The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About12/19/2005 MAPLEWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION Monday, December 19, 2005, 7:30 PM City Hall Council Chambers 1830 County Road BEast 1. Call to Order 2. Roll Call 3. Approval of Agenda 4. Approval of Minutes a. November21,2005 5. Public Hearings 7:30 C. Kings Addition (Jessie Street, south of Ripley Avenue) Street right-of-way Vacation Preliminary Plat 6. New Business None 7. Unfinished Business In-fill Study Update 8. Visitor Presentations 9. Commission Presentations November 28 Council Meeting: Mr. Trippler December 12 Council Meeting: Mr. Grover December 26 Council Meeting: (None needed - cancelled) January 9 Council Meeting: Mr. Tushar 10. Staff Presentations 11. Adjoumment DRAFT MINUTES OF THE MAPLEWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION 1830 COUNTY ROAD BEAST, MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA MONDAY, NOVEMBER 21,2005 I. CALL TO ORDER Chairperson Fischer called the meeting to order at 7:04 p.m. II. 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 Present Present Present Present Absent Present Absent Tom Ekstrand, Senior Planner Lisa Kroll, Recording Secretary Erin Laberee, Assistant City Engineer Staff Present: III. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Commissioner Trippler moved to approve the agenda. Commissioner Ahlness seconded. The motion passed. IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Ayes - Ahlness, Desai, Dierich, Fischer, Grover, Kaczrowski, Trippler Approval of the planning commission minutes for November 7,2005. Commissioner Trippler moved to approve the planning commission minutes for November 7, 2005. Commissioner Desai seconded. The motion passed. Ayes - Ahlness, Desai, Fischer, Kaczrowski, Trippler Abstentions - Dierich, Grover Planning Commission Minutes of 11-21-05 -2- V. PUBLIC HEARING (7:05 - 7:10 p.m.) a. Easement Vacation - Legacy Village (west of Southlawn Drive, south of Legacy Parkway) Mr. Ekstrand said Jason Thomas, of the Hartford Group, is requesting that the city council vacate the drainage and utility easements that lie on the proposed Ramsey County Library site in Legacy Village. The library site is presently comprised of two lots which have 10-foot- wide drainage and utility easements along their common lot line. The total easement width is 20 feet and runs from Southlawn Drive to the back lot line. Mr. Ekstrand said the applicant, Jason Thomas, of the Hartford Group, was unable to be present due to an illness in the family but staff anticipated they could answer questions for the commission. Chairperson Fischer asked if anyone in the audience wanted to speak regarding this item. Nobody in the audience came forward. Chairperson Fischer closed the public hearing portion of the meeting. Commissioner Trippler moved to adopt the resolution in the staff report vacating the drainage and utility easements on the proposed Ramsey County Library site at Legacy Village. Vacation is in the public interest since these easements would serve no public purpose. As a condition of this vacation, the applicant shall combine both lots into one legally-described property before obtaining a building permit. Commissioner Dierich seconded. Ayes - Ahlness, Desai, Dierich, Fischer, Grover, Kaczrowski, Trippler The motion passed. This item goes to the city council on December 12, 2005. . The second public hearing wasn't scheduled to begin until 7:15 p.m. Until the next public hearing began staff discussed future planning commission meeting dates that need to be rescheduled due to city holidays. The planning commission meeting for Monday, January 2,2006, falls on a city holiday and city hall is closed, so the meeting needs to be rescheduled. The planning commission agreed to reschedule their meeting for Tuesday, January 3, 2006. The planning commission meeting for Monday, January 16, 2006, falls on Martin Luther King Day, which is a city holiday and city hall is closed. The planning commission agreed to reschedule the meeting for Tuesday, January 17. 2006. Mr. Ekstrand said before the start of tonight's meeting CommissionerTrippler asked aboutthe joint meeting for the Gladstone Redevelopment area. Mr. Ekstrand said the reason the joint meeting for the Gladstone Redevelopment area has been delayed until December 19, 2005, at 6:00 p.m. is because there are new city council members coming on board and the city felt it would be nice to allow them time to review the Gladstone Redevelopment plan. Planning Commission Minutes of 11-21-05 -3- Commissioner Trippler asked when the new Mayor and city council members would be sworn in to serve their term? Mr. Ekstrand said the mayor and city council members would be sworn in some time in early January 2006. Chairperson Fischer reviewed commission presentations. b. Tire View Estate Preliminary Plat (east of Highway 61 at new County Road D) (7:16- 7:21 p.m.) Mr. Ekstrand said Chuck Ahl, the Maplewood Public Works Director, is requesting that the city council approve the preliminary and final plat for the former Venburg Tire property. The proposed plat is called Tire View Estate. The reason for submitting this subdivision for platting approval is to dedicate the right-of-way for County Road D. This plat will not create any additional lots. In 2004, the City of Maplewood purchased this property for the County Road D extension street construction project. The city has a purchase agreement with Bruce Mogren, the abutting property owner. Commissioner Trippler asked where the name of this property came from? Mr. Ekstrand said ChuckAhl and Chris Cavett came up with the name Tire View Estate for the property. Chairperson Fischer asked if anyone in the audience wanted to come forward regarding this item? Nobody in the audience came forward to speak. Chairperson Fischer closed the public hearing portion of the meeting. Commissioner Trippler moved to approve the Tire View Estate preliminary and final plat as submitted. Approval is subject to the conditions stated in the March 18, 2005, letter from MnDot. Commissioner Dierich seconded. Ayes - Ahlness, Desai, Dierich, Fischer, Grover, Kaczrowski, Trippler The motion passed. This item goes to the city council on December 12, 2005. Planning Commission Minutes of 11-21-05 -4- . The third public hearing wasn't scheduled to begin until 7:30 p.m. Commissioner Trippler mentioned there would be a public meeting for the Gladstone Redevelopment plan on Thursday, December 1, 2005, at 6:30 p.m. with a presentation given at 7:00 p.m. The next Gladstone Task Force meeting is scheduled for Thursday, January 26, 2006. He asked staff if it was all right to discuss the In-Fill Study. Staff said it was. Mr. Trippler said he would like to have a separate ordinance devoted to in-fill property as opposed to changing the existing ordinances. The current ordinances for dealing with development of properties are based on the assumption that the property is virgin land. When he thinks of in-fill developments, he thinks of developers or individuals raising the structures on the land and planning to build a development of some kind. Some of these in-fill areas are changing the character of the neighborhoods. He wondered if the city should be developing new ordinances for this specific issue or if the city should modify the existing ordinances to address this issue. More discussion shall take place when the in- fill study is scheduled on one of the planning commission agendas. c. Regions Hospital Sleep Health Center (2688 Maplewood Drive) (7:30 - 8:13 p.m.) Mr. Ekstrand said Pope Architects is proposing to build a 7,084-square-foot, one-story building at 2688 Maplewood Drive. This building would be a sleep-health center for Regions Hospital. The proposed building would have an exterior of brick, cement-board siding and asphalt shingles on a hip roof. Commissioner Trippler asked if the cabin did not exist and there was a manufacturing facility there, then the 50-foot setback would not exist, correct? Mr. Ekstrand said correct. Commissioner Trippler said he understands the cabins are for sale but could the person who will be the new owner of the cabin property sell the property so a house could be built on the property? Mr. Ekstrand said no. The new owners could let the existing cabin use continue but it's not marketed as such. Commissioner Trippler said even though the cabin property is for sale doesn't mean the cabins are going away then? Mr. Ekstrand said correct. It would be nice if the cabin site could be incorporated with this proposal or with the Angus Meats property to the north but that doesn't mean the cabin property couldn't be sold just as it is. Commissioner Trippler asked if when staff discussed the location of the building with the developer, did they discuss shifting the footprint of the building to the south 10 to 15 feet so there wouldn't need to be a 20-foot setback? Mr. Ekstrand said no. The cabins to the north are non-conforming and temporary. The cabin property owners shouldn't be punished for a shorter setback but staff feels the site will redevelop with something else in the future and staff felt a 30-foot setback would be adequate. Planning Commission Minutes of 11-21-05 -5- Commissioner Trippler asked what if there would be a metal stamping business with loud machines there? Then that wouldn't be enough of a setback in order for people to sleep during the day. He said it may be in the best interest of the applicant to center the business on the property. Commissioner Ahlness said when businesses are this close to a residential area there is usually a condition in the report that states no business operation from 7 p.m. to 7 a.m. Monday through Saturday and no business operations on Sunday. He said he understands the characterization of this business is such that it is not practical to put those restraints on this business, but how did or didn't staff consider that ordinance with this proposal? Staff explained that the planning commission recently reviewed the proposal for the Maple Leaf Ridge office condominiums on the other side of Highway 61. Forthat development, being so close to residential, there is the potential for noise concerns. Staffs biggest concern in this case is the potential for voices in the rear parking lot or car doors slamming. However, the applicant told staff that those concerns would not be a factor. Staff sees the disturbance as very minimal and controllable, therefore staff did not go into those types of conditions. Commissioner Ahlness said in that case shouldn't there be some action that allows them to operate outside the aspects of the ordinance rather than not addressing it at all? It's an ordinance that is in place, and the city can't just say because you're a sleep center you don't have to pay attention to the ordinance. Mr. Ekstrand said that is true and the ordinance is still in place whether staff mentions it in the conditions or not, however, it may have been fruitful to mention. Commissioner Ahlness said the applicant should have a variance that allows them to operate. His concern is not so much for the nature of the business and making the assumption that the sleep center will operate in the manor that staff said, but if the use should change over time from a sleep center into something else, he thinks it is important that the property owner or applicant understand the exception or the variance for that ordinance only existed for the sleep center and would need to be reviewed for a new use. If they sell the business to a metal stamping company the ordinance would come into full effect. To say that obviously this use is going to be very conducive and there would not be very much noise, he feels the city can't just ignore the statement. Mr. Ekstrand said the variance is for a setback and there would be no variance given for noise. Commissioner Ahlness said the noise is built on no operating the business during the off hours. Commissioner Trippler said in looking at the ordinances for M 1 (light manufacturing) in some cases the ordinances have specific hours of operation associated with them, Monday through Saturday 7 p.m. to 7 a.m. and no operation on Sunday. That doesn't exist in M1 zoning and there are no specific designated hours of operation. Planning Commission Minutes of 11-21-05 -6- Mr. Ekstrand said the business can operate 24 hours a day, seven days a week, butthe noise ordinance is in place whether staff mentions it or not. When staff writes the staff report, if they think something isn't an issue it doesn't get discussed. Staff did not feel noise was an issue. Therefore staff didn't go into the noise ordinance in the depth that was done for the Maple Leaf Ridge business condominiums. Commissioner Ahlness asked if that only applied for business commercial or is it by use? Mr. Ekstrand said the noise ordinance applies all over the city for all uses. If there was noise in the middle of the night somebody would call the police and the police would tell the appropriate person or company there were complaints made, and the police would enforce the ordinance. Commissioner Trippler said the city has a noise ordinance that pertains to no noise from 10:00 p.m. until 6:00 a.m. no matter where it is in the city, and if you complain, the police will enforce it. Commissioner Ahlness said he will take that off line because he knows there is an ordinance that says businesses can't operate between 7 p.m. and 7 a.m. and it was recently discussed at the planning commission meeting for the Maple Leaf Ridge Business Park. He is just concerned if for some reason in the future the sleep center left and another business were to take over what safeguards would occur to ensure the new owners followed the city ordinances to protect the residential area. Mr. Ekstrand said one business that has had complaints from the neighbors is the St Paul Pioneer Press building. People were slamming doors, talking, and carts were clanking while getting the newspaper deliveries ready for the morning, which was very disruptive to the surrounding residents. With office/warehouse type centers the city doesn't know who will occupy those spaces, and the city tries to safeguard against noise issues as best they can. He didn't fear any issues with this particular proposal so he didn't go into such depth because of the nature of the sleep center business. The building isn't suited for industry. It's more of a clinic or office use. If a heavier use were to be proposed, the city would have to apply the zoning and the applicant would have to go through the approval process again. Commissioner Dierich asked how many patients the sleep center would have per night and how many staff members there would be on a per shift basis? Is there a possibility that the parking area on the rear of the property could be dedicated for staff use only so there would not be a lot of traffic in and out? Does the applicant need all the parking shown on the plan? Could they have less parking and provide proof of parking? Mr. Ekstrand said the applicant can address the question regarding the number of patients and employees. The city could recommend that the rear parking spaces be designated for employees. The number of parking spaces meets the city ordinance and the applicant may not need all of those parking spaces. The applicant could eliminate some of the parking spaces and provide proof of parking, maybe even some of the rear parking lot could be shown as proof of parking providing more grass. Chairperson Fischer asked the applicant to address the commission. Planning Commission Minutes of 11-21-05 -7- Mr. James Johnson, AlA, Project Manager for Pope Associates, 1255 Energy Park Drive, St. Paul, addressed the commission. He deferred the questions asked by Ms. Dierich to Mr. Brian Fisher. Mr. Brian Fisher, Lead Technologist for Regions Sleep-Center. He is responsible forthe day- to-day operations at the sleep center. He said there would be a maximum of 12 patients per night and a maximum of 7 staff members equaling 19 cars a night in the parking lot. The staff starts at 7:00 p.m. and patients are scheduled to arrive about 7:30 p.m. This is a 24-hour-a- day operation, however the traffic usually occurs about 7:00 p.m. and ends about 8:00 a.m. when the patients are leaving. As far as daytime operations, there would be about 4 patients during the day for testing with 6 staff members on the day shift. Commissioner Trippler asked if the applicant would be comfortable with less parking than what is shown on the plan? Mr. Johnson said from a staff perspective they wouldn't need that many parking spaces, and from a patient perspective they would be happy with fewer parking spaces. Commissioner Trippler said the city allows for proof of parking, and the area designated in the back may work as proof of parking. As time goes by, if you needed more parking the city would allow you to develop the additional parking. The city is trying to limit the amount of impervious surface so there isn't as much runoff. He said he noticed the applicant had 9% - feet-wide parking spaces shown on the plan and said he prefers to see 1 O-foot wide parking spaces. If the applicant can make that change, he would appreciate it. Chairperson Fischer asked if anyone in the audience wanted to address the commission. Ms. Angela Evian, 1243 County Road C East, Maplewood, addressed the commission. Ms. Evian asked if the berm that is behind her residence is going to be taken down because it's about 10 to 15 feet tall with trees planted on top. If so, will there be a fence to keep people out of the yard? With the berm you can't see the landscaping business that is there right now. Mr. Ekstrand said when he visited the site he didn't see the berm but he wasn't looking at things from her advantage point either. The city could recommend a fence, but ifthe applicant decides to eliminate some of the parking and there is proof of parking, the area would be sodded. The trash enclosure shown is behind Ms. Evian's property, but there may be an opportunity to put that elsewhere. It looks like there is room for adjustment here, especially if the rear parking lot is eliminated for proof of parking behind Ms. Evian's property. Mr. Floyd Peltier, 1250 Kohlman Avenue, Maplewood, addressed the commission. His lot runs next to the lot for the sleep center. He asked if someone could give him a better explanation regarding the 350-foot setback. Mr. Ekstrand said the 350-foot setback is a city code requirement that says if the building is closer than 350 feet from residential it allows the city council to attach conditions to the property to protect the residents. Mr. Peltier said there is too much noise coming from the landscaping business already. He asked if the sleep center business will be quieter. Planning Commission Minutes of 11-21-05 -8- Mr. Ekstrand said the sleep center will be much quieter compared to the landscaping business. Mr. Peltier said good, then he is "for" this development. He asked if the trash area would be fenced in? Mr. Ekstrand said the dumpster would be enclosed. Mr. Ron Dick spoke on behalf of I rene Bartlett, the owner of the cabins on the property to the north, and addressed the commission. Ms. Bartlett had a question regarding the 50-foot setback and which side it's on? Mr. Ekstrand explained what the 50-foot setback means and pointed it out on the monitor to help Ms. Bartlett better understand the requirement. Chairperson Fischer asked if anybody else wanted to address the commission. Nobody came forward. Chairperson Fischer closed the public hearing portion of the meeting. Commissioner Grover said based on the number of patients and employees, the front parking lot would not accommodate everyone, so there may still be a requirement for some ofthe rear parking spaces. Commissioner Trippler said the applicant could develop half of the rear parking lot which would take the parking lot out of the parcel that is designated as R1. Commissioner Trippler moved to adopt the resolution rezoning the back of 2688 Maplewood Drive from R1 (single dwelling residential) to M1 (light manufacturing). This rezoning is based on the findings required by code and also because the Maplewood Comprehensive Land Use Plan already guides this property as M1. Commissioner Trippler moved to adopt the resolution approving a 20-foot setback variance allowing the proposed Regions Sleep-Health Center to be constructed 30 feet from the northerly lot line. Approval is because: 1. Providing a 50-foot setback would cause the applicant undue hardship by requiring a setback from a nonconforming use that is temporary and destined to be redeveloped with a complying, M1 use. 2. This variance would be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the ordinance since there would be an ample 30-foot setback from the northerly lot line. Planning Commission Minutes of 11-21-05 -9- Commissioner Trippler moved to adopt the resolution approving a conditional use permit for 2688 Maplewood Drive for a building in an M1 (light manufacturing) district that would be within 350 feet of residential property. Approval is based on the findings required by ordinance and subject to the following conditions: (changes made by the PC are underlined if added.) 1. All construction shall follow the site plan that the city has date-stamped October 27, 2005. The director of community development may approve minor changes. 2. The proposed construction must be substantially started, or the proposed use utilized, within one year of council approval or the permit shall become null and void. The council may extend this deadline for one year. 3. The city council shall review this permit in one year. 4. The parking lot lights for the rear parking lot must be of a style that has concealed bulbs and lenses. This lighting must not give off more light than a typical residential wall or yard light. Light-intensity maximums must meet code requirements. 5. Provide a revised parking lot screening plan for the rear parking lot that provides screening that is at least six feet tall and 80 percent opaque on the north/northeast and south/southeast sides. 6. The applicant shall work with staff to eliminate or reduce the number of parkinq stalls in the back of the buildinq. This area shall be redesiqnated as "proof of parkinq." The applicant shall make every attempt to provide 1 O-foot-wide parkinq stalls as suqqested bv the planninq commission. Handicap parkinq stalls shall complv with ADA requirements. Commissioner Grover seconded. Ayes - Ahlness, Desai, Dierich, Fischer, Grover, Kaczrowski, Trippler The motion passed. This item goes to the city council on December 12, 2005. VI. NEW BUSINESS None. VII. UNFINISHED BUSINESS Commissioner Trippler recommended that staff schedule the In-Fill study as a topic of discussion during an upcoming planning commission agenda when there are less agenda items to discuss. VIII. VISITOR PRESENTATIONS None. Planning Commission Minutes of 11-21-05 -10- IX. COMMISSION PRESENTATIONS a. Mr. Yarwood was scheduled to be the planning commission representative at the November 14, 2005, city council meeting, however there were no planning commission items to discuss. b. Mr. Trippler will be the planning commission representative at the November 28,2005, city council meeting. Items to discuss include the Easement Vacation for Lot 1, Block 1, Heritage Square Addition (North of Legacy Parkway), and the Maple Leaf Ridge Business Center at 2483 and 2497 Maplewood Drive. c. Mr. Pearson was scheduled to be the planning commission representative at the December 12, 2005, city council meeting, however he was not present at this evening's meeting so Mr. Grover said he would take Mr. Pearson's place. Items to discuss include the Easement Vacation - Legacy Village (west of Southlawn Drive, south of Legacy Parkway), Tire View Estate Preliminary Plat (east of Highway 61 at the new County Road D), and the Regions Hospital Sleep-Health Center (2688 Maplewood Drive) for a conditional use permit, building setback variance and zoning map change from R1 (single dwelling to M1 (light manufacturing). d. December 26, 2005, city council meeting No planning commission representation is needed. X. STAFF PRESENTATIONS a. The December 5,2005, PC meeting is rescheduled for Wednesday, December 7,2005, because of the city budget meeting. XI. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 8:15 p.m. MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: SUBJECT: LOCATION: DATE: City Manager Ken Roberts, Planner C. Kings Addition Jessie Street, south of Ripley Avenue December 13,2005 INTRODUCTION Project Description Mr. Vinh Le, representing Wisdom Development Group, is proposing to develop a four-lot plat for single dwellings called C. Kings Addition. It would be on a 1.8-acre site on the south side of Ripley Avenue, west of Edgerton Street. Refer to the applicant's statement on pages 11 - 17, the maps on pages 18 through 26 and the enclosed project plans. Requests To build this project, Mr. Le is requesting that the city approve: 1. The vacation of an unused street right-of-way (Jessie Street), an unused alley and excess easements within the property. (Please see pages 13 and 14 and the map on page 20.) 