HomeMy WebLinkAbout2010 08-09 City Council Packet
AGENDA
MAPLEWOOD CITY COUNCIL
7:00 P.M. Monday,August 9,2010
City Hall, Council Chambers
Meeting No. 17-10
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. Before addressing
the council, sign in with the City Clerk. At the podium pleasestate your name and
address clearly for the record. All comments/questions shall be posed to the Mayor and
Council. The Mayor will thendirect staff, as appropriate, to answer questions or respond
to comments.”
D.APPROVAL OF AGENDA
E.APPROVAL OFMINUTES
1.Approval of July 26, 2010, City Council Workshop Minutes
2.Approval of July 26, 2010, City Council Meeting Minutes
F.APPOINTMENTS AND PRESENTATIONS
CONSENT AGENDA –
G.Items on the Consent Agenda are considered routine and non-
controversial and are approved by one motion of the council. If a councilmember requests
additional information or wants to make a comment regarding an item, the vote should be held
until the questions or comments are made then the single vote should be taken. If a
councilmember objects to an item it should be removed and acted upon as a separate item.
1.Approval Of Claims
2.Approval of Resolution Approving Donation to Police Reserves
3.Approval of Agreement for Use of Harvest Park for the Susan G. Komen 3-Day Race
for the Cure Event
4.Approval of Conditional Use Permit Review – Beaver Lake Town Houses, Maryland
Avenue and Lakewood Drive
5.Approval ofFunding for the Following Park Improvement Projects:
a.Resurfacing Tennis Courts at Four Seasons Park
b.Resurfacing Tennis Courts at Maplecrest Park
c. Resurfacing of the Basketball Court at Four Seasons Park (In-House)
d.Replacement of the Backstop at Goodrich #3
H.PUBLIC HEARINGS
1.7:00 p.m. – Tax Increment Financing Housing District 1-10 – The Shores of
Maplewood Within Gladstone Area – Consider Resolution Establishing Tax Increment
Financing District
I.UNFINISHED BUSINESS
1.White Bear Avenue/County Road D Improvements, Project 08-13, Resolution Adopting
Revised Assessment Roll
2.Sign Ordinance Amendment – Temporary Window Signs and Temporary Banners
(Second Reading)
J.NEW BUSINESS
1.Approval of The Shores at Lake Phalen – Planned Unit Development, Wetland Buffer
Variance, Lot Division and Design Review, 940 Frost Avenue
2.Approval of Rezoning of the Vacant Parcel South of the New Horizon Building from R3
(Multiple-Family Residential) to LBC (Limited Business Commercial)
3.Approval of Rezoning of the Multi-Family Housing on Van Dyke Street from BC
(Business Commercial) to R3 (Multi-Family Residential)
4.Consider Establishing Fund for Legal Expenses Related to Wipers Recycling Litigation
and Authorizing Transfer from General Fund
K.VISITOR PRESENTATIONS
L.AWARD OF BIDS
M.ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS
N.COUNCIL PRESENTATIONS
O.ADJOURNMENT
Sign language interpreters for hearing impaired persons are available for public hearings upon request. The
request for this must be made at least 96 hours in advance. Please call the City Clerk’s Office at 651.249.2001 to
make arrangements. Assisted Listening Devices are also available. Please check with the City Clerk for availability.
RULES OFCIVILITY FOR OUR COMMUNITY
Following are some rules of civility the City of Maplewood expects of everyone appearing at Council Meetings
– elected officials, staff and citizens. It is hoped that by following these simple rules, everyone’s opinions can be heard
and understood in a reasonable manner. We appreciate the fact that when appearing at Council meetings, it is
understood that everyone will follow these principles: Show respect for each other, actively listen to one another, keep
emotions in check anduse respectful language.
Agenda Item E1
MINUTES
MAPLEWOOD CITY COUNCIL
MANAGER WORKSHOP
5:15 p.m., Monday,July 26, 2010
Council Chambers, City Hall
A.CALL TO ORDER
A meeting of the City Council was held in the City Hall Council Chambers and was called to order
at 5:19 p.m.by Mayor Rossbach.
B. ROLL CALL
Will Rossbach, Mayor Present
Kathleen Juenemann, Councilmember Present
James Llanas, Councilmember Present
John Nephew, Councilmember Present
Julie Wasiluk, Councilmember Present
C.APPROVAL OF AGENDA
Councilmember Wasilukmoved to approve the agenda as submitted.
Seconded by CouncilmemberNephew. Ayes – All
The motion passed.
D.UNFINISHED BUSINESS
1.Presentation by HLB Tautges and Redpath, Ltd. On 2009 Audit of Comprehensive
Annual Financial Report [CAFR]
a.CPA, David Mol, HLB Tautges and Redpath, Ltd. Introduced the report and addressed the
council.
b.CPA, Andrew Hering, HLB Tautges and Redpath, Ltd. Gave the report and addressed the
council.
c. City Manager, James Antonen answered questions of the council.
d.Assistant City Manager, Public Works Director, Chuck Ahl answered questions of the
council.
2.Maplewood Water System Financial Review – Discussion of Long-Term Funding
Strategy
a.Assistant City Manager, Public Works Director, Chuck Ahl introducedthe report and
answered questions of the council.
b.Jon Horn P.E., Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc., 2550 University Avenue West, Suite
345N, St. Paul, gave the report and answered questions of the council.
c. Chadd Larson, P.E., Kimley- Horn and Associates, Inc., 2550 University Avenue West,
Suite 345N, St. Paul, answered questions of the council.
d.City Engineer, Deputy Public Works Director, Michael Thompson answered questions of
the council.
July 26, 2010 1
City Council Manager Workshop Minutes
PacketPageNumber3of272
E.NEW BUSINESS
None.
F. ADJOURNMENT
Mayor Rossbachadjourned the meeting at6:40 p.m.
July 26, 2010 2
City Council Manager Workshop Minutes
PacketPageNumber4of272
Agenda Item E2
MINUTES
MAPLEWOOD CITY COUNCIL
7:00 p.m., Monday,July 26, 2010
Council Chambers, City Hall
Meeting No. 16-10
A.CALL TO ORDER
A meeting of the City Council was held in the City Hall Council Chambers and was called to order
at 7:03 p.m.by Mayor Rossbach.
B.PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
C. ROLL CALL
Will Rossbach, Mayor Present
Kathleen Juenemann, Councilmember Present
James Llanas, Councilmember Present
John Nephew, Councilmember Present
Julie Wasiluk, Councilmember Present
D. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
The following items were added or changed to the agenda by councilmembers:
N1.National Night Out – Councilmember Juenemann
N2.Housing Improvement Areas – Councilmembers Wasiluk& Nephew
M1.Taste of Maplewood Update – City Clerk, Karen Guilfoile
J6.City Manager, James Antonen tabled the Approval of The Shores to a future council
meeting of August 9 or August 23, 2010
Councilmember Nephewmoved to approve the agenda as amended.
Seconded by Councilmember Llanas. Ayes – All
The motion passed.
E. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
1.Approval of July 6, 2010, City Council Workshop Minutes
Councilmember Juenemannmoved to approvethe July 6, 2010, City Council Workshop Minutes
as submitted.
Seconded by CouncilmemberWasiluk. Ayes – All
The motion passed.
July 26, 2010 PacketPageNumber5of272 1
City Council MeetingMinutes
2.Approval of July 12, 2010, City Council Workshop Minutes (Closed Session)
Councilmember Juenemann noted acorrectionon D. 2.a.iii., Mr. Antonen’s title should say City
Manager.
CouncilmemberJuenemannmoved to approvethe July 12, 2010,City Council Workshop Minutes
as amended.
Seconded by CouncilmemberNephew. Ayes – All
The motion passed.
3.Approval of July 12, 2010, City Council Meeting Minutes
Councilmember Nephew had a correction on page 2 of the minutes. Firefighter Alex Onsomu was
notpresent for the swearing in so his name should be removed.
Councilmember Nephewmoved to approve the July 12, 2010, City Council Meeting Minutes as
amended.
Seconded by CouncilmemberWasiluk. Ayes – All
The motion passed.
4.Approval of July 15, 2010, City Council WorkshopMinutes
CouncilmemberJuenemann had a correction, the date of the meeting should say Thursday, not
Monday.And item D. 1. a. ii. the title for Steve Love should say Assistant City Engineer.
Councilmember Juenemannmoved to approve the July 15, 2010, City Council Workshop Minutes
as amended.
Seconded by CouncilmemberNephew. Ayes – All
The motion passed.
F. APPOINTMENTS AND PRESENTATIONS
None.
G. CONSENT AGENDA
1.Mayor Rossbach moved to approve items 1-8.
Seconded by CouncilmemberWasiluk. Ayes – All
The motion passed.
July 26, 2010 PacketPageNumber6of272 2
City Council MeetingMinutes
1. Approval of Claims
Mayor Rossbachmoved Approval of Claims.
ACCOUNTS PAYABLE:
$ 101,546.43Checks #81737thru #81766
Dated 07/09/10 thru 07/13/10
$ 138,654.26Disbursements via debits to checking account
Dated 07/02/10 thru 07/09/10
$ 1,478,010.57Checks #81767 thru #81808
Dated 07/12/10 thru 07/20/10
$ 329,811.44Disbursements via debits to checking account
Dated 07/09/10 thru 07/16/10
__________________
$ 2,048,022.70Total Accounts Payable
PAYROLL
$ 513,686.38Payroll Checks and Direct Deposits dated 07/09/10
$ 2,736.75Payroll Deduction check #1009187thru #1009189
dated 07/09/10
___________________
$ 516,423.13Total Payroll
GRAND TOTAL
$ 2,564,445.83
Seconded by CouncilmemberWasiluk. Ayes – All
The motion passed.
2.Stillwater Road/TH 5 Improvements, Project 09-04, Resolution for Modification of the
Existing construction contract, change Order No. 1
Mayor Rossbachmoved toapprove the resolution for the Stillwater Road/TH 5 Improvements,
Project 09-04, Modifying the existing construction contract, change order No. 1.
RESOLUTION 10-07-430
DIRECTING MODIFICATION OF EXISTING CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT
PROJECT 09-04, CHANGE ORDER NO. 1
WHEREAS, the City Council of Maplewood, Minnesota has heretofore ordered made
Improvement Project 09-04, Stillwater Road/TH 5 Improvements, and has let aconstruction 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 09-04, Change Order No.1.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF MAPLEWOOD,
MINNESOTA that:
July 26, 2010 PacketPageNumber7of272 3
City Council MeetingMinutes
1.The mayor and city engineer are hereby authorized and directed to modify the existing
contract by executing said Change Order No.1 in the amount of (-$7,114.50).
The revised contract amount is $1,324,885.49.
Seconded by CouncilmemberWasiluk. Ayes – All
The motion passed.
3.Approval of Conditional Use Permit Review for a Planned Unit Development, Gethsemane
Senior Housing, South of 2410 Stillwater Road
Mayor Rossbachmoved toapprove the conditional use permit review for a planned unit
development for Gethsemane Senior Housing, south of 2410 Stillwater Road.
Seconded by CouncilmemberWasiluk. Ayes – All
The motion passed.
4.Approval of Conditional Use Permit Review, St. Paul Business Center East, 1983, 1997,
2025 Sloan Place
Mayor Rossbachmoved toapprove the conditional use permit for St. Paul Business Center East,
1983, 1997, 2025 Sloan Place and shall review it again if a problem arises or a major change is
proposed.
Seconded by CouncilmemberWasiluk. Ayes – All
The motion passed.
5.Approval of Conditional Use Permit Review, St. Paul Regional Water Services (McCarron’s
Treatment Plan)
Mayor Rossbachmoved to approve the conditional use permit review for St. Paul Regional Water
Services (McCarron’s Treatment Plan).
Seconded by CouncilmemberWasiluk. Ayes – All
The motion passed.
6.Approval of Conditional Use Permit Review, Century Trails Apartments, Benet Road and
Monastery Way
Mayor Rossbachmoved to approve the conditional use permit review for Century Trails
Apartments, Benet Road and Monastery Way.
Seconded by CouncilmemberWasiluk. Ayes – All
The motion passed.
July 26, 2010 PacketPageNumber8of272 4
City Council MeetingMinutes
7.Resolution of Support – MNGreenCorps Host Site Grant Application
Mayor Rossbachmoved to approve the resolution of support for MNGreenCorps Host Site Grant
Application.
RESOLUTION NO. 10-07-431
CITY OFMAPLEWOOD,MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION IDENTIFYING MAPLEWOOD’S COMMITMENT TO HOST A MINNESOTA
GREENCORPS MEMBER
WHEREAS
Minnesota GreenCorps, coordinated by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA),
places AmeriCorps members with host organizations around the state to assist communities and local
governments in addressing a variety of statewide needs, aiming to:
Reduce solid waste and increase recycling in Minnesota communities.
Reduce greenhouse gases and other air pollutants.
Reduce water runoff and improve water quality.
Assist community members to take eco friendly actions.
Train new environmental professionals.
WHEREAS
Maplewood has submitted an application to the MPCA on July 8, 2010, to be a host to two
Minnesota GreenCorps Members in the area of Living Green Outreach and Green Infrastructure –
Forestry.
WHEREAS
the Minnesota GreenCorps Members working in the area of Living Green Outreach and
Green Infrastructure – Forestry will assist the city in meeting policies set forth in the city’s Sustainable
Chapter of the 2030 Comprehensive Plan and the city’s commitment to reducing emissions and pollution
in city operations and the community as set forth in the U.S. Mayors Climate Protection Agreement.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED
that, after appropriate examination and due consideration, the
governing body of the City of Maplewood is in support of the city’s Minnesota GreenCorps application to
hosttwo Members in the area of Living Green Outreach and Green Infrastructure – Forestry.
Maplewood is committed to hosting and supporting the two Members during the 11 month service period,
beginning in September 2010.
Adopted this 26thday of July, 2010.
___________________________________ ___________________________________
Mayor Clerk
Seconded by CouncilmemberWasiluk. Ayes – All
The motion passed.
H. PUBLIC HEARING
1.White Bear Avenue/County Road D Improvements, Project 08-13
a. Assessment Hearing, 7:00 p.m.
b.Resolution Adopting Assessment Roll
i.City Engineer, Deputy Public Works Director, Michael Thompson gave the
presentation and answered questions of the council.
ii.City Attorney, Alan Kantrud answered questions of thecouncil.
July 26, 2010 PacketPageNumber9of272 5
City Council MeetingMinutes
Mayor Rossbach opened the public hearing.
1.Howard Roston, Attorney representing Sears Roebuck, Maplewood Malladdressed the
council.
Mayor Rossbach closed the public hearing.
Councilmember Wasilukmoved to approve theresolution adopting the assessment roll for the
White Bear Avenue/County Road D Improvements, Project 08-13including the objections that
were read during the public hearing.
RESOLUTION10-07-432
ADOPTING ASSESSMENT ROLL
WHEREAS, pursuant to a resolution adopted by the City Council on June 14, 2010, calling for a
Public Hearing, the assessment roll for the White Bear Avenue / County Rd D Improvements, City
Project 08-13, was presented in a Public Hearing format, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 429,
and;
WHEREAS,the following property owners have filed objections to their assessments according to
the requirements of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 429, summarized as follows:
As of July 19, 2010 staff has received the followingobjections to the proposed assessments:
a.Parcel 02-29-22-21-0008– Denny’s Inc.; 3050 White Bear Avenue
Azure Properties is objecting to the assessment on behalf of Mogren Landscaping, the property
owner, for the following reasons:
1)They do not feel that the property receives benefit from the improvement and the value will
not increase.
2)They feel that revenues will decrease during the construction process.
3)When the property owner settled the condemnation with Ramsey County they were told that
there would be no assessment.
b.Parcel 02-29-22-21-0014 Jiffy Lube/Acapulco Restaurant.; 3069/3073White Bear Avenue
Azure Properties is objecting to the assessment on behalf of Woodring Company, the property
owner, for the following reasons:
1)They do not feel that the property receives benefit from the improvement and the value will
not increase.
2)They feel that revenues will decrease during the construction process.
3)The businesses have access from the ring road of Maplewood Mall and they do not feel that
they should be assessed for improvements to White Bear Avenue and County Road D.
c. Parcel 02-29-22-21-0016– Maplewood Square Shopping Center; 3035White Bear Avenue
Azure Properties is objecting to the assessment on behalf of Maplewood Square Associates, the
property owner, for the following reasons:
1)They do not feel that the property receives benefit from the improvement and the value will
not increase.
2)They feel that revenues will decrease during the construction process.
3)When the property owner settled the condemnation with Ramsey County they were told that
there would be no assessment.
d.Parcel 02-29-22-21-0027– Plaza 3000 Shopping Center; 3000White Bear Avenue
Azure Properties is objecting to the assessment on behalf of Plaza 3000 Partnership, LLP, the
property owner, for the following reasons:
1)Theydo not feel that the property receives benefit from the improvement and the value will
not increase.
2)They feel that revenues will decrease during the construction process.
July 26, 2010 PacketPageNumber10of272 6
City Council MeetingMinutes
3)When the property owner settled the condemnation with Ramsey County they were told that
there would be no assessment.
e.Parcel 02-29-22-24-0003– Maplewood East Shopping Center;2950 White Bear Avenue
Azure Properties is objecting to the assessment on behalf of Maplewood East Associates, the
property owner, for the following reasons:
1)Theydo not feel that the property receives benefit from the improvement and the value will
not increase.
2)They feel that revenues will decrease during the construction process.
3)When the property owner settled the condemnation with Ramsey County they were told that
there would be no assessment.
f.Parcel 02-29-22-21-0015- MHN Restaurant Partnership, LLC, 3065 White Bear Avenue
MHN Restaurant Partnership, LLC, the owner of the Wedding Day Jewelers property, is objecting
to the assessment for the following reasons:
1) They do not feel that the property receives benefit from the improvement and the value will
not increase.
2)They feel that revenues will decrease during the construction process.
g.Parcel 02-29-22-21-0019- Chung Hing Wong, 3070 White Bear Avenue
Chung Hing Wongis objecting to the assessment for the following reasons:
1)They do not feel that the property receives benefit from the improvement and the proposed
special assessment exceeds the special benefits to the property derived from the local public
improvement.
2)They also feel that the City has failed to strictly comply procedurally with the terms and
conditions of Minnesota Statutes Chapter 429.
h.Parcel 02-29-22-21-0005- HLW LLC, 3094 White Bear Avenue
HLW LLC is objecting to the assessment for the following reasons:
1)They do not feel that the property receives benefit from the improvement and the proposed
special assessment exceeds the special benefits to the property derived from the local public
improvement.
2)They also feel that the City has failed to strictly comply procedurally with the terms and
conditions of Minnesota Statutes Chapter 429.
i.Parcel 02-29-22-23-0003- Sears Roebuck and Company, 3001 White Bear Avenue
Sears Roebuck and Company is objecting to the assessment and requesting that the assessment
bereduced to $0 for the following reasons:
1)They do not feel that the property receives benefit from the improvement and the proposed
special assessment exceeds the special benefits to the property derived from the local public
improvement.
2)They also feel that the City has failed to strictly comply procedurally with the terms and
conditions of Minnesota Statutes Chapter 429.
3)They feel that the proposed assessment violates City Code and other Minnesota law and
statutes.
4)They feel that the assessment form is not legal and that other properties who should have
been assessed were not assessed.
j.Parcel 02-29-22-22-0013- Lai Ching Woo, 1900 County Road D East
Lai Ching Woo is requesting that the assessment be cancelled and revised.
k. Parcel 35-35-22-33-0008- Walter F. Whitney, 1905 County Road D East
Walter F. Whitney is objecting to the assessment for the following reasons:
1)They do not feel that the property receives benefit from the improvement and the proposed
special assessment exceeds the special benefits to the property derived from the local public
improvement.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF MAPLEWOOD,
MINNESOTA:
July 26, 2010 PacketPageNumber11of272 7
City Council MeetingMinutes
1.That the City Engineer and City Clerk are hereby instructed to review the objections received and
report to the City Council at the regular meeting on August 9, 2010, as to their recommendations
for adjustments.
2.The assessment roll for the White Bear Avenue / County Rd D Improvements as amended,
without those property owners’ assessments that have filed objections, a copy of which is
attached hereto and made a part hereof, is hereby adopted. Said assessment roll shall constitute
the special assessment against the lands named therein, and each tract of land therein included
is hereby found to be benefited by the proposed improvement in the amount of the assessment
levied against it.
3.Such assessments shall be payable in equal annual installments extending over a period of 8
years, the first installments to be payable on or before the first Monday in January 2011 and shall
bear interest at the rate of 5.0 percent per annum from the date of the adoption of this
assessment resolution. To the first installment shall be added interest on the entire assessment
from the date of this resolution until December 31, 2010. To each subsequent installment when
due shall be added interest for one year on all unpaid installments.
4.The owner of any property so assessed may, at any time prior to certification of the assessment
to the county auditor, but no later than October 1, 2010, pay the whole or partial (25% minimum)
of the assessment on such property, with interest accrued to the date of the payment, to the city
clerk (the city will accept no more than (2) payments), except that no interest shall be charged on
the amount paid within 30 days from the adoption of this resolution; and they may, at any time
after October 1, 2010, pay to the county auditor the entire amount of the assessment remaining
unpaid, with interest accrued to December 31 of the year in which such payment is made. Such
payment must be made before October 15 or interest will be charged through December 31 of the
next succeeding year.
5.The city engineer and city clerk shall forthwith after October 1, 2010, but no later than October 15,
2010, transmit a certified duplicateof this assessment to the county auditor to be extended on the
property tax lists of the county. Such assessments shall be collected and paid over the same
manner as other municipal taxes.
th
Adopted by the Maplewood City Council on this 26day of July,2010.
Seconded by CouncilmemberNephew. Ayes - All
The motion passed.
2.Consider Resolution Revising Date for Public Hearing for Tax Increment Financing
Redevelopment District No. 1-10 for The Shores Project Within Gladstone
Redevelopment Area – To Be Tabled To August 9, 2010
a.Assistant City Manager, Public Works Director, Chuck Ahlgave a briefreport.
Mayor Rossbach opened the public hearing.
Noonecame forward to address the council.
Mayor Rossbach closed the public hearing.
CouncilmemberNephewmoved to approve the resolution that continues the date of the public
hearing from July 26, 2010, to August 9, 2010, for the purpose of discussing the Tax Increment
Financing District for The Shores Development proposal.
July 26, 2010 PacketPageNumber12of272 8
City Council MeetingMinutes
EXTRACT OF MINUTES OF AMEETING OF THE
CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA
HELD: July 26, 2010
Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Maplewood,
th
Ramsey County, Minnesota, was duly held at the City Hall on Monday, the 26day of July, 2010 at 7:00
p.m. for the purpose, in part, of calling a public hearing on the proposed modification of Municipal
Development District No. 1 and the adoption of a Modification to Development Program therefore, the
proposed establishment of Tax Increment Financing (Redevelopment) District No. 1-10 (Lake Phalen
Estates Project) within Development District No. 1 and the proposed adoption of the Tax Increment
Financing Plan relating thereto.
The following members were present: All
andthe following were absent: None
Member Nephew introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION 10-07-433
CALLING PUBLIC HEARING ON THE
PROPOSED ESTABLISHMENT OF MUNICIPAL DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT NO. 1
AND THE ADOPTION OF A DEVELOPMENTPROGRAM THEREFORE, THE
PROPOSED ESTABLISHMENT OF TAX INCREMENT FINANCING
(REDEVELOPMENT) DISTRICT NO. 1-10 WITHIN DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT NO. 1
(LAKE PHALEN ESTATES PROJECT) AND THE PROPOSED ADOPTION OF A TAX
INCREMENT FINANCING PLAN RELATING THERETO
BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council (the “Council”) of the City of Maplewood, Minnesota (the “City”),
as follows:
1.Public Hearing. This Council shall meet on August 9, 2010, at approximately 7:00 p.m., to
hold a public hearing on the following matters: (a) proposed modification of Municipal Development
District No. 1, (b) the adoption of a Modification to Development Program therefore, (c) the proposed
establishment of Tax Increment Financing (Redevelopment) District No. 1-10 (Lake Phalen Estates
Project) (the “Tax Increment Financing District”) within Development District No. 1, and (d) the proposed
adoption of a Tax Increment Financing Plan relating thereto, all pursuant to and in accordance with
Minnesota Statutes, Sections 469.124 through 469.134, both inclusive, as amended and Minnesota
Statutes, Sections 469.174 through 469.1799, both inclusive, as amended (collectively, the “Act”).
2.Notice of Hearing; Filing of Program and Plan
. The City Manager is hereby authorized to
cause a notice of the hearing, substantially in the form attached hereto as Exhibit A, to be published as
required by the Act and to place a copy of the proposed Tax Increment Financing Plan on file in the
Manager’s Office at City Hall and to make such copies available for inspection by the public. It is hereby
acknowledged that the Public Hearing previously called for July 26, 2010 for the same purpose of
consideration is delayed to August 9, 2010.
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by Councilmember
Juenemannand upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor: All
and the following voted against the same: None
July 26, 2010 PacketPageNumber13of272 9
City Council MeetingMinutes
Whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted.
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
) ss.
COUNTY OF RAMSEY )
I, the undersigned, being the duly qualified and City Clerk of the City of Maplewood, Minnesota, DO
HEREBY CERTIFY that the attached resolution is a true and correct copy of an extract of minutes of a
meeting of the City Council of the City of Maplewood, Minnesota duly called and held, as such minutes
relate to the calling of a public hearing on the City’s Tax Increment Financing District.
WITNESS my had this 26th day of July, 2010
______________________________________
City Clerk
Exhibit A
CITY OF MAPLEWOOD
COUNTY OF RAMSEY
STATE OF MINNESOTA
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City Council (the “Council”) of the City of Maplewood,
Ramsey County, Minnesota, will hold a public hearing on Monday, August 9, 2010, at 7:00 p.m., at
the City Hall, in the City of Maplewood, Minnesota, relating to the proposed modification of Municipal
Development District No. 1 and the adoption of a Modification to Development Program therefore, the
proposed establishment of Tax Increment Financing (Redevelopment) District No. 1-10 (Lake Phalen
Estates Project) (the “Tax Increment Financing District”) within Municipal Development District No. 1
and the proposed adoption of a Tax Increment Financing Plan therefore, pursuant to Minnesota
Statutes, Section 469.174 through 469.1799, inclusive, as amended. Copies of the Development
Program and Tax Increment Financing Plan as proposed to be adopted will be on file and available
for public inspection at the office of the City Manager at City Hall.
The property proposed to be included in Development District No. 1 is described in the
Development Program on file in the office of the City Manager. The property proposed to be included
in the Tax Increment Financing District is described in the Tax Increment Financing Plan on file in the
office of the City Manager.
A map of Municipal Development District No. 1 and the Tax Increment Financing District is set
forth:
All interested persons may appear at the hearing and present their views orally or in writing prior to
the hearing.
Seconded by CouncilmemberJuenemann. Ayes - All
The motion passed.
July 26, 2010 PacketPageNumber14of272 10
City Council MeetingMinutes
3.Sign Ordinance Amendment, Temporary Window Signs and Temporary Banners
(First Reading)
a.Environmental Planner, Shann Finwall gave the presentation and answered
questions of the council.
b.City Attorney, Alan Kantrud answered questions of the council.
c. City Manager, James Antonen answered questions of the council.
Mayor Rossbach opened the public hearing.
1.Marv Koppen, representing the White Bear Avenue Business Association. (spoke twice)
2.Matthew Phelps, representing the Dive Bar, 3035 White Bear Avenue, Maplewood.
3.Darren Reid, business owner, 1111 Highway 36, Maplewood. (spoke twice)
Mayor Rossbach closed the public hearing.
Councilmember Juenemannmoved to approve the (first reading) of the temporary window and
banner sign ordinance. This ordinance amends the city’s sign ordinance pertaining to the size of
window signs from 75 percent window cover to 30 percent coverage and time limits from 30 days
to unlimited; and changes the size of banners from 120 square feet in area or 20 percent of the
gross wall area on which it is attached, whichever is greater, to 32 to 64 square feet in area
(depending on zoning district) and time limits from 30 days per banner to 60 days.
Seconded by CouncilmemberLlanas. Ayes - Mayor Rossbach,
Councilmembers Juenemann,
& Llanas
Nays
– Councilmembers Nephew,
& Wasiluk
The motion passed.
Mayor Rossbach recommended for the second reading of this ordinance staff prepare language
which allows forsome type of a waiver or exemption procedure so that business owners who
require additional temporary signage have a means to vary from the temporary sign ordinance
rather than going through the variance process.
Staff agreed to add language pertaining to exemptions for the second reading of the ordinance.
The city council took a 15-minute recess.
I.UNFINISHED BUSINESS
1.Consider Adopting Plan for Implementation for the 2011-2015 Capital
Improvement Plan
a.Assistant City Manager, Public Works Director, Chuck Ahl gave the presentation
and answered questions of the council.
Mayor Rossbach asked if anyone wanted to address the council regarding this item.
1.Peter Fischer, Parks Commission memberaddressed the council.
2.Joe Boeser, Planning Commission memberaddressed the council.
Mayor Rossbachmoved to approve the2011-2015 Capital Improvement Plan.
July 26, 2010 PacketPageNumber15of272 11
City Council MeetingMinutes
Seconded by CouncilmemberNephew. Ayes – All
The motion passed.
2.Human Rights Commission Ordinance (Second Reading)
a.Labor Relations Attorney, Chuck Bethel gave a brief update.
Councilmember Llanasmoved to approve the (second reading) of the human rights commission
ordinance.
Ordinance No. 907
HUMAN RIGHTSCOMMISSION*
Division 2. Human RightsCommission
__________
*Cross references:
Article IV Boards, Committees and Commissions
*State law references:
Department of Human Rights, Minn. Stat. Ch. 363.
__________
Sec. 2-186. Human rights commission.
Sec. 2-186.Statement of Public Policyand Mission
It is hereby declared by the City Council that it is the public policy of the City to fulfill its
responsibility as a partner of the State Department of Human Rights in assisting the State in obtaining
equal opportunity in housing, employment, public accommodations, public services and educationfor all
its citizensand to work consistently to improve the human rights climate of the City. To this end the City
Council adopts this mission statement:
Themission of the Maplewood Human Rights Commission is to aidandadvocate forequal
opportunities for all citizens of Maplewood in: housing, employment, public accommodations,
services and education,in addition to continuously working to improve human rights within the
community.
(Code 1982, § 2-71)
State Law references – Minnesota Human Rights Act, Minn. Stats, Ch. 363; State Department of
Human Rights, Minn. Stats. § 363.04 et seq.
Sec. 2-187.Established
There is hereby established, within the City of Maplewood, a Human Rights Commission.
(Code 1982, § 2-72)
Sec. 2-188.Purpose
The purpose of the Human Rights Commission is to aid and advise the City Council in ensuring
for all citizens of the City equal opportunity in those areas protected by law; and to aid and advise the
City Council regardingother human rights related concerns.
Sec. 2-189. Composition; appointment; terms; compensation; removal
(1)The commission will be composed of seven voting members. All terms end on the first day of
May in the year in which they expire.
(2)The members of the Commission will be appointed by the City Council after due
consideration has been given to their interest and commitment to civil and human rights
principles; to their knowledge in the fieldsof employment, housing, public accommodations,
public services, veterans’ issues, social work, education and other areasaffected by the state
July 26, 2010 PacketPageNumber16of272 12
City Council MeetingMinutes
human rights act (Minn. Stat. Ch. 363); to their ability to serve in a genuine leadership role in the
community by virtue of their positions of responsibility in business and civic affairs; to their ability
to provide adequate representation of the classes of persons protected under the State Human
Rights Act; and to recommendations obtained from various sources including otherhuman rights
committees or commissions.
(3)All members will be appointed for three-year terms that are staggered in order to provide
continuity of policy and program. No member may serve more than three consecutive full terms
except as noted above.
(4) The members of the Commission shall serve without compensation and may be removed
from officepursuant to the policies and procedures established by the City for all boards and
commissions.
(5)The City Council shouldalso attempt to appoint members based on the following criteria in
order to help ensure that the representation on the Commission has the necessary background
and experience to effectively perform its duties:
a. At least two members shouldhave a background and experience inone or more of the
following areas:public housing, civil rights, veterans’ issues, education, employment or
social work.
b. At least one member shouldbe a lawyer with sufficient background and experience in
one or more of the areas noted above to provide meaningful support to the Commission.
c. At least one member shouldrepresent business interests within the community.
d. Up to two members may be at-large members from outside Maplewood; the remaining
members should be Maplewood residents.
(Ord. No. 807, 4-18-95; Ord. No. 818, 10-3-95; Ord. No. 877, § I, 7-6-95; Ord. No. 877, §§ 1A,
1B, 7-6-99; Ord. No. 1008, § 3, 7-7-09)
Sec. 2-190. Duties and Responsibilities
In fulfillment of the purpose of this division, the duties and responsibilities of the Human Rights
Commission must:
(1)Study and review programs and policies and aid the City Council in enlisting the cooperation
of agencies, organizations and individuals in the City in an active program directed to create
equal opportunity and eliminate discrimination and inequalities.
(2)Advise and aid the City Council in implementing recommendations that may be appropriate
to the City including, but not limited to:
a. Specific programs of public information regarding the statutory requirements of the
Minnesota State Human Rights Act (Minn. Stat. Ch. 363).
b. Comprehensive studies and surveys of practices in the community.
c. Programs of affirmative action to be developed with employers, the housing industry,
the educational institutions and government agencies.
d. Programs of review to give and gain information regarding compliance with state
requirements concerning equal opportunity.
e. Programs designed to alleviate community tension and embrace and celebrate
diversity.
f. Programs designed to create a genuine climate of community readiness toaccept
orderly and demonstrable change in eliminating barriers to equal opportunity.
(3)Attempt to conciliate, within its authority, all grievances involving discrimination occurring
within the City and make all appropriate reports to the City Council and State Department of
Human Rights.
(4)Establish committees, as the Commission finds it to be necessary, in the following areas:
a. Employment and housing.
b. Public information.
c. Public services
d. Legislation.
e. Liaison with other organizations including other city commissions and agencies.
July 26, 2010 PacketPageNumber17of272 13
City Council MeetingMinutes
(5)Perform such other functions concerning human rights as the City Council may from time to
time direct.
(6) Prepare and submit a report to the City Council on a semi-annual basis describing its actions
and activities during the year, along with recommendations for changes which the Commission
may deem desirable.
(7) The Commission must formulate bylaws to govern all other matters relating to the conduct and
operation of the Commission, officers and duties, dates and conduct of meetings, quorum and
other relevant matters including, but not limited to, amendments ofthe bylaws. The bylaws of the
Commission and any amendments thereto must be submitted to the City Council for approval.
(Code 1980, § 25.01)
Cross references:
Conditions for appointment to City Boards and Commissions, § 22-8.
The approval of Ordinance No. 907does hereby repeal City Code Section 2-186 through 2-190.
This ordinance shall take effect after publishing in the official newspaper. The Maplewood City
Council approved this ordinance on July 26, 2010.
Seconded by CouncilmemberJuenemann. Ayes – All
The motion passed.
J.NEW BUSINESS
1.Approval of New Currency Exchange License for EZ Cash – Applicant Deborah
Schraber
a.City Clerk, Director Citizen Services, Karen Guilfoile gave the report.
b.BrettSchraber, EZ CashOwner, 3035 White Bear Avenue, Maplewood addressed the
council.
Councilmember Nephewmoved to approve thelicense for Deborah Schraber to operate EZ Cash
formerly known as Cashway Checking at 3035 White Bear Avenue.
Seconded by CouncilmemberJuenemann. Ayes – All
The motion passed.
stnd
2.Approval of Rolling Hills of Maplewood Mobile Home Park 1and 2Addition–
Conditional Use Permit Revision, 1316 Pearson Drive
a.Senior Planner, Tom Ekstrand gave the report and answered questions of the council.
i.Planning Commission Member, Joe Boeser, addressed the council.
ii.Attorney, Thomas DeVincke, Mesa Dunes MNC Investors, LLC, Rolling Hills of
Maplewood Mobile Home Park, addressed and answered questions of the council.
Councilmember Nephewmoved to approve theresolution approving a conditional use permit
stnd
revision for Rolling Hills of Maplewood Mobile Home Park 1and 2Additions. Approval is
subject to the findings required by ordinance and subject to the findings required by ordinance
and subject to the following conditions (deletions are crossed out and additions are underlined):
(including the word change of number 11 in the staff recommendations)
July 26, 2010 PacketPageNumber18of272 14
City Council MeetingMinutes
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REVISION
RESOLUTION10-07-434
WHEREAS, Thomas F. DeVincke, Esquire, Mesa Dunes MNC Investors, LLC, owners of Rolling Hills of
Maplewood Mobile Home Park, applied for a conditional use permit revision to revised the conditions of the
stnd
conditional use permit for Rolling Hills 1and 2Addition to be allowed to place used homes in the park
rather than the original requirement that all homes placed in the park be new.
WHEREAS, this permit applies to the property located on the west side of Century Avenue between Ivy
Avenue and the Chicago and Northwest Railroad tracks, addressed as 1316 Pearson Drive. The legal
description is:
The SE’ly ¼ of the NE’ly ¼ of Section 24, Township 29, Range 22, lying southeasterly of the
Chicago and Northwest Railroad right-of-way, in Ramsey County, Minnesota.
and
The NE’ly ¼ of the SE’ly ¼ of Section 24, Township 29, Range 22 in Ramsey County, MN.
WHEREAS, the history of this conditional use permit revision is as follows:
1.On July 6, 2010, 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 July 26, 2010, the city council considered reports and recommendations of the city staff and
planning commission.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the city council passedthe above-described conditional use
permit revision, because:
1.The use would be located, designed, maintained, constructed and operated to be in conformity with
the City's Comprehensive Plan and Code of Ordinances.
2.The use would not change the existing or planned character of the surrounding area.
3.The use would not depreciate property values.
4.The use would not involve any activity, process, materials, equipment or methods of operation that
would be dangerous, hazardous, detrimental, disturbing or cause a nuisance to any person or
property, because of excessive noise, glare, smoke, dust, odor, fumes, water or air pollution,
drainage, water run-off, vibration, general unsightliness, electrical interference or other nuisances.
5.The use would not exceed the design standards of any affected street.
6.The use would be served by adequate public facilities and services, including streets, police and fire
protection, drainage structures, water and sewer systems, schools and parks.
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'snatural and scenic features
into the development design.
July 26, 2010 PacketPageNumber19of272 15
City Council MeetingMinutes
9.The use would cause no more than minimal adverse environmental effects.
stnd
Revised/Combined Motion for both the Rolling Hills 1and 2Additions
1.Compliance with all building code requirements.
2.There shall be no exterior storage of equipment such as bikes, hoses, lawnmowers, rakes, etc.
3.Each lot shall be allowed an exteriorstorage shed of no more than 120 square feet. Sheds must
be kept in good repair.
4.Each lot shall be allowed to have children’s play equipment unless the developer provides a tot
lot adjacent to the community building.
5.All mobile homes shall be skirted and tied down. Skirting shall extend from the frame of the
chassis to the ground. Skirting must match the mobile home.
6.Manufacturedhomes to be placed in the park are no longer required to be new. All homes to be
moved into the park must meet allcurrentbuilding code and fire code requirements.
7.The sign regulations for the R3 district shall apply.
8.The following minimum setbacks shall apply for dwellings:
Twenty feet to a private street.
st
Thirty feet to any public right-of-way for homes in the 1Addition.
nd
Forty-seven feet to the Century Avenue right-of-way for homes in the 2Addition.
Five foot side yard setback on the side opposite the entry side.
Twenty foot side yard setback on the entry side.
Seventy feet to a railroad track.
Ten feet to any adjacent dwelling for a deck or car port.
Six feet to a private street for a carport (carports shall not have walls).
nd
Forty-seven feet to the Century Avenue right-of-way for a shed in the 2Addition.
9.The storm shelter shall be kept free of storage. The shelter shall be kept open at all times or keys
shall be made available to all residents in a manner to be approved by the Director of Public
Safety.
10.All shelters and restroom facilities within shelters shall be kept sanitary and well maintained.
parkinfrastructure
11.The propertyowner shall be responsible for maintaining all internal
improvements.
12.Water lines shall be flushed at least once a year.
13.Parking shall only be permitted on one side of each street. No parking shall be permitted closer
than thirty feet to any intersection. These requirements are subject to the review and approval of
the police chief.
14.There shall be no driveway access to Century Avenue or Ivy Avenue from the individual
manufactured home sites.
15.Internal traffic signs shall be installed subject to the approval of the police chief.
July 26, 2010 PacketPageNumber20of272 16
City Council MeetingMinutes
16.Adherence to the approved site plan and related conditions. Any significant change must be
approved by the community design review board. Minor changes may be approved by staff. The
number of home sites shall not be increased without the revision of this conditional use permit.
The Maplewood City Council passed this resolution on July 26, 2010.
Seconded by CouncilmemberJuenemann. Ayes – All
The motion passed.
3.Acceptance of Comprehensive Annual Financial Report – 2009
a.Assistant City Manager, Public Works Director, Chuck Ahl gave the report and answered
questions of the council.
Mayor Rossbach asked if anyone wanted to address the council regarding this item.
1.Elizabeth Sletten, 2747 Clarence Street, Maplewood.
Councilmember Nephewmoved to approve thecomprehensive annual financial report for 2009.
Secondedby CouncilmemberLlanas. Ayes – All
The motion passed.
4.Approval of Western Hills/Larpenteur Area Street Improvements, Project 10-14,
Resolution Ordering Preparation of Feasibility Study
a. City Engineer, Deputy Public Works Director, Michael Thompsongave a brief reportand
answered questions of the council.
Councilmember Nephewmoved to approve theresolution ordering the preparation of the
feasibility study for the Western Hills/Larpenteur Area Street Improvements, City Project 10-14.
RESOLUTION 10-07-435
ORDERING PREPARATION OF A FEASIBILITY STUDY
WHEREAS, it is proposed to make improvements to the Western Hills/Larpenteur Area Streets,
City Project 10-14 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 $80,000 are appropriated to prepare this feasibility
report.
th
Approved this 26day of July 2010.
July 26, 2010 PacketPageNumber21of272 17
City Council MeetingMinutes
Seconded by CouncilmemberJuenemann. Ayes – All
The motion passed.
5.Approval of Sidewalk Improvement (County Road C East of White Bear Avenue),
Project 10-08, Resolution Ordering Work to be Done by Day Labor
a.City Engineer, Deputy Public Works Director, Michael Thompson gave a brief report and
answered questions of the council.
Councilmember Juenemannmoved to approve theresolution ordering work to be done by day
labor for the sidewalk improvement (County Road C East of White Bear Avenue), City Project 10-
08.
RESOLUTION 10-07-436
ORDERING WORK TO BE DONE BY DAY LABOR
th
WHEREAS, on this 26day of July 2010, the city engineer has presented plans and
specifications for the Sidewalk Improvement (County Road C East of White Bear Avenue), City Project
10-08,
AND WHEREAS adoption of the resolution ordering work to be done by day labor shall signify
approval of plans and specifications,
AND WHEREAS, the estimated cost of such improvement does not exceed $25,000, and is
currently estimated at $8,500.00.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA:
1.The city engineer shall proceed under the direction of the council, as given from time to
time, to carry on all work in connection with such improvement in accordance with the plans and
specifications herein approved.
2.The finance director ishereby authorized to transfer $8,500.00into the Street
Maintenance budget 101-502-000-4180 from excess G.O. Improvement funds in City Project 08-10, in
order to complete the sidewalk improvement.
Seconded by Mayor Rossbach. Ayes – All
The motion passed.
6.Approval of The Shores at Lake Phalen – Planned Unit Development, Wetland Buffer
Variance, Lot Division and Design Review, 940 Frost Avenue
(This item was tabled until either August 9 or August 23, 2010)
7.Call Special Meeting of the City Council August 13, 2010
July 26, 2010 PacketPageNumber22of272 18
City Council MeetingMinutes
a.City Clerk, Director Citizen Services, Karen Guilfoile gave the report.
Councilmember Nephewmoved to approve calling for a special meeting to be held on Friday,
4:00
August 13, 2010, at p.m. in council chambers for the purpose of canvassing the Special
Municipal Election results.
Seconded by CouncilmemberLlanas. Ayes – All
The motion passed.
K.VISITOR PRESENTATIONS
None.
AWARD OF BIDS
L.
1.Lift Station 8 Rehabilitation, Project 10-01, Resolution Receiving Bids and Awarding
Construction Contract
a.City Engineer, Deputy Public Works Director, Michael Thompson gave the report.
Mayor Rossbachmoved to approve the resolution receiving bids and awarding construction
contract to Magney Construction, Inc., in the amount of $144,650.00 for Lift Station 8
Rehabilitation, City Project 10-01.
RESOLUTION 10-07-437
AWARD OF BIDS
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA, that the bid of
Magney Construction, Inc. in the amount of $144,650.00, is the lowest responsible bid for the upgrades
to Lift Station No.8, City Project 10-01, and the mayor and clerk are hereby authorized and directed to
enter into a contract with said bidder for and on behalf of the city.
The finance director is hereby authorized to make the financial transfers necessary to implement
the financing plan for the project.
th
Adopted by the council on this 26day of July, 2010.
Seconded by CouncilmemberWasiluk. Ayes – All
The motion passed.
M.ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS
1.Taste of Maplewood Update –
City Clerk, Director Citizen Services, Karen Guilfoileinvited
the public to the Taste of Maplewood at Goodrich Park, 1980 North St. Paul Road,
Maplewood.The event will be Friday,August 6 from 4 – 10 p.m. & August 7 from 10 a.m. to
10 p.m.
N.COUNCIL PRESENTATIONS
1.National Night Out –
Maplewood Police Chief Thomalla reminded people National Night Out
isTuesday, August 3, 2010. If the public isinterested in having a gathering in their
neighborhood they should contact the police department for additionalinformation.
July 26, 2010 PacketPageNumber23of272 19
City Council MeetingMinutes
2.Housing Improvement Areas –
Councilmember Wasilukstated she received an email from
a condominium owner who waslooking toget assistance from the city regardingthe city
selling revenue bonds to assist home ownersinbringingtheirtownhomes up to a better
standard.
Councilmember Nephew said he also received an email from a resident and he discussed
these issues with DuWayne Konewko, Community Developmentand Parks Director. Mr.
Konewko stated he spoke to someone with the bond council and when he receives the
information he will report back to the city council regarding the findings forthe revenue bonds.
O.ADJOURNMENT
Mayor Rossbachadjourned the meeting at 10:40p.m.
July 26, 2010 PacketPageNumber24of272 20
City Council MeetingMinutes
G-1
AGENDA NO.
AGENDA REPORT
TO:City Council
Finance Manager
FROM:
RE:APPROVAL OF CLAIMS
August 9, 2010
DATE:
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:
$ 694,802.46Checks # 81809 thru # 81873
dated 07/20/10 thru 07/27/10
$ 115,284.26Disbursements via debits to checking account
dated 07/16/10 thru7/23/10
$ 357,091.78Checks # 81874 thru # 81954
dated 7/30/10 thru 8/03/10
$ 367,452.96Disbursements via debits to checking account
dated 7/23/10 thru 7/30/10
$ 1,534,631.46Total Accounts Payable
PAYROLL
$ 595,358.07Payroll Checks and Direct Deposits dated 07/23/10
$ 2,736.75Payroll Deduction check # 1009253 thru #1009255
dated 07/23/2010
$ 598,094.82Total Payroll
$ 2,132,726.28GRAND 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
PacketPageNumber25of272
P:\APPROVAL OF CLAIMS\2010\AprClms 7-23-10 and 7-30-10.xlt
Check Register
City of Maplewood
07/22/2010
CheckDateVendorDescriptionAmount
8180907/20/201002464US BANKFUNDS FOR ATMS8,000.00
8181007/27/201004206H.A. KANTRUDPROSECUTION & LEAGAL SRVS - AUG16,100.00
8181107/27/201000687HUGO'S TREE CARE INCTREE TRIMMING - BROKEN BRANCHES1,335.94
07/27/201000687HUGO'S TREE CARE INCPROJ 08-20 TREE REMOVAL264.52
07/27/201000687HUGO'S TREE CARE INCTREE TRIMMING - BROKEN BRANCHES213.75
8181207/27/201001337RAMSEY COUNTY-PROP REC & REV911 DISPATCH SERVICE - JUNE20,868.34
8181307/27/201001360REINHART FOODSERVICEMDSE FOR RESALE320.38
8181407/27/201001190XCEL ENERGYELECTRIC & GAS UTILITY5,479.46
07/27/201001190XCEL ENERGYELECTRIC & GAS UTILITY2,720.88
07/27/201001190XCEL ENERGYELECTRIC UTILITY1,962.23
07/27/201001190XCEL ENERGYELECTRIC & GAS UTILITY268.73
07/27/201001190XCEL ENERGYFIRE SIRENS47.86
8181507/27/201001798YOCUM OIL CO.CONTRACT GASOLINE - JULY14,198.40
8181607/27/2010005041ST LINE/LEEWES VENTURES LLCMDSE FOR RESALE159.00
8181707/27/201004127A E SIGN SYSTEMS, INC.NAME PLATES53.44
8181807/27/201004145ALL SAFE INC.RECHARGE FIRE EXTS54.01
8181907/27/201004471B&B AVM INC.SOUND TECH & EQUIP RENTAL MCC750.00
07/27/201004471B&B AVM INC.SOUND TECH & EQUIP RENTAL MCC400.00
8182007/27/201004533CLIFFORD BERGGRENESCROW RELEASE 1742 HOWARD303.97
8182107/27/201003738CHARLES E. BETHELRETAINER FOR LEGAL SRVS/RENT-AUG6,375.00
8182207/27/201003486BUBERL BLACK DIRT INCDIRT FOR WAKEFIELD PICNIC SHELTER448.88
8182307/27/201000261CAREFREE COTTAGES OF MAPLEWOODTIF PAYMENT TO DEVELOPER35,583.50
8182407/27/201004536ROBERT CARPENTERESCROW RELEASE 2594 ENGLISH ST N304.49
8182507/27/201000272NICHOLAS CARVERREIMB FOR MILEAGE 7/1490.00
8182607/27/201003200KEVIN COFFEYREIMB FOR MEALS & PDA PHONE 6/16-22261.65
8182707/27/201000309COMMISSIONER OF TRANSPORTATIONPROJ 09-04 ENGINEERING TESTING228.13
8182807/27/201000003ESCROW REFUNDESCROW REL W HRUBY 1720 DESOTO100.00
8182907/27/201001401FIRST STUDENT INCDAY CAMP BUS FEE MALL OF AMERICA350.00
8183007/27/201002071DAVID FISHERREIMB FOR MILEAGE 7/14-1681.00
8183107/27/201002945HEALTHEAST VEHICLE SERVICESCOMP POWER SUPPLY46.02
8183207/27/201003597MARY JO HOFMEISTERREIMB FOR MILEAGE 6/22 - 7/1614.25
8183307/27/201004306INSTANT WHIP-MINNEAPOLIS, INC.MDSE FOR RESALE184.90
04306MDSE FOR RESALE128.81
07/27/2010INSTANT WHIP-MINNEAPOLIS, INC.
8183407/27/201004095BERNARD JUNGMANNREIMB FOR TUITION 5/1 - 6/30750.00
8183504534MUSIC AT EXTREME GREEN MAKEOVER100.00
07/27/2010THOMAS KLEIN
8183607/27/201000809TOMMY KONGREIMB FOR UNIFORM/KNIFE 7/864.26
8183707/27/201000827L M C I TWORK COMP QUARTERLY JUL-SEP 2010109,728.50
07/27/201000827L M C I TVOLUNTEER ACCIDENT PLAN 7/10-7/111,813.00
8183807/27/201000393 DEPT OF LABOR & INDUSTRYMONTH SURTAX - JUNE 94731230351,938.88
8183907/27/201002336M A TAYLOR INCFITNESS CONSULTANT SRVS 2ND QTR1,500.00
8184007/27/201000983METRO SALES INCLEASE PMT 7/15 - 8/151,403.27
8184107/27/201000985METROPOLITAN COUNCILWASTEWATER - AUGUST214,216.69
8184207/27/201000986METROPOLITAN COUNCILMONTHLY SAC - JUNE93,555.00
8184307/27/201004193MIDAMERICA AUCTIONSFORFEITED VEHICLE STORAGE - JULY2,250.00
8184407/27/201004316CITY OF MINNEAPOLIS RECEIVABLESAUTO PAWN SYSTEM - JUNE918.00
8184507/27/201003838MN FIAM BOOK SALESBOOKS FOR IN HOUSE HAZ MAT CLASS427.50
8184607/27/201000901MN GFOAANNUAL CONFERENCE225.00
8184707/27/201001175CITY OF NORTH ST PAULMONTHLY UTILITIES3,032.94
8184807/27/201004507NORTHERN TECHNOLOGIES, INC.PROJ 09-15 ENGINEERING TESTING7,072.00
8184907/27/201000001ONE TIME VENDORREFUND PRIDE ENERGY BL-10-2634692.50
8185007/27/201000001ONE TIME VENDORREFUND STEWART HP BENEFIT60.00
8185107/27/201000001ONE TIME VENDORREFUND H LEWIS HP BENEFIT20.00
8185207/27/201000001ONE TIME VENDORREFUND J RILEY HP BENEFIT20.00
8185307/27/201000001ONE TIME VENDORREFUND P FREIBERGER HP BENEFITS20.00
8185407/27/201001941PATRICK TROPHIESAWARD PLAQUE32.04
8185507/27/201001254PEPSI-COLA COMPANYMDSE FOR RESALE635.62
PacketPageNumber26of272
8185607/27/201002400PERKINS INC2010 CHEVROLET IMPALA21,392.25
8185707/27/201004221RANDY'S MEATS & GOOD STUFFMDSE FOR RESALE231.60
8185807/27/201004535REFUGIA, LLCTHISTLE CONTROL MAPLE HILLS300.00
8185907/27/201002001CITY OF ROSEVILLEMONTHLY JOINT POWER SRVS - JULY625.00
8186007/27/201001387DR. JAMES ROSSINIADMIN FEE FOR STRESS TEST - JULY100.00
8186107/27/201004264RWMWDCIP 2009 MAINT/REPAIRS PROJ WORK38,055.63
8186207/27/201001409S.E.H.LIONS PARK STORM PLAN7,561.59
07/27/201001409S.E.H.WETLAND MONITORING JOY & CO D773.05
07/27/201001409S.E.H.NPDES MS4 REPORTING ASSISTANCE448.69
8186307/27/201003879SANSIOEMS FEES - AUGUST616.75
8186407/27/201001430SCHROEDER MILK COMPANY, INC.TIF PAYMENT TO DEVELOPER19,555.34
8186507/27/201004043SCHWAN FOOD COMDSE FOR RESALE47.75
8186607/27/201003616SIBLEY COVE, LTD PARTNERSHIPTIF PAYMENT TO DEVELOPER29,206.43
8186707/27/201002274SPRINTSPRINT SERVICES 6/15 - 7/145,554.37
8186807/27/201001823ST CROIX RECREATION CO INCGRILLS FOR WAKEFIELD PICNIC SHELTER520.48
8186907/27/201001836CITY OF ST PAULCRIME LAB SERVICES - JUNE230.00
8187007/27/201004055JAMES TAYLORREIMB FOR MILEAGE 4/3 - 7/20218.15
8187107/27/201004131TROPICAL BALLROOMBALLROOM INSTRUCTION402.00
8187207/27/201003825VAN DYKE STREET HOMESTIF PAYMENT TO DEVELOPER10,856.99
8187307/27/201001750THE WATSON CO INCMDSE FOR RESALE376.79
07/27/201001750THE WATSON CO INCMDSE FOR RESALE156.86
694,802.46
65Checks in this report.
PacketPageNumber27of272
CITY OF MAPLEWOOD
Disbursements via Debits to Checking account
TransmittedSettlement
DateDatePayeeDescriptionAmount
07/16/1007/19/10MonMN State TreasurerDrivers License/Deputy Registrar(city clrk)10,959.50
07/16/1007/19/10MN Dept of Natural ResourcesDNR electronic licenses848.50
07/19/1007/20/10TuesMN State TreasurerDrivers License/Deputy Registrar(city clrk)14,716.50
07/19/1007/20/10MN State TreasurerDrivers License/Deputy Registrar(city clrk)3,892.90
07/20/1007/21/10WedMN State TreasurerDrivers License/Deputy Registrar(city clrk)11,257.47
07/20/1007/21/10MN Dept of RevenueSales Tax3,838.00
07/21/1007/22/10ThurMN State TreasurerDrivers License/Deputy Registrar(city clrk)14,727.71
07/21/1007/22/10US Bank VISA One Card*Purchasing Card Items45,755.33
07/22/1007/23/10FriMN State TreasurerDrivers License/Deputy Registrar(city clrk)8,956.37
07/22/1007/23/10MN Dept of RevenueFuel Tax331.98
TOTAL115,284.26
*Detailed listing of VISA purchases is attached.
