HomeMy WebLinkAbout01/06/2009
AGENDA
MAPLEWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION
Tuesday, January 6, 2009
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. November 18, 2008
b. December 2, 2008
5. Public Hearings
a. 7:00 pm: Feed Products North Office Building, 1300 McKnight Road
. Conditional Use Permit to Build Within 350 feet of Residential Property
. Lot Division
6. New Business
a. Sustainable Maplewood-Presentation by Shann Finwall, Environmental Planner
b. Rural Residential Conservation-Approach Ordinance Amendment-Preliminary Review
7. Unfinished Business
8. Visitor Presentations
9. Commission Presentations
January 12, 2009 City Council Meeting: Items Include, Berwald Roofing CUP request to build a
residential garage on M1 Property and Maplewood Toyota Easement Vacations. Chairperson
Fischer Scheduled.
10. Staff Presentations
a. 2009 Planning Commissioner Council-Meeting Attendance Schedule
11. Adjournment
DRAFT
MINUTES OF THE MAPLEWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION
1830 COUNTY ROAD BEAST, MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA
TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 18, 2008
I. CALL TO ORDER
Chairperson Fischer called the meeting to order at 7:02 p.m.
II. ROLL CALL
Commissioner Joseph Boeser
Vice-Chairperson Tushar Desai
Chairperson Lorraine Fischer
Commissioner Harland Hess
Commissioner Robert Martin
Commissioner Gary Pearson
Commissioner Dale Trippler
Commissioner Joe Walton
Commissioner Jeremy Yarwood
Absent
Present
Present
Present
Present
Present
Present
Present
Present
City Staff Present:
Michael Martin. City Planner
Steve Kummer, City Staff Enqineer
Shann Finwall, Environmental Planner
III. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
Commissioner Hess moved to approve the amended agenda adding item IV.a. - November 6 minutes.
Commissioner Trippler seconded
The motion passed.
Ayes - all
IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
a. November 6, 2008
Commissioner Pearson moved approval of the amended rninutes of Novernber 6, 2008 changing the
heading day/time to Thursday at 7 p.m., changing "requires" to "allows" in the second paragraph on
page two, changing "Yarwood" to "Boeser" in the fourth paragraph on page two, and changing
"standard" to "language" in the first sentence on page three.
Commissioner Trippler seconded
Ayes - Boeser, Desai, Fischer, Hess, Martin, Pearson, Trippler,
Yarwood
Abstention - Walton
The motion passed.
V. PUBLIC HEARING
a. 7:04 p.m. - Warehouse and Screening Fence Proposal, Menards, 2280 Maplewood Drive
. Conditional Use Permit Revision
Planning Commission
Minutes of 11-18-08
-2-
Planner Michael Martin presented the staff report for the request by Menard, Inc. to build a
16,750-square-foot unheated warehouse on the south side of the Menards store. The structure
would be approximately 25 feet tall and would be built where an existing treated lumber rack
exists. Menards is also proposing to replace an existing chain link fence between the store and
Countryside VW /Saab on the east side of their property.
Commissioner Trippler asked staff to explain the seeming measurernent conflict between item
2.b. and 2.c. of the staff conditions regarding the minimum 2 1'2 feet of storage extended above
the storage racks. Mr. Martin explained that the intent of the conditions is that the 2 l'2-foot
measurement is based on the topography and sight lines from the homes.
Commissioner Hess asked if the required 20-foot fire department access already exists or if this
would be developed with this proposal. Mr. Martin responded that this access currently exists
and the fire marshal is requiring that it be maintained. Mr. Hess asked what fire protection is
proposed. Mr. Martin said that will be dictated by code and will be part of the inspections
process before the building is approved for occupancy.
Tom O'Neil of 4777 Menard Drive, Eau Claire, Wisconsin, was present representing Menards,
Inc. Mr. O'Neil explained the site plan for this proposal and answered questions from the
commission. Mr. O'Neil said Menards intention with this proposal is for additional warehousing
within their existing lumber yard and an additional treated rack. Mr. O'Neil said Menards intends
to intemalize in the proposed warehouse the materials that already exist in the lumber yard.
Chair Fischer asked Mr. O'Neil if he is in agreement with the conditions of the staff report. Mr.
O'Neil responded affirmatively.
The public hearing was opened for comments from the public. There were no comments; the
public hearing was closed.
Commissioner Trippler moyed to adopt the resolution revising 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 +He
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 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 property as shown on the site plan date-stamped October 1. 2008
shall be 14 feet tall.
Planning Commission
Minutes of 11-18-08
-3-
(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 1'2 feet of the 17 l'2-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 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.
Commissioner Yarwood seconded
The motion passed.
Ayes - all
VI. NEW BUSINESS
None
VII. UNFINISHED BUSINESS
a. Richie Place Lot Division and Comprehensive Plan Amendment
Planner Michael Martin presented the staff report for this request from Lauren Development and
Company to develop 16 single-family detached homes in Maplewood and Little Canada. Three of the
lots would be in Maplewood northwest of Kohlman Marsh Open Space.
Planning Commission
Minutes of 11-18-08
-4-
Commissioner Martin asked staff to comment on whether the issue of drainage from the siope fiowing
into the Gores' property as discussed previously has been reviewed. Staff engineer Steve Kummer
responded that the grading plan shows that the grade of the slope to the Gores' property to the west
will be reduced. Mr. Kummer explained that most of the grades will now flow to the street and through
catch basins into the pond.
Commissioner Hess asked if the 45.7 -foot cul-de-sac diameter dimension applies to the Little Canada
code. Mr. Kummer responded that Maplewood code calls for a gO-foot diameter for a cul-de-sac. Mr.
Hess asked whether there would be enough room for fire truck access in the cul-de-sac. Mr. Kummer
said that the fire chief has verified in his comments that safe and efficient fire service can be
provided.
Commissioner Trippler asked staff if the city could recommend that the subdivision be split into two
single-family lots and designate Lot Two as an outlot and non buildable. Planner Martin said that it is a
recommendation that can be given if that is the commission's desire.
Commissioner Walton asked staff to comment on drainage controls needed to be made to Lot Two to
protect the wetland area. Planner Shann Finwall responded that the impacts on Lot Two would be
bound by the city's slope ordinance. Ms. Finwall said the engineering department reviewed the
erosion control measures for development on the slope and found that appropriate erosion control
and grading measures are in place as proposed.
Commissioner Martin asked if the open space land designation can be used only for publicly owned
land. Planner Martin responded that there is not a set definition of what open space means by the
Metropolitan Council, but open space designation has been used within the city as public land
exclusively.
Commissioner Desai asked if the staff conditions recommended for engineering, wetlands, tree and
open space would be included in lot division approval. Ms. Finwall responded that usually these staff
requirements are noted in the recommendation, but staff could list these requirements in the
recommendation specifically if desired. Mr. Desai commented that since this is such a serious
situation, he would personally prefer that they be listed specifically to ensure they are complied with.
Commissioner Pearson asked staff whether there have been soil borings done of the three lots. Staff
engineer Kummer responded that the building code specifically requires that compressible soils
would need to be excavated and filled, but it is the developer's responsibility to come up with a plan
from a structural engineer to present to the building official.
Commissioner Martin asked at what point the foundation is inspected by the building inspectors. Mr.
Kummer responded that the contractor needs to call for a foundation inspection before the footings
are covered.
Chair Fischer asked the developer, Phil Soby, if he was in agreement with the conditions of the staff
report. Mr. Soby replied affirmatively. Commissioner Trippler asked the developer if he was okay with
making Lot Two an outlot. The developer responded that creating an outlot would be a problem, since
this lot has met the conditions for development.
Commissioner Hess asked the developer if soil borings have been done on the site. He responded
that multiple borings were done on the property early in the process and there were no "bad soils"
within any of the lots on the property.
Planning Commission
Minutes of 11-18-08
-5-
The commission agreed by consensus to open the public hearing for comments on the additional new
information that has been supplied since the last public hearing was held. The following people
spoke:
John Gores, 2870 Arcade Street, said the Richie Place property in Maplewood being considered for
development tonight was sold at a sheriff's sale today. Mr. Gores said it seems moot to be going
forward with this issue. Jolene Gores, 2870 Arcade Street, said this property was intended to be open
space in 1986. John and Jolene Gores said they do not want the commission to recommend approval
of this proposal.
Commissioner Trippler asked staff if the developer is no longer the owner of this property, do they
have an interest in bringing this forward. Planner Martin responded that if a new owner desired not to
go forward with this proposal they could simply pull the plans from consideration and that would be
the end of the application. Planner Martin said that as it stands now, the city has accepted the
developer's application and is now obligated to act on this application as it is.
Tom Roycraft, 2910 Arcade Street, Little Canada, said that during a 1996 consideration of a proposal
for a lot development, the City of Maplewood determined that there was no feasibility to develop due
to the soils and now say that this was not correct or didn't happen.
Ron Cockriel, chairperson for the Maplewood Area Historical Commission, said he walked the site on
the request of some of the neighbors. Mr. Cockriel said he did not see any artifacts on the property.
Mr. Cockriel said he also researched the Minnesota Historical site and did not see where any burial
grounds would have existed on the property. Mr. Cockriel said he feels the property should remain
guided open space and should be pursued as open space land.
Commissioner Yarwood asked staff if the commission's recommendation for the 2030
Comprehensive Plan update was to be guided residential. Planner Martin responded that the
commission's recommendation was to guide this parcel as low density residential.
William Hansen, 2836 Keller Parkway, asked the commission to turn down this application.
Ron Brown, 2776 Keller Parkway, asked how much area of the land is open space. Planner Martin
said the total acreage of the lots is 2.24 acres with a portion of the acreage on the south of each lot to
be converted to a wetland buffer easement.
There were no further comments so the extended public hearing was closed.
Commissioner Yarwood said the open space designation is appropriate for this site and that there is
a reasonable argument to keep it guided open space. Commissioner Fischer commented that in past
situations where a land owner may have wanted to develop a property with the city wanting to keep it
guided open space, then the city would need to purchase the land if there is money available for
purchase.
Commissioner Hess said he is in agreement with Mr. Yarwood's comments and additionally with the
wetland buffer easement and soils question it has yet to prove the land is buildable.
Commission Martin commented that it is not within the purview of the planning commission to
consider the ownership of the property or whether the soil borings have been done and the
commission should stay within their purview.
Planning Commission
Minutes of 11-18-08
-6-
Commissioner Trippler said the open space designation has not changed and the fact that if
someone new owns the property it does not change the open space designation. Mr. Trippler
suggested the commission recommend that the council explore the possibility of acquiring this parcel.
Mr. Trippler also suggested that if it is zoned R-1 the city approve the split into two single-family lots
with Lots Three and Four with Lot Two as an outlot.
Commissioner Yarwood corrected Commissioner Trippler that the property is already zoned R-1, but
is being considered tonight for land use designation change from open space to R-1.
Commissioner Martin said as this property is privately owned he does not feel it should have a land
use designation of open space.
The developer spoke saying they have been working with the lender for both ownership and
development of the property. He referred to comments from John Gore and explained that the
sheriff's sale was the standard procedure for the lender to get back into ownership of the property.
The developer further explained that the lender, as the owner, wants to see this property developed
as proposed and will not be satisfied with half of the amount of lots.
Commissioner Yarwood moved to deny 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.
Commissioner Hess seconded
Commissioner Yarwood said his motion to deny is because he thinks it is reasonable to keep this
land open space based on the surrounding land uses.
Commissioner Trippler said since it is private property and Lots Three and Four are developable, the
city may find itself in dire straits if it tried to keep this property as open space. Mr. Trippler said he
would support the motion if it included the city attempting to acquire the property to become city open
space property.
Commissioner Desai asked Mr. Trippler if the city council would not consider acquiring this land,
would the land designation revert to changing it from open space to R-1. Mr. Trippler responded
affirmatively that they would have to.
Commissioner Yarwood said he would accept the friendly amendment to his motion to have the city
look into the possibility of acquiring the property so the open space designation would be appropriate
for that.
Planner Finwall explained that it has not been the city's policy to place an open space designation on
privately owned lands and it could be perceived as a taking if the land is developable.
Commissioner Fischer said that in the past there have been changes in what was designated as
open space. Ms. Fischer said that at one point cemeteries were designated open space, but when the
cemeteries were recognized as being privately owned then the open space designation was changed.
The commission then voted:
Ayes - Yarwood, Trippler, Hess
Nays - Martin, Pearson, Fischer, Desai, Walton
The motion to deny failed.
Planning Commission
Minutes of 11-18-08
-7-
Commissioner Pearson said he feels that as part of the commission's update of the 2030
comprehensive plan that they attempted to guide privately held open space land to a residential
designation. Mr. Pearson said if the city was interested in this property for purchase as open space
land they should have been proactive before now and with the city's financial situation he does not
think purchase will be possible. Mr. Pearson said he feels that who exists as the owner of this
property is irrelevant to the commission and they need to act on this request tonight as it is proposed.
