The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About01/17/2006 MAPLEWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesdav, January 17, 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. January 3, 2006 5. Public Hearings None 6. New Business a. Gladstone Neighborhood Redevelopment Plan b. 2005 Planning Commission Annual Report c. Cottagewood Development Concept Plan Review (2666 Highwood Avenue) d. Planning Commission Elections 5. Unfinished Business a. Noise Ordinance Review - Mr. Ahlness 8. Visitor Presentations 9. Commission Presentations January 9 Council Meeting: Mr. Tushar January 23 Council Meeting: Mr. Ahlness February 13 Council Meeting: Mr. Kaczrowski 10. Staff Presentations 11. Adjoumment DRAFT MINUTES OF THE MAPLEWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION 1830 COUNTY ROAD BEAST, MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA TUESDAY, JANUARY 3, 2006 I. CALL TO ORDER Chairperson Fischer called the rneeting to order at 7:00 p.rn. II. ROLL CALL Commissioner Eric Ahlness Vice-Chairperson Tushar Desai Cornrnissioner Mary Dierich Chairperson Lorraine Fischer Commissioner Michael Grover Commissioner Jim Kaczrowski Corn missioner Gary Pearson Commissioner Dale Trippler Commissioner Jeremy Yarwood Absent Present Present Present Present Present Present Present Absent Chuck Ahl. Public Works Director Ken Roberts, Planner Lisa Kroll, Recording Secretary Staff Present: III. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Commissioner Trippler moved to approve the agenda. Cornrnissioner Desai seconded. The motion passed. IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Ayes - Desai, Dierich, Fischer, Grover, Kaczrowski, Pearson, Trippler Approval of the planning cornmission minutes for December 19, 2005. Commissioner Trippler had a correction to page 9 and a word addition to page 10. On page 9, in the second paragraph, delete the extra word was at the end of the sentence. On page 10, in the fourth paragraph, it should read after the women who bought a home in Stillwater. Cornrnissioner Dierich had corrections to pa~e 3 and 6. On page 3, in the last paragraph, change the word bares to bears. On page 6, in the 9 h paragraph, change the spelling of cognoscente to cognizant. The word cognizant has two different spellings and different meanings. That word is also found on pages 14 and 15. Also on page 6, in the last paragraph, rephrase the wording and not be any more watering that direction to read: and not be any water moving in that direction. Commissioner Pearson moved to approve the planning commission minutes for December 19, 2005, as amended. Planning Commission Minutes of 01-03-06 -2- Cornrnissioner Trippler seconded. Ayes - Desai, Dierich, Fischer, Grover, Kaczrowski, Pearson, Trippler V. PUBLIC HEARING None. VI. NEW BUSINESS a. Special Construction Agreernent - Edgehill Road Mr. Roberts said 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. 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. The city 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.) 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 frorn 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. Commissioner Trippler asked if the city never intends to build a street here is there any thought of vacating the land? Mr. Roberts said staff looked that. The problern is half of the property would go to one set of property owners and the other half would go to Ramsey County then the applicant's land becomes landlocked. The city does not want a private drive over someone else's private property. The city would prefer to have the driveway on public right-of-way verses having another driveway on another person's property so Mr. Trapp can access his property. Staff was also concerned how emergency vehicles would access the property. The city doesn't want to be responsible for allowing this to be built and then have an emergency vehicle that couldn't access the property properly. Commissioner Trippler asked if the northern :y. of the drive could be vacated? Mr. Roberts said that could be possible but staff hadn't discussed that option. Commissioner Trippler said staff recommended Plan A because that plan moves the home farther east to be farther away from the other homes. If you vacated the right-of-way, and the lot became larger, you could slide the home over five to ten feet. However, not knowing the topography of the property it may not be possible if the back part of the lot drops off too much. Planning Commission Minutes of 01-03-06 -3- Mr. Roberts said the back yards of the two hornes on County Road C have frontages on Edgehill Road so he didn't know how that would work if that part of Edgehill Road was vacated. He also doesn't know the topography of the land there so there may be other obstacles. Chairperson Fischer asked the applicant to address the commission. Mr. Mark Trapp, the applicant representing the lot in question at 1784 Edgehill Road, Maplewood, addressed the commission. Mr. Mark Trapp and his wife Jacqueline currently reside in Vadnais Heights during this process until they can build their new home. Mr. Trapp said he likes the idea of vacating the street. He said he would like to purchase the home between him and Southlawn Drive someday if the opportunity arises. Vacating the street would allow them to position the house rnore to the east but that gets close to the drop off. They looked at developing the lot into two lots and putting a turn around in but were told no by the city. If they had rnore room they could shift things east more. There is a lot of buckthorn and sumac bushes there. As far as the fire or emergency access, this area has been accessible for over 100 years already and he's sure it would be accessible for another 100 years. They are looking at the possibility of installing residential sprinklers in this home. Commissioner Trippler said when he visited this site he noticed a depression that is to the north of where the stakes are and he asked if that is where the old home was before it was burned down? Mr. Trapp said the house was staked out but they have since decided to shift things around. The property used to be heavily screened by 5 pine trees but the neighbor decided since the house was gone, now would be the time to remove the pine trees to allow more sunlight to come onto his property. Eventually he will re-Iandscape the area so there is some type of landscaping between him and the neighbors property. Chairperson Fischer asked if anyone in the audience wanted to speak regarding this proposal to come forward and address the commission. Nobody in the audience came forward. Commissioner Trippler moved to approve a special agreement allowing the owners of the property 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: Planning Commission Minutes of 01-03-06 -4- a. Holds the city harmless from any liability for the use of the right-of-way or any delay in ernergency 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 rneet the requirernents 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. Commissioner Trippler rnoved to approve the reduced front setback from Edgehill Road since this setback reduction will result in a greater setback frorn the neighbors to the west. Comrnissioner Pearson seconded. Ayes - Desai, Dierich, Fischer, Grover, Kaczrowski, Pearson, Trippler The motion passed. This item goes to the city council on January 23, 2006. b. Concept Plan Review - Cornforts of Home Assisted Senior Living (Highway 36 and Hazelwood Street) Mr. Roberts said 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 corner 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, rnemory care, respite care, and hospice facility with 24- hour, on-site homecare staff. In order to develop the Cornforts of Home, the city would require Mr. Frisbie to get the following approvals: 1. A cornprehensive plan change from business commercial (BC) to high rnultiple 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. Planning Commission Minutes of 01-03-06 -5- 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. Staff recomrnended the planning cornmission review the Cornforts of Horne concept plan for the property on the southeast corner of Highway 36 and Hazelwood Street and give feedback on the land use aspects of the development. The applicant has not made any formal application yet, they are strictly looking for feedback frorn the cornrnission. Commissioner Pearson asked if MnDOT or Ramsey County were still considering a pedestrian bridge at Highway 36 and Hazelwood Street or possibly going under Highway 36 to get across to Hazelwood Street. There had been discussion of having a pedestrian bridge over Highway 36 to Hazelwood Street for the safety of the pedestrians and he wondered if that was still on the future spectrurn? Mr. Chuck Ahl, Maplewood Public Works Director, addressed the commission. He said Highway 36 is going to be a major reconstruction project in 2007 at McKnight Road, Margaret Street and First Street in North St. Paul. By the end of 2007 Highway 36 will be in freeway form from Highway 35W to Century Avenue with two exceptions. The first exception will be a signal light at English Street and the second exception is at Hazelwood Street where there is a right in only and right out only. In Maplewood's Capital Improvement Plan there was a plan to put in an interchange at Hazelwood Street until about 3 years ago. MnDOT does not have the funds for that any longer. The Hazelwood Street interchange was supposedly a concession made to the Maplewood City Council back in the 1970's when Hazelwood Street was a full intersection. As time passed and Highway 36 became a full expressway and now will go to a full freeway design MnDOT no longer wishes to make that commitment to the City of Maplewood so this has been removed from the Capital Improvement Plan. MnDOT is $1 billion dollars short per year. If MnDOT had $1 billion dollars extra per year they would still not get to projects like the Hazelwood Street project. Frorn Maplewood's position there needs to be a plan and the city needs to figure out if they want or need an interchange at Highway 36 at Hazelwood Street. If you look at this intersection one of the problems they have now is there is a crosswalk painted on Highway 36 as a pedestrian crosswalk. If there is someone in the crosswalk you are required by law to stop! That means if you are going 55 to 60 miles per hour on Highway 36 and there is a pedestrian waiting by the side of the road you need to come to a complete stop and allow the pedestrian to cross. This is a very dangerous situation for the drivers and for the pedestrians. This puts the city in a difficult position. The city needs to discuss how to get people and vehicles from south of Highway 36 to north of Highway 36 other than using White Bear Avenue which is very very congested. Staff does not know if there will be an interchange at this intersection. That decision will be made in 2006. Staff believes that this proposal for Comforts of Home development precludes the city from putting the interchange in. Commissioner Pearson asked staff if the city knows how much pedestrian traffic there is at this intersection if the money were spent to put in proper pedestrian crossing such as a bridge. Planning Commission Minutes of 01-03-06 -6- Mr. Ahl said there are a number of students that attend John Glenn Jr. High that cross over the highway at that intersection. The discussion ended up with MnDOT recornmending the city remove the painted crosswalk off of Highway 36. The City of Maplewood doesn't think that would stop the junior high students from crossing overthe Highway and doesn't solve the problem. The city is looking for a long terrn solution and one solution is to create a barrier and an alternative way for pedestrians to get over the freeway. His recommendation is not for a full interchange but certainly some sort of pedestrian facility or bridge over Highway 36 so the city doesn't have a safety concern. That is sornething the city council will have to decide in 2006. Commissioner Pearson said the reason he asked the question is if that pedestrian crossing or bridge was going to be provided would the city, the county or MnDOT need part of this property for this pedestrian crossing? Mr. Ahl said MnDOT is not willing to make any commitments because of their funding. The city is arguing with MnDOT that MnDOT has a responsibility here to do the right thing. MnDOT would prefer to have something built here that precludes MnDOT from having to spend money at this location. The city's position is these types of developments are difficult because it would make it more difficult for the city to provide for the necessary crossing facilities. The city believes they will need some of the right-of- way for a pedestrian crossing. Commissioner Trippler asked why a pedestrian wouldn't take the Bruce Vento bridge? Mr. Ahl said one thing the city provided for in 2003 was a federal application to build the trail and sidewalk system to provide that. The Bruce Vento bridge is about four blocks away. Unfortunately to tell a teenager not to cross the freeway here is very difficult and until there is a barrier and an alternative route they are not going to go a different route and will continue to cross Highway 36. That was the proposal from the City of Maplewood to MnDOT in 2003 that was rejected by MnDOT. Commissioner Trippler said he lives six blocks from Highway 36 and there is a hill between his home and the freeway and in the summer he likes to sleep with the windows open and he can still hear the roar of the vehicles on Highway 36 so he can't imagine the noise level at this location if this assisted living building were built here. Unless the people are completely deaf they are going to hear the noise living so close to Highway 36. Can the city require the developer to build a sound proof building here? Mr. Ahl said that is the city's engineering departments concern which was noted in the staff report. One of the issues for the planning commission is not only the development concept but also the use for a multiple dwelling facility in a business commercial zoning district. This roadway exceeds the night time noise standards at this location. The proposal is for taking a business commercial use that is not subject to those types of noise requirements and creating a residential use. By doing that the state law precludes that and takes that out of MnDOT's hands and responsibility when doing improvements to mitigate noise and puts that back on the City of Maplewood because the planning commission is approving a residential use knowing the noise standards are being violated. You as a city are accepting responsibility to mitigate noise in the future. Planning Commission Minutes of 01-03-06 -7- Chairperson Fischer said she knows the city is bound by the UBC (uniform building code) in the rnetro area and the city can't put anything rnore excessive on the developer but in this instance where there is going to be a noise problem, does the city have the latitude to go to a stricter building code than the UBC or is the city bound by the UBC no matter what the conditions are? Mr. Ahl said his understanding is because you are changing the use you are required to provide mitigation on the site through special construction techniques or greater setback requirements. The city has to ask, can they avoid putting a residential use on this site? You have to go through the entire process and understand the noise levels and make sure it exceeds the noise standards at this location. Staff believes it does but the data would have to be taken. It's a three step process. Things that would make the sound level less would include things like higher level quality windows, noise walls, year round climate control, insulation, burms, etc. Chairperson Fischer said 30 years ago or so builders were encouraged to build apartments near the freeways and she asked how we deal with noise issues in apartments? Mr. Ahl said apartments were built on an existing land use and if the city were able to replan the city we would not put apartments or residential homes so close to freeways. 