Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10/07/1996BOOK MAPLEWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION Monday, October 7, 1996 7:00 PM City Hall Council Chambers 1830 County Road B East 1. Call to Order 2. Roll Call 3. Approval of Minutes a. September 16, 1996 4. Approval of Agenda o o Public Hearings a. Slumberland Furniture Store - County Road D Land Use Plan Change (R-3H to BC) Zoning Map Change (R-3 to BC) Parking Reduction Authorization Unfinished Business a. Wetland Setback Variance - General Sprinkler Corporation (County Road D) 7. New Business a. Easement Vacation - Carefree Cottages of Maplewood (Phase III) - Gervais Ave 8. Visitor Presentations 9. Commission Presentations a. September 23 Council Meeting: Mr. Thompson b. October 14 council Meeting: Ms. Ericson c. September 20, 1996 letter from Mr. Kopesky 10. Staff Presentations 11. Adjournment WELCOME TO THIS MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION This outline has been prepared to help you understand the public meeting process. The review of an item usually takes the following form: The chairperson of the meeting will announce the item to be reviewed and ask for the staff report on the subject. Staff presents their report on the matter. The Commission will then ask City staff questions about the proposal. The chairperson will then ask the audience if there is anyone present who wishes to comment on the proposal. This is the time for the public to make comments or ask questions about the proposal. Please step up to the podium, speak clearly, first giving your name and address and then your comments. After everyone in the audience wishing to speak has given his or her comments, the chairperson will close the public discussion portion of the meeting. The Commission will then discuss the proposal. No further public comments are allowed. o The Commission will then make its recommendation or decision. All decisions by the Planning Commission are recommendations to the City Council. The City Council makes the final decision. jw/pc~pcagd Revised: 01/95 MINUTES OF THE MAPLEWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION 1830 COUNTY ROAD B EAST, MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA SEPTEMBER 16, 1996 I. CALL TO ORDER Chairman Axdahl called the meeting to order at 7 p.m. II. ROLL CALL Commissioner Lester Axdahl CommissIoner Bunny Brueggeman Commissioner Barbara Ericson Commissioner Lorraine Fischer Comm;ss~oner Jack Frost Commlss;oner Kevin Kittridge Comm~ss;oner Dave Kopesky Commissioner Gary Pearson Commissioner William Rossbach Comm~ss;oner Milo Thompson Present Present Absent Absent Present (arrived at 7:12 p.m.) Present Present Present Present Present III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Commissioner Pearson moved approval of the minutes of September 3, 1996, as submitted. Commissioner Rossbach seconded. Ayes-all The motion passed. IV. APPROVAL OFAGENDA Commissioner Pearson moved approval of the agenda as submitted. Commissioner Thompson seconded. Ayes-all The motion passed. V. PUBLIC HEARINGS Good Samaritan Nursing Home Expansion---550 Roselawn Avenue: Land Use Plan Change, Zoning Map Change, and Conditional Use Permit Ken Roberts, associate planner, read the public hearing notice and presented the staff report. Ken Hairier, city engineer, answered a question about the drainage recommendation for the southwest corner of the site that will assure that the water gets into the catch basin. Russ Rosa, the architect for the project, said they agreed with the city's comments and recommendations. He added that they would change the new parking stalls from the west to the east side of the proposed parking lot. Chairperson Axdahl asked for comments from the public. Mike Schoenecker, who resides on the southwest side of the nursing home (behind the parking lot), was concerned about where the snow will be placed during the winter. He said previously it was pushed up against the fence in the southwest corner and caused the fence to collapse. Mr. Schoenecker also said the lighting in the rear of the building should be placed so that the glare does not disturb the neighbors. Planning Commission Minutes of 09-16-96 -2- Mr. Roberts said the city does have lighting requirements and these are reviewed by the Maplewood Community Design Review Board. Mr. Roberts thought the nursing home would not pile snow against a fence that they had just spent money to replace. Mr. Rosa said the nursing home is considering erecting a barrier fence, near the utility garage in the southwest corner, that would eliminate the possibility of snow being pushed on the catch basin and against the fence. Mr. Rosa also said the only additional lighting will be over the south entrance and will shine straight down. However, the light on the utility garage will be modified. Commissioner Thompson encouraged snow removal rather than just plowing because the entire south fence has been damaged from the plowing. Dan Powers, 510 Roselawn Avenue, asked why a new parking lot was needed. Mr. Rosa felt the reason was to create an effective handicap entrance to the building. Commissioner Thompson was familiar with the nursing home and agreed that additional parking and an entrance at the upper level was necessary. Mr. Schoenecker, 529 Bellwood Avenue East, asked additional questions about parking lot drainage. Elizabeth Powers, 510 Roselawn Avenue East, objected to the lot at 530 Roselawn being flattened and cleared of trees to expand a commercial use in a residential neighborhood. Ms. Powers said when she inquired about the proposed large entrance area to the nursing home, she was told that the home did not have enough visibility. She spoke about the impact that this expansion would have on the neighborhood. Commissioner Brueggeman was impressed with the interior remodeling that has been done at the nursing home and was "very sensitive" to accessibility for the disabled. Since there were no further comments, the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Rossbach suggested the nursing home give further thought to the design of the proposed parking lot and the size of the new entrance. Commissioner Kittridge moved the Planning Commission recommend: Adoption of the resolution which changes the land use plan designation for the property at 530 Roselawn Avenue from R-1 (single dwelling) to R-3H (multipl~e dwelling - High Density). The city bases this approval for the following reasons: 1. It would be consistent with the comprehensive plan's goals and policies. 2. It would be consistent with the property planned for R-3H to the east. 3. The proposed plan would increase the project site and reduce the population in the nursing home thus reducing the overall project density. Adoption of the resolution which changes the zoning map for the property at 530 Roselawn Avenue from R-1 (single dwelling residential) to R-3 (multiple dwelling residential). The city bases this approval on the findings required by the code. Co Adoption of the resolution which approves a conditional use permit for the expansion of a nursing home at 550 Roselawn Avenue. Approval is based on the findings required by the code and subject to the following conditions: 1. All construction shall follow the site plan approved by the city. The Director of Community Development may approve minor changes. '2. The proposed construction must be substantially started within one year of council approval or the permit shall end. The council may extend this deadline for one year. Planning Commission Minutes of 09-16-96 -3- 3. The city council shall review this permit in one year. Commissioner Pearson seconded. Ayes-all The motion passed. VI. NEW BUSINESS A. Wetland Setback Variance General Sprinkler Corporation (County Road D) Ken Roberts, associate planner, presented the staff report. Frenk Winiecki, of General Sprinkler Corporetion, was present. Mr. Winiecki stated that Cliff Aichinger of the watershed distdct said County Ditch 18 on the west side of the preperty was not in the wetland. Mr. Winiecki said he could shorten the building by 18 feet and widen it by 6 feet and decrease the asphalt parking area. He asked that "common sense" be applied to the wetland buffer issue. He said there is a huge drainage ditch on the west side with a steep bank that has nothing to do with weltands. Mr. Winiecki felt the large expanse of grass and trees that he has planned would alleviate the need for a holding pond. Mr. Roberts reiterated, for clarification purposes, Mr. Winiecki's contention that the ditch preperty is not wetland and that Pat Conred, of the Ramsey-Washington Metre Watershed District, was incorrect in putting flags that marked it as such along the ditch. Mr. Winiecki agreed but said there was wetland, but no flags, west of the ditch. Commissioner Thompson said if the drainage ditch, constructed by Ramsey County to carry runoff water to the swamp, was run on the right-of-way at the north edge of the preperty, normal setbacks would have been required from the south-side preperty lines. Mr. Thompson said this is a dreinage ditch, not a wetland on the east edge of the preperty. He suggested the same standards be used for Mr. Winiecki's property as was used for the adjacent land on each side. Commissioner Kittridge said the wetland buffer ordinance is new and does not pertain to previous developments. He thought the ordinance and other requirements are an attempt to protect existing wetlands and to impreve storm water runoff. Commissioner Frest asked for a clear definition from the watershed board of where the wetland is in relation to this preperty. Commissioner Pearson said he had a preblem in looking at the ditch as wetland because it had obviously been disturbed. Commissioner Frest moved the Planning Commission table the wetland setback variance application for Generel Sprinkler Corporetion until additional information is received from the Ramsey-Washington Metro Watershed Distdct defining the wetland. Commissioner Pearson seconded. Ayes-all The motion passed. Ken Haider, city engineer, said even though a holding pond was not shown in this preposal and is not required, it would be beneficial. Mr. Winiecki responded that he asked Cliff Aichinger of the watershed district about the holding pond and Mr. Aichinger didn't feel it was necessary. VII. VISITOR PRESENTATIONS There were no visitor presentations. Planning Commission Minutes of 09-16-96 VIII. COMMISSION PRESENTATIONS Ao September 9 Council Meeting: Ms. Brueggeman reported on this meeting. Ms. Coleman gave additional information on some of the items. B. September 23 Council Meeting: Mr. Kopesky will attend this meeting. Commissioner Kittridge asked that a representative from the Ramsey-Washington Metro Watershed District be present at the planning commission meeting when the General Sprinkler Corporation application is reviewed again. Commissioner Rossbach asked about the procedure and interest for reviewing the tree, slope, and wetland ordinances. IX. STAFF PRESENTATIONS There were no staff presentations. X. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 8:30 p.m. TO: FROM: SUBJECT: PROJECT: LOCATION: DATE: MEMORANDUM City Manager James Ericson, Planning Intern Zone Change, Comprehensive Plan Amendment, Roof-Mounted Equipment Screening Waiver, Parking Reduction Authorization and Design Approval Slumberland Store North Side of County Road D, West of Frank's Nursery October 1, 1996 INTRODUCTION Project Description Larson Enterprises is proposing to build a Slumberland Furniture Store on the north side of County Road D, between Maple Ridge Apartments and Frank's Nursery and Crafts. The proposed one-story building would be 35,000 square feet. The building exterior would be rockface concrete block with accent stripes at the base of the building. The building's entrance will be glass and E.I.F.S. (exterior insulation finish system) surrounded by burnished concrete block. The applicant proposes a six-foot-tall screening of decorative fencing and evergreens between the building and the apartments to the west. Refer to the maps on pages 11 and 12 and the site plan on page 15. Requests To build this facility, Larson Enterprises is requesting that the city approve the following: A land use plan map change from R-3H (high density residential) to BC (business commercial). Refer to the maps on pages 13-14 and the letter on pages 17-18. A rezoning from R-3 (multiple-family residential) to BC (business commercial). Refer to the map on page 12. A parking reduction authorization. Refer to parking plan on page 16 and the letter on page 19. 4. A rooftop equipment screening waiver. Refer to letter on page 20. 5. The building elevations, site and landscape plans Reasons forthe Requests Plan change and rezoning: The code does not allow commercial uses in R-3 districts. Parking reduction: Slumberland requires a high volume of space to serve a Iow volUme of customers. Instead of maximizing impervious surface area, they would rather increase the amount of green area. They have shown proof of required parking on the plans. Screening waiver: The applicant feels that the rooftop equipment would be hidden frommost areas surrounding the site because of the building's parapet and the building's placement on higher ground making it less likely to view the equipment. BACKGROUND On September 5, 1974, the city rezoned these parcels to their current zoning of R-3 and BC. In 1989, the planning commission approved a conditional use permit for a three-story, 62-unit apartment building. This project was named Maple Knoll Apartments. The city council tabled the proposal indefinitely after the applicant withdrew his application. DISCUSSION Rezoning and Comprehensive Plan Amendment Slumberland would be more compatible with the adjacent commercial development than a multiple-family residential development since it abuts the existing commercial area and the freeway. In addition, the city's land use map designates the land across County Road D for commercial uses. The proposed project would be well screened from the neighboring apartments and may be less disruptive than multi-family housing on this site. Depending on the type of multi-family development, there could be up to 55 apartments or 35 townhomes on this property. Maplewood does not have specific findings for changing the land use plan. Any changes, however, should be consistent with the policies in the city's comprehensive plan. I have listed the appropriate policies on page 9. The developer's proposal meets these policies. There are four city requirements for rezoning. These are in the resolution on page 23. This proposal would meet the rezoning criteria. ~ Parking Reduction Authorization According to the city code, a 35,000-square-foot commercial building would need 175 parking spaces. Based on experience at other Slumberland stores, the applicant does not need that amount. The applicant proposes to install 70, for a reduction of 105 spaces. If the parking demand increases in the future, the applicant has room to add more parking at that time. It is better from aesthetic and runoff standpoints to postpone paving the additional parking spaces until the store needs them. The parking plan on page 15 provides proof of parking for the full amount required by code. Slumberland would have a total of 25 employees at this store with 18 to 20 maximum on site at a time. This would leave 50 to 52 parking spaces available for customers which should be adequate. Rooftop Equipment Screening Waiver The points to consider are whether or not screening would improve the building's appearance and protect property values. I agree with the applicant in that screening would be more noticeable than the equipment it is meant to hide. Screening is always larger than the mechanical equipment and often looks worse after time and the elements cause deterioration. In this case, the rooftop equipment would be substantially screened because the building parapet and the fact that the site grade is higher than the freeway. Grading and Drainage Plan The site would drain to the drainage ditch along the south side of 1-694 as well as into the city storm sewer in County Road D. Both methods comply with the city's dranaige plan. The applicant must get approval from MnDOT (Minnesota Department of Transportation) to drain into their ditch. The applicant also proposes to fill onto the Frank's Nursery retaining wall if the owner of Maplewood Town Center will allow this. If the neighbor will permit this, the applicant should provide written verification of this agreement. Design Considerations LandscaDina/Screenina The proposed landscaping along the west lot line would provide an attractive and effective screen. The applicant should consider utilizing some of the existing mature trees, however, in this plan. The city's forester looked at the existing trees along the west line and felt that the large elm tree was worth saving. The review board may wish to consider saving this tree, or any others, if they would fit into the proposed landscape plan. In one respect it is a shame to cut down mature trees that provide substantial screening. On the other hand, they may not fit into the proposed plan and would not live as long as the proposed trees. One property manager of the adjacent apartments to the west was concerned with truck dock activity. Preserving the larger trees would help to buffer this activity. Trash Container Screenina The applicant proposes to place the trash dumpster in the back of the building behind a screening wall. Refer to the building elevations-Sheet A3 (separate attachment). If the trash container is not adequately screened, the applicant should provide additional screening. RECOMMENDATIONS Ao Adopt the resolution on page 22. This resolution changes the city's land use plan from R-3H (multiple-family residential) to BC (business commercial). This change is for the proposed Slumberland Furniture store site on the north side of County Road D between Frank's Nursery and Crafts and Maple Ridge Apartments. The city approves this change for the following reasons: 1. It is consistent with the goals policies in the Maplewood Comprehensive Plan for commercial and industrial development. 2. The proposed commercial development would be more compatible with traffic conditions on County Road D than a residential use. 3. There is similar commercial development to the east of this site. 4. The proposed Slumberland store is designed to keep the customer activity away from the apartments to the west. Adopt the resolution beginning on page 23. This resolution changes the zoning map from R-3 (multiple-family residential) to BC (business commercial). This rezoning is for three of the four properties for the proposed Slumberland Furniture store on the north side of County Road D between Frank's Nursery and Crafts and the Maple Ridge Apartments. This rezoning is based on the findings required by the code. Co Approve a parking reduction authorization for 105 fewer parking spaces than the code requires, based on the following reasons: The proposed retail use requires a high volume of space to serve a Iow volume of customers and would not generate the usual amount of traffic generated by other retail businesses. 2. Much of the proposed building would be used for display of furniture. 