Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout07/05/2005 MAPLEWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesdav, July 5,2005, 7:00 PM City Hall Councl:i1 Chambers 1830 County Road BEast 1. Call to Order 2. Roll Call 3. Approval of Agenda 4. Approval of Minutes a. June 20, 2005 5. Public Hearings 7:00 Jensen Estates Preliminary Plat (Hoyt Avenue, east McKnight Road) 6. New Business None 7. Unfinished Business None 8. Visitor Presentations 9. Commission Presentations June 27 Council Meeting: Mr. Grover July 11 Council Meeting: Mr. Yarwood July 25 Council Meeting: Mr. Pearson 10. Staff Presentations Annual Tour Update 11. Adjournment DRAFT MINUTES OF THE MAPLEwoaD PLANNING COMMISSION 1830 COUNTY ROAD BEAST, MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA MONDAY, JUNE 20, 2005 I. CALL TO ORDER Acting Chairperson Desai called the meeting to order at 7:02 p.m. II. ROLL CALL Commissioner Eric Ahlness Vice-Chairperson Tushar Desai Commissioner Mary Dierich Chairperson Lorraine Fischer Commissioner Michael Grover Commissioner Jim Kaczrowski Commissioner Gary Pearson Commissioner Dale Trippler Commissioner Jeremy Yarwood Absent Present Absent Absent Present Present Present Absent Present Tom Ekstrand, Senior Planner Ken Roberts, Planner Chris Cavett, Assistant City Engineer Lisa Kroll, Recording Secretary Andrew Gitzlaff, Planning Intern Staff Present: III. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Commissioner Pearson moved to approve the agenda. Commissioner Grover seconded. The motion passed. IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Ayes - Desai, Grover, Kaczrowski, Pearson, Yarwood Approval of the planning commission minutes for June 6,2005. Commissioner Yarwood had a correction on page 18; fourth paragraph from the bottom, Commissioner Kaczrowski made that statement not Commissioner Yarwood. Commissioner Grover had a correction on page 3, fourth paragraph from the bottom, second sentence, it should read He doesn't Iive6 live In the neighborhood but aRG--has had to keep his kids off the playground equipment because of the condition the equipment is in. Commissioner Grover moved to approve the planning commission minutes for June 6,2005, as amended. Commissioner Yarwood seconded. Ayes - Desai, Grover, Kaczrowski, Pearson, Yarwood Planning Commission Minutes of 06-20-05 -2- V. PUBLIC HEARING a. Lot Width and Setback Variances (1774l'V'1cMenemy Street) (7:05 -7:33 p.m.) Mr. Roberts said Jeff Kissell, representing Kissell Construction and Tom Dahlquist, the property owner, are requesting that the city approve two variances to create a new lot for a new single family home. The requests are for the property on the north side of the house at 1774 McMenemy Street. The city code requires lots for houses to be at least 75 feet wide and that they have a side yard setback of at least ten feet. The applicant's are requesting city approval for a 73.5-foot- wide lot (a 1.5-foot lot-width variance) with a seven foot setback from the existing house (a three foot side-yard setback variance) to create the new, narrower lot. Acting Chairperson Desai asked the applicant to address the commission. Jeff Kissell, Kissell Construction, 1899 Rice Street, Maplewood, addressed the commission. He reviewed the recommendations and is in agreement with all of the conditions listed by city staff. Jav Swenson. 1780 McMenemv Street. Mapll~wood, addressed the commission. Mr. Swenson read the letter aloud that he sent to the city, which was included in the staff report. He is opposed to this project because of the lot width and the price range proposed for this house. He felt that both reasons would negatively affect his lifestyle as well as the quality of life of the surrounding neighborhood. Acting Chairperson Desai said Mr. Swenson stated in his letter that Mr. Kissell said the prices of the homes in the neighborhood are between $180,000 to $207,000. The letter from Mr. Kissell states between $225,000 to $250,000 and he asked staff the reason for the discrepancy? Mr. Roberts deferred that question to Mr. Kissell. Mr. Kissell said the proposal for the house costs were generated before speaking with Mr. Swenson over the telephone. Acting Chairperson Desai asked Mr. Kissell if he thought the price of the new house would be somewhere in the $225,000 to $250,000 range? Mr. Kissell said that is what he proposes. They don't have a solid plan for this yet but if this is approved then they can go ahead with the project planning by following the recommendations by city for the variance and other details to make this project successful. Commissioner Grover asked how typical this request was in the City of Maplewood for a lot width and setback variance request such as this? Also, when did the City of Maplewood increase the lot width requirement for single family homes? Mr. Roberts said the minimum side yard setbaok was changed by the city council to provide more spacing between homes because the city council was concerned about the crowding between homes. About 10 or 12 years ago the city was seeing more lots that were 80 to 90 feet in width, which was becoming more common when subdivisions were coming in. Nowadays, the city is seeing very few single family home subdivisions and a lot of those are smaller five or eight lot projects so it is not that much of an issue. Planning Commission Minutes of 06-20-05 -3- Mr. Roberts said this variance is a very unusual situation and typically variances of this size can be done administratively. The city code allows city staff to approve variances administratively where the amount of variance to any other setback is five feet or less and where the adjoining property owners sign a petition supporting the request. In this case, the applicant got one of the signatures that were needed but two property owners did not want to sign the petition, thus city staff could not handle this administratively. As such, the applicant had to apply for a full strength variance and have a public hearing and then go before the city council for final approval. There are many variances that are handled administratively that the planning commission and the city council are not aware of because they are handled by city staff. Commissioner Grover asked staff to elaborate on the two findings before granting a variance, which include strict enforcement would cause undue hardship because of circumstances unique to the property under consideration, and the variance would be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the ordinance. Mr. Roberts said the city council approved a similar lot split in 1978 but the previous property owner never completed the division of the landl. Then there was a minimum lot width standard change, and now there is a different property owner and this is how this comes before the commission. Commissioner Grover asked how many adminilstrative variances for five feet or less the city does a year? Mr. Roberts said the city sees about five or ten variances a year that the planners handle administratively. Acting Chairperson Desai asked if there was any discussion regarding moving the garage in such a position that it would meet the 10-foot guideline? Mr. Roberts said on page 9 it shows the survey and site plan in the staff report. At that time the applicant had not determined which side the garage would be placed so rather than ask the applicant, staff felt it was better to require the 10 foot setback from the north to ensure the spacing to the property that would be most affected. Mr. Swenson said staff was quite clever when they wrote the staff report indicating it would be 73.5 feet verses the 75 foot wide lot which would be a 1.5-foot lot-width variance. If it was only 1.5 feet he wouldn't be worried about it. However, it's 1.5 feet plus three feet so the applicant is 4',1, feet short. The city council changed the oode so that people allowed more space between structures for a reason and now the applicant is asking for a special request. Mr. Dahlquist may or may not live in this home for 30 more years, it's not Mr. Dahlquist's problem that the house would be too close to him after he moves away, it then becomes the neighborhood's problem. Tom Dahlquist, 1774 McMenemy Street, Maplewood, addressed the commission. He said he purchased this home in February 1993 and the city code was changed after that. Commissioner Grover asked staff how far away the proposed structure was from 1774 McMenemy Street. Planning Commission Minutes of 06-20-05 -4- Mr. Roberts said it appears to be 12 feet off the proposed lot line, which is about 19 feet between structures. Commissioner Grover said city code requires 110 feet from property line to structure? Mr. Roberts said correct. The site plan diagram shows a building pad as an example which is not the final resting place for the structure to be built. It's just to show that a house could fit on the site but it's not a final design. Mr. Kissell said they are looking at the variances and other city restrictions before putting a final plan together and that is why the site plan only shows a box on the plan but it's by no means a final building pad shown on the site plan. Commissioner Grover asked what size home he planned on building on this site? Mr. Kissell said this could be a 24-foot wide structure with a detached garage, which allows them to move that off the property line, shows morel house and gives it better street appeal. At the same time it allows them to keep in accordance of the property line. The square footage of the house would be between 1,800 to 2,000 square feet with an unfinished basement. Commissioner Grover moved to adopt the resolution on pages 15 and 16 of the staff report. This resolution approves the two variances requests for the creation of the new lot for a single dwelling north of the house at 1774 McMenemy Street. These include having a 73.5-foot-wide lot (a 1.5- foot variance) and a seven foot setback from the existing house (a three foot variance). The city is basing this approval on the fact that the proposed lot width would be in character of the existing lots in the area, as well as the ability of the applicant to prove a specific hardship for this variance request that meets state law requirements including: 1. The problem requiring the variances in this circumstance is a problem that the current owner did not cause. 2. The variances and the creation of a new lot with a new single dwelling in this location will not change the character of the area. 3. The variances would be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the ordinance since the city had approved a similar request for the same property in 1978. 4. The reduced lot width and building setback also would not be visually noticeable. Approval of these variances is subject to the fOllowing conditions: 1. The house and garage on the new lot shall have at least a ten foot setback from the north property line. 2. The city engineer shall approve a grading and drainage plan before the city approves a lot split for the creation of the new lot. Planning Commission Minutes of 06-20-05 -5- 3. The builder shall provide a six-foot tall privady fence and eight-foot-tall coniferous trees (black hills spruce or Austrian Pines) along the north property line. The final design and location of the fence and trees shall be subject to the approval of city staff and the contractor shall install these before the city grants an occupancy permit for the new house. Commissioner Pearson seconded. Ayes - Desai, Grover, Kaczrowski, Pearson, Yarwood The motion passed. This item goes to the city council on July 11, 2005. b. Lark Avenue Right-of-Way Vacation (between Hazel and Van Dyke Streets) (7:34-7:50 p.m) Mr. Gitzlaff said Wanda and Lyle Pichelman are requesting that the city vacate the unused 60- foot-wide Lark Avenue right-of-way located bEiltween Hazel Street and Van Dyke Street. The Pichelman's are requesting the vacation of the right-of-way in order to construct an addition to the south side of their house within the north one-half of the right-of-way. The addition to the rambler style house includes an attached garage and upper bedrooms. The Pichelman's also intend to remove part of a shed from the backyard and pave the existing driveway. The Pichelman's desire the addition because they have a significant need for storage space but do not have a garage. There is currently not enough room to build an attached garage on the side of the house and it would be difficult for them to build a detached garage anywhere else on the site because of the steep grade which drops to the south on the property. Commissioner Grover said it appeared the Lapinski property at 2241 Hazel Street was already in the proposed vacation area. Mr. Gitzlaff said the property line map is from the GIS mapping software and he wasn't 100% sure of its accuracy, but said it appeared that the Lapinski house at 2241 Hazel Street extended by about two feet into the proposed vacation area. Commissioner Grover asked if the proposal is to vacate the 30 feet that abuts 2255 Hazel Street which is 27',1, feet if you include the 2',1, feet on either side of the center line? Mr. Gitzlaff said the proposal would be to vacate the easterly half. Mr. Chris Cavett, Maplewood Assistant City Engineer, addressed the commission. Mr. Cavett said typically it is to keep 5 feet for easement an each property for a total of 10 feet of easement. Commissioner Grover asked if the 10 feet Mr. Cavett spoke of would change what is being proposed given there is now an additional five-foot easement? Mr. Gitzlaff said the building addition could still be done and there would be enough of a setback. It may limit it to a two car garage but the Pichelman's have been working with staff on developing a plan for the building addition and would be maintaining all the setbacks. Commissioner Grover asked if this was part of the grid layout for this area? Mr. Cavett said a lot of these older plats were grided out with little or no concept of topography. Planning Commission Minutes of 06-20-05 -6- Acting Chairperson Desai asked the applicants to address the commission. Wanda and Lyle Pichelman, 2255 Hazelwood Street, Maplewood, addressed the commission. Mr. Lyle Pichelman asked what the purpose of the five-foot easement was on each property? Mr. Cavett said that is the standard procedure for maintaining a five-foot drainage easement and utility easement to make sure proper drainage is maintained between property lines, it is really more procedural than anything. Typically structures can be built right up to the easement line so if you meet the five-foot setback for a garage it won't impact you at all. Mr. Pichelman said staff has been very eloquent in explaining the process and requirements to us. They plan on retiring here. With real estate prices being what they are, it is in their best interest to improve the house they already have. He said the neighbor, Mr. Lapinski should not fear for their ability to finance this project. Acting Chairperson Desai closed the public hearing. Commissioner Pearson moved to adopt the resolution as shown in the staff report. This resolution vacates the easterly 300 feet of the unused 60-foot-wide Lark Avenue right-of-way located west of the right-of-way line of Hazel Street. The city should vacate this right-of-way because: (Additions to the motion are underlined.) 1. It is in the public interest. 2. The applicant and the abutting property owners have no plans to build a street atthis location. 