PacketPageNumber28of272
Check Register
City of Maplewood
07/29/2010
CheckDateVendorDescriptionAmount
8187407/30/201002464US BANKFUNDS FOR ATMS20,000.00
8187508/03/201001936CHAD BERGOREIMB FOR INTERNET - JULY63.31
8187608/03/201002728KIMLEY-HORN & ASSOCIATES INCPROJ 10-07 PROF SRVS THRU 6/3021,423.35
08/03/201002728KIMLEY-HORN & ASSOCIATES INCPROJ 10-09 PROF SRVS THRU 6/3014,515.95
08/03/201002728KIMLEY-HORN & ASSOCIATES INCPROJ 08-13 PROF SRVS THRU 6/308,283.90
08/03/201002728KIMLEY-HORN & ASSOCIATES INCPROJ 04-21 PROF SRVS THRU 6/307,221.25
08/03/201002728KIMLEY-HORN & ASSOCIATES INCPROJ 08-13 PROF SRVS THRU 6/304,942.04
08/03/201002728KIMLEY-HORN & ASSOCIATES INCPROJ 03-07 PROF SRVS THRU 6/302,933.55
08/03/201002728KIMLEY-HORN & ASSOCIATES INCPROJ 02-21 PROF SRVS THRU 6/301,508.65
8187708/03/201001337RAMSEY COUNTY-PROP REC & REVSHRUBS & MULCH FOR RAINGARDENS90.84
8187808/03/201001190XCEL ENERGYELECTRIC & GAS UTILITY26,651.70
08/03/201001190XCEL ENERGYELECTRIC UTILITY13,274.17
08/03/201001190XCEL ENERGYELECTRIC UTILITY1,375.23
8187908/03/2010005041ST LINE/LEEWES VENTURES LLCMDSE FOR RESALE242.25
8188008/03/201004539AAMODT'S HOT AIR BALLOON RIDESDEPOSIT FOR TASTE OF MAPLEWOOD350.00
8188108/03/201004444ABSEY ENTERTAINMENT INC.RHINO BAND TASTE OF MAPLEWOOD1,250.00
8188208/03/201002510ANIMALS OF WALTON'S HOLLOWPETTING ZOO AT TASTE OF MAPLEWOOD1,600.00
8188308/03/201000174STAN BELDESECURITY OFFICE MCC JULY 24192.50
8188408/03/201004508BETWEEN THE LINESUMPIRES SUMMER SOFTBALL4,550.00
8188508/03/201000211BRAUN INTERTEC CORP.PROJ 09-04 ENGINEERING TESTING2,149.00
8188608/03/201000240C.S.C. CREDIT SERVICESAPPLICANT BACKGROUND CHECKS60.00
8188708/03/201002929CNAGLACMONTHLY PREMIUM - AUGUST515.76
8188808/03/201004342CRIME STOPPERS OF MINNESOTALAW ENFORCEMENT CRIME STOPPER150.00
8188908/03/201001372DYNAMEX INC.DELIVERY OF BOND DOCUMENTS22.10
8189008/03/201000462EMBEDDED SYSTEMS, INC.REPAIR EM SIREN392.47
8189108/03/201001401FIRST STUDENT INCDAY CAMP BUS FEE WILD WOODS WATER 350.00
8189208/03/201004064DEREK FRITZEREIMB FOR FIREARM 7/23339.75
8189308/03/201001965HEALTH PARTNERSREFUND INS FOR TRANS MEDIC MW009621,703.09
8189408/03/201001965HEALTH PARTNERSREFUND INS FOR TRANS MEDIC MW0009931,564.78
8189508/03/201001965HEALTH PARTNERSREFUND INS FOR TRANS MEDIC MW009421,559.17
8189608/03/201001965HEALTH PARTNERSREFUND INS FOR TRANS MEDIC MW9356882.74
8189708/03/201000644HEALTHPARTNERSMONTHLY PREMIUM - AUGUST10,392.80
8189808/03/201004428HELLO! BOOKING, INC.G.B. LEIGHTON TASTE OF MAPLEWOOD3,250.00
8189908/03/201004428HELLO! BOOKING, INC.M ZELLAR TASTE OF MAPLEWOOD3,000.00
8190008/03/201003818MEDICAMONTHLY PREMIUM - AUGUST164,717.27
8190108/03/201004542MERRY BOBB MUSIC, INC.2 SHOWS AT TASTE OF MAPLEWOOD937.00
8190208/03/201001085MN LIFE INSURANCEMONTHLY PREMIUM - AUGUST3,737.25
8190308/03/201001126MN NCPERS LIFE INSURANCEMONTHLY PREMIUM - AUGUST448.00
8190408/03/201004537MU PERFORMING ARTSMU DRUMMERS TASTE OF MAPLEWOOD400.00
8190508/03/201004103JOHN NEPHEWREIMB FOR INT & MILEAGE 6/23 - 7/7115.14
8190608/03/201000001ONE TIME VENDORWOODLAND HILLS CHURCH-IRRIGATION SY877.29
8190708/03/201000001ONE TIME VENDORREIMB G FLASCH IRRIGATION SYS352.50
8190808/03/201000001ONE TIME VENDORREIMB K SMITH TOWING EXP281.76
8190908/03/201000001ONE TIME VENDORREFUND J OLESEN GOLF199.00
8191008/03/201000001ONE TIME VENDORREFUND T ENGBERG DAY CAMP120.00
8191108/03/201000001ONE TIME VENDORREFUND J LORENZ MEMBERSHIP $ DIFF80.34
8191208/03/201000001ONE TIME VENDORREFUND JOHNSON'S HP BENEFIT80.00
8191308/03/201000001ONE TIME VENDORREFUND H RUSTHOVEN MEDICA BENEFIT80.00
8191408/03/201000001ONE TIME VENDORREFUND C STMICHEL MEDICA BENEFIT80.00
8191508/03/201000001ONE TIME VENDORREFUND B COLVIN MEDICA BENEFIT60.00
8191608/03/201000001ONE TIME VENDORREFUND L DEVRIES MEDICA BENEFIT60.00
8191708/03/201000001ONE TIME VENDORREFUND P HUTCHINGS MEDICA BENEFIT60.00
8191808/03/201000001ONE TIME VENDORREFUND D LAMBERT BCBS BENEFIT60.00
8191908/03/201000001ONE TIME VENDORREFUND FOR TRANS MEDIC MW0086657.76
PacketPageNumber29of272
8192008/03/201000001ONE TIME VENDORREFUND S CORCORAN MEDICA BENEFIT40.00
8192108/03/201000001ONE TIME VENDORREFUND W GUNAWAN MEDICA BENEFIT40.00
8192208/03/201000001ONE TIME VENDORREFUND N MEYSEMBOURG MEDICA BENEF40.00
8192308/03/201000001ONE TIME VENDORREFUND A OSS MEDICA BENEFIT40.00
8192408/03/201000001ONE TIME VENDORREFUND J RAUSCH MEDICA BENEFIT40.00
8192508/03/201000001ONE TIME VENDORREFUND C VANROSSUM MEDICA BENEFIT40.00
8192608/03/201000001ONE TIME VENDORREFUND L WASCHBUSCH MEDICA BENEFIT40.00
8192708/03/201000001ONE TIME VENDORREFUND S SOMORA MEMBERSHIP26.78
8192808/03/201000001ONE TIME VENDORREFUND B MANTHEY MEDICA BENEFIT20.00
8192908/03/201000001ONE TIME VENDORREFUND G TURNING MEDICA BENEFIT20.00
8193008/03/201004276PARTNERS IN EDUCATION INCINSTRUCTOR FEES 7/15 - 8/19288.00
8193108/03/201001941PATRICK TROPHIESYOUTH SOFTBALL AWARDS894.66
8193208/03/201001344RAMSEY COUNTY PARKS & REC.GOLF CART RENTAL TASTE OF MAPLEWOO60.00
8193308/03/201002008RAMSEY COUNTY PUBLIC WORKSTRAFFIC SIGNAL MAINTENANCE1,217.61
08/03/201002008RAMSEY COUNTY PUBLIC WORKSTRAFFIC SIGNAL MAINTENANCE153.72
08/03/201002008RAMSEY COUNTY PUBLIC WORKSPROJ 03-15 CONSTRUCTION COSTS151.22
08/03/201002008RAMSEY COUNTY PUBLIC WORKSTRAFFIC SIGNAL MAINTENANCE115.29
08/03/201002008RAMSEY COUNTY PUBLIC WORKSTRAFFIC SIGNAL MAINTENANCE76.87
8193408/03/201003344WILL ROSSBACHREIMB FOR INTERNET MARCH-JULY239.75
8193508/03/201004541RYAN CAREY / GROUNDHOUSETASTE OF MAPLEWOOD ENTERTAINMENT500.00
8193608/03/201001418SAM'S CLUB DIRECTMDSE FOR RESALE294.17
08/03/201001418SAM'S CLUB DIRECTEDGERTON GYM/DAY CAMP SUPPLIES261.86
08/03/201001418SAM'S CLUB DIRECTVENDING MACHINE SUPPLIES203.07
08/03/201001418SAM'S CLUB DIRECTMDSE FOR RESALE166.92
08/03/201001418SAM'S CLUB DIRECTMDSE FOR RESALE166.22
08/03/201001418SAM'S CLUB DIRECTMDSE FOR RESALE155.68
08/03/201001418SAM'S CLUB DIRECTFISHING PIER DEDICATION SUPPLIES94.40
08/03/201001418SAM'S CLUB DIRECTDAY CAMP SUPPLIES68.96
08/03/201001418SAM'S CLUB DIRECTPATIO PLANTS26.67
08/03/201001418SAM'S CLUB DIRECTGRAB BAG BINGO/DAYCAMP SUPPLIES16.81
08/03/201001418SAM'S CLUB DIRECTB-DAY PROG SUPPLIES16.64
8193708/03/201004074ELAINE SCHRADETAI CHI INSTRUCTOR 6/9 - 8/11267.00
8193808/03/201004043SCHWAN FOOD COMDSE FOR RESALE74.72
08/03/201004043SCHWAN FOOD COMDSE FOR RESALE20.78
8193908/03/201001463SISTER ROSALIND GEFREMCC MASSAGES - JUNE1,662.00
8194008/03/201000198ST PAUL REGIONAL WATER SRVSFIRE HYD WATER METERS TASTE OF MW1,000.00
8194108/03/201001836CITY OF ST PAULCAD FEES - APRIL-JUNE2,700.00
08/03/201001836CITY OF ST PAULRADIO SHOP SERVICES - JUNE230.01
8194208/03/201001836CITY OF ST PAULRENTAL OF SHOWMOBILE TASTE OF MW1,000.00
8194308/03/201003577CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARKRENTAL OF SHOWMOBILE TASTE OF MW2,940.00
8194408/03/201001516MARY PAULINE STAPLESCONSULTING SRVS JUNE 1 - JULY 22,607.50
08/03/201001516MARY PAULINE STAPLESREIMB FOR CANDY FOR RAMSEY FAIR209.65
8194508/03/201001545SUBURBAN RATE AUTHORITYMEMBERSHIP ASSESSMENT 2ND HALF1,600.00
8194608/03/201004538T & E CONCERT SERVICESSOUND FOR BAND TASTE OF MW300.00
8194708/03/201001574T.A. SCHIFSKY & SONS, INCBITUMINOUS MATERIALS - STREET925.94
08/03/201001574T.A. SCHIFSKY & SONS, INCRECYCLED BASE WAKEFIELD PARK PROJ469.85
8194808/03/201001618DAVID THOMALLAREIMB - NATIONAL NIGHT OUT SUPPLIES59.71
8194908/03/201004540TRICAREREFUND INS FOR TRANS MEDIC MW971584.41
8195008/03/201004540TRICAREREFUND INS FOR TRANS MEDIC MW9139783.04
8195108/03/201000529UNION SECURITY INSURANCE COLTD PLAN 4043120-2 - AUGUST2,811.47
08/03/201000529UNION SECURITY INSURANCE COSTD PLAN 4043120-1 - AUGUST1,973.74
8195208/03/201001698UNITED WAY OF THE ST. PAULQUARTERLY PAYMENT - 2ND QTR133.00
8195308/03/201002464US BANKCASH BOX - TASTE OF MAPLEWOOD1,500.00
8195408/03/201003809CASIE WYFFELSRED CROSS BABYSITTING INSTRUCTOR120.00
357,091.78
81Checks in this report.
PacketPageNumber30of272
CITY OF MAPLEWOOD
Disbursements via Debits to Checking account
TransmittedSettlement
DateDatePayeeDescriptionAmount
07/23/1007/26/10MonMN State TreasurerDrivers License/Deputy Registrar(city clrk)9,291.50
07/23/1007/26/10INGDeferred Compensation24,424.00
07/23/1007/26/10ICMA (Vantagepointe)Deferred Compensation3,324.65
07/23/1007/26/10MN Dept of Natural ResourcesDNR electronic licenses827.94
07/26/1007/27/10TuesMN State TreasurerDrivers License/Deputy Registrar(city clrk)24,489.53
07/26/1007/27/10MN State TreasurerDrivers License/Deputy Registrar(city clrk)4,027.25
07/26/1007/27/10PERAPERA87,134.20
07/26/1007/27/10US TreasurerFederal Payroll Tax (FICA)119,232.71
07/27/1007/28/10WedMN State TreasurerDrivers License/Deputy Registrar(city clrk)17,286.75
07/27/1007/28/10MN State TreasurerState Payroll Tax24,632.71
07/27/1007/28/10AUL AdministrationHRA Flex plan191.68
07/27/1007/28/10Labor UnionsUnion Dues3,768.84
07/28/1007/29/10ThursMN State TreasurerDrivers License/Deputy Registrar(city clrk)22,771.00
07/29/1007/30/10FriMN State TreasurerDrivers License/Deputy Registrar(city clrk)22,278.44
07/29/1007/30/10ARC AdministrationDCRP & Flex plan payments3,771.76
TOTAL367,452.96
*Detailed listing of VISA purchases is attached.
PacketPageNumber31of272
CITY OF MAPLEWOOD
EMPLOYEE GROSS EARNINGS REPORT
FOR THE CURRENT PAY PERIOD
CHECK #CHECK DATEEMPLOYEE NAMEAMOUNT
07/23/10JUENEMANN, KATHLEEN416.42
07/23/10LLANAS, JAMES416.42
07/23/10NEPHEW, JOHN416.42
07/23/10ROSSBACH, WILLIAM473.15
07/23/10WASILUK, JULIE416.42
07/23/10AHL, R. CHARLES4,917.95
07/23/10ANTONEN, JAMES5,300.00
07/23/10BURLINGAME, SARAH1,917.46
07/23/10KANTRUD, HUGH184.62
07/23/10CHRISTENSON, SCOTT2,336.47
07/23/10FARR, LARRY2,748.86
07/23/10JAHN, DAVID1,840.38
07/23/10KARIS, DYLAN715.00
07/23/10RAMEAUX, THERESE2,942.40
07/23/10BAUMAN, GAYLE3,860.96
07/23/10FORMANEK, KAREN1,762.16
07/23/10MITTET, ROBERT3,554.40
07/23/10ANDERSON, CAROLE1,076.90
07/23/10DEBILZAN, JUDY1,121.41
07/23/10JACKSON, MARY2,103.01
07/23/10KELSEY, CONNIE2,569.24
07/23/10LAYMAN, COLLEEN2,926.15
07/23/10ARNOLD, AJLA1,152.00
07/23/10CAREY, HEIDI2,494.95
07/23/10GUILFOILE, KAREN4,176.43
07/23/10KROLL, LISA1,851.70
07/23/10NEPHEW, MICHELLE1,554.15
07/23/10SCHMIDT, DEBORAH2,589.83
07/23/10SPANGLER, EDNA1,054.89
07/23/10CORTESI, LUANNE1,080.19
07/23/10JAGOE, CAROL1,886.78
07/23/10LARSON, MICHELLE1,353.07
07/23/10MECHELKE, SHERRIE1,063.91
07/23/10MOY, PAMELA1,196.34
07/23/10OSTER, ANDREA1,886.78
07/23/10WEAVER, KRISTINE2,245.35
07/23/10CORCORAN, THERESA1,898.15
07/23/10KVAM, DAVID4,168.15
07/23/10PALANK, MARY1,902.77
07/23/10POWELL, PHILIP2,903.66
07/23/10SVENDSEN, JOANNE2,081.79
07/23/10THOMALLA, DAVID4,936.26
07/23/10YOUNG, TAMELA1,906.16
07/23/10ABEL, CLINT2,988.56
07/23/10ALDRIDGE, MARK3,372.93
PacketPageNumber32of272
07/23/10BAKKE, LONN3,035.40
07/23/10BARTZ, PAUL3,814.56
07/23/10BELDE, STANLEY3,079.81
07/23/10BENJAMIN, MARKESE2,627.62
07/23/10BIERDEMAN, BRIAN3,461.87
07/23/10BOHL, JOHN3,442.87
07/23/10BUSACK, DANIEL3,417.80
07/23/10COFFEY, KEVIN3,339.98
07/23/10CROTTY, KERRY3,507.77
07/23/10DEMULLING, JOSEPH2,561.04
07/23/10DOBLAR, RICHARD3,737.66
07/23/10DUGAS, MICHAEL3,981.79
07/23/10ERICKSON, VIRGINIA3,127.97
07/23/10FLOR, TIMOTHY2,685.73
07/23/10FRASER, JOHN3,229.58
07/23/10FRITZE, DEREK3,083.02
07/23/10GABRIEL, ANTHONY3,348.50
07/23/10HAWKINSON JR, TIMOTHY2,762.54
07/23/10HER, PHENG2,413.09
07/23/10HIEBERT, STEVEN3,474.91
07/23/10JOHNSON, KEVIN4,614.39
07/23/10KALKA, THOMAS896.28
07/23/10KARIS, FLINT4,181.86
07/23/10KONG, TOMMY2,830.76
07/23/10KREKELER, NICHOLAS806.28
07/23/10KROLL, BRETT2,830.76
07/23/10LANGNER, SCOTT2,983.45
07/23/10LANGNER, TODD2,773.06
07/23/10LU, JOHNNIE3,487.97
07/23/10LYNCH, KATHERINE1,887.11
07/23/10MARINO, JASON3,344.21
07/23/10MARTIN, JERROLD2,988.56
07/23/10MCCARTY, GLEN3,243.99
07/23/10METRY, ALESIA3,117.94
07/23/10NYE, MICHAEL3,899.44
07/23/10OLSON, JULIE2,830.76
07/23/10REZNY, BRADLEY3,356.57
07/23/10RHUDE, MATTHEW3,045.78
07/23/10SHORTREED, MICHAEL4,060.51
07/23/10SLINGER, AARON1,887.11
07/23/10STEINER, JOSEPH3,361.11
07/23/10SYPNIEWSKI, WILLIAM2,773.06
07/23/10SZCZEPANSKI, THOMAS2,941.55
07/23/10TAUZELL, BRIAN2,150.10
07/23/10THEISEN, PAUL3,661.07
07/23/10THIENES, PAUL3,861.36
07/23/10TRAN, JOSEPH3,215.00
07/23/10WELCHLIN, CABOT3,122.50
07/23/10WENZEL, JAY3,044.15
07/23/10XIONG, KAO2,843.99
07/23/10AMBORN, JASON1,067.96
07/23/10ARKSEY, CHARLES645.75
07/23/10BASSETT, BRENT750.09
07/23/10BAUMAN, ANDREW2,788.53
07/23/10BECK, PATRICK741.52
PacketPageNumber33of272
07/23/10BECK, YANCEY1,365.29
07/23/10BUCHE, JOETTE1,635.64
07/23/10CAPISTRANT, JACOB766.82
07/23/10CAPISTRANT, JOHN1,276.14
07/23/10CRAWFORD, RAYMOND1,351.10
07/23/10CRUMMY, CHARLES1,217.58
07/23/10DAWSON, RICHARD3,315.12
07/23/10DOLLERSCHELL, ROBERT293.39
07/23/10EVERSON, PAUL3,403.13
07/23/10FERGUSON, ROBERT254.76
07/23/10FOSSUM, ANDREW2,896.56
07/23/10GARZA, BRANDON558.44
07/23/10HAGEN, MICHAEL254.76
07/23/10HALWEG, JODI3,441.77
07/23/10HEFFERNAN, PATRICK1,568.28
07/23/10HEIDEBRINK, JEREMY95.75
07/23/10HENDRICKSON, NICHOLAS2,531.23
07/23/10HILL, ZACHARY391.14
07/23/10HJELLE, ERIK1,951.16
07/23/10IMM, TRACY848.25
07/23/10JOHNSON, JAMES1,995.21
07/23/10JONES, JONATHAN896.85
07/23/10JUNGMANN, BERNARD3,375.63
07/23/10KALKA, THOMAS1,065.55
07/23/10KANE, ROBERT2,257.19
07/23/10KARNOWSKI, SANDRA1,805.35
07/23/10KARRAS, JAMIE872.95
07/23/10KERSKA, JOSEPH1,213.30
07/23/10KORTUS, WILLIAM1,145.58
07/23/10KUBAT, ERIC2,449.03
07/23/10LINDER, TIMOTHY2,559.70
07/23/10LOCHEN, MICHAEL1,382.15
07/23/10MAHONEY, KENNETH712.82
07/23/10MILLER, NICHOLAS1,387.10
07/23/10MORGAN, JEFFERY1,737.48
07/23/10NALIPINSKI, STEPHEN1,081.01
07/23/10NIELSEN, KENNETH743.74
07/23/10NOVAK, JEROME2,952.38
07/23/10NOWICKI, PAUL1,670.37
07/23/10OLSON, JAMES2,911.25
07/23/10ONSOMU, ALEX633.65
07/23/10OPHEIM, JOHN1,868.78
07/23/10PETERSON, MARK1,281.77
07/23/10PETERSON, ROBERT3,174.64
07/23/10PLACE, ANDREA2,741.46
07/23/10PODOBINSKI, LAURENCE1,335.64
07/23/10POWERS, KENNETH2,138.68
07/23/10RAINEY, JAMES1,552.18
07/23/10RAVENWALD, CORINNE729.55
07/23/10REYNOSO, ANGEL952.12
07/23/10RICE, CHRISTOPHER896.85
07/23/10RODRIGUEZ, ROBERTO1,150.34
07/23/10ROMANIK, JAMES1,410.93
07/23/10SCHULTZ, JEROME1,277.09
07/23/10SCHWARTZ, SHAWN238.03
PacketPageNumber34of272
07/23/10SEDLACEK, JEFFREY2,928.04
07/23/10STREFF, MICHAEL2,819.91
07/23/10SVENDSEN, RONALD3,123.82
07/23/10WHELEHAN, ROBERT1,486.21
07/23/10WHITE, JOEL800.28
07/23/10GERVAIS-JR, CLARENCE3,679.63
07/23/10LUKIN, STEVEN4,475.33
07/23/10ZWIEG, SUSAN2,234.15
07/23/10KNUTSON, LOIS1,958.95
07/23/10NIVEN, AMY1,411.62
07/23/10PRIEFER, WILLIAM2,763.09
07/23/10AHL, GREGORY1,008.00
07/23/10BRINK, TROY2,285.77
07/23/10BUCKLEY, BRENT1,965.48
07/23/10DEBILZAN, THOMAS2,125.35
07/23/10EDGE, DOUGLAS3,272.45
07/23/10HAMRE, MILES1,296.00
07/23/10JONES, DONALD2,125.35
07/23/10MEISSNER, BRENT1,874.20
07/23/10NAGEL, BRYAN3,459.15
07/23/10OSWALD, ERICK2,342.97
07/23/10RUNNING, ROBERT2,333.35
07/23/10SETNES, SAMUEL1,008.00
07/23/10TEVLIN, TODD2,164.34
07/23/10BURLINGAME, NATHAN1,994.17
07/23/10DUCHARME, JOHN2,713.97
07/23/10EATON, MEGAN997.50
07/23/10ENGSTROM, ANDREW2,387.68
07/23/10JACOBSON, SCOTT1,884.89
07/23/10JAROSCH, JONATHAN2,925.75
07/23/10KREGER, JASON2,494.59
07/23/10KUMMER, STEVEN3,063.75
07/23/10LINDBLOM, RANDAL3,313.26
07/23/10LOVE, STEVEN3,140.31
07/23/10THOMPSON, MICHAEL3,895.87
07/23/10ZIEMAN, SCOTT1,001.10
07/23/10HELCL, JOHN322.40
07/23/10EDSON, DAVID2,173.83
07/23/10GUNDERSON, ANDREW891.00
07/23/10HINNENKAMP, GARY2,133.06
07/23/10MARUSKA, MARK3,183.11
07/23/10NAUGHTON, JOHN2,126.43
07/23/10NORDQUIST, RICHARD2,127.66
07/23/10SCHINDELDECKER, JAMES2,129.97
07/23/10BIESANZ, OAKLEY1,618.30
07/23/10DEAVER, CHARLES659.25
07/23/10GERNES, CAROLE464.63
07/23/10HAYMAN, JANET1,654.28
07/23/10HUTCHINSON, ANN2,622.79
07/23/10SOUTTER, CHRISTINE196.88
07/23/10WACHAL, KAREN914.08
07/23/10GAYNOR, VIRGINIA3,211.95
07/23/10FRY, PATRICIA1,953.27
07/23/10HALL, KATHLEEN216.00
07/23/10KONEWKO, DUWAYNE4,390.46
PacketPageNumber35of272
07/23/10SINDT, ANDREA2,034.95
07/23/10THOMPSON, DEBRA821.71
07/23/10EKSTRAND, THOMAS3,800.52
07/23/10MARTIN, MICHAEL2,530.96
07/23/10WYGANT, MELISSA320.00
07/23/10BRASH, JASON2,154.15
07/23/10CARVER, NICHOLAS3,211.95
07/23/10FISHER, DAVID3,778.99
07/23/10SWAN, DAVID2,738.95
07/23/10WELLENS, MOLLY1,897.99
07/23/10BJORK, ALICIA682.50
07/23/10BJORK, BRANDON671.00
07/23/10COLEMAN, JOHN582.75
07/23/10JANASZAK, MEGHAN1,220.00
07/23/10KOHLMAN, JENNIFER90.25
07/23/10ROBBINS, AUDRA2,847.74
07/23/10ROBBINS, CAMDEN164.69
07/23/10RYCHLICKI, NICHOLE165.00
07/23/10SCHALLER, SCOTT201.56
07/23/10SHERRILL, CAITLIN677.38
07/23/10TAYLOR, JAMES2,583.24
07/23/10THOMFORDE, FAITH1,482.95
07/23/10ADAMS, DAVID1,754.95
07/23/10GERMAIN, DAVID2,134.59
07/23/10HAAG, MARK2,504.45
07/23/10KLOOZ, AUSTIN735.00
07/23/10SCHULTZ, SCOTT2,776.06
07/23/10ANZALDI, MANDY1,682.97
07/23/10BRENEMAN, NEIL1,939.70
07/23/10CRAWFORD - JR, RAYMOND507.45
07/23/10EVANS, CHRISTINE1,257.27
07/23/10FABIO-SHANLEY, MICHAEL53.10
07/23/10GADOW, ANNA421.67
07/23/10GLASS, JEAN2,103.67
07/23/10HANSEN, LORI2,912.02
07/23/10HER, PETER207.90
07/23/10HOFMEISTER, MARY1,060.45
07/23/10HOFMEISTER, TIMOTHY240.06
07/23/10KULHANEK-DIONNE, ANN259.25
07/23/10LAMB, JACQUELINE108.00
07/23/10OLSON, ERICA96.31
07/23/10OLSON, SANDRA84.00
07/23/10PELOQUIN, PENNYE482.27
07/23/10PENN, CHRISTINE2,094.61
07/23/10SCHOENECKER, LEIGH565.00
07/23/10SMITH, TERRENCE224.00
07/23/10STARK, SUE207.00
07/23/10VANG, KAY242.81
07/23/10VUE, LOR PAO86.63
07/23/10ZIELINSKI, JUDY77.00
07/23/10AICHELE, MEGAN108.00
07/23/10AMUNDSON, DANIKA47.13
07/23/10ANDERSON, JOSHUA213.20
07/23/10ANDERSON, JUSTIN213.20
07/23/10ANDERSON, MAXWELL184.88
PacketPageNumber36of272
07/23/10BAUDE, SARAH36.50
07/23/10BENJAMIN, AYLA263.28
07/23/10BERDIE, CRAIG40.00
07/23/10BIGGS, ANNETTE67.00
07/23/10BRENEMAN, SEAN316.00
07/23/10BRUSOE, AMY91.95
07/23/10BRUSOE, CRISTINA41.05
07/23/10BUCHMAYER, NICOLLET335.04
07/23/10BUCKLEY, BRITTANY216.55
07/23/10BUTLER, ANGELA170.00
07/23/10CAMPBELL, JESSICA1,282.64
07/23/10DEMPSEY, BETH49.00
07/23/10DUNN, RYAN990.44
07/23/10EKSTRAND, DANIEL23.55
07/23/10ERICKSON-CLARK, CAROL49.00
07/23/10FLACKEY, MAUREEN78.75
07/23/10FONTAINE, KIM308.75
07/23/10GRUENHAGEN, LINDA176.05
07/23/10HANSEN, HANNAH105.13
07/23/10HEINRICH, SHEILA126.00
07/23/10HOLMBERG, LADONNA464.00
07/23/10HOLMGREN, LEAH15.00
07/23/10HORWATH, RONALD2,589.01
07/23/10JOHNSON, BARBARA228.00
07/23/10JOHNSON, JAMES84.00
07/23/10JOYER, JENNA195.08
07/23/10KOGLER, RYAN188.70
07/23/10KOLLER, NINA304.58
07/23/10KRONHOLM, KATHRYN715.47
07/23/10KURZHAL, ALISON67.20
07/23/10LAMEYER, ZACHARY199.16
07/23/10MATHEWS, LEAH64.35
07/23/10MCCARTHY, ERICA134.50
07/23/10NADEAU, KELLY185.76
07/23/10NWANOKWALE, MORDY349.50
07/23/10PROESCH, ANDY808.00
07/23/10RENFORD, NATHAN77.82
07/23/10RENFORD, NICHOLAS58.00
07/23/10RICHTER, DANIEL72.00
07/23/10RICHTER, NANCY388.50
07/23/10RONNING, ISAIAH77.18
07/23/10RONNING, ZACCEUS54.75
07/23/10SCHREIER, ROSEMARIE185.00
07/23/10SCHREINER, MICHELLE362.27
07/23/10SCHUNEMAN, GREGORY383.60
07/23/10SJERVEN, BRENDA172.00
07/23/10SKAAR, SAMANTHA65.00
07/23/10SKUNES, KELLY296.40
07/23/10SMITH, ANN78.80
07/23/10SMITLEY, SHARON150.90
07/23/10TAYLOR, JASON353.13
07/23/10TREPANIER, TODD465.00
07/23/10TRUE, ANDREW314.61
07/23/10TUPY, ELIANA119.00
07/23/10TUPY, HEIDE88.80
PacketPageNumber37of272
07/23/10TUPY, MARCUS288.60
07/23/10WARNER, CAROLYN396.00
07/23/10WEDES, CARYL49.00
07/23/10WEEVER, NAOMI43.50
07/23/10WOLFGRAM, MARY604.00
07/23/10WOLFGRAM, TERESA144.99
07/23/10WOODMAN, ALICE69.00
07/23/10YOUNCE, BLAISE90.63
07/23/10ZALK, IDA19.50
07/23/10BOSLEY, CAROL377.60
07/23/10GIERNET, ASHLEY38.25
07/23/10LANGER, CHELSEA87.75
07/23/10LANGER, KAYLYN159.75
07/23/10ZAGER, LINNEA574.51
07/23/10BEHAN, JAMES1,999.89
07/23/10BOWMAN, MATTHEW102.60
07/23/10COLEMAN, PATRICK112.38
07/23/10DOUGLASS, TOM1,339.32
07/23/10JOHNSON, JUSTIN101.50
07/23/10LONETTI, JAMES420.00
07/23/10MALONEY, SHAUNA165.00
07/23/10PRINS, KELLY1,286.19
07/23/10REILLY, MICHAEL1,915.75
07/23/10SCHOENECKER, KYLE72.50
07/23/10SEPPI, LEAH79.75
07/23/10THOMPSON, BENJAMIN243.25
07/23/10VALERIO, TARA231.80
07/23/10WILLIAMS, DAELA152.25
07/23/10ZIELINSKI, JESSICA159.50
07/23/10FINWALL, SHANN3,138.95
07/23/10HAIDER, THOMAS707.50
07/23/10AICHELE, CRAIG2,216.23
07/23/10PRIEM, STEVEN2,478.05
07/23/10WOEHRLE, MATTHEW2,136.55
07/23/10BERGO, CHAD2,651.63
07/23/10FOWLDS, MYCHAL3,469.86
07/23/10FRANZEN, NICHOLAS2,721.08
100920107/23/10STEFFEN, LAINIE225.00
100920207/23/10ACOSTA, MARK832.47
100920307/23/10ANDERSON, BRIAN1,367.83
100920407/23/10BAHL, DAVID1,465.80
100920507/23/10BOURQUIN, RON1,730.50
100920607/23/10BRADBURY, RYAN93.30
100920707/23/10BRESIN, ROBERT93.30
100920807/23/10DIERICH, REBECCA36.00
100920907/23/10DITTEL, MICHAEL1,416.88
100921007/23/10FASULO, WALTER1,736.02
100921107/23/10HALE, JOSEPH1,585.45
100921207/23/10HERLUND, RICK2,042.55
100921307/23/10HUTCHINSON, JAMES1,784.94
100921407/23/10KONDER, RONALD983.17
100921507/23/10MELANDER, JON2,016.18
100921607/23/10MELLEN, CHRISTOPHER179.40
100921707/23/10MELLEN, RICHARD1,302.18
100921807/23/10MONSON, PETER121.95
PacketPageNumber38of272
100921907/23/10PACHECO, ALPHONSE83.75
100922007/23/10SKOK, STEPHEN1,100.28
100922107/23/10SOLHEID, DALE827.39
100922207/23/10WYSE, ROBERT782.28
100922307/23/10DVORAK, ADAM891.00
100922407/23/10PUHL, MATTHEW864.00
100922507/23/10GRAVES, CONNIE76.00
100922607/23/10MALLET, AMANDA622.88
100922707/23/10MARTIN, ARIELLE302.25
100922807/23/10MUELLNER, CHADD380.00
100922907/23/10VUKICH, CANDACE54.38
100923007/23/10HER, CHONG148.50
100923107/23/10ANDERSON, ALYSSA71.69
100923207/23/10BUESING, DYLAN143.33
100923307/23/10CRANDALL, KRISTA148.63
100923407/23/10FLUEGEL, LARISSA50.75
100923507/23/10GIPPLE, TRISHA133.63
100923607/23/10JOYER, ANTHONY66.60
100923707/23/10MCCORMACK, MELISSA73.50
100923807/23/10MCLAURIN, CHRISTOPHER377.76
100923907/23/10MCMAHON, MICHAEL58.80
100924007/23/10NORTHOUSE, KATHERINE21.31
100924107/23/10NWANOKWALE, EMMA58.13
100924207/23/10PIEPER, THEODORE33.75
100924307/23/10QUANT, JENNA14.40
100924407/23/10ROSTRON, ROBERT528.75
100924507/23/10SCHMIDT, EMILY340.80
100924607/23/10THORWICK, MEGAN14.70
100924707/23/10VIMR, CAYLA21.75
100924807/23/10DANIEL, BREANNA306.14
100924907/23/10EVERSON, SARAH14.00
100925007/23/10HANSON, MATTHEW195.00
100925107/23/10SCHULZE, KEVIN600.00
100925207/23/10STEFFEN, MICHAEL43.50
595,358.07
PacketPageNumber39of272
Transaction DatePosting DateMerchant NameTransaction AmountName
07/10/201007/12/2010ICMA INTERNET$400.00 JAMES ANTONEN
07/08/201007/12/2010JOANN ETC #1970$12.82 MANDY ANZALDI
07/08/201007/12/2010CONCEPT 2 CTS INC$168.00 JIM BEHAN
07/09/201007/12/2010WW GRAINGER$75.69 JIM BEHAN
07/09/201007/14/2010E L REINHARDT COMPANY INC$484.64 JIM BEHAN
07/13/201007/15/2010CUSTOM REFRIGERAT00 OF 00$548.40 JIM BEHAN
07/13/201007/15/2010THE HOME DEPOT 2801$10.36 JIM BEHAN
07/14/201007/15/2010MUSKA ELECTRIC CO$318.50 JIM BEHAN
07/14/201007/15/2010AQUA LOGICS INC$130.15 JIM BEHAN
07/14/201007/16/2010ADAM'S PEST CONTROL INC$150.46 JIM BEHAN
07/06/201007/08/2010PETLAND - ST. PAUL$13.44 OAKLEY BIESANZ
07/09/201007/12/2010WALGREENS #3122$6.95 OAKLEY BIESANZ
07/14/201007/15/2010KNOWLAN'S MARKET #2$6.99 RON BOURQUIN
07/07/201007/09/2010FLAGHOUSE INC$42.80 NEIL BRENEMAN
07/15/201007/16/2010PETSMART INC 461$16.06 NEIL BRENEMAN
07/13/201007/15/2010JOHNSON PLASTICS$66.15 TROY BRINK
07/14/201007/15/2010TWIN CITY SAW$37.61 TROY BRINK
07/14/201007/16/2010UNITED RENTALS$94.69 TROY BRINK
07/02/201007/05/2010AMAZON MKTPLACE PMTS$9.67 SARAH BURLINGAME
07/02/201007/05/2010AMAZON MKTPLACE PMTS$4.90 SARAH BURLINGAME
07/02/201007/05/2010AMAZON MKTPLACE PMTS$59.99 SARAH BURLINGAME
07/06/201007/07/2010CUB FOODS, INC.$34.39 SARAH BURLINGAME
07/12/201007/14/2010THE OLIVE GARD00012005$91.97 SARAH BURLINGAME
07/15/201007/16/2010HONEYBAKED HAM 2527$77.36 SARAH BURLINGAME
07/16/201007/16/2010MARIPOSA PUBLISHING$67.49 SARAH BURLINGAME
DAN BUSACK
07/06/201007/07/2010SUPERAMERICA 04022$21.41
07/06/201007/07/2010VZWRLSS*APOCC VISN$106.05 HEIDI CAREY
07/06/201007/08/2010HP HOME STORE$17.13 HEIDI CAREY
07/07/201007/08/2010SYX*GLOBALINDUSTRIALEQ$69.86 HEIDI CAREY
07/08/201007/12/2010BANNERS.COM$210.94 HEIDI CAREY
07/08/201007/12/2010MICHAELS #2744$18.18 HEIDI CAREY
07/13/201007/14/2010ISTOCK *INTERNATIONAL$39.00 HEIDI CAREY
07/01/201007/05/2010THE HOME DEPOT 2801$151.51 SCOTT CHRISTENSON
07/08/201007/09/2010HENRIKSEN ACE HARDWARE$8.36 SCOTT CHRISTENSON
07/12/201007/13/2010VIKING ELEC-CREDIT DEPT.$32.27 SCOTT CHRISTENSON
07/12/201007/13/2010VIKING ELEC-CREDIT DEPT.$1,487.80 SCOTT CHRISTENSON
07/13/201007/14/2010WW GRAINGER$98.49 SCOTT CHRISTENSON
07/14/201007/16/2010THE HOME DEPOT 2801$130.60 SCOTT CHRISTENSON
07/15/201007/16/2010VIKING ELEC-CREDIT DEPT.$1,021.98 SCOTT CHRISTENSON
07/03/201007/05/2010BROTHER MOBILE SOLUTIONS$302.84 KERRY CROTTY
07/06/201007/08/2010RYCO SUPPLY CO$29.48 CHARLES DEAVER
07/08/201007/09/2010G & K SERVICES 006$57.08 CHARLES DEAVER
07/08/201007/12/2010THE HOME DEPOT 2801$48.63 CHARLES DEAVER
07/09/201007/12/2010MENARDS 3022($7.92)CHARLES DEAVER
07/09/201007/12/2010MENARDS 3022$96.90 CHARLES DEAVER
07/07/201007/09/2010UNIFORMS UNLIMITED INC$8.54 RICHARD DOBLAR
07/12/201007/13/2010COMOPARK ANIMAL HOSPITAL$31.80 RICHARD DOBLAR
07/08/201007/09/2010FEDEX OFFICE #0617$24.63 JOHN DUCHARME
07/15/201007/16/2010MTI$58.81 DAVE EDSON
07/02/201007/05/2010SAFETY DEPOT$38.07 ANDREW ENGSTROM
07/02/201007/05/2010THE HOME DEPOT 2810$6.42 LARRY FARR
07/02/201007/05/2010LOWES #02315*$32.12 LARRY FARR
($85.64)LARRY FARR
07/05/201007/07/2010THE HOME DEPOT 2801
07/07/201007/09/2010HEJNY RENTAL INC$718.37 LARRY FARR
07/08/201007/09/2010TARGET 00011858$21.41 LARRY FARR
07/08/201007/09/2010RADIOSHACK COR00161455$22.46 LARRY FARR
PacketPageNumber40of272
07/08/201007/09/2010G & K SERVICES 006$852.76 LARRY FARR
07/08/201007/09/2010G & K SERVICES 006$508.32 LARRY FARR
07/08/201007/12/2010THE HOME DEPOT 2801$16.89 LARRY FARR
07/09/201007/12/2010OVERHEAD DOOR COMP$311.45 LARRY FARR
07/09/201007/12/2010THE HOME DEPOT 2801$167.83 LARRY FARR
07/09/201007/12/2010COMMERCIAL FURNITURE SERV$725.19 LARRY FARR
07/10/201007/12/2010CINTAS #470$77.46 LARRY FARR
07/10/201007/12/2010CINTAS #470$36.33 LARRY FARR
07/10/201007/12/2010CINTAS #470$38.04 LARRY FARR
07/12/201007/14/2010THE HOME DEPOT 2801$44.53 LARRY FARR
07/13/201007/15/2010DEPARTMENT OF LABOR AND I$100.00 LARRY FARR
07/13/201007/15/2010DEPARTMENT OF LABOR AND I$20.00 LARRY FARR
07/14/201007/15/2010NOR*NORTHERN TOOL$383.12 LARRY FARR
07/14/201007/16/2010THE HOME DEPOT 2801$230.80 LARRY FARR
07/14/201007/16/2010WW GRAINGER$992.82 LARRY FARR
07/12/201007/14/2010INT'L CODE COUNCIL INC$266.46 DAVID FISHER
07/08/201007/12/2010CURTIS 1000$95.23 KAREN FORMANEK
07/06/201007/07/2010WP-ONLINE MEDIA TE$59.00 MYCHAL FOWLDS
07/06/201007/08/2010IMAGING PATH$1,077.94 MYCHAL FOWLDS
07/06/201007/08/2010IMAGING PATH$938.69 MYCHAL FOWLDS
07/07/201007/08/2010AT&T *8310000707190$1,039.30 MYCHAL FOWLDS
07/07/201007/09/2010IDEACOM MID AMERICA$238.00 MYCHAL FOWLDS
07/13/201007/13/2010PAY FLOW PRO$68.05 MYCHAL FOWLDS
07/08/201007/09/2010MEMORY 4 LESS$38.62 NICK FRANZEN
07/10/201007/12/2010HP DIRECT-PUBLICSECTOR$398.50 NICK FRANZEN
07/15/201007/15/2010HP DIRECT-PUBLICSECTOR$12.86 NICK FRANZEN
NICK FRANZEN
07/15/201007/15/2010HP DIRECT-PUBLICSECTOR$2,365.11
07/16/201007/16/2010HP DIRECT-PUBLICSECTOR$52.46 NICK FRANZEN
07/07/201007/09/2010SUBWAY 00052159$65.35 CLARENCE GERVAIS
07/07/201007/09/2010WONDER/HOSTESS #63$11.87 CLARENCE GERVAIS
07/06/201007/08/2010OFFICE DEPOT #1090$39.00 JEAN GLASS
07/06/201007/08/2010OFFICE DEPOT #1127$8.08 JEAN GLASS
07/08/201007/12/2010SEPTIC CHECK INC.$113.29 JANET M GREW HAYMAN
07/14/201007/15/2010VZWRLSS*APOCC VISN$114.85 KAREN E GUILFOILE
07/06/201007/08/2010EULL'S MANUFACTURING COMP$188.53 MARK HAAG
07/06/201007/07/2010MENARDS 3059$6.99 MILES HAMRE
07/08/201007/12/2010THE HOME DEPOT 2801$4.05 MILES HAMRE
07/09/201007/12/2010MENARDS 3059$5.89 PATRICK HEFFERNAN
07/04/201007/06/2010OREILLY AUTO 00032557$35.30 RICK HERLUND
07/06/201007/08/2010THE HOME DEPOT 2801$33.57 RON HORWATH
07/07/201007/09/2010THE HOME DEPOT 2801$27.25 RON HORWATH
07/07/201007/09/2010THE HOME DEPOT 2801$24.60 RON HORWATH
07/11/201007/12/2010TARGET 00007518$30.92 RON HORWATH
07/13/201007/15/2010THE HOME DEPOT 2801$19.20 RON HORWATH
07/14/201007/14/2010BISSELL*BISSELL.COM($16.46)DAVID JAHN
07/09/201007/12/2010BOUND TREE MEDICAL LLC$185.80 BERNARD R JUNGMANN
07/09/201007/12/2010BOUND TREE MEDICAL LLC$1,338.83 BERNARD R JUNGMANN
07/10/201007/12/2010BOUND TREE MEDICAL LLC$394.56 BERNARD R JUNGMANN
07/10/201007/12/2010BOUND TREE MEDICAL LLC$381.90 BERNARD R JUNGMANN
07/13/201007/15/2010CENTURY COLLEGE-BO$153.31 BERNARD R JUNGMANN
07/13/201007/15/2010PRIMARY PRODUCTS COMPANY$113.80 BERNARD R JUNGMANN
07/06/201007/07/2010SAFETY KIDZ.COM$442.50 NICHOLAS KREKELER
07/01/201007/05/2010OFFICE DEPOT #1090$164.55 LISA KROLL
$9.05 LISA KROLL
07/15/201007/16/2010TARGET 00011858
07/01/201007/05/2010UNIFORMS UNLIMITED$1,049.19 DAVID KVAM
07/02/201007/05/2010UNIFORMS UNLIMITED INC$240.42 DAVID KVAM
07/02/201007/05/2010UNIFORMS UNLIMITED INC$113.29 DAVID KVAM
PacketPageNumber41of272
07/06/201007/07/2010HEALTHEAST TRANSPORTATN$518.08 DAVID KVAM
07/06/201007/07/2010STREICHERS INC$1,028.99 DAVID KVAM
07/07/201007/08/2010STREICHERS INC$1,234.98 DAVID KVAM
07/07/201007/09/2010UNIFORMS UNLIMITED INC$50.21 DAVID KVAM
07/09/201007/12/2010OLYMPIC UNIFORMS$69.16 DAVID KVAM
07/09/201007/12/2010MIDWEST SSC$172.30 DAVID KVAM
07/14/201007/14/2010COMCAST CABLE COMM$34.00 DAVID KVAM
07/14/201007/16/2010SHRED-IT$86.25 DAVID KVAM
07/06/201007/07/2010WM EZPAY$169.18 STEVE LUKIN
07/13/201007/14/2010ADVANCED GRAPHIX INC$384.75 STEVE LUKIN
07/13/201007/14/2010ADVANCED GRAPHIX INC$45.00 STEVE LUKIN
EMERGENCY APPARATUS MAINT$72.00 STEVE LUKIN
07/14/201007/16/2010
07/15/201007/16/2010EMERGENCY APPARATUS MAINT$212.39 STEVE LUKIN
07/02/201007/05/2010HUGO'S TREE CARE$1,581.75 MARK MARUSKA
07/02/201007/05/2010WM EZPAY$773.63 MARK MARUSKA
07/08/201007/09/2010HIRSHFIELDS ST PAUL CSC$2,208.49 MARK MARUSKA
07/08/201007/09/2010G & K SERVICES 006$425.19 MARK MARUSKA
07/08/201007/12/2010TESSMAN COMPANY SAINT PA$507.49 MARK MARUSKA
07/09/201007/12/2010HENRIKSEN ACE HARDWARE$15.68 MARK MARUSKA
07/12/201007/13/2010HUNT ELECTRIC CORPORATION$874.00 MARK MARUSKA
07/13/201007/14/2010HENRIKSEN ACE HARDWARE$29.67 MARK MARUSKA
07/15/201007/16/2010HENRIKSEN ACE HARDWARE$29.50 MARK MARUSKA
07/15/201007/16/2010FSH COMMUNICATION01 OF 01$63.90 MARK MARUSKA
07/09/201007/12/2010CINTAS FIRST AID #431$73.56 BRYAN NAGEL
07/08/201007/09/2010PAKOR INC$220.25 SHELLY NEPHEW
07/08/201007/09/2010G & K SERVICES 006$956.17 AMY NIVEN
07/08/201007/09/2010G & K SERVICES 006$284.32 AMY NIVEN
07/08/201007/09/2010G & K SERVICES 006$227.26 AMY NIVEN
07/01/201007/05/2010OFFICE DEPOT #1090$61.50 MARY KAY PALANK
07/01/201007/05/2010LIGHTINTHEBOX.COM$163.44 CHRISTINE PENN
07/06/201007/08/2010MIDWAY PARTY RENTAL$776.65 CHRISTINE PENN
07/07/201007/08/2010FLOWER MALL INC.$19.61 CHRISTINE PENN
07/08/201007/09/2010STU*SHINDIGZ DECORATIO$118.86 CHRISTINE PENN
07/09/201007/12/2010BANNERS.COM$106.20 CHRISTINE PENN
07/12/201007/14/2010BANNERS.COM$7.30 CHRISTINE PENN
07/06/201007/08/2010HP HOME STORE$128.53 PHILIP F POWELL
07/07/201007/08/2010TARGET 00011858$42.84 PHILIP F POWELL
07/07/201007/09/2010CARM DISTRIBUTING$23.57 PHILIP F POWELL
07/09/201007/12/2010HENRIKSEN ACE HARDWARE$19.57 PHILIP F POWELL
SIRCHIE FINGER PRINT LABO$83.94 PHILIP F POWELL
07/09/201007/16/2010
07/01/201007/05/2010KATH AUTO PARTS NSP$67.01 STEVEN PRIEM
07/06/201007/07/2010FACTORY MOTOR PARTS #19$22.88 STEVEN PRIEM
07/06/201007/07/2010FACTORY MOTOR PARTS #19$195.58 STEVEN PRIEM
07/06/201007/07/2010MTI$10.83 STEVEN PRIEM
07/06/201007/08/2010KATH AUTO PARTS NSP$10.60 STEVEN PRIEM
07/06/201007/08/2010KATH AUTO PARTS NSP$183.39 STEVEN PRIEM
07/07/201007/08/2010BAUER BUILT TIRE -$174.00 STEVEN PRIEM
07/07/201007/09/2010KATH AUTO PARTS NSP$30.72 STEVEN PRIEM
07/07/201007/09/2010TRUCK UTILITIES$36.23 STEVEN PRIEM
07/07/201007/09/2010GOODYEAR AUTO SRV CT 6920$270.01 STEVEN PRIEM
07/08/201007/09/2010FACTORY MOTOR PARTS #19$270.64 STEVEN PRIEM
07/08/201007/09/2010FACTORY MOTOR PARTS #19$118.72 STEVEN PRIEM
07/08/201007/12/2010KATH AUTO PARTS NSP$42.93 STEVEN PRIEM
07/08/201007/12/2010GOODYEAR AUTO SRV CT 6920$49.79 STEVEN PRIEM
07/09/201007/12/2010PARTS ASSOCIATION01 OF 01$149.61 STEVEN PRIEM
07/09/201007/12/2010TRUCK UTILITIES$124.87 STEVEN PRIEM
07/09/201007/12/2010POLAR CHEVROLET MAZDA PAR$31.46 STEVEN PRIEM
PacketPageNumber42of272
07/12/201007/13/2010BAUER BUILT TIRE -$11.96 STEVEN PRIEM
07/12/201007/13/2010ASPEN EQUIPMENT-BLOOMIN$71.49 STEVEN PRIEM
07/12/201007/13/2010AMERICAN FASTENER AND SUP$59.66 STEVEN PRIEM
07/12/201007/14/2010TOUSLEY FORD I27228006$92.51 STEVEN PRIEM
07/13/201007/14/2010TOWMASTER$275.16 STEVEN PRIEM
07/13/201007/15/2010KATH AUTO PARTS NSP$24.68 STEVEN PRIEM
07/13/201007/15/2010KATH AUTO PARTS NSP$54.51 STEVEN PRIEM
07/13/201007/15/2010KATH AUTO PARTS NSP$27.89 STEVEN PRIEM
07/14/201007/16/2010WHEELCO SAINT CLOUD S$326.03 STEVEN PRIEM
07/09/201007/12/2010HILLYARD INC MINNEAPOLIS$69.91 MICHAEL REILLY
07/02/201007/05/2010CUB FOODS, INC.$69.47 AUDRA ROBBINS
07/06/201007/07/2010PAYPAL *OAKCOINS$190.97 AUDRA ROBBINS
07/07/201007/08/2010WILD MOUNTAIN$694.64 AUDRA ROBBINS
07/13/201007/14/2010PARTY CITY #768$52.95 AUDRA ROBBINS
07/14/201007/16/2010MALL OF AMERICA$760.84 AUDRA ROBBINS
07/12/201007/13/2010BROCK WHITE ST PAUL 180$329.77 ROBERT RUNNING
07/13/201007/15/2010HEJNY RENTAL INC$289.67 ROBERT RUNNING
07/15/201007/16/2010MENARDS 3059$45.73 ROBERT RUNNING
07/02/201007/05/2010OFFICE DEPOT #1090$19.28 DEB SCHMIDT
07/12/201007/14/2010OFFICE DEPOT #1090$57.99 DEB SCHMIDT
07/13/201007/15/2010INTAB INC$24.30 DEB SCHMIDT
07/14/201007/16/2010OFFICE DEPOT #1090$105.66 DEB SCHMIDT
07/12/201007/14/2010THE HOME DEPOT 2801$24.38 SCOTT SCHULTZ
07/09/201007/12/2010CITY BUSINESS-MINNEAPOLIS$79.00 ANDREA SINDT
07/08/201007/12/2010OFFICE MAX$16.06 JAMES TAYLOR
07/13/201007/15/2010BLUE RIBBON BAIT & TACKLE$8.50 JAMES TAYLOR
JAMES TAYLOR
07/14/201007/15/2010MN RECREATION AND PARK A$1,869.00
07/07/201007/08/2010DIAMOND VOGEL PAINT CENT$80.34 TODD TEVLIN
07/14/201007/15/2010DIAMOND VOGEL PAINT CENT$55.50 TODD TEVLIN
07/02/201007/05/2010OFFICE MAX$75.75 FAITH THOMFORDE
TOTAL $45,755.33
PacketPageNumber43of272
PacketPageNumber44of272
PacketPageNumber45of272
Agenda Item G3
MEMORANDUM
TO:
James Antonen, City Manager
FROM:
Karen Guilfoile, Director Citizen Services
DATE:
August 4, 2010
RE:
Approval of Agreement for Use of Harvest Park for the Susan G. Komen 3-
Day Race for the Cure Event
Introduction
Nancy G. Brinker promised her dying sister, Susan G. Komen, she would do everything
in her power to end breast cancer forever. In 1982, that promise became the Susan G.
Komen for the Cure and launched the global breast cancer movement. Today, Susan G.
Komen for the Cure is the world's largest grassroots network of breast cancer survivors
and activists fighting to save lives, empower people, ensure quality care for all and
energize science to find the cures.
Background
For the last three years,the Susan G. Komen for the Curecoordinators have contracted
with the City for the use of Harvest Park for their home base for over 3,000 participants
for the Susan G. Komen Race for the Cure® held in the Metro area. It hasbeena
successful partnershipand the event organizers have requestedthe use of Harvest Park
again this year.
The Susan G. Komen Race for the Cure® event is scheduled for August20-22. Staff
has had correspondencewith the coordinators for the eventto ensure that health and
safety, public safetyand other concerns are met. Staff has experienced a very
professional and responsible working relationship the last threeyearswith the event
coordinators and look forward to working with them again.
Attached you will find a copy of the proposed contract that requires council approval.
Recommendation
It is recommended that the City Council approve the Susan G. Komen Race for the
Cure® event contract.
PacketPageNumber46of272
USE AGREEMENT
City of Maplewood
Citizen Services Department
The Use Agreement (hereafter “Agreement”) is made and entered in to this _____ day of ___________, 2010, by and
between the City of Maplewood, a Minnesota municipal corporation (hereafter the “City”), and Susan G. Komen Breast
Cancer Foundation, Inc. d/b/a Susan G. Komen for the Cure® (hereafter “Komen”), as producer of the 2010 Susan G.
Komen Twin Cities 3-Day for the Cure event benefiting Komen, a non-profit organization.
WHEREAS, Komen has requested to use the Harvest Park property for a scheduled non-profit event benefiting
Susan G. Komen For The Cure® a non-profit organization; and
WHEREAS, the City believes that the non-profit event planned by Komen would benefit the citizens of the City of
Maplewood and the surrounding areas and desires to allow use of the Harvest Park property for the requested uses;
NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual promises, covenants, and benefits contained herein and other
good and valuable consideration the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, the City and Komen agree
as follows:
1.Komen shall have the right to use the Harvest Park property in connection with a non-profit cancer awareness
program. The Susan G. Komen Twin Cities 3-Day for the Cure shall have the right to use the property to construct an
overnight campground. NO campfires will be allowed, and all camp design and construction plans, including areas in
which vehicular access to the property will be allowed, shall be subject to the specific approval of the City.
2.Komen will be permitted to use the Harvest Park property on the following days:
a.August 18 and 19, 2010, for set up
b.August 20-22, 2010, for event day
c.August 23, 2010 for clean up
3.Komen accepts full responsibility and liability for any and all damages resulting to the park property as a result of its
use by the Susan G. Komen Twin Cities 3-Day for the Cure, reasonable wear and tear excluded. Komen agrees to
restore the property to its previous condition, which is reasonably acceptable to the City of Maplewood. The
Director of Citizen Services and Maplewood Staff will meet on Monday, August 23, 2010 with Heather Rutkowski,
Production Coordinator, Event 360, Inc., to evaluate the condition of the property and to determine what work, if
any, will be necessary to restore the property to its previous condition. A security deposit of $5000.00, made
payable to the “City of Maplewood” must be received by July 30, 2010. The deposit will be refundable after
inspection of the property and completion of all items of reasonable concern are addressed.
4.Komen shall maintain general liability insurance in an amount of at least amounts not less than those set forth on
the attached Certificate of Insurance at all times during the Terms of this Agreement to protect the City from any
and all liability to persons or property which may result from use of the Harvest Park property. Komen shall provide
the City to be named as “additional insured” on it’s binder.
5.The City shall be responsible for having the property mowed and clear of litter and trash and in good and useable
condition prior to August 19, 2010.
6.Komen will coordinate security and traffic issues with the City of Maplewood Police Department. The event area will
be secured and closed to the public no later than 9:00 p.m. on the days that the property is being used by the Susan
G. Komen Twin Cities 3-Day for the Cure.
7.Komen shall notify the City by August 1, 2010, of the emergency contingency plan for the scheduled event in case of
inclement weather.
PacketPageNumber47of272
8.Komen shall defend, indemnify and hold harmless the City, its elected officials, officers, agents, and employees from
any and all suits, actions, legal proceedings, claims, demands, costs, expenses, and attorney’s fees resulting from any
claim arising as a result of Komen’s use of the Harvest Park property under this Agreement. Nothing herein
contained shall be deemed to in any way constitute a waiver by the City of any privileges and immunities it may
have under the laws of the State of Minnesota or the Constitution of the State of Minnesota.
Likewise, the City of Maplewood agrees to indemnify and hold Komen harmless from and against any and all costs,
losses or expenses, including reasonable attorney’s fees, that Komen may incur by reason of (a) the City of
Maplewood’s negligence or intentional misconduct or (b) any third-party claim(s) or law suit(s) arising out of, or in
connection with the City of Maplewood’s performance or failure to perform pursuant to this agreement.
