Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout06/02/20031. Call to Order MAPLEWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION Monday, June 2, 2003, 7:00 PM City Hall Council Chambers 1830 County Road B East 2. Roll Call 3. Approval of Agenda 4. Approval of Minutes a. May 19, 2003 5. Public Hearings a. 2004 - 2008 Maplewood Capital Improvements Plan b. Legacy Village (County Road D and Southlawn Drive) Comprehensive Plan Amendment Zoning Map Change Conditional Use Permit for Planned Unit Development Preliminary Plat New Business a. Conditional Use Permit Revision - Saint Paul Regional Water Services McCarron's Treatment Plant (1900 Rice Street) 7. Unfinished Business 8. Visitor Presentations 9. Commission Presentations a. May 27 Council Meeting: Ms. Diedch b. June 9 Council Meeting: Mr. Rossbach c. June 23 Council Meeting: Ms. Fischer 10. Staff Presentations 11. Adjournment DRAFT MINUTES OF THE MAPLEWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION 1830 COUNTY ROAD B EAST, MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA MONDAY, MAY 19, 2003 I. CALL TO ORDER Chairperson Fischer called the meeting to order at 8:00 p.m. I1. ROLL CALL Commissioner Commissioner Commissioner Commissioner Commissioner Commissioner Commissioner Commissioner William Rossbach Commissioner Dale Trippler Tushar Desai Present Mary Dierich Present Lorraine Fischer Present Matt Ledvina Absent Jackie Monahan-Junek Present Paul Mueller Present Gary Pearson Present Present Present Staff Present: Melinda Coleman, Assistant City Manager Chuck Ahl, Public Works Director Ken Roberts, Associate Planner Lisa Kroll, Recording Secretary ~11. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Commissioner Desai asked chairperson Fischer if there would be an opportunity to discuss the Manager's Report, written by Richard Fursman, City Manager? Chairperson Fischer asked the planning commission if they would approve adding that item after the approval of the minutes? The planning commission approved. Commissioner Desai moved to approve the agenda with the change. Commissioner Pearson seconded. Ayes- Desai, Dierich, Fischer, Monahan-Junek, Mueller, Pearson, Rossbach, Trippler The motion passed. IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Approval of the planning commission minutes for May 5, 2003. Commissioner Trippler had corrections to the minutes on pages 9, 12, 14, 15,16, 21, and 22. Chairperson Fischer had a correction on page 23 of the minutes. Planning Commission Minutes of 05-19-03 -2- On page 9, in the first paragraph, it should read: Commissioner Ledvina asked how the wetland mitigation 19fejeet and storm water pond project would be constructed and i~ will everything be concurrent with the road construction? On page 12, in the first paragraph, the spelling of the man that council member Juenemann was referring to should be spelled Gernes Gumees. On page 14, in the second paragraph, in the second sentence, it should read: He thinks the staff did a good job on this. In the fourth sentence it should read but the {hey residents. On page 15, in the sixth paragraph, it should read Commissioner Rossbach made a motion ......... ~ ...... ,, ....... ~ ................. ~ ,,., have the city council initiate a stu of their choosing of other ways to mitigate the traffic on the residential streets that surround the Maplewood Mall and commercial areas. On page 16, in the third paragraph, delete the Ayes vote. On page 21, in the third paragraph, change the word strc, tls to strata. In the fifth paragraph, in the fifth sentence, it should read: but if you have a water supply in thc ccntc, m,,inatcd that comes from a contaminated ground water supply, then you have problems. On page 22, in the bottom paragraph, after the words districts 10, 57, and 70 (delete the strike through to the words) in the city, including the study area. On page 23, it should read: Chairperson Fischer said sanitary sewer systems ~are on a per front foot basis and that could get costly, especially if the home were put in the middle and they did not have a a~ way of breaking off additional lots at that point. Commissioner Trippler moved to approve the planning commission minutes for May 5, 2003, with changes. Commissioner Dierich seconded. Ayes- Dierich, Fischer, Mueller, Rossbach, Trippler Abstention- Desai, Monahan-Junek, Pearson V. CITY MANAGER'S REPORT Mr. Richard Fursman, City Manager of Maplewood, addressed the planning commission about his manager's report dated May 6, 2003. City staff sent copies of the report to the planning commission. Mr. Fursman said he received telephone calls, E-Mail, and a letter responding to his report. He believes, along with staff, that good discussion is essential to the process of the planning commission and the city council. Mr. Fursman said he does not believe that the professional staff should be embarrassed and second-guessed by the planning commission because the proposed city council action is in conflict with the ideas of the planning commission. He said he would be attending some future planning commission meetings in order to stress the importance of keeping civil and at the task at hand. He shares his manager's report with the city staff, the planning commission, the CDRB, and the city council. Planning Commission Minutes of 05-19-03 -3- Mr. Fursman said he doesn't feel there is a wide spread problem with the planning commission but feels it was an important issue to address. The intent of his message wasn't meant for it to sound as if nothing good was coming out of the planning commission meetings. He meant that the planning commission and the city council are not on the same page that staff is. Mr. Fursman said that he thinks the planning commission is having difficulty in conveying disappointment and different ideas and it's being taken as an attack on staff's professional capabilities. There are competing issues on the same plan. The comments and recommendations brought forward by the planning commission and the recommendations given by the staff are often competing or different. When this happens, it gets extremely hard to return with a plan that everybody will be happy with. If there is frustration or