3. The adjacent properties have street acceS$. 4. The vacation of the right-of-way will allow a resident to expand and improve their home. 5. This vacation is subiect to keepina a 5-foot easement alona the new property line. Commissioner Kaczrowski seconded. Ayes - Desai, Grover, Kaczrowski, Pearson, Yarwood The motion passed. This item goes to the city council on July 11, 2005. c. Maplewood Toyota Vehicle Parking and Sales Facility (south site - NW corner of Highway 61 and Beam Avenue) (7:50 - 9:30 p.m.) Mr. Ekstrand presented the staff report. BWBR Architects, on behalf of Steve McDaniels of Maplewood Toyota, is proposing to build a one-story parking ramp on the existing Maplewood Toyota parking lot at the northwest corner of Beam Avenue and Highway 61. This proposed ramp would be a one-level ramp above the existing parking lot. Mr. McDaniels proposes to continue to store and sell cars from this site. The proposed ramp would have a ground-level sales office in the southeast corner of the structure near the intersection. Mr. Ekstrand said the elevated level would be at grade with the abutting Maplewood Toyota site to the north and would be bridged across to that site for vehicular access. During the construction of the proposed ramp, the applicant proposes to move the cars from this site to his vacant lot between Gulden's Roadhouse and LaMettry's Collision. Planning Commission Minutes of 06-20-05 -7- Mr. Ekstrand said Mr. McDaniels proposes to provide a graveled parking lot to temporarily store cars. This northerly lot is also proposed to have a permanent pervious-paver area for water permeation. Staff will address this proposal in a separate report dealing with the specifics of that site. Commissioner Pearson asked where the short bridge is if there would be a drive through for access around the building? Mr. Ekstrand said he understood the upper deck of the parking ramp would be on columns so there will be a lot of access throughout the lower level of parking. Right now the north lot line is a retaining wall so there is no access from beneath. Commissioner Pearson said the commission has looked at a number of changes for the Maplewood Toyota operation over the years and every time the commission reviews something for this area there seem to be more and more issues regarding traffic concerns at this intersection on Beam Avenue and Highway 61. At what point is somebody going to take some initiative to add a right-turn only at that intersection? In order to do this it would take some cooperation with the owners of Maplewood Toyota, but there is a large green space that could be dedicated to adding another turn lane. Shutting down that east entrance into Maplewood Toyota would make a big difference in traffic flow in that area. Commissioner Pearson asked how this problem should be addressed? Mr. Ekstrand said this would be the time to address these issues ifthe planning commission has concerns. Mr. Cavett wasn't aware of the concerns from the neighbors until he read the staff report. He thinks it would be a good idea to require an entrance only on the westerly drive and it be an exit only on the easterly drive. He's not sure if there are issues with the internal circulations so that would have to be looked at. There are several issues having a right turn only at that intersection. The improvements for County Road D at Highway 61 will offer some relief from this intersection. A traffic engineer looked at this area a few years ago and the city has looked at stop lights along with the timing and turning arrows. There were small modifications made to this area for better traffic flow. They added a dual thru stop light and added two thru stop lights that share turns. This helped a little bit but there's only a short duration that traffic can be stopped on Highway 61 because of the high volume of cars and they don't want cars to sit on Highway 61 any longer than absolutely necessary. He would recommend waiting until County Road D is finished in late November to see if traffic improves in the area. Acting Chairperson Desai said he's a resident of this neighborhood and he struggles with this traffic every day when he has to drive through this intersection. One of the improvements that was made was to paint a left turn arrow on Beam Avenue turning left onto Highway 61. Because the arrow has been washed away from the st~eet the cars don't know the left lane is for turning left onto Highway 61. People get frustrated when cars are in that lane and then they want to go straight or if cars are in the other lane and they try to go left onto Highway 61 and it ties traffic up and there are many traffic flow issues at this intersection. Because the stop light is so short, you only get one or two cars through that intersection anyway. Acting Chairperson Desai said there continue to be problems with employees from Maplewood Toyota parking cars along Beam Avenue by the dealership. Planning Commission Minutes of 06-20-05 -8- Acting Chairperson Desai said the crosswalk that is painted from Maplewood Toyota to the storage lot across the street makes cars wait so people can walk across to the other side. Sometimes people just walk out in traffic without cars knowing they should stop, which has almost caused car accidents to occur. This pedestrian area causes cars to be stacked going in and out of this area. So while he heard Mr. Cavett say there was a traffic study done two years ago he thinks a study needs to be done to see how many cars are coming and going in this area and what can be done to improve the traffic concerns. Nothing has improved since the traffic study two years ago and is only going to get worse with additional car inventory in this area. He strongly feels this issue should be addressed now. Although Maplewood Toyota states there would not be anymore traffic in this area, they are increasing the size of their inventory. This could cause more cars to come and go from this dealership which slows traffic at this light and intersection of Beam Avenue and Highway 61. Mr. Cavett said the left turn into the Maplewood Toyota dealership property should be addressed now. He thinks it's been addressed the best it can for now and should be reevaluated again after the new County Road D is in operation in late November. Acting Chairperson Desai asked if there could be a condition added to ensure this traffic study is done because otherwise the development will be completed and everybody forgets about the study except the neighbors who deal with the difficult traffic and intersection problems everyday as well as the Maplewood Toyota customers. Mr. Cavett said he doesn't know if the east bound entrance on Beam Avenue has a lot of traffic ties to the actual Maplewood Toyota dealershilp. He believes the city will notice a reduction in traffic on Walter Street and Beam Avenue with the new County Road 0 reconstruction and realignment. He believes the traffic is worse in the morning in that area. Commissioner Yarwood said the input by the neighbors seems to be a consistent regarding this intersection. If Maplewood Toyota goes ahead with the construction of this parking ramp, will it limit the choices for handling traffic at that intersection that may be required in the future. He wondered if the city should handle the congestion problem first and then the proposal second? Mr. Cavett said with the new County Road 0 construction he believes there would be less demand on the Beam Avenue and Highway 61 intersection, which might allow MnDot to provide additional timing for the lights since they are in charge of the roadway there. Mr. Ekstrand said it sounds like there could be some traffic relief after County Road D gets reopened. This proposal would have to be reviewed in one year for a conditional use permit. The planning commission could wait to see how this goes for a year and if nothing changes, make a recommendation that the applicant may be required to make improvements on site or to require a public agency to do something. Acting Chairperson Desai asked if a condition could be required to not allow Maplewood Toyota's employees or customers to park along Beam Avenue? Mr. Ekstrand believes Steve McDaniels would be agreeable to telling his staff no more parking on the street with all of the additional parking spaces with this proposal. Largely this lot will be for car inventory but a good part of this has to be for employee and customer parking. Planning Commission Minutes of 06-20-05 -9- Mr. Ekstrand said if a Maplewood Toyota custdmer parks on Beam Avenue it is really out of the city's control unless the city council adds more no parking signs along Beam Avenue by Maplewood Toyota. Bya condition of this appnoval the city should require the applicant to have ample off site parking for employees and custc)mers and show it on a site plan. Acting Chairperson Desai asked if Maplewood Toyota owned the existing lot north of LaMettry's Collision? Mr. Ekstrand said yes they do. Acting Chairperson Desai asked why Maplewood Toyota doesn't park cars there today? Mr. Ekstrand said the lot isn't paved right now so the city wouldn't want cars parked on the grass. There should not be any parking on Beam Avenue relating to Maplewood Toyota's business. Acting Chairperson Desai asked what the neighbors meant by the statement that Maplewood Toyota was supposed to build berms to keep the lights and sound from going into the neighborhood? Mr. Ekstrand said he worked with Mr. McDaniels on the lighting plan and Mr. McDaniels had selected light fixtures that gave protection frol!n light glare. There are a lot of lights that shine downward in a development such as this but he isn't aware of any berms that were required or where those berms would go. Andy Hulcher, General Manager, Maplewood Toyota, addressed the commission. Mr. Hulcher said they agree with the staff report with the ex~eption of the entrance to the main lot. Logistically they are set up to have customers enter into the first lot. The customers complain about the traffic flow and tie up at the stop light but it seems the neighbors complain about it more than anything. He too sits at the stop light every day and night. It's not the perfect situation but they are hoping the new construction of County Road D would help with the traffic problems. The employees at Maplewood Toyota have been parking on the street. They are hoping the parking ramp will take the cars off the street. Tom Dornack, Project Architect, BWBR Architects, Lawson Commons, 380 St. Peter St., Suite 600, St. Paul. Mr. Dornack said he would like an opportunity to give a presentation after the neighbors have spoken. Commissioner Pearson asked why Maplewood Toyota hasn't taken some initiative on their own to correct that first entrance to the east if nothinglelse adding an exit to the east or a right turn only. It's been a problem and it's getting a lot worse. He's not convinced that the new County Road D is going to change the problem. He asked what Maplewood Toyota's position is adding a third right turn only on the south side perhaps with 'a sidewalk? Mr. Hulcher said it sounds like a good idea. He sees the problem of cars backing up because one car wants to go straight and the rest want to turn. If a third lane were to be added it would infringe on the Maplewood Toyota property, if It helps traffic flow better in that area they could be in favor of that though. Planning Commission Minutes of 06-20-05 -10- Commissioner Grover asked what the difference was between what staff proposed and what Maplewood Toyota proposed to a different entrance to the site? Mr. Ekstrand said there is no difference. He salid staff was talking about the two curb cuts to the southerly site, south of Beam Avenue and thollght it makes sense to place some limitations on that and have the easterly exit an exit only and the westerly drive the entrance into the Maplewood Toyota to help traffic from backing' up along Beam Avenue as much as possible. Mr. Cavett said an exit only on the easterly drive would be appropriate and an entrance and exit on the westerly drive would be appropriate, but they haven't looked at that in detail. Commissioner Grover asked if that was beyond the scope of this proposal? Mr. Ekstrand said that is a separate CUP but that can be discussed. Commissioner Grover said maybe that could be added as a motion with this proposal? Mr. Ekstrand believes so. When the city looks at a CUP the city looks at the impacts on traffic and if the planning commission feels with the addition of the parking ramp and the additional inventory this would be a good time to address this situation. Acting Chairperson Desai asked if a traffic stlldy were to be done in this area who would be responsible for the cost of the traffic study? Mr. Ekstrand said normally the city requires the applicant pay for the traffic study. He is not sure this warrants a full blown traffic study but it sure warrants some study by staff anyway. Mr. Cavett said if the city felt there were enouSh traffic issues related to this area the city could require the applicant to pay for a traffic study. He would agree with Mr. Ekstrand that he doesn't see that this area warrants a full blown traffic study at this time. Acting Chairperson Desai said he hears city staff saying there is no reason for a traffic study but he asked if the city has any traffic data that would support the opposition for the need for a complete traffic study at this time? Mr. Cavett said there was a traffic study done as part of the initial MMA TI (Maplewood Mall Area Transportation Improvements) that looked at County Road D and all the access points but he is not sure if there were any specifications to this intersection. He feels confident there would be some relief to this intersection with the new County Road D when it is operating fully and doing a traffic study would be premature because the variables will change in less than six months. Acting Chairperson Desai said in the mean time this proposal is going to cause further problems that the city doesn't have any answers to. Mr. Dornack gave a presentation to the planning commission forthis proposal while reviewing the plan and staff report. Some of the issues he brollght up will be discussed with the CDRB at their next meeting and the planning commission doesn't make decisions on building design and landscaping. Planning Commission Minutes of 06-20-05 -11- Acting Chairperson Desai asked how many customers visit the Maplewood Toyota dealership a day and how many employee vehicles there are. He is trying to get an idea for the amount of vehicle trips that would be coming and going from the site every day. Mr. Hulcher said they sell roughly 400 cars a month and typically sell to one out offive customers. The majority of their business is afternoon, evenings and on Saturdays. They are closed on Sundays. Acting Chairperson Desai said that equals about 2000 cars going in and out of the dealership in an average month. Operating six days a week with the dealership closed on Sundays comes to 25 days a month or 80 car trips a day plus 120 employee cars. That is a lot of vehicles coming and going from this site. Mr. Hulcher said one of the neighbors wrote they noticed the extra lot is half empty at night so why does Maplewood Toyota need a parking ramp for more vehicle storage. The reason the car lot is not full in the evening hours is because the 90 employee cars that are parked in that lot leave in the