HomeMy WebLinkAbout11/18/2008
AGENDA
MAPLEWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION
Tuesday, November 18, 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. None
5. Public Hearings
a. 7:00 pm: Warehouse and Screening Fence Proposal, Menards, 2280 Maplewood Drive
. Conditional Use Permit Revision
6. New Business
7. Unfinished Business
a. Richie Place Lot Division and Comprehensive Plan Amendment
8. Visitor Presentations
9. Commission Presentations
November 24, 2008: Planning Commission representation at city council meeting (Ms. Fischer,
Mr. Hess are next in line). Items scheduled: T-Mobile Cell Tower and Thom's Easement
Vacation.
10. Staff Presentations
11. Adjournment
DRAFT
MINUTES OF THE MAPLEWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION
1830 COUNTY ROAD BEAST, MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA
TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 6, 2008
I. CALL TO ORDER
Chairperson Fischer called the rneeting to order at 6:00 p.rn.
II. ROLL CALL
Cornrnissioner Joseph Boeser
Vice-Chairperson Tushar Desai
Chairperson Lorraine Fischer
Corn missioner Harland Hess
Commissioner Robert Martin
Comrnissioner Gary Pearson
Cornrnissioner Dale Trippler
Cornrnissioner Joe Walton
Commissioner Jeremy Yarwood
Present
Present
Present
Present
Present
Present
Present
Absent
Present
City Staff Present:
Tom Ekstrand, City Planner
III. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
Corn missioner Trippler moved to approve the agenda as presented.
Commissioner Hess seconded
The motion passed.
Ayes - all
IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
a. October 7,2008
Commissioner Hess moved approval of the amended minutes of October 7, 2008 changing the
beginning sentence of page two, paragraph five, to read: "The applicant was asked. . "
Comrnissioner Trippler seconded
Ayes - Boeser, Fischer, Hess, Martin, Pearson, Trippler,
Walton, Yarwood
Abstention - Desai
The rnotion passed.
V. PUBLIC HEARING
a. 7:05 p.rn. - T-Mobile
. Conditional Use Permit
Planner Tom Ekstrand presented the staff report request to erect a 75-foot-tall monopole for cellular
telephone operations on land leased at Trinity Baptist Church located at 2220 Edgerton Street
North.
Planning Commission
Minutes of 11-06-08
-2-
Commissioner Hess noted a neighbor's comments about phone interference from the previous
monopole in that location. Mr. Hess questioned the size of the monopole's diameter dimension
as to obstructions for the neighbors and also the array and depth of the antennas.
Commissioner Yarwood asked what city code states about height requirements for monopoles.
Cornrnissioner Trippler said city code requires towers to be between 75 and 125 feet.
Planner Ekstrand noted that this proposal is for a 75-foot-tall tower and the previous tower at
this location was 85 feet tall, but had approval to go up to 100 feet if the applicant chose to.
Cornmissioner Yarwood asked staff about procedures for the previous conditional use perrnit
with U. S. West for this property. Planner Ekstrand replied that the previous conditional use
permit would be formally ended.
Paul Harrington was present representing the applicant T-Mobile.
Commissioner Martin asked Mr. Harrington if this tower would have less interference with the
newer technology than the previous tower.
Mr. Harrington responded that each provider is licensed individually by the F.C.C. and cell
phone users do not have interference problems with each other. Mr. Harrington said that the
F.C.C. requires that any interference caused has to be rectified by the provider. Mr. Harrington
said they have not had any complaints in the past several years about interference with the
newer technology.
Mr. Harrington responded to Comrnissioner Hess' previous questions regarding the proposed
rnonopole's dimensions. Mr. Harrington said the diarneter is approximately 20 inches and tapers
slightly. Mr. Harrington said the antennas are about five feet in length.
The public hearing was opened to comments from the public. There were no comments; the
public hearing was closed.
Commissioner Trippler moved to adopt the resolution approving a conditional use permit for the
proposed 75-foot-tall telecornmunications monopole and ground equipment. Approval is based
on the findings required by ordinance and subject to the following conditions:
1. All construction shall follow the site plan approved by the city. Cornmunity Development staff
rnay approve minor changes.
2. The proposed construction must be substantially started within one year of council approval
or the permit shall become null and void. The council may extend this deadline for one year.
3. The city council shall review this permit in one year.
4. This conditional use permit is conditioned upon T-Mobile allowing the co-location of other
providers' telecomrnunications equipment on the proposed tower with reasonable lease
conditions.
Seconded by Cornmissioner Hess
Ayes - Boeser, Desai, Fischer, Hess, Martin,
Pearson, Trippler
Nay - Yarwood
The motion passed.
Planning Commission
Minutes of 11-06-08
-3-
Commissioner Yarwood said he voted nay because, even though he does not think this is an
unreasonable request, he does not think it meets the standard of current city code.
b. 7:25 p.m. - Easement Vacation by Lisa and Todd Thoms, 760 Sterling Street
Planner Tom Ekstrand presented the staff report for this request to vacate a five-foot-wide
drainage and utility easernent on the north side of the property. Planner Ekstrand said this
easement vacation request is a condition of a recent lot split.
Cornrnissioner Hess asked if a new certificate of survey would be issued with the easement
vacation. Planner Ekstrand responded that a new survey would be issued showing the vacation
of the old easement and dedication of the new easement.
The applicant, Lisa Thorns, 760 Sterling Street, addressed the cornmission. Ms. Thoms did not
have questions of the commission and agreed with the conditions in the staff report.
The public hearing was opened for comments from the public. There were no comments; the
public hearing was closed.
Cornmissioner Pearson rnoved to adopt the resolution vacating the drainage and utility
easement on the north side of the property located at 760 Sterling Street since:
1. The easement would serve no public purpose after the applicants purchase 20 feet of
property from the neighbor to the north (2480 Linwood Avenue.)
2. The city has administratively approved the lot division for the owner of 2480 Linwood Avenue
to sell their southerly 20 feet of property to the applicants.
This vacation is conditioned upon the following:
1. The city not recording the resolution to vacate the easernent until the owner of the
neighboring property to the north, 2480 Linwood Avenue, has taken the new deeds for their
lot split to Rarnsey County for recording.
2. The applicants dedicating a new five-foot-wide drainage and utility easement along the north
five feet of their future lot line. This has also been required as part of the lot division approval for
2480 Linwood Avenue.
Commissioner Boeser seconded
Ayes - all
The motion passed.
VI. NEW BUSINESS
None
VII. UNFINISHED BUSINESS
None
Planning Commission
Minutes of 11-06-08
-4-
VIII. VISITOR PRESENTATIONS
None
IX. COMMISSION PRESENTATIONS
Upcorning Council Meetings and PC Representation:
. October 27, 2008: Legacy Shops PUD Revision Scheduled - Planner Ekstrand reported.
. November 24, 2008: T-Mobile Monopole, Thoms' Easernent Vacation and Comprehensive
Plan - Mr. Desai
X. STAFF PRESENTATIONS
Planner Ekstrand distributed copies of the 2009-13 Capitallrnprovement Plan to the cornmissioners.
XI. ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 7:45 p.m.
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
PROJECT:
LOCATION:
DATE:
MEMORANDUM
Chuck Ahl, Acting City Manager
Michael Martin, AICP, Planner
CUP Revision and Design Approval
Menards
2280 Maplewood Drive
November 10, 2008
INTRODUCTION
Project Description
Scott Nuttelman, of Menard, Inc., is proposing to build a 16,750-square-foot (80' x 209' - 3")
unheated warehouse on the south side of the Menards store. The structure would be
approximately 25 feet tall. The proposed warehouse would be built where an existing treated
lumber rack exists. No additional impervious surface would be created with this proposal. A
screening fence, consistent with the rest of the property, is being proposed on the south side of
the Menards' property. Refer to the applicant's narrative statement and the site plan attached to
this memo.
In addition, Menard, Inc. is proposing to replace an existing chain link fence between the store
and Countryside VW/Saab on the east side of the property. This fence would be used to screen
a pallet racking area.
BACKGROUND
March 28, 1988:
The city council approved Menards' CUP and granted a parking reduction
authorization.
January 23, February 13, March 27 and April 6, 1989: The council changed the CUP conditions.
The changes were to c1arifythe screening fence and storage-rack height
requirements.
November 14, 1994, and September 11, 1995: The council amended the CUP conditions.
April 8, 1996:
May 20, 1996:
August 12, 1997:
October 25, 1999:
The council amended the CUP conditions because of a request for a
seasonal outdoor greenhouse and plant sale operation.
The council again reviewed the CUP and directed Menards, Citgo, staff
and the neighbors to meet and discuss several issues raised by one of the
neighbors. These issues were about the screening fence, engine noises,
fumes, parking and cross traffic between Citgo and Menards.
The council reviewed the CUP again. The previous concerns and
problems have been resolved. The council moved to review the CUP
again only if a problem develops.
The city council approved a CUP revision for the building expansion and
site plan changes. They also approved the architectural, site and
1
landscape plans.
April 9, 2001:
The council approved revised plans for the exterior of the new addition
and required additional landscaping on the Highway 36 side of the
building.
January 30, 2004:
The city approved plans for expansion of the exterior storage area and
relocation of the fire gate.
March 27, 2006:
The city council made three approvals for Menards. They included:
1. A conditional use permit (CUP) revision to enlarge the building and
amend the site plan. The city code requires council approval of a CUP
revision for an owner to expand or revise a store or site for which a
CUP exists.
2. A parking-reduction authorization for 50 spaces. The code requires
451 spaces for the store. Menards proposed to have 401 parking stalls.
3. The site and building design plans.
September 11, 2006: The city council reaffirmed the parking reduction authorization for
Menards as approved by the city council on March 27, 2006. This
approval was to allow Menards to have 50 fewer parking spaces than the
city code requires.
Requests
Mr. Nuttelman is requesting city approval of:
1. A conditional use permit (CUP) revision to build a new unheated warehouse, a screening
fence and amend the site plan. The city code requires council approval of a CUP revision for
an owner to expand or revise a store or site for which a CUP exists.
2. The site and building design plans.
DISCUSSION
CUP Revision
The proposed site revision with the addition of the unheated warehouse and screening fence will
meet the requirements for a CUP and should improve the store and the overall site. It should
not have any impact on the adjacent residential neighborhood and in fact the additional wood
fence screening should visually improve Menards impact on the neighborhood.
Site Drainage/Shoreland Requirements
The site is within the shoreland boundary of Keller Lake. Presently the site has 95 percent
impervious-surface coverage. The shoreland code requires a maximum coverage of 40 percent.
This project will not change the amount of impervious surface on the site as the addition for the
2
warehouse would be constructed over a part of the existing paved storage area. Also, the roof
of the proposed warehouse is slanted towards the rest of the Menards' site so that it will not
affect its residential neighbors to the south.
Proposed Building Design and Concerns
The proposed wood screening fence on the east side of the property, near Countryside
VW/Saab, would consist of 14-foot tall vertical2x8 green-treated wood planks. This fence would
be consistent with the other existing wood screening fences on the site.
For the warehouse Menard, Inc. is proposing to use the same materials and colors as the
recently updated fagade of the Menards store. The north face would have entry and exit areas
as well as pallet racking for the store's materials. The east and west faces would consist of a
14-foot tall screening fence consisting of vertical 2x8 green-treated wood planks. The remaining
11 feet of the exposed warehouse would be built with emerald green steel material, consistent
with the rest of the store site. The south face of the warehouse would consist of an
approximately 25-foot high wood screen fence built with horizontal 2x8 greet treated wood
planks.
Staff is concerned about the proposed appearance of the south building elevation. While the
applicant has chosen to use materials consistent with the rest of the proposed fences and
existing site staff feels that the large, one-dimension blank wall the 25-foot tall wood screening
fence would create would be unattractive. Staff recommends that the applicant consider
shortening the height on the south fence and to use materials consistent with the east and west
sides of the warehouse for the exposed top portion of the warehouse.
DEPARTMENT REVIEWS
Fire Marshal's Comments
Maplewood's Fire Marshal Butch Gervais had the following comments on the Menards' proposal.
