Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01/03/2006 MAPLEWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesdav, January 3, 2006, 7:00 PM City Hall Council Chambers 1830 County Road BEast 1. Call to Order 2. Roll Call 3. Approval of Agenda 4. Approval of Minutes a. December 19, 2005 5. Public Hearings None 6. New Business a. Special Construction Agreement - Edgehill Road b. Concept Plan Review - Comforts of Home Assisted Senior Living (Highway 36 and Hazelwood) c. Noise Ordinance Review - Mr. Ahlness 5. Unfinished Business a. C. Kings Addition (Jessie Street, south of Ripley Avenue) Street right-of-way Vacation Preliminary Plat b. In-fill Study Update 8. Visitor Presentations 9. Commission Presentations December 26 Council Meeting: (None needed - cancelled) January 9 Council Meeting: Mr. Tushar January 23 Council Meeting: Mr. Ahlness February 13 Council Meeting: Mr. Kaczrowski 10. Staff Presentations 11. Adjournment DRAFT MINUTES OF THE MAPLEWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION 1830 COUNTY ROAD BEAST, MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA MONDAY, DECEMBER 19, 2005 I. CALL TO ORDER Vice-Chairperson Desai called the meeting to order at 7:33 p.m. (Tonight's meeting was delayed because of the joint Gladstone Redevelopment Plan meeting that started at 6:00 p.rn. at the Maplewood Cornrnunity Center.) II. ROLL CALL Commissioner Eric Ahlness Vice-Chairperson Tushar Desai Cornmissioner Mary Dierich Chairperson Lorraine Fischer Commissioner Michael Grover Commissioner Jim Kaczrowski Cornrnissioner Gary Pearson Commissioner Dale Trippler Cornrnissioner Jeremy Yarwood Present Present Present Present at 7:35 p.rn. Present Present Present Present Present Ken Roberts, Planner Lisa Kroll, Recording Secretary Michael Thompson, Staff Engineer Staff Present: III. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Commissioner Ahlness requested discussion about the city noise ordinance during commission presentations. Commissioner Pearson moved to approve the agenda as amended. Commissioner Trippler seconded. The motion passed. IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Ayes - Ahlness, Desai, Dierich, Fischer, Grover, Kaczrowski, Pearson, Trippler, Yarwood Approval of the planning commission minutes for November 21, 2005. Commissioner Trippler had corrections to page 4 and 5. On page 4, in the ninth line, change the word raising to razing. On page 5, in the last paragraph, in the first line, delete the words for M1 (light manufacturing). Cornrnissioner Grover moved to approve the planning commission rninutes for Novernber 21, 2005, as amended. Planning Commission Minutes of 12-19-05 -2- Commissioner Grover seconded. Ayes - Ahlness, Desai, Dierich, Fischer, Grover, Kaczrowski, Trippler Abstentions - Pearson, Yarwood V. PUBLIC HEARING a. C. Kings Addition (Jessie Street, south of Ripley Avenue) (7:36 p.m. - 9:57 p.m.) Mr. Roberts said Mr. Vinh Le, representing Wisdorn 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. To build this project, Mr. Le is requesting that the city approve the vacation of an unused street right-of-way (Jessie Street), an unused alley and excess easements within the property and a preliminary plat for four lots for single dwellings. Mr. Roberts said on November 8, 1999, city council approved a building request for James Harrison for this site. Specifically, the city 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 addition, the council approved the vacation of the alley between Bradley Street and Jessie Street that is south of Ripley Avenue. 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. Mr. Roberts said of the 60 properties within 500 feet of this proposal, staff received 6 replies from neighbors. Commissioner Grover asked if the 2.2 units per acre for the site included the wetland and the right of way in the acreage calculation? Are the lot sizes within the 10,000 square feet minimum for this proposal? Mr. Roberts said yes. The single family lots meet or exceed the standards of Maplewood. Commissioner Trippler asked what the purpose of Outlot A and Outlot B is? Mr. Roberts said Outlot A is a small strip of land. The right of way is 66 feet wide. By vacating this strip of land and replatting it you end up with a small strip of land which would then be dedicated to the property owner to the west making for a 60 foot right of way which is the requirement for the city. Outlot B is a small triangular piece of land that was added in by the developer at the request of the adjoining property owner. If in the future they want to remove the garage that is on the property they would have access onto the new street with some frontage and utility access and they could possibly plat a new lot off their existing property at 1777 Edgerton Street. The triangular piece of property would be deeded over to the property owner for their use at no charge. This would allow them the opportunity for future redevelopment of that property if they choose to do so in the future. Planning Commission Minutes of 12-19-05 -3- ComrnissionerTrippler said there were five symbols that were identified as SB 1,2,3,4,5 but he did not see anywhere on the plans what that represents. In his background SB stands for soil borings. If SB stands for soil borings that means to him that there is soil contamination but he did not find anything in the staff report regarding soil contamination. Mr. Roberts said that does represent soil borings and his understanding was the samples were done to check the subsurface conditions for the quality of the soil, not necessarily that the developer was looking for contamination. They were looking to see if there was any fill on the site, how much fill was on the site, if there was any bad soils that would limit the type of construction or that would require soil corrections to be done. Staff is not aware of any soil contamination but the applicant Mr. Alan Kretman, can better address this question. Commissioner Trippler said on page 15 in the staff report the applicant states minimum grades of 0.5% and maximum grades of 5.5% will be used for concrete curb and gutters. He thought the city's maximum slope for concrete was 3%. Mr. Roberts said he wasn't sure and he asked the staff engineer, Michael Thornpson, if he knew he didn't know off hand either. Mr. Roberts said he would defer that question to Mr. Kretman. Commissioner Trippler said on page 27 of the staff report there is a letter from Tina Carstens from the Ramsey-Washington Metro Watershed District and she states the SPRWS provided cornrnents to the applicant and their engineer in September 2005 but the SPRWS had not heard from the applicant. Therefore the SPRWS would not take this application to the Watershed board until those issues were cleared up. Does staff know if those issues have been dealt with yet? Mr. Roberts said Mr. Kretman has been working with the SPRWS but he doesn't know if the questions have been answered. This proposal will go to the watershed district sometime in January. The watershed will not sign off on the project unless they are satisfied with the results or answers. Commissioner Trippler asked what the outcome would be if the watershed district doesn't like the applicant's answer and the commission recommends this project? Mr. Roberts said until the applicant makes the watershed district happy the applicant doesn't have an approved project. Commissioner Dierich asked what that means as far as the number of lots the commission has approved. If the watershed district has issues with the site, and the number of lots can be changed, can the commission direct the applicant to the numberof lots the commission would like to see on this site? Mr. Roberts said if it turned out that the only way the applicant could satisfy the concerns of the watershed district is by requiring the applicant to add a ponding area and the applicant had to lose one of the single family lots, than the applicant would have to lose one of the four single family lots. Commissioner Dierich said the property owner at 556 Ripley Avenue said on page 9, number 2, of the staff report that this property needs to be cleaned up. If that is true then who bares the cost of the clean up, the developer, or the city? Planning Commission Minutes of 12-19-05 -4- Mr. Roberts said he hasn't read all the soil boring reports but whatever needs to be cleaned up is the developer's responsibility, not the City of Maplewood. Chairperson Fischer asked the applicant to address the commission. Mr. Alan Kretman, CEO and owner of Proterra Design Associates, Inc., 7300 Hudson Blvd., Suite 220, Oakdale. They have subrnitted a detailed storrn water managernent plan to the city which has examined the hydrology of the wetland basin as well as another low area that is on the site. 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 District. In working with the watershed district and their recommendations, the storm water design for the site will have storm water collected through an engineered storrn water systern and directed to the delineated on-site storm water detention/retention wetland basin located at the southwest portion of the site. It is naturally designed to NURP standards and has sufficient size to handle the 2-year, 10-year, 100- year, back to back 100-year, and 10-day rainfall and/or snowmelt events for the neighborhood and for all off-site drainage currently flowing to the property. Emergency storm water 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 storm water 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. 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 provide service to the entire development with no lift stations needed. 341 lineal feet of the existing sanitary sewer rnain 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 storm water overflow. Mr. Kretman said regarding the soil borings, his company doesn't engineer a site until they know what the ground is like underneath. It appeared there was some fill in the area so they examined that, they also looked at the water elevation in the ground water and found out there is a significant amount of fill that has been placed on this property. They took a soil boring test down to 850 and didn't find water in the borings but there were some higher moisture levels in one of the tests. When they exarnine sornething like that they deterrnine what can happen with a wetland like this. The wetland was created because of a glacial deposit in the area where the clay captured the water. Where there is no clay in the soil the soil functions better than the wetland does from a drainage point. Planning Commission Minutes of 12-19-05 -5- Mr. Kretrnan said they will be taking this project before the Watershed District on Wednesday, January 4, 2006. He completed a response to the letter frorn the Watershed District and their engineer. He will send that letter to the city bye-mail on Tuesday, December 20th because he just received confirmation from his soils engineer this afternoon. They have been working with the Watershed District's Engineer and the responses are in line with the Watershed's expectations. They will work through the issues with the watershed district. He found a copy of the letter from the engineer and passed it along to Michael Thompson, Staff Engineer, for Maplewood. Mr. Kretman said regarding the tree plan, he knows the applicant is required to plant 18 new trees. They would like to work with the neighbors to place the trees strategically to provide for their needs as well as for the future residents that will be living in these hornes. They talked to a few of the neighbors about this already and welcome additional input from the residents in the area. Mr. Kretman said during the meeting with Mr. Harrison, he also discussed the potential for the subdivision of his property to take advantage of the construction of Jessie Street. Mr. Harrison stated that he would be open to relocating his garage to create that opportunity to subdivide his property. The nice thing for Mr. Harrison is the developer will be putting in the street, the utilities, and giving hirn the Outlot B a triangular piece of property which will give hirn the right of way so he won't encroach closer to his house. This way Mr. Harrison could come into the city and apply for a lot split if he wanted to. Commissioner Trippler asked Mr. Kretman what the intent is for parcel 3 and 4? If he understands the grading plan correctly it looks like there will be a 10 foot drop from the front of the house to the back of the house and another 10 to 14 foot drop off to the back of the lot. Mr. Kretman said that is true for parcel 4 and that is normal for a walkout lot. In the case of parcel 3 the homeowner will be able to walk out a small area of the backyard. That lot will be developed similar to a lot that was developed in Kenwood Oaks that was done in 1989. The end lots there have a wetland they face with a rninimal backyard. The intent is that the homeowner would step out onto a deck with a minirnal backyard. The homeowner is usually a senior that doesn't want a lot of yard to maintain. The backyard would probably be vegetated with prairie grass to achieve the natural look and it would extend into a wooded area. He knows the neighborhood would appreciate that natural characteristic. Commissioner Trippler said he can't imagine a senior citizen would want that type of lot with that large of a drop off in the yard. Chairperson Fischer said she thinks the intent is for a senior who doesn't want to live in a townhouse and still prefers a single family home but isn't interested in a large yard to maintain. Commissioner Trippler said he assumed the developer would be doing some in-fill. Mr. Kretman said yes. Commissioner Trippler asked if the in-fill would have any negative affect on the drainage or generate more storm water on the site? Mr. Kretman said the storm water management plan shows there is no net runoff from the development in a post development condition. Planning Commission Minutes of 12-19-05 -6- Commissioner Yarwood said the rainwater garden is very important because the extra drainage area the developer will be adding will be going to the wetland which en corn passes existing lots. Secondly, you are turning natural land into developed land which leads to increased concentration. He wants to stress the point that this is a very important part of planning to make sure the runoff and drainage is carefully planned and double checked. Mr. Kretman said when they first started the project he called Tina Carstens from the watershed district and she said this is a class 5 wetland but it is a "degraded" wetland. It's not in good condition and with the additional runoff it will help with the hydrology. With proper landscape management techniques on the edge it will create a stronger buffer and help the wetland out. Commissioner Grover said in terms of the additional lot that could be created for Mr. Harrison from Outlot B, does that meet the minimum size expectations in the city? Mr. Roberts said tonight is the first time staff has seen a plan regarding an additional lot for Mr. Harrison and it's something staff would have to review atthe time of a lot split application if in fact the city would even receive an application for a lot split. Tonight the city is looking for the plan to be approved with the outlot such that it gives Mr. Harrison the "option" in the future if he wants it. Staff is going to trust that Mr. Kretman has laid everything out to show it meets the city standards. Mr. Kretman said that lot has a 75-foot lot width; the lot is 10,785 square feet with a 5-foot garage setback, a 1 O-foot living side yard setback and a 20-foot rear yard setback and front yard setback. The largest lot in this development is over 23,000 square feet. Chairperson Fischer said if anyone in the audience wanted to address the commission regarding this proposal they should come forward and give their name and address and sign in for the reco rd. There were 18 neighborhood residents in the audience, one city council person, and the mayor elect. Of the 18 neighborhood residents, the following nine people spoke: 1.) Bill Stroeing, 1797 Sunrise Court, Maplewood. Mr. Stroeing said this past summer, on two occasions, the pond on Edgerton Street and Ripley Avenue had to be pumped out 2 to 3 weeks because it overflowed. If this developer is allowed to build 4 hornes in this area and the pond would be to the southwest of the property, where is the water going to run from there? Will they pump that pond 2 to 3 weeks at a time to get the water level down to the minimum so someone's backyard isn't floating? Mr. Roberts said Mr. Kretman's storm water analysis ensures there would be no additional water going into the pond then what already goes into it. The elevation would not change and even if there was more water, the pond is low enough below the adjoining homes so there is room for some rise. Everyone is very cognoscente of this and the engineers will make sure ifthere is more water there will be a way to get the water out without flooding the neighbors. Mr. Stroeing said it doesn't seem realistic to have four more homes with rooflines that will drain off and not be any more watering that direction. Where did the existing water that flooded the ponds this summer on two different occasions come from then? Planning Commission Minutes of 12-19-05 -7- Mr. Roberts said that is the analysis that the developer's engineer along with the city engineer have found and they are confident that will not be a problern. Mr. Stroeing said there is already a problem there and he doubts the engineers are coming truthful with the watershed district because the additional water will have to run sornewhere. With the cul-de-sac and Jessie Street going down to Ripley Avenue there is already water standing. Water stands on the street for at least 10 days after a rainfall. There are no storm sewer drains going into the city sewer here. Any water that runs off any existing building or street is supposed to go into these ponds and the ponds all connect. On the west side there is a ditch or channel that would run towards Bradley Street. Mr. Richard Lefebvre has a pond in his front yard and if a lot of water runs through there his house will be flooded. In the report the applicant said the sewer shouldn't be a problem. Well every morning there are two city employees that go to the lift pumping station to check things out every day. Mr. Roberts said there is a sanitary sewer lift station and that is a low point for a sanitary system. It is city policy when there are crews on staff that they check the system to make sure there are no problerns. It's a routine practice that is done at all the lift stations that are checked on a daily basis and there are about 6 or 7 lift stations in the city. Mr. Stroeing said if you add four more homes and they connect to the city sewer system in this area, will the pumping station be able to handle another four homes? Mr. Roberts said that is his understanding. Mr. Stroeing said they have lost power several times and within a half an hour there is a Maplewood truck with a generator down there to make sure the system is flowing all the time. If the holding tank in that area is big enough to adhere to this why is the city there that quick to make sure there is power to pump the station? Mr. Roberts said there is no holding tank for the sanitary system. If the pump isn't working, the sewage isn't flowing, and that's why the crew is there with a generator to make sure the pump is pumping and the homes don't get sewage in their basements. Mr. Stroeing said the proposed homes will be sitting higher than the rest of the surrounding homes and he is concerned the homes that are lower in elevation will get flooded. Mr. Stroeing asked what the difference was between a variance and a vacation? Mr. Roberts said vacating a right of way or alley means the applicant is asking the city to take it off the books. The property is currently owned by the public for public use. When the city vacates the property it means the city gives up their interest in the property. A variance is a term used when somebody wants to build with a setback that is different than the norm. For example, the normal front yard setback is 30 feet and if somebody wanted to build at 20 feet that would be a "variance". Mr. Stroeing asked how deep the soil borings were that were done on this property? Commissioner Trippler estimated the soil borings were at about 25 feet deep. Planning Commission Minutes of 12-19-05 -8- Mr. Stroeing said that property was once a dump so they may have not gone deep enough to see the condition of the soil. Do we know what was durnped on that property? There has been a lot of fill put onto this property too. He asked if there were any permits pulled to put fill on that property? Mr. Roberts said typically a fill perrnit is needed but he doesn't have access to that inforrnation at this time to check if a fill perrnit was ever issued. Fill permits are issued in public works in the engineering department. Mr. Stroeing said that is something that should be checked into. There has been a lot of stuff dumped on that property and the city should investigate this. Last fall someone was hauling fill onto this property. He doesn't agree with the proposal for a 20 foot backyard size. This project is something that needs to be checked into further. The applicant wants to talk to the neighbors to see where the trees should be planted but if you plant the trees too close to the houses, the trees will get too large and cause structural problems. It could also cause moisture problems being so close to the house when you plant a tree 10 feet from a house. He said he would like the opportunity to come back up and speak if he thinks of any other questions or issues to raise. 