3. The applicant has proven that there is ample site area available to add more parking spaces in the future if the need would arise. If a parking shortage develops, the city council may require that the applicant provide additional parking spaces in accordance with city parking requirements. D° Waive the rooftop screening requirement for the proposed Slumberland Furniture store. This waiver is based on the following reasons: 1. It would not improve the building's appearance or affect property values. ° The property owner would paint the units to match the building as code requires. Painting is less noticeable and less obtrusive than building screening enclosures around them. 3. The equipment would not be very noticeable from the freeway because of the higher site grade and the building's parapet. The applicant must paint all rooftop equipment to match the building. (code requirement) 4 Approve the plans (date-stamped September 18, 1996) for Slumberland, based on the findings required by the code. The developer, Larson Enterprises, shall do the following: 1. Repeat this review in two years if the city has not issued a building permit for this project. 2. The applicant shall: a. Cap and seal any wells on site. b. Remove any septic systems and drainfields. c. Remove the two existing houses, garages and sheds. cl. Have the four lots combined and recordecl with Ramsey County as one lot. e. Submit a grading, drainage, utility ancl erosion control plan to the city engineer for approval; erosion control plan shall be consistent with code requirements; obtain written permission from the owner of Maplewoocl Town Center for any grading or fill that would occur on their land; and provide the city with a copy of this agreement. 3. Complete the following before occupying the building: a. Replace property irons that are removed because of this construction. b. Restore and sod damaged boulevards. c. Install reflectorized stop signs at all exits, a handicap-parking sign for each handicap-parking space and an address on the building. d. Construct a trash dumpster enclosure or additional screening to hide the trash container(s) if the screening wall does not adequately hide the containers. (code requirement) Any additional screening shall be subject to staff approval. e. Install an automatic in-ground irrigation system with a rain sensor for all landscaped areas. f. Install continuous concrete curbing. g. Install site security lighting. These lights must be directed away from the adjacent apartments or shielded or screened to prevent any light glare nuisances. 4. If any required work is not done, 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 a cash escrow or an irrevocable letter of credit for the required · o work. The amount shall be 150% of the cost of the unfinished work. c. The city receives an agreement that will allow the city to complete any unfinished work. Outdoor storage or sales of materials or goods is not allowed. All work shall follow the approved plans. The director of community development may approve minor changes. CITIZENS' COMMENTS I surveyed owners of the six properties within 350 feet of the proposed Slumberland site. Of the three replies, all were in favor. In Favor Comments 1. It will be an asset to the development of the area. (Hajicek, 1700 E. County Road D) Due to the noise created by semi trucks changing gears, reversing, etc, we would like to see the truck dock relocated to the northeast corner of the building. However, we would be delighted to have Slumberland as a neighbor. (Jim Baumgartner, Thies and Talle Management) 3. Refer to the letter on page 21. (Kenneth R. Larson, Larson Enterprises, 3060 Centerville Road, Little Canada) REFERENCE INFORMATION " SITE DESCRIPTION Site size: 3.4 acres Existing land use: Two houses and two undeveloped parcels (four parcels in all) SURROUNDING LAND USES North: South: East: West: Interstate 694, City of White Bear Lake Undeveloped land planned for commercial use Maplewood Town Center with Frank's Nursery and Crafts in closest proximity Maple Ridge Apartments PAST ACTION Previous Roof-Equipment Screening Waivers January 28, 1986: The CDRB waived the roof-equipment screening requirement for the four-story office building at 2785 White Bear Avenue. January 10, 1994: The city council waived the roof-equipment screening requirement for Circuit City. April 24, 1995: The city council waived the roof-equipment screening requirement for Cub Foods and the Home Depot for the view from the east side only. March 12, 1996: The CDRB waived the roof-equipment screening for the ~est of the rooftop equipment on the Home Depot. May 28, 1996: The CDRB waived the roof-equipment screening for several of the rooftop mechanical units on Cub Foods. September 24, 1996: The CDRB waived the roof-equipment screening for the new Lexus dealership on Highway 61. PLANNING Land Use Plan designation: R-3H and BC Zoning: R-3 and BC · Zone Change - Findings for Approval Section 36-485 of the zoning code requires that the city council make the following findings to rezone property: 1. The proposed change is consistent with the spirit, purpose and intent of the zoning code. The proposed change will not substantially injure or detract from the use of the neighboring property or from the character of the neighborhood, and that the use of the property adjacent to the area included in the proposed change or plan is adequately safeguarded. 3. The proposed change will serve the best interests and conveniences of the community, where applicable, and the public welfare. o The proposed change would have no negative effect upon the logical, efficient, and economical extension of public services and facilities, such as public water, sewer, police and fire protection and schools. Commercial and Industrial Development Policies The following are the city's commercial and industrial development policies from the Comprehensive Plan: · Group compatible businesses in suitable areas. · Provide attractive surroundings in which to shop and work. · Require adequate off-street loading facilities. · Avoid disruption of adjacent residential areas. · Require commercial and industrial developers to make all necessary improvements to ensure compatibility with surrounding residential uses. · Require adequate screening or buffering of new or expanded commercial areas from any adjacent existing or planned residential uses. · Restrict commercial development which will result in traffic volumes which are beyond the capacity of the road systems or generate excessive noise or pollution as defined by state standards. Rooftop Screening Code Requirement Section 36-27(b)(3) requires roof-equipment screening where the mechanical equipment would be visible from public streets or adjoimng property. The CDRB may waive the screening requirement for mechanical equipment if they determine that screening would not improve the building appearance or protect property values. If the CDRB waives this requirement, they shall require that the mechanical equipment be painted to match the building. When screening is provided, the roof equipment must also be painted to match the building. Parking Reduction Authorization Section 36-22(a) states that the city council may authorize the reduction of the required number of parking spaces if warranted. p:sec34-30\slumber, dev Attachments: 1. Location Map 2. Property Line/Zoning Map 3. Land Use Map (Existing) 4. Land Use Map (Proposed) 5. Site Plan 6. Parking Plan 7. Letter from Applicant: Justification for Rezoningand Plan Chan~le 8. Letter from Applicant: Justification for Parking Reduction Authonzation 9. Letter from Applicant: Justification for Rooftop Screening Waiver 10. Letter from Kenneth R. Larson 11. Comprehensive Plan Amendment Resolution 12. Zone Change Resolution 13. Plans date -stamped September 18, 1996 (separate attachments) ]0 Attachment 1 ROAD D WOODLYNN 1. SUMMIT CT. 2. COUNTRYVIEW CIR. 3. 0ULUTH CT. 4.. LYDtA ST. BEAM ~ COUN'P/' ~ COURT AvE. I~ ~ Ko~ua~ EDOEHILL RD. ~. ..j AVE. / GERVAIS LOCATION 11 'MAP INTERSTATE 694 Attachment 2 T'O t~D (~) I. MAPLE RIDGE APARTMENTS EXISTING HOUSES AND GARAGE TO BE REMOVED FRANKS F 1700 <- -q-~,. ~---~-- < -. -< .... -~ -~'__ _<. ____ - ~ 12 interchange I arterial Attachment 3 interchange OS M-1 ~ BC ° major collector ~ ~ II M-1 P I-3(M) P OS LAND USE MAP EXISTING 13 BC interchange principal arteri Attachment 4 interchange )lie M-1 P OS colle ~ ~'-FR ~ rte. rial LAND Highway 36 USE MAP PROPOSED 14 BC Attachment 5 1 SITE PLAN 15 1-694 Attachment 6 U U U U U U U U U U U U II II II II II FU U U U U U U U U U U U I II II II II II 1 I "11 II PARKING PLAN 16 slumbedand September 17, 1996 CITY OF MAPLEWOOD 1830 E. County Road B Maplewood, MN 55109 Attachment 7 INC., 3060 CENTERVILLE ROAD, LITTLE CANADA, MINNESOTA 55117 612-482-7500 REZONING AND COMP PLAN AMENDMENT Sh~mherland Furniture Store Maplewood, MN Property at 1729 E. County Road D Development Intent Dear planning Commission, Council Members and City Staff2 Slumberland is a major furniture retailer in the region and has a reputation for not only high quality products and services, but also for new, creative and attractive facilities. Slumberland's commitment to the community is also evident in its business practices. Sh~mberland is proposing to undertake construction of a new facility in your commllnity. It would be located in the area of the Maplewood Mall, north of County Road D.and west of the Frank's Nursery & Crafts. Because the site is located at the transition between commercild and high density residential, we are seeking a minor change in the comprehensive plan and zoning of the property. The