. 20 ' Fire Department Access
. Fire protection installed per code
. Alarms installed per code
Building Official Comments
Maplewood's Building Official David Fisher had the following comments on the Menards'
proposal.
. The city will require a complete building code analysis when the construction plans are
submitted to the city for building permits.
. All exiting must go to a public way.
. Provide adequate Fire Department access.
3
. Verify requirements of the fire sprinkler system and stand pipes with the Fire Marshal.
. I would recommend a pre-construction meeting with the contractor, the project manager
and the city building inspection department.
City Engineer's Comment
Steve Kummer, staff engineer, commented that the proposal would not impact drainage and that
no additional runoff would affect neighbors.
Environmental Planner's Comments
Shann Finwall, environmental planner, had no additional comments on this proposal.
RECOMMENDATIONS
A. Adopt the resolution attached to this report. This resolution revises a conditional use permit
revision for Menards at 2280 Maplewood Drive to add a 16,750-square-foot unheated
warehouse to the existing store. The city bases this approval on the findings required by the
code. Approval of this CUP revision is subject to the following conditions (additions are
underlined and deletions are crossed out):
1. Adherence to the site plan date-stamped October 1, 2008 March 8, 2006. PlanninQ staff
The director of community developmont may approve minor changes.
2. Compliance with the following screening-fence requirements:
a. The property owner shall continue to have and keep, in a maintained condition,
wooden screening fences as follows:
(1) The eight-foot-tall screening fence west of 1071 County Road B and running
east-west behind 1071, 1081 and part of 1101 County Road B between the
parkina lot and the residential lots shall remain.
(2) All other screening fences that abut the residential lots and the new fences on the
east and south sides of the propertv as shown on the site plan date-stamped
October 1. 2008 shall be 14 feet tall.
(3) All screening fences shall be constructed of vertical boards of the same
dimension, color and material.
b. No material on the storage racks, adjacent to the fence behind 1101 and 1115
County Road B, shall extend above the 14-foot-tall fence.
c. No more than 2 % feet of the 17 %-foot-tall interior storage racks shall be visible from
the homes to the south that are at street level along County Road B. This excludes
those houses that sit higher on a hill.
d. Menards shall be responsible for the safety of the neighbors in regard to the
materials stored over the height of the fence.
3. Hours of operation in the storage yard, garden center and warehouse shall be limited to 7
4
a.m. to 10 p.m.
4. An exterior public address system shall not be allowed.
5. All lighting in the storage yard and warehouse that is not needed for site security shall be
turned off after business hours.
6. The city council shall review this permit revision in one year.
7. Plowed snow shall be stored away from the southern and eastern property lines to avoid
runoff problems on residential property.
8. Menards shall store all their materials within the fenced storage area.
9. Sanitation facilities shall be provided by Menards for the employees.
10. The proposed building addition and site work must be substantially started within one
year of council approval or the permit shall become null and void. The council may
extend this deadline for one year.
11. The perimeter of the building must be kept accessible for fire emergencies. The
applicant shall arrange with the fire marshal for access through the gate behind the
building in the case of emergencies.
B. Approve the site plan date-stamped October 1, 2008, and the building elevations date-
stamped October 1,2008, for the 16,750-square-foot unheated warehouse addition to
Menards at 2280 Maplewood Drive. Approval is subject to the following conditions:
1. Repeat this review in two years if the city has not issued a building permit for this
project.
2. Submit for staff approval, an elevation for the south side of the warehouse that shows
a revised design plan for the screening fence and warehouse. This south elevation
shall show the wooden "fence" portion of this exterior wall matching the 14-foot height
of the proposed fencing on the east and west sides of the warehouse. The area
above the wooden siding shall be green, corrugated metal as proposed on the
building.
3. Before getting a building permit, the applicant shall:
a. Submit grading, drainage, utility and erosion control plans to the city engineering
department for approval.
b. Submit to city staff a cash escrow or an irrevocable letter of credit for all required
exterior improvements. The amount shall be 150 percent of the cost of the work.
4. All work shall follow the approved plans. Planning staff may approve minor changes.
5
CITIZEN COMMENTS
Staff surveyed the 46 property owners within 500 feet of Menards for their opinions about this
proposal. Staff received one reply. That person's comments are below.
In Favor
This does not appear to change Menards impact on the neighborhood. The competition is fierce
in this industry. If Menards can't improve and grow to meet the public demand they may be
forced to relocate - that would be bad for Maplewood. (Barhan, 1174 County Road BEast)
6
REFERENCE INFORMATION
SITE DESCRIPTION
Site Size: 13.48 acres
Existing Use: Menards store with outdoor sales and parking lot
SURROUNDING LAND USES
North:
East:
South:
West:
Highway 36
Countryside VW/Saab and Single Dwellings
Single Dwellings and Citgo Motor Fuel Station
Highway 61
PLANNING
Land Use:
Zoning:
Light Manufacturing (M-1)
Light Manufacturing (M-1)
Conditional Use Permit Ordinance Requirements
Section 44-512(4) requires a CUP for the exterior storage of goods or materials.
Section 44-637(b) requires a CUP for any building or exterior use within 350 feet of a residential
district.
Findings for CUP approval
Section 44-1097(a) states that the city council must base approval of a CUP on nine standards
for approval. Refer to the findings in the attached resolution.
Design Review Ordinance Requirements
Section 2-290(b) of the city code requires that the community design review board make the
following findings to approve plans:
1. That the design and location of the proposed development and its relationship to neighboring,
existing or proposed developments and traffic is such that it will not impair the desirability of
investment or occupation in the neighborhood; that it will not unreasonably interfere with the
use and enjoyment of neighboring, existing or proposed developments; and that it will not
create traffic hazards or congestion.
2. That the design and location of the proposed development is in keeping with the character of
the surrounding neighborhood and is not detrimental to the harmonious, orderly and attractive
development contemplated by this article and the city's comprehensive municipal plan.
3. That the design and location of the proposed development would provide a desirable
environment for its occupants, as well as for its neighbors, and that it is aesthetically of good
composition, materials, textures and colors.
7
Application Date
The city received the complete application for a conditional use permit revision and site and
design plans approval on October 28, 2008. The 60-day review deadline for a decision is
December 29, 2008. As stated in Minnesota State Statute 15.99, the city is allowed to take an
additional 60 days if necessary in order to complete the review of the application.
P:ISEC9IMenardsI100808_CDRB and CUPIMenards_PC_110708.doc
Attachments:
1. Location Map
2. Zoning Map
3. Future Land Use Map
4. Shoreland Overlay Map
5. Applicant's Letter
6. Conditional Use Permit Revision Resolution
7. Applicants' 3D Drawings
8. Applicant's Pians (separate attachment)
8
Attachment 1
Menards - Request for Conditional Use Permit Revision
and CORB Review
fiiGfj
,
i
2280 Maplewood Drive
,'~'"
t
Figure One-Location Map
City of Maplewood
October 21, 2008
NORTH
Attachment 2
Menards - Request for Conditional Use Permit
Revision and CORB Review
.-~ -~
-,," ~~
---~ -~-
\
/'/-~)\
. '\\'~'"
.~'~"
I' "'"'_
,,/
" _.---"~
,~~--_.
// /
(
"
---.
--.~~
--.
".~"\
)
/ -~.-'
----
.--
.--
~_."'
~---_.,
~.--
/ ,-~..
--<"~~--
.--
~---_.--
{)t;! d
~ ~
o
o
CJ{1 qu orB,
;5
((>',01",1'';'.'11')
r1
.,
E!
D
'" 7:: :~ i:1 8 ;:;:
o /f[j7 db OCG ~ 1P
r1
<>P
os
r-1
PLib~~
21(;0
2170
00
f
o
.
t
NORTH
CD
fillli1b
o 1
~~
Figure Two - Zoning Map
City of Maplewood
October 21, 2008
Attachment 3
Menards - Request for Conditional Use Permit
Revision and CORB Review
\
./?'.----')\
\"..
"'''~",
--'-..
/"
---,","~",.
NORTH
(,
,
[]q d
R :::
os
os
t
-,
",
'\
)
,./
o
o
r1
1J~1 q,u
D
rfj,
"
'"
"
'~('"i;l i ;(':>>'~.; [;
El
o
i~~ ;~ :;1 :1; ~"
o 0 r:b oQ lfd l]j8
"'~~ Q
\p " 5JO
""
'" pJ
,~ .,
~
o
. ;\i1"
P ~ "iJ "
21';:0
2170
GCJ
o
.
Figure Three - Land Use Map
City of Maplewood
October 21 , 2008
Attachment 4
Menards - Request for Conditional Use Permit
Revision and CORB Review
"--....-...---
",-
.~-..~
'----~...... .
o
r1
~
~
Iii N
@1 ~ z48 ".1=
::l
c El
"'Ll. 13 0
u ~ ItJ
~ --
~ ~ ~
~
1=
., '" N
N '" '"
~ cD &4D
r1
<> ..
~~
0=
.,
,$SJ
Iii
J:
1-0
~D
c ffiJ 4w
~ ~
~ ~
[]jD CJ ~
1= .
LElAND RD
r!J
r20
~ ~ ~ <>
" ...
~45J
\J
1
C8 0 ./
~
C::J
o
"
t
Figure Four - Shoreland Overlay Map
City of Maplewood
November 7,2008
NORTH
limo
Attachment 5
October 3,2008
Tom Ekstrand
Senior Planner
City of Maplewood
1830 County Road BEast
Maplewood; MN 55109
VIA OVERNIGHf MAn.
(651) 249-2302
Re: Proposed Menards Warehouse Addition
Dear Tom,
Please find enclosed herewith the Conditional Use and the Community Design Review Board
applications for the proposed warehouse addition to our existing Menards location in Map1ewood
along with checks for the required fees and the engineering review escrow. Also enclosed are
sixteen (16) full-size, collated sets of each the site plan, the warehouse elevations and a
topographic survey for the City's review together with a CD containing electronic copies of all
items in 8Y2" x 11" PDF format. If there are any other materials that I can provide to assist in
your review of this matter, please let me know.
As we have previously discussed, Menards desires to add a small warehouse within the existing
enclosed yard area on the south side of our store as well as a new section of fence and pallet
racking behind the store both as shown on the enclosed plans. The primary benefits of the new
warehouse will be protection of our merchandise and comfort and convenience fur our
customers. Lumber and other building materials which are currently stored in this area by means
of ground stacking will be placed inside the new warehouse so that they can be sheltered from
inclement weather and loaded by customers under cover. Other benefits of the warehouse
addition include better visual, sound and light screening along our southern property line for
residents immediately to the south due to the enclosure of some of our operations and the
roughly ten feet of added screening height in this area. Both the warehouse and pallet racking
additions will also have operational benefits for our store by more efficiently storing many items
that are currently stacked within the yard and along the existing chain link fence line behind the
store thereby reducing clutter for employees and guests using these areas and providing a cleaner
look for customers entering the rear yard enclosure.
The proposed warehouse and fence additions would use the same materials and colors as the
newly updated fagade of the Menards store, the new garden center addition and the existing
sections of 14' high fence/pallet racking enclosing the southern and western portions of our rear
yard. The remodel will not result in any changes to the impervious area of the site, th~ existing
utilities on site, existing landscaping or drainage patterns on our property. As shown and noted
on the plans, the new warehouse roof and the new fence/pallet racking overhang will be sloped
into the Menards outdoor yard area and will use the existing storm sewer inlets and sheet
drainage areas that currently drain these portions of the yard. There will be no additional water
directed toward any neililiboring property owners as a result of the remodel. Operationally'
speaking, the requested changes will not alter the product mix or amount of products available at
the store, but will ouly change where and how our existing products are stored and arranged.
Therefore, there will be no addition to the total retail area of our use or the resulting parking
needs for the site. For these reasons, Menard, Inc. hereby respectfully requests that the City
approve the proposed warehouse and fence additions as shown on .the enclosed site plan and
elevations.