30 years ago most people could not project the type of traffic levels we would have on the roadways with three, four, and five lane freeways that the metro area has a need for now. The state night tirne noise standard is from 9 to 11 p.m. and from 6 to 7 a.m. From 7 a.m. to 10 p.m. the noise standard is ten decibels higher and typically roadways meet that standard. Chairperson Fischer asked if there were standards to work with regarding senior housing or assisted living buildings to rneasure the amount of parking needed or do we play it by earfor each proposal? Mr. Roberts said it is really a case by case situation. Commissioner Trippler said on the front page of the staff report, in number 4. it states A building setback variance in order to allow the construction of the building closer than the required 30 feet to the Highway 36 right-of-way. Is there some reason why staff didn't direct the applicant to move the building south? Mr. Roberts said mainly because of time, this came in Wednesday a.m. and the PC packets went out Wednesday afternoon. Staff didn't have a chance to look at that scenario and it could be looked at but it doesn't appear to be a problern. This memo is intended to get some feedback on the concept of an assisted living and mernory care building and a quick review by staff to get the planning commission to think about this concept. There mayor may not be other issues that need to be looked at, this is only a concept at this point. Commissioner Trippler asked what staff's position was for granting this to be changed from BC Business Commercial to residential. Mr. Roberts said the developer is going to have to show the city how this can be made to work. If that can be shown through construction techniques andlor a noise study from the developer they will have to show or prove to the city this project can be done here. Planning Commission Minutes of 01-03-06 -8- Commissioner Oierich said this assisted living home is going to be for heavy care from what she read in the literature provided by the applicant. She wondered how much of the parking will be taken up by employees and visitors. She believes there will be more traffic than the 24 parking spaces that are shown on the concept plan. She believes the only way this could work is to put the common area towards Highway 36 and the apartment units down lower so it is more of a T or V shaped building. She said she was surprised by this concept building being proposed so close to the freeway. Maplewood really needs this type of assisted living and memory care housing in the city but this is not a good location for this type of use in her opinion. Chairperson Fischer asked the applicant to address the commission. Mr. Brian Winges, representing Comforts of Home Assisted Senior Living, addressed the commission. He said he disagrees with the thoughts of the planning commission that this is not a good location for this proposal. The other Comforts of Home Assisted Senior Living buildings are located on very busy roads. Their Blaine location is on Highway 65, their Hugo location is on Highway 61, their North Branch location is at the exit ramp of the freeway, and they are currently building a site in White Bear Lake on Highway 96 and 35E. They have found the rooms that front the traffic are the first rooms to get reserved. People who stay in these rooms prefer something to look at and enjoy the activity. Noise has never been an issue for any of their locations and they have not had one single noise complaint at any of their locations. They have filled each of their buildings up faster than any other company around so something in their planning of building locations is working or else they would have vacancies. There is a strong need for this type of care in the metro area as well. They use a rubber membrane to line the walls for sound abatement. He would encourage the planning commissioners to drive to the other locations and see what the buildings look like and to hear the noise levels. They have received approval from the other cities to build these buildings, the customers keep filling the rooms and they have never had a noise complaint yet, so they must be doing something right for this to be as successful as it has been. The busy location is a positive scenario instead of a negative scenario as the planning commission spoke of. Regarding the parking, there are 8 full time employees and 3 overnight employees. Visitors and family members use the parking spaces as well. The parking formula they have used in each community has allowed them to never run out of parking spaces at any of their locations so far. They provide care for people who need assisted living but the people are not ready to go into a nursing home yet. Their Blaine location was full in two months and their Hugo location was full in 3 months. They work closely with the counties so they set aside a certain number of beds for people who are funded through the county that typically fall through the cracks. Many traditional assisted living homes such as Presbyterian Homes and Sunrise only reserve one county funded bed but that's it. Comforts of Home try to set aside one quarter to one third of the beds that are affordable assisted living beds. They think this is a beautiful location, there is a lake behind, and they could have a patio behind the building with the ability to have some outdoor amenities. They are also currently bidding for a spot in Little Canada right on Highway 36. They would really like to build this building in Maplewood, there is a strong need for this type of housing and it would be a good addition for the community. Commissioner Pearson asked if they ever schedule periodic events where family members are invited to certain events or celebrations at their buildings. Planning Commission Minutes of 01-03-06 -9- Mr. Winges said everybody is invited to come and visit their building any day, they serve free meals for the visitors, they just ask for a heads up that day so they make enough food. They had a thanksgiving dinner and they may have a picnic in the summer but that is about it. They encourage family members and visitors to visit every day rather than have periodic celebrations. They don't want to pile a large number of people into the building. Commissioner Pearson said the reason he asked the question is Lakeview Commons on Lakewood Drive and Maryland Avenue has a similar parking count as what is being proposed by Comforts of Home but Lakeview Commons holds periodic events. Their parking spills out onto Maryland Avenue on the north and south side for about 1500 to 2000 feet and this location is not going to allow for that kind of parking over flow. Mr. Winges said they do not and would not be holding events like that; they want families involved on a more consistence basis not on a periodic event basis. Maplewood can check with the other city's such as Blaine and Hugo and they will tell you the parking formula they use is sufficient for their needs. Commissioner Dierich asked how long the length of stay is for the patients or clients at Comforts of Home. Mr. Winges said depending on the health of the patient it could be very short butforthe most part they find two to four years is the typical length of stay so there isn't a lot of turn around at their locations. They don't provide full scale skilled nursing at these locations. There is a purpose for this type of care before someone needs to go into a full scale nursing home for extended care. This is not a big fancy apartment, it is a nice home for the residents to live with a cozy living area and the common areas are much greater than other places because they encourage the residents to socialize with others in the commons area. Chairperson Fischer asked if anybody else wanted to speak regarding this proposal. Mr. Paschke, Architect, Frisbie Architects, Inc. addressed the commission. He wanted to speak regarding the setback requirements and the rezoning of this property. Staff has classified this building as multi family but it's really not multi family. (Because Mr. Paschke did not speak at the podium and stepped away from the microphone I could not pick up anymore of his discussion on tape.) Commissioner Pearson asked if the rubber membrane that was mentioned by Mr. Winges that is used in construction was to dampen vibration or the noise level itself. Mr. Paschke said it is to reduce the noise level but there are other ways to reduce noise levels in construction as well. Commissioner Dierich asked what the city would normally zone nursing homes and hospitals? Mr. Roberts said multi-family zoning is the only zoning the city has for nursing homes or hospitals other than doing a (PUD) planned unit development. Chairperson Fischer asked if anybody else in the audience wanted to speak regarding this concept plan. Planning Commission Minutes of 01-03-06 -10- Nobody came forward. Chairperson Fischer asked if there were advantages to number 5. which states (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.) Mr. Roberts said the one advantage of doing a PUD is that it locks the developer and the city into a particular site plan where if the city changes the zoning and for some reason this project doesn't go forward, another developer can't come in and use that zoning that is in place and maybe do something different. With a PUD that references a specific site plan, in this case the city can tie in the reduction in parking and possibly the setback variances. The city has found PUD's offer some advantages in cases like this. It ties up a use and it ties up a site plan, which are two reassuring things. If someone doesn't want to follow the PUD they need to come back through the process and ask for a revision, have new hearings, and get new approvals from the city council. Chairperson Fischer said basically a PUD assists you when you have a case where the use doesn't exactly fit with some of the ordinances and this is the best way to cover the possibilities of what may occur in the future. Mr. Roberts said yes that is one way to look at it. Commissioner Dierich said she is struggling with this plan. She is more concerned ifthe city may need this space for the pedestrian crossing issue that was raised by Chuck Ahl more than the noise issue if this concept was built in this location. She was the Director of Nursing at a nursing home that was located 25 feet from Highway 494 and Mr. Winges is right, the elders like to watch the traffic and they are not as bothered by the noise such as people living in a single family home would be. She is just concerned the city may need this space in the future. She votes the city uses a PUD on this proposal to allow the city to suggest how the site should be oriented and placed on the property. Commissioner Grover said he would agree with Commissioner Dierich's comments. He asked staff if they have offered the idea of a PUD to the developer. Mr. Roberts said this came in on Wednesday and there wasn't enough time to discuss it with the developer but staff's sure the developer is aware of it now. Commissioner Pearson said he would agree this should be done under a PUD but he has a strong concern for the dangerous crossing pedestrian situation Mr. Ahl described. The city may be taking options away from a permanent situation by going ahead with this Comforts of Home proposal in this location. Commissioner Grover said he would recommend the structure be moved away from Highway 36 and move the pond to the north which would increase the flexibility of Highway 36 if that can be done. The setback issues can be dealt with. The developer would take the comments with them and get back to staff at a later date regarding their plans for this concept plan. Planning Commission Minutes of 01-03-06 -11- c. Noise Ordinance Review - Mr. Ahlness Mr. Roberts said 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. However, Commissioner Ahlness was not present for this evening's meeting. The commission decided they did not want to discuss any of the issues until Eric Ahlness is present. Commissioner Grover moved to table the noise ordinance review until a later date because Commissioner Ahlness was absent. Commissioner Dierich seconded. Ayes - Desai, Dierich, Fischer, Grover, Kaczrowski, Pearson, Trippler The motion to table passed. VII. UNFINISHED BUSINESS a. C. Kings Addition (Jessie Street, south of Ripley Avenue) Mr. Roberts said 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. 