HomeMy WebLinkAbout08/07/2006
MAPLEWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION
Monday, August 7,2006, 7:00 PM
City Hall Council Chambers
1830 County Road BEast
1. Call to Order
2. Roll Call
3. Approval of Agenda
4. Approval of Minutes
a. July 18, 2006
5. Public Hearings
7:00 Easement Vacation - Erickson (2699 Hazelwood Street)
7: 15 Conditional Use Permit - White Bear Avenue Family Health Center (2099 White Bear Avenue)
7:30 Conditional Use Permit Revision - Hill-Murray School (2625 Larpenteur Avenue)
7:45 Cottagewood Town houses (2666 Highwood Avenue)
Conditional Use Permit for Planned Unit Development Revision
Preliminary Plat
6. New Business
None
7. Unfinished Business
None
9. Visitor Presentations
10. Commission Presentations
July 24 Council Meeting: Mr. Grover
August 14 Council Meeting: Mr. Yarwood
August 28 Council Meeting: Mr. Pearson
September 11 Council Meeting: Mr. Trippler
11. Staff Presentations
Annual Tour Follow-up (July 31,2006)
Reschedule September 4 Meeting (Labor Day) - September 5 or September 6?
12. Adjoumment
DRAFT
MINUTES OF THE MAPLEWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION
1830 COUNTY ROAD BEAST, MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA
TUESDAY. JULY 18, 2006
I. CALL TO ORDER
Chairperson Fischer called the meeting to order at 6:30 for the tree ordinance presentation and
the regular planning commission meeting was called to order at 7:10 p.m.
II. ROLL CALL
Vice-Chairperson Tushar Desai
Commissioner Mary Dierich
Chairperson Lorraine Fischer
Commissioner Michael Grover
Commissioner Harland Hess
Commissioner Jim Kaczrowski
Commissioner Gary Pearson
Commissioner Dale Trippler
Commissioner Jeremy Yarwood
Present at 7:00
Present
Present
Present at 7:00
Present
Present
Present
Present
Present
Ken Roberts, Planner
Shann Finwall, AICP, Planner
Steven Kummer, Civil Engineer II
Lisa Kroll, Recording Secretary
Staff Present:
III. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
Commissioner Pearson moved to approve the agenda.
Commissioner Grover seconded.
The motion passed.
Ayes - Desai, Dierich, Fischer, Grover, Hess,
Kaczrowski, Pearson, Trippler, Yarwood
IV. Tree Ordinance Amendment Update Presentation (6:40 -7:10 p.m.)
The city council created the environmental committee in the summer of 2004. The environmental
committee was created to examine and deal with environmental issues within the city. An area of
particular concern with the city council was the examination of the city's existing environmental
ordinances by the environmental committee. On July 10,2006, the tree task force finalized a draft
tree ordinance. This ordinance has been reviewed by the city attorney's office with oversight from
the environmental committee.
Mr. Dale Trippler said in addition to serving on the planning commission he is also the chairofthe
Environmental Committee. He said he is here to speak about the tree ordinance amendments.
Mr. Trippler reviewed the draft information in the tree ordinance packet. He then introduced
DuWayne Konewko to speak further on this subject.
Planning Commission
Minutes of 07-18-06
-2-
Mr. DuWayne Konewko, Environmental Manager, addressed the commission. He spoke about
the Environmental Committee and why he is here this evening. Mr. Konewko said in addition to
Environmental Committee member Dale Trippler some of the other committee members are
presentthis evening including Jim Beardsley, Ann Hutchinson, Directorofthe Maplewood Nature
Center, Hans Neve, and Mandy Musielewicz, City Forester for the City of Maplewood. Shann
Finwall has also been working on the draft tree ordinance amendments. Following this
presentation the Environmental Committee will be meeting in the Maplewood room with the other
members of the Environmental Committee. Included in the packet of information are copies of the
current code in Maplewood, the proposed code amendments, and a chart comparison by city
regarding tree preservation ordinances for the city of Blaine, Eagan, Oakdale, St. Paul, Woodbury
and White Bear Lake. He then turned the discussion over to Shann Finwall.
Ms. Finwall said she has been working with the Environmental Committee on the tree ordinance.
The committee is proposing to change the definition of a large tree. The city's current definition of
a large tree is a tree with an 8-inch diameter tree excluding box elder, cottonwood, poplar and any
other undesirable trees. The proposed ordinance defines trees required to be replaced as
significant trees. A significant tree is a hardwood tree with a 6-inch diameter, softwood tree with a
12-inch diameter, conifer tree with an 8-inch diameter, and further defines a landmark/specimen
tree as any tree with a diameter over 28 inches. No tree species is excluded from tree
replacement. Ms. Finwall reviewed the current ordinance and the proposed ordinance for the
applicability, project inclusion and notification, woodlot definition, noncompliance, number of
replacement trees, size of replacement trees, tree species and guarantee, and surety for
replacement trees. Then a tree replacement comparison was done. One tree comparison was for
the Comforts of Home site off of Highway 36 and Hazelwood Street. A second comparison was
for Maplewood Imports off Highway 36 on Highway 61.
The proposed schedule is to present the draft tree ordinance to the community design review
board for comment. Then the environmental committee will conduct public education on the draft
ordinance. The public will be introduced to the draft ordinance through articles, mailings, and
possibly an open house. Comments received will be reviewed by the environmental committee for
possible changes to the draft ordinances. After all the comments have been received and
reviewed by the Environmental Committee this will go to the city council for review. Staff
estimates that this process could be accomplished by mid October. Ms. Finwall stated that with
this proposed ordinance change there would be more staff time needed to review permits at the
city as part of this process. Ms. Finwall then introduced Mandy, the City Forester.
Ms. Mandy Musielewicz, City Forester, addressed the commission. Ms. Musielewicz said the
Environmental Committee is working on the tree ordinance so it's a better tool for the community
to capture the significance of the trees in the city. We are moving to a percentage calculation for
tree replacement as an incentive to maintain additional trees. The more trees you maintain on a
site the less you would have to replace. The Environmental Committee decided to go with tree
diameter rather than a tree for a tree recognizing that larger trees are significant and take longer
to grow compared to planting many small trees.
Commissioner Dierich asked if you had a woodlot on your property and you decided they created
too much shade and you didn't want the trees any more, is there a provision for replacing those
trees?
Planning Commission
Minutes of 07-18-06
-3-
Ms. Musielewicz said if you clear your woodlot you cannot apply for a permit for 2 years or you
have to replace the trees one tree for each tree removed but that would only apply if you were
planning on building a structure.
Chairperson Fischer asked what would happen if you had too much shade on your property and
you wanted more sun on your property so you could grow a garden and wanted to clear trees
out?
Mr. Konewko said both the current and the proposed ordinance do not address that situation. The
only other opportunity to address a situation like that would be through the application of permits.
If a developer cleared a property there would be a two year moratorium on development of that
property. Aerial photos would be taken of the property showing the significant trees that were on
the site. If a developer received a conditional use permit one of the conditions would state that all
the significant trees remaining on the property must stay in place. If they chose to cut down one
of the trees listed on the permit that would make it out of compliance for the conditional use
permit which comes up for review yearly. The city is trying to prevent developers from clearing a
property and then coming to the city to apply for a permit after the fact.
Commissioner Dierich asked how buckthorn is categorized in the city because there is a lot of it in
Maplewood and it's a real nuisance.
Ms. Musielewicz said buckthorn is not considered a tree and therefore is not in the tree
ordinance. Buckthorn is considered a nuisance shrub.
Mr. Konewko said the city has a program at the Maplewood Nature Center for removing
buckthorn. If someone needs assistance identifying buckthorn the city can give assistance. Ann
Hutchinson with the Maplewood Nature Center has more information on that.
Commissioner Dierich asked what would happen in a development with a homeowners
association and someone takes some trees down after the homes are built, is there anything to
address that situation?
Ms. Musielewicz said the ordinance does not address a homeowners association and
homeowners taking trees down after the development is complete.
Commissioner Yarwood said he thinks there is a piece of the puzzle missing. If you are going to
add a significant addition to your home and it's on a heavily wooded lot the place where you want
to build the addition would probably be in the wooded part of the lot. Say you are going to build a
house on a 100% heavily wooded lot, are you going to have to replace the trees that were
displaced with the building of the house when in effect you would only be planting new trees in
amongst existing trees to an impractical level above and beyond what nature would have. Is there
a mechanism to take into account how many trees there are already on the property verses the
trees removed?
Commissioner Trippler said there are very few wooded lots in Maplewood that are 100% covered
with woods. The final decision comes from the city council to grant a variance.
Planning Commission
Minutes of 07-18-06
-4-
Commissioner Yarwood said there are many lots in his neighborhood that are at least 2/3 heavily
wooded so it's a concern. He is also concerned about someone being required to add trees to the
sides and fronts of a property where it may be impractical.
Commissioner Trippler said that is a situation the Environmental Committee can look at.
Mr. Konewko said there is a provision in the ordinance requiring someone to pay a tree escrow
for trees removed and that money would go into a tree fund. If that person decided they did not
want to replace the trees the money would then be used for the city to plant trees elsewhere in
the city.
Commissioner Pearson said he has a problem with the tree formula as it applies to the two
examples given for Comforts of Home and Maplewood Imports. Based on the footprint of the
building and the parking for the Comforts of Home proposal that would mean the developer would
have to replace 46 trees because of the 26 trees that would be removed from the site. With
Maplewood Imports the developer would be penalized with this proposed ordinance for removing
135 large diameter trees and would be required to replace 288 small trees. You already lost the
trees and there should be some adjustment in the formula so you don't end up having to replant
200 trees when the property is full already with a building and parking lot. He's just not sure that's
fair to the developer. That tree escrow money could go to the city to invest in refurbishing another
area in the city.
Mr. Konewko said there has to be a plan in place to let developers know that if they remove trees
from a site the city will require them to replace the trees.
Commissioner Pearson said the formula you are working with for the city is a good idea but
somewhere in there you need to fine tune things because with this formula you would end up
having to plant an excessive number of trees which could discourage development in Maplewood.
Commissioner Pearson said he thinks it's a good rule to have one tree replaced for one tree
removed.
Mr. Konewko said the thought was when you remove a 36-inch diameter tree and replace it with a
2.5 inch diameter tree there is no balance there. This is something the committee can take a look
at however.
Commissioner Pearson asked what the rational was for putting a two year moratorium on a
property if someone clears a site verses only a one year moratorium?
Mr. Konewko said when the Environmental Committee conducted a workshop with the city council
the council came up with the idea of a two year moratorium, the Environmental Committee
wanted a moratorium somewhere between one and three years.
Commissioner Pearson said he didn't think a developer would be dumb enough to clear a lot out
but if they did, they should be significantly penalized.
Commissioner Yarwood asked if it would make sense to have the plantable tree area calculated
after the building is in place and then have a threshold that beyond this density does it make
sense to plant more trees on the site?
Planning Commission
Minutes of 07-18-06
-5-
Commissioner Dierich said she thinks it's a good idea to take escrow money in lieu of planting
trees. If someone doesn't want to replace the trees, she thinks it would be good to have in the
ordinance that the money could be used to clean up existing areas of dead trees and other
diseased trees that are spreading diseases to neighboring trees and improve other woodlots in
the city as well.
Chairperson Fischer said we want people to know we are counting healthy trees and not trees
that are diseased or dead and should be removed from the site anyway.
Mr. Konewko said that is correct.
Commissioner Pearson asked if a developer built all the lots and a year later half of the trees that
were planted are dead or dying because the association or homeowners failed to water or
maintain the trees, what type of relief is there, what would the developer's responsibility or
obligation be then?
Mr. Konewko said typically the developer's responsibility is to care for the trees for 2 years after
the tree is planted. Typically the city sees about 2/3 of those trees die which equals about a 30%
replacement. After those trees were replaced the two year clock would start again as soon as
those trees were replaced.
Commissioner Hess asked if there was a provision regarding working with the developer up front
regarding the location of trees on the site?
Mr. Konewko said the goal is to be proactive and work with the developers up front. Prior to the
issuance of the building permit the developer would be required to submit a tree plan to the city
for review prior to removing any trees on the property which would also be reviewed by the city
forester as well. Mr. Konewko thanked the planning commission for their time this evening.
The Environmental Committee had to be excused to begin their meeting in the conference room.
The comments would be typed up and passed along to the appropriate parties.
V. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Approval of the planning commission minutes for July 6, 2006.
Commissioner Desai moved to approve the planning commission minutes for July 6, 2006.
Commissioner Pearson seconded.
Ayes - Desai, Fischer, Grover, Hess, Kaczrowski,
Pearson, Trippler
Abstentions - Dierich, Yarwood
The motion passed.
Planning Commission
Minutes of 07-18-06
-6-
VI. PUBLIC HEARING
Carpet Court (1685 Arcade Street at Larpenteur Avenue) (7:12-9:38 p.m.)
Ms. Finwall said Gary Blair is proposing to develop a 7,848-square-foot retail/warehouse carpet
store on a vacant lot located on the northwest corner of Larpenteur Avenue and Highway 61
(1685 Arcade Street). Mr. Blairwants to relocate his existing Carpet Court store in St. Paul to this
new location. The building will consist of approximately 3,966 square feet of retail space and
3,882 square feet of warehouse/storage space. As proposed, the building would have steel
horizontal siding, stucco wall finishes, stone wainscot, and a metal roof.
On March 20, 2006, the planning commission reviewed a concept plan of Mr. Blair's revised
development proposal which included the frontage road being vacated and combined as part of
the property. The planning commission expressed concern over the amount of impervious surface
and the location of the driveways. On March 28, 2006, the CDRB reviewed Mr. Blair's revised
concept plans and expressed extreme concern over the style of building proposed at that
location.
The community design review board will review and make a recommendation at their meeting of
July 25,2006, and the city council will review this proposal on August 14, 2006.
Ms. Finwall distributed and read aloud a memo she received before the meeting today from
MnDOT. She also shared comments from Commissioner Dale Tripplerwho was excused from the
planning commission meeting to attend the Environmental Committee meeting.
Commissioner Dierich asked if the driveway access is not approved would that disallow the
proposal as it is proposed?
Ms. Finwall said MnDOT has agreed to turn back the right of way without any conditions
regarding the location of the driveway access. However, they encourage the city to require only
one driveway access at this location.
Mr. Steve Kummer, Maplewood Civil Engineer II, addressed the commission. He said there
wouldn't be any MnDOT permitting authority when it comes to driveways off the road. They can
recommend the spacing from the state highway.
Chairperson Fischer said the county can take the recommendation but doesn't necessarily have
to follow the recommendation.
Ms. Finwall said the city doesn't have comments from the county regarding the location of the
driveways. The city code requires at least a 30 foot setback from the intersection but the further
the driveway entrance is from the intersection the better.
Mr. Roberts said the city is not sure that section of Larpenteur Avenue is a county road. The
county road may turn and go up Parkway Drive. If it is a county road in that location the county is
obligated to provide each property with at least one access. The county tries to work with the city,
state, and property owners but there is no guarantee. This information will have to be clarified.
Planning Commission
Minutes of 07-18-06
-7-
Commissioner Grover asked in terms of the access to the remaining portion of the service road it
sounds like it will be a one way in but is there one way out?
Ms. Finwall displayed a map of the proposed cul-de-sac. She said the proposed entrance and exit
from the service road would be a right in and right out only for those two properties. She said Mr.
Bacchus from Bacchus Homes is here tonight to discuss his viewpoint.
Commissioner Hess said the site appears very narrow for trucks entering the warehouse area.
That is a residential area and depending on what type of trucks drive into the site it may be a
dangerous turn around situation.
Chairperson Fischer asked if the engineering department had done any turning radius
calculations for the site?
Mr. Kummer said based on where the entry is located it appears the only way to get to the loading
dock is if the truck backs off of Larpenteur Avenue. He said he hadn't done any turning radius
calculations and he hadn't seen any hammerhead turnarounds on the site plan either.
Commissioner Hess asked if staff knew what size truck would need to turn around on the site?
Mr. Kummer said he didn't know the size of truck that would be accessing the site but didn't think
the truck would be too large and he would think the only way the trucks would be able to get out
of the site would be to back out onto Larpenteur Avenue, which is a dangerous situation with the
traffic.
Commissioner Hess was curious about the height of the side wall on the building elevations and if
that was all metal siding. A large expanse of flat metal siding might not look very good without
some other type of building exterior enhancements there.
Ms. Finwall said the showroom portion of the building will have a shorter sidewall and the overall
height to the top of the roof is 25 feet. Part of the building will have a stone wainscot and metal
siding. These are issues that will be reviewed at the community design review board meeting on
July 25, 2006.
Commissioner Hess said the reason he brings it up is it appears the stone wainscot only extends
to four feet above grade and he thinks it would dress things up to break the wall up with additional
building materials.
Commissioner Desai asked who would be responsible for the safety of the drivers in and out of
the site if two driveway entrances were allowed?
Ms. Finwall said it's the city's responsibility to look at the safety of the site during the planning
phase and the city would hope Mr. Blair would take the safety of the site into account during and
after the planning phase.
Commissioner Desai said he also noticed two dock doors on the site, one is 12 X 14 and the
other is 9 X 10 and he wondered what the purpose was for that. The 9 X 10 dock door is in line
with where the customers would be parking and he asked what the purpose of that dock door
was.
Planning Commission
Minutes of 07-18-06
-8-
Commissioner Desai said he is concerned about safety and asked if the trucks would make
deliveries to the dock door.
Ms. Finwall said the applicant would have to answer that question.
Commissioner Dierich said she didn't notice any place in the staff report to vote the proposal
down. There are the three recommendations for the rezoning, vacation of a public right-of-way
and the building setback variance but nothing regarding voting the proposal down. She asked if
this proposal would come back to the planning commission when things were further along?
Ms. Finwall said this is a permitted use within this zoning district so it doesn't require a conditional
use permit. There are several opportunities to make amendments in the conditions of approval.
You could for example approve the vacation of the right of way on the condition that there is only
one driveway. Ms. Finwall said the CDRB will look at the site plan layout and then it will go to the
city council who will approve or deny the overall project which requires four votes since this is
rezoning of residential property to commercial property so it will be important for Carpet Court to
have all the issues resolved before it goes onto the city council.
Chairperson Fischer asked the applicant to address the commission.
Mr. Robert Blair, representing Carpet Court, residing at 9040 Grey Cloud Trail, addressed the
commission. He said the staff did a nice job with the presentation. He then had a video
presentation run for the proposed building for Carpet Court. (The video presentation is shown on
the video tape of the planning commission meeting but was not transcribed for the minutes.)
Mr. Robert Blair said this is really two properties here and we have the right to have a driveway
entrance for each property. We have tried several different options to have a turnaround but it
hasn't been feasible and would require two much land coverage. If a large truck drove onto the
parking lot the asphalt would not support a heavy truck and the weight could put indentions in the
parking lot. However, the majority of trucks that would visit the site would be smaller city trucks.
Most carpet stores have warehouse space and the trucks go to the warehouse to pick up the
carpet orders and then they drive the carpet to the store docks. We don't have many semi-trucks
making deliveries, maybe only two to three a year. The reason for the two dock doors is that one
of the docks is for customer pick up and the larger dock is for truck deliveries. Porous pavement
is very costly and they would not want to damage it by installing it in front of the main dock door.
Commissioner Hess asked what type of building exterior they would have?
Mr. Robert Blair said the front section is stucco, the siding is steel which costs about the same as
vinyl siding but performs better.
Commissioner Yarwood asked what the estimated size of trucks would be that would access the
property?
Mr. Robert Blair said usually it's their delivery truck which is about 20 to 25 feet in length. The
truck primarily loads the materials for the installers for the week which is done once a week.
There may be times someone has to pick up materials at the last minute. There may be
shipments that come from out of town which may be three times a year for things like padding.
Planning Commission
Minutes of 07-18-06
-9-
Mr. Robert Blair said one of the reasons they designed the building the way they did is if a semi
did drive in it would be hidden from the front side of the building where the customers come in.
There are trees that would hide the residential side. We are trying to keep the neighbors happy
which is a critical concern. At the same time, this building will increase the value of the
neighborhood; it will increase the value of the homes. Carpet Court is in the decorating field and
we are not trying to design a shabby looking building. We want the customers impressed with the
building and feel comfortable enough to want to come back. If Carpet Court created a store that
looked like a barn, nobody would come to the store.
Commissioner Yarwood said he is trying to estimate how many times a truck would be backing
out onto Larpenteur Avenue because that seems like a very unsafe situation.
Mr. Robert Blair said once a week a city truck would pickup carpeting and supplies and three
times a year a semi would come to the store for large deliveries.
Commissioner Yarwood asked if it would be reasonable to have a hammerhead turn around on
the site which would make for a safer situation for the trucks that need to turn around?
Mr. Robert Blair said if they did have that turn around it would cover the entire western portion of
the property and would probably require a variance.
Commissioner Yarwood said he would be willing to grant a variance for a hammerhead turn
around to eliminate trucks backing out onto Larpenteur Avenue. He wondered how large the
hammerhead turn around would have to be to accommodate the trucks turning around?
Mr. Gary Blair, Carpet Court, 1769 Rainey, addressed the commission. He said they did have
extensive engineering done. By doing that the variance would not allow that because it took up
too much space for the land coverage and because of the zoning they have. Because of the
amount of impervious surface it was not permissible. They have several drawings done by their
architects that have a hammerhead turn around. The other thing was the setback, it would have
been almost all asphalt by the time they would be done constructing it.
Commissioner Dierich said there is a drawing showing a landscaped area on the Larpenteur
Avenue side between the two driveways and she is concerned about the turn around for the
trucks and for the two driveways. She said she doesn't buy the argument that this is two
properties and should both have their own driveway because this is going to be combined into
one piece of land when it's turned into business commercial property (BC) from single dwelling
residential (R-1) so you get one driveway.
Mr. Robert Blair said that is only one aspect of it though.
Commissioner Dierich asked if they had thought about making the impervious surface driveway
and then connecting the impervious surface into the other parking lot without having the entrance
near Highway 61. She has a hard time approving this due to the safety concerns and the issue of
the turning radius for the trucks. She applauds Carpet Court for putting in the pervious surface.
Planning Commission
Minutes of 07-18-06
-10-
Mr. Robert Blair said he can understand her concerns regarding the turn around. If we did
something like that it would probably only be 18 feet or the distance of a parking space. The small
straight line trucks would be able to turn around but the semi trucks would still have to back out
onto Larpenteur Avenue and only come three times a year. If that would help the commission
move this plan forward they would be willing to do that.
Commissioner Yarwood asked what city staff thought of that?
Ms. Finwall said the hammer head would need to maintain a 20-foot setback to the westerly
property line so it looks like a possibility. She showed some other options on the overhead she
received from MnDOT.
Commissioner Pearson asked in the operation of the business do they store old flooring outside
before it gets disposed of or is it removed and brought somewhere else?
Mr. Robert Blair said Maplewood requires 100% opaque enclosures on dumpsters so they
decided to have an area inside the building for a holding area before it gets recycled off site or
brought to a landfill.
Commissioner Desai asked how often the old flooring is picked up by a truck?
Mr. Robert Blair said due to the cost a dump truck comes once a month and picks up the old
flooring and brings it to a recycling center. There would also be a garbage truck picking garbage
up once a week.
Commissioner Desai asked what type of mechanical units they would have on this building and
would there be any rooftop units?
Mr. Robert Blair said yes they would have rooftop units.
Commissioner Desai asked if the rooftop units would be screened, he is concerned about them
being an eyesore?
Mr. Robert Blair said some of the units may be visible but for the most part they hope to have the
rooftop units hidden. Also, he stated he is aware that the 60-foot setback to the Highway 61
intersection for the easterly driveway is a concern for the planning commission. He and Gary Blair
took out a measuring tape and measured out 60 feet so the planning commission could see how
far 60 feet from the intersection would be. He said if they didn't own that second lot nothing could
be developed on the first lot if the city required a greater setback for the driveway. If this proposal
does not go through, maybe that's the case that nothing gets built there.
Mr. Randy Bacchus, Bacchus Homes, 1701 Arcade Street, Maplewood, addressed the
commission. He said he has owned this property for seven years and prior to that the property
has been in his family for over 50 years. His only communication with representatives of Carpet
Court was about five years ago when they contacted him to see if it would be okay with Carpet
Court storing some equipment on the property. However, there ended up being more than just
some equipment stored on the property. He wants to have a neighbor on the property so they
don't have to look at weeds and an overgrown property.
Planning Commission
Minutes of 07-18-06
-11-
Mr. Bacchus said he has three full time employees. Bacchus Homes is in the home building and
remodeling business and they like their location. Carpet Court was looking to build a new building
so he let the condition of the property go at first but last year he finally called Shann Finwall and
complained about the condition of the property because his employees and customers alike were
complaining about the unsightliness of the property. There is debris, tall weeds and junk on the
property. Ms. Finwall told him Carpet Court was slow getting their property cleaned up. Carpet
Court finally did get rid of some old boats that were stored on the property for three years which
was very frustrating to have to look at. The carpet rollers are still stored on the site all these years
later and its overgrown with weeds. When he first spoke to Ms. Finwall he thought the service
road vacation was an asset but after reanalyzing things he thought this could be a really long term
project and the future cul-de-sac has no timeframe attached to it. Closing the frontage road is
going to be an issue for his employees and for the Palme family. If the new cul-de-sac were to go
in next year it could benefit him but if it's in ten years that may be difficult for his employees and
they would have to share the access with the Palmes. The Palmes have lived there for 65 years
so removing this frontage street would be a hardship on them. Even if Carpet Court gets
everything to work the impact on the vacation of the public right-of-way may be an issue on the
resale of his property because it's zoned commercial. If a semi truck comes down the service
road it makes sense to park the large truck there; therefore the service road is an asset to the
property.
Mr. Bacchus said Carpet Court did a nice job on the video presentation showing what the property
would look like. He is concerned about the metal roof and how it's going to look. Is it going to look
like a metal roof like what is at the City of Maplewood or is it going to look like a shed roof? Most
carpet warehouses are located in a commercial park. The carpet company he uses is located in
White Bear Lake which has a smaller building at 6,000 square feet and a much larger parking lot
compared to the proposal Carpet Court has for a 7,848 square foot building. In looking at the
variance for an impervious surface he doesn't see it as that big of an issue and is more beneficial
than vacating the service road.
Commissioner Grover said if the city voted to take that area of the service road and add it to
Carpet Court's property that would leave Bacchus Homes and the homeowners with part of a
service road. He asked if there was anyway that would work for you?
Mr. Bacchus said they would be landlocked and there would only be the one entrance and exit.
Yes that would affect them. The cul-de-sac sounds great and looks great with the comprehensive
plan at first but if it takes ten or more years from now it doesn't seem so great anymore. There
are a lot of unknowns still. When Bacchus Homes gives directions they give them off of
Larpenteur Avenue because if they give directions off of Highway 61 people miss the turn
because cars are driving so fast. It's a very bad spot to pull your car out because of the speed of
the traffic.
Mr. A. L. Brown, (representing the District 5 planning council for St. Paul which covers the area
directly south of Larpenteur Avenue), residing at 693 Montana Avenue, St. Paul, addressed the
commission. He said this is a project that is of significant importance. He chairs the Community
Planning and Economic Development Committee which deals with zoning issues for the district.
They have several concerns about this project. He said he takes issue with the concept that the
solution to debris problems is to build a building there. The area should be cleaned up whether
you are proposing to build something there or not. This area is a gateway to the St. Paul district.
Planning Commission
Minutes of 07-18-06
-12-
Mr. Brown said they are working very hard in the Payne and Phalen area to recreate a good
image which is important to property values as well. The metal aspects of this building and the
large rooftop units which will be visible coming off of Highway 61 and directly through St. Paul are
concerns of theirs. But most importantly is the safety issue. He travels that way quite often and he
cannot imagine a safe way of backing trucks onto that street even if it is only a few times a year.
