Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02/23/2005MAPLEWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION Wednesday, February 23, 2005, 7:00 PM City Hail Council Chambers 1830 County Road B East 1. Call to Qrder 2. Roll Call 3. Approval of Agenda 4. Approval of Minutes a. February 7, 2005 5. Public Hearings 7:00 Troutland Auto Dealerships (County Road D, west of Highway 61) Conditional Use Permit Conditional Use Permit 7:30 Overview (McMenemy Street, south of Roselawn Avenue) Conditional Use Permit for Planned Unit Development {PUD) Preliminary Plat 7:45 Jessie Street Proposal (1685 Edgerton Street) Lot Width and Lot Area Variances Lot Division 8:00 Outdoor Storage Area Conditional Use Permit Revision (Police impound Lot - 1160 Frost Avenue) 6. New Business None 7. Unfinished Business None 8. Visitor Presentations 9. Commission Presentations February 14 Council Meeting: Ms. Dierich February 28 Council Meeting: Mr. Lee ?? March 14 Council Meeting: Mr. Pearson 10. Staff Presentations 11. Adjournment DRAFT MINUTES OF THE MAPLEWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION 1830 COUNTY ROAD B EAST, MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA MONDAY, FEBRUARY 7, 2005 I. CALL TO ORDER Chairperson Fischer called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. II. ROLL CALL Chairperson Lorraine Fischer Present Commissioner Eric Ahlness Absent Commissioner Jeff Bartol Present Vice-Chairperson Tushar Desai Absent Commissioner Mary Dierich Present Commissioner Michael Grover Present Commissioner Daniel Lee Absent Commissioner Gary Pearson Absent Commissioner Dale Trippler Present Staff Present: Ken Roberts, Planner Lisa Kroll, Recording Secretary Chris Cavett, Assistant City Engineer III. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Chairperson Fischer requested the addition of the Gladstone tour update under Cammission Presentations to be reported by Commissioner Trippler. Commissioner Dierich requested a discussion regarding building permits under Commission Presentations. Commissioner Trippler moved to approve the agenda as amended. Commissioner Bartol seconded. Ayes - Bartol, Dierich, Fischer, Grover, Trippler The motion passed. IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Approval of the planning commission minutes for January 20, 2005. Commissioner Trippler telephoned the recording secretary with several alterations to the minutes of January 20, 2005, on pages 2, 3, and 4. The recording secretary made the alterations and distributed the revised minutes to the commission prior to the meeting. Chairperson Fischer had a change to the minutes on page 5, last paragraph, last line. The wording should now read: Chairperson Fischer directed staff to include the corrections in the next packet or 3nrea~-#ae-previ~ provide them at the next planning commission meeting. Planning Commission -2- Minutes of 02-07-OS Commissioner Trippler moved to approve the planning commission minutes for January 20, 2005, as amended. Commissioner Dierich seconded. Ayes -Dierich, Fischer, Trippler Abstentions - Bartol, Grover V. PUBLIC HEARING None. VI. NEW BUSINESS a. Schlomka Property Concept Plan Review (Carver Avenue and Henry Laney Mr. Roberts said Mr. Bruce Pankonin, representing Rottlund homes, is asking the planning commission to provide preliminary comments about a proposed senior housing development. He has prepared a preliminary site plan that shows 386 housing units (in four different types of housing} for persons aged 55 and over. This development would be on 70+~ acres of land that is south of Carver Avenue and west of Henry Lane known as the Schlomka property. A homeowner's association would own and maintain the common areas. A motion isn't necessary but staff requests that the planning commission discuss the proposed preliminary plan regarding the land use plan change, PUD and site plan during the planning commission meeting this evening. Commissioner Trippler said there are two residents shown on the plans on the northeast corner that appear not to be part of this development. He asked if the two homes would remain despite the fact they are so close to this proposed development? Mr. Roberts said yes the two homes would remain. Commissioner Trippler said he noticed a Williams pipeline marker south of the area, across Carver Avenue, west of the two existing homes. He asked if anybody looked at the pipeline and wondered how the pipeline could change the look of the proposed development? Mr. Roberts drew a red line on the map where he remembered the Williams pipeline to be located and said staff told the developer they must have the area surveyed so the developer is aware of the importance of the pipeline in the area when planning the final layout. Commissioner Trippler asked if the developer could build a structure over the pipeline? Mr. Roberts said no, the code states that no new structure can be built at least 100 feet from a pipeline. Commissioner Trippler said that fact could change the whale configuration of the development for the northern property. Planning Commission -3- Minutes of 02-07-05 Commissioner Trippler asked if there was an outlet to the wetland in the middle of the northern development? Mr. Roberts said Mr. Cavett mentioned the water runs to Fish Creek in someway but he didn't know if there was a formal outlet or if there had been a formal delineation yet. Commissioner Trippler asked staff if the fire and police departments had seen these preliminary plans yet? Mr. Roberts said yes. Commissioner Trippler asked staff if the fire or police departments had concerns regarding the length of the dead end street as well as the density proposed? Mr. Roberts said the only concern was for the number of emergency medical calls they could receive along with the distance from the fire station to this area. However, the emergency personnel weren't very concerned about the length of the dead end street. Commissioner Trippler said he is concerned that someone living on the western side of this area would need medical help and could take emergency personnel 15 minutes or more to get to the home. Commissioner Trippler said the freeway noise is quite substantial. He asked staff if the developer had mentioned anything about noise barriers or how they would deal with the freeway noise. Mr. Roberts said staff mentioned the noise factor to the developer at one of their meetings. The developer is aware of the problem and aware that the city knows about the noise problem. The developer said they could incorporate construction methods to help meet the noise standards. This is another reason why the city staff recommended an EAW report. Commissioner Trippler said on the northern quadrant there is a building off the cul-de-sac on Heights Avenue and it appears the two buildings would have to be built on the edge of the wetland. He asked if there was a wetland setback for this? Mr. Roberts said if the pond shown on the plan becomes aman-made pond there would be no setback. The existing wetland would be where the buffer and the "no disturb area" would be required. Until the city has a final delineation and final design he doesn't want to speculate, but there could be a 10-to-50 foot buffer. Commissioner Trippler said he assumed in order to create the pond the developerwould have to fill in the wetland. Mr. Roberts said that's something the developer needs to be aware of however, he hoped that wasn't what the developer intended. Planning Commission -4- Minutes of OZ-07-05 Commissioner Dierich said she drove the area to see where people would access Hwy 494 which came to 2 miles if you take the SterlinglBailey Road access to the actual freeway entrance. If you drive around Carver Avenue it comes to 1.5 miles. Commissioner Dierich and Mr. Roberts have spoken on the telephone regarding traffic conditions and Carver Avenue being so curvy. She said if this ends up being a senior's project there may not be a traffic issue with additional people driving from the area to get to work. But if this is a 55 years and older development, traffic could bean issue because many people 55 years of age and older still work. Regarding the Carver Avenue access, she said there is noway you can make it down the hill in less than 15 minutes. Traffic is backed up to McKnight Road and sometimes farther. She asked if staff could mention how the city planned to address the traffic issue and the problems with the roads being unable to accommodate 1% times more cars than it currently has? Mr. Roberts said because the developer hasn't gotten to that level of detail yet, they can't discuss that. Commissioner Dierich asked why the police and fire personnel haven't said anything about the issue of traffic regarding this proposed development in the area? Mr. Roberts said it's not that the emergency personnel aren't concerned about the traffic; it's just that they haven't gotten to that level of detail yet. Commissioner Dierich said traffic is a big piece of the picture that she needs to understand. This makes a huge impact regarding whether this plan ge#s approved for R-1, R-2 or R-3 zoning. The traffic is already bad in the area and she is reluctant to make the traffic problem worse. Commissioner Dierich said she assumed the reason this proposal is for senior housing only was because the developer received money to build senior housing. She asked how the City of Maplewood was sitting for senior housing. She believes the city needs housing for the younger generation that cannot afford the high price of homes. Mr. Roberts said the developer didn't get any money from the City of Maplewood. As far as he knows the developer is aware there is a market for mixed styles of senior housing. Regarding housing forthe younger generation, the city keeps hearing from developers that by creating senior housing this will allow seniors to move out of their single family homes allowing available housing for the younger generation to purchase. Commissioner Dierich believes it's a bad policy to isolate this area to a senior's only development and would like to see this as a mixed housing area. Young people in their twenties cannot afford the homes that are 840 to 1,200 square feet because they don't have the down payment that is needed. They may be able to afford the smaller housing in this proposed development. Commissioner Dierich would like to see Maplewood keep the productive workers in the city and not force them to move out to the surrounding suburbs where the homes would be less expensive. She asked if Chris Cavett could speak regarding the rainwater gardens and how the water would be handled off site without further polluting Fish Creek. Planning Commission -5- Minutes of 02-07-05 Chris Cavett said this is just another reason the city is requiring the EAW report. The city is concerned about the grades on the site because of the topography. The developer will have to treat, pre-treat and detain water to regulate flows. Ultimately the water will go into the Fish Creek and then onto the Mississippi River. They will have to look at infiltration requirements like what was used at Legacy Village and the EAW report will help identify the treatments that are necessary. Commissioner Dierich said knowing that piece of land, the topography of the land, and the rolling hills, she doesn't know how this development can be built here. In her mind she thinks this development would look like the development in Inver Grove Heights on South Street where the houses are perched on the side of hills. Mr. Roberts said keep in mind that the developer hasn't done a grading plan yet. Commissioner Dierich said she understands there hasn't been a grading plan done yet but she assumed the city wouldn't allow the developer to take the tops off the hills to build this development. Mr. Roberts said that would depend. Chairperson Fischer asked when it was assumed that these areas would have on-site sewer systems far the larger lot sizes, what was the rationale that necessitated the on-site sewer system designation for this area of south Maplewood? Mr. Roberts said as part of the zoning study a few years ago with the R-1 {R) zoning, the city updated the comprehensive sewer plan and had a consultant look at this area to see what it would take to get sanitary sewer in and if it would be possible for the area south of Carver Avenue to have sanitary sewer on both sides of the freeway. This was going to be very difficult to extend the sewer because of the topography and Fish Creek. The city didn't see a need to do that. The city guessed it may make more sense to do this on the west side of the freeway but the only reason the sewer would go in would be if a developer would come forward to put it in. The city wasn't going to extend the sewer because there weren't that many homes to serve and it was going to be very expensive. So the city didn't allow future lot splits and half acre lots had to be at the two acre minimum to ensure things wouldn't get too crowded without sewer systems. Now a developer is willing to come in and pay for the sewer to be put in which changes everything. Chairperson Fischer asked what the density was at New Century and how many units there were? Mr. Roberts said it's about 50-55 acres and he guesses about 180-200 units. Chairperson Fischer said basically that equals 4-units per acre which is the standard R-1 density. Commissioner Grover said based on the staff report, it appears there is some concern regarding the CUP and the PUD based on the small lot size and the setbacks. He's asked whether or not staff agreed that the PUD application would meet these requirements? Planning Corrtmission -6- Minutes of 02-07-05 Mr. Roberts said that has yet to be determined. By stating that in the report alerted everybody working on this project because of the items listed this requires a PUD application. Whether or not it will meet the criteria. It has the potential to but that's up to the developer to show the city that it meets the criteria and it would be a superior development. If you compare it to a cookie cutter layout without an innovative design or setbacks, he thinks this one has the potential to be better. The city is sort of grasping at straws so to speak at this point without the level of detail for this concept plan review. Chairperson Fischer said one reason for using a PUD rather than standard platting is to have more control over what goes on the site, especially when you have an environmentally sensitive area. Mr. Roberts said another reason to use a PUD is to reduce setbacks, reduce right of ways, or have private driveways that the code normally wouldn't allow. It helps to show you are going to protect the trees and the slopes and he thinks that is the intent of the developer but the city and the developer aren't at that level yet. Commissioner Dierich said R-1(R) zoning would put this development at 35 homes without sewer and water. She discussed with staff on the telephone that R-1 zoning would equal around 210 homes with sewer and water depending on the topography. R-2 zoning would equal 300 homes and R-3 zoning would equal 386 homes as proposed by the developer assuming they have sewer and water. She asked if under the R-1 zoning could the homes be attached under a PUD? Mr. Roberts said you could and a PUD can do various things with land uses. Commissioner Dierich wants to be clear that the developer is asking for the R-3 zoning for the density verses the ability to attach the homes. Mr. Roberts said correct. Commissioner Bartol said less than a year ago there was a study done relative to the amount of population this area could handle. He said south Maplewood can only handle so much sewer and water. He asked if the city adjusts the zoning from R-1, R-2 or R-3, who would pay for the additional requirements far the sewer and water requirements? Mr. Roberts said the developer would pay for tha#. Commissioner Bartol said it's possible that the developer is acknowledging those costs and is looking to recover the investment for the sewer and water made by using higher density and targeting a senior development for a denser population. Commissioner Bartol said he likes the of a senior development because those drivers would contribute to the normal traffic is a normal level but not contribute to the typical rush hour traffic that you may see if this was a mixed single family housing development. Commissioner Bartol said this is a good plan and good design and he isn't troubled about the distance from the dead end road of the southwest corner up to the fire department or the distance to the nearest hospital. Planning Commission -7- Minutes of 02-07-05 Commissioner Bartol said he can't imagine this proposal could be any worse than any other development. He's concerned about the freeway noise level and isn't sure he would want to live this close to the highway, but on the other hand it provides a variety of senior housing in different price ranges. He would encourage the developer to move forward with this challenging proposal regarding the land, drainage, grading, sewer and water. Commissioner Trippler said personally he's not familiar with this area of south Maplewood but when driving around the area his concern was there are no grocery stores, banks, service stores, etc. Since this is going to be a senior housing development he wondered where these people would go to do business. Certainly there won't be anything within walking distance for the residents to walk to. Mr. Roberts said he would agree. The closest locations for people to run errands or conduct business would be in the Sun Ray shopping center in St. Paul or off Valley Creek Road in Woodbury. Commissioner Dierich said the other problem is that there is no bus transportation service down to that area of Maplewood. Mr. Roberts said not yet, but that could change. Commissioner Trippler said this kind of density seems very out of place with everything else around it. He asked where the closest location with density like this was? Mr. Roberts said about 2-to-3 miles away around Londin Lane and McKnight Road and Lower Afton Road by the Holiday gas station. Chairperson Fischer said the only two neighborhoods that don't have higher density than R-~ zoning are the two southern tip neighborhoods. Everything else in the City of Maplewood has a mix of housing densities. Commissioner Dierich said she is struggling with this concept plan because this is in her neighborhood. Carver Park is close but because of the hills it would be difficult forthe seniors to walk the park. Housing for people 55 and over could mean people still work and drive to work which could increase the traffic. This is a very low density neighborhood and is a neighborhood with a lot of money. The newer homes have money but the older homes do not have a lot of money. ff you put another 3000 cars on the road in addition to the 2000 cars already on these roads, the roads will need to be improved, which means somebody is going to be taxed for road improvements. She wandered how the homes along Carver Avenue and Century Avenue would be able to stay there. Commissioner Dierich said she knows this proposed development would bring tax money in but the people without a lot of money will be taxed on the large acreage lots and will be assessed by the foot, which is something the city needs to think about. Commissioner Dierich said traffic is already a huge problem and the improvements are going to be a problem. This not only impacts the immediate area but everything else around it. Just because Woodbury put high density housing at the edge of their city does Maplewood need to change the look and feel of a whole neighborhood that they purposely zoned low density. The city worked to protect the neighborhood from having this look and she is very concerned how it would change the look of the neighborhood. Planning Commission -$- Minutes of 02-07-05 Commissioner Trippler guessed the less expensive homes along Carver Avenue wouldn't be able to pay their taxes or the assessments when the roads needed to be redone because with additional 3000 cars on the road the roads would need to be redone. Chairperson Fischer asked the applicant to address the commission. Mr. Bruce Pankonin, representing Rottlund Homes, 3065 Centre Point Drive, Roseville, addressed the commission. He thanked Mr. Roberts for his concise planning report. He said they are here tonight to gain insight and information from the planning commission before moving forward with this proposal. The recommendation to do the EAW report is good advice for them because they don't want to guess on issues such as the amount of runoff, rain gardens, retention and detention, and the amount of traffic. They are committed to start this study with feedback from the planning commission. They envision an active adult community for this area for people 55 and over. Here are some interesting demographics happening today. Only 24% of the population currently represents the family of Mom, Dad, and children. Families with children will be the slowest growing segment of the housing industry in the next 10 years which will be a concern of the school districts because #hey have a large infrastructure bought and paid for and districts will be looking for money. There is going to be an increasing number ofnon-traditional families such as single adults. By 2010 single person households will nearly equal the number of married with children households and single people and married couples without children will dominate household growth. Baby boomers born between 1946 and 1964 will drive 50% of the household growth. Rottlund Homes is proposing senior housing and this will free up single family homes forthe younger generation of people wanting to live in Maplewood. The density proposed for the 70 acre parcel is 5.5 dwellings per acre which may seem high to some people or it may seem low. Rottlund Homes is starting with the general concept plan and will move on#o more specifics with a final plan. The market tells Rottlund Homes that city's need #his type of alternative life style housing which is the reason they are going forward with the concept plan. Commissioner Trippler said when putting the final plan together he would recommend that the applicant consider walkways, paths, and exercise facilities for people that live in this development. Anyone that knows this area will realize it's an extremely hilly terrain and could be very difficult for some people to get around. He said it may be a good idea to incorporate a bridge on the site to get back and forth. Mr. Pankonin said Commissioner Trippler's comment is well taken and they typically put things like that in their plan, unfortunately they aren't at that level of detail in this proposal yet. Commissioner Dierich asked Mr. Pankonin if he had an idea of what the units would look like. Mr. Pankonin showed a preliminary plan on the screen of other units they have built in another city. He said although the design is not final he showed a sample of the club house, garden units, garden townhomes (which are two stories), and detached townhomes (that are one story) could look like. He didn't have a sample of what the senior condominium would look like yet but said it would probably be a three-story building with underground parking. Commissioner Trippler asked if he had a price range for the variety of senior housing? Planning Commission -9- Minutes of 02-07-05 Mr. Pankonin said no he didn't. Because they haven't designed the units yet and don't know what the development costs are going to be or what the final density would be at this time, it wouldn't be fair to give a price. He guesses somewhere between the $250,000 and the $300,000 range. Commissioner Grover asked in terms of the overall unit numbers how flexible is Rottlund Homes? Mr. Pankonin said from the marketing standpoint there are 50 units per product type. With the 50 units per product type Rottlund Homes is able to develop a model home center, staff it with professional sales agents and put it in the metro wide advertising. They would have to have at least 50 units and there are four product types, which would be a minimum of 200 housing units. There are other considerations that go into the equation such as the cost of the land and the development costs. The physical impact would be the structures on the property and how it impacts the land. This is how they arrived at 386 housing units. Chairperson Fischer asked the developer with the pipeline setback and the wetland setback, could you still make this work with the current set of figures or would you be looking for a higher density? Mr. Pankonin said they are comfortable with the proposed density given the information they have now but they will be getting more exact detailed information to make the final plan. Commissioner Dierich asked Mr. Pankonin if he planned on having meetings with the neighbors to ask far their input before going forward with the building? Mr. Pankonin said yes they