HomeMy WebLinkAbout2012-07-17 PC Packet
AGENDA
MAPLEWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION
Tuesday,July 17,2012
7:00PM
City Hall Council Chambers
1830 County Road B East
1. Call to Order
2. Roll Call
3. Approval of Agenda
4. Approval of Minutes
a.June 19,2012
5.Public Hearings
a.7 p.m. or later: Wetland Buffer Waiver for Restoration at the former Maplewood Dump West
of Rolling Hills Manufactured Home Park
b.7 p.m. or later:Approval of a conditional use permit amendment for Keller Golf Course, 2166
Maplewood Drive
6.New Business
a.Combination of the Planning Commission and Design Review Boardinto one commission
7.Unfinished Business
8.Visitor Presentations
9.Commission Presentations
a.Commissioner report for the city council meeting of June 25,2012. Commissioner Trippler
attended.The scheduled itemwas the East Metro Public Safety Training Facility proposal.
b.Commissioner report for the city council meeting of July 9, 2012. Commissioner Pearsonwas
scheduled to attend. Thescheduled items are the turf-parking ordinance and the dynamic
display sign ordinance amendment.Staff will give a report on the City Council’s action.
c.Upcoming city council meeting of July 23, 2012. Commissioner Desai is scheduled to attend.
The potential items for discussion are the resolution of appreciation for Tanya Nuss and
second reading of the Turf Parking Ordinance.
10.Staff Presentations
a.Cancellation of the August 7, 2012 Planning Commission Meeting due to Election Training
11.Adjournment
DRAFT
MINUTESOF THE MAPLEWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION
1830 COUNTY ROAD B EAST, MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA
TUESDAY, JUNE 19, 2012
1.CALL TO ORDER
A meeting of the Commissionwas held in the City Hall Council Chambers and was called to order
at 7:00p.m.by Chairperson Fischer.
2.ROLL CALL
Paul Arbuckle, CommissionerPresent
Absent
Al Bierbaum, Commissioner
Absent
Joseph Boeser, Commissioner
Tushar Desai,CommissionerPresent
Larry Durand, CommissionerPresent
Lorraine Fischer, ChairpersonPresent
Absent
Gary Pearson, Commissioner
Dale Trippler, CommissionerPresent
Absent
Stephen Wensman, Commissioner
Staff Present:
Tom Ekstrand, Senior Planner
3.APPROVAL OF AGENDA
CommissionerTripplermoved to approve the agenda as submitted.
Seconded by CommissionerDesai.Ayes –All
The motion passed.
4.APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Chairperson Fischer had a clarificationto the minutes on page 3, item 9. a. The last line should
say The City Council directed staff to bring the ordinanceback to the commission for review.
CommissionerTripplermoved to approve theJune 5, 2012, PCminutes as amended.
Seconded by CommissionerArbuckle.Ayes –All
The motion passed.
5.PUBLIC HEARING
None.
6.NEW BUSINESS
a.Ordinance Amendment to Allow Flexibility in the Spacing Requirements for
Dynamic Display Signs
i.Senior Planner, Tom Ekstrand gave the report.
June 19, 2012 1
Planning CommissionMeetingMinutes
Commissioner Tripplermoved to approve the resolution for the revisions to the dynamic display
sign ordinance with the following change: (k) Flexibility. The city council may vary the spacing
agree with the staff
requirements for dynamic display signs if they determine that:
determination that
:
Seconded by CommissionerArbuckle.Ayes –All
The motion passed.
This item will go to the city council on July 9, 2012.
b.Resolution of Appreciation for Tanya Nuss
i.Senior Planner, Tom Ekstrand gave the reporton the resolution of appreciation for Tanya
Nuss.
Commissioner Tripplermoved to approve theresolution of appreciation for Tanya Nuss.
Seconded by CommissionerDesai.Ayes –All
The motion passed.
This item goes to the city council on July 9, 2012.
7.UNFINISHEDBUSINESS
None.
8.VISITOR PRESENTATIONS
None.
9.COMMISSION PRESENTATIONS
a.Commissioner report for the city council meeting of June 11, 2012. Commissioner Boeser
attended. Staff gave the update on the items which includedthe metal building ordinance and
the cell phone tower to revise the “variance findings” requirements to reflect new statutory
language.
b.Upcoming city council meeting of June 25, 2012. Commissioner Trippler will attend. The
scheduled itemisthe East Metro Fire Training Center Proposal.
c.Upcoming city council meeting of July 9, 2012. Commissioner Pearson will attend. Potential
items for discussion are the dynamic display sign ordinance revision, the turf-parking
ordinanceand the resolution of appreciation for Commissioner Nuss.
10.STAFFPRESENTATIONS
a.City Council Meeting Attendance Schedule Revision
i.Senior Planner, Tom Ekstrand went over the city council meetingschedule.
11.ADJOURNMENT
Chairperson Fischer adjourned the meeting at7:35p.m.
June 19, 2012 2
Planning CommissionMeetingMinutes
MEMORANDUM
TO:Planning Commission
FROM:Shann Finwall, AICP, Environmental Planner
SUBJECT:Wetland Buffer Waiver for Restoration at the former Maplewood Dump (located
north of Pondview Apartments, south of the railroad tracks, east of Feed
Products, and west of Rolling Hills Manufactured Home Park
DATE:July 11, 2012 for the July 17 PlanningCommission Meeting
BACKGROUND
The Maplewood Dump operated for the disposal of general municipal solid waste and industrial
waste from the 1950s to 1970. The site is located north of Pondview Apartments, south of the
railroad tracks, east of Feed Products and Jim’s Prairie, and west of Rolling Hills Manufactured
Home Park (Attachment 1).
Phase I and II Environmental Site Assessments were completed in 1995 and 1999 (refer to site
map and geologic cross section map – Attachments 2 and 3). It was determined that site soil
and sediments were above regulatory action limits. Groundwater sampling did not indicate
contaminants above action limits.
In 2001, the City of Maplewood entered into a Voluntary Investigation and Cleanup (VIC)
program with the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) for the Maplewood Dump site.
The VIC Program is a voluntary program designed to assist organizations with necessary clean
up actions. The MPCA approved a Response Action Plan (RAP) for cleanup of the site which
included covering the site with four feet of cover across the site. In 2002 the City obtained a
Ramsey-Washington Metro Watershed District permit as part of the RAP which allowed the City
to cover the site with street sweepings.
The property is guided as open space in the City’s Comprehensive Plan and is located adjacent
to Jim’s Prairie, one of Maplewood’s 14 Neighborhood Preserves.
DISCUSSION
Clean Up Proposal
In 2011 the City Council authorized a budget and scope of work for the continued investigation
and planning for the Maplewood Dump site. Short Elliott Hendrickson Inc. (SEH) was hired to
gather information and to draft a revised RAP for the site.
The revised RAP was completed on April 5, 2012 (Attachment 4) and approved by the MPCA
on June 20, 2012 (Attachment 5). The Plan covers the management of impacted soils and
debris at the former Maplewood Dump site. The intent of the RAP is to facilitate the closure of
the site by preventing direct human contact with surface debris and impacted soil material and
to reduce potential of the Beaver Creek bed to be in contact with waste debris. This will be
achieved through the removal and proper disposal or recycling of exposed large debris on the
surface; developing a minimum four-foot separation thickness between former municipal solid
waste material and the surface; flow from Beaver Creek will be maintained and directed through
an appropriately sized control structure (culvert) through the former dump area to reduce
potential contact with waste in the current creek bed.