Accidents can happen at any time and backing up is just an unsafe way. The traffic here is
increasing and this is a narrow stretch of road to navigate especially the way the roads are cut up
which only adds to the safety issues. These are issues of your neighbors in St. Paul regarding
safety and the look of the property and the building. When someone asks for a variance, a
variance is a step away from the rule. If there is a way to do this project within the rules that
should be strongly encouraged. He or a member from his group will also attend the CDRB
meeting to discuss the appearance of the building and the concerns they have. He has an issue
with the boats that were stored on the property and the blue tarps covering the stored items.
That's something people remember on the property and it's disheartening to see things stored on
the property for that long.
The Palmes, 1721 Arcade Street, Maplewood, addressed the commission. This is a safety issue
and he was happy the other planning commissioners addressed their concerns about the safety.
If you are coming south on Highway 61 there should be a right hand turn lane. In the process of
building highways now people are trying to eliminate traffic coming out onto the highway because
of the safety issues.
Mr. Palme said Highway 61 and Larpenteur Avenue is the worst intersection in the world. There
have been a few bad accidents on that corner and the safety is a real concern here. Regarding
the trucks going out onto Larpenteur Avenue, the traffic is bumper to bumper on that road.
Maplewood has never had to maintain the service road. It has always been MnDOT or Mr.
Bacchus plowing it in the winter and sometimes they plow it. If you are talking about a future cul-
de-sac, who is going to maintain the cul-de-sac? This is an inconvenience for them as
homeowners having their access cut off. This is a residential area and they would like to keep
things residential. There are new homes built here and people should not have to look at a pole
barn and have it look like an industrial area. This building proposal looks like a pole barn. The
neighbors are against this proposal. The church is against it also. The weeds are terrible on the
property. (They showed photos of the condition of the property to the planning commission). He
said the things that were stored on the property must be rotten after sitting outside in the
elements for that long.
Ms. Amy Erickson, representing the group home at 785 Larpenteur Avenue East, Maplewood,
addressed the commission. This whole discussion is interesting to her because she was not
aware of any ideas for a cul-de-sac here. She just wants everyone involved in this to be aware
that the group home has a 28-foot-long school bus loading and unloading wheelchairs twice a day
so the safety of trucks backing up on Larpenteur Avenue is a concern for them.
Mr. Robert Blair said they are concerned about the neighbors in the area as well. The initial idea
for the storage was to store the racking system with the anticipation that they would build a new
building in 2000, unfortunately that didn't happen. He said this is a thick heavy metal racking
system and it would take a lot of effort to move this racking system off the property. However, the
racking system got there somehow so it probably could have been moved with a lot of effort. The
intention was not to have the racking system there this long and the intention is not to keep it
there now either.
Planning Commission
Minutes of 07-18-06
-13-
Mr. Robert Blair said we wantto getthe building erected and make the area look nice. We wantto
take care of the overgrown trees and tall weeds in the area and that is one of the reasons they
want to build this building. He said they are aware the group home has buses loading and
unloading and delivery trucks visiting the site. The buses and the delivery trucks would not be
affected by the easterly driveways' 60-foot setback to the intersection. The driveway they might
be affected by is the westerly driveway which will be over 150 feet from their property.
Commissioner Pearson asked if over the last six years did the city put impediments in your way
that would have kept you from keeping the property clean?
Mr. Robert Blair said no. He said they could have mowed the property however they would have
needed a special heavy duty mower to do that which they did not have. This would not be like
mowing your grass at home; it would be like mowing brush. Before that time the county mowed
the section of land they owned and the city ceased doing that.
Mr. Bacchus said he wants a neighbor here. He is trying to work within the parameters that are
there. He said if we can keep a service road there and make this building fit he can see the
variance for an impervious surface. But to listen to Robert Blair talk about the condition of the
property and the condition it was when they bought it frustrates him. Ashland Oil owned the
property before Carpet Court did and Ashland Oil maintained the property. The Blair's have letthe
condition of this property go for too long. He said he was tempted to go over to Carpet Court and
tell them if they don't take care of the property then he would because he is frustrated and tired of
looking at it for so long in this poor condition. He has had customers and employees complain to
him about the appearance of the Carpet Court property as well.
Mr. Bacchus said his family has owned the property for over 50 years and to listen to Carpet
Court explain why they left the property in the condition that it is in for over six years and that they
didn't have the capability to clean up the storage on the site or maintain the weeds on the
property is frustrating. Build a building that will fit into the neighborhood, improve the look of the
area and everyone will be happy. His concern is that Carpet Court will start a building and leave it
half done for whatever reason. Are we going to have these same maintenance issues down the
road? He said he is just trying to be practical here.
Mr. Palmes said this is not an industrial park, it is a residential area of Maplewood and he is proud
of where he lives in Maplewood.
Mr. Gary Blair said the concerns and questions of the neighbors are his concerns too. It is hard to
change something that has been that way for a long time. When there are changes taking place
in your life change can be difficult. We would be more than happy to put in a hammerhead
turnaround there. He is concerned about the traffic turning in and out of the area as well. We are
willing to cooperate and agree that this has been an unsightly area. You haven't seen all the stuff
behind the scenes. We have had more than one set of plans done before MnDOT got involved
and we were supposed to come before the city almost a year ago. MnDOT said the service road
had to be turned back so the plan was not possible, so we had to go back to square one. In 2000
his mother took ill and it was impossible for him to do anything else.
Chairperson Fischer closed the public hearing.
Planning Commission
Minutes of 07-18-06
-14-
Commissioner Grover asked how wide the service road is? He is concerned about it as a one-
way and wondered if it can handle traffic from both directions?
Ms. Finwall said the service road is a two-way road.
Commissioner Grover said as things stand right now he cannot vote for the vacation with the
neighbors to the north not having access to Larpenteur Avenue. He would be more in favor of
closing the north end of the service road at least to deal with the safety issue of vehicles onto
Highway 61.
Commissioner Hess said regarding the safety issues, closing the service road, and the possibility
of a future cul-de-sac, it would be nice to see a drawing that showed all these improvements
relative to the building so it would be easier to envision the site. Especially with the hammerhead
idea that came about this evening.
Commissioner Dierich agreed. She asked ifthe commission could table this proposal so the plans
could be tweaked and this could be brought back?
Ms. Finwall said Mr. Blair waived his 60-day rights last year when MnDOTwas looking into this so
Carpet Court is not on the 60 day clock except for the applicant's request to keep this proposal
moving forward.
Commissioner Dierich said she is concerned about the safety concerns and she doesn't like the
idea of leaving elderly neighbors with no access.
Commissioner Desai said the Blairs have done a good job trying to avoid as many variances as
possible but the one key factor that is missing is the safety of the people around the area. We
heard from Mr. Bacchus and the Palmes regarding their concerns of having access. He is
concerned aboutthe layout. Yes, Carpet Court owns the land and they have the rightto develop it
but the way things stand right now he is not willing to vote for this.
The commission discussed the possibility of requiring a driveway on the north side of the parking
lot for access onto the remaining portion of the service road.
Mr. Roberts said he is concerned a driveway from the frontage road would take cars into what
would now be parking spots so staff will have to check to see if the civil engineering lines up.
Mr. Robert Blair said Carpet Court has an affidavit signed from the church that says Carpet Court
can use six of their parking spots if they need to. In return the church asked if they could use
Carpet Court's parking lot for overflow on Sunday's which works perfect because Carpet Court is
closed on Sunday's so things work for everybody involved.
Chairperson Fischer asked if the applicant has a problem with the planning commission tabling
this proposal for a revised set of plans representing where the turnaround would be, the driveway
entrance etc.
Mr. Gary Blair said he really wants to keep the application moving forward and doesn't want to
delay things.
Planning Commission
Minutes of 07-18-06
-15-
Mr. Gary Blair said they have plans to build at a certain time of year and they want to have this
project moving forward, there have been enough delays already because they tried to build a
building a few times already and would like an answer either way.
Commissioner Dierich asked if the planning commission could take a 5 to 10 minute break to
discuss things.
The planning commission took a recess from 9:12 - 9:20 p.m.
Commissioner Trippler recommended voting on each recommendation separately.
Commissioner Trippler moved to adopt the rezoning resolution attachment 15 in the staff report.
This resolution changes the city's zoning map from single-dwelling residential (R-1) to business
commercial (BC) for Lot 5, Block 1, Van Houten's Plat (PIN 172922440019). This change is
based on the following:
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.
c. The proposed change will serve the best interests and conveniences ofthe 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 consistent with the city's comprehensive plan.
f. The proposed change will allow the applicant to combine this property to the adjacent property
(currently zoned BC) for the development of a retail/warehouse carpet store.
Commissioner Kaczrowski seconded.
Ayes - Desai, Dierich, Fischer, Grover, Hess,
Kaczrowski, Pearson, Trippler, Yarwood
The motion passed.
Commissioner Trippler moved to adopt the public vacation resolution attachment 16 of the staff
report. This resolution authorizes the vacation of a public right-of-way to include a portion of the
Highway 61 frontage road located on the east side of 1684 Arcade Street as follows: Starting from
the Larpenteur Avenue right-of-way, 161 feet north and 42 feet east toward Highway 61. Vacation
of the right-of-way is approved with the following conditions: (changes or additions are
underlined and deletions are stricken.)
a. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant must:
1) Submit a 30-foot-wide right-of-way easement for approval by city staff.
Planning Commission
Minutes of 07-18-06
-16-
2)Record the approved right-of-way easement with Ramsey County.
3) Submit a revised grading and drainage plan and landscape plan to be approved by staff
showing the relocation of the proposed rainwater garden on the west side of the
property to ensure it is not located within the 30-foot-wide right-of-way easement.
4) Submit a revised site plan to be approved bv staff showinQ a drivewav connection
from the north side of the parkinQ lot to the unvacated part of the service road.
5) Submit a drivewav easement over the parkinQ lot for inQress and eQress to be
approved bv staff.
6) Record the approved drivewav easement with Ramsev County.
Commissioner Yarwood seconded.
Ayes - Desai, Fischer, Grover, Hess,
Kaczrowski, Pearson, Trippler, Yarwood
Nay - Dierich
Commissioner Dierich voted nay because she has an issue with the two entrance/exits to the site
and she wanted to include that in the motion.
The motion passed.
Commissioner Grover moved to adopt the building setback variance resolution attachment 17 in
the staff report. This resolution authorizes a 42.5 foot building setback from a commercial building
to a residential lot line for a retail/warehouse carpet store (Carpet Court) to be located at 1684
Arcade Street. This variance is based on the following:
a. Strict enforcement of the code would cause undue hardship because of circumstances
unique to the property and not created by the property owner. This is because the north lot
line is not straight and has a slight angle where the property meets the adjacent northwest
residential lot line. The variance is needed only for the northwest corner of the building.
The remaining portion of the building maintains the required 50-foot setback.
b. The variance would be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the ordinance as follows:
c. The affected property is actually zoned and guided business commercial in the city's
zoning map and comprehensive plan. The property was used as a business in the past,
but has been converted back to only residential within the last ten years.
d. The applicant will be required to screen the northwest and west side of the building from
the adjacent residential properties.
Approval is subject to the applicant doing the following:
Planning Commission
Minutes of 07-18-06
-17-
a. The applicant submitting a screening and landscape plan which ensures an 80 percent
opaque screen from the building to the northwest and west residential lot lines. This plan to
be approved by the community design review board.
Commissioner Dierich seconded.
Ayes - Desai, Dierich, Fischer, Grover, Hess,
Kaczrowski, Pearson, Yarwood
Nay - Trippler
The reason Commissioner Trippler voted nay is because he can't justify such a large setback
variance. He knows this is a difficult site but the applicant should have known that when he
bought the property.
The motion passed.
This item goes to the city council on August 14, 2006.
Commissioner Yarwood would like to recommend that the CDRB look at the option of having a
hammerhead turnaround on the site for the delivery trucks to maneuver around to try to keep as
few trucks from backing up onto Larpenteur Avenue as possible.
Commissioner Dierich would like to recommend that the CDRB look at the option of having only
one entrance to the site and eliminating the second entrance/exit to the site.
VII. NEW BUSINESS
None.
VIII. UNFINISHED BUSINESS
None.
IX. VISITOR PRESENTATIONS
None.
X. COMMISSION PRESENTATIONS
a. Ms. Fischer was the planning commission representative at the July 10, 2006, city
council meeting.
The CUP revision for Liberty Classical Academy at 2696 Hazelwood Street was approved by
the city council. The Legacy Village Townhomes at County Road D and Kennard Street for the
Comprehensive Plan Amendment, PUD Revision and Preliminary Plat was denied by the city
council because city council members felt there was a market for commercial space and that
the property should remain as is on the plan rather than having additional townhomes. The soil
boring report for the site was very poor as well.
Planning Commission
Minutes of 07-18-06
-18-
Ms. Fischer said the 5-8 Club Expansion at 2289 Minnehaha Avenue for the Comprehensive
Plan Amendment, Zoning Map Change and the CUP revision, was approved with the condition
that the fence move 7 feet in from the property line, and the continuation of the Carver
Crossing EAW discussion was approved 3-2.
b. Mr. Grover was scheduled to be the planning commission representative at the July 24,
2006, city council meeting; however there are no planning commission items to
discuss.
c. Mr. Yarwood was to be the planning commission representative at the August 14, 2006,
city council meeting, but he is unable to be present, therefore Commissioner Hess
volunteered to be the reDresentative.
The only planning commission item to discuss is Carpet Court, 1685 Arcade Street.
XI. STAFF PRESENTATIONS
Annual Tour Update (Monday, July 31,2006)
Mr. Roberts was asking for any additional input for the annual tour before he makes the final list
of tour stops.
XII. ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 10:00 p.m.
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
LOCATION:
DATE:
City Manager
Tom Ekstrand, Senior Planner
Easement Vacation Request for Ronald Erickson
2699 Hazelwood Street
July 28, 2006
INTRODUCTION
Ronald Erickson, of 2699 Hazelwood Street, is requesting that the city council vacate a
15-foot-wide utility easement located on the south side of his property. Mr. Erickson
dedicated a 3D-fool-wide utility easement to the city in 1986 as a condition of a lot split to
subdivide his property. The easement straddles Mr. Erickson's southerly lot line with 15
feet on each side of the line. Mr. Erickson would like to vacate the 15 feet of easement
on his property. Refer to the attachments.
BACKGROUND
August 27, 1986: The city approved a lot division for Mr. Erickson and required the
easement dedication. Refer to the attached map of the 1986 lot split.
Findings for Approval
To vacate an easement, the city council must find that the easement would serve no
public interest.
DISCUSSION
In 1986, the city felt there was a need for this easement to provide utility service to the
abutting land to the west. The city then felt that the best way to do this was by the
dedication of this easement. Erin Laberee, the Maplewood Assistant City Engineer,
reviewed this request and has determined that there is no reason to retain this
easement. Ms. Laberee reviewed city's utility plans and found that water and sanitary
sewer can be provided to this property from County Road C via the benefiting properties.
The easement in Mr. Erickson's lot, therefore, is not needed.
As stated above, 15 feet of this easement would remain on the neighbor's lot at 2681
Hazelwood Street. Staff is attempting to find out if this neighbor would like to vacate that
portion of easement on their property, but we have not been able to get a reply. For the
present time, staff recommends that the easement on the neighbor's lot at 2681
Hazelwood Street also be vacated as it would serve no public purpose.
RECOMMENDATION
Adopt the resolution in the staff report vacating the unneeded utility easement for Ronald
Erickson at 2699 Hazelwood Street. Vacation is in the public interest since this
easement serves no public purpose.
p:sec 3\Erickson Easement Vacation 7 06
Attachments:
1. Location Map
2. Letter of Request by Mr. Erickson
3. Applicant's Site Plan
4. 1986 Utility Easement Location
5. Easement Vacation Resolution
2
?7~1
o
CJ 2727
;:
o
CJ
oc]
2707
2699
PROPOSED
EASEMENT ~ U681
V ACA TION
673
co 0
O~69
[]
0
LJ[J 0 [361
DO ~ ~5
t'- cD
t'- Q)
'<t '<t l!)
.- .- .- .-
COUNTY-ROAD
---- - -----~-------- ----- --- -- -------------- --- -- --- -- --- -- - - ----- - -
o@
LOCATION MAP
'.
i
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
,
At achment 1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
\
I
i 2696
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
\
26V
D
26~ 0
26Q
o 0
.' 2tl 0
I
\
I
I Q)
I 0
I rnJ
I
\
\
\
---------------------
i
C>
('j
o
D
3
Attachment 2
J ....IV ~ po, -z-.o 0 i:.
!)i~...\--.r- of- C_ W\" ...."'~ Lk-v..e-I.
~ of Maf'L,,--~J.
~ '" 8(" '1: 'f.,..".e ~ la.. ~ "-- v~ (,~ .L.... S/LM..4"J- e <NWo '"\
rr~ J- J..~'t"'t ~-c.eJ W+Jr~ ~+-. .
rj~ tt~~( ,'2-tJ) 1A'-tJ" <.1 CA,~k~ Ii.....:" J,.." b4.~ +" s.u .::f ..! c.."...f!
~..J--- ~,,~ -\.9 1~v-e V-~ .Q...:.,. CI<r;IM ~~ .-n, l"e.-\....v.... -lL..
e4-~~ 1o.L.J... +0 w-L ~
P b'
0" ;[',,"A q I z,.,,,f,. ~'''' L~B~ b>(J h-.o tz, f',k. at v I"
I/O-L-a./~:-"" ~'..G~-h';"" ~ ~ Nl6c.1~S.-t-. '5l...t. >,,;J sc... ~(t
~ c\. ~ \IIAl tdH-q IZv' ~ a ~ -G.- ~ t2 fl.~ ~ avr--J.. d-
~\~ h. \(k~\oo~ .....". Hil4.
,
!3.-re..I,sJ '5 tIf All'il~(t7;, /;- 1'If.1 Yl4.gl/e.-"$'f:
:! y"t'~f ~ G.e.~s.e L.:t.. f """V,J%-~ addV/-t:v..eIt..,f u~r.e.....
I a;vr.J. -G-v- ~ J J:.. W'-M. 1't4-C- fit r;'; -/:-. ~ e f(.~ ~
\v. I q ~", ".!' ~ h \..L tf- N.- --t-<<.y.~ 4.., 1'I'I.L at:"
h,o C<'efr- a..7 w..e-U, 'j: -/.-iu.N:(j..~ V'O~S.f-v..,aIv-e'r---d.f2
tw ~$I "'II-,s aYl I~I<.R, of' ~""""<2.g~,
S'1'1I. c.rz. "'-11.1'11
e~"e VtJ, f:n.-ck~
4pt~ ~~ W-
~~ ~ AlfN b5/tl9
(,5' j- 171-bd")'. 7
GECEIVED
JUN 1 2 2006
..................
4
Attachment 3
}-
. IS' IE:-
1'7'5'
I
N
\.-.
~
~
~
l-l)
-
-.l
,
The. ,A/~ /75' ~J-
t a>V'4€F1fL /ldcll;;'6 ).,/,
hi: -6/ ~
-Z6f'1 1-/,4'Z-~w'~t7LJS.-r.
5
~,~l~::..,:':'
J,:'ft,.,..
"t,~'.:'
'~,7:~
,C;..:
-,,;:::
S ~';:
f~)fi,;;::
~{t~.:.::.
~";';o
r.!~t..
(f~~~ ,;:: .
r::~[~'~.;~
f*/;
J;t~f::
~i~':
~~~!"'.:.'
~'ti:i!l".:
11.'~ft'.1'.
~i:~~'~'.',
"J~' },/..".,
~~+.:
~(lf~>
~~)~a!J."
.,,,,~.:
~....~~~.
~!~"
Ii
/:I....Q,.t
~IM
i:;hJ':'
~"t...";.
~"'\I;";.'.
t.oe-..t.,
r!~;1;,-':-:'.
.}.,~,: ,.
~~.:, .
\h:,'.
,"'!i..~~__
1f!:,'v
';J(....,.
,:';i:V;-.:
t~l:~
1',P.J..:.<
~}i-
~L::
~l'l!;t.;..'
~y':.t~.
,~.~
~\{ .
~t ..
(ti,~.' .'
iHt.
~~i..
WV...
tl"
~.;:
......
:'j'i:
~~/,.
~~~."~
~.,.
~i,
"",'
1<:'
:~.t;~ .~
',,'- r'.~ '
.;. .~~
\.
~
~J
.\lo .
~t
. ~ \l
'. ~
;{ :>..
. a
''l I
! . ~
I:t' .
< {
~-r
":Ii
.M
...."
~q
J '4.'
, .
t~
j ~J
r
:t..
i
.~....~
-.
".!!
t
-:1'
'^
.-L.
- - - :i
.
1.....
to 2-
? ..
'~
';! '"
.J .,.
" '"
Al~
,1\
/-
.._....:.;:........!.,.. .,
-[i]
. t-
. ~ _'Y_
.~
zt
Attachment 4
~
11
'-
'..I
i
If..
II)
Cl-
ul
:>
Z
.>>
,
0(
II
0
0
3
J
uJ
N
..
" . ::!:
'" ~
N
-
"
'"
u.I
~ II
" .
:r: .
6 1
z. ~
j1
Ii) !
)
f>i1ZCE..L. B
~
..:J ~
0'...
-. :1".
.... ~ ~
....
~A~
~
~-~
-."- ------
PAI2Ce.L 11
ZQgf
,L-I'C.
. "
...
:..::r-
-1
{)
N
I'Q
to-
.D
"
__~"-:.Jt__
1986 UTILITY EASEMENT LOCATION
6
Attachment 5
EASEMENT VACATION RESOLUTION
WHEREAS, Mr. Ronald Erickson applied for the vacation of a 15-foot-wide utility
easement on the south side of his property located at 2699 Hazelwood Street. This
easement is described as follows:
A permanent 30 foot easement for public utilities over, across and through that
part of Lot 6, Gardena Addition to wit: Said easement being described as: The south 30
feet of the north 190 feet of Lot 6, Gardena Addition, Ramsey County as recorded.
Torrens Certificate No. 276056.
WHEREAS, on August 7, 2006, the planning commission held a public hearing.
The city staff published a notice in the Maplewood Review and sent a notice to the
abutting property owners. The planning commission gave everyone at the hearing a
chance to speak and present written statements. The planning commission also
considered reports and recommendations from the city staff. The planning commission
recommended that the city council approve this request.
WHEREAS, on , 2006, the city council approved this request after
considering the recommendations of staff and the planning commission.
WHEREAS, after the city approves this vacation, the public interest in the
property will go to Mr. Erickson.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the city council approve the above-
described vacation because this utility easement is not needed and, therefore, would
serve no public purpose.
The Maplewood City Council adopted this resolution on
,2006.
7
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
LOCATION:
DATE:
City Manager
Tom Ekstrand, Senior Planner
White Bear Avenue Family Health Center
White Bear Avenue South of County Road B
August 2, 2006
INTRODUCTION
Project Description
DSGW Architects, representing B.I.C. Development Inc., is proposing to build a 40,OOo-square-
foot medical clinic on the vacant property north of 2055 White Bear Avenue. This clinic,
proposed to be the White Bear Avenue Family Health Center, will be a two-story steel-framed
structure with an exterior of brick and rock-face concrete block. Refer to the plans and
applicant's narrative.
Requests
The applicant is requesting the following:
. A conditional use permit (CUP) to build this structure within 350 feet of the residential
property line to the north. The code requires a CUP for buildings in M1 districts that are
closer than 350 feet to residentially-zoned properties. The proposed building would be 190
feet from the abutting residential properties to the north.
. Approval of design plans.
DISCUSSION
Conditional Use Pennit
The proposed use is allowed under the M1 zoning code. The reason for this CUP request is
because the westerly building would be within 350 feet of residential properties. In this situation,
the ordinance requires a CUP so the city council can consider special conditions due to possible
impacts on the abutting residential property. The usual concems with a business adjacent to
residential properties are the potential for noise and visual impacts.
Noise
Staff does not envision a problem with noise from this medical clinic. This clinic should actually
be a very quiet neighbor with regular business hours. The property owner, Mr. Gene Berwald,
said the clinic hours would be typical medical-clinic hours of eight to five or six, Monday through
Friday and pemaps Saturday momings.
Visual Imoacts
The proposed building would be attractive so appearance and quality of design is not an issue.
The only concern staff has is that there be adequate parking-lot screening next to the abutting
residential properties to the north.
The applicant is proposing a planting screen of six-foot-tall Black Hills Spruce. These will
certainly provide sufficient screening when grown. Initially, however, they should be planted in a
double row at 10 feet on center-these would be five feet on center as viewed straight on due to
the double row. The applicant is essentially proposing this, but the plan may need a slight
adjustment to make sure this is accomplished.
The most affected neighbor is the easterly one fronting on White Bear Avenue. This property
has the least existing trees. The applicant should revise the plan to enhance the buffer adjacent
to this property to provide several over-story trees to create a higher landscaped buffer. These
deciduous trees could be incorporated into the plan with the proposed evergreens.
Traffic Impact
Dan Solar, the Ramsey County Traffic Engineer, has reviewed this proposal and commented that
White Bear Avenue has sufficient capacity to handle the additional vehicle trips generated by the
site. Mr. Solar states, however, that left tums into the site could be somewhat problematic until
the county widens White Bear Avenue to provide turn lanes. Mr. Solar said that the county is
anticipating these improvements in the future.
Part of the county's future improvements would include the widening of White Bear Avenue.
Because of this, Mr. Solar requests that the city obtain additional right-of-way to provide a
uniform 65 feet along the entire parcel. Staff recommends that the applicant dedicate this
additional right-of-way width as a roadway easement to accommodate this future widening.
Site Gradina
The applicant is proposing to grade the remaining site that is west of the proposed development.
Staff does not feel this is a good idea. Grading this site would result in barren land that would
need restoration. This summer is evident that dry years would be very bad for reestablishing turf
growth. Staff feels that only minimal grading onto this vacant property should be allowed to
blend the site contours. Staff feels that over-disturbance of this site would only create an
eyesore and erosion and weed potential.
Neiahbor Concems
Only three of the 67 surrounding property owners within 500 feet replied to our survey about this
proposal. The following are the comments received with staffs response:
. Concem over additional traffic. The Ramsey County Traffic Engineer, Dan Solar,
acknowledges that traffic on White Bear Avenue should be improved for more efficient travel.
This means widening the road to provide a center left-tum lane. Mr. Solar, however, feels
that the capacity of White Bear Avenue is sufficient to handle the increased traffic from this
site for the proposed clinic.
2
. Impact on properlY values. The Ramsey County Assessors Office has said that this
proposed clinic would not have a negative impact on residential property values. The
proposed clinic would not be perceived as a detrimental use next to the homes to the north.
. The residential character of the neiahborhood is beina lost. In actuality, this neighborhood is
heavily commercial in character with the exception of the homes along Burke Avenue and the
south side of County Road B. The subject site, furthermore, has been zoned light
manufacturing by the city since 1965. The proposed use as a medical clinic will be more
compatible with the abutting residential lots than light industry which would be allowed on this
property.
. Concem over wetland loss. The applicant will be required to mitigate the wetland they are
losing on their site. The watershed district is requiring that the applicant "replace the lesser-
quality wetland on their site with a higher quality sedge-meadow wetland on the applicant's
abutting lot to the south."
Architectural and Site Considerations
Buildina Desian
The proposed building would be attractive and is designed to be compatible with the nearby
residential homes, the Maplewood Community Center and the Ramsey County Courthouse
across White Bear Avenue.
Setbacks
The proposed site plan meets all setback requirements for the building and parking lot. The front
setbacks are great enough to accommodate any future street widening.
Parkina and Access
Parking requirements would be met. There are 216 parking spaces proposed. Code requires
200. Dan Solar, the Ramsey County Traffic Engineer, recommends that the entrance drive be
widened to 32 feet with adequate tuming radii. The city engineer should approve this design.
The proposed driveway would also connect to an existing driveway at the west end of the
proposed site. This existing driveway would provide a secondary means of access/egress for the
site. This driveway wraps around the existing building on the abutting lot and exits onto
Prosperity Road near the Gateway Trail. Staff does not see a problem with this connection since
the same party owns both properties. If Mr. Berwald sells either property, he should consider the
exchange of cross easements between both properties. Likewise, if the vacant property to the
west of the proposed clinic splits off, cross easements and possibly some pavement removal
may be required.