intended fac'dRy will be designed as a transition between the zoning uses of commercial and residential on each of the east and west sides of the property. The project will edge the large commercial area surrounding the Maplewood Mall; an area which will continue to develop commercially. The new development will be at the end of the commercial zoning (BC) on a site which is currently occupied by a single family dwelling and some abandoned buildings. The project will be intentionally designed to aesthetically and functionally provide a smooth transition between zoning classifications. As a retail commercial use, Sb~mherland has a very low traffic flow and is a 'destination retail' location. This makes the project ideal for it's location at the end of the commercial development as it w:dl add little to the current traffic. The City of Maplewood will benefit from the fact that this rezoning is requested with an intended development plan attached and with every thought given to the issue ofpubhc safety and an improvement to the community. Because of the low intensity retail use, our project's imnact on the city i~frastructure, particularly water and sewer, should be less than that of a i~lti-family residential property (current zoning). We believe this is an additional benefit to the community. We have also designed the storm water runoffin compliance with the City Engineer's requirements so that nmoffwill not tax the existing storm sewer system The 17 September 17, 1996 CITY OF MAPLEWOOD Page 2 runoff concept has also been coordinated with the Minnesota Department of Transportation and the Watershed District. We intend to provide open space on the sit to more than comply with the zoning requirements. We will carefully attend to the required screening associated with the apartments to the west, to be sure of an appropriate and neighborly response. We will be enhancing the value of the property and surrounding properties by creating an appropriate high quality development with the intent for a profitable business and a positive community influence. We request the City~ thoughtful your positive r sp se. consideration of this rezoning request and look forward to mm 18 slumberland Attachment 8 INC., 3060 CENTERVILLE ROAD, LITTLE CANADA, MINNESOTA' 55117 612-482-7500 September 17, 1996 CITY OF MAPLEWOOD 1830 E. County Road B Maplewood, MN 55109 SITE PLAN REVIEW Sh~mberhnd Furniture Store Maplewood, MN Property at 1729 E. County Road D Parking Requirements Dear Planning Commi.~sion, Council Members and City Staff.' In association with the request for rezoning and plan review of the above referenced property, Slumberland Furniture is proposing development ora new retail store. As part of the site plan review process, required parking stall counts have been established based on the Maplewood C/ty Zoning Ordinance. According to that ordinance for development ora 35,000 square foot retail commercial facility, 175 automobile parlfng stall.~ would be required. It is our understanding that thi.~ would take into account any retail usage that may be developed on the site. Since Slumberhnd Furniture Stores are a destination retail and are a use which requires a high rob!me of space for a fairly ~nall nnmber of customers, it would be Sb~mberland's intent to provide completed parking spaces comparable to their other stores and redube the total count from the primary requirement of the City to 70 stalls. The project will be designed to show proofofparlfng for 175 stalls which would meet the most strict requirements of the zoning ordinance. While we recognize the need and share the desire to provide adequate parking for our specific use, we also share the City's desire to limit the pavement, increase the landscaped open area and other benefits to the commlmity which result from careful calculation of the project requirements. We request approval ofthi.~ proposal to reduce parifng to 70 stalls and incorporate proof o}~paridng for the additional 105 stalls. Vice President, ~ations mm 19 slumberland · INC., 3060 CENTERVILLE ROAD, LITTLE CANADA, MINNESDTA 55117 612-482-7500 September 17, 1996 CITY OF MAPLEWOOD 1830 E. County Road B Maplewood, MN 55109 SITE PLAN REVIEW Slumberland Furniture Store Maplewood, MN Property at 1729 E. County Road D RoofTop Screening Dear Planning Commlnsioll, Council Members and City Staff~ In association with our submittal for ~e plan review for the above referenced property, we respectfully request a waiver for the rooftop equipment screening which would typically apply to this project. The proposed building is sited rather high on a hill relative to other properties surrounding the site. This will allow the building parapet to better screen any rooftop equipment which would be included in the project. While the rooftop equipment may be vim'ble bom some areas surrounding the site, we would intend to paint the rooftop equipment a colo~r which would compliment the building exterior. It would be our intent that thia will create a smaller, less obvious component than a rooftop screen which would thus be less visible to neighboring properties. It is our intent to proceed in this manner. We respectfully request the City consider and authorize a rooftop screen waiver. Vice President, Operatic s 2O LARSON ENTERPRISES 3060 Centerville Road Little Canada, MN 55117 (612) 482-7500 Attachment 10 iSEP. I' ~6 September 25, 1996 Mr. James Ericson Comm-nlty Development Department City of Maplewood 1830 E. County Road B Maplewoock MN 5 $109-2797 Dear Mr. Ericson: As the landowner most effected by this proposed project, I want you to know that I am enthusiastically supportive of this new project. Ill can answer any specific questions, or be of any help in this process, please contact me at your convenience. mm 21 LAND USE PLAN CHANGE RESOLUTION Attachment ll WHEREAS, Larson Enterprises, representing Slumberland, applied for a change to the city's land use plan from R-3H (Multiple-family Residential) to BC (Business Commercial). WHEREAS, this change applies to the 2.25 acre tract on the north side of County Road D just west of Southlawn Street. WHEREAS, the history of this change is as follows: 1. The planning commission held a public hearing on October 7, 1996. City staff published a hearing notice in the Maplewood Review and sent notices to the surrounding property owners as required by law. The planning commiss on gave everyone at the hearing a chance to speak and present written statements. The planning commission recommended that the city council the plan amendment. 2. The city council discussed the plan amendment on ,199 . They considered reports and recommendations from the ~lanning commission'~nd city staff. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the city council approve the above-described change for the following reasons: 1. It is consistent with the goals policies in the Maplewood Comprehensive Plan for commercial and industrial development. 2. The proposed commercial development would be more compatible with traffic conditions on County Road D than a residential use. 3. There is similar commercial development to the east of this site. 4. The proposed Slumberland store is designed to keep the customer activity away from the apartments to the west. The Maplewood City Council adopted this resolution on ,1996 Attachment 12 R~:ZONING R£$OLU?)ON WHEREAS, Larson Enterprises, representing Slumberland, applied for a rezoning from R-3 (Multiple-family Residential) to BC (Business Commercial). WHEREAS, this rezoning applies to a 2.25 acre tract on the north side of County Road D just west of Southlawn Street. The legal descriptions of the properties to be rezoned are: Parcel 1. (P.I.N. 34-30-22-44-0003-7): The South 297 feet of the West ~ of the West ~ of the East ~ of the East ~ of the Southeast N of Section 34, Township 30, range 22, subject to highway easement, Ramsey County, Minnesota. Parcel 2. (P.I.N. 34-30-22-44-0004-0): That part of the West ~ of the East ~ of the East '~ of the Southeast N of Section 34~ Township 30, Range 22, lying Southerly of T.H. 393-694, except the south 297 feet of the West '~ of the West ~ of the East ~ of the East ~ of the Southeast N of said Section 34; and except the East 80 feet of the South 173 feet thereof; and subject to an easement for the existing public roadway along the South side thereo¢. Parcel 3. (P.I.N 34-30-22-44-0005-3): The east 80 feet of the South 173 feet of the West ~ of the East N of the Southeast N ~f Section 34, Township 30 North, Range 22 West, according to the United States overnment Survey thereof and situate in Ramsey County, Minnesota. WHEREAS, ti3e history of this rezoning is as follows: 1. The planning commission reviewed this rezoning on October 7, 1996. They recommended that the city council the rezoning.' 2. The city council held a public hearing on . The city staff published a notice in the Maplewood Review and sent notices to the surrounding property owners as required by law. The council gave everyone at the hearing an opportunity to speak and present wntten statements. The counc~ also considered reports and recommendations from the city staff and planning commission. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the city council approve the above-described rezoning for the following reasons: 1. The proposed change is consistent with the spirit, purpose and intent of the zoning code. 2. The proposed change will not substantially injure or detract from the use of the neighboring property or from the character of the neighborhood, and that the use of the property adjacent to the area included in the proposed change or plan is adequately safeguarded. 