Wetland Impacts
The City will import fill material to the site in order to cover the site and meet the four-foot
separation thickness. The fill area will include a minimum of six inches of topsoil at the surface
to aid in the proper revegetation of the area. There is a wetland located on the north side of the
site, adjacent the railroad tracks. This wetland is classified as a Manage B wetland on the City’s
wetland classification map (Attachment 6). The wetland ordinance requires a 75-foot buffer be
maintained from a Manage B wetland and 100-foot buffer be maintained from the creek. There
is visible debris within both buffers and within the creek bed itself. The project includes directing
the creek through a culvert to reduce potential contact with waste in the creek bed and covering
the site, including the required 75-foot wetland and 100-foot creek buffers.
The wetland ordinance allows the City Council to waive the requirements of the ordinance for
public projects through buffers where it determines that there is a greater public need for the
project than to meet the requirement of this ordinance. In waiving the requirements the City
Council shall apply the following standards:
1. The city may only allow the construction of public projects through buffers where there is
no other practical alternative.
2. Before the City Council acts on the waiver the Planning Commission and the
Environmental and Natural Resources Commission shall make a recommendation to the
City Council. The Planning Commission shall hold a public hearing for the waiver. The
city shall notify the property owners within 500 feet of the property for which the waiver is
being requested at least ten days before the hearing.
3. Public projects shall not be allowed when endangered or threatened species are found
in the buffer.
4. Public projects shall be as far from the wetland as possible.
5. Public projects shall protect the wetland and buffer and avoid large trees as much as
possible.
6. The city shall not allow the use of pesticides or other hazardous or toxic substances in
buffers or wetlands; however, in some situations the use of herbicides may be used if
prior approval is obtained from the administrator.
7. The owner or contractor shall replant utility or street corridors with appropriate native
vegetation, except trees, at preconstruction densities or greater after construction ends.
Trees shall be replaced as required by city ordinance.
8. Any additional corridor access for maintenance shall be provided as much as possible at
specific points rather than to the road which is parallel to the wetland edge. If parallel
roads are necessary they shall be no greater than 15 feet wide.
9. The City Council, upon recommendation of the administrator, may require additional
mitigation actions as a condition of granting the waiver.
A condition of the wetland buffer waiver will include a permit from the Ramsey-Washington
Metro Watershed District. The watershed district has reviewed preliminary plans and has
expressed support for the project.
2
Tree Impacts
The tree line and tree removal have been identified on the grading plan. Several significant
trees will be impacted by the project. A condition of the wetland buffer waiver will include a tree
survey and tree replacement plan to meet the City’s tree replacement ordinance.
Control Structure and Revegetation of the Site
Conditions of the RAP and wetland buffer waiver include detailed plans and specifications for
the Beaver Creek control structure and a revegetation plan.
Schedule
Improvements to the site should be complete by Fall of 2012. The initial work will consist of
importing fill to the site starting in late July to early August. Excess clean fill material from the
Gladstone Savanna project will be stockpiled on the northwestern portion of the dump site. The
wetland impacts and mitigation plan will be reviewed again with the watershed district in August.
Clearing and grubbing would take place in late August or early September, followed by
placement of the pipe and site grading. Seeding and restoration work would be completed in
late September. Once the project is complete it will remain guided and used as open space.
Commission and City Council Review
The Environmental and Natural Resources (ENR) Commission reviewed the Maplewood Dump
RAP and wetland buffer waiver on June 14, 2012. The ENR Commission approved the project
and stated that the impacts to the wetland buffer and creek are needed to fully clean up the
Maplewood Dump site.
The Planning Commission will hold the public hearing required for the wetland buffer waiver on
July 17, 2012. The public hearing was published in the Maplewood Review and property
owners within 500 feet of the site were notified of the hearing.
The City Council will review the project on August 13, 2012.
RECOMMENDATION
Review the Maplewood Dump Response Action Plan and wetland buffer waiver request. Open
the meeting for public comment. Staff recommends approval of the wetland buffer waiver with
the following conditions:
1. Detailed culvert plans must be completed and approved by staff.
2. Revegetation plans must be completed and approved by staff.
3. The project must comply with the City’s tree preservation ordinance.
4. The City must obtain a Ramsey-Washington Metro Watershed District permit for the
project.
Attachments:
1. Location Map
2. Site Map
3. Geological Cross Section
4. April 2012 Response Action Plan
5. June 2012 MPCA Approval of RAP
6. Maplewood Wetland Classification Map
3
Attachment 4
Response Action Plan
Former City of Maplewood Dump Site
Maplewood, Minnesota
MPCA Project No. VP0100
SEH No. MAPLE 116519
April 5, 2012
Former City of Maplewood Dump Site
Response Action Plan
Maplewood, Minnesota
SEH No. 116519
MPCA VIC No. VP0100
April 5, 2012
__________________________________
Allen H. Sunderman, PG
Project Manager
__________________________________
John Kinny
Environmental Scientist
Short Elliott Hendrickson Inc.
3535 Vadnais Center Drive
Saint Paul, MN 55110-5196
651.490.2000
Table of Contents
Letter of Transmittal
Certification Page
Table of Contents
Page
1.0 Introduction ................................................................................................................1
1.1 Site Location ....................................................................................................... 1
1.2 Site Description ................................................................................................... 1
1.2.1 Site History .............................................................................................. 1
1.2.2 Proposed Land use ................................................................................. 1
2.0 Summary of Past Site Investigations .......................................................................1
2.1 Phase I Environmental Assessment ................................................................... 1
2.2 Phase II Environmental Investigation .................................................................. 2
2.2.1 Results of Soil Quality Investigation ........................................................ 2
2.2.2 Results of Ground Water Quality Investigation ....................................... 2
2.2.3 Results of Methane Monitoring................................................................ 2
2.3 Former Response Action Plan ............................................................................ 3
3.0 RAP Goal, Objectives and Scope .............................................................................4
3.1 RAP Goal ............................................................................................................ 4
3.2 RAP Objectives ................................................................................................... 4
3.3 Response Actions ............................................................................................... 4
3.3.1 Surface Debris Removal ......................................................................... 4
3.3.2 Clean Soil Import ..................................................................................... 4
3.3.3 Beaver Creek Control Structure .............................................................. 4
3.3.4 Well Sealing ............................................................................................ 5
3.3.5 Revegetation ........................................................................................... 5
4.0 RAP Implementation ..................................................................................................5
4.1 General Operations ............................................................................................. 5
4.2 Permits ................................................................................................................ 5
5.0 RAP Implementation Report .....................................................................................5
6.0 Site Health and Safety Plan ......................................................................................6
7.0 Contingency Plan ......................................................................................................6
8.0 Summary ....................................................................................................................6
SEH is a registered trademark of Short Elliott Hendrickson Inc.