2. A preliminary plat for four lots for single dwellings. (See the maps on pages 19 through 26 and the enclosed project plans.) BACKGROUND On November 8, 1999, the city council approved a building request for James Harrison for this site. Specifically, the council approved a construction agreement to allow Mr. Harrison to build one house on the property. The city needed to approve this agreement since the property he wanted to build on does not have frontage on an improved public street. In addi1ion, the council approved the vacation of the alley between Bradley Street and Jessie Street that is south of Ripley Avenue. (Please see the city council minutes starting on page 33). DISCUSSION Vacations The address map on page 20 shows the proposed vacations including the Jessie Street right-of-way and an unused alley. The city has no use for any of these public dedications and the developer will be dedicating a new street right-of-way and easements with the new plat. Preliminary Plat Compatibility Staff does not find a problem with this proposal in terms of compatibility and land use. It would be an in- fill plat for new houses on a site surrounded by single-family homes. The proposal also includes the construction of Jessie Street into the site with a permanent cul-de-sac. Preliminary Plat There are several existing factors including the topography and ponding needs that limit and direct the possible development of the site. With the existing conditions on the property, there are not many options for designing a subdivision to fit the site. The proposed preliminary plat, with its street and lot design, raises many issues for the city to consider. I will discuss the major issues with this proposal below. Subdivision Ordinance Chapter 34 of the city code (subdivisions) regulates the platting or subdividing of property in Maplewood. The purpose of this part of the code is "to protect and promote the public health, safety and general welfare, to provide for the orderly, economic and safe development of land...". As such, the city must balance many interests when reviewing and considering a subdivision in Maplewood. These include the interests of the property owner, the developer, the neighbors and the city as a whole. To this end, Section 34-6 of the code says that "the planning commission may recommend and the city council may require such changes or revisions of a preliminary plat as deemed necessary for the health, safety, general welfare and convenience of the city." Project Density As proposed, having four units on the 1.8-acre site calculated to 2.22 units per acre. This is consistent with the density standards in the comprehensive plan for single dwelling residential development and is well above the 10,000-square-foot minimum lot area that the city requires for each single dwelling. Lot Sizes As proposed, the lots in the plat will range from 10,035 square feet to 23,637 square feet with an average lot size of about 13,856 square feet. (See the proposed plat on page 23.) The city requires each single dwelling lot in the R-1 (single dwelling) zoning district to have at least 75 feet of width at the front setback line and be at least 10,000 square feet in area. In addition, the code requires comer lots to be at least 100 feet wide on each street side. All of the lots as proposed will meet or exceed the standards in the city code. Trees As proposed, the contractor for Mr. Le would grade most of the site to create the street right-of-way and the house pads. (See the existing conditions and the grading plan on pages 22 and 25.) This grading would remove about 49 large trees (including pine, oak, box elder, elm, and cottonwood) and would leave about 8 large trees on the 1.8-acre site. Since the city code requires the developer to save at least 18 trees (10 per acre) on this site, the developer will need to plant at least 10 trees within the development site. The applicant has not yet submitted a tree planting and replacement plan for the project. City staff will need to approve such a plan to ensure that it meets city requirements before the contractor starts grading or other site construction on the property. Watershed District Comments and Wetland Ordinance The RamseylWashington Metro Watershed District is now reviewing the preliminary plans for this development. Tina Carstens of the Watershed District provided the city with some preliminary comments about the proposal. I have included her thoughts in the e-mail on page 27. It is important 2 to remember that Mr. Le or the contractor must meet all the conditions of the Watershed district and that they must get a permit from the watershed district before starting grading or construction. Wetlands The applicant's wetland consultant visited the project site and found one wetland on the property. This is the area near the south property line next to the DNR trail. The watershed district has classified this wetland as a Type 5, which requires a 10-foot no disturb buffer area. The proposed project plans show a 10-foot-wide buffer. City Engineering Department Comments The city engineering department has done a review of the project materials submitted by the applicant's engineering consultant. I have included the project review comments of Michael Thompson of the city engineering department starting on page 28. Public Utilities There is sanitary sewer and water near the site to serve the proposed development. Specifically, water and sewer are in Ripley Avenue. The developer will extend the water main into the site from the existing water main. The Saint Paul Water Utility will need to approve the plan for the water main. Sanitary sewer also is in the Jessie Street right-of-way south of Ripley Avenue. The developer is proposing to extend the sewer into the site from Ripley Avenue into the development. The city engineer must approve the final engineering plans before the applicant or contractor may start construction. As noted in the engineering comments, the city will allow the developer to install the public improvements on this site - including utilities, street and curbing. This, however, requires the property owner to work closely with the city engineering department to ensure that the contractor installs the improvements to the city's standards. Drainage Most of the site drains to the west and to the south. The developer's plans show a storm sewer pipe draining storm water from the project into the wetland that is near the DNR trail. The applicant will have to ensure that the proposed development does not negatively impact the wetland and also ensure that it will not cause flooding on neighboring properties. That is, the runoff leaving the site must be at or below current levels. Other Comments Lieutenant Kevin Rabbett of the Maplewood Police Department noted that he found no significant public safety concems with the proposal. He did tell me that he wanted the city to be sure that there is enough room within the site to allow emergency vehicles to maneuver. Fire Marshal Butch Gervais, the Maplewood Fire Marshal, noted that the cul-de-sac must have a tuming radius of at least 42 feet (for equipment) and that there be fire hydrants in proper locations. 3 Neighbors' Comments City staff surveyed the 60 property owners within 500 feet of the site. Refer to the comments on page nine and the written responses on pages 31 and 32 and on pages 36 through 39. RECOMMENDATIONS A. Approve the resolution on page 40. This resolution is for the vacation of the unused Jessie Street right-of-way, the unused alley and the excess drainage easements on the property for the site of the C. Kings Addition plat. The city is vacating these because: 1. It is in the public interest. 2. The city and the property owner have no plans to build a street or an alley in the existing right-of-ways. 3. The developer will be dedicating a new right-of-way and new easements with the final plat. B. Approve the C. Kings Addition preliminary plat (received by the city on November 23, 2005). The developer shall complete the following before the city council approves the final pial: 1. Sign an agreement with the city that guarantees that the developer or contractor will: a. Complete all grading for overall site drainage, complete all retaining walls, site landscaping and meet all city requirements. b.' Place temporary orange safety fencing and signs at the grading limits. c. Have Xcel Energy install Group V rate street lights in two locations - primarily at the street intersections and at the south end of the cul-de-sac. The exact style and location shall be subject to the city engineer's approval. d. Provide all required and necessary easements (including all utility easements and ten- foot drainage and utility easements along the front and rear lot lines of each lot and five- foot drainage and utility easements along the side lot lines of each lot). e. Pay the city for the cost of traffic-control, street identification, and no parking signs. f. Provide all required and necessary easements, including wetland buffer easements for all wetlands and the buffers on the site. g. Demolish or remove the existing shed from the site, and remove all other buildings, fencing, truck and automobile parts, scrap metal, debris and junk from the site. h. Cap and seal all wells on site; and remove septic systems or drainfields, subject to Minnesota rules and guidelines. i. Complete all curb on Ripley Avenue on the north side of the site and restore and sod the boulevards. 4 2.* Have the city engineer approve final construction and engineering plans. These plans shall include grading, utility, drainage, erosion control, tree, trail and street plans. The plans shall meet all the conditions and changes listed in the memo from Michael Thompson dated December 9, 2005, and shall meet the following conditions: a. The erosion control plans shall be consistent with the city code and shall be extremely detailed to the satisfaction of the city engineer. b. The grading plan shall show: (1) The proposed building pad elevation and contour information for each home site. The lot lines on this plan shall follow the approved preliminary plat. (2) Contour information for all the land that the construction will disturb. (3) House pads that reduce the grading on sites where the developer can save large trees. (4) The proposed street and driveway grades as allowed by the city engineer. (5) All proposed slopes on the construction plans. The city engineer shall approve the plans, specifications and management practices for any slopes steeper than 3: 1. On slopes steeper than 3: 1, the developer shall prepare and implement a stabilization and planting plan. At a minimum, the slopes shall be protected with wood-fiber blanket, be seeded with a no-maintenance vegetation and be stabilized before the city approves the final plat. (6) Include the tree plan that: a. Shows where the developer will remove, save or replace large trees. This plan shall include an inventory of all existing large trees on the site. b. Shows no tree removal beyond the approved grading and tree limits. c. Shows the planting of at least 10 maples, Black Hills spruce or Austrian pines within the project site. (7) All retaining walls on the plans. Any retaining walls taller than 4 feet require a building permit from the city. (8) Sedimentation basins or ponds as required by the watershed district or by the city engineer. (9) No grading beyond the plat boundary without temporary grading easements from the affected property owner( s). (10) As little grading as possible north and east of the proposed street. This is to keep as many of the existing trees on the site as is reasonably possible. (11) Show drainage areas, and the developer's engineer shall provide the city engineer with the drainage calculations. The drainage design shall accommodate the runoff from the surrounding areas. 5 (12) Show all proposed slopes. The city engineer shall approve the plans, specifications and management practices for any slopes steeper than 3: 1. On slopes steeper than 3: 1, the developer shall prepare and implement a stabilization and planting plan. At a minimum, the slopes shall be protected with wood-fiber blanket, be seeded with a no-maintenance vegetation and be stabilized before the city approves the final plat. c. The street and utility plans shall show: (1) The street with a width of 28 feet (with parking on one side),shall be a 9-ton design with a maximum street grade of eight percent and the maximum street grade within 75 feet of the intersection at two percent. (2) The new street (Jessie Street) with continuous concrete curb and gutter, except where the city engineer determines that concrete curbing is not necessary. (3) The completion or replacement of the curb on the south side of Ripley Avenue and the restoration and sodding of the boulevards. (4) Repair of Ripley Avenue (curb, street and boulevard) after the developer connects to the public utilities and builds the new street. (5) The coordination of the water main alignments and sizing with the standards and requirements of the Saint Paul Regional Water Services (SPRWS). (6) All utility excavations located within the proposed right-of-ways or within easements. The developer shall acquire easements for all utilities that would be outside the project area. (7) The plan and profiles of the proposed utilities. (8) A water service to each lot. (9) A detail of any ponds, the pond outlets and the rainwater gardens. The contractor shall protect the outlets to prevent erosion. (10) The cul-de-sac with a minimum pavement radius of at least 42 feet. (11) Label Ripley Avenue and label the new street as Jessie Street on all construction and project plans. d. The drainage plan shall ensure that there is no increase in the rate of storm water run-off leaving the site above the current (predevelopment) levels. The developer's engineer shall: (1) Verify inlet and pipe capacities. (2) Submit drainage design calculations. e. A tree planting and landscape plan for: 1. The areas along the street, wetland and ponding areas. The coniferous trees shall be at least eight feet tall and shall include Black Hills spruce or Austrian pines. 6 2. All deciduous trees shall be at least 2Y:z inches in diameter. 3. Change the plat as follows: a. Add drainage and utility easements as required by the city engineer. b. Show drainage and utility easements along all property lines on the final plat. These easements shall be ten feet wide along the front and rear property lines and at least five feet wide along the side property lines. 4. Pay for costs related to the engineering department's review of the construction plans. 5. Secure and provide all required easements for the development including any off-site drainage and utility easements. These shall include, but not be limited to, an easement for the culvert draining the pond on the north side of the plat and paying the city for the easement for the ponding area on the park property. 6. The developer shall complete all site grading and retaining wall construction. The city engineer shall include in the developer's agreement any grading that the developer or contractor has not completed before final plat approval. 7. Sign a developer's agreement with the city that guarantees that the developer or contractor will: a. Complete all grading for overall site drainage and ponding areas, install all retaining walls, install the landscaping and replacement trees, install all other necessary improvements and meet all city requirements. b. Place temporary orange safety fencing and signs at the grading limits. c. Provide for the repair of Ripley Avenue (street, curb and boulevard) after the developer connects to the public utilities. d. Meet all the requirements of the city engineer. 8. Record the follOWing with the final plat: a. Any homeowners' association documents. b. A covenant or association documents that addresses the proper installation, maintenance and replacement of the retaining walls. c. A deed that combines Outlot A with the adjacent property to the west for tax and identification purposes. d. A deed that combines Outlot B with the adjacent property to the east for tax and identification purposes. e. A wetland buffer easement for the wetland and for the required buffer easement area around the wetland. The applicant shall submit the language for these dedications and restrictions to the city for approval before recording. 7 9. Obtain a permit from the Ramsey-Washington Metro Watershed District for grading. 10. Obtain a NPDES construction permit from the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA). 11_ If the developer decides to final plat part of the preliminary plat, the director of community development may waive any conditions that do not apply to the final plat. "The developer must complete these conditions before the city issues a grading permit or approves the final plat. 8 CITIZENS' COMMENTS I surveyed the owners of the 60 properties within 500 feet of this site and received four written replies. The following are the comments we received: For: 1. Seems like an appropriate and reasonable development - just protect the watershed! (Freimuth - 1802 Burr Street) 2. As always - we, as the owners of 1703 Jessie Street, do not want to have a missed opportunity to purchase the vacant lot adjacent to our properly. This proposed new plat is considered an improvement. You have our approval. (Miller - Sommerset WI) Against: 1. I oppose this construction. Storm water run off already overloads the system in this area. The homeowner on the comer of Ripley and Edgerton was granted building permits and now every time it rains a little too much the city comes out with noise and air polluting equipment to drain the pond. Secondly, at the end of Bradley at the dead end someone has built a large storage building on what looks to be a wetland. Thirdly, if you divert the storm water to the other ponds you will have those current homeowners screaming to get it drained because the water would go into their basements. Sorry, I think this is a bad idea. (Naumann - 1808 Burr Street) 2. See the comments from James Harrison of 1777 Edgerton Street on pages 31 and 32. Comments: 1. No objections to this proposal. I appreciate the courtesy of the city in allowing me to review and comment on this issue. (Evans -1796 Burr Street) 2. My properly lies adjacent to the new street (Jessie) right-of-way. A number of years ago, with the permission of the city forester, I cleared some trees. I replanted with spruce and walnut. The strip of land between my properly and the proposed street contains these trees. I wonder if it would be or could be considered to save as many of these trees as possible. I have been in my house for 20 plus years. When I moved in, I was told the area that is to be built on now was filled in at one time (it was a dump site). I also was caught by this on my own properly and it cost me plenty to make my lot buildable. I hope the builders are aware of this. I also have some thoughts about drainage from this site. Our neighborhood has no storm sewers. With the roofs and blacktop on that properly there is going to be added run off. I hope it will be considered carefully. Anything going to the north has to soak into the ground. (Bache - 556 Ripley Avenue) 9 REFERENCE INFORMATION SITE DESCRIPTION Site size: 1.8 acres Existing land use: accessory buildings from the former property owner SURROUNDING LAND USES North: South: West: East: Single dwellings DNR Gateway Trail Houses on Bradley Street Houses on Edgerton Street PLANNING Existing Land Use Plan designation: R-1 (single dwellings) Existing Zoning: R-1 (single dwellings) APPLICATION DATE The city received the complete project plans and application materials for this proposal on November 23, 2005. As such, the city needs to take action on the proposal by January 21, 2006, unless the developer agrees to a time extension. kr/p:/sec17/c kings addition plal- 2005-2006.doc Attachments: 1. Applicant's Narrative Description 2. Location Map 3. Property UnelZoning Map 4. Address Map 5. Cover Sheet 6. Existing Conditions Map 7. Preliminary Plat 8. S~e Plan 9. Proposed Grading Plan 10. Proposed Utility Plan 11. December 7, 2005 comments from Tina Carstens 12. December 9,2005 comments from Michael Thompson 13. Survey comments from James Harrision 14. November 8, 1999 City Council minutes 15. December 12, 2005, response from Alan Kretman 16. Vacation Resolution 17. Project Plans date-stamped November 23, 2005 (separate attachments - including 11 x17s and full- size) 10 Attachment 1 PLANNING CIVIL ENGINEERING PROJECT MANAGEMENT LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE November 22, 2005 Planning Commission and City Council clo Ken Roberts, Associate Planner City of Maplewood 1830 East County Road B Maplewood, MN 55109 Re: C. Kings Addition Jessie Street & Ripley Avenue Maplewood, MN PDA Comm. No. 04060 For: Wisdom Development Group, LLC 2286 Tilsen Court East Maplewood, MN 55119 Commissioners and Council members: We are respectfully requesting the following approvals for the preliminary plat of "C. Kinas Addition" as a low density single-family neighborhood development that is consistent with the R-1 zoning district standards: 1. Vacation of a portion of the existing Jessie Street right-of-way and the entire alley right-of-way located along the west boundary of the proposed subdivision. 2. Preliminary Plat of "C. Kinas Addition" a 4 lot single family development. We have worked closely with City staff, met with staff in the City of Maplewood's pre-application review process and have completed our plans with their guidance and input. It is our understanding from staff comments that our proposed development is responsive to the goals and objectives for the City's comprehensive land use guide plan and the general provisions and purpose of the R-1 zoning district for the City of Maplewood. We are excited about the positive impact that this unique development will have on the future of this vacant but very important area in the City of Maplewood. PROJECT DESCRIPTION/EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This 1.82 acre property located south of Ripley Avenue and west of Edgerton Street is characterized by rolling terrain with one wetland located in the southwest corner of the subdivision and has moderate tree cover. The surrounding property is residential with R-1 single family to the north, east, and west and the Gateway Trail located on the southern border with R-1 single-family located further to the south. This proposed R-1 Single-Family Residential development consists of four proposed single-family lots sensitively arranged on a 1.82-acre site that preserves and protects the existing wetland located on the southwest corner of the site. @ ProTerra Design Associates, Inc. November 22, 2005 Submittal for C. KINGS ADDITION 11 Page 2 November 22, 2005 City of Maplewood Planning Commission and City Council c/o Ken Roberts, Associate Planner Re: C. Kings Addition, Jessie Street & Ripley Avenue Maplewood, MN PDA Comm. No. 04060 Access is provided from Ripley Avenue from the north which provides connectivity to the existing surrounding single-family neighborhood in the City of Maplewood. This development as proposed will blend into the fabric of the existing single family homes which surround the site. As a result, the proposed development is in scale with the site and directly relates to the surrounding single-family land use. The existing type 5 wetland, which is classified by the watershed district as a "utilize" wetland, has been delineated by Kjolhaug Environmental Services Company, Inc. and the delineation was reviewed and approved by the Ramsey Washington Metro Watershed District. As a part of the overall design of the subdivision, the existing wetland will be integrated into an overall stormwater management system for the proposed development. Controlling impact of stormwater runoff from this site is another very important feature of this environmentally friendly and sensitive design. The existing wetland basin will naturally remove sediments and nutrients while the capacity of this rather large basin and will totally accommodate the overall stormwater discharge for 2 year, 10 year and back to back 100 year storm events and 10 day snow melt events with no outflow. A Comprehensive Stormwater Management Plan has also been prepared for this project and is attached to this submittal package as well. This proposed development does not have any conflict with other applicable provisions of the City Code and is of sufficient size, composition, and arrangement that its construction, marketing and operation is feasible as a complete unit without dependence upon any subsequent parcel. This single- family residential neighborhood with affordable, craftsman style designed homes will have a positive impact on the reasonable enjoyment of the neighboring properties and will be compatible with the surrounding existing land uses. SUBMITTAL PACKAGE Attached you will find site plans for development of the 1.82 acre tract of land, which include the fOllowing drawings: CO.1 Cover Sheet C1.1 Existing Conditions Plan C2.1 Preliminary Site Layout Plan C3.1 Preliminary Grading, Drainage and Erosion Control Plan C4.1 Preliminary Utility Plan C5.1 Preliminary Plat C6.1 Civil Details C6.2 Civil Details C6.3 Civil Details The typical packaging of the City's Details is included in this submittal. In addition, attached are an approved Wetland Delineation Report, a Geotechnical Evaluation Report and a Stormwater Management Plan which have been prepared by design professionals who have an expertise in their respective fields. @ ProTerra Design Associates, Inc. November 22, 2005 Submittal for C. KINGS ADDITION 12 Page 3 November 22. 