Commissioner Pearson moved:
1. Adoption of 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 principles and reasons as noted in the
comprehensive land use plan:
a. The proposed future land use guide would be consistent with existing zoning.
b. The proposed development would provide a wider range of housing types in this
neighborhood.
c. The 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. Approval of 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 authored by Ms. Gaynor, dated
November 10, 200S.
d. Receive approval of final plat from the City of Little Canada for the rest of the 16-unit
development.
e. The applicant shall pay cash connection charges for the new vacant single-family lots
for connection to the water main and sanitary sewer main.
f. 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).
g. 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.
Planning Commission
Minutes of 11-18-08
-8-
h. 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.
Commissioner Desai seconded
Commissioners Pearson and Desai accepted a friendly amendment to divide the motion and vote
separately on Item 1 and Item 2.
The commission then voted on the above Item 1:
Ayes - Desai, Fischer, Martin, Pearson, Walton
Nays - Yarwood, Trippler, Hess
The motion passed.
Commissioner Yarwood said his reason for voting no is he thinks it is appropriate to keep it open
space based on surrounding land uses.
Commissioner Trippler said his reason for voting no is he wants to send a clear message to the city
that he would like to see the city acquire the property and keep it open if possible.
Commissioner Hess said his reason for voting no echoes Mr. Yarwood's and Mr. Trippler's reasons.
Commissioner Trippler suggested that Item 2 be changed to say "subdivide the 2.24-acre lot located
south of Labore Road and East of Arcade Street into two single family lots (Lots 3 and 4) and one
outlot (Lot 2)."
This friendly amendment was not accepted and the commission voted on the above Item 2 as stated:
The commission then voted on the above Item 2:
Ayes - Desai, Fischer, Martin, Pearson
Nays - Walton, Yarwood, Trippler, Hess
The vote was tied and the motion failed.
VIII. VISITOR PRESENTATIONS
David Himmelbach of 2970 Labore Road said due to the historical significance he inquired of the
DNR was told they are not interested in purchasing any of the wetlands because it is not of a
statewide biological significance. He named other agencies who might be interested in purchasing
this Richie Place lot division property. Commissioner Desai suggested he might contact one of the
Native American communities.
Planning Commission
Minutes of 11-18-08
-9-
IX. COMMISSION PRESENTATIONS
Upcoming Council Meetings and PC Representation:
. November 24,2008: T-Mobile Monopole and Thoms' Easement Vacation: Mr. Desai
X. STAFF PRESENTATIONS
None
XI. ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 9:28 p.m.
DRAFT
MINUTES OF THE MAPLEWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION
1830 COUNTY ROAD BEAST, MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA
TUESDAY, DECEMBER 02, 2008
I. CALL TO ORDER
Chairperson Fischer called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
II. ROLL CALL
Commissioner Joseph Boeser
Vice-Chairperson Tushar Desai
Chairperson Lorraine Fischer
Commissioner Harland Hess
Commissioner Robert Martin
Commissioner Gary Pearson
Commissioner Dale Trippler
Commissioner Joe Walton
Commissioner Jeremy Yarwood
Present
Present
Present
Present
Present
Absent
Present
Present
Present
City Staff Present:
Tom Ekstrand. Senior Planner
III. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
Commissioner Trippler moved to approve the agenda as presented.
Commissioner Desai seconded
The motion passed.
Ayes - all
IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
None
V. PUBLIC HEARING
a. 7:02 p.m. - Maplewood Toyota Utility Easement Vacations at 2905 Maplewood Drive
Planner Tom Ekstrand presented the staff report for this request by the city's public works department
for a vacation of four utility easements for storm sewer, sanitary sewer and water main lines at the
southwest corner of Beam Avenue and Highway 61. This request is due to a gap in easement
coverage that was discovered during the Beam Avenue improvements this past summer. Mr. Ekstrand
said the easements abut each other adjacent to the northerly road right-of-way of Beam Avenue.
Planner Ekstrand noted that Steve McDaniels, owner of Maplewood Toyota, is in full agreement with
this request and has already submitted the new easements for recording after the city council has
approved these vacations.
The commission discussed discrepancies of addressing on various staff documents for Maplewood
Toyota which listed both Maplewood Drive and Beam Avenue. Planner Ekstrand said he would check
to ensure that the correct address is used on all of the documents.
The public hearing was opened for comments from the public. There were no comments from the
public; the public hearing was closed.
Planning Commission
Minutes of 12-02-08
-2-
Commissioner Yarwood moved adoption of the resolutions vacating the four utility easements north of
Beam Avenue at 2905 Maplewood Drive. Approval of these vacations is because it would be in the
public interest, since they currently provide a gap in utility easement coverage. Approval of these
vacations shall be conditioned upon the owner of Maplewood Toyota rededicating a new easement
that fully covers the utilities in question.
Commissioner Hess seconded
The motion passed.
Ayes - all
b. 7:15 p.m. - Kenneth Berwald Conditional Use Permit for a residential garage at
2080 Prosperity Road
Planner Ekstrand presented the staff report for this request to construct a two-car garage measuring
24 by 28 feet in size at 2080 Prosperity Road. Mr. Ekstrand said there is an existing garage foundation
already in place which has been there for several years. Mr. Ekstrand explained that the property has
a single dwelling that existed prior to the (M1) light manufacturing zoning designation. Mr. Ekstrand
said that city code requires a conditional use permit to expand a nonconforming use, in this case, the
construction of a residential garage on property that is zoned Mi.
Commissioners asked if the size of the proposed garage meets city code requirements. Planner
Ekstrand explained what city code allows for storage for this residential lot size and that this proposed
garage will easily meet city code requirements. Mr. Ekstrand said the proposed land use designation
in the comprehensive plan update for this property is as mixed use and this should not be a deterrent
for future development of this property.
Commissioner Hess asked staff if a constructed garage was planned to be moved onto this site. Mr.
Ekstrand explained the initial application was for a building relocation, but since the application that
garage was sold to another person. Mr. Berwald then decided to build a new garage.
Kenneth Berwald, the applicant for this proposal, said the previous homeowner originally installed the
garage slab. He said the garage slab had thickened edges and should meet building code
requirements.
Commissioner Fischer asked Mr. Berwald if he was in agreement with the conditions of the staff
report. Mr. Berwald said he is in agreement with the conditions.
The public hearing was opened for comments from the public. There were no comments; the public
hearing was closed.
Commissioner Boeser moved adoption of the resolution approving a conditional use permit to
construct a 24- by 28-foot, two-car garage at 2080 Prosperity Road. Approval is because:
1. There would not be a significant effect on the redevelopment of the parcel as it is currently zoned
light manufacturing.
2. There would be no negative impact on the surrounding properties that are zoned for residential use.
Approval is subject to the following conditions:
1. All construction shall follow the site plan approved by the city. Community Development staff may
approve minor changes.
Planning Commission
Minutes of 12-02-08
-3-
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. The applicant shall verify that the existing slab has the minimum thickness of six to twelve inches of
footing depth around the perimeter of where the new garage would be placed.
5. The garage shall be designed as a typical residential two-car garage and shall be subject to staff
approval.
Commissioner Yarwood seconded
The motion passed.
Ayes - all
VI. NEW BUSINESS
None
VII. UNFINISHED BUSINESS
None
VIII. VISITOR PRESENTATIONS
None
IX. COMMISSION PRESENTATIONS
. November 24 City Council Meeting: Mr. Desai reported on the meeting.
. December 8 City Council Meeting - Richie Place Lot Division and Comprehensive Plan
Amendment: Mr. Yarwood will attend.
X. STAFF PRESENTATIONS
Staff presented the current schedule for commission representative attendance at city council
meetings and asked the commissioners if they want to continue scheduling in the same manner.
Commissioner Desai said past policy for council meetings has been that a commissioner not needed
would get a bye and the next commissioner on the list would be scheduled for the next meeting, but
negotiating can always be used for scheduling a commission representative.
The leader for a Brownie Troop visiting the meeting explained that their second-grade Troop toured
the police department and stopped to visit at tonight's commission meeting as they are working to
earn their Citizen badge.
XI. ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 7:35 p.m.
~.
MEMORANDUM
LOCATION:
DATE:
Acting City Manager
Tom Ekstrand, Senior Planner
Feed Products North-Conditional Use Permit, Lot Division
and Design Review
1300 McKnight Road
December 30, 2008
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
INTRODUCTION
Project Description
John Fallin, owner of Feed Products North, is proposing to build a 5,800-square-foot,
two-story office building for his business and possibly some lease space on the westerly
portion of his property. The location of this office building would be on the east side of
McKnight Road west of the Lakewood Drive bridge. Refer to the attachments.
Requests
Mr. Fallin is requesting approval of:
. A conditional use permit (CUP) to construct an office building closer than 350 feet to
residential properties. The city code also requires a CUP for structures in M1 (light
manufacturing) zoning districts that are closer than 350 feet to a residential district.
The proposed office building would abut residential property on its
south/southeasterly lot line. Refer to the maps.
. A lot division to splil the office building site from the main part of his property lying
east of Lakewood Drive.
. Design plans.
BACKGROUND
November 28, 1998: The city council approved a CUP for an office building on the
currently-proposed site. Mr. Fallin did not build the office at that time and this CUP
ended.
May 19, 2005: The city staff approved a lot division to split the proposed office site from
the remainder of the Feed Products North property as is currently requested. The
property owner did not submit deeds for this lot division so the lot divisio"n never took
place.
DISCUSSION
Conditional Use Permit
Staff does not find any significant problem with the proposed office building and its
proximity to the residential neighbors. In 1998, the city previously approved an office at
this location for the applicant which he never built. There has not been any change to
the character of the neighborhood that would warrant any new concern. This proposed
office building would not have any significant impact on traffic or the neighborhood in
general.
The only concern staff sees is that the applicant should provide a substantial buffer for
the residents to the southeast. Code, in fact, requires a six-foot-tall, 80% opaque screen
between the parking lot and drive areas and these residential neighbors.
Regarding traffic, any new development will generate additional traffic. A small office
like this, though, would produce only a minimal traffic increase. Staff, therefore, does
not see this as an issue.
Wetlands
Shann Finwall, Environmental Planner, has reviewed the plans and found them in
compliance with wetland buffer requirements. The Ramsey Washington Watershed
District has made the same determination. Refer to Ms. Finwall's report.
Parking Lot Encroachment/Potential Setback Variance
The proposed parking meets city parking requirements with the exception of a parking
lot encroachment into the required 15-foot parking lot setback from the Lakewood Drive
right-of-way. The easterly parking lot is proposed to have a seven-foot setback from this
right-of-way at its northerly corner. The parking lot setback, though, increases further
south along the proposed parking lot edge to comply with code.
This parking lot encroachment would require an eight-foot setback variance. Staff feels
the site plan should be modified to meet the required 15 foot parking lot setback
minimum. It appears the applicant can modify the site plan to accommodate this
revision. If it becomes difficult or infeasible, the applicant would then have to apply for a
setback variance.
Lot Division
It makes sense to approve this lot split since the proposed site is physically separated
from the main part of the applicant's property east of Lakewood Drive. Staff
recommends, though, that the property owner dedicate cross easements on the west
property that cover the utilities (sanitary and storm) which serve the lot east of Lakewood
Drive. Also, the applicant should dedicate a public drainage and utility easement over
the 24-inch culvert on the property if it is found to belong to Ramsey County.
2
Architectural and Site Considerations
The proposed office building is attractively designed with an exterior of Harde (cement-
board) siding, stone and architectural shingles. The hip roof is residential in character
which would be compatible with nearby homes.
Parkinq
The proposed parking meets city ordinances with the exception of the parking-setback
encroachment as previously discussed.
Traffic Impacts
Any new use on vacant property will increase traffic. The proposed office building,
however, is a low traffic volume use. Staff does not foresee any substantial impact from
the proposed office building in terms of traffic generation.
Landscapinq and Tree ReplacemeRt
Landscaping:
The proposed landscaping plan should be expanded upon to provide a six-foot-tall and
SO percent opaque screen to create a buffer for the homes to the south as required by
ordinance. This buffer can be a planted evergreen screen or a decorative six-fooHall
fence. Staff also feels there should be additional trees planted along the Lakewood
Drive frontage for site aesthetics. Staff further recommends over-story trees to provide a
taller crown of tree foliage since the roadway is at a higher grade than the proposed site.
The rain garden on the McKnight Road side of the site would provide an attractive view
from the street, but staff further recommends more than one decorative tree on the
McKnight Road side of the building. This is the two-story elevation and additional
enhancements by adding more decorative trees would be a benefit. Staff recommends
two such trees on each side of the west elevation of the building for total of four in this
area.
Refer to the attached report from Ginny Gaynor, Open Space Naturalist. Ms. Gaynor
has suggestions for the proposed rain garden which staff recommends the applicant
follow.
Tree Replacement:
Refer to the attached report from Shann Finwall, Environmental Planner. Ms. Finwall
found the plans to be in compliance with tree-replacement requirements.
Site Liqhtinq
The proposed light intensities shown on the photometric plan exceed the .4 foot candle
maximum of light intensity at the property lines as ordinance requires. This plan must be
modified to limit the lighting maximum to .4 foot candles at the perimeter of the site.