want to be part of the process therefore; they would like to have a neighborhood meeting at some time. He would be looking for names and addresses of residents or heads of association groups to send a mailing out inviting people to a convenient location in southern part of Maplewood. They would like to clearly explain to the neighbors what Rottlund Home's intention and plan is before the rumor mill starts and people get incorrect information. Mr. Pankonin said he welcomes the planning commission's comments and if anybody wants to talk to him about the development or has any further questions or concerns including the public he can be reached at Rottlund Home's office at his direct line at 651-638-0591 or on his cell phone at 612-363-6461. He thanked the staff and planning commission for their time. Commissioner Grover asked staff typically how long an EAW report takes to get done? Mr. Roberts said he has heard 90 to 120 days to prepare so he anticipates this proposal could come back to the planning commission in July or August of 2005. VII. UNFINISHED BUSINESS None. VIII. VISITOR PRESENTATIONS None. Planning Commission -10- Minutes of 02-07-05 IX. COMMISSION PRESENTATIONS a. Ms. Fischer was the planning commission representative at the January 24, 2005, city council meeting. The only planning commission item to discuss was the Maplewood Imports Auto Center at 2450 Maplewood Drive, which passed ayes all. b. Ms. Dierich will be the planning commission representative at the February 14, 2005, city council meeting. The only planning commission item to discuss is the Public Works Expansion at 1902 County Road B East. c. Mr. Lee will be the planning commission representative at the February 28, 2005, city council meeting. However, Mr. Roberts wasn't sure there would be any planning commission items to discuss at the city council meeting. d. Gladstone Update Commissioner Trippler gave an update on the Gladstone tour and public meeting. He said there was a Gladstone tour on Saturday, January 26, 2005, where about 30 people took a bus tour and visited Burnsville, Richfield, St. Louis Park, Hopkins, Golden Valley, ending the tour in Little Canada. Commissioner Trippler said then there was a public meeting at the Maplewood Community Center on Monday, January 29, 2005. Almost the whole evening was devoted to groups of three or four people sitting at each table to discuss what things need to stay in the Gladstone Area and what things people would like to see removed in the Gladstone area. Also the consultants asked why people like certain things in the Gladstone area and why they didn't like certain things. Commissioner Trippler said the next scheduled Gladstone Task Force meeting is on Thursday, February 17, 2005. e. Building Permits Commissioner Dierich said she has seen several homes in south Maplewood that are still unfinished and some are still in the framing stages. She believed whomever buys these homes would be buying homes that have been exposed to the elements because they have been under construction for so long. Commissioner Dierich wanted staff to check into what could be done to ensure that building permits are completed before a certain time period. This would be for the protection of the future home buyers as well as protection for the neighbors that have to look at the construction taking so long to complete. She said there also some homes with occupants living there that have no siding on the house. She wondered how the homeowner could get a certificate of occupancy to five in the home without having any siding on the home or the home being complete. Planning Commission -11- Minutes of 02-07-05 Mr. Roberts said the occupants may be in the home without a certificate of occupancy. The other thing is a building permit is typically good for 180 days as long as you keep doing some type of work to keep the building permit valid. He believes most buyers know enough to get a home inspection before they buy the home which is good protection for the home buyer. Mr. Roberts told Ms. Dierich if she knows certain streets or addresses where these problems are occurring staff could pass this information onto the building inspectors and they could check into the situation. Commissioner Dierich said several of the residents in south Maplewood have brought these problems to her attention and said they have called the police department to complain about these problems and were told there was nothing they could do about it. The City of Woodbury doesn't allow building permits to drag on and remain incomplete after one year and she believed Maplewood should require people to come before the city to renew their permit in a timely manner and not allow homes to remain in this condition for this long. This makes for an unsafe home and an unsightly manner for the neighbors who have to look at it. X. STAFF PRESENTATIONS a. Reschedule Monday, February 21, 2005, Planning Commission Meeting because of President's Day The decision was to reschedule the Planning Commission meeting from Monday, February 21, 2005, to Wednesday, February 23, 2005, because of the President's Day holiday. XI. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 9:00 p.m. MEMORANDUM TO: Richard I"ursman, City Manager FROM: Perry Thorvig, Consultant Planner SUBJECT: Conditional Use Permits PROJECT: Trout Land Auto Dealers LOCATION: New County Road D and Hwy. 61 DATE: February 15, 2005 INTRODUCTION Project Description The Ryan Companies, 50 South 10"' Street, Minneapolis, has applied for conditional use permits for used auto sales and repair garages on two parcels at the intersection of the re-routed County Road D and Hwy. 61. The dealerships are proposed for the west side of Hwy. fit . The dealerships will be owned by Steve Bloomer of Maplewood Lexus. The owner has not yet decided which lot will be designated for used car sales and which for new car sales. Therefore, he is applying for both kinds of use on each parcel. There are no architectural plans or elevations for the buildings. Only the building locations and the location of the driveways and parking areas have been submitted as part of the CUP application. The applicants plan to construct the retaining walls and parking lot during the summer of 2005. The first of the two buildings will be built in 2006. The second building will be built in late 2006 or 2007. Requests To proceed with this proposal, the Ryan Companies and Steve Bloom (hereinafter referred to as the applicants) are requesting that the city approve: 1. A conditional use permit (CUP) for the motor vehide repair and service garages on both parcels. 2. A conditional use permit for used car sales on both lots. BACKGROUND Application Date The city received the complete applications and the revised project plans for this request on Janua 20 2005. State law requires that the city take action within 60 days of receiving complete applications for a land use proposal. As such, city action is required on this proposal by March 21, 2005, unless the applicant agrees to a time extension. Site Description Site Size: 6.03 acres Existing Land Use: Vacant Surrounding Land Uses North: Sparkle Car Sales and Two Single-Family Homes South: Venburg Tire Store and Gulden's Restaurant West: Vacant Land (future townhomes) and Single-Family on Tap of the Hill East: Car Dealerships Across Hwy. 61 Comprehensive Plan: The property is guided as Light Manufacturing. Zoning: The property is zoned M-1. This district allows the same conditional uses (with the same conditions} as the BC district. The BC district allows motor vehicle sales and car maintenance garages as conditional use permits. County Road ~: Ramsey County is in the process of re-routing County Road D to a new intersection with Hwy. 61. The auto dealerships are proposed to be located east and north of the re-routed County Road D. The land west of the re-routed County Road D is projected to be developed for townhouses. Topography: There is a sixty-foot change in elevation between Hwy. 61 and the existing homes to the west of the re-routed County Road D. The top of the hill is at an elevation of about 950' ASL (above sea level}. The elevation where County Road D meets Hwy. 61 is about 890' ASL. County Road D drops forty-four feet from a point adjacent to the northwest tamer of the applicant's property to the intersection with Hwy. 61. The applicant plans to construct three retaining walls on the west end of the property to contend with the change in elevation. They are proposing to locate the two buikdings as far west and as close to the lowest retaining wall that they can. There wilk only be a driveway and a row of parking between the retaining wall and the buildings. The car display lots are proposed toward the east side of the property. The result of the grading and building location will be that only a part of the rooftops wiN be visible from homes to the west. The applicants have prodded section drawings that illustrate the views from the future homes to the west toward the car dealerships to the east. Existing Neighborhood: The property to the west of the proposed dealerships is developed by newer single-fami#y homes. The newest of these homes are valued at mare than $4DO,ODD. The value of the homes decreases toward Beam Avenue where the homes are somewhat older and smaller. Neighborhood Concerns: Neighborhood residents have been notified of the plans for the auto dealerships. Several have written letters or submitted e-mail messages. See attachments. Their concerns have been summarized and stated below. Don't need more car sales. Sparkle is an eyesore. Appears to be a reasonable use of the property. Lexus suggests a "professional and high-end facikity." Keep the structures as close to Hwy. 61 as possible. This keeps lights and noise from off #oading and car repair farther away from residential uses. Neighborhood experiences traffic from the dealerships. This affects privacy and safety. 2 Staff Comments: City staff members have also had a chance to comment on the proposal. See attachments. Their relevant comments are summarized below. • Chuck Ahl reports the presence of an agreement between Trout Land and the City of Maplewood that specifies the rights that each party will give to each other concerning the new County Rd. D and the payments that will be made to each party. • Butch Gervais, Fire Marshal, says that a minimum of 20 feet of emergency access is needed to the buildings. Refer to the attachment. • David Fisher, Building Official, expressed the need for fire department access, Refer to the attachment. • Lt. Kevin Rabbett, Police Department, had no public safety concerns. He advised that there is a need for adequate security lighting. He also said that no vehicles should be displayed on grass areas. Refer to the attachment. • Chris Cavett, the Assistant City Engineer, has reviewed the proposal and has many comments. Refer to the a#tachment. Criteria For Approval Section 44512(8) requires a CUP for maintenance garages. Section 44-1097(a) states that the city oouncii shall base approval of a CUP on the findings. DISCUSSION Parking It is not known how much of the building will be devoted to showroom, parts, and service space. Therefore, no parking calculation can be made at this time. The site plan does show 407 spaces for auto display and customer and employee parking for the two dealerships. Maintenance Garage(s) It is not known how many service bays will be located in the buildings. However, all service will be done inside with garage doors closed. Building Design Nv building plans have been submitted. Tree Preservation There are no trees left on the site except for the cedars along the highway right-of--way. Landscaping It is important for this site to have an attractive appearance #rom Highway 61. However, landscape plans are minimal. Only $' tall evergreens are proposed along the east side of new County Road D. StafF prefers that the applicant add overstory trees to the site plan and other landscaping to improve the appearance of the property. 3 Any landscaping and turf establishment within the highway right-of-way will be subject to MnDOT's approval. Trash Storage Plans are not at enough detail to show trash storage. Lighting No lighting plans, including photometric analysis, have been submitted. The applicant states in the application that lights will have "downcast, cut-off lenses, to minimize glare." Vehicle-Transport Unloading Unloading an public right-o#-way has been a recurring problem with auto dealerships in Maplewood. Unloading must be done on-site! Staff has reviewed the turning templates for car transports on Sheet C3. There is some concern about the adequacy of the template that is shown. There is no turn-around proposed for the southern building. Therefore, it is assumed that the one turn-around will service both buildings. Retaining Walls The applicant is proposing #o install a retaining wail system along the south and west edges of the property. No engineering drawings have been presented for review at this time. Conditional Use Permit Findings Used automobile sales and automobile repair and maintenance garages require a CUP in the M-1 zone. Sec. 44-1097 establishes the approval standards for conditional use permits. The applicant has attempted to address each of the standards in the application. The standards and staff findings are stated below. (1) The use would be located, designed, maintained, constructed and operated to be in conformity with the city's comprehensive plan and this Code. Finding: The comprehensive plan and zoning code allow used car sales and repair operations in the M-1 zoning district. The city has granted a variance to the requirement that dealerships be located 35D feet from residential properties because the new housing proposed west of the new County Road D is part of the same plat as the car dealerships and will be built after the car dealerships. With this variance, the dealerships should be in compliance with the standards in the zoning code. (2) The use would not change the existing or planned character of the surrounding area. Finding: The establishmenf of the car dealerships would not change the planned character of the area. The City's Comprehensive Plan has designated the frontage along Hwy. 61 for commercial or industrial use for several years. The residential devetopment of the hilltop north of Beam Avenue has also been occurring for several years with clear knowledge that Hwy. 61 frontage was developed and would continue to develop as a commercial area. 4 (3) The use would not depreciate proper#y values Finding: No study has been done to make that determination. Steps are being taken to reduce property value impacts of the car dealerships. The buildings will be tucked into the hillside as much as possible to shield them from the view of the existing homes to the west. In addition, a 90-unit condominium proposal is planned as a #ransitional use or buffer between the car dealerships and the existing homes. (4) The use would not involve any activity, process, materials, equipment or methods of opera#ion 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 runoff, vibration, general unsightliness, elec#rical interference or nuisances. Finding: There is a nuisance potential from car dealerships. They often have hours of operation that are past 1Q P.M. There is traffic and unloading noise. There is glare from outside lighting. There is a large amount of hard surface area that causes large amounts of runoff. The applicants claim that there will be no public address system and that the maintenance will be done inside with garage doors closed. The applicant must operate according to these promises and also according to the conditions at the end of this report. They must also comply with lighting requirements and appropriately handle the runoff from the property. (5} The use would generate only minimal vehicular traffic an local streets and would not create traffic congestion or unsafe access on existing or proposed streets. Finding: Most traffic will enter the site from Hwy. 61 via the new County Road D. The residential neighborhoods to the west will experience very little traffic except for some traffic on County Road D. (Ei) The use would be served by adequate public facilities and services, including streets, police and fire protec#ion, drainage structures, water and sewer systems, schools and parks. Finding: Adequate facilities are available to service the proposed use. City utilities and a storm water pond are in place. (7} The use would not create excessive additional costs for public facilities or services. Finding: Public facilities are in place. (8} The use would maximize the preservation of and incorporate the site's natural and scenic features into the development design. Finding: This si#e has been extensively graded and has no natural features remaining. There is a row of old cedar #rees along the east property line tha# will be removed to provide visibility to the sales lot. (9) The use would cause minimal environmental effects. Finding: Storm water will be detained in a detention pond. CONCLUSION Staff concurs that the proposed automotive uses are acceptable for these locations since: • Automotive sales and repair facilities are accepted uses in M1 districts subject to appropriate conditions. • Automotive uses, such as these, have been considered part of the Trout Land commercial development plan ail along. • In the development agreement far Trout Land, the city council allowed a reduction of the setback from the County Road D extension with the idea that these automotive uses would be known to any would-be owners of the future town homes across new County Road D. Furthermore, the council required that these automotive-related buildings observe a 350-foot separation from the existing single-family home sites to the wes#. Staff feels, however, that these plans should be considered "conceptual" and only be looked at from the standpoint of a "land use" request. In addition to the deficiencies noted above, Mr. Cavett pointed out many problems he has found with the proposed plans. Staff, #herefore, does not feel comfortable with approving these plans without first seeing these items addressed and shown as a part of the applicant's proposal. in summary of the issues already addressed, the applicant should revise and resubmit the plans providing for (this is a brief summary and no# intended to be an all-inclusive list): Building designs that utilize the hillside and offer an attractive building design fronting on County Road D as suggested by Mr. Cavett. This concept reduces or eliminates the need far retaining walls. Building designs, especially those elevations facing the future town homes, should be compatible with these homes. That is, they should incorporate elements that are °residentialD in appearance (pitched roofs, architectural lighting and decorative accents, far example). • Enhance landscaping and screening for the County Road D frontage and the northerly lot line for proper buffering to residential neighbors. • Further developed grading, drainage, erosion-control and utility plans. These plans should address the previously-approved designs of the existing grading plan and show any divergence from these plans. • A detailed site-lighting plan with light poles not to exceed 15 feet in height and no lights positioned to shine westerly or northerly. Alighting plan must follow the requirements of the city's lighting ordinance. • Cross easements with Sparkle Auto. • Plans that clearly provide for on-site vehicle transport unloading areas for both sites. • Plans that show trash storage locations and screening design. B In addition to the above, fu#ure conditions of approval may include, but shall not be limited to the following (final plans must be submitted and evaluated before a final recommendation and list of conditions can be made): a. The operators of the dealerships shall park the automobiles and motor vehicles on designated paved or engineered porous or pem~eable surfaces. b. The loading or unloading of automobiles on the public right-of--way is prohibited. The owner or operator shall on}y conduct such activities on their private property. c. The owners and operators of the dealerships shall not store damaged vehicles on the site for more than 48 hours, except in the buildings or in fully-screened storage areas. d. The owners and operators of the dealerships shall store all garbage, trash, waste materials, tires, vehicles parts and obsolete parts in the buildings or in fully-enGosed trash containers or enGosures. e. The owners and operators of the dealerships shall not stare any tires, vehicle parts, garbage, trash, waste materials or other debris outside. All such storage must be inside the buildings or in approved enclosures. f. The owners and operators shall ensure that all vehiGe repair, assembly, disassembly and maintenance are done within enclosed buildings. g. The owners and operators shall ensure that the noise from the business operations, including any external speakers, shall not exceed the state noise standards and ail activities on the site must meet all city noise regulations. h. The owners and operators of the dealerships shall meet all the requirements of the city's sign ordinance and s#~all not use banners, streamers, flags or inflatable devices for advertising purposes. i. The city council shall review this permit in one year of commencement of car sales or repair operations. ~. Verification that all watershed district special provisions, as indicated on the watershed district per{nit, are met before the city issues a building or grading permit for the site. k. Provision of a letter of credit or cash escrow in the amount of 150% of proposed landscaping and exterior improvements including parking areas, driveway, and lighting. 