2.) Kelly Gohr, 540 Ripley Avenue, Maplewood. Ms. Gohr said she has lived in her house for 18 years. After they moved into their house it was flooded twice and the sanitary sewer ended up in her basement as well in other people's basements in this neighborhood. Ripley Avenue is at the bottom of the hill. The water runs down the hill into the pond directly off of Ripley Avenue that's why the pond is full every time it rains. The pond has to be drained off. There are three houses that are threatened by the water that rises from the pond. Her house is going to be at the bottom of another hill when this development is built because the homes will be higher in elevation. She had sewer backed up in her basement and she came before the city council along with the neighbors and requested a new lift station or something be done with the sewer system because of the repeat problems. Monitors were put in so that when there was a power outage and the lift station backed up, somebody from the city would be there right away to fix the problem. That has worked fine so far. There have been four homes that have been added into the neighborhood since then but there has been space for the four hornes. The houses weren't built on top of a hill that will look down onto the rest of the neighborhood like this proposal will. You are asking the neighbors to accept the fact that they are sitting in a bowl and after these four homes are added this will add more water to the bowl. The sanitary system will need to be redone in order for her to feel safe enough that she won't have sewage backed up in her basement again. She has had to file 2 insurance claims because of sewage backing up in her basement. Then she had to file another claim from straight line winds that came through the neighborhood. If this development causes another flood her house will be ruined, her insurance will be cancelled, and nobody will care but her. The developer is trying to force four new houses in an already cozy neighborhood, add another road into this neighborhood, cause more traffic, cut down a lot of trees, and cause a lot of disgruntled neighbors because nobody is happy about this proposal. These houses will be sitting up high and will look down onto her house and backyard. This whole area is built on a dump. She has glass, broken bottles, cans, rnetal, marble from old tombstones and other rusty stuff coming through the soil in the backyard where the grass doesn't grow and further into the woods. The developer came to her house and said there would be no "usable" backyard for the home that would be built behind her house and there would be a deck overlooking her home. Planning Commission Minutes of 12-19-05 -9- Ms. Gohr said her house will be at risk for flooding as well as other homes in this neighborhood if this developrnent is approved and she strongly objects to this proposal. She is angry about this and if any of the cornrnissioners has ever had sewage in their basernent like she has twice already it is not a pleasant experience and now she has to worry about it happening again. Cornrnissioner Trippler asked when the last tirne her horne was flooded with sewage was? Ms. Gohr said the last flood occurred about 16 years ago. Commissioner Trippler asked if that problem occurred before or after the monitors were put in? Mr. Roberts said Ms. Gohr testified earlier the sewer backups occurred before the rnonitors were installed. Ms. Gohr said the monitors have helped but there are other problems that still exist. The neighbors were told these homes would be in the $400,000 to $500,000 range. These are large homes which will look silly in this type and size of neighborhood. The neighbors are going to feel like the little people in their own neighborhood, this development does not fit in with this existing neighborhood. Commissioner Ahlness asked if Ms. Gohr has had any flooding due to the runoff in her house or was sewage the main problem. Ms. Gohr said she hasn't had any flooding in her house due to runoff but there is always standing water on the street after it rains or when the snow rnelts because it has no place to go. Water runs down her driveway. They had their driveway graded so that the water goes off to the side and into the vacated driveway. The pond fills up on the west end of the street. There are constantly three homes on the north side of Ripley Avenue that are threatened by flooding all the time. The city is aware of it; they come with their pumps and hoses and drain the water off the site to Larpenteur Avenue which is about four blocks away. Commissioner Yarwood said he has had some training in civil engineering and it seems they are prepared for what might happen to the wetland according to the report from the applicant. He is concerned with how this site interacts with the larger drainage area and the pond on Edgerton Street. He asked how confident staff is that the surrounding area has been accounted for in the drainage plan? Mr. Michael Thompson, Staff Engineer addressed the commission. Staff is looking at this as anything that is going to be developed is going to be done with predevelopment conditions. That is where the rainwater garden plan would come in or a pond could be built. There are a few issues with the drainage report still such as the in-fill in the depression area that wasn't accounted for so there are some things that haven't been ironed out. The main concern is that this project doesn't add to any existing problems on the site. 3.) Jim Boche, 556 Ripley Avenue, Maplewood. Mr. Boche asked where the soil borings were taken? Mr. Kretrnan said the soil borings were taken in various places and he showed the approximate locations on the map. Planning Commission Minutes of 12-19-05 -10- Mr. Boche said he is leery about the soil on the property. He has lived here for 20 years and he had to dig down and build up his property. He walked around this property to be developed and what he found was towards the back of the lots was the area that was exposed. There was a ditch all the way around from Ripley Avenue to the main pond. You could walk through and see there was trash about 10 to 15 feet high on the back of the property. He never saw the landscape before the fill happened but he spoke to people in the area who said that area had been used as a dump years ago. The only reason the dump was filled in was because there were so many rats back there. There was a lot offill going in there. He is not sure how far frorn the center of the cul- de-sac is the deepest but he would guess it would be closest to the alley. He doesn't know what the original farrnstead looked like. He doesn't care if the developer builds here but he fears the soils and also because of all the top soil put here which was never cornpacted. There is a lot of junk below the soil, a lot of peat soil, and there is low land here. He has heard horror stories of not having firm foundation underneath a house. There have been houses that have been sinking and cracking around here. He would be skeptical regarding the west and the northwest property regarding the condition of the fill. At one time there were some photographs of the area before it was filled in and he saw the photos. There was a series of ponds there. Where his house is built there is a 25 foot drop. Closer to Ripley Avenue there is a 25 foot deep hole full of junk. He believes that area was filled in the 1950's. For many years he's seen many developers check out this property and walk off the property, but this was before James Harrison bought the property. The developers rnust have seen something they didn't like on this property. He just wants the city and the applicant to be aware there was a former dump on this site but it's been filled in. He doesn't know who would be responsible if the homes would have any problems with the foundation and or the ground and would recommend the city be very careful with this proposal. Commissioner Trippler asked staff if this was an old dump site what is the city's responsibility for identifying that and what are the requirements if any for something to be done as far as clean up on the site? Mr. Roberts said staff will have to research that with the legal staff. He appreciates the information from the neighbors but at this time he doesn't have a definite answerto that question. Comrnissioner Trippler said a few years ago there was an article in the newspaper about a woman who bought a home that was built on an old dump site. Unfortunately there are thousands of old dumps all over the twin city area. Mr. Boche said he knows; his house was built on one! Lucky for him he saw a photograph of what was there before. His property intersects with a sandbar so his house is built on firm ground. However, a warning to the wise be very careful with this property. 4.) Tom Owens, 575 Ripley Avenue, Maplewood. He said he and his wife have been building their house for the last 3 years. They had to spend $28,000 for soil corrections when they did the excavating to haul out trash, tree trunks, welding tanks, tires etc. His biggest concern is this is a quiet neighborhood and they specifically built their house on a no outlet street and they don't want a housing project built in this neighborhood. If you squeeze 4 houses in a parcel of land that should have no more than 2 homes on it, in his opinion that equals a housing development. You can use all the fancy terminology you want but the bottom line is you are going to cover at least 14,000 square feet of land which will not allow the rainwater to soak in. Planning Commission Minutes of 12-19-05 -11- Mr. Owens said the water has to go somewhere and it will go in his backyard as well as others. The water table is also going to go up. When coffins start corning out of the ground frorn the cemetery across the street there is going to be hell to pay he said. The neighbors don't want this proposal to happen and the neighbors want to know how this is going to benefit the neighborhood. He and his neighbor had to put in their own drain culvert to the existing pond at their own costs because the city didn't want anything to do with it because the city is eventually going to reconstruct Ripley Avenue. The city better come up with a better solution. He gave the city the narne of a rnan who could dredge the pond but the city never called hirn. The water table is going to go up. He's already lost 10 feet of property in his backyard from the pond water rising. 10 feet of his property has disappeared since he bought this land and he is paying taxes on that 10 feet that is under water. If he looses any more square footage of his backyard he will be petitioning this committee and the city council for a rebate on his taxes because of the water overflow problem in this area. 5.) James Harrison, 1777 Edgerton Street North, Maplewood. He said he was the original owner of the property in question. The applicant, Alan Kretman has been to his house several tirnes trying to get information out of him. This property was in fact a dump in the northwest corner that was owned by the cemetery. You can still see some remnants of the dump on the property. It is the only portion of the property that was not backfilled. Somewhere between 6,000 to 7,000 yards of quality fill was hauled there in a two week period by Frattalone Excavating which he has photos of. He had approached the city to give him access to the property to build a new home there. Now he lives in a house that was built in 1888 which was the original farm house. He knew the city had to give him access because the city had already plumbed Jessie Street for future development. The city council granted him access to the landlocked piece of property under certain conditions that were outlined by the city council. The condition listed stated he could have access to the site if only one home was built on the property. The city made him combine all individual lots together to make one large lot for tax purposes to ensure only one home could be built on this property. That is what fits the property. Not four homes as the developer is proposing. Mr. Alan Kretman wrote inaccurate statements in his report about Mr. Harrison. He believes Mr. Kretman made the report to make himself look better and Mr. Harrison is not for this proposal at all. One home should be built here not four homes! It does not accommodate the neighborhood. The cul-de-sac the developer is proposing to build is not the same size as the one on Ripley Avenue. He has many good reasons the developer is being very selfish with this piece of property. If the city felt it was okay to have a developer build four hornes why did the city feel it was so important to put all the parcels together so only one home could be built here in the future? What changed from then to now with the city council? Was there a grading permit issued for the property since they purchased it? Did the developer apply for a grading permit? Mr. Roberts said he doesn't have access to that information at this time. Mr. Harrison asked Chairperson Fischer if he had permission to ask the applicant if the developer applied for a grading permit? Chairperson Fischer asked staff if they had any information relating to the grading issues or would that have to be researched? Mr. Thompson, staff engineer said that information would have to be researched. Planning Commission Minutes of 12-19-05 -12- Mr. Harrison said there must have been a grading permit because someone has dumped 500 yards of soil on that property in the last rnonth. Chairperson Fischer asked if this information would be available by the time this proposal gets heard by the city council? Mr. Roberts said rnost definitely. Commissioner Ahlness said to answer Mr. Harrison's question of why the developer is allowed to build four hornes on the sarne parcel, the city council told him he could only have one lot on this property back in 1999. The reason for that is the applicant is putting in a street at his own expense allowing for more than one home to be built. When Mr. Harrison owned the property he would not be able to access the property from a publicly maintained and dedicated street. Mr. Harrison said his paperwork in 1999 states it was the city's view that a cul-de-sac could not be built because there was not a large enough access for a fire truck to turn around making it unsafe to do that. Chairperson Fischer said the staff report states the design of the cul-de-sac meets the fire standards today. Mr. Roberts said correct. Mr. Harrison asked who will be responsible for maintaining the street that doesn't even front their homes? Mr. Thompson, staff engineer, said his understanding is the city will maintain the public right of way. Mr. Harrison said the city is going to maintain the grass there? Mr. Thompson said in conjunction with the whole plan that will be figured out. Commissioner Dierich asked if Mr. Harrison's garage is right on the property line for this proposal? Mr. Harrison said his garage is within 5 feet of the property line and there is a tree in between the garage and the property line. Commissioner Dierich asked what the setback should be for that? Mr. Roberts said if this was a clean slate it would be a 30 foot setback from the right of way, but there are existing conditions, so it's grandfathered in. Mr. Harrison asked what style of home and what type of garages would be built on these properties? Mr. Roberts said these would be rambler style hornes with a two car attached garage. Planning Commission Minutes of 12-19-05 -13- Mr. Harrison asked why that wasn't drawn on the plan that way then? Mr. Roberts said the homes are shown on the plan as a pad with rectangular boxes but there have been no particular details submitted yet about the design of the houses. Mr. Harrison said his home is listed with the historical society with Maplewood and with Minnesota. He said Mr. Kretman said the developer would try to uphold the historical value of Mr. Harrison's horne when these four homes are built. Mr. Harrison is curious what the developer could do to uphold the historical value of his home and the neighborhood. 