Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout06/19/2006 MAPLEWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION Monday, June 19, 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. June 7, 2006 5. Public Hearings 7:00 Conditional Use Permit Revision - Liberty Classical Academy (2696 Hazelwood Street) 7:20 Legacy Village Townhomes (County Road D and Kennard Street) Comprehensive Plan Amendment (BC to R-3(H)) PUD Revision Preliminary Plat 7:30 5-8 Club Expansion (2289 Minnehaha Avenue) Comprehensive Plan Amendment (R-1 to BC-M) Zoning Map Change (R-1 to BC-M) Conditional Use Permit Revision 6. New Business None 7. Unfinished Business None 8. VISitor Presentations 9. Commission Presentations June 12 Council Meeting: Ms. Dierich (Note - meeting held at Carver Elementary School - Upper Alton Road) June 26 Council Meeting: Mr. Kaczrowski July 10 Council Meeting: Ms. Fischer July 24 Council Meeting: Mr. Grover 10. Staff Presentations Reschedule July 3 meeting - July 5 or July 6? Annual Tour Update (July 31, 2006) 11. Adjournment DRAFT MINUTES OF THE MAPLEWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION 1830 COUNTY ROAD BEAST, MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA WEDNESDAY, JUNE 7, 2006 I. CALL TO ORDER Chairperson Fischer called the rneeting to order at 7:00 p.rn. 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 Present Present P rese nt Absent Present Present Absent Present P rese nt Ken Roberts, Planner Erin Laberee, City Engineer Lisa Kroll, Recording Secretary Staff Present: III. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Commissioner Dierich requested a discussion regarding the expanded EAW discussion for Carver Crossing of Maplewood to be added under New Business as item 6. a. and moving Carver Crossing of Maplewood - PUD Revision Letter to item 6. b. Commissioner Trippler moved to approve the agenda as amended. Commissioner Desai seconded. The motion passed. IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Ayes - Desai, Dierich, Fischer, Hess, Kaczrowski, Trippler, Yarwood Approval of the planning commission minutes for May 15, 2006. Commissioner Trippler had changes on pages 6, 7, and 18. On page 6, in the last paragraph, last line; change the words car storeo to karst area. On page 7, in the fourth paragraph, he rephrased the first three lines to read: Commissioner Trippler asked how could 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 and did not know if the remaininQ ovor 200,000 cullis yards, is tRe material is going to support the construction that is likely to be built there? On page 18, in the fourth paragraph, fourth line, it should read EAW instead of onvironmental impaet stuEly. Planning Commission Minutes of 06-07-06 -2- Commissioner Dierich had changes and additions on pages 5, 7, and 16. On page 5, second paragraph, fourth line, rernove the word rolativo and insert similar. In the fourth paragraph, second line, it should read This is a huge zoninQ change for south Maplewood, and due to the environmentallv sensitive nature of this situation for zoning ana espocially environFReAlally, aRG-this area deserves close scrutiny. On page 7, last paragraph, third line, after Wisconsin, change the words that havo to which has. In the th line, it should read She said she is 49, which is only 6 years away from turning 55, for the homos 55 If she were to own a home for those 55 and over and 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. On the last line its should be i(s and the word il=lfIU* should be separated as in flux. On page 16, last paragraph, third line, after the words don't have insert to decide exactlv how we wish to develop remainina parcels. In the sixth line, after resource, add the words to the city. Commissioner Trippler moved to approve the planning comrnission rninutes for May 15, 2006, as amended. Commissioner Dierich seconded. Ayes - Dierich, Fischer, Hess, Trippler, Yarwood Abstentions - Desai, Kaczrowski V. PUBLIC HEARING Eldridge Fields (Eldridge Avenue, west of Prosperity Avenue) Right-of-Way Vacation, Preliminary Plat (7:08 - 7:35 p.m.) Mr. Roberts said 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. The site consists of two large lots on the south side of 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. 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 ofthis 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. The owners of the vacant lot will be assessed for the public improvements. Commissioner Trippler asked if the trail would be surfaced with black top, crushed rock, or wood chips? Planning Commission Minutes of 06-07-06 -3- Mr. Roberts said the city's standard trail in most locations is bituminous which is what staff expects here as well. Commissioner Trippler asked if Eldridge Avenue East would be a public or private street? Mr. Roberts said Eldridge Avenue East would be a public street and the city would build the street as a public improvement project and assess the cost back to the adjacent property owners. Cornrnissioner Oierich asked if the unused 30 foot wide section of the Eldridge Avenue right-of- way would go to the developer or to the John Glenn school? Mr. Roberts said the unused 30 foot section would go to the developer. Commissioner Dierich asked what kind of provision is there if there were a flooding problem? Who would be responsible if there were flooding problems and the plans didn't work out correctly? Mr. Roberts said if the situation got bad enough, potentially it would be up to a judge and jury to decide the responsible party for the flooding problem. Erin Laberee, Maplewood City Engineer, said the city intends to work very closely with the developer to ensure there are no flooding problems. The plan is to make the drainage and flooding situation better and not worse. Commissioner Hess asked how much grade change would be required to make the site work out versus what exists now? He asked if there would be a lot of cut and fill to make this development work? Mr. Roberts said there may be a development representative here in the audience that could answer that. Commissioner Trippler asked why there was a need for so many short retaining walls shown on the plans. Ms. Laberee said the retaining walls appear to be two to four feet in height but are necessary to get the homes built high enough which is needed for positive drainage towards the street. Chairperson Fischer asked the applicant to address the commission. Mr. Keith Frank, 1327 Edgerton Street, St. Paul, addressed the commission. Mr. Frank said he is the owner and developer of the project. He said he is leaving the grading situation up to his engineers and the city engineers but he is trying to fix an existing drainage problem and plans on everyone working together to make this development happen. They are concerned about the runoff coming off the ball fields as well. At this point they are not sure how much fill they will need or how much soil they will have to move around. Chairperson Fischer asked if anyone in the audience wanted to speak regarding this proposal? Planning Commission Minutes of 06-07-06 -4- Ms. Carol Mahre, 2095 Prosperity Avenue North, Maplewood, addressed the cornrnission. Ms. Mahre gave photos to the planning comrnissioners that represent the drainage situation after a rainfall on a Sunday afternoon and the water standing at the site. She said she lives on the south side of Eldridge Avenue and she is very concerned about the drainage problem. She said she has Ilived here for 48 years and the drainage has been a problern from day one. The water has always drained to the back and out towards County Road B. When John Glenn school fields were redone the grade was changed back there where there used to be a two to three foot deep ditch where water would drain but now that is filled in, therefore, the water settled in the back lot and she is concerned about the drainage problem. The water garden that was mentioned is not going to help the problems here. Commissioner Trippler said the city has been working to resolve flooding issues using rainwater gardens. Does the city have a program to help the neighbors put in rainwater gardens to help with drainage concerns? Ms. Mahre said rainwater gardens would not help at all. She said you would have to see the photos to see the level of water she is referring to. She said her whole back yard gets flooded and she would have to have a ditch 20 feet deep to catch all the water. Ms. Laberee said this is the low area of everything south of County Road B so there is a lot of drainage draining to 2095 Prosperity Avenue. She agrees a rainwater garden would not be able to handle the drainage. The city is not anticipating rainwater gardens on this development to handle all this drainage either but the city wants to provide an overland route for the drainage to possibly make its way to John Glenn school and eventually into Footprint Lake. The city wants to provide a place for the water to go so people are not flooded out. Ms. Mildred Grealish, 2111 Prosperity Avenue North, Maplewood, addressed the commission. She said the water drains like a river to her property and it's like their yards are holding ponds for the storm sewer that comes down because they have a culvert on the north side of the property and then there is nothing there. A rainwater garden would not be able to handle the drainage here. The neighborhood is hoping the new development will take care of the current drainage problems here. Chairperson Fischer asked if anyone else in the audience wanted to speak. Nobody came forward. Chairperson Fischer closed the public hearing. Commissioner Trippler moved to adopt the attached resolution in the staff report. 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. Planning Commission Minutes of 06-07-06 -5- d. The vacation of the right-of-way will allow the development of the Eldridge Fields plat with five single family homes. Commissioner Trippler moved to 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: (changes made by the PC are underlined if added.) a. Have the city engineer approve final construction and engineering plans. These plans shall comply with all requirements as specified in the city engineering department's May 22, 2006, engineering plan review including the developer entering into a developrnent agreernent 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 Glenn 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). Further consideration shall be aiven to the tree plan. 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. Commissioner Dierich seconded. Ayes - Desai, Dierich, Fischer, Hess, Kaczrowski, Trippler, Yarwood Commissioner Dierich recommended that the developer look at using other tree species. The trees in the landscaping plan are all dry land trees. She would recommend using tree species like tarnarack, coffee, linden and others. The motion passed. Commissioner Hess asked if the city engineer has reviewed all of the flooding potential and rainwater concerns and things of that nature and the sewer placements and capacities so this will alleviate the problems? Planning Commission Minutes of 06-07-06 -6- Ms. Laberee said as the proposed development sits now if the drainage frorn Prosperity Avenue was not looked at, this development is designed to hold two back-to-back 1 OO-year events or two six-inch rainstorms and they have accomplished that. We need to take into consideration the excess drainage that is coming off Prosperity Avenue and have an overland route for that. The city has looked at what is being proposed very carefully and what needs to be done to irnprove the drainage problems that are occurring. Commissioner Hess asked with the addition of the rainwater gardens what is the depth of the rainwater garden is and if that needs to be fenced for the safety of the children in the area? Ms. Laberee said the city has two sets of rules for rainwater gardens versus ponds. If it is a rainwater garden it can only handle 2 feet of water and it has to infiltrate with 48 hours and has to be dry most of the time. If it's deeper than that, the city requires a 10-foot safety bench or a 10- foot wide vegetated strip around the pond that drops 1 foot over the 10 feet in area. That way if someone got into the pond it would not drop off abruptly. The city has required fences in the past around rainwater gardens but do not recommend them anymore and the city prefers to stay with the 10-foot safety bench around it. This item goes to the city council on June 26, 2006. VI. :NEW BUSINESS 'a. EAW Discussion - Carver Crossing :Commissioner Dierich said this afternoon she received a telephone call from a south Maplewood resident who had a different understanding of the EAW discussion at the May 15, 2006 planning !commission meeting. She said the commission could have asked for an expanded EAW which means it could remain open until all the questions were answered. Because the planning 'commission voted the EAW down the EIS was out of the question. Commissioner Trippler said the commission voted down the need for an EIS which means the commission accepted the EAW. Commissioner Dierich said she misunderstood then because she didn't think that was the commission's intent she thought the comrnission wanted the questions answered. Commissioner Trippler said as he understood the EAW and EIS process, what Chuck Ahl was 'trying to explain to the cornmission was if the commission rnakes the determination that an EIS is not necessary but they still have questions and concerns regarding what they found in the EAW that does not mean the process has then ended. Staff would still work on resolving the questions and get back to the commission with responses. There was no time table given for when the responses would be given. The commission determined that an EIS would not answer the kind of questions and concerns the commission had and it would be a lot more expensive and would take a lot longer of a proposition so the commission recomrnended a negative declaration for an EIS at that point and time. Commissioner Dierich said she understood that but she also understood that the EAW was to stay open. Planning Commission Minutes of 06-07-06 -7- Comrnissioner Trippler said the EAW is still open. The cornmission voted not to require an EIS at that point and time. Cornrnissioner Dierich said she thinks we need to call on the audience to speak then because this person had a discussion with Chuck Ahl today and this person's idea and Chuck's Ahl's idea is different than what was just said by Commissioner Trippler. Mr. Roberts said it's unfair to speculate what Chuck Ahl thinks when he's not present and staff hasn't spoken to him about this. After the planning commission meeting and the comments and concerns that were brought up, the consultant went back and tried to get more information to add to the responses and comments received for the EAW. All of that inforrnation is going to the city council on Monday, June 12, 2006. That way the city council will have an enhanced version of what the planning commission had reviewed at their meeting. Because of all the comments and questions from the commission and the neighbors that spoke the report will be more complete which will assist the city council with more information. Chairperson Fischer said the concerns and questions of the planning commission are documented in the minutes and given to the city council to aid in their decision making. Commissioner Trippler said he wasn't sure why the commission is reviewing this proposal again and why they are being asked to reconsider this proposal again. Without knowing the answers to the questions and concerns that were raised at the last planning commission meeting he doesn't see how the commission can move forward on this issue. Mr. Roberts said staff and the developer are not looking for a concrete answer to go forward. What staff and the developer are looking for is feedback from the commission. If the developer made these density reductions, would this help with some of the commissions concerns. CoPar is working on putting plans together and if the commission says they still don't like the plan, the developer mayor may not go back to the drawing board and do something different. If the commission can conceptually think about whether they like detached units and having less density they should pass that information on to the developer so they can go to the next step. When the developer comes up with another plan staff will bring the new plans back to the planning commission to review. Commissioner Yarwood asked if the city council would be determining whether an EIS is necessary or not at this point? Mr. Roberts said yes. If with the EAW was looked at with a plan for 299 units as the worse case scenario and now the developer is given the go ahead for the revised plan for a lower unit count . for sayan example 180 units, that density count should have less of an impact on the area compared to the original plan of 299 units. If the city council makes the determination that an EIS is not necessary for a unit count of 299 units then that idea should hold true for a lower density plan. Planning Commission Minutes of 06-07-06 -8- Mr. Roberts said there will still be impacts from the freeway noise, impacts on the wetlands and it will still affect Fish Creek, but the impacts should be less with a lower density. Ideally staff was 'going to provide the plat, the EAW and EIS plan at the city council meeting but because of the cornrnents and concerns that were raised at the planning commission meeting, the developer wanted to go back to the drawing board. They still want to keep the EAW and EIS questions moving forward so the developer will have answers to assist them in the redrawing of the plans which staff would bring back to the planning commission. Commissioner Dierich asked if the city council approves the EAW, does that automatically mean the city council chooses not to do an EIS? Mr. Roberts said the city council would be making a negative declaration. They wouldn't necessarily approve an EAW, they would say they found no need for an EIS. That doesn't mean there isn't a need for the study and a need for answers to the questions. The developer and staff know there are issues out there and questions are not resolved. Commissioner Dierich asked if the city council made a positive finding then an EIS would need to be done? Mr. Roberts said correct. Chairperson Fischer said the city council would also have the ability to ask further questions on the EAW? Mr. Roberts said correct. The city council will review the comments and the responses and they may think of things that the neighbors and the planning commission did not think of. Comrnissioner Dierich said there is an issue of the city imposing its will by saying you can expand the EAW and there really is no such thing as an expanded EAW. There is an issue if this is due . process or not? We need to be aware of it and this is going to come up at the city council meeting and it would be helpful to have the City Attorney and Chuck Ahl at the meeting on Monday, June 12,2006, because this is an issue at this point. We need to look at the way this was presented. She did not understand that the planning commission closed the dooron the EAW atthe May 15, 2006, meeting. She thought that the planning commission could still ask for an EIS if they did not get sufficient answers to the questions that were raised at the planning commission meeting. That is not the case and we need to be clear that the door is closed on the EAW if you rnake a negative declaration. b. Carver Crossing of Maplewood - PUD Revision Letter Mr. Roberts said 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. Planning Commission Minutes of 06-07-06 -9- As Mr. Schneider notes in his letter on page three of the staff report, they are proposing to Irernove all the detached town homes and the condorniniurn buildings frorn 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 deterrnine the nurnber of detached town houses that will fit the site as they are still working on the revised site and engineering plans. (Mr. Roberts distributed an e-rnail frorn Mr. Schneider that he received prior to the start of tonight's meeting to the commission and brought a revised site plan for staff to show on the screen.) The e-mail basically shows 7 bulleted items. a. The revisions result in a density of 2.7 hornes per acre. b. The intersection of Henry Lane at Carver Avenue was moved 100 plus feet west to accommodate the neighbors concerns. c. They terminated the public portion of Henry Lane south of Fish Creek. The termination of Henry Lane is taking shape as a round-about with two private roadway access points leading further into the site. Henry Lane will essentially be no longer than it is today. d. A total of 37% of the site (27+/-acres) is identified as open space within the site. This open space is in the form of established woodland, grassland, creek frontage and wetland. e. The highest noise measurement area (70dBA) is no longer impacting any homes and is the location of the round-about. f. The daytime noise area (65dBA) previously impacted 137 homes; the revised layout has reduced that number to 36 homes with limited rear yard exposure to noise. Approximately 41 % of the 14+ acres of the site that fall within the daytime noise area are identified as open space. g. The developer is working hard to maximize wetland setbacks and will be meeting a 50 foot average setback. Commissioner Trippler said he isn't sure why we are discussing this proposal again. This is a unique area of Maplewood that is zoned R-1 (R) which means 1 home for every 2 acres and this is a 73-acre site which means the commission should be looking at a plan for 37 or 38 homes in total. Mr. Roberts said he and Chuck Ahl discussed that after the last planning commission meeting and Mr. Ahl said he strongly believes this area will develop with city sewer. Sewer is available on Carver Avenue so it will be available to this area. Mr. Ahl said long term the best use of this land involves having city sewer. Commissioner Trippler said that's good to know but just because there could be city sewer here doesn't mean he wants to see 47 homes per acre built here. It seems to him that this area of . Maplewood is unique because there are a limited number of homes built per acre. Planning Commission Minutes of 06-07-06 ICommissioner Trippler said to go from 299 to 200 units doesn't even begin to get down to the Iconcentration that he would like to see in this area of Maplewood. This plan elirninates sorne of ,the noise issues only from the standpoint from the number of units that are in areas that are !constantly exceeded by the noise criteria. But this whole area is in a noisy area. This area is in !the Mississippi Critical Area corridor. As he read the criteria for the critical area one of the things !he focused on was if you have vistas and areas that are pristine that they should be maintained and kept. The whole development on the north ridge that overlooks downtown St. Paul is just packed with houses and he doesn't see how that is going to rnaintain the pristine nature of that vista. The development itself would be very nice in another part of Maplewood like in the Gladstone or Hillcrest area but not in this part of Maplewood. If the developer wants to talk about 36 to 40 units on this 73 acres fine, but at 200 units that is way to high of a density for this area. -10- Chairperson Fischer said the request was for a change in the density. As one who voted for the density that is there now her rationale was for an unsewered area that could not support on-site systems for a 10,000 square foot lot size. She was voting for the larger lots not because she thought it was something that was an enhancement or amenity or something we had to have but because it was for the public health and safety reasons that on-site systems could not be supported on standard lots. Commissioner Trippler said he understands when you bring in city sewer that takes away the rationale for having R-1 (R) which protects homes from having cross contamination from too many septic tank systems. It doesn't detract from his wanting to maintain this area with its unique ,characteristics in fact he would like this area to be zoned Farm. Commissioner Dierich said as a person who wanted the R-1 (R) zoning here part of that was because of the city sewer and the other part was to prevent subdivisions of smaller lots and also to prevent exactly what Dale Trippler said. The planning commission discussed this long and hard that we wanted to protect this area of south Maplewood. Some people voted for certain density because of the drainage system concerns but some voted because of the nature of this part of south Maplewood. She said she understands what Chuck Ahl is saying regarding city sewer coming into this area but that doesn't change how she thinks about this land. She likes the fact . that the developer was willing to change to single family detached units. Her objection to the last plan was having senior condominiums in the plan which doesn't fit in this neighborhood. Former city councilmember's made a promise that they were not going to allow condominiums this far south in Maplewood. She personally likes the attached town homes because it saves more of the land. She would still like to see lower density and more green space. She thinks the plan is an improvement over what it was. She was not a fan of the senior's only housing concept. Commissioner Yarwood said his understanding was that the trade off for developing this as R-1 (R) was to have 1 house for every 2 acres so that more of the land needed to be developed to make this an economically feasible plan. He would like to see low density here and in fact would . like to see this area as a park, but we know that isn't going to happen. He is concerned about having more of the land used with single family detached units and there are still a lot of questions and conditions that have to be rnet. At least the plan is going in the right direction. He asked if the developer could comment on the density and what was looked at for R-1 (R) verses the current land? Chairperson Fischer asked the applicant to address the commission. . Planning Commission I Minutes of 06-07-06 IMr. Kurt Schneider, CoPar Cornpanies, addressed the commission. He said he was surprised this 'proposal was on the agenda tonight because they were not ready to present anything. They were taken back from the cornments, questions and the feedback frorn the last planning cornrnission Imeeting. They had received very strong recommendations and direction from city staff during the planning stage and had been working together over the course of 1 year on this plan. Originally 'they had about 386 units on the plan. They weren't warned that density nurnber was not a possibility, but none the less they heard what they heard at the last meeting and are trying very hard to identify the various issues and concerns and really work with the style of housing in this project which reworks the engineering, grading and drainage for a project of this magnitude. It was a highly developed plan for the stage it was at which was a result of the EAW process. The EAW process was almost 1 year long. They know more about this site than anyone else has . known, including the previous owners. They think the revised product with lower density is a good plan but will also raise the cost of the units. He agrees with the comments made and the variety of product offered here but that requires a comprehensive plan change and he was told before that was not possible. That does set a certain precedent level. They have worked hard on the site layout and the site planning issues in a short amount of time to come up with a similar layout to meet the open space dedication requirements. They are dedicating 37% of the site as open space. -11- Mr. Schneider said they are just here for feedback and are not here to make a presentation. The decisions are made on the site conditions; they made the decision to purchase this property because city sewer would be available in this area. The concept plan, before the planning commission, is a progression of the feedback they heard from the planning commission meeting. . This is a density reduction at 2.7 units per acre from what would be accepted elsewhere at 4.1 acres in Maplewood. The plan has a great deal of open space and they removed the condominium units from the plan. These units would be estimated to cost from $370,000 to $600,000. This is a high quality, high investment development. The 2002 comprehensive plan identifies this as a site that could be developed at 4.1 units per acre. They make their land acquisition and land use decisions based on that type of information from a city. The details in terms of how you get there, is what they are going through right now. Obviously according to the planning commission this site is not appropriate for that type of density. This site is very unique. The open space plan is quite impressive. 