3
Trash Storaqe
There is no proposed outdoor trash storage. If the applicant later wishes to provide an
outdoor trash area for the building, he must propose an enclosure for staff review and
approval.
Additional City Department Comments
Enqineerinq Comments
Refer to the engineering review comments from Steve Kummer, staff engineer. Other
than recommendations for additional details and plan modifications, Mr. Kummer has
determined the following:
. The proposed storm water management systems shown meet city requirements.
. The wetland delineation shown on the plans and required wetland setbacks meet city
requirements. The RamseylWashington Watershed District has approved the plans.
Buildinq Official's Comments
Dave Fisher, Maplewood's Building Official, gave the following comments:
· The city will require a complete building code analysis when the construction plans
are submitted to the city for building permits.
. An elevator may be required.
. All exiting must go to a public way.
. The applicant must provide adequate fire department access to the building.
. The building is required to be sprinklered.
. A preconstruction meeting is recommended with the building staff, contractor and
project manager.
Police Comments
Lieutenant Michael Shortreed reviewed this proposal and has the following comments:
· There should be adequate lighting provided and security mechanisms on the building
and parking lot to deter thefts and burglaries.
. Construction site thefts and burglaries are a large business affecting" many large and
small construction projects throughout the Twin Cities metro area. The
contractor/developer should be encouraged to plan and provide for site security
during the construction process. On-site security, alarm systems and any other
appropriate security measures would be highly encouraged to deter and report theft
and suspicious activity incidents in a timely manner.
4
Fire Marshal
Butch Gervais, assistant fire chief and fire marshal, reviewed the proposal and requires
the following be provided:
. A fire protection system per code.
. A fire alarm system per code.
. A 20-foot-wide fire department access road.
. A fire department key box (order from AC/FM).
RECOMMENDATIONS
A. Adopt the resolution approving a conditional use permit for the Feed Products North
office building, located at 1300 McKnight Road. This permit allows the construction
of an office building on land zoned M1 (light manufacturing) within 350 feet of
residential property. 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. Staff may approve
minor changes.
2. The proposed construction must be substantially started within one year of
council approval. The city council may extend this permit one additional year.
3. The city council shall review this permit in one year. After two years the permit
shall end unless construction has started.
4. Compliance with conditions in the report by Steve Kummer, Maplewood Staff
Engineer, dated December 2, 2008.
5. Compliance with conditions in the report by Ginny Gaynor, Open Space
Naturalist with the city, in her report dated November 26, 2008.
6. Compliance with conditions in the report by Shann Finwall, Environmental
Planner with the city, dated December 26, 2008.
7. Provide wetland-protection signs along the wetland buffer as required by
ordinance. The number and placement of these signs shall be determined by the
environmental planner. These signs shall prohibit any building, mowing, cutting,
filling or dumping in or around the wetland.
8. To develop this site adjacent to residential property, the applicant shall provide a
screening buffer that is at least six-feet-tall and 80 percent opaque upon
installation. This buffer may be comprised of evergreen trees or a decorative
wood fence. Such screening shall be subject to staff approval.
5
B. Approve the lot split to separate the office site from the main part of the applicant's
property located at 1300 McKnight Road, subject to the following conditions:
1. The property owner shall dedicate cross easements on the west property that
cover the utilities (sanitary and storm) which serve the lot east of Lakewood
Drive.
2. The applicant shall dedicate a public drainage and utility easement over the 24-
inch culvert on the property if it is found to belong to Ramsey County.
C. Approve the plans date-stamped November 4, 2008, for the proposed Feed
Products North office building. Approval is based on the findings for approval
required by ordinance and subject to the developer doing the following:
1. Repeat this review in two years if the applicant has not obtained a building
permit by that time. After two years this review must be repeated.
2. Obtain a conditional use permit from the city council for the proposed office
building.
3. Comply with the requirements of Shann Finwall in her report dated December
26, 2008.
4. Comply with the requirements of the engineering report by Steve Kummer
dated December 2, 2008.
5. Comply with the requirements of Ginny Gaynor in her report dated November
26, 2008.
6. Take into account the suggestions by Lieutenant Michael Shortreed as stated
in this report.
7. Revise the site plan to provide a 15-foot parking lot setback from the
Lakewood Drive right-of-way line. If a 15-foot setback cannot be provided,
the applicant must apply for a setback variance.
8. Any retaining walls over four-feet-tall shall be designed by a structural
engineer and have a protective guard rail or fence on top.
9. The applicant shall install in-ground lawn irrigation in formal landscaped
areas.
10. The landscaping plan shall be revised to include the following:
a. A six-foot-tall and 80 percent opaque buffer along the south side of the
property to screen the area between both parking lots and the connecting
drive aisle. This screen shall be comprised of evergreen trees a
decorative wood fence.
6
b. Five over-story trees along the east side of the east parking lot. The
three evergreens can be deleted.
c. Four ornamental deciduous trees on the west side of the proposed
building.
d. Additional landscaping in the "front yard" in front of the building's main
entrance (easterly side), subject to staff approval.
11. Obtain any necessary permits from the RamseylWashington Metro
Watershed District.
12. All work shall follow the approved plans. The city planner may approve minor
changes.
13. All pole-mounted site lights shall comply with the 25-foot height maximum.
The site lighting plan shall be redesigned so that the light intensity does not
exceed .4 footcandles at the property lines. All lighting fixtures shall be
designed so lenses and bulbs are recessed or shielded to avoid nuisance
complaints.
14. If outdoor trash storage is used, such containers must be kept in a screening
enclosure. The design and placement of the enclosure shall be subject to
staff approval.
15. Before obtaining a building permit, the applicant shall provide an irrevocable
letter of credit in the amount of 150 percent of the cost of completing
landscaping and other site improvements. This irrevocable letter of credit
shall include the following provisions:
. The letter of credit must clearly indicate that it is an irrevocable letter of
credit in the name of the City of Maplewood, payable on demand, to
assure compliance with the terms of the developer's agreement.
. The letter of credit must allow for partial withdrawals as needed to
guarantee partial project payments covered under the terms of the letter
of credit.
. The letter of credit shall be for a one- year duration and must have a
condition indicating automatic renewal, with notification to the city a
minimum of 60 days prior to its expiration.
7
CITIZEN COMMENTS
Staff surveyed the 51 property owners within 500 feet of this site for their comments.
There were four replies. Two were in favor and two were opposed.
In Favor
1. Refer to the letter from Gary Salkowicz. This letter speaks to his and his mothers
comments about this proposal.
Opposed
1. I don't think an office building belongs in my residential neighborhood. If it is built,
the design enclosed here is a better style than most office buildings. I oppose it but if
it is built, make it look good and fit the area. (Tara L. Gerlach and Joseph N.
Jorgenson, 2317 Tilsen Avenue)
2. Refer to the letter from Lyle Puppe, 2531 Nokomis Avenue. Mr. Puppe is most
concerned about traffic increase.
8
REFERENCE INFORMATION
. SITE DESCRIPTION
Site size: 2.19 acres
Existing Use: Undeveloped
SURROUNDING LAND USES
North: Railroad right-of-way
South: Single Dwellings
East: Lakewood Drive and Feed Products North
West: McKnight Road and single dwellings
PLANNING
Land Use Plan: M1 (light manufacturing)
Zoning: M1
Applicable Ordinance
Section 44-637(b) states that, in an M1 district, a CUP is required for any building within
350 feet of a residential district.
Criteria for Conditional Use Permit Approval
Section 44-10g7(a) states that the city council may approve a CUP, based on nine
standards. See findings 1-9 in the resolution.
APPLICATION DATE
The city received the applicants' requests on November 4, 2008. Under the provisions
of state statute, staff extended the initial 60-day review period an additional 60 days.
The deadline for completion of the city's review of these requests is now March 4, 2009.
9
p:sec24-29\Feed Products CUP 1 09 te
Attachments:
1. Location Map
2. Land Use Plan Map
3. Zoning Map
4. Site/Landscaping Plan
5. Site/Grading Plan
6. Site/Utility Plan
7. Building Elevations (2 sheets)
8. Floor Plan
9. Applicant's Project Narrative date-stamped November 4, 2008
10. Engineering Report dated December 2,2008
11. Open Space Naturalist's Report dated November 26, 2008
12. Environmental Planner's Report dated December 26, 2008
13. Survey-Response Email Correspondence from Gary Salkowicz dated November 6, 2008
14. Survey Response Email Correspondence from Lyle Puppe dated November 18, 2008
15. CUP Resolution .
16. Plans date-stamped November 4,2008 (separate attachments)
10
Ii!
m
PROPOSED OFFICE
BUILDING SITE
Attachment 1
Iii Ii! .~ i u
Cl
Rl PLEY AV ~
KINGSTON ~
!r AVE.
0
~ 52 Iii
2 IAC!<HGHT UI &
J: ~
lAAPENTEUR AVE.
I!i
~
~
Iii :J IDAHO AVE.
~ ~
lJ.J
-J
d
~
6
, IIICIIAa DR
2 IlEBa:ct. DR
3 PfNErRa: DR
. _DR
5 PINE 1REE DR
8 BIRCIME:W DR
7 _ HlUS DR
a:
o
PI...
AVE.
ci
0:
7th sr.
~
!r
"
~
'"
ci
.0:
::l
.~
AVE. ::E
MINNEHAHA
LOCATION MAP
'fr
N
PROPOSED
SITE
'-- )
c
~
I-
:r
C>
z
~
o
::;;
I-
(f)
w
"'
'"
=>
'"
G~
/'r ~
<\
'-\\
\\,
'~
~t)
~'~-,',,- 'I
"~ I,
~, II
OS '''" lie
"Ii
~
''0
"'\,
))
II
1\ //
I~ ~.~
'I' / /
, "(
J!k=<~=i-
I.~;.r-___- iJ
c:;.~?
LAND USE PLAN
./
Attachment 3
(31 "1:\
.' .
.;
..'
":':"'~.:::':;.
.i;
','
@
I'_m~....___....~.. ~ ~-~'" ,.':........
,-_0)
. '~\..,
_......._ I ,....~ ..~,._......._"""'--.-._.
;.... i
. .
1 i
PU~i' .
/.~.....~
..,
,,",._oJ
R3
>-
l-
i]
n.._
~U"'_.
",,,,_Ol
H'
.
I
-I
I
J
I
r-"'-"~1o".
PROPERTY LINE I ZONING MAP
11
N
il/! !
Hlll
., ,
~ _u _=.
'il -'~.(
. '.'?ff ;,
.~-
.............-....--
._.......",........,'...
.... -..... ........
__..... ..-~_....l"'IJr,;..._,
...........
....""""...
IIIHDIIIIIII
j
.
; I
.
. ~
!I~!I ~
I "I ~
. '1. .
ie!l! ·
Jill! I
:I:
I-
=
=
Z
-
I-
c.:t
=
1:1I
=
IE;
1:1I:'
... .. a
...=~
... en II
Ii!
... S III
c.:t ail ;; ~
-i1:i==,
... = ... lil
... t: en Ii
-== .
-;a III '=
z.....
Z-=!i
_....z-
--- ... - =
_ III ... fa
... ... ;a .
_..z='a
~t:e;E!
-en ~ Q
II; li!~ I,; h is
iil i!1l3 iil i! i=
!I I !II'" I I !I <>
! ~l~ 9! P.i~
1~11~
~=
~ Iii II
1111 Ii
ill! Ii
ii
I;
/
/
/
/
/
/
d
I ~
li'b
I, I ~
I '.
, I.
Jill
z_
i~
f~
-J!
~~
fi~
\
\
\
\
I! !
II" I ! 18
I g i I; ~~
i i ,i ii-II
il,'1 h!
Ii;, ..; ~I;
III j '" ,,~ .:" i> ,Ii
Q !I~I:~~.. ~~~til!~
.,0IIftj J;: !i!~ I ~!i~!C! .~.
III l'1~:il:il .....,lilllJ ~Sl'!
i~ ~ ~ !
At iJ-
" , 'I
i'I'1
. .
.
it
II
II
'I
III
"
It
'j.i h
J:) .."
,: II Ii
Ii!- i Ii
i ,!-l!li..
~ ';; .slIUi"
i jit'j)li1i
14 .fir~h
; ii"l:fI~a
l'fl":IJ.!H
~ }~ ~~1!!
I iljilllji'
...1.R;la
If II a!!~1l ..
-,"'''''..11'1 l
i g~lIEI;ii!f .h
1"llijjP- i
-I ,,:iU~ "
lUm!i
,
I
1
;
,.l!
i
j.
I
,
'I
I
ill
UH ill
arz; ,,~!i!
~ 1 ! 111
1 i Ii ~I~ ,i:g
I' ~ ~ . dl
mil
211I:
~gC
! .-~
~Sjg~f ~~~
~.~~.i U!li'
~S~~~i '~.i
i~i;i~ Mi
"~~.~. ~~~
UM~ ~~!~
=-
I-
=
=
:z
en
I-
U
=
1:1
=
=
a.