6.) Bill Stroeing, 1797 Sunrise Court, Maplewood, spoke again. He is concerned about the drainage and he went over the issues he had with the plans on the screen while describing where he thinks the drainage and overflow problems will occur. He believes the DNR trail will be flooded because the pond will never withstand the runoff from the site. As was mentioned earlier, Tom Owens and his neighbor Eric had to dig their own culvert to divert the water into the pond because of the flooding they have in their yards. Ripley Avenue and Bradley Avenue do not have any drains on the street. The water is transforrned into the ponds. The city ran drainage pipe into another pond and the ponds join together. He does not believe these four homes would be an asset for the city. The amount of money that has already cost the taxpayers to pump the water for two weeks straight from this site to the St. Paul side of Larpenteur Avenue is ridiculous. Someone was being paid to make sure these pumps were running for two to three weeks at a time. Irnagine the noise the neighbors had to listen to day and night from draining the water. There have been many expenses for personal property that the neighbors had to pay from the water problems in this area too. The weather people can't even predict weather 2 days in advance, how can the engineers design sites for a 2 year, a 10 year or 100 year rainfall. As saturated as the area is he wouldn't be surprised if the caskets start rising from the ground. The water and drainage is a huge problem in this area. 7.) Robert Bollar, 1789 Sunrise Court, Maplewood. The community mailbox is in front of his house. This is where the pool of water stays in the summertime and where the ice skating rink from the frozen water is during the wintertime so it is very difficult to get to and from the mailbox. He is concerned about this development. If he was on the planning commission he would be concerned about the decision and the results from the decision. A lot of concerns and questions have been asked tonight and the answers have been "we feel confident" or "we don't know that information yet but we will know that inforrnation by January 4th when this goes to the city council". If he was one of the commissioners he would be very concerned about the lack of information before he would make any type decision tonight. He is from New Orleans, Louisiana. There are a lot of people in New Orleans on the city council that were confident about a lot of things before the hurricane but nobody is confident of much anymore. He is asking the commission to gather all of the data and the information before it goes to the city council and that the commission knows beyond a shadow of a doubt, and are very confident that this proposal is going to work and other problems won't occur. He would like to know what plan B is? The proposal is plan A, but what is plan B? There are already existing problems at the site. Everyone wants to get plan A approved, but what is plan B? He is trying to look out for everyone in this neighborhood but also for the commission members who are going to make a decision that will affect many people in this area. He wants to make sure we have checked the data and done all the investigating possible to make sure this proposal is definitely the right thing to do and there will be no regrets when it is all said and done. Planning Commission Minutes of 12-19-05 -14- 8.) Erica Peterson, 1779 Edgerton Street, Maplewood. She is opposed to this development and doesn't think this fits into the neighborhood or the landscape. There will be 49 trees taken down on a 1.8 acre lot and she wondered how much water those trees absorb and what affect will that have on the water problerns? Are there any plans that represent if one house was built, how many trees would need to be taken down? Or if there were two houses built, how many trees would have to be taken down? Mr. Roberts said the grading plans that were prepared by the engineer show the grading for the entire site and the tree removal necessary to fit the street and the house pads. They did not prepare any alternative plans if less homes were built. They were not required to have such plans, so the city does not know the answer to that plan. Mr. Thornpson said the rernoval of those trees would have no affect on a large storrn. The trees take up water during normal times but when you are talking about flooding issues that is not going to be a concern. With the development you will have more impervious area and that has to be engineered, looked at and scrutinized. The watershed is taking a look at that as well as the city engineering department. Mr. Kretman said he has been a resident in this area and he is very cognoscente of the things that have been proposed by the city in the past that have not happened that will take care of the neighbors concerns. Regarding the standing water on Ripley Avenue. It is in the city's Capital Improvement Plan to improve Ripley Avenue which will entail constructing curb and gutter and putting in storm sewer systems alleviating the issues for storm water drainage that are caused by drainage on Ripley Avenue. That is not something they are irnpacting. They have storrn sewers at the end of their street capturing the storm water before it goes to Ripley Avenue. As a member of the development committee of St. Jerome's Church he remembers back in the mid 1980's the city looked at a comprehensive storm water management plan for that entire area and wanted to put some improvements. The drainage and water problem is much greater than this subdivision. He thinks the neighbors have expressed a great concern about the hydrology in this area and it might behoove the planning commission or the city council that engineering should revisit some of the old plans to see the storm water problems for this general area. Mr. Kretman said regarding the deep gully that Mr. Groeing showed on the screen is shown on their storm water management plans as subcatchment B which they know will not have any discharge out of there. The sanitary sewer capacity is examined when it is designed and the lift station is put together and they anticipate volume and growth. They did the same thing with St. Jerome's Church and figured out where homes could be built for the sanitary sewer. The hornes will be a cornbination of two story and single story homes with a walk out basernent and two car attached garages. The four homes will be a craftsman style architecture that will reflect the architecture of Mr. Harrison's home. This proposal will add value to the neighborhood. Mr. Kretman said the construction period will be as short as possible. They plan on getting the street and utilities in this coming spring and the homes built over the summer and then the construction is over. There have been a lot of questions regarding the soil. The five soil borings that were taken the fill on top reached from 11 feet down to 0 feet. Planning Commission Minutes of 12-19-05 -15- Mr. Kretman said the soils are generally unconsolidated and the recommendation from the soils engineer is to excavate the soil out down to the existing soil and rernove the organic layer that was never removed before the soil was put in place. Replace the soil and compact it properly. That entire site will need to be corrected before these homes are built. They are cognoscente of that. The developer knows the expense is potentially there. He does not know if a grading permit was pulled or not. He believes there was 8 or 9 loads of sand deposited on that site. If there has been any additional soil dumped on the site, he is not aware of that, but he will check into that with his client. Mr. Harrison spoke up and said there were "18" loads dumped on the property, not 8 or 9. Mr. Kretman said in terms of confidence of the plans and what they have proposed. They are very confident of the plans. His company has designed miles and miles of streets, his company has been doing this for over 20 years, thousands of homes in the twin cities, and they are very confident of this plan. In terrns of alternative plans they do not have to do those because these plans conform to the city's codes for a single family development in this area and in fact they exceed the city's codes. 9.) Kelly Gohr, 540 Ripley Avenue, Maplewood, spoke again. Ms. Gohr said Mr. Kretman pointed out he worked with St. Jerome's Church regarding drainage problems. St. Jerome's Church is at the top of the hill and this neighborhood is at the bottom of the hill. So this neighborhood will still have more problems then St. Jerome's does so that doesn't make her feel much better. You do need a plan B because she could lose her insurance and her house and she would like to know what the city is going to do then. The city planned for what was needed when the original homes were built in this area and the area still gets flooded. So saying the developer is confident, and the applicant is confident the plans are going to take care of things doesn't hold rnuch truth to her. Things were well planned before and things still happened. It is hard to feel safe when problems were not supposed to happen but they did. When you cut the trees down that is going to rob the neighborhood of its personality. 10.) Jirn McDermott, 1788 Sunrise Court, Maplewood. Mr. McDermott asked if any of the residence would be assessed any taxes for this street going in or for the curb and gutter? Mr. Roberts said the cost of this project is being absorbed by the developer. Mr. McDermott asked about vacating the alley, if the alleyway wasn't vacated, would the developer have enough property to build this proposal? Is it common practice for the city to give the developer land? Mr. Roberts said this alleyway was vacated in 1999 with Mr. Harrison's request but somewhere in the paper shuffle it didn't get recorded with the county. He doesn't have calculations to see if there would be enough land with or without the alleyway. If the alley is vacated, 10 feet goes to the neighbor to the west and 10 fe.et would go to the development on the east side of the valley. It is common practice for the city to vacate alleys when they are not used and divide it up with the adjoining property owners. Planning Commission Minutes of 12-19-05 -16- 11.) Scott Farinella, 1760 Bradley Street, Maplewood. He said it seems pretty generous that the city would give this much land away to the developer. He thought it was pretty typical for a street vacation like this that the right of way be divided equally. Mr. Roberts said typically if the whole right of way would be vacated, half would go to the west property and half would go to the east property. In this case they are not proposing to vacate all of the right of way, they are just proposing to vacate the strip on the west side and vacate the other piece that would no longer be needed and have the property replatted to get the cul-de-sac. Commissioner Pearson said when he spoke earlier with Mr. Farinella regarding the pond behind his house he said the pond goes down quickly after a heavy rain. Mr. Farinella said the pond doesn't go down that quickly. Commissioner Pearson asked if he has any encroachment or backup in his basement from the heavy rains? Mr. Farinella said no but said his house is probably 8 or 9 feet above the lowest point. Commissioner Pearson said Mr. Farinella mentioned after a heavy rain that after 2 or 3 days the pond is back down to its original elevation. Mr. Farinella said he wouldn't say 2 or 3 days, it takes a little longer than that for it to reach the normal level. Chairperson Fischer closed the public hearing. Commissioner Grover said it was mentioned that this portion of Ripley Avenue is scheduled for reconstruction; he asked staff when that's planned for and is it still planned for in the city's CIP? Mr. Roberts said this is scheduled for the summer of 2007 in the CI P but the CI P gets reviewed every year and things can change. Commissioner Pearson said this is a primer for everything the commission will be looking in the south part of Maplewood and those who want to develop properties with lift stations at low elevations and 20 years later you can have problems like the one the neighbors have spoken of. Any house that is sitting in a low elevation and served by a lift station ought to be required to put in a backup in the sewer line. Commissioner Ahlness said the applicant indicated in subcatchment B that should hold for two back to back 100 year rain events, but in the event that it goes over it would continue to drain using the regional drainage system. That seems to him that would go more to the westerly ponds rather to the northerly ponds. Is that a fair assumption? Planning Commission Minutes of 12-19-05 -17- Mr. Thompson said the ponds are all connected so basically everything frorn this proposal would either go into the depression area through sheet flow off the hill behind parcels 3 and 4 and there are two inlets that would be proposed that would take drainage down to the wetland area. Engineering's concern is for anything that is going to be developed. That may require that the developer needs to put in their own individual ponding system for retention to get flows back and volumes back down to predevelopment conditions. There have been issues brought up about putting in a force drain for drainage and taking that over the Gateway Trail. The entire drainage system needs to be rnaster planned. Engineering is concerned that they review all the drainage calculations, the hydrology and hydraulics to rnake sure that everything that is post development meets predevelopment conditions. There are some issues still with the drainage reports such as the infill going into the depression area and the idea of the individual ponds orwetlands that could be put onto the individual properties. The terrn Subcatchrnent B referred to by Alan Kretman is the drainage area that is going into the depression. Cornrnissioner Dierich asked if she heard correctly that we want to rnake sure "post" developrnent is equal to "predevelopment" which means the flooding that exists already will continue to exist post development? She thought the city tries to improve the situation with new developments in the city. Mr. Thornpson said two basic drainage areas and the proposed improvements are to mitigate that with a rainwater garden or another pond area so it will be looked at. Commissioner Dierich said "mitigation" in her mind, is to improve the situation. "Equal" doesn't sound like we are going to improve the situation, instead things would stay the same. Mr. Roberts said he doesn't know that the city can require a developer to improve a drainage situation that encompasses an area larger than the property they are developing. The city can rnake sure that the developer doesn't "add" to the problem. According to what the report says, and if everything that was stated is correct, it sounds like the runoff will not add any more water to the system than what is already draining off. The city can't require the developer because there are other problerns a few properties away, you suddenly can't build this proposal because of the existing problems. In 2007 this area will be looked at on a neighborhood basis rather than a four lot subdivision. Commissioner Dierich said she is surprised. On just about every development that has come before the planning commission in the past 8 months the city has required the developers to improve the ponding situation and there are a ton of ponds here that are affected. There is runoff going into the ponds, the ponds that are on the developer's property could be improved and she didn't hear anything about "improving" the ponds. She is not satisfied with the information that the commission has gotten from the engineering department and the developer regarding the flooding and the soils, and she usually likes something more complete to refer to. Commissioner Desai asked if the Jessie Street runoff would drain onto Ripley Avenue? Mr. Thompson said from the improvement plan there are two catch basins on either side of the street towards the bottom that would be taken into a storm drain pipe to the wetland area, so there would be no direct sheet flow of storm water onto Ripley Avenue. Planning Commission Minutes of 12-19-05 -18- Commissioner Desai said that's a long distance away for those catch basins to carry the water. He wondered how quickly that would drain a 100 year rain. Chairperson Fischer asked staff if this was an official city dump? Mr. Roberts said no. Testirnony tonight frorn the neighbors stated it was a dump run by the cemetery across the street. Commissioner Yarwood said he would be more cornfortable with this after the city staff has had the chance to review the engineer's drainage plan and have had conversations regarding what needs to be done along with the report from St. Paul Water. He is not comfortable supporting this proposal as things stand now. Chairperson Fischer asked what the timeline was? Mr. Roberts said state law requires the city take action on proposals like this within 60 days of receiving it so that would be by January 21,2006. If this proposal was delayed it would push the proposal to be heard by the city council on January 23, 2006, if the applicant is willing to extend their deadline with the city by two days. Commissioner Trippler said he thought the application had to be complete for the clock to start running with the city? This report was not complete with the Watershed District nor was the engineering report complete. Mr. Roberts said the watershed application is not one of the requirements, the applicant did submit cornplete plans and calculations. What the city engineer is saying is he is not completely satisfied that the applicant meets all of the city requirements and that is why we do the review process. Were the plans cornplete to every detail, no. Can the applicant and the engineers get there, yes. Everybody will try and work out the issues and bring this back to the planning commission to be heard a second time. Mr. Kretman said he is willing to extend the deadline by two days making this proposal heard by the city council on January 23, 2006. Mr. Roberts said okay this will be heard again by the planning commission on Tuesdav, January 3, 2006, and then to the city council on January 23, 2006. Mr. Kretman said he would anticipate his client would be agreeable to the two day delay. Commissioner Yarwood moved to table the proposal for C. Kings Addition (Jessie Street, south of Ripley Avenue) until Tuesday, January 3,2006 to be heard by the planning commission. Commissioner Desai seconded. Ayes - Ahlness, Desai, Dierich, Fischer, Grover, Kaczrowski, Pearson, Trippler, Yarwood The motion to table passed. Planning Commission Minutes of 12-19-05 -19- The planning commission said by the next planning commission meeting on January 3, 2006, they would like to have inforrnation regarding if this was a dumpsite, what responsibility does the city have if something happens once the homes are built if there are settling issues. And secondly if the drainage doesn't work and people's houses get flooded, what is the city's responsibility. Commissioner Ahlness said the planning commission is directed by the city council and the city attorney that the commission has to base their decision on the facts of the matter. As much as possible the commission relies on expert opinion, so when the cornmission hears things from an engineer and from staff, the commission needs to rely on those facts. If the neighbors want to make arguments counter to that, the commission needs to have similar expert opinion rather than just neighbors making statements. A good example may be housing values that may decrease if a development goes in. However, he is not saying this development will decrease the value of their hornes. That alone does not carry enough weight according to the city attorney. The cornrnission would need a qualified professional such as a realtor or an appraiser. So when the neighbors talk about issues such as drainage problems, the commission needs more formal documentation from a professional. The planning commission values the opinions and statements of the neighbors but the commission needs to base their decision on the facts. Commissioner Grover said it would be important to have information on the drainage in the neighborhood and the surrounding area if that is available. Commissioner Dierich said she would like the developer to do a true tree planting plan rather than just a tree count. The commission was done discussing this proposal and took a 5 rninute recess from 9:58 p.m. to 10:03 p.m. to clear the audience. VI. NEW BUSINESS None. VII. UNFINISHED BUSINESS In-Fill Development Study Update Mr. Roberts said in 1997, city staff, the planning comrnission 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 staff felt were likely to be developed. The planning cornmission recently asked 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. The question is how should the city define in-fill development? This can be a real challenge. Should the city use site acreage as a criterion by setting a minimum or maximum site defining in-fill sites eligible for development? Should there be different standards for small sites versus large tracts? Should the city encourage or require the use of PUD's for in-fill sites? Planning Commission Minutes of 12-19-05 -20- Cornrnissioner Grover said