97% of the homes will be adjacent to open space within the project, which is unique. They are trying to harness the natural amenities of the site with the plan which will be presented at a later date to the planning commission. Commission Trippler said you may want to stop spending any more money on this plan. There is a new mayor and two new city councilmember's that campaigned regarding an area called the Gladstone area and that is an area that is currently zoned R-1 and R-2 which could have had as many as 1,500 units built on it. The Gladstone Task Force recommended a plan for 800 units on it and at the city council workshop on June 5, 2006, the city council and mayor said they want no more than 400 units in an area that is already densely populated. If the city council is looking at 1/3 to 1/4 of the density in an already urban area he said he would be very surprised that the city council and mayor thought that an area that has 1 house per every 5 acres is all of the sudden going to be highly densely populated. Chairperson Fischer said if attaching town homes is kinderto the environment she has no problem with that. i Planning Commission Minutes of 06-07-06 -12- Commissioner Dierich asked how this interplays if this is a CUP or PUD? Would that be okay to Ihave attached townhornes? !Mr. Roberts said the comprehensive plan for this area is for single family dwellings. When you !attach units you don't have single family dwellings anymore. So the concept the developer is !showing is single family dwellings on smaller lots but they are detached town homes so that would !fit within the comprehensive plan designation of single dwellings. When you start attaching units you start talking about a comprehensive plan arnendment which we know does not have much of !a chance getting approved. iMr. Schneider said with the site plan they have now with a smaller building footprint you have a !greater ability to customize a grade than you do with attaching 5 of those footprints together and icreating one large surface. Our engineers are working on the premise that the smaller footprint would allow more customized lot grading activities and in the end move less dirt and create more I efficiency in terms of saving existing terrain around the immediate building sites and hopefully be a better plan because of that. In terms of the multiple dwelling and attached housing Mr. Roberts summarized that already. They are focusing on the detached product line at this point. Commissioner Dierich said she e-mailed staff today and she asked for an overlay on this area. (Staff showed the map on the screen). Mr. Schneider said the current zoning can maintain its status as R-1(R) or F(Farm) because PUD's can be proposed in anyone of your city's zoning districts. A PUD gives the city a great deal of discretion, to look at a site, to customize a site, to preserve within reasonable measures a site for development. The purpose of a PUD such as this is not to simply allow smaller lots, greater density, and more homes. The purpose is specifically to allow the smaller lots so the developer can preserve over 1/3 of the site as permanent open space managed by a single entity, not by 200 homeowners that might move there some day. The slope areas of the site, the areas immediately adjacent Fish Creek, the wetland areas, the areas surrounding the site leading up to the 120 acres of open space that Ramsey County owns around it, those areas if there were a problem 10 years ago regarding how they are maintained, there is a single entity that controls, maintains, monitors and enforces association regulations and city regulations on that site. This truly is a unique property. On page 30 of the comprehensive plan it points out that the very features this site has which is the terrain, the vegetation and the wetland that should be protected and preserved with the PUD process. The site plan is a little different. This is about all they can do with this site to reasonably use the property as an urban infill site, which is what this is. This is within the Highway 494/694 beltway, it is privately owned, and it's within their reasonable right to propose a project of this nature. They are trying to customize this site the best they possibly can . and work with the site features to provide a good housing project for the existing and future residents and neighborhood. He said they look forward to working through the formal plan process and will have further plans to share with the planning cornmission at a later date. VII. UNFINISHED BUSINESS Planning Commission and CDRB Duties Mr. Roberts said the planning commission recently asked staff to review the duties and responsibilities of the planning commission and the community design review board. Planning Comrnission Minutes of 06-07-06 -13- Mr. Roberts said specifically, the PC thought it important to clarify which group should be reviewing which parts of development requests and providing cornrnents on a variety of site- related development improvements. On April 17, 2006. the planning commission had a discussion about the responsibilities and duties of the planning cornrnission and CORBo The PC asked staff to put together rnore I information about the duties and responsibilities of the two groups. The planning cornrnission identified the following iterns 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. Commissioner Trippler said he read in the staff report a statute that states the CDRB has the right to make recommendations to the planning commission regarding certain items. But what about the planning cornmission rnaking recornmendations to the CDRB? Mr. Roberts said he read that as an overlay district of a neighborhood where there may be a . different set of design criteria for a geographical area such as the Hillcrest or Gladstone area where there is a special set of criteria that is laid out for a specific area. Commissioner Trippler said he believes that is a correct interpretation but that it goes beyond that. There is still the issue regarding should the CDRB be considering the item or should the PC be considering the item. If the PC can clearly understand what items the CDRB should be reviewing so the PC doesn't have to review them that would be helpful and could eliminate the overlap of reviewing it twice. Mr. Roberts said if staff writes the report so all the CORB and PC conditions are included in the report then everyone knows what will be reviewed by the commission or board. This could be very helpful but the commission members or board members would have to make sure to read through all of the recommendations. The PC could point things out to the CDRB as well as an additional , means of checking things. Staff feels the PC is generally outspoken enough that they would bring something to staffs attention if they felt something needed to be reviewed closely. . Commissioner Trippler said the Environmental Committee which he serves on is looking at making some changes to the ordinances regarding wetlands, tree ordinances and other things so when those kinds of ordinances are changed the plan would be to come before the PC and CDRB and present the changes in the ordinance. Planning Commission Minutes of 06-07-06 -14- Commissioner Dierich said she was struck by how detailed the CDRB responsibilities were on pages 4-12 in the staff report because the PC which has 9 rnembers lists responsibilities on pages 4-6 and the CDRB which has 6 members lists responsibilities on pages 7-12. .Commissioner Dierich said she has brought this issue up for 3 years now regarding what should be included and what needs to be reviewed and by whorn and she really liked Sec. 2-288. She 'Would really like to see the city be more detail oriented because the more eyes that look at things, ,the better. Each board or commission member looks at things with a different eye so to speak ,than another group does. Commissioner Hess asked if there was ever a time that both the PC and the CDRB review an litem at the same time? He also asked when and how often the CDRB meets? Mr. Roberts said depending on the calendar, the CDRB meets the second and fourth Tuesdays of !the month so basically the CDRB meets 1 week after the PC reviews a proposal. The one thing !that drives proposals and projects is the 60 day clock which by state law says you are required to have a project through to the city council within 60 days of receiving a complete application. If it's a project like Carver Crossing of Maplewood the normal process would be it would go to the PC, to the CDRB and then to the City Council, which would be 3 weeks after being heard by the PC. . He said staff tries to get the staff report done for the PC including the CDRB conditions or recommendations for the PC to read through. Staff would say 90% of the projects follow this timeline. Occasionally a project may be heard by the CDRB first and then be heard by the PC and then by the city council. In a case like that staff tries to have the completed staff report ready but depending on the timing of the meeting the minutes may not be done in time to get them included in the staff report. However, staff could report to the CDRB or PC what was discussed at the meetings. The city council would have the minutes from each of the meetings and the staff reports to refer to in order to make the final decision. ,The planning commission decided staff should take this matter to the CDRB for their comments. VIII.! VISITOR PRESENTATIONS 'Mr. Ron Cockriel, 943 Century Avenue North, Maplewood, addressed the commission. He said ! he lives in a 70 year home and is the third generation living in the home. He has some questions and concerns regarding the PC meeting of May 15, 2006. He is here to ask the PC to reconsider !the motion they made that evening regarding a unanimous vote for a negative declaration for an I EIS regarding the Carver Crossing of Maplewood project. The project or area is also known as the CoPar project, the Schlomka project, and the Carver Crossing of Maplewood project which is ! inconsistent and confusing for a Maplewood resident that is trying to refer to the project. He said it is part of the due process when there was a great deal of questions and concerns that came out regarding the EAW. There were 5 pages of questions and nearly 40 pages of questions and concerns and at that time. The PC decided not to move ahead with an EIS even though there were so many unanswered questions such as what happened to the 30 acres of upland bluff land when you remove the prairie land. There is no replacement for the prairie land and no replacement for the upland bluff land anywhere else in the area. This area falls within the critical corridor as well. It should have been pointed out to the PC that they had the option to accept an expanded EAW (which doesn't exist) but ultimately the PC did not need to close out the EAW. The PC could have requested a postponement regarding the declaration and then ultimately you would have gotten the 40 pages of information that was made available June 6, 2006. Planning Commission Minutes of 06-07-06 -15- Mr. Cockriel said there is a great deal of information in the report. He said he spoke with the Environrnental Quality board who is the state agency responsible for the EAW and EIS and how those all work. He told the board how he felt about things and the board said he should come before the PC and ask for this to be reconsidered. He understands the property owner has rights. The PC has rights and has responsibilities as well. He said he calls this proposal a greased pig because you can't get a hold of it and it keeps changing and changing. He said this proposal i started at 400 units, then 300 units and now it's down to 200 units and he hates to see a set up here. If the PC doesn't want an EIS done on 300 units then it's a no brainer then because with 200 units we know it would be less of an irnpact but that doesn't mean an EIS is any less important. Ultimately he believes they will scrape the property and fill in a smaller footprint itself but ultimately this will have a great deal of impact on this area. It's not his property but he does own the property on all three sides of it as a Rarnsey County resident and taxpayer of the open space. He believes there is a greater community interest and there should be community involvement in this area because it is a connector for the Wacouta Bridge and for the trails that exist into Washington County. There is a great deal of interest in seeing this project through. He doesn't know how to tie this project down because the project keeps changing. Ultimately you i have to make a decision as what the impact is going to be. Mr. Cockriel said he believes this could be a park south of the creek. The financing could be there, they have done this before. He said he represents the group called the Sons and Daughters of Highwood. The Highwood Park and reserve 10 years ago they got Cargill and the DNR to come up with half of the money and gave the park to the City of St. Paul. Just a few weeks ago Henry Park which cost $2.5 million dollars from the state in order to save the bluff i land. There isn't this type of land anywhere else. It is the last piece of bluff land that falls within : the critical corridor area. Recently St. Paul began reinvesting in the concept of bringing people back to the river and making it a friendlier place. Ultimately you need to think about the 35,000 , plus people that live in Maplewood and consider the quality of life, what we pay for homes here and what we have to pass onto the children. He knows the developer is a business man. He said he bought a car that is a Geo and he would have liked to have a Porsche. It is a buyer beware. The developer bought a farm that says there is 32 units on here potentially. He understands the city wants to accommodate the developer and do what is best for the property but things keep changing. If next week the city council says it can be built with 187 units and it is 37% open space it's a great deal but he doesn't think the city has had a chance to look at this proposal. It isn't fair to the PC; it isn't fair to the residents who depend on the PC who make these kinds of recommendations to the city council. Ultimately he would ask for the PC to reconsider this decision. The city council is going to say this was a unanimous decision made by the PC to make a negative declaration to not have an EIS done and they are not worried about the environmental impact, density issues, the traffic issues, the noise issues, the water retention issues. There is a lot of that is going on at city hall right now and the metropolitan area knows about that and he would hate to see this project slide through without good checks and balances with all the commissions and boards that we have here. The PC should do what should have been told to them two weeks ago that you have the option and the responsibility to postpone this proposal if you are not comfortable with this. A 60 day timeline is fine but if the PC says they have questions and the EAW says there are questions, ultimately you can stop the process and say the PC recommends that an EIS would be in play and hand that information down to the city council. You could even say at this time the PC can't make a decision because there is too much in play. Planning Commission Minutes of 06-07-06 -16- Comrnissioner Yarwood said as a south Maplewood resident he can appreciate what Mr. Cockriel said. But as a point of clarification it was not a "unanirnous" vote to recornrnend a negative declaration for the EIS. Commissioner Mary Dierich and Commissioner Gary Pearson voted against it and the rest of the PC members voted for it. This proposal will have to come before the planning cornrnission again and at that tirne there are rnany questions that have to be answered before he can make any type of a decision or recornmendation. Whether that is part of a forrnal environmental review process or not it doesn't make that big of a difference he will still need ithose questions answered. Commissioner Dierich said the city council can vote this up or down or they can table it for more information. Mr. Roberts said correct. Just because the city council makes a negative declaration for an EIS doesn't mean the developer can go ahead and start grading the site and build whatever they want to build. The developer will still have to satisfy the comments and questions that were raised. There are going to be comments made by people such as "save the deer and wildlife" and "don't develop this land" and the city and the developer know that this land is going to be developed at some point and time. Others will be worried about the setbacks from Fish Creek and the bluffs, and the phosphorous runoff which are design details that will have to be worked out. Staff doesn't know that an EIS would bring those issues out. It flushes out the issues in more detail so i hopefully the developer goes back and revises the plans to make them better and more responsive to the concerns that were brought up by the PC and the neighbors. If you didn't have adequate time to ask your questions and make a decision at the last planning commission meeting than staff would agree with Mr. Cockriel that tabling this proposal and asking for more information and time could have been an option. Staff thinks they know the planning commission well enough that if they needed more information someone on the commission would have asked for more time and would not have been shy about asking for it. Commissioner Dierich said that is the EAW process and the way the PC voted on the recommendations was they voted on each recommendation individually. Mr. Roberts said staff is bringing the EAW/EIS report to the city council on Monday, June 12, 2006. The developer has withdrawn their former application and once staff gets new plans the 60 day clock will start up again on those plans. Commissioner Yarwood said it was his feeling that it's the PC's prerogative that if the plan comes back before the PC whether the EAW or EIS is in the picture the PC can ask that the concerns and issues be answered. Mr. Roberts said correct. Commissioner Dierich asked if the PC is going to see the expanded EAW because she knows it was sent to the city council recently. Mr. Roberts said it would be expanded comments based on the last PC meeting of May 15, 2006, but you could get a copy of that. Planning Commission Minutes of 06-07-06 -17- IX. COMMISSION PRESENTATIONS a. Mr. Hess was the planning commission representative at the May 13, 2006, city council meeting. The Comforts of Home at 2300/2310 Hazelwood Street for a CUP, PUD was tabled because of a city council member's absence that needed to be present to vote on this proposal. This proposal was rescheduled for June 12, 2006, to be heard by the city council. b. Ms. Dierich will be the planning commission representative at the June 12, 2006, city council meeting to be held at CARVER ELEMENTARY SCHOOL - UPPER AFTON ROAD. Items to discuss include the EAW for Carver Crossing of Maplewood and the Comforts of Home at 2300/2310 Hazelwood Street for a CUP and PUD. IC. Mr. Kaczrowski will be the planning commission representative at the June 26, 2006, city council meeting. They will be discussing the Eldridge Fields - Right of Way vacation and preliminary plat (west of Prosperity Avenue) for five single farnily homes. d. Ms. Fischer will be the planning commission representative at the July 10, 2006, city council meeting. e. Dale Trippler reported on the special city council workshop of Monday, June 5, 2006, regarding the Gladstone Redevelopment plan. No final decision has been made yet and no date has been set for a decision yet. X. STAFF PRESENTATIONS Reschedule the Monday, July 3,2006, Planning Commission meeting to either Wednesday, July 5, 2006, or Thursday, July 6, 2006, because of the fourth of July holiday. i The planning commission decided to wait until all of the planning commissioners were present at the June 19,2006, meeting before making a decision on changing the date of the scheduled July 3, 2006, planning commission meeting. Annual City Tour Mr. Roberts asked the planning commissioners to look at the list of sites for the annual city tour on July 31, 2006, and get back to him with any recommendations or changes. . Upcoming Planning Commission Meeting of June 19, 2006 , Mr. Roberts said there are three public hearings coming up June 19, 2006, PC meeting. One is for Liberty Classical Academy for an expansion of their campus, the last town home proposal for Legacy Development south of County Road D, and an expansion of the 5-8 Club off Minnehaha Avenue. Planning Commission Minutes of 06-07-06 XI. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 9:27 p.m. -18- MEMORANDUM !TO: 'FROM: ISUBJECT: ILOCATION: .APPLlCANTS: I DATE: I i INTRODUCTION City Manager Ken Roberts, Planner Planned Unit Development (PUD) Revision 2696 Hazelwood Street Liberty Classical Academy and First Evangelical Free Church June 12, 2006 Project Description Ms. Kathy Smith, representing Liberty Classical Academy, is proposing to open a school for grades K-12 for up to 500 students. The proposed location for this school is in the existing First Evangelical Free Church at 2696 Hazelwood Street (See the applicanfs statements on pages 7-9 and the maps and plans on pages 10 - 14.) They want to start the school in this location with about 60 students in grades 6 - 12 in 2006-2007. Request To have the school in this location, the church and Ms. Smith are asking that Maplewood approve a revision to an existing conditional use permit (CUP). Specifically, they are requesting that the City Council revise the conditional use permit for the planned unit development (PUD) at 2696 Hazelwood Street. This PUD is for a church and day-care center. This site is part of a larger PUD which includes the Hazel Ridge Seniors' Residence. The Maplewood City Code requires a CUP for schools in any location. (Refer to the applicanfs statement started on page 7.) BACKGROUND The church building previously was an elementary school (Hazelwood School) (for grades K - 8) until about 1978. This school had about 20 classrooms with an average of 20 students per room. On August 13, 1990, the city council approved a revision to the existing conditional use permit. This revision was to allow the church to remodel the building for a church and day-care center. At that time, Health East had been using the building for office and wellness functions related to St. Johns Hospital and a day care center. This site is part of a larger PUD which includes the Hazel Ridge Seniors' Residence. (See the minutes starting on page 15.) The church uses this building for church programs such as Sunday school, youth activities, church dinners, administration and day care. Since 1990, the church expanded the existing parking lot to the south and east and added a looped drive and parking for day care drop-off. They also added a new sanctuary and expanded the gymnasium on the west side of the building. On July 24, 1995, the city council approved a CUP revision and approved a revised site plan for the church (for a parking lot expansion), subject to twelve conditions. (See the minutes on pages 19 and 20). Since 2003, Uberty Classical Academy has been operating a school in the Phalen Lake Church at 1717 English Street. I I DISCUSSION iThe proposed school meets the city's findings of approval for a conditional use permit. As proposed to start, the school would lease seven classrooms in lhe lower level of the church, the worship center and the library for their functions. With 15 staff members and up to 60 students, the existing parking lot should be adequate to handle the parking needs of the school and the church. There are more than 200 parking spaces to the south and east of the building. il have revised the PUD conditions to add the school as an approved land use within the PUD. jhave also dropped the conditions that have been met. iTraffic 'The city designed and built Hazelwood Street as a collector street In the area by the church, IHazelwood Street has two traffic lanes and several designated parking bays on the east side of the 'Istreet. The city designs and constructs collector streets to carry up to 6,000 vehicle trips per day. In this case, Hazelwood Street currently has about 2,600 vehicles per day between County Road C land Beam Avenue. i !City staff estimates that the school, with a maximum population of 500 students (if approved by the icity), could add up to 1000 vehicle trips per day to Hazelwood Street. These trips would be divided I'PrimarilY between the morning and the aftemoon as parents drop off and pick up the students. This would be the maximum number of vehicle trips if the school does not use any bussing for their jstudents. The city engineer told me that this proposal would not cause traffic problems or add . jenough traffic to exceed the capacity of Hazelwood Street. iLife Safety and Building Code Comments i iButch Gervais had several comments about the proposal. They include having the address on the IbUildin9 and verifying that the existing fire protection and emergency lights and exits for the school meet the current code standards. !It is important to note that the city will require building permits for any rernodeling of the existing Ispace and that the city will not allow the school to occupy the building until the minimum life safety land building code standards are met or verified by city staff. In addition, one should remember that ~e school is asking for a land use approval and that building code and life safety issues are ~pically reviewed and handled by city staff after the city council acts on the conditional use permit !request Furthermore, the city council would amually review the conditional use permit to check on ~he school, its compliance with the conditions and any issues or matters that may arise. 2 I , IRECOMMENDATION Approve the resolution starting on page 21. This resolution reyises and extends the time for the lconditional use permit for the planned unit development at 2696 - 2730 Hazelwood Street. The lrevision adds a school to the approved uses (the church and the day care). Maplewood bases this Ipermit revision on the findings required by the code and subject to the following conditions (new iwords are underlined and deleted words are crossed out): 1.0 All construction shall follow the plans that the City stamped May 24, 1995, subject to the following conditions: a. All construction shall follow the site plan approved by the city and the school shall follow the floor plans dated Mav 24. 2006. The Director of Community Development may approve minor changes. The City Council may approve major changes. b. Dropping the two parking spaces along the south property line at the east end of the parking lot. 2. The proposed school use on the property paFkinglet elEpansien seAstrlJGtien must be started within one year after the council approves this revised permit or the permit shall end. The Council may extend this deadline for one year. 3. The council shall review this permit revision in one year. 4. The school shall have no more than 500 students. 5. The property owner or manaoer shall sweep and restripe the parkino lot before the school occupies their sPace. This shall include havina the reouired handicapoed oarkino spaces in the parkino area near the buildino entrance. 6. The school. the church. the fire marshal and the city buildina official shall aoree on a plan for the school and the church to make any necessary or reouired life safety and buildino improvements to the buildino. This plan shall include the installation and maintenance of: a. The reouired fire protection (sprinkler) systems. b. An earlY wamina fire protection system (smoke detection and monitorino). c. Additional emeraencv liahts and exit sians (if necessary). d. UPdated doors and hardware (if necessarv\. e. A prooer address on the buildina. f. Any other chanoes the fire marshal or the buildino official deem necessary. 3 CITIZENS' COMMENTS '1'1 surveyed the owners of the 42 properties within at least 500 feet of this site (including all those on Hazelwood between County Road C and Beam Avenue). I received no replies to my survey. 4 REFERENCE ISITE DESCRIPTION I IAcreage: 6.85 acres I IEXiSting use: First Evangelical Free Church. This building is part of a larger PUD which includes the Hazel Ridge Seniors Residence to the northeast. There is a paved parking lot irnmediately Isouth and east of the church building I'There is a 1Q-foot-wide easement and asphalt path running along the south edge of this property that connects Hazelwood Street and Hazelwood Park. , iSURROUNDING LAND USES I 'I North: East: ISOuth: West: iPLANNING I Hazel Ridge Senior Housing and city drainage pond Hazelwood Park Single-family housing Hazelwood Street and single-family housing iExisting Land Use Plan designation: ch (church) 'Existing Zoning: PUD (planned unit development) Proposed Land Use: ch (church) Proposed Zoning: PUD IPAST ACTIONS IThe city council, on August 7, 1980, approved the use of the former Hazelwood School for lcommunity service programs. These programs include home health care, community education, ichemical dependency and family counseling and day care. In 1985, council expanded the 1980 I permit to include the Hazel Ridge Seniors' Residence. The council granted a one-year time extension for the permit in May, 1986, a two-year time extension on September 28, 1987, and a lone-year extension on October 23, 1989. ICriteria for Conditional Use Pennit Approval i ISection 44-1097(a) states that the city council may approve a CUP, based on nine standards. (See ifindings 1-9 in the resolution on pages 21 through 23.) IFIRE CODE IThe Fire Marshal wants verification that the existing sprinklers and the other life-safety systems in ithe building meet current code standards before the school may use the building. , 5 Application Date The city received the complete applications and plans for this request on May 24, 2006. State law requires that the city take action within 60 days of receiving complete applications for a proposal. As such, city action would normally be required on this proposal by July 24, 2006, unless the applicant agrees to a time extension. Attachments: 1. Applicant's Statement 2. Neighbor Latter 3. Location Map 4. Address Map 5. Area Map 6. Site Plan 7. Floor Plans 8. August 13. 1990 City Council Minutes 9. July 24, 1995 City Council Minutes 10. CUP Revision Resolution 6 Attachment 1 May 18,2006 Dear Maplewood Planning Commission and City Council, We are presenting a request for another conditional use permit for Liberty Classical Academy, a growing private school in Maplewood. The members of the Planning Commission and City Council were foundational prior to our inaugural year (2003) when we had only 28 students. Now a school of over 80 students (and likely between 105- 110 for '06-'07), we again ask your approval of a conditional use permit which will enable our school to continue to grow. Liberty Classical Academy (LCA) is a classical Christian school whose mission is to equip students of all backgrounds to grow in wisdom, excellence, and purpose by offering an education based on the highest academic standards grounded in a strong classical tradition from a distinctively Christian worldview. LCA plans to rent space from First Evangelical Free church located at 2696 Hazelwood Street. Currently, our entire school is housed out of the Lake Phalen Community Church on English Street. Due to the wonderful growth we have experienced, however, we have used every bit of available space and can no longer house the entire school there. With that challenge, we have pursued other options that will allow us to expand by moving our middle and upper school to another location. After working extensively with the First Evangelical Free Church board, we came to an agreement that will benefit both of our organizations. The building in which the First Evangelical Free Church is housed was previously a school. It was actually used as a school until as recently as 1997. Since it was originally built as a school, it has abundant classroom space and should not require any significant changes. The building is equipped with a sprinkler system, the hallways meet current width codes for schools, the bathrooms are handicapped accessible and there is both an elevator and a ramp, further fulfilling handicap accessibility requirements. The building is also equipped with the necessary means to accommodate a growing church on Sundays, which means there is ample parking for the school during the week. Although LCA plans to use only a small number of classrooms for the upcoming school year ('06- '07) the size of the building allows sufficient room for growth in the future should the two parties decide to continue their relationship and house the entire school at this location. In addition to the high quality academics and Christian worldview LCA provides, the school has added several extracurricular activities for the students. The sports programs, which begin in fourth grade, provide opportunities for both girls and boys. We offer girls and boys soccer, girls volleyball, boys and girls basketball along with baseball and softball. We also added band and choir this year. Additionally, all students participate in the annual artJdrama show. We look forward to offering more activities as the school can afford them. APPLICANT'S STATEMENT 7 LCA has enjoyed a great relationship with the city of Maplewood. The growing student body and staff bring increased business opportunities to Maplewood through our use, as patrons, of local restaurants and businesses. This will only become a greater reality if we are allowed this CUP since the First Evangelical Free Church has the building capacity for approximately 500 students. Additionally, LCA was chosen from a large pool of potential schools and organizations to be featured in Target ads (with address listed) in large circulation magazines such as Time, Newsweek and U.S. News and World Report because of a library scholarship we received from Target Corporation. That additional exposure benefits Maplewood, as well. We ask you to approve our CUP. LCA is a wonderful community of families who are thrilled with the education their children are receiving. The students are held to high academic and behavioral standards. We believe LCA would be a welcome addition to the neighborhood surrounding First Evangelical Free Church. On behalf of the Liberty Classical Academy Board of Directors, j(~~ Kathy Smith 1964 Price Ave. Maplewood, MN 55109 8 ,,(~ l~,....i CL...I. Attachment 2 7 1717 Enl!lish Street Maplewood, MN 55109 651.772.2777 Dear Neighbor, 1 am writing on behalf of the board of directors of Liberty Classical Academy, a small private school currently located at Lake Phalen Community Church in Maplewood. We opened in the fall of2003 with 28 students in grades K-8. The school has since grown to the size of 82 students in grades K-I O. Although we are very pleased with the growth, we have outgrown our current space as a result. First Evangelical Free Church has offered to lease several of their classrooms to LCA. Our plan for next year ('06-'07) is to move grades 6-11 to the First Evangelical Free Church and keep the K-5 students at our current location at Lake Phalen Community Church. If the arrangement works well, additional classrooms will be leased in future years, with the school potentially purchasing or leasing the entire building when the church chooses to build on their new property. Liberty Classical Academy is a board operated, non-profit, private Christian School. The following is the school's mission statement: Liberty Classical Academy will equip students of all backgrounds to grow in wisdom, excellence and purpose by offering an education based on the highest academic standards grounded in a strong classical tradition from a distinctively Christian worldview. Students at Liberty are taught a rigorous academic program along with the opportunity to learn about and apply the Christian faith. It is an environment where students are encouraged to ask questions and analyze information. Character development is also emphasized throughout all of the grades. The students are thriving in the academically stimulating and spiritually nurturing environment that LCA provides. It has been a tremendous blessing to the families and the teachers who call LCA their community. LCA look's forward to partnering with First Free in some of their neighborhood outreach opportunities. LCA has previously sponsored a family during the Christmas holiday and has also sent students to perform songs and plays at nursing homes. Our sports and music programs are open to home schooled students, providing further opportunity to partner with the community. 1 hope you will welcome Liberty Classical Academy into your neighborhood. I believe you will find us to be good neighbors and that our students are respectful and held to a high standard of discipline. You may visit our website (www.libertvclassicalacademv.org) or schedule a visit at our current location if you would like more information about the school. Please contact us if you have any questions or concerns (651-772-2777). We look forward to becoming part of your neighborhood. Sincerely, Rebekah Hagstrom Director NEIGHBOR LETTER Academic Distinction Classical Tradition Christian Worldview 9 ____ ----:~~~~~~.u.~~~~~~~~~=-=-=-=-=-=-~~? l ~~-~~~~~~;~-;-,-:::_~~~~~-i~1ii1ril;;;;;~f: 'I~:;~~:::~~~~~~= ----- -- --.... ---------------~------ n j:'".-' ~------------------------------------.. ~ II -...-:; i ~ I I I I .' I" \ I " II II " \I II II " II I'. II \::::, II II " " " \1 " " " " " II " i ~ I , I I I I I , I I I I i, II II II II I' II II I' II I' I' I' I' ,I II I' I' ,I ) ~ -------------'1 rf--------------------- ----------, II FIRE STATION i : '.1 " II !J " I' II ,I 1,1 " ,I ~I ~I ~I ~! "" ~ :;) -' g ,n II 'I ,', " ",I -<J i' ---".'- .' --c-o U1It'tV SITE Att~chmp.nt 3 o r [ -~- --- -- --- -- --- -- --- ----- -- --- -- --- -- ------ i-J n ~, \>1 B ~I 11 N LOCATION MAP I 10 -- -- ___._.-..~~~=~_=~~~;j~~~:~~~~~~~:;-~~~~:;;;;;;;:~i ~ '~~~~~~~~~~~~~:~=-~~~~~~~~BiA=.ti-Aiii~~~~~-=-~:--~":_=-; ------~+--~------------~--------~--~-~ f- ~J iI ~~..-----------~-----------_._-------------------~ 'III~ 'II' - ~ '" , , , , J \ , , , , , , , \ ! , I , ' \ ' li " " " " " I' , , , Q,1 , I): I 4l \l " " 2: II ~ I: ii, , ' I' " Oil , ' g ! ,t ' I! " I' !:{1 I. I <;:::> G J - =Fl 1] o ~. v Attachment 4 Z=::) D Hazelwood Par - - t;- -rl r--i ----- -------- -"';---1---1-1- _1__,________ - ADDRESS MAP 11 iJ c o QD La COUNT-V- ~ D "'" , c'J DLiJ o o D [] CJ DO o 11 N i , I SITE . II I, 1'1 II II i I t) , : .,~ , , :LJ , 0, , , I I I, Ii , " o c Q I , I I I I I I H .,.. tJ ,0 ~ ~I:,I ~ 690 , I I I I I I I I I I I r-l I I L2Ill1 I I I I I ' I I I I .Jl 2727 : : U " : : 696 I I I I . I . I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I , I I , I I I I I I I I \ I I I I I I I , I I " ~ I I i ' 26 0 I I 673 : : '. I I I I I I I I' I I 1\ I I I I I I I I I I I I I , I I I I I I I , I I I \ I \. b Q;77 GO D LJ 2767 0 c:u 2759 0 2747 " o lcJ o ~ \0 QD '" ..,. ~ --C-O U-N T-V1tO ... ... ..,. o o Attachment 5 6iJ 6~ o 0 2JJ o o SITE HAZELWOOD PARK -._-- -~---- -- --~ ------ D '" DU 2707 ? 2699 \) 681 D ~ o O~69 AREA MAP 12 en Lj1 ~5 ~ , ---------------------------~ , -- -- -- - -- ------ a@l \ il 0 I'i' , 0 '" '" '" I '" I 0 ~ .,.. '" I 0 I ~ ~ '" '" I I ~ ~ I , I FIRE STATION i , , I [J 1! N :r >- s Attachment 6 o I I I L I .-,....,....,-.......". '.':;%;:'\1:;:11: 'l I I. 1 u~ !il ~ z ., o i ., /---:..--,"",:", =- -.'".., '. c__: _~-.. ---- \ I I I II ii~i:i,\ ,,~t;""'I' ::,;.:::1,"'1.: ::::::~:::l~: ;~{<i' +!n~w \" "','''''' <I .......$ ~.. ~illl"!~~ ~~ = I ., nr tlJ r' . SITE PLAN 11 N 13 I I Lower Level . ~o Fell::~~hIP~ Sf-or l e ..? .. wL ! Attachment 7 Upper Level 213 212 211 210 Actlvlty Center 0-= ').f:JoIo - 200 '1 C.\Qsos....ooms ~ be us.ed, FLOOR PLANS 11 N 14 1. license to sell used cars. Attachment 8 2. Care for specific buye sale at anyone only be brought 0 the site for a shall be n more than two cars for 3. Eleven parking spaces n include one l2-foot-wid spaces. 4. No overnight 5. All vehicles be' g sold, except whe shall be iden fied as being For drive, Ayes - ayor Bastian, Councilmembers son and Rossbach. Nays Zappa. Council mber Juker -6 and 7 H-l a d 1990. to finish the moved t -1 and rest of sus end econvene t the Aaenda. e Rules 3:30 proced es Thu da I ,. 8:10 P.M., PUD Revision: 2696 Hazelwood Avenue (First Evangelical Church) Seconded by Councilmember Rossbach. Ayes - all. a. Mayor Bastian convened the meeting for a public hearing regarding the request of First Evangelical Free Church to revise the conditional use permit for the planned unit development at 2696 Hazelwood Avenue. They would like to remodel the building for a church and day care center. b. Manager McGuire presented the staff report. c. Director of Community Development Olson presented the specifics of the proposal. d. The Planning Commission report was given. e. Mayor Bastian called for persons who wished to be heard for or against the proposal. The following were heard: Donna Flonte, Manager of 2730 Hazelwood Avenue Christine Stone, 2727 Hazelwood Chairman of North St. Paul Planning Commission Mr. Lynch, 2680 Hazelwood Ray Geiger, the architect f. Mayor Bastian closed the public hearing. 8-13-90 15 g. Councilmember Rossbach introduced the followina resolution and moved its ado'Dtion: 90 - 8 - 137 WHEREAS, First Evangelical Free Church applied for a revision of the conditional use permit for a POD to convert the Health Resources building at 2696 Hazelwood Avenue for church and day-care use; WHEREAS, the PUD now includes the 75-unit, Hazel Ridge Seniors' Residence office and community services programs for day care, health and wellness and community health education; WHEREAS, this permit applies to 2696 and 2730 Hazelwood Avenue. The legal descriptions are: 1. PLAT 03031 SECTION 3 TOWN 29 RANGE 22. PART OF N 800 FT OF S 1310 FT OF W 578 FT OF SE 1/4 DESC AS BEG ON EL THEREOF 458.6 FT N OF SE COR THEREOF TH N ON SD EL 341.4 FT TH N 88 DEG 55 MIN 02 SEC W 578 FT TH S 133 FT TH S 88 DEG 55 MIN 02 SEC E 33 FT TH S 70 DEG 45 MIN 30 SEC E 208.85 FT TH S 40 DEG E 97.65 FT TH S 69.67 FT TH S 88 DEG 55 MIN 02 SEC E 285 FT TO BEG (SUBJ TO HAZELWOOD AVE) IN SEC 3TN 29 RN 22. 2. PLAT 03031 SECTION 3 TOWN 29 RANGE 22. PART OF N 800 FT OF S 1310 FT OF W 578 FT OF SE 1/4 DESC AS BEG ON EL THEREOF 458.6 FT N OF SE COR THEREOF TH S ON SD EL 458.6 FT TH N 88 DEG 55 MIN 02 SEC W 578 FT TH N 667 FT TH S 88 DEG 55 MIN 02 SEC E 33 FT TH S 70 DEG 45 MIN 30 SEC E 208.85 FT TH S 40 DEG E 97.65 FT TH S 69.67 FT TH S 88 DEG 55 MIN 02 SEC E 285 FT TO BEG (SUBJ TO HAZELWOOD AVE & ESMT) IN SEC 3 TN 29 RN 22. WHEREAS, the history of this conditional use permit is as follows: 1. The Planning Commission discussed this application on August 6, 1990. They recommended to the City Council that said permit be approved. 2. The City Council held a public hearing on August 13, 1990. City staff published a notice in the paper and sent notices to the surrounding property owners as required by law. The Council gave everyone at the hearing a change to speak and present written statement.s The Council also considered reports and recommendations of the City staff and Planning Commission. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council approve the above-described revision of the conditional use permit. Approval is based on the following reasons: 8-13-9r 16 I 1. The use would be located, designed, maintained, constructed and operated to be in conformity with the City's Comprehensive Plan and Code of Ordinances. 2. The use would not change the existing or planned character of the surrounding area. 3. The use would not depreciate property values. 4. The use would not involve any activity, process, materials, equipment or methods of operation that would be dangerous, hazardous, detr~ental, disturbing or cause a nuisance to any person or property, because of excessive noise, glare, smoke, dust, odor, fumes, water or air pollution, drainage, water run-off, vibration, general unsightliness, electrical interference or other nuisances. 5. The use would generate only minimal vehicular traffic on local streets and would not create traffic congestion or unsafe access on existing or proposed streets. 6. The use would be served by adequate public facilities and services, including streets, police and fire protection, drainage structures, water and sewer systems, schools and parks. 7. The use would not create excessive additional costs for public facilities or services. 8. The use would maximize the preservation of and incorporate the site's natural and scenic features into the development design. 9. The use would cause minimal adverse environmental effects. Approval is subject to the following conditions: 1. All construction must be in accordance with the approved site plan on Pages 9-11 of the July 13, 1990, staff report. The Director of Community Development may approve minor changes. The City Council may approve major changes. Final plans must be brought back to the City Council for approval. 2. This permit shall be subject to review after one year from the date of approval, based on the procedures in City code. 3. The Director of Community Services shall be notified of any proposed development of the ball diamond prior to scheduling use of the softball/tee-ball facilities for an upcoming season. 8-13-90 17 I ! Seconded by Councilmember Juker. Ayes - all. 7. 8.25 P.M., Preliminary Plat Revision. Torgerson Addition Condition A. Condition B. of Way Acquisition Sewer a. Mayor Bastian con ened the meeting for a public hear g regarding the request of Mr. Donald orgerson for revision of one of e conditions of preliminary plat approv 1 for the Torgerson Addition. This condition states. "City or applicant ac isition of the 35 by 16 foot parcel needed to construct Ripley Ave ue as a full-width s eet, through to Desoto Street. If a Cit project, the appl' ant shall pay the cost of the feasibility s udy and all othe City expenses to acquire this right-of-way, including atto ney's fees." Motion for lack of a second. changed to read as follows. Mr. Torgerson is "The developer pay the apprais d pro e including appraisal fees, and t e ty condemnation." for the 60-foot easement, assumes the legal fees for Mr. Torgerson is also requesting condition concerning storm sewer the preliminary plat b. Manager McGuire presented c. Director of Community Dev right of way acquisition rev' the specifics of the d. Director of sewer revision. presented t e specifics of the storm e. Mayor Bastian call the proposal. The fo persons who were heard. Mr. Don Torgers n, 1822 Desoto, the applicant Mr. John Torg son Mrs. Cummins 1790 Desoto Street Mr. Dennis mmins, 1790 Desoto Street Resident a 505 Bellwood f. closed the public hearing. g. Rossbach moved to take 0 action h. le Zappa moved that the Tor ersons and the Cit 8-13-9( 18 , ? 10 1 ' 1-4 -'(1 Attachment 9 First Evangelical Free Church (Hazelwood Street> a. Manager McGuire presented the staff report. b. Director of Community Development Coleman presented the specifics of the report. c. Acting Mayor Carlson asked if anyone wished to speak before the Council regarding this matter. The following were heard: John Gregorson. representing the Church Laurel Hawkins fOnditional Use Permit Revision d. Councilmember Rossbach introduced the followina Resolution and moved its ~doption: 95 - 07 - 84 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO EXPAND PARKING LOT 1. All construction shall follow the plans that the City stamped Hay 24. 