4777 MENARD DRIVE
EAU CLAIRE, WI 54703-9625
FAX (715) 876-5901
PHONE (715) 876-5911
.-."...--............-.-. .. ..~'-_...._----..-----..-._---~ .---------~ ~.-".. . .~.",<...-~-_-~ ._.._~~_~.T...m..___~__~_<~.~
Thank you fur your time and your attention to my request. If you have any questions or if I can
be of assistance in any way, please do not hesitate to contact me using the information provided
below.
1'0
cott Nuttehnan
Real Estate Associate
Phone: (715) 87602383
Fax: (715) 876-5960
Mobile: (715) 577-0363
snuttelm@menard-inc.com
Enclosures
cc: Mark Olson; General Manager - Menards Maplewood
Attachment 6
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REVISION RESOLUTION
WHEREAS, Scott Nuttelman, of Menards, Inc. is proposing changes to a site with an existing
conditional use permit to build a 16,750-square-foot warehouse addition on the south side of the
building at 2280 Maplewood Drive. The legal description is:
SUB TO ESMTS; PART OF FOL TRACTS SEL Y OF HWYS 36 & 61; EX S 100 FT PART OF SW
1/4 N OF CO RD B & PART OF SE 1/4 W OF CLIFTON ADD S OF L 107 FT N OF S L OF BLK 15
OF SD ADD EXTENDED & N OF HEINEMANS BELLEVIEW & IN CLIFTON ADD, EX E 240 FT;
BLKS 15& 16&EXE255FTBLK 10&ALSOW120 FTOFE255 FTOF N 30 FTOF
BLK 10 (PIN 09-29-22-43-0042)
WHEREAS, the history of this conditional use permit revision is as follows:
1. On November 18, 2008, the planning commission held a public hearing. The city staff
published a notice in the paper and sent notices to the surrounding property owners. The
planning commission gave persons at the hearing a chance to speak and present written
statements. The commission also considered reports and recommendations of the city staff.
The planning commission recommended that the city council the conditional use
permit revision.
2. On , the city council discussed the proposed conditional use permit revision.
They considered reports and recommendations from the planning commission and city staff.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the city council
conditional use permit revision, because:
the above-described
1. The use would be located, designed, maintained, constructed and operated to be in
conformity with the city's comprehensive plan and code of ordinances.
2. The use would not change the existing or planned character of the surrounding area.
3. The use would not depreciate property values.
4. The use would not involve any activity, process, materials, equipment or methods of
operation that would be dangerous, hazardous, detrimental, disturbing or cause a nuisance
to any person or property, because of excessive noise, glare, smoke, dust, odor, fumes,
water or air pollution, drainage, water run-off, vibration, general unsightliness, electrical
interference or other nuisances.
5. The use would generate only minimal vehicular traffic on local streets and would not create
traffic congestion or unsafe access on existing or proposed streets.
6. The use would be served by adequate public facilities and services, including streets, police
and fire protection, drainage structures, water and sewer systems, schools and parks.
7. The use would not create excessive additional costs for public facilities or services.
8. The use would maximize the preservation of and incorporate the site's natural and scenic
features into the development design.
9. The use would cause minimal adverse environmental effects.
Revision is subject to the following conditions: (additions are underlined and deletions are crossed
out):
1. Adherence to the site plan date-stamped October 1. 2008 Marsh 8, 2006. PlanninQ staff +Re
€lirecter of community €levelopment may approve minor changes.
2. Compliance with the following screening-fence requirements:
a. The property owner shall continue to have and keep, in a maintained condition, wooden
screening fences as follows:
(1) The eight-foot-tall screening fence west of 1071 County Road B and running east-
west behind 1071, 1081 and part of 1101 County Road B between the parkinQ lot and
the residential lots shall remain.
(2) All other screening fences that abut the residential lots and the new fences on the
east and south sides of the properlY as shown on the site plan date-stamped October
1. 2008 shall be 14 feet tall.
(3) All screening fences shall be constructed of vertical boards of the same dimension,
color and material.
b. No material on the storage racks, adjacent to the fence behind 1101 and 1115 County
Road B, shall extend above the 14-foot-tall fence.
c. No more than 2 % feet of the 17 %-foot-tall interior storage racks shall be visible from the
homes to the south that are at street level along County Road B. This excludes those
houses that sit higher on a hill.
d. Menards shall be responsible for the safety of the neighbors in regard to the materials
stored over the height of the fence.
3. Hours of operation in the storage yard, garden center and warehouse shall be limited to 7
a.m. to 10 p.m.
4. An exterior public address system shall not be allowed.
5. All lighting in the storage yard and warehouse thatis not needed for site security shall be
turned off after business hours.
6. The city council shall review this permit revision in one year.
7. Plowed snow shall be stored away from the southern and eastern property lines to avoid
runoff problems on residential property.
8. Menards shall store all their materials within the fenced storage area.
9. Sanitation facilities shall be provided by Menards for the employees.
10. The proposed building addition and site work must be substantially started within one year of
council approval or the permit shall become null and void. The council may extend this
deadline for one year.
11. The perimeter of the building must be kept accessible for fire emergencies. The
applicant shall arrange with the fire marshal for access through the gate behind the building
in the case of emergencies.
The Maplewood City Council
this resolution on
,2008.
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
November 6, 2008
INTRODUCTION
Project Description
Lauren Development and Company is proposing to develop 16 single-family detached homes in
Maplewood and Little Canada. Thirteen lots would be within Little Canada, south of Labore Road.
The remaining 3 lots would be in Maplewood, northwest of the Kohlman Marsh Open Space.
Requests
In order to proceed with the project the applicants are requesting the following city approvals:
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 existing zoning and residential areas nearby.
2. Lot Division: Subdivision approval to split the existing lot into three single-family lots.
BACKGROUND
The applicant is requesting to divide an existing lot in order to create 3 individual lots. City
ordinance allows for city staff to review any lot division request that results in the creation of three
or fewer lots. However, in this instance staff felt it was necessary to bring this request to the
planning commission because the three lots are part of a larger subdivision in Little Canada and
also needs a comprehensive plan amendment.
DISCUSSION
Comprehensive Plan Amendment
The city's comprehensive plan currently guides the lot as "Open Space." Staff feels that this was
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, city staff must forward the council's action to the
Metropolitan Council for their acceptance. This motion would be subject to that review process. It
should also be noted that during the planning commission's work on the proposed 2030
Comprehensive Plan this lot was guided "Low Density Residential." This was one of the several
parcels identified as having inconsistencies between the future land use guide and zoning.
Lot Division
Lot Division
The minimum lot width for interior lots within the R-1 zoning district is 75 feet at the established
building setback line, not less than 60 feet at the front lot line, except that lots located on the bulbs
of cul-de-sacs shall be no less than 40 feet in width at the front lot line. The minimum lot size
within the R-1 zoning district is 10,000 square feet. The three proposed lots in Maplewood would
meet and exceed these requirements.
The majority of the parcel being proposed to be divided is within the Shoreland Overlay District.
The city has classified Gervais Lake, to the southwest, as a Class II water which requires a
minimum lot width of'75 feet for lots with sanitary sewer and a minimum lot size of 10,000 square
feet for lots without water frontage. The city has classified Kohlman Lake, to the southeast, as a
Class IV water which requires a minimum lot width of 75 feet for lots with sanitary sewer and a
minimum lot size of 15,000 square feet for lots without water frontage. Under the Shoreland
Overlay regulations, the maximum amount of impervious surface allowed for the proposed lots
would be 30 percent. This requirement would be reviewed and enforced when building permits are
applied for. The three proposed lots meet and exceed all of the Shoreland Overlay District lot
requirements.
The required setbacks in the R1 Zoning District are as follows:
. Front Yard - 30 feet minimum and 35 feet maximum
. Side Yard -10 feet minimum
. Rear Yard - 20 Percent of Lot Depth
The applicant's site plan dated August 25, 2008 shows that the required setbacks will be met.
Utilities
Sanitary sewer, storm sewer and water will be located within the proposed street right-of-way
which is completely within the City of Little Canada. Little Canada approved the utilities plan as
part of the preliminary plat on October 24, 2007.
Densitv
The proposed gross density for the site within Maplewood is approximately 1.36 units per acre.
The proposed density for this division would be consistent with the R-1, single dwelling, Future
Land Use category. This proposed subdivision would be consistent with the large lot, single-family
homes to the north.
Access
Access to the site is proposed via a 1,050 foot public street extending south from Labore Road with
a 50-foot right-of way. The street itself is proposed to be 29 feet in width, measured from the back
of the curb. Maplewood streets require a 60-foot right-of-way, and local residential streets are to
2
be 32 feet in width between faces of curbs. However, the road is entirely within the City of Little
Canada and meets that city's width requirements. The City of Little Canada approved a 550 foot
variance for the length of the cul-de-sac. The City of Maplewood's maximum cul-de-sac length is
1 ,000 feet.
Department Comments
EnQineerinQ Comments
Staff engineer Steve Kummer has prepared a report that discusses issues relating to storm water
runoff, grading and general drainage patterns, pond grading design, and pond treatment design.
Please refer to his report dated November 5, 2008, which is attached to this memo.
Environment Planner Comments
Environmental planner Shann Finwall has prepared a report that discusses tree preservation,
slopes and wetland buffers. Please refer to Ms. Finwall's report dated November 7, 2008, which is
attached to this memo.
Open Space Coordinator Comments
An open space area is proposed for the southern portions of the proposed three lots. The
applicant should be required to dedicate conservation easements over the southern portion of the
three proposed lots to preserve the open space areas to the southeast and southwest.
Open Space Coordinator Virginia Gaynor has prepared a report that discusses plant species
selection within the subdivision. Please refer to Ms. Gaynor's report dated November 10, 2008,
which is attached to this memo.
Fire Department Comments
Maplewood's Fire Chief Steve Lukin said that the fire department would have no issue serving the
three lots. Chief Lukin did not see any problems with the length of the cul-de-sac as long as there
would be hydrants at the required placements as with any street. The overall utilities plan dated
August 25, 2008, shows the proposed placement of hydrants along the street in the City of Little
Canada.
However, Chief Lukin did point out that it might make more sense for the homes to be served by
Little Canada to help alleviate confusion in the immediate area as to what city serves which home.
The provision of fire, police and utilities would be worked out between the cities of Maplewood and
Little Canada through a joint powers agreement if this subdivision is approved by both
communities.
Police Department Comments
Lt. Kevin Rabbett stated that in general the Police Department would have no issue with the length
of the cul-de-sac or accessing the homes through Little Canada. Lt. Rabbett also mentioned that
the Police Department currently uses routes that travel through North Saint Paul in order to serve
areas in Maplewood.
3
Plannina Commission Review Authoritv
On October 7, 2008, the planning commission requested that staff get an opinion from the city
attorney on whether they have the leeway to deny a proposed project based on an applicant's
perceived ability to financially complete the project. In the instance with Richie Place, a resident
was urging the planning commission to deny that proposal since, as the resident stated; the
developer was in foreclosure with this and other developments elsewhere. This application,
therefore, should not be considered for approval on that basis.
The city attorney, Alan Kantrud, stated that the short answer is, "no." The planning commission is
given a very specific charge under their own operating procedures (see Maplewood Code 2-252).
To the extent they get to recommend or deny a project, their decision, like the general governing
body's, must be based on objective criteria. Our code is quite clear about what the requirements
for approval are, and if the project meets those, then it should be approved. Even the hint that a
decision is based on some arbitrary or capricious standard renders a negative decision subject to
question.
City of Little Canada Process
The City of Little Canada has approved the Richie Place Preliminary Plat. A Final Plat has yet to
be submitted to the City of Little Canada. The cities of Little Canada and Maplewood would need
to arrange a development agreement to work out financial and services issues with the subdivision.
A lawsuit has been filed against the City of Little Canada by Maplewood residents John and Jolene
Gores (2870 Arcade Street) claiming that Little Canada's approval of a variance for cul-de-sac
length was inappropriate. On October 28, 2008, Ramsey County District Court awarded Summary
Judgment to the City. The order was signed by Judge J. Thomas Mott. There is an opportunity for
this ruling to be appealed.