9.This Agreement shall become effective on the date signed by the last party hereto, and shall be governed by the
laws of the State of Minnesota. Agreed to by the undersigned as evidenced by the signature set forth below.
10.Dispute Resolution. In the event of any dispute arising out of this Agreement, the parties shall use good faith efforts
to resolve their differences amicably. In the event they are unsuccessful, the parties agree not to commence
litigation until attempting to resolve their dispute through mediation. Either party may initiate the mediation
process with 30 days’ prior written notice to the other party.
11.As to notice or communication regarding this agreement:
Event360, Inc. City of Maplewood
Susan G. Komen 3-Day for the Cure™ Citizen Services Department
Heather (McKinney) Rutkowski Karen Guilfoile
Production Coordinator Director, Citizen Services
Phone: 727.368.5287 Phone: 651.249.2002
Fax: 866.497.7601 Fax: 651.249.2009
hmckinney@event360.com karen.guilfoile@ci.maplewood.mn.us
City of Maplewood
By: By:
Mayor, Will Rossbach City Manager, James Antonen
Date: Date:
Attest:
City Clerk, Karen Guilfoile
Susan G. Komen Breast Cancer Foundation, Inc.
By:
Title:
Date:
PacketPageNumber48of272
%KIRHE-XIQ+
MEMORANDUM
TO:James Antonen, City Manager
FROM:Michael Martin, AICP, Planner
DuWayne Konewko, Community Development and Parks Director
Beaver Lake Town HousesConditional Use Permit Review
SUBJECT:
–
LOCATION:Maryland Avenue and Lakewood Drive
DATE:August 2, 2010
INTRODUCTION
The conditional use permit (CUP) for the planned unit development (PUD) for the Beaver Lake Town
Houses is due for its annual review.
BACKGROUND
On May 28, 2002, the city council made several approvals forthe Beaver Lake Town Houses.These
included:
1.A conditional use permit (CUP) for a planned unit development (PUD) for a 148-unit housing
development. The applicant requested the CUP because Section 44-1250of the city code
(shoreland district regulations) requires a PUD for developments with buildings having more than
four units when the site is in the shoreland district of a lake.In this case, the site is in the
shoreland district of Beaver Lake and will have a mix of housing with 40 single-family detached
townhomes and 108 rental units in 11 8-unit and 5 4-unit buildings. In addition, having a PUD
gives the city and developer a chance to be more flexible with site design and development details
(such as setbacks and street right-of-way and pavement widths) than the standard city
requirements would normally allow.(See theapproved site plan attached)
2.Street right-of-way and easement vacations.These werefor the unused street right-of-ways and
easements on the site.
3.A preliminary plat to create the lots in the development.
4.Authorization for city staff to spend city open space funds and to use a $150,000 DNR grant to buy
about 8.9 acres of the project site for park and open space purposes.
(See the city council minutes attached)
On July9, 2002, the community design review board (CDRB) approved the proposed design plans
(architectural, landscaping, etc.) for the development. Mr. Emmerich appealed to the city council a
part of the CDRB’s approval about brick on the exteriors of the four and eight-unit buildings. (See the
CDRB minutes attached)
On August 12, 2002, the city council approved Mr. Emmerich’s appeal of the CDRB’s condition about
adding more brick to the four and eight-unit buildings within the site. (That is, the city will not be
requiring Mr. Emmerich to add more brick to the buildings as the CDRB required.)
On August 26, 2002, the city council awarded the contract for the construction of the Beaver Lake
sanitary sewer improvement project to Barbarosoa and Sons, Inc. They completed this sewer project
in December 2002.
On November 13, 2002, the city council approved the first final plat for the Beaver Lake TownHouses.
PacketPageNumber49of272
This plat created six lots for detached town houses along Maryland Avenue, several outlots for future
phases of the development and the park area along the creek in the center of the site.
On March 31, 2003, the city council approved the second final plat for the BeaverLake Town homes.
This plat created 16 lots for detached town houses in the area west ofSterling Street and south of the
creek corridor.
On June 9, 2003, the city council reviewed the conditional use permit (CUP) for the planned unit
development (PUD) for this development and agreed to review it again in one year.
On September 8, 2003, thecity council approved the Beaver Lake Townhomes Third Addition final
plat.This plat created 18 lots for detached town houses in the area west of the creek and east of
Lakewood Drive.
On June 28, 2004, the city council reviewed the conditional use permit (CUP) for the planned unit
development (PUD) for this development and agreed to review it again in one year.
On June 13, 2005, June 26, 2006, June 11, 2007 and January 14, 2008 the city council reviewed the
conditional use permit for this property.
On March 24, 2008, the city council approved the final plat for the Beaver Lake Fourth and Fifth
Additions. These final plats created new lots for the construction of new units from former outlots.
On June 23, 2008, staff presented to the city council thelandscapeand tree plansfor Beaver Lake
Townhomes.
On April 27, 2009, the city council tabled the CUP review until its next meeting so that staff could
provide more information.
On May 11, 2009, the city council reviewed the conditional use permit (CUP)for the planned unit
development (PUD) for this development and agreed to have the CUP brought back to the council in
three months to report on erosion, garbage and restorationissues. The city council also approved a
revision to the CUP allowing for minimum street widths to be 27’4” when parking occurs on one side of
the road.
August 10, 2009, the city council reviewed the conditional use permit for this property and agreed to
review it again in one year.
DISCUSSION
Staff is not aware of any major issues or problems and staff’s concerns have been related to sentiment
tracking due to construction and upkeep of construction silt fencing. During the last year, staff has
worked closely with the developer on these types of issues to ensure they are takencare of in a timely
matter. Throughout the construction of this project, members of public works and community
development staff have made frequent trips to the site and have appreciated the effort made by the
developer to address issues. In anticipation of this review, staff has made the developer aware of
evidence of construction traffic accessing the interior roads of the development which is prohibited and
needs to be enforced. The developer has been notified of mild sentiment tracking which needs to be
addressed through increased sweepings. The developer also needs to ensure the construction silt
fencing throughout the site is properly set and in good condition at all times.
PacketPageNumber50of272
During last year’s CUP review there were other issues regarding rubbishwithin the wetland and upon
staff’s review the wetland is in good condition. Staff is not aware of any other major concerns and the
site is meeting the conditions of approval. The second stage of this development, the apartments, is
well underway. It will likely take some time to fully complete this development. Staff will work with the
developer to ensurethe fencing is property set through the year andany sentiment tracking issues are
addressed, while ensuring continued compliance with the conditions of approval. Staff recommends
reviewing this CUP again in one year.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Review the conditional use permit for the planned unit development for the Beaver Lake Town Houses
at Maryland Avenue and Lakewood Drive again in one yearor sooner if the owner proposes a major
change to the siteor to the project plans.
p:sec25/Beaver Lake TH CUPReview_080910
Attachments:
1.Location Map
2.Property Line/Zoning Map
3.Site Plan
4.May 28, 2002 City Council Minutes
5.July 9, 2002 CDRB minutes
6. May 11, 2009 City Council Minutes
7.Building Elevations and Details
PacketPageNumber51of272
Attachment2
%XXEGLQIRX
%1&)6.%'/02
SITE
LocationMap
PacketPageNumber52of272
page#2
Attachment2
%XXEGLQIRX
%1&)6.%'/02
pud
pud
nc
nc
r2
r2
r3
r3
SITE
f
f
r1
r1
ZoningMap
PacketPageNumber53of272
page#2
%XXEGLQIRX
PacketPageNumber54of272
%XXEGLQIRX
1-298)7
1%40);33('-8='392'-0
418YIWHE]1E]
'SYRGMP'LEQFIVW1YRMGMTEP&YMPHMRK
1IIXMRK2S
%'%008336()6
%QIIXMRKSJXLI'MX]'SYRGMP[EWLIPHMRXLI'SYRGMP'LEQFIVWEXXLI1YRMGMTEP
&YMPHMRKERH[EWGEPPIHXSSVHIVEX 41F]1E]SV'EVHMREP
%40)(+)3*%00)+-%2')
&6300'%00
6SFIVX'EVHMREP1E]SV4VIWIRX
/IRRIXL:'SPPMRW'SYRGMPQIQFIV4VIWIRX
/EXLPIIR.YIRIQERR'SYRGMPQIQFIV4VIWIRX
1EVZMR'/STTIR'SYRGMPQIQFIV4VIWIRX
.YPMI%;EWMPYO'SYRGMPQIQFIV4VIWIRX
&IEZIV0EOI8S[RLSQIW
0EOI[SSH(VMZIERH1EV]PERH%ZIRYI
%'SRHMXMSREP9WI4IVQMXJSVE4PERRIH9RMX(IZIPSTQIRX
49(
&7XVIIX6MKLX3J;E]ERH)EWIQIRX:EGEXMSRW
'4VIPMQMREV]4PEX
E%WWMWXERX'MX]1EREKIV'SPIQERTVIWIRXIHXLIVITSVX
F%WWSGMEXI4PERRIV6SFIVXWTVIWIRXIHXLIWTIGMJMGWSJXLIVITSVX
G'SQQMWWMSRIV6SWWFEGLTVIWIRXIHXLI4PERRMRK'SQQMWWMSRVITSVX
'SYRGMPQIQFIV'SPPMRWQSZIHXSI\XIRHXLIQIIXMRKYRXMPEPPEKIRHEMXIQWEVIEHHVIWWIH
7IGSRHIHF]'SYRGMPQIQFIV.YIRIQERR%]IW%PP
H1E]SV'EVHMREPSTIRIHXLITYFPMGLIEVMRKGEPPMRKJSVTVSTSRIRXWSVSTTSRIRXW
8LIJSPPS[MRKTIVWSRW[IVILIEVH
0EYVIRGI3PWSR07.)RKMRIIVMRK6ITVIWIRXMRKXLI(IZIPSTIVSJ&IEZIV0EOI
8S[RLSQIW
1EVO(SVPMRK7XIVPMRK7XVIIX2SVXL1ETPI[SSH
/E]4IXIVWSR 1EV]7XVIIX1ETPI[SSH
1EVKEVIX0YXJI]1EV]7XVIIX1ETPI[SSH
&SF>MGO )7LSVI(VMZI1ETPI[SSH
1
'MX]'SYRGMP1IIXMRK
PacketPageNumber55of272
/IZMR&IVKPYRH /MRKWXSR%ZIRYI1ETPI[SSH
.SER(SVPMRK7XIVPMRK7XVIIX2SVXL1ETPI[SSH
;MPP6SWWFEGL )'SYRX]6SEH'1ETPI[SSH
/E]4IXIVWSR7IGSRH%TTIEVERGI
1EVO(SVPMRK7IGSRH%TTIEVERGI
&SF>MGO7IGSRH%TTIEVERGI
/IZMR&IVKPYRH7IGSRH%TTIEVERGI
I1E]SV'EVHMREPGPSWIHXLITYFPMGLIEVMRK
'SYRGMPQIQFIV/STTIRQSZIHXSEHSTXXLIJSPPS[MRKVIWSPYXMSRETTVSZMRKEGSRHMXMSREP
YWITIVQMXJSVETPERRIHYRMXHIZIPSTQIRXJSVXLI&IEZIV0EOI8S[RLSQIHIZIPSTQIRX
SRXLIWSYXLWMHISJ1EV]PERH%ZIRYIFIX[IIR7XIVPMRK7XVIIXERH0EOI[SSH(VMZI
6)73098-32
'32(-8-32%097)4)61-86)73098-32
;,)6)%71V8SR])QQIVMGLVITVIWIRXMRKXLI%.)'SQTERMIWETTPMIHJSVEGSRHMXMSREP
YWITIVQMX
'94
JSVXLI&IEZIV0EOI8S[RLSQIWVIWMHIRXMEPTPERRIHYRMXHIZIPSTQIRX
49(
;,)6)%7XLMWTIVQMXETTPMIWXSYRHIZIPSTIHTVSTIVX]JSVXLI&IEZIV0EOI8S[RLSQIW
49(WSYXLSJ1EV]PERH%ZIRYIFIX[IIR7XIVPMRK7XVIIXERH0EOI[SSH(VMZIMR7IGXMSR
8S[RWLMT 6ERKI6EQWI]'SYRX]1MRRIWSXE
4-27 ERH
;,)6)%7XLILMWXSV]SJXLMWGSRHMXMSREPYWITIVQMXMWEWJSPPS[W
3R%TVMPXLITPERRMRKGSQQMWWMSRVIGSQQIRHIHXLEXXLIGMX]GSYRGMP
ETTVSZIXLMWTIVQMX
3R1E] XLIGMX]GSYRGMPLIPHETYFPMGLIEVMRK8LIGMX]WXEJJTYFPMWLIHE
RSXMGIMRXLITETIVERHWIRXRSXMGIWXSXLIWYVVSYRHMRKTVSTIVX]S[RIVW8LIGSYRGMP
KEZIIZIV]SRIEXXLILIEVMRKEGLERGIXSWTIEOERHTVIWIRX[VMXXIRWXEXIQIRXW8LI
GSYRGMPEPWSGSRWMHIVIHVITSVXWERHVIGSQQIRHEXMSRWSJXLIGMX]WXEJJERHTPERRMRK
GSQQMWWMSR8LIGSYRGMPXEFPIHEGXMSRSRXLIHIZIPSTQIRXVIUYIWXYRXMP1E]
23;8,)6)*36)&)-86)730:)(XLEXXLIGMX]GSYRGMPETTVSZIXLIEFSZIHIWGVMFIH
GSRHMXMSREPYWITIVQMXFIGEYWI
8LIYWI[SYPHFIPSGEXIHHIWMKRIHQEMRXEMRIHGSRWXVYGXIHERHSTIVEXIHXSFIMR
GSRJSVQMX][MXLXLIGMX] WGSQTVILIRWMZITPERERHGSHISJSVHMRERGIW
8LIYWI[SYPHRSXGLERKIXLII\MWXMRKSVTPERRIHGLEVEGXIVSJXLIWYVVSYRHMRKEVIE
8LIYWI[SYPHRSXHITVIGMEXITVSTIVX]ZEPYIW
2
'MX]'SYRGMP1IIXMRK
PacketPageNumber56of272
8LIYWI[SYPHRSXMRZSPZIER]EGXMZMX]TVSGIWWQEXIVMEPWIUYMTQIRXSVQIXLSHWSJ
STIVEXMSRXLEX[SYPHFIHERKIVSYWLE^EVHSYWHIXVMQIRXEPHMWXYVFMRKSVGEYWIE
RYMWERGIXSER]TIVWSRSVTVSTIVX]FIGEYWISJI\GIWWMZIRSMWIKPEVIWQSOIHYWX
SHSVJYQIW[EXIVSVEMVTSPPYXMSRHVEMREKI[EXIVVYRSJJZMFVEXMSRKIRIVEP
YRWMKLXPMRIWWIPIGXVMGEPMRXIVJIVIRGISVSXLIVRYMWERGIW
8LIYWI[SYPHKIRIVEXISRP]QMRMQEPZILMGYPEVXVEJJMGSRPSGEPWXVIIXWERH[SYPHRSX
GVIEXIXVEJJMGGSRKIWXMSRSVYRWEJIEGGIWWSRI\MWXMRKSVTVSTSWIHWXVIIXW
8LIYWI[SYPHFIWIVZIHF]EHIUYEXITYFPMGJEGMPMXMIWERHWIVZMGIWMRGPYHMRKWXVIIXW
TSPMGIERHJMVITVSXIGXMSRHVEMREKIWXVYGXYVIW[EXIVERHWI[IVW]WXIQWWGLSSPWERH
TEVOW
8LIYWI[SYPHRSXGVIEXII\GIWWMZIEHHMXMSREPGSWXWJSVTYFPMGJEGMPMXMIWSVWIVZMGIW
8LIYWI[SYPHQE\MQM^IXLITVIWIVZEXMSRSJERHMRGSVTSVEXIXLIWMXI WREXYVEPERH
WGIRMGJIEXYVIWMRXSXLIHIZIPSTQIRXHIWMKR
8LIYWI[SYPHGEYWIQMRMQEPEHZIVWIIRZMVSRQIRXEPIJJIGXW
%TTVSZEPMWWYFNIGXXSXLIJSPPS[MRKGSRHMXMSRW
%PPGSRWXVYGXMSRWLEPPJSPPS[XLITPERWHEXIWXEQTIH1EVGLI\GITXJSVXLI
JSPPS[MRKGLERKIW
E6IZMWMRKXLIKVEHMRKERHWMXITPERWXSWLS[
2SKVEHMRKSVKVSYRHHMWXYVFERGIMRXLITEVOHIHMGEXMSREVIEERHMRXLI
[IXPERHERHWXVIEQFYJJIVEVIEWI\GITX
E
%WEPPS[IHF]XLI[EXIVWLIHHMWXVMGX
F
*SVXLIYXMPMXMIWXVEMPWERHJSSXFVMHKI
8LIVIUYMVIHXVEMPWERHWMHI[EPOW
6IZMWIHWXSVQ[EXIVTSRHPSGEXMSRWERHHIWMKRWEWWYKKIWXIHSVVIUYMVIHF]
XLI[EXIVWLIHHMWXVMGXSVGMX]IRKMRIIV8LITSRHWWLEPPQIIXXLIGMX]tWHIWMKR
WXERHEVHW
8LIHIZIPSTIVQMRMQM^MRKXLIPSWWSVVIQSZEPSJREXYVEPZIKIXEXMSRMRGPYHMRK
OIITMRKERHTVSXIGXMRKXLIKVSZISJGSRMJIVSYWXVIIW
TMRIW
EREVIESJREXYVEP
WMKRMJMGERGI
XLEXMWMRERHRIEVXLIWSYXLWMHISJXLIWXVIEQGSVVMHSVRIEVXLIVIEV
SJTVSTSWIHFYMPHMRKW
3
'MX]'SYRGMP1IIXMRK
PacketPageNumber57of272
%PPHVMZI[E]WEXPIEWXJIIX[MHI-JXLIHIZIPSTIV[ERXWXSLEZITEVOMRKSR
SRIWMHISJEHVMZI[E]XLIRXLEXHVMZI[E]QYWXFIEXPIEWX JIIX[MHI
%PPTEVOMRKWXEPPW[MXLE[MHXLSJEXPIEWXRMRIJIIXERHEPIRKXLSJEXPIEWX
JIIX
G8LIHIZIPSTIVHIIHMRKXLIEVIEPEFIPIHq4EVO(IHMGEXMSRrSRXLITPERWXSXLI'MX]SJ
1ETPI[SSH8LMWHIHMGEXMSRMWXSLIPTTVSXIGXXLIQSWXWIRWMXMZIREXYVEPJIEXYVIWSR
XLIWMXIERH[SYPHTVSXIGXXLMWTEVXSJXLIWMXIJVSQFYMPHMRKJIRGIWQS[MRKGYXXMRK
JMPPMRKKVEHMRKHYQTMRKSVSXLIVKVSYRHHMWXYVFERGIW8LMWHIHMGEXMSREPWS[SYPH
LIPTIRWYVIXLIREXYVEPPMRIEVSVGSVVMHSVEWTIGXSJXLIWMXI
TVMQEVMP]EVSYRHXLI
WXVIEQ
QEMREWMXMWRS[8LI4EVOWERH6IGVIEXMSR(MVIGXSVWLEPPETTVSZIXLIPERHSV
XLIEVIE
W
JSVHIHMGEXMSRXSXLIGMX]
8LIGMX]WLEPPYWIXLI+VIIR[E]WKVERXJVSQXLI(26[LMPIQEXGLMRKXLIWXEXIHSPPEVW
[MXLGMX]STIRWTEGIQSRI]
EWMWVIUYMVIH
XSFY]XLITVSXIGXIHEVIEEPSRKXLIWXVIEQ
ERH[IXPERHWPEFIPIHEW4EVO(IHMGEXMSRSRXLITPERHEXIH1EVGL
8LIGMX]GSYRGMPQE]ETTVSZIQENSVGLERKIWXSXLITPERW8LIHMVIGXSVSJGSQQYRMX]
HIZIPSTQIRXQE]ETTVSZIQMRSVGLERKIW
8LITVSTSWIHGSRWXVYGXMSRQYWXFIWYFWXERXMEPP]WXEVXIH[MXLMRSRI]IEVSJGSYRGMP
ETTVSZEPSVXLITIVQMXWLEPPIRH8LIGSYRGMPQE]I\XIRHXLMWHIEHPMRIJSVSRI]IEV
,EZIXLIGMX]IRKMRIIVETTVSZIJMREPGSRWXVYGXMSRERHIRKMRIIVMRKTPERW8LIWITPERW
WLEPP
E-RGPYHIKVEHMRKYXMPMX]HVEMREKIIVSWMSRGSRXVSPWXVIIXWXVEMPWWMHI[EPOWXVII
HVMZI[E]ERHTEVOMRKPSXTPERW
F7LS[RSKVEHMRKSVKVSYRHHMWXYVFERGI
I\GITX[LIVIYXMPMXMIWSVXVEMPWEVIMRWXEPPIH
MR
XLI
6IUYMVIH[IXPERHERHWXVIEQFYJJIVEVIEW
4EVO(IHMGEXMSREVIE8LMWPERH[MPPFIJSVGMX]TEVOERHSTIRWTEGITYVTSWIW
8LIHIZIPSTIVERHGSRXVEGXSVWWLEPPTVSXIGXXLITEVOHIHMGEXMSREVIEMRGPYHMRK
XLIKVSZISJGSRMJIVSYWXVIIW
TMRIW
EREVIESJREXYVEPWMKRMJMGERGI
XLEXMWMR
ERHRIEVXLIWSYXLWMHISJXLIWXVIEQGSVVMHSVJVSQIRGVSEGLQIRXJVSQ
IUYMTQIRXKVEHMRKSVJMPPMRK
'MX]VIUYMVIHXVEMPWEVIEPPS[IHMRXLIFYJJIVERHTEVOHIHMGEXMSREVIEW
G-RGPYHIEWXSVQ[EXIVQEREKIQIRXTPERJSVXLITVSTSWEP
H-RGPYHIEGSSVHMREXIHTPER[MXLXLITYFPMG[SVOWHITEVXQIRXJSVXLIHIWMKRERH
4
'MX]'SYRGMP1IIXMRK
PacketPageNumber58of272
MRWXEPPEXMSRSJXLIWERMXEV]WI[IVPMRIWSVJSVXLIVITEMVSVVIEPMKRQIRXSJXLII\MWXMRK
WERMXEV]WI[IVPMRIXLEXVYRWXLVSYKLXLIWMXI
8LIHIWMKRSJXLITSRHWWLEPPQIIX1ETPI[SSHtWHIWMKRWXERHEVHWERHWLEPPFIWYFNIGXXS
XLIETTVSZEPSJXLIGMX]IRKMRIIV-JRIIHIHXLIHIZIPSTIVWLEPPFIVIWTSRWMFPIJSVKIXXMRK
ER]SJJWMXITSRHERHHVEMREKIIEWIQIRXW
8LIHIZIPSTIVSVGSRXVEGXSVWLEPP
E'SQTPIXIEPPKVEHMRKJSVXLIWMXIHVEMREKIERHXLITSRHWGSQTPIXIEPPTYFPMG
MQTVSZIQIRXWERHQIIXEPPGMX]VIUYMVIQIRXW
F4PEGIXIQTSVEV]SVERKIWEJIX]JIRGMRKERHWMKRWEXXLIKVEHMRKPMQMXW
G-RWXEPPTIVQERIRXWMKRWEVSYRHXLIIHKISJXLI[IXPERHFYJJIVIEWIQIRXW8LIWIWMKRW
WLEPPQEVOXLIIHKISJXLIIEWIQIRXWERHWLEPPWXEXIXLIVIWLEPPFIRSQS[MRK
ZIKIXEXMSRGYXXMRKJMPPMRKSVHYQTMRK
H-RWXEPPWYVZI]QSRYQIRXWEPSRKXLI[IXPERHFSYRHEVMIW
I6IQSZIER]HIFVMWNYROSVJMPPJVSQXLI[IXPERHWWXVIEQGSVVMHSVTEVOHIHMGEXMSR
EVIEERHWMXI
J-RWXEPPEWM\JSSX[MHIGSRGVIXIWMHI[EPOEPSRKXLIWSYXLWMHISJ1EV]PERH%ZIRYI
FIX[IIR7XIVPMRK7XVIIXERHXLI[IWXTVSTIVX]PMRISJXLIWMXI8LIHIZIPSTIVtWIRKMRIIV
WLEPPWLS[XLMWWMHI[EPOSRXLIKVEHMRKERHGSRWXVYGXMSRTPERW8LIGMX]IRKMRIIVWLEPP
ETTVSZIXLIHIXEMPWSJXLIWITPERW
K'SRWXVYGXERIMKLXJSSX[MHITEZIHTYFPMG[EPO[E]ERHX[SVEMPWTPMXVEMPJIRGMRKMR
XLIJSPPS[MRKPSGEXMSRW
*VSQ4VMZEXI(VMZI[E]%MRXLI[IWXWMHISJXLIWMXIFIX[IIR0SXW ERH XS
RIEVXLIWXVIEQMRXLIGIRXIVSJXLIWMXI
*VSQ4VMZEXI(VMZI[E](MRXLIIEWXWMHISJXLIWMXIFIX[IIR0SXWERH
XSRIEVXLIWXVIEQMRXLIGIRXIVSJXLIWMXI
8LIXVEMPQYWXLEZIEWYVJEGIXLEXMWRSXMQTIVZMSYW[LIRXLIXVEMPMWMRE[IXPERHSV
WXVIEQFYJJIVEVIE8LIHIZIPSTIVtWIRKMRIIVWLEPPHIWMKRXLIXVEMPWXSJSPPS[XLI
I\MWXMRKTVSTIVX]GSRXSYVWERHTVSTSWIHYXMPMX]GSVVMHSVWXSWEZIEWQER]XVIIWEW
TSWWMFPIERHXSQMRMQM^IXLIEQSYRXSJKVEHMRKRIGIWWEV]XSMRWXEPPXLIXVEMPW
F6IWXSVIEPPHMWXYVFIHEVIEW[MXLMRXLIWXVIEQGSVVMHSVERHTEVOHIHMGEXMSREVIE[MXL
EREXMZIWIIHQM\ETTVSZIHF]XLI[EXIVWLIHHMWXVMGXERHF]XLIGMX]IRKMRIIV
5
'MX]'SYRGMP1IIXMRK
PacketPageNumber59of272
8LIHIZIPSTIVWLEPPKMZIXLIGMX][IXPERHIEWIQIRXWSZIVXLI[IXPERHWERHXLI
WXVIEQ8LIIEWIQIRXWWLEPPGSZIVXLI[IXPERHWERHER]PERH[MXLMRJIIX
WYVVSYRHMRKE[IXPERH8LIIEWIQIRXWEPWSWLEPPGSZIVXLIWXVIEQERHER]PERH[MXLMR
JIIXSJXLIXSTSJXLIWXVIEQFERO8LIWIIEWIQIRXWWLEPPTVSLMFMXER]FYMPHMRK
QS[MRKGYXXMRKJMPPMRKSVHYQTMRK[MXLMRJMJX]JIIXSJXLI[IXPERHERHXLIWXVIEQSV
[MXLMRXLI[IXPERHMXWIPJ8LITYVTSWISJXLMWIEWIQIRXMWXSTVSXIGXXLI[EXIVUYEPMX]
SJXLI[IXPERHWERHXLIWXVIEQJVSQJIVXMPM^IVERHXSTVSXIGXXLI[IXPERHERHWXVIEQ
LEFMXEXJVSQIRGVSEGLQIRX
8LIETTVSZIHWIXFEGOWJSVXLITVMRGMTEPWXVYGXYVIWMRXLI&IEZIV0EOI8S[RLSQI
49(WLEPPFI
E*VSRX]EVHWIXFEGO
JVSQETVMZEXIHVMZI[E]
QMRMQYQJIIXQE\MQYQ
JIIX
F*VSRX]EVHWIXFEGO
TYFPMGWMHIWXVIIX
QMRMQYQJIIXQE\MQYQJIIX
G6IEV]EVHWIXFEGO RSRI
H7MHI]EVHWIXFEGO
XS[RLSYWIW
QMRMQYQJIIXXSETVSTIVX]PMRIERH
JIIXQMRMQYQFIX[IIRFYMPHMRKW
I7MHI]EVHWIXFEGOW
ETEVXQIRXW
JIIXQMRMQYQFIX[IIRFYMPHMRKW
8LMWETTVSZEPHSIWRSXMRGPYHIXLIHIWMKRETTVSZEPJSVXLIXS[RLSQIWSVJSVXLI
ETEVXQIRXW8LITVSNIGXHIWMKRTPERWMRGPYHMRKEVGLMXIGXYVEPWMXIPMKLXMRKXVIIERH
PERHWGETMRKTPERWWLEPPFIWYFNIGXXSVIZMI[ERHETTVSZEPSJXLIGSQQYRMX]HIWMKR
VIZMI[FSEVH
'(6&
8LITVSNIGXWWLEPPFIWYFNIGXXSXLIJSPPS[MRKGSRHMXMSRW
E1IIXMRKEPPGSRHMXMSRWERHGLERKIWEWVIUYMVIHF]XLIGMX]GSYRGMP
F8LIFYMPHMRKWMRXLIWLSVIPERHHMWXVMGXWLEPPLEZIEQE\MQYQLIMKLXSJJIIX
YRPIWWXLIGMX]GSYRGMPETTVSZIWXEPPIVWXVYGXYVIW
G8LIHIZIPSTIVWLEPPHIWMKRXLIWXVYGXYVIWXSVIHYGIXLIMVZMWMFMPMX]JVSQXLIPEOI
8LMWWLEPPMRGPYHIYWMRKZIKIXEXMSRXSTSKVETL]MRGVIEWIHWIXFEGOWGSPSVSVSXLIV
QIERWXSEGGSQTPMWLXLIWGVIIRMRK8LIGMX]QE]VIUYMVIEHHMXMSREPZIKIXEXMSRXS
LIPTWGVIIRXLIWIJEGMPMXMIW
H*SVXLIHVMZI[E]W
1MRMQYQ[MHXLJIIX
1E\MQYQ[MHXL JIIX
6
'MX]'SYRGMP1IIXMRK
PacketPageNumber60of272
%PPHVMZI[E]WPIWWXLER JIIXMR[MHXLWLEPPFITSWXIHJSVq2S4EVOMRKrSR
FSXLWMHIW(VMZI[E]WEXPIEWX JIIX[MHIQE]LEZITEVOMRKSRSRIWMHIERH
WLEPPFITSWXIHJSVRSTEVOMRKSRSRIWMHI
I7LS[MRKEPPGLERKIWVIUYMVIHF]XLIGMX]EWTEVXSJXLIGSRHMXMSREPYWITIVQMXJSVXLI
TPERRIHYRMXHIZIPSTQIRX
49(
8LIGMX]WLEPPRSXMWWYIER]FYMPHMRKTIVQMXWJSVGSRWXVYGXMSRSRERSYXPSX
TIVGMX]
GSHIVIUYMVIQIRXW
8LIHIZIPSTIVQYWXVIGSVHEJMREPTPEXXSGVIEXIFYMPHEFPIPSXWJSV
ER]SYXPSXMRXLITVIPMQMREV]TPEXFIJSVIXLIGMX][MPPMWWYIEFYMPHMRKTIVQMX
8LIHIZIPSTIVTE]MRKXLIGMX] MR4EVO%ZEMPEFMPMX]'LEVKIW
4%'JIIW
JSVXLMW
HIZIPSTQIRX
8LIGMX]GSYRGMPWLEPPVIZMI[XLMWTIVQMXMRSRI]IEV
7IGSRHIHF]'SYRGMPQIQFIV;EWMPYO%]IW%PP
'SYRGMPQIQFIV/STTIRQSZIHXSEHSTXXLIJSPPS[MRKVIWSPYXMSRETTVSZMRKEWXVIIXVMKLX
SJ[E]ERHIEWIQIRXZEGEXMSRWJSVXLI&IEZIV0EOI8S[RLSQIW
0EOI[SSH(VMZIERH
1EV]PERH%ZIRYI
6)73098-32
786))86-+,83*;%=:%'%8-326)73098-32
;,)6)%71V8SR])QQIVMGLVITVIWIRXMRKXLI%.)'SQTERMIWETTPMIHJSVXLIZEGEXMSRSJ
XLIJSPPS[MRKHIWGVMFIHWXVIIXVMKLXSJ[E]W
8LEXTEVXSJXLI7XIVPMRK7XVIIXVMKLXSJ[E]EWEVSEH[E]IEWIQIRXEGGSVHMRKXSXLI
HSGYQIRXJMPIH[MXL6EQWI]'SYRX]P]MRK[MXLMRXLI;IWXJIIXSJXLI)EWX JIIXSJ0SX
&PSGO&IEZIV0EOI%HHMXMSR
8LEXTEVXSJ1EKRSPME%ZIRYI
JSVQIVP]ORS[REW'LIVV]%ZIRYI
EWTPEXXIHMR&IEZIV
0EOI%HHMXMSRP]MRKFIX[IIRXLIIEWXVMKLXSJ[E]PMRISJ0EOI[SSH(VMZI
XLI[IWXPMRISJ
0SX &PSGO&IEZIV0EOI%HHMXMSRI\XIRHIHWSYXL
ERHXLIIEWXTVSTIVX]PMRISJ0SX
&PSGO&IEZIV0EOI%HHMXMSRI\XIRHIHWSYXL
%PPMR7IGXMSR8S[RWLMT 6ERKIMR6EQWI]'SYRX]
;,)6)%7XLILMWXSV]SJXLIWIZEGEXMSRWMWEWJSPPS[W
3R%TVMPXLITPERRMRKGSQQMWWMSRVIGSQQIRHIHXLEXXLIGMX]GSYRGMPETTVSZI
XLIWIWXVIIXZEGEXMSRW
7
'MX]'SYRGMP1IIXMRK
PacketPageNumber61of272
3R1E] XLIGMX]GSYRGMPLIPHETYFPMGLIEVMRK'MX]WXEJJTYFPMWLIHERSXMGIMRXLI
1ETPI[SSH6IZMI[ERHWIRXRSXMGIWXSXLIEFYXXMRKTVSTIVX]S[RIVW8LI'SYRGMPKEZI
IZIV]SRIEXXLILIEVMRKEGLERGIXSWTIEOERHTVIWIRX[VMXXIRWXEXIQIRXW8LIGSYRGMPEPWS
GSRWMHIVIHVITSVXWERHVIGSQQIRHEXMSRWJVSQXLIGMX]WXEJJERHTPERRMRKGSQQMWWMSR8LI
GSYRGMPXEFPIHEGXMSRSRXLIHIZIPSTQIRXVIUYIWXYRXMP1E]
;,)6)%7EJXIVXLIGMX]ETTVSZIWXLMWZEGEXMSRTYFPMGMRXIVIWXMRXLITVSTIVX][MPPKSXSXLI
JSPPS[MRKEFYXXMRKTVSTIVXMIW
0SX&PSGO&IEZIV0EOI%HHMXMSR
4-2
0SXWERH &PSGO&IEZIV0EOI%HHMXMSR
4-2
8LI2SVXL JIIXSJXLI;IWXSJXLI7)SJXLI2;
WYFNIGXXSVSEHW
SJ
7IGXMSR8S[RWLMT 6ERKI
0EOI[SSH(VMZI2SVXL
4-2
)\GITXXLI2SVXL JIIXSJXLI;IWX2SVXLJIIXSJXLI;IWXSJXLI7)
SJXLI2;
7YFNIGXXSVSEHWERHIEWIQIRX
MR7)'82 62
4-2
%PPMR7IGXMSR8S[RWLMT 6ERKI1ETPI[SSH6EQWI]'SYRX]1MRRIWSXE
23;8,)6)*36)&)-86)730:)(XLEXXLIGMX]GSYRGMPETTVSZIHXLIEFSZIHIWGVMFIH
ZEGEXMSRWMRGIMXMWMRXLITYFPMGMRXIVIWXFEWIHSRXLIJSPPS[MRKVIEWSRW
8LIEHNEGIRXTVSTIVXMIWLEZIEHIUYEXIWXVIIXEGGIWW
8LIWIVMKLXSJ[E]WEVIRSXRIIHIHJSVXLITYFPMGTYVTSWISJWXVIIXGSRWXVYGXMSR
8LIHIZIPSTIV[MPPFIFYMPHMRKTVMZEXIWXVIIXWERHHVMZI[E]WMRXLITVSNIGX
6)73098-32
)%7)1)28:%'%8-326)73098-32
;,)6)%71V8SR])QQIVMGLVITVIWIRXMRKXLI%.)'SQTERMIWETTPMIHJSVXLIZEGEXMSRSJ
XLIJSPPS[MRKHIWGVMFIHIEWIQIRXW
8LEXTEVXSJXLIJSPPS[MRKWERMXEV]WI[IVIEWIQIRXEGGSVHMRKXSHSGYQIRXRYQFIV
P]MRK[MXLMR0SXWERH &PSGO&IEZIV0EOI%HHMXMSRHIWGVMFIHEWJSPPS[W
&IKMRRMRKSRXLI;IWXPMRISJXLI2SVXLIEWXUYEVXIVSJXLI2SVXL[IWXUYEVXIVSJ7IGXMSR
8S[RWLMT 6ERKIEHMWXERGISJJIIX7SYXLSJXLI2SVXL[IWXGSVRIVSJWEMH
2SVXLIEWXUYEVXIVSJ2SVXL[IWXUYEVXIV XLIRGI)EWXJIIX XLIRGI7SYXL JIIX XLIRGI
7SYXL HIKVIIWQMRYXIW)EWX JIIX XLIRGI7SYXLHIKVII QMRYXIWWIGSRHW
;IWXEHMWXERGISJ JIIX XLIRGI7SYXL HIKVIIWQMRYXIWWIGSRHW)EWXEHMWXERGISJ
JIIXQSVISVPIWWXSETSMRXSRXLI;IWXPMRISJXLIJSSXWI[IVIEWIQIRXLIVIMREJXIV
8
'MX]'SYRGMP1IIXMRK
PacketPageNumber62of272
HIWGVMFIHEPPSJXLIJSVIKSMRKFIMRKSZIV0SX &PSGOERH0SXWERH &PSGO&IEZIV
0EOI%HHMXMSR
%PPP]MRKWSYXLSJ1EV]PERH%ZIRYIERHFIX[IIR0EOI[SSH(VMZIERH7XIVPMRK7XVIIXMR
7IGXMSR8S[RWLMT 6ERKI1ETPI[SSH1MRRIWSXE
;,)6)%7XLILMWXSV]SJXLMWZEGEXMSRMWEWJSPPS[W
3R%TVMPXLITPERRMRKGSQQMWWMSRVIGSQQIRHIHXLEXXLIGMX]GSYRGMPETTVSZI
XLIWIZEGEXMSRW
3R1E] XLIGMX]GSYRGMPLIPHETYFPMGLIEVMRK8LIGMX]WXEJJTYFPMWLIHERSXMGIMR
XLI1ETPI[SSH6IZMI[ERHWIRXERSXMGIXSXLIEFYXXMRKTVSTIVX]S[RIVW8LIGSYRGMPKEZI
IZIV]SRIEXXLILIEVMRKEGLERGIXSWTIEOERHTVIWIRX[VMXXIRWXEXIQIRXW8LIGSYRGMPEPWS
GSRWMHIVIHVITSVXWERHVIGSQQIRHEXMSRWJVSQXLIGMX]WXEJJERHTPERRMRKGSQQMWWMSR8LI
GSYRGMPXEFPIHEGXMSRSRXLIHIZIPSTQIRXVIUYIWXYRXMP1E]
;,)6)%7EJXIVXLIGMX]ETTVSZIWXLIWIZEGEXMSRWTYFPMGMRXIVIWXMRXLITVSTIVX][MPPKSXSXLI
JSPPS[MRKEFYXXMRKTVSTIVX]
0SX &PSGO&IEZIV0EOI%HHMXMSRERH0SXWERH &PSGO&IEZIV0EOI%HHMXMSR
4-2
%PPMR7IGXMSR8S[RWLMT 6ERKI6EQWI]'SYRX]1MRRIWSXE
23;8,)6)*36)&)-86)730:)(XLEXXLIGMX]GSYRGMPETTVSZIXLIEFSZI
HIWGVMFIHZEGEXMSRWJSVXLIJSPPS[MRKVIEWSRW
-XMWMRXLITYFPMGMRXIVIWX
8LIGMX]ERHXLIEHNEGIRXTVSTIVX]S[RIVWLEZIRSTPERWXSFYMPHEWXVIIXSVYXMPMXMIWMR
XLIWIPSGEXMSRW
8LIEHNEGIRXTVSTIVXMIWLEZIEGGIWWXSTYFPMGWXVIIXWERHYXMPMXMIW
7IGSRHIHF]'SYRGMPQIQFIV'SPPMRW%]IW%PP
'SYRGMPQIQFIV/STTIRQSZIHXSEHSTXXLITVIPMQMREV]TPEXJSV&IEZIV0EOI8S[RLSQI
HIZIPSTQIRXSRXLIWSYXLWMHISJ1EV]PERH%ZIRYIFIX[IIR7XIVPMRK7XVIIXERH
0EOI[SSH(VMZI8LIHIZIPSTIVWLEPPGSQTPIXIXLIJSPPS[MRKFIJSVIXLIGMX]GSYRGMP
ETTVSZIWXLIJMREPTPEX
7MKREREKVIIQIRX[MXLXLIGMX]XLEXKYEVERXIIWXLEXXLIHIZIPSTIVSVGSRXVEGXSV[MPP
9
'MX]'SYRGMP1IIXMRK
PacketPageNumber63of272
E'SQTPIXIEPPKVEHMRKJSVSZIVEPPWMXIHVEMREKIGSQTPIXIEPPTYFPMGMQTVSZIQIRXWERH
QIIXEPPGMX]VIUYMVIQIRXW
F4PEGIXIQTSVEV]SVERKIWEJIX]JIRGMRKERHWMKRWEXXLIKVEHMRKPMQMXW
G,EZI<GIP)RIVK]MRWXEPP+VSYT:VEXIWXVIIXPMKLXWMREXPIEWXPSGEXMSRWTVMQEVMP]
EXWXVIIXERHHVMZI[E]MRXIVWIGXMSRWERHWXVIIXSVHVMZI[E]GYVZIW8LII\EGXWX]PIERH
PSGEXMSRWLEPPFIWYFNIGXXSXLIGMX]IRKMRIIVtWETTVSZEP
H4E]XLIGMX]JSVXLIGSWXSJXVEJJMGGSRXVSPWXVIIXMHIRXMJMGEXMSRERHRSTEVOMRKWMKRW
I4VSZMHIEPPVIUYMVIHERHRIGIWWEV]IEWIQIRXW
J'ETWIEPERHEFERHSRER][IPPWXLEXQE]FISRXLIWMXIWYFNIGXXS1MRRIWSXEVYPIW
ERHKYMHIPMRIW
K'SQTPIXIERHVITPEGIEWRIGIWWEV]EPPGYVFERHKYXXIVSR7XIVPMRK7XVIIXERHSR
1EV]PERH%ZIRYI8LMWMWXSVITPEGIXLII\MWXMRKHVMZI[E]WERHHVMZI[E]ETVSRWSR
XLIWIWXVIIXW8LMWWLEPPMRGPYHIXLIVITEMVSJXLITEZIQIRXERHXLIVIWXSVEXMSRERH
WSHHMRKSJXLIFSYPIZEVHW
L*SVXLIXVEMPWERHWMHI[EPOWGSQTPIXIXLIJSPPS[MRK
'SRWXVYGXERIMKLXJSSX[MHITEZIHTYFPMG[EPO[E]ERHX[SVEMPWTPMXVEMP
JIRGMRKMRXLIJSPPS[MRKPSGEXMSRW
E*VSQ4VMZEXI(VMZI%MRXLI[IWXWMHISJXLIWMXIFIX[IIR0SXW ERH
XSRIEVXLIWXVIEQMRXLIGIRXIVSJXLIWMXI
F*VSQ4VMZEXI(VMZI(MRXLIIEWXWMHISJXLIWMXIFIX[IIR0SXWERHXS
RIEVXLIWXVIEQ
%PPXVEMPWFIX[IIRPSXWWLEPPFIMRETYFPMGP]S[RIHTIHIWXVMER[E]SVSYXPSX
8LIHIZIPSTIVEPWSWLEPPFYMPHEWM\JSSX[MHIWMHI[EPOEPSRKXLIWSYXLWMHISJ
1EV]PERH%ZIRYIFIX[IIR7XIVPMRK7XVIIXERHXLI[IWXTVSTIVX]PMRISJXLIWMXI
8LIHIZIPSTIVWLEPPMRWXEPPEX[SVEMPWTPMXVEMPJIRGISRFSXLWMHIWSJIEGLXVEMP
ERHTSWXWEXXLIIRHSJXLIXVEMPWXSTVIZIRXQSXSVM^IHZILMGPIWJVSQYWMRKXLI
XVEMP
8LIHIZIPSTIVWLEPPFYMPHXLIXVEMPWWMHI[EPOWERHJIRGMRK[MXLXLIHVMZI[E]W
ERHWXVIIXWFIJSVIXLIGMX]ETTVSZIWEJMREPTPEX
8LIGMX]IRKMRIIVQYWXETTVSZIXLIWITPERW
10
'MX]'SYRGMP1IIXMRK
PacketPageNumber64of272
M-RWXEPPTIVQERIRXWMKRWEVSYRHXLIIHKISJXLI[IXPERHERHWXVIEQFYJJIVIEWIQIRXW
8LIWIWMKRWWLEPPQEVOXLIIHKISJXLIIEWIQIRXWERHWLEPPWXEXIXLIVIWLEPPFIRS
QS[MRKZIKIXEXMSRGYXXMRKJMPPMRKKVEHMRKSVHYQTMRKFI]SRHXLMWTSMRX'MX]WXEJJ
WLEPPETTVSZIXLIWMKRHIWMKRERHPSGEXMSRFIJSVIXLIGSRXVEGXSVMRWXEPPWXLIQ8LI
HIZIPSTIVSVGSRXVEGXSVWLEPPMRWXEPPXLIWIWMKRWFIJSVIXLIGMX]MWWYIWFYMPHMRKTIVQMXW
MRXLMWTPEX
N-RWXEPPWYVZI]QSRYQIRXWEPSRKXLI[IXPERHFSYRHEVMIW
O-RWXEPPWYVZI]QSRYQIRXWERHWMKRWEPSRKXLIIHKIWSJXLIEVIEPEFIPIHq4EVO
(IHMGEXMSRr8LIWIWMKRWWLEPPI\TPEMRXLEXXLIEVIEFI]SRHXLIWMKRWMWETYFPMGTEVO
EVIEERHXLEXXLIVIWLEPPFIRSFYMPHMRKJIRGIWQS[MRKGYXXMRKJMPPMRKHYQTMRKSV
SXLIVKVSYRHHMWXYVFERGIMRXLEXEVIE8LIHIZIPSTIVSVGSRXVEGXSVWLEPPMRWXEPPXLIWI
WMKRWFIJSVIXLIGMX]MWWYIWFYMPHMRKTIVQMXWMRXLMWTPEX
F-RWXEPPWMKRW[LIVIXLIHVMZI[E]WJSVXLIETEVXQIRXWERHJSVXLIXS[RLSYWIWMRXIVWIGX
XLITYFPMGWXVIIXWMRHMGEXMRKXLEXXLI]EVITVMZEXIHVMZI[E]W
,EZIXLIGMX]IRKMRIIVETTVSZIJMREPGSRWXVYGXMSRERHIRKMRIIVMRKTPERW8LIWITPERW
WLEPPMRGPYHIKVEHMRKYXMPMX]HVEMREKIIVSWMSRGSRXVSPXVIIXVEMPWMHI[EPOHVMZI[E]ERH
WXVIIXTPERW8LITPERWWLEPPQIIXXLIJSPPS[MRKGSRHMXMSRW
E8LIIVSWMSRGSRXVSPTPERWWLEPPFIGSRWMWXIRX[MXLXLIGMX]GSHI
F8LIKVEHMRKTPERWLEPPWLS[
8LITVSTSWIHFYMPHMRKTEHIPIZEXMSRERHGSRXSYVMRJSVQEXMSRJSVIEGL
FYMPHMRKWMXI8LIPSXPMRIWSRXLMWTPERWLEPPJSPPS[XLIETTVSZIH
TVIPMQMREV]TPEX
'SRXSYVMRJSVQEXMSRJSVEPPXLIPERHXLEXXLIGSRWXVYGXMSR[MPPHMWXYVF
&YMPHMRKTEHWXLEXVIHYGIXLIKVEHMRKSRWMXI[LIVIXLIHIZIPSTIVGERWEZI
PEVKIXVIIW
8LIWXVIIXHVMZI[E]ERHXVEMPKVEHIWEWEPPS[IHF]XLIGMX]IRKMRIIV
%PPTVSTSWIHWPSTIWSRXLIGSRWXVYGXMSRTPERW8LIGMX]IRKMRIIVWLEPP
ETTVSZIXLITPERWWTIGMJMGEXMSRWERHQEREKIQIRXTVEGXMGIWJSVER]WPSTIW
WXIITIVXLER 3RWPSTIWWXIITIVXLER XLIHIZIPSTIVWLEPPTVITEVI
ERHMQTPIQIRXEWXEFMPM^EXMSRERHTPERXMRKTPER8LIWIWPSTIWWLEPPFI
TVSXIGXIH[MXL[SSHJMFIVFPEROIXFIWIIHIH[MXLERSQEMRXIRERGI
ZIKIXEXMSRERHFIWXEFMPM^IHFIJSVIXLIGMX]ETTVSZIWXLIJMREPTPEX
11
'MX]'SYRGMP1IIXMRK
PacketPageNumber65of272
%PPVIXEMRMRK[EPPWSRXLITPERW%R]VIXEMRMRK[EPPWXEPPIVXLERJSYVJIIX
VIUYMVIEFYMPHMRKTIVQMXJVSQXLIGMX]8LIHIZIPSTIVWLEPPMRWXEPPE
TVSXIGXMZIVEMPSVJIRGISRXSTSJER]VIXEMRMRK[EPPXLEXMWXEPPIVXLERJSYV
JIIX
7IHMQIRXEXMSRFEWMRWSVTSRHWEWVIUYMVIHF]XLI[EXIVWLIHFSEVHSVF]XLI
GMX]IRKMRIIV
2SKVEHMRKFI]SRHXLITPEXFSYRHEV][MXLSYXXIQTSVEV]KVEHMRKIEWIQIRXW
JVSQXLIEJJIGXIHTVSTIVX]S[RIV
W
%HHMXMSREPMRJSVQEXMSRJSVXLITVSTIVX]WSYXLSJXLITVSNIGXWMXI8LMWWLEPP
MRGPYHIIPIZEXMSRWSJXLII\MWXMRKHMXGLGYPZIVXWERHGEXGLFEWMRWERHIRSYKL
MRJSVQEXMSREFSYXXLIWXSVQ[EXIVJPS[TEXLJVSQXLITVSTSWIHTSRHW
)QIVKIRG]SZIVJPS[WFIX[IIR0SXW ERH 0SXWERHERHWSYXLSJ
TVSTSWIHFYMPHMRK
SYXSJTVSTSWIHTSRHWERH
8LISZIVJPS[
W[EPIWWLEPPFITVSXIGXIH[MXLTIVQERIRXWSMPWXEFMPM^EXMSRFPEROIXW
6IWXSVEXMSRMRXLIWXVIEQGSVVMHSVERHTEVOHIHMGEXMSREVIEFIMRKHSRI[MXL
REXMZIWIIHQM\SVZIKIXEXMSREWETTVSZIHF]XLIGMX]IRKMRIIVERHF]XLI
[EXIVWLIHHMWXVMGX
G8LIXVIITPERWLEPP
&IETTVSZIHEPSRK[MXLXLIPERHWGETMRKF]XLI'SQQYRMX](IWMKR6IZMI[
&SEVH
'(6&
FIJSVIWMXIKVEHMRKSVJMREPTPEXETTVSZEP
7LS[[LIVIXLIHIZIPSTIV[MPPVIQSZIWEZISVVITPEGIPEVKIXVIIW8LMWTPER
WLEPPMRGPYHIERMRZIRXSV]SJEPPI\MWXMRKPEVKIXVIIWSRXLIWMXI
12
'MX]'SYRGMP1IIXMRK
PacketPageNumber66of272
7LS[XLIWM^IWTIGMIWERHPSGEXMSRSJXLIVITPEGIQIRXERHWGVIIRMRKXVIIW
8LIHIGMHYSYWXVIIWWLEPPFIEXPIEWXX[SERHSRILEPJ
MRGLIWMRHMEQIXIV
ERHWLEPPFIEQM\SJVIHERH[LMXISEOWEWLPMRHIRWWYKEVQETPIWSVSXLIV
REXMZIWTIGMIW8LIGSRMJIVSYWXVIIWWLEPPFIEXPIEWXIMKLX
JIIXXEPPERHWLEPP
FIEQM\SJ&PEGO,MPPW7TVYGI%YWXVMERTMRIERHSXLIVWTIGMIW
7LS[RSXVIIVIQSZEPMRXLIFYJJIV^SRIWTEVOHIHMGEXMSREVIEWSVFI]SRHXLI
ETTVSZIHKVEHMRKERHXVIIPMQMXW
-RGPYHIJSVGMX]WXEJJEHIXEMPIHXVIITPERXMRKTPERERHQEXIVMEPPMWX
+VSYTXLIRI[XVIIWXSKIXLIV8LIWITPERXMRKEVIEWWLEPPFI
E
RIEVXLITSRHMRKEVIEW
F
SRXLIWPSTIW
G
EPSRKXLIXVEMPW
H
EPSRKXLIIEWXWMHISJ0EOI[SSH(VMZIXSWGVIIRXLITVSTSWIHFYMPHMRKWJVSQ&IEZIV
0EOI
I
EPSRKXLIWSYXLWMHISJXLIWMXI
[IWXSJ7XIVPMRK7XVIIX
XSWGVIIRXLIHIZIPSTQIRX
JVSQXLII\MWXMRKLSYWIXSXLIWSYXL
8LIHIZIPSTIVQE]YWIXLIXVIIKVSYTMRKWXSWITEVEXIXLIHMJJIVIRXX]TIWSJVIWMHIRGIW
7LS[XLITPERXMRKSJEXPIEWXXVIIWEJXIVXLIWMXIKVEHMRKMWHSRI
H8LIWXVIIXXVEMPWMHI[EPOERHYXMPMX]TPERWWLEPPWLS[
%RIMKLXJSSX[MHITEZIHTYFPMG[EPO[E]ERHX[SVEMPWTPMXVEMPJIRGMRKMRXLIJSPPS[MRK
PSGEXMSRW
E*VSQ4VMZEXI(VMZI%MRXLI[IWXWMHISJXLIWMXIFIX[IIR0SXW ERH XSRIEVXLIWXVIEQMR
XLIGIRXIVSJXLIWMXI
F*VSQ4VMZEXI(VMZI(MRXLIIEWXWMHISJXLIWMXIFIX[IIR0SXWERHXSRIEVXLIWXVIEQ
8LITEVOWERHVIGVIEXMSRHMVIGXSVWLEPPETTVSZIXLIMVPSGEXMSRWERHHIWMKR
8LITYFPMGWXVIIXWERHHVMZI[E]WWLEPPFIE XSRHIWMKR[MXLEQE\MQYQWXVIIXKVEHISJ
IMKLXTIVGIRXERHXLIQE\MQYQWXVIIXKVEHI[MXLMRJIIXSJEPPMRXIVWIGXMSRWEXX[S
TIVGIRX
%PPXLIWXVIIXWTEVOMRKEVIEWERHHVMZI[E]W[MXLGSRXMRYSYWGSRGVIXIGYVFERHKYXXIV
I\GITX[LIVIXLIGMX]IRKMRIIVHIGMHIWXLEXMXMWRSXRIIHIHJSVHVEMREKITYVTSWIW
13
'MX]'SYRGMP1IIXMRK
PacketPageNumber67of272
8LIVIQSZEPSJXLIYRYWIHHVMZI[E]WERHHVMZI[E]ETVSRWERHXLIGSQTPIXMSRSJXLI
GYVFERHKYXXIVSR7XIVPMRK7XVIIXERHSR1EV]PERH%ZIRYIERHXLIVIWXSVEXMSRERHWSHHMRKSJXLIFSYPIZEVHW
8LIGSSVHMREXMSRSJXLI[EXIVQEMRPSGEXMSRWEPMKRQIRXWERHWM^MRK[MXLXLIWXERHEVHWERH
VIUYMVIQIRXWSJXLI7EMRX4EYP6IKMSREP;EXIV7IVZMGIW
746;7
*MVIJPS[VIUYMVIQIRXWERH
L]HVERXPSGEXMSRWWLEPPFIZIVMJMIH[MXLXLI1ETPI[SSH*MVI(ITEVXQIRX
%PPYXMPMX]I\GEZEXMSRWPSGEXIH[MXLMRXLITVSTSWIHVMKLXSJ[E]WSV[MXLMRIEWIQIRXW8LI
HIZIPSTIVWLEPPEGUYMVIIEWIQIRXWJSVEPPYXMPMXMIWXLEX[SYPHFISYXWMHIXLITVSNIGXEVIE
8LITPERERHTVSJMPIWSJXLITVSTSWIHYXMPMXMIW
(IXEMPWSJXLITSRHWERHXLITSRHSYXPIXW8LISYXPIXWWLEPPFITVSXIGXIHXSTVIZIRXIVSWMSR
%GSSVHMREXIHWI[IVVIEPMKRQIRXERHVIGSRWXVYGXMSRTPER8LIGMX]IRKMRIIVQYWXETTVSZIXLI
WERMXEV]WI[IVVIEPMKRQIRXTPERW
%WM\JSSX[MHIGSRGVIXIWMHI[EPOEPSRKXLIWSYXLWMHISJ1EV]PERH%ZIRYIFIX[IIR7XIVPMRK
7XVIIXERHXLI[IWXTVSTIVX]PMRISJXLIWMXI
I8LIHVEMREKITPERWLEPPIRWYVIXLEXXLIVIMWRSMRGVIEWIMRXLIVEXISJWXSVQ[EXIVVYRSJJPIEZMRKXLI
WMXIEFSZIXLIGYVVIRX
TVIHIZIPSTQIRX
PIZIPW8LIHIZIPSTIVtWIRKMRIIVWLEPP
:IVMJ]MRPIXERHTMTIGETEGMXMIW
,EZIXLIGMX]IRKMRIIVZIVMJ]XLIHVEMREKIHIWMKRGEPGYPEXMSRW
4E]XLIGSWXWVIPEXIHXSXLIIRKMRIIVMRKHITEVXQIRXtWVIZMI[SJXLIGSRWXVYGXMSRTPERW
'LERKIXLITPEXEWJSPPS[W
E7LS[HVEMREKIERHYXMPMX]IEWIQIRXWEPSRKEPPTVSTIVX]PMRIWSRXLIJMREPTPEX8LIWIIEWIQIRXWWLEPP
FIXIRJIIX[MHIEPSRKXLIJVSRXERHVIEVTVSTIVX]PMRIWERHJMZIJIIX[MHIEPSRKXLIWMHITVSTIVX]
PMRIW
F7LS[XLI[IXPERHFSYRHEVMIWSRXLIJMREPTPEXEWETTVSZIHF]XLI[EXIVWLIHHMWXVMGX
G7LS[XLITEVOHIHMGEXMSRFSYRHEV]ERHEVIESRXLIJMREPTPEX
H1EOIEWQER]SJXLITVSTIVX]PMRIWEWMWVIEWSREFP]TSWWMFPIVEHMEPXSXLIGYPHIWEGWSV
TIVTIRHMGYPEVXSXLIHVMZI[E]WERHWXVIIXVMKLXSJ[E]W
I7LS[WXVIIXREQIWJSVXLIHVMZI[E]WEWJSPPS[W
4VMZEXI(VMZI[E]%MRXLI[IWXSRILEPJSJXLIWMXIWLEPPFIGEPPIHq&IEZIV'VIIO4EVO[E]r
4VMZEXI(VMZI[E]&MRXLI[IWXSRILEPJSJXLIWMXIWLEPPFIGEPPIHq&IEZIV'VIIO0ERIr
4VMZEXI(VMZI[E](MRXLIIEWXSRILEPJSJXLIWMXIWLEPPFIGEPPIHq7XIVPMRK'MVGPIr
14
'MX]'SYRGMP1IIXMRK
PacketPageNumber68of272
4VMZEXI(VMZI[E])MRXLIIEWXSRILEPJSJXLIWMXIWLEPPFIGEPPIHq7XIVPMRK0ERIr
J7LS[XLII\MWXMRKTMTIPMRIWERHTMTIPMRIIEWIQIRXWSRXLIJMREPTPEX
K-JRIGIWWEV]MRGVIEWIXLIPSX[MHXLWJSVXLIPSXWRI\XXSXLITMTIPMRIXSIRWYVIXLEXXLIFYMPHMRKTEHW
[MPPFIEXPIEWXJIIXE[E]JVSQXLITMTIPMRI
GSHIVIUYMVIQIRX
L0EFIPXLIGSQQSREVIEWEWSYXPSXW
&7LS[XLIXVEMPWMRTYFPMGP]S[RIHTVSTIVX]SVIEWIQIRXW
N7LS[XLIEVIEFIX[IIRFYMPHMRKW ERH ERHFYMPHMRKWERHEWWITEVEXISYXPSXWERHHIHMGEXI
IEGLSJXLIWIXSXLIGMX]
7IGYVIERHTVSZMHIEPPVIUYMVIHIEWIQIRXWJSVXLIHIZIPSTQIRX8LIWIWLEPPMRGPYHI
'%R]SJJWMXIHVEMREKIERHYXMPMX]IEWIQIRXW
(;IXPERHERHWXVIEQIEWIQIRXWSZIVXLI[IXPERHWERHER]PERH[MXLMRJIIXWYVVSYRHMRKE[IXPERHERH
EWXVIEQ8LIIEWIQIRXWLEPPTVSLMFMXER]FYMPHMRKSVWXVYGXYVIW[MXLMRJIIXSJXLI[IXPERHSV
WXVIEQSVER]QS[MRKGYXXMRKJMPPMRKKVEHMRKSVHYQTMRK[MXLMRJIIXSJXLIWXVIEQ[IXPERHSV
[MXLMRXLI[IXPERHMXWIPJ
G%WXVIEQFYJJIVIEWIQIRXXLEXMWEXPIEWXJIIX[MHISRIEGLWMHISJXLIWXVIEQXLEXGVSWWIWXLIWMXI
8LIIEWIQIRXWLEPPTVSLMFMXER]FYMPHMRKWXVYGXYVIWSVER]QS[MRKJMPPMRKGYXXMRKKVEHMRKSV
HYQTMRK[MXLMRJIIXSJXLISVHMREV]LMKL[EXIVQEVO
3,;1
SJXLIWXVIEQ
8LITYVTSWISJXLIWIIEWIQIRXWMWXSTVSXIGXXLI[EXIVUYEPMX]SJXLIWXVIEQERH[IXPERHWJVSQ
JIVXMPM^IVERHVYRSJJ8LI]EPWSEVIXSTVSXIGXXLIWXVIEQERH[IXPERHLEFMXEXJVSQIRGVSEGLQIRX
H%R]IEWIQIRXWXLIGMX]RIIHWJSVXLIVIEPMKRQIRXSJXLIWERMXEV]WI[IVXLVSYKLXLIWMXI
7MKREHIZIPSTIVtWEKVIIQIRX[MXLXLIGMX]XLEXKYEVERXIIWXLEXXLIHIZIPSTIVSVGSRXVEGXSV[MPP
E'SQTPIXIEPPKVEHMRKJSVSZIVEPPWMXIHVEMREKIGSQTPIXIEPPTYFPMGMQTVSZIQIRXWERHQIIXEPPGMX]
VIUYMVIQIRXW
F4PEGIXIQTSVEV]SVERKIWEJIX]JIRGMRKERHWMKRWEXXLIKVEHMRKPMQMXW
G4VSZMHIJSVXLIVITEMVSJ0EOI[SSH(VMZI1EV]PERH%ZIRYIERH7XIVPMRK7XVIIX
WXVIIXGYVFERH
KYXXIVERHFSYPIZEVH
EJXIVXLIHIZIPSTIVGSRRIGXWXSXLITYFPMGYXMPMXMIWERHFYMPHWXLIHVMZI[E]W
H;SVO[MXLXLIGMX]EWRIGIWWEV]JSVXLIVIEPMKRQIRXSJXLIWERMXEV]WI[IVXLVSYKLXLIWMXI8LMW
WI[IVTVSNIGXEPWS[MPPVIUYMVIEREWWIWWQIRXEKVIIQIRXFIX[IIRXLIHIZIPSTIVERHXLIGMX]XS
GSQTIRWEXIXLIGMX]JSVXLIFIRIJMXXLEXXLIHIZIPSTIVVIGIMZIWJVSQXLIGMX]WI[IVGSRWXVYGXMSR
6IGSVHXLIJSPPS[MRK[MXLXLIJMREPTPEX
15
'MX]'SYRGMP1IIXMRK
PacketPageNumber69of272
E%PPLSQIS[RIVWtEWWSGMEXMSRHSGYQIRXW
F%GSZIRERXSVHIIHVIWXVMGXMSRXLEXTVSLMFMXWER]EHHMXMSREPHVMZI[E]W
FIWMHIWXLISRIRI[
HVMZI[E]WLS[RSRXLITVSNIGXTPERW
JVSQKSMRKSRXS0EOI[SSH(VMZIERHSRXS1EV]PERH%ZIRYI
G%HIIHVIWXVMGXMSRTVSLMFMXMRKXLIGSRWXVYGXMSRSJEH[IPPMRKSVMXWEXXEGLQIRXW[MXLMRJIIXSJXLI
;MPPMEQW&VSXLIVWTMTIPMRI8LMWEJJIGXW0SXWXLVSYKL0SXW XLVSYKLERHFYMPHMRKWERH
SJXLITVSTSWIHTVIPMQMREV]TPERXLIGMX]VIGIMZIHSR1EVGL8LIHIZIPSTIVEPWSWLEPP
RSXMJ]XLITYVGLEWIVWSJXLITMTIPMRIPSGEXMSR
H%HIIHHIHMGEXMRKEWXVIEQFYJJIVIEWIQIRX
JIIXJVSQXLIXSTSJIEGLWXVIEQFERO
JSVXLI
WXVIEQXLEXGVSWWIWXLIWMXI
I(IIHWJSVXLIWXVIEQERH[IXPERHFYJJIVIEWIQIRXWWYVVSYRHMRKXLIWXVIEQERHXLI[IXPERHW
J%GSZIRERXSVHIIHVIWXVMGXMSRXLEXTVSLMFMXWER]JYVXLIVWYFHMZMWMSRSVWTPMXXMRKSJXLIPSXWSVTEVGIPW
MRXLITPEXXLEX[SYPHGVIEXIEHHMXMSREPFYMPHMRKWMXIWYRPIWWETTVSZIHF]XLIGMX]GSYRGMP
)%HIIHXLEXXVERWJIVWXLIS[RIVWLMTSJXLITEVOHIHMGEXMSREVIEXS1ETPI[SSH
*(IIHWXLEXXVERWJIVXLIS[RIVWLMTSJXLISYXPSXWFIX[IIRFYMPHMRKW ERH ERHFYMPHMRKWERHXS
XLIGMX]
8LIETTPMGERXWLEPPWYFQMXXLIPERKYEKIJSVXLIWIHIHMGEXMSRWERHVIWXVMGXMSRWXSXLIGMX]JSVETTVSZEP
FIJSVIVIGSVHMRK
7YFQMXXLILSQIS[RIVWtEWWSGMEXMSRF]PE[WERHVYPIWXSXLI(MVIGXSVSJ'SQQYRMX](IZIPSTQIRX
8LIWIEVIXSEWWYVIXLEXXLIVI[MPPFISRIVIWTSRWMFPITEVX]JSVXLIQEMRXIRERGISJXLITVMZEXIYXMPMXMIW
HVMZI[E]WERHWXVYGXYVIW
7LS[XLI[IXPERHFSYRHEVMIWSRXLITPEXEWETTVSZIHF]XLI;EXIVWLIH(MWXVMGX%XVEMRIHERH
UYEPMJMIHTIVWSRQYWXHIPMRIEXIXLI[IXPERHW8LMWTIVWSRWLEPPTVITEVIE[IXPERHHIPMRIEXMSRVITSVX
8LIHIZIPSTIVWLEPPWYFQMXXLMW[IXPERHMRJSVQEXMSRXSXLI;EXIVWLIH(MWXVMGXSJJMGI8LI;EXIVWLIH
(MWXVMGXQYWXETTVSZIXLMWMRJSVQEXMSRFIJSVIXLIGMX]ETTVSZIWEJMREPTPEX-JRIIHIHXLIHIZIPSTIV
WLEPPGLERKIXLITPEXXSQIIX[IXPERHVIKYPEXMSRW
8LIHIZIPSTIVWLEPPGSQTPIXIEPPKVEHMRKJSVTYFPMGMQTVSZIQIRXWERHSZIVEPPWMXIHVEMREKI8LIGMX]
IRKMRIIVWLEPPMRGPYHIMRXLIHIZIPSTIVtWEKVIIQIRXER]KVEHMRKXLEXXLIHIZIPSTIVSVGSRXVEGXSVLEW
RSXGSQTPIXIHFIJSVIJMREPTPEXETTVSZEP
3FXEMRETIVQMXJVSQXLI6EQWI];EWLMRKXSR1IXVS;EXIVWLIH(MWXVMGXJSVKVEHMRK
-JXLIHIZIPSTIVHIGMHIWXSJMREPTPEXTEVXSJXLITVIPMQMREV]TPEXXLIHMVIGXSVSJGSQQYRMX]
HIZIPSTQIRXQE][EMZIER]GSRHMXMSRWXLEXHSRSXETTP]XSXLIJMREPTPEX
CCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCC
8LIHIZIPSTIVQYWXGSQTPIXIXLIWIGSRHMXMSRWFIJSVIXLIGMX]MWWYIWEKVEHMRKTIVQMXSVETTVSZIWXLI
JMREPTPEX
16
'MX]'SYRGMP1IIXMRK
PacketPageNumber70of272
7IGSRHIHF]'SYRGMPQIQFIV'SPPMRW%]IW1E]SV'EVHMREP'SYRGMPQIQFIVW
'SPPMRW/STTIR;EWMPYO
2E]W'SYRGMPQIQFIV.YIRIQERR
'SYRGMPQIQFIV/STTIRQSZIHXSEHSTXXLIJSPPS[MRKVIWSPYXMSRETTVSZMRKXLISRWXVIIXTEVOMRK
WXERHEVHWJSVXLI&IEZIV0EOI8S[RLSQIHIZIPSTQIRX
6)73098-32
234%6/-2+6)73098-32
;,)6)%71ETPI[SSHLEWETTVSZIHEVIWMHIRXMEP49(ERHTVIPMQMREV]TPEXORS[REW&IEZIV0EOI
8S[RLSQIW
;,)6)%7XLIHIZIPSTIV[ERXWXSLEZIVIHYGIHWXVIIXVMKLXSJ[E][MHXLWVIHYGIHWXVIIXTEZIQIRX
[MHXLWERHVIHYGIHTVMZEXIHVMZI[E][MHXLWMRXLMWHIZIPSTQIRX
;,)6)%7XLIGMX]LEWETTVSZIHVIHYGIHWXVIIXVMKLXSJ[E][MHXLWVIHYGIHWXVIIXTEZIQIRX[MHXLWERH
VIHYGIHHVMZI[E][MHXLWMRXLIHIZIPSTQIRXWYFNIGXXSSRWXVIIXTEVOMRKVIWXVMGXMSRW
;,)6)%77IGXMSR
F
SJXLIGMX]GSHIEPPS[WZEVMEXMSRWJVSQXLIGMX]GSHIWXERHEVHWMJXLI]HSRSX
EJJIGXXLIKIRIVEPTYVTSWISJXLIGMX]GSHI
23;8,)6)*36)-8-7,)6)&=6)730:)(XLEX1ETPI[SSHTVSLMFMXWXLITEVOMRKSJQSXSV
ZILMGPIWSRFSXLWMHIWSJEPPTYFPMGWXVIIXWERHHVMZI[E]WPIWWXLER JIIX[MHIERHTVSLMFMXWTEVOMRKSRSRI
WMHISJXLITYFPMGWXVIIXWERHHVMZI[E]WXLEXEVI JIIXXSJIIX[MHIMRXLI&IEZIV0EOI8S[RLSQI49(
WSYXLSJ1EV]PERH%ZIRYIFIX[IIR7XIVPMRK7XVIIXERH0EOI[SSH(VMZIMR7IGXMSR
7IGSRHIHF]'SYRGMPQIQFIV'SPPMRW%]IW1E]SV'EVHMREP'SYRGMPQIQFIVW
'SPPMRW;EWMPYO/STTIR
2E]W'SYRGMPQIQFIV.YIRIQERR
'SYRGMPQIQFIV/STTIRQSZIHXSEYXLSVM^IGMX]WXEJJXSWTIRHYTXSSJXLISTIRWTEGIJYRHW
JSVXLI EGVIW[LMGL[SYPHMRGPYHIXLIQEXGLMRKKVERXJSVQXLI(26+VIIR[E]W4VSKVEQ
7XEJJ[EWEPWSHMVIGXIHXSQEOIXLIHIZIPSTIVE[EVIXLEXXLIGMX][SYPHPMOIXSWIILMWTEVXMGMTEXMSRMR
XLISTIRWTEGITVSKVEQ
7IGSRHIHF]'SYRGMPQIQFIV'SPPMRW%]IW%PP
17
'MX]'SYRGMP1IIXMRK
PacketPageNumber71of272
%XXEGLQIRX
MINUTES OF THE MAPLEWOOD COMMUNITY DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
1830 COUNTY ROAD B EAST, MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA
TUESDAY, JULY 9, 2002
I. CALL TO ORDER
Chairperson Ledvina called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m.
