HomeMy WebLinkAbout2010-02-16 PC Packet
AGENDA
MAPLEWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION
Tuesday, February 16, 2010
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. January 19, 2010
b. February 2,2010 (no minutes-meeting was cancelled due to caucuses)
5. Public Hearings
a. 7:00 pm: Rezoning of Land Bounded by Highway 61, Larpenteur Avenue and Parkway Drive
from R1 (single dwelling residential) and BC (business commercial) to MU (mixed use)
b. 7:15 pm: Rezoning of 2255 Duluth Street from M1 (light manufacturing) to R1 (single dwelling
residential)
c. 7:30 pm: Gervais Woods Preliminary Plat, Final Plat and Lot Area Variance, South of Labore
Road and East of Arcade Street
6. New Business
7. Unfinished Business
8. Visitor Presentations
9. Commission Presentations
a. Commissioner Report: Commissioner Yarwood was scheduled to attend the January 25,
2010 city council meeting. Items discussed were the sign ordinance amendment and 2030
Comprehensive Plan Adoption.
b. Commissioner Report: Commissioner Fischer was scheduled to attend the February 8, 2010
city council meeting. Items discussed were scheduled to be the Joan Vellieux home
occupation request for a beauty salon at 2316 Hoyt Avenue and the planning commission
annual report.
c. Upcoming City Council Meeting of February 22, 2010: Commissioner Martin is scheduled to
attend. Anticipated items for review are the first reading of the CUP/PUD ordinance
amendment.
10. Staff Presentations
11. Adjournment
DRAFT
MINUTES OF THE MAPLEWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION
1830 COUNTY ROAD BEAST, MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA
TUESDAY, JANUARY 19, 2010
I. CALL TO ORDER
Chairperson Fischer called the rneeting to order at 7:02 p.rn.
II. ROLL CALL
Cornrnissioner Joseph Boeser
Vice-Chairperson Tushar Desai
Chairperson Lorraine Fischer
Cornmissioner Harland Hess
Commissioner Robert Martin
Commissioner Gary Pearson
Commissioner Dale Trippler
Commissioner Joe Walton
Commissioner Jeremy Yarwood
Present
Present
Present
Present
Absent
Present
Present
Present
Present
City Staff Present:
Tom Ekstrand, Citv Planner
III. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
Commissioner Hess moved to approve the agenda as submitted.
Commissioner Pearson seconded Ayes - all
The motion passed.
IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
a. January 5, 2010
Commissioner Trippler moved approval of the minutes of January 5, 2010 as submitted.
Commissioner Desai seconded Ayes - Desai, Fischer, Pearson, Trippler, Walton, Yarwood
Abstentions - Boeser, Hess
The motion passed.
V. PUBLIC HEARING
None
VI. NEW BUSINESS
a. Zoning Control Updates Schedule (Map and Ordinance Revisions) as Follow-up to the 2030
Comprehensive Plan Update '
Planner Tom Ekstrand presented the staff report explaining that the comprehensive plan update is
coming before the planning commission for final review of the Metropolitan Council's revisions. Mr.
Ekstrand said the plan update will then go to the city council for final review and adoption. Planner
Ekstrand noted that once the council adopts the plan, the city will have nine months by state statute to
revise the zoning maps and ordinance to be consistent with the new plan. Planner Ekstrand reviewed
the proposed zoning map revisions and zoning ordinance amendments.
Planning Commission
Minutes of 01-19-10
-2-
Commissioners suggested the following changes:
. Move the June amendment of R1 R district to February, since there is no proposal before the city
at this time for this property. Staff said he will move this to February for consideration.
. Allow the commissioners access through the GIS system to look at land use maps. Planner
Ekstrand said he will check with the city I.T. staff to see if this would be possible.
. Review and make corrections to any other zoning questions or inaccuracies.
b. 2009 Planning Commission Annual Report
Planner Ekstrand presented the staff report for the planning commission's 2009 annual report and
answered questions from commissioners.
Commissioner Pearson moved approval of the planning commission's 2009 annual report with the
inclusion of wind turbines and alternative energy sources under in-service training sessions for 2010
Activities.
Commissioner Trippler seconded
The motion passed.
Ayes - all
VII. UNFINISHED BUSINESS
a. Conditional Use Permit/Planned Unit Development Ordinance Amendment
Planner Ekstrand presented the staff report explaining that the commission at the January 5, 2010
meeting requested that staff make revisions to this ordinance amendment. Planner Ekstrand
reviewed each change made to the ordinance and asked the commissioners for their comments.
The commission discussed either revising the language in item (b) of Sec. 44-1097 Standards, or
removing item (b) entirely.
Commissioner Desai moved to remove item (b) of Sec. 44-1097 Standards.
Commissioner Hess seconded
A friendly amendment was made by Commissioner Walton to add "change item (c) to (b)". The
friendly amendment was accepted by Commissioners Desai and Hess.
The commission voted:
The motion passed.
Ayes - all
Commissioner Trippler moved to approve the proposed revisions to the conditional use
permit/planned unit development ordinance.
A friendly amendment was offered by Commissioner Pearson to include in the motion the addition of
the word "current" before "design of those. . ." in Sec. 44-1097 Standards, (a) (5).
Commissioner Trippler accepted the friendly amendment to his motion.
Commissioner Yarwood seconded
The motion passed. .
Ayes - all
Planning Commission
Minutes of 01-19-10
-3-
VIII. VISITOR PRESENTATIONS
Mayor Will Rossbach addressed the commission thanking them for their service to the city.
IX. COMMISSION PRESENTATIONS
a. City Council Meeting of January 11, 2010: No items for the planning commission.
b. City Council Meeting of January 25, 2010: Commissioner Yarwood will attend.
X. STAFF PRESENTATIONS
Planner Ekstrand said the following articles were included in commissioners' packets:
a. Revised planning commission attendance schedule for 201 0 city council meetings.
b. January 6, 2010 Pioneer Press article on subdivision concept from Chairperson Fischer.
c. January 8, 2010 Pioneer Press article on wind turbine approval from Chairperson Fischer.
XI. ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 8:25 p.m.
MEMORANDUM
DATE:
James Antonen, City Manager
Tom Ekstrand, Senior Planner
DuWayne Konewko, Community Development and Parks Director
Rezoning from R1 (single dwelling residential) and BC
(business commercial) to MU (mixed use)
February 10, 2010
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
INTRODUCTION
On January 25,2010, the city council adopted the 2030 Comprehensive Plan. This is
the update of the city's comprehensive land use plan required of all metro area cities
every ten years. By approving this plan, the city council reestablished the long-range
land use guide for the city. State law requires that the city now revise our zoning maps
and zoning ordinance controls to be in conformance with the newly approved land use
classifications throughout the city.
The city has nine months (by October 25,2010) to make all necessary zoning map and
zoning ordinance changes to coincide with the land use policies and land use maps in
the approved 2030 Comprehensive Plan.
Proposal
The first such rezoning is for the area bounded by Larpenteur Avenue, Parkway Drive
and Highway 61. This area currently is a mix of residential and business property and is
zoned both R1 (single dwelling residential) and BC (business commercial). The newly
approved land use classification for all this property is MU (mixed use).
Much like its current mix of zoning, MU would serve as a blend of residential and
commercial land uses.
Request
Approve a rezoning for the above-described area to MU.
BACKGROUND
On December 9, 2009, the Metropolitan Council gave final approval to the 2030
Comprehensive Plan.
On January 25,2010, the city council adopted the 2030 Comprehensive Plan.
DISCUSSION
Statutory Requirement
Section 473.865 subdivision 3 of the Minnesota State Statutes requires that cities amend
their official controls within nine months of their adopting their revised comprehensive
land use plan. As stated above, the city council has until October 25,2010 to amend all
applicable zoning maps and zoning ordinances.
Why the Proposed Revision to Mixed Use?
The reason for this mixed -use classification in the 2030 Comprehensive Plan is to
retain a mix of residential and commercial land uses, but in a planned, uniform fashion.
This area fronts on a busy highway as well as two heavily travelled roadways serving a
mix of single-dwelling, multi-family and business properties. A reclassification to mixed
use provides the framework for redevelopment with a mixture of land uses that are
mutually compatible and in character with the surrounding neighborhood.
Grandfathered Uses
Several residents have asked what would happen to their properties when this rezoning
takes place. All existing homes and businesses could remain as they are and this
rezoning would not affect the use of their properties. The existing uses would become
"grandfathered in," or in the terms of the zoning ordinance, would become "legal
nonconforming uses." Legal nonconforming uses may remain in place until the property
owners propose a change to something else. At that time, they would need to comply
with the requirements of the MU zoning ordinance.
Single dwellings are specifically allowed to remain and may be enlarged. The MU
ordinance allows the expansion of single dwellings. It provides that "any pre-existing
conforming or nonconforming single or double-dwelling residential use or structure which
would become nonconforming by adoption of the mixed-use zoning district may be
expanded, extended or intensified so long as such expansion, extension or
intensification would be permitted under the single-dwelling residential district or double-
dwelling residential district and/or the mixed-use zoning district.
