Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10/02/2006 MAPLEWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION Monday, October 2, 2006, 7:00 PM City Hall Council Chambers 1830 County Road BEast 1. Call to Order 2. Roll Call 3. Approval of Agenda 4. Approval of Minutes a. September 6, 2006 5. Public Hearings 7:00 Legacy Town houses (County Road D - Kennard Street to Hazelwood) Preliminary Plat 6. New Business a. South Maplewood Development Moratorium 7. Unfinished Business None 9. Visitor Presentations 10. Commission Presentations September 11 Council Meeting: Mr. Trippler September 25 Council Meeting: Mr. Desai October 9 Council Meeting: Mr. Yarwood October 23 Council Meeting: Mr. Kaczrowski November 13 Council Meeting: Ms. Dierich 11. Staff Presentations 12. Adjournment DRAFT MINUTES OF THE MAPLEWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION 1830 COUNTY ROAD BEAST, MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA WEDNESDAY. SEPTEMBER 6, 2006 I. CALL TO ORDER Acting Chairperson Desai called the meeting to order at 7:03 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 Present Present Present Present at 7:06 p.m. Present Present Staff Present: Ken Roberts, Planner Chuck Ahl, Public Works Director Lisa Kroll, Recording Secretary Staff Absent: III. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Commissioner Trippler moved to approve the agenda. Commissioner Hess seconded. The motion passed. IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Ayes - Desai, Dierich, Grover, Hess, Kaczrowski, Trippler, Yarwood Approval of the planning commission minutes for August 21, 2006. Commissioner Trippler had corrections on pages 6 and 8. On page 6, second paragraph, it should read Mr. Roberts said correct because it does not drains-to a protected water area and it does not match the criteria. On page 8, fourth paragraph, fourth line, change the word week to month. Commissioner Dierich moved to approve the planning commission minutes for August 21,2006, as amended. Commissioner Trippler seconded. Ayes - Desai, Dierich, Grover, Kaczrowski, Trippler Abstentions- Hess, Yarwood Planning Commission Minutes of 09-06-06 -2- V. PUBLIC HEARING Carver Crossing (Carver Avenue and Henry Lane) (7:06 - 9:50 p.m.) Mr. Roberts said Mr. Tom Hansen, representing CoPar Companies, submitted revised plans to the city for a housing development called Carver Crossing. He prepared a site plan that shows 191 detached town houses. This latest plan replaces the earlier plan that showed 299 housing units in three different types of housing for persons aged 55 and over. This development would be on about 73 acres of land that is south of Carver Avenue and west of Henry Lane known as the Schlomka property. A homeowner's association would own and maintain the common areas. Mr. Hansen has not yet applied for design approval for this latest proposal. He will do so (including the architectural, final landscape, and lighting plans) forthe site and buildings after the city council acts on his current requests. However, based on comments from the applicant and the city's experiences with other town house projects, staff expects each town house to have horizontal-lap vinyl siding, aluminum soffits and fascia and brick or stone veneer accents near the doors. In addition, each town house would have a two-car garage. Mr. Roberts said the applicant has prepared a 15 minute power point presentation and following that the planning commission can ask questions and open the hearing up to the public. Acting Chairperson Desai asked the applicant to address the commission. Mr. Kurt Schneider, CoPar Development, addressed the commission. He said the intent is to give the planning commission an overview of the project because there is a tremendous amount of detail associated with this project which is in the staff report already so he isn't going to repeat the review of everything again. He said the power point presentation should answer some of the planning commission's questions. Mr. Clark Wicklund, Alliant Engineering, addressed the commission. Mr. Wicklund went through some of the sewer and water connection issues in his presentation. Commissioner Hess said it appears that the garage finish floor for lot 31 and 45 have a difference of about 32 feet vertically and it appears there's a fairly short distance between those lots. He said he didn't see any indication there is a retaining wall there. Mr. Schneider said any area on the property that would require a retaining wall has already been indicated on the plans so if it is not shown on the plan then a retaining wall is probably not required there. He asked if the public could address their questions and he would write them down and address all the questions at once rather than individually. Commissioner Dierich said the planning commission has heard several public hearings already regarding this property and she would like to reserve the discussion for the planning commission to ask questions of the developer. Acting Chairperson Desai asked what the proper protocol was since this was a public hearing? Mr. Roberts said this is a public hearing and because this is a new application the planning commission is required to open up the hearing for discussion. Planning Commission Minutes of 09-06-06 -3- Mr. Roberts helped answer Commissioner Hess's question regarding the height difference of the garage floors by pointing out what the developer was referring to on the plans. Commissioner Yarwood said he was disappointed the previous city council allowed the developer to go this far with a relatively high density plan. He doesn't think that was fair to the developer. He was also disappointed that the comprehensive plan didn't show more thought in what would be appropriate for this area because he doesn't think this proposal was appropriate in this area. With the R-1 designation he thinks the developer has the reasonable expectation to develop this property under the R-1 guidance. The R-1 zoning doesn't obligate the city to approve a PUD with lot sizes less than 10,000 square feet. He has yet to see or hear any evidence why the lots can't be the standard 10,000 square foot size. Looking at the existing plat for instance, he asked why can't the streets and grading remain the same but the lots be combined 3 to 2 or 2 to 1 to allow a larger lot size or larger or more expensive house to be built to allow for 10,000 square foot lots. He can appreciate the shorter setbacks so there is less grading required on the site. He said he's trying to understand given the layout, why the lot sizes can't be larger to fall within what the R-1 designation normally requires? Mr. Schneider said the density proposed for this project is within a reasonable range of what a standard residential neighborhood would be with 2.6 to 2.9 units per acre. This is contained within the critical area ordinance regulations. There is a minimal density requirement in the critical area within the ordinances of the city whether it is for multiple dwelling, single dwelling or a PUD; there is also a density range that this property can't fall below according to that criteria. Commissioner Yarwood said there is the legal definition of density and then there is an effective definition of density, and only part of the land is developable. What you have for effective density is higher than 2.6 to 2.9 units per acre. The feel of the project is closer to 4 units per acre. What he is hoping to see is a project that fits in as well as possible with the surrounding feel of south Maplewood. He asked staff what the obligation is in terms of density and why this proposal can't have 10,000 square foot lot sizes in this R-1 designation? Mr. Roberts said staff isn't sure what is outlined in the comprehensive plan and what is outlined in the proposal, he doesn't know if the city can require more or less density. It's consistent with the standards of the comprehensive plan that the city has right now and that is what the developer has been working from for the last 1 y" years. The earlier proposal needed a comprehensive plan amendment. The city can get into a sticky wicket if they want to try to change the comprehensive plan standards and expectations midstream without going through a whole amendment process. Staff is not seeing anything with this proposal that the city can hang their hats on to say that it isn't consistent with the comprehensive plan. Commissioner Yarwood said he is asking if the city code requires an R-1 designation that the lot size be 10,000 square feet or greater. He is not asking that we meet a certain density requirement he is asking why the lot size can't be that large? Mr. Roberts said if we are talking about the zoning code, yes it does, but it doesn't require that in the comprehensive plan, it only talks about the overall project density, not about minimum lot size. Planning Commission Minutes of 09-06-06 -4- Commissioner Trippler said he has struggled with this project ever since it was first proposed. It struck him the way this project has been presented from day one regarding what the comprehensive plan says about this property. He said he has been on the planning commission for over 10 years and the typical way projects are presented is that the planning commission gets a copy of the land use plan, a copy of the zoning plan, and sometimes there is discussion that if the zoning map doesn't match with the comprehensive plan then there is discussion. This project really doesn't talk about the zoning map. We hear about R-1 (R) zoning as an afterthought but we constantly hear about the comprehensive plan as R-1. He asked before whether R-1(R) was in the comprehensive plan and was told that R-1 (R) did not exist when the comprehensive plan was last revised so it couldn't be in there. He can't understand why this project seems to be presented in a different manner compared to most of the other projects the commission has reviewed. The property on the south side is zoned R-1(R) and requires a PUD in order to get that rezoned to R-1 or whatever they want it to be. Mr. Roberts said correct. The PUD becomes the zoning. Commissioner Trippler said we are not just "disregarding" the zoning map. The developer is asking for a change to the zoning map, they just don't want to talk about the zoning map. Mr. Roberts deferred that question to the developer. Commissioner Trippler asked the developer if he knew the property was zoned R-1 (R) when they bought the property? Mr. Schneider said he didn't work for CoPar when the property was purchased but he assumed they knew that. Commissioner Trippler asked if they purchased the property within the last eight years? Mr. Schneider said yes. Commissioner Trippler said then you should have known the property was zoned R-1 (R). Mr. Schneider said the relationship between those two documents and planning and zoning documents like that in the hierarchy of planning documents, the comprehensive plan is the "vision" plan and is at the top of the discretionary decisions that a city makes in terms of how land is guided. The zoning map should then follow the comprehensive plan and so forth. The comprehensive plan designation for this property is R-1. R-1 (R) is inconsistent with the comprehensive plan designation and the conclusion that he made is the closest correlation between R-1 (R) is the residential estate 20,000 and the residential estate 40,000 for large lot residential rural subdivision. Maplewood's comprehensive plan doesn't designate this property as residential estate as a large lot rural subdivision location. The zoning contradicts that. Planning professionals would tell you that the "comprehensive plan" is the ruling document. He would recommend Maplewood change their comprehensive plan because that is the most discretionary decision the city can make. We are not asking the city to change the comprehensive plan; we are asking the city to change the zoning of this property via a PUD in a manner that is consistent with the comprehensive plan. As the developer we are asking Maplewood to fix your zoning. Although the zoning says R-1 (R) in accordance with your comprehensive plan, it isn't appropriate. Planning Commission Minutes of 09-06-06 -5- Commissioner Trippler said it was his intention when the planning commission started working on the revisions of the comprehensive plan that the commission would be rezoning this whole stretch of south Maplewood so it would comply with R-1 (R) characteristics. If he recalled correctly the discussion that occurred after the last comprehensive plan was approved was that the commission had numerous discussions regarding the need to develop this property as R-1(R) because of the characteristics, the soil conditions and whether or not it could withstand public sanitary sewers or not. The estate designation was put forth for different reasons. His understanding was that the intent was to rezone or restructure the comprehensive plan in the next go around so that the south leg of Maplewood would have the larger estate type properties. Commissioner Dierich said Gary Pearson, Dale Trippler and herself were on the planning commission when the decision was to have the R-1 (R) zoning. In fact she was the person who initiated the moratorium so these issues could be studied. We studied this for 1 year and came to the conclusion that 1. the characteristics of this neighborhood made it such that putting in any other zoning was not feasible and not just because of the septic system issue as Lorraine Fischer would lead the commission to believe, it was also because of the character of the neighborhood and because of the infrastructure on the street and the issues of the neighborhood wanting to be a rural area. There were extensive hearings on this ordinance and the planning commission decided what they preferred to do. So this plan is actually deviating from the comprehensive plan because the planning commission wasn't able to update the comprehensive plan yet. So Commissioner Trippler is correct in what he said about the zoning. She said she would like to know what the difference between the density number that is allowed under the present comprehensive plan and the density number that is allowed under the present zoning. Not looking at a PUD, what would we allow so that the audience can understand what the difference is between what is being "proposed", what the "vision" is, and what actually "exists" at this point. Mr. Roberts said the land use plan is part of the comprehensive plan. The property is guided R-1 which is for single family dwellings up to 4.6 units per gross acre. He then reviewed the zoning map and surrounding properties and the units per gross acre. He said this site could have 50 to 70 units with the current zoning verses the 191 units that are currently proposed. Commissioner Dierich asked what the process was for asking for a zoning change. She asked if the developer came to the planning commission asking for R-1 zoning for this property, what would the process been? Mr. Roberts said it would have been a similar process to what's happening this evening. This would have to be decided by the city council. For a zoning map change it would require 3 votes of approval by the city council and for a comprehensive plan change it would require 4 votes of approval from the city council. Commissioner Dierich asked if there would have been a comprehensive plan change and a zoning change or would it just be a zoning change? Mr. Roberts said that would depend on what type of development the developer would be proposing. Commissioner Dierich asked if a larger portion of Maplewood would have been notified of a zoning change for this area of south Maplewood? Planning Commission Minutes of 09-06-06 -6- Mr. Roberts said no, just the standard notification rule within 500 feet of the proposed area unless staff decided to expand the notification area. Commissioner Pearson said even with the R-1 zoning you can argue back and forth about R-1 or R-1 (R) zoning but under R-1 zoning most of these lots would not meet the 10,000 square feet lot size or R-1 (S) for small lots which was meant to bridge commercial to residential. These are very small lots and they do not in any shape, way, or form, meet the 10,000 square foot size. The lots run from 5,800 square feet to 6,500 square feet on average which doesn't meet R-1 zoning requirements. Commissioner Hess said on page 23, item number 2., under the Findings for Rezoning it states The proposed change will not substantially injure or detract from the use of neighboring property or from the character of the neighborhood, and that the use of the property adjacent to the area included in the proposed change or plan is adequately safeguarded. When he looks at the cul-de- sac currently at Dorland Road and the proposed road from the development tying into this that would "substantially" impact the Dorland Road neighborhood. Mr. Roberts said the developer is not proposing a zoning map change so the findings for rezoning are not relevant to this request they are in the report for reference. The developer is not proposing a direct road connection to Heights Avenue; it would only be a trail to be used by pedestrians, bicyclists, or for emergency vehicles. The street access would be from Henry Lane and Carver Avenue. Acting Chairperson Desai said the developer said there is no difference between a single family dwelling and a detached town home but in the zoning change requirements there is a difference for what is allowed for a town home verses a single family home. Mr. Roberts said many town home developments have R-3 zoning which is for multiple family dwellings and with the multiple family dwellings there is no minimum lot size, it only refers to overall project density, which refers to the comprehensive plan. There are minimum lot sizes for single family dwellings and for twin homes. The minimum for a single family dwelling is 10,000 square feet and a twin homes which has two units has a requirement of 12,000 square feet or 6,000 square feet per unit. Staff also looks at the density and the comprehensive plan to make sure they are consistent with each other. Through asking for a PUD for the zoning there is no minimum lot size, the city is only required to look at the overall project density to see if that is consistent with the comprehensive plan. Acting Chairperson Desai said the developer is designating this project as town homes. Mr. Roberts said staff calls them detached town homes because an association would be controlling the common areas that the units would be part owners of. As Mr. Schneider referred to each homeowner would have individual responsibilities for the outside property which is common with a single family home but not common with a town home association. Staff views this as a hybrid situation. Acting Chairperson Desai asked if the hybrid isn't accommodated other than the PUD in the city's regulation regarding how this development is classified then? Mr. Roberts said correct. Planning Commission Minutes of 09-06-06 -7- Commissioner Trippler gave a quad map to staff to put on the screen so he could point out some features of the area including the Mississippi River Critical Area, the bluffs and the drainage into Fish Creek. Mr. Schneider said the way the Mississippi River Critical Area requirements read is accurately assessed on Commissioner Trippler's part. Slopes that are greater than 18% have to be considered, slopes that are greater than 18% and 200 x 500 in size have to be considered, the water from those slopes have to be in direct drainage to a tributary stream ofthe Mississippi River or in direct drainage to the river. The reason for the detailed slope analysis is that these areas of the site are in direct drainage to Fish Creek. The conclusions in the EAW evaluate the Mississippi River Critical Area determine these plans would be incompliance. The conclusion of the city staff evaluated and determined that this is not in direct drainage and does not qualify. Commissioner Trippler said you have only identified about 1/3 of the bluff area that overlooks downtown St. Paul as "not" draining to Fish Creek, should we assume that the rest of the drainage drains into Fish Creek? Surely if it didn't, the developer would have identified everything that didn't empty into Fish Creek because that would be to the developer's advantage. Mr. Schneider said correct. We have been upfront about everything. The rest of the site, if you follow the drainage patterns, enters the creek, and that is why we looked at the other areas. Commissioner Trippler asked how wide the lots are for lots 97 and 98 in that area? Mr. Schneider said the lot dimensions are roughly 55 feet wide and the building pad sites are 40' x 60' which is a typical single family home that would accommodate a 2-car garage. Commissioner Trippler said there is probably another 350 feet north that runs into Fish Creek. Commissioner Pearson asked what the length of the lots are? Mr. Schneider said the reason they have reduced the lot sizes is to identify the value of the connectivity of the open space. You could turn these lots into 10,000 square foot lots and divide the property without common ownership or control and protections to the open space within the site but they have resisted that approach. They don't want to divide the land up, it needs to be protected and the best way from a planning prospective is to place it under one control rather than under many people's control. The lot depth in this area is 132' to 134' feet deep so the lot would be about 55' x 132' in size. Commissioner Yarwood said given the existing lots and not changing how far the homes are set off from the street, why can't the lots be developed 3 to 2 and build slightly larger houses? Mr. Schneider said that would have an impact on the density that makes a project like this so it would not be feasible. It would have an impact on the density and reduce the density below the minimum criteria that is identified in the Mississippi River Critical Area regulations and this proposal along with the density is reasonable and is consistent with the city's comprehensive plan. Planning Commission Minutes of 09-06-06 -8- Mr. Schneider said the zoning is not consistent with the comprehensive plan. They have to take the more important document and meet those requirements, which is what they are doing with this proposal. They have a proposal that staff has indicated is practical, reasonable, and sensible for this site according to the guidelines. Basically it comes down to what we as the developer believe is our property right. Commissioner Yarwood said he is willing to live with the R-1 zoning but he doesn't see a reason why we have to allow a smaller lot size than the minimum 10,000 square feet. He said he doesn't think there is a minimum density requirement in this area so the argument doesn't hold up with him at this point. Mr. Schneider said you can agree to disagree, but at no point have we heard from city officials that this density is unacceptable. Commissioner Yarwood said he thinks it's unfair to the developer to have gotten this far with this plan and he is unhappy with that fact. Mr. Schneider said he appreciated that comment. He said he hopes they haven't been led down the road of generally endorsing "concept" work that was far different than this proposal. Including comprehensive land use changes and densities that were different. When a city approves a concept to move forward when they authorize an EAW, there is a reasonable expectation that something close to what you are working with is acceptable. Quite frankly this plan in layout form is similar, but in density, is different. This is a reasonable and practical plan for this property. At no time have we withdrawn previous applications we submitted. We have revised plans but we have never withdrawn previous applications. We have been working cooperatively throughout this process with city staff to come up with a plan with their guidance and public feedback and we are passionate about this proposal. There are storm water and other site protections with this site that have not been done anywhere else and this is a solid plan that fits the mold of what the comprehensive plan would call for here. Commissioner Dierich said she wouldn't want to be in the shoes of the city council when they have to make the final decision regarding this proposal. She asked Mr. Roberts to show the map on the screen and identify where she used to live and where she lives now. One of the problems she has had with this proposal is that the city council did not require that an environmental impact study (EIS) be done forthis project. She said she hasn't been satisfied with the answers she has heard in the past regarding the traffic and noise in the area. Recently she had to close all her windows in her present house because the traffic was so loud she could feel the vibration from the traffic noise from Highway 1-494 going through her bedroom. There house doesn't face the freeway, their garage shelters their house from the freeway and they live in a wooded area that has large trees, some of which are three feet in diameter which helps shelter the freeway noise. She is extraordinarily concerned that with one berm and some immature trees that will not only be impacted by the noise decibels but once the trees come down, everybody to the west of this site is going to hear the freeway noise she used to hear when she lived in her previous home and definitely hears now in her new house so she is very concerned about the noise. She said the second thing she wished would have been addressed with an EIS is the traffic. Planning Commission Minutes of 09-06-06 -9- Commissioner Dierich said we have two failed intersections. One is at Bailey Road and Sterling and the second is at Carver Avenue and Highway 61. She said the people that live further upstream are not going to use those two intersections because they will have to wait 15 to 20 minutes to get to whatever road they are trying to get to so people will drive through her neighborhood. She wondered where the land was going to come from to construct the turn lanes because Carver Avenue is extremely narrow in that area. According to Ramsey County, Century Avenue is going to get widened. Is the developer going to pay for all of this or not? Commissioner Dierich asked if Mr. Wicklund could show us what they plan to do with the grading on this site and how flat this site is going to be? What kind of topography are we going to lose with this development? Commissioner Dierich asked staff if they know what the tree removal and tree replacement will be with the new tree ordinance the city is going to be finalizing? Mr. Roberts said the tree ordinance has not yet been adopted by the city council and he was not sure of the tree removal or replacement. Mr. Wicklund said when building single family detached homes such as this proposal allows for less grade disruption which would be better economically. If we were building something other than single family units we would have to disrupt the grade a lot more. Commissioner Dierich asked roughly what the percentage of hard scape is to the remaining green space that isn't water. Mr. Wicklund said this is merely a guess of the non-buildable space but he would estimate 30%. That would be in reference to what the watershed district previously considered to be a regional retention facility which is the wetland area they seem to have some similar hard surface numbers, but he has not done an analysis of the hard scape. This is purely a guess, but he said he could get the real number for the city later in the week. Commissioner Dierich said that information would be good for the city council to have when they make their final decision on this project. Mr. Wicklund said we have gone above and beyond in regards to the storm water management on the site which is afforded through the PUD. We aren't doing anything that is inconsistent with the standard zoning so we have no obligation to do anything other than what is being proposed. From an environmental standpoint you can't provide all the details for something that is only a proposal now. The information isn't available right now but he fully believes in this proposal development in regards to the environment. Commissioner Dierich said she appreciates his candor saying they can't afford to do this project unless they have this density. We have not addressed the issue of traffic and the noise has not been addressed to her satisfaction. She would feel more comfortable if those two issues were addressed. Mr. Wicklund said they can discuss those issues at the upcoming city council meeting. Planning Commission