2005 City of Maplewood Planning Commission and City Council clo Ken Roberts, Associate Planner Re: C. Kings Addition, Jessie Street & Ripley Avenue Maplewood, MN PDA Comm. No. 04060 SITE LAYOUT: The site features have guided the arrangement of the proposed lots and site design for this property which in itself blends in with the existing single family neighborhood that surrounds the property. Preservation of the existing wetland located on the site is critical to the hydrology of the site. In addition a detailed tree inventory has been completed for all trees 8 inches or larger on the site. Because of the typical yet critical grading and drainage standards that need to be applied to any single- or single-family residential development, a significant portion of the existing tree massing will be removed. Every effort has been made to preserve as many trees as possible. Additional detailed analysis will be ongoing to determine if there are any other existing trees that can be preserved. The locations of the existing wetland, the natural stormwater patterns and the general topography of the site defined the placement of the proposed single-family lots and the proposed road alignment. The design intent is to blend into the character of the existing surrounding neighborhoods. The site has been successfully planned to accommodate the proposed dwelling types. Each unit is fully accessible to the proposed public road. Access to the one existing single family home that currently uses the unimproved right of way corridor to Ripley Avenue will be modified to work with the proposed street extension and the proposed grades of the street. The proposed street has been properly arranged and sized to accommodate emergency vehicle access throughout the site and to conform to the City's zoning and engineering requirements. The general lot sizes, setbacks, and streets for the overall development also fall within the regulations outlined in the City's ordinances. Setbacks, tree planting and other similar requirements within the proposed subdivision are consistent with the requirements ofthe R-1 Single Family Zoning District. No variances are requested. Every effort has been made to preserve as many trees as possible. Additional detailed analysis will be ongoing to determine if there are any other existing trees that can be preserved. The City of Maplewood's Tree Ordinance requires tree replacement through the planting of 13 trees. In discussions with several of the neighboring property owners, it appears that one of the primary concerns is visibility of the proposed subdivision. It is the intent of the developer to field locate the proposed tree replacements at strategic locations as requested by the neighboring property owners, subject to City staff review and approval. STREET AND ALLEY VACATIONS: A vacation petition was distributed through the neighborhood and signed by 50% of the adjacent landowners to the existing Jessie Street right-of-way and to the public alley located immediately adjacent to the western boundary of the proposed subdivision. The existing Jessie Street right-of-way is 66 feet wide and it is proposed to be reduced to 60 feet with, which conforms to current City of Maplewood and Ramsey County standards for local urban streets. The existing Jessie Street right-of- way also runs from Ripley Avenue on the north to the Gateway Trail corridor on the south. With the significant grade difference between the Gateway Trail and the proposed Jessie Street construction, @ ProTerra Design Associates, Inc. November 22. 2005 Submittal for C. KINGS ADDITION 13 Page 4 November 22. 2005 City of Maplewood Planning Commission and City Council clo Ken Roberts, Associate Planner Re: C. Kings Addition, Jessie Street & Ripley Avenue Maplewood, MN PDA Comm. No. 04060 the extent of the constructed Jessie Street south of the Gateway Trail corridor and the location of the existing wetland located south of the Gateway Trail that extends into the western portion of the existing Jessie Street right-of-way, it is extremely unlikely that Jessie Street would ever be constructed as a through street. Therefore, there is excess street right-of-way for Jessie Street that could be vacated and have a positive effect on the community by respecting the existing conditions and, at the same time, be converted to land that will contribute to the taxable basis of the community. However, the challenge with this vacation is the existing sanitary sewer that extends through the un-built portion of Jessie Street to within 12 feet of the Gateway Trail corridor. The only way that the excess right-of-way could be consider usable would be if a portion of the existing sanitary sewer would be removed back to the proposed cu-de-sac. The developer of C. Kings Addition is willing to take on this expense, to dedicate an additional 3260 square feet of right-of-way in order to build a proper cul-de-sac and to extend services to a potential lot that could be subdivided out of the parcel to the east of C. Kings Addition in trade for the majority of the right-of-way to be vacated. A ghost plat has been sketched out to illustrate how the adjacent property owner to the east could accomplish his subdivision and take advantage of the 360 feet of newly constructed street and utilities without paying for any of it. The neighbor to the east has also stated that he is willing to (and needs to) relocate his existing garage in order to subdivide his property. By moving his garage, the neighboring property owner will also remove a non- conforming setback for the existing garage to the Jessie Street right-of-way. As for the requested alley vacation, all of the adjacent property owners will benefit from the vacation of the right of way and gain more usable yard space. Currently there are two structures that encroach into the alley right-of-way, one which is of sufficient quality that could be relocated and the other which should be removed or relocated and be totally reconstructed. An inspection of the existing structures will reveal that the relocationlremovals will need to occur even with the vacation of the alley right-of- way. VEHICULAR CIRCULATION: The layout and width of the street within this site has been created to allow resident and service vehicle traffic to enter and exit the site efficiently. Circulation to this proposed single-family neighborhood is via Ripley Avenue from the north to the constructed Jessie Street within it's existing dedicated right-of-way, as modified by the vacation of unused portions and dedication of additional right-of-way needed to construct the proposed cul-de-sac. The small scale ofthis neighborhood and the approximately 38 average vehicle trips per day (as defined in the Institute of Transportation Engineers Trip Generation Manual, 6'h Edition) will flow through the proposed road system connection point and will easily be accommodated by the capacity of the surrounding road system. @ ProTerra Design Associates, Inc. November 22, 2005 Submittal for C. KINGS ADDITION 14 Page 5 November 22. 2005 City of Maplewood Planning Commission and City Council clo Ken Roberts, Associate Planner Re: C. Kings Addition, Jessie Street & Ripley Avenue Maplewood, MN POA Comm. No. 04060 GRADING. STORMWATER AND UTILITY DESIGN: The site will be graded to maintain the character of the existing topography, to the best extent possible, with walk out foundations for all of the proposed homes. Erosion control will be provided including silt fence, inlet protection at catch basins, and a rock construction entrance. Public street sweeping will be done, if needed. It is proposed that the public street will have a bituminous surface with concrete curb and gutter throughout. No curbing will be used for individual private driveways. The main objective for the grading design is to plan for proper stormwater runoff to be directed away from the buildings. Minimum grades of 1.5% will be used for turf areas and 2% cross slope for bituminous surfaces. Minimum grades of 0.5% and maximum grades of 5.5% will be used for concrete curb and gutters. The existing wetland basin has been delineated by Kjolhaug Environmental Services Company, Inc. and has been classified by the watershed district as a "utilize" class 5 wetland which has been accepted by the Ramsey Washington Metro Watershed Oistrict (RWMWD). In working with the RWMWO and their recommendations, the stormwater design for the site will have stormwater collected through an engineered stormwater system and directed to the delineated on-site stormwater detentionlretention wetland basin located at the southwest portion of the site. has. is naturally designed to NURP standards and has sufficient size to handle the 2-year, 10-year, 10o-year, back to back 100-year, and 10 day rainfall andlor snowmelt events for the neighborhood and for all off-site drainage currently flowing to the property. Emergency stormwater overflow routing will be taken into account with the design of the site grading and wetland basin outlet. The on-site wetland basin system will have the ability to totally handle the impact of all of the above mentioned storm events and have no effect on the downstream system. A detailed stormwater management plan has been completed in order to ensure the existing system has the capacity required for the proposed subdivision. This document has been submitted to the watershed district and is currently under review. An 8-inch water main will be extended from the existing water main in Ripley Avenue to the end of the Jessie Street cul-de-sac and terminated at a new fire hydrant. Fire hydrant placement conforms to the City's requirements for the health, safety and welfare of the future residents. Connection into the City's existing sanitary sewer system currently exists to the north at the intersection of Jessie Street and Ripley Avenue. The existing 8-inch gravity sanitary sewer within the currently un-built Jessie Street right-of-way will provided service to the entire development with no lift stations needed. 341 lineal feet of the existing sanitary sewer main will remain in place and 154 lineal feet of the existing sanitary sewer will be removed in order to make the vacated portion of the Jessie Street right-of-way usable. The proposed minimum lowest floor elevation required for each residential structure has been established by the elevation of the existing sanitary sewer, the proposed sanitary sewer services, and elevation of the emergency stormwater overflow. @ ProTerra Design Associates, Inc. November 22. 2005 Submittal for C. KINGS ADDITION 15 Page 6 November 22, 2005 City of Maplewood Planning Commission and City Council clo Ken Roberts, Associate Planner Re: C. Kings Addition, Jessie Street & Ripley Avenue Maplewood, MN PDA Comm. No. 04060 TREE PRESERVATION: Every effort was taken to preserve as many existing trees on the property as possible. Just as important, preservation of the existing wetland located in the southwest corner of the site is critical to the hydrology of the site. A detailed tree inventory has been completed to identify the size, species and condition of all of the existing trees 8 inches or larger on the site. Because of the typical yet critical grading and drainage standards that need to be applied to any proposed single-family residential development for this site, a significant portion of the existing tree massing will be removed. Every effort has been made to preserve as many trees as possible. Additional detailed analysis will be ongoing to determine if there are any other existing trees that can be preserved. The City of Maplewood's Tree Ordinance requires tree replacement through the planting of 13 trees. In discussions with several of the neighboring property owners, it appears that one of the primary concerns is visibility of the proposed subdivision. It is the intent of the developer to field locate the proposed tree replacements at strategic locations as requested by the neighboring property owners, subject to City staff review and approval. ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN: It is very interesting to note that the existing single family home located on the Harrison property, to the east of this subdivision, has a historic structure that was built in 1888, shortly after the original Kings Addition was recorded at the County in 1887. Respecting the character and integrity of this historic structure, it is proposed that craftsman-style homes will be built on the proposed single family lots. The attached documents and supporting facts should give the Planning Commission and City Council the findings of fact to approve the preliminary plat request. We are looking forward to beginning construction of this project in the spring of 2006. Sincerely, PROTERRA DESIGN ASSOCIATES, INC. ~4~ Alan A. Kretman, AICP/ASLA Director, Planning & Landscape Architecture @ ProTerra Design Associates, Inc. November 22, 2005 Submittal for C. KINGS ADDITION 16 Page 7 November 22, 2005 City of Maplewood Planning Commission and City Council clo Ken Roberts, Associate Planner Re: C. Kings Addition, Jessie Street & Ripley Avenue Maplewood, MN PDA Comm. No. 04060 SITE DATA ZONING R-1 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT SETBACK DATA Minimum Lot Width Front Yard: Side Yard: Rear Yard: SITE AREAS SQUARE FEET TOTAL SITE AREA: PROPOSED PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY: NET SITE AREA: 79,471 23,120 56,351 NUMBER OF LOTS NUMBER OF OUTLOTS 4 2 LOT AREAS REQUIRED PER LOT: PROPOSED PER LOT (Average): LOT 1: LOT 2: LOT 3: LOT 4: OUTLOT A: OUTLOT B: SQUARE FEET 10,000 13,856.5 10,035 23,637 11,044 10,710 1,008 544 LENGTH OF ROAD - LINEAR FEET 360 75 Feet 35 Feet 10 Feet 20 Feet or 20% of Lot Depth (Whichever is greater) ACRES % OF TOTAL 1.82 0.53 1.29 100.00% 29.09% 70.91% ACRES 0.23 0.54 0.25 0.25 0.02 0.01 @ ProTerra Design Associates, Inc. November 22, 2005 Submittal for C. KINGS ADDITION 17 Attachment 2 '. ';-,...,.-, rt"rl 1 II ii' I __~III !,ij Ii::, I Ii !~I .JI I , , 'Fl'IleuttEfj/I~'rt.A:Y e-.. =- _ I -- ';=...=,.-'-'Cl;'""'''' -"""""]:\~i-'lI'iill I :111 " I~_~, I""'IL i ~i iH" I r- j j: -.t......-...JtQ I J1~II\:;;;::ir~iI7' , I , '_I ,Ii i 1~"----5 ~II ,H I 'I i h'L- j IIf--TI~-+---J(Il1 ~= I~_~ild. Ic------,f--il I, H'I ri -- ~I ' '-';--:. B 1"'1 ' " I 'I III"' I ~ ,_ --1",'-. !;~ GI~~~(!)Li--Ill 'I"'!T' ':,',:C,.. if ,,"..---,---., ,-v---r-~, , II 'i I I ,111l-~' I ,.:r.14"-<;\ i.,'~.. ',.'L-J~II I i'lll i 1:11' ....; ',~' ",,- ~ I I, I l! 'd,l I "', 'I! IIi-- I ~ I , I'I -" . , II=- 'III I ,1._... !Iii i I~I oil' ! _ I f---;---!I!f-- t,Wf-' ' Ir', I:III~=-~~'--I' ~ -1:lli__rl,J::- III I II I ' ,II I'I! 'I. , , 'il,!'1 I'" ",I ..": If---I' i It ." I r" I',' 'I I I tJj I L.L---.JII".. "-_= I'll I II [, I;~t!tll I I,II I I I, I I I ~..: _ __-_-_____ -~II I 'LIL_\ J. -1.kqO~~A~~\1::-.:.. _ _ __ _ ~g_ _ , - ) .... - -~----'l r- I I I ----r I I - C - 'III I I I I r---, , 1,111 'I IIIW I,! I I 1--IClI 4' I' 'I, ~!:/ ,"L-..L--i '111i i, I ~\fl' ~I I I II:: ! ~I I i..LW_-WJI~ ii 1 e I, I " ~ '1la:J;;vvytJt!:l1'll: = 1 \ ,11 i-il:~_~-V 11,1)), I i nil: r, 1__11,1 ~III, I I' 'I", ' I _u_ c:J~ I, rT---i' 'G _ i)!jl III I I ~ ~ -~ 11----'._._ _ II I , II II \i j ~--j:~ !~ i I 1'1 r-:rJ-----. I I I , L.______ 1--1 I Ir-,~.-",II ~'I' , II' II" .-,,~ 1"- I" , "" / I ' -lfllmmi'l, I ",' c . I '--"--:1 r- , f I, I Ii i:W'.....LLLJd .,.tI__.J: .,.--\lll r 11._____.....:: \ \ I I, ,~- ---~~-r-- I I' ,~--., -... _ ~I II 111---- I I I I i, I Iii )1,. ; ,/'{/ \, ) ! I' , r I I' , //,' >= ~ II' 1K- ~ l:.-ev--AVE-~..l--.;-L~ \,. _- ::'_~-"" ~ ..... ~ f ~JJ~ l I 1 I ' 'I :--""P~L-'----r"""'-='Ir'-"~ .: '/ " II I' --, r. , I I I I I I" I 'I --1 'UE I ' -.1:.. - , I : 'I I i " I \11', " cr'.- RIPLEY AVEN__;:, 1 II jll!... 'I l~J__ I " I, -.1-1, 1[-- I _ I i .1": II 1 Ii I ---~;"~.'.',:~r,. --i( I r. '~- I II I r-------'-l. " . Ii i i I I J I! 0'.... I : I It-----i, I~! 1___=-": I '---',1 I! ____1-! '",--, L --il I r--.' ~",' " 'I' /,' : J' I -- 'I' ,r 1'1" I I " , " - ".1.. '-" '1 L-,,---, "II 'il I '~I'" ~..l,---.---~.-~ --i": 1\1 !,l i j 11'-'1 SITE : -'I I -71 ,,'--r--1, 11' --j',iJd j-r--l'Ji ' I .. JII[-I' ;: I :11' , -"I' _,.,,1 ~- " I 1'1 ': 'I'~' \, I --i ,~--------, r--- :11, i ~II'-I' , -I"t] IHI' i I W" I ,I -. I ..-------j II! , I i I ___ JI I I' I I '111-- I ----, "I I --..J I " ' .''--. _, :s=fJrI5F J------. ~_ -'1 L..J (' '\\\~ J ~ "'---c.::::::1', 1'_' I I :0' ",IL '---~- II \\', ,. L__,I" I I I 'JI iJU' --~l,I~_=-', I, j I ", \"'-----------J i. ;f I 1 1,1.. ---.----,r-------,~ i.j I, \! I' -":, y,.\ Ii i! /-'1 -Ut- _ II f-r i I' , 'Ii '~--1, -'-, "- !c-",,//! r/".I'"\', 1---1'1, IHI \! ~II',---i'! I I.""d-' : )'1 ..... ,Y;::.._~,.~"":\......,, 1 . \ ',I I, ). ' I ," , 11 "'-e:R:lCl:t>Y..l:::;.. '1 ---(I .j.---- -.-..~~~/ I~" j '\'1.\ ~----r--T~i 1.,\'11;, II /' I Ii: il }-~] 11=----"1 i I I ! I i ! I2i! Illi._......J_---!1 r !-..!II~'11 I ~.--.JI\ \ 1',/ ,: 'I' pll. ;1 II jli ! II I 1l.L!l2 i i Ii I, " I. i Ii',. 'I 'I I'll \ / I i I II-------,----i, ,..---., , -'1 T"rn , ! ,I, -' I j, . ,I r----i . , 1 I' 'I '---.J I ' j I 'rrr; I~' II ,..-..--,.---, I, "", \ " I f-Ti 1 L__....j I -<I ' , , "!' , II !~--..n, Ii -L- II d-----J, I L- ,. I I':' i Iii 1 II Ii -LJl [~ ~ Ll.--d::ld-J I,~_-=-_=__.__~ I I!. )---1':- :, ' .! i: J .- ..'L----L-..;:.. .I..:::.!"::;:,: \i:-'~ _ _ ~ .1 '--- II J r I.~ '_~__~ \~ ~ ""', 'L-=.~~ ,~~ ~' ., LARPENTEIJR-Av~ '..- CEMETERY - SAINT PAUL 18 'i! N LOCATION MAP , , , II.n -.- 504\\ 'I 555 I ' I! F f,. ,:: L " \ f' / ~ I , i,-~I . ,/J /' Ai,-- -----------"-~' I ' , : 22 I"" I "",,- I 1797 " . ,,' 1798 I I. II I, ~ __ _ _ i.::::::--;- ',',)/. _,1808 .. \=--t ,. J I" I ",=--=-=-,~'~';\"_' 1802 R ..1 ~ -( ~~';)ilil.!.l. ! ~: I, I,~ II ~ 11,,_'\ 17~ I, ~ ""I~"/ L i , i ~' ',I,.,,:, !,', ...-,--1 _ ) a::~ '-_---III I _.........1..___ 1-=-1 " ',0 " '" I - - - - 'Z - "" V~ - - - - - - a: I -l " ----i I . - - ::l - ",.eL.E'CA_ - - - - -. I:J:I 1 ~i,. I 17~1l II ~I ' ~ :1 .. -il.. .1. - f g: ! Il '! II I I ~ \ I , 1811ll I i 540 555" ' 1M ,fU I 1,111,,11. J, II Iii ,', .1_ 1,11 1, \ \ I, 80 I, Ii' I I : I i III : I I I i I I :,' ': Wi ji. I : I, ' '1779~ FI'II!II----I'I : ,II~_~ 1 ~, , " " I! \,>1 1 " , 'I: :\."~771 i I ~I: j R1 ~./~ I I / -II I : "164 '! " i ...,1 )R1I1 SITE I ,// I: I. r, ~,':' ~ i '~ITl, ~ .. ' .; /H,;; , . ;! ,1__--.11 I ~-<; (.!! I! 1fi " :597R1 J I. " i . 1760 II r :527--1 ': I Q~$~: :' ...Ilil I II -I, I I Ilg~i,R""- I,' J' I 60 OR' 11:1 __ i I !'\,~ : 1\1,' _ _ ' !, _:1 1~ .. .-J \ II "1 i, !!) } J ~.--------.J i ! J \ __~_______J L. _ __~ ;, \ \- \ \ \ L _ __ _ _ __ .J :-----!~-Ji j -,1 I 1737 i!&;g -I, I. -II , i~-~- 17P-l : !' f.-----i i 1 f---------.ar- III :, I I \ I I I i L-~ i i 1U&. i i I I, i 170.' I I i - c" ,- " I f-----=-I I '-~--"'l--I-\1~ I ii~I'\!.-' I" II Id I 1 , " I ,"- I 'I, ' " , I', ""II~'-'- Ii . ' II II I !---.:..=:..-j I ' I I I ! I i 1685 I,! II, 1693 ! I " fl!l . II I if!! J!J!!l II Ii g9l!-"--I' I I Ii&Bl i I !: - i 1683 [I 1.11II3 I I tI ! --L 115_11' Ii I '-l 1690 Rj2 _ I Ii liifl I I,m i'-; d i!, i ! J' ! J __ .__c '------__..1.----------'.'" \ =~~_=-~----=--L_= _=.--=.__~} \.1, . rev r II' ,.---;, I ! I ' 1-500 Ii R i I~ !. 1 l ; I ' ~~~ ! i 1 11 1779 l ,'; I ~--'=,-, ,\ ,--~ 1 ','. " 1721 ,\ \\ ""'\\'~ -\ ", \. " --' '\ \ \ \ ~ (A,#>,,' ',\, "\..- "x \ -1~ '--,II'"" ! \ \ i \ \ '11 : I! 1\1\ \ cl," i: ~ '., "" / I 1 I, , 1699,,/) I "I I i ' r-.-- I , : i R1II1 11 ... 1 i_ 536 ~1 ,.11I 531 ~ I!l ,~. ,- , --------- -- LARPENTEUR AVE SAINT PAUL Attachment 3 CEMETERY " ..~~_/ F KTNGSTON" A"VE ~-------- : --U--1i i59~11 I S II t!j, \ I' RllI" ,'---- I I II R 1 603 I ' ! 1599i1 i II ,- ~_J ~__nJ_ '_ ~~C.!=" ~V_E _- _' , Ii j! Ii 16'_ 1,6.1 i61 l: I i III I " I I i-Rlr~ ~::~~ I' m I, . 60T '1~" , :rl~i,.~! \~'-=-~':"-:'--'~ '- - '- - PROPERTY LINE/ZONING MAP 19 11 N Attachment 4 .------.:.L__,~~ ',..~ 1808 1 1797 \\\\. il/ 1798 Ii ~..~.., f. ./_____..i .) " 1-'..".., ..,..(. - "~,\- / I -"~"'I1l!L.ra. \i~ t; / I ,r __ Ii "fIIiI\ '~\ ~l ~ r~~ .. i I, .J a::: L ..I" /, Zl '" _-,----- ::1'- ---- _ _ _ _ l/J_ _ _ _I3.IP_L~Y_AYE..._ 1810 555 , i I- I B!!Bl , 1 i llllIIi ! 1796 . ---1 l I I \ / ,..11, 11II ! (: ~ jll!l I ......J II II-c----" I II I I I ' I I! . UJu~ED, ~LLEY - >- I i i I I I i I ltol , 1>-, ' I 'w I Ilil1IIr1 Ie:, -I' i I~I II I, lCD1 _ I:: .. ~\ I 1 ' J i '-- i , " i , ----' .. 1731 SITE , 'I I ; , , I _I.. Ii II ..~, I I , I , , I--~ .- //j , ' I I I.... l' II IIiI 11 ,j'- , tg ~__________----L-_ I I -I ,-,_r ill 1 [:-.--'1 1745 i i _! IJ!~i ] , : I ! ! ,____----i ~~~--=... :/ r- I ! I ] II~ ' ' , , , , If- , I II 'iIi I I, I , III ! I I I , I I, I , I I - - . l " /.. 1_____ I. , ---: ~ illl' I'.. :.. ~ I r--- I i , , 1737 , i i , i I I I, " " I f---'-'~"-----'~ /1 / 1- I I I , r I ~------i I 'I , , , 528 aI I I ~----, " , Ii! . .....:ii------' ADDRESS MAP 20 ; I i " I I I ! I~ , ICI) Zl 10 I I~ I IW' lel I Cl IW I , I I I I I I I I , \ ! I I I I I >- Ill: ~ W :I; ~ ." i I I , 'L! N - , , , , ___-I , , , i ~~~ : ~I! IllS , , , I I I , , , , , , , , , ---../ i I , , : III i"'l! 153 :~l :~I :-<1 I , ----I , , , , , , .. .,.. . 'to I \ I " "" " RIPLEY AVENUE -, . . ~ 0, ~ , ,/' /? , I ' V .~ / ~) ~ ~ . Attachment 5 ! <ti i : , I I : ~It I 'IS : , I I !~----.--- I I ~....._.._ , gj I ) i i n . ~ 7" ~ Z ~ C1 gCJi ~)> ~ \J ~ \J CI'..l - o --1 ~ o z ~~ r--l // I / III I ( 1<.) l. / "- I'-........ ~ / I -....!!,..J I 7 I / I I : III \ I j,. ) I I I I I I I I I I I v l'~l / '$( \.-" III " I " j,' I ""- . I I " I I / \ ~!' ,/ 0"1 // //' _1 r--- I I III I J k I, ) I )// ,#/ , .~ . ! ~.'$ '1 / ~ ~ ~ ~ / ....#" Q~~ COVER SHEET 21 'L! N r~ i II II i ; i ~ I . " , " .. " "i " . Ej ~ . - ~ - ~ - ~ .. .. ~ ." . - - - " . .. - . ~ " ~ " . - .. . . ~ . . " ~ II;. '=l ." . 1: ~ .. -... ---I ~ all" t . " i _,.___"___,,."'_0._ ) , __0_..._.._..._0.-..._, ! RIPLEY AVENUE ,I --:!<::-"'-- ; q -;-t-, ~-~_/! /' (' , "1 ' )" ..-j/ /,h" /'r,,~ i '" \~ till .. ------ ; , ~-~- ~-- Attachment 6 '" '.- '''I'll'' II' C .' ',I" i · I! 1i!.I1 '1111' ~ '! q !;J ij Ii 1'1' 1!l:lllili! Iii z " 'i'i' ,II I" S ! I'i ,I il!!1 ~! ~ Iii lll:.1 Ii "illl"I~;1 II. 1'1': II; I' , .. I, 1III .1 I i!!lliii II , "'II l'I' I. ll!!'HI! I jl il 'Iii =1 n I , In ",! :j I!p 'I' ~ · 10 1,1 z "" !~l ;11"1'11"1"'11"11"; ~ :'1" Ii ,: "I : H,li ~ 00 ~ II ':!~!. ;il 11:1 ~ i i B ,II :1" ill!ll!I". ~! I ~ 1'1 'II! I '1111 i ~ . I o Ii "I I :,1 "~ I ~ I. 1:1- I! ..~ 1101 ~ ~ .O((fff l'O:'O~~ ~ ~ iiiiiiiiiliiliil~ ~ ~ !liiill!l I Iii ~ j'lllIill ! I EXISTING CONDITIONS MAP 22 {r N , I I I I , I , , , , I , , I , , , , , , , , , , , ~---~--- I ,r--l 1'1 // I ~ / GlI I ( 1<.) '- / I'-.................~ / I -...!!!z...J : I 7 n-.---.i ~ G-' ( i : I!i : I I;! \ - / : 1:1 I )-- /,1 I"'i ! "itl'S ig I / ~i~"''''\) ~ 'fi, ! /f, / '<, i~' I II,: / '. :,,1 V{~ 1 r----j , : I ,\ / I 1>1 I I : I (y '" G!I I / I~! I .J! i v ~k / / J' i ",.,.... ~\ " / / ..- I , , .... \ / ./ ..-..-) /' : I \ .J~,,,- I I!' ,~ /' : '.I ~/ /' ! = /J' : ' -------i :: , ~ , 1 , I , , , 1 , , , 1 , , , , , , , , , .-,,/) Sl"TEAREAS ZONED: MlN.LOTWOl'rl: IllN.LOTNIfk. "'lOHTYNlIlS(T8iO(: SIlEYAAOSET8ACXHI)JSE; SIlETNlIlsrnlAO<CNlAGE: RENl YNtO SfTBIoC~: SITE DATA ~ , I I , , I , , 1 , 1 I I 1 , , , I , , --------.. 1 , I 1 1 1 R-l stfGlEF,,1 """""" 75 1??oo :JO-JS 10 , '" TOTN..srTEAAEA PROPOSEDF'l.8Jl:RQW N(lsm:~ """"-lli[ "'" 79~7' Sf 1.a2 23121lSF O.5J 56351Sf 1.29 l..lIE.JJl!& 100.001 ~,"'" 71U1X ~r7LOTS --,,""'" lOT.IJlEAS ~~ R!QUIREOP(RlOT 10,000 0.23 P'ROPOS([J PER LOT LOTI 10,035 0.23 LOTl 23.637 0.54 LOT 3 11.0<< 0.25 LOT. 10,710 0.25 OU1'l.OTA 1,008 0.Q2 OIJTlOTB 544 0.01 TOTAlLE~OfIlOlD :l60LF OWNERJDEVELOPER IlISlXlWllEVEI.OPUENT GflOOP. UC. 2286 TILSEN COIJAT WoPIDIOOO....55119 P\l: 512.490.7179 Pl.ANNERIPROJECI' ENGD'ffiER PROTEIlRAOESICH.lSSOOATrS,INC. ,\()114.ICJI(ll,Wj/GREGD.IIIOR1S 7JOOlfJDSl>>l I3CU..I:VAJlll. SUITE 220 ONC\W.E,WN ssm 1'Ii:65U3U131 FX: 65U39,oa(6 PREUMINARY FOR REVIEW ONLY I: I: Ii.. ~:::~ I'" Ii I: ~ :!~. ~ ~ m~~ I ~~~~!iJ ,~~. " .