1995. subject to the following conditions: a. All construction shall follow the site plan approved by the City, The Director of Community Development may approve minor changes. The City Council may approve major changes. b. Dropping the two parking spaces along the south property line at the east end of the parking lot. 2. The proposed parking lot expansion construction must be started within one year after the Council approves this revised permit or the permit shall end. The Council may extend this deadline for one year. 3. The Council shall review this permit in one year. Seconded by Councilmember Koppen Ayes . all 7 -24-95 3 Seconded by Councilmember Koppen Ayes . all 19 .(3) , i I , ! e. Councilmember Rossbach f r Fir v n li 1 r aoolicant shall do the fQllowina: 1. Direct or screen lighting so it is not directly visible from any residential area or public street. Lighting shall not exceed one foot. candle at a residential property line. (Code requirement) 2. Repeat this revjew in three years if the contractor has not started building the parking lot. 3. Screen all roof. mounted equipment that will be visible from streets or adjacent property. Submit screening plans to the design review board for approval. (Code requirement) 4. Construct a trash dumpster enclosure as required by city code. The enclosure must match the building color. Submit plans for the enclosure to staff for approval. 5. Submit a grading, drainage, utility and erosion control plan to the city engineer for approval before starting the parking lot. 6. Install an in.ground sprinkler system for all landscaped areas. (Code requirement) 7. Submit the plans for all Phase II development to the Design Review Board for approval. ca> Submit a revised screening plan for the south lot line to staff for approval. The plan must show enough planting and berming to provide an 80t screen that is at least six feet tall. This screening is required for the rear yards of the two homes at the end of Germain Court. (Code requirement) 9. Construct concrete curbing around the proposed parking lot and drives. (Code requirement) 10. Paint the doors on the north end of the building. (Code requirement) 11. Restripe the existing parking lot and stripe the new parking lot to meet code. I 12. Review the permit on November 13. 1995. Seconded by Councilmember Koppen Ayes. all 20 i Attachment 10 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REVISION RESOLUTION WHEREAS, First Evangelical Free Church and Liberty Classical Academy applied for a revision of the conditional use permit for a PUD to add a school as a land use to the building at 2696 Hazelwood Street that now has a church and day-care; WHEREAS, the PUD now includes the 75-unit, Hazel Ridge Seniors' Residence, a church and a day care center; WHEREAS, this permit applies to 2696 and 2730 Hazelwood Street. The legal descriptions are: 1. PLAT 03031 SECTION 3 TOWN 29 RANGE 22. PART OF N 800 FT OF S 1310 FT OF W 578 FT OF SE 14 DESC AS BEG ON EL THEREOF 458.6 FT N OF SE COR THEREOF TH NON SD EL 341.4 FT TH N 88 DEG 55 MIN 02 SEC W 578 FT TH S 133 FT TH S 88 DEG 55 MIN 02 SEC E 33 FT TH S 70 DEG 45 MIN 30 SEC E 208.85 FT TH S 40 DEG E 97.65 FT TH S 69.67 FT TH S 88 DEG 55 MIN 02 SEC E 285 FT TO BEG (SUBJ TO HAZELWOOD AVE) IN SEC 3 TN 29 RN 22. (PID 03-29-22-43- 0007) 2. PLAT 03031 SECTION 3 TOWN 29 RANGE 22. PART OF N 800 FT OF S 1310 FT OF W 578 FT OF SE % DESC AS BEG ON EL THEREOF 458.6 FT N OF SE COR THEREOF TH S ON SD EL 458.6 FT TH N 88 DEG 55 MIN 02 SEC W 578 FT TH N 667 FT TH S 88 DEG 55 MIN 02 SEC E 33 FT TH S 70 DEG 45 MIN 30 SEC E 208.85 FT TH S 40 DEG E 97.65 FT TH S 69.67 FT TH S 88 DEG 55 MIN 02 SEC E 285 FT TO BEG (SUBJ TO HAZELWOOD AVE & ESMT) IN SEC 3 TN 29 RN 22. (PID 03-39- 33-43-0008) WHEREAS, the history of this conditional use permit is as follows: 1. On June 19, 2006, the planning commission held a public hearing. The city staff published a notice in the paper and sent notices to the surrounding property owners. The planning commission gave persons at the hearing a chance to speak and present written statements. The commission also considered reports and recommendations of the city staff. The planning corn mission recommended that the city council approve the conditional use permit. 2. On July 10, 2006, the city council discussed the proposed conditional use permit. They considered reports and recommendations from the planning commission and city staff. NOW. THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the city council approve the above-described conditional use permit, because: 1. The use would be located, designed, rnaintained, constructed and operated to be in conformity with the city's comprehensive plan and code of ordinances. 2. The use would not change the existing or planned character of the surrounding area. 3. The use would not depreciate property values. 21 4. The use would not involve any activity, process, materials, equipment or methods of operation that would be dangerous, hazardous, detrimental, disturbing or cause a nuisance to any person or property, because of excessive noise, glare, smoke, dust, odor, fumes, water or air pollution, drainage, water run-off, vibration, general unsightliness, electrical interference or other nuisances. 5. The use would generate only minirnal vehicular traffic on local streets and would not create traffic congestion or unsafe access on existing or proposed streets. 6. The use would be served by adequate public facilities and services, including streets, police and fire protection, drainage structures, water and sewer systems, schools and parks. 7. The use would not create excessive additional costs for public facilities or services. 8. The use would maximize the preservation of and incorporate the site's natural and scenic features into the development design. 9. The use would cause minimal adverse environmental effects. Approval is subject to the following conditions: 1. All construction shall follow the plans that the City stamped May 24, 1995, subject to the following conditions: a. All construction shall follow the site plan approved by the city and the school shall follow the clans dated Mav 24. 2006. The Director of Community Development may approve minor changes. The City Council rnay approve major changes. b. Dropping the two parking spaces along the south property line at the east end of the parking lot. 2. The proposed school use on the orooerty paFkiR!llet 9lIpansien seAslruGlieR must be started within one year after the council approves this revised permit or the permit shall end. The Council may extend this deadline for one year. 3. The council shall review this permit revision in one year. 4. The school shall have no more than 500 students. 5. The orooerty owner or rnanaoer shall sweeo and restrioe the oarkinQ lot before the school occuoies their soace. This shall include havinQ the reQuired handicaooed oarkino soaces in the oarkino area near the buildino entrance. 6. The school. the church. the fire marshal and the city buildino official shall aQree on a clan for the school and the church to make any necessarv or reQuired life safetv and buildino imorovements to the buildinQ. This clan shall include the installation and maintenance of: a. The reQuired fire orotection (sorinkler) systerns. 22 b. An eanv wamino fire protection system (smoke detection and monitorino). c. Additional emeraencv liohts and exit sions (if necessarv). d. Updated doors and hardware (if necessarv). e. A proper address on the buildina. f. Any other chanoes the fire marshal or the buildino official deem necessary. The city council adopted this resolution on ,2006. 23 MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: SUBJECT: LOCATION: DATE: City Manager Tom Ekstrand, Senior Planner Legacy Townhomes County Road D between Kennard Street and Hazelwood Street June 12, 2006 INTRODUCTION Project Description The Hartford Group, the master developer of Legacy Village, is proposing to develop the final segment of town hornes at Legacy Village. The application is for 119 townhornes which would be located on the south side of County Road D between Hazelwood and Kennard Streets. This portion of the Legacy Village PUD (planned unit development) was previously approved for 96 town house units and an office building on a 1 )I.,-acre site at the southwest corner of Kennard Street and County Road D. The applicant is now asking for an arnendment to the approved PUD (planned unit developrnent) to build townhomes on this office site as part of their town house developrnent. Refer to the applicant's narrative, the attached maps and the plans. Requests The applicant is requesting that the city council approve the following: 1. A cornprehensive plan amendment to build townhornes where the executive offices were previously approved. The applicant is requesting a change frorn BC (business cornmercial) to R3H (high density residential). 2. A revision of the Legacy Village PUD to allow townhornes on the site previously approved for an executive-office building. 3. A preliminary plat to create horne sites for sale. 4. Site, building and landscape plans. BACKGROUND July 14, 2003: The city council approved the Legacy Village PUD, comprehensive plan amendment, tax-abaternent plan and prelirninary plat for Legacy Village. Since the council approved the Legacy Village PUD, the following projects have been approved or built: . Heritage Square Townhomes (220 units) . Heritage Square 2nd Addition (81 units) . Wyngate Rental Townhomes (50 units) . Ashley Furniture (completed) . Kennard Professional Building (under construction) . Maplewood Sculpture Park (completed) . Legacy Shoppes Retail (construction pending) . Ramsey County Library (under construction) . Senior's Apartrnent (120 units, concept approved, plan review pending) DISCUSSION Land Use Plan Change Comoatibilitv of Uses The proposed land use plan change from BC to R3H is not a rnajor revision. The area previously planned for the office building is 1 Y, acres in size within this 12.49-acre site. The office, furtherrnore, would have been an accessory use to the townhomes if they were rentals since it would have served as a rental office. The townhorne units are now proposed to be for-sale units. Although this office site also fits the "rnixed-use" concept of the Legacy Village PUD, developrnent of this parcel would be better suited as townhomes. Townhornes would be rnore compatible with the surrounding town homes than a cornmercial office as a neighbor. Density The proposed density is below the previously approved number of units. The approved PUD allowed a total of 198 units for the proposed site and the town home site to the east across Kennard Street (this does not include the 1)1,- acre office site, however). The town homes site to the east (Heritage Square 2nd addition) has 81 units and it was approved for 102. The proposed site, without the inclusion of the office piece, was approved for 96 units, totaling 198 between the two sites. The applicants proposed 119 town homes, in addition to the existing 81 units, would total 200 units. These two extra units could easily be absorbed into the 1 )I,-acre office site. By itself, if approved by the council, the density of this 1 )I,-acre site as town homes could have up to 15 units at the allowed density of 10.4 units per acre. The two additional units, therefore, do not pose a density concern. 2 Land Use Plan Chanae Summarv In consideration of the compatibility of uses with the proposed change and with the little affect on the overall density, staff supports the proposed comprehensive plan revision. PUD Revision For the reasons stated above, staff finds no problem with the PUD revision to substitute the office site with an extension of the town home development. The PUD conditions for the rental townhomes and office/clubhouse, must be revised, however, if the council approves the change to townhornes for the corner office site. Staff has noted these revisions in the attached PUD resolution at the end of this report. Preliminary Plat The applicant is requesting approval of a preliminary plat to sell the individual townhornes. This is typical of such developrnents. Staff does not find any unusual concerns with doing so beyond the usual requirernents for platting which include things like the signing of a developer's agreernent, rnaintenance agreement, the approval of final grading/drainage/erosion-control/utilily plans and the dedication of any necessary easernents that the city engineer may require. Maplewood Engineer, Michael Thornpson, reviewed this proposal and made several cornments in his attached report. Staff recomrnends that the city council require that the applicant cornply with the statements in Mr. Thompson's report as conditions of plat approval. Design Review Architectural The proposed townhomes would be attractively designed and would be cornparable in design and rnaterials to the other owner-occupied town homes in Legacy Village. The buildings would have rock-face concrete block foundations and horizontal-lap siding of a fiber-cement material. The gable roofs would have asphalt shingles. Garage doors would be metal with raised panels. A condition of the approval should be that any exterior utility rneters be screened in a decorative rnanner. BuildinQ Setbacks Building setbacks rneet the reduced-setback concept approved for Legacy Village. The PUD required a minimum building setback of 15 feet from street right-of-way lines. The buildings rneet this rninimum setback. Sidewalks The applicant has laid the site out to accomrnodate pedestrian connections throughout the developrnent. 3 Visitor Parkinq The visitor-parking proposal rneets the requirernents of the PUD by providing one guest space for each two units with at least five guest spaces within 200 feet of the front door of all units. There is a problem, however, with width of these proposed spaces. The spaces are proposed at nine feet wide. City code requires 9Y:z feet. The site plan should be revised to rneet this city code requirement. Soils During staff's review of this site previously by Town & Country Hornes two years ago, it was brought to our attention that there were poor soils on this property. The proposed building placernent covers the entire site very uniforrnly raising the question about whether this has been addressed or whether the soils are suitable for buildings, roads and drives. Determining soil quality for construction is a function of the building departrnent's review when permits area applied for. The provision of a detailed soils analysis should be provided to the building official prior to construction beginning on this project. If poor soils are found for construction, corrective measures must be taken or the site plan rnust be revised regarding building and possibly driveway placement. Landscaoinq The proposed landscaping plan rneets the direction of boulevard-tree spacing in the PUD. The tree sizes rneet code requirements. Staff recornmends that the landscaping around the rainwater garden at the corner of Kennard Street and County Road D be considerably further developed. This is a key focal point to the neighborhood and there is a terrific opportunity to accentuate this corner with a very attractive landscaping elernent around this pond. The applicant should revise the landscaping plan for staff approval. Likewise, the landscaping around the other ponds and rainwater gardens in this development should be treated more attractively to rnake them decorative amenities for the future residents of this townhome neighborhood. Ramsey/Washington Metro Watershed District The applicant must obtain all necessary perrnits frorn the watershed district before starting construction. Building Official's Comrnents Dave Fisher, the Maplewood Building Official, had these comments: . The city will require a complete building code analysis when the construction plans are subrnitted to the city for building permits. . All exiting must go to a public way. . Provide adequate fire departrnent access to the buildings. . All buildings over 8.500 square feet must be fire sprinklered. 4 . I would recornmend a pre-construction rneeting with the contractor, the project rnanager and the city building inspection departrnent. Fire Marshal's Comments Butch Gervais, the Maplewood Fire Marshal, had these comments/requirements: . Need 20 foot ernergency access road at all times. . Fire protection system per codes and rnonitored. . Fire alarrn system per code and monitored. . Mini sounders in each unit. . Fire department lockbox required. Get the paperwork from the fire marshal. Police Department Cornments Lieutenant Kevin Rabbett noted there are no significant public safety concerns. This plan seems to meet the previously-approved plans for Legacy Village. Engineering Comments Maplewood Engineer, Michael Thompson, reviewed this proposal. I have included his four-page report. Refer to Mr. Thornpson's report. Other than concerns regarding utilities, grading, storm water treatment and erosion control, Mr. Thompson stated that the developer shall: . Implernent a homeowner's association as part of this development to ensure that there is a responsible party for the regular maintenance and care of the ponds, rainwater gardens, retaining walls, private utilities and other features common to the development. . The developer shall sign a rnaintenance agreernent, prepared by the city for rainwater gardens, ponds and surnps. The project plans shall clearly point out the maintenance access route to each garden and basin. · A 20-foot-wide easement needs to be dedicated over the centerline of the existing 18 inch storrn sewer pipe that extends to Wetland F. The proposed steps over the storm sewer pipe shall be relocated outside of the easement. . The developer shall dedicate a pedestrian trail easement by separate document over the trail on the south end of the development. . The developer shall enter into a developer's agreernent with the city for the construction of the trail. . The developer and project engineer shall satisfy the requirements of all perrnitting agencies. 5 Citizen Comments Of a large nurnber of surveys staff mailed (209) to neighboring property owners, we received very few replies. Of the eight that did reply, two had no comment and six were opposed. Refer to the cornments in the Citizen Comments section of this report for the cornplete cornments. The concerns raised, though, were regarding increased traffic, there being too many townhomes already and the loss of trees/wetlands/wildlife. Traffic Traffic will increase with the continued build-out of Legacy Village. This is the reason, however, for the extension and improvernents of County Road D which are taking place. These roadway improvements will handle the future traffic needs. Densitv- Too Manv Homes Alreadv The housing in Legacy Village, along with the other nearby townhomes and condominiurns, will create a rather highly populated area. This has been foreseen, however, with all the multiple-dwelling housing planned for this area. Some feel that the city should not allow any further development until all of the existing hornes have been sold and occupied. Unfortunately, the city cannot regulate the rnarket place. We must allow housing based on the city's approved development plans and our land use controls. If these are being rnet, the city cannot stop the proposed developrnent. Loss of Wildlife. Wetlands and Trees It is always sad and unfortunate to see the loss of trees and wildlife habitat. This site, however, was approved for development in 2003 and it is proceeding according to that approved plan. Wetlands will be preserved or mitigated also as previously approved by the PUD development plan. RECOMMENDATIONS A. Adopt the resolution approving the cornprehensive land use plan arnendrnent frorn BC (business cornmercial) to R3H (high density residential) for a 1 Y, -acre parcel previously planned for an office building in Legacy Village. Approval of this change is because townhomes would be rnore compatible and in character with the adjacent townhorne developrnent than the previously approved comrnercial building and because the proposed density of this site would be 13 units less than it potentially could be. B. Adopt the resolution approving a revision to the Legacy Village planned unit development as it relates to the previously approved rental-townhornes and executive-office suites and clubhouse sites. Approval of this revision is based on the findings required by the ordinance and subject to the following conditions (additions are underlined and deletions are crossed out): 6 1. The developrnent shall follow the plans date-starnped May 11, 2006, except where the city requires changes. The director of cornrnunity development may approve minor changes. 2. The proposed construction rnust be substantially started within one year of council approval or the perrnit shall end. The council rnay extend this deadline for one year. 3. The city council shall review this permit in one year. 4. The applicant shall cornply with the requirements in the engineer's report dated June 1, 2006. 5. The applicant shall provide a copy of the homeowner's association docurnents to staff for approval. 6. The following changes are hereby made to the approved PUD conditions: ReRtal Townhomes ans Office/Cluehouse: a. The project will be constructed according to the plans date-stamoed Mav 11. 2006 from Hartter-€! Grou!'l sateEl €i1.;y9d iR all Eletails, except as specifically modified by these conditions. b. .'\ siElewalk 'Nill 13e !'lrevised centinlJously on the north or west sise of Street .'I, between KennLlrs Street aREI Hazel'l.'eeEl Dri'le, including the segment eetween tho offjse/slu13Rsuse !'laFkiR€llet ans tewnhouso euilsin€ls 11 ans ~ c. SiElswalk seRnections will be asses connecting the power line tr-ailto the cure of Street.'\ o!'lposite tewRReF'Ae 13uilsin€ls €i ans ll; d. The siso.....alks serviA€ltRe frents eftownhome lluilsings 1d, 1€i, 17, 111, 19 ans 20 will ee exlenses south te seRRest witR tRe !'lower line trail. e. Str-eet Bans Streot C serving the townhomos will 13e seRstrucles in their eRtirsty with the townhomos, regarsless of tho status sf tRe R'llJlti faF'Aily aREl commercial parcels to the east. f. Parking spaces will 13e wsviEleEl at tRe sREls sf the drivO'....ays at the roar of lluilsiR€lS 1,2, daRE! 4, 15/1€i, 19/20, 21/22 ans 25/-2€i aRE! siE!e'l.'all~s vJilllle proviElsEl treR'l tRese parking spaces cennecting to tRe treRt siEle'A'all,<s of each of those lluilEliR€ls. g. The infiltmtieR trenches on the south siE!os of 8uilEliR€lS 1 d/14, 15/1 €i ans 19/20 will 13e R'lesifies to accornR'loE!L1te a revises alignment for the powor liRe trail, I3revises that reasona13le €lFases are provides for the tFail aRE! any sise'Nalks conRestiR!:l to it, ans approval ef tRe sity engineer concerning tho size ans functieR ef the trenches. 7 1:1. .^\ six feet wiele siEle'Nalk should be provided if at all J:lossisle en tl:1e seutl:1 siEle ef COlolnty RoaEl D for the entire lenllth of the pr-ejm,t frern HazelwooEl Drive 18 Sel:ltt:1la'::A Dr:ive, t1:II=el:Jgh GentinweEl eti&sl:J~sieA eePv\'een tAe Gity anEl Hartfor-d, focusing on exact siElewalk wiElth, location onEl right of way neeEls for tlolrn lanes anEl other features of the COlolnty Roac:l D J:lrejecl. i. .^\ side'....alk will be J)rovided on tho south side of County Road D and siElewall<s will be J:lro'liEleEl Ololt te that siEle'llalk from the north side of l3l;JilElings 1, 4, 21, 22, 2d, 24 @A8 25 ::IE ':.(ell ::IE to the S11l8A8l:JEe treAt 8Atry anEl tl:1e slusheuse J:larl<ing 101. j. The grades of the power line trail and all public sidewalks will meet ADA guidelines for slope. k. Overstory trees will be J:llanted alonll eoth sidos of Street .^\ at an a'leralle of dO' te 40 . en seRter iRsteaa ef tl:1e average 70' sJ:lacing shown on the ~ I. O'lerstery trees will ee J)lantec:l alonll eoth sidos of Stroet B anEl on the west siEle of Str-oet C at aR a'lElra!!e ef dO' te 49' en seAter instead of the seR'letiA'les 100' sJ:lacing shown on the J:llans, slolch additional tree islanEls to se seerainatea '.'/itl:1 A'leaified J:larking bays that might ee addeEl to this stFeet., rn. O'/erstory tr-oes wiIIlle J:llantea alen!! seth siEles of KennarEl Street in frent of tl:1e tewnhomes at an a'/eralle of dO' to 40' on center instead of the a'leralle aO' to 80' sJ:lasiA!! sl:1ewR en tl:1e J:llans. n. The curve in Villaae Trail East Street.^\ oJ)J)osite lluilc:linlls 10 anc:l 12 will shall be flattened as rnuch as J)ossible to limit headlight alare on aiA'led into the front of the units. o. All setbacks are approved as shown barrina any construction reauirernents reaardina the power line easement to the south from Xcel. Front builElinll seteacks (clullhouse aAdsuilEliR!!s 1, 4, 5, 14, 15,21,22, 2d, 24, 2a and 28) te Hazelweed Drive, KennarEl Stroet anc:l County Roac:l D tl:1at ar.e less than requireEl by the zoninll seEle are sJ:lesifisally aJ:lJ:lroveEl within this PUD as shown en the site J:llaR, ElewR te a A'linimum of 5' for the cllolehololse anEl 1 a' for tl:1e tewRl:1eR'le elolilElinlls in orEler to enhance the Iolrean sl:1araster ef the streets anEl intersestions. J). SiEle "arc:l euilElina setsasl<s fer all blolilElinas that arc less thaR r.ealolired Sy tl:1e zonina coc:le arc sl3esiflsallv al3l3rs'/eEl within this PUD as shown eR tl:1e site plan. q. Visitor-parking sJ)aces for the fefItaI townhornes will be added or rnodified as follows: 1) Parkinll sJ)ases will be added se tl:1ere is a total of at least 48 sJ:lacos on tl:1e west side of Kennard and at least a1 sJ:lases on the east side ef KennarEl, slolch that tl:1e front Eleor of no uRit is morc than 299 feet from a 8 €!FOUp of at least 5 s:paces. The applicant shall provide visitor-parkina spaces at the rninirnum auantitv of one-half space per townhome unit. This works out to a minimurn of 60 visitor parkina spaces reauired. Furthermore. the visitor-parkina spaces must be placed such that the front door of no unit is more than 200 feet frorn a aroup of at least five spaces. 