Minutes of 09-06-06 -10- Mr. Roberts posted the map on the screen representing the noise decibels and the standard noise levels and elevation changes. Staff put the plans up representing the developer's plans for plantings on the site that would reduce the noise impacts here. Commissioner Dierich said her yard elevation is very high and the higher up she is on her property the more noise she hears and the lower she is on the property the noise level is reduced. Chuck Ahl, Maplewood Public Works Director, addressed the commission. He said the map staff presented represents standard noise levels. He said he personally lives % of a mile away from the freeway and on a quiet evening with the windows open he can hearthe freeway. You can also hear the freeway during the day as well. These are "noise standards" we are dealing with so there are two different issues here. One issue is can you hear the freeway? He would say greater than 60% of Maplewood can hear the freeway noise, that doesn't mean it exceeds the noise standards established. When you are dealing with comprehensive land use changes you have an obligation "not" to change a land use just to allow someone to move into an area where they could not live before where noise standards existed before. Mr. Ahl said an example would be the Comforts of Home development that was recently approved off of Highway 36 and Hazelwood Avenue. That area exceeded the noise level but it had a business commercial land use. The city was very concerned about residential development there until the developer demonstrated they had mitigated noise concems with their plan by using certain construction standards for higher noise levels. A developer has a certain responsibility and an obligation to put higher construction restrictions on these homes. The laws and standards don't allow you the city to say "you can't build here" because it is too loud. You have to put reasonable building standards on the building to protect the owner. There are daytime noise standards and night time noise standards. You have to use things like climate control in the units, you have to use certain insulation in the windows and in the walls to help block the noise level, you can't locate public play facilities in certain areas which have high noise levels, and in certain instances decks would not be recommended because of the level of noise. One of the original proposals were for a three story building and therefore the decks could not be located on the back side of the unit because that would be facing the freeway and there were noise standards that had to be upheld. There is a big difference between hearing the noise and the reasonable standards that a government agency or city can put on the units for them to be built. Commissioner Dierich asked whose obligation it is to protect the citizens from deleterious affects such as noise, pollution and noise damage. These standards are set to protect people's hearing and quality of life. What kind of responsibility aesthetically and what responsibility do we have for the people that live further down the road to the west because this changes will affect their living standards and situation because when you take trees down that was the buffer for some of the noise for those people. Mr. Ahl said he is not going to tell you we don't have a responsibility but the city is not managing authority of the freeway noise because the city can't control the number of cars on the freeway and we also can't get in to the financial responsibility of building noise wells. The freeway system is part of the federal program which is operated by MnDOT. Typically the noise experts will tell you trees don't have much affect on reducing the level of noise in a neighborhood. Planning Commission Minutes of 09-06-06 -11- Mr. Ahl said he is not a noise expert. To him it makes sense to have trees to help buffer the noise but the noise experts do not agree with that statement. The experts will not allow you to plant trees to stop the transmission of noise. If you were to plant a beautiful line of 40 foot tall evergreen trees along there the 65 noise decibel line would not move. Commissioner Dierich said she would agree that trees don't block the noise but trees would certainly help the people living there. Mr. Ahl said he would much rather have a 40 foot line of trees than "not" have the trees as a buffer but the noise experts would tell you trees do not help with the noise impact. The two intersections mentioned by Commissioner Dierich at Bailey Road and Sterling and Carver Avenue and Highway 61 are identified in the traffic analysis. The traffic analysis did not say that these intersections will get better because of this development; they said that this development will not change the overall "operation" of those intersections. Regarding whose responsibility it is, it's difficult for Maplewood because the intersections in question are out of the city borders. What that means is that we cannot use that to change how we plan land use because a government agency has failed to address a transportation issue. We could not use that per se to put a moratorium on this area and say there can be no development here just because a government agency has the responsibility to solve transportation issues. We can only deal with our own transportation issues. The turn lanes at McKnight on Carver Avenue are within the existing right-of-way. Carver Avenue is planned to have an adequate right-of-way and we do not believe the city will need to acquire any right-of-way for the construction of the turn lanes along Carver Avenue both for this development, or over McKnight. Commissioner Dierich asked if we would lose the walkway or the yellow lines along the way because she can't see how we can construct turn lanes without losing that walkway. Mr. Ahl said those walkways are a necessary part of the roadway and he didn't believe theywould be lost. The consultant reported to the city they thought there would be an adequate right-of-way. There has been no identification of property acquisition necessary for those improvements. However, the final design has not been done so there may be construction easements necessary, but the acquisition of permanent right-of-way is not necessary as part of this. Commissioner Dierich said the report said that the traffic was going to average one car every 2 minutes and the existing traffic volume on Carver Avenue is roughly 1 car every 15 to 20 minutes. She .asked staff to explain that information? Mr. Roberts said that information is reported on page 9 of the staff report under Traffic and Access. Mr. Ahl said in the comprehensive plan there are sections on traffic and transportation just like there are for sewer to plan for the future. The comprehensive plan is to inform people what is going to happen in the next 5 to 20 years. From a roadway and transportation standpoint, we typically classify the roadways as having low volumes in the 300 to 500 cars per day. It sounds like a lot, but our local streets can go up to 1,000 cars per day and still be in a relatively reasonable volume of traffic for a local roadway. Planning Commission Minutes of 09-06-06 -12- Mr. Ahl said to give you a perspective White Bear Avenue has 30,000 cars a day traveling on it. So the additional vehicle trips this proposal would bring would not be a huge change. It will be a change but it goes back to the rights of the developer and the right to build on the property they purchased as long as it is within the standards of the comprehensive plan. As we all know, it's just a matter of time before property will get developed. Commissioner Hess said the cross section looked like the berm was fairly low compared to the building elevation. He said he has dealt with noise experts in the past and the experts say mass is the biggest contributor to noise mitigation such as a berm. He wondered if the berm was raised in height would that help with the level of noise? He asked what the length of the berm would be? Mr. Ahl said you are correct that a berm has better noise mitigation than a constructed wooden wall. In rough numbers a 12-foot high berm has better noise mitigation than a 20-foot wooden noise wall. The details regarding the exact height and length ofthe berm haven't been worked out yet. Mr. Schneider said the challenge with the noise is that either the freeway is so high above the site or then it goes below the site so there is one extreme to the other. We are trying to move units back and try to use some of the natural terrain and the natural berming as you go through the site. This is a difficult site to work with. They are trying to look at the site design carefully and this will be done in greater detail as things move farther along. Commissioner Trippler asked if this development were before us to develop the property as it is zoned for Farm and R-1 (R) and the developer made the sewer connections that are there, would that work as far as the sewers are concerned as it is zoned? Mr. Ahl said absolutely. Because it's very good to infiltrate storm water into these soils, the city has a concern with septic systems infiltrating too far as well. Staff would suggest that any development on this site have sanitary sewer, this is why it was extended in 1987 and along Carver Avenue where it is stubbed into the site. Staff encourages the developer to have public sewer to all units into this site. Commissioner Trippler said several times this evening he has heard or read that it is the developers right to develop the property. If the property were developed so it was within the criteria of Farm and R-1 (R) would they have a right to go to the court system and say that they were deprived of their right to develop this property as R-3, which is what he considers this to be? Mr. Roberts said if you mean R-3 to be multiple dwellings then no, because that is not consistent with the comprehensive plan. Commissioner Trippler said if we tell the developer they can develop the property as long as it is consistent with R-1(R) and Farm and we are not willing to change the zoning, will they have a legal argument in court that we are restricting their legal right to develop the property? Mr. Roberts said this would be speculation but he believes there would be a challenge in court. Planning Commission Minutes of 09-06-06 -13- Commissioner Trippler asked if the city ever put a restriction on the length of time for a development to take place? He is thinking of the Century Development that is still going on which has been being built for five to six years and he is concerned that there is no specific time limitations to finish a project. Mr. Roberts said we have no time limitations on projects in Maplewood. The difficulty with placing restrictions on developments is that the market changes therefore conditions change. Three years ago the housing market was hot and suddenly this summer it went sour. There is no way the city can control the market fluctuation. We can control when a project is started and when the public improvements are put in but the actual length of time the building takes can't be controlled. This is something staff has thought about and discussed before in the past. Mr. Ahl said the staff report speaks to the issue what types of challenges might occur and the interpretation of the land use and the zoning changes. The zoning on the eastern side of Highway 1-494 is not consistent with the land use plan. There are not any current development proposals there although its staff understands that developers are looking at that property. His suggestion is to institute some type of a moratorium for the purpose of amending the land use plan for the eastern side of Highway 1-494 if it is your intent that property be considered for residential estate. There are land use rights and property rights and that would be an appropriate action for the planning commission to take to include in a motion this evening to recommend to the city council. Regarding the length of time for a development, the city requires the developer to post bonds for the construction of the improvements and those include both the private and public improvements on the roadways. While you can't force a developer to build all the housing right away you can force them to put in the public improvements in a reasonable amount of time. For a project like this staff has talked about a three year build out but the developer may have to comment on that. That should be something included in the conditions as the planning commission moves forward. Commissioner Trippler said many times when a development comes in the city puts in a clause requiring an escrow for 150% of the improvements but he noticed that wasn't included in this proposal and he wondered what the reason was for that. Mr. Roberts said any public improvements would be covered with the developer's agreement with Public Works with their bonding and escrow requirements. The escrow placed on proposals for the planning department is covered as part of the CDRB conditions put on a project. Ifthis project goes forward, it would go to the CDRB at a later date for their approval. Commissioner Trippler said on page 15 in item A. 3. of the conditions the city would be covered then? Mr. Ahl said when the city engineering department places conditions on the final plans included in that will be a development contract and in that contract includes security measures of escrow etc. The Mayor signs that though and those get approved by the city council. Commissioner Yarwood said the developer has done a lot to address the concerns of the city so he compliments the developer on that. His irritation is towards the city for three reasons. Number 1. is the comprehensive plan was not appropriately modified for this area of Maplewood, number 2. that the city council allowed the developer to go this far with a plan that is not appropriate, and number 3. the comprehensive plan doesn't specify lot size thus making zoning almost irrelevant in this case and he doesn't think that is appropriate. Planning Commission Minutes of 09-06-06 -14- The city dropped the ball in several areas prior to this coming up and he thinks the city painted themselves into a corner at this point with what is going to develop on that property and he hopes it's something we can address in the future. Acting Chairperson Desai