Site Liahtina
The photometric plan meets light-intensity maximum requirements. The proposed plan limits
light spread to 0.0 foot candles of light intensity at the property lines. Even though the applicant
is meeting light-spread requirements, care should be taken so that bulbs and lenses of light
fixtures are not visible by the neighbors to the north. Staff further recommends that the site lights
be tumed off at night unless required to be on by the police chief for security reasons.
3
Landscaoina
As stated above, staff recommends that the landscaping plan be revised to provide some over-
story trees on the north side of the site to provide some taller screening for the abutting house to
the north which fronts on White Bear Avenue. Staff also recommends that the evergreens
proposed along the north side of the site be a double row planted so that there is no less than a
five-foot spacing of trees when viewed straight on (10 feet on center in each row).
There are seven trees proposed along the front of the site. This is not very many in a distance of
nearly 400 feet. Staff feels that this number should be doubled. This would provide a tree
spacing of a tree 28 to 30 feet on center.
As is always required, the applicant must install an in-ground lawn irrigation system according to
ordinance.
Trash
An outdoor trash enclosure is proposed on the north side of the building. The enclosure would
be rock-face concrete block to match the block on the building.
City Department Comments
Fire Marshal
Butch Gervais, the Maplewood Fire Marshal, made the following comments:
. Provide a 20-foot-wide emergency access road at all times.
. Provide a fire-protection system according to code and have the system monitored.
. Provide a fire-alarm system according to code and have the system monitored.
. Provide a fire-department lock box (get the paper work from the fire marshal).
. Properly mark where any biD-hazard would be located within the building.
Police
Lieutenant Michael Shortreed reviewed this proposal and made several comments as noted in
the attached memo. I have summarized these as follows:
. The site lighting and signage should be designed so not to cause any nuisances for
neighbors.
. The applicant should utilize site security during construction to guard against theft. The
applicant should work with the Maplewood Police Department to plan for an appropriate
security system.
. The use of Prosperity Road is encouraged to limit the use of White Bear Avenue for
construction-activity access whenever possible.
4
BuildinQ Official
Dave Fisher, Maplewood Building Official, reviewed this proposal. Mr. fisher made the following
comments:
. The city will require a complete building code analysis when the construction plans are
submitted to the city for building permits.
. A separate building permit is required for any retaining walls that are over four feet in height.
. Provide adequate fire department access to the building.
. The building must be fire sprinklered.
. It is recommended that the contractor and project manager have a pre-construction meeting
with the building inspection department prior to construction.
Citv Enaineer
Refer to the attached report from Steve Kummer, civil engineer with the city's engineering
department. Mr. Kummer noted several concems regarding grading, drainage, erosion control,
paving and utilities. Largely, these are issues to be resolved with the applicant's civil engineer in
plan revisions. Mr. Kummer has recommended that the applicant provide a maintenance
agreement for all permanent storm water BMPs (best management practice) installed on the site.
The city will write this agreement for the applicant's signature. The applicant should adhere to all
requirements in this engineering report.
SUMMARY
Staff supports this proposal. This clinic would be a compatible neighbor for the abutting
homeowners to the north as opposed to the site's potential for heavier-commercial or light-
industrial uses that would be permitted under the M1 zoning provisions.
RECOMMENDATIONS
A. Adopt the resolution approving a conditional use permit for the vacant property north of 2055
White Bear Avenue. This approval is for a medical clinic in an M1 (light manufacturing)
district that would be within 350 feet of residential property. Approval is based on the findings
required by ordinance and subject to the following conditions:
1. All construction shall follow the site plan that the city has date-stamped July 17, 2006.
The director of community development may approve minor changes.
2. The proposed construction must be substantially started, or the proposed use utilized,
within one year of council approval or the permit shall become null and void. The council
may extend this deadline for one year.
5
3. The city council shall review this permit in one year.
4. All parking-lot lights must have concealed bulbs and lenses so as not to shine into
neighbors' windows. This lighting must not give off more light than a typical residential
wall or yard light. Light-intensity maximums must meet code requirements.
5. Provide a revised landscaping plan that has an evenly spaced/staggered double row of
evergreens along the north property line where the trees are spaced no more than 10 feet
on center in each planted row. The applicant shall also revise the landscaping plan to
provide 14 trees spaced at 30 feet on center along the White Bear Avenue frontage
between the entrance drive and the north lot line. There shall also be two trees planted
south of the entrance drive.
6. The grading of the site to the west is not allowed in order to prevent problems resulting
from difficulty with turf restoration. Grading shall be limited to that necessary to blend
grades between the proposed site and the remaining undeveloped land to the west.
7. The applicant shall comply with all requirements stated in Steve Kummer's engineering
report dated July 28, 2006.
8. Prior to getting a building permit, the applicant shall dedicate a uniform 65 feet of roadway
easement along the entire property frontage for future street widening. This shall be
subject to the approval of the city engineer.
B. Approve the plans date-stamped July 17, 2006, for the proposed White Bear Avenue Family
Health Center north of 2055 White Bear Avenue. Approval is subject to the
applicant/developer complying with the following conditions:
1. Repeat this review in two years if the city has not issued a building permit for this project.
2. Comply with all conditions stated in Steve Kummer's engineering report dated July 28,
2006.
3. Obtain a permit from the RamseylWashington Metro Watershed District before the
issuance of a building permit.
4. Install wetland-protection buffer signs around the mitigated wetland and any contiguous
wetlands if needed by the watershed district. Wetland signs shall be spaced every 100
feet and shall comply with the city's approved sign design requirements.
5. All wetland and drainage and rainwater ponds shall be shall be planted with plantings as
required by the watershed district and the city engineer.
6. The applicant shall enter into a maintenance agreement with the city and the watershed
district for the maintenance of ponds.
6
7. Revise the landscaping plan to provide for an evenly spaced/staggered double row of
evergreens along the north property line where the trees are spaced no more than 10 feet
on center in each planted row. The applicant shall also revise the landscaping plan to
provide 14 trees spaced at 30 feet on center along the White Bear Avenue frontage
between the entrance drive and the north lot line. There shall also be two trees planted
south of the entrance drive.
8. The grading of the site to the west is not allowed in order to prevent problems resulting
from difficulty with turf restoration. Grading shall be limited to that necessary to blend
grades between the proposed site and the remaining undeveloped land to the west.
9. The applicant must provide an in-ground irrigation system as required by code. The area
around the pond does not need to be sprinklered.
10. The roof-top mechanical equipment shall be screened from the view of all residential
properties.
11. All site lights must be properly screened or shielded so the lenses and bulbs are not
visible off site from any home.
12. Provide cash escrow in the amount of 150 percent of the cost of completing the
landscaping and exterior site improvements before the applicant shall obtain a building
permit.
13. The community design review board shall approve major changes to these plans. Minor
changes may be approved by staff.
7
CITIZEN COMMENTS
Staff surveyed the 67 surrounding property owners within 500 feet of the proposed site for their
opinions of this proposal. Three neighbors replied and provided comments. The comments
were primarily about whether White Bear Avenue can handle the additional traffic.
Refer to the attached replies from Health Partners, Carole Lynne of 1723 Burke Avenue and
John and Mildred Grealish of 2111 Prosperity Road.
8
REFERENCE INFORMATION
SITE DESCRIPTION
Site size: 4.5 acres
Existing Use: Undeveloped
SURROUNblNG LAND USES
North:
South:
East:
West:
Single dwellings
A multi-tenant commercial building
White Bear Avenue and the Maplewood Community Center
The undeveloped remainder of the proposed site, Prosperity Road and single dwellings
PLANNING
Land Use Plan: M1
Zoning: M1
Code Reauirements
Section 44-637(b) requires a CUP for buildings in M1 districts that would be within 350 feet of a
residential district.
Findinos for CUP Approval
City code requires that to approve a CUP, the city council must base approval on the nine
required findings for approval. Refer to the attached resolution for a listing of these findings.
APPLICATION DATE
We received the applications and plans for this proposal on July 17, 2006. State law requires
that the city take action within 60 days of receiving complete applications. A decision on this
request is required by September 22, 2006.
9
p:sec4\White Bear Avenue Family Health Clinic 7 06
Attachments
1. Location and Zoning Map
2. Land Use Plan
3. Neighborhood Map
4. Address Map
5. S~e Plan
6. Landscaping Plan
7. Applicanfs Executive Summary dated July 10, 2006
8. Survey Response from Hea~h Partners
9. Survey Response from John and Mildred Grealish
10. Survey Response from Carole Lynne
11. Ramsey County Traffic Engineer's Report dated July 25,2006
12. Police Oepartmenfs Project Review Comments dated July 19, 2006
13. Engineering Departmenfs Project Review Comments Dated July 28, 2006
14. Conditional Use Perm~ Resolution
15. Plans date-stamped July 17, 2006 (separate attachments)
10
I
I
f--
~
l Attachme~t 1
I I~
~
~
4
I
Sherwood Park
ROAD B
~
~
"
z
x
>
~
<<
~
V AN DY~E ST
LOCATION/ZONING MAP
11
Sherwood Park
\Attachme~ 2
I I~
~
~
4
I
ROAD B
I-
~
o
!li
z
z
w
X
I
l
LAND USE MAP
12
l::S ULJ..JL.UU
Sherwood Park I
PROPOSED
WHITE BEAR AVENUE C?
FAMAIL y HEALTH CENTER
>-
~
Cl
"
..
z
z
w
"
w
:>
<l
Ill:
<l
w
lD
w
...
v
:I:
~
000
~pS'~~~\i'<
c.O~~~~
c.~
w
:>
<l
Ill:
<l
w
lD
w
...
:I:
~
NEIGHBORHOOD MAP
I
I
~I
>
Co
Z
..
0>
At!tachment 3
I
~
-
r----
COUNTY ROAD I!I
~~
~t9"~
VAN DYHE ST
13
-
'" N m
"- '"
]CJ ..... III
I-
0 265 -
:z::
Q c:J ~ ~
CD '" 0
'" '" "-
~ ~ ~ ~
Atta ' I
~ [
W00 [
4
CD '" N '" " CD " "
..... OQ '" 8 €J ~ @od:
D 2140
"
D 0 DO 0
€Jew ~ '" ~~
'" '"
:;J ..... .....
~ ~ ~
2134
CD " " N N 0 0
W DE:=] ~ ~ ~w~ 85
100
PROPOSED
CLINIC
SITE
2055
"
CD Cil CiJ [!J ~
~ ..- ..- ..- ..-
)OD AVF
~<)
ADDRESS MAP
III
= 2050
a:
.c
III
m
III
..
14
lIl:
W
I-
wZ
::::lw
zO
w::I:
>1-
<....I
lIl:<
Oc(W
ww::l:
Cl)m~
ow-
11.1-<
O-:Ii
0::;::1:<
11.~u..
z
:s
~
w
I-
-
U)
Attachment 5
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
~
I
I
I i Iii,' I, i
: II'''PI illl
I I : !ldSl '!I.
--' I 1~1'~hl nl"
~: Inillillli~1
~ I ,1I'(I;;J'II~r.!'
~ i 1!~!II~~! i~~ll!!
r.I.l ali !iljl d ,I,lL
~ ill' i~ ILI!1 i iI i~
Z G!l ""!lli' II'IP
r.I.l ~ ~~ii Ii iP.i~ li~! I~
~ ~ ;~iil~I!~i~ ~~~I!~
~ r.I.lz .
r.I.l u~ 3 I I I II i i'
~~:o~ Idlf!nHflH
b ~;! I' ~~~~~~~nfl:~~
;:c rT 1::;: ~ " -.. - . . , . It . . . !
~ """"":::J'Q; ...J IIIII1 DI
::r:~1 5'NIJ.H:>11H:lS:l 'Wd Z9:]tfZ 900Zl0~/9 "11n "MO'93S\f8\OV) ~90I90\~31N3) Hl1\f3H 3^V MV38 31lHM ~SOI90\rOl:ld90\a'f':l\iMo'.I\:S
auHM
-T-....
1
j
15
Il.!!
Ifill
h1j'
Ili!l
!Hi
,
J
\ \ \ .
'II.
1111
z a
~. -~
I~
~ !J
~ '
o
W
N
.'
Uf: UL'd
z
o
'"
'"
o
,-<!,.
to
j-
5
~
o
..
bti
no'o?)
Attachment 6
rL,~
",O-i
,Hi
I:
~
cd
........
P-<
Q,)
p..
cd'
\,)5'
"':;s
roo ~II
~~
cd .
....:l]
liffi
M,,>'( ,UC
...c::
~
>.
.......
.....
~
~
Il)
hII @
Il) S
~ 0
.,
.,
;::
~ ;::
~
Il)
/ ~ "l;l^
0
I~ 0
~
~
~ Ol..
~
16
Attachment 7
l"ltridltni(
r',mllO!tMII;j,o'~
Ihr""l!.lt
(IN'''llrrt,,ri'
July 10, 2006
Executive Swnmary
On behalf of B.I. C. Development Inc. we are pleased to introduce the City of Maplewood
to the proposed White Bear Avenue Family Health Center. The site is zoned as M-I,
light industrial. The owner of the property is planning to construct a 40,000 square foot
commercial office building. The structure will be a two sto1)', steel framed, masonry
veneered building. All zoning requirements for the site will be met, including set-backs,
height restrictions, parking and landscape plantings. There will be some areas within the
property, designated as wetlands that will be filled and replaced on site. The developer
plans on beginning construction late this summer with site preparation and fOWldations.
Final completion is scheduled for the first half of 2007.
Included in the submittal are all the requirements listed in the Conditional Use
Application including: The wetlands delineation, survey, photometric study, exterior
elevations, landscape plan, grading and drainage plan, utility plan, erosion control plan,
storm water nm-off calculations, the list of surrOlmding property owners as well as the
application fee. The developer intends on conducting an informal neighborhood meeting
in advance of the public hearing.
As architect for the project, I am available for questions.
Sincerely,
Randy Wagner, AlA
DSGW Architects
17
Message
Page 1 of!
Attachment 8
Tom Ekstrand
From: Flaaten, Joan K [Joan.K.Flaaten@HealthPartners.Com]
Sent: Wednesday, July 19, 2006 3:49 PM
To: Tom Ekstrand
Subjec1: Development Proposal re: White Bear Avenue Health Center
Thank you for your letter requesting feedback on the development proposal for the White bear Avenue
Health Center. Our main concern that we would like the city to consider is traffic and congestion along
White Bear Avenue. WBL Avenue already has a great deal of traffic at peak times which currently make it
very difficult for people to enter and exit off of. The health center will undoubtedly bring more traffic
volume to this immediate area. The proposal calls for only one entrance/exit which will be along WBL
Avenue at a place where there is no traffic light. During peak times, people exiting out of the parking lot
wanting to go north will need to cross two lanes of south bound traffic and merge which will be very
difficult at times. There looks to be only one lane from which to do this so if you have a driver needing to
go north, you could trap people in the parking lot for quite some time. This is especially true of medical
facilities where they attract more than the average number of frail and elderly who may have an even
more difficult time navigating traffic challenges. If you require everyone to only turn south when exiting,
you will cause some difficulties "down stream" from people doing U turns at some point to get back north
bound.
Summary: With the proximity of a large pharmacy (CVS) and two medical facilities (ours as well as this
development), our main concern is one of safety - especially for challenged populations that will increase
along the White Bear Avenue corridor.
Thank you for your consideration.
Joan Flaaten
HeallhPartners Regional Clinic Director
North East Region
pager/cell: 612-708-8509
This e-mail and any files transmitted with it are confidential and are
intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are
addressed. If you are not the intended recipient or the individual
responsible for delivering the e-mail to the intended recipient, please be
advised that you have received this e-mail in error and that any use,
dissemination, forwarding, printing, or copying of this e-mail is strictly
prohibited.
If you have received this e-Inail in error, please immediately notify the
HealthPartners Support Center by telephone at (952) 967-6600. You will be
reimbursed for reasonable costs incurred in notifying us.
7/20/2006
18
MAPLEWOOD
~
Attachment 9
Together We Can
July 12, 2006
JOHN W GREALlSH
MILDRED A GREALlSH
2111 PROSPERITY RD N
MAPLEWOOD, MN 55109
DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL - WHITE BEAR AVENUE FAMILY HEALTH CENTER
This letter is to get your opinion on a proposal to develop property in your neighborhood.
B.I.C Development is requesting approval to construct a 40,000-square-foot medical office
building on the vacant property on west side of White Bear Avenue across from the Maplewood
Community Center. The proposed clinic would be a two-story brick building. The applicant is
proposing to develop the easterly half of the property. Refer to the attachments.
I would like your opinion to help me prepare a recommendation to the planning commission and
city council. Please write your opinion and comments below and retum this letter, and any
attachments on which you have written comments, by July 21, 2006.
If you would like further information, please call me at 651-249-2302 between 8 a.m. and
4:30 p.m. You can also email meattom.ekstrandtlilci.maolewood.mn.us. I will send you notices
of the public hearing on this request when it is scheduled. Thank you for your comments. I will
give them careful consideration.
0}) ~ aJ:)
RECEIVED
JUL 1 7 2006
TOM EKSTRAND - SENIOR PLANNER
I have no comments:
Comments:
"'"
<<: .&-4-
I
~ ~. Ji~ ^ ~ ~. If,
(}---tvv, . rf,~:;;d~ ~ ~ . '~~cLf L~~
f (J- /'~~,-- ~~~ ~Ju-
flUL ~ ~'-' ~ ~a::t: J ;:2rJ r:;- f ~
cJJ2 ~ ~ cvJ 0-11 Jle( (J ~ \ (
~~~~>>vz~~~. J!~.
~ I i1J~:1-Y
OFFICE OF COMMUNITY DEVEL.OPMENT 651-249-2300 '7);;;;: ~51-249-2319
CITY OF MAPL.EWOOD 1830 COUNTY ROAD BEAST MAPL.EWOOD, MN 55109
19
Attachment 10
July 19, 2006
Tom Ekstrand, Senior Planner
City of Maple wood
Office of Community Development
1830 County Road B East
Maplewood, MN 55109
Dear Mr. Ekstrand:
As a residential homeowner in Maplewood, I am very concerned about the safety and the
value of my residence. The proposed White Bear Avenue Family Health Center on
White Bear Avenue threatens my property in the following manner:
A. The safety of all residences on Burke Avenue between White Bear Avenue and
Prosperity Avenue will be compromised by additional traffic. As clients of the
Center drive up Phalen Parkway to Prosperity they most probably will detour east
on Burke Avenue rather than use the stop sign on Prosperity and light semi fore on
White Bear Avenue.
B. I pay residential homeowner taxes to live in a residential area. With the recent
addition of the CVS Drug Store, the proposed health center, along with the existing
Maplewood Community Center, the Health Partners Clinic, and the Day Old Bread
Store, my residential neighborhood is taking on the look ofa commercial area.
C. The executive summary received stated that "some areas within the property,
designated as wetlands that will be filled and replaced on site." What do they
mean? Our neighborhood has a ground water problem today. I request an
Environmental Impact Study (EIS) before this proposal moves forward.
My neighborhood is being separated from the rest of the residential community. For
Burke Avenue to retain its appearance and residential presence, I strongly recommend
that Burke Avenue be closed at White Bear Avenue and that a cull de sac similar to
Flandrau Street at White Bear Avenue be constructed at Burke Avenue and White Bear
Avenue.
Sincerely yours,
Carole Lynne
1723 E Burke Ave
Maplewood MN 55109
20
Attachment 11
-
~
RAMSEYCOUNlY
Department of Public Works
Kenneth G. Haider, P.E., Director and County Engineer
1425 Paul Kirkwold Drive
Arden Hills, MN 55112-3933. (651) 266-7100. Fax (651) 266-7110
E-mail: Public.Works@co.ramsey.mn.us
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Tom Ekstrand
City of Maplewood
Dan SOIW", ..A.-
Ramsey C~YyPublic Works
FROM:
SUBJECT: White Bear Avenue Family Health Center
DATE:
July 25, 2006
The Ramsey County Public Works Department has reviewed the site plan for the proposed White
Bear A venue Family Health Center on White Bear A venue south of County Road B in the City
of Maplewood. Ramsey County has the following comments regarding this proposal.
1. The property owner is proposing the construction of a 40,000 square foot medical office
building on the site. The property is currently undeveloped. The proposed use will generate
new trips to White Bear Avenue. The existing traffic volume on White Bear Avenue between
Frost Avenue and County Road B is 22,700 vehicles per day. The existing roadway has
adequate capacity to handle additional trips generated by the site; however, this section of
White Bear Avenue does not have left turn lanes and turning into the existing access points
along this section has been problematic. The City and County have discussed a future project
to widen White Bear Avenue between Frost Avenue and County Road B to provide left turn
lanes for the Community Center and other access points.
2. The site plan identifies one new access point on White Bear Avenue across from the entrance
to the community center. The County concurs with the proposed location of this new
driveway. The access width should be 32 feet wide with adequate radii to allow easy turning
movements into and out of the driveway.
3. The existing right of way along the front of this property varies. The north end of this
property has only 33 feet of right of way. The City should consider the acquisition of
additional right of way to provide a uniform 65 feet along the entire parcel. Future widening
of White Bear A venue as discussed above will make this right of way necessary.
4. The developer will also need permits from the County for access construction and for any
utility work within County right-of-way.
Thanks for the opportunity to make comments regarding this issue. If you have any questions or
need any additional information please give me a call.
Minnesota's First Home Rule County
21
printed on reryded papt'r willl a minimum of)l)% post-rolloumer content.
e>
Attachment 12
Maplewood Police Department
Memo
To: Tom Ekstrand
From: Lt. Michael Shortreed 1/1'I1'.4 :/If). 77
Date: July 19, 2006
Reo PROJECT REVIEW - White Bear Avenue Health Clinic
After reviewing the attached proposal for the White Bear Avenue Health Ciinic project,
I have the following comments and suggestions:
1) Appropriate iighting and signs should be incorporated into the project to assure that the
concems of residents in the development area are met up front, instead of require them
to seek them at a later date.
2) Construction site thefts and burglaries are a large business affecting many large
construction projects throughout the Twin Cities metro area. The contractor should be
encouraged to plan and provide for site security during the construction process. On-site
security, alarm systems, and any other appropriate security measures would be highly
encouraged to deter and report theft and suspicious activity incidents in a timely manner.
3) The project should include adequate entry and exit routes to the facility. It would be
preferred to have an entry/exit access off of Prosperity Avenue. Ciients accessing the
facility off of southbound Wh~e Bear Avenue will not have much of a problem. However,
ciients accessing the faciiity off of northbound White Bear Avenue will be more likely to
be involved in a traffic crash due to the high volume of vehicular traffic on the road. Also,
the speed limit increases from 35 miles per to 40 miles per hour just prior to the proposed
facility, which may also cause further traffic crashes as a result of northbound vehicles
stopping to wait to tum ieft into the facility. Clients exiting the facility should be directed to
turn southbound on White Bear Avenue in order to avoid any crossover traffic into the
northbound lanes.
If there are any questions or concerns regarding these comments or suggestions, please
contact me at your soonest convenience. I can be reached via phone at (651 )249-2605 or
via email atmichael.shortreed@ci.maplewood.mn.us.
22
Attachment 13
Page I of6
Enl!ineerinl! Plan Review
PROJECT:
PROJECT NO:
REVIEWED BY:
White Bear Avenue Medical Building
06-18
Steven L. Kummer, P.E., Civil Engineer n
City of Maplewood Engineering Department
DATE:
July 28, 2006
Summary
Gunderson construction in conjunction with B.I.C. Development (Ken and Gene Berwald) and
DSGW Architects are proposing to build a 2-story, 40,000 square-foot commerciallmedica1
office building on an approximately 4-acre vacant parcel of land along the west side of White
Bear Avenue across from the Maplewood Community Center.
Vehicle ingress/egress for the facility will be from White Bear Avenue and will be aligned with
the existing north Community Center ingress/egress from White Bear Avenue. Parking for the
facility will consist of 216 stalls including 9 stalls dedicated for the handicapped. The parking
lot will be edged with typical concrete barrier curb.
The existing vacant parcel ofland consists mostly of mown grass with two delineated wetland
basins and a drainage ditch along the west side of White Bear Avenue. By the City of
Maplewood wetland classification system, they are Class 5 wetlands. By Ramsey Washington
Metro Watershed District classification standards, they are considered "Manage Co. wetlands.
The developer proposes to fill in a portion of the northeastern wetland on the property and build
a mitigation area to the south of the proposed development.
Storm water runoff from the proposed development will be accommodated by a series of
filtration basins along the periphery of the parking lot. The designer has chosen to use draintile
under each of the basins due to soils unsuitable to infiltration. Storm water computations
indicate that the developer intends to treat a minimum of 1.0 inches of runoff from the proposed
development. Storm water will be conveyed to each basin from the parking lot by curb cuts and
concrete swales. It appears that the building roofwill be internally drained and routed by pipe to
a basin.
Water service to the building for both fire protection and domestic usage will be supplied by a
single 6-inch dip service. Water service is already supplied to the property from a l6-inch water
main on Prosperity Avenue. A tap to an existing water main on the property will be made to
accommodate the new 6-inch water service. A fire hydrant will be installed on the property in a
parking lot island located near the southwest comer of the building.
Sanitary sewer service will be provided by an exterior lift station and forcemain system. The
sewage will be pumped to a nearby 8-inch sanitary sewer main in Prosperity Avenue. The lift
station will be sized to accommodate the proposed development along with future development
to the west.
23
Page 20f6
Following are comments on the plans and storm water computations submitted for review that
are to be addressed:
Grading & Drainage Comments
1. It appears that the developer intends on grading the area to the west of the new
building and parking lot as preparation for future development. Pulling the 910
contour back from the existing 908 contour results in a very flat slope (less than 1 %
in areas). Given the wet soils characteristics of the area, this may be a problem for
mowing and interim maintenance until the area is developed. The project engineer
shall grade a swale back from the 908 contour down to the 902 contoured "low" area
to promote better positive drainage from the west side of the site. A minimum slope
of 1.5% is suggested.
2. The project engineer shall show a more defined swale along the west side of the
parking lot down to the proposed flared-end inlet. A minimum slope of 1.5% is
suggested.
3. It appears that the grading plan assumes that all proposed spot elevations along the
curb line are gutter line elevations. However, the project engineer shall clarify either
in plan notes or in plan view if spot elevations are top of curb or gutter line
elevations.
4. The project engineer needs to include more spot elevation data on the plans showing
that the proposed walkways do not exceed a maximum 2% cross slope. Longitudinal
slopes to door entries shall not exceed a 5% maximum slope.
5. The project engineer/architect shall indicate pedestrian ramps or drop-curb areas on
the plan, especially in front of the proposed entries and other areas where sidewalks
will ramp down to the parking lot. A detectable surface shall be provided. A plan
detail showing ramp construction shall also be provided.
6. The project engineer shall verify that all gutters carrying longitudinal drainage toward
drainage curb cuts have a minimum slope of 0.50%.
7. Use of concrete spillways at the edge of the parking lot provides a clean drainage way
from a curbed parking area and is desirable over using a grass swale at the edge of the
curb. The section view on the standard detail for the spillways seems to indicate a
"lip" at the gutter line. This "lip" shall be eliminated so a bird bath does not form at
each low point. Indicate an isolation joint detail between the curb and the spillway
slab.
8. The project engineer shall indicate spot elevations at the driveway entry such that
gutter drainage from White Bear Avenue does not enter the site.
24
Page 3 of6
9. The project engineer shall indicate emergency overflow (EOF) elevations and
locations for each ponding basin.
10. The north parking lot for the existing building appears to have an existing low point
with a catch basin with a pipe lead to the existing south wetland. The project
engineer shall show the existing pipe and catch basin on the plan and also indicate
that the modifications to the existing parking lot will provide positive drainage toward
the proposed low point.
