Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout06/07/2006 MAPLEWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION Wednesdav, June 7, 2006, 7:00 PM City Hall Council Chambers 1830 County Road BEast 1. Call to Order 2. Roll Call 3. Approval of Agenda 4. Approval of Minutes a. May 15, 2006 5. Public Hearings 7:00 Eldridge Fields (Eldridge Avenue, west of Prosperity Avenue) Right-of-Way Vacation Preliminary plat 6. New Business Carver Crossing of Maplewood - PUD Revision Letter 7. Unfinished Business Planning Commission and CDRB Duties 8. Visitor Presentations 9. Commission Presentations May 22 Council Meeting: Mr. Hess June 12 Council Meeting: Ms. Dierich (Note - to be held at Carver Elementary School - Upper Afton Road) June 26 Council Meeting: Mr. Kaczrowski July 10 Council Meeting: Ms. Fischer 10. Staff Presentations Reschedule July 3 meeting - July 5 or July 6? Annual Tour Update 11. Adjoumment DRAFT MINUTES OF THE MAPLEWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION 1830 COUNTY ROAD BEAST, MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA MONDAY, MAY 15, 2006 I. CALL TO ORDER Chairperson Fischer called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. II. ROLL CALL Vice-Chairperson Tushar Desai Commissioner Mary Dierich Chairperson Lorraine Fischer Commissioner Michael Grover Commissioner Harland Hess Commissioner Jim Kaczrowski Commissioner Gary Pearson Commissioner Dale Trippler Commissioner Jeremy Yarwood Absent P rese nt Present Present Present Absent Present Present Present Chuck Ahl, Public Works Director Ken Roberts, Planner Lisa Kroll, Recording Secretary Staff Present: III. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Commissioner Pearson moved to approve the agenda. Commissioner Trippler seconded. The motion passed. IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Ayes - Dierich, Fischer, Grover, Hess, Pearson, Trippler, Yarwood Approval of the planning commission minutes for May 1, 2006. Commissioner Trippler had corrections to page 4, in the 4th paragraph, third line, delete the word tIRtil and change it to on. In the 7th paragraph, second line, it should read or basement area ef-or if there will be a basement, will it be serviced by an elevator? Commissioner Trippler moved to approve the planning commission minutes for May 1,2006, as amended. Commissioner Pearson seconded. Ayes - Dierich, Hess, Pearson, Trippler, Yarwood Abstentions - Fischer, Grover Planning Commission Minutes of 05-15-06 -2- V. PUBLIC HEARING a. Carver Crossing of Maplewood (Henry Lane and Carver Avenue) (7:03 -10:36 p.m.) On March 14,2005, the city council authorized the preparation of an Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) for the proposed development of the former Schlomka property by the CoPar Company. The project is called Carver Crossing and Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. (KHA), (one of the city's consultants) prepared the EAW. The city council approved the EAW and staff routed it for public comment (as required by state law). The city has received several comments from the public, and staff has attached responses to those comments and responses in the context of applicability toward the final development plan proposal is recommended. Comments on the EAW as they relate to the site development plans also are appropriate, as the city will be considering final action on the EAW. The City Council ordered the EAW for this project area due to concerns about the impacts from the originally proposed 386-unit development. At the time the city ordered the EAW, staff suggested that the EAW might provide significant findings that could require the developer to make substantial revisions to the proposed project plans. The EAW found significant issues with site development plans, and the developer has been cooperative in revising their plans to accommodate and address the environmental concerns. The long preparation time, (over 1 year) for the EAW and development plan process is due to the findings and the developers revisions to the project plans. The findings of the EAW have required the developer to revise the plans and to reduce the housing unit count from 386 units to the current plan of 299 units. As now proposed, the 299 housing units on the 73-acre site is the lowest density development level provided within the Maplewood Land Use Plan (at 4.1 units per acre). Mr. Roberts introduced Jeanne Whitzig, Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc., 2550 University Avenue West, Suite 345N, St. Paul; she addressed the commission and went through a power point presentation regarding the Carver Crossing of Maplewood proposal which was a review of the EAW and the comments and responses for this proposal. The power point presentation reviewed the purpose of the meeting, the review of the EAW process, the review of the project definition, the project location, summary of comments, general issues raised in comments, summary of responses - water resources, development east of 1-494, storm sewer updated figures, summary of responses - traffic, noise, vegetation and parks, demographics, decision at hand, and the planning commission action. Commissioner Yarwood asked for more detail regarding the parameters for determining that an environmental impact study (EIS) isn't required? Ms. Whitzig said she could go through the specific criteria. First is item A., the type, extent and reversibility of the environmental effects, item B. is the cumulative potential effects of related or anticipated future projects. Item C. is the extent to which the environment effects are subject to mitigation, and item D. is the extent to which environmental effects can be anticipated and controlled. Regarding items C. and D. that is essentially saying are there other approvals, permits and reviews that will take place on the project that will essentially carryon from the findings of the environmental review. This is not the final decision. Planning Commission Minutes of 05-15-06 -3- Ms. Whitzig said there will be other permits that will be required that will provide more detail as the project design becomes further flushed out that will mitigate any type of impact on the project. An example would be a wetland permit that would be required for the wetland impacts on the site to make sure the issues are addressed. Item B. asks the question is this part of a future development and have we appropriately looked at what may be done in a few years to make sure all the impacts are addressed. This is a full build out ofthe project site. Regarding the type, extent and reversibility of environmental effects, the EAW discloses there will be impacts associated with the development on a primarily undeveloped parcel but that these impacts aren't unique to a site of this nature if you compared it to another project of similar nature. What the project has done in terms of site design is to try to accommodate and minimize those impacts. Commissioner Yarwood said that answer is not as specific as he would've liked but we can cover that more in depth later. Commissioner Dierich asked staff to show a zoning map on the screen. She asked if this property remained as R-1 (R) what would the density be for the 53 buildable acres? Mr. Roberts said the density would be 1 unit for every 2 acres which would equal 26 units for the site. Commissioner Trippler asked about the public meeting that was held at the south Maplewood fire station on March 30, 2006. He asked if there was a general consensus of the proposal from the people that attended the public meeting? Mr. Roberts said this was an open house and introduction of the project to the neighbors and the people on the mailing list. Staff, the developer, some members of Kimley-Horn, and about 30 neighbors were present. There was a 10 to 15 minute overview/presentation of what was proposed and then the discussion was opened up for a question and answer session. The meeting was from 6:00-8:00 p.m. at the Londin Lane fire station. The public was inquisitive about the project and what was being proposed. There were questions regarding noise and traffic, and concerns about storm water etc. Commissioner Trippler asked Mr. Roberts to point out the overlay area for the Mississippi River Critical Area. Mr. Roberts pointed the area out on the map on the screen. Commissioner Trippler asked staff to review how an overlay district was dealt with compared to regular areas? Mr. Roberts said overlay districts are things like flood zones and shoreland districts. In this case with the Mississippi River Critical Area overlay it requires the city to give any development proposal within that area an extra review or set of criteria to make sure that the project is in fact meeting those goals and standards. For example, in flood zones there are special rules regarding building at certain elevations. Planning Commission Minutes of 05-15-06 -4- Mr. Roberts said in this case the critical area as outlined in the comprehensive plan is another set of criteria that the city is supposed to look at for development to make sure it's consistent with the state and federal standards that were started in 1976 for the Mississippi River area that runs through the whole Twin Cities area. This part of Maplewood falls under that and it is staffs belief and recommendation that this plan will meet all of the criteria. Commissioner Trippler asked Mr. Ahl about Erin Laberee's memo on page 56, item 5 of the staff report. In the Carver Crossing staff report it says The project plans shall show the outlet from this basin being rerouted to the central wetland via Henry Lane storm sewer instead of discharging directly into Fish Creek. But he said he didn't see anything addressing the possible negative or possible impacts that could have on Fish Creek. The presenter said by taking some of the water out you would expect the water quality to increase and the TSS to decrease, but what about volumes? Mr. Ahl said that is exactly the intent. With the original design the EAW did identify that this probably wouldn't meet the phosphorous and TSS goals for the site in the original design. By rerouting it into the pond we are able to take the direct discharge that currently goes to Fish Creek and reduce it and slow down the rates, and the TSS and the phosphorous are all going to be less after the project than what exists right now. You have to look at the site and the number of eroded channels. There is heavy erosion occurring on the site right now. Over the years those large ravines have been cut in with the erosion which will be stopped or slowed down. This area is conducive to infiltration. By engineering the development accordingly, we are able to slow the run- off down. Commissioner Trippler said he understands how it would be possible to decrease phosphorous and TSS by diverting the flow, but according to Erin Laberee's document it looks like we are anticipating 19,000 cubic feet of runoff to be diverted away from Fish Creek. If you take the water out of there, what happens to the flow in Fish Creek? If there is no flow, there is no TSS and very little phosphorous, but then there is no creek. Mr. Ahl said the creek flow is much greater going into the site. When you look at rates you also have to identify volumes. The volume may actually increase although in this case because of the infiltration it really doesn't exist. The rate is less but you certainly aren't going to impact the flow rate of Fish Creek. A lot of that is maintained and controlled by the Watershed District. Last year the dam blew out and lost a lot of the flow upstream, and they had to do a restoration project and reinstall that. There are no concerns expressed from any of the agencies. Commissioner Trippler asked if staff knew what the percentage of the total watershed for Fish Creek was comprised of for the 73 acres on this site? Mr. Ahl said Fish Creek is a fairly large watershed. He would say this site is less than 10%. Commissioner Trippler said he wasn't convinced of some of the responses to the concerns that were raised in the EAW. He doesn't think an EIS study would resolve these issues. If he doesn't agree with say 30% of what is in the EAW, does he vote for a negative declaration or not? Planning Commission Minutes of 05-15-06 -5- Mr. Ahl said when you are preparing an EAW and you make a finding that there are no environmental impacts what is being said is there have been findings identified and they have been responded to. The developer has revised the plans significantly based on the number of things that have been identified. The PC should determine if the process is in place. Have we identified the concerns? Is there a process in place for permitting this process that put the appropriate controls in to mitigate those concerns to a standard the PC feels is reasonable? Is this something that has been applied to other projects throughout the city? The second question is regarding an EIS. An EIS looks at a significant number of alternatives. One alternative is what happens if you don't build on this site? Are there other locations forthis development? What other controls have you placed on this area in the city? Is this similarto controls the city has enforced and will continue on all the other properties in this section of the city? Those types of evaluations are what the EIS would do. The EIS would not stop the project. It would delay it and state a lot of other alternatives will be looked at. The standards would have to be placed on other areas of the city, not just forthis particular area. If the PC has say a 30% concern with the proposal we should understand the concerns. If the issues haven't been addressed, they should be explored and identified, and we should understand them so that future phases can be addressed. The EAW does not stop the process. It just says we have identified these issues. Commissioner Dierich said she feels this review is lacking without an EIS. She said she cannot think of another area in Maplewood that relates to this parcel, so she doesn't think that the process of the EIS is going to be valid to compare one area to another area because there is no other area in the city that is relative to this area. She feels we need an EIS because she does not feel the EAW gave enough information about how we are going to mitigate and what the alternatives are for this particular piece of land. That is more important to her than anything else because the EAW just identifies the problems but does not give alternatives. She is not ready to say this project is a "go" based on the EAW. She would feel more comfortable having the EIS in place so she knows there are no other alternatives and she thinks that would be a much stronger case as a city if we chose to turn this project down or push the project a certain direction because we will have some type of a case for alternatives. There is no justification made just by saying we met the standards. Mr. Ahl said with that type of discomfort there are two options. An EIS is a very large step to take. Before you make any findings you need to make sure you have the information that you need. We need specifics and the commission has said you want more alternatives for noise mitigation, more alternatives on the storm sewer, and other issues. That can be done as part of the EAW process rather than going to the EIS process which is expensive and lengthy. The planning commission can take the action of tabling this proposal or delaying the proposal until your next PC meeting so that we can get the PC the information they are looking for to make a decision. Commissioner Dierich said she thinks we need to identify this not only as planning commissioners but for the neighborhood. This is a huge change for south Maplewood, for zoning and especially environmentally, and this area deserves close scrutiny. Mr. Ahl said the intent is to take a look at the information and through this process decide the direction the city needs to go in order for a decision to be made regarding this proposal. Planning Commission Minutes of 05-15-06 -6- Commissioner Pearson said after reading through the material he doesn't necessarily believe the traffic study information that was provided. The report represents the traffic count for more of a retirement community for people 55 and over and actually that age group is very active. He said he is 65 and he makes about 6 to 7 car trips a day from his residence. He would be more comfortable if the traffic study would have represented a typical neighborhood rather than from a semi-retired community. This will affect the traffic count in the area. Commissioner Hess asked about the erosion issues brought up by Matt Norton, and the concerns about highly erodable soils, the large number of retaining walls and other concrete structures that might be needed to hold back soils. He wondered about the proximity to Fish Creek as far as where the retaining walls would be and if they would be following the state guidelines. Mr. Ahl asked Jon Horn with Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. to address the commission regarding that. Mr. Jon Horn, representing Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc., said regarding erosion control issues, there has been a corridor along Fish Creek that has been protected. The discharge and runoff from the site has been directed away from Fish Creek. In looking at the drainage plan, the runoff is routed away from the creek to try to avoid erosion issues. Mr. Horn pointed to where the retaining walls would be on the site plan. There are a number of eroded areas in the area between the walls and Fish Creek itself that would be repaired as part of the development process to eliminate a number of the eroded areas. Commissioner Dierich said it sounds like instead of putting the creek in an enclosed pipe we are putting it in an open top pipe by putting up the walls. She asked how high the walls would be on either side? Mr. Horn said the height varies. The distance between the walls is about 150 feet or more at some locations to preserve as much of the nature creek flow as possible. Drainage is away from the walls to avoid the erosion