the need to voice your opinion, it should be discussed with a high degree of respect and with the idea that we are all in this together. Mr. Fursman said he knows the comments in the manager's report touched a nerve with people and the feelings and the disgust were clear to him. Mr. Fursman said that this is a good opportunity to explain his comments and to hear the planning commission's questions and comments about the manager's report. Commissioner Desai said when engaging in discussions in various situations with staff it is not his intent to criticize staff for what is being brought to the planning commission. The intent is to ask the questions and to clarify what is brought forward and not to shoot the messenger. He knows over the last few months with the Hajicek property and the County Road D alignment project a lot of information was sent through the city council and brought back to the planning commission after the fact. Commissioner Desai said this created a lot of frustration amongst planning commission members because they felt like they were getting information second hand and were asked to vote on something when the decision had already been made by the city council. They felt what was the point of commenting when the decision had already been made. This raised a lot of discussion and voices were heard. Unfortunately, the staff gets to be the bearer of the bad news. Commissioner Desai said staff presents the information to the planning commission and then the planning commission asks for more answers to their questions. He doesn't feel there are ill feelings towards staff. Commissioner Dierich said her letter to Mr. Fursman was sent to him by coincidence. She wrote her letter after the last planning commission meeting, it wasn't written because of the manager's report. Her letter expressed her frustration, which was similar to the frustration commissioner Desai expressed. She said she has a real desire to be able to work upfront with the planning staff and be able to assist them in anyway in order to get the proper information on projects early on. This way when the project is first proposed the proper information can be collected for the planning commission ahead of time so the project doesn't get delayed. Commissioner Dierich said maybe the process gets slowed down anyway but at least staff knows ahead of time what information the planning commission wanted answered prior to hearing about the project at the meeting. She feels this would be helpful. When she saw the manager's report she felt if there was an issue with individuals she feels that those parties should be pulled together and get the issues settled before it is presented as a public forum and she was disappointed in that. She can understand the city manager's frustration. Commissioner Dierich said that she found it odd that the manager's report arrived the same day that she E-mailed her letter to the city manager. The planning commission members got their letters sent to them earlier then when she actually E- mailed staff. She sent the letter to everyone so they would be on the same page. Commissioner Dierich said it was an important issue to her and she wanted to see some cohesiveness in how everybody looks at things. Planning Commission Minutes of 05-19-03 -4- Commissioner Monahan-Junek said she wanted to convey to the public and to her peers that she respects Mr. Fursman's judgment and his assessment of the situation. His role as the city manager is to convey how he responds to the situations that go on between the commission, staff city council, and the citizens. Commissioner Monahan-Junek said she accepts his analogy and assessment of the situation and she did not take the report personally. She sees the manager's report as an assessment of the situation and not as finger pointing. She believes Melinda Coleman, the Assistant City Manager, and Richard Fursman, the City Manager, are here to share those assessments as a courtesy to the commission and the council and to read them in the context that they were written. Commissioner Mueller asked if it is in the rules and regulations that everything that gets planned in the City of Maplewood must go through the planning commission before it goes to the city council or can the city council make decisions without any input from the planning commission? Mr. Fursman said the city's relationship with the planning commission and the rules that govern the planning commission are that the commission is there to review plans and make recommendations to the city council. The city council has the privilege and responsibility to make final decisions on items. Most items do go through the planning commission and then onto the city council, which is the way it should work. The County Road D alignment project has been moving along quickly. Mr. Fursman said this is the project that the planning commission members have been referring to regarding the feeling that they had no voice in the decision making process. Commissioner Mueller said his question isn't getting answered directly. Mr. Fursman said basically the planning commission does not always have to make decisions on items prior to the item going to the city council for the final decision. Ms. Coleman said there are two times that the planning commission holds a public hearing on issues. These would be for the Capital Improvement Plan and any proposed Comprehensive Land Use Plan changes. Other than those two public hearings, the city council holds the public hearings. The planning commission is an advisory committee. Ms. Coleman said policy directives and decisions on things are done by the city council. Commissioner Mueller said when he became part of this planning commission his assumption was things do not happen until the planning commission gets their two cents in first and then it goes to the city council to make the final decision on the issues. The feeling has been that the city council should not make any decisions until the planning commission has given a recommendation. Some of the things such as the County Road D project seemed as though when the planning commission received the information the decision was already decided by the city