3. The proposed change will serve the best interests and conveniences of the community, where applicable, and the public welfare. 4. The proposed change would have no negative effect upon the logical, efficient, and economical extension of public services and facilities, such as public water, sewer, police and fire protection and schools. The Maplewood City Council adopted this resolution on ,1996. :)3 MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: SUBJECT: LOCATION: DATE: City Manager Ken Roberts, Associate Planner Wetland Buffer Variance - General Sprinkler Corporation County Road D, East of Highway 61 September 26, 1996 INTRODUCTION Project Deacripflon Frank Winiecki, of General Sprinkler Corporation, is proposing to build a 12,000-square-foot, one- story building for his business. This building would be on the south side of county Road D east of Highway 61. This site is 1,100 feet northeast of the new Lexus dealership on Highway 61. Refer to the maps on pages 6-7. Request The applicant is requesting that the city council approve a variance for a narrower wetland-protection buffer. Refer to the proposed site plan on page 8. City code requires a wetland buffer of 100 feet for this site. The proposed undisturbed buffer would range in width from 10 feet to 50 feet. Mr. Winiecki, therefore, is asking for a vadance of up to 90 feet in reduced buffer width. Please see Mr. Winiecki's letter on pages 9 -11 and the site plan date- stamped September 4, 1996 (separate attachment). The city code raquiras the wetland buffer to protect the adjacent wetland surrounding this site. The Ramsey-Washington Metro District classified this wetland as a Class 1 wetland. Class 1 wetlands are those with conditions and functions most susceptible to human impact, are most unique and have the highest community resource significance. Mr. Winiecki plans to apply for design approval if the city council grants this variance. BACKGROUND On June 17, 1996, the planning commission tabled action on this proposal and required the applicant to resubmit a revised site plan. On July.'15, 1996, the planning commission considered a revised site plan (date-stamped June 27, 1996) for this request. The planning commission recommended that the city council deny the wetland-protection buffer setback variance. Refer to the planning commission minutes beginning on page 12. On September 16, 1996, the planning commission considered another plan (date-stamped September 4, 1996) for this site. The commission tabled action on this plan to allow staff to get more information from the Ramsey-Washington Watershed District about the nearby wetlands. DISCUSSION Mr. Winiecki's revised site plan varies considerably from the previous site plan dated June 27, 1996. The revised plan reduces the building area from 14,784 square feet to 12,000 square feet. The applicant has reoriented the proposed building from the northern edge of the property parallel to County Road D to be parallel to the western property line, facing northeast. While this revised site plan is an improvement from the previous site plan, there still are significant problems. The revised plan shows landscaping and plants covering as much as g0 feet of the wetland buffer. The wetland protection ordinance considers these as ground disturbances. Wetland buffers are to be undisturbed areas. In addition, the proposed plan does not show a storm water pond. Mr. Winiecki has made several alterations on his plan as described in his letter dated 9-3-96 (see pages 9-11). However, the revised plan does not sufficiently address or resolve the main issue of the wetland setback and buffering. The proposed undisturbed wetland buffer would still be excessively narrow and contrary to the intent of the code. Wetland buffers serve as a way to preserve water quality, lessen development impact and provide wildlife habitat and aesthetic benefit. The proposed plan is not serving these needs. City staff also had the Ramsey-Washington Watershed District review the proposed site plan. They also had several concerns about the current proposal. (Please see their memo dated September 11, 1996 on page 14.)After the September 16, 1996 planning commission meeting, city staff met with the watershed district staff about the wetland delineation for this site. The watershed district reviewed and confirmed their wetland delineation for the area. That is, the wetland delineation includes the ditches or streams on both sides of the site as shown on the proposed site plan. While the site plan was not drawn as a certificate of survey, the watershed district staff felt that it was accurate enough for reviewing Mr. Winiecki's request. Lexus Site Regarding the Lexus variance, the city council allowed the reduced wetland buffer width because of the poor condition of the existing buffer on that site. The previous owner had filled and compacted the Lexus site over many years. As such, the land next to the we*tland did not provide any benefit as a wetland buffer. The city council determined that a 25..foot-wide functional buffer would be more beneficial than a 100-foot-wide hard-packed, nonfunctional buffer. Mr. Winiecki's situation is different. Most of the land next to the ditches and wetlands on Mr. Winiecki's site is in its natural state and has vegetative cover. As such, its usefulness as a wetland buffer has not diminished. Variance Request Protecting wetlands is the intent of the wetland setback ordinance. This ordinance provides for reduced setback standards for lesser-quality wetlands. The watershed district, however, classified the adjacent wetland and ditches as a Class I wetland-the highest-quality wetland. If the district felt that this was a lesser-quality wetland, they would have reduced its classification. The city ordinance would then have allowed more land area for development on this site..Based on this and because of the district's negative response to the proposed variance, the city council should uphold the intent of the ordinance and deny this request. 2 The site plan on page 8 shows how much land would be left for development on this site if the developer or applicant met the 100-foot wetland buffer requirement. Staff realizes that the city council may need to grant a variance for this site to develop. City staff cannot say what we would recommend as the maximum variance that the city should allow on this site. This would depend on the nature of the specific proposal and what method(s) of wetland protection the applicant would propose. RECOMMENDATION Deny the proposed wetland-protection buffer reduction variance for the proposed General Sprinkler building on County Road D (plan date-stamped September 4, 1996). The city should deny this variance because: The variance would not be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the ordinance. The Ramsey-Washington Metro Watershed District has classified the adjacent wetland and ditches as a Class 1 wetland-the most significant wetland type. The proposed variance would be excessive and would not significantly protect the wetland, which is the intent of the ordinance. The applicant has not shown that strict enforcement would cause undue hardship because of circumstances unique to the property. Undue hardship means the owner or developer cannot put the property to a reasonable use if the city denies the variance. The proposed variance is excessive. Another business can probably develop this site without the need for such a large variance. The reason for granting a 75-foot-wide wetland buffer width variance for the new Lexus automobile dealership does not apply to this site. The existing buffer on the proposed site has vegetative cover and functions as a wetland buffer. The quality of the existing buffer on the Lexus site had been seriously damaged over time. 4. The proposal offers little protection to the wetland for wildlife habitat and aesthetic enhancement, which are also functions of a wetland buffer. 3 REFERENCE INFORMATION SITE DESCRIPTION Site size: 1.79 acres Existing land use: undeveloped SURROUNDING LAND USES North: County Road D and 1-694 South: Undeveloped property West: Two single dwellings East: Northern States Power substation PAST ACTION February 26, 1996: The city council approved a wetland buffer reduction vadance of 75 feet for the new Lexus Dealership. The code required 100 feet, but the council allowed Lexus to provide a 25-foot-wide buffer. This was because of the poor condition of the existing buffer on the Lexus site. PLANNING Land Use Plan designation: M-1 (light manufacturing) Zoning: M-1 Ordinance Requirements Section 9-196(h)(3) requires a 100-foot-wide wetland-preservation buffer adjacent to the wetland that surrounds the proposed site. Findinga for Variance Approval State law requires that the city council make the following findings to approve a vadance from the zoning code: 1. Strict enforcement would cause undue hardship because of circumstances unique to the property under consideration. 2. The variance would be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the ordinance. "Undue hardship", as used in granting of a variance, means the property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use if used under conditions allowed by the official controls. The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to his property, not created by the landowner, and the variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. Economic considerations alone shall not constitute an undue hardship if reasonable use for the property exists under the terms of the ordinance. p:sec3~winiecki.41~ Attachments: 1. Location Map 2. Property Une/Zoning Map 3. Site Plan 4. Applicant's Letter dated September 3, 1996 5. Planning Commission Minutes, July 15, 1996 6. 