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. Mr. Roberts passed out a letter to the planning commission that was to Tina Carstens, at St. Paul Regional Water Service, dated December 20,2005, which was sent by Alan Kretman at ProTerra Designs to Mr. Roberts on December 29,2005. Mr. Kretman met with Michael Thompson, Maplewood Engineer, and his comments are on page 42 and 43 of the staff report. Staff understands the proposed plans will not add additional runoff to the neighboring ponds and they can engineer that and make sure that is not going to be an issue. That was a strong concern of the neighbors and the planning commission. Since the last meeting the applicant provided a tree plan on page 41 of the staff report which is a preliminary plan but it does meet the city's ordinance. Staff found the four trees shown on the plan would be in the public right-of-way and the city needs those four trees planted on private property and not in the right-of- way on public property. Mr. Ahl said currently this pond does not have an outlet. The city needs to make assumptions for storms in this case. The city assumes when two 100-year storms happen which means two 24- hour events in one day followed by another day. An example is six inches of rain that would fall in one day and then another six inches of rain the following day. This pond would be plum full and would not overflow which would not flood any structures. That means it's going to be designed so there would be 12 inches of rain in a 48-hourtime period and this pond wouldn't overflow down to the Edgerton ponding area. Storms of record are another issue that the city needs to deal with. The state climatologist will tell you a storm of historical proportions of more than 12 inches of rain over a 48-hour time period happens somewhere in Minnesota over a year. The city tries to plan for those types of events and tries to make sure that flooding doesn't occur. Planning Commission Minutes of 01-03-06 -12- Mr. Ahl said if there was a storm event such as more than 12 inches of rain in a 48-hour time period on this development you would have an overflow and that overflow has been designed along the western edge, through an easement, down through the drainage area of record, down into the Edgerton pond. There is a 10-foot wide drainage swale and once that overflow occurs there is still about 2 feet of overflow that can occur before there would be any structure flooding. In this case the developer has provided an appropriate design that meets all of the requirements that the city would put on any development in the area. Mr. Ahl showed the drainage shed for this area on the map for the Edgerton pond. Drainage problems have occurred in this neighborhood as recent as October 4,2005. High waters occurred around this pond and this pond doesn't have an outlet. The problem with providing outlets is it is a very expensive system and those expensive solutions have been rejected in the past. However, the city has changed the way they deal with and finance storm water system improvements. Each Maplewood resident gets a bill quarterly with a fee for the environmental utility fund. That money helps the city finance and deal with storm water improvements. Staff estimated in the next three to five years the city will come up with a projectthatwill provide an outletforthe Edgerton pond. Mr. Ahl said on Oclober4, 2005, at 10:30 p.m. he and other public works employees put sand bags out to protect the homes from being flooded. The city has pumped the Edgerton pond three times in the last two years and there was no structure flooding. The city was able to control the pond with the pumping operations. That is a short-term solution and the city hasn't had that record storm of 12 inches of rainfall in 48 hours and if they did, the city would have to use sand bags. The city has procedures in place to get through the time period before a permanent solution is implemented. From an engineering stand point this drainage proposal is appropriately designed and is not a reason to reject this proposal. The city feels this plan meets all the requirements and the watershed district agrees. As an engineer in the 1980's, he was involved in a project installing a water main into Ripley Avenue. There was discussion at the last planning commission meeting regarding garbage found on this site. After working on the water main in the 1980's he can confirm that there was garbage found there at Ripley Avenue and the Jessie Street right of way. The garbage found on the site had to be hauled away. What that means for the city is, that is the city's right of way, however, the requirement to remove the garbage on the site will be on the developer at his expense. The developer will not be able to build a road or do improvements until the developer proves to the city that there is no garbage underneath this property. Because of the preexisting condition, the building inspector will have significant involvement in this area regarding soil borings etc. and it will be an expense for the developer to clean up the site before building permits will be issued. Before a development agreement is signed by the city for this development, the developer will have to prove to the city that the garbage has been completely cleaned up. Commissioner Dierich said after reviewing the previous minutes from this proposal, she decided to drive to the site to see if there was any standing water on the site or on the street from the melting snow and the rain we had but there wasn't any, she was surprised by that after the testimony from the neighbors. The neighbors had testified that the water was going to run down onto Ripley Avenue across and down to the Edgerton pond and she didn't see how that could happen. She saw a potential problem with water running off onto 540 Ripley's yard because that is the low point of the driveway. She said she assumed that the developer is going to grade that driveway differently. She asked how far the developer would have to go to get to the good soil and was a lot of soil going to be removed from this site? If there is how does that change the site plan and will it improve the situation of the site? Planning Commission Minutes of 01-03-06 -13- Mr. Ahl said regarding the Ripley Avenue drainage, this will be an urban design section which means there will be catch basins. The requirement is to improve the situation and when the final design details are finalized the city will make the developer aware he has to solve this. The developer will be installing storm sewer that doesn't currently exist and draining it back into the existing pond. It will have to handle 12 inches of rainfall in a 48-hour time period. Part of the sheetflow will be collected and part will drain off. The developer will have to provide more detailed information regarding the grading plan because of the soils issue. At this point and time the city doesn't have information on the site. The grading plan calls for some significant grading on the site but not to the extent of the extreme grading that was done in south Maplewood at the Linwood area site. The city still needs to get more data on the soil. The soils data the city has seen has shown a relatively sandy mixture which can be compacted and built on. Commissioner Dierich said the staff report states 152 lineal feet of sewer line must be removed and she asked whose expense that would be, the city's or the developers? Mr. Ahl said that would be the developer's expense. Commissioner Trippler asked if there should be something in the recommendations regarding the developer must get a grading permit. Mr. Ahl said when approving final construction and engineering plans, before the developer can proceed with the plans, they enter into a development contract with the city and the grading permit is part of the development contract. The developer must grade the site according to the plans that were approved by the city and the engineering department. Commissioner Trippler said on page 6 in condition 10, it says as little grading as possible north and east of the proposed street. He asked if that was an error because that sounds incorrect to have it north of the proposed street that would be Ripley Avenue. Mr. Roberts said that was a staff error and the words north and can be eliminated. Commissioner Trippler said another questionable area is on page 7, condition number 5. The whole second sentence doesn't make sense. Mr. Roberts said that's incorrect as well and should be eliminated from the condition. The first sentence is correct though. Commissioner Trippler said he reviewed the minutes from the previous meeting as well and on page 12 of the minutes, in the first paragraph, it states Mr. Harrison said there must have been a grading permit because someone dumped 500 yards of soil on that property in the last month. Then Chairperson Fischer asked if this information would be available by the time this proposal gets heard by the city council. Mr. Roberts said most definitely. He asked what staff had to say about that? Mr. Roberts said he heard testimony that there was no grading permit pulled by the developer. Mr. Kretman verified that no grading permit was pulled. Mr. Ahl agreed to no grading permit had been pulled. Planning Commission Minutes of 01-03-06 -14- Commissioner Trippler said on page 19 of the minutes, in the first paragraph, it states the planning commission said by the next planning commission meeting on January 3, 2006, they would like to have information regarding if this was a dumpsite, what responsibility the city has 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. He looked for that answer in the current staff report and he didn't find the answers to those issues and he would like someone to respond. Mr. Ahl said his experience has been if the city has taken all the reasonable steps and care to make assurances that the site is appropriate the city is "not liable" if a home begins to settle. The building official looks at soil borings to make sure the site is suitable for building on. If the building official takes reasonable steps and care, the city is "not liable". If the drainage doesn't work, that falls under the same standards as the settling, and the city is "not liable". If people's houses get flooded as they did on Valleyview Avenue when three homes got flooded and had six feet of water in their homes, the city is not liable. The city took reasonable care but it was determined there was a blockage in the system. The city had no reason to understand why that happened; it was an "act of god". The city could not assume that the pipe would become blocked. City employees were out at the site between 10:30 p.m. and 2:30 a.m. and the blockage was removed and the drainage went away. It's difficult for people to understand that the city does not serve as someone's insurance company. The same holds true with a sanitary sewer backup, if the city has taken all reasonable care, and for some reason the sewer backs up into someone's basement, the city is not liable. The courts have held that interpretation throughout the years. It's frustrating for everyone involved. It would be easier for the city to open up their checkbook and pay but the city cannot do that. The law says as long as the city takes reasonable care and reasonable assurances the city is not liable. Commissioner Tripplerthanked Mr. Ahl for his responses to the questions. He said on page 42 of the staff report, from Michael Thompson it states in number 1. This include having at least 2 feet of freeboard to the lowest proposed floor elevation or 1 foot above the emergency overflow elevation, whichever is greater. He asked if Mr. Thompson was referring to two feet offreeboard above the lowest floor elevation in the development or in the lowest elevation of the homes surrounding the drainage. Mr. Ahl said the freeboard Mr. Thompson was referring to goes back to the discussion regarding the 12 inch rainfall in the 48-hour time period. We would use the overflow to make sure we have at least 1 foot over the overflow so the greater of the condition here is actually 2 feet of overflow or freeboard. Commissioner Dierich said at the last meeting a neighbor stated he made his own drainage system to drain down into the Edgerton pond, she asked how legal that was for a homeowner to do on their own and how does the city handle that? Mr. Ahl said the city ordinance allows people to do landscaping and sometimes as staff they take liberal interpretations of landscaping. The city doesn't preclude people from doing minor drainage systems but if the drainage impacts wetlands, or does something that will impact other properties, the city frowns upon that and the city will go back and use the ordinance to correct things. If someone puts in a small drainage pipe, the city encourages people to do that because the city wants good neighborhoods and good properties and would categorize that as "landscaping". Planning Commission Minutes of 01-03-06 -15- Commissioner Dierich said on page 2 staff said the city code requires the developer to save at least 18 trees, she asked what that meant exactly? Mr. Roberts said if the developer can save 18 trees that would meet the minimum city requirements, if the developer cannot save the trees they must replant 18 trees. The developer will also need to plant at least 10 trees within the development site. Commissioner Trippler asked if the city has a minimum grade because on page 6, c. (1) it states a maximum street grade of eight percent and the maximum street grade within 75 feet of the intersection at two percent. He thought he remembered something about a 3% maximum grade. Mr. Ahl said the city has a maximum street grade of 10% which does occur in some areas of Maplewood. An example of a 10% street grade is the city of Duluth has a steeper than 10% maximum street grade. Mr. Roberts said this is not a public hearing. The engineer representing the developer (Mr. Alan Kretman) is here tonight and there are neighbors in the audience but it is up to the planning commission if they would like to hear any testimony tonight or from the applicant for the developer. The planning commission members decided they had received enough information and did not need to hear from the neighbors or from the applicant for the developer, Mr. Kretman. The questions had been answered to the satisfaction of the planning commission by staff and in the staff report. Commissioner Pearson moved to approve the resolution on page 44 of the staff report. This resolution is for the vacation of the unused Jessie Street right-of-way, the unused alley and the excess drainage easements on the property for the site of the C. Kings Addition plat. The city is vacating these because: 1. It is in the public interest. 