II. ROLL CALL
Matt Ledvina Present
Craig Jorgenson Present
Diana Longrie-Kline Present
Linda Olson Present
Ananth Shankar Absent
Staff Present: Shann Finwall, Associate Planner
Lisa Kroll, Recording Secretary
VI. DESIGN REVIEW
b. Beaver Lake Townhomes – South of Maryland Avenue, between Sterling
Street and Lakewood Drive
Ms. Finwall outlined the details of the Beaver Lake Townhomes. The development will
include 40 single-family detached townhomes and 108 rental units in eleven 8-unit and
five four-unit buildings. Staff recommends approval of the design review of Beaver
Lake Townhomes with conditions as outlined in the staff report.
Larry Olson of LSJ Engineering addressed the board. He presented to the board
drawings of the renditions of the townhomes that homeowners could choose from.
Doug Moe, architect for the Beaver Lake Apartments addressed the board. He stated
the smallest building will be 4 units and will have one and two bedrooms. The larger
units will have two and three bedrooms. Mr. Moe showed board members the
drawings and color schemes of the apartment buildings.
Chairperson Ledvina asked the applicant why the brick wainscoting was not continued
along the front elevation of the apartments.
Ms. Finwall said originally the applicant did not have any brick. Staff recommended
adding brick to tie the buildings in with the townhomes. The developer submitted
revised plans showing brick wainscoting along a portion of the front elevations and on
the garage elevations.
Board member Olson asked staff if there was going to be a revised light plan revision
submitted?
Ms. Finwall said correct.
PacketPageNumber72of272
Community Design Review Board
Minutes 7-9-2002
Chairperson Ledvina said he prefers the design of sample "B" compared to the design
of sample "A" regarding the floor plans for the townhomes. He thinks there should be
a two-foot return on the side elevations of the townhomes. He feels it gives a much
nicer appearance in his opinion. He likes the design of the multi tenant buildings. He
would like to incorporate the brick design on the entire elevation and have it be
continuous around the whole building.
Board member Olson said she prefers the brick to stop at the corner and not be a two-
foot wrap around on the townhomes. She has a concern about the side elevation with
only one window. Perhaps landscaping could be added to that side to dress up the
expansion.
Board member Jorgenson said he likes the brick idea on both projects. It adds a lot to
the structure and saves maintenance on the exterior of the building. He likes the
various alternatives the applicant would be offering to the potential homeowner. It will
be a nice mix he said.
Board member Olson said she thinks it should be up to the potential homeowner if
they want brick wrapped around the building or not.
Board member Longrie-Kline agreed that she liked the design of the buildings and the
alternatives in the townhome designs for the potential homeowners. She doesn't have
a preference for the brick on the buildings. In her opinion she thinks it looks fine either
way. Having more brick on the structures would make for a more consistent
community with the townhomes and apartment buildings.
Mr. Moe said adding more brick adds to the cost of the project. Mr. Moe said the one-
bedroom units are about 800 square feet, the two bedroom units are about 1,100
square feet, and the three bedroom units are about 1,300 square feet in size.
Chairperson Ledvina said he can appreciate the concern about the additional price of
adding brick. Brick would actually save on the siding of the apartment buildings in the
long haul and aesthetically it would be more pleasing. It is a very small percentage of
cost to be added.
Board member Olson said that the apartment with two or more bedrooms will attract
people with children and this could save on the exterior of the building having brick on
it as opposed to just vinyl siding. She would agree with chairperson Ledvina in his
statements.
Board member Jorgenson moved to approve the project design plans (architectural,
landscaping and lighting plans) for the Beaver Lake Townhouses (dated June 19,
2002). The city bases this approval on the findings required by the code. The
(changes are in bold)
developer or contractor shall do the following:
1. Repeat this review in two years if the city has not issued a building
permit for this project.
PacketPageNumber73of272
Community Design Review Board
Minutes 7-9-2002
2. Complete the following before the city issues a building permit:
a. Have the city engineer approve final construction and engineering
plans. These plans shall include the grading, utility, drainage,
erosion control, tree, trail, sidewalk and driveway and parking lot
plans. The plans shall meet the following conditions and
requirements of the assistant city engineer and the following:
(1) The erosion control plans shall be consistent with the city
code.
(2) The grading plan shall show:
(a) The proposed building pad elevation and contour
information for each building site. The lot lines on
this plan shall follow the approved preliminary plat.
(b) Contour information for all the land that the
construction will disturb.
(c) Building pads that reduce the grading on site where
the developer can save large trees.
(d) The street, driveway and trail grades as allowed by
the city engineer.
(e) All proposed slopes on the construction plans. The
city engineer shall approve the plans, specifications
and management practices for any slopes steeper
than 3:1. On slopes steeper than 3:1, the developer
shall prepare and implement a stabilization and
planting plan. These slopes shall be protected with
wood fiber blanket, be seeded with a no
maintenance vegetation and be stabilized before the
city approves the final plat.
(f) All retaining walls on the plans. Any retaining walls
taller than four feet require a building permit form the
city. The developer shall install a protective rail or
fence on top of any retaining wall that is taller than
four feet.
(g) Sedimentation basins or ponds as required by the
watershed board or by the city engineer.
PacketPageNumber74of272
Community Design Review Board
Minutes 7-9-2002
(h) No grading beyond the plat boundary without
temporary grading easements from the affected
property owner(s).
(i) No grading or ground disturbance (except where
utilities or trails are installed) in the:
1. Required wetland and stream buffer areas.
2. Park dedication area. This land will be for city
park and open space purposes.
The developer and contractors shall protect
the park dedication area, including the grove
of coniferous trees (pines) (an area of natural
significance) that is in and near the south side
of the stream corridor, from encroachment
from equipment, grading or filling.
City-required trails are allowed in the buffer and park
dedication areas.
(j) Additional information for the property south of the
project south of the project site.
This shall include elevations of the existing ditch,
culverts and catch basins and enough information
about the storm water flow path from the proposed
ponds.
(k) Emergency overflows between Lots 8 and 9, Lots 21
and 22 and south of proposed building 42 (out of
proposed ponds 1,3, and 4).The contractor shall
protect the overflow swales with permanent soil-
stabilization blankets.
(l) Restoration in the stream corridor and park
dedication area being done with native seed mix or
vegetation as approved by the city engineer and by
the watershed district.
(m) No grading or ground disturbance in the park
dedication area and in the wetland and stream buffer
areas except:
1. As allowed by the watershed district.
2. For the utilities, trails and footbridge.
PacketPageNumber75of272
Community Design Review Board
Minutes 7-9-2002
(n) The required trails and sidewalks.
(o) Revised storm water pond locations and designs as
suggested or required by the watershed district or
city engineer. The ponds shall meet the city's
design standards.
(3) A detailed tree planting plan and material list, which shall:
(a) Show where the developer or contractor will remove,
save or replace large trees.
(b) Show the size, species and location of the
replacement and screening trees. The new
screening trees shall be grouped together and shall
include the planting of additional native evergreens
and shrubbery on the site to provide additional
screening and privacy between the proposed
townhouses and the single dwellings to the south as
well as screening from the proposed apartment
buildings and Beaver Lake. The screening
evergreens should include Austrian Pine, Black hills
Spruce, Eastern Red Cedar and Eastern Arborvitae.
Plant the additional screening evergreens and
shrubbery as follows:
1. Along the south property line, adjacent the
detached townhouses, to at least the west
edge of Sterling Lane. Evergreens planted in
this area shall be at least six (6) feet high and
planted in a staggered row. Overall plantings
within this area shall produce an 80 percent
opaque screening from the townhouses and
the adjacent single family dwelling to the
south.
2. Along the west property line, adjacent the
apartment buildings, to the south property
line. Evergreens and shrubbery in this
area shall be planted in a manner that
helps reduce the visibility of the
apartments from Beaver Lake.
(c) All new and replacement deciduous trees shall be at
least two and one half (2½) inches in diameter and
shall be a mix of red and white oaks, ash, lindens,
sugar maples, or other native species. All
replacement evergreens shall be at least eight (8)
PacketPageNumber76of272
Community Design Review Board
Minutes 7-9-2002
feet tall and all new evergreens shall be at least (6)
feet tall, excluding the new evergreens planted on
west property line as noted above.
(d) Show no tree removal beyond the approved grading
and tree limits.
(e) Show the planting of at least 270 new trees after the
site grading is done.
(4) All the parking areas and driveways shall have continuous
concrete curb and gutter.
(5) The site, street, driveway, sidewalk and utility plans shall
show:
(a) A six foot-wide concrete sidewalk along the south
side of Maryland Avenue between Sterling Street
and the west property line of the site. The public
works director shall approve the location and design
of the sidewalk.
(b) A water service to each detached housing unit.
(c) The repair of Maryland Avenue and Sterling Street
(street and boulevard) after the developer connects
to the public utilities and builds the private
driveways. This shall include replacing all unused
existing driveways and curb cuts.
(d) The coordination of the water main locations,
alignments and sizing with the standards and
requirements of the Saint Paul Regional Water
Services (SPRWS). Fire-flow requirements and
hydrant locations shall be verified with the
Maplewood Fire Department.
(e) The plan and profiles of the proposed utilities.
(f) All private roads at least 20 feet wide. If the
developer wants to have parking on one side of a
private road, then that private road must be at least
28 feet wide.
(g) All private roads less than 28 feet in width shall be
posted for "No Parking" on both sides. Private roads
at least 28 feet wide may have parking on one side
and shall be posted for no parking on one side.
PacketPageNumber77of272
Community Design Review Board
Minutes 7-9-2002
(h) All parking stalls with a width of at least nine feet
and a length of at least 18 feet.
b. Submit a certificate of survey for all new construction and have
each building staked by a registered land surveyor.
c. Revise the landscape plan for city staff approval showing:
(1) A variety of shrubs planted within the ponding areas and
along the proposed trails between buildings 8 and 9 and
buildings 21 and 22. These should include Alpine Current,
Yew, Glossy Black Choke Berry, American Cranberry
(short cultivar), Purple Leaf Sand Cherry and Dogwood.
These plantings are to provide a variety of colors and
textures on the site and to provide separation between
uses.
(2) All lawn areas shall be sodded. The city engineer shall
approve the vegetation within the ponding areas and on the
steep slopes. On slopes steeper than 3:1, the developer
shall prepare and implement a stabilization and planting
plan. These slopes shall be protected with a wood fiber
blanket, be seeded with a no maintenance vegetation and
be stabilized before the city approves the final plat.
(3) Having in-ground irrigation for all landscape areas (code
requirement).
(4) The restoration of all disturbed areas within the stream
corridor and park dedication area with a native seed mix
approved by the watershed district and by the city
engineer.
d. Show city staff that Ramsey County has recorded the deeds and
all homeowner's association documents for this development
before the city will issue a certificate of occupancy for the first
town house unit.
e. Submit a photometric plan for staff approval as required by the
city code.
f. Submit revised building elevations as follows:
(1) Apartment building elevations showing the brick
wainscoting extending around the entire building.
PacketPageNumber78of272
Community Design Review Board
Minutes 7-9-2002
(2) Townhouse elevations showing that the front brick
wainscoting for all proposed front elevations (A-1, A-2,
A-3, B-1, B-2, and B-3) wraps around the building by
two (2) feet on each side.
g. Submit samples of all building materials (including siding
colors) for the buildings to the city for staff approval.
3. Complete the following before occupying the buildings:
a. Replace property irons that are removed because of this
construction and set new property irons for the new property
corners.
b. Restore and sod damaged boulevards and sod all turf areas
outside of the ponding areas.
c. Install a reflectorized stop sign at the Lakewood Drive exit, no
parking signs along the private driveways as required by code and
addresses on each building for each unit. In addition, the
applicant shall install stop signs and traffic directional signs within
the site, as required by staff.
d. Construct a six-foot-wide concrete public sidewalk between
Sterling Street and the west property line of the site. The
Maplewood Public Works Director shall approve the location and
design of the sidewalk.
e. Complete the site grading and install all required landscaping
(including the foundation plantings), ponding areas and an in-
ground lawn irrigation system for all landscaped areas (code
requirement).
f. Install continuous concrete curb and gutter along all interior
driveways and around all open parking stalls.
g. Install on-site lighting for security and visibility, subject to city staff
approval.
h. Construct two-rail split-rail fences along the trails in the following
locations:
(1) From Beaver Creek Parkway between Lots 8 and 9 to near
the stream in the center of the site.
(2) From Sterling Circle between Lots 21 and 22 to near the
stream in the center of the site.
PacketPageNumber79of272
Community Design Review Board
Minutes 7-9-2002
4. If the contractor has not completed any required work, the city may allow
temporary occupancy if:
a. The city determines that the work is not essential to the
public health, safety or welfare.
b. The city receives cash escrow or an irrevocable letter of
credit for the required work.
The amount shall be 150 percent of the cost of the
unfinished work. Any unfinished landscaping shall be
completed by June 1 if the building is occupied in the fall or
winter, or within six weeks of occupancy if the building is
occupied in the spring or summer.
c. The city receives an agreement that will allow the city to
complete any unfinished work.
5. All work shall follow the approved plans. The director of community
development may approve minor changes.
Ayes
Board member Olson seconded. – Jorgenson, Ledvina,
Longrie-Kline, Olson
The motion passed.
PacketPageNumber80of272
PacketPageNumber81of272
%XXEGLQIRX
PacketPageNumber82of272
PacketPageNumber83of272
PacketPageNumber84of272
Agenda Item G5
AGENDA REPORT
TO:
James Antonen, City Manager
FROM:
DuWayne Konewko, Community Development and Parks Director
Jim Taylor, Recreation Program Supervisor
Audra Robbins, Recreation Program Supervisor
SUBJECT:
Council Approve Funding for the Following Park Improvement Projects:
a. Resurfacing tennis courts at Four Seasons Park
b. Resurfacing tennis courts at Maplecrest Park
c. Resurfacing of the basketball court at Four Seasons Park (In-House)
d. Replacement of the backstop at Goodrich #3
DATE:
August 3, 2010
INTRODUCTION
A number of park improvement projects have been identified by staff as being critical to the
continued operations of recreation division programs as well as meeting the needs of residents.
Four of the projects identified by staff are as follows:
a) Resurfacing of Four Seasons Tennis Courts
b) Resurfacing and Repair of Maplecrest Tennis Court
c) Resurfacing of the Four Seasons Basketball Court (In-House)
d) Replacement of the backstop fencing at Goodrich Park field #3
BACKGROUND
The park maintenance plan calls for resurfacing the tennis and basketball courts in two parks
each year. This maintenance plan puts us on a schedule of resurfacing basketball and tennis
courts every five years. Five years is typically the life expectancy of the court resurfacing
process. It has been much longer than this since either of these courts have been resurfaced.
The basketball court at Four Seasons is currently not playable. There are many weeds and
cracks growing through the asphalt. With very few amenities in this park, staff has identified
resurfacing this court as an important need for the community. The work on the court
resurfacing would be done internally by Public Works staff.
The backstops at Goodrich Park were installed in 1977 and are very much in need of
improvement. Over the past couple of years multiple repairs have been done to the backstop to
ensure that they remain safe and function correctly.
DISCUSSION
Resurfacing Four Seasons Tennis and Maplecrest Tennis Court
Many of our tennis courts are in need of resurfacing and repair. Staff has identified the courts at
Four Seasons and Maplecrest Parks as the top priority for this year. The determination of which
courts to resurface and repair was based upon the needs of the community and recreation
programming staff as well as overall condition. Finley Bros Inc. was the low bid for both courts
coming in at $11,930 for Four Seasons and $15,960 for Maplecrest. The reason the Maplecrest
Tennis Court is more expensive is due to the extensive repairs that have to occur to make this
court playable.
PacketPageNumber85of272
Four Seasons Basketball Court Resurfacing
This work will be done in-house by Public Works. This is a 2” overlay and will cost $5,200
Backstop and Sideline Fence Replacement at Goodrich Park Field #3
The Goodrich Park softball fields house our entire adult softball program. During the 14 week
summer program we have over 100 adult teams playing 50 plus games per week. Each team
typically has 13 or 14 players which translates to well over 1,300 players on these fields each
week. The fall softball program, which is not quite as large as the summer program, has 40 plus
teams, and 500 plus players playing approximately 50 games per week for five weeks.
It is important to recognize the significance of this program in the recreation program budget.
The summer and fall programs annually produce in the neighborhood of $72,000 in revenue
with $32,000 in expenditures. The $40,000 of excess revenue provides a vital subsidy to
overhead costs of non-revenue producing programs. It is important that we recognize that adult
softball operates in a competitive market and that we need to provide safe and attractive
facilities to compete with surrounding communities.
Staff has secured two bids for the replacement of the backstop at Goodrich Park Field #3. The
low bid of $17,400 for this project is from Able Fence Inc.
FUNDING
The total sum of these projects amounts to $50,490. Funding for these projects would come
from two funding sources. The first would be from the $60,000 allocation of general levy dollars
in the Capitol Improvement Fund. In addition to those dollars there is an allocation of $8000 to
come from general fund money available in the maintenance materials budget 101-602-000-
4180.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends the council authorize the Community Development and Parks Director to
enter into a contract with:
a) Finley Bros., Inc. for the resurfacing of the tennis courts at Four Seasons Park
b) Finley Bros., Inc for the resurfacing of the tennis courts at Maplecrest Park.
c) Authorize Public Works to move forward with the resurfacing of the basketball court at
Four Seasons.
d) Able Fence Company for the replacement of the backstop and sideline fences at
Goodrich Park field #3.
Attachments
A- Bids from Finley Bros. Inc
B- Bid from Able Fence Company
PacketPageNumber86of272
Attachment A
PacketPageNumber87of272
PacketPageNumber88of272
PacketPageNumber89of272
Attachment B
PacketPageNumber90of272
Agenda Item H1
AGENDA REPORT
TO
: City Manager, Jim Antonen
FROM:
Charles Ahl, Assistant City Manager/Public Works Director
SUBJECT:7:00 PM – Public Hearing
Tax Increment Financing District [Housing District 1-10] for The Shores of
Maplewood withinthe Gladstone Redevelopment Area --City Project 04-
21 – Consider Resolution Establishing Tax Increment Financing District
DATE:August 4, 2010
INTRODUCTION
During the past year, the City has been working with perspective developers interested in the Tourist
Cabins property and implementing The Shores development concept approved by the City Council in
2007. Adeveloperrepresented by a partnership of Albert Miller of the Rand Corporation[who controls
ownership of the property through Highland Bank],Lance Lemieux of Southview Senior Living, and
Jack Rajenbachare now prepared to build 104units of the original 180 unit complex during 2010and
2011.This development grouphasexplored possible financing plansand is now prepared to close on
the property in August.They have resolved the liens and legal problems associated with the site,
including a settlement with the site architect, Link Wilson, who is now the architect for this current
proposal. The development group has requestedthat the City Council consider establishing a tax
increment financing [TIF] district for the purpose of supporting the proposed project assessments that
the City would like to implement as part of the over first phase of the Gladstone Redevelopment. In
addition, the development group is requesting consideration of funds for other site improvements
specific to the site.
The application for the Tax Increment Financingis attached and is dated on March 27, 2010. A public
hearing is required prior to the consideration of TIF financing. Our financial consultant, Springsted,
Inc. has prepared the attached analysis for the consideration of TIF. The analysis of the district and
the financial needs of the developer and development along with a report on the district and the
internal rate of return for the development proposal will be presented to the Council at the public
hearing.
DISCUSSION/HISTORY
The original Gladstone– Phase I improvements were approvedin 2007without TIF involvement in the
project. The City Councilreviewed a request from Bart Montaneri for TIF funding in late 2007 and Mr.
Montaneri paid for a Springsted analysis of his project. Springsted provided an analysis of the internal
rate of return for potential investors on that 2007 project and the CityCouncil did not take a vote on the
use of TIF funds to be provided for that project and that developer; however, a vote to call a public
hearing to discuss the TIF plan failedon a 2-2 vote. The developer, Mr. Montaneri,was unable to
secure financing with that plan and Mr. Montaneri was foreclosed on his purchase by Highland Bank
and Rand Financial. Rand Financial has cleared the property of liens and is prepared to finalize the
purchase of the property from Highland Bank.
PacketPageNumber91of272
THE SHORES TIF HEARING
PAGETWO
rd
Following is a copy of a message that DuWayne Konewko received on August 3from Highland Bank
regarding the property:
Duwayne - confirmingour conversation today regarding Lake Phalen Estates, 940 Frost
Avenue East, Maplewood, MN 55109 Parcel # 16-29-22-31-002.
Highland Bank, as current fee owner of the above property, has agreed to deed this parcel of
land to Rand Financial Corporation. All negotiations have been finalized. Rand Financial
Corporation is 100% owned by Albert Miller and Jack Rajchenbach. Albert Miller and Jack
Rajchenbach will be guarantors on the Highland Bank note to Rand Financial Corporation.
Rand Financial Corporation will become fee owners of the property upon execution of the loan
agreements.
Highland Bank has retained the law firm of Anastasi and Associates and they are currently in
the process of preparing the necessary documentation for the transfer of ownership to Rand
Financial Corporation.
Highland Bank anticipates that the necessary documentation will be complete by Monday
August 9th, 2010.
Thank you
Michael L Bruneau
Vice President
HIGHLAND BANK
TIF ANALYSIS/DISCUSSION
Attached are 3 documents of information provided on the analysis of the project and TIF assistance
from Springsted representatives. The first document is the Gladstone Return Analysis, also called the
“But-For” Test Analysis. While the second and third documents are the Maplewood Gladstone TIF
Plan and the Development Program. One of the things to highlight in the report is that the Developer
used a land purchase price of $1.9M, which is what they also used withtheir mortgage bond firm,
DoughertyFinancial. The developer, AlbertMiller has reported that they havesignificantlymore than
that into the property purchase price, but that's the amount that Dougherty would let them use as a
cost in their financing analysis.
There are a couple of positives to using this lower land acquisition price, the first being that they still
need the assistance even when showing a lower amount, and the secondbeing it shows the City
taking a conservative approach to analyzing the need for assistance. The return analysis shows they
still need assistance (in excess of the $1.2M assessment reimbursement) even with a fair market land
value costs of $1.9M. Showing the land cost at $1.9M shows that this development would need
assistance on its own, regardless of the outcome of the previous development attempt. Additionally,
showing the land cost at $1.9Mremoves one avenue on which someone could tryand argue
theactual need for assistance.
The need for assistance islikely greater than what is being shown in the report. If thedeveloperguys
came in with no history attached to the development, bought the property for $1.9M and built the
project as planned, they'd still needTIF assistance. This is what shown in the pro forma analysis.
PacketPageNumber92of272
This shows the project needs assistance because senior housing typically does,just the same as the
proposed Gethsemane project, and not because of previous failed development attempts,which we're
not even including in this need analysis. In reality, they have additional costs from the previous
attempt and have closer to $3M into the land, meaning their return/need is even greater, than the level
on which has been analyzed.
GLADSTONE IMPROVEMENTS
This is the same development group that was working on the project in 2009 and was part of our effort
with the Metropolitan Council to indicate that our grant is tied to a potential development.
Unfortunately, the Metropolitan Council refused to give us further extensions and the grant was
released. Because the final development could not be established in December 2009, Maplewood
was forced to forfeit those grant funds of $1.8 million. The staff is working with the Metropolitan
Council’s Community Development Committee for a re-submission on that grant; however, no grant
funds have been secured in this next round of applications. Attached is a proposed public
improvement plan that would initiate Phase I of our Gladstone redevelopment in the amount of $5.8
million.
The developer would be responsible for $2.2 million of that project by agreeing to assessments. The
developer has requested TIF assistance from the project for these assessments and an additional
$1.0 million of assessments to make the project viable. It will be necessary for some bonding of the
project assessment payments. Theassessments are TIF eligible, but the City has no risk of a TIF
District failure because the assessment reimbursement goes to thedeveloper.If the TIF fails to
generate enough funds to cover the assessment payments, the developer suffers, not the City. The
only risk to the City is that the developer does not proceed, at which point the assessments become a
lien on the property.
These funds would help the City to achieve its goals to start the Gladstone redevelopment. In
exchange for this agreement, under this scenario, the developer would receive up to theadditional
$1.0 million to use for land improvements for the development project.The developer’s basis for the
TIF is based on their following reasons:
1.Re-imbursement of the City’s redevelopment assessments.
2.Clearing costs for the removal of the mobile homes that were previously on the site were a cost
that this development group hadto assume through the foreclosure process.
3.Due to the proximity of this site to Lake Phalen, the staff is requesting a high level of storm
water ponding and infiltration that add costs to the site improvements.
4.Increased trail improvements are provided onthis site that enhancesthe walking areas.
5.The site plan requires dedication of land for the roundabout.
6.A sewer from the adjacent apartment complex runs through the property and must be re-
routed.
7.Preservation of a high number of trees on the property was part of the original plan to maintain
a woodland feel for the project.
It may also be possible for the Council to expand some of the TIF district to allow some of the funds
[potentially up to 20%] to be used for other City initiatives. The staff continues to discuss this proposal
with the potential developer and the financial incentives necessary to meet the Metropolitan Council’s
grant requirements for the development. The TIF is being considered as incentive funds to the
developer to allow the grant funds to be received. The final analysis by Springsted hasdetermined the
actual amount of funding available for Council consideration. It is our finding that without TIF funding,
they cannot secure financing for their project and they would not proceed.In addition, the City will
likely be forfeiting the opportunity to receive the up to $1.4 million in Metropolitan Council grant funds
as well as the $1.2 million of MnDOT funds for the bridge replacement on Frost Avenuebecause the
assessments cover the City’s costs of the bridge design.This is a package of improvements and the
PacketPageNumber93of272
TIF is part of the overall plan for improvements.
Discussion
Staff recommends this project and the TIF financing plan as proposed. This appears to be our last
opportunity to begin our Gladstone initiative. We have struggled to put this plan together and without
approval at this time, it is likely that we should move to a different initiativein a different part of the City
because of the perception, real or not, that the City is unable or unwilling to make the necessary
commitments to begin the Gladstone process.
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the City Council adopt the attached resolution that approves the Tax Increment
Financing DistrictPlan for The Shores Development proposal.
Attachments:
1.TIF Application
2.Gladstone Return Analysis [But For test]
3.Maplewood Gladstone TIF Plan
4.Development Program
5.Gladstone Improvement Plan
6.Resolution Approving TIF Plan
PacketPageNumber94of272
AgendaItemH1
Attachment1
PacketPageNumber95of272
AgendaItemH1
Attachment1
PacketPageNumber96of272
AgendaItemH1
Attachment1
PacketPageNumber97of272
AgendaItemH1
Attachment1
PacketPageNumber98of272
AgendaItemH1
Attachment1
PacketPageNumber99of272
AgendaItemH1
Attachment1
PacketPageNumber100of272
AgendaItemH1
Attachment2
“But-For” Report
1ETPI[SSH1MRRIWSXE
The Shores of Maplewood Housing Project
DRAFT – August 3, 2010
PacketPageNumber101of272
AgendaItemH1
Attachment2
8EFPISJ'SRXIRXW
..........................................................................................1
496437)
.......................................................................2
)<)'98-:)7911%6=
....................................................................................3
8,)463.)'8
.......................................................................4
():)0341)28'3787
......................................................................7
%77-78%2')6)59)78
.........................................................................9
463.)'8*-2%2'-2+
..........................................................................10
6)8962%2%0=7-7
................................................................................133
'32'097-32
1MWWMSR7XEXIQIRX
Springsted provides high quality, independent financial
and management advisory services to public
and non-profit organizations, and works with them
in the long-term process of building their communities
on a fiscally sound and well-managed basis.
PacketPageNumber102of272
AgendaItemH1
Attachment2
Purpose
1
4YVTSWI
The report that follows has been prepared to analyze the need for financial
assistance in the construction of the Shores of Maplewood senior housing
project.
We have approached this determination based on the proposed plans regarding
development costs, outcomes, and timing, to develop a measure of the
Developer’s level of profit when compared to the amount of risk. If a project is
owned and operated as an investment, a measure of return is calculated
considering the time value of money, and involves an assumed re-sale of the
property at a price appropriate in the market place. The final determination is
based on whether or not the proposed project is likely to occur without the
subsidy, within the current marketplace and at the present time.
PacketPageNumber103of272
Maplewood, Minnesota. Shores of Maplewood “But-For” Report
AgendaItemH1
Attachment2
Executive Summary
2
)\IGYXMZI7YQQEV]
This project involves the development of a currently unoccupied site. The
Developer will bear all the risk until the project is completed and fully
occupied, and will continue to bear the risk that market lease rates will be
capable of supporting the development. In particular the Developer will also
bear the risk that lease revenues will be lower than projected, or that costs will
be greater, either of which would result in a lower rate of return than analyzed.
Conversely, if rental income is greater than projected, or development costs
lower, the return could be greater. The current base “Springsted Revised”
scenario without assistance illustrates that the project is not likely feasible
without assistance.
If the project occurred with the requested reimbursement of $2.2M of special
assessment costs, than the Developer’s rate of return, assuming all else being
equal, would be 8.63%. Additionally, the lower annual cost provided by the
assistance increases the feasibility of the development by allowing for a starting
debt coverage ratio of 1.30 in year 1 and 1.39 in year 2, compared to 1.14
without assistance. The without assistance scenario, while providing a positive
annual operating cash flow in years 2-11, does not produce a positive return
even after factoring in the sale of the asset. Based on our review of the without
assistance scenario, we do not believe it is likely to occur as there is not a
positive cumulative cash flow, and the initial equity investment would not likely
be repaid. The only scenario where the development would be feasible absent
any assistance is if it were to realize either a 10% decrease in project costs, or a
5% increase in revenues from the amounts projected. Based on this we
conclude the phase 1 development would not be feasible “but-for” City
assistance.
;MXLSYX
;MXL%WWMWXERGI
%WWMWXERGI
(IZIPSTIV4VSNIGXIHz;MXL7-6IZMWMSRW
;MXL'SWX7EZMRKW
;MXL6IZIRYI-RGVIEWIW
8LIEFSZIXEFPIMRGPYHIWXLIJSPPS[MRKEWWYQTXMSRWF]GEXIKSV]
8LIx(IZIPSTIV4VSNIGXIHz;MXL7-6IZMWMSRxMRGPYHIWXLI(IZIPSTIVvWEWWYQTXMSRWJSV6IZIRYI
ERH)\TIRWIWEPSRK[MXLQMRSVGLERKIWHMWGYWWIHMRXLIQIQS
8LIw;MXL'SWX7EZMRKWxMRGPYHIWXLI7TVMRKWXIHVIZMWMSRWMR
EFSZI
[MXLE GSWXWEZMRKW
JSVXLI(IZIPSTIVvWVIWTSRWMFPIGSWXW8LI(IZIPSTIVvWVIWTSRWMFPIGSWXWEVIVIHYGIHXS SJ
XLITVSNIGXMSRW[LMGLVIHYGIWXLIXSXEPFYHKIXSJXS SVEVIHYGXMSRSJ
[LMPIWXMPPTVSZMHMRKXLIWEQI8-*VIMQFYVWIQIRX
8LIw;MXL6IZIRYI-RGVIEWIWxMRGPYHIWXLI7TVMRKWXIHVIZMWMSRWEWMR
EFSZI
[MXLE
VIZIRYIMRGVIEWIEHHIHERHEPPXLI(IZIPSTIVvWVIWTSRWMFPIGSWXW
PacketPageNumber104of272
Maplewood, Minnesota. Shores of Maplewood “But-For” Report
AgendaItemH1
Attachment2
The Project
3
8LI4VSNIGX
The Shores of Maplewood is a proposed project that includes the development
of an approximately 6-acre site located on the corner of Frost Avenue and East
Shore Drive into a 106-unit senior housing facility, with the potential to expand
to a total of 162 units over two phases. The 6-acre site is presently vacant,
though it previously was occupied by tourist cabins which were demolished in
2007.
The senior housing project is projected to include a phase-1 development of a
106 unit senior housing building, which will provide 74 assisted living units and
32 memory care units. The development will also include common areas
including two dining rooms, a beauty shop and spa, a club room, a library,
computer center, craft room, and an exercise/fitness room. A second phase of
the development proposing an additional 56 units has been contemplated, but is
not currently guaranteed to occur. Our pro forma analysis was only based on
the development proposed for phase 1, as phase 2 is purely conceptual at this
point, though the Developer has stated that if they were to construct phase 2
they would not seek additional TIF assistance.
The application proposes a senior housing development, where the Developer
has purchased the property, and will be constructing all necessary on-site
improvements and the senior building. The Developer proposes that
construction of the building will commence in 2010 with occupancy starting in
2011. The Developer would own and operate the building following the
completion of construction.
PacketPageNumber105of272
Maplewood, Minnesota. Shores of Maplewood “But-For” Report
AgendaItemH1
Attachment2
Development Costs
4
(IZIPSTQIRX'SWXW
The total cost of the phase 1 project is detailed in the table below.
8SXEP'SWXW
Land Acquisition $1,908,000
Construction Contract 9,399,206
Construction Soft Costs 1,225,908
Bond Costs of Issuance 675,765
Debt-Service Costs 3,603,769
Developer Fee 825,000
Rounding 2,352
+VERH8SXEP
The total project cost to develop the site is estimated to be $17,640,000. Project
costs are divided into six key-areas, land acquisition, building construction
contract, construction soft costs, bond costs of issuance, debt-service costs, and
a developer fee. The rounding amount is added in order to bring the total cost to
a whole amount suitable for a bond structure.
The Developer has acquired the property to be developed and has listed costs
0ERH'SWXW
incurred for land acquisition of $1,908,000. The property was purchased in
2007, by a previous development group, for a sale price of $2,300,000
according to the Ramsey County website. The price cited in the Developer’s
pro forma is lower than the price they have actually invested in the land, which
is greater than $3.0M.
This line item is $9,399,206 and is related to the estimated cost to construct the
'SRWXVYGXMSR'SRXVEGX'SWXW
vertical building improvements, the onsite improvement costs, and parking.
The estimate is calculated using an average per-unit square foot size of 1,078,
and a cost per square foot of $79.86; which results in a 106-unit construction
cost of $9,125,442, or approximately $86,000 per unit.
The Developer is estimating total construction soft costs of $1,225,908. The
'SRWXVYGXMSR7SJX'SWXW
individual line items for the construction soft costs are listed below:
'SRWXVYGXMSR7SJX'SWXW8SXEP'SWXW
Contingency $98,560
Pre-Opening & Marketing 177,948
Furniture, Fixtures, and Equipment (FF&E)307,400
City Fee’s (Est.) 392,000
Architecture & Engineering 250,000
8SXEP
We have reviewed these costs and found them to be reasonable, and likely to be
incurred. The contingency costs is based on 1.7% of the total soft-costs, and
represents a reasonable margin. The Furniture, Fixtures, and Equipment
(FF&E) cost is based on an estimated cost of $2,900 per unit.
PacketPageNumber106of272
Maplewood, Minnesota. Shores of Maplewood “But-For” Report
AgendaItemH1
Attachment2
Development Costs
5
We have consulted RSMeans Square Foot Costs for estimated construction costs
for the proposed type of building. The data provides a range of estimated costs
from low, to medium, to high. The Developer’s estimate on a per square foot
basis falls below the low estimate range provide by the RSMeans Square Foot
Costs. The Developer’s estimated cost per square foot is $92.98, including
building costs, contractor overhead & profit, and architectural fees, while the
RSMeans ranges are $111.98 for low, $124.42 for medium, and $155.52 for
high. Based on this review we feel the cost estimates for the building
construction costs, and related soft costs, are reasonable.
The budgeted amount for costs related to the issuance of housing revenue bonds
&SRH-WWYERGI'SWXW
for the project is $675,765. The individual line items for the bond issuance
costs are listed below:
&SRH-WWYERGI'SWXW8SXEP'SWXW
Bond Counsel $37,500
Underwriter’s Counsel 32,500
Borrower’s Counsel 40,000
Trustee Set-Up 5,000
Examined forecast 60,000
Market Study 12,500
Appraisal 7,500
Issuer’s Fee 64,325
Underwriter’s Discount 321,625
Environmental 5,000
Survey 7,500
Printing 6,000
Title 21,725
MRT 29,590
Miscellaneous 25,000
8SXEP
These budgeted amounts were prepared by the Developer, in collaboration with
the underwriter of the bonds Dougherty and Associates. These costs appear to
be reasonable and likely to be incurred in the issuance of the housing revenue
bond, which will be the primary financing mechanism for the Shores Project.
The budgeted amount for costs associated with the future debt-service on the
(IFX7IVZMGI'SWXW
housing revenue bonds total $3,603,769. The individual line items for the Debt-
Service Costs are listed below:
'SRWXVYGXMSR7SJX'SWXW8SXEP'SWXW
Operating Reserve $1,175,000
Capitalized Interest Fund 1,399,069
Debt-Service Reserve Fund 1,029,700
8SXEP
PacketPageNumber107of272
Maplewood, Minnesota. Shores of Maplewood “But-For” Report
AgendaItemH1
Attachment2
Development Costs
6
These costs were again prepared by the Developer, in collaboration with the
underwriter of the bonds Dougherty and Associates. These costs are related to
the sale of the housing revenue bonds, and are necessary requirements for bond
financing. These costs will be funded by the proceeds of the bond sale, and will
be used to prepay the initial capitalized interest on the debt, and to provide a
level of security to the bond holders in regards to reserves. These costs appear
to be reasonable, and likely to be incurred by the Developer.
The line-item for the Developer fee is $825,000, which is approximately 5% of
(IZIPSTIV*II
the total development costs. A Developer fee of this percentage is considered to
be reasonable. Additionally, the Developer fee will be deferred and treated as a
portion of the initial equity investment into the site. The Developer will not
realize the benefit of the fee revenue, until the sale of the property.
PacketPageNumber108of272
Maplewood, Minnesota. Shores of Maplewood “But-For” Report
AgendaItemH1
Attachment2
Assistance Request
7
%WWMWXERGI6IUYIWX
The proposed development is to be located in the Gladstone Redevelopment
area for which numerous public improvement projects have been planned. As a
result the proposed development would be expected to incur special assessments
for significant public improvements related to the development of the site.
Assessments related to the Gladstone redevelopment plan proposed for the site
are:
%WWIWWQIRX-XIQW8SXEP'SWXW
*VSWX%ZIRYIVSYRHEFSYXMQTVSZIQIRXW
)\XIRWMSRSJWI[IVERH[EXIVXSWMXI
%VIEWXSVQ[EXIVMQTVSZIQIRXW
7EZERRE-QTVSZIQIRXW
MRPMIYSJ4%'
Right of way and easements for Frost Improvements 850,000
Project fees for sewer/water/trees 150,000
8SXEP%WWIWWQIRXW
The project costs in bold print above total $1.2M and would be considered
special assessment costs directly related to the Gladstone redevelopment project
and will provide the City with the funding mechanism for undertaking these
improvements. The special assessments for right of way and easement
purchases and the project fee’s, totaling $1.1M, are being used as a mechanism
for providing the Developer with the additional equity necessary for the project
to receive financing.
The total amount of $2.2M in public improvement costs are proposed to be
funded through the issuance of a general obligation improvement bond, which
will be repaid through special assessments placed on the property. The special
assessments will be repaid by the property over a 26-year period; timed to
coincide with the length of the TIF District. The use of improvement bonds and
special assessments in the project is a means for providing the financing for the
upfront improvement costs, while also maintaining a level of bond-security for
the City. In this case the improvement bonds will be secured by the special
assessments placed on the property.
The Tax Increment generated on the site will be used to reimburse the
Developer for the special assessment costs, and will be paid over the 26-year
term of the TIF District on an annual pay-as-you-go basis. The Developer will
only receive the TIF that is generated by the Development, less the City’s
administrative amount. If this amount is lower than currently projected, and less
than the annual assessment payment, it will be the responsibility of the
Developer to make up the difference. This places the responsibility for TIF
District performance, and the associated risk, on the Developer and not on the
City.
PacketPageNumber109of272
Maplewood, Minnesota. Shores of Maplewood “But-For” Report
AgendaItemH1
Attachment2
Assistance Request
The proposed sources and uses from the TIF Plan:
8-*4PER&YHKIX8SXEP&YHKIX
8-*6IZIRYI
9WIW
Special Assessment Payment Reimbursement
$4,774,082
( Principal + Interest)
Eligible Administrative and Pooling expenditures 562,371
8SXEP9WIW
It should be noted that due to both the phase 1 and phase 2 parcels being located
within the TIF District, the projected TIF revenues do include the prospective
phase 2 development. If constructed the TIF revenue from phase 2, which is
included in the $5.3M amount shown above, will be used for the special
assessment reimbursement and the Developer would not realize additional TIF
assistance outside of the amount listed above, if phase 2 were constructed.
PacketPageNumber110of272
Maplewood, Minnesota. Shores of Maplewood “But-For” Report
AgendaItemH1
Attachment2
Project Financing
9
4VSNIGX*MRERGMRK
The Developer will be privately financing the project costs of the development
through the issuance of a senior housing bond, City assistance, and private
equity (including deferred developer fee). The total project costs for the
privately funded development is $17,640,000. The senior housing revenue
bond will provide funding for $12,865,000 in costs, the special assessment
assistance related to the easement acquisition and project fees will provide
equity of $1.1M, and the borrow equity of $3.575M will provide the remaining
funding for the development. The Developer equity of $3.575M represents
approximately 20% of the total investment in the project. This financing
scenario is for the phase 1 development only.
PacketPageNumber111of272
Maplewood, Minnesota. Shores of Maplewood “But-For” Report
AgendaItemH1
Attachment2
Return Analysis
10
6IXYVR%REP]WMW
The first step in calculating the return to the Developer is to determine if the
costs presented are reasonable. We have discussed the development costs above
and the effect on the private side that could occur if there are cost savings absent
any other changes, leading the Developer to realize a greater return than
projected. To account for the potential impact on the rate of return we ran a
sensitivity analysis of the effect of a 10% savings in development costs. The
results of this sensitivity analysis are illustrated in the chart on the next page.
The second step in calculating the return to the Developer is to determine if the
operating revenues and expenses are reasonable.
The Developer has provided average monthly service fee income of $3,257/unit
for assisted living, and $4,075 for memory care units, with an assumed vacancy
of 5 units, or 5%. Of the 106 units, the Developer will have to reserve either
20% of the units (32 units) for persons with incomes no greater than 50% of
county median income, or 40% of the units (65 units) for persons with incomces
no greater than 60% of county median income. While the TIF law does not
have specific rent limitations as part of its requirements, the affordability
standards required above will have the effect of limiting potential rental income.
The Developer provided estimated expenses for the following categories and
amounts; administrative, real estate taxes, food service, housekeeping, resident
service, activities, transportation, engineering, utilities, replacement reserve, and
marketing. The total expenses are calculated at approximately 68% of the total
operating income.