1:1
...
...
...
.
... Z
Uoil5~
-"'A.=
"'Y-a
... - CII-
=!!=lI!.il
c = 21_
:z ~ g Ii
- CD Z'ii.!l
... Z CII ..
... -_iii
1::1 cn-
~X:l :;
III ... i3
--~
<2 ~.=-::,~
r/rv .
. ._ft
..""'......_..."".....-1
&"~~1!::7:::~'::,
Attachment 5
. g 0 Wi il ,
It I - !1~!!Jd ~~ ~;T1; !':!
r. ' io_I'''I' ~]J,-
If a.i!I ~5~ di ~
~"""'"
i "'
I,ll
"~of
ftll
~b
--
lUll..........
JOWlIIIIlII
.
; I U Ii
X!!$ ;;;
r= g ~.
a ~!I. 8 Ii' .e
~!
...ig. ~I~ .
"'i. i · A .8
i'li" ,~ i'i .
, ~g"; j. ~!
ill!! i, .~ ~!
:!,b II ~i~ H
~ID'n u
.. ~ ~ 3 .. II
il~ " :! .~~
,,-;;ail;.. ;;:!l;
- " " .
~
~
" III'" f II J
". . -r 1- 'I I I'
11;11 j. ,;, I' I i j,l-
, ..r ., III t., ''I
lelJi It i " .. & i l' : II,
- .i~.ll j!" lli".I J 11:! <,
fi,j! 'J Jl~ I l '!:I i
!Ki~! j III i 2 ~ f l
i'.I, il!'j' ,II ' h ' l
'!j~!a~; fl,.ill i - . i IJ lilt:;
!;J!h fJ. t 1 I ! . J! I "
:1.H ,,!.;j6'.t f I i l~..;J!
Ill;! .!.. ,H I .~ Z' I,!"!,,
-II" ni ~I !r; {1 1 ,-'
", I .--11' I ,'UbI!' il j
I!:' l!jh'jil.i'I-'!-jt,lI'
-llU! h; J J:! HI f- ilD i h" 'I~
& U.!i 1J:'i..HOH lliil.l!~!Ulll':.l.dlli
. .. .. .... 0....
I
,
,
,
! !
* .
Ii I
~ 1
:: f
ii"
u II
-,
'I
J.
ilj!)
, . 'I
,'!'W
I ,
-=
...
..
-
z
en
...
u
=
m
-
..
a-
m
...
~
I ::II
...S
U a..s
-E=
... ... i
... j: Ii
-=...
z=1
_11-
... - ..
... i!:I
_ ... 11
~=.E
_ a....
~ <? ~.:.....,=...
. '--."V ~
.-
~,:;::r..::'~i,z..~
-- - --.-.--.-.
...,........_""""1...11...._'
@ WI! ..
,'!. liill",.lil ~ ~,~
11... ,~lii' D ~
a.. ill! Z
~=
I~ill U
<fllll --
Ii'! I'
~~i! l:~
~
u
..........
U.WIII"IIH
JIUJlIIIIII
"y'" #-,,<?
" ,/
//,/.../, )/
Ii' f'/' .;, 7
/ ..~ / / I
/" /"',~ ,....'.. / r /
." /" J/ I
,.' f J /
.' # ... 1- J
...... -/ / /
.... // /
'" ,,0'" / I _ I
.' I
;' I
"I'l'l' J I
."
,/ J
;~ J
..,.. I
~~..." / /
. I
\/
.
/\
~
\
.
i\
'<Ii;
\ / /-
\ I'
~~\//~J
Y ~..J /
/ I
"..""/' I
~/~f".'''''!I: ~}
.,......&G\ .........
/' ...........
\ .........
/
~
~~
~~
/
/
/
/
/
/
I
/
/
/
/
~ /
.~ /
~ /
.
~ ,
~. ~~<\~"
~ 51~:;;~S
... ~ ~~:;:o:,.w
J&; i::Ilii..~!ilt
~:l~<"'"
.,'~
---~-~~-
.._.--_..~..---.._-.__._......_..---.---. --....-.-
~!l ~~} ~
,~~ ,i:Hi~
C:a~ <!It;llI~l!!
~~;.. Ui.;i~.
~~~~ ~i~~~iS!' I
- f'
I f J
IllllJ iil n'
ilfi!!i!ll!llll!lil!
!!!l!l!l!l!l!l!!!f!!!
lfllll .
liiijfe.~*~~~~Mwt!98.
,I .
J I .I.I:t~ J
!:! J I'J' Ill'! I I" ' , . 1 I ! -
1i" !,r il i ! I. i I -; t{ 1 1 f 2 ! ~~t!~
III ill Ij'; I' I ~! i 'II II, HI J ; 'i lli'i
t~i 'I, ~IIII.I . I... I h. l~ ~: i" 1 ~ ~Il.
~! ;1; je!.' j' II, j,"! \Jill! <I; ! 1 !l; 1 !:l
! 1".1 lIt ..lfl i ~ 1 t 1 .illl J~S PI is, r!! Ii~ I ii!'I~t
I~ ~!!li !ifi ! ; l i II j~!!i hj'i :lj 19i!= lil'llfl!H
Hi!.'l ;''; I .. l'IAIl'lil! l'li !lII'j,!11 "llil'j"'lj'
bJ.!Ilf- '=-jlij! I: !!!t!'I~r .,," I!.r ~si ..Jdl Jl_~:: aU;
'I'LI;;j 'I II :'I'!'~IWi Fii iI' l;j'iil! I Ji:pl!ij; !;l
b!!i:!~,~U~ i! fIJ~H:{,liliH i;ji f!! i,l,ii blll"illi~i,~;tl!:
!'I,'I"l'''''' . ''1i1",,'1 " I"" '. l 'I'"
~t I ~fHHjd~ j J jt i:Jiilla i~~ f~if::HI Ht1!;fiIIJ,'
. .. . .. .. ..:. : . ~J!:i . ~J :.; ~~ '" /!;;ll !"n;..
... ..
"'-'\""""'--@
~~~~j
I':"::'J
8
co
=
=
'"
""1'
""
=
I':"::'J
@
I':"::'J
~
:>
o
:z
0>-
m
lll:
[~~l
Ill:
----a1,
'"
'"
'"
-------n~
,
,
,
~
----------- ,
'"
,"
'"
'"
'"
'"
'"
'"
'"
'"
'"
'"
'"
'"
'"
'"
______________1-f,
'"
'"
'"
'"
'"
'"
'"
'"
'"
'"
'"
'"
'"
______________v'
'"
'"
'"
'"
'"
'"
'"
'"
'"
'"
'"
'"
'"
'"
'"
'"
'"
'"
'"
'"
'"
'"
,"
'"
'"
'"
--------------~J
'"
.
~
l
'"
'"
'"
,"
'"
'"
'"
'"
'"
'"
'"
-----------'rt-J
'"
'"
'"
i1ID
'"
I -.
'"
'"
'"
'"
'"
'"
'"
'"
'"
'"
'"
---------~~
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
~
1
"
~
:~
~
8
~~
l~
Attachment 7
,
,
______________.lfl
'"
'"
",
",
'"
",
'"
'"
'"
",
_________-1:-1
"I
---------41
III
ii'
",
",
",
,,,
",
",
",
,"z
:lla
,li-
lliI-
III<.{
~) I>
qlw
:I:~
1111.1-1
ll\::r:
ljll-
111::1
1110
111tf)
",
,,,
",
",
",
,,,
",
",
,,,
",
",
",
,"
",
",
",
"I
"
---{t~
----~J
\~ :
---RJ
,
,
,
,
,
,
--1-...1
,,,
,,,
,,,
--!-"L~
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
l!.
~/;i
~g i
,
I d '
ii w
-~-"",_.._""',,,...
","",..",,"''''._.0:,........'''.....,....
..D_C:It
DYO'IYA01I
"II"
~
z
()
i=
;
U1
.J
U1
t)~
<(
W];
~
0 W
C 0 ~
" 0 " 0
! 0 i-
,
;Wif-
~!!t;
.I~!~
\, !
~i~!'
!-l~hU
~il i
t~. ~
""Jj .\1-
~
@
--..-.-......=,.....
."""',,, ",,,,,,,............,...._n,"""'_
..,--
S)fYOOYA01l
"I..
0 w
. 0 ~
" 0 "0
0 'N
. ~
,
~ ,
~li ' . ,
i!'~ ~ ! ,
, ! ! i
...&\....""'......<<tt@
.,.._>E;~~:~~~~~~E
......"'..."""~_................,.,._'....'
~:.":..';,;;:~~:.:=:'~".;'=:=:
~~=:.:.(~~n'~~".':.."~';:='::
,
~
( ,
1':":01
8
~f~
-~!!i:
fWI~
-~E
,.!li~
'I
00
=
=
'"
___..r,
"
"
"
___..r,
"
U
---"11
"
"
"
"
U
---"11
"
"
~___J I
"
"
iiz
"0
,,-
"f-
:i<:t
,,>
iiw
--------.fl..-J
::Ul
n__n___i~ ~
"f-
"II:
::0
iiz
"
II
"
___________.t1
"
"
"
------------1..J
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
------------1-1
"
"
- -------,-'--~J
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
, "
, "
-t------------~J
,
i
=
'<T'
CO>
1':":01
@
1':":01
~
::>
C)
Z
>,
CO
Ii I I
j, II
~ij ~ Ii
! ~ ~
,
"
"
"
,
~~~~J
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
:jj
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
----H
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
___JI
---1]
z
o
i=
~
III
-'
ill
to ~
~ !
~
t
i
~
!
.,
'i
8
~~
l~
~--
td ~
:'1 t
j.,t 8
It; I
"
.
@
z ..
0
NIlI.:! F
<
" W :;;.
0 .
~~. ~~ ~ i:i~
O~ . Ice
m~ z z ~ z 0
~ 0 w 0
F ~ F
~ <
~- E'"
" "
.~ ~
~
~
~~
o~
o ~
~
~ D
~~ D
~~
o~ 000
~
~
On ~~
z~
a w
~
:~
< ~
w -
~
m
~~
z ~
0
0
II",' I jj,Miiliiil,"11'1111 .1111111111111
-" i Id fEi~:~H~]t~ 1)'
I 1.lll:l'''I"llf!' !
0! '1,:lli!lll1!l!jiil .1
. ~ J t~k~tJl~E!1 ih" ~
! I Iflli!l!hlm! i :11111111111111
I
II
I'
~ u ~
!!!ii
! 000 I
\j~
~o
~ ~
@]
o
Attachment 8
NVld 3:;J'VdS A.~'9'Nll1\1l13l,ld
n11!l9Nl1'I'OOOM3ldWl
HHlONffi/OM.lHD1N'll::lVlOOCI
-ONI 'HUlON Slonomld a33~
""""",,,O""L<I'IIUlroa<
\j~
~o
~~
o
@]
=~.
1i:
II ; I
..~
ffii
':! 3'EB
!., ,0
iil Z
I
!
I
.
j
!
I
!
~ ~l>II~ N<o~
1'$00 ~'/(NIG.Wr !?oM:> 1-1..
1^M>~o b, M.N
Attachment 9
Written statement describing intended use ofthe property:
The City should approve our request for construction of an additional office
building because it is within the intended use ofthe property. The property
is zoned M-l (light industrial) and this office space will replace what we are
currently doing on the property from our scale office.
The City approved a CUP application for an office building previously in
1998.
The building will be located, designed, maintained, constructed and operated
to be in conformity with the City's comprehensive plan and Code of
Ordinances.
The office building will not change the existing or planned character ofthe
surrounding area.
The use will increase property values by proVIding a better looking structure.
The office building will not involve any activity that would be a nuisance or
interfere with the surrounding area.
The use will not generate more vehicle traffic because it is to service our
existing employees. The current public facilities are more than adequate to
service the existing conditions.
~~@~DW~fI1l
lJll NOV 0 4 2008 W
By
Attachment 10
Maplewood Engineering Comments - Feed Products North
12-2-08
Page 1 of 4
Enaineeriml Plan Review - Supplemental Narrative and Comments
PROJECT:
PROJECT NO:
COMMENTS BY:
Feed Products North
08-19
Steve Kummer, P.E. - Staff Engineer
DATE:
12-2-08
PLAN SET:
City Submittal Set: Civil Drawings by Plowe Engineering
Dated 9-10-08
Revised Sheet C2 Dated 9-11-08 and rec'd electronically 12-1-08
COMPS:
Drainage Computations by Plowe Engineering
Dated 7-23-08, No Documented Revisions
Summary .
Feed Products North is proposing to develop a 2-f100r office building with a parking lot on a
parcel west of Lakewood Drive and east of McKnight Road.
Storm Water Runoff Comments
The net impervious increase of the proposed development is O.4g acres with a net disturbed
area of 1.24 acres. The site will be held to Maplewood Engineering standards for storm water
management.