council. Commissioner Mueller said even though there were options available, it was pretty obvious that was the way the city council had decided. He thinks if the planning commission understands that fact better the better off they are. The planning commission is a volunteer committee and a recommendation board and that fact helps him to be on this planning commission. Sometimes the city council wants decisions made yesterday and that the staff should get it done and that kind of communication is helpful. Planning Commission Minutes of 05-19-03 -5- Ms. Coleman said the planning commission saw the preferred alignment of the County Road D project before the city council made any decisions. If there is a perception that the planning commission is not getting enough information or information in a timely manner, then it should be brought to staff's attention. Ms. Coleman said currently the staff will state in the staff report what the responsibility is of the planning commission, and what the planning commission is making a recommendation on. In addition, staff can tie that to the city council goals in the reports for everybody's benefit. Commissioner Mueller said he thinks the planning commission should stay away from voicing phrases like "we hate this plan" or "this plan stinks". He said it's really not fair for the planning commission to say things like that. City council member Kathleen Juenemann has said the city council does not like everything they see or hear, but once it has been voted on you can either jump on the boat, or go swimming, so to speak. Commissioner Mueller said the goal should be to see what everyone involved can do to make it a better plan. Commissioner Pearson said this is the third time the planning commission has dealt with this issue over the last eight to nine months. When something like this occurs everybody on the planning commission feels accused. At some point if someone has been offending another person's sensibilities, maybe it is time for some one-on-one discussion to ask about the offensive statements and clarify what was meant. In his opinion civility is a two way street. There have been times when he felt the meetings were not entirely civil. Commissioner Pearson said he would like to know if someone on the planning commission has offended someone or have an issue with him personally he would like to know about it. Commissioner Dierich said she thinks she was probably one of the planning commission members Mr. Fursman was referring to in his manager's report. She said she disagrees with commissioner Monahan-Junek and Mueller. She thinks that as a planning commission member you have the right to disagree. At times the planning commission could disagree in a more civil manner than they do. The reason for having a planning commission is to put plans under a critical eye not the planners under a critical eye. Even if the planning commission does not agree with staff it is a compromise. Commissioner Dierich said she thinks the planning commission is doing a disservice to the city and to the members of the community if they don't raise the questions and don't occasionally disagree. There may be community members that disagree and are afraid to say anything. The planning commission may be the only voice that the community has and they represent the community and their questions. Commissioner Dierich said she enjoyed the earlier joint city council and planning commission meeting about Legacy Village. In laying everything out on the table, they came up with a great plan.. It was the process that allowed that great plan to go forward. She is fairly certain that all the planning commission members appreciated the work that staff did to get to this point. Commissioner Trippler said he thinks the manager's report was written with him in mind as well. The article upset him and he called Mr. Fursman to discuss his comments. He appreciates Mr. Fursman's attempt to resolve these issues and to help the city staff. He agrees with the comments that have been said. He thinks if there is a personal problem between people that those individuals should get together and try to resolve those issues rather than including the whole planning commission as a group. Commissioner Trippler said he is a person that likes to speak his mind and maybe he says the wrong things at the wrong times but that is how he operates and he apologizes if offended anyone. Planning Commission Minutes of 05-19-03 -6- Commissioner Trippler said he was frustrated with the County Road D alignment project and how the whole thing was handled. He has always thought of staff as the being the intermediary between the planning commission and the city council. When he expresses his opinions to the staff he thinks staff is going to be the messenger and take those thoughts and comments to the city council. Commissioner Trippler said if he feels there are issues that need to be discussed, maybe he should make a motion to have a joint meeting between the planning commission and the city council. That way the planning commission can talk directly to the city council and voice their frustration. He feels the city council should know what their expertise is on the planning commission. He only hopes that another situation like the County Road D alignment project doesn't happen again. Commissioner Trippler said it should be more of an interval part of the process instead of the planning commission being handed the solution and asked to approve something that has already been decided. Mr. Fursman said he takes these comments and criticisms to heart and that he takes criticism to heart whether he feels it is deserved or not. He said he is open to meeting publicly or privately to discuss issues. He also said that he is more paternal when it comes to the city staff. Staff does most of the research and reporting and if he feels that when staff is under fire he has a tendency to be more emotional about it then pragmatic. Mr. Fursman said he uses his manager's report as a message to the city council as a means of sharing information with them. He said members should use the staff as a resource and a team and understand that comments and remarks can touch a