evening hours which make the lot appear not full. There are about 50 employee cars on Saturday's. The secondary lot with the parking ramp will house a small sales office that would house keys as well so the employees don't have to go across the street to get the keys for the vehicles. Acting Chairperson Desai asked if they had thought of moving the sales office to the rear of the parking ramp area because of the traffic situation? Mr. Hulcher said the reason the office is in the front of the building is to keep it high profile from a customer point of view. Acting Chairperson Desai said from a traffic point of view, he thought it would be better to move the office farther away so that it doesn't become an obstacle for people looking out at oncoming traffic driving southbound on Highway 61. Mr. Hulcher said one of the concerns early in the design and site plan layout was having the sales office on the northwest side of the site. But bec~use of the 350-foot setback from residential they thought it would be best to not having that activity so close to residential so they moved the sales office to the front of the parking ramp building so it would be farther away from residential. Lvnn Benson, 2898 Duluth Street. Msplevvood, addressed the commission. She said in addition to the concerns regarding the traffic pattern her main concern is the western elevation that faces her property. Her understanding of the Maplewood Toyota storage lot that exists today was that the house and garage would remain on the property to help protect the residential homes from seeing the vehicles but in addition to that, berms would be built to protect the residents. That did not take place and for that reason this storage lot has negatively impacted her home on Duluth Street. She lives in the third house from the corner of Beam Avenue and Duluth Street. Ms. Benson said the lights are a nuisance especially during the winter months. The light reflects off the snow in the winter and the trees do not protect the homes from seeing the lights. Ms. Benson said the sales people or customers hit the alarm button on the keychain to find the car in the lot, which is very annoying having to listen to car alarms day and night. Planning Commission Minutes of 06-20-05 -12- Ms. Benson said she is concerned that having additional cars parked in the parking ramp will increase the alarm noise especially because the cars will be parked higher and noise travels. She would also like the landscaping increased on the westerly elevation to block the view from the vehicles. Commissioner Grover asked Ms. Benson what currently blocks her view of the cars? Ms. Benson said there is a line of deciduous trees planted on the property line which doesn't help in the winter months. The yellow house on the Maplewood Toyota property blocks her view a little bit. Mr. Ekstrand said when he visited the site he thought things were pretty well screened but the evergreens will probably never be tall enough to screen the vehicles. He hasn't looked at the site from Ms. Benson's property but staff recommended additional trees be planted in the hopes of thickening up open spots just in case. However, the amount of tree cover could still be an issue in the winter months. Commissioner Grover asked if there was a way the western side of the parking ramp barrier could be higher to screen more of the cars and light 'from the residents? Mr. Ekstrand said that's good idea and he would share that with the CDRB at their design review board meeting. That's a concern of staffs aswell because the design and appearance of the parking ramp is critical and very important because it's visible to the neighbors and drivers. Precast concrete is precast concrete and it could use some architectural features added to it to add interest. The city should make sure a quality product and design is used and that it doesn't detract from the neighborhood. In other words it shouldn't look like the Victory ramp in downtown St. Paul. A good example of nicely designed parking ramp with curb appeal is the St. John's Hospital parking ramp, and that is what staff recommended in the staff report. Commissioner Yarwood said he would agree with the comments made. With the unique layout and the neighbors view of the area the site design and layout is very important. However, he got the impression from the architect that they were reluctant to stray from the Toyota protocol in terms of design and he hopes that isn't the case because he thinks this parking ramp needs to look as nice as possible and the visibility of the residents should be taken into consideration. Commissioner Grover said particularly for the two sides of the parking ramp that would face residential which is key here. Ms. Benson said her main concern is she would prefer not to see cars and would appreciate having as many trees planted as possible to block the view. LeAnne Hammer. 1227 Countrvview Circle. Maplewood, addressed the commission. She recently gave her letter to the city so she hopes everyone received a copy of the letter. When they were going to build a house they purposely didn't buy the single family lots close to the Maplewood Toyota dealership because they knew the area along Highway 61 would eventually be built with businesses. Planning Commission Minutes of 06-20-05 -13- Ms. Hammer said they live here and they know Maplewood Toyota is going to continue to exist so they have to figure out a way to work together peacefully. She doesn't understand why the city continues to down play the traffic problems in this area around Maplewood Toyota and the intersection of Beam Avenue and Highway 61? The traffic is horrendous! Ms. Hammer said to delay the traffic study is only falsifying the issue. It exists, everybody knows it exists, and something has to be done. Once you allow Maplewood Toyota to build the parking ramp there will be minimal things you can do to remedy the sitlilation because the concrete structure will already be built. You need to address the issues now, dlon't waste the tax payers money by doing a traffic study, a study doesn't need to be done, we know the facts, just fix the problem! Ms. Hammer said to extend the parking ramp into the setback will destroy the one sidewalk that exists on Beam Avenue. This sidewalk is used by the Maplewood Toyota employees as well as the neighborhood so she would be opposed to extending the setback which would eliminate the sidewalk. You can call it a vehicle storage lot or a parking ramp but those cars are there to be sold and more car inventory brings in more customers which mean more money for Maplewood Toyota. They have advertised that they are the number one Toyota dealership in the State. With additional inventory they will bring more than five customers for every car they sell which means even more traffic problems. If you take the vehicle storage lot away and build a parking ramp on top of it, where will the transport trucks deliver the vehicles? They will deliver cars on Beam Avenue, which will be even more dangerous to the pedestrians and cars in the area. Currently the transport trucks deliver the vehicles into the storage lot when the employee cars are gone, or they deliver the vehicles on Beam Avenue when they know they are not supposed to do that. The southwest corner of Beam Avenue and Highway 61 is a bus pickup area and it's amazing nobody has been hit there. There is a bus bench in dirt on Highway 61 where people wait for the bus and get dropped off from the bus. People walk down Beam Avenue on the street in front of Maplewood Toyota then customers try to turn into Maplewood Toyota. It makes for a very dangerous situation and she is surprised nobody has been hurt or killed yet. Now there will be more traffic added with the additional car inventory. County Road D is not going to alleviate the traffic count on Beam Avenue. Beam Avenue is the main road for these residents to get out to the main roads and they are not going to back track to County Road D and exit onto Highway 61. People are creatures of habit and they just aren't going to change their driving pattern. Nor are the customers for Maplewood Toyota going to enter the property from a different location so the traffic is only going to worsen. Maplewood Toyota has to have a separate driveway entrance to take away from this traffic congestion at this busy intersection. Ms. Hammer said it is fine that Maplewood Toyota wants to stay with their Toyota protocol image for the parking ramp design but be innovative and creative adding additional design features since this is going to be so close to the residential area. Maplewood Toyota is going to the only dealership with a parking ramp in the area. In addition Maplewood Toyota is proposing an additional storage area which means even more car inventory and inventory has to move off the car lot to make them more money. Maplewood Toyota should look at an entry off of County Road D or off the frontage road off of LaMettry's Collision to move the Maplewood Toyota customers off of Beam Avenue. She would also like the lighting addressed which is worse in the winter months when the trees have lost their leaves and the snow reflects. The loud speakers and paging system has to go, there is technology available where Maplewood Toyota doesn't need to announce over the speaker system so the neighbors have to hear each and every page. Planning Commission Minutes of 06-20-05 -14- Ms. Hammer said it would be nice to have a pedestrian sidewalk on the Maplewood Toyota side of Beam Avenue so people don't have to walk on the street to catch the bus on Highway 61. People try to cross the intersection from Beam Avenue across Highway 61 and it is very very dangerous. Residents in that area drive their kids across the street because it is so dangerous to cross. Commissioner Grover said he was not aware there was a bus stop on Highway 61. Mr. Ekstrand said he wasn't aware of that either. Acting Chairperson Desai described where the bus stop was in front of Maplewood Toyota on Highway 61 south of the intersection. The residents who take the bus have to walk down the street and go around the corner and wait on Highway 61 for the bus. Commissioner Pearson told Ms. Hammer that one of the requirements is to eliminate the paging system at Maplewood Toyota. Glen Yakel, 2949 Frank Street, Maplewood, addressed the commission. He has lived in this neighborhood for 16 years and traffic has severely increased over the years. The east entrance into Maplewood Toyota needs to be addressed. He believes MnDot could be sweet talked into changing the stop lights. If the city were to sit down with MnDot and explain the concerns that have been addressed he is sure something could be changed. He works for a state agency and he thinks something could be worked out. About six years ago he came to a city meeting and Ken Haider sat in here and said the same thling and asked for changes and still nothing has happened. He has issue with the expansion of the Maplewood Toyota building because it will create even more traffic. The applicant stated in the staff report this would not be a "sales lot" but yet there will be a sales office within the parking ramp. On page 24 of the staff report it states this parking ramp would not impact property values. He wondered if they had any documentation or studies to back that statement up because he doesn't believe it. Maplewood Toyota has been a very successful operation, they are good neighbors, they run a good business, but they have outgrown this site. They are so overcrowded that they are parking cars off the lot and on the grass. The city allows them to expand and they keep overcrowding their lots. He thinks next the city will be looking at a two story parking ramp? They are going to have the parking ramp, another storage parking lot and then they are proposing to build a future repair shop along with the storage parking lot property. Maplewood Toyota has outgrown the neighborhood, they have outgrown the site and the city keeps giving them what they want, more space for inventory. A new development has been approved called Maplewood Imports on Highway 61 where car dealerships will be located, why couldn't Maplewood Toyota move to a large site like this where they can expand instead of having small site$ all over the place? This way they would also be away from residential dwellings. It is a major thoroughfare on Beam Avenue and traffic going in and out of Maplewood Toyota just which just adds to the traffic problems here. Now is the time to do something about the traffic problem at this intersection and he asked the city to please do something before this parking ramp is built! Planning Commission Minutes of 06-20-05 -15- Mr. Dornack said if the concern is to have additional building elements on the parking ramp facing the western and northern edge they could possibly use brick to add more architectural interest to the structure. Those walls are about 42 inches high which should screen the front part of the car but the neighbors would probably still see the top of the cars on the parking ramp. The sales office is more operational but the intent would still be greeted at the main facility so there is no intent to have customer's cars circling the parking ramp. Mr. Dornack said those are for employees or to be moving and storing cars there, there is no public parking on the ramp. He doesn't have any data to support that the property values would remain the same or go down in value he doesn't see this as a facility that would detract from the value compared to any other businesses along Highway 61 and the new County Road D. Acting Chairperson Desai asked if they would be providing signage that says visitors should park across the street? Mr. Dornack said there will be no public parking in the parking ramp. But he is not sure about the signage on the site yet but they would work with city staff to develop that solution to the problem for the site. Acting Chairperson Desai asked where the transport trucks would deliver cars since the parking ramp would be built where they are supposed,to unload the cars. Mr. Hulcher said they have been pretty succes$ful working with the transport trucks to deliver cars on the center lot but once in awhile they have run into a transport that is unaware of the stipulations of delivery. He said the new cars would be delivered to the storage lot behind LaMettry's and the used cars would be deli,-,ered to the parking ramp lot on Beam Avenue. Because of the impact Maplewood Toyota has on the neighborhood they try to keep the developments as low impact as possible. Maybe they have outgrown the neighborhood, but if Maplewood Toyota moves out of the area, somebody else will move in and it will not be apartments. They have been here for 23 years and have tried to get along with the neighborhood and make their development as attractive as possible. Maplewood Toyota has had some growing pains but that's a sign of being in a competitive business. Acting Chairperson Desai closed the public hearing portion of this proposal. Commissioner Grover said it sounds like traffic is just miserable in this area and there may be different perspectives of how miserable thle traffic is from a neighborhood prospective, Maplewood Toyota prospective and a staff prospective. He asked how this problem can be addressed and if it's not addressed during this proposal, then how and when should it be addressed? Mr. Cavett said two to three years ago the city did