CONCLUSION
Since the previous meeting, staff has addressed the several points raised by the planning
commission. In summary, the city attorney has determined that the city cannot deny a proposal
based on an applicant's perceived ability to financially successfully develop a property. The city
must make land use decisions based on the established rules and criteria in the city ordinances
and based on our established guiding principals.
Regarding any environmental concerns such as complying with issues concerning wetlands, tree
removal/replacement and building on or near a slope, staff has made the following determinations:
Tree Remova//rep/acement: The developer is proposing to replace 45 caliper inches of significant
trees on the site by planting 15 3-caliper inch trees. Staff recommends that in order to accurately
assess this development's tree replacement requirement per city code, the applicant must revise
the tree replacement plan to show that all trees which will be preserved are being protected to a
minimum of the critical root zone.
Slopes: The city's engineering department has reviewed the development proposal to ensure the
slope ordinance is being met, and have found that appropriate erosion control and grading
measures are in place to feasibly develop on the slope as proposed.
4
Wetlands: There is a Class 1 (highest quality) wetland located on the west side of the
development. The city's wetland ordinance requires a 100-foot buffer around a Class 1 wetland.
Staff recommends the following:
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, cutting, 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.
COMMITTEE ACTIONS
PlanninQ Commission
October 7, 2008: The planning commission reviewed this proposal and tabled further review and
action. The planning commission directed staff to provide additional information concerning: their
review authority (as stated above), impacts on wetlands, slopes and tree loss/replacement.
Historic Preservation Commission
Members were asked to comment on this application but none have been received as of yet.
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.
5
c. The proposed future land use guide would be consistent with the comprehensive
plan of Little Canada.
This action is subject to the approval of this land use plan amendment by the Metropolitan
Council.
2. Approve the lot split site plan date stamped August 25, 2008, for a lot division request to
subdivide the 2.24 acre lot located south of Labore Road and East of Arcade Street into
three single family lots. This lot division approval is subject to the following conditions:
a. Satisfy the requirements set forth in the staff report authored by Mr. Kummer, dated
November 5, 2008.
b. Satisfy the requirements set forth in the staff report authored by Ms. Finwall, dated
November 7, 2008.
c. Satisfy the requirements set forth in the staff report by Ms. Gaynor, dated November
10, 2008.
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 the deeds.
These must be recorded with Ramsey County within one year of the date of the lot
division approval or the lot split will become null and void (city code requirement).
e. The City of Maplewood entering into a joint powers agreement with the City of Little
Canada for the provision of police and fire services and utilities.
f. 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.
6
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. The initial
60-day review deadline was October 23,2008. As stated in Minnesota State Statute 15.99, the
city is allowed to take an additional 60 days if necessary in order to complete the review of an
application. Therefore, the revised, extended deadline for the City of Maplewood to complete the
review and take action on the request will be December 22, 2008.
P:ISEC4\Richie Place - Lot SplitlRichie Place_PC_110608.doc
Attachments:
1. Location Map
2. Zoning Map
3. Future Land Use Map
4. Shoreland Overlay Map
5. Mr. Kummer's Report
6. Ms. Finwall's Report
7. Ms. Gaynor's Report
8. Little Canada City Council Minutes October 24, 2007
9. Land Use Plan Amendment Resolution
10. Richie Place Subdivision Plans, date stamped August 25,2008 (separate attachment)
7
Attachment 1
Richie Place - Request for Comp Plan Amendment
and Lot Division
~D
o
~
Gervais Lak"
=
l Kohlman lake
/1
'. }
"~_~..--..-r-'"
---.~...--"'--~
^-~.,
t
Figure One-Location Map
City of Maplewood
November 5, 2008
NORTH
Attachment 2
Richie Place - Request for Comp Plan Amendment
and Lot Division
C~D
o
~1ESJ
t>
...
'"
'"
o
6
'" .
<:( "0"5...
l-ii.j,j,:!") :"'1 cu";::h
1+1I:<c,j
! '''r:<~: i' i'''', t"-
Richie Place-
Zoned Single Dwellin
r1
Lake
Gervais Lake
nJO
I
/'
Kob 1m at)
Lalre
~
'" ,
~":--_-","--...~/
---........... --......---.- --~-~~
--.. "<J" -- '""*
.....~
"
D
t
t
Figure Two - Zoning Map
City of Maplewood
November 5, 2008
NORTH
Attachment 3
Richie Place - Request for Comp Plan Amendment
and Lot Division
'F.:J D
D
'-EJ
"
l-
'"
~ ,~
'" "
<( "
Richie Place-
Guided Open Space (0
os
Lake
Gervais Lake
Kohlman Lake
"'--...------------.-
r---'-"'"'--.........-~---
"-.
"
o
t
Figure Three - Future Land Use Map
City of Maplewood
November 5, 2008
NORTH
Attachment 4
Richie Place - Request for Comp Plan Amendment
and Lot Division
[Ollie
Gervais Lake
Kohlman lake
t
Figure Four - Shoreland Overlay
City of Maplewood
November 5, 2008
NORTH
Attachment 5
Maplewood Engineering Comments - Supplemental Narrative and Comments
11-5-08
Page 1 of 3
Enoineerino Plan Review - Supplemental Narrative and Comments
PROJECT:
PROJECT NO:
COMMENTS BY:
Richie Place Subdivision
08-04
Steve Kummer, P.E. - Staff Engineer
DATE:
11-5-08
City Submittal Set: Civil/Landscape Drawings
Dated 7-30-07 and revised 1-25-08
Stormwater Management Plan by Auth Consulting Assoc.
Revised Computations Dated 8-20-08
The following is a supplemental narrative addressing concerns raised at the Maplewood
Planning Commission Meeting on 10-7-08 regarding the Richie Place development proposal.
PLAN SET:
COMPS:
Storm Water Runoff
Concems were raised regarding the amount of runoff from the development and whether the
proposed development meets Maplewood Engineering standards. The basis for meeting this
requirement is to verify that the runoff from the proposed development does not exceed pre-
development conditions.
Auth Consulting, the developer's engineering consultant, submitted drainage comput~tions for
review. The report bases their conclusions regarding runoff utilizing a HydroCAD modj!1 for the
2-year, 1 O-year and 100-year 24-hour storm events. City staff concludes that their engineering,o
assumptions and HydroCAD computations to be reasonable given the types of ground cover irt
both the existing and proposed conditions. Following are the total runoff rates comparing
existing vs. proposed runoff conditions:
Storm Event
Runoff Rate Com arison
Pre Developed Rate Post Developed Rate
cfs cfs
0.68 0.53
6.35 3.80
18.52 10.91
With the storm water rate control and treatment measures proposed for the development, the
post developed runoff rates are less than the pre-developed rates which meets city of
Maplewood engineering standards.
GradinQ and General DrainaQe Patterns
Concerns were raised about runoff of water from the development onto neighboring properties.
Of particular concem are impacts of runoff to the property at 2870 Arcade Street (John and
Jolene Gores) and 2970 Labore Road (David Himmelbach).
Maplewood Engineering Comments - Supplemental Narrative and Comments
11-5-08
Page 2 of 3
The pre-developed drainage pattems map from the drainage computations indicates the
following:
o 10.07 acres, which includes the two properties at 2932 and 2934 Labore Road, is
sloped toward and generally drains toward the Gore's property from the
developer's parcel.
o 1.27 acres, which is exclusively from the developer's parcel, drains toward the
Himmelbach property.
The proposed grading plan reduces the drainage area from the developer's property toward
o the Gore's property to 3.60 acres.
o the Himmelbach property to 0.54 acres.
Therefore, the proposed development effectively reduces overland drainage toward the two
properties as noted above.
The storm water pond itself has an outlet pipe that drains to the northeast corner of the site and
into the Kohlman Marsh. The drainage from this pipe does not enter neighboring properties and
does not revise the uRimate drainage patterns ofthe area.
Pond Gradina DesiQn
A specific concern that was raised about the pond is that if the pond were to overflow, the
drainage would run off into the Gore's property.
A typical design measure for any type of pond is an emergency overflow route. In case of a
plugged outlet condition or a rainfall event beyond the design capacity of the pond, any overflow
from the pond can take a route to prevent damage to surrounding buildings.
The proposed grading plan does address this. The proposed emergency overflow route will be
to the proposed low-point of the street near street station 9+30. The top elevation of the pond at
which the overflow will occur is an 888.30.
The engineering plans also show a 2 foot berm on the west side of the cul-de-sac and pond
area with a top elevation of 890.50. Any pond overflow will go the route of the established
emergency overflow point prior to topping this berm. The city's standard freeboard requirement
is a minimum of 1 foot of elevation difference between a nearby critical elevation or building and
the pond overflow route. The design meets this standard.
Pond Treatment Desian
There were concerns that the pond did not meet City of Maplewood treatment or infiltration
standards.
The developer is utilizing the Ramsey-Washington Metro Watershed District's Volume Control
Worksheet, which requires a developer to infiRrate 90% of the first 1 inch of runoff from a rainfall
Maplewood Engineering Comments - Supplemental Narrative and Comments
11-5-08
Page 3 of 3
event for all new impervious surfaces for development sites over 1 acre. The City of
Maplewood engineering staff abides by this standard when reviewing plans.
Based on the volume control worksheet, the developer is required to infiltrate 8,494 cubic feet of
storm water through the proposed rain garden. The rain garden provides 8,587 cubic feet of
storage for this purpose, which meets the treatment requirement and also meets city of
Maplewood standards.
The developer will also be required to enter into a storm water maintenance agreement with the
City of Maplewood for regular maintenance of the rain water garden.
Attachment 6
Tree Preservation, Slopes and Wetland Buffer Review
Project: Richie Place Subdivison
Date of Plan: August 25, 2008
Date of Review: November 7, 2008
Reviewer: Shann FinwaU, Environmental Planner
(651) 249-2304; shann.finwall(ii!ci.maplewood.mn.us
Background: The Richie Place Subdivision proposes to subdivide a parcel of land lying
south of Labore Road in Little Canada and north of Kohlman Marsh Open Space in
Maplewood. Three of the proposed 16 lots will be located within Maplewood.
A. Tree Preservation Ordinance: The city's tree preservation ordinance describes
a significant tree as a hardwood tree with a minimum of 6 inches in diameter, an
evergreen tree with a minimum of 8 inches in diameter, and a softwood tree with
a minimum of 12 inches in diameter.
The ordinance requires any significant tree removed to be replaced based on a
tree mitigation calculation. The calculation takes into account the size of a tree
and bases replacement on that size. In essence, the ordinance requires
developers to plant a greater amount of smaller replacement trees because they
removed a significant number of large trees.
Tree Removal and Required Replacement: Tree replacement is based on the
following calculation:
Ordinance Calculation: [(A/B - 0.20) x C] x A = D
Leaend
Richie Place Total
A = Total Diameter Inches of Significant Trees Lost
B = Total Diameter Inches of Significant Trees on Site
C = Tree Replacement Constant (1.5)
D = Replacement Trees (Number of Caliper Inches)
449.0
1735.5
1.5
39.54
Richie Place Calculation: 449/1735.5 - .20 x 1.5 x 449 = 39.54 Cal. Inches
Required Replacement Trees: 39.54/2 caliper inch replacement trees = 20 trees
The tree plan indicates that there are 1735.5 caliper inches of significant trees on
the site (322 trees), and 449 caliper inches of significant trees (186 trees or 57
percent) removed with the development. Based Cln these figures, the city's tree
replacement calculation requires the developer to replace 39.45 caliper inches
(20, 2 caliper inch trees). The reason the developer only has to replace 20 trees
(6.2 percent) of the 57 percent removed is due to the fact that a large number of
trees will remain on the site. The tree replacement calculation takes into account
that not as many trees can be planted on a site that already heavily forested.
Attachment 6
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 after grading is complete.
Proposed Tree Replacement: The developer is proposing to replace 45 caliper
inches of significant trees on the site by planting 15 3-caliper inch trees.