issue. Commissioner Dierich said having had Fish Creek in her backyard for 17 years she has some concerns. She said this area is beyond unstable and it percolates very quickly. Maplewood had them move their septic system to a different location. She assumes the soils are very similar to what she had to deal with while building her house. She also asked about the infiltration. Mr. Horn said the area flows to a number of raingardens that run along the back lot line. There is a permanent dual purpose treatment basin and there is a separate infiltration system in several areas, so they are looking at a system where there are raingardens interconnected with storm sewer with treatment basins to try to infiltrate runoff, slowdown the runoff and spread the runoff out rather than having it point to one location to deal with the erosion issues. Commissioner Dierich asked if all of this water is going to stay on-site? Mr. Horn said correct. Commissioner Trippler said as it relates to the infiltration basins, how many soil borings do you anticipate would be put in to ensure you are not putting in an infiltration basin over a car stereo? Planning Commission Minutes of 05-15-06 -7- Mr. Horn said as a part of the final design process there will be a series of geotechnical borings done to address that issue. That is something they can control here as the project moves forward in terms of identifying the requirements for that. Commissioner Trippler said the EAW pointed out there were two unstable soil groups. His concern is in the areas south of Fish Creek toward the high slopped areas and he asked if those are stable or not? He said there is going to be over 200,000 cubic yards of soil moved here. Has anybody looked at what types of soils there are in the middle of the site? Mr. Horn said that is something that would need to be reviewed as the final design plans are prepared and reviewed. Commissioner Trippler asked how the planning commission should make a determination as to whether the EAW is sufficient or not if we don't know if half the site is going to be excavated to over 200,000 cubic yards, is the material going to support the construction that is likely to be built there? We wouldn't build buildings on an area that is going to disappear into a sink hole. He asked if an EIS would answer those types of questions? Mr. Ahl said an EIS could answer that if that is a concern. An analysis of this site shows this was a dump site from the construction of Highway 494. The soils do not indicate that we will have the concerns that you have identified. The state agencies looked atthis and commented and said the soils information seems to be relatively consistent that it can be controlled and it would not create sink holes or those types of standards. The building code would apply to the condition of the soils. For roadway construction projects in the city, soil borings are taken every few feet to identify any concerns. If there are some concerns, that type of mitigation comes during the construction process. Commissioner Trippler asked if that information was in the EAW or is that information city staff automatically knows? Mr. Ahl said that is information that is applied to all projects in the city and it would not have been stated in the staff report. Chairperson Fischer said those would be the standard operating procedures that the city follows and the planning commission would not necessarily be aware of. Commissioner Dierich said at the public meeting at the Londin Lane fire station the noise study was from 1999 on Highway 494 and that was long before there was a great deal of development in Woodbury, Afton, and Hudson, Wisconsin that have added traffic along that stretch. She knows they said adjustments were made for the noise study, but on the other hand, it appeared to her that many people were dissatisfied with the assumptions made and people wanted noise studies from 2006 and not from 1999 because of the level of development that has occurred further east. She said she is 49, which is only 6 years away from turning 55, for the homes 55 and over and if she had to sit in her house 24 hours a day, seven days a week because of the noise outside that would not be a home she would want to live in. She would like more information about noise mitigation and why you chose not to do a study based on the "current" noise levels of 2006. She knows its influx and it's an issue but irregardless it's only going to get worse. Planning Commission Minutes of 05-15-06 -8- Mr. Brandon Bourdon, Project Engineer for Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc., addressed the commission. He said regarding the noise analysis, they took some of the noise and monitoring information that was done as part of the Wacouta Bridge project and made adjustments to account for an additional lane. He said they also used traffic volume projections that were documented in that study because that is a relatively extensive study that looks at many in depth traffic models due to the significant changes in that interchange. The model they created took a lot of that into consideration as well as current volumes. They didn't just take the old volumes and assume there were no changes between now and then. They factored that in and estimated what some of the noise concerns may be. There are some periods in the night that the EAW stated noise concerns. Commissioner Dierich said there are not just "some" noise concerns; the noise concerns are for the whole development from what she understood. The noise violates the night time noise standards for the entire development, and for part of the day for half of the development, and it was the part for the single family homes from what she understood. She asked for clarification. Mr. Bourdon said you are correct, the night time noise issue is for a significant portion of the development and that is particularly because the noise periods collected as part of that are just before the peak periods in the a.m. and just after p.m. peak periods. During the day, there are some noise levels just on the east portion of the site that are exceeded which are in the middle of the site. Commissioner Dierich said both of her homes in Maplewood were 1 mile away from Highway 494 with heavily wooded areas, and in her present home significant buildings block the highway noise, yet she cannot leave her windows open at night because it sounds like the trucks are driving through her bedroom wall. During the day it's very noisy. If you stand next to a window or stand in her backyard, which is 1 mile away from the highway, you cannot talk to anyone without raising your voice. She has great difficulty with the statement people are not going to be impacted by the noise when they are going to be living literally on top of the freeway. She said she used to take walks next to the freeway and it was terribly loud. It was so loud you could not stand there for very long. These people are going to be just as close to the freeway as the walking paths are. She said she is not satisfied with the answers she has heard so far. Ms. Whitzig said the EAW is not trying to state there aren't noise impacts. There is a disclosure saying during the evening there will be noise impacts for the majority of the site based on the state noise standards and for part of the site. There is a disclosure which states the EAW says there will be impacts based on the analysis that has been completed and here is what is being proposed to address the mitigation, but it is not saying those impacts are going to go away completely. The purpose of the EAW is to disclose what the issues are so that you have the information and what is a reasonable mitigation. Commissioner Dierich asked if an EIS would give alternatives for mitigation? Ms. Whitzig said the main difference between an EAW and an EIS is that the EIS brings other types of alternatives forward that are deemed feasible. As a point of clarification, the specific issues that are looked at for an EAW versus an EIS really aren't any different. Often times the level of analysis in the EAW is at the same level as the EIS. The main difference is there are different alternatives. Planning Commission Minutes of 05-15-06 -9- Commissioner Pearson asked if there have been any problems with the individual septic systems installed in Haller's Woods under the R-1 (R) zoning? Mr. Ahl and Mr. Roberts both said they were not aware of any problems. Commissioner Trippler asked what staff recommended the PC do with this proposal. Is staff looking for either a negative or positive declaration from the commission? Mr. Ahl said it would be more helpful if you turned to page 22 in the staff report to the Findings of Fact. If you are not ready to pass this proposal onto the city council you can identify the areas you would like more information on or more clarification on. EAW's can be very simple reports and other EAW's can go to extreme levels. In this case, the EAW is very detailed. Commissioner Trippler said he has concerns about number 2. on page 23, regarding the Fish, Wildlife and Ecologically Sensitive Resources. The proposed project would convert 32. 1 acres of grassland to impervious surface and urban landscaping. The project site currently includes 26.0 acres of woodland. As the project site includes public land, and there is surrounding open space/public land, the development of the site is not anticipated to cause substantial impact on wildlife populations. Regarding that statement, he said he did not get enough information from the EAW to tell him why that statement is true. He can't understand how you can have a 72-acre site and urbanize 90% of it and not have some substantial impact on the wildlife population. The wildlife can go someplace else but how many times can we do this and still say it will not have a substantial impact on the wildlife? Commissioner Trippler said he has an issue with number 5. on page 24 of the staff report which is Water-Related Land Use Management Districts. He said he is on the Environmental Committee and they have a sub-committee that is looking at the wetland ordinance to see if it needs to be revised. Research and studies indicate that when you have a wetland or shoreland that has steep slopes the setback should be a minimum of 100 feet. The steeper the slopes the more setback you need for the water quality and for wildlife. He understands this setback is proposed at 150 feet which he assumed meant 75 feet on either side. He would really like to see that setback at 200 feet, 100 feet on each side. Commissioner Trippler said regarding number 6. on page 24 of the staff report, it says There are steep slopes on the proposed site, particularly along the banks of Fish Creek. When he read through the materials that had to do with the Mississippi Critical Area it stated this was a special overlay district that needed special considerations and he is concerned about the amount of construction and the kinds of changes that are being proposed on the steep banks along the south side of Fish Creek. He knows there are a number of retaining walls that are being proposed and he would like to have more comfort knowing the retaining walls and the construction that is going to be going on will adequately protect Fish Creek from degradation. Commissioner Hess said regarding the air quality and the pollutants coming off of Highway 494, he read number 12. on page 27 of the staff report thatthe proposed project would not adversely impact air quality conditions. He said he didn't remember the grade difference between the surface of Highway 494 and where the development finished floor line would be, so he was not sure what impact that would have, but it seemed that the traffic coming off of Highway 494 was higher than the developing area would be that would throw pollutants into the area? Planning Commission Minutes of 05-15-06 -10- Commissioner Hess asked if studies had been done to see how those pollutants from the vehicles would impact the proposed homes in that area? Mr. Bourdon said a lot of the results based on the air quality were also in part taken from the Wacouta Bridge EAW and there weren't any significant impacts on air quality and the development isn't making any significant impacts on the surrounding area. They don't feel there are significant air quality issues compared to other areas like this. Commissioner Dierich said the intersection at Sterling Street and Bailey Road has already failed and this proposal would make things even worse. She disagrees with the traffic flow because it's far easier to drive up Carver Avenue than it is to go around Sterling Street down Bailey and to Highway 494. The issue she sees is that the traffic is going to be very backed up both in the morning and in the afternoon when these people 55 and older are going to work and are sitting in their idling cars because they can't get on Bailey Road because the traffic is so bad coming from Woodbury, and this is going to cause a local problem. She believes this could use an EIS. The grade for Highway 494 is above the grade of the development. The grade is equal to or above it depending on where you are on the site. You look down from Highway 494 onto the proposed development. Commissioner Yarwood said regarding the noise issue he would like to know about the alternatives for dealing with noises for proposals like this. He knows berms and retaining walls are one way. In terms of costs and structure and how effective these are, he would like to know how other communities have dealt with developments that are this close to a highway. Commissioner Dierich said she would like someone to address adverse visual effects. In looking at the height of the town homes, it is significantly out of place with the rest of the neighborhood. This area is higher than west of the neighborhood so people would be looking up at it and she knows the grade could be dropped in order to accommodate that, but she would like more information about that and what the height alternatives are if you spread the condominiums out rather than up and ifthatwould make a difference. If we do that, does that impactthe noise issue as well? Commissioner Dierich said the traffic is a huge concern. The assumptions for the traffic are faulty especially if you are talking about having people 55 years of age and older who will be driving back and forth. She is concerned the infrastructure is bad in that neighborhood no matter which way you go. The traffic has to be routed and it will be through the neighborhood, and the neighbors should be made aware of the impact this would have on them. She is concerned about the soil conditions and she would like to see alternatives to moving 217,000 cubic yards of soil. That seems like a significant change to the land. The whole idea for a PUD is to help preserve what is there. Commissioner Hess asked about the roadway to the site. He asked ifthere would only be a single entrance and exit into the site? Mr. Ahl said that is correct. There is a trail that can be accessed off of Dorland Road for emergency vehicles if they need an additional access. Planning Commission Minutes of 05-15-06 -11- Commissioner Hess said having only one entrance and exit to the site seems to be a safety issue because if there was an emergency and people had to get out quickly things could get bottlenecked which could be dangerous. He wondered if there was any way to create another entrance/exit to the site? Mr. Bourdon said based on the site location there is quite a bit of open space on the west but the environmental impacts due to introducing another entrance or exit over Fish Creek would be negative. Mr. Roberts said before we take any public comments or questions staff would recommend hearing the rest of the proposal. Mr. Roberts said Mr. Tom Hansen, representing CoPar Companies, has submitted plans to the city for a senior housing development called Carver Crossing. He, in conjunction with Rottlund Homes, has prepared a site plan that shows 299 housing units (in three different types of housing) for persons aged 55 and over. This development would be on about 73 acres of land that is south of Carver Avenue and west of Henry Lane known as the Schlomka property. A homeowner's association would own and maintain the common areas. Chairperson Fischer said the present zoning is R-1 (R) and Farm and this is land that did not have access to the sewer system at the time. Mr. Roberts said that zoning was put on the land about 2 or 3 years ago. Chairperson Fischer said the idea was if someone came in for a plat and they met the 10,000 square foot requirement or the 75-foot frontage, the way the law was set up, the city could not have refused it and the city was concerned those lot sizes would not be sufficient to allow for on- site sewer systems. Mr. Roberts said that is correct. For example, if somebody had a 3 acre parcel they could try to divide it into two pieces. At that time the city did not have a minimum standard for unsewered property so the R-1 (R) zoning set a 2 acre minimum. Chairperson Fischer said the city hoped that would be sufficient to support on-site systems and this requirement is not used in sewered areas. Mr. Roberts said correct. Commissioner Yarwood asked for a brief overview of what has been considered on this site before this proposal came about. He asked if this property was considered for single family homes or were single family homes ever considered to be financially non-viable? Mr. Roberts said there was a previous proposal for 386 units on this property which was a senior housing development similar to this plan but it had another condominium building and it had more row homes in the plan. Through the EAW process the developer reduced the amount of units, the same product type but reduced the unit count from 386 to 299. But as far as staff is aware there have not been any single family homes proposed for this land. Planning Commission Minutes of 05-15-06 -12- Commissioner Yarwood said he isn't saying this should or shouldn't be single family homes, he was just asking if there was a reason single family homes were not in the proposal. Commissioner Trippler said he