there are sites such as the one we just discussed that was a past durnp and the site has never been developed. There are also sites that have crazy lots that are unusually located and not connected to any sort of frontage or roads. It ends up being a situation where you need to bring in a street in order to get to the lot where the house is proposed to be built. Mr. Roberts said the "easy lots" are built on. There are going to be more and more of these unusual lots that developers want to try to build on which can be a real challenge. Because land is becoming more valuable, people are trying to develop what they can, where they can. Commissioner Trippler thanked staff for the material on in-fill developrnents. It was very informative. He said the definition of Infill shown in the packet in the section called BUILD comes close to what he thinks in-fill is with the exception of the words "vacant land" in the paragraph. It says Infil/ development is the economic use of vacant land, or restoration or rehabilitation of existing structures or infrastructure, in already urbanized areas where water, sewer, and other public services are in place, that maintains the continuity of the original community fabric. Commissioner Trippler said he also likes the definition in the (MRSC) Municipal Research & Services Center of Washington page except for the vacant land wording. It says In fill development is the process of developing vacant or under-used parcels within existing urban areas that are already largely developed. He would also like to add the paragraph that says Attention to design of in fill development is essential to ensure that the new development fits the existing context, and gains neighborhood acceptance. A cooperative partnership between govemment, the development community, financial institutions, non-profit organizations, neighborhood organizations and other resources is essential to achieve infil/ success. There was miscellaneous discussion shared amongst staff and the commissioners that was not necessary to include in the rninutes. This item will be continued for further discussion at a later date. VIII. VISITOR PRESENTATIONS None. IX. COMMISSION PRESENTATIONS a. Mr. Trippler was the planning commission representative at the November 28,2005, city council meeting. Planning commission items to discuss included the Easement Vacation for Lot 1, Block 1, Heritage Square Addition (North of Legacy Parkway), which was passed by the city council and the Maple Leaf Ridge Business Center at 2483 and 2497 Maplewood Drive, which was also passed by the city council. Planning Commission Minutes of 12-19-05 -21- b. Mr. Grover was the planning comrnission representative at the December 12, 2005, city council meeting. Planning commission items to discuss included the Easement Vacation - Legacy Village (west of Southlawn Drive, south of Legacy Parkway), which was passed by the city council, The Tire View Estate Preliminary Plat (east of Highway 61 at the new County Road D), which was passed by the city council, 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) which was passed by the city council. c. The city council meeting for December 26, 2005, has been cancelled so no planning commission representation is needed. d. Mr. Desai was scheduled to be the planning cornmission representative at the January 9, 2006, city council meeting; however, there are no planning commission items to discuss. e. Comrnissioner Ahlness requested some discussion regarding the noise ordinance discussion Commissioner Ahlness handed out the noise ordinance to the commissioners. He had requested this be included in the agenda for tonight's meeting per his request bye-mail on November 23,2005, he said but it was not included. This was prompted from the last planning comrnission meeting with Tom Ekstrand and the possible noise issue concerns that were brought up regarding the Regions Hospital Sleep Health Center at 2688 Maplewood Drive. X. STAFF PRESENTATIONS Mr. Roberts reminded the commission that the next planning commission meeting is scheduled for Tuesdav. January 3, 2006, because January 2 is the New Years holiday. The next holiday is Martin Luther King Day on Monday, January 16, 2006, so the planning commission meeting will be Tuesdav. January 17, 2006. XI. ADJOURNMENT The rneeting was adjourned at 10:48 p.m. MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: SUBJECT: LOCATION: DATE: City Manager Tom Ekstrand, Senior Planner Special Construction Agreement to Build a House 1784 Edgehill Road December 27,2005 INTRODUCTION Project Description Mark and Jacqueline Trapp, until recently, resided at 1784 Edgehill Road. Their house was old and they recently arranged with the Maplewood Fire Department to burn the house down. The applicants' property is on Edgehill Road east of Southlawn Drive. Edgehill Road is a platted city street but is not paved. Refer to the enclosed maps and the applicants' letter. Request Section 12-1 of the city code states that the city shall not allow the construction of a house fronting on an unpaved street, unless the city council first approves of this construction by a special agreement to construct the house. The owner must record this agreement to run with the subject property. BACKGROUND The city council has approved eight such requests, dating back to 1978. The most recent of which was for James and Cynthia Harrison to build their house on undeveloped Jessie Street, south of Ripley Street. (The Harrisons, however, did not build their house.) Refer to the reference section of this report for a list of these approvals. DISCUSSION The applicants have submitted two site plans for comparison while reviewing their request. Plan A is their preferred plan, but Plan B fits the site meeting all setbacks. Plan B shows the proposed house 29 feet from the westerly lot line, which is the edge of the neighboring backyards. Plan A moves the house toward unpaved Edgehill Road resulting in a setback of 16 feet from Edgehill Road and increases the setback from the neighbors to 44 feet. Plan A is better from the standpoint of increasing the house setback from the neighbors. It would require an approval for a reduced front setback even though the setback would be from an unpaved street. Edgehill Road Feasibility/Neighboring Wetland ClassificationNacation Potential It is not feasible to pave Edgehill Road from the standpoint of serving more lots for development. The applicants' lot is the only buildable lot along this unpaved portion of Edgehill Road. Ramsey County owns the land to the east and the city has designated the area as open space in the comprehensive land use plan. This Ramsey County land is substantially below the grade of Edgehill Road and designated as a Class 3 wetland by the city. Class 3 wetlands require an average wetland-protection buffer of 50 feet. This 50-foot buffer would lie entirely within the 60-foot-wide Edgehill Road right-of-way, so there is no need for any wetland buffer dedication from the applicants. Staff considered whether the city should or could vacate Edgehill Road as an option if it is not feasible to be built. Staff feels that this would not serve the applicants' needs. Vacating the right-of-way would actually sever access to their lot since that portion of Edgehill Road between their lot and South lawn Drive would accrue to the neighbor at 2576 Southlawn Drive and to Ramsey County. Engineering Cornrnents Erin Laberee, the assistant city engineer, has reviewed this request and recommended that the owner connect the new house to sanitary sewer and city water. Garage and Driveway Placernent Staff's primary concern with this proposal is that the applicants' garage would face the neighbors to the west. In a typical neighborhood situation, the applicants' driveway would face their own street, Edgehill Road, and the garage and driveway activity would face that street. In this case, staff feels that the applicant should provide screening to buffer the driveway from the neighbors. Presently, all abutting neighbors to the west are screened either by evergreen tree screening or by wooden fencing. The only neighbor with no existing screen is 2596 South lawn Drive. The applicant should provide an extension of wooden fence screening to make a buffer for that neighbor. SUMMARY Staff does not have any serious concerns with this request. We want to make sure that access meets any requirements of the fire marshal, but at this time, he has no concerns. With this request, the owner should screen the westerly property line to buffer the applicants' driveway for the neighbors. As with such requests for driveways on public right-of-way, staff recommends that the applicants enter into an agreement with the city whereby they agree to maintain a hard surfaced driveway that meets any requirements of the fire marshal and that holds the city harmless of any accident or injury within this right-of-way. One last item is that the applicants' proposed Plan A would require approval of a reduced setback from the Edgehill Road right-of-way. This reduced setback is a good idea since it provides a better buffer for the neighbors to the west. 2 RECOMMENDATIONS A. Approve a special agreement allowing the owners of the property located at 1784 Edgehill Road to rebuild their house on this unpaved city right-of-way. Approval of this special agreement is because: 1. The request is to rebuild the applicants' house. A house on this lot is already in character with the neighborhood. 2. The city has granted such approvals in the past for private drives on public rights- of-way. This approval is subject to the applicants doing the following before getting a building permit to rebuild: 1. Signing an agreement with the city that: a. Holds the city harmless from any liability for the use of the right-of-way or any delay in emergency vehicles finding the house. b. States that the owner of the property is responsible for maintaining the driveway. c. States that the city may change this agreement if the city approves another house on this driveway. 2. The city attorney shall draft and record these agreements. 3. Provide the city engineer with a grading, drainage and erosion control plan for the proposed house and driveway, subject to city requirements. 4. The driveway must meet the requirements of the fire marshal. 5. The applicants' plan labeled Plan A is the approved plan. The applicants must provide a six-foot-tall, 100 percent opaque buffer along the westerly property line to buffer their driveway from the adjacent neighbors. B. Approval of a reduced front setback from Edgehill Road since this setback reduction will result in a greater setback from the neighbors to the west. 3 REFERENCE SITE DESCRIPTION Site size: .79 acres Existing Use: An existing garage SURROUNDING LAND USES North: The backyards of deep lots that front on Southlawn Drive. South: Undeveloped property owned by Ramsey County designated as open space. East: Undeveloped property owned by Ramsey County designated as open space. West: Single dwellings fronting on South lawn Drive. PAST ACTIONS Previous city council approvals for house construction on lots without improved street frontage: April 20, 1978: The city council approved a request for Lorrie Heinzen to construct a house at 2554 Idaho Avenue. Ms. Heinzen's lot did not front on a paved street. The council approved the request, subject to the owner paving a driveway to the existing street. May 18, 1978: The city council approved a request by James Sobota to construct a pole building at the end of undeveloped Skillman Avenue. The council required that Mr. Sobota pave a driveway, subject to the city engineer's specifications and to enter into a maintenance agreement for the driveway. May 1, 1980: The city council approved a request by Keith Libby to build three homes on a parcel with no street frontage. Access was via a shared driveway. This lot is west of Carver Lake in South Maplewood. Mr. Libby was required to pave the driveway and sign a maintenance agreement including snow plowing. July 13, 1992: The city council approved a request by Radmila Popov on Burke Court to divide her property creating three lots without street frontage. November 23, 1992: The city council approved the construction of two houses on undeveloped Eldridge Street for Marlow Priebe. These lots are located west of Birmingham Street north of Weaver School. July 26, 1993: The city council approved a construction agreement for Mr. Korf on South Sterling Street. Mr. Korf's lot did not have street frontage and is located south of Carver Avenue in South Maplewood. 4 October 11, 1993: The city council approved a construction agreement for Steve and Kathy Lukin to build their home on unimproved Kennard Street. November 8, 1999: The city council approved a construction agreement for James and Cynthia Harrison to build their home on unimproved Jessie Street. PLANNING Land Use Plan Designation: RL (low density residential) Zoning: R1 (single dwelling residential) APPLICATION DATE We received the complete application and plans for this proposal on December 1, 2005. State law requires that the city take action within 60 days of receiving complete applications for a proposal. City council action is required on this proposal by January 30, 2006, unless the applicant agrees to a time extension. p:sec11\Trapp House Special Agreement 1'06 Attachments: 1 . Location Map 2. Neighborhood Map 3. Site Plan-Plan A 4. Site Plan-Plan B 5. Applicants' Letter dated November 29, 2005 6. City Code Section 12-1 5 . Attachment 1 ~ ~l!J [JdbJ: mIIllIl ~ -- I 1h - I II I III! \ = If C I- ~~ -i 1111111111 \ I II.~I == w "" I == r~ 2[ L- .--- "'L ( L ;::: ct' L- G It f- $, -. - .1./ tV ~ mH5;~ R~ i-:,,c ~ - t ~ C;~ =~ IT ::j T i.tJG III ~ ::::n I I c::=J m>Y,]' IT ~I~ ~ IL~ :::J V~ ~ == - - II II = =:;:: 1= IT "",t I::; I=r1 \ f::: ~ ~III II .'1"'- - ,"'" ,") ~ '" \ = ~~a~ \ :::.. I~ () . \ Ill" E ~'\ =r IT ! =:; I-- :!- .ffiHIEffiffiE HtTT f--' ~ I) =~D '-- ~)// ~ IIIII 1- ffIHIHHIE] ~ 0\ G[];[]J) EHRilffiIHHl ~ .....JI=ntiIIID ~ ~ 5lHHE1/IIIIIIEBr IITIIIIITIllimy : I I III111 m~ ~~ffl~~~Hf~~~!IIIII,I,t~~,Wl ~ 8 I LOCATION MAP 6 '" <D ....... ~ ll') ,... In ,... ... In r-- ..... 2632 2633 2625 2624 2616 2817 . :610 2811 2602 28:>3 2596 2597 2690 2591 2582 2583 2574 2575 1758 1774 2554 2546 2542 Attachme t 2 2655 2647 COUNTY ROAD C 2632 C < '" 0 26.26 '" 0:: 1820 <D N .J .J :r: 2618 w C) w c ~ w 0:: 2612 c z ~ 2604 .J '=t :t Ii!: I- ::I 2596 ..... 0 en 586 NEIGHBORHOOD MAP 7 \0 I"'l "- NorThf - v, ,.,., - "' o r--. Attachmert 3 1'0 I I") r f- " " , o IJ1 "'f.. () '-t' " Q M 4 ~~'i 1 - '- I C I .:: I .:s I J~- 51 (Jj ...( 'r-- .\( >I Q - - , -~~ - -- I , .. (\ , <> '" , o -.3 I /r I ~ ,1.. '<" I .'" If."\:" II I~ /t I'<.,?-""'J 'Y/' ..,.> , j () Vl\..n x 1\ e ~ ~- Q- 10 ...... / ---1 <i" I- o -..l ;} ~ <:L.. r1./>lfl ... ~- e ,;: I: 6 :> ~ ~JO ./ '..;:.=--'_:':":e ,_,.~or1!' f ~:: :+;;.{:~+t-; ::.:-:.- i .;,.;:"'-" -: 0";- . i1fj:'--. ~~" I ?;;,: fJr;J. : i'~ . ",'. ' __,: .. _...~ i It'":.,~ j I ::: ~<:,."1.1 : ~'[' ,. .....O--':;:-.:.f.'....:.i ,";' " . L... ' ,;' /./ I . W - .--'- o..:! ~;;:.. ,'.::': '1' .' '~":" I' . ,~,~~;., , 8 I I : /' ~. // J ./ . '"' ) '"' ~ "" = oS ~ ~ . ~ -" = o J.!t: ~ = II! iil~ =~~ ! ~o" :a.&l i~ln r.~ .IH; ~~~ it.....:; . d,,_;:1!. " " = ... ... == ~ - ~ !I = ~ ~jI g~:t . :- ~ ~ . .. = . J'i1:~ H3, ~~.I.:tI .!1 -!i :;.~L, ~~!::! i I I I I / I ! / / ~~ 1 ! ) /. I / I / ( / ,.. .. ~ , , , , , '. , 110'-'0 r Attachment 4 , , \ "- ',- -u-----r ----r --- - I ------------ ---l!! '. . ...::! j l/) .... ---of" , , . ;~~;~.::..."i:~,~i "I!{~r'i ii.'~_~. ~ I- Ii -----+ 'I' ;;....- ' " ..:.~ I II lj-- :.;:--:.:~~~ '..--, / / / / / ,. ...:.. M ~ ('J) <:!.....~ 1\ "'- I'f 1'1: ! ~~_. "'. , ., ~..j-/ / / / / Noil" t. .. ./ ..'.: -- f-- " I I,,' . " /, -. '.-i - ..... ' . > I '. -<, _ ./ '- ," .....; .~~-, - t,= I' '_," . ... ""..,:1, '.--t--t""' , .. ""-, --r,,---J. ". "-----'--;----'"... i---- __ "'J ...':...'--1:..:....: ;-;-1t~-..: ~ ~~!':' ,/ _..'''~'..:...-'.!I~ if -'.;-; .----= :-TTI~ ~ . ! ~_I "-/1" -', - '... -+---11. '.., I c...... , I " ., ,_. I-~- " l .. , --; , . "'- ,', .i.. ~.-'-::.... _ ')1 . __ ('-i.". I'j""'" - '1-. '... ----: \-----It-.+-_ '.'." {", ~-. .. -,-;.- --, 'l'- ~"'-:'::I._. _.' '~.'._,,' -".. "",.,. J -- .........,'~..",. -'-. '.' ... <', :-' I:}. --! 1 ---r ' ,1i,1'""I;; .. '., .~x · . I ,r-_ .; 'II : ~ ~:'~~:' // ! :)~ ' ~ "tw-y.. ...,. 1----. r,{ " , \ / / 9 ,)- , Attachment 5 November 29, 200S Dear City Council member, The following letter explains the need for a special council agreement concerning our property at 1784 Edgehill Road. This spring it was apparent that extensive roof repair was necessary on our 1890's era farmhouse, but because of this old house's many other faults, common sense dictated that demolition followed by rebuilding was the wisest option. After deciding that my home since 1988 was going to be razed, I felt that it had one more use left, so I contacted Deputy Chief Rusty Svendsen and offered to donate the structure to the Maplewood Fire Department for training purposes. He gladly accepted and by early September I had a brand new smoking hole in the ground. After removing the old rubble stone foundation and filling in the cellar cavity, there is now a clean slate upon which to rebuild. The new house plan is an updated rambler style three bedroom; our primary design goals are to blend into the neighborhood, capture the views, take advantage of winter sunlight, super insulate, and avoid the "McMansion" look. Our dilemma is that Edgehill Drive, while platted, was never constructed, nor is there any chance that it will ever be built; this puts our property in violation of Sec. 12-1 of the city code. Obviously we need a special agreement on this unique parcel of land, because despite the old house's many flaws it was still a great place to live. It is also helpful that it is paid for. After creating a site plan (now labeled plan "B"), I showed it to Maplewood's Senior Planner Tom Ekstrand, and to Senior Engineering technician Dennis Peck. I also met with Saint Paul Regional Water Service technician Mike Anderson; they all felt that it would be mutually advantageous if the unused right of way of Edge hill Road was abandoned. Subsequently I created a new site plan (labeled plan "A") that by taking advantage of the increased space, shifts the proposed house an additional IS feet away from abutting landowners. These generous setbacks are, in my opinion, the most exciting benefit of plan "A" over plan "B". The other advantages have mainly to do with connecting to, and being responsible for, the utilities buried in Southlawn Drive. We thank you in advance for your time and effort in helping to find a creative solution that will bring the remnants of a 19th centUIy farmstead into productive use for the 21 st centUIy. Mark and Jacqueline Trapp P.S. Driving Directions: From the intersection of White Bear Avenue and County Road "c" ; take "c" west to Southlawn Drive. Tum left onto Southlawn. At the end of Southlawn turn left into long driveway. The driveway will be kept plowed this winter in order to facilitate site visits. 