Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10/07/2008 AGENDA MAPLEWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday, October 7, 2008 7:00 PM City Hall Council Chambers 1830 County Road BEast 1. Call to Order 2. Roll Call 3. Approval of Agenda 4. Approval of Minutes a. September 16, 2008 5. Public Hearings a. 7:00 pm: Richie Place Lot Split, LaBore Road east of Arcade Street . Comprehensive Land Use Plan Amendment-OS (open spaceO to R1 (single dwelling) . Lot Division 6. New Business 7. Unfinished Business 8. Visitor Presentations 9. Commission Presentations September 22 CC Meeting: S1. John's Hospital PUD Revision and Vacations (Mr. Ekstrand for Mr. Yarwood) October 27,2008: Legacy Shops PUD Revision Tentatively Scheduled (Mr. Yarwood or Mr. Desai) 10. Staff Presentations October 21 planning commission meeting cancellation 11. Adjoumment DRAFT MINUTES OF THE MAPLEWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION 1830 COUNTY ROAD BEAST, MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 16. 2008 r. CALL TO ORDER Chairperson Fischer called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. II. ROLL CALL Commissioner Joseph Boeser Vice-Chairperson Tushar Desai Chairperson Lorraine Fischer Commissioner Harland Hess Commissioner Robert Martin Commissioner Gary Pearson Commissioner Dale Trippler Commissioner Joe Walton Commissioner Jeremy Yarwood Absent Present Present Present Present Present at 7:07 p.m. Present Present Present City Staff Present: Tom Ekstrand. Citv Planner ill. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Commissioner Hess moved to approve the agenda as presented. Commissioner Desai seconded The motion passed. Ayes - all IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES V. a. September 2, 2008 Commissioner Trippler moved approval of the minutes of September 2, 2008 as submitted. Commissioner Yarwood seconded Ayes - all The motion passed. V. PUBLIC HEARING a. 7:01 p.m. - Legacy Shops, Legacy Village, County Road D . Planned Unit Development (PUD) Revision . The Special Assessments Escrow Agreement . The Release of Development Agreement Planner Tom Ekstrand presented the staff report for the request for approval of plan revisions for the Legacy Shops at Maplewood. Mr. Ekstrand explained this revision request is to relocate the proposed building to the middle of thE! site rather than placing it with the PUD required 15-foot maximum setback from the County~oad D right-of-way. Planning Commission Minutes of 09-16-08 -2- Commissioner Hess asked staff for the exact setback measurement from the property line that is proposed and also whether the tenants for this center are known. Staff responded showing the proposed plan for the building. Commissioner Trippler asked staff if this plan is different from what the applicant's presented to the commission in February. Mr. Ekstrand responded the February meeting was informational for the applicant to receive input and comments from the commission and that tonight's request is a formal submittal. Mr. Trippler said he feels this plan was approved three years ago and everyone knew the design and if it was good enough when they first signed on it is good enough now. Chair Fischer asked for comments from the applicant. The applicant was not present. Commissioner Yarwood asked if a drive-through remains part of this proposal. Mr. Ekstrand responded that a drive-through is included in this plan. Mr. Ekstrand said the applicant hopes to have a coffee shop as a tenant. Mr. Ekstrand explained the driveway lane would follow across the back of the building to the drive-through window. Commissioner Yarwood said he does not have a problem with moving the building to the center of the site and that it might help to break up the area visually, but said he would like to table this request until the applicant can be at the meeting. Commissioner Martin agreed the applicant should be at the meeting to answer questions. The developer, Frank James of Hartford Group. arrived at the meeting. Mr. James explained plans to relocate the building on the site and said he would be happy to answer questions from the commission. Commissioner Hess followed up with his question requesting details of the floor plan. Mr. James explained the tenant spaces have not been finalized so the space sizes are still tentative. Mr. Hess asked the plans for lighting. Mr. James responded they are familiar with the lighting requirements in this situation and will work with the city so the type of lighting that is installed casts minimum light onto the street and across to the townhomes. Commissioner Desai asked how the parking requirements will be affected by not knowing the tenants going into the building. Mr. James responded that there is a finite amount of parking that needs to be balanced with the uses. Mr. James said the business owner will want to know that there will be enough parking for the use and this is generally worked out between the tenant and the owner. Commissioner Hess asked where deliveries will be made. Mr. James responded that the deliveries will use the drive-through area after hours. Commissioner Yarwood asked for clarification on traffic moving through the drive-through lane. Mr. James explained the traffic will move counter clockwise through the drive-through area. Mr. Yarwood asked staff