thinks this is a wonderful development and it is well planned out. He appreciates the fact that there is housing for people 55 and over in the plan, but it's planned for the wrong area. If this development had been proposed for the Gladstone area or the Hillcrest area he would have been elated. It seems to him that this proposal was the exact conversation he had been asking to have regarding in-fill developments during planning commission meetings. Hopefully this will bring attention to the fact that the City of Maplewood needs to decide what it wants the city to look like in the next 10 years because we are going to have to revise the Comprehensive Plan. If we approve this development, this will change south Maplewood completely. Once we approve this development, when the next development comes in we won't be able to deny it because this proposal will set the precedence. Development is not necessarily bad, it's just the city has to decide where it wants development and how the development will take place. His personal feeling is he likes the diversity that exists in Maplewood and it's a large draw to Maplewood compared to other communities. He would like to see the south Maplewood leg stay as it is and not become a high-density packed-in community like Woodbury or some of the other communities that are developing around Maplewood. That's something the city council will make the final decision on. The issue is whether or not we are going to change the zoning in this area and as he reads the zoning ordinance and the comprehensive plan it states you can make zoning changes and changes to the comprehensive plan as long as it is compatible and consistent with the neighborhood. This site is zoned R-1(R) which means 1 unit per2 acres. On a 73 acre site, that means 36 housing units. We would need to change the zoning from R-1 (R) to R-3(L) which would allow 299 units, and he does not see that as compatible. This is not consistent of the spirit, purpose and intent ofthe project with the current zoning codes. This is too large of a leap to change the zoning. If the zoning were being changed from R-1 (R) to R-2 that would even be a big jump but not as extreme as R-1 (R) to R-3(L) zoning. He has concerns about the environment as well but that is not really the main issue because there are engineers to take care of the environmental issues. The question is does the commission really want south Maplewood to look like this in the next 3 to 5 years? Commissioner Pearson said he would agree with Commissioner Trippler's comments. Even though the development meets the setbacks and various requirements, this is going to completely change the area and it would make the area unrecognizable. The planning commission spent a lot of time on this south Maplewood parcel and came up with the R-1 (R) zoning. If we were hearing that many of the existing homes with existing independent systems were failing, he may have a different view. R-1 (R) is the best zoning for the area. He said he doesn't think we need to make every section of Maplewood into high density and mixed zoning. This area of Maplewood is precious and there is hardly any other area like this left in the Twin Cities area and he doesn't see the need to change the zoning to accommodate this development. Commissioner Dierich said she would agree with the comments made. The bigger issue for the planning commission beyond the fact that the land is precious in this area of Maplewood that really doesn't exist anymore, she said she doesn't think this is a very good trade off for the city of Maplewood. The city is not getting anything for taxes and she doesn't see how these homes can be sold for the price indicated by the developer in the staff report based on the requirements of the land to develop and market this area. Planning Commission Minutes of 05-15-06 -13- Commissioner Dierich said in her south Maplewood neighborhood there are row homes that are very nice which are selling for $350,000 now and not many people can afford $450,000 to $500,000 for a row home which is what these homes are going to cost after mitigating costs of the site. She doesn't think we are going to get a good return for the tax dollar. She said $1 million is not very much money for all of this land. She sees great problems with the social issues down at that end of town because any home that gets built here is going to raise the tax base so high that most of the homeowners that live on that end of town towards Carver Avenue, Century Avenue and McKnight Road will not be able to afford the taxes because this development will raise the tax base. Not because of the infrastructure, but because the cost of the homes that would be going in will drive people out. It's difficult to afford taxes when your taxes are more than your house payment is, and that is what will happen with those homes. She isn't clear who will be paying for this, because we are moving infrastructure to the other side of Highway 494 basically to serve Woodbury because most of the lots on that side of Carver Avenue are not developable except towards Sterling Street. The rest of them are on the watershed district and you cannot build in the watershed area itself. She needs more of a reason why the city would allow this development at the expense ofthe city in addition to the comments made by Commissioner Trippler and Pearson. Mr. Ahl said a vast majority of the infrastructure is going to be paid for by the developer. The only expenses to the city would be for any future planning. This project would not provide any sewer service to Woodbury. If you are going to put infrastructure in forthe Carver Crossing development the city does not want to come back 10 to 20 years from now and have to put a sewer extension in underneath the freeway. The city is saying let's plan now. We are just saying let's make the sewer extension nowforthe future because of the impacts. In the next 0 to 75 years that area will need to have sewers installed, and now is the time to put the sewer pipe underneath the freeway, not after the construction is over and it would cause a tremendous impact. Commissioner Dierich asked if that would be at the city's cost? Mr. Ahl said yes. Commissioner Dierich asked whose costs would it be for the Carver Avenue infrastructure including the turn lanes etc.? Mr. Ahl said a feasibility study would need to be done to determine the costs, but it is the city's starting point that would be the developer's costs. The city may need to bill the developer for the costs. Because the developer would not benefit from putting a sewer pipe underneath the freeway, that would be a cost for the city to pay. Chairperson Fischer asked if R-1 (R) to R-3 zoning is the same density in the comprehensive plan? Mr. Roberts said yes. Chairperson Fischer asked if there would be any other tools to allow a PUD in the R-1 zoning at the same density other than the R-3 zoning? Planning Commission Minutes of 05-15-06 -14- Mr. Roberts said with both staff is proposing the zoning map change and the PUD. The PUD would be the controlling factor here. The R-3 zoning cleans up the zoning map and makes it clear that it is a multi-family designation and no longer a rural designation if in fact this gets approved. He is not aware of any other tool to use. The question is, is now the time and place to change from R-1 (R) to a sewered urban suburban development? Commissioner Pearson said when the planning commission discussed south Maplewood having sewer systems installed in the future, the commission asked the neighbors what they preferred, and the zoning decision was based on the neighbors' comments. Commissioner Dierich said she knows there was an open house for the neighbors to come and speak but she thinks staff should have sent about 40 more notices out to neighbors on the Carver Ridge to find out what they thought. She knows the residents can read about it in the newspaper but she felt they should have been notified about the meeting which would have been the right thing for the city to do. A few city council groups ago, a promise was made to have no high density below Highwood Avenue in south Maplewood. Now we are bringing high density way down to south Maplewood. She would be more comfortable with this proposal if there were no senior condominiums in this development which would change the character of the development. She is not a big fan of senior housing because she feels senior housing isolates people and because of the location this would isolate seniors even more. She doesn't see the value of having senior housing in this development other than the developer knew traffic was going to be an issue and to label it as senior housing would mean less traffic. However, less traffic could be accomplished by having less density as well. There is nothing for seniors to do down there and without park dedication or walking trails they are not going to be able to get anywhere except by driving there. Mr. Roberts said the developer is proposing to have walking paths and sidewalks on the site, especially along Henry Lane. Commissioner Dierich said that means they would be walking along the freeway. Commissioner Yarwood said he can appreciate this is a difficult site to work with and develop and he anticipated this would be developed at some time. He is a resident of south Maplewood himself so he can appreciate the current character of the neighborhood and he thinks it's a large jump going from R-1 (R) to R-3 without considering any other densities in between. If that had been considered and then discarded for financial reasons he could understand that, but he doesn't see that from what he had heard this evening. He said he cannot support this development as this is proposed. He thinks there needs to be some alternative plans for the site to make it more appropriate for the character of south Maplewood. The planning commission took a break from 9:15 - 9:25 p.m. Chairperson Fischer asked if the public safety personnel were comfortable with a longer than usual cul-de-sac and only having one access to the development? Mr. Roberts said staff specifically pointed that out to the police department and they were not concerned about that as long as there was a second point of entry in case of an emergency from the trail system. Planning Commission Minutes of 05-15-06 -15- Chairperson Fischer asked the applicant to address the commission. Mr. Tom Hansen, CoPar Companies, 8677 Eagle Point Boulevard, Lake Elmo, addressed the commission. He thanked the planning commission for their comments and the feedback and thanked staff for the time and effort on this proposal. He said CoPar Companies thinks this is a good plan for a number of reasons but he wanted to answer a few questions and concerns that were brought up by the commission. He said CoPar Companies acquired this property about 1 Y, years ago knowing utilities would be available to the site. St. Paul Water is anxious to extend a loop into this area for additional circulation into their system. They have a major collector sewer line on Carver Avenue to service this site and this site was guided for R-1 (R) density. This is not the first development CoPar Companies has done. They have looked at it from a single family perspective. CoPar Companies is an acronym for cooperation for partnering and they believe there are a lot of stakeholders on any project they do. It is CoPar as the landowners, the city, and the neighbors, so there are a lot of people affected by developments. As they looked at this site and understood what would be required to maximize the use of this site for single family homes which this site is guided for, it was very obvious that they would disturb twice as much soil by proposing a single family traditional neighborhood versus working with staff to come up with a PUD that had less impact, and they feel they have achieved that. He said there has been a lot of give and take here. He said CoPar Companies gave up some units, staff has recommended additional buffers, and Fish Creek has a 130 foot buffer on each side. They are very conscious of the environmental impact and have gone above and beyond the storm water management for the site. The density is no greater on the site than what would be guided by R-1. In fact, the area of the neighborhood adjacent to the existing neighbors is 1.9 units per acre so they think they have been conscious of how they have approached this project. Traffic is an issue and it would be whether it was single family homes or attached units at a single family density. He is not sure what the difference in traffic patterns would be. The capacity of Carver Avenue, which is a state aid road, is only operating at 25%, so currently this impact will be minimal compared to the capacity of the road. Intersections need to be upgraded and that is a cost they as the developer will absorb. If they built single family homes here it would require bringing Dorland Court into the neighborhood which would mean additional traffic to the existing neighborhood. This proposal is not the best economical model for this site, and single family homes on that bluff would be much more valuable on the site, but that would not provide the city a variety of housing stock that is needed. This is not high density, it is attached housing, which is important to realize. Commissioner Trippler asked if CoPar Companies considered developing this parcel as R-1 (R) zoning? Mr. Hansen said no, it's not economically feasible. Commissioner Dierich said the city could grant a PUD and limit the number of units. Do we have to change the zoning and allow the PUD with the existing zoning? Mr. Roberts said as long as the city changed the comprehensive plan. The zoning map would not have to be changed if the city approved a PUD. Staff is suggesting it to clean up the map to better reflect it if approved. Planning Commission Minutes of 05-15-06 -16- Commissioner Yarwood said the density is a misnomer because so much of the land is unusable, so what you have is an average density and is not really functionally reflective what this plan looks like or how close the houses are together. He said he would feel more comfortable knowing what a single family home plan would look like and what the environmental plan looked like for this site. Mr. Hansen said they have not engineered a single family plan to provide for that level of detail. His understanding of the current ordinance is that they can use every inch of land that they own within the legal setbacks from Fish Creek or any wetlands. In orderto make the single family land viable they would have to use every inch of land because the unit numbers would be less. One of the reasons they can have larger buffers is that they have the number of units that would help pay for that. If they have to spend the money to engineer a single family site, which he thinks would have a better economic return for CoPar Companies, they will build that. Commissioner Dierich said if a single family site is engineered, the zoning for R-1 (R) would be 36 homes on the site. They would have to be million dollar homes or more in order for the developer to make a profit. Mr. Roberts said unless the city council changed the zoning and agreed to have utilities down there. Mr. Hansen said this site will develop at some point in time. Commissioner Dierich said it's important to acknowledge that the development is not a given. The city is in the phase of deciding whether or not you can use the land as you the developer are hoping to and that doesn't mean the development is going to go forward, it just means you as a developer are asking for approval to do this. Mr. Hansen said the city has a comprehensive plan which says it is R-1 zoning and he would assume development would happen at some point in time. Commissioner Trippler said that's a discussion the planning commission will be having in the near future because the city has to revise the comprehensive plan by the end of 2008, so it's not clear whether it will be changed from R-1(R) to R-1 zoning. Mr. Hansen said it would be a shame to underutilize the infrastructure that is already in place and that would contribute to the urban sprawl which is the smart development everyone is interested in. CoPar Companies wants to come up with a plan that works for them, the city, and for the neighbors as well. Commissioner Dierich said Maplewood is already smartly developed and that is not a large concern for Maplewood. Maplewood is well developed within the Met Council guidelines and Maplewood has the luxury that many suburbs don't have. The planning commission would like to come to an agreement for the neighborhood, the city and still meet the developer's economic needs. The city needs to be wise in how they do that and saying it would be a shame to underutilize the infrastructure, this is also a resource, it's not just land, and as a development team you need to realize that. Planning Commission Minutes of 05-15-06 -17- Chairperson Fischer asked if anyone in the audience wanted to speak to come forward and address the commission. 1. Tim Hedin, 2338 Overlook Circle, Maplewood. His letter is enclosed in the staff report on page 77, attachment 29. 2. Georae Gonzalez, 2359 Heights Avenue, Maplewood. He commented on page 68, attachment 24 of the staff report. He fails to see how this development would make Maplewood better and improve the south leg of Maplewood. The letter states Don and Sue Schlomka support extending the sewer and water extension to the east side of Highway 494 and that they have just signed, along with their in-laws, to market their property under 7 acres to United Properties. Once that sewer is in, you know what is going to happen, and the city would be opening the gate for it to happen. He would ask that the planning commission seriously consider this proposal and act accordingly as if you yourself were living here. 3. Terrv Baumaart, 2445 Carver Avenue, Maplewood. His letter is on page 70 and 71, attachment 26 in the staff report. His name and comments are also reflected on page 12 of Chuck Ahl's report. His house sits directly across from the realignment of Henry Lane and they are concerned about the headlights shining into their home. They do not care to have more trees planted and are not happy with the road alignment and would like something changed in the plan. 4. Ron Cockriel, 943 Century Aveue North, Maplewood. He is also known as Ron Cockriel and The Sons and Daughters of Highwood. His name and comments are dated April 11 , 2006, shown on page 18 in Chuck Ahl's report. He said he attended the meeting at the fire station and a meeting with the watershed district. 