2. The city and the property owner have no plans to build a street or an alley in the existing right- of-ways. 3. The developer will be dedicating a new right-of-way and new easements with the final plat. Commissioner Pearson moved to 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. Planning Commission Minutes of 01-03-06 -16- c. Have Xcel Energy install Group V rate street lights in two locations - primarily at the street intersections and at the south end of the cul-de-sac. The exact style and location shall be subject to the city engineer's approval. d. Provide all required and necessary easements (including all utility easements and ten- foot drainage and utility easements along the front and rear lot lines of each lot and five- foot drainage and utility easements along the side lot lines of each lot). e. Pay the city for the cost of traffic-control, street identification, and no parking signs. f. Provide all required and necessary easements, including wetland buffer easements for all wetlands and the buffers on the site. g. Demolish or remove the existing shed from the site, and remove all other buildings, fencing, truck and automobile parts, scrap metal, debris and junk from the site. h. Cap and seal all wells on site; and remove septic systems or drainfields, subject to Minnesota rules and guidelines. i. Complete all curb on Ripley Avenue on the north side of the site and restore and sod the boulevards. Commissioner Pearson moved to 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: (changes to the recommendations are stricken if deleted by the planning commission.) 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. Planning Commission Minutes of 01-03-06 -17- (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 projected site. (7) All retaining walls on the plans. Any retaining walls taller than 4 feet require a building permit from the city. (8) Sedimentation basins or ponds as required by the watershed district or by the city engineer. (9) No grading beyond the plat boundary without temporary grading easements from the affected property owner(s). (10) As little grading as possible north and east of the proposed street. This is to keep as many of the existing trees on the site as is reasonably possible. (11) 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 site), shall be a 9-ton design with a maximum street grade of eight percent and the maximum street grade within 75 feet of the intersection at two percent. (2) The new street (Jessie Street) with continuous concrete curb and gutter, except where the city engineer determines that concrete curbing is not necessary. (3) The completion or replacement of the curb on the south side of Ripley Avenue and the restoration and sodding of the boulevards. (4) Repair of Ripley Avenue (curb, street and boulevard) after the developer connects to the public utilities and builds the new street. (5) The coordination of the water main alignments and sizing with the standards and requirements of the Saint Paul Regional Water Services (SPRWS). (6) All utility excavations located within the proposed right-of-ways or within easements. The developer shall acquire easements for all utilities that would be outside the project area. (7) The plan and profiles of the proposed utilities. Planning Commission Minutes of 01-03-06 -18- (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 projected plans. d. The drainage plan shall ensure that there is no increase in the rate of storm water run-off leaving the site above the current (predevelopment) levels. The developer's engineer shall: (1) Verify inlet and pipe capacities. (2) Submit drainage design calculations. e. A tree planting and landscape plan for the site that shows: 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. 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. Those sholl include, But not be limited to, on eoseFRent for the culvert droinin~ the pond on the north sido of the plat and paying the city for tho casement for tho ponding area on tAe 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. a. Complete all grading for overall site drainage and ponding areas, install all retaining walls, installs 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. Planning Commission Minutes of 01-03-06 -19- 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. 7. Record the following with the final plat: a. Any homeowners' association documents. b. A covenant or association documents that addresses the proper installation, maintenance and replacement of the retaining walls. c. A deed that combines Outlot A with the adjacent property to the west for tax and identification purposes. d. A deed that combines Outlot B with the adjacent property to the east for tax and identification purposes. e. A wetland buffer easement for the wetland and for the required buffer easement area around the wetland. The applicant shall submit the language for these dedications and restrictions to the city for approval before recording. 8. Obtain a permit from the Ramsey-Washington Metro Watershed District for grading. 9. Obtain a NPDES construction permit from the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA). 1 O.lf 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. Commissioner Trippler seconded. Ayes - Desai, Dierich, Fischer, Grover, Kaczrowski, Pearson, Trippler The motion passed. This item goes to the city council on January 23, 2006. Commissioner Dierich thanked Mr. Ahl, Mr. Thompson and Mr. Roberts for answering the planning commission's questions and for getting answers to their previous questions for this proposal. Planning Commission Minutes of 01-03-06 -20- f. In-Fill Study Update Mr. Roberts said at the December 19, 2005, planning commission meeting, the commission continued their discussion of in-fill development. This review included trying to define what in-fill development is (or is not) and a discussion of information and articles that staff had gathered about in-fill development. Staff included six points for the city to consider with in-fill development and regulations. Staff also included three definitions for in-fill or in-fill development from articles found on the internet. The planning commissioners had miscellaneous discussion regarding what in-fill is and what it means in the city of Maplewood. Commissioner Desai thought it might be a good time to review the city's comprehensive plan again to see what the city as a whole is envisioning they should do about in-fill. Some of the other planning commissioners agreed. Commissioner Trippler thanked Mr. Roberts for bringing some of the in-fill articles to the planning commission's attention. He found the articles very interesting and the articles put in-fill into more of a positive frame work from the standpoint of urban planners thinking in terms of public transportation, providing services and facilities, and providing water and sewer by increasing the number of occupants on a particular piece of property. There are a number of things to think about when considering in-fill. In-fill is not appropriate for all citys. To him in-fill is like the C. Kings Addition the commission just discussed. You have a piece of property and a developer decides to develop a small neighborhood on this parcel by building a street in order to have four homes. Does the City of Maplewood want to move towards in-fill developments? If so he thinks the ordinances the city has are just fine already and there is no sense changing things or coming up with new ones. The question is does Maplewood want things to stay the way they are or does it want to change to a highly concentrated urban center. Until the city decides that, you are just spinning the wheel. Commissioner Dierich agrees with Commissioner Trippler. She said it comes down to being a policy decision. As a city you have to decide if you want to be urban or continue to be suburban in character. She thinks there are places where you can live side by side with those characteristics but there are others where you can't have that kind of development without making a conscious policy change in the way the city thinks they want to live as a city. She said Commissioner Trippler usually says a PUD is a license to steal. As she was reading this information she was reading how useful a PUD would be in these types of situations for better control on the city's end regarding what goes where and how it looks, as well as how dense it should be and how creative the developer should be. She thinks the city is going to see more of this type of development as you see more in-fill. She drove through South St. Paul recently and some of the homes that were there for many many years are now gone and there are blocks of brand new homes built. Maplewood and South St. Paul are of an age where that could happen here. Chairperson Fischer said that change can be a positive thing too. There may be people who lived in the city in an older house but want to move into a twinhome and stay in the city. As people get older their housing needs change and they may want to down size or be closer to stores. Planning Commission Minutes of 01-03-06 -21- Chairperson Fischer said as homes get older and become run down putting a new set of homes in the neighborhood can be a positive thing for everyone in the area. Some people stay in the same home but add onto their homes because they have outgrown the home but still like the neighborhood or because their kids don't want to leave the school district or neighborhood. Commissioner Grover said the city may not need an ordinance for in-fill. In his 1 Y:. years on the planning commission most of the development he has seen have been in-fill developments. These are projects that require a good deal of finesse and planning. We are not encouraging in- fill developments but we are reacting to the fact that it's happening. Property owners are selling to builders or developers who are putting parcels together to make a development. He said he agrees that the city should take another look at the comprehensive plan before making any final decisions. We have a system that seems to work now because we review things on a case by case situation. Chairperson Fischer said the city is coming up on a mandated update of the comprehensive plan by the Met Council. She asked when that may happen. Mr. Roberts said the planning commission will have to have the comprehensive plan updated by the end of 2008. Staff will be thinking of a plan to get that process moving forward in the next few months. More discussion will follow at a later date on the topic of in-fill. VIII. VISITOR PRESENTATIONS None. IX. COMMISSION PRESENTATIONS a. No PC representation needed on December 26, 2005, because the city council meeting was cancelled. b. Mr. Desai will be the planning commission representative at the January 9, 2006, city council meeting. So far there are no planning commission items to discuss. c. Mr. Ahlness was scheduled to be the planning commission representative at the January 23, 2006, city council meeting, however, he was absent from the meeting January 3, 2006. Chairperson Fischer asked if Commissioner Desai would be interested in covering the PC representation at the January 23, 2006, city council meeting for Commissioner Ahlness. Commissioner Desai said he would have to check his calendar. If he is unable to be the PC representative, he will inform staff and staff will find a replacement. Items to discuss include the Special Construction Agreement to build a house at 1784 Edgehill Road, and the C. Kings Addition on Jessie Street, South of Ripley Avenue for four single family homes. Planning Commission Minutes of 01-03-06 -22- d. Mr. Kaczrowski will be the planning commission representative at the February 13, 2006, city council meeting. It's too early at this time for staff to know what items will be discussed. X. STAFF PRESENTATIONS Mr. Roberts reminded the planning commission that the PC terms of Gary Pearson, Michael Grover and Jeremy Yarwood are coming up. XI. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 9:10 p.m. MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: SUBJECT: DATE: City Manager Ken Roberts, Planner Gladstone Area Redevelopment Master Plan January 9, 2006 INTRODUCTION For the last two years, the city has been conducting an extensive planning process for the possible redevelopment of the Gladstone Neighborhood Area (the area near Frost A venue and English Street). The process has included the hiring of consultants to prepare and evaluate development and redevelopment plans and altematives for the area. It also included the formation of a task force of citizens and city commission members to provide input to the city and the planning consultants about the proposed plans. Through this extensive process, the city and the consultants recently completed a draft neighborhood redevelopment plan. The city is now asking all the city boards and commissions to each make a recommendation to the city council about the draft plan. BACKGROUND On December 19, 2005, the city held a meeting at the Maplewood Community Center for all city boards and commissions. The planning consultants provided the board and commission members an overview of the planning process and a summary of the draft Gladstone Redevelopment Plan. The consultants and city staff also answered questions about the planning process and the draft plan from those in attendance. DISCUSSION Attached to this memo I have included the most recent copy of the Stepping Stones newsletter and a memo from Brad Scheib. These two documents provide excellent background information about the Gladstone Planning Process and the status of the planning process. Please bring your copy of the draft neighborhood redevelopment plan to the meeting and be prepared to review the proposed plan. RECOMMENDATION Make a recommendation to the city council about the draft Gladstone Neighborhood Redevelopment Plan (dated November 14,2005). P: Gladstone Plan to HRA and CDRB - 2006 Attachments: 1. November 2005 Stepping Stone Newsletter 2. Gladstone memo from Brad Scheib tn~ LLI<;;, o Z~ ~ O~ E ~~ ,ft ~ ...,~ ~! 13 Z~ <: -~ " II ...{l " c..'i: i; iI.I~ ~i ~ tn~ ~ - ~ ~~.f ~'2 !~g ~ II i~~~~~ . E ~l . ~ i" 0 ~ i iiJ:; ~1:~jdlli III!H ~ (!) EIlI1i5 .. UU~l I ~ l1J~Sl! ..!~..... 'I"~..; o.li. .. ~ .. I.'. , ~.. . I , ... Iol a ." 00 ~ . , " j ..cI ~ :f:s ......0. 0 '0 !: .. J .s. fiI "Cl e 0 J! ' o~ Q ~ . ......~lS.,~ .~Z~.:~l:~~ eO:; ~"" - ePll.'u~ :~~~~H ,,:gJ!