Response Action Plan MAPLE 116519
City of Maplewood Page i
Table of Contents (Continued)
List of Figures
Figure 1 – Site Location
Figure 2 – Site Features
Figure 3 – Grading Plan
List of Appendices
Appendix A Historical Site Documentation
Response Action Plan MAPLE 116519
City of Maplewood Page ii
April 2012
Response Action Plan
Former City of Maplewood Dump Site
Prepared for City of Maplewood
1.0 Introduction
®
Short Elliott Hendrickson Inc (SEH) has prepared this Response Action Plan and
Construction Contingency Plan on behalf of the City of Maplewood (City). The Plan covers
the management of impacted soils and debris at the former City of Maplewood Dump Site
(the Site).
According to the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) What’s in My Neighborhood
website the Site is an inactive Voluntary Investigation and Cleanup (VIC) Site (MPCA VIC
No. VP0100).
1.1 Site Location
The Site is located between McKnight Road and Century Avenue and south of a railroad
track in Maplewood, Minnesota (South ½ sec. 24, T.29N, R.22W). The Site location is
Figure 1, “Site Location”
presented on .
1.2 Site Description
The Site is currently a non-operational city owned municipal waste dump and a majority of
the property is vacant idle land. The subject property is located in a mixed residential and
vacant area. The Site is approximately 10 acres in size and is bordered to the north by a
railroad track and on the east by a trailer park. The southern boundary consists of the
Pondview Apartment complex and a pond. The western boundary is vacant land.The Site is
bisected by Beaver Creek and associated wetlands, which flows from a large wetland north of
Figure 2 “Site
the railroad tracks (via culvert) into the pond south of the former dump site.
Features”
identifies general site characteristics
1.2.1Site History
The property is owned by the City of Maplewood. According to reports reviewed for this
assessment, the Site was formerly used for disposing of municipal solid waste (MSW) from
the 1950s to 1970.
1.2.2Proposed Land use
The City of Maplewood intends to cap the dump site area and keep the land vacant.
2.0 Summary of Past Site Investigations
2.1 Phase I Environmental Assessment
A Phase I Environmental Assessment (ESA) was completed by American Testing and
Engineering Corporation (ATEC) in October, 1995. The Phase I ESA is presented in
Response Action Plan MAPLE 116519
City of Maplewood Page 1
Appendix A “Historical Site Documentation”
. The Phase I ESA identified the Site as a
former City of Maplewood municipal solid waste dump site and recommended further
evaluation of the subsurface soils and groundwater. As part of the Phase I Investigation,
surface water samples were collected at creek locations entering and leaving the Site. The
samples were analyzed for volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and Resource Conservation
Recovery Act (RCRA) metals. Laboratory analysis indicated no presence of VOCs. Barium
was detected at 0,06 parts per million (ppm) and 0.07 ppm upstream and downstream,
respectively.
2.2 Phase II Environmental Investigation
A Phase II Investigation was completed by Service Environmental and Engineering (Service)
in November, 1999. The Phase II Investigation concluded the average thickness of the MSW
is five feet and approximately 66,000 cubic yards of MSW is located on the Site. The Service
Appendix A “Historical Site Documentation”
Phase II Investigation report is presented in .
2.2.1Results of Soil Quality Investigation
Service excavated 21 test pits and completed six soil borings to characterize the subsurface
and collect analytical soil samples for laboratory analysis. Two to four feet of clean fill
covers approximately five to ten feet of MSW. A layer of peat underlies the MSW. Partially
buried mixed municipal solid waste is visible at the surface at portions of the Site near the
creek. Figures depicting the boring and test pit locations and a west to east cross section of
Appendix A
the dump area is presented in Service Phase II Investigation Report in .
Soil samples from the test pits and soil borings were analyzed for VOCs, polynuclear
aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), RCRA metals, select
organochloride pesticides. VOCs, PAHs, PCBs, RCRA metals, and orgaochloride pesticides
were detected at the Site. Concentrations that exceeded the Minnesota Pollution Control
Agency (MPCA) Soil Reference Values for unrestricted use were:
PCBs (2.1 ppm) at test pit TP-11 at 4 feet below ground surface (bgs)
Lead (500 ppm) at test pit TP-18 at nine to ten fet bgs
1,2,4 trimethylbenzene (32 ppm) at test pit TP-20 at 11 feet bgs
2.2.2Results of Ground Water Quality Investigation
Ground water samples were collected from three ground water monitoring wells and two
temporary ground water monitoring wells in October, 1997 and from the three monitoring
wells in December, 1997 and February, 1999. The ground water samples were analyzed for
VOCs, PAHS, PCBs, RCRA metals, and organochlorine persticides. Concentrations of
VOCs, PAHs and RCRA metals were detected below the Minnesota Department of Health
(MDH) Health Risk Limits (HRLs).
2.2.3Results of Methane Monitoring
Methane monitoring was completed during the excavation of test pits and drilling of the soil
borings. Elevated % lower explosive limit (LEL) readings were detected in the following
locations:
Test pit TP-10 (4% LEL)
Test pit TP-14 (4% LEL)
Boring B-2 (113% LEL)
Response Action Plan MAPLE 116519
City of Maplewood Page 2
Boring B-6 (10% LEL)
In August 1996, temporary methane monitoring points were also installed in several test pits.
Approximately 24 hours after installing the monitoring points, the following % LEL readings
were recorded:
Test pit TP-10 (4% LEL)
Test pit TP-14 (18% LEL)
Test pit TP-18 (0% LEL)
Test pit TP-20 (15% LEL)
Methane monitoring/data logging was conducted in a nearby manhole (CB MH #1). The
monitoring was completed on December 16 through December 20, 1998. During this period
air samples were automatically collected through the use of a timed peristaltic pump. Grab air
samples were also collected from manholes MH-1, MH-2, MH-3, MH-13, MH-14 and CB-
13. No elevated % LEL concentrations were detected during any of the manhole monitoring
events.
2.3 Former Response Action Plan
A Response Action Plan (RAP) was approved by the MPCA in March 2002. The MPCA
Appendix A
RAP approval letter is presented in . In general, the RAP proposed to cap the
former dump site with street sweepings from the City of Maplewood. The Ramsey-
Washington Metro Watershed District Permit for grading at the Site included a provision that
grading and fill for capping the dump site should be outside a 100 foot buffer from Beaver
Creek. The former RAP included the following activities:
Conducting one additional round of ground water monitoring;
Abandonment of the monitoring wells, provided that the last sampling round confirms the
previous results;
Removal and proper disposal or recycling of exposed large debris on the dump surface;
Placing a minimum of two feet of clean soil fill over areas where municipal solid waste is
exposed and seed with cover vegetation;
Installing geo-synthetic lining material and rip-rap along the banks of Beaver Creek to
stabilize the creek bed;
Placing Street sweeping material at the Site in accordance with MPCA Fact Sheet 4-54;
Selective removal of clean topsoil from the dump surface in areas with excess fill
material with test pits to ensure that the remaining cover material is at least three feet
thick; and
Regrading the area immediately east of Beaver Creek so the area slopes toward the creek,
maintain at least three feet of cover soil, capping with six inches of topsoil, and
revegetating the surface.
A majority of the original RAP activities were not completed. The City of Maplewood made
a conversion to using more salt for snow and ice control on City streets; therefore using street
sweepings to cap the former dump area is no longer a viable option.