Similar to the project costs, actual rental rates differing from the projections will
affect the rate of return realized by the Developer. An analysis of rental rates is
both a measure of a project’s feasibility and its profitability. Projected rental
rates that are in the middle of the market range are preferred. Projected rental
rates on the lower end of the market range may indicate that the Developer is
understating its profitability. Rental rates on the high end of the market may
indicate an overestimation of the project’s feasibility. The rental rate
assumptions provided by the Developer appear reasonable, and are in the range
of market rates.
While the projected rental rates appear reasonable based on the current market,
we still want to illustrate the potential impact that increased revenues could have
on the rate of return realized by the Developer. To illustrate this potential
impact we performed a sensitivity analysis assuming a 5% increase in lease
revenue. The results of this analysis are illustrated in the chart on the next page.
While the TIF housing district qualifications will not specifically limit the rental
rate of the units, the fact that a significant portion of the units will need to be
reserved for persons of low and moderate income, will have a limiting effect on
lease revenue. People meeting the affordability standards will not be able to
PacketPageNumber112of272
Maplewood, Minnesota. Shores of Maplewood “But-For” Report
AgendaItemH1
Attachment2
Return Analysis
11
afford high rental rates, further limiting the likelihood of the Developer
realizing a greater rate of return through increased lease rates.
The third step in determining the rate of return to the Developer is an analysis of
a hypothetical sale in year 11 (after 10-operating years) of the development.
Although the Developer may not plan on selling the property at that point in
time and may not realize the actual return, the value has been created and it
should be accounted. The value of the development at the time of sale is
determined through the use of a capitalization (cap) rate and the net operating
income (NOI) of the development at the time of sale. The equation utilizing
these variables generates a sale value of the development based on its
profitability as an enterprise. Therefore, the strength of the development as an
enterprise may allow it to command a lower cap rate (greater sale value) than
the market average. The historical cap rates for multi-family building sales in
the region have ranged from a high of 10% in 2002, to a low of 5.5% in 2006,
but have risen to slightly over 8% this year. The upward trend is forecasted to
continue for the foreseeable future. In order to determine the rate of return to
the Developer, we used an 8.5% capitalization rate in determining the
hypothetical sale value. We feel this capitalization rate is appropriate, given the
nature of this development and current market conditions. We added the
calculation of a hypothetical sale to the Developer’s pro forma, in order to
calculate the internal rater of return analysis.
We made a number of additions to the Developer’s pro forma, mainly related to
adding an internal rate of return analysis. We also added in revised property tax
expenditure information, as well as information related to the special assessment
payments. We utilized all of the Developer’s assumptions regarding operating
revenues, expenses (aside from those noted) and debt-service. The returns
under this scenario are titled, “Developer Projected – With SI Revisions.”
;MXLSYX
;MXL%WWMWXERGI
%WWMWXERGI
(IZIPSTIV4VSNIGXIHz;MXL7-6IZMWMSRW
;MXL'SWX7EZMRKW
;MXL6IZIRYI-RGVIEWIW
8LIEFSZIXEFPIMRGPYHIWXLIJSPPS[MRKEWWYQTXMSRWF]GEXIKSV]
8LIx(IZIPSTIV4VSNIGXIHz;MXL7-6IZMWMSRxMRGPYHIWXLI(IZIPSTIVvWEWWYQTXMSRWJSV6IZIRYI
ERH)\TIRWIWEPSRK[MXLXLIQMRSVGLERKIWSYXPMRIHEFSZI
8LIw;MXL'SWX7EZMRKWxMRGPYHIWXLI7TVMRKWXIHVIZMWMSRWMR
EFSZI
[MXLE GSWXWEZMRKW
JSVXLI(IZIPSTIVvWVIWTSRWMFPIGSWXW8LI(IZIPSTIVvWVIWTSRWMFPIGSWXWEVIVIHYGIHXS SJ
XLITVSNIGXMSRW[LMGLVIHYGIWXLIXSXEPFYHKIXSJXS SVEVIHYGXMSRSJ
[LMPIWXMPPTVSZMHMRKXLIWEQI8-*VIMQFYVWIQIRX
8LIw;MXL6IZIRYI-RGVIEWIWxMRGPYHIWXLI7TVMRKWXIHVIZMWMSRWEWMR
EFSZI
[MXLE
VIZIRYIMRGVIEWIEHHIHERHEPPXLI(IZIPSTIVvWVIWTSRWMFPIGSWXW
PacketPageNumber113of272
Maplewood, Minnesota. Shores of Maplewood “But-For” Report
AgendaItemH1
Attachment2
Return Analysis
12
The rate of return necessary for a development of this type to proceed is
typically considered to be 10% - 15%, however given the current economy
developers may be willing to consider projects of lower rates of return based on
other extenuating circumstances. In this particular estimate the Developer
determined that a rate of return with assistance of 8.63% was appropriate for the
development to proceed.
One of the determining factors regarding feasibility of the development will be
the ability to secure financing. One of the keys to securing financing is the debt
coverage ratio, which is the ratio of how much the annual operating income
exceeds the annual debt-service payments. The assistance provided by the TIF
reimbursement of the special assessment payments provides the “with-
assistance” scenarios with a debt coverage ratio of greater than 1.25 beginning
in year 2. Additionally, the equity injection provided by a portion of the special
assessment payments related to the easement purchases and City fee’s assists the
development with receiving financing.
In the without assistance scenarios, the operating pro forma does not produce a
positive rate of return, unless significant changes are made to the assumptions as
shown in the sensitivity analysis. In this scenario the development would not
likely proceed, as the cumulative cash flow is negative, even after factoring in
the sale of the asset. Based on the internal rate of return analysis, the Developer
would have to realize either a significant decrease in construction costs, or a
significant increase in rental income for the project to be considered feasible
without assistance.
PacketPageNumber114of272
Maplewood, Minnesota. Shores of Maplewood “But-For” Report
AgendaItemH1
Attachment2
Conclusion
13
'SRGPYWMSR
This project involves the development of a currently unoccupied site. The
Developer will bear all the risk until the project is completed and fully
occupied, and will continue to bear the risk that market lease rates will be
capable of supporting the development. In particular the Developer will also
bear the risk that lease revenues will be lower than projected, or that costs will
be greater, either of which would result in a lower rate of return than analyzed.
Conversely, if rental income is greater than projected, or development costs
lower, the return could be greater. The current base “Springsted Revised”
scenario without assistance illustrates that the project is not likely feasible
without assistance.
If the project occurred with the requested reimbursement of $2.2M of special
assessment costs, than the Developer’s rate of return, assuming all else being
equal, would be 8.63%. Additionally, the lower annual cost provided by the
assistance increases the feasibility of the development by allowing for a starting
debt coverage ratio of 1.30 in year 1 and 1.39 in year 2, compared to 1.14
without assistance. The without assistance scenario, while providing a positive
annual operating cash flow in years 2-11, does not produce a positive return
even after factoring in the sale of the asset. Based on our review of the without
assistance scenario, we do not believe it is likely to occur as there is not a
positive cumulative cash flow, and the initial equity investment would not likely
be repaid. The only scenario where the development would be feasible absent
any assistance is if it were to realize either a 10% decrease in project costs, or a
5% increase in revenues from the amounts projected. Based on this we
conclude the phase 1 development would not be feasible “but-for” City
assistance.
PacketPageNumber115of272
Maplewood, Minnesota. Shores of Maplewood “But-For” Report
AgendaItemH1
Attachment3
1ETPI[SSH1MRRIWSXE
8E\-RGVIQIRX*MRERGMRK4PER
JSV
8E\-RGVIQIRX*MRERGMRK
,SYWMRK
(MWXVMGX2S
;MXLMR(IZIPSTQIRX(MWXVMGX2S
8LI7LSVIWSJ1ETPI[SSH,SYWMRK4VSNIGX
(EXIH %YKYWX
(VEJX
4VITEVIHF]
746-2+78)(-2'36436%8)(
.EGOWSR7XVIIX7YMXI
7X4EYP12
PacketPageNumber116of272
AgendaItemH1
Attachment3
8%&0)3*'328)287
SectionPage(s)
A. Definitions................................................................................................................................................. 1
B. Statutory Authorization.............................................................................................................................. 1
C. Statement of Need and Public Purpose.................................................................................................... 1
D. Statement of Objectives............................................................................................................................ 1
E. Designation of Tax Increment Financing District as a Housing District..................................................... 1
F. Duration of the TIF District........................................................................................................................ 2
G. Property to be Included in the TIF District................................................................................................. 2
H. Property to be Acquired in the TIF District................................................................................................. 3
I. Specific Development Expected to Occur Within the TIF District.............................................................. 3
J. Findings and Need for Tax Increment Financing....................................................................................... 3
K. Estimated Public Costs............................................................................................................................. 4
L. Estimated Sources of Revenue................................................................................................................. 5
M. Estimated Amount of Bonded Indebtedness............................................................................................. 5
N. Original Net Tax Capacity......................................................................................................................... 5
O. Original Tax Capacity Rate....................................................................................................................... 6
P. Projected Retained Captured Net Tax Capacity and Projected Tax Increment......................................... 6
Q. Use of Tax Increment................................................................................................................................ 7
R. Excess Tax Increment............................................................................................................................... 7
S. Tax Increment Pooling and the Five YearRule......................................................................................... 8
T. Limitation on Administrative Expenses...................................................................................................... 8
U. Limitation on Property Not Subject to Improvements - Four Year Rule..................................................... 8
V. Estimated Impact on Other Taxing Jurisdictions....................................................................................... 9
W. Prior Planned Improvements..................................................................................................................... 9
X. Development Agreements......................................................................................................................... 9
Y. Assessment Agreements.......................................................................................................................... 10
Z.Modifications of the Tax Increment FinancingPlan................................................................................... 10
AA. Administration of the Tax Increment FinancingPlan................................................................................. 10
AB. Financial Reporting and Disclosure Requirements.................................................................................... 11
Map of the Tax Increment Financing District....................................................................................... EXHIBIT I
Assumptions Report ......................................................................................................................….. EXHIBIT II
Projected Tax IncrementReport......................................................................................................... EXHIBIT III
Estimated Impact on Other Taxing Jurisdictions Report...................................................................... EXHIBIT IV
Market Value Analysis Report............................................................................................................. EXHIBIT V
PacketPageNumber117of272
AgendaItemH1
Attachment3
'MX]SJ1ETPI[SSH1MRRIWSXE
7IGXMSR%(IJMRMXMSRW
The terms defined in this section have the meanings given herein, unless the context in which they are used indicates
a different meaning:
"City" means the City of Maplewood, Minnesota; also referred to as a "Municipality".
"City Council" means the City Council of the City of Maplewood; also referred to as the "Governing Body".
"County" means Ramsey County, Minnesota.
"Development District" means Municipal Development District No. 1 in the City, which is described in the
corresponding Development Program.
"Development Program" means the Development Program for the Development District.
"Project Area" means the geographic area of the Development District.
"School District" means Independent School District No. 622, Minnesota.
"State" means the State of Minnesota.
"TIF Act" means Minnesota Statutes, Sections 469.174 through 469.1799, both inclusive.
"TIF District" means Tax Increment Financing (Housing) District No. 1-10.
"TIF Plan" means the tax increment financing plan for the TIF District (this document).
7IGXMSR&7XEXYXSV]%YXLSVM^EXMSR
See Section 1.3 of the Development Program for the Development District.
7IGXMSR'7XEXIQIRXSJ2IIHERH4YFPMG4YVTSWI
See Section 1.4 of the Development Program for the Development District.
7IGXMSR(7XEXIQIRXSJ3FNIGXMZIW
See Section 1.5 of the Development Program for the Development District.
7IGXMSR)(IWMKREXMSRSJ8E\-RGVIQIRX*MRERGMRK(MWXVMGXEWE
,SYWMRK(MWXVMGX
Housing districts are a type of tax increment financing district which consists of a project intended for occupancy, in
part, by persons or families of low and moderate income.Low and moderate income is defined in federal, state, and
municipal legislation. A project does not qualify if the square footage of the improvements, constructed for uses other
than low and moderate income housing are more than 20% of the total square footage of all the planned
improvements.
In addition, housing districts are subject to various income limitations and requirements for residential property. For
owner occupied residential property, 95% of the housing units must be initially purchased and occupied by individuals
whose family income is less than or equal to the income requirements for qualified mortgage bond projects under
Page 1
PacketPageNumber118of272
746-2+78)(
AgendaItemH1
Attachment3
'MX]SJ1ETPI[SSH1MRRIWSXE
section 143(f) of the Internal Revenue Code. For residential rental property, the property must satisfy the income
requirements for a qualified residential rental project as defined in section 142(d) of the Internal Revenue Code.
The TIF District meets the above qualifications for these reasons:
1.The planned improvements consist of the following:
a.162 senior rental units, for which one of the following will apply:
at least 20% (32 units) of the rental units will be occupied by persons with incomes no greater than
o
50% of county median income,
at least 40% (65 units) of the rental units will be occupied by persons with incomes no greater than
o
60% of county median income,
2.No improvements are planned other than housing.
3.The City will require in the development agreement that the income limitations for owner-occupied units
apply to at least the initial buyers; and will require that the income limitations for all rental units apply for the
duration of the TIF District.
Tax increments derived from a housing district must be used solely to finance the cost of housing projects as defined
above. The cost of public improvements directly related to the housing projects and the allocated administrative
expenses of the Authority may be included in the cost of a housing project.
7IGXMSR*(YVEXMSRSJXLI8-*(MWXVMGX
Housing districts may remain in existence 25 years from the date of receipt of the first tax increment. The City
anticipates that the TIF District will remain in existence the maximum duration allowed by law (projected to be through
the year 2038). Modifications of this plan (see Section Z) shall not extend these limitations. All tax increments from
taxes payable in the year the TIF District is decertified shall be paid to the Authority. Pursuant to MN Statutes,
Section 469.175 subdivision 1(b), the Authority elects to delay receipt of first increment until 2013
7IGXMSR+4VSTIVX]XSFI-RGPYHIHMRXLI8-*(MWXVMGX
The TIF District is an approximately 6.16 acre area of land located within the Project Area. A map showing the
location of the TIF District is shown in Exhibit I. The boundaries and area encompassed by the TIF District are
described below:
Parcel ID Number Legal Description
16-29-22-31-0025
Existing Legal Description: That part of Government Lot
2, Sec. 16, T. 29, R. 22, Ramsey County, Minnesota
which lies S’ of Frost Avenue as described in Document
No. 1999021, W’ of Frost Avenue Connection as
described in Document No. 1999021, N’ of East Shore
Drive as described in Document No. 367903, and NE’ of
a line described as commencing at the center of said
Section 16, thence S 89 degrees 32 minutes 38 seconds
W, assumed bearing, along the N line of said
Government Lot 2, 1130.00 feet, to the point of
beginning; thence South 27 degrees 23 minutes 03
seconds East, 1121.18 feet to an angle in the north line
of said East Shore Drive, said angle point being 658.56
Page 2
PacketPageNumber119of272
746-2+78)(
AgendaItemH1
Attachment3
'MX]SJ1ETPI[SSH1MRRIWSXE
feet westerly of the East line of said government lot 2 as
measured along the N line of said East Shore Drive and
said line there terminating.*
The area encompassed by the TIF District shall also include all street or utility right-of-ways located upon or adjacent
to the property described above.
*The property is in the process of being replatted. The PID and legal description are representative of the property
prior to the re-platting.
7IGXMSR,4VSTIVX]XSFI%GUYMVIHMRXLI8-*(MWXVMGX
The City may acquire and sell any or all of the property located within the TIF District. However, the City does not
anticipate acquiring any such property at this time.
7IGXMSR-7TIGMJMG(IZIPSTQIRX)\TIGXIHXS3GGYV;MXLMRXLI8-*(MWXVMGX
The proposed development is expected to be constructed in two phases. Phase 1 will consist of a 106-unit senior
housing facility including 74 assisted living and 32 memory care units. Phase 2 will add an additional 56 units to the
project, though it has not yet been determined the split between assisted living and memory care units for phase 2.
The total number of units created by both phases is 162. The development will also include common areas including
two dining rooms, a beauty shop and spa, a club room, a library, computer center, craft room and an exercise/fitness
room.
The City anticipates using tax increment to finance a portion of the land acquisition, special assessments, public
utility, site improvement and other eligible improvements associated with the development, as well as related
administrative expenses and pooling for affordable housing.
Construction of phase 1 of the project is expected to begin and be fully completed in 2011. Phase 1 of the project will
be 100% assessed and on the tax rolls as of January 2, 2012 for taxes payable in 2013. Construction of phase 2 of
the project is expected to begin and be fully completed in 2018. Phase 2 of the project will be 100% assessed and on
the tax rolls as of Janurary 2, 2019 for taxes payable in 2020.
At the time this document was prepared there were no signed construction contracts with regards to the above
described development.
7IGXMSR.*MRHMRKWERH2IIHJSV8E\-RGVIQIRX*MRERGMRK
In establishing the TIF District, the City makes the following findings:
(1) The TIF District qualifies as a housing district;
See Section E of this document for the reasons and facts supporting this finding.
(2) The proposed development, in the opinion of the City, would not reasonably be expected to occur
solely through private investment within the reasonably foreseeable future.
The proposed development is a senior rental housing project consisting of up to 162 assisted living,
memory care and independent living units in the City of Maplewood. The City has reviewed
information submitted by the proposed developer, showing that the cost of providing low to
moderate income housing makes the proposed development infeasible without public financial
assistance. Without the improvements the City has no reason to expect that significant
development of this type would occur without assistance similar to that provided in this plan.
Page 3
PacketPageNumber120of272
746-2+78)(
AgendaItemH1
Attachment3
'MX]SJ1ETPI[SSH1MRRIWSXE
Therefore the City has no reason to believe the development would occur but-for tax increment
assistance.
The increased market value of the site that could reasonably be expected to occur without the use
of tax increment financing would be less than the increase in market value estimated to result from
the proposed development after subtracting the present value of the projected tax increments for
the maximum duration of the TIF District permitted by the TIF Plan:Without the improvements the
City has no reason to expect that significant redevelopment would occur without assistance similar
to that provided in this plan. Therefore, the City concludes as follows:
a.The City’s estimate of the amount by which the market value of the site will increase
without the use of tax increment financing is $0 (except for a small amount for annual
appreciation of land value).
b.If all development which is proposed to be assisted with tax increment were to occur in the
District, the total increase in market value would be approximately $17,205,057.
c.The present value of tax increments from the District for the maximum duration of the
district permitted by the TIF Plan is estimated to be $2,257,949. (See Exhibit VI)
d.Even if some development other than the proposed development were to occur, the
Council finds that no alternative would occur that would produce a market value increase
greater than $14,947,108 (the amount in clause b less the amounts in clauses a and c) without
tax increment assistance.
The comparative analysis outlined above of the estimated market values both with and
without establishment of the TIF District and the use of tax increments assumes no
development will occur on the site because of the extraordinary costs associated with
constructing affordable housing units. We assume the estimated market value without
creation of the District would only increase at most by an incremental inflationary amount.
The increase in estimated market value of the proposed development (less the indicated
subtractions) exceeds the estimated market value of the site absent the establishment of
the TIF District and the use of tax increments.
(3) The TIF Plan conforms to the general plan for development or redevelopment of the City as a
whole; and
The reasons and facts supporting this finding are that the TIF District is properly zoned,
and the TIF Plan has been approved by the City Planning Commission and will generally
complement and serve to implement policies adopted in the City's comprehensive plan.
(4) The TIF Plan will afford maximum opportunity, consistent with the sound needs of the City as a
whole, for the development of the Project Area by private enterprise.
The reasons and facts supporting this finding are that the development activities are
necessary so that development and redevelopment by private enterprise can occur within
the Project Area.
7IGXMSR/)WXMQEXIH4YFPMG'SWXW
The estimated public costs of the TIF District are listed below. Such costs are eligible for reimbursement from tax
increments of the TIF District.
Land/Building acquisition, Special Assessments,
$2,200,000
Public Utilities, Site Improvements/Preparation
Page 4
PacketPageNumber121of272
746-2+78)(
AgendaItemH1
Attachment3
'MX]SJ1ETPI[SSH1MRRIWSXE
Costs, and other Eligible Improvements
Bond Interest Payments 2,056,745
Administrative expenses 266,826
Other Expenditures
Capitalized Interest payments 215,295
Cost of Issuance 74,705
Pooling for Affordable Housing 522,882
$5,336,453
8SXEP
The City reserves the right to administratively adjust the amount of any of the items listed above or to incorporate
additional eligible items, so long as the total estimated public cost is not increased.
*The City is anticipating issuing general obligation improvement bonds, which will be secured by special assessments
against the development property. The Developer will be reimbursed for the special assessments through the use of
tax increment, in an amount equal to the special assessments.
7IGXMSR0)WXMQEXIH7SYVGIWSJ6IZIRYI
Tax Increment revenue $5,336,453
Interest on invested funds 0
Bond proceeds 0
Loan proceeds 0
Grants 0
Other 0
$5,336,453
8SXEP
The City anticipates providing financial assistance to the proposed development through the use of a pay-as-you-go
technique. As tax increments are collected from the TIF District in future years, a portion of these taxes will be
distributed to the developer/owner as reimbursement for public costs incurred (see Section K).
The City reserves the right to finance any or all public costs of the TIF District using pay-as-you-go assistance,
internal funding, general obligation or revenue debt, or any other financing mechanism authorized by law. The City
also reserves the right to use other sources of revenue legally applicable to the Project Area to pay for such costs
including, but not limited to, special assessments, utility revenues, federal or state funds, and investment income.
7IGXMSR1)WXMQEXIH%QSYRXSJ&SRHIH-RHIFXIHRIWW
The Authority does not anticipate issuing tax increment bonds to finance the estimated public costs of the TIF District,
but reserves the right to issue such bonds in an amount not to exceed $2,490,000.
7IGXMSR23VMKMREP2IX8E\'ETEGMX]
The County Auditor shall certify the original net tax capacity of the TIF District. This value will be equal to the total net
tax capacity of all property in the TIF District as certified by the State Commissioner of Revenue. For districts certified
between January 1 and June 30, inclusive, this value is based on the previous assessment year. For districts
certified between July 1 and December 31, inclusive, this value is based on the current assessment year.
The Estimated Market Value of all property within the TIF District as of January 2, 2010, for taxes payable in 2011, is
$1,600,000, and the property is classified as rental. Upon establishment of the TIF District, it is estimated that the
original net tax capacity of the TIF District will be approximately $20,000, based on an EMV of $1,600,000 as set by
the assessment as of January 2, 1010.
Page 5
PacketPageNumber122of272
746-2+78)(
AgendaItemH1
Attachment3
'MX]SJ1ETPI[SSH1MRRIWSXE
Each year the County Auditor shall certify the amount that the original net tax capacity has increased or decreased as
a result of:
(1) changes in the tax-exempt status of property;
(2) reductions or enlargements of the geographic area of the TIF District;
(3) changes due to stipulation agreements or abatements; or
(4) changes in property classification rates.
7IGXMSR33VMKMREP8E\'ETEGMX]6EXI
The County Auditor shall also certify the original tax capacity rate of the TIF District. This rate shall be the sum of all
local tax rates that apply to property in the TIF District.This rate shall be for the same taxes payable year as the
original net tax capacity.
In future years, the amount of tax increment generated by the TIF District will be calculated using the lesser of (a) the
sum of the current local tax rates at that time or (b) the original tax capacity rate of the TIF District.
At the time this document was prepared, the sum of all local tax rates that apply to property in the TIF District, for
taxes levied in 2010 and payable in 2011, was not yet available. When this total becomes available, the County
Auditor shall certify this amount as the original tax capacity rate of the TIF District. For purposes of estimating the tax
increment generated by the TIF District, the final local tax rates for taxes levied in 2009 and payable in 2010, is
119.778% as shown below.
Final
2009/2010
Taxing JurisdictionLocal Tax Rate
City of Maplewood 33.354%
Ramsey County 50.248%
ISD # 622 25.359%
Other 8.817%
Total 119.778%
7IGXMSR44VSNIGXIH6IXEMRIH'ETXYVIH2IX8E\'ETEGMX]ERH
4VSNIGXIH8E\-RGVIQIRX
The City anticipates that phase 1 of the project will be completed by December 31, 2011, creating a total tax capacity
for phase 1 of TIF District No. 1-10 of $125,000 as of January 2, 2012. The captured tax capacity as of that date is
estimated to be $105,000 and the first year of tax increment is estimated to be $125,767 payable in 2013. The City
anticipates that phase 2 of the project will be completed by December 31, 2018, creating a total maximum tax
capacity for phases 1 & 2 of $196,517 as of January 2, 2019. The captured tax capacity as of that date is estimated
to be $176,517, and the first year of increment from phases 1 & 2 is estimated to be $211,428 payable in 2020. A
complete schedule of estimated increment from the TIF District is shown in Exhibit III.
The estimates shown in this TIF Plan assume that the housing development will be designated as rental property, and
that the class rate will be 1.25%, and assumes 1% annual increases in market values.
Page 6
PacketPageNumber123of272
746-2+78)(
AgendaItemH1
Attachment3
'MX]SJ1ETPI[SSH1MRRIWSXE
Each year the County Auditor shall determine the current net tax capacity of all property in the TIF District. To the
extent that this total exceeds the original net tax capacity, the difference shall be known as the captured net tax
capacity of the TIF District.
The County Auditor shall certify to the City the amount of captured net tax capacity each year. The City may choose
to retain any or all of this amount. It is the City’s intention to retain 100% of the captured net tax capacity of the TIF
District. Such amount shall be known as the retained captured net tax capacity of the TIF District.
Exhibit II gives a listing of the various information and assumptions used in preparing a number of the exhibits
contained in this TIF Plan, including Exhibit III which shows the projected tax increment generated over the
anticipated life of the TIF District.
7IGXMSR59WISJ8E\-RGVIQIRX
Each year the County Treasurer shall deduct 0.36% of the annual tax increment generated by the TIF District and pay
such amount to the State's General Fund. Such amounts will be appropriated to the State Auditor for the cost of
financial reporting and auditing of tax increment financing information throughout the state. Exhibit III shows the
projected deduction for this purpose over the anticipated life of the TIF District.
The City has determined that it will use 100% of the remaining tax increment generated by the TIF District for any of
the following purposes:
(1) Pay for the estimated public costs of the TIF District (see Section K) and County administrative
costs associated with the TIF District (see Section T);
(2) pay principal and interest on tax increment bonds or other bonds issued to finance the estimated
public costs of the TIF District;
(3) accumulate a reserve securing the payment of tax increment bonds or other bonds issued to
finance the estimated public costs of the TIF District;
(4) pay all or a portion of the county road costs as may be required by the County Board under M.S.
Section 469.175, Subdivision 1a; or
(5) return excess tax increments to the County Auditor for redistribution to the City, County and School
District.
Tax increments from property located in one county must be expended for the direct and primary benefit of a project
located within that county, unless both county boards involved waive this requirement. Tax increments shall not be
used to circumvent levy limitations applicable to the City.
Tax increment shall not be used to finance the acquisition, construction, renovation, operation, or maintenance of a
building to be used primarily and regularly for conducting the business of a municipality, county, school district, or any
other local unit of government or the State or federal government, or for a commons area used as a public park, or a
facility used for social, recreational, or conference purposes. This prohibition does not apply to the construction or
renovation of a parking structure or of a privately owned facility for conference purposes.
7IGXMSR6)\GIWW8E\-RGVIQIRX
In any year in which the tax increments from the TIF District exceed the amount necessary to pay the estimated
public costs authorized by the TIF Plan, the City shall use the excess tax increments to:
(1) prepay any outstanding tax increment bonds;
Page 7
PacketPageNumber124of272
746-2+78)(
AgendaItemH1
Attachment3
'MX]SJ1ETPI[SSH1MRRIWSXE
(2) discharge the pledge of tax increments thereof;
(3) pay amounts into an escrow account dedicated to the payment of the tax increment bonds; or
(4) return excess tax increments to the County Auditor for redistribution to the City, County and School
District. The County Auditor must report to the Commissioner of Education the amount of any
excess tax increment redistributed to the School District within 30 days of such redistribution.
7IGXMSR78E\-RGVIQIRX4SSPMRKERHXLI*MZI=IEV6YPI
As permitted under Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.1763, subdivision 2(b) and subdivision 3(a)(5), any expenditures
of increment from the TIF District to pay the cost of a “housing project” as defined in Minnesota Statutes, Section
469.174, subd. 11 will be treated as an expenditure within the district for the purposes of the “pooling rules” and the
“five year rule”. The City does not currently anticipate that tax increments will be spent outside the TIF District
(except allowable administrative expenses), but such expenditures are expressly authorized in this TIF Plan.
7IGXMSR80MQMXEXMSRSR%HQMRMWXVEXMZI)\TIRWIW
Administrative expenses are defined as all costs of the City other than:
(1) amounts paid for the purchase of land;
(2) amounts paid for materials and services, including architectural and engineering services directly
connected with the proposed development within the TIF District;
(3) relocation benefits paid to, or services provided for, persons or businesses residing or located
within the TIF District; or
(4) amounts used to pay interest on, fund a reserve for, or sell at a discount, tax increment bonds.
Administrative expenses include amounts paid for services provided by bond counsel, fiscal consultants, planning or
economic development consultants, and actual costs incurred by the County in administering the TIF District. Tax
increments may be used to pay administrative expenses of the TIF District up to the lesser of (a) 10% of the total
estimated tax increment expenditures authorized by the TIF Plan or (b) 10% of the total tax increment for the project.
7IGXMSR90MQMXEXMSRSR4VSTIVX]2SX7YFNIGXXS-QTVSZIQIRXW*SYV=IEV6YPI
If after four years from certification of the TIF District no demolition, rehabilitation, renovation, or qualified
improvement of an adjacent street has commenced on a parcel located within the TIF District, then that parcel shall
be excluded from the TIF District and the original net tax capacity shall be adjusted accordingly. Qualified
improvements of a street are limited to construction or opening of a new street, relocation of a street, or substantial
reconstruction or rebuilding of an existing street. The City must submit to the County Auditor, by February 1 of the
fifth year, evidence that the required activity has taken place for each parcel in the TIF District.
If a parcel is excluded from the TIF District and the City or owner of the parcel subsequently commences any of the
above activities, the City shall certify to the County Auditor that such activity has commenced and the parcel shall
once again be included in the TIF District. The County Auditor shall certify the net tax capacity of the parcel, as most
recently certified by the Commissioner of Revenue, and add such amount to the original net tax capacity of the TIF
District.
7IGXMSR:)WXMQEXIH-QTEGXSR3XLIV8E\MRK.YVMWHMGXMSRW
Page 8
PacketPageNumber125of272
746-2+78)(
AgendaItemH1
Attachment3
'MX]SJ1ETPI[SSH1MRRIWSXE
Exhibit IV shows the estimated impact on other taxing jurisdictions if the maximum projected retained captured net tax
capacity of the TIF District was hypothetically available to the other taxing jurisdictions. The City believes that there
will be no adverse impact on other taxing jurisdictions during the life of the TIF District, since the proposed
development would not have occurred without the establishment of the TIF District and the provision of public
assistance. A positive impact on other taxing jurisdictions will occur when the TIF District is decertified and the
development therein becomes part of the general tax base.
The fiscal and economic implications of the proposed tax increment financing district, as pursuant to Minnesota
Statutes, Section 469.175, Subdivision 2, are listed below.
1.The total maximum amount of tax increment that will be generated over the life of the district is estimated to
be $5,355,734.
2.To the extent the housing project in the proposed TIF District generates any public cost impacts on city-
provided services such as police and fire protection, public infrastructure, and borrowing costs attributable to
the district, such costs will be levied upon the taxable net tax capacity of the City, excluding that portion
captured by the District.
3.The maximum amount of tax increments over the life of the district that would be attributable to school
district levies, assuming the school district’s share of the total local tax rate for all taxing jurisdictions
remained the same, is estimated to be $1,133,898.
4.The maximum amount of tax increments over the life of the district that would be attributable to county
levies, assuming the county’s share of the total local tax rate for all taxing jurisdictions remained the same is
estimated to be $2,246,781.
5.No additional information has been requested by the County or School District.
7IGXMSR;4VMSV4PERRIH-QTVSZIQIRXW
The City shall accompany its request for certification to the County Auditor (or notice of district enlargement), with a
listing of all properties within the TIF District for which building permits have been issued during the 18 months
immediately preceding approval of the TIF Plan. The County Auditor shall increase the original net tax capacity of the
TIF District by the net tax capacity of each improvement for which a building permit was issued.
There have been no building permits issued in the last 18 months in conjunction with any of the properties within the
TIF District.
7IGXMSR<(IZIPSTQIRX%KVIIQIRXW
If within a project containing a housing district, more than 10% of the acreage of the property to be acquired by the
City is purchased with tax increment bonds proceeds (to which tax increment from the property is pledged), then prior
to such acquisition, the City must enter into an agreement for the development of the property. Such agreement
must provide recourse for the City should the development not be completed.
The City anticipates entering into an agreement for development, but does not anticipate acquiring any property
located within the TIF District.
7IGXMSR=%WWIWWQIRX%KVIIQIRXW
Page 9
PacketPageNumber126of272
746-2+78)(
AgendaItemH1
Attachment3
'MX]SJ1ETPI[SSH1MRRIWSXE
The City may, upon entering into a development agreement, also enter into an assessment agreement with the
developer, which establishes a minimum market value of the land and improvements for each year during the life of
the TIF District.
The assessment agreement shall be presented to the County or City Assessor who shall review the plans and
specifications for the improvements to be constructed, review the market value previously assigned to the land, and
so long as the minimum market value contained in the assessment agreement appears to be an accurate estimate,
shall certify the assessment agreement as reasonable. The assessment agreement shall be filed for record in the
office of the County Recorder of each county where the property is located. Any modification or premature
termination of this agreement must first be approved by the City, County and School District.
The City does anticipate entering into an assessment agreement.
7IGXMSR>1SHMJMGEXMSRWSJXLI8E\-RGVIQIRX*MRERGMRK4PER
Any reduction or enlargement in the geographic area of the Project Area or the TIF District; increase in the amount of
bonded indebtedness to be incurred; increase in the amount of capitalized interest; increase in that portion of the
captured net tax capacity to be retained by the City; increase in the total estimated public costs; or designation of
additional property to be acquired by the City shall be approved only after satisfying all the necessary requirements
for approval of the original TIF Plan. This paragraph does not apply if:
(1) the only modification is elimination of parcels from the TIF District; and
(2) the current net tax capacity of the parcels eliminated equals or exceeds the net tax capacity of
those parcels in the TIF District's original net tax capacity, or the City agrees that the TIF District's
original net tax capacity will be reduced by no more than the current net tax capacity of the parcels
eliminated.
The City must notify the County Auditor of any modification that reduces or enlarges the geographic area of the TIF
District. The geographic area of the TIF District may be reduced but not enlarged after five years following the date of
certification.
7IGXMSR%%%HQMRMWXVEXMSRSJXLI8E\-RGVIQIRX*MRERGMRK4PER
Upon adoption of the TIF Plan, the City shall submit a copy of such plan to the Minnesota Department of Revenue.
The City shall also request that the County Auditor certify the original net tax capacity and net tax capacity rate of the
TIF District. To assist the County Auditor in this process, the City shall submit copies of the TIF Plan, the resolution
establishing the TIF District and adopting the TIF Plan, and a listing of any prior planned improvements. The City
shall also send the County Assessor any assessment agreement establishing the minimum market value of land and
improvements in the TIF District, and shall request that the County Assessor review and certify this assessment
agreement as reasonable.
The County shall distribute to the City the amount of tax increment as it becomes available. The amount of tax
increment in any year represents the applicable property taxes generated by the retained captured net tax capacity of
the TIF District. The amount of tax increment may change due to development anticipated by the TIF Plan, other
development, inflation of property values, or changes in property classification rates or formulas. In administering and
implementing the TIF Plan, the following actions should occur on an annual basis:
(1) prior to July 1, the City shall notify the County Assessor of any new development that has occurred
in the TIF District during the past year to insure that the new value will be recorded in a timely
manner.
Page 10
PacketPageNumber127of272
746-2+78)(
AgendaItemH1
Attachment3
'MX]SJ1ETPI[SSH1MRRIWSXE
(2) if the County Auditor receives the request for certification of a new TIF District, or for modification of
an existing TIF District, before July 1, the request shall be recognized in determining local tax rates
for the current and subsequent levy years. Requests received on or after July 1 shall be used to
determine local tax rates in subsequent years.
(3) each year the County Auditor shall certify the amount of the original net tax capacity of the TIF
District. The amount certified shall reflect any changes that occur as a result of the following:
(a) the value of property that changes from tax-exempt to taxable shall be added to the
original net tax capacity of the TIF District. The reverse shall also apply;
(b) the original net tax capacity may be modified by any approved enlargement or reduction of
the TIF District;
(c) if laws governing the classification of real property cause changes to the percentage of
estimated market value to be applied for property tax purposes, then the resulting increase
or decrease in net tax capacity shall be applied proportionately to the original net tax
capacity and the retained captured net tax capacity of the TIF District.
The County Auditor shall notify the City of all changes made to the original net tax capacity of the TIF District.
7IGXMSR%&*MRERGMEP6ITSVXMRKERH(MWGPSWYVI6IUYMVIQIRXW
The City will file the TIF Plan, and any subsequent amendments thereto, with the Commissioner of Revenue and the
Office of the State Auditor pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.175, subdivision 4A. The City will comply
with all reporting requirements for the TIF District under Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.175, subdivisions 5 and 6.
Page 11
PacketPageNumber128of272
746-2+78)(
AgendaItemH1
Attachment3
Exhibit I
Map of Proposed TIF Plan within Development District
Page 12
PacketPageNumber129of272
746-2+78)(
AgendaItemH1
Attachment3
Exhibit II
Assumptions Report
City of Maplewood, Minnesota
Tax Increment Financing (Housing) District No. 1-10
The Shores of Maplewood Project
Scenario 4 - $15M Both Phases - 5% Admin - 1% Inflation Factor
Type of Tax Increment Financing DistrictHousing
Maximum Duration of TIF District25 years from 1st increment
Projected Certification Request Date07/26/10
Decertification Date12/31/38 (26 Years of Increment)
2011/2012
Base Estimated Market Value$1,600,000
Original Net Tax Capacity$20,000
Assessment/Collection Year
2011/20122012/20132013/20142014/2015
Base Estimated Market Value$1,600,000$1,600,000$1,600,000$1,600,000
Increase in Estimated Market Value08,400,0008,500,0008,601,000
Total Estimated Market Value1,600,00010,000,00010,100,00010,201,000
Total Net Tax Capacity$20,000$125,000$126,250$127,513
City of Maplewood35.354%
Ramsey County50.248%
ISD #62225.359%
Other8.817%
Local Tax Capacity Rate119.778%2009/2010
Fiscal Disparities Contribution From TIF District0.0000%
Administrative Retainage Percent (maximum = 10%)5.00%
Pooling Percent0.00%
BondsNote (Pay-As-You-Go)
Bonds Dated02/01/11Note Dated02/01/11
Bond Issue @ 0.00% (NIC)$0Note Rate
Eligible Project Costs$2,490,000Note Amount
Present Value Date & Rate02/01/110.00%
Notes
Projections assume no future changes to tax and class rates, and a 1% market value inflator.
Base Value of $1.6M provided by Ramsey County.
Projections are based on a $10M Total Value for Pay2013 and $15M Total Value for Pay 2020
Tax rates and Taxable Net Tax Capacity are based on Final 2010 rates and market values.
Page 13
PacketPageNumber130of272
746-2+78)(
AgendaItemH1
Attachment3
Exhibit VI
Market Value Analysis Report
City of Maplewood, Minnesota
Tax Increment Financing (Housing) District No. 1-10
The Shores of Maplewood Project
Scenario 4 - $15M Both Phases - 5% Admin - 1% Inflation Factor
Assumptions
Present Value Date07/01/11
P.V. Rate - Gross T.I.0.00%
Increase in EMV With TIF District$17,205,057
Less: P.V of Gross Tax Increment5,355,734
Subtotal$11,849,323
Less: Increase in EMV Without TIF0
Difference$11,849,323
AnnualPresent
Gross TaxValue @
Year Increment0.00%
12013125,767125,767
22014127,264127,264
32015128,776128,776
42016130,304130,304
52017131,846131,846
62018133,404133,404
72019134,978134,978
82020211,428211,428
92021213,782213,782
102022216,160216,160
112023218,561218,561
122024220,986220,986
132025223,435223,435
142026225,909225,909
152027228,408228,408
162028230,932230,932
172029233,480233,480
182030236,055236,055
192031238,655238,655
202032241,281241,281
212033243,933243,933
222034246,612246,612
232035249,318249,318
242036252,051252,051
252037254,811254,811
262038257,598257,598
$5,355,734$5,355,734
PacketPageNumber133of272
746-2+78)(
AgendaItemH1
Attachment4
MODIFICATION TO THE
DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM
FOR
DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT NO. 1
CITY OF MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA
Draft:July 14, 2010
This document was drafted by: BRIGGS AND MORGAN,
Professional Association
2200 West First National Bank Building
332 Minnesota Street
St. Paul, Minnesota 55101
Financial Information Springsted Incorporated
provided by: 85 East Seventh Place, Suite 100
St. Paul, Minnesota 551012
2219397v1
PacketPageNumber134of272
AgendaItemH1
Attachment4
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
SECTION IDEVELOPMENT PROGRAM FOR DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT
NO. 1 ................................................................................................................ 3
1.1.Definitions.............................................................................................................. 3
1.2. Statement of Public Purpose .................................................................................. 4
1.3. Statutory Authority ................................................................................................ 5
1.4.Statement of Need .................................................................................................. 5
1.5.Statement of Objectives ......................................................................................... 6
1.6. Boundaries of Development District ..................................................................... 7
1.7.Development Activities ......................................................................................... 7
1.8. Payment of Project Cost......................................................................................... 9
1.9.Environmental Controls ......................................................................................... 9
1.10.Park and Open Space to be Created ....................................................................... 9
1.11. Proposed Reuse of Property ................................................................................. 10
1.12.Administration and Maintenance of Development District ................................. 10
1.13.Rehabilitation ....................................................................................................... 10
1.14.Relocation ............................................................................................................ 10
1.15. Parcels To Be Acquired In Whole or In Part Within the Development
District.................................................................................................................. 10
1.16. Amendments ........................................................................................................ 11
1.17.Development Activity in the Development District for which Contracts
Have Been Signed ................................................................................................ 11
1.18. Other Specific Development Expected to Occur Within The Development
District.................................................................................................................. 12
Exhibit A Boundaries of Development District No. 1 .................................................. A-1
i
2219397v1
PacketPageNumber135of272
AgendaItemH1
Attachment4
MUNICIPAL ACTION TAKEN
Based upon the statutory authority described in the Modified Development Program
attached hereto, the public purpose findings by the City Council and for the purpose of fulfilling
the City’s development objectives as set forth in the Modified Development Program, the City
Council has created, established and designated Development District No. 1 pursuant to and in
accordance with the requirements of Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.126.
The following municipal action was taken in connection therewith:
October 28, 1985: The Program for Development District No. 1 was adopted by the City
Council.
June 23, 1986: The Program for Development District No. 1 was modified by modifying
the Project Costs.
September 28, 1987: The Program for Development District No. 1 was modified by
enlargement of the geographic Project Area and increased Project Costs.
January 11, 1988: The Program for Development District No. 1 was modified by
modifying the Project Costs.
May 8, 1989: The Program for Development District No. 1 was modified by modifying
the Project Costs.
October 9, 1989: The Program for Development District No. 1 was modified by
modifying the Project Costs.
April 23, 1990: The Program for Development District No. 1 was modified by modifying
the Project Costs.
December 23, 1991: The Program for Development District No. 1 was modified by
modifying the Project Costs.
February 10, 1992: The Program for Development District No. 1 was modified by
modifying the Project Costs.
May 24, 1993: The Program for Development District No. 1 was modified by modifying
the Project Costs.
May 8, 1995: The Program for Development District No. 1 was modified by modifying
the Project Costs.
June 28, 1999: The Program for Development District No. 1 was modified by
enlargement of the geographic Project Area and increased Project Costs.
August 13, 2001: The Program for Development District No. 1 was modified by
increased Project Costs.
2219397v1
PacketPageNumber136of272
AgendaItemH1
Attachment4
May 12, 2003: The Program for Development District No. 1 was modified by increased
Project Costs.
June 23, 2003: The Program for Development District No. 1 was modified by increased
Project Costs and the Tax Increment Financing Plan for Housing District No. 1-8 within
Development District No. 1 was adopted.
August 25, 2008: The Program for Development District No. 1 was modified by
increased Project Costs and the Tax Increment Financing Plan for Housing District No. 1-9
within Development District No. 1 was adopted.
August 9, 2010:The programfor Development District No. 1 was modified by
increased Project Costs and the Tax Increment Financing Plan for Housing District No. 1-10
within Development District No. 1 was adopted.
2
2219397v1
PacketPageNumber137of272
AgendaItemH1
Attachment4
SECTION I
DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM FOR DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT NO. 1
1.1.Definitions. The terms defined below have, for purposes of this Tax Increment
Financing Plan, the meanings herein specified, unless the context specifically requires otherwise:
“City” means the City of Maplewood, a municipal corporation and political subdivision
of the State of Minnesota. The City has a Statutory City Plan A form of government.
“Comprehensive Plan” means the City’s Comprehensive Plan submitted to the
Metropolitan Council pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, 473.173, which contains the objectives,
policies, standards and programs to guide public and private land use, development,
redevelopment and preservation for all lands and water within the City.
“Council” means the City Council of the City, also referred to as the governing body.
(See “Governing Body” below.)
“County” means the County of Ramsey, Minnesota.
“Development District Act” means the statutory provisions of Minnesota Statutes,
Sections 469.124 through 469.134, as amended and supplemented.
“Development District” means Development District No. 1 in the City, which is created
and established hereto pursuant to and in accordance with the Development District Act, and is
geographically described in Exhibit A.
“Development Program” means this Development Program for Development District No.
1, initially adopted by the Council on October 28, 1985 and modified on June 23, 1986,
September 28, 1987, January 11, 1988, May 8, 1989, October 9, 1989, April 23, 1990, December
23, 1991, February 10, 1992, May 24, 1993, May 8, 1995, June 28, 1999, August 13, 2001, May
12, 2003, June 23, 2003,August 25, 2008, and August 9, 2010. As defined in Minnesota
Statutes, Section 469.125, Subd. 3, a development program is a statement of objectives of the
City for improvement of a development district which contains a complete statement as to the
public facilities to be constructed within the district, the open space to be created, the
environmental controls to be applied, the proposed reuse of private property and the proposed
operations of the district after the capital improvements within the district have been completed.
“Economic Development District” means a type of tax increment financing district which
consists of any project, or portions of a project, not meeting the requirements found in the
definition of redevelopment district, renewal and renovation district, soils condition district,
mined underground space development district, or housing district, but which the City finds to be
in the public interest because:
(a) It will discourage commerce, industry or manufacturing from moving their operations
to another municipality; or
3
2219397v1
PacketPageNumber138of272
AgendaItemH1
Attachment4
(b) It will result in increased employment in the state; or
(c) It will result in preservation and enhancement of the tax base of the state.
“Governing Body” means the duly elected CityCouncil as defined in Minnesota Statutes,
Section 469.125, Subd. 8.
“Housing District” means a type of tax increment financing district which consists of a
project, or a portion of a project, intended for occupancy, in part, by persons or families of low
and moderate income, as defined in chapter 462A, Title II of the National Housing Act of 1937,
as amended, Title V of the Housing Act of 1949, as amended, any other similar present or future
federal, state, or municipal legislation, or the regulations promulgated under any of those acts, as
defined in Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.174, subd. 11.
“Municipal Industrial Development Act” means the statutory provisions of Minnesota
Statutes, Sections 469.152 through 469.165, as amended.
“Municipality” means any city, however organized as defined in Minnesota Statutes,
Section 469.125, Subd. 2.
“State” means the State of Minnesota.
“Tax Increment Bonds” means any general obligation or revenue tax increment bonds
issued and to be issued by the City to finance theproject costs associated with Development
District No. 1 as stated in the Development Program and in the Tax Increment Financing Plan for
the Tax Increment Financing Districts within Development District No. 1. The term “Tax
Increment Bonds” shall also include any obligations issued to refund the Tax Increment Bonds.
“Tax Increment Financing District” means any tax increment financing district presently
established or to be established in the future in Development District No. 1.
“Tax Increment Financing Act” means the statutory provisions of Minnesota Statutes,
Sections 469.174 through 469.1799, inclusive, as amended.
“Tax Increment Financing Plan” means the respective Tax Increment Financing Plan for
each Tax Increment Financing District located within the Development District.
1.2.Statement of Public Purpose. The Council (the “Council”) in and for the City of
Maplewood, Minnesota (the “City”) has determined that there is a need for housing,
development and redevelopment within the corporate limits of the City to provide employment
opportunities, to enhance development opportunities for the private sector, to improve the tax
base and to improve the general economy of the City, the County of Ramsey and the State of
Minnesota. It is found that there are certain parcels of property within the Development District
which are potentially more useful, productive and valuable than is being realized under existing
conditions, is less productive because of the lack of proper utilization, and, therefore, are not
contributing to the tax base of the City to their full potential. In addition, it is hereby found that
there is a need for public improvements to encourage development.
4
2219397v1
PacketPageNumber139of272
AgendaItemH1
Attachment4
Therefore, the City has determined to exercise its authority to develop a program for
improving the Development District of the City to provide impetus for private development, to
maintain and increase employment, to utilize existing potential and to provide other facilities as
are outlined in the Development Program adopted by the City.
The Council has also determined that the proposed developments would not occur solely
through private investment in the foreseeable future; that the tax increment financing plans
proposed herein are consistent with the Development Program; and that the tax increment
financing plans will afford maximum opportunity, consistent with the sound needs of the
municipality as a whole, for the development or redevelopment of the Development District by
private enterprise.
The Council finds that the welfare of the City as well as the State of Minnesota requires
active promotion, attraction, encouragement and development of economically sound industry
and commerce to carry out its stated public purpose objectives.
1.3.Statutory Authority. The Development District Act, authorizes the City, upon
certain public purpose findings by the Council, to establish and designate development districts
within the City and to establish, develop and administer development programs in regard thereto,
all for the purpose of creating funding for the financing of necessary activities and improvements
within the City.
In accordance with the purposes set forth in Section 469.124 of the Development District
Act, the Council hereby establishes Development District No. 1, as described in Exhibit A, for
the purposes of enhancing the environment in which existing businesses are located, thus helping
to secure their continued existence and potential additional development within the City, and
promoting new and on going development in Development District No. 1,both of which will
provide employment opportunities, improve the tax base of the City and contribute positively to
the economy of the State.
The Tax Increment Financing Act, provides the procedure for the establishment of tax
increment districts for the use of tax increment financing authorized by the Development District
Act for the funding of qualified public activities and improvements.
Within the Development District, the City has established tenhousing districts as the
types of tax increment financing district described in Section 469.174, Subd. 11 for Housing
District No. 1-1, Housing District No. 1-2, Housing District No. 1-3, Housing District No. 1-4,
Housing District No. 1-5, Housing District No. 1-6, Housing District No. 1-7, Housing District
No. 1-8, Housing District No. 1-9, and Housing District No. 1-10 and has established five
economic development districts as the types of tax increment financing district described in
Section 469.174, Subd. 12 for Economic Development District No. 1-1, Economic Development
District No. 1-2, Economic Development District No. 1-3, Economic Development District No.
1-4 and Economic Development District No. 1-5.
1.4.Statement of Need. The Development District is established by the City of
Maplewood for the purpose of promoting the redevelopment of existing commercial areas and
the development of new business opportunities within the community. The City has found that
5
2219397v1
PacketPageNumber140of272
AgendaItemH1
Attachment4
the area within the Development District has not realized its greatest development potential due
to a variety of factors. Included in the development barriers identified by the City are:
inadequate public improvements, improper land use and utilization, and lack of investment. The
City has found that the creation of the Development District and the utilization of tax increment
financing is needed to remove these barriers and to promote development of the community.
1.5.Statement of Objectives. The Council determines that it is necessary, desirable
and in the public interest to establish the Development District in the City, pursuant to the
authority of the Development District Act. The Council finds that the creation of the
Development District is necessary to give the City the ability to meet certain public purpose
objectives that would not be otherwise obtainable in the foreseeable future without intervention
by the City in the normal development process.
The City intends to satisfy the following objectives through the implementation of the
Development Program:
(a)To provide safe, decent, sanitary housing for all residents of the city and in
particular low and moderate income residents.
(b)To provide an adequate housing supply for all residents at a cost they can
afford.
(c)To provide housing choices for low and moderate income residents who
find housing opportunities are not available to them because of economic conditions.
(d)To provide project activities which will assist in making possible the
construction of a planned apartment for low and moderate income residents, as well, as
improving health, welfare and convenience of citizens residing in the Development District.
(e)Provide for the financing and construction of public improvements,
including recreational and community center facilities, in the Development District, necessary
for the orderly and beneficial development of the Development District and adjacent areas of the
City and the provision of adequate City services to the City residents.
(f)Promote and secure the prompt development of certain property in the
Development District, which property is not now in productive use or in its highest and best use,
in a manner consistent with the City’s Comprehensive Plan and with a minimum adverse impact
on the environment, and thereby promote and secure the development of other land in the City.
(g)Promote and secure additionalemployment opportunities within the
Development District and the City for residents of the City and the surrounding area, thereby
improving living standards, reducing unemployment and the loss of skilled and unskilled labor
and other human resources in the City.
(h)Secure the increase of property subject to taxation by the City,
Independent School Districts Nos. 622, 623 and 624, Northwest Metropolitan Intermediate
District No. 916, Ramsey County, and other taxing jurisdictions in order to better enable such
entities to pay for governmental services and programs required to be provided by them.
6
2219397v1
PacketPageNumber141of272
AgendaItemH1
Attachment4
(i)Promote the concentration of new desirable residential, commercial,
office, restaurant, and other appropriate development in the Development District so as to
maintain the area in a manner compatible with its accessibility and prominence in the City.
(j)Encourage local business expansion, improvement and development,
whenever possible.
(k)Create a desirable and unique character within the Development District
through quality land use alternatives and design quality in new and remodeled buildings.
(l)Encourage and provide maximum opportunity for private redevelopment
of existing areas and structures which are compatible with the Development Program.
1.6.Boundaries of Development District. The area within the Development District is
set forth in Exhibit A.
1.7.Development Activities. Development activities within the Development District
must be financially feasible, marketable and be compatible with long range development
strategies of the City. The following recommendations represent the options that satisfy
community development objectives for the Development District while taking advantage of
opportunities which are currently available. The City will perform all project activities pursuant
to the statute and in doing so, anticipates that the following may, but are not required to be
undertaken:
(a)The making of studies, planning, and informal activities relating to the
Development Program.
(b)The implementation and administration of the Development Program.
(c)The construction or reconstruction of streets, sidewalks, utilities, and other
public improvements including but not limited to:
(1)the construction of street, water and sewer improvements on Southlawn
Drive from Beam Avenue to County Road D;
(2)the construction of street, water and sewer improvements on McKnight
Road from Highway 36 to Conway Avenue;
(3)the construction of a water tower on Stillwater Road east of Sterling;
(4)the construction of water main on Hudson place;
(5)the installation of traffic lights at Hazelwood Avenue and Southlawn
Avenue on Beam Avenue.
(6)acquisition of land and improvement of Hazelwood Park located at County
Road C east of Hazelwood Avenue;
7
2219397v1
PacketPageNumber142of272
AgendaItemH1
Attachment4
(7)improvement of Playcrest Park located at Lydia Avenue and McKnight
Road;
(8)acquisition, expansion and improvement of Harvest Park located at
Hazelwood Avenue south of County Road C and North of Highway 36;
(9)the construction of water, street, sanitary sewer and storm sewer
improvements within an area North of Beam Avenue, South of the Northern City limit,
East of Highway 61 and West of White Bear Avenue;
(10)acquisition of the abandoned Burlington Northern railroad right of way
running from Larpenteur Street to Highway 694;
(11)acquisition of the land that the Cottages of Maplewood will be developed
on and the payment of certain site improvements for the Cottages of Maplewood project;
(12)acquisition and betterment of a city recreational and community center
facility;
(13)improvement of Sherwood Park located at Hazelwood and Cope Avenues;
(14)improvement of Afton Heights Park, Geranium Park, Gethsemane Park,
Gladstone Park, Goodrich Park, Hillside Park, Lion’s Park, Maplecrest Park, Maplewood
Heights Park, Nature Center, Robinhood Park, Sherwood Park and Timber Park;
(15)construction of a municipal storage building to house park equipment;
(16)construction of public alleys east of White Bear Avenue from Woodlyn
Avenue to County Road D and a public alley southwest of the southwest corner of Beam
Avenue and White Bear Avenue;
(17)construction of traffic improvements on White Bear Avenue from
Interstate Highway 694 to Beam Avenue; and
(18)bike path along McKnight Road (County State Aid Highway 68) from a
point 788.17 feet north of the Southwest Corner of Section 36, Township 29N, Range
22W to a point 37.00 feet south of the West Quarter Corner of Section 36 Township 29N,
Range 22W.
(d)The acquisition of property consistent with the objectives of the
Development Program.
(e)The preparation of property for use including demolition of structures,
clearance of sites, placement of fill, and installation of utilities.
(f)The resale of property to developers.
8
2219397v1
PacketPageNumber143of272
AgendaItemH1
Attachment4
(g)The provision of relocation assistance to businesses and homeowners as
may be required by this Development Program.
(h)The issuance of Tax Increment Bonds to finance project costs of the
Development Program or to evidence the City’s obligation to reimburse developers for all or part
of the project costs of the Development Program incurred or to be incurred by it pursuant to a
Development Agreement.
(i)The use of tax increments derived from a Tax Increment Financing
District within the Development District to pay debt service on Tax Increment Bonds or
otherwise pay the project cost of the Development Program.
1.8.Payment of Project Cost. It is anticipated that the project cost of the Development
Program will be paid primarily from the tax increments to be derived from the Development
District, either directly or indirectly by payment of project eligible expenses, by reimbursement
of developers for items of project cost paid directly by developers, or by some combination of
these methods. The City reserves the right to utilize special assessments, general property taxes,
utility revenues, and other sources of revenue which the City may apply to pay the project cost.
The City intends to pool tax increments from all Tax Increment Financing Districts to finance the
project cost of the Development Program within the Development District.
1.9.Environmental Controls. The proposed Tax Increment Financing Districts within
the Development District do not present significant environmental concerns. All municipal
actions, public improvements and private development shall be carried out in a manner
consistent with existing environmental standards.