a traffic study here and some changes were made. There were conversations with MnDot tb see if there could be additional time given on the stop lights on Highway 61 but the city was denied. He is confident traffic will shift when the new County Road D is operating more that the number of customers attracted to the additional inventory at Maplewood Toyota. The city could study the traffic problems but he's hesitant to say it should be done now and he thinks it would be more affective a year from now or the next time the CUP comes up for a review. He thinks it's premature to make these decisions until the new County Road D is operating which will be close to Thanksgiving. Planning Commission Minutes of 06-20-05 -16- Commissioner Grover asked if there would be any traffic on County Road D to access the Maplewood Toyota lots or property? Mr. Cavett said there would be access from the frontage road to the north side and Maplewood Toyota has talked about unloading of cars in that lot. The lot would be used as a temporary storage lot as the parking ramp is constructed but as they expand there would be some unloading in the north lot from County Road D and the frontage road and they wouldn't access Beam Avenue, but the applicant could expand on that. Mr. Ekstrand said the original Maplewood Toyota site has been approved indefinitely. The last time the city did a CUP the city determined Maplewood Toyota was up to par and there was no need for a CUP review. Unless a problem is noted, Maplewood Toyota would not need anymore CUP reviews. Traffic is an example of a problem and now is the time to take a look at the traffic issues. Mr. Ekstrand said he agrees that traffic would be impacted, but he didn't feel it would substantially impact the traffic. However, it has been stated many times tonight by the commission and neighbors that the traffic would be impacted and if everyone feels that way, now would be the time to do something about the traffic. Mr. Yarwood said it's been said it would be ptemature to do a traffic study and he agrees the study should be done when County Road D is complete. He doesn't feel comfortable granting the CUP until the city has a good handle on traffic in this area. You are talking about residential and commercial traffic, delivery of cars and trucks across Beam Avenue, buses, pedestrians, sidewalks and there is so much going on here and there needs to be more done on this issue before giving city approval for this structure to be built. The appropriate thing may be to table this proposal for some period of time until the city can have a better handle on this. This may limit the options in terms of handling pedestrians and other traffic as the city deals with MnDot and other agencies before building a concrete structure here. He thinks it would be unfair to grant a CUP that the city would review in a year because once this structure is built there isn't many options after the structure exists. He doesn't have a problem with a parking ramp per se but he thinks the city needs to deal with the traffic issues first. Commissioner Grover asked if the planning commission could table this proposal and if so what are the ramifications for doing so? Mr. Ekstrand said the planning commission could table this proposal because the city is not down to the 60 day rule. City staff can extend this proposal another 60 days without permission by the applicant. After that, the applicant would have to agree to an additional extension. Commissioner Grover asked if this was tablied, would this proposal come back before the planning commission? Mr. Ekstrand said he believed the traffic analysis could be done in the next few weeks or more. Planning Commission Minutes of 06-20-05 -17- Commissioner Pearson moved to adopt the resolution approving a conditional use permit revision for a parking ramp with car sales within 350 feet of residential property. Approval is based on the findings required by ordinance and subject to the following conditions: (Additions are underlined and deletions are crossed out): 1. :\11 construction shall fellow the site plaA al3!l3roveEl by the city cOl,lncil. All construction shall follow the site plan date-stamped Mav 2~, 2005. with the exception that the street-side setbacks for the proposed parkinq ramp shall be set further back to meet the required 30-foot setback requirement. The director of community development mav approve minor chanqes to the plans. 2. The proposed construction must be substantially started or the proposed use utilized within one year of council approval or the permit shall become null and void. The council may extend this deadline for one year. 3. The city council shall review this permit in one year. 4. The 10catioA of tAO I3rol3osed builEliA!j on this site is not appr-o'led. If the al3plicant wants to constrl,lct this bl,lildin€l, it ml,lGt be at least ~130 feet fr-om tAe rosiElentiall3rol3erty line aAd the plans must bo approved by the city. Maple~ood Tovota shall stop the use of Beam Avenue for emplovee and customer parkinq. Thel site and ramp parkinq plan shall be revised to incorporate a sufficient number of parkinq ~paces for emplovees and customers. This plan must be submitted to staff for approval befbre the city will issue a buildinq permit. 5. This l3ermit is subject to the property ownGr combinin€l the two l3aFcels fer tax iElentification purposes. The apl3licant shall rfJcorn tAG pal3er work fer this combinatioA before the city issues any permits fer the cORstrl,lction for this pmjeGt. Vehicle-transport deliveries shall continue to be handled on site and not within the riqht-of-wav. 6. The applicant shall submit a detailed sit~-Iiqhtinq plan that includes fixture desiqn. pole heiqhts and Iiqht-spread intensities at reSidential lot lines. This plan shall ensure that neiqhbors cannot see any Iiqht bulbs or len~es directlv and that Iiqht intensitv and liqht spread meet the parameters of the citv's liqhtinqj ordinance. This plan should be submitted for communitv desiqn review board approval. 7. The applicant shall chanqe their on-site pl:jqinq svstem to utilize personal electronic paqers instead of a broadcast svstem to stop broa~casts that can be heard in the adiacent residential neiqhborhood. 8. The ramp-desiqn plan. with bridqe details.! shall be revised and resubmitted for community desiqn review board approval that improve~ the exterior desiqn and choice of materials. As a guideline. the applicant shall redesiqn thel exterior of the proposed ramp to be at least as decorative in materials and appearance as the St. John's Hospital ramp. 9. The landscapinq plan shall be resubmitted to the community desiqn review board for approval providinq for a continuation of everqreen !tees on the west side of the holdinq pond. *10. The east curb cut shall be c1earlv marked for exit onlv from the Maplewood Tovota site south of Beam Avenue. Planning Commission Minutes of 06-20-05 -18- *.1.1. A traffic studv shall be performed to evaluat~ the conqestion of automobiles and pedestrians in the area. Deny the request for a setback variance from the street right-of-way lines for the reduced parking ramp setbacks. Denial is because the findings for approval, as required by state statute, cannot be made. There are no characteristics with the property that would prevent the applicant from complying with the city code that would cause an undue hardship. Commissioner Kaczrowski seconded. Ayes - Grover, Kaczrowski, Pearson Nays - Desai, Yarwood The motion passed. At this time it is unknown when this item would go to the city council but it was anticipated to be heard July 11, 2005, it all depends on the traffic analysis. Acting Chairperson Desai voted nay because he believes the traffic study could provide a projection of how many cars would use the new County Road D rather than using Beam Avenue. He has lived here for 12 years and the traffic has only gotten worse over the years and he hasn't seen anything change, in fact it's getting worse by the day. He begs to differ with the city engineer because people are creature of habit and they use the short cut driving down Walter Street and onto Beam Avenue. The stop lights that will be created on the new County Road D and the Highway 61 intersection will also cause backups with the traffic and nothing will change on Beam Avenue. Commissioner Yarwood said he agrees and wanted to table this item until the traffic study was done. If this proposal gets tabled this would come back before the planning commission. By agreeing to these conditions this would not come back before the commission, it would go onto the CDRB and City Council. Mr. Ekstrand wondered who would conduct the study. The city has to act on proposals within 60 days by state statue and the 60 day rule began May 26, 2005, and ends July 25, 2005, but the city could extend this another 60 days without their approval. Mr. Cavett said he would defer this matter to lhe traffic engineer. This may be a simple traffic analysis but more than anything it may to be to look at internal traffic flows because Maplewood Toyota will have three properties and they will be tied to LaMettry's Collision. Acting Chairperson Desai said as staff stated, the city cannot delay this proposal longer than an additional 60 days, so delaying this proposal uhtil the new County Road D is operating so the city can see how the traffic is affected would be out of the question. He supports having the traffic study now. The planning commission wouldn't be privy to the traffic study results, but the city council would be given the results and the city council makes the final decision anyway. Planning Commission Minutes of 06-20-05 -19- d. Maplewood Toyota Expansion (north site - north of LaMettry's Collision) (9:30-10:12 p.m.) Mr. Ekstrand presented the report. BWBR Architects, on behalf of Steve McDaniels of Maplewood Toyota, is proposing to build a parkiing lot on the vacant property between LaMettry's Collision and Gulden's Roadhouse. The apwlicant proposes to build a 24,920-square-foot pervious-paver parking area toward the back of the site. This would be a permanent parking pad for vehicle-inventory storage. The front 270 feet, 39,000 square feet, of the site would be a temporary, gravel parking lot. This temporary parking is needed for the relocation of cars during the parking ramp construction at the northwest corner of Beam Avenue and Highway 61. However, there are two things going on in this location. In the city code if a parking lot is the primary use, the code states there is a 350-foot setback from residential. If parking is on this land as part of a building the building can go up to 20 feet from residential. The applicant wants to eventually construct a building for vehicle repair purposes but the applicant did not have the plans ready yet so staff suggested the applicant pul!1 the plan the building plan off the proposal and submit the parking lot by itself. With only a footprint where the building would go, staff felt there was not enough information for staff to bring before the planning commission, CDRB and city council. The city has required that if this parking storage lot is approved, the building plans need to be in the works by September 30,2007. The location of the parking lot is acceptable but the city wants to make sure the applicant moves forward with the building proposal, otherwise the applicant would be in violation of the city ordinance because the applicant would need a 350-foot setback from residential compared to the 20-foot setback for a parking lot and building structure. Acting Chairperson Desai asked what the implications were if the applicant did not have the building in the works by September 30, 200?? Mr. Ekstrand said there is an element of trust here. Technically the applicant could be in violation of the city code. If something happens and Maplewood Toyota decides not to build the structure on the property and the parking lot is already in place, that would violate the city code. Acting Chairperson Desai said his concern is that the applicant builds the parking lot and then something happens where the applicant does rl10t build the repair building. The parking lot is then in place and if the property were sold, and another user comes in, they could say the parking storage lot was already there when they bought the property. Who knows whatthey would put on the lot, there would be nothing the city could do, the parking storage lot was already approved close to residential. Mr. Ekstrand said that could happen and the city is concerned about that as well. Acting Chairperson Desai said he thinks the awplicant should build this parking lot 350 feet from residential and then deal with the situation when the building gets built. That way the city is protected in case something goes wrong with the plan to build the repair building and the city is not put in a position with the parking lot 20 feet from residential property. Mr. Ekstrand said the applicant proposes to build the structure but the plan wasn't ready at the time of applying for the storage lot. Normally an applicant comes before the city with the building pad plan and the parking lot plan together, but this is not the case here. The traffic study that the planning commission discussed in the proposal before this may change the way things are done here as well. Planning Commission Minutes of 06-20-05 -20- Acting Chairperson Desai asked if there would be an entrance to this parking lot storage area from County Road D? Mr. Cavett showed the traffic pattern and said the property would be accessed off of Highway 61 or the frontage road and County Road D. Acting Chairperson Desai asked the applicantto address the commission. Andy Hulcher, General Manager, Maplewood Toyota, addressed the commission. He said the intent is to have a repair building on this site to.get new cars ready for sale or prepare used cars for sale. There would be no sales done in this location. This would not be a customer based building, it would only be used by employees preparing cars for sale and for vehicle repairs. Commissioner Yarwood asked if they would proceed with this auto repair building if the parking ramp is not approved? Mr. Hulcher said they would probably still prooeed if the parking ramp were not approved. Commissioner Yarwood asked how soon the auto repair building plans would be ready forthe city to process so the planning commission could review them? He would prefer to review the plan for the building and the parking lot together, rather than reviewing the plans separately. Mr. Hulcher deferred that question to Mr. Dornack. Tom Dornack, BWBR Architects, Lawson Commons, 380 St. Peter St., Ste. 600, St. Paul. The primary intent for building this parking storage lot is they need a place to move the 150 plus cars while the parking ramp is being constructed. Because of the expense of grading and improving the impervious surface they want to do it right the first time rather than putting blacktop down and tearing it up and rebuilding the lot and the new building. The building lines that have been established have been determined to be the furthest west that any building can be built in relation to LaMettry's Collision. Maplewood Toyota plans forthis area to be used by employees only and customers would not be driving to this site. Economically the applicant can't build both the lot and the repair building at the same time. If the city needs to require that the applicant build the building by September 30, 2007, or the applicant would need to remove the parking lot, then they are fine with that requirement. LeAnne Hammer, 1227 Countrvview Circl~, Maplewood, addressed the commission. She wanted it noted that Mr. Dornack said the traffi<l: off of County Road D is non-public so that means all the Maplewood Toyota business is going to; be directed to Beam Avenue, not toward the new County Road D. The city staff is wrong when they say the new County Road D will alleviate the traffic on Beam Avenue. Mr. Dornack said Maplewood Toyota understands the traffic in this area is a huge concern for the neighbors as well as for the commission but he thinks there is a different venue for discussing the traffic than during this proposal. It is unfair to indicate that all of the traffic problems are hinged on the development of Maplewood Toyota's additions. To tie the traffic problems to the approval or disapproval of this project is unfair to this project and to the applicant. Planning Commission Minutes of 06-20-05 -21- Commissioner Yarwood said he doesn't think tlhat anyone has any particular difficulties with the proposals being made by Maplewood Toyota blilt the question is what are the options going to be prior to developing the site and after the site is developed. The question is, should the city take the time now to address the concerns so that everything that gets developed around that intersection be built around the best use for traffic patterns in that area. This is the time to do this, not after Maplewood Toyota builds the parking ramp and parking storage lot. The planning commission is trying to determine the best order to take care of these issues and concerns. Glen Yakel. 