Response Action Plan MAPLE 116519
City of Maplewood Page 3
3.0 RAP Goal, Objectives and Scope
3.1 RAP Goal
The intent of the RAP is to facilitate the closure of the site by preventing direct human
contact with surface debris and impacted soil material and to reduce potential of the Beaver
Creek bed to be in contact with waste debris. Upon completion of the RAP activities, the City
of Maplewood’s goal is to receive a MPCA No Action Letter and site closure.
3.2 RAP Objectives
The goal of the RAP will be achieved through reaching the following objectives:
Removal and proper disposal or recycling of exposed large debris on the surface;
Developing a minimum four foot separation thickness between former municipal solid
waste material and the surface.
Flow from Beaver Creek will be maintained and directed through an appropriately sized
control structure (culvert) through the former dump area to reduce potential contact with
waste in the current creek bed.
3.3 Response Actions
Response Actions for the Site have been developed to reduce or eliminate the potential for
direct contact of environmentally impacted soils and surface waste debris. The Response
Actions will be accomplished as described in the following sections.
3.3.1Surface Debris Removal
Prior to regrading and importing fill material, exposed debris on the surface will have loose
soil removed and be placed in dumpstsers for proper disposal or recycling. Surface debris will
be segregated and loaded on-site for transportation to a landfill or recycling facility.
3.3.2Clean Soil Import
The City of Maplewood intends to import fill material to the Site in order to cap the site and
meet the four foot separation thickness. The proposed Grading Plan for the Site is presented
Figure 3 “Grading Plan”
as. Depending on the source, the fill may need to be tested for
potential contaminants. Imported fill from a commercial pit will not be tested. Fill imported
from non-commercial sources will be accepted for use on the site upon documentation from
the contractor that the material is clean.
The fill area will include a minimum of six inches of topsoil at the surface to aid in the proper
revegetation of the area.
3.3.3Beaver Creek Control Structure
An appropriately sized control structure (culvert) will be placed in Beaver Creek to maintain
adequate water flow and separate the creek bed from potential MSW in the dump area. The
culvert is proposed to be approximately 200 linear feet through the former dump area. It is
likely that soil correction in the creek bed will need to be completed for geotechnical
purposes to provide a stable foundation for the culvert to be placed on. It is anticipated that
the only excavation of soils on-site will be in the area of the creek bed were the culvert is to
be placed. Soil excavated from the creek bed will be thin spread on-site and will be covered
with non-regulated soil material to meet the thickness separation requirement. The culvert
will be covered with non-regulated soil material as described in Section 3.4.2. The location of
Figure 3
the culvert is presented on .
Response Action Plan MAPLE 116519
City of Maplewood Page 4
3.3.4Well Sealing
Three ground water monitoring wells remain on the Site. The monitoring wells will be sealed
in by a licensed well contractor in accordance with MDH requirements.
3.3.5Revegetation
Areas where import fill is placed and/or soil is disturbed will be revegetated with the
appropriate native seed mix for the area.
4.0 RAP Implementation
RAP Implementation will begin following MPCA approval.
4.1 General Operations
Site work will be completed by a contractor(s) selected by the City of Maplewood. Site field
work will be performed in accordance with Occupational Safety and Health Administration
(OSHA), MPCA, and Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) regulations. The
contractor(s) will be responsible for providing applicable regulatory agencies copies of all
applicable permits prior to performing work on-site. The contractor(s) will be responsible for
providing appropriately trained personnel during construction activities. An SEH
Environmental Scientist will be on-site to provide environmental oversight of construction
activities.
When available, detailed construction designs will be provided to the MPCA for the
following:
Beaver Creek control structure design plans and specifications
Revegetation plan
4.2 Permits
The contractor will be responsible for obtaining and implementing all applicable permits
required for excavating impacted soil and transporting, disposing or recycling surface debris
materials.
The City of Maplewood will obtain a permit(s) to fill designated wetland areas and to divert
Beaver Creek through a culvert prior to implementation of the RAP.
5.0 RAP Implementation Report
An implementation report will be submitted to the MPCA upon completion of the response
actions. The report will be prepared in accordance with VIC Program guidance documents
and will include the following:
Documentation of construction activities
Photographs of construction activities
Documentation of waste disposal or recycling
Daily field logs
Import material analytical if applicable
Any changes or modifications to the approved RAP
Response Action Plan MAPLE 116519
City of Maplewood Page 5
6.0 Site Health and Safety Plan
A site health and safety plan compliant with 29 CFR 1910.120 and 29 CFR 1926.62 will be
prepared by SEH staff and maintained onsite during all field oversight activities.
7.0 Contingency Plan
Based on the history and previous investigations completed at the site, no other
environmental issues are anticipated; however, this portion of the document should serve as
guidance should unforeseen environmental issues be encountered during construction. The
SEH RAP/CCP and Site Health and Safety Plan will be on-site if environmental issues arise.
If any suspicious materials; for example, underground storage tanks, tires, auto parts, stained
or odorous soil, batteries, barrels, demolition debris (ex. floor tiles, fiberous insulation,
shingles), suspect asbestos containing material, containers, etc. are encountered during
construction, remove personnel and equipment from the immediate area and contact Mr.
Allen Sunderman, SEH at 612.718.6451 and Michael Thompson, City of Maplewood at
651.249.2403, immediately. The City of Maplewood will then contact the MPCA, or delegate
that responsibility to SEH.
8.0 Summary
SEH has prepared this Response Action Plan for the City of Maplewood.
On behalf of the City of Maplewood, SEH requests that the MPCA review and approve this
Response Action Plan. Please also provide a written response to this RAP that is addressed to
the City of Maplewood, with a copy sent to SEH.
Response Action Plan MAPLE 116519
City of Maplewood Page 6
List of Figures
Figure 1 – Site Location
Figure 2 – Site Features
Figure 3 – Grading Plan
Figure
Project:
SiteLocation
Maple 116519
3535 VADNAIS CENTER DR.SiteLocation
ST. PAUL, MN 55110
Former Maplewood Dump Site
1
PHONE: (651) 490-2000
PHONE: (651) 490-2150
Maplewood, Minnesota
WATTS: 800-325-2055
Date:
www.sehinc.com
3/13/12
Attachment 5
MEMORANDUM
TO:James Antonen, City Manager
FROM: Michael Martin, AICP, Planner
Charles Ahl, Assistant City Manager
SUBJECT:Approval for Conditional Use Permit Amendment and Design Review–
Keller Golf Course
LOCATION:2166 Maplewood Drive
DATE:July 9, 2012
INTRODUCTION
Project Description
Scott Yonke, of the Ramsey County Parks and Recreation Department, is requesting approval of
plans for Keller Golf Course.The proposal includes the replacement of the clubhouse and pro
shop as well as landscaping and drainage alterations on the golf course.Refer to the maps and
building elevations attached to this report.
The existing clubhouse and pro shop buildings will be demolished and replaced with a new 13,358
square foot clubhouseand a 1,895 square foot pro shop. The maintenance buildingalong Highway
61, built in 2002, would not be affectedby this project.
Requests
The applicant is requesting that the city council approve:
1.A conditional use permit amendment (CUP) for a golf course. City code requires a CUP for
public uses.
2.Building, site and landscape plans.