1.10.Park and Open Space to be Created. Park and open space within the
Development District No. 1 will be created in accordance with the zoning and platting
ordinances of the City. The City may undertake the following park improvements:
(a)the acquisition of land and improvement of Hazelwood Park located at
County Road C east of Hazelwood Avenue;
(b)the improvement of Playcrest Park located at Lydia Avenue and McKnight
Road;
(c)the acquisition, expansion and improvement of Harvest Park located at
Hazelwood Avenue south of County Road C and North of Highway 36;
(d)the improvement of Sherwood Park locatedat Hazelwood and Cope
Avenues;
(e)the improvement of Afton Heights Park, Geranium Park, Gethsemane
Park, Gladstone Park, Goodrich Park, Hillside Park, Lions Park, Maplecrest Park, Maplewood
Heights, Nature Center, Robinhood Park, Sherwood Park, Timber Park;
9
2219397v1
PacketPageNumber144of272
AgendaItemH1
Attachment4
(f)the acquisition and improvement of park land adjacent to Housing District
No. 1-9, the acquisition and improvement of the park land will not involve the use of tax
increment revenues.
1.11.Proposed Reuse of Property. The Development Program does not contemplate
the acquisition of private property until such time as a private developer presents an
economically feasible program for the reuse of that property. Proposals, in order to be
considered, must be within the framework of the above cited goals and objectives, and must
clearly demonstrate feasibility as a public program. Prior to formal consideration of the
acquisition of any property, the City Council will require a binding contract, performance bond
and/or other evidence or guarantees that a supporting tax increment or other funds will be
available to repay the project cost associated with the proposed acquisition. It shall be the intent
of the City to negotiate the acquisition of property whenever necessary. Appropriate restrictions
regarding the reuse and redevelopment of property shall be incorporated into any land sale
contract to which the City is a part.
1.12.Administration and Maintenance of Development District. Maintenance and
operation of the public improvements will be the responsibility of the City Manager who shall
serve as administrator of the Development District.
The administrator will administer the Development District pursuant to the provisions of
Section 469.131 of the Development District Act; provided, however, that such powers may only
be exercised at the direction of the Council. No action taken by the administrator pursuant to the
abovementioned powers shall be effective without authorization by the Council.
1.13.Rehabilitation. Owners of properties within the Development District will be
encouraged to rehabilitate their properties to conform with the applicable state and local codes
and ordinances, as well as any design standards. Owners of properties who purchase property
within the Development District from the City may be required to rehabilitate their properties as
condition of sale of land. The City will provide such rehabilitation assistance as may be
available from federal, state or local sources.
1.14.Relocation. No person will be displaced and have to be relocated as a result of
the Development Program. The City accepts its responsibility for providing for relocation
pursuant to Section 469.133 of the Development District Act.
1.15.Parcels To Be Acquired In Whole or In Part Within the Development District.
The City intends to acquire allor part of the land within Housing District No. 1-3 to facilitate the
construction of the Cottages of Maplewood housing project. The City intends to reimburse the
developer for the cost of the land within Housing District Nos. 1-4, 1-5 and 1-6 to facilitate the
construction of the Carefree Cottages of Maplewood housing project (Phase I, Phase II and
Phase III). The City intends to reimburse the developer for the cost of the land within Housing
District No. 1-7 to facilitate the construction of the Van Dyke Village project. The City intends
to reimburse the developer for the cost of the land within Housing District No. 1-8 to facilitate
the construction of the Sibley Cove project. The City intends to reimburse the developer for the
cost of the land within Housing District No. 1-9 to facilitate the construction of the Gethsemane
10
2219397v1
PacketPageNumber145of272
AgendaItemH1
Attachment4
Senior Housing project. The City intends to reimburse the developer for the cost of land within
Housing District No. 1-10 to facilitate the construction of the Shores of Maplewood project.
1.16.Amendments. The City reserves the right to alter and amend the Development
Program and the tax increment financing plans, subject to the provisions of state law regulating
such action. The City specifically reserves the right to change the size of the Development
District and the Tax Increment Financing Districts, the project cost of the Development Program
and the amount of Tax Increment Bonds to be issued to finance such cost by following the
procedures specified in Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.175, Subd. 4.
1.17.Development Activity in the Development District for which Contracts Have
Been Signed.
(a)Zantigo Restaurant on County Road was developed by Zantigo Mexican
Restaurants, Inc. on County Road D, West of White Bear Avenue. The contractor was William
Kranz Construction and the cost of the project was $260,000.
(b)Maple Ridge Square Shopping Center was developed by Curt Johnson and
Joe Weis - Weis Builders, Inc. at the intersection of Gervais Avenue and White Bear Avenue.
The contractor was Weis Builders and the cost of the project was $2,318,383.
(c)Maple Ridge Apartments was developed by Podawiltz Development
Company on County Road D, west of White Bear Avenue. The contractor was Avon Lumber
Company, Inc. and the cost of the project was $2,800,000.
(d)Maple Ridge Estate Apartments was developed by Maple Ridge
Development Corporation at the intersection of Stillwater Road and Stillwater Avenue. The
contractor was Steve Haight Construction and the cost of the project was $3,999,000.
(e)An addition to Maplewood Mall is being developed by CPI. The
contractor is Kraus Anderson and the cost of the project is $2,075,000.
(f)A Main Street Store at Maplewood Mall is being developed by Federated
Department Stores. The contractor is Sheehy Construction and the cost of the project is
$2,000,000.
(g)The expansion of St. John’s Northeast Hospital on Beam Avenue.
(h)The development of a 60 unit senior citizen housing complex (known as
the Cottages of Maplewood).
(i)The development of the Crossings Mall to be located adjacent to
Maplewood Mall.
(j)The development of the Carefree Cottages of Maplewood senior citizen
housing project.
11
2219397v1
PacketPageNumber146of272
AgendaItemH1
Attachment4
(k)The acquisition of property located at 2146 White Bear Avenue,
commonly referred to as the Tastee Bread Store in an amount anticipated to be $500,000 or the
development of the Community Park in the amount of $500,000.
(l)The development of the Schroeder Milk project.
(m)A development agreement with respect to the construction of an
approximately 20 unit townhome-style housing facility in the City (the Van Dyke Village
project) consisting of 8 one-story, two-bedroom and 12 two-story, three-bedroom units.
(n)A development agreement with respect to the construction of an
approximately 80 unit rental housing facility in the City (the Sibley Cove project) consisting of
two- and three-bedroom units and related amenities.
(o)The City intends to enter into a development agreement with respect to the
construction of an approximately 111 unit senior housing facility in the City (the Gethsemane
project).
(p) The City intends to enter into a development agreement with respect to the
construction of an approximately 162 unit senior housing facility in the City (the Shores of
Maplewood project).
1.18.Other Specific Development Expected to Occur Within The Development
District. It is anticipated that development will occur within the Development District as
described in Section 1.17. Additional development may occur in the Development District in the
future; however, no contracts have been entered into at this time with respect to such
development. The nature and timing of further development cannot accurately be predicted at
this time.
12
2219397v1
PacketPageNumber147of272
AgendaItemH1
Attachment4
Exhibit A
Boundaries of Development District No. 1
Consists of the entire corporate boundaries of the City of Maplewood.
A-1
2219397v1
PacketPageNumber148of272
AgendaItemH1
Attachment6
EXTRACT OF MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE
CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA
HELD: August 9, 2010
Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, a regular or special meeting of the City
Council of the City of Maplewood, Ramsey County, Minnesota, was duly called and held on the
th
26th day of July, 2010, at 7:00 p.m., and continued to the 9 day of August, 2010, at 7:00 p.m.
The following members of the Council were present:
and the following were absent:
Member __________ introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION APPROVING THE MODIFICATION TO THE DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM
FOR MUNICIPAL DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT NO. 1 AND ESTABLISHING TAX
INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT NO. 1-10 AND
APPROVING THE TAX INCREMENT FINANCING PLAN THEREFOR
WITHIN MUNICIPAL DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT NO. 1
WHEREAS:
A.It has been proposed that the City of Maplewood, Minnesota (the “City”)
modify the Development Program for Municipal Development District No. 1 and establish Tax
Increment Financing District No. 1-10 (“TIF District No. 1-10”) therein and approve and accept
the proposed Tax Increment Financing Plan therefor under the provisions of Minnesota Statutes,
Sections 469.174 to 469.1799 (the “Act”); and
B.The City Council has investigated the facts and has causedto be prepared
a modification to the development program for Municipal Development District No. 1 (the
“Development Program”), and has caused to be prepared a proposed tax increment financing
plan for TIF District No. 1-10 therein (the “TIF Plan”); and
C.The City has performed all actions required by law to be performed prior
to the modification of Municipal Development District No. 1 and TIF District No. 1-10 therein,
and the adoption of a modification to the Development Program, as amended, and TIF Plan
therefor, including, but not limited to, notification of Ramsey County and School District No.
622 having taxing jurisdiction over the property to be included in TIF District No. 1-10 and the
holding of a public hearing upon published and mailed notice as required by law; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of
Maplewood as follows:
PacketPageNumber150of272
2585898v1
AgendaItemH1
Attachment6
1.Development District No. 1. There has heretofore been established in the City a
municipal Development District No. 1 (the “Development District”), the initial boundaries of
which are fixed and determined as described in the Development Program.
2.Development Program. The Development Program, as modified, for the
Development District, a copy of which is on file in the office of the City Manager, is adopted as
the development program for the Development District.
3.Tax Increment Financing Plan. The TIF Plan is adopted as the tax increment
financing plan for TIF District No. 1-10, and the City Council makes the following findings:
(a)TIF District No. 1-10 is a housing district as defined in Minnesota
Statutes, Section 469.174, Subd. 11, the specific basis for such determination being that the
construction of an approximately 162 unit multifamily housing facility will provide safe, decent,
sanitary housing for persons or families of low and moderate income in the City, and will help
prevent the emergence of blight and result in the preservation and enhancement of the tax base of
the State.
(b)The proposed development in the opinion of the City Council, would not
occur solely through private investment within the reasonably foreseeable future. The reasons
supporting this finding are that:
(i)Private investment will not finance these development activities because
of prohibitive costs relative to rental revenues for low and moderate
income multifamily housing units. It is necessary to finance these
development activities through the use of tax increment financing so that
development of affordable multifamily housing and other development by
private enterprise will occur within the Development District.
(ii)A comparative analysis of estimated market values both with and without
establishment of TIF District No. 1-10 and the use of tax increments has
been performed as described above. Such analysis is found in Exhibit F-3
of the Tax Increment Financing Plan, and indicates that the increase in
estimated market value of the proposed development (less the indicated
subtractions) exceeds the estimated market value of the site absent the
establishment of TIF District No. 1-10 and the use of tax increments.
(c)In the opinion of the City Council, the increased market value of the site
that could reasonably be expected to occur without the use of tax increment financing would be
less than the increase in the market value estimated to result from the proposed development
after subtracting the present value of the projected tax increments for the maximum duration of
TIF District No. 1-10 permitted by the Tax Increment Financing Plan. The reasons supporting
this finding are that:
(i)The estimated amount by which the market value of the site will increase
without the use of tax increment financing is $0, plus a small amount
attributable to appreciation in land value;
2
PacketPageNumber151of272
2585898v1
AgendaItemH1
Attachment6
(ii)The estimated increase in the market value that will result from the
development to be assisted with tax increment financing is $17,205,057
(from $1,600,000 to $18,805,057); and
(iii)The present value of the projected tax increments for the maximum
duration of the district permitted by the tax increment financing plan is
$5,355,734.
(d)The Tax Increment Financing Plan for TIF District No. 1-10 conforms to
the general plan for development or redevelopment of the City of Maplewood as a whole. The
reasons for supporting this finding are that:
(i)TIF District No. 1-10 is properly zoned; and
(ii)The Tax Increment Financing Plan will generally compliment and serve to
implement policies adopted by the City.
(e)The Tax Increment Financing Plan will afford maximum opportunity,
consistent with the sound needs of the City of Maplewood as a whole, forthe development or
redevelopment of the Development District by private enterprise. The reasons supporting this
finding are that:
The development activities are necessary so that development and
redevelopment by private enterprise can occur within the Development District.
4.Public Purpose. The adoption of the Development Program for the Development
District, and the adoption of the Tax Increment Financing Plan for TIF District No. 1-10 therein
conform in all respects to the requirements of the Act and will help fulfill a need to develop an
area of the State which is already built up to provide employment opportunities and provide safe,
decent, sanitary housing for all residents of the City, to improve the tax base and to improve the
general economy of the State and thereby serves a public purpose.
5.Certification. The Auditor of Ramsey County is requested to certify the original
net tax capacity of TIF District No. 1-10 as described in Tax Increment Financing Plan, and to
certify in each year thereafter the amount by which the original net tax capacity has increased or
decreased in accordance with the Act; and the City Manager is authorized and directed to
forthwith transmit this request to the County Auditor in such form and content as the Auditor
may specify, together with a list of all properties within TIF District No. 1-10 for which building
permits have been issued during the 18 months immediately preceding the adoption of this
Resolution.
6.Filing. The City Manager is further authorized and directed to file a copy of the
Development Program and Tax Increment Financing Plan for TIF District No. 1-10 with the
Commissioner of Revenue and the Office of the State Auditor.
7.Administration. The administration of the Development District is assigned to the
City Manager who shall from time to time be granted such powers and duties pursuant to
Minnesota Statutes, Sections 469.130 and 469.131 as the City Council may deem appropriate.
3
PacketPageNumber152of272
2585898v1
AgendaItemH1
Attachment6
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by
member _________ and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof:
and the following voted against the same:
Whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted.
4
PacketPageNumber153of272
2585898v1
AgendaItemH1
Attachment6
STATE OF MINNESOTA
RAMSEY COUNTY
CITY OF MAPLEWOOD
I, the undersigned, being the duly qualified and acting Manager of the City of
Maplewood, Minnesota, DO HEREBY CERTIFY that I have compared the attached and
foregoing extract of minutes with the original thereof on file in my office, and that the same is a
full, true and complete transcript of the minutes of a meeting of the City Council of said City,
duly called and held on the date therein indicated, insofar as such minutes relate to the
modification of Municipal Development District No. 1 and the establishment of TaxIncrement
Financing District No. 1-10 therein in the City.
WITNESS my hand this 9th day of August, 2010.
________________________________
City Manager
5
PacketPageNumber154of272
2585898v1
Agenda Item I1
AGENDA REPORT
TO:
James Antonen, City Manager
FROM:
Michael Thompson, City Engineer / Dep. Public Works Director
SUBJECT: White Bear Ave / County Rd D Improvements, Project 08-13, Resolution
Adopting Revised Assessment Roll
DATE:
August 3, 2010
INTRODUCTION
On July 26, 2010 the city council received eleven (11) assessment objections at the White Bear
Avenue/County Road D Improvements assessment hearing. Recommendations for action on each of
the objections are provided for council approval in considering adopting the final roll.
BACKGROUND
The proposed assessments for the White Bear Avenue / County Road D Street Improvements were
submitted to the city council for adoption at the July 26, 2010 meeting. Property owners were provided
with the required advanced notice of the assessment hearing. Property owners were required to file a
written notice if they objected to the assessment amount. It should be noted that an appraiser
previously conducted a benefit analysis of each property to ensure the assessment amount was at or
below the increased market value of the land as a result of the project improvements; which is a
requirement of State Statute. Eleven property owners provided written objections and are as follows:
Objections:
1. Parcel 02-29-22-21-0008– Denny’s Inc.; 3050 White Bear Avenue
Azure Properties is objecting to the assessment on behalf of Mogren Landscaping LLP, the
property owner, for the following reasons:
a) They do not feel that the property receives benefit from the improvement and the value will
not increase.
b) They feel that revenues will decrease during the construction process.
c) When the property owner settled the condemnation with Ramsey County they were told that
there would be little or no assessment.
2. Parcel 02-29-22-21-0014 Jiffy Lube/Acapulco Restaurant.; 3069/3073 White Bear Avenue
Azure Properties is objecting to the assessment on behalf of Woodring Company, the property
owner, for the following reasons:
a) They do not feel that the property receives benefit from the improvement and the value will
not increase.
b) They feel that revenues will decrease during the construction process.
c) The businesses have access from the ring road of Maplewood Mall and they do not feel that
they should be assessed for improvements to White Bear Avenue and County Road D.
3. Parcel 02-29-22-21-0016– Maplewood Square Shopping Center; 3035 White Bear Avenue
Azure Properties is objecting to the assessment on behalf of Maplewood Square Associates,
the property owner, for the following reasons:
PacketPageNumber155of272
Agenda Item I1
a) They do not feel that the property receives benefit from the improvement and the value will
not increase.
b) They feel that revenues will decrease during the construction process.
c) When the property owner settled the condemnation with Ramsey County they were told
that there would be little or no assessment.
4. Parcel 02-29-22-21-0027– Plaza 3000 Shopping Center.; 3000 White Bear Avenue
Azure Properties is objecting to the assessment on behalf of Plaza 3000 Partnership, LLP, the
property owner, for the following reasons:
a) They do not feel that the property receives benefit from the improvement and the value will
not increase.
b) They feel that revenues will decrease during the construction process.
c) When the property owner settled the condemnation with Ramsey County they were told that
there would be little or no assessment.
5. Parcel 02-29-22-24-0003– Maplewood East Shopping Center.; 2950 White Bear Avenue
Azure Properties is objecting to the assessment on behalf of Maplewood East Associates, the
property owner, for the following reasons:
a) They do not feel that the property receives benefit from the improvement and the value will
not increase.
b) They feel that revenues will decrease during the construction process.
c) When the property owner settled the condemnation with Ramsey County they were told that
there would be little or no assessment.
6. Parcel 02-29-22-21-0015- MHN Restaurant Partnership, LLC, 3065 White Bear Avenue
MHN Restaurant Partnership, LLC, the owner of the Wedding Day Jewelers property, is
objecting to the assessment for the following reasons:
a) They do not feel that the property receives benefit from the improvement and the value will
not increase.
b) They feel that revenues will decrease during the construction process.
7. Parcel 02-29-22-21-0019- Chung Hing Wong, 3070 White Bear Avenue
Chung Hing Wong is objecting to the assessment for the following reasons:
a) They do not feel that the property receives benefit from the improvement and the proposed
special assessment exceeds the special benefits to the property derived from the local
public improvement.
b) They also feel that the City has failed to strictly comply procedurally with the terms and
conditions of Minnesota Statutes Chapter 429.
8. Parcel 02-29-22-21-0005- HLW LLC, 3094 White Bear Avenue
HLW LLC is objecting to the assessment for the following reasons:
a) They do not feel that the property receives benefit from the improvement and the proposed
special assessment exceeds the special benefits to the property derived from the local
public improvement.
b) They also feel that the City has failed to strictly comply procedurally with the terms and
conditions of Minnesota Statutes Chapter 429.
9. Parcel 02-29-22-23-0003- Sears Roebuck and Company, 3001 White Bear Avenue
Sears Roebuck and Company is objecting to the assessment and requesting that the
assessment be reduced to $0 for the following reasons:
PacketPageNumber156of272
Agenda Item I1
a) They do not feel that the property receives benefit from the improvement and the proposed
special assessment exceeds the special benefits to the property derived from the local
public improvement.
b) They also feel that the City has failed to strictly comply procedurally with the terms and
conditions of Minnesota Statutes Chapter 429.
c) They feel that the proposed assessment violates City Code and other Minnesota law and
statutes.
d) They feel that the assessment form is not legal and that other properties that should have
been assessed were not assessed.
10. Parcel 02-29-22-22-0013- Lai Ching Woo, 1900 County Road D East
Lai Ching Woo is requesting that the assessment be cancelled and revised.
11. Parcel 35-35-22-33-0008- Walter F. Whitney, 1905 County Road D East
Walter F. Whitney is objecting to the assessment for the following reasons:
a) They do not feel that the property receives benefit from the improvement and the proposed
special assessment exceeds the special benefits to the property derived from the local
public improvement.
Recommended Adjustments:
The following action is recommended by staff on each objection request:
1. Parcel 02-29-22-21-0008– Denny’s Inc.; 3050 White Bear Avenue
Azure Properties is objecting to the assessment on behalf of Mogren Landscaping, the property
revise
owner. Our recommendation to the council is to the assessment from $23,339.88 to
$21,206.30 based on a past storm water assessment agreement and also under the condition
the assessment is not appealed within 30 days through signing of a waiver of appeal.
2. Parcel 02-29-22-21-0014 Jiffy Lube/Acapulco Restaurant.; 3069/3073 White Bear Avenue
Azure Properties is objecting to the assessment on behalf of Woodring Company, the property
revise
owner. Our recommendation to the council is to the assessment from $12,199.97 to
$8,083.55 based on a past storm water assessment agreement and also under the condition the
assessment is not appealed within 30 days through signing of a waiver of appeal.
3. Parcel 02-29-22-21-0016– (This PIN has been changed by Ramsey County to
02.29.22.21.0029),Maplewood Square Shopping Center; 3035 White Bear Avenue
Azure Properties is objecting to the assessment on behalf of Maplewood Square Associates,
revise
the property owner. Our recommendation to the council is to the special assessment
from $59,754.24 to $53,504.24 based on a past storm water assessment agreement and also
under the condition the assessment is not appealed within 30 days through signing of a waiver
of appeal.
4. Parcel 02-29-22-21-0027– Plaza 3000 Shopping Center.; 3000 White Bear Avenue
Azure Properties is objecting to the assessment on behalf of Plaza 3000 Partnership, LLP, the
revise
property owner. Our recommendation to the council is to the assessment from
$65,016.00 to $58,766 based on a past storm water assessment agreement and also under the
condition the assessment is not appealed within 30 days through signing of a waiver of appeal.
5. Parcel 02-29-22-24-0003– Maplewood East Shopping Center.; 2950 White Bear Avenue
PacketPageNumber157of272
Agenda Item I1
Azure Properties is objecting to the assessment on behalf of Maplewood East Associates, the
revise
property owner. Our recommendation to the council is to the assessment from
$46,761.48 to $40,511.48 based on a past storm water assessment agreement and also under
the condition the assessment is not appealed within 30 days through signing of a waiver of
appeal.
6. Parcel 02-29-22-21-0015- MHN Restaurant Partnership, LLC, 3065 White Bear Avenue
MHN Restaurant Partnership, LLC, the owner of the Wedding Day Jewelers property, is
deny
objecting to the assessment. Our recommendation to the council is to the cancellation or
revision of the assessment.
7. Parcel 02-29-22-21-0019- Chung Hing Wong, 3070 White Bear Avenue
Chung Hing Wong is objecting to the assessment. Our recommendation to the council is to
deny
the cancellation or revision of the assessment.
8. Parcel 02-29-22-21-0005- HLW LLC, 3094 White Bear Avenue
deny
HLW LLC is objecting to the assessment. Our recommendation to the council is to the
cancellation or revision of the assessment.
9. Parcel 02-29-22-23-0003- Sears Roebuck and Company, 3001 White Bear Avenue
Sears Roebuck and Company is objecting to the assessment and requesting that the
deny
assessment be reduced to $0. Our recommendation to the council is to the cancellation
or revision of the assessment.
10. Parcel 02-29-22-22-0013- Lai Ching Woo, 1900 County Road D East
Lai Ching Woo is requesting that the assessment be cancelled and revised. Our
deny
recommendation to the council is to the cancellation or revision of the assessment.
11. Parcel 35-35-22-33-0008- Walter F. Whitney, 1905 County Road D East
Walter F. Whitney is objecting to the assessment. Our recommendation to the council is to
deny
the cancellation or revision of the assessment.
BUDGET
The reduction of a total of $25,000 in assessment adjustments will have a small impact on the overall
budget. No changes to the approved budget are anticipated at this time.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the city council approve the attached Resolution for Adopting Revised
Assessment Roll for the White Bear Avenue / County Road D Improvements, City Project 08-13.
Attachments:
1. Resolution: Adopting Revised Assessment Roll
2. Revised Assessment Roll
3. Location Map
4. Assessment Objections
PacketPageNumber158of272
Agenda Item I1
Attachment 1
RESOLUTION
ADOPTING REVISED ASSESSMENT ROLL
WHEREAS, pursuant to a resolution adopted by the City Council on July 26, 2010, the assessment roll
for the White Bear Avenue / County Road D Improvements, City Project 08-13, was presented in a Public
Hearing format, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 429, and
WHEREAS, eleven (11) property owners filed objections to their assessments according to the
requirements of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 429, summarized as follows:
1.Parcel 02-29-22-21-0008– Denny’s Inc.; 3050 White Bear Avenue
Azure Properties is objecting to the assessment on behalf of Mogren Landscaping, the property owner, for
the following reasons:
a)They do not feel that the property receives benefit from the improvement and the value will not
increase.
b)They feel that revenues will decrease during the construction process.
c)When the property owner settled the condemnation with Ramsey County they were told that there
would be little or no assessment.
2.Parcel 02-29-22-21-0014 Jiffy Lube/Acapulco Restaurant.; 3069/3073 White Bear Avenue
Azure Properties is objecting to the assessment on behalf of Woodring Company, the property owner, for
the following reasons:
a)They do not feel that the property receives benefit from the improvement and the value will not
increase.
b)They feel that revenues will decrease during the construction process.
c)The businesses have access from the ring road of Maplewood Mall and they do not feel that they
should be assessed for improvements to White Bear Avenue and County Road D.
3.Parcel 02-29-22-21-0016– Maplewood Square Shopping Center; 3035 White Bear Avenue
Azure Properties is objecting to the assessment on behalf of Maplewood Square Associates, the property
owner, for the following reasons:
a)They do not feel that the property receives benefit from the improvement and the value will not
increase.
b)They feel that revenues will decrease during the construction process.
c)When the property owner settled the condemnation with Ramsey County they were told that there
would be little or no assessment.
4.Parcel 02-29-22-21-0027– Plaza 3000 Shopping Center.; 3000 White Bear Avenue
Azure Properties is objecting to the assessment on behalf of Plaza 3000 Partnership, LLP, the property
owner, for the following reasons:
a)They do not feel that the property receives benefit from the improvement and the value will not
increase.
b)They feel that revenues will decrease during the construction process.
c)When the property owner settled the condemnation with Ramsey County they were told that there
would be little or no assessment.
5.Parcel 02-29-22-24-0003– Maplewood East Shopping Center.; 2950 White Bear Avenue
Azure Properties is objecting to the assessment on behalf of Maplewood East Associates, the property
owner, for the following reasons:
a)They do not feel that the property receives benefit from the improvement and the value will not
increase.
PacketPageNumber159of272
Agenda Item I1
Attachment 1
b)They feel that revenues will decrease during the construction process.
c)When the property owner settled the condemnation with Ramsey County they were told that there
would be little or no assessment.
6.Parcel 02-29-22-21-0015- MHN Restaurant Partnership, LLC, 3065 White Bear Avenue
MHN Restaurant Partnership, LLC, the owner of the Wedding Day Jewelers property, is objecting to the
assessment for the following reasons:
a)They do not feel that the property receives benefit from the improvement and the value will not
increase.
b)They feel that revenues will decrease during the construction process.
7.Parcel 02-29-22-21-0019- Chung Hing Wong, 3070 White Bear Avenue
Chung Hing Wong is objecting to the assessment for the following reasons:
a)They do not feel that the property receives benefit from the improvement and the proposed special
assessment exceeds the special benefits to the property derived from the local public improvement.
b)They also feel that the City has failed to strictly comply procedurally with the terms and conditions of
Minnesota Statutes Chapter 429.
8.Parcel 02-29-22-21-0005- HLW LLC, 3094 White Bear Avenue
HLW LLC is objecting to the assessment for the following reasons:
a)They do not feel that the property receives benefit from the improvement and the proposed special
assessment exceeds the special benefits to the property derived from the local public improvement.
b)They also feel that the City has failed to strictly comply procedurally with the terms and conditions
of Minnesota Statutes Chapter 429.
9.Parcel 02-29-22-23-0003- Sears Roebuck and Company, 3001 White Bear Avenue
Sears Roebuck and Company is objecting to the assessment and requesting that the assessment be reduced
to $0 for the following reasons:
a)They do not feel that the property receives benefit from the improvement and the proposed special
assessment exceeds the special benefits to the property derived from the local public improvement.
b)They also feel that the City has failed to strictly comply procedurally with the terms and conditions of
Minnesota Statutes Chapter 429.
c)They feel that the proposed assessment violates City Code and other Minnesota law and statutes.
d)They feel that the assessment form is not legal and that other properties that should have been
assessed were not assessed.
10.Parcel 02-29-22-22-0013- Lai Ching Woo, 1900 County Road D East
Lai Ching Woo is requesting that the assessment be cancelled and revised.
11.Parcel 35-35-22-33-0008- Walter F. Whitney, 1905 County Road D East
Walter F. Whitney is objecting to the assessment for the following reasons:
a)They do not feel that the property receives benefit from the improvement and the proposed special
assessment exceeds the special benefits to the property derived from the local public improvement.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA:
A.That the CityEngineer and City Clerk are hereby instructed to make the following adjustments to the
assessment roll for the White Bear Avenue / County Road D Improvements, Project 08-13:
PacketPageNumber160of272
Agenda Item I1
Attachment 1
1.Parcel 02-29-22-21-0008– Denny’s Inc.; 3050 White Bear Avenue
Azure Properties is objecting to the assessment on behalf of Mogren Landscaping, the property owner.
revise
Our recommendation to the council is to the assessment from $23,339.88 to $21,206.30 based on a
past storm water assessment agreement and also under the condition the assessment is not appealed within
30 days through signing of a waiver of appeal.
2.Parcel 02-29-22-21-0014 Jiffy Lube/Acapulco Restaurant.; 3069/3073 White Bear Avenue
Azure Properties is objecting to the assessment on behalf of Woodring Company, the property owner.
revise
Our recommendation to the council is to the assessment from $12,199.97 to $8,083.55 based on a
past storm water assessment agreement and also under the condition the assessment is not appealed within
30 days through signing of a waiver of appeal.
3.Parcel 02-29-22-21-0016– (This PIN has been changed by Ramsey County to 02.29.22.21.0029),
Maplewood Square Shopping Center; 3035 White Bear Avenue
Azure Properties is objecting to the assessment on behalf of Maplewood Square Associates, the property
revise
owner. Our recommendation to the council is to the special assessment from $59,754.24 to
$53,504.24 based on a past storm water assessment agreement and also under the condition the
assessment is not appealed within 30 days through signing of a waiver of appeal.
4.Parcel 02-29-22-21-0027– Plaza 3000 Shopping Center.; 3000 White Bear Avenue
Azure Properties is objecting to the assessment on behalf of Plaza 3000 Partnership, LLP, the property
revise
owner. Our recommendation to the council is to the assessment from $65,016.00 to $58,766 based
on a past storm water assessment agreement and also under the condition the assessment is not appealed
within 30 days through signing of a waiver of appeal.
5.Parcel 02-29-22-24-0003– Maplewood East Shopping Center.; 2950 White Bear Avenue
Azure Properties is objecting to the assessment on behalf of Maplewood East Associates, the property
revise
owner. Our recommendation to the council is to the assessment from $46,761.48 to $40,511.48
based on a past storm water assessment agreement and also under the condition the assessment is not
appealed within 30 days through signing of a waiver of appeal.
6.Parcel 02-29-22-21-0015- MHN Restaurant Partnership, LLC, 3065 White Bear Avenue
MHN Restaurant Partnership, LLC, the owner of the Wedding Day Jewelers property, is objecting to the
deny
assessment. Our recommendation to the council is to the cancellation or revision of the assessment.
7.Parcel 02-29-22-21-0019- Chung Hing Wong, 3070 White Bear Avenue
deny
Chung Hing Wong is objecting to the assessment. Our recommendation to the council is to the
cancellation or revision of the assessment.
8.Parcel 02-29-22-21-0005- HLW LLC, 3094 White Bear Avenue
deny
HLW LLC is objecting to the assessment. Our recommendation to the council is to the cancellation
or revision of the assessment.
9.Parcel 02-29-22-23-0003- Sears Roebuck and Company, 3001 White Bear Avenue
Sears Roebuck and Company is objecting to the assessment and requesting that the assessment be reduced
deny
to $0. Our recommendation to the council is to the cancellation or revision of the assessment.
10.Parcel 02-29-22-22-0013- Lai Ching Woo, 1900 County Road D East
Lai Ching Woo is requesting that the assessment be cancelled and revised. Our recommendation to the
deny
council is to the cancellation or revision of the assessment.
PacketPageNumber161of272
Agenda Item I1
Attachment 1
11.Parcel 35-35-22-33-0008- Walter F. Whitney, 1905 County Road D East
deny
Walter F. Whitney is objecting to the assessment. Our recommendation to the council is to the
cancellation or revision of the assessment.
B.The assessment roll for the White Bear Avenue / County Road D Improvements as amended, is hereby
accepted, a copy of which is attached hereto and made a part hereof. Said assessment roll shall constitute the
special assessment against the lands named therein, and each tract of land therein included is hereby found to
be benefited by the proposed improvement in the amount of the assessment levied against it.
C.Such assessments shall be payable in equal annual installments extending over a period of 8 years for, the first
installments to be payable on or before the first Monday in January 2011 and shall bear interest at the rate of
5.0 percent per annum from the date of the adoption of this assessment resolution. To the first installment
shall be added interest on the entire assessment from the date of this resolution until December 31, 2010. To
each subsequent installment when due shall be added interest for one year on all unpaid installments.
D.The owner of any property so assessed may, at any time prior to certification of the assessment to the county
auditor, but no later than October 1, 2010, pay the whole of the assessment on such property, with interest
accrued to the date of the payment, to the city clerk, except that no interest shall be charged if the entire
assessment is paid within 30 days from the adoption of this resolution; and they may, at any time after
October 1, 2010, pay to the county auditor the entire amount of the assessment remaining unpaid, with
interest accrued to December 31 of the year in which such payment is made. Such payment must be made
before October 15 or interest will be charged through December 31 of the next succeeding year.
E.The city engineer and city clerk shall forthwith after October 1, 2010, but no later than October 15, 2010,
transmit a certified duplicate of this assessment to the county auditor to be extended on the property tax lists
of the county. Such assessments shall be collected and paid over the same manner as other municipal taxes.
th
Adopted by the Maplewood City Council on this 9 day of August, 2010.
PacketPageNumber162of272
Agenda Item I1
Attachment 2
PacketPageNumber163of272
Agenda Item I1
Attachment 2
PacketPageNumber164of272
Agenda Item I1 Attachment 3
PacketPageNumber165of272
Agenda Item I1
Attachment 4
PacketPageNumber166of272
Agenda Item I1
Attachment 4
PacketPageNumber167of272
Agenda Item I1
Attachment 4
PacketPageNumber168of272
Agenda Item I1
Attachment 4
PacketPageNumber169of272
Agenda Item I1
Attachment 4
PacketPageNumber170of272
Agenda Item I1
Attachment 4
PacketPageNumber171of272
Agenda Item I1
Attachment 4
PacketPageNumber172of272
Agenda Item I1
Attachment 4
PacketPageNumber173of272
Agenda Item I1
Attachment 4
PacketPageNumber174of272
Agenda Item I1
Attachment 4
PacketPageNumber175of272
Agenda Item I1
Attachment 4
PacketPageNumber176of272
Agenda Item I1
Attachment 4
PacketPageNumber177of272
Agenda Item I1
Attachment 4
PacketPageNumber178of272
Agenda Item I1
Attachment 4
PacketPageNumber179of272
Agenda Item I.2
MEMORANDUM
TO:
James Antonen, City Manager
FROM:
Shann Finwall, AICP, Environmental Planner
DuWayne Konewko, Community Development and Parks Director
SUBJECT:
Sign Ordinance Amendment – Temporary Window Signs and Temporary
Banners (Second Reading)
DATE:
August 3, 2010 for the August 9City Council Meeting
INTRODUCTION
On January 25, 2010, the City Council adopted a new sign ordinance. The sign ordinance was
drafted by the Community Design Review Board (CDRB) after years of research and writing.
The new sign ordinance is the first overhaul of the city’s sign ordinance since it was originally
adopted in 1977.
There were two areas of the sign ordinance the City Council did not act on in January, including
changes to temporary window and banner signs. Due to concerns expressed by local business
owners, the City Council directed staff to bring these two areas of the sign ordinance to the
newly formed Business and Economic Development Commission (BEDC) for review and
recommendation.
BACKGROUND
On April 5 and May 5, 2010, BEDC discussed the existing and proposed window and banner
sign ordinances to determine whether or not the current regulations were sufficient or if they
should be strengthened or relaxed. After much discussion and debate, BEDC ultimately
decided to take no action on the item.
On June 28, 2010, the City Council reviewed BEDC’s discussion on temporary window and
banner signs. The City Council directed staff to bring the temporary window and banner sign
ordinance back to the City Council.
On July 26, 2010, the City Council approved the first reading of the temporary banner and
window sign ordinance amendments. The amendments changed the size and time limits for
these types of signs.
DISCUSSION
Existing Temporary Window and Banner Sign Ordinances
1. Window Signs in All Zoning Districts: Window signs may be used as temporary signage
and are not required to have a permit. Window signs may encompass up to 75 percent
of the window area. Window signs may be used for up to 30 days per sign.
2. Banners in All Zoning Districts: Banners may be used as temporary signage and are not
required to have a permit unless used for more than 30 days. Banners shall not exceed
PacketPageNumber180of272
150 square feet in area or 20 percent of the wall area, whichever is greater. There shall
be no more than one banner at any business location. Each tenant space at a shopping
center shall count as a separate business location. The City Council may approve
exceptions to this section if the applicant can show there are unusual circumstances with
the request. The City Council may attach conditions to their approval to assure that the
sign will be compatible with surrounding properties
Amendments Approved by the City Council
1. Window Signs in all Zoning Districts: Temporary window signs are allowed without a
permit. Temporary window signs shall be neatly painted or attached to the surface of a
window, but shall cover no more than 30 percent of the total area of the window.
2. Banners
a. Banners in Residential Zoning Districts: Temporary banners may be displayed
without a permit for residential subdivisions and multiple-unit developments and
for all legal non-residential uses excluding home occupation businesses for a
period not to exceed 60 days per year, per property. No more than one banner
may be displayed per property at any one time. Each banner shall not exceed 32
square feet and must be attached to a building or other permanent structure.
Banners shall be designed to be professional looking and prevented from
becoming torn or weathered.
b. Banners in Commercial Zoning Districts:
Temporary banners may be used:
(1) For single tenant buildings, temporary banners may be displayed without
a sign permit for a period not to exceed 60 days total per year, per
property. No more than one banner may be displayed per property at any
one time, except for multiple-tenant buildings (see below).
(2) For multiple-tenant buildings, each separate tenant may display
temporary banners without a sign permit for a period not to exceed 60
days total per year, per property. No more than one banner may be
displayed per separate tenant at any one time.
(3) Each banner shall not exceed 32 or 64 square feet (depending on zoning
district)and must be attached to a building or other permanent structure.
Banners shall be designed to be professional looking and prevented from
becoming torn or weathered.
c. Standard for Banners in all Zoning Districts (currently outlined in the Prohibited
Sign section [Section 7] of the ordinance):
(1) Banners cannot be attached or supported on balconies, fences, or other
non-permanent structures.
(2) Banners cannot be attached or supported on a permanently parked
vehicle or semi-trailers intended to advertise a business, product, or
2
PacketPageNumber181of272
service. Not including signs painted directly on a parked vehicle or semi-
trailer used in the business or facility or on site for business purposes.
(3) Banners cannot be placed on rocks, trees, or other natural features or
public utility poles.
Varying from the Temporary Sign Ordinance
During the first reading of the temporary window and banner sign ordinance, the City Council
directed staff to draft language that would allow property owners to vary from the ordinance.
The existing ordinance allows for variations to the temporary banner regulations as follows:
“The City Council may approve exceptions to this section (temporary banners) if the applicant
can show there are unusual circumstances with the request. The City Council may attach
conditions to their approval to assure that the sign will be compatible with surrounding
properties.”
Existing Options for Varying from the Temporary Sign Ordinance
Following are existing options for varying from the temporary window and banner sign
ordinance:
1. Variance process. The Planning Commission or Community Design Review Board
(CDRB) would review and make a recommendation to the City Council. Applicants must
establish that the property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use if used under
conditions allowed by the official controls. City variance fee - $1,385.
2. Comprehensive Sign Plan process. CDRB reviews and approves plan. Appeals of
CDRB decision go to City Council. CDRB can allow exceptions to the sign ordinance
for sign areas and densities if the applicant can show that the exception results in an
improved relationship between the various parts of the plan (i.e., overall development,
other signs, etc.). City comprehensive sign plan fee - $500.
3. Exemption (release from requirement), Waiver (relinquishing a known right), or
Exception (exclusion). All of these terms are used in the city code for the purpose of
varying from ordinances. Most variations from city code require some form of
administrative or commission/council review, with requirements for standards to approve
the variation.
Recommended Process for Varying from the Temporary Sign Ordinance
1. One-time, short-term variation: The most efficient way to process a one-time, short-term
variation from the temporary window and banner sign ordinance would be through an
administrative exemption. The short-term exemption would apply to applicants who
want to install banner or window signs which exceed the size, number, or time display
limits for a special event with a specific deadline. Staff can process the short-term
exemption with a temporary sign permit, which has a fee of $42. Proposed language
has been added to the definition (Section 3) and exemption (Section 8) sections of the
attached ordinance. Changes are shown underlined and in italics.
2. Long-term variation: To ensure appropriate review of long-term variations from the
temporary window and banner sign ordinance, staff recommends an exemption which is
reviewed by the CDRB. A long-term exemption would apply to applicants who want
larger banners or window signs to always be allowed on their property. An example of a
3
PacketPageNumber182of272
long-term exemption is a property owner that is located along a highway with limited
visibility who wants to install banners larger than the ordinance allows (32 to 64 square
feet) per the required time requirements (60 days maximum) on an ongoing basis. The
city would process the long-term variation with a community design review board –
comprehensive sign plan permit, which has a fee of $500. Proposed language has been
added to the comprehensive sign plan (Section 2), definition (Section 3), and exemption
(Section 8) sections of the attached ordinance. Changes are shown underlined and in
italics.
RECOMMENDATION
Adopt the attached temporary window and banner sign ordinance (Attachment 1). This
ordinance amends the city’s sign ordinance pertaining to the size of window signs from 75
percent window cover to 30 percent coverage and time limits from 30 days to unlimited; and
amends the size of banners from 120 square feet in area or 20 percent of the gross wall area on
which it is attached, whichever is greater, to 32 to 64 square feet in area (depending on zoning
district) and increases the time limits for display from 30 days per banner to 60 days. The
amendment also includes an exemption process for property owners to vary from the temporary
window and banner sign ordinance.
Attachments:
1. Temporary Window and Banner Sign Ordinance
4
PacketPageNumber183of272
Attachment 1
ORDINANCE NO. _____
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE TEMPORARY WINDOW AND BANNER SIGN SECTIONS
OF THE SIGN ORDINANCE
(Changes made to the existing ordinance are underlined if added and stricken if deleted.
Additions made since the July 26, 2010, first reading are in italics)
The Maplewood city council approves the following changes to the Maplewood Code of
Ordinances:
This amendment revises Article III (Sign Regulations) pertaining to temporary window and
banner signs as follows (revisions are underlined if added and stricken if deleted):
Section 3. Definitions
1.
Long-Term Exemption to Temporary Window and Banner Signs. Community Design
Review Board review process for approving long-term variations to the temporary
window and banner sign sections of the ordinance. Long-term exemptions would allow a
one-time, long-term (greater than three (3) months) variation from the temporary window
or banner sign size or number requirements.
Short-Term Exemption to Temporary Window and Banner Signs. Administrative process
for reviewing and approving short-term variations to the temporary window and banner
sign sections of the ordinance. Short-term exemptions would allow a one-time, short-
term (up to three (3) months) variation from the temporary window or banner sign size,
number, or time display limits for a special event with a specific deadline.
Window Sign.A sign painted on a window or placed inside the building to be viewed
through the glass by public. This does not include merchandise on display.
Window. Any transparent or translucent glass or similar material that comprises part of
the surface of a wall, regardless of its movability. Entire walls of transparent or
translucent glass or similar material are excluded from this definition.
Window Sign. A sign painted on a window or placed inside the building to be viewed
through a window by the public. This does not include merchandise on display in a
window, seasonal displays of holiday pictures, decals, lights, and decorations that do not
contain a commercial message or signs which are legally required to be posted.
2. Section 2. Comprehensive Sign and Mural Plans
A comprehensive sign plan shall be provided for the following:
(a) Business premises with five (5) or more tenants on the premise and all multiple-
story buildings with two (2) or more tenants in the building.
1
PacketPageNumber184of272
(b) Dynamic display wall signs (also refer to Section 13 – Dynamic Display Signs).
(c) Large campuses consisting of buildings and land of ten (10) or more acres.
(d) Shared signs.
(e) All developments approved as a planned unit development.
(f) Murals on business premises.
(g) Temporary sports facility sponsorship signs (also refer to Section 12 – Signs in
Park Designated Land Use in the Maplewood Comprehensive Plan).
(h) Long-term exemptions to temporary window and banner signs (also refer to
Section 8 – Signs Exempt from Regulations in this Ordinance).
Such a plan, which shall include the location, size, height, color, lighting and orientation
of all signs and/or murals, shall be submitted for preliminary plan approval by the city.
Exceptions to the sign ordinance of this article may be permitted for sign areas,
densities, and dynamic display changeover rates for the plan as a whole if the signs are
in conformity with the intent of this article, results in an improved relationship between
the various parts of the plan, and encourages and promotes the removal of
nonconforming signs through the use of shared signs, and in the case of long-term
exemptions to temporary window and banner signs show that there are unusual
circumstances with the request. In addition, murals must be tasteful, in keeping with the
business premise and surrounding properties, and not contain any defamatory, obscene,
treasonous expressions or opinions, including graffiti.
Comprehensive sign plans shall be reviewed by the community design review board.
The applicant, staff, and city council may appeal the community design review board’s
decision. An appeal shall be presented to the administrator within fifteen (15) days of
the community design review board’s decision to be considered by the city council.
Section 8. Signs Exempt from Regulations in this Ordinance
2.
(a) Any public notice or warning sign required to be maintained or posted by law or
governmental order, rule, or regulation.
(b) Flags and emblems of a political, civic, religious, or other non-commercial nature.
Flags that do not meet these requirements will be considered banners and be
regulated as such.
(c) Any sign inside a building, not attached to an exterior window, not legible from a
distance of more than ten (10) feet.
(d) Traffic control signs, as defined by state law.
(e) Memorial plaques, cornerstones, historical tablets, and the like.
2
PacketPageNumber185of272
(f) Seasonal displays of holiday lights and decorations that do not contain a
commercial message.
(g) Short-term exemption to temporary window and banner signs which exceed the
size, number, or time display limits if approved by the Community Development
Director. Applicant must submit a temporary sign permit application and fee to
the Community Development Director. The Community Development Director
will approve the short-term exemption (up to three (3) months) if the applicant
shows that there are unusual circumstances with the request. The Community
Development Director may attach conditions to the approval to assure that the
sign will be compatible with surrounding properties.
(h)Long-term exemption to temporary window and banner signs which exceed the
size or number if approved by the Community Design Review Board. Applicant
must submit a comprehensive sign plan (also refer to Section 2, Comprehensive
Sign Plans and Murals) and fee to the city. The Community Design Review
Board will approve the long-term exemption (greater than three (3) months) if the
applicant shows that there are unusual circumstances with the request. The
Community Design Review Board may attach conditions to the approval to
assure that the sign will be compatible with surrounding properties.
Section 11. Special Purpose and Temporary Signs Permitted in All Zoning
4.
Districts
(n) Banners
Banners may be used as temporary signage and are not required to have a permit
unless used for more than thirty (30) days. Banners shall not exceed one hundred fifty
(150) square feet in area or twenty (20) percent of the wall area, whichever is greater.
There shall be no more than one (1) banner at any business location. Each tenant
space ata shopping center shall count as a separate business location. The city council
may approve exceptions to this section if the applicant can show there are unusual
circumstances with the request. The council may attach conditions to their approval to
assure that the sign will be compatible with surrounding properties.
(o) Window Signs
Window signs may be used as temporary signage, not exceeding 75 percent of the
window area.
Section 12. Permitted Signs in Land Use and Zoning Districts
5.
Signs in Residential Zoning Districts (Districts R-1, R-1R, R-S, R-E, R-2, R-3
a.
and all subsequent Residential Zoning Districts Adopted after the Date of
this Ordinance)
(e) Temporary Banners
3
PacketPageNumber186of272
Temporary banners may be displayed without a permit for residential
subdivisions and multiple-unit developments and for all legal non-residential uses
excluding home occupation businesses for a period not to exceed sixty (60) days
per year, per property. No more than one (1) banner may be displayed per
property at any one time. Each banner shall not exceed thirty-two (32) square
feet and must be attached to a building or other permanent structure. Banners
shall be designed to be professional looking and prevented from becoming torn
or weathered.
(f)(e) Temporary Signs and Displays Over Twelve (12) Square Feet
Signs In the LBC (Limited Business Commercial), CO (Commercial Office),
b.
and NC (Neighborhood Commercial) Zoning Districts
(e) Temporary Banners
(1) For single tenant buildings, temporary banners may be displayed without a
sign permit for a period not to exceed sixty (60) days total per year, per property.
No more than one (1) banner may be displayed per property at any one time,
except for multiple-tenant buildings (see below).
(2) For multiple-tenant buildings, each separate tenant may display temporary
banners without a sign permit for a period not to exceed sixty (60) days total per
year, per property. No more than one (1) banner may be displayed per separate
tenant at any one time.
(3) Each banner shall not exceed thirty-two (32) square feet and must be
attached to a building or other permanent structure. Banners shall be designed
to be professional looking and prevented from becoming torn or weathered.
(f) Temporary Window Signs
Temporary window signs are allowed without a permit. Temporary window signs
shall be neatly painted or attached to the surface of a window, but shall cover no
more than thirty (30) percent of the total area of the window.
(g)(e)Temporary Signs and Displays Over Twelve (12) Square Feet
Signs in the BC (Business Commercial), BC-M (Business Commercial
c.
Modified), M-1 (Light Manufacturing), and M-2 (Heavy Manufacturing)
Zoning Districts
(i) Temporary Banners
(1) For single tenant buildings, temporary banners may be displayed without a
sign permit for a period not to exceed sixty (60) days total per year, per property.
No more than one (1) banner may be displayed per property at any one time,
except for multiple-tenant buildings (see below).
4
PacketPageNumber187of272
(2) For multiple tenant buildings, each separate tenant may display temporary
banners without a sign permit for a period not to exceed sixty (60) days total per
year, per property. No more than one (1) banner may be displayed per separate
tenant at any one time.
(3) Each banner shall not exceed sixty-four (64) square feet and must be
attached to a building or other permanent structure. Banners shall be designed
to be professional looking and prevented from becoming torn or weathered.
(j) Temporary Window Signs
Temporary window signs are allowed without a permit. Temporary window signs
shall be neatly painted or attached to the surface of a window, but shall cover no
more than thirty (30) percent of the total area of the window.
(k)(i) Temporary Signs and Displays Over Twelve (12) Square Feet
The city council approved the first reading of this ordinance on July 26, 2010.
The city council approved the second reading of this ordinance on August 9, 2010.
_______________________________
Will Rossbach, Mayor
Attest:
________________________________
Karen Guilfoile, City Clerk
5
PacketPageNumber188of272
Agenda Item J1
MEMORANDUM
TO:
James Antonen, City Manager
FROM:
Michael Martin, AICP, Planner
DuWayne Konewko, Community Development and Parks Director
SUBJECT:
The Shores at Lake Phalen—Planned Unit Development, Wetland
Buffer Variance, Lot Division and Design Review
APPLICANTS:
Link Wilsonof Kaas Wilson Architects, representing the ownersand
developers,Jack Rajchenbach and Albert Miller of Maplewood Senior
Living, LLC
LOCATION:
940 Frost Avenue
DATE:
August 2,2010
INTRODUCTION
Project Description
Jack Rajchenbach and Albert Miller of Maplewood Senior Living, LLC areproposing to redevelop
the 7.02 acre former St. Paul Tourist Cabin site (940 Frost Avenue) with a senior housing
developmentto be called The ShoresatLake Phalen. The development will consist of 105 units
of senior housing in a three-story building with underground parking. The Shores atLake Phalen
development wouldbe the first redevelopment project within the Gladstone Neighborhood
Redevelopment area.
The three-story building will be 85,894square feet in area. There will be 32 memory care
apartments with secure common areas for people with light dementia.There will be 73 assisted
living units with kitchens in each apartment. The applicant is proposinga club room which would
beopen to seniors in the community. Otherproposed amenities would include a beauty shop and
spa, a library, a computer center, a craft room, and anexercise room. The applicant states that
thespaces are designed to promote activity and interaction amongst guests,clients and staff.
The proposed building will be staffed and managed by Southview Senior Living Communities,
whois a partner in the project and operates other similar facilities in the Twin Cities metropolitan
area.
In 2007, the city council approved a four-story, 180 unitsenior housing complex with underground
parking. The project was never built and the 2007 approvals have now lapsed. A site plan of this
previously approved project has been included as an attachment.
Requests
To build this development, the applicants are requesting that the city approve the following:
1. A conditional use permit for a planned unit development within the shoreland overlay
district of Phalen Lake.
2. Wetland buffer variance
3. Lot division
4. Design review approval
PacketPageNumber189of272
BACKGROUND
July 25, 2006, the city council held a public hearing to review the closure of the St. Paul Tourist
Cabin site. This hearing was required by state law to review the impacts that the park closing
mighthave on the displaced residents and the park owner.
December 13, 2006, the Metropolitan Council awarded the City of Maplewood a $1.8 million
Livable Communities grant to help fund the proposed Phase I public improvements in the
Gladstone redevelopment area. Public improvementsplanned werethe reconstruction of Frost
Avenue from Highway 61 to Phalen Place, which includes a roundabout at the intersection of
Frost Avenue and East Shore Drive, sidewalks, decorative street lighting, and landscaping. In
addition, the grant was to help fund the construction of stormwater treatment ponds and devices
to treat stormwater that are currently discharged directly to Lake Phalen without any form of
treatment.
March 12, 2007, the city council approved the Gladstone Neighborhood Redevelopment Plan.
This plan will help guide the redevelopment of the Gladstone area with a mixture of 650 new
housing units and neighborhood retail and commercial uses.
August 13, 2007, the city council approved the following land use requests for The Shores
development:
1. Street Right-of-way vacation
2. Public easement vacation
3. Preliminary Plat
4. Conditional Use Permit for Planned Unit Development
5. Design Approval
December 14, 2009, the city council returned the $1.8 million Livable Communities grant to the
Metropolitan Council due to expiring deadlines and a lack of a developer. The city has
resubmitting a request to the Metropolitan Council for this grant now that a developer is lined up.
DISCUSSION
Gladstone Neighborhood Redevelopment Plan
The Gladstone Neighborhood Redevelopment Plan (pertinent pages attached to this report)
outlines nine guiding principles to redevelopment in the area as follows:
1.Design the future of Gladstone as a village.
2.Transform regional trails into celebrated village corridors.
3.Make Gladstone a compelling quality of life choice.
4.Weave natural systems and ecological function into the built and recreational
environment.
5.Allow Gladstone’s future to whisper the story of its past.
6.Make walkability the standard.
7. Think of Gladstone as a neighborhood for all stages of life.
8.Make the Gladstone redevelopment plana model for others to follow.
9.Make multi-modal links between Gladstone and areas beyond.
2
PacketPageNumber190of272
The Gladstone Neighborhood Redevelopment Plan further outlines development strategies for
the St. Paul Tourist Cabin site as follows:
1.Both the natural and the built environment support multiple-family housing on this
property.
2.The existing terrain allows placement of a multi-story building within the character of the
existing setting.
3.The site is located in a shoreland zone and will follow shoreland regulations.
4.A four-story, multi-housing development currently lies between this site and Lake Phalen.
5.Redevelopment on the site should fall in a range of 12 to 30 units per acre.
6. Key factors to consider in shaping the redevelopment of this site include:
a.Preserve existing natural vegetation and tree canopy.
b.Access to the site should be coordinated with improvements to Frost Avenue and
the proposed roundabout.
c. Development of the site should consider the notion that this area serves as a
gateway to the Gladstone area.
d.Redevelopment of the site has important financial relationships with the remainder
of the Gladstone neighborhood – actual implementation efforts should explore
ways that this project can provide financial resources to other parts of the
redevelopment plan, particularly the improvement of Flicek Park and Frost
Avenue.
The Shoresat Lake Phalensenior housing development has the potential of meeting many of the
redevelopment planguiding principles and development strategies for the property.
2030 Comprehensive Plan and Density
The city council adopted the 2030 Comprehensive Plan on January 25, 2010. The 2030
Comprehensive Plan incorporated the land uses and densities established by the Gladstone
Neighborhood Redevelopment Plan.The 2030 Comprehensive Planguides The Shores at Lake
Phalen property as high density residential. High density residential has a density range of 10.1
to 25 units per net acre.
The applicant is proposing a lot division for this site, which is discussed later in this report. As
proposed, the resulting parcel the senior housing complex would be built on would be 4.2 acres in
size. The gross density for the proposed project would then be 25 units per acre. However, the
0.22 acre wetland on site needs to be netted out, meaning as proposed the development is too
dense as determined by the 2030 Comprehensive Plan. Staff is recommending a condition of
approval be added to the lot division request to shift the boundary line with the proposed
southerly lot in order to add enough “developable” land (at least 0.22 acres) to the northerly
parcel in order to meet density requirements. For background purposes, the previously approved
developmenthad a density of 25 units per acre. The 2030 Comprehensive Plan ensuresthat
density on this site is similar to what had been approved in 2007.
3
PacketPageNumber191of272
Zoning
The siteis currently zoned as multiple dwellingresidential (R-3). This zoning district allows for
the development of a multi-family, senior housing complex such as the proposed Shores at Lake
Phalen development.
Shoreland Overlay District
The city code requires properties within the Phalen Lake Shoreland Overlay District to have a
maximum of 40 percent impervious surface area. The applicant has submitted plans that indicate
33.3 percent of the site will be impervious surface. The Shoreland Overlay District also requires
that buildings be designed to reduce visibility (under summer conditions) from public waters and
adjacent shorelands. Since this development will be constructed on the north lot, adjacent to
Frost Avenue, the existing vegetation on the south lot will achieve the screening requirement to
Phalen Lake. Care should be taken in the design of the future development to the south to
ensure this requirement is met.