9-11-96 memo from Watershed District 7. Site Plan date-stamped September 4, 1996 (separate attachment) 5 Attachment VADNAIS H[IGHTS D ~. SUMMrT CT. 2. COUt~ ~. 3. DULUTH CT. 4. LY~A ~T. 8EA~4 KOHLI4AH ROAD ~ C DEMON: z LOCATION MAP ~SEY COUNTY COURT COPE 6 Attachment 2 VADNAIS HEIGHTS Ii~KtI-COUNTY ROAD D NSP !, ..u..s, / <~ / ,,~, -. y,,~ r ,f/ .... / , ':7/ ~. BACKYARD :'/ ~ / -- SYSTEMS .' LEXUS ' 3000 ~,~..G~ 7 Attachment 3 EDGE OF THE REQUIRED 100-FOOT WETLAND BUFFER COUNTY ROAD D ASPHALT PARKING " AREA BUILDING WETLAND EDGE WETLAND EDGE PROPOSED SITE 8 PLAN I Attachment 4 Page 2 of 4 September 3, 1996 COUNTY DITCH ~ 18 This ditch parallels the west property line of the property· It is a deep ditch of running water that is 8 to 10 feet below the top of the bank east of the ditch· A metal culvert under County Road "D" transports water from north of "D' to the ditch. The watershed district does not consider Tract "A" registered land survey # 525 east of the ditch as wetlands. WETLANDS There are no wetlands on the land tract. Wetlands delineation off the property vary from 10 to 80 feet southeast and parallel to the south property line. REVISIONS The attached site development plan has been totally revised since my previous site development submittal. The building size has been reduced to 12,000 s.f. This represents a building pad that covers only 15~ of the 1.79 acre tract. The building length runs parallel to the west property line and County Ditch # 18. An existing wooded and grass area will now be on the rear of the building toward the drainage ditch. This area will be maintained as a water run off soaking area for the building roof and. parking area. Access to the rear of the building in not needed. All service doors and overhead doors will now be on one wall facing northeast. The building angular corner is moved forward to a roof overhang of 20'0' from the east west County Road 'D~ property line. Grass and tree planting areas have been increased to compliment the southern wetlands off the property. 9 Page 3 of 4 September 3, 1996 e. The asphalt surface area has been reduced. VARIANCE All property on the north side of County Road "D" from Highway 61 to the county walkway is state owned. Development is highly unlikely. The property east of Tract 'A" is owned by NSP and is a substation. The property west of Tract "A" is privately owned. Due to the angular property lines about the southeast corner of "D" and Highmay 61 any future development on this corner should not be affected by this reduced Tract "A~ frontal set back. 1. A variance in front set bank is requested from 30'0" to 20'0" to the roof overhang. 2. Due to the angular position of the building the southeast building corner will be approximately 95'0" from the delineated wetlands line. The southwest building corner mill be approximately 110'0~. A variance of approximately 1§'0" is necessary at the southeast building corner to the delineated wetlands. 3. A 37'0" new grass and maple trees area is proposed parallel to the south property line. The intent is to improve the esthetic effect of the property as viewed from 1-694 and County Road "D". An improved buffer of new trees and maintained grass all on the property will shield the dead standing trees, fallen trees and brush from view. A variance is necessary to install this new grass and tree area. 4. The east property line contains six parking stalls. An existing adjacent 60'0' strip of land is wooded level and owned by NSP. An east ditch parallels the NSP property. The level land and existing wooded grass area is considerably above the southern wetlands. 10 Page 4 of 4 September 3. 1996 This area should not be considered as wetlands as it is high and dry with a substation truck traffic road adiacent to lhe ditch. SUMMARY Tract "A" development as re-submitted offers a new approach to reasonable and responsible land use. The proposed building angular location on the property is unique compared to normal front street facing buildings. Because of the angular position, almost 60 degrees to the to the front street, all building access will be from the northeast side of the building. Positioning of the building, parking, landscaping and tree planting will provide for a pleasant looking development, a functional land use and an improvement to the local tax base compared to its present use. I believe that the variances requested are consistent with good practise considering the unusual shape of the properly and adiacent land conditions. ~ Sincerely, Frank M. Winiecki President Attachment MINUTES OF THE MAPLEWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION '1830 COUNTY ROAD B EAST, MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA JULY 16, 1996 V. UNFINISHED BUSINESS A. Wetland Setback Varian~ General Sprinkler Corporation (County Road D) Ken Roberts, associate planner, presented the staff report. Mr. Roberts said the revised plan has not increased the width of the buffer, although earth berms and grass areas have been added to some of the landscaping area with the buffer. He also said it was important to maintain a buffer in this area because the site is undisturbed and the existing buffer is functioning. Mr. Roberts answered questions from the commission. Commissioner Thompson felt the ditches on the perimeter of the property were not pristine. He said the soil from the stream bed had been put on either the watershed or the owner's property. Frank Winiecki, of General Sprinkler Corporation, was present. Mr. Winiecki said he revised the plans to address some of the con(ems that the planning commission voiced at their last meeting. However, he did not reduce the size of the building. Mr. Winiecki reviewed the changes in his plan. He said he is asking for a 60-foot setback on one side of the building, 72 feet on the other side, and to have the parking areas in the 25-foot vadan(e area. Five feet of this parking area would be part of the berm. Mr. Winiecki also responded to Patrick Conrad's (of the Ramsay- Washington Metro Watershed District) comments in his June 6, 1996, letter. Mr. Winiecki pointed out that Clarence Lacktorin had owned this property since 1952. The wetland easement has only been established within the last two years. Mr. Lacktorin was not advised of this easement and advertised the property as having 1.79 acres. He also noted that there are adjacent wetlands off the property. Mr. Winlecki answered questions from the commission. Clarence Lacktofin, the owner of the property, was present. Mr. Lacktorin said he sold land south and east of this property within the last two years to the Ramsay-Washington Metro Watershed District. Commissioner Brueggeman moved the Planning Commission recommend denial of the proposed wetland-protection buffer reduction variance for the following reasons: The variance would not be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the ordinance. The Ramsay-Washington Metro Watershed District has classified the adjacent wetland as a Class 1 wetland-the most significant wetland type. The proposed variance would be excessive and would not significantly protect the wetland, which is the intent of the ordinance. e The applicant has not shown that strict enforcement would cause undue hardship because of circumstances unique to the property. Undue hardship means that the property cannot be put to a reasonable use if the variance was denied. The proposed variance is excessive. Another business can probably develop this site without the need for such a large variance. The reason for granting a 75-foot-wide wetland buffer width variance for the new Lexus automobile dealership does not apply to this site. The existing buffer on the proposed site is undisturbed and functions properly as a wetland buffer. The quality of the existing buffer on the Lexus site had been seriously damaged over time. 12 Planning Commission Minutes of 07-15-96 -2- The proposal offers virtually no protection to the wetland for wildlife habitat and aesthetic enhancement, which are also functions of a wetland buffer. Commissioner Fischer seconded. Commissioner Fischer commented that this appears to be an 'intense use" for the amount of surface and where the buffers are required. She recognized that some variance buffer will be necessary for this site. Ms. Fischer said the absence of an engineered pond and having no elevations shown on the plan were factors in her decision. Commissioner Thompson encouraged the applicant to use staff's suggestions in trying to find a workable solution for the site. Ayes-all The motion passed. Commissioner Axdahl questioned why the ditch on the west side is too straight to be natural and has too much pitch to be consistent with noneroding sidewalls in a pristine wetland situation. He asked about the intrusion on personal property rights. Melinda Coleman, director of community development, compared this request to the wetland setback variance given to the Lexus car dealership at 3000 Maplewood Drive North. She said Lexus had a hydrologist, wetland specialist, and engineers to evaluate the situation and work with staff and the watershed district to arrive at solutions. Mr. Coleman said staff felt Mr. Winiecki's project was too large to fit on this site and invited him to work with available resources to locate a more practical site. 13 Ramsey-Washington Metro September 11, 1996 Ken Roberts Maplewood Community Development FROM: Cliff Aichinger, Administrator Attachment 6 '1902 East County Road B Maplewood, MN 55t09 (6t2) 777-3665 fax (6 2) 777-6307 District Review of General Sprinkler