~ ~" ., ~OD . " Ci " '" ~ '" <:J '" ;i '" " S " ;: ~ '" ~ '" <:J '" ;i '" '" '" ~ ~ 0; '" '" '" " 1;; ~ "" " " ~ " '" ::l , ,/' I ,/~~ V' .~ / ~ " o ::l " " o S:i I I !I r lli ~' ,~ I ,I I RIPLEY AVE I , il I I , II ~i! , I , I Attachment 7 ~ f)l .. :;g " '" '" rn ~ 0; , , I rt---..-.- I"'", ~" ",- Vl~ '0," ,:'..___n n i ~ e; ~ ~ ~ ,#'" Qy.~ I I I ,'"~ I~~ 1)lf:l ~~ ~ ;j '" '" ~ . >0 ~ ~ gJ ~ 0 t: ~ C/'.) s=: 0 ~ 0 > ~~tj 0 ~ ~ tj ~ ~ ~ >-3 ~ ~ o ~ ~ 0 Z o ., I< Z '" i:i , , , , / PRELIMINARY PLAT 23 \r N ~ RIPLEY AVENUE I~ r' _I I: 1 '"-"--' , I I I I I .------1 :G;;I I ,~ ~': I I I , );...1tNCl ~ / .> ( ') ~ l.. I ,~i<> ~~I I / ,,"J I / ""I: ! / ., ., v I ......~ ~:;~ I ' , ~/ ~ J / ..- 9 _511_ 5 #'" g.'" ~~ , I I iC!J , I I G~ ~~ ------- - I , L_________ I :[!;l I~ / / / - / / / / / / / / / / ! 1 , . I SITE DATA - ........."., -~- ---,,"'" ~, ~, ~, ~, _lIlI_I__I,O,W.) -~- -,- -.- -'''''_(PIIFllU) .................-- --"""{rI) II==~ 11I=11III_1/1("- L<<OIIIlIJI:.,.." ........-- "'115II-..::I;11""_- LEGEND f':W/1 .nuu_ ~~-- SITE PLAN 24 Attachm~nt 8 ....t-..:~_ ---,-. ,-. '......../0.>3"'"'" 2>,WlI'/U</I:lID "...../lla.CIID ,171_1___ /t<71lF/I.R.-s ""'1"/'.21_ '.....f!1l.CIID ... "/~\ JOa 1.l'llIl1FlJJIaU ~ " . . . "" 'L! IN : g I iil ~i nli I i P';I<iJ ! ~! H ~ I j:iij ! Ii! II I ',I Attachment 9 ~ " ~ , .!I RIPLEY AVENUE ---. , I I ~---.:--::-i--\ I .........-1. \ I : r', ", 't '[ --',..1 <' : \ 1\ .. '/ \ I \ 1\ \ ......._ \ I " \ I \ \ I ',___ /\_' I \ II I \,1 I III I III : 1 1-.... __ I II -.... ~-,..\ I I I .....1 I 1 I ---------1 I ILl'" Ii' I I I fl I , I 'I t t / I r I 'j.::_.... \ ~ I I I 1_ 'J'/ I / I _""", / I I I I _l-, I I I . II! >'- ~/, .... -, !- ...., ~ .. , '\ . \ \1\,1 , " ',,- 'W, ,," r----- 'I" I ........ \ .J ....1 II f lil( 11\' ,1.... ", , ' ,I', ;-..~. -------....f'" Dr " 'I , , , , , , , , , , r.--J . , , , , } " i" , , , , , 'I ' , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,. , ; i\~D! --------- -....., , , , , , , , , , , , , , "f' . j,' , ,oo.-nO I & ~'--__----~ - , '. ,[, -__, I ,I J I ~ " . " -1---1----- . . , ! -;// --; , I ,,"" //" ./ --;,/ ~ ^> -~ >. '" '~l' I !i~i I 1!Ii!i I '11'1':11 '" '. I ' .,., hi ! !: l'Ii 0 1,1' "'>0 'I' "!'Il Ilillil" ",'" !:'i 1M li!!il ",'" "s ~M'II!1 ::;;:: !I !ll f!1llillll Cl.IllIgW ",15 ii'l ", .,z I ./ Iii h,!, I III lli!ill > .~ ,'llq 0'" il. 'I, z'"" " · '11'1 t"" , '"" PROPOSED GRADING PLAN 11 N 25 ~ Attachment 10 '''-\iTM-(>-\iTH_EX_IIT1<_ -j " , ".- RIPLEY AVENUE - ) ; , /1:111 i:l , ) // llil jl , , , , Iii' , , / iI. I' , I , , Ill' .1 , , , ~I , I , , , , I , ~ ------; "' , , , ~ , ~ , , " , I " , / , " : j' , / #''' , / Ii , , g..'" , , I / 'I' , , I / <:>~ : II , / , ~ , / Iii , V / ! , , . , , , , ) --, , , , , , , I I I , I , , , , I , , , , -----.. , , , I , , " 11'11I I:~ tlli; d Ii jl , 'I,r 'I : ,~ ! ; 91 i ~~ r Ii' iil ,I ~mm.D " I ]1 U~mL--- I' Ii';; o D ,0 I , , r-----;=~- / / / ( l.. , 1", " I " I ,., I I I / m__j m 0::11 I~ I : I / ii//' :' 1M , V / - l' , , , ~!~, "h ," il'sllll ~~I;B PROPOSED UTILITY PLAN 26 11 N Attachment 11 Ken Roberts From: Tina Carstens [tina@rwmwd,org] Sent: Wednesday, December 07, 2005 9:58 AM To: Erin Laberee; Ken Roberts Subject: C. Kings Addition Here are the comments that we provided to the applicant and engineer in September of2005. When we didn't hear anything from them or receive any additional information we decided to not take it to the Board until that information was received and worked out Let me know if you have any questions. Tina I. Explanation on how the normal water level for the wetland was determined shall be provided. 5 feet of freeboard from the 100 year event shall be provided for the homes adjacent to the wetland. 2, If overland overflow has to happen, then drainage easements will need to be secured. 3, Freeboard of five feet must also be meet from the low floor of the existing homeslhabitable structures, If overflow occurs, two feet of freeboard over overland overflow water surface elevations shall be provided. 4. Justification for the infiltration rate selected shall be provided, The system should drain back down to "normal" within three days. 5, Emergency overflow swale from cul-de-sac to wetland shall be provided or show that the catch basin and pipe system can handle the 100 year storm without over topping the curb. 1975-2005 Celebrating 30 Years of Water ResoUICe Management, Protection & Improvement Tina Carstens Pennil Program Coordinalor Ramsey-Washington Metro Watershed Oistricl 2346 Helen Street North Sl. Paul, MN 55109 Phone: 651-704-2089 Fax: 651-704-2092 12/7/2005 27 Attachment 12 Enl!ineerinl! Plan Review PROJECT: C. Kings Addition PROJECT NO: 05-37 REVIEWED BY: Michael Thompson, Maplewood Engineering Department DATE: December 9, 2005 Wisdom Development Group is requesting City approval ofa street right-of-way vacation, an alley vacation, and a preliminary plat for a new street with 4 lots. The developer shall make the changes to the plans and site as noted below and shall address the concerns listed below, The developer is proposing that the streets and utilities be public infrastructure, It has generally been the city's policy to prepare the plans and specifications for public infrastructure and perform the construction inspection duties. Due to the short length of the new street, the city would allow the developer to prepare the plans and administer the construction of the utilities and street. The developer and the project engineer must strictly follow Maplewood's Engineering Standards. These standards include a construction inspection schedule that outlines erosion control, grading, utility and street construction, and testing requirements, The developer shall ensure that all construction activities conform to Maplewood's standards by entering into a Development Agreement with the city, City staffwill keep a close watch on the site during all construction activities - especially those relating to the construction of the public street and utilities. Drainage I. The summary page in the drainage report needs to list pre-development water levels in the north depression and wetland for the specific storm events, The document only provides post-development water elevations, 2. The drainage calculations show that post development rates and volumes are higher for subcatchment A (drainage area contributing to the south pond wetland) than pre- development, The City requires a developer to provide onsite detention in order to match pre-development runoff rate and volume conditions. This is because downstream is a "no outlet wetland pond," Utilizing individual rain water gardens or other best management practices accounting for both storm water quality treatment and storage may be an option in lieu of adding a conventional pond, The plans and construction shall direct runoff from roofs and backyards towards the street and/or ponds. Visit the following link for more information on best management practices: http:"www.metrocouncil,org/environment/Watershed EMP'manual,hlm The project must be constructed so that all runoff entering the storm sewer is detained before discharging into the "no outlet wetland pond". This is to ensure that pre- development rates and volumes are met as mentioned above. 3. All rainwater gardens and/or ponds shall have emergency overflow swales. The contractor shall construct the overflow swales with permanent soil stabilization blanket. The project engineer shall clearly mark the overflow elevation on the plans, 4, Subcatchment B, which drains to the north depression, will have post-development rates and volumes less than the pre-development conditions, but there are two concerns, First that the runoff flowing down the back hillside of proposed Lots 3 and 4 will cause erosion. 28 The contractor will need to apply erosion control matting to the hillside especially just north of Lot 4 where it appears drainage will be concentrated. Matting should be extended to the base of the depression area. See additional comments in the Grading and Erosion Control section, Second, it appears that the depression is to be re-graded thus filling in a fair amount of storage volume, which does not appear to be calculated into the proposed condition, Please address, The lost storage volume should be addressed by utilizing one of the accepted BMPs at the base of the slope, 5. Show the ) O-yr event hydraulic grade line on the profile section of the storm sewer pipe to show that overtopping of the system will not occur at manholes and catch basins. IfHGL is below soffit of pipe, please state this is the profile view, 6. Storm catch basin #2 at the entrance of Jessie Street should clearly note that the structure is a storm manhole with a Type C radial grate because it is not at standard catch basin due to lack of curb and gutter. 7. The storm sewer pipe profile needs to be extended all the way to the outlet into the Class 5 wetland, The contractor shall grade this easement to create an emergency overflow (a grassy swale). This is so in the case the catch basin in the cul-de-sac is blocked there will be an emergency overflow (grassy swale) to the wetland area, The project engineer shall design the easement cross-section and grade in a manner that would allow City maintenance vehicles access to the wetland outlet area, 8. A more detailed "emergency overland release" needs to be provided showing the path and point of release to Bradley Street, Show the house elevation at the SE comer of Bradley St & Ripley Ave. 9, Also, the plans need to clarify the emergency overflow concept from the wetland to the depression on sheet C3,I, Are you proposing that emergency overflow be routed from the wetland to the north depression, then release to Bradley Street? 10. Lastly, all comments (September 2005) from Ramsey-Washington Metro Watershed District September clearly addressed, Please provide me with a copy of your response to their comments upon re-submittal. Grading & Erosion Control ), Callout double row silt fencing near the wetland area, Also clearly show on the plans the location of the fiber blankets on the steep slopes. It is important that the blankets are always tacked in place to prevent erosion of the steep slope near the north depression. 2, The catch basins need to have control measures. Provide Plate NO.3 50 for the "Storm Sewer Structure Protection Prior To Curb & Gutter Placement or Paving," 3, Provide "Rock Entrance Pad" detail as provided on Standard Plate No, 350. The detail provided is not adequate. 29 Utilities 1. Submit plans to SPRWS for their review and approval located 1900 Rice St, 2nd Floor. Future watermain extension information in the project vicinity could not be provided at this time by SPRWS. 2. The profile on sheet C8.1 does not show the existing sanitary sewer line and manhole to be abandoned. Also in the profile, should the section of sewer pipe that is shown in bold be dashed to indicate existing? It appears the only change to sewer is the proposed manhole over existing pipe and abandonment of everything south. 3. On the profile, show that the existing sewer main pipe is clay (VCP). 4. On sheet C4.1, the new sanitary service laterals should be SCH 40 PVC under the "Materials" heading on the right side of the sheet, to reflect City Plate No. 410 and also the sewer main needs to be changed from SDR-35 to clay pipe (VCP). 5, For sewer service laterals please add Plate No. 412 to the plans, which shows the core drill and saddle tap connection, And for the proposed manhole over existing sewer main, add Plate No, 403 to the details sheets, Landscaoing 1. Landscaping in and around the rainwater gardens, if utilized, needs to be called out on the project plans. This shall include shrubs and perennials. Miscellaneous 1, Provide driveway detail per Plate No, 230 and show spot elevation at driveway corners. 2. The project engineer shall provide more detailed information for the modular wall including top and bottom of wall elevations, If the wall is greater than 4 feet in height a building permit will be required. 3. The developer shall implement a homeowners association as part of this development to ensure that there is a responsib Ie part for the maintenance and care of the rainwater gardens, if utilized. The location of the gardens shall be a dedicated easement shown on the plat, 4. As stated in the opening paragraph, a Developer Agreement with the City of Maple wood will be needed, 5, A maintenance agreement with the City will need to be provided for all locations utilized for ponding (BMPs). 6, Provide soil boring information for the area under the proposed street location and for the proposed house pads. 30 ,November 30, 2005 , , MAPLEWOOD , - i~ Attachment 13 JAMES HARRISON 1777 EDGERTON ST N MAPLEWQODMN 55117 Together We, Can '] . . .r . ,NEIGHBORHOOD SURVEY: PROPOSEDC.,KINGS APDITION ~ SOUTH OF RIPLEY ' ,AVENUE,WEST OF EDGERTON STREET, MAPLEWOOD What is Beina ReaueSted? , ", 'Mr. Virihle, represel)ti~\IVIsdom Dev~lopmentGrciup {the develo~~;is requestingthilt tIletijCEIVf lJ' approve plans for a"l1W four-Iot subdivision for single ,dwel[ings., This development;, if approVed ,l!Y the., " pity;would includevacatiilgan unused alley, vacating the existing ,unused Jessie Street right-of-waY south Of RiPleyAvenue, thededitllllion of a new street right-Of-way and thereplatlingOfthe vacant', pro~rtieSinto four lots. This development is PrQposed for th8 area' South of Ripley Avenulland west of Edgerton Street and,WOuklinclude the construction of a new eul-de-sac street (J~sie Street) sOuth of Ripley Avenue. As proposed, the plans show four lots for hotises on the neW cul-de-sac on thet,S-acre pro~rty. Refer to the enclosed project narrative' and maps for more infonnation' about thllproposal. WhvthisNOtice?, '. , City staff wishes 10 irlfonnyouabolll this pl"opo$81 and seeks your input in any Of the fOlloWing Ways: ' , , 1. Mail your comments to me. Please write any comments you have below or on thell8ck of this letter., I have enclosed an Ilddressed retum envelope for your use to mail in yo,!r comments. , Please note that any letters and attachmen1s that you send to tl!e cltyai'e conslderecl 'pu~/c /nfonRatlon a~ city sf1Jff may use them Instafff!lPOrts that gO to theplanp/ng comm4s/on and city cOuncil;' . . - . . . " . , 2. 'Call meat (651) 249-2303 or e-mailmeatKen.ROberts@CI.MapleWood.MN.LJS ' . . 3. Attend the city council meeting and give your comments. City staff will notityyou otthecity , council meeting by mail onCe the city has scheduled it. ' , ' .. . '. '.' . .: -." ". Pleaser:eply by Dec::amber 9,2005 (whether you mail orphOlle in your commentS). ~~~ IIINETHROBERTS - PLANNER , Enclosures' ",', , ,', , 1, .' APplicant's statement' . 2, Location Map , 3, ' ' Property UnelZoning Map 4, . Address Map ,5; , Cover Sheet 6.: ,Existing Conditions Map , 7, Proposed Preliminary Plat 8, 'Site Plan ,,' , " 9,. Proposed Grading Pian ,10. 'Proposed utility Plan ' t:" w~el0 W\,e- wt,1 n.> II WIllI"€- a~, ',~;J. i>v V\c..N 1)W~ 11 "~j " '>'lX.e51 2"48 1t3 I 9 MAPLEWOOD, MN 55109, "'~',.:+,fu'1' oF-riSE: Or. CSl1l,11:lfIlTYeie./,ELsp..r.IIf:14T Get 24S'2.Gee , CITY OFMAPLEWOOD 1830 COUNTY ROAD BEAST 31 Lll~ 'd. Be... B~~ 1+ 0'1'- bl4;d pr-op1!Aj.. I{ Co,,^'-~ I f\)ed~ 4-0 & reQ~e.J f)/\ ~~l'r fPlo+ (,IJ ,de Uv-.e.> -::r- uJ~lI e,e hrt/fj +t> &IJ BAG-~ ~"e.r- the... 6V,'de.-[,'....e.1;. ~e:f Bj c::.t'V-.A<-"( -f'&>r- ML~ Netf 1I->>1)/J fx +ht- remOIJt4-) () f ~f) >>f.~" cf.l'(.e?., ;,0k\'c-~ Are.- .prl'u- b.} -1-0 1V1?, -r+ ~e.- ~"\IJif I'~ O)l\tl("l\~d 1'H',+o/'\''''''\ VA\ue... why ~L ~~ ~*+ f'rl'e- ",&t- r-e..t>IAle-A~LE"! ..Q AN A/kj (,4 .~j rx. "'''~\I..J f7 c...ArJ" I\- U ~e..A.kl)1l) UrJ.'I.'-~ I t . 110 '.'~e..- ~-A-?e-- 6.f- PrC>J- l2-tA-!>eW'\.urt Uke.- fl~&IS (..~-N U-lL c,V"j 4w~rd. t-k Billie/</' 1+11 IJ{. effS~M~ j(.+/-J,-o-- ~,+IlJ .>AAr"; 1'1-;;1 /l-J;;l/-?tA1IIMd tk-l>l'/u,? .:>e>k'l ~~ VII'----,'+~/ bit ,'N d9i\. H\.<.. ~J~ IJ<i'7 ?A.-t. ~ ~ Cevf\t-I'I l)r- 1~.J ~e0 ~"IJ w'^"'+ ~ ho\:r A!f\! tjv\b.I'C 04 -AX CN'.UJ''lt7 L-~LL- w-.-e/ A-^1{-\1./v\.G-! ~:>'I.l7~ ~ (;Vi.uMrt'j "" I .)<< I,' "i . ..., ;J. ,'", t rf)f'P 7" /... ~ r/ ;,e.e jlrl ..) tl A",beO. ~ ,J ~<:/ 4{1r,e,~1';.~ ~ i/lf.{J :;eA\ e? ,)" 4J~~ 1 "" ...,,, "'....-1 [>If"" f ck> ~vA- ""*+,~ & ^ be 0",,,1 ^ "'" il7 pro'",; ~ :r ^ \"~ed. ::s:.- ,",,,,, ~ ~D ""'^^j b tku- ,0.1\0(... "'. JJoXff,'trl'I ';, B' if" 1I ~ v.J'" 'f ~ COA"hl ~ ":i 0,,,,1"[, '^1 u.,Y.~' f' 7","VI:; JHy "'e I-C C," h · ~ j..\, ,v- r ",0+ .l/vrJ!, 't-},c ?i fy t{)()Kf7 Ai- Y-h 1''7 ~-ery L~o';,e Iy !?e~"'ri ^HfOVA l. I Attachment 14 MAPLEWOOD CITY COUNCIL 7:00 P.M., Monday, November 8,1999 Council Chambers, Municipal Building Meeting No. 99-25 A. CALL TO ORDER: A regular meeting of the City Council of Maple wood, Minnesota was held in the Council Chambers, Municipal Building, and was called to order at 7:00 P,M, by Mayor Rossbach, B. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: C. ROLL CALL: George Rossbach, Mayor Sherry Allenspach, Councilmember Dale H. Carlson, Councilmember Kevin Kittridge, Councilmember Marvin C, Koppen, Councilmember Present Present Present Present Present 2, 7:23 P,M. House Building Request (Harrisons) (Ripley Avenue and Jessie Street) I, Construction Agreement 2. Alley Vacation a, Mayor Rossbach convened the meeting for a public hearing. b, Manager McGuire introduced the staff report, c, Community Development Director Coleman presented the specifics ofthe report, d, Commissioner Pierson presented the Planning Commission report. e, City Attorney Kelly explained the procedure for public hearings. f. Mayor Rossbach opened the public hearing, calling for proponents of opponents, The following persons were heard: James Harrison, 1777 Edgerton Richard Lefebvre, 500 Ripley g, Mayor Rossbach closed the public hearing. Coundlmember Carlson moved/introduced the following Resolutions 1) approving an a!ITeement to build one house on a propertv that does not front a publicly dedicated and maintained street and 2) vacating the undeyeloped alley between Bradley Street and the Jessie Street right-or-Way. south of Ripley Avenue, and moved its adoption: 11-1-99 I 33 99-11-104 CONSTRUCTION AGREEMENT RESOLUTION WHEREAS, James and Cynthia Harrison are asking lhallhe city council approve a construction agreement to build a house on a site that does not front on an improved public street. WHEREAS, the legal description of the property is: Lots 4 through 13, Block 2, King's Addition to the City of Saint Paul in the SE 1/4 of the SW 1/40fSeclion 17, Township 28, Range 22, Ramsey County, Minnesota, WHEREAS, Section 9-I(a) of the City Code requires all lots to abut on a publicly dedicated and maintained street to be built on. WHEREAS, this parcel does not front on a publicly-maintained street and as such, the proposed house would not front on a publicly dedicated and maintained street. WHEREAS, the history of this request is as follows: I, The Planning Commission discussed this request on October 18, 1999, They recommended that the City Council approve the request. 2, The City Council discussed this request on November 8, 1999, The council gave everyone at the meeting a chance to speak and present written statements. The Council also considered reports and recommendations from the City staff and Planning Commission, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council approve the above-described agreement because: I, The situation is unusual. 2, The property owner did not cause the existing conditions, 3, Having one additional house in the area would nol alter the neighborhood's character. 4, The city has approved other homes on private driveways, This resolution requires that the property owner complete the following conditions before the city issues a building permit: I. All construclion shall follow the site plan approved by the city, The City Engineer shall approve the driveway and turnaround location and designs, The Director of Community Development may approve minor changes to the plans, 2. Record the following with Ramsey County: a, An agreement that allows the property owner or users of this property to use the existing Jessie Streel right-of-way for ingress and egress from the parcel to Ripley Avenue, b, An agreement against the property that: (I) Holds the city hannless from any liability for using the privale driveway or any delay in emergency vehicles finding the structure(s), (2) States that the property owners shall maintain, plow and sand this driveway to lhe satisfaction of the Director of Public Works, II-Jl-99 2 34 The city attorney shall prepare these agreements, The property owner shall provide the city with copies of all recorded documenls, 3. Install a sign at Ripley A venue and the driveway that states the property address and that the driveway is private. 4, Record with Ramsey County a wetland buffer easement for the wetland and a 50-foot-wide buffer around the welland on the site, This easement shall prohibit mowing, cutting, filling, dumping or grading in the welland or in the wetland buffer. 5, Combine all the parcels on the site into one property for tax and identification purposes, 99-11-105 ALLEY VACATION RESOLUTION WHEREAS, Maplewood city staff applied for the vacation oflhe following-described alley: The alley between Bradley Street and Jessie Street, between Ripley Avenue and the State of Minnesota DNR trail, in Block 2 of the King's Addilion to the City of Saini Paul in Section 17, Township 29, Range 22, Maplewood, Minnesota, WHEREAS, the history of this vacation is as follows: 1. On October 18, 1999, the planning commission recommended that the city council approve this vacation, 2, On November 8,1999, lhe city council held a public hearing, The city staff published a notice in the Maplewood Review and sent a notice to lhe abutting property owners, The council gave everyone at the hearing a chance to speak and present written statemenls, The council also considered reports and recommendations from the city staff and planning commission, WHEREAS, after the city approves this vacation, public interest in the property will go to the following abutting properties: Lots I through 28, Block 2, King's Addition to Saint Paul in Section 17, Township 29, Range 22, Ramsey County, Minnesota 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. 2, The city and the adjacent property owners have no plans to put pavement or utilities in this location, 3, The adjacent properties have access to public streels and utilities. Seconded by Councilmember Koppen Ayes - all 11-1-99 3 35 Attachment 15 PLANNING CIVIL ENGINEERING PROJECT MANAGEMENT LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE December 12, 2005 Planning Commission and City Council c/o Ken Roberts, Planner City of Maplewood 1830 East County Road B Maplewood, MN 55109 Re: C. Kings Addition Maplewood, MN 55117 PDA Comm, No, 05060 Mr. Roberts: Thanks for forwarding the correspondence that you received from the neighbor to the east of the proposed subdivision, Mr. James Harrison. We have met with Mr, Harrison several times while completing site inspections and while meeting with neighbors to gather signatures for the public right- of-way vacation requests, In addition. during on of our meetings with Mr, Harrison, he also discussed the potential for the subdivision of his property to take advantage of the construction of Jessie Street. He also stated that he would be open to relocating his garage to create that opportunity to subdivide his property, Respecting his comments, the results of that discussion and a sketch of the potential subdivision of his property along with a proposed relocation of his garage (based on aerial topography of his property and City of Maplewood R-1 Single Family Residential Zoning District standards) was previously provided to City staff, In addition, the proposed subdivision design of the C, Kings Addition was modified, as directed by City Staff, and resubmitted to the City of Maplewood to accommodate this potential for Mr, Harrison, We would also like to respond to Mr, Harrison's comments to help the Planning Commission and City Council have a complete picture of all ofthe facts, Mr. Harrison stated in his first paragraph: '1 do not agree with the proposed plans, Four homes in the designated area does not fit the layout of our neighborhood, One home yes, but not four, When I owned this property, Council made it very clear to me why no more than one dwelling could be built on said property, "Council needs to be refreshed on their past guidelines I will be happy to go back over the guidelines set by Council for me." In response to these comments it is important to remember that the surrounding property to the north, east and west is all R-1, Single Family Residential Zoning District, The proposed subdivision uses the existing Jessie street right-of-way, adds additional right-of-way to allow for the creation of the proposed cul-de-sac, and conforms to all of the R-1 Single Family Residential Zoning District dimensional standards. As a result, the proposed subdivision fits in 7300 HUDSON BLVD. SUITE 220 OAKDALE, MINNESOTA 55126 PHONE (651) 739-6131 FAX (651) 739-0046 36 Page 2 December 12, 2005 City of Maplewood Planning Commission and City Council clo Ken Roberts, Planner Re: C, Kings Addijion Maplewood, MN 55117 PDA Comm, No, 05060 perfectly with the existing neighborhood, In addijion, there are no variances proposed for this subdivision. The matter that Mr. Harrison is referring to is his previous request to use the existing City street right-of-way to construct a private driveway for his property. Mr. Roberts was the planner for that case and will probably include the old staff report in this packet that is provided to the Planning Commission and City Council regarding this matter. From our observations, the City made no restriction on the future potential to construct Jessie Street within the existing right-of- way or to subdivide the adjacent property (which is the proposed subdivision) into single family lots, In his second paragraph, Mr, Harrison stated: "Next would be the removal of so many trees, which are priceless to me, If the builder is concerned with historical value why take trees that are not replaceable?" 