Storm water runoff from the site will be managed by a rain water garden with an underdrain
system. Drainage from the roof, parking lot and driveway access will drain into the rain garden
via a curb cut and rip-rap swale. Based on the provided computations, the storm water
management systems on the site adequately mitigate the runoff from tQe proposed development
to city standards, which includes limiting proposed runoff to existing conditions and
treatment/volume control for the 1.3-inch storm event.
Comments
1) The pond is considered a filtration basin with an installed under drain and shall be
designed to meet 90% of the 1.3-inch storm event instead of the 1.0-inch storm event as
indicated with the submitted computations. Therefore, the required volume reduction
would be 2,071 cubic feet. The volume provided for infiltration, according to the
computations is 4,746 cubic feet, which exceeds the requirement. However, the
Engineer shall resubmit computations based on the 1.3-inch standard.
2) The applicant shall submit soil borings and infiltration tests of the soils underlying the
rain garden. The minimum boring depth from existing grade shall be 10 feet.
3) The rain garden basin design shall be subject to approval by the City Naturalist.
4) The applica,nt shall put up an escrow or letter of credit for 100% of the cost of building
the PropoSli#d rain water garden and shall contact city staff 48 hours prior to construction
of the rain water garden. Care must be taken to avoid compaction of bottom area in
order to avoid losing the infiltration characteristics of the soil. /f the rainwater garden or
Maplewood Engineering Comments - Feed Products North
12-2-08
Page 2 of 4
infiltration basin does not perform as designed, it is the responsibility of the developer's
engineer and/or contractor to correct the problem. The city will withhold all escrow
monies, and may coordinate with the city building deparlment to withhold cerlificate of
occupancies for buildings on the development site, until the proper functioning of the
rainwater garden and/or infiltration basin is restored.
5) The following note shall be added to the plans: "A void compacting infiltration areas by
limiting the use of heavy equipment in rain water garden basin area during construction.
Excavation to final depth shall occur prior to installation of bedding material and after
major grading activities. "
Wetlands
An existing wetland near the southwest corner of the site has been delineated. A report by
Critical Connections Ecological Services, Inc. dated July 31, 2008 has been submitted to and
approved by the Ramsey Washington Metro Watershed District.
Based on Maplewood ordinance, the wetland is considered a Class 3 wetland with a 50-foot
averaged and 25-foot minimum no-disturb buffer requirement. The wetland outline is shown on
the plans.
Comments
1) The wetland delineation, 25-foot and 50-foot offset lines shall be shown and clearly
labeled on the plans.
2) No grading shall be allowed within the 50-foot buffer of the wetland. The applicant
shall explore possibilities of using other areas of the properly to accomplish the storm
water management on the site. The applicant may want to consider parking
requirements as well.
3) A grading limits line accurate according to the contours shall be shown on the plans
where grading contours tie into grades near the wetland buffer.
4) A heavy duty silt fence with compost log reinforcement shall be shown along the
periphery of the wetland buffer.
Gradinq, Drai~l:I~e. Erosion Control and Geometrics
The generall~Yql1t of the parking lot grading is from east to west. All drainage is routed
overland and concentrates in gutter lines. The drainage is eventually routed to the rain water
garden near the southwest corner of the site.
Comments
1) It appears that the applicant will be cutting into the Lakewood Drive embankment with
the construction of the proposed parking lot and will be constructing a retaining wall.
The applicant shall provide details and recommendations from a licensed
geotechnical engineer for stabilization of the embankment during and after
construction including engineered details on the retaining wall. Applicant shall also
send plans Ramsey County Public Works for review.
Maplewood Engineering Comments - Feed Products North
12-2-08
Page 3 of 4
2) Grading along the south fence line of the site shall be such that the grades near the
bottom of the fence are kept similar to existing conditions. No mounding of dirt
against the fence is allowed. The applicant shall insure that the runoff from the swale
is not directed toward the private properties to the south.
3) Capacity computations for the 2-12" driveway culverts shall be submitted by the
applicant for review.
4) Applicant shall show the Maplewood standard plate for a concrete commercial
driveway entrance with curve radii.
5) Applicant shall dimension the drive width and typical parking stall measurements.
6) Applicant shall show a rock entrance pad at the entrance to the site.
7) A note shall be added to the'plans: "Erosion control and inlet protection shall be in
place prior to the start of construction. "
Sanitary Sewer and Water Main
The applicant is proposing a 6-inch PVC sanitary sewer service and a 6-inch DIP combined
fireldomestic water service connection for the building. Both services are proposed to connect
to existing water and sewer stubs from McKnight Road.
Comments
1) Applicant shall consider an alternate route for the sanitary sewer service. Installation
of the sanitary sewer is not allowed within the wetland buffer. It is suggested that the
applicant consider connecting into the sanitary main that currently services the Feed
Products property on the east side of Lakewood Drive.
2) Applicant shall add a note to the plans indicating that a connection to the sanitary
sewer shall be per Maplewood standards and specifications and that the Utility
Maintenance division shall be contacted 48 hours prior to connection to the sanitary
sewer.
3) Applicant shall consider an alternate route for the water service. Installation of the
water service is not allowed within the wetland buffer. Instead of utilizing the existing
stub, the applicant may consider a 6x6 wettap into the McKnight water main at the
driveway access point, or a 16x6 wettap into the water main running through an
easement on the property.
4) Plans shall be submitted to Saint Paul Regional Water Services for review with the
city copied on review comments.
Maplewood Engineering Comments - Feed Products North
12-2-08
Page 4 of 4
Miscellaneous Comments
1. The applicant shall enter into a Maintenance Agreement with the City of Maplewood for the
maintenance of the rain garden.
2. Copies of all permit approvals (i.e. SPRWS, RWMWD, Ramsey County, etc) shall be
submitted prior to city approval of plans.
Attachment 11
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
RE:
Steven Kummer, Engineer
Ginny Gaynor, Open Space Naturalist
November 26, 2008
Fallin Office - Feed Products North - filtration basin planting design
I reviewed the planting designs for the filtration basin on the Fallin Office project and have the
following recommendations.
I. My review only relates to the planting design for the filtration basin and makes an
assumption that our engineers will approve the size, capacity, and design for the basin once
soil borings are provided.
2. Plant species selected.
a. Arrrowhead. This plant requires standing water during at least a part of the season. If
the basin will have standing water for less than a four days after rainfall, please replace
this species.
b. All other species selected should perform well in this wet basin.
c. I strongly recommend you increase the diversity of the grasses and flowers in the basin
since it is so large, or please indicate why the design concept called for low diversity.
There are many showy flowers that would do well in these conditions and give you
more in bloom in summer and fall. In addition, you may want to consider massing
shrubs together in the garden and increasing the number of shrubs.
3. Number of species. The number of plants in the basin seems low, based on my rough
estimate that the planted area is approximately 2400 square feet.
a. Please use a line on plan to distinguish the planting bed from the surrounding turf area.
(The existing design shows the countours and not the delineation between lawn and
garden.
b. Please indicate the number of square feet for the planted area of basin.
c. Please indicate plant spacing for shrubs and for plugs. Recommended spacing is:
I) Shrubs - 5' -6' on center
2) Plugs - 15' on center. If shredded hardwood mulch is used instead of blanket,
plugs may be spaced 18" on center.
d. Please recalculate number of plants based on the above.
4. First and second year maintenance. Many native plantings fail because people do not
understand that weed control is essential the first two years. Please indicate on the plan
that there will be a 2-year maintenance contract for weed control in the basin. We
encourage you to work with a contractor that guarantees establishment .and will provide a
maintenance contract.
5. Wood fiber blanket. I strongly recommend that shredded hardwood mulch is used for the
basin rather than blanket, unless the basin will hold standing water for several days after
rainfall. The mulch will greatly reduce weeds. Because the garden design clumps species,
it is designed to be more ornamental than a native planting that mixes grasses and flowers
throughout. Thus, there will be an expectation that that garden is relatively weed free.
6. Riprap. It appears that part of the riprap is surrounded by turf grass. For improved
aesthetics and ease of mowing maintenance, we recommend you extend the plantings in a
narrow border around the riprap.
7. Edging. We encourage you to use edging on the borders of the garden that are adjacent to
turf grass.
Attachment 12
Tree Preservation and Wetland Buffer Review
Project: Feed Products Office Building, 1300 McKnight Road North
Date of Plan: September 10,2008
Date of Review: December 26, 2008
Reviewer: Shann Finwall, Environmental Planner
(651) 249-2304; shann.finwallrmci.mavlewood.mn.us
Background: John Fallen of Feed Products North is proposing to build a 5,311 square
foot, 2-story office building on a vacant lot located west of Lakewood Drive at 1300
McKnight Road.
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 further described a
specimen tree as any tree with a caliper inch greater than 28 inches.
Development on a site should attempt to preserve all healthy specimen trees.
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, it penalizes developers for
removing larger trees by requiring a greater amount of replacement for those
trees.
Tree Removal and Required Replacement: Tree replacement is based on the
following calculation:
Ordinance Calculation: [(A1B - 0.20) x C] x A = D
Leaend
Feed Products
A = Total Diameter Inches of Significant Trees Lost
B = Total Diameter Inches of Significant Trees on Site
C = Tree Replacement Constant (1.5)
0= Replacement Trees (Number of Caliper Inches)
111.00
506.00
1.50
3.22
Feed Product's Calculation: 111/506 - .20 x 1.5 x 111 = 3.22 Cal. Inches
Required Replacement Trees: 3.22/2 caliper inch replacement trees = 4 trees
The tree plan indicates that there are 506 caliper inches of significant trees on
the site (36 trees), and 111 caliper inches of significant trees (7 trees or 21.94
percent) removed with the development. Based on these figures, the city's tree
replacement calculation requires the developer to replace 3.22 caliper inches (4,
2 caliper inch trees). The reason the developer only has to replace 4 trees (0.63
percent) of the 21.94 percent removed is due to the fact that there are a number
of trees on the 2.19 acre site. The tree replacement calculation takes into
account that not as many trees can be planted on a site that is already forested.
1
Proposed Tree Replacement: The developer is proposing to replace 32 caliper
inches of significant trees on the site by planting three, 2-caliper inch ornamental
trees and eight, 6-foot high evergreen trees.
Tree Preservation Recommendation:
1. The applicant is proposing the removal of two specimen trees with the
development (one 36 caliper inch and one 35 caliper inch cottonwood
tree). With the relocation of the utilities as required by the city's
engineering review dated December 2, 2008, the applicant should be able
to preserve these trees. Therefore, the two specimen trees proposed for
removal as stated above should be preserved.
2. While the planting of 32 caliper inches of replacement trees meets the
city's tree ordinance for this site, the applicant should plant additional
trees as required in ~he overall landscape review for buffering and
aesthetics.
3. Tree species must be specified on the landscape plan. Currently the plan
calls for 2-caliper inch ornamentals and 6-foot high evergreen trees, with
no specific species called out.
B. Wetland Ordinance: There is a Class 3 wetland located on the south side of the
property. The city's wetland ordinance requires a 50-foot average and 25-foot
minimum buffer around a Class 3 wetland. The new Ramsey-Washington Metro
Watershed District wetland map classifies this wetland as a Manage 3. The draft
wetland ordinance the city council will be reviewing again in the near future has a
50-foot minimum buffer around a Manage 3 wetland.
Grading Plan: The grading plan shows an infiltration basin and utilities being
constructed partially within the 50-foot buffer.
Wetland Recommendations: The following wetland recommendations are also
found in the city's engineering review dated December 2, 2008:
1. The wetland delineation, 25-foot and 50-foot offset lines shall be shown
and clearly labeled on the plans.
2. No grading shall be allowed within the 50-foot buffer of the wetland. The
applicant shall explore possibilities of using other areas of the property to
accomplish the storm water management on the site.
3. A grading limits line accurate according to the contours shall be shown on
the plans where grading contours tie into grades near the. wetland buffer.
4. A heavy duty silt fence with compost log reinforcement shall be shown
along the periphery of the wetland buffer.
2
Attachment 13
Tom Ekstrand
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Gary Salkowicz [salkowg@comcast.net]
Thursday, November 06, 20089:15 AM
Tom Ekstrand
Proposal development-1300 McKnight
Tom:
This morning when my mother and I went to breakfast, she showed me the letter relating to
the proposed building. We discussed it and she has no objection to developing that
parcel. I suspect I didn't get a letter because I am out of the radius. I have no
objection to the building either.
I walk the dog past there 3-4 days a week and actually think it would be an asset. The
policeman in me looks at the amount of illegal dumping that occurs between Ivy and Tilsen
along that stretch. Not only do I live in the area but this is the eastern edge of the
district where I am a supervisor.
Despite my best efforts, I have never been able to catch anyone dumping.
It looks to be an attractive building. My only qualification, and this is related to the
dumping aspect, is that of lighting. I firmly believe that (semi-aggessive)exterior
lighting for the lot of the new building would cut the amount of illegal dumping for both
the Maplewood and St. Paul sides of the street.
Feel free to call me at 651-485-5543 if you have any questions.