Therefore, by this provision, a homeowner could add onto their garage, add onto their
home or build another outbuilding, for example, without any zoning-related issues
coming into play. Provided, of course, that all setback and size requirements are met.
Property Tax Impact
Several residents have asked what would happen to their property taxes if their zoning
changed to mixed use. The Ramsey County Tax Assessor's office stated that:
"Zoning has no affect on property tax. Tax classifications are based on the current use
of the property, not on the zoning. The tax classification, along with the market value is
used to calculate taxes. If the current use is continued, the tax classification will not
change. So, zoning changes will not affect taxes."
Conclusion
State statute requires that the city revise the zoning map to MU to match the newly
adopted mixed-use classification on the comprehensive plan. Therefore, staff is
recommending the planning commission and city council revised the zoning map
accordingly.
RECOMMENDATION
Approve the rezoning of the property bounded by Larpenteur Avenue, Parkway Drive
and Highway 61 (Arcade Street) from R1 (single-dwelling residential) and Be (business
commercial) to MU (mixed use). This rezoning is based on Minnesota Statute 473.865
subdivision 3, requiring the city to bring the zoning of this property into conformance with
the adopted comprehensive land use plan classification.
REFERENCE
SITE DESCRIPTION
Site Size: 4.75 acres
Existing Uses: Seven single dwellings and one business (Bacchus Homes)
SURROUNDING LAND USES
North: The intersection of Parkway Drive and Highway 61 (Arcade Street). There are
single dwellings and town homes to the north/northwest
South: Larpenteur Avenue and Gustavus Adolphus Lutheran ehurch
East: Highway 61 and Round Lake in Phalen Park
West: Parkway Drive, single dwellings, town homes and a business office
PLANNING
Land Use Plan Designation: MU (mixed use)
Zoning: R1 and Be-existing; MU-proposed
p:CompplanlZoning Follow-up to 2030 PlanlRezoning to Mixed Use Plan Larpenteur and Arcade 210 te
Attachments:
1. Land Use Map
2. Zoning Map
~~ j
~'-l ~
~~I
~Q ~
~ 11\. ~
0"" 8
c..
as
~~
u
CD <(
en
::> c ~
'"C ;; 2i
Ul
C ~:!:::
as
....J
CD
'"C
.-
~
L-
as
a..
, c
l[):J
00
:::-ID~
co I c:ri
:;:;(0..........
~ C'\I .m
-c..........c
"w co tl> m
(1)+:;"'0:;::;
0:: c 'w ~
~~&~M
cnUJ>.Q)
cQ)+-,I'V'O
Q) 0:: .- u-
Ul <0
O.2:'C.2:'~- - Q)
:;: .- Q) 'w Q).!!l ~"iii u
o~Oc{/J~C'DE5 [
:::~~~;;~EE~ (()
~~~~Q)E~~E~~
~s~~~8-gc3 ~~8"
D III II
~
Q)~
a. ~
Ul U
~<(
~
Q)
~ ~
U Q)
<( U
Qi <(
a. Qi
.l!l a.
.c en
:J ~
q :J
OOm
~ ~
, l[) U
N <(
~
~ Q)
o a.
~ Ul
_:t:
C
:J
o
Attachment 1
___ _____31..
<D
"0
"-0
'"
M
o
'"
I'-
"
~"Cl
Q) 0 ~
_ 00
_.<::0
S'U ~ N
00
.0,"
.<:: ID
"'~
00:; ~
z~
o
z-<
IUOLd
o
G'85
o ~75
o 1)69
01865
Attachment 2
10~
11
<0
f
o
18[;4::]
na
!
!
A
t
PROPERTIES PROPOSED
TO BE 'REZONED TO
MIXED USE FROM SINGLE-DWELLING
RESIDENTIAL AND BUSINESS COMMERCIAL
::
ZONING MAP
MEMORANDUM
LOCATION:
DATE:
James Antonen, eity Manager
Tom Ekstrand, Senior Planner
DuWayne Konewko, Community Development and Parks Director
Rezoning from M1 (light manufacturing) to R1 (single dwelling
residential)
2255 Duluth Street
February 10, 2010
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
INTRODUCTION
On January 25,2010, the city council adopted the 2030 Comprehensive Plan. This is
the update of the city's comprehensive land use plan required of all metro area cities
every ten years. By approving this plan, the city council reestablished the long-range
land use guide for the city. State law requires that the city now revise our zoning maps
and zoning ordinance controls to be in conformance with the newly approved land use
classifications throughout the city.
The city has nine months (by October 25,2010) to make all necessary zoning map and
zoning ordinance changes to coincide with the land use policies and land use maps in
the approved 2030 Comprehensive Plan.
Proposal
One such rezoning would be for the property east of Menards at 2255 Duluth Street.
This property is developed with a residential home and residential outbuildings but is
zoned M1 (light manufacturing). The newly adopted land use plan classifies this parcel
now as low densitv residential, a classification compatible with single-dwelling
development.
State law requires that the city council change the zoning to R1 to match the low density
residential land use plan designation. Refer to the maps.
Request
Rezone 2255 Duluth Street from M1 to R1.
BACKGROUND
On December 9, 2009, the Metropolitan Council gave final approval to the 2030
Comprehensive Plan.
On January 25,2010, the city council adopted the 2030 eomprehensive Plan.
DISCUSSION
Statutory Requirement
Section 473.865 subdivision 3 of the Minnesota State Statutes requires that cities amend
their official zoning controls within nine months of their adopting their revised
comprehensive land use plan. As stated above, the city council has until October 25,
2010 to amend all applicable zoning maps and zoning ordinances.
Why the Proposed Revision to Residential?
During the planning commission's review of the land use plan amendments on August
19,2008, Mr. Gordon Anderson, the owner of 2255 Duluth Street requested that his
property be re-guided to residential since that is how his lot is developed. He objected to
the current M1 land use classification and zoning. The planning commission agreed with
Mr. Anderson, but also included the abutting parcel to the north to be re-guided to
residential as well. The council accepted these changes ahd adopted the 2030
Comprehensive Plan with that change.
Appropriateness of Zoning and Residential land Use Classifications
It is appropriate for 2255 Duluth to be rezoned to R1 based on its existing use as
residential property. The eountryside VW/Saab parcel to the north, however, is
developed with a commercial parking lot and is surrounded on three sides by
commercial development. This makes it unsuitable for rezoning to residential.
John Schmelz, owner of Countryside VW/Saab, objects to the re-guiding and rezoning of
his property to residential. His property has been zoned for his business and used
accordingly for many years and he would prefer it stay that way. Staff agrees and will be
bringing forward Mr. Schmelz's request to re-guide his parcel back to a commercial
classification.
Property Tax Impact
Staff asked the Ramsey County Tax Assessor's office what would happen to property
taxes if the zoning changes. The assessor's office replied:
"Zoning has no affect on the property tax. Tax classifications are based on the current
use of the property, not on the zoning. The tax classification, along with the market
value, is used to calculate taxes. If the current use is continued, the tax classification will
not change. So, zoning changes will not affect taxes."
Conclusion
State statute requires that the city revise the zoning map to R1 to match the newly
adopted low density residential land use classification. Staff is making this
recommendation for 2255 Duluth Street. As stated above, however, the eountryside
VW/Saab parking lot to the north should not be rezoned at this time. The city will be
rezoning the highway frontage properties from M1 to a commercial classification to
match the 2030 eomprehensive Plan in the upcoming months. Staff suggests waiting
for that process to consider the appropriate zoning for Mr. Schmelz's property.
2
In the mean time, staff will be initiating a land use plan amendment to change the
Countryside VW/Saab lot back from low density residential to a commercial
classification.
RECOMMENDATION
Approve the rezoning of 2255 Duluth Street from M1 (light manufacturing) to R1 (single
dwelling residential). This rezoning is based on Minnesota Statute 473.865 subdivision
3, requiring the city to bring the zoning of this property into conformance with the newly
adopted comprehensive land use plan classification.
3
REFERENCE
SITE DESCRIPTION
Site Size: 1.62 acres (.73 acres-2255 Duluth Street; .89 acres-VW lot)
Existing Uses: A single dwelling on the southerly lot and a parking lot on the northerly lot
SURROUNDING LAND USES
North: eountryside Volkswagen/Saab and a small strip of land owned by Menards
South: Single dwellings
East: Duluth Street and single dwellings and apartments.
West: Menards
PLANNING
Land Use Plan Designation: R1
Zoning: M1-existing; R1-proposed
p:Compplanlzoning follow-up to 2030 Planlrezoning to R1 East of Menards 2 10 te
Attachments:
1. Land Use Map
2. Zoning Map
3. Arial Photo
4
<D
"0
"-0
"'-
SQ ~ '"
~~~
~Q ~ 0
'"
"'.
~ ~ ~
~~ ~
tJ 8
0
c..
as
~
CD
en
::>
'"C
C
as
....J
c
CD
.......
C)
'"C
o
~
CD
..c:
en
~
Q) ~
U~ ~ ~
<( U Q)
l.... <( U
ID(i)L...<(
c.. l..... Q) I....
(/) U c.. Q)
~ <( 2 c..