opened the public hearing. Linda Baumgart, 2445 Carver Avenue, Maplewood, addressed the commission. She has lived here for 24 years. We knew this property would be developed sooner or later and she hopes the city takes the time to develop this the right way. The main concern is the new use ofthe old Henry Lane; the city wants to get rid of the old Henry Lane. The plans show Henry Lane moved 112 feet over but that just accomplished putting it on the border of her property. The existing Henry Road has been here for 60 years. When it was under construction there was a three way stop sign on the other side of the highway on Sterling and Carver Avenue for 1% years and that worked wonderful. Why can't we keep the existing Henry Lane and put a four way stop there? On page 81 the county states it will monitor the road to determine if a four way stop sign is needed. Why can't we leave Henry Lane where it is and put a four way stop sign there to begin with? Ken Roberts stated in the report that the "existing" Henry Lane does not work for this proposal but the "new" Henry Lane does not work for the people who live here. Commissioner Trippler asked what the purpose was for moving Henry Lane? Mr. Ahl said an analysis was done of the traffic area and as Henry Lane comes out with the 299 unit plan the number of vehicles coming out the site distance was very very pour and you can't see underneath the bridge to the east so we determined it was an unsafe condition and it needed to be moved. We have not analyzed what 199 units or less would do and the city cannot put in four way stops until the county says it's warranted. The reason the four way stops were up was that Bailey Road was closed for 10 to 12 months for reconstruction and a lot more traffic came through there so the stop signs were warranted. When Bailey Road opened back up the traffic went away so the stop signs came down. At this point and time the city feels it is a compromise in order to have the safer access point moved over to the current proposed location on the property lines. Ms. Baumgart said if you are going to move the new Henry Lane you are going to have a crosswalk after that and when she talked to the county they didn't know there was going to be a crosswalk after the new road. If you put a four way stop sign where the road is now you could have a legal crosswalk there and you would have a stop sign. If you want the people to walk from park to park then that is a logical place for the road to be. As far as you can see on Henry Lane if you have a stop sign there you can see farther where the proposed road is there is a curve and when you put the turn lanes in there will be more of a curve. You would have to drive it to know. Ron Cockriel, 943 Century Avenue, Maplewood, addressed the commission. This area is within the Fish Creek watershed so the water all goes to Fish Creek. The water may go through peoples backyards, it may go down railroad tracks, it may cross Highway 61 or through tunnels but that is what happens through a 73 mile corridor and that was what the whole idea was for the setbacks and erosion control. This is a sensitive area and should be treated as a sensitive area. He was at the watershed meeting and they approved a portion of the CoPar development so he got to tonight's meeting late and missed the beginning of the discussion. Planning Commission Minutes of 09-06-06 -15- Mr. Cockriel said he had made known to the watershed district that what they are doing there up through the ravine is impacting an Indian village and burial site and is being determined that the Indian site is a lot larger than what you find on the maps. There have been people from federal agencies out at the location and they are finding as much stuff on the property as he had found. Only now he is leaving things after he was instructed to do so. He suspects more information will be coming forward regarding this area. This has been going on for the last few weeks and is in play. He wonders about the extensive use of retaining wall because this tells him there is too much being built at this location in order to maintain the runoff. This proposal turns its back on the Mississippi so the water flows back into the large retaining pond and that will flow into Fish Creek. The variable of whether we should have a septic or sewer system in south Maplewood was discussed at length during the planning commission meeting in the spring of 2003. Regarding the impact on the natural environment, this development would be about the worse cause scenario. When you hear there will be 38% open space, he wasn't sure if that is 38% of undisturbed land or 38% of open space after their done moving the dirt around. He believes the developer is asking with this latest proposal for an additional 80,000 square yards of dirt but he wasn't sure exactly how the soil gets measured. This development proposal would cause a large impact here which makes this proposal out of place for the natural element of the property. There has to be a more creative proposal out there and he would appreciate it if the planning commission would turn down this proposal. Acting Chairperson Desai closed the public hearing. Commissioner Dierich said Will Rossbach said a few years ago that a PUD is a license to steal and she believes that is true in many cases. She thinks this proposal has been a real work in progress and she doesn't think it is done yet. She thinks this proposal could lose 15 to 25 of the units to help with the noise and the bluff land and she would be much more comfortable. She likes the proposal overall, but she doesn't like the density numbers. She would recommend the planning commission forward a much lower density number to the city council than what is proposed. In addition, she supports Mr. Ahl's recommendation to place a moratorium on this area until we look at the comprehensive plan in the earlier part of the year. Commissioner Trippler said he wanted to commend the developer for doing a good job with this development unfortunately this is the wrong area. He hopes the developer will take something like this and talk to the city about a development like this in the Gladstone area where he thinks this belongs. He thinks when the developer bought the property they knew or should have known it was zoned Farm and R-1(R) and should have known it was their responsibility as a buyer to know what that meant in terms of density allowed. Commissioner Trippler said the developer has the right to develop the property and he does not want to discourage people from developing their property but he doesn't think anybody has the right to expect the zoning to change just so they can make money at the expense of the rest of the neighborhood and the City of Maplewood and he believes this is what is being done here. The developer has done a lot of positive things it's just this development is proposed in the wrong area. Planning Commission Minutes of 09-06-06 -16- Commissioner Pearson said he would echo those comments. The developer has done a lot of clean up of the area. He too believes it's not the right development for this area. It's definitely going to change the nature of the area. He doesn't like the relocation of the road being brought so close to the existing residents. He believes it's too dense for the area. The lot sizes are smaller than the R-1 (S). When this land is gone Maplewood will have lost a major area of rural land. During the city tour it really demonstrated that some of these long roads to a cul-de-sac raised the question whether some ofthe emergency vehicles could function any better than the tour bus did in small spaces like cul-de-sacs. He disagrees with number 1 and 3 of the four findings on page 23 of the staff report. He is not in favor of this proposal. Commissioner Hess said he agrees with his fellow commissioners with most of the comments stated. Looking at the site plan, seeing the open space to the north and the south, looking at the developed area to the west and the size of that residential area, this looks like this development has higher density than the character in the neighborhood and he can't agree with this proposal. Commissioner Trippler moved to deny approve the resolution on page 91 of the staff report. This resolution approves a conditional use permit for a 191-unit planned unit development for the Carver Crossing of Maplewood development on the west side of 1-494, south of Carver Avenue. Commissioner Trippler stated the reason for the denial is because the density is too high, the lot size should be at least 10,000 square feet in size, the zoning in the city's intent the zoning would prevail and it does not meet the intent of the Farm and the R-1 (R), the impact of the density on the noise, the bluffs, noise and the traffic, the drainage concerns, and this proposal does not fit into this neighborhood setting. It doesn't meet the requirements for a PUD or zoning change. Commissioner Dierich said this doesn't provide for orderly development - we don't believe we have sufficient infrastructure given where Henry Lane is along with the issues with traffic. The city coordinates land use changes with the character of each neighborhood - Dale Trippler already addressed those issues. The city will not approve new development without providing for adequate facilities and services, such as street, utilities, drainage, parks and open space - we haven't demonstrated that to the satisfaction of the planning commission. Safe and adequate access will be provided for all properties - that has not been done to the planning commission's satisfaction. Commissioner Dierich said that this should not create a negative economic, social or physical impact on adjoining developments - that has not been done to the planning commission's satisfaction. Whenever possible, changes in types of land use should occur so that similar uses front on the same street or at borders of areas separated by major man-made or natural barriers- we are surrounded by open space and low density development and that is not similar to the other land uses in the neighborhood. Avoid disruption of adjacent or nearby residential areas- this proposal would definitely disrupt other residential areas. Planning Commission Minutes of 09-06-06 -17- Commissioner Hess said he is against this proposal because of the findings on page 23 in the staff report. Number 2 which states the proposed change will not substantially injure or detract from the use of neighboring property or from the character of the neighborhood, and that the use of the property adjacent to the area included in the proposed change or plan is adequately safeguarded. And under ordinance requirements number 1. That the design and location of the proposed development and its relationship to neighboring, existing or proposed developments, and traffic is such that it will not impair the desirability of investment or occupation in the neighborhood; that it will not unreasonably interfere with the use and enjoyment of neighboring, existing or proposed developments; and that it will not create traffic hazards or congestion. Commissioner Pearson seconded. Ayes - Desai, Dierich, Grover, Hess, Kaczrowski, Pearson, Trippler, Yarwood The motion to deny passed. Commissioner Trippler moved to deny /\ppr-o'/e the resolution on pages 96 and 97 of the staff report. This resolution would have vacated the unused easements and right-of-ways within the Carver Crossing of Maplewood development (the area west of 1-494 and south of Carver Avenue). Commissioner Pearson seconded. Ayes - Desai, Dierich, Grover, Hess, Kaczrowski, Pearson, Trippler, Yarwood The motion to deny passed. Commissioner Trippler moved to deny /\J3J3FGve the Carver Crossing of Maplewood preliminary plat (received by the city on August 8, 2006). Commissioner Pearson seconded. Ayes - Desai, Dierich, Grover, Hess, Kaczrowski, Pearson, Trippler, Yarwood The motion to deny passed. This item is scheduled to be heard by the city council on September 25, 2006. Commissioner Dierich would like the city council to know the planning commission would like the city to place a moratorium on development for the property in south Maplewood east of 1-494 until the comprehensive plan can be revised. An official recommendation will be made at the next planning commission meeting when staff has time to prepare better maps to represent the exact areas they would like the moratorium placed. The planning commission took a recess from 9:52 - 9:59 p.m. VI. NEW BUSINESS None. Planning Commission Minutes of 09-06-06 -18- VII. UNFINISHED BUSINESS None. VIII. VISITOR PRESENTATIONS None. IX. COMMISSION PRESENTATIONS a. Mr. Pearson was the planning commission representative at the August 28, 2006, city council meeting. Items discussed were the Easement Vacation for Ronald Erickson at 2699 Hazelwood Street, which was passed, the CUP for the White Bear Avenue Family Health Center at 2099 White Bear Avenue, which was passed, CUP Revision for Hill-Murray School at 2625 Larpenteur Avenue, which was passed, and the Cottagewood Town Houses at 2666 Highwood Avenue. which passed 4-1. The city council meeting adjourned at 1 :37 a.m. b. Mr. Trippler will be the planning commission representative at the September 11, 2006, city council meeting. Items to discuss include the Street right-of-way vacation for Century Avenue and New Century Avenue and New Century Boulevard and the Easement Vacation on Hillside Estates between Linwood Avenue and Springside Drive, and the appeal by Menards to have traffic control on the property during busy times and holidays. c. Mr. Desai will be the planning commission representative at the September 25, 2006, city council meeting. The only item to discuss will be the Carver Crossing (Carver Avenue and Henry Lane) for the items we discussed tonight. d. Mr. Yarwood will be the planning commission representative at the October 9,2006, city council meeting. e. Commissioner Trippler gave an update on the tree ordinance He said the tree ordinance came before the CDRB and PC. Input was given and the environmental committee tried to include all the input. The city council had one hearing and it sounded like there may be a second hearing. Hopefully the tree ordinance will then be adopted by the city council. Commissioner Trippler asked if the planning commission thought they were going to see it again before it went to the city council. The planning commission felt comfortable not having the ordinance come back before them before it went to the city council. The second reading was scheduled to be heard by the city council on September 11, 2006. Planning Commission Minutes of 09-06-06 X. STAFF PRESENTATIONS None. XI. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 10:15 p.m. -19- MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: SUBJECT: LOCATION: DATE: City Manager Tom Ekstrand, Senior Planner Legacy Townhomes County Road D between Kennard Street and Hazelwood Street September 22, 2006 INTRODUCTION Project Description The Hartford Group, the master developer of Legacy Village, is proposing to develop the final phase of town homes at Legacy Village. This proposal is for 91 town homes which would be located on the south side of County Road D between Hazelwood and Kennard Streets. The exception to this site is that the southwest comer of County Road D and Kennard Street will be developed with an office building as required by the approved PUD (planned unit development). Refer to the attachments. Requests The applicant is requesting that the city council approve the following: 1. A preliminary plat to create home sites for sale. 2. Site, building and landscape plans. BACKGROUND July 14, 2003: The city council approved the Legacy Village PUD, comprehensive plan amendment, tax-abatement plan and preliminary plat for Legacy Village. July 10, 2006: Earlier this year, the applicant had proposed a 119-unit townhouse development on this site that would have included the 1 %-acre parcel at the southwest comer of County Road D and Kennard Street. This comer piece was intended to be developed with Executive Office Suites in the PUD. The applicant had requested a comprehensive plan amendment from Be (business commercial) to R3H (high-density residential) and also an amendment of the PUD to build the townhomes. The city council denied these requests because they preferred the office element of the PUD and felt that the developer should still try to develop this comer with office suites as approved in 2003. Legacy Village Development History Since the council approved the Legacy Village PUD, the following projects have been approved or built: . Heritage Square Townhomes (220 units) . Heritage Square 2nd Addition (81 units) . Wyngate Rental Townhomes (50 units) . Ashley Furniture (completed) . Kennard Professional Building (completed) . Maplewood Sculpture Park (completed) . Legacy Shoppes Retail (construction pending) . Ramsey County Library (under construction) . Seniors Apartment (116 units, approved and construction pending) DISCUSSION Density The proposed density is below the previously approved number of units. This site was approved to have 96 town home units. The applicant is proposing 91. Preliminary Plat The applicant is requesting approval of a preliminary plat to sell the individual townhomes. This is typical of such developments. Staff does not find any unusual concems with doing so beyond the usual requirements for platting which include matters like the signing of a developer's agreement, maintenance agreement, the approval of final grading/drainagelerosion-controVutility plans and the dedication of any necessary easements that the city engineer may require. Maplewood Engineer, Michael Thompson, reviewed this proposal and made several comments in his attached report. Staff recommends that the city council require that the applicant comply with the statements in Mr. Thompson's report as conditions of plat approval. Design Review Architectural The proposed townhomes would be attractively designed and would be comparable in design and materials to the other owner-occupied townhomes in Legacy Village. The buildings would have rock-face concrete block foundations and horizontal-lap siding of a fiber-cement material. The gable roofs would have asphalt shingles. Garage doors would be metal with raised panels. A condition of the approval should be that any exterior utility meters be screened in a decorative manner. Buildina Setbacks Building setbacks meet the reduced-setback concept approved for Legacy Village. The PUD required a minimum building setback of 15 feet from street right-of-way lines. The buildings meet this minimum setback. Sidewalks The applicant has laid the site out to accommodate pedestrian connections throughout the development During the planning commission's review of the previous design, they 2 had recommended that the applicant provide crosswalks across Village Trail East to access the pedestrian trail to the south. These crosswalks should be required by the CORBo Visitor Parkina The visitor-parking proposal meets the requirements of the PUO by providing at least one guest space for each two units with at least five guest spaces within 200 feet of the front door of all units. Landscapinc The proposed landscaping plan meets the direction of boulevard-tree spacing in the PUD. The tree sizes meet code requirements. Staff recommends, though, that the landscaping around the ponds in this development should be treated more attractively to make them decorative amenities for the future residents of this neighborhood. The applicant should revise the landscaping plan for staff approval showing this additional landscaping. RamseyIWashington Metro Watershed District The applicant must obtain all necessary permits from the watershed district before starting construction. Building Official's Comments Dave Fisher, the Maplewood Building Official, had these comments: . The city will require a complete building code analysis when the construction plans are submitted to the city for building permits. . All exiting must go to a public way. . Provide adequate fire department access to the buildings. . All buildings over 8,500 square feet must be fire sprinklered. . I would recommend a pre-construction meeting with the contractor, the project manager and the city building inspection department. Fire Marshal's Comments Butch Gervais, the Maplewood Fire Marshal, had these comments/requirements: . Need 20-foot emergency access road at all times. . Fire protection system per codes and monitored. . Fire alarm system per code and monitored. . Mini sounders in each unit. . Fire deparbnent lockbox required. Get the paperwork from the fire marshal. 3 Park Director's Comments Bruce Anderson, the Maplewood Parks and Recreation Director, has said that the city will be constructing the 2.5-acre tot lot and east-west trail, which would be south of the proposed project, next summer. Police Department Comments Lieutenant Kevin Rabbett noted there are no significant public safety concems. This plan seems to meet the previously-approved plans for Legacy Village. Engineering Comments Maplewood Engineer, Michael Thompson, reviewed this proposal. Refer to Mr. Thompson's report. Other than concems regarding utilities, grading, storm water treatment and erosion control, Mr. Thompson stated that the developer shall: . Implement a homeowner's association as part of this development to ensure that there is a responsible party for the regular maintenance and care of the ponds, rainwater gardens, retaining walls, private utilities and other features common to the development. . The developer shall sign a maintenance agreement, prepared by the city, for rainwater gardens, ponds and sumps. The project plans shall clearly point out the maintenance access route to each garden and basin. . A 20-foot-wide easement needs to be dedicated over the centerline of the existing 18-inch storm sewer pipe that extends to Wetland F. The proposed steps over the storm sewer pipe shall be relocated outside of the easement. . The developer shall dedicate a pedestrian trail easement by separate document over the trail on the south end of the development. . The developer shall enter into a developer's agreement with the city for the construction of the trail. . The developer and project engineer shall satisfy the requirements of all permitting agencies. Citizen Comments Of a large number of surveys staff mailed (209) to neighboring property owners, we received very few replies. Of the eight that did reply, two had no comment and six were opposed. Refer to the comments in the Citizen Comments section of this report for the complete comments. The concems raised, though, were regarding increased traffic, there being too many townhomes already and the loss of treesllNeUandslwildlife. 4 Traffic Traffic will increase with the continued build-out of Legacy Village. This is the reason, however, for the extension and improvements of County Road D. These roadway improvements will handle the future traffic needs. Density-Too Manv Homes Alreadv The housing in Legacy Village, along with the other nearby townhomes and condominiums, will create a rather highly-populated area. This has been foreseen, however, with all the multiple-dwelling housing planned for this area. Some feel that the city should not allow any further development until all of the existing homes have been sold and occupied. Unfortunately, the city cannot regulate the market-place. We must allow housing based on the city's approved development plans and our land use controls. If these are being met, the city cannot stop the proposed development. Loss of Wildlife, Wetiands and Trees It is always sad and unfortunate to see the loss of trees and wildlife habitat This site, however, was approved for development in 2003 and it is proceeding according to that approved plan. Wetlands will be preserved or mitigated also as previously approved by the PUD development plan. COMMITTEE ACTIONS (These comments were received during the subsequent review of this town house proposal earlier this year.) June 19, 2006: The planning commission recommended approval of the land use plan change, PUD amendment and preliminary plat. They also suggested that the community design review board require designated crosswalks across Village Trail East to access the pedestrian trail to the south. June 27, 2006: The community design review board recommended approval of the design plans subject to conditions. RECOMMENDATIONS A. Approve the preliminary plat for the Legacy Townhomes at Legacy Village, subject to the following conditions: 1. The applicant shall comply with the requirements in the city's engineering report dated September 19, 2006. 2. The applicant shall sign a developer's agreement with the city engineer before the issuance of a grading permit. 5 3. The applicant shall dedicate any easements and provide any written agreements that the city engineer or parks director may require as part of this plat. 4. The applicant shall pay the city escrow for any documents, easements and agreements that the staff may require that may not be ready by the time of plat signing. B. Approve the plans date-stamped September 11, 2006, for the Legacy T ownhomes. Approval is subject to the developer complying with the following conditions: 1. Obtain city council approval of the preliminary plat. 2. All requirements of the fire marshal and building official must be met. 3. The applicant shall obtain all required permits from the Ramsey-Washington Metro Watershed District. 4. All driveways and parking lots shall have continuous concrete curbing. 5. All requirements of the city engineer, or his consultants working for the city, shall be met regarding grading, drainage, erosion control, utilities and the dedication of any easements found to be needed. All conditions of the Maplewood engineering report dated September 19, 2006, must be complied with. 6. Repeat this review in two years if the city has not issued a building permit for this project by that time. 7. Any identification signs for the project must meet the requirements of the city sign ordinance and the PUD approval. 8. The setbacks are approved as proposed. 9. The applicant shall: . Install reflectorized stop signs at all driveway connections to Hazelwood Street and Kennard Street. . Install and maintain an in-ground lawn irrigation system for all landscaped areas. . Install all required trails, sidewalks and carriage walks. . Provide a plan for traffic signage subject to staff approval. . Provide a revised landscaping plan for staff approval providing additional landscaping around the ponds. 6 . Provide a screening plan to staff for approval for any visible utility meters on the outside of the building. No end units facing County Road D shall have meters. 10. The applicant shall submit an address and traffic signage plan for staff approval. 11. The applicant shall provide the city with cash escrow or an irrevocable letter of credit for the exterior landscaping and site improvements prior to getting a building pennit for the development. Staff shall detennine the dollar amount of the escrow. 12. All work shall follow the approved plans. The director of community development may approve minor changes. 13. A temporary sales office shall be allowed until the time a model unit is available for use. Such a temporary building shall be subject to the requirements of the building official. 14. The applicant shall work with staff to provide three crosswalks across Village Trail East to access the power line trail to the south. The applicant shall also provide three paved trail connections to the power line trail. This plan must be established before a building pennit is issued. 15. All street lights shall match the design of the street lights already used throughout Legacy Village. 16. The applicant shall install wetland protection buffer signs at a spacing of every 100 feet around the outer edge of the wetland buffer. These signs shall comply with the city's approved design for such signs and shall say, 'Wetland Buffer Area-Do Not Mow, Cut, Dump, Disturb Beyond This Point-city of Maplewood." 17. The applicant shall provide the color scheme for all buildings to staff for approval. 18. The applicant shall stagger the retaining walls in a terraced fashion if they exceed a height of six feet. The applicant shall install a decorative, protective rail on the top of all retaining walls that exceed a height of four feet. This will be subject to staff approval. 19. The applicant shall utilize "through the wall" venting to minimize the many roof penetrations that are potential for these buildings. 