what restrictions will be in place for the drive-through area use. Mr. Ekstrand responded this has not yet been set but could be accomplished through the PUD. Mr. Ekstrand explained the main concern would be not to impact the residents to the south late at night or early morning. Commissioner Desai pointed out that in the past this kind of a use with a P.A. system taking orders has been a noise consideration for the neighbors and asked staff what will be required. Mr. Ekstrand responded that limiting the hours of operation and seeing the center is closed by an appropriate hour. Mr. Ekstrand said it would be customary to add a condition with language requiring that P.A. systems be set appropriately. Planning Commission Minutes of 09-16-08 -3- Mr. James commented this topic has been discussed with the owner of the center and he is aware of this issue and wants to be a good neighbor and will cooperate to see that the neighbors are not disturbed. Mr. James said the proposed center's owner is familiar and used to dealing with these issues, since he does only retail developments. Mr. James said the owner wanted to be at the meeting tonight, but is sick and unable to be at the meeting. The public hearing was opened for comments from the public. Jim Hinitz of the Ashley furniture stores said they are in agreement with moving this building back to the center of the site. Mr. Hinitz said that placing this building in the front would further hide the Ashley building and affect their identity and ability to be profitable in the community. There were no further public comments; the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Pearson questioned whether original plans for a roundabout in this area are still feasible. Mr. Ekstrand explained the roundabout was considered with the original planning, but was never made a part of the approved plan. Commissioner Martin asked staff to explain the original building and parking lot plan as opposed to the current plan. Mr. Ekstrand explained that after a consultant's study and the city council review, it was evident the city was looking for the reduced setback concept for the Legacy Village site. The reduced setbacks were reflected in the written conditions required. Commissioner Pearson said he does not have a problem with this plan or the increased setback. Mr. Pearson said this parcel is on the far northeast corner and all of the other developable pieces are in the interior area of Legacy Village and there is a greater importance to maintain style of the architecture. Mr. Pearson said moving the setback further back would give them more of an entrance and would be more attractive from County Road D. Commissioner Hess moved to adopt the resolution approving the revision of the planned unit development (PUD) for the Legacy Shops retail site at Legacy Village at Maplewood. This revision would allow the placement of the proposed retail shops building a specific distance from the County Road D right-of-way as shown on the site plan. Approval is subject to the findings required by ordinance and subject to the following conditions (additions are underlined and deletions are crossed out): Retail/Commercial (Outlot A): a. The retail/commercial site is planned in concept only within the PUD and will come in for design review and approval at a later date, but the use is allowed as long as the provisions of the BC zoning district and conditions outlined are met; b. The building(s) on the retail/commercial site shall be set back as shown on the site plan approved bv the citv council. approximatelv 83 feet. from the north lot line should be sited on the north side of the parcel within 1 a' of the COllnty Read D right of way with all parking to the s()lJth; c. The applicant shall submit a comprehensive sign plan. One criteria to be established, however, is that pylon signs shall not be allowed. Monument signs may be allowed, but shall not exceed 12 feet in height; d. The architectural character and exterior building materials must be in keeping with the adjacent townhomes and other buildings if present; Planning Commission Minutes of 09-16-08 -4- e. Access to the site shall be from the side streets; will-be off the east leg of the east leg of the roundabollt and another access drive off Street C between the roundabout and County Road D; and to COllnty Road 0 at a shared dri\'eway ...:ith the adjacent furniwre store site; f. All ground-mounted and roof-mounted mechanical equipment shall be screened according to ordinance; g. Overstory trees must be planted along the south side of the extension of Street B at an average of 30'-40' on center. h. Adequate separation, buffering and screening must be provided for the multi-family residential units from the front i. Noise levels shall be kept to a minimum at the drive-through along with hours of operation and delivery times to be determined by staff working with the developer. Commissioner Pearson seconded Ayes - Desai, Fischer, Hess, Martin, Pearson, Walton, Yarwood Nay - Trippler The motion passed. VI. NEW BUSINESS None VII. UNFINISHED BUSINESS a. Comprehensive Plan Update Continued Discussion Planner Ekstrand presented the staff report for continuing discussion on the comprehensive plan update. Commissioner Yarwood commented the planning commission agrees that low density in south Maplewood