5. Mark Bonitz, 1635 Sterling Street South, Maplewood. His comments are on page 72 and 73, attachment 27. His name and comments are reflected on page 15 in Chuck Ahl's report. Commissioner Grover said he's not in favor of this proposal. He has no problem with the density and the character of the proposal. He has issues with the environmental impact, traffic issues, and especially the noise conditions, and he does not think those were mitigated very well in the EAW. He has a large concern regarding the noise, and he is also concerned about the comments raised by Terry Baumgart at 2445 Carver Avenue. In his opinion, more work needs to be done on this. Commissioner Trippler said he would recommend the planning commission go through each of the recommendations individually and vote on them. Commissioner Trippler moved to recommend making a determination that there is no need for an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for this project. If the city determines that the project should not cause significant environmental effects, then the city should make a negative declaration (thus not requiring an EIS) and then proceed with taking action on the project applications. Planning Commission Minutes of 05-15-06 -18- Commissioner Grover seconded. Ayes - Fischer, Grover, Hess, Pearson, Trippler Yarwood Nays - Dierich, Pearson Commissioner Grover said he thinks it would be helpful to have a full traffic study done to analyze traffic patterns as a single family development. Commissioner Yarwood asked what other alternatives there are that have been used by other communities to mitigate noise and how effective they are. Beyond that, if that development does not get approved as is, it does not seem worthwhile to do a traffic study based on the current plan. Mr. Ahl said he is hearing from an environmental standpoint the commission is concerned about the impact of 299 units but he has also heard about stormwater runoff and traffic concerns. The concerns seem to be regarding density and how the density impacts the site. They have done an environmental impact study and there will be an environmental impact with this development. He asked if the planning commission is more concerned about character issues of the area, is this the right style for the area, and is the density too high? If this is more of a "density" concern than an "environmental" concern, staff needs to be made aware of those concerns. Someone said if this development were built somewhere else in Maplewood it would be a fine development. Environmental impacts are here with this development proposal. If you are more concerned about character compared to density, you may want to have more discussion as a commission. We can analyze the traffic for 299 units with a traffic study, but he can tell the commission that Carver Avenue will not need to be expanded to a four lane roadway. There are still going to be the same type of turning movements for the mitigation strategy. Commissioner Trippler said if the proposal gets approved and the city gets more information pertaining to the EAW, the issue he would like more information on would pertain to trying to explain the impact on the wildlife and where the wildlife would go. Commissioner Pearson said typically he is not for higher density but he did vote for the higher density for the Gladstone Redevelopment Plan. However, he is not in agreement for this proposal. Commissioner Trippler said he will vote against this proposal because he feels that many of the criteria which are necessary for making this kind of change are not being met for this proposal. For example, in 6. c. it states The city coordinates land use changes with the character of each neighborhood. To him this development proposal is totally out of character for this neighborhood. You have to go more than 1 mile away to see anything close to this proposal. In 6. d. it states A void disruption of adjacent or nearby residential areas. He said he can't see how this wouldn't be disruptive to everyone within blocks or miles of this development. In 6. e. it states Transitions between distinctly differing types of land uses should not create a negative economic, social or physical impact on adjoining developments. He said even if you assume that the Dorland neighborhood development is denser than everything else around, this takes it to another level above Dorland. He said in item 6. g. Protect neighborhoods from encroachment or intrusion of incompatible land uses by adequate buffering and separation. He said he doesn't think that has been accomplished. He said letter k. is a repeat of letter e. so that could be stricken completely. He said these are all requirements from the comprehensive plan. Planning Commission Minutes of 05-15-06 -19- Commissioner Trippler moved to apprO'Je denvthe comprehensive plan change from R-1 (single dwellings) to R-3(L) (low density multiple dwelling) r-esoll,ltion on pagos 70 aAElllQ (/\ttaGl'lmoAt J 1) of tl:1o staff rol3ort. nis rosoll:-Jtion changos tl:1o land l;JSCl I3lan for tho Carvor Crossing of MaplowooEl fllat on tho ..""est siElo of 1101, sel,ltl'l ef Carvor /'.venue. Tl'lis sl'laA€!e is fr-om R 1 (siA€!lo dwoIIiA€!S) to R 3(L) (Ie'.... Elonsity multifile El'Nolling). Tho city is makiAg this chango bec3I:Jso it 'NiII: Commissioner Pearson seconded. Ayes - Dierich, Hess, Pearson, Trippler, Yarwood Nays - Fischer, Grover Chairperson Fischer said she voted against the denial because she felt the R-1 density was a better choice in environmentally sensitive areas and with the larger lot sizes for health and safety reasons for the area. If sewer came into the area she would have voted for R-1 and she doesn't believe R-1 and R-1 (L) are that big of a change. Commissioner Grover moved to approve denv the resolution on pages 81-84 (Attachment 32) in the staff report. This resolution would change the zoning map for the Carver Crossing of Maplewood plat on the west side of 1-494, south of Carver Avenue. This change is from F (farm residence) and R-1 (R) (rural residential) to R-3 (multiple dwellings). Tho roaSOAS fer tl'lis shango are tl'loso roquir-eEl by tl'lo city coElo aAd bOGauso: Commissioner Pearson seconded. Ayes - Dierich, Fischer, Grover, Hess, Pearson, Trippler, Yarwood Commissioner Pearson moved to approvo denv the resolution starting on page 85 (Attachment 33) ofthe staff report. This resolution would have approved a conditional use permitfor a planned unit development for the Carver Crossing of Maplewood development on the west side of 1-494, south of Carver Avenue. Commissioner Yarwood seconded. Ayes - Dierich, Grover, Hess, Pearson, Trippler, Yarwood Nays - Fischer Chairperson Fischer voted nay for the same reasons she stated earlier. Commissioner Pearson moved to approve denv the resolution on pages 90 and 91 (Attachment 34) of the staff report. This resolution would vacate the unused easements and right-of-ways within the Carver Crossing of Maplewood development (the area west of 1-494 and south of Carver Avenue). Tl10 sity is ..,acatin€! tl1oso oasoments aAEl right of ways sosal,lso: Commissioner Grover seconded. Ayes - Dierich, Fischer, Grover, Hess, Pearson, Trippler, Yarwood Planning Commission Minutes of 05-15-06 -20- Commissioner Grover moved to approve denv the Carver Crossing of Maplewood preliminary plat (received by the city on April 3, 2006). The developer snail somplete the following before the oity selcJncil appr-Gvos the final plat: Commissioner Hess seconded. Ayes - Dierich, Grover, Hess, Pearson, Trippler Yarwood Nay - Fischer The motion passed. This item goes to the city council on Monday, June 12, 2006. This meeting will be heard at Carver School on Upper Afton Road. Commissioner Yarwood said he would recommend the planning commission offer some ideas of what they would like to see done with this property. Commissioner Trippler said he would like to see the planning commission recommend to the city council what kinds of things they want to see changed in the comprehensive plan. He said in his opinion south Maplewood may be a good starting point. Commissioner Dierich said this area of Maplewood is just as deserving of the kind of care and process the city went through for the Gladstone Redevelopment plan for future development. She thinks this neighborhood is expecting change in the near future but would like to see something reasonable and that the neighbors have a voice in the process. Chairperson Fischer asked while the commission didn't care for the CUP for a PUD are they in agreement that PUDs are not out of the question for future development in this area and indeed may be preferable? Commissioner Grover said yes, especially given the environmental conditions of the area. Mr. Roberts said he would like to know if the planning commission has a strong preference regarding whether this area should have sewer systems or not? That is going to be a driving factor in some of the deciding factors here. Commissioner Dierich said we need to look at the comprehensive plan for this area and in her opinion that will drive the sewer decision. Chairperson Fischer said sewer systems are not going to get cheaper to install. Commissioner Trippler said having a sewer system or not having a sewer system in the neighborhood does not change the "character" of the neighborhood. It might change the cost of the individual homes, but not the character. He is not opposed to having sewer systems here. Sometimes there are negative impacts from having individual well systems. He doubts that area is geologically capable of handling an individual system for 2 acres. European countries have developed systems that don't discharge, so mechanically and physically it can be done but it's very expensive. His preference is to have sewer systems but only to have 1 home per 2 acres as the maximum amount of units per acre. Planning Commission Minutes of 05-15-06 -21- Commissioner Dierich said the commission is not happy with this level of density. The planning commission spoke loud and clear 2 years ago with the R-1 (R) zoning and now the commission is saying it again. It sounds like the commission wants to maintain the character of the south leg of Maplewood. The city council can make the final decision, but the planning commission has said how they feel, and the commission listens to how the residents feel as well. Commissioner Yarwood said he doesn't want to say that there has to be sewer systems or not. He thinks what is economically and environmentally feasibly safe is what should be done. He wants to leave those options on the table at this point. He isn't opposed to having sewer systems. Chairperson Fischer said health and welfare enter into the consideration and it all depends on the soil conditions in the area. VI. NEW BUSINESS None. VII. UNFINISHED BUSINESS None. VIII. VISITOR PRESENTATIONS None. IX. COMMISSION PRESENTATIONS a. Mr. Trippler was the planning commission representative at the May 8, 2006, city council meeting. They discussed changes to the code amendment for the noise ordinance, the first reading for the code amendment for accessory structures, and the easement vacation for 2249 Kenwood Court for a garage addition. b. Mr. Hess will be the planning commission representative at the May 22, 2006, city council meeting. Items to be discussed include Comforts of Home at 2300/2310 Hazelwood Street for a CUP, PUD, and Land Use Plan Change. c. Mr. Kaczrowski was scheduled to be the planning commission representative at the June 12, 2006, city council meeting. However, he was absent this evening so Commissioner Dierich said she would switch meeting nights with Commissioner Kaczrowski. (THIS MEETING WILL BE HELD AT CARVER SCHOOL - UPPER AFTON ROAD). Items to be discussed include the EAW for Carver Crossing of Maplewood. Planning Commission Minutes of 05-15-06 -22- d. Staff will check with Mr. Kaczrowski to see if he can serve as the planning commission representative at the June 26, 2006, city council meeting. X. STAFF PRESENTATIONS a. The planning commission needs to reschedule the Monday, June 5, 2006, planning commission meeting. The city council has called for a special city council meeting to discuss the Gladstone Redevelopment Plan to begin at 6:00 p.m. in the city council chambers. Because it was unknown how long the meeting would last, the planning commission rescheduled their regularly scheduled meeting to Wednesday, June 7, 2006. b. The Annual Tour Date is tentatively scheduled for Monday, July 31,2006, at 5:30 p.m. Mr. Roberts will provide more information about the tour in the future. XI. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 10:50 p.m. MEMORANDUM DATE: Greg Copeland, Interim City Manager Shann Finwall, AICP, Planner Eldridge Fields preliminary Plat Unused Eldridge Avenue Right-of-Way, West of Prosperity Avenue, East of John Glenn Junior High School June 2, 2006 TO: FROM: SUBJECT: LOCATION: INTRODUCTION Project Description Keith Frank of Frank Construction, Inc., is proposing to develop a 1.4 acre site into five single- family lots. The lots will be accessed by a new cul-de-sac road constructed in the existing Eldridge Avenue unused right-of-way off of Prosperity Avenue. The developer states that the single-family houses will sell for approximately $400,000. Request To build this project, Mr. Frank is requesting that the city approve a preliminary plat and the vacation of a portion of the Eldridge Avenue public right-of-way. DISCUSSION Neighborhood Comments The site consists of two large lots on the south side of the Eldridge Avenue right-of-way and four small lots on the north side. These lots are located behind two existing houses on Prosperity Avenue (2095 and 2111 Prosperity Avenue). The new road will be constructed within the 49.5- foot-wide Eldridge Avenue right-of-way which is located between these existing houses. One of these property owners has contacted the city with concerns regarding existing flooding which occurs occasionally in her front yard. She does not have a problem with the development but wants to ensure that her water situation is addressed. A solution to the existing flooding is discussed in the engineering department comments section below. There is an 80-foot wide vacant lot located on the north side of Eldridge Avenue, east of the new plat and west of 2111 Prosperity Avenue. The owners of this vacant lot would like the opportunity to develop in the future. As such, a condition of the Eldridge Avenue plat approval should be the extension of the utilities in front of the vacant lot. This is discussed further in the engineering department comments section below. The owners of the vacant lot will be assessed for the publiC improvements. Zoning/Land Use The two existing lots on the south side of Eldridge Avenue are zoned and guided double dwelling residential (R-2). The four existing lots on the north side of Eldridge Avenue are zoned and guided single dwelling residential (R-1). Single family houses are permitted uses in both of these land use and zoning districts. Adjacent zoning to the north is R-1 with existing single family houses and light manufacturing (M- 1) to the south with an existing light manufacturing business. Preliminary Plat Chapter 34 of the city code (subdivisions) regulates the platting or subdividing of property in Maplewood. The purpose of this part of the code is "to protect and promote the public health, safety and general welfare, to provide for the orderly, economic and safe development of land..." As such, the city must balance many interests when reviewing and considering a subdivision in Maplewood. These include the interests of the property owner, the developer, the neighbors and the city as a whole. 