7 CITIZEN COMMENTS Staff surveyed the 209 property owners within 500 feet of this site for their comments. Of the eight replies received, two had no comment and six were opposed to this proposal. (These comments were received during the city's review of this project earlier this year.) Opposed . As a neighbor we completely disagree with this proposal. What we need in the area is a kids' park and green land. We were in fact told by our builder, Town & Country Homes, that at the time of our purchase that the city was thinking of having a park in our neighborhood. (Shah, 1635 Legacy Parkway) . Absolutely against any further development. The proposed area is the only area left with any trees. When we moved into our town home, we looked out onto woods with water and daily saw deer, fox and other wildlife. The new developments have destroyed what nature was here and the new development will destroy the only remaining nature. The developments have brought noise, increased traffic with high speeds and destruction of nature. There will be nothing "pretty" about the area anymore. This is the #1 reason we will be putting our home up for sale within the next few months. (Henderson & Waller, 1621 County Road 0) . We oppose this development as it will diminish the wetlands which were on the original plan. This development will also add even more traffic into the area. With all the development that's been done in the last year, we have high traffic already. (Tom Gelbmann, president of the Board for the Cardinal Pointe members/owners, 3003 Hazelwood Street) . I do not agree with tearing up the wetlands to build more town homes. The wetlands is one reason why I bought my town house. I enjoy watching all deer walk through there. Another reason why I bought my townhouse is because it is in a quiet location away from the commercial business and other townhouses. I think if you built more town houses in the area it will definitely lessen the chances for the rest of us to sell our home in the future. I think adding more town houses to the area will lower the market value. (Stebbing, 1567 County Road 0) . I would like to see more green space in Legacy. By cramming in so many condos, it's beginning to look like the projects. Please see to it that Legacy includes as much open green space as possible on this comer to make this a more attractive neighborhood. Consider this area 20-30 years from now. When overbuilding consumes every inch of land, rarely is a healthy, vibrant neighborhood present. Typically, this type of over-crowded area is pretty rough, attracting Iow-income households, gangs and crime. (Bailey & Shenigo, 1613 County Road D) . Refer to the attached e-mail letter from Jon Sticha, 1567 County Road O. Mr. Sticha's concems are regarding loss of trees, wetland and wildlife habitat. More housing will force existing homeowners to sell for less. There are too many vacancies now. Is there really a need for more town homes in this area? 8 REFERENCE SITE DESCRIPTION Site Size: 11 acres Existing Use: Undeveloped SURROUNDING LAND USES North: County Road D and Pineview Estates Townhomes South: Heritage Square Townhomes East Kennard Street and Heritage Square 2nd Addition Townhomes West: Hazelwood Street and Cardinal Pointe Cooperative PLANNING Land Use Plan Designation: Existing R3H Zoning: PUD APPLICATION DATE We received the complete applications and plans for these requests on September 11 , 2006. State law requires that the city take action within 60 days of receiving complete applications for a proposal. City council action is required by November 10,2006. 9 p:sec 3\Legacy Townhomes 9 06 te Attachments: 1. Location Map 2. Property Une/Zoning Map 3. Land Use Plan Map 4. 2003 Legacy Village PUD Development Plan 5. Previous 119-Un~ Legacy Townhomes Proposal 6. Site/Landscaping Plan 7. Proposed Subdivision 8. Building Elevations 9. Memo from Michael Thompson dated September 19, 2006 10. E-mail from Jon Sticha dated May 19, 2006 11. Plans data-stamped September 11, 2006 (separate attachment) 10 Attachment 1 ~ = -< ~ .r f I ti'.l II .....ll ~1!~!~!J~III_ ~L ~l!II%' '. II ~jR I~ -".. --- . :=:I12.i . .~ B. ,,, li'l I~ I . ...... '0,) '!m~IiiI~/I^\; ~. fii~ "~.!I: '.' If.'~Hi ~~IRI . . 4' 12I-JGij. , '" ~. "'., ,jif~;! ~ t= " .~. " '. d & r'b . ",h, ',. ., , .' H ft G "",~~", \ .ii: (. I. . It... '... il B.. . ~ ~~...-, ~I;'.. ~ ~;~' ~~~~,II dltl LL" ...., ;'".....Iff ~ ... ",' "0...,., -' " ' . "t '" C"'. ...'" ".~~ ,. ., _ ",'""" ,,~ ... r':.' '.'. "'" ~.,,- 01.' " ~ ,-- .... " h', ~ 11. Z ~I L'~J~~,J<l II \!)4)' ~ G.. .. :. " ~"'..'! 0 '.L- . " ""'",>,,,': .. ~ . .<<:~ 'I=- . ., ,';;c;l'''"7 EE;; ';b. "' ~ . I . U 1~"t'I'O ~ ~i ~... ",' I~ ~ . ifIlr ,. I, ~ .~'JlI,I.~ 9 ., ,.~, .. ','" ,.= . . ... ....:::. w' . ~ I' ~ ;' "., ,,:: n lJ '" ~ ~ g mj ,"'-":.,' " ~~". U HI I~I- , It1lII "I'e'; , ',., 0'. ~btLt' ~J.: i'll'" ".'. *Ii! ...., !j~ " - I '. '..." L,~ _ i;l.~. . ;u. .'. ~_ -lit --' ...!! - l"~ i, ""'. ." .' "'.. . ~ ~, l'''~" f'~ . ':'::fL'I'~' .....1 Q ! ~",~J ~tt.tr~.~, '. ,e:",: 1 ~. I .~.. r" . , " . , .. ~ ' - I -' .,~~.~ ,~ ~ . . ~ ~ \.1 ~~:~J=:, -', ~ . 'll ~:~:,/ 11 . \ ~ ~~ J.. . Attachment 2 fi ~ CD CD C1J a. t ~ r '-Ii &~ ~~ ~ c OJ ... 'ts J2 N N I en :5N '" I ~M ~O ~Z i ~ i l Ii ! IJ ~ " .! I i g~t - ~ 0 h! 81] ;~I Ii . . ~ .. 8' - U~ ! f ~ w ~ J gsS i'f d'ff ~j. D!Jif"JP iHo! l. U !DDDIDffiJl. ~I 'f~l~ j E J I' Ji ! J J U ~ hHHIH J..I..... O-CI)U...J<( :fWD::: '; < Wffl,;H',.mJ1!1 Wo !jl J'1 :I:!jll hI! · IJI!:.!I;lji, f' I W.lff/li.l." i "JUt iJmifi!~Hii ! Jlf ';!H:~i;;;j)h . Iff'l JI!jlii,;!',lf. wI iijl'l'!lfdJijl; ,!ill ~~..i 'IF"'!.' If iff 11J'I,I'n,lJi', U A. t~!L.1....1 12 "'""'-0 t :t I :::t "8 c:~ ~i 1~ OJ!! I .!! t :t i , 'i " ~.. .. II 1:' ~ .i~o~~~~ !~i~~!~z ~Diiiiiti ~ 1 ta &; .u "-S , , .. i~ ~~~~g. !~Er~r~~ ~Fj!!!~i !i!!ljij ~.f~~ir!: ('I) ...... =11= CD C>> as a.. N N I (1) iiN +=' I ~('I) ~o ;'!Z ~ . i '" . . .. . j i ~l DDDDIIDI ~ I R ~: ~~~-~~~ ~r~i8il Ij~~aj~~ i :~i~~~~~i~ i~;i~:i~g~ i.3'~~8:!j,ildl6~ I~II[)IIIIIIII D -- (f) ()._,<:( 2'LJIa': ~I ~ rr:8 r.!l~~ ii~n_ i!t~,; h~n HEH ~.jIH~ 8;(.);; U~~i i~U t!iH~ ~~~M :~~~ 13 \ Attachment 4 LEGACY VILLAGE AT MAPLEWOOD PROPOSED TOWN HOMES rJ',.....r..- --- ~ .\0<0/... H ------------ -~~------- --- ......-......... U 'V . .... i i/ Ii! .L.....: "-,,~ i ,"'''=-',i =='.:::::--:~~.~;-"~ COUNTY ROAD 0:-::'" .l!._ I- ... ~ !:dd_m ~'~ en c::::D 0: o ; . s:,,~ ~'" -l co _.-H_ w ..._--~ ~ :I: !~D II 'j----- 11 OUTLOT H , ........ ~._ T --...."... .~..~.,._-- ~ -.==.::- .- ......~.. ..' i !L.. '. I,} !--oF' : -. .",,~ LJ ---;;r.'.I; "._',,'ni;., '. . --=: "1 -- APPROVED PUD DEVELOPMENT-CONCEPT PLAN JULY 14, 2003 14 _C:"~;""",'-:c.'-,..,_,", ,- "-'-';;-:O_OC-',' ."_,~':.'oo,.."..:- -_'---' '__=~_._.,.~::,c:;-m_ . ..._- J 'IDMJ~ 10 i!<SI o o o ~ CiJ ......J 0.. -<w ~d ~-<< O......J~ ifl=~ w>~ ~.>-- g OU~ ::c:-<~ ZCl~ ~~ o E- >-- u -< d CiJ ......J , ..j '.\. I , j\ s -+.-= .. Ie ,~ ~: "7 ~ ~ , 0 tt~~ . ~ ~ ~ . . ~ ~~ ~ II , 11;1 1 JrJjlf [JiG ~~ I~ ~~ l5 z I I . III dIll I ~ :jl!hll ~ I hi!ill! :Ii ~! .~Ulil~! I mill II m~ ill m'l,l,l,,!!!!!!! ll~;;; iil -----'--lmmr--.lII! 1'- llllllll..mmlllllllllll! !!!~II11Ill~ I I m!m;,!!!!!!!!l;:!!!!fi!l ;~ c I, .! r , . J' $ '.' 'oJ( " A....' , !r , (1\ ~ Wd~WttJlJSIS'u1lMp';n.m\lCMU.\~' ~'O tli Iii! ~i_l~i I~rll II 1,-3 IIII1 , , ~ 1 i: I il: ,,::1 ,:i!i " I' " :i Ji ~~ i ' '~ r /-: I ~ ../... </ / If', l I :,: ; I.. ....: ' :i' ,'I, i ! i ;I! ~/- / ;i/ i :'111 I':' )I /' \ I, lM : i I J /' , \ Iii 111I : 'I I:,) / i' I. pii~ 111,1'/"'-/'//, ': 1.,....1 F,.! l ' F! }/i , ;i.~j , ! ,i ~: ff';'; :i,iY ,i;'; ;;;~d ' I I','.. ',' '.' . . i " / r: :." ' I I: . "I " . 'i,l J, "i,'" jl'i'i"' 1'1"1:111 II III!I I,!I,.!I' 'III ,l!.II, It-I'lll ;!II!iI!11 j ,: ill I ; 'I ' i ;lll ,II:' i ~"i I~! ! , 1!II'1 '1111 , illi 111:l'l I II i!ll!. !!!-I~ i liil I'!!!I'I j 1I'!IIIII;I,ill,,1 il" ! ;, 11I'11.liM 11/111 I"I~I" ~ I Ii I'll! .1~i!1 illll:l !lil'l'l ~ 1..1,' !. !Ilill.ilil J .Ill, ~1I11 I i" 'I 'I ~ 'l db Illi!! I ; Ilii~1 !lill:ll'" d I" 111.1 !Ii 'i I !;~ l!ll' , I"Ii "1 I. 'lo'I'i"li 1'11111'1 ~I II I " J I~ I,I!. III I!l' I 11",.1" !'I,'I.. 11'11" !!ill!IIIII!I!iiiJIII I!' .11 Ii; ilj i III, '1' ,I. S .'. e I I~~ wlil',,!!:.:: ~" I' I! "I II' ,l,,~, '!II! IiI i:, III + '!Ii fl'~ il""I!ill"ldl s~l !:I.d!:I!l:1 }.;~ _J (. 16 :a ~j ~~ -~( 11m' hm 7 IIIJM [JI ~ iId~1 r ~ ~ g~H!lID ~ '. I !: 1m :ij i 1 i ' i fi I ~~~lJi!fl!HJi .illal ,.-1\--..10...-1'-..-' Ii: il i i II , I \ '\ II Ii :n, ',. ,i,1 'I ,'I Nl" \ il :,1\ :I ,,' .1'",",1' I! ..1'," \, .1-'0 =-~-~;;: Ii ,................... "'~i I,:; I \, ~i _~;j;:p';.;!7 ......., ".!' I 1 "'\3" _Cl.. , : ~,.:: ::, ~ ; _ _ . _ _ . ,i ~ _ ~~ ~~:"..;; - ,--;;-:-:--' l:I'fN,' l.n.....:_-~ ,i!! \"., ~'-""-~ ",-....- I 33'dlS 0 _ -<~ 1.............-..... L..";-" 'lit. i"i"'~" ~... . .~--. Tm Ii i' i ~-=:-.:;;~____.__ - ," ___ ,! .' III " '_.3-., ~_'~--,~_- sntEET ~ --..-- - .::r-\.';'-"'; I '1/ ;! i :~"-,,=,...--'" __\,~-_.-_.,~.,_".-:'---4 i~,: i ' II L:"", '--"~-- "'">"i-:W'" -"'132' ~-L1!. ','i:: : ,Ii" j I i I' l,l:'!"'~ '"l:J!' : Ii :i:lif= ~~~ i II ! ~I~ji' ,ii, ~ ,r ~-aN ~ I-.~-;r".~'."".,,----~' i ! : ", : ill: :::I., 'I' il I '. , .' : . iI- I: < :11\ ; :11 m j-" _' ; r .' iL!i !IAlI..Il..~....~..~ "" "..==... ..-.. ! I'.I~. "',' X .,---, ~~J I... ,i. ,dL ilL 'I C5 g E-...:..J '" =< I ", ~ i ~ II ;! ;: ; l '.ir, ill l.,;.j PL~':~~I! : ~,J\, !...".. ..... . . ........ ... ... . : I' i i II ! I f~t~ ~;;,~~ :iI 'il! /Ii: J ~~: ['--'!:: I!f ~r.' ~ .,' I'.if::,: /~. ') ~~J ~!J .' il :Ii I hIT".' i i '. / . '- ".' P..... :irj ~j ,I ,',. ,;1 ',,'. \:>f"/ // : j! ' i\r I ! "",,- ..... ,ii ~ i)j ! ) i 1 ! >-~~i ii ~ '/1 ::::l I I, /'.; · / --1---,11 if ~ If I", ~' 'i , '.t<.\;."" '......\ ~-- : i :' I l;t J i: I / "1 " \ .---'' j I 'II ii ~ I' ~ I / ',1:,::~,,'\ \/ ~l ~~l ' i i:l . I. i ~ 1<. i"<'~ I OJ Dd I ,I! : I' , in: / 'M ~ /'>1 f'Hm' &it I ,p 1f I'~ '1,1 "i1:~ ~ "h :t ~~I 'I'!I . ~ ',f;'.' ; !!~ o. .>~~\ ~''"'~;. :1,_>'~1"""___~: I- I ij! , \' /:')'1' t.:.-ig.~-:m ' ! : i i ;, >" ./ r--'"l"....... '. ~ 9 : ~ '1 ';l:~ , L ::7 f .; I:m'" , ~ r · Ii I, \ \~ ~ /" ... ,'..-'-'/ =..~1iI i . Ii i i Ii ii1ll1~f~ i, , ,;::....ft...... ~ /to 1;111'_"_ I," ,/ ~>~;1i j,ifq! ,;:: i'-~i--TfT~------ II / ~ .of~' '" -" ~"'~. I. t1!1 i ~I': :i '\,' !!I, .. I'~ N,: ':1)1 \, \'~'....., '," ;~~ -: ~.:iJ 'ji:: , \ ':", ~ If""') J-n-.----l---~I' \ ... .. ~ ~~""I:I " \ ~"-..~../ .-/ :-=-"'f,Jw~.Jt--+I;; \ ~.~y ./ ,; D i ~:I I r; , \ ~ / L;.,j,J -.-j........H--+""-~-~, . \ ~'~~' Ii.::. j; I I'~ 1;:1 I I I \ / .i~-~--+ "!.'lll I ...... I , '\ y'- ~ _ I ~~II I :~~~;::~='=_J 1 , " I < ~.'t . I lj" : _~LiJi_>>_,,~ - c~ . '\: ~ . ) I I r, I II I, I I '. \, \ R I I Ii' , ~ ~ \ \ liiI" .... ... I I I I " , "1_ '\\~' :~;~\-.~/ ~~'" ":'J. ~J4______.~;i~~ ". , ',"", " . ....-:-..;?:::--- --- =-~~\IL...1: (" , , ~\" =:s .... ~:~-=.____~~_,,_~ \ 1 I \\ re ~~~\. ~i--~~~_~" OO~ ,I \"'~ /; ~.~-~~~~ l...._..... -'-" n~-J!:rh -- --- ,__ _7t ~ ~ - '. _'~,,~<_H ~~__~__u --_.--_u--1u _ _1___ .._-<~::~ Ii I ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ i.... .............. !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!l .. "I 1" . ,II ; . I!I l Iii I !II I , , , , ... " . !!!!! !I! ==-. ... ltltltlt ...... !I! !! ~ :> ) ) i. ~ : !i ~ ;' .k: i 17 , . ! ..... <( ...J Cl.. ~ 0::: <( Z - ~ - ...J W 0::: Cl.. o W (f) o Cl.. o 0::: Cl.. I WH:ll~D 1'1 I fa M 11~! ~ f I I ~! J if ii " 111~f Attachment 8 IIJIJi ~~'I drill ! m I 18 ~' z (!) - (f) w C (!) Z - C ....J - ~ OJ C w en o a.. o 0:: a.. . /. Attachment 9 Page 1 of3 EDl!ineerinl! Plan Review PROJECT: Legacy Town Homes of Maplewood PROJECT NO: 06-11 REVIEWED BY: Michael Thompson (Maplewood Engineering Department) DATE: September 19, 2006 The developer, Hartford Group, Inc. has re-submitted project plans for the for the last town home segment of the larger Legacy Village development. The developer or project engineer shall make the changes to the plans and site as noted and shall address the concerns listed. Drainage & Treatment I. All rainwater gardens, ponds, and wetlands shall have emergency overflow swales lined with a permanent erosion control blanket (Enkamat, NAG350, or equal) extending to the downstream receiving waters/drainage structure. Show this on the plans. The emergency overflow elevation and path shall be marked on the plans also. The high water levels need to be shown for the rainwater gardens. 2. Soil borings are not provided specifically within each proposed rainwater garden to ensure a 72 hr draw down time therefore under-drain systems must be installed for both rainwater gardens. The under-drain systems shall be connected to the underground storm system. 3. Catch basin manhole 401 should have a sump elevation of 892.94. 4. It is unclear how runoff is being directed into the rainwater garden on the north side of the private road. On the second rainwater garden, the runoff is shown going from the parking area down to the garden via a rip-rap path. This is unacceptable due to possible erosion issues. The city recommends either using a drainage structure with flared end outlet or using a permanent Enkamat lined swale with rip-rip to extend all the way to the base of the garden. 5. Rip-rap shall extend from all flared end section down to the base of all ponds/gardens for all outlets. Grading & Erosion Control 1. The project engineer shall clearly detail a street-sweeping on the grading and erosion control plan for Kennard and Hazelwood Streets to address any tracking that may occur from the proposed development area. Also on the project plans, include a note that states watering of the site must occur regularly to keep dust to a minimum. 2. Any graded areas left undisturbed for more than 14 days shall be stabilized with a temporary seed such as MNDOT 110 O. On sheet LIOI it refers to and old MNDOT seed mix of 60A which is no longer valid. 19 Page 2 00 3. Show location and details of concrete washouts. 4. The grading at the southeast comer of the project shows a significant area draining to the low spot near the trail. Show spot elevation to ensure that there will be no standing water and that all runoff will get into the drainage structure. 5. The project engineer shall provide more information on the measures of containment for the stockpile in the northeast corner of the development and any other future stockpiles. Is the stockpile going to be used during rough grading and are there going to be multiple stockpile during rough grading? Will there be any excess material to be stockpiled after rough grading? If so, the stockpile must be seeded with MNDOT 150 TS or similar once site is stabilization. Please make this note on the plans. 