is desired and that the current R11and use designation is not appropriate. Mr. Yarwood assured residents the commission is in agreement with wanting low density in south Maplewood, but the question to resolve is how to achieve this. Rose Lorsung, the city's consultant from MFRA, explained background information discussed at previous meetings and explained the desire to keep this area rural and low density. Commissioner Hess asked Ms. Lorsung to comment on the Metropolitan Council's plans and recommendation for making sewer viable in south Maplewood. Ms. Lorsung responded the overall density calculation is what is important to the Metropolitan Council. Ms. Lorsung explained since the city has an overall net density of 6 units per acre and is over the 3 units per acre required by the Metropolitan Council, the Council has at this time encouraged Maplewood to pursue sewering one- to two-acre lots in south Maplewood. Ms. Lorsung noted the Metropolitan Council has not done an analysis of the area and is not aware that only 63% of guided land in south Maplewood is designated buildable land and developable. Commissioner Walton asked Ms. Lorsung to further explain how the zoning designation would work together with the land use designation in south Maplewood. Ms. Lorsung explained cluster developments and possible zoning districts that would work with the land use designation in that area. Planning Commission Minutes of 09-16-08 -5- Commissioner Pearson said the city does not have an obligation to the Metropolitan Council on housing unit numbers, since the city is doing well with overall housing numbers and there remain a low number of required units to be met by 2030. Mr. Pearson said he does not support any change from the current .5 density per acre in south Maplewood. Mr. Pearson said even though the public hearing was previously closed, he would be interested in hearing comments from those people in the audience. The commission agreed to hear comments from the audience; the following people spoke: Michaele Bailey, 1615 South Sterling, encouraged the south Maplewood residents in the audience to take this opportunity to come forward and make comment to the commission. Ms. Bailey said she agreed with Mr. Pearson regarding the differences in the existing land types in south Maplewood and that the rural feeling was not talked about. Fredrica Musgrave, 1949 Greenbriar Street, said she is a member of the environmental and natural resources commission and said she does not believe there is a consensus of what type of density development is desired in south Maplewood. Ms. Musgrave said the parks, trails and open space task force members were not asked what they wanted to do to save south Maplewood. Ms. Musgrave said it would have been less costly to include the public in this debate from the beginning and there seems to be a conspiracy or collusion to put the city in a financially awkward and embarrassing state. Commissioner Yarwood clarified his earlier comments explaining the planning commission consensus he mentioned referred to preserving the low density and rural character of south Maplewood, but how to get to there is not a matter of consensus and that is why they are meeting tonight. Commissioner Trippler asked staff to comment on the many open meetings that were held previously asking for comments from the publiC regarding the south Maplewood area. Mr. Ekstrand explained this has been a very public process with notifications of many public meetings asking for citizen comments and the implication that this has been a closed process is not true in any manner. Mr. Ekstrand reviewed the many open meetings where the public was invited to attend and give comments. Jim Carradin, 2620 Carver Avenue, said he feels the planning commission has listened and heard the concerns of the neighbors and they all agree they want to see a lower density. Mr. Carradin said his concern is that the city council may have a preconceived notion of what they want to see in this area and will disregard the planning commission's recommendation and the input by the residents. Mark Bonitz, 1635 South Sterling, said he has attended many meetings and after many comments by residents, city staff is now responding poorly saying that they do not support this since this density is unworkable. Mr. Bonitz said the biggest if with this plan is what the council wants and votes for. Mr. Bonitz asked the commission to take a stand and keep the density low. Keith Buttleman, 2503 Haller Lane, urged the commission not to compromise on the goal of maintaining rural character and not to make recommendations based on what the Metropolitan Council might do. Julie Binko, 1949 Greenbriar, said she is a member of the parks commission and encouraged the commission to keep the low density planning in south Maplewood. Roger Anderson, 2730 Carver Avenue, said he attended the first public meeting at the fire station and did not get any information from the meeting and left early. Mr. Anderson said there is only one inlet and outlet in the area and there will be serious traffic problems. Planning Commission Minutes of 09-16-08 -6- Steve Menarchek, 1364 Dorland Road South, said his property backs up to the Copar property and according to their plan he will have ten town homes across from the back of his home. Mr. Menarchek