Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout08/21/2006 MAPLEWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION Monday. August 21, 2006, 7:00 PM City Hall Council Chambers 1830 County Road BEast 1. Call to Order 2. Roll Call 3. Approval ot Agenda 4. Approval ot Minutes a. August 7, 2006 5. Public Hearings 7:00 Street Right-ot-Way Vacation - Engstrom (Century Avenue and New Century Boulevard) 7:15 Easement Vacation - Hillside Estates (between Linwood Avenue and Springside Drive) 6. New Business None 7. Unfinished Business None 9. Visitor Presentations 10. Commission Presentations August 14 Council Meeting: Mr. Hess August 28 Council Meeting: Mr. Pearson September 11 Council Meeting: Mr. Trippler September 25 Council Meeting: Mr. Desai 11. Staff Presentations Reschedule September 4 Meeting (Labor Day) - Wednesday September 6? 12. Adjournment DRAFT MINUTES OF THE MAPLEWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION 1830 COUNTY ROAD BEAST, MAPLEWOOD, MINNeSOTA MONDAY, AUGUST 7, 2006 I. CALL TO ORDER Acting chairperson Desai called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. II. ROLL CALL Vice-Chairperson Tushar Desai Commissioner Mary Dierich Chairperson Lorraine Fischer Commissioner Michael Grover Commissioner Harland Hess Commissioner Jim Kaczrowski Commissioner Gary Pearson Commissioner Dale Trippler Commissioner Jeremy Yarwood Present Present Absent Absent Present Absent Present Present Present Ken Roberts, Planner Steve Kummer, Civil Engineer II Lisa Kroll, Recording Secretary Staff Present: III. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Commissioner Hess moved to approve the agenda. Commissioner Pearson seconded. The motion passed. IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Ayes - Desai, Dierich, Hess, Pearson, Trippler, Yarwood Approval of the planning commission minutes for July 18, 2006. CommissionerTrippler had corrections to page 5, fifth paragraph, second line, change 2/d-to 1/3. Also at the bottom of the page under the approval of the minutes, delete Trippler from the Ayes vote. Commissioner Trippler had left the planning commission meeting to attend the Environmental Committee meeting and was not present during the approval of the minutes. Chairperson Fischer called the recording secretary with her changes to the minutes. On page 17, bottom paragraph, fourth line, in the middle ofthe sentence, add officefcommercial space at this present time. Commissioner Pearson moved to approve the planning commission minutes for July 18, 2006, as amended. Planning Commission Minutes of 08-07-06 -2- Commissioner Hess seconded. Ayes - Desai, Dierich, Hess, Pearson, Trippler, Yarwood V. PUBLIC HEARING a. Easement Vacation - Erickson (2699 Hazelwood Street) (7:06 - 7:12 p.m.) Mr. Roberts said 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 30-foot-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. In 1986, the city felt there was a need for this easement to provide util'ity 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 vacation request and has determined that there is no reason to retain this easement. Ms. Laberee reviewed the city's utility plans and found that water and sanitary sewer can be provided to the properties from County Road C via the benefiting properties. The easement in Mr. Erickson's lot, therefore, is not needed. Acting chairperson Desai asked if anyone in the audience wanted to speak regarding this proposal. Ms. Carol Henkes, 2681 Hazelwood Street, addressed the commission. She said she has no need for the easement on her property and would like it vacated. Acting chairperson Desai closed the public hearing. Commissioner Hess asked if the site description would be rewritten into the plat map? Mr. Roberts said if the city council adopts this request, once the resolution is updated, it gets recorded by Ramsey County and the Recorders Office updates the legal descriptions of the affected properties based on the information the city puts in the resolution. Commissioner Trippler moved to adopt the resolution in the staff report vacating the unneeded utility easement for Ronald Erickson at 2699 Hazelwood Street and the easement on 2681 Hazelwood Street. These vacations are in the public interest since these easements serve no public purpose. Commissioner Pearson seconded. Ayes - Desai, Dierich, Hess, Pearson, Trippler, Yarwood The motion passed. This item goes to the city council on August 28, 2006. Because it was not time to start the next public hearing, Commission Pearson had a question for the engineer. Planning Commission Minutes of 08-07-06 -3- Commissioner Pearson asked what the determining factor was regarding the requirement for soil borings when somebody applies for a permit for a development? One development this evening has soil borings done where there are filtration ponds but the other development the commission is going to review doesn't have information regarding any soil borings taken. Steve Kummer, Maplewood Civil Engineer II, addressed the commission. He said typically he requests soil borings for all developments in Maplewood. Even if there aren't ponding aspects on the project he requests the soil borings anyway. Commissioner Pearson said there wasn't any soil boring information for the White Bear Avenue Family Health Center and he didn't notice a requirement for soil borings in the staff report. He asked if it would be possible to get a copy of the soil boring report for the Cottagewood proposal that the planning commission will be hearing later this evening because the soil borings are typically not included in the planning commission packet? Mr. Kummer said he would forward a copy of the soil boring report to Commissioner Pearson. Commissioner Hess said he would also like a copy of the soil boring report. Mr. Roberts said he believes anytime there is going to be public improvements for streets or utilities, soil borings are required. When it's a private site such as the White Bear Family Health Care Center building, the city hasn't been consistent regarding requesting soil borings. Commissioner Pearson asked if the widening of White Bear Avenue would require soil borings be done? Mr. Roberts said no, but that would be up to Ramsey County to do. CommissionerTrippler asked if that meant the city does not have a policy regarding soil borings? Mr. Kummer said the city does not have a "formal" policy regarding the number of soil borings required for each site. Mr. Roberts believed it was an engineer's call on a case-by-case basis. Mr. Kummer said prior to this position he worked in site design and consulting for five years, and it is good practice for an engineer to do soil borings before they decide to develop a site so they know about the underlying soil conditions. The developer's engineer has to sign off on the plans and would be taking responsibility. Mr. Roberts said when it's for public improvements, especially for new streets to be constructed; the city would require soil borings. It was now time to move onto the next public hearing so the discussion regarding soil borings ended. Planning Commission Minutes of 08-07 -06 -4- b. Conditional Use Permit - White Bear Avenue Family Health Center (2099 White Bear Avenue) (7:18 - 8:27 p.m.) Mr. Roberts said DSGW Architects, representing B.I.C. Development, Inc., is proposing to build a 40,000-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. 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. Mr. Roberts said the applicant mentioned to staff prior to the start of the meeting that the watershed district had already considered this request and they approved the permit. Commissioner Trippler said on page 4 of the staff report Lieutenant Michael Shortreed from the Maplewood Police Department encouraged limiting the use of White Bear Avenue for construction activity whenever possible. He asked if there had been any discussion with the applicant regarding that, and if so, what transpired? Mr. Roberts said staffs aware that the neighbors on Prosperity Avenue don't want a connection here and would prefer that the traffic remain on White Bear Avenue. Tom Ekstrand was relying on the comments from Dan Soler, the Ramsey County Traffic Engineer, regarding the traffic. Staff stated in the report that 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 near the Gateway Trail. Staff doesn't see a problem with this since the same party owns both properties. If the owner were to sell either property, he should consider the recording 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. Commissioner Trippler said there isn't a recommendation for a right-in and right out only allowing them to have a left turn exit. He had hoped a representative from the police department would be here to speak regarding this. He said currently White Bear Avenue has a double yellow line painted on the street which means technically you are breaking the law by turning left into the Maplewood Community Center or by turning left into the Ramsey County Courthouse parking lot. The same would hold true if someone was trying to turn left into the proposed medical clinic because you aren't supposed to cross over a double yellow line. Mr. Roberts said he will follow up on that. Commissioner Trippler was impressed by the number of pages of engineering information in the staff report done by Steve Kummer. He said he wasn't used to seeing this many pages of information from engineering in the staff report and he asked if there were this many issues for this proposal or if a lot of the information in the engineering report was basically information for engineers to the project engineers? Planning Commission Minutes of 08-07-06 -5- Mr. Kummer said when he reviews a development proposal he reports on the issues that he sees. He said that is correct that a lot of the engineering report was comments from one engineer to another and this was a pretty straight-forward proposal and there weren't a lot of issues with this proposal. Mr. Roberts said what Mr. Kummer is trying to say is the planning commission usually receives engineering information in the staff report that would only pertain to the planning commission and in most cases wouldn't be this detailed. In this case, most ofthe engineering report is engineer-to- engineer. Mr. Kummer said he could reduce the information in future engineering reports so it would only pertain to the planning commission if that's what the commission would prefer. The planning commission said they appreciated the thoroughness of the engineering report and the amount of detail done by Steve Kummer, and the commission would like to continue to see detailed information like this in future planning commission reports. Commissioner Pearson said his concern is the discrepancy regarding the computations on filtration flows and the manhole waste disposal layout. Because that terminology isn't in the terminology now, if the city is requiring that terminology, then it needs to be stated in the conditions that are passed onto the city council by the planning commission. Commissioner Dierich said she appreciated the engineering detail in the staff report and that Mr. Kummer should keep up the good work and it would be nice to see such detail from other engineering reports. Regarding what Commissioner Pearson was referring to, you could include a summary statement or sentence stating subject to the approval of the c;ityengineer. She asked if the building itself has to be 350 feet to residentially-zoned properties? Mr. Roberts said he thinks Commissioner Dierich is referring to the code which states if you have any use on a property that is zoned M1 and that site is within 350 feet from residential property, it needs a conditional use permit. It doesn't say it can't be there but it does require another level of review. Commissioner Dierich said the site is zoned M1 and asked if the nomes are guided as M1 because it seems strange that there is a small row of R1 zoning there. Mr. Roberts put the zoning map on the overhead to show that the zoning and the comprehensive plan are consistent. Commissioner Yarwood said he read the concerns in the staff report regarding the drainage problems in the area and he asked if the proposed development would be a positive or negative issue to the area or if it would have no impact on the neighbors? Mr. Kummer said the overall development will have a neutral impact on the residents to the north because they are upland from the site. There is a drainage issue near Burke Avenue and Prosperity, towards the west. The watersheet drains down to the low points of the site. Regarding whether or not the drainage issue is resolved the city won't know that until 2009 when the capital improvement project occurs in this area along with some other improvements to Burke Avenue that residents have raised concerns about. Planning Commission Minutes of 08-07-06 -6- Mr. Kummer said the applicant's engineer addressed that with a culvelt pipe underneath the new driveway as well as infiltration basins along the west side of the parking lot to capture the sheet runoff from Prosperity Avenue in the ditch area. Mr. Roberts said some of the concerns were raised with the development for five-single family homes off Prosperity Avenue by some of the residents. With the construction of the new street, the engineers were paying close attention to the existing drainage and looking into what could be done downstream with the area, so there may be overlap regarding neighbors having the same concerns. It's the city's expectation that the storm water improvements will help the problem along with the ponding that goes in with the new development. Commissioner Dierich said she assumes the same person owns all the parcels and that the third building will go into the vacant space. She asked if in