Corporation Site Plan on County Road D, East of Highway 61 At your request, we have reviewed the latest plan from General Sprinkler Corporation for development of the Tract A Register _es! Land Survey 525. In general, it appears that the site plan does not recognize the intent of the no disturb buffer zone. The plan indicates grading and new grass being planted up to the easterly and southerly property lines. Pat Conrad, District Technician, delineated the wetland edge for the applicant. The plan doesn't indicate if these flags were surveyed, so I'm not sure of their location on the project plan sheet. Pat -also delineated the wetland line on thc west side of the property adjacent to the county ditch. This line appears to be properly located on the plan. The other major concern is that there appears to be no hardship pre~nted. The proposed use of the site shows an extremely large asphalt yard and a small building. It appears that a building could be sited on thc property within the proposed wetland buffer requirements and comply with the ordinance. The large, parking area and asphalt yard is impossible to site on this property without infringing on the proposed buffer area. It does not appem' as though the proposer understands the purpose of the wetland buffer -- a no disturbance zone. After talking with him on several occasions, he seems to think that if he plants grass and trees up to the property edge it complies with thc ordinance. In this case, he shows disturbing the entire site except for thc bank to the county ditch. That cleatrly is not the intent of the buffer protection. 14 10 EIg~,:l 0tql,.l~'~.i,~ LOE'_~.ZZZ~,I'3 10:01 TO: FROM: SUBJECT: LOCATION: APPLICANT: DATE: MEMORANDUM City Manager James Ericson - Planning Intern Easement Vacation - Carefree Cottages of Maplewood (Phase III) Gervais Avenue, between Rainbow Foods and Carefree Cottages Mogren Development Company - Gerald Mogren September 30, 1996 INTRODUCTION Gerald Mogren, representing Mogren Development Company, is requesting that the city vacate part of a wetland easement. This easement area is northeast of the recently-completed senior apartment building (the "chalet") in the Carefree Cottages of Maplewood (Phase III) development. He needs this vacation because the construction accidentally encroached intO the existing wetland and easement. Refer to the maps on pages 3-4, the site plans on pages 5-6, and the applicant's letter starting on page 9. BACKGROUND On June 12, 1995, the city council made several approvals for the Carefree Cottages of Maplewood (Phase III). These included (1) a conditional use permit (CUP) for a planned unit development (PUD), (2) a land use plan change from LBC to RH and OS, (3) a vacation for an excess drainage easement, (4) a parking reduction authorization, (5) a sideyard setback variance and (6) the design approval. On June 24, 1996, the city council tabled a conditional use permit review for this project for three months, pending a resolution of the wetland encroachment. DISCUSSION The project contractor accidentally disturbed the area proposed for vacation during the site construction. (Refer to the map on page 8.) To mitigate this encroachment, Mr. Mogren proposes to expand the existing wetland to the northwest of the apartment building and to dedicate the existing NURP pond as a wetland. This would result in the creation of an additional 4,620 square feet of approved wetland. (Refer to the mitigation plan on page 7.) By law, the owner or developer must mitigate any wetland encroachment by the Creation of new wetlands at a 2 to 1. ratio. Mr. Mogren's proposal satisfies this requirement and the watershed distdct has. approved the plans. The construction of the Carefree Cottages of Maplewood (Phase III) is almost done. Of the 142 total units, 136 are already occupied. Only minor landscaping and siding work remains to be completed. They are projecting completion and occupancy to occur in mid-October. RECOMMENDATION Approve the resolution starting on page 12. This resolution vacates part of the drainage and wetland easement for Carefree Cottages of Maplewood (Phase III). The city should approve this vacation because: 1. It is in the public interest. 2. The area cannot be restored or used as a wetland as the apartment building encroaches into the existing easement. REFERENCE For vacations, Chapter 412.851 of Minnesota State law states that "No such vacation shall be made unless it appears in the interest of the public to do so..." P:\...\Secl l\Carefree.vac Attachments: 1. Location Map 2. Property Line / Zoning Map 3. Site Plan 4. Partial Site Plan 5. Proposed Wetland Mitigation Plan 6. Easement to be Vacated Map 7. Letter from Gerald Mogren 8. Easement Vacation Resolution ArT. GERVAIS V1KINO COUNTY COURT DCm~ON'T BleOOK~ AV~. z Z AW.. AvE. AW.. ROSL'WO00 C'OI~. ART.. LOCATION MAP Attachment ~WEET ESTATES mmmmmmmm · WET WETLAND °" J'~J'""' ('JJ) MAPLE I~IDGE MALL I e RAINBOW FOODS "~ ~BC '"' ,~ , , SITE ',,,.... 1700 OFFICE WAREHOUSE GERVAIS C :1790 1800LU 1818 1890 TOPPER ,~ -[- ~.~ wo.~' .~ . ,,~ LBC PROPERTY LINE / ZONING MAP N 4 POND COUNTY OPEN SPACE W~- '- Attachment 3 WETLAND 0 SITE PLAN w,,~. ~ CAREFREE COTTAGES OF MAPLEWOOD - PHASE III MAPLEWOOD, I~NNE$OTA Let 5, Bl~ek 1, M~I R~ M~ ~ ~e ~u~ 98~.64 ~l~ ~f LO~ 1. SITE PLAN 5 36 3-BE~DD~$ 36 i4E UN]TS TDTAL PARKINO T~TAL STALLS I~P£N - 70 TDTAL ~T~L$ COVERED - 124 Attachment 4 W~TLAND EASEMENT CAREFREE CHATEAU OF MAPLEWOOD APARTMENT BUILDING WETLAND EASEMENT ./ PARTIAL SITE PLAN 6 Attachment 5 N WETLAt'D POND FOR: CAREFREE CHATEAU OF MAPLEWOOD PROPOSED MITIGATION AREA I~* CONCRETE PIPE / INV 911.0g EXISTING POND /--- ~f~ILAND DFLINEAIION LINE ..' EXISTING WETLAND EXISTING BUILDING N.E CORNER I \ / 905.39 905.54 Attachment 6 0 j ~l ORIGINAL WETLAND DELINEATION LINE WETLAND EASEMENT 6; SILT FENCE NEW WETLAND LINE x 905.20 AREA OF WETLAND FILL = 2.310 SO. FT. x 905.25 36,32 EASMENT LINE x 905.48 912.90 905.13 907.2L--~, SCALE: 1 INCH = 20 FEET o 20 40 ~C~ M~ FEET .CARLEY-TORGERSEN, INC. LAND SURVEYORS (612) 484--,~30 1 SUITE 70,3 70 WEST COUNTY ROAD "C" ITI'LE CANADA, MN. 55117 I hereby certify that this survey, plan or repod was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I om o duly Registered Land Surveyor under the Io, Wls of the State of Minnesota. //..../z; Do/vi~l E ~' Torgersenv. P ~ / r "- ' ' ' ~r'/= U,nn. Reg. No._ :L755j_ _Date 7' ~"/-'~ Revision Dote Book No. Job No. 95-1,34 File No. Attachment 7 CITY OF MAPLEWOOD PROPOSAL FOR WETLAND AND WETLAND BUFFER MITIGATION Construction of the Carefree Chateau and Villas (1801 Gervais Avenue) commenced during the fall of 1995. There was the usual rush to get the earth work and foundation footings completed before winter set in. The project surveyor initially was Torwood Surveying and mapping. When the surveying was partially completed, the project excavator (Frattalone Excavating) began to discover errors in the placement of some of the survey stakes. Unfortunately, some of the footings.and foundation were already in place. When we began to discover these errors we quickly terminated our contract with Torwood Surveying and hired Carley Torgesen Inc. Land Surveyor. Torgesen reviewed the Torwood work and discovered that both the North Eastern edge and the Northwest edge of the. Chateau (se9 attached survey sections) were located slightly inside the 20 foot set back buffer from the wetlands. Pat Conrad of the Ramsey County Watershed also discovered that the construction road running along the east side of the building had encroached a total of 2310 square feet into the wetlands. Unfortunately, these three areas were discovered after a substantial portion of the construction work had been completed. When these errors were discovered, we immediately contacted the City of Maplewood and the Wetland Department to review our options to correct these errors. Mogren Development Company, developers 'of this project, did not intentionally encroach either the wetland buffer or the wetlands itself. We consider ourselves innocent victims of an incompetent surveyor. We did move quickly when errors were discovered, by hiring a new surveyor, but still have the existing encroachment issues to resolve. Based upon several conversations with the wetland people and the City of Maplewood staff, we have come up with the following plan to mitigate both the wetland and wetland buffer encroachments. Please refer to Addendum "A". Addendum "A" depicts the original wetland and wetland buffer areas for the Northeast corner of the Chateau Building'. It was determined that 2,310 square feet of wetlands had been filled. We obtained the approval of the Wetland authorities and surveyed a new line whichremoved 2,310 square feet from that portion of the wetland. The new survey reflects the new wetland location for this area. The wetland law dictates that any encroachment into the wetlands must be mitigated by creating twice the amount of new wetland for the amount of wetland that was disturbed. Under a plan that has .Page 2 been approved by the wetland authorities. We are accomplishing this 2 to 1 ratio by dedicating the Nurp pond on site as wetland for the first 2,310 square feet of mitigation. The second 2,310 square feet is being mitigated by creating a completely new wetland area of 2,321 square feet on an open parcel of land located adjacent to and just Northwest of the Northwest corner of the Chateau building (See Addendum "B"). In addition to creating wetland, we are also introducing 23 "Red Twig Dogwood" trees into this new wetland area. The dedication of the Nurp pond and creation of the new wetland area, completely satisfies the wetland requirement