Tree Preservation Recommendation: /n order to accurately assess this
development's tree replacement requirement per city code, the applicant must
revise the tree replacement plan to show that all trees which will be preserved
are being protected to a minimum of the critical root zone.
B. Slopes: ' The environmental protection ordinance regulates development on
slopes. The ordinance applies to slopes 12 percent or greater which encompass
at least 200 feet in length (top to bottom) by 500 feet in width (side to side).
There is a slope that averages 20 percent grade which runs the entire width of
the southern portion of the development (5,600 feet) and is 200 feet in length.
Grading of the house on Lot 2 encroaches into this slope. The following
regulations would apply to the development of Lot 2 in relation to the slope:
Development on a slope in excess of 12 percent must meet the following
conditions:
1. Controls exist uphill to ensure structures, or streets would not be struck
by falling rock, mud, sediment from erosion, uprooted trees or other
materials.
2. The city engineer may require the developer to provide a soils engineer to
certify the stability of potentially unstable slopes.
The city's engineering department has reviewed the development proposal to
ensure the slope ordinance is being met, and have found that appropriate
erosion control and grading measures are in place to feasibly develop on the
slope as proposed.
C. Wetland Ordinance: There is a Class 1 (highest quality) wetland located on the
west of the development. The city's wetland ordinance requires a 100-foot buffer
around a Class 1 wetland.
Grading Plan: The grading plan shows that the development will maintain the
required 100-foot buffer with the grading of the new single family homes.
However, the plan calls for the construction of a storm pipe within the buffer area.
City code allows for the construction of utilities within a buffer where there is no
other practical alternative. The city's engineering department has reviewed and
approved of this storm water utility as being the best location.
Site Plan: The site plan calls out a conservation easement to be located on the
westem side of the development. The conservation easement is proposed as a
Attachment 6
wetland buffer protection to ensure no building, mowing, cutting, grading, filling,
or dumping within the easement.
Possible Impacts to Wetland with Slope Development: The city's wetland
ordinance states that a wetland buffer is measured from the edge of a wetland
outward to lands surrounding the wetland. In this case, there is a required 100-
foot setback from the wetland edge to any allowed disturbance from the
development. In addition to this requirement, the ordinance states that the city
may require a variable buffer to protect adjacent habitat that is valuable to the
wetland, stream, wildlife or vegetation.
Development on a slope next to one of Maplewood's highest quality wetlands
could prove to have a negative impact to the wetland if the appropriate erosion
control measures are not followed. For this reason it is important for the city to
review the development of Lot 2 to ensure that development of the house on the
slope does not impact the wetland. If it is determined that it would have a
negative impact, the code would allow the city to require additional buffers from
the wetland. However, it should be noted that imposing additional buffers to Lot
2 may leave the lot undevelopable.
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, cutting, 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.
Attachment 7
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
RE:
DATE:
Michael Martin, Planner
Ginny Gaynor, Open Space Coordinator
Richie Place Subdivision, Project 08-04
November 10, 2008
The Maplewood Planning Commission requested clarification on two comments in the
Engineering Report for Richie Place Subdivision regarding vegetation in the infiltration basin
proposed (comments 1c and 1d).
1. Original comment 1c: "Number of species - This is a very large garden and it has only
12 species. QUESTION: Is there a design reason for using so few species? If yes,
what it that?, If no, please increase to at least 10-12 species on bottom and 10-12
species on slopes. It does not cost any more to add diversity."
Response and clarification: This comment questions the developer about the number
of plant species proposed for the infiltration basin. Staff recommended increasing the
number of species used because the basin is over 1200 square feet. In the revised
plan, the developer increased the number of species as requested.
2. Original comment 1d: "What is the ratio of grasses/sedges to flowers? (Equal
amounts of all species listed?)"
Response and clarification: In native prairie and wetland plantings, both grasses and
flowers are used. The original plan did not list the number of each species being planted
so this question was asking the developer what the ratio of grasses to flowers would be.
The revised landscape proposal (08/25/08 version) addressed some of the staff comments
regarding vegetation in the infiltration basin. In addition, staff recommends:
1. The landscape plan notes should indicate plug spacing be 12"-18" (not 1'-2').
2. The landscape plan notes should indicate that final species list will be approved by
Maplewood engineer or naturalist. A few of the species listed required shade and we
need better information on how much shade the basin will have before approving the
species.
3. The landscape plan notes should indicate whether blanket or mulch will be used in the
basin. Mulch is preferred on the slopes.
4. The landscape plan notes should indicate that weeding maintenance will be necessary
during the first planting season and beyond. The notes should also indicate who is
responsible for maintenance during the first season - after planting and before the
project is accepted.
PRELIMINARY
PLAT &
VARIANCE-'
RICHIE
PLACE
Attachment 8
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING
CITY COUNCIL
LITTLE CANADA, MINNESOTA
OCTOBER 24, 2007
Pursuant to due call and notice thereof a regular meeting of the
City Council of Little Canada, Minnesota was convened on the
24th day of October, 2007 in the Council Chambers of the City
Center located at 515 Little Canada Road in said City.
The City Attorney reported that at its September 26, 2007 meeting
the City Council continued action on the proposed the Richie Place
Preliminary Plat until this evening's meeting. The Attorney also
noted
since the September 26th meeting, Lauren Development applied
fora
Variance for cul-de-sac length. That variance request has been
reviewed by the Planning Commission. The City Attorney noted
that the Richie Place Preliminary Plat is now before the City
Council for consideration, and the Variance request should be
considered by the Board of Adjustments & Appeals.
The City Attorney indicated that in considering the Variance
request, the Board of Adjustments & Appeals must consider
Section 1010.010 ofthe Subdivision Code, which is laid out in the
City Planner's report dated October 5,2007. This sections requires
that a hardship exists in order to warrant the granting of a variance.
Any action granting a variance should be supported by specific
findings.
Mayor Blesener recommended that the Council convene as the
Board of Adjustments & Appeals in order to consider Lauren
Development's variance request.
Mr. Montour introduced the following resolution and moved its
adoption:
RESOLUTION NO. 2007-i 0-275 - RECESSiNG AS THE CiTY
COUNCiL AND CONVENiNG AS THE BOARD OF
ADJUSTMENTS & APPEALS iN ORDER TO CONSIDER
THE LAUREN DEVELOPMENT VARiANCE REQUEST
The foregoing resolution was duly seconded by McGraw.
Ayes (5).
Attachment 8
Nays (0). Resolution declared adopted.
Blesener opened the Public Hearing to consider Lauren
Development's request for a Variance from the Subdivision Code
requirement which limits permanent cul-de-sac length to a
maximum of 500 feet.
The City Planner reported that the Variance requested is to extend
a cul-de-sac within Richie Place approximately 1,050 feet in
length. The Planner noted that there are two sections of the Code
relative to cul-de-sac length. The first limits permanent cul-de-sac
length to a maximum of 500 feet. The second requires the
developer to extend streets within the plat to provide future
development access to neighboring unsubdivided properties. The
City Planner indicated it does not appear there are any alternatives
to provide future development access to the properties adjoining
Richie Place other than the long cul-de-sac. This cul-de-sac
provides for future street connections to both the east and west.
The City Planner also noted that storm water management plan for
Richie Place improves this storm water management within the
area.
The City Planner indicated that it was his opinion that the Richie
Place Preliminary Plat is consistent with the goals of the City's
Comprehensive Plan and that it meets Single-Family Residential
(R-1) Zoning District standards. The Planner also indicated it was
his opinion that the requested Variance for cul-de-sac length was
consistent with the hardship requirements outlined in the
Subdivision Code. The City Planner recommended approval of
both the Preliminary Plat and the Variance.
The City Administrator noted that in addition to the materials
contained in the agenda packets, there was a considerable amount
of materials that have been submitted by various parties. These
materials are contained in the Additions to the Agenda packet.
Kip Johnson, AC Associates, project engineer for the developer,
indicated that it is Lauren Development's position that the cu1-de-
sac as proposed is necessary in order to provide development
access for properties to the east and west of Richie Place. Johnson
reviewed in detail the letter submitted by Phil Soby, Lauren
Development, outlining the history of the Richie Place
development proposal as well as the justification for the Variance
request. Johnson also reviewed the Richie Place plat design as
well as development options for the adjacent properties on the east
Attachment 8
and west. It was noted that the future easterly extension ofthe
road would connect to the Beam AvenueIKoh1man Lane area.
Allan asked if an easterly extension would benefit the Scully
property. Blesener replied that it would. He also noted that
extension of the road to the east would allow utilities to be looped
through the area. The City Engineer reported that Little Canada is
working with the City of Maplewood to loop both sewer and water
main through this area. Looping of sanitary sewer will eliminate
the need for lift stations.
Johnson presented a diagram of a typical 500 foot cul-de-sac and
noted that the City's R-1 standards would allow for a 16 lot
development. Even though the Richie Place cul-de-sac is proposed
at 1,050 feet in length, the density is at 1610ts, 13 of which are in
Little Canada and 3 in Maplewood.
Christopher Kalla, attorney representing Lauren Development,
noted that the 500- foot diagram presented could not be developed
on the Richie property given the width ofthe property. The
diagram was being presented for illustration purposes.
Allan asked if there is any chance that Map1ewood will not
approve the three lots proposed in that City. Johnson reported that
he has had discussions with the Maplewood Planner who appears
to be in support of the plat.
Blesener noted for the record a July 31, 2007 letter from the
Watershed relative to wetland determination in the LaBore Road
area. He also noted the emai1 from Tina Carstens of the Watershed
relative to the wetland delineation for the Richie Place
development. Carstens noted that she reviewed this delineation
with Lynda Peterson of the Board of Water & Soil Resources and
Tom Peterson of the Ramsey Conservation District and both agree
with her approval of the delineation. Blesener also noted for the
record, a letter from three property owners to the west of proposed
Richie Place asking that their property not be landlocked.
At this point the meeting was opened to comments from the
general public.
John and Jolene Gores, 2870 Arcade Street in Maplewood,
appeared. John Gores indicated that throughout this process, the
City of Little Canada has taken the position that a variance was not
necessary for the Richie Place proposed cul-de-sac length at 1,050
feet. Gores also noted that the City Council denied the Richie
Attachment 8
Place Preliminary Plat on September 26,2007. Blesener noted that
the plat was not denied; a resolution to approve the plat failed.
Gores indicated that now the developer has requested a Variance
when the City said a Variance was not necessary. Gores pointed
out that the basis for a variance has to be based on inequities
related to the subject property such as topography or soils. Gores
noted that the developer has stated that his reason for applying for
a variance is to avoid litigation. Gores pointed out a copy of the
Variance application noting that no reasons for the Variance
request are listed on the application. Gores indicated that the City
Planner stated at the Planning Commission meeting that he could
give the reasons for the Variance and that he did it all the time.
Gores noted that this evening the developer has submitted a hand-
written letter outlining his reasons for requesting a Variance.
Gores noted that the stub road to the east stops at the edge of a
ridge. He also noted that the City's ordinance prohibits dead-end
streets. Gores reported that he has discussed the Richie Place
Preliminary Plat with former Mayor Hanson and indicated that
Hanson noted that when Minnesota Street was first developed, it
was a dead end street that ended at a ravine. A car had driven off
the end of the street and one ofthe people in the vehicle was killed.
Gores felt that the stub road proposed in the Richie Plat was setting
up a highly dangerous situation.
Gores reported that at the Planning Commission meeting, there
was no explanation given for the Variance, and the Planning
Commission was told to apply the wrong standard in their
consideration of the Variance. Gores noted that the Code requires
that an extreme hardship be present to warrant granting a Variance.
He outlined the standards that must be met as outlined in the
Zoning Code. Gores felt there were no special or highly unique
circumstances affecting this property that would warrant the
Variance. He also felt that this particular property was no different
that the neighboring properties. Gores felt that the only unique
circumstance is that the Richie property is close to former Mayor
Fahey's property and that Fahey wants to develop his property.
Gores indicated that this is not a hardship or a special or unique
circumstance to the land. Gores also felt that the fact that the
developer must plan for future development is not a hardship.