'Can a vacation of an alley (west side) be revoked by Council?" Mr. Harrison's comment on the removal of the existing trees is true. Whenever vacant property is developed, most neighbors consider that the land and any trees on it as part of the enjoyment of their own property, which ~ was, The way that the City of Maplewood has chosen to make developers responsible for this type of s~uation is to require the developer to do a tree inventory and replace some of the trees that are removed at a predetermined rate. The developer has completed such an inventory and is also proposing to plant 13 trees, as required by City of Maplewood Tree Ordinance, in locations to be determined by the adjacent property owners to help to m~igate their concerns on views into this proposed development. It is also important to note that there are also 8 diseased or damaged trees that must be removed from a public health, safety and welfare perspective. Mr, Harrison also questioned if the alley to the west of the proposed subdivision could be [revoked) vacated. Since none of the neighbors to the west of the proposed subdivision are using the alley right of way for access to their property and due to several encroachments into the alley be neighboring accessory structures, ~ is in the general public interest to vacate that alley for all of the property owners adjacent to the alley, In his third paragraph, Mr. Harrison stated: In the case of an easement like Jessie, can the city award the builder all of easement rather than sharing it with adjacent land owner solely for monetary gain on the builder's part?" The developer has approached the proposed subdivision and the vacation of public right-of- way in a very fair and sens~ive manner. As noted on the preliminary plat, there are two proposed outlols adjacent to the Jessie Street right-of-way, Outlot A is approximately six feet wide and 1,008 square feet and is located on the west side ofthe Jessie Street right-of-way, Since the neighbor to the west (Scott D" Gohr) whose property fronts on Ripley Avenue has a side yard adjacent to the existing right-of way w~h an existing fence that encroaches into the 7300 HUDSON BLVD. SUITE 220 OAKDALE, MINNESOTA 55128 PHONE (651) 739-8131 FAX (651) 739-0046 www.promrradesign.com 37 Page 3 December 12, 2005 City of Maplewood Planning Commission and City Council c/o Ken Roberts, Planner Re: C. Kings Add~ion Maplewood, MN 55117 PDA Comm. No, 05060 right of way, ~ would make sense to give the excess right-of-way to him since he is using a portion of it. It is our understanding from City staff that the neighbor to the east of the Jessie Street right of way whose property fronts on Ripley Avenue (James A. Boche) may have planted some trees within the eastern portion of the public right-of-way, It might make sense to shift the proposed street slightly to the west within this portion of the right-of-way to possibly save some ofthe trees that he may have erroneously planted on public land. As for Mr. Harrison's property, the developer is generously proposing to construct (entirely at his expense) the full length of the Jessie Street road and utility project that will allow for the subdivision of both the developer's land and Mr. Harrison's property, In addition, the developer has kindly proposed to extend san~ary and water services to the potential lot that Mr, Harrison could create through the subdivision of his property thereby resulting in no street and utility cost to Mr, Harrison associated with the potential subdivision of his property (a $98,000 value if he was to pay his share). In addition, there is also another Outlot (B) that is triangular shaped and 544 square feet that the developer is creating through the vacation process with the City of Maplewood that will be given to Mr. Harrison to facilitate the potential subdivision of his property, It appears that Mr, Harrison is seeing a significant personal financial gain through the proposed subdivision that will also facilitate the proposed subdivision of his property (another personal financial gain for Mr, Harrison), The developer has approached this project in a very unselfish manner, Mr. Harrison also made a comment regarding his attempt at scaling dimensions from the drawing, In all drawings prepared by state licensed design professionals dimensioning takes precedent over scale, The property was surveyed by a Minnesota licensed Registered Land Surveyor who will also be doing the construction staking for the proposed street and utility improvements, Experienced contractors rely on the Registered Land Surveyor's staking for construction and do not scale the drawings to determine placement of any improvements, As an additional ~em to consider, Mr. Harrison has done a tremendous amount of work in cleaning up the multiple piles of items sitting randomly throughout his yard. However, if the Planning Commission and City Council choose to visit the site now and look at Mr, Harrison's property from the existing Jessie Street right-of-way, they would share the concem of the developer that Mr. Harrison will need to finish up the cleanup of his yard to confonn to the City of Maplewood's Nuisance Ordinance (Section 12-147 Exterior ProDertv Areas (a,) Sanitation, which reads as follows: "All exterior property areas of owner-occupied dwellings shall be maintained in a clean and sanitary condition, free from any accumulation of refuse or garbage. " Respecting Mr, Harrison's recent efforts, the developer hopes that the City of Maplewood's Enforcement Officer will give Mr, Harrison an opportunity to voluntarily finish the task that he has started, The developer also assumes that the City of Maplewood's Enforcement Officer will probably issue a Compliance Order if the cleanup does not occur within a reasonable time frame, The developer will work with the City of Maplewood regarding the proposed construction schedule of the subdivision and subsequent homes to make sure that there will be an adequate timeframe 7300 HUDSON BLVD. SUITE 220 OAKDALE, MINNESOTA 55128 PHONE (651) 73~131 FAX (651) 739-0846 www.proterradesign.com 38 Page 4 December 12, 2005 city of Maplewood Planning Commission and City Council c/o Ken Roberts, Planner Re: C. Kings Add~ion Maplewood, MN 55117 PDA Comm, No, 05060 established with Mr. Harrison to complete his cleanup so that there will be no impact on the future residents living in this new subdivision, We welcome any other questions or concems from any of the neighbors (and the City) to help them understand exactly what is being proposed, As Mr, Harrison noted, we also expect the City of Maplewood to look at the proposed subdivision drawings very closely before approving the proposed subdivision, The common goal of all parties involved is to make sure that everything is being done properly and correctly through the approval and construction process, We are looking forward to a spring construction start for this simple and straightforward subdivision. Sincerely, PROTERRA DESIGN ASSOCIATES, INC, ~41h9L- Alan A. Kretman, CEO Director, Planning & Landscape Architecture AKlmw cc: Mr, Vinh Le, Wisdom Development Group project file 7300 HUDSON BLVD. SUITE 220 OAKDALE, MINNESOTA 55128 PHONE (651) 739-8131 FAX (651) 739.{)846 www,proterradesign.oom 39 Attachment 16 VACATION RESOLUTION WHEREAS, Vinh Le, representing the property owner, applied for the vacation of the following: 1. The Jessie Street right-of-way, according to the plat of King's Addition to Saint Paul, Minnesota, lying between the south right-of-way line of Ripley Avenue and north of the DNR Gateway Trail described as follows. The west 6.00 feet of the right-of-way known as Jessie Street which lies south of the easterly extension of the north line of Lot 5, Block 2, and which lies north of the easterly extension of the south line of Lot 6, Block 2, all in KINGS ADDITION to the City of St. Paul according to the recorded plat thereof situate in Ramsey County, Minnesota, together with that part of said Jessie Street which lies southerly of the circumference of a circle having a radius of 50.00 feet. The center of said circle being described as follows: Commencing at the northwest comer of Lot 22, Block 1 said KINGS ADDITION to the City of St. Paul; thence South, assumed bearing, along the west line of said Block 1, a distance of 284,96 feet; thence West and at right angles to the west line of said Block 1, a distance of 50,00 feet to the center of said circle and there terminating, 2, The 2Q-foot-wide alley in Block 2, Kings Addition to Saint Paul, Minnesota, lying south of the south right-of-way line of Ripley Avenue and north of the DNR Gateway Trail. WHEREAS, the history of this vacation is as follows: 1, On December 19, 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 commission also considered reports and recommendations from the city staff, The planning commission recommended that the city council approve the above-described vacations. 2. On January 9, 2006, the city council reviewed this request. WHEREAS, after the city approves this vacation, the public interest in the property will go to the following properties: 1. Lots 1-4, Block 2, Kings Addition to St. Paul (PIN 17-29-22-34-0102), 2. Lots 5-12, Block 2, Kings Addition to St. Paul (PIN 17-29-22-34-0103) 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. 2, The city and the property owner have no plans to build a street or an alley in the right-of-ways, 3. The adjacent properties have adequate street access, 4. The developer will be dedicating a new right-of-way and new easements with the new plat. The Maplewood City Council adopted this resolution on ,2006. 40 MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: SUBJECT: DATE: City Manager Ken Roberts, Planner In-Fill Development Study Update December 9,2005 INTRODUCTION In 1997, city staff, the planning commission and the city council conducted a study of possible code changes for in-fill development sites, City staff had identified 28 in-fill sites in Maplewood that we felt were likely to be developed, The planning commission recently asked staff to look at in-fill sites and developments that have been constructed in Maplewood in the last few years as a possible training topic. Specifically, the commission noted that city ordinances may need to be updated or changed, The commission also asked if these new developments or changes had affected the neighborhood or any historical characteristics, City staff is now taking a fresh look at this issue and the sites that staff had identified in 1997 for development. BACKGROUND Through months of work in 1997, the planning commission and staff had prepared code changes for the city council to consider about lot dimensions, subdivisions, CUPs and PUDs for in-fill development sites, (See the in-fill study memo dated July 25, 1997,) The city council, however, did not adopt any of the suggested code changes, At the November 21, 2005, planning commission meeting, Commissioner Trippler commented on the latest in-fill study, He said that he wants the city to have a separate ordinance for in-fill properties or sites as he believes the current ordinances are not geared for such sites and are better suited for regulating the development of virgin land, He also wondered if the city should be developing new ordinances for this issue or if the city should change the existing ordinances, In addition, Mr, Trippler expressed concems about how in-fill developments could be changing the character of their respective neighborhoods, DISCUSSION Since 1997, 12 of the sites that staff had identified as being likely for development have developed or have been approved by the city council for development. In addition, a site that staff had not identified in 1997 as an in-fill site was recently developed into a new PUD for 14 townhouses (Olivia Gardens), (Please see the attached location and plat maps of the various development sites,) The developers of 12 sites have constructed single dwellings, townhouses or a mix of housing types (New Century) in the projects, Many of the developments met the zoning and land use designations that the city had in place at the time of their request. Other development sites needed council approval of land use plan changes, zoning changes and planned unit developments (PUDs), In the recommendation section I have updated the list of the sites and included some additional information about each project. Some points for the city to consider with in-fill developments and regulations include: 1, How should the city define "in-fill development?" What is in-fill development? 2. Should the city use site acreage as a criterion (by setting a minimum or maximum site size) for defining in-fill sites eligible for development? 3, Should there be different development standards for small sites versus large tracts? 4, Should the city encourage or require the use of PUD's for in-fill sites? Staff recently did an intemet search for information on in-fill development. I found many articles and reports about in-fill development and I have included several of them with this report (see Attachment 4) for your reference, These appear to me to provide a good starting point for reviewing the topic of in- fill development. They have information to help staff and the commission better define the subject, identifying barriers to in-fill development, the possible use of design standards for in-fill development and references and information about in-fill development from other agencies, On Wednesday, December 7, the two local newspapers ran articles about a 10-lot single family development in Roseville. (Please see the articles on Attachments 2 and 3), This proposal raised many concems with the neighbors in the area even though the proposal met all city standards. This development reminded me of some of the in-fill developments that Maplewood has reviewed in the last few years, RECOMMENDATIONS A. Review the 1997 in-fill development study report and the maps of the recent developments. The following is a list of the sites and the developments that have occurred since 1997, Development Site 8: Van Dyke Village . The site was zoned for BC and R3M and changed to R3H (medium to high density) . There are 20 units and 3,56 acres, which makes an average of 5,62 units/acre. Emma's Place . The westerly half of the site is zoned BC and the easterly half is zoned R3, A CUP (Conditional Use Permit) was granted for the westerly half of the site for medium density, .There are 13 units on 2.25 acres, which makes an average of 5.8 units/acre. DeveloDment Site 10: Toenjes Hill Estates . The site is consistent with density standards from the comprehensive plan, . There are 6 lots of single family housing on 2 acres, which makes an average of 3 units/acre, Development Site 12: The Woodlands . The site was zoned for R 1 and F and changed to R2, .There will be 28 units on 8,2 acres of land, which makes an average of 3,64 unitslacre, Development Site 14: Jensen Estates . The site is consistent with density standards from the comprehensive plan, . There are 8 units on 4 acres of land, which makes an average of 2 units/acre. 2 Development Site 15: Independent Estates . The site was zoned M2 and R1 and was changed to R2 in 1983, . There are 7 units on 3.26 acres, which make an average of 2.15 units/acre. Development Site 16: Beaver Lake Townhomes . The site is consistent with density standards from the comprehensive plan, but the site was required to be a PUD (Planned Unit Development) because there will be buildings with more than 4 units in a shore land district. . There are 148 units on 27 acres, which makes an average of 5.4 units/acre, Olivia Gardens . The site was zoned R1 and changed to R2, The site required a CUP (Conditional Use Permit) for a PUD, . There are 14 units on 2,79 acres, which makes an average of 5,02 units/acre. Development Site 17: Cahanes Estates . The site is consistent with density standards from the comprehensive plan, .There are 10 units on 3.39 acres, which makes an average of 2.95 units/acre. Development Site 19: Hillside Estates . The site was zoned F and changed to R1, . There are 3 units on 1.6 acres, which makes an average of 1,88 units/acre, Development Site 21 : Woodhill Site . The site was zoned F and changed to R1, .There are 15 units on 12,44 acres, which makes an average of 1,21 units/acre, Development Site 22 New Century . The site was zoned R1, OS, and F and changed to R1, RH and OS, . There are 178 units on 55 acres, which is an average of 3.24 units/acre. Development Site 28: Haller's Woods . The site was zoned F and changed to RE 40, . There are 21 units on 38.4 acres, which makes an average of 1.83 units/acre. B. Prepare a list of questions or concerns about in-fill development for staff to review and prepare responses to, p:miscfln-fill study (3) - 2005 Attachments: 1, 2005 Site Maps 2, December 7, 2005 Star Tribune article 3. December 7, 2005 Pioneer Press article 4, December 7, 2005 internet articles and reports 3 COUNTY ROAD D --- iIilIJIlIll BEAM AVENUE ., ll' ~ :i! "II 'II !Ill ., Attachment 1 :\ Oli . i i!i ; ., I, I' Ii 'I II " " li ii " ii " ',I ,\ " " ., / i I 1 I , " " , , ,. , I I " I ! " i .. -. J ---------~~----~..::..~- ~ -A.~~"@ SITE 2 \r N " ----- ---------------------------- COPE AVENUE --~--,_. "--~-=-'- .~,::.;. ~- ". --.~. ~ ,. ',~ // .. l ..,. ,... II ..,. -= ''''''. .., ., 'I \ I , , ,/ } , i / 2220 III VAN DYKE VILLAGE II 'I, 1 , i , ! I , , , I , , , I , , , I , I , \ I , I I , I I I I i , I , , , ! , II- ,w ,w "I!: IUl 'w f~ I>, lei Iz! Ie: :>1 , !Ii 2242 II I .I 2241 .. I 2225 I w 2210 II ::l z W ~ 2200.' I- ~ ~ '" "" "" .0- ~ m' 2215 I 210 - I 2194 ~ ~ 21. i .2 Ii . I , ~ 2179 , . ~ .. ! -'72 i ii ~ '" '" '" (Il .1 q pi a> . (Il ~~ I III - __, 1. / --- -- .--- --- -- --- -- --- -- --- --' - --- -- --- . I " iii ~ ~ , i I i , , I , \ , , I I " EMMAS PLAC. 2163-- II ~~ (Il 11II ;; II M~ . ..... COUNTY ROAD B ,- , , , ! 21411 OJ OJ (Il ~I SITES 'fr N : . i '.' . , I I '-_______~______, ,.______________j \.~______~_=... I (,~_~_~~_~_.:::~~~~~_~_____'___~_____~_~_~_::_ . I / .~----------J> ./ -' ...----------,.\ i i 1997 2001 . i i , , ! jtij IW \lli: I~ 197.- ,Ul I> '::IE I 'w 1967 IZ W I::IE ItJ a .. ,::IE 1961 I 1955 I i!ii .. . 19 . 1959 I#~ . I I ,---------.--/ r-----------------------., l I Q 11 I I Si.i. I : Ii .... Jf!" i I ... ~ i I ill II I I , ' II; , , " :: ) __ ___ ___,.J , , , I , , , , i '--------------- 111 L iii .11I . /.-- --- --- -- --- --.... ! Q I Id .. i .. 20111 . ... 16F .11 1105' . i!l 1aj! 19!!1 ."~Jl 1.' ~<<-t"rJ <<-t"rJ""" ~v t"rJ~ ~~ , ,,0<<; 966 '& ~ ., ~ ~i! .... 89411 SITE 10 r--'----~-- , /-- -- ---- .- , c 1 , '" 1 I , '" 1 15 , ~ I I 127 , ; l!i 1 I 2d'~ , I III I I ,.., 1 , " .19 I I I, , g 1 I , \ J I I 1 I jj , , I i ~ 1 ~ 1 ! ~ -' ROSELA,~_ AVENUE - --- -- --- -- - -- --~- -- --- -- ----- ~ ~ s "!'J Iii iill I .. i!i CHURCH . \r N I I I I I I I I r-.r I 1 I I I I I ~ I ~I ,. c' I dl ~I ~ I (; I Ql C) I 21 fl' I ~ I ". I I I I , I "NIS1~L-..~_ I~ ...., 1dIM(Sl' ~ I"J'" " . r "Ii Sl~ 17.' II'.,. ~.1,,,,, :;. ..1 ..<:... .?r i" I -" A, .~' ,f)'f" (;,' _ ~ I----~~.___r- r I I I~~~~'':. \ rA.~(" ~ J ~==.. C ,. F I ./'< \it{~\ i~('..J t -............... !If r'" r '1J' \t ,.;V (I:OffCt lM" 1PMJH" ~.- jl I Ir .:-ir"....:~.... .. ~o;.:'_.. .. .... .. J _l.. _~~ ~Y_~.. _ _ .... ..') .. -I........... _ .... .. .... .... _.... _.. ...... _.. :,..;.; /./ I f .. IMDD'IU'IIDC,.. ----;..... $'P. 1...(' IN........... 'oi(,:." _.. l' '_ I --. i ..... ..-/ ... ,~... . . ..". ..... .I' . I I ; r-- -------" --- r-:......._-:..-~Y',-~ ....~-.... ,t ~ 1'C'~""',,\;l" ~:=.-~; f I J..P J~i"'",-'" _oJ """rnlw'l)i 0.__________,_, _.__.__~ ~~---- '-ii~~ . ~......r."/, 1......, \ ,""_ iiJ~ ...~- I <jV'-/ I .... \ I ", .J / 1111......-. l-~ I .30 (,' I I ~ 1 / / :: f...J..___~(.....:5_ ----I " 1 ~jl>';vl ' P I I 1""-'" ~9 lV' r BLOCK 1 /(,.J :3 :. , I , , I , , , " -_-,___4\ ~- l'J LI...J iJ:: ~- [,-l , ,~ ~- .'" l,j -~ C. L.J ~- .'" .- \.) ~- .~ II . ; . s I L. :.-:::-==::._ ~- 28 .. -----=., ( , , , , , , , , , , I. .- . li i .~ ~ t ~ i ( ) ~-. ~, . 5 4, 5 , I , , , I :( :\ ." ' : I, --r--J \ -- , '-, , f I 23 I !-..--- 8 ......",. .. I , MA.[;a.e:F'~".."$! .'~~:-;; 5,'C~ !3 I !I............'........",....... --f ~~~~~~-' .... i i ! i S7. ; .ll'AMStI' 0lIlIN7'I0 ~$'l' /IftJN ~r , ;Ir,,",,'/4~ '. src.'7."1 ~~ ~. PROPOSED FINAL PLAT TOENJES HILLS ESTATES Attachment 3 \ \ -l-~r--- \ ' ~ \ I,. , 11"'""" ,.... \ :,.., .,.~,~v&:. .-,-,------.-......- ..J ( , , ~L It ......,1 ;1-"1' I~I: ;~. : ,-A' 'r ~'"l: ...) l.....: , r..:.l, t;;!: --- t-...i .. _ _ I , ...,. .- III :;: II $~ .. " " l,j ~ ., '- (~ ~J .. i ) '" () C) ~... CO ., \ .\ .' , , - \. -..... o N :~ ....."- .., "- "- "- "- "- / '7 I \ !~ I I(i -_ \~: .,- ;--[ '!""\" ..'0......., '~ " \ i' ..; - --, " \i' :;: ,~ ' J !\~--t< ,\ \ ',........ -, 1 ,_~~_~~_'tJs.y__ __~, - - = - --"".,.,-,... ~'&~ ~-_.:~: ~..,.,eP..5'5':::.~ ------, LK~ N" 'NOuva CJYO~ :llOO1H3l\O LZLZ~ 'ONI 'S3WOH VH~3.lN1 - ow .1 i ;a!: d, It I': 11'!1l II · iil !j I!! !I M ~ i !~ i .~ . .. 'i ~r I I I I, !) ',I I I I 1\, P . r ' , , III I' 'I 'I 'I / r '. I I I I 'II n j I I I I iii . , , I II; Ii !j i i !I 11'1 I '1'1.1 "I I" 'I iir l~ i: h ir ;: IllJI I~' 11 !! ~~j i~1I i~~ Ij!J iij iil ,', I' I' l! 2' I' Ii! Ii I; ~ !! ~I I~I ,~ ~l iI .1 · ill j. I, l' I' II 11 Ii " I I IJ_ 'I II J J I" I' 'I, J 'I 'I .. 'I J.. " J J J 2: i' ! I II II Ii I I I I ~ '1 'S J J J '/\ 'I, 'I, .. .. 'I '1__,,\ ].. J.. ] J J J \\ II iJ ; : = ~ \ \ II II I I I I !' .II IJ , , " ) ) " I . ______- / / J :)':F=;!--.:;~1" .~ I /, ~ i , , ~----7 .---,; :::'::,-;/ ,/ /"~....ji; .., ! W!!!L-.o , , I , --- SITE 12 1 'f1d A~\'NIAI13t1d 'II Ii 1,1 - .-- OOOM31dVn .:iO SQNV1QOOM 3H1 .......... llWI Jl! ........11 jI!!l1 .11 If I~! ~~I \ ,-- \ \...- /" .j '" /" / I r !!l I ~ I 11-- ~ I '" " I ,. \ \ "- ...... T5H~a~ ~ . / '11 1\: , \ >- c, / "- 88 / ........ S~ / / : "i.! / I , ii, /: / I ,... "' I I ~v; ) / ! .....L_\_ [;-';-1- I ( I 1 {J I I ~ I I ;' J. I -- ---- -.-..1.:.' -~------ -- --------- ------------- __________ _________.____.___-----~_ ~~~~!~~~~~~UE - -- --------- ------- - .- -- - -- --- --- \ j ~----------------- i i ~ " 1!l!!E I i iIliii! @ " 165_ ,') 14 .....Il r'i - ,. // &48 , , I I, , , , I , I !. I I jl) , ! , ' , ' 11': ! "630 1'1, /)sI. · " I 1643 1637 .... .1 a. 1600 9 " III" --- --~--------- .642 .636 1616 .I 15lID JENSEN ESTATES 15tKl . 1Ii.i ----- --- --- ~_____________________________._ I I , i , , I ! ,. ~.~ SITE 14 ... f;J N [I II~ N . II .1 II 1641 .. .. .1. . '" I I 1579 1615 1605 ~. . III "I ~ 1567 111~ I , I \ , , , 1 I 1 , i I I I , , , ; , , : , I i , I I I I , I \ , , , , , ( , I I , I , , I \ , , , I 1644 ... 1640 . .1616 i 1. , , , , , ! i , , , , , , , , ! I , , i i , , , , 1 I " I , , i I I , , 1. II II . 1592 I" '" _. . 1:t l' , il I j8~ _l iiII-i ,. 1. 1671' 18 & "7 1J1 16011 . 1593.1 '1581 Hill 15& 156 11 -'>, t I I I I , " " :1 I , I : II , I I 1. 11 j 1, Ii ~ i . id I ! " I Ii 155 'fr N I I I I I I I I I I . I 1 ,;:: , c: c, I :z: a I :; " I ~ I -"!I ~~ I'" I I I - ili I ~ I I I I I I I Attachment 2 I ~i ~~ I PONe.s ,...., 0 I.. j: J I ..I'W ....:.::.Il:: 'N 1,1 U1 I__________________L_~_____~ r--- I I I I I I I I I vi't! .... . I ~ r' ~ ~~ lD( ~~ I I I 1- 1 6 >, I I~ 3 bl I~ I. (',:,. ~I Il!:l ~ ~ ~ r- J ~ N8~Dl'lJ"E '~'t... zl I i ~~',- - ,,;:;, 'l>, p. "t <"oJ I ~.). S '- :'\ r....'!.o I , I ~ \ "" .._~ 16 "c:> : L~"'.~_. ,.....,.... 000&0. ..(2._"- 2 .l'>>-~.,\_._2- . I \/~ L N89"01',3"[ --S!!..!,4'M'I.. J.. r 191.18 - 1'46:'30 ___ 0 I I:. I A I~ " \ ~ I 4 .......'2,..... , 111\ L_1D1.3Z .,..... '- I L C.v.'of::~; w;.:.:ms AH!; .. 7 e: <>: ~ '" ~ I.. ~ ~ \:j ~ ;:.: ;<. ;; "' ~ ~ .. ,., 193.\3 2''-''0 " HiLi.C~EST I / / I / / ,/ ,/ -- HEiGHTS I I I I I I I I I I ,/ L______________-- / I / Ii H(rn .,1..I:"=.HlJE r--------------- ~. Cll\d UliUI1E~ta..." -.... II = ~--l _ ~ r-s;::: -__L_...I ,-_J___ ...