DISCUSSION
Conditional Use Permit,Zoning and Land Use Plan Compliance
The existing golf course is guided by the 2030 Comprehensive Planas park (P). The golfcourse is
zoned as open space and parks(OSP).BecauseRamsey County owns the golf course a CUP is
required because of its public use. The proposed renovations are compliant with the city’s
comprehensive plan and zoning designation.
Site Plan
The overall site plan will mainly stay the same as it is today. The entry drive from County Road B
East will shift farther east to line up directly with the realigned intersection of County Road B East
and the Frontage Road along Highway 61. Construction of the realigned intersection will be
completed in 2013. The new entry drive will connect a new parking lot, which will be located closer
to County Road B, and the existing two parking lots closer to the club house and pro shop. The
new clubhouse and pro shopbuildings will be larger than the current buildings but will belocated in
the same footprint area. While the rest of the golf course is also being redesigned andrenovated,
the pattern of golf linklocations will stay largely the same.
Building Designs
Clubhouse
The new clubhouse would be attractive. The applicant is proposing an exterior of composition
shinglesidingfor the main level. In areas where the lower level is exposed a thin stone veneer will
be utilized. The roof would have asphalt shingles. All four elevations are heavily treated with
windows making the building striking. The clubhouse will provide space for a banquet room,
ballroom, gallery, bar and grill and cart storage.
Pro Shop
Like the clubhouse, the applicant is proposingan exterior of composition shingle siding and the roof
would have asphalt shingles.The pro shop will provide space for a retail areaand cart storage.
Site Lights
The parking lot and clubhouse area would be lighted. The applicant’s lighting plan indicatestwo
types of fixtures that would stand 30 feet in height. City code limits light pole height to 25 feet. Staff
recommends the applicant revise its lighting plan to show pole heights of no more than 25 feet.
Also, the applicant submitted a photometric plan but the data does not go to the property line
boundaries. Of particular interest arethe impacts of the lights within the new parking lotnear the
entrance drive off County Road B East. Staff recommends a revised photometric plan be submitted
to ensure code compliance and that light spillage does not impact nearby residential properties.
Tree Replacement
This project meets the city’s tree preservation and replacement requirements.Please see Shann
Finwall’s attached report for more tree replacement information.
Wetlands
Please see Shann Finwall’s report attached for wetland information.
Landscaping
The applicant is proposing a variety of new tree, shrub and perennial plantings throughout the
clubhouse and pro shop area. Throughout theclubhouse and pro shopsite 47 deciduous trees
(2.5 inch caliber), 22 ornamental trees (1.5 inch caliber) and 25 evergreen trees(6 feet tall)are to
be planted. Six evergreen trees are proposed to be planted between the new parkinglot, located
near thesite drive entry point and County Road B East. In addition tothe six new trees there are
several established and mature evergreen trees already planted between the proposed parking lot
and the single family homes to the east. While the applicant is meeting the screening requirements
currently,if the existingmature trees were to die or be removed the applicant would be required to
provide additional screening to meet code requirements. Numerous shrubs and perennials are
proposed to be planted throughout the clubhouse, pro shop and parking lot areas. Staff finds the
overall landscaping plan attractive.
Parking
The site currently has 164 spaces. The proposed site plan would expand availability to274 spaces
within three different lots. Currently the spaces are 9 feet wide. Ramsey County is requesting
approval to continue to have 9 foot wide spaces, which would be an expansion of alegal,non-
conforming use. An expansion of a legal, non-conforming use can be approved throughthe CUP
for this site.Staff was initiallyhesitant to recommend approval due to vehicles overall increased
size since the existing parking lots’installation and the fact people arrive needing to remove clubs
and other items from their vehicles. However, the applicant is familiar with the site and its
operations and staff feels they know their customers’needs and is recommending the current
parking lot dimensions continue as a legal, non-conforming use.
Staff also visited the existing parking lot to get a feel for how the 9 foot wide spaces functioned.
Staff’s impression is that the parking lotwas not crowded, cramped or seemingly hazardous in any
way.
City Engineer’s Comments
Refer to staff engineer Jon Jarosch’s review which is attached to this report.
Building Official’s Comments
1.The applicant should bringtheproject before the HPC as a courtesy.
2.Need to comply with the Building Code.
3.Separate building permits will be required for each building.
4.Recommends a pre-construction meeting.
Police Comments
Construction site thefts and burglaries are a large business affecting many large construction
projects throughout the Twin Cities metro area. The contractor/developer should be encouraged to
plan and provide for site security during the construction process.On-site security, alarm systems,
and any other appropriate security measure would be highly encouraged to deter and report theft
and suspicious activity incidents in a timely manner.
RECOMMENDATIONS
A. Adopt the resolution attachedapproving a conditional use permit amendment for Keller Golf
Course located at 2166 Maplewood Drive. Approval is based on the findings required by the
code and subject to the following conditions(additions are underlined and deletions are crossed
out):
1.All construction shall follow the approved site plan. The director of community development
may approve minor changes.
2.The applicantmust begin construction within one year after thecouncil approves this permit
or the permit shall end. The city council may extend this deadline for one year.
3.The city council shall review this permit in one year.
4.The use of nine foot wide parking spaces is approved as an expansion of a legal, non-
conforming use.
5.Applicant must provide six foot tall, 80 percent opaque screening between the new parking
lot near County Road B East and the single family dwellings to the east. Current vegetation
meets this requirement but if existing trees are ever removed or die new screening must be
installed.
B.Approve the plans date-stamped June22, 2012 for the proposed renovations of the KellerGolf
Course located at 2166 Maplewood Drive, based on the findings required by the code. The
property owner, Ramsey County, shall do the following:
1.Repeat this review in two years if the city has not issued a permit for this project.
2.Provide the following for staff approval before the city issues grading or building permits:
a.Comply with all conditions of staff engineer Jon Jarosch’s report, dated July 9, 2012.
b.Comply with all conditions of environmental planner Shann Finwall’s report, dated July
10, 2012.
c.Apply for any needed permits from the Minnesota Department of Transportation.
d.A final, detailed photometric plan showing pole heights of no more than 25 feet and light
spillage exceeding 0.4 footcandles at any property line.
3.Complete the following before opening the golf course for business and occupying the
clubhouse building:
a.If a trash dumpster is to bekept outside build an enclosure for any outside trash
containers for this facility (code requirement).The enclosures must be 100 percent
opaque, match the color of the building and have a closeable gate that extends to the
ground.
b.Install all required landscaping around the driveway, parking lots, pro shopand
clubhouse.
4.If any required work is not done on or around the clubhouse, pro shop, clubhouse parking
lot, 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 anirrevocable letter of credit for the required work.
The amount shall be 150 percent of the cost of the unfinished work.
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.
6.Signs shall comply with the requirements of the sign code and are not part of this approval.
REFERENCE INFORMATION
SITE DESCRIPTION
Site size: 169.3acres
Existing land use: Keller Golf Course
SURROUNDING LAND USES
North: County Road B East and single dwellings
South: Gateway Trail and Flicek Park
East: Single dwellings
West: Highway 61 and Ramsey County Regional Park
PLANNING
Land Use Plan designations: P
Zoning: OSP
CODE REQUIREMENTS
Section 44-1092(1) requires a conditional use permit for any public service or public building use.