=-J~~!il B~~]:~S "la1'~"~!6'" j.2'lJ.H'l ~~~. ;~lJ~8; "~~.B~.s1 _...~..u...ole- ...0 ""'l:j III - '" .. -' a '. ;;':: , , _ e.,;..t....t' il' <; III 'l El !: 1:l' '"EI - . "a'ae~ 'E."" ..,.]~l'i ~ .tl~ l~-aVll.g "r.8 v Cl- fI)~8aS8l~J; .~:;jt~:~;. G; .:! ! I ; "'i .~, l l~. . .~ ~ .. ;;!I t:".s>~j~.sSl!" -l.al:..El8"~ UJ ..Ii j . e 1-"2 e.. .r q .H .,; ~ "'. .. ~ @--~g-:i:l~~= +! i5~'E~~'ei~ ,,"::i.~..~..2"." so-.-' o .o::! ~ ::I il .S ." IS., l:l ! 2 to @ ca a .s .s .~ 0-=<;3 r:>..<; Il!lli...'F +-' .l!lll ~ lii.~~g n.. ~ ';' 1 -.: ;.. '111 'a.8 .; ~ j l1 e <i .S ~ J ~ 'OOofl~~,~Jj"!<.8a <C( Q..~..]"..:; ... <:~"' ...'....~.:~q .- 0 I'l " ~ Ll c:l a Cl U 21 ;E ~ ... =,.e :jJ E .. , 10 ~ ~ H .B Il. .!!, ; ~ , j ~ :~ ~ .a (0 ..e e E "Cl ': Jl 15 :: ~ ~ ~ 'tl J: .eo"f ~ -= !f 0:: <-il-s il..eF-a..a.il D... F~ c -= ,,",!:l~.~ " t' . ".Ii ' . , , ~ ,.' """" 0 ~~'';::~l(jsi ~Sj~~~1~ "ll.-l',-. a c El "" -e ~ ! .!l u ~t~:;~e-ael -= ;: .ll e il ~ , ""' ~ .!:l c .!IIt II "li ..x .... s ; 'O~~;i".E~~ -g I:l ..g!' l! l! i a s .~~.. _':1:1.9 .~ ie-rf~j~'a ~ .. ~ u I'l b '-' .. -a. CI .. .. ~t1.:s .. S J;.I:I ~e~9;~j"':f ~~;li..x~"':"'& " . , ~ ~ _ JI .. ..! c... .1:1- u ~ ~F' 5 .. :~ ] .~ . 'Ii ". j :lI c!:l :; "d a ~ ""' lilt ..s: .. "" :!:l J:: !11 .. .~ :; ..x ~ tl t ~ i CI il.::; .lIoi ~ c 8: a-!l . , ~. 'i 0 . .. .!l =.... = ..'5 ::s..gl~~Jl:s~ S .., = .. l! il .. ~ 11 o ~ ~ ! 0 .....J -:s e-;s"',..Cl ~ 1 'u u ~i~li~etl ..;'".n.n ~ .s 1 ""'.; .S .. c 1:1 c ~ ..;]! .!l ... of! JI .11', ' 0;; .l , , II a J ,: "':a:;...... u . "'i.a-r.~tlg~'j "" ~ ..! 0 ~ ... a ~ ~ il1j ; .. ~ .B · 1. ''''. d ..~'::d 1 e~.".,;-;';l d lh~ a., *"ol~ q I ~ I!. ~ , ...1 ." .. ~ '0 ~ 1 l! ... l! a B .w -s i! ~ .~ "" .i!!I ..." tl El Ji -s El a ~ -= .. ,,",'O.l!l f 0 . .. .S '" .:.=. il ~ II "'& ::E a..." ~ tl ., 0 -" ~ I '-li . 'O:l'f"'.:"... a... IS.. 5.& E g.~ 8 ~ El :;1f,..." U..E '" El il.~]-!l ~i1r B .. ~.. ";s .. .. =~l.~E~~~ 'il~8;.",! ~ <5 8 ~ .i.. ! I e": r1 -S 1:1..... e ~:;.:~ =: .. C i:iI . ~ .. .. j ~ ~ l ~ .: ~j C .:::: ~ ""' ~ . il .. ....!l o.!l .s '" - :f J t ~ e .. ~..." .. b-"" ~~ .~ H,,' IH! 8 ..- ~ ~ ." ~ 0 , - 0 . 0 s :; ,,"It-e .. il' 0 ~ e :.::I ; " Ii So.. .t''' e-S e -i s .. ~ '" b ~ .~ :: il ~ oO'i' '0 ... - 0 . ..e "''' = ~ .lIo j K.. ".'1:: ""'0 iIUH ~ ;; ':;l " ..x " ~ .fJ~ia~ ~ :!l 'i dlJJ "'l1 a a: 0 fia- ., .1 .2 ~ ~ ~ .lI1 .. I ,0 ! . l. .Ii 0 ~ ~ ~ ~ lQ,HI I . ~ f~ 1.1 ~ ., e 1" ! ~ J · ::; ~ ~ 1:1 Jl :II 1::; ~ ~ ~ ]d~jj !r: " \C 'j:': ._ uIJ " "" S a..t' ~ j ~ -:EI ~ ~ .!l "2 U' 11 s ; CI,g'"" ""'x- c '" :a--" S , !"2 u .,-1l .;e g ,.d .... ... J .. " ~ '5.~" r ~ p":f. 1:1 .. = U -a 11" g..&...8 -.. El"" .. -s u U .,8 . " .j!l -< ::l .. CI ~ ~ "8 :l :; iJ H i .~V" .. 1:1 B ~,.d :! ;; ~ a" ~ '0 " :l ~ 5 a i t ~ 0 . .. ,0 ! 0 ~ H J-l!ij ~~ - lB~i ! oS ,... ~ - Q.... c II i ':i ~ 1:1 = "" 's- ~ tau &. a 1 ~ :i ~ -: d' j ~ 8 ~ S .S ~ S " :; IS.. d~~15~ .. q~g.2 ~ . ~ Q ~.t]~"'H :c a. e " ..... 0 .2 ... "lj "'"I' N .. a ~ ""' u e 0 i u = i< .;; l'q.. ~. 0; ! ' .~ t' _ ~ ~ oS .~ ri D ......... CI.lS 8",.Ii.f"~i Hi].d l~l E jj~!Hr ~ .~.~~~'5~~ ;;.,S'a.a..ei- 0 ;H~~li~ :E t: 1: '] \0 l; "".s t1.."... J 1 t z ~s~8;ie " i ; i i u , 5 -1l .0 1l .. Hv ~ :; : ~ ! 'a:i1 -ql-lh 0 s ::l ~ II ~.~ c ".P"~' in! z ~~ '~~.r~.m . " 'i....li J · r I ~ ~ I "0 .rJ ':l:l -s c 1: "tQ 1 1 j d ~j ~ 1 ~ .8 , j ~HJ 1 -e..ll = ltS'll .s::. Q ~sltQ .. 'f. l ~ ~ ~ ,g '" t '" ~ ~ ::: c ~ t: 0 -s ~ z sj'al . ~!l,,~.!! .!!- ~ i h e-~ ~ il!~.... ~ c:: ~ ~ c::'tI Q.! ...lD~"t:IaC) ~~f~ 0 j~! 0 ~i-Hfi~ ~ h ~~~ j s .!!~:;; ~"'lJ i .GU~ ~ qpm~.l!&"" i; il-"r' ~~1lI gt 8""l! 101 u ~ '" '" u'" ~ ';ill'. lJ e III . ~ 'is. ~ \.l\.l Q." ~"~~~~pi; ~iHI~ " ~ Q..g~ ~l :r: :.; l!! !a::: " ~ ~Ill'l:: ..S~ ~~ o.~' ~.&-il , " ~ [11"2Q. ~ ~a:::.~ o~go ~e~i ~H ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~-~~ a -1J~h~1 ~ ~~I'~~.~ ~ j~ u~1 o ~- :e.1II ~ -g ] ~ E 8 h, "'~ "!;\l .~ a~ ~ '" ,Illllllli,lljlll!,illllll , .,! ;.< 1 J !,~ ,~ -iI"8.! q ~ j:ll, .p 11! -ll ,~ i, ,I ~ ~,'~,r..' IS' ~ -li -li ..],. ~ 11 5 ~ ' · I....... i..' ",.r., l~~ :S.',!Lw'" ~ a ...iSc_ ~l:: .s.;"se ] ...S-E"Clil " ..Cl 1:1 it' 0 ~ -..= =- !.. "8'" o.:;t,.Q ...!i -= '.! ~ , .1:" -iI !"J""J 1 .. ~; p S 's] l' H 1 ,.." ~ r >l..'o~. ~ . ~,.,:a, .I' '11,.' r.,;-il.lj, """," '" "~"~'''.' a. > ~ , ". ,.ojE!l:1:l~;::I .e'"!i ";i1:loe ~ ':sl...ge-.se 0 ...~.,.,!l1t ..e .. 0 ... 17" ~ 0 !l "'.. r: "C ", ,,~~ u ~ 0" .. 1:l '0 1 ~ t ~.If ~~.; 1 ~ ~ s g '"8 li 15 -fl '0 is '~~.~ a .. .!l ,9 0 i 1 ~, 1 ~ . ".. " '. .. _ , ~ . , . 's " !.". ~ . ~" :8, , ~ , " ,~... '. l ~, 'Ii 'il' '" '. " 'il" , , · ~ ... a.!, ~ '[ H~j J: 'q~ 1 ~~ ~~~~ HH l H n HU i:tii 'il' n 11 .~]' p.l i ! ~ d .,! ~.,!.; ~q I :,] ! H .! ~.' ~,""I i i:.a,.Cl"\I~ E ~::S.-;. ...!:::'Oll...c:l'C; st aa ....I""Cl ..l:l . 11 u .. r:>.,... ..c: ...,~ ~.g ~ ~ .. Ill; E.. t .- ~... !I '"l;l .. ~ s i ~ ~ I 8.. i ....~, 1, ;,!It~. ' , ~ ~ g ~ 1]'; 11 ~1 ~~ ~ :i.' I ,.;! :8' S!;j,.Q1:I .. .il~:3 ;~fJ1:I:l3~~ ~!:l="i:..c..~ !;i,s,rr ] i' ~ i i -; .~ f~ ~ oS ~ I ~ ,:: ~ a 11 ;l a ~ ! ~ 8 · ~ " 's ~ 1 ' . ' . 1$'~S..!~~~~a.il~..!(!;;;i~f'j l~"!l Pi H~\~ ij ~~jfr :2l ~ ~ .. .. = ~ !;j;j s ; ~ ~ s ~ "S ' ] ~ 1 ~ "1 "e ~ ~ i .s -: ~.~ t e. ~. ~ " " .. 'r~ rl ~ s " 01 1"" .s OJ ii ~ ~ ~ l::"': -i e ~ s ~..8 os l' t -fl ,a ~ .. a 5'" l: e"s e I'l a .Cl i f:j.4 ~ j.. 2 ~ a ~~..2 .. {" ~ ~,.Cl 1: "" "" g :; .' .0 "" '" ~,,! ~ ,~_' ,S ~<I ~ J t5 i." s -g ~ l:L. !i 1 ;; w l:L.... ..... j ~.It ~ ~ ~ ~ .= ~ ~ ~ 'fj -,Cl .. ~ f ~ l ~ t 1 ~ ~ J ~ ~ ~ .; ~ r j ~ i i :.. i ] ~ .r j i i 1.1- ~ ~ ~ 1 ~ ~ ] ] ~.Ji.Jii ~ ~ 1 ~ 1 . =t ~ z ' ;;- i o iI z 's i ! 1 ~ z ., , ~ 1 ~ i .. ~ .. ~ ,~ ]-Is .! ~ ~,lI ; d~~f 1, ~!l ~ !j!tI:~ ill {Ii l~i ~l 1'1 I ~ltl'l d '11 j~.~n iO . ~I J.J;l]~: ~~ ! -f, 111,,11 !l t' I," lJ:~!.~ 1; i I'! >,,'0,1. -1 .11 i~ I ".:1; Jl~ fit" :" .i-~h! j, , .11 I:Fl,'l~' f:J lq~l Tl' ..i I~, !HlI . . Sp' ~ '!5~~ ~ ~4:l~~)' it!i.. <!Ho.~ i~~ i N , ~ 8 ~~ ~ -I "0 \Ill ~ ~~s ~ t~ ! ~~ ~~~ :! li s.j. ~~ I" ~-i~~.i.: . ~ il!;il~!1 ,il!lll~t!!ltliw . 5 ~ i)IIIiiiillli!l!jil~I~I~1 . . 8 ~_E~ i~~ ~~!~- I " ~<lO~ 0 J~~~~~~~J~ ~~~s~~itg~gifi h .E "0 I [0 - ~ 0 - .. [;" ~.. .E ~ 15'! ~ ~ Q. II" ::c -s ~ 8 's ";'U.i~'. ' ~~.-i~p:q N , ...1;1j" s''511t~ ~ . B i, Sir".a" !l'1 ~s5'j'~ q ~ ~ l .. ~; '" ll.. 8 ll.. ~ a .. <I Ie IS.. _:s.. Iii l E .. '1 ~ ' ~~ ! i ~ ~ .. ~ l El El " ~ IS.. J "t' . . ~ i il:~'H~ii1r '"E F! ~ ;] ~ -fl .it'~ ... t if z , , -," l 0 " , ~ i H i ~ll1'"' . .s ..... .. 0 ,~'t '" ~ ~~~~jOS""ga 0; , s r' ' .... 0 \:..1.. 's 1 ~~~~r::!li';-'s " .. 0 .." 1 .. l:L. Z 0 5"'~~:go '~rg .Ii i ] .. , I , t"'i.. ; :pr " '1 .:;'f g ! ~ '8 0 e ". S "S ~ ...c :; ~g sl~~f~ 1] ~ ~fl:~ital3~ll.~~ ",IS ,!If' ~ ~.. ~ 0 ... .. . ~ ,. . ., .,. ~ 6 . 1 "S.. .. ~ ..; .l -d ,II ' e '6" ~ z j~ .. ji.l:1~rL tp '-C " ..g ~ .. ~ Iii IS.. ~ ~ l:l ;..,...l tl .s Cl. ~ 01 .. ~ ~l.s ] ~.!l.g~ f ~1.. ,. '] ... it.. ;: .. '::I ::: ,f'b ~ ;;..!::~$"S"~~.e--~ t '5-' .!.l;ie~p~!~ . ,!""oo'lI ~ ~ .. ".. .. s ~ l'l IS.. .:S ~ Is.. l:l...:tj 'j ~ ~ " l:L. Cl l:L.";; x." ~ F!~'=~lg~ ~"~l:L. ,. . ~ IT' ~.. 0 x..s "S.. t1 I " Cl . ~ toe 0 ~.!.. ~.. ~ 1.2 o ~ 0 ~ oe ~ _ .. 0 ~ ~::l "'il 9"-"" .s ~ "l'l 1; "I:l " ~ 0 <I !! i a" ... 1> 0 ~ ~ '- Ie H ....." - "Cl ~ s'- .. "";;I -fl " ~ ~ -: '0 ~ El ~ -511~,;~.:;1 2e-~ '~-~~~~~ '~i..geo ...c I'l ~ ... ~ ... = .. .'l:: l'l..s .. O"s ..9'" ':$I ..8"" j j ,. ~ r:":,~'~ Ei~ l~ goi ''ii8,]~-ilf'-' .s ;: t j'<2}'" "...!.I ,~ a ' " s ... """ , ! . . ! ,"> j'j. " :el~ ,,~$ r. ,,1;'" 9~ ~.t ~g~ ~t1 ., , ~., "";! ~ ~ ! ,if, ,_ "" ~.. ~ ~:;. ~,lI F:'~ S s.s.g:-~"S..jrl ~ .,j L .g ~ 1 H.~ ~ MEMORANDUM Hoisington Koegler Group Inc. 11I131 (gO To: From: Maplewood Advisory Board Members and Commissioners Brad Scheib Subject: Gladstone Neighborhood Redevelopment Planning Project -- Advisory Board and Commissioners Meeting - December 19"',6:00 p.m. Maplewood Community Center (Theater) 9 January 2006 Date: Redevelopment Planning for the Gladstone Neighborhood has been underway over the last two years. Beginning in January of 2005, a more focused planning process has been led through the Gladstone Task Force. The Task Force is comprised of a cross section of neighborhood residents and business members, community members at large and elected and appointed officials. In most, if not all cases, your board or commission has been represented on the Gladstone Task Force. The role of the Task Force is largely to be a conduit to the neighborhood, the Maplewood community and to the advisory boards and commissions of the City. Your role as a member of an advisory board or commission is to review projects and make recommendations to the City Council on policy directions relevant to the mission or dJarge of your hoard or commission. This is the first significant redevelopment planning project undertaken by the City of Maplewood. It has a number of problems and opportunities, to which there are opposing attitudes about what the best solution really is. The City Council needs your input in helping make key decisions relative to this plan. December 19'" Meeting Purpose The meeting on December 19'" is intended to provide advisory board members and commissioners an overview of the planning process and the completed draft plan and environmentAl review fmdings. Staff will provide a presentAtion and be available to answer questions. The plan and environmentAl review findings are documented in two draft documents. The first is the Gladstone Neighborhood Redevelopment Plan draft dated 1+ November 2005. The second is the Gladstone Area Redevelopment Master Plan Alternative Urban Areawide Review (AUAR) draft dated 26 September 2005. Both of these documents have been distributed to advisory board members and commissioners. These documents have also been available for public review through reference copies at the local library, at City Hall and downloadable on the City's website. A public open house was also conducted on December I" of 2005. The open house provided an opportunity for residents to view the plans and ask questions of stAlf, consultants and Task Force members in an infonnal one-on-one fonnat. The open house was attended by well over 50 members of the community. It is our intention for the various boards and commissions to have these items discussed at your regular scheduled meetings in January or early February, where you can fonnulate a recommendation to the City Council. The City Council will utilize this infonnation along with general public input to tAke fmalaction on the plan in early 2006. Please read throngh the draft plan and AUAR prior to our meeting on December 19"'. If you have any questions. feel free to mntact me at 612.252.71Z2 or email me your questions at bscheib(dhkgi.com. An agmda is attached for your reminder. 123 North Third Street, Suile 100, Minneapolis, MN 55401-1659 Ph (612) 338-0800 Fx (612) 338-6838 WWW.hkgi.COIIl ThTPr.t(tll""~'.71?' Fmmll-Ar.hf"ihlflJhlroi r.nm MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: SUBJECT: DATE: City Manager Ken Roberts, Planner Planning Commission's 2005 Annual Report January 6, 2006 INTRODUCTION The city code requires that the planning commission prepare an annual report to the city council by their second meeting in February. This report should include the planning commission's activities from the past year and the major projects for the upcoming year. 2005 ACTIVITIES The commission considered the following requests as noted: 2005 2004 2003 2002 changes to the comprehensive plan 5 10 8 3 changes to the zoning map 4 7 4 2 preliminary plats 7 12 5 6 ordinance changes 0 1 3 3 conditional use permits and revisions 19 21 18 18 vacations 8 5 5 5 variances 12 2 4 1 miscellaneous reauests and presentations 8 11 14 17 Total 63 69 61 55 In 2005, the commission, in addition to the items listed above, took a tour of development sites and had a training session with the city attomey. NOTE: For all the items listed below, the planning commission recommended approval ayes all, unless noted otherwise. 2005 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN CHANGES The commission considered five changes to the comprehensive plan in 2005. Changes PC Action Council Action The Woodlands of Maplewood Approved Approved (1740 and 1750 McMenemy Street) From R-1 to R-2 This change was for a 28-unit townhouse development on the east side of McMenemy Street, north of Kingston Avenue. Richie/Anondson four-plexes Denied (1349 & 1359 County Road C) 8-1 This change was from R-2 to R-3 for two existing four-plexes. Approved Walgreens Approved Denied (White Bear and Beam Avenues) The proposed land use change was from Limited Business Commercial (LBC) to Business Commercial (BC) for the proposed development of a drug store on the vacant land. Ramsey County Public Library Approved Approved (3025 Southlawn Drive) The change was from BC to L (Library) for the proposed Ramsey County Library within Legacy Village. Regions Hospital Sleep Health Center Approved Approved (2688 Maplewood Drive) The change was from R1 to M1 for a 7,084-square-foot, one-story building. 2005 ZONING MAP CHANGES The commission considered four changes to the zoning map in 2005. Change PC Action Council Action The Woodlands of Maplewood Approved (1740 and 1750 McMenemy Street) This change was from F to R-2 for a town house development. Approved Richie/Anondson four-plexes Denied (1349 & 1359 County Road C) 8-1 This change was from R-2 to R-3 for two existing four-plexes. Approved Walgreens Approved (White Bear and Beam Avenues) This change was proposed to be from LBC to BC. Denied Regions Hospital Sleep Health Center Approved (2688 Maplewood Drive) This change was from R1 to M1. Approved 2005 CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS AND REVISIONS The commission considered the following conditional use permits and permit revisions in 2005: PC Action Council Action Maplewood Public Works Building Expansion (1902 County Road B) Approved Approved 2 Troutland Auto Dealerships Approved Pending (County Road 0, West of Highway 61) This request was for a used auto sales and repair garage on two parcels at the intersection of the re- routed County Road 0 and Highway 61. Overview Approved Approved (McMenemy Street, south of Roselawn Avenue) This request is to allow 24 townhouses in a development called Overview. It was proposed for a 5.5- acre site on the west side of McMenemy Street, south of Roselawn Avenue. Outdoor Storage Yard and City Impound Lot (1685 Edgerton Street) Approved Approved Ramsey County 800 Mhz Antenna Facility Approved Approved (645 Sterling Street South) This request was to allow Ramsey County to install an 800 MHz radio facility on an existing water tower. 