Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04/04/2005MAPLEWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION 1. Call to Order 2. Roll Call 3. Approval of Agenda 4. Approval of Minutes a. March 21,2005 5. Public Hearings 7:00 Monday, April 4, 2005, 7:00 PM City Hall Council Chambers 1830 County Road B East Easement Vacation (Wyngate Town Homes - Legacy Village) 7:15 Parking Lot Setback Variance (Heritage Square Fourth - County Road D, west of Highway 61) 6. New Business None 7. Unfinished Business None 8. Visiter Presentations 9. Commission Presentations March 28 Council Meeting: April 11 Council Meeting: Mr. Desai April 25 Council Meeting: Mr. Ahlness 10. Staff Presentations 11. Adjournment DRAFT MINUTES OF THE MAPLEWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION 1830 COUNTY ROAD B EAST, MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA MONDAY, MARCH 21, 2005 I. CALL TO ORDER Chairperson Fischer called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. I1. ROLL CALL Chairperson Lorraine Fischer Commissioner Eric Ahlness Commissioner Jeff Bartol Vice-Chairperson Tushar Desai Commissioner Commissioner Commissioner Commissioner Commissioner Mary Dierich Michael Grover Daniel Lee Gary Pearson Dale Trippler Present Present Present Present Present Present Present Absent Present Staff Present: Ken Roberts, Planner Lisa Kroll, Recording Secretary III. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Commissioner Dierich moved to approve the agenda. Commissioner Desai seconded. Ayes -Ahlness, Bartol, Desai, Dierich, Fischer, Grover, Lee, Trippler The motion passed. IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Approval of the planning commission minutes for March 7, 2005. Commissioner Ahlness had a correction to page 4, third paragraph, third sentence, replacing 100 GHz with 1.2 GHz. Commissioner Trippler had a correction to page 13, last paragraph, last line, changing the acreage from 1.86 to 11.86. Commissioner Trippler moved to approve the planning commission minutes for March 7, 2005, as amended. Commissioner Dierich seconded. Ayes- Ahlness, Bartol, Desai, Dierich, Fischer, Grover, Lee, Trippler Planning Commission -2- Minutes of 03-21-05 V. PUBLIC HEARING Ramsey County 800 MHz Antenna Facility (645 Sterling Street South) (7:05-7:45 pm) Mr. Roberts said Mr. Tim Mayasich, representing Ramsey County, is proposing to install a new 800 MHz antenna facility at the existing water tower at 645 Sterling Street South. This proposal would include the addition of antennas to the top of the existing tower and a new prefabricated equipment building near the base of the water tower. Ramsey County would lease the property for the facility and use from the Saint Paul Regional Water Services (the owner of the site). This item was tabled at the last planning commission meeting on March 7, 2005, this was so the applicant could have another representative from Ramsey County address the commission's questions that were raised and two representatives are present this evening to answer the commission's questions. The planning commission had requested additional trees be added to the site to screen the building. The applicant added more trees to the landscaping plan on the northeast side of the tower. Mr. Roberts said Commissioner Ahlness found a news release which he sent to staff regarding the FCC and potential interference problems faced by 800 MHz public safety radio systems. Staff has given this information to planning commission members along with a colored map of the United States frequency allocation radio spectrum. Mr. Roberts said staff recommends approval of the CUP for a public facility (the antennas and the related ground equipment) along with the design and site plans (which would normally be reviewed by the CDRB). However, staff is asking the planning commission to review the design and site plans tonight. Chairperson Fischer asked the applicant to address the commission. Mr. Paul Kirkwold, Project Manager for the 800 MHz Antenna Facility, addressed the commission. His role in this project is to facilitate the construction of the infrastructure, get it operating and then turn it over to Ramsey County. The 800 MHz system is not just a Ramsey County system but it's an integrated county system that would be used by every public safety agency in Ramsey County including Maplewood police and fire departments as well as the Ramsey County Court House. The need for a tower in South Maplewood was determined because of the necessity to have adequate radio frequencies across all spectrums of the county. The terrain is very hilly and it's difficult to get radio signals into some of those areas from antennas located a long distance away. Commissioner Trippler asked what the building would be made of. Mr. Kirkwold said the building is prefabricated with an exterior aggregate finish which could be altered within the economics they have. Mr. Scott Williams, Radio Systems Manager, Ramsey County, addressed the commission. He would be the on-going manager of this 800 MHz system once it's constructed. He comes to Ramsey County after running the system in Hennepin County for three years. He is here to answer the interference issues that were raised at the last planning commission meeting. Planning Commission Minutes of 03-21-05 -3- Mr. Williams said harmonics are a multiple of the frequency that you intend to operate on which is sort of like an echo. 800 MHz may produce an echo of 1.86 megahertz. A poody manufactured piece of equipment and poorly designed equipment can generate harmonics or echoes which can cause interference with other services. Mr. Williams said the way the industry deals with interference is through aggressive filtering. These filters look like long metallic cylinders which direct the RF energy threugh these cavities. The filters are designed to resonate the energy that you want. This is your license frequency and will pass through the filter. Other signals won't pass through the chamber and will dissipate as heat. That is basically how they control the emissions so they only broadcast from their own frequency. Throughout the region there are 39 antenna sites which are operated by MnDOT and Hennepin County. In his three years working with Hennepin County he doesn't recall any complaints regarding interference. Many of these antenna sites are located in populated single-family neighborhoods. Commissioner Bartol asked if there was some type of maintenance that had to be done on these systems. Mr. Williams said a regular preventive maintenance program has to be done and these sites are visited multiple times a year. If there are any problems with interference they are required by the FCC to correct the problem. They also post their phone number on the outside of the building for people to call with complaints as well. Commissioner Trippler asked what the difference was between this tower and towers like KSTP where he picks the radio station up on his telephone at home. M r. Williams said the difference between this kind of tower and KSTP's tower is this tower uses a much lower wattage compared to KSTP that uses wattage in the thousands which can be overwhelming and can interfere with other systems. Chairperson Fischer