rj ', 11111Ii11 ~ \ \\ I -~ ~..,}.:-..~i l ~ ~ Il i~'Ij I'II I I f Ill 1 1 ` ~ \ \ i -, 1 ' ~l \ ~ t'il[llll IIII IIII I ` \ ~ \ \ \ ~ ~~ { ~ -~ l \ ll ll'Il l'I111lllll ll \ \ \ - ' „{ I ,\ \ I I I III l I I I I \ \ \\ • I l I 1 !.. :. I l i I I I I I! ~ \\ , I I I Ike I . \ • fill II,;i•,, T E: I ~ ` ., Ili 111 115 I ] I -j ~( I ~~- 1 p.. - ®^ 11 I II I Ill'll }~ I i S. ': ~ :: # ! ~i ~ ~ \\ \ ilzl~l II It 4~'Fl ill y \ ~~ y i J, t :.Z ~... ~.~: ~. 5 ~: 4' ~ ll lrlll ill ~I Ill \ Ijrl 1 ~Sl +~ll ) .r- ~ t . ~\\ \ .III Iy II, IiIII` \~ I Y.S%i ~ II `~ I~I ..4_~.Ii S ~ - _ f Y \ Illll llif~l~ll a~,j, t l~•\y\` III I \ ,I I'~ : - ~ ~~~ \ IIiI killl !Il - IIII 1~4.~ 1 51f„ Ir II'[i 111111I l+ I i `, l; \ II Illll l Ill~l YY+- ~ ii I ~.'- - 11 ~i~ ,A \ \ \\ 'I'II 'I'1'Ii l Ifl ~ ~ 7 -. ~ ,1~3 ~ Illll f Illtt 1 ~~~ .-~ >. ..t. ~ a N II~ ? ilE ..' -r t-~ 1 ., . .-..K. r- I i ,.. .~ ... D n C7 n 41 i I.r_ Z ~ 3 0Z N A n o n N -1, Z 3 J' I I -l 5 '.. t Q m C m •.i~.:. i.i II-."1~ w ~ n ~ ~s ~..: "I..i ~. f~ ° y ° ~ ~ - - _.~ ~( ~:: ~` -1 n is ca in' 3 v ~ t' ~: ~ " A • n I : "' :;p.. R C ~ r ~l51 ~' ~ --i -'~~~ ~ n 9 33 rmn p n n Z ~ U' m ~ ~ n0 :il 111 ~ I 1~'~ i' I ''j~ :.,,r_k ': T ~ L N ~ ~ ~ m z ~ ~ .' l*. I~ 1 I , lll,l _ \i`M"-'.~i. v a 1 ~: p c v -a m ; 6 -!rl ft [-+.iTTTi~~~ala 1 lx ~ ; I _ ~ ~ p p ~ ~ I 1 r t I~T}I .~-~rl Il -1 r I I I I I f m m z ~ > c al ~ ~ n ~ A i'.,. ~ '. ~.'}} r°nc ~ ~^ m ~ i o z1~ ~ •',' iJ mn~o Cl ]s F I. - ~ p 1-• p 1 is AI \ . ~ m ,a~a~ a ~ I i, ~- ~ r .# =1 t~ z to r_. p 9^~ R ~ 3 0 •n ' Z -c ~' rn z ~ m _ ~ _ ~- z L1 _ LIZ =~QO ... ~vx ~ ZQ ~. ~~~ vJU -aN s T ~~ M C ~ ~ Z In 1;1- 111 rI11/Y l; ~.. :., ~ '.'..I ~+-ai-Y~I 1 l~~ ( _ Il'lll -F .~% ~~ ~ ".~ c Vl ry~I ...i J. ~ r1 TII--l~ (~'t I I - ? '~ j ff~.tF111i V \ [Y~ l ~~ 1~ ~y .I.II I '3 ~•t { ~ ~A I ~ l ~- ~! 1 r?5 S ~-~, I 1 I ~~ ._ :_~ ~ i ~: i I ` .i:~~: ,:..I w o I ~ l . ;; . p ..::.:j ~ - I -- ~i •' kn I .4.:..:~i o ~ I' rLl li'tiiiill` I~I 1 iI~ li I 4` I'~t` II' . IITIJ 'I,I Tx I~.~l ! fllll`~ll i -%E 1 I lifl; ~ ~l1 ~il ..: f. L. ` I 1 111411 I i I~...~ 1f1`II lull Itilal, I - - :, ~~ ..t. le]~ 5111 f I+t, y1 .L11 r11~ ~~ - ~~y 1 I 1111111111111 l I f I.t. Ill ~~-:_ M1 \f 1 I I I i I I I I - 1 I I I l '4 f '_ ~-~ ...~ ~. ~•}')sl-Illlll4l lSl. `+~ J\ .. 'I '1- ~` A ~~ ~ .; a \ ., `..+ ~ ~ p -. I rsa I ~{ @$11->`".1 iS.\d V.v\`Q ~q\4\ti~~~ .. 'k-a.kWaa~.+,l I f -21-~$ L" ls'~ r ~~z ~~rt~c~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~~~~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ z z ~ ~ r~ ~, ~~ ~~ .~ ~ ~~. z ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ rn ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~'",• 1~ e, ....~ `1 r 'l ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~ -~ r- r ~ -+ n f ~ ~~~, U ~ ~~~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~~p~~ ~ 3 -1s Q ~C~>~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ r ~_ ~s~ z ~ ? ~ .. s~ ~~ u .~ Y S ~S .~ .~ ~~ ~, ~~~ z r~~ ~~ r\ -~~ `~ `J 'Fa Pa ment 3 '-=1 ~~ r MINUTES Attachment 4 MAPLEWOOD CITY COUNCIL 7:19 P.M. Monday, May 09, 2005 Council Chambers, City Hall Meeting No. 05-09 2. 3M Building #278 a. City Manager Fursman presented the staff report. b. Planner Finwall presented specifics from the report. c. Commissioner Trippler presented the Planning Commission report. d. Dean Hedlund, Project Manager for 3M was present for council questions. e. Brandon Bourdon, Kimley-Horn Engineers provided further specifics from the project. Councilmember Monahan-Junek moved to adopt the following resolution approving a conditional use permit for 3M to build their new leadership development institute/customer center building closer than 350 feet to a residential zoning district within a light manufacturing zoning district. The building will be constructed within 325 feet of a residential zoning district on vacant 3M Campus property (2350 Minnehaha Avenue): CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION 05-05-074 WHEREAS, Dean Hedlund representing Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing (3M), applied for a conditional use permit to construct a building closer than 350 feet to a residential zoning district. WHEREAS, this permit applies to 2350 Minnehaha Avenue. The legal description is Tract B, Registered Land Survey No. 524, Ramsey County Minnesota; and the Northeast Quarter of the Northwest Quarter of Section 36, Township 29, Range 22, Ramsey County Minnesota. WHEREAS, the history of this conditional use permit is as follows: 1. On April 18, 2005, the planning commission held a public hearing and recommended approval of this permit. City staff published a notice in the paper and sent notices to the surrounding property owners. The planning commission gave everyone at the hearing a chance to speak and present written statements. 2. On May 9, 2005, the city council approved this permit. The city council also considered reports and recommendations from the city staff and planning commission. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the city council approve the above-described conditional use permit, because: 1. The use would be located, designed, maintained, constructed and operated to be in conformity with the city's comprehensive plan and code of ordinances. 2. The use would not change the existing or planned character of the surrounding area. 3. The use would not depreciate property values. 4. The use would not involve any activity, process, materials, equipment or methods of operation that would be dangerous, hazardous, detrimental, disturbing or cause a nuisance to any person or property, because of excessive noise, glare, smoke, dust, odor, fumes, water or air pollution, Packet Page Number Page 384 of 408 drainage, water runoff, vibration, general unsightliness, electrical interference or other nuisances. 5. The use would generate only minimal vehicular traffic on local streets and would not create traffic congestion or unsafe access on existing or proposed streets. 6. The use would be served by adequate public facilities and services, including streets, police and fire protection, drainage structures, water and sewer systems, schools and parks. 7. The use would not create excessive additional costs for public facilities or services. 8. The use would maximize the preservation of and incorporate the site's natural and scenic features into the development design. 9. The use would cause minimal adverse environmental effects. Approval is subject to the following conditions: The city engineer shall approve final construction and engineering plans prior to issuance of a grading permit. These plans shall comply with all requirements as specified in the city engineering report dated April 12, 2005, which requires, among other items, a traffic study to analyze trip generation for future and proposed development and the installation of two right- turn lanes. Consideration should be given to install a sidewalk or a trail along Minnehaha Avenue for the safety of pedestrians. 2. All construction shall follow the plans date-stamped March 18, 2005, with the revisions as required and approved by the city. The director of community development may approve minor changes. 3. The proposed development must be started within one year after city council approval or the permit shall end. The city council may extend this deadline for one year. 4. The proposed development must meet the requirements of the city building official, the city fire marshal and the Ramsey/Washington Metro Watershed District. 5. No deliveries are allowed during the hours of 10 p.m. to 6 a.m. 6. The city council shall review this permit in one year. Seconded by Councilmember Koppen Ayes-All Councilmember Juenemann moved to adopt the following resolution approving the vacation of two unused street right-of-ways located within the 3M Campus property (Meyer Avenue (north/south street right-of-wayl and Margaret Street feast/west street right-of-wayl): STREET VACATION RESOLUTION 05-05-075 WHEREAS, Dean Hedlund representing Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing (3M) applied for the vacation of an unused street right-of-way in order to develop a leadership development institute and customer center building; WHEREAS, the legal description of the street right-of-way to be vacated is as follows: Those parts of Meyer Street (formerly known as Meyer Avenue) and Margaret Avenue (formerly known as Margaret Street) lying within the North 900.00 feet of the West 1400.00 feet of the Northwest Quarter of Section 36, Township 29, Range 22, Ramsey County, Minnesota, as dedicated by the plat of Ascension Cemetery, said Ramsey County Minnesota, and lying southerly of the north 33.00 feet of said Northwest Quarter and easterly of the west 76.50 feet of said Northwest Quarter. 2 Packet Page Number City Counci105-09-OS Page 385 of 408 WHEREAS, the history of this vacation is as follows: On April 18, 2005, the planning commission held a public hearing and recommended that the city council approve the public vacation. 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. 2. On May 9, 2005, the city council approved the public vacation. The city council considered reports and recommendations from the city staff and planning commission. WHEREAS, after the city approves this vacation, public interest in the property will go to Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing (3M) for the above-mentioned property. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the city council approve the above-described vacation for the following reasons: 1. It is in the public interest. 2. The street right-of-way is unused. 