3M Building 278 - Leadership Development Approved Approved Institute and Customer Center 7-1 (Minnehaha Avenue) This request was for 3M to construct a building closer than 350 feet to a residential zoning district within the light-manufacturing (M-1) zoning district. Home Depot Approved Approved (2360 White Bear Avenue) 7-1 This request was an amendment to the CUP for a permanent addition on the northwest side of the exterior garden center for additional outdoor storage of merchandise. They also requested an amendment to their CUP to have four other areas on the property for the outdoor storage, display, sale and distribution of merchandise. Liberty Classical Academy Approved Approved (1717 English Street) This request was to approve a revision to the conditional use permit for the Liberty Classical Academy to operate a school in a church building. Troutland Auto Dealerships Approved Approved (Highway 61 and New Country Road D) 6-1 This request was to allow automotive repair, parts (storage and sales), and parking for employees, service customers, loaner cars in addition to new and used cars on the northerly commercial lot. Maplewood Toyota Vehicle Parking Approved Approved and Sales Facility 3-2 (south site - NW comer of Highway 61 and Beam Avenue) This request was to allow the construction of a parking ramp with car sales within 350 feet of residential property. Maplewood Toyota Expansion Approved Approved (North of LaMettry's Collision) This request was to allow car storage on the property between LaMettry's Collision and Gulden's Roadhouse. 3 Approved The Woodlands of Maplewood Approved (1740 and 1750 McMenemy Street) This request was for a PUD for a 28-unit townhouse development. K and W ROIl-offs Approved Approved (1055 Gervais Avenue) This request was to allow outdoor storage of roll-off containers, trailers and associated materials on the property at 1055 Gervais Avenue. K and W Roll-offs Approved Approved (1055 Gervais Avenue) This request was to allow a 40 by 49-foot storage building within the M-1 (light manufacturing) zoning that would be within 350 feet of a residential zoning district at (at 1055 Gervais Avenue). Ramsey County Public Library Approved Approved (3025 Southlawn Drive) This request was for a PUD (planned unit development) revision for Legacy Village to allow the proposed Ramsey County Library. Maple Ridge Leaf Business Center Approved Approved (2483 and 2497 Maplewood Drive) The request was for a setback of 250 feet from the rear lot line for an office/industrial condominium development at 2488 and 2497 Maplewood Drive. Regions Hospital Sleep Health Center Approved Approved (2688 Maplewood Drive) The request was for a building in an M1 (light manufacturing) district that would be within 350 feet of residential property. MEMBERS WHO RESIGNED IN 2005 Jeff Bartol, Daniel Lee MEMBERS WHO WERE APPOINTED IN 2005 Jim Kaczrowski, Jeremy Yarwood 2005 ATTENDANCE Name Lorraine Fischer Eric Ahlness Tushar Desai Mary Dierich Michael Grover Gary Pearson Dale Trippler Daniel Lee Jeff Bartol Jeremy Yarwood Jim Kaczrowski Appointed 1970 9-27-04 7-22-02 12-11-00 5-24-04 12-10-90 6-8-98 5-24-04 12-8-03 4-11-05 4-11-05 Term Expires 2007 2006 2007 2006 2008 2008 2006 (Resigned) (Resigned) 2008 2007 2005 Attendance 19/20 14/20 17/20 16/20 16/20 16/20 19/20 4/7 6/7 11/13 12/13 4 As a point of comparison, the planning commission had 18 meetings in 2000, 18 meetings in 2001, 17 meetings in 2002, 20 meetings in 2003 and 18 meetings in 2004. 2006 ACTIVITIES The following are the possible activities of the planning commission for 2006: 1. Have an annual tour of development and other sites of interest. 2. Have quarterly in-service training sessions or provide educational materials for the planning commission. This might include training or infonnation to help prepare the commission for the upcoming redevelopment topics or have a session about in-fill development, conditional use penn its, septic systems and/or wells. 3. Work with the consultants and city staff on any code or land use plan changes that result from the Gladstone Area studies. 4. Review the PUD ordinance for possible changes. 5. Provide input to the HRA on housing redevelopment and program issues. 6. Study the area west of Hazelwood (along the future County Road D extension) for land use and transportation issues. 7. Have a tour of the Legacy Village development as construction progresses and of the Gladstone neighborhood as part of the redevelopment study. RECOMMENDATION Accept the Planning Commission's 2005 Annual Report. P:\..\misceII\PC\ pc2005annrep.doc 5 MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: SUBJECT: PROJECT: LOCATION: DATE: City Manager Ken Roberts, Planner Concept Plan Review Cottagewood PUD 2666 Highwood Avenue January 10, 2006 INTRODUCTION Project Description Mr. Phil Soby, representing Lauren and Company, has submitted to the city a preliminary concept plan for a proposed detached townhouse development. He has prepared a preliminary site and grading plan that shows 16 detached housing units on a private driveway. This development would be on about 3.71 acres of land that is south of Highwood Avenue (2666 Highwood Avenue). Refer to the maps on pages five - eight. A homeowners' association would own and maintain the common areas. This proposal, if approved by the city, would replace an 18-unit townhouse plan (with three six-unit buildings) known as Highwood Farms that the city approved in 2003. (See the approved Highwood Farms site plan, proposed grading plan and the council minutes starting on page nine). The developer has not finalized the design of the buildings, but I expect that each town house building would have horizontal-lap vinyl siding, aluminum soffits and fascia and brick or stone veneer on the fronts. In addition, each unit would have a two-car garage. Requests To build this project, Mr. Soby will be requesting that the city approve: 1. A revision to an approved conditional use permit (CUP) for a planned unit development (PUD). This PUD revision would allow the project to have 16 detached town houses, to have a variety of setbacks, to have the detached town houses be on smaller lots than code usually allows (in area and in width) and to have the units on a private driveway. 2. A preliminary plat for the lots for the town houses. (See the concept site plan on page seven.) 3. The project design plans. BACKGROUND On February 10, 2003, the city council approved the following for the Highwood Farms Town Houses PUD: 1. A land use plan change from R-1 (single dwellings) to R-3L (low-density multiple dwellings). 2. A conditional use permit (CUP) for a planned unit development (PUD) for an 18-unit housing development. (Please see the approved site plan on page nine.) 3. The preliminary plat to create the lots in the development. (See the city council minutes starting on page 11.) On February 23, 2004, and on February 22, 2005, the city council reviewed the CUP for Highwood Farms and agreed to review it again in one year. DISCUSSION Preliminary Project Review Compatibility In Maplewood, developers will often build town homes next to single dwellings. An example is the New Century Addition across Highwood Avenue from this site. The developer, Robert Engstrom, is developing this neighborhood with a mix of single dwellings and townhomes. There are many other examples in Maplewood, such as Afton Ridge, Southwinds, Bennington Woods, Olivia Gardens and the Carriage Homes of Maple Hills. In this case, the proposed detached town houses would be near Interstate 1-494 and Highwood Avenue and next to single dwellings. The style and size of the latest proposal should be more compatible with the adjacent single dwellings than the 18-unit plan the city approved in 2003. Density As proposed, the 16 units on the 3.71-acre site means there would be about 4.31 units per gross acre. This is consistent with the density standards in the comprehensive plan for medium density residential development and would be two fewer units than the city approved for the site in 2003. PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD) Section 44-1093(b) of the city code says that it is the intent of the PUD code "to provide a means to allow flexibility by substantial deviations from the provisions of this chapter, including uses, setbacks, height and other regulations. Deviations may be granted for planned unit developments provided that: 1. Certain regulations contained in this chapter should not apply to the proposed development because of its unique nature. 2. The PUD would be consistent with the purposes of this chapter. 3. The planned unit development would produce a development of equal or superior quality to that which would result from strict adherence to the provisions of this chapter. 4. The deviations would not constitute a significant threat to the property values, safety, health or general welfare of the owners or occupants of nearby land. 5. The deviations are required for reasonable and practicable physical development and are not required solely for financial reasons." The applicant would apply to the city for a revision to the approved conditional use permit (CUP) for a planned unit development (PUD). This change would be for the 16-unit detached town house development. They would request a revision to the approved PUD to allow revised project plans with the 16 detached housing units, so the project could have a variety of setbacks, to have the detached town houses be on smaller lots than code usually allows (in area and in width) and to have the units on a private driveway. The developer is proposing a small lot around each townhome 2 unit. A homeowners' association would own and maintain the rest of the land, including the private driveways, green areas and the ponding areas. In addition, having a PUD gives the city and developer a chance to be more flexible with site design and development details than the standard city requirements would normally allow. It is the contention of the applicant that the proposed code deviations meet the findings in the city code for approval of a PUD. City staff agrees with the applicant that the development as proposed (shown on page seven), with the proposed code deviations, would produce a development of equal or superior quality, that the proposals do not constitute a threat to the area and that the deviations are required for reasonable and practicable development of the site. Having the private driveway with reduced town house setbacks will lessen the amount of grading and tree removal on the property. If the applicant followed all the city subdivision and zoning standards and used a public street, such a plan would require more tree removal and grading because of the right-of-way requirements and the larger setbacks. Public Utilities Sanitary sewer and water are in Highwood and Century Avenues. The developer is proposing to extend the utilities from these locations to serve the proposed development. This will require extensive coordination with city staff. The concept plans show new ponding areas on the site as part of the development. Managing the storm water, as with every project, also will be a critical part of the success of the development. The watershed district usually requires the grading plan to show that there will be at least five feet of free board (bounce) in the ponds from the first 100-year high water level to the lowest floor elevation of the units. Michael Thompson and Erin Laberee of the Maplewood Engineering Department did preliminary reviews of the concept plans. I have included their e-mail comments on pages 21 and 22. Noise The location of the proposed housing near a freeway causes staff to have concems over noise and possible negative impacts the noise could have on the residents. If the project moves forward, the city may want to require the developer to do a detailed noise study. If the study shows that the site would be in violation of state noise standards, then the buildings would have to include mitigating features inclUding wall soundproofing, extra insulation, heavy-duty windows, etc. RECOMMENDATION Review the Cottagewood PUD concept plans for the property at 2666 Highwood Avenue and provide the applicant and city staff direction and comments about the proposed development. 3 REFERENCE INFORMATION SITE DESCRIPTION Site size: 3.71 acres Existing land use: A single dwelling and accessory buildings from the former property owner SURROUNDING LAND USES North: South: West: East: New Century PUD across Highwood Avenue Interstate 494 Houses along Dennis Street and fronting on Highwood Avenue House at 2684 Highwood Avenue and cellular telephone tower PLANNING Existing Land Use Plan designation: R-3(L) (Iow- density residential) Existing Zoning: F (farm residence) and PUD Criteria for Conditional Use Permit Approval Section 44-1097(a) states that the city council may approve a CUP, based on nine standards. Findings for Rezoning Section 44-1165 of the zoning code requires that the city council make the following findings to rezone property: 1. The proposed change is consistent with the spirit, purpose and intent of the zoning code. 2. The proposed change will not substantially injure or detract from the use of neighboring property or from the character of the neighborhood, and that the use of the property adjacent to the area included in the proposed change or plan is adequately safeguarded. 3. The proposed change will serve the best interests and conveniences of the community, where applicable, and the public welfare. 4. The proposed change would have no negative effect upon the logical, efficient, and economical extension of public services and facilities, such as public water, sewers, police and fire protection and schools. p:sec 13-28\CottagewoodConcept Plan Review - 2006 Attachments: 1. Location Map 2. Address Map 3. S~e Plan and Concept Plan 4. Proposed Grading Plan 5. Approved Highwood Farm S~e Plan 6. Proposed Highwood Farm Grading Plan 7. February 10,2003, City Council Minutes 8. E-mail from Michael Thompson dated January 9, 2006 9. E-mail comments from Erin Laberee dated January 5, 2006 4 --:::~~- -'- - - / d~ ~i/f:. i \\ "-- /' "" '" r~/NI ! ~\ .~ ~ 'l~I;U~~ -, ) '<:>-,. II /' ~~ /t~-'~~ft'\III~~) [ ~'~::::~ ~/______ ./ /' ./ / III 'j ~~~ /1 /,It:5.1 I" I I ~ . . \ -1;.