10 Attachment 6 \ ) BUILDINGS AND BUILDING REGULATIONS ~ 12-3 ARTICLE I. IN GENERAL Sec. 12-1. Street accessibility and certificate of occupancy requirements; excep- tions. (a) No building permit will be issued for any construction within the city, unless the building site is located adjacent to an existing street which is dedicated and maintained as a city street, or unless provision for street construction has been made in full compliance with this Code and in no case until grading work, as provided in this Code, has been completed and certified to the clerk by the city engineer, However, in isolated incidences the council may enter into an agreement with the property owner for special handling of an unusual situation, which agreement shall be recorded so as to run with the land affected. (b) The city shall not issue any certificates of occupancy in an approved plat until the developer has laid the first layer of asphalt on the platted streets or secured proper funds with the city. (Code 1982, ~ 9-1) Sec. 12-2. Outlots. (a) No building permit shall be issued for construction upon any lot designated as an outlot upon any plat, except by conditional use permit pursuant to article V of chapter 44, (b) For the purposes of this section, an outlot is any parcel of land designated as an outlot on any plat in the city, (Code 1982, ~ 9-2) Sec. 12-3. Fences. (a) A fence that is within four feet of a property line shall be subject to the following restrictions: (1) Fences shall have a maximum height of six feet for residential and ten feet for nonresidential uses. (2) A fence in a front yard that is at least 80 percent opaque must be approved by the director of community development if it is visible from an adjacent dwelling. The director may approve the fence if it does not significantly impair views. (3) A fence is subject to chapter 32, article VII, which pertains to sight obstructions at intersections. (4) The structural supports shall not be on the outside of a fence, facing the adjacent property. (5) Barbed wire fencing shall only be used to fence in livestock on a farm and for top fencing around commercial uses where the base fence is six feet or more high. (6) Fences shall be constructed and maintained in a workmanlike manner. CD12:5 11 MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: SUBJECT: LOCATION: DATE: Richard Fursman, City Manager Shann Finwall, AICP, Planner Concept Review of Comforts of Horne - An Assisted Living and Memory Care Community 2310 and 2300 Hazelwood (Southeast Comer of Highway 36 and Hazelwood Street) December 28, 2005 INTRODUCTION Project Description Matthew Frisbie of Frisbie Architects, Inc., is requesting the Planning Commission review and comment on a proposed assisted living housing development to be located on the southeast comer of Highway 36 and Hazelwood Street. The existing uses on the property are the vacant Auto Glass store and an electrical contractor shop. The proposed use will be a 42-unit, two-story assisted living, memory care, respite care, and hospice facility with 24-hour, on-site homecare staff. Refer to the Comforts of Home literature attached as a separate handout for more information. Requests In order to develop the Comforts of Home, the city would require Mr. Frisbie to get the following approvals: 1. A comprehensive plan change from business commercial (BC) to high multiple dwelling residential (R-3H). 2. A conditional use permit (CUP) to construct a multiple dwelling facility in a business commercial (BC) zoning district. 3. A reduced parKing space authorization to allow 38 less parKing spaces than city code requires. 4. A building setback variance in order to allow the construction the building closer than the required 30 feet to the Highway 36 right-of-way. 5. As an alternative, the city could process the above-mentioned land use requests as a CUP for a planned unit development (PUD), alleviating the need for a reduced parKing space authorization and building setback variance. 6. Design review. DISCUSSION The two properties are zoned and guided as business commercial (BC). Properties located to the north, west, and south (across Highway 36, Hazelwood Street, and Cope Avenue) are all zoned single dwelling residential (R-1); properties located to the east (across the wetland) are zoned light manufacturing. City code allows multiple dwelling hOlJsing within the business commercial zoning district with a conditional use permit. The two properties combined equal 2.71 acres in area. The land use designation of high multiple dwelling residential would allow up to 56 "senior" housing units on the 2.71-acre site. The Comforts of Home development is proposed with 42 units and would meet the R-3H density requirements. There is a Class 4 wetland located on the east side of the property. City code requires a 25-foot buffer from this wetland, which the proposed development will meet. City code also requires a 3O-foot setback from all right-of-ways to the building. The Comforts of Home development will encroach into the required 3D-foot setback to the Highway 36 right-of-way, which will require a setback variance. All other required setbacks are being met. City code requires two parking spaces per multiple-dwelling unit. The code, however, does not clearly address an assisted living facility which would require less parking, as many of the occupants do not drive. The Comforts of Home development is proposed with 42 units and 25 surface parking spaces. Mr. Frisbie explains the parking is needed mainly for the staff and visitors. The Minnesota Department of Transportation (MNDOT) is planning roadwork for Highway 36 in the next few years. With this work it seems certain that the Hazelwood Street access will be closed to Highway 36. Mr. Frisbie states that this access point is not critical for their development. However, additional right-of-way may be required from this property. Mr. Frisbie will be in contact with MNDOT regarding the right-of-way requirements and will update the Planning Commission on his findings during the meeting. The location of housing next to a freeway causes concems over noise. If the project moves forward, the city should require the developer to do a detailed noise study. Possible mitigating noise features required to the development may include soundproofing the walls, heavy-duty windows, etc. RECOMMENDATION Review the Comforts of Home concept plan for the property on the southeast comer of Highway 36 and Hazelwood Street and give feedback on the land use aspects of the development. P:sec101comforls of home concept plan Attachments: 1. LocatlonlZoning Map 2. SAe Plan 3. Comforts of Home LAerature (Separate Handout) 2 ~~~~1~~1~31 GRANDVIEW AVE ~~ciJl ~ I :~ " ~ o ~CiJ[]J ~ - ~ - ~" I ~T : ~ ~ I ~ I ~ ....... ....... ....... ....... ..- ....... I- en z (0 -q- C'\I 0 CD .A" I.l') (0 r- CD ex) ~ 2f3a, ~ C2P ~ G:J G:J ~ :2 U 0 \;\ 0:: w ~wCiJclJCfJ4JC) l,() 1.0 l,() ....... ...... ....... ~ - ~ @ I C! 0 ~ ~ ~ ~ Iii o o o CJ~ w 2291 ~ ::t [J [J o [J ] CJJ []] CW ~ 4? \W5 ...... ....... ....... ....... ....... LARK AVE 0 0 <'l dJ CD ] W 0 ~ ~ ~ ~ EJ9 ~ [l CI , --=^ - Sherwood Park ~'" 0 ~ I LOCATION/ZONING MAP r3c HWY. ~~, T.. r----\Yt:-~e;"~~:I~/l~~ 'I- : I,~ / P' :'r'e,i i . . l.1 , ,,/' /,/ , .,"'; _ ":, ,; / -'. ,/ '. . , ' //' ,l/ ), I: "~I . I " I~ , '. l ql1e /f /' 'J , : "I' "_ I~' t.~SI~ '//.,0) :/' fl. / / ,/ / I' . ,-.::;#c...,-",c,--l I',~ / ,:"; /: , f..:.' / ,", /,~ .' '. W //1'1' ',/. ' l !H . ~ --_.va" ~. "/'~ eiT :'--" _:;r.- /7j! l !/g 'J it~t.>).>/'X' o / 'f; "f- :/" 1-',' / 1_( ':>/,~/ ~ I l f '/;( ,,/ / 'W ,'l I 'J..... Ii" / /'.." ,/ / ,,/' , ~ ,:/I~ i i / ".:d I ' /,,' I '~,: I I{ / .::1:" "l/ ", .,( "';.' J1:;,: 1/ ~ ( ,I ~>~i' . . - , - , - . - , - '. 'l-'- ,.l. -."_',./('>,t'-l----- "'~ _ _, iiiC ~, >) ~ ~ V .---------~~~~--------------- _ (' ',,:0, /jf_<:~ "c'.-' .ct '.c, '" " ^ ::.i' ~o_~_,__._._ ~,__",~~, '-:""'co, '~ . SHERREN AVENUE, .'q> I " .' h"'_'_T_h/ -;.;:',;,. ,--,--,---,-,--,---t~~;? ~. l i ~,- '"", . 'CO~E~A VE'N'OI:" ..',- --'-.. ....... .....~~,0 ,~ '" i ",. r i:~ ' --.-~------------------------------ . ~--'-,,";._"...,.~-~.- "~;.~ SITE PLAN MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: SUBJECT: DATE: City Manager Tom Ekstrand, Senior Planner Noise-Control Ordinance Discussion December 21, 2005 INTRODUCTION Planning Commissioner, Eric Ahlness, has requested that a review of the city's noise- control ordinance be placed on the planning commission meeting for discussion. The city has had several requests recently for development in M1 (light manufacturing) districts that are abutting residential properties. With such proposals, we are always concemed with the potential for noise disturbances. NOISE ORDINANCE REQUIREMENTS Section 18-111 of the city code, the noise-control ordinance, addresses noise issues in two ways. Refer to the attached ordinance. In summary, it states: Paragraph (a) · No person shall make disturbing noises that annoy others. · City sponsored activities (for example, the Fourth of July fireworks) or activities where the city has issued a pennit are exernpt. · Noise is prohibited between the hours of 7 p.m. and 7 a.m. Monday - Saturday and all day Sunday. Paragraph (b) . The city manager may waive the requirement of noise limitations where a noisy activity would not cause a nuisance and where this activity would not be within 350 feet of a residential use. · The manager's decision may be appealed to the city council. · A waiver to make noise closer than 350 feet to residential uses must be approved by the city council. Staff must notify these residential neighbors of the city council meeting. CODE APPLICATION In short, Paragraph (a) provides the hours of noise limitation. Paragraph (b) says that if a noisy activity is to take place, especially within 350 feet of a residential use, the city must review this as a request for a special pennit to conduct this noisy activity. With the example of the recent Sleep Health Center review, staff felt that this use would not be a noise-generating use and, therefore, we did not feel that there should be any special noise-regulating conditions. We did, however, see the need for such a condition with the Maple Leaf Business Center, an office/industrial use proposed next to neighboring residential homes. Enforcement Noise complaints are enforced by the police department. In instances where the violator has a conditional use permit (CUP) regulating the businesses activities, the planning staff would get involved by contacting the business and, if need be, scheduling a reevaluation of the CUP by the city council. Such was the recent case with the St. Paul Pioneer Press' noise disturbances at the Maplewood Business Center along the north side of Highway 36. STAFF'S INTERPRETATION As a point of clarification, the code does not limit the hours of operation of a business no matter where they are located in Maplewood. It does, though, limit the hours that they can make noise to the hours noted in Paragraph (a) above. In Mr. Ahlness' attached email, he states that "A waiver within 350 feet of a residential use must be approved by the city council: Staff's reading of the code is that this is true if a business is proposing to make noise within the restricted nighttime hours or on Sunday. A business does not have to obtain a waiver to operate quietly during these hours or on Sunday no matter where they are located. RECOMMENDATION Provide staff with direction as to any changes the planning commission would like to see with the noise-control ordinance. p:com_dvpt\ordlnoise ord review 1 '06 Attachments: 1. Noise Control Ordinance 2. Email from Eric Ahlness 2 f IDV- 22- 2005 07: 18 P.0i/01 Attachment 1 JOBNAME: No Job Name PAGE: 345 SESS: 2 OUTPUT: Tue Apr 8 ]2:3(:]02003 Itir,lIpubdocs/mcc/3/11217 _full ENVIRONMENT ~ 18-112 Sec. 18.85. Police records. The police department shall keep a record of all vehicles impounded under this division, and the record shall contain the following: (1) The manufacturer's trade name or make; (2) Vehicle identification and license numbers; (3) The name of the owner of such vehicle and of all persons claiming the vehicle; (4) Such other descriptive matter as may identify such vehicle; (5) The nature and circumstances of the impounding of the vehicle; and (6) The violation, if any, on account of which such vehicle was impounded. (Code 1982, * 19-47) Sees. 18.86-18.110. Reserved. DIVISION 3. NOISE CONTROL Sec. 18-111. Prohibition generally; exception. (a) No person shall mak(~ or cause to be made any distinctly and loudly audible noise that unreasonably annoys, disturbs, injures or endangers the comfort, repose, health, peace, safety or welfare of any person or precludes such person's enjoyment of property or affects such person's property values. If the event or activity is sponsored by the city or is authorized and has a permit for such activity issued by the city, this prohibition does not apply. This general prohibition is not limited by the specific restriction of subsection (b) of this section. Any violation of this general prohibition between the hours of 7:00 p.m, and 7:00 a.m. Monday through Saturday and all day Sunday is a per se violation of this division. (b) The city manager may waive the requirement in subsection (a) of this section where the activity would not cause a nuisance and where the proposed activity would not be within 350 feet of a residential mle. The city manager's decision may be appealed to the city council. A waiver within 350 feet of' a residential use must be approved by the city council. The property owners within 350 feet of the proposed activity shall be notified of the waiver request at least ten days before the council meeting. A list of the property owners, certified by an abstract company Ot' the county abst.ract office, shall be s"ubmitted with the waiver request. (Code 1982, * 19-48) Sec. 18-112. Construction activities. All construction activities, including the use of any kind of electric, diesel or gas-powered machine or other power equipment, shall be sub,iect to this division. A copy of this division shall CD18:17 TOTAL P.01 3 Noise Ordinance Page 1 of3 Attachment 2 Ahlness, Eric D LTC NGMN From: Ahlness, Eric D LTC NGMN Sent: Wednesday, November 23, 2005 9:56 AM To: 'Tom Ekstrand' Cc: Ken Roberts: Melinda Coleman Subject: RE: Noise Ordinance Tom: I disagree with your interpretation of the code. The third sentence of (b) states that "A waiver within 350 feet of a residential use must be approved by the city council." This is the culmination of several steps where increasin9 oversight and review of the activity is performed by the city. First by review of the city manager, then the mayor and finally the city council when the activity threatens a residential area by its very proximity. The base problem is that the ordinance is not well written. The first paragraph contains a prohibition that could be interpreted very broadly. The second paragraph is essentially a restriction. So in essence we have conditional restrictions on a prohibited action. It is very cumbersome. As I further review the probable intent of the ordinance, it seems that the city generally wants to control noise throughout the city. It especially wants to limit noise close to residential areas. As such, the city regulates noise by granting waivers (an active process) for those businesses or activities that are not likely to present a problem to a residential use (like a sleep center). I am concerned in your first point where you contend that you are aware of the ordinance. At the meeting when I specifically asked about the ordinance that limits business operations from operating between 7PM-7AM and on Sundays. You stated you were not aware of such a ordinance. In fact, Dale Trippler looked through his copy of the ordinance to see if he could find reference to the citation. Unfortunately, at that time he did not find the reference so I agreed to table my concern until I could find the ordinance. You seem more intent on continuing to make the point that the sleep center is a quiet and compatible (I'm not arguing the point) rather than address what the ordinance is or what is its intent. I would appreciate a call at my FTS number below so we can resolve our different perceptions of what transpired at the planning commission meeting on Monday. Also, I do want to have the topic included as a discussion topic at the next commission meeting. Please provide a copy of the ordinance in the commissioner packets set to the planning commissioners. Eric ERIC D. AHLNESS LTC, IN, MNARNG Information Operations Coordinator FTS (651) 268-8963 Commander, 1st Bn, 175th RTI M-Day (320) 616-2655 From: Tom Ekstrand [mailto:Tom.Ekstrand@ci.maplewood.mn.us] Sent: Tuesday, November 22, 2005 10:06 AM To: Ahlness, Eric D LTC NGMN Cc: Ken Roberts; Melinda Coleman Subject: RE: Noise Ordinance 4 12/19/2005 MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: SUBJECT: LOCATION: DATE: City Manager Ken Roberts, Planner C. Kings Addition Jessie Street, south of Ripley Avenue December 23, 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 addition, 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 rninutes starting on page 34). On December 19, 2005, the planning commission held a public hearing about this proposal. After much testimony from neighbors and questions from the commission, the planning commission tabled action on the requests until their meeting on January 3, 2006. 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,OOO-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 corner 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. 2 On December 22, 2005, the applicant's engineer submitted to city staff a preliminary tree planting plan (page 41) for the project. City staff will need to approve the plan to ensure that it meets city requirements before the contractor starts gradin9 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 28. It is important to remember that Mr. Le or the contractor must meet all the conditions of the Watershed district and that they must get a penmit 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 1 Q-foot-wide buffer. City Engineering Department Comments The city engineering department has done two reviews 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 29 and his additional comments on pages 42 and 43. 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 cornments, 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 stonm sewer pipe draining stonm 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 leavinQ the site must be at or below current levels. 3 Other Comments Lieutenant Kevin Rabbett of the Maplewood Police Department noted that he found no significant public safety concerns 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 turning radius of at least 42 feet (for equipment) and that there be fire hydrants in proper locations. 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 32 and 33 and on pages 37 through 40. RECOMMENDATIONS A. Approve the resolution on page 44. 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 pub~c 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 plat: 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. 4 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. 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. 5 (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) The 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. 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 detenmines 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 stonm 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 the site that shows: 6 1. The planting 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. 2. All deciduous trees shall be at least 2% inches in diameter. 3. No tree planting in a public street right-of-way. 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. 7 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. 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 six 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 property. 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 overtoads the system in this area. The homeowner on the corner 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 32 and 33. 