2949 Frank Street. Maplewoad, addressed the commission. Commissioner Yarwood said exactly what he was going to say. He respectively disagrees with Mr. Dornack regarding his statement that there is a better forum to discuss this and not to hold these traffic problems against Maplewood Toyota and this proposal. These problems exist today and have existed for some time now. They are not going to get better, they will only continue to get worse. Now is the time to consider the traffic concerns. Acting Chairperson Desai closed the public hearing. Commissioner Pearson said he drove througlh most of the auto dealerships in the area and noticed this is the only dealership that has a very narrow drive aisle to drive in and out of the dealership. The other auto dealership lots he visited you can pass a car in their lots easily. It makes him wonder why Maplewood Toyota is allowed to cram so many cars onto the parking lot and have a very narrow drive aisle lane. There is no room on the site and everything is fit in very tightly. He said he feels sorry for truck drivers trying to drive into that site. Mr. Ekstrand said it is definitely a full site. The city hopes the expansion will alleviate the overcrowding problem but as a city we need to make sure this problem gets resolved. The city doesn't want to allow more overcrowding situations. Now is the time to not continue creating additional overcrowding problems. Now is the tilme to correct old problems that have existed and that still exist. He drove the city vehicle to the property and noticed cars are in drive aisles, the cars are triple parked and even parked on the g!rass. He's a customer of Maplewood Toyota and when he goes there for parts or service he thinks the situation is awful. Something should be done and perhaps now is the time to take care of this problem. Commissioner Yarwood asked if the city knows where the future town homes are going to be located within that property to the northwest. He asked how close the potential structures and the parking ramp and parking storage lot would be to each other. Mr. Ekstrand said he didn't have a site plan for that Trout Land property with him but he guessed the nearest property would be about 50 feet off their southerly lot line. Screening is a big issue here and maybe the townhomes will want to add their own screening but Maplewood Toyota will be responsible for planting good screening to buffer the residential area as well. Commissioner Pearson said he didn't see any specifics regarding lane width for Maplewood Toyota's lots. Planning Commission Minutes of 06-20-05 -22- Mr. Ekstrand said he wasn't sure there was a recommendation to comply with city codes for parking dimensions or drive aisles. Typically ihe city has not been applying the general retail formula for parking spaces for inventory parking. If Maplewood Toyota wants to triple park their inventory cars that's fine with the city, but you need to be able to maneuver through the parking lot safely. When Maplewood Toyota builds their repair building the city will want to make sure there is adequate employee parking then. This building will not be for customers to visit so the city is not too concerned about dimensions for parking but they would be concerned about adequate employee parking needs. Commissioner Pearson said at some point with the future proposal for the repair building that information regarding drive aisle width and traffic flow patterns should be part of the discussion. Commissioner Grover asked if the commission would be seeing the CUP for the southerly property below Beam Avenue again some time or does staff review that with the issues of traffic concerns and pedestrian issues. Mr. Ekstrand said when there is a CUP that is found to be up to par, the city makes the determination that there it is not necessary to come back before the city unless something changes or if a problem develops. If the city determines that traffic is a problem because of that site and something needs to change due to the function of the property, the city could bring it back for review. Because of the discussion tonight it may be necessary to review the CUP for Maplewood Toyota as well as the other proposals. He would have to evaluate that more. Mr. Roberts said that decision will ultimately be made by the city council who will read the concerns of the neighbors and of the planning commission from tonight's meeting. If the city council determines that they think there is a problem, the city council can ask staff to look into things and request that it be brought back to the planning commission or to the city council for review. Commissioner Grover said he would encourage the city council to consider looking into this further and have it revisited by either the planriling commission or the city council. Mr. Roberts said the planning commission could add that as a separate motion. Mr. Ekstrand wanted to point out to the planning commission that staff had a recommendation for the conditional use permit only and not for the variance. This is because of the discussion that has occurred. Because the applicant is building the parking lot there first there is no need for the variance. Commissioner Yarwood moved to adopt the reSolution approving a conditional use permitto store cars on the property between LaMettry's Collision and Gulden's Roadhouse. Approval is based on the findings required by ordinance and subject to the following conditions: 1. All construction shall follow the site plan date-stamped May 26, 2005, and also shall follow any conditions attached herein. The director of community development may approve minor changes to the plans. Planning Commission Minutes of 06-20-05 -23- 2. The proposed construction must be substantially started or the proposed use utilized within one year of council approval or the permit shall become null and void. The council may extend this deadline for one year. 3. The city council shall review this permit in one year. 4. The applicant shall submit a detailed site-lighting plan that includes fixture design, pole heights and light-spread intensities at re$idential lot lines. This plan shall ensure that neighbors cannot see any light bulbs or lenses directly and that light intensity and light spread meet the parameters of the city's lighting ordinance. This plan should be submitted for community design review board approval. 5. The landscaping plan shall be resubmitted to the community design review board for approval providing for a visual screen that is at least six-feet-tall and 80 percent opaque upon planting. This planted buffer shall be comprised of evergreen trees and thick-crowned, over-story trees. The site shall also have an in-ground irrigation system installed when the future building is built. The landscaping plan shall also provide sod on the east, north and south sides of the parking lot. The pond area to the west can remain natural. 6. The design of the retaining wall shall be slUbmitted to the commlUnity design review board along with the landscaping plan. Retaining walls that exceed four feet in height must be designed by a structural engineer and have a protective fence on top. The review board shall review the fence design. 7. The applicant shall assure that there will be no negative affect to the Gulden's parking lot or property due to their parking lot construction and retaining wall. 8. The applicant shall comply with the impervious-surface requirements of the Shoreland Ordinance and the impervious-surface area requirements determined by the Maplewood Engineering Department in their report dated June 7, 2005. The applicant shall either decrease the aggregate surface parking or increase the pervious parking by 20 feet to meet the requirements of the shoreland ordinance. 9. The applicant shall incorporate low-impact development improvements on the parcel south of Beam Avenue by September 30,2007, a$ outlined in the June 7, 2005, Engineering Plan Review by the city's engineering department. The applicant and/or his engineer should meet on site with the city engineering staff to discuss what options would be appropriate and effective. 10. The Class-5 gravel mix for the temporary parking lot is not allowed. A clean aggregate may be used subject to the approval of the city engineer and the RamseylWashington Watershed District. This gravel parking lot shall not be 'Used longer than two construction seasons, but no later than September 30, 2007, after which time, it must be removed or replaced with a permanent surface. At that time, if the parking lot remains in use, the parking lot must be upgraded with concrete curbing as required by ordinance. 11. The applicant shall either decrease the aggregate surface parking or increase the pervious parking by 20 feet to meet the requirements of the shoreland ordinance. Planning Commission Minutes of 06-20-05 -24- 12. The property owner shall obtain city approvals and begin construction of a permanent building on this site by September 30,2007, to coincide with the deadline for gravel removal. This is because this parking lot is considered to be l1eeded for the applicant's desired future building. Parking lots by themselves as a primary use must be set back at least 350 feet from residential districts. Parking lots that are accessory to a building may be 20 feet from residential property lines. Commissioner Pearson seconded. Ayes - Desai, Grover, Kaczrowski, Pearson, Yarwood The motion passed. It is unknown at this time when this will be healrd by the city council but it was proposed to be heard July 11, 2005. Mr. Dornack said in the past BWBR has worked with the consulting engineer that works for the City of Maplewood to develop a traffic analysis. It was recommended that the owner pick up the cost for the traffic study and they work with the Kimley-Horn who has done other traffic studies in Maplewood. He asked if this request would acceptable to Mr. Cavett? Mr. Cavett said the city would use a traffic consultant and the cost for the traffic study would be paid for by the developer. The city would prefelr to use either Kimley-Horn or SEH for this study. SEH has more experience in this type of work in this part of Maplewood. Mr. Dornack said they would work with city staff on the traffic study. VI. NEW BUSINESS None. VII. UNFINISHED BUSINESS None. VIII. VISITOR PRESENTATIONS None. IX. COMMISSION PRESENTATIONS a. Mr. Ahlness was the planning commission representative at the June 13, 2005, city council meeting. Mr. Ahlness was absent from this evenings meeting but Mr. Roberts reported the city council discussed the Roadway Easement Vacation on Marylake Road west of Century Avenue), which was approved by the city council, the CUP revision for Liberty Classical Academy (1717 English Street), which was approved by the city council, Trout Land Auto Dealership (Highway 61 and new County Road D) CUP, which wlllS approved by the city council and the 2006-2010 Maplewood CIP, which was also approved by the city council. Planning Commission Minutes of 06-20-05 -25- b. Mr. Grover will be the planning commission representative at the June 27, 2005, city council meeting. Items to discuss include Richie/Anondson fC)ur-plexes at 1349 and 1359 County Road C East for the Land Use Plan Change, Zoning Map Change, and the Pondview Town House Project at Larpenteur Avenue and Adolphus Street. c. Mr. Yarwood will be the planning commission representative at the July 11,2005, city council meeting. Items to discuss include Lot Width and Setback Variances at 1774 McMenemy Street, Lark Avenue Right of Way Vacation (between Hazel and Van Dyke Streets) and at this time it is unknown if the Maplewood Toyota proposals would be discussed on July 11, 2005. X. STAFF PRESENTATIONS a. Annual Tour Mr. Roberts said the annual city tour is sclheduled for July 28, 2005, meeting at city hall at 5:30 p.m. and returning around 8:30 p.m. Contact Ken Roberts regarding your attendance for the tour at 651-249-2303. b. Schlomka Property Concept Plan Update Mr. Roberts said Mr. Tom Hansen, representimg CoPar Companies, has submitted to the city a preliminary concept plan for a proposed senior housing development. He, in conjunction with Rottlund Homes, has prepared a preliminary site plan that shows 376 housing units (in four different types of housing) for persons aged 55 and over. This development would be on about 70 acres of land that is south of Carver Avenue and west of Henry Lane known as the Schlomka property. A homeowners' association would awn and maintain the common areas. An Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) should take about three months to prepare. After the consultant is done with the EAW, the city will have a public comment period, a review by the planning commission and then a review and action by the city council. The developer would apply to the city for the approvals of the development plan once the city and the other agencies work and review of the EAW is done. c. Next Planning Commission Meeting is slcheduled for Tuesday, July 5, 2005, because of the Monday, July 4th holiday. XI. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 10:22 p.m. MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: SUBJECT: LOCATION: DATE: City Manager Ken Roberts, Planner Jensen Estates Preliminary PIal 1560 and 1580 McKnight Road June 23, 2005 INTRODUCTION Project Description Mr. Kelly Conlin, representing Homesites LLC, is p~oposing an eight-lot plat for single dwellings in a new development called Jensen Estates. It would be on a four-acre site on the east side of McKnight Road on the properties now known as 1560 and 1580 McKnight Road. Refer to the maps on pages 10-19. Request To build this project, Mr. Conlin is requesting that tile city approve a preliminary plat for eight lots for the eight single dwellings. (See the map on page 114.) DISCUSSION Comoatibilitv Staff does not find a problem with this proposal in terms of compatibility and land use. It would be an in- fill plat for new houses on a site surrounded by singl~-family homes. The proposal also would include an extension of Hoyt Avenue into a permanent cul-de-Sac (not a through street connection to Currie Street to the north). Preliminary Plat Subdivision Ordinance Chapter 34 of the city code (subdivisions) regulate~ the platting or subdividing of property in Maplewood. The purpose of this part of the code is "to protect and promote the public health, safety and general welfare, to provide for the orderly, economic and safe development of land...". As such, the city must balance many interests when reviewing and considering a subdivision in Maplewood. These include the interests of the property owner, the developer, the neighbors and the city as a whole. To this end, Section 34-6 of the code says that ''the planning commission may recommend and the city council may require such changes or revisions of a preliminary plat as deemed necessary for the health, safety, general welfare and convenience of the city." Density and Lot Size As proposed, the eight lots on the four-acre site means there would be an average of two units per acre. This is consistent with the density standards !in the comprehensive plan and zoning code for single dwelling residential development. As propOSed, each lot will be above the 10,000-square-foot minimum lot area that the city requires for each single-family lot. Lot Sizes and Dimensions As proposed, the lots in the plat will range from 13,130 square feet to 27,000 square feet, with an average lot size of about 17,865 square feet. (See ~he proposed plat on page 14.) The city requires each single dwelling lot in the R-1 (single dwelling) zoning district to have at least 75 feet of width at the front setback line and be at least 10,000 square feet in area. In addition, the code requires comer lots to be at least 100 feet wide on each street side. As submitted, the proposed plat meets or exceeds all these standards. Wetlands The applicant's wetland consultant visited the project site and found one wetland on the properly. This is the area near the eastem properly line in Lot 8. The Watershed district has classified this wetland as a Type 4, which requires a 25-foot no disturb buffer area. The proposed project plans show a 25-foot-wide buffer. The project plans also show two other low areas near McKnight Road as wetlands. Upon further review, the developer's wetland consultant determiltled that these are not wetlands but in fact were probably created with the construction of McKnight IRoad. The watershed district will have to verify this information and the proposed buffer areas. City Engineering Department Comments The city engineering department has been working With the applicant's engineering consultant in reviewing this proposal and plans. Erin Laberee's Cbmments are included on pages 20 and 21. Public utilities Sanitary sewer and water are in McKnight Road anll in Hoyt Avenue and are available to serve the proposed development. The developer will extend the sanitary sewer and water main into the site from the existing systems in Hoyt Avenue. The Sairlt Paul Regional Water Services (SPRWS) will need to approve the plan for the water main before 'the start of construction. Drainage As proposed, the grading plan shows most of the storm water from the site, including the front yards and driveways on the new lots and the new cul-de-sac, draining into the existing storm sewer system on Hoyt Avenue. Most of the site drains to the west and to the south. The developer's engineer told me that they want the development to not increase the rate of storm water runoff from the site. That is, the runoff leaving the site will be at or below current levels. Tl1is standard is a requirement of the city engineering department. Tree Removal/Replacement Maplewood's tree ordinance requires there be at least ten trees per gross acre on the site after grading or the developer would have to plant trees to replace those that the contractor would remove. For this four-acre site, the applicant's plarls show a total of 140 large trees on the site and that they would save 69 of the existing trees on thel properly (primarily on the perimeter of the site). (See the maps on pages 13 and 19). The plans shOw the removal of 71 large trees including ash, oak, maple and pine trees. 2 As proposed on the preliminary tree plan (page 19), the developer would plant seven trees on the site. These include one maple or coniferous tree on each new house site within the development, primarily at the front comer of each lot. As I noted above, the code requires there be at least 10 trees per acre on the site. For this four-acre site, the code requires there be at least 40 trees on the property after the construction is complete. As such, the proposed tree planting plan, along with the trees that the developer would save, would meet the requirements of the tree replacement code of the city. Watershed District The Ramsey/Washington Metro Watershed District: is reviewing the development proposal and will have to issue Mr. Conlin a permit before the contractor starts construction. Please see the comments from Tina Carstens on page 22. She will be verifying the wetland delineations and buffers with the developer. Other Comments Police Department Lieutenant David Kvam of the Maplewood Police Department noted the following: 1. There may be traffic crashes as people attempt to turn onto McKnight Road from Hoyt Avenue. 2. It may be confusing to have only the houses on the new cul-de-sac with Currie Street addresses. It may make finding those addresses more difficult. However, I am not sure if the better answer is to leave the entire street named Hoyt Avenue. Fire Marshal Butch Gervais, the Maplewood Fire Marshal, note<l that the cul-de-sac must have a turning radius of at least 42 feet (for equipment) and that there be fire hydrants in proper locations. The proposed plans show these features. Dan Soler, Ramsey County Mr. Soler of the Ramsey County Public Works Department reviewed the proposed plat and provided the comments on page 23. RECOMMENDATION Approve the Jensen Estates preliminary plat (received by the city on June 7, 2005). The developer shall complete the following before thel 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 dtainage, complete all public improvements and meet all city requirements. 3 b. * Place temporary orange safety fencing and signs at the grading limits. c. Pay the city for the cost of traffic-control, street identification and no-parking signs. d. Provide all required and necessary easements including: (1) all utility and drainage easements. (2) ten-foot-wide drainage and utility easements along the front and rear lot lines of each lot and five-foot-wide drainage and utility easements along the side lot lines of each lot. (3) Any off-site easements. (4) All wetland buffer easements for all wetlands and their buffers on the site. e. Have Xcel Energy install a street light at the north end of Hoyt Avenue near Lots 7 and 8. The exact location and type of 'light shall be subject to the city engineer's approval. f. Demolish or remove the existing house (1560 McKnight Road), garages and sheds from the site, and remove all other buildings; fencing, scrap metal, debris and junk from the site. g.Cap and seal all wells on site and remove septic systems or drainfields, subject to Minnesota rules and guidelines. h.Complete all curb on Hoyt Avenue and restore the boulevards on the south side of the site. This is to replace the existing temporary cul-de-sac, and restore and sod the boulevards. 2.* Have the city engineer approve final conslruction and engineering plans. These plans shall include grading, utility, drainage, erosion control, driveway, trail, tree, and street plans. The plans shall meet all the conditions and changes listed in the memo from Erin Laberee dated June 22, 2005 and shall meet the following conditions: a. The erosion control plans shall be consistent with the city code. b. The grading plan shall: (1) Include proposed building pad elevation and contour information for each home site. The lot lines on this plan shall follow the approved preliminary plat. (2) Include contour information for all the land that the construction will disturb. This plan shall account for the existing grades and elevations of the properties and the houses that are adjacent to the prOject site. (3) Show house pads that reduce the grading on sites where the developer can save large trees. Revise the plan for Lot 4 so the developer and contractor can save the tree near the south property line (# 265 on the tree inventory) and for Lots 6 and 7 to save additional trees. 4 (4) Show the proposed street and driveway grades as allowed by the city engineer. (5) 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 spruce trees to be planted as a mix of black hills spruce or Austrian pines that are at least eight feet tall. (6) Show drainage areas and the developer's engineer shall provide the city engineer with the drainage calculations. The drainage design shall accommodate the runoff from the surrounding areas. (7) Show all proposed slopes. The city engineer shall approve the plans, specifications and management practices for any $Iopes 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 $tabilized before the city approves the final plat. (8) Show all retaining walls. Any retainimg walls taller than 4 feet require a building permit from the city. (9) Show the sedimentation basins or ponds as may be required by the watershed district or by the city engineer. (10) Show no grading beyond the plat boundary without temporary grading easements from the affected property owner( s). (11) Be revised to lessen the amount of grading on the northern part of Lots Six and Seven to help save trees on these lwo lots. (12) Be revised to show the trail belween Lots 6 and 7 from the cul-de-sac to the property to the north. c. The street, driveway, trail and utility plans shall show: (1) The street with a width of 32 feet (with parking on one side), shall be a 9-ton design with a maximum street grade of eigltit percent and the maximum street grade within 75 feet of the intersection at two percent. (2) The new street (Hoyt Avenue) with c::ontinuous concrete curb and gutter, except where the city engineer determines that concrete curbing is not necessary. (3) The completion of the curb on all of Hoyt Avenue, the removal of the temporary cul- de-sac and the restoration and sodding of the boulevards. (4) The repair of McKnight Road (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 Service (SPRWS). 5 (6) All utility excavation located within the proposed right-of-way or within easements. The developer shall acquire easements for all utilities that would be outside the project area. (7) A water service to each lot. (8) The plan and profiles of the proposed utilities. (9) A detail of any ponds, pond outlets or 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) A label for McKnight Road and the new street as Hoyt Avenue on all construction and project plans. (12) The eight-foot-wide trail between the cul-de-sac and the property to the north. 3. Paying for costs related to the engineering department's review of the construction plans. 4. Change the plat as follows: a. Show drainage and utility easements alcpng 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. b. Label the new street as Hoyt Avenue and label McKnight Road on all plans. c. Show a 20-foot-wide outlot or trail easement between Lots 6 and 7 between the cul-de- sac and the north property line. This olltlot or easement shall follow the approved trail alignment. 5. Secure and provide all required easements for the development including any off-site drainage and utility easements. 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. Obtain a permit from the Ramsey-Washington Metro Watershed District for grading. 8. Sign a developer's agreement with the city that guarantees that the developer or contractor will: a. Complete all grading for overall site drainage and ponding areas, install all retaining walls, install the landscaping and replacement trees, install all other necessary improvements and meet all city requirements. b. Place temporary orange safety fencing and signs at the grading limits. c. Provide for the repair of McKnight Road (street, curb and boulevard) after the developer connects to the public utilities. d. Meet all the requirements of the city engineer. 6 9. If there are any, submit the homeowners' association documents for review and approval . by city staff. These shall include provisions for the maintenance and use of the rainwater gardens. 10. Record the homeowners' association documents with the final plat. 11. Obtain a permit from Ramsey County for the new street access. 12. Obtain a NPDES construction permit from the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA). 13. The owner or contractor shall get demolition permits from the city to remove the house, garage and the other structures from the property at 1560 McKnight Road. 14. If the developer decides to final plat part of the preliminary plat, the director of community development may waive any conditions that do not apply to the final plat. *The developer must complete these conditions before the city issues a grading permit or approves the final plat. 7 CITIZENS' COMMENTS I surveyed the owners of the 63 properties within 500 feet of this site and received four replies. Two of the replies were for the proposal and two of the replies had comments about the proposal. For 1. As long as Currie Street remains a cul-de-sac and does not go through, we are OK with it. We would hope to keep as many big trees as possible. (Gschlect - 1629 Currie Street) 2. We like the idea of Currie Street remaining cul-de-sac. (Winger - 1649 Currie Street) Objections Comments/Questions/Concerns 1. See the e-mail message from Joseph Serrano on page 24. 2. See the letter from Timothy Greeninger on pages 25 and 26. 8 REFERENCE INFORMATION SITE DESCRIPTION Site size: four acres Existing land use: Two single dwellings and accessory buildings SURROUNDING LAND USES North: South: West: East: Single dwellings Single dwellings on Hoyt Avenue Hillcrest Golf Course across McKnight Road Single dwellings on Myrtle Street PLANNING Existing Land Use Plan designation: R-1 (single dwellings) Existing Zoning: R-1 (single dwellings) Application Date The city received all the application materials for thils request (including the proposed plans) on June 7, 2005. State law requires the city to take action Ol!l this request by August 5, 2005, unless the applicant agrees to a time extension. p:sec 24-29\Jensen Estates - 2005.mem Attachments: 1. Location Map 2. Address Map 3. Property UnelZonin9 Map 4. Existing Conditions Map 5. Proposed Preliminary Plat 6. Site Plan 7. Proposed Grading Plan 8. Erosion Control Plan 9. Proposed Utility Plan 10. Proposed Tree Plan 11. Engineertng comments from Ertn L. dated June 2~, 2005 12. E-mail comments from Tina Carstens dated June 22, 2005 13. Letter dated June 20, 2005 from Dan Soler (Ramsey County) 14. E-mail comments from Joseph Serrano 15. Letter dated June 21,2005 from Timothy Greeninller 16. Project Plans (separate attachments) 9 1',---.. I ,I :11, ___ _':C~'~==C=~__="=--~'1 : ~:i: I, I'- <JJ Cl I ,~ :~r~I~~~~~, ~~~,=- -~-=~~f~:;Af{i~~:,~~:~~~~c=~~-::~~~f:=--:::~~.