11. The project engineer shall modify General Note #S on sheet C 1 to have the City
Public Works department notified at (6S 1) 249-2400 twenty-four (24) hours prior to
interruption of water service to existing homes and businesses. A note should also be
added indicating that Public Works should be notified 48 hours prior to start of any
earthmoving operations for inspection and approval of installation of temporary
erosion control measures. Grading of the site will not be allowed to commence until
the City approves the measures installed in the field.
Storm Water Management
1. Two separate computations were done to determine the volume of runoff from the
1.0-inch rainfall event: One assuming a total site acreage of 11.0 acres and one
assuming 4.0 acres. The developer and project engineer should be advised that if the
western parcel is developed (resulting in additional impervious surface), then a
computation for the new site will need to be done to determine treatment volume for
the new impervious surface created.
2. According to the computations, it appears that the filtration area for Drainage Basin
#7 may be short of treatment storage for the 1.0-inch event. It is suggested that the
project engineer shift the northern grade break between Basin #7 and Basin #S to
direct more of the flow toward Basin #S or increase the volume of Basin #7.
3. The project engineer shall include the flow from the draintile under each basin in the
total outflow and rate control computations. It appears that the computations are
assuming that the filtration flow from the bottom of the basin is to be discarded,
which is not the case.
4. Provide flow computations for the dual 30" culverts and 24" culvert under the
proposed drive entry.
S. Based on the areas shown on the plan, it appears that the proposed wetland mitigation
at a 2: 1 ratio has been met with the mitigation area to the south of the site. It is
recommended that the developer abide by the plan for establishment and mitigation of
the new wetland area.
25
Page 4 of6
6. The City will require a maintenance agreement for all permanent storm water BMP's
installed on site. The City will write up an agreement for signature by the property
owner and the City.
7. A planting/landscaping plan is required for the ponding area and must be reviewed by
Virginia Gaynor with the Nature Center staff. Her phone number is (651) 249-2180.
If pond grading will occur in one year and planting will occur the next year, then
seeding types and temporary establishment requirements will need to be specified for
the interim period (refer to Mn/DOT 2575 and 3876).
8. The project engineer shall verify that all HWL's on the plan are consistent with the
HydroCAD computations. For example the HWL for the wetland mitigation appears
to be a 901.86 while the HydroCAD computations show a 902.42.
9. The developer shall submit geotechnical report and soil boring logs.
Erosion Control
1. It is assumed that rough grading and building construction will begin prior to
preparation of subgrade soils for the parking lot. The project engineer shall submit an
interim erosion control staging plan showing the protection of remaining wetland
areas that will not be filled in as part of this proposed development.
2. The Rock Construction Entrance detail should conform to City of Maple wood Std.
Plate 350. For example, the minimum length of a rock entrance pad should be 75
feet, overlaid on geotextile fabric, and indicated as such in plan view.
3. The critical curb inlets along White Bear Avenue are actually "LP4" structures. The
project engineer shall detail an erosion control measure that will protect the curb inlet
structures along White Bear Avenue and not interfere with traffic flow.
4. An erosion control measure such as staked heavy-duty silt fence around all existing
and proposed flared-end sections shall be indicated in plan view.
5. The project engineer shall specify a rock log or mulch log for protecting all installed
curb cuts to surrounding ponding basins until the pavement base course is established.
6. The project engineer shall specify the use ofa pick-up broom or vacuum sweeper for
street cleaning.
7. The project engineer shall specify erosion control blankets compliant with Mn/DOT
3885 on all proposed slopes that are 3: 1 or greater. This includes the 3: 1 slopes along
proposed filtration basins that will be used on the ponding area. Show anchoring
details for the blanket.
26
Page 5 of6
8. The project engineer shall specify updated native seed mixtures per the 2005
Mn/DOT Standard Specifications for Construction.
Utilities
1. The project engineer shall 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. Water flow and pressure computations will need to be provided for minimum fire
protection flow pressures at the building. The project engineer shall contact SPRWS
and the City Building Department for design assumptions and requirements.
3. All pertinent water installation details shall conform to SPRWS standards and
specifications.
4. The project engineer shall specify materials and slope of the roof drain leads from the
building. Provide end-section treatments and cleanouts for each of the leads. Follow
all Minnesota Department of Health rules for pipe slope, size and materials.
5. The plans call for a proposed lift station to service the property for sanitary sewerage.
The City will not allow another force main connection into the manhole in Prosperity
Avenue. The following is recommended to the project engineer: Build a manhole on
private property that gravity drains to the existing manhole on prosperity; re-route the
existing force main and the proposed force main to the new private manhole. Provide
the necessary details for the proposed manhole and sewer construction.
6. The project engineer is to specify the materials and size for the proposed force main.
Also, provide computations and details pertaining to the proposed lift station
construction and capacity.
7. It appears from the survey that no easement has been placed over the existing sanitary
sewer force main from the existing building to the south. The developer shall obtain
two 20-foot easements for both the existing and proposed sanitary sewer force mains.
Should the developer place the force mains in the same trench, then one 30-foot
easement over both force mains shall be obtained.
Geometrics and Paving
1. The project engineer shall submit a separate geometrics and paving plan. The plan
shall include typical parking stall dimensions, curve radii, light-duty and heavy-duty
pavement areas, stall counts, curb type, sidewalk widths, sidewalk pavement section,
handicapped ramp design and other details pertinent to the site layout and geometrics.
27
Page 6 of6
2. The driveway width shall be 32 feet with adequate radii to accommodate easy
movement of traffic in and out of the site.
Preliminary Nature Center Comments (Ginny Gaynor - (651) 249-2180)
I. Seed mixes for ponds, infiltration areas, and wetland buffers should be native MN
seed mixes. The mixes indicated in the Wetland Permit Application (W4, US, WI)
are appropriate. 30B (330), 28B (250) indicated on the design are not appropriate for
these areas. Other MNDOT mixes that are appropriate if matched to moisture and
soil conditions are:
MN DOT Mix 310 - Native Wet Tall
MN DOT Mix 325 - Prairie Sedge Meadow
MN DOT Mix 330 - Native, Sandy Short
MN DOT Mix 340 - Native, Sandy Mid-Height
MN DOT Mix 350 - Native General Roadside
In all MNDOT mixes, forbs should be 2 Ibs/acre, not .6 Ibs/acre.
2. Filtration basins/rain gardens. Due to the difficulty of establishing rain gardens by
seed and the proximity of the gardens to the street and building, three of the basins (2
on White Bear, I on south side of building) should be planted with plugs and/or 4"
pots at a minimum of 18" on center. The fourth basin may be seeded, however,
using plants is preferable since it will ensure success and establishment will be
quicker.
3. The existing wetland/stormponds are classified by RWMWD as Class C wetlands.
RWMWD is looking at a 25' buffer but City of Maplewood's wetland ordinance
committee is looking at proposing a 50' buffer for Class C wetlands, with no
averaging. A 50' buffer for the newly created wetland is recommended.
Miscellaneous
I. The project engineer shall note any utility discrepancies with the topographic survey on
the plan sheets.
2. The developer shall submit a copy of the MPCA's construction stormwater permit
(SWPPP and NPDES) to the city. No grading permit will be issued without the permit.
3. The owner and project engineer shall satisfY the requirements of all permitting agencies
including Watershed district requirements. The project engineer shall provide a copy of
the approved Watershed permit to the City.
4. The project engineers shall note in the detail descriptions any City of Maple wood or
SPRWS details that the project engineer copies or uses in these plans.
28
Attachment 14
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION
WHEREAS, B.I.C. Development Inc. applied for a conditional use permit to construct a
medical office building within 350 feet of residentially-zoned property. The proposed building
would be set back a distance of 190 feet from the abutting residential district.
WHEREAS, this permit applies to the vacant property north of 2055 White Bear Avenue.
The legal description is:
WHEREAS, the history of this conditional use permit is as follows:
1. On August 7, 2006, the planning commission recommended that the city council
this permit. The planning commission held a public hearing. City staff
published a notice in the paper and sent notices to the surrounding property
owners as required by law. The planning commission gave everyone at the
hearing a chance to speak and present written statements.
2. The city council reviewed this request on ,2006. The council
considered reports and recommendations of the city staff and planning
commission.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the city council approve the above-
described conditional use permit because:
1. The use would be located, designed, maintained, constructed and operated to be in
conformity with the City's Comprehensive Plan and Code of Ordinances.
2. The use would not change the existing or planned character of the surrounding area.
3. The use would not depreciate property values.
4. The use would not involve any activity, process, materials, equipment or methods of
operation that would be dangerous, hazardous, detrimental, disturbing or cause a
nuisance to any person or property, because of excessive noise, glare, smoke, dust,
odor, fumes, water or air pollution, drainage, water run-off, vibration, general
unsightliness, electrical interference or other nuisances.
5. The use would generate only minimal vehicular traffic on local streets and would not
create traffic congestion or unsafe access on existing or proposed streets.
6. The use would be served by adequate public facilities and services, including streets,
police and fire protection, drainage structures, water and sewer systems, schools and
parks.
7. The use would not create excessive additional costs for public facilities or services.
29
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 site plan that the city has date-stamped July 17, 2006.
The director of community development may approve minor changes.
2. The proposed construction must be substantially started, or the proposed use utilized,
within one year of council approval or the permit shall become null and void. The council
may extend this deadline for one year.
3. The city council shall review this permit in one year.
4. All parking lot lights must have concealed bulbs and lenses so as not to shine into
neighbors' windows. This lighting must not give off more light than a typical residential
wall or yard light. Light-intensity maximums must meet code requirements.
5. Provide a revised landscaping plan that has an evenly spaced/staggered double row of
evergreens along the north property line where the trees are spaced no more than 10 feet
on center in each planted row. The applicant shall also revise the landscaping plan to
provide 14 trees spaced at 30 feet on center along the White Bear Avenue frontage
between the entrance drive and the north lot line. There shall also be two trees planted
south of the entrance drive.
6. The grading of the site to the west is not allowed to prevent problems resulting from
difficulty with turf restoration. Grading shall be limited to that necessary to blend grades
between the proposed site and the remaining undeveloped land to the west.
7. The applicant shall comply with all requirements stated in Steve Kummer's engineering
report dated July 28, 2006.
8. Prior to getting a building permit, the applicant shall dedicate a uniform 65 feet of roadway
easement along the entire property frontage for future street widening. This shall be
subject to the approval of the city engineer.
The Maplewood City Council
this resolution on
30
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
PROJECT:
LOCATION:
DATE:
City Manager
Ken Roberts, Planner
Conditional Use Permit Revision and Design Approval
Hill-Murray High School
2625 Larpenteur Avenue East
July 26, 2006
INTRODUCTION
Project Description
Rafferty, Rafferty, Tollefson, Undeke Architects, representing Hill-Murray School, is requesting city
approval of the following:
1. Revisions to the conditional use permit (CUP). They are proposing changes to the
approved plans for the school. The city code requires a CUP for schools.
2. Design approval for an addition to the east side of the field house on the school. This
includes the architectural, site and landscape plans for the project.
Refer to the project narrative on pages 10 and 11, the maps on pages 12 - 20 and the plans
(separate attachment). Specifically, they want to:
1. Put a 31 ,SOO-square-foot addition onto the east side of the field house for additional gym
and locker room space.
2. Renovate and remodel the interior of the existing athletics building.
BACKGROUND
On November 13, 2001, the city council approved a CUP revision and the design plans for an
addition for the school. This revision was for plans for an addition on the west side of the school
that included a chapel and a student entrance.
DISCUSSION
Conditional Use Pennit Revisions
The proposed field house addition meets the findings for CUP approval and would be compatible
with the existing school and the development in the area. None of the proposed changes nor the
addition should cause any problems for the city or for the neighbors.
1
Design Considerations
Buildina Aesthetics
The proposed field house addition should be compatible with the existing field house. As
proposed, the contractor would construct the new field house from precast concrete wall panels.
These panels would have a raked and banded finish and would have several six-foot-by-six-foot
windows near the top. The plans note that these panels will be of a color to match the color of the
brick in the school. In addition, the project plans show the contractor painting the existing field
house a color similar to the campus brick color to match the exterior of the new addition. (See the
proposed building elevations in the enclosed project plans.) It should be noted that the existing
field house was constructed with precast concrete wall panels and that the proposed addition
would not be visible from any public street as it will be north of the existing school building.
Parkino Considerations
The school is not proposing an increase in their student population with this project. As such, this
project will not create a need for additional parking for the school.
On May 26, 2006, staff approved the plans for Hill-Murray to make improvements and changes to
their existing parking lots and driveways. These changes will improve traffic flow and will add more
off street parking for Hill-Murray. The approved changes include restriping the existing west parking
lot and adding a new driveway and 44 more off-street parking spaces on the east side of the
existing school. (See the project plans for this part of the site on pages 21 and 22.) The contractor
has started installing these improvements with the hope of having the new driveway and parking
spaces ready for the upcoming school year.
Landscapino
This project will be removing an existing tennis court and should not require the removal of any
trees from the site. The proposed plans show the applicant planting nine clumps of river birch on
the south and east sides of the new addition. The applicant, however, did not provide the sizes of
the proposed trees nor any landscaping plans or details for the new storm water pond. Steve
Kummer of the Maplewood engineering department is requiring the applicant to submit to the city a
detailed landscaping plan for the area in and near the new storm water pond on the west side of
the field house addition. The other existing trees in and around the school and around the existing
and proposed parking lots would provide sufficient landscaping.
Roof-Eauipment Screenino
Roof-top mechanical equipment that is visible from residential properties must be screened from
view. New equipment that is visible, but not visible from residential properties, must be painted to
match the building color.
Fire Marshal Comments
1. It will have to have a fire protection (sprinkler) system per code and be monitored.
2. A fire alarm system will be required in the field house - per code and be monitored.
3. An audible alarm notification system will be required.
4. A fire department lockbox is required.
5. Provide adequate emergency vehicle access at all times.
2
Exterior Liahtina
The project architect told me that the only additional exterior lighting they would be adding with this
project is wall pack lights over the new exit doors.
RECOMMENDATIONS
A. Adopt the resolution on pages 30 - 32. This resolution approves revisions for the
conditional use permit for Hill-Murray school and athletic facilities at 2625 Larpenteur
Avenue East. The city bases this approval on the findings required by ordinance. This
approval is subject to conditions of approval adopted by the city council on November 13,
2001, subject to the following revisions (I have crossed out the deletions and under1ined the
additions):
1. All construction shall follow the plans as noted below:
a. For the athletic fields, follow the plans date-stamped March 6, 1998.
b. For the school and parking lot addition, follow the plans date-stamped May
19, 1999.
c. For the chapel addition, follow the plans date-stamped October 1, 2001.
d. For the field house. follow the plans dated June 28. 2006. These plans shall
meet all the conditions and chanoes reauired bv the city enaineerino
department.
The interim director of community development may approve minor changes.
2. The proposed construction for the mapel field house addition must be substantially
started within one year of council approval or the permit revision shall end. The
council may extend this deadline for one year.
3. The city council shall review this permit annually to monitor the traffic and parking
situations related to the use of the athletic fields.
4. Any new lights shall be installed to meet the city code. This requires that they be
screened or aimed so they do not cause any light-glare problems on streets or
residential properties.
5. Post and maintain signs on the edge of the wetland-protection buffer prohibiting any
building, mowing, cutting, filling or dumping within the buffer. Wetland buffer signs
in the mowed area shall be placed at the edge of the lawn.
6. That portion of the proposed walking/running path that is within 50 feet of the
wetland shall be built with a perVious material.
7. Ensure that all bleachers and dugouts are at least 30 feet from the Ster1ing Street
and Larpenteur Avenue right-of-wayS.
3
8. The city may require the applicant to plant 30 native species of trees for screening
between the playing fields and the homes on Knoll Circle, as may be determined at
a future hearing on the conditional use permit.
9. The school shall prepare for city approval a turf management plan for the athletic
fields. This plan shall include the mowing, watering and fertilizing practices that the
school will follow in the care of their athletic fields and grounds. The school shall
prepare and follow the plan so the practices will minimize the impact of the storm
water run off on the nearby wetlands.
10. Submit a grading and drainage plan for watershed district approval to provide
sedimentation control at the storm water discharge point before it dumps into the
south wetland area.
11. The scheel sl:lall S'....eep aAd reslFipe the west paFkiAg let before AUgllst 15, 2002.
B. Approve the project plans date-stamped June 28, 2006, (site plan, landscape plan, grading
and drainage plans and building elevations) for the field house addition at Hill-Murray School
at 2625 Larpenteur Avenue. The city bases this approval on the findings required by the
code. The developer or contractor shall do the following:
1. Repeat this review in two years if the city has not issued a building permit for this
project.
2. Complete the following before the city issues a building permit:
a. Have the city engineer approve final construction and engineering plans. These plans
shall include: grading, utility, drainage, erosion control, tree and sidewalk plans. The
plans shall meet the following conditions and shall meet all the conditions and changes
noted in Steve Kummer's memo dated July 14, 2006.
(1) The erosion control plan shall be consistent with city code.
(2) The grading plan shall:
(a) Include building, floor elevation and contour information for the site and for
the building addition.
(b) Include contour information for the land that the construction will disturb.
(c) Show all retaining walls on the plans. Any retaining walls more than four feet
tall require a building permit from the city and shall have a fence along the
top.
(d) Show the drainage areas, and the developer's engineer shall provide the city
engineer with the drainage calculations. The drainage design shall
accommodate the run off from the surrounding areas.
(3) The design of the ponding area and any rainwater garden(s) shall be subject to the
approval of the city engineer.
4
b. Submit a certificate of survey for all new construction.
c. Submit a revised landscape plan to staff for approval that incorporates the following
details:
(1) All lawn areas shall be sodded. The city engineer shall determine the vegetation
within the ponding area.
(2) The contractor shall install landscaping in the ponding area to promote infiltration.
Such landscaping shall be approved by the city engineer and shall be shown on the
project landscape plans.
(3) That shows the manicured or mowed areas from the natural areas. This shall
include planting (instead of sodding) the disturbed areas around the ponding area
with native grasses and native flowering plants. The native grasses and flowering
plants shall be those needing little or no maintenance and shall extend at least four
feet from the ordinary high water mark (OHWM) of the pond. This is to reduce
maintenance costs and to reduce the temptation of mowers to encroach into the
garden.
(4) It shall be approved by the city engineer before site grading and shall be consistent
with the approved grading and landscape plans.
(5) Showing the birch clumps being at least 2 Y:z inches in diameter.
d. Have the Saint Paul Regional Water Services (SPRWS) approve the proposed utility
plans.
e. Provide the city with a letter of credit or cash escrow for all required exterior
improvements. The amount shall be 150 percent of the cost of the work.
3. Complete the following before occupying the building addition:
a. Replace property irons that are removed because of this construction.
b. Install reflectorized stop signs at all exits, a handicap-parking sign for each handicap-
parking space and an address on the building.
c. Post a "no left tum" sign at the easterly curb cut.
d. Paint the roof-top mechanical equipment to match the building color if the units are
visible. The applicant shall provide screening enclosures around the units if they are
visible from residential properties.
e. Meet all the requirements of the fire marshal.
f. Restore and sod damaged boulevards and sod all turf areas.
g. Complete all landscaping and turf irrigation for the building addition.
5
h. Install and maintain all required trees and landscaping (including the plantings around
the pond) and an in-ground sprinkler system for all landscaped areas (code
requirement).
i. Install on-site lighting for security and visibility that follows the approved site lighting
plan. All exterior lighting shall follow the approved lighting plan that shows the light
spread and fixture design. The light fixtures must have concealed lenses and bulbs to
properly shield glare from the adjacent street right-of-ways and residential properties.
j. Install all the required exterior improvements, including all exterior lighting.
k. The developer or contractor shall:
(1) Complete all grading for the site drainage and meet all city requirements.
(2) Place temporary orange safety fencing and signs at the grading limits.
4. If any required work is not done, the city may allow temporary occupancy if:
a. The city determines that the work is not essential to the public health, safety or
welfare.
b. The above-required letter of credit or cash escrow is held by the city for all required
exterior improvements. The owner or contractpr shall complete any unfinished
landscaping by June 1 of the next year if the building is occupied in the fall or
winter, or within six weeks of occupancy if the building is occupied in the spring or
summer.
5. All work shall follow the approved plans. The director of community development may
approve minor changes.
6. This approval does not include signs. Any signage will be reviewed by city staff
through the sign permit process.
6
CITIZENS' COMMENTS
I surveyed the owners of the 50 properties within 500 feet of this site. Of the three replies, two
were in support of the project and one had comments.
For
1. Sounds like a good idea. I have lived across from Hill-Murray for 15 years and do not mind it at
all. Great school. (Voigt - 2520 Larpenteur Avenue)
2. I am completely in favor of the proposed athJetic facilities improvement requested by Hill-Murray.
(Schultz - 2470 Ripley Avenue, North Saint Paul)
Comments/Questions
1. Thanks for all the information. Our main concern is that we maintain the wetland spaces as
much as possible and continue to preserve our open spaces. It is encouraging to see the use
of natural storm water filtering. We had heard of proposals earlier that would have impacted the
environment more with new roads. It looks as if that is not a part of this proposal. (Blake - 2462
Ripley Avenue)
REFERENCEINFORMAllON
SI1E DESCRIPTION
Site size: 47 acres
Existing land use: Hill-Murray High School and athletic fields
SURROUNDING LAND USES
North: Single dwellings and undeveloped property zoned F (farm residential)
South: Larpenteur Avenue and single dwellings
West: Sterling Street, ponds and The MapIewoods Apartments
East: St. Paul Priory
PAST ACTIONS
August 24. 1992: Council approved a sign size variance for a 99-square-foot wall sign for HiII-
Murray. At the time the code allowed 24 square feet.
On April 8, 1996, the city council approved a conditional use permit (CUP) for Hill-Murray to make
changes and improvements to their athletic fields. This approval was subject to ten conditions.
On July 14, 1997, the city COl8lCiI reviewed the CUP for H~urray. At this meeting, the council
changed Condition 8 of the 1996 approval to read as follows: "Applicant may be required to plant
30 native species of trees for screening between the playing fields and the homes on Knoll Circle,
as may be determined at a future hearing on the conditional use permit. .
7
On May 11, 1998, the city council approved a wetland buffer setback variance and a conditional
use permit revision for the Hill-Murray athletic facilities. These requests were to update and revise
the plans that the city had approved for the school's athletic facilities in 1996 and in 1997 and were
subject to several conditions.
On June 28, 1999, the city oounciI approved the following for HiD-Murray High School:
1. Revisions to the conditional use permit (CUP). They proposed several changes to the
approved plans for the school. The city code requires a CUP for schools. This approval was
for the school to replace and expand the school's main entry, which they have now completed.
The school also proposed an expanded parking lot on the east side of the school building.
2. The designs for an addition to the main entry of the school. This included the architectural, site
and landscape plans for the project.
PLANNING:
land Use Plan designation: S (school)
Zoning: R-3 (multiple dwelling residential)
Ordinance Requirements
Section 44-1092(3) requires a CUP for schools.
Section 44-1103(b) requires a CUP to enlarge a use for which a CUP is required.
Criteria for Conditional Use Permit Approval
Section 44-1097(a) states that the city council may approve a CUP, based on nine standards. (See
findings 1-9 in the resolution on pages 30 through 32.)
Ordinance Requirements
Section 2-29O(b) of the city code requires that the community design review board make the
following findings to approve plans:
1. That the design and location of the proposed development and its relationship to neighboring,
existing or proposed developments, and traffic is such that it will not impair the desirability of
investment or occupation in the neighborhood; that it wiD not unreasonably interfere with the use
and enjoyment of neighboring, existing or proposed developments; and that it will not create
traffic hazards or congestion.
2. That the design and location of the proposed development is in keeping with the character of the
surrounding neighborhood and is not detlit.lElIltaI to the hannonious, orderty and attractive
development contemplated by this article and the city's comprehensive municipal plan.
3. That the design and location of the proposed development would provide a desirable
environment for its occupants, as well as for its neighbors, and that it is aesthetically of good
composition, materials, textures and colors.
8
Application Date
The city received the complete applications and plans for this development on June 28, 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 August 28, 2006,
unless the applicant agrees to a time extension.
p: See 13-29/hill-murray cup revision - 2006
Attachments:
1 . Project Narrative
2. Location Map
3. Area Map
4. Site Survey
5. Proposed Site Plan
6. Proposed Floor Plan
7. Proposed Grading Plan
8. Proposed Utility Plan
9. Proposed Building Bevations
10. Proposed Building Elevations
11 . Parking Lot and Driveway Site Plan Details
12. Parking Lot and Driveway Grading Plan
13. Comments dated July 14, 2006 from Steve Kummer
14. Comments dated July 6, 2006 from David Fisher
15. Comments dated July 12, 2006 from Michael Shortreed
16. CondiIionaI Use Pennit Revision ResoIutioIl
17. Project Plans (Separate Attachment)
9
Attachment 1
Hill-Murray School Athletics Facility Improvements
Project Narrative
Prepared by Rafferty Rafferty Tollefson Lindeke Architects
06/23/2006
Proiect Scope
This is a two-part project designed to improve the Hill-Murray School's Athletics
Facility. The project includes renovation of the 25,900 GSF single-level existing
Athletics building. A 31,500 GSF single-story addition will contain the new Fieldhouse
and Locker Room facilities. Total construction cost is estimated to be approximately
$ 4.6 Million.
In addition to the utility work, there will only be minimal site work on this project-
including tree-planting and minor sidewalks.
Backl!round
Hill-Murray School is currently experiencing a space shortage for its Athletics program
and Physical Education curriculum. The existing facility does not provide enough room
for the amount of students and programs it serves.
The proposed improvements in the project would benefit the school in the following
areas:
1. Adequate practice and competition facilities to promote Gender Equity in the
Athletics program.
2. Improve safety and special needs access for students, staff, and visitors.
3. The consolidation of sports-related functions to the renovated/addition area
would create available space for academic program in existing school campus.
4. The improved Athletics facility would provide more opportunity for shared
activity by the surrounding community.
Campus Architecture Intel!ration
Through the judicious use of material and color pallet, the design will enhance the
architectural integration of the Athletics Complex into the school campus. The new
raked finish pre-cast concrete exterior and the new paint over the existing Athletic
building exterior will be color keyed to match each other as well as the brick hue of
typical campus fayade.
PROJECT NARRATIVE
10
This project follows the Hill-Murray Facilities Master Plan completed in year 2000. A
potential second-story addition over the both the existing and expanded Athletics
building is anticipated in the future.
Community and Environmental ImDact
As always, the school is conscientious in making only positive impact on the neighboring
community. This project should not affect the current level of vehicular traffic, aural, or
visual impact in the school vicinity.
The proposed project will not increase the current occupancy of the school. These
improvements are not expected to raise the traffic level of students, staff, and visitors.
The overall nominal school activities will remain the same, as the functional outcome
will only result in the redistribution of existing sports-related programs.
Since the location of the new addition is secluded from neighboring residents, the visual
impact of the project will virtually non-existent. No freestanding site lighting is planned
for this project. Security lighting will be attached to the buiding.
The environmental impact of the project will be minimal. The school has taken care to
comply with the all city regulations related to environmental issues. In addition, the
school is seeking opportunities to use natural storm water filtering devices for
environmental and educational benefits.
Summary
This project will provide the Hill-Murray School with needed facilities to properly serve
its Athletics and Physical Education programs - while improving Gender Equity and
Accessibility issues. The project will have minimal impact to the surrounding site, the
neighbor, and the natural environment. Furthermore, the improved facility may provide
the community additional opportunity for sports and social activities.
11
I
I
I
,
,
I
\
,
i
I
I
,
!
I
,
I
,
,
I
I
I
I
I
I
~
d
z'
~
!
i
'. I
'H
II
II
I,
I,
I,
"
'I
I,
II
II
"
II
I
,.
