Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout06/06/20051. Call to Order 2. Roll Call 3. Approval of Agenda 4. Approval of Minutes a. May 16, 2005 MAPLEWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION Monday, June 6, 2005, 7:00 PM City Hall Council Chambers 1830 County Road B East 5. Public Headngs 7:00 2006 - 2010 Maplewood Capital Improvement Plan (ClP) 7:15 Easement Vacation (Heritage Square Fourth Addition) 7:30 Richie/Anondson four-plexes- (1349 and 1359 County Road C) Land Use Plan change - (R-2 (double dwelling) to R-3(H) (high density multiple family residential)) Zoning Map change - (R-2 (double dwelling) to R-3 (multiple family residential)) . 7:45 Pondview Townhomes (Krongard Construction) (Larpenteur Avenue and Adolphus Street) Preliminary Plat New Business None 7. Unfinished Business None 8. Visitor Presentations 9. Commission Presentations May 23 Council Meeting: Mr. Roberts (was to be Ms. Dierich) June 13 Council Meeting: Mr. Ahlness June 27 Council Meeting: Mr. Grover 10. Staff Presentations a. Annual Tour Update b. Reschedule July 4 meeting - Tuesday, July 5 or Wednesday, July 6? 11. Adjournment DRAFT MINUTES OF THE MAPLEWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION 1830 COUNTY ROAD B EAST, MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA MONDAY, MAY 16, 2005 I. CALL TO ORDER Chairperson Fischer called the meeting to order at 7:03 p.m. I1. ROLL CALL Commissioner Eric Ahlness Vice-Chairperson Tushar Desai Commissioner Mary Dierich Chairperson Lorraine Fischer Commissioner Michael Grover Commissioner Jim Kaczrowski Commissioner Gary Pearson Commissioner Dale Trippler Commissioner Jeremy Yarwood Present Present Absent Present Absent Present Present Present Present Staff Present: Tom Ekstrand, Senior Planner Ken Roberts, Planner Chris Cavett, Assistant City Engineer Lisa Kroll., Recording Secretary III. APPROVAL OFAGENDA Commissioner Trippler moved to approve the agenda. Commissioner Ahlness seconded. Ayes- Ahlness, Desai, Fischer, Kaczrowski, Pearson, Trippler, Yarwood The motion passed. IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Approval of the planning commission minutes for April 18, 2005. Commissioner Trippler had corrections to the minutes on page six in the fourth paragraph. In the first sentence change the word that to they. In the second sentence change the word gray to great. Commissioner Trippler questioned the number of parking spaces shown in the Home Depot report on page seven and eight, in condition number 4. At the city council meeting the Home Depot representative stated there was a typing error in the staff report and the number of parking spaces should be 122 not 172 parking spaces as shown in the report. Commissioner Trippler asked if staff could check on that and make sure it is reflected in the conditions listed in the staff report. Planning Commission Minutes of 05-16-05 -2- Commissioner Trippler moved to approve the planning commission minutes for April 18, 2005, as amended. Commissioner Desai seconded. V. PUBLIC HEARING Ayes- Desai, Fischer, Kaczrowski, Pearson, Trippler, Yarwood Abstention - Ahlness a. Roadway Easement Vacation (Marylake Rd - west of Century Avenue) (7:06-7:16 p.m.) Mr. Roberts said Mr. Richard Pearson, the owner of Rolling Hills Manufactured Home Community, is proposing that the city vacate an existing street easement. This easement is for Mary Lake Road and crosses the Rolling Hills property from Century Avenue to the west property line. The city acquired the road in easement in 1965 to build a new street west of Century Avenue. Maplewood, however, never built the street. Mr. Pearson developed the manufactured home park in the 1980's and recently discovered that the city still held the rights to the road easement. Mr. Pearson is requesting the vacation because the city has no need for the existing street. The city and the adjacent property owners have no plans to build a street in this location. Maplewood has no plans to develop or use the existing easement for a street and the city does not need it for any utilities. However, the engineering department noted that the city needs a legal way to access the city- owned property (including Jim's Prairie) to the west of the manufactured home park. In trade for the city vacating the existing easement, city staff is requesting that the property owner grant to the city an access agreement over the property to allow the city access to the property to the west. Commissioner Trippler asked if the owner had indicated a willingness to grant the city the access they are seeking? Mr. Roberts said he hasn't heard otherwise from Mr. Richard Pearson but that would be a good question for his attorney, Mr. Gabriel. Commissioner Yarwood asked what was meant by access to the west, given these are dead end streets through this property. Mr. Roberts said the intent is to allow the city to drive city vehicles onto these privately owned streets to get to the property to the west which may involve driving across the grass or landscaped areas. Staff doesn't anticipate this happening very often but it gives the city written permission if need be. Chairperson Fischer asked the applicant to address the commission. Planning Commission Minutes of 05-16-05 -3- Mr. Richard Gabriel, Attorney for Richard Pearson, the applicant, addressed the commission. Regarding the access to the property, it was Richard Pearson's understanding when he developed the park in the 1980's that Ryan Drive (which is the street to the north of this parcel to be vacated) was to be used for access purposes. Two additional inches of base were added onto Ryan Drive because it was expected that city or maintenance vehicles may have to access Jim's Prairie. Mr. Pearson is willing to grant the city an access easement over Ryan Drive which has access off of Century Avenue and onto Jim's Prairie. However, Mr. Richard Pearson told Mr. Gabriel he wasn't aware of a single time the city needed to access the property since the manufactured home park was developed. Chairperson Fischer asked if anyone in the audience wanted to speak regarding this item. Nobody came forward. Chairperson Fischer closed the public hearing portion of the meeting. Before making a motion, Commissioner Gary Pearson said he is not related to Richard Pearson nor does he have any ownership in the Rolling Hills mobile home park. He also said the last time there was a controlled burn on the city property access was granted by using the railroad tracks. Commissioner Pearson moved to approve the resolution on page six of the staff report. This resolution is for the vacation of the unused Mary Lake Road street easement that is west of Century Avenue. The reasons for the vacation are as follows: 1. It is in the public interest. 2. The city and the property owner do not need or use the existing easement for street purposes. 3. The two properties adjacent to the easement have adequate street access. This vacation is subject to the property owner granting to the city an access agreement over the property to allow the city to have access to the city property to the west. Commissioner Trippler seconded. Ayes- Ahlness, Desai, Fischer, Kaczrowski, Pearson, Trippler, Yarwood The motion passed. This item goes to the city council on June 13, 2005. b. Conditional Use Permit (CUP) Revision - Liberty Classical Academy (1717 English Street) (7:16-7:33 p.m.) Mr. Roberts said Ms. Kathy Smith, representing Liberty Classical Academy, is proposing a revision to an existing conditional use permit (CUP). The city originally approved the CUP in 2003 for a school (grades K-8) for up to 60 students. The school is now asking for a revision to this permit to allow the school to have up to 120 students. Liberty Classical Academy is located in the existing Lake Phalen Community Church at 1717 English Street. If successful, the school would eventually serve grades K-12 as the children get older and progress through school. Planning Commission Minutes of 05-16-05 Commissioner Trippler asked if the resolution could be changed to state that all ten items listed by the Building Official, David Fisher, be completed before Liberty Classical Academy could increase the number of students beyond 60? Mr. Roberts said there are some items on the building officials list that are to be done in 2006- 2007 so clearly those things could not be done before school began in September 2005. Most of the other conditions could be met before the expansion which is especially important for expanding to the second level since the school has been operating from the lower level. Mr. Roberts stated he would be more comfortable leaving the resolution as it is stated. In number 5., letter h. it states that the conditions listed in David Fisher's memo shall be met so he feels comfortable with that. Chairperson Fischer asked the applicant to address the commission. Ms. Kathy Smith, 1964 Price Avenue, Maplewood, representing Liberty Classical Academy, addressed the commission. She thanked the planning commission for allowing the school to move forward in 2003 and said the school is doing very well. They have the same desire to have the school move forward and be a safe environment as the Building Official and Fire Marshal have requested. Liberty Classical Academy plans on completing everything listed in the staff report and have no problem meeting the conditions. Ms. Rebecca Hagstrom, Director of Liberty Classical Academy, 1717 English Street, Maplewood, addressed the commission. She wanted to bring to staff's attention that on page 18 of the staff report that the new resolution was not updated. Mr. Roberts apologized that the conditions listed on page 3 of the staff report did not get included in the resolution on page 18. He said he would update that before this goes to the city council. Ms. Hagstrom said on the first page of the staff report it states that Liberty Classical Academy is a K-8 school and would become a K-12 school. However, the school has been adding one grade to the school every year so that should be changed to reflect that. Mr. Roberts said he would update that information