1. Replace any property irons removed because of this construction. m. Instal[ a reflec#orized stop sign at the exit drive at County Road D. n. Construct a trash dumpster enclosure to meet code requirements, unless trash dumpsters are stored indoors. o. Install an in-ground lawn irrigation system for the parking lot islands and for all landscape areas {except the ponding areas}. Lawn irrigation in the right-of-way may be waived if MnDOT will not allow it. 7 p. Post signs identifying the customer and employee parking spaces and ahandicap- parking sign for each handicap accessible parking space. q. Install all the required exterior improvements, including landscaping and signs. r. Install all bituminous and the engineered porous or permeable surface and the curb and gutter. s. Install all exterior lighting. t. Screen all roof-mounted equipment visible from homes according to ordinance. RECOMMENDATION Adopt the resolutions approving conditional use permits for used car sales and automotive repair for the two northerly commercial lots in the Trout Land development located on the west side of Highway 61, north of the #uture County Road ©extension. Approval is based on the findings required by ci#y ordinance and subject to the following conditions: This permit does not include a specific site plan approval due to the need for further plan development addressing the issues identified in the staff report. ©etailed plans must be submitted for review and approval by the Maplewood Community Design Review Board and City Council before site development and parking tot construction can begin. The applicant is allowed building setback reductions, as previously approved by the council, for the setback from future County Road D. All buildings mus#, however, be set back at feast 35~ feet from the rear lot lines of the single family properties to the west. The proposed construction must be substantially started or the proposed use utilized within one year of council approval or the permit shall become null and void. The council may extend this deadline for one year. • The city council shall review #his permit in one year. psec4ltrout land autos DSU 2'OS to Attachments: 1. Project Narrative 2. Location2oning Map 3. Trout Land Subdivision 4. SitelLandsca~ng Plan 5. Land Use Plan Map 6. Comments from Butch Gervais, Fire Marshal 7. Comments from Lt. Kevin Rabbett, Police t3. Comments from David Fisher, Building Official 9. Comments from Chris Cavett, Assistant City Engineer 10. Letter from Hal Tetzlaff, Neighbor 11. Letter from Ed Trofander, Neighbor 12. Letter from Tony Valento, Ne~hbor 13. Survey Reply from Rabert and Carol Voeller, Neighbors 14. Survey Reply from Joseph and Jane Gerard, Neighbors 15. CUP Resolution, Northerly Lot 16. CUP Resolution, Southerly Lot 17. Plans date-stamped January 20, 2005 (separate attachment} 9 Attacf~ment 1 WW W.RXANCOMPArTIE S.COM RYAN CaMPANIES US, INC. 50 South Tenth Street, Suite 300 Minneapolis, MN 554Q3- 2012 CYAN WILDING LJISTING IIELATIONSN115 sT2-as2-aaao ter. 612-492-3000 fax January 14, 2005 Mr. Tom Ekstrand City of Maplewood Community Development 1830 County Raad B Maplewood, MN SS 109 Re: Justification for Approval of Conditional Use for Proposed Autamabile Dealerships at Tral~t Land Dear Tom: DECEIVED ,~~~9 ~ ~ ~~~~ Bloomer Properties views the Trout Land site as a desirable site for a future autoYnabile dealership. The Highway 61 frontage is established route for automobile dealerships and the site access provided by the new County Road D construction contribute to the viability of the site. The extreme elevation transition across the site provide excellent visibility from the highway, while providing an effective visual buffer from future townhomes north of the site. PIease review a more detailed justification to the City of Maplewood's nine criteria for conditional uses below. Since each of the conditional uses are closely related, and the justification for both Lat 1 and Lot 2 are virtually identical, we present these responses under a single paragraph. Criteria for Approval of the below Conditional Uses Conditional Use Permit for the sale or lease of used motor vehicles. (Section 44-512 {S}) -- Applies to both Lots 1 and 2. Conditional Use Permit for the auto-repair nr><aintenance garage closer than 350 feet to a residential property line. {Section 44-512 (8}) -Applies to both Lots 1 and 2. The use would be located, designed, maintained, constructed and operated to be in conformity with the City's comprehensive plan and Code of Ordinances. If not within 350.feef of residential properly, Automobile Dealerships are a pem7ifted use with the M9 districf for. "The sale or leasing of new motor vehicles, sale or leasing of new and used motor vehicles when all such activities are on fhe same property. A(Sec. 44-591(4)). Section 44-519 (13) also suggests that a repair shop rs a pemaitfed use, except motor fueling stations or maintenance garage. Although if 10 W W W. RYANCOMPANI E 5. COM RYAN COMPANfES US, iNC. ` 50 South Tenth Street, Suite 300 Minneapolis, MN 55403- 2012 612-492-4000 te! 612492-3000 fax CYAN [UIL61M6 LASTN6 [lLAT~PNSNI-S does not specifically state it, this suggesfs that a maintenance garage associated with a fueling station would be a conditional use. Section 44-591(96) lists permitted uses as, "any use that would be similar to any of the uses in subsections (9) through (15) of this section, if it is not noxious or hazardous." This suggests that a mainfenance garage that is associated with an aufomobile dealership could be a permitted use, The primary facformaking Phis use a conditional use is the proximity to residential zoned property. Given the extreme elevation difference that exists between fhese two land uses (illustrated in fhe attached plans), the bufferbefween these two uses is very effective. Furthermore, townhome developmenfs are often preferred land uses where Land uses fransition Pram single-family residence to commercialrndustrialiand uses. Lastly, fhe fownhomes are within fhe same plat and the developer of the townhomes is aware of the proposed automobile dealership land use. Use motor vehicles are a conditional use wifhin the M9 district, likely to prevent low- cost or damaged vehicles with small unattractive buildings. Bloomer Properties is a high end auto dealer fhaf would canstrucf an attractive dealership specifically esfablished to sell high-end pre-owned vehicles. This use clearly falls wifhin fhe spirit of fhe ordinance. 2. The use would not change the existing or planned character of the surrauriding area. The proposed use is consistent with fhe surrounding area. Other automobile dealerships are located along fhe Highway 69 corridor. 3. The use would not depreciate property values. Because of the sever grade change from fhe future residential pad elevafions and the anticipated building locations and elevations on !of 1 & 2. The visibility of fhe proposed dealerships wiN be well-screened. Landscaping will also provide additional screening, and site lighting will be below the sight-lines from fufure residences, and will be accomplished with downcast, cut-off lenses fo minimize glare. The building will be an attractive structure and the facility will be well-maintained In summary, fhis land-use will not depreciate properfy 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. No public address systems will be used, general sales activities are quiet, and traffrc trip generation from auto sales facilities are relafively low. Auto mainfenance performed on site will primarily consist of roufine mainfenance on vehicles fhaf are 11 RYAN COMPANIES tJS, 1NC. 5D South Tenth Street, Suite 300 ~~~~ WWVO.RYANCOMFANIES.COM Minneapolis, MN 55403- 2612 sunnrwc yrnKS ^runowsrri~s 6i2-492-40D0 teI 692-492-30D0 fax purchased from the dealer and will be completed in dealer maintenance garage, and all mainfenance activities will be conducted wifh overhead doors closed. 5. The use would generate only minimal vehicular traffic on local streets and would not create traffic congestion or unsafe access an existing or proposed streets. The pemtitfed site use for these lots allows several operations that would create a larger fraffic demand fhan an auto dealership. The hours of operation would also be less than several of the uses permitted in the M1and fhe associated BC (M) district. 6. The use would he served by adequate public facilities and services, including streets, police and fire protection, drainage structures, water and sewer systems, schools and parks. The site is currently stubbed for sanitary and water service from County Road D. The existing storm sewer pond fo the north has been sized to handle runoff from this site. The site plan provides adequate circulation for emergency vehicles, including fire truck routing. 7. The use would no# create excessive additional costs far public facilities or services. The proposed development will not require any public improvements. Existing infrasfrucfure will adequately serve the site, including recently constructed County Road D. All on-site improvements will be performed by the developer. 8. The use would maximize the preservation of and incorporate the site's natural and scenic features into the development design. The site is presently mass graded with no established turf. This project will propose landscaping meeting city ordinance that will help re-establish natural features into the development. 9. The use would cause minimal adverse environmental effects. Sformwater runoff will be routed to a detention pond that will provide wafer quality treatment, any fluids collected from automobile maintenance would be properly disposed of. 12 Attachment 2 R'~ et Ridge PROPOSED AUTO SALES LOTS ea G° ; x - a ' ~~d u ~,_ ~ ~~ , ~v '; ~} ~.;; ~:'::~~; `,~ ~ ~ . ,~ r . ~~` ~~~~' ,#T }'e : co ., f ~ u'il ~ ~ }J~ ~ C"" * Ar' ,'2 » ~ ~ }y i_ 1l tJ[ 1 >; ~ ~ 2 ~1 ~h. ~r ;: ~~ i ~~ r ,~ .~., Y~,I ~ ,la :,r,~+, tr +1 ~, F ~ ~,~ }il ~~ ',J£{~ T. ~ aY ' ~~ '~ ~~ ~r .,:rk;. -; ..pr. ~~. ~' iro?'~:~i~ ~'~~.t.i'• y~ BEAM AVE ~ :11 r ~i ~', ~~~ ~ ~ ~.~._ . E , ~k R~ Attachment 3 e__~ ,~.x~ n oo~wr -1 ' . ~- ~~ ~ r ~ ~ ,. ~ r ~ f .~i ~_.~. ~ ~. '1 "/ _ , ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ •/ ~ ~ ~. r-.,: - ~ ~ 1 s~Q' ~~_ C7 ~ ~ ~ - ~ ~ ~~ PROPOSED AUTO SALES LOTS m ~~ °~. . ~ _ . ~.. d ~- +~. 1 ~.,~--~----- W" 1 as > :` _ ~ ~ ~-.'r--"---'`•-.,,, ~e~i~ - .; ~ ~ ~ ~' i ~ 1 ti -,f ~~ l ~ ~- •.,ti . TROUT LAND SUBDIVISION r ~ ~ 1 ~ 1 ~ - -'1 ~~ ~ t ti~ - ~ ~ , ~ ~ - Attachment 4 ~ ~~ a ~~ ~~ ~ ~ i~~ ' s ~ i i ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~~ ~~~ ~~a ~~~~~ ~ Q ,~, s ~ :~ ~ ~ ~ - d ....- ~~Y' o ~ ~~` as ra ---s _ .- ~ ~~ ~ ~ _._ -. .~ -. ~ ~_ _~ ' Y ., r. ~.. __._. - _~_ ... „ J! ~ ~ ~ .. __ ._. _.. ..,. _ - -..._ ._.. IB ~ ~ ~~ fH .. y a -, _ ~ ~ .,..._., 3 is -_ ~ ~ I , r --- - I f __ r. q ~ - "--- -__ i ~ t' ~~ ~ f I ~ .~ II ~ a I ql I ff 'f ff 11III ~ ~~ f; _ .J__..__ ~~ I ~( ~ mac. ~ ~ i ; i ______ - 1 Ya ~ f ~~ f f 'g ,; , , ; E ~~ ~ II I ' :. ~_ . I !C = ~ 1 ~ b ~ I~ ~ i ~ ;flf ~ , ~ f',f fl ` ~ ' 1 ~~ ~ ~ I 3~ ,ff ff - y / 1 ` f a' - \. i i '~,: .,~ w _ ~~~ / ~` a rr~-, i ~ i ~~ i ~ `~ -, i {, ; o f ' ~~ ~~ 3 f ,~ i~ E 3 ,f ~- ~ ~ r- _, i i h I I _~ i. ~L~ ~ '~9 ~ __ ~L _ ~~" _ COUNTY R _ ~ ~ `~ 1 ~' \ f S-FOOT-TALL EVERGREENS `. ~__~ SPACED 15 FEET ON CENTER . , >~~ l Q • ' ~ `', ~.~ SITE 1 LANDSCAPING PLAN ,I[E.. _.._ ;~k _ - ._ ~ •. ~ ~„ ~~•~. ~ ~ •`, iii ,~r >>, ~ Attachment ~ R3M R3M COUNTY ROAD D R1 M1 m C_ C7 m p2 ~s~ R1 J a ca 3 2 z n M1 M1 BEAM AVM LAND USE PLAN MAP 16 Attachment fi Project Review Comments Date: January 28, 2005 From: Butch Gervais, Fire Marshal Project: Trout Land Auto Dealers Building: Auto Sales Planner: Tom Ekstrand Comments: 1. Installation of fire protection system will be required (per code). 2. Monitoring of all aspects of the fire protection system (per code} 3. Audible and Visual devices are required to notify all persons in the building if the fire protection system is activated (per code) 4. Minimum of 20 feet of emergency access road to the building 5. All proper permits shall be obtained and inspection cards on-site at all times. This includes fire protection, fire alarm and any tank installations. Any questions or concerns please contact me. Butch Gervais, Fire Marshal City of Maplewood (b51}-249-2$04 17 Attachment 7 Memo To: Tom Ekstrand From: Lt. Kevin Rabbett [~ Dates 1-25-05 Re: Project Review: Trout Land Auto Dealers, Highway 61 and County Road D i have reviewed the attached plans and find no public safety concerns. I would encourage adequate security lighting and a quality video surveillance system such as in any commerjcial building. I would further emphasize the need for adequate parking lot space to discourage the use of any grass area for vehicle display purposes. Such display is an ongoing source of complaints on many area auto dealers. If you have any questions or comments, please call me at ~Q604. 18 Attachment 8 Memo January 24, 2005 -~ -~ -~ ~~~- From: David Fisher, Building Official << .. ~ %~ -J To: Tom Ekstrand, Senior Planner Re: 2 new auto dealerships at the Trout Land Development - Each building will require a separate building permit. - The building setbacks must comply with the 2000 I BC for exterior wall protection. - A complete building code analysis will be required when plans are submitted for permits. - Provide Fire Department access. - Provide number of customer parking spaces for each building. - The buildings are required to be fire sprinklered. - Retaining walls over 4 feet require engineering and a building permit. - I would recommend apre-construction meeting with the building department for each building permit. 19 Attachment 9 En ineerin Plan Review PROJECT: Tract Land Auto Dealers REVIEWED BY: Chris Ca~ett, Assistant City Engineer DATE: February l4, 2444 Ryan Companies has proposed two auto dealerships on the Trout Land property between Highway bl and the new County Road D. The new County Road D project and related drainage systems were designed to accommodate such a use. The applicant's request at this time is for consideration of a conditional use permit and not intended for design approval. From an engineering standpoint, staff has no major concerns with the intended use. However, due to a number of design issues related to the site and due to the fact that the submitted site plans are very incomplete, Maplewood Engineering is currently recommending complete rejection of the site plans. The below comments are not to be implied as a complete review, rather they are comments of issues or concerns that shall be addressed when the plans are prepared and submitted for design review. It is strongly recommended that the applicant and/or their engineer meet with city staff before submitting revised plans for review. Comments: The master developer, (Trout Land), currently has a grading permit covering the entire Troutland site, and can conceivably continue grading the site, however they are currently approved to Bade the site based an the grading plan submitted by Passe Engineering and Trout Land LLC. If additional grading is required for this site beyond what was planned by the master developer, then the current applicant will require an additional or revised grading permit. 2. Phasing of the site development, although implied {Phase I, II, and Ili) is not clear and shall be describe in more detail in the plans. 3. The retaining walls along the west side of the site are very extensive and could have a tremendous impact on County Road D. The City and the County would be extremely critical of the design and construction any walls proposed at that location and especially as proposed in the submitted layout. Extensive geotechnical and structural designs and reviews would be necessary. NOTE: The applicant should explore the opportunity to layout the site using atwo- story building tucked into the hillside in place of a retaining wall. Such a design would reduce excavation, eliminate extensive wall construction, and take advantage of the County Road D frontage for other uses. An upper level parking lot and building entrance for oiTices could front County Road D, provide a more compatible and aesthetic frontage along County Road D and provide a much better screen of the Automotive uses from the proposed town homes and existing single-family homes. 20 The lower level and T.H. 61 frontage would be the main entrances to the automotive uses and would provide a prominent exposure to T.H 61. Such a layout appears to have the potential to provide more parking area, but would change, considerably the layout and circulation of the site. d. "l~he proposed transport circulation route as illustrated on the on the plans, does not appear feasible from a practical standpoint. The applicant shall provide a layout and internal circulation route for transports that does NOT require a transport vehicle to backup. Submit for review: a Revised site layout. b. Grading, Drainage and Erosion Control plans c. Drainage calculations d. Provide an illustration of a practical internal transport circulation route. e. Utility Plans, {Water, Sanitary, Storm} shall be done in coordination with all phases of the site development. 6. The city's plans for County Road D are complete and construction on the roadway is expected to begin in April. Any impacts to possible location of drive entrances or possible impacts to median islands must be determined before construction begins. 7. The site will require permits from the watershed district, (RWNIWD) and the MPCA. As part of agreements and conditions of MnDOT's review and approval of the Improvements along T.H. 61, County Road D and the Trout Land Development, the City has agreed with MnDOT that the Sparkle property will release their rights to access TH 61 when their current use f ownership of the property ceases to exist. Across easement would exist either on, or across properties in the Trout Land Development unless other acceptable alternatives were provided across other properties. Granting of future cross easements shall be a condition of the Conditional Use Permit. 9. The storm water management of the Trout Land Development has been addressed with the regional drainage system and pond. NOTE: However, Pre-Treatment storm sewer structures shall be required for all sites draining into the city storm sewer system. The pre-treatment structures shall be designed and sized to remove trash and debris and 70% of suspended solids from the tributary area The property owner shall enter into a maintenance agreement with the City of Maplewood to ensure the maintenance of the pre-treatment structure. Note: As part of the city's compliance with the EPA's phase II - NPDES storm water requirements, it is anticipated that within the next few years the city will address elicit discharge "hot-spots", with an ordinance that will storm water pre-treatment structures at hot spots Like automotive uses, #illing stations, etc. that also provide fuel and oil separators and skimmers. A firture ordinance would likely provide existing properties a 5-year window to meet compliance. There is little direction at this time, however the applicant might wish to give some consideration of this future condition and either design for it now or design to accommodate for it in the future. 27 Attachment 10 Tom Ekstrand From: Hal Tetzlaff [htetzlaf~ties2.net] Sent: Tuesday, January 25, 2D05 7:48 PM To: Tom Ekstrand Subject: Auto dealership development Tom, I live at 1260 Highridge Court East. The following are my comments about the letter you sent to us in regard to the development proposal. dated Jan. 21,2005 for the property between Highway 61 and the new County Rd D west of Highway 61: 1. Keep the structures as close to Highway 61 as passible because: a. that is in keeping with the other dealerships in this area. b. it keeps traffic and related noise and lights, including the off-loading of new vehicles away from the residential area as far as possible. 2. oppose giving this variance since there clearly is an alternative and I think this particular building code exists to protect the residents. 3. I am sure there are good reasons for crranting building code variances, especially when there are no alternatives, but this does not seem to be one of them. 4, Finally, I have a major concern about light pollution. For example, since so many trees have been removed due to the realignment of Country Road D, the lights from the Sparkle Used Car lot west of Highway 61 provide a bright beacon of light all the way to the townhouses along Highridge Court. I hope every effort will be made to have the lights shine down*.~*ard ~r~] nn*. horizontally, as they d^, rc~r th?r?. Hal Tetzlaff 22 1 Attachment 11 From: Ed Trolander [mailto:etrolander@mindspring.com] Sent: Friday, January 28, 2005 9:00 PM T~: Tom Ekstrand Subject: Fw: Auto Dealership --- Original Message ---- From: Ed Trolander To: Tom Ekstrand Sent: Friday, January 28, 2005 7:42 PM Subject: Auto Dealership Tom A couple of points should be made to the planning commission that are very important. 1.Businesses generate noise and even though they take measures they cannot do much about some noise. Auto repair shops are some of the worst with their air operated equipment,car wash facilities,movement of inventory and the continual delivery of cars via over the road #rucks. I think the planning commission should turn down the request for a variance. 2. I am also concerned about the lighting. They say that the lighting that will not interfere with the neighbors but how much of the lighting will be reflected back to the surrounding residential properties? We already have problems with lighting reflecting into our hams from Klein Volvo and Crystal. 3. 1 notice that the plan calls for plan#ing 8ft trees to the west of the property line as a screen,however because of the elevation these $ft trees would be so law as to not effectively block the view of the properties. These trees must be at least double what the developer proposes in order to do what they are supposed to do. Thanks for your consideration and please-do not recommend a variance and do recommend better screening. Ed Trolander 1256 Highridge Ct. 651 X94-3704 Jan.28,2005 1/31/2005 23 Attachment 12 Tom Ekstrand From: Valento, Tony ['i-ony.Vaiento cLDbestbuy.com] Sent: Monday, February 14, 2005 11:14 AM To: Tom Ekstrand Subject: FW: Opinion in response to your January 21, 2{305 letter regarding development proposal - automoti~e dealership and pre-owned car sales lot north of Venburg Tire on the west side of highway 61 'c'ony Valento Director, Tax Best Buy Enterprise Services, Inc. '7601 Penn Avenue South (A7-352) Richfield, MN 55423 Phone: 612-291-9278 Cell: b51-983-7814 Fax: 952-430-6392 tony.valenta@bestbuy.com From: Valento, Tony Sent: Sunday, January 30, 2005 10:51 PM To: 'tom.ekstrand@ci.maplewood.mn.us' Subiect: Opinion in response to your January 21, 2005 letter regardinq development proposal - automotive dealership and pre-owned car sales lot north of Venburg Tire on the west side of highway 61 Hi Tom - this email is in response to your January 21, 2005 letter regarding development proposal - automotive dealership and pre-owned car sales lot north of Venburg Tire on the west side of highway 61. To put it in a nutshell, I'm very concerned regardinq the impact this proposed development would have on the quality of life for my family and neighbors, particularly in light of a meeting with Town & Country Homes representatives on Monday, January 24, 2005. My family and I live on Duluth Street @ 2976 Duluth. i understood from discussions with representatives of the City of Maplewood that County Road D was being re-routed in order to alleviate the congestion caused by the current County Road D juncture with highway 61 being so close to the juncture of 694 and highway 61. Why then would the City want to encourage commercial development that would further contribute to congestion by having even mare car dealerships along highway 61 than we have today? Furthermore, I've noticed traffic from the Toyota dealership through our neighborhood which bothers me terribly considering the invasion of our privacy and the threat to the safety of our children. More car dealerships alongside our neighborhood would only increase the potential for more traffic through our neighborhood. Couple this with the anticipated proposal from Town & Country Homes (discussed at the January 24, 2005 meeting) to build condominiums in the R3 zone that lies between our neighborhood and the proposed car dealerships. "Condominiums", not "town homes" as referenced in your January 21, 2005 letter. While Town & Country Homes does appear to build a quality product (I've toured their models in the Heritage Square development lust to the west of Maplewood Mall), I'm concerned about their plan to propose a development of 92 condos in 6 buildings ranging from 12 to 20 condos per building. That is not a town home development. I'm concerned about the impact that $250,000 condos will have on the market values of the homes in our neighborhood that range from $500,000 24 and up. Furthermore I'm concerned about the impact that having 2 car dealerships within 167 & 169 feet of these condos will have on the market value of these condos. Requesting a variance from 350 feet to 167 & 169 feet seems ridiculous to me - it's like asking for a mile when you know they'd give you an inch. I'm concerned that the City of Maplewood is entertaining development proposals that are too big for this little parcel of land that has been opened up for development by the re--routing of County Road B. The City needs to look out for all of its residents including those in our neighborhood. 