6. The plans show stairs along various locations of the 5-foot wide concrete walk through the site. Please contact the City of Maple wood building department to see is ADA standards must be met. 7. The grading erosion and control plan shall provide phasing information through housing construction. More erosion and sediment control devices may be required at that time. Utilities 1. Submit plans to Mike Anderson at Saint Paul Regional Water Services (SPRWS) located at 1900 Rice S1, Maplewood (2nd Floor) for their review and approval. The fire hydrant located at the end of the private drive for Units 7-12 and 13-18 within Block 2 is located against a retaining wall (does not have 8-feet oflateral separation). This could pose a freeze issue and must be discussed in length with Mike Anderson. 2. Submit plans to Tina Carstens at Ramsey-Washington Metro Watershed District located at 2665 Noel Drive. Little Canada for their review and approval. 3. Get proper water and sewer permits for the private development. Miscellaneous I. The developer or project engineer shall submit a copy of the MPCA's construction stormwater permit (SWPPP) to the city before the city will issue a grading permit for this project. 2. The developer shall implement a homeowners association as part of this development to ensure that there is a responsible party for the regular maintenance and care of the ponds, rainwater gardens, retaining walls, private utilities, and all other features common to the development. 20 Page 3 of3 3. The developer shall sign a maintenance agreement, prepared by the city, for the gardens, ponds, and sumps. The project plans shall clearly point out the maintenance access route to each garden and basin. 4. A 20' wide easement needs to be dedicated over the centerline of the existing 18" storm sewer pipe that extends to Wetland F. The proposed steps over the storm sewer pipe shall be relocated outside of the easement. 5. The developer shall also dedicate a pedestrian trail easement on the plat or by separate document over the trail on the south end of the development. 6. The developer and project engineer shall satisfy the requirements of all permitting agencIes. 7. The developer shall install crosswalk striping at the trail connection across Village Trail East. 8. The city will be investigating the feasibility of installing a traffic signal at the intersection of Hazelwood Avenue and County Road B to mitigate the increase in traffic due to development in the area. 21 Message Page 1 of2 Attachment 10 Tom Ekstrand From: Sticha, Jon, A [JASticha@Bremer.com] Sent: Friday, May 19, 2006 8:51 AM To: Tom Ekstrand; City Council; Diana Longrie (ExternaO Cc: Gammell, Sarah Subject: Development Proposal - Legacy Townhomes Proposal I recently recieved information in the mail informing Maplewood citizens in my area about a proposed development by the Hartford Group, for the area south of County Road D between Hazelwood and Kennard Street. Tom Ekstrand has asked for a few comments, so I thought I would share them with all of you. First off, I don~ want to sound like a hypocrit. I understand that growth and development in Maplewood has enabled myself to have a new town home in a new development. I don~ take issue with a developer wanting to build. I take issue with where and when they want to build. The area being proposed for development fs a wetland with big tall pine trees. When I chose to move to Maplewood, one of the things I really liked about my current residency was the view. Being in the city, but being able to look out and see habitat such as geese and the deer we have living there, has made this a very cozy place to five. It would be ashame to see a nice, natural habitat like that destroyed. Secondly, the timing. There have been so many townhomes built in this area during the last year that supply has far outweighed demand. There are new places being developed between Kennard and HOM Furnishings as well as many new townhouse buildings between Kennard and Hazelwood on Legacy Parkway. I've been closely watching these areas develop and two things are clear, construction speeds are slowing and houses are sitting on the market much longer. For example, the development I live in was forced to lower their selling price by $15,000 because they have 5 out of 6 townhomes on one side that they can~ sell. With so much recently built and so many in the process I don~ see why we need to develop the propsed area at this time. . . What would I like to see happen? Again, I'm not opposed to growing and developing Maplewood, just the area and the timing. First of all, couldn~ we find a better area for the Hartford Group to develop? What about an area like the old City View golf course along Beam? Maybe there are already plans for this, but irs an example of an area that would be much more appropriate for development. The other thing I would like to see happen is to make the Hartford Group wait on their development. With so many vacancies why do we need to develop this area now. If in a year our two from now, all the existing homes in the area have been filled, and demand is still that strong, I may be more inclined to approve of their development. Assuming of course a better location can~ be found. But right now there is realistically no need for more development. So there are my thoughts. If any of it is unclear, please feel free to contact me. Sincerely , Jon Sticha 1567 -B East County Road D Maplewood MN. 55109 320-761-5151 Jon Sticha Equity/Fixed Income Trader Bremer Asset Management 651-312-3510 " " , NOTICE - CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION The information in this communication is proprietary and strictly confidential. It is intended solely for the use of the 5/22/2006 22 MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: SUBJECT: DATE: City Manager Ken Roberts, Planner South Maplewood Development Moratorium September 26, 2006 INTRODUCTION On September 6, 2006, the planning commission adopted a motion asking the city to adopt a moratorium on development for the part of south Maplewood that is east of 1-494. (See the location map on page eight.) The commission wants staff to identify and investigate properties in south Maplewood that have land use and zoning designations that are inconsistent with each other. This report is to provide the planning commission with information about the R-l(R) zoning district, with sewer and development issues in south Maplewood and with land use and zoning maps of the area. BACKGROUND On December 9, 2002, the city enacted a one-year moratorium on development of property in Maplewood from Linwood Avenue to the southem border of the city. (See the map on page nine.) The moratorium was a result of concems about the land use and development of the remaining undeveloped or underdeveloped property in south Maplewood. The previous sewer system plan for this area showed urbanized municipal sewer between Linwood Avenue and Carver Avenue and undefined sewer systems south of Carver Avenue. Without a municipal sanitary sewer system, large lots with a minimum size requirement would be necessary to accommodate houses or properties with individual sewage treatment systems (ISTS). On January 31, 2003, the city council authorized a separate Comprehensive Sanitary Sewer Study of south Maplewood. This study was initiated to address land use and development issues in south Maplewood, focusing on the area south of Linwood Avenue to the city's southem border. Short-Elliot- Hendrickson (SEH), a consulting engineering firm, has completed a report detailing the results of this study. We incorporated the results of the South Maplewood Sewer Study into the overall Sanitary Sewer Comprehensive Plan update. On May 27, 2003, the city council adopted the 2003 Comprehensive Sanitary Sewer Plan update. This sewer study included a detailed study of the sanitary sewer needs and availability for the part of Maplewood south of Linwood Avenue. (See the reference section on pages five and six for more information about this study.) In addition, this study recommended that the city study and possibly implement a larger minimum lot size for the areas of the city that will not likely have sanitary sewer for the foreseeable future. (This is primarily in sewer districts 10, 57 and 70 as shown on the maps on pages 10 - 12.) On August 25, 2003, the city council adopted an ordinance amendment that created the R-1 (R) zoning district. Specifically, this amendment added the R-1(R) zoning district to the zoning code. This code requires a two-acre minimum lot size for residential properties where the city does not expect nor do they have sanitary sewer available to the property. DISCUSSION R-1(R) Zoning The intent of the R-l(R) zoning district, as adopted by the city council in 2003, reads: below an elevation of 1010. About 13 acres, near the center of this study area, are above the elevation of 1010. Also, about four acres of the property south of 1670 Sterling Street are above the elevation of 1010. All utility extensions to this area would be difficult and expensive. Street Access Century Avenue is an undeveloped, 66-foot-wide public right-of-way between Carver Avenue and Maplewood's southem border. Century Avenue is on the border of Maplewood, Woodbury and Newport. The Maplewood Comprehensive Plan shows this part of Century Avenue as a major collector street. Because of the topography in the area and the existing right-of-way, an extension of Century Avenue south of Carver Avenue is the most likely future street for this area. Century Avenue would probably connect to Bailey Road in Newport. Century Avenue would probably have several east/west streets intersecting it. However, since Bailey Nursery owns most of the property on either side of the Century Avenue right-of-way, the timing of any development will depend on the nursery. John Bailey at the nursery told me that they have no plans to develop their property and plan to stay in the plant and nursery business for many years. Lot Sizes The issue of minimum lot sizes came out of the city council's review of the Haller's Woods plat in 1997. Several neighbors near Haller's Woods thought the city had a 5-acre minimum lot size for non-sewered lots. However, both the zoning code and the comprehensive plan do not have a 5-acre minimum. In fact, the 19 residential lots along Sterling Street near Haller's Woods range in size from 0.84 acres to 9.7 acres, with an average lot size of 4.05 acres. For lots that do not have public sanitary sewer, the code requires a minimum lot size large enough to fit the house and two on-site sewer treatment systems. This usually means a minimum lot size of at least one acre (43,560 square feet) to fit everything on the property. The zoning code also requires a minimum lot size of 10,000 square feet for single dwellings in the R-1 (single dwelling) and F (fann residence) zoning districts. In the RE-40 (residential estate) zoning district, the minimum lot size is 40,000 square feet while the R-1(R) zoning district requires a two-acre minimum lot size. Staff contacted several cities in the area to see what they use for a minimum lot size for non-sewered areas. The survey showed a range of 22,000 square feet in White Bear Township to a 5-acre minimum for new developments in Grant. The minimum lot sizes for non-sewered lots in other cities are 30,000 square feet in Oakdale, 1.5 acres in Cottage Grove, 2.5 acres in Inver Grove Heights and 3 acres in Woodbury and Newport. Future Development Based on the above findings, we make the following projections for the south Maplewood area: 1. The area will develop with single dwellings. 2. Lot sizes on Sterling Street will be larger than nonnal because of the steep contours that limit buildable land and street access. 3. There will be more homes on Sterling Street with long private drives. Some homes will share drives. There will probably be additional requests for homes on lots that do not front on a public street. 4. The Bailey Nursery property is the most feasible place for future streets and nonnal suburban (sewered) development pattems. Extending Century Avenue south of Carver Avenue is necessary 3 to develop the Bailey property. There is no need to extend Century Avenue until Bailey Nurseries is ready to develop their property. 5. Additional local streets to serve this area will probably come from Century Avenue. 6. Because of steep contours along Sterling Street, connecting Sterling Street and Century Avenue with a new street will probably not be feasible. 7. Until further development happens, the city will probably not choose a location for the planned park in this neighborhood. 