as well in the report. Mr. Allan Franz, 1560 Furness Parkway, St. Paul, addressed the commission. He is an elder at the Lake Phalen Community Church and he just wanted to say the school has been a very good addition and he wanted to voice his support for Liberty Classical Academy. Chairperson Fischer asked if anyone else wanted to speak regarding this item. Nobody came forward. Chairperson Fischer closed the public hearing portion of the meeting. Commissioner Ahlness said page 3, item 5. h., covers what needs to be said and feels the wording is not necessary to be changed. Planning Commission Minutes of 05-16-05 -5- Commissioner Trippler said he is concerned about increasing the number of students from 60 to 120 and is concerned about these things not being complete before school begins again in September. He likes staff's language as well but it doesn't state the items requested by the Building Official need to be completed before increasing the number of students from 60 to 120 students. Commissioner Ahlness says on page 16 of the staff report, the building official stated what would be required before increasing the number of students. In his opinion, that has been adequately stated and the applicant has shown a desire to have a safe environment and a willingness to comply with everything. Chairperson Fischer agreed with the comments by Commissioner Ahlness. Commissioner Ahlness moved to adopt the resolution on pages 17 and 18 of the staff report. This resolution approves a revision to the conditional use permit for the Liberty Classical Academy to operate a school in the church building at 1717 English Street. Maplewood bases this permit revision on the findings required by the code and shall be subject to the following conditions: (deleted language is crossed out and new language is underlined) 1. The school use shall follow the plans dated April 12, 2005, ,,,," 'nc ~.,, 2003, as approved by the city. The director of community development may approve minor changes. 2. The proposed school expansion must be started in this location within one year after council approval or the permit shall end. The council may extend this deadline for one year. 3. The school shall have no more than 120 60 students. , The property owner or manager shall sweep and stripe the parking lot before the school occupies their space. This shall include having two handicapped parking spaces in the parking area west of the building near the entrance to the school space. , The school, the church, the fire marshal and the city building official shall agree on a plan for the school and the church to make the required life safety and building improvements to the building. This plan shall include the installation of: a. The required fire protection (sprinkler) systems. b. An early warning fire protection system (smoke detection and monitoring). c. Additional emergency lights and exit signs (if necessary). d. Updated doors and hardware. e. The necessary changes to meet the handicapped accessibility code requirements. f. A proper address on the building. g. Any other changes the fire marshal or the building official deem necessary. h. All the improvements and changes listed in and shall meet all the conditions listed in David Fisher's memo dated April 25, 2005. 6. The city council shall review this permit revision in one year. Commissioner Pearson seconded. Ayes- Ahlness, Desai, Fischer, Kaczrowski, Pearson, Trippler, Yarwood Planning Commission Minutes of 05-16-05 -6- The motion passed. This item goes to the city council on June 13, 2005. c. Trout Land Auto Dealerships (Highway 61 and New Country Road D) CUP (7:34-8:23 p.m.) Mr. Ekstrand said Brian Teeters, of the Ryan Companies, is proposing to develop the northerly commercial lot of the Trout Land Development on the west side of Highway 61 south of Sparkle Auto. Previously Mr. Teeters submitted a proposal for this property along with the abutting lot to the south, to be developed with automotive uses by Lexus of Maplewood. During the previous review, the city council tabled action so the applicant could make revisions to their plans and to be more specific with their proposal since there were some uncertainties with the previous proposals. This current proposal sets aside the southerly site for future development and focuses on the northerly site only. The applicant is proposing the following for this property: Automotive repair. Parts storage and sales. Parking for employees and service customers, loaner cars and new/used car inventory. This site would not be for vehicle sales or vehicle delivery by large transports. Transport trucks would drop off cars at the existing Lexus of Maplewood dealership across Highway 61. Employees would drive cars from the current location across the street to be stored at the proposed site. Commissioner Trippler asked staff why the planning commission has received at least three different plans regarding how this site would look. Mr. Ekstrand said the three plans are similar but there are differences among them and said maybe the applicant could address this matter. Commissioner Trippler asked if the parking lot shown on the plan on page 11 was supposed to be removed? Mr. Ekstrand said after the applicant submitted the proposal they revised the plans eliminating the parking lot on the street side of the new County Road D. Mr. Ekstrand mistakenly included an older plan in the packet and apologized for the inconvenience. Commissioner Trippler asked what McMahon B was? Mr. Ekstrand said McMahon B is a lot that Sparkle Auto has been using for many years which is beyond Sparkle Auto's property lot line. When the plat for Trout Land was created, McMahon B was severed out of the property, which the Master Developer intended to be deeded to Sparkle Auto since they had been using the McMahon for so many years. Planning Commission Minutes of 05-16-05 -7- Commissioner Trippler said he read something in a letter from a Maplewood resident that there was supposed to be a 350-foot setback and he asked if that was correct? Mr. Ekstrand said there isn't a 350-foot setback required for this proposal. As part of the developers' agreement, the city council allowed a lesser setback for the auto facilities to the proposed town homes. However, the applicant has to meet a 350-foot setback from the existing residential homes. Commissioner Trippler said while visiting the site around 2:00 p.m. this afternoon he happened to drive by Yenburg Tire. He remembered when the planning commission heard the application regarding Venburg Tire the neighbors were concerned about the potential noise problems coming from the service doors. He specifically remembers the applicant stated the large service doors would remain closed at all times so noise wouldn't be an issue. He said six out of the nine service doors were either three-quarters of the way open or completely open and service was ongoing in all of the bays. There wasn't a lot of noise coming from the doors being open but the residents that sent letters of opposition for this development are concerned about the potential for noise as they were with Venburg Tire. The biggest difference is Lexus is proposing to 36 service bays. If the city is not enforcing the rule to keep the service doors closed at Venburg Tire how would the city ensure the service doors would be closed at the Lexus Dealership. Mr. Ekstrand said he would research the conditions of approval for Venburg Tire but he remembers the noise concern. The doors should remain closed and that condition should be enforced accordingly, however he would do some further checking. The Lexus dealership has proposed to have two service doors, one for entering and one for exiting. Because of this he does not see the same concern compared to the scenario for Venburg Tire who has nine service doors. Commissioner Trippler said on page 5, condition number 4., the applicant stated there wouldn't be large transports delivering vehicles or parts to this site and that they would be delivered to the existing site and employees would be driving the vehicles and parts over to the new site. But the way condition number four reads a resident could raise a legal issue with that condition because this could be misinterpreted. Chairperson Fischer said she read this to mean you can deliver cars or parts on the site as long as you are not blocking the roadway. Commissioner Trippler said somebody could read the condition that vehicle transport deliveries are prohibited unless the design can accommodate this and bring this to court. He understands the intent of the statement but wishes there was a way to state it clearer. Mr. Ekstrand said he thought it was clearly stated but he's happy to entertain suggestions. Staff and commissioners came to an agreement to insert the word and after the word property, remove the period and change the capital T in The into a lower case t. Commissioner Yarwood asked why the condition was added if the Lexus Dealership has already said they would unload vehicles across the street at their main location? Unloading vehicles can be noisy and being this close to residential he thinks the vehicles should continue to be unloaded at the current Lexus Dealership site. Planning Commission Minutes of 05-16-05 -8- Mr. Ekstrand said historically the problem has been that dealerships have said vehicles would be unloaded in their parking lot but then the transport trucks unload vehicles on the highway which takes up a driving lane and becomes hazardous. He wanted to give Lexus the opportunity to deliver cars and parts to the site if they were to provide adequate space on site. That would solve the problem the city encounters and helps Lexus with the function of their business. Commissioner Yarwood said his concern is the unloading of vehicles is done across the street at the current Lexus building and the possibility of allowing noise issues to occur at the vehicle maintenance area is a condition he doesn't feel necessary to add since it can be done across the street. Mr. Ekstrand said that may be fine with Lexus as well and they can address that when they