C l..... .- tf)
-.. (]) c +-'
~ a.:J .-
l[) C
.,...:.l!lq:J
~~~~~
. 0 ' N <(
o . ~ I l....
:::::- CD cD 'II:"""" Q)
rn I __ . c..
:;:::; CD - 0 en
C . m 'II:"""" __
Q) C'\J :;::; ___ ._
""C -- C - C
.- - Q) (tl :J
(J) \u ._
<D+:i]2CQ
C (/) Q) .
0::: Q) Q) "'0 'II:""""
~:-Q 0::: "w c;
"w ~ >- Q) 0
C a:: :::: a:: .
Q) ~>.c.o_ em
o ~ Q) ~ ~.~ Q) c
:;: ~ 0 ~ Ul ~ (tl E 0
o C E cD => Q) ";:: E :g
-'Q) O'!>EtlQ)_-",
::::: 0 .:! ..c (J) E ::J > :;:::; I....
~ :;: al Cl.~ 0 -g ,~ ~ ~
~ 0 ~ I ~ u _ ~ _
0::0 III I
Q)
U
(tl
a.
U)
C
Q)
a.
o
D
"
'"
(i) 0 ~
+-' 0 g
(tl.r::N
5~.
> 0 ~
.0 ~
.r::.:g
"'E
.- ID
" u
z~
z-<
Attachment 1
SERVICE RD
~ ~
"'"" "'""
~
~
..--
~
COUNTY ROAD B
M
l{')
t-
'"
:r:
t-
::>
-'
::>
o
o
Twin Cities
Hmong
r1
Cl
m
~
r~
l~ %!
LELAND RD
I~ I.c=, Ql"" I n9h I ~ b:2-..L$'I~ I ;;:; .J t~
ZONING MAP
M
~
Attachment 2
Attachment 3
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT:
APPLICANT:
LOCATION:
DATE:
Jim Antonen, eity Manager
Tom Ekstrand, Senior Planner
DuWayne Konewko, Community Development and Parks Director
Preliminary Plat, Final Plat and Variances
Landmark Development of Minnesota
South of Labore Road and East of Arcade Street
February 10, 2010
TO:
FROM:
INTRODUCTION
Project Description
Nathan Fair, of Landmark Development of Minnesota, is requesting approval of a proposed
subdivision to develop eleven single-dwelling lots in a subdivision called Gervais Woods. The
majority of Gervais Woods would be located in the eity of Little eanada. The southerly 2.2 acres
would be located in Maplewood. All of the proposed eleven lots would be located in Little Canada
and each of those lots would have access to a proposed street also entirely within Little eanada.
The southerly part of the proposed south four lots would have back yards extending into the
Maplewood city limits. Refer to the plans.
Requests
The applicant is requesting the following city approvals:
1. A preliminary plat and final plat to create the proposed four lots that would be in Maplewood.
eity ordinance requires a preliminary and final plat to subdivide land creating more than three
lots.
2. Lot area variances for two of the proposed lots in Maplewood. City ordinance requires a
minimum of 10,000 square feet of lot area for a residential lot. Proposed Lot 2, Block 2 would
have an area of 16,929 square feet, but the part in Maplewood would be 2,378 square feet in
area requiring a lot area variance. Lot 5, Block 2 would have an area of 15,525 square feet,
but the part in Maplewood would have an area of only 7,758 square feet requiring a lot area
variance.
Note: Staff required the variance applications in order to account for the back yard areas of the
proposed southerly four lots in the City of Maplewood. These proposed lots in their entirety would,
however, meet all size requirements of the eities of Maplewood and Little eanada.
BACKGROUND
Late in 2008, a previous developer, Lauren Development eompany, proposed a similar subdivision
to the proposed one by Mr. Fair. That project was called Richie Place and had 16 lots proposed
with three in Maplewood. That proposal was approved by Little eanada, but the portion in
Maplewood was denied by the Maplewood City Council. Later, the property went into foreclosure
and Richie Place was not developed. Landmark Development, subsequently, purchased the land.
Refer to the attached Richie Place subdivision plan.
On January 26, 2009, the city council tabled action on Richie Place and directed staff to research
past council actions to see if an earlier city council had taken any pertinent action on the status of
this property. The council gave six months for staff to report back to them.
June 22, 2009: The Maplewood City eouncil moved to deny the subdivision request for that part
of Richie Place in Maplewood based on the following reasons:
. The preliminary plat approved for the Little eanada portion of the Richie Place development
has lapsed and any new development for that area would require a new application that would
be subject to Little eanada's revised single dwelling zoning requirements.
. The Maplewood portion of the Richie Place project was to receive all of its access and utilities
from Little eanada and was inherently dependent on the Little eanada portion of the proposed
development. Since preliminary plat approval no longer exists in Little eanada it deems the
Maplewood portion of the development inaccessible.
City of Little Canada Approval
The eity of Little eanada approved the Gervais Woods Preliminary Plat on January 27,2010. A
Final Plat has yet to be submitted to the eity of Little Canada. Refer to the Little Canada Council
Minutes dated January 27, 2010.
DISCUSSION
Subdivision Considerations
Preliminarv and Final Plat
The city typically reviews a preliminary plat first. When conditions of the preliminary plat have been
met, a developer then applies for their final plat approval. Occasionally, when the proposal is small
and not too involved, the city has reviewed the final plat along with the preliminary plat request.
Such is this case.
Staff supports the approval of the final plat with the preliminary plat in this instance since the
majority of the development is in Little Canada and the Maplewood portion a much smaller part of
the proposal. Staff will ensure that all platting requirements are met during our monitoring of the
development portion within Maplewood.
Lot Size Variances
The proposed lots would meet all size, area and setback requirements. The only deficiencies are
with the Maplewood portions of lots two and five, block two which have less than 10,000 square
feet of lot area. This minor technicality creates the need for the lot area variances for those two
proposed parcels. In actuality, though, these two lots will have enough area overall to meet Little
eanada's and Maplewood's ordinances.
2
Shoreland Overlay District
The majority of the Maplewood land proposed for subdivision is within the Shoreland Overlay
District. The city has classified Gervais Lake, to the southwest, as a Class II water which requires
a minimum lot width of 75 feet for lots with sanitary sewer and a minimum lot size of 10,000 square
feet for lots without water frontage. The city has classified Kohlman Lake, to the southeast, as a
Class IV water which requires a minimum lot width of 75 feet for lots with sanitary sewer and a
minimum lot size of 15,000 square feet for lots without water frontage. Under the Shoreland
Overlay regulations, the maximum amount of impervious surface allowed for the proposed lots
would be 30 percent. The proposed lots would meet and exceed all of the Shoreland Overlay
District lot requirements.
Utilities
Water and sanitary sewer will be located within the proposed street right-of-way which is
completely within the City of Little eanada. The developer is working with the eities of Little
eanada and Maplewood to provide these utilities.
Density
The proposed homes on the southerly four lots would be located in the eity of Little Canada. It
makes sense, therefore, that density would be calculated from the Little Canada acreage and not
Maplewood. However, if the density was allotted to the 1.7 net acres of land in Maplewood (net
acreage subtracts out the wetland buffer area), the city would allow a density range of 2.6 to 6
units per net acre or a range of 4 units to 10 units. Density requirements would be met in either
approach of density calculation.
OutlotC
The applicant has been negotiating to sell Outlot e to Mr. and Ms. Gores, the abutting property
owners to the west. This would be ideal since the city would not want to approve the creation of
Outlot C if it were left as a stand-alone, landlocked parcel.
There is no way to guarantee that Outlot C would be purchased by Mr. and Ms. Gores, although,
staff understands this is their intention. By the recording of the subdivision, Outlot C would be
created as an individual parcel. The city would have to trust that the combination of Outlot e would
take place after the fact.
If Outlot C was not combined with an abutting parcel, it could have this effect:
. It could go tax forfeit, in which case, Ramsey County would offer it to the city to acquire. The
cost would be payment of back taxes and recording fees.
. It could be purchased by another individual in hopes of development. The eity of Maplewood
would not allow construction on an outlot unless it is replatted as a buildable parcel or if the
owner gets a conditional use permit.
If Outlot C was combined with Mr. and Ms. Gores lot, they:
. eould build an accessory building on the outlot if they met all City of Maplewood requirements
for accessory buildings and they obtained a conditional use permit to build on an outlot.
3
Buildino Permits and Accessory Buildinos-Jurisdiction
Since the future homes on the four southerly lots are proposed to be built in Little Canada, building
permits for those homes must be obtained from Little eanada. Any construction in the back yards
that are in Maplewood must have building permits from the eity of Maplewood. However, staff
feels that the accessory building development requirements for Little eanada should apply, not
Maplewood's.
Accessory building requirements differ between Little Canada and Maplewood. Little eanada
allows a maximum of 1,000 square feet of accessory building area. Maplewood bases allowed
accessory building area on lot size and this would permit a range of (for a combination of attached
and detached buildings) 1,480 square feet to 1,850 square feet of accessory building area. Staff
feels the city should apply Little eanada's requirements for uniformity throughout this development.
With that thought in mind, all back yard uses, garden sheds, swimming pools, etc, shall be subject
to the requirements of Little Canada for consistency and uniformity.