said if anyone in the audience wanted to speak regarding this item to come forward and address the commission. Mr. Tom Loven, 589 Sterling Street, Maplewood, addressed the commission. Mr. Loven said he lives about 600 feet from the preposed site. He has concerns regarding the location of the building on the site and feels the building could be moved further south so it would be more neighborhood friendly. There may be other reasons why this building is proposed to be positioned in this location. He heard the assurance that there aren't going to be interference problems, but what about in the future. He asked if there was a possibility for future problems if it could be written in the conditional use permit who would be responsible to take care of improvements and preblems. This would help the neighbors understand who to go to in the future if preblems occur. Mr. Roberts believed the building was put in that location because it's very fiat in that location, which means very little grading would have to be done. The driveway wouldn't have to be extended any further, and would only require a sidewalk. By moving the building, you would be getting close to the pipelines and a spillway located there which is there in case of overflow if the water tower ever had to dump water. Because of these things, Ramsey County thought this would be the best location to minimize the other factors. Planning Commission Minutes of 03-21-05 Mr. Roberts said with the landscaping that is going to be planted the building would be shielded anyway. The fact is the water tower is still there and can't be shielded no matter where you locate the building. The landscape will help hide the building but the water tower still sticks out. If Ramsey County were to make any changes or alterations Ramsey County would have to come before the city for approval. Chairperson Fischer said if there were any problems number 5 is a condition listed in the staff report and should cover any future problems. Mr. Roberts said if there were any problems, with Ramsey County taking care of issues that arise with this site the city could revoke the conditional use permit. Commissioner Ahlness said to help reassure the neighbors, the previous licensee of this site was Nextel, and Nextel has worked extensively in the metropolitan area for a number of years with the 800 MHz system and if the neighbors haven't experienced problems with Nextel, they probably won't with Ramsey County either since it will be a similar type of use. This is a broad system being implemented nationwide. The Government bought out the frequency Nextel was on and moved Nextel to a different frequency in order to free this frequency up for this public service use. Besides the public good that is coming from this use along with Ramsey County working with the public on this, it should be good for everyone. Mr. John Ryan, 593 Sterling Street, Maplewood, addressed the commission. He lives next door to Tom Loven and has questions regarding how tall this building is going to be and if they are going to use footings. Mr. Kirkwold said the building will have footings and the structure would be set on top. The structure will be hauled in on a truck. The building is about 9¼ feet tall and the landscaping will be about 8 feet tall at the time of planting, so the majority of the structure will be covered. Basically you will see the water tower and a small portion of the building surrounded by 8-foot-tall trees. Mr. Ryan said he would like the commission to consider requiring Ramsey County to move the building further out of view. Mr. Loven said if the building was moved further to the south, Ramsey County could save money on landscaping and it would be more neighborhood-friendly. Commissioner Trippler moved to adopt the resolution on pages 25 and 26 of the staff report. This resolution approves a conditional use permit to allow Ramsey County to install an 800 MHz radio facility (antennas and equipment building) at the property at 645 Sterling Street South. This approval is for the property on the southwest corner of Steding Street and Hillwood Drive. The city bases this approval on the findings required by the ordinance and is subject to the following conditions: 1. All construction shall follow the site plan approved by the city. The director of community development may approve minor changes. Planning Commission Minutes of 03-21-05 -5- The proposed construction of the new antenna facility must be substantially started within one year of council approval or the permit shall become null and void. The council may extend this deadline for one year. 3. The city council shall review this permit in one year. 4. Any antenna or equipment that is not used for a year shall be deemed abandoned and the city may require the owner to remove it. 5. Ramsey County shall be responsible for the costs and implementation of any corrections or changes necessary because of interference or other problems caused by this facility. The county shall make any such corrections or changes in a timely manner. Commissioner Trippler moved to approve the plans date-stamped February 4, 2005, and the revised site and landscaping plan dated March 11, 2005, for an antenna facility (including antennas and an equipment building) on the property at 645 Sterling Street South (on the southwest corner of Sterling Street and Hillwood Drive). Approval is based on the findings required by code and subject to the applicant doing the following: 1. Repeat this review in two years if the city has not issued permits for this project. 2. Before the city issues a building permit, city staff must approve the following: A certificate of survey for the project area that shows the proposed new construction, the location of the property lines and existing site features around the proposed lease area. b. A revised landscape and screening plan that: (1) Shows the preservation of as much of the existing vegetation as possible. (2) Shows the clean-up and the restoration of all turf areas with sod. c. A driveway, sidewalk, grading, drainage and erosion control plan for the project site. The plans for the equipment building that show the proposed exteriors with the designs, colors and materials. Project plans and specifications that meet all the requirements of the city building official. 