-5ITE If'T'' !! ~ : ... '/' : Nt 1/. is ~ ~ ~..+. ~ N ~~: SWT/4 : :st" I/~ >- I ~E . ~ .o..ot.. 1011nC11 ,,"",",,",_I 1/2 ~ __ frat pipe. PROPOSED FINAL PLAT JENSEN ESTATES {1 N f5-z2-o5 3 .. ~. II r... 2365 .'\; \\;.-=~=~~t~ -; (r;j.:~::~\ ..J!j!Ii/#IIlI '"-_________________ ;; \ r\.l.-rr-fr\~; dl272 e,! to, "' ., "'"'" \ "' .. I ----~-------------. ~ i ------------------- ~ ...-! ili, \. \, l \ t ~:i i.t;~!l"}l~ ~!, c\-rf..---rj ~ ~~VER LAKE ESTATE~ " ~\\ l \ \\ \ , .., \\:--(:=--=-~~-=.~~~= '~~~-~i ';~"\\" 1-1- \.1 'Q\:\:~ I f; 'to.,;\ \. s '~~~;=ii==== v,. ~ I fi ~ ~ '" ~ '" N '" N '" '" '" N '\1 -----------~-~- .-----------~ --- --- -------~ -------- - MARYLAND AVENUE --- -- --_.....- .--- -~ --- -~- -- ......-- --- --- .--- -- .....-- -- - -- --- -- --- -- --, ~---------------- .~ SITE 15 \r N ~':) "!!II .. B \ \ ., , , , I W~I C!:' a::i Q' Qi 0': ~Oi ,I , ::,::-.l 1:5 i , , i i , I , , , , , , -," ,. '. , :... ! ..------.... " !III : '.'.' '!'" : ! , , . I. I -- ----_-~=--.-~~~========: ~~~.Y!i~pAVE-NUE--:::~-------:.~---==---- -~-- -Y .,---- ----- -------.-- ~', , I " ROSEWOOD ESTA~ .. J gS;-~+- 9-" 'b~$ 1 ~E 'to..,..~",OtllES 6~-JE~ 13 1131 1115 1083 .. 1. 1 iii . - , I 1068 , ----------- I 1O"li .~1r1IIlI' , I . 107ll , I!I! , r , ...11 qa- , , i . 9r , , 11060 iii ~57 .1 I 1 , I , ! 104 , i ... , . 105~ , , 1056 iIi. , , ~04p , , fil 1 050 , , I I ... , , 1043 - " iIlIi;:4 141 liii n ... - SITE 16 , I I , , I I , I I I I I I , , , , , ! , ,I-, '"W' WI I!: I Ill, C!l' '" :zl, :: ::J ',,---------- It: ____ W (' -----.. 1-1 N 0 en I :! ....,. , ,~ l!lI ~ I Ii , ' 11 I ' , ! I ' , ' .I ' N ;;; '" '" ~' ~ II I ......., , , , i I " , , " , , ! I , , 'tr N 2310 II 1\ II II . 'I ~I! C\l III (V) II 2308 II "" 0 "" CD - ~ (V) N N I.{) (V) N .. '" CHURCH ~ ~ :z: Cl Z lIl:: U :IE "" o <<l ~ BO. fj iii -830 .. 11812 . J 798 ... -'6 I 790 . IS 1t-1IIlf6' 784 , ! , I ) ; , , , , i , I ! 768 , i I , I , J , j II B II .. 758 756 -._--~----~ -- -----..-..- --------~ ,( r I A...A \'\ ~ rnco OLIVIA GARDENS 2.11 .. 2322 I . III tl 2314 1f N 2334 . . rl6- , - / 1 1622 . . . 1 , 8191 , , , II ; 81 , 1 81. , i , , !!l , 6~ 1 80'. 6. , , , , Il' , .. , , 809" , I II , , 1793 , .. 1 79B , , ill ! 71 i II , , 2403 , , i -----------~--~-~- II -------------~ , , ! <""liil N N t- <""l N 1 , I , , " , ; , , , . 765 III I , _4 IE - la:, '" 111471:' iw ;>1 iwi 139 :::1: , , , , " , , " i I , , , , ; , , 1 , , , , , i ~. N !II ~ II 7-, I llIlII 743 .~ II , I , , I , : ! 1 UJ' ,2 ::5 '> '::I '-, 'UJ ]~ 'ct '- " - I i , , , , , , 750 CAHANES ESTATES 740 Jll II 135 , -" ~ . <""l <""l N N --~------_......--- ..I 71. I 744i!!1 71. 4.1 - -- --- --- ----.------------ \! N MINNEHAHA AVENUE -------------------------- ---------------------------- 3M PROPERTY SITE 17 11 ] ~ 641 65" 661 '- .. ~J711 681 tit g ""'" .. '" <D '" '" , . ~~-- -~----- ", , , , , , ! : i i , , I, II , I \ i, It- 'll \....,., 67: } "x.. , " , j..ll fJ82 .. ~--~- 1652 ,. 11I62 ~ '" ~ i 2457 J... ...---~--,. if ~ o .. . ., l/"l Iii ~ i I " LINWOOD AVENUE .I.. o co .... ., 2480 1m l/"l l/"l .... N --- -- --- - ~-- ---- ----- " ---- -- ~-- -~- ---- ------- --......- ~., N , " " \ _no SITE 19 'fr N e ., 2.480 - I!iiIIII ill!! ... '" l(l ~ '" ~ IlflII!' 'W WooDHlll SITE 2516 iiIIrro 7. ~ t:i l!l! ~ 800 Ul Cl .. z ~ ""1110 I&l Iii ItIlll11 j r , & . 19l12.6 t834 11M2 PARK AND OPEN SPACE ".w !i7 '.... ~~ ~., ._____~ N ~ i ) ~~;.c(~L;-t: . llSO -'l1l! li!!i 85ll .~ ~r SITE 21 t! N WOODHILL POt1:mIAM!EYOJI."NI'Y.ClllTlltmfMOHlt'MDo.'T Br."rt t\~ FIRS":' ~r.lCr~ _ __,_._ _,_.__,_,_.__._._,_._,--,.I"'-'-'-'-'-'-'-~lO;E-'IZ4Jii'-'-'-'--,-,-,---,--,-_._'-'-_._._'-'- - --,-- -'-'"1- . ;II nmlo'01lIHLMQllnm::rM1I"0FiBIlNBll4OPK.lJ.T.2!,I.22 ~ . U:.::,'C~ "'loo't:'~E [.l.S!' ---------- -..- .-..-..-. LL'tWOOD...\IEMUE ...... . N'AI COUCD. OI'"nlJINlf.l OPnII W1I.I 0JIl9E NW U'CI- 1BI}G]J4 OF S!CfIOH 11, TOWNIBIP 21. J,ANaI Zl . - ,.-... R . .. . i.. R~ e!: 9:1 z J! ;11 1'1 ; 'I II 1 -" - i I' .~ ~; I~ ,- IV. .- .i .. i; I~ \ ",l~" I" C. I . R At- ~~ ~ T e. .. - , $;<. - - 1;- .. ;bl ' ~~ f I!I! ~ ,,'l! ii! -~ ee ~! e' !~ i~ ~i , -- -' ~i~ -- =-..-. . . i ./ 1/ , i -'-'- - - "'.-.-.-.,. .......... .....,. oun.ar . ....,. =:"~~a , ,....., At.-._---,..,...I'I"'- /"r '- _ _ V I ...... '\ I r1 C. r-'--- -~ '\ ^r- .... -r-r, t.,_ /.' \....11- '..~c..'-",..,I I..; ....-. ." a:: l>l ~~ ;( " .. I I , ", 1'l8I'34t.f7'"E m.61 IOUTIILDGCP1'JEI!NIi2atTIIIIWlllar1Bl nv-cr1HBNEUlOISllC.IJ. T..2I.IlZl -- tdU/1 1'4"'" I ---- =0b..."'l"i'- -'-I, _'L t:'.L VICINITY MAP ..--.-... ------ __....__i1 11I-...-......-- -.".,..---- --- r----- , . -1! : : :: : ! r-..I..-t----1 i NW 1/. ! HE It.. ! , I" r--------+---~--~ : SEC,P3 ! , , ' , , ' , , ' ] SW \(4 ! SE 1/-4 : , . . , , ' , , ' ~.____.__....____________J -......---- ___.______Iln ...........~- o .---=-':r,:.:::.-==- -- ..--...----- ..------ - . -.---..... ,..~....__....,... =~:-::=:_..._A . .. .. ~~..:=~ PROPOSED FINAL PLAT ... -- /" o N ~ j \--. I "'~:::'i'.- __-~:_~~-~:_-:_-_-~_~:-~~_,~ =====~====== ~~ LINWOOD AVENUE =======~~===.=======================:', i !Ii 1"21 , : , , I , ! , , , \ ~ ~ ,jw ill ~ ~ I( 11" ~ ~ :<, . . !If! g ~i >~ ~ ~ ~ ; ~ , 751 ~ 1 II . Ii!!~ iil - ~ ~ :G . ~" ~ :G 743 " tp' ~ ~ ~ .. -, , i , 001 , PARK AND OPEN SPACE " , , . II. , I I .". I W , I :::l I Z 001 , ~ I , I I ~ I " :::l , ... l84.11 i z , w , , (,) - ;'851 , , , , .' I ~ \ \ III , :::l '. , CO 1; II , Q ~ I a7; I 0 I 1; t , ~ , I , , I i I ~ , 1lI_ _ '" ~ III .. l;j " "!'Pip i ",. 4 ! , I ~ .,1 ,. ." :G j . ., ji" , i. , ~ ~ , :G ~ ! -:;;:";I'; .'--------~~---- ,,-----------~, , .-'1 " , " SITE 22 1I N ,",,' il;,', i Ii 'i, .. .. ~ ~ .~~ ..-:;. 1036 ,e"" iili II .. I III .. ... p -\,."" _~4 :i;. ~ tit - . ~-I , i'i , II !I I( " -,"I '__~\ t.Q8& - -~ '-',. , III ~ . , , 1 , 1 1 , i '" , I " I " , , ',I 1\ , I I, 1\ " li:i iii! Iii Cl z ~ ~ I , I i 1 , , , , , , , i , \ , , , , I, , , , , ! , , , , , I I , I , , , I \ , 'I " I j i/ ! , , , f 2514 I I ~, //-..:.-.. ~ ~ ~ II , , , , 2Oe4 / /fi: , W f ll!. :) z ~ <( III , / ~~... ... ... '?*" f f ,,'/\~" ,./~:;::: .-'/ Ii: (.. //::':_~ .L'-"_~~::">'" ' ./ ;,"'-" 4---" lrJli!: ::':-:;~-::':::'-'-:Z:~:-':;:::':-.. ~ . 'I~ :,.' / NEWPORT . , ,:.. - , , , , " , , , / ( ,----~ " f, SITE 28 \I N WEDNESDAY Attachment 2 unen NEWS FROM THE NORTHERN TWIN CITIES SUBURBS S T A (2-7-0':) Tough decisions on development · A Roseville proposal to add more homes onto a developed property sparks a debate many first ring-suburbs face.when space is tight. By SARAH Mc~ city should deal with issues such 'as smccann@.tartribune,com dividing property illustrate the strug- gle many fust-ring suburbs face, They don't have much land left to de- velop, so creating new housing op- tions means filling in open space or subdividing lots, changes that are of- ten controversial because of environ- RoseviIIe continues: other inner-ring mental or aesthetic concerns. suburbs face similar problems, N14 . The Roseville City Council ap- proved a preliminary propos3I Monday to replace three homes on 4 acres with 10 homes. But the debate on housing issues will continue. Conflicting opinions on how the Tough decisions on development .. ROSEVILLE FROM HI The request complied with city code, according to city Thomas Paschke, and the plan- ning commission recommended the City Council approve it. It was approved 4-1 with Council Member Amy Ihlan voting against it. At the Oct. 24 council meet- ing, council members lhIan, Thm Kough and Dean Maschka asked staff to gather infonnatlon on a moratorium that would put sim- ilar proposals on hold while the city studied property ordinances and policies. Ihlan said some ordinances haven't changed since 1956, and she cited concerns about losing natural and open space. "What worked 50 years ago when this was basically open land doesn't make sense when we're fully developed," she said. At a later council meeting, Ihlan was the only one pushing for a moratorium on dividing lots, SO the council ended ac- tion on the issue. Mayor Craig Klausing said, leI'think a moratoriwn was an overly broad and burdensome way to take a look at this issue." Paschke said many updates have been made to the code since 1956. About 60 residents signed a petition supporting a moratori- um and submitted it to the city last month. What shDuIcl be allowed? Michelle Flickinger's prop- erty borders the Shryer-Parker division. She said the planning commission recommended the proposal because it meets code, but she wanted the coun- cil to consider the effect of such a change on runoff, wildlife and the environment. Others like the proposal and opposed a moratorium. Real estate agent Sandy West, who lives in Roseville, says people need more hous- ing options. "I've got people all the time who say, 'I want to stay in, Roseville but 1 need a larger house,''' she said. "They have to end up going someplace else Some Roseville residents and offi- cials suggested a temporary moratori- um on proposals to divide larger lots so that the city could study the issue. The Roseville proposal, for an ar- ea in the Shryer-Parker Avenue neigh- borhood, subdivides three lots along Parker and replaces the homes with a cul-de-sac leading to 10 new homes. . RAMIN RAHIMlAN . StarTribune Griffin Norris, 6, ofRoseville and his family live on Sluyer Avenue, near where three homes could be replaced by 10, because there isn't enough step"" up housing." Ron Anderson, developer for the subdivision proposal, said people have the right to change their property as allowed under city code, Some council members and staff say they plan to study housing issues next year. people were squeezing duplex- es onto parcels too,often. Next week the council will consider a recommendation requiring big- ger properties for duplexes. Fridley is set to vote next week on a controversial subdi- 'vision proposal for a high-rise senior condominium. 'The ones we do get are usu- ally controversial," city manag- er Bill Burns said. "I think even- tually as cities mature, they will face similar issues. As Coon Rapids and Blaine become more fully developed, eventu- ally this will be their issue too." others face similar Issues Meanwhile, the debate on housing will probably spread. Columbia Heights is at the end of a moratorium on con- struction of duplexes, city man- ager Walt Fehst said, Some resi- dents and officials worried that Sarah McCann. 612-673-7512 68 ADC WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 7, 200S Attachment 3 ROSEVlllE r ,2-7-0'J +10-home project gets initial approval Neighborhood divided over development '. :. .: ':.. := Despite pleas from several disgruntled neighbors, RosevIlle gave preliminary approval Mon- :.: day night to converting three residential lots into a Ill-lot sin, gle-family housing development on the city's south side. Bnilder Ron Anderson bonght three lots in the 900 block of Parker Avenue in July, BY STEVE SCOTT Pioneer Press and his proposed Birch Park project would subdivide the roughly four acres and bnild 10 homes around a new cul,de,sac. Several neighbors along Parker and Shryer avenues objected, citing the project's higher housing density, increased traffic and water drainage concerns, About 60 signed a petition asking for a moratorium on residential sub- divisions while Roseville reviewed housing ordinances, 'The City Council considered a moratorium in October but dismissed it last month, and the council voted 4-1 Monday to approve a preliminary plat for the project. "'This is a very difficult one for me," said Council Member Dean Maschka, who voted with the majority and said Ander- son's project meets city regula- tions. "I'm not comfortable with the density level .., but as the rules relate, Mr. Anderson has a confonning use." Several neighbors vented frustrations to the council Mon- day, "When the majority of the neighborhood says no, when is that heard?" resident Pam Anderson said. ~IWhen does it stop a developer from moving into a neighborhood? ,.. When do we have a say when it's going to affect our neighborhood?" Nearly two dozen neighbors signed a letter supporting the project, saying it would be preferable to the construction of multiunit dwellings. Realty Times - Real Estate News and Advice --- REALTYTIMEs"' Attachment 4 Page 1 of3 Real Estate News and Advice December 7, 2005 Search Realty Times GO Agent Locator Contact Us Subscribe Newsletter Advertise Preferred Vendors Support Login 1,r~1 News & Advice> Trends In-fill Development Will Increase Predicts ULI by Lew Sichelman "Infill" development in which home builders fill in small parcels that have been passed over in previous years will be the favored strategy among housing professionals in the coming year, according to the Urban Land Institute. In its annual "Mid-Year Outlook," the ULI places infill housing at the top of the list as the construction sector offering the best development prospects. The Washington-based non-profit education and research group rates infill housing a better bet than seniors housing, office construction, high. income multi-family rentals, resorts, even golf course communities. And many of the 228 ULI members who provided their insights for the forecast agree. "The days of 'commodity development' more of the same old thing are long past," said G. Ronald Witten of M/PF Research in Dallas. "Development opportunities will be focused on new, freash product concepts, such as infill redevelopment." James Todd of the Peterson Cos., a Northern Virginia developer, said problems with traffic congestion are forcing his firm to "favor" close-in and infill projects. "As transportation and sprawl- related issues get more challenging," agreed William D'Elia of EDAW in San Francisco, "infill and mixed-use development will increase." Even apartment specialists are searching for parcels already served by roads, sewer and other important components of the infrastructure. They're not easy to find, but they're worth searching for, said Ed Geraghty of Equity Residential Properties Trust in Atlanta. "The best multi-family investment/development opportunities will be in harder-to-build infill locations.. .and in the downtowns of major cities," http://realtytimes.com/rtcpages/20000607 infilldev.htm Blanche Evans, Editor - "" ,.., \.' \ I ,J \ l' , Ne.A;o.doat ~.1j IIodootC. '~1" IIf! a-....... Oio'r.I Weekends on Satellite Television Mortgage Rates 30 Year Fixed: 6.26% 15 Year Fixed: 5.81% 1 Year Adj: 5.16% Today's Headlines . HOAs Get High Marks . Online HOA Newsletters . The Personal Touch . Silicon Valley Takes Holiday Breather . "Cyber Monday" Changes Real Estate Equations . GaLTT: One Example of Giving the Gift of Land F In.,I' I In~ Il"",d<;. '"! 12/7/2005 Realty Times - Real Estate News and Advice Page 2 00 llA"i"RtT CONIlITIONS REPORTS Can I afford to move here? Geraghty said. J. Ronald Terwilliger of Trammel Crow Residential, a large, national apartment builder based in Atlanta, said he believes "traffic congestion and the continuing growth of mature, childless households will cause the growth in urban development to become a secular trend continuing over the next decade." With infill development leading the way, the ULI also expects the entire housing sector to thrive. Even with some slowing in sales resulting from higher mortgage rates, the forecast predicts prices will continue to rise "at a strong pace," albeit slightly below the levels seen over the previous 12 months. Published: June 7, 2000 @ E-.AIL THISI 0 PRINT THlSI IJ FEEDBACKI Related Articles: . Land Reuse Counters Sprawl Trend . Brownfield Development Becoming Lucrative Business . Taking It To the Streets: Urban Housing Growth on The Fast Track . Parking Issues Present Challenges To In-Fill Developers . Sprawl Arises From Population Demands, Not Builders . In-fill Urban Gems: The Resurrection of Chic City Living "The Washington Window" Lew Sichelman has been covering real estate from his home base in the Nation's Capital for more than 30 years, He writes a weekly consumer column that is distributed to newspapers throughout the country by United Media, He also is a regular contributor to numerous shelter magazines and housing and housing finance industry publications, Copyright @ 2000 Realty Times@. All Rights Reserved. http://realtytimes.com/rtcpages/20000607_infilldev .htm 12/7/2005 Sprawl Guide: Solutions (Infill Development) Page 1 of2 ... ..... ~ 11IIIII AIIIIIII .... .... Sp~wl Guide'~~~"-" ~ - .. Sprawl Guide Home Page rGQ\ Select from the dropdown menu ~ #- Back to Solutions: Concentrating Growth and Development Infill Development Infill Housing is a more efficient development pattern since it utilizes existing infrastructure. . The goals of the Intill Housinq Proqram of the Citv of Phoenix include encouraging development of vacant or underutilized land located in the mature central portions of Phoenix, as well as promoting a variety of housing styles, types and price ranges, appropriate to the surrounding neighborhoods. Also, emphasis is placed on owner-occupied housing to help fight blight and decay within the infill area and promote neighborhood stability through home ownership. . The City of Burnaby, British Columbia's, Infill Housing: Be a Good Neiqhbour provides contractors, builders and homeowners with information and ideas on what infill builders should do as "good neighbours", and what local residents should expect from an infill project. By following some of these practises builders can make sure that their projects create the most benefits for the neighborhood with the least possible disruption. Being a considerate builder is good business practice. . New intill housing in Owego, NY. We've heard of school conversions into housing, but it wasn't until Bryan Coates, a planner with the the Tioga County Department of Economic Development & Planning contacted us that we heard of a jail conversion. The old Tioga County jail in Owego, NY looked like an interesting project to Bruce Nelson in 1997. It had stood empty for years, but he saw the building as a unique, one-of-a-kind piece of local history. Working with the Owego Historical Society he embarked on this adventure with much enthusiasm, seeing the project as a challenge and also as a vehicle to express his creativity. The renovation construction began early in 1998 and after two years, the former sheriff's house and the jail now hold five unique apartments and first floor office space. Along with bringing in the new, Bruce managed to leave many of the original characteristics of the buildings. http://www.plannersweb.com/sprawl/solutions ~ sub ~infill,html 12/7/2005 Sprawl Guide: Solutions (Infill Development) Page 2 of 2 The apartments include original marble fireplace mantels, brick walls and bars on the windows. One apartment still has original jail cells, now converted into a bedroom suite area. Standing across the street from the Court House, the newly refurbished exterior, porches, lighting and landscape add a definite revitalization note to downtown Owego; and the adventure continues with more office space and possibly a cafe-type restaurant yet to be developed. . Infill housing is being promoted by everyone from environmentalists to transportation activists to housing advocates. But even with this widespread support, why is it still so difficult to get infill housing built? -- see Sprawl is Like the Weather, by Brent Thompson (on why increased density is important to controlling sprawl) . Brave New World, by Melissa Herron. On how to market infill projects. Horn'- I Roots I Problems I Solutions I Places I Resources I ~rticles I Books I Webmaster ~ Plannmg Commissioners Journal PlannersWeb, Burlington, Vermont, ~ I Sorawl Guide authors http://www.plannersweb.com/sprawl/solutions _sub jnfill,html 12/7/2005 INFILL HOUSING PROGRAM - GOALS Page I of I pnoen,x ,;c\' Searches "III. Quick Links'llI. Discover Phoenix Residents Businesses City Government Employment Youth & Seniors e-Services Home Infill Housing Program Goals The goals of the Infill Housing Program include the following: . Encourage development of single-family owner-occupied housing on vacant, orphaned, or underutilized land located in the mature portions of Phoenix. . Encourage quality house construction through higher development standards in an attempt to deter blight and decay by promoting neighborhood stability through home ownership. Please contact the Business Customer Service Center at (602) 534-2000 or visit our office at Phoenix City Hall, 200 W. Washington, 1st Floor for additional program infonnation, Back I Contact Us I Accessibility I Privacy Policy I Security I Help @ Copyright 2005, City of Phoenix Last Modifiad on 06/25/2002 16:32:07 http://phoenix.gov/BUSINESS/inflgoal.html 12/7/2005 INFILL NEWS UPDATE Page I of2 phoenix qov Searches,f. . Quick Unks fIl. City Government Youth & Seniors e-Services Home Discover Phoenix Residents Businesses Employment ..- 't\1l:~I.l-, - -- II" ' I". i . -t J_ Infill News Update The following is a listing of changes that affect the review of infill housing development proposals, along with the date the changes went into effect. Effective Date October 7, 2005 July 1,2005 July 1,2005 May 1,2005 thru June 30, 2006 February 1,2005 December 15, 2004 Update All single-family homes built on lots less than 65' in width and duplexes built on any size lot that consist of 1-9 units will require Single-Family Design Review approval. For additional zoning ordinance information, please contact the Planning Department, 2nd Floor - City Hall, 200 W. Washington or call (602) 262-7131. For submittal requirements, contact the Development SeIVices Department at (602) 262-7811 and ask for the design review contact for individual lots. Approval is required before submitting plans to the Infill Housing Program All standard plans for the Infill Housing program will no longer be valid, unless you requested an extension of your residential standard plans by June 30, 2005, Only 41 Infill housing program certified residential standards plans submitted such a request. The city has adopted new building codes. For further information please visit site Building Codes web link. Due to city budget cuts, the only financial incentive provided by the Program will be a fee waiver of the water and sewer Development Occupations Fees (OOF) totaling $1,200 per lot. Certain areas of Phoenix have unique water and sewer development issues that may affect your development. Please reference the following link for further information (Development Issues for Water and Sewer) Infill houses must be 2419 square feet or less to qualify for Program assistance. Participation is limited to houses with a construction value of $150,000 or less. (Construction value is the cost of building the home including all labor, materials, and does not included the price of the land or sales price of the home). http://phoenix,gov/BUSINESS/inflnws,html 12/7/2005 PC] Article: "Sprawl Is Like the Weather," by Brent Thompson Page 1 of2 Planners Web PLANNING COMMISSIONERS JOURNAL Read excerots from more than 27 5 articles: most are available to download Sprawl Is Like the Weather by Brent Thompson About the Author From Issue 11 of the PCJ, Summer 1993 Sprawl is like the weather in that everyone talks about it, but no one does anything about it. Proof of this is how our cities continue to develop. No public official or paid city planner is going to advocate sprawl, but too often the land use decisions made by planning departments, planning commissions, and city councils contribute to just that. Under a comprehensive plan and ordinance framework having such laudable goals as maintaining low skylines; providing varied housing, employment and shopping opportunities; and providing adequate open space, public facilities, and parking, local decision making bodies continue to approve planning actions that contribute to sprawl. But what is sprawl? Sprawl is the continual use of more land than is necessary to accomplish a given development goal. Sprawl is the consumption of resources and land in excess of what is needed to create a comfortable, livable and functional city, Sprawl costs cities and counties tremendous amounts of money in extra paving and road maintenance costs, and extra sewer and storm drain construction and maintenance costs -- and extra costs for the many other services local governments provide, Sprawl also needlessly gobbles up farm and forest land and open space, Sprawl, therefore, costs taxpayers money and depletes the resource base, It costs developers money because developers get less done on any given parcel ofland, Given this, why do officials continue to contribute to land wasting development practices even when they would often profess to being against sprawl as well as being advocates of people being able to exercise their property rights to the fullest? One reason is the widely held belief in the virtues oflow density development. In the approval process for almost any development, there is a call for lowering the development's density, But