Gary Salkowicz
1
Attachment 14
Tom Ekstrand
-_.-~---_.,~-_._._-_.---,--~._--------~-_.__.-~---_._~------_.~._--~----
From: We Deliver [Iylepuppe@hotmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, December 04,200810:34 AM
To: Tom Ekstrand
Subject: FW: 1300 McKnight Road North
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Red
Mr. Ekstrand, Thanks for call back. Please advise if you have now gotten my note
about the property we discussed. Lyle
____~___~____.___~_"__________~~.__~__e.~_____'_.____~__~
From: Iylepuppe@hotmail.com
To: tom.ekstrand@ci.maplewood.mn.us
Subject: 1300 McKnight Road North
Date: Tue, 18 Nov 2008 03:50:13 +OOOQ
Mr. Ekstrand,
I am in receipt of your letter about the above property. I live at 2531 Nokomis
Ave., in St. Paul around the corner from the address. I also left a message on
your voice mail, however when you return, I will be busy doing recount for
Ramsey County.
I do have a couple questions regarding the new office building.
Am I correct this office building would be the office building for the site on the east
side of Lakewood Dr.? That is what it appears according to the drawing. If that is
correct, am I also correct, they will not have driving access from the proposed
office building to the east site under Lakewood? What type of traffic will this
proposal generate?
At the present time, there is the site just to the south of this proposed office that
has sort of a scattered array of semi truck that come north up McKnight and end
up backing into their driveway, having to drive into Tilsen and back east
across McKnight into their driveway. With the railroad tracks stopping traffic, the
semi some times stopping traffic and putting what would appear to be another
driveway on the east side of McKnight certainly will complicate matters.
I guess I would like to have more information on this.
Thank you for your information.
Lyle Puppe
2531 Nokomis Ave.
St. Paul, MN55119-3219
ph :651. 739.5953
12/4/2008
Attachment 15
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION
WHEREAS, John Fallin, owner of Feed Products North, applied for a conditional use
permit to build an office building on property zoned M1 (light manufacturing) located within
350 feet of residentially-zoned property.
WHEREAS, Section 44-637(b) of the city ordinances require a conditional use permit for
a building in a M1 district closer than 350 feet to residential property. The proposed
building would be on a lot abutting residential property.
WHEREAS, this permit applies to the property located east of 1300 McKnight Road. The
legal description is:
That part of the West Half of the Southwest Quarter of said Section 24, Township 29,
Range 22, Ramsey County, Minnesota bounded as follows:
On the North by a line drawn parallel with and distant 95 feet Southeasterly, as measured
at right angles, from the center line of the main track of said railway company, as now
located and established; on the West by the East line of the West 66 feet of the Southwest
Quarter of Said Section 24 to a point on the West line of said Section 24 which is distant
450 feet South of the Southerly line of the 100 foot right of way of said railway company,
said Southerly line being a line drawn parallel with and 56 feet Southeasterly as measured
at right angles, from the center line of the main track of said railway company as originally
located and established, and on the East by the East line of the Northwest Quarter of the
Southwest Quarter of Section 24; excepting therefrom that part that lies Northwesterly of a
line drawn parallel with and distant 8.5 feet Southeasterly, as measured at right angles from
the center line of the most Southerly side track I.C.C. No. 114 of said railway company, as
now located and established all in the County of Ramsey, State of Minnesota.
EXCEPT that part of said West Half of the Southwest Quarter of said Section 24, lying
easterly of the centerline of the gg foot wide road easement as described in document
No. 2325930.
WHEREAS, the history of this conditional use permit is as follows:
1. On January 6, 2009, the planning commission held a public hearing. The city staff
published a notice in the paper and sent notices to the surrounding property
owners. The planning commission gave everyone at the hearing a chance to speak
and present written statements. The planning commission also considered the
reports and recommendation of city staff. The planning commission recommended
that the city council this permit.
2. On , 2009, the city council considered reports and recommendations
of the city staff and planning commission.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the city council
described conditional use permit, because:
the above-
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.
g. The use would cause minimal adverse environmental effects.
Approval is subject to the following conditions:
1. All construction shall follow the site plan approved by the city. Staff may approve
minor changes.
2. The proposed construction must be substantially started within one year of
council approval. The city council may extend this permit one additional year.
3. The city council shall review this permit in one year. After two years the permit
shall end unless construction has started.
4. Compliance with conditions in the report by Steve Kummer, Maplewood Staff
Engineer, dated December 2, 2008.
5. Compliance with conditions in the report by Ginny Gaynor, Open Space
Naturalist with the city, in her report dated November 26, 2008.
6. Compliance with conditions in the report by Shann Finwall, Environmental
Planner with the city, dated December 26, 2008.
7. Provide wetland-protection signs along the wetland buffer as required by
ordinance. The number and placement of these signs shall be determined by the
environmental planner. These signs shall prohibit any building, mowing, cutting,
filling or dumping in or around the wetland.
8. To develop this site adjacent to residential property, the applicant shall provide a
screening buffer that is at least six-feet-tall and 80 percent opaque upon
installation. This buffer may be comprised of evergreen trees or a decorative
wood fence. Such screening shall be subject to staff approval.
The Maplewood City Council
this resolution on
,2009.
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
DATE:
Planning Commission and Community DeSig6teview Board
Shann Finwall, AICP, Environmental Planne
Sustainable Maplewood . .
December 23, 2008
Over the last 15 weeks the University of Minnesota Environmental Policy undergraduate
students have been busy collecting data from city employees, commissioners, residents,
and outside experts on various aspects of the city's land use and operations in order to
formulate recommendations on how the city can create models for sustainability. The
students gathered this data through park surveys, energy/transportation/waste audits,
surrounding community interviews and ordinance reviews, inventories of impervious
surfaces in the Maplewood Mall area, public area vegetation coverage, and reviews of
the city's current environmental education and communication.
The students presented their findings during an open forum at the Maplewood
Community Center. The final documents reflect valuable recommendations for the city
to consider as we move forward with our sustainable goals. The reports will be reviewed
by the city's commissions, boards, and green team members for possible
recommendations on sustainability policies or actions to the city council in the future.
City staff will schedule some time in February to review the findings with the Planning
Commission and Community Design Review Board.
Thanks to all of the University of Minnesota students and their professors on a job well
done.
MEMO
TO:
DuWayne Konewko, Community and Park Director
Planning Commission
FROM:
Jennifer Haskamp, Pulse Land Group
DATE:
RE:
December 30, 2008
Rural Residential Conservation-Approach Ordinance Amendment-Summary Memo
INTRODUCTION
At the city council meeting on December 8, 2008 staff was directed to prepare a 'stop gap' ordinance to protect the
south Maplewood area. The purpose of the ordinance is to ensure conservation principles are used in the interim
until the updated comprehensive plan is officially adopted. Legally, the city has to allow for up to 4.3 units per acre in
the south Maplewood area because the current 2002 Comprehensive Plan guides the property for that use. This
ordinance, allows for the maximum density BUT not without extensive conservation efforts on a site or project. So,
this ordinance will protect the city until the new land use designation and density range is officially adopted, which will
be a minimum of nine months.
Staff has prepared this memo and supporting concept diagrams to demonstrate how the ordinance will work and
what affect it will have on development of the area. Attached to this summary memo is the draft ordinance for your
review and comment.
DISCUSSION
After the council meeting, staff and consultants met to discuss an approach for creating a stop-gap ordinance to
support the existing iand use designation from the 2002 Comprehensive Plan, while responding to the conservation
principles that have been identified through this Comprehensive Plan update process. There will be approximately
nine months, possibly a bit more, until the Comprehensive Plan Update is completed, and this ordinance would
ensure that conservation principles are upheld in south Maplewood until the full comprehensive plan is updated.
In an effort to help describe the direction for the ordinance, we have prepared a set of graphics that depict
conceptually how the application of the conservation principles would work towards the density allowed in the south
Maplewood area today.
Staff and consultants concluded that the best approach would be to modify the existing Rural Single Dwelling District
(R-1 R) to be the Rural Conservation Dwelling District (R-1 R). The modifications to the ordinance include an
extensive conservation approach to try and encourage and ensure conservation principles are used in south
Maplewood, and IF a developer decides not to employ conservation principles they are entitled to 2 (two) acre lots
and not greater density. The following information describes the objectives and preliminary direction for the
ordinance.
Ordinance Obiectives:
. To create an ordinance that protects the natural resources and habitat in the south Maplewood area.
. To allow for development that allows for the maximum entitlement of 4.3 units/acre. This is critical to ensure
that the city is legally protected in the interim. (This will only apply until the Comprehensive Plan Update is
formally adopted, at which time the ordinance will be revised to reflect the ranges identified on the updated
Land Use Plan.)
. To create a list of definitions that clearly describe the conservation principles we are trying to achieve.
. To create density incentives for developers and land owners that can only be achieved through preservation
and conservation principles as defined by the city.
Ordinance Structure:
Staff proposes that the ordinance allows a base entitlement of 2 (two) acre lots in the R-1 R zoning district. In order
for the developer to achieve higher density they will be required to employ conservation principles. Staff has created
a 3-Tiered approach that demonstrates to a developer how the conservation principles help them to achieve higher
density. The conservation principles must be agreed to by staff, city commissions and the city council in order for the
developer to be granted more units on a property. The following list identifies the conservation principles identified to
date, and their definitions can be found in the draft ordinance attached. The list was developed and compiled based
on comments from the planning commission, the PTOS advisory panel, the environmental and natural resources
commission and other interested stakeholders during the development of the comp plan.
Table 1: Conservation Tools for Density Incentives
.............-..--.-..-.-.-................."".-."".-...............-...,-......................-.....--.......
Enhance/Preserve Large Wooded Areas
.....---"......................-.......--,.,.....................-...........................................
Preserve Natural Greenway Corridors
-............-,.........................--....---....-..........................-.................................................---....--..................-....""".....--....
Tree Preservation
-..........--....................................---...................-......"""'
Dedicate Open Spaces
.......--"---.......................................................".-.--.......
Historic Preservation
...............,.....--............................---...................--........
Additional Shoreline Buffers
..------."."."........"."."-".-,,-.".".".............".".".-."."."........."...-.""....."."..........".".".,,-.-."..-......".".".",,--".".
LEED Certified Buildings/Development
.."..-_."."."."......"."."-"._"." ".".""."............".-. -."-.........-."-."...."-"."........."...".--"..-............-".".".--"."."....
Low Impact Development
.."....".-."-"."."-........"."."---.-.".".".........".".".-.-
Dedicate 50% Open Space
"._".".."....."."."..",,-
! Prairie Restoration
."."."........"."_"."."__.".".".."."........".L.."."."_..._.____.""."."."."__."."."."."."._,,__.."."."."__.....".." __.".".".......".".-_._.".".."....."..".."."- ..........."."..-""--.-....
ance Wetlands, Create Management Plan
,,-."."."..-............".."."---.".--...........".".."--......" -_."."."....."."."."-_.."."........"--"."_..-"."
ate/Develop Trail Connections
".".".-".."..".".".....".". ."."."."."......". "."."."....."."...."-
...........................L?I~~~~~~e~~~Els~r\f~~i?~_
........____ ........._ ...........L~rEl~t~~~~~iv~~~rks
I Energy Efficiency
."......"."....".,."."".-."."...."..-..."....."."-".".".---."."..........".."-."."."."
_.L~~~ek_~~~tor~ti?~~a_n~g~rTle_nt
I View Shed/Corridor Preservation
::.:: '--:..]:~~diii?~~i:~ior~~aierManag~meni
The proposed ordinance Tiers are identified in Table 2. ALL properties would have entitlement to the Base density
identified in Tier 1, and would not be allowed the increased density in Tier 2 and Tier 3 without meeting the specified
requirements. The table also includes a line that describes what could happen today on the site if no ordinance was
created with conservation incentives. This provides a good comparison for the ordinance today from what is being
proposed, and demonstrates how the protection measures could work.
In order to help explain how the density tiers would work we have identified a sample site that currently has an
application to the city for rezoning and development. A series of graphics are also included to demonstrate how the
table relates to what is developed on a site. The subject site is 5.22 acres, and we are assuming that ALL acres on
the site are buildable, this is just to generalize and simplify (and not necessarily the case for the subject site), and
that there are no 'deductions' so net and gross density are the same.
2
As demonstrated by the table, if we consider the Sample Site, in order for the developer to gain the number of lots in
Figure 1, the developer would be required to achieve 4 - 6 conservation principles under the new ordinance which
would end up looking more like Figure 4. If you look at the graphic in Figure 1, you will see that no conservation
principles are met under the current ordinance; whereas in Figures 2 through 4 the amount of conservation and open
spaces preserved increase as the density increases which is how the "stop-gap" ordinance would be structured.
With the adoption of a conservation ordinance, the city can protect the natural resources, while still allowing the legal
entitlement on the property. (Table 2 and Figures 1 - 4 are found on the attached pages)
Summary
In conclusion the purpose of the "stop-gap" ordinance is to protect the high quality natural areas and resources in
south Maplewood, while allowing for the current land use entitlement of 4.3 units per acre. Upon council's direction,
staff intends to expeditiously create an ordinance that protects the natural areas and the residents of south
Maplewood. Staff also recognizes that the future direction of the Rural Residential land use has been changed to
guide the property for a density range of 0.5 -1.5 units per acre. It is our intent to create an ordinance that can be
revised to accommodate the density range selected by the council, while still implementing conservation principles in
the city's rural residential areas.