3. The street right-of-way is not needed for the proposed leadership development institute and customer center building development. Seconded by Councilmember Koppen Ayes-All Councilmember Monahan-Junek moved to adopt the following resolution approving the vacation of a portion of the existing utility easement located within the 3M Campus property: UTILITY EASEMENT VACATION RESOLUTION 05-05-076 WHEREAS, Dean Hedlund representing Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing (3M) applied for the vacation of a portion of a sewer easement in order to develop a leadership development institute and customer center building; WHEREAS, the legal description of the utility easement to be vacated is as follows Commencing on the east property line of the Ascension Cemetery at a point 321.0 feet south of the centerline of Minnehaha Avenue, which centerline is also the north section line of Section 36, Township 29 North, Range 22 West; thence westerly on an azimuth of 270 degrees, a distance of 332.0 feet; thence bearing southwesterly 226 degrees 38 feet, a distance of 154.88 feet; thence bearing southwesterly 246 degrees 49 feet, a distance of 19 3.96 feet; thence bearing southwesterly 260 degrees 55 feet, a distance of 132.8 feet; thence bearing southwesterly 269 degrees 35 feet, a distance of 371.60 feet; thence bearing southwesterly 238 degrees 14 feet, a distance of 121.85 feet; thence bearing southwesterly 269 degrees 34 feet, a distance of approxi8mately 174.18 feet to the west property line of the Ascension Cemetery and there terminating, all in the Northwest Quarter of Section 36, Township 29 North, Range 22 West, Ramsey County, according to the U.S. Government Survey thereof on file and of record in the office of the Register of Deeds in and for said county. WHEREAS, the history of this vacation is as follows: On April 18, 2005, the planning commission held a public hearing and recommended that the city council approve the public vacation. 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. 2. On May 9, 2005, the city council approved the public vacation. The city council considered reports and recommendations from the city staff and planning commission. 3 Packet Page Number City Counci105-09-OS Page 386 of 408 WHEREAS, after the city approves this vacation, public interest in the property will go to Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing (3M) for the above-mentioned property. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the city council approve the above-described vacation for the following reasons: 1. It is in the public interest. 2. The utility easement is unused. 3. The utility easement is not needed for the proposed leadership development institute and customer center building development. Approval is subject to the following condition: The applicant must dedicate a new utility easement to the City of Maplewood. The new easement must be 20 feet in width and describe the existing sanitary sewer alignment. The easement must be recorded with the county prior to issuance of a building permit. Seconded by Councilmember Koppen Ayes-All Councilmember Koppen moved to approve a parking reduction authorization for the proposed 3M Leadership Development Institute/Customer Center building located on vacant 3M Campus property (2350 Minnehaha Avenue). This reduction will allow the property owner to have 286 parking spaces (147 fewer than the city code requires) for the following reasons: a. The parking requirements for office buildings such as this are generally excessive. b. Fewer parking spaces would preserve green space and lessen storm runoff. c. The applicant has reserved space to add 147 parking spaces should the need arise. Seconded by Councilmember Monahan-Junek Ayes-All Councilmember Koppen moved to approve the plans date-stamped March 18, 2005, for the 3M Leadership Development Institute/Customer Center building located on vacant 3M Campus property (2350 Minnehaha Avenue). Approval is subiect to the following conditions: a. Repeat this review in two years if the city has not issued a building permit for this project. b. Prior to issuance of a grading or building permit, the applicant must submit to staff for approval the following items: 1) Revised engineering and grading plans. These plans shall comply with all requirements as specified in the city engineering report dated April 12, 2005, which requires, among other items, a traffic study to analyze trip generation for future and proposed development and the potential installation of right-turn lanes. The traffic analysis shall determine the need for turn lanes and/or the need for a one way in or one way out. In addition, the applicant shall include an 8-foot-wide bituminous trail along Minnehaha Avenue, extending from the western property line to the eastern edge of the development as determined by the engineering department. The grading plan must also reflect measures taken to ensure the protection of all large trees on the site where possible. 