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." Lot Sizes and Dimensions Within the single dwelling residential (R-1) zoning district the required lot size is 10,000 square feet and the required lot width is at least 75 feet at the front setback line. Within the double dwelling residential zoning (R-2) district the required lot size for single dwelling houses is 7,500 square feet and the required lot width is at least 60 feet at the front setback line. As proposed, the lots in the plat will range from 10,161 square feetto 14,737 square feet with an average lot size of about 11,654 square feet and will meet or exceed the required lot width requirements. Public Vacation The applicant is requesting that the city vacate a section of the Eldridge Avenue right-of-way. This section of right-of-way is 136.75 feet long by 30 feet wide. According to the county plat maps the north 30 feet of this section of right-of-way was vacated to John Glenn Junior High School's property. The existing 30-foot-wide portion of the right-of-way is not needed for the road or other public improvements and as such is in the public interest to vacate. City Engineering Department Comments The city engineering department has been working with the applicant's engineering consultant in reviewing this proposal and plans. Jon Jarosch's comments are included as Attachment 11. As noted in the engineering comments, the city is going to install the improvements on this site as part of a public improvement project - including utilities, street and curbing. Following are some of the concerns and changes requested by the engineering department: Public Utilities Water for the development will be accessed from the water main in Prosperity Avenue. The Saint Paul Regional Water Services (SPRWS) will need to approve the plan for the water main before the start of construction. Sanitary sewer is also available in Prosperity Avenue, but the development is unable to extend to this line due to the fact that the sewer in Prosperity is too shallow. Therefore, the development will be serviced by the sanitary sewer line existing in Burke Avenue, the street located to the north of the development. The new sewer line will extend from the west end of the development north into the unused Kennard Street right-of-way, connecting into the sanitary sewer line in Burke Avenue. The 2 Kennard Street unused right-of-way is reflected on the county plat maps and is available for this use. However, due to discrepancies in various maps, the developer must verify the existence of the Kennard Street right-of-way prior to approval of the final plat. Also, the developer should be required to extend the sanitary sewer main to the east to allow for future service to the vacant lot on the north side of Eldridge Avenue. DrainaQe Concerns The proposed development is located in a low area with no adjacent storm sewer system to connect into. There is an existing drainage problem at 2095 Prosperity Avenue, just south of the proposed street. A ditch system along Prosperity Avenue carries runoff from County Road 8, south to the low area at 2095 Prosperity Avenue. This neighbor has expressed concern over the potential for increased runoff and flooding due to this development. While the city cannot require the developer to treat the additional runoff from Prosperity Avenue, the engineering department recommends that the developer provide relief to the low area at 2095 Prosperity Avenue by allowing the drainage from Prosperity Avenue to flow through the development and into the John Glenn property. This can be accomplished by the construction of a swale on the John Glen property to direct the storm water flow west. The city will help facilitate coordination of this improvement with the school district. Due to the fact that there is no storm sewer available for the development, the development must contain storm water runoff from a 1 OO-year flooding event along with infiltrating storm water runoff from a 1-inch storm event if soils are adequate. The developer proposes to do this with the construction of five rainwater gardens. These rainwater gardens could be reduced in size if the developer and the city are able to coordinate the construction of the swale on the John Glen property as noted above. A specific drainage and utility easement will be required for the storm sewer pipe and the two rainwater gardens in Lots 2 and 3, Block 2. The maintenance of these gardens will be the responsibility of the homeowners through the creation of a homeowner's association. Trail There is an opportunity to install an 8-foot wide pedestrian trail on top of the new sanitary sewer line extending north from the end of the new cul-de-sac to Burke Avenue. This trail will be located on the west side of the new house at Lot 1, Block 1 of the new plat and west of the existing house at 1646 Burke Avenue. This trail will ensure pedestrian and bicycle access from the new Eldridge Avenue cul-de-sac to John Glenn and Burke Avenue. Tree Removal/Replacement The city's tree preservation ordinance requires the replacement of all large trees removed, but in no case does a developer have to replace more than ten trees per acre. A large tree is defined as a tree with a diameter of 8 inches at a 4-foot trunk height, except for boxelders, cottonwood, and poplars. There are 14 large trees located on this property. With the development all of these trees will be removed. The property is 1.4 acres and based on city code requirements the developer would have to replace 14 trees. The applicant's landscape plan shows the replacement of 24 trees including 16 evergreen trees (Norway pine and black hills spruce) and 10 deciduous trees (maple and ash). The evergreen 3 trees are proposed along the west and south side of the two southern lots to create a buffer and screening from the school and adjacent light manufacturing business. In order to ensure an adequate screen and buffer from these uses, staff recommends that there be at least one evergreen tree staggered every 15 feet along the west and south property lines of the southern lots (11 trees along the west property line and 16 trees along the south property line). This would require the applicant to install 12 more trees. Watershed District The RamseylWashington Metro Watershed District is reviewing the development proposal and will have to issue Mr. Frank a permit before the contractor starts construction. Other Comments Building Department: Nick Carver, assistant building official, states that all of the new houses must meet the 2006 international residential building code. Police Department: Lt. Michael Shortreed reviewed the preliminary plat and submitted comments and suggestions (Attachment 12). In summary, Lt. Shortreed suggests appropriate street lighting and street signs, security during construction to avoid construction site thefts, clean up of all construction debris by the contractor, and the encouragement of a natural barrier of trees and landscaping between the development and John Glen to help alleviate possible complaints of people trespassing on the property of future residents. Fire Department: Butch Gervais, fire marshal, states that there are no fire safety concerns with the proposed plat. RECOMMENDATIONS 1. Adopt the attached resolution. This resolution vacates the west 136.75 feet of the 30- foot Eldridge Avenue right-of-way located west of the right-of-way line of the Eldridge Avenue cul-de-sac. The city should vacate this right-of-way because: a. It is in the public interest. b. The applicant and the abutting property owners have no plans to build a street at this location. c. The adjacent properties have street access. d. The vacation of the right-of-way will allow the development of the Eldridge Fields plat with five single family homes. 2. Approve Keith Frank's preliminary plat date stamped May 3, 2006, for the Eldridge Fields plat to be located along the existing Eldridge Avenue right-of-way, west of Prosperity Avenue and east of John Glenn Junior High School. Approval is subject to the following conditions: a. Have the city engineer approve final construction and engineering plans. These plans shall comply with all requirements as specified in the city engineering 4 department's May 22, 2006, engineering plan review including the developer entering into a development agreement with the city, extending the sanitary sewer main to the east to allow for future service to the vacant lot on the north side of Eldridge Avenue, and the construction of a swale on the John Glen property to direct the storm water flow west. b. Revise the plat to show a drainage and utility easement for the storm sewer pipe and the two rainwater gardens over Lots 2 and 3, Block 2. c. Prior to final plat approval, the following must be submitted for city staff approval: 1) Homeowner's association documents to ensure the maintenance of the rainwater gardens, retaining walls, and trees. 2) Revised site plan which shows an 8-foot wide pedestrian trail over the new sanitary sewer line which extends north from the end of the new cul- de-sac to Burke Avenue. 3) Revised landscape plan which includes at least one 6-foot high evergreen tree staggered every 15 feet along the west and south property lines of the southern lots (11 trees along the west property line and 16 trees along the south property line). d. Have Xcel Energy install two street lights as follows: at the intersection of Prosperity Avenue and Eldridge Avenue and at the end of the Eldridge Avenue cul-de-sac. The exact location and type of light shall be subject to the city engineer's approval. e. Record all easements and owners association agreements with the final plat. 5 CITIZENS' COMMENTS I surveyed the owners of the 37 properties within 500 feet of this site. Two property owners responded as follows: 1. Carol Mahre, 2095 Prosperity Avenue: I have no problem with someone building homes on the property, I just want to make sure that the flooding situation in front of my house is taken care of before it is started. 2. Linda Halliburton, 2138 Prosperity Avenue: Who currently owns the property? What is the value of the houses that will be built? I assume the city funds the storm water run-off and the new road. This will be very nice for the new property owners. However, what immediate improvements will be made for existing Prosperity Avenue/Burke Avenue property owners? What will be done about traffic control on Prosperity? It's already used as a speedway. 6 REFERENCE INFORMATION SITE DESCRIPTION Site size: 1.4 Acres Existing land use: Vacant Lot SURROUNDING LAND USES North: South: West: East: Single Family Houses (Zoned R-1) Light Manufacturing Business (Zoned M-1) John Glen Junior High School (Zoned R-1) Single Family Houses (Zoned M-1 and R-1) PLANNING Existing Land Use: Single Dwelling Residential (R-1) and Double Dwelling Residential (R-2) Existing Zoning: R-1 and R-2 Application Date The city received all the application materials for this request (including the proposed plans) on May 3, 2006. State law requires the city to take action on this request within 60 days. As such city council action is required by July 2, 2006, unless the applicant agrees to a time extension. p:sec 15\Eldridge Fields\6-7-06 PC Report Attachments: 1 . Location Map 2. Land Use Map 3. Zoning Map 4. Existing Conditions 5. Site Plan 6. Preliminary Plat 7. Grading Plan 8. Erosion Control Plan 9. Utility Plan 10. Landscape Plan 11. Engineering Plan Review 12. Police Department Review 13. Vacation Resolution 7 . John Glenn Junior High School r . ~ ..4t N w ~j~ ~~~ E s :I . um.__.- . Attachment 1 : _I_!__~-!.."'" !~urkeAvenue - ! ! .-.._:.... I . 1___ ... · ! i-I...- -~ ~ !"I .u~ ! ;~:::::::~'~,:'. ! 121~.~__ uu .. I IJ. : ~ !J/ //c;." Unused Eldridge Avenue Right-of-Way r;5~ ~ .....!::!', u.::.(/j II. .~"f. .~.' . ~ - o . . <<~.., Gateway ~'. I~ ........ rail . . I., .1- I ~u u ! . 1,-.. I ~r~ ~ .. . ! · . . I ',III- --I-.t-' -I~. ..... . Location Map ".I . . N w ~J~ ~~~ s , I · .# I ..~ . . . E Attachment 2 . '.~ u_. -. .1. Gat;way Trail .. .. _____.. I . .' -', I.. I .- r;r' Ii. T; '. ~ . . .1. '. .1II~lIIj-'-, -I -I~ ~ #/~ .' I', r:.T~. .-~~~~;, ft .. _, j I~.:.._.::J -I.:..I.:.~-.::all , .- Legend _ Business Commercial (BC) .. Light Manufacturing (M-1) C~-_l Single Dwelling Residential (R-1) '--I Double Dwelling Residential (R-2) 1,1 I I I Land Use Map Attachment 3 Zoning Map i .. i -. .- '1.1 I . 1- - ... I i- .-'" I - i. "! ' ~',";...I..1;..1 ;~1..!~ ~:"~~~~:'R~:(.'-- . _ _ un ------ I,II!I -'il..'.I.J..i~~ ... ~ t';!1".I~'-~.11J. !I . .1- ~ ".+ - .'. · · · ,~~~~. ~joIo~_-=~__:~~,,~~!=L~-=:c----- _ I 1,-, .'... ,40......'~.w.- -,.... Ir . ~ .,.'r, i 'I'T-j,-~ , ",.,.~ i I . ' :_:_.1 Proposed Eldgridge I , Fields Development ".I T ,- ..~ ,: . .1", · .'.-~ '! "I'il.[.i::i-'.:t.r~!.. ~ .. ./~ . _;' :=!l~.'~~-~:I~Jli-~ - II - .. ~ . , ..~ . . . -li-- ... Legend _ Business Commercial (Be) Light Manufacturing (M-1) , Single Dwelling Residential (R-1) - Double Dwelling Residential (R-2) N w ~~~ ~~~ E s II I Attachment 4 ~-~ _.'::....\ooo_~ lQ:"',:",,-,.- ::::J!:i=l:S!: :::::-..-- I I : Ii" I : '" ': 'I " i , "\ /', "------i- -- :: \. r--".", : V::" ''--', -'", I \ , ' ~,-\-", 'Nt ': I , ?':' --/ : i:: I: ) /1/ ' /""-~~ :, ,'II'. :,1,. iL_ --~/ ,/ 1____,/ ------'"" , , : _ 'j ,. : '~\ "'" /' ~ - 11:\, I . -:o=--c=~__ /', / ' "" w, --~-'" __ "ff " ',,/ ,- -~f}'- ~_.... ," _,__ !/!\ /-, ,. -'1-:;;'-::===--7- : ' r ' " ~ <- - -I ~ I ~.....I I \, d _ _ _ _ _ '. , , ,___ ~ ' , , "' , - -- /: , ,~--", '~ : -- \ C"j" :'" 'II" """.:"""" ", · L', .~/_ , '-:: ~, -""",!, !' i ", -k C_,_ :; 11 I' i" \. j : ' '" ""--'i",_j' ' C.l" / , : " , , '/ , , , " ,I I -- , "oc-' , ,',' ',---.'" I C -~ -: I , I ,,/,' : " J', , , , h _ \1 \ I I '':'~-- "<'--!. " '-,,, : - " ,', i '" ,/~ ", \ I; I \ L_..=-__ -...j f '.'., , " "".' , "I I, '~;"-i----- I i ~ "~~~'<'~~' ': '"'''''''' I -----1111'" r---, I F '-'::-'>\. '. '..,. "'i, ",t ,-- I ,- : : L <--- , I ',--- --...:~"'. , "''', .co- I I -r-", t "'" ,,,-<,-, 'h?', j, I -----, ",--- 1___:' , '""",,<>~:~~~. OV(1~:' !g t--~~fl~-t:~\\l' >//<'---~ : 'II " " '-... ~~,<..." --- I ;, I '^ ", I " "'" ~~'" ~ :r I " / "~--, /~'h ~~"', I , I ' , ~:::-~-/ rl I I I....'" )/<:... f,.- '- '- I I ....... " 'l'.t~",.J.~ "" /~--V___~ " "', ,..... ~ t I .... ..... . J " ' " ""'''''', , , ',/ - ", ' " "'" "'iQ~"~\~.?;- k -/- - - - - - " '1 '~r ' ""'. '~, , ~ ...... "~"" - I ' ' ',,, -,., "" I ~ " ", ......:b~".'""'''' / *f , 1 ..- ":, --';""'" " , , , I ' , "'" ......", ~ / / / I ' " ", ~'--- -"':"" "-'" ~ ',~s"" f ~ ~~ ~ ~~ ti ~~~ "l~ h;::! ! t ~ ~ a w ~ , z"tl ~:tl ~m ~r c_ l!l ~i: ~- ~z 5l> ~:tl ~-< , L--/ LZ ,- II111 illlo .il!! lIIil1m 'w!! ill! ~ ; l~ I I i , , ", " j, . , , ~ ~ ~ " 0. ~t] ..... ELDRIDCE lJ'~~oNS PUN BZ1STING "ITD F~. N'T. A 'U7~::..,01 ~..:..(.;.)..,....- -HED.!:JIlf!ll. ~00I0~~i' E_'(Ull-'-'''''' ~el)_'OOII --"..-..~ - iII- ., . Ri!1 =~,,,:::,,-=:::~-::..~..... ~~LoH Il/j. uc. ~o. 14J711 lil__ JolhyD.~_ Attachment 5 _.'""........_~V<'_).<o. .........."'" ...............,...- :::::::::::::~::: , . , , \ I: ~----------t---_J I I I --, ',' .,' "~. I ---1-' \-- I I \ I \ E I \. I \, I \ ' .~ II I I II i II II II ir------ II II I' ", II ~I" I I,' I I: I \, I II Ii: I II'" I II/!/ I :: !~--------j : II . 1 I L _ ~.=__'__=.=__'___=,=_'---===_= _ _ _ J I I j.:EHNAfUi Si, ~ / \ / \ / \ / \ ('" \ I \ 1-_ ::::::=====::=~':='::j 2<1.1 l_ I~: r--__-- ~ if i : \ I l.c 1~~ ,/ / I It.=o'O , t \1' ./ /' j ill "t. ~// // b:-...:..:=-.=-....:..: " ' , "'~ ~ '~', ~I "~~ / ".fI / I ",':- " I '".......... "" /.......... I ",::::;~ (,~:), ' , , , , , , , , , , , '-', , '", :',","'~ _''',:'','~'''','~V>:~~~ - '. "",~.. ',........~ "" '- '''''''....., ""~' , , 1 1-- -- -- ---1- -- I I I I r--------.j I 1---1 I I 'II:' I I ~! I I <=" I ;" 1- - - - t-_-=-_-7 - --l i;\ rl -- I ;e- r- r"Jl'l I;;: '1"1 I., I ~ . 1 ll_L=-~~~ - - - - i I I JIl' I "1 L_...J I ..; r---l I -1"""--- -t---+ --; --j I Ill' I I I j\~1 : \ I I I '1".1 L___J ~--------1 ~~--------~ I I rl C---, I ~ - -- - -- -- ~ \~ -- - - ~P" -t - ~ I I ~ ,: I I t-. .\)', "---, : I / '......... ^' I "...... "...... I I (,It. ') /,,;h ...... '- ......" I I ........ / <.., If "- '- '- I ,. "-/ "J ...... "- ------- ...... '- I , '" , , '1 I I ,Ii , ~"e-~~'-ll : , ."- " +- 0 --'C;---Tfl ., ('.. 'I "~;.'. ~ I ",. -;1 ____',12.___ _U ---- --"=-=ll I - , I .,-~- ~xH"l " ___:~ I , , L / / / / .~ ziJ . ol~~ 0 I~C 0 . II ~ S L-..../ zz: ;- -. 0_ " ~Z o. '!51> I 19j :2.-< " ~ rtI mll!;l ~ !IIH il ~ ~ n S IF!' . ii' fl 1 0 II ~ ~~ ~ !l · .p i! ~~ ~ ~ i ! ~ U:1i') "'" ~ ..11. ~t tii o;j~"o tAil ~ !:: f..!! ~ f! ~llj'~ ii' ~I ~ '0 >.,11, I '8 , I cI;i ~ h.~ , ! ~ I ! . , &t fia ! I ~Effi ELDRIDGE FIELDS SITE PUN BITE FlUNK lJ21EDODiltll~."""... sT. PAUl,WN!O\O\ P'-(.,>)31._.... HEDLUND ~ - ~ 2001p.,_om. ~"'M122 P......(.~l)_-IIOO r",("'l-"._ ?@...~~.:a:~ III'. R- .............. "'"'_ SI 1Ion0000C,Hodh.,d WN.uc. NO.1N1t . ,........._.....-......~... ....... ......_,...... .-.........,........... .-........,"',-... ... NOO"IT....".... ,no .' .~.~\ ';;:. , . , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , " I '" , MOO",T~"'" '.1.10 .::!.~~~e~~ ~ nm~Q ~ z"'C 'I~I~~I Q:;o ~ . i !l ~m ! ~ I ~r " n_ 22:r- , ~ ~ ~s: '--"" ~ 00_ ~. ;:z al> 5:::0 zoo( ~t] .... ELDRIDGE FIELDS COVZRSBgET/PREUJlINARY PUT nITS FlUNK 1:l'l1EOOERlOMS1III:ET.J.I'I.A IT. PAll.. MM..,01 _(.10):113-"00 HEDLUND ~ - ~ 200\lf'tl00k0l1W ~.ilMlIO'>:l _(..1)......._ F.~ (11I')___101 w~r:=~='"'?~ ..-- ..... .. ~!! S9>OIU.... Do'" ...'hyo.U...... IIl.UC.~o.l~ ,. . 'I " ~lt ,. '., ~ ~ \fl _ "l .... ~~ ~~ '" ~ ~ OJ '" :;j \'~\ C' .,~.-. '.'s:,::::.:;,:"l'-. 'r Attachmnet 6 " I II I II I II I II I I[ I II I II I II I II I II I II I II I II I :L____~nn_n_~nnJ I I!l r:D.INAHD ST. NOO"l..,.....'..."" ~~: ~!] ::: ~j1 ;ii .</!.~,1~~~. 11l~1111i ~ /',1 ". ",, 'I' iflif'l~a , b I"! I ,". !tp I! ~ mIl !i ~ 11111 II' [u~ ,f iiuj II "IL '! ..if U if !hi! Ii ... ~ ~ D S ~~;ij p.i!; :i. ;) $t}. 11; Ii ;.!t at I!! ~ ~ 'i>> t ---1-' \-- I /\ \ I I // \ :0; I I / \ '" I I / \ \ I I ('" \ \ I I 'I '" \ \ I [ ~ 1.______\ \...41.i;".J I ) L__ ',,"-, I.." r-- --.J I --<-=-, I .~ \ \ .~~$" to \~ I .~ < 1 '.J "', _ L ~c , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , 1- - - - - - - - -1-- ei i 1 ! \~, :. : 1 I 1 ..c - -\c -" - - + l! C ~ - - - - - - --I I ,., I I ~ ,i____~~~~~_~:~J \ ~: I ~ii 1---------1 i:\ ~ r "'" ,l I I 1 ~. 8: !'.., ei> : I I I ill of------!i);-+l! '--------i : ".;"::; ill L J 1 I I lIOO'l.."....,211,111 r - - - - - - - --1 I 1;'[ I I 1('1 1 ~--------1ili~--------~ I 1,.1 I 1:::[ I ~--------1~~--------~ ,. 1 I ~ I c 1 ~ ' I Iii I 1 "'", "'", I I I ", I '", j I "", "', : ,L~_______J , " I "', '", "'-J , , , , " "1 , I I "'", / 1 " I ~ "', ;/ / 1 ....~':::-'.\O'I'_.__... \ ~ \ . . I . I II I "':::.,"""..!.. '~,! I! I II: II \ :=:::s::::::r:=: Ib~ \ ----------+ J I ' ~ I~ 1 .....-'........--...-'~ ---- I \ -- -- - J .,~ J> _1__ II' -/- ~c..~ ""~ -< I! __1 -..., LI ' /~ " ,~ ..................r".,.,..,.,..,.~~ __ ___I '-'/ - .....'," ','Nt -L~:i.?rt ! '~ j:1 :" -------f': '-:~ I I' I I i\ I ~:~ I . " I~l .... ~ \ II \ ,-- I'. " Il\ ,..-/ : "'\~ !. ~U ;_ / I \\ " Ii , I, :-=1.---__ :Ia '\ /-=-=-=-==:::=~;=~ \ , , I I I I,. --.... ~!l I \ 'j!::\ ! /, , , , , , /1 /' I " I ~ /,' , '0. / ~ "~::--j' ',~ " ';::, " " , ,," '", ~' I j' "" ", \>..., ~ ~~~/ I '- " "" "'<'~"'<:-:'~ "" -,/1' II "'-"~>'<~'~,,",~',.~' S--: " , "~~....~ \ '- ::-:, , ....... '- '-', u>. '~, '- ':>~.......... ", "'" "'." 'f' 11111 I ~ In " "" ihh l ii~i i~ ~ ~ ~ !~ ill I .1 n' '1111 iPI r II I I Attachment 7 i : 1,------ j! I' I: -"',\ : ill " f \, : r' I Ii ~ j! Ir .1;, I ,.~ IL___L__J' ../11- - -- ~ " '1 ____ .-___ j=--,--=.=-,---===-==-::..-::.-5,~ ' .~, .NNAfm ST. J /' ....//---~ \" '1-::;..-=_--=-=-=-=-_"7"'- - -T- -- 'I I I -~:t~T~-j m r ,---, m I 1'--1-.... I ~. I I /....1 ........- J:!r.. -i' J " . >- +:------~--:::: I ~I , I / ~-i ,L....-_ I ' L~ E I I If\"--l r >- - - -Ih - + --l / 'I' \" I ~ - I j I 1\ \ / I' I if-I \ L___J I~ --~----'trT---i---1 I I . 1/ ,.---.., I __ I JI I I _/ rJ --.Jl----, ----!--+:.;.=!-- ~..