~--=-, ~~=--:~ ~ 1 ~~-----' 'fJL_ ': I,e-- "--I,.,g--~ -- : ~ _._~===~~=_--L_'II-'---'--~--'ll-f?' '~~~[= ---'~----~",i,""'[ :--=~:-::=='~"';-=-=~d: 1.__ . fJ ~, I ~ V1 -~ - - - ~ -;:._._-:::-'-=.-C-....:;;._-;..l.=;" i' ...'===~~.=ic' ~.~ f=;: : u~'__~_ ~ c~ '1,---<<: __.-_.m_~-1i 1 ~ I __",1 -..11 I :-::: ~ .' j ,,:~' "'-- ~~ IL- .-~--C:-, ~p .~ ;::~-=- ~ ;_~ ~J __ ___ ~ - -~- i..:::j .-----.J c......_ c- ,--,' Attachment 1 -i- \~ .-'d:..---- 1-===~=-=.====~-~~=~=.---== : ,L.---o ' I, E___ __-,7i I Y'I co___. __._1 .. I I ,I ~----_! L--j~~:;1 :=:"';11; :,: _..I !, II .:....--i I =_-=--'::::..__~.-=......'.-=-_::~::.::.- ell ::> ...J (,) > a: 1- Z ::> o (,) 1- Ul IU a: (,) ...J ...J :l: SITE I H :yy!5:YK_ ~- c;2'l. ',' ...J ::> <( 0.. 1- Z <C Ul l'\ b o 0' 0:: ,___ '. f-L. ~--_=.==:_ ..-- l: - Qt. Z ~L_,_ o ;:0' j I I'" " d iii' __ -c' _ ~- _===-:':"~M,~I.1\f!A''::!,\~E'::.-~.::c.:;:__::;, " c' "-~--i ' v .1.- ! _._- .--, ""IRC' - - -".-c.jS ....' I', Q "'.~ tr- I .--.'-- i I ~-::: :;o."c.c'..----.:l".~;: ~-~~'~~") -. [,-., I, \--...,- ,".-., I : ~~_____:=~__,__ -~ L______~~____.__ , I '~, I~ I ;f;P ""' ,~~':=.~:::.~.,=---==~~~~~:~~--lc. '- .,' .<---~~-,..~.=-~l '.- \', ::: \.. " .~-,. , -"~ .' . .,,,,.,::,.'ti":"" -'". "~''-''''''' "~r .-. -" '. '.,. . -". ,'- . '-. '... ".'''; Sterling Oak ,,' ..."' -- ;-:,-' 10 \! N LOCATION MAP ------ .__._-"_._----~------_.--_.... ------ _ _ _ _ ___ _ _ -_ -_ [ARPENTEtJRAVE- - -- (~:::.....=--=.":::--.--:::'.,"=--=--~ .- - ---'---------"1 I ..r - ..- -T-------T1?;l- I I ~il~~~! ~o i: I. 1il '. .! ..L ~-il :l--~- ------ -.--------, 1~ ..' ! i lIm' .-~-,i ,/r~ ~' )}~ - __________, I ,-----.- --------;;,;;- ~ '.; I I' Jja42 ~, I J[: _______---:-:--_, t-I ,'::--- 37__._JI-i ;: i ~-- 1628 ~-~~j~\-~ - ~ . ~IU I fig ~ __-~__~ ~ I 1bJ' < _ y n:rd ~----------- 1600~ ,- ' 1616 . ...J :;) <( c.. .... Z C( Ul C 0:: l- I ~ I Z ! ::.: U ::a; , n ~ ;~r;" :J 1580 tJ SITE 1560 o 1~ ~889 -- "ROYT fS\VE - - - ------- ---.---.- --.-.-- ---..-.-.----"-'---'-'-" ." ~~~~ - .-.02303 ~- ";-]-0 23tp .' '"." " ls:.}i .7L}> t:;r ft\-'- .L.4".' .-----....------.----.-...-.. --- - - -- - -- .- ------ --- -----. - ,- I i3liliZJ 23iif3' ='P '. t&'L 8 . ""'~ll::1ll -----~~~:-------lPQ: I: 1------------ ---~-i\.?J d I .1 1514 _____ 1~1 1 -Re-'.I -:--------- ,~I 1506 " -.----Q-.____._.___i !~' 1'~ II ~ {~ " "'..;':"2306 Q~ ~ 1- ~3~ ,;' : ~~~2 : 11__: : 1-~-'5 __~ I 1ff (~f- : j-_~-- ~ 1 ~8 ~ I__~':.._- ------.-- ,; ~30 1~ I--~--- , ~24 ~ I-~--- - ,____~.____ I I. ~16 ~ 0::'------ 2416 ~)~~_.r-~ 1593. $:'-~";--- El _W I ~:,1. 94 -----.-- ::.: , 1~:5i~~"'- ~ r'71 ~----- 1~ 'i,t5~0 ~ ;J -j7'i-' -....-, rt$4 ~-- ~15J8 -~- 85\18 ....;.1. W , ~Q . I _ _ I ,:n7, ~ I -~ ~.' ~-=::.- ~~O~Tff{A=-A'i~ : 2334 ~ I ,F'] ;il\1j ~r , , I I; ! ~ 1 'I 1:0I:,jj.... ,.ii ..r ~ , I "J,.,,' "'" . .I '_____2 : Ilk! :m6 :1 I:, .. ! -1~~ri I W ,. li!J ' 1 "'-m'~'---~'~.' ,\ I ----.Fi;;::~- ~ . ~'OO644 164~.. 'I 1 ~~.::.:.~ B~ :1 I, ~~40 --..----..------- \ :."------------------_..._--- 1637 .' J. _"-'.' g] 1636 .:~~.:I f1"'71 -....-" ---' ,----=--------.. <>" ','.1' ~ A.. , . ..~.", 1630 3 ~~-." I' " i+~ !rni-wiZ-~---- SJ,------- .___~._5- _ ". I! ---, ____W.. --=:1: W J1j16 [Ji..,,; 1615 1-1" __ 'td.'-...._ ___ ~ H ....._ '!l'e::: . B-.'----- )J . ~05 :::2; ,-....::.. ._~-"... 1595 IT] ,r::I600 LJ ELCJ ;::::]- ~ 159Zk\ LJ _..-_::J___ ----1J- -- 1s';J m -I n-.., ~ !;..;o.f580 ,J 1567 f!!!D." - "";"'''',''''; "-'~';:5;;: I:;' =, ~ 7I11555l L.-J .c.:....:J WJ U -----~---~ - -- -' - - _..-~---".._.._-"------ .. ---EJ'-" t~ .,P-] ,..,.._,..... ~ ''''~.' . . '~;..~.P:' tS1~-~{.'t &0 -'n-- ~ __~~n ~~.. Attachment 2 1~ 1~ .---.., ,,---- ..1_m 1~ - :J"62 res ~ U5S2 Q'~ ~-' ""- <...(....-;_. r-,:,t,---,,"/-'l ' '-2,," ~.- [:~14 ~ ADDRESS MAP 11 r"1 !:. LJ ,~ Ie '. Z~,IL ;;:--<""'-;- 24Z4-i' 2421 " f,.,.;' 1>\~ ~j ""';'J lkJ 2420 \r N -~ ~-'~i' ''1\\~".,. " ""'litC'" , ~t'.,";__~: I ---~...:~~ .' -------' ...l :) < D. I- :2 < tIl j I - - - - 1.ARflEl'rrEOR-A"~ - - a c:: I- :I: ~ Z ::.: () :; ----_.--- .....--,-,1. I,' I' -r, ~.'. -1,,\, I :'- ' I ~ --!iii\1:' P!i~~i,.I-@ I: i': 2334 !ir I'I '~~--l~~~ //,'1' *' ~(!ir · I : ! . I, Jlt ."w '11!-',: I Ii lil!!, ---~I"""" """ I ,'-~ - -mr"l~" , I _ _ fi - 2 ~fll~ .,,1 I':":' _~ I 1'-:; _ 164111" I lit ,...... ! !W,~ ~"t." e1' I~I' ~.,.'.___~~Mi _J: T---'-:"'- Ii: I,_~- IS:>.. 1637 m . !,' , 1 ~ : a::: I: ~6;3lJ l;f:N/)::~:?::" ~)'~~1!t-> ;. ~' ~ '.::l" ~ "i. ---.; 1628 I "i, 1~ I,i () C" 114 0 "f6 : ~ I C) ---16:~' ~ ~ '- -- '~E___ tJ~;,.-'=-_!2- :~:' ~ 1616 1,,'1 1615 i...J' t:..:J ,,}-. _Q__-lL~~____.._ -----:: ~; !ii'"'Il '::2: v.::1605 . ; tJ '----~ ---- !r1":J 1595 --~--- ~<" C:J '" YSf 1580 R1 SITE 1560 .", ~J 8] 'Cj--- rl 15Z!1l'""' Q' ~'" i" iT" 100 c" ,.,,;2:/89 W""'o-,':<","" '2Q'...:-,~ '~.. L-/':;:::':,., 231 _~~--.J ~;':;. ~ '06 ~~ ~ -------::: ~-I, i ~ t ! ----------..---..--'- -t.:rOYiAVe- - - --- .__.---.,.....-._~~--_._._~-----. I ~'@o;J~ -~-~ ~ f- ~ , j'~i:I,.,. .1~~:!B1~ L~~J~=~=~~~-~~~-~:M~~~~F~-=~~~~~- -=--~ =- -- ~ -- -=- ~~ ' I, . Ii I i I r---\ II. 1660 :~~, jll :13~ "/ :: ~ 21:00 ~ : 1tf: :i! ! " ,~ ", .644 I ~ . II EL ' : ,- ~ ~40 ---- lfi". I ri!:J 1636)\~\: Jr::;!, I ~ ";'x'~lJ;2,~'!! 1~ -"""--~'"""'",:...~ ~ ~ ?'::.~~}-- ~1630 '-''''," ~ ~ (iitT ~... .' ~E_ --1~6"" ~ ~ ~ '0:::' _-,,__.\taL ___ - Cl .,.---" 16&11 Cl E~.f1 . Ell 0 ----~ ifjiJ]600 jj~5~-- ~ ____"___"..H_Q._____ 8 ~ E;J ,-~ ~--- :5 15~,~ 1~- ~~, '];80 " --""'1" ~~ ~ . --------- 1rsi --~- 1EJ ____c___JKl... ~..- ...':f;" 8 ,:, I , ! ,.-Cl ~,;[;',1 1~ ~ ' ~.~,~ ~;~,~ . ------- +inti)'] ~j ~i ~:8 :.! \ ~:I .~"_ j;:Ll d ~'rm -9 ~ -- -",,", --~ ,-.... ~ ~Rit ~~~}~.';~' g:~;1?', ~ ~t~<~,:"~ ;k",,'" ~.' .,l "~o ~~~ ;e;;-~:: h \:,'" "';',":iC\:;;;! .-;:::..,4;:;~<;;.~!..l"';:"= "'___~"' "'~s " 21-' ~rit'''''''. ar-~. "ioW."""", ~ ,1 ~ - , f>' J .~~ .-~-"---------~ PROPERTY LINE I ZONING MAP 12 1r N Attachment 4 , ! I I I' vi .', ill I I ~II' I / ~r '--L I . ~ II I r~"" .....- n.._ -- ,:f---' I 1-,. I I I \ I I t'IJ~ II , (J --~. 1:P"-2S Wr)GDS 1 (_'iND\' I .l.j t;; I ~ONDS 1 I I," I _ r .-- .-- L - _ _ _ 1- - ~ \ II ~ :g / \ I NR' . I I' , I I (-'" I 2!-1D I 1 ......;}"iT1\>,.J I '\..IJi' >- I I \ I I I I I - '\ i " '1.............:. Vl..../ \ ...., 'I ,_~I_ _-".... ....,~ <" \ I . I ~-I-II ---t -1"'- --=;._=::==:-:::~S-::c"""""" -'T --'-~ - ~~-- - ---=-::;j 1.....1 '~' I I, ~ 1- .__---------:...-_-~ 1 -- --'-- , \," 1 1 I I ( /' Ir--~_-~II I '--~ I 1----- -_ -----) I :1 I'll I........'....,>.........,. \ \ \ ( _1--/ I \1"'1 I.... I II /----T:l--;) : II ~...... ........ ...., ", \ \ I \ I / I I: \ I \ \ / .-- 1616 : - / / I 1'1 I' ......" I I \ \ I' I 1600 1"' : I 1 I \ I I " r-J ',- --;/) I I \ .............. \ I\'\ \...., \ .....J " \ \ 1/ I I---~;.;;;.--+-/ 1;/1 " II ! -'..vt\')l i : : I' l) I,~,\ ~__ \ 1\ ~\, \ \\ / I/-L/-::--t.~~>) ~). ., I '\\/.. >. I I /.r~" I I' ,-'., I _..--- I ~'7- I } rj) 1 . . . , I - r nI. I ..... / _~~.,..-r' \ ( '- ",~-,1.. .-/.,.' O~. - - _...(} I y~ 1 ~_-,.' -T~T~' -...... ... ~ I ~' " r---r-) . 1 J I L_,.:::::".... _ 0< ,/' I c..-' . ----- - ~ ./ / 1lmM) ( -__.....' /,.:r "" . 1/1>1\.[-:..1 I , ,~. I W,'( --Cl.:--- --~I ~'//. - ~(jP \ . J'i' y.... l \ 1-______ ~ ,/-"" -- .....~~( 'fJ. 1 " I-+H\ ..~. ' " ,(jPI 1580 ~__ ,/A:t _:-/ --Yi" ry ----.... 1 O!I ;~ I I '" " \ n.. - I ,^,rc~1 \ W~' .'. t. . .8\........ ' I' f81 \ '0" 0-- - ~ - - -Y-'rJW;I~ /~ /--n.. \ " \ ::; ..... I " _ --- - r~ I I ;;;;--./,/ ---.. I...:..n q- . I ... ......~" . .....__-oo___....r ~~ //-/ '\ \ . . . + \'&~ )!to - ---', J ).,II/H~// / /' \ \ I II '" '. ./ - \. QJ.:lC!'; I ,/..." \ \ \ \ -. I ~~ 'J~ -, \" ~'-..Q;, -I-J;)<-r."'..">- -,- _/-;r~ii ..;:.. L"", ..2l.. -'- 'r-~ I I~i I k I L" '. ~) V \1 - I v- > 0- I I ,I I I I _ \ > I I c, I:;;' I --- 0.'---"';" '-:;:"'-1 / C$ I ./ 1/ / , I I - or I I I~ i Ii; :~ I . I' / -_-----/""'~b-- - 0 / / WI t':l--- 1 1 /1/1 I ~ ~ .f. . __ __- __.... \ / ('-f'.... J .... I / . . .. I 1 1- -I-~--c:i" -?r.....:.:;&_/~, )/~ ,/ / II?/J.' I // .-h..r/ j / I.f) 'l' \ I I '1 1-: /.J..?'"-';:'1s80 '''' 77'-7" I / /II I 1 I I I / vr c/ /1/---- \ I 1 I ~o.. / / / _'y' /I, I I, I / 1 / I ,.0\ I I > r...&;' / 9"r:J:"~ ~ CN. ~' I I 1 1 I I tJ.. / I I ?Jf\IrETLAND, :', I 1 II' , / n..1 ' . 1-\1 "--4 , / I I 1 I I I I I 1 . \~-I \," I!;: I, / ';-0./ / 1 ~-t.\ 0;-""'" II /, , ( I I I ~_I. io!:-_!...C'!!!:;c:':A..}-1 2 I'" "- I 'I I' / 1 , \, ~. ~ 1-- z ~\ill I" 10 / II I . _ ' r' ,',r,' .--- '~'-:~ ' L' 1 ,. \,/ _ ,r........ \ I" .~,,- I '- I I __ ." I 1 r - - -..... ~ .~___.L_. I \ .. -it",.. 'f I I \ :r. I _ -- / I '\ I I r - \', \ \ I "\ "1'-'" 1 , I ~I L' i I / In r" I - I ,,\ I ....... I \ ',\ / 1 if ,.. ,I \ ' ' , I I Ir / I U I_I I - , ~ -'I \ 1-__ ,j ,~'f 1\ -- 2315, \ I ..1-. 1 I ,/ Il"""'l I L2p9;..__fl "-.2289 I \1 / ~2J,~~ I\.-\-..._i , / I ~ I 'I I 1540~ I I l \ \ I t- l'S-L..-J --~, I I I' II L / I L I I I \/;./1 / /',-----J / l' I Iii. \ ..,....==-=-:=-=1:==t==J-:====I___~='.--,~ _;,re-/- -......""-_1 ,II~\ ""__ I ,-- 1\/./ ...... ( .."..... .., ...... l"'" /\ I I .~ '. - __~'2."~____~""'::__=_-'___=-7;;'''' /' ...... J I '-{ --- ------:.. ---- ..----.-- \ I ,I I........ 11 ::::~..::...- --.~----I----I- \ I I EXISTING CONDITIONS MAP 11 N 13 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I : ~ I t_J :!: I I I f I III hI I III Attachment 5 I I ------1 ------1 I ... ,,-- .,.L..,- ..- I ' I I c....'e" "('"" ..."'" '" w I I """ I . ..,,_..... I::; i" I I ".'''' !.>''''''''''''., ," 1_ -1- - - - - - ~- -- - _1- T~"~"~-L.~.'-"j- -- - - ~ I I I I I I 1600 I 1616 I I I I : 1v-"1} I I . r' I .1 'I I f-J... ~ i ;--- ~ i -q- <l <>; ... ~ ;;;: tl ::,,: 1-----1 I n),""" I . ~ z I . i ~ :;~ i~ .r II II 3 II IJ 6 I~ 7 II I 11 II ~ ;~; -~ 'b. .." '"e. ". ~ ~~ t~i ~ 4 . I II -..IL . w.. 7'1-.' "" , -....~- -..,' ......, ,.........,... / kf ,.. (""'" ~~15 I 1540 I 2279 I 2289 / ,{ ~~ / .. , I I I / ';'1.. L______L____I___--/ // ", ".." ,'.VENUE /' , I . /\ 'J ---- \ ,----,---,----,- \ I PROPOSED PRELIMINARY PLAT \r N 14 I I I I I I I I I I I I , I.j If:' ~~ :"1: I :' I ,- :;1 I i~ I 1 I : I ~J I ~: I ~: I , I I ,I I : I ! I II I ,[ 1111 : I 'I' , -', f Attachment 6 JENSEN ESTATES CIty Df MaplewtHld Ramsey Cobnty, Minnesota : i I L-----i L.-----/1 i\-----l , , J I ^A"^- ...I.on I... \ I : I JC I I c. .,=" "( .oS AND \ [~ ~ I JGNDS [ 1 I [ 2ND I ADDiT!ON 'l ~ >: 1/1 I I I I .....--'.:...:.J. /" 1 'I_I 1- - - - - - ---1 - - - - - '- , - - - - '- - - - - - - -1 : I : I r--' I , I I I I I : I I 1600 I 1616, I 1 I f 1 ~ r-J 1 II I I 1 1 I I I I L__J' I II 1 I ;:: ~ ;~ -... . WETLAND t / UlS...,,- I 1 L. _'_,,_,/( J M=l'.:'~: :~ 2315 am JUT... : -- --- -- ~- __"L.o\o ~- --- Srt'1U.CC Il8qUlRlIaNTS: IH___ ~~.:'lIL:~;= lo.u:z1...II._:U_ , 1,4 ~/~ ..-...... -~- _~ .:10.... =:.=... .a_ u.,..... .'n_ 0...,. ..n_ ...._lal_Al.__7lIfw1 ...._l.oI_ .,Q.IlClll....lI. SITE PLAN \! N 15 II 1,/(11{ ,.I -// /--rICA"'~' '---;3,':;:-;;;-'1 ,I 1..;.,~\1, 'I'" ',", I' ~""C," \ o II I (J ....-~ ..- ;..-.~t "r'-- I :"\- \\ ~ ~ 'r"-- \ illl: : : 1_' ..r./ [ 2;":) - - T 1_ ';'~!Th~.!" '\{,,~ tJ./ \ l --l I I I I ( /- I ---"\ \ , , L-"'-<':" ,_ ~ I ~ . ..J-==-~-=-=--=-..c::..:;: "'"""""" -->,- -J.- _ c::.l..~_- - - - I Ti~~ I-i-;i I -:;>~/"-/-:':-:"'----------:_----':.::--~-=:\ I I, ---I - -- --------- II 1 1 1 J ) , ( / /--'-""'1_-\'1 -" ,/ -- -T"'"""'-'--__/ "I I I '. , 'I' I / -_/ I 'III I... \ / -..---1_ \ / I "'" \ \ I /" \111 \ \ / 16 -1- - /" II ................ '\ \' I I ! \ \ \ I 16 I ~" " " '" " I: / 1600 /'11 \ \ / /' -r-J -- ,- ~/ /1 , , " " '-, , \ \ \ \, \ \'.... I ': II \ / I 1------+-//;'1 I 'I " ,,'\ \ 't'1 l \',', , \ "-1\\1,', \ "/ //--L-~-L/;////i -" , / I j " \ I \' I \ /./ / / . I /', I ) '~\/"--\ I, I I /" ~, '/' 1'"'7" .~;,- r'~ C"7~::7~iZi7""'__i... 1___0 I - J......../\-, T~ ,-' 'w-.-T\'r- -~' ;JVIV J \ .9 L-l':::$-I 'if, I :::::-'.......~--~_...,- I ,I I \ L 1- .I ~ I (j r~..::: . ............... I~~ -..!. '. ", 101 1560_ ,/ f , ~ .- I \ -...c ...... ~........... \ .-y-: .1/ - ,,~ / , L :\::=J::j-~ -,' ,... / " f b:: . ( I 0:1 I '\.' =:: '1- ~, \1'1\ : ,,' r ~I 4"":;- 1 .... 0;2 tit ~, , II l";c:.e:====.7:'-""-;:.----I----- _ ~ rfUl: \,\.::..:ut: Illl','" , , 111111 llj!lII Attachment 7 Oaaplll......V ~ C!J.w......,..- ~ \ \ J PROPOSED GRADING PLAN 16 11 N Attachment 8 I I II'HIi ....- ~ ~ JlI llft Rocr CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE TYPE A SEDIMENT FILTER dlllll .- ~- : II : I I. I I I . II I I I I :!j ,- ,~ @ / I JI'II I I Ji" III \ \"'..... I III \ \ "- I I I ~~A I I I 1600 \ \ SILT 'ZNCE TYPICAL 17 \r N EROSION CONTROL PLAN Attachment 9 I I I I I I I I I I I J: :~ I ~I I J : ~ I I I - ""::::7 ~ - : ~I: II I j i j II C il ~5~ : [- ~~ J : '''TL'':::~' // ');;~ [oo........ 2315 I I : I L_~ I - I --~ -y It., cr' I i' I j~\ L______L____I___-::/ .~_/~/............'-.. I ~I ----1;,---========- -='"~ ~_. '_.. I ) I ~ -=-:":'a_a~~-==-"--=---===- ~:rJf'-:P A ...,:::f ......... '-.. J i, i : III i;': =- =----lr ~::-=--:.-r':~==--i -.: - / \ \ \ ! !j I ,I. I I I I \, i~ i 10 II I i IJ I j i ~ III1 i : I' I I I I I ::j ,.. oj ~ 1600 I ' I I I r-J 1616 I I L__J ,- ~ ~ ~ ~ is It} 18 1! N PROPOSED UTILITY PLAN Attachment 10 I : I 1 : I I II I : I I I I : I I :rj I e. !il I I I I I I / I 'il\ I '11\ I, \ \ I \ // - ~--I-_-",// \ I ___ - 1616_ ///1 \ / /" r-..... I ,/,/ \ / I 1-------1-/// /1 v /- rl /',/ /' / / L_~-,-/ // //1 I ,.,.." // / r ./,/,/ / / 1600 \ " Ii" I~ ~: 'i' I \ ...\ ;::, \iiJ _ r"'lll .~;;~r:.,\::":"7 \ \-- r----..,. / ("r:"'f"-j \ \ \ / I I \1 \ \ \ \ \ \ \ / / I 2279. \ ~ 2289 \ "/-- L_.....::::J.._ \'\ Q__J \ \ I / ,/ -1' \ \ \ I I \ \ \ /. , 1\ / I \ , J 19 \[ N PROPOSED TREE PLAN Attachment 11 Enl!ineerinl! Plan Review PROJECT: Jensen Estates PROJECT NO: 05-15 REVIEWED BY: Erin Laberee, Maplewood Engineering Department DA1nE:June27,2005 Homesites, L.L.C. is proposing to develop the properties at 1560 and 1580 McKnight Road into 8 residential lots. As part of this proposal, the developer is proposing to extend the temporary cul-de- sac at the end of Hoyt Avenue about 180 feet into a pennanent cul-de-sac. The developer had originally considered the possibility of extending Currie Street to the north to connect to an existing temporary cul-de-sac. This plan would have created through street from McKnight Road to Larpenteur Avenue. The developer chose not to pursue this option due to the considerable grade difference between the existing 'cul-de-sacs and because of negative neighborhood reactions to having a through street. If the property at 1616 Currie Street subdivides in the future, access for the new property will be provided from Currie Street to the north. The developer is proposing that the streets and utilities be public infrastructure. It has generally been the city's policy to prepare the plans and specifications for public infrastructure and perform the construction inspection duties. Due to the short length of the new street, the city would allow the developer to prepare the plans and to administer the construction of the utilities and street. The developer and the project engineer must strictly follow Maplewood's Engineering Standards. These standards include a construction inspection schedule that outlines erosion control, grading, utility and street construction, and testing requirements. The developer shall ensure that all construction activities conform to Maplewood's standards by entering into a Development Agreement with the city. City staffwill keep a close watch on the site during all construction activities - especially those relating to the construction of the public street and utilities. The developer and the project engineer shall address the following issues. Drainasze 1. The proposed plans show no onsite treatment for stormwater runoff. The developer shall incorporate best management practices into the' drainage design. Infiltration basins (rainwater gardens) are a good example of a way to address storage and volume requirements while trying to obtain infiltration. For more information on infiltration basins, please see the Metro Council BMP Manual at their web site: http://www.metrocouncil.org/enviromentlWatershedlbmpmanual.htm On-site treatment could include rainwater gardens. These typically include a rock sump that have 1.5" of clean, clear rock wrapped in Type 5 getlltextile filter fabric, (felt). The contractor places the top of the rock infiltration sumps about 12 inches below the finished bottom of the basin. If the developer wants to use rock sumps within the proposed development, the project engineer shall provide a detail and description of how the contractor is to construct the sumps. 