( n ' -.' I I~ '\1 l- \...~ LN I 'ii f) ",,-,>__ I~~-"_'U':' : II- 1 ,,"'- ,\ '\'."--', I -"- ~..... I \~'tnl' :: (.::...... '.:::.::---:;-- : - ~' ::JnG2fi~' '~ ~--~~') 90 ~ -' S E ~ t:: -t;: : ~ "" UJ'~ B E L-L-'~ _ _:~ Ii I J ~ l/:: 'I \..- SITE \ \ \\~ \\\~ ' , I' ~I\ ____, I 1--\ ~ __I\.({"" ~, \~ ~~ ~ \ I ,I / ,"" ,.-j- / ~ - - ~. \:~~9V~ 4/(1 ---"" \ \ ~\ \ I I. I ~II -v, ~!I ~-' /~ ;;t;T (..I: if ~~~E::______, (- II I: j! I I) I ) II ~.:J II II ".4 " " "i II f I """"' J i I! I I . kr11 I I 1/ Inl i : ,/ I ~r-- II 1/ _ ....Jii:JL_ " 1-; iii " ,..., 'r-- , , I I 1 J ~~~ ~!,l--- 1 ~n 1[[ ::., --., i r~ ....., ~ Ii j::- ~- I~ - __{'J ,Ii If j jl jil!1 -' ". I - - - - " L.-i i ---~: : --.,' - r/, ~-__ /;.; ~:r ./ t:zi ,J - 1 _ --:- ~~m ~ , " " , , '<. '''. V \ / r 11 , I.' / I E ,i i!/ / ./ ,/v' 'i /// I /' /"~! 1/ /,' , , I ~ :;) III C o ~ .'. , ,', '" I -- ._ I. ~-- -," ,,' ~:: " " " ,I " " " " /" }I " / :1 " " II ,\.,~~ \1,\ '.1 \\- \ I " " )I~ I, loW ~I ZtJ==V ~/ :;z---; -~-~// " / , / /'/ / ... i /' ~/ ,"7 -- j I 5 1! N LOCATION MAP --,~i ~,f ....._-~-- r-----~"-.... .--- I \ ~r" I I f I I I I I , I ' I' I ' ,,'~. \ \ \ I I I , I I I J "'--.-~.__._----- -- I I -~-,} , 9 . -- ---- ~---.... , 1 (fl Cfsi I ~i I f 00 ] o ---------~.....I I [Jl7 ! I , [?s i I ~ :J III C o i o ]-J;~--dJ cb \> o ^ 6 1! N ADDRESS MAP f' l , . o o 2660 ~ ~ 8~ ~ '0 P ~'-;J o~ oo~ ~~ 0_ >0 if@ ~~ ~g Co ,~ a~ ,> . " . . , . . j rn 2684 '\ \ \ \ \ "~ . . \ ro g ~ /' li!~- 'g iP g ro ~ o CELL TOWER 02 ~~ .e Y'6 ~~ , ~ , ~ ro . . . ~ SITE PLAN COIT AGEWOOD CONCEPT PLAN . w w '\ --__ -D '. w w o w /-- ----~ -----g: ~ ~ ~ 7 'fr N I / x~ Iii lis 'Iii! ~ I I'll il Ii Ii II II ~ iJ~',~~ : I~"-' I '5 ~qf iill~ln 1111" U J I ! . ! COTTAGEWOOD ~ CONCEPT ~ LAUREN & COMPANY C1TYaFMAPlEWOOlI.....r,lNESor... o o o o . 2660 ~/ - ~L ro ~ " 0' '- \. ~;g \ ~~ , ~~ ~ I F I o t o o ~ o ~ o ~ o ~ ~ o ~ . o ~ ," , , , , , , , o '00 . -... -... ~ -... '\ '\ I I / , , , , .1 ~( 'I ~" c, 50 ~~ . ;: ~ \ \ ill;g\ Ii ' i ". 2684 \ \ , , " '" ^ , , \ , , : / m " \ , , o I . - ~ ~ Ii! " - I , ~ II r \ \ , ,. ,0 " . I " I, \ " " I I I I J 1/ I I o " j ! CJ ( -T.- \ \ . \ . \ \ '-. '-. '- '- ,,' '" '"' ~ \. / \ \ , . . 1000 " ~ /F \ ---:--~_- =H ,/ ~ ""') f --- -~- , - I 0 I -,-- I, , \ ' , , , __.1.-__-."::... I \ \ ( \ / I , 11==--- =- J!i -. -- -.- -.- ..___ N__ ..- .....- --- -. ~ l11t1,... -"" ......."'" -... ......00> __"0>-_ -,,,,,,,.,,. OVERALL PRELIMINARY GRADING PLAN AItIi. -"" "''''''' PROPOSED GRADING PLAN 8 11 N SIl&'~'JoII"'" InDl .1 _ ~"'" /.i ~ ~ f", .- tlt - 2U .0 " ! ! . . - -I !! .. .! $ll ,I ttH,-:"~.i!! -I !i < ;;:; : S Ql .1 "! ~ m.-:;:~; "'I ;;;::l.. so ~i ~ ;; ;mip I~JI: ! h I dl~IJ i!i~ .PI .I! I~ . , . I i J I J I . . i , '" .. -i-- ,I IT] I 'I I d_~__ EP [~< a I~ i'~ ~ Jfr 1-' ~ ,- .- a'l -t .".of ~ I, lfll f"~ ,. t. I "I ~L - !Ii -'h ...I~ ~~ iU ."i.~ {I lit;:; n nu Iii ,~ gm II m~ 'z a .' ~ "l~ f IIll .1 n I '- .- 8 "- 0, J: ." / / / /zeb-OZ- SITE PLAN 1f PRELIMINARY PLAT: gHIGHWOOD FARM N --,- --,- I I I I I I I ~-ll....... \ .J- _II I ~ . =c:;:= ---- I . e ! ...... I - . 2~ . ~ g~ a !VI 51 i u~JI; l I I I Illl 1m .' . . , . /21.6-CJ2- 10 11 N PROPOSED GRADING PLAN MINUTES MAPLEWOOD CITY COUNCIL 7:00 P.M. Monday, February 10, 2003 Council Chambers, Municipal Building Meeting No. 03-03 1. 7: 10 (7:27) p.m. Highwood Farms Town Houses (Highwood A venue) Land Use Plan Change (R-l to R-3 (L)) Conditional Use Permit (CUP) for a Planned Unit Development (PUD) Preliminary Plat a. City Manager Fursman presented the staff report. b. Associate Planner Roberts presented specifics from the report. c. Commissioner Fisher presented the Planning Commission Report. d. Charles Cox, applicant, was present to answer questions. e. Mayor Cardinal opened the public hearing, calling for proponents or opponents. The following person was heard: John Maslowski, 1004 Dennis Street South, Maplewood f. Mayor Cardinal closed the public hearing. Councilmember Koppen moved to adopt the following resolution approving a land use plan change for the Highwood Farm plat on the south side of Highwood A venue. east of Dennis Street. This change is form R-I (single dwellings) to R-3 (L)(1ow-densitv multiple dwellings): RESOLUTION 03-02-016 LAND USE PLAN CHANGE RESOLUTION WHEREAS, Mr. Charles Cox is proposing a change to the city's land use plan from R-I (single dwellings) to R-3(L) (low density multiple dwellings). WHEREAS, this change applies to the property now known has 2666 Highwood Avenue in Section 13, Township 28, Range 22, Ramsey County, Minnesota. WHEREAS, the history of this change is as follows: 1. On January 22,2003, the planning commission held a public hearing. The city staff published a hearing notice in the Maplewood Review and sent notices to the surrounding property owners. The planning commission gave everyone at the hearing a chance to speak and present written statements. The planning commission recommended that the city council not approve the plan amendment. 2. On February 10, 2003, the city council discussed the proposed land use plan change. They City Council Q2-1 0-03 11 considered reports and recommendations from the planning commission and city staff. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the city council approve the above-described change for the following reasons: 1. It would be consistent with the goals and objectives of the comprehensive plan. These include having similar uses fronting on the same street, having a grading plan that preserves many significant natural features and uses a planned unit development to allow for creative design solutions. 2. This site is proper for and consistent with the city's policies for low-density multiple dwelling use. This includes: a. Creating a transitional land use between the existing low density residential and the existing telecommunications site. b. It is on a collector street and is near an arterial street. c. Minimizing any adverse effects on surrounding properties because there would be no traffic from this development on existing residential streets. 3. It would be consistent with the proposed planned unit development (PUD) and land uses. Seconded by Councilmember Juenemann Ayes-All Councilmember Koppen moved to adopt the following resolution approving a conditional use permit for a planned unit development for the Highwood Farm development on the south side of Highwood A venue, east of Dennis Street. RESOLUTION 03-02-017 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION WHEREAS, Mr. Charles Cox, representing the project developers, applied for a conditional use permit (CUP) for the Highwood Farm residential planned unit development (PUD). WHEREAS, this permit applies to the Highwood Farm town house development plan the city received on December 26,2002 for the property at 2666 Highwood Avenue. The legal description IS: Subject to State TH 100/117 and HWY 393, the north 1100 feet of the West 173 feet of the East 198 feet of the West V2 of the NE 1;" of the SE 1;" of Section 13, Township 28, Range 22, Ramsey County, Minnesota. (This is the property to be known as Lots 1-19 of the proposed Highwood Farm) WHEREAS, the history of this conditional use permit is as follows: 1. On January 22, 2003, the planning commission recommended that the city council approve this permit. City Council 02-10-03 12 2. On February 10, 2003, the city council held a public hearing. The city staff published a notice in the paper and sent notices to the surrounding property owners. The council gave everyone at the hearing a chance to speak and present written statements. The council also considered reports and recommendations of the city staff and planning commission. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the city council approve the above-described conditional use permit because: 1. The use would be located, designed, maintained, constructed and operated to be in conformity with the city's comprehensive plan and code of ordinances. 2. The use would not change the existing or planned character of the surrounding area. 3. The use would not depreciate property values. 4. The use would not involve any activity, process, materials, equipment or methods of operation that would be dangerous, hazardous, detrimental, disturbing or cause a nuisance to any person or property, because of excessive noise, glare, smoke, dust, odor, fumes, water or air pollution, drainage, water run-off, vibration, general unsightliness, electrical interference or other nuisances. 5. The use would generate only minimal vehicular traffic on local streets and would not create traffic congestion or unsafe access on existing or proposed streets. 6. The use would be served by adequate public facilities and services, including streets, police and fire protection, drainage structures, water and sewer systems, schools and parks. 7. The use would not create excessive additional costs for public facilities or services. 8. The use would maximize the preservation of and incorporate the site's natural and scenic features into the development design. 9. The use would cause minimal adverse environmental effects. Approval is subject to the following conditions: 1. All construction shall follow the plans approved by the city. The city council may approve major changes to the plans. The Director of Community Development may approve minor changes to the plans. Such changes shall include: a. Revising the grading and site plans to show: (1) The developer minimizing the loss or removal of natural vegetation. (2) All driveways at least 20 feet wide. If the developer wants to have parking on City Council 02-10-03 13 one side of the main drive, then it must be at least 28 feet wide. However, widening of the driveway must not lessen the side setback of the driveway from the east property line. (3) All parking stalls with a width of at least 9.5 feet and a length of at least 18 feet. Revise the plans to reduce the number of spaces between the buildings from three to two to allow more space between the parking area and the edge of the building. Also, revise the parking spaces and the turn-around area at the south end of the site to maximize the number of trees to be saved, to maximize the number of spaces and to minimize the amount of hard surface area. (4) Revised storm water pond locations and designs as suggested or required by the watershed district or city engineer. The ponds shall meet the city's design standards. (5) The developer minimizing the loss or removal of natural vegetation including keeping and protecting as many of the large trees in the undisturbed area south of the town houses and parking areas. 2. The proposed construction must be substantially started within one year of council approval or the permit shall end. The council may extend this deadline for one year. 3. Have the city engineer approve final construction and engineering plans. These plans shall meet all the conditions and changes noted in the engineer's memo dated January 14, 2003. a. Include grading, utility, drainage, erosion control, streets, trails, sidewalks, tree, retaining walls, driveway and parking lot plans. b. Show no grading or ground disturbance in the conservation easement. This land is to be preserved for open space purposes. The developer and contractors shall protect this area, including the large trees that are in and near the south side of the site, from encroachment from equipment, grading or filling. c. Include a storm water management plan for the proposal. 4. The design of all ponds shall meet Maplewood's design standards and shall be subject to the approval of the city engineer. If needed, the developer shall be responsible for getting any off-site pond and drainage easements. 5. The developer or contractor shall: a. Complete all grading for the site drainage and the ponds, complete all public improvements and meet all city requirements. b. * Place temporary orange safety fencing and signs at the grading limits. City Council 02- 10-03 14 c. Remove any debris or junk from the site, including the conservation area. d. Provide the city with verification that the town houses on the proposed site plan will meet the state's noise standards. This shall be with a study, testing or other documentation. If the noise on this site is a factor, then the contractor will have to build the town houses such that they can meet the noise standards. This may be done with thicker walls, heavier windows, requiring air conditioning or other sound-deadening construction methods. The developer shall provide the city with this documentation before the city will issue a building permit for the town houses. 6. The approved setbacks for the principal structures in the Highwood Farm PUD shall be: a. Front-yard setback (from a public street or a private driveway): minimum - 30 feet, maximum - 35 feet b. Rear-yard setback: 30 feet from any adjacent residential property line c. Side-yard setback (town houses): minimum - 47 feet from the west property line and 50 feet from the east property line. 7. The developer or builder will pay the city Park Access Charges (PAC fees) for each housing unit at the time of the building permit for each housing unit. 8. Submit the homeowners association documents to city staff for review and approval. 9. The developer shall provide a permanent means to preserve and maintain the common open space. This may be done by conservation easement, deed restrictions, covenants or public dedication. The developer shall record this document with the final plat and before the city issues a permit for grading or utility construction 10. The city council shall review this permit in one year. 11. This approval does not include the design approval for the townhomes. The project design plans, including architectural, site, lighting, tree and landscaping plans, shall be subject to review and approval of the community design review board (CDRB). The projects shall be subject to the following conditions: a. Meeting all conditions and changes as required by the city council. b. For the driveways: (1) Minimum width - 20 feet. (2) Maximum width - 28 feet. (3) All driveways less than 28 feet in width shall be posted for "No Parking" on both sides. Driveways at least 28 feet wide may have parking on one side and City Council 02-10-03 15 shall be posted for No Parking on one side. c. Showing all changes required by the city as part of the conditional use permit for the planned unit development (PUD). 