2) Revised landscape plan. The plan should include additional plantings (to include evergreen trees at least 6 feet in height, deciduous trees at least 2 %2 caliper inches in size, and shrubs) on top of the berm in front of the parking lot to ensure the parking lot is screened from view of the residential properties across the Packet Page Number City Counci105-09-OS Page 387 of 40'~ street. The plan should also include a row of evergreen trees to be planted along the west side of the loading dock driveway to ensure the dock is screened from view of the residential properties across the street. The plan should also specify the wildflower mix to meet MnDOT standards and ensure no thistle within the mix. c. Obtain a permit from Ramsey County for construction on county right-of-way for the driveway access, utility work, and sidewalk. d. Watershed district approval. e. To ensure the building does not straddle a property line, the applicant must submit documentation that 3M has initiated the process with the Ramsey County Property Tax office to combine the two lots for tax and identification purposes. A cash escrow or an irrevocable letter of credit for all required exterior improvements. The amount shall be 150 percent of the cost of the work. g. Review the lighting plan with city staff for the light standards, height, and luminary fixtures to ensure the plan meets the city's lighting requirements and does not pose a nuisance to the surrounding residential properties. h. The applicant shall complete the following before occupying the building: 1) Replace any property irons removed because of this construction. 2) Provide continuous concrete curb and gutter around the parking lot and driveways. 3) Install all required landscaping and an in-ground lawn irrigation system for all landscaped areas except the rainwater gardens and native planting areas. 4) Install all required outdoor lighting. 5) Install the required sidewalk or trail along Minnehaha Avenue. If any required work is not done, the city may allow temporary occupancy if: 1) The city determines that the work is not essential to the public health, safety or welfare. 2) The above-required letter of credit or cash escrow is held by the City of Maplewood for all required exterior improvements. The owner or contractor shall complete any unfinished exterior improvements by June 1 if occupancy of the building is in the fall or winter, or within six weeks of occupancy of the building if occupancy is in the spring or summer. All work shall follow the approved plans. The director of community development may approve minor changes. Seconded by Councilmember Monahan-Junek Ayes-All 5 Packet Page Number City Counci105-09-OS Page 388 of 408 Agenda Item M9 AGENDA REPORT TO: Charles Ahl, Acting City Manager FROM: Michael Thompson, Acting Public Works Director SUBJECT: Transfer to Close Funds for Public Improvement Project 01-28 DATE: January 8, 2009 Construction for the Hillcrest Animal Hospital Water Main Improvements, City Project 01-28, has been completed and the project fund needs to be closed. The council approved Change Order #1 on the construction contract on November 25, 2002 and was advised that once the project was ready for closure the necessary transfers would be brought to council for approval. There is currently a deficit of $789.71 as a result of interest on interfund loans and administration charges. The entire deficit would be covered by transferring a portion of the surplus from Fund 551 (City Project 03- 26) into Fund 526. Therefore it is recommended that the council authorize the finance director to make the necessary transfer of $789.71 from Fund 551 into Fund 526 and close City Project 01-28, Fund 526. Packet Page Number Page 389 of 408 Agenda Item M 10 AGENDA REPORT TO: Charles Ahl, Acting City Manager FROM: Michael Thompson, Acting Public Works Director SUBJECT: Transfer to Close Funds for Public Improvement Project 02-10 DATE: January 8, 2009 Construction for the Kennard/Frost Neighborhood Street Improvements, City Project 02-10, has been completed and the project fund needs to be closed. The council approved resolutions to accept the project and modify the budget on December 13, 2004. However additional costs were incurred since that time in the amount of $38,305.02. A majority of the cost is comprised of a billing by Saint Paul Regional Water Services which the city paid in 2007. The entire deficit would be covered by transferring a portion of the surplus from Fund 551 (City Project 03- 26) into Fund 535. It is recommended that the council authorize the finance director to make the necessary transfer of $38,305.02 from Fund 551 into Fund 535 and close City Project 02-10, Fund 535. Packet Page Number Page 390 of 408 Agenda Item M 11 AGENDA REPORT TO: Charles Ahl, Acting City Manager FROM: Michael Thompson, Acting Public Works Director SUBJECT: Transfer to Close Funds for Public Improvement Project 03-26 DATE: January 8, 2009 Construction for the Legacy Parkway Improvements (Southlawn Drive to Hazelwood Street), City Project 03-26, has been completed and the project fund needs to be closed. The City made final payment to Ryan Contracting in June 2006. Currently there is a surplus of $73,602.12 in the project fund. It is recommended that the council authorize the finance director to transfer a portion of this surplus, $789.71, into Fund 526, City Project 01-28. It is recommended that the council authorize the finance director to transfer a portion of this surplus, $38,305.02, into Fund 535, City Project 02-10. It is recommended that the council authorize the finance director to transfer a portion of this surplus, $5,918.15, into Fund 560, City Project 03-36. Lastly it is recommended that the council