Findings for CUP Approval
Section 44-1097(a) requires that the city council base approval of a CUP on nine findings. Refer to
the findings for approval in the resolution attached to this report.
APPLICATION DATE
These applications were deemed completeJune 22, 2012. State law requires that the city decide
on these requests within 60 days. The city council must act on theserequests by August 21, 2012.
If needed, the city is able to extend this review deadline by an additional 60 days.
P:\SEC9\Keller Golf Course\2012_CDRB_CUP_Review\Keller Golf Course_ CUP_DESIGN_071712
Attachments:
1.Location Map
2.Land UseMap
3.Zoning Map
4.Site Plan
5.Site Plan Enlargement
6.Clubhouse and Pro Shop Elevations
7.Keller Golf Course Narrative
8.Jon Jarosch’s engineering staff report, dated July 9, 2012
9.Shann Finwall’s environmental staff report, dated July 10, 2012
10.MnDOT’s comments, dated June 6, 2012
11.CUP Resolution
12.Site Plan Landscape Plan and Building Elevations date-stamped June 22, 2012 (separate attachment)
Attachment 1
Keller Golf
Course
Low Density Residential
2166 Maplewood Drive Keller Golf Course
Location Map
Attachment 2
Commercial
Keller Golf
Course
Low Density Residential
Park (p)
Mixed Use
Medium
Density
High
Residential
Density
Residential
2166 Maplewood Drive Keller Golf Course
Future Land Use Map
Attachment 3
Keller Golf
Light Manufacturing (M1)
Course
Single Dwelling (R1)
Open Space and Parks (OSP)
Mixed Use
Multiple
Dwelling (R3)
Multiple
Dwelling (R3)
2166 Maplewood Drive Keller Golf Course
Zoning Map
ttachment 5
A
ttachment 6
A
ttachment 6
A
ttachment 6
A
ttachment 6
A
ttachment 7
A
ttachment 7
A
ttachment 7
A
Attachment 8
Engineering Plan Review
PROJECT: Keller Golf Course Site Improvements
PROJECT NO:
COMMENTS BY: Jon Jarosch, P.E. –Staff Engineer
DATE:7-9-2012
PLAN SET:Clubhouse Area Preliminary PlansDated 5-22-2012
Revised Plan Sheets C3-1 and C4-2Dated 6-15-2012
Golf Course Plans Dated 5-14-2012
REPORTS:Revised Storm Water Management Report 6-15-2012
The Applicant is proposing a significant renovation to the Keller Golf Course facility, including a
new Clubhouse and Pro Shop. Other site improvements include the relocation of the entry drive,
additional parking areas, new cart paths, trails, sidewalks, and landscaping. In order to
accommodate the renovations, improvements are proposed to the sanitary sewer, water
service, and storm sewer as well. Due to an increase in impervious surfaces, additional
infiltration areas, along with modifications to the existing basins are proposed. It appears that
the storm-water management plan meets the City’s requirements as it pertains to infiltration and
rate control.
The following are engineeringreview comments on the design review, and act as conditions
prior to issuing demolition, grading, sewer, and building permits:
Drainage and Stormwater Management
1)Multiple storm sewer pipes are shown to have velocities greater than 10-15 feet-per-
second which can cause erosion within pipes and manholes. The storm system shall be
modified to reduce the velocity in these pipes.
2)Multiple storm sewer pipes are shown to have slopes less than 0.50% which can lead to
the accumulation of sediment in the pipe. Thestorm system shall be adjusted so that the
minimum pipe slopes are 0.50%.
3)A detail shall be provided showing the modified outlet from the City Infiltration Basin into
the RWMWD Infiltration Basin. This area will be highly susceptible to erosion and must
be adequately stabilized.
4)The existing storm sewer pipe lying beneath the proposed lower parking lot shall be
protected throughout construction.
Attachment 8
5)Emergency overland overflows shall be identified for the infiltration basins and shall be
adequately stabilized to prevent erosion.
6)The geotechnical report notes layers of lean clay and laminations of clayey sand in the
boring nearest the proposed Infiltration Area 1 along with the silty sand utilized for the
infiltration calculations. It is understood that the applicant proposes to remove the lean
clay layer if necessary. The laminations of clayey sand will potentially hinder infiltration
as well. It is recommended that drain-tile piping be installed beneath the infiltration area
and tied into the nearby storm sewer where it can be capped. Should the basin not
drawn down as anticipated, the drain-tile could be uncapped.
7)The existing storm sewerin the middle level parking area discharges onto the hillside
and over the proposed cart path. There is a high potential for erosion or damage to the
proposed cart path with this configuration. It is recommended that the system be
extended past the cart path or tied into the other proposed storm sewer. Energy
dissipation shall be provided for this outlet pipe.
8)No modifications are allowed to the depth or shape of the existing City and RWMWD
Infiltration Basins.
9)Submit specifications and sequencing for the proposed infiltration basin construction
such that impacts to the basin bottom do not affect the infiltration capability of the soils.
10)Provide rip-rap and flared-end section outfall design detail.
11)Provide manhole and catch basin construction details.
Grading and Erosion Control
12)Slopes shall be 3H:1Vor flatter. It appears from the grading plan that there are slopes in
excess of this requirement between the upper parking lot and the proposed drive
connecting the upper lot to the middle lot. Likewise, it appears that there are steeper
slopes between the new entrance drive and the proposed cart path, as well as at the
southwest corner of the new Clubhouse. Retaining walls may be necessary in these
areas to meet the 3H:1V requirement.
13)Due to the steep slopes and high potential for erosion, all disturbed areas shall be
stabilized immediately after final grading.Steep slopes should be broken into shorter
runs through the use of silt fence, bio-rolls, or other methods of erosion control.
14)The drive connecting the upper lot to the middle lot appears to be over an 8% slope. It is
recommended that this drive be modified such that the slope is under 8%.
Attachment 8
15)Rip-Rap or other means of permanent energy dissipation shall be extended to the
bottom of the infiltration basins at all outlets.
16)Stabilization of the slope on the west side of the City Infiltration Basin shall be detailed in
the plans. This steep slope will be highly susceptible to erosion once disturbed.It is
recommended that bio-rolls or some other type of erosion control devices be placed at
intervals to break up this long steep slope.
17)Infiltration basins shall be protected from erosion and sedimentation throughout
construction. Any damage to the City or RWMWD Infiltration basins or the plantings
within them shall be corrected at the Applicants expense.
18)Inlet protection devices shall be installed on the existing storm sewer along County Road
B prior to construction. These inlet protection devices shall be noted on the plans.
19)County Road B shall be swept as needed to keep the road clear of sediment and
construction debris.
20)Pedestrian facilities shall be ADA compliant.An accessible route shall be provided from
the parking lot to the Clubhouse and Pro shop.
Sanitary Sewer and Water Service
21)Provide details for construction of connection to existing sanitary sewer service.
22)Provide fixture unit design computations for connection to existing sanitary sewer
service.
23)The proposed water service modifications are subject to the review and conditions of
Saint Paul Regional Water Services(SPRWS). The applicant shall submit plans and
specifications to SPRWS for review and meet all requirements they may haveprior to
the issuance of a grading permit by the City.