1 plan to be very active and vocal in this process - I feel we need to be considering the significant impact these proposed developments could have on our family-oriented neighborhood and our financial well-being. Thanks for listenina Tom. Tony Valento Director, Tax Best Buy Enterprise Services, Inc. 7601 Penn Avenue South (A7-352) Richfield, MTi 55123 Phone: 512-291-9278 Cell: 651-983-7814 Fax: 952-430-6392 tony.valento@bestbuy.com 25 2 January 21, 2005 Attachment 73 ROBERT D VOELLER & CAROL VOELLER 1252 HIGHRIDGE CT MAPLEWOOD MN 55109-1973 DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL -AUTOMOTIVE DEALERSHIP AND PRE-0WNED CAR SALES LOT NORTH OF VENBURG TIRE ON THE WEST SIDE OF HIGHWAY fit This letter is to get your opinion an two development proposals the city received for property in your neighborhood. Bryan Teeters, of the Ryan Companies, is proposing two auto dealerships on the Trout Land subdivision property between Highway 61 and the County Raad D extension an the west side of the highway. These two automotive uses would include afull-scale, new-car dealership an one property and a separate lot for the sale a# pre-awned, cars. Both facilities would have automotive repair as well as car sales. The applicant's client (Bloomer Properties, owner of Maplewood. Lexus) has not decided which site would be used for the full-scale dealership and which wou[d be used for pre-owned car sales. The {proposed northerly building would be 969 feet from the vacant residentially-zoned property to the west across future County Raad D. The proposed southerly building would be 167 feet from this residential property: The applicant needs a variance because the code requires at least 350 feet. This property, across the future County Road d extension, is tentatively. proposed for town homes. The proposed buildings would be over 350 feet from the existing single-dwelling properties to the west, however. Refer to the enclosures for further details. I need your opinion to help me prepare a recommendation to the planning commission and city council. Please write your opinion and comments below and return this letter, and any attachments on which you have written comments, by January 31, 2005.. If you would like further information, please call me at 651-249-2302 between 8 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. You can also email me at tam.ekstrand ci.ma lewood.mn.us. I will send you notices of the public hearing on this request when it is scheduled. Thank you for your comments. I will give them careful consideration. ~i n-„"1 TOM EKSTRAND -SENIOR PLANNER Enclosures: 1. Location Map 2. Trout Land Subdivision Map 3. Site Plan 4. Landscaping Plan 5. Appicant's Letter Dated January 14, 2005 I have no comments: Comments: RECEIVED JAN 2 7 2Dfl5 OFFICE OF Ggr~AMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 651-249-2300 FAX: 651-249-2319 CITY OF MAPLEWOOD 1 83o COUNTY ROAD B EAST MAPLEWOOD, MI~i 55'109 26 Attachment 14 [~GC~~~M~[~ JAN ~ 6 2Q05 _ JOSEPH L GERARI] & January 21, 05 r_- ~ ~ ~ ~ JANE L GERARD ----- -'-'- Together We Can 1248 HIGHRIDGE CT ~ MAPEWOOD MN 55109 DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL -AUTOMOTIVE DEALERSHIP AND PRE-OWNED CAR SALES LOT NORTH OF VENBURG TIRE ON THE WEST 51DE OF HIGHWAY 6't This letter is to get your opinion on two development proposals the city received for property in your neighborhood. Bryan Teeters, of the Ryan Companies, is proposing two auto dealerships on the Trout Land subdivision property between Highway 61 and the County Road D extension on the west side of the highway. These two automotive uses would include afull-scale, new-car dealership on one property and a separate lot for the sale of pre-owned. cars. Both facilities would have automotive re{~air as well as car sales. The applicant's client (Bloomer Properties, owner of Maplewood, Lexus) has not decided which site would be used for the full-scale dealership and which would be used for pre-owned car sales. The proposed northerly building would be 169 feet from the vacant residentially-zoned. property to the west across future County Road D. The proposed southerly building would be 167 feet from this residential property. The applicant needs a variance because the code requires at least 35D feet. This property, across the future County Road D extension, is tentatively proposed for town homes. The proposed buildings wou[d be aver 350 feet from the existing single-dwelling properties to the west, however. Refer to the enclosures for further details. I need your opinion to help me prepare a recommendation to the planning commission and city. council. Please write your opinion and comments below and return this letter, and any attachments on which you have written comments, by January 31, 2DD5.. If you would like further information, please call me at 651-249-23D2 betweerti 8 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. Yau can also email me at tom.ekstrand ci.ma lewood.mn.us. I will send you notices of the public hearing an this request when it is scheduled. Thank you for your comments. I will give them careful consideration. ~+ a`""ti TOM EKSTRAND -SENIOR PLANNER Enclosures: 1. Location Map 2. Trout Land Subdivision Map 3. Site Plan 4. Landscaping Plan 5. Applicant's Letter Dated January 14, 2005 I have no comments: OF~IG~ OF COMMUNITY ^~YELOPMrrNT 651 -249-2300 FAX: 651-249-23 i 9 C[TY OF MA~>_.~woon 1830 CouNTY ROAD B EAST MAP~r=woos, MN 55109 27 Attachment 15 CON©iTIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION WHEREAS, Brian Teeters, of the Ryan Companies, applied for a conditional use permit for used automobile safes and an automobile-repair garage. WHEREAS, this permit appties to property located between Highway 61 and the future County Road D Extension. The legal description is: LOT 1, BLOCK 1, TROUT LAND WHEREAS, the history of this conditional use permi# is as follows: 1. On February 23, 2005, the planning commission held a public hearing to review this proposal. City Staff published a notice in the paper and sent notices to the surrounding property owners as required by law. The planning commission gave everyone at the hearing a chance to speak and present written statements. The planning commission also considered the report and recommendation of the city staff. The planning commission recommended that the city council this permit. 2. The city council held a public hearing on .The council considered the report and recommendations of the city staff and planning commission. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the city council approve the above- described conditional use permit because: 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 me#hods 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 acrd services, inGuding stnaets, police and fire protection, drainage structures, water and sewer systems, schools and parks. 7. The use would not create excessive additional costs far public facilities or services. 8. The use would maximize the preservation of and incorporate the si#e's natural and scenic features into the development design. 28 9. The use would cause minimal adverse environmental effects. 10. Automotive sales and repair facilities are accepted uses in M1 districts subject to appropriate conditions. ~ 1. Automotive uses, such as these, have been considered part of the Trou# Land commercial development plan all along. 12. In the development agreement far Trout Land, the city council allowed a reduction of the setback from the County Road D extension with the idea that these automotive uses would be known to any would-be owners of the future town homes across new County Road D. Furthermore, the council required that these automotive-related buildings observe a 350-foot separation from the existing single-family home sites to the west. Approval is subject to the following conditions: a. This permit does not include a specific site plan approva! due to the need for further plan development addressing the issues identified in the staff report. Detailed plans must be submitted for review and approval by the Maplewood Community Design Review Board and City Council before site development and parking lot construction can begin. The applicant is allowed building setback reductions, as previously approved by the council, for the setback from future County Road D. All buildings must, however, be set back at least 350 feet from the rear lo# lines of the single family propeRies #o the west. b. The proposed construction must be substantially started or the proposed use utilized within one year of council approval or the permit shall become null and void. The council may extend this deadline for one year. c. The city council shall review this permit in one year. The Maplewood Gity Council approved this resolu#ion on 29 Attachment 16 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION WHEREAS, Brian Teeters, of the Ryan Companies, applied for a conditional use permit for used automobile sales ar}d an automobile-repair garage. WHEREAS, this permit applies to property located between Highway 61 and the future County Road D Extension. The legal description is: LOT 2, BLOCK 1, TROUT LAND WHEREAS, the history of this conditional use permit is as follows: 1. On February 23, 2005, the planning commission held a public hearing to review this proposal. City Staff published a notice in the paper and sent notices to the surrounding property owners as required by law. The planning commission gave everyone at the hearing a chance to speak and present written statements. The pEanning commission also considered the report and recommendation of the city staff. The planning commission recommended that the city council this permit. 2. The city council held a public hearing on .The council considered the report and recommendations of the city staff and pEanning commission. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the city council approve the above- described conditional use permit because: 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 o#her 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. 30 9. The use would cause minimal adverse environmental effects. 10. Autamotive sales and repair facilities are accepted uses in M1 districts subject to appropriate conditions. 11. Automotive uses, such as these, have been considered part of the Trout Land commercial development plan all along. 12. In the development agreement for Trout Land, the city council allowed a reduction of the setback #rom the County Road D extension with the idea that these automotive uses would be known to any would-be owners of the future town homes across new County Road D. Furthermore, the council required that these automotive-related buildings observe a 35d-foot separation from the existing single-family home sites to the west. Approval is subject to the following conditions: a. This permit does not include a specific site plan approval due to the need for further plan development addressing the issues identified in the staff report. Detailed plans must be submitted for review and approval by the Maplewood Community Design Review Board and City Council before site development and parking lot construction can begin. The applicant is allowed building setback reductions, as previously approved by the council, for the setback from future County Road D. All buildings must, however, be set back at least 350 feet from the rear lot lines of the single family properties to the west. b. The proposed construction must be substantially started or the proposed use utilized within one year of council approval or the permit shall become null and void. The council may extend this deadline for one year. c. The city council shall review this permit in one year. The Maplewood City Council approved this resolution on 31 MEMORANDUM TO: City Manager FROM: Ken Roberts, Planner SUBJECT: Overview LOCATION: Summer Lane, west of McMenemy Street DATE: February 15, 2005 INTRODUCTION Project Description Mr_ Gordie Howe, representing Masterpiece Homes, is proposing to develop 24 townhouses in a development called Overview. It would be on a 5.5-acre site on a cul-de-sac on the west side of McMenemy Street, south of Roselawn Avenue. Refer to the maps on pages 22-2fi. A homeowners' association would own and maintain the common areas. Each building would have horizontal-lap vinyl siding, aluminum soffits and fascia and a stone veneer on the fronts. In addition, each unit would have atwo-car garage. (See the eleva#ians on pages 30 - 33 and the enclosed plans.) Requests To build this project, Mr. Howe is requesting several city approvals including: 1. A conditional use permit {CUP) for a planned unit development (PUD} fora 24unit housing development. In this case, the site would have a mix of styles of two-unit owner-occupied townhome buildings. In addition, having a PUD gives the city and developer a chance to be more flexible with site design and development details than the standard zoning requirements would normally allow. 2. A preliminary plat for the townhouse lots and the lots for the common area and ponding areas. (See the map on page 25.) 3. The design plans for the site, landscaping and buildings. (See the plans on pages 25-33). DISCUSSION Zoning Land Use and Comprehensive Plans The city has shown this site for medium-density residential development (R-3(M)} on the land use map {see the map on page 23). Maplewood intends areas designated as R-3{M) as areas for townhouses yr apartments of up to fi units per gross acre. Maplewood has zoned this property F (farm residence). This zoning designation allows for farming and for single dwellings. The proposed development plan is consistent with the density allowed by the comprehensive plan for the property. Specifically, the 24 new units on the 5.5-acre site means there would be 4.4 units per gross acre. This proposal would meet the density standards outlined in the Maplewood Comprehensive Plan for this site. In addition, the proposed development density would be consistent with the density standards recommended by the Metropolitan Council for housing in first- ring suburbs. This is a good site for twin homes. It is on a collector street (McMenemy Street) and near a major collector street (Roselawn Avenue), and there are two schools and a church nearby. Zoning Map Changes To build the proposed townhouses, Mr. Howe wants the city to change the zoning map for the site. These changes would be from F {farm residence) to R-2 (single and double dwellings). The city intends F areas for farms and for single dwellings on 10,OOasquare-fool lots. For R-2 areas, the city plans for single dwellings vn lots of at least 10,000 square feet of area and for double dwellings on 12,000 square-foot lots. Compatibility Staff does not find a problem with this proposal in temps of compatibility and land use. The proposed townhouses would be near McMenemy Street and Roselawn Avenue, an existing condominium complex and next to single dwellings. In addition, developers will often build townhomes next to single dwellings. A recent example is the New CenturyAddition in south Maplewood. The developer, Robert Engstrom, is developing this neighborhood with a mix of single dwellings and townhomes. There are many other examples in Maplewood, such as Afton Ridge, Southwinds, Bennington Woods, Olivia Gardens and the Carriage Homes of Maple Hills where this is the case. PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD} Section 44-1093{b) of the city code says that it is the intent of the PUD code "to provide a means to allow flexibility by subs#an#ial deviations from the provisions of this chapter, including uses, setbacks, height and other regulations. Deviations may be granted for planned unit developments provided that: Certain regulations contained in this chapter should not apply to the proposed development because of its unique nature. 2. The PUD would be consistent with the purposes of this chapter 3. The planned unif development would produce a development of equal or superior quality to that which would result from strict adherence to the provisions of this chapter. 4. The deviations would not constitute a signi#icant #hreat to the property values, safety, health or general welfare of the owners or occupants of nearby land. 5. The deviations are required for reasonable and practicable physical development and are not required solely for financial reasons.° The applicant would apply tv the city for a conditional use permit (CUP) for a planned unit development (PUD} for the 24unit housing development. They would request a PUD to allow the project to have a variety of setbacks and to have the townhouses be on smaller lots than code usually allows (in area and in width). The developer is proposing a small lot around each townhome unif. A homeowners' association would own and maintain the rest of the land, including the private driveways, green areas and the ponding areas. In addition, having a PUD gives the city and developer a chance to be more flexible with site design and development details than the standard city requirements would normally allow. It is the contention of fhe applicant that the proposed code deviations meet the findings in the city code for approval of a PUD. 2 City staff agrees with the applicant that the development as proposed {shown an page 25}, with the proposed code deviations, would produce a development of equal or superior quality, that the proposals do not constitute a threat to the area and that the deviations are required far reasonable and practicable development of the site. As proposed, the 24 units on the 5.5-acre site means there would be 4.4 units per acre {an average of 9,900 square feet per unit). This is consistent with the density standards in the comprehensive plan for double dwelling residential development and is well above the 6,000-square-foot minimum lot area that the city requires for each unit in a double dwelling. Having a lot under each detached townhouse unit will allow the developer to sell each unit individually. For a comparison, the comprehensive plan allows developments with single dwellings to have up to 4.1 units per gross acre. As such, on a 5.5-acre site, there could be up to 22 single-family homes. Preliminary Plat Ciiy Engineering Department Review Chris Cavett and Chuck Vermeersch of the Maplewood Engineering department reviewed the proposed plans. They did not find any major issues with the proposal. Chuck's comments are in the memo on pages 34 - 38. Public Utilities There are sanitary sewer and water in McMenemy Street to serve the proposed development. However, there is no city storm sewer in this part of Maplewood. Drainage Concerns There is no city storm sewer in this part of Maplewood. The grading plan shows the developer using a new storm water pond on the south side of Summer Avenue within the proposed development to control the storm water. The applicant's engineer has designed the site, with the rainwater gardens and the new pond, to accommodate all the storm water from this site from back- to-back 100-year storms. The developer's engineer told me that by using the proposed ponds as storm water detention facilities, the development will not increase the rate of storm water runoff from the site. That is, the runoff leaving the site will be at or below current levels. The city should require that the applicant's grading/drainage plan ensures the runoff from his project wi#I not increase the storm water f#ow onto any neighbor's land. The developer's engineer will need to provide the city engineer with information and calculations showing that this project will not increase the amount of storm water running off of the site. Drainage and Watershed District This site is in the Capital Region Watershed District. They did not have any major concerns about the proposed plans. It is important to remember that the applicant or the contractor must get a permit from the watershed district before starting grading or construction. That is, the watershed district will have to be satisfied that the deve#oper's plans will meet all watershed district standards. 3 Tree RemovallReplacement As proposed, the applicant's contractor would grade most 4f the property to prepare the site for construction. The proposed plans show the developer saving four large frees (elm and spruce). The applicant is proposing to plant at least 120 trees (including red maple, pin oak, black hills spruce and Austrian pine} with his plans. As proposed on the preliminary landscape plan (page 28}, the developer would plant 120 trees on the site. These include a mix of 52 Black-Hills spruce and 23 Austrian pine a#ong the north and south property lines and dogwood, pin oak, sugar maple and red maple trees on the site. The code requires there be at least 10 trees per acre on the site. For this 5.5-acre site, the code requires there be at least 55 trees on the property after the construction is complete. As such, the proposed landscape plan would meet the requirements of the tree replacement code of the city. I~ndscapinglScnrening As proposed, the developer would plant 120 trees, numerous shrubs around the buildings and install an infiitratian basin on the site. The mix of plantings around each building will vary from unit to unit depending on whether the unit faces north or south and whether it is a 1 % story or rambler unit. (See the landscaping plans on pages 28 and 29.) The proposed project plans show the contractor keeping a few of the existing trees around the perimeter of the site. As I noted above, the developer would plant 120 larger trees in the development. These include 52 spruce, 28 pines and a mix of oaks and maple trees. (See the plan on page 28.) The landscape plan {page 28) and the detailed plan on page 29 also show the proposed plantings near the sidewalk and the entrance of each unit. These will include spires, junipers, dogwoods, lilac and honeysuckle. While the landscape plan is a good start, the developer should add more trees in two primary areas. These additional trees would be for screening along the south side of the site and along the north side of the site. The purpose of these additional plantings is to screen the new townhouses from the existing houses to the north and to screen this site from the MnDOT facility to the south. The city code requires the developer or builder to install screening along a residential property line that is at least six feet tall and at least 80 percent opaque. This screening may be accomplished with fencing, berming, tree planting or a combination of these techniques. It would be prudent for and helpful to the residents of the existing houses and those in the new townhouses if the developer installed screening along the south and north sides of the project to help ensure that the new townhouses are separated from the existing single dwellings. Staff is recommending that Mr. Howe add several Black Hills spruce and Austrian pines along the south and north property lines to provide additional screening between this site and the adjacent properties. As for the southeast (near the pond) and northeast parts of the property, planting trees in these areas would improve the looks of the site and should help screen the new townhouses from McMenemy Street. The applicant should revise the landscape plan to show additional trees in these areas so they provide screening and so they are consistent with Maplewood ordinance standards (far size and height). In addition, the applicant needs to provide the city engineering department with a detailed landscape plan for the pond_ The project engineer also should show this detail on the final project landscape plans. The plantings proposed around foundations of the units and in the proposed detail areas should remain on the plan. In addition to the above, all yard areas should be sodded (except for mulched and edged planting beds). 4 Design Review Buildirag Design and Exterior Materials The proposed buildings should be attractive and would fit in with the design of the existing homes in the area. They would have an exterior of horizontal vinyl siding (ivory color} with a stone veneer an the fronts and the roofs would have asphalt shingles. In addition, there woufd be a mix of 1 %rstory and rambler units and each unit woufd have an attached two-car garage. (See the proposed elevations on pages 30 - 33 and the enclosed project drawings.) These buildings would be very similar to the townhouses built by Masterpiece Homes in the Gardens development (jus# south of this site across McMenemy Street}. Staff does not have any major concerns about the proposed plans since this development wil! be an a cul-de-sac and would be somewhat isolated. In fact, only the buyers of the townhouses woufd be able to see the fronts of the new buildings. The builder should submit to city staff revised building plans and elevations that show or include (but are not limited to) the colors of alt materials, any shutters, window grids, white balcony railings, and that provide more detail about the brick or stone accents. The elevations also should show that the townhouses will have two tones of beige-colored vinyl siding and either bricfc or stone accents and wainscoting on the front elevation. The community design review board noted in 2D01 concerns about "snout-designed" homes. These are dwellings that have garages as the dominating street-side feature. The proposed townhomes have this design. The community design review board may want to have the developer change the proposed designs or add features to the buildings to lessen the impact of the garages. This could inGude additional landscaping in front of the dwelling parts of the buildings, adding covered front porches, enhancing the design of the garage doors or adding decorative light fixtures next to the garages and entrance doors. Site Lighting The applicant prepared a site lighting plan for the development that shows the ins#allation of three light posts to provide lighting along the new street. The city code requires the light fixtures to have a design that hides the bulb and lens from view. This plan, however, does not show any detail about the height or style of these poles or about the proposed lighting on the buildings. In addition, the proposed plan shows little, if any, lighting along the middle part of the driveway (near building four). The applicant should revise the lighting plan in two ways. First, the plan should show how the lighting an the buildings would add to the site lighting. In addition, the plan should show details about the proposed light poles and €rtures to ensure they meet the city code requirements and so they are a design that hides the bulb and lens from view to avoid nuisances. Parking It should be noted that the city allows parking on one side of 28-foot-wide streets and along both sides of streets that are 32 feet wide. In this case, the developer should construct the new street 28 feet wide and then the city would allow parking along the south side of the street {Summer Avenue). There is not room an the site to add off-street parking within this development. 