authorize the finance director to transfer the remaining surplus of $28,589.24 into City Project 02-07, Fund 533, and close City Project 03-26, Fund 551. Packet Page Number Page 391 of 408 Agenda Item M 12 AGENDA REPORT TO: Charles Ahl, Acting City Manager FROM: Michael Thompson, Acting Public Works Director SUBJECT: Transfer to Close Funds for Public Improvement Project 03-36 DATE: January 8, 2009 Construction for the Springside Drive Improvements, City Project 03-36, has been completed and the project fund needs to be closed. The council approved final payment on the construction contract in October of 2006. Additional financing of $5,918.15 is needed accounting for a payment made to Saint Paul Regional Water Services for a reconnection of a water service, and also for boundary survey performed by Metro Land Surveying. The entire deficit would be covered by transferring a portion of the surplus from Fund 551 (City Project 03- 26) into Fund 560. Therefore it is recommended that the council authorize the finance director to make the necessary transfer of $5,918.15 from Fund 551 into Fund 560 and close City Project 03-36, Fund 560. Packet Page Number Page 392 of 408 Agenda Item M 13 AGENDA REPORT TO: Charles Ahl, Acting City Manager FROM: Michael Thompson, Acting Public Works Director SUBJECT: Transfer to Close Funds for Public Improvement Project 05-10 DATE: January 8, 2009 Construction for the Dahl Avenue Improvements, City Project 05-10, has been completed and the project fund needs to be closed. There is currently a $30,166.68 surplus in Fund 564. It is recommended that the council authorize the finance director to transfer the surplus in the amount of $30,166.68 to City Project 02-07 (Fund 533) and close City Project 05-10, Fund 564. Packet Page Number Page 393 of 408 Agenda Item M 14 AGENDA REPORT TO: Charles Ahl, Acting City Manager FROM: Michael Thompson, Acting Public Works Director SUBJECT: Transfer to Close Funds for Public Improvement Project 06-10 DATE: January 8, 2009 Construction for the Cottagewood Public Improvements, City Project 06-10, has been completed and the project fund needs to be closed. The council approved final payment and acceptance of the project in March of 2008. Additional financing is needed in the amount of $11,418.32 as referenced in the March report. Current revenue is 231,219.08, which represents the developer's contribution, which makes up the total current financing plan. Actual expenditures are $242,637.40, thus additional financing in the amount of $11,418.32 is needed. As previously recommended in March of 2008, the city should bear the remaining costs because the city will recapture monies as a result of future cash connection charges when the homes connect to the new sewer main installed under Highwood Avenue. It is recommended that the council authorize the finance director to finance the $11,418.32 deficit from the Sewer Fund and close City Project 06-10, Fund 570. Packet Page Number Page 394 of 408 AGENDA REPORT To: Acting City Manager Chuck Ahl From: Chief of Police David J. Thomalla Subject: Purchase of Squad Car Cameras Date: January 7, 2009 Introduction Agenda #M-15 The Maplewood Police Department would like to purchase squad car cameras for police vehicles, and City Council approval is required before this purchase can be made. Background Modern squad car cameras are in invaluable tool for the Police Department and the judicial process. They create a clear and accurate audio and visual record of many interactions between police officers and citizens. An officer can record the driving behavior before a traffic stop, the stop itself, and the conversation and potential physical contact with a suspected violator. This evidence is clearly valuable in proving the suspect's actions in court. It is also very useful in demonstrating the actions of the officer. Studies have shown that in almost all cases, the video exonerates the officer against false claims of mistreatment. An additional use of the video is for training purposes. New officers can see the actions that they performed that were appropriate as well as the actions that could have been potentially dangerous. Staff has researched several companies that provide squad car camera systems. L-3 Mobile-Vision is an industry leader, and their systems are in use by several local departments. The system includes wireless upload of the squad car video when the car is in proximity to headquarters. This eliminates any handling of the video by employees, which guarantees the availability and integrity of the evidence. The videos are stored on a server and are available for review to allow the officer the opportunity to accurately reflect in his or her written report what happened at the scene. When the video is needed for court or supervisory review, the system provides a powerful search tool for easy retrieval. An additional benefit to this system is that the in-house interview room videos can be stored on the same server. Our current in-house camera system is outdated and in need of replacement, but it would be purchased at a later