nerve. Mr. Fursman said he wants to thank the planning commission for their comments and he urges members to continue the debates in the future. VI. PUBLIC HEARING None. VII. NEW BUSINESS a. Street right-of-way and alley vacations (South of County Road D, east of Hazelwood) Mr. Roberts said Mr. George Supan, the owner of the property at 3050 Hazelwood Street, is asking the city council to approve two right-of-way vacations. These vacations are for the unused Alice Street right-of-way south of County Road D and for an unused alley that is between Hazelwood Street and the Alice Street right-of-way. Mr. Supan is requesting these vacations because the city and the neighbors have no use for the Alice Street right-of-way for a public street or for the alley. Maplewood and the property owners have no plans to develop or use the street right-of-way or the alley for a public street. Commissioner Rossbach asked staff if there are other streets that are sub-plotted on the Hajicek property? Mr. Roberts said after these vacations are approved there are no more alleys or streets that need to be vacated in this area. Chairperson Fischer asked the applicant to address the commission. Planning Commission Minutes of 05-19-03 -7- Mr. George Supan, residing at 3050 Hazelwood Street, Maplewood, addressed the commission. He said referring to commissioner Rossbach's question that vacating was done years ago when the area was originally plotted. In 1911 the east half of this area was vacated, including the plots and the street as well as half of Alice Street. Mr. Supan said it wasn't until recently that the landowners discovered that they did not have as much property as the property owners thought they had. Mr. Supan said recently the property owners found out the land was technically not theirs even though they purchased the property it years ago. Through checking the records, they found out in 1911 the request was put in for the vacation of the plots to the east side of Alice Street, and at that time only half of Alice Street was vacated. Mr. Supan said this request is from the five residents so it can be done all at once instead of having five different requests. Commissioner Rossbach moved to adopt the resolution on page seven of the staff report. This resolution vacates the unused Alice Street right-of-way south of County Road D. The city should vacate this right-of-way because: 1. It is in the public interest. 2. The city and the adjacent property owners have no plans to build a street in this location. 3. The adjacent properties have street access. Commissioner Rossbach moved to adopt the resolution on page eight of the staff report. This resolution vacates the unused alley that is between Hazelwood Street and the Alice Street right- of-way, south of County Road D. The city should vacate this alley because: 1. It is in the public interest. 2. The city and the adjacent property owners have no plans to build an alley in this location. 3. The adjacent properties have adequate street access. Commissioner Pearson seconded. The motion passed. Ayes-Desai, Dierich, Fischer, Monahan-Junek, Mueller, Pearson, Rossbach, Trippler This item goes to the city council on June 9, 2003. VII. PUBLIC HEARING VIII. None. UNFINISHED BUSINESS a. Hillcrest Village Mixed Use Standards - Subdivision Requirements Mr. Roberts said city staff is receiving comments and guidance from the planning commission and community design review board on the drafting of a new zoning district called the mixed-use zoning district. The city will consider implementing the new zoning district in the Hillcrest Village redevelopment area and other areas of the city, such as the Gladstone neighborhood, where there is a need for redevelopment to create a revitalized, urban village setting. Planning Commission Minutes of 05-19-03 -8- Mr. Roberts said this meeting's discussion will focus on subdivision requirements such as blocks, streets, alleys, on street parking, and sidewalks. These requirements are discussed in the city's subdivision and street design ordinances. Staff recommends that the planning commission offer comments and guidance on subdivision requirements proposed within the Hillcrest Village redevelopment area. Staff will use this feedback to draft a new mixed-use zoning district for the Hillcrest Village redevelopment area, as well as other redevelopment sites within the city. Commissioner Rossbach said looking at the Hillcrest Village design standards he thinks the city may need to develop a few scenarios for different areas in the city. The same design standards can't really be used for Legacy Village, Hillcrest Village, and the Gladstone Park area. The City of Maplewood is trying to conform with the City of St. Paul is doing for the Hillcrest Village. In all these scenarios, the city is trying to make a pedestrian friendly development. He wonders if the city is concerned about street location because it doesn't seem necessary to put streets every 600 feet. Commissioner Rossbach said it would be a good idea to have pedestrian boulevards close together so if you want to go shopping or be out walking around you can cut over to the next block such as on Hennepin Avenue in Minneapolis and not have to worry about vehicle traffic. His concern is how the development area will interact with the surrounding neighborhood. The city should set it up so the existing neighborhood would access this area and not just the new residential areas. Commissioner Rossbach said he wonders if the city needs to make many connections with streets or would the city be better served if it were trying to create a pedestrian friendly development verses places for automobiles. Chairperson Fischer asked staff if on page 3 in the paragraph about blocks does the last line that states staff recommends a maximum block length of 600 feet mean it is permissive or restrictive? Mr. Roberts said he believes it is restrictive so that there shall be no block longer than 600 feet. Commissioner Mueller asked how feasible staff thinks these Hillcrest Village standards will fit with other areas of the city? Can the standards be written generic enough or is the Hillcrest Village such a different area that the city would