Gores indicated that the developer only has to provide an
opportunity for future development of adjacent properties, and
does not have to bring a road to the property edge. It is up to the
adjacent land owners as to how to developer their land.
Attachment 8
Gores felt that holding Lauren Development to the 500 foot cul-de-
sac maximum does not prevent the developer from the reasonable
use of his land. Gores noted that a previous concept submittal by
the developer showed a 500 foot cul-de-sac. The neighborhood
was in support of that concept. Gores noted that in reviewing that
concept the City Planner indicated that a future road connection to
the west could be provided adjacent to Lot 10. The Planning
Commission pointed out that a future road connection to the east
could be provided with the loss of one lot. Gores pointed out that
there are alternatives that would allow the development of the
Richie property, providing development potential to the east and
west, while maintaining a 500 foot limit on the cul-de-sac. Gores
indicated that Lauren Development has not shown that he cannot
make reasonable and minimum use ofthe land without the
Variance.
Blesener pointed out that the City of Map1ewood has a maximum
cul-de-sac length of 1,000 feet. Gores indicated there are other
issues the development will have to address with the City of
Map1ewood.
Gores pointed out that the Variance is also detrimental to public
health and safety noting James Benshoffs, Traffic Engineer, report
dated September 26, 2007 relative to emergency vehicle access.
Gores pointed out that it only takes one incident where an
emergency vehicle cannot get into an area. Gores stated that he
realizes Mayor Blesener lives on a long cul-de-sac, but pointed out
that that street was developed before the 500 foot maximum was
put in place. Gores noted that the Richie property is a border
property on steep, hilly, and wooded land. He noted the existence
of Ramsey COlUlty and Map1ewood open space in this area. Gores
again raised the public safety concern, and asked why the City
would want to take the chance of allowing a long cul-de-sac. He
noted that a member of the Planning Commission indicated that he
lived on a long cul-de-sac in St. Louis and did not have any
problems. Gores pointed out that this is not St. Louis.
Gores further noted that the area is environmentally sensitive. He
noted that the neighbors have serious concerns with the wetland
delineation that was done. Gores questioned the soil borings that
were done which did not reflect the Seeleyville muck that is in this
area. Gores noted that there is See1eyville muck at the spot that
the Richie Place cul-de-sac ends to the west.
Gores asked why Little Canada would want to grant a variance for
a 1,050 cul-de-sac when the additional length only benefits
Attachment 8
Map1ewood property. He also noted that Little Canada will have to
pay for the maintenance of this cul-de-sac section that serves
Map1ewood properties. He pointed out that access can be provided
to the east and west without a Variance for cul-de-sac length.
Gores also felt a shorter cul-de-sac would be preferable from an
environmental standpoint. Gores commented that it appears that
the City is trying to get roads to the Michael Fahey property.
Gores felt that the road design would only force Mr. Quam to
develop his land in a way that he might not want to.
It was Gores' opinion that the Preliminary Plat as proposed would
devalue the area. He pointed out that the long cul-de-sac only
serves property in Maplewood and that Little Canada will pay for
the maintenance of that road. Gores felt that the Preliminary Plat
conflicted with the character of Little Canada.
Gores reviewed Exhibit 21 of the Howard Roston correspondence
dated October 10t\ noting that the average cul-de-sac length in the
northwest quadrant of Little Canada was 422.89 feet long. He
noted that there are some longer cul-de-sacs in this area of the
City, but they were put in before the current ordinance was in
place. Gores noted that the Canadian Woods Preliminary Plat was
granted a cul-de-sac variance of 50 feet, but the basis for that was
to align the road so that Mr. Johnson could develop his property.
Gores again stated that the Variance for cul-de-sac length results in
a plat that is out of character with the area and undermines
property values. This Variance is not being requested to correct
inequities from an extreme hardship. Gores pointed out that there
is no hardship present to justifY the Variance. He also noted that if
adjacent property owners want to develop their land, they can get
together and do so. Gores stated that it was his opinion that none
of the hardship tests have been met. However, he realizes that the
Council will approve the Preliminary Plat anyway. Gores
indicated that the developer applying for a Variance to avoid
litigation, has pretty much guaranteed that litigation will occur.
Gores pointed out that the developer has provided no reasons for
the Variance, however, the City Planner has.
Jo1ene Gores noted that Mike Fahey had an opportunity to develop
his property in the 1990's when he subdivided a lot for Jim Olson.
B1esener noted that the fact that Mike Fahey was the Mayor of
Little Canada has no basis for how the Council acts on this
Preliminary Plat. Blesener pointed out that Fahey pays property
taxes and has the same rights as anyone else in the City. Blesener
Attachment 8
also noted that Lauren Development also has a right to developer
this land.
McGraw questioned Mrs. Gores' statement and asked where in the
Code it states that someone only gets one chance to develop their
property. Jo1ene Gores pointed out that there are ways to develop
the Richie property that do not require a Variance and comply with
City Codes. Gores noted that the City is considering a Variance
for a cul-de-sac that is more than twice the maximum allowed
under the Code. Mrs. Gores noted that the City first indicated that
a Variance was not necessary for the cul-de-sac length, and is now
considering a Variance for the cul-de-sac length.
Mrs. Gores stated that they are concerned about drainage and water
issues. Mrs. Gores felt that adding rooftops and a street next to
their property will have an adverse impact on drainage. Montour
pointed out that pond that is part ofthis development. Gores
indicated that they would like to have the engineering verified on
this pond. Gores noted that there is a ravine on the west side of
this property that is lower than the proposed pond.
Montour noted that if the cul-de-sac is held to a 500 foot length, a
new Council could change the Code and increase maximum cul-
de-sac lengths. Gores felt that this was speculative and indicated
that the City has to deal with the Code that is on the books today.
Gores also noted that the Code says that the City must provide for
future road connections, not bring the pavement to the edge of
adjoining property.
Keis noted that the City must consider how to connect future
streets in this area. The other option would be to allow the area to
develop with a series of 500 foot cul-de-sacs.
Mrs. Gores again noted the Seeleyville muck at the end of the
proposed cul-de-sac. Mrs. Gores indicated that this area is
saturated. She reported that they currently do not get flooding on
their property from the Richie property, but was concerned that
this would change given the soil types.
Allan asked if the Gores have discussed their concerns with the
developer. Mrs. Gores reported that the developer has not spoken
with them, and has only had contact with Mr. Quam after he cut
down his trees. Allan pointed out that the trees were not cut down.
Mrs. Gores indicated that it looked like the developer's contractor
drove over the trees.
Attachment 8
The Gores pointed out that in approving the development as
proposed, the City is only speculating that the adjacent properties
want to develop in the manner that will be dictated by the road
connections from Richie Place. Mrs. Gores asked who will pay for
the road connection. Allan replied that the developer will be
required to pay for street improvements within the plat.
Keis stated that he appreciates the Gores' opinion, but noted that
50 different developers could propose 50 different concept plans.
Keis stated that he does not know what the best plan would be, but
pointed out that the plan being considered by the Council looks to
be a good one.
The City Engineer indicated that the soil borings done by the
developer did not indicate Seeleyville muck in the area of the
proposed cul-de-sac. A boring was done in a location that would
be next to the cul-de-sac curb line. The Engineer pointed out,
however, that the soil conditions further west are not known. The
Engineer also reported that there are ways to deal with muck. The
much could be subcut and replaced and the area surcharged.
Blesener asked about run-off rates. The City Engineer pointed out
that the developer must maintain current rates of discharge. He
noted that the drainage will be improved given the Watershed's
requirements for infiltration and on-site retention. The Engineer
noted that the developer is required to ensure that the first inch of
run-off does not leave the site. In the event of a larger storm, run-
off must be treated and no more than currently occurs. The
Engineer pointed out that the overflow for the proposed pond is
away from the Gores property. Water ends up in the wetland area
to the south ofthe Richie property as currently occurs.
Blesener asked about the proposed street stub to the east, asking if
it would be blacktopped and curbed right away or left as a grassy
area. The City Planner recommended that it be left grassy until the
point that it is extended east to serve adjacent properties.
The City Administrator recommended that the City escrow funds
to provide for construction ofthis future connection to the property
line. The City Administrator noted Mr. Gores' earlier comments
that the developer submitted a hand written letter outlining his
reasons for requesting a Variance. The Administrator noted that
the letter was typed, not hand written. With regard to Gores'
comments about the road to service Maplewood lots, the
Administrator noted that there are two options. Either the City
enter into a Joint Powers Agreement with Maplewood relative to
Attachment 8
the maintenance ofthis road, or that portion of the development
located in Map1ewood be annexed to Little Canada. The
Administrator also noted that Mr. Benshoofs report mentioned by
Mr. Gores said that a 1,000 foot cul-de-sac was less safe than a 500
foot cul-de-sac. He did not say that the cul-de-sac would be
unsafe. The Administrator also noted that Mr. Benshoof said that
the road connection to LaBore Road would not impose a traffic
problem. With regard to Mr. Gores' comments about cul-de-sac
length in the northeast quadrant of the City, the Administrator
pointed out that Beam Avenue is a very long cul-de-sac. He felt
adding that cul-de-sac length into the average number quoted by
Mr. Gore would increase that average number substantially.
Blesener noted that Beam A venue is a street that is maintained by
the City of Map1ewood. It is an extremely long cul-de-sac serving
several lots. Approximately 5 or 6 of these lots are located in
Little Canada. Blesener also noted that the eventual connection of
Richie Place to the Beam Avenue area will allow Little Canada to
bring water main into the Beam A venue neighborhood.
The City Administrator pointed out that Little Canada and
Maplewood are undertaking a feasibility study relative to the
looping of water main through the area by Little Canada and
sanitary sewer main through the area by Maplewood. Bringing
Maplewood sewer into this area will avoid the need for multiple
lift stations.
Bill Schorn appeared before the Council and stated that he agreed
with the concerns raised by Mr. and Mrs. Gores. Schorn
questioned the validity ofthe wetland delineation that was done,
and pointed out that given the muck to the west, it is unlikely that
the road will ever be extended that direction. Schorn also pointed
out that there are wetlands to the east that will make development
difficult. Schorn felt that the City was skirting the issues based on
their desire for a road in this area. Schorn felt that the City will
continue to extend the maximum length of cul-de-sacs until Mike
Fahey can develop his property. Schorn felt that there was no
hardship present to justifY granting a Variance. He also noted that
ifthere is a conflict in the City Code relative to cul-de-sac length,
the City is obligated to apply the most restrictive of the clauses.
Schorn noted, however, that the City wants the street developed
and will cram it down the neighborhood's throats just to give Mike
Fahey what he wants. Schorn also noted that when Bill Richie
subdivided his property, the City required a covenant be signed by
Mr. Richie that there would be no further development of his land.
Attachment 8
However, the City did not follow through and put the covenant in
place.
The City Administrator reviewed the history of the property
divisions of the Richie property. He noted that a property division
was approved in February, 2000 and lapsed because Mr. Richie did
not finalize the property division recording. That property division
was reconsidered and approved in May of 200 1. A covenant was
drafted, but not executed because, again, Mr. Richie did not
finalize the recording of the property division. In September of
2001, Mr. Schorn approached the City regarding subdivision of
another lot from the Richie property. The covenant was discussed
at that time and a motion was passed "Approving the concept of
eliminating covenant agreement for Richie property based on Mr.
Bill Schorn's interest in subdividing a lot on the east end of this
property. . ." The reason that the covenant was no longer deemed
necessary is the determination had recently been made not to adopt
a thoroughfare plan for the area.
Bill Schorn could not recall these specifics, and the City
Administrator indicated that Mr. Schorn should contact him and
the documentation would be provided to him. Schorn stated that
the law is the law and noted that he has always had to abide by the
City Code. Schorn felt that a Variance should not be approved for
the Richie Place cul-de-sac as there is no hardship present. He
suggested that some compromise be worked out on this
development. Schorn noted that one of the concepts presented by
the developer had a 500 foot cul-de-sac. It was only after the City
indicated the need for road connections to the east and west and the
cul-de-sac length was proposed at 1,050 feet. Schorn noted that
this cul-de-sac length does not meet City Ordinance requirements.