date. The L-3 Mobile-Vision squad car cameras are available on the State bid. Packet Page Number Page 395 of 408 Budget Impact We would be purchasing 17 units, at a total cost of $134,014.45. The CIP budget has $126,278 earmarked for this project. When staff researched the systems a few years ago, they had fewer features than the current systems. Therefore, instead of an expected decrease typical of electronic items, there has actually been an increase. The Police Department will fund the $7,736.45 difference from its 2009 operating budget. Recommendation It is recommended that the City Council approve the purchase of L-3 Mobile-Vision squad car cameras. Action Required Submit to the City Council for review and action DJT:js Packet Page Number Page 396 of 408 :: ~ ~. IUlobile-Vision, Inc. 90 Fanny Road Boonton, NJ 07005 Phone: (800) 336-8475 Fax: (973) 257-3024 Sold To: Maplewood Police Department 1830 east County Road B Maplewood, MN 55109 Confirm To: Kevin Rabbett -Quote QUOTATION NUMBER: 0065809 QUOTATION DATE: 1/14/2009 SALESPERSON: MH CUSTOMER NUMBER: MNMAPWO Ship To Maplewood Police Department 1830 east County Road B Maplewood, MN 55109 Bill-To Phone: (612) 770-4502 Page: 1 Customer P.O. Ship VIA F.O.B. Terms UP5 GROUND BOONTON, NJ Net 30 Days Item Number Unit Ordered Retail Discounted Price Amount MVD-FB2DVS EACH 17.00 5,295.00 4,997.00 84,949.00 Flashback 2 Digital Video System MVD-IR-CAM EACH 17.00 295.00 235.00 3,995.00 Option, Flashback IR Camera w/cables MVD-DM2-24/55BK EACH 17.00 95.00 0.00 0.00 Stud mount antenna 15' cables (RF-195 & RG-174) with SMA/SMA bolt cofigu Need color of antenna MV-VLP-TRA EACH 17.00 195.00 195.00 3,315.00 Mic package, VLP w/accessories MV-VLP-CG EACH 17.00 39.95 39.95 679.15 Station,Charging,V~P w/pwr adaptor MVD-DE P2715 EACH 1.00 21,845.00 21,845.00 21,845.00 DVM Server, Storage & Distribution System MVD-DVD/BU EACH 1.00 2,984.00 2,984.00 2,984.00 DVM Backup/Archiving Station M VD-8675-A-ABBY EACH 4.00 795.00 795.00 3,180.00 Wireless Access Point w/External Mounted Antenna MVD-DEP-BT2 EACH 1.00 3,350.00 3,350.00 3,350.00 Solution Configuration /Training: Continued Packet Page Number Page 397 of 408 Quote QUOTATION NUMBER: 0065809 QUOTATION DATE: 1114/2009 SALESPERSON: MH CUSTOMER NUMBER: MNMAPWO Sold To: . Maplewood Police Department 1830 east County Road B Maplewood, MN 55109 Confirm To: Kevin Rabbett Shig To:, Maplewood Police Department 1830 east County Road B Maplewood, MN 55109 Bill-To Phone: (612) 770-4502 Page: 2 Customer P.O. Ship VIA F.O.B. Terms UPS GROUND BOONTON, NJ Net 30 Days Item Number Unit Ordered Retail Discounted Price Amount Customer to arrange for own installation. Need car types and DVR locations when placing order. Minnesota State Contract # 2008423 Sigrrin; below is i« lieu of «fonnnl P.O. Your si;rrrrtrrre will authorize «ccrphurce of bath pricing antlproduct: **** QUOTATION IS VALID FOR 60 DAYS **** Subtotal: 124,297.15 Shipping and Handling: 950.00 Sales Tax: 8,767.30 Order Total: 134,014.45 Packet Page Number Page 398 of 408 AGENDA REPORT To: Acting City Manager Chuck Ahl From: Chief of Police David J. Thomalla Subject: Purchase of Police Vehicles Date: January 16, 2009 Introduction Agenda #M-16 The Police Department is requesting authorization to order five 2009 Ford Crown Victoria Police Interceptor squad cars and one 2009 Chevrolet Tahoe. Background Police departments are able to place orders for squad cars during the first few months of 2009, and we purchase them in conjunction with the State of Minnesota and many other municipal departments. The vehicles must be ordered soon for delivery later this year. The State contract price for the Crown Victoria squad cars is $22,422.36 each. The State contract price for the Tahoe is $27,575.40. Budget Impact Funding for the purchase of these vehicles, as part of the department's fleet rotation, is included in the 2009 Police Department Operating Budget. Recommendation It is recommended that authorization be given to purchase five 2009 Ford Crown Victoria Police Interceptor squad cars and one Chevrolet Tahoe. Action Required Submit to the City Council for review and action. DJT:js Packet Page Number Page 399 of 408 Packet Page Number Page 400 of 408 Agenda Item M 17 MEMORANDUM TO: Acting City Manager FROM: Tom Ekstrand, Senior Planner SUBJECT: The Regents Senior Housing-Conditional Use Permit Review LOCATION: Kennard Street and Legacy Parkway DATE: January 16, 2009 INTRODUCTION The conditional use permit (CUP) for the Regents Senior Housing is due for its annual review. BACKGROUND September 10, 2007: The Council adopted a resolution approving plans date-stamped August 20, 2007 for the revision to the previously-approved PUD concept plan allowing the Regent at Legacy Village senior building to increase the number of units from 120 to 150. This PUD revision also allowed the reduction in the square-foot area of the intensive-care units from 580 square feet to 382 square feet. Approval was based on the findings required by Resolution 07- 08-161 (attached) passed at that meeting. DISCUSSION The Hartford Group Inc. has