----- "Y' I /' I - - --1--\\ _ I I I {I I'-. ~\l ./,/L-___.J I I I' ~)' I / ", '" " I I / ( ......./...)'\ / 'h >;:., '... I 1/ ....- 1/.... j , , ' / /-..., /.c--v___,/ ,', I L_1..__~___J " ' j ~ / ....... ' ._::0;. , -.J '. ~,...... ...... ---- j ~ ~ . l;jl~~'~I~~Wi " Iii! Ii! IIII ~ljiTI~ ~ I ~ " . " . ~ " . z'tl ~::o Ilm "'r 0- ~. l!l ~s:: ~- "'Z c)> ~::o z-< "I" I ~ ~! I !; ~! , ., 'I ~ ~ ~ ~t)j!o , ~ , ~~ " ~ " ~ ~ ! ' , ~ ~ I ~~ Illllmm f;j&': ~~ l'lijliill! . I ~- i r I i " t- o. :~ ~ . . " o o . :z2:T-- "---'" ~ ~ Em _.~ 'LDBID.' FI8LDS I CRADINC PLAN ~ c.:. I BIra FlUNK "'" ..... EDIlEItlllNsnUV.APT.~ 'iI IT. PJolJI.,1UlS5101 I P..." (1I2):lU-'to, tee ill ~il ill Ii il! Iii 'I jU I!i ! Iii Ii i' i I ~ !:.It ~ S ~~!ij ~~ ~ ~ ~ a ~11tj tll .... !l'~ ~ u.1!! = b Qt ~ HEDLUND ~ - ~ 2ClOI"""""_ Eop,IUl 11I12. P...,,(...)............. f...(1II1)<IO&-MOI ~'E:l,::::".::.;::.:-=._~ iii" R lIIoIrr:'tk___(o ...- If ...-.,...............- !i ........... llolo<_ _c._. IoII.lJC.NQ.lI111 Attachment 8 ..........., ...,...-.,,,.- .................... -.........,-... -.................... -.........,...-... , , , , , , , , \ I: /.... \~----------f.---_J / " , , 11-\ 11\ II \ I I I I I I I I I I I l' ,,^, / I , I .-....:...---=.=-...:..-=.=-.:---=-.=-=- ~~ =-- =-- - -= -J/~: ~------- - ~~""""\'''''- '-'-fF--, ~ 1"-... ""- ----t___~,~ 1 --- '-1 /"~I ---.., ) , ""- ""- ""- ""- ""- ""- ""- ""- ""- ""- ""- ""- ""- ""- ""- ""- ""- "' "' ""- "' "' , , ", , z-o Q::o ~m ~r ~ l!l ~3: ~- ~Z ~ 8 5>1 6:AJ Z~I '----/ 22:;- 011111 HI/lllill!iUlhi!!i!i, ? ~ ! :Il!,I~!I!llllilll!! · !Ii" dll, II' '!I ~I p!! 1,1 ~ Ii IB!,'ili.i! .! !.Ill ! R i. i ,Ii 'i'I.~1 I- i Il i ~ II l;!i!j!ill!l! I!! \ I . 'I,l! 1'1.. Il'l I 'I i 111liJilii ~il! !' !!Il'lll:!fl il!: :lll~h!l!! ill 'I < j Ii ! . ! ~ F~;;:.;:.~.:.a:- ill.' R! :::Uw_..__ ~~~ Bi M......C._d lIN,UC.NC,ll~'1 {I' <r'<II!II!~iillli I ~ It ~ , , ., Iii 1"111 ~ I .... I 1~'I'i!'li'l ~.. ~ ~. _'I !III', a ~ . !!'\II l!ll!h< 1!I!i~I!!I! II ~ l;l ~ is ~!:!II" Ii !~I'(ildi ~ U: Ii') . ~I!l!!.! i! i!:i'~!i i! ; ~ t I'i t Ijillll! 11!!l II II ~ f I ~ :Iiil/!! li 1111! II!! 5 S - , I! l Iii I , 6l'.i. ~ ~ ~ w, - ~ ~t] ELJ)RlDOZ FIELDS IlROSrON CONTROL PLAN BrTn 'RANK 1:l27EDOD1l1l1<stRfiT,N'T.' ST. P.w~, lilt "'01 ""-,{",)JU-.... HEDLUND f'f.ANNN: lMiIIIEDIIIIC .5U\'1fiIICI 2OOlIPrlOoIl""'" ~.0II<"122 ."""..(001)41)1>-??oo F"",(06,)_...,. "!~ ..., '0;:.0. : '~. , , , , I I I , , , :::::::::L==~ \ ". [II i--------TDT~,I t I \ ';.:. I -1 : +- {.;.;----Tl r-------- I ) /) ';~!,; !----~~'----j : ~----CJ-J~: 11 I " /./' : r--1 ,---" :~: II . I_l~-"-_-;-___~ ~ (:> 1../"') I i-i I lj 1 I ~~ "J,~, ~__L-=-'-~-=--LJ I I ;.~~, (',~>;,. II' : i\ : l_j! 'II I ,'<~~~~~~ . i--------i i i----~-~-~-: '\1 I ", "'" ~",~' ~--------~ \~----~--t-~ 'I ' , "" '~"" I (" I I \ :: I t ...... ... ",- 1):- l\ L I ", "<~~~>' : ~~: ,', ~'~" ---" I , 1 ' " ...... '--",_ "lr":'K~~~' " (1 I /', /"~ ,-""" ...... I I ........ ~', ~,..... I <',):" f " I " ", ~';;:;>'~" I ',/ '~' "', I , I "" ',~.ri' "', L____:::...___J " ...... I I ......" .... ::::-.. ...... ......-. ......',::::-.. ~ , '--l!'~, ~ "i 'II ...... ~... 4~..... ::::-.. ...... ili~ " t.-'~'" ~ ..... ~ " J)~~, ~ / " ""'...., "-.... ,...., ...........';.., I Attachment 9 r:a:s:=,.".....,PlDU<j.... ..............- -.......-... .......-..,..- \---________~---_j Ii I II I II I II II II II II z'1J S::o ~m ~C ~ ~ ~s: "'- ~z IS. ! a)> 1 5::01 Z-( "i' I! ~ i; ~ !! , ., 'j l .e .e t. .t .e c ~ il'lll:!I'!l:;!I'B'rllfi~!J ~ '11;'11' '1111~,f!~IrJ'III' i IJ' 'W'JIIi'lI. Ill, II j'. i~1 ~I ! ~ ~ ~ ~ j Jt! II! ~ I Ill! ~ !111m i'1!!ii! ljli if .- LZT-- "----/ ~Etl ~~'LDRID.' FaLDS UTILITY PUN , ~ C1l I Ialf'H 'IWfX '::. ,:D.'_TOHSlRaT,N'T.A II !T.PAUt..""~I01 I _CI1'l__. ..- I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ~ J!! ~ 9. b ~.q' ;:ti ~~ ~ U: Ii) ~i Iii ~I ~ il\pj ~ ~ 6l' CI>> HEDLUND ~ ~ 0llM1flIIG _...."'*1lo1wo [-"".,.. ",_(.Oll__MOII F_C."l___ ~l::;g.'!f-=:::~ 1iI-- - ~ii ........." -- _C.H...... "".UC.HOoI..'. ='t. . ~.....~,",.... :::::::-::::::..~ ............,........... ............"",- . o ~ Z"C ~::tI ~m ~r If ~~ L-/ ?Z:'- ,"'- I~Z s'B> g;o Zoo( -. " q ~Effi -~61JJR1D.' FI8LDS . LANDS~Z PLAN , ~ ""I I BITS 'RANK '::. IJVClOEIlrotl stREET. AI'T. A 1II 1T.P.......~..'OI I _<01.)JU-68II1 Attachment 10 , " \ I 11\ I \ \ I 11\ i \'\ /, \,----------L--j :: \, il \,,/ '............, I : II \ :1(-----.... ........-':>.. --1--........ \ I ........, ,/ I ....--~I---\ II '\ [! \, I[ I' , II I I '," , I' , 11.1 / : :f, I L________j 11\ . ...~;- ~'- ~-~-=:- '- ~:.::::: t '--..., , , , , /'f, I :, , I , I, , , , , , , --_oJ \ :::::::::::::-~ \ -- I I , , , , , , , : , I / I , , , , , , , , , I-::;o.-=::.=-: 'I I r--- I I. r---- ;1 r--> .. I "f).... .,1 II J . r-l'--- 1,__ I I I / I I: L__ " .~...: I~-- ./ Ii I', I" 1\ r---------l! rt-- I I " 1/ ~--------~ ~;--- I ,,'--------_~-;\ , " 1 / t-... \~ "- I I /'..... I '-" )/ I /',,, "'- I I I .................)"\ /....h ,>, II ,"'.... 1"'<" f ' , I ........ ,/ "-.f L (' ....,.../~--- "J---' _,1.-______ '" , -"" ~ I ) .' ./"> 1:...... ; v __/ ....) ~ . ~ " <, /1........ ..,.... _ ," ....v'l" ...., '-... '~.... I V ...., \ r ~.... ,^......../... I .....~ '~, ...., ~, I ') _ . ~ ':-~, .' " . / ,1 ' II ..,.... ~~ ~.....' '-... ",.", ....v,' / Ii '...., ... ~ ~~...~~" : I~II I ~I J..' , "'" ''"'' ::::..~"'~. '.,' /' II " ", ........~..;;, '. I ,I , "~ ~~. .1 I . ...... '- " ~ '-" - ~ -- I , '"....... , ~'.' I' i '" ""'-..~ ~....::: / I , "........... i ", "'" '""~~~'~':':h ,-"" " , ", . J~ "...... ", ~ "- " " ~ , "~" ~~ , ' I ~"~ '- ".... \~ ", ~ , '. ,,",, " "'.. .OOQl ~ IP" 1 ~ , i, . I I I c :}i! ! ! ! ! i ~ !II l!;il I III ! r s ; '"' I I . 'l . ~~ ~ ,~ ! , !H t; , I I I i I U:C) I ~t r;; I i II Ii i II '1'1 i,1 I ! I I I I I f ~CIi ~ Ii 1111'111111, ! s'l s I, !i: ~I a;!'i ;! , '1';1 I i ~ 4 4 ! I = ~ ~ I I it I I CIa HEDLUND -"'- ENtIIfItE1IItI( $I.Il'lOIWI 2OOlIP'oo00k0rl.0 ~.WM""ll .~..(.lltl_""OO '",,(a&1)4<II!I_11OI ,-- IIII~ Attachment 11 Page I of 4 Enl!:ineerinl!: Plan Review PROJECT: Eldridge Fields Development PROJECT NO: 06-09 REVIEWED BY: Jon Jarosch (Maplewood Engineering Department) DATE: May 22, 2006 The developer, Keith Franks of Frank Construction, Inc., is requesting City approval ofa proposed 5 unit development. This development is proposed to be located in the existing, unused Eldridge Avenue right-of-way, on the west side of Prosperity Avenue. The developer or project engineer shall address the concerns stated below by making the corresponding changes to the plans, as well as to the site. The developer has petitioned the city for a feasibility study to construct a public street and utilities that include sanitary sewer, water main and storm sewer. The city will administer the construction of the public infrastructure as well as closely observe all construction activities- especially the enforcement of erosion and sediment control measures. Drainage & Treatment I. The proposed development is located in a low area with no adjacent storm sewer system to connect into. There is an existing drainage problem at 2095 Prosperity Ave, just south of the proposed street. A ditch system along Prosperity carries runofffrom north of County Road B south to the low area at 2095 Prosperity. The developer will not be required to treat the additional runoff from Prosperity, but rather provide relief to the low area at 2095 Prosperity. There is a potential to allow the drainage from Prosperity Ave. to flow through the proposed development and into the John Glenn property. A swale would need to be constructed on the John Glen property to direct flow west into the Footprint Lake system. The city will help facilitate coordination of this improvement with the school district. If an overland overflow is feasible, the developer will not be required to store two back to back 100 year events as is currently required, but shall contain runofffrom the development for the 100 year event along with infiltrating runoff from the I inch storm event if soils are adequate. 2. The proposed culvert under the new road in not acceptable. Runoff north of the road must be collected in a manhole with a radial grate and shall be directed through the proposed rainwater garden system. It shall not be directed onto private property as is currently shown. 3. With all of the drainage potentially flowing through the rainwater gardens in Lots 2 and 3, Block 2, the engineer shall install a storm sewer pipe along with an overflow swale to better facilitate flow between the two gardens. Page 2 of 4 4. Rainwater garden, rock-sump, and rip-rap construction details shall be included within the plan set. The gardens should include rock sumps, see Maplewood standard plate 115. It is important that rainwater garden construction is phased into the project schedule appropriately. Often time the gardens are constructed too early and need to be completely reconstructed at the end of the project. Ideally, the rough grading of the garden is done with the mass grading. Then gardens may be used as sediment basins. Once adjacent construction is complete (right before sod is placed) the accumulated sediment should be removed, the rock sumps constructed, the bottom scarified and the final grading completed. Appropriate phasing shall be noted on the plans for the construction of the gardens. The native seeding and/or planting ofthe garden must take place immediately after the final grading is completed. 5. The project plans shall call out normal water level (NWL) and high water levels (HWL) at all basins. The city will require a 10-foot safety shelf at the NWL for all basins with normal water depths of 2 feet or more. 6. The project engineer shall provide information on type of native vegetation to be planted within the basins to promote pollutant-removal and higher infiltration rates. The basin landscaping design shall be subject to approval by the city's naturalist, Virginia Gaynor. 7. The catch basin at the west end of the cul-de-sac shall include a 3' deep sump to provide sediment removal for the storm-water runoff. The placement of the sump-structure also allows for ease of maintenance. 8. Soil borings information shall be provided to the city. Several borings shall be taken under the proposed street and proposed rainwater gardens. 9. A specific drainage and utility easement will be required for the storm sewer pipe and the two rainwater gardens in Lots 2 and 3 of Block 2. 10. A second catch basin shall be constructed at the low point in the cul-de-sac. Grading & Erosion Control I. Permanent stabilization blankets shall be placed at all emergency overflow swales to protect from erosion. 2. A street-sweeping and watering plan must be clearly detailed on the erosion and sediment control plan sheet. 3. The sediment and erosion control plan shall provide phasing information through housing construction. 4. Please include City of Maplewood Plate No. 350 for details on sediment and erosion control measures. Page 3 of 4 5. Call out inlet protection devices to be used as specified by Maplewood plate No. 350. Please note that a simple piece of geotextile fabric placed beneath catch-basin grates is not an acceptable inlet protection device. Utilities 1. Sanitary sewer main shall be extended east, to allow for future service to vacant lots on the north side of the proposed Eldridge Avenue. 2. Sanitary sewer mains shall be constructed ofPVC, SCH 35 and shall be noted on the plans. 3. Sanitary sewer services shall not be connected into sanitary manholes and must be constructed ofPVC, SCH 40 pipe. 4. All sewer and water services shall be shown on the plans. 5. The existence of the right-of-way must be verified over the proposed sanitary sewer main to the north as several maps show conflicting information. Miscellaneous 1. The project engineer shall provide top and bottom wall elevations on all retaining walls. All retaining walls greater than 4 feet in height require a building permit and shall include a fence at the top of wall. The contractor or the project engineer shall provide more detailed information about the walls and their construction at the time of requesting a building permit. 2. The proposed walls are located very close to adjacent property. The walls must be able to be constructed entirely within the ROW or the developer's property and must not disrupt adjacent property. 3. The city's typical street section shall be shown on the plans. See Maplewood Standard Plate Ill. If poor soils are encountered, soil correction may be required. 4. The developer or project engineer shall submit a copy of the MPCA's construction stormwater permit (SWPPP) to the city before the city will issue a grading permit for this project. 5. The developer shall enter into a maintenance agreement, prepared by the city, for the rainwater gardens, basins, and sumps. 6. The developer shall enter into a Developer's Agreement with the city that details the requirements of the public improvements. Page 4 of 4 7. The developer and proj ect engineer shall satisfy the requirements of all other permitting agencIes. 8. The developer or project engineer shall submit plans to the Ramsey-Washington Metro Watershed District, Saint Paul Regional Water Service, and Ramsey County for their reVIew. Attachmeot 12 Maplewood Police Department Memo To: Shann Finwall, Planner From: Lt. Michael Shortreed f?lAlllp77 Date= May 23, 2006 Re: PROJECT REVIEW - Eldridge Fields After reviewing the attached proposal for the Eldridge Fields project, I have the following comments and suggesUons: 1) Appropriate street iighting and street signs should be incorporated into the project to assure that the concerns of future residents in the development are met up front, Instead of require them to seek them at a later date. 2) Construction site thefts and burglaries are a large business affeclng many iarge construction projects throughout the Twin Cities metro area. The contractor should be encouraged to pian and provide for site security during the construcUon process. On-site security, alarm systems, and any other appropriate security measures would be highly encouraged to deter and report theft and suspicious activity incidents in a timely manner. 3) The primary access to the development will obviously occur off of Prosperity Road. As a result, past history has shown that there will be a large amount of construction debris deposited on the roadway. The contractor should be required to clean up this debris on a routine basis (preferably daily) in order to avoid complaints from existing residents in the neighborhood. 4) The contractor should also be encouraged to keep a natural barrier of trees and landscaping between the development and John Glenn School. This may help alleviate possible complaints of people trespassing on the property of future residents. If there are any questions or concerns regarding these comments or suggestions, please contact me at your soonest convenience. I can be reached via phone at (651 )249-2605 or via email atmichael.shortreed@ci.maolewood.mn.us. 1 Attachment 13 STREET VACATION RESOLUTION WHEREAS, Keith Frank of Frank Construction, Inc., applied for the vacation of the following-described right-of-way: The westerly 136.75 feet of the unused 30-foot-wide section of Eldridge Avenue right-of-way which is located west of the right-of-way line of the new Eldridge Avenue cul-de-sac. WHEREAS, the history of this vacation is as follows: 1. On June 7, 2006, the planning commission held a public hearing about this proposed vacation. The city staff published a notice in the Maplewood Review and sent a notice to the abutting property owners. The planning commission gave everyone at the hearing a chance to speak and present written statements. The planning commission also considered reports and recommendations of the city staff. The planning commission recommended that the city council approve the vacation. 2. On June 26, 2006, the city council reviewed this proposal. The city council also considered reports and recommendations of the city staff and planning commission. WHEREAS, after the city approves this vacation, public interest in the property will go to the following abutting property: Lot 1, Block 2 Eldridge Fields. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the city council approve the above-described right-of-way vacation for the following reasons: 1. It is in the public interest. 2. The applicant and the abutting property owners have no plans to build a street at this location. 3. The adjacent properties have street access. 4. The vacation of the right-of-way will allow the development of the Eldridge Fields plat with five single family homes. The Maplewood City Council adopted this resolution on ,2006. MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: SUBJECT: LOCATION: DATE: City Manager Ken Roberts, Planner Carver Crossing PUD Revision South of Carver Avenue, west of 1-494 May 30, 2006 INTRODUCTION Project Description Mr. Kurt Schneider, representing CoPar Companies, has submitted a letter to the city proposing revisions to the plans for a housing development called Carver Crossing. He, in conjunction with Rottlund Homes, had prepared plans that showed 299 housing units (in three different types of housing) for persons aged 55 and over. This development would be on about 73 acres of land that is south of Carver Avenue and west of Henry Lane known as the Schlomka property. As Mr. Schneider notes in his letter, (page three) they are proposing to remove all the detached townhomes and the two condominium buildings from the project plans and revise them to have only detached town houses on the entire site. These changes will reduce the proposed project density from 299 units to a number that is significantly lower (probably under 200 units). However, they cannot yet determine the number of detached town houses that will fit the site as they are still working on the revised site and engineering plans. Requests To build this revised project, Mr. Schneider will be requesting that the city approve: 1. The results and findings of an EAW for the project area. 2. A conditional use permit (CUP) for a planned unit development (PUD). This PUD would allow the project to have a mix of housing styles, to have a variety of setbacks, to have the detached town houses be on smaller lots than code usually allows (in area and in width) and to have many of the units on private driveways. 