2) Street A will be widened to 2e' curll te sure and on street par-allel parkin€! ',villlle added alon€! the nerth and west sides of the street exsept fer within 100' of the pavement Elf I=lazelwood Drive and KennarEl Street. J) Tne private drive immediately sOlllR Elf lluildin€!s 2 and J will be widened ts 2e' slIrb 10 cllrb and on s:treet parallel parking will be added alsn€j the north side of the drive. 4) Parl~in€! areas will be added lloAinElllllildings 1 and 4 where tRe driveway abuts the ponding area, ssnsislent with Ihe recommendatien of the city en€!ineer en pr-oviding adeEjllale gr-ading and fllnslioning of the pond. 5) Parking areas willlle added behind buildin€!s 15/1 €I, 1 Q,/2Q, 21122 and 25/2e Ie moot tRe parking and distance criteria ciled Rere. e) Street Q willlle widened to 2e' cllrb 10 cllrb anEl parallel parking will be addeEl alen€! tRe nerth and west sides: of the s:treel, or additional angled parkin€! willlle added Ie meet tRe sriteria for parkin€! spaces ciled Rere. r. TAe parl~in€j IElt fer IRe sllIllhouse/office bllilding willlle msElified ts add "preef of paFkin€!" spaces in the green area north anEl east of tAe swimming pool, for a lotal ef 91 spaces pessillle in the lot. SlIch spaces will snly lle constrl.ll:;ted if tne Elwner llelievss tRey are needed, or if they ar-e neeEleEl in the future to aderess paFI~in€! prelllems at the bllilding in the opinien sf tAe community development dir-ector, wRe san srder the spaces to be constructed. Such s:paces will mainlain a sidewalk connection belween IRe swimmin€! peel and clllbhollse llllildin€j in an islanEl in tRe middle of the parkingllays as SRewn on the plans. s. An easement over the power line trail on this parcel will be provided to the city for access and rnaintenance. C. Approve the prelirninary and final plat for Heritage Square Phase II, subject to the following conditions: 1. The applicant shall comply with the requirements in the city's engineering report dated June 1, 2006. 2. The applicant shall sign a developer's agreement with the city engineer before the issuance of a grading perrnit. 9 3. The applicant shall dedicate any easernents and provide any written agreements that the city engineer may require as part of this plat. 4. The applicant shall pay the city escrow for any documents, easements and agreernents that the city engineer may require that may not be ready by the time of plat signing. D. Approve the plans date-stamped May 11, 2006, for the Heritage Square Second Addition, the second phase of Heritage Square Townhomes at Legacy Village. Approval is subject to the developer complying with the following conditions: 1. Obtaining city council approval of a cornprehensive land use plan revision from Be (business comrnercial) to R3H (high density residential) to build townhomes on the previously approved office site. 2. Obtaining city council approval of a revision to the previously approved planned unit development for this project. 3. Obtaining city council approval of the preliminary for this project. 4. All requirements of the fire rnarshal and building official must be met. 5. The applicant shall obtain all required permits frorn the Rarnsey-Washington Metro Watershed District. 6. All driveways and parking lots shall have continuous concrete curbing. 7. All requirements of the city engineer, or his consultants working for the city, shall be met regarding grading, drainage, erosion control, utilities and the dedication of any easements found to be needed. All conditions of the Maplewood engineering report dated June 1, 2006 rnust be complied with. 8. Repeat this review in two years if the city has not issued a building perrnit for this project by that time. 9. Any identification signs for the project must meet the requirements of the city sign ordinance and the PUD approval. 10. The setbacks are approved as proposed. 11. The applicant shall: . Install reflectorized stop signs at all driveway connections to Hazelwood Street and Kennard Street. . Install and maintain an in-ground lawn irrigation system for all landscaped areas. . Install all required trails, sidewalks and carriage walks. 10 . Install any traffic signage within the site that may be required by staff. . Revise the site plan for staff approval providing for all visitor parking stalls to be at least 9).1., feet wide. . Provide a revised landscaping plan for staff approval providing considerable landscaping in and around the rainwater gardens and around ponds. . Provide a screening plan to staff for approval for any visible utility meters on the outside of the building. No end units facing County Road D shall have meters. . Provide a detailed soils analysis to the building official and city engineer prior to applying for building permits to ensure that there is proper soil stability for construction. 12. The applicant shall take care to make sure that site lights do not exceed a A- foot-candie spillover onto homes when lighting the private street and drives. 13. The applicant shall subrnit an address and traffic signage plan for staff approval. 14. The applicant shall provide the city with cash escrow or an irrevocable letter of credit for the exterior landscaping and site improvements prior to getting a building permit for the developrnent. Staff shall determine the dollar amount of the escrow. 15. All work shall follow the approved plans. The director of community developrnent may approve rninor changes. 16. A temporary sales office shall be allowed until the time a model unit is available for use. Such a temporary building shall be subject to the requirements of the building official. 11 CITIZEN COMMENTS Staff surveyed the 209 property owners within 500 feet of this site for their cornments. Of the eight replies received, two had no comment and six were opposed to this proposal. Opposed . As a neighbor we completely disagree with this proposal. What we need in the area is a kids park and green land. We were in fact told by our builder, Town & Country Homes, that at the time of our purchase that the city was thinking of having a park in our neighborhood. (Shah, 1635 Legacy Parkway) . Absolutely against any further development. The proposed area is the only area left with any trees. When we rnoved into our townhorne, we looked out onto woods with water and daily saw deer, fox and other wildlife. The new developrnents have destroyed what nature was here and the new development will destroy the only remaining nature. The developments have brought noise, increased traffic with high speeds and destruction of nature. There will be nothing "pretty" about the area anymore. This is the #1 reason we will be pulling our home up for sale within the next few months. (Henderson & Waller, 1621 County Road D) . We oppose this development as it will dirninish the wetlands which were on the original plan. This development will also add even more traffic into the area. With all the developrnent that's been done in the last year, we have high traffic already. (Tom Gelbmann, president of the Board for the Cardinal Pointe members/owners, 3003 Hazelwood Street) . I do not agree with tearing up the wetlands to build more townhornes. The wetlands is one reason why I bought rny town house. I enjoy watching all deer walk thru there. Another reason why I bought my townhouse is because it is in a quite location away frorn the commercial business and other townhouses. I think if you built rnore town houses in the area it will definitely lessen the chances for the rest of us to sell our home in the future. I think adding more town houses to the area will lower the market value. (Stebbing, 1567 County Road D) . I would like to see more green space in Legacy. By cramming in so many condos, it's beginning to look like the projects. Please see to it that Legacy includes as much open green space as possible on this corner to rnake this a rnore attractive neighborhood. Consider this area 20-30 years frorn now. When over building consumes every inch of land, rarely is a healthy, vibrant neighborhood present. Typically, this type of over-crowded area is pretty rough, attracting low-income households, gangs and crime. (Bailey & Shenigo, 1613 County Road D) . Refer to the attached e-mail letter from Jon Sticha, 1567CountyRoadD. Mr. Sticha's concerns are regarding loss of trees, wetland and wildlife habitat. More housing will force existing homeowners to sell for less. There are too rnany vacancies now. Is there really a need for more townhomes in this area? 12 REFERENCE SITE DESCRIPTION Site Size: 12.49 acres Existing Use: Undeveloped SURROUNDING LAND USES North: County Road D and townhomes South: Heritage Square Town Hornes East: Heritage Square 2nd Addition Townhomes West: Hazelwood Street PLANNING Land Use Plan Designation: Existing R3H and BC; Proposed all R3H Zoning: PUD Findings for PUD Approval City code requires that, to approve a planned unit developrnent, the city council rnust base approval on the specific findings. Refer to the findings for approval in the attached resolution. APPLICATION DATE We received the cornplete applications and plans for these requests on May 11, 2006. State law requires that the city take action within 60 days of receiving cornplete applications for a proposal. City council action is required on this proposal by July 10, 2006. 13 p:sec 3\Legacy Townhomes 6 06 Attachments: 1. Location Map 2. Property LinelZoning Map 3. Land Use Plan Map 4. 2003 Legacy Village PUD 5. Site/Landscaping Plan 6. Proposed Subdivision 7. Building Elevations 8. Applicant's Narrative 9. Memo from Michael Thompson dated June 1, 2006 10. E-mail from Jon Sticha dated May 19, 2006 11. Land Use Plan Resolution 12. Planned Unit Development Resolution 13. Plans date-stamped May 11,2006 (separate attachment) 14 Attachment 1 II .jj o :;: i? " .~ ~ . .ll ij 8 IS ~ , ~ .~ ".' ,.- ~ j~ I'" - . /5~~ ~RH: 'IEIII.'f~~ ~ j~~ IMr; rr~.:.' .~ ;;, iJl .... ::1f]-r-7 .... I -nR+ ~ JU ~. . ;;u, -',..1.'-.-,... ill, '11+1 . ~ !r~ll .!f1 ~~V~~ r r~, ~^~ r~ I iJI ~}J r .', '~~.) '. \.; ... J !l~~ , lii,;l: I"i{"] '-.. . >~~_____ .AIL' = ==, L~II.:-r' iH /"'.. ;:.:,1 I' .~ ~~ /,Il~ 1E1.8 s ""'-..\ ":Sf;;, I ,i. " r~" lC' " I . II I .. ifi c.. _ ; ,~/.' :,.".] ~ ~ - \ ----- !:"; ~ .. =-- J:H. lilt . .~ r r; ~ ""ji .)~ 1,'" If.JI ." In -"~8- <<';rl~ \'" 1= ~ 1 Ii CJ I ij~ 11 Z . ..., I II.' ....,.... /-;C.; ~.L ?{~;..~. ...~!f '. rij! 0 en ~ !:::::::::: U rW -;~'_- . :j~ - ,,# w _ 41.:= 1>IJ ~ ~~~ ~ 9' Y c ~ -:: ~ I 'fl' ~ ijs c( "" '~'. ~ t ~z ~"" = :\ :; ill:,:". I') ~ ~i~ (J +- a.. <c III fit;., r, frrRll, ~ BN 0 .., ~ ~ ~ ~~f -111."., ~ I. W-] . InFo ~ii...J Iltnll . 1- ~IU'-.. 0 l~a ~. ~ b" '1'--..1._1 . Jr. O'lf ~!~ , , /; -C\ .. ~ :;:-11.." ~ . :::::-" . ( '.. tJ i:' ~ '1". ,,' '1. '), f ~ IJ. I ~ I ~ i I i I U IJ ~;!II IJldHUh ~~ "''\\1 0 Iir> -I'"' I IJ I ~II.H ~ I ,.; . .Wii '1-' ~ , ~., ~. . ~ if\' 1 lffii~; I (i'~...... i'. ~' II- -"1"- "'eI. 'm1~ ~"" I v; '" u 8 '" 15 Attachment 2 t ~ 0. .S &~ .-.~ !!l Ii ... '15 ~ ('I') ..... =It: CD CD cu a.. N N I cO) oN -.;:::; I ~('I') ~O ~Z 6 . Ii 1 o ~ J I Q ~ i i l ~ I 0_ . Ig~ E':5 = ~ ! o;!l 811. H ~ ~ . . . ! ~ ~ ~ $ U-"" R~E ~.!;;;;- ;;1 ....Zl~ ..~ I ~ ~ ~ w w . - li" .. .. u 3 1 ~ e l ~ m ~ . . , ~ . ~ ~ . ~ . I 8 ~ ~ ! ! ~ iDDDIID[].. it Ba U' e... c ... . "ii' ~e~_ C - E - .8 OE-~-~ - "-Q!B.....- U ~ -E ~ is 1! 1! lil ~~~ ~ J~- :Jl~p~1 g" .!~cl$'iIi uS ~iii~!II~ l!fdt~p1il ;~:J:z8::::lti.ii ~..I.I... o UlU....J<( ::!;UJIY ~h~ SF:!! !~j~ ,""ILl. !fil": IHH -liar hNi, IIz~1: !Ii:;l I~:i ~8h 'ill' ;~.H 16 ....:1....0 t a: J 1~ ~i lj I .! t a: j !l ~ i" Ii i~_ 1'_ !"O J;n!~H 'c: g "- u 0 u: ell ::l ~Olllllel iijii , , E i i L 'C.... Iii ~j~~~- ]~~i!I~: ~i!~!c!iii ~ ~ . .. ~ ~ ~ ~ u~~Af:t;; "~~;::I'~::I'ii 1l8~~f~~ oomllol d _N! ii" Ii ~~:8~~i 1 r~~8~~~ Wj~i5f~~ ~ ~~Jj~i~~~~ .. 1: :IE ,., iI. E ~ l! l! ~ t ~~!t8~~~O~ 1~IIElIIIIII &= ." n.,!; 17 Attachment 3 ('t) ~ :ft: CD 0) <<1 Q.. (\I (\I I (1) 5(\1 :;:; I a;("') ~O ~Z i i o . . I ~ . ~ H ~i \ Attachment 4 LEGACY VILLAGE AT MAPLEWOOD rl;;',ii1:~ ~ .",;'." ,.. 'V' ."",,-,::. - '- OUTLOT H i. r- ; .-[j ~-;;:'_. ! i ! t'~"[f t----u t' ~, :li1\,: '~~">, ..q- ' -- -_..! PoAIALI TOWNHOIIU GItOlII11.nIG. .----- Ii:' :~.",(.,M iIlll;-:;l..'.... ,.-". -"~~:~:"~.:~f-;i'\ APPROVED PUD DEVELOPMENT-CONCEPT PLAN JULY 14, 2003 18 ~!~:I !I II I ~ II ,1m Ii Ji.IJjf []~ ~ ijl .---'J i ~ II II ~ II I lW !.ILl · h lj -- ~ ~-. i5~ iS~ ~8 ~~ (m f? III 11:/ ,I D ~'111 I 115J: iii !;i If" fll I!~-! e~ mill . I il~ II!I ~ '" W i~ ~ tiW g~ II ,ii ; ,I ,II ;i ifi I :i,', ;'il ".I: 1 ii' 'ill till \ I' 1'1' I' ',' \ I - il'! I! \ \ __/ -::-ld~ ~" il ~~=::;~:~ I !~ii I' ~II; II ~I ~ Il'l I I' II' ., ! i'j II' jl I t I i' I Ii i' I 4- ,,,,- I: I'" ,,', "I - i~' , / I JI' 1'1 ii! ,< .'7;/ / II , 1,1.0'/ <; ~I'i,., II 'I if ,.1/1 ( ,\ , .;, /? /' I < \ !l 'l,r //11'1, II 'j< / , f" 'Ii: .//.,! ""f II': ;,',:,,'!~I!i/,~I 'Iii:, }f ~ "." /, ,,: -y' i J, I" , i~! / ~ lil! I \ ,/; 11' 'l,lll' Xc' 'i ,.//_/".. 1,1',:\\1' /" \ ~ ,\,\! / , r'\i/" I, ,:, \, :v 1\/ . \ : ;\,\ 't" ~, " .\ \'t t,r','" I" \' t'~ \ \ \ r\ \;' \\ \~ , \"\ '\ \ ~\ ~j.' \,:" '\\, '\ ~~, ~.. , ,~ ., ,\ \\ ~ \ I, , \ \, Attachment 5 $I 'l!~ .. 'j" .II I ~ . , jl'j";j" 'I. , I :'IP;I'1 II "I. i ,P!,!l iii!l!!ill ~!!I !il !II q: 11111,i'I'1 1,::1111'''1' il'I'! Iljll ' 1,,1','111' I 1.'11 i,':IO !I:'! i l.jl,I'I,. !'!"I'll'!'! Ih q'll 1"111 -',i 1'" 'il" ;.il,I",I:M !IIIIIII'I~11O lil'I!!.II:I'i'111il !:illlll !. !i,!1I .,Iil J .11.. ~lh, ;l1,,6i",90..:Q,V r",,"nf)W7i"t...,o- ------ I' ..'. ~ 'I III I'"jill" !"l ii, !i'! Iii. 11111 ;11111 : I Ill, 11/'/11,1 'IlIa 1111' 1'1' ,-'I 'il .hl ',I:li 1'11111' ~I 'Ii 1 ,I i 'if II,I!,.! I!' I 1"1"i., I III I!li!1 I~ I II!I! !!~I!lm!!I!!Il!lm '<<~.._.._.---'-C.._.;.-.._' ''-,' ; , I!' jil iil ill III ;'1 Oil I'j; I~ :;1 ~. II! II! ,'II i'," iili " I 'j i' II ~'" ..;0. I ii '~i Iii !i! iI!. :,mj,! jllll'll"1 Ib lUG 111 11:t!~ I ,'II, !,., ,hi 11'1 ~'..l ,,~:i~..1I ~ 1II. b z , ! I I , i 'i ;1 ., I I 19 Hd9lr:.t:Zl9OOl1S/s'lon'tiMjr3.llS-tOHH.L-1~Oo\lOWH..l.\1~:}I I~ Ii! J ! ,i, I: :I .'.~. I,' I ! i i t' t' t' t' t' t' t' t' t' t' t' t' t' t' t' t' t' t' I:' t' :ii' i 'j iiillfillflllflllll."llIillll'.1l1f II "'.111:', II!: \ '\ ~J J1F-~~::: Ii ,::::::::::::::::::~ ! .'til \ ~~.-<..:.;,V !Ii, !,\ \ _, ~~:~",..:,";:'f!JI.g,~, "" Ii! ::;1: ~'~' 'i,l..L--- __.__. _ _ _ ~it.-i=~:~ mm___A<-~ "",,- ~,.;....r~~ ~~~....,""~~;:;:.. 4 ".c 1.... __ --"'- ~W- ~.~' -"'"' "...-:"....""'- l ~__ _"-:7]ij- '\ !.............................~~.- Ii! " .....""'T7"-----C.-,.,(/"!J9~ ~~ 'Z!r ..." ~ ..' ~ ___ '. II 5 -. J.:~i.I!J;J _-=f' f~" ~-~.-- =0--- - 1 ~.~~ ~:--< ~ :-:~"":..' ... ~~_~'-:~-I :1 -,~"':- '---'~', ,y '\, ' I ~ - =--:":~"'~~':::=::--~'r~c'l-'\-l tt ' I :: ,', "" "" '" """'" '" "" "", '" I [Ii i- (l$~_, \~4~' ~ i:" .. ! If i';;;:;;;;;:;;:;;:;;:;;:;;:;;:;;;;;;: 1:1\ I';: !b-"-i f..~-l ~~ m ! i!~ : !~~ ~ !illl!lll.Il"Il~""~"."."lI=l!l'~l!=I>="~~IlQ.~-"~ 1'. :'Ili~: i lJ III S ~ J ~ :1 ~.~'-! c:--:-r I"; ~:~ ,',\ I:' iLD.--l 9 9 ~ i ~ L.:"~--i 2~~ ;;; 1\: ,'.. ~ I i.I..',".'I: 'I': ~ : ent~1l, tH-1 ~I: .W lt~.: I, ,-5~;'.;J:!i, ',' .~~: !................................... ~ {:,"..'....!:I ~~. I,: E :ii .C.:a. "':Ji"'l~.- I:,' r,'-';::I ' -""'''1 IT"," , 'I'.,i,[ (Ii . -1 ~ "" ;:. . t:"t:"l:'l:'l:' l:'l:'l:'t:" 1::t:"t:"1:: l:' t:" "'t:'l:' t:'l:'..t:" 1;;'1::1:' l:' t:"c:t:" C:l:'l:''' l:'l:' !D '; I....,:...;; I.. -: ,',":, E....._..\!!.J E-~ ';-.'" \'.: (-"";"--1 i I: i.: ! : ~~: i ;;;;;;;;HU;;;;;H;;-;;;;;;;;;;;;; "I.':' 1 ;:: I ~....J >.T // '\ ~~.J" E..~.J i ' I I'i, . Ii < "I'" :frJ ,.-' / J I':i; ,!,:- i V Pl.:! ,.........../ / / /.' Iii:; '1":1, 1'.............................0..... - ",!! . "I .' ~ :, , ii' '.',: ,! 1"/' t< 'I,' / ,-..---<,-rl', ~:, '~., ./ \ \ ~--- =*' I, ,", ~.:~,'i ~~i.:,.i.j.:. ;,:I! II /' )rl ...."....7.il'.. ,.'\, \,__ -- --- ~I j" 4 Ji . I ,,~~\ ,C '!1 ~t:"l::c:t:"c:c:t::c:t::t::l:'l:'l:'t:t:"t:"t::c:l:'t::~l:'l:'t::~l:'l:'t:"l:'c:l:'t:'~c: ,I, i !,"i // /, ~ J. Ii >: ':' c~ , i!: i,\: im;m;m;m;m;m;m;;;;;m :~I\li 'liJ,ll/,>/ Ii! ~ ,lIt.@:[.J\;!:;I')I',--.....................'.....--.... I/! I\,.:,'! i'l ",i' i~1 / ..,,:,", ~ JL-\ ~..---; '~" ..", "..)}~,', !-,-----------,------------'--...... li . / .,/ ":.),il ~ ~ ~C") ~ .. JI II :. ,,-\<C ___(}fr-'r/rt__-- -:' '" ~/... ,./ .,:\:~" f- p ~ l- P- ,I,!' ,1,/ ".."Cl) 89 i h ~ II j ii, / -",/ ~, (' ~,iiI ,""',, :' I il,ll /.' ~ . j , ~ ~...: II t'l! / / ~ I ~!il ~, ,II , '1"'" /., ~ - i ~..j u---J I" \i :, \1. /,/ //~f:'" ~ ~ f8 fr f: i : f~:: : - 11 T~i;~' \~\, \, /.4(..'<>) iii' r::--) , ~ ~~' ;1 ii'; I, \ \ .\~&;~~y~'~.. r;;j! ~iJ tJ :"1' ".,i~;r ~\ '\ II ;'~~I, .~~). J: 10.-:.'\ > I -- weo I .A I, '\' \'\'''''v' Q~."( 'y ~n~_-~n~--;-;b' \ : ,I, .~ \ h'v .' -- ;.:' \'1' 1\ '\\\\.<'~:+;'Y // '''.:'', ,'-, , ~"'l'; ,e 1\ , ", \r:~()"r:/ - ~ fi~ afi-,,, T1- \ ~.\\,\\./ ;:;..~.- :~: ! \' ~\ / Oq9.1i -'Iili.....J ~ n, " \' \ .' \':; _'" I l~ . I" , ~ G'::; l \, ~\ 'X~):\ '~~~.\.") en .1 r~ i - --.~: ',I \\\..;\~\~',;~. ~;,)~.-\"" :J.-l: J ! I", ,,',, '~ ~ \\"y'" ~~\..\ ~-- ;Sr-~ "_!~->-;..:i '\ " 1,\ ...,~" . ~ )/..--:;:0.:J~"'i:;'":.., I" : ,,,, , ,".. ~ " ""' I \'~'l',,: \\.~- /_:-;-.:&.~--'-.-".~'I, ::c""~ . , i '~~ ~\~ /#-7' '''''~~" : ~~\;,.//~ ~~T'<~~::;;:~-:kl ~ ,\>\\"/>,.~..~.,~~~ - ~:;~-~~~:-~. "'.> ,.~/ _ __ _ _ _ _ ,_ ,..-__'_::J-~i:~ _",-_I d - -"-,~~ -- 0"- :;--::-- '-~~ ------------------------ m ~ J H!l ! [ i. I' ~II- ~~~ !!j U ; .--J ~i~ !!I~ 3~~ ill ~~ ~z ~ i~ II ~ . I --..1 ", Attachment 6 I 'J!IIM ihill i!J ~i5 iSg ~~ . ~z ! ~~ . ., I!I II' ,I! I!I IIi !II 5 z !............-.....-................ 20 WY 5O:a~01900Z/S15 't.ot.^ '&oIp'3JJS'UlHH.L-t.~ OO\t.lWU.\10MH\Plllifl13P1H\:lJ I :!l .~ ~!~ t:'I~LJ' [:0 '11 "1 ~ III ,,>-w 1.'11 Hi i 1 ~ ~~ Ii' j1 u~ Hlel Wi ,I I I ~~ ill~ i .~! ~> I --l II '1'1111['] jjJJl ~:l ~ " ~ mil. 1111111! I [liI!1 UILjl~ - -... ~z ~6 U ..8 '" 12.. Z z 12 0 0 13 a !i' !i' z if; if; :1 ~ ~ w w w w 0 0 u; u; @ ~ ~ '" '" z @~ i5 ~ u =' 5 => '" '" to U to z z => => :1 , z z' ~ ~ ' '" ",I , T a IJID ! T ~l ' i T ! ,a if"iii1 , 1~ T I, ~ T ! ~ a ~ :IB ~ ! T g ~~l; ~~ T !; ~I ~ :' i U w ~ ! ml , z, w , if; - '" I WY 9O:lE:n 9OOl1S/s 'rsy '6MpTS-\f\s.!JN\lJ\!OW\lOHIU\lOMW\,poclMa::1Ii1W\:l:l Attachment 8 'till HARTFORD GROlJJ~ INC REAL ESTATE DEVELOPMENT. ARCHITECTURE. ENGINEERING. MANAGEMENT May 11,2006 RECEIVED MAY II 2006 LEGACY VILLAGE TOWNHOMES RESIDENTIAL TOWNHOMES CITY OF MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA Narrative in Support of Comprehensive Plan Amendment PUD Amendment Preliminary Plat Approval and Community Design Review Board Approval DEVELOPER Hartford Group, Inc. 7900 Xerxes A venue South Suite 1300 Bloomington, MN 55431 952-838-2420 Fax: 952-838-2401 www.hartfordgro.com PROPERTY OWNER ARCIDTECTIENGINEER Legacy Holdings-MW, LLC 7900 Xerxes A venue South Suite 1300 Bloomington, MN 55431 952-838-2420 Fax: 952-838-2401 Hartford Group, AlE, Inc. Hal Pierce, AlA Patrick Sarver, ASLA Aaron Archbold, PE 7900 Xerxes A venue South Suite 1300 Bloomington, MN 55431 952-838-2420 Fax: 952-838-2401 www.hartfordgro.com 7900 Xerxes Avenue South . Suite 1300 . Bloomington, MN 55431 . 952~83B-2400 (P) . 952-838-2401 (F) . www.hartfordgrp.com 22 I. THE PROPERTY Prior Review This property is part of the larger Legacy Village development for which the City Council approved the PUD, comprehensive plan amendment, tax abatement plan and fmal plat in 2003. ProperlY Location and Boundaries The Property is 12.49 acres located in the northwest comer of the Legacy Village development, legally described as Lot I, Block I, Legacy Village of Maplewood and bounded on the north by County Road D, on the west by Hazelwood Street, on the South by future City parkland and the Heritage Square townhome development and on the east by Kennard Street. ProperlY Use and Adiacent Uses The Legacy Village PUD approved the Property for high density residential, with a business commercial use approved in the northeast comer. On the west edge, there is AUAR Sub-Area 2, a row of five existing residences totaling 4.6 acres. Town & Country Homes is constructing its Heritage Square II tOwnhome project across Kennard Street to the east; townhomes and retail development is to the north, and future City parkland and the Town & Country Heritage Square townhome development to the south. II. THE LEGACY VILLAGE DEVELOPMENT PLAN I Application Summary I I Hartford specifically requests the City Council approve the following; I 1. A revision of the Legacy Village PUD to allow a high density residential use for the entire Property. 2. An amendment to the comprehensive land use plan from BC (business commercial) to R3H (high-density residential) for the portion of the property located at southwest comer of Kennard Street and County Road D. 3. A preliminary plat for the new lot line configuration. 4. Site, building and landscape plans. ro osed Develo ment Plan and Buildin Descri tion artford requests that the City Council approve its plan to develop construct 119 direct entry t wnhomes in eighteen buildings. Each townhome building has from five to seven units. The tfwnhomes are designed in a traditional two-plus story style, with rock faced architectural block 23 foundation treatments and shingled gabled roofs. Details are traditional mullioned windows, with arched and bay windows. Features such as front yard private space, varied front entrance and window styles, and roof dormers provide individuality for each home. Each unit has a two- car garage with an additional 66 parking spaces located throughout the Property. A private drive (Village Trail East) will serve the development. Directly to the south is future City parkland and the central east-west Village Trail, allowing easy walking access throughout Legacy Village. Village Trail connects to Southlawn Drive in the east for easy access to Maplewood Mall, the new Anoka County Library and the surrounding retail and commercial development, connecting with Hazelwood Street in the east and Kennard Street in the west. The parkland (Lot 2, Block I, Legacy Village of Maplewood) will be conveyed to the City at a mutually agreeable time. It is Hartford's intention to rough grade the park site as a part of this development. We will work with City park staff to ensure that the grades are consistent with City plans. The townhomes will be part of a newly established condominiwn association that will govern the operation and maintenance of the property and its amenities on behalf of the owners. Density The original Legacy Village PUD was approved for 198 townhomes. This included Lot I, Block 2 east of Kennard Street, approved for 8 I units by the City Council on July 26, 2004, leaving I 17 approved for the subject west parcel. However, the Property includes 1.5 acres previously approved for commercial use. Converting this use to high density residential at 10.4 units per acre provides for an additional 15 units. Added to the approved 117, this totals 132 potential units. Accordingly, the proposed 119 units comply with the City's density requirements. The final density of the project will be 9.53 units per acre. Open Space Hartford's plan calls for 314,518 SF or 7.22 Acres of impervious area, 57.8% of the total acreage. The remaining 42.2% of the Property will be open space. Parking Each townhome has a two-car private garage meeting City requirements. The PUD guideline fequires .5 visitor parking visitor spaces per unit or 59.5 spaces. The development plan provides or 66 visitor spaces (46 off-street and 20 on-street standard spaces), thus exceeding the City isitor parking requirement by 6.5 spaces. I I {\Il of the townhomes are located within 200 feet of visitor parking. ubdivision the property is proposed to be re-platted into seven blocks lots as shown on the Preliminary Plat. 24 Upon completion of the first phase oftownhome buildings, Hartford intends to file a crc plat for the newly established association, which will be professionally managed and govern the operation and maintenance of the property. Design Review Board The Legacy Village Townhome project has been professionally designed by Hartford relying on aesthetics as a valued amenity and selling point. Main entrance doors front the streets or paths to reinforce the village's channing character. Hartford's focus is to continue the legacy tradition to emphasize pedestrian traffic and the streetscape. The initial building elevations show the detail and quality materials typical of Hartford neighborhoods. Hartford has worked with consultants and staff of other communities, and added their positive ideas to the Legacy Village Townhome design. Hartford is requesting Maplewood's Design Review Board approval for the townhome buildings. Planned Unit Development Revision. I. The use would be located, designed, maintained, constructed and operated to be In conformity with the City's comprehensive plan and Code of Ordinances. Because the majority of the site has been approvedfor townhomes, changing the office use in the northeast corner so that the entire site use is designatedfor townhome use also conforms. 