12. The city shall not issue any building permits for construction on an outlot (per city code requirements). The developer must record a final plat to create buildable lots in the preliminary plat before the city will issue a building permit. Seconded by Councilmember Juenemann Ayes-All Councilmember Koppen moved to approve a preliminary plat to create the lots for the town houses. The developer shall complete the following before the citv 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 public improvements 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 intersection and near the south end of the driveway. The exact style and location shall be subject to the city engineer's approval. d. Pay the city for the cost of traffic-control, street identification and no parking signs. e. Provide all required and necessary easements, including any off-site easements. f. Demolish or remove the existing house and garage from the site, and remove all other buildings, fencing, trailers, scrap metal, debris and junk from the site. g. Cap and seal all wells on site that the owners are not using; remove septic systems or drainfields, subject to Minnesota rules and guidelines. h. Complete all the curb and gutter on Highwood Avenue on the north side of the site. This is to replace the existing driveways on Highwood Avenue and shall include the restoration and sodding of the boulevards. 1. Install a sign where the new driveway intersects Highwood Avenue indicating that it is a private driveway. J. Install survey monuments and signs along the edges of the conservation easement area. These signs shall explain that the area beyond the signs is a conservation easement area and that there shall be no building, fences, mowing, cutting, filling, dumping or other ground disturbance in that area. The developer or contractor shall install these signs City Council 02-10-03 16 before the city issues building permits in this plat. 2. Have the city engineer approve final construction and engineering plans. The applicant shall have these plans revised to follow the comments of the city engineer and shall include the grading, utility, drainage, erosion control, tree and street plans. The plans shall meet the following conditions: a. The erosion control plans shall be consistent with the city code. b. The grading plan shall show: (1) The proposed building pad elevation and contour information for each building site. The lot lines on this plan shall follow the approved preliminary plat. (2) Contour information for all the land that the construction will disturb. (3) Building 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) All retaining walls on the plans. Any retaining walls taller than four feet require a building permit from the city. The developer shall install a protective rail or fence on top of any retaining wall that is taller than four feet. (7) Sedimentation basins or ponds as required by the watershed board or by the city engineer. (8) No grading beyond the plat boundary without temporary grading easements from the affected property owner(s). (9) As little grading as possible west and south of the town houses. This is to keep as many of the existing trees on the site as is reasonably possible. c. The street, driveway and utility plans shall show: (1) The driveway shall be a nine-ton design with a maximum grade of eight percent and the maximum grade within 75 feet of the intersection at two percent. City Council 02-10-03 17 (2) The street (driveway) with continuous concrete curb and gutter, except where the city engineer determines that curbing is not necessary for drainage purposes. (3) The removal of the unused driveways and the completion of the curb and gutter on the south side of Highwood A venue and the restoration and sodding of the boulevards. (4) The coordination of the water main alignments and sizing with the standards and requirements of the Saint Paul Regional Water Services (SPRWS). Fire flow requirements and hydrant locations shall be verified with the Maplewood Fire Department. (5) 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. (6) The plan and profiles of the proposed utilities. (7) A detail of any ponds, the pond outlets and the rainwater gardens. The contractor shall protect the outlets to prevent erosion. d. The drainage plan shall ensure that there is no increase in the rate of storm water run- off leaving the site above the current (predevelopment) levels. The developer's engineer shall: (1) Verify inlet and pipe capacities. (2) Submit drainage design calculations. e. * The tree plan shall: (1) Be approved, along with the landscaping, by the Community Design Review Board (CDRB) before site grading or final plat approval. (2) Show where the developer will remove, save or replace large trees. This plan shall include an inventory of all existing large trees on the site. (3) Show the size, species and location of the replacement and screening trees. The deciduous trees shall be at least two and one half (2 Vo) inches in diameter and shall be a mix of red and white oaks, ash, lindens, sugar maples or other native species. The coniferous trees shall be at least eight (8) feet tall and shall be a mix of Black Hills Spruce, Austrian pine and other species. (4) Show no tree removal in the buffer zones, conservation easement, or beyond the approved grading and tree limits. (5) Include for city staff a detailed tree planting plan and material list. City Council 02- J 0-03 18 (6) Group the new trees together. These planting areas shall be: (a) near the ponding areas (b) on the slopes (c) along the west side of the site to screen the proposed buildings from the homes to the west (7) Show the planting of at least 37 trees after the site grading is done. 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 five feet wide along the side property lines. c. Label the common areas as an outlot or as outlots. d. If allowed, show the conservation easement on the final plat. e. Show the building pads and the common area as a Common Interest Community (CIC). 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 at the northwest comer of the plat. 6. The developer shall complete all grading for public improvements and overall site drainage. The city engineer shall include in the developer's agreement any grading that the developer or contractor has not completed before final plat approval. 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, complete all public improvements and meet all city requirements. b. * Place temporary orange safety fencing and signs at the grading limits. c. Provide for the repair of Highwood A venue (street, curb and gutter and boulevard) after the developer connects to the public utilities and builds the private driveway. 8. Record the following with the final plat: a. All homeowners association documents. City Coun,il 02-10-03 19 b. A covenant or deed restriction that prohibits any further subdivision or splitting of the lots or parcels in the plat that would create additional building sites. c. A covenant or deed restriction that prohibits any additional driveways (besides the one new driveway shown on the project plans) from going onto Highwood Avenue. d. The conservation easement for the undisturbed area of the site. The applicant shall submit the language for these dedications and restrictions to the city for approval before recording. The city will not issue a building permit until after the developer has recorded the final plat and these documents and covenants. 9* Submit the homeowners association bylaws and rules to the director of community development. These are to assure that there will be one responsible party for the maintenance of the common areas, outlots, private utilities, driveways, retaining walls and structures. 10. Obtain a permit from the Ramsey-Washington Metro Watershed District for grading. 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. 12. The developer shall complete all grading for public improvements and overall site drainage. The city engineer shall include in the developer's agreement any grading that the developer or contractor has not completed before final plat approval. *The developer must complete these conditions before the city issues a grading permit or approves the final plat. Seconded by Councilmember Collins Ayes-All City Cquncil 02-10-03 20 Ken Roberts From: Sent: To: Subject: Erin Laberee Monday, January 09, 2006 9:57 AM Michael Thompson; Ken Roberts RE: Cottagewood Concept The only thing I have to add is that the roof gutters should be directed into a rainwater garden. not underground into a infiltration trenches which may resu~ in future maintenance issues. Michael Thompson Monday, January 09,20067:49 AM Ken Roberts Erin Laberee RE: Cottagewood Concept from: Sent: To: Ce: Subject: Ken. To briefly answer your questions: I think the driveway widths are adequate for resident parking but there is concem for visitor parking because only two parking stalls are shown off the street. It's extremely likely that a lack of parking will be an issue with visitors. And obviously parking on the street would not be an option as this would hinder emergency vehicle access. Additional off- street parking should be explored. From reviewing the Iim~ed drainage information provided, it appears that each residence would have roof drainage directed into an inMration trench, rain garden, or a combination of both; while driveway and street drainage would be directed into a bio-retention system. A bio-retention system provides both runoff volume reduction through infiltration and pollutant removal. Soil borings should be provided to better understand the soil characteristics and the ability for infiltration. A more detailed stormwater drainage analysis will be provided to staff by the consultant as stated in a letter to Ken Roberts on December 28. 2005. After receiving that report. staff will be better able to review and address stormwater issues. As for the previous comments made by Chris Cavett, I would think that all comments are still pertinent. If you have any questions please call. Erin, anything to add? P.S. Ken, I am not sure about the setbacks or noise issues, but I noticed that the previous development required greater setbacks. Is there a reason the setbacks were drastically decreased? From: Ken Roberts Sent: Friday, January 06, 2006 1 :31 PM To: Michael Thompson Subject: FW: Cottagewood Concept Michael - Here you go. Ken From: Ken Roberts Sent: Friday, January 06, 2006 7:55 AM 21 To: Erin Laberee Cc: Ken Roberts Subject: RE: Cottagewood Concept Erin - Thanks for the prompt reply. Any concerns about the width of the driveway serving the units and the availability of parking for visitors? Should the pond hold storm water all the time or do you think it will infiltrate all of their run-off? They provided me with some design details that I will send up to you. Do want your departments comments from 2003 (when the last project was approved by the city) to review for this proposal? Ken From: Erin Laberee Sent: Thursday, January 05, 2006 4:14 PM To: Ken Roberts Subject: Cottagewood Concept Ken, Below are a few engineering concerns regarding the concept plan for Cotlagewood 1) The proposed retaining wall is very close to the adjacent properties. It does not seem feasible to construct the wall without disturbing the adjacent properties. 2) There does not seem to be adequate room to construct a swale between the retaining wall and the proposed structures. The proposed swale is too close to the retaining wall, it will not be a gradual swale, but more like a ditch and will result in erosion problems. 3) No additional runoff from roofs or backyards shall be directed onto the easterly property. Erin Laberee, P .E. Assistant City Engineer City of Maple wood 1902 County Road BEast Maplewood, MN 55109 Ph: 651-249-2404 Fax: 651-249-2409 erin.laberee{iilci.maulewood.nmous 22 MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: SUBJECT: DATE: City Manager Ken Roberts, Planner Planning Commission Elections January 9, 2005 INTRODUCTION The planning commission's rules of procedure say that the commission will elect a chairperson and a vice-chairperson at the second meeting of each year. The current chairperson is Lorraine Fischer and the current vice-chairperson is Tushar Desai. RECOMMENDATION Elect a chairperson and vice-chairperson to serve through January 2007. Kr/misclpc/pcelections.doc MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: SUBJECT: DATE: City Manager Tom Ekstrand, Senior Planner Noise-Control Ordinance Discussion January 10, 2006 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. BACKGROUND January 3, 2006: The planning commission tabled this item until the next meeting so Mr. Ahlness could be present. 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 exempt. . 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 permit 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 officelindustrial 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." Staffs 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_dvptlordlnoise ord review 1 '06 Attachments: 1. Noise Control Ordinance 2. Email from Eric Ahlness '10\)-22-2005 07: 18 P.01/01 Attachment 1 JOBNAME: No Joh Name PAGE: 345 SESS: 2 OUTPUT: Tue Apr 8 ]2:31:102003 /tir~Upubdocs/l1lcci3i11217 Jull 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 anYI on account of which such vehicle was impounded. (Cude 1982. ~ 19-47) Secs. 18-86-18-110. Reserved. DNISION 3. NOISE CONTROL Sec. 18-111. Prohibition generally; exception. (a) No person shall make 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 prohihition 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 (n) ofthi8 section where the activity would not cause a nuisance and where the proposed adivity would not be within 350 feet of a residential u:sc, The city manager's decision may be appealed to the city council. A waiver within 350 feel 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 or the county abstract office, shall be submitted with the waiver request. (Code 1982, ~ 19-48) Sec. 18.112. Construction activities. All construction activities, including the U8e of any kind of electric, diesel or gas~powered machine or other power equipment, shall be subject to this division. A copy of this division shall CDl8:17 TOTAL P.01 3 N" oise Ordinance Page lof3 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 oversi9ht 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, 1 st 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