Schorn felt that approval of the Variance will put the City at risk
for litigation and that the developer would be named in that
litigation.
Tom Roycraft, Arcade Street, indicated that he agrees with the
comments ofMr. Gores and Mr. Schorn. He noted that the
neighborhood did not have an issue with the concept that proposed
a 500 foot cul-de-sac, and noted that it was the City that then
expanded the development. Roycraft stated that he is amazed at
the verbiage of the City Planner on this. Roycraft noted that when
he served on the City's Planning Commission, a Variance was an
exception that was based on a hardship. Roycraft felt that the City
Planner was providing the developer with the basis of his Variance
request, and Roycraft took exception to that.
Attachment 8
Roycraft pointed out the City Engineer's previous report that
indicates that there are poorer soils as the property gets nearer to
Arcade Street. Roycraft felt that the City was forgetting this fact
because it wants to get development beyond the Richie Plat.
Roycraft urged the Council to limit the cul-de-sac length to 500
feet and stated that there is no hardship present to justify a
Variance. Roycraft also stated that he is disappointed with the
meetings that have been held on this matter and felt that the City
Planner has displayed a lack of professionalism. Roycraft stated
that he would like to be present the next time the City Planner's
contract is considered for renewal.
Gary Quam, 2920 LaBore Road, reported that the developer did
make an honest mistake when he cut across a comer of his
property and plowed over some trees. Quam reported that the
developer did apologize for it. Quam reported that he does not
have any designs for the future development of his property. He
indicated that he likes his neighbors and would not want to see
their property landlocked. Quam felt that his neighbors did have
the right to develop in the future. Quam stated that his position
was that he wanted to be sure that as development of the area
proceeds that it is done right. Quam also expressed concern about
the current Watershed model and felt it was not working. Quam
pointed out some of the retention pond leading into Gervais Lake
and indicated that the quality of the water in these ponds is very
poor, thus Gervais Lake water quality is deteriorating. Quam also
noted that the holding pond in the Gervais Hills development is
full, and thought that part of the purpose ofthis pond was for
infiltration. Quam noted the need for holding ponds and water
treatment when vegetation is being replaced with hard surface. He
also pointed out the existence of a ravine through the Richie
property as well as his own that is lower than the proposed holding
pond in the Richie plat. Quam again pointed out that the existing
Watershed models are not working. He noted that this is a very
sensitive area, and wanted to make sure the project was done
correctly.
Blesener stated the he did not necessarily disagree, but pointed out
that the Richie plat as proposed meets the City's Code
requirements. He pointed out that the Council held a workshop
meeting to discuss Codes and the need for more stringent standards
in environmentally sensitive areas. However, the Richie Place plat
can only be held to the Codes that are in effect today.
Attachment 8
Quam pointed out that the current Code limits maximum cul-de-
sac length to 500 feet, and felt that this limitation could be used for
force a compromise with the developer. Quam indicated that he
will probably not develop his property, and pointed out that he
would not be opposed to new standards for the area that would
require larger lots, more tree preservation, and better wetland
control.
McGraw questioned how the holding pond will work given that the
ravine is lower. Quam replied that the developer will have to
severely change the grades in this area which will result in the loss
of a significant amount of trees. Quam informed the Council how
some driveway improvements he made on his property changed
the water dynamics on his property.
The City Engineer indicated that the Watershed has reviewed the
grading and drainage plans to ensure that run-off will flow into the
pond. The Engineer stated that there are some back yard areas
along Lots 1 through 5 that will drain to the swamp. The majority
of the run-off from this development flows to the road and into the
pond providing rate control and storm water treatment. The
Engineer noted that drainage and ponding requirements have
changed over the years becoming more restrictive. The Engineer
felt these requirement changes will continue in the more restrictive
direction.
Roycraft again pointed out that soils conditions worsen toward the
west and asked how much fill would be necessary to correct those
soils. The City Engineer was not sure, and noted that while
property owners have indicated there is muck to the west, the soil
borings do not show much on the Richie property. The Engineer
noted that at some point it is not economically feasible to do soil
corrections
Roycraft felt that if the Richie Place plat goes through, there
should be soil improvements done to the west. He noted that there
is a sink hole on the Battista property that is eroding onto his land.
Blesener suggested that Roycraft discuss this situation with the
City Engineer.
Christopher Kalla, attorney representing Lauren Development,
reminded the Council that one of the primary issues is developing
land to its highest and best use. He noted the need to access the
triangular piece of property in the City of Maplewood, as well as
the fact that the City Code requires developers to provide future
connections to adjacent undeveloped property. To accomplish this,
Attachment 8
Lauren Development has submitted a 1610t single family
development. Kalla noted Mr. Gores contention that to provide
access to an adjacent property does not mean that a road must be
paved to the edge of the parcel. Kalla pointed out that a stub road
to the east could be gated. Kalla also pointed out Gores'
comments that this was speculative planning. Kalla stated that he
called it planning for the future, and felt that was a goal of the City.
Kalla noted that the property is zoned single-family residential, and
a long cul-de-sac is proposed to fully access the developable
property as well as plan for the future development of adjacent
properties.
John Sculley, LaBore Road, pointed out that the developer
proposed a concept that did not include development of the
Map1ewood property. He asked why the change. Blesener replied
that the original wetland delineation was done utilizing aerial
photography, and it has been determined that this delineation was
not correct. Another delineation was done, walking the property,
and the wetland boundaries were decreased. After completion of
that delineation, the developer realized that the Maplewood
property was developable. Blesener also noted that the City had
asked that the developer provide future street access for the
undeveloped parcels on the east and west of the Richie property.
Sculley noted that at a previous Council meeting Dave
Himmelbach asked that the City require the developer to clean up
an area on the shared boundary ofthe Himme1bach and Richie
property. The City Council had suggested that this was a civil
matter. Sculley indicated that it would not be a hardship to the
developer to clean up this area and suggested that the City
encourage the developer to do so. Montour noted that Lauren
Development did not cause the problem. Sculley agreed, but
pointed out that Lauren Development purchased the property and
everything that comes with it.
Sculley noted the traffic on LaBore Road and asked if the City
could discuss with the County the possibility of putting in a right-
turn lane to the new street. The City Administrator pointed out
that LaBore Road is now a City street, and stated that this
suggestion could be explored.
Blesener asked if Mr. Sculley wanted to develop his property at
some point. Sculley replied that he did. Blesener noted that
providing road access to the east in the Richie plat would provide
the opportunity for future access to the Sculley property. Sculley
Attachment 8
noted that the street would first go through the Himmelbach and
then the Battista property.
The City Attorney noted for the record the additional documents
received by the City that are included in the Additions to the
Agenda. These are:
Lauren & Company - Documentation for Variance
Request;
September 7th Planner's Report;
Lauren & Company - Tree/Landscaping Proposal;
Letter from David Himme1bach;
Additional Neighborhood Submittals
(Gores/Roycraft/Schorn );
Planner's Response to Additional Neighborhood
Submittals;
Map1ewood Interest in Cooperative Utility Project.
Dave Himmelbach asked that his letter be read aloud, which the
Mayor did.
The City Attorney noted the standards relative to undue hardship
as cited in the case of Nolan versus the City of Eden Prairie filed
on May 23, 2000, and indicated that this case controls those
standards. The Attorney recommended that at the conclusion of
the Public Hearing, the Council acting as the Board of Adjustment
& Appeals make a determination on the cul-de-sac Variance
requested by Lauren Development.
There was no one else present wishing to comment on the
Variance.
Upon motion by McGraw, seconded by Keis, the public hearing
was closed.
Blesener noted that the Planning Commission, City Planner, and
the City Attorney have indicated that hardship test to warrant the
granting of this variance has been met.
Montour noted that there has been a lot of discussion relative to
this Variance request. Montour felt that the City had to look
toward the future and plan for the development of this area. He
noted that the developments being presented to the City Council
are getting harder and harder to review given that there are just the
more difficult areas of the City that are undeveloped. Montour
stated that he supported the Variance request.
Attachment 8
McGraw felt that the Council had to do what is right for the City
into perpetuity. He also thanked Mr. Quam for his courtesy and
respect that he showed the City throughout this process.
Allan felt that the residents' concerns that have been presented to
the Council are heartfelt, and indicated that the Council shares
many of these concerns. She noted that the Council will be
working to change some aspects of the ordinance requiring larger
lots, more tree preservation, etc. in sensitive areas. However, these
Codes have not been changed as of yet.
McGraw pointed out that this is a difficult decision for the Council,
given that the interests of all involved are so different. Some
people are seeking to protect their property, and others are seeking
to develop their property. McGraw indicated that he will vote in
favor of the Variance.
Keis stated that he will also vote to support the Variance and he
agreed with the comments made by the other Council Members.
The City must look to the future and provide for road connections
to the adjacent undeveloped properties. Keis stated that he
respects all the opinions that have been voiced throughout this
process. While he may not agree with all the opinions, Keis
indicated that he appreciated the input.
Blesener noted that the City must look toward the future and
consider what is best for both the Richie property and the
surrounding properties. Blesener pointed out past actions of the
City when street access was not provided because property owners
indicated that they would never develop. He specifically noted the
Melancon property and the now pending development of that land.
Blesener felt that the City would be short -sighted in not providing
for the future development of the properties adjacent to the Richie
land. Blesener felt the Richie development was a proper
development and that the Variance was justified.
Mr. Blesener introduced the following resolution and moved its
adoption:
RESOLUTION NO. 2007-iO-276 -APPROViNG A VARIANCE
FROM THE SUBDiViSION CODE ALLOWiNG A CUL-DE-
SAC LENGTH OF i,050 FEET FOR THE RiCHiE PLACE
CUL-DE-SAC AND ADOPTING THE FiNDiNGS OF FACT
RELATiVE TO THiS VARIANCE AS PRESENTED BY THE
CiTY PLANNER
Attachment 8
Findings of Fact for Approval
Cul-de-Sac Length Variance
Richie Place
Little Canada, Minnesota
1. Richie Place is a proposed plat of single family lots, all
of which meet the zoning ordinance regulations for
area, width, and other applicable zoning standards.
2. The proposed platted area is guided by the
Comprehensive Plan for low density residential uses.
3. The proposed Richie Place plat is consistent with the
land use plan.
4. Each ofthe proposed lots exhibits a buildable area
consistent with the zoning requirements for single
family homes.
5. The proposed plat complies with all reqnirements of the
City's ordinances, and was recommended for approval
by the Planning Commission, with the conditions as
follows:
a. Consistent with Planning Commission
recommendation, the applicant provides a
landscaping plan for ponding area acceptable to
the City.
b. Consistent with Planning Commission
recommendation, the applicant provides a tree
preservation and replacement plan acceptable to
the City.
c. Consistent with Planning Commission
recommendation, the applicant complies with all
final recommendations of the City Engineer.
d. Consistent with Planning Commission
recommendation, a final resolution for joint
utility services for the area is reached with the
City of Maplewood.
6. The plat's proposed street, at a length of approximately
1,050 feet, is eligible for a variance to the Subdivision
Ordinance maximum of 500 feet, based on [mdings as
follows:
Attachment 8
a. The Subdivision Ordinance requires that
subdividers extend streets within a proposed plat
to neighboring property to provide opportunity
for future development, per Subdivision
Ordinance Section 1006.030 (a). This results in
an undue hardship pursuant to Subdivision
Ordinance Section 1010.010 (a).
b. There are no other options for access to this
property that would provide the opportunity for
full development ofthe subject property, nor to
adjoining property that would be consistent with
the Subdivision Ordinance as required by
Subdivision Ordinance Section 1006.030 (a).