just applied for a building permit and is expected to begin construction soon. The city council should review this CUP in one year to check progress and compliance with the conditions of approval. RECOMMENDATION Review the conditional use permit for the Regent in one year. p:\sec3\Legacy Village\Regent Snrs CUP REV 0109 Attachments 1. Council Minutes for September 10, 2007 2. Location/Zoning Map Packet Page Number Page 401 of 408 Attachment 1 MINUTES MAPLEWOOD CITY COUNCIL 7:00 p.m., Monday, September 10, 2007 Council Chambers, City Hall Meeting No. 07-16 1. The Regents Senior Housing Development (Kennard Street and Legacy Parkway) a. Planned Unit Development (PUD) Revisions b. Parking Reduction Authorization c. Design Approval 1. Senior Planner, Tom Ekstrand presented the report 2. Frank James, General Counsel for Hartford Group, 7900 Xerxes Avenue South, Suite 1300, Bloomington, addressed and answered questions of the council. 3. Patrick Sarver, AS LA, Director of Development for the Hartford Group, 7900 Xerxes Avenue South, Suite 1300, Bloomington, addressed and answered questions of the council. 4. Maplewood Fire Chief, Steve Lukin answered questions of the council. 5. Planning Commissioner, Tushar Desai gave the Planning Commission report. 6. Community Design Review Board member, Matt Wise gave the Community Design Review Board report. 7. Carolyn Peterson, 1801 Gervais Avenue, #301, Maplewood, addressed the council. She spoke about the needs she would be looking for in independent and assisted living. Councilmember Cave moved to adopt the attached resolution to approve plans date-stamoed Auaust 20. 2007 for the revision to the oreviouslv-aooroved PUD concept plan allowing the Regent at Legacy Village senior building to increase the number of units from 120 to 150. This PUD revision also allows the reduction in the square-foot area of the intensive-care units from 580 square feet to 382 499 sauare feet. Aooroval is based on the findinas reauired by ordinance and because of the following reasons PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT REVISION RESOLUTION 07-08-161 WHEREAS, The Hartford Group applied for a revision to the planned unit development (PUD) for The Regent, the senior's housing complex at Legacy Village of Maplewood. The proposed PUD revision was to increase the previously-approved density from 120 to 150 multi-family units. This PUD revision also includes a reduction in unit size for the 15 intensive-care and 15 memory-care units from 580 square feet to 382 square feet. Packet Page Number Page 402 of 408 WHEREAS, this permit applies to the three-acre site in Legacy Village lying southeast of the intersection of Kennard Street and Legacy Parkway. Drive. The legal description is: Lot 1, Block 3 of Legacy Village of Maplewood. WHEREAS, the history of this conditional use permit is as follows: On August 21, 2007, the planning commission held a public hearing to review these requests. City staff published a notice in the paper and sent notices to the surrounding property owners as required by law. The planning commission gave everyone at the hearing a chance to speak and present written statements. The planning commission also considered reports and recommendations of the city staff. 2. The city council reviewed this proposal and considered the planning commission's recommendation on September 10, 2007. The council also considered reports and recommendations of the city staff and those in attendance. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the city council approved the above-described PUD revision based on plans date-stamped August 20, 2007 because: The use would be located, designed, maintained, constructed and operated to be in conformity with the City's Comprehensive Plan and Code of Ordinances. 2. The use would not change the existing or planned character of the surrounding area. 3. The use would not depreciate property values. 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. Packet Page Number Page 403 of 408 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. 10. The proposed built-out density of the entire Legacy Village PUD will be less than that originally approved by 26 units. 11. The affect on the sit itself should not cause an overcrowding problem since the residents on the site would not generate the quantity of traffic a typical multi-family development would. 