have the opportunity to speak. Commissioner Desai said he is not so concerned about possible noise at the site. If vehicle unloading is allowed at the proposed site it would eliminate the problem of unloading on the highway causing traffic hazards. Commissioner Yarwood agreed the transport unloading on Highway 61 continues to be a problem. He is just concerned about the proposed town homes that would be so close to the proposed Lexus site and the possibility of noise the homeowners may have to contend with. Commissioner Desai said he understands Commissioner Yarwood's issue but the people buying into those proposed town homes will be aware of the surrounding businesses when they buy one of those units, so for that reason he is not against the unloading of vehicles and parts on the new site. Commissioner Desai said he is still concerned about condition number 5, on page 5, regarding the cross easement on this site for Sparkle Auto. He asked if that issue would be brought back to the city to be resolved when the time comes? Mr. Ekstrand said the City Engineer, Jim Kellison of Kelco Properties, Ryan Companies, and Bloomer Properties have been working on the dedication of 12¼ feet of easement across the northerly portion of the property off of the Lexus site. There would be a matching 12¼ feet dedicated north of the abutting property and that is how cars would get from Sparkle Auto over to County Road D. There are also some grading issues to be worked out. Mr. Chris Cavett, Assistant City Engineer, addressed the commission. The city is trying to leave as many options open as possible and not shut the door completely on alternate access points. It's very likely that in the future MnDot will eliminate the right of way access onto Highway 61 to the Sparkle Auto property. As the other properties are developed the city will be looking at these access issues at that time. The reality is, there will probably be a better access point elsewhere but the city doesn't want to shut the door for another point of access. Commissioner Desai asked if Sparkle Auto was okay with this plan? Planning Commission Minutes of 05-16-05 -9- Mr. Cavett said MnDot has the ability to shut access points off at any time but because of the improvements along Highway 61 MnDot is trying to eliminate access points. Sparkle Auto is aware of discussions and this area could be part of a redevelopment some time in the future. More than likely changing access points would include other properties when redevelopment or new development occurs. Commissioner Desai asked if there was a difference in the width of the customer parking spaces verses employee parking spaces? Mr. Ekstrand said the parking spaces are not yet shown as different widths but staff wants to see those spaces properly marked on the site plan along with the proper width. Lexus is also required to have enough handicapped parking spaces for customer and employee parking. Commissioner Desai asked how Lexus would move cars from one site to the other?. If there would be any traffic concerns or if there had been a traffic study done? Mr. Cavett described the traffic pattern on the map showing how cars would exit the Lexus site with a right turn out only, enter into the new vehicle maintenance site and return back to the existing Lexus site. Commissioner Desai asked if the customers would know which way to drive in and out of the Lexus dealership? Commissioner Trippler said the staff report states customers would drive to the current Lexus dealership and an employee would drive the car across the street to the vehicle maintenance site eliminating the need for the customer to drive to the new vehicle maintenance site. Commissioner Trippler said on page 2 of the staff report, under Design plans, it states that the shared drive would serve a proposed multi-tenant retail/office building at the intersection of New County Road D and Highway 61 as well as the future automotive site south of the subject property. He asked staff if the planning commission has seen the proposed multi-tenant retail/office building plans yet? Mr. Ekstrand said the planning commission has not seen plans for this proposed multi-tenant retail/office building. It just came into the office and Shann Finwall from Community Development will be reviewing the proposal for the corner property. The Planning Commission would not review that proposal it would only go to the CDRB. It meets the M-1 zoning so it only has to go through the Community Design Review Board. Commissioner Desai asked originally there was a gas station/convenience mart proposed for that location? Mr. Ekstrand said that was the previous plan but now it is proposed for the multi-tenant retail office building. Chairperson Fischer asked the applicant to address the commission. Planning Commission Minutes of 05-16-05 -10- Mr. Lee Coppy, Project Engineer, Ryan Companies, 50 South Tenth Street, Suite 300, Minneapolis, addressed the commission. He thanked Tom Ekstrand and Chris Cavett for their reporting efforts on this proposal. They have gone through a number of changes for this proposal on this challenging site. Mr. Coppy said there may be additional parking spaces they want to keep at 9-foot wide due to the amount of traffic and use. Having wider parking spaces also makes it easier to get in and out of the vehicles. Mr. Coppy displayed building elevations for the planning commission even though the Community Design Review Board would be reviewing the building design. Lexus is fine with the cross easement to the property but would like to see the specifics spelled out. Commissioner Trippler said in reviewing the different plans he didn't notice any fencing around the site and asked if there were any plans for fencing on the property. Mr. Coppy said he knows some kind of fencing will be needed for screening along the north side of the property but as far as any security fencing, he is unaware of fencing requirements. Mr. Robert Katz, General Manager, Lexus of Maplewood, addressed the commission. He said currently Lexus of Maplewood doesn't have any fencing around the car lot. Lexus of Maplewood has been in this location for almost nine years and hasn't had any problems with safety of vehicles. Commissioner Desai said the neighbors are concerned about the lighting issue and he asked if the lighting on the site was going to face the north so the residents would not have issues with light overflow? Mr. Coppy said they are going to use a downcast light with a cutoff lense so there would be little to no light glare. On this particular project the lights are going to be at almost the same level as County Road D so the residents are going to be looking down onto the lights and this would have a very minimal effect on the residents. Ms. Mary McMahon, 1290 County Road D E, Maplewood resident, addressed the commission. She owns the property at the north end of this project and is curious about the cross easement for Sparkle Auto dealership because in order to have the cross easement they would need a small portion of her property. She asked when they could discuss the property acquisition for a proper cross easement? Mr. Ekstrand said he hasn't been involved in this area of discussion and recommended that question be answered by engineering. Mr. Cavett said this leaves some options open but if it is feasible some day that the McMahon property is developed, then they would work with a future developer. If acquiring a portion of Ms. McMahon's property would need to happen while Ms. McMahon is still the property owner that would be something that would be negotiated between her and the property owner. Chairperson Fischer closed the public hearing portion of the meeting. Planning Commission Minutes of 05-16-05 -11- Commissioner Ahlness was pleased to hear the applicant offer a resolution regarding the cross easement because he was uncomfortable with the city asking the applicant to provide the cross easement but without exact specifications. He believes the city owes the applicant specifics before this goes to the city council, no matter how the planning commission votes on this matter so that Lexus can finish the plans for their project. Chairperson Fischer asked if staff could explain if MnDot were to take away the access point for Sparkle Auto would MnDot have to compensate the property owner and would they have to provide another access point? Mr. Cavett said under the current scenario MnDot could not leave Sparkle Auto landlocked, they would have to maintain some kind of access. But as the city looks at redevelopment and public safety they want to eliminate access points and working with this development and future developments make sense combining access points. There is no clear cut answer but at this time there is not a clear cut proposal for the corner of that property either. Commissioner Ahlness said the city is requiring the applicant to provide the cross easement but not provide them the direction, location or width. It is very problematic for the applicant to come up with the final plan on how to develop the property without this information and he feels the city owes the applicant that information before this goes to the city council. Commissioner Trippler said it would be a good idea to have the cross easement in place but he does not think it is that large of a problem for the applicant. The applicant is showing 50 more parking places than what is required. If they need to eliminate 12¼ feet from the northern parking lot that would take away four parking spaces and if Lexus needs to give access for the full 20 feet that may take away another four parking spaces. Commissioner Trippler moved to approve the revised Trout Land Final Plat revision showing the relocation of the lot line on the south side of Lot 1, Block 1, Trout Land. Approval is subject to: 1. The relocated lot line being at least five feet south of the proposed parking lot curb edge on the Lexus Service Center site. 2. The final plat shall be revised for staffs approval. 