Other
24)It appears that portions of this improvement project lie within MnDOT right-of-way. Prior
to the City issuing a grading permit, the Applicant shall provide the City copies of
easements and/or other documentation indicating that the property may be utilized for
the proposed uses.
25)The Applicant shall continue to work with Kimley-Horn and Associates, as well as
MnDOT in regards to the location of the entrance drive and trails at County Road B.
Attachment 8
26)The developer 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.
27)The Owner shall satisfy all requirements of all permitting and reviewing agencies
including MnDOT, MPCA, DNR, Army Corps of Engineers, SPRWSand RWMWD.
28)The Owner shall sign a maintenance agreement, prepared by the City, for all stormwater
treatment devices (sumps, basins,infiltration basins, etc.).
Attachment 9
Environmental Review
Project:
Keller Golf Course
Dateof Plans:
June 25, 2012
Date of Review:
July 10, 2012
Location:
2166 Maplewood Drive
Reviewers:
Shann Finwall, Environmental Planner
(651) 249-2304; shann.finwall@ci.maplewood.mn.us
Background:
The project involves the construction of a new clubhouse and pro shop
to replace the existing structures. Renovations to the golf course will include new tees,
new greens, new irrigation system, new cart paths, selected tree removal, and modified
grading.
Thesite is approximately 161 acres and includes the clubhouse, driving range, golf
course, and portions of Keller Regional Park. Renovations include the removal and
replacement of several hundred trees. The City’s wetland classification map shows
eight wetlands on the site. All eight wetlands are classified as Manage B wetlands with
a required 75 foot buffer.Following is a summary of tree and wetland issues related to
the project.
TREES
Tree Preservation Ordinance
1.:Maplewood’s tree preservation ordinance
protects significant trees, which are defined as follows:
hardwood tree -minimum of 6 inches in diameter
evergreen tree -minimum of 8 inches in diameter
softwood tree -minimum of 12 inches in diameter
If less than 20 percent of significant tree diameter inches areremoved from the
site, the applicant shall replace one tree per significant tree removed. Tree
replacement shall be a minimum of 2 caliper inches in size. If 20 percent or more
total diameter inches are removed, the applicant shall mitigate all significant
diameter inches using a tree mitigation/replacement schedule based on the
number and size of trees on the site, versus the number and size of trees
removed.
The ordinance applies to any individual, business, or entity that engages in a
building or development project which requires issuance of a grading permit or
new building permit. Tree removal related to city
public improvement projects to
existing roadways, sewers, and other infrastructure, utility/infrastructure work or
repair are exempt. The removal of dead and dying trees isalso exempt from
replacement requirements.
1
Attachment 9
Tree Removal and Required Replacement
2.:While the ordinance specifies that
city public improvement projects are exempt from the ordinance, the intent of the
ordinance was to exclude all public improvements projects whether it is a city,
county, or state project. Regardless of the exclusion, Ramsey County will meet
the intent of the ordinance with itsproject as follows:
Tree inventory -Only 1,409 trees on the entire site have been inventoried by a
certified arborist. There is an additional 12.02 acres of tree canopy that was not
inventoried.
Tree removal –Of the 1,409 trees inventoried(20,544 caliper inches), 483 will be
removed as part of the overall project(club house and golf course). Of these
trees 88 are ash trees, 95 have significant tree damage or signs of disease, and
87 do not qualify as a significant tree for replacement purposes. After the
removal of the ash trees (which were slated for removal from the County Parks
due to eventual loss from Emerald Ash Borer), as well as the removal of the
damaged/diseased and nonsignificant trees, Ramsey County willbe removing
213 significant trees as part of the project. Total caliper inches removed equals
inventoried
3,625 inches, which is 17.55 percent of the total caliper inches for all
trees.
Tree replacement –Since Ramsey County will be removing less than 20 percent
of significant tree diameter inches from the site, the ordinance requiresthe
replacement of one tree per one significant tree removed, for a total of at least
213 new trees. Ramsey County proposes to plant treesas follows:
Golfcourse trees planted -213 trees
Clubhouse trees planted –94 trees (47 deciduous[2.5 caliper inch
trees], 22 ornamental[1.5 caliper inch trees], and 25 evergreen[6-foot
high evergreens])
Total trees planted -307 trees
Tree Ordinance Review Summary
3.:Theproject meets the City’s tree
preservation and replacement requirements.
WETLANDS
Wetland Ordinance
1.:TheCity’s wetland classification map shows eight Manage
B wetlands located throughout the golf course. The wetland ordinance requires a
75-foot buffer adjacent a Manage B wetland. Renovations to the golf course will
have some impacts on the wetland buffers (described below).
The City’s wetland classification mapwas adopted in 2009 as part of the wetland
ordinance. The wetland ordinance statesthat the City Council will adopt
changes to the wetland map which are based on MnRAM studies and other
technical data which has been approved by watershed districts. The wetland
delineation report found three wetlands on the site to be stormwater ponds and
two wetlands to be incidental (described below).
2
Attachment 9
Stormwater Pond Designation
2.:Ramsey County had a wetland delineation
report completed for the site. The report found that there are ten wetlands
located on the site. Three of thewetlands were found to have been constructed
infiltration basins created for previous golf course and neighborhood road
construction projects. One of thewetlands (Wetland 3) is reflected on the City’s
wetland classification map as a Manage B wetland. Two of thewetlands
(Wetlands 1 and 2) are notshown on the wetland classification map.
Based on the wetland delineation report and historical data from the City,
Ramsey-Washington Metro Wateshed District will be downgrading the three
wetlands to stormwater ponds. Maplewood should also change the classification
of Wetland 3 from a Manage B to a stormwater pond, and add two new
stormwater ponds (Wetland 1 and 2) to the wetland classification map.
Areas around the stormwater ponds will have some grading impacts forthe
construction of the club house and pro shop, and the renovation of the driving
range.
Incidental Wetlands
3.: The wetland delineation report described Wetlands 7 and
10 to be incidental (nonhistorical) and not subject to the Water Conservation Act
regulations. Ramsey-Washington Metro Watershed District has agreed with this
assessment and will be removing those wetlands from their wetland classification
map. Maplewood should also remove the two incidental wetlands (Wetland 7
and 10 -currently identified as Manage B wetlands) from the city’s wetland
classification map. Wetland 7 will be regarded to create a new tee and Wetland
10 will be expanded as an irrigation pond.
Wetland Buffer Impacts
4.: Some grading and renovations will take place in areas
currently maintained as turf, but located within the City’s required 75-foot buffer.
These areas are considered pre-existing, nonconforming buffers and grading is
allowed. Staff worked with the County’s golf architect to ensure no
encroachments wouldtake place into native or naturalized buffers. Additionally,
the County is proposing to restore several areas of the golf course with prairie to
include grasses and flowering plants. The 75-foot buffer around Wetland 5,
which is currently maintained as turf grass, will be included in the prairie
plantings to create a new 75-foot plus native buffer around that wetland.
Wetland Ordinance Review Summary
5.:Based on the Ramsey-Washington
Metro Watershed District’s review and approval the following changesshould be
made to the City’s wetland classification map:
a.Wetlands1 and 2 need to be added to the City’s wetland map and
classified as stormwater ponds.
b.Wetland 3 needs to be downgraded from a Manage B wetland to a
stormwater pond.
c.Wetlands 7 and 10 needto be removed from the wetland map as they
have been shown to be incidental wetlands.