3. Before getting a certificate of occupancy, the applicant shall remove and dispose of any debris and ensure that the site is cleaned up. 4. If any required work is not done, the city may allow temporary occupancy if: a. The city determines that the work is not essential to the public health, safety or welfare. Planning Commission -6- Minutes of 03-21-05 The city receives a cash escrow or an irrevocable letter of credit for the required work. The amount shall be 150% of the cost of the unfinished work. 5. All work shall follow the approved plans. The director of community development may approve minor changes. Commissioner Bartol seconded. Ayes -Ahlness, Bartol, Desai, Dierich, Fischer, Grover, Lee, Trippler Commissioner Grover recommended that Ramsey County check into the possibility of repositioning the building as per the two Maplewood residents' requests. Mr. Kirkwold said Ramsey County would check into the possibility of repositioning the building; however, without knowing what is underground as far as piping, there are no guarantees the building could go in another location other than where it is shown on the plans. There is the possibility of higher costs that could come into play if additional grading had to be done and if the driveway had to be added on to. They would work with city staff regarding this issue. The motion passed. This item goes to the city council on April 11,2005. VI. NEW BUSINESS None. VII. UNFINISHED BUSINESS None. VIII. VISITOR PRESENTATIONS None. IX. COMMISSION PRESENTATIONS a. Mr. Trippler was the planning commission representative at the March 14, 2005, city council meeting. Mr. Roberts said Gary Pearson was to be the representative; however, he called city staff stating he was ill. Mr. Roberts called Mr. Trippler because he was next on the list to be the representative at the city council meeting and he volunteered to take Mr. Pearson's place. Mr. Trippler said a number of items were discussed. The first item was the EAW report for the Schlomka property which Rottlund Homes wanted to do themselves. Planning Commission Minutes of 03-21-05 -7- Mr. Roberts said Chuck Ahl felt it was better for the city to do the EAW report and have Rottlund homes reimburse the city for the cost of the report. Chuck Ahl had it on his agenda to discuss the site plan, concept plan and the EAW report. Rottlund Homes wasn't prepared to discuss the site plan and concept plan but was prepared to discuss the EAW report. Commissioner Trippler said the EAW report would address many things besides the noise and traffic issues. Mr. Roberts believed Rottlund Homes withdrew their request to do more work on their site plan and concept plan and would still be requesting the city do an EAW. Commissioner Trippler said Trout Land Auto Dealerships (County Road D west of Highway 61) for the conditional use permit was the second item to be discussed. Because the city council was missing the fourth Councilmember, they only had three councilmembers and the mayor to vote; therefore the item did not pass with a tie vote of 2 ayes and 2 nays. Then the city council reconsidered it and the item was finally tabled. The Overview Townhomes off McMenemy Street and south of Roselawn Avenue for 24 townhomes passed. The conditional use permit for the Outdoor Storage Area Police Impound Lot at 1160 Frost Avenue passed. Commissioner Trippler had issue with the fact that he came to the city council meeting to represent the planning commission and give their recommendation to the city council and the mayor never called on him to give the planning commission report for any of the items they discussed. b. Mr. Pearson was to be the planning commission representative at the March 28, 2005, city council meeting; however, there are no planning commission items to discuss. c. Mr. Desai will be the planning commission representative at the April 11, 2005, city council meeting. The only planning commission item to discuss is the Ramsey County 800 MHz Antenna Facility (645 Sterling Street South). The city council will also hold interviews for the planning commission. d. Gladstone Update Commissioner Trippler gave an update regarding the Gladstone Redevelopment Area. The task force recently received a packet with three different schematics of possible development plans. The next Gladstone Task Force meeting is scheduled for Thursday, March 24, 2005, at 6:30 p.m. at the Clarence Street Fire Station. The task force will go over what the next step will be in preparation for the public Gladstone meeting to be held Thursday, April 7, 2005, at 6:30 p.m. at the Maplewood Community Center. Planning Commission -8- Minutes of 03-21-05 e. Discussion regarding the letter from Jason and Kelly Lenz of 3027 Duluth Street, Maplewood. Commissioner Desai said the planning commission received a letter dated March 11,2005, from Jason and Kelly Lenz at 3027 Duluth Street regarding the gO-unit Heritage Square 4th Addition on the Trout Land Development property. Commissioner Desai asked if staff received the same letter and if anything had been resolved regarding the Lenz letter. This was to be heard by the City Council on Monday, March 28, 2005, but now that has been changed. He asked what date that item would be heard by the city council. Mr. Roberts said that item would be heard either April 11,2005, or April 25, 2005. The item has been delayed because of the variance request for the driveway and frontage road that was not part of the original application, and Town & Country Homes did not want to revise their plans not to need a variance, in speaking with Tom Ekstrand, the applicant requested a setback variance for the driveway parallel to County Road D for an 8 to 10-foot setback instead of the 15-foot setback that is required by city code. Until that issue is resolved, this item cannot be brought before the city council. Commissioner Desai asked if staff knew if it was correct that the city council approved the 90 townhome units or were the facts listed in Ms. Lenz's letter factual or not? Mr. Roberts said he has not seen the letter from Ms. Lenz so he does not know what the letter states. However, he knows Mr. Ekstrand is aware how important it is to clarify the density issue before this comes back to the planning commission and then to the city council for review. Commissioner Desai said this letter went to the planning commissioners as well as city councilmembers. Commissioner Trippler gave his copy to the recording secretary to give to Mr. Ekstrand in case he had not received a copy of Ms. Lenz's letter. Commissioner Dierich said Ms. Lenz called her and Ms. Lenz said she had spoken to Mr. Ekstrand several times so Commissioner Dierich is sure Mr. Ekstrand is aware of the issues in the letter. Ms. Lenz said many of the facts that she put in the letter came from Mr. Ekstrand. Commissioner Desai said he also understood that to be the case but he doesn't get the notion it specifically states anywhere that the city council approved 90 townhome units. Commissioner Dierich said the planning commission was against the concept for apartments and high density housing in this area so the planning commission recommended R3M (medium density) because the neighborhood as well as the commission didn't want apartment units there. At the last planning commission meeting staff stated they used the apartment density because there wasn't a condominium density listed in the comprehensive plan. She believes this is what Ms. Lenz was referring to. Planning Commission Minutes of 03-21-05 -9- Commissioner Trippler said he remembered the concept plan was for between 130-170 units and the planning commission felt that was way too high next to single-family homes. The commission decided the medium density of 6 or 7 units per acre was more in line with the transition. He can't recall the planning commission giving a specific number of units. The commission was focusing their attention on what the criteria was and they recommended that the city council pass it for R3M without a suggestion for the number of units. Chairperson Fischer said that would be tied to the number of acres there were. Commissioner Desai said that is true, however, there was