2. The use would not change the existing or planned character of the surrounding area. Hartford's proposed use change will not. 3. The use would not depreciate property values. Hartford's proposed use change will not. 4. The use would not involve any activity, process, materials, equipment or methods operation that would be dangerous, hazardous, detrimental, disturbing, or cause a nuisance to any person or property, because of excessive noise, glare, smoke, dust, odor, fumes, water or air pollution, drainage water run-off, vibration, general unsightliness, electrical interference or other nuisances. , ~artford's proposed use change will not. I $. The use would generate only minimal vehicular traffic on local streets and would not freate other traffic congestion or unsafe access on existing or proposed streets. fartford 's proposed use change complies with this factor. ~. The use would be served by adequate public facilities and services, including streets, police and fire protection, drainage structures, water and sewer systems, schools and parks. 25 Hartford's proposed use change complies with this factor. 7. The use would not create excessive additional costs for public facilities or services. Hartford's proposed use change will not. 8. The use would maximize the preservation of and incorporate the site's natural and scenic features into the development design Hartford's proposed use change complies with this factor. 9. The use would cause minimal adverse environmental effects. Hartford's proposed use change complies with this factor. Land Use Plan Change. Please see the attached graphic showing the site area currently classified as BC that we are requesting be changed to RH3. Hartford believes that having a residential townhome use for the entire site fits in well with the surrounding uses and the overall development plan. It will have a minimal impact on utility systems. III. SUMMARY OF RATIONALE FOR PROJECT APPROVAL Legacy Village Townhomes provides a high-quality residential development that fully integrates with the surrounding Legacy Village project. Successful developments throughout the metropolitan area are incorporating a mix of housing options, and in many redeveloping suburbs, are bringing the first significant new housing options to those communities. The townhomes provide another housing option and compliment the adjoining home concepts by Town & Country and the Wyngate workforce housing being constructed by Hartford to the east. 26 I. Attachment 9 Page 10f4 Enl!ineerinl! Plan Review PROJECT: Legacy Town Homes of Maplewood PROJECT NO: 06-11 REVIEWED BY: Michael Thompson (Maplewood Engineering Department) DATE: Jnne 1, 2006 The developer, Hartford Group, Inc. has submitted project plans for the for the last town home segment of the larger Legacy Village development. The developer or project engineer shall make the changes to the plans and site as noted and shall address the concerns listed. Drainal1:e & Treatment 1. All rainwater gardens, ponds, and wetlands shall have emergency overflow swales lined with a permanent erosion control blanket (Enkamat, NAG350, or equal) extending to the downstream receiving waters/drainage structure. The emergency overflow elevation and path shall be marked on the plans. The normal and high water levels need to be shown for the rainwater gardens. 2. Provide a detail on the plans for rainwater garden construction. 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 times 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 sedimentation basins. Once adjacent construction is complete (right before sod is placed) the accumulated sediment should be removed, the rock sumps constructed, the bottom area scarified and the final grading completed. Appropriate phasing shall be noted on the project plans for the construction of the gardens. 3. On the project plans the existing Wetland F shall show the wetland delineator and the date of delineation. 4. The class I wetland located at the northwest comer of the development is to be filled as part of this proposed development. This wetland is being mitigated as part of the County Rd D project. The mitigation site is located just south of the new County Rd D and approximately 400-feet east ofT.H. 61. All of this is described in the Minnesota LocallStatelFederal Water/Wetland Project Permit dated July 7tb, 2003. 5. The site is meeting the 1" infiltration requirement as part of the enhanced storm water management practices by using trench infiltration and rainwater gardens. 6. The project engineer shall revise all drainage manhole catch basins upstream of the proposed ponds to include 3' sumps in order to capture sediment and debris. This includes catch basin manholes 101, 301, 401, 501, and 601. 27 I Page 2 of 4 7. It is unclear how runoff is being directed into the rainwater gardens from the paved areas. Runoff should be directed into the gardens via a storm sewer inlet. 8. A ten foot safety bench shall be provided at the normal water level in the western pond. Grading & Erosion Control 1. Special attention shall be given to the existing Wetland F. The project engineer shall show double silt fencing at the buffer limits which shall be installed prior to any grading of the proposed development site. 2. The project engineer shall clearly detail a street-sweeping on the project plans for Kennard and Hazelwood Streets to address any tracking that may occur from the proposed development area. Also on the project plans, include a note that states watering of the site must occur regularly to keep dust to a minimum. 3. The project engineer shall clearly state on the plans that the contractor shall install inlet protection devices such as filter bags or WIMCO devices on all existing and proposed drainage inlet structures in order to prevent sediment from entering the storm water system. 4. All 3: 1 slopes or greater require an erosion control blanket and the project engineer shall clearly label these locations on the project plans. 5. Any graded areas left undisturbed for more than 14 days shall be stabilized with a temporary seed. This shall be noted on the plans. 6. The proposed contours at the south end of the site do not tie into the existing contours. The accuracy of the existing contours shall be verified and the necessary revisions made by the project engineer. 7. The engineer shall show "J-hooks" (silt fence barrier perpendicular to runoff to decrease velocity and catch sediment) on all long downhill runs and parallel to proposed silt fence and at ditches. 8. The project engineer also shall show biorolls on longer slopes in order to reduce runoff velocity and catch excess sediment. 9. The project engineer shall provide more information on stockpiling locations and measures of containment. Also, show rough cut and fill quantities for the site. 10. The grading erosion and control plan shall provide phasing information through housing construction. More erosion and sediment control devices may be required at that time. II. Prior to any work beginning on site, the developer must stabilize the stock pile of dirt left at the south west comer of County Road B and Kennard Street. Any sediment that 28 Page 3 of4 reached the pond must be removed and the area restored with native seed approved by the city. Utilities 1. Submit plans to Mike Anderson at Saint Paul Regional Water Services (SPRWS) located at 1900 Rice St, Maplewood (2nd Floor) for their review and approval. 2. Submit plans to Tina Carstens at Ramsey-Washington Metro Watershed District located at 2665 Noel Drive, Little Canada for their review and approval. 3. Both the water main and sewer main in the development are not shown connecting to the proposed town homes. Please provide information on the service locations and materials to be used for the services (i.e....6.. PVC SCH40 for sanitary sewer service laterals). 4. A water main stub off of Hazelwood was constructed as a part of the Hazelwood/County Road D reconstruction project. Asbuihs for the project have yet to be completed. The engineer shall work with the city and the city's consultant, URS, to show the new water main connection into the existing stub on Hazelwood. Miscellaneous 1. 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. 2. The developer or project engineer shall obtain a building permit for all retaining walls that have a height greater than 4 feet. 3. The developer shall implement a homeowners association as part of this development to ensure that there is a responsible party for the regular maintenance and care of the ponds, rainwater gardens, retaining walls, private utilities, and all other features common to the development. 4. The developer shall sign a maintenance agreement, prepared by the city, for the gardens, ponds, and sumps. The project plans shall clearly point out the maintenance access route to each garden and basin. 5. A 20' wide easement needs to be dedicated over the centerline of the existing 18" storm sewer pipe that extends to Wetland F. The proposed steps over the storm sewer pipe shall be relocated outside of the easement. 6. The developer shall also dedicate a pedestrian trail easement by separate document over the trail on the south end of the development. 29 Page 4 of 4 7. The developer shall enter into a Developer Agreement with the city for the construction of the trail. 8. The developer and project engineer shall satisfy the requirements of all permitting agencIes. 3Q ~essage Page 1 of2 Attachment 10 I , I I Tom Ekstrand I I From: sticha, Jon, A [JASticha@Bremer.com] I Sent: Friday, May 19,2006 8:51 AM To: Tom Ekstrand; City Council; Diana Longrie (External) I Cc: Gammell, Sarah Subject: Development Proposal - Legacy Townhomes Proposal I ecenUy recieved infonnation in the mail infonring Maplewood citizens in my area about a proposed d velopment by the Hartford Group, for the area south of County Road D between Hazelwood and Kennard reet. Tom Ekstrand has asked for a few comments, so I thought I would share them with all of you. ~rst off, I don~ want to sound like a hypocrit. I understand that growth and development in Maplewood has e abled myself to have a new town home in a new development. I don~ take issue with a developer wanting to ild. I take issue with where and when they want to build. e area being proposed for development is a wetland with big tall pine trees. When I chose to move to aplewood, one of the things I really liked about my current residency was the view. Being in the city, but being a Ie to look out and see habitat such as geese and the deer we have living there, has made this a very cozy p ace to live. It would be ashame to see a nice, natural habitat like that destroyed. condly, the timing. There have been so many townhomes built in this area during the last year that supply has r outweighed demand. There are new places being developed between Kennard and HOM Furnishings as well a many new townhouse buildings between Kennard and Hazelwood on Legacy Parkway. I've been closely atching these areas develop and two things are clear, construction speeds are slowing and houses are sitting on e market much longer. For example, the development I live in was forced to lower their selling price by $15,000 cause they have 5 out of 6 townhomes on one side that they can~ sell. With so much recently built and so ny in the process I don~ see why we need to develop the propsed area at this time. at would I like to see happen? Again, I'm not opposed to growing and developing Maplewood, just the area a d the timing. First of all, couldn't we find a better area for the Hartford Group to develop? What about an area Ii e the old City View golf course along Beam? Maybe there are already plans for this, but it's an example of an a ea that would be much more appropriate for development. The other thing I would like to see happen is to make t e Hartford Group wait on their development. With so many vacancies why do we need to develop this area now. If in a year our two from now, all the existing homes in the area have been filled, and demand is still that strong, I ay be more inclined to approve of their development. Assuming of course a better location can't be found. But ri ht now there is realistically no need for more development. s~ there are my thoughts. If any of it is unclear, please feel free to contact me. I sincerely, J n Sticha 1 67-B East County Road D aplewood MN. 55109 3 0-761-5151 J n Sticha uity/Fixed Income Trader er Asset Management 6 1-312-3510 ~TICE - CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION Ire infonnation in this communication is proprietary and stricUy confidential. It is intended solely for the use of the SV22/2006 . 31 I. Attachment 11 LAND USE PLAN CHANGE RESOLUTION WHEREAS, The Hartford Group applied for a change to the city's land use plan from BC (business commercial) to R3H (high density residential). WHEREAS, this change applies to the property located at the southwest corner of County Road D East and Kennard Street. The legal description is: Lot 1, Block 1, Legacy Village of Maplewood. WHEREAS, the history of this change is as follows: 1. On June 19, 2006, the planning commission held a public hearing. The city staff published a hearing notice in the Maplewood Review and sent notices to the surrounding property owners. The planning commission gave everyone at the hearing a chance to speak and present written statements. The planning commission recornmended that the city council the land use plan change. 2. On , the city council discussed the land use plan change. They considered reports and recommendations from the planning commission and city staff. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the city council the above described change because the proposed townhomes would be more compatible and in character with the adjacent townhome development than the previously approved commercial building and also because the proposed density of this site would be 13 units less than there could be potentially. The Maplewood City Council approved this resolution on ,2006. 32 Attachment 12 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REVISION RESOLUTION FOR A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT WHEREAS, The Hartford Group applied for a conditional use permit to revise the Legacy Village planned unit development by eliminating a 1 Yo -acre commercial building site and propose townhomes instead. WHEREAS, this permit applies to the 12.49-acre site in Legacy Village lying south of County Road D East between Hazelwood Street and Kennard Street. The legal description is: Lot 1, block 1, Legacy Village of Maplewood. WHEREAS, the history of this conditional use permit is as follows: 1. On June 19, 2006 the planning commission held a public hearing. The city staff published a hearing notice in the Maplewood Review and sent notices to the surrounding property owners. The planning commission gave everyone at the hearing a chance to speak and present written statements. The planning commission recommended that the city council this conditional use permit revision. 2. The city council reviewed this request on June 19, 2006. The council considered the reports and recornmendations of the city staff and planning commission. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the city council above-described conditional use permit revision because: the 1. The use would be located, designed, maintained, constructed and operated to be in conformity with the City's Comprehensive Plan and Code of Ordinances. 2. The use would not change the existing or planned character of the surrounding area. 3. The use would not depreciate property values. 4. The use would not involve any activity, process, materials, equipment or methods of operation that would be dangerous, hazardous, detrimental, disturbing or cause a nuisance to any person or property, because of excessive noise, glare, smoke, dust, odor, fumes, water or air pollution, drainage, water run-off, vibration, general unsightliness, electrical interference or other nuisances. 33 5. The use would generate only minimal vehicular traffic on local streets and would not create traffic congestion or unsafe access on existing or proposed streets. 6. The use would be served by adequate public facilities and services, including streets, police and fire protection, drainage structures, water and sewer systems, schools and parks. 7. The use would not create excessive additional costs for public facilities or services. 8. The use would maxirnize the preservation of and incorporate the site's natural and scenic features into the developrnent design. 9. The use would cause rninirnal adverse environrnental effects. Approval is subject to the following conditions (additions are underlined and deletions are crossed out): 1. The developrnent shall follow the plans date-stamped May 11, 2006, except where the city requires changes. The director of community developrnent may approve rninor changes. 2. The proposed construction must be substantially started within one year of council approval or the permit shall end. The council may extend this deadline for one year. 3. The city council shall review this permit in one year. 4. The applicant shall corn ply with the requirernents in the engineer's report dated June 1, 2006. 5. The applicant shall provide a copy of the homeowner's association docurnents to staff for approval. 6. The following changes are hereby made to the approved PUD conditions: Rental Townhornes and Offiee!Clubhouse: a. The project will be constructed according to the plans date-stamoed Mav 11. 2006 freFR Hartford Grou~ datod 8/2!0:3 iR all details, except as specifically modified by these conditions. b. t, sidewalk '....ill be ~Fe\'ided continul3usly on the nortA or \'Jost side of StFeet ,II, between KeRRard Street and HazelwGod Drive, inclusiRg the segment between tAe office/clubhouse parkiRlijlot and townAl3use buildings 11 aRs ~ c. SiEle'Nalk connectiens will be added connectinlij tAe l30wer line trail to tAe cure of Street .^\ o~posite townhome bl,lilEliRgS 8 and ll; 34 d. The siElO'....all'.s serving the kents oftownReFRe BuilElings 1d, Hi, 17, 1B, 19 anEl 29 will be extenElea south to GOnAeGt with the pewor line trail. e. Str.eet BaREl Str-oet C servin!l the towRReFROS willee GeRslructeEl in their entirety with the townReFROS, r-egarElless ef the status ef the FRulti faFRily anEl GeFRFRersialpareels to the east. f. PaFking spaoes will Be pr-oviEles at the enEls ef tRe srivoways at the rear ef Builsin€ls 1, 2, d anEl 4, 1511 e, 19!20, 21!22 anEl 25/2(3 ana siaewalks will ee j3reviEleEl from these j3arking spases senneotin€l te tRe front sise'Nalks of eaoh of these l3uilElings. g. TRe infiltration trensRes on the soutR sises of BuilElin€ls 1 d!14, 1511 (3 and 19/29 willl3e moElifiea to aocemmeaate a revised ali€lnment for tRe j3ewer line trail, provides tRat reasonaBle €lFaaos are pFeviaea for the tFail and any sisewalks oonAestin€l te it, anEl aj3j3reval of the oity en€lineer oenseming the size and function ef the trenohes. h. ^ six faet wiEle sidewall" sReuld Be proviEles if at allpossil3le on the seuth siEle ef Ceunty RoaEl D far the entire len€ltR ef the projeot freFR HazelweeEl Dri','e to SoutRla.....n Drive, threU€lR eentinued dissussien lletv:een IRe oity ans Hartford, faeusin€l on exaot sisewalk width, lesation and right ef way needs fer turn lanes and other features ef the Ceunty Road D prejee!. i. /\ sidewall'. vJilll3e provides en tRe seuth side ef Ceunty RoaEl Dans sidewalks .....illlle j3rovides out Ie tRat sidewalk freFR tRe nerth side ef l3uilsings 1, 4, 21, 22, 2d, 24 ans 25 as well as te the olUBheuse fr.ent entrj anEl the olullheuse j3arkinglot. j. The grades of the power line trail and all public sidewalks will rneet ADA guidelines for slope. k. Overstory trees .....illl3e planteEl alen€lBoth sides ef Stroet 1\ at an aveFage of dO' Ie 49' on oenter insteaa ef the aver-age 79' spaoing shown en tRe ~ I. Overstory trees vJilllle j3lanted alongl3etR sides of Street Q and on the west side of Street C at an a'ler-age of d9' Ie 40' on oenter instead of the seFReliFRes 100' spaoin€l sRewn on the plans, sush additienal tr.ee islands to l3e seerdinated witR FReElified parkingllays tRat FRight l3e asses to this stfeeh m. Overslery trees willl3e j3lanteEl along Beth siEles ef Kennard Street in kont of IRe te'.vnhomes at an aveFa€le ef dO' to 40' on oenter instead of the average 50' te BO' spaoing shewn on tRe I3lans. n. The curve in Villaqe Trail East Street.'1. epposite BuilElings 19 ans 12 will shall be flattened as much as possible to limit headlight qlare on aiFRes into the front of the units. 35 o. All setbacks are approved as shown barrino anv construction reouirements reoardino the Dower line easement to the south from Xee!. Front I:llliletiRg soteasl,<s (clul:lhollSO anet lllliletings 1, 4, 5,14,15,21,22, 2J, 24, 25 anet 213) to Hazelwool'l Ori'le, Kennarl'l Street and County Read 0 that aFe less than requirol'llly tho zenin€! ceee are specifically apj3roved within this PUO as shO'....n en tRe site j3lan, eto...:n to a minimllm of a' for the clllehollse and 1a' fer the townhOR'le llllileings in ore or to onhance tho llrean char-actor of the streets anEl intersections. p. Siee yare elliletinEl seteacks for allllllill'linas that aro loss than reallireet e" the zeRina code are seeGificallv aeeroveEl within tAis PUO as shO'NR OR tAe site olan. q. Visitor-parking spaces for the fefItaI town homes will be added or rnodified as follows: 1) PaFkin€! spaces willllo al'll'led so there is a total of at least 4!l sl'laGes on tAe west siee of Kennarl'l anEl at least 51 spaGes OR the east sieo of Kennard, SllSR tAat the front door Elf no llnit is rner-e than 299 feet from a €!FElI,lj3 of at least 5 sj3aees. The applicant shall provide visitor-parkino spaces at the minimum quantity of one-half space per townhome unit. This works out to a rninirnum of 60 visitor parkinq spaces required. Furthermore. the visitor-parkinq spaces must be placed such that the front door of no unit is more than 200 feet frorn a qroup of at least five spaces. 2) Street II, will ee 'Nietenod to 28' cllre to cllrll and on street j3arallel parl,<in€! will eo added along tRe nertR and .....est sides ef tRe street eXGept for 'h'ithin 199' ef tRe j3avement of HazelwseEl Drive anEl Kennard Street. J) The private dri'le iR'lR'lel'liately south of el,lildin€!s 2 and J will ee wiElenel'l to 213' el,lre te cure anl'l on str-eet I'lar-allel paFking 'Nillee aElElel'l along the north siEle of tRe drive. 4) Parking areas will be addeet eeRinl'l buildings 1 anet 4 wRer-e the Elriveway alll,lts the ponsin€! area, consistent "",itR tRe resoR'lR'lendation of tRe sily engineer on pFElviElin€! aElequate gr-ading anEl funstiening of the pond. a) Parkin€! areas will ee added lleRinEleuill'lings 15/18,19129,21.'22 and 2a128 te meet the paFking anEll'listanse criteria cited Rere. 8) Street B will ee widened te 28' Gl,lre to cure and parallel parkin€! willee aeElel'l alon€! the north and west sides ef tRe street, or additional anglee j3arking will be added to meet the criteria fer j3aFking spaces cited here. r. The parking let for the clubhous%mee el,lill'liR€!I/Jillee modified to add "j3roof of j3aFkin€!" Sj3aGes in the green area north and east of tAe swiR'lR'lin€! j3001, fer a total of 91 spaces possillle in the lot. Sl,lch spaces will only be construsted if the owner believes they are needed, or if they are needed in 36 tAe fLJtLJre te address ~arking!'lr.gl3leFAs at the building in the o~inion sf tAe csmR'lblnily sevolepment sirecler, whe can erser the spaces Ie I:le censtwslea. SblGh SilaGeS will maintain a sisewall~ connectien l:letweoR the swiR'lFRin€l pool and clullholJse I3lJilelin€l in an islanEl in tAe FRiElElle of the ~arkingbays as shewn eR tAe !'llans. s. An easement over the power line trail on this parcel will be provided to the city for access and maintenance. The Maplewood City Council approved this resolution on June _, 2006. 37 MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: SUBJECT: APPLICANT: LOCATION: DATE: INTRODUCTION Greg Copeland, Interim City Manager Shann Finwall, AICP, Planner 5-8 Tavern and Grill Parking Lot Expansion Jill Skogheim 2289 and 2303 Minnehaha Avenue June 14, 2006, for the June 19 Planning Commission Meeting Project Description The owners of the 5-8 Tavern and Grill located at 2289 Minnehaha Avenue have purchased the single family house located to the east of their existing property (2303 Minnehaha Avenue). Jill Skogheim of the 5-8 Tavern and Grill is proposing to demolish the single family house for the expansion of the restaurant's parking lot. Requests To proceed with this project, Ms. Skogheim is requesting that the city approve the following: 1. A comprehensive plan amendment from single-dwelling residential (R-1) to business commercial modified (BC-M) for the property located at 2303 Minnehaha Avenue. 2. A rezoning from R-1 to BC-M for the property located at 2303 Minnehaha Avenue. 