5 Other Comments Police Department Lieutenant Kevin Rabbett of the Maplewood Police Department did not note any public safety concerns with this proposaf. Fire Marsha! Butch Gervais, the Maplewood Fire Marshal, wants the city to make sure the cul-de-sac is large enough for proper snow removal and for emergency vehiGe access. RECQMMEN©AT14NS A. Approve the resolution starting on page 42. This resolution approves a conditional use pem~it for a planned unit development for the Overview development on the west side of McMenemy Street, south of Roselawn Avenue. The city bases this approval on the findings required by code. (Refer to the resolution for the specific findings.} Approval is subject to the following conditions: 1. All construction shall follow the plans date-stamped January 25, 2005 except where the city requires changes. Such changes shall include: a. Revising the grading and site plans to show: (1) Revised storm water pond locations and designs as suggested or required by the watershed district or city engineer. The ponds shall meet the city's NURP Pond ordinance standards. (2) The developer minimizing the loss or removal of fhe remaining vegetation and large trees. (3} The street (Summer Avenue) must be at least 28 feet wide to allow parking on one side. The city council may approve major changes to the plans. The director of community development may approve minor changes. 2. The proposed construction must be substantially started within one year of council approval or the permit shall end. The council may extend this deadline for one year. 3. Nave the city engineer approve final construction and engineering plans. These plans shall meet all the conditions and changes noted in Chuck Vermeersch's memo dated February 14, 2005 and the plans shall include: a. The grading, utility, drainage, erosion control, streets, driveway, trails, tree preservationlreplacement, and parking plans. The cul-de-sac bulb shall have the minimum radius necessary to ensure that emergency vehicles can turn around. b. The fallowing changes for the storm sewer plans: 6 (1) The developer shall enclose the new pond with afour--foot-high, black, vinyl- coated chain-link fence. The contractor also shalt install a gate in the fence along McMenemy Street as may be required by the city engineer. (2) Provide for staff approval a detailed storm water management plan. c. The following for the streets and driveways: {1) Curb and gutter along the street, if the city engineer decides that it is necessary. d. Providing at least one additional fire hydrant between McMenemy Stree# and the end of the cul-de-sac, so #here are at least two hydrants along the street. 4. The design of the ponds shall meet Maplewood's NURP pond ordinance standards and sha#I be subject to the approval of the city engineer. The developer shall be responsible for getting any needed off-site pond and drainage easements, if applicable. 5. The developer or contractor shalt: a_ Complete all grading for the site drainage and the ponds, complete all public improvements and meet all city requirements. b.*Place temporary orange safety fencing and signs at the grading limits. c. Remove any debris, junk or fill from the site. 6. The approved setbacks for the principal structures in Overview PUD shall be: a. Front-yard setback (from a public street or a private driveway}: minimum - 20 feet, maximum - 35 feet b. Front-yard setback (public side street): minimum - 30 feet, maximum -none c. Rear-yarc! setback: 20 feet from any adjacent residential property line d. Side-yard setback (townhouses): minimum - 20 feet minimum between buildings. 7. The developer or builder will pay the city Park Access Charges {PAC fees} for each housing unit at the time of the building permit for each housing unit. 8. The city council shall review this permit in ane year. B. Approve the Overview preliminary plat (received by the city on January 25, 2005)_ The developer shall complete the following before the city council approves the final plat: 1. Sign an agreement with the city that guarantees that the developer or contractor will: a. Complete afl grading for overall site drainage, complete al! public improvements and meet all city requirements. b.* Place temporary orange safety fencing and signs at the grading limits. 7 c. Provide all required and necessary easements (including ten-foot drainage and utility easements along the front and rear lot lines of each lot and five-foot drainage and utility easements along the side lot lines of each lot), d. Have Xcel Energy install Graup V rate street lights in at least three locations. One light shall be at the intersection of McMenemy S#reet and the proposed street (Summer Avenue), one in the middle of the block and the #hird near the west end of the street near the cul-de-sac. The exact style and Location shall be subject to the city engineer's approval. e. Pay the city for the cost of traffic control, street identifica#ian and no parking signs. f. Cap, seal and abandon any wells that may be on the site, subject to Minnesota rules and guidelines. 2." Have the city engineer approve final construction and engineering plans. These plans shall include grading, utility, drainage, erosion control, driveway, tree, and street plans. The plans shall meet all the conditions and changes listed in the memo from Chuck Vermeersch dated February 14, 2Dt)5, and shall meet the following conditions: a. The erosion control plans shall be consistent with the city code. b. The grading plan shall show: {i} The proposed building pad elevation and contour information for each building site. The lot lines on this plan shall follow the approved preliminary plat. (2) Con#our information for all the land that the construction will disturb. (3) Building pads that reduce the grading on site where the developer can save Large trees. (4) The street and driveway grades as allowed by the city engineer. (5) Ail proposed scopes on the construction plans. The city engineer shall approve the plans, specificafions and management practices for any slopes steeper than 3:1. On slopes steeper than 3:1, the developer shall prepare and implement a stabilization and planting plan. These slopes shall be protected with wood fiber blanket, be seeded with a no-maintenance vegetation and be stabilized before the city approves the final plat. (6) All retaining walls on the plans. Any retaining wails taller than four feet require a building permit from the city. The developer shall install a protective rail or fence on top of any retaining wall that is taller than four feet. {7) Sedimentation basins or ponds as required by the watershed board or by the city engineer. {8} No grading beyond the plat boundary without temporary grading easements from the affected property owner(s). 8 (9) A minimum of a 10-foot-wide, 10:1 bench below the normal water level {NWL) of any pond designed to be a wet pond. The depth of the pond below the NWL shall not exceed four feet. (10) Emergency overflow swales as required by the city engineer or by the watershed district. The overflow swales shall be 10 feet wide, one foot deep and protected with approved permanent soil-stabilization blankets. (1 ~ } The drainage areas and the developer's engineer shall provide the city engineer with the drainage calculations. The drainage design shall accommodate the run-off from the entire pro}ect site and shall not increase the run-off from the site. (12} A creative design for the proposed storm water pond with curves, rattier than straight sides, for a more aesthetic design and visual appeal. The pond, however, shall have the required storm water capacity. c." The tree plan shalt: (1) Be approved by the city engineer before site grading or final plat approval. {2) Show where the developer will remove, save or replace large trees. This plan shall include art inventory of all existing large trees on the site. (3} Show the size, species and location of the replacement and screening trees. The deciduous trees shall be at least two and one half {2 %) inches in diameter and shall be a mix of red and white oaks, ash, lindens, sugar maples or other native species. The coniferous trees shall be at least eight {8) feet tall and shall be a mix of Austrian pine, Black Hills spruce and other species. (4) Show no tree remova! beyond the approved grading and tree limits. (5) Include for city staff a detailed tree planting plan and material list. (fi) Group the new trees together. These planting areas shall be: (a) near the ponding area (b) along the north acid south sides of the site to help screen the development from the existing houses to the north and from the MnDOT facility. (~ Show the planting of at feast 120 trees after the site grading is done. d. The street, driveway and utility plants shall show: (1) The street (Summer Avenue} shall be a 9-ton design with a maximum street grade of eight percent and the maximum street grade within 75 feet of all intersections at two percent. (2) Water service to each lot and unit. (3} Repair of McMenemy Street {street and boulevard} after the developer connects to the public utilities and builds the private driveway. 9 {4) The developer enclosing the new pond with afour-toot-high, black, vinyl-coated chain-link fence. {The fence shall not be six feet high as shown on the plans.) The contractor also shall install a gate in the fence as may be required by the city engineer. {5) The private driveways with continuous concrete curb and gutter except where the city engineer decides that it is not needed for drainage purposes. (6} The coordination of the water main locations, alignments and sizing with the standards and requirements of the Saint Paul Regional Water Services {SPRWS). Fire-flow requirements and hydranf locations shall be verified with the Maplewood Fire Department. {7) All utility excavations located within the proposed right-of-ways or within easements. The developer shall acquire easements for all utilities that would be outside the project area. (8) The plan and profiles of the proposed utilities. (9} Details of the ponds and the pond outlets. The outlets shelf be protected to prevent erosion. e. The drainage plan shall ensure that there is no increase in the rate of storm-water run-off leaving the site above the current {predevelopment) levels. The developer's engineer shall: {'I) Verify pond, inlet and pipe capacities. (2) Have the city engineer verify the drainage design calculations. 3. Pay the costs related to the engineering department's review of the construction plans. 4. Change the plat as follows: a. Shaw drainage and utility easements along all property lines on the final plat. These easements shall be ten feet wide along the front and rear property lines and five feet wide along the side property lines. b. Label the common areas as outlots. c. Add drainage and utility easements as required by the city engineer. d. Label the street as Summer Avenue on all plans. 5. Secure and provide all required easements far the development. These shall inGude any off-site drainage and utility easements. ti. Sign a developer's agreement with the city that guarantees that the developer or contractor will: a. Complete all grading far overall site drainage, complete all public improvements and meet ail city requirements. b.* Place temporary orange safety fencing and signs at the grading limits. 1p c. Provide for the repair of McMenemy Street (street, curb and gutter and boulevard) after the developer connects to the public utilities and builds the private driveway. 7. Submit the homeowners' association bylaws and rules to the city for approval by the director of community development. These are to assure that there will be one responsible party for the care and maintenance of the common areas, private utilities, landscaping and retaining walls. t3. Record the following with the final plat: a. All homeowners' association documents. b. A covenant or deed restriction that prohibits any further subdivision or splitting of the lots or parcels in the plat that would creafe additional building sites unless approved by the city council. c. A covenant or association documents that addresses the proper installation, maintenance and replacement of any retaining walls. The applicant shall submit the language for these dedications and restrictions to the city for approval before recording, 9. The developer shall complete all grading for public improvements and overall site drainage. The city engineer shall include in the developer's agreement any grading that the developer or contractor has not completed before final plat approval. 10. Obtain a permit from the Watershed Distract for grading. 11. Obtain a NPDES construction permit from the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA). 12. Obtain the necessary approvals and permits from Mnt]OT. 13. If the developer decides to final plat part of the preliminary plat, the director of community developmen# may waive any conditions that do not apply to the final plat. "The developer must complete these conditions before the city issues a grading permit or approves the final plat. C. Approve the plans date-stamped January 25, 2005 (site plan, landscape plan, grading and drainage plans and building elevations) for the Overview townhouses on the wesf side of McMenemy Stree#, south of Roseiawn Avenue. The city bases this approval on the findings required by the code. The developer or contractor shall do the following: 1. Repeat this review in two years if the city has not issued a building permit for this project. 2. Complete the following before the city issues a building permit: a. Have the city engineer approve final construction and engineering plans. These plans shall inGude: grading, utility, drainage, erosion control, tree, sidewalk and driveway 11 plans. The plans shall meet the following conditions and shall also meet aII the conditions and changes noted in Chuck Vermeersch's memo dated February 14, 2005. (1) The erosion control plan shall be consistent with city code. (2) The grading plan shall: (a) Include building, floor elevation and contour information for each home site. The lot lines on this plan shall follow the approved preliminary plat. (b) Include con#our information for the land that the construction will disturb. {c} Shaw sedimentation basins or ponds as may be required by the watershed board or by the city engineer. A revised design for the storm water pond that shows curves, rather than straight sides, for a more aesthetic design and visual appeal. The pond, however, shall have the required storm water capacity. (d) Show all proposed slopes steeper than 3:1 on the proposed constructian plans. The city engineer shall approve the plans, specifications and management practices for any slopes steeper than 3:1 _ This shall include covering these slopes with wood-fiber blankets and seeding Them with a "no mow" vegetation rather than using sod or grass. {e) Show all retaining walls on the plans. Any retaining walls more than four feet tall require a building permit from the city. (f) Show the proposed street and driveway grades as allowed by the city engineer. (g) Show the drainage areas and the developer's engineer shall provide the city engineer with the drainage calculations. The drainage design shall accommodate the run-off from the surrounding areas. (h) Show details about the proposed fence by the pond including the materials, gate, height and color. The contractor shall extend the fence along the east side of the pond, near McMenemy Street. (3) The tree plan shall: (a) Be approved by the city engineer. (b} Include an inventory of all existing large trees on the site and shall show where the developer will remove, save or replace large trees. (c) Show the size, species and location of the replacement trees. The coniferous frees shall be at least eight feet tall and shall be a mix of Black Hills spruce and Austrian pine. (d} Be consistent with the approved grading and landscape plans and steal! show no tree removal beyond the approved grading and tree limits. 12 {4) The street, driveway and utility plans shall show: (a) A water service to each lot and unit. (b) The repair and restoration of McMenemy Street (inGuding curbing, street, and boulevard) after the contractor removes the existing driveways, connects to the public utilities and builds the new street. (c} All driveways at least 20 feet wide. If the developer wants to have parking on one side of the street, then it must be at least 28 feet wide. (d) The street and the driveways shall have continuous concrete curb and gutter except where the city engineer decides that it is not needed. (e) The developer or contractor shall post one side of the street with "no parking" signs to meet the above-listed standards. (f) The street labeled as Summer Avenue and McMenemy Street labeled on all plans. (g) The common area labeled as Outlot A on all plans. (5}The design of the ponding area and the rainwater garden(s) shall be subject to the approval of the city engineer. The developer shall be responsible for getting any needed off-site utility, grading or drainage easements and for recording all necessary easements. b. Submit a certificate of survey for ail new construction and have each building staked by a registered land surveyor. c. Submit a revised landscape plan to staff for approval which incorporates the following details: {1) All lawn areas shall be sodded. The city engineer shall determine the vegetation within the ponding area. (2) The addition of trees for screening along the north and south sides of the site. {3) The developer shall install landscaping in the ponding area to break the appearance of the deep hale and to promote infiltration. Such landscaping shall be approved by the city engineer and shall be shown on the project landscape plans. (4) Having in-ground irrigation for all landscape areas (code requirement). (5) The plantings proposed around the front o€ the units shown on the landscape plan date-stamped January 25, 2005, shall remain on the plan. (6) A concrete walk from the driveway #o the door of each unit. (~ The manicured or mowed areas from the natural areas. This shall include planting (instead of sodding} the disturbed areas around the ponding area with native grasses and native flowering plants. The native grasses and flowering plants shall be those needing little or no maintenance and shalt extend at least four feet from 13 the ordinary high water mark (OHWM) of the pond. This is to reduce maintenance costs and to reduce the temptation of mowers to encroach into the gardens. Specifically, the developer shall have the natural areas seeded with art upland mixture and lowland mixtures as appropriate. (8) In addition to the above, the contractor shall sod all front, side and rear yard areas (except for mulched and edged planting beds and the area within the ponding area). {9} The contractor shall restore the McMenemy Street boulevard with sod. (10) Adding a# least 12 more evergreen trees (Black Hills spruce or Austrian pines) along the north and south property lines of the site. These trees are to be at least eight feet tail and the contractor shall plant these trees in staggered rows to provide screening for the houses to the north. {11) Shows the in-ground lawn-irrigation system, including the location of the sprinkler heads. (12) Shall be approved by the city engineer before site grading and shall be consistent with the approved grading and landscape plans. d. Show that Ramsey County has recorded the final plat for this development. e. Get the necessary approvals and permits from the watershed district. Submit a revised site lighting plan for city approval. This plan shall show how the lighting on the buildings would add to the site lighting. This plan also shall show details about the proposed light fixtures to ensure #hey are a design that hides the bulb and lens from view to avoid nuisances. The light t"~xtures must have concealed lenses and bulbs to property shield glare from the adjacent street right-of--ways and from adjacent residential properties. g. Have the Saint Paul Regional Water Services (SPRWS} approve the proposed utility plans. h. Present to staff for approval color building elevations or building material samples of all elevations of the townhouses. These elevations should show that the townhouses will have two tones of ivory and beige-colored vinyl siding ar~d either brick or stone accents on the front elevation. These elevations also should show that the fron# elevations would have a wainscot of brick or stone. i. The developer or builder wilt pay the city Park Access Charges {PAC fees) for each housing unit at the time of the building permit for each housing unit. j. Submit the homeowners' association bylaws and rules to the city for approval by the city staff. These are to assure that there will be one responsible party for the care and maintenance of the common areas, the private utilities, landscaping and any retaining walls. k. Obtain the necessary approvals and permits from MnDOT. 14 I. Provide the city with a letter of credit or cash escrow for all required exterior improvements. The amount shall be 150 percent of the cost of the work. 3. Complete the following before occupying each building: a. Replace property irons that are removed because of this construction. b. Restore and sod damaged boulevards and sod all turf areas. c. Complete all landscaping and turf irrigation for that building and its rainwater garden(s). d. Install the required concrete curb and gutter. e. Install a reflectonzed stop sign at the exit onto McMenemy Street and addresses on each building for each unit. In addition, the applicant shall install "no parking" signs within the site, as required by staff. f. Install and maintain all required landscaping (including the plantings around each unit and around the pond) and an in-ground sprinkler system for all landscaped areas (code requirement). g. Install on-site lighting for security and visibility that follows the approved site lighting plan. All exterior fighting shall follow the approved lighting plan that shows the light spread and fixture design. The light fixtures must have concealed lenses and bulbs to properly shield glare from the adjacent street right-of--ways and the nearby hames and residential properties. h. install asix-font-high solid screening fence or additional trees along the north and south property fines of the site where the vegetation does not adequately screen the town houses from the existing dwellings. These additional materials are fo ensure there is at least asix-foot-tall, 80 percent opaque screen on these sides of the site. The location, design and materials of the fence or the additional landscaping shall be subject to city staff approval. i. The developer or contractor shall: (1) Complete all grading for the site drainage, complete all public improvements and meet all city requirements. {2) Place temporary orange safety fencing and signs at the grading limits. (3} Remove any debris or junk from the site. 4. If any required work is not done, the city may allow temporary occupancy if: a. The city determines thaf the work is not essential to the public health, safety or welfare. 15 b. The above-required letter of credit or cash escrow is held by the ci#y for all required exterior improvements. The owner or contractor shall complete any unfinished landscaping by June 'I of the next year if the building is occupied in the fall or winter, or within six weeks of occupancy if the building is occupied in the spring or summer. 5. All work shall follow the approved plans. The director of community development may approve minor changes. 16 CITIZENS' COMMENTS I surveyed the owners of the 59 properties within 500 feet of this site. Of the four replies, one was in favor of the proposal and three had comments. fn Favor After talking to Mr. Howe, I no longer have any concerns. He specified more trees would be planted in the gap behind 328 Bellwood Avenue. Overall, I see a nice development and we are in favor. (Chinander - 328 Bellwood Avenue) Objections None Comments 1. No objection. (Father Peter Njoku -Saint Jeromes Church) 2. See the comments from Jay Swenson of 178D McMenemy Street an pages 39 and 40. 3. Also see the e-mail from Lisa Kihl on page 41 for additional comments. 17 REFERENCE lNFORMATlON SITE DESCRIPTION Site size: 5.5 acres Existing land use: Vacant SURROUNDING LAND USES North: Single dwellings along Bellwood Avenue South: Mnl]OT maintenance facility West: I-35E East: Houses and condominiums across McMenemy Street PLANNING Existing Land Use Plan designation: R-3{M) {medium density residential} Existing Zoning: F (farm residence) Proposed Zoning: R-2 (single and double dwellings) Findings for Rezoning Section 44-1165 of the zoning code requires that the city council make the following findings to rezone property: 1. The proposed change is consistent with the spirit, purpose and intent of the zoning code. 2. The proposed change will not substantially injure or detract from the use of neighboring property ar from the character of the neighbofiood, and that the use of the property adjacent to the area included in the proposed change or plan is adequately safeguarded. 3. The proposed change will serve the best interests and conveniences of the community, where applicable, and the public welfare. 