the future there will be an issue regarding these parcels and the amount of impervious surface for these areas? Mr. Roberts said the city doesn't know that the parcels will continue to be owned by the same owner. In any case, any project will have to go through the same application process and they would have to satisfy the city engineering department. That could mean less hard surface along with building another pond. Commissioner Dierich said she is concerned that if the parcels are SUbdivided there will be too much pervious surface. She noticed in the resolution that staff wanted cross easements butthere is no mention of that and in the future, should this other parcel be developed, there should be cross easements in the resolution. On page 29 of the staff report, in nwmber 4. it states 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, waterrun-off, vibration, general unsightliness, electrical interference or other nuisances. However, a medical facility produces a lot of bio-hazard materials, so that should be amended in some way in the resolution. Mr. Roberts said it would be best not to touch on the cross easements at this point because they are not needed on the third lot and if that becomes owned by a separate owner and they want to do a lot split, the city would want to condition the lot split to dedicate the necessary cross easements at that time. If there is another CUP with a future proposal, when the city has a better handle on the layout of the whole site, it's clearer for everybody what will or won't be needed as far as easements. Commissioner Dierich said you would also condition the lot split regarding a certain amount of pervious surface so the front lot would be a condition of the lot split. Mr. Roberts said correct. Commissioner Dierich said on page 26 of the staff report, number 6., it $tates the project engineer shall specify the use of a pick-up broom or vacuum sweeper for street cleaning and she asked how often that should be done? Mr. Kummer said the street should be cleaned or swept daily. That's what the city tries to do especially in the Kenwood area street project area. Planning Commission Minutes of 08-07-06 -7- Acting chairperson Desai asked if the applicant could address the commission. Mr. Dick Gunderson, representing the applicant, addressed the commission. Mr. Gunderson commended the staff for the work they did for this proposal. Commissioner Trippler said he is very concerned about the customers': ability to get in and out of the proposed medical facility. He asked if there was a likelihood of having a connection with Prosperity Avenue to enter and exit the site? Mr. Gunderson said the property owner has no plans to develop th$ property to the west or continue the current drive from White Bear Avenue west to Prosperity. Comments from the engineer and Dan Soler were received and they stated that aligning the drive entrance to the medical facility with the drive way to the community center would be adequate. Commissioner Trippler said if the planning commission makes a recommendation for a right-in and right-out only and Ramsey County doesn't restripe White Bear Avenue how are the customers going to get into the site coming from the south and headill1g north? Mr. Gunderson said the customers would have to find another way to enter such as Prosperity and come through the back; otherwise, they would have to go around: the block. If people can't drive across the yellow lines, would that apply to the Maplewood Community Center and to the Ramsey County Courthouse property too? Commissioner Trippler said they shouldn't be exempt. Mr. Kummer said if it's illegal to turn left across a double yellow line, tpen yes, it would apply to the Maplewood Community Center as well. Mr. Gunderson said they would do whatever is recommended by the professionals. The intention is if this proposal is passed to begin construction later this fall. Acting chairperson Desai asked if anyone in the audience wanted to speak regarding this proposal to come forward and address the commission. Ms. Carole Lynne, 1723 Burke Avenue East, addressed the commisslion. She lives in this area and sees many potential traffic problems here. Prosperity, County :Road B and White Bear Avenue all connect. Burke Avenue has been a shortcut for people to bypass the traffic lights which is already a safety concern for her. The cars speed and as you! climb Burke Avenue you cannot see the end at White Bear Avenue. The homes on this street did not have children living there for 20 years and now there are children living here and she is concerned about the children's safety. Ms. Lynne said she envisions coming up Phalen Boulevard to Prosperity and turning on Burke Avenue and turning right into the clinic because people already drive this route. There are many pieces to this proposal that are problematic. She is afraid people are going to be rear ended because of the speed of traffic on White Bear Avenue. She sees three solutions here. One solution is to put a cul-de-sac on Burke Avenue so people can't use the street as a main thoroughfare, second, put a gate in that could open and close for emergency vehicles, third, making an entrance at Prosperity may help to keep cars off of Burke Avenue. Planning Commission Minutes of 08-07-06 -8- Ms. Lynne said if you were in this neighborhood you would see what she sees. She has always had a wet basement and there is a problem with water runoff. Her house has sat on water for 20 years just like her neighbors. When she went to the architects meeti~g regarding moving the wetlands, everybody assured her that it would be okay to move the wEJtlands and that the water would run where it should. She said the Phalen Center thought that at one time as well and that did not work. The people telling her this are the people that would be ail an advantage. She isn't an engineer but she wants people to know what it's like from her vantage point. Commissioner Trippler said he would recommend that she contact the Maplewood Police Department and let them know about the traffic problems on Burke Avenue and the speeding. They could send someone out there and monitor the traffic situation and hopefully something will change and help with the potential danger for the children and neighbors in the area. Ms. Lynne thanked Commissioner Trippler for the advice. Commissioner Yarwood asked how many trips per day the proposed clinic would generate because he did not see anything in the staff report regarding that. Both Mr. Roberts and Mr. Gunderson said they did not have that information available at this time. Commissioner Yarwood said Dan Soler must have had that information in order for him to make his recommendations. Mr. Roberts said Dan Soler may have made assumptions based on other clinics and the traffic they had generated based on the square footage of the building. His sense is no matter what the number of trips generated would be it would not be enough to overbutden White Bear Avenue. The question is the traffic pattern the cars would take to get to the medical clinic. Commissioner Hess asked what the speed limit was on that stretch of White Bear Avenue? Mr. Kummer said the speed limit is 40 mph there, and the speed limit lowers to 35 mph as you drive up the hill towards Larpenteur Avenue. Commissioner Hess said he drives that area a lot and wondered about the possibility of having a turn lane to help alleviate some of the congestion and with the speed.. Mr. Roberts said Ramsey County has identified having a fifth lane on White Bear Avenue when it's reconstructed, but that would be at least five years down the road.. Until then there isn't any funding to pay for that to happen. Mr. Willard Frantz, 1750 Burke Avenue East, addressed the commisSion. He has no objection regarding the construction of the facility. He was concerned about the i1ighting of the parking lot, how high the light poles would be the hours the lights would be on ahd the type of bulbs they would use. In the interest of safety he supports the previous speaker. When he leaves his house 95% of the time he drives west to Prosperity and north to County Road B and back to White Bear Avenue to catch the stop light. White Bear Avenue to Frost Avenue is a racetrack. The faster the cars can get to Frost Avenue the better they are until the light changes and they have to slam their brakes on. The current two lane entrance to the Maplewood Community Center is a stop gap for traffic driving on White Bear Avenue. Planning Commission Minutes of 08-07-06 -9- Mr. Frantz said why that entrance wasn't made into a three lane entranq:e he will never know. But now to put another two-lane entrance on the opposite side of the street!on White Bear Avenue is an accident waiting to happening. This should actually be an accident prevention site. He and his wife hear the accidents happening all the time following the sound of police cars and ambulances. Mr. Frantz said to plan for a turn lane five or more years down the road is "penny rich and dollar poor". In five years from now it will cost a lot more than it will to put it'in now while the earth is being moved around, and it would be in the interest of safety and should be taken care of now. Commissioner Dierich asked Mr. Frantz what he thought of putting a cul-de-sac in like what was suggested earlier? Mr. Frantz said he didn't think that would work because there isn't enolilgh land to do that and he would be concerned about emergency vehicles being able to turn around and get in and out of the site. Mr. Roberts said the lighting would be reviewed during the CDRB meeti!1g tomorrow evening. The city code has a provision that the lights can be no taller than 25 feet ih height, there cannot be any light spillage beyond their property, the bulbs and lenses have to ~e concealed as well, and the applicant would have to submit those details in a detailed lighting plan before they can get a permit. Mr. Kummer said public works would support constructing a cul-de-sac at Burke Avenue and dead ending Burke Avenue at White Bear Avenue, and obviously th~re has to be a place for snow removal and vehicle turn around. That is something that would have to be planned ahead with the 2009 capital improvement project. Acting chairperson Desai asked if speed bumps had ever been consicjered for areas like this to help reduce speeding? Mr. Roberts said Chuck Ahl, Maplewood Public Works Director, has s~id they will not use speed bumps on a public street because of the issues it causes for snow pl()ws. Acting chairperson Desai said he knows the University of Minnesota campus uses speed bumps to slow traffic down on their campus. Ms. Linda Hallibarton, 2138 Prosperity Avenue, addressed the commission. She has two concerns regarding this project. She thanked the planning commissipn for raising a lot of the issues the neighbors have had. The drainage is a big concern of hers. If you live there and you experience the water problem, you realize the water does not runoff into the field. She went out last Wednesday morning after the rain and took photos of the water, how long the water stood, where the water stood, and where the water runs, and this is a big problem. Her concern is as the land continues to be developed and the amount of impervious ground continues that this will exasperate the problem and the water table is going to get higher and higher. In the winter when the snow melts and then refreezes they have a natural skating rink. Shlil said she is not convinced that these steps that have been raised are going to solve the drainage problems here. Planning Commission Minutes of 08-07 -06 -10- Ms. Hallibarton said the other issue is the traffic on Prosperity along with the other development offive single-family homes to be built on Eldridge Fields. We need to dp something to control the traffic here. She said she can't tell you the number of people that runl the stop signs at County Road B at Prosperity Avenue, including officials from the City of Maplewood. There are major traffic concerns here, and as this corridor continues to be developed, these two problems have to be addressed and are only going to get worse. She recommended paying for them at the get go because they will be less expensive to take care of now rather than waiting. Commissioner Trippler said he assumed if he requested an outlet on Prosperity Avenue Ms. Hallibarton and the neighbors would not be happy? Ms. Hallibarton said she would not be happy, however, they say that it's a utility road in and out to the buildings that are there. She said she is a realist and it's not realisti$ that there's only going to be one entrance on White Bear Avenue. The overall traffic condition needs to be looked at, considerations need to be made and solutions proposed to limit the possibility of something negative happening. Commissioner Hess asked if Ms. Hallibarton also has water problemS in her basement? Ms. Hallibarton said her home is a split level and doesn't have a full bclsement. She is confident one of the reasons there is no full basement here is because of the water problems and continuing standing water in the yards. The neighbors told her that the previous owner of her house had water problems before she bought the property 8 yeats ago. There had been additional grading and build up that was done before she bought the house and she assumed it was a preventive measure to prevent further water problems in the hquse. Acting chairperson Desai closed the public hearing. Commissioner Hess said he thought he read the engineering report stated the storm water was adequately dealt with but we are hearing so much about the ponding on the properties? He said he thinks we need to go a little further than just "adequate" and this needs further investigative work done to alleviate the water