2. An existing inlet and stonn sewer pipe carries runoff into the western wetland. The developer is planning to remove this storm sewer pipe and redirect runoff directly into McKnight Road. The 20 project engineer shall ensure there is adequate grade to drain to area around the 1030 contour where the existing storm pickup is located. The plans also shall utilize the wetlands and direct pretreated runoff into them. 3. The project engineer shall provide the city with drainage calculations for onsite treatment. 4. The developer shall verify the wetland classifications with Ramsey Washington Metro Watershed District to determine the required buffer requirements. There shall be no ground disturbance or construction activity within the required buffer areas. 5. There shall be city-approved overland emergency overflow routes for all wetlands. Gradimz & Erosion Control 1. The project engineer shall provide more detailed information for the retaining wall including top and bottom of wall elevations. The city will require a building permit if the wall will be more than four feet tall. 2. The applicant shall obtain approval and a permirt from Ramsey Washington Metro Watershed District and an NPDES permit from the MPCA. Utilities 1. Submit the project plans to Saint Paul Regional Water Services for their review and approval. 2. The sanitary sewer main shall be noted on the plans as SDR 35 and the services as SDR 40. 3. It is unclear whether the services off of McKnight Road are existing or proposed. The project engineer shall determine whether there are existing services that are able to serve the new lots. 4. The developer or the project engineer shall submit the construction and utility plans to Ramsey County. The developer shall obtain a right of way permit for sanitary and watermain service construction and access on McKnight Road. 5. The engineer shall revise the utility alignments to more closely follow the center line of the street. The new sanitary manhole should be moved to the north to the midpoint of Lot 4. Misc. 1. The developer shall provide an 8-foot-wide bituminous trail and a 20 foot pedestrian trail easement or Outlot between Lots 6 and 7 from the cul-de-sac to the adjacent property to the north (if grades allow). Otherwise, the trail and the easement may take an alternate route to get between the cul-de-sac and the north property line. The trail grades should follow the guidelines on running slope and resting intervals for trails outlined at http://www.americantrails. orglresourceslaccessiblel ADAtrailT echDec.html 2. The street shall be named Hoyt Avenue. 3. The new driveways onto McKnight Road require permits from Ramsey County. 21 Attachment 12 Ken Roberts From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Tina Carstens [tina@rwmwd.org] Wednesday, June 22, 2005 1:49 PM Erin Laberee Ken Roberts Re: Jensen Estates Thanks Erin. I received the letter. While this letter does address the fact that there are wetlands present on the western side of the site, there is still not enough information here to determine if the wetlands were indeed incidentally created. I am assuming that when they submit to the District they will fully address that issue. I quickly looked at the aerial photos for the site. Unfortunately our 74 and 85 photos are not very high quality and it was difficult to determine if a wetland was present there before the reconstruct of McKnight. One of the arguments he gives is the presence of a storm sewer pipe. That alone does not prove that the wetland isn't jurisdictional. There are many instances that pipes were put in and out of wetland to facilitate drainage. Those are my comments at this time. This project will require a permit from the District and water quality considerations must be made. Thanks for the opportunity to comment. Let me know if you have any other questions. Tina Erin Laberee wrote: >Yes, > >There was a letter attached that explains a little about the western >wetland. I'll fax that too. > >Erin > >-----Original Message----- >From: Tina Carstens [mailto:tina@rwmwd.org] >Sent: Wednesday, June 22, 2005 12:55 PM >To: Ken Roberts; Erin Laberee >Subject: Jensen Estates > >I have scanned through the wetland delineation report and do not see >any discussion on the western wetland. The ~eport just identifies the >wetland on the eastern side of the parcel. Do you have another >document that discusses the wetland that they feel was created with the >reconstruct of McKnight? > >Tina > >-- >1975-2005 >Celebrating 30 Years of Water Resource Management, Protection & >Improvement > > >Tina Carstens >Permit Program Coordinator >Ramsey-Washington Metro Watershed District >2346 Helen St. >North St. Paul, MN 55109 >Phone: 651-704-2089 22 - ~ RAMSEY COUNTY TO: FROM: Department of Public Works Kenneth G. Haider, P.E., Director and County Engineer Attachment 13 REC' "'!E. ,. ,-, \! ,> JUN 2 2 2005 1425 Paul Kirkwold Drive Arden Hills, MN 55112-3933. (651) 266-7100. Fax (651) 266-7110 E-mail: Public.Works@co.ramsey.mn.us MEMORANDUM Ken Roberts City of Maplewood Dan Sole(J~ Ramsey CcLn~y Public Works SUBJECT: Jensen Estates McKnight Road DATE: June 20, 2005 The Ramsey County Public Works Department has reviewed the proposed preliminary plat for Jensen Estates on McKnight Road south of Larpenteur A venue. Ramsey County has the following comments regarding this proposal. I. The proposed development will create seven (7) new residential near the intersection of McKnight Road and Hoyt A venue. This level of development will have minimal impact on traffic operations in the area. The traffic from five of the new lots will utilize the McKnight Road at Hoyt Avenue intersection. 2. The existing home at 1580 McKnight Road will remain in the new plat and will continue to use the existing driveway onto McKnight Road. The existing home and driveway at 1560 McKnight Road will be removed and replaced with two new lots requiring direct access onto McKnight Road. While it would be preferable to eliminate direct driveway access onto McKnight Road and consolidate access on Hoyt Avenue it does not appear that this is a feasible option. 3. The new access points will require permits from Ramsey County for construction onto County right of way. The developer will also need permits for any utility work within County right-of-way. Thanks for the opportunity to make comments regarding this issue. If you have any questions or need any additional information please give me a call. 23 Minnesota's First Mome Rule Connty prin,ed on recycled p<lper with aminiulUll1 of lO%jlost-~onsumercontent . Attachment 14 Ken Roberts From: joseph Serrano [chuntsberger@comcast.net] Sent: Sunday, June 19, 2005 9:45 PM To: Ken Roberts Cc: carrie huntsberger Subject: Comments on proposed development at Hoyt Ave.- Maplewood Dear Mr. Roberts: 6/17/05 My name is Joseph Serrano. I own and live with my spouse Carrie at the property located at 2296 Hoyt Ave East, Maplewood. This house is part of the number of properties at the current cul-de-sac. Regretfully, the responsibilities of our health professions have not allowed neither one of us to attend the city council meetings in which the development plans for our street have been discussed. Therefore, I wanted to take this opportunity to express my concerns regarding the proposed development as follows: 1. Although the overall proposal intentions seem reasouble for the developer, we are concerned about the additional traffic coming through our street when the cul-de-sac is extended. Some families here have young children that currently adventure to play on the street. Obviously, the increased human and vehicle traffic volume might affect both the safety of the children and residences as well, primarily because with an extended street and insufficient night illumination, the area may become more prone to burglary and vandalism. 2. Weare also concerned that due to the extension of the cul-de-sac, proximity of new dwellings to existent properties and massive deforestation needed to build the proposed homes, our home values might potentially decrease 10-20% at once as warned by real state companies, thus eating up a big chunk of the equity that we all have worked hard to build in the past 6 years. This particular issue is critical because of the great economical impact that we might need to face if our properties get devalued. Although it is too early to assess the implications of the development, ultimately it will very unfair for everybody here to sacrifice our investments in the name of house development if such devaluation would happen. Although some neighbors would suffer more effects than others, it is still a whole community effect. Further, it is also of my knowledge that the same cul-de-sac extension could be developed cutting through Currie Street or directly through McKnight. I am sure that profit margin is driving the decision to build through our street instead. 3. Finally, lets do not forget about the potential ecological impact caused by additional deforestation of wooded areas and corresponding effect over wetland diversity and habitat bioconservation. Federal government agencies keep warning us and monitoring these issues, as I am very aware that the grant money put toward ecosystem restoration is huge at this moment. In summary, although the developer has put some effort toward making the best strategic planning/profit assessment for this project, the final consequences of the development on our street are still to be seen. My wife and I are here expressing our concerns about the future and expect that you would assess the situation with the same awareness before making a final decision. We will be watching the outcomes carefully. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Joseph Serrano MD, PhD Carrie Huntsberger-Serrano RN 2296 Hoyt Ave East Maplewood, MN, 55119 chuntsberger@comcast.net 24 6/20/2005 Attachment 15 June 21,2005 JUN 7. 1 2005 RECEIVED Dear Mr. Roberts: My name is Timothy Greeninger and I currently reside and own the home at 2289 Hoyt Ave E. My home is on the north side of Hoyt and closest to the proposed cuI de sac extension. I currently have a number of issues with the development plan. The current plan will put all the traffic on Hoyt Avenue where as the original plan called for the traffic to be shared by an exit at CurrielLarpenteut and HoytlMcKnight. There are life safety issues with the increased traffic at Hoyt and McKnight. Currently there is a 45 MPH speed limit at McKnight where Hoyt enters, and the danger is magnified by the increased in the elevation to the south of Hoyt on McKnight. Traffic comes over the hill and currently makes the intersection unsafe. The increased traffic on Hoyt will further increase the danger at this intersection. At the neighborhood meeting the developer promised a bike path to Currie Ave so as to give us access to Priory Reserve Park. I do not see this 0111 the current plan. Is this an indication that other promises will be changedlbroken by hoping everyone has forgotten about them or simply saying that they had to change it for some reason. Additionally, I am very concerned about the financial impact on my home value. The current proposal puts asphalt on three sides of my properly. Please see attached letter from property appraiser. This is a real concern and issue. The developer will finish his business and move on, those of us owning homes will be left to deal with the consequences and literally pay for his profit. The current plan indicates removal of numerous trees. Of special concern to me is tree 265, a 20' Oak that is on property lines shared by my home. The elevation of home #4 is approximately 9 feet above my current home. Iftbis home plan includes a 2nd story and truss system it could rise to approximately 30' above my home. This would cause further devaluation of my existing home. Please see the attached letter from Lafayette Appraisals. Also, the grading plan doesn't take into account the current grading elevation of 2289 and 2279 Hoyt. The grading elevations for 2289 and 2279 Hoyt are from a grading plan before these homes were built. This issue needs to be addressed. Lastly, the ecological impact of the near-by and ailso general community will be affected by the removal of any current trees and vegetation, impacting also the wetlands and wild life inhabiting said area. While I believe that growth is necessary, housing developments are not necessarily "growth" and must be tempered with caution and a sharp eye toward quality of outcomes for the community. Hind site is always 20/20, but nmch can be accoI1l.plished if carefu1 review is taken prior to making mistakes and long lasting negative implications/consequences can and must be avoided. Sincerely, ~:: ~_._.'-"l Timothy Greeni~ 25 u._~_ Lafavette Appraisals Residential Real Property Appraisers. P.D.Box #233 Stillwater,MN.55082 June 6'h 2005 Attn: Timothy GREEN INGER JUN 2 1 2005 RECEIVED Re: 2289 Hoyt Avenue Maplewood,MN.55 I 19 Subject: $$$ Impact, If Any, On Reconfiguring Of Hoyt A venue. Mr. Greeninger, pursuant to your request, I have viewed your property/Site and evaluated IMP ACT on $$$ value to your existing site/improvements, if any. This appraiser has been, for (32) years, appraising Real Estate in Maplewood/St.Paul. Note that until the street/new cul-de-sac site is in place/improved, this appraiser can only estimate the loss in $$$ value of the existing" Greeninger" house/site. Per the attached appraisal (completed by Robert G. Koehler), the value is reflected at $280,000. Be advised, in this appraisers opinion, such a negative street improvement could/would result in a minimum loss in value of 10% and perhaps as high as 15%. That is to say, in the "BEFORE" situation, as is, at present, value supported at $280,000. In the "AFTER" situation,i.e., street/road improvement in place, value would be reflected at $252,000 or even as low as $232,000. Such a street improvement/re-configuration of its cul-de-sac would be tantamount to a "taking", if you will. Mr. Greeninger, we would hope the above clarification will suffice, per any negotiations you might enter into with the City/Developer authorities in their effort(s) to resolve this matter. Robert C. Lafaye Independent Fee ppraiser Lie. #400 I 432/State of Minnesota 26