Timeline
It is essential to get the "stop gap" ordinance in place as soon as possible. The ordinance is being presented to both
the environmental and natural resources commission and planning commission on January 6 for preliminary review
and comment. The planning commission will hold a Public Hearing on January 20, 2009 to provide opportunity for
residents to comment. Staffs goal is to have the city council review the ordinance at the January 26, 2009 meeting,
and have adoption early in February.
Recommendation
Staff recommends that Environmental Commission and Planning Commission review the draft
ordinance and provide input.
Table 2: Density Entitlements and Concept Site Plans
Density
4.3 Units/Acre
(LAND USE
TODAY)
TIER 1:
0.5 -1.5 UtA
TIER2:
1.6 - 3.5 UtA
TIER3:
3.6 - 4.3 UtA
Conservation Principles (Incentives)
Sample Site
( Net Acres)
Units
Comments
See Figure 1
0- Baseline Entitlement 0.5 units/Acre
1 - 50% Density Bonus
2 - 100% Density Bonus
3 - N/A (1.6 UtA)
4 - 50% Density Bonus
5 - 100% Density Bonus
6 - N/A (3.6 UtA)
7 - Full Entitlement
5.22
2
5
7
8
12
16
18
22
See Figure 2
5.22
See Figure 3
5.22
See Figure 4
3
Figure 1: Concept under Current Comprehensive Plan
1.
,
...---.
4
~_.-.
c;,
.--'"'
"
Ib
C1
Site: 5.22 Acres
Lots: 16
Density: 2.7 - 3.0 U/A
Unit Type: SF
Conservation Principles: None
4
Figure 2: Tier 1 Concept Plan
I
If'...... .
1.
Site: 5.22 Acres
Lots: 4
Density: 0.5 -1.5 U/A
Unit Type: Single Family
Conservation Principles:
Greenway Protection Area
5
Figure 3: Tier 2 Concept Plan
f
-----.--"
.....-..
~
4)
.-
3
b
-
- ~
--
't
,
~
Site: 5.22 Acres
Lots: 10
Density: 1.6 - 2.5 U/A
Unit Type: SF
Conservation Principles:
Greenway Protection, Low
Impact Development, Woodlands
Protection, Clustering
6
Figure 4: Tier 3 Concept Plan
Site: 5.22 Acres
Lots: 15
Density: 2.7 - 4.3 U1A
Unit Type: Mix of SF and MF
Conservation Principles:
Greenway Protection, Low
Impact Development, Woodlands
Protection, Clustering, 50% Open
Space, View Shed Protection
7
Attachment 1
PROPOSED ORDINANCE MODIFYING THE R-1R (RURAL SINGLE-DWELLING
RESIDENCE) ZONING DISTRICT
THE MAPLEWOOD CITY COUNCIL the following changes to the Maplewood Code of Ordinances:
(Deletions are crossed out and additions are underlined.)
Section 1. This section changes Section 44-9 as follows:
Section 44.9. Zoning Districts.
The city is herby divided into the following zoning districts:
F, Farm Residence District.
R-1, Residence District (Single Dwelling).
R-1 R, R~ral Single Dwelling District Rural Conservation Dwellinq District
R-1 S, Small-Low Single-Dwelling District.
R-2, Residence District (Double Dwelling).
R-3, Residence District (Multiple Dwelling).
R-E, Residence Estate District.
NC, Neighborhood Commercial District.
CO, Commercial Office District.
BC, Business and Commercial District.
LBC, Limited Business Commercial District.
BC(M) Business Commercial Modified District.
SC, Shopping Center District.
M-1, Light Manufacturing District.
M-2, Heavy manufacturing District.
Section 2. This section deletes, modifies and adds to Sections 44.117 through Section 44.150 as follows:
DIVISION 3.5 R-1(R) RUR.^.l SINGle DWELLING DISTRICT RURAL CONSERVATION DWELLING DISTRICT
Sec. 44.117. Purpose and Intent.
The City of Maplewood finds that there is a direct link between the natural systems and character that exists
throuqhout certain areas of the community. The requirements of this Rural Conservation Dwellinq District are meant
to preserve and enhance the ecoloqical/aesthetic character by incentiyizinq; 1) reinforcement and establishment of
ecoloqical connections throuqhout the city: 2) protection and enhancement of drainaqeways and water quality: 3)
protection and enhancement of ecoloqical communities: 4) preservation and improvement of views: and 5)
preservation or reinterpretation of local historical landmarks.
Maplewoo~ intonds to w-etect anEl enhance the charncter of ar.eas ef the city that, because of topography or ether
factors, do net have, nor ~ees the city expect to have, R1~niGip31 sanitary sewer or water servico. To allow for and to
protect a very lo'.'i Elensily, semi-rural, residential life style, the city creates the R-1 R zoning district that is intended to
encourage conservation based development. This zoning district is for the areas of Maplewood that are not suitable
Attachment 1
for suburban or tract development because of topography, vegetation or other factors that make the area unique. -tl1e
installation of fIIijniGipal sanitary sewer ijnlikely. The city finds the most suitable use of these areas is single
dwellings on large lots, but is interested in protectinq the natural resources and will encouraqe developments to
follow the conservation principles and initiatives identified in subsequent sections of this ordinance. &lJGR-Low-
density residential development and conservation development will lessen grading and soil erosion and will help
protect ground water, vegetation and wooded areas. The lots and par{;els in the R 1 R zoning distriGt are generally
much larger than those in the R 1 (sin~le dwellin~) iJistrict and those ':lith municipal sowor and wator.
Sec. 44-118. Uses.
The City shall only allow the following uses:
(a) Permitted Uses:
1) Any permitted use in the R-1 District, subject to its regulations.
(b) Conditional uses. The City may permit the following by conditional use permit:
1) Any use allowed by conditional use permit in the R-1 (single dwelling) District.
2) Commercial faming or gardening, including the use or storage or associated equipment, when on a
property with a single dwelling.
3) Stands for the sale of agricultural products grown or produced on the property.
4) Metal storage buildings, commonly known as pole barns or agri-buildings, subject to the applicable
size and height requirements.
(c) Prohibited uses. The city prohibits the following uses in the R-1(R) zoning district:
1) Accessory buildings without an associated single dwelling on the same property.
2) Reserved.
Sec. 44.119. Height of buildings.
The maximum height of a single-family dwelling shall be thirty-five (35) feet.
Sec. 44-120. Lot dimensions, lot area, width requirements, and side vards.
(a) No person shall build a single dwelling on a site less than eighty seven thousand one hundred twenty
(87,120) square feet (2 acres) in area; unless the conservation desiqn principles are applied as described in
Section 3.
(b) Each lot or parcel shall have enough area or usable space for a house, driveway, well and individual
sewage treatment system (15T5) with a primary and secondary site or an acceptable desiqn and plan for a
community septic system or reqional sewer.
(c) Each dwellinq and any accessory structure(s) shall have side yard setbacks as defined in table 44-120.1
and shall be measured from the property line to the structure. of at least thirt'l (30) feet from a side ~roperty
IiR&.- The followinq exceptions to this standard shall applv:
1) The side yard on the street side of a corner lot shall have a width of at least fifty (50) feet.
2) When a property owner uses two (2) or more adioininq lots as a sinqle-buildinq site, the side yard
requirements shall apply only to the outside lot lines.
(d) No per-son shall build a singlo d'llellin~ on a lot with less than one hundred twenty (120) foet of width at tho
front building sotback line, The followinq table identifies the minimum lot area and lot width based on the
conservation tiers:
2
Attachment 1
Table 44-120.1
Conservation Tier Density Minimum Area Minimum Side Yard Front Yard
Ranae Frontaoe Setback Setback
Tier I (0-2 0.5 -1.5 UtA 15,000 SF 100' 30' 50'
Princioles)
Tier II (3-5 1.6 - 3.5 UtA 10,000 SF 80' j2 30'
Principles)
Tier III (6-7 3.6 - 4.3 UtA 7,500 SF 50' 1[ 20'
Princinles\
(e) Each interior lot shall have at least fifty (50) feet of frontage on an improved public street.
(D Each comer lot or parcel shall have at least eighty (80) feet of frontage on each of the public streets.
Sec. 44.121. Front Yards.
(a) Each dwelling and any accessory structure(s) shall have a front yard setback as defined in table 44-120.1.
Except that:
1) If each of the lots next to an interior lot has a dwelling, the minimum setback shall be the setback of
the adjacent dwelling closest to the street. The maximum setback shall be the setback of the
adjacent dwelling farthest from the street.
2) If subsection (a)(1) above does not apply and there is a predominant setback, a dwelling shall be
no further forward and no more than five feet to the rear of the predominant setback.
3) Regardless of the above, if the city council has approved special setbacks for a development,
those setbacks shall apply. City approval of a preliminary plat with building pads does not
constitute approval of special setbacks.
4) Regardless of the above, homeowners may add on to their homes using the existing setback.
5) In all cases. the accessory structures shall be no closer than the principle structure unless
approved by the City Council.
(b) The director of community development may allow a different front yard setback if the proposed setback
would not adversely affect the drainage of surrounding properties and if any of the following conditions
apply:
1) The proposed setback would not affect the privacy of adjacent homes.
2) The proposed setback would save significant natural features, as defined in section 9-188.
3) The proposed setback is necessary to meet city, state or federal regulations, such as pipeline
setback or noise regulations.
4) The proposed setback I necessary for energy saving, health or safety reasons.
Sec. 44 122. Side yards, (Moved to previous section and Table)
Eacl1 dwelling and any accessory structur-e(s) sl1alll1a,:e side yard sotbacks of at least thirty (30) foot from a side
pr-operty line. Tl1e following exoe~tions to tl1is skmdaFEI sl1all apply:
(a) The side yar<l on the str.eet side of a cemer lot shalll1ave a width of at least fifty (50) feet.
(b) Wl1en a pr-operty ewner uces two (2) or mor.e adjeining lots as a sin~le building site, tl1e side yard
requirements sl1all apply enly to the outside lot lines.
(0) Regar.ctless ef the aaove, 110meo>::ners may add on to tl1eir l1emos usin~ tl1e existin~ setback.
Sec. 44.123. Rear Yards.
3
Attachment 1
(a) Single dwellings shall have a rear yard setback of at least twenty (20) percent of the lot depth. or u minimum
rOur setbask of fifty (liO) foot, '.'iRiche'ler is lurger.
(b) Accessory buildings shall have a rear yard setback of at least thirty (30) feet.
Sec. 44-124, Tower, antenna and flagpole setbacks.
Antennas and flagpoles for residential (non-commercial) use in the R-1 (R) zoning district shall meet the same
setbacks as accessory buildings in the R-1 (single dwelling) district.
Sec. 44-125. Minimum foundation areas; room requirements.
(a) The minimum foundation area shall be at least:
1) A one-story dwelling, nine hundred fifty (950) square feet.
2) A one and one-half story dwelling, seven hundred twenty (720) square feet.
3) A bi-Ievel dwelling, eight hundred sixteen (816) square feet.
4) A tri-Ievel dwelling, seven hundred sixty five (765) square feet.
5) A two storey dwelling, five hundred twenty-eight (528) square feet.
(b) Room size and number shall be consistent with the standards of the International Residential Code.
Sec. 44-126. Building-width requirements.
The minimum building width on the primary frontaqe aAY side shall be at least twenty-one (21) feet. The building
width shall not include entryways or other appurtenances that do not run the fully depth of the building.
Sec. 44-127, Accessory buildings.
(a) Section 44-114 (Accessory buildings) in the R-1 District shall apply to the use and height of accessory
buildings and garages in the R-1 R zoning district.
(b) For lots of at least 2 acres in size the R-1 R zoning district, the following size standards shall apply to
accessory buildings and garages: graduated by tier or size of lot?
Table 44-127 1 Accessory Sizes
Detached Buildings (Max Attached Garages (Max Combination of detach
Area, Square Feet) Area, Square Feet) buildings and attached
Garage (Max Area)
Tier I 1,400 (garages), 1,100 1,400 2,800
(other)
Tier II 1,000 SF Total 1,000 1,480
Tier III 850 SF Total 850 1,000
Section 3. This section adds the conservation principles and conservation desi~m standards to the R-1 R
zoninQ district.
Sec. 44.128. Definitions and Conservation Principles.
The conservation principles in the followinQ table shall represent the conservation incentives for this ordinance. The
definitions of each principle follow the table. All incentives shall onlv be qranted IF they exceed the minimum
standards set forth in the existinq City ordinances that relate to environmental protection as identified in Ordinance
Chapters 12 and 44.
4
Attachment 1
It shall be noted that the City has several ordinances that control and define natural resources and
environmental aualitv. in all cases, the more restrictive ordinance shall applv and it is the developer's
responsibilltv to discuss anv issues or auestions reaardina the applicable ordinances with the Citv Planner.