Ii
I
I
~i
"
"
"
it
I~
l~
===============, ~:'::.-::.-==:::::.::.::.::.::.-.==:: LARPENTEUR AVENUE
" ~
"
"
"
"
'I
II
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
I, I
I,
"')~-:'J.~'Q.~~~ :=~:::':::~===~I
'FRJi
II II
II II
I, I'
t>, "
s
~
j
i!
1
,
I
~--- -----
<l
?~
~
Attachment 2
HOLLOWAY AVENUE
~
[)
~
MNOOT ROW
a
HIU-MURRAY
CITY OPEN SPACE
I
'..
I:>
'"
,>
I",
!::I
,>-
IZ
,
,"
'v
I
,
,
,
I
,
,
,
,
,
I
,
,
,
,
I
I
I
,
I
I
I
I
I
,
,
I
I
I
I
I
I
,
LOCATION MAP
12
11
N
Attachment 3
'"
MNDOT ROW
c
-
"'"'-
Q
tf'
C(
r::::=J
o
~j
"
II
"
II
I_tf
i:f '
Iii!
I~'
.) tl;, __ ___ _._ ___ __ ___ ____ -- --- --- -- .--- --- -- --- -- .--- -- --- --- -- --- -- -~- ----
PRIORY
'I r <;J'
I I r
I I
I I
I I
I,
"
I I
. I'
"
I"
I I .
I'
"
I I
I!
, I Q C]
::::D ii, Q [fJ '.
I
8~1j -G-~--~~--~-_JbABDHI <J
~ -- --- -- --- --- -- ---- -- ---- -- --- --- ~- ~-- --- --.-
w
o
"
AREA MAP
13
11
N
Attachment 4
-
......
/ r
~- I
. I
I
.~,
,
\
. I.
;/
1
I
\
\
- "
\
\.-
I I
I
lS5I':--
~-.-'
.--
--
---
-+-
...
....
....., "
,
SITE SURVEY
14
o
N
Attachment 5
HILL-MURRAY SCHOOL ATHLETICS FACILITY IMPROVEMENTS
~ \\~. ~I~(':'II
\ '\'. \\\ U j~1
'\'. '\ 0 . 'i)l
\\ .",. ~I
\\ " -;: I
. \~ 0 ~~_::...-~ 'I
'"
'\
'.
t] i
8 I
~ I
8 ~'I
8~
'"
w
",,!<
~J:i
00~!1
H5' B8 CLUMP RIVER BIRCH,
BETULA NIGRA
I~
-;-1 I I '
~
~
-,
t,
:;j
]-=
-=r=
I
I
N
r1'\." ..
\:D ... ,
---L
-=r-=
o
EXISTING SCHOOL CAMPUS
~
~
"'.~'-'.:;"--,--'
~I
L--J )1
FERTY RAFFERTY TOLLEFSON L1NDEKE ARCHITECTS
i
I
i=
""'I
i
o
-"""
;---, '
,.-,
PROPOSED SITE PLAN
15
11
N
Attachment 6
HILL-MURRAY SCHOOL ATHLETICS FACILITY IMPROVEMENTS
I 'I
I I
..
..
.....
.. ..
..
.....
.....
"Ir ..
..
......
-
PROPSED FLOOR PLAN
D NEW CONSTRUCTION
D RENOVA.TlON OF EXISTING
CJ 1022'-0' (100'-0") EXISTING FLOOR ELEVATION
CJ 1023'-0' (101'-0.) FLOOR ELEVATION
~ III no Xl
~
e _ 16> II
~
N
~E!J
r
)
[
,
,
I I I I
~___~::1~:::::~:::::~ '::i_ _~
I I II ~ II, I
, , ,
I I II I I
: ~_ I i-,.-;, _~ :
L__~_ ~ f- L -~- ~
,
-,
,
,
~______________________J
Q - (-----~-:-:-:-::~--:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-r- T
I I I I I
, I I I
1 f-- -, ..,~ -1 :
J--~- .., r-' -' -~ r -~- ~
II L_ ..l;:,.J~/ , I /L _J I"
II I II II 11 I II
II I II II "I II
II , I II
11'11 @ III II
>I L__ -1_____ teet -----t- --~ I II
ii--~:: ~::::: ~ :::::~ ::~-'ii
II I II II , II
II I I II
II I III ,It
II I 1'1 I 11
" ,- --, II
lL__-<_..J 1-- 11
I I \ I I
: f-- - ...-/ :
, , ,
, , ,
, , ,
~ L j
"
rt,~=~,~ I
STEELE CONSTRUCTION + RAFFERTY RAFFERTY TOLLEFSON L1NDEKE ARCHITECTS
EXISTING SCHOOL
PROPOSED FLOOR PLAN
16
11
N
~r",;_, , ,
:;\\;", -I/;~' ,.,.i'\~~:t',.
1"-"'\ 'k"'~ / \. ~ -"
"~':,~;':"/ c'/ ,,,...). \ -'
-'iij~~~~~~~~";~ -:~
i.l, ,..,,~'I. ' -'__ ~
. rt' (~~ ~'r::";g; \
"" ~ "\ '''''J,,\ ~ \.,::;..." \
\~~\ \ ,'~',t~,,\.A
~._~t,1 f'). t.O."~lan~, -,~
,_..... , \ - \,.~_....,,'.:
\W //, \,
,,\'t~'l\1
","w "'1
't, '.;t' ,,"
L . ~
p./' \'!
"
Attachment 7
r;i"C" .'
'":'';;;:;;:;'
...----.--.-::---w-::::-i..~l"..--:-.-~
-0.,;
~,,>''"'~\
...- .,.v~~-T---n 15~.:1\, lft-J.:-
~."",:': \-{-
....'
,c'-
,,",-..,.,"
,.w'>'
\,~""i
\,.,;\
'.';7"-"
',~~
/
[\"'"
,
............;
d~' ....-
~5' ,..,.,
~ft'.~':"::;~'.
-",;~- ....-
~~';.
'::.>......
..,;!i'\I'-;>'-
...li"',i<.,...-
i.~' _,
",..,.;;0:.,').'
,.,'
,~' ,~-"
// "''':' j J '( ,._\
.. """""'<".., \
~'...,.", '
// I :?J'l,;;;
,~),~, '/
\ .7":..__.... ,/.~
~~,'.""""~:,",,,,,
~t~:;';:.;..~-
~
EXISTING SCHOOL
Q;)
GRADING, DRAINAGE. AND EROSlON CONTROL PlAN
,"..:SO'
APPROXIMATE
DISTURBED ARE'" IS
1.60 .t.CRtS
,,,",I
i
.,
I
:,:,:\:::>",,,_,,,1
PROPOSED GRADING PLAN
17
\f
N
Attachment 8
--..,..
",...,-..
.."........
.-'
\\
~.
''''''',,,,,r;oJ- ,:;::;!(J-_"'"
".... "~"'.~.:.'..~;:;;;:;,:;:~'" .!"'"
.' /\.....\.. .
:1;:;;;:::""". ......"1
t-..,-.~..__. ..._._..... ........ ._...,.::~:;;;;: ,~'; ._......./" ::;) ,
b~{~-~;~=~- ·
I f'!!1l" ' "'!\~~-" .. \
, \
[",
. "'" '\
, ' I
I ''<''-'0-< \
1....\ \ \
I 0,\. '" \ ....."..
I -" ' ___~~
l".... \.\(,';\\. r\-:;::\,...,~,::::: ....,._..,-~ ""...,_
~, . '-""'~"'!.,..
r~,~:::\ ..., ,\:\Y:~: \
~, ,". f__,.._.., '" "' ;
t:~<<<\//'-\\~\ ".::::::."":;;,...",,,-... "~-""'~"'-" I j
~. "x~"-;:;'''_''''-' I I ~. ~ fill /' ..." \
.::= - -- - - '. I ~. 1. .' ,/ \
I . ~. .,/ ,.1 1
I "~llil...... _ _ _ - - -,' /-.,l: "..;;. ,
, "''"' '"Ol!!IEi.', \ i ,./) " , \ ---'"'" I..
I _. "",. i ,&," ..._.>, \ ____
""-... \ (lI..SMo'~t~ ,. .........._'''::=-------
.,..~."',.~ '
" .-0\-" ,"" ?- .-..-
""'... ,- #' "":~~ ~~~~.,\
"'.... ',:"_~-1!l~..J, .
"'-" \ (Ii. '"1\'W
-"'~\_""""
llO'!ilk,,:-\ ,..
\~\ \
\' ,
--.....".....,............'.
.~ .".."""" .~.",." ,..
/~~~'I:/~
\i
I
i
,
i
,
."1
-' i
j
\ I
,
i
\
\
,
\\
\-
,
,
/
/
/
/
/
~\
'\ ~~ '"
;\
\\
.,,'
,-,0'....
_~::~~:'.:S:,:~~;~I,~ !t"'")
....-'.-r'"
"
,;
\
,
t\\
i
,
" ~
i
i
,
,
EXISTING SCHOOL
....",=::::--'3____
....................................._..........~--
Q;) ~I~ PlAN
18
11
N
PROPOSED UTILITY PLAN
Attachment 9
HILL-MURRAY SCHOOL ATHLETICS FACILITY
NEW ADDITION
NEW ADDITION
SON L1NDEKE ARCHITECTS
<Z>
FEET I
<Z>
I<Z> 2<Z>
I I
I I
8 16
3<Z>
,
5<Z>
,
32
,
64
19
1)
N
PROPOSED BUILDING ELEVATIONS
Attachment 10
HILL-MURRAY SCHOOL ATHLETICS FACILITY IMPROVEMENTS
_~olL~.mo.
NEW ADDITION
NEW ADDiTION
RAFFERTY RAFFERTY TOLLEFSON L1NDEKE ARCHITECTS
~
FEET I
~
10 20 30
,
1 ,
8 IE> 32
'"
,
.,
20
\r
N
PROPOSED BUILDING ELEVATIONS
/ / ;::T!:~
~ ,~/ / 1 ~.,
V9i::nl I ~ <1<; '------
~'.5PCGI \ J/
_- 1 \ o.
--~- ----- ;// /1"'---
........ /' \ 0
------- / \ '\... ..
---- ------ ~x\ ' ~
BEARING ___~~___________--- / \ "'-. -..... --l__
(;1P-4SS / r- .........
N1.0'E ----------------- /' ........--i
...------------ """"'--..---
N l~~W ~_=-=~~: __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ~ -!-:"~ --- ~ ~
- ---------- z--=-~ " --
~ ~,~ .... =$ ~-=--=--=--=---=--=--;~=-=-~-=-=:~~~~;~~~~~- J-
I.... -------~-,- ~ _ 1__ '
~ ~ ~~p -----~--- ~
-'" (~2' __ ...-
~~:.,~.UT PLAN DETAILS- /' :,- "
V "I'_"'II~
END POINT
F'2 - N 173621.3 - E 502069.3
"3 - N 173671.7 - E 602077.6
Polo - N 173753.9 - E 602082.4
P5 - N 174000.0 - E 602027.0
"7 - N 173674,7 - E 602060.7
P6 - N 173693.2 - E 602071.1
Attachment 11
,
,
,
,
\
\
\ I 111~~ ,
\ \~~~
\ I ,~J ";/ r':'
'III ~"..
"'1~Cl3
\"1'1'"
I ql
II1I
II~\
II~ \
I I 'caNcoE", ""'"
&E~~I\,.!l
~\ \ ^
,\.. "~P1N;-____
\'i\" __
~,........_~ "
~PIN,\ "
\ "-- '"
~ \\ G "",-
... V\,l1lEE:
c." \ \
\ '
r':' \ \
\.):.~,\ I
I I
\::'~ \
G,,--''G:_. \
\ \
N-17mUll \ \
E-8021t12.81 \ \
I \
H-17371l1.115\
E-ell2115.50__\
I
00.1' \
AlNINGWAI..L\
SEE1L7 \
\
71?e1.1!5G II
l"DB %':tME
\ I
" E=~ \
"I \
\\ \
CQN~ aloe
_\~A.~ '-
'" \....
" \ '\ \
" \ \
2'rn> ,,\ '\. "'-
. "\ ....... '"
........6!p" ................................
~IT~ACE\ ........ '
..., " C"-::
---,""-\
-::::::--- f--
-~~~0:~~-~
~~~~-~=
, ~
EXISTING SCHOOL
!; R ~ S S
G..
,
I
I
/
/'
,
\
\.
\
\
/
.-J027.2
'--"lI027.0
\G
'-...'8 UP\.
-......... ~-
-... '-_~-H)2i'--
"'*---
,
C~-----
"ASH __........
,
\CE OF CURB.
rAL
N _ 17..16T7.-!-
c - 6020f"/
./' "IX"Tll~'
o E!XI&TI~ UTILlTT 7e'~ \ i
'OIirw-~INA!Ff l
r- ....
LARPENTEURAVENUE
21
11
N
PARKING LOT AND DRIVEWAY SITE PLAN DETAILS
Attachment 12
"
~
,
\
EXISTING SCHOOL
'030.'
,~,
1=,0
OJo.O
\ 1 -~
.1>>8.7
'If
,
I
/
/
/
,
\
\011,1\
\
\~1~_
i.
\
"
,,~.......
~"p~... __ ~""~.2
, --
, ,
102~.' """
" ,
"" ".......
- ,
G2ee '027~""
V\TRU "-
\ '
, I
1025,~
I
I
\'027.0
\
\
\
\
I
\ '''('".8
ell RD4tu:V IOCO.~
NV. ELL\{. 1011.40 \
.... \ \
\ \
\ I
\ 1020)"
\ \
\ \
\ \
\ I
\ I
\ 1026,~
,\n.. \
\ \
\
\
\
'~
102S,'
'0".5
1029.7
\
CHASS
\020.)
G"G..
\...3:r6ill
'02e.~
\Q'l.o.'
. I
:1
0'0)0.2
.~,
\ '
\
\
\
\
Z?~
\
~020_2
~'P"'"
\
\
\
\
,020.5
~,
~ LO:lB.O
~2~o""'1srr#'-"j,I.
/
/~027.2
~027,D
In
h2G.~ '020;""'" ~02.i;.t
~-.Ji.PI._____
,Oll,g
-
~____---TO:ai---
(lIIAS:;
_----iill:l...-
1..0
10253
l<r.1J.4
'-
G-- 102"'2
.1023.8 -,."",.,.__
-'$< --
102.3.8 --........--.
on7
-_ nUl
-VIIPl.
---
~""-
,
-'-''''
_.~
1010.2
<P
INV. ELEV.
Ji'-1llOI;,!1
1005.9
'OO6.S
l00s.7
1007.9 1001.9
,
_--1012
,ooa..
10011.6
./
LARPENTEUR AVENUE
7B.~
A
~
22
11
N
PARKING LOT AND DRIVEWAY GRADING PLAN
Attachment 13
Page 1 ofS
EDlrineerinl! Plan Review
PROJECT:
PROJECT NO:
REVIEWED BY:
Hill Murray Building Expansion
06-13
Steven L. Kummer, P.E., Civil Engineer 11
City of Maplewood Engineering Department
DATE:
July 14,2006
Hill Murray School proposes to build a 31,500 sq. ft. addition onto its existing 25,900 sq. ft
facility (which is proposed to be renovated). Other site improvements include a storm water
infiltration/rate control basin, rerouted storm and sanitary sewer utilities and new domestic and
fire protection water supplies to the new addition.
Grading & Drainage
1. The existing grades north of the existing building and east of the existing linkway
appear to be very flat. The proposed 1019 contour may need to be pulled to the south
and proposed spot elevations shown at the linkway edge to indicate positive drainage
toward proposed CB #3.
2. An emergency overflow route elevation (EOF) of 1022.40 is shown on the plans.
However, the existing grade to the east of the proposed ponding area appears to be
higher than the elevation of the emergency overflow grade indicated on the drawings.
3. Color photographs in the plan review package indicate standing water near the
northeast side of the proposed addition south of the track and field. The plans
indicate a 6-inch CMP draining a relatively large drainage area. It may be in the best
interest of the project to address this drainage issue with the new building
construction. The City would likely require some type of storm water BMP for
treatment of any flow into this low area from impervious surfaces.
4. Even though the parking area to the west of the existing Iinkway is to be demolished
due to utility work and may be intended to be replaced in-kind and to existing grade,
proposed grades and spot elevations should be indicated for parking area replacement.
5. Revised Grading Note #5 (C2.0) to have the City Public Works department notified in
lieu of the building department. Also include that Public Works is to be notified 48
hours in advance for inspection of installed erosion control measures. Grading of the
site will not be allowed to commence until the City approves the measures installed in
the field.
6. Revise Grading Note #9 (C2.0) as such: Delete the portion of the note that continues
with "If the public utilities have not been installed..."
23
Page 2 ofS
Storm Water Management
I. It appears that the Kerby Method is being used for time of concentration.
Computations and assumptions used in computing the Tc's should be submitted.
2. Drainage Area #3 needs to be revised to include a drainage area slightly to the
southeast of the proposed pond.
3. The discharge from the drainfield under the pond needs to be included as an outlet
into the primary discharge culvert (12" pipe) from CB #6.
4. Provide an elevation view and installation details of the weir wall to be installed in
CB#6.
S. Details on the primary outfall from CB #6 should be consistent on all plan sheets and
computations. For example, the HydroCAD computations show a 10" RCP @
0.52%, the upper detail 14/C4.0 shows a 12" RCP @ 0.52%, and the storm sewer
table shows a 12" RCP @ 0.50010.
6. The computations and detaiI14/C4.0 reflect a negative slope on the pipe run between
FES #7 and CB #6. The storm sewer table should be revised to reflect this.
7. The City requires a minimum of two (2) feet offreeboard between the pond l00-year
HWL elevation and the building FFE. Also required is a minimum one (1) foot of
freeboard between the pond EOF and the building FFE.
8. It is suggested that an outlet structure with a slanted top overflow inlet that conforms
to the pond slope be used in lieu of a regular manhole with a ditch grate.
9. Provide a sump manhole downstream of the proposed pond. The sump manhole
should be readily accessible to a Vactor truck or similar piece of equipment used for
cleaning sediment out of manhole structures.
10. The City will require a maintenance agreement for all permanent storm water BMP's
installed on site.
11. A planting/Iandscaping plan is required for the ponding area and must be reviewed by
Virginia Gaynor with the Nature Center staff. Her phone number is (651) 249-2180.
If pond grading will occur in one year and planting will occur the next year, then
seeding types and temporary establishment requirements will need to be specified for
the interim period (refer to Mn/OOT 2575 and 3876).
12. The plans show an elevation of 1019.16 for the l-inch/24-hr storm event. The
computations show a 1018.80. Please revise.
24
Page 3 of5
13. Please submit soil boring(s) for the proposed ponding area.
Erosion Control
I. DetaiI4/C4.0 should conform to City of Maple wood Std. Plate 350. For example, the
minimum length of a rock entrance pad should be 75 feet.
2. No flared-end section detail is shown. Please revise accordingly.
3. Catch Basin temporary sedimentation prevention devices are not required for storm
manholes with solid lids. Manhole structures may be plated until castings can be
installed. Catch basins at critical low points should have a device installed to allow
water to flow into the structure while preventing sedimentation.
4. Specify the type or product designation for the type of erosion control blanket that
will be used on the ponding area. Show anchoring details for the blanket. If the area
will be planted, it is suggested that a blanket without netting be specified. Refer to
Mn/DOT 3885 in the 2005 Construction Specs.
5. The formal entrance (rock entrance) to the construction site should be placed in an
area where construction vehicles will not regularly run over the proposed ponding
area. North of the ponding area may be an option.
6. Specify erosion control inlet protection on FES #7 such as staked heavy-duty silt
fence.
7. Specify the use of a pick-up broom or a vacuum sweeper in the Erosion Control
Notes (specifically #7).
8. Seed mixture I lOB no longer exists. Revise to include a temporary seed mix
included in the Mn/DOT 3876 spec. Verify that all seed mix application rates
conform to Mn/DOT 3876.
Utilities
I. 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. The water services do not appear to be stubbed 5 feet from the building. Is the intent
to come up with a riser through the building floor?
3. Water flow and pressure computations will need to be provided for minimum fire
protection flow pressures at the building. Contact SPRWS and the City Building
Department for design assumptions and requirements.
25
Page 4 of 5
4. All pertinent water installation details shall conform to SPRWS standards and
specifications. Adjust all plan notes, keyed notes and details related to water main
and service installation accordingly.
S. The original Sunde Survey shows an existing 8-inch line under the tennis courts
versus the IS-inch VCP line that is currently shown on the plans. Also, an 8-inch
sanitary sewer service from the south side of the existing building is shown in a
different location than the survey. If the survey information was corrected due to new
information in the field, then the discrepancy should be noted on the plans.
6. The existing IS-inch VCP storm line and 4-inch sanitary line are shown to be
removed. What are the plans for the portions of pipe that supposedly run under the
existing building to the west?
7. Indicate flow directions on existing storm and sanitary sewers.
8. Submit storm sewer sizing computations for the proposed storm sewer runs.
9. It appears that a possible jack-and-bore operation will occur for the new sanitary and
storm sewer under the existing linkway. Casing pipe size and type should be
indicated along with a detail showing how the proposed lines win be bedded within
the casing pipes.
10. Some revision needs to be made to the 8-inch line between SSMH #2 and SSMH #3.
A Sch. 40 PVC pipe is shown within the casing pipe, but SDR 26 PVC (as utility note
#7 indicates) is shown upstream of the wye into the building. Either show a manhole
at the wye, or one pipe type all the way through either Schedule 40 or SDR 26.
II. Refer to the bottom half of City of Maplewood Std. Plate 410 which indicates a
service connection for a sanitary main greater than 13 feet deep. Revise the lower
detail 14/C4.0 to conform to this detail plate, as a direct 4S-degree riser into the main
at the wye is not allowed.
12. The new sanitary sewer at Ex. SSMH #1 shall enter the manhole at the bottom and
not two feet above the lowest invert.
13. Storm sewer table invert directions for CB #1 and CB #2 should be revised.
Geometries and Paving
1. Show proposed parking stall layout and dimensions in reconstructed parking lot area.
2. Show width dimension of proposed wheelchair ramp up to stairway.
26
Page 50f5
Miscellaneous
I. Include a large sheet showing a topographic survey view of the site area. Show a larger-
scale view of the area surrounding the site as well.
2. 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.
3. The owner and project engineer shall satisfy the requirements of all permitting agencies
including Watershed district requirements.
4. The project engineer shall revise the construction limits shown on the plans to match the
limits of grading and utility improvements.
5. Any City of Maple wood or SPRWS details that the project engineer copies or uses in
these plans are to be noted in the detail description.
27
Attachment 14
Memo
To: Ken Roberts, PI~
From: David Fisher, Interim Community Development Director / Building Official
Re: Hill-Murray renovation & 31,500 square foot addition to their existing
field house building
Date: July 6, 2006
Provide complete building code analysis.
- Obtain a certificate of occupancy.
- The building setbacks must comply with the 2000 IBC Table 602 for
exterior wall protection. A complete building code analysis will be required
when plans are submitted for permit.
Minnesota State Building Code 1306 Fire Sprinklers requires the existing
facility to be sprinklered when the square footage is increased.
- The whole building is required to be fire sprinklered to NFPA 13.
- Verify code compliance for Minnesota State Building Code 1341 for
accessibility.
Provide Fire Department access.
Provide accessible parking to comply with Minnesota State Building Code
1341 for accessibility.
I would recommend commissioning the new and the existing building.
I would recommend a pre-construction meeting with the building
department.
28
Attachment 15
Maplewood Police Department
I
Memo
To: Ken Roberts
From: Ll Mike Shortreed driP; 1I~77
Date: July 12, 2006
Re: PROJECT REVIEW - Hill Murray Athletic Facility Improvements
After reviewing the attached proposal for the Hill Murray High School Athletic Facility
improvement project, I have the following comments and suggestions:
1) Adequate outdoor lighting should be incorporated into the project in order to assure that
visibility at all entrances/exits as well as around the proposed addition is appropriate and
does not provide for darkened areas for people to loiter without detection.
2) A road, driving path, or sidewalk around the facility addition shouid be provided that is
wide enough to allow police squad cars, ambulances, and fire trucks to readily access
the area in an emergency or medical situation.
3) Adequate signs should be provided in order to readily mark the main entrances/exits at
the facility addition.
4) Construction site thefts and burglaries are a large business affecting many large
construction projects throughout the Twin Cities metro area. The contractor should be
encouraged to plan and provide for site security during the construction process. On-site
security, alarm systems, and any other appropriate security measures would be highly
encouraged to deter and report theft and suspicious activity incidents in a timely manner.
If there are any questions or concems regarding these comments or suggestions, please
contact me at your soonest convenience. I can be reached via phone at (651 )249-2605 or
via email atmichael.shortreediCllci.maolewood.mn.us.
1
29
Attachment 16
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REVISION RESOLUTION
WHEREAS, Hill-Murray High School requested that the city revise their existing conditional
use permit for a school and athletic facilities.
WHEREAS, this permit applies to the property at 2625 Larpenteur Avenue East The legal
description is:
Part of the S y" of the SE % of S 13, T 29N, R2'2W, Ramsey County, MN (PIN 13-29-22-43-
0002)
WHEREAS, the history of this conditional use permit revision is as follows:
1. On August 7, 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 commission recommended that
the city COU1ciI approve the conditional use permit
2. On , 2006, the city council discussed the proposed conditional use permit
revision. 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 revision, because:
1. The use would be located, designed, maintained, constructed and operated to be in
conformity with the city's comprehensive plan and code of ordinances.
2. The use would not change the existing or p1amed character of the surroooding
area.
3. The use would not depreciate property values.
4. The use wouJd 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 pol/ulion, drainage, water runoff, 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 wouJd 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.
30
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.
10. The city council may waive any of the above requirements for a public building or
utility structure, provided the council shall first make a determination that the
balancing of public interest between govemmental units of the state would be best
served by such waiver.
Approval is subject to the following conditions:
1. All construction shall follow the plans as noted below:
a. For the athletic fields, follow the plans date-stamped March 6, 1998.
b. For the school and parking lot addition, follow the plans date-stamped May 19,
1999.
c. For the chapel acldition, follow the plans date-stamped October 1, 2001.
d. For the field house. follow the p/ans dated June 28. 2006. These plans shall
meet all the conditions and chanaes reauired by the city enaineerinc
deoartment.
The interim director of community development may approve minor changes.
2. The proposed construction for the GRapel field house addition must be substantially
started within one year of council approval or the permit revision shall end. The
council may extend this deadline for one year.
3. The city council shall review this permit annually to monitor the traffic and parking
situations related to the use of the athletic fields.
4. Any new lights shall be installed to meet the city code. This requires that they be
screened or aimed so they do not cause any light-glare problems on streets or
residential properties.
5. Post and maintain signs on the edge of the wetland-protection buffer prohibiting any
building, mowing, cutting, filling or dumping within the buffer. Wetland buffer signs
in the mowed area shall be placed at the edge of the lawn.
6. That portion of the proposed walking/running path that is within 50 feet of the
wetland shall be built with a pervious material.
7. Ensure that all bleachers and dugouts are at least 30 feet from the Sterling Street
and Larpenteur Avenue right-of-ways.
8. The city may require the applicant to plant 30 native species of trees for screening
between the playing fields and the homes on Knoll Circle, as may be determined at
a future hearing on the conditional use permit.
31
9. The school shall prepare for city approval a turf management plan for the athletic
fields. This plan shall include the mowing, watering and fertilizing practices that the
school will follow in the care of their athletic fields and grounds. The school shall
prepare and follow the plan so the practices will minimize the impact of the storm
water run off on the nearby wetlands.
10. Submit a grading and drainage plan for watershed district approval to provide
sedimentation control at the stonn water discharge point before it dumps into the
south wetland area.
11. The SGhlllll shall sweep and r-estfipe the west pafking let beror-e August 15, 2002.
The Maplewoocl City Council approved this resolution on
,2006.
32
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
LOCATION:
DATE:
City Manager
Ken Roberts, Planner
Cottagewood (former Highwood Farm Town houses)
Highwood Avenue, east of Dennis street
July 31.2006
INTRODUCTION
Project Description
Mr. Phil Soby is proposing to build 15 detached town houses in a development called Cotlagewood.