3. A conditional use permit (CUP) to expand the restaurant and a nonconforming parking lot. 4. Design review. BACKGROUND September 24, 2001: The city council approved a comprehensive plan amendment and rezoning from R-1 to BC-M, a CUP to allow a restaurant within the BC-M zoning district, a CUP for the expansion of a nonconforming structure, a parking lot setback variance, and design review for the remodeling of the existing restaurant at 2289 Minnehaha Avenue (Beau's Food and Spirits) to the 5-8 Tavern and Grill. October 14, 2002, and November 10, 2003: The city council approved one-year extensions of the 5-8 Tavern and Grill's CUPs. November 22, 2004: The city council approved the 5-8 Tavern and Grill's CUPs and moved to review the CUPs again only if a problem arises or if significant changes are proposed to the site. DISCUSSION Land Use and Zoning The restaurant building was constructed in the mid 1950s and was the site of Chicone's Bar and Restaurant. From 1950 until 2001 the land use and zoning on the property at 2289 Minnehaha Avenue was R-1, which made the restaurant a pre-existing nonconforming structure since restaurants are not allowed within the R-1 zoning district. In 2001, the 5-8 Tavern and Grill purchased the property and proposed an expansion of the building with an outdoor deck and the expansion of the parking lot. With the expansion, the city council authorized a comprehensive land use plan amendment and rezoning from R-1 to BC-M for the property at 2289 Minnehaha Avenue. The BC-M zoning district is intended to provide for the orderly transition between more intensive commercial uses and low or medium density residential areas. Within this zoning district, restaurants (no drive-through facilities) are allowed with a CUP. The CUP process allows the city oversight to ensure there are limited impacts on the surrounding residential properties. The single family house located at 2303 Minnehaha is guided and zoned R-1. In order for the 5-8 Tavern and Grill to expand their parking lot into this property, it must be reguided and rezoned to BC-M. This change meets the spirit, purpose, and intent of the zoning code by allowing a much- needed expansion of an existing business's parking lot, while protecting the character and privacy of the surrounding residential properties through the controls afforded through the CUP process. Conditional Use Perrnit A CUP is required for the expansion of the restaurant and the expansion of a nonconforming parking lot. Section 44-1097 states that the city may approve a CUP based on nine standards as outlined in the CUP resolution (Attachment 14). Ms. Skogheim states in her CUP statement (Attachment 2) that the proposed changes will enhance the existing property and eliminate current safety and traffic congestion. She also describes how the project will meet seven of the standards. The neighbor located to the east of the proposed expanded parking lot (James Beardsley at 2311 Minnehaha Avenue), disputes that the use would meet these standards in his letter to the city (Attachment 11). Staff finds that with adjustments to the plan as suggested below and with adequate screening and landscaping, the proposed expansion of the restaurant and the expansion of a nonconforming parking lot would meet the standards for a CUP as outline in the code. Parking Lot According to city's parking code, the 5-8 Tavern and Grill is required to have 53 parking stalls. The restaurant added 23 parking stalls in 2001, for a current total of 46. Since the parking situation was made more conforming with the expansion of the parking lot in 2001 from 30 to 46 parking stalls, no special parking authorization was required at that time. In 2001 the restaurant owners felt that 46 parking stalls would be adequate since they were adding parking to the existing restaurant and the new deck expansion would only be used seasonally. Over time the restaurant's parking needs have grown. Ms. Skogheim states that the existing parking lot can become congested and unsafe, particularly due to the location of the driveway on Minnehaha Avenue. For this reason, the owners of the 5-8 Tavern and Grill purchased the single family house at 2303 Minnehaha Avenue in January of 2005. They have been renting out the house until they receive the required city approvals for the expansion of the parking lot. The proposed parking lot expansion will add 20 additional stalls, for a total of 66. The parking lot will come within 5 feet of the north property line (matching the existing parking lot setback) and would be 20 feet from the east property line. The required setback for parking lots adjacent to residential property is 20 feet. However, since the parking lot setback to the north is pre-existing at 5 feet, the applicant can expand this portion of the pre-existing parking lot setback as part of the CUP. 2 City code requires restaurant parking stalls to be 9.5 feet in width by 18 feet in length. The length of the parking stalls can be reduced to 15.5 feet when the parking stall is adjacent a curb or landscaped area. City code also requires the drive aisle within a parking lot to be 24 feet wide for two-way traffic, with no requirement for one-way drive aisles. The proposed new parking stalls will be 9.5 feet wide by 15.5 feet deep along the curbs and 9.5 feet wide by 17.5 feet deep on the interior of the lot. The drive aisles are proposed at 20.5 and 20 feet wide. As a condition of design review approval, the applicants should revise their plans to ensure that the interior parking stalls are 18 feet deep. This can be accomplished by reducing the drive aisles to 20 and 19.5 feet wide and posting the drive aisles as one-way traffic with painted arrows and signs. The engineering department finds that this width will be adequate for one-way drive aisles in this parking lot. Driveway The Minnehaha Avenue driveway will be shifted 105 feet to the east, further away from the intersection. Minnehaha Avenue is a county road. Dan Solar of Ramsey County Public Works supports the new access configuration with the entrance constructed further away from the intersection. Refer to Mr. Solar's comments attached (Attachment 9). Mr. Beardsley, however, has concerns over the location of the driveway closer to his house. Mr. Beardsley states in a letter submitted to the city (Attachment 11) that the relocation of the driveway will increase noise and pollution to his lot. He proposes that the driveway remain in its current location. Ms. Skogheim states that relocating the driveway further to the east will allow for better traffic circulation in the parking lot. Staff agrees that the relocation of the driveway will have an impact on the adjacent property owner, but will also allow for better traffic circulation. As a compromise, staff recommends that as a condition of design review approval that the driveway shift only 45 feet to the east, in line with the first drive aisle rather than the second aisle. The driveway would then be located 87 feet from Mr. Beardsley's property line which should alleviate the noise and pollution concerns; and would allow direct access into the first drive aisle of the parking lot which would create a better traffic flow than the existing driveway. Mr. Solar was also supportive of this scenario as it would still shift the driveway further from the intersection. The construction of the new driveway will require a permit from Ramsey County. With the removal of the old driveway and as a condition of design review approval, the applicants should also construct new curb along Minnehaha Avenue from the west side of the existing driveway entrance up to west side of the new driveway entrance. Drainage During the city engineering department's review of the 2001 parking lot expansion the engineering department stated that if the 5-8 Tavern and Grill did not do any grading on the existing parking area (which was a gravel parkin9 lot at the time) the water runoff restrictions would only be required for the new parking lot addition. This was the reason that the existing driveway remained in its present location, rather than shifting to the east during the initial parking lot expansion. The grading and drainage plan for the new parking lot expansion (Attachment 8) shows a majority of the property being regraded with the expansion of the existing rainwater garden to help treat the stormwater runoff. Because of extensive grading, the engineering department is requiring as a condition of design review approval that the applicants provide drainage calculations showing 3 that 1" of runoff from the impervious area from the entire site is infiltrated. Refer to the engineering report attached (Attachment 10). With this additional treatment, the 5-8 Tavern and Grill will be required to implement additional infiltration practices to meet this requirement. These infiltration practices could include additional rainwater gardens or the construction of the parking lot with a pervious surface. Mr. Beardsley also recommends that the expanded parking lot be constructed of a pervious surface in order to protect his property from runoff and reduce the negative impacts on surrounding trees and wildlife. Staff discussed this option with Ms. Skogheim who is receptive to utilizing a pervious surface depending on cost. Ms. Skogheim is researching the pervious surface options and will update the planning commission during the June 19 planning commission meeting. Other Comments Police Department: Lt. Michael Shortreed states the following: 1. Additional parking stalls will benefit the business and its customers by providing an environment where customers will no longer have to walk across Minnehaha Avenue on foot in order to get to the business. As a result, the City of Maplewood should consider posting both the entire south side of Minnehaha Avenue as well as the north side in front of the business as "No Parking" zones. 2. The three concerns that are identified in the design review application (fence maintenance, parking lot drainage, and lighting plan development) should be specifically addressed by the contractor. The necessary steps should be taken to assure that all of the concerns are resolved at the end of the project to the satisfaction of the neighborhood residents in order to avoid future complaints that the concerns were not addressed appropriately. Building Department: Dave Fisher, Interim Community Development Director/Building Official states that they will need a demolition permit for the removal of the existing house and garage. Mr. Fisher also states that the accessible parking design and signage looks fine. Design Review Design review of the project is scheduled for June 27, 2006, by the community design review board. The board will review and make recommendations on the parking lot layout, landscaping, screening, lighting, and maintenance and upkeep of the existing fence and landscaping. RECOMMENDATIONS 1. Adopt the comprehensive land use plan amendment resolution attached (Attachment 12). This resolution changes the comprehensive land use plan from single dwelling residential (R-1) to business commercial (modified) (BC-M) for the expansion of the 5-8 Tavern and Grill parking lot onto an existing single-family lot at 2303 Minnehaha Avenue. The city is making this change because: a. The expansion of the parking lot will supply adequate off-street parking and loading facilities for the site. 4 b. The parking lot will be designed in the best manner to avoid disruption of adjacent or nearby residential areas including locating the parking lot 20 feet from the residential property to the east and installing a 6-foot high privacy fence along all shared residential property lines. 2. Adopt the rezoning resolution attached (Attachment 13). This resolution changes the zoning map from single dwelling residential (R-1) to business commercial (modified) (BC- M) for the expansion of the 5-8 Tavern and Grill parking lot onto an existing single-family lot at 2303 Minnehaha Avenue. The city is making this change because: a. The change is consistent with the spirit, purpose and intent of the zoning code. b. The proposed change will not substantially injure or detract from the use of neighboring property or from the character of the neighborhood, and that the use of the property adjacent to the area included in the proposed change or plan is adequately safeguarded. c. The proposed change will serve the best interests and conveniences of the community, where applicable, and the public welfare. d. The proposed change would have no negative effect upon the logical, efficient, and economical extension of public services and facilities, such as public water, sewers, police and fire protection and schools. e. The proposed change is supported by a majority of the neighbors surveyed. f. The applicant is proposing to use the property in question for a commercial parking lot and not for residential purposes. 3. Adopt the conditional use permit resolution attached (Attachment 14). This resolution approves two conditional use permits for the 5-8 Tavern and Grill at 2289 and 2303 Minnehaha Avenue including: a. A conditional use permit to allow the expansion of a restaurant within the business commercial (modified) (BC-M) zoning district. b. A conditional use permit for the expansion of a nonconforming parking lot (20-foot setback from residential property required, 5-foot setback proposed). Approval is based on the findings required by the code and subject to the following: a. Construction of the 5-8 Tavern and Grill and parking lot shall follow the site plan approved by the city. The director of community development may approve minor changes. b. The parking lot expansion shall comply with all city engineering requirements as defined in the June 9, 2006, engineering review. c. The proposed parking lot expansion must be substantially started within one year of council approval or the permit shall become null and void. The city council may extend this deadline for one year. d. The city council shall review this permit in one year. 5 CITIZEN COMMENTS I surveyed the owners of the 39 properties within 500 feet of this site. Five responses were received as follows: In Favor 1. Gaung He Virginia Ng, 3356 Park Avenue South, Minneapolis: "It's OK" 2. David Livingston, 7901 Ninth Street Court North, St. Paul (owner 2297 Stillwater Road): "OK-to allow expansion of the parking lot as requested. We are located directly across the road on Stillwater Rd. This would reduce parking in our lot on weekends & evenings. We have incurred some damage to our property due to 5-8 lack of on site parking. They need their own parking area." 3. Kathryn Sorenson, 2302 Stillwater Road: "The plan looks OK & does address the issues discussed at the meeting. My property & house are on the north side of proposed parking lot and I have a chain link fence which would have to come down. There are a number of trees that had been cut down by the previous owner but are 3 to 4 feet high and also need to be cut down to ground level. Also I have a dog so I would need a short section of chain link to both sides to meet up with the new fence. Maintenance of the new wood fence is an issue as the existing fence has not always been maintained very well." 4. Roger Vanderhoff & Richard Vanderhoff, 2300 Stillwater Road East: "I am not against this if they do a better job picking rocks up where they put the fence. Water runs off their parking lot on my lawn-there is a broken fence post still in the ground from the fence-and wire still in a tree. Opposed 1. James Beardsley, 2311 Minnehaha Avenue: Refer to Mr. Beardsley's letter attached (Attachment 11). 6 REFERENCE INFORMATION SITE DESCRIPTION Site Size: Existing Land Use: 36,974 square feet (.84 acres) Restaurant/Bar and Single Family House SURROUNDING LAND USES North and East: South: West: Single-Family Homes (Zoned R-1) Wells Fargo Bank and 3-M (Zoned M-1) Multi-Tenant Building: Martial Arts and Floral Business (Zoned Be) PLANNING Existing Land Use Plan: Business Commercial-Modified (BC-M) and Single-Dwelling Residential (R-1) Business Commercial-Modified (BC-M) and Single-Dwelling Residential (R-1) Existing Zoning: CRITERIA FOR APPROVAL 1. Land Use Plan Amendment: There are no specific criteria for land use plan changes. Any change, however, should be consistent with the goals and policies in the Comprehensive Plan. Two specific goals apply to this proposal: a. Promote economic development that will expand the property tax base, increase jobs and provide desirable services. b. Maintain and upgrade environmental quality and, where needed. reclassifv land uses. In addition, four specific commercial policies apply to this proposal: a. Require adequate off-street parking and loading facilities. b. Avoid disruption of adjacent or nearby residential areas. c. Require commercial developers to make all necessary improvements to ensure compatibility with surrounding residential uses. c. Require adequate screening or buffering of new or expanded commercial areas from any adjacent existing or planned residential development. 2. Rezoning: Section 44-1165 of the Zoning Code requires that the city council make the following findings to rezone property: a. The proposed change is consistent with the spirit, purpose and intent of the Zoning Code. b. The proposed change will not substantially injure or detract from the use of neighboring property or from the character of the neighborhood, and that the use of the property adjacent to the area included in the proposed change or plan is adequately safeguarded. 7 c. The proposed change will serve the best interests and conveniences of the community, where applicable, and the public welfare. d. The proposed change would have no negative effect upon the logical, efficient, and economical extension of public services and facilities, such as public water, sewers, police and fire protection and schools. 3. Conditional Use Permit: Section 44-1097 states that the city may approve a conditional use permit based on the nine standards for approval as outlined in the conditional use permit resolution (Attachment 14). Application Date We received the complete applications and plans for this proposal on May 18, 2006. State law requires that the city take action within 60 days of receiving complete applications for a land use proposal. As such, city action is required on this proposal by July 17, 2006. P:\Sec2515-8 Club\2006 Parking Lot Expansion\6-19-06 PC Attachments: 1. Applicant's Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Rezoning Statement 2. Applicant's Conditional Use Permit Statement 3. Applicant's Design Review Statement 4. Location Map 5. Land Use Map 6. Zoning Map 7. Site Plan/Landscape Plan 8. Grading and Drainage Plan 9. Ramsey County Public Work's Review 10. Engineering Department Review 11. James Beardsley Letter 12. Comprehensive Land Use Plan Change Resolution 13. Rezoning Resolution 14. Conditional Use Permit Resolution 8 Attachment 1 Plan Amendment/Zoning Application Applicant: JBJ Dining Inc. Property: 2303 Minnehaha Ave. Contact: Jill Skogheim JBJ Dining, Inc. dba 5-8 Tavern and Grill requests that the property at 2303 Minnehaha Ave. E. be zoned Business Commercial Modified (BC-M) and that the city's comprehensive plan is amended to reflect the change. JBJ Dining, Inc. has operated the 5-8 Tavern and Grill in Maplewood successfully for the past four years. During that time, we have found that our parking lot is inadequate for the size of the building and our customers' driving patterns. Our lot is regularly over capacity creating a potentially dangerous environment for cars entering and exiting the parking lot. In January of 2005, JBJ Dining acquired the immediately adjacent residential property in hopes of correcting the parking flow. During our time in Maplewood, the company has been a good citizen in the community and has not been a source of controversy or complaint for the city since opening in May of 2002. A zoning change at this location will enhance the 5-8 Tavern and Grill and promote public welfare in the following ways: 1. Traffic congestion would be reduced with the added parking area, as it will allow us to meet the city code for restaurant parking and ensure adequate flow of parking for our customers. Additionally, the proposed entrance from Minnehaha will decrease congestion at the intersection of McKnight and Minnehaha and reduce the bottleneck caused by customers attempting to turn left into our lot. 2. As a result of the traffic congestion described above, some safety issues occur. Presently, people drive more quickly than they should given the tight area of the lot and minor "fender-benders" occur on a fairly regular basis. Further, when there are no remaining striped spots, people park their vehicle anywhere they see fit. In the best case, people dart across busy Minnehaha Ave. In the worst case, people double park and prevent safe passage to the entrance of the building. This proposal would eliminate these safety issues through design and increased number of spots available. 3. The proposed plan allows for adequate lighting and open space. New "Black Sky" technology allows us to ensure better safety for our customers as they walk to their vehicles at night while maintaining virtually zero light at the outside perimeter of our property. 4. Our improvements (Ex. landscaping) as seen on the site plan improve the aesthetic quality over the present parking lot and provide an added buffer for the immediately adjacent residential property. The landscaping is designed to keep the character of the area intact, maintain a desirable look for the neighboring properties, and preserve adjacent property values. 5. The proposed changes should not have any significant impact on either the sewer or water systems. Sewer use will remain the same and our drainage pond is designed to drain all water on our property. 9 I Attachment 2 Conditional Use Pennit Applicant: JBJ Dining, Inc. Property: 2303 Minnehaha Ave. E. Contact: Jill Skogheim All proposed changes will enhance the existing property and eliminate current safety and traffic congestion issues. All proposed improvements will maintain compliance with the city regulations. 1. The proposed improvements ensure quality design and construction in accordance with city code. 2. The planned expansion will not change the character of the surrounding area. Presently, the area is a combined commercial/residential area on a main thoroughfare in the area. The planned changes are designed to meet the required setback between residential and commercial areas and great care has been taken to propose landscaping that is desirable for the adjacent property owner and ensure the survival of his landscaping. 3. The continued use of the property as a restaurant will not involve any activity that is hazardous, dangerous, detrimental, or a nuisance, nor will it cause excessive noise, pollution, or unsightliness. 4. Our proposed changes to the parking lot will decrease congestion and eliminate the current unsafe access to the property and existing improper parking generated from people double parking and parking across a busy street. Additionally, the change in egress will further add to the safety of passing traffic by moving away from the right-of -way. 5. Streets, sewers, and water lines will not have a significant change in use. As such, all facilities are adequate for the continued use of the building as a restaurant. 6. Our proposed changes will not create additional costs for public facilities or ServIces. 7. The environmental effects on the property will be beneficial in that we intend to beautify the property with improved landscaping, enhance the present drainage pond area, and minimize runoffby draining water from the lot in the expanded pond. 10 Attachment 3 Design Review Application Applicant: JBJ Dining Inc. Property: 2303 Minnehaha Ave. E. Contact: Jill Skogheim JBJ Dining, Inc. dba 5-8 Tavern and Grill proposes a parking lot expansion to better meet the needs of our customers. Presently, we have 46 parking spaces for approximately 150 seats in our restaurant or one spot per every 3.26 seats. This is a variance from the city requirernent and an ongoing safety and feasibility issue for our business. A neighborhood meeting was organized and held at the 5-8 Tavern and Grill on March 30, to identifY concerns. The concerns brought up were: Fence maintenance from snowplow damage along the northern border of the property, drainage of water from the parking lot, developing a lighting plan similar to the present lot as there had been no problems from neighbors with lighting light level, light level for the garden at 2311 Minnehaha, and visibility of personal property from the restaurant parking. As a result of this meeting, 2 comers of the parking lot have been striped to indicate no parking and will be used to pile snow in the winter. This eliminates piling of snow against the fence, and in turn the fence maintenance issues. This design also minimizes the chance of snow melt chemicals running into the adjoining yards. To further address the drainage issues the pond has been placed adjacent to our current drainage pond causing water to drain away from the residential area. To address the lighting issues, downcast lights with substantial cutoff shields were chosen on recommendation from Collisys Electrical Systems to maintain the light necessary for our customer's safety while minimizing light at the property's edges. The enhanced landscaping on the east side of the property is intended to resolve concerns from neighbors as well. The required 20 foot setback has been designed as a perennial and shrub garden. Bachman's Landscape completed the design with the goals of adding color and interest to the property, preserving the neighboring garden's (2311 Minneahaha Ave. E.) light and water needs, shielding personal property, and maintaining an environment that is appropriate for a residential/commercial buffer. A hedge of arborvitaes/yews were discussed with the neighbor and were not viewed favorably due to the light. Instead similar plantings have been incorporated into the garden to address the opposing concerns of property owners (shield personal property and maintain present sunlight levels). 11 N w s Attachment 4 !~ L_~ C .~ /1 'L, =, i! 17,=",(_,- , ;II~ C;~ I;.'u ;':I~I~ ~ ~ I ':1 P _ _ Jill ~~J q,'I:JIIJI,~ ' . d to'], I . 0 ' ~>~;j.? .1 ~)v /1 U 7 r=-" , I,I:JI_ c-~ ) 3M Campus , ," E " :i:JU ! ;~~ , 10 I" i ,I !i , " I I :i I Lt d'<L r " ., , "" " 1 c_'::J uc;:; Location Map 12 Attachment 5 II -. .._,'----- .~""'€.. ':1111'1 ~I' .. " ~:::'I"" ...tl~,~~1-1"'1 I_~ '1 .~I~~c-c;I~!....... I:I I _ i ~ ~." .11 . 1'1,'r'I',':LL~. /C.'_. '. I,..,r, . .. ~,.. ' I... . e-L ~cl. ,.e /.,._ . . j, ~ , ~ .. . I .....1 -....