thanked the commission for their work to keep the area looking like it does now. Mr. Menarchek questioned if Copar should default on this project or decide to sell the land, whether the comprehensive plan will revert back to where the Copar property is now. Ms. Lorsung responded that the current plan for the Copar site is in line with the approved density, but the planning commission could reguide the property to rural low density if Copar should default and the property were to go back on the market and the next property owner could develop the property on a net per acre basis between 2.6 and 6 units per acre. Joe Bailey, 1615 South Sterling, said that as a citizen he feels he has been heard and appreciates that the city had many meetings to hear the neighbors' concerns. Mr. Bailey said he supports the idea that this neighborhood should remain rural and that the city take to heart what the citizens are saying. Ron Cockriel, 943 Century Avenue, spoke about the history of south Maplewood. Mr. Cockriel said there is a national park in Maplewood and this should be used a marketing tool for Maplewood. Mr. Cockriel said the south Maplewood area should be protected. Mr. Cockriel mentioned a neighborhood meeting planned for October 4 at the St. Paul Ski Jump land. Claire Jensen, 2533 Haller Lane, said she is concerned with the amount of traffic on Sterling and asked that their little bit of country in the city remain as it is. Carolyn Petersen, 1801 Gervais Avenue, said she was on the original open space task force that ranked 55 parcels of land for open space purchases. Ms. Petersen said the Copar land in south Maplewood was ranked seventh. Ms. Petersen asked if Ms. Lorsung's comments on the natural resources in south Maplewood could be included as part of the comprehensive plan. Ms. Lorsung responded that each part of the comprehensive plan was derived with natural resources in mind first and this information is intended to convey the importance of the preservation requirements and professionally she is not in favor of doing anything to negatively affect south Maplewood. George Gonzales, 2359 Heights Avenue, said his property is in the area to be developed by Copar, but that he is speaking to give his support to his neighbors and to the planning commission and requests the commission stand by its convictions for rural low density. There were no further comments from the public. Commissioner Trippler noted for the record that the only reason he has heard from the city councilor city that they could not justify .5 units per acre is that it is not economically feasible. Mr. Trippler said this is ludicrous, there is no basis for this and there are other local communities that have developed at .5 units per acre or less. Commissioner Pearson said his opinion has been and remains in support of .5 units per acre and he heard nothing tonight from the neighbors to change his opinion. Commissioner Trippler moved the commission designate the properties south of Carver Avenue previously designated R 1 R (single dwelling rural residential) in the current comprehensive plan as Rural Low Density in the new comprehensive plan. Commissioner Yarwood seconded Ayes - Desai, Fischer, Hess, Pearson, Trippler, Walton, Yarwood Planning Commission Minutes of 09-16-08 -7- Nays - Martin The motion passed. Commissioner Pearson moved the commission define Rural Low Density as .5 units per acre. The motion died for lack of a second. Commissioner Hess moved the commission designate the Rural Low Density as .5 to 1.5 units per net acre. Commissioner Yarwood seconded Ayes - Desai, Fischer, Hess, Martin, Trippler, Walton, Yarwood Nays - Pearson The motion passed. Commissioner Trippler moved the commission define the Low Density Residential designation as 1.6 to 4 units per net acre. Commissioner Desai seconded The motion passed. Ayes - all Commissioner Trippler moved the commission send the comprehensive plan to the city council with the commission's recommendation, comments and changes for the council's approval and then to be forwarded to the Metropolitan Council. Commissioner Desai seconded The motion passed. Ayes - all VIII. VISITOR PRESENTATIONS Ron Cockriel, 943 Century Avenue, mentioned a neighborhood meeting concerning south Maplewood on October 4 at the St. Paul Ski Jump. Mayor Diana Longrie thanked the commissioners for their work on the comprehensive plan update. IX. COMMISSION PRESENTATIONS Upcoming Council Meetings and PC Representation: . September 22: Sl. John's Hospital PUD Revision and Vacations - Mr. Yarwood . October 13,2008: Legacy Shops PUD Revision Tentatively Scheduled - Mr. Desai Commissioner Martin said his nay vote tonight concerning the comprehensive plan designation was due to the complexity of the motion. Commissioner Trippler said his nay vote regarding the Legacy Shops item was due to his continued support of the original approved plan. X. STAFF PRESENTATIONS None XI. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 10:30 p.m. MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: SUBJECT: APPLICANTS: LOCATION: DATE: Chuck Ahl, Acting City Manager Michael Martin, AICP, Planner Comprehensive Plan Amendment and a Lot Division Lauren Development and Company South of Labore Road and East of Arcade Street September 29, 2008 INTRODUCTION Project Description Lauren and Company Development is proposing to develop 16 single-family detached town homes in Maplewood and Little Canada. Three of the 16 lots are within the City of Maplewood's boundaries, south of Labore Road in Little Canada and north of Kohlman Marsh Open Space in Maplewood. The remaining 13 lots are in the City of Little Canada. Requests In order to proceed with the project the applicants are requesting the following city approvals: 1. Comprehensive Plan Amendment: The lot is currently guided by the Comprehensive Plan as "Open Space." The request is to have the lot guided as "R1 - Single Dwelling" in order to be consistent with the residential areas nearby. 2. Lot Division: Subdivision approval to split the existing lot into three single-family lots. BACKGROUND The applicant is requesting to divide an existing lot in order to create 3 individual lots. City ordinance allows for city staff to review any lot division request that results in the creation of three or fewer lots. However, in this instance Staff felt it was necessary to bring this request to the planning commission because the three lots are part of a larger subdivision in Little Canada and also needs a comprehensive plan amendment. DISCUSSION Comprehensive Plan Amendment The city's comprehensive plan currently guides the lot as "Open Space." Staff feels that this wa~ inadvertently done during the last Comprehensive Plan Update as the land is in private ownership. With the Hidden Marsh Neighborhood Preserve and Kohlman Marsh Open Space adjacent to the subject lot it is Staff's assertion that it was unintentionally guided as Open Space. By approving this comprehensive plan amendment the lot would be guided with a more appropriate Future Land Use and would also be consistent with existing zoning. If the city council approves this plan amendment, the city staff must forward the council's action to the Metropolitan Council for their acceptance. This motion should be subject to that review process. Lot Division Lot Division Staff finds no large issues with the proposed minor subdivision. This proposal is very straight forward and presents no particular concerns. The applicant is simply proposing to split the 2.24- acre parcel into three lots - all of which met the minimum lot requirements for the R-1 Zoning District. Tree Preservation and Wetland Buffer Review Environmental Planner Shann Finwall prepared a report discussing tree preservation and wetland buffer review. Please refer to Ms. Finwall's report dated September 12, 2008. Enoineerino Comments Refer to the attached engineers' report by Steve Kummer, staff engineer with the city dated April 4, 2008. Citv of Little Canada Process The City of Little Canada has approved the Richie Place Preliminary Plat. Little Canada will be reviewing the Final Plat in the near future. The cities of Little Canada and Maplewood would need to arrange a development agreement to work out financial and services issues with the subdivision. A lawsuit has been filed against the City of Little Canada by Maplewood residents John and Jolene Gores (2870 Arcade Street) claiming that Little Canada's approval of a variance for cul-de-sac length was inappropriate. This suit is moving forward in Ramsey County District Court. RECOMMENDATIONS 1. Adopt the resolution approving a comprehensive land use plan amendment from OS (Open Space) to R1 (Single Dwelling) for the 2.24-acre site, located south of Labore Road and East of Arcade Street. Approval is based on the following guiding principals and reasons as noted in the comprehensive land use plan: a. The proposed Future Land Use Guide would be consistent with existing zoning. b. The proposed development would provide a wider range of housing types in this neighborhood. c. The city coordinates its planning with neighboring communities. d. The city applies its development pOlicies and ordinances consistently and uniformly. This action is subject to the approval of this land use plan amendment by the Metropolitan Council. 2 2. Approve the lot split site plan date stamped August 25, 2008, for a lot division request to subdivide the 2.24 acre lot located south of Labore Road and East of Arcade Street. into three single family lots. This lot division approval is subject to the following conditions: a. Satisfy the recommendations set forth in the staff reports authored by Mr. Kummer and Ms. Finwall. b. Receive approval of final plat from the City of Little Canada for the rest of the 16-unit development. c. The applicant shall pay cash connection charges for the new vacant single-family lots for connection to the water main and sanitary sewer main. d. Deeds describing the three new legal descriptions, including the required drainage and utility easement descriptions, must be drafted and stamped by the city. Ramsey County requires this acknowledgment of approval to record your deeds. These must be recorded with Ramsey County within one year of the date of the lot division approval or the lot split will become null and void (city code requirement). e. Prior to issuance of a grading or building permit for the new homes on the new lots the following must be submitted to staff for approval: 1) Proof that Ramsey County has recorded the lot division. 2) A signed certificate of survey showing the location of all property lines and the location of the new homes. 