4. The proposed change would have no negative effect upon the logical, efficient, and economical extension of public services and facilities, such as public water, sewers, police and fire protection and schools. Criteria for Conditional Use Permit Approval Section 44-1097(x) states that the city council may approve a CUP, based on nine standards. (See findings 1-9 in the resolution on pages 42 through 44.) Ordinance Requirements Section 2-290(b) of the city code requires that the community design review board make the following findings to approve plans: 1. That the design and location of the proposed development and its relationship to neighboring, existing or proposed developments, and traffic is such that it will no# impair the desirability of investment or occupation in the neighborhood; that it will not unreasonably intertere with the use 18 and enjoyment of neighboring, existing or proposed developments; and that it will not create traffic hazards or congestion. 2. That the design and location of the proposed development is in keeping with the character of the surrounding neighborhood and is not detrimental to the harmonious, orderly and attractive development contemplated by this article and the city's comprehensive municipal plan. 3. That the design and location of the proposed development would provide a desirable environment for its occupants, as well as for its neighbors, and that it is aesthetically of good composition, materials, textures and colors. HOUSING POLICIES The land use plan has eleven general land use goals. Of these, three apply to this proposal. They are: minimize land planned for streets, minimize conflicts between land uses and provide many housing types. The land use plan also has several general development and residential development policies that relate to this project. They are: - Transitions between distinctly differing types of land uses should not create a negative economic, social or physical impact on adjoining developments. - Include a variety of housing types for all types of residents, regardless of age, ethnic, racial, cultural or socioeconomic background. A diversity of housing types should include apartments, townhouses, manufactured homes, single-family housing, publio-assisted housing and !ow-#o- moderate-income housing, and rental and owner-occupied housing. - Protect neighborhoods from encroachment or intrusion of incompatible land uses by adequate buffering and separation. The housing plan also has policies about housing diversity and quality tha# the city should consider with this development. They are: - Promote a variety of housing types, costs and ownership options throughout the city. These are to meet the life-cycle needs of all income levels, those with special needs and nontraditional households. - The city will continue to provide dispersed locations for a diversity of housing styles, types and price ranges through its land use plan. The city's long-term stability of its tax base depends upon its ability to attract and keep residents of all ages. To do so, the city must insure that a diverse mix of housing styles is available in each stage of the fife cycle of housing needs. Application Date We received the complete applications and plans for this development on .January 25, 2D05. State law requires that the city take action within 6D days of receiving complete applications for a proposal. As such, city action is required on this proposal by March 22, 2DD5. 19 p:sec181overview final - 2005.mem Attachments: 1. Applicant's Statement 2. Location Map 3. Land Use Plan Map 4. Area Map 5. Proposed Preliminary Plat 6. Proposed Grading Plan 7. Proposed Utility Plan 8. Proposed Landscape Plan 9. Landscape Plan Details 10. Proposed Building Elevations 11. Proposed Building Elevations (Side Loaded) 12. Proposed Building Elevations (Lookout} 13. Proposed Side Elevation 14. Engineering Department Comments dated February 14, 2{305 15. Neighborhood Survey dated February 7, 2005 from Jay Swenson 16. >=-mail dated IFebruary 4, 2005 from Lisa Kihl 17. Conditional Use Permit Resolution 18. Project Plans date-stamped January 25, 2045 (separate attachments) zv Attachment ~ -~^- 127 East County Road C ^ St. Paul, MN 55117 WWERE QUALITY MATTEE2S (651) 484-3244 Fax (651) 484-7723 January 25, 2005 City Council of Maplewood Planning Commission 1 &30 County Road B East Maplewood, MN 55109 Reference: Overview 1AN ~ 5 205 R~CLI~ED Out intent is to develop this parcel under the City of Maplewood's Comprehensive plan. We plan to build 24 townhomes {12 buildings side by side) similar to the Gardens across the street. The price range $350,000.00 to $400,000.00. One public entrance from McMemeney for ingress and egress. An infiltration pond accountable fora 100 year storm event. This development will have a minimal effect on the neighborhood. Respectfu~ly, _~~ ~ . ~,~ ordie Howe Masterpiece Homes Inc. APPLICANT'S STATEMENT 21 Attachment 2 5 ~ ~' I 1 y - I ---------If I ~ ~~/~~ ~I I ~ j ~ ~ JI I~ ;I I i II I 1 ~~ ~ it I ~I I I I ~{I 1 Iy4 ~ III l i f ~~ ~~ I ~ I ~ y~---~ l I 7 I 1~ 4 I~1 ~ _ II It I i r~ 11 4 ~i I t I I ~ I frf I ~I titi 4~i I I I I ' ~-~~ ~' , M I ti i 3 S I I I E I y l 11 1 13 I I ~ fl+ €# I ti ti, ii f l I I 1111 I ~ f ' I I ~ f~-____- i ~' 14 Ise, ~~ tk I I~ 1 j j ''' ~ I! I I ~~1 ~,r ~~ ,i~ I If ;~ I I I I - _ ~ ~ ti,4 I I + I 4 - "" - ~ I 1 ~ I ~ I +jf I I ~. - -=1.4'x_-, i ~ I -- -- st I { I r= f } 1,'i a` ati°;~ ~}I J I+~ r I ~~ of ~ ,~~~ I ~ '~ strE SAINT JEROMES t~ ~~~> t l f ti _ __ ~ ~--~ ''~` ~ ~~~ti i1 rte 1-I '~ rk I ~ j I I m~}r~~ THE GARDENS - .~°'` ~-~ II `Ly1~~ ~aF~ t ur I I l1JLLJWW~~J~IL.~~•~ ~f `~ r ~~ ~, ~ I `~~. -~E ~ '-'~ ~ ~~ I I MNnoT I ~~v ~ - - - - 14 jr-- --rte I ~ f I I ..'~` I I- -~ ~~~ - ~r 4 4 I ! I I .~1~` I ~ y It ~~ ---f~~ ~ 7 = -~ I I ~ 7 - ~ I~ CHURCH ~- I I h 4 ~ 1 x 'cl I I I _.-~ I '+y~~~ `~~. ~'~t ~ tli I f I I I y~ "i.?<r_ "~~ ~ ~ ~j....r' t' 11 I I I ti~ t I I .- tf '~ .._.y.'~,~`^~4 ~L ~ ~ ~ € ~ t h I t1 I I 4,` I~ i ,f, t I '.~ I ~ ~~ I f# l ti I I - 7 I i t I ti, ti s3 I _ I it ~' I ~ fl t 1 ~~ t~ ~ I I ~II J~ I ~ I ~7 ~ I I fl i t I +I S 1 1 Iti ~~ I I I it I y I II 5s I LARPENT~l1F~AdE~ `~-- - - 4 - ~ - - SAINT PAUL ~ '~~ '1 tl II If II It I~ II I~ ----- D ~~I~ II ~II~ III I~ III '~ I -~,~~ -- ! ~-' ~t li '""`VIII 4 , W ~~ ~--~ ~~ ~ O - ~,} ~ - ~5 tr- ,,~~; - ~ t~ LOCATION MAP 22 4 N Attachment 3 ~=3 LAND USE MAP 23 N ROSELAWN AVE Attachment 4 AREA MAP ~4 4 N Attachment 5 ~__-________-_____-_ _-__-___________-_ ~10 Nara, ~ ~ __22-_ _-__-__"~"_._-__-._-__- F______-__-__-__ c[x1G d eI~ .4 i.r, R}2 I ey,R[i mitt x~wexi taxi. us, ixor~ xwapn I ~ I xGM uM or „" ;, Y. aaba .. I /, a 1[cie~~ I rv~ 1 I ~ I I ~ I I ~ I TYPICAL 9111LDING AND LOT 1 "~ 30' as.o sx.oo Saorr. e ~ R~LBLfR UvIT ~ ~ xs6 12.00 g 12- ~o.oo m RAAABiER 11N17 a6 0 " s . "' ~ x4.0 ~ I 12.0 ~1 1/2 STORY ~ ~.o 66.0 I u e ~ zoo 46.0 1-1 /2 STORY lJN1T I ~ , I "- ~ I ~:---------~-- ~ ~ BELLWOOD AVE. I I I" I W I I ..- I ~ __~~ I I r______---~----------t-~_~___°_-r----- r---------~ ~B I I I ~ L I I I i ~~~ I 'r I I I I I I I C~ • I 6 ::~ I a €I i i i i i ~•~~ I .:: ~ _ ~. ~ ~ .. ~ ~ l I I I ~ ~'~IR wee ur I..__v„~_______« /~ I I I I I ti/~ Idt t ':I f d'- I - I I II ~ •4 I 1 4~ _ ~ :{ I:. ,p ~°F p+~. I d~ ~ - '°' I .. d I e p I I fi *~e" '~ Ir ,i~~ ~+~~ ~ ^+~ ~~ 1•~ ~ i44 v.., "".I~`+.F'~ ~...*.~ ~A ~-;r+-d +d+~ ~Jle ~ I I ~ d IR elan - . ~d,td d ~: - I _ _ p !• I R I e'a I .. " ~~ .Q I ~, ^~~' .. F ~, a N69'58't0"; I ~r ~ I ~ .+swm ue: or a . av~.mxtw- d" r ~ ~ '`: I b I ~.P~ -~ ~- 571.85 ~... o° I e .. • ~ I x•"elrR_ LMY `~ 'Rqe -,_~ eulMYe w I ? {., 3 I // ~ I ~ ~ I 1 - I .... ''. + k ~ ~ V ~~ ~ -~'::~ ~.'n ~~-;._ -~'. ter'- ~.. r - _,. _ ``. - ~. 4~. ~L ; ' ":, ~ ' ' r . ~'~ ~.1 . ' ~1 _ _ Y-•_ ~ t p / T ~ I seem / ' ~ ' ]~ I Rem" J_ ~ j~j , ~ Mo ] .. .... - -.,~ } --~ T _~ 4~l + '-~' . ~ I c r , !- Rem '+.p ~, f ~ I "Y RMAIQ ua* -', /fWelen; WR ~ 4 ey ~, . ~ ... p .. I E ry '~~ ' , ~~ _ , I ~ 4 _~ .. f~ p .. ~ Lai :--~}~ ~' ~ .~ 18 ~M ~ ~, _ ree.® eIIWKf Mle YWIT I4eplClrl ,xlwaleur im ae I ' -"~~ ~ + _ - .. ... ~~INF.ILIRISTIDN P~Ni) V ux o ,.. ' R ,. ~- ma ; I .... ~ I _~ ~~ `F _~__~--____-- m. « F ,. I . _ .., ., - ...._- I'Sf Q2 f t '371 66 ~ e~ .u - ~' I .P r ~~ I ~ + ,~~ I 7Rlx uNE LF rw d c- MNDOT K RC,/a Oe THE ~ ~ I Sa'' I + I PROPOSED PRELIMINARY PLAT z~ ~Q N Attachment 6 OVERVIEW PRELIMINAR Y PLAT GRADING PLAN IH ~-----r------~-----~-----~----~ ~8 4 i I l i -+ I~ I I RESI{7ENT€,~ I I I I ~~ I I .'~ I t I I i i~ 1 f'. I €~~ I 7- :~------~~ a~~ ~~ i-~_~ I I ~I ,~ I ~ 1 .. I ._ ..._ ienac , I VN89'S8'1D"W ~ s.. srMC ~ ;', :, ... `t °j.'``'! I b , P : ~ : ' ' _ - °R~ ~a+c ' 576.77 ` rnorF~7r ux ~~srpn€ uHC or oe uu1 xHd eoanw' ~~ ~ -~ ~ III ` ,l ~~ ~ 'I ' !~ i}. - _~ X7,17 ' - _ - _ ~ I --• !/ ~. " ~ ~ _ _ ~. _ r . s` 5 _ 4 k ~ ~ - ~ 11 , ` I I~~l It~ 1 ` ~ r M alb ~~' ,\ ~5~ ,, - T rnoraem urye ~ I ! ~ . - - , 1 ~ r' - ~ 3~ i~ f Y - I II I - j ' I ~ 111 II' 1 `~'/ -- ~! r P I y L ~ ' I'll ';\` r ~,. ~% ll r, li~1ll _ IK - M~ _ I ~ ,E~ ~'- - I I y .. 1'11,1,', ~ ',`~ 4~ - - - .WFILTijA'TION POND 1 ,` y ` ' ` - - I ~ , rElw H4il ooe.o I I 3 3 I I t~~1111 `, I yl ~ ~ ~ _ axow ~Erloou. ..~~ ail' 1r L i,~- _ -_-- I .~ ~y, - _ I ' I, l1, ~ - _ -_ _ _ - I I I l',`_~ - 1 ~ _ _- - _ _1°_-_-- - - '. 9'SgFf12,@ ~ ~ , e ~ 1570.71 ~ as IacH ro I '~~ - _ __ _ _" - oR7H LINE Oi lHE SOU7M 37e FEET OF ' ~ - - _ _ _ - ~ ~ TiE NE1/4 OF 711E SEF/4 OF SEC. 1B I ~ I "~ i I PROPOSED GRADING PLAN 26 4 N Attachment 7 OVER VIEW PREL.~MINAR Y PLAT UT7LTTY PLAN I i _ t I I I RESIUEkTI-0L I I ~~. I i ~ ~ {lE E ~, s ~I I `- ~ ' ~R~ ~~ FT V M1y ~ ,r ~[ ~ ~< I~LGiI ~/ I ° .`I/f `d I I~ ~„ I .. [_ I r~ ~ ~ k ~I rEi0S11RC /~~E% yy''r~_.._ . I I / RiOPEMtt LWE I ` f "'OPERTY LIN' +3P1T1 IMIE OF ~E MIJI~ ~!0 Al10iA0M . _ _L.._ ~~:~. IS ._ YN 1d~ ~.y ~ yp Rol i12n LC YGSI ' - - 4 - '- - /~ m,aJ rw" I RIM E7., I I IEau I I W I ~ ~ I I/ ~ CiRIH f0~ CWN 1 ~~ $~ RRI EOEd -+ - - _.~ _ - - - -7 ~~ I I Pn ~..n saR~cr ro ExlsnRa tr xv A Recarrornucr I s~erTo arv eTUn~rtw i ~+ECr ro ~7asrro PROPOSED UTILITY PLAN z~ 4 N Attachment g i~ I -I I -- ~~ O { IRe e ~~ ,~ ~~~ :_~~ - .f . . _~ ~;~ ~_',~ . . ~ ~. /~ / ~. II/F~ . ~2 ~ ~ ~"I _~ ~ i ~y ~. 1 p ~z~ .f ~: n~,~«~I~! c r~r EF'~,~ r i[~ ~ ~. rtil ~~ ~' i / . ~. ~: 1 5 - ~.. I 1 ~z~ ovEx ~rE~ LANDSCAPE PLAN MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA r~------------?----- ----- ~ - i W PEEI~EH TI4L i I I i - ~- ~ ~ - ~ - , Y ~ , ~ . ~ _ I r r F ~ / L ~r wE wcei _ ~ _ -. -L -~- ` ~ II ~ ~~ ~ ~ _ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ea~,ex CIE e99,Se t1IY ASMIILT~ ~ n ~ I 'i ra `~ I ?vEr . ~ a E i ~s ~~rA ~ ~c e~ oe a~~ _ is rcn n~i, 570.77 _ _ i - I ,~ ~, `~ - ` - ~ ~~ ~ 5 E ~i ... ~. ' +~~ ~ _ - ~ 1~ -. -_ - ~ :c-H _IiE i,v •ME S~~TF ~'? E_~T ~~: ~ !r - -. il-E ilE'.'a:F TfE ~C'~.iE SEQ. .. r ~ - ~ _. II --~ I PROPOSED LANDSCAPE PLAN z8 4 N Attachment g TOWNHOME PLANTING DETAII. NO BCAIF i-1 C-3 ~_ `. 0 Y 1/2 5TORY ~• rlwxl' cw~a~oN xA-a A 0 1 DWARF KOREAN L1UL B 1 0 COMPACT BURNING BUSH C 3 l ANTHONY WATERER SPIREA D JAPANESE TREE LILAC E SPRING SNOW CRAB p Z D AMERICAN COMPACT VIBURNUM 6 4 0 GOLD RAVE SPIREA $ 10 0 HOSTA SPN2EA ] I 0 MINT JULEP JUNIPER & 1 0 6ROAOMORL JUNIPER M 4 0 LITTLE PRINCESS SPIREA p DWARF MUGHp PME Q SPREADING YEW NORTH SIDE R CRIMSON PYp1Y BARBERRY B EMERALD MWND HONEYSUCKLE NORTH SIDE T DWARF EUROPEA MBURNUM NORTH SIDE V GOLD MOUND SPR2EA Z NIKKO BLUE HYDRANGEA NIXiTH 9DE • OUANnTIES LEFT BUNK ARE DEPENDENT UPON ORIENTARDN OF TOWNWOME SITE PTANTING SCI~DULE cone ~~ ~ p1ANI 0CIESUlON1VAl~ A 23 8' B&B AUSTRIAN PINE B 52 ~ fi' BkB BLACK HILLS SPRUCE b 15 2-GAL RED NAG DOGWOOD O 6 2.5'DIA NORTHERN PIN OAK p 5 6' BkB REO PINE Q 5 2`D1A WAKING ASPEN R 3 4-1`TYP. R#VER BHtCH CLUMP Rl/ 4 25bIA REp LLAPLE ~rf 3 25"DIA SUGAR MAPLE W 4 2.5"DIA WILLOW Total 120 0 RAMBLER UNIT i MAST'$Rp~CE AOMBS - OVBitVIBW - MAPLEWOOD, ~SOTA - O1!]OJ05 LAJVDSCAPS PLAN LAND5CAPE PLAN DETAILS 29 Q~I ~~ Attacf~ment 10 PROPOSED BUILDING ELEVATIONS 30 .4. N Attachment 11 - -~~ L _ ~~_ ~2 G~ r ^ L7~Cl~7 D~~~II~ II ~"1 Q Cl ~I f,~~IIQ~IIL7C~ D IIC]CkC7 s ~_ 14 7~'~_ I 1 s e.u T II I ~ i 1 11~~ ~ ~ ~--~y i ~t ~~~-~`' 't~l~ ~ n+~=err ~ e .+K.4 mrcu. ~cveia~- ~+tr~sTr+o~7 PROPOSED BUILDING ELEVATIONS (SIDE LOADED} 31 4 N Attachment 12 PROPOSED BUILDING ELEVATIONS (LOOKOUT 32 4 N Attachment 13 PROPOSED SIDE ELEVATION 33 4 N Attachment 14 Ens~ineerinsa Plan Review PRO.fECT: Overview Twinhomes Concept Plan PRO.tECT NO: REVIEWED BY: Chuck Vermeersch, Maplewood Engineering Department DATE: February 14, 2005 Masterpiece Homes is proposing to develop a 5.5 acre parcel on McMenemy Street just south of Bellwood Avenue into 12 twin-homes on a cul-de-sac street CommerN~s from the review of the concept plan are included below (in italics), followed by comments from the current submittal. The developer or his engineer shall address the following issues: Infrastructure If the developer ultimately intends for the streets and utilities to be public infrastructure, it has generally been the city's policy for the city to prepare the plans and specifications for public infrastructure and to perform the construction inspection duties. Due to the short length of the street, it is anticipated that the developer may request to prepare the plans and to administer the construction of the utilities and street. If this is the case, the developer and the project engineer must strictly follow Maplewood's Engineering Standards. These standards include a construction inspection schedule that outlines erosion control, grading, utility and street construction, and testing requirements. The developer shall ensure that all construction activities conform to Maplewood's standards by entering into a developer's agr1eement with the city and provide documentation that all standards have been met. Gity staff wiH keep a close watch on the site during a!I construction activities -especially those relating to the construction of the public street and utilities. SVeets !. The proposed street width is 32 feet, back to back of curb. City standards allow for parking on both sides of the streef for this proposed sheet width. All of the driveways are quite wide (minimum 40 feet) and should aik7w for adequate off~treet parking. The applicant should consider reduang the width of the street to 30 or 28 feet to reduce fhe amount of impervious surface, keeping in mind that this would reshict on shieet parking The current submittal shows no revision of the street width- 2. The proposed cul-de-sac has a 49-foot radius. The minimum cul-de-sac radius is 42 feet to allow for emergency vehicle access. Revise the cut-de-sac to meet radius requirements. The cut-de-sac radius has been revised to 42 feet in the current submittal. 3. Sight distance on McMenemy does not appear to be a problem. However, the developer's engineer shall submit vertical curve data for McMenemy and sight distance calculations to verify adequate sight distance will exist under the proposed entrance alignment. 4. The project is directly adjacent to highway 35E. The developer's engineer shall provide noise study data, and shall verify that the proposal would meet state noise standards. If the site does not meet state noise standards, then the developer or builder shall mitigate the existing noise #eve[ through mod cations to the site or by building design and construction. 34 5. The design of the street lighting must be approved by the city engineer, and shall be installed at the developer's expense. Drama~e Since there is no existing storm sewer in the immediate area, the applicant proposes to retain runoff in an on-site pond that has been sized to contain runoff from back to back 19b storm events. In the even# of rainfall in excess of the design, the pond would overflow fo McMenemy Sheet and flow north to Roselawn, then west into the MnDOT system. A review of the hydraulic calculations submitted indicates the pond is properly sized. The hydraulic calculations also assume a 0.5" per hour infiltration rate. The applicant shall verify to the engineering department that the soils on sde are conducive io infiltration. The closest location that a connection to storm sewer could be provided is at the intersection of Roselawn and McMenemy. To provide the site an outlet to the storm sewer system on Roselawn would require about 700 feet of storm sewer construction along McMenemy Streeet. Since this would likely make the project not feasible, the proposed infiltration system and oversized storage is a reasonable approach. Any overflows from the system {which are not anticipated) would enter the existing storm sewer system at McMenemy and Roselawn, and would not threaten any structures. However, the design and construction of the infiltration system is critical, and the developer will be required to pay a trunk storm sewer charge. The charge is equivalent to the residential storm sewer assessment rate multiplied by the number of units to be built and would be used for the construction of a storm sewer connection for the site at some later date when improvements to McMenemy Street are made. The soils in this area have generally been found to be conducive to infiltration. However, the grading of the site shows a 2#~-foot cut. The removal of this amourrt of material makes it critical that the developer or contractor verify the infiltration properties of the riemaining soils. The applicant shall provide soil borings that sample the soil properties to a depth of 10 feet from the proposed grade in all infiltration areas, and hydraulic calculations that reflect the actual soil conditions and i~ltration rates. In order to insure the long term infiltration of the basin, the design of the storm sewer shall include a water quality treatment structure capable of removing 70% or more of the suspended solids prior to discharging into the infiltration basin. If the infrastructure is not public, the city will require a maintenance agreement far this structure. 2. A portion of the site (apprvximatety 1.2 acres) drains along the north and west property lines to Sloan Sh~eet_ The submiital shows a combination of Swale and piping, with a flared erxt outlet discharging near the south end of Sloan Sheet. The plan should be revised to incorporate an infiltration Swale with ditch checks to prnmate infiltration of the runoff rather than collecting the flow in a pipe and discharging it to Sloan Sheet (there is no existing storm sewer in the area). Depending on the type of sail on site ~ may be necessary to incorporate a number of ruck sumps in the infiltration Swale. The area in question has been revised in the current submittal, and is now the plans show the drainage being piped from a backyard Swale, south into the infiltration basin. Given the fact that this site will have no outlet, this Swale shall be designed as a rainwater garden with rock sumps to promote additional inf Itration. The storm sewer inlets shown in this swale shall be elevated in order to retain one foot of water in this rainwater garden. 35 In addition, the landscape plan shall include a rainwater garden located in the open area between units 20 and 21. Additional Drainage Comments The infiltration basin has a 3:1 slope. As such, the city will require a black vinyl chain link fence around the pond. Access must be provided from McMenemy Street to the basin far any future maintenance activities. This access shall include a gate in the fence with a minimum width of 12 feet. The developer shall provide an easement to the city for a future storm sewer connection to the existing stomp sewer system. The applicant shall submit to the city staff for approval a detailed landscaping plan for all infltration areas and rainwater gardens. This plan shall show all seeding, trees and shrubs in and around the infiltra#ion areas. The contractor shall seed the large basin with a native seed mix approved by the engineering department. In addition, the contractor shall prepare the infiltration areas in accordance with the city's standard rainwater garden specifications. The project engineer shall include on the final plans a defined emergency overflow location and the proposed elevation. This emergency overflow shall be reinforced with permanent soil stabilization such as Enkamat or an equivalent, topped with bedding material and vegetated. The city requires the developer to sign a maintenance agreement for all ir~filtra#ion areas in regard to general maintenance (permanently), and for the specific maintenance of seeded areas until they are established. Grading & Erosion Control 1. Final plans shall include an erosion control plan to be approved by the engineering deparfinerrt and the Ramsey Washington Metro Watershed District (RwMWDj. Since there will be a large quantity of fill renmved from this site, the plan will Include installation and maintenance of rock corashuction enhances and daily street sweeping during the time fill is being trucked out. It bears repeating that the erosion control plan must be approved by both the engineering department Capitol Region Watershed District is required, and shall include daily street sweeping during the time the corrtractor is trucking out fill. The erosion control plan also must include effective measures to protect the infiltration area while the structures are being built. Utilities Comments from the review of the concept plan regarding utilities are still applicable. 1. Submit plans to SPRWS for their review and approval. The site will likely be served from the existing 12" watermain on McMenemy Street. 2. The sanitary sewer connection will be orr McMenemy Street and will likely require the construction of a new manhole over the existing sanitary main. This work shalt be coordinated with the engineering department and Ed Nadeau, the city's utilities superintendent. 3. Show proposed sewer and water connections and servirae locations on the final plans. LandscaAina Comments from the review of the concept plan regarding landscaping are still applicable. 36 1. Final plans shall include a landscaping plan which addresses turf establishmenf in and around the stoma water pond. Turf establishment shall be with an approved native seed mix. A maintenance agreement for establishment of the native seed and maintenance of the storm water pond will be required. Miscellaneous Miscellaneous comments from the review of the concept plan are still applicable. 1. The developer shall implement a homeowners association as part of this development to ensure that there is a responsible early for the maintenance and care of the native seeding and storm water pond. Summary To summarize, the following are issues that the applicant or developer must address in the final plans, drainage calculations, maintenance agreement, ar developer's agreement: 1. If the developer intends for the streets and utilities to be public infrastructure, they will be constructed by the city as outlined earlier in this review, or the developer will enter into a developer's agreement with the city to insure they are constructed to the city's standards. 2. Provide the city engineer vertical curve and sigh# distance calculations for the cul-de-sac stree# entrance on to McMenemy Street. 3. Provide city staff with noise study information to insure that the project would meet state noise standards, and plans on how the developer would control or mitigate noise levels in the site or building design and construction. 4. The developer shall pay a trunk storm sewer charge equivalent to the residential storm sewer assessment rate muff;plied by the number of units to be built to be used for the construction of a storm sewer connection for the site at some later date when improvements to McMenemy Street are made. 5. The developer shall provide an easement to the city for future installation of a storm sewer outlet to the large infiltration basin. 6. Submit street lighting design for approval by the city engineer. 7. Provide soil borings that sample the soil properties to a depth of 10 feet from the proposed grade in all infiltration areas and submit hydraulic calculations that reflect the actual soil conditions and infiltration rates. S. in order to insure the long term infiltration capabilities of the basin, the design of the storm sewer shall include a water quality treatment structure capable of removing 7d% or more of the suspended solids before discharging into the infiltration basin. 9. The backyard swale along the north property line shall be designed as a rainwater garden with rock sumps to promote additional infiltration and the storm sewer inlets in this swale shall be elevated in order to retain one foot of water in this rainwater garden. 37 10. The applicant or project engineer shad submit a detailed landscaping plan for all infiltration areas. The contractor shall seed the large basin with a native seed mix approved by the engineering department. The landscape plan shall include the native seeding as well as any trees and shrubs around and in the basins. The contractor shall prepare all infiltration areas in accordance with the city's standard rainwater garden specifications. 