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 property 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 property 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 property 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 property 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. (Boche - 556 Ripley Avenue) 9 REFERENCE INFORMATION SITE DESCRIPTION Site size: 1.8 acres Existing land use: accessory buildings from the fonmer 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 would nonmally need to take action on the proposal by January 21, 2006, unless the developer agreed to a time extension. At the December 19, 2005 planning comrnission meeting, the developer's representative agreed to a time extension until the January 23, 2006 city council meeting. kr/p:/sec17/c kings addition plat - 2005-2006.doc Attachments: 1. Applicant's Narrative Description 2. Location Map 3. Property LinelZoning Map 4. Address Map 5. Cover Sheet 6. Existing Conditions Map 7. Preliminary Plat 8. Site Plan 9. Proposed Grading Plan 10. Proposed Utility Plan 11. Potential Lot Division Plan 12. December 7, 2005 comments from Tina Carstens 13. December 9, 2005 comments from Michael Thompson 14. Survey comments from James Harrision 15. November 8, 1999 City Council minutes 16. December 12, 2005, response from Alan Kretman 17. Preliminary Planting Plan 18. December 22,2005 review comments from Michael Thompson 19. Vacation Resolution 20. Project Plans date-stamped November 23,2005 (separate attachments - including 11x17s and full- size) 10 Attachment 1 PLANNING CIVIL ENGINEERING PROJECT MANAGEMENT LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE November 22, 2005 Planning Commission and City Council c/o 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 outfiow. 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 C 1. 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 c/o 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 ofthe 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 ADPITION 13 Page 4 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 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 of this neighborhood and the approximately 38 average vehicle trips per day (as defined in the Institute of Transportation Engineers Trip Generation Manual, 6th 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 c/o Ken Roberts, Associate Planner Re: C. Kings Addition, Jessie Street & Ripley Avenue Maplewood, MN PDA Comm. No. 04060 GRADING. STORMWATER AND UTILITY DESIGN: The site will be 9raded 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 District (RWMWD). In working with the RWMWD 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 detention/retention 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, 100-year, back to back 100-year, and 10 day rainfall and/or 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 c/o 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. ~A-~ 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 c/o Ken Roberts, Associate Planner Re: C. Kings Addition, Jessie Street & Ripley Avenue Maplewood, MN PDA Comm. No. 04060 SITE DATA ZONING SETBACK DATA Minimum Lot Width Front Yard: Side Yard: Rear Yard: SITE AREAS TOTAL SITE AREA: PROPOSED PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY: NET SITE AREA: NUMBER OF LOTS NUMBER OF OUTLOTS LOT AREAS REQUIRED PER LOT: PROPOSED PER LOT (Average): LOT1: LOT 2: LOT 3: LOT4: OUTLOT A: OUTLOT B: LENGTH OF ROAD - LINEAR FEET R-1 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT SQUARE FEET 79,471 23,120 56,351 4 2 SQUARE FEET 10,000 13,856.5 10,035 23,637 11,044 10,710 1,008 544 360 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 , 'r-:'. __1,'11 ~' I i= riG r ,I I I Ir---;= 'I, "', 'I' I 'I : 11 . + e'l .~ =:: "~I I, , : ,~c-n -rn .: . I I '~, - C C m I'" , i e- " : , I~'"",-_",Cc'" ,-" I' ~, ,ii, 'I II 1'1 ~ ,. '-'OF jJ..1dl ,I, I 'I' L I ']1 'I"L- ~-, ';-'T- "-, -,1\ ~ '-iilu--j, " 'C 1"1 , _ ""1 i I I, 'l":_ "'~--T--ihi~I~' u' 'WI I, , :~~,_ "1"'- I 111'~I'r-- : I~-+~,~I rn ~' -~~;---I I,'! ,:,,"" ,,/-_ "ll f-J,IIL- 1j, 1"-' r- " II< , "', I H ,;, 1:--+:'~--rllF'l' 'U1" _ , ,",I I "n",- "L-i--i'~\'_~!~f--!!!J"" " _ Ii"~ ----1" I "'~ ----t-----J ""'" r--r- ~i B] Ii' I I' , , , 'I' I " '''" ~'M, ", . ""'", , , , '" "--,.. " i''''''''_r-;~ ",_ I 1"1 I ',,__ --,II'---~, ~,,''1 17':,""3i'J I Lb" '.' . 1,,:_~.J,--i"I---r--I, 'I, I lei, c.., '~' '<,e ,,:" 1\11 I f--r---1\j< I 'II -J I .ell I' - . , I. - 'I I \--'_--1 '! I, I_r--r--; 'I, "I'"'' \ f--,'" ,,-. I" "II r-----jl'll i ",I -" I '<: 'I- ~""'I ill I, I ! h-iL'" I I _,J11 I _ ~__= 'I'~---r---: I i[' L-! 'f-I', I, I , i iL'i ~ _-==--=-=:::__-_-_ _ 'LJ ',' ,,', \, I" I I , , , I I I _L_ _ _ _ I,; , " I, . -1- " I .l.,,~, c __ __ _ _ _~ _J I I I i IL_tJ -I~-::Re~~~ 1,- ;-1 I 11'1 bi'ffi I I ---'-~ - - I 'I I, "I , ell . ), - I l---< ' I I ~c:l' -II I II, I I I I '"" 'l"'1 ' ,I,', \ I , 1 I 'III' rj''t'' I -J!,' ", " , , I " I ' " -tl~-'I :,:1 i' )J.k-t#>>"r' - ,'I ~ I fa II' I --:1~-1 ' , 'I,' I 111'1, 1'; i "1'----'-1'" I , I Y h . I" ; , I -.jl'~J',"~~j i 1:11. ' I _~II-- ~ I '" , ,,,:~, I I I I I - .q . i, 't[---; ,c-v --, "I ' , f., 'Ir--~III J, , I "" " " .: - :I'c...L-1 '1__ . I ' " " 'C-:--mm1 '" '1' I , 1"'__' .}'" -~'" I 'I ,'" ,1ITJ" uL_ ,- ~-:-._--~ , , I ' I 11,1 I / je. Y=' 1 I I ",_J_~ -, '" Ii, '~_'"'' " ~ I , lill---E' 'I ,,~~--,~ '--c-:"/, \ 1..-., I _ ", . . I',' F 'cIflp""'AVe' , , 1 -" ';- , : ..... ""!'" _, "i . ....., --, yl" I I i " ill I J," --L~,,, "'Iii 0'"'''1 ',I II '-" " "-LJ.., ,__ 1_" j I '.' I -j' " , , ' : :: -.L'; ; i t j I ~....L....!.._ I - ',II r--~ I, iii I _L..---j", _ r , _~ 'I I "LL ....-" " , " I ,I ,__ i . , , II ",/ ....i,' i I ~_~_. " -' ~ i I, ,I r----'~, . I'" , , -----II k '------"---r-,,- -~llr- ~, 'r """ ,I /" '; -, , " , " I"", I." ". !"" ',,-- , ,,'C,", I ~ ,e_ i.... , " '" "i I 'I I J, , ," " I~-,'i., 'h~:." " "C, , -- ''''" , , 'e-" :, : --jl -'"'1" ~ I ! IlL _ II r--1' 'I I ii' -j,ll, - 1'---lll,~, !L~,II - I -rr-IIIi"IJ"'-IrM i-------- I,,, . I I', " ".. ~~. "~_~_II' "., i,' -------: -----.~ I,i'! , I L I "} ., ~I" II--il, I 1~1I1l' " , ''''.''- .~ " ,. I ,I 'f-l' I I' 'I"" \ _ f------; '~' -.]11, '\\'~i!.. I 1,' 1....1 "I' , ' L~ ", \"..J I', ., I ~___ , "I '<II, ---,-,- , I ""\~' iI ~ "'::::] 'I ' 'I '~_-j' _ , 'C-_" , " , " "", " , '--tt _~ -",1'-, "i"".!, ---- '.. "'--" , '" __ <:: I I' , ,i ,I', '., J 'L..,l,"'" - ( '\;- ~\. ii, 'I', 'Q, '~--J----j "=-'1' I Iii" I!cr: I 'II ~--j ".~-:-:;,.-:::c__~" ~"./ 1 - --"-j \\, I, II,' 'I' li~ II II I ,', J.J.~ ''I i 'I' ""- /; ;,-.- , "" r. T I I ,\11, 'I / I 1 II, __.J I~."____,, T ! 1 "" ' ~I I "_1 "-'"~f/.I/ I ' '., ,_" '. ,_ '" " , , "" , (,,----, irL-l____-!I,"_( I I'll'" [, I IL, -r-~,\ '--.J'1 '__..J, 'f--, 1 ii, 'l.l.J!I'.=_=_=__= I I ~ " Iii r I I " ,,, I' I", , ~,_~, _ ,t-- r~1 i ! ---11 ~1 ! , " -' I " i I' 'I" --.J '=--'_'-"'-__ _ _ !II~ 'L- il'L_~__!_, II', !.l! I ./'" I I"':' L-L _it._J,,::::! ,~'_--=-__ _ I I' -, [Ii i _, ',i------i ,- j _ _-__ " '--- -I "I--~ " 'J., ,=- i,li ~illl -: 11"~PENTEI1R"Avl:: SAINT PAUL '~-', Ii ___ _ ~- CEMETERY - , 18 11 N LOCATION MAP Attachment 3 ..- \ \ \ ", ~ (& ~\,', \, , I'" -.. \ ' .J~ \,,1' '..... \11 i \ II I II , 11\ \ \, I 1\ I Ri~'" J! I I, , , I ", I ii' I 1699 " ! I \ I / I I ~_.- I , :,.0 ~,~. ,!: :: 11,504\ lllfllJlfo / '~ 555 I : 'I,m I Aii;;.~,'/ /F ii!;--_.'.---~'-i, ,II' : 'I 22 i'" 'I ilS- 1797 .: 1798 i , , I, ~=-- _ '_:--;"_></ili;", 1808 .6 \ =-_/ III J i ~ I , /. ;Y R ,-~ ,.- f-~'''\ /1 i \ I ' I I, "ti'I, -., ~\:~~: 1802 ""'" ,lea \ ~ }iI II . i- I_ I ~: n1 i _" ". L' /,lIlo:::-" L-.--'lL f.. _J 0 I I le,n ! i \. ~ - J ~ , 'S' I' I ,- ~ -_ _ ~-=-ffi~.f'OI,.Ye::- -=- _- -=-.-: _- _-~I I'IQ]~ I 178 11, ~I I ,:---r'r-- i.. , 0' , '~ I \---~I I I, ': 1. 1'1'. IlIillII I,. 1. 'ii f', il\~! i I II I I 55ll' M 11,1,11:.J'1 1:1 'j 11II'.',11 i \ i I I I i I i III' I i I t 1'1, ' '," 80 II' . n, ' ' ! I ' Ins.. -.I.. II' . _I' I'" I'IiiI ----111 !' I Ii ,I '~I i I I, , II : :\. .~7711' ,! EI i I R1 .-J, ' -1'1 ' .-"rR1iI1 ! // III .' ,,', \ il641 a a- ~ I! .1-/ '" ,1,/' "1 /11 :h..-IR~ I ~ 1 _ ~ j, 'I " I,i l',I_ .. 1'1\ I #".//!II~" ~1:: .. Hro' i'1li[:~ ii: Ia., ~1~! Ji~ I~R1. J\, I" \, L_ i i J I '-_----.J l-~ _I i c...___--" 1..,__ '. \ , -, - ~ -KINGSTON' Jf.VE \ \ '. L _ _ _ _ -- .J I' _ _ _ , ,'\ ~l i,. 'I I ~ i R:17 1-'--17~~ ~! \ : j= lJ - =-1, i59 ~1-~ \ , .,... 'i' .. ~ 'I sIR II 1721 \. i,.' 500 i, LR1 ' _ I II ~ 'i Iliil', \ '. \ \ \ ., 'I'tflI , i;l\ 173'r" I,' R.t'i!!!iIi,.' L-.,_--'---__ . I; I.: 1 II ~,-. ~-R1--i j , [---j ; \ ~~O!j d I" Ii', j I~ 603 I,m II /! IL;j;,,:! i~ I: :!~d~::1~ I I r row I, I' ! O\!L_.~" -=-~=--~ - - - - i_ 538 I, II : 'r 1685 \,: I. 16.1 ~ l,dl1 1.6J R1 . II !,i~ 1693 i: 'I I.' ,--:-,~~-l!ii,.. --~ I' I~. ~ i ! ~, r !liii.. . I r . II I g"lOl!l i 1683 !, : i.. ~.'. r.~--i-.'~T ~ '~"ig i _~ '1~", ; ,_J i~ill!I,: ~i=.1:90~~}~~J ~r ~~J !~_~I CEMETERY III --~--- F I i R..i, 11 ... 531 "--~- ~-~. .' " ---------- - LARPENTEUR AVE SAINT PAUL 19 'fr N PROPERTY L1NElZONING MAP Attachment 4 fi------~'---~"-~ . ' 1797 ',. 1798 ~,..~.....,...,. 1808 IIL~,,,,,..' ;; -:._ _ -:<.: 555 I 563 iii ". - -."_ /I' \ \ / I -.1"( 0 : f......... ,. 'I,i.... '1111I "I \~ w // ..- .,:- CJ)./ ~/ \ \\ -I r i I r-! ./1 ~\ \ .i I I i ._..-.---- :J~-- ---------------~-; I l' ~_---(lJ----I3.IP-L~Y-A~E-- i \ / ~I ,., I, :1/1 !iii '.- I.::'~ ,I ~ . I ~11~--1'1I I I, 11 I , UNUSED ALLEY- ).. 1 I , ' .1 I , I -fl 1810 /j / , _~~-.-" I , I 1796 r--------- , I I I I '~I ~ 1>-1 i IWI i 151 i I~, lCD, I I , \ I I \ I , , I , II 1.1 I, I \ ,I I II' I I, I " ;. I _' , i III ,1 -II- I. iI' . III SITE , I i ~.//j I /, ," i -'~~" : l/// I! , , i , , I i .. I I ~--,----~---j ...../- /.' r~- ! . , 1,.':1 I _I i I L I il~ , i I ~ I lsoo I_ -'-i 1737 .. . i . 1731, .. , i--------:--~: ---, i 1 I ~~ i ' r 1 i ! I , I i , I ~ 528 , I , . I' /1/1 .,/" '1 I ! I I r I II ~-------j I I , I \ --.J i ADDRESS MAP 20 >- It: ~ W ~ ~ " \r N :llt .. I' .", " , ao.Ollo-~ .~.... ~~.~ '. -, _1 f r--- I I I I G~l I .s k 11 I I j I I I / I / " ('./ //) // -$~ // / [../ "./ " , RIPLEY AVENUE ----, I I I I I I I I I I I I , I I I I I I I ___-I I I I ~,~ ,,~ .~ -x I I I I I ---~ . l:~ '~ ~I fi, ~' -<I , , , : I I I I I I I I I , I I , I I I , , -----I . . '" "- ~~ .. " '" /) / , , ~/ / , V' ," / ~I 5 Ti I : I I I : ,,1 I 'I~ : I I I !~____n__ , I I : I rn r--------- sa I "' I ~ I ~ ~ ~ o o tj ~ ~ ~ Z Z tI1 CI:l o ~ i . ! .,1 '$ / / / /' ....#'" (:>'~~ COVER SHEET 21 Attachment 5 n . 7' Z () lfl )> CJ CJ --1 o z 11 N ~I III il~ I - . , . .. - "I . - ~ - - -- Ii - .. . ,. -. - . II~ - . - " ~ - ~ . ~ . . - - - - ~ . . . " ~ , , , '<; ~ .. ~ 1': . ". . "" ~ " ~ ~ , , . , , - ~ ~ ~ I ~ .... w w a: .... m > w ..J Q -~ / lD ~ l ! . I , ire "I :l liP "I! ~ II' ~ II ',I Iii , , -:~:~-,--i--\ j i~ii /,T.- ,',"- "/1 /-l ~}', \: ~ I ",- !' ,/'- J/ ~/ : " 1., ~\ ~~~l' ~/ ~~ ,,' //- ': S:;'-1~\\ i "-,k-:-:----=--i / ~ - / \IZ " ^-' ~ "", .-------. .' ) ..j) ,. m- . ,',// ... i: \: ....\ g i 1/ J.i1i ,/ 'II! it ,/ /~ : \ 'l \ 55 " ,/ -' 1-------- , /''' : :: ~~ ~~\- \ ,',' / .i! ----rr---------------~ l :r;:i/~ I I ,: ,/ / I,' r I a. ~ \ : '{..~\\/ / Ii,' ! I I,~-~ ------8 " I I"" , I', ,t:.:::' \:~_~~~~"" " 1/ -f ' ,',' ,I.' I : ,~' a-;~~~~ - ~~-~-~..." 15 ,j, I I \ f '; " 1.1 l' :~~ ~,,-~!!- { (I y~: 1 / ~ ~/ / ~ I,' l:ir- ! e'is : " ~~:~' / ,,' r4 ~/ r-T---- , on -----Tot ,1; t"<~-~~a-~,;' I . - Ii I -0, t ;-lJ)) -.j ~ )(~)7;,t. ~~ '1'-- _ />/ ~ -/ t ill!:! ----------------n--r:-:: -. ~" ~'1 fi ~i'" fiili k.CD" .!, qi ,.,j;,., ~-51 I II , .' : ':loj ! i ! ill ~\ i r'~' ___~---',' ~"i -- :': If .:__/ ,-"j;~'", : .~ ~'.~r-n n~___- ';' ~,_/li-iO,\,'1 ~ t I //:~~t ~i;-;:/: ~ "'.:.\~ 1jt- \: -~>/ , " / 's,', I, !,! r ..,\. ,~\ \ \1 ,-- -- ~ ,/ ,/ 1//'>/,1 -'. ~ ~ \ '\~.,\\\'.>~ I l i " ,// I / 1/ ....f~. ....." :\\,.\"\"":"J', ,~ .' //: ,/ ,: /: ... ~ i ~" ,>\ \\:,\~ ~--" =; ______.l~J_)~_-t'i-1_~ ~ - "'\ \ ''\,'" " ": : ':: A ,., (ui : \ : ,',' " /: t",' : \\ /i,' 11 'l' : : ',\:: \ I: '" I I, I "r ,,,,' 1 : : : I:: 1~(\! 'J ,II, ,=i\ I : i; / :i: '.., \: ~~,' ,\ :i: I~ \: I_~ \ t', ~" J I "1 '" I' " , \ :\: ,:! / / ~ " '1:\: I 1'.../ ~/ W \ '\11 '~)... -' ~~....~ \ \ :::! J/ -- .....:->//~'~~ . I II', ~I ","/ A- I : 1:),'(' I /</> ~:r : : r\:\ \, />;;;~~/,Q , \\:<~~jiiH;~::,~v , . . : '--- -- , ) I RIPLEY AVENUE I ~ II" I'll" r 'II" 11'- ~ g: ) ,P ,,'; HIli g: 0 0 ~ Ii! -i!11 I ;;111: ~ i i 9 1111 :1111 ij 1!lllli"ll! ~ !l ~ ., 'III " li:l' i o Ii 1>.1 ' :11 j' ~ I ~ I, I:t I! i'~ 1101 ~ EXISTING CONDITIONS MAP 22 Attachment 6 .._-----l___..__..__. ~-il-"-- l: ~ii ;, lilli' III' ~ !!!i!l.!lli. ~ II'!!I lllll'I"! 11'1 z , ,I", '" Ii ~ J!laallllill:l:J !h'!I*I,:1 III Ijl:il I; 'lj'II'lll:ll1. I I', il" " I I' . ' 'I ' " . '1111 I i! II liii .1 , ,. II ;;.' ~lJ ! I! ! ':'i II I jlllllll !l ~ oou! II '10:'0., ~ ~ iiiiiiiiilPql~ ~ ~ ili'l!lp! 5 1r N , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , r----7--~- ~~ / I // Ilj I ( K) '- / r--,.........;;"... / I -...!!!.........J 1 ) ,I / --------1 711 I" II I! : Il! i I~! I )-- I"'j I 1a3 I / : ~l I;;~ / ',,' 1/" / i~! /~r . , (y~ II' v ;"-...,,\M .,.,.... ~ " I I 1\ \J/; / F' t ,.- /' , ~/ . , . , , , SITE ARI!AS '''<E'' SITE DATA ------, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ________-1 , , , , , , I , R-l~LEFNIll.Y -- " '''''' "-,, " 5 '"' MIN. LOTW(lfH: lItl.LOTNlfJ.: FRONTYARD5rnIACK, SDEYARD SEI1lACK HOUSE: SDEYAROSElBACKGARN;;E: FlENlYNll)SfTB.oo<. "'""-"" """ lOTALSlTENlEA 79471SF 1.82 PIlOPOSEDF'UBUCROW Z':1120SF 0.53 NETsnrAAEA 56JS1SF \.29 '-lIE..IllL< 100.001 29.an; 70.917; ,..""", "'" ~WllERr;s:I)JIlOTS LOT AREAS ~~ REQUlR[DP(RlOT 10,000 0.23 !>ROPQS(O PER LOT lOTI 10,035 0.23 LOTl 23.637 0.54 LOT 3 11,044 0.25 lOT 4 10.710 0.25 OUTLOT A 1,008 0.Q2 00Tl0T8 544 0.01 TOTALLE~r;s:flCW) 360lF . OWNERJDEVELOPER. \\IlSlXIItlE'I'ELOI'LlEHGROUP,LLC. 22B6~COURT t.W>lEWOOO.llHS5119 PH, ~lt490.7179 I'I..ANNE!RIPROCT ENGmEER 'F'ROTERRAOCSlGNASSOCIlo.TES.IHC. .lUll A. KRmWljGREG D.lIORIS 7JOO HUOSON llOOLEV.lRO, SUIIE 220 QAl(llH..E.1ofl 55128 F'H:551739.S131FX:651.739.0646 PREUMIN ARY FO R REVIEW 0 NL Y '" '" w w Eil " '" E;; n 1;; ~ j ~~'5 '" ~ ~~~; ~ I (l E.~~ ~ Ii\. F ~i~~ 0 ~' Lmn-+ ~~. ~~ '" n:::::': I ,,~~~ ,:1. Ii e!~ I' . . , ~ ~ --------1 , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,///) w n o :J i E Cl n '" ~ E;; t:J '" ~ " b " ;;: ~ " ~ E;; t:J '" ;;j '" ~ ,., ~ 4 " " , , / 1># / , v' ." / w n o :J " " o iiJ ,J ~ ~ ~ 0 t:: ~ 'J1 e 8 > ~ ~tj 0 ~ e tj ~ ~ ~ ,., ~ ~ o ~ ~ 0 Z , I !I ~. -I I:~ I.j ,I I RIPLEY AVE I , 't-I , I , I .,1 '~ I , I , I , ) '" o n iiJ ~ f)l ,. I I I !~__m___ I~~ iJl~ 10," L~_____n I e; rn w Eil , , I I'"~ Il:i~ ~~ ~ro p w ;J " " ., , , , f , j_/ , , " , - / / - - / w ., ,. '" ....#" ..,y.~ o .., " " " " " PRELIMINARY PLAT 23 Attachment 7 n . 11 N ~ , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , '---"-4 , , , , , , .------i i~ , ,~ f' : , , , , ~ ;'- ~/ ( I ~ i~:> ~~I I I I ~. I I I: I I .. .. V RIPLEY AVENUE I~ r' I -------11II ~~~ I : 1/,/ W' ) / / _I I' " ~ , . ..--.. , I , ) / / , " , , I i~ I I , -------E I , 1--------- :[!;l I~ '.. ~ IC /// / ///// I 1 , . I SITE DATA - _UIEgFM -~- -......."''''" ~. ~, ~. ~. '-lilt _III1lIIIIIlDl51lG.......j -~- -,- -.- _a_~ -............--- ---(II) IlUllIl:l=:W llilllllllll'!llllfW'- UlI..."...... ....---- "'_~1I"'I(ILOIC_ lEGEND f::mld .~ _lUI.lllO._ -- . -.- SITE PLAN 24 Attachm~~t !l 11-I-.1:-.,_ .-tFM..-.. .-. ,......../Ul..... lUS/../U4.I<IIB "...../UO.o:IO '071../...._ ""''''/'11._ !IIIJIIlF/TJlIaU '."IJ11._ 144./-01_ ''''''''1''''-'''11 ~ ': . , ." 11 N '~i' I !ii! I llIill '11:111I! I ";' Iii III' I!I< Il!1 II ' II,; 'II Iii !'Ililli' !:lj ", li!!ll l!:I!i!:! !l !!I ;q~l!I: Iii III Ilil"11 'I "'I! 'Ilill ;I, ' . . j!1'~. .' , . . ~ " _7 RIPLEY AVENUE : ~ I Ii ilinl! I i ~; ;; Ii = ! e!He I ili ii I 11111 I III --, I I I ,-:.::::-i--\ I I --'-I. \ I : /-\ :"\ 1\ !i ) / ( I \ I, ., "I \ I, \ -1-, \ : " ...,_\ I \ \ I '------ I \ \1 -...." I 'II \ I 1\1 \ : ll.... \ I I I -, ~-=-,-,\ I I I I '1 I \ 1 I --------~ I IU."I I ~ I I I 1 I I I:, I I \1 II I I r I I i==-.... \ \./ I I I I I.....J I I I I _~-", / I I I; _J., I I , . III .:'........ ~," .... -.... !- ...., "l .. \ \.\ W. \. '\ \~ \~I ',-W r---., \ I" .... "\ '-, :)f( 111\ H, " , I', " ' ,I', !J',.~' -------....... or ~l , I , , , , , , ! / . -/ ii'. ~,--/ , , . , ~5 . , I , , , I , , I I , ; , , , I , , " , I \~J____J ,I ('I' ' " //;1' , I , I , I I I I I L '" o "''' ",'" ",'" ""c: ",5 "'z > 0'" Z"" r "" //,,-, ...r.... // ,-- ...-1" " I /' 1_ __'" ,/ ",./" /' ,/i ".f"" ~ , " 'I ' / // / /1 ,,_'/ ill ~ , / I 11-'" ........-,.--.... / I 11 "'.... ..... , / / /: I ,/ ~ I / / I Ir' / I I :/~ --j-{-il--7 ,.,,~ I!; 'i I .... { I I 'I I .l. I I I ' I ( I I !: I " I I \ I I c::, II I I I il/ : { : III I, I III \ , I "I \ \ I III > II II, / I I :I' I I: III \:: III ) II 1'1 I I' III I II "" III I ~) ",,"" : \ ~ r./ --- ~ ~ , ",,"'" """,/ ~ -;;/ Attachment 9 . , L . PROPOSED GRADING PLAN 25 l 11 N I ~ O:-~IN-E~-VTM-O-\IT1< E:<.",T"-t',"''''-[X-IITI<- , ,~- RIPLEY AVENUE - ) ~ I I I I I , I I I I I I , , I I I I I I -----... I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I D alll,.." /// I /Iilll 1:1 , // 1111 il , , , , Iii' , I / i!. I' , I , , II" .1 I , . 1; I I I I , , I , ~ ------t ... , , I -~ , , I ~ , I '" , , " / : j' , / , / i I I I . I I / ' I' I , I / : II , / , , / IIi , V / ! , , . , , , I J Attachment 10 PROPOSED UTILITY PLAN 26 \! N "U ;:a o ~ f/l m c ~ m l:l i'i'i f/l -l ;:a m !!l I z txil~ ~~ 9~'_ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ ~'1j trltrl ....,::0 trl- :;on UJ:t> lOt- z. r----- z:t:m oox . Coo -en.., ::jmz .... Gl :I: 0...., :t>:t> :;os::: :;Otrl U3UJ 0:;0 z. I I 1 I I : :~ >/ / j ~ / j/ / '"" o""x ~(..NVi -.....1m=:! -z f;LnC) ;0 (/),- f'T"l~O (/). -< / / / / / / " ;0 p~ ~ ~'i:xlO ~~ (/) ~~ '"" ~~ Cl ,- o -< PROPOSED GARAGE , ';}, o , p-O >-...1 0 / ~81 ki / tn~ S /' /'- / 0 -< / / /' /' r - -, I I I I r I ,~ '> /' /' ,- SITE AREAS ZONED: MIN. LOT WIDTH: MIN. LOT AREA: FRONT YARD SETBACK: SIDE YARD SETBACK HOUSE: SlOE YARD SETBACK GARAGE: REAR YARD SETBACK: Attachment 11 I m 8 ~~ Z f/l -l ;:a m m -l RECEIVED PRELIMINARY FOR REVIEW ONLY R-I SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAl 75 IDDDD JD-35 1D 5 2D~ POTENTIAL LOT DIVISION 27 'L! N Attachment 12 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 Resource Management., Protection & Improvement Tina Carstens Permit Program Coordinator Ramsey-Washington Metro Watershed District 2346 Helen Street North St. Paul, MN 55109 Phooe: 651-704-2089 Fax: 651-704-2092 12/7/2005 28 Attachment 13 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 staff will keep a close watch on the site during all construction activities - especially those relating to the construction of the public street and utilities. Drainage 1. 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 subcatchrnent 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: httf):..www.metrocouncil.orgenvironmentWatershedBMP/manual.htm 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. 29 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 10-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 C3.1. 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 I. 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. 350 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. 30 Utilities 1. Submit plans to SPRWS for their review and approval located 1900 Rice St, 2nd Floor. Future watennain 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. Landscaping I. 