3. The vacation of existing easements for former driveways, roadways, and drainage areas within the development. 4. The proposed preliminary plat to create the new public street right-of-ways, the lots for the structures and for the outlots. 5. The design plans (architectural, site, landscape, and lighting plans) for the site and buildings. BACKGROUND In 1992, the city considered parts of the subject property in the inventory of possible properties to buy for open space. Of the approximately fifty properties the city considered, the open space committee ranked this site 20th overall and first out of 15 in the neighborhood. The city, however, was unable to negotiate a purchase of any of the property with a willing seller. As such, the city did not buy any of this property for open space and instead bought two parcels north of Carver Avenue for open space. On March 14,2005, the city council reviewed an early concept plan for this property. That plan showed 386 units of senior housing on the property. After some discussion by the council, the applicant asked the city to table their request for an Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) for the proposal. On May 23, 2005, the city council reviewed a second concept plan prepared by CoPar Companies for the Schlomka property south of Carver Avenue and west of Henry Lane. This plan showed 376 housing units in at least four styles of homes on about 72 acres. The council also authorized the preparation of an EAW for the development area and for some of the area along Sterling Street, south of Carver Avenue. On May 15, 2006, the planning commission held a public hearing about the Carver Crossing of Maplewood PUD. The commission reviewed the findings and responses of the project EAWand also the plans for a 299-unit senior housing development for the 73-acre site. (See the site plan on page six.) After much discussion and testimony from several concemed citizens, the planning commission recommended denial of the proposed comprehensive plan amendment (from R-1 to R-3L), the proposed PUD and the proposed preliminary plat. DISCUSSION As I noted above, the developer is still working on the revised project plans. As the developer notes in his letter, having all detached town houses on the site will be consistent with the existing comprehensive plan designation of single dwellings for the site. Such a plan should be more compatible with the existing single family land uses in the neighborhood. As far as traffic generation, having 299 units of senior housing would have generated about 1 ,794 vehicle trips per day (6 per unit) from the site. The revised plans, if the units would include families or persons of all ages, should generate about the same total volume of traffic from the site. The developer is asking the planning commission to provide comments to city staff or to the developer about the concept of having all detached town houses on the site. RECOMMENDATION Provide comments to city staff or to the developer about the idea of having all detached town houses on the site of the 73-acre Carver Crossing PUD. p:sec 24-28\Carver Crossing Revision for PC (6-7-2006) Attachments: 1. Letter from Co Par Companies dated May 26, 2006 2. Area Map 3. Land Use Plan Map 4. Original Stte Plan 2 Attachment 1 COPAR companies Devetopment . financ::e . Inv..tment May 26, 2006 City of Maplewood Planning Commission C/O Ken Roberts, Planner 1830 County Road BEast Maplewood, MN 55109 RE: Carver Crossing of Maplewood PUD Proposal Amendment. Dear Planning Commission Members: In an effort to accommodate what we believe is the direction of the Planning Commission we are amending our Carver Crossing PUD by reducing the product offering and removing all common wall townhome and condominium dwellings. tn their place we are currently revising the site plan to include fully detached single family homes. The density will decrease significantly below the Comprehensive Plan land use guided for this site but will maintain its current PUD classification as we believe was clearly desired by the Commission. Plan revisions are in progress and will be provided to the city staff for review as soon as they are completed. Our expectation is that plan revisions will be completed in time for presentation to the Commission in the first week of July. We sincerely hope these revisions will address the concerns of the Commission and allow us to move forward in a positive fashion. Please contact me directly. (651) 379-0500, and/or relay any comments you may have to the city staff and we will do our best to incorporate them into the revisions we are undertaking. S,iJ)CJre1Y'/1 / M-&f ~ ~~~~o~~ie~ Cc: City Council City Staff 8677 Ea91e Point Blvd Lake Elmo, MN 55042 651-379-0500 651-379-0412 (Fax) www.CoperCompanles.com Re.' Estate Development. Finance & Investment . 3 '.'~" A '!!!J I I.~:W-c ..." ! E\JIIliJj] i ~ L'E [~: 1;j;J '\3 I ,. .l>l,.0 II""[;\] _ J~~::::C=",~ - _ ~==:.=: _ ~ _ - _ ~ _ -,~ - _ Lq,.;.8yi~ ~~ _ _ ..-----~ i~..l~, - i~f': ~I~~~ll; :i ~ ~. f---- i_~! I_AI " .L_~JI 1[.;1 .. III ..;'~!i<;Jj'...m1 If]. i I ~ '~II \i!ZI "Jifiiii~; IIF"! ~ f~.J,:~~:t.,~c= :~ ~' .j ,<C! Il13' ..,....._---.--~.::',.)~,:, - ~I ~_;.,~~_~ viii" d, il. ~~~-_~^\..,~>";--~tiJl~If-r!- o'," ,.~ l'iil.. II 1""_'_ L_~J II) / ~ II IJ,--:......-~ ,L__._l.a~ [. :\'! J! ..... .~.\~Q~. /~..'S-,.,.. 'I 'Y~>~-Vi. \>'/~( ~ :''';'\~- ", .~ . ".,"',~,! 1']'- Attachment 2 1::i::,I'G,Fr, ". ~t:) .' , ; =--=~-=--~. !~ rn~ rtl. p --~! I ,- " o I:J <2J SITE ...I ::l <C II. I- Z < III ~ 41 . II il!ll . I , J i,,< I i I( . / ,//'/ / II' I i 1// J ) l .I l,ll/ .I if" j J" I' , , } i; ( ,i. ' 1/ i /1 Ii II I[ .~ I I III :11 !II ill tf II I 111 , .d [ . I~""- (',/.",) I ',;,',.L.J 1[. ;>;}"C,,>'h'~ : I I ,__ i".:;lZliFJ..... "I, i- i i 'I ~ ,I, I' t.-.___~_~ I I ~...._- /' l,l / :!~/ ff1 i',iie~ ,1./ i / D :,11 i 'i it f ,I) J.SIJ i I ~.__ ,I " _._-_,~_ ------~J [i= ':: / /. j /I'I,:/i~----._._--.j :l~~ " ,/ l i "ii1 ~~ : . 'i!l If'l >J ~ m f&I !~ i IT ".~..::,====:===--b ! ffir iH', ,d:)1 I' :1 II :'c"= i ,....,.....~ ill: :1: ; i-J' ill! 1.11 :lli i[ I ____...._.~ - I I' i I1':l :1 ,-.....--.----~_..___.., I il[ ill ii I .- " f 'J'.., i~i i .. I> /1 .. ./ / / ... 1 Ii , .' / I 1/ ./ ./ ,1' I, l "l f , , , " , / I .I!.... I / l " " i i , l .,' i / i,.'! i ! ./ l l i l / .I /I,l,. '/ l l ( / ~/'f -- ,. /"'/ ~I / I,' " ,. .' " , ,. : ,i , I!l! s Ijill AREA MAP 4 Ii ~.'- ..1 . ,'- i j I /; / ,Ii / " , .' lJ 11 N Attachment 3 ..J ~ a- t- ! mF; W ;' ~, ',-" "~ , , " 1~~~~B~~\/j'lS%~2it / i:'~~ ' ", . ">-"-, , , I "'';''''';',/''~'''''', "",",,", i",""',,'<,"''''',' Iii [, ... / , _'_II~I ~, I "".L,LL...Ll.-::;;,,', "i," .' >';~e"; I, II i i i / T>.",.~c-IJ7' I /';: ; , I ~~ 9 'r-r"'l--r"Trl, I,. l)I~"""(" .>' :, 11 \i \ Ii;, i LL-'-'--"'l .., /1 Iii 'Ai~-I -, ' , , , , if' ~" '"0 , . ~\i--f-lfn~J-J_ ~-,---!;~..1_,---l-1 ~~ -: / ,;, _ :' ~"" ',I" "" ',' !i:."-c!:-oC~_-_- --1'1_, " \! .: ,/, 1',,1, ~' ~-1:~=~1 ~+.. II ,/;'>1 ~l1r :E II ! " ---~~IIII_'___I .._~ I /;'I,W ,,:;;,/ [-111\)1111,_ o ,- '-'~ - , I~ ! !" , ~'" r ~' ,~- :1;, 1- " d'~;iC",li '7~~;--rJ",J "-,,,,, Cc-, '" '",=, 'I!, !,--, , """ -'l----li ,--, I '-i I I : : I, , i A">R~VER AVENUE_:. I '" i , .... I . .i~/hl"'<",,~.,-,,:::-,,_, I 11!. I-d.-J~_,-C '.1.1;, I "-!;''f!it.,~''\''''~-r ", "lJ~ "~C'~l" , !,I '! "'-8:-, LJ' "~ [\, He " 'i I I I', I LJLL~ I I Hr-: ,.. ,':1, I I" I Iii I I-';'-,"l'-I:t., qr- 'I I, ' LclCC:' "-- , ',' 'I' i I I ~~, "'f~' - .nE " I , ,', " /,'" I :. i ' I I _L.."":L I ___ " ',i ./1 .j1r ........L ..... '>,'-- ,'/" ,1-1"1, L _+'_ _ --- , ,',' I . t- ,,' -r ---L.....- I l' ill-' '-'--'l:J-"" ~ \ i / ///""- '-'~==;]I i /.,.1 - 0 I i "'f <' C) j .~ '/ '--C="~= Z I'//It"::"=-- :::J " 0:: w--- t; II II II I </ .< . ( / / '._;1' I " ~ ::l III Q o ~ ----.--..-i--~ SITe i R1 " i I ! , i I , I I I , I \J .L_ os /"1 fit !ll l," I .(t I , / , ! i / / , , ~"." :;~",''i.."-_:,:r .,' ' , ,~\'~;, . , I '--.-......., ----.j I , J!i/,/'/ / I .. I' . /,. ~ -I , ~, 5 {1 N LAND USE MAP Attachment 4 6 1) N SITE PLAN MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: SUBJECT: DATE: City Manager Ken Roberts, Planner Planning Commission and CDRB Duties May 30, 2006 INTRODUCTION The planning commission recently asked staff to review the duties and responsibilities of the planning commission (PC) and the community design review board (CDRB). Specifically, the PC thought it important to clarify which group should be reviewing which parts of development requests and providing comments on a variety of site-related development improvements. BACKGROUND On April 17, 2006, the planning commission had a discussion about the responsibilities and duties of the planning commission and CDRB (See the minutes on page three.) The PC asked staff to put together more information about the duties and responsibilities of the two groups. DISCUSSION I have included the city ordinances that have the duties and responsibilities of the PC (Section 2-252) and those of the CDRB (Section 2-286). These ordinances do not give detailed information about which development items or matters each group should be reviewing. The planning commission identified the following items as those that are most often looked at by both groups: Parking (size of spaces and parking lot layout) Screening Lighting Landscaping Rain Water Gardens Site Grading and Drainage (including impervious surfaces) The question for the city to decide is whether the city needs to clarify which group (if not both) should review and comment on these and on other similar items. RECOMMENDATION Provide staff with direction as to any changes the planning commission wants to see with the duties and responsibilities of the PC and the CORB as to the review of proposed development plans. p:com_dvpt\misclpc and cdrb duties - 2006 (KR) Attachments: 1. April 17, 2006 PC minutes 2. Division 4 of Cny Code (PC) 3. Division 5 of Cny Code (CDRB) 2 Attachment 1 Planning Commission Minutes of 04-17-06 -22- X. STAFF PRESENTATIONS PC/CDRB Responsibilities and Duties - Possible Meeting Date Mr. Roberts said there has been discussion regarding the responsibilities and duties of the Planning Commission and the Community Design Review Board and the overlaps. The most common item that has come up is the parking ordinance. Who should review those things and who should comment on them? Should we leave things as they are? Do you want both Chairs to meet and report to the commission and board on the decision? Commissioner Pearson said one thing he would like staff to provide in the packet is if the proposal had been reviewed by the CDRB or not or if it doesn't need to be reviewed by the CDRB. If it doesn't need to go to the CDRB then certain items should be brought up by the planning commission for discussion before it goes to the city council. Commissioner Trippler said he has had this discussion with the CORB Chairperson Linda Olson. It may be good for staff to put together a list of things that are discussed at both meetings such as parking lots and then decide how many things clearly fall under the CDRB or under the realm of the PC. Commissioner Pearson said the PC finds themselves discussing things like screening, lighting etc. and those are really items for the CORBo Years ago the PC used to discuss the location and screening of the mechanical equipment on rooftops and now the CDRB covers that in their review. Chairperson Fischer said in the past the city had the pleasure of having Matt Ledvina on both the PC and the CORB so the PC could get a report on items that were discussed and covered by the CORBo That was a rare situation to be in. Now with people's time commitments it's too difficult to serve on two boards or commissions. Commissioner Grover said he would be interested in rainwater gardens. Commissioner Dierich said she would like to know more about roof heights, grading surfaces, and impervious surfaces. The PC decided staff should compile a list of things the PC has concerns about. Then Mr. Roberts would check with Ms. Finwall to see if she could bring this item up at one of the CDRB meetings. Then the PC and the CDRB can decide if a meeting is needed or if the chairpersons should meet to discuss the overlapping of certain items that get discussed at the meetings. Then the c1hairs from each group can bring the discussion back to the respectable groups. This would alleviate the need for a joint meeting or having to make sure there is a quorum. Then city staff would decide what the next step would be. XI. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 9:03 p.m. 3 Attachment 2 ~ 2-246 MAPLEWOOD CODE DMSION 4. PLANNING COMMISSION' Sec. 2-246. Established. The city council establishes for the city a planning commission as an advisory board to the city council, as provided in Minn. Stats. ~~ 462.351-462.364. (Code 1982, ~ 25-17) Sec. 2-247. Advisory body; exceptions. All actions of the advisory planning commission shall be in the nature of recommendations to the city council, and the commission shall have no final authority about any matters, except as the council may lawfully delegate authority to it. (Code 1982, ~ 25-18) State law reference-City planning agency to be advisory, except as otherwise provided by state statute or charter, Minn. Stats. ~ 462.354, subd. 1. Sec. 2-248. Composition; appointment; qualifications; terms. (a) The planning commission shall have nine members appointed by the city council. The members shall be residents of the city and may not hold an elected city public office. When possible, the council shall select commission members to represent the various areas of the city and to help meet the needs of the residents. (b) The city council shall appoint members of the planning commission for three-year terms. The city shall divide the membership into three groups of three members each. The terms of the three members in the same group shall end in the same year. If the appointment is to fill a vacancy, the appointment would be to finish the unexpired part of the vacated terms. All terms shall expire on December 31 of the year in which the appointment ends. (Code 1982, ~ 25-19) Sec. 2-249. Chairperson and vice-chairperson. The planning commission shall elect a chairperson and a vice-chairperson at the second planning commission meeting in January each year. The chairperson shall be responsible for calling and presiding at meetings and shall have an equal vote with other members of the commission. If the chairperson is not at a meeting, the vice-chairperson shall assume the duties of the chairperson for that meeting. If the chairperson resigns from or is otherwise no longer on the planning commission, the vice-chairperson shall become the acting chairperson until the planning commission can hold an election for new officers. (Code 1982, ~ 25-20) "State law references-Municipal planning, Minn. Stats. ~ 462.351 et seq.; city planning agency, Minn. Stats. 9 462.354, subd. 1; metropolitan government, Minn. Stats. ch. 473; Ramsey County included within "metropolitan areal' over which "metropolitan council'! has jurisdiction, Minn. Stats. ~ 473.121, subds. 2, 3; metropolitan land use planning, Minn. Stats. 9 473.851 et seq. CD2:16 4 ADMINISTRATION ~ 2-252 Sec. 2-250. Vacancies. (a) Any of the following may cause the office of a planning commissioner to become vacated: (1) Death or removal from the city. (2) Disability or failure to serve, as shown by failure to attend four meetings in any year, may be cause for removal by council majority, unless good cause can be shown to the council. (3) Resignation in writing. (4) Taking public office in the city. (b) Vacancies shall be filled by the council for the unexpired portion of the vacated term. (Code 1982, ~ 25-21) Sec. 2-251. Officers; meetings; rules of procedure. (a) The planning commission shall elect its own officers, establish meeting times, and adopt its own rules of procedure to be reviewed and approved by the city council. (b) All meetings of the planning commission shall be open to the public. (Code 1982, ~ 25-22) Sec. 2-252. Duties and responsibilities. The planning commission shall have the duty to: (1) Prepare and recommend a comprehensive plan of development for the city. (2) Conduct hearings and make recommendations to the city council about the adoption of the city comprehensive plan and any amendments thereto. The comprehensive plan certified and adopted by the city council shall be recognized as the city's official comprehensive plan. (3) Study and make recommendations to the city council about implementing the comprehensive plan and any land use regulations. (4) Study and make recommendations to the city council about zoning code amendments. (5) Review, prepare and make a report to the city council by the second city council meeting in February of each year regarding the commission's activities in the past year and major projects for the new year. (6) Maintain a liaison and coordination with government and private agencies so that the city council may be familiar with the planning activities of such agencies in order to establish an order of planning and development unity for the city. (7) Review and recommend, on or before June 30 of each year, a capital improvements program to the city council, which is designed to accomplish the comprehensive plan for the city. CD2:17 5 ~ 2-252 MAPLEWOOD CODE (8) Review and make recommendations to the city council on development applications, such as rezonings, conditional use permits, variances, vacations, preliminary plats and home occupation licenses. (9) Accept such other and further duties as may, from time to time, be directed by the city council, including conducting hearings. (Code 1982, ~ 25-23) Sec. 2-253. Compensation; expenses. All members of the planning commission shall serve without compensation. However, approved expenses of the planning commission shall be paid from available city funds. (Code 1982, ~ 25-24) Sec. 2-254. Responsibilities