11. The project engineer shall include a defined emergency overflow location and elevation on the fins! pions. This emergency overflow shall be reinforced with permanent soil stabilization such as Enkamat or an equivalent, topped with bedding material and vegetated. 12. The landscape plan shall include a rainwater garden located in the open area between units 20 and 21. The final design of this garden shall be approved by the city. 13. The infiltration basin has a 3:1 slope and will require fencing. Access must be provided from McMenemy Street to the basin for any future maintenance activities and shall include a gate in the fence a minimum of 12 feet in width. 14. Show proposed sewer and water connections and service locations on the final plans. '! 5. Submit plans to SPRWS for their review and approval. 16. Coordinate sanitary sewer manhole construction and connection with the engineering department and Ed Nadeau, the city's utilities superintendent. 17. Final plans shall include an erosion control plan approved by the engineering department and the Capi#al Region Watershed District that indudes maintenance of rock construction entrances and daily street sweeping during the time fill is being trucked out The erosion control plan also must include effective measures to protect the infiltration area while the contractor is building the structures. 18. Complete a maintenance agreement for all infiltrafion areas in regard to general maintenance (in perpetuity}, maintenance of the water quality treatment structure (in perpetuity} if the infrastructure is not public. Whether the infrastructure is public or private, an agreement for specific maintenance of seeded areas until they are established is required. 19. Implement a homeowners association as part of this development to ensure that there is a responsible party for the maintenance and care of the native seeding, infiltration basin and water quality treatment structure. 38 January 26, 2005 Attachment 15 JAY D & GAIL L SWANSON 1780 MCMENEMY ST N MAPLEWOOD MN 55117-2451 NEIGHBORHOOD SURVEY; PROPOSED OVERVIEW TOWN HOUSE DEVELOPMENT - MCMENEMY STREET, MAPLEWOOD FED ~ 12~~5 What is Bein Re nested? RECE~VE~j Mr. Gordie Howe, representing Masterpiece Homes (the developer), is requesting that the city approve plans fora 24-lot subdivision for twin homes. This development, if approved by the city, would be an a new cul-de-sac on the property formerly owned by the Gilberts on the west side of McMenemy Street, south of Roselawn Avenue. As proposed, the plans show 12 twin homes (24 total units) on a 5.5-acre site. Refer to the enclosed narrative statement and maps for more information about the proposal. WhV this Notice? City staff wishes to inform you about this proposal and seeks your input in any of the following ways: 1. Mail your comments to me, Please write any comments you have below or on the back of this letter. I have enclosed an addressed return envelope for your use to mail in your comments. Please Hate That any letters and attachments that you send to the city are considered public information and city staff may use them in staff reports that go to the planning commission and clay council. 2. Call me at (651) 249-2303 ore-mail me at Ken.Roberts@CI_Maplewood.MN_US 3. Attend the city council meeting and give your comments. City staff will notify you of the city council meeting by mail once the city has scheduled it. Please reply by February t3, 2005 (whether you a-mail, mail ar phone in your comments). KEN ETH ROBERTS -PLANNER Enclosures 1. Applicant's Statement 2. Location Map 3. Land Use Plan Map 4: Area Map 5. Proposed Preliminary Plat 6. Proposed Grading Plan 7. Proposed Utility Plan 8. Proposed Landscape Plan 9. Proposed Building Elevations (4 pages) Co ants: ~~'~ OFFIG~ OF COMMUNITY DEYELOPM~t•IT 651-249-2300 FAX: 65 t -249-23 i 9 CITY OF MAPLEYYOOB 1830 COUI+iTY Roa,o B EAS`r MAPLEwOOD, MN 55109 s' u ~~ 39 ~ ~. ~ ~~ ~~ .~~' L ~~~~~ `~ ~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~ f' `~"~~" ~„~ ~,~ p~;r~'-~i~ mow/ ~' ~~~° ~ ~ ,~ V ~~tiL~ ~ ~, .~~ ~i~`il~.-r~,•L ~-~- ~ ~~ ~c,~r~~'; f ''~''~'~-~~ ~~ -f-~ G~ _, ~- ~ ~~~ ~~ ,,,~~ ~" .~ ~,,~~ Wiz- , ~ ~ ~ ems; ~ ~.~~~ ~' ~~'~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~ ~~~ _ v d -~ ~, ~J ~ y G~`~ ~r So ~ I~~ ~ ~~G~~~ ~~ ~~~~~ ssr~~ 40 Page 1 of 1 Attachment 16 Ken Roberts From: Lisa Kihl [Ikihl~hotmail.com] Sent: Friday, February 04, 2005 12:03 PM To: Ken Roberts Subject: neighborhood survey: McMenemy development Dear Ken Roberts: Re: request for community input regarding the proposed townhouse development-McMenemy St., Maplewood. I requesting thoughtful answers to the following comments and questions: 1. In the applicant's statement, Mr. Howe stated that the development would "have minimal affect on the neighborhood." I find this to be an unsupported claim. There was no supporting evidence/description in the proposal on how the McMenemy neighorhood would only be minimally affectd. For example, What is the proposed increase in traffic? McMenemy street does not have sidewalks and pedestrians already have to walk on the side of the road, which is dangerous. In the winter it is extremely challenging walking along McMenemy. With the natural increase in traffic flow along McMenemy as a result of the Development, what provisions will the city be making to provide a safe place (i.e., side walks} for pedestrians to walk along McMenemy? What provisions will the city make for overflow parking as a result of the proposed developement? McMenemy currently, does not have sufficient room on the sides of the road for overflow parking. So will the development add overflow parking within the propsed site? If sa, specifically where? The developers have already cleared a substantial amount of trees and greenery and thus, there is an obvious affect on the environment. There are/were some wildlife that live{d) in the neighborhood (i.e, deer, rabbits, geese, squirrels, birds, and so forth}. These animals will obviously no longer have that area to inhabit. This is just my observation and expression of my personal disappointment regarding the development of the area. One of McMenemy's best qualities is it's rural chaxacteristics-trees, wildlife, quiteness. I hope these qualities are not going to be lost all for the sake of development. Thank you for your thoughtful consideration and answer to my comments and questions. Sincerely, Lisa Kihl 18b0 McMenemy Unit C Maplewwod, MN. 55117 2/4/2005 41 Attachment 17 CONDITIONAL USE PERMlT RESOLUTION WHEREAS, Mr. Gordie Howe, representing Masterpiece Homes, applied for a conditional use permit (CUP) for the Overview residential planned unit development {PUD). WHEREAS, this permit applies to undeveloped property on the west side of Mr,Menemy Street, south of Roselawn Avenue in Section 18, Township 29, Range 22, Ramsey County, Minnesota. {PIN 1 &29-22-32-0009. ) WHEREAS, the history of this conditional use permit is as follows: 1. On February 23, 2005, 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 commission also considered reports and recommendations of the city staff. The planning commission recommended that the city council approve the proposed permit. 2. On March 14, 2005, the city council discussed the proposed conditional use permit. They considered reports and recommendations from the planning commission and city staff. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the city council approve the above-described conditional use permit, because: 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 Trot create excessive additional costs for public facilities or services. 8. The use would maximize the preservation of and incorporate the site's natural and scenic features into the development design. 9. The use would cause minimal adverse environmental effects. 42 Approval is subject to the following conditions: 1. All construction shall follow the plans date-stamped January 25, 2405 except where the city requires changes. Such changes shall include: a. Revising the grading and site plans to show: (1) Revised storm water pond locations and designs as suggested or required by the watershed district or city engineer. The ponds shall meet the city's NURP Pond ordinance standards. (2) The developer minimizing the loss ar removal of the remaining vegetation and large trees. (3) The street (Summer Avenue} must be at least 28 feet wide to allow parking on one side. The city council may approve major changes to the plans. The director of community development may approve minor changes. 2. The proposed construction must be substantially started within one year of council approval or the permit shall end. The council may extend this deadline for one year. 3. Have the city engineer approve final construction and engineering plans. These plans shall meet all the conditions and changes noted in Chuck Vermeersch's memo dated February 14, 2005 and the plans shall include: a. The grading, utility, drainage, erosion control, streets, driveway, trails, tree preservation/replacement, and parking plans. The cul-de-sac bulb shall have the minimum radius necessary to ensure that emergency vehicles can tum around. b. The following changes for the storm sewer plans: {1} The developer shall enclose the new pond with afour-foot-high, b#ack, vinyl- coated chain-link fence. The contractor also shall install a gate in the fence along McMenemy Street as may be required by the city engineer. {2) Provide for staff approval a detailed stone water management plan. c. The following for the streets and driveways: {1) Curb and gutter along the street, if the city engineer decides that it is necessary. d. Providing at least one additional fire hydrant between McMenemy Street and the end of the cul-de-sac, so there are at least two hydrants along the street. 4. The design of the ponds shall meet Maplewaod's NURP pond ordinance standards and shall be subject to the approval of the city engineer. The developer shall be responsible for getting any needed off-site pond and drainage easements, if applicable. 5. The developer or contractor sha#I: 43 a. Complete all grading far the site drainage and the ponds, complete all public improvements and meet al! city requirements. b.*P[ace temporary orange safety fencing and signs at the grading limits. c. Remove any debris, junk or fill from the site. 6. The approved setbacks for the principal structures in Overview PUD shall be: a. Front-yard setback (from a public street or a private driveway}: minimum - 2D feet, maximum - 35 feet b. Front-yarc! setback {public side street): minimum - 30 feet, maximum -none c. Rear-yard setback: 20 feet from any adjacent residential property line d. Side-yard setback {townhouses): minimum - 20 feet minimum between buildings. 7. The developer or builder will pay the city Park Access Charges (PAC fees} for each housing unit at the time of the building pem~it for each housing unit. 8. The city council shall review this permit in one year. The Maplewood City Council approved this resolution on 20D5. 44 nnE~noI~ANDUIw TO: City Manager 1=ROM: Tom Ekstrand, Senior Planner SUBJECT: Lot Split, Lot Area and Lot Width Variances LOCATION: 1685 Edgerton Street DATE: February 14, 2005 #NTRODUCTION Project 13escription Jeremy Shackle, of River Run Properties, is requesting approval of a lot split and four variances. He proposes to divide an existing lot with a house at 1685 Edgerton Street by splitting off the back 120.5 feet into two 60-foot-wide lots. Each bt would have substandard lot width and lot area. Refer to the attachments. Each proposed lot would be fi0 feet wide; code requires 75 feet of lot width. Each proposed lot would have 7,230 square feet of area; code requires 10,400 square feet. Mr. Shackle is requesting two 15-foot lot width variances and two 2,770 square #oot lot area variances for each proposed lot. DiSCUSSfON State Law Requirements To approve a variance, state law requires that the city council make the following findings: Strict enforcement would cause undue hardship because of circumstances unique to the property under consideration. Undue hardship, as used in connection with the granting of a variance, means the property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use if used under the 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 a variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. Economic considerations a}one shah not constitute an undue hardship if reasonable use for the property exists under the terms of the ordinance. 2. The variance would be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the ordinance. Staff does not see a case for creating two lots along Jessie Street and the granting of these variances. True, the property owner did not write the city code that requires lots of a minimum size and area This, though, is not basis that would constitute a "hardship" under the code. The applicant's other reason far approval is that 60-foot wide lots would be in character with the lots along Jessie Street. There are lots of this size, or even smaller, along Jessie Street. By the same token, however, there are others that exceed the 75-foot lot width requirement. The lots on Jessie Street range from 40 feet wide to 12D feet wide. It would not be out of character to create a 120-foot-wide lot along Jesse Street. City Engineer's Comments From an engineering standpoint, the site is suitable to be split to create one lot along Jessie Street, not two. Qne serious concern with this proposal is the low nature of this site that occasionally ponds with water. There is no storm sewer in the area and there is nowhere to discharge any ponded storm water. Staff has reviewed the drainage area tributary to that location. It is relatively small and made up of mostly back yards. From an engineering standpoint, the extent of the ponding which occurs has been relatively minor and has caused only a nuisance to the current property owner. The city is always concerned about the potential Flooding and damage to property and structures. This unique condition can actually be taken advantage of and be a real asset to the property by incorporating the area as a rain garden. The site has always naturally infiltrated runoff and as a condition of developing the Jessie Street lot, that area will need to continue to do so. A single lot on Jessie Street is feasib#e as long as these few simple conditions are followed: • The construction of a home along Jessie Street should be situated within the south 80 feet of the fot. This area is higher and would easily be above the lower, northerly part. + The lowest opening of any new structure would have to be one foot above the emergency overflow in the street. • The city would require that a public drainage and utility easement be dedicated over the subject low area. This would allow the city to install an overflow pipe from the easement area at some point in the future. • Extra care will have to betaken during grading and construction of an adjacent home to guarantee that the Ivw area is protected from erosion, sedimentation and tracking of equipment. A double layer of silt fence is likely to be required around the easement area. • No grading, filling or tracking of equipment would be permitted in the easement area. The area can, however, ~ enhanced and landscaped to create a rain garden. A landscaped rain garden will enhance the property and will not only take advantage of the occasional periods of extra rain, but the roots of the plants and shrubs will promote and maintain the infiltration of the soils. information on rain gardens can be obtained from the Maplewood Public Works department or on the city's website at www.ci.ma~lewood.mn.us. 2 Conclusion Staff supports the subdivision of 1686 Edgerton Street into two lots, creating one new lot along Jessie Street. This would not require as much fill and would not negatively impact runoff. One new lot along Jessie Street would be in character with the neighborhood, as opposed to two, which would create a crowded situation and cause storm water problems. RECOMMEN©ATIONS 1. Deny the proposed lot division and resulting lot width and lo# area variances for the creation of two fi0-foot-wide lots on the back of the property at 1685 Edgerton Street. Denial is on the basis that: • There are no circumstances that are unique to this property that justify the variances. The ordinance requirements for lots of minimum width and area allow the creation of a new lot fron#ing on Jessie Street behind the home at 1685 Edgerton Street. This is a reasonable use of the property. The creation of two substandard lots would be excessive and unreasonable. • The back of 1685 Edgerton Street is low and would require substantial fill for two new home sites. Filling for one home site could be accomplished without compromising the existing storm water nanoff on this lot. • Two lots would not be in character with the Jessie Street neighborhood. There are other small lots, but there are also other large lots. A 120-#oot wide lot, as would tie allowed by ordinance, would fit this neighborhood's character. 2. Approve a lot division to create one 120-foot-wide by 120.5-foot-deep lot behind the home at 1685 Edgerton Street. This lot division is conditioned upon the following requirements: • The deeds to split this property shall be submitted to the city for stamping within one year or this approval shad be null and void. • The payment of cash connection charges for water and sanitary sewer before the signing and stamping of deeds by the city. The amount ko be paid is $5,620- $2,810 for sanitary sewer and $2,810 for water. This is because cash oannection charges have not been paid for the new lot on Jessie Street. • The outbuilding that would overlap the proposed lot line shall be removed and all debris hauled away before the city shall stamp the new deed creating this lot. As an alternative to this, should weather prohibit the removal and clean up, the city will accept escrow to guarantee its removal. The amount of this escrow shall be determined by staff and shalt accompany a letter of permission to enter the property to do this removal and clean up. 3 The construction of a home along Jessie Street should be situated within the south 8Q feet of the lot. This area is higher and would easily be above the lower area. The lowest opening of any new structure would have to be one foot above the emergency overflow in the street. This will be regulated at the time of the building permit review for the new lot on Jessie Street. • The city would require that a public drainage and utility easement be dedicated over the subject low area. This would allow the city to install an overflow pipe from the easement area at some point in the future. The dimensions of these easements shall be subject to the requirements of the city engineer. These easements shall be dedicated before the city signs the deeds to split the lot. • Extra care will have to be taken during grading and construction of an adjacent home to guarantee that the low area is protected from erosion, sedimentation and tracking of equipment. A double layer of silt fence is likely to be required around the easement area. This will be required as a condition of the building permit for the new lot on Jessie Street. • No grading, filling or tracking of equipment would be permitted in the easement area. The area can, however, be enhanced and landscaped to create a rain garden. A landscaped rain garden will enhance the property and wiN not only take advantage of the occasional periods of extra rain, but the roots of the plants and shrubs will promote and maintain the infiltration of the soils. information on rain gardens can be obtained from the Maplewood Public Works department or on the city's website at www.ci.maplewood.mn.us. The monitoring of the grading, filling and #racking will be regulated during the house construction. • Plans for a rain water garden an the Jessie Street lot must be provided for the city engineer's appraval prior to the issuance of a building permit for the Jessie Street lot. 4 CITIZEN COMMENTS Staff surveyed the 111 surrounding property owners within 500 feet of this site for their comments. Of the 18 replies, six were in favor, six were opposed, two had no comment and four had miscellaneous comments but took no position. In favor • Please go ahead with the project. Help clean up the area. {Don Seiberlick) • I think any new development on that block would benefit the whole area, so I say ok to approving the variance. (Mary and Bryan Beggin, 606 Kingston Avenue} • I have taken a look at the property in question and see no reason to deny the devetoper's request (other than I hope that they don't cut down all the trees). I appreciate the opportunity to voice my opinion about this subdivision. Thank you very much. (Kathleen Krauter, 480 Larpenteur Avenue) • Two 6E?-foot Lots with homes on them sounds like a positive move. (Ted and Marilyn Roach, 554 California Avenue) • I have no objections. (Richard Steiner, 599 Price Avenue) • It seems to me that a 60 X 120 lot size in St. Paul would be a good size fat. Two lots you speak of are less than one block away. I thing the city would generate a little more revenue from two homes than one lot. I believe it is also true the size of the home is decided by the size of the to#. I say yes. Build + split =capitol for the City. Opposed • I do not want these buildings to be built or to give this variance. The variance is too much of a variance. if it were just 1fl-50 feet i could see it otherwise i cannot. {Raymond Haas, 1862 Conway Street) • One house on the above mentioned property would be a nice addition to the neighborhood, but two houses I'm strongly against. (John and Kan McKenzie, 1693 Jessie Street) • I think one house in that area is enough. People living in the suburbs should not have to put up with crowding as is frequently the case in the city. (David McKenzie, 1652 Edgerton Street) • Refer to the letter from Jeny Rivard. • Refer to the letter from Rozanne Nohre, 1694 Jessie Street. 5 • Refer to the letter from Mark Nelson, 1685 Edgerton Street. • Refer to the survey response from Steven Kubesh, 1726 Edgerton Street. Miscellaneous Comments • To ensure privacy, I would really Hke to see some landscape or trees of some sort between the new development and our homes. Or even a mini park/playgrnund to divide or separate the two. Thank you. (Cal and Vang Her, 3034 Duluth Street) • This really doesn't effect us. Although, the 60-foot lots seem small. (Lloyd and Ocie Peterson, 575 California Avenue) • Our previous home on St. Paul's East Side was on a 55-foot lot and was adequate for a small home, but quite close #o neighbors on both sides. Perhaps a twin home on the full lot would allow generous yards on the three sides for each resident. {Dolores Walters, 5000 Larpenteur Avenue) • We currently own 1703 Jessie Street. Our lot is only 40 feet wide. We are hoping to acquire the adjacent lot to our property which lies next to the drainage easement. If we are able to acquire this lot, we would like to put on a large addition with an attached garage similar to what the owners at 1760 Bradley Street. Have done. Thanks for your time. (Ann Miller, 1703 Jesse Street) 6 REFERENCE SITE DESCRIPTION Site size: 31,320 square feet Existing Use: A single family dwelling and out buildings SURROUNDING LAND USES North: Single dwellings South: Single dwellings on property zoned and planned for double dwellings West: Single dwellings across Jessie Street East: Single dwellings across Edgerton Street PLANNING Land Use Plan Designation: R-1 (single dwelling residential) Zoning: R-1 APPLICATION DATE We received the complete application and plans for this proposal on January 25, 2005. State law requires that the city take action within 60 days of receiving complete applications for a proposal. City council action is required on this proposal by March 26, 2005 unless the applicant agrees to a time extension. p:sec17\lot split and variances 1685 Edgerton Attachments: 1. Area Map 2. Location Map 3. Proposed Lot Split Map 4. Applicant's Written Statement date-stamped January 25, 2005 5. Letter from Jerry Rivard 6. Letter from Rozanne Nohre 7. Letter from Mark Nelson 8. Letter from Steven Kubesh 7 Attachment 1 . jl~ ;.II I i ~' ~ I ~I f171 ~I I NI ~i -.__I ~i I i I la ' I ~ ~ '~ ~_~-~ , 28 ~_ $ I {' 1703 f""' I ~ I(~!1 ~ _ ~_-___ I ~ ': `! ~_,~~ _._.~ IZ I ~I 1 -- W ~- 4 ~ _ W i C~ i I ~ ~ { ~~ _.,.._T----- ~ 7685 I ~ '~ 4 ~ li'; 1698 i ~ i '~ i 1693 ~ I I I ~ ~, I j ~_.._.-. --- I ~_~ 1 ^ E 1 1 ~ _ _.T. ----- ------- 1 I iW ~..~ ~ ___I 1683 i; 1 I ; -~---- --- -r - ~_~~...,_ I ~~~ I I i_-- -' I f i _.__ _ i I I g~ i `$ I i 1690 ~h i I l i 3~ 1 I ~ ~__ ---- _.~__._.-.~ h___ ___-_ ~ - µ - ~ARPENTElJR AVE SUB.~ECT PROPERTY AREA MAP s 4 N ' I, Attachment 2 ~ w,. 1}3g _~ iTi7 - ' ~ " t ~, ,M ti:. i ~ ~ ~`'~~ ', ~ w, . ~_, ' , ~.~. a ~~ PROPOSED , .-~; "n1° LQT DIVISION :'T" ~~~~ ~ 120.5' ~ w w ' w ~ o ~ 1685 w ~ ~ -. ~ w Z 0 W c0 _ ~ w ~,: ,~ ,:~ "" ~; i ,..j ~~ ~, `~ ~ ~~o 1 ~~ e ~ -;~ ~ ~ r i68,~,~ . ; Lp,RPENTEUR AVENUE LQCAT~QN MAP 9 4 N ~ . ~ e Co U~a~ aB° ~ SS ~` ~` ~` `~ °~ Attachment 3 ra '~ m '~~ ,~~ ~ ----'- ~ `~ `o ~s~ snarilrvn~+e are. ~ry j~01 w W `~ ~1.~ .. ~ , ',~- ~-~ r ~ I - i N "~ I I I { \ ~ ~ I I i ,~~ +r 1~1 1 ~ . a I r..~.~ I m` ~~ no llycnv~ i I y i I ~ ~ ~ l O~* ~~~ .tip i~ ~?1.:d• ~ I N - O1 ': R pwry ~ ~R~' I ~ - - ~~~ ~•~Li G5 BCO l ~ r!' O F . ..,p `. ~ ~, ~ ~ flh- ~ - f'O~ N 15905891 ~ , ~C ~ ~ • _ ~ j~ , { ~ ip~ ti. ~ ~ Ow B ~i~ t.~ m -.~t a } ~ za e ~ ~. a I:: " ~ ~qsX 'k ~o~ ,a, ~ k y +o. 'ro,~ s ~ so ~ o spa ~ • ~ ~ ~~ ~ r ~~ $~ a W "ads ~~ •~ d N ~ ~~ e p ~ ~y F _ ~ ~NIQ1 n8.'~ ~'.~ .ti ~. ~ rc ~' ~ in ..,05. r3+ i ~-"'-----~ ~ -~ ~ g $' ~~ ~y i s; - ~ba S - 3 ~ u l `` ~:. z~ r~ S. ~ .ati~ ~9; ~~, i^C ~br r ~ ~ _. ~ L,4,rJ r~ `. x. I yy~~ 7{~ 1~a ~ g•4~` I ~~ z I ~.Crl _ ~ I I /^'`~ ~ Y ::I "X ~ CSC ~ ~_ ~~~ ` z, ' II I r 7 - `a .. ~ -: v1~ I I ~~!~ ~ '~ ! ~: ~ l ~ ~ ~ . ~ ti? ~ I I I ~ ~ f m ` ( r ;~.,` k _ g; .CSR - ~ a p ~,. i Cpl Od~ :. ! is ~r~ ~ - I ~'I •....,G~ 11 I~ A ~ ~ r 1/ h ' ,~ Q\`~~ ~ - ~ Off. ~ ~n~/ . 1 ~ - r A'- :,; Y ~ ~ y - - _ ~ - Sf10N11'W1118 .. Attachment 4 Statement Regarding Required Findings for Zoning Code Variance R E C t l v E D ~ 6XX Jesse Street North, Mapiewood 1Al~ ~ ~ ~pp~ (1) Strict enforcement of the City ordinances would cause undue hardship because of circumstances unique to your property. Undue hardship means that: (a) You cannot put your property to a reasonable use under the City ordinances. (b) -Your problem is due to circumstances unique to your property, that you did nat cause. (c) The variance would not alter the essential character of the area. The owner, Shirley Pfeil, wishes to sell the portion of her property that is on Jesse Street North. There are three lots of record that make up this area (Lots 20, 21, and 22, Block 8}, each 40 feet wide by 120 feet deep. The property is currently zoned R 1, which calls for lots that are 75 feet wide and at least 10,000 square feet. Under the current zoning, the property cannot be split to reflect the lots of record as they were originally platted. The owner proposes to split the three lots of record into two lots that are each 60 feet wide and approximately 7,200 square feet. At this size, variances of 1 S feet (20%) and 2$00 square feet {28°/a}, respectively. (aj Subdividing this property and creating two 60-foot lots for the purpose of building two new single-family homes is a reasonable use of this property. (b) The owner did not create the current zoning Cade that calls for lot sizes larger than the original lots of record. (c} There a other 60-foot lots on this block of Jesse Street, which is a dead-end street off of Larpenteur Avenue, and there are other similarly sized lots in the area. The houses to be constructed by the buyer of the lots would be consistent with the architectural styles of the area and would be a good fit in the neighborhood and an attractive addition to the area. (2) The variance would be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the ordinance. Presumably, the intent of the ordinance is to establish reasonable guidelines for the development and use of property in the city. The established minimum lot width of 75 feet and lot size of 10,000 square feet is a benchmark consistent among properties in the larger area surrounding this small neighborhood on Jesse Street. Within this small neighborhood, subdivision of the property into two 60-foot lots and construction of two new homes would not be a substantial detraction from the quality of the neighborhood. Invariably, the addition of new homes on previously unimproved property is a noticeable change in any neighborhood, but in this instance we believe it will be a positive one. 11 Attachment 5 Tom Ekstrand From: Jerry Rivard ~jrivardt@comcast.net} Seat; Wednesday, February 02, 2005 9:50 PM To: Tom Ekstrand Subject: zone code variance, Jesse st. n. I`'~I Tom after looking at the map detail, I feel to fit into the surrounding area that only one home should be put on that lot. The builder is going to have to put fill dirt on the land, which will create a water run off problem. A water pond should be put on the back end of the lot. With one home there should be enough yard space to put it in, with two homes i don't believe there would be enough yard left after putting it in. The home should also sell slot easier with one house on one lot verses 2 on 2 .We already have one house that was built and has been empty for about a year because of lot design and price. There is also a home on the corner of edgerton and larpenteur that is vacant, which haven't sold due to lot size and price, Children should also have a yard to play in, and neighbor's not being on top of one another. So I'm nat in favor of this proposal. Let me know when the public hearing will be so that i can attend it. Thanks, Jerry & diana rivard FREE Emoticans far your email! Click Here! ..1 ..r Zi3iaoos ~ z Attachment 6 February 5, 2005 Tam Ekstrand Senior Planner City of Maplewood 1830 County Road B East Maplewood, MN 55109 RE: LOT DIVISION AND VARIANCES AT 16$5 EDGERTON STREET Dear Tom; This letter is in response to your letter of January 27, 2005 requesting input regarding the lot division and variance requests at 1685 Edgerton Street. I own the property at 1694 Jessie Street, which borders the south side of the property in question. I have several concerns about this property being developed. 1. The property to be divided was recently surveyed and it looks as if the SW comer of the southern-most lot encroaches into my cement driveway about 8-10 inches. I certainly don't want to break up my driveway so i would want to work with the developer to get rights to the edge of my driveway, at least, if not more. This would result in the new lot actually being less than the 60' they are requesting. Also, with the property line so close to my house, any house built on that lot would be practically on top of mine. ~. A previous owner of the property paved a large portion of the property with cement. The cement driveway runs from the road to the garage, which is at the rear of my property. In addition, a large part of my back yard is cement. I suppose to help with the drainage, this previous owner built a culvert under the driveway that extends out onto the property in question. I'm not sure, but my guess is that this structure could also be partially on the property to be developed. I don't know if water actually drains out here, but, if it does, it would certainly cause problems. 3. If houses were to be built on this property, a huge amount of fill would have to be brought in. The property regularly has standing water on it when it rains, or when the snow melts. Tn fact, right now, there is a huge puddle there. I would think that the grading issues would be very 13 difficult, not only concerning the properties to the north and south, but especially the property to the east on Edgerton. 4. I do not agree with the developer that adding new homes into a neighborhood automatically improves it. This dead end portion of Jessie Street is a really nice mix of houses and open space, which make it unique and very appealing as it is. It has a good small neighborhood feel to it. I believe that cramming two new houses onto that property would detract from this sense of uniqueness. I appreciate being asked for my input. I hope you will consider it as you make your decision. You mentioned that there would be a public hearing on the matter at some point. I would also appreciate being informed of when that meeting will occur. Please feet free to contact me if you have any questions. Thank you. Sincerely, Rozanne Nohre 1694 Jessie St Maplewood, MN 55117 H) 651-771-7799 W) 651-604-480fi 14 Attachment 7 Tom Ekstrand From: mark.g.nelson~oomeast.net Sent: Monday, February 07, 2005 9:38 AM To: Tom Ekstrand Subject: Development Proposal 1685 Edgerton Dear Tom, With regards to your letter dated 1127 concerning the development proposal for 1685 Edgerton, I am not in favor of a lot division as to create two home sites an Jessie Street. I'm a current home owner on Jessie Street and when I built my home, 7~ feet was required as the minimum lot width in Maplewood, and it is my understanding this is still the case. A 60 foot lot would mean approximately a 40 foot home which in my opinion is too small. Two homes would also create more traffic on 3essie and as it stands now, when cars are parked on both sides of the street it's difficult to get one car through. I do nat believe allowing the variances requested would be in the best interest of the neighborhood or community and feel it would be justly unfair to those who have already complied to the current city ordinance and development standards. Sincerely, Mark Nelson 2/7/2005 15 O?l0~120Q~ SON 14;43 F~ Attachment 8 Janaary 2? 2405 ~ ®®® S71=VEN J KU6ESH MICHELLE M BERGMANN Together We Can 1726 EDGERTON ST N MAPtEWOOp MN 55117-2487 DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL-LOT DMSION AND VARIANCES, 1f85 EDGERTON STREET This fetter is to get y~ien-on-a-prapesal•te-sebdivide-a-property in your neighborhood. Jeremy Shackle, of Raver Run Froperties, is requesting approval t~f a iot division to create two buildable home sites errJes9e~Street: These 1ots~ould be the-rem 120.5 feel of the property at 1685 Edgerton Street. Tv create two lots from this property, the applicant is asking for lot width and lot area variances.- This-~t2e-foot-wid~iei; i~proposed to be split into two 6fl-foot-wide lots each with 7,230 square feet of lot area. The city code requires that single dwelling lots be at least 75 Feet wide and have-~A;OA9~squar~-feet-s~area. N{r.-S}t2~i~le: therefore, i5 requesting that the city council approve Ivt~vidth variances of 15 Feet for each proposed parcel and lot-area variances of 2,770 square Feet-for-each-proposed-parcefas~uvefF l~eferto the attachments. ! need your opinion to help me-prepar~e~ -to-the•ptanning commission and city council. Please write your opinion and comments bekwv and return-this letter, and arty attachments on which you have-writ , by->ret-r~aPy-x, 2A~ If you would. like further information, please call me at 651-249-2302 betwEen 8 a.m. and 4:3Q p.m. You can also email n're aC7am.ekstr nd c%ma lewood:mn.us. I will send you notices of the public hearing an this request when it is scheduled_ Thank you For your comments. I will give ihem careiui cnnsiderativrr. ,~ ~ O~ - ~ TOM EKSTRAND -- SENIOfi~i?LAQIptER.. ~~~_~_ 1=nclasures ~~C.Ct.Q,rL~+l~~u~~ WG YfAI~CWP~ ~ 1. Location Map ~ ~,pn~-{~,lS ~Y~ ~= :~ 2. Proposed Loi Split Map 3. Applicant's Statement of Rec>!fu~est ~5 -~ht. OV~~t~o~ [6g5 ~gCY~'L gplrtB '~D ~~, . ~+ f-~--~-i-1[L"~n~5(~QV .~1Q1x1 o C1•fr1A~vJ i r~J? J I hava no comments: ~ ~~ ~~ S~~a/~4~ ~__ F ~ ~C ~~ ® D+n.~ lalrq ~ U~ ~ Ir~blA is Riv~,v Ruh ~~a~? Dg..-~Inc,~-iai~_ ~inrvtind~'Inc~ bcs~t-in{~ o~-ar4~e~ res~dGn~s,~s~a ~.a~e,#a ti~~, i~nt~e,~nu~bavh~~d ~1~cxtp-ro~i st,~Y~, a. s ~~~ OFI=ICL' Of COMM1]N1TY ~EV~Er-oFMeNT 651-249-2300 FAX: 65t-249-2319 CITY OF MAPLEWOOa 1$30 COUNTY ROAD B EAST MAP~ewo~on, MN 155109 16 Q r'tl~,~heslJ tOtS aurc,~+n 10,,,1 I.~+n~avetx.. Wtiaf abot,~ ~tt4w.shcd? MEMORAN©UM TO: City Manager FROM: Tom Ekstrand, Senior Planner SUBJECT: Conditional Use Permit Review -Outdoor Storage Yard and City Impound l.ot LOCATION: 1160 Frost Avenue DATE: February 2, 2005 INTRODUGTION The conditional use permit {CUP) far the property at 1160 Frost Avenue is due for review. The initial CUP was for Quality Restoration Services, Inc. to use this property for an outside storage yard for their business. The city code requires a CUP for a parking lot as a principal use, for trucking terminals and for outdoor storage in an M-1 {light manufacturing] district. Since the last CUP review, the property was purchased by Mr. Mark Ashby for future development. Refer to the maps. Conditional use permits run with the land, not the property owner. Mr. Ashby would like to keep the CUP active and, as will be described below, is requesting it's continuation far use by the City of Maplewood. Interim Proposal Quality Restorations has left the site. Mr. Ashby, however, has agreed to let the City of Maplewood use this storage yard temporarily as apolice-department impound lot. Twv months ago, the city staff had considered a proposal by Fire Chief Steve Lukin to place this temporary impound tot on the comer of Maryland Avenue and Century Avenue at Fire Station #1. This location was subsequently dropped in favor of the present proposed location. Refer to Chief Lukin's letter. Explanation of Proposal In the spring of 2065, the City of Maplewood will begin the expansion of the public works facility at 1902 County Road B East. During the construction, and possibly afterward, there will not be room on site far the continued storage of impounded vehicles by the police department. Chief Lukirr feels that the temporary impound lot is needed for six to eight months. BACKGROUND On October 28, 2002, the city council approved an amendment to the existing CUP for this site. This approval included several conditions That Quafty Restoration Services was to complete. On November 10, 2003, the city council reviewed the CUP for this site and recommended review again in one year. DISCUSSION This 2.35 acre parcel is located directly west of the Gladstone Savannah and is part of the Gladstone Neighborhood redevelopment study. Mr. Ashby would like to develop this site after the conclusion of the redevelopment study. He would like to keep the CUP active in the mean time. Since the change in ownership, the site has remained vacant, excep# fora 2 % car frame garage. The site is also surrounded by chain fink fencing with barbed wire. Staff feels that the proposed impound lot is a good temporary use for this site. It benefits the city by providing an area to temporarily impound towed vehicles. ft also helps Mr. Ashby by giving him a use of his land during the Gladstone neighborhood building moratorium which is currently in effect. The moratorium is due to end on March 7, 2005. City staff, however, will be requesting an extension during the ongoing Gladstone Neighborhood redevelopment study. Staff is recommending that the city council revise the CUP to allow the impound lot. Staff is also recommending that the landscaping and screening that was previously required be dropped for the time being, since the site will very likely develop once the redevelopment study is concluded. There is no reason for extensive landscaping to be provided if the site is io be proposed for development in the next year or two. Site Gean up and weed con#rol should be pertarmed, however. RECOMMEN©ATION Adopt the resolution revising the conditional use permit for the outdoor storage yard located at 1160 Frost Avenue, subject to the following conditions (deletions are crossed out and additions are underlined}: 1. utside vehiGe storage is allowed. The director of community development shall review the proposed layout for all outdoor storage since #here is no current site Ian. 2. The city council shall review this permit revision annually from the date of this approval. iA-efle-yeas fn addition this permit shall end on November 1, 2007, as previously required. 3. The property owner shall clean the site of ail debris and shall cart or remove an noxious weeds. This shall be done on a re ular basis. ~~ 2 E rmm~~iinn +hn nro~ml onrJ ~~mnrdc ~~iithin ohn~ ~+ ~. (1 foot of Crnc+ /~~mn~ ~o onrd roc+n rinn +hn ornoc ~~ii+h i ~. +~ ~rf nrn~ ~nrJ nn~inr ~nrJ I~nrJcn~ninn e Dmm~~m oll +hn Cihnrion Clm +rnnc frnm +hn nrn nnr+~i , o ro rJinotn +hn Lnon~~mnrJ onrJ c~~mn+ nln~mr frnm +hnir nrn nnr+~i onrJ +hnn roc+n rn +hn hillcirln ~~ii+h ~. rrrn~ ~nrJ nn~mr IonrJcnoninn onrJ +rnnc y o cnrnnninn in +hn fnnnn Thn nnnlinn n+ chnll nmm~ln+n +hncn imn~e~~+cZ~ p~ yan~_~L ~2n~ 4. The temporary storage of work-related materials such as dirt piles and cable spools, for example, may be permitted. These materials may be kept on site for no more than one month. No more than 25 percent of the site shall be used for the storage of such materials. This condition is left in as part of this permit in case the applicant leases this property to another user such as Quality Restorations, for whom the permit was originally approved. 5. Normal hours of operation shall be 6:30 a.m. to 7:30 p.m. Monday through Friday. Exceptions will be allowed to provide emergency service to customers. The permitted hours of the impound lot are 24 hours a day, seven days a week, unless the city receives complaints, in which case there shall be no impound lot activity between the hours of 10 p.m. and 6 a.m. 6. The city council will need to approve a revision to this permit if the owner wants to put a permanent building on the site. 7. The owner or operator shall provide a dumpster in the storage yard for business garbage if a use other than the police impound lot takes place on this propertL. 8. The owner or operator shall provide a p-axed driveway to the gate of the storage yard, subject to the reauirements of the fire marshal. p:sec16\qua12004 CUP Review Attachments: 1. Location Map 2. Property Line/Zoning Map 3. Letter from Chief Lukin dated January 20, 2005 4. CUP Revision Resolution Attachment 1 .,~~ ~' COUNTY ROAD ~ C w ~ ~ ~ 5~~ TOY J N ~ w N ALM v~ K "~r"°" $~ F, CT ~ v~ w 7 4AI-N' ~~ ~ 7 4`~"H~ i a a 5 '~ CT, w ~ ~ ~dR m a: CONNOR CGS AVE. ~ CO ~'IOR g ~ ~ AVE. ~ DEMONT p CT. OEMON~ AVE. O N.~ BROOKS F w O AVt. ~Ij BROOKS w a BROOKS `~ W y SEX TANT = AVE. CT. ~ 4., AVE. ~ H s u.~a.+. ~ SE%TAN7 MBE. ~ ~ o Po.k ,5-f. GERVNS AVE. ~ GERVAIS ''' ~ .~ ~~R 5 GRANOVIEw AVE. i Y pa° per' m VIKING pR. Lp~e ~ SHERREN AVE. ~ ~ ~ COPE K"+r~ead Lake _ ~ COP ~J AVE z ~ 1 ^ :~~ ~ LARK ~ CT. w U AVE. G~ v~i LARK r VIKING DR_ N Keller 1 ~ w G ~ ~ Uo w `Lake ° CO. ~ RD. ~ ~ ~ LAURIE RD. z~1N°0dn LAURIE ~ o ~ \y1 ~ w nn~ " 3 LAURIE C7. ~ \\~ ~ L£LAND RD. z o ~ SAIV URST ~ ~ AVE. Y ~~ ~ JUNCTION AVE. "~ .~. z B ~j ~ y CO. BURKE AV ACCT ~ ~~ a ~ a. ~ , ~'PKE AVE. ®m BURKE AVE. a ® $URKE pwk ~ (1) CHAMBERS 5T ~ ~) p ELDRIDGE ~ AV ~ ° 0F. OhT Lp,l. y ELDR IDLE AVE. w ~d,n r~ dO""'PiQ ~ $E1.A~EON7 R$E ~if pVE. BEL1iA0NT AVE. Q4. ~~ F I Loka SKILLAIAN AV. ~ x~y Eta G~ C~ SKILL ~ ~~ AV E. SKILL WiAN AVE. HARRIS tA1 ~ ~ K~ OOD ~ SHE N ~ ~ ROSE1Rt J ~ ~ ~ ~ o~ vAN ~ ~ R~ AFI Av. ~ RDAVE. ~ ~ ~ Trail .~ A ~ rr° ~ ~ ~ ~ P a. '~ ~ ~ FROS~ ~ ~i oo W o_ AVE. ~' ~ J BELLW00© AVE. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~. W ~ u, z } ~ rat AVE. ~o ~ ~ ~`' 3 ~ U MER AV w U ~ ~ SU k1~ _ ~ GO ~ ° FRIS$IE AVE. ~ {{ j x ~ ~ # ~ LEY v z ~ ~ AYE. WLe'"~ x ~~ rc w ~ G W~ie X o 0 dQ-' _ _ SO PH IA F ~ o ° ~ ~ .o ~ Lake ~ Rovnd x ~ 50 HW AVE L, ~ ~ z KINGSTON`AVE. ~ \Lak~ Lake O~ ~~~, ~ y z ~j x PRICE 4AVE. Qt~~ 4 Phalen w o ~ _ ~ PRICE I•~• SAINT PAUL. LOCATION MAP 4 N Attachment 2 Iy.LL~~ - ~Sp~A ~~ rlN ~n-amt:. ~. r'L9~L2-24 FLICEK FIELD BASEBALL PARK - FROS ~~~ ~ , IA >p~ ~ k~y5~ 1$ 3x19 Zo 19 is~14~ ~'o Il ~ ~• (~),~ W sz~19 r I- ° ~~ J °~' s Q g a~ ~ gc Aklel8 i a ., r, • ,~ 11 r o ~n•R `~ f I° a ~:" ~~ ;~ yz :3 13s. -- ,µ -- .~ 4 v 1 T ~•,~ a 13 •> ,~ ~~ yZ 4 ''~ ~• 14 ~ •_ r `~ S j~= w=~ A IA 4 .: ~ 7G i~ - BLACKTOP ~! ` DRIVEWAY CO. ~ L'tb 173• * ~ ~R'J kLE _~ ~ ti} 2,R I~ -~ ~ yp W n 11 A ~ 10 Go MAPLBWO~OD~ _ ~; ~$ MARINEg~ a y . 5 LL , ~_ _` ` C3 • SUBJECT PROPERTY 1896 I ~Zd4 ~ ~' 1890,~~j~ 3 ~- ~ - - I 7 - ~ L • 1884 ~ }, , ` F- MAPLEWOOD OPEN SPACE w X110 _ it l0 11_ Ya ~ ; 9 ~ 1872' ~ g i~ t2 9_ V , ~ 8 _ 3 g_ Z 7 ''" q ~ ~ I T ~. -- 18s ~ I -- GLOSTER ~ ~ R3 ~ ^ ^. • i ,y ,~~5 ~ , ; g - PARK _ ~ ~ ; ~~ r ~ ~ IT ?/a r ~ I . • (~~ l I -4L ~ W 63)19 J I ~ s Lfw `~ 1 ~," o ~~ I I , ~ ~ _ , .PHA i . (38~ (3t1) f40) ( z 2 I 15 ~ 2 IS~ ,o , ~ w (w) 3 , 1 ,a(9~ Q - ~ 4 ^ - . ~ ovarrEn oua. J ~ 4 Q 13 Q 4 13~s~ ~ - S I 12 '1 5 12 ~ ~'7 ~~7 ~fs71 `~~~'t} (u.) ~s y ~ ~ ~ G y ~ 11~ 7 W ~ ~ G TI ^ •12 Sl 10 ~,1. .:• ~ 6 S 4 '~ PROPERTY LANE I ZONING MAP 1V Attachment 3 Memorandum To: Tom Ekstrand, Senior Planner cc: RECEIVED From: Chief Lukin ,~ ~QN ~ D ~QQ~ Date: 1/20/2005 Re: Temporary Police Impound Lat As you recall, we had planned to put the temporary impound lot in the open parking lot area of station one. After review of the cost and the possibility of the intrusion in the neighborhood with the lighting and all hour's usage, we decided against this location. After further review, we negotiated with Mark Ashby to use the property he owns at 1160 Frost Avenue. This property is already fenced in, has lighting in place, and Mr. Ashby already has a CUP in place for this property. We will have to do the following: 1. Update the CUP to incorporate the needs of the temporary police impound lot. 2. Enter into a lease agreement with Mr. Ashby. 3. Our plan is to start using the property in April of 2005 for anywhere between six and eight months. This timeframe will vary depending on . when the new public works building is completed. 4. After the CUP items needed to be put into place for a temporary impound lot are no longer needed, it will resort back to the present CUP items that Mr. Ashby has in place. 5. Any other items or requirements necessary to fulfill our needs as a temporary impound lot. fi. This use will have to be for seven days a week, 24-hours a day. if you have any further questions, please give me a call. 6 Attachment 4 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REVISION RESOLUTION WHEREAS, Steve Lukin, Fire Chief far the City of Maplewood, applied for a conditional use permit revision to allow a police department impound lot on a site previously approved for outdoor vehicle and material storage. WHEREAS, this permit applies to 1160 Frost Avenue. The legal description is: VACATED ALEY ACCRUING AND FOLLOWING, LOTS 1 THRU 10 AND LOTS 16 THRU 20, BLOCK 1, KAVANAGH AND DAWSON'S ADDITION TO GLADSTONE, AND VACATED ALLEY ACCRUING AND FOLLOWING, LOT511 THRU LOT 15, BLOCK 1, KAVANAGH AND DAWSON'S ADDITION TO GLADSTONE. WHEREAS, the history of this conditional use permit is as follows: On February 23, 2005, the planning commission held a public hearing. City staff published a notice in the paper and sent notices to the surrounding property owners as required by law. The planning commission gave everyone ai the hearing a chance to speak and present written statements. The planning commission also considered reports and recommendations of the city staff. The planning commission recommended that the city council this permit. 2. The city council held a public hearing on .The council considered reports and recommendations of the city staff and planning commission. NOW, THEREFORE, BE lT RESOLVED that the city council the above- described conditional use permit revision because: 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 additions! costs for public facilities or services. 8. The use would maximize the preservation of and incorporate the site's natural and scenic features into the development design. 9. The use would cause minimal adverse environmen#al effects. Approval is subject to the following conditions: • Outside vehiGe storage is allowed. The director of community development shall review the proposed layout for all outdoor storage since there is no current site plan. • The city council shall review this permit revision annually from the date of this approval. In addition this permit shall end on November 1, 2007, as previously required. The property owner shall clean the site of ail debris and shah cut or remove any noxious weeds. This shall be done on a regular basis. • The Temporary storage of work-related materials such as dirt piles and cable spools, far example, may be permitted. These materials may be kept on site for no more than one month. No more Phan 25 percent of the site shall be used for the storage of such materials. This condition is left in as part of this permit in case the applicant leases this property to another user such as Quality Restorations, for whom the permit was originally approved. • Normal hours of operation shall be 6:30 a.m. to 7:30 p.m. Monday through Friday. Exceptions will be allowed to provide emergency service to customers. The pemtitted hours of the impound lot are 24 hours a day, seven days a week, unless the city receives complaints, in which case, there shat! be no impound lot activity between the hours of 10 p.m. and 6 a.m.. • The city council will need to approve a revision to this permit if the owner wants to put a permanent building on the site. The owner or operator sha11 provide a dumpster in the storage yard for business garbage if a use other than the police impound lot takes place on this property. • The owner or operator shall provide a driveway to the gate of the storage yard, subject to the requirements of the fire marshal. The Maplewood City Council approved this resolution on , 2005. 8