have to make alterations to the standards to make it work? Mr. Roberts said he thinks the ordinance will be written to be flexible enough for it to be used in other areas of the city. He said the city does not want to write an ordinance so that it can only be used for one area. Ms. Coleman said when the city started this process it was tailored to Hillcrest Village. Maplewood was trying to be compatible with the City of St. Paul but now the city is trying to be better than the City of St. Paul. Whether this will apply to Gladstone or not, the city will have to wait and see. In her estimation these standards relate more to the Hillcrest Village. One of the things that will be very enlightening will be the Maxfield Research study. The study indicates that generally there is no need for additional retail and the study is recommending more housing be built. Ms. Coleman said to a certain extent the city is trying to drive what this area is going to look like. The market always has a way of fighting back and it will determine what should be done in the area. These standards would not apply to the Legacy Village. The principles may fit such as having buildings up to the street and parking in the back but this ordinance is not meant to apply to Legacy Village. Ms. Coleman said when the planning commission hears the Maxfield Research study, this should be very helpful in understanding what the future holds. Planning Commission Minutes of 05-19-03 -9- Commissioner Dierich asked Mr. Ahl to address the photos on page 8 and 9 in the staff report, specifically she is thinking about alleys and trying to get a feel for having a 30-foot right-of-way. Mr. Ahl said typically the right of way as the city is developed is very expansive. There is a lot of room and 50% of the space is paved and 50% is green area. The city is only using 50% of the right of way. He said this is literally half the size of the proposed right of way in the area and more reflective of the old downtown areas where the buildings are very close along with sidewalks. Mr. Ahl said this would be a huge change compared to the way the area is now. There are now no alleys maintained as alleys in Maplewood. From a maintenance standpoint, the trees, the flower baskets, and the removal of the snow will be an entirely new concept for the city's maintenance department. With the large equipment they have clearing snow will be harder with the obstructions and the narrowness of the area. The city will have to look at how to properly care for those things, which will be something new for the city. Mr. Ahl said the city sweeps the streets twice a year and with these new development changes sweeping will have to be done once a week. His experience with working in the City of Burnsville is they chose to build streetscapes, which encouraged private development to come back into the area. Because the development companies saw that the city was interested in redeveloping that community they took an interest in it as well. Mr. Ahl said the landscape, trees, boulevard, paved blocks, and the colored concrete, are very important and at this point that would be the plan he would select. Commissioner Trippler said he would not recommend the on street parking of no more than 2 hours parking between the hours of 2 and 6. When his neighborhood eliminated that rule and made it no parking they thought that was a good option. There was a lot of concern expressed by his neighbors. He knows the reason the 2-hour parking was eliminated was because it was difficult for the police department to enforce the 2-hour parking rule and the other reason was the city did not want people parking on the street for safety issues. Commissioner Trippler said there also is a fairness issue, people feel why can certain parts of Maplewood have on street parking and others areas can't. There may be a problem for people who are not familiar with the areas of the city that allow parking on the street and other areas that don't allow parking and may get ticketed and will not be happy. Commissioner Trippler said it would be a poor policy to have this parking rule in this or any other area in the city. Commissioner Rossbach said the cities of Minneapolis and St. Paul have nothing but trouble with on street parking, especially in the winter months. It causes problems with snowplows trying to get snow removed and confusion regarding the parking rules and cars get towed. Why would the City of Maplewood want to deal with that headache? Commissioner Rossbach said he thought an alternative could be to have parking ramps or underground parking. Chairperson Fischer said she agrees with the two previous commissioner's comments. Commissioner Dierich nodded her head in agreement as well. Commissioner Rossbach had a question about the requirements on page 3 of the staff report. It states in the bottom paragraph about the street pavement widths that this shall be subject to the approval of the director of public works. He asked staff if this was correct or should it be something the city council decides? Commissioner Rossbach said it seems odd to him that the city would take part of the process and allow the public works director to make that decision and not have it left to the discretion of the city council. Planning Commission Minutes of 05-19-03 -10- Mr. Roberts said typically a recommendation that staff would have in any other subdivision or proposal would say something to the effect that the proposed streets or alleys would be subject to review by the city engineer or public works director and subject to approval by the city council along with the final plan, Commissioner Rossbach said it seemed a bit out of the ordinary not to have the city council make the final decision. Mr. Roberts said that is true but this would be a different situation. Chairperson Fischer asked what the city's experience has been with narrower streets and no parking signs posted on one side of the street? She also asked what the history of compliance or enforcement is in that situation? Mr. Ahl said the city has had a pretty good experience with allowing parking on one side of the street when there is a lack of parking. This situation occurs in the city