3) Grading and drainage plan. 4) All necessary permits for sanitary sewer and water must be obtained 3 REFERENCE INFORMATION SITE DESCRIPTION Existing Use: Undeveloped SURROUNDING LAND USES North: East: South: West: Undeveloped Lot in Little Canada Kohlman Marsh Open Space Kohlman Marsh Open Space Single Family House and Neighborhood Preserve PLANNING Land Use: Zoning: Open Space (OS) Single Dwelling Residential (R-1) Application Date The city received the complete application for lot division request on August 25, 2008. State law requires that the city take action within 60 days of receiving complete applications for any land use proposal. The 60-day requirement on this proposal ends October 23, 2008. P/sec4/Richie Place - lot Split Attachments: 1. location Map 2. Address Map 3. Mr. Kummer's report 4. Ms. Finwall's Report 5. land Use Plan Amendment 6. Richie Place Subdivision Plans, date stamped August 25, 2008 (separate attachment) 4 Attachment 1 LITTLE CANADA <( Q <( Z ~ UJ -' l- I- :::; 0..' -~ ~-- .-~--- Kohlman Lake Gervais Lak'e ......>~...../"'--.--.~~""" , -~.""" ~"< '""', , CJ \ ....-- o " " [} w C?r?D o J::J c:: ,0 ~ ?: R I) ~~) L-j/ l:;"; CJ (jJ , Kohlman Park c " ~" LOCATION MAP 11 N .-,,,,.' 2 c:Ci QI c:C 1 Zl c:C1 CJ\ ~i -' ..JI I I I LITTLE CANADA 287(:>_ '- SITE / i Kohlman Lake Gervais Lake ADDRESS MAP 11 N Attachment 3 Maplewood Engineering Comments 4-3-08 Page 1 of 4 Enaineerina Plan Review PROJECT: PROJECT NO: COMMENTS BY: REVIEWERS: Richie Place Subdivision 08-04 Steve Kummer, P.E. - Staff Engineer Virginia Gaynor- Staff Naturalist John DuCharme - Senior Technician /Inspector DATE: PLAN SET: 4-3-08 City Submittal Set: Civil/Landscape Drawings Dated 8-14-07 rev. 1-10-08 Stormwater Management Plan by Auth Consulting Assoc. Dated 1-29-08 COMPS: Lauren and Company Development is proposing to develop the formerly owned Richie property in Little Canada into 16 single-family detached townhomes. A portion of the property overlaps into Maplewood, where three (3) of the 16 lots will be developed. Most of the storm water drainage from the proposed site appears to be captured by an on-site pond on the Little Canada portion of the parcel. The pond is proposed to discharge into an existing wetland south of the site. The wetland is part of the Kohlman Lake watershed area. , Sanitary sewer and water main service will be designed to Little Canada standards and will be owned and maintained by the City of Little Canada. These Engineering comments, for the most part, refer to the parcel that will be developed within the City of Maplewood. However, a majority of the drainage from the Little Canada parcel will be discharged into Maplewood. An examination of the hydrology of this site will also be done as part of this engineering review. Wetland HvdroloQV 1. Existing Kohlman Lake tributary wetland to the south of the development is considered a Class 1 wetland according to the existing Maplewood Ordinance Sec 12-310. According to Sec 12-310 Subpart (h)(3), a Class 1 wetland requires an average buffer width of 100 feet with a minimum no-disturb buffer width of 100 feet. Project shall show a 100-foot buffer width from the delineated wetland edge. 2. The new storm sewer outfall B and installation of the associated 12-inch pipe should be realigned such that there is no disturbance to the 100-foot buffer area. The full design flow from the outfall shall not exceed 1 ftls velocity and will be maintained at the 865.00 elevation. The City understands that the current pipe alignment assists in energy dissipation and that erqsion into the wetland will be a concern if the outlet is flared above the water level of the 'il'etland. A drop manhole at B1 may be required to reroute the alignment out of the buffer. If rerouting the storm sewer is not practical and disturbing the buffer will be a necessi'~l contact Steve Kummer (651) 249-2418 to discuss. Maplewood Engineering Comments 4-3-08 Page 2 of 4 Pond Several questions about the proposed pond were raised by our City Naturalist, Ginny Gaynor and shall be addressed: 1. Plant species selected a. Mesic Plant Species- species selected are appropriate b. Dry Plant Species i. Sedum 'Autumn Joy' is a non-native ornamental so is typically not used in a prairie planting. If designer is using this massed on the edge and maintaining that portion as perennial garden, it is fine to use it. If it is part of the prairie mix, I recommend using a native prairie species instead. ii. Rudbeckia hirta - This is a short-lived perennial. If only 6 species are used on the slopes, I recommend selecting a longer-lived native prairie plant. c. # of species - This is a very large garden and it has only 12 species. QUESTION: Is there a design reason for using so few species? If yes, what it that? If no, please increase to at least 10-12 species on bottom and 10-12 species on slopes. It does not cost any more to add diversity. d. What is the ratio of grasses/sedges to flowers? (Equal amounts of all species listed?) 2. Size -- It looks like the garden is some where in the 10,000-15,000 sq ft range. At l' centers this means they will plant 10,000-15,000 plugs. Please confirm this is the intent. If not, please explain. 3. Pond establishment: What time of erosion control measures are going to be used to establish the pond? This seems to be a very large area to mulch with wood chips and with the amount of water that will be entering. 