runoff problems. Mr. Roberts said when Erin Laberee from the engineering department "!Ias reviewing the Eldridge Fields proposal the engineers were going to study the culverts and ,ditches along Prosperity regarding drainage. As testified by the neighbors during the Eldridge Fields project, the city is aware of the drainage problems along Prosperity. Staff believes this project itself is not going to change the drainage that is uphill. They may be able to tie into the Eldridge Fields project to help with these problems but this would have to be confirmed before this goes to the city council. The main thing is that the city doesn't want these continuing problems. He said he can't imagine that if there is proper ponding here that it would affect how the ditches of Prosperity are going to drain, that tie into the Eldridge Field project. Mr. Kummer said the ditch and culvert system that runs along ProsperitV is on the west side of the property. This development is low land of what's occurring on the north side of Burke Avenue. There is a high water table there anyway. He doesn't think this project i$ going to be the "solution" to the problem. Planning Commission Minutes of 08-07-06 -11- Mr. Kummer said it's a combination of public improvement projects cOr[1ing up on Burke Avenue and anything that is going to happen upstream on the north side of County Road B and he doesn't think this is going to resolve all the issues the neighbors to thE) north have at this point. He said he could not verify if there had been a drainage study done as part of the Eldridge Field project. Commissioner Pearson said the Maplewood Community Center has existed a long time already and nothing has been done about the double yellow line on White Bear Avenue, so he doesn't have a lot of confidence that something will be changed anytime soon. If you go north on White Bear Avenue to Rainbow Foods, despite the fact there is a no left tum sign and you are only supposed to exit right out people still turn left onto White Bear Avenue which is known as a suicide turn lane because of the high traffic there. Driving into the Hostess bakery store you would have to cross the double yellow line too. He would think the developer would want to know whether the water table is above or below frost level and what kind of footings they would need to support the building, but the testing isn't available to give that informatioin, and for that reason he is not particularly favorable of this. Commissioner Trippler said regarding the Eldridge Fields project, wheo the John Glenn school developed the playgrounds that are located on the west side that was a wetland that they filled in to make the soccer and ball fields and that changed the drainage pattem for the whole area and may be what caused the ponding to occur in the area. The engineers discussed diverting the stormwater in the area. This particular area is so far below where the other people are having their drainage problems that he doesn't see how this particular development will make a positive impact on the current drainage problems the neighbors are having. His general concern is the traffic in the area which he thinks is a nightmare waiting to happen. Mr. Gunderson was given permission to address the commission again. Mr. Gunderson said there are 17 soil borings that were taken on the site so they are aware of the water table and the soils. They have a civil engineer and a structural engineer for the development. The east quarter of the property had quite a bit of peat or organic soils that need to be removed and have good soils brought in, and the soils improve as you move to the west. Commissioner Pearson asked if the developer could submit a soils report to him. Mr. Gunderson said he believed they provided a soils report to the city as part of the application but they could get a copy of it for Commissioner Pearson. Commissioner Yarwood asked if Mr. Gunderson had any information regarding how many trips per day this building would generate? Mr. Gunderson said Dan Soler's comments indicated that a traffic study was not needed at this point. Commissioner Yarwood said he assumed the developer would have some idea of how many trips this building would generate. Mr. Gunderson said he represents the owner and as part of the development there is another person who is not present this evening that would have that information, Planning Commission Minutes of 08-07-06 -12- Mr. Roberts said that is information the city would like to have before this goes to the city council. Commissioner Trippler asked how the planning commissioners felt reg13rding a recommendation for a right-in and right-out only with an outlet of the parking lot onto Prosperity and/or asking Ramsey County to restripe this part of White Bear Avenue? Commissioner Hess said he thought that made sense also. Acting chairperson Desai asked if Commissioner Trippler proposed to h",ve a single stripe painted on White Bear Avenue which would allow cars to turn left and drive ndrth out of the parking lot? Commissioner Trippler said no right-in and right-out. We would still have to deal with the cars coming north. Commissioner Pearson said they shouldn't have to break the law to enter the lot and many of customers visiting the clinics are elderly. Commissioner Trippler said if we don't have an entrance on Prosperity Avenue and there is a right-in and right-out then we have to have White Bear Avenue restrip$d. If we make them have an entrance onto Prosperity Avenue, then he doesn't think it's as importtant to have the restriping because you have offered the clients an alternative. Rather than stru!llgling to get on and off of White Bear Avenue, they could use Prosperity Avenue. Acting chairperson Desai said that is going to increase traffic onto Prosperity Avenue and is that road able to carry that load? Commissioner Trippler asked what type of road Prosperity Avenue is? Mr. Roberts said Prosperity Avenue has been identified as a collector street. He's sure the neighbors have determined the road is over utilized already. Commissioner Dierich said she thinks the engineering staff should study closing off Burke Avenue on White Bear Avenue and the feasibility of that. Mr. Roberts said that could be made as a separate motion. Commissioner Yarwood said he would support the idea of a right-in arnd right-out but he doesn't support restriping White Bear Avenue. He would rather not have cars stopping there because of the traffic. Commissioner Trippler said the conditions should say interim community development director since the city doesn't have a community development director right nbw. Mr. Roberts said he would change the conditions to read interim community development director. Planning Commission Minutes of 08-07-06 -13- Commissioner Trippler moved to adopt the resolution approving a contlitional 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: (additions are underlined and deletions are stricken.) 1. All construction shall follow the site plan that the city has date-stamped July 17, 2006. The interim community development director 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 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 td 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 widenirhg. This shall be subject to the approval of the city engineer. 9. The developer shall make a rioht-in and rioht-out onlv with an outlet of the parkino lot on Prosperity Avenue. Commissioner Dierich seconded. Ayes - Desai, Dierich, Hess, Pearson, Trippler, Yarwood Commissioner Dierich moved to recommend a separate motion to direqt the city enoineerino staff to studv the feasibility of c1osino Burke Avenue off at White Bear Avemue. Commissioner Trippler seconded. Ayes - Desai, Dierich, Hess, Pearson, Trippler, Yarwood Planning Commission Minutes of 08-07-06 -14- The motion passed. This item goes to the city council on August 28, 2006. c. Conditional Use Permit Revision - Hill Murray School (2625 Lallpenteur Avenue) (8:27- 8:36 p.m.) Mr. Roberts said 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. Specifically, they want to: 1. Put a 31 ,500-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. Acting chairperson Desai asked the applicant to address the commission. Mr. Joe Pesches, Hill-Murray School, 2625 Larpenteur Avenue East, a<lldressed the commission. The addition of this facility is something the school direly needs. When :the school first opened in the early 1970s when the schools merged Archbishop Murray and Hill High School together, there was no Title 9 so there were only boys' sports so they built the current field house. Now there are equal sports for boys and girls and they need more facilities. Mr. Pesc~es said in the late 1980s they added a middle school which has boys' and girls' sports, so for mahy years they have used a facility that was designed just for the boys trying to keep equal practice and playing times. As a result, the parents are picking kids up late at night because of the pradtice times. There is a real emphasis on the physical curriculum as well as meeting the needs of the programs they offer at Hill-Murray School. Mr. Craig Rafferty, the architect working with Hill-Murray School, with Rafferty, Rafferty, Tollefson, Lindeke Architects, addressed the commission. The planning comlmission didn't have any questions for him at this time. Acting chairperson Desai said if anyone in the audience wanted to speak regarding this proposal to come forward and address the commission. Nobody came forward. Acting chairperson Desai closed the public hearing. Planning Commission Minutes of 08-07-06 -15- Commissioner Pearson moved to adopt the resolution on pages 30-~2 of the staff report. 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 <pn the findings required by ordinance. This approval is subject to conditions of approval adopt$d by the city council on November 13, 2001, subject to the following revisions (additions are Uinderlined and deletions are crossed out): 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. Forthe field house. fOllow the plans dated June 28.2006. These plans shall meet all the conditions and chanQes required by the city enQineerinQ deD~rtment. The interim director of community development may approve minor changes. 2. The proposed construction for the oha13s1 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 buffEjr 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 determihed 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 thfit 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 ort the nearby wetlands. Planning Commission Minutes of 08-07-06 -16- 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. Tho school sholl swoop and restrirao tRO west parking lot before .'\l!l!jl,Jst 15, 2002. Commissioner Trippler seconded. Ayes - Desai, Dierich, Hess, Pearson, Trippler, Yarwood The motion passed. This item goes to the city council on August 28, 2006. d. Cottagewood Town houses (2666 Highwood Avenue) CUP for PUD, Preliminary Plat (8:28 -10:08 p.m.) Mr. Roberts said Mr. Phil Soby is proposing to build 15 detached town houses in a development called Cottagewood. It would be a 3.71-acre site on the south side of Highwood Avenue, east of Dennis Street. A homeowner's association would own and maintain the common areas. 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. Mr. Roberts said staff received a tree plan for this proposal after the packet was sent out and he distributed it to the planning commission. He said the plan shows 33 trees, but the code is going to require at least 37 trees and, in fact, staff expects even more trees w,1I be required for this site. The applicant has not yet applied for design review board approval. The applicant wants to get the preliminary plat or PUD revision approved first and then will go through the design process. Commissioner Trippler said he noticed the engineering report was dOhe by Michael Thompson but he asked Mr. Kummer if he understood what was being asked on page 30, number 3.? Mr. Kummer said he thought the statement referred to the migration of the groundwater. Commissioner Trippler said he understood that but it didn't seem like tthe engineer was requiring the developer to make any changes, and it seemed like the engineer was just pointing things out. Mr. Kummer and Mr. Roberts thought the engineer was simply pointing some things out as a means of information. Commissioner Dierich said she had a lot of trouble approving this development in 2003 when it came before the planning commission and she had even done a petitior!l to keep the development from happening in this location. Planning Commission Minutes of 08-07-06 -17- Commissioner Dierich said she is happier with this proposal but still felt'this was an inappropriate development here for the amount of noise, the size of the lots. the corilfiguration, the traffic, the grading and drainage issues, and there are too many houses packe<tl into a small space. Her understanding of a CUP is that it goes with a use or a building and to 'her knowledge this is the first time the city has had a CUP that goes with raw land. Mr. Roberts said actually a CUP runs with the property. Commissioner Dierich said she hasn't seen that situation before. This land is still zoned Farm but it's guided as R-3 but she didn't see that we made a zoning change. Mr. Roberts said the zoning map identifies this as a PUD that was approved in 2003. Commissioner Dierich said keeping that in mind; the commission doesn't have to do anything different at this point. With the CUP, the planning commission can recommend "what" can go here. Mr. Roberts said correct. Commissioner Dierich asked what the conservation easement is supposed to accomplish since all that is there is buckthorn and box elder, so what are we conserving? Mr. Roberts