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 infonnation 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 responsible 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 infonnation for the area under the proposed street location and for the proposed house pads. 31 ,November 30, 2005 . MAPLEWOOD i~ Attachment '14 JAMES HARRISON 1777 EDGERTON ST N MAPLEWOODMN 55117 Together We Can '. NEIGHBoRHOOD SURVEY: PROPOSEDC.,KINGS AQDITION ~ SOUTH OF RIPLEY "AVENUE. WEST OF EDGERTON STREET, MAPLEWOOD ' 'N111~t is Belna Reaueirted? ,Mr;V1nflLe, represelJll~Wisdqm DevelopmentGrOup (the develllP!l~;1s requesting th;n theWCEJVf D appryve plans for a n~ four-lot subdivision for sjngledwlllUngs.This develOpmllnt;if approVed~Y the, pity, would include vacatinga!1 unused alley, vacating the existing unused Jessie Street right-of-way , southiJf RipleyAvenue, the~ellication of,a new street right~of-\'V8Y and thereplatting of~he vacant ,'.' properties ilJlo four, lots. This developmelJlls prQposed for the area' south of Ripley Avenueandwestof Edgerton Street and YiOuldinclude the construction, of a new cul-de-sec street (JEissi8Street> south of . Ripley Avenue. As proposed, the plans show four lots for houses lln the new cul-de-sac on the'1;8-'acre " propert)'. ~efer to the llnclosed project narrative and maps for more infonnation about thil proposal., ' WhvthisNOticil? '; - -", .' -' " , . - City staff wishe~to infonnyouabol.ll this proposal and seaksyilur input in any ilfthefolloWingways: . . .' , ',' ' ,",.", - -" 1. Man your comments to me. Please write, arry comments you have below or on thebSck of this letter., i have enclosed an addressed retum envelope for your use to mail in your coinme,nts. " Please note that anylettelS and attachments that you Send to the CIty ai8consl-.d public InforrDatIon a~cJty staff may use them InstafflW'Orts that go to theplimnlng comm4slon and CIty council; , 2. Call me af(651) 249.2303 or ~-mail me atKen.Roberts@CI.Maplewood.Mf,WS ' . ,', . . . 3. Attend the city council meeting and give your comments. City staff will notify you of the city , council meeting by mail onCe the city h~s scheduled it." ' -, ' Please~ by December 9,2005 (Whether you mail or phone in your comfnentS). ~4 ~+ :flfu'1. Applicanfs statement ,Location Map " , Property UneJZoning Map , Address Map, , Cover Sheet "Existin9'Co~ditions Map Proposed Preliminary Plat Site Plan, Proposed Grading PlaD , Proposed LltilllY P1acn ' W\ .e.- /\Jll Wlflf'e w~ " ~;L €>-u V\i.N ~I~~ 11 "~j ", f'"*'C:..65.1 2-43 L3.19 MAPLEWOOD, MN 55109, . OFF"S& OF' CeJ.1r.lYrUT'l.'eieVE:I~;,"e_p..r.Ilf:UT GC t 249 2.nee , CITY OF MAPLEWOOD 1830 COUNTY ROAD BEAST 32 [l)\} \d \3~ B,,~ \+ 0"'" bo\4;J. pr-OP€f'+j' I{ CO"vu..; I n>ed1 +0 &. teG~e..d 1)/\ 4~1'r ~b+ {,\J ,de L,'rAe.> 'J:"" uJ~lI ~e ht'\tfj +tl &tJ B~~f- .!lvV"' the..- b"''J~..L,'"...e.> ~e-I- Bj Cp...,.....<-,'{ ..f&>r ('/\.L, Ne~ Wt'"ld fx +he rt MO Lilt) (J~ ~() ~A7 ~~e~., ;;Jk,')\. ~r-<- f>n'u~ kj} -fo M?, -r~ ~'"" PJIIIIJif I~ Clll\tln\~J 1"/'7tO(-I"f,\ VA.\uc... wky {.M<c- ~ ~ ~~+ i'rrt-- fI)&-r r-e..-(llAle.-f'\~LF! ..(1 AN Alif t"sf 6ic/j IX ",,,,,W Bt c.. A ,J- I\- U ~ t..-A..kr:wV (,p r) .'\.'-~ I t , \JV'~e.- c-~':;It?- b-.f- Pr~ €-",,"5e~urt Uke.. fl7~IS t..{1.N ~ CIV'j 4W"4-rd t-k BIAldd' 1+// 1J1 M~'M~ ~.+t-Jr<.r ~MV ?~;..r,') ill-;I A-&II-?t4fIMd &-.,l)l/U ~ ;:,ek7 ~~ VII'-"-^i-/-t'<,/ {,"" IN &lit H\.<.- ($J{ IJU"'7 PAr-t. ~ ~ CeVi\lj t9r 1e-,) 0e0 wP~,J w^"'.+ ~ h!.~1 AV\! v-~ o<..{ vAX CUWr--V!.,7 t-~LL- 'oJ.A<-- A:iI.'1+II""'-G-! ".1.vt..>'\l /tW ~ (;Vi.uM,..,'j '" i ..ft. < /, ''') > ~ ;.J. ,'." t ri>f" ;.+1. - "Je- 'l/ &ee 1"" 'oJ t1 "...be<-'. ~\olC-VJ.../ ~ ---I ~~)7 A ~)(.1~&-J ~ t/lAsfJ ~[;l\\e.~ .tv 4d-v41 ~#~'?tJl'e#lM-f L~lO-V+- do 14)19+ vv\l4-,kh & It be """'..I ^ ""'117 v,i" '7 r < \<e,x",t r """ ~ ~D WW< ^'j "tke.r- tiMe-er,^-? /i)vtf!Itrr'l7' .9 veN'lA: tl ~e- WA'f ~ t'vrte iAl ~ 'y 0,0' lof."'1 ti.\y.~(+.< 7e e M ~ J, ''/ "'e 1.(\ ~ h ", ,,\, 'of r ""+. J/opJ /. -Me ?i fy tooK!? A {- '1-/11''7 I)UY33 L'\.tJ~t' I ~ l'e~re ^ff roll A L I Attachment 15 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) 1. 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 of the 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. Councilmember Carlson moved/introduced the following Resolutions 1) approving an agreement to build one house on a propertv that does not front a publiclv dedicated and maintained street and 2) vacating the undeveloped allev between Bradlev Street and the Jessie Street right-or-wav. south or Riplev Avenue. and moved its adoption: II-t-99 I 34 99-11-104 CONSTRUCTION AGREEMENT RESOLUTION WHEREAS, James and Cynthia Harrison are asking that the 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 ]/4 of Section 17, Township 28, Range 22, Ramsey County, Minnesota. WHEREAS, Section 9-] (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] 8, ] 999. 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 ]T 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 not 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 construction 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 Street right-of-way for ingress and egress from the parcel to Ripley Avenue. b. An agreement against the property that: (1) Holds the city harmless from any liability for using the private 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 the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works. 11.Jl-99 2 35 The city attorney shall prepare these agreements. The property owner shall provide the city with copies of all recorded documents. 3. Install a sign at Ripley Avenue 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 wetland on the site. This easement shall prohibit mowing, cutting, filling, dumping or grading in the wetland 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 of the following-described alley: The alley between Bradley Street and Jessie Street, between Ripley Avenue and the State of Minnesota DNR trail, in Block 2 ofthe King's Addition to the City of Saint Paul in Section] 7, Township 29, Range 22, Maplewood, Minnesota. WHEREAS, the history of this vacation is as follows: I. On October 18, 1999, the planning commission recommended that the city council approve this vacation. 2. On November 8,1999, the city council held a public hearing. The city staff published a notice in the Maplewood Review and sent a notice to the abutting property owners. The council gave everyone at the hearing a chance to speak and present written statements. 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] 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: I. 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 streets and utilities. Seconded by Councilmember Koppen Ayes - all II ~-99 3 36' Attachment 16 PLANNING CML 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 Addnion 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 wnh Mr. Harrison several times while completing site inspections and while meeting wnh neighbors to gather signatures for the public right- of-way vacation requests. In addnion, 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 resuKs ofthat discussion and a sketch ofthe 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 ofthe 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 of the facts. Mr. Harrison stated in his first paragraph: "' 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 if very clear to me why no more than one dwelling could be built on said propetfy. If 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 resuK, the proposed subdivision fits in 7300 HUDSON BLVD. SUITE 220 OAKDALE, MINNESOTA 55128 PHONE (651) 739-8131 FAX (651) 739-{)846 37 Page 2 December 12, 2005 City of Maplewood Planning Commission and City Councii clo Ken Roberts, Planner Re: C. Kings Add~ion Maplewood, MN 55117 PDA Comm. No. 05060 perfectly with the existing neighborhood. In add~ion, there are no variances proposed for this subdivision. The matter that Mr. Harrison is referring to is his previous request to use the existing C~y 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 n 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 mnigate their concems 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 hea~h, 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, n 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 sensnive manner. As noted on the preliminary plat, there are two proposed outlets 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 wnh an existing fence that encroaches into the 7300 HUDSON BLVD. SUITE 220 OAKDALE, MINNESOTA 55128 PHONE (651) 739-8131 FAX (651) 739-0846 www.proterradesign.com 38 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 eastem portion ofthe 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 sanitary 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 item 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 conform 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) 739-8131 FAX (65f) 73~846 www.proterradesign.com 39 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. ~4~ 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-Q846 www.pro1erradesign.com 40 LANDSCAPE NOTES ~-.:--_a_____..__..__ ~r....,,=----_._" , ...".---.-.................-..... _a___....-._______... ___.IIl___.._____._ t_._...._..._____ ._..__...___r__.___ :.=;=----..------- t_________..__ ..---.--......-..-.-....-- - LANDSCAPI:-: MA'll:-:RIAl SCHliDUll:! mRF.S -- .1<. cl'~ , , - -- .- --.....-..-' ..-...-,...- TREE REPLACEMI!JIIT CALCULATIONS Attachment 17 ~ ~ RIPLEY AVENUE ! I I 11 I , , I I , ! D , , I I D I , , ! i I i -------------------j I I I // Iv/ , / .// ." ~ ~ m C c.. m rn rn ;;; rn -oj ~ m -oj ,---------c L_________ I i ; . o ;~ .& !Q ~ 1 ...1 . i ,).-/ /' // / ,..../......../ .. '" ,::- ~ .. .. '/ '#" g..'" Q~ Y PRELIMINARY PLANTING PLAN 41 \r N Attachment 18 Enl!ineerinl! Plan Review PROJECT: C. Kings Addition PROJECT NO: 05-37 REVIEWED BY: Michael Thompson, Maplewood Engineering Department DATE: Deeember 22, 2005 These comments are in addition to the December 9, 2005 plan review comments and reflect issues that came up in the 12/19/05 planning commission meeting. Additional Review Comments 1. After discussing and reviewing the project with Chuck Ahl (Public Works Director) and Erin Laberee (Assistant City Engineer) on December 21, 2005, city staff concluded that they would recommend approval of the proposed development and that the city should not deny the proposal based on drainage. The city will require drainage from the proposed development to meet City standards of retaining the 100-year back-to-back storm event. This includes having at least 2 feet of freeboard to the lowest proposed floor elevation or I foot above the emergency overflow elevation, whichever is greater. The city also requires the developer to properly treat the storm water runoff before it discharges into the wetland. A minimum of 1" of runoff must be infiltrated on site using rainwater gardens, infiltrations trenches, or other best management practices. The developer also must secure drainage easements for any emergency overflow paths. 2. The existing drainage issues downstream of the proposed development are ofa regional nature and city staffwill revisit these issues in the next few years. Maplewood proposed improvements to the regional drainage system in this area in the late 1980's but the city council rejected the plan after a public hearing. The city received negative testimony from area residents about the cost of the project and the project financing. City staff anticipates recommending improvements to tihe area drainage system to help correct some of the problems within the next 4-6 y~' s as part of the Capital Improvement Plan (CJP) program. The original plans from the 980's that the City Council rejected included large area-wide assessments and a t increase to implement the improvements. In 2003, the City instituted an Environmentftility Fee that should dramatically reduce the assessments and the need for a property t increase for such a project. City staff expects to begin implementation of the regio al drainage solution in 2009-2010. The approval or denial ofthis development will n t change that proposed project's implementation, planning, or design. ' 3. In 1991 Orr-Schelen-Mayeron & Associates fnc. Consulting Engineers provided a drainage analysis for the entire city that inclu~ed normal and high water elevations for both the depression and the wetland located ljIong Jessie Street. The post development drainage analysis provided by the project engineer and reviewed by staff has comparable findings to that of the 1991 study. 42 4. After talking with staff at Ramsey-Washingtctm Metro Watershed District, it was found that only one wetland exists on the site and tIlat the Watershed District does not define the depression area as a wetland. The City will require in kind excavation for any fill within the depression. Watershed staff also *ated that improving the wetland would be outside the scope of this smaller development and all work should be kept outside of the wetland buffer. I 5. The developers' engineer provided soil borin' s of the development area, that take into account the current site condition, to city st . A summary of recommendations is provided in a technical report regarding road ay and buildings. The developer will be responsible for any costs associated with the emoval of trash or debris found by the contractors during excavation. The contract rs shall prepare all soils for development and construction as per the geotechnical eval ation report. 6. The city conducted an overhaul of sanitary s wer lift station number eight; (west of the site near DeSoto Street) that services the pro sed development and the surrounding neighborhood in 1985. The as-built sanitary sewer plan as-built from 1962, showing an 8" sewer main line along Jessie Street, was t en into account when the design overhaul of the pump station occurred. The city desig ed and constructed the pump station to account for such development. Therefore, proposed four residential units will not negatively affect the current sanitary sewer s stem. The City sewer superintendent confirmed this on 12/22/05. 7. There is no recent record of the city issuing ading permit for the site. Thus, no fill or grading shall occur within the site until the c y approves a development plan for the site and after the contractor secures such a permi from the city. 8. Staff reviewed the proposed tree-planting pI n and schedule and found that five of the 18 proposed trees would be planted outside of t e development on adjoining property to the east. This is fine as long as the developer ha a written agreement with that property owner to plant the trees. Otherwise, the con actor will need to place these trees somewhere within the proposed developmen but not within the public street right-of- way. 43 i VACATION RES~LUTION , WHEREAS, Vinh Le, representing the property 01er, applied for the vacation of the following: 1. The Jessie Street right-of-way, according to t e plat of King's Addition to Saint Paul, Minnesota, lying between the south right-of-w y line of Ripley Avenue and north of the DNR Gateway Trail described as follows. ! Attachment 19 The west 6.00 feet of the right-of-way kno n as Jessie Street which lies south of the easterly extension of the north line of Lot 5, Bock 2, and which lies north of the easterly extension of the south line of Lot 6, Block 2, 11 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 sout erly of the circumference of a circle having a radius of 50.00 feet. The center of said cincl being described as follows: Commencing at the northwest corner of Lot 22, Block 1 said INGS ADDITION to the City of St. Paul; thence South, assumed bearing, along the w st line of said Block 1, a distance of 284.96 feet; thence West and at right angles to the est line of said Block 1, a distance of 50.00 feet to the center of said circle and there te inating. 2. The 2o-foot-wide alley in Block. 2, Kings Add' on to Saint Paul, Minnesota, lying south of the south right-of-way line of Ripley Avenue and orth of the DNR Gateway Trail. WHEREAS, the history of this vacation is as follow : 1. On December 19, 2005, the planning commi sion held a public hearing. The city staff published a notice in the Maplewood Review nd sent a notice to the abutting property owners. The planning comrnission gave eve ne at the hearing a chance to speak and present written statements. The commission Iso considered reports and recommendations from the city staff. The planning commission abled action on this request. 2. On January 3, 2006, the planning commissio again considered this request. The planning cornmission recornmended that the city coun '1 approve the abovEHiescribed vacations. 3. On January 23, 2006, the city council review d this request. WHEREAS, after the city approves this vacation, t e public interest in the property will go to the following properties: 1. Lots 1-4, Block. 2, Kings Addition to St. Paul (PI 17-29-22-34-0102). 2. Lots 5-12, Block 2, Kings Addition to St. Paul ( IN 17-29-22-34-0103) NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the c ty 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 0 build a street or an alley in the right-of-ways. 3. The adjacent properties have adequate street ss. 4. The developer will be dedicating a new right-of- ay and new easements with the new plat. The Maplewood City Council adopted this resolution n ,2006. 44 MEMO RAND M TO: FROM: SUBJECT: DATE: City Manager Ken Roberts, Planner In-Fill Development Study Updat December 23, 2005 INTRODUCTION In 1997, city staff, the planning commission and the ci council conducted a study of possible code changes for in-fill development sites. City staff had ide tified 28 in-fill sites in Maplewood that we felt were likely to be developed. The planning commission recently asked staff to look t in-fill sites and developments that have been constructed in Maplewood in the last few years as a p ssible training topic. Specifically, the comrnission noted that city ordinances may need to updated or changed. The commission also asked if these new developments or changes had affe ed the neighborhood or any historical characteristics. City staff is now taking a fresh look at is issue and the sites that staff had identified in 1997 for development. BACKGROUND Through months of work in 1997, the planning cornrni ion and staff had prepared code changes for the city council to consider about lot dimensions, subd visions, 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 mee lng, Commissioner Trippler commented on the latest in-fill study. He said that he wants the city to hav a separate ordinance for in-fill properties or sites as he believes the current ordinances are not ge red for such sites and are better suited for regulating the development of virgin land. He also wo ered if the city should be developing new ordinances for this issue or if the city should change t e existing ordinances. In addition, Mr. Trippler expressed concems about how in-fill developments co Id be changing the character of their respective neighborhoods. At the December 19, 2005, planning commission mee ng, the commission continued their discussion of in-fill development. This review included trying to de Ine what in-fill development is (or is not) and a discussion of information and articles that staff had ga hered about in-fill development. DISCUSSION Some points for the city to consider with in-fill develop ents and regulations include: 1. If the city decides to write new ordinances abo t in-fill development, what would be the purpose and goals of such ordinances? 2. How should Maplewood define "in-fill develop nt?" What is in-fill development? 3. Should the city use site acreage as a criterion ( y setting a minimum or rnaximum site size) when reviewing sites eligible for development t at the city would consider as in-fill sites? 4. Should there be different development standa1s for small in-fill sites versus large tracts? 5. Should the city encourage or require the use ofl PUD's for in-fill sites? 