Conditional Use Permit for a Planned Unit Development
A planned unit development will also allow flexibility from the multiple dwelling residential (R-3)
zoning district that requires multi-family housing to have the following:
1.Unit Sizes:Code requires minimumunit sizes of 580 square feet per efficiency or one-
bedroom units. The 75 studio units will range from 433 to 578 square feet in area, which
requires flexibility from the minimum unit size of 580 square feet. The 22 one-bedroom
units will range from 650 to 777 square feet, which meets code requirements. Code
requires two-bedroom units to have a minimum unit size of 740 square feet. The 8 two-
bedroom units will range from 893 to 931 square feet, also meeting code requirements.
The city has allowed smaller unit sizes in the recent past primarily for memory-care units
as shown in this comparison:
Project Name Number of Memory Units Approved Unit Size
Comforts of Home 42 units 221 to 360 sq ft
The Shores (2007 approval)20 units 490 to 509 sq ft
The Seasons of Maplewood30 units 388 sq ft
Lakewood Commons 100 units 425 sq ft (efficiencies)
Staff feels the reduced unit sizes would not be appropriate for typical apartment living.
The senior-housing industry, however, has moved toward smaller room sizes since it has
found that the larger spaces are not needed for assisted- or memory-care units. The city
hasallowed lesser unit sizes for memory-care units fairly regularly with recent projects as
noted above. The proposed efficiency units are 2 to 147square feet smaller than the city’s
required 580 square feet. Staff does not find a problem with this requestfor these units.
2.Height:Code requires a maximum height of 35 feet or three floors. The Shores at Lake
Phalen development is proposed with threefloors which meets code requirements.
3.Storage Space:Code requires a minimumindoor storage space of 120 cubic feet per
unit. The applicant’s plans do not show any areas for additional storage. The applicant is
requesting a waiver to this requirement. The applicant has stated in other facilities
4
PacketPageNumber192of272
Southview Senior Living Communitiesoperates, memory care and assisted living
residents storage space needs are minimal. The previous plans for this site included 48
cubic square feet per unit for memory care and transitional units. Staff feels a reduction is
warranted when considering the proposed types of units, but not a complete waiver. Staff
feelsprovidingstorage space for residents within the range of 30 to 50 cubic feet per unit
is reasonable. Staff is recommending the applicant provide at least 30 cubic feet of
storage space per unit.
4.Parking:Code requires aminimumparking standard of two parking spaces per unit, for a
total of 210parking spaces required for the Shoresat Lake Phalendevelopment. As
proposed, however, the development will have 28underground parking spacesand 24
surface parking spaces, for a total of 52.
When asked, the applicants and Southview Senior Living Communities state that this
number of parking spaces will be adequate for the development indicating that the
memory careandassisted living unit residents typically will not have vehicles. Thus the
majority of the parking lots spaces will be used by staff and visitors. In the applicant’s
narrative, there is a comparison of this project’s proposed parking numbers to the amount
of provided parking at other facilities Southview Senior Living Communities operate.
Senior housing developments approved by the city since the 1980s have all been
approved with reduced parking. The city has found that this apartment/town house ratio is
excessive for senior facilities and has approved parking waivers for recently-approved
projects. Examples are:
•The Shores – previous approval (180 units) 360 spaces required 115 allowed
•The Seasons at Maplewood(150 units) 300 spaces required 145 allowed
•Summerhill (44 units) 88 spaces required 78 allowed
•Comforts of Home (42 units) 84 spaces required 25 allowed
Staff is supportive of the proposed parking reduction. The city council has supported the
concept that senior-housing facilities, especially those with assisted- and memory-care
units, require considerably fewer parking spaces than typical multi-family housing.
5.Parking Space Width:Code requires a minimumparking space width of 9.5 feet. The
applicant’s plans show the parking spaces will meet this code requirement. The planning
commission recommended the applicant try to provide a parking space width of at least 10
feet for the surface spaces.
6.Front Yard Setback:Code requires a minimumfront yard setback of 30 feet to the right-
of-way. The developmentproposes a 20-foot setback to the Frost Avenue right-of-way for
the one-story dining room and kitchen facility on the north side of the building. The
previous approvals for this site also included a 20-foot setback to the Frost Avenue right-
of-way for the one-story kitchen facility.There is a patio shown on the site plan proposed
to be setback 8 feet from the right-of-way line. This patio will interfere with the 10-foot
requiredeasement along the Frost Avenue property line. Staff is recommending the
applicant be required to submit revised plans showing the patio setback at least 10 feet
from the northerly property line. Code requires a 30-foot setback from East Shore Drive
as well. The applicant’s plans shows the building will be more than 100 feet setback from
the property line.
5
PacketPageNumber193of272
7. Side Yard Setback: Code requires a 20-foot side yard setback. This would be applicable
on the west side of the project lot. The plans show a setback of 35 feet between the side
yard property line and the building. All other setbacks proposed meet the R-3 zoning
requirements.
Wetland Buffer Variance
There is a Manage C wetland located on the east side of the property, adjacent to East Shore
Drive. When the city adopted the new wetland ordinance and wetland classification maps in
December 2009, this wetland was upgraded from a Class 5 wetland with no buffer requirements
to a Manage C wetland with a 50-foot buffer requirement. Regardless of the previous
classification, the city had required the previous development to maintain a 25-foot buffer. The
new development proposal shows grading to within 5 feet of the wetland. For this reason,this
development will require a 45-foot buffer variance.Based on the applicant’s current plans, the
finished building would sitapproximately 35 feet from the wetland and the parking lot
approximately 27 feet.
The applicant submitted a narrative on August 2, 2010 which discusses their request for a
wetland variance. Within this narrative, the applicant states they will be able to shift the building
further west which will result in the building being setback more than 50 feet from the wetland and
the retaining wall and paving will be located 25 feet away from the wetland. The Environmental
and Natural Resources Commission had requested the applicant shift the building during its
meeting on June 23, 2010. The applicant has not submitted any revised plans showing the
building shift but staff will be recommending revised plans as a condition of approval. Shann
Finwall, environmental planner, and Michael Thompson, city engineer, reviewed the wetland and
wetland buffer plans and requirements. Please refer to their reports which are attached for
additional information and recommended conditions of approval.
Staff feels the variance request is justified due to the unique characteristics associated with this
property. The city’s comprehensive plan and the Gladstone Neighborhood Master Plan, which
are discussed earlier in this report, have guided and expectdevelopment at the density that the
applicant is proposing to build this project. The city’s zoning code designation for this site also
supports the type of project the applicant is proposing. The R3 (multiple dwelling) zoning district
does not allow single-family homes, meaning multi-family housing is the only allowed use for this
site. The unique shape of this site provides challenges in meeting the several setback
requirements applicable to this site. It is staff’s assertion that if the applicant were to meet all
setbackrequirements a project of this scale could not be built on this uniquely shaped property.
The applicant is also requesting a decrease in the front yard setback from 30 feet to 20 feet,
which the council previously approved in 2007. The front yard setback request is discussed
within the PUD section of this report.
It is also important to note that since the 2007 approval for this site, the city has updated and
strengthenedmany of its environmental protection ordinances, including the wetland ordinance.
Many of the ordinance requirements facing this site were not in place during the 2007 approvals
process. The current proposal is largely built off the 2007 approval, which means a great deal of
resources had been employed to develop this plan before the city updated several of its
ordinances.
At its most basic level,among multiple other reasons, the intent of the wetland ordinance is to
maintain water quality by filteringsuspended solids and pollutants. Today, the wetland on this
site is not performing this task. Through the completion of this projection, the wetland would be
6
PacketPageNumber194of272
restored and help improve the water quality of Phalen Lake to the south of the site. Based on the
applicant’s revised plans, which will have to be submitted to staff for approval, the building will be
more than 50 feet away from the wetland edge. Both the construction of the senior housing
complex and the wetland restoration are dependent on eachother. Neither will happen without
theother.
A variance is necessitated because current city regulations will not allow a project to be built at
this scale and density while also being able to meet all of the city’s wetland ordinance
requirements. The scale and density of the proposed project is supported by the city’s long-term
planning documents. The granting of a variance will not alter the essential character of the
localityor neighborhood, but will actually enhance an existing dormant wetland, while meeting the
intent of the wetland ordinance and allowing for this development to go forward. It is reasonable
to conclude that given the unique character of the site combined with the city's specific goals in
terms of density and type of development for the site, this site cannot be reasonably used for any
other purpose without a variance regardless of who the property owner or applicant happens to
be.
Lot Division
The applicant is requesting that the property be divided in two to create a northern parcel and a
southern parcel. The proposed senior housing project would be located on the northern
proposed parcel. The southernparcel would be available for future development. The resulting
lots would be approximately 4.2 acres in size for the north parcel and 3 acres for the south parcel.
As noted in the 2030 ComprehensivePlan and Density section, staff is recommending a condition
of approval be added to the lot division request requiring the applicant shift the boundary line to
the south in order to meet density requirements.
Any future development would need to meet the requirements set forth by the city’s 2030
Comprehensive Plan and the Gladstone Neighborhood Redevelopment Plan. The submitted plat
map shows a 20 x 20 foot right-of-way triangle which will need to be increased to 30 x 30 feet in
order to accommodate for the Frost Avenue and East Shore Drive roundabout. Approval of the
lot division should be conditioned on the developer dedicating 10-foot-wide pedestrian, drainage,
and utility easements along the entire north property line adjacent to Frost Avenue.
Design Review
Site Plan
The building will be constructed on the northwest corner of the site. The main entry will face East
Shore Drive. There will be a stone accented facadeentryway to the lobby leading to the opposite
side of the building, where akitchen and dining room will be located and an outdoor patio is
planned. The only driveway for the site will be accessed via East Shore Drive. This driveway will
lead to a looped area where surface parking spaces are planned and to the underground garage
access at the southeast location of the building. This drive is at least 20 feet in width at all points.
Thereare three patios proposed for the site and walking trails leading to Frost Avenue and East
Shore Drive. Also proposed on the site are three rain gardens. These rain gardens will be
constructed as part of the Phase I public improvements in the Gladstone redevelopment area.
7
PacketPageNumber195of272
Trails
There are 5-foot-wide trails proposed along the west side of the buildingand internal to the site.
The trails connecting Frost Avenue to the internal driveway will need to be at least a 10-foot-wide
drivable surface. This is to ensure the trail will serve as an emergency access for fire,
ambulance, and police vehiclesas well as a walkway. The community design review board has
recommended that permeablepavers be utilized as much as possible in the building of this trail.
Staff recommends that the applicant install a series of benches scattered throughout the site
along these trails.
As part of the Phase I public improvements in the Gladstone redevelopment area the following
trail improvements are proposed:
The construction of a 10-foot-wide bituminous trail along the south side of Frost
Avenue from East Shore Drive to the west along the northerly boundary of The Shores
property.
The reconstruction of the existing bituminous trail on the east side of East Shore Drive
from Frost Avenue to Lake Phalen.
The construction of a pedestrian sidewalk/trail along the west side of East Shore Drive
from development access driveway south to Lake Phalen.
Building Elevations
The building is designed to have two fronts, one at the northwest side of the building facing Frost
Avenue, and one at the southeast side of the building facing East Shore Drive. These two
facades will betreated with cultured stone.
The overall Frost Avenue elevation has been designed to serve as a gateway design to the
Gladstone neighborhood. In addition to cultured stone, this elevation will include a combination of
face brickand hardi-planksidingon the first floor and hardi-planksidingon the second and third
floors. There will be vinylwindows and asphalt shingles. This elevation will include a decorative
trellisand cedar fence surrounding the memory care gardenson the west and east ends ofthe
building. The applicant should submit details on the proposed fences for the memory care
gardens to staff to review.
The center of the building is proposed to have an outsidepatio adjacent to the dining room on the
first floor. This patio is proposed tobe surrounded by 6 x 6 columns, anchored by a brick fire pit
with a 12-foot-tall cultured stone chimneyand a hardi-panel fascia.The patio is proposed to be
12 feet in width at all points. At the patio’s closet point it will be only eight feet from the Frost
Avenue right-of-way line. The site plan will need to be revised showing the patio being no closer
than 10 feet to the Frost Avenue right-of-way line. The mechanical equipment over the dining
room is proposed to be screened from view along Frost Avenue. The overall East Shore Drive
elevation will be similar to the Frost Avenue elevation except for the columned entry waywith
hardi-panelandthe garage entrance on the west side of the building.The community design
review board has recommended that hardi-plank surfaces beused on the false chimneys on this
elevation.
The southwest side elevation will include rock face concrete masonry units (CMU) over the
garage level. The first floor will have a split of face brick and hardi-plank siding. The second and
third floors will have the hardi-plank siding. The northeast side elevation will mimic the southwest
side’s first, second, and third floors. The community design review board has recommend that
8
PacketPageNumber196of272
more cultured stone be introducedwithin the gables on the ends of the buildings, especially the
site that the underground parking is located.
Tree Preservation
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 of 8 inches in diameter, and a softwood tree
of 12 inches in diameter. A specimen tree is defined as a healthy tree of any species which is 28
inches in diameter or greater. Specimen trees are also considered significant trees. The tree
preservation ordinance requires any significant tree removed to be replaced based on a tree
mitigation schedule. The schedule 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.
The previously approved 2007 development submitted a tree survey for the overall site which
shows 246 significant trees on the property (3,883 total caliper inches). Of those trees, five are
considered specimen trees (including a large 48-caliper-inch cottonwood tree located on the north
side of the property near Frost Avenue). The applicant has yet to submit a tree preservation plan.
The applicant is required to submit a tree survey and replacement plan. Staff has indicated these
documents must be submitted prior to the city council’s review of this proposal in order for staff to
have review time.
Landscaping
The landscape plan shows landscape details including shrubs andperennials for the entrance,
north main patio, the two memory care gardensand the base of the entire building.The
landscape plans shows that 70 new trees will be planted throughout the site. This landscaping is
attractive and will add to the development. Staff is recommending the applicant submit a revised
landscape plan that shows 1) additionallandscaping along the drive to the underground garage
and along the south side of the driveway accessing East Shore Driveorder to help shield this
area from the neighboring apartment buildings and future development that could occur to the
south of this proposal; and 2) a plan which shows all proposed ground mechanical units and
attempts at screening those with landscaping.
Lighting
The lighting plan shows 9 freestanding lights along the perimeter of the site, 3 freestanding area
lights around the parking lot, 6 accent lights mounted on the building, and 3 down lights under the
front entry canopy. City code requires that illumination from outdoor lighting be limited to .4 foot
candles at all property lines and that freestanding lights maintain a maximum height of 25 feet. In
addition, since the Shores will be the first redevelopment in the Gladstone neighborhood, the city
should ensure that the outdoor lighting proposed on this site is compatible to the street lighting
proposed for the Phase I public improvements along Frost Avenue and East Shore Drive.
The photometricplan submitted reflects that all 8 of the perimeter lights will exceed the allowable
illumination at the property line. In addition, the lighting plan is not clear on the design of the
lighting fixtures on the property. To ensure compliance with city code and compatibility with the
Phase I Gladstone public improvements, city staff recommends that a revised lighting and
photometricplan be submitted to the community design review board for approval.
9
PacketPageNumber197of272
TrashEnclosure
All trash and recycling will be maintained within the building, for pick up through the underground
garage. Because of thesize of this development and number of residents, staff also
recommends that there be trash and recycling receptacles located throughout the site to ensure
residents, visitors, and employees have access to these containers when walking the trails.
Signage
The applicants are proposing a Gladstone gateway monument sign to be located on the northeast
corner of the property. A proposed rendering of this sign is included within the applicant’s
narrative attached to this report. This sign would be visible tovehicles and pedestrians traveling
eastbound on Frost Avenue, prior to entering the roundabout. Details and location for this sign
should be coordinated with the city engineer during the Phase I public improvements.
The Historical Preservation Commission, in itsreview of this development, recommended that the
previous use of this site as the St. Paul Tourist Cabins be noted somewhere on the exterior of the
building or on the interior of the common spaces. No signage reflecting The Shores at Lake
Phalensenior housing development is shown on the building elevations or site plan. Staff
recommends that all signage be reviewed by the community design review board.
Environmental Review
Refer to the report by Shann Finwall, environmentalplanner, and Virginia Gaynor, natural
resources coordinator,dated May 28, 2010. The environmental review report includes
information relatedto the shoreland overlay district, tree preservation ordinance, wetlands,
stormwater requirements and landscape seeding.
Engineering Review
Refer to the report by Michael Thompson of the Maplewood Engineering Department dated June
7, 2010. Mr. Thompson’s recommendationsnoted in his report should be made conditionsof
approval forthis project. In summary, Mr. Thompsonstatesthe following are itemsthe city is
planning for improvements along Frost Avenue and East Shore Drive in conjunction with the
Shores at Lake Phalen development:
Mill and overlay along Frost Avenue from approximately 250 feet east of Trunk
Highway 61 (TH 61) to Phalen Place.
The construction of a roundabout at the Frost Avenue and East Shore Drive
intersection.
The installation of street lighting along Frost Avenue.
The installation of landscape and urban design enhancements along Frost Avenue
from the Frost Bridge over Phalen Creek to Phalen Place.
The construction of a 10-foot-wide bituminous trail along the south side of Frost
Avenue from East Shore Drive to the west along the northerly boundary of The Shores
property.
The reconstruction of the existing bituminous trail on the east side of East Shore Drive
from Frost Avenue to Lake Phalen.
The construction of a pedestrian sidewalk/trail along the west side of East Shore Drive
from development access driveway south to Lake Phalen.
Extension of utilitieson East Shore Driveto service the development.
10
PacketPageNumber198of272
Restoration of the existing wetland on The Shores Senior Living property.
Construction of stormwater treatment facilities including final construction of rain
gardens on the Shores Senior Living property anda rain garden adjacent to Phalen
Lake along East Shore Drive.
OTHER COMMENTS
Deputy Police ChiefDave Kvam,Maplewood Police Department: Refer to Deputy Police Chief
Kvam’scomments attached. In summary, the Maplewood police department does not identify
any significant concerns with the proposed development.
Dave Fisher, Building Official: Refer toMr. Fisher’s comments attached. In summary, Mr. Fisher
states that the building must meet the current International Building Code requirements.
Butch Gervais, Fire Marshal: Shall install all fire protection systems according to state and local
codes. Must also have minimum 20-foot access road for fire department.
Richelle Nicosia, Saint Paul Regional Water Services: An 8-inch public water main is available in
East Shore Drive and construction plans and installation must be in accordance with Saint Paul
Regional Water Services’ Standards for the Installationof Water Mains.
HistoricalPreservation Commission: The previous Shores development was originally reviewed
by the HistoricalPreservation Commission at itsMay 15, 2007meeting. The commission had
two recommendations as follows: 1) signs indicating the previous long-term use of the property
(St. Paul Tourist Cabins) should be constructed at the entrance or inside the gathering areas of
the building; 2) preserve the large cottonwood tree located along Frost Avenue, adjacent to the
former St. Paul Tourist Cabinentrance. This tree was included in a published book about
Maplewood’s Heritage Trees by Joe Quick.Staff is continuing these recommendations to the
current proposed development. Also, the HistoricalPreservation Commission will be receiving a
copy of this report.
COMMITTEE ACTION
Planning Commission
On June 15, 2010, theplanning commission held a public hearing and recommended approval of
the proposed CUP for a PUD, wetland buffer variance and lot division. The draft minutes from
this meeting are attached.
Community Design Review Board
On June 22, 2010,the community design review board reviewed the design plans for this project
and recommended approval. The draft minutes from this meeting are attached.
Environmental and Natural Resources Commission
On June 23, 2010, the environmental and natural resources commission review the wetland
buffer variance request. The commission recommend approval of the variance request and
recommended the applicant try to shift the building northwest, further away from the wetland, if
possible. The minutes for this meeting were not available at the writing of this report.
11
PacketPageNumber199of272
RECOMMENDATIONS
1.Approve the conditional use permit resolution attached. This resolution approves the
conditional use permit for a 105senior housing planned unit development within the
Shoreland Overlay District of Phalen Lake. Approval is subject to the following conditions:
a. The engineering department shall review and determine approval of all final
construction and engineering plans. These plans shall comply with all
requirements as specifiedin the city engineering department’s June 7, 2010
review.
b. All construction shall follow the plans date-stamped May 24, 2010, and with
revisions as noted in this approval. The city council may approve major changes
to the plans. City staff mayapprove minor changes to the plans.
c. The project is approved with 28underground and 24surface parking spaces. This
is a parking reduction of 158parking spaces (210parking spaces are required per
city code). It is recommended the surface parkingspace be at least 10-feet-wide.
d. The project is approved with a 147 square foot floor area reduction in the required
unit floor area for the memory care and assisted living studio units (580 square
foot units are required per city code; 433to 578 square foot units are proposed).
e. The project is approved with a 20-foot front yard setback along Frost Avenue for
the one-story dining room and kitchen portion of the building (30-foot front yard
setback required per city code).
f.The project isapproved with storage space of not less than 30cubic feet for the
memory care and transitional care units (120 cubic feet of storage area per unit
required per city code).
g. All signs on the property must be approved by the community design review board.
h. Approval is conditioned on the owner constructing or funding a Gladstone
neighborhood entry monument sign at the intersection of Frost Avenue and East
Shore Drive.
i. Approval is conditioned on the applicant implementing interior or exterior signage
which reflects the previous use of the property as the St. Paul Tourist Cabin site.
j. The approved landscape plan and tree preservation requirements shall be subject
to monitoring by city staff to assure compliance. Minor modifications to these
plans shall be subject to review by staff while major modifications shall require city
council approval.
k. The proposed construction must be substantially started within one year of city
council approval or the permit shall end. The city council may extend this deadline
for one year.
l. The city council shall review this permit in one year.
12
PacketPageNumber200of272
2.Adopt the resolution approving wetland buffer variances from the Manage C wetland on
the east side of the site. Approval is based on the following reasons:
a.The 2030 Comprehensive Plan has set the city’s expectation that high density
multiple-family housing will be built on this site.
b.The Gladstone Neighborhood Master Plan has set the city’s expectation of a multi-
story, multiple-family housing projectbe built which also serves as a gateway to the
Gladstone neighborhoods and protects existing natural vegetation and tree canopy.
c. Strict enforcement of the ordinance would cause the applicant undue hardship
because complying with all of the wetland buffer requirements stipulated by the
ordinance willdeplete the site area, substantially diminishing the development density
potential of this lot.
d.It is reasonable to conclude that given the unique character of the site combined with
the city's specific goals in terms of density and type of development for the site, this
site cannot be reasonably used for any other purpose without a variance regardless of
who the property owner or applicant happens to be.
e.Approval of the requested wetland buffer variancewould benefit the adjacent wetland
because the site is currently blighted and the wetland is currently in poor condition and
development ofthis site willallow for rehabilitation of the wetland and buffer areas.
f.Approval would meet the spirit and intent of the ordinance since the proposed
restoration and mitigation of the wetland buffers will greatly improve the quality of the
wetland.
Approval of this wetland buffer varianceis subject to the following conditions:
a.All permits and approvals by the Ramsey Washington Metro Watershed District will
need to be secured.
b.Satisfy the requirements set forth in the staff report authored by Mr. Thompson, dated
June 7, 2010.
c. Satisfy the requirements set forth in the staff report authored by Ms. Finwall andMs.
Gaynor, dated May 28, 2010.
d.Submittal of revised plans showing increased wetland setbacks, subject to staff
approval.
.
3Approve the lot divisionrequest to subdividethe 7.02 acre parcel located at 940 Frost
Avenue. This lot division approval is subject to the following conditions:
a. Satisfy the requirements set forth in the staff report authored by Mr. Thompson,
dated June 7, 2010.
b. Satisfy the requirements set forth in the staff report authored by Ms. Finwalland
Ms. Gaynor, datedMay 28, 2010.
13
PacketPageNumber201of272
c. Submit to the city a revised plat showing the southernlot labeled as Lot 2, Block 1
and showing the boundary line shifted to the south to meet residential density
requirements as determined by the 2030 Comprehensive Plan. Subject to staff
approval.
d. The applicant shall pay cash connection charges for the new multi-family lots for
connection to the water main and sanitary sewer main.
e. Deeds describing the twonew legal descriptions, including the required trail,
drainage and utility easement descriptionsmust 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 orthe lot split will become null and void (city code
requirement).
f. Prior to issuance of a grading or building permit for the new developmenton 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.
3) Grading and drainage plan.
4) All necessary permits for sanitary sewer and water must be obtained.
4.Approve the plans date stamped May 24, 2010, for the 105-unit, three-story The Shores at
Lake Phalen senior housing development to be located at 940 Frost Avenue. Approval is
subject to the applicant doing the following:
a.Repeat this review in two years if the city has not issued a building permit for this
project.
b.Satisfy the requirements set forth in the staff report authored by Mr. Thompson,
dated June 7, 2010.
c. Satisfy the requirements set forth in the staff report authored by Ms. Finwall and
Ms. Gaynor, dated May28, 2010.
d.Prior to issuance of a grading or building permit, the applicant must submit to staff
for approval the following items:
1) Verification of The Shores at Lake Phalen lot division has been
recorded.
2)Have the city engineer approve final construction and engineering plans.
These plans shall comply with all requirements as specified in the city
engineering department’s June 7, 2010review.
3)Submit cedarfence details, subject to staff review.
14
PacketPageNumber202of272
4)Revised site plan showing:
a)The location of trash and recycling receptacles throughout the site.
b)The location of benches scattered throughout the site, along the
trails and sidewalks.
c) Widening of the trail on the west side of the building from Frost
Avenue to the internal parking lot to 10 feet wide.Permeable
pavers shall be used as much as possible.
5)Watershed district approval.
6) Enter into a developer’s agreement with the city which will cover the
installation of all public improvements surrounding and within the property.
7) Sign a maintenance agreement for the ongoing maintenance of all required
rainwater gardens and infiltration basins.
8) A cash escrow or an irrevocable letter of credit for all required exterior
improvements. The amount shall be 150 percent of the cost of the work.
9)Hardi-plank shall be used on the surfaces of the false chimneys on the
East Shore Drive elevation.
10)Cultured stone shall be introduced within the gables of the two building
ends.
11)Applicant must submit a payment to the City of Maplewood for $25,000, as
required by the tree preservation ordinance.
e.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.
4) Install all required outdoor lighting.
5) Install all required sidewalks and trails.
f. The lighting and photometricplan is not approved. The applicant must submit a
revised lighting and photometricplan for community design review board approval
which complies with city code and is compatiblewith the Phase I Gladstone public
improvements.
15
PacketPageNumber203of272
g. Signage is not approved. The applicant must submit a sign plan for community
design review board approval. The plan must show a monument sign to be
located at the intersection of Frost Avenue and East Shore Drive which announces
the entryway to the Gladstone Neighborhood and any exterior signage advertising
The Shoresat Lake Phalen.
h. Landscape/tree replacementplan is not approved. The applicant must submit a
revised landscape/treereplacementplanfor community design review board
approvalshowing:
1) Atree survey and preservation plan.
2) Landscape plan which shows:
a) Additional plantings on the south side of the drive leading to the
underground garage and the south sideof the driveway accessing
East Shore Drive.
b)Preservation ofthe large cottonwood tree located along Frost
Avenue, adjacent to the former St. Paul Tourist Cabinentrance.
c) The location of all proposed ground mechanical units which are
screened by landscaping.
d) The installation of underground irrigation for the landscaped areas.
The applicant should explore the use of conservation sensor
sprinkler devices which will shut off when it is raining.
i. If any required work is not done, the city may allow temporary occupancy if:
1)The city determines that the work is not essential to the public health,
safety or welfare.
2)The above-required letter of credit or cash escrow is held by the City of
Maplewood for all required exterior improvements. The owner or
contractor shall complete any unfinished exterior improvements by June 1
of the following year if occupancy of the building is in the fall or winter or
within six weeks of occupancy of the building if occupancy is in the spring
or summer.
j. All work shall follow the approved plans. City staff may approve minor changes.
16
PacketPageNumber204of272
CITIZEN COMMENTS
Staff surveyed the 27 property owners within 500 feet of this site for their comments. There were
3 written replies. One was in favor, one had concernsand one was against the project.
In Favor
1.Mindy Mac Runnel,1890 Adele Street (sent via e-mail):I have no comment against this
project or the changes requested. I thought it was a great idea from the start.
Concerns
1.Jason and Erika Zerwas, 1866 East Shore Drive(sent via e-mail): We are hoping to get
more info about public hearings on this matter. The senior living looks a lot better then the
first plan that was developed in 2007, however we are very concerned with the dividing of
the property. It was very clear that back in 2007 the property was to stay as one lot with
the (zoning)? of senior and or memory care units only, no other uses were wanted by the
neighborhood. We are just making sure that the property will not bedivided up and than
allowed to have other types of housing other than senior living. We are concerned that
this is opening up the property to be used at a later date for higher density living with the
possibility for low income or other development. Other concerns would be the side walk
down East Shore Drive to the Lake that is in poor repair and not suitable for elderly foot
traffic. Will this sidewalk be upgraded for their safety?Please respond to this e-mail
informing us that it was received and that we will receive notice of future meetings.
Against
1.Cheryl LeMire, 1886 Adele Street North: I do not want High Density Residential
development as it would increase traffic, destroy the trees, the north shore beauty of
woodland and wildlife. Why wasthe area zoned as high density?
17
PacketPageNumber205of272
REFERENCE INFORMATION
SITE DESCRIPTION
Site Size: 7.02 Acres
Existing Land Use: Vacant – Formerly a Manufactured Home Park
SURROUNDING LAND USES
North: Frost Avenue and Gateway Trail and Keller Golf Course Across the Street
South: East Shore Drive and Lake PhalenAcross the Street
East: Single Family Houses
West: Four-Story Apartment Complex
PLANNING
Existing Land Use:High Density Residential
Existing Zoning:Medium Multiple Dwelling Residential(R-3M)
CRITERIA FOR APPROVAL
Criteria for Conditional Use PermitApproval
Article V, Sections 44-1091 through 44-1105 states that the city council may grant a CUP subject
to the nine standards for approval noted in the conditional use permit resolutionattached.
Criteria for VarianceApproval
State law requires that the city make two findings before granting a variance. These are:
1.Strict enforcement would cause undue hardship because of circumstances unique to the
property under consideration.
2. The variance would be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the ordinance.
Undue hardship, as used in connection with the granting of a variance, means the property in
question cannot be put to a reasonable use if used under the conditions allowed by the official
controls. The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to his property, not created
by the landowner, and a variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality.
Economic considerations alone shall not constitute an undue hardship if reasonable use for the
property exists under the terms of the ordinance.
18
PacketPageNumber206of272
Application Date
The city received complete applicationsfor a conditionaluse permit for a planned unit
development, wetland buffer variance,lot divisionand site and design plans approval on June 7,
2010. The 60-day review deadlinefor a decisionwasAugust 6, 2010. As stated in Minnesota
State Statute 15.99, the city is allowed to take an additional 60 days if necessary in order to
completethe review of anapplication. The revised, extended deadline for the cityto complete
the review and take action on the request is September 5, 2010.
P\Sec16\StPaul Tourist CabinSite\May24, 2010 Submittal\Shore_CC_080910
Attachments:
1.Applicant’sNarrative, dated June 15, 2010
2.Location Map
3.Land Use Map
4.Zoning Map
5. Plat Map
6. Grading and DrainageControl
7. Utility Plan
8. Landscape Plan
9. Building Elevations
10. Gladstone Neighborhood Redevelopment Plan –
Guiding Principles
11. Gladstone Neighborhood Redevelopment Plan –
Development Strategies for 940 Frost Avenue
12. City Engineer Michael Thompson comments, dated June 7, 2010.
13. Phase I Gladstone Public Improvements
14. Deputy Police Chief Dave Kvam comments, dated May 27, 2010
15. David Fisher, Building Official, comments, dated June 8, 2010
16. Shann Finwall, Envrionmental Planner, and Virginia Gaynor, Natural
Resources Coordinated comments, dated May 28, 2010
17.2007 Shores Site Plan
18.Photometric Plan
19Draft PC Minutes, June 15, 2010
20. Applicant’s Request Narrative, dated August 2, 2010
21.Draft CDRB Minutes, June 22, 2010
22. Conditional Use Permit Resolution
23. Wetland Variance Resolution
24.Applicant’s plans (separate attachment)
19
PacketPageNumber207of272
Attachment1
The Shores at Lake Phalen: Project Narrative
June 15, 2010
The Shores at Lake Phalen Gateway to Gladstone
(
proposed project signage along Frost Ave)
Introduction
This lakeside property, on the north side of the Lake Phalen, provides a setting for a very successful low-
to moderate-income assisted living for senior residents in the City of Maplewood. Our project, The
Shores at Lake Phalen, has been designed to accommodate seniors looking for a more affordable
assisted living option than the senior facilities currently available in Maplewood. Assisted living
residences or assisted living facilities (ALFs) are a very good investment now as they are not dependent
on home sales, but are more dependent on an age group who need services in an apartment setting (see
market study). ALFs provide supervision or assistance with activities of daily living; coordination of
services by outside health care providers and monitoring of resident activities to help to ensure a
residents health, safety, and well-being. Assistance may include the administration or supervision of
medication, or personal care services provided by a trained staff person. Assisted living, as it exists
today, emerged in Minnesota in the 1990s as an eldercare alternative on the continuum of care for
people, normally seniors, for whom independent living is no longer appropriate, but who do not need the
24-hour medical care provided by a nursing home. Assisted living is a philosophy of care and services
promoting independence and dignity.
There is no nationally recognized definition of assisted living in the United States. ALFs are regulated and
licensed at the state level. More than two-thirds of the states use the licensure term "assisted living."
Other licensure terms used for this philosophy of care include Residential Care Home, Assisted Care
Living Facilities, and Personal Care Homes. Each state licensing agency has its own definition of the term
it uses to describe assisted living.
As varied as the state licensing and definitions are, so are the types of physical layouts of buildings that
provide assisted living services. ALFs can range in size from a small residential house for three residents
up to very large facilities providing services to hundreds of residents. An assisted living falls somewhere
between an independent living community and a skilled nursing facility in terms of the level of care
provided to its residents.
Below are the high points of what we feel are the key issues regarding this specific project, The Shores at
Lake Phalen, proposed on the site of the former Saint Paul Tourist Cabin (mobile home park) site at 940
Frost Avenue.
Application Requests
This site was approved in the 2006 comprehensive plan to have 180 units of senior oriented housing.
The Planning Commission, Community Design Review Board and City Council approved a Kaas Wilson
Design of a 4 story 180 unit ALF on this site in December of 2007 with the following attributes:
1. Vacation of the existing sewer which is shared between lots and coordination of a new line to city
sewer services.
2. Preliminary Plat Approval
3. Community Design Review Board approval for project function and appearance
Tel: 612.879.6000 2104 4 th Avenue South, Suite B, Minneapolis, MN 55404 www.kaaswilson.com
PacketPageNumber208of272
Attachment1
4. Conditional use permit for the P.U.D. a planned unit development for the development of senior
housing within the shoreland overlay district.
5. Four story Height
The new Development will be asking for a reduced number of senior units: 105 units, and only three
stories in height. The concept plan will show a future housing component of 56 apartments to the south.
Goals of the project from the city perspective
It is the hope of the development team that this project will fulfill many community based goals:
1. Become the Gateway to the Gladstone Neighborhood. The Frost Avenue façade will be examined
closely by the city (see signage shown above).
2. Clean up a blighted site that was a nuisance to the police department, contained uncapped wells,
and contributed polluted runoff that flowed into Lake Phalen.
3. Senior Housing with services is the best use of the site. Statistics from the state demographer’s
office indicate that every large city in Minnesota has, or will have, a significant need for senior
housing. Senior housing with services also helps to stem economic issues related to the rising
costs of health care in our community.
4. It is a goal of this project to provide supervised common spaces, in the building, for seniors in the
community to come and use. We hope these common areas will become an asset to the
Gladstone Neighborhood and surrounding community.
5. The project will create over 120 jobs which, with city bus service, could all be locally supported by
Maplewood residents.
6. The project will provide filtration for a substantial amount of stormwater runoff, from Frost Avenue
and the site, currently polluting Lake Phalen.
7. The project will re-align the malfunctioning sewer system running adjacent to the site.
Services
There will be 32 memory care apartments with secure common areas for people with light dementia.
There will be 73 assisted living units with kitchens in each apartment. Three meals a day will be provided
in two spacious dining areas. There will be a club room open to seniors in the community. Other
amenities include a beauty shop and spa, a library, a computer center, a craft room, and an
exercise/fitness room. These spaces are designed to promote activity and interaction amongst guests,
clients and staff. The building will be staffed and managed by Southview Senior Living Communities, who
is a partner in the project and has very successful senior living projects already in operation in the metro
area.
Description of Building Exterior
From the integrated stone signage marking the entrance to the Gladstone Neighborhood, to the stone
accented façade along Frost and the main entry, it is the goal that this be a respectable facility for the City
of Maplewood. The remainder of the building will be brick, Hardi-Panel and Hardi-Plank. All facias and
soffits will be maintenance free.
Mechanical equipment over the dining room will be screened along Frost Avenue, and residential ground
based air-conditioners will have landscape screens.
Tel: 612.879.6000 2104 4 th Avenue South, Suite B, Minneapolis, MN 55404 www.kaaswilson.com
PacketPageNumber209of272
Attachment1
The Shores at Lake Phalen: Parking
June 15, 2010
We are requesting a variance for the amount of required parking to be provided by The Shores at Lake
Phalen senior living project. Typically, the majority of residents in an assisted living facility do not, or are
unable to, drive. Furthermore, residents in a memory care situation cannot operate motor vehicles.
Given that our project is exclusively an Assisted Living and Memory Care facility, few of the project's
residents will ever drive, and most will not own a vehicle. Thus the majority of the parking for projects of
this type is for staff and visitors, which greatly diminishes the necessary parking for the project as a
whole. For The Shores, staff parking will be provided in the garage and visitor parking will be located on
the surface, at the building entrance.
Southview Senior Living Communities (SSLC), who will be the operator of The Shores, also
owns/operates many other projects around the Twin Cities metropolitan area. In each case, there has
been a significant reduction in the parking provided (below what is typically required for multi-family
housing), and this reduction in parking has not negatively impacted the residents, staff or visitors of the
project. In fact, the reduced parking allows for less site disturbance and greater pervious/landscaped
area on site, which has substantial benefits - from added stormwater infiltration, to reduced heat island
effects, and more.
Here are the parking figures from some other Twin Cities metro-area projects owned/operated by
Southview Senior Living Communities:
The Shores
ProjectInver Glen The Cascades Faribault
105
Units 103 10590
Unit Breakdown (MC/AL/IL) 33/31/39 15/56/34 14/51/25 32/73/0
28
Garage Parking Stalls 354928
Surface Parking Stalls 23273524
52
Total Parking 587663
It is important to note that the other SSLC projects listed are facilities which include "Independent Living"
units. These units are occupied by able-bodied (and able-minded) seniors who live active and
independent lifestyles. Most (or all) of the car-owning residents in these senior living facilities are
"Independent Living" seniors. Since The Shores will be exclusively an Assisted Living and Memory Care
facility, the necessary parking for the residents of this project will be significantly less than even the
parking figures for the other three projects listed above. Essentially, the only necessary parking for The
Shores project will be for staff and visitors. Given these considerations, while also bearing in mind the
significant stormwater-related concerns on site, we feel that reducing the amount of required parking will
be incredibly beneficial to the project itself, as well as the surrounding Gladstone Neighborhood and Lake
Phalen.
Kaas Wilson Architects would be happy to arrange a tour of the Inver Glen Senior Living facility for any
City of Maplewood staff interested in seeing a Southview Senior Living Communities project firsthand.
Tel: 612.879.6000 2104 4 th Avenue South, Suite B, Minneapolis, MN 55404 www.kaaswilson.com
PacketPageNumber210of272
Attachment1
The Shores at Lake Phalen: Wetland Encroachment
June 15, 2010
This site was approved in the 2006 comprehensive plan to have 180 units of senior-oriented housing. The
Planning Commission, Community Design Review Board and City Council approved a Kaas Wilson
design for a 180-unit assisted living facility on this site in December of 2007. At the time of approval the
wetland on site was classified as a Class 5, and the approved plan included the reshaping and
enhancement of the wetland on site, and construction occurring up to 25' from the surveyed edge of the
wetland.
Maplewood recently adopted a new wetland ordinance, and the wetland on site is now classified as a
Manage C wetland, with a 50' minimum buffer width. It is important, however, to note the wetland does
not currently function at all in an infiltration capacity, due to pollution and destruction of the natural water
flow on and around the site, and contaminated stormwater currently flows through our site and into Lake
Phalen without proper treatment. The current wetland on our site essentially functions as a stormwater
pond. Under the direction of Short Elliott Hendrickson Inc., this wetland will be completely regraded and
enhanced by the City of Maplewood, in addition to enhancements and regrading along Frost Avenue and
East Shore drive, to restore it to healthy function. Due to the wetland not functioning, and other factors,
this site has been a significant contributor of polluted runoff flowing into Lake Phalen.
Kaas Wilson Architects is working closely with the city and its consultants to clean up the blighted site.
Our project has been designed such that 100% of our stormwater is infiltrated on site. Additionally, we
are providing a number of raingardens on our site, two of which are being deliberately oversized for the
purpose of infiltrating the city's stormwater runoff, thus filtering contaminants before the water reaches
Lake Phalen. These two raingardens will filter 13,776 cubic feet of the City's stormwater runoff, in
addition to their on-site load of 1,488 cubic feet of runoff. This will vastly improve the overall state of
stormwater runoff filtration from its current state.
This project, particularly the Frost Avenue border of our site, will become the gateway to the proposed
Gladstone Neighborhood. The city has expressed a desire to keep as many of the mature trees located
in the northeast corner of the property as possible, and (as with the previous design) honoring this
request has been a driving factor in the project's current design. While the scope of the project has been
scaled back from the previously approved 2007 plan, the relationship of our building to the wetland is still
similar to the previously-approved design. Proposed construction still occurs up to (but not less than) 25'
from the wetland, and maintains approximately a 50' average buffer from the wetland. While this means
construction will be closer to the wetland than the recently adopted ordinance allows, we feel - given the
wetland is being completely reshaped and enhanced as part of the overall project - that honoring a 25'
minimum buffer, while preserving as many of the mature trees on site as possible and providing additional
raingardens to the city for the infiltration of stormwater runoff, presents the best solution for handling
stormwater while still complying with the city's vision for the site and the Gladstone Neighborhood.
Tel: 612.879.6000 2104 4 th Avenue South, Suite B, Minneapolis, MN 55404 www.kaaswilson.com
PacketPageNumber211of272
Attachment1
The Shores at Lake Phalen: Lot Division
June 15, 2010
Due to the economic strains that have arisen since the project was previously approved in 2007, it has
become more difficult to acquire financing for large multi-family residential projects. While the demand for
senior-oriented units is still there, the current market is more supportive of developments that are smaller
in scale or constructed in phases. Consequently our project, The Shores at Lake Phalen, has been
scaled back in scope from the previously-approved design of 180 units of senior housing to the proposed
design of 105 units. Despite this reduction in size, it is still the desire of the City of Maplewood and the
project team to address the entire site from a cleanup, stormwater and utilities standpoint.
Improvements are to be made along Frost Avenue and the entire length of East Shore Drive. An existing
sewer line running along the west edge of the property is to be abandoned and removed, and a new line
constructed along East Shore Drive, which will serve The Shores project as well as the residential
property to the east of the project, currently on a septic system. A new public walkway, by the City of
Maplewood, will run from Lake Phalen along the west edge of East Shore Drive to the entrance drive for
The Shores. From there, Kaas Wilson Architects will create a public walkway through the project site,
connecting the City's East Shore Drive walkway with the Frost Avenue walkway to the northwest.
Kaas Wilson Architects is working to address stormwater and enhancement concerns on the site in a
comprehensive manner. Though the size of the building itself has been reduced, we feel it is still
important to make civil, utilities and landscaping improvements to the entire site, and we are working with
the City of Maplewood and its consultants to accomplish this. We have proposed a lot division which
splits the overall property into two lots: a northern lot on which The Shores at Lake Phalen will be located,
and a southern lot for future development. We feel this is the best solution to maintain the viability of a
senior housing project on the site, while also addressing the City of Maplewood's concerns for civic
improvements to the project site and the future Gladstone Neighborhood. This split also allows a viable
project to be constructed on the southern lot in the future, ensuring the continued vitality of the Gladstone
Neighborhood development from the City's standpoint.
Tel: 612.879.6000 2104 4 th Avenue South, Suite B, Minneapolis, MN 55404 www.kaaswilson.com
PacketPageNumber212of272
Attachment1
The Shores at Lake Phalen: Storage
June 15, 2010
We are requesting a variance for the amount of required storage to be provided by The Shores at Lake
Phalen senior living project. Typically, in senior housing projects, little storage space is required by
residents outside of their units. Given the nature of this project, as exclusively an Assisted Living and
Memory Care facility, the residents at The Shores will likely not need any storage space outside the
closet space being provided in their units.
Southview Senior Living Communities (SSLC), who will be the operator of The Shores, also
owns/operates many other projects around the Twin Cities metropolitan area. In each case, there has
been a significant reduction in the amount of storage provided (below what is typically required for multi-
family housing), and this lack of dedicated storage space has not negatively impacted the residents. In
fact, Southview Senior Living in West Saint Paul, the flagship project of Southview Senior Living
Communities (which include "Independent Living" units), does not include any dedicated storage areas for
its residents.
Here are the storage figures from some other Twin Cities metro-area projects owned/operated by
Southview Senior Living Communities:
ProjectInver Glen The Cascades Faribault The Shores
105
Units 103 10590
Unit Breakdown (MC/AL/IL) 33/31/39 15/56/34 14/51/25 32/73/0
0
Storage Lockers 281023
It is important to note that the other SSLC projects listed are facilities which include "Independent Living"
units. Since The Shores will be exclusively an Assisted Living and Memory Care facility, the storage
space needed by its residents will be significantly less than even the figures for the other three projects
listed above. Additionally "The Seasons at Maplewood," a senior living project approved for construction
in the City of Maplewood earlier this year, is providing approximately 675 cubic feet total dedicated
storage space for the entire project (between four storage closets on one level). The Seasons is a 150-
unit project that includes Independent Living, and the storage space available to its residents is rentable -
not dedicated to particular units.
Given these considerations, we feel that reducing the amount of required storage area will be very
beneficial to the project as a whole. Kaas Wilson Architects would be happy to arrange a tour of
Southview Senior Living or Inver Glen Senior Living, for any City of Maplewood staff interested in seeing
a Southview Senior Living Communities project firsthand.
Tel: 612.879.6000 2104 4 th Avenue South, Suite B, Minneapolis, MN 55404 www.kaaswilson.com
PacketPageNumber213of272
Attachment 2
The Shores of Lake Phalen— Request for Conditional Use Permit,
CDRB Review , Wetland Variance and Lot Division
Proposed Senior
Housing Complex
Location Map
City of Maplewood
May 25, 2010
NORTH
PacketPageNumber214of272
Attachment3
WHITE BEAR AVE
DIETER ST
PacketPageNumber215of272
Attachment 4
The Shores of Lake Phalen— Request for Conditional Use Permit,
CDRB Review , Wetland Variance and Lot Division
Proposed Senior
Housing Complex
Zoning Map
City of Maplewood
May 25, 2010
NORTH
PacketPageNumber216of272
Attachment5
PacketPageNumber217of272
Attachment6
PacketPageNumber218of272
Attachment7
PacketPageNumber219of272
Attachment8
PacketPageNumber220of272
Attachment9
PacketPageNumber221of272
Attachment10
PacketPageNumber222of272
Attachment10
PacketPageNumber223of272
Attachment11
PacketPageNumber224of272
Attachment 12
Page 1 of 8
City of Maplewood - Engineering Plan Review
PROJECTNAME:The Shores Senior Living
PROJECT NO: 10-11
REVIEWED BY: Michael Thompson, P.E., City Engineer
SUBMITTAL NO:Submittal 1, May 25, 2010
REVIEW DATE: June 7, 2010
The applicant, Link Wilson of Kaas Wilson, who represents Maplewood Senior Living LLC, is
proposing to build a 3-story (106-unit) senior housing complex on the Saint Paul Tourist Cabins
site. The developer improvements would be coordinated with public improvement projectson
Frost Avenue and East Shore Drive.
The public improvements are proposed to include the following:
Mill and overlay along Frost Avenue from approximately 250 feet east of Trunk
Highway 61 (TH 61) to Phalen Place.
The construction of a roundabout at the Frost Avenue and East Shore Drive
intersection.
The installation of street lighting along Frost Avenue.
The installation of landscape/urban design enhancements along Frost Avenue from
the Frost Bridge over Phalen Creek to Phalen Place.
The construction of a 10’ wide bituminous trail along the south side of Frost Avenue
from East Shore Drive to the west along the northerly boundary of The Shores
property.
The reconstruction of the existing bituminous trail on the east side of East Shore
Drive from Frost Avenue to Lake Phalen.
The construction of a pedestriansidewalk/trailalong the west side of East Shore
Drive from development access driveway south to Lake Phalen.
Extension of utilities on East Shore Dr N to service the development
Restoration of the existing wetland on The Shores Senior Living property.
Construction of stormwater treatment facilities including final construction of rain
gardens (RG) 100, 101 and B2 on the Shores Senior Living property and a rain
garden adjacent to Phalen Lake along East Shore Drive.
The following comments are to be addressed by the developer’s engineer.
Drainage/ Routing/ Wetland/ Treatment
1.The applicant shall provide anarea anddrainage summary with calculations showing that
the post development runoff for the 2, 10, and 100 year critical duration storm events are
at or below pre development rates.
2.As discussed during our project coordination meeting on April 16, 2010, the overall
approach to storm water management and wetlands was for the city to lead the permit
application submittal process for the project area as a whole including three separate
PacketPageNumber225of272
Attachment 12
Page 2 of 8
projects: East Shore Utility City Improvements; The Shores Senior Living; and Frost
Avenue City Improvements. As part of the lead, the city will also prepare final design
documents and complete construction of RG 100, 101 and B2 as shown on the JR Hill
Plans. The City will also complete the wetland enhancement work around the existing
wetland area. Plan notes should be added to these items to indicate work to be completed
by others.
3.The City is planning to construct stormwater detention and treatment facilities within the
boundaries of The Shores property. The developer shall coordinate site improvements
with the public stormwater improvements to be constructed by the city. The developer
shall coordinate the alignment of public storm sewer onto the property, including
showing such improvements and labeling them “By Others” on the appropriate plan
sheets.
4.The plan should note that RG 100, 101 and B2 will be rough graded to the finished grade
of the RG. Final excavation, grading and placement of planting soil mix will then take
place as part of the Frost Avenue City Improvements.
5.The project narrative should describe that routine annual vegetation and landscape
maintenance of RG 100, 101 and B2 will be completed by the owner. Less frequent
major maintenance activities to maintain the function of the systems will be the
responsibility of the city. The developer will be required to execute a maintenance
agreement for the storm water treatmentsystems.
6.The existing drainage map shows no detail on sheet 2.1 and is hard to view properly.
Please ensure information is legible.
7.One area that is not clearly identified on Sheet 2.1 is the drainage area to the trench drain
on the underground parking drive and the adjacent area to the west. This area needs to be
shown and included in the HydroCAD model. Both maps should also show the drainage
on the south parcel/portion of the property and include the proposed addition of culvert
FES 7 in the HydroCAD modeling.
8.It appears that the emergency overflow from the trench drain area is currently into the
garage at the GS elevation shown as 865.83. The overland flow elevation to the west-
southwest is something less than 868. Is it possible to grade an overflow swale to the
west-southwest if the trench becomes plugged, so that the overflow can overtop the curb
instead of flooding in the garage?
9.Sheets 3.1 and 4.1 show the overall storm sewer system routing. Plan notes should be
added that clarify portions of the work that will be completed by others (i.e., the City).
These include: FES 3; FES 7; drain tile for RG 100, 101 and B2.
10.The plans should show “future diversion of Frost drainage” on two locations along Frost
Avenue into RG 100 and 101 and one along East Shore Drive into RG B2.
11.FES 4 directs new discharge directly onto the private property to the west. This should
be redirected further to the north or to the south with the addition of a shallow grassed
PacketPageNumber226of272
Attachment 12
Page 3 of 8
swale prior to the outflow entering the private property. The model edits referred to in
Comment 7 would need to show no increase in the overall peak discharge rates from the
site.
12.The drain tile from RG 100 also is shown within the private property to the west. Please
direct this outlet to the south and into the swale area suggested in comment 12.
13.FES 3 is shown within the boundary of the wetland. The FES and rip rap should be
moved outside the boundary of the wetland. FES 3 has an elevation error – should say
864.95.
14.Drain tile from RG B2 and RG 101 should extend an additional 30 feet, just short of the
wetland edge.
15.No specific information was provided on the proposed level of imperviousness or for the
extent of volume control needed to meet the City and RWMWD standards. However this
information was pulled out of the PDF version of the HydroCAD model report and
preliminary estimates run for the project area as a whole, including the planned Frost
Avenue City Improvements. Estimates show that the overall project area consisting of
The Shores Development and the Frost and East Shore Drive City Improvements need
roughly 14,000 cubic-feet of volume control credit. As proposed roughly 19,000 cubic-
feet is provided which treats stormwater above and beyond requirements and could be
considered towards mitigation of wetland requirements.The developer should still
provide specific numbers on the level of imperviousness on site so that staffcan confirm
estimates for the combined RWMWD permit application.
16.Based on the HydroCAD model provided, the proposed rainwater gardens have a
planting soil depth… to the under drain, ranging from less than 1 foot to just over 2 feet.
The typical detail uses a minimum depth of the planting soil of 2 feet as show on Sheet
3.1.Please modify the model to show a minimum of 2 feet of planting soil, and
preferably 2.5 feet, over the drain tile.
17.The drain tile under RGs should be changed to 8-inch. The riser and clean outs can
remain 6-inch pipe.
18.STMH 102 shows an invert elevation of 868.0 at the bottom of the RG Basin. The
HydroCAD model includes a weir structure with an invert at 870.0. The plans should
include a detail of this structure showing the primary outlet, the weir and the overflow.
19.The existing wetland is highly degraded and the city has prepared preliminary plans to
restore the wetland and surrounding buffer. This work will be completed with the Frost
Avenue City Improvements. The plans for the Shores development should reference this
future work by others. Any work in the buffer adjacent to the proposed retaining wall
see Preliminary Plan -
and entry drive should be consistent with the city plan (
attached
).
20.The wetland class with buffer setback shall be shown on the plans. Also the date of the
wetland delineation and delineator must be shown on the plans. Ensure a note is made on
PacketPageNumber227of272
Attachment 12
Page 4 of 8
the plans that buffer areas are to have no disturbances, and must be signed such upon
completion of the improvements.
21.Show rip rap type and quantity including filter fabric placement.
22.Include a more legible rain garden detail on the plans.
23.3-foot deep sumps at all drainage structure just upstream of rainwater gardens/infiltration
basins will be required in order to act as pretreatment.
Standard Plans
24.City Project 10-11 shall be given on each sheet in the title block location.
25.Existing utilities shall be shown in dashed lines.
26.Surveying bench mark information shall be placed on all plan sheets.
27.Plan Sheet 1.2, Existing Conditions, is incomplete. The developer shall re-submit the
plan to the city for review with the appropriate level of detail, showing the Lot 1, Block 1
south property line and identifying existing site conditions and features by note and/or
legend.
28.Please provide logs for the soil borings shown on the plans.
29.The proposed concrete patio on the north side of the building encroaches on the proposed
10’ drainage and utility and sidewalk and trail easements (see Right-of-Way/Easement
Comments). Please make the revisions necessary to avoid encroaching on the proposed
easements.
30.The City is preparing a utility bid package in Fall 2010forEast Shore Drive City
Improvements. In addition to water main and sanitary sewer improvements including
service stubs to the development, the City will construct the driveway apron to the site as
well as storm sewer in the vicinity of the driveway. Further coordination with City
engineering staff will be required.
Grading and Drainage
31.The grading and drainage plan shall include contours and spot elevations, andall storm
sewer information including pipe lengths, size, slope, invert/rim elevations, etc.
32.The applicant shall add the following text on the storm sewer plans sheet:
“Owner, at Owner’s sole cost and expense, shall maintain the private drainage pipeline
in good working order and repair commensurate with the city’s standards for similar
drainage pipelines such that water flows freely though the system. Owner shall take all
necessary action to keep the drainage pipeline free from debris, trash, foliage, and any
PacketPageNumber228of272
Attachment 12
Page 5 of 8
other obstruction that may alter or impede the flow of water. Owner shall also perform
any relocation of the drainage pipeline pursuant to the standard specification of the city
should relocation be necessary due to pipe failure or blockage, as determined necessary
by the city.”
33.Driveway slope extending from East Shore Drive shall be shown. Recommended slope is
between 2% and 8%. Consideration should be given to proposing a slope at or near 2%
at the intersection approach with East Shore Drive (landing area).
34.Allretaining walls over 4-feet require submittal to the City of Maplewood Building
Department and must be stamped by a licensed engineer in order to secure the required
building permit. The developer shall submit a retaining wall plan and details for review.
Information provided shall indicate the wall type and include a section view detail of the
proposed walls.
35.An emergency overland release path, with spot elevations and arrows, for stormwater
shall clearly be shown on the grading plan (assume pipes are blocked).
Erosion & Sediment Control Plan
36.The disturbance is overone acre andnecessitates a National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System permit from the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA). The
approved grading and erosion & sediment control plans shall be incorporated into the
SWPPP.
37.The NPDES log sheet shall be kept on site during all construction activities.
38.Plan Sheet 3.2, Erosion and Sediment Control, is incomplete. The developer shall re-
submit the plan to the City for review with the appropriate level of detail, including
identification of erosion and sediment control features by note and/or legend. The plan
shall be in accordance with all NPDES and Ramsey Washington Metro Watershed
District requirements. Also the developer’s engineer shall:
a.Identify erosion and sediment control measure at project boundary limits of
disturbed areas on the plan sheet (i.e.…silt fence, straw wattle, etc…).
b.Identify locations for equipment/material storage, debris stockpiles,
vehicle/equipment maintenance, fueling, and washing areas. Address measure to
contain area and specify that all materials stored on site shall have proper
enclosures and/or coverings.
c.Identify locations and provide details for concrete washouts.
d.Identify locations and provide details for stabilized construction accesses (rock
entrance pads).