The exception to following Little eanada's criteria is that Outlot C should be subject to the City of
Maplewood's requirements since Outlot C would be entirely in Maplewood.
eode Enforcement
The question has come up as to who will answer code enforcement calls to the southerly lots with
their back yards in Maplewood. Staff's feeling is that this should be governed by Little eanada
much like Little Canada would respond to police, fire and ambulance calls.
Department Comments
Enoineerino eomments
Staff engineer Steve Kummer has prepared a report that discusses grading, drainage and utilities.
Please refer to Mr. Kummer's report. Mr. Kummer finds that the applicant's proposed plans are
basically well designed with some suggested modifications based on Maplewood's requirements.
Environmental eomments
Environmental planner Shann Finwall and natural resources coordinator Ginny Gaynor have
prepared a report that discusses tree preservation, slopes, wetland buffers and rain gardens.
Please refer to their report.
Fire Department eomments
Assistant Fire Chief, Butch Gervais, stated that if the houses have Maplewood addresses,
Maplewood would provide fire and medical services. If the houses have Little eanada addresses,
Little Canada would provide fire service and Allina would provide medical service.
Police Department Comments
Chief Thomalla stated that if the homes are in Little Canada, police service would be provided by
the Ramsey County Sheriff's Department as is Little eanada.
4
Historic Preservation Commission
Previously, during the Richie Place review, Historic Preservation Commission member Ron
eockriel spoke at the November 18, 2008 planning commission meeting. Mr. eockriel 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.
Citizen Comments
Staff surveyed the surrounding property owners (see Citizen Comments). The nearest Maplewood
resident, Mr. and Ms. Gores at 2870 Arcade Street, had the following comments:
. We request that there be a condition that will limit the grading and creation of any accessory
buildings in the back yard of Lot 5, Block 2 next to our property.
. Leave as much trees as possible.
. If there are any revisions to the plans, we would like to be included in seeing those changes.
. We would like to see an evergreen buffer provided between our home and the proposed home
on Lot 5, Block 2.
Mr. and Ms. Gores have requested an evergreen buffer to screen the house proposed on Lot 5
from their house. Staff recommends that the applicant provide five six-foot-tall evergreen trees to
accomplish this. Staff does not feel that the city should prohibit the construction of accessory
buildings on Lot 5. The Little eanada accessory building rules, however, should be followed for
consistency throughout this development.
RECOMMENDATIONS
1. Approve the preliminary and final plat for Landmark Development of Minnesota for the
proposed eleven lot Gervais Woods single-family subdivision located south of Labore Road
and East of Arcade Street. This subdivision is subject to the following conditions:
a. Comply with the conditions of approval in the report by Shann Finwall, the Maplewood
Environmental Planner, and Ginny Gaynor, Natural Resources Coordinator dated
January 27,2010.
b. Comply with the conditions of approval in the engineering report by Steve Kummer,
Maplewood Staff Engineer, dated February 8, 2010.
c. Approval of a final plat for Gervais Woods from t~e City of Little Canada.
d. The Cities of Little Canada and Maplewood shall enter into an agreement as to the
provision of police, fire, code enforcement services and utilities. It is the
recommendation of the Maplewood city council that Little eanada provide these
services since the proposed four southerly homes would be addressed in Little Canada.
5
e. The accessory building, swimming pool and any other "back yard" construction
requirements of Little Canada shall apply to the Maplewood portions of the southerly
four parcels. However, any construction in the City of Maplewood shall require that the
builder obtain a building permit from the eity of Maplewood if required by code.
f. The proposed homes on the southerly four lots of this subdivision shall be constructed
in the footprints shown on the applicant's plans. This would require that they be located
in the eity of Little Canada.
2. Adoption of the attached resolution approving lot area variances for Lot 2, Block 2 with 2,378
square feet in Maplewood and Lot 5, Block 2 with 7,758 square feet in Maplewood. Approval is
based on the following findings:
a. Strict enforcement would cause undue hardship because of circumstances unique to the
property under consideration. This situation is unique because credit for lot area can't be
given for land outside of Maplewood. If the entire site was in Maplewood, the question of
lot area would not be an issue.
b. The variance would be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the ordinance since the
proposed southerly lots would have more lot area than is required by both the Cities of Little
eanada and Maplewood.
Approval of this variance is conditioned upon the applicant providing five, six-foot-tall
evergreen trees between the home on proposed Lot 5, Block 2 and the neighboring house
at 2870 Arcade Street.
6
CITIZEN COMMENTS
Staff surveyed the 30 surrounding property owners within 500 feet of this proposed development.
This included those property owners within Little Canada. Of the three replies, one was opposed
and two offered comments.
Opposed
. We would like to see the property stay as is. (Neil and Ann Sullivan, 985 Kohlman Lane
East)
. Some concerns: Archaeology of stub road site and vicinity. If the pond is a non
calcareous fen. Presence of northern cricket frogs. (DNR?) help buckthorn removal.
DRH. (David Himmelbach, 2970 Labore Road)
Miscellaneous Comments
a. Comments from Mr. and Ms. Gores at 2870 Arcade Street:
. We request that there be a condition that will limit the grading and creation of any accessory
buildings in the back yard of Lot 5, Block 2 next to our property.
. Leave as much trees as possible.
. If there are any revisions to the plans, we would like to be included in seeing those changes.
. We would like to see an evergreen buffer provided between our home and the proposed home
on Lot 5, Block 2.
7
REFERENCE INFORMATION
SITE DESCRIPTION
Existing Use: Undeveloped
SURROUNDING LAND USES
North:
East:
South:
West:
Undeveloped Lot in Little eanada
Kohlman Marsh Open Space
Kohlman Marsh Open Space
Single-Family House and Neighborhood Preserve
PLANNING
Land Use:
Zoning:
Low Density Residential
R1 - Single Dwelling
Code Requirement
Section 34-8 (f)(1 )(3) of the subdivision ordinance and Section 44-106 of the zoning ordinance
requires a minimum of 10,000 square feet for single-dwelling residential lots.
Findings for Variance Approval
State law requires that the city council make the following findings to approve a variance from the
zoning code:
1. Strict enforcement would cause undue hardship because of circumstances unique to the
property under consideration.
2. The variance would be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the ordinance.
"Undue hardship", as used in granting of a variance, means the property in question cannot be put
to a reasonable use if used under conditions allowed by the official controls. The plight of the
landowner is due to circumstances unique to his property, not created by the landowner, and the
variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. Economic considerations
alone shall not constitute an undue hardship if reasonable use for the property exists under the
terms of the city code.
Application Date
The city received the complete applications for the proposed preliminary plat and variances on
January 11, 2010. Minnesota State Statute 15.99, states that the city shall review and decide on
proposals within 60 days, however, the city may extend this review period an additional 60 days.
Based on the January 11 date of determining that the applications are complete, the 60 day
deadline for action by the city council is March 12, 2010.
8
P:sec4IGervais WoodslGervais Woods Preliminary Plat and Variances 2 10 te
Attachments:
1. Zoning/Location Map
2. Land Use Plan Map
3. Shoreland Overiay Map
4. Proposed Subdivision Plan
5. Applicant's Written Narrative dated February 4,2010
6. 2008 Richie Place Subdivision Proposal
7. Engineering Report dated February 8,2010
8. Environmental Report dated January 27, 2010
9. City of Little Canada City Council Minutes dated January 27,2010
10. Variance Resolution
11. Plans date-stamped February 2, 2010
9
Attachment 1
THE PORTION OF THE PROPOSED
GERVAIS WOODS SUBDIVISION
WHICH IS IN MAPLEWOOD
ZONING I LOCATION MAP
o
~Q ~
~~~
;i ~ ~~
~~ ~
~'-l ~
~ ".. ~
0." 8
c..
m
~
CD
1m
CD::>
~'"C
me
....Jm
c...J
m
E
.......
..c
~
Attachment 2
~
ID
~
U
<(
~
~
u
<(
~
,
w
~
u
<(
~
ID
a.
Ul
:!:::
e
:J
+2-
~'C
f9.-
J)~
o
o
lXl_
- ID
c: ca ~
IDe a.
.~ ~:2 (f)
-- L...::J C
r.n Q) :!: ~ Q.)
a.
o
"
"Cl
~ 0
ID 0
-.r::
SCtl ~
Om
.og
.r::N
"''''
.- ID
., c
Z"l
z
o
x
Attachment 3
SHORELAND OVERLAY MAP
~
~
o
~
"
, I'll
IIil!lll!!ll'
III'" !;!11,1
fJ)
C
o
02:
c:s;:Q
wfJ)fJ)
fJ)-S;
0<(-
a.>c
00::00
O::W;:)
a.C)fJ)
~
~
III
'I'
If I
'I'
1,1
Attachment 4
V10S3NNIr,1 'VaVNVO 31illl
saOOM SlVA1BEl
!
"!' I! II I
l!~::
!'I' -"~~ .
.