Table 44-128 1 Conservation Principles for Densitv Incentives
Enhance/Preserve larae wooded areas or forest Prairie Restoration
Preserve and Establish Natural Area Greenwavs Enhance Wetlands, Create Manaqement Plan
Tree Preservation Create/Develop Trail Connections
Clusterina Slope Buffer Preservation
Historic Preservation Create Passive Parks
Additional Shoreline Buffers Enerqv Efficiencv
LEED Certified Buildinas/Development Creek Restoration Manaqement
Low Impact Development (LID) View Shed/Corridor Preservation
Dedicate 50% Open Space Additional Stormwater Manaqement
Enhance/preserve lame wooded areas or forest: An act of deiiberatelv avoidinq the removal of clusters of structurallv
healthv mature trees and understory trees which are native to the area and non-invasive. individual heritaqe trees
which are structurallv healthv and qreater than 20 caliper inches in order to protect the present or future value for
their use in protection from erosion, for their landscape and aesthetic value, for their use in screeninq development or
for other environmental or intrinsic benefits. To meet this standard, the developer must prepare a health assessment
of the trees on site, and must show a polvaon area on the site with permanent protection plan, that the developer
shall implement. for the areas to be preserved and a manaqement plan includinq removal of invasive species on the
site.
Preserve and Establish Natural Area Greenwavs: The dedication, maintenance or manaqement of an area identified
on the Citv's Natural Areas Greenwav map. The Natural Area Greenwav is defined as larqe contiquous areas of
natural habitat that cross ownership boundaries.
Tree Preservation: Throuqh means of a tree inventory, identifvinq the most siqnificant trees on a site and
permanentlv protectinq them. Examples include protectinq a larqe, healthv, Oak tree on a site from beinq removed
for a roadwav.
Clusterinq: A desiqn technique that qroups housinq or development sites in a manner that allows for the conservation
and preservation of open spaces such as farmland. natural areas, includinq habitat areas and open views.
Historic Preservation: Identifyinq and protectinq throuqh permanent means, anv historical Iv siqnificant areas on a
specific site. Examples include protectinq an archaeoloqicallv siqnificant area, restorinq a historical barn, or
preservinq an important trail.
Additional Shoreline Buffers: Bevond those alreadv identified in the Shoreland Overlav District. the creation of
protective buffers around those areas which are more sensitive to the neqative impacts of development. especiallv
areas that are defined as bluffs or steep slopes, where critical habitat mav dwell. near historic tree clusters or
heritaqe trees etcetera for which the additional buffers mav vary or be averaqed near the location of protection
importance.
5
Attachment 1
LEED celtified buildinos/development (3 Practices): A national set of standards for buildinqs and neiqhborhoods that
focuses on the principles of qreen buildinq , smart qrowth, sustainability and healthy livinq. The LEED for
Neiqhborhood Development Ratinq System provides independent. third-party verification that a development's
location and desiqn meet accepted hiqh levels of environmentally responsible. sustainable development. Credit will
be qiven for a minimum of 3 practices in the LEED standards certification criteria. Developers are encouraqed to
seek for LEED certification.
Low Impact Development (LID): An ecoloqically friendly approach to site development and storm water manaqement
that aims to mitiqate development impacts to land, water and air. The approach emphasizes the inteqration of site
desiqn and planninq techniques that conserve the natural systems and hydroloqic functions of a site. In order to
achieve this principle the developer must demonstrate how they will achieve these principles. For example, number
and quantity of rain qardens, the use of porous pavement. reduction of impervious surface and road widths.
Dedicate 50% Open Space: Open space is defined as public and private land that is qenerally natural in character
and contains relatively few human-made structures. Credit will be qiven for dedication of 50% of a site to open
space. This conservation principle will be mandatorv to achieve the full density allocation. If wetlands or open water
are present on a site the maximum contribution for wetland or open water to this standard shall be 25 percent. and
the remaininq area comprised of other upland areas
Prairie Restoration: After performinq a historical analysis to determine pre-settlement conditions. prepare a plan and
implement prairie restoration with a specific manaqement strateqy, that the developer shall implement. over the
course ot tive years in order to assure that the prairie establishes. This plan shall be submitted and approved by the
City's Natural Resource Coordinator to determine if it meets this requirements and subsequently qualifies for the
density bonus.
Enhance weflands, create a Comprehensive Wetland Manaoement Plan (CWMP): A plan to resolve development
and protection conflicts where wetlands affect a siqnificant portion of a community. The plan encompasses the
identification, study. and evaluation of wetland functions and community values. and development needs and
investments with reqard to wetlands protection, enhancement and requlation. The applicant shall be required to
create a plan, that the developer shall implement. that exceeds the standards of the adopted Wetland Ordinance.
Create/Develop trail connections: A plan that illustrates the development of trails that are indicated on the Parks,
Trails and Open Space Plan map as part of the subdivision process. whether active or passive in nature, with an
emphasis on creatinq trail connections to existinq trails. Credit will be qiven for the development and construction of
the trail not for the land dedication which will be considered part of the city's parkland dedication fees.
Slope buffer preservation: A development plan that deliberately avoids placinq any structures, or lots, in the buffer
area of a siqnificant slope. Credit will be qiven for those plans that exceed the standards identified in the current
steep slopes ordinance.
Create passive parks: An area set aside throuqh the development process that is environmentally sensitive and may
or may not be developable. These parks may support passive uses such as walkinq trails. boardwalks and nature
observation areas, but some areas may be too environmentally sensitive to accommodate any public access.
6
Attachment 1
Eneravefficiencv: Usina the Minnesota Greenstar Proaram, develop enerav efficient and Greenstar rated proiects
and buildinas. Credit will be aiven when the developer utilizes the proaram to create a 'theme' in a development and
uses the Greenstar and conservation principles in marketina the proiect.
Creek restoration manaaement: Restoration proiects that the City believes would assist in the
Restoration of the stream or creek natural that compensate for the loss of past uses of the watershed due to
contamination. erosion and other influences or issues. Specific types of proiects proposed for implementation as part
of a development plan would be those that enhance habitat. water auality, and flow reaime such as stormwater
manaaement. stream channel stabilization or areenways by implementina conservation easements, or additional
buffers in riparian corridors.
View shedlcorridor preservation: A site plan or development pattern that is desianed specifically to protect an area on
or near the development site that is viewed as prime constituent for the feelina of the sense of place, whether the
features in the view are cultural. historical or natural or whether they are viewed from the street or within the
development site.
Additionat Stormwater Manaaement: The City has existina stormwater manaaement policies. but there is opportunitv
to further improve the stormwater manaaement on a site. The developer shall be aiven credit for a storm water
manaaement plan, and implementation that exceeds the City's existina policy.
Sec. 44-129 Application Requirements and Procedures.
The developer shall follow the steps outlined below as part of the development review process. The developer shall
be reauired to review the contents of this ordinance and conservation principles and prepare a plan consistina of
written and visual documents to support the proposed development.
(a) The developer shall review this ordinance and available natural resource data. The intent is to establish the
property's ecoloaical connections both within Maplewood and as part of the reaional ecoloaical system. If
the developer chooses not to use a conservation approach the developer may develop at the base
entitlement of one (1) unit per two (2) acres of land and skip to step e. If the developer is interested in
additional units and smaller lot sizes, then the developer shall follow steps b-e.
(b) The developer shall prepare and submit a natural resources evaluation of the site, includina all of the
followina elements. this step is in preparation for meetina with the City Planner and should be completed
prior to developina a concept plan:
1) Tree survey, includina all sianificant individual trees areater than 6 inches in diameter, and stands
of trees. identifyina tree species and size.
2) Wetland inventory. includina delineation reports; and MnRAM verification
3) Topoaraphic survey indicatina existina drainaae patterns. This shall include one foot (1') contours
for steep slope areas to better understand where the top and bottom of the slopes are for
preservation and placement
(c) The developer shall set UP a meetina with the City Planner to discuss and establish the intent and aoal for
the subdivision. The process shall include a discussion reaardina the appropriate conservation principles as
identified in Table 44-128.1 for the specific site and shall be based on the preliminary natural resource
information collected in step (b). The principles utilized to achieve hiaher densities on a site must be
approved by the City Staff and Plannina commission. The conservation principles and correspondina
density bonuses are shown in table 44-130.1
(d) The developer shall create a Concept Plan that includes the followina information:
7
Attachment 1
1) A base yield plan, which demonstrates the number of allowed lots as determined by the base
entitlement of one unit per two acres.
2) A description of the conservation principles that are used and the correspondinq density bonus and
unit count as the developer understands It. This shall also include information and data that
supports how the concept plan addresses the conservation principle and how the plan meets and
exceeds the standards of the City's existlnq natural resource ordinances.
3) A qraphic that demonstrates qenerally how the lots would be laid out and the unit types proposed
as part of the development.
4) A narrative that describes the conservation principles used in the concept plan and supportinq data
demonstratinq how the concept meets the standards of existinq ordinances, and data
demonstratinq how the concept plan exceeds them.
5) The developer shall submit. with their concept plans. data and reports related to the conservation
principles performed by a reputable ecoloqist or ecoloqical firm. The City shall reserve the rlqht, if
needed, to hire their own ecoloqical expert at the cost of the developer to verify and further
understand the plans submitted by the Applicant.
6) Submit twenty (20) copies of items 1 throuqh 4 for informal or non-blndinq comments by City Staff,
Planninq Commission and City Council.
(e) After the concept plan review, the developer shall take and inteqrate the suqqestions and recommendations
and prepare a preliminary plat and final plat submittal in accordance with section 34-5 of the subdivision
ordinance.
(D A full developer's aqreement as well as any necessary aqreements or documents that document the
conservation principles and how they will be upheld will be required as a part of any final plat approval. This
shall also include, If applicable. any dedication or transfer of property for the purpose of permanent
conservation shall be completed prior to final plat approval or buildinq permits.
8
Attachment 1
Sec. 44.130 Density Bonus Standards
The followinq density bonuses shall be rewarded based on the number of conservation principles (as identified in
Table 44-128.1) inteqrated within a development. The conservation principles and their application must be aqreed
to by both the developer and the city.
(a) The units obtained throuqh the density bonus calculation shall always be rounded down to the nearest
whole number.
(b) The density and number of units shall be calculated on a net area basis. Net density shall be defined as the
number of dwellinq units per acre exclusive of arterial streets and riqht of ways. wetlands and water
features. and other publicly dedicated improvements such as parks.
Table 44-130.1 Density Bonus Allotment for Conservation Principles
The followinq table identifies the baseline entitlement for all property zoned R-1 R of 0.5 Units per acre. All density
bonuses are cumulative and the percentaqe bonus calculated as such.
Density Number of Density Bonus (Housing Units) Number of Lots on a 10 Acre
Range Conservation Site (Example)
Principles
Tier 1: Q None - base entitlement of 2 Acre Lots 5 Lots
0.5-1.5 1 50% 7 lots
2 100% 10 lots
Tier 2: ~ - 16 lots
1.6-3.5 1 50% 24 lots
5 100% 32 lots
Tier 3: 2- - 36 lots
3.6 - 4.3 7* 20% 43 lots
The asterisk in Table 44-130.1 denotes a mandatory conservation principle of protectinq fifty percent (50%) of a
proposed proiect in open space, A manaqement plan for all protected open space shall be required to achieve final
plat approval. Potential options include manaqement by a Homeowners Association, dedicated to a public use or
interested aqency.
9
2009 PLANNING COMMISSION SCHEDULE
FOR CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS
Lorraine Fischer 01-12-09 05-25-09 10-12-09
651-777-5037 (h)
651-215-2259 (w) tue & thur
Harland Hess 01-26-09 06-08-09 10-26-09
651-773-9558 (h)
763-591-5400 (w)
Robert Martin Jr 02-09-09 06-22-09 11-09-09
651-578-9467 (h)
763-717-5520 (w)
Joe Boeser 02-23-09 07-13-09 11-23-09
651-770-1590 (h)
952-956-2115 (c)
Garv Pearson 03-09-09 07-27-09 12-14-09
651-777-9197 (h)
651-777-3981 (w)
612-220-5895 (cell)
Dale Trippler 03-23-09 08-10-09 12-28-09
651-490-1485 (h)
Joseph Walton 04-13-09 08-24-09 01-11-10
651-482-0756 (h)
651-484-0114 (w)
Tushar Desai 04-27-09 09-14-09 01-25-10
651484-2132 (h)
Jeremv Yarwood 05-11-09 09-28-09 02-08-10
651-735-1501 (h)
651-737-1033 (w)
City Council meetings are held the 2nd and 4th Mondays of each month unless
otherwise rescheduled. If you cannot attend a City Council meeting on your
scheduled date, please arrange to trade dates with another commissioner and
also contact Tom Ekstrand by phone at 651-249-2302 or by email at
tom.ekstrand@ci.maplewood.mn.us. You may also call the community
development department at 651-249-2300.
P:planning commission(pc) 2009 schedule for city council minutes