4. First year plant maintenance. Who is maintaining this garden? Will they water seedlings during early establishment? Will there be weed management the first year? 5. Filtering outlet should be built on outfall from ponding area prior to discharge into wetland. GradinQ and DrainaQe 1. Grading for the house pads shall not encroach upon the 100-foot wetland buffer. 2. Future Lot 3 Block 4 shall be graded such that drainage is directed away from the G9,f;~1's' property to the west. \\,';1' Maplewood Engineering Comments 4-3-08 Page 3 of 4 Construction Site Sediment and Erosion Control Plan / SWPPP 1. Heavy-duty silt fence reinforced with a compost log shall be utilized for drainage toward wetland areas. Silt fence shall be doubled-up for 100 fl in each direction at low points. 2. The entire site slopes to the south and the graded roadway will act like a channel for water in a partially constructed state. One row of silt fence at the bottom of the hill will fail with a heavy rainfall and will not be sufficient to contain the site. An adequate erosion control phasing plan for this site will need to be submitted to the City showing efforts to be taken by the developer to prevent sedimentation into the wetland. Berming of dirt and adequate checks need to be in place for this to occur. Contact John DuCharme at (651) 249-2411 to discuss. 3. Locations of onsite storage of topsoil, backfill and borrow material shall be shown on the SWPPP. The plans shall also indicate the methods of erosion and sediment protection on slopes and stockpiles (i.e. seed/blanket, silt fence, straw wattles, etc.) 4. The project plans shall identify the locations for equipment/material storage, debris stockpiles, vehicle/equipment maintenance, fueling, and washing areas. The plans also must show the contain area and specify that all materials stored on site shall have proper enclosures and/or coverings. 5. The project plans shall identify the locations and provide details for concrete truck washout areas. 6. Identify (on the plans) the quantity of materials that the contractor will be importing to or exporting from the site (cu-yd) along with site cut and fill quantities. 7. The project plans or their details shall describe the measures (e.g... temporary sediment basin, etc) the contractor will use during the rough grading process to intercept and detain sediment-laden run-off to allow the sediment to settle. They also must describe how the contractor will dewater the settled storm water and how it will be introduced to the public drainage system. 8. The erosion and sediment control plans should refer to Maplewood Plate NO.350 for approved methods of erosion and sediment control. Utilities 1. Trash guards are not allowed on flared-end sections with a diameter of 18 inches or less. Trees 1. Refer to Tree Preservation Plan Review comments by Shann Finwall. Maplewood Engineering Comments 4-3-08 Page 4 of 4 Aaencv Submittals and Permittina 1. The owner and project engineer shall get all necessary permits and shall satisfy the requirements of all permitting agencies. Miscellaneous 1. The Owner shall enter into a developer's agreement with the City of Maplewood for the completion of all private site improvements. As part of the developer's agreement, the owner shall provide a letter of credit or cash escrow for 125% of the cost for all site improvements that will be serving the Maplewood portion of the development. The cost shall include excavation for the pond and the storm sewer outfall from the pond. An estimate of the total cost of improvements shall be provided to engineering staff. 2. The Maplewood lots and proposed drainage and utility easement shall be shown on the preliminary plat. 3. The developer shall submit a letter to the City of Maplewood indicating the responsibility of maintenance of utilities including the storm sewer system. Attachment 4 Tree Preservation and Wetland Buffer Review Project: Richie Place Subdivison Date of Plan: August 20, 2008 Date of Review: September 12, 2008 Reviewer: Shann Finwall, Environmental Planner (651) 249-2304; sbann.finwall(al,ci.mapiewood.mn.lIs Background: The Richie Place Subdivision proposes to subdivide a parcel of land lying south of Labore Road in Little Canada and north of Kohlman Marsh Open Space in Maplewood. Three of the proposed 16 lots will be located within Maplewood. Tree Preservation Ordinance: The city's tree preservation ordinance describes a significant tree as a hardwood tree with a minimum of 6 inches in diameter, an evergreen tree of 8 inches in diameter, and a softwood tree of 12 inches in diameter. A specimen tree is defined as a healthy tree of any species which is 28 inches in diameter or greater. Specimen trees are also considered significant trees. The tree preservation ordinance requires any significant tree removed to be replaced based on a tree mitigation calculation. The calculation takes into account the size of a tree and bases replacement on that size. In essence, it penalizes developers for removing larger trees by requiring a greater amount of replacement for those trees. Tree Removal: The tree plan indicates that there are 1735.5 caliper inches of significant trees on the site (322 trees), and 449 caliper inches of significant trees (176 trees) removed with the development. Based on these figures, the city's tree replacement calculation requires the developer to replace 39.45 caliper inches of trees. Tree Preservation Plan: City code states that the tree protective areas shall be located around a tree a minimum of the critical root zone (circular area surrounding the tree trunk with a radius distance of 1 foot per 1 inch of tree diameter). When reviewing the grading plan versus the location of the trees, it appears that approximately 30 preserved trees have grading encroaching into this critical root zone, which could cause the tree to die off after grading is complete. Tree Replacement: The developer is proposing to replace 45 caliper inches of significant trees on the site by planting 15 trees which are 3-caliper inches in size. Tree Preservation Recommendation: In order to accurately assess this development's tree replacement requirement per city code, the applicant must revise the tree replacement plan to show that all trees which will be preserved are being protected to a minimum of the critical root zone. 1 Wetland Ordinance: There is a Class 1 wetland located to the west of the development. The city's wetland ordinance requires a 100-foot buffer around a Class 1 wetland. Grading Plan: The grading plan shows that the development will maintain the required 100-foot buffer with the grading of the new single family homes. However, the plan calls for the construction of a storm pipe within the buffer area. City code allows for the construction of utilities within a buffer where there is no other practical alternative. The city's engineering department has reviewed and approved of this storm water utility as being the best location. Site Plan: The site plan calls out a conservation easement to be located on the western side of the development. The conservation easement is proposed as a wetland buffer protection to ensure no building, mowing, cutting, or grading filling or dumping within the easement. Wetland Recommendations: 1. The developer must submit a plan for the re-establishment of all areas graded within the wetland buffer with native plants. This plan must be approved by the city's naturalist. 2. The developer must submit a cash escrow or letter of credit to cover the re- establishment of the wetland buffer with native plants. 3. The developer must sign a wetland buffer re-establishment maintenance agreement with the city which will require the developer to ensure the native plants are established within the buffer within a three-year period. 4. The conservation easement must be revised as a wetland protection buffer easement. The location of the easement must be revised to ensure that all areas within the development that are within 100 feet of the wetland edge (buffer) are included in the easement (not just the most westerly portion of the development). The easement must be prepared by a land surveyor, shall describe the boundary of the buffer and shall prohibit any building, mowing, culling, grading, filling or dumping within the buffer. The applicant shall record this easement before the city will issue a grading permit. 5. Prior to approval of a grading permit the developer shall install city approved wetland signs at the edge of the wetland buffer that specify that no building, mowing, cutting, grading, filling or dumping be allowed within the easement. These signs must be placed every 100-feet along the edge of the wetland buffer easement, or at every property line, whichever is closer. 2 Attachment 5 LAND USE PLAN AMENDMENT RESOLUTION WHEREAS, Lauren Development and Company has applied for a change to the City of Maplewood's land use plan from OS (Open Space) to R1 (Single Dwelling) for a proposed single-family subdivision. WHEREAS, this change applies to the property located south of Labore Road and East of Arcade Street. The legal description is: SECTION 4, TOWN 29, RANGE 22, COM AT NE COR OF GOVT LOT 1 TH WON NL SD LOT 300 FT TO BEG TH SWL Y TO PT ON SLY EXT OF WL OF E 1/2 OF SW1/4 OF NW 1/4 OF SEC 4 537FT S OF NL OF GOVT LOT 1 TH N ON SD LINE 537 FT TO NL OF SD LOT 1 TH E TO BEG BEING PART OF SEC WHEREAS, the history of this change is as follows: 1. On October 7, 2008, the planning commission held a public hearing. The city staff published a hearing notice in the Maplewood Review and sent notices to the surrounding property owners. The planning commission gave everyone at the hearing a chance to speak and present written statements. The planning commission recommended that the city council approve the land use plan change. 2. On , the city council discussed ttle .Iand use plan change. They considered reports and recommendations from the planning commission and city staff. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the city council above described change for the following reasons: the 1. The proposed Future Land Use Guide would be consistent with existing zoning. 2. The proposed development would provide a wider range of housing types in this neigllborhood. 3. The City coordiRates its planning with neighboring communities. 4. The City applies its development policies and ordinances consistently and uniformly. This action ~s subject to the approval of this land use~lan amendment by the Metropolitan Council. The Maplewood City Council this resolution on ,2008.