around areas such as churches. Parking enforcement is done on a complaint basis from the neighbors. The problem lies where there is no parking on both sides of the street then the city tries to move vehicles off the roadway and into another area. Mr. Ahl said the most recent example of this type of parking problem is in the area of County Road C and TH 61 on the west side of the road around the transit hub. There are many no parking signs there and the problem of cars parking in a no parking zone remains and so they are being ticketed on a regular basis. Chairperson Fischer asked if there is a narrow street in a neighborhood and the neighbors choose to disregard the no parking signs and park on the street, how often does the city patrol the area to enforce that no parking rule? Mr. Ahl said the police department would like residents to believe that every street in the city is visited on a regular basis. In those types of situations the city lets the neighborhood govern itself. The city tries not to over sign the community, but if there is a problem the city could go out and post no parking signs based on complaints received. Mr. Ahl said if there are reasons to have no parking signs such as for safety reasons, the city would do that. Commissioner Rossbach said if the city is going to make changes to the Hillcrest area, the city should get neighborhood input and ask what they would like to see or what they would to see as useful. Mr. Roberts asked if the commission wanted to make recommendations on any of the items discussed or did they chose to pass their comments along to staff? Chairperson Fischer asked if planning commission members wanted to vote on the no parking rule or did they approve the on street parking from 2 a.m. to 6 a.m.? It was the consensus to have no parking on the streets. Commissioner Dierich said the city might have to post no parking signs for proper snow removal. Planning Commission Minutes of 05-19-03 IX. VISITOR PRESENTATIONS -11- None. COMMISSION PRESENTATIONS a. Commissioner Rossbach was the planning commission representative at the May 12, 2003, city council meeting. Mr. Roberts gave a report for commissioner Rossbach. Items discussed were the street right- of-way vacations for the Maplewood Middle School, which were approved ayes all. Frontline Church CUP, which was approved ayes all, and the final alignment of County Road D was approved. b. Commissioner Dierich will be the planning commission representative at the May 27, 2003, city council meeting. Items to be discussed will be the revised Dearborn Meadow townhome proposal and the update on the South Maplewood Sanitary Sewer Study. c. Commissioner Rossbach will be the planning commission representative at the June 9, 2003, city council meeting. Xl. STAFF PRESENTATIONS Ms. Coleman had three items to discuss: The city and staff are touring the Rydland Townhomes in Apple Valley and will be leaving the city hall at 12:45 p.m. for a 1:30 p.m. tour. If you are interested in coming, contact Melinda. The tour will be taking place because this is a potential builder of townhomes in the Legacy Village Project. Planning commissioners had complained that they were not getting the planning packets on time when they are sent via the mail system. For this reason, the packets will be hand delivered by staff to planning commissioner's homes. The city now has the technology to put the packets on the City of Maplewood Internet site. The maps may not be available on the Internet but the rest of the packet will be. This shall allow planning commissioners to telephone staff with any questions or comments in advance of the planning commission meeting. Once the packets are on the Internet, staff will send out the protocol of how to access the information. At a previous meeting a planning commissioner made a statement about the lack of planning staff does and asked when the city is going to start planning. Ms. Coleman handed out a memo regarding recent planning studies done in the city. If there are any other comments or questions, telephone Melinda directly, she would like to hear from you. Commissioner Rossbach said at some time in the future he would like to discuss the issues that were in commissioner Dierich's letter. XlI. Planning Commission Minutes of 05-19-03 -12- ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 9:48 p.m. MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: SUBJECT: DATE: City Manager Ken Roberts, Associate Planner Capital Improvement Plan May 20, 2003 INTRODUCTION I have enclosed the proposed 2004-2008 Capital Improvement Plan. The city updates this report each year. The Capital Improvement Plan is part of the Maplewood Comprehensive Plan. State law requires the planning commission to review all changes to the comprehensive plan. The purpose of this review is to decide if the proposed capital improvements are consistent with the comprehensive plan. RECOMMENDATION Approve the 2004-2008 Capital Improvement Plan. kr/p:miscell/cipmemo.mem Enclosure (PC only): Capital Improvement Program MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: SUBJECT: APPLICANT: LOCATION: DATE: City Manager Tom Ekstrand, Assistant Community Development Director Legacy Village Hartford Group County Road D and Southlawn Drive May 28, 2003 INTRODUCTION Requests Staff has scheduled June 2, 2003 for the planning commission's review of the vadous requests by the Hartford Group for their proposed Legacy Village development. One of these review items is consideration of a land use plan change from BC (business commercial) to R-3H (high density residential). We scheduled a public hearing for this plan amendment. The applicant is also requesting approval of a conditional use permit for a planned unit development, a preliminary plat and a rezoning of the multi-family portions of the project from BC to R-3H. The attached memo is an overview of the proposed Legacy Village planned unit development. Phil Carlson, of Dahlgren, Shardlow and Uban, Inc., prepared this memo for the preliminary review and discussion with the city council, planning commission, staff and the applicant on May 19. Plan Revisions Pending Based on our review/meeting schedule, staff mailed public