OOO91llt{~!i6) 1.8EW'NI\I'Yl.'aJ.\iM "'\lMG\fmlBIilllOSMt
'~NI '.LSlnOE:ll:l38-3l:lH.LVS
011 'lN3r.JdQ131\3Q *,Vr.JONVl
133HS 31.111
I
~:
B~ 1 ~i
=-~.=\~~-~~=~ ~~,~~~~~:=:::~~:~-~ ~
\ \ ....t
-l--'--\--\-\;-r---fiUl\" -:---: ur-
I ,'I I' . ~ I : I I <
: \ ',: I ~:: \
III I I ~ 1 I I
: 't \ \ \ : 111 I 1 I
\ \, : : ~ "\..l: :
: \ \: \:i - : --r----T-------
\-------- ---r--rl--~--r- ~! 1 \
! :! \ ! ~ I: \
, 1-/ / I I I ~.\..: I I
: /) \ l Ii : --:------1-------
~--- ---7"---7'---\-----1- ~ l: :
1 I (/' i i 1\\I! I
( I J I l II I I I
,,------- \ i . i! I \ 1,'.-l --L----~---. --:
f r- -----:----t------i-----i-- ~; \ \ .......
,/- r,r-- 1 t... ....,~ \ \ 0 ~ i \ I C 0
:q I,,", \ \ ~ I I \ <C
:// 1",-,",,\\\ \~l\ IZO
/ J 1 ',.., \ \ \ \ ~...\ _J_____\_ 0
, I ( - "I -------t--\---t-,--mt- \ ~\ \ \' <0 :>: I.
I I, 1 \ \ \ \ \ U \ 1 \ >:
\ \, '''""''\;'<1 \ \ \ \ \ ~ \ \ \ W W' I
\ 1 \. <1tNl)~'-' ) \ i \ \ ~ \ \ \ \ -I ~ ! !
\"",\'",'" L----0L--1~-..L--4------~-- \ ,,\ --L-----~ I- __ J ,
,.----..-.-.----J-.,---- ,,/,' I I U: 1 : I- .....! I
~ I. 1;\, ~// ./ 1 I e ~l: I r - :E! /
,,- It 1..____ , I ,"-.1' I ,...J ".
'\, ------j;r--:- //" / j # 1 f I '--,:,r"""J~rl'''''''''''''1<
\ I 1 __~/ "B H I L ....._
'-________..__"'---- l______-J.I
11\ \
,
,
"
\ ,*,
'''''.('''
,
---
!
, ,
i
w
-'
OJ
~
~
Q
~
~
"
i'
,I
" ,
'I i
I, ~
ll" !
i
!~ i
~~~ In
llq
~~~ 1\
h~ t.i
II:
i~l
=~~
, I
, ,
~ .
j ".
~ l~.i J
Idl ~I
~!~1~~8
l'>"
~
"
I. .
El,
~
/)
m
~
~
z
:'i
n.
II
1111
>:i~1ll~
"'I
~:;:"9
)!!~~~
I'"
~:;!i:I
"",
lil!
,I"
i5F~l'i
'I'"~
Ii!'
~~ !lE
'Ill.
Mil
!Ii"
I.,ll
~
~
'""<'I/S
Attachment 5
!P
#
"!'
?\..~
SATHRE-BERGQUIST" INC.
150 SOUTH BROADWAY, WAYZATA, MINNESOTA,
55391 (952) 476-6000 FAX (952) 476-0104
Date: February 4, 2010
Project: Gervais Woods
Location: Little. Canada I Maplewood, Minnesota
Prepared For: Landmark Development, LLC
Subject: Narrative for Variance Request - Maplewood Lots
This narrative is to address the lot area requirements for the portion of the proposed four lots that
will be within the City of Maplewood. The City of Maplewood current zoning map shows the
property as single dwelling residential and the current land use map shows low density residential.
The R-1 Residence District (single dwelling) requires lots have a minimum of 75 feet in width and
10,000 sf in area.
The proposed Gervais Woods development is a unique project. It is a subdivision creating eleven
lots that all access public streets located in Little Canada. We have worked with the adjoining
landowners, the City of Little Canada and the City of Maplewood to create an attractive single
family neighborhood. Through this work the site design has been refined to help minimize the
required grading and lessen the impact to the existing tree cover. We believe the lots within this
proposed subdivision will be very marketable; however, four of these lots have area in both Little
Canada and Maplewood. Based on the preliminary plat, these lots are Lot 2, Lot 3, Lot 4, and Lot
5 of Block 2. The areas of these lots are 16,929 sf, 29,551 sf, 36,679 sf, and 15,525 sf,
respectively. The areas of the lots located within Maplewood are 2,387 sf, 20,730 Sf, 29,475 sf,
and 7,758 sf. Additionally these four lots would have access to a proposed public street,
Woodland Drive, within the City of Little Canada. (please see the proposed preliminary plat).
Therefore the area of two of the lots (lots 2 and 5) would not meet the City of Maplewood
requirements for 10,000 sf minimum area and none of the four would have direct access to a
public street within Maplewood, however as stated above, the overall lot areas do meet the City of
Maplewood minimum lot area requirement for the R-1 classification and each lot does have public
street access within the City of Little Canada. Since each lot overall area meets the required
minimum area and has access to a public street by sharing property within the City of Little
Canada we believe that we are meeting the intent of the ordinance in a unique manner. Therefore
based on discussions with City Staff, a lot area variance for two of the lots and an access variance
for each of the four lots would be a solution to this issue. Due to the unique circumstances we
would like to request that the City of Maplewood grant the necessary variances for these four lots
as follows:
Variance to allow minimum lot area of 2,387 sf for Lot 2 Block 2.
Variance to not require public access for Lot 2 Block 2.
Variance to allow minimum lot area of N/A for Lot 3 Block 2.
Variance to not require public access for Lot 3 Block 2.
Variance to allow minimum lot area of N/A sf for Lot 4 Biock 2.
Variance to not require public access for Lot 4 Block 2.
Variance to allow minimum lot area of 7,758 sf for Lot 5 Block 2.
Variance to not require public access for Lot 5 Block 2.
Attachment 6
-
8UIUlIHG .EnlACK. . DtIUUH1'
DGTAIl.ICtTY OF .......L&WOOD)I
-
PROPERTY DElICRlP11DNl
--....----....-
-.
-....------~-
=~a=~?s"'=
6<_._,,___"'__"_11__
--....--...-..-..--.........
.........-....-----...-
JIUII............__..............___
------........-......-.....
..---....-----...........
...-...............---..."'.......-
-
--..-
-....---..--..-..
-...-..--.......-...........
-.......-....-..........-............."""...
-....-.........-----..-
.._.._.,_........_.._11_.
--.....--...-..-..--.........
.........-....-----...-
..................._.............111...._
-----..-..-...........-
......."'...,...._........._Il_.'_.._
-.............--.....___,._"
_U__........_I.............~.
.......-.-..-
r---'
r
il
]
I'" !I
g 'I
~ II
~.._.._..~~
-...--
-.
-...-------~_..
-...-..--...-..............
-.......-....-.........-........-........
-....-.........------
::.::"''':::::.:::::-:='':':'==:-'':=:':.. ,..-
.........-.......------..-
=::.'=::"..=.."::"'.::::.-.::~::.;
-
~_"__I..-"_-
--....--....--..-..
_u,____.._
-.....................-................--
_..._-_...._--~--
.._.._.,__.._...__............
-.....-.-..-...--......-
-..............-"..-"""".........-
.........-...01....-........----
--..-.q----..---...
_..._...__tIIZI...,..............._...
--
-_.--
__.....I..-...ct_~
='':-01_1?0o.._.._.._..._..
-_..........._..."...-...~-..
_oI..__....._...q__.......
...-.-.....-..........---
..__,,_........._......_01.._..."
-...""--...-...--.......-...
"'........-..-...q-........-.....
-...,........-
=~~_.........-
-
!
PRl!PARBD FORI
r:...--Z00,~LW.
~-""
l-._III_
{III}__
PRBPAJIBl....1
==_~lIlI
--.-
_m
(7l1l)""""
PREUMINARY PLAT OF: RICHIE PLACE
LOCATED IN PART OF THE SW 1/4 OF THE HW 1/4 AND PART OF GOY. LOT
, OF SECTION'" T28~ RZZW, RAMBEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA.
PIID'AllDtB'h
---
---
_m
--.-
""'--
2008 PROPOSAL
I
i
i
! i
i I
i !
L_ '_~M_j
-
_n_.._._"UII.trr_
--....,
-_lIE
-.
-.
c:lTY (g .lCAPUrDOD
.
.
.
.
B
_____MIM)
-------
_ __loW...
-- ---
-.--.-- ---
...-"'--... --
......----
-- --
--
--
----
-----
~-_..-
'fr
N
Attachment 7
Maplewood Engineering Comments - Gervais Woods Development
2-8-10
Page 1 of 4
EnQineerinQ Plan Review - Supplemental Narrative and Comments
PROJECT:
PROJECT NO:
COMMENTS BY:
Gervais Woods
10-02
Steve Kummer, P.E. - Staff Engineer
DATE:
2-8-10
PLAN SET:
City Submittal Set: Civil Drawings by Sathre-Bergquist
Dated 11-12-09
COMPS:
Drainage Computations by Sathre-Bergquist
Dated 11-18-09 and revised 1-12-10
Summary
Landmark Development, LLC is proposing to develop a piece of property into single-family
housing within the eity of Little Canada south of Labore Rd and north of Kohlman Marsh. The
most southerly portion of the property is within the City of Maplewood. The topography of the
land is such that all proposed runoff from the property will drain into Maplewood. The new
development will connect to a new sanitary sewer constructed by the City of Maplewood as part
of the Kohlman Lane project in 2008.