3. The original final plat conditions dated November 22, 2004. Commissioner Trippler moved to adopt the resolution approving a conditional use permit for an automobile service center on Lot 1, Block 1, Trout Land. Approval is based on the findings required by ordinance and subject to the following conditions: 1. All construction shall follow the site plan that the city stamped May 3, 2005. The Director of Community Development may approve minor changes. 2. The proposed construction must be substantially started or the proposed use utilized within on 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. Planning Commission Minutes of 05-16-05 -12- VI. 4. Vehicle transport deliveries to this site are prohibited unless the site is designed to accommodate this activity entirely within the property and the unloading of vehicles on the street or highway right-of-way is prohibited. This condition also applies to the delivery of parts to this building. . The applicant or current owner of this property shall dedicate a cross easement on or across this site for Sparkle Auto or provide an acceptable alternative across other properties. This cross easement, or any alternative, shall be subject to the city engineer's approval. 6. All building mounted and ground-mounted lights must be down-lit to prevent light spread beyond the site boundaries. Lighting fixtures must be designed so the lens and bulbs are not visible from any surrounding homes. Commissioner Pearson seconded. Ayes-Ahlness, Desai, Fischer, Kaczrowski, Pearson, Trippler, Nay- Yarwood The motion passed. This item goes to the city council on June 13, 2005. Mr. Yarwood voted nay was because of the condition allowing the unloading of vehicles on the property in close proximity to the residential area and he is concerned for the potential noise for the residents. Commissioner Ahlness stressed again his concern for the city to give the applicant specific details regarding the cross easement before going to the city council. NEW BUSINESS Commissioner Trippler wanted to discuss the 2006-2010 Capital Improvement Plan that was included in the planning commission packet. Mr. Roberts said the packet was included so planning commissioners could have the opportunity to review the 2006-2010 Capital Improvement Plan prior to the next planning commission meeting. This is their opportunity to note concerns or questions that they want to bring to the attention of staff prior to the June 6, 2005, meeting. Commissioner Trippler prefers to see the differences between last years CIP and the new CIP so he doesn't have to go through the whole packet and make comparisons. He asked if the changes could be highlighted, bolded or underlined. Mr. Roberts said he thought Dan Faust, Finance Director, included a summary at the beginning of the packet but he hadn't had the opportunity to look at the packet. A project done in 2007 could be moved to 2010, therefore, changing placements in the packet too. He would discuss this with Dan Faust to see what he can find out before the next meeting. Planning Commission Minutes of 05-16-05 VII. UNFINISHED BUSINESS None. -13- VIII. VISITOR PRESENTATIONS Mr. Will Rossbach, City Councilmember and Maplewood resident, 1386 County Road C East, Maplewood, addressed the commission. Mr. Rossbach said Chairperson Fischer telephoned him regarding the discussion for the Trout Land condominiums and the trail systems at the April 25, 2005, city council meeting. She inquired whether the city council had approved the planning commission's recommendation to eliminate the trail system further south of the Lydia Avenue right of way or if the council voted to include both trail systems as proposed in the staff report. He said the city council approved both trail systems and felt that the south trail was critical to the trail system. There was mixed review on the staff's part and they would like to have the property develop a little bit further along to see what the grades would be before eliminating the idea of the Lydia Avenue trail system. IX. COMMISSION PRESENTATIONS a. Ms. Fischer was the planning commission representative at the April 25, 2005, city council meeting. Items discussed included the Easement Vacation request for Wyngate Townhomes (north side of Legacy Parkway), which passed and the Parking Setback Variance for Heritage Square th .. 4 add~bon (new County Road D & Highway 61) which passed as well. b. Mr. Trippler was the planning commission representative at the May 9, 2005, city council meeting. Items discussed included the 3M building #278 Leadership Development Institute and Customer Center (Minnehaha Avenue), which passed. The CUP revisions for Home Depot at 2360 White Bear Avenue passed. The city council also approved the Resolutions of Appreciation for past planning commissioners Jeff Bartol and Daniel Lee. c. Ms. Dierich was to be the planning commission representative at the May 23, 2005, city council meeting, however, no representation is needed. d. Mr. Ahlness will be the planning commission representative at the June 13, 2005, city council meeting. Items to discuss include the Roadway Easement Vacation on (Marylake Road west of Century Avenue), the CUP revision for Liberty Classical Academy (1717 English Street), Trout Land Auto Dealership (Highway 61 and new County Road D) CUP. Planning Commission Minutes of 05-16-05 -14- X. STAFF PRESENTATIONS a. Annual Tour Mr. Roberts said the planning commission should decide on a date for the annual city tour. After selecting a date that works for a majority of the commission, staff can move ahead with plans for the annual tour. Mr. Roberts asked the planning commission to check their calendars and get back to him with dates that would work for them. The possible tour dates are listed in the staff report. Xl. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 8:52 p.m. MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: SUBJECT: DATE: City Manager Ken Roberts, Planner Capital Improvement Plan (ClP) May 24, 2005 INTRODUCTION The city updates the Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) each year. The Capital Improvement Plan is part of the Maplewood Comprehensive Plan. State law requires the planning commission to review all changes to the comprehensive plan. The purpose of this review is to decide if the proposed capital improvements are consistent with the comprehensive plan. The planning commission will hold a public headng about the proposed plan on Monday, June 6, 2005. In response to comments last year from the commission, we earlier sent you a copy of the proposed 2006-2010 ClP so you would have more time to read and study it before the headng. Please bdng your copy of the proposed plan to the hearing on June 6. Pages 1-4 through 1-7 of the plan provide the highlights and some project and cost comparisons of the proposed plan to last years ClP. RECOMMENDATION ,Approve the 2006-2010 Capital Improvement Plan. kr/p:miscell/cipmemo.mem Enclosure (PC only): Capital Improvement Program TO: FROM: SUBJECT: PROJECT: LOCATION: DATE: MEMORANDUM City Manager Ken Roberts, Planner Easement Vacation Heritage Square Fourth Addition West of Guldens, south of new County Road D May 26, 2005 INTRODUCTION Mr. Kevin Clarke, representing the developer and the property owners, is asking the city to vacate part of an existing drainage and utility easement on the site of the future Hedtage Square Fourth Addition townhouses. (See the maps on pages four through six.) Please also see the applicant's statement on page three and the maps on pages four through six. BACKGROUND On Apdl 25, 2005, the Maplewood City Council approved a preliminary plat, parking lot setback vadance and the project design plans for the Heritage Square Fourth Addition. DISCUSSION Mr. Clarke is requesting the vacation because the existing easement could interfere with the grading for the buildings within the development. There is, however, an existing storm sewer line that crosses through the easement area. As such, the city needs an easement over the storm sewer but it does not need all of the existing easement in its current location and shape. Maplewood has no plans to further develop or use the proposed easement vacation area and it is not needed in its current configuration for utilities or for ponding purposes. RECOMMENDATION Approve the resolution on page seven. This resolution is for the vacation of part of a drainage and utility easement within the site of the Heritage Square Fourth Addition townhouse development (that will be west of Guldens and south of new County Road D. The reasons for the vacation are as follows: 1. It is in the public interest. 2. The existing easement in its current configuration is not needed for utility purposes. This vacation is subject to the owner providing the city a drainage and utility easement for the storm sewer pipe, subject to the approval of the city engineer. REFERENCE INFORMATION Application Date The city received the complete application and plans for this request on May 3, 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 July 1, 2005. P:~sec4\Heritage Sq. 4th easement vacation Attachments: 1. Applicant's Statement 2. Location Map 3. Area Map 4. Site Plan 5. Vacation Resolution Attachment 1 ATTACHMENT TO PETITION TO PARTIALLY VACATE DRAINAGE AND PONDING EASEMENT This petition seeks the partial vacation of that certain drainage and ponding easement recorded July 29, 1997, in the Office of the Ramsey County Recorder as Document No. 3004813 (the "Easement"). A portion of the Easement lies along the southerly boundary of the property being platted as Lot 1, Block 2, Troutland. The portion of the Easement to be vacated is shown on the sketch attached as Exhibit A. K. Hovnanian T&C Homes at Minnesota, L.L.C. d/b/a Town & Country Homes requests the partial vacation of the Easement in order to facilitate its development of the property as condominiums. No utility lines or utility facilities exist within the portion of the Easement to be vacated, except for a storm water pipe which crosses a comer of the Easement as shown on Exhibit A. As part of the plat that K. Hovnanian T&C Homes at Minnesota, L.L.C. d/b/a Town & Country Homes will be filing in connection with its development, K. Hovnanian will dedicate a utility easement for the portion of the Easement impacted by the storm water pipe. #3114053\1 APPLICANT'S STATEMENT Attachment 2 Sunset Ridge P~ ..................C~TY ROADD BEAM-AVE ................. LOCATION 'MAP 3030 3024 3020 301 301~ 3010 3002 2994 1, 1223 1~ ~.,. )22 Attachment 3 1241 '- BEAM AVE AREA MAP VENBERG TIRE 2911 2950 2926 295 Attachment 4 ', '. ~ASi~I~Ei~T PO~ .... ANO PONPlN~ $004~1~ TO I~ <<, ~ VENB~R~G TIRE / / / c.: GULDENS VACATION AREA NOI~'I'H UNr= 0P TH~ ~OUTH ~3.00 FEET OF'. _., Ti'lB SE I/40~ 1'~ !