It would be on a 3.71-acre site on the south side of Highwood Avenue, east of Dennis Street. Refer
to the applicant's statement on page 17 and the maps on pages 18 - 27. A homeowners
association would own and maintain the common areas.
Requests
To build this project, Mr. Soby is requesting that the city approve:
1. A revision to a conditional use permit (CUP) for a planned unit development (PUD). This revision
is necessary since the city had approved different plans for the site in 2003. The PUD gives the
city and developer a chance to be more flexible with site design and development details (such
as setbacks and street right-of-way and pavement widths) than the standard city requirements
would normally allow. Specifically, the proposed PUD revision would allow for smaller average
lot sizes, for the town houses to have a smaller setback to the front and side property lines than
code usually allows and to have the town houses on a private driveway.
2. A preliminary plat to create the lots in the development (15 lots for the town houses and one lot
for the common area). (See the map on page 23.)
I also should note that the applicant has not yet applied for design approval for this project. If the city
approves the above-listed requests, then the applicant will apply to the city for final plat approval and
design approval (including architectural and landscape plans). Please also refer to the developer's
project plans for more information about these proposals.
BACKGROUND
On February 10, 2003, the city council approved the following for the Highwood Farms Town Houses
PUD (for the property at 2666 Highwood Avenue):
1. A land use plan change from R-1 (single dwellings) to R-3L (low density multiple dwellings).
2. A conditional use permit (CUP) for a planned unit development (PUD) for an 18-unit housing
development. (Please see the approved site plan on page 28.)
3. The preliminary plat to create the lots in the development.
(See the city council minutes starting on page 33.)
On February 23, 2004, the city council reviewed the CUP for the Highwood Farms PUD and agreed
to review it again in one year.
On February 28, 2005, the city council reviewed the CUP for the Highwood Farms PUD and agreed
to review the PUD again in one year or sooner if the owner proposes a major change to the site.
DISCUSSION
Site Plan
An advantage of this proposal is that the proposed town house plan would only require grading on
about the north sixty percent of the site and would leave about forty percent of the site undisturbed.
Previous plans as approved by the city showed grading on about 55 percent of the property. This
plan should be beneficial to many of the existing property owners on Dennis Street, as they would
not have any development or construction behind their homes and now the units would be detached
town houses instead of the six-unit buildings as approved by the city in 2003.
Compatibility
Staff does not find a problem with this proposal in terms of compatibility and land use. The proposed
detached town houses would be near Highwood Avenue, next to six single dwellings and a wireless
communications facility. In addition, developers will often build townhomes next to single dwellings. A
recent example is with the New Century Addition across Highwood Avenue from this site. The
developer, Robert Engstrom, designed this neighborhood with a mix of single dwellings and townhomes.
There are many other examples in Maplewood, such as Afton Ridge, Southwinds, Bennington Woods
and the Carriage Homes of Maple Hills where this is the case.
Property Values
The Ramsey County Assessor's Office has told us in the past that multiple dwellings adjacent to
single dwellings are not a cause for a negative effect on property values. If properly maintained and
kept up, this development should not be detrimental to the neighborhood. The required annual
review of the conditional use permit is a built-in safeguard to ensure that the city council will
regularly review this development.
Traffic Considerations
Data from the Institute of Traffic Engineers (ITE) says that, on average, a town house will generate
between six and seven vehicle trips per day and that a single dwelling will generate about ten
vehicle trips per day. As such, 15 town houses would create about 90 vehicle trips from the site, 18
town houses would generate about 126 trips while 10 single dwellings would create about 100
vehicle trips from the site.
In 2001, Highwood Avenue near the site averaged about 2,450 vehicles a day and Century Avenue
near Highwood Avenue had 2,600 vehicles per day. The additional vehicles generated from this site,
whether from single dwellings or from town houses, will not exceed the capacity of Highwood or
Century Avenues.
Zoning, Land Use and Comprehensive Plan
The 15 units on the 3.71-acre site means there would be 4.04 units per gross acre. This density is
consistent with the density standards set in the Maplewood Comprehensive Plan for town houses in
the low-density multiple dwellings category (of up to 5.4 units per gross acre). In addition, the
2
proposed development density would be consistent with the housing density standards
recommended by the Metropolitan Council for residential development in first-ring suburbs. For a
comparison, the comprehensive plan allows developments with single dwellings to have up to 4.1
units per gross acre. As such, on a typicaI3.71-acre site, there could be up to 15 single-family
homes.
This is a good site for town houses as it is on a collector street (Highwood Avenue), is near an
arterial street (Century Avenue) and is across the street from a developing town house site. With a
proposal such as this, the city must balance the interests and rights of the property owner to
develop his property with the city's ordinances, development standards and Maplewood's
Comprehensive Plan. The proposed plan balances the land owner's rights to use and develop the
property versus the city's interest in preserving much of existing topography and trees on the site.
PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD)
Conditional Use Pennit
Section 44-1093(b) of the city code says that it is the intent of the PUD code "to provide a means to
allow flexibility by substantial deviations from the provisions of this chapter, including uses,
setbacks, height and other regulations. Deviations may be granted for planned unit developments
provided that:
1. Certain regulations contained in this chapter should not apply to the proposed development
because of its unique nature.
2. The PUD would be consistent with the purposes of this chapter.
3. The planned unit development would produce a development of equal or superior quality to
that which would result from strict adherence to the provisions of this chapter.
4. The deviations would not constitute a significant threat to the property values, safety, health
or general welfare of the owners or occupants of nearby land.
5. The deviations are required for reasonable and practicable physical development and are
not required solely for financial reasons."
The applicant has applied for a conditional use permit (CUP) revision for a planned unit
development (PUD) for the 15-unit housing development. As I noted above, the city is requiring this
permit revision as the current developer has proposed major changes to the city-approved PUD
project plans.
In this case, the developer is requesting the CUP revision for the PUD because the proposed site
plan is now different from the plan the city approved for the site in 2003.
The PUD revision gives the city and developer a chance to be more flexible with site design and
development details (such as setbacks and street right-of-way and pavement widths) than the
standard city requirements would normally allow. Specifically, the proposed PUD revision would
allow for smaller average lot sizes, for the town houses to have a smaller setback to the front and
side property lines than code usually allows and to have the town houses on a private driveway.
3
The benefit of this plan is that the developer would not be disturbing about 40 percent of the site -
the area south of the proposed town houses. This plan keeps the new residences near Highwood
Avenue and away from Interstate 494. In fact, the town house nearest to the freeway is 320 feet
from the freeway right-of-way. Because of this large distance, the developer has told staff that he
does not expect the noise from the freeway to be a factor with the proposed plan. The city should
have the developer verify that the proposed plan will meet the state's noise standards with a study,
testing or documentation. If the noise is a factor, then the contractor would have to build the town
houses so they can meet the noise standards. The builders may accomplish this with thicker walls,
heavier windows, requiring air conditioning or other sound-deadening construction methods.
The proposed lot sizes and setback deviations would not constitute a threat to the property values,
safety, health or general welfare of the owners or occupants of nearby land and are required for
reasonable and practicable physical development and are not required solely for financial reasons.
However, in consideration for the PUD, the city should require the developer to record a
conservation easement over the undisturbed area and to construct the development with a high
level of architectural design and landscaping elements, including the size and quantities of
materials.
Off-Street Parking Standards
The city code requires the developer to provide at least 30 off-street parking spaces (two for each
unit) in this development. The developer's project plans (on pages 24 and 25) show 20-foot-long
driveways providing access to each town house. City staff, however, has not yet seen floor plans or
building elevations for the town houses but it appears that each unit would have a two car attached
garage. If this is true, then this design would meet the minimum city code requirements for parking.
In addition to the parking for the units, the proposed plans show a total of eight extra or guest
parking spaces between the buildings and at the south end of the driveway. While having the extra
parking would be nice, the developer should review and possibly revise the plans for the parking
spaces and the tum-around area at the south end of the site to maximize the number of trees that
can be saved while minimizing the amount of surface area and impact on the undisturbed area of
the site. The total number of proposed spaces should be enough parking for the residents and their
guests.
Preliminary Plat
Density and Lot Size
As proposed, the 15 units on the 3.71-acre site means there would be 4.04 units per acre (an
average of 10,774 square feet per unit). This is well below the 5.4 units per acre density standard
set by the comprehensive plan for low-density multiple-family residential development.
The project plans show the lots being 52 to 71.5 feet wide and ranging in size from 3,512 square
feet to 5,960 square feet in area. The average proposed lot size would be about 4,000 square feet.
These lot sizes, while smaller than the city usually requires for single dwellings, is larger than the lot
sizes the city typically sees for each unit in town house developments.
If the city approves this proposal, then the developer will be forming a homeowners association with
documents (declarations) specifying the legal responsibility of the association and homeowners for
maintenance of the units and common grounds.
4
City Engineering Department Comments
The city engineering department has been working with the applicant's engineering consultant in
reviewing this proposal and plans. Michael Thompson's comments are in the attachment starting on
page 29.
Public Utilities
There are sanitary sewer and water near the site to serve the proposed development. Specifically,
water is to the west of the site at the intersection of Highwood Avenue and New Century Boulevard.
The developer will extend the water main down Highwood Avenue to and through the site. The Saint
Paul Water Utility will need to approve the plan for the water main.
Sanitary sewer is east of the site at the intersection of Highwood Avenue and Century Avenue. The
developer is proposing to extend the sewer up Highwood Avenue from Century Avenue to serve the
development. The city engineer must approve the final engineering plans before the applicant or
contractor may start construction.
Drainage
Most of the site drains to the north and east. The project engineer has designed the site with a
series of rainwater gardens and a new ponding area on the northeast corner of the site (near
Highwood Avenue). The development would not increase storm water runoff onto adjacent
properties. That is, the runoff leaving the site and flowing onto adjacent properties will be at or
below current levels.
It also is important to remember that Mr. Soby or the contractor must get a permit from the
watershed district before starting grading or construction. That is, the watershed district will have to
be satisfied that the developer's plans will meet all watershed district standards before they may
start grading or other site construction.
Tree Removal/Replacement
Maplewood's tree ordinance requires there be at least ten trees per gross acre on the site after
grading. For this 3.71-acre site, the ordinance requires that at least 37 large trees remain. As
proposed, the applicant's contractor would grade about 60 percent of the site to create the private
driveways and the building pads. This grading would disturb the northerly 2.3 acres of the 3.71-acre
site while preserving many of the slopes and some of the large trees on the site, especially on the
south end of the site. (See the proposed grading plan on page 25.)
The proposed plans show the removal of 64 large trees (pine, maple, ash, oak and elm) and the
preservation of five existing large trees, including maple, elm and oak. Before grading the site, the
city should require the developer to submit a detailed tree plan (including removal and replacement)
to staff for approval. The developer has not yet submitted a landscape plan for the site. The
developer should provide this plan, along with the proposed landscape plans (for the units and for
the rainwater gardens), to the city for approval by the Community Design Review Board.
5
Design Issues
The applicant has not yet submitted elevations or floor plans for the proposed buildings. The city will
want to ensure that buildings will be attractive and that they fit in with the design (materials and
colors) of the existing homes and town houses in the area.
As with the building design, the applicant has not yet submitted a landscape plan for the site. This
plan must be consistent with Maplewood ordinance standards. This includes having the new
deciduous trees shown at least 2 Y.i inches in caliper, balled and burlapped, providing screening
along the west property line, showing all disturbed turf areas being sodded, having an underground
irrigation system for aU landscape areas and having mulched and edged planting beds.
other Comments
Police Department
Lieutenant Shortreed of the Maplewood Police Department provided me with comments about this
proposal. His comments are in the memo on page 31.
Fire Marshal
Butch Gervais, the Maplewood Fire Marshal, wants the city to make sure the end of the driveway is
back far enough for proper snow removal and to have enough room for emergency vehicles to tum
around.
On-Street Parking Standards
The applicant is proposing that the main street within the development be a 21-foot-wide private
driveway. I had the Fire Chief and Fire Marshal review the proposed driveways and their widths.
According to Article 9, Section 902 of the Uniform Fire Code, all fire access roads shall have an
unobstructed width of not less than 20 feet. As such, the main driveway in this development must
be at least 20 feet wide with no parking on either side of the street. If the developer or the city wants
to allow parking on one side of the driveways, then they must be at least 28 feet wide. Any driveway
that is less than 28 feet wide must be posted for no parking on both sides.
CONCLUSION
The revised PUD plans have three fewer units for the site than the city approved in 2003. While
many of the neighbors would prefer no or little development of the property, the property owner has
the right to develop and use his land. The current proposal preserves many of the natural features
on the site while giving the owner the opportunity to develop the site. This balance is something the
city should strive for with every development.
6
RECOMMENDATIONS
A. Approve the resolution starting on page 46. This resolution approves a conditional use
permit revision for a planned unit development for the property at 2666 Highwood Avenue to
be known as Cottagewood. This site is on the south side of Highwood Avenue, east of
Dennis Street. The city bases this approval on the findings required by code. (Refer to the
resolution for the specific findings.) Approval is subject to the following conditions:
1. All construction shall follow the plans for ~ 15 detached town houses as approved by
the city. The city council may approve major changes to the plans. The Director of
Community Development may approve minor changes to the plans. Such changes shall
include:
a. Revising the grading and site plans to show:
(1) The developer minimizing the loss or removal of natural vegetation.
(2) All driveways at least 20 feet wide. If the developer wants to have parking on
one side of the main driveway, then it must be at least 28 feet wide. However,
widening of the driveway must not lessen the side setback of the driveway from
the east property line.
(3) All parking stalls with a width of at least 9.5 feet and a length of at least 18 feet.
Also, review and possibly revise the parking spaces and the turn-around area at
the south end of the site to maximize the number of trees to be saved and to
minimize the amount of hard surface area.
(4) Revised storm water pond locations and designs as suggested or required by
the watershed district or city engineer. The ponds shall meet the city's design
standards.
(5) The developer minimizing the loss or removal of natural vegetation including
keeping and protecting as many of the large trees in the undisturbed area south
of the town houses and parking areas.
2. The proposed construction must be substantially started within one year of council
approval or the permit shall end. The council may extend this deadline for one year.
3. Have the city engineer approve final construction and engineering plans. These plans
shall meet all the conditions and changes noted in the engineer's memo dated July 28,
2006. These shall include:
a. IRslude gr:adiRg, utility, dr:aiRage, eresieR seR.rel, streets, !Fails, tr-ee, retaiRiRg walls,
dFi\'BI.'/ay aRd paFkiRglet plaRs.
a. The aradina. utility. drainaae. erosion control. streets. trails. tree. retainina walls.
drivewav and parkina plans. This approval includes the desian of the proposed
private cul-de-sac.
7
b. Showing no grading or ground disturbance in the conservation easement. This land is
to be preserved for open space purposes. The developer and contractors shall protect
this area, including the large trees that are in and near the south side of the site, from
encroachment from equipment, grading or filling.
c. Include a storm water management plan for the proposal.
4. The design of all ponds shall meet Maplewood's design standards and shall be subject to
the approval of the city engineer. If needed, the developer shall be responsible for getting
any off-site pond and drainage easements.
5. The developer or contractor shall:
a. Complete all grading for the site drainage and the ponds, complete all public
improvements and meet all city requirements.
b.* Place temporary orange safety fencing and signs at the grading limits.
c. Remove any debris or junk from the site, including the conservation area.
d. Provide the city with verification that the town houses on the proposed site plan will
meet the state's noise standards. This shall be with a study, testing or other
documentation. If the noise on this site is a factor, then the contractor will have to build
the town houses so that they can meet the noise standards. This may be done with
thicker walls, heavier windows, requiring air conditioning or other sound-deadening
construction methods. The developer shall provide the city with this documentation
before the city will issue a building permit for the town houses.
6. The approved setbacks for the principal structures in the Cottagewood PUD shall be:
a. Front-yard setback (from a public street or a private driveway): minimum - 20 feet,
maximum - 35 feet
b. Rear-yard setback: 15 feet from any adjacent residential property line
c. Side-yard setback (town houses): minimum of six feet from a side property line and at
least 12 feet between units.
7. The developer or builder will pay the city Park Access Charges (PAC fees) for each
housing unit at the time of the building permit for earn housing unit.
8. Submit the homeowners association documents to city staff for review and approval.
9. The developer shall provide a permanent means to preserve and maintain the common
open space. This may be done by conservation easement, deed restrictions, covenants or
public dedication. The developer shall record this document with the final plat and before
the city issues a permit for grading or utility construction.
10. The city council shall review this permit in one year.
8
11. This approval does not include the design approval for the town homes or anv sians. The
project design plans, including architectural, siQns, site, lighting, tree and landscaping
plans, shall be subject to review and approval of the community design review board
(CDRB). The projects shall be subject to the following conditions:
a. Meeting all conditions and changes as required by the city council.
b. For the driveways:
(1) Minimum width - 20 feet.
(2) Maximum width - 28 feet.
(3) All driveways less than 28 feet in width shall be posted for "No Parking" on both
sides. Driveways at least 28 feet wide may have parking on one side and shall be
posted for No Parking on one side.
c. Showing all changes required by the city as part of the conditional use permit for the
planned unit development (PUD).
12. The city shall not issue any building permits for construction on an outlot (per city code
requirements). The developer must record a final plat to create buildable lots in the
preliminary plat before the city will issue a building permit.
B. Approve the Cottagewood preliminary plat (received by the city on July 7,2006). The
developer shall complete the following before the city council approves the final plat:
1. Sign an agreement with the city that guarantees that the developer or contractor will:
a. Complete all grading for overall site drainage, complete all public improvements and
meet all city requirements.
b.* Place temporary orange safety fencing and signs at the grading limits.
c. Have Xcel Energy install Group V rate street lights in two locations - primarily at the
street intersection and near the south end of the driveway. The exact style and location
shall be subject to the city engineer's approval.
d. Pay the city for the cost of traffic-control, street identification and no parking signs.
e. Provide all required and necessary easements, including any off-site easements.
f. Demolish or remove the existing house and garage from the site, and remove all other
buildings, fencing, trailers, scrap metal, debris and junk from the site.
g. Cap and seal all wells on site that the owners are not using; remove septic systems or
drainfields, subject to Minnesota rules and guidelines.
h. Complete all the curb and gutter on Highwood Avenue on the north side of the site. This
is to replace the existing driveways on Highwood Avenue and shall include the
restoration and sodding of the boulevards.
9
i. Install a sign where the new driveway intersects Highwood Avenue indicating that it is a
private driveway.
j. Install survey monuments and signs along the edges of the conservation easement area.
These signs shall explain that the area beyond the signs is a conservation easement
area and that there shall be no building, fences, mowing, cutting, filling, dumping or other
ground disturbance in that area. The developer or contractor shall install these signs
before the city issues building permits in this plat.
2. Have the city engineer approve final construction and engineering plans. These plans shall
include grading, utility, drainage, erosion control, driveway, trail, tree, and street plans. The
plans shall meet all the conditions and changes listed in the memo from Michael Thompson
dated July 28, 2006, and shall meet the following conditions:
a. The erosion control plans shall be consistent with the city code.
b. The grading plan shall show:
(1) The proposed building pad elevation and contour information for each building site.
The lot lines on this plan shall follow the approved preliminary plat.
(2) Contour information for all the land that the construction will disturb.
(3) Building pads that reduce the grading on sites where the developer can save large
trees.
(4) The proposed street and driveway grades as allowed by the city engineer.
(5) All proposed slopes on the construction plans. The city engineer shall approve the
plans, specifications and management practices for any slopes steeper than 3: 1.
On slopes steeper than 3: 1, the developer shall prepare and implement a
stabilization and planting plan. At a minimum, the slopes shall be protected with
wood-fiber blanket, be seeded with a no-maintenance vegetation and be stabilized
before the city approves the final plat.
(6) All retaining walls on the plans. Any retaining walls taller than four feet require a
building permit from the city. The developer shall install a protective rail or fence on
top of any retaining wall that is taller than four feet.
(7) Sedimentation basins or ponds as required by the watershed board or by the city
engineer.
(8) No grading beyond the plat boundary without temporary grading easements from
the affected property owner(s).
(9) As little grading as possible west and south of the town houses. This is to keep as
many of the existing trees on the site as is reasonably possible.
c. The street, driveway and utility plans shall show:
10
(1) The driveway shall be a nine-ton design with a maximum grade of eight percent and
the maximum grade within 75 feet of the intersection at two percent.
(2) The street (driveway) with continuous concrete curb and gutter, except where the city
engineer determines that curbing is not necessary for drainage purposes.
(3) The removal of the unused driveways and the completion of the curb and gutter on
the south side of Highwood Avenue and the restoration and sodding of the
boulevards.
(4) The coordination of the water main alignments and sizing with the standards and
requirements of the Saint Paul Regional Water Services (SPRWS). Fire now
requirements and hydrant locations shall be verified with the Maplewood Fire
Department.
(5) All utility excavations located within the proposed right-of-ways or within easements.
The developer shall acquire easements for all utilities that would be outside the
project area.
(6) The plan and profiles of the proposed utilities.
(7) A detail of any ponds, the pond outlets and the rainwater gardens. The contractor
shall protect the outlets to prevent erosion.
d. The drainage plan shall ensure that there is no increase in the rate of storm water run-
off leaving the site above the current (predevelopment) levels. The developer's
engineer shall:
(1) Verify inlet and pipe capacities.
(2) Submit drainage design calculations.
e.' The tree plan shall:
(1) Be approved, along with the landscaping, by the Community Design Review Board
(CDRB) before site grading or final plat approval.
(2) Show where the developer will remove, save or replace large trees. This plan shall
include an inventory of all existing large trees on the site.
(3) Show the size, species and location of the replacement and screening trees. The
deciduous trees shall be at least two and one half (2 %) inches in diameter and
shall be a mix of red and white oaks, ash, lindens, sugar maples or other native
species. The coniferous trees shall be at least eight (8) feet tall and shall be a mix
of Black Hills Spruce, Austrian pine and other species.
(4) Show no tree removal in the buffer zones, conservation easement, or beyond the
approved grading and tree limits.
(5) Include for city staff a detailed tree planting plan and material list.
(6) Group the new trees together. These planting areas shall be:
11
(a) near the ponding areas
(b) on the slopes
(c) along the west side of the site to screen the proposed buildings from the
homes to the west
(7) Show the planting of at least 37 trees after the site grading is done.
3. Change the plat as follows:
a. Add drainage and utility easements as required by the city engineer. This shall include
showing a 20-foot-wide drainage and utility easement along the north side of Lot 15.
b. Show drainage and utility easements along all property lines on the final plat. These
easements shall be ten feet wide along the front and rear property lines and five feet
wide along the side property lines.
c. Label the common areas as an outlot or as outlots.
d. If allowed, show the conservation easement on the final plat.
4. Pay for costs related to the engineering department's review of the construction plans.
5. Secure and provide all required easements for the development including any off-site
drainage and utility easements. These shall include, but not be limited to, an easement
for the culvert draining the pond at the northwest comer of the plat.
6. The developer shall complete all grading for public improvements and overall site
drainage. The city engineer shall include in the developer's agreement any grading that
the developer or contractor has not completed before final plat approval.
7. Sign a developer's agreement with the city that guarantees that the developer or
contractor will:
a. Complete all grading for overall site drainage, complete all public improvements and
meet all city requirements.
b.* Place temporary orange safety fencing and signs at the grading limits.
c. Provide for the repair of Highwood Avenue (street, curb and gutter and boulevard)
after the developer connects to the public utilities and builds the private driveway.
8. Record the fOllowing with the final plat:
a. All homeowners association documents.
b. A covenant or deed restriction that prohibits any further subdivision or splitting of the
lots or parcels in the plat that would create additional building sites.
c. A covenant or deed restriction that prohibits any additional driveways (besides the
one new driveway shown on the project plans) from going onto Highwood Avenue.
d. The conservation easement for the undisturbed area of the site.
12
The applicant shall submit the language for these dedications and restrictions to the city
for approval before recording. The city will not issue a building permit until after the
developer has recorded the final plat and these documents and covenants.
9* Submit the homeowners association bylaws and rules to the director of community
development. These are to assure that there will be one responsible party for the
maintenance of the common areas, oullots, private utilities, driveways, retaining walls
and structures.
10. Obtain a permit from the Ramsey-Washington Metro Watershed District for grading.
11. If the developer decides to final plat part of the preliminary plat, the director of
community development may waive any conditions that do not apply to the final
plat.
12. The developer shall complete all grading for public improvements and overall site
drainage. The city engineer shall include in the developer's agreement any grading
that the developer or contractor has not completed before final plat approval.
*The developer must complete these conditions before the city issues a grading permit or
approves the final plat.
13
CITIZENS' COMMENTS
I surveyed the owners of the 86 properties within 500 feet of this site and received six replies. Of
the six replies, one was for the proposal and three were against and two had comments about the
proposal.
For
1. Development is going to happen sooner or later. This looks like an acceptable plan for
development. I would like to see some kind of berm or other privacy barrier between the new and
existing developments. Perhaps even a line of pine trees or other trees. (Dalton - 994 Dennis
St.)
Objections
1. The proposed project density is too high - want fewer units. (Bushnell- 1000 Femdale Street)
2. I believe that we do not need anymore PUD's in our area of Maplewood. The Towns of New
Century development is not selling and homes or townhomes because the market is not going
well. There is another housing development close by off of Linden and those are selling slowly as
well. I believe leaving the proposed land as is (a beautiful area of trees and non-developed land)
would be better for our community. Thank you for asking for my comments. (Greco - 2682 New
Century Place)
3. Please see the e-mail from D'Ann Bagan on page 32.
Comments
1. Our biggest concem is the increased traffic on Highwood Avenue. It is a racetrack now - will the
30 mph speed limit be enforced? (Amundson -1016 Femdale Street S)
2. Single dwellings are a better choice than town houses. The lots are very small and I am
concemed about the value of these detached town houses. (Heutmaker - 984 Femdale Street)
REFERENCE INFORMATION
SITE DESCRIPTION
Site size: 3.71 acres
Existing land use: Formerly a single dwelling and accessory buildings
SURROUNDING LAND USES
North:
South:
West:
East:
New Century PUD across Highwood Avenue
Interstate 494
Houses along Dennis Street and fronting on Highwood Avenue
House at 2684 Highwood Avenue and cellular telephone tower
14
PLANNING
Existing Land Use Plan designation: R-3(L) (low density multiple family residential)
Existing Zoning: F (farm residence)
Ordinance Requirements
Section 44-1103(b) requires a CUP to enlarge a use for which a CUP is required.
Criteria for Conditional Use Permit Approval
Section 44-1097(a) states that the city council may approve a CUP, based on nine standards. (See
findings 1-9 in the resolution on pages 46 through 49.)
Ordinance Requirements
Section 2-290(b) of the city code requires that the community design review board make the
following findings to approve plans:
1. That the design and location of the proposed development and its relationship to neighboring,
existing or proposed developments, and traffic is such that it will not impair the desirability of
investment or occupation in the neighborhood; that it will not unreasonably interfere with the use
and enjoyment of neighboring, existing or proposed developments; and that it will not create
traffic hazards or congestion.
2. That the design and location of the proposed development is in keeping with the character of the
surrounding neighborhood and is not detrimental to the harmonious, orderly and attractive
development contemplated by this article and the city's comprehensive municipal plan.
3. That the design and location of the proposed development would provide a desirable
environment for its occupants, as well as for its neighbors, and that it is aesthetically of good
composition, materials, textures and colors.
BACKGROUND
On September 23,2002, the city council held a public hearing about the proposed 10-Iot subdivision
for this site. After taking public testimony about the proposal, the applicant agreed to a time
extension for council action on the proposal. This time extension was to allow him time to study
other options for the property, including the idea of putting town houses near Highwood Avenue and
leaving the southem end of the property untouched.
On October 28, 2002, the city council again considered development options for this site. These
included the proposed 10-Iot single-family subdivision and a concept plan that showed 16 to 22
town houses on the site. The applicants agreed to another time extension for council action until
November 25, 2002, to allow them time to further develop the plans for town houses on the
property.