Storm Water Runoff Comments
The developer is proposing several means for controlling and treating storm water runoff when
the site is developed. The developer is proposing two rain water gardens and a traditional
dead-storage storm water treatment pond to meet storm water rate control, treatment and
infiltration requirements.
Comments
Based on the storm water computations, the site storm water facilities meet or exceed the
following:
. The proposed rain gardens provide an overall volume reduction on the site of 6, 480
cubic feet which exceeds their required volume reduction of 5, 750 cubic feet. The
required volume reduction is based on the standard 1.0 inch of runoff from all proposed
impervious surfaces.
. All proposed storm water facilities provide adequate runoff rate control for the 2-year, 10-
year and 100-year/24-hour storm events. The requirement is that all runoff rates from
the site are controlled to existing conditions for the proposed site. This plan meets those
requirements.
. All proposed storm water facilities meet Total Suspended Solids and Total Phosphorus
treatment requirements for the proposed site. The dead storage pond is designed to the
2.5-inches of dead storage requirement and both rain gardens provide adequate volume
for infiltration.
Maplewood Engineering Comments - Gervais Woods Development
2-8-10
Page 2 of 4
The applicant shall comply with the following requirements:
1) The applicant shall propose a planting/seeding plan for the required infiltration basins,
which includes construction staging notes. The applicant may consult the City Naturalist
for infiltration basin and rain water garden design.
2) The applicant shall put up an escrow or letter of credit for 100% of the cost of building
proposed infiltration measures and shall contact city staff 48 hours prior to construction
of the rain water gardens. Care must be taken to avoid compaction of bottom area in
order to avoid losing the infiltration characteristics of the soil. If the rainwater garden or
infiltration basins do not perform as designed, it is the responsibility of the applicant's
engineer and/or contractor to correct the problem. The city will withhold all escrow
monies, and may coordinate with the city building department to withhold certificate of
occupancies for buildings on the development site, until the proper functioning of the
rainwater garden and/or infiltration basin is restored.
3) Who is responsible for maintaining the pond and rain water gardens? A maintenance
agreement between the City of Maplewood and the entity or organization responsible for
maintaining the ponding areas is required.
Wetlands, Construction Site Erosion eontrol, Gradina and DrainaQe
The development's storm water runoff will drain into the Kohlman Marsh wetland to the south.
No direct impacts to the wetland or buffer impacts are proposed as part of this project. The final
grading plan adequately addresses possible flows to neighboring properties. The applicant
proposes to contain a majority of the site runoff in the proposed storm sewer system and storm
water treatment facilities.
Comments
1) The applicant's construction site erosion control plan does not adequately address
construction staging or proper sediment and erosion control measures. Due to the
relative steepness of the site, the applicant shall provide an interim construction site
erosion control plan in order to address probable impacts to the Kohlman Marsh and
to other properties surrounding this site. The applicant must provide for adequate
erosion control checks.
2) The applicant's designated contractor and engineer shall meet with Maplewood
Engineering staff as a condition of the grading permit due to the relative
steepness of the site and the potential for negative impacts on the downstream
Kohlman Marsh and other properties in the vicinity. The applicant shall have
prepared a proposed staging plan for clearing, grubbing, grading and setting of
erosion control measures on this site for review. No construction is allowed to
commence without a meeting with city personnel and an adequate staging plan
for the site.
Maplewood Engineering eomments - Gervais Woods Development
2-8-10
Page 3 of 4
3) The applicant shall insure that the interim and final grading of the proposed
improvements to the site does not increase flows or cause sedimentation onto
adjacent properties.
4) The applicant shall show final stabilization activities including erosion control
blanketing, turf establishment, sod areas and seed mix areas. If the houses are
going to be built after final stabilization of the site mass grading, then each home site
developer shall submit a discrete erosion control plan.
5) All retaining walls extending into Maplewood over 4 feet in height shall be engineered
and reviewed by the Maplewood Building Department. A separate permit is required
for these structures.
6) Construction activities related to this development plan shall not occur on adjacent
properties without the permission of the neighboring property owners or agencies.
The applicant shall show temporary construction easements for any grading or
construction activity that will occur on adjacent property (i. e. western and eastern
stubs of Woodland Drive; pipe construction of FES outfall to Kohlman Marsh). All
temporary easements must be obtained prior to construction.
7) The applicant shall obtain permanent easements for construction of the rain gardens,
pond and off-street storm sewers. Installation of storm structures OS1 and A 1 (with
associated outfall protection) shall not encroach on the Kohlman Marsh (county
parkland) property without written permission from the landowner. All permanent
easements must be obtained prior to construction.
Sanitarv Sewer and Water Servuce
1) Applicant shall coordinate all sanitary sewer and water main connections with the City of
Little Canada.
2) No private sanitary sewer and water connections are allowed until the sanitary sewer
main connection to the Kohlman Lane stub is completed.
3) As part of this development project, the applicant shall consider coordinating with the
City of Little Canada the extension of the Woodland Drive watermain about 600 feet to
the east to connect to the Kohlman Lane stub. The connection will provide a looped
system from Keller Parkway north to Kohlman Lane and Labore Road.
Miscellanous
The applicant shall coordinate tree removals and replacements and wetland ordinance
requirements with Maplewood environmental planner ShaM Finwall at (651) 249-2304.
Attachment 8
Environmental Review
Project: Gervais Woods Subdivision
Date of Plans Reviewed: November 12, 2009
Date of Review: January 27, 2010
Reviewers: Shann Finwall, Environmental Planner
(651) 249-2304; shann.finwall@ci.maplewood.mn.us
Ginny Gaynor, Natural Resources Coordinator
(651) 249-2416, virqinia.qavnor@ci.maplewood.mn.us
Background: The Gervais Woods Subdivision proposes to subdivide a parcel of land
lying south of Labore Road in Little eanada and north of Kohlman Marsh Open Space in
Maplewood. Only the southern one-half of four of the proposed 11 lots will be located
within Maplewood, with a majority of the subdivision being developed in Little Canada.
A. Tree Preservation Ordinance: Maplewood's tree preservation ordinance
describes a significant tree as a hardwood tree with a minimum of 6 inches in
diameter, an evergreen tree with a minimum of 8 inches in diameter, and a
softwood tree with a minimum of 12 inches in diameter.
The ordinance requires any significant tree removed to be replaced based on a
tree mitigation calculation. The calculation takes into account the size of a tree
and bases replacement on that size. In essence, the ordinance requires an
applicant to plant a greater amount of smaller replacement trees because they
removed a significant number of large trees.
Tree Removal and Required Replacement:
The Gervais Woods' tree plan indicates that there are 1735.5 caliper inches of
significant trees on the site (322 trees). While there is no building proposed on
the Maplewood portion of the development, the applicant does propose grading
on the south half of Lots 2 and 3, Block 2, to accommodate for a drainage pond
and rainwater garden. With the grading the applicant will remove 235 caliper
inches of significant trees (28 trees or 9 percent). Following is the city's tree
replacement calculation for this tree removal:
Tree replacement is based on the following calculation:
[(A1B - 0.20) x e] x A = D
Legend
Gervais Woods Total
A = Total Diameter Inches of Significant Trees Lost
B = Total Diameter Inches of Significant Trees on Site
e = Tree Replacement Constant (1.5)
D = Replacement Trees (Number of Caliper Inches)
235.0
1735.5
1.5
-15.17 (0)
1
Gervais Woods ealculation: 235/1735.5 - .20 x 1.5 x 235 = -15.17 (0) Inches
Based on this calculation the applicant is not required to replace any trees which
were removed on the site. However, it should be noted that the applicant is
proposing to remove five significant trees within the adjacent Ramsey eounty
Open Space, very close to the subdivision property line. The species of these
trees are ash, box elder, and elm and range in size from 7.5 to 35 caliper inches.
The tree plan calls these trees out as being in poor condition. The applicant
should submit a health report from certified forester which clarifies why these
trees are deemed unhealthy and why they need to be removed. In addition, the
applicant should be required to replace all five of these trees based on a
calculation of one replacement tree for one tree removed at a minimum. With
this requirement in place, the applicant would be required to replace a minimum
of five trees on the Maplewood portion of the development.
Tree Replacement Proposal: The landscape plan for the proposed rainwater
garden (garden no. 2) calls for two Hackberry trees to be planted (2.5 caliper inch
trees).
Tree Preservation Recommendations:
1. The applicant must submit a health report from a certified forester on the
trees within the Ramsey County Open Space site which are proposed for
removal. The report must clarify why the trees are deemed unhealthy
and why they need to be removed.
2. There are two 2.5 deciduous trees proposed on Maplewood's portion of
the development. The applicant is required to replace five trees.