12. The minimum floor-area requirement of 580 square feet was intended for typical "efficiency" apartments. The proposed unit sizes should suffice in this instance since they are for persons with limited mobility that need medical assistance. The Maplewood City Council approved this resolution on September 10, 2007. Seconded by Mayor Longrie. Ayes -Mayor Longrie, Councilmembers Cave, Juenemann Nays -Councilmembers Hjelle, Rossbach Councilmember Cave moved approval of a parking waiver to provide 100 underground and 45 on-grade parking spaces rather than the 300 required by ordinance. Approval is because the proposed senior housing complex would not generate the amount of traffic associated with typical multi-family uses. This parking reduction of 155 spaces is subject to the requirements of city ordinance should the use of the building be proposed for a change to a higher traffic- generating use. The three parking spaces in the circular driveway area shall be omitted. Staff shall work with the applicant to further reduce the surface parking t0 maximize green space On the site. C+off droll olcn rlo+ormino ~n,ho+hor+ho +hroo of irfnno nnrliinn o+nllo nrr~nr~oor! in +ho +i irnnrr~i inr! nron nro fonoihlo If +ho" rnrcc~a ca-ar~cT oro nn+ +ho" droll ho „mi++orl (changes are in underlined and deletions are stricken. ) Packet Page Number Page 404 of 408 Seconded by Mayor Longrie. Ayes -All Mayor Longrie asked the applicant if the project would use union labor. The applicant was unsure. Councilmember Cave moved to approve the revised plans date-stamped August 20, 2007, for the Regent at Legacy Village. Approval is subject to the applicant doing the following: 1. Repeat this review in two years if the city has not issued a building permit for this project. 2. Before getting a building permit, the applicant shall revise the plans or do the following for staff approval: Enter into across-easement agreement with the city for the shared parking spaces for the use of the city's abutting sculpture park. This agreement shall be prepared by the city attorney and shall require that the developer of the senior complex be responsible for driveway maintenance and snowplowing. This agreement shall be subject to the requirements of the director of public works. • Provide the city with cash escrow or an irrevocable letter of credit for the exterior landscaping and site improvements. • Meet all requirements of the engineering report by Jon Jarosch dated July 5, 2007. • Meet all requirements of the fire marshal and building official. • Provide engineered plans to the building official for all retaining walls that exceed four feet in height as measured from the bottom of the footing. All retaining walls that are four feet tall or taller shall have a protective fence or guardrail on top. • Provide a site and design plan for the screening of any trash and recycling containers if they would be kept outside. Should a trash enclosure area be proposed in the future, it shall not be placed in any parking space. • Provide a screening plan for any exterior utility meters, if there would be outside meters, subject to the requirements of the community design review board. Packet Page Number Page 405 of 408 Provide sidewalks to the existing trails and public sidewalks as required by the original PUD approval. The location of these sidewalks is dependent upon the location of exits from the building. 3. Before getting a certificate of occupancy, the applicant shall: • Comply with or complete all aspects of these plans or any required revisions. • Provide in-ground lawn irrigation as shown on the plans. • Install traffic and address signs, subject to staff approval. • Install wetland-protection buffer signs around the west side of the abutting wetland area. 4. The community design review board shall review major changes to these plans. Minor changes may be approved by staff. 5. The six Sculpture Park parking spaces shall be signed accordingly subject to staff approval. 6. The horizontal-lap siding on the building exterior shall be the cementious Hardi Board product. The proposed vinyl siding is not allowed. Seconded by Mayor Longrie. Ayes -All Packet Page Number Page 406 of 408 Attachment 2 Attachment i ::......................................................................................................................... ,,..-- ---- ..~.,~ ~ -__.~_~.l~S~gIZQ-- -- -..._,~.___~ ~ 1 ~ ~ ~ ' ` r j~ f~ GnGY PI(VW +.. ~ ~' [~ ~ ~~C]CJ ~ ~„s:,_ ~ i ~ a~ ,~ nn~.. ` i IJL! ~~~ LECAG4 PHUN ~.. 3 ; ~;~~ ~ ~i ~Q~] ~ t,~ ~ ~ Ii nn-~~-I~; ., j LJiJQ~O a ~ (~ ~ i~ ~ f`~ I' PRC7P©SED ~ 4 1 t4 ~ \ 1w ~ REGENT SENfOF~S" 1 I ~` ~h ~ ~ APARTMENT S1TE ~ `~~• ~~ , by `~ k ~~ ti x` ~_ _ c~5F~k1N ~-' i f ~~i 1~ -- - - r ' iii ~~ ~ ~ ~i }i i + ~ ~l 4 ~ ~ l4 iy ~ ~.~ ` ( ~ ~. [~ 4 ~ ~ I '~ ~ ~ ~ f 1 i I ti ' " ~ ~,. Loc~riow n~~~ Packet Page Number Page 407 of 408 Agenda Item M18 AGENDA REPORT DATE: January 21, 2009 TO: Chuck Ahl, Acting City Manager FROM: Terrie Rameaux, Human Resource Coordinator SUBJECT: 2009 Pay Equity Report BACKGROUND The City of Maplewood is scheduled to submit the 2009 Pay Equity Implementation Report to Minnesota Management & Budget (formerly the Department of Finance and Department of Employee Relations) as required by the Local Government Pay Equity Act, MN Statutes 471.991 - 471.999 and Minnesota Rules, Chapter 3920. Jurisdictions are on a three-year schedule and this is the scheduled year for Maplewood. The deadline for submission is January 31, 2009. This report, upon approval by the City Council, will be submitted to Minnesota Management & Budget for review. RECOMMENDATION Please forward the attached Pay Equity Implementation Report to the City Council for approval. Attachment: 1. 2009 Pay Equity Implementation Report Packet Page Number Page 408 of 408