On January 27,2003, the council tabled action on the developer's request for a 10-Iot subdivision
for single dwellings for the site.
15
APPLICATION DATE
The city received the complete applications and project plans for this proposal on July 7, 2006.
State law requires that the city take action within 60 days of receiving complete applications for a
proposal. As such, the city needs to take action on the proposal by September 6, 2006, unless the
developer agrees to a time extension.
kr/p:/sec13-28/Cottagewood - 2006
Attachments:
1. Applicant's Statement
2. Location Map
3. Land Use Map
4. Zoning Map
5. Site Survey
6. Tree Inventory
7. Proposed Preliminary Plat
8. Site Plan
9. Grading Plan
10. Erosion Control Plan
11. Overall Utility Plan
12. 2003 Approved Site Plan
13. Michael Thompson's review dated 7-27-06
14. Memo from Lt. Shortreed dated July 18, 2006
15. E-mail from D'Ann Bagan dated 7-17-06
16. February 10, 2003 City Council Minutes
17. Conditional Use Permit Revision for Planned Unit Development (PUD) Resolution
18. Project Plans (separate attachments - including 11x17s and full-size)
16
Attachment 1
NARRATIVE
PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT
COTTAGEWOOD SUBDIVISION
OVERVEIW:
The Planned Unit Development (PUD) is located at 2666 Highwood Avenue. The parcel
is bordered to the East by a house at 2684 and cellular telephone tower, to the South by
Interstate 494, to the West by houses along Dennis Street and fronting on Highwood
Avenue and to the North by New Century PUD across Highwood Avenue. The site is
approximately 3.7 acres and will consist of 15 detached housing units with a total density
of 4.04 units per gross acre. This density is consistent with a medium density residential
development. The detached units will be located on a private street which will have
additional off street parking. All common areas within the development, such as
roadway, green space and ponding areas will be owned and maintained by a homeowners
association. In addition, all utilities within the proposed site will be privately owned and
maintained by the homeowners association.
APPLICANT'S STATEMENT
17
Attachment 2
\-{/ / ,r- I( ( JU~ I I I ~'
J ~_i:= Ir I~~~IT
\ J,/ I t1j. J)'2!'(j1! 6i
- /~, ,/;- LJ..- f--- ' \--- J\1,\ <:- - 'J ~ : :
,= , r '! \ /". I Q 1 I'
1,'-- ~ ~\~ ~~ ",:-, \\ E! I:
"
"
- . , '/J ,...-;::;' Jr€~ , Ii
....~ Y <.::-~ - \>, 7 I<:'?1f$.' ---$. : :
-~... \~ "'>,~~ / d '/~ 'W
, ..J 1,"- \ I"-- K ~-~'J!":b. ---- 7:1,' 1''/ I :~
r- ' /' ...... '1',. --1(( '." 11111, IW
'r-- \ "i 11- A..C ~'_~I:':C:l,' ! ~ ~~'o.::"" '-0. I:;:;:
_.\ I IlL.....- L.-' J 't ~,,---..I II '''':.QlJp.:;:ac,~
-- --- II - '~. I I, ,-
m..ut'7"lfi~"" --- I t7' ~L _)~ lit:
! I 'It- ~O),!f,~ 's: j::: 1 OO):~
I I I 'f"P[!:j. c::::. ~ Ft- j iLIJ
\ i l_ /~.Ii\ ~ ~ -s '~i~
~-",,/~L-:F-~[~ ~~-);-----lr--- 'ii I/n~ U r\),jlJ
,I I Ir- I I 11::;1 [I, 4.1 ,_,'I
:."' / II 1 J I r II~ " r- t:
'.I. J "t-- ,,' "J !:" ~.\.,- (IJ ,',
~ I: II ,~~I I~_ ~\:}\ I
~ ,~m-nr ~ 1 ),~ I I (/ f _J(~ _ <~J,-~,
....... _I I >1 1---1 ~Ii
" - 'I ,,, "Il_ ' /,L_".
,::1 i) j _,~ ",I .- I _
'---'~ I ,/2"-- " 1--,,- I" , j('-
~~ !J ----11/~- I ~U~ i:- II
-HJrYi'C2:= ij ilL -: ~.:;';~.::- T'i'- -, i= / f;/ ii
'It-- '''lr;::::J.' _:'.>-- - h__ / I' "
II r-- ~ if ~-- .1,HLb.::.L~-_--'~'-'-: ~ I'~ II
: i - -") ------,/ I i \"-..r>>; )i4~ ',~ / U
~--------~-_!!, - "',~ ,1" ~3 '" /; /,"
- ~1,Ln:IJ:J2~L~E.. ~ I ,1 I __ ~__.".-"~ '\.
, , , ---. / A"""",I,,',',:/
~ ' , , I :,.,- - :.:.-:~---- --~ I
I \....'~,~ ~ _ - ""","7,... ""l.~ -~ .::~----- - 1
'-.. _"'..:...w.t1'~""""--'
(l'/.. 1:,'/'
/ ~ti':.'~
/v / ,it
I'i
"'"
\
--{'~
/rP
~
>-
It:
;:)
,Ill
Q
'0
o
3:
Pleasantview Park
I I
~,
r
'I
),
,./.
,
i(~ j
,~~ ~
-' '" "~r
~-,~~~r--:-
j/
/I I
\\
t, -
\ >
"I-
"
1/
,/~/t/ \
j,"
<'I
'I
18
11
N
LOCATION MAP
..
~
"'"
Jo
:il
'"
~D
J
~
:?
]
1
N
-----......
,
I
I
(Ji
I
I
Qs3i
I
~3'i
..'
I
I
~7\
,
Attachment 3
1,1
j
~~>, 923 J
'-{"'-i'n",~'-
'.':"'4J..1.J:l.J'_L.L"t...
00
W
:::l
Z
~
~
:::l
!i
w
t.l
HIGHWOOD AVENUE ___ ______
it] b
!, I)
~
12
~
o
r1\
\)
o
D089
LAND USE PLAN MAP
11
N
19
1!1 I' Oil ' I
'" "
, ,
,
,
,
" '
OS: :
, '
, '
Uss! !
, '
, '
r1os! 'i
L..:r , '
, '
!
~
<=
Jo
~
J
J
]
J
I
]
]
Attachment 4
v~
~~~
00
w
,.;:)
,Z
:!!;!
;c
,~
:~
w
l.l
"
~7!.
, ,
J ,
[Y+s I: \ 9D
, , '0
'.....'
3:V\:~
'w'
'...J'
~ 1 l<i: un
lJIll '0' 9!l2LJ
'z'
I:l. ' ,
Lf"'9 lffii ~
,...,
, ,
r-:pJ.7: : ~
L.'j" , ,1
, ,
c9s
~
;:)
i
~_______.._ ._ ~_ _ n~
b~cb ~ ~
r1\
\)
(;>
D089
ZONING MAP
1!
N
20
-,.).
,
,
Attachment 5
o
-:.;:;..:_____---- _-.;;._-_....- _-.::_--_-;:..-- _-::..-__;;'/,-1
/~_~_ __ ~~::.'IJII~_~_~~_s..(_~_~~~~-..:;
.~
I
,
r
I
I
I
I
-::.--.,::
r~:::-
,
,
,
,
,
-,
,
,
-,
\
,
,
,
\
,
,
,
\
,
,
/
/
:::.---' ~
-
-,
I
I
I
I
I I
L_-I
1-,
I \
,
)-__L
......./ 1
J _"'1'1
. ,
,
,
--I
1........ \
, ,
.\ \
, ,
, ,
I I
-+-
I
I
,
.,
I
II
II
-n
II
1\
I \
. \
, '
1@
.....----,
\
q<6L-{
q"lt.{
\CO'-I
1012.
I
\
~-~-
10/3
i___"'....
.
/
_L
1/
/
/
,/
,
/ ~'
- \
\ ~ ....~
I
I
I
r
I
I
".~
'<
SITE SURVEY
.,
TT
110/ ,I
1\ I
1t.b~1
( \ I
\ \ 1 JI\ \ l'
\ \ :L.l--\ ---
\ 1\\ \ \
\ \\ \. \ ,
\ \\\ \ 't
II" \
\ \ \ "-
\ \ \ " 'I
\ \', 'I
\ I
IJI \
1111
" I
I II I
",
I,'
1\
I '
I -....,.
I
I
I
,
,
-,
,
, 1
, /
\ \ /.
- - ,
'-.:::---<1
-______1
-------:,.
----
_--_ ---'I
r--==:~"I
/ /----- 'i
I "~"~I
I I __
\ I / -...._-.
I I -_
I ; ....,.
\ I I ,
, I I
I +- L- ,CELL TOWER
I \.._--_
I \ .....,
I. \.. ....---..... 's
\ ~ ,
'_~~~~=~)\ 'I
----.... \.
-___ \ 1
\ I I
-.." ) J I I
I :::}./I I 1.1. '
j ,.. ,.. / I /
-1/ ~ I / I ;
\ I 1/ / / / / /
I \ 1/1///1/ //"'/
(0'2/ I -- -- '" I 1/ / / / / / / ,
:Jo - ,/"'/.rr, 1//1/(/ //;1///....
/ ,.. r- IIJlf//I/;///
1_----.... \ ....._ //I'II//l//;;;I
\....---- ,,'..... 11/1// /1/ / I ;-t{11 1;1;"
__ ......" //11111111111
l:.._~~~ ,-//111111111;
....____ .;::-.....:. .../ /1111,1 III/II
,,_ , II III,'V /
_--__, --.I 111I11 II
...--__.......... -__I.I;llllllt
....--__ ......- _----" .11.1111 I
;--_ -_---/ 1.1; 1/ /1 I
___ - -:'-:::'::':::"://1 1/
..../__ ............._ /,/ I I /
-------------::.:>;/ /
...;-~...,.~
21
Ii
II
U1
III
,Ii
~ ~I!
1.1
t
1J
N
),.\.
td=----
-..-- .
-HIGHIfOODAVENUE EAST
-- .-... -
,
"'-
--, ,- / \':"
I I li~
I I ';.. '0 L....J
"
I . 'r)P
",I-. :z.
I '0 ,. I
--L -1
, I
/-
---
--- <13'1
"
In
q:(Lf :'"
<( ..,
..-1!
(t) ..i
la.?M
o
o
:;~
IOI~
I 0[:6 ,
lozLt .
lOb"
(O?G
1Cf12- 0;
,-')
~, ;.-
',z-
(v
(-
"
'"
.
.
'1
I.
0,
'0
!,
"
--0 U
f)
~.
,
/
~ //
~//
~~/)/
!y {
~ '
~/
'/
//
/~~. .~~/
)y
Attachment 6
-----..
----
N
~
~_' ---1
S<oI,'-_.O'
c]
"
l"l!ofDo'<rlpl;".,
~r:::e:.:----el:'''!-'''''---I'''''''_''
....... _.:::/\,,;, -= ~_::.:.(.~ t:;.l:.'ff.t''':/';'..- II') or
~E:=~'~:Et~"".:..:..,~~,~:-",:..
TRfllHVCNTORY
".,
,,,,,..
'" ,,~
--
......
',n
"''''
'''H."...,,,
*
0--
.---<-
,.-....-
.---...
'--'-'"
CIVIL I1Nr.1NUR: ~;:Mr~~~:~/~~i:""'CI"I.....
HUd""n, .,,/ '41HIt
'l1.'..'tlI/.flen
Aft..: Malfh.... D. H..lb. P.l:.
TREE INVENTORY
22
1!
N
}' \. - -HIGHlfOODAVENUE EAST ___, -~~
~ ~ -=-~. ~~~ '",~.'~~":"r,i7~ -~~:~i\~~-=.~~-~ - ~ ~
- - -.,'" -'i'- - I -
/ r;-"1 ['MIt ; I
'Il~ I' 10 I El I "~
,;, ~w, l~ 1 ~ ,1<'
!~ '
I.. I.",'" I
<0 i1...J
-,
I
1
I
I
-L
,-
I
1
I "
.,'.
'0" '1
-j
I
/-
-,
Attachment 7
N
~
~...__a
Soole '" _ 40'
~
,
'12 2
I~
I~ ,r- 1
0-_..___
Legal Description
111. C,ul 0.... Il<m_ Mn.ly--"1/!1 (193) f..! of fhot NMh~.... __ (1'00) 'oori '"
tho 11'..1 ~"" of l~. NooiholDal Qu.o"... of ltI. South...,." QuorHr (W 1/2 ~ 1/4 SE 1/4) '"
$",,11.... Ihkl",,"(r:l), T._hip T_nly_&lghl (211). Ratog.r....,ly-l_(22). uO"l'lllleEool
T.""ll~""" (25) 'MI..lJ.o ."'.pI", ilia! paoll_"'", fflthw<ry J9J. 'lO. k"...." <Ill
Inlenr!<tl. High""'Y .'4, A"" .ubjoot 10 Iho1 pari. luh" for Slot. I1Igh-r rOll. obo kIlO........
Hlgh_R""d.IlO.~"""no'flI9I>_~.
A~.
G<w8 Tolol mo-19O,Jr2 Sq n'/4.J7Aor..
H"'9h"<'OdA"",(.Area-"f1l2Sq.f1.jO.12kre.
Int..-oIG'. Hlgh""'Yk<<,-27,1/!4Sqo. Ff-/O,1I2Ac_
~l 1<>1<>1 Mla-r~7.'#' SQ. n./J.6J ""'"
LatAreas
-"
Let I 5.1fm.2 Sq""...I'..t
Lol2 .l,lIfll.7 5qo",.F..l
LolJ 3.140.7 ~FHl
Lo,. ..578.0 ~F..I
Lol-' ..550.0 Sqocn-eF..t
Lol6 4,436.2 Squ....."..1
Lol7 4.~18.1 Sq<J_"_
1,01 t! ...~Jg,$ SquONl "0"
A"'FOlI'IlolAr'04.405,BS~""1
8/ock2
L"ll J.!l44./ Sq""",Ftol
LoI 2 J.72Z./ Sq""", F.~
L"'J J.7!l4./l Sq.......Ftol
Lol4 J.72B.2 SquoreFtol
LoIS J.B4B.7 SquoroF."
biB J,SIl8.5 Sq.......Ftol
t,,17 J./l12.g Sq""'.F.ol
Av""'9otolkoa J.659.g Sqo<>roFut
Bem;hmark
fop 1M Hydrmt M ~ lM>drom. N_ Cerrl"'Y O1Id ffigh_ Awl t.
tI....,~."~IOOJ.gll {p..- city of Mopl...<><H1 D<lt""'J
_I
II .
C-.l
Onoihog. "nd UI~;ly .""."".,,1. "re "1M...,, ,,,",,:
e.mg5 IH/in "idthadjoini"glo/Ii"e,., unless
otlMrwi""inckohod,<lt>(/ III ~rinwid/llodioining
rlo]/lt-of-wayl/rntlJ, '"' mow" on thepJat.
/'
'0
PROPOSED PRELIMINARY PLAT
<oj
"
r-
.
0"
2
.--
o
(j
.
Co
(n
,,'
,.
., "
--lO
,. ~~
(f) "'
'" 7
D
D
D .
.'
.C
..
..
,.
~~
,.
,.
':'';
s
Q,-
'.z-
'c
..
'u .,
" .
"
I.
"
..
" ,,'
'I 0
. " "
I. ,
" ~//
l OUTLOT //
o A y
~-
;;
;;
-
'..
/'/
//
~
23
11
N
Attachment 8
)J
m
_ll-
~ Ii
- "" - - - - - - -.... - - - - - - - - - --
a SAY QOOMHDIH
., r------
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I 1jd(~P
I I
I I
I I
I I
L___.,
I
I
I
J-------
I
:00
: -2b-g4 I
I I
~ :
_____..L_____
N
-
--
--
'1V1 .. I P;I
--- , p
s
l 0 I; I ~ Ii II!
z !!!!!
9 w
"' II i.'
<::PlL1 0 ~
~
I III I! Ii!
I II
--- I ili
~ I J :i!
..
..
[wt..!
..
----
..
~- ~~
(0\ Z.
..
1b{'3
24
\f
N
SITE PLAN
Attachment 9
- ~~-;.-
,
I j Ij
I _ _ .... - ---
I _":_----- _-- _---_--_- _-- _-- _~_:.;;,---
----==-_~~i'..___~;_ _---~7e_::.;;.,~~.:: ~---?"' -~-
( ,- ...-- -.:;-- \- ,- .;::- 1- ...- (", " ..... .....
~..
o
e...........
,
,
..,
C?1~ "
I
I
_1-
- I
I
I
,
,,'
fW4 \
I
II If
, II
-," ,
I I 1\
I "
I "
I "
lofti \,
I
~ 1..._....-....
,
-\--
......-......--
,
,
/
\ / ,!
, /
.......'---_/....~
----.....
----------~
--------'!
-----
---""
----- "
--- ......,
/________.... 'f
,
I / ~//------' 'i
- ,
I . '~
I I .....--_
I I / ----,
\ I r ....--......
" I I ' .
\ \ I 't;:;
1\ \ I
:t I I \
'f I I I
T~!-t---
I I I l,
~-
h
101<3
/
/
--1-
i(
/
/
/
GRADING PLAN
25
/
-I-
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
lId Iqj
Biq
.11 C
II! !~
""I -
., H."
Illi I' e II
.~I~J~~
i
i 1111 :. 11111
ffi lilll II II! I ;hl
~ 'i, It llll
IIP"/1I11 I
,s.-
I' ·
!~I
f"!11
.'J
IIII
iol k.
11
N
Attachment 10
. --
....' _<(I"
---- -------::---::---:=--~:---:---~~--:;;-~-~:
__ _----- _-~_=__~.,., __.- ~..,....._.:~~="",~~_...~__..:r-,_-
. ~W --- ,- .0'1'-.... - - .- ,- , . '
,I !.- -i" \ ~ '\ ':'" \B \. ~... ... ... '- '....
'I ' \ \ \ \
\ \ \ \ \ \ \ I \ \ \ \
I HIGH
1-1
,
\,+ \
/
,
---'--
,
ii' ,/"
,
,
.
s "
I Orb -;'--' III )
'....----
,
,
,
\ -
," \ \ \ \
~ "! I \ \ \l, \
/ I I I II-I I \ \ \ 'I \ \
I I I I >' 1\ \ \ II
I I I I 'I 6 I \ \ I \
/ / I / / " \ \ \ \
'I II1I
I I I I I 7" J /',.1 III
/III///I/If III
/ I / I I I / I II I
I I / I "I, I III
, I / I / ;' " I / I I
-W~/:'"
\..1 \
]..1 j
I I /....
i ~;: llJIJ I
\ I hi ii' ""/<7,1 I
\ ''''-...~~ I
\ I " I ~ I
\ \ I \ I !I I
t, \ I I
, '
::J..L___~..L_____
1\ \ \ \
\\ ',\', ..
,I \ \... I ! I!Ib
\\,\\ '!Ii -llls;-llli
,\\\ '<"i i~ I'~ "t. . I II ifl
\ \ \ \, "Ii ~i = 5 I I 1 : 111=1 !-~
. I : 1 i " ei II i= ~ I III! _ !. .I!
:~: \ 1-11= I. 1 IIIII1 f!;
/.) \ i i li~~ I I: =11"'1 ;~I
j i \, ~iiill.l ~!!~!i~~
" III i "I i!i~~i! !III .~'!~!i~~il
i IjilUiU1 I ~ =h~ II~! ~I ~ ~
,d ~ \ ~a~ ~Hii~ ii: II~; I:P" ~ti
\ I I.. .. PI 4 .. .. ,..: II 11II Ii
\ \ l!!
,I .
,I ,
\ , ,
, I ,
\ \ ,/ .r
\ ,-....
, ,
'fl: .........- ,,/
" ---- ~
; ....------.....~ fU
_______h___-~
, ---~~~-------,r
,-- - ----',~
,_ _---:::::~>l
, ,
.../ ---- .... ..
/ /' ----" '~
, ,
f / '~
I I ,.---__
\: ( -----~
\ I I ....---....
\ \ \ I ..., CD
\ \ \ I 'Ii;
I \ I I
I \ I I
ill \
~ \ I I
~t-+-~---
--I-
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
..._---~~:-==~~==;:::
r--8~""",':.-
I - .....\
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
----1
I ~--,
I \
I \
I
.J-----,-
~~ iu
I
~ft\
,
I
- - --\-
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
I
I
I
I
I
UG.O
~/------,\
- ,
,
,
.
.-
"
,
,
,
..,
qq~ 'i
I
--r
I
I
I
I
I
..\
I
(wLj i !/ ,
I III
--/L-i I
I I I \
I 1\\
I I I
, I I
I "
{612- i \
I
~ \.........--...
,
.-\_--
\....-....""--...
I i
I " ,I
I i I · I
~ .i! ! Ii I
I :1 il ~ I
~ /:
I, -
!!I
mil \
26
1r
N
EROSION CONTROL PLAN
--,
I
I
I
I
I
I
to
~~
ZZ
..
_b
~
r---
I ....
I
I
I
I
I
I I
L__-j
I
I
-->-----
~
~
~
~
C{<3t..j
---
C\G\L./
100L!
100Z:
~
~---
. .IIE___
..._.....AIIloU
---
.
-
CIlNSEJIIYA1IllN
~
Attachment 11
""
"..
""'"
1. t:OIIlRACIIIII'nlIlEUl\OFYAU.~I11IJlU_TOCOIIS1IIlI.I(:'
2. ElISlIlGSIltecNlll1KlNllll&UClS__lDlIlllT__
~-'I.ND~IICAlIlSINI.ND~
3. AlLlD5IIUl'JIlIlIlPlSllNGlllREEl'SlIWJ.iI[""WCIIT.S1lU:T_
(UIl~lOYATalfJlWlJlllS1llaTGlWlESAllDDIISllNll
~-~
~'W ~~=F
~-
4. ~_OFSN4ITMYIE'IEII__EllIS'IItG$'JRI;ET""'Y.
IXIN5IlOIDlAS....,\I.lERHAlI\lEF~
5.COM1IlACTORlDClllIIltIlU.lE_liIUl1Ull.1llE!1Nf'(IIIEUlCA_aFUNtSOll
1EWPClRNt'l'~~~~
OVERALL UTILITY PLAN
27
..
01
~
J
I II
1
-
,.....
11
N
Attachment 12
SSll.~~ 'n. ------
------
o! - on.
~ 1- ~ .... I. ,:u.a -i--
I ~-c't
l" 0 ~
1 I III ao - a. 11 [] I
" .
~ " . "-1
I I tr)P !i dl~~/.fl
I .. .. .! 50
I ,1 _..J__
-l e~
. to ......_.
J-- !I
<
/"' iO :: g
--- ~y Hs"
OJ ,1
'I' t=I ~
r- ....{t"t j ~ J[~ I
- o -.0 2U a.
n . , .' J~ Jfr
.l .~
,. .:i
y'q t-/ '" !' ~ -I . ,
I I, Ifll i'r~
. < . ~ .~
"' t. I "I !~~
- J.j - ~I i .II-,
~ ~~ ~U .1:I5l.:::::
{I z,;::
n ,,,, f-.
'," . "
(coy ~~ If m~ ~fiS
a r-og,.!-'
f lfIl h
n
I '.
IOIz.. .-
s
. i-
I
F
.'
10$
(02.t..\
/
/
/
I
I
II
'I ,t
I <t ?
101-\ 2.- / .$fr+ J? ~
;-: r "~17~ _q ,
I' ~ H88.~'JlI"'t /
1O~
!!!Ii, :
IP!Ji ~
I
Ii I I
dL~11 i~i;
.~I Ila
j .
I. .
,
~ I i J
II t [ ~ -T
i .. - ..
1030
/zeb-Oz-'
SITE PLAN 2003 PLI'1!\./
PRELIMINARY PLAT: HIGHWOOD FARM
28
11
N
Attachment 13
Page 10f2
Enl!ineerinl! Plan Review
PROJECT:
PROJECT NO:
REVIEWED BY:
DATE:
Cottagewood Development
06-08
Michael Thompson (Maplewood Engineering Department)
July 28, 2006
The developer, Lauren & Company, is requesting City approval of a 15-lot planned unit
development for the property at 2666 Highwood Avenue East. The developer or project
engineer shall make the changes to the plans and site and shall address the concerns listed below.
Utilities
The developer is working with the city on the feasibility study for extending both sanitary sewer
and water to serve the proposed development. This work would be a public project.
I. The proposed sanitary sewer and storm utilities would be in the new private drive (Farrell
Street) and the homeowners association would maintain these utilities. The sanitary sewer
that will serve the property at 2660 Highwood Avenue (off the new private road) would
be public. This sewer would be in an easement dedicated as a 20-foot-wide drainage and
utility easement and the project surveyor shall show this easement on the final plat. The
city would maintain all similar utilities within Highwood Avenue once the contractor
successfully completes the installation of the public improvements (sewer and water
extensions),
2. As already stated above, the project surveyor shall show a 20-foot-wide drainage and
utility easement on the final plat over the north part of Lot 15. This easement will be for
the sanitary sewer pipe that will be serving the property at 2660 Highwood Avenue, All
sewer pipe upstream of the connection in the new private road (Farrell Street) shall be
privately maintained. The contractor shall install a sanitary sewer manhole in the private
road just south of the public easement line to delineate the publicly maintained sanitary
from the privately maintained sanitary,
3. 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. Please submit
documentation to the city engineering staff of such approval.
Drainage & Treatment
1. The basin landscaping design shall be subject to approval by the city's naturalist, Ginny
Gaynor.
2. On the storm sewer plan, include the normal water level (NWL) elevation for the
treatment basin,
29
Page 2 of2
3. American Engineering and Testing, Inc., did geotechnical exploration on the site on May
12, 2006. They did three soil borings to a depth of about 15 feet on the site and two of
the three borings were in the exact locations of the proposed infiltration basins. The main
infiltration basin that treats a majority of the onsite street runoff is would be at the
northeast corner of the site, The bottom of the infiltration trench is set at an elevation of
875.00 in soils that are classified as a silty sand (according to American Engineering
Testing Inc,) and it is estimated to have moderate permeability. The proposed basin
would be about 55-feet west of the house at 2684 Highwood Avenue, which, according to
the topographic survey, has a building floor elevation of about 980.00. The soils report
does not list any restrictive soil layers that would impede downward movement of water
into the existing soils,
Grading & Erosion Control
1. Please include in the specifications and project plans City of Maple wood Plate No. 350
for details on sediment and erosion control measures.
Miscellaneous
I, 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 shall implement a homeowners association as part of this development.
This is to ensure that there is a responsible party for the regular maintenance and care of
the basins, rainwater gardens, retaining walls, private utilities, and all other features
common to the development.
3. The developer shall enter into a maintenance agreement, prepared by the city, for the
gardens, basins, and sumps,
4. The city will require the developer to enter into a developer's agreement, This will be to
assure that the contractor installs the public sewer service that will extend to the east lot
line of2660 Highwood Avenue to city standards and that it is constructed when the
contractor installs the private sanitary sewer main.
5. The developer and project engineer shall satisfy the requirements of all permitting
agencies.
6. City staff will closely observe all construction activities - especially the enforcement of
erosion and sediment control measures.
30
Attachment 14
Maplewood Police Department
Memo
To: Ken Roberts
From: Lieutenant Michael Shortreed 111fJJ#(; 7 7
Date: July 18, 2006
Re: PROJECT REVIEW - Cottagewood 2666 Highwood Avenue
After reviewing the attachec proposal for Cottagewood, I have the following
comments and suggestions:
1) The increasec traffic congestion resulting from an increased population off of Highwood
Avenue may result in increased traffic complaints from the residents along Highwood
Avenue.
2) Construction site thefts and burglaries are a large business affecting many large
construction projects throughout the Twin Cities metro area. The contractor should be
encouraged to plan and provide for site security during the construction process. On-site
security, alarm systems, and any other appropriate security measures would be highly
encouragec to deter and report theft and suspicious activity incidents in a timely manner.