6. What are the potential negatives of in-fill devel pment? Are there any realistic steps or policies the city could implement to lessen the negativ impacts of in-fill development? Staff recently did an intemet search for information on in-fill development. I found many articles and reports about in-fill development that I included with last memo about in-fill development. From the articles and information that I found, there were at lea t three definitions of in-fill or in-fill development. They are: 1. The development of unused or underused Ian within an urban area. 2. The economic use of vacant land, or the resto tion or rehabilitation of existing structures or infrastructure, in urbanized areas where water, sewer and other public services are in place that maintains the continuity of original community abric. 3. The development of vacant or under-used par Is within existing developed urban areas. A point of discussion the planning commission had at heir last meeting was about defining in-fill development. This included trying to differentiate betw en the development of virgin or undeveloped sites and those sites that would be redeveloped with w land uses. In other words, should any new city in-fill regulations or policies affect different types 0 sites differently? One of the articles argued that successful in-fill devel ment has residential densities high enough to support transportation choices and a variety of service and amenities. They also noted that the design of in-fill developrnent is essential to ensure that the ne development fits the existing context, and so it gains neighborhood acceptance. The city certainly ma regulate some design features (including residential density and minimum lot size) and city now requires most developments (except single dwellings) to go through a design review and approval process. I also know, however, that it would be difficult and costly for the city to regulate the design of ingle dwellings on in-fill or any other sites. The January 2006 issue of Planning (the official mag 'ne of the American Planning Association) has an article called "The Power of Infiltration." I have atta ed the article for your reference. It should provide you with some additional ideas about housing nd in-fill development. RECOMMENDATION Prepare a list of questions or concerns about in-fill dev lopment for staff to review and prepare responses to. p:misclin-fill study (4) - 2005 AlIachment - January 2006 Planning Article 2 16 Planning January 2006 Architectural ekments and the proper seale help these multifamily projects in Iizmpa, Fwrida (right), and Portl4nd, Oregon (below), bknd into the neighborhood. In Ft. Wl1rth, the Lofts on Fairmont (opposite) faced financing and zoning ehalknges. How to encourage multifamily projects and higher densities. By Elizabeth Austin Lunday ., l The Po er 0 Drive into residential h t spots today and you are likely to see enclaves of devel- opment, each filling a specific niche, with multif.unily housing strictly separated from single-family homes. Boundaries-even walls-separate each type of housing and each price point. A different model dominated a century ago, when multifamily housing was integrated into neighborhoods. The occasional garage apartment or granny flat peeks out from the back of a driveway. Single-family houses surround a duplex. A six-flat apartment house takes up a corner lot, and along the edge of the neighborhood stands a courtyard apartment or a row of town houses. Today cities are seeking to return to the earlier model by encouraging neighborhoods to increase their densities and the diversity of their housing types. New projects range from 500-square-fo t triplexes to luxury high-rise infill towers. "A wide mix fhousingwithin a neighborhood promotes social and econ mic sustainability. In the past, that mix was there for a goo reason," says Scott Polikov, AICP, a town planner with ateway Planning Group in Austin, Texas. . .. "While thes projects face challenges, from zoning to rt'; I financing to IMBY-ism, communities have identified "" _ ._. ' I'll;,r the traits ofwo kable projects and are developing practices J II that promote s cccss. The result could be a move toward ~ ~ ,~ increased nei borhood densities through small-scale j ,Ii multifamily pr jew. ~ "I think we' 'e coming to understand that some of the If. more tradition development patterns have benefits that ! we have failed 0 appreciate," says Fernando Costa, AICP, I planning direc or for the city of Ft. Worth. ~ ~ , American Planning Association 17 Density and diversity Manynewinfill projects can be classified as "mul- tidwellings"-more than one dwelling unit on a shared lot-including triplexes and fourplexes, cottage clusters, courtyard apartments, town houses, and block-long apartment buildings. Duplexes and row houses, each on their own lot, are not considered multidwellings bur are often allowed under the same codes. Advocates of multidwellings point to several benefits. First, they allow residents to stay in their neighborhoods as their lives-and housing needs--change. "I think a neighborhood is not truly a neighborhood unless you can move up without moving out," says Polikov. '~mix [of housing] can provide more srabiliry and more choices," says Garet Johnson,AlO', land- use program manager for the city of Charlotte, Nonh Carolina. "It's a way to accommodate people at different points in their life." Increasing neighborhood densiry also helps to limit sprawl, the experts say. "The smart growth option is coming to be recognized as more economical and more responsible," Costa says. "It's something we're pursuing with some success and that cities across the country are pursuing as well." . 1 r t Particular interest in increasing density through infill and redevelopmenr has sprung up in urban areas where suburban growth is limited by policy or by geography. Portland, Oregon, with irswell-known urban growth boundary, is one example. St. Petersburg, Florida, surrounded by water, is another. "We're on a peninsula here, and we're com- pletelybuilrout," says Bob Jeffiey, assistanrdirec- tor of development services for St. Petersburg. "We're faced with an incredible affordable hous- ing shortage. We're looking at ways to increase density so we can take the pressure off." 18 Planning January 2006 'Vha/'s gelling in /he way Despite incteasing interest, small-scale multi- dwelling projects onen struggle to get off the ground. Barriers include a lack of financing, restrictive zoning, and NIMBY-ism. "Barriers?" laughs Jill Black, a Ft. Worth-based developer, whose four-unit town house project opened in May. "There were barriers in every possible way." Developers oflarge multifamily projects have no trouble getting financing from life insurance companies and pension funds, whereas devel- opers of small projects must seek alternative financing, says Mark Steinbeck of Merchants Funding, a Phoenix-based lending company that focuses on multifamily housing investments in the Southwest U.S. Merchants specializes in projects as small as four units and as large as 60 to 90 units. "What we love to deal with is in the $300,000 ro $3.5 million range," he says. Zoning and other city ordinances can also pose a barrier, as rhey did for Black. "Ir rook two years to go through the city's approval process," she says. "It was one headache after another. Although Ft. Worth says it wants to see this type of development, the process isn't set up to handle it." Like many cities, Ft. Worth is trying to facilitate this type of project, according to Costa, and new codes and city ordinances have been established that accommodate greater densities. The city has designared 13 urban villages, which are zoned under new mixed use classifications that allow a combination of residential and non- residential uses. Magnolia Green, which includes Black's projecr, iswnedMU-2, High Inrensity Mixed Use. In addirion, the city is developing design guidelines for each urban village. Charlotte is also trying to match planning goals and development needs. The city's general development policies state that the city will "encourage a range of housing types and densi- ties that will meet the needs of different types of households" and "develop multifamily housing as parr of the fabric of a larger neighborhood." Even with those policies in place, the process can srill bog down, says Charlotte-based archirecr and developer David Furman. "The planning commission in Charlotte is first-rate, and the guidelines they have put out are terrific," he says. "The problem is getting the city council ro stand behind them." Community opposition can be fierce-and personal. "The thing thar I couldn't deal with was that because you want to do this project, you're an evil person. You're a bad person. You're a criminal," Furman says. Although he devel- oped numerous 30- to 60-unit infill projects in Charlotte's first-ring suburbs over the course -- - 1'1\\\1\(, PB\(1111 of several years, he says he decided to switch to downtown redevelop men because he was tired of being attacked. different configurations of apartments, town houses, and cottage clusters, highlighting those that work well within their neighborhood. They've found that elements such as facade articulation, materials, window treatments, roof forms, and trim, if well executed, can help integrate a project into a neighborhood. Poor use of these elements can make a project look like an oversized barracks. Another rule of thumb: The larger the project and the greater its density, the farther it should be from the center of the neighborhood. A large high-rise project is more appropriate on a major corridor on the edge of a neighborhood, while a fourplex works well within a neighborhood. Architect Chuck Travis, principal of Char- lotte-based The Housing Studio, points to two Making II work Despite the roadblocks, small multifamily projects can succeed. Pord d is seeing a steady increase in multidwellin projects in existing neighborhoods---<i6 perc nt of all aparrment and row house permits fro 1997 to 2004 were forprojecrs in medium-de ityresidential zones, according to Bill Cunnin am, manager of the city's infill design project, hich offers guidance on how to integrate infill p ojects into their sur- roundings. Good placement, plan . ng, and design con- nect infill projects to the surrounding fabric, uses par =avated, b grade pa" ing. making them more acce table to residents. Cunningham notes that r sidents are now liv- ing in new infill projects in medium-density residential zones and not just in redeveloped areas such as the Pearl Dis rict. Connectiviryisanother elementinlocaring multidwelling projects. " ese projects need to be near adequate transp nation-sidewalks, transit, bike paths," ..ys C lotte's Garet John- son. "You need to look atw ere that higher den- sity is appropriate, where i can be supported." Good planning and desi n are crucial as well. "If your architecrure is m 'ocre, you don't have a chance," says Furman. od architecture, he says, reflects the design 0 the neighborhood around it. One of Furm 's projects, Queens West in Charlotte, was esigned to reflect both the architectural de 'Is and the scale of the surrounding housing The 24-unit town house project was located erpendicular to the street, with the end unitd signed to look like a nearby house. "We were a Ie to create the same rhythm on the street and ddress the aesthetic concerns," Furman says. One of the goals of Po ciand's infill design project is to identify the tr . ts of well-designed multidwelling projects. Th teamhasexamined projects in Tampa, Florida, as good examples of this principle. Both are located in the his- toric Hyde Park neighborhood. Parkside at One Bay Shore, a 1 04-unit high rise, is located on a major thoroughfare on the edge of the neighborhood while Christiansted, a 22-unit, four-story courtyard project, sits in the middle of the neighborhood. "Christiansted is on a smaller scale, and more integrated into the district," Travis says. Eneouraging good IDnUidwelIings What can cities do to help good projects get off the ground? Planners around the U.S. say the keys to success are listening to neighborhood residents, developing solid guidelines, and smoothing the process. Austin is in the midst of a neighborhood planning process at the moment. Among other things, the city is looking at housing options for each neighborhood, says Ricardo Soliz, Austin's development services manager. "If the area is a sea of single-family detached housing, we're talking about alternatives for someone who is single, or newly married, or downsizing-maybe retired. We look at it to see where the limitations are," he says. Neighborhood planning efforts have identi- fied areas in central Austin, near the University of Texas, that could benefit from fairly dense multidwelling development. The university neighborhood overlay wne, covering an area of 231 acres, was created in 2004 partly to upgrade a warren of student rentals and to reduce spillover of students into nearby neighborhoods. "The basic idea was to up the density in this overlay area," says George Adams, Austin's manager of urban design. Residents of the surrounding single-f.unily neighborhoods embraced the plan. "We got buy- in from the surrounding neighborhoods beyond anyone's expectations," Adams says. "By introduc- ing 1,500 residential units in the overlayarea, we're taking the pressure off surrounding houses." A second approach is to develop guidance for devdopers. Portland's infill design project is doing just that. "What we've heard from developers is that the city is good about complaining about what we don't want but not about showing what we do want," says Bill Cunningham. "Nowwe're trying to show housing configurations that meet our regulatory standards and market needs." Thecityexpects to create a "plan hook" of12 in- fill prototypes that can be approved under current regulations and meet commWlity design goals. To do that, Cunningham's group is considering which housing types and parking arrangements best meet design expectations. A common criticism of row houses and small apartment complexes is that driveways and park- ing dominate at street level. In response, the city has examined creative approaches such as rear parking, shared lanes, and _P.~tially excavated basementparlcing. "We've donealotof row houses with front garages, but we're seeing ifwe can get beyond that," Cunningham says. A final step in attracting good multidwelling projects is to streamline city codes anclordinances. Portland's infill design project has found that the city's code provisions on lot depth and driveway widths acrually encourage the very type of park- ing the city now wants to avoid---cars parked the width of a duplex, town house, or apartment The Return of the Garage Apartment Austin, Texas, sees accessory housing as a straightfor- ward way to increase densiry. Owners of single-family lots with at least 7,000 square feet can build a garage apartment or granny flat as of right, says Ricardo Soliz. Now the city is thinking of reducing the minimum to 5,750 square feet. "Particularly for people concerned about increased property taxes, it's a way of earning some extra income while providing new housing op- tions," Soliz adds. St. Petersburg, Florida, is using a similar approach. building, overwhdming the s the project. The project team roposes revlSlng regulations to allow narrower dr' ewaysorshared driveways and to limit front p king on all new projects. To identify other barriers, the roject team has done "code modeling"--expl ing how codes would be applied to different' arrangements. For example, the team exam' ed how various housing types would be rreate under current codes. They found that shared treet courtyard housing, in which row house- e nnits front a privately owned "shared street" d ignedtoaccom- modate both cars and pedestrian ,was prohibited because current codes require streets to have grade-separated sidewalks, resul' g in impractical right-of-way widths on small i I sites. As a result, the team is propo 'ngzoningcode amendments that would ad s the barriers identified in the code modelin process. These would include provisions to fac' itate courtyard- oriented housing and other alt native housing arrangements, including allo ce for shared- street designs. However, Cunningham says cion requirements, building cod canalsowotkagainstmultidw . gdevdopment. Town house clusters, in which so e townhouses face the street and others the r or a courtyard, are prohibited under a code tha requires all lots to have astreet frontage, in pant accommodate water lines. The project team h identified this limitation and brought it to the ity's attention. The team's goal is to make od design the path ofleast resistance for devel ers. "We want to highlight those strategies tha succeed," says Cunningham. Increasing housing divers ty Although multidwellings often 0 hand in hand with infill or redevelopment, m st new subdivi- sions tend to segregate different es ofhousing and different densities. It doesn't have to be that wa likov, who has worked with seve devdopwningcodesfornewn . American Planning Association 19 include a mix of housing types. At Craig Ranch in McKinney and the Mills Branch district in Lancaster, these codes are now in effect. "The codes require two things: a minimum number of housing types and performance standards," says Poukov. The codes identify seven housing types and specify that a minimum number of housing types must be included within each wned area. A primarily residential area might include a mix of single-f.unily houses, duplexes, and end-cap apartments (small apartment units located at the end of a street between individual houses and a corridor street.) An urban center might call for a mix of high-rise apartments and row houses. Yet another areamight include courtyard apartments and cottage clusters. Performance standards address architecture as well as how the buildings function as part of the neighborhood. "Multifamily projects should function notas enclaves but as pan of the existing neighborhood labric," says Polikov. Multidwelling in America Many people think that higher densities are the wave of the future. "I think as cities continue to sprawl and be more expensive, as gas prices continue to increase, anything on the interior becomes more and more valuable," says Mark Steinbeck. "Price continues to be an issue for starter homes, and many homes are out of reach for a first-time purchase. More people are turn- ing to condos and town homes." Cities can encourage these projects by under- standing what makes multidwellings succeed, Ustenirtg to neighborhoods, providing guidance to developers, and eliminating barriers. "These projects can beastruggle because we're calling upon the public to rethink certain basic assumptions about what is or what isn't desirable about our communities," says Fernando Costa. "But on reflection it makes sense to pursue greater density, a greater mix of housing, and more integration within neighborhoods." Elizabeth Lunday is a freelance writer in Ft. Worth. B ('... 0 III. 4' ('... "Instead of knocking do n houses to have duplexes or other multifamily proj cts, you allow the option of additional units on thelo ," says Bob Jeffrey. "On the street, the neighborhoo stay the same. but it takes the pressure offhouse red dopment." St. Petersburg's new ini iative is expected to be ad- opred by the citycouncil in tesummer 2006 and could take effect next fall. The de requires units to have parking and windows tha won't look into neighbors' yards, eliminating major mmunity concerns. On the web. For more on Ft. Worth's urban villages: www.fort- wortbgov.org. Portland's infill de- sign project is at www.pomand- online. com. Austin's university neighborhood overlay zone is at www.ci.austin.tx.us/development! wning.han. And see www.craig- ranchtx.com for details on Craig Ranch in McKinney, Texas.