3
ttachment 10
A
ttachment 10
A
ttachment 10
A
Attachment 11
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION
WHEREAS, Ramsey County applied for a conditional use permit amendment to renovate and
reconstruct its Keller Golf Course.
WHEREAS, Section 44-1092(1) of the city code requires a conditional use permit for any public
service or public building use.
WHEREAS, this permit applies to the property located at 2166 Maplewood Drive.The legal
description is:
SUBJ TO HWY 61 & FROST AVE & EX STATE OF MINNESOTA R/W; W ½ OF NW ¼ OF NE
¼ & TRIANGULAR PART IN SW COR OF E ½OF NW ¼ OF NE ¼ MEAS 208.71 FT ON WL
& 297.26 FT ON SL THEREOF ALSO PART OF SW ¼ OF NE ¼ LYING NLY OF STATE OF
MINNESOTA R/W ALSO PART OF NE ¼ OF NW ¼ LYING ELY OF HWY 61 & ELY OF AL
DESC AS COM AT PT ON NL OF & 1830.5 FT E OF NW COR OF NW ¼ TH S 40 DEG 15
MIN W FOR 790 FT TO WL OF NE ¼ OF NW ¼ TH S ON SD WL FOR 310 FT TH S 43 DEG
15 MIN E FOR 160 FT TO PT OF BEG TH S 10 DEG E FOR 300 FT TO SL OF NE ¼ OF NW
¼ & THERE TERM ALSO PART OF SE ¼ OF NW ¼ LYING NLY OF STATE OF MINNESOTA
R/W
ALSO PART OF SW ¼ OF NW ¼ LYING ELY & SLY OF AL BEG ON EL OF & 366 FT S FROM
NE COR OF SW ¼ OF NW ¼ TH N 72 DEG 18 MIN W FOR 119 FT TH WLY ALONG CURVE TO
LEFT RAD 215 FT FOR 185 FT TH S 66 DEG 34 MIN W FOR 195 FT TH S 48 DEG 40 MIN W
FOR 320 FT TH S 440 FT TH S 46 DEG 45 MIN E FOR 400 FT TO SL OF SW ¼ OF NW ¼ &
THERE TERM ALSO PART OF NW ¼ OF SW ¼ LYING ELY & NLY OF PART OWNED BY CITY
OF ST PAUL ALSO W 330 FT OF GOVT. LOT 2 IN NE ¼ OF SW ¼ LYING ELY & NLY OF PART
OWNED BY CITY OF ST PAUL ALSO PART OF E 10 ACRES OF W 20 ACRES OF SD GOVT.
LOT 2 LYING NLY OF STATE OF MINNESOTA R/W; ALL IN SECTION 16, TOWNSHIP 29,
RANGE 22.
WHEREAS, the history of this conditional use permit is as follows:
1.On July 27, 2012, 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 recommended that the city council ________this permit.
2.On __________, 2012, the city councilconsidered this application. The council also considered
reports and recommendations of the city staff and planning commission.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the city council ________the above-described
conditional use permitamendment, because:
1.All construction shall follow the site plan approved by the city. Staff may approve minor
changes.
2.The use would be located, designed, maintained, constructed and operated to be in conformity
with theCity's Comprehensive Plan and this Code.
3.The use would not change the existing or planned character of the surrounding area.
4.The use would not depreciate property values.
5.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.
6.The use would not exceed the design standards of any affected street.
7.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.
8.The use would not create excessive additional costs for public facilities or services.
9.The use would maximize the preservation of and incorporate the site's natural and scenic
features into the development design.
The use would cause no more than minimal adverse environmental effects.
10.
Approval is subject to the following conditions(additions are underlined and deletions are crossed out:
1.All construction shall follow the approved site plan. The directorof community
development may approve minor changes.
2.The applicant must begin construction within one year after the council approves this
permit or the permit shall end. The city council may extend this deadline for one year.
3.The city council shall review this permit in one year.
4.The use of nine foot wide parking spaces is approved as an expansion of a legal, non-
conforming use.
The Maplewood City Council __________this resolution on _____________, 2012.
MEMORANDUM
TO:James Antonen, City Manager
FROM:Tom Ekstrand, Senior Planner
ChuckAhl,Assistant City Manager
Combining PC/CDRB
SUBJECT:
DATE:July 10, 2012
INTRODUCTION
On June 4, 2012, the city council directed staff to proceed with developing a
plan/process for combining the planning commission (PC) and the community
design review board (CDRB) into one commission.
The purpose of combining these commissions would be to:
Reduce the number of advisory commission reviews to simplify and
shorten the review process.
Improve the efficiency of time spent by commission volunteers and that of
staff in attending meetings.
Reduce the number of persons needed to serve onvarious commissions.
Lately, there has been a lack of interest and difficultyin finding enough
qualified candidates for all the commissions.
The PC used to handle design reviews until the CDRB was formed in the
early 1970’s. In many cases, their review of the design elements of plans
would be an appropriate fit for them when reviewing the zoning issues
involved with a proposal.
Both the PC and CDRB have switched to meeting once a month, unless a
time-sensitive matter or urgent need for review comes up. Combining
the PC and CDRB would lend to a more efficient review process now that
the number of development requests have dropped.
DISCUSSION
Membership Impact
Currently, the number of seats on each commission is:
PC9
CDRB5
ThePCpresently has one vacancy.Mr. Boeser is currently serving until his
position is filledby the city council.
The members of both commissions said that they would not want their groups to
grow in numbers too large to become unwieldy.A reasonable goal would be for
aninemember combined commission, the samesize membership the PC
currently has. Staff would like to see the skilled representation of both the PC
and CDRB fill this combined commission.
Of those onthe PC, the membership terms are to expire as follows:
Dale TripplerDecember 31, 2012
Al BierbaumDecember 31, 2012
Stephen WensmanDecember 31, 2012
Lorraine FischerDecember 31, 2013
Tushar DesaiDecember 31, 2013
Joe BoeserDecember 31 2013
Gary PearsonDecember 31, 2014
Larry DurandDecember 31, 2014
Paul ArbuckleDecember 31, 2014
When Would the Combination Take Place?
Staff’s goal is to have the combination of the PC and CDRBtake place in
January 2013.
What are the Responsibilities of a Combined Commission?
In addition to thezoning, comprehensive plan and landuse related issues the
planning commission reviews, the additional duties that are design related are
typically:
1.Review architectural, site and landscaping plans for all buildings from
double dwellings to industrial-scale developments.
2.Review comprehensive sign plans for shopping centers.
3.Make recommendations to the city council on ordinance revisions that
have design impacts.
CONCLUSION
At this time, staff would like to ask the planning commissioners if they would have
an interest in continuing to serve on the commission when it would pick up the
additional duties of design reviews. This will help us to plan for membership on
this combined commission. We would like to retain the quality experience and
expertise we have on both commissions.
2
RECOMMENDATION
Inform staff whether you would wish to be part of a combined PC/CDRB.
p:planning commission\Combining Commissions PC and CDRB 7 12 te
3