3) Appropriate security and street lighting should be provided and maintained in order to
assure that addresses within the development are readily recognizable and accessible.
4) Each residential unit within the development should have its own unique address as
opposed to having a group of units with the same address, but a different unit number.
5) Since private roads often tend to be much narrower than public streets, on street parking
is often limited as a result. It is highly encouraged that enough parking spaces be
providec for the residents to have their guests park during special events such as
birthdays and holidays. The City of Maplewood would be encouraged to clearly post
Highwood Avenue as a "No Parking" area.
If there are any questions or concerns regarding these comments or suggestions, please
contact me at your soonest convenience. I can be reached via phone at (651 )249-2605 or
via email atmichael.shortreed@cLmaolewood.mn.us.
31
Page I of I
Attachment 15
Ken Roberts
From: D'Ann Bagan [tdbagan@usfamily.net]
Sent: Monday, July 17, 2006 7:57 AM
To: Ken Roberts
Subject: 2666 Highwood Ave. Development
I'm still trying to figure out why is it that we need every litUe peice of property jammed with houses. The peice of land is too
small for so many homes. I think that it is not fair to the homes on Dennis st. to have houses so close in their backyard.
They were there first, chances are great they would not have built there if there had been homes so close to the property
line to begin with. How does this change the value of the existing homes? I'm no expert but I'm sure a house with a
wooded backyard is more appealing to sell than one with a house so close to the property line, I know the property will
eventually be built on but why can't someone come up with something more reasonable? How about fewer houses with a
road on the East side only? The houses could be further from the houses on Dennis St. and they would have more space
to be single family homes. I can't imagine who would want to build so close to 494 - I hope they build something that will
seH. Is it truely so important to have a bigger tax base that we need every tree tom down to build another house? Do we
just keep going until we use up every peice of land? If that's the case, I think the homes already existing on that property
line deserve to have a decent amount of land between them. Please tum down these plans and insist on something with
fewer homes on this small peice of property that will keep up with the value of the neighborhood.
Thank you,
D'Ann Bagan
--- USFamily.Net - $8.25/mo! -- Highspeed - $19.99/mo! m
2(;35
tJ E Ivt t--r2-
It If E 1\.1 V'"'E.-
7/17/2006
32
Attachment 16
MINUTES
MAPLEWOOD CITY COUNCIL
7:00 P.M. Monday, February 10,2003
Council Chambers, Municipal Building
Meeting No. 03-03
A. CAlL TO ORDER:
A meeting of the City Council was held in the Council Chambers, at the Municipal Building, and
was called to order at 7:00 P.M. by Mayor Cardinal.
B. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
C. ROLL CAlL
Robert Cardinal, Mayor
Kenneth V. Collins, Councilmember
Kathleen Juenemann, Cowcilmember
Marvin C. Koppen, CoW1cilmember
Julie A Wasiluk, Cowcilmember
Present
Present
Present
Present
Absent
D. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
1. Minutes from the January 27, 2003 CouncillManager Workshop
CoW1cilmember Juenemann moved to aoorove the CowcillMan&Rer WorkshoD Minutes of
January 27. 2003 as mesented.
Seconded by Cowcilmember Koppen
Ayes-All
2. Minutes from City COlDlcil Meeting from January 27, 2003 Meeting No. 03-03
Councilmember Collins moved to lUJDrOVe the City Cowcil Minutes of January 27. 2003
meeting as amended.
Seconded by COlmcilmember Juenemmm
Ayes-All
Eo APPROVAL Oil AGENDA
M1. Sandy Lake Site Soccer Fields
M2, Conference of Mayor's Message
M3. WebsiteHits
M4. LalDlderville Towing
M5. Town Meeting
N1. Interstate 94 Improvements @
McKnight and Century
Councilmember Juenemann moved to lUJDrOVe the &Renda as amended.
Seconded by Comcilmember Collins
Ayes-All
City COlDlCil 02-10-03
33
Councilmember Koppen moved to adoot the following resolution ordering the Parkwav Lift
Station Removal Imorovements. City Proiect 02-14:
ORD
RESOLUTION 03-02-015
G IMPROVEMENT AFI'ER PUBLI
NG
WHEREAS, a resoluti
for a council hearing on the pro
Project 02-14,
of the city council adopted the 27ili y of January 2003, fixed a date
ed Parkway Sanitary Sewer L' Station Removal Improvement, City
AND WHEREAS, ten days mal
given, and the hearing was duly held on
desiring to be heard on the matter and has
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOL V
MINNESOTA, as follows:
1. That it is necessary, cost-effi 've and jj 'ble, as detailed in the feasibility report, that the
City of Maplewood make improvemen to the Parkway anitary Sewer Lift Station Removal, City
Project 02-14,
2. Such improvemen s hereby ordered as proposed' the council resolution adopted the 10ili
day of February 2003,
3. The city en . neer is designated engineer for this impro ment and is hereby directed to
prepare final plans an pecifications for the making of said improve t.
4. The
implement the
proposed fin
ce director is hereby authorized to make the financi transfers necessary to
cing plan for the project A project budget of $608,800 all be established The
ing plan is as follows:
Assessments
Maplewood Sanitary Sewer Fund
City ofSt Paul
SPRWS Obligation
Total
$ 24,280
$321,180
$245,040
$ 18.300
$608,800
Seconded by Councilmember Juenemann
Ayes-All
2. 7:10 (7:27) p.rn. Highwood Farms Town Houses (Highwood Avenue)
Land Use Plan Change (R-I to R-3 (L))
Conditional Use Permit (CUP) for a Planned Unit Development (PUD)
Preliminary Plat
a City Manager Fursman presented the staff report.
b. Associate Planner Roberts presented specifics from the report.
c. Commissioner Fisher presented the Planning Commission Report.
City Couocil 02-10-03
6
34
d. Charles Cox, applicant, was present to answer questions,
e. Mayor Cardinal opened the public hearing, calling for proponents or opponents. The
following person was heard:
John Maslowski, 1004 Dennis Street South, Maplewood
f Mayor Cardinal closed the public hearing,
Councilmember Koppen moved to adoDt the followin!!; resolution aoDrovin!!; a land use Dlan
change for the Hi!!;hwood Farm Dlst on the south side ofHi!!;hwood Avenue. east of Dennis
Street. This chan!!;e is from R-l (sinJde dwellinl!S) to R-3 (LXlow-densitv multiple dwellings):
RESOLUTION 03-02-016
LAND USE PLAN CHANGE RESOLUTION
WHEREAS, Mr. Charles Cox is proposing a change to the city's land use plan from R-l (single
dwellings) to R-3(L) (low density multiple dwellings).
WHEREAS, this change applies to the property now known has 2666 Highwood Avenue in Section
13, Township 28, Range 22, Ramsey County, Minnesota.
WHEREAS, the history of this change is as follows:
I. On January 22, 2003, the planning commission held a public hearing. The city staff published a
hearing notice in the Maplewood Review and sent notices to the surrounding property owners. The
planning commission gave everyone at the hearing a chance to speak and present written
statements. The planning commission recommended that the city council not approve the plan
amendment.
2, On February 10, 2003, the city council discussed the proposed land use plan change. They
considered reports and recommendations from the planning commission and city staff.
NOW, TIlEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the city council approve the above-described change
for the following reasons:
1. 11 would be consistent with the goals and objectives of the comprehensive plan. These include
having similar uses fronting on the same street, having a grading plan that preserves many
significant natural features and uses a planned unit development to allow for creative design
solutions.
2, This site is proper for and consistent with the city's policies for low-density multiple dwelling
use. This includes:
a Creating a transitional land use between the existing low density residential and
the existing telecooununications site.
b. 11 is on a colleclor street and is near an arterial street.
c, Minimizing any adverse effects on surrounding properties because there would
City Council 02-1~3 7
35
be no traffic from this development on existing residential streets.
3. It would be consistent with the proposed planned IDlit development (PUD) and land
uses.
Seconded by Councilmember Juenemann
Ayes-All
Councilmember Koppen moved to adODt the followinl! resolution aoDrovinl! a conditional
use oonnit for a Dlanned unit develooment for the Hiehwood Farm develooment on the
south side of Hicllwood Avenue. east of Dennis Street.
RESOLUTION 03-02-017
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION
WHEREAS, Mr. Charles Cox, representing the project developers, applied for a conditional
use permit (CUP) for the Highwood Farm residential planned unit development (PUD).
WHEREAS, this permit applies to the Highwood Farm town house development plan the city
received on December 26, 2002 for the property at 2666 Highwood Avenue. The legal description
IS:
Subject to State TH 100/117 and HWY 393, the north 1100 feet of the West 173 feet of the
East 198 feet of the West Y, oftheNE \4 of the SE \4 of Section 13, Township 28, Range 22,
Ramsey County, Minnesota. (This is the property to be known as Lots 1-19 of the proposed
Highwood Farm)
WHEREAS, the history of this conditional use permit is as follows:
1. On January 22, 2003, the planning commission recommended that the city council
approve this permit.
2, On February 10, 2003, the city council held a public hearing. The city staff published a
notice in the paper and sent notices to the surrounding property owners. The council
gave everyone at the hearing a chance to speak and present written statements. The
COWlcil also considered reports and recommendations of the city staff and planning
commission.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the city council approve the above-described
conditional use permit because:
1. The use would be located, designed, maintained, constructed and operated to be in
conformity with the city's comprehensive plan and code of ordinances,
2. The use would not change the existing or planned character of the surrounding area
3. The use would not depreciate property values,
City COlDlCil 02-10-03
8
36
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, fmnes, 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 propcsed 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 environmenta1 effects,
Approval is subject to the following conditions:
I. All construction shall follow the plans approved by the city. The city council may
approve major changes to the plans. The Director of Community Development may
approve minor changes to the plans. Such changes shall include:
a Revising the grading and site plans to show:
(I) The developer minimizing the loss or removal of natural vegetation,
(2) All driveways at least 20 feet wide, If the developer wants to have parking on
one side of the main drive, then it must be at least 28 feet wide. However,
widening of the driveway must not lessen the side setback of the driveway
from the east property line.
(3) All parking stalls with a width of at least 9.5 feet and a length of at least 18
feet. Revise the plans to reduce the number of spaces between the buildings
from three to two to allow more space between the parking area and the edge
of the building. Also, revise the parking spaces and the tum-arOlmd area at the
south end of the site to maximize the number of trees to be saved, to maximize
the number of spaces and to minimize the amount of hard surface area
(4) Revised storm water pond locations and designs as suggested or required by
the watershed district or city engineer. The ponds shall meet the city's design
standards.
(5) The developer minimizing the loss or removal of natural vegetation including
city Cotmcil 02-1~3
9
37
keeping and protecting as many of the large trees in the undisturbed area south of
the town houses and parking areas.
2. The proposed construction must be substantially started within one year of council approval or
the permit shall end. The council may extend this deadline for one year.
3. Have the city engineer approve final construction and engineering plans. These plans shall
meet all the conditions and changes noted in the engineer's memo dated January 14,2003.
a Include grading, utility, drainage, erosion control, streets, trails, sidewalks, tree,
retaining walls, driveway and parking lot plans.
b. Show no grading or ground disturbance in the conservation easement. This land is to
be preserved for open space purposes. The developer and contractors shall protect this
area, including the large trees that are in and near the south side of the site, from
encroachment from equipment. grading or filling.
C. Include a storm water management plan for the proposal.
4. The design of all ponds shall meet Maplewood's design standards and shall be subject to
the approval of the city engineer. If needed, the developer shall be responsible for getting
any off-site pond and drainage easements,
5. The developer or contractor shall:
a. Complete all grading for the site drainage and the ponds, complete all public
improvements and meet all city requirements.
b. * Place temporary orange safety fencing and signs at the grading limits.
c. Remove any debris or junk from the site, including the conservation area
d. Provide the city with verification that the town houses on the proposed site plan
will meet the state's noise standards. This shall be with a study, testing or other
documentation. If the noise on this site is a factor, then the contractor will have to
build the town houses such that they can meet the noise standards. This may be
done with thicker walls, heavier windows, requiring air conditioning or other
sOlmd-deadening construction methods. The developer shall provide the city with
this docwnentation before the city will issue a building permit for the town houses,
6. The approved setbacks for the principal structures in the Highwood Farm PUD shall be:
a Front-yard setback (from a public street or a private driveway): minimum - 30 feet,
maximum - 35 feet
b. Rear-yard setback: 30 feet from any adjacent residential property line
City Cowcil 02-10-03
10
38
8. Submit the homeowners association documents to city stafffor review and approval.
9. The developer shall provide a permanent means to preserve and maintain the common
open space. This may be done by conservation easement, deed restrictions, covenants or
public dedication. The developer shall record this document with the final plat and
before the city issues a permit for grading or utility construction
} O. The city colDlcil shall review this permit in one year.
II. This approval does not include the design approval for the townhomes. The project
design plans, including architectural, site, lighting, tree and landscaping plans, shall be
subject to review and approval of the community design review board (CDRB). The
projects shall be subject to the following conditions:
a Meeting all conditions and changes as required by the city council.
b. For the driveways:
(I) Minimum width - 20 feet.
(2) Maximum width - 28 feet.
(3) All driveways less than 28 feet in width shall be posted for "No Parking" on
both sides, Driveways at least 28 feet wide may have parking on one side and
shall be posted for No Parking on one side.
c. Showing all changes required by the city as part of the conditional use permit for the
planned unit development (PUD).
12. The city shall not issue any building permits for construction on an outlot (per city code
requirements). The developer must record a final plat to create buildable lots in the
preliminary plat before the city will issue a building permit.
Seconded by COlDlcilmember Juenemann
Ayes-All
Councilmember Koppen moved to aoorove a oreliminarv olat to create the lots for the town
houses, The develooer shall comolete the followin{! before the city council aooroves the final
olat:
}, Sign an agreement with the city that guarantees that the developer or contractor will:
City Council 02-10-03
II
39
C. Side-yard setback (town houses): minimum - 47 feet from the west property line and
50 feet from the east property line.
7. The developer or builder will pay the city Pad: Access Charges (pAC fees) for each
housing unit at the time of the building permit for each housing unit.
40
a. Complete all grading for overall site drainage, complete all public improvements and
meet all city requirements,
b.. Place tempormy orange safety fencing and signs at the grading limits.
c. Have Xcel Energy install Group V rate street lights in two locations - primarily at the
street intersection and near the south end of the driveway. The exact style and location
shall be subject to the city engineer's approval.
d. Pay the city for the cost of traffic-control, street identification and no parking signs.
e. Provide all required and necessary easements, including any off-site easements.
f Demolish or remove the existing house and garage from the site, and remove all other
buildings, fencing, trailers, scrap metal, debris and junk from the site.
g. Cap and seal all wells on site that the owners are not using; remove septic systems or
dminfields, subject to Minnesota rules and guidelines.
h. Complete all the curb and gutter on Highwood Avenue on the north side of the site.
This is to replace the existing driveways on Highwood Avenue and shall include the
restoration and sodding of the boulevards.
I. Install a sign where the new driveway intersects Highwood Avenue indicating that it is
a private driveway.
J, Install survey monuments and signs along the edges of the conservation easement area.
These signs shall explain that the area beyond the signs is a conservation easement
area and that there shall be no building, fences, mowing, cutting, filling, dwuping or
other ground disturbance in that area. The developer or contractor shall install these
signs before the city issues building permits in this plat.
2. Have the city engineer approve final construction and engineering plans. The applicant
shall have these plans revised to follow the comments of the city engineer and shall
include the grading, utility, drainage, erosion control, tree and street plans. The plans shall
meet the following conditions:
a The erosion control plans shall be consistent with the city code.
b. The grading plan shall show:
(1) The proposed building pad elevation and contour information for each
building site. The lot lines on this plan shall follow the approved preliminlUy
plat.
City COlDlCil 02-10-03
12
41
(2) Contour information for all the land that the construction will disturb,
(3) Building pads that reduce the grading on sites where the developer can save
large trees.
(4) The proposed street and driveway grades as allowed by the city engineer.
(5) All proposed slopes on the construction plans. The city engineer shall approve
the plans, specifications and management practices for any slopes steeper than
3:1. On slopes steeper than 3:1, the developer shall prepare and implement a
stabilization and planting plan. At a minimum, the slopes shall be protected with
wood-fiber blanket, be seeded with a no-maintenance vegetation and be
stabilized before the city approves the final plat
(6) All retaining walls on the plans. Any retaining walls taller than four feet
require a building permit from the city. The developer shall install a protective rail or
fence on top of any retaining wall that is taller than four feet.
(7) Sedimentation basins or ponds as required by the watershed board or by the city
engineer.
(8) No grading beyond the plat boundary without temporary grading easements
from the affected property owner(s).
(9) As little grading as possible west and south of the town houses. This is to keep
as many of the existing trees on the site as is reasonably possible.
c. The street, driveway and utility plans shall show:
(I) The driveway shall be a nine-ton design with a maximum grade of eight percent
and the maximmn grade within 75 feel of the inteIsection at two percent.
(2) The street (driveway) with continuous concrete curb and gutter, except where the
city engineer detennines that curbing is not necessary for drainage purposes.
(3) The removal of the unused driveways and the completion of the curb and gutter on
the south side of High wood Avenue and the restoration and sodding of the
boulevards.
(4) The coordination of the water main alignments and sizing with the standards and
requirements of the Saint Paul Regional Water Services (SPRWS). Fire flow
requirements and bydrant locations shall be verified with the Maplewood Fire
Department
(5) All utility excavations located within the proposed right-of-ways or within
easements. The developer shall acquire easements for all utilities that would be
outside the project area.
City Council 02-10-03
13
42
(6) The plan and profiles of the proposed utilities.
(7) A detail of any ponds, the pond outlets and the rainwater gardens. The contractor
shall protect the outlets to prevent erosion.
d. The drainage plan shall ensure that there is no increase in the rate of storm water run-
off leaving the site above the current (predevelopment) levels. The developer's
engineer shall:
(1) Verity inlet and pipe capacities,
(2) Submit drainage design calculations.
e.. The tree plan shall:
(1) Be approved, along with the landscaping, by the Comrnunily Design Review
Board (CDRB) before site grading or final plat approval.
(2) Show where the developer will remove, save or replace large trees. lbis plan
shall include an inventory of all existing large trees on the site.
(3) Show the size, species and location of the replacement and screening trees.
The deciduous trees shall be at least two and one half (2 v,) inches in diameter
and shall be a mix of red and white oaks, ash, lindens, sugar maples or other
native species. The coniferous trees shall be at least eight (8) feet tall and shall be
a mix of Black Hills Spruce, Austrian pine and other species.
(4) Show no tree removal in the buffer zones, conservation easement, or beyond
the approved gmding and tree limits.
(5) Include for cily staff a detailed tree planting plan and material list.
(6) Group the new trees together. These planting areas shall be:
(a) near the ponding areas
(b) on the slopes
(c) along the west side of the site to screen the proposed buildings from the homes to
the west
(7) Show the planting of at least 37 trees after the site grading is done.
3, Change the plat as follows:
a. Add drainage and utilily easements as required by the city engineer.
b. Show drainage and utilily easements along all property lines on the final plat. These
easements shall be ten feet wide along the front and rear property lines and five feet wide
along the side property lines.
City Council 02-10-03
14
43
c. Label the common areas as an outlot or as outlots.
d, If allowed, show the conservation easement on the final plat.
e. Show the building pads and the common area as a Common Interest
Community (CIC).
4. Pay for costs related to the engineering department's review of the construction plans.
5. Secure and provide all required easements for the development including any off-site
drainage and utility easements. These shall include, but not be limited to, an easement for the
culvert draining the pond at the northwest corner of the plat.
6. The developer shall complete all grading for public improvements and overall site drainage.
The city engineer shall include in the developer's agreement any grading that the developer
or contractor has not completed before final pial approval.
7. Sign a developer's agreement with the city that guarantees that the developer or contractor
will:
a Complete all grading for overall site drainage, complete all public improvements and meet
all city requirements.
b. * Place temporary orange safety fencing and signs at the grading limits.
c. Provide for the repair of Highwood Avenue (street, curb and gutter and boulevard) after
the developer cormects to the public utilities and builds the private driveway,
8. Record the following with the final plat:
a. All homeowners association documents.
b. A covenant or deed restriction that prohibits any further subdivision or splitting of the
lots or parcels in the plat thai would create additional building sites.
c. A covenant or deed restriction that prohibits any additional driveways (besides the one
new driveway shown on the project plans) from going onto Highwood Avenue.
d, 1be conservation easement for the undisturbed area of the site.
City CoWlcil 02-10-03
15
44
The applicant shall submit the language for these dedications and restrictions to the city for
approval before recording. The city will not issue a building permit until after the developer
has recorded the final plat and these documents and covenants.
9* Submit the homeowners association bylaws and rules to the director of community
development. These are to assure that there will be one responsible party for the
maintenance of the common areas, outlots, private utilities, driveways, retaining walls and
structures.
10. Obtain a permit from the Ramsey-Washington Metro Watershed District for grading.
11. If the developer decides to final plat part of the preliminary plat, the director of
community development may waive any conditions that do not apply to the final plat.
12. The developer shall complete all grading for public improvements and overall site
drainage. The city engineer shall include in the developer's agreement any grading
that the developer or contractor has not completed before final plat approval.
*The developer must complete these conditions before the city issues a grading permit or
approves the final plat.
Seconded by Councilmember Collins
Ayes-All
---
I. AWARD OF BIDS
Except the South 75.00 fee of the West 83.20 feet thereof,
1.
Sign Setback Variance-
. g (1570 Beam Avenue)
None
.I.
a City Manager Fursman pr
b. Assistant City Manger Cole
c. Bob TiIlges, the applicant was p
Councilmember Koppen moved to rove
variance with conditions as outlined in the
setback
VARIANCE
WHEREAS, Robert Tillges applied for
WHEREAS, this variance applies to 570 Beam Avenu The legal description is:
The Northwest Quarter of the orthwest Quarter of the
Township 29, Range 22, ey County, Minnesota.
City Council 02-10-03
16
45
Attachment 17
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REVISION RESOLUTION
WHEREAS, Mr. Phil Soby, representing the project developers, applied for a conditional use
permit (CUP) revision for the Cottagewood residential planned unit development (PUD).
WHEREAS, this permit applies to the Cottagewood town house development plan the city
received on July 7, 2006 for the property at 2666 Highwood Avenue. The legal description is:
Subject to State TH 100/117 and HWY 393, the north 1100 feet of the West 173 feet of the East
198 feet of the West 11. of the NE 14 of the SE 14 of Section 13, Township 28, Range 22, Ramsey
County, Minnesota. (This is the property to be known as Lots 1-15 of the proposed Cottagewood)
WHEREAS, the history of this conditional use permit is as follows:
1. On August 7,2006, 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 commission recommended that the city council approve the conditional use permit.
2. On , 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, maintained, constructed and operated to be in
conformity with the city's comprehensive plan and code of ordinances.
2. The use would not change the existing or planned character of the surrounding area,
3. The use would not depreciate property values.
4. The use would not involve any activity, process, materials, equipment or methods of
operation that would be dangerous, hazardous, detrimental, disturbing or cause a
nuisance to any person or property, because of excessive noise, glare, smoke, dust,
odor, fumes, water or air pollution, drainage, water run-off, vibration, general
unsightliness, electrical interference or other nuisances.
5. The use would generate only minimal vehicular traffic on local streets and would not
create traffic congestion or unsafe access on existing or proposed streets.
6. The use would be served by adequate public facilities and services, including streets,
police and fire protection, drainage structures, water and sewer systems, schools and
parks.
7. The use would not create excessive additional costs for public facilities or services.
8. The use would maximize the preservation of and incorporate the site's natural and scenic
features into the development design,
46
9. The use would cause minimal adverse environmental effects.
Approval is subject to the following conditions:
1, All construction shall follow the plans for ~ 15 detached town houses as approved by
the city. The city council may approve major changes to the plans. The Director of
Community Development may approve minor changes to the plans. Such changes shall
include:
a. Revising the grading and site plans to show:
(1) The developer minimizing the loss or removal of natural vegetation,
(2) All driveways at least 20 feet wide. If the developer wants to have parking on
one side of the main driveway, then it must be at least 28 feet wide. However,
widening of the driveway must not lessen the side setback of the driveway from
the east property line.
(3) All parking stalls with a width of at least 9,5 feet and a length of at least 18 feet.
Also, review and possibly revise the parking spaces and the tum-around area at
the south end of the site to maximize the number of trees to be saved and to
minimize the amount of hard surface area.
(4) Revised storm water pond locations and designs as suggested or required by
the watershed district or city engineer. The ponds shall meet the city's design
standards.
(5) The developer minimizing the loss or removal of natural vegetation including
keeping and protecting as many of the large trees in the undisturbed area south
of the town houses and parking areas.
2. The proposed construction must be substantially started within one year of council
approval or the permit shall end. The council may extend this deadline for one year,
3, Have the city engineer approve final construction and engineering plans. These plans
shall meet all the conditions and changes noted in the engineer's memo dated July 28,
2006. These shall include:
a. IAslllEle graEliAg, lllility, ElraiAage, efGSieA ooAtfGl, streets, trails, tree, r~taiAiAg walls,
ElFi.:eway aAEl parkiAglet pia AS.
a. The aradina. utility. drainaae. erosion control. streets. trails. tree. retainina walls,
drivewav and parkina plans. This approval includes the desian of the proposed
private cul-de-sac.
b. Showing no grading or ground disturbance in the conservation easement. This land is
to be preserved for open space purposes. The developer and contractors shall protect
this area, including the large trees that are in and near the south side of the site, from
encroachment from equipment, grading or filling.
c. Include a storm water management plan for the proposal.
47
4. The design of all ponds shall meet Maplewood's design standards and shall be subject to
the approval of the city engineer. If needed, the developer shall be responsible for getting
any off-site pond and drainage easements.
5. The developer or contractor shall:
a, Complete all grading for the site drainage and the ponds, complete all public
improvements and meet all city requirements.
b.* Place temporary orange safety fencing and signs at the grading limits.
c. Remove any debris or junk from the site, including the conservation area.
d Provide the city with verification that the town houses on the proposed site plan will meet
the state's noise standards. This shall be with a study, testing or other documentation. If
the noise on this site is a factor, then the contractor will have to build the town houses so
that they can meet the noise standards. This may be done with thicker walls, heavier
windows, requiring air conditioning or other sound-deadening construction methods. The
developer shall provide the city with this documentation before the city will issue a
building permit for the town houses.
6. The approved setbacks for the principal structures in the Cottagewood PUD shall be:
a. Front-yard setback (from a public street or a private driveway): minimum - 20 feet,
maximum - 35 feet
b. Rear-yard setback: 15 feet from any adjacent residential property line
d. Side-yard setback (town houses): minimum of six feet from a side property line and at
least 12 feet between units.
7, The developer or builder will pay the city Park Access Charges (PAC fees) for each
housing unit at the time of the building permit for each housing unit.
8 Submit the homeowners association documents to city staff for review and approval.
9 The developer shall provide a permanent means to preserve and maintain the common
open space. This may be done by conservation easement, deed restrictions, covenants or
public dedication. The developer shall record this document with the final plat and before
the city issues a permit for grading or utility construction.
10. The city council shall review this permit in one year.
11, This approval does not include the design approval for the town homes or any SillnS. The
project design plans, including architectural, sians, site, lighting, tree and landscaping
plans, shall be subject to review and approval of the community design review board
(CDRB). The projects shall be subject to the following conditions:
a. Meeting all conditions and changes as required by the city council.
b, For the driveways:
48
(1) Minimum width - 20 feet.
(2) Maximum width - 28 feet.
(3) All driveways less than 28 feet in width shall be posted for "No Parking" on both
sides. Driveways at least 28 feet vvide may have parking on one side and shall be
posted for No Parking on one side.
c. Showing all changes required by the city as part of the conditional use permit for the
planned unit development (PUD).
12. The city shall not issue any building permits for construction on an outlot (per city code
requirements). The developer must record a final plat to create buildable lots in the
preliminary plat before the city will issue a building permit.
The Maplewood City Council approved this resolution on
2006.
49