said when it's recorded and put on the property records it prevents a developer from coming in later asking for a lot split and extending the cul-de-sac further down so it prevents further development. Commissioner Dierich said she assumed this area would be mass graded and she asked if it would be mass graded enough so there could be a berm pushed up to ~Iock some of the freeway noise? Mr. Roberts said he assumed that would be possible assuming the drainage could be handled correctly. Mr. Kummer said the drainage already goes to the north so it would prolbably be possible to have a berm there to block the noise. Commissioner Dierich said when she walked the land this evening she jiggled her keys by her shoulder and she could not hear the keys jiggling because of the noise of the freeway and that was at 6:00 p.m. She didn't see a lot of specifics in this project and didn't see a traffic study request or how they are going to mitigate noise, and the noise has gotten worse since the planning commission reviewed the proposal in 2003. Something has to be done to address the noise here, it can't be ignored. Regarding the house to the west, the lot looks to be maybe five feet higher than the property to the east and she didn't see an existing retaining wall or anything on the plan to address that drop. She asked how that would be addressed? Mr. Roberts said it's his understanding the pond will be higher and there would be 3-to-1 slopes on the sides of the pond and they will not be grading off site, so they wil' have to make the slopes work with the site and within the pond. They are not planning for a retaining wall to make that pond work. Planning Commission Minutes of 08-07-06 -18- Mr. Kummer said according to the large scale plans, they are showing a bottom-floor walkout for units 5, 6, and 7 and there is a nine-foot drop between the top floor and ithe basement floor on the east side of the new street. The existing elevation is shown at 992 and ~he finished floor elevation on the walkout is fairly consistent. He thinks they would be able to make up the grade in the backyard to match the neighbor's property on the east side. Commissioner Dierich said she likes the idea of a one-story unit, but you don't accomplish much giving each unit a small lot which is worthless. She would rather see attached town homes and have the units built as close to Highwood Avenue moving them as far away from the freeway as possible because of the noise level. Mr. Roberts said he believes the applicant would say the market is for detached town homes. Commissioner Dierich said she's sure the developer would say that ~o, but she is concerned about the noise mitigation, the amount of blacktop and the conservation easement and doesn't feel this plan accomplishes much by having detached single townhomeis. During the last proposal for this area she was concerned about the height of the town homes being more than one story. Commissioner Pearson said regarding the two soil borings done in the drainage easement areas, he wondered if the third soil boring was done in the area of the retaining wall? He asked how high the retaining wall on the west side of the property is? Mr. Kummer said there doesn't appear to be a soil boring done near the retaining wall location to the west side of the property. It appears the retaining wall height range/; from 6 inches to as high as 3Y> feet tall. A retaining wall taller than four feet in height would require a building permit, a geo-grid and be an engineered retaining wall. Mr. Roberts pointed out on the plans where four identified locations of soil borings were done. Commissioner Trippler asked what it meant on page 13, number 11.? Mr. Roberts said this is proposed at 15 lots and let's say for example they only wanted to plat the north half of the property, they could do the development in phases. Commissioner Trippler said on page 2, under traffic considerations, i~ says in 2001, Highwood Avenue near the site averaged 2,450 vehicle trips per day and Century Avenue near Highwood Avenue averaged 2,600 vehicle trips per day, and he believes the nulmber of vehicle trips has increased. Mr. Roberts said he would check but wasn't sure there were updated traffic counts on Highwood Avenue. Commissioner Trippler asked what Highwood Avenue was rated as? Mr. Roberts said he wasn't sure but he thought Highwood Avenue was rated as a "collector" street, which typically has 6,000 vehicle trips per day. He would have to check further to be sure. Planning Commission Minutes of 08-07-06 -19- Commissioner Dierich said in 2001 the New Century development wall just being developed so not all of the homes were done yet, so the traffic was a lot less. Mr. Roberts said just for the commission's information, the NeW Century development Commissioner Dierich is referring to was approved for 178 units and about 150 units are done now. Commissioner Trippler said on page 4, in the first paragraph, it states fhe 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. He said that is like being next door, and unless the developer can show us he is confident enough to live here despite the freeway noise and coUld show us a purchase agreement, the planning commission should require a noise study be dbne before approving this proposal. Mr. Roberts said on page 8, item 5. d. it states 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. J(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. Commissioner Yarwood said he lived within 1,000 feet from an interstate and he knows the noise is a factor and at 320 feet from an interstate he is positive it will be a factor. There should be noise mitigation factored into this property such as sound protection measures in the construction ofthe town homes along with berms and landscaping because noise willi definitely have an impact. Acting chairperson Desai asked the applicant to address the commission. Mr. Kip Johnson, Project Engineer with ACA Engineering, addressed thle commission. He said he is available for technical questions. Commissioner Trippler said the retaining wall on the northwestern e~ge between units 12-15 concerns him and he asked what that would entail and if there had been soil borings done to establish the soil stability? Mr. Johnson said soil borings had been done but they didn't modify the grading plan in that location to minimize the height of the retaining wall. Originally the submittal showed a significantly higher retaining wall, but those first four lots are going to be tuck-under type lots where the back of the lot sits six to eight feet higher than the front of the lot so that brought the back of the grade up closer to the existing grade so there is not a significant wall there. Mr. Phil Soby, applicant with Lauren & Co. Development, addressed the commission. He said he is available for any questions. Commissioner Hess asked what type of noise mitigation you plan on IIJsing? Planning Commission Minutes of 08-07-06 -20- Mr. Soby said they haven't looked at ways to mitigate noise yet so Iile said he should not be quoted as saying anything about the level of noise. They will take nece~sary measures when the time comes, they just haven't gotten to that point yet. The platting, zqning and density are the issues he wanted to handle first. If there are construction standards that need to be increased because of noise they will look at all the concerns then. Commissioner Dierich said she understands the use of construction standards to help with noise issues, but we are running into several developments where the lev~1 of noise is so bad that people can't use their backyards. The developer must have some idea of what he will do to help mitigate the noise concerns if he is planning on having walkout lots arild decks. Mr. Soby said through market research they have found that people qon't really care about the use of the backyard. People want a smaller home without the responsi~ility of snow removal and yard work, and they don't want to share a common wall and want to live independently. The yard is not as important to them in terms of size, people just want a lawn that is kept up nice and they are not so much concerned about the use of the yard as you would be living in a single-family home development. Commissioner Dierich asked who they are marketing these homes to? Is it a specific age group or demographic? Mr. Soby said they do not want to omit any potential buyers and, therefore, have not labeled these homes, but they feel it would probably be an active adult in pre-retirement stage or retired and it could be called a senior living neighborhood. Based on the overall design and the concept of the maintenance free, detached unit with a homeowner's associatidn, these homes would be suitable for "active" seniors. Commissioner Dierich said given the fact that this proposal would be si~ing across the street from a development that can't finish developing because the developer can't sell the units, and also across the street from an older development of partially-detached partially-attached town homes which on a routine basis has 10-14 "for sale" signs in front of it, are you planning on building this development in phases or all at once? Mr. So by said they think this product is different enough to not be in direct competition with any other housing unit that surrounds it and it would be done in one phase, Ironically they discussed this proposal with the developer of the town homes in New Century. the people from the New Century development said they had heard over and over again that people were looking for one- level living, and if the New Century development had offered one-level living, they would not be in the position that they are in now and things would have gone much smoother. Commissioner Dierich applauded the applicant for thinking and researGhing things ahead of time. She would strongly encourage the applicant to put more greenery and berming in and use substantial noise mitigation here. Commissioner Yarwood asked what the estimated asking price would be for these units? Planning Commission Minutes of 08-07-06 -21- Mr. So by said they will offer a variety of different add-on options but they will be priced in the high $200,000 range to the high $300,000 range, and they don't want the pHces to be too high. If it is geared toward an active adult or soon to retire person, they may live close already and are looking to move into a maintenance-free home. The person may already have their home paid for after living there for many years and would have to put little money back into purchasing one of these units to move into something that is brand new and not need thiings fixed or replaced. Ms. Sharon Soby, realtor and wife of the applicant, addressed the cCilmmission. She said that overwhelmingly the baby boomers are saying they don't want to live in attached living, they want maintenance free, smaller, one level living, and it has to be affordable. They want to live close to where their kids and grandchildren are and they often depend on their loved ones to help take care of them. She already knows five people that have homes that are paid for free and clear, have a small nest egg to help pay for expenses and overages and would be able to pay cash for one of these units and may be interested in this particular one level living in this location in Maplewood. As a realtor sitting in models or homes for open houses she hears over and over from people that are either widowed, are seniors, retired or are retiring soon that they want one level living without common walls and would like to have small planters to plant their flowers. People have lived independently all these years and do not want to share walls with anyone and they want their privacy. These units are going to go quickly no matter how close these would be to the freeway because people want to stay in the metro area. Laurie Simon, 1060 Dennis Street South, addressed the commission. Her concern is regarding the erosion control and the runoff that could affect her property because they have spent thousands of dollars fixing up their yard. They have had to replace their retaining wall because of the eight foot drop in their backyard. There are other homes on the block that have had to replace their retaining walls. She is concerned about the ponding and this development proposal. Chris Gierke, 2660 Highwood Avenue East, addressed the commission. He said he knows Ken Roberts has worked very carefully with the previous land owners and itwas 3 years ago and now there is another new owner proposing another development. He knows there are not a lot of neighbors in the audience here to speak. The previous proposal had double frontage and was probably more of a concern for them. He praised the applicant for having neighborhood meetings, even though the neighbors have opposed the plan. The applicant provided information to the neighbors and in turn the neighbors could pass information onto him. He said he spoke to Chuck Ahl about bringing the sanitary sewer closer to his property because he will be required to connect to the city sewer. Mr. Kummer and Mr. Roberts said the sanitary sewer will be stubbed in and the neighbors would have to be connected to the city sewer within one year after it becomes available. Mr. Kummer said the grade to the east of Mr. Gierke's property is about 3)1, feet lower at its lowest point. The actual top of the wall elevation shown on these plans Will match the grade of his property on top and will come down into the site. Mr. Gierke asked if there was a consideration to replant and conserve Itrees in those backyards. He said he is also a builder and knows it's hard to conserve trees during the construction. Planning Commission Minutes of 08-07-06 -22- Mr. Roberts said that is a detail the city