~ , ; / 2~.5~ SITE PLAN Attachment 5 EASEMENT VACATION RESOLUTION WHEREAS, Kevin Clarke, representing the developer and property owners, applied for the vacation of the following: A part of a drainage and utility easement described as follows: The westedy 197.4 feet of the Easterly 723.4 feet lying Southerly of the Southerly line of the Northerly 409.5 feet of the Southeast Quarter of the Northeast Quarter of Section 4, Township 29, Range 22 and Northerly of the Southerly line of the Northerly 469.5 feet of the Southeast Quarter of the Northeast Quarter of said Section 4, Ramsey County, Minnesota, that lies Westedy and Southerly of the following described line: Beginning at a point on the North line of the South 253.00 feet of the Southeast Quarter of the Northeast Quarter of Section 4, Township 29N, Range 22W of the 4th PM, distant 291.57 feet West from the Westerly right-of-way line of State Highway 61, as measured along said North line; thence Northerly at a dght angle to said North line, a distance of 653.00 feet; thence Westerly, parallel with said North line, a distance of 207.81 feet to the West line of the East 723.4 feet of said Southeast Quarter of the Northeast Quarter and there terminating. WHEREAS, the history of this vacation is as follows: . On June 6, 2005, the planning commission held a public headng. The city staff published a notice in the Maplewood Review and sent a notice to the abutting property owners. The commission gave everyone at the headng a chance to speak and present wdtten statements. The planning commission recommended that the city council approve the public vacation. . On ,2005, the city council considered this request. The city staff sent a meeting notice to the abutting property owners. The council also considered reports and recommendations from the city staff and 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 for the following reasons: 1. It is in the public interest. . The existing easement in its current configuration is not needed for utility or drainage purposes. This vacation is subject to the owner providing the city a new drainage and utility easement for the storm sewer line, subject to the approval of the city engineer. The Maplewood City Council adopted this resolution on ,2005. TO: FROM: SUBJECT: LOCATION: DATE: MEMORANDUM Richard Fursman, City Manager Shann Finwall, AICP, Planner Zoning and Land Use Change 1349/1359 County Road C June 1,2005 INTRODUCTION Project Description Fred Richie and Craig Anondson are requesting a comprehensive land use plan change and rezoning for the two properties located at 1349 and 1359 County Road C East. The properties are currently guided in the city's comprehensive plan and zoned as Double Dwelling Residential (R-2). The city approved the construction of two duplexes on these properties in 1968. Some time after the city's initial approval of the duplexes (approximately 1970), previous owners converted the duplexes to a three-plex (1349 County Road C) and a four-plex (1359 County Road C) without the required city approvals. The additional units exceed the approved land use density and zoning requirements. The new property owners are now attempting to resolve the density and zoning issue by requesting the comprehensive land use change and rezoning from Double Dwelling Residential (R-2) to High Multiple Dwelling Residential (R-3H). No additional units or exterior modifications are proposed. Requests The applicants are requesting the city council approve the following land use requests in order to maintain the existing, structures as a three-plex and a four-plex: , Land Use Plan Change from R-2 (Double Dwelling Residential) to R-3H (High Density Multiple Dwelling Residential). , Rezoning from R-2 (Double Dwelling Residential) to R-3 (Multiple Dwelling Residential). BACKGROUND 1968: The city approved building permits for the construction of two duplexes located at 1349 and 1359 County Road C East. 1969 or 1970: Based on city records and owner and neighbor statements, after the city conducted the final building permit inspection for the duplexes, the structures were converted to a three-plex (1949 County Road C) and a four-plex (1959 County Road C) without the required city building permits or zoning approvals. The properties have been used as rental properties as a three-plex and four-plex since that time (approximately 35 years). 1998: Craig Anondson purchased the three-plex located at 1349 County Road C. The realtor and previous owner both told Mr. Anondson that the property was approved for three units. Fall 2004: Fred Richie obtained the four-plex located at 1359 County Road C by default when his financial partner was no longer able to hold onto the property. Mr. Richie contacted the city to inquire about zoning and building permit requirements. The city notified Mr. Richie that the property was guided in the city's comprehensive plan and zoned as Double Dwelling (R-2). Mr. Richie explained that his property actually had four units and then inquired about the possibility of reguiding and rezoning the property to ensure it met city land use plan and zoning requirements. DISCUSSION Property Improvements and Future Plans Since they have owned the properties, Craig Anondson and Fred Richie have both made improvements to the properties. This has included roofing, decks, stairs, driveway, landscaping, carpet, painting, and general clean up and maintenance. Mr. Anondson lives in one of his three units and has plans to remain living there while renting out the other two units. Mr. Richie's son lives in one of his four units and helps maintain and manage the property. Because the previous owners converted the properties to a three-plex and a four-plex without the appropriate building permits, both property owners have agreed to allow the city's building official and fire marshal to inspect the properties for life/safety issues. If the city council approves the requested land use plan and zoning changes, and any and all life/safety issues are resolved, the city will issue a certificate of occupancy for each unit. Land Use Plan Change The property is currently guided as Double Dwelling Residential (R-2) in the city's comprehensive plan. The maximum allowed density in the R-2 land use designation is based on the minimum lot areas in the zoning code. The zoning code requires "double dwellings" to have a minimum lot area of 12,000 square feet. The combined area of the two properties is 37,247 square feet (.85 acres). The comprehensive plan would therefore technically allow up to three "double dwellings" on this property (six units overall). There is currently a "three-plex" and a "four- plex" on the property, with seven units overall. Therefore, the overall density and the types of dwelling units are in conflict with the existing land use designation. In order to comply with the city's density requirements, the land use designation would need to change from Double Dwelling Residential (R-2) to High Density Multiple Dwelling Residential (R-3H). Within the R-3H land use designation the maximum density allowed for apartments with three to four units is 9.5 units per acre. With this land use designation the properties could have a total of eight units (9.5 x .85 = 8) which would allow the property owners to maintain their properties with the existing seven units. It should be noted that this land use designation would also allow for the addition of one unit, or the future redevelopment of the properties with eight units within new structures (i.e. townhouses, etc.). However, the property owners are not requesting an additional unit or the redevelopment of the properties. Their request is to allow the existing structures to remain as a three-plex and a four-plex. If ever proposed, an additional unit and/or redevelopment of the site would require city approvals. Rezoning The Double Dwelling Residential (R-2) zoning district allows for "single family" and "double dwelling" units only. In order to comply with the city's zoning requirements, the zoning would need to change from Double Dwelling Residential (R-2) to Multiple Dwelling Residential (R-3). Within the R-3 zoning district the permitted uses include multiple dwellings (at least three attached units). With this zoning district designation the owners could maintain their properties with the existing structures. Support of Changes The citizen comments received and included in this staff report testify to the improvements made by the new property owners. Most responses are positive and in support of the comprehensive land use and zoning change. In addition, Lieutenant Rabbett of the city's police department explains in his attached memorandum (Attachment 4) that police calls to the property were a problem with past owners. However, these calls have been considerably reduced since the new property owners have taken over, particularly over the last year. Lieutenant Rabbett states that continued maintenance and close management will make the rezoning acceptable from a public safety standpoint. Summary The new property owners should be commended for coming forward and ensuring the properties are in compliance with all cityrequirements, as well as the overall improvements to the properties. The properties have been used as a three-plex and a four-plex for 35 years, and as such have been nonconforming by city land use and zoning standards. By permitting the change to the land use designation and zoning to meet the existing conditions, the city will ensure the properties are conforming and in