an issue regarding the gross acreage at 11.91 acres on one side not including the Prokosch property. Or was the issue that the Prokosch property was included in the equation. He checked into the city council minutes on the city website for the months of June and July 2004 and didn't see any wording that stated the city would incorporate the Prokosch property. Therefore, the total acreage would be 15 plus acres, so the developer could count on 90 units or that the correct acreage was 11.91 acres for a total of 70 plus units. This is where the confusion is and this needs to be cleared up. Commissioner Trippler said he remembered discussions that the applicant was in negotiations with the Prokoschs to purchase their property and felt fairly confident that purchase would go through and if the applicant acquired that property they wanted to include that in the count for the whole development. His personal opinion has always been that he doesn't think it's right for any development to look at gross acreage, but apparently that is the way it's been done for 20 to 30 years. The city says you can count ponds, pipelines, power lines, right of ways, etc. when calculating acreage even though it isn't usable property. Unless the city changes its policy, the city is locked into this calculation. Commissioner Bartol said staff said there was a written agreement between the city and the developer that the applicant could include the Prokosch property in calculating the number of units; however, after further research no such contract or written agreement exists. When using gross acreage to calculate density, you have to draw the line somewhere. You can't develop the pipeline and power line easements orthe ponding area, and there are challenges with this property. Now to complicate things even more, the applicant says they are including the Prokosch property in this mix to come up with an incredibly dense development which the planning commission said they did not want in this area so close to residential. M r. Roberts said the recording secretary will make su re M r. Ekstrand gets a copy of the letter from Ms. Lenz and Mr. Ekstrand will be putting together the report for the planning commission and city council regarding this discussion. Chairperson Fischer asked staff what was happening with the Woodlands townhome project off McMenemy Street. Mr. Roberts said that item was tabled after hearing testimony from some of the neighbors who could not be present for another public hearing date. The applicant wanted a time extension to bring revised plans back to the planning commission, but so far city staff has not seen any revised plans. When city staff has more information, another mailing will go out to the neighbors regarding a new public hearing date. Xl. Planning Commission Minutes of 03-21-05 STAFF PRESENTATIONS None. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 8:15 p.m. -10- MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: SUBJECT: LOCATION: DATE: City Manager Tom Ekstrand, Senior Planner Easement Vacation Request for Wyngate Townhomes North Side of Legacy Parkway March 22, 2005 INTRODUCTION On October 26, 2004, the community design review board (CDRB) approved the plans for the 50-unit Wyngate Rental Townhomes at Legacy Village. After this approval, the applicant found that there is an unneeded drainage and utility easement on the site. This easement had followed a lot line that was created as part of the odginal Legacy Village plat. When the site was replatted for the Heritage Square Second Addition town house development and the Wyngate site, this lot line was moved to the west to enlarge the Wyngate property. The end result was a remaining drainage and utility easement that serves no purpose as it would lie under the building. Refer to the attachments. Request Mr. Frank Janes, of the Hartford Group, Inc., is requesting that the city council vacate this easement. BACKGROUND Legacy Village Actions that Involve this Site July 14, 2003: The city council approved the Legacy Village PUD, comprehensive plan amendment, tax-abatement plan and preliminary plat. Refer to the approved PUD concept plan. September 8, 2003: The city council approved the final 31at for Legacy Village. This plat established the location of the subject easement. July 26, 2004: The city council approved the PUD revision, preliminary and final plat and the design plans for the Heritage Square Town Homes Second Addition. This final plat moved the westedy lot line for the Wyngate site to the west, thereby enlarging the site and causing the easement to now exist in the location of the future building. October 26, 2004: The CDRB approved the design plans for Wyngate. Findings for Approval TO vacate an easement, the city council must find that it is in the public interest. DISCUSSION Chris Cavett, the Maplewood Assistant City Engineer, reviewed this proposal and has determined that there is no reason to retain this easement. Staff recommends that the city council vacate this easement since it would serve no public purpose. RECOMMENDATION Adopt the resolution in the staff report vacating an unneeded drainage and utility easement on the VVyngate Town house site. This vacation is because it is in the public interest since this drainage and utility easement would serve no public purpose. p:sec 3\Wyngate Easement Vacation 3'05 Attachments: 1. Location Map 2. Original Legacy Village Concept Development Plan 3. Heritage Square Second Addition Final Plat 4. Wyngate Site Plan with Proposed Easement Vacation 5. Drainage and Utility Easement Vacation Exhibit 6. Easement Vacation Resolution Attachment 1 WYNGATE TOWNHOMES -- SITE MAPLEWOOD MALL LOCATION MAP ,~ ~ N Attachment 2 i Attachment 3 Attachment 4 I ! ,!! I' Ii I I !.!il 6 DRAINAGE AND UTILITY EASEMENT VACATION EXHIBIT (LDRAINAGE AND UTILITY -- ,EASEMENT PER PLAT~_ OF HERITAGE SQUARE~ S89"¢6'12,,1,y SECOND ADDITION--',, r ~ 1.50 LOX &O LO'1' ,-DRAINAGE AND UTILITY EASEMENT PER PLAT ~ OF HERITAGE SQUARE ~ SECOND ADDITION S89'46'12"W 1 Attachment 5 N89'46'12"E ).01 0 ~"-SOUTHWEST CORNER ~'¢50 OF LOT 4 Scale in feet 111~J~ Hansen Thorp Pelllnen Olson Inc. 30 60 '~ ~'~ E.gl.eers , Surve~ra · Landscape Architects 9 .-WEST LINE OF LOT 4- ~o S89'46'12"W Attachment 6 EASEMENT VACATION RESOLUTION WHEREAS, Mr. Frank Janes, of The Hartford Group, applied for the vacation of the following: Vacating the Drainage and Utility Easement as Dedicated on the plat of LEGACY VILLAGE OF MAPLEWOOD, Ramsey County, Minnesota over that part of Lot I and Lot 4, Block 2 described as follows: Commencing at the Southwest corner of said Lot 4, thence North 2 degrees 50 minutes 09 seconds West along the West line of said Lot 4, a distance of 10.01 feet to the point of beginning of the easement to be vacated; thence North 89 degrees 46 minutes 12 seconds East a distance of 10.01 feet; thence North 2 degrees 50 minutes 09 seconds West a distance of 144.94 feet; thence North 2 degrees 49 minutes 52 seconds East a distance of 21.43 feet; thence South 44 degrees 49 minutes 03 seconds West a distance of 27.66 feet; thence South 89 degrees 46 minutes 12 seconds West a distance of 1.50 feet; thence South 2 degrees 49 minutes 52 seconds West a distance of 1.78 feet; thence South 2 degrees 50 seconds 09 minutes East a distance of 145.02 feet; thence South 89 degrees 46 minutes 12 seconds West a distance of 10.01 feet to the point of beginning. WHEREAS, on April 4, 2005, the planning commission held a public hearing. The city staff published a notice in the Maplewood Review and sent a notice to the abutting property owners. The planning commission gave everyone at the hearing a chance to speak and present written statements. The planning commission also considered reports and recommendations from the city staff. WHEREAS, on , the city council this request after considering the recommendations of staff and the planning commission. WHEREAS, after the city approves this vacation, the public interest in the property will go to the adjoining property. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the city council approve the above- described vacation because it is in the public interest since this right-of-way is not needed for any public purpose. The Maplewood City Council adopted this resolution on ,2005. MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: SUBJECT: PROJECT: LOCATION: DATE: City Manager Tom Ekstrand, Senior Planner Parking Setback Variance for Heritage Square 4th Addition Town and Country Homes New County Road D and Hwy. 61 March 30, 2005 INTRODUCTION Project Description/Request Town and Country Homes has requested approval of a 90-unit town house development on the Trout Land development site west/northwest of Gulden's Roadhouse and Venburg Tire. During the staff review of this proposal, we found that the interior frontage-drive and some of the parking spaces do not meet the required 15-foot setback from the County Road D Extension right-of-way. The proposed pavement would be nine feet from the front lot line requiring a six-foot setback variance. Refer to the site plan and the applicant's letter of request and explanation. On March 7, 2005 the planning commission reviewed the applicant's preliminary plat. On March 8, 2005, the community design review board (CDRB) reviewed the design plans. The CDRB required that the applicant: "Revise the site plan to provide a 15-foot setback for the proposed frontage drive and visitor parking spaces or obtain a variance from the city council. The applicant must provide at least .5 visitor parking spaces for each unit. The northernmost building needs two additional visitor spaces while taking into account the 15-foot setback requiremenL' Review Schedule After the planning commission reviews the vadance request, staff will schedule the variance, preliminary plat and design review for city council action on April 25, 2005. BACKGROUND Trout Land Land-Use-Plan Approval On July 12, 2004, the city council approved a land use plan change to R3M (medium density residential) for the proposed townhome development site. The council's intention in establishing this land use plan classification was to deny the requested R3H (high-density residential) land use being requested at the time by Kellco Real Estate Development Services. A change to medium density was felt to be a reasonable compromise and one that would be more compatible with the abutting single and double dwellings. The land use plan change to medium density resulted in establishing a maximum density of 92 units for the townhome properly-91 units of townhomes and the Prokosch house which was to remain in place. Although the city council's motion did not specifically state that "92 units are the maximum allowed," the staff report clearly addressed this density, and this density was discussed by the city council at their meeting. Allowed Density There is some confusion and disagreement that resulted from the city's review of the Trout Land development proposal last summer and the establishment of the density noted above. The following information is given to hopefully clear up the issue of what is the allowed number of townhomes for the Hedtage Square 4th Addition. {The matter of density is not relevant to this variance request. Staff realizes, however, that the subject may likely come up and we hope that this explanation will clear up the confusion and disagreement.) The allowed density for the townhomes in the Trout Land development was calculated based on the provisions of the Comprehensive Land Use Plan. Density was based on the "gross" number of acres the developer, Kellco, pumhased for town house development. The gross acreage totaled 15.38 acres. The land use plan defines gross acreage as follows: "Gross acreaRe is the total area of the lot to be developed, including streets and drainaRe areas." It should be noted that the actual net-acreage for the proposed townhomes is 11.9 acres. The density, therefore, was calculated based on the entirety of the original property the developer purchased for multi-family development. This included: 1) the original 6-acre Prokosch property, 2) the 8.53-acre property lying between future County Road D and 3) half of the future County Road D right-of-way (.85 acres). Refer to the attached Acreage Map. When calculating density, it is standard practice to consider the entire, originally-shaped piece of land prior to its division by roadways and the loss of area to holding ponds and other areas to be designated for special purposes such as for wetland easements, conservation areas or tot lots. I have included examples of this. Refer to Attachments 9- 12 showing the Highwood Farms Townhome development and the Woodlynn Ponds Townhome development and the recently approved Overview Townhomes. Each of these had property in excess of the buildable area. Each, however, was allowed a density based on all their land, including their roadways and unbuildable areas. · In these instances where part of the "total area of the lot" is not to be built with residential units, the developer still gets credit for that acreage for his density calculations. One point of confusion that leads to disagreement is that the land use plan classification for the existing Prokosch property was not changed to R3M as was the town house site. Some have questioned why that site was counted in the formula for the overall town house density if it is not zoned or guided that way?. As stated above, the gross-density calculation was figured based on the entire property purchased for town house development. As this development proposal was reviewed, and property-sale terms negotiated with Mr. and Mre. Prokosch, it later turned out that they would remain in their home. Their site could have been incorporated as town houses. As it was, density credit was given to the developer for that site since it was part of the overall development. It is staff's intention, however, that there never are more than a total of 92 units, including the existing Prokosch site, on Trout Land town house property. The planning commission, furthermore, recommended on March 7, that "the Prokosch property be excluded from any further development when they move from the property." Some of the abutting property owners disagree with this method for density calculations. In the letter on Attachment 7, Ms. Kelly Lenz points out that she feels that the remaining Prokosch piece should not have been included in the density calculations. She further points out a concern discussed at by the planning commission that if we allow the current Prokosch home site to be included in the "gross~ acreage, what prevents that site from being developed in the future with more units? As stated above, the planning commission shared this concern. Based on the allowed density of 92 units for ali portions of the odginal property, only two units could be allowed on the Prokosch lot in the future. Staff is looking into ways to limit the future development of the Prokosch lot to no more than two residential units. We will propose a method of control to the city council on April 25. Two possible ideas are to require the filing of a deed restriction that would prohibit more than two residential units or to rely on the zoning which is R1 (single dwelling residential) to control the use of this property. A zone change would have to take place in order to build more than one single family dwelling. DISCUSSION Engineer's Comments Chris Cavett, the assistant city engineer, reviewed this proposal and has the following comments: The city requires a 10-foot-wide utility easement with subdivision plats. The applicant's proposed nine-foot front pavement setback would need to be moved at least one foot further back to meet this 10-foot easement requirement. · The site grading is difficult. It makes sense to try to keep the buildings from encroaching any further to the west. State Law Requirements State law requires that to approve a variance, the city council must determine that: · Strict enforcement would cause undue hardship because of circumstances unique to the property under consideration. · The variance would be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the ordinance. Unique Circumstances The site is difficult to develop due to its unique physical characteristics. The site narrows substantially in the middle making setback compliance difficult to meet. The steep grades on the west side of the site, furthermore, prevent moving the buildings to the west without a considerable amount of additional grading and, possibly, retaining wall construction. Doing so would also bring the buildings closer to the homes to the west which is not desired by the neighbors. Spirit and Intent Approval of this setback reduction would meet the spidt and intent of the code since there would still be room for landscaping between the driveway pavement and the street boulevard. Staff does not feel that this six-foot reduction to the applicant's driveway would be visually noticeable or hazardous in any way. Neighbor's Comments Bob and Cindy Kranz, of 1264 Highddge Court, expressed three concerns about this proposal. Refer to their attached letter. They are concerned about: · Traffic congestion on the County Road D extension due to the proposed 90 units. · A reduced setback would bring pedestrians too close to the street. · There is inadequate visitor parking for the proposed units. The concern about tre;ftc congestion is not relevant to this setback variance proposal. It is more a question of allowed density and one that has already been established. The concern about the reduced setback being hazardous for pedestrians is not applicable because the sidewalk along future County Road D would be on the public boulevard and not affected by the applicant's proposed driveway and parking lot location. The applicant's proposal, therefore, has no bearing on sidewalk location. The issue about a need for adequate visitor parking spaces is a very important one but one that has already been addressed in the design review. The city has established a visitor-parking ratio elsewhere in Maplewood of one-half space for each one unit, or stated another way, one space for each two units. By this ratio, there must be at least 45 visitor parking spaces for this project. One point of concern is that the northerly building needs at least nine visitor parking spaces. There are seven shown. Staff and the CDRB required this in our recommendations to the city council. Conclusion This request meets the findings required for variance approval. Requiring parking lot/driveway setback code compliance on this difficult site would result in a lessened building setback on the westerly side which would impact the neighbors by bringing the buildings closer to them and would result in considerably more grading and retaining wall construction. COMMITTEE ACTIONS March 7, 2005: The planning commission reviewed the preliminary plat for Heritage Square 4th Addition and recommended approval. March 8, 2005: The CDRB reviewed the design plans and recommended approval. RECOMMENDATION Adopt the resolution in the staff report approving a five-foot parking and driveway setback variance from the future County Road D Extension right-of-way line. Approval is based on the following findings: Complying with the 15-foot parking lot/driveway setback code would cause the applicant undue hardship due to the narrow shape of the site which makes setback compliance difficult. Relocating the parking lots, frontage drive and buildings to the west would require additional grading and slope stabilization and would impact the neighbors by reducing the building setback to the west. The variance would meet the spirit and intent of the ordinance since there would still be adequate area to plant trees between the driveway curbing and the front lot line. The reduced setback would also not be visually noticeable. Approval of this variance is conditioned upon the applicant revising the plans to provide a 10-foot pavement setback in order to stay off of the required 10-foot-wide utility easement. As required previously, the applicant must also provide at least nine visitor parking spaces for the northerly building. 5 REFERENCE INFORMATION SITE DESCRIPTION Site Size: 11.9 acres Existing Land Use: Vacant SURROUNDING LAND USES North: County Road D and single family homes in Vadnais Heights South: Car dealerships West: Single and double dwellings East: Gulden's Roadhouse, Venberg Tire, Sparkle Auto and two proposed auto dealerships PLANNING Land Use Plan Designation: R3M Zoning: The property is zoned R-3 Findings for Variance Approval State law requires that the city council make the following findings to approve a variance: 1. Strict enforcement would cause undue hardship because of circumstances unique to the property under consideration. 2. The vadance would be in keeping with the spidt and intent of the ordinance. 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 alone shall not constitute an undue hardship if reasonable use for the property exists under the terms of the ordinance. APPLICATION DATE/APPROVAL DEADLINE The city received the preliminary plat and design review applications on February 8, 2005. State law requires that the city take action within 60 days of receiving complete applications for a land use proposal. The vadance application came in on March 17, 2005. In order to get all items to the city council at one meeting, staff extended the review deadline for the original two applications along with the variance application to May 16, 2005. Council action is required by that date. 6 p:sec4:Heritage Square 4th Addition Var te Attachments: 1. Location / Zoning Map 2. Land Use Map 3. Site / Landscaping Plan 4. Site Plans Showing Proposed Setback Reduction 5. Acreage Map 6. Applicant's Letter of Justification dated March 11,2005 7. Letter from Kelly Lenz dated March 11,2005 8. Email Correspondence from Bob and Cindy Kranz dated March 25, 2005 9. Highwoed Farms Townhomes Site Plan 10. Woodlynn Ponds Townhomes Site Plan 11. Ove~ew Townhomes Site Plan 12. Location Map for Highwood Farms, Woodlynn Ponds and Overview 13. Variance Resolution 14. Colored Site Plan dated March 17, 2005 (separate attachment) 15. Plans date-stamped February 8, 2005 (separate attachment) 7 Attachment 1 HERITAGE SQUARE 4TM ADDITION COUNTY ROAD D F Fisher's Corner LOCATION / ZONING MAP H~zelwood 8 Attachment 2 LAND USE MAP HERITAGE SQUARE 4TM ADDITION R1 &l /41 rn M1 BEAM AVE 9 · Attachment 3 - '"~"rSITE & LANDSCAPING pLAN 10 Attachment 4 LAND Attachment 5 / / ~ / / ! / / ,,' 13 TOWN & HOMES Minnesota Division Attachment 6 March 11, 2005 Tom Ekstrand Asst. Community Development Director City of Maplewood 1830 East County Road B Maplewood, MN 55109 Re: Heritage Square 4th Addition - Variance Application RECEIVED I 7 2005 Dear Mr. Ekstrand, Town & County Homes would like to request a variance to the 15ft. setback requirement from the new County Rd. D Right-Of-Way. Please find the Variance Application attached, along with exhibits of the areas in discussion. As you can see on the attached exhibits, our setbacks from County Road D vary between 9ft. and 18ft., for an average of 13.5ft. The majodty of the setback between County Road D and the "parking street" for buildings 2 through 5 is 9ft. The required setback is 15ft. We request that the City approve the setbacks as shown on our current plans. Hedtage Square 4m Addition just recently received Preliminary Plat Approval from the Planning Commission on Monday 3/7, and the Community Design Review Board on Tuesday 3/8. The Community Design Review Board added the variance as a condition to our approval. The variance was discussed at the Planning Commission Meeting and it was determined that there was significant reasoning for requesting the variance rather than adjusting the site layout. Listed below are the reasons we feel the setbacks we are currently shown be approved: 1.) Adjusting the site layout to capture the additional square footage would push our buildings closer to the single-family neighborhood to the west of our property. We would like to maintain as large a buffer as possible for our neighbors. 2.) Adjusting the site layout would require a substantial amount of additional grading and retaining walls due to the difficult topography of the site, and may ultimately deem the current scheme un-developable. 3.) Without the variance, the retaining walls along the west side of the private drive would need to be increased, compromising the safety of the wall heights. Heritaqe Square 4~h Addition - Variance Application Narrative Letter Page 1 of 2 7615 Smetana Lane, Suite 180 · Eden Prairie, MN 55344 (952) 944-3455 · Fax (952) 944-3437 MN Builder License .#9137 14 4.) The current size of the median between County Road D and the private drive is large enough to plant trees. 5.) Trout Land, LLC had previous discussions with the city from the beginning that this site was narrow. The final design for County Road D moved the road 15ft. further from the west than previously drawn. Previous discussions with public works concluded that the variance was warranted, and that there were no safety concerns. We anticipate the following public hearing schedule for Heritage Square 4th Addition. Preliminary Plat @ CC Variance Application @ PC Variance & Final Plat @ CC 3/28/05 4/4/O5 5/9/05 Please contact me at 952.253.0474 with any questions. Thank you. Respectfully, .... Krista M. Novack Community Planning Manager Land Development Heritaqe Square 4~h Addition - Variance Application Narrative Letter Page 2 of 2 15 Attachment 7 March 11, 2005 City Council Members of the City of Mapiewood, MN - My name is Kelly Lenz. My husband, Jason, and I live at 3027 Duluth Street in Frattelone's Highpoint Ridge. It is my understanding that the City Council has been asked by Town 8, Country Homes to approve their preliminary plat for the 90-unit Heritage Square 4~h Addition on the Trout Land Development at the March 28, 2005 City Council meeting. The Maplewood Planning Commission reviewed the preliminary plat request at their meeting on March 7, 2005, which 1 attended. The preliminary plat, as presented, was approved by a measure of 6 ayes (Fischer, Pearson, Trippler, Ahlness, Bartol, Lee) to 3 nays (Desai, Dierich, Grover). However, I feel that the City Council should not take the recommendation from the Maplewood Planning Commission and should not approve the preliminary plat. My reasons for this recommendation are: 1. The calculated density of the proposed plat. 2. The incorrect amount of density/units calculated for the Trout Land Development site, as currently zoned and planned in the Maplewood Comprehensive Land Use Plan. 3. The confusion that was caused by using the incorrect acreage at the May 17, 2004 planning commission meeting who rscommended the council approve the change in land use to R3M A little history... On July 12, 2004 the City Council approved a resolution amending the Maplewood Comprehensive Land Use Plan for this property from R1 (single family residential) and M1 (light manufacturing) to R3M (medium density residential) as theywere presented with a proposal from Kelco Real Estate Development for developing town homes on this site (Trout Land Development). The City Council was asked to approve the change for several reasons as stated in the City Council minutes page 7 dated July 12, 2004. The first 3 reasons given were: 1. The development would be consistent with the goals and policies of the comprehensive plan. 2. The proposed town homes would be consistent with the ciys policies for medium-density residential uses, since they would create a transitional land use between commercial property and single dwelling property. 3. Town homes would be compatible with the abutting town house development. I spoke with Mr. Tom Ekstrand, Senior Planner with the City of Maplewood, several times via a phone conversation on Tuesday, March 08, 2005~ and reviewed the Town & Country documentation about the preliminary plat. It is my understanding that Town & Country is proposing to build a 90-unit town home community. As these are identified as town homes, they would be set at a density of 6 per acre per the Comprehensive Land Use Plan for R3M (medium density residential). Here is my first issue... How is the gross acreage calculated for the development? If you review the Town & Country documentation they state that the gross site acreage is 11.91 acres. Using the Town & Country gross acres number and a density of 6 gives us a total unit density of 71 units, well below the 90 proposed. However, in speaking with Mr. Ek~trand it was his understanding that the total gross acreage for the Trout Land Development would include the Prokosch land (3.47 acres) which is east and across the street of the new aligned County Road D and not included in Town & Count, s preliminary plat design. The Prokosch land, per Mr. Ekstrand, is also zoned at Rf (single-family residentia~ not R3 as the land west of County Road D and the proposed building site. Since the Prokosch piece is zoned as Rf, they would only be a/lowed a density of 3 units per acre not 6 for a town home. At the Planning Commission meeting on March 7, 2005, City Staff mentioned that there was an agreement between Kelco and the Prokosch's that states that the Prokesch acreage would be included in the "gross" acreage of the Trout Land Development (i.e., The Developer Agreement (Kelco)). However, Page I of 3 March 11, 2005 16 Based upon staff direc~don of 71 units and other discussions, the commission approved the recommendation of use to R3M. A 20 unit discrepancy would have made a difference, I believe in the discussions and ultimate outcome of the recommendation by the Planning Commission. I did voice my concern at the March 7, 2005 Planning Commission meeting about this discrepancy and the letter we received after the May 17~h meeting. Also, I asked at the Mamh 7, 2005 Planning Commission meeting to see a copy of the "Kelco/Prokosch" agreement and was said it exists. However, as I found out on March 8, 2005 no agreement exists - I really believe the Planning Commission would have never approved the preliminary plat at their meeting if they would have known that this agreement did not exist. Unfortunately, the Planning Commission did recommend the approval of the preliminary plat at their March 7, 2005 meeting by a vote of 6 to 3. As I believe that the preliminary plat should have not been approved, my alternative is to present my views to the City Council. I really feel that, based upon the issues raised above; ~he City Council should not approve the proposed Town & Country preliminary plat ofgO-units as the density is above the 7f allowed units per the Comprehensive Land Use Plan. In addition, I will be presenting the City Council with a petition signed by many residents of Highpoint Ridge and Duluth Street that concur with my conclusion. I thank each of you for your time and consideration. I am planning on attending the March 28~ City Council meeting. However, if you have any questions and/or comments, please feel free to contact me directly. Sincerely, Kelly Lenz 3027 Duluth Street 651.771.5453 cc: Maplewood Planning Commission Members Page 3 of 3 March 11, 2005 17 March 11, 2005 Dear Maplewood Planning Commission Members: Attached you will find a letter dated March 11, 2005 that I sent via email to each of the City Council Members with respect to the Trout Land Development. Just an FYI. Kind Regards, 3027 Duluth Street 651.771.5453 18 I Page 1 of 1 Attachment 8 Tom Ekstrand From: KranzFam~aol.com Sent: Fdday, March 25, 2005 9:28 AM To: Tom Ekstrand Subject: Heritage Sq 4th Condo Project Vadance Request Tom: We received the Public Headng Notice yesterday for the Planning Commission meeting on April 4 to consider the setback vadance request for the Heritage Condominium project. We have reviewed the layout drawings showing the areas in front of buildings 1,2,3,4 and 5 where the variance is being requested. We am opposed to the granting of these variances. Our primary concerns are: Traffic Congestion - If we assume there are two vehicles for each unit (there could be more for 2 and 3 bedroom units), there will be 180 additional vehicles each day entering and exiting new County D. The new auto dealerships on the east side of D, will also be feeding many vehicles onto the D right of way. There will be backups at most intersections Safety of Pedestrians and Drivers - The full 15 feet setback required by the city code will be needed to protect pedestrians walking on the sidewalk on the west side of D in this area. Some of these pedestrians will be corning from trail extension under the powerline and pipeline land. The visibility along this winding and sloping sec'don of D will be challenging for drivers. The 35 mile per hour proposed speed, especially as drivers are dsing up and over the pipeline high point, will be problematic. This is very near the undivided section of D allowing access to the large 18 unit condo. Inadequate Onsite parking For Condo Visitors - There are only 7onsite parking spaces shown for the 18 unit building. Since traffic from this building feeds directly onto D, there is no place for visitors and any excess vehicles from the 2 and 3 unit condos to park safely. This 18 unit building is clearly too big for the site. It should be reduced in size. It appears buildings 2,3,4 and 5 only have 25 onsite spaces for their 48 units. Any kind of holiday or other party at these units will surely result in inadequate parking. We believe the size of each of these units should be reduced. Thankyou for your consideration. Bob & Cindy Kranz 1264 Highddge Court 3/28/2005 19 Attachment 9 2O ~OUN?Y ~OAD D ,,OUTLOT A 21 lent 10 Attachment 11 O VER VIlff~ W PRELIMINARY PLA T GRADING PLAN PROPOSED GRADING 22 PLAN Attachment 12 [694 CORD, VVOODLYNN PONDS TOWNHOMES SITE OVERVIEW TOVVNHOMES SITE z LOCATION MAPS HIGHWOOD FARMS, WOODLYNN PONDS AND OVERVIEW HIGHWOOD FARMS TOWNHOMES SITE 23 Attachment 13 VARIANCE RESOLUTION WHEREAS, Town and Country Homes applied for a vadance from the zoning ordinance. WHEREAS, this variance applies to the proposed town home development site west of the future County Road D Extension. The legal description is: LOT 8, BLOCK 1, HERITAGE SQUARE 4TM ADDITION WHEREAS, Section 44-20(C) (5) (a) of the Maplewood Code of Ordinances requires that parking lots be set back at least 15 feet from a street right-of-way. WHEREAS, the applicant is proposing a nine-foot front setback. WHEREAS, this requires a variance of six feet. WHEREAS, the history of this variance is as follows: On April 4, 2005, the planning commission held a public hearing. City staff published a notice in the Maplewood Review and sent notices to the surrounding property owners as required by law. The planning commission gave everyone at the hearing an opportunity to speak and present wdtten statements. The planning commission recommended that the city council this variance. The City Council held a public hearing on ,2005. The council considered reports and recommendations from the city staff and planning commission. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council approve the above- described variance for the following reasons: (1) Complying with the 15-foot parking lot/driveway setback code would cause the applicant undue hardship due to the narrow shape of the site which makes setback compliance difficult. (2) Relocating the parking lots, frontage drive and buildings to the west would require additional grading and slope stabilization and would impact the neighbors by reducing the building setback to the west. (3) The variance would meet the spirit and intent of the ordinance since there would still be adequate area to plant trees between the driveway curbing and the front lot line. The reduced setback would also not be visually noticeable. Approval of this variance is conditioned upon the applicant revising the plans to provide a 10-foot pavement setback in order to stay off of the required 10-foot-wide utility easement. As required previously, the applicant must also provide at least nine visitor parking spaces for the northerly building. Adopted on ,2005. 24