~, +."I,I"'o'j't., .... 'I ~ .' 'J.~- "'.-c.-~ 111 ~1 "i,..~ ~.. · II..~ 'i". #-. .. '''I..t.~{JI ~ -"":'- . ... ;t,$' '1.1,... ....~...~ . >;.r'-~I;rl~~ r'...-;~llj:..~II',~;,'~:".' ~.'. '. ~... ...~!.I\."'!:,':-.'. I~"r.f'-i '..1; i ";'i')",,. I /' i$I""'f\li 1111" . . '1'.. 1'~lf - 2-,1, 9-IM~"!~i~a-Av~r.Ye j~.111 ....1 :.l.. 'I". .:I.'!J~. :"'.. . 1.;.--1-.--;:1-. .,_ .... "'jI"." .'1011""'.'11 .11-rL....'.''LI.r I .,' ..;,I./'\I.l....u.. ., 1_,1.' · .. I,.... ,lIIlt~u . L. _ '~I~."I.I....... . .! ~ I. I. I' , 5-8 tavern an~ 2289 ~innehaha' ' , Legend _ Business Commercial (BC) _ Business Commercial Modified (BC-M) _ Cemetery (C) _ Light Manufacturing (M-1) . - - Single Dwelling Residential (R-1) '._J Double Dwelling Residential (R-2) N ~.E s Land Use Map 13 Attachment 6 I:. ~ 1\. ..... II .1. .~.. I I -.1. .1.1. III I . . ... I II....' 1,,1"" "...-' I I .~ . ""-__, '~ ~'--~7- . . . I" I, ..-- · ',. ,.. , '..... . Ir:-I jlr-:li "I}lITL 1/ .' I . I -:,.~ .. I --. I,. Ii'- ,'IJL_;,.LI"cl" ~/. '" ~_ .'111, tT "'. # .~' ._,...~, , -.' LU: 4 'I' .. · i "~' .. .. 'I. -:. :u I " _ 4'....... .1;' I' I ,t.. .'. ....,~.). ..* I', ~.~'. I ~~'._.,~~..}.;"j":JII!i'~! ....:~t4 ....~r.. "". ....:.-~.~. >.. '-'I"tJ".!::~TJ I...., I'?III;,,~"".':.}~ '~.....~l\~)\\"""~- ,..-- . - -.. .J: . "1] I · , I.'i,.,:: If" .-' ".. . I I, I. III ., I'. I.,. III . T - ~' 1_;.'.1. H -.309fv1,nn~._ 1.8;Wel.1U,li9I._I'I.."".' ._':. ,I, . I.. ~ ,:.., )01' .",;.111'110,1".0 "I"I:.TI'~~ , 'II':. ....'.'.. '....'.. .... _ rl"iol u.l.. ~ ,1-lI',. .~ J _ ~L - ~ J, ".~ 'ril", I" 22~98 ~~~*a~~dA~:~UPT ;-1 I i II - I,. . ;_ ;ilI- ' . 1"1 I ~_I I. . 0 II I , , j w Legend _ Business Commercial (BC) _ Business Commercial Modified (BC-M) _ Farm Residence (F) Light Manufacturing (M-1) Single Dwelling Residential (R-1) '--J Double Dwelling Residential (R-2) E Zoning Map 14 s Attachment 7 ~~ II! ~ z ~i ~ ! It II ! ia i I !! I 'I !! ii ell Ii! .! II.!!!!! ~ 8 1'1 ij ~p;.. n ~ 1ft ~i I~ I' iiii II~ ,5 'q ! ~B ~~ . . ~ f~ f~ ~. 8t 8t i i~ 1;- ~ 1;- ~ {Vill~ i:ii~ i:iie ililiei ~S!i~~~ IS!'~~~ ~~iiii~ S'~!"2 g,~!..! ~ I!! III I ~ F I ~j! Ju I !l..~1 I zli!; I ~:ic5 ~r --- I I Z5 f:; I i 01 ~ ~ d2 .. ;,.; J, I '>: !. u' --- ",- "" ~: I ~ I i"Jj g: II 1:1<<'; -. i :>;. '0.. .1 "," , i .5' II Ii: Ii --_-..:..' " - "': I' Ji: J' 8; I o' o' ~ . I ~ ., I " . "" .<: ~~ i I!' I Iii ~ I m ~ 1111 .i f&; , In i ! , P I I ! . I~ I i " ~-i!1 II lll!llll II litH III --, 15 , II llll' !i "jl. .......~~! jill' !I! Iii Ill' iidi .........z I i ill' I !,'!I , Ii !1!'I!l"I'!I! . !!I!, I' I. IlllllIl1 ill I iII,l, 1IIII'Ii II'" ~ ill.! .11.11 Iii !:ii!1 i 0 . !ii 11 II I I ..". !il!H!! Iii;; !lo,"I'11 I ~ _~c ~. ~ ~~ ~ !. :II i ii, I,' I. ----1---------1 I I I I ~ " I '0 I '" !~ i . ';c! f ,;, i ,It, '10, 6:11.;i . .,,1 iii <] . ! , 'I 'II · · I" III I ll' I I ",I, I V. I I' ~ Ii 1 .~I;I :~! . ,ll 11ft 1'1 iJ!lfi ! hi i~; II; III 1111: Hi! . II IV. i II: ..I! 'I ml1ij I ~g If., ,! i I' "I iil!! i I I ~1!:I!~Ip' ~ .i!q Ii !!l!I~I:r i~,l~! ~"l!~i :1 -i:1: Hi If I ~J M~tU~j! ijill~lli .,~I.l ~ ~J IIp.~ I n'i~ DIIII!~II~~~lll'~! hl3 !lill',III~I~I,iilil". i~:! I! ~~I! j.li.nl II~!! !!~!!~l ~~!~~i!~~~~! II~fil~I!!ilm!I!I~iiiiiliiiii i~~ i~ ~~! ill~lli .. c ... . .. .. .. ~ , I ~ . ~ . . 'tlf ti I. ... CJ') ~ Attachment 8 il ~ " .1 .1, , . · lh' i i'I~1 I I~' ~ "I!d! i Iii I~I loi , ! I I'!! !! i~;i i~~i "11"1" .allU . II did III II!! I J q r. 'I' Ill" , !~I~ I. !Iil !II. !lli!! ~ 111.11 ill!;1 ~d hllii j' 1'111 ~'II II il I i! ill! IIli II !I: I': I I I I I .!IIHli! I . !:l 1'1 ~~ ~d zj!: ~~ !i~ ~I ~ F ~~ "au !IJ: ~:i~ ~i: ..::I J, o u' """ "": 0- '0: I ~ I 2: I' -" . ;1. '0. III ~: i-' .2 I ~ : '. co I .,,: I' Jl: .11 5;; ! ~ : ~ .!1: I!I I f m I Iy I Ill~ , I< In I . I ; ! ,I il 1'- .d' .-, 16 Attachment 9 MEMORANDUM TO: Shann Finwall City of Maplewood FROM: Dan Soler Ramsey County Public Works SUBJECT: 5-8 Tavern & Grill DATE: June 13,2006 The Ramsey County Public Works Department has reviewed the proposed redevelopment plan for the existing 5-8 Tavern & Grill at the intersection of Stillwater Road and Minnehaha Avenue. Ramsey County has the following comments regarding this proposal. 1. The use of the site will stay the same as it is today. This upgrade of the site will not have a measurable impact on traffic operations in the area. 2. The existing access point on Minnehaha Avenue will be closed and a new access point will be constructed into the site further east. Ramsey County supports the new access configuration with the entrance constructed further east of Stillwater Road. 3. The new access point on Minnehaha A venue will require a permit from Ramsey County for construction onto County right of way. Thanks for the opportunity to make comments regarding this issue. If you have any questions or need any additional information please give me a call. 17 Attachment 10 Page lof2 Ene:ineerine: Plan Review PROJECT: 5-8 Tavern and Grill PROJECT NO: 06-12 REVIEWED BY: Erin Laberee (Maplewood Engineering Department) DATE: June 9, 2006 The 5-8 Tavern and Grill is expanding their parking lot to the east. The developer and engineer shall address the following concerns: Drainage & Treatment 1. The engineer shall provide drainage calculations showing that 1" of runoff from the impervious area from the entire site is infiltrated. Additional infiltration practices may need to be utilized to meet this requirement. 2. Currently there is no sediment control shown on the proposed plans. Either inlet structures with 3' sumps or another means to trap sediment before it enters the rainwater garden shall be constructed. 3. The plan shall show where tip out gutter is to be utilized. 4. An infiltration trench or inlet structure connected to a storm system shall be constructed at the northeast corner of the site to manage ponding water in the low area that is created. 5. The developer shall enter into a maintenance agreement for annual maintenance of all best management practices utilized on site. Grading & Erosion Control 1. The project engineer shall clearly state on the plans that the contractor shall install inlet protection devices such as filter bags or WIMCO devices on all existing, proposed and downstream drainage inlet structures in Minnehaha Ave. 2. Any graded areas left undisturbed for more than 14 days shall be stabilized with a temporary seed. This shall be noted on the plans. 3. The type of inlet protection to be used at the curb cut shall be detailed on the plans. Utilities 1. Submit plans to Tina Carstens at Ramsey-Washington Metro Watershed District located at 2665 Noel Drive, Little Canada for their review and approval. 18 Page 2 of2 Miscellaneous I. The developer shall submit plans to Ramsey County for their review and obtain a right of way permit from them as Minnehaha A venue is a County road. 2. A planting plan utilizing native plants is required for the rainwater garden and shall be submitted to the city for approval by the city's naturalist, Ginny Gaynor. 19 Attachment 11 .lames L Beardsley 23// Minnellalla AI'ellue East Maplewood, MN 55119-3834 651-738-7957 June 9,2006 Shann Finwall AICP, Planner City of Maplewood 1830 E. County Rd. B Maplewood, MN 55109 Dear Ms. Finwall, First I want to thank you for the letter requesting comments on the expansion of the 5-8 Tavern parking lot at 2289 Minnehaha Ave East. As one of the homes that will be directly impacted by the destruction of the home at 2303 Minnehaha Ave and construction of a parking lot, 1 must state clearly that 1 am opposed to dris proposal. 1 have many reasons for opposing the wanton destruction of a well maintained, reasonably priced home for the simple satisfaction of the Tavern owner's greed. Some of these reasons are philosophical, some are the negative impact this proposal will have on the environment, my home, my life style and property value. As an avid gardener, (I am a Master Rosarian for the American Rose Society, one of only 250 Master Rosarians in the United States), I have invested thousands of dollars and countless hours on developing, planting and maintaining a series of gardens throughout my property. One such garden starts at the eastern edge of my property flows west to that edge (near the proposed parking lot) and proceeds all the way to the northern edge of my property, some 350 feet of garden. The first 150 feet of dris garden is a mix of sun loving and shade loving plants. This garden will be adversely affected by the demolition of the house, construction of an impervious parking lot and a privacy fence. There is no other possibility. The change in drainage, infiltration, light patterns and amount oflight, as well as the air movement cannot have anything but a negative impact on my gardens. For example, simply changing the air patterns by addition of a fence can resnlt in increases in plant diseases as the air does not move across the plants sufficient to dry the foliage. This will stress plants possibly causing thern to die. At the least dris will cause me to use fungicides on a regular basis to protect my inves1ment in plant materials, something that 1 only do sporadically now. The increased use of pesticides obviously has a potential negative impact on the environment. As for the light, not only will the duration of light change, the intensity and quality of the light will change. This too will have a negative impact on dris garden with the distinct probability that 1 will be forced to remove and replace the sun-loving plants. This of course will be at my expense and labor - all for the satisfaction of greed. 1 20 James L. Beard,~/ey 23// Minnehaha Avenue East ,Hap/ewood, MN 55119-3834 65/-738-7957 As I contemplate being forced to replace an entire garden I cannot but consider the expense that I a10ue will endure, There are over 150 plants, including trees, shrubs, martagon lilies, roses, peonies and astible and some heritage plants from my grandparents and great grandparents in the garden, The heritage plants are obviously priceless, the others at an average cost of$30 (which considering replacing mature shrubs and roses is cheap) will cost me approximately $4500, This does not include any cost to remove any of the larger plants and my time to prepare and replant - all for a parking lot so the Tavern can make more money, I also oppose the plan to move the entrance to the parking lot to the west end of the property, adjacent to the property lines. This will only increase the noise and pollution that I will experience. Leaving the entrance where it is at least gives me some measure of relief. I believe the experience of the previous owners of2303 Minnehaha Ave E in attempting to sell this residence only reinforce that having a Tavem and parking lot immediate to one's property does not increase the salability or value of adjacent properties which is one criteria the council must address to approve a CUP as detailed in the City Code, As I stated in my opening I have philosophical opposition to this proposal. First I believe Maplewood should encourage the maintenance of affordable single family homes over the profit of corporations. Second I frankly do not trust the owners and managers of the 5-8 to live up to any conditions ofa CUP. At the meeting called hy the 5-8 to inform the neighbors of the pending parking lot, the status of the existing fence was discussed, When asked why the fence was not repaired and maintained the response given by the manager was that the fence was damaged by the contractor hired to plow the parking lot and it was the contractor's responsibility to repair the fence, It would be wonderful if we could all pass the responsibility on to others. When the condition of the "rain garden" was discussed a similar view was expressed by the management that the blame belonged to those who planted the garden, with the addition of a condescending request to me that they need help in what plants to plant. Certainly a for profit corporation can afford a landscaper. Again the attitude came across to me was one that management and ownership of the 5-8 were not willing to take responsibility and made all the decision based on greed and profit, not complying with anything as trivial as a CUP or the neighbors. Third on at least two occasions calls were placed to the Manager of the 5-8 requesting that the weeds and grass be cut at 2303 Minnehaha After the calls the grass was cut, but I guess it was the renter's responsibility and the management and owner of the house had no responsibility to see that the property was maintained. Fourth I do not see the need for the parking lot. To my knowledge there have not been any personal injury accidents related to tavern patrons crossing the street. I do understand that there have been a few fender bender accidents in the current lot, but I fail to see how adding a large lot will solve the problem of poor or impaired drivers, Code reouirements: My comments in italics, As I interpret Maplewood City Code, Chapter I, Article 44, Sec 44-1097, "Standards" states: (a) "A conditional use permit may be approved, amended or denied based on the following standards for approval, in addition to any standards for a specific conditional use found in this chapter:" (2) The use would not change existing or planned character of the surrounding area, 2 21 James L. Beardsley 2311 Minnehaha A venue East Maplewood. MN 55119-3834 651-738-7957 A parking lot replacing a home changes the character of the surrounding area, (3) The use would not decrease property values. A parking lot replacing a home certainly will not increase property values. (4) The use would not involve any activity, process, materials, eqnipment or methods of operation that would be dangerous, hazardous, detrimental, disturbing, or cause a nnisance to any person or property, because of excessive noise, glare, smoke, dust, odor, fumes or air pollution, drainage water runoff, vibration, general unsightliness, electrical interference or other nuisances, The demolition of the home at 2303 and construction of a parking lot and fince cannot be anything but detrimental, disturbing and a nuisance to me. The comings and going of cars in the parking lot next to one of the bedrooms of my home can only be a disturbance and a nuisance, As it is, today the parking lot is at least 70 fiet from my home and overflow parking is on the street, again about 60 fiet from the bedrooms of my home, Reducing the parking distance to 30 fiet (20 foot setback plus approximately 10 fiet setback of my house to the property line) will increase the noise by afactor of 4, (sound increases or decrease by the square of the change in distance). Also the exhaustjUmesfrom the cars in the lot will decrease the air quality in the surrounding area, again closer to my home than currently, (9) The use would cause minimal impact on the environment. To me, the environment includes the light reaching my plants, the drainage from west to east that is critical for some of the plants in my garden in the Spring and during heavy rain events and the feeling of privacy I currently enjoy in my garden Raising the parking lot to ensure that all the runoff drains to the planned water gardens in the front changes the normal spring and summer runoff that is essential for the plants in my garden. This would mean that 1 will most likely be required to water my garden more than currently, not only costing me money but also using city water that currently is not used. The parking lot would also bring salt and sand from the roads closer to my trees, shrubs and plants many of which are sensitive to calcerous soils and water. The parking lot would also passibly interfere with the critical root zone of two mature hardwood maples on the west side of my property, No matter what the engineers state snow melt water will flow off of the parking lot onto may property polluting the ground and damaging my gardens and thus becoming a nuisance to me. The parking lot would be also detrimental to my personal environment as 1 would be forced to cover the windows on the west side of my home to insure privacy and safety, depriving me of the sun. Additionally it would mean that the privacy 1 currently enjoy in my garden would be invaded by the noise of patrons of the Tavern coming and going late into the night, Since I do not trust the 5-8 management to live up to the CUP, I request first, that the request be denied. Understanding that the possibility of that happening is miniscule, I request the following: I. That the parking lot be constructed of pervious materials, thus reducing the negative impact on surrounding trees and wildlife. 2. Anyon street parking up to the east edge to parking lot be prohibited. 3. That the entrance to the parking lot remain where it is, and not be moved closer to my property, 4, That a bond of $100,000 be required to ensure maintenance and compliance with the provisions of the CUP, 3 22 James L Beardsley 23// Minnehaha Avenue East /IJaplewood, MN 551/9-3834 651-738-7957 5, That the current owners and manager and any future owners and managers! operators agree that there will not be any further requests for enlarging the restaurant or modifications to the property. 6. That any disagreements between the current owners and manager and any future owners and managers! operators and the property owners surrounding the Tavern will be submitted to any impartial arbitrator with the costs of this process paid by the current owners and manager and any future owners and managers/ operators of the tavern or successors. 7, That any breach of the CUP will result in immediate and irrevocable closer of the tavern and future denial of any license to operate any business within the City of Maplewood. Again, I strongly oppose this proposal for the negative impact this project will have on the character of the neighborhood, the City of Maplewood, the environment in general, and specifically on my garden, my environment, my property value and the nnisances it will cause to me, Sincerely, James L Beardsley ~~ 4 23 Attachment 12 COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE PLAN CHANGE RESOLUTION WHEREAS, Jill Skogheim of the 5-8 Tavern and Grill made application to the City of Maplewood for a change to the city's comprehensive land use plan from single dwelling residential (R-1) to business commerciai (modified) (BC-M) for the expansion of the restaurant's parking lot. WHEREAS, this change applies to 2303 Minnehaha Avenue, Maplewood, Minnesota. WHEREAS, the legal description of this property is: South Yo of Lot 16, Minnehaha Suburban Heights. WHEREAS, the history of this change is as follows: 1. On June 19, 2006, the planning commission held a public hearing. City staff published a hearing notice in the Maplewood Review and sent notices to the surrounding property owners. The planning commission conducted the public hearing whereby all public present were given a chance to speak and present written statements. The planning commission recommended that the city council approve the plan amendments. 2. On , 2006, the city council discussed the land use plan changes. They considered reports and recommendations from the planning commission and city staff. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the city council approve the above-described land use plan change for the following reasons: 1. This site is proper for and consistent with the city's policies for commercial use. This includes: a. Require adequate off-street parking and loading facilities. b. Avoid disruption of adjacent or nearby residential areas. c. Require commercial developers to make all necessary improvements to ensure compatibility with surrounding residential uses. d. Require adequate screening or buffering of new or expanded commercial areas from any adjacent existing or planned residential development. 2. This development will minimize any adverse effects on surrounding properties because: a. Expansion of the parking area will supply adequate off-street parking and loading facilities for the site. b. The parking lot will be designed in the best manner to avoid disruption of adjacent or nearby residential areas including locating the parking lot 20 feet from the residential property to the east and installing a 6-foot high privacy fence along all shared residential property lines. The Maplewood City Council adopted this resolution on ,2006. 24 Attachment 13 ZONING MAP CHANGE RESOLUTION WHEREAS, Jill Skogheim of the 5-8 Tavern and Grill has proposed the following change to the City Maplewood's zoning map: single dwelling residential (R-1) to business commercial (modified) (BC-M). WHEREAS, this change applies to 2303 Minnehaha Avenue, Maplewood, Minnesota. WHEREAS, the legal description of this property is: South Y, of Lot 16, Minnehaha Suburban Heights WHEREAS, the history of this change is as follows: 1. On June 19, 2006, the planning commission held a public hearing. City staff published a hearing notice in the Maplewood Review and sent notices to the surrounding property owners. The planning commission conducted the public hearing whereby all public present were given a chance to speak and present written statements. The planning commission recommended that the city council approve the rezoning. 2. On , 2006, the city council discussed the rezoning. They considered reports and recommendations from the planning commission and city staff. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the city council approve the above-described change in the zoning map for the following reasons: 1. The proposed change is consistent with the spirit, purpose and intent of the zoning code. 2. The proposed change will not substantially injure or detract from the use of neighboring property or from the character of the neighborhood, and that the use of the property adjacent to the area included in the proposed change or plan is adequately safeguarded. 3. The proposed change will serve the best interests and conveniences of the community, where applicable, and the public welfare. 4. The proposed change would have no negative effect upon the logical, efficient, and economical extension of public services and facilities, such as public water, sewers, police and fire protection and schools. . 5. The proposed change is supported by a majority of the neighbors surveyed. 6. The applicant is proposing to use the property in question for a commercial parking lot and not for residential purposes. The Maplewood City Council adopted this resolution on ,2006. 25 Attachment 14 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION WHEREAS. Jill Skogheim of the 5-8 Tavern and Grill applied for two conditional use permits including: 1. Expansion of a restaurant within the business commercial (modified) (BC-M) zoning district. 2. Expansion of a nonconforming parking lot (20-foot setback from residential property required, 5-foot setback proposed). WHEREAS, this permit applies to property located at 2289 and 2303 Minnehaha Avenue, Maplewood, Minnesota. The legal description is: Minnehaha Suburb Heights: Subject to the highway, the E 60' of Lot 13, the S 148.5' of Lot 14, and the S Yo of Lot 15, the S Yo of Lot 16, Minnehaha Suburban Heights. WHEREAS, the history of this conditional use permit is as follows: 1. On June 19, 2006, the pianning commission held a public hearing. City staff published a hearing notice in the Maplewood Review and sent notices to the surrounding property owners. The planning commission conducted the public hearing whereby all public present were given a chance to speak and present written statements. The pianning commission recommended that the city council approve the conditional use permits. 2. On , 2006, the city council discussed the conditional use permits. They considered reports and recommendations from the planning commission and city staff. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the city council approves the above-described conditional use permits based on the building and site pians. The city approved this permit because: 1. The use would not change the existing or planned character of the surrounding area. 2. The use would not depreciate property values. 3. The use would not involve any activity, process, materials, equipment or methods of operation that would be dangerous, hazardous, detrimental, disturbing or cause a nuisance to any person or property, because of excessive noise, glare, smoke, dust, odor, fumes, water or air pollution, drainage, water runoff, vibration, general unsightliness, electrical interference or other nuisances. 4. The use would generate only minimal vehicular traffic on local streets and would not create traffic congestion or unsafe access on existing or proposed streets. 5. The use would be served by adequate public facilities and services, inciuding streets, police and fire protection, drainage structures, water and sewer systems, schools and parks. 6. The use would not create excessive additional costs for public facilities or services. 7. The use would cause minimal adverse environmentai effects. 26 !Approval of the two conditional use permits is subject to the following conditions: 1. All construction of the 5-8 Club shall follow the site plan approved by the city. The director of community development may approve minor changes. 2, The parking lot expansion shall comply with all city engineering requirements as defined in the June 9, 2006, engineering review, 3. The proposed parking lot expansion must be substantially started within one year of council approval or the permit shall become null and void. The city council may extend this deadline for one year. 4. The city council shall review this permit in one year. The Maplewood City Council adopted this resolution on ,2006. 27