headng notices to 375 property owners notifying them of the public hearing for the land use plan changes. Since then, the applicant chose to make revisions to the site plan based on the comments and direction they received on May 19. They then requested postponement of the planning commission's review until June 16, 2003. Even though the applicant is revising their plans, staff felt that it was prudent to keep this item scheduled on the June 2 planning commission agenda to get comments from interested residents and property owners. Staff will still bring the full submittal back to the planning commission for their review and action. On June 2, however, the planning commission can still open the public hearing and receive testimony from the area property owners to guide them in their review of the revised plans. EXPLANATION OF ATTACHMENTS Many of the attachments are self-explanatory. The site layout has changed from the odginal submittal due to refinements made through the staff review process. As I mentioned earlier, the applicant is presently revising the site plan again. I have included the odginal narrative since it includes a lot of useful information. Even though it relates to the odginal plan, the information is still generally applicable. RECOMMENDATION Hold the public headng for the proposed Legacy Village land use plan changes and consider the testimony given when reviewing the revised Legacy Village plans. p:sec3\LegacyVillage. 5'03-2 Attachments: 1. Memorandum from Phil Carlson of DSU 2. Location Map 3. Existing Land Use Map 4. Proposed Right-of-Way Vacation Map 5. Original Legacy Village Site Development Plan 6. Current Legacy Village Site Development Plan 7. Seniors Housing Site Plan 8. Applicant's Narrative 9. Minutes from the May 19, 2003 City Council/Planning Commission Work Session Attachment 1 MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: SUBJECT: LOCATION: DATE: City Council and Planning Commission Phil Carlson, AICP, Dahlgren, Shardlow, and Uban, Inc., Planning Consultant Legacy Village at Maplewood - Hartford Group, Inc. (Mixed Use PUD) Hijacek property, south of County Road D between Hazelwood and Southlawn May 13, 2003 INTRODUCTION Project DescHption The Hartford Group is proposing a mixed use PUD on the Hijacek property, south of County Road D, west of the Maplewood Mall. The project as envisioned at this point consists of retail and restaurant uses along Southlawn Drive nearest Maplewood Mall, a Corporate/Commercial (office) site, several types of multi-family residential, and park/open space uses on approximately 79 acres, net of street right-of-way. Kennard Street will be extended nOrth to County Road D in the middle of the property and a new east-west street (Legacy Parkway) will be extended from Southlawn Drive to Kennard Street south of the power lines that run through the middle of the property east-to-west. At present the five single family homes on Hazelwood Drive at the west edge of the project are not part of this PUD. The project consists of two major land use categories, with several components under each. It would be helpful to have discussion and comments on each of the components at the workshop: · Business-Commercial: 1. Furniture Store - retail site in the NE comer of the site at Southlawn and County Road D, 4.4 acres 2. Commercial Site - three separate restaurant and retail buildings on Southlawn Drive, 4.8 acres 3. Corporate/Commercial Site - a single corporate office or mixed use building in the middle of the site, 6.5 acres · High Density Residential: 4. Rental Townhomes - 198 units on the north half of the site between County Road D and the power lines, 20.3 acres 5. For-Sale Townhomes - 198 units in the SW quadrant of the site fronting on Kennard, 19.8 acres 6. Multi-Family Apartment site- 100 units in the NE comer fronting County Road D next to the Furniture Store, 4.2 acres 7. Senior Assisted Living - 120 units in the south portion of the site on the pond, 2.9 acres 8. Park and Ponding areas - 16 acres total to be credited to the residential areas for density purposes Overall, the gross residential density is 616 units on 63 acres, or about 9.8 units/acre. The Comp Plan allows up to 12 units/acre for R-3H (high density) residential land use. While individual parcels exceed this density, part of the rationale of the PUD is to look at the site as a whole and consider it as a unit, not individual parcels or buildings. The project meets the spidt of the Comp Plan and Zoning Ordinance in this respect. Requests To develop this project, Hartford is requesting the following major approvals: Comprehensive plan amendment. Currently the entire site is guided BC - Business Commercial. We suggest the residential portions of the project be guided R-3H and the commercial and office portions remain BC. 2. Rezoning from Farm Residential to BC and R-3, corresponding to the land uses above. Conditional use permit (CUP) for a planned unit development (PUD). The PUD will give the city and developer a chance to be more flexible with site design and development details. 4. Preliminary plat to create the vadous parcels in the development. BACKGROUND The city staff and consultants have been working with Hartford for some months to discuss and refine the project. This joint City Council-Planning Commission workshop is the first opportunity to get concise input on the project following completion of the AUAR eadier this year. Although the project was reviewed through the AUAR process, the current project is arranged somewhat differently than the concept analyzed in the AUAR. The changes do not appear to alter the basic land uses or the conclusions of the AUAR, and any environmental impacts are expected to be less than the maximum predicted in the AUAR and addressed in the mitigation plan. DISCUSSION Overall, a high intensity PUD in this location with significant and vaded residential uses is an ideal use of this property. If there is to be high density development in Maplewood, this site - bounded by the regional shopping center, an artedal roadway (CR D), the hospital campus, and other dense housing - is where it should happen. New residents can take advantage of the proximity to