engineering department will !lave to work out with the developer's engineers. His sense is that most of the site will get graded and the developer will have to be careful not to damage the roots of the trees and the trees 0(1 the neighbors' property. Mr. Gierke said he used to live at 1024 Dennis Street South and after !lis divorce he moved into this home and has lived here for about 1 Y. years now so he knows how noisy the area is. He said you can't use your backyard and you can't have your windows open at night because you can't sleep because of the freeway noise. He likes this plan and it's much better than the previous plan and there are not a lot of neighbors who are opposing the plan. He agrees that there is a market for one level living and if he got back into new construction as a builder, he would try to build one- level detached homes. He said he would like to see some renderings of the homes they are proposing. Mr. Soby handed out preliminary colored renderings to Mr. Gierike and to the planning commission members. Staff placed a preliminary color rendering on the overhead. Marguerite Merz, 2684 Highwood Avenue East, addressed the commi$sion. She lives to the east of this proposal. She said after speaking to Ken Roberts she did some, research on her own and spoke to several different people from different state agencies who answered questions that she had. One representative told her that if the land below you is eroding it is going to cause your land to erode more because it widens out and washes away. This is a concern of hers. Her understanding from the last development proposal was that the developer was going to pay for sewer and water to extend to this neighborhood. She said she never heard she would be "required" to connect to the city sewer system so this is news to her. She only heard it would be paid for and it would be available if she wanted to connect to it. She purchased a new septic and drain field in the last couple of years so it would be disappointing to itler if it were "mandatory" after she spent her own money for a new septic and drain field. Mr. Roberts said city code requires you connect to the city sewer, ho~ever as part of the public improvement project Ms. Merz could ask for a waiver or time delay and! ultimately it would be up to the city council to grant it or not to grant it. Ms. Merz said she lives downhill from this property, so her properlty will not drain into the proposed property. She said there is 13 feet from the back of the proposed homes to the property line. She had her son mark off 13 feet in order to do a visual presentation. She said she thought there would be a berm on the east side because the freeway is also Icl>cated on the east. Mr. Roberts said the west side property would have tuck-under units and the east side units would be walk-out units so those would have basements. The berm would be.on the south side around the cul-de-sac, and the theory would be to block the noise going up the hill from the freeway. Ms. Merz said these units would be 13 feet apart and you can't stand outside in your yard here and hear each other speak. She asked what these people are going to do with the noise level especially after you cut down 90% ofthe trees. (In the background her son said that he has to put cotton in his ears to sleep because of the freeway noise.) If you put a tree between the units at 13 feet apart the trees still need room to spread out. She said she has a srnall magnolia tree on her property and that needs 25 feet to spread out, and you have to allow for the roots and the branches to spread out. Planning Commission Minutes of 08-07-06 -23- Ms. Merz said otherwise you have to have small conifers planted here qecause she can't see how the trees will have room to spread out. She said she spoke to Gertens' Nursery about the ponds and the rainwater gardens. The plans were so small and microscopic sne could not read them so she spoke to Mr. Roberts who was gracious enough to send her I~rger plans. That may be another reason the neighbors are not here, because the plans were so small they did not know what was going on here. Minnesota Mosquito Control said the kind of mosquito that causes disease only needs the size of a candy wrapper of water to lay eggs. If these rainwater gardens would be dry 24 hours later, Gertens Nursery says that rainwater gardens with plants in them have to be water-loving plants so it can't be dry or the plants would die. Gertens Nursery said if we had a drought like we have had you would have to water the rainwater garden in orderto keep the plants alive, so that means in order to survive, the rainwater garden must be moist at all times. She was told these rainwater gardens would be two to three feet deep and 15 x 7 feet wide. There will be water runoff from the roofs and driveways, so the rainwater gardens would be moist all the time. Therefore, mosquitoes would breed. The ponds she is referring to will run the whole length of her yard and she has a picnic table on the west side Of her property. Ms. Merz said recently her son was working on some wood in that particular area of her yard after dark and he got several mosquito bites and ended up with a staph infection from the bites and she had to take him to the emergency room. She said she already has a problem with mosquitoes and this development is only going to increase the mosquito problem. She doesn't like the idea of rainwater ponds being so close to her picnic table. It sounds like these' ponds will be pretty deep as well. The state said these ponds fill in with silt very quickly. They told her in a few years you will have cattails, ducks, nesting birds, and it will not drain straight down because of the silt. Mr. Roberts said it is now a standard condition with all developm$nts with ponds that the developer enter into a maintenance agreement with the city engineering' department regarding the maintenance of the ponds that they keep the ponds cleaned out so they function and not fill in with silt. If this is approved, that will remain as a storm water pond and not become a wetland with cattails. Ms. Merz asked how they would keep the pond cleaned out? Mr. Roberts said they would use a backhoe. Ms. Merz said you are telling everyone publicly that the city will make the developer use a backhoe or the city will backhoe the pond and charge the developer f~r the work? Mr. Roberts said whatever it takes. Sometimes the developer or the homeowners association takes care of it, but the pond has to be maintained for drainage, so If it fills in, it needs to be cleaned out. Ms. Merz asked how someone knows if the pond fills up? Mr. Roberts said public works has staff that inspects ponds and storm water systems to make sure they are functioning. A neighbor may call the city and say there looks to be a problem. Ms. Merz asked if algae would signify a problem? Planning Commission Minutes of 08-07-06 -24- Mr. Kummer said there is usually standing water and the water should draw down into the soils below it. Ms. Merz asked why the pond needs to be so deep if it is supposed to drain well below her basement level? Mr. Roberts said if there is a 12-inch rain, the pond needs to be large enough to take on all that water in a short amount of time. Ms. Merz said her understanding is with all the flooding around the courhtry, insurance companies do not pay for damage from water runoff, and she was wondering if thedty would financially take care of her house if there was flooding damage from this proposal? Mr. Roberts said no. Ms. Merz said if the city is planning to approve this proposal and she h<'1s a flooding problem, who would she blame for it? Mr. Roberts said that is when the lawyers would become involved bec$use it has been the city's policy not to promise or guarantee anything like that because sometim$s there are conditions out of the city's control. Ms. Merz said the city can't guarantee that she will never have f1O<llding problems from this development? Mr. Roberts said he has learned to say you can never say "never". Things do happen such as if there were two ten-inch rainfalls in a few days, everyone would be f1ool:led and then there would be a lot of finger pointing. Ms. Merz asked if the city would reconsider having this pond next to her basement if you are aware there could be a problem. Mr. Kummer said the city engineering staff designs ponds to certain stalldards and the city cannot design ponds for a 12-inch storm. A typical design standard for a ponti is a 6-inch rainfall in 24 hours which is in a 100-year return period. Which basically means a 6-inch rainfall event has a 1 % chance of happening in a 100-year period. Ms. Merz asked when and where that fact came from? Mr. Kummer said that is an engineering standard practice used currently in the State of Minnesota and comes from the National Weather Service. Ms. Merz said we are living in a changing climate where the 1 OO-year rains are going to be more frequent. We are having crazy weather now, there are terrible storms land heat waves now and she doesn't believe there will be 100-year rain statistics anymore beoause a standard practice isn't "standard" anymore. She said she doesn't have a drain in her basement and if the city cannot guarantee that this pond will not flood her basement, she doesrft think it should be done. Planning Commission Minutes of 08-07-06 -25- Mr. Kummer said the pond is designed to overflow to Highwood Avenue ifthere should happen to be any problems with the pond itself. If its normal drainage measures sll10uld happen to fail during a large rainstorm, there is an outflow to the street. The essential low point of the pond will dump onto Highwood Avenue before it goes onto your property. Ms. Merz said this property is not flat. This is a steep hill that she lives on and if the water runs off the property towards her house it would not run away from her house. There is pooling of water that occurs there now. She said she lives in a 100-year-old house arid there is no drain in the basement, so if the city can't guarantee flooding won't occur, she WOlflld like the plan to have a pond next to her property reconsidered. She said it says on the pllans that a homeowner's association will pay for the upkeep of the property so the developer will' not be responsible. If the units aren't sold immediately, who will pay the homeowner association fees? Has the developer's wife brought these people who she says are interested in buying one of these units onto the property itself and jingled her car keys next to their ears like Commissioner Dierich did? That way they would see how loud it really is here. That may change their mind. She said she spoke to people on Dennis Street South and people mentioned to her that they can't sleep at night because of the freeway noise. People ask "why don't you move then if you can't sleep", but people put their hard-earned money into living in a home and don't want to up and move. She said she heard there is a state law that cities are required to notify people of certain levels of noise and she isn't sure how the city is going to alert people regarding the level of noise, but it is a "requirement" to notify people. Ms. Merz said you have to consider the noise that people would have tco live with besides just the taxes that would come into the city and the county or the money the developer would make. People aren't going to be too happy with the noise level once they are living here and they will be calling the city to complain and asking the city to do something about the noise. She said she thought a tall concrete wall to block the noise from the freeway would be something great to have here. Mr. Roberts said nobody is debating that noise is an issue. Ms. Merz reiterated the problems with having rainwater ponds anp the problems with the mosquito breeding potential. Acting chairperson Desai said the same issues have been repeated over and over again by Ms. Merz and the planning commission has taken all the comments into cor!1sideration. He asked Ms. Merz to only bring up new issues or concerns. Ms. Merz said the New Century development has taken over 5 years to finish the town homes across the street, and they are still not done yet. She said she called the city to ask if there was a time limit to complete a project because it has already taken 5 years, arid then on Saturdays there are workers pounding and making a lot of noise that the neighbors have to listen to. The city said there is no time limit that the developer has to finish a development. N<pw this developer says he would build these units in one phase but he is saying what he "hopes~' to accomplish and what you on the commission want to hear, but there are no "guarantees". Planning Commission Minutes of 08-07-06 -26- Ms. Merz said the developer says the roadways, green spaces, rainwater gardens and ponds will be privately maintained by the homeowner's association and not by the developer. She said this seems to be a large load to put on the homeowner's association if all the units are not built or sold. The developer said he hopes to have immediate occupancy, but that's the same thing that the developer for the New Century development thought and that hasn't happened yet. Acting chairperson Desai said these are issues between the developer and the homeowner's association and there is no action that the planning commission can take to prevent these things from happening. Mr. Roberts said typically a homeowner's association does not take o\fer a development until its 60-70% built, and the developer maintains control until it's handed over to the homeowner's association. Ms. Merz asked if this is done by law? Mr. Roberts said each developer does things differently. Ms. Merz said if the developer decides to take off then it would be up to the city to get the homeowner's association to take care of things? Mr. Roberts said correct. Ms. Merz said the state said when there are multiple runoff areas such as from roofs and driveways it creates a swirling water effect and she doesn't want to be downhill of the runoff, especially because she doesn't have a drain in her basement and she dloesn't have the money to fix problems that would occur. She said she would be one of the people living in one of these town home units if she "chose" to but she is in her current house because she loves living in it. She thinks this development is "too much" for this small area of land and it's too close to the freeway. There needs to be more green space and a smaller number of homes with good noise protection. Commissioner Yarwood asked that only new issues that have not been raised already be discussed. Ryan Merz, 2684 Highwood Avenue East, addressed the commission. Acting chairperson Desai asked that things not be repeated because the planning commission has already heard things repeated over and over again and the commission would like to hear only "new" issues because Ms. Merz had already spoken a long time. (1 hour) Mr. Merz started talking about the rainwater gardens all over again, He also brought up the mosquitoes again and the life cycle of a mosquito. (So there was nothing new brought up for the commission to hear.) Ms. Merz added there are 1 OO-year old oak trees on the rear of the prbperty that are not on the property in question. She wants to make sure the large trees and the roots along the property lines are not damaged or killed. Planning Commission Minutes of 08-07-06 -27- Acting chairperson Desai closed the public hearing. Commissioner Trippler said as a planning commissioner he thinks this proposal is like signing a "blank check" because there are many things missing from this proposal compared to what the planning commission normally reviews. The staff report states the apdlicant will apply to the city for final plat and design approval including architectural and landscap$ plans. He said when the city approves a CUP on a PUD it provides a lot of flexibility, which is a good thing, but he feels while providing flexibility the decisions are then put on the planning commission and community design review board to ensure that what they are allowing is going to b~ a benefit to the city. With this particular proposal there are too many "unknowns" at this point for him to feel comfortable. He asked Mr. Roberts if this is an unusual or usual predicament to be for a proposal because to him this is very unusual. Mr. Roberts asked if Commissioner Trippler felt this was unusual because the city does not have a CDRB application yet? Commissioner Trippler said there just seem to be a lot of unanswered things that the commission is not able to look at such as what the structures would look like, where!the units would be placed on each of the parcels, and questions about the retaining walls as well as other things. Mr. Roberts said the things that are unknown are issues for the GDRB which are the final landscape plans and the design of the buildings. The engineering details and the retaining walls are issues he thought the engineers from both sides had worked out already. For most of the proposals the city would have both the PC and CDRB applications, but' in this case the developer wanted to make sure he had a "project" before he spent the money and the time developing the full architectural and landscaping plans. These items are not required with a plat so they are not required with a PUD. Are they nice and are they helpful, yes. The last proposal that was reviewed in 2003 didn't have that information either and the city did not require it This is really a land use decision. If you as a planning commission need more information in order to make a final decision, then the commission will have to vote accordingly, but staff did not think it was necessary to have a CDRB application in order to make a land use and platting decision. Commissioner Yarwood moved to approve the resolution starting on page 46 of the staff report. 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: (additions are underlined and deletions are crossed out). 1. All construction shall follow the plans for4-315 detached town houses as approved by the city. The city council may approve major changes to the plans. The Inte~im Director of Community Development may approve minor changes to the plans. Such chahges shall include: a. Revising the grading and site plans to show: (1) The developer minimizing the loss or removal of natural vegetation. Planning Commission Minutes of 08-07-06 -28- (2) All driveways at least 20 feet wide. If the developer wan~s to have parking on one side of the main driveway, then it must be at least 28 feetlwide. However. widening of the driveway must not lessen the side setback of thEll 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 scilved and to minimize the amount of hard surface area. (4) Revised storm water pond locations and designs as sug~ested or required by the watershed district or city engineer. The ponds shall meet tl11e 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 undisturbj9d 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 engineeringl plans. These plans shall meet all the conditions and changes noted in the engineer's memo dated July 28, 2006. These shall include: a. IRGlllde €lFadiR€l, Iltility, drainage, or-oGioR GORtFOI, str-oots, trails, tree, retaining walls, drivoway aRd parkiRljlot plans. a. The oradino, utilitv. drainaoe. erosion control. streets. tr~i1s. tree. retainino walls. drivewav and parkino plans. This approval includes the desion of the proposed private cul-de-sac. b. Showing no grading or ground disturbance in the conservljltion 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 Mar the south side of the site, from encroachment from equipment, grading or fillin$l. 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 gra(:ling limits. Planning Commission Minutes of 08-07-06 -29- c. Remove any debris or junk from the site, including the cons~rvation area. d. Provide the city with verification that the town houses on the Ptoposed site plan will meet the state's noise standards. This shall be with a study, testing lor 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 ~onstruction 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 (town houses): minimum of six feet from a side property line and at least 12 feet between units. 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 (PA.C fees) for each housing unit at the time of the building permit for each housing unit. 8. Submit the homeowner's 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 design approval for the town homes or any signs. The project design plans, including architectural, signs, 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. Planning Commission Minutes of 08-07-06 -30- (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. Commissioner Hess seconded. Ayes - Desai, Hess, Pearson, Yarwood Nay - Dierich, Trippler Commissioner Trippler voted nay because he felt the city is giving the applicant a lot of leeway and he would have liked to see more detailed information. Commissioner Dierich voted nay for the same reason and she also thinks this is too many homes for this size property as well as this close to the freeway noise. She said she agrees Ms. Merz should not be required to have a rainwater pond running the whole length of her property. The pond could be turned sideways and we could lose two units and reconfigure some ofthe driveways to accommodate her needs. Commissioner Trippler moved to 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 any off-site easements. 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. Planning Commission Minutes of 08-07-06 -31- h. Complete the entire 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, 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). Planning Commission Minutes of 08-07-06 -32- (9) As little grading as possible west and south of the town houses. This is to keep as many of the existing trees on the site as is reasonably possible. c. The street, driveway and utility plans shall show: (1) The driveway shall be a nine-ton design with a maximum grade of eight percent and the maximum grade within 75 feet of the intersection at two percent. (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 complEiltion ofthe 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 flow requirements and hydrant locations shall be verified with the Maplewood Fire Department. (5) All utility excavations located within the proposelll 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. Planning Commission Minutes of 08-07-06 -33- (3) Show the size, species and location ofthe replacemenl 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: (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 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 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. Planning Commission Minutes of 08-07-06 -34- b. .Place temporary orange safety fencing and signs at the grading limits. c. Provide for the repair of Highwood Avenue (street, curb C!nd 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 homeowner's 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 tile site. The applicant shall submit the language for these dedications and restrictions to the city for approval before recording. The city will not issue a building permit until after the developer has recorded the final plat and these documents and covenants. 9. .Submit the homeowner's 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 interim 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. Commissioner Yarwood seconded. Ayes - Desai, Hess, Pearson, Trippler, Yarwood Nay - Dierich Commissioner Dierich voted nay because she is voting to be consistent. The motion passed. This item goes to the city council on August 28, 2006. Planning Commission Minutes of 08-07-06 -35- VI. NEW BUSINESS None. VII. UNFINISHED BUSINESS None. VIII. VISITOR PRESENTATIONS None. IX. COMMISSION PRESENTATIONS a. Mr. Grover was scheduled to be the planning commission repr!lsentative at the July 24, 2006, city council meeting; however, there were no planning commission items to discuss. b. Mr. Hess will be the planning commission representative at the August 14, 2006, city council meeting. The only planning commission item to discuss is Carpet Court, 1685 Arcade Street. c. Mr. Pearson will be the planning commission representative aUhe August 28,2006, city council meeting. All items from this evening's meeting will be discussed. d. Mr. Trippler will be the planning commission representative at the September 11, 2006, city council meeting. At this time it is unknown what items will be discussed. X. STAFF PRESENTATIONS Annual Tour Follow-up July 31, 2006 Mr. Roberts asked if the planning commission had anything they would've changed regarding the tour. The planning commission said they enjoyed the tour, the coach bUs and the dinner was very good. They said they especially enjoyed visiting the south end of Ma(illewood. Reschedule the Monday, September 4, PC meeting due to th!l Labor Day holiday to Tuesday, September 5, or Wednesday, September 6, 2006. Most of the planning commission was available Wednesday, September 6, 2006. XI. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 10:12 p.m. MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: SUBJECT: LOCATION: DATE: City Manager Ken Roberts, Planner Street Right-of-Way Vacation Century Avenue and New Century Boulevard August 14, 2006 INTRODUCTION Mr. Paul Engstrom, representing the developer of New Century, is proposing that the city vacate part of an existing street right-of-way. This excess right-of-way is on the northwest comer of Century Avenue and New Century Boulevard. Mr. Engstrom wants the city to vacate this right-of- way so the sprinkler and irrigation equipment that is now on the property in 'question would be on property owned by the homeowner's association and not on public property. (Please see the applicant's statement on page four and the maps and plans on pages five and six.) BACKGROUND On January 24, 2000, the city council approved the first final plat for the New Century development. This final plat created 80 lots for houses, 3 oullots for open space, one outlot for future phases of the development (including the town houses) and the right-of-way for New Century Boulevard. DISCUSSION The city acquired the area of the right-of-way in question in 2000 when the developer of New Century (the plat) recorded the final plat with Ramsey County. Mr. Engstrom is requesting the vacation because there is sprinkler and irrigation equipment for the common areas of the New Century development (owned by the homeowners association) on the property. It is in the interest of the city and of the homeowners association to have the existing equipment on private property and not on public property. The city engineering department stated that the city does not have a need for the right-of-way in question. The city and the adjacent property owners have no plans to build, any street or public utilities in this location. Maplewood has no plans to develop or use the exi$ting right-of-way for street or utilities. However, Dan Soler, the Ramsey County traffic engineer, noted that the county needs an additional ten feet of right-of-way for Century Avenue. As such, they are requesting that the city reserve the eastem ten feet of the property in question as public highway easement. 1 RECOMMENDATION Approve the resolution on page seven. This resolution is for the vacation of part of the street right-of-way on the northwest comer of Century Avenue and New Century Eloulevard. The reasons for the vacation are as follows: 1. It is in the public interest. 