PacketPageNumber229of272
Attachment 12
Page 6 of 8
e.Identify the quantity of materials to be imported or exported from the site (cu-yd).
f.Describe measures (e.g...sediment basin, sediment trap, etc) taken during the
rough grading process to intercept and detain sediment laden run-off to allow the
sediment to settleand how the settled stormwater will be de-watered and
introduced to the public drainage system.
g.Show that inlet protection and other temporary erosion control measures shall be
installed to protect existing storm sewer structures along Frost Avenue and East
Shore Drive during grading operations on The Shores site.
h.Place the following verbiage shall be added to the plan:
“Effective erosion and sediment controls shall be in place prior to any storm events.”
Storm / Sanitary / Water / Fire
39.The storm sewer details need to be incorporated into the grading and drainage plan as
mentioned previously.
40.Verify sewer service slopes and pipe materialand that adequate capacity exists to service
the project site.
41.The city plans to abandon a segment of existing sanitary sewer along the westerly
boundary of Outlot A. The developer shall grant the city a right-of-entry to complete the
sanitary sewer abandonment work.
42.The City will install sanitary sewer, storm sewer, and watermain service stubs as a part of
the public improvements along East Shore Drive. The developer shall coordinate the
location of the services with city engineering staff.
43.According to the Fire Chief an additional internal fire hydrant shall be installed on the
Frost Avenue side of the proposed building.
44.The 8” DIP plug shown splitting off to service the future development site (Outlot A) is
not permitted. A separate stub would be extended to Outlot Aas part of the East Shore
Drive City Improvements. Future coordination with city engineering staff is required to
identify the location of these future stubs and possible looping of the internal system.
45.Ensure the internal fire flows for the sprinkled building are adequate assuming the
hydrants are in use.
Agency Submittals
46.Permit approval from Ramsey-Washington Metro Watershed District will be required
since the site disturbs over one acre. The city will coordinate the submission of the
PacketPageNumber230of272
Attachment 12
Page 7 of 8
overall permit package and treatment calculations; however the developer shall be
responsible for all non-city portions of the overall project.
47.Coordinate proposed water with Saint Paul Regional Water Services. Review and
approval must be received.
48.Verify needed permits with the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency.
49.Other agency approvals may be needed and it is the responsibility of the developer or the
developer’s engineer to ensure all necessary permits and approvals are obtained.
Traffic / Streets/ Access
50.Provide a typical cross section of the driveway on Sheet 5.1.
51.A “No Parking” condition will be required along the entire length of the private driveway
and loop as a result of the 24 foot wide drive aisle. This is required for emergency
vehicle access. The plans shall include signage stipulating No Parking.
52.According to the Fire Chief, the 5’ wide sidewalk connecting Frost Avenue to the internal
driveway shall be a minimum of 10’ wide drivable surface to accommodate fire access.
53.The city shall construct the driveway apron as a part of the public improvements. The
developer shall coordinate the location, width, and slope of the driveway with city
engineering staff.
Landscape Comments
54.The proposed landscape improvements on the site shall be coordinated with the proposed
public landscape improvements along Frost Avenue and East Shore Drive, including the
type and location of plant material. Also, refer to comments developed separately by
Ginny Gaynor, City Naturalist.
55.In order to address the City’s tree preservation ordinance, the developer shall prepare a
tree plan showing the location, type, number, and size of trees to be removed and shall
include a tree mitigation/replacement schedule as outlined in the Woodlot Alteration
Permit Application. The developer shall work with city staff to identify possible
locations for replacement trees, including the possible installation of trees within the
right-of-way along Frost Avenue and East Shore Drive.
Right-of-Way/Easement Comments
56.Drainage and utility easements shall be provided around all public stormwater facilities
on the site. The exact location and extent of the easements shall be coordinated with city
engineering staff. The developer shall provide the city with right-of-entry over The
Shores property to allow for the construction of the public improvements.
PacketPageNumber231of272
Attachment 12
Page 8 of 8
a.Drainage and utility easements are needed over the areas covered by RG 100, 101
and B2 to allow the city access for final construction. These rain gardens will be
located within the public easement however the Developer shall have
maintenance responsibilities as will be defined in a separate maintenance
agreement (refer to comment 64).
57.The current preliminary plat shows a 20’ by 20’ right-of-way triangle at the northeast
corner of Lot 1, Block 1 for construction of the proposed roundabout at the Frost
Avenue/East Shore Drive intersection. The right-of-way triangle needs to be revised to
be 30’ by 30’.
58.The developer shall dedicate a 10’ wide drainage and utility easement along the south
side of Frost Avenue along the entire northerly boundary of The Shores property on the
plat.
59.The developer shall also dedicate a 10’ wide sidewalk and trail easement along the south
side of Frost Avenue along the entire northerly boundary of The Shores property.
60.All right-of-way/easements shall be shown on all plan sheets.
Miscellaneous
61.The developer or project engineer shall submit a copy of the MPCA’s construction
stormwater permit (SWPPP) to the city before the city will issue a grading permit for this
project.
62.The owner and project engineer shall satisfy the requirements of all permitting agencies.
63.A lighting plan shall be submitted.
64.The owner shall sign a maintenance agreement, prepared by the city that covers all
private stormwater treatment devices (list devices i.e.…sumps, swales, gardens/basins,
etc…) and RG 101, 102, and B2.
65.The developer shall enter into a development agreement with the city. The city will
prepare this agreement.
*************** END OF COMMENTS **************
PacketPageNumber232of272
Attachment13
PacketPageNumber233of272
Attachment14
PacketPageNumber234of272
Attachment 15
Memo
To: Michael Martin, Planner
From: David Fisher,BuildingOfficial
Re: TheShores, 940 Frost Avenue – ProposedPublic Vacation, Preliminary
Plat, CUP far a PUD & Design Review
Date: June 8, 2010
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.
-
Verify the building meets all the requirements for noise based on the
-
MinnesotaGuide to Noise Control in Minnesota from the MPCA.
Provide adequate fire department access to the buildings.
-
The building setbacks must comply with the 2006 IBC for exterior wall
-
protection.
Retaining walls over 4 feet require engineering and a building permit.
-
Provide fire sprinklersto NFPA 13.
-
I would recommend a pre-construction meeting with the contractor, the
-
project manager and the city building inspection department.
PacketPageNumber235of272
Attachment 16
Environmental Review
Project:
The Shores at Lake Phalen
Dateof Plans:
April 16,2010
Date of Review:
May 28, 2010
Location:
940 Frost Avenue
Reviewers:
Shann Finwall, Environmental Planner
(651) 249-2304; shann.finwall@ci.maplewood.mn.us
VirginiaGaynor, Natural Resources Coordinator
(651) 249-2416, virginia.gaynor@ci.maplewood.mn.us
Background:
The project involves subdividing the 7.06 acre property at 940 Frost
Avenue into two lots, with the northern lot being developed with a 106-unit senior
housing development called the Shores at Lake Phalen. The site was previouslya
manufactured home and tourist cabin development. All of the manufactured homes and
tourist cabins were removed from the site in 2007 and 2008 for a previous senior
housing development which was never built.
Environmental issues include the location of the property within the Shoreland Overlay
District of Phalen Lake, heavily treed site, a Manage C wetland located on the east side
of the property, adjacent East Shore Drive, andstormwater runoff into Phalen Lake
watershed.
Shoreland Overlay District
A.: City code requires properties within the Phalen
Lake Shoreland Overlay District to have a maximum of 40 percent impervious
surface area. The applicant has submitted plans that indicate 33.3 percent of the
site will be impervious surface.
The Shoreland Overlay District also requires that buildingsbe designed to reduce
visibility (under summer conditions) from public waters and adjacent shorelands.
Since this development will be constructed on the north lot, adjacent Frost
Avenue, the existing vegetation on the south lot will achieve the screening
requirement to Phalen Lake. Care should be taken in the design of the future
development to the south to ensure this requirement is met.
Shoreland Overlay District Recommendations
:To reduce impervious surface
on the site, the applicant should consider using pervious pavers for the parking
spaces on the surface parking lot. This was a requirement of the previous
development.
Tree Preservation Ordinance
B. :Maplewood’s tree preservation ordinance
describes a significant tree as a hardwood tree with a minimum of 6 inches in
diameter, an evergreen tree with a minimum of 8 inches in diameter, and a
softwood tree with a minimum of 12 inches in diameter. A specimen tree is
1
PacketPageNumber236of272
Attachment 16
defined as a healthy tree of any species which is 28 inches in diameter or
greater. The ordinance requires any significant tree removed to be replaced
based on a tree mitigation calculation. The calculation takes into account the
size of a tree and bases replacement on that size. In essence, the ordinance
requires an applicant to plant a greater amount of smaller replacement trees
because they removed a significant number of large trees.
The previous development submitted a tree survey for the overall site which
shows 246 significant trees on the property (3,883 total caliper inches). Of those
trees, five are considered specimen trees (including a large 48-caliper-inch
cottonwood tree located on the north side of the property near Frost Avenue).
Tree Removal and Replacement
: No tree removal plan has been submitted
with the newdevelopment proposal. The landscape plan submitted with the new
development reflects that 70 new trees will be planted on the site.
Tree Preservation Recommendations
:The applicant must submit the
following:
1. A tree survey showing the location, species, and size of all significant
trees on the site.
2.A revised grading plan which overlays the significant trees on the plan,
showing which significant trees will be removed.
3.A tree replacement plan calculating the number of significant trees
removed with the number of trees replaced to ensure it meets with city
code requirements.
Wetland Ordinance
C. :There is a Manage C wetland located on the east side of
the property, adjacent East Shore Drive. When the city adopted the new wetland
ordinance and wetland classification maps in December 2009, this wetland was
upgraded from a Class 5 wetland with no buffer requirements to a Manage C
wetland with a 50-foot buffer requirement. Regardless of the previous
classification, the city required the previous development to maintain a 25-foot
buffer. The new development proposal shows grading to within 5 feet of the
this development will require a 45-foot buffer
wetland. For this reason,
variance.
The wetland delineation report prepared by SEH for the previous development
describes the wetland as a Type 2 (wet meadow) with fringes of Type 1
(seasonally wet woodland). The wet meadow portion of the basin is dominated
by reed canary grass and the woodland is dominated by balsam poplar and
occasional American elm. Common buckthorn, a noxious shrub, is also present
in both the wet woodland fringe and the upland woodland areas.There is a
culvert at the southeast cornerof the wetland that is plugged with sediment,
trash, and dead vegetation. There are several areas along the wetland boundary
where yard wastehas been dumped into the wetland. Also, the north boundary
of the wetland has been partially encroached upon from mowing and recreational
use in the adjacent yard.
2
PacketPageNumber237of272
Attachment 16
The minimum mitigation required for buffer restoration without a variance request
is to seed the buffer with a native seed mix. The mitigation of the buffer
variances should go above and beyond just seeding within the buffer. The
applicant’s grading and landscape plan shows a series of rainwater gardens
which will cleanse the water prior to entering the wetland or leaving the site.
These stormwater management improvements will help mitigate the wetland
buffer variance, if they go above and beyond stormwater requirements and are
constructed and planted correctly.In order to assess whether mitigation of the
wetland is adequate, the applicant must submit more detailed landscape and
mitigation plans showing plantingin the entry raingardenand steps to be taken
within the degraded buffer to mitigate the variance.
Wetland Recommendation:
The applicant must submitthe following:
1.Awetland buffer mitigation planshowing how the applicant will mitigate
the reduction in buffer. The mitigation plan should include which tasks
would be completed by the applicant and which ones would be completed
by the city as part of the public improvements along Frost Avenue and
East Shore Drive. Types of mitigation might include, but are not limited
to:
a.Restore buffer and/or wetland with native plants.
b.Manage weeds in buffer and/or wetland.
c. Reduce stormwater runoff impacts (many options).
d.Give the city a stormwatereasement to create rain gardens on the
site that filter runoff from Frost Avenue. The only portion that counts
towards mitigation is that whichgoes beyond the filtration required for
the development.
2.A revised landscape plan showing the following detail within the wetland
buffer:
a.the removal of the turf grass on the south side of the wetland and
replacement with native seed or plantings.
b.if seed is used within the buffer, the developer shall work with staff to
determine an appropriate seed mix. The mix will include both grasses
and flowers.
c. If native seed is used, the seeding contractor shall specialize in native
restoration and the applicant shall maintain a maintenance contract
for the seeding. See requirements for native seeding below (E:
Seeding Natives).
3.Prior to grading, the applicant will install city approved wetland signs at
the edge of the approved wetland buffer that specify that no building,
mowing, cutting, grading, filling or dumping be allowed within the buffer.
The signs must be placed every 100-feet along the edge of the buffer at a
minimum. Theplacement of these signs must be verified with a survey
to ensure proper placement.
4. The applicant must submit a cash escrow or letter of credit to cover 150
percent of the wetland mitigation.
3
PacketPageNumber238of272
Attachment 16
Stormwater Plantings
D. :The applicant is proposing four filtration basins on the
site. Our engineer has provided comments regarding the filtration basin. The
comments in this section apply solely to the planting of the basins.The rain
garden in the center of the entry circle will be planted and maintained by the
owner. Native seeding of this rain garden is not appropriate since: 1) this is a
major focal point that needs quick establishment for aesthetic reasons and 2)
seeding the bottom of a rain garden is rarely successful.
Filtration planting recommendation
:
1.The plan should indicate a temporary cover crop will be seeded in the three
rain gardens being planted by the city.
2.The applicant must provide a detailed landscape design for the center rain
garden. We strongly encourage the use of trees, shrubs, and perennials in
this planting.
a.At least 5000 square feet must be planted with plants (not seed) and
we recommend that the whole area be planted.
b.If cost is an issue, using very small shrub plants (# pots or bareroot 1-
2 year olds) would be preferable to using seed.
c. If the whole basin is planted (no seed used), this shallbe considered
part of mitigating the requested buffer variance.
d.Seed may not be used on the bottom of the basin.
e.If some of the slope are is seeded with natives, the requirements
below (E: Native Seedings) apply.
Native Seedings:
E.The applicant is proposing to seed much of the site to native
grasses and flowers. It is very difficult to establish native prairieseeding. Most
native seedings done as part of new developments fail. The applicant should
understand that it takes three to five years to establish a native seeding and
during that time the site is very weedy and residents often complain about the
aesthetics. Please note that due to the length of time for establishment thecity
will hold escrow until the prairie (not the cover crop) is established. The applicant
may want to consider a different type of ground cover.
Native Seeding Recommendations:
If the applicant wishes to seed native
prairiegrassesand wildflowers, the applicant must indicate the following in the
plans (this applies to areas with native seed, it does not apply to areas planted
with containerized or bareroot plants.
1.The native seeding shall be done by a contractor that specializes in native
plant restoration and whose business is at least 50% native
plants/restoration.
2.Theapplicant will enter into a three year maintenance contract with the
seeding contractor that ensures establishment.
3. The applicant must sign a wetland buffer restoration maintenance
agreement with the city which will require the applicant to ensure the
native plants are established within the buffer.
4
PacketPageNumber239of272
Attachment 16
4.The applicant shall post small signs indicating this is a native seeding and
that it will take 3-5 years to establish.
5.The applicant shall revise the Type I seed mix, which is not an ideal mix
for our region.The areas with Type I seed mix could be Prairie
Restoration’s short/dry or mixed height/mesic mixes, or asimilar mix
approved by staff.
5
PacketPageNumber240of272
Attachment17
%XXEGLQIRX
PacketPageNumber241of272
Attachment18
PacketPageNumber242of272
Attachment 19
DRAFT
MINUTES OF THE MAPLEWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION
1830 COUNTY ROAD B EAST, MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA
TUESDAY,JUNE15, 2010
V.PUBLIC HEARING
a.Wetland Buffer Variance and Conditional Use Permit for a Planned Unit
Development Request, The Shores at Lake PhalenSenior Housing Proposal by
Kaas Wilson Architects, 940 Frost Avenue
Planner Martin presented the staff report for this request by Jack Rajchenbach
and Albert Miller of Maplewood Senior Living, LLC, to redevelop the 7.02-acre
former St. Paul Tourist Cabinsite located at 940 Frost Avenue with a senior
housing development. Planner Martin said the project, to be called The Shores
at Lake Phalen, will consist of 105 units of senior housing in a three-story
building with underground parking.
Ron Leaf, a consultant for the city, gave a presentation on the storm water
maintenance requirements and wetland improvements for this proposal.
Link Wilson, of Kaas Wilson Architects, was present representing the owners
and developers. Mr. Wilson gave a presentation explaining the request for
variances is needed to preserve many of the existing trees on the property. Mr.
Wilson said they will be providing 30 cubic feet of storage with shelves per
resident in individual storage rooms in the building. Mr. Wilson said they are
requesting a 25-foot setback variance from the wetland and they will be
improving the water quality of the wetland tremendously.
Commissioner Boeser asked where the loading and unloading will occur for this
development. Mr. Wilson said the loading andunloading for the kitchen will
occur through the garage. Mr. Boeser said the commission in the past has
discussed requiring 10-foot parking spaces for senior developments and asked
Mr. Wilson his thoughts on the 10-foot spaces and what would be their ability to
move on the 10-foot spaces. Mr. Wilson responded that this facility would not
have independent seniors, but will serve only memory care and assisted living
seniors. Mr. Wilson said the parking spaces would generally be used by guests
and staff. Mr. Wilson suggested that 10-foot-wide spaces be designated for
residents, staff parking be underground and visitors use the 9 ½-foot-wide
parking spaces.
PacketPageNumber243of272
Attachment 19
Commissioner Trippler said they are proposing to employ 120 people, but will
have only 52 parking spaces. Mr. Wilson responded that there will be five shifts
for the 120 employees. Mr. Wilson said that at any given time there would be
18-20 staff parked and approximately 10 residents who drive. Mr. Wilson said
that even if a granddaughter came with 20 visitors to see her grandmother, he
feels there will be adequate parking. In response to a question from Mr. Trippler
on staffing numbers, Mr. Wilson showed an overhead diagram and explained
how the building would be staffed.
Commissioner Pearson said he feels the above ground parking spaces need to
be 10 feet wide. Mr. Pearson said he feels the two designated handicapped
spaces near the entrance is not enough handicapped parking. Commissioner
Pearson asked if soil borings were done on the property previously. Engineer
Michael Thompson responded that soil borings were done and the applicant will
be submitting a copy to the city. Commissioner Pearson asked for a copy of the
soil borings report when it is received.
Commissioner Trippler questioned whether a wetlandcan really be rejuvenated
by man and asked if the city has had any experience with this. Engineer
Thompson responded affirmatively and sited the Highway 61 and County Road
B wetland that the Ramsey Washington Metro Watershed District improved with
dredging and sediment removal.
Ron Leaf, of Ramsey Washington Metro Watershed District and consultant for
the city, presented information detailing improvements that have been made to
wetlands in the area and said that soil borings were then done on these
wetlands to show they are improved.
Commissioner Boeser suggested that since this is a senior facility and for safety
reasons, a railing should be erected on the entire retaining wall.
The public hearing was opened to the public for comments. The following
people spoke:
Mindy Mac Runnel questioned whether there will be enough parking for family
celebrations held at the facility.
Virginia Davis, of Frost Avenue and East Shore Drive, asked if there would be
any walking paths with this facility. Planner Martin responded that there is a trail
planned for the west side of the building from the sidewalk to Frost Avenue.
Engineer Thompson explained that this trail was proposed to be five feet, but
the fire marshal has requested that it be a ten-foot drivable surface.Mr.
Thompson said there is a sidewalk running on the south side of the driveway
entrance on East Shore Drive that would be connected to a trail that is part of a
public improvement project.
PacketPageNumber244of272
Attachment 19
David Hesley, 2607 White Bear Avenue, said he owns a 60-unit senior facility
on Gervais Avenue and a 70-unit facility with underground parking in
Mahtomedi. Mr. Hesley said he wanted to give feedback regarding parking
concerns. Mr. Hesley said he has been an owner of these facilities for 15 years
and they have not had any issues at his facilities with the number of parking
spaces provided. Mr. Hesley said the majority of seniors at the facility do not
drive, so there is plenty of existing parking.
There were no further comments from the public; the hearing was closed.
Commissioner Yarwood moved approval of the conditional use permit
resolution. This resolution approves the conditional use permit for a 105 senior-
housing planned unit development with the Shoreland Overlay District of Phalen
Lake. Approval is subject to the following conditions:
a.The engineering department shall review and determine approval of all final
construction and engineering plans. These plans shall comply with all
requirements as specified in the city engineering department’s June 7, 2010
review.
b.All construction shall follow the plans date-stamped May 24, 2010 and with
revisions as noted in this approval. The city council may approve major
changes to the plans. City staff may approve minor changes to the plans.
c. The project is approved with 28 underground and 24 surface parking
spaces. This is a parking reduction of 158 parking spaces (210 parking
spaces are required per city code.)
d.The project is approved with a 147-square-foot floor area reduction in the
required unit floor area for the memory care and assisted living studio units
(580 square-foot units are required per city code; 433 to 578 square-foot
units are proposed.)
e.The project is approved with a 20-foot front-yard setback along Frost
Avenue for the one-story dining room and kitchen portion of the building (30-
foot front-yard setback required per city code.)
f.The project is approved with storage space of not less than 30 cubic feet for
the memory care and transitional care units (120 cubic feet of storage area
per unit required per city code.)
g.All signs on the property must be approved by the community design review
board.
h.Approval is conditioned on the owner constructing or funding a Gladstone
neighborhood entry monument sign at the intersection of Frost Avenue and
East Shore Drive.
PacketPageNumber245of272
Attachment 19
i. Approval is conditioned on the applicant implementing interior or exterior
signage which reflects the previous use of the property as the St. Paul
Tourist Cabin site.
j.The approved landscape plan and tree preservation requirements shall be
subject to monitoring by city staff to assure compliance. Minor modifications
to these plans shall be subject to review by staff while major modifications
shall require city council approval.
k. The proposed construction must be substantially started within one year of
city council approval or the permit shall end. The city council may extend this
deadline for one year.
l.The city council shall review this permit in one year.
Commissioner Trippler seconded
Commissioner Pearson suggested a friendly amendment to modify Item c.
adding “10-foot” to the 24 surface parking spaces requirement.
Commissioner Yarwood said he did not want to require all 24 spaces to be 10-
foot-wide spaces and thereby increase the impervious surface. Mr. Yarwood
suggested language be added to Item c. recommending but not requiring, that
“the applicant seek to develop on average, 10-foot-wide surface parking spaces.”
Commissioner Pearson agreed with Commissioner Yarwood’s suggested
language for the friendly amendment.
The commission voted: Ayes - all
The motion passed.
Commissioner Pearson moved adoption of the resolution approving wetland buffer
variances from the Manage C wetland on the east side of the site. Approval is
based on the following reasons:
a.Strict enforcement of the ordinance would cause the applicant undue hardship
because complying with all of the wetland buffer requirements stipulated by the
ordinance would deplete the site area, substantially diminishing the
development potential of this lot.
b.Approval of the requested wetland buffervariance would benefit the adjacent
wetland because the wetland is currently in poor condition and development of
this site will allow for rehabilitation of the wetland and buffer areas.
PacketPageNumber246of272
Attachment 19
c. Approval would meet the spirit and intent of the ordinance since the proposed
restoration and mitigation of the wetland buffers will greatly improve the quality
of the wetland.
Approval of this wetland buffer variance is subject to the following conditions:
a.All permits and approvals by the Ramsey Washington Metro Watershed District
will need to be secured.
b.Satisfy the requirements set forth in the staff report authored by Mr. Thompson,
dated June 7, 2010.
c. Satisfy the requirements set forth in the staff report authored by Ms. Finwall and
Ms. Gaynor, dated May 28, 2010.
Commissioner Yarwood seconded Ayes – Bierbaum, Boeser, Desai,
Martin, Pearson, Yarwood
Nay – Trippler
The motion passed.
Commissioner Boeser moved approval of the lot division request to subdivide the
7.02-acre parcel located at 940 Frost Avenue. This lot division approval is subject
to the following conditions:
a.Satisfy the requirements set forth in the staff report authored by Mr. Thompson,
dated June 7, 2010.
b.Satisfy the requirements set forth in the staff report authored by Ms. Finwall and
Ms. Gaynor, dated May 28, 2010.
c. Submit to the city a revised plat showing the southern lot labeled as Lot 2,
Block 1, and showing the boundary line shifted to the south to meet residential
density requirements as determined by the 2030 Comprehensive Plan. Subject
to staff approval.
d.The applicant shall pay cash connection charges for the new multi-family lots
for connection to the water main and sanitary sewer main.
e.Deeds describing the two new legal descriptions, including the required trail,
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).
PacketPageNumber247of272
Attachment 19
f.Prior to issuance of a grading or building permit for the new development on the
new lots, the following must be submitted to staff for approval:
1)Proof the Ramsey County has recorded the lot division.
2)A signed certificate of survey showing the location of all property lines.
3)Grading and drainage plan.
4)All necessary permits for sanitary sewer and water must be obtained.
Commissioner Trippler seconded Ayes – all
The motion passed.
PacketPageNumber248of272
Attachment20
The Shores at Lake Phalen: Wetland Variance
August 2nd, 2010
In 2006 the City of Maplewood targeted the "St. Paul Tourist Cabins" site for development of a High
Density Residential project, as detailed in the Gladstone Redevelopment Plan and later adopted in the
city's 2030 Comprehensive Plan, and the site was approved to have 180 units (approximately 25 units per
acre) of senior-oriented housing. The city applied for, and received, a Livable Communities grant
contingent upon the construction of high density housing along the Frost Avenue corridor. The Planning
Commission, Community Design Review Board and City Council approved a Kaas Wilson Architects
design of a four-story, 180-unit assisted living facility on this site in December of 2007. At the time of
approval the wetland on site was classified as a Class 5 with no required buffers, and the approved plan
included the reshaping and enhancement of the wetland on site, with construction occurring up to 25'
from the surveyed edge of the wetland.
In 2009, Kaas Wilson teamed up with a new developer to design a new project for the site, inspired by the
previously-approved scheme but with a slightly reduced scope, and in coordination with the city's desire
for stormwater and utility improvements along Frost Avenue and East Shore Drive. This project splits the
7.1-acre site into two lots; a 4.42-acre northern lot along Frost Avenue, and a 2.68-acre southern for
future development. The Shores at Lake Phalen, located on the northern lot, is a three-story, 105-unit
assisted living facility, in keeping with the city's wish for high density residential on the overall site.
The city would like this project to serve as the gateway to the proposed Gladstone Neighborhood, with the
building oriented along the Frost Avenue border of our site. The city has asked us to preserve as many of
the mature trees located in the northeast corner of the property as possible, and (as with the previous
design) honoring this request has been a driving factor in the project's current design. Additional
improvements planned by the city along our site include the construction of a roundabout at the
intersection of Frost Avenue and East Shore Drive, pedestrian pathways connecting Frost Avenue to
Lake Phalen, and relocating the overhead utility lines along Frost Avenue underground, among others.
These elements are being coordinated with the development of our project.
Maplewood recently adopted a new wetland ordinance, and the wetland on site is now classified as a
Manage C wetland with a 50' minimum buffer width. At the time the new wetland ordinance was adopted,
Kaas Wilson had already worked with the city to create the initial site plan for the currently-proposed
development; this site plan had a retaining wall 10' from the defined edge of the wetland, paving 25'
away, and the building 40' away. Though this site plan was previously acceptable to the city, the plan
came to be in violation of the buffer requirements when the new ordinance was adopted.
Kaas Wilson has continued to work with the city to update the site plan in light of this new restriction.
Taking suggestions from the City Of Maplewood's Planning Commission, Community Design Review
Board, and Environmental & Natural Resources Commission, we have rotated the building slightly and
shifted it as close to the west property edge as grades will reasonably allow. In this revised site plan, the
retaining wall and paving have been located 25' away from the defined edge of the wetland, and the
building is now more than 50' away - reducing the variance request from a 40' variance to a 25' variance.
It is also important to note the wetland does not currently function at all in an infiltration capacity, due to
pollution and destruction of the natural water flow on and around the site; and contaminated stormwater
currently flows through our site and into Lake Phalen without proper treatment. The current wetland on
our site does not even function properly as a stormwater pond. Under the direction of Short Elliott
Hendrickson Inc., this wetland will be completely regraded and enhanced by the City of Maplewood, in
addition to enhancements and regrading along Frost Avenue and East Shore drive, to restore it to healthy
function. Due to the wetland not functioning, and other factors, this site has been a significant contributor
of polluted runoff flowing into Lake Phalen.
Tel: 612.879.6000 2104 4 th Avenue South, Suite B, Minneapolis, MN 55404 www.kaaswilson.com
PacketPageNumber249of272
Attachment20
These stormwater improvements can only be accomplished in a joint effort between the City of
Maplewood and the developer of the site. The site is blighted, steeply graded and oddly shaped, and any
development of the site will be incredibly difficult unless the project is of high density and able to use
much of the site's buildable area. The wetland on the site is in an inconvenient location for development,
and occupies a significant portion of the site when including the buffer. The City of Maplewood still wants
High Density Residential on the site, and has reapplied for the Livable Communities grant, which will once
again be dependent on the construction of high density housing on this site. The addition of a 50' buffer
to the wetland area essentially makes feasible development on the site impossible, from both a financial
and project siting standpoint.
Kaas Wilson Architects is working closely with the city and its consultants to clean up the blighted site.
Our project has been designed such that 100% of our stormwater is infiltrated on site. Additionally, we
are providing a number of raingardens on our site, two of which are being deliberately oversized for the
purpose of infiltrating the city's stormwater runoff, thus filtering contaminants before the water reaches
Lake Phalen. These two raingardens will filter 13,776 cubic feet of the City's stormwater runoff, in
addition to their on-site load of 1,488 cubic feet of runoff. This will vastly improve the overall state of
stormwater runoff filtration in the area from its current state.
While the scope of the project has been scaled back from the previously approved 2007 plan, the
relationship of our building to the wetland is still similar to the previously-approved design. Under the
revised site plan, proposed construction still occurs up to (but not less than) 25' from the wetland, and the
building itself honors the new 50' buffer requirement. While this means construction will be closer to the
wetland than the recently adopted ordinance allows, we feel - given the wetland is being completely
reshaped and enhanced as part of the overall project - that honoring a 25' minimum buffer, while
preserving as many of the mature trees on site as possible and providing additional raingardens to the
city for the infiltration of stormwater runoff, presents the best solution for handling stormwater while still
complying with the city's vision for the site and the Gladstone Neighborhood.
Tel: 612.879.6000 2104 4 th Avenue South, Suite B, Minneapolis, MN 55404 www.kaaswilson.com
PacketPageNumber250of272
Attachment 21
DRAFT
MINUTES OF THE MAPLEWOOD COMMUNITY DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
1830 COUNTY ROAD B EAST, MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA
TUESDAY,JUNE 22, 2010
V.DESIGN REVIEW
a.The Shores at Lake Phalen, 940 Frost Avenue
Planner Martin presented the staff report for this request fromJack Rajchenbach
and Albert Miller of Maplewood Senior Living, LLC to redevelop the 7.02-acre
former St. Paul Tourist Cabin site with a senior housing development. Planner
Martin explained the history of this property. Mr. Martin said a signage plan for all
signage on the property will be reviewed by the board at a later time.
Link Wilson and Jim Schloomer of Kaas Wilson Architects were present
representing the applicant. Mr. Wilson said that all of the lighting proposed for this
site will be down lighting and will not spill off of the site. Mr. Wilson said they prefer
the paved trail to be less than the fire marshal’s recommended 10 feet by adding
some pervious paver area.
Mr. Schloomer showed samples and described the materials proposed for
construction of the building. Mr. Schloomer said the trash and recycling material,
along with gas meters, will be inside the underground garage. Mr. Schloomer said
they may have three or four small exterior
condensing units that would be located on the north side of the building and would
be screened with landscaping. Mr. Schloomer said the roof is proposed to be black
shingles.
Some board members commented that they would also like to see the trail more
natural looking with some pervious surface rather than a 10-foot-wide asphalt path.
Mr. Wilson said their site will carry a big portion of Frost Avenue and East Shore
Drive storm water coming on-site where it will be cleaned before entering Lake
Phalen. Mr. Wilson said they have not yet considered having an additional5 feet of
trail pavement runoff. Mr. Wilson said the trail plan will be coming back to the board
for consideration at a later time.
Brian Beedle, representing the North Central States Regional Council, said that to
ensure safety on the job site the project needs to follow area standards and use
contractors who participate in state-approved and certified apprenticeship
programs. Mr. Beedle asked that prevailing wages be recommended for this
project, since public money is being used.
PacketPageNumber251of272
Attachment 21
Boardmember Mireau moved approval of the plans date-stamped May 24, 2010 for
the 105-unit, three-story The Shores at Lake Phalen senior housing development to
be located at 940 Frost Avenue. Approval is subject to the applicant doing the
following:
a.Repeat this review in two years if the city has not issued a building permit for
this project.
b.Satisfy the requirements set forth in the staff report authored by Mr.
Thompson, dated June 7, 2010.
c. Satisfy the requirements set forth in the staff report authored by Ms. Finwall
and Ms.Gaynor, dated May 28, 2010.
d.Prior to issuance of a grading or building permit, the applicant must submit to
staff for approval the following items:
1)Verification of The Shores at Lake Phalen lot division has been
recorded.
2)Have the city engineer approvefinal construction and engineering plans.
These plans shall comply with all requirements as specified in the city
engineering department’s June 7, 2010 review.
3)Submit cedar fence details, subject to staff review.
4)Revised site plan showing:
a)The locationof trash and recycling receptacles throughout the site.
b)The location of benches scattered throughout the site, along the
trails and sidewalks.
c) Widening of the trail on the west side of the building from Frost
Avenue to the internal parking lot to 10 feet wide and introduce
permeable pavers to soften the impact of the trail.
5)Watershed district approval.
6)Enter into a developer’s agreement with the city which will cover the
installation of all public improvements surrounding and within the property.
7)Signa maintenance agreement for the ongoing maintenance of all
required rainwater gardens and infiltration basins.
PacketPageNumber252of272
Attachment 21
8)A cash escrow or an irrevocable letter of credit for all required exterior
improvements. The amount shall be 150 percent of the cost of the work.
9)Use hardy plank for the chimneys on the north elevation instead of
cultured stone.
10)Introduce more cultured stone on the gabled ends on the shorter ends of
the building, specifically on the side near the underground parking.
e.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 irrigation system for all
landscaped areas.
4)Install all required outdoor lighting.
5)Install all required sidewalks and trails.
f.The lighting and photometric plan is not approved. The applicant must submit
a revised lighting and photometric plan for community design review board
approval which complies with city code and is compatible with the Phase I
Gladstone public improvements.
g.Signage is not approved. The applicant must submit a sign plan for
community design review board approval. The plan must show a monument
sign to be located at the intersection of Frost Avenue and East Shore Drive
which announces the entryway to the Gladstone Neighborhood and any exterior
signage advertising The Shores at Lake Phalen.
h.Landscape/tree replacement plan is not approved. The applicant must submit
a revised landscape/tree replacement screening plan showing:
1)A tree survey and preservation plan must be submitted.
2)Landscape plan which shows:
a)Additional plantings on the south side of the drive leading to the
underground garage and the south side of the driveway accessing
East Shore Drive.
PacketPageNumber253of272
Attachment 21
b)Preservation of the large cottonwood tree located along Frost
Avenue, adjacent to the former St. Paul Tourist Cabin entrance.
c) The location of all proposed ground mechanical units which are
screened by landscaping.
d)The installation of underground irrigation for the landscaped areas.
The applicant should explore the use of conservation sensor sprinkler
devices which will shut off when it is raining.
i.If any required work is not done, the city may allow temporary occupancy if:
1)The city determines that the work is not essential to the public health,
safety or welfare.
2)The above-required letter of credit or cash escrow is held by the City of
Maplewood for all required exterior improvements. The owner or
contractor shall complete any unfinished exterior improvements by June 1
of the following year if occupancy of the building is in the fall or winter or
within six weeks of occupancy of the building if occupancy is in the spring
or summer.
j.All work shall follow the approved plans. City staff may approve minor
changes.
Boardmember Lamers seconded Ayes - all
The motion passed.
PacketPageNumber254of272
Attachment 22
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. ________
WHEREAS, Link Wilson, Kaas Wilson Architects Representing Jack Rajchenbach
and Albert Miller of Maplewood Senior Living, LLC,applied for a conditional use permit
for a planned unit development to constructa105-unit senior housing complex known as
The Shoresat Lake Phalen.
WHEREAS, this permit applies to the following property:
Address: 940 Frost Avenue
Property Identification Number: 16-29-22-31-0025
Existing Legal Description: That part of Government Lot 2, Sec. 16, T. 29, R. 22,
Ramsey County, Minnesota which lies S’ of Frost Avenue as described in
Document No. 1999021, W’ of Frost Avenue Connection as described in Document
No. 1999021, N’ of East Shore Drive as described in Document No. 367903, and
NE’ of a line described as commencing at the center of said Section 16, thence S
89 degrees 32 minutes 38 seconds W, assumed bearing, along the N line of said
Government Lot 2, 1130.00 feet, to the point of beginning; thence South 27 degrees
23 minutes 03 seconds East, 1121.18 feet to an angle in the north line of said East
Shore Drive, said angle point being 658.56 feet westerly of the East line of said
government lot 2 as measured along the N line of said East Shore Drive and said
line there terminating.
New Legal Description (After Lot Division): All that part of Lot 1, Block 1, The
Shores of Lake Phalen, Ramsey County, Minnesota that lies northerlyof the
following described line:Commencing at the southwest corner of said Lot 1, thence
North 27 degrees 23 minutes 03 secondWest, along the southwesterly lot line of
said Lot 1, a distance of 509.1 feet to the point of beginning ofthe line to be
described; thence North 64 degrees 53 minutes 46 seconds East, a distance of
160.32feet; thence North 69 degrees 51 minutes 35 seconds East a distance of
105.83 feet; thence South 61degrees 19 minutes 41 seconds East, a distance of
74.90 feet to a point on the easterly line of said Lot 1and there terminating.
WHEREAS, the history of this conditional use permit is as follows:
1.On June 15, 2010,the planning commission held a public hearing. City staff
published a notice in the paper and sent notices to the surrounding property owners.
The council gave everyone at the hearing a chance to speak and present written
statements. The planning commission also considered reports from the city staff.
2.On _________, 2010,the city council reviewed this request. The city council also
considered reports and recommendations of the city staff and planning commission.
1
PacketPageNumber255of272
Attachment 22
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 comprehensiveplan and this Code.
2.The use would not change the existing or planned character of the
surrounding area.
3.The use would not depreciateproperty 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 personor property, because of
excessive noise, glare, smoke, dust, odor, fumes, water or air pollution,
drainage water runoff, vibration, general unsightliness, electrical interference
or other nuisances.
5.The use wouldnot exceed the design standards of any affected street.
6.The use would be served by adequate public facilities and services, including
streets, police and fire protection, drainage structures, water and sewer
systems, schools and parks.
7.The use would not create excessive additional costs for public facilities or
services.
8.The use would maximize the preservation of and incorporate the site's natural
andscenic features into the development design.
9.The use wouldcause no more thanminimal adverse environmental effects.
.
Approval is subject to the following conditions:
a. The engineering department shall review and determine approval of all
final construction and engineering plans. These plans shall comply with
all requirements as specified in the city engineering department’s June 7,
2010 review.
b. All construction shall follow the plans date-stamped May 24, 2010, and
with revisions as noted in this approval. The city council may approve
major changes to the plans. City staff may approve minor changes to the
plans.
c. The project is approved with 28 underground and 24 surface parking
spaces. This is a parking reduction of 158 parking spaces (210 parking
spaces are required per city code).
d. The project is approved with a 147 square foot floor area reduction in the
required unit floor area for the memory care and assisted living studio
2
PacketPageNumber256of272
Attachment 22
units (580 square foot units are required per city code; 433 to 578 square
foot units are proposed).
e. The project is approved with a 20-foot front yard setback along Frost
Avenue for the one-story dining room and kitchen portion of the building
(30-foot front yard setback required per city code).
f.The project is approved with storage space of not less than 30 cubic feet
for the memory care and transitional care units (120 cubic feet of storage
area per unit required per city code).
g. All signs on the property must be approved by the community design
review board.
h. Approval is conditioned on the owner constructing or funding a Gladstone
neighborhood entry monument sign at the intersection of Frost Avenue
and East Shore Drive.
i. Approval is conditioned on the applicant implementing interior or exterior
signage which reflects the previous use of the property as the St. Paul
Tourist Cabin site.
j. The approved landscape plan and tree preservation requirements shall
be subject to monitoring by city staff to assure compliance. Minor
modifications to these plans shall be subject to review by staff while major
modifications shall require city council approval.
k. The proposed construction must be substantially started within one year
of city council approval or the permit shall end. The city council may
extend this deadline for one year.
l. The city council shall review this permit in one year.
The Maplewood City Council _________this resolution on __________, 2010
3
PacketPageNumber257of272
Attachment 23
VARIANCE RESOLUTIONNO. ________
WHEREAS, Link Wilson, Kaas Wilson Architects Representing Jack Rajchenbach and Albert
Miller of Maplewood Senior Living, LLC,applied for a variance from the wetland protection
ordinance.
WHEREAS, this variance applies to the following property:
Address: 940 Frost Avenue
Property Identification Number: 16-29-22-31-0025
Existing Legal Description: That part of Government Lot 2, Sec. 16, T. 29, R. 22, Ramsey
County, Minnesota which lies S’ of Frost Avenue as described in Document No. 1999021,
W’ of Frost Avenue Connection as described in Document No. 1999021, N’ of East Shore
Drive as described in Document No. 367903, and NE’ of a line described as commencing
at the center of said Section 16, thence S 89degrees 32 minutes 38 seconds W, assumed
bearing, along the N line of said Government Lot 2, 1130.00 feet, to the point of beginning;
thence South 27 degrees 23 minutes 03 seconds East, 1121.18 feet to an angle in the
north line of said East Shore Drive, said angle point being 658.56 feet westerly of the East
line of said government lot 2 as measured along the N line of said East Shore Drive and
said line there terminating.
New Legal Description (After Lot Division): All that part of Lot 1, Block 1, The Shores of
Lake Phalen, Ramsey County, Minnesota that lies northerly of the following described line:
Commencing at the southwest corner of said Lot 1, thence North 27 degrees 23 minutes
03 second West, along the southwesterly lot line of said Lot 1, a distance of 509.1 feet to
the point of beginning of the line to be described; thence North 64 degrees 53 minutes 46
seconds East, a distance of 160.32 feet; thence North 69 degrees 51 minutes 35 seconds
East a distance of 105.83 feet; thence South 61degrees 19 minutes 41 seconds East, a
distance of 74.90 feet to a point on the easterly line of said Lot 1 and there terminating.
WHEREAS, Ordinance No. 895, the Environmental Protection and Critical Area Ordinance
dealing with Wetlands, requires a wetland protection buffer of 50 feet in width adjacent to Manage C
wetlands.
WHEREAS, the applicant is proposing to grade up to five feet from the wetland, requiring a
variance of 45feet.
WHEREAS, the history of this variance is as follows:
1.On June 15, 2010, the planning commission held a public hearing to review this
proposal. 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 andpresent written statements. The
planning commission also considered the report and recommendation of the city
staff. The planning commission recommended that the city council approvethis
variance request.
PacketPageNumber258of272
Attachment 23
2.The city council held a public meeting on _________, 2010, 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 __________ the above-
described variances based on the followingreasons:
a.The 2030 Comprehensive Plan has set the city’s expectation that high density multiple-
family housing will be built on this site.
b.The Gladstone Neighborhood Master Plan has set the city’s expectation of a multi-story,
multiple-family housingproject be built which also serves as a gateway to the Gladstone
neighborhoods and protects existing natural vegetation and tree canopy.
c. Strict enforcement of the ordinance would cause the applicant undue hardship because
complying with all of the wetland buffer requirements stipulated by the ordinance will
deplete the site area, substantially diminishing the development density potential of this
lot.
d.It is reasonable toconclude that given the unique character of the site combined with the
city's specific goals in terms of density and type of development for the site, this site
cannot be reasonably used for any other purpose without a variance regardless of who
the property owner or applicant happens to be.
e.Approval of the requested wetland buffer variance would benefit the adjacent wetland
because the site is currently blighted and the wetland is currently in poor condition and
development of this site will allow for rehabilitation of the wetland and buffer areas.
f.Approval would meet the spirit and intent of the ordinance since the proposed restoration
and mitigation of the wetland buffers will greatly improve the quality of the wetland.
Approval of this wetland buffer variance is subject to the following conditions:
a.All permits and approvals by the Ramsey Washington Metro Watershed District will need
to be secured.
b.Satisfy the requirements set forth in the staff report authored by Mr. Thompson, dated
June 7, 2010.
c. Satisfy the requirements set forth in the staff report authored by Ms. Finwall and Ms.
Gaynor, dated May 28, 2010.
d.Submittal of revised plans showing increased wetland setbacks, subject to staff approval.
The Maplewood City Council approved this resolution on _________, 2010.
2
PacketPageNumber259of272
Agenda Item J2
MEMORANDUM
TO: James Antonen, City Manager
FROM: Michael Martin, AICP, Planner
DuWayne Konewko, Community Development and Parks Director
Rezoning of the Vacant Parcel south of the New Horizon Building
SUBJECT:
from R3 (multi-family residential)to LBC (limited business
commercial)
LOCATION: West side of Van Dyke Street, south of Castle Avenue
VOTE REQUIRED:Simple Majority Required for Approval
DATE: August 2, 2010
INTRODUCTION
On January 25, 2010, the city council adopted the 2030 Comprehensive Plan. This is the
update of the city’s comprehensive land use plan required of all metro area cities every ten
years. By approving this plan, the city council reestablished the long-range land use guide for
the city. State law requires that thecity now revise our zoning map and zoning ordinance
controls to be in conformance with the newly approved land use classifications throughout the
city.
The city has nine months (by October 25, 2010) to make all necessary zoning map and zoning
ordinancechanges to coincide with the land use policies and land use maps in the approved
2030 Comprehensive Plan.
Proposal
One such rezoning would be for the undeveloped property located on the westside of Van Dyke
Street, south of the New Horizon Child Carebuilding.Currently, this parcel is used as a
playground for the child care facility. The reason for this rezoning is to bring the zoning of this
property into conformance with the C (commercial) comprehensive land use plan designation
specified in the city’s comprehensive land use plan. This property is currently zoned R3 (multi-
family residential). The R3zoning must be changed to LBC (limited business commercial) to be
consistent with the commercialcomprehensive land use plan designation. Please refer to the
attached maps.
Request
Rezone the above property from R3to LBC.
BACKGROUND
On December 9, 2009, the Metropolitan Council gave final approval to the 2030 Comprehensive
Plan.
On January 25, 2010, the city council adopted the 2030 Comprehensive Plan.
PacketPageNumber260of272
DISCUSSION
Statutory Requirement
Section 473.865 subdivision 3 of the Minnesota State Statutes requires that cities amend their
official zoning controls within nine months of their adopting their revised comprehensive land
use plan. As stated above, the city council has until October 25, 2010 to amend all applicable
zoning maps and zoning ordinances.
Why the Proposed Revision to Limited Business Commercial?
During the city council’s review of the 2030 Comprehensive Plan update, staff reviewed the
zoning map looking for inconsistencies with the comprehensive plan and this site was identified.
The 2030 Comprehensive Plan guides this site as C and the zoning needs to match this
designation. The limited business commercial zoning districtwill bring the parcel into
compliance with the comprehensive plan as well as match the current zoning on the parcel that
holds the New Horizon’s building just to the north. This rezoning is a result of the efforts by staff
and the planning commission to ensure zoning matches the comprehensive plan throughout the
city. This request is not associated with any development proposals.
Property Tax Impact
Property owners have asked what would happen to their property taxes if their zoning changed.
The Ramsey County Tax Assessor’s office stated that:
“Zoning has no affect on property tax. Tax classifications are based on the current use of the
property, not on the zoning. The tax classification, along with the market value is used to
calculate taxes. If the current use is continued, the tax classification will not change. So, zoning
changes will not affect taxes.”
Conclusion
State statute requires that the city revise the zoning map to LBCto match the adopted C
classification on the comprehensive plan. Therefore, staff is recommending the city council
revise the zoning map accordingly.
COMMISSIONACTIONS
May 18, 2010: The planning commission recommended approval of this rezoning.
RECOMMENDATION
Approvethe rezoning of the vacant, playground propertyalong with the west side of Van Dyke
Street, from R3 (multiple dwelling residential) toLBC (limited business commercial). This
rezoning is based on Minnesota Statute 473.865 subdivision 3, requiring the city to bring the
zoning of these properties into conformance with the adopted comprehensive land use plan
classification.
PacketPageNumber261of272
REFERENCE
SITE DESCRIPTION
Site Size:0.42acres
Existing Uses: Vacant, playground
SURROUNDING LAND USES
North:New Horizon Child Care Center
South:Multi-Family Housing
East:Single Family Dwellings
West:Commercial properties fronting White Bear Avenue
PLANNING
Land Use Plan Designation: Commercial
Zoning: Current: R3; Proposed: LBC
p:Compplan\zoning follow-up to 2030 Plan\rezoning to LBC NewHorizon_CC_080910
Attachments:
1.Land Use Map
2.Zoning Map
3.Rezoning Resolution
PacketPageNumber262of272
Attachment1
PacketPageNumber263of272
Attachment2
New Horizon Rezoning
Proposed to
rezone entire
parcel to LBC
PacketPageNumber264of272
Attachment 3
REZONING RESOLUTION
WHEREAS
,the City of Maplewood city staffproposed a change to the city's zoning map
from R3 (multiple dwelling residential)to LBC (limited businesscommercial);
WHEREAS
,
this zoning map change applies to the vacant, playground propertylocated
on the west side of Van Dyke Street,southof Castle Avenue.The property identification
number identifying the affected property is:
PIN 11-29-22-33-006
WHEREAS
,On January 25, 2010, the city council adopted the 2030 Comprehensive
Plan that classified the land use plan for the above referenced properties to C.
WHEREAS
,Section 473.865 subdivision 3 of the Minnesota State Statutes requires
that cities amend their official zoning map within nine months of their adopting their revised
comprehensive land use plan to match the new land use classification.
WHEREAS
, the history of this change is as follows:
1.OnJuly 20, 2010, theplanning commission held apublic hearingto consider this
rezoning. 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 prior
to their recommendation.
2.On _________, 2010, the city council discussed the proposed zoning map 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 in the zoning map based on Minnesota Statute 473.865 subdivision 3,
requiring the city to bring the zoning of this property into conformance with the adopted
comprehensive land use plan classification.
The Maplewood City Council ___________this resolution on ______, 2010.
PacketPageNumber265of272
Agenda Item J3
MEMORANDUM
TO: James Antonen, City Manager
FROM: Michael Martin, AICP, Planner
DuWayne Konewko, Community Development and Parks Director
Rezoning of the Multi-Family Housing on Van Dyke Streetfrom BC
SUBJECT:
(business commercial) to R3 (multi-family residential)
LOCATION: West side of Van Dyke Street, north of County Road BEast
VOTE REQUIRED:Simple Majority Required for Approval
DATE: August 2, 2010
INTRODUCTION
On January 25, 2010, the city council adopted the 2030 Comprehensive Plan. This is the
update of the city’s comprehensive land use plan required of all metro area cities every ten
years. By approving this plan, the city council reestablished the long-range land use guide for
the city. State law requires that the city now revise our zoning map and zoning ordinance
controls to be in conformance with the newly approved land use classifications throughout the
city.
The city has nine months (by October 25, 2010) to make all necessary zoning map and zoning
ordinance changes to coincide with the land use policies and land use maps in the approved
2030 Comprehensive Plan.
Proposal
One such rezoning would be for the developed propertieslocated on the westside of Van Dyke
Street.Theseparcels are developed as multi-family housing.The reason for this rezoning is to
bring the zoning of thesepropertiesinto conformance with the MDR (Medium Density
Residential) comprehensive land use plan designation specified in the city’s comprehensive
land use plan. Thesepropertiesarecurrently split zoned BC (business commercialdistrict)on
the west half and R3 (multi-family residential) on the east half. The BCzoning must be changed
to R3 (multiple dwelling residential) to be consistent with the medium density residential
comprehensive land use plan designation. The R3 zoning classification is equivalent to MDR
land use plan designation. Please refer to the attached maps.
Request
Rezone the above property from BCto R3.
BACKGROUND
On December 9, 2009, the Metropolitan Council gave final approval to the 2030 Comprehensive
Plan.
On January 25, 2010, the city council adopted the 2030 Comprehensive Plan.
PacketPageNumber266of272
DISCUSSION
Statutory Requirement
Section 473.865 subdivision 3 of the Minnesota State Statutes requires that cities amend their
official zoning controls within nine months of their adopting their revised comprehensive land
use plan. As stated above, the city council has until October 25, 2010 to amend all applicable
zoning maps and zoning ordinances.
Why the Proposed Revision to Multiple Dwelling?
During the city council’s review of the 2030 Comprehensive Plan update, staff reviewed the
zoning map looking for inconsistencies with the comprehensive plan and these sites were
identified. The 2030 Comprehensive Plan guides the entire parcelsas MDR and the zoning
needs to match this designation. The west half of the parcels are zoned BC which is not
consistent with the comprehensive plan. This rezoning is a result of the efforts by staff and the
planning commission to ensure zoning matches the comprehensive plan throughout the city.
This request is not associated with any development proposals.
Property Tax Impact
Property owners have asked what would happen to their property taxes if their zoning changed.
The Ramsey County Tax Assessor’s office stated that:
“Zoning has no affect on property tax. Tax classifications are based on the current use of the
property, not on the zoning. The tax classification, along with the market value is used to
calculate taxes. If the current use is continued, the tax classification will not change. So, zoning
changes will not affect taxes.”
Conclusion
State statute requires that the city revise the zoning map to R3to match the adopted MDR
classification on the comprehensive plan. Therefore, staff is recommending the city council
revise the zoning map accordingly.
COMMISSIONACTIONS
May 18, 2010: The planning commission recommended approval of this rezoning.
RECOMMENDATION
Approvethe rezoning of the multi-family properties along with the west side of Van Dyke Street,
north of County Road B East from BC (business commercial) to R3(multiple dwelling
residential). This rezoning is based on Minnesota Statute 473.865 subdivision 3, requiring the
city to bring the zoning of these properties into conformance with the adopted comprehensive
land use plan classification.
PacketPageNumber267of272
REFERENCE
SITE DESCRIPTION
Site Size:5.82acres(two parcels)
Existing Uses: Multi-family housing
SURROUNDING LAND USES
North:New Horizon Child CareCenter
South:County Road B East and City of Maplewood Campus
East:Single Family Dwellings
West:Commercial properties fronting White Bear Avenue
PLANNING
Land Use Plan Designation: Medium Density Residential
Zoning: Current: BC and R3; Proposed: R3
p:Compplan\zoning follow-up to 2030 Plan\rezoning to R3VanDykeMultiFamily_CC_080210
Attachments:
1.Land Use Map
2.Zoning Map
3.Rezoning Resolution
PacketPageNumber268of272
Attachment1
PacketPageNumber269of272
Attachment2
Van Dyke Multi-Family Rezoning
Proposed to
rezone entire
parcels to R3
PacketPageNumber270of272
Attachment 3
REZONING RESOLUTION
WHEREAS
,the City of Maplewood city staffproposed a change to the city's zoning map
from BC (business commercial) to R3 (multiple dwelling residential);
WHEREAS
,
this zoning map change applies to the multi-family propertieslocated on the
west side of Van Dyke Street, north of County Road BEast.The property identification
numbers identifying the affected property are:
PIN 11-29-22-33-0054 and PIN 11-29-22-33-0056
WHEREAS
,On January 25, 2010, the city council adopted the 2030 Comprehensive
Plan that classified the land use plan for the above referenced propertiesto MDR.
WHEREAS
,Section 473.865 subdivision 3 of the Minnesota State Statutes requires
that cities amend their official zoning map within nine months of their adopting their revised
comprehensive land use plan to match the new land use classification.
WHEREAS
, the history of this change is as follows:
1.OnJuly 20, 2010, theplanning commission held a public hearingto consider this
rezoning. The city staff published a hearing notice in the Maplewood Review and
sent notices to the surrounding propertyowners. The planning commission gave
everyone at the hearing a chance to speak and present written statements prior
to their recommendation.
2.On _________, 2010, the city council discussed the proposed zoning map 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 in the zoning map based on Minnesota Statute 473.865 subdivision 3,
requiring the city to bring the zoning of this property into conformance with the adopted
comprehensive land use plan classification.
The Maplewood City Council ___________this resolution on ______, 2010.
PacketPageNumber271of272
Agenda Item J4
AGENDA REPORT
TO
: James Antonen, City Manager
FROM:
Charles Ahl, Assistant City Manager
SUBJECT:Consider Establishing Fund for Legal Expenses Related to Wipers
Recycling Litigation and Authorizing Transfer from General Fund
DATE:August 4, 2010
INTRODUCTION/SUMMARY
The City has been involved in on-going litigation related to the Wiper’s Recycling Facility over the past
2+ years. The costs of a majority of the litigation expenses are covered by the City’s litigation
coverage with theLeague of Minnesota Cities Insurance Trust [LMCIT]. The LMCIT has incurred
$447,881 in legal expenses defending Maplewood on the various claims related to this litigation. Our
policy for this type of litigation defines our coverage responsibility as follows:
$50,000 deductible
15% of LMCIT expenses from $25,000 to $250,000
40% of LMCIT expenses above $250,000
Based upon the expenses incurred to date, the City has a current obligation to LMCIT of nearly
$163,000 for this litigation. LMCIT does not billthe City for this expense until the litigation is
concluded; however this is an on-going obligation that the City should plan for.
It is proposed the Council approve the establishment of a fund that would carry forward until the
litigation is resolved.A transfer of available funds in 2010 and 2011, assuming that the litigation is not
resolved in 2010, would begin to fund this obligation.
The City maintains a line item within the Legal Program under the Executive Department portion of the
General Fundbudget to cover Judgments and Losses. The 2010 allocation to this line item [101-103-
000-4970] is $205,000. At this time, we have proposed to reduce this amount by $50,000 as part of
the on-going need to cut 2010 expenses due to the continued downturn in 2010 revenues, leaving
$155,000 in the final balance. There have been some claims during the first seven months of
operations amounting to approximately $66,000, leaving an available balance of $89,000. It is
proposed that $75,000 be transferred from this line item to the Legal Fund for Wipers. Further
transfers will be recommended later in 2010 or as part of the 2011 Budget to fully fund the obligation.
Action Recommended
It is recommended that theCity Council approve a motion to establish a fund for legal expenses
related to the on-going Wipers Recycling Litigation and to transfer $75,000 from the Legal Program
line item 101-103-000-4970 Judgments and Losses.
PacketPageNumber272of272