of community development director. Subject to the direction of the city manager, the planning commission and its chairperson, the community development director shall: (1) Conduct all correspondence of the commission. (2) Send out all required notices. (3) Attend all meetings and hearings of the commission. (4) Keep the dockets and minutes of the commission's proceedings. (5) Keep all required records and files. (6) Maintain the files and indexes of the commission. (Code 1982, ~ 25-25) Sec. 2-255. Duties of city engineer, city attorney, city inspectors and other city employees. (a) The city engineer and the city attorney shall be available to the planning commission. The city engineer and attorney shall have the right to sit in with the commission at all meetings, but shall not be entitled to vote as members of the commission. (b) All city inspectors and other regular employees or personnel of the city shall cooperate with the planning commission and make themselves available and attend meetings when requested to do so. (Code 1982,9 25-26) Sees. 2-256--2-280. Reserved. CD2:18 6 Attachment 3 ADMINISTRATION S 2283 DMSION 5. COMMUNITY DESIGN REVIEW BOARD Sec. 2-281. Established; objectives. The city council does hereby establish a community design review board in order to: (1) Encourage the orderly and harmonious growth of the city. (2) Provide for the orderly and harmonious appearance of structures and property within the city. (3) Maintain the public health, safety and general welfare. (4) Maintain property and improvement values throughout the city. (5) Encourage the physical development of the city as intended by the city comprehensive municipal plan. (Code 1982, S 25-61) Sec. 2-282. Purposes of division. It is the purpose of this division to: (1) Recognize the interdependence ofland values and aesthetics and provide a method by which the city may implement this interdependence to its benefit. (2) Encourage the development of private and public property in harmony with the desired character of the city and in conformance with the guidelines provided in this division with due regard to the public and private interests involved. (3) Foster attainment of those sections of the city's comprehensive municipal plan which specifically refer to the preservation and enhancement of the particular character and unique assets of this city and its harmonious development, through encouraging private and public interests to assist in the implementation process. (4) Ensure that the public benefits derived from the expenditure of public funds for improvement and beautification of streets, public structures and spaces shall be protected by the exercise of reasonable controls over the character and design of buildings and open spaces to include street landscaping, median strips, parks, etc. (Code 1982, S 25-62) Sec. 2-283. Membership. (a) The community design review board shall consist of five members. The city council shall appoint all members of the board. Each appointment shall be for a two-year term. (b) Council-appointed members shall be as follows: (1) Two architects shall be appointed, if available to serve. (2) Two members shall be from a related design or construction field, i.e., landscape architects, interior designers, planners. civil engineers, contractors, appraisers, real- tors, etc. CD2:19 7 ~ 2-283 MAPLEWOOD CODE (3) All of the members appointed pursuant to subsection (b)(1) or (2) of this section shall, if applicable, be registered and licensed to practice in the state. (4) At least two members of the community design review board shall be citizen laypersons. (c) All members shall be able to read and interpret architectural drawings and to judge the effect of a proposed building, structure or sign upon the surrounding community. (d) The director of community development shall serve as secretary ofthe board and shall have no voting status. (Code 1982, ~ 25-63) Sec. 2.284. Officers; quorum; changes to rules of procedure. (a) Chairperson, vice-chairperson. At every second meeting in January, the community design review board shall elect a chairperson and vice-chairperson. (b) Quorum. At least three members of the board must be present at the meeting to constitute a quorum. (c) Changes to rules o{procedure. Any changes to the rules of procedure shall be submitted to the city council for approval. (Code 1982, ~ 25-64) Sec. 2-285. Approval of plans. (a) The city shall not issue a building permit for minor construction plans unless the director of community development approves the plans. The director shall also review plans for single dwellings, where required by this Code. The city council shall define minor construction by dollar valuations set by resolution. Before approving the plans, the director must determine that the plans meet all city ordinances and policies, including the design standards in section 2-290(b). The director may send any minor construction plan to the community design review board. The director shall send a copy of all approved plans to the city council. For setback changes, the director shall also send a written notice and plan to the adjacent property owners. This notice shall advise the owners of their right to appeal the director's decisions. (b) Only a city councilmember, community design review board member or an applicant may appeal the director1s decision about a minor construction project. Only a city councilmember, an applicant or an adjacent property owner may appeal the director's decision about a single dwelling. The director shall send an appeal about a single dwelling to the city council. The director shall notif'y the applicant and the adjacent property owners of the meeting. The affected parties may waive their right to an appeal by informing the director of community development. An appeal must be received by the director of community development within 15 days after the director sends a copy of the approved plan to the city council. The director shall send an appeal of a minor construction project to the community design review board. The board's decision shall be final, unless someone appeals it to the city council within 15 days after the board's decision. CD2:20 8 ADMINISTRATION ~ 2-287 (c) The city shall not issue a building permit for a major construction project unless the community design review board approves the plans. Major construction includes projects not defined as minor construction, hut does not include single dwellings. The board's decision shall be final, unless someone appeals it to the city council within 15 days after the board's decision. However, no person shall revise a plan that the city council originally approved without its approval. (d) This section shall not apply to interior construction, repair, maintenance, underground tanks, administrative variances or the same-style replacement of building parts, such as a new roof, door or windows. See article VI of chapter 44 for administrative variance procedures. (Code 1982, ~ 25-65) Sec. 2-286. Duties and responsibilities generally. The duties and responsibilities of the community design review hoard shall be to: (1) Review all building plans, except proposals excluded from review under section 2-285. The board shall review sign applications as required in article III of chapter 44. (2) Approve, modify, deny or table any matter it reviews. The board, however, shall not review interior designs. (3) Hold regularly scheduled meetings and advise an applicant of the date, time and place when the board will review the applicant's application. The staff shall notify the property owners within 350 feet of the applicant's site of the meeting, unless the city council will hold a hearing on the applicant's project. (4) Make a decision based on a staff report, the findings required by this Code and the applicant's presentation. (5) Prepare a report to the city council by January 31 of each year outlining the board's actions and activities during the preceding year. The report may include recommended changes, including but not limited to ordinances and/or procedures. (Code 1982, ~ 25-66) Sec. 2-287. Determination of similar exterior design and appearance of homes on smaller lots. (a) The director of commuuity development shall have the power to determine whether or not single-family dwellings on lots containing between 7,500 square feet and 9,999 square feet in R-2 zone lots are similar in exterior design and appearance. Appeals of the director's decision shall be made to the community design review board. (b) Dwellings on lots with less than 10,000 square feet in R-2 zones, having a similar exterior design and appearance, shall be located at least 500 feet from each other. CD2:21 9 ~ 2-287 MAPLEWOOD CODE (c) Dwellings shall be considered similar in exterior design and appearance if they have one or more of the following characteristics: (1) The same basic dimensions and floor plans are used without substantial differentia- tion of one or more exterior elevations. (2) The same basic dimensions and floor plans are used without substantial change in orientation of the houses on the lots. (3) The appearance and arrangement of the windows and other openings in the front elevation, including the appearance and arrangement of the porch or garage, are not substantially different from adjoining dwellings. (4) The type and kind of materials used in the front elevation are substantially the same in design and appearance as adjoining dwellings. (Code 1982, ~ 25-67) Sec. 2-288. Applications for review; required documents and information. All persons required to submit building or remodeling plans under this division shall submit a community design review board application form and the following written materials, as applicable to the specific project and in sufficient quantities as determined by the board, to the community design review board: (1) A design development plan of the entire project showing the following: a. A dimensioned site plan. b. A roof plan of all buildings. c. The locations of all existing trees and structures on the project site. d. The locations and dimensions of all streets, alleys and highways, both adjacent to and within the project site area. e. The locations of all off-street parking and loading facilities and areas. f. The locations of points of entry and exit for all vehicular and internal circulation patterns. g. The locations of all walls and fences. h. The locations of all exterior lighting standards. A detailed photometric plan shall be submitted as required by the outdoor lighting requirements in section 44-20. i. The grading and slopes, where these affect the relationship of the buildings on the project site and surrounding buildings adjacent to the project. (2) Dimensioned architectural drawings which show the following: a. An entire plan drawn to scale. b. Elevations, including all sides of the proposed project buildings or structures, including materials and colors. CD2:22 10 ADMJl\I STRATION ~ 2-290 c. Perspectives, models or other suitable graphic materials, at the option of the board. (3) Preliminary landscape plans designating all areas to be landscaped, with an indication of both types of materials and their elevations. (4) Site photographs, at the option of the board. (Code 1982, S 25-68; Ord. No. 826, S 3, 4-8-2002) Sec. 2.289. Staff duties. The community development department staff shall process and review all community design review board applications and shall act as professional advisors to the board. Other staff members of the city may provide advice to the board, depending upon the complexity of the subject and the need for specific expertise. (Code 1982, ~ 25-69) Sec. 2-290. Review of application; required findings for recommended approval. (a) The community design review board shall review the written materials submitted with the application under section 2-288 with respect to the following aspects of the proposal: (1) General site utilization. (2) General architectural considerations, including a review of the following: a. The height, bulk and area of all buildings on the site. b. The colors and materials to be used. c. The physical and architectural relationship of the proposed structure with existing and proposed structures in the area. d. The site, layout, orientation and location of all buildings and structures and their relationship with open areas and the topography. e. Height, materials, colors and variations in boundary walls, fences or screen plantings. f. Appropriateness of sign design, where provided by article III of chapter 44, and exterior lighting. (3) General landscaping considerations. (4) Graphics to be used. (b) To recommend approval of an application, the board shall make the following findings: (1) The design and location of the proposed development and its relationship to neighbor- ing, existing or proposed developments and traffic is such that it will not impair the desirability of investment or occupation in the neighborhood; it will not unreasonably interfere with the use and enjoyment of neighboring, existing or proposed develop- ments; and it will not create traffic hazards or congestion. CD2:23 11 ~ 2-290 MAPLEWOOD CODE (2) The design and location ofthe proposed development is in keeping with the character of the surrounding neighborhood and is not detrimental to the harmonious, orderly and attractive development contemplated by this division and the city comprehensive municipal plan. (3) The design and location of the proposed development would provide a desirable environment for its occupants, as well as for its neighbors, and it is aesthetically of good composition, materials, textures and colors. (c) The board, in its recommended actions for approval, may: (1) Recommend any conditions that it deems reasonable to its action of approval. (2) Recommend that the applicant, as a condition, provide guarantees that the conditions of approval will be complied with. (Code 1982, ~ 25-70) Sec. 2-291. Recommendations for establishment of special community design re- view areas. The community design review board may, from time to time at its discretion, recommend to the planning commission that certain special community design review areas, and that specific criteria to be considered in reviewing applications for development within such areas, be established. The planning commission shall review such recommendations and shall recom- mend approval, modification or denial of the applications to the city council. The city council shall take the final action on all such recommendations and may designate such areas by resolution. (Code 1982, ~ 25-71) Sec. 2-292. Criteria for final inspections and issuance of occupancy permits for developments. No final inspection shall be made or occupancy permit shall be granted as to any development reviewed by the community design review board pursuant to this division. unless the completed work complies with the plans approved and the conditions required by the city council pursuant to this division. (Code 1982, ~ 25-72) Sees. 2-293-2-345. Reserved. ARTICLE V. FINANCE- DIVISION 1. GENERALLY Sees. 2-346-2-370. Heserved. .Cross reference-Any ordinance appropriating funds, levying or imposing ta.xes or relating to an annual budget saved from repeal, ~ 1-19(a)(3). CD2:24 12 MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: SUBJECT: DATE: Interim City Manager Ken Roberts, Planner City Tour May 31,2006 The planning commission has set its annual tour for Mondav. Julv 31. 2006. A coach bus will leave city hall at 5:30 p.m. sharp and retum at about 8:30 p.m. The tour will include projects and developments that are under construction or that have been recently finished and other areas or sites of interest in Maplewood. The planning commission is inviting you, the city council, the HRA, the CDRB and staff liaisons to join them on the tour. We will stop along the way for a box dinner. Please mark this date on your calendar. I have included a first draft of possible sites that we should visit on this year's tour. For the planning commission, please review the attached list and be prepared to provide staff with comments or suggestions about the sites and projects for this year's tour. Please call our department at (651) 249-2301 or 249-2303 or e-mail me at Ken.Roberts@ci.maplewood.mn.us by June 16, 2006, if you want to go on the tour. If you have any suggestions for tour stops, please let staff know by June 30, 2006, so we may include them. P:misc/annual tour memo 3 Attachment: First Orafl of Sites 2006 CITY/PLANNING COMMISSION TOUR July 31,2006 FIRST DRAFT OF SITES SITE INFORMATION 1. Leave from City Hall 2. New CVS Store - (2196 White Bear Avenue) 3. Comforts of Home Senior Housing Site (2300 Hazelwood Street) 4. Brandt Town houses (2811 South lawn Drive) 5. New Ramsey County Library (3025 South lawn Drive) 6. New Best Buy Store (1801 County Road D) 7. New Office Building - (3100 Kennard Street (at Legacy Parkway)) 8. New County Road 0 - (Hazelwood to Walter Street) 9. Heritage Square Fourth Addition (1240 - 1260 County Road D) 10. Regions Sleep Center (2688 Highway 61) 11. Maplewood Imports Audi Dealership (2450 Maplewood Drive) 12. Second Harvest Warehouse (1140 Gervais Avenue) 13. Gladstone Neighborhood (English and Frost Avenue) 14. Box Dinner Break (Maplewood Fire Station Number 2 -1955 Clarence Street) 15. Gladstone Savanna (Frost Avenue) 16. Saint Paul Tourist Cabins (940 Frost Avenue) 17. Carpet Court Site (Arcade Street and Larpenteur Avenue) 18. Maplewood Townhomes (181 - 191 Larpenteur Avenue - at Adolphus) 19. Overview Town houses (McMenemy Street and Summer Place) 20. Woodlands Town houses (McMenemy Street, south of Ripley Avenue) 21. Mounds Park Academy (2051 Larpenteur Avenue) 22. Jensen Estates (McKnight Road and Hoyt Avenue) 23. 5-8 Club (2289 Minnehaha Avenue) 1 24. 3M LDI Building - (Minnehaha Avenue) 25. Cahannes Estates (Crestview Drive, north of Minnehaha Avenue) 26. Summerhill Senior Housing (935 Femdale Street North) 27. Saint Paul's Monastery and Priory Property (2675 Larpenteur Avenue) 28. Hill-Murray High School (2625 Larpenteur Avenue) 29. Maplewood Public Works Building (1902 County Road B) 30. Back to City Hall 2