those who testify against higher density don't seem to realize that the cumulative result oflower density development is sprawl. Decision-makers listen to arguments for lower densities and believe they are contributing to livability if they reduce density on any given project, However, the result http://www.plannersweb.com/articlesltho040.html 12/7/2005 PCJ Article: "Sprawl Is Like the Weather," by Brent Thompson Page 2 of2 oflowering densities is that it takes more space to house people and to provide services for them, Distances between everything increase, As distances increase, the need for parking lots increases, because with greater distances, walking and bicycling are not convenient. Public transportation is not viable because bus lines cannot economically cover the huge spaces the cities consume for development. The end result of this development pattern is the waste of land, the increased use of automobiles, the need for more parking lots, and greater air pollution, All this, of course, detracts from the very livability that was so eagerly sought with the plea for lower densities. What is the solution to this problem? One part of the solution is to increase allowable densities, Within developed areas, increased population could be absorbed through small accessory dwellings or apartments in single-family zones. Space wasted by parking lots could be redeveloped into more stores or residences, Parking for normal needs could be retained, but overflow parking for peak days could be declared surplus, All commercial zones except for heavy industry could become mixed-use zones, Parking requirements could be based on which use, residential or commercial, created the greater demand, with no additional requirement for the use that requires less parking, Another part of the solution is to increase common open space to mitigate the effects of increased density, Most projects call for one- or two-story buildings that result in a great waste ofland. Iftwa-, three-, and four-story buildings became the norm -- with a portion of each project set aside for a park or open space -- more development could be undertaken in a smaller area with less negative impact, In subdivisions and apartment complexes, density bonuses could be tied to the provision of open space, Density is not the enemy ofJivabiJity, sprawl is. Please note that this article is copyright protected by the Planning Commissioners Journal. You are welcome to download or print the article for your own personal use -- or to provide a link to this article from another Web site. For other use of the article, please contact the Planning Commissioners Journal. Planners Web PLANNING COMMISSIONERS JOURNAL www.plannerswcb.com http://www.plannersweb.com/articles/tho040.html 12/7/2005 ~ - - ~----- ~ ~=-~/~ ~ - - ----< ...... -.... - Inrill Development Rebuilding Our Cities ror a Sustainable Future GREENBELT ALLlANCE IS TIlE BAY Area's citizen land conserva. tion and urban planning organization. Known for opposing sprawl development, we also work to promote its alternatives, Indudlng "lnflU development-" What is infill development? Infill is building homes, businesses and public facilities on unused and underutilized lands within existing: ud)an areas. Innll devdopn1ent ke(~ps resources where people already live and allows rebuilding to occur- Infill development is the key to accommo- dating growth and redesigning our cities to be environmentally and socially sustainable. Does infill provide more housing options? Absolutely_ These days we are seeing smaller families with working and single parents, singles of all ages, and people wanting work spaces In their homes. This diversity of needs ls often overlooked by development built exduslvelyfor the 1950's-style family (working dad and domestic mom) which now accounts for only 14% of U.$. households (see below). A diverse population needs housing options. . Working Couples (31%) Working Slngl""!:' (26%) No one Married & work!:' one !:'pou!:'u works (e.g. ret.lred) (28%) (14%) Inflll can encourage a varl(~ty of designs and housing options- second units. townhouses, bungalows, studios, and cohouslng- which are dosel" to jobs and servlc('s and k'ss <-'xpenslve than oversized housing at the urban fdnge. Will infill bring low-income housing projects to my neighborhood? Not necessadly, but we still need to pn)vide housing oppoJ"tunltles fOI. all kinds of people. Instead of huge housing projects, proponents of inflll often l"eCOllllllend a III Ix of IllarkeL-l.ate and affonJable housing. As in the natul'al wodd, achieving balance and dlvel"sity In OUI' cOllllTlunilies is Ileallhy and creates richel" expel'I(:nces In the places W(~ live. Will higher density increase crime? No! No study has eVel" est<lblished a lInk belween cdllle incr-eases and housing d(:nsily. In fact, density and design can enhance safety by ensuring f -~DI'---- Iji!-I!!- ' l!,~.. visibility and crealing a sense of cOlnlllunity tllrough natunli inU:I"<IC- lions and shar<-'d spaces. Will higher density crowd our cities and worsen traffic congestion? All growth increases lrarIk. but InflIl can alleviale congestion by n~ducing trips and <-'ncouraging alterllalive transportatioll. Good infiil projects an~ sOllwtlllH~S Illlxed-llse," pla( Ing [('slden( es and bllsines..<;es ill close proxilllily. Bl"ing- ing hOITH~S and jobs togetheL along with services like shopping, schools and ..ecreation, shortens trips and Inakes walking and bicycling IllOI.(~ appealing. Only higher housing densities call support transit Iik(' light rail. A lll<tiOI' study found that in a neighborhood with 15 hOllles per acre, olle-thlrd fewcl. aUlO trips occur cOIIlJ,mn'd to a suburban lnlCt. The bOllOlrl line is (continued Oil ["everse) t:DJ:J:~IRJ:1 T 611 J6~rJ: . J:;~n R.._... ,..___.. ,."..~ ~n~ . ,__ r:____I___ r _.,#'___,_ . all 1nR . -"1 J:;_~aR_~71:n _ ~_____ _ "'-:::=_-", J ~ - __ ___-~___~~----""--_ __ __ Density Is not crowding! Good designs are attractive with any number of units per acre. LOW DENSITY Usually called" sprawl" Older suburb 6 units plar acrla that innll Is 'l{~cess<:ll.y fo.' giving us transportation choices beyond the autolTloblle, What does infill development mean for children? InfUI can be a boon fOI" chilckell. creating safe opportunities fOl' play and discovery. A.. InfiIl offel's more transit oJ.lllons and closer destinations, tet'nagers will not be entirely depen- dent on thell" parents ('01' tnlnsporta- lion, Or course, sUccI~ssfullnfill designs \vlll be attcntIve to a val"lety of spccial needs and enhance the IIvcs of illl pcopk, old as well as young. MDDERATE DENSITY "Compact Development" SUburban neighborhood '4 units per acre How do infill's costs add up? Without doubt, Inrlll dt'vl'lopmenl is II~ss expensive than spra\vl in tht, long run" However. because of up.front costs, building 'wIthin the city Is often less pn>fitable to the developer, who pays for site dean-up, :tonIng perrnils, building on a slnall scale, and accoln- modating neigllbol'hood concerns, BUl acconllng to the UdlfHl Land Institute, lll"ban spl"awl eventually COStS from 40-400W) ~ than Infill develop- Int'nt due to the costs of building and lnainlilining new roads, sewers, fire stations and schlx)ls, not to Illentlon the health and psychological costs of . Inflll - Development of unused and underutllized land within urban areas. Density - The number of units per acre, elthGf" net (just buildings) or gross (bUildings and st.reets). Mixed.Use - Residential and commercial uses on the same site. Transit Oriented Developmems (TaOs) - Higher denslt:y and mixed-use development around transit centers, particularly rall and light rail. Redevelopment - Official govemment process that relies on "tax-exempt" financing for rebuilding "blighted" areas of cities. HIGH DENSITY Appropriate in limited areas .&. .' ; .. . I \ ~\T..r'--"-'- -J I f .. II L " "-" ll1. ? "'-'.1; ,..... ':7;T , ~ Apartments/ condominiums 30 units per acre air polllHion, trafTlc congestion and loss of open space, The costs of sprawl are passl-'d on to cOlnlnunitil's as higIH.'I" taxes, the dett'l"ioration of local businesses, and il declining qualitv of life. What can I do to encourage infill? A g,"e"tl deal. Citi:ten particIpation is inlpol'tant in tile H.'I)uilding process. You can work with Greenbelt Alliance on a variety of pro-city pn)jt'cts, \vhich include: awarenes.",; and education; endorselnents of appropriate compact housing proposals; and policy rescan:h and partnersllip development, For IJH)I'C' infonnation about OUI" pn>gralns and \'olunteel" opportuni- ties, callus at 415-398-3730. ~~- ~ -- !..:1,w,~ PEOPLE !'OR OPEN SPACE r::Oj:I=f\IRI=IT AIIIAPo.lrl=. ~~n R,.~... ,...___+- "..+-_ ~n~ . ,__ ~__~_,___ r_,,~__~,~ . QII1nQ. 1I1~_~QQ_~7~n Better Urban Infill Development (BUILD) Program - About BUILD Page 1 of2 BullO ........ ... ~y-"p.." DANE COUNTY About BUILD BUILD Home Page About BUILD Feature Projects Planning Grants Ed ucation Land Use Codes Contact Information Dane County Executive Kathleen M, Falk launched the BUILD program in 1998 to encourage infill development. The BUILD program is a component of her Desian Dane! and Farms and Neighborhoods land use initiatives, These initiatives propose a set of po6cies and programs to both preserve important environmental and farmlands, and to promote strong healthy communities, Infill development is growth in already developed areas instead of on "Greenfield" sites. ~I' , I: I" Ul , The Dane County Board of Supervisors established a BUILD Advisorv Committee that approved a set of BUILD obiectives. The BUILD Program expanded its scope in 2001 to promote Great Neighborhoods. Great Neighborhoods are compact, walkable, diverse, safe, and attractive; and they conform to a se of Great Neiahborhood Prtnciples, Today the BUILD program partners with Dane County communities to plan and implement inti development and great neighborhoods through plannina arants, education, and cod!1,reform. Project Report · BUILD Proiect Report - This report provides information about the progress of project<;. funded since the inception of Dane County's BUILD program in 1999 through November 2004, Definition of Infill Infill development is the economic use of vacant land, or restoration or rehabilitation of existi~ structures or infrastructure, in already urbanized areas where water, sewer, and other public services are in place, that maintains the continuity ofthe ortginal community fabrtc. Principles and Objectives BUILD Objectives: . make better use of existing infrastnucture . locate community services, jobs and shopping in close proximity · stabilize and enhance existing neighborhoods, downtowns and other business distrtcts . produce housing and jobs for low to moderate.income people . avoid converting productive farmland on urban fringes and in rural areas · provide viable options to auto trips by supporting walking, biking, and transit . have the potential to clean up environmentally contaminated sites http://www.CQ.dane.wi.us/plandev/build1about.asp 12/7/2005 Better Urban InfiIl Development (BUILD) Program - About BUILD Page 2 of 2 Great Neighborhood Principles: 1. Compact and walkable - Neighborhoods should be compact enough to encourage development of pedestrian connections and destinations without excluding automobile, 2. A hierarchy of interconnected streets - Streets and roads function as a connected network, dispersing traffic and offering a variety of pedestrian and vehicular routes to any destination while connecting and integrating the neighborhood with surrounding communities, 3. A identifiable neighborhood/community center and edges - A center that includes public spaces.such as a square, green or important street intersection-and public buildings-such as a library, church or community center, transit stop and retail businesses.provides a civic focus and informal place of gathering; and edges that promote neighborhood identity, 4. A variety of housing choices within the same neighborhood - The neighborhood includes a variety of dwelling types so that younger and older people, singles and families, of varying income levels may find places to live, 5, A diverse mix of activities (residences, shops, schools, workplaces and parks, etc.) occur in proximity. Many activities of daily living should occur within walking distance, allowing independence to those who do not drive and adding to neighborhoo. vitality. 6, A range of transportation options - Streets are designed to promote the safe and efficient use by walkers, bikers, drivers and transit riders. 7. Pedestrian-triendly - Features such as safe, attractive and comfortable streets and public spaces promote walking as a viable option to auto trips. 8. Open spaces, greens, parks, accessible and convenient to all - Significant cu~ural and environmental features are incorporated into the design of the development for the use, benefit, and enjoyment of the entire community. A range of parks, from tot-lots an. village greens to ballfields and community gardens, are distributed within neighborhoods. [ Community Development Home Paqe I [ Planninq and Development Home Paqe I [ Dane County Home Page I Last Modified: August 31st, 2004 http://www.CQ.dane.wi.uslplandev/buildlaboutasp 12/7/2005 Dane County Better Urban Infill Development (BUILD) Program Project Status Report: November 2004 This report provides infonnation about the progress of projects funded since the inception of Dane County's BUILD program in 1999, The report indudes: program summary statistics; implementation outcomes induding new infill developments, fa9'lde improvements; and streetscape improvements; 2004 implementation progress summary; 2004 BUILD grant awards; "active" BUILD grant summaries; and a table of grants by municipality, BUILD GRANT SUMMARY STATISTICS (including 2004 awards) Total grants: 44 Municipalities receiving grants: 18 . Total Grant Amount: $719,000 Total Municipal Match: $364.000 Total Project Costs: $1,083,000 . See Attachment A for summary list of municipalities, IMPLEMENTATION OUTCOMES: NEW INFILL DEVELOPMENTS Location DescriDtion Units Com. S.F. Public $$ Private $$ Sun Prairie "Cannery Square": phase I 127 41,000 $10,5 million $26 million downtown redevelopment committed of former industrial sites $6,5 million spent (Jan, 04) Verona "Shops on Main" mixed-use 26 8,000 $875,000 $4.4 million redevelopment of former industrial site Oregon New mixed-use 2 2,100 $0 $350,000 constnuclion on Main Street Monona "Frost Woods Commons," 122 elderly, 16,000 $800,000 $13.5 million mixed use redevelopment halftax- of former grocery store site credit affordable IMPLEMENTATION OUTCOMES: 40 FACADE IMPROVEMENTS Stoughton -22 facades improved, 4 in progress. Total CDBG grant amount: $125,000 Oregon - 5 facades improved, CDBG funding: $25,000 Cambridge - 5 facades improved, CDBG funding: $25,000 Waunakee - 4 facades improved, CDBG funding: $25,000 These fa9'lde grants leveraged a minimum of an equal amount $200,000 in private investment (1: 1 match requirement) BUILD Progress Report - November 2004 Page 2 IMPLEMENTATION OUTCOMES: STREETSCAPE IMPROVEMENTS Stoughton $714,000 Mt. Horeb $800,000 Sun Prairie $350,000 Cambridge $500,000 Rockdale $200,000 SUMMARY OF IMPLEMENTATION PROGRESS IN 2004 AMONG PAST GRANT RECIPIENTS (see Attachment B for detailed listing) . V, Mcfarland: Village selected downtown for new library; downtown site cleared for mixed-use infill development. . C. Fitchburg: Development plan submitted for single-family infill and community center (by Boys & Girls Club, also serving Allied Drive); County CDBG funds approved for $200,000 for affordable housing and $500,000 for community center. . C. Stoughton: 22 facade improvements complete; 4 underway, . T, Madison: First Novation Technology Campus building complete and occupied; E. Badger Road extension and improvements under construction. . Mt. Horeb: Streetscape improvements complete. . C, Verona: Mixed-use housing (28 condos)/retail (8,000 sJ,) complete and occupied. . V. Oregon: 5 facade improvements complete; new mixed-use building on Main Street complete, . V, Rockdale: Mill property clean-up in progress; Dane County Parks Master Plan for CamRock Park started; street configuration and pedestrian improvements in village center complete; village center rental property improvements in progress, . C, Monona: Frost Woods Commons senior housing at site of former Kohls store complete and occupied, retail portion under construction, . C. Madison: BUILD guidelines used for construction of Amcore Bank on E, Washington. . V, Cambridge: streetscape improvements complete; 5 facade improvements complete or in progress. . T, Windsor. Town negotiating for purchase of redevelopment site in Windsor hamlet. BUILD Progress Report - November 2004 Page 3 2004 AWARDS Munici T, Bloomin V, Cambrid e V, Cambrid e V, Cross Plains V, Ore on V, Ore on V, Black Earth C, Stou hton C, Verona ACTIVE PROJECTS (Plans not complete, adopted andlorfinal payment not made, Project numbers follow grant numbering starting with grant #1 in first year of project,) Awards $ 9,600 $ 7,500 $ 10,000 $ 36,000 $ 10,000 $ 10,000 $ 19,500 $ 16,000 $ 20,000 $138,600 30, City of Madison - Park Street-Wingra Creek Redevelopment Plan, Grant Amount: $47,625 (represents a combination of 2 BUILD grants: 2002 and 2003) Project Amount $76,500 (represents 20% match for 2002 grant, and 50% match for 2003 grant) Description: Redevelopment plan for area bounded by Wingra Creek on south, Fish Hatchery Road on west, and Park Street on east and north, Consultant: Stockham Consulting Status: Planning in progress. Expected completion/adoption early 2005, 31, City of Madison - East Washington Gateway Plan Grant Amount $25,000 (2003 award) Project Amount: $80,000 Description: Redevelopment plan for E, Washington from Blair to First. Consultant: To be determined Status: Consultant selection process Past BUILD funding: 1999, 2001, 32, City of Monona - Monona Drive Design Guidelines Grant Amount: $10,000 (2003 award) Project Amount: $20,000 Description: Design Guidelines for Monona Drive streetscape Consultant: JJR Status: planning in progress Past BUILD funding: 2001 BUILD Progress Report - November 2004 Page 4 33, City of Sun Prairie - Phase II Downtown Redevelopment Plan Grant Amount: $17,500 (2003 award) Project Amount: $35,000 Description: Plan for 2nd phase of downtown redevelopment, east of Market Street. Consultant: Vandewalle & Associates Status: planning in progress Past BUILD funding: 2000. 34, Village of Waunakee - Phase II Downtown Infill Site Development Plan Grant Amount: $4,000 (2003 award) Project Amount: $8,000 Description: Site design for vacant lot on Main Street, just west of Madison Street. Consultant: Schreiber Anderson Status: contract pending with county Past BUILD funding: 2002, 35, Village of Cambridge - Phase II Downtown Plans: alley improvements, wayfinding signs, BID plan Grant Amount: $20,000 (2003 award) Project Amount: $40,000 Description: advancing recommendations for downtown plan. Consultant: Schreiber Anderson Status: plans starting Past BUILD funding: 2002. BUILD Progress Report - November 2004 Page 5 ATTACHMENT A: SUMMARY OF MUNICIPALITIES RECEIVING BUILD GRANTS Municipalitv 1, C, Madison 2. Cambridge 3. Oregon 4, Sun Prairie 5. Fitchburg 6. Slack Earth 7, Verona 8, Monona 9, Mt. Horeb 10, Rockdale 11. T. Madison 12, Stoughton 13, Waunakee 14. T. Windsor 15. Roxbury 16. Cross Plains 17, McFarland 18, Marshall TOTAL Grants 7 5 4 3 3 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 44 ePBOI-9: Accommodating Growth Through Infill Development n W_hlnpon Reu8reb Coandl HOME PUBLICATIONS SEARCH CONTENTS BRIEFLY Encouraging infill development is universally accepted as good public policy. But in spite of all the advantages, developers of infill housing face a number of impediments. Cities should work to remove these impediments. CUCK HERE TO PRINT jiiiiiiJ OR DOWNlOAD THIS lh:J REPORT IN THE PDF FORMAT Growth in Perspective: Part 11: Rural Denlopm.n! Part 10: T.a~.'-i!I!!!.JI..~""IJhc C()nstruft~m;t nf".-"-()u.se Part 9: bJ)JlllctofGoYergm~nt R~Rtdations ~lHlf~s on_Housj"'f(:()st~ Part 8: Smart!im'l.!h and ,Bu"il'1al>!e Land Part 7: Thj!("onlrihuti<J!I ..JR.aLEstate toJb_~ Washinghm$.htte ECllnt)"n Part 5: Growth Manaxement EtTects ('n_R~al Estate Part./: Lo~alG(t\'crnJ...~IlJ Eifclrts to pI":(Jmnt~__~~Qn()J"-jf__.Gr!>-.!'Jb_..nd D.nl"flm.!I! Part 3: Manaj(i!lj( Gro'1tllis a Ba!ancinj(Act Page I of7 _-brief ABOUT LINKS NEWS JOIN ePB 01-9 March 27, 2001 Accommodating Growth Through Infill Development - - The Growth Management Act, Washington's Smart Growth law, establishes a framework for communities to plan for how to accommodate growth, provide housing opportunities, encourage economic vitality, and preserve the environment while protecting property rights, The state seeks to prevent sprawl, to encourage compact development, to preserve open space and critical habitats, and to insure that growth occurs in areas where there is adequate public infrastructure, Among the Act's key tools are urban growth boundaries, which tightly constrain the land available for development. One of the expectations of the framers of the Growth Management Act (GMA) was that the urban growth boundaries would direct a substantial share of new housing into existing urban areas, Housing projects such as these are known as infill developments, http://www.researchcouncil.org/BriefsI200IlePBOI-9/Growth6.htm 121712005 ePBOI-9: Accommodating Growth Through Infill Development Part 1: A_F]rnt F't}und~tj~uIJl)r G:r_Q_,~:tb Part 1: ADec~de_flf Growth.and P..o~Jlerit) ornER RECENT PUBLICATIONS (hJ.topic) (dcf(J,ilcdli"t) I , << Search our web site :a' PLEASE TAKE A MOMENT TO - ' SIGN OUR GUEST BOOK ~:::J Page 2 of 7 because they fill in vacant or underutilized land. The City of Seattle is seeing a boom in infill housing, Overall, King County added 99,000 housing units in the 1990s, down from the 123,000 added in the 1980s. In the city of Seattle, however, the number of added units increased by 1,000 from 19,000 in the 1980s to 20,000 in the 1990s.1 In the year 2000, the city issued permits for a record 6,685 housing units, double the number for 1999. With the demolition of 789 existing units, a net of 5,896 units will be added to the city's stock of housing. More than one-half of the added housing is in buildings with 100 or more units, Over one-third of the new housing is downtown.