compliance with all city requirements. RECOMMENDATIONS , Approve the comprehensive land use change resolution attached (Attachment 5). This resolution changes the land use plan from Double Dwelling Residential (R- 2) to High Multiple Dwelling Residential (R-3H) for the properties located at 1349 and 1359 County Road C East. The city bases these changes on the following findings that the site is proper for and consistent with the city's policies for high- density residential use. This includes: . ao 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, town houses, manufactured homes, single-family housing, public-assisted housing and Iow- to moderate-income housing, and rental and owner-occupied housing. bo Disperse Iow- and moderate-income developments throughout the city, rather than concentrating them in one area or neighborhood. C, Have a balanced housing supply, with housing available for people at all income levels. d, Have a variety of housing types for ownership and rental for people in all stages of the life-cycle. eo Have a community of well-maintained housing and neighborhoods, including ownership and rental housing. f. Add to and preserve the affordable housing in the city. g° The properties are located on a collector street, with no additional traffic added to local streets. Approve the zoning map change resolution attached (Attachment 6). This resolution changes the zoning map from Double Dwelling Residential (R-2) to Multiple Dwelling Residential (R-3) for the properties located at 1349 and 1359 County Road C East. The city is making this change because: a, The proposed change is consistent with the spirit, purpose and intent of the zoning code. bo The proposed change will not substantially injure or detract from the use of neighboring property or from the character of the neighborhood, and that the use of the property adjacent to the area included in the proposed change or plan is adequately safeguarded. C, The proposed change will serve the best interests and conveniences of the community, where applicable, and the public welfare. d, 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. e, The properties have been used for multiple dwellings for at least 35 years. CITIZEN COMMENTS Staff surveyed the 63 surrounding property owners within 500 feet of this site for their comments. Following are the six responses received: . Tim Smith, 1336 Kohlman Avenue East (responded via e-mail): "Assuming the rezoning does go through what assurance can be provided that additional housing units will not be built on this land? The lots involved are approximately 300 feet deep and have plenty of room to construct additional housing units should the owner desire to do so. If the rezoning goes through would any new construction require city approval? If approval was not obtained but structures were erected would we just have to live with an apartment complex just off our backyard? These are my only concerns but without assurance that additional housing structures could NOT be built then I am not in favor of this rezoning. If the rezoning process itself can assure that no additional housing structures will be built then I would have no problem with the change." , Brent Harshman, 1360 County Road C East (responded via telephone): In summary Mr. Harshman stated that the new property owners have made many improvements to the properties. Since Mr. Harshman moved into his home in 2000 he has not experienced problems with the two properties. However, Mr. Harshman is concerned with the possibility of problematic tenants in the future and how this would affect the property value of his owner/occupied single-family house. , Unknown Caller Who Received Neighborhood Survey (responded via voicemail): "We think the rezoning is fine." , Barbara Huss, 1316 Kohlman Avenue East (responded via mail): "1 don't have a problem with the land use change." . Randall Stoehr, 2608 Clarence Street North (responded via mail): "1 have noticed a great many improvements to these properties. It's welcome to see an intention to keep a desirable appearance to all the homes in our area. I applaud the owner's efforts. Thanks." , John and Paulette Bauer, 2609 Clarence Street North (responded via mail): "We prefer to have it continue as Double Dwelling Residential." REFERENCE SITE DESCRIPTION Site size: 1349 County Road C - 20,046 s.f. (.46 acres) 1359 County Road C- 17,201 s.f. (.40 acres) Total Site Size - 37,247 s.f. (.86 acres) Existing Use: 1349 County Road C - Three-Plex 1359 County Road C - Four-Plex SURROUNDING LAND USES North: South: East: West: Single Family Homes County Road C and Single Family Homes Across the Street Vacant Lot (Zoned and Guided Single Dwelling Residential) Single Family Homes PLANNING Land Use and Zoning Existing Designations Land Use Plan Designation: R-2 (Double Dwelling Residential) Zoning: R-2 (Double Dwelling Residential) Proposed Desiqnations Land Use Plan Designation: R-3H (High Density Multiple Dwelling Residential) Zoning: R-3 (Multiple Dwelling Residential) Criteria for Approval Land Use Plan Chanqe: There are no specific criteria for a land use plan change. Any land use plan change should be consistent with the goals and policies in the city's comprehensive plan. , The land use plan has eleven general land use goals. Of these, three apply to this proposal including protect and strengthen neighborhoods, provide a wide variety of housing types, and provide safe and attractive neighborhoods. The land use plan also has several residential development policies that relate to this project including: a. b. 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, town houses, manufactured homes, single-family housing, public-assisted housing and Iow- to moderate-income housing, and rental and owner-occupied housing. Disperse Iow- and moderate-income developments throughout the city, rather than concentrating them in one area or neighborhood. . The housing plan also has goals and policies about housing diversity and quality that the city should consider with this development including: a. b. c, d, Have a balanced housing supply, with housing available for people at all income levels. Have a variety of housing types for ownership and rental for people in all stages of the life-cycle. Have a community of well-maintained housing and neighborhoods, including ownership and rental housing. Add to and preserve the affordable housing in the city. Rezonin.q: Section 44-1165 of the Zoning Code requires that the city council make the following findings to rezone property: , , . . The proposed change is consistent with the spirit, purpose and intent of the Zoning Code. The proposed change will not substantially injure or detract from the use of neighboring property or from the character of the neighborhood, and that the use of the property adjacent to the area included in the proposed change or plan is adequately safeguarded. The proposed change will serve the best interests and conveniences of the community, where applicable, and the public welfare. 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. Application Date The city received the complete application and plans for this proposal on May 6, 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 July 4, 2005, unless the applicants agree to a time extension. P: Sec 3\1349-1359 Co Rd C Rezone Attachments: 1. Applicant Statement 2. Location Map 3. Existing Zoning/Land Use Map 4. Police Department Memorandum 5. Land Use Plan Change Resolution 6. Zoning Map Change Resolution Attachment 1 October 6, 2004 Ms. Shann Finwall Office of Community Development City of Maplewood 1830 East County Road B Maplewood, MN 55109 1357 and 1359 East County Road C Maplewood, MN Dear Ms. Finwall: I am requesting that the above referenced property be rezoned to R-3 in order to keep unit as four-plex. I purchased the property as a four-plex in June of 2002 and installed a new driveway and parking lot, new gutters and down spouts, new decks on front and side, redecorated all units and install all new appliances. I also repaired the three car garage. If you have any other questions please call me at 651-470-0768. Yours truly, Fred J. Richie Attachment 2 coo oO 1349 and 1359 County Road C rrI ~ / lq Location Map Attachment 3 1349 and 1359 County Road C Zoned and Guided R-2 N Existing Zoning and Land Use Map Attachment 4 M mo To: From: Date: Re: Shann Finwall f Lt. Kevin Rabbett ~ ~ 5-25-05 Project Review: 1349-1359 County Road C These properties have been a problem in the past. Police records indicate at least one hundred calls for service since 1994. [Records pdor to 1994 are not readily available.] Many of the calls for service were for assaults, narcotics, disturbances and public nuisance. I believe that a contributing factor was the addition of the illegal units as well as the general disrepair of the structure. Such rental units are inexpensive, not well supervised, and attract problem tenants. I understand that the current owners have been repairing the units and are either living onsite or have relatives there. This may improve the Properties and reduce calls for service. The records do indicate a significant reduction of calls in the last year. Continued maintenance and close management of the properties may make the rezoning acceptable from a public safety standpoint. If you have any questions or comments, please call me at x2.604. Attachment 5 LAND USE PLAN CHANGE RESOLUTION WHEREAS, Fred Richie and Craig Anondson applied for a change to the city's land use plan from Double Dwelling Residential (R-2) to High Multiple-Dwelling Residential (R-3H). C East.WHEREAS' this change applies to the properties at 1349 and 1359 County Road . WHEREAS, the history of this change is as follows: On June 6, 2005, the planning commission held a public hearing. The city staff published a hearing notice in the Maplewood Review and sent notices to the surrounding property owners. The planning commission gave everyone at the hearing a chance to speak and. present written statements. The planning commission recommended approval of the land use plan change. On ,2005, the city council discussed the land use plan change. They considered reports and recommendations from the planning commission and city staff. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the city council approved the above-described change to the land use plan for the following reasons: This site is proper for and consistent with the city's policies for high-density residential use. This includes: a. b, c. do e. g. 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, town houses, manufactured homes, single-family housing, public-assisted housing and Iow- to moderate-income housing, and rental and owner-occupied housing. Disperse Iow- and moderate-income developments throughout the city, rather than concentrating them in one area or neighborhood. Have a balanced housing supply, with housing available for people at all income levels. Have a variety of housing types for ownership and rental for people in all stages of the life-cycle. Have a community of well-maintained housing and neighborhoods, including ownership and rental housing. Add to and preserve the affordable housing in the city. The properties are located on a collector street, with no additional traffic added to local streets. The Maplewood City Council adopted this resolution on ,2005. Attachment 6 ZONING MAP CHANGE RESOLUTION WHEREAS, Fred Richie and Craig Anondson applied for a change to the City of Maplewood's zoning map as follows: Double Dwelling Residential (R-2) to Multiple- Dwelling Residential (R-3). WHEREAS, this change applies to the properties located at 1349 and 1359 County Road C. WHEREAS, the history of this change is as follows: . On June 6, 2005, the planning commission held a public hearing. The city staff published a hearing notice in the Maplewood Review and sent notices to the surrounding-property owners. ~The planning commission gave everyone at the hearing a chance to speak and present written statements. The planning commission recommended approval of the rezoning. . On ,2005, the city council discussed the rezoning. 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 change in the zoning map for the following reasons: . . . . The proposed change is consistent with the spirit, purpose and intent of the zoning code. , The proposed change will not substantially injure or detract from the use of neighboring property or from the character of the neighborhood, and that the use of the property adjacent to the area included in the proposed change or plan is adequately safeguarded. The proposed change will serve the best interests and conveniences of the community, where applicable, and the public welfare. 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. The properties have been used for multiple dwellings for at least 35 years. The Maplewood city council adopted this resolution on ,2005. TO: FROM: SUBJECT: LOCATION: DATE: MEMORANDUM Richard Fursman, City Manager Shann Finwall, AICP, Planner Pondview Townhomes Northwest Corner of Larpenteur Ave. and Adolphus St. June 1, 2005 INTRODUCTION Project Description In 2002, the city acquired five single-family houses located on the northwest corner of Larpenteur Avenue and Adolphus Street with the city's Housing Replacement Program funds. The city originally purchased three of these houses after they were flooded during a rainstorm in April, 2001. The two adjacent older houses, which were not flooded, were purchased by the city in order to combine them with the three previously purchased lots to create a larger building site to allow the development of up to eleven town house units on the site. Jack Krongard of Krongard Builders, Inc., has purchased the properties from the city and is now proposing to develop the 1.92-acre site with eleven town house units. The town houses will be constructed within two separate buildings - one with five-units and the other with six units. Requests In order to construct the eleven town house units, Mr. Krongard is requesting the following city approvals: . A preliminary plat for the creation of a common interest community plat for the proposed 11 townhome units. . A 16-foot side yard setback variance in order to allow one of the buildings to be constructed closer than the required 50 feet to the adjacent residential property. 3. Design review. The planning commission will review and make a recommendation on the preliminary plat and setback variance at their June 6, 2005, meeting. The community design review board (CDRB) will review and make a recommendation on the design review at their June 14, 2005, meeting. The city council's final review of the entire request is currently scheduled for June 27, 2005. BACKGROUND December 13, 1999: The city council approved a Housing Replacement Program in order to improve the condition of the city's housing stock. July 23, 2001: The city council authorized the purchase of three houses at 209, 211 and 215 Larpenteur Avenue with Housing Replacement Program funds. March 4, 2002: The planning commission reviewed the redevelopment options for the Larpenteur Avenue properties and agreed that if all five lots were obtained, rezoning to a higher density would be a good redevelopment strategy. April 9, 2002: The Housing and Redevelopment Authority (HRA) reviewed the redevelopment options for the Larpenteur Avenue properties and recommended that the city maximize the returns from the three lots purchased by purchasing the adjacent two lots and developing the site with town houses. May 13, 2002: During a city council workshop, the city council directed staff to negotiate the purchase of 1701 Adolphus Street and 189 Larpenteur Avenue. The city council also stated that the town house approach for the area seemed appropriate. September 23, 2002: The city council authorized the purchase of 189 Larpenteur Avenue with Housing Replacement Program funds. October 28, 2002: The city council authorized the purchase of 1701 Adolphus Street with Housing Replacement Program funds. December 9, 2002: During a city council workshop, the city council authorized city staff to begin the public hearing process for the rezoning and comprehensive land use plan change from Single Dwelling Residential (R-l) to Medium Multiple Dwelling Residential (R-3M). March 31, 2003: The city council rezoned and reguided the five properties from Single Dwelling Residential (R-l) to Medium Mulitple Family Residential (R-3M). The city council also approved a concept plan for the development of up to 11 townhomes on this property. June 23, 2003: The city council directed city staff to proceed with the request for proposal process to seek developers for this site. September 15, 2004: Jack Krongard submitted an offer to purchase and develop the site. February 28, 2005: Jack Krongard purchased the five properties from the City of Maplewood for the development of eleven town house units. DISCUSSION Preliminary Plat Mr. Krongard proposes to plat the town houses as a common interest community plat. In this type of platting system, the preliminary plat reflects only the property boundaries and easements. Once the town houses are built, an as-built survey is completed and the location of the interior walls of the structures will be placed on the plat. With this type of platting, the owners purchase the air space between the walls of the town house and have a common interest in the rest of the property. The plat submitted, therefore, does not reflect the location of the structures, only the location of the property lines and easements. In order to ensure the location of the structures will meet the required setbacks and easement locations, city staff has requested that Mr. Krongard's engineers submit a plan which reflects the location of the structures on the plat. This plan will be available for the June 6, 2005, planning commission meeting. Setback Variance City code requires a 50-foot setback for a multiple dwelling structure to an adjacent residential lot line. The property located to the west is zoned Double Dwelling Residential (R-2) and therefore the westerly town house must maintain a 50-foot setback from this property line. The intent of this requirement is to ensure an adequate buffer from a multiple dwelling unit to an adjacent residential property. The concept plan approved by the city council in 2003 reflected a 34-foot setback to the western property line. It was determined that the reduced setback would be mitigated by three factors. First, the westerly town house will be located approximately eleven feet lower than the adjacent residential lot line. Second, the structure proposed will be a two- story town house and not a large multi-dwelling building. And third, additional landscape screening could be added to buffer the two properties. The CDRB will review the plan for adequate landscaping and buffer. Wetland The wetland on the site is classified as a utilized wetland (Class 5), which requires a 10- foot building foundation setback to the ordinary water mark. However, the concept plan approved by the city council last year reflected a 20-foot wetland buffer. This buffer was recommended by the city's environmental management specialist to improve the quality of the wetland and its aesthetic value. The Pondview Townhome plat reflects a ponding easement located on the wetland delineation mark, and not the approved 20-foot setback from this mark..The plat should be revised to reflect a 20-foot wetland buffer and should prohibit any building, mowing, cutting, grading, filling or dumping within the buffer. In addition to the 20-foot buffer, the town house structures will be setback 43 feet to 95 feet from the wetland. Grading/Drainage/Utilities A majority of the grading and site work has been completed by the city's public works department after the removal of the houses. This grading was needed in order to ensure no future flooding on the site. A storm sewer is proposed to run from the pond to the storm sewer located in Larpenteur Avenue as a means of ensuring no additional flooding as well. The plat reflects a utility easement for this storm sewer. As required by the St. Paul Regional Water Services, the plat also reflects a 30-foot-wide