This results in an undue hardship pursuant to
Subdivision Ordinance Section 1010.010 (a).
c. Undue hardship is present in putting the
property to a reasonable use if strict compliance
with the 500 foot cul-de-sac regulation is
required, per Subdivision Ordinance Section
1010.010 (c).
d. Without the variance, the applicant will not be
able to put his property to reasonable use since
much of the area will be inaccessible, per Section
1060.030 (c). This results in an undue hardship
pursuant to Subdivision Ordinance Sections
1010.010 (a) and (c).
e. The proposed cul-de-sac is temporary in nature,
with the possibility that the street would be
extended into adjoining property in the future,
per Subdivision Ordinance Section 1060.030 (b)
and (d). This rmding is consistent with
Subdivision Ordinance Section 1010.010 (b).
f. When the stub-street is extended to Beam
Avenue to the east, the cul-de-sac will no longer
exceed the 500 foot regulation in accordance
with Subdivision Ordinance Section 1006.030
(b). This finding is consistent with Subdivision
Ordinance Section 1010.010 (b).
7. The development ofthe proposed plat will provide an
opportunity to extend both public sanitary sewer and
water systems to other properties in the area which do
not have access to full services, consistent with City
policy, and Subdivision Ordinance Section 1008. This
finding is consistent with Subdivision Ordinance
Section 1010.010 (b).
Attachment 8
8. Per City Comprehensive Plan policy, the lack of current
pnblic sanitary sewer and water in the area constitntes
a hazard to environmental conditions and public safety.
This rmding is consistent with Subdivision Ordinance
Section 1010.010 (b).
9. The plat provides future access to other portions ofthe
neighboring properties which would otherwise be
landlocked and unusable as required by Subdivision
Ordinance Section 1006.030 (a). This finding is
consistent with Subdivision Ordinance Section Sections
1010.010 (a) and (c).
10. The proposed plat improves stormwater runoff, water
quality, and flooding conditions in the area through the
use of detention and infiltration ponding to divert and
control stormwater which is currently a threat to
adjoining property, consistent with Subdivision
Ordinance Section 1006.050. This finding is consistent
with Subdivision Ordinance Section Sections 1010.010
(b).
11. The conditions cited herein constitute special and
unique circumstances with would deprive the applicant
of the reasonable use of his land, consistent with the
requirements of Subdivision Ordinance Section
1010.010 (a).
12. The granting of the variance will not only not be
detrimental to public health, welfare, and nearby
properties, but will improve conditions of stormwater,
flooding, and utility services, consistent with
Subdivision Ordinance Section 1010.010 (b).
13. The variance is intended to correct inequities resulting
from extreme hardship, including topography and soils
which limit location of potential connecting roads, and
other physical factors including shape of the property as
required by Subdivision Ordinance Section 1010.010
(c).
14. The applicant has complied with the City's requests for
information and met the requirements for Preliminary
Plat and variance applications as required by
Subdivision Ordinance Section 1010.020.
Attachment 8
The foregoing resolution was duly seconded by Montour.
Ayes (5).
Nays (0). Resolution declared adopted.
Ms. Allan introduced the following resolution and moved its
adoption:
RESOLUTION NO. 2007-10-277 -ADJOURNING AS THE
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT & APPEALS AND
RECONVENING AS THE CITY COUNCIL
The foregoing resolution was duly seconded by McGraw.
Ayes (5).
Nays (0). Resolution declared adopted.
Mayor B1esener brought back to the table consideration of the
application for Preliminary Plat for Richie Place consisting of 16
single-family lots, 13 of which are located in Little Canada.
Blesener noted that the City Planner and the Planning Commission
recommended approval of the Preliminary Plat. He noted that at
the City Council's September 26th meeting a motion to approve the
Preliminary Plat failed. A subsequent motion recommended
reconsideration ofthe Preliminary Plat at a future Council meeting.
Blesener noted that the public hearing on the Preliminary Plat was
closed on September 26th. However, the Council would consider
additional comments this evening.
Dave Himme1bach asked if side yard setbacks greater than 7 Yz feet
could be required by the Board of Adjustments & Appeal.
Blesener noted that the Board only considered the Variance
request. With regard to previous comments about the dlUllping
done by Mr. Richie, Himmelbach indicated that he was not exactly
sure where the property line was until this spring when the survey
was done.
Jolene Gores questioned whether the proposed pond was in the
best location. Blesener noted that all engineering requirements
will have to be complied with as part of the final plat. Kip
Johnson, engineer for the developer, indicated that the pond will
work in the location that is proposed. Blesener asked about the
ravine that is currently lower than the proposed pond. Johnson
reported that grade corrections will be done so that water will drain
into the pond. He also noted that storm sewer will be installed as
will curb and gutter.
Attachment 8
McGraw asked about the impact of the grading on existing trees.
McGraw stated that he was concerned that grading on the Richie
property will damage the root systems of trees on adjacent
properties. Johnson stated that they will be doing a tree inventory,
and could locate additional trees on the Quam property, if Mr.
Quam will allow them to do so. Tills inventory will identifY trees
that must be saved and help identifY grade limits.
Keis asked if the lot areas will be clear cut. He also asked that the
developer save as many trees as possible. Johnson again indicated
that a tree inventory will be done and the developer will save as
many trees as possible. If necessary, retaining walls could be
added to help save trees. Johnson pointed out that it is to the
benefit of the developer to save as many trees as possible as this
makes the lots more valuable.
The City Attorney noted that the Public Hearing on the Preliminary
Plat for Richie Place was closed at the September 26th Council
meeting.
Tom Roycraft indicated that whatever action the Council takes
with regard to this plat is a vote for the future. Roycraft felt that to
allow a cul-de-sac over 1,000 feet in length would be opening up a
Pandora's box. Roycraft also expressed concern on whether or not
the developer had the financial wherewithal to see this
development through to completion. Blesener noted that the City
will require a letter of credit to ensure that infrastructure
improvements are completed and put in to meet City standards.
John Gores asked if the stub street to the east would be paved.
Montour replied that it would likely stay as a grass area. Gores
stated that he would like to see the engineering that has been done
for the drainage, noting that the ravine area runs across his
property. The City Administrator indicated that the City Engineer
can furnish the Gores with the data that it has at this point. He
noted that this information will likely be revised as the project
moves to Final Plat.
Gores indicated that he wanted all comments that he has made at
previous meetings of the Planning Commission and the City
Council relative to Richie Place incorporated into the record.
Quam felt that the Preliminary Plat as proposed would change the
feel of the area. He did not believe the density was right for this
environmentally sensitive area, and encouraged the Council to
Attachment 8
deny the plat. Blesener noted that the lots as proposed meet the
City's Code requirements.
Quam indicated that if current Watershed models are not working,
it is up to the people in the area to try to force the issue. Quam felt
that this was the situation with this proposed plat.
Allan asked if the developer would consider reducing the lot
density. Kalla replied that the developer is not prepared to reduce
the number of lots. He noted that these are difficult times for
developers, and the reduction of even one lot has a significant
financial impact.
Allan stated that she would like to see the density reduced,
however, noted that the plat meets the City's Code requirements.
Allan stated that it was her understanding that the artifacts that Mr.
Himmelbach has mentioned at previous meetings are lost. Mr.
Himme1bach stated that they are not lost; he just does not know
exactly where they are. Mrs. Gores reported that she has contacted
the Minnesota Historical Society relative to the artifacts, but they
have not returned her call. She suggested that the City contact
them.
Keis indicated that he was not happy with the density of the
development, but agreed with Council Member Allan that the
development meets City Code requirements. Keis indicated that
the Council has been in discussions about changing the Code for
future developments, but at this point must measure the project
against the Code that is currently in place. McGraw that density is
an issue and urged the developer to work to save as many trees as
possible. He also asked that the developer be extremely careful
and not damage any of the trees on adjacent properties.
Mr. Montour introduced the following resolution and moved its
adoption:
RESOLUTION NO. 2007-10-278 -APPROVING THE
PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR RICHIE PLACE CONSISTING
OF SIXTEEN (16) LOTS, THIRTEEN (13) OF WHICH ARE
LOCATED IN LITTLE CANADA, AND ADOPTING THE
FINDINGS OF FACT RELATIVE TO THE APPROVAL OF
THIS PRELIMINARY PLAT AS STATED BELOW, AND
FURTHER SUBJECT TO:
Attachment 8
*COMPLIANCE WITH THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE
CITY PLANNER AS OUTLINED IN HIS REPORT DATED
SEPTEMBER 7, 2007;
*SUBJECT TO THE COOPERATION OF MR. DA VID
HIMMELBACH WITH THE MINNESOTA HISTORICAL
SOCIETY ON THE ISSUE OF ARTIFACTS IN THIS AREA;
*SUBJECT TO THE CITY OF LITTLE CANADA ENTERING
INTO A JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT WITH THE CITY OF
MAPLEWOOD ON UTILITIES ISSUES OR THE
DETACHMENT OF THE PORTION OF THE PROPERTY IN
MAPLEWOOD AND ANNEXING IT TO LITTLE CANADA
Findings of Fact for Approval
Preliminary Plat
Richie Place
Little Canada, Minnesota
1. Richie Place is a proposed plat of single family lots, all
of which meet the zoning ordinance regulations for
area, width, and other applicable zoning standards of
the R-l, Single Family Residential District.
2. The proposed platted area is guided by the
Comprehensive Plan for low density residential uses.
3. The proposed Richie Place plat is consistent with the
land use plan.
4. Each of the proposed lots exhibits a buildable area
consistent with the zoning requirements for single
family homes.
5. With the exception ofthe street length (as discussed in
finding offact number 7) the proposed plat complies
with all requirements ofthe City's ordinances, and was
recommended for approval by the Planning
Commission, with the conditions as follows:
a) Consistent with Planning Commission
recommendation, the applicant provides a
landscaping plan for ponding area acceptable to
the City.
b) Consistent with Planning Commission
recommendation, the applicant provides a tree
Attachment 8
preservation and replacement plan acceptable to
the City.
c) Consistent with Planning Commission
recommendation, the applicant complies with all
final recommendations ofthe City Engineer.
d) Consistent with Planning Commission
recommendation, a final resolution for joint
utility services for the area is reached with the
City of Maplewood.
6. The plat's proposed street, at a length of approximately
1,050 feet provides access to adjoining unsubdivided
tracts as required by Subdivision Ordinance Section
1006.030 (a).
7. The 1,050 foot long street exceeds the 500 foot length for
cul-de-sacs but meets the standards for, and has
received, a variance to exceed this length pursuant to
the procedures and requirements ofthe applicable
Subdivision Ordinance Variance process found in
Section 1010. Approval ofthe preliminary plat
conditioned upon separate approval of the variance
8. The proposed street has been provided with the
required temporary cul-de-sac per Subdivision
Ordinance Section 1006.030 (d).
9. The development of the proposed plat will provide an
opportunity to extend both public sanitary sewer and
water systems to other properties in the area which do
not have access to full services, per the requirements of
Subdivision Ordinance Section 1008.040.
10. The lack of current public sanitary sewer and water in
the area constitutes a hazard to environmental
conditions and public safety.
11. The plat provides future access to other portions ofthe
neighboring properties which would otherwise be
landlocked and unusable.
12. The proposed plat improves stormwater runoff, water
quality, and flooding conditions in the area through the
use of detention and infiltration ponding to divert and
control stormwater which is currently a threat to
Attachment 8
adjoining property as reqnired by Snbdivision
Ordinance Section 1006.050.
13. The applicant has complied with the City's reqnests for
information and met the requirements for Preliminary
Plat and variance applications.
The foregoing resolution was duly seconded by McGraw.
Ayes (5).
Nays (0). Resolution declared adopted.
Attachment 9
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
SO 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
the land use plan change.
2. On , the city council discussed the land use plan change.
They considered reports and recommendations from the planning
commission and city staff.
NOW, TH EREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the city council
above described change for the following reasons:
the
a. The proposed Future Land Use Guide would be consistent with existing
zoning.
b. The proposed development would provide a wider range of housing types
in this neighborhood.
c. The proposed future land use guide would be consistent with the
comprehensive plan of Little Canada.
This action is subject to the approval of this land use plan amendment by the
Metropolitan Council.
The Maplewood City Council
this resolution on
,2008.