~ Multi-family housing construction is much more volatile than single-family construction. The very high level of infill in Seattle in 2000 is probably a cyclical peak and not sustainable. If housing is to be affordable in the future under the constraints on development imposed by the GMA, infill must play an important role by ensuring housing opportunities are provided to accommodate projected growth. Iofill Benefits Inner-cities Encouraging infill development is universally accepted as good public policy. Analysts cite a number of advantages to infilP Infdl provides housing opportunities necessary to accommodate projected growth. There is a growing demand for the types of housing units that infill provides, Expanding downtown office employment creates a demand for housing close to downtown, In addition, the demographic trend towards smaller households favors infill housing. The "traditional" household, two parents with school age children, represents a declining share of the housing market. Many single, elderly and empty nest households prefer the lower cost and lower maintenance of an apar1ment, condominium or smaller house on a smaller lot. Intill encourages community revitalization. Businesses benefit from increased activity and demand for goods and services. Infill housing can boost a city's economy. Many of the US's larger http://www.researchcouncil.org/Briefs/2001/ePBOl-9/Growth6.htm 12/7/2005 ePBOI-9: Accommodating Growth Through Infill Development Page 3 of 7 cities (though not Seattle) have been losing population, as the middle class flees to the suburbs. In such, cities encouraging the development of high quality urban neighborhoods of in fill housing may help to lure back the middle class. Infill reduces sprawl. Directing the construction of new housing into existing urban areas conserves rural farmlands and open spaces, Infill is less auto-dependent. Transportation planners love infill, In-city residents drive less than suburban residents, Infill near downtown will be served by existing bus routes, and will provide additional riders with virtually no increase in service costs. Urban Land Institute (ULI) notes that infill is a very cost effective way to expand transit ridership. Tri- Met, the Portland, Oregon transit agency has emphasized infill development near to its stations as a tool for building ridership. An analysis by Tri-Met staff of one agency-supported development found that "developing ridership in this manner was eight to 20 times more cost effective than it would have been through rail extensions, even if the land had been given to the developer (the land cost the developer $130,000). ", When infill development put housing units within walking distance of shops and services, auto use is further reduced. It may be less costly for government to provide services to urban inml development than to suburban greenfield development. New suburban developments may require public investments in roads, water and sewer lines, schools and so forth. Urban infill development may be able to take advantage of existing capacity. In addition there may be economies of scale in providing public services, As infill increases the density of a city, the cost per resident of providing a given level of service may fall. However, there are obstacles But in spite of all the advantages, developers of infill housing face a number of impediments, Americans have a strong cultural preference for http://www.researchcouncil.org/Briefs/2001/ePBOI-9/Growth6.htm 12/7/2005 ePBOI-9: Accommodating Growth Through Infill Development Page 4 of7 single-family houses. However, in urban settings, the paucity of undeveloped conventional lots and the high price of land make the addition of conventional single-family houses difficult. The large multi-family projects that represent the majority of recent infill in Seattle are not the housing that the majority of the population desires. A September, 2000, survey by Public Opinion Strategies (POS) asked Washington voters a number of questions on housing.' Only 23 percent of the subjects said it was important to them to live in an urban area with many people living close together. An infill alterative to multi-family housing is to build detached houses on smaller lots. For example, zero lot line houses, wide-shallow lots and zipper lots are strategies that allow detached houses to be built on smaller lots. Clustering houses on a single lot can also save space, Townhouses and row houses are a form of single-family housing that uses land more efficiently, But people like larger lots. In the POS survey, fully 83 percent of the Washington voters said that they wanted to live in an area where they can have large front and back yards. Neighborhoods often resist efforts to increase density. The owners of single-family houses may oppose infill for fear that apartment houses will alter the character of the neighborhood, The POS survey finds that 77 percent disapprove of development that allows taller apartment and condominium buildings or single-family houses on smaller lots to increase density of their neighborhoods. The uproar in Seattle following former Mayor Norm Rice's proposal to channel growth into "urban villages" is an example of this, Developers need to be creative to overcome this resistance, Smaller multi-family building can be designed to look like houses. Urban cottages can be clustered on a single lot, Mixed-use development can place apartments over commercial uses. Existing historic structures can be creatively redeveloped as apartments or condominiums, Mixed-use development faces special obstacles. As is the case with increased density, the POS survey http://www.researchcouncil.orglBriefs/2001/ePBOI-9/Growth6.htm 12/7/2005 ePBOI-9: Accommodating Growth Through Infill Development Page 5 of7 shows mixed-use development to be unpopular, with 60 percent disapproving. Both Seattle's Belltown neighborhood and downtown Bellevue have recently experienced booms in mixed-housing. However, as the Housing Partnership notes, the regulatory and land use policies allowing such developments have been in place for 20 years in both locations.!'! Many Seattle area suburban cities are counting on mixed-use developments in their urban centers to meet housing goals. The examples of Seattle and Bellevue show that cities need to actively encourage mixed-use if it is to happen, Retail is trickiest part of mixed-use development. Cities need to assure that there will be an adequate base of customers for the retail to be successful. Vacant land comes with baggage. The Urban Land Institute observes, "It is important to remember that sites that have been passed over for development or have not been redeveloped for another use are generally idle for a reason," Vacant land may be oddly shaped or difficult to build on. It may be environmentally contaminated. Or the need to demolish or remove the remnants of previous uses may increase development costs': Similarly, the adaptation of existing structures may bring problems of their own, including the constraints imposed by historic preservation and environmental concerns. ! Infrastructure. It is often asserted that the ability to use existing infrastructure is an advantage. However, in some cases the existing infrastructure is not adequate. "In many inner-city neighborhoods existing infrastructure needs to be repaired, replaced, or modernized to serve both new and existing development." 2Ifthe developer is forced to pay for these upgrades, the project may not pencil out. Regulatory burdens are high. Infill tends to be more heavily regulated than new development in newly developing places, Sometimes infill requires rezoning, Building codes can be unrealistic for rehabilitation projects, Restrictions on use can limit the types of units that can be developed, http://www.researchcouncil.orgfBriefs/2001lePBOI-9/Growth6.htm 12/7/2005 ePBOI-9: Accommodating Growth Through Infill Development Page 6 of7 Existing neighborhood groups can feel threatened by infilI. The ability of these groups to participate in and slow down the regulatory process increases the time it takes to complete an infill project, raising costs. Questions concerning safety and school quality discourage many people from infm housing. Urban areas are perceived by many people to be less safe than the suburbs, Families with children often choose suburban locations because they believe that suburban school districts provide a better education. What to do To encourage infill development, and ensure each city provides housing opportunities necessary to accommodate growth, cities should: Assure that the city's regulatory framework enconrages rather than discourages this type of development. Regulation must accept the sorts of projects that are economically viable in the urban setting, Provide for the prompt processing of regulatory approvals and permits needed for infill development. Delay adds significantly to costs, Make public investments and provide services that support infill development. Government should provide the infrastructure that infill needs. People must feel that the neighborhoods targeted for infill are safe, Urban school districts must be improved. Mi. GfiIOWTHIN "II Gain community acceptance for infIll development. The government can identify neighborboods where infill development should occur. It can work with the members of these communities to articulate a vision of the type of infill that will strengthen the neighborhood, Then, when developers come forward with projects that advance that vision, they should be allowed to move quickly through the regulatory process. cue" HERE FOR IIORE OF TIIS SERIES Endnotes 1 Based on lJ__~, t'cn~m_0 figures for 1980 and http://www.researchcouncil.org/Briefs/2001/ePBOI-9/Growth6.htm 12/7/2005 ePBOI-9: Accommodating Growth Through Intill Development Page 7 of7 1990 and {)ffice of Financial Manact'ment estimates i'ol- -2000-:----' --+- " 2 "Record number of Housing Units Approved in 2000." City o!'0catlJe News Advisory, Dcpar1nJcnt,)fJ)l'SlgJL_ C l )Jl~tolcti\_)!L__~lIl~Ll,_and {lse, January, 2001. 31\11!!1.icjl)~IJJ~~:>~qJ:~h_-,!Otf __;)l.:n~!CCj _ CCIIJ~I, b?fill Development: Strategies/or Shaping Livable Xeighborhoods, Report No, 38, June 1997, 4 Diane R. Suehman. Developing I~fill HOl/sing in Inner City Xeighborhoods: Opportl/nities and Strategies. UrhauJ".mldJnst.i.tutt.;. 1997. page 9. , Public Opinion Strategies, An Oversample Swdy of800 raters in Washington on the Topic o..fSmarf Growth and Land-Use Issues, conducted for the N~!ti~~D;\Ll~_~~~~~!~Jj~)IJ (~r Rc;l!tQI:-; and the 'Na~h.ingJQnA:5,'1QciationQf R~;~lli~!:~_ 6 The Housing Partnership, Mixed Use Housing in Urban Centers, October, 1999. 7 Suchman, page 39. Washington Research Council J08 S Washington St., Suite 406 Seattle WA 98104-3408 206-467-7088 fax, 206-467,6957 8 Suchman, page 40, 9 Suchman, page 41. Many of our recent publications are available as .pdf files. You will need Adobe Acrobat to read them. If you do not already have it you can ~~~_~IQ~sJA~tQ~~_Ac:.':9~atfQrff~~. [ HornE:! I About I Recente!-JbljCj:~tJ9Jl~ I T~_bJ.~_Qf_CQnt~n.ts I Selet::ted"pub!i.~<!tion!:ib-y_Topic I All on:-linE:! PuJ~!jc:ations I Join I E:yenJs I Pre_~s I People I Lin~s I $e,arcll. ] ~..., RETURN TO TOP OF PAGE Copyrighl @ 2003 Washington Research Council Last modified: November 04, 2004 1 217,236 http://www.researchcouncil.org/Briefs/2001lePBOI-9/Growth6.htm 12/7/2005 printfile Page 1 of6 ~R-s-E) Municipal ResefU'Ch & Services Cellter of Washington Infill Development: Completing the Community Fabric Created 7/0'i Contents . Introduction . Authoritv. Statutes . Guidebooks . Articles, Briefs. Fact Sheets . Barriers to Infill Develooment . InfilU2~elopment Plans. Proorams & Strateaies . Qrdina_oces . In'!:,,,nti,v,,S_J9_f-"J;,iJitAte_InfJU.J2gygLcmment . Fundina Resources. Costs · P",_si,fn!QLInfUL'<;:QlnRAtmilit:y . Soecial Tvoes of Infill Housina . Illustrative Examoles. Case Studies . Infill Studies. Caoacitv . Brownfields & Brownfield Develooment Introduction Communities across the country are increasingly recognizing that the spread out patterns of growth, which have shaped American communities for the past several decades, cannot be sustained, Problems of increased traffic congestion, overstretched public facilities and increased infrastructure costs, loss of open space and other valued community resources, and even reduced physical activity and community health are typically associated with such patterns. Instead, an increased emphasis on developing passed-over parcels within developed areas, and on maximizing use of existing public facilities is needed. Many Washington communities have adopted urban growth boundaries that restrict the amount of land outside of urban centers that is available for urban development. The reduced land supply has created new interest in infill development opportunities in central and suburban cities alike, Infill development is the process of developing vacant or under-used parcels within existing urban areas that are already largely developed, Most communities have significant vacant land within city limits, which, for various reasons, has been passed over in the normal course of urbanization. Ideally, infill development involves more than the piecemeal development of individual lots. Instead, a successful infill development program should focus on the job of crafting complete, well-functioning neighborhoods. Successful infill development is characterized by overall residential densities high enough to support improved transportation choices as well as a wider variety of convenience services and amenities. It can return cultural, social, recreational and entertainment opportunities, gathering places, and vitality to older centers and neighborhoods. Attention to design of infill development is essential to ensure that the new development fits the existing context, and gains neighborhood acceptance. A cooperative partnership between government, the development community, financial institutions, non-profit organizations, neighborhood organizations and other resources is essential to achieve infill success. In the long view, the public and private costs of continuing to favor sprawl development patterns will far exceed the resources needed now to facilitate infill development. http://www.mrsc.org/printfile.aspx?prntPath=%2fSubjects%2tPlanning..102fFiles%2finfilldev.htm 12/8/2005 printfile Page 2 of 6 Authority, Statutes . Ch 36.70A. RCW - The Growth Management Act . RCW 43,21C.299 Infill development - categorical exemptions from chapter (SEPA) . Ch. 35.100. RCW - Downtpwn and neighborhood commercial districts (sales and use tax increment financing) Guidebooks . Infill Development - StrateGies for Shapino Livabie Neighborhoods, Susan C. Enger, MRSC Report No. 38, June 1997 - and Appendices . The Infill and Redevelopment Code Handbook, Transportation and Growth Management Program, Oregon Department of Transportation, Oregon Department of land Conservation and Development, September 1999 . ManaGinG Marvland's Growth: Models and Guidelines for Infill Development, 2001 . ~tr_a!.egie_sJQ.[ Successful Inflli DeYelo.Q!Ilent, Northeast Midwest Institute, Congress for the New Urbanism . BuildinG Livable Communities: A Policvmaker's Guide to Infill Development, The Center for Livable Communities, local Government Commission, Sacramento, CA, August 1995 (available for purchase) . Smart Infill: Creatina More Livable Communities in the Bav Area - A Guide for Bay Area leaders, Stephen Wheeler, Greenbelt Alliance, San Francisco Bay Area, 2002 - or (joYinload. . Small Scale Ground Oriented Residential Infill, city of Edmonton, Canada Articles, Briefs, Fact Sheets . Fillina in the Spaces: Ten Essentials for Successful Urban Infill Housina (under index, select special reports) . Urban Infill Housina: Mvth and Fact, Urban Land Institute, 2001 . Best Praclice'Lttlnco!Jn:me,JDfill.Qevelopment, Prepared by Robinson & Cole for National Association of Realtors, December 2002 . Infill in the marketplace: alternatives to sprawl, by Tom Sargent, On The Ground, Fall 1994, 6 pages - . Accommodatina Growth Throuah Infill Development, Washington Research Council, 2001 . Infill Development: Rebuildina our CitiesJO_Lil.S,l,!'itilin.abllLf!Jtur!', Greenbelt Alliance factsheet . fillina in the .6!M1ks, Michelle lerner, Real Estate Portfolio - July/August 2002 . Refilling Colorado, Planning, APA (get permission to post this) . Communitv Chanae: Redevelopment & Infill Studv Group Report, Scope, Spring 2004 (report and recommendations prepared by a nonprofit organization for the Sarasota County, Fl area) (interesting recommendations, discusses how a number of different complementary plans, programs and agencies can be employed to accomplish infill deveiopment) . Grevfield Redevelopment, Atlanta Regional Commission Toolkit: Redevelopment of Greyfields (opportunities to redevelop "dead malls") . Flxina It First: TaraetinG Infrastructure Investments to Improve State Economies and Inviaorate Existina Communities, National Governor's Association Center for Best Practices, 2004 Barriers to Infill Development If communities are to succeed in promoting infill development, they will need to recognize and overcome http://www.mrsc.org/printfile.aspx?pmtPath=%2fSubjects%2fPlanning..102fFiles%2finfilldev.htm 12/8/2005 printfile Page 3 of 6 impediments to such development, Neighborhood opposition, financing challenges, inflexible building code and development regulations, lengthy permit processes, substandard infrastructure, difficult land assembly, site contamination and other conditions may need to be addressed to attract infill development . Infill Develooment in the San Francisco Bav Area: Current Obstacles and ResDonses, Stephen M. Wheeler, Ph.D., AICP, Department of City and Regional Planning, University of California at Berkeley, A Paper Presented at the Annual Conference of the Association of Coliegiate Schools of Planning, Cleveland, Ohio, November 2001 . Barriers to Infill Develooment, Carolyn Dekle, South Florida Regional Planning Council and Phyliis Mofson, Florida Department of Community Affairs, Office of Strategic Planning, 1997 . The Barriers to Usino Urban Infill Develooment to Achieve Smart Growth, J. Terrence Farris, Housing Policy Debate, Vol. 12, Issue 1, Fannie Mae Foundation, 2001 - Summary . comment on J. Terrence Farris's The Barriers to Usino Urban Infill Develooment to Achieve Smart Growth, William H, Hudnut, III, Housing Policy Debate, Vol. 12, Issue 1, Fannie Mae Foundation, 2001 Infill Development Plans, Programs, Strategies & Tools . Infill Develooment Plan, Southern Nevada Regional Planning Coalition . Toolkit of Best Practices - Infill Develooment Prooram, Georgia Quality Growth Partnership . Infili.l'!:Qg.rll.ffi, Lake Oswego, OR . Infili Strateov, Sacramento, CA (including financial incentives, streamlined procedure, flexible standards and target infill areas) May 14, 2002 . lnfili Prooram, Sacramento, CA . Residential Infili Strateov. Riverside, CA . Residential Infili Surnmarv: Infili Prooertv Locator, Riverside, CA . Infmho..Y~D.9,:..Re,-,!."oood neiohbor", Burnaby, B.C., Canada, (guidance for limiting impacts of infill construction on neighbors) . Reouest for Proposals. Solicitation Number RFP - MRA-Q4-02. Trumbuli Viliaoe Infill Housino Project, Albuquerque, NM (Albuquerque looks for creative, capable infill developers for infili sites) Ordinances . Oregon, Model Infill Ordinance,Transportation and Growth Management Program . Maryland, Ch, V: Model Infill Ordinance, Department of Planning . Lake Oswego, OR Ordinance No. 2~)), adopted 2003 . Vancouver, WA Municioal Code. Ch, 20.920. Infill Deve!m1.l]1ent Standards . Battle Ground, WA Municioal Code. Ch. 17.137. Infill Residential Develooment . Sultan, WA Unified Develooment Code. Ch. 16,24. Standards for Infili Develooment in Residential Areas . Tacoma, WA Municioal Code. Ch. 13.06.145. Suoolemental orovisions for sinole familv residential develooment . Seattle, WA Municioal Code. Ch. 23.43. Residential Smali Lot Zone . Clark County, WA Code. Ch, 40,260.110 - Residential Infili . Clark County, WA lD,ti.lLRevelooment Handout #46, Revised 12/15/04 . Phoenix, AZ Infili Housino Prooram Development Standards . Phoenix, AZ Zonino Ordinance. Ch. 6. sec, 630 - Residential Infill R-I District. Multifamilv Residential http://www.mrsc.org/printfile.aspx?pmtPath=%2fSubjects%2tPlanning%2fFiles%2finfilldev.htm 12/8/2005 printfile Page 4 of 6 . Austin, TX land Develooment Code. Ch. 25-~ Zonino. Subchaoter D. Ch. 25-2-1401 throuoh Ch, 25-2-1604 . Portland, OR Zonin~ Code. Ch. 33.405 - Alternative Desion Density Overlav Zone and Alternative Oevelooment Ootions (duplex on corner lots and other potentially useful infill options) . Portland OR, Infill Desio": Zonina Code Amendments Discussion Draft, August 8, 2005 . Lacey, WA Ordinance No, 1218 related to residential infill, 2004 Incentives to Facilitate Infill Development Many communities are using incentives to make infill more attractive and affordable to developers by addressing impediments to infill development such as those described above. . Infill Incentives, Policy Link . Riverside, CA Inflll Develooment Incentive (RID!) Pro~ram . Phoenix, AZ Infill Housino Prooram Incentives . Phoenix, AZ Infill Housino Pro~ram (how to qualify and apply for incentives program) . San Mateo County, CA Transit-Oriented Develooment (TOOl Incentive Pro~ram, City/County Association of Governments of San Mateo County (Winner of EPA Smart Growth Achievements Award, 2002) . Austin, TX Smart Growth Incentives . Sacramento, CA Infill Fee Reduction Pro~ram . Sacramento, CA Code Ch. 17.191 - Reductions in Develooment and Imoact Fees to Promote Infill Develooment in Taroet Residential Infill Areas . Arizona Leoislature HB2301 . 421R - I Ver - sales tax rebate: infill housin~ . Sacramento, CA Vacant Lot Develooment Prooram and Boarded and Vacant Homes Pro~ram . Miami-Dade County, FL Infill Housino Initiative (recycling abandoned lots) . Indianapolis, IN RFP for recvclino surolus orooerties, press release, 9/18/03 . California Bav Area Lookino to Transoortation Funds as Infill Housino Leveraoe . San Diego, CA Exoedite Pro~ram for Affordable/In-Fill Housino & Sustainable Buildinos, Information Bulletin 538 Funding Resources, Costs . Infill Develooment (Antidotes to Sorawl), U,S. Environmental Protection Agency (multiple federal funding resources useful for infill development) . Plannino Grants, Better Urban Infill (BUILD) Program, Dane County, WI (program proVides grants to Dane County municipalities to support planning that leads to infill development, downtown revitalization) . Financino Brownfield Redevelooment, Georgia Quality Growth Partnership Design for Infill Compatibility Infill development design guidelines are useful tools for ensuing that the new development fits the existing context, and gains neighborhood acceptance. It is not uncommon for existing residents to resist new development within a neighborhood, particularly true when motivated by past bad experiences with new development, which failed to fit existing neighborhood character. Design gUidelines in general can help assure more aesthetic development. Design guidelines that focus on infill development can guide the process of integrating new development carefully into the http://www.mrsc.orglprintfile.aspx?prntPath=%2fSubjects%2tPlanning%2fFiles%2finfilldev.htm 12/8/2005 printfile Page 5 of6 existing neighborhood fabric with respect to block patterns, scale, building features, landscaping, and other characteristics of the neighborhood. . Portland, OR Infill Desion Proiect (includes observations on infill design problems and potential solutions, and a design preferences citizen survey) . Santa Rosa, CA ~~'<:'..3L1:_JnfjIJJ~~yelopment Desion Guidelines . Overland, KS Infill and Redevelooment Desion Guidelines (including multi-family and commercial infill guidelines) . MRSC Webpage: Desion Review Guidelines and Code Provisions Special Types of Infill Housing and Supporting Services . Austin, TX Neiahborhood Plan Combinina District Options For Neiahborhood Plannina Areas, Infill Special Use Options Booklet (The city provides for a set of options that may be used for small lot amnesty/infill areas, including cottage housing, "urban homes," secondary apartments, neighborhood mixed use building, residential infill, neighborhood centers, and corner stores) . Nanaimo, B.C. Innovative Housina for Neighbourhoods: Triplex and Quadruplex Infill Deslon Guidelines . Toronto, Ontario Infill Townhouses (Design Guidelines) . Tucson, AZ Mixed Use Development Prototype . Cottage Housing illustrative ExmnplesjCase Studies . Lowrv Redevelopment Creates $4 Billion Economic Benefit, Metro Denver Redevelopment Corporation . Compact Infill Development Sites, Boise Idaho (examples by type with specifications) . Feature Proiects, Better Urban Infill (BUILD) Proaram, Dane County WI, and Dane County Redevelopment Case Studi~ . Case Studv SPROUT: Infill Housina for Youna, Middle-Income Families. Sevaa Poaharian Desion. Affordabilitv And Choice Today (A*C*T) Demonstration Proiect, Rowena E. Moyes, Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, August 1997 . Ground-Oriented Medium-Density Housino - Infill and Small Lot, Greater Vancouver Regional District (Best practice examples of small lot, duplex, cluster, row housing and other housing types; Includes specifications) Infill Studies - Capacity Many communities in Washington and other states are analyzing the capacity of potential infill sites to accommodate new growth as and alternative to sprawl development. Washington State has established a Buildable Lands program that requires certain high growth counties and cities to monitor land supply within urban growth areas. These jurisdictions analyze vacant, underutilized and partially used land to estimate land supply available to accommodate anticipated growth within the UGA. . Residential Refill Study for 1997 - 98, Portland Metro (This report studies the rate of residential refill. Refill consists of infill and redevelopment) . Report on the Residential Refill Studv for 97 - 98, January 2000, Prepared by Sonny Conder, Portland Metro . Infill Capacity Analysis of Oranae Countv and Western Riverside County Gatewav, Produced by the Center for Demographic Research at California State University, Fullerton for Western Riverside Council of Governments and Orange County Council of Governments Interregional Partnership, April 2004 (Study identifies candidate http://www.mrsc.orgiprintfile.aspx?pmtPath=%2fSubjects%2fPlanning..102fFiles%2finfilldev.htm 12/8/2005 printfile Page 6 of 6 infill/refill housing sites, especially in transit rich and employment rich areas. Uses assessed improvement-to- land value ratios) . Estimat[[lg the Housino Il!f,iJL~aoacitv of the ,El.1lLArea, Juan Onesimo Sandoval and John D. Landis, (October 1, 2000), Institute of Urban & Regional Development. IURD Working Paper Series, Paper WP-2000-06 . Clark ,c::.Ql!f1ty ,Buildable Lands R~p<1rt, 2002 . Kit~ap C<1ynl;y Uodated Lands CapaCiJ;y/'..nj!jysis for l!rbaD_R~~ig~[ltiaLLimdS . R~cQmmended Methodoloov and WQ[~ Prooram for a Buildabl~__~;lnds Analvsis for Snohomish County and its Citie~ . Citv of ,BeIJi.O.lllla.m Urba.n.Growth Area - land SuoolYAOaly~isSymmilrv . Pie~~CQ],mtY Buildable Lands Reoort, 2002 . King c,oJ!!lj:y,j!uildable Lands Evaluation Reoo[1:,2()():?'; R~!:..ent Growth & Land Caoacitv in Kino Countv & its Cities Brownflelds a. Brownfield Development http://www.mrsc.org/printfile.aspx?pmtPath=%2fSubjects%2fPlanning..102fFiles%2finfilldev.htm 12/8/2005