water main easement located under the proposed driveway, extending into Adolphus Street. OTHER COMMENTS Dave Fisher, Building Official: If the buildings are over 8,500 square feet in area, sprinklers are required per Section 1306 of the building code. Lieutenant Rabbett, Police Department: I have reviewed the plans and find no significant public safety concerns. I am pleased to see that the access to the property is from Adolphus and not Larpenteur. I believe that there will be adequate turnaround space for squad cars. Erin Laberee, Civil Engineer, Maplewood Engineering Department: Refer to Ms. Laberee's comments attached (Attachment 8). RECOMMENDATIONS . Approve the Pondview Town house preliminary plat date stamped May 9, 2005. Prior to final approval of the common interest community plat by the city, the owner or developer must complete the following: a, Revise the location of the wetland/ponding easement to ensure a 20-foot buffer from the delineated wetland. This easement shall be prepared by a land surveyor, shall describe the boundary of the buffer and shall prohibit any building, mowing, cutting, grading, filling or dumping within the buffer. bo Prepare and submit easement documents for the required utility easements to city staff for approval. C. Revise the grading/drainage/utility plans as specified by the city's engineering department in their June 2, 2005, engineering plan review. d, Prior to issuance of a grading or building permit the owner or developer must complete the following: 1) Record the utility and wetland/ponding easements. 2) Since the plat is a common interest community plat and not officially recorded until after the structures are built, all five individual lots must be combined into one property for tax and identification purposes, and a revised lot line subdividing the two buildings must be administratively approved by city staff in order to allow the construction of the two buildings on two separate lots. eo Prior to certificate of occupancy for the buildings, the owner or developer must record the final plat. . Approve the attached variance resolution (Attachment 9). This resolution approves a 16-foot setback variance to the adjacent residential property for the proposed Pondview Townhomes located on the northwest corner of Larpenteur Avenue and Adolphus Street. Approval of the variance is based on the following findings: Strict enforcement of the code would cause undue hardship because of circumstances unique to the property and not created by the property owner. The location of the existing wetland and storm sewer limit the location for the proposed town houses. The reduction in the town house setback to the adjacent residential property line will be mitigated by the following factors: the town house will be located approximately eleven feet lower than the adjacent residential lot line; the town house proposed is only a two-story structure, and not a large multi-dwelling building; and additional landscape screening will be added to buffer the two properties. CITIZEN COMMENTS Staff surveyed the 20 surrounding property owners within 500 feet of this site for their comments. Following are the two comments received: . Shirley and Gary Walker, 1748 Onacrest Curve North: "We have concerns of flooding in this area due to pond overflow. Unless pond is cleaned and deepened it has potential of flooding. This is a filled lot and has potential for eroding around buildings." 2. L03 Holdings, LLC: "Let them do it. It is a great idea." REFERENCE SITE DESCRIPTION Site size: 1.92 Acres Existing Use: Vacant Land SURROUNDING LAND USES North: South: East: West: Pond Larpenteur Avenue and Vacant St. Paul Property Across the Street Adolphus Street and Sinclair Gas Station Across the Street Duplex PLANNING Land Use Plan Designation: Medium Multiple Dwelling Residential (R-3M) Zoning' Multiple Dwelling Residential (R-3) Application Date We received the complete application and plans for this proposal on May 9, 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 July 8, 2005, unless the applicant agrees to a time extension. P: Sec 18\Pondview Townhomes 6-6-05 Attachments: 1. Applicant's Statement 2. Location Map 3. Zoning Map 4. Preliminary Plat 5. Site Plan 6. Landscape Plan 7. Elevations 8. Engineering Plan Review 9. Variance Resolution Attachment 1 KRONGARD CONSTRUCTION COMPANY 14791 60TH STREET NORTH, SUITE 2 STILLWATER, MINNESOTA 55082 PHONE: (651) 430-2314 · FAX: (651) 430-3921 Krongard Builder, Inc. proposes ro build eleven town homes on the cromer lot at Larpenteur Avenue m~d Adolphus Street in Maplcwood. K.BI responded to a request for proposal, from the City of Maplewood, 'following the concept approved by the City Council. It included street layout, home pad size and water and sewer designs famished by Maplewood's Engineering Deparurmnt. The project will consist of two buildings, on.e 5 unit and one 6 ~:mit. E~.ch unit will be approximately 1740 ~qttare feet with 3 bedrooms, 2 ¼ baths m~d a 2 car attached garage. Price range is between $190,000 and $220,000. These milts and site layout fit the approved concept plan set by the City Council. Thank You, Krongard Builders Inc. Attachment 2 posed 11-Unit J Townhome Development Larpenteur Aven Sinclair Gas Station N Location Map Attachment 3 Proposed 11-Unit Townhome Development Larpenteur N Zoning Map Attachment 4 /'%l-r-~/ I Ir'-I/'%l I-I"~'~ N89'4 7'2 7"W 958. 14 " ........ NORTH LINE NE 1/4 SEC 19, T 29 N, R 22 W ;AST IRON MONUMENT '4 CORNER '29 N, R 22 W \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ ~... ,,.~o ~,, ~ ~ I ; ~ · 14. 48 I I LARPEN TEUR A VENUE ' , 65 ; II '- .... S89'47'27"E 375.06 L.~I ~ L_I V I L_ ~I ~ N89'47'27"W 2626. 40 N Preliminary Plat Attachment 5 OUTLOT · , . . ,. N Site Plan Attachment 6 N Landscape Plan Attachment 7 JI,-I u ! I " ~m Fl] Fl] m nl r-ii Elevations Attachment 8 En~ineerin~ Plan Review PROJECT: Pondview Townhomes PROJECT NO: REVIEWED BY: Erin Laberee, Maplewood Engineering Department DATE: June 2, 2005 Jack Krongard is developing the property at the northwest comer of Larpenteur Avenue and Adolphus Street into 11 townhome units. The developer shall address the following issues. Grading & Erosion Control 1. The first floor elevations shall be shown on the plans. . The grading plan in the architecture drawings does not match the grading plan in the engineering drawings. The architecture plans shall be revised to match the engineering plans. . The city did some preliminary soil correction work on site for an approximate building dimension of 35 by 25 feet. The developer is showing structures approximately 50 by 25 feet. The soils corrections were not made for a building depth of 50 feet. It shall be the developer's responsibility to ensure that soil corrections are adequate for the proposed buildings and make any additional corrections that may be necessary. Utilities 1. Submit plans to Saint Paul Regional Water Services for their review and approval. 2. Eight feet of cover is required over the watermain. 3. The engineer shall add the storm sewer MH 11 as shown on the city's plans to the wetland outlet. Landscaping . The landscaping plan shall show additional plantings within the rainwater garden that are able to withstand wet conditions. Bedding material and mulch shall be placed in the rainwater garden. 2. The developer shall enter into a maintenance agreement for the upkeep and maintenance of the rainwater garden. VARIANCE RESOLUTION Attachment 9 WHEREAS, Jack Krongard of Krongard Builders, Inc., applied for 16-foot side yard setback variance in order to construct a multiple dwelling housing unit (Pondview Townhomes) closer than the required 50 feet to an adjacent residential property line. WHEREAS, this variance applies to the property located on the northwest corner of Larpenteur Avenue and Adolphus Street. The legal description is: The West 75 feet of the East 375 feet of the South 290 feet of the Southwest Quarter of the Southeast Quarter of Section 18, Township 29, Range 22, Ramsey County Minnesota; ALSO The West 75 feet of the East 300 feet of the South 290 feet of the Southwest Quarter of the Southeast Quarter of Section 18, Township 29, Range 22, Ramsey County, Minnesota; ALSO The East 75 feet of the West 150 feet of the East 300 feet of the South 290 feet of the Southwest Quarter of the Southeast Quarter of Section 18, Township 29, Range 22, Ramsey County, Minnesota; ALSO The East 150 feet of the South 190.04 feet of the Southwest Quarter of the Southeast Quarter of Section 18, Township 29, Range 22, except the South 190.04 feet thereof, Ramsey County, Minnesota. WHEREAS, the history of this variance is as follows: . On June 6, 2005, the planning commission held a public hearing for the variance. City staff published a notice in the Maplewood Review and sent notices to the surrounding property owners as required by law. The planning commission gave everyone at the hearing an opportunity to speak and present written statements. The planning commission also considered reports and recommendations from the city staff. The planning commission recommended approval of the variance. 2. The city council approved the variance on ,2005. The city council considered reports and recommendations from the planning commission and city staff. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the city council approve the above-described variance for the following reasons: Strict enforcement of the code would cause undue hardship because of circumstances unique to the property and not created by the property owner. The location of the existing wetland and storm sewer limit the location for the proposed town houses. The reduction in the town house setback to the adjacent residential property line will be mitigated by the following factors: the town house will be located approximately eleven feet lower than the adjacent residential lot line; the town house proposed is only a two-story structure, and not a large multi-dwelling building; and additional landscape screening will be added to buffer the two properties. The Maplewood City Council adopted this resolution on ,2005.