2. The city and the property owner do not need or use the right-of-way in question for street or utility purposes. 3. The properties adjacent to the right-of-way have adequate street access. This vacation is subject to the property owner granting to the county a ten-foot-wide public highway and drainage and utility easement over the east ten feet of the property in question. REFERENCE INFORMATION BACKGROUND On July 12, 1999, the city council approved the following for the New Century PUD: 1. Changes to the comprehensive plan. These changes were from R-1 (single dwellings) and OS (open space) to R-1 (single dwellings), RH (residential high density) and OS (open space) for the site. The developer also asked the city to drop the planned minor collector street that would connect the east end of Schaller Drive with Century Avenue. This street would have gone through this site and through a group of oak trees. 2. A conditional use permit (CUP) for a planned unit development (PUD) 'for a 178-unit housing development. The applicant requested the CUP because the F (farm residence) and R-1 (single dwelling residential) zoning districts limit the uses to single dwellings in a typical or standard subdivision. As approved by the city, this project will have 76, single dwellings (including the relocated farmhouse), 8 twin homes and 92 town house/!. Having a PUD gives the city and developer a chance to be more flexible with site design and development details than the standard zoning requirements would normally allow. The F and R-1 zoning districts also do not allow twin homes, town houses or other multiple dwellings. The developer also asked the city to allow the houses in this development to have mother- in-law (accessory) apartments and have a variety of front and side-yard setbacks for the houses and town houses in the development. The city approved these as part of the PUD. 3. Street right-of-way and easement vacations. These were for the unused street right-at-ways and easements on the site. 2 4. A code variation for a substandard cul-de-sac where Schaller Drive meets the developer's west property line. The proposed development plans do not have a street connection to the existing temporary cul-de-sac at the east end of Schaller Drive. As such, the developer will need to change the existing temporary cul-de-sac into a permanent cul-de-sac. 5. Reduced building setbacks for the existing houses at 2610 and 2611 Schaller Drive. These setback approvals are necessary with changing the temporary cul-de-sac on the east end of Schaller Drive to a permanent cul-de-sac. 6. A variation from the city code to reduce the required street right-of-way width. The developer wants to reduce some of the publiC street right-of-ways from 60 feet to 50 feet. 7. A variation from the city code to reduce the required street pavement width. The developer is asking to reduce the streets from 32 feet to 28 feet, 24 feet and 20 feet from gutter to gutter. 8. A preliminary plat to create the lots in the development. This approval was subject to eight conditions. 9. Having no parking for both sides of some of the streets and no parking for one side of other streets. 10. Starting the construction of up to four model homes before the city approves the final plat. Application Date The city received the complete application and plans for this request on Jul~ 21, 2006. State law requires that the city take action within 60 days of receiving complete applications for a land use proposal. As such, city action is required on this proposal by September HI, 2006. P:\sec13-28\ROW Vacation - 2006 Attachments: 1. 2. 3. 4. Applicant's Letter Location Map Address Map Vacation Resolu1ion 3 c Attachment 1 ---' .......... ,ROBERT ENGSTROM COMPANIES - - , July 20, 2006 Mr. Ken Roberts' City of Maplewood 1830 County Road BEast Maplewood, MN 55109 Re: New Century-Right of Way Vacation Mr. Roberts: RECEIVED I ~ - l'uc:n,6 - - '- l.. ......'..,...........;.....-........'..- Per our conversation this morning, our company is requesting that the city of Maplewood vacate the excess right of way as described on the attached diagram. It was the original intent that the Association would own and maintain the properly. The city would be vacating the right of way to Robert Engstrom Companies who would subsequently deed it to tHe New Century Homeowners Association, Presently, the Association has a sprinkler system control box on'the property with an enclosure covering it. Thank you very much. Sincerely, Paul T. Engstrom Robert Engstrom Companies PTE/me ~ APPLICANT'S LETTER 'f . , 4 ' .::RESIDENTIAL COMMUNITY DEVELOPE :4801 West 81st Street. Suite' 101 ..Mir;meapolis,Minnesota S54 7 ' , www.engstrbmq).com. (952) 893-1001 . Fax (952) 893-1841 Attachment 2 @ \J ...,ne, =~ c:::J G 0 0 GOlF COURSE I I .... 0 1 C'J CJ CJ (J 0 [] I I I GJg I I 0 I I I 0 I I c D I 1 I ! I , I ,I a I I I 1] I I ~ ~ 0 : I , (\ .' ',. '---' " i 5 I I I I I I I I I I :~ r~ > 'e i~ I 0 ~ 0 CO II I I DO I I I I I I 0 I I 0 I I I I I I, 0 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ..5 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 11 N LOCATION MAP Attachment 3 LJ , , 0 , , , 1 1 0 , I I 1]51 , , , 0 l , , I \ ' , , 'tlJ'/ I , Q ~ /7 ". ,/ /1 ' \" \2, 7 4 '>/ I pi ~ '-' ~ \ J . I I \ I-JI /' , '('\ ,,/ '." ,I , ~\...\~._~~'rl1R'la~Qg...=~~~~:LD~ACAT1DN / // -.I <.0 CO p>J o 775 0801 o [315 021 \ , , , ) 1"l~, n S]:~_LENQER_Cl~ ( n:::..--- I _. I N 1'"\. ADDRESS MAP 6 W ::::I Z W ~ > a:: ::::I I- Z W' 0' 1 1 1 n :M t: ::::I III Q o ~ 11 N Attachment 4 VACATION RESOLUTION WHEREAS, Mr. Paul Engstrom, representing the developer of New Century, applied for the vacation of the following: That part of New Century Boulevard as shown on the plat of New Century, Ramsey County, Minnesota described as follows: Beginning at the most northeasterly comer of said New Century Boulevard, also being a point on the west right-of-way line of Century Avenue; thence South 00 degrees, 39 minutes, 40 seconds East, assumed bearing along said west right-of-way line 70 feet; thence South 88 degrees, 34 minutes, 30 seconds West 77 feet; thence North 00 degrees, 39 minutes, 40 seconds West 70 feet to the north line of said New Century Boulevard; thence North 88 degrees, 34 minutes, 30 seconds East along said north line 77 feet to the point of beginning. All in Maplewood, Ramsey County, in Section 13, Township 28, Range 22. WHEREAS, the history of this vacation is as follows: 1. On August 21, 2006, the planning commission held a public hearing about this proposed vacation. The city staff published a notice in the paper 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 also considered reports and recommendations of the city staff. The planning commission recommended that the city council approve the vacation. 2. On , 2006, the city council reviewed this proposal. The council also considered reports and recommendations of the city staff and planning commission. WHEREAS, after the city approves this vacation, the public fee title interest in the property will go to the following described property: 1. Outlot C, New Century (PIN 13-28-22-11-0107) NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the city council approve the above-described vacation for the following reasons: 1. It is in the public interest 2. The city and the property owner do not need or use the right-of-way in question for street or utility purposes. 3. The properties adjacent to the right-of-way have adequate street access. This vacation is subject to the property owner granting to the county a ten-foot-wide public highway and drainage and utility easement over the east ten feet of the property in question. The Maplewood City Council adopted this resolution on September ,2006. 7 MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: SUBJECT: APPLICANT: LOCATION: DATE: Greg Copeland, Interim City Manager Shann Finwall, AICP, Planner Vacation of a Utility and Drainage Easement Josh Clendenen, Delaney Company LLC Hillside Estates Plat - Lots 2 and 3 August 16, 2006 for the August 21 Planning Commission Meeting INTRODUCTION Josh Clendenen of Delaney Company LLC is requesting the vacation of a public drainage and utility easement located on two vacant lots (Lots 2 and 3, Hillside Estates Plat - 2412 Springside Drive and 2417 Linwood Avenue). The vacation of the easement is requested in order to reconfigure the existing infiltration basin on Lot 3 to better accommodate the development of a single-family house. Mr. Clendenen will dedicate a new drainage and utility easement to the city to cover the reconfigured infiltration basin. BACKGROUND August 23, 2004: The city council approved the preliminary plat for Hillside Estates. This plat subdivided a 1.6-acre vacant lot on Linwood Avenue into three single-family lots, with the extension of Springside Drive. Two lots front on the new Springside Drive cul-de-sac and one lot fronts on Linwood Avenue (Attachment 2). June 13, 2005: The city council approved the final plat for Hillside Estates (Attachment 3). August 31,2005: Mr. Clendenen submitted a building permit application and plans to the city to develop a single-family house on Lot 3, Hillside Estates - 2417 Linwood Avenue (Attachment 3). The plans submitted required a reduced front yard setback authorization from the city due to the fact that the house was proposed closer to the road than the existing houses on either side (city code requires the front yard setback for a house on a lot with existing houses on either side to be no closer than the house closest to the street or no further back than the house farthest from the street). The required front yard setback on this lot is 68.2 feet, the house was proposed with a 30.5-foot front yard setback. The reduced front yard setback was being requested in order to preserve a berm and mature oak trees, and also due to the location of the existing infiltration basin on the west side of the lot. September 8, 2005: City staff submitted a reduced front yard setback notice to the adjacent property owners of 2417 Linwood Avenue as required by city code. The notice included information on the proposed single-family house which would be constructed closer to the road than the existing houses on either side. In addition, the notification explained the process for appealing the reduced front yard setback. September 15, 2005: Fred Nazarian of 2425 Linwood Avenue (property owner to the east of the vacant lot) appealed the reduced front yard setback on the basis that the house would be too close to his house and would reduce his privacy. February 27, 2006: The city council reviewed Mr. Clendenen's reduced front yard setback request. During the meeting the applicant requested that the city council table the item for one month in order to allow additional time to redesign the infiltration basin and create a site plan which did not require a reduced front yard setback. March 27, 2006: The city council received an update on the reduced front yard setback from city staff. The applicant was able to redesign the infiltration basin and create a site plan which does not require a reduced front yard setback. The redesign of the infiltration basin would require the vacation of the existing drainage and utility easement and dedication of a new easement on the plat. DISCUSSION Location of Infiltration Basin The Hillside Estates plat was approved with a drainage and utility easement located on the west side of Lot 3. One reason the easement was needed was for the construction of an infiltration basin. The basin was designed to treat storm water runoff from the new Springside Drive street extension and the new lots. The location of the basin was chosen due to the grade of the land and the fact that there were no mature trees on that portion of the plat. The Springside Drive street extension, the infiltration basin, and one new single-family house on Springside Drive were all constructed last summer. Mr. Clendenen has submitted a preliminary grading, drainage and erosion control plan for the new infiltration basin (Attachment 4). The new basin will be located on the southwest corner of the lot, allowing for development of a single family house on the north side of the basin with the required 68.2-foot front yard setback. Mr. Clendenen has also submitted a revised drainage and utility easement (Attachment 5) which covers the location of the new infiltration basin. Jon Jarosch of the city's engineering department has reviewed the preliminary grading, drainage and erosion control plan and the revised drainage and utility easement and finds them acceptable. Mr. Jarosch recommends several conditions of approval in the attached engineering report (Attachment 6). Mr. Nazarian, the property owner to the east of the vacant lot, has submitted a letter of support for the vacation of the drainage and utility easement (Attachment 7). Mr. Nazarian is pleased that the infiltration basin will be relocated to allow the house to be set back from the road according to city code. Mr. Clendenen should be required to record the new drainage and utility easement prior to the issuance of a grading or building permit on the lot. Tree Replacement A condition of the Hillside Estates plat approval was that the developer replace all large trees removed with the development of each lot. The city's tree preservation ordinance defines a large tree as any healthy tree with a trunk diameter of 8 inches at a 4-foot- trunk height, excluding box elder, cottonwoods, poplars, and other undesirable trees as determined by the community development director. Mr. Clendenen should be required to submit a tree preservation plan with the submittal of a grading or building permit. The tree preservation plan should include the size and species of all trees on the lots, which large trees will be removed from the lots, appropriate measures to protect trees which will be preserved, and the location, species, and size of all required replacement trees. 