Therefore, the applicant must submit a revised landscaping plan that
shows three additional trees that are 2.5 caliper inches in size to be
planted on disturbed areas of the Maplewood portion of the development.
Alternatively, the applicant may add additional shrub plantings to equal
the three replacement trees as per the city's tree replacement policy.
B. Slopes: The environmental protection ordinance regulates development on
slopes. The ordinance applies to slopes 12 percent or greater which encompass
at least 200 feet in length (top to bottom) by 500 feet in width (side to side).
There is a slope that averages 20 percent grade which runs the entire width of
the southern half of Maplewood's portion of the development. Grading for the
rainwater garden located on the southern half of Lot 3 encroaches onto this
slope. The following regulations would apply to the development of Lot 3 in
relation to the slope:
Development on a slope in excess of 12 percent must meet the following
conditions:
1. Controls exist uphill to ensure structures, or streets would be struck by
falling rock, mud, sediment from erosion, uprooted trees or other
materials.
2
2. The city engineer may require the applicant to provide a soils engineer to
certify the stability of potentially unstable slopes.
Slope Recommendations:
1. The city's engineering department must review and approve of the
location and construction method of the rainwater garden proposed to be
constructed on the slope.
C. Wetland Ordinance: There is a Manage B wetland located on the west side of
the development, within the Ramsey County Open Space. The city's wetland
ordinance requires a 75-foot buffer around a Manage B wetland.
Grading Plan: The grading plan shows that the development will maintain the
required 75-foot buffer with the grading of the drainage pond and rainwater
garden.
Wetland Recommendations:
1. Prior to approval of a grading permit the applicant shall install city
approved wetland signs at the edge of the wetland buffer that specify that
no building, mowing, cutting, grading, filling or dumping be allowed within
the easement. These signs must be placed every 100-feet along the
edge of the 75-foot wetland buffer, or at every property line, whichever is
closer.
D. Rainwater Garden Plantinqs (Garden #2):
Our engineers will evaluate the engineering aspects of the rainwater garden.
The comments here only address the soil mix, planting design, and successful
establishment of plants.
Protection from deer: There is intense deer browsing in this neighborhood and
without protection from deer for the first few years, it is doubtful that
establishment of trees, shrubs, or perennials will be successful. Temporary
protection for the first two years or more will be needed.
Planting Design: This is a very large garden and the design uses only nine
species. While large patches of a single species are very effective design-wise,
seasonal interest would be greatly enhanced if four to eight more species were
added to the garden. Because the plants are massed and only use flowers, this
garden is not designed as a low maintenance garden. The city needs to ensure
the owner or association maintaining the garden understands this. If they
expected a low-maintenance garden we would ,want to see addition of sedges,
grasses, andlor shrubs, and mixing of species (not massing) in portion of the
garden. Please confirm that the association understands the maintenance level
required. Finally, the designer may want to consider putting taller species near
the wall to break up the retaining wall visually. Because the wall is so high, I
would not expect this to affect the view of the garden from above.
3
Species Selection: The species black-eyed Susan is a short-lived perennial and
can be expected to die out after three years. Thus, unless the owner or
association maintaining the garden has plans to replant these sections every
three to four years, this species should not be used for mass planting (this is not
true for the cultivar 'Goldsturm'). Red cardinal flower is also a short-lived species
and would not be expected to do well long-term as a mass planting. These two
species are wonderful when mixed with other plants or planted in very small
patches here and there.
Soil mix: We do not recommend the use of shredded hardwood mulch in the soil
mix and suggest changing that to 15% clean compost.
Rainwater Garden Recommendations (Garden #2):
1. Provide plan for protecting newly planted vegetation from deer, or indicate
plans to ensure establishment in this area with a high deer population.
2. Provide confirmation that owner or association understands the garden is
not a low-maintenance garden, or amend design so it is low maintenance.
3. Add four to eight additional species to the garden (not required but
strongly recommended).
4. ehange large blocks of black-eyed Susan and red Cardinal flower to
longer-lived species (or provide confirmation that owner understands
these will likely need to be replanted).
5. Replace the hardwood mulch in the soil mix with clean compost.
4
MINUTES
ANNOUNCE-
MENTS
PRELIMINARY
PLAT-
GERVAIS
Attachment 9
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING
CITY COUNCIL
LITTLE CANADA, MINNESOTA
JANUARY 27, 2010
Pursuant to due call and notice thereof a regular meeting of the City
Council of Litt]e Canada, Minnesota was convened on the 27th day of
January, 20]0 in the Council Chambers of the City Center located at 5]5
Little Canada Road in said City.
Mayor Bill Blesener called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. and the
following members of the City Council were present at roll call:
CITY COUNCIL:
Mayor
Council Member.
Council Member
Council Member
Mr. Bill Blesener
Ms. Shelly Boss
Mr. John Keis
Mr. Mike McGraw
ABSENT:
Council Member
Mr. Rick Montour
ALSO PRESENT:
City Administrator
City Planner
Cable TV Producer
City Clerk
~. JoelR. IIanson
~. Steve Grittman
~. Kevin IIelander
Ms. Kathy Glanzer
~. McGraw introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION NO. 2010-1-26 -APPROVING THE MINUTES OF
THE JANUARY 13,2010 WORKSHOP COUNCIL MEETING AND,
THE JANUARY 13,2010 REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING
The foregoing resolution was duly seconded by Keis.
Ayes (4).
Nays (0). Resolution adopted.
Mayor Blesener wished former Mayor Ray IIanson a IIappy 80th Birthday
on behalf of the Mayor, Council, and entire City. Blesener outlined
IIanson's long tenure as a Council Member, Mayor, as well as community
volunteer.
Mayor Blesener opened the Public IIearing to consider Preliminary Plat
approval for Gervais Woods which consists of eleven (11) single-family
lots on property located at 2966 LaBore Road as proposed by Landmark
MINUTES
CITY COUNCIL
JANUARY 27, 2010
WOODS
Development ofMN. The Mayor noted that the City Planner, City
Engineer, and the Planning Commission have recommended approval of
the Preliminary Plat subject to conditions.
The City Planner reviewed the history of the property noting the previous
development proposal that consisted of 16 single-family lots along both
sides of a street extending into the property. Three of these lots were
proposed to be located in the City of Maplewood. After negotiation by the
City Council with the developer, this proposed development (Richie
Place) provided for future east and west street connections. The Planner
noted that the Preliminary Plat approval for Richie Place has lapsed, and
that developer is no longer involved with this property.
The Planner reviewed the Gervais Woods Preliminary Plat, under
consideration this evening. This plat consists of 11 lots on a single-loaded
street that curves through the property. East and west road extensions
have been provided with temporary tum-arounds at the end of each
connection as required by the City Engineer. There is some vacant
landscaped area along the west side of the street. Four of the lots have
backyard areas in Maplewood, but all houses will be located in Little
Canada. There will be some issues for the two cities to work out relative
to this situation. The City Planner reported that City staff is
recommending approval of the Preliminary Plat subject to compliance
with a number of planning and engineering conditions. The Planner noted
that his recommendation relative to proposed Outlot C has been addressed
by the developer through a reconfiguration of lot lines. The remaining
Outlot C is located in the City of Maple wood and will be sold to the
adjacent property owner in Maplewood.
The City Administrator reported that a couple of years ago the City
extended sewer and water up through the Kohlman Lane area with the
potential to extend these utilities across the Battista and Himmelbach
properties and then to the property under consideration this evening. This
will allow the developer of Gervais Woods to avoid the installation of a
lift station. The developer is agreeable to contribute an amount equivalent
to lift station construction to offset the cost of extending these utilities to
the proposed Gervais Woods development.
The Administrator noted the recommendation of the Parks & Recreation
Commission for an easement between two lots for pedestrian/trail access
from the development to the wetland area. The developer is agreeable to
providing this easement.
Nathan Fair, Landmark Development of Minnesota and Hanson Builders,
appeared before the Council relative to the proposed Gervais Woods
Preliminary Plat. He indicated that the developer is in agreement with all
2
MINUTES
CITY COUNCIL
JANUARY 27,2010
recommendations of the City Planner, City Engineer, and Parks &
Recreation Commission.
Blesener asked estimated value of the homes that would be constructed in
Gervais Woods. Fair estimated from $400,000 to $600,000. He noted that
these homes will be similar to those that Hanson Builders developed in the
Gervais Hills development on County Road B-2. Fair reported that their
intentions would be to begin construction on a model home in February or
March, and then two spec homes once the road is installed. Fair indicated
that it would be their hope to sell 5 or 6 homes this year. Fair further
reported that they have been working with the City of Maple wood given
the property extends into that City, and they do not anticipate any issues.
McGraw asked whether this was a unique property for Hanson Builders.
Fair replied that it was and that they were very excited about this
development. He noted that the property is located 10 minutes from St.
Paul, has interesting grades and a lot of mature tree cover. McGraw
commended Hanson Builders for their plan to save as many trees as
possible, including trees in front yards.
MaryAnn Kupperschmidt, LaBore Road, reported that her property is
directly across the street from the proposed Gervais Woods.