for mitigation on this site. The plan to mitigate the intrusion into the 20 foot buffer area is the next issue to be addressed. Actually, by moving the wetlands further to the east on the Northeast edge of the Chateau (See Addendum "A") the buffer has also been moved. The current buffer zone is now free and clear of the building and patios. In addition to our original landscape plan, we have added several new red twig ~Dogwoods to this newly located buffer. We have also seeded this area with MNDOT #100 and #1200 "Prairie Grass & Wild Flower" mix, in order to restore the ~orrect plant environment to this buffer area. The second area of intrusion into the buffer area occurred at the Northwest Corner of the chateau (Addendum "C"). The actual wetland was not distributed but the 20' buffer zone comes right up to the corner of the building. The grades within the buffer zone were such that construction of a retaining wall was required to ensure a safe elevation transition from the Chateau to the wetlands. The engineers that designed the retaining wall also strongly recommended that the area between the bhilding and the retaining wall be sodded in order to prevent erosion and also allow a walking path around the corner of the building. We request that this sod be allowed to remain only in this area. In order to mitigate the effects of this area of intrusion we have planted several red twig dogwoods for erosion control and esthetic value. In addition to the above proposal, we will be honoring the city's request to vacate all of the existing wetland and wetland buffer easements and substitute legal descriptions for the new easements that the surveyor shows on the attached addendum. This easement exchange should make it easier for anyone in the future to understand and define what the easements are and where exactly they are located. In summation, we regret that we made an honest mistake in the intrusion of the wetland and wetland buffer and intend to mitigate both of these intrusions by planting several new trees which were not included in our original landscape plan and creating the new wetlands. We also request that we be able to keep the sod along and around the retaining walls for erosion control. Page 3 The developers of Carefree respectfully request that the City of Maplewood accept this proposal as adequate mitigation for this intrusion into the wetland buffer. Respectfully submitted, Developer Carefree Cottages III f: \~a~a\1996\car free3 \mitigatn ' 11 Attachment 8 VACATION RESOLUTION WHEREAS, Gerald Mogren applied for the vacation of the following-described easement: Portion of drainage and wetland easement (Doc. No. 2892318) to be vacated over and across those parts of Lot 1, E.G. ROGER'S GARDEN LOTS and Lot 5, Block 1, MAPLE RIDGE MALL, City of Maplewood, Ramsey County, Minnesota described as follows: Commencing at the northeast comer of said Lot 1; thence North 89 degrees 24 minutes 04 seconds West (assumed bearing), along the north line of said Lot I a distance of 145.70 feet; thence South 34 degrees 54 minutes 34 seconds West a distance of 150.11 feet; thence South 36 degrees 46 minutes 38 seconds East a distance of 234.05 feet; thence North 80 degrees 14 minutes 52 seconds East a distance of 93.78 feet to a point on the west line of Lot 5; thence North 00 degrees 11 minutes 11 seconds West a distance of 24.89 feet along said west line; thence North 64 degrees 53 minutes 20 seconds East a distance of 100.66 feet; thence North 82 degrees 52 minutes 48 seconds East a distance of 119.72 feet; thence South 64 degrees 03 minutes 45 seconds East a distance of 54.43 feet; thence North 51 degrees 03 minutes 51 seconds East a distance of 297.35 feet; thence South 26 degrees 02 minutes 11 seconds West a distance of 194.41 feet; thence South 03 degrees 27 minutes 39 seconds West a distance of 110.21 feet; thence South 16 degrees 05 minutes 06 seconds East a distance of 16.44 feet; thence South 32 degrees 29 minutes 48 seconds East a distance of 80.99 feet; thence South 11 degrees 18 minutes 02 seconds East a distance of 195.39 feet to the point of beginning; thence South 16 degrees 29 minutes 00 seconds West a distance of 72.55 feet; thence West a distance of 23.02 feet; thence North 32 degrees 03 minutes 52 seconds East a distance of 82.09 feet to the point of beginning and there terminating. and a portion of drainage and wetland easement (Doc. No. 2892318) to be vacated over and across those parts of Lot 1, E.G. ROGER'S GARDEN LOTS and Lot 5, Block 1, MAPLE RIDGE MALL, City of Maplewood, Ramsey County, Minnesota described as follows: Commencing at the northeast comer of said Lot 1; thence North 89 degrees 24 minutes 04 seconds West (assumed bearing), along the north line of said Lot I a distance of 145.70 feet; thence South 34 degrees 54 minutes 34 seconds West a distance of 150.11 feet; thence South 36 degrees 46 minutes 38 seconds East a distance of 234.05 feet; thence North 80 degrees 14 minutes 52 seconds East a distance of 93.78 feet to a point on the west line of Lot 5; thence North 00 degrees 11 minutes 11 seconds West a distance of 24.89 feet along said west line; thence North 64 degrees 53 minutes 20 seconds East a distance of 100.66 feet; thence North 82 degrees 52 minutes 48 seconds East a distance of 119.72 feet; thence South 64 degrees 03 minutes 45 seconds East a distance of 64.43 feet; thence North 51 degrees 03 minutes 51 seconds East a distance of 297.35 feet; thence South 26 degrees 02 minutes 11 seconds West a distance of 137.55 feet to the point of beginning; thence continuing South 26 degrees 02 minutes 11 seconds West a distance of 56.86 feet; thence South 03 degrees 27 minutes 39 seconds West a distance of 110.21 feet; thence South 16 degrees 05 minutes 06 seconds East a distance of 16.44 feet; thence South 32 degrees 29 minutes 48 seconds East a distance of 49.21 feet; thence North 05 degrees 29 minutes 57 seconds East a distance of 36.49 feet; thence North 06 degrees 12 minutes 06 seconds West a distance of 97.49 feet; thence North 05 degrees 08 minutes 58 seconds East a distance of 85.51 feet to the point of beginning and there terminating. WHEREAS, the history of this vacation is as follows: On October 7, 1996, the planning commission recommended that the city council approve this vacation. On , the city council held a public hearing. The city staff published a notice in the Maplewood Review and sent a notice to the abutting property owners. The council gave everyone at the headng a chance to speak and present written statements. The council also considered reports and recommendations from the city staff and planning commission. WHEREAS, after the city approves this vacation, public interest in the property will go to the following abutting properties: Lot 5, Block 1, Maple Ridge Mall and the South 989.64 feet of Lot 1, E. G. Roger's Garden Lots except the Westerly 280 feet thereof in Section 11, Township 29, Range 22. WHEREAS, after the city approves this vacation, the drainage and wetland easement formerly associated with Document No. 2892318 shall hereby be described as follows: A drainage and wetland easement including buffer over and across those parts of Lot 1, E.G. ROGER'S GARDEN LOTS and Lot 5, Block 1, MAPLE RIDGE MALL, City of Maplewood, Ramsey County, Minnesota described as follows: Beginning at the northeast comer of said Lot 1; thence North 89 degrees 24 minutes 04 seconds West (assumed bearing), along the north line of said Lot 1 a distance of 145.70 feet; thence South 34 degrees 54 minutes 34 seconds West a distance of 150.11 feet; thence South 36 degrees 46 minutes 38 seconds East a distance of 234.05 feet; thence North 80 degrees 14 minutes 52 seconds East a distance of 93.78 feet to a point on the west line of Lot 5; thence North 00 degrees 11 minutes 11 seconds West a distance of 24.89 feet along said west line; thence North 64 degrees 53 minutes 20 seconds East a distance of 100.66 feet; thence North 82 degrees 52 minutes 48 seconds East a distance of 119.72 feet; thence South 64 degrees 03 minutes 45 seconds East a distance of 54.43 feet; thence North 51 degrees 03 minutes 51 seconds East a distance of 297.35 feet;. thence South 26 degrees 02 minutes 11 seconds West a distance of 137.55 feet; thence South 05 degrees 08 minutes 58 seconds West a distance of 85.51 feet; thence South 06 degrees 12 minutes 06 seconds East a distance of 97.49 feet; thence South 05 degrees 29 minutes 57 seconds West a distance of 36.49 feet; thence South 32 degrees 29 minutes 48 seconds East 31.78 feet; thence South 11 degrees 18 minutes 02 seconds East a distance of 195.39 feet; thence South 16 degrees 29 minutes 00 seconds West a distance of 72.55 feet; thence West a distance of 70.00 feet; thence South a distance of 157.64 feet to a point on the southeasterly line of Lot 5; thence North 47 degrees 11 minutes 35 seconds East a distance of 164.92 feet; thence northeasterly along the arc of a 13 curve whose radius is 689.88 feet, concave to the southeast a distance of 274.45 feet; thence North 00 degrees 00 minutes 33 seconds West a distance of 249.24 feet; thence North 27 degrees 45 minutes 51 seconds West a distance of 376.15 feet; thenc® South 89 degrees 59 minutes 56 seconds West a distance of 573.53 feet to the point of beginning and there terminating. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the city council approve the above-described vacation for the following masons: 1. It is in the public interest. 2. The area can not be restored or used as a wetland as the apartment building and storm shelter encroach into the wetland. The Maplewood City Council adopted this resolution on ,1996.