2 RECOMMENDATION Approve the drainage and utility easement vacation resolution attached (Attachment 8). This resolution approves Josh Clendenen's request for the vacation of a drainage and utility easement on Lots 2 and 3, Hillside Estates. The city should vacate the drainage and utility easement because: 1. It is in the public interest. 2. The vacation will allow the creation of a new infiltration basin on Lot 2 which will allow a single-family house to be constructed on the lot which meets the front yard setback required by city code. 3. The property owner will dedicate a new drainage and utility easement to the city. The vacation of the drainage and utility easement is approved with the following conditions: 1. Prior to issuance of a grading or building permit for Lots 2 and 3, Hillside Estates, the applicant must submit the following to city staff for approval: a. A revised grading and drainage plan which shows all changes required by Jon Jarosch of the Maplewood engineering department in the August 16, 2006, engineering review. b. Proof that the revised drainage and utility easement has been recorded with the county. c. A tree preservation plan which shows the size and species of all trees on Lots 2 and 3, which large trees will be removed from the lots, appropriate measures needed to protect trees which will be preserved, and the location, species, and size of all required replacement trees. d. A letter of credit or cash escrow to cover 150 percent of the cost of all replacement trees. 2. Prior to certificate of occupancy for a new house on Lots 2 or 3, the applicant must install all required replacement trees and complete the construction of the infiltration basin as per the approved plans. P:com-dev\12-28\Easement Vacation Attachments 1. Location Map 2. Preliminary Plat 3. Final Plat 4. Site Plan 5. Preliminary Grading and Drainage Plan 6. Revised Drainage and Utility Easement 7. Engineering Review 8. Letter from the Adjacent Property Owner 9. Vacation Resolution 3 Attachment 1 i--I, -!~l~"'-~""~,\,-,\"~" .f@. -.(~j.)~lDTv!~~~:\Ec-ll'l-I--1 =-I--~'~ ~ - J L ~..'.~.'.. tt;;t!.\.~ \\ \.'."..m.'.. -.~.'."...'\...'. -. ~" Lj ~ -\ \---1' 1 '-.c'lU~ I no - I 0 ,'0':>", '~~/"'" "',JYV!)'~IjJ/ I'" 0 '., +-' I I" "'-D" , .~_ ,___ _ __ II u'".1 <0Y~~~\\ \&M O.)~ q(2~/~<1 ~$l~rQl flL- i- -- ~@ '\//) r.\~E'oJ,J~~,~ilD7~1~[:J[- ~L~__ -d- - - - Location of Hillside ~::::J--9J~~;-J:T__~ + Springside Drive ~I Estates Plat/Q_Yc;J, -1\ 1 \"",.... 0::, \ 1 _P G31.CJ - :E 'r8J,~ I D ,_b-\/- --i--.. ~ I Ii ~I I "~'.""D"",: '0 . Jr J~, 0 r~~I'f0, , o 0 r- Q c:;]landUlllitYE8Sementto -0__ I. .'In1ri n I I ~ _ :21 .' Do I p 0 ,",v...... _ ~ ~~ Ll ~l~l:'"'t"~ _ ~~ __ _ _ c ~~~~~tlD;DIofc'iKl' ~L'4c" ~~" ',':DJ\. 0['",,-;- f--1J~::1T _-~-T +- L +- -,~" oj ~ ~_ -~. ____0 Q~~ _ ___ 'ip ~1'~?~eIOI,b~~~~~~ - ~c]IDTC'J~r~k?D leD(5L/Q~~ : I, J9.V...\/O..) ..'\JL~ ~--j. 9.'........ (0.-. '.\..1 :..I:.'.! ! ..0 ..I.G.....0.......(\/\I. L,~l =-----\/~,(3~,/k__)D l.lli ~i/ Q ( \~ \~Lt-hJ- I' ~ )-<,', (',,, _ t_~-~- "_ , dp,\0 \\.d::0.l'2.' "1 c']) ;-Q r' /0 ;;:;:,\0 .._f. .IT .1 U; Q. / i/. 1 'I t, I '. ", "/ /rF"1 - -'Ji""l...) \ /"./ 10J / ,"'I_~L" / l>- n - -4r --"- --,- . D--' //~. .",\ 1>\0,' " V' ( \/0-. -"<.'. L2-, 10 . w' ///y ..... I / \j/O -" .n ~\ ''fIZ:J\ .,~I ,GJ ' ,-' rG/\~I(dr" \ /~--"---r/ In-!;. ;"O':-,l.. -I 01:70. </....<...~!isb J r~ ~ 1/'\'--'--/1 r- "~'I ,./ >.----I----':J./ ,/ i/ /!. _---., /'i./ /::;?{,--,'-~'-----' f-----==---- I [b '/.V./D. '.'' I I O! Ii /0..>/ .....:;' ./0;../0:;~ - -, 'lJ ~ ' - - "- -(-i--~ e-,= i' i_' ! / /C-JIc'JI'LJ G ~--'" /"\i,,,--- / I' I Gi il 'Qt, "j{/L:r-+---1 JI e -' .\../. !'---J f-.-.. -i---7)/' \\ '",+-1, /)Ie;'] ~,Cl. I ,c-i- I I f'-::::J',__l- //'-1/ -"---- I , \ I" N w.' Location Map s -. ./ '----~ / "', /c' ---------- ~ ' 178' 152' --1 II II 'I 170' 145' N w J~ ~~" s 2.~ - ~ 00 ~~ 2.4:!l1 o LINWOOD AVE. E Attachment 2 ''''r-.A.l~1l1'lN SECTION 12 TOWN 215 IWrlC( 22 SUIIJ TO It[) iIr EX W 60 F'T Of E 201 FT Of 5225 FT It EX E '46 FT; THE S 500 FT OF E 1/2 OF W 1/2 Of SE 1/4 OF SW 1/4 IN SEe 12 TN 28 RN 22 DD / I I I I z.lfI'~ ~__---1 I I i diJ i 2~Z-5 I \'1101'1>560 I~I'I\ i I 22 I -------~ /' ""._, -------./ -------------- -~ SPRINGSIDE DR. --.-.; , y "-..._~/I --------. ~,~, .'. -~ i~ '-., , -. "'-''- "'''' '---- " CJf / :/ / i ! ~', ,- Ii / ! ----------- / // ~/ DCJD f! . . ! i i. , ' : i i! ! i -I , ~ ~/ -- Preliminary Plat //\ / / / < '" ", -"""""'- " -. // i-..' '" (0 ~ Q! I::? '" ~- / S88'34'06"W 183.75 r-------- - I , , , I , , , , , ... "- ..; "' l~ 1;W rOUND 1/2 INCH : co IRON PIPE, CAP '" '" NO. 9235 N b ,..: N N a o (/) 1 R ; 50.00 l:; ; 143"07'49" L ~ 124.90 ...-- , (per right-of-wcy for roadw<lY purpoeea. Doc.. No. 1645294) , , , , I , I , S89-39'22"W I ,,._n 93 74n__hn~ I 1/" . 52.78 ~' ~...::. - - - - - r - ~1!9":.19':"21:EjJ ------- SPRINGSIDE ... DRIVE ..-\;~ EAST 4>;1p' R ~ 50.00 <,tr L1 = 28615':'57- -..:~~ L ~ 249.80 ~ ';:'<'6'- "-u" i: :;prii:;;s:de [):-:':e E:::st r---.{,;, ,rS8g~9'22"W\ : ~~' / 47.41 \ t~'~, I~ , '-.";' ,...r:& , :~I l~o6b .,' ,/~~O). r (/~ -_____- "1 ~\~\ R = 50.00 I . \ 0. 'V'! 6 = 143&07'48- N I \~ \':3-. 2 ~ r-.t,,~ \~ UL = 124.90 ,- .~\a ,"'.. cp , ~\~\~ I ~ ~\()..\;. I I'<') o..,c., I 0:5 %.\~\ I <0 ',:::L' r-----------J or- \ \ 1 I \t-\~ I' : "$\\\~ 0 a S88-34'OS.W1 : S' ~ \'" ~ 60.00--' I '....' .q- I I \ \ N8S"05'22"E I I. __"\ .....--123.81 ___...J 206.00 ~ <D o '0 N o o z .~------- ~ r- - - ., ~l c.'o I I 'l' to'."'" I I I I rill'll --1 I ~ nib' I t: 4-8..34 10/1") I -----~-.~Zl~ I \~N88"3406E""la:i 1 " Ii!:? I : f \ r , ~! ~ o ~ CD 0 o ~ 13 oi cO ~ I rr) P'") ~:I..J I" b 10 I -:i 6:5 : . '-8 ' . ~ I I i of :(1) I )<:5 I : 1 -'----------------+----12381---. , , 59.00 _. I _ _ _ _ _-_ _ _ _ _~:j w vOO 0_'" '0 l{)N N. NO o U1 '. ~ UNWOOD A VENUE ~ ""~, ...:::.,.~ #--,#' ......,,~_... ."~-.,,.~~ L:!':':~' U\~:...' :.\ v:::~'~\::.: o ... 40.01 -' S88'34'06"W 206.04 ", ,.., 123.81 L::~W0~,m . . .r-, .. .~. ,"','::::':'.)t: '" ,.., Attachment 3 15 ,,; .... N I I Tf 15' gl it I I I I , I I , I I -~ I I I I I I I I I I I J I I J J J I I I I I I I I I I V _/ Hillside Estates Final Plat N w ~J~ ~~~ E s Attachment 4 x ~~ 5 ~:; )(UI06.71: ;\ I X~~~' LOly ~i 101"'3 ~. !i>...... XIOo7...j ~: R . .' : XI > ~~'f1 r-- ,// ';l1005.79. .: :: ." ..... lOIi74 /)(101 " .-..- 1 .... xiotus; '. . ~ .........3 ! .............;) ~': ..... " x~. . ~ III .... " ;m.-...... .... '00 (f') (:) Jlv01o.." <5b 6:.9.9 Q'~ '- ~'b.o - " _..." i !X ; ~~ "i'. . -- # _to~. ~ ", \'0 I: ....... , . t'Q . .... .0I0il0 ~ ~ 0 ~ 1_10:".... )( .... : ~ 0 : : XUno.n 0'- I~~ /j r.... i :.. .... x!Oltitt..... X~, '. ", ". ... ,. 0"0 .... ........ '. .......... . ~.... XIG24JO .': , 1<>0., - ,...... ~~....; .... lot5.8S .... X...... :.......- . LINWOOD AVENUE' .-01- \GI$66 . .:-=:--. N w J~ /~~ E Site Plan s N w ~~~ ~r~ s Attachment 5 ,/ 11"" )(lfl"'t \\ \ \ ><I'" \! ., ""'-- ; i ~1 J .../ / ~ p..,(t" l'5 f-i-J. "\. f ..u: · . .\..\\'r '\ \,~:j ~:" CONNECT TO EXISl1~ CATCH BASIN 0 1002.70 ,,~ RE'OOlI.81 lDllOO2.lO lESl~4lI . . LINWOOD AVENUE 1- .-. -..-" - "i"-' E Preliminary Grading, Drainage and Erosion Control Plan N w ~J~ ~~~ s N88"34'06"B 1! ..; on ~ , '" ,,-,.., HorthlltteoflotZ " o . E Attachment 6 183.75 ..- .- . l I I ~ ~ I ~ I I I ~ io '" I i'l ~-~ I ~ '--J -. - - /1 &1 --_/ I'&; I I~ I'" IJ r:-----.J I':. 588"34 r 60.01 I ~8 t/l,...oflot2""d I 1'l~ North 11n" ",Lot J e ~'Z . . I I, I !;l I ill I ~ 1 I ~ : ; I I __-.J' . , ........ l~ '..): .. Drainage and Utility Easement Attachment 7 Enl!:ineerinl!: Plan Review PROJECT: Hillside Estate Plat (Pond Reconfiguration) REVIEWED BY: Jon Jarosch (Maplewood Engineering Department) DATE: August 16, 2006 The Delaney Company LLC is requesting City approval of a reconfiguration of a stormwater treatment pond off of Linwood A venue. The existing stormwater pond was constructed as part of the Springside Drive Extension, City Project 03-36. The existing configuration of the pond has made it difficult to place a home on the parcel. A set of plans displaying the proposed construction of the pond and modification to the stormwater system have been submitted and were found acceptable. A new drainage and utility easement will be dedicated by the Delaney Company to cover the new pond and stormwater system configuration. The existing drainage and utility easement is requested to be vacated. Since this existing drainage and utility easement would be unneeded after the pond and stormwater system is reconfigured, this easement vacation is acceptable. Grading & Erosion Control I. A Street-sweeping and watering plan must be clearly detailed on the erosion and sediment control plan sheet. 2. The sediment and erosion control plan shall provide information through building construction. 3. Please include City of Maplewood Plate No. 350 for details on sediment and erosion control measures. 4. The existing catch-basin on Linwood Avenue, near the west end of the property, must have an inlet protection device installed prior to any construction activities on the site. 5. Callout inlet protection devices to be used as specified by Maplewood plate No. 350. Please note that a simple piece of geotextile fabric placed beneath catch-basin grates is not an acceptable inlet protection device. 6. Rainwater gardens and rock-sumps must be protected during construction to prevent sedimentation. Sedimentation ofthese areas will hinder infiltration, rendering these gardens ineffective. 7. The placement of silt-fencing must be clearly displayed on the plans. Silt-fencing must be in place prior to any construction activities on the site. Silt-fencing shall be placed along the entire western and southern property lines to prevent erosion onto neighboring properties and Linwood Avenue. I 8. A rock construction entrance pad shall be placed at the entrance to the site off of Linwood A venue. This entrance pad shall meet the standard defined in Maplewood Plate No. 350. This pad shall be placed prior to any construction activities on the site. Miscellaneous I. The developer and project engineer shall satisfy the requirements of all other permitting agencies. 2. The removal of trees is shown to be necessary in the placement of the proposed house and driveway. A tree replacement plan shall be submitted at the time a building or grading permit is requested. 2 Au~ 15 06 11:48a Fred Nazarian 651-730-0288 p.1 Attachment 8 TO: Shann Finwall and the Maplewood Planning Commission FAX: 651-748-3096 FROM: Fred Nazarian 2425 Linwood Avenue East DATE: 15 August 2006 SUBJECT: Joshua Clendenen request for vacation of utility easement on two lots (Lots 2 & 3 Hillside Estates Plat - 2412 Springside Drive and 2417 Linwood Avenue East). 1 am a landowner whose property abuts immediately to the East of these two lots. It is my opinion that this vacation should be allowed AND it is for the benefit of the City, and the two future landowners to allow this request. ~9cerely, ~..>>-t\..~:Je.. f fl tVfil'~ Frederick E, Nazarian V 242 Linwood Avenue East Maplewood, MN 55119 - 5824 RECEIVED .................. Attachment 9 DRAINAGE AND UTILITY VACATION RESOLUTION WHEREAS, Josh Clendenen of Delaney Company LLC applied for the vacation of a drainage and utility easement. WHEREAS, the legal description of the drainage and utility easement is as follows: WHEREAS, the history of this vacation is as follows: 1. On August 22, 2006, the planning commission held a public hearing about the proposed vacation. The city staff published a notice in the Maplewood Review and sent a notice to the abutting property owners. The planning commission gave everyone at the hearing a chance to speak and present written statements. The planning commission also considered reports and recommendations of the city staff. The planning commission recommended that the city council approve the vacation. 2. On September 11, 2006, the city council reviewed this proposal. The city council also considered reports and recommendations of the city staff and planning commission. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the city council approve the above-described right-of-way vacation for the following reasons: 1. It is in the public interest. 2. The vacation will allow the creation of a new infiltration basin on Lot 2 which will allow a single-family house to be constructed on the lot which meets the front yard setback required by city code. 3. The property owner will dedicate a new drainage and utility easement to the city. This vacation is subject to the following conditions: 1. Prior to issuance of a grading or building permit for Lots 2 and 3, Hillside Estates, the applicant must submit the following to city staff for approval: a. A revised grading and drainage plan which shows all changes required by Jon Jarosch of the Maplewood engineering department in the August 16, 2006, engineering review. b. Proof that the revised drainage and utility easement has been recorded with the county. c. A tree preservation plan which shows the size and species of all trees on Lots 2 and 3, which large trees will be removed from the lots, appropriate measures needed to protect trees which will be preserved, and the location, species, and size of all required replacement trees. d. A letter of credit or cash escrow to cover 150 percent of the cost of all replacement trees. 2. Prior to certificate of occupancy for a new house on Lots 2 or 3, the applicant must install all required replacement trees and complete the construction of the infiltration basin. The Maplewood City Council adopted this resolution on ,2006. 2