8. Two high areas (above elevation 1010) will not have normal water pressure. Any houses in these areas will need a well or will need an individual private booster pump. 9. Because of very low housing density and varied topography, it is probably not feasible for Maplewood to extend sanitary sewer to much of the area south of Carver Avenue (especially east of 1-494). Homes in this part of Maplewood will use individual sewage treatment systems (ISTS) for sewage disposal. In addition, there is no need for Maplewood or Woodbury to provide additional sanitary sewer service for the southeast part of Maplewood (south and east of Fish Creek) if Bailey Nursery is not going to develop their property. Rural Residential Zoning District The adopted sanitary sewer study recommended that the city prepare a rural residential zoning district to add to the city code with minimum lot size, a minimum lot area, and the permitted and conditional uses. Such a district is for non-sewered single dwelling development. In December 1997, city staff surveyed 32 property owners in south Maplewood to help us in preparing the new rural zoning district. In this survey, we asked the owners for information about their property and for their ideas about creating a rural residential zoning district. The existing lots south and east of 1-494 range in size from 0.6 acres to 39 acres. Many of the residential lots are less than 3 acres in size. Because of topography and existing house locations, these lots are probably not large enough for the owners to subdivide them into additional building locations. Based on the information from staff and from area property owners, staff prepared a new rural residential zoning ordinance. This is the R-1 (R) zoning ordinance adopted by the city council in 2003. The ordinance has a 2-acre minimum lot size and a minimum lot width of 120 feet. The city intends this zoning district for areas of Maplewood without municipal sewer and water and with a semi-rural, very low-density residential lifestyle. The city, after creating the new R-1 (R) zoning district, then changed the zoning for several properties south of Carver Avenue to R-l (R). These are shown on the property line/zoning map on page 17. I have marked with an x on the land use plan map (page 16) and on the property line zoning map the properties with an R-1land use designation that the city has zoned R-l(R). These may be the properties that the city could consider having an inconsistent land use and zoning designation. RECOMMENDATION Determine if there is a need for a moratorium on development for the area of Maplewood south of Carver Avenue, east of 1-494. If the city wants to enact such a moratorium, the city will need to decide what issues they want staff to investigate during the moratorium. This could include the possibility that the land use and zoning designations for some properties are not consistent with each other (and that the city should make land use or zoning changes to make the designations consistent with each other). 4 REFERENCE 2003 South Maplewood Sewer Study Study Assumptions Staff made several assumptions when preparing the South Maplewood Sewer Study. The following is a summary of some of these key assumptions: . If municipal sanitary sewer is extended to serve the area, land uses at full development will correspond to the city's current Land Use Map. The projected sanitary sewer flows staff listed in the report are based on full development and on the Land Use Map. . Future densities of Rlland use will be 2.9 persons/unit and 2.8 units/acre. . Because of topography and existing pipe size, future sanitary sewer flows from the Bailey property in Woodbury and Newport will need to be conveyed through Maplewood to the Carver Lake interceptor. . Future sanitary sewer flows from the Bailey property in Woodbury and Newport will be similar to those generated by typical single-family residential uses. It is important to note that the South Maplewood Sewer Study is only a planning document. In addition, the land use assumptions made above do not bind the city to any of these possible changes. Staff made the land use and sewer assumptions on a conservative basis to identify the maximum sanitary sewer flows that the land uses could possibly generate in each of the sewer districts. 2003 South Maplewood Sewer study Conclusions 1. Soils within the study area range from a sandy soil in the south to a sandy loam with some clay loam and silty clay in the north. The sandy soils are good for installation of individual sewage treatment systems (ISTS) whereas the clay loam and silty clay pockets may require the use of non-conventional systems. 2. If property maintained, evidence indicates that the life expectancy of an ISTS site is at least 25 to 30 years. 3. Septic systems (ISTS) are a safe and effective soil-based method to treat household wastewater, provided there is enough soil area and the soil conditions are conducive to treatment. Septic systems treat sewage equal to or better than municipal treatment facilities when they are properly designed, installed, and maintained. 4. Cities or areas with marginal soils, steep slopes, and wetlands will require a larger minimum lot size for lots with ISTS sites than those with good soils, few slopes and few wetlands. 5. Minimum lot sizes for lots with ISTS sites typically range from 1 acre to 5 acres in size. Many communities use a minimum lot size in the range of 2.0 to 3.0 acres. 6. Gravitv sanitary sewer can serve infill development in Sewer Districts 50. 51. 53. 54. 55. 56. 58. and 66. 5 7. A gravity sanitary sewer can serve District 70 and the sanitary sewer flows from the 240-acre Bailey's Nursery parcel in Woodbury and Newport. When the city or a developer extends municipal sanitary sewer to serve District 70, the new pipe must be sized large enough to serve the 240-acre Bailey Nursery parcel. 8. The capacity of the Carver Lake interceptor is large enough to accommodate flows from all of the study area, as well as the 240-acre parcel in Woodbury and Newport owned by Bailey's Nursery. 9. Connections to the Carver Lake interceptor will be allowed by permit from the MCES. The interceptor would be metered at the points where it enters and exits Maplewood. Any flow that enters the interceptor between these two locations will be billed to Maplewood based on the difference between the two meter readings. 10. In Districts 10 and 57, the existing terrain varies drastically and there are significant elevation changes. As such, the use of lift stations will be necessary to convey sanitary sewer flows from lower areas to higher areas. 11. Districts 10 and 57 have a relatively high cost-to-benefit ratio associated with the extension of municipal sanitary sewer to serve the districts. As a result, no near-term municipal sanitary sewer improvements are anticipated in these districts. 12. With the exception of Districts 10 and 57, it is anticipated that the rest of the study area could have sanitary sewer service within the next 20 years. However, before the city agrees to construct any municipal sanitary sewer extension, the city should prepare a feasibility study to identify pipe sizes, pipe alignments, construction costs, and other important project details. 2003 South Maplewood Sewer Study Recommendations 1. Adopt the South Maplewood Sewer Study, Project 03-03, as part of the 2003 Comprehensive Sanitary Sewer Plan Amendment. (The city council did this on Mav 27.2003.) 2. The city should establish a minimum lot size requirement of 2.0 acres for non-sewered residential areas in the city (subject to performance standards), including the study area. (The city did this with the adoption of the R-l(R) zoning district.) The city expects to use this designation primarily in areas with steep slopes and with pockets of marginal soils. The performance standards would be to ensure that the soils and conditions on any future lots would be such that the proposed lot could accommodate a house, driveway, a well and at least two drain fields. 3. The city should chanlle (if necessarv) the future land use Dlan and zoninll desillnations of Drooerties to reflect the minimum lot size reauirement (if chanlled) for non-sewered areas. 4. The city should first consider those districts with a lower cost-to-benefit ratio for municipal sanitary sewer service before the districts that have a higher cost-to-benefit ratio. 6 p:sec 24-28/moratorium - 2006 Attachmen1s: 1. Location Map 2. Location Map - 2002 Study Map 3. June 2003 Sewer District Map 4. April 2003 Comprehensive Sewer Plan Update Map 5. South Maplewood Sewer Study - 2003 6. Table 4 - Maplewood Comprehensive Plan 7. Table 5 - Maplewood Comprehensive Plan 8. Section 44-9 of Maplewood Zoning Code (Zoning Districts) 9. South Maplewood Land Use Map 10. South Maplewood Property UnelZoning Map 7 , , , jo.:::--",~--"-:~-=-~=-~~="""':"::'''''=.::-=-~~ , " , 'I , " , 'I ' \ , , , " , 'I ' , , 'I ' , , " , " , " , 'I ' , , , , " , " , ,[ L , 'Ii (,I 1'-' \'\ I /1 ~. '<~'~~~",fi;J.';"=~<S'z,,->__,l/) --..:.:..~~,~., .,~~ , \ , , , , , , , \ , I Ji h II /" .b 1/ /,'1 I _~<-,>"- . _ C:A~.e!Z. , .{f ! ~. ,,' ~..J/ {f I' I; if _I. ' (/ !:' ,V.I }1 Ii' l r 1/ / ;;...- / IJ II J ~ / 1,1 1/ I ~", J) I il /I I I 'I' II J l I} Ii ,I I Iii /1 J I 1'1 } .I I II } / " (/ .I ,I /" / ,I' '.I .I . il I ~ II t l (I J ! -'~'l .1 / 'j' / / /I I I ..' j ./ c:-=:~!? I ( - I ~) 1/ .; C)f'-EtJ :5P.ftC.:E iii 1'1 Iii Iii 1:1 Iii I;) 10=;~: II' Iii III \',1 "\.\r~' .'.......) ~ GO Attachment 1 C:,' \ I:, . Iii HI t::' "t I ___ '- ~ ,^ IL __~=---'.~d~-. 111~--;...~~ ~ ~ :,=- ~ -, )1 .....' d ,II ," "-J " ^, :1 ....." tu :rr-~=~> r~ l -"'~~..:,<>.... !.J \1\ ,'I 'I' /' ~\ :1 '~~ :', ."",_1' III IrT Ii!, fl 1'1 AI III ,--,.'5Jl Ii! (1'" 1:1 I: l!1 JI 1:1 :f _, 'I ~"~.' ...'""'<:''::<~ 'V..(';J::::'':i::.~~'''''~~ I, , " " " I p ~- I, " 'j <'l"""-"'='=If 8 11 N LOCATION MAP Attachment 2 15 RAMSE:Y COUNTY L CORRECTIONAL FACIUTY 15 480S - ~~ 480S G-5 [ >- '" ::J 16 <t m I~ 0 16 0 0 S: 1. HUNTINGTON CT. 2. OAKRIDGE LN. 7205 - 720S ~ 17 17 1. CURRIE CT. 2. VALLEY VIEW CT. 3. LAK"EWOOD CT. 9605 ... 9, 10, 13, - ~ 960S ) ~ ,.. z 18 3 18 1200S - ci 12005 ~ 0 3 ~ ~ 0 I~ 0 CARVER ~ @ III 19 Q 19 OVERLOO 0 CIR. Z ~ >-0 1440S - WI- 14405 UJC) -- '" 2Z ~ <1::- cr::I (f) 20 0 <1:: z ~ 5 20 i5 ~ ~ RAMSE CO. 1680S - 1680S WASHINGTON CO. ?a?2 LOCATION MAP 9 ~-n./()V TYJ 19 P 1r N ~ ~ t: \[\ 5 I .,/ "I r.J i ) I \. / I "'--- /-~ ' L._ Newport Attachment J.- ~ \'() ~ Carver Lake EXHIBIT 1 .JUNE 2003 :5 EWE r2. (.J /:5 7R ,c T /'YrtiP 10 SOUTH MAPLEWOOD SEWER STUDY AREA '~ "l"Attachment 4 . . ~ <! ~..: V\ ~ ~ 01;) Q ~ ~ A PI2 /L 2CJO 3 EXHIBIT 3 C.o(Y)p,RE/-fEtJ6fVE SEWER.. !JL-f1N uPbfJtE 11 Attachment 5 al:l 0 o r:J . ~ o. o D <) OD ~ -~- I ___ __ - --........ :5 () LJTf-! /VlA pc:: E. wooD 5E wEf2. :5ruQ Y - -zco3 12 EXH IS IT Z. -....: ......... ..... ~ ~ <il ~ ~ ~ Attachment 6 TABLE 4 NEIGHBORHOOD LAND USE PLAN LEGEND Residential Land Uses RE-40 RE-30 RE-20 R-l R-1S R-2 R-3L R-3M R-3H Residential Estate (40,000-square-foot lot areas) Residential Estate (30,000-square-foot lot areas) Residential Estate (20,000-square-foot lot areas) Single Dwelling (10,OOO-square-foot lot areas) Single Dwelling (7,500-square-foot lot areas) Single and Double Dwellings Multiple Dwellings (4.4 - 6.3 units/acre) Multiple Dwellings (4.9 - 7.0 units/acre) Multiple Dwellings (8.4 -12.0 units/acre) Commercial Land Uses LBC NC CO BC(M) BC Limited Business Commercial Center Neighborhood Commercial Center Commercial Office Center Business Commercial (Modified) Center Business and Commercial Center Industrial Land Uses M-1 Light Manufacturing M-2 Heavy Manufacturing Community Service Land Uses OS Open Space P Parks S School C Church W Public Water Facility CEM Cemetery FS Fire Station G Govemment Facility L Library CH City Hall c (7rY/ P;:2€ HEJI./ :51 V E- P tV1N 13 Attachment T TABLE 5 ESTIMATED PERSONS PER DWELLING UNIT AND PLANNED MAXIMUM DENSITY OF DWELLING UNITS R-3L R-3M R-3H Peoole/Gross Acre (aooroximate) 11 9 13.3 228 Type of Dwelling People/Unit' Planned Maximum Density (Units per gross acre) Single Dwelling> 2.9 4.1 4.6 Double Dwellings' 2.2 5.4 6.0 10.4 Townhomes 2.2 5.4 6.0 10.4 Manufactured Homes 2.0 6.0 6.7 11.4 Apartments (3-4 unitslbldg.) 2.4 5.0 5.5 9.5 Apartments (5-9 units/bldg.) 2.2 5.4 6.0 10.4 Apartments (10-19 unitslbldg.) 1.9 6.3 7.0 12.0 \)t Apartments (20-49 unitslbldg.) 1.6 7.4 8.3 14.3 Apartments (50+ unitslbldg.) 1.4 8.5 9.5 16.3 ---0 Apartments (l-bedroom senior) 1.1 (Based on bedroom mix.) Apartments (2-bedroom senior) 2.0 (Based on bedroom mix.) Apartments (3-bedroom senior) 2.5 (Based on bedroom mix.) Notes: (1) From the 1990 census. (2) The City shall determine the maximum allowed density by the minimum-lot areas in the zoning code. The City shall determine the maximum number of units from Table 5 if minimum-area lots for each unit are not platted. The City may allow reduced minimum-lot areas in planned unit developments (PUDs) where the overall PUD project does not exceed the maximum allowed density. (3) The City intends to review the density figures in Table 5 after each federal census. ,?L:' flEf../ S! vE C07'V1P~~ ?!. ffN 14 ~ 44-8 MAPLEWOOD CODE See. 44-8. Violations. Attachment 8 Any person violating a section of this chapter, including violations of conditions established concerning variances or conditional use permits, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and, upon conviction, shall be punished in accordance with section 1-15. Violations of this chapter can occur whether the city or state requires a permit for a regulated activity. Each day that any violation continues shall constitute a separate violation. (Code 1982, ~ 36-8) See. 44-9. Zoning districts. The city is hereby divided into the following zoning districts: F Farm residence district -' R-1 Residence district (single dwelling) R-1S Small-lot single-dwelling district ~ R-2 Residence district (double dwelling) -R-3 Residence district (multiple dwelling) R-E Residence estate district ~--- NC Neighborhood commercial district CO Commercial office district BC Business and commercial district LBC Limited business commercial district BC(M) Business commercial modified district SC Shopping center district M-1 Light manufacturing district M-2 Heavy manufacturing district (Code 1982, ~ 36-9) See. 44-10. Zoning map. ~ OJ v , 12-1 (.'2) eU1Z..Jtt- 12E.'SIDEAIIII1L (a) Generally. The boundaries of the districts designated in section 44-9 will be shown on a map, and the map is hereby made part of this chapter, which map shall be known as the zoning map of the City of Maple wood. The map shall include any zoning changes recommended by the planning commission or the city council. Before the map is finally approved and adopted by the city council, the council shall hold an open public hearing pursuant to at least ten days' published and posted notice. Publication shall consist of at least one notice in the official newspaper of the city, and posting shall be in three prominent places within the city. All interested persons shall be heard at the hearing or any adjournment thereof. After the hearing the city council shall adopt the map; and all notations, references and data shown thereon are hereby incorporated by reference into this chapter and shall be as much a part of this chapter as if all were fully described. The map shall be kept up to date as provided in subsection (c) of this section. "'20N (/\/6 coDE... CD44:20 15 Attachment 9 '" " ,I " ,I " " " " ,1........-- I .--- " " " " " " ,I " " --- ~/ " x )( l\ -::"=--:;. I" <~ " ;,: -'Ji ~--~---"'-:/j - --:;.:..----- --~?' ~...;_.-_._--- r1 x x _~07 16 )<Co:::. p,eOp,eI2Tlf.5 CJF / I\J,EIZE~I Li N LAND USE MAP Attachment 10 II 1'1 II ti 'I " " ,'1 II " " ~--- I F--~ II 11 " " " I, " I, " II .-"...-' ,I ..l I, PROPERTY LINE I ZONING MAP X - PRO p,g2-r;t::. ~ o,c I N-r~e:5/ 17 11 N