Kupperschmidt expressed concern with traffic safety in the area given the
road curves. Kupperschmidt recounted several traffic incidents that have
occurred. Blesener noted that the City has recently received complaints
about traffic in this area, and the Sheriff s Department is doing some extra
patrolling. Kupperschmidt suggested that a more permanent solution
would be to install a stop sign at Arcade Street.
Kupperschmidt also reported that the large number of deer in the area.
She felt that a deer culling should be done before the Gervais Woods
development begins noting the loss of habitat when this property is
developed.
Kupperschmidt indicated that she did not oppose the Gervais Woods
development, but felt that traffic safety and the issues with the large deer
herd should be addressed. Kupperschmidt reported that all the planned
landscaping and rainwater garden plantings will be eaten by the deer.
Gary Quam, 2934 LaBore Road, outlined concerns that the neighbors had
with the previous developer and the proposed Richie Place plat. Quam
reported that Hanson Builders has been working with the neighbors to
address their concerns, i.e. larger lot sizes, less density, tree preservation,
road placement to work with existing contours, water control, flood and
infiltration control. Quam reported that Landmark Development of MN
and Hanson Builders have indicated their willingness to address these
3
MINUTES
CITY COUNCIL
JANUARY 27, 2010
concerns. Quam noted that Hanson Builders has also indicated their
willingness to clean up debris on the hillside on the Himmelbach property
that was left by Bill Richie. He further reported that the proposed
development provides buffer zones for the Schorn, Gore, and his
properties. Quam indicated that it seems that this developer is one who
will follow through.
Quam agreed with the suggestion of a stop sign on LaBore Road at Arcade
Street as a means to slow traffic speeds on the curve. He also reported that
he has seen up to 35 deer at a time in his backyard and agreed there is the
need to cull the deer herd.
Blesener pointed out that property owners have the right to develop their
property. Blesener noted that the Richie Place plat met all the City's
Codes. Blesener stated that the Gervais Woods plat is superior and it is
fortunate for the City that it has the opportunity to proceed with this plat.
Blesener noted Hanson Builders' Gervais Hills project, and the fact that
the City has received no complaints relative to this developer.
Dave Himmelbach, LaBore Road, asked about the monument sign
proposed at the entrance of the Gervais Woods plat, and why it is
necessary. Fair described the monument which will consist of natural
stone and brick. Fair indicated that the monument sign will define the
neighborhood.
John Sculley, LaBore Road, asked about the impact the development will
have on the small pond at the south border of his and the Himmelbach
property. Sculley reported that he wants no more water on his property.
Blesener pointed out that in developing a property, the development must
handle its own run-off and cannot direct it onto adjacent properties. Bob
Molstad, engineer for the developer, indicated that they are working with
the City Engineer and the Watershed on drainage and run-off issues and
will meet all requirements.
Dave Himmelbach reported that he is available to the Council to answer
any archeological questions they might have. Blesener asked if
Himmelbach has located the artifacts that he has reported finding on his
property. Himmelbach stated that he has to dig through some clutter to get
to them. Blesener asked if he has pr\;sented these artifacts to any
archeological societies for analysis. Himmelbach reported on letters that
he has received from the former State Archeologist and an expert on
Indian artifacts which indicated that there is significant archeological
interest in this area, but nothing has been pinned down. Blesener noted
that Mr. Himmelbach has had these artifacts for a number of years and has
not pursued the issue with the proper experts. Blesener asked why not.
Himmelbach stated that he is not sure.
4
MINUTES
CITY COUNCIL
JANUARY 27, 2010
Himmelbach noted the dumping that occurred on his property in 1976
when the City approved a building permit for Bill Richie. Blesener noted
that Hanson Builders have indicated they will clean up the site.
Himme1bach again stated that he is unsure about his lack of action on the
artifacts and stated that he may be trying to see what the City Council will
do without his action. Himmelbach felt that the archeological significance
ofthe area is a matter of international interest. He stated that he would
like the City to take responsibility. Blesener noted that the City has taken
Mr. Himmelbach's word that the artifacts exist as they have never been
seen. Blesener asked that Himmelbach find the artifacts and take them
somewhere for evaluation.
McGraw noted that this is the third time since he has been on the Council
that Mr. Himmelbach has raised this issue, and indicated that the very first
time Mr. Himmelbach indicated that he would take the artifacts in for
evaluation. McGraw stated that unless these artifacts are authenticated, he
will not hold up the Gervais Woods development. McGraw noted that Mr.
Himmelbach has had a couple of years since the Richie Place plat was
proposed to bring the artifacts in. McGraw also noted that there has been
no other indication from any agencies or the City's Historical Society that
substantiates Mr. Himmelbach's claims.
Himmelbach felt that the area of significance is where the stub road is
proposed in the Gervais Woods plat. He indicated that he is asking the
city to recognize that it may not be possible to extend that stub road for the
reasons he has stated. Himmelbachstated that he recognizes that the
burden of proof is on him, and he is OK with that. He wanted the Council
to be aware that within the next couple of months some agency may
sequester the area and close down the proposed stub road.
Blesener noted that the Council has the Gervais Woods Preliminary Plat
before it this evening. Final Plat approval is likely to occur in March.
Blesener suggested that Mr. Himmelbach pursue his issues before that
time. McGraw noted that the onus of proof is on Mr. Himmelbach and
that he should get the artifacts to the appropriate agencies before Final Plat
approval occurs.
There was no one else present from the general public wishing to
comment on this matter.
Upon motion by Keis, seconded by McGraw, the public hearing was
closed.
Mr. Blesener introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption:
5
MINUTES
CITY COUNCIL
JANUARY 27, 2010
AMENDMENT
TO ZONING
CODE -
DYNAMIC
SIGNS
RESOLUTION NO. 2010-1-26 -APPROVING THE PRELIMINARY
PLAT FOR GERVAIS WOODS SUBJECT TO COMPLIANCE WITH
THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE CITY PLANNER, CITY
ENGINEER, AND DEDICATION OF EASEMENT AS
RECOMMENDED BY THE PARKS & RECREATION DIRECTOR
AND CONSULTANT, BASED ON THE FINDINGS OF FACT AS
OUTLINED IN THE CITY PLANNER'S REPORT DATED JANUARY
5,2010
The foregoing resolution was duly seconded by Boss.
Ayes (4).
Nays (0). Resolution declared adopted.
Mayor Blesener opened the Public Hearing to consider an Amendment to
the Zoning Code relative to the regulation of Dynamic Signs. The Mayor
noted that the Planning Commission has recommended approval ofthe
amendment subject to compliance with the recommendations of the City
Planner.
The City Planner reported that at the time the Council adopted regulations
governing dynamic signs, it required letter height to be a I a-inch
minimum and message display changes no more frequently than once
every I a minutes. Since that time the Culvers Restaurant and CVS
Pharmacy were developed in the City and they have utilized different
standards for their dynamic signs. The Planner also noted that the City has
done additional research on the regulation of these signs. Based on this,
the Planner indicated that he is recommending that dynamic signs visible
from the freeway be subj ect to the existing conditions, and that dynamic
signs on other road be required to have a letter height of a 6-inch
minimum with message display changes no more frequently than once
every I a seconds.
Blesener noted the Planning Commission's discussion relative to
businesses located along the freeway that may want different standards. It
was pointed out that businesses have the ability to apply for a text
amendment should they want to pursue different dynamic sign standards.
The City Administrator reported that both CVS and Culver's were notified
of this hearing and were supplied a copy of the City Planner's report.
There was no one present from the general public wishing to comment on
this matter.
6
Attachment 10
VARIANCE RESOLUTION
WHEREAS, Landmark Development of Minnesota applied for a variance from the zoning
ordinance.
WHEREAS, this variance applies to two proposed single-dwelling lots in the Gervais Woods
single-family development subdivision. The legal descriptions are:
LOT 2, BLOCK 2, AND LOT 5, BLOCK 2 GERVAIS WOODS
WHEREAS, Section 44-106 of the zoning ordinance requires a minimum of 10,000 square
feet for single-dwelling residential lots.
WHEREAS, the back yards of these two proposed lots would have less than the required
10,000 square feet of lot area for single-dwelling residential properties in the City of Maplewood.
WHEREAS, the history of this variance is as follows:
1. On February 16, 2010, the planning commission held a public hearing. City staff
published a notice in the Maplewood Review and sent notices to the surrounding
property owners as required by law. The planning commission gave everyone at
the hearing an opportunity to speak and present written statements. The planning
commission recommended that the city council this variance.
2. The City Council held a public meeting on . The council considered
reports and recommendations from the city staff and planning commission. The city
council this variance request.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council approve the above-described
variance for the following reasons:
1. Strict enforcement would cause undue hardship because of circumstances unique
to the property under consideration. This situation is unique because credit for lot
area can't be given for land outside of Maplewood. If the entire site was in
Maplewood, the question of lot area would not be an issue.
2. The variance would be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the ordinance since the
proposed southerly lots would have more lot area than is required by both the Cities
of Little eanada and Maplewood.
Approval of this variance is conditioned upon the applicant providing five, six-foot-tall
evergreen trees between the home on proposed Lot 5, Block 2 and the neighboring house
at 2870 Arcade Street.
Adopted on
10