shopping, services, and employment opportunities, while at the same time enjoying the natural amenities of the property and some new ones to be created within the PUD. Theirs are numerous details to be discussed and refined, but it would be helpful to set the parameters within which the City might approve the Legacy Village project. Among these are: Overall street network. County Road D is to be improved at the north side of the project and extended to Highway 61 and beyond. Kennard Street is to be extended north into the property to connect Beam Avenue and County Road D. A "parkway" design with internal median is suggested for Kennard. Legacy Parkway (east-west south of the power lines) is needed to provide access to and from the east without relying solely on County Road D or Beam. A roundabout is proposed at its intersection with Kennard to create an interesting focal point for the PUD. All other internal streets would be private. = Location of various land uses. The retail uses are concentrated on the east edge nearest the Mall and existing commercial uses. The corporate office site anchors one corner of the internal focal point and backs up its parking area to the power line easement, while still overlooking the pond to the south. The high density multi-family site is a transition between the furniture store and the rental townhomes. The senior assisted living site in on its own site fronting the pond and also anchors one comer of the roundabout. Rental townhomes are north of the power lines closer to County Road D and existing = higher density residential uses, while the for-sale townhomes are south of the power lines between parks and ponds and the hospital campus. The for-sale townhome site has not been designed in detail, but we have asked that it also anchor the roundabout with urban- style townhouses, transitioning to a looser plan further into the site. There is park land under the power lines and around the large pond in the SE corner, and several smaller pond~ ~hrouclhou~ the ~i~e. Residential density. As noted above, while the two densest parcels exceed the City's maximum density of 12 units/acre, overall the PUD comes in at less than 10 units/acre, well under the maximum. We believe it is appropriate to consider overall density, rather than individual parcels, in a PUD. Buildings close to the street. Along Kennard Street, and especially at its intersection with Legacy Parkway, we have suggested an urban-style street character, with buildings close to the street and a minimum of parking lots fronting the street. This will lend a unique character to the project and help reinforce the pedestrian-friendly feeling of the area. Park and trail connections. A vital feature of the project will be the pedestrian connections via sidewalks and trails, through the park areas and along the public streets. As the details are worked out we are encouraging every building and every parcel to be connected with the parks, trails, and larger open space areas within the development, as well as to sidewalks and trails to adjacent uses. We believe it is important to be able to walk among the .various major uses in and around the Legacy Village project, especially: the hospital and Maplewood Mall area. Coordination with AUAR. There are a number of issues to be coordinated with the AUAR, including tree preservation, storm ponding, and the extension of County Road D. We will review the revised project in light of the AUAR. Attachment 2 VADNAIS HEIGHTS ,"J' COUNTY COUN'i'Y RD. D HIGHRIDGF' CT. ¢ 1. SUMMIT CT. 2. COUNTRYVIEW CIR. 5. DULUTH CT. 4-. LYDIA AVE.. BEAM KOHl.MAN COUNTY ROAD PROPOSED LEGACY VILLAG SITE ST. JOHN'S BLVD. RAD^'I-Z RAJ~SEY COUNTY ~ COURT '.' KOHLMAN CERvNs AVE. SH ~t~l~b..N AVE.. AVE.. I..~ke AVE.. COPE AVE.. WOODI.:Y LOCATION MAP Attachmen% 3 Vac~nai~ Heights rain[or arterial iht erc'ha~ge I'1 0 M-1 arterial 694 _ ~ BC · CO¸ major.collector08 M-q -i :.: M- 1 ' LBC rti~rial L ,. l'--FHighway 36 ,/'sc R-2 Os interchange -major~ nterbhahge (M) ' (M)I ' LAND USE EXISTING 7 MAP Attachment 4 o , , i Attachm~ni~ 5 - © ~ © .< ~ 0 LU Attachment 6 3AI~IC] NM~q.inos~-'- =IllN=IAV QOOM"I=IZ~H 10 Z Attachment 7 f×××××××××/×××~ SENIORS HOUSING SITE PLAN 11 A%tachment 8 LEGACY ~[LLAGE OF MAPLEWOOD A MIXED~USE INTERGENERATIONAL COMMIJNITY CITY OF NI_4~PI_ EWOOD, MINNESOTA March 3, 2003 Narrative in Support of. Comprehensive Plan Amendment Preliminary and Final Plat Approval · Planned Unit Development Approval and Communi~ D.esiga Review Board Approval for an Intergenerational and Mixed-Use NeighborhoOd Project 12 Legacy Village of Maplewood Maplew°od, Mi.nnesota DEVELOPER Hartford Group, Inc. Elizabeth Kautz Executive Vice President 12100 Singletree Lane Suite 112 Eden Prah-ie, MN 55344 952-7'46-1200 - FaX: 952-746-1201 www.hartfordgrp.com ARCHITECTS/ENGINEER ttarfford Group, In~-~ · .Hal Pierce, A.IA Patrick Sarver, ASLA Jon Theis, PE 12100. Singletree Lane Suite 11.2 Eden ?ra/rie, MN 55344 952-746-1200 Fax: 952-746-1201 www.hartfordgrp.com ' ' ATTORNEY William-C~ Griffith, Jr. Neal J. Blanchert . Larkin, Ho£/Snan, Daly & Lindgren, Ltd. 7900 Xerxes Avenue South, Suite 1.500 Bloomington, Minnesota 55431 (952) 896-3290 Fax: (952) 896-3333 w.~oriffith~lhdl.cOm nblmacherr~lhdl.com 13 THE PROPERTY Prior Review .The D~afl' AUAR for the area including the project'was circulated for. review on January 6, 2003. The 30-day comment period closed FebruarY 5, '" 200.0. 'The comments received are'incorporated in the Final AU_AR and Mitigation.Plan (the.'~AUAR"). The Project concept has been introduced and reviewed extensively by City staff and City officials, most recently in connection with the Draft AUAR at the December 16, 2002 City Council meeting.-The AUAR analyzed. dewelopment of two areas, Sub-Area 1 (82.2 acres with one farmstead residence) and Sub,Area 2 (4.6.acres in five residential homesites. The Project is 'Planned for Sub-Area 1, and for comPatibility w/th redevelopment of Sub-Area 2. 'pro~ertw l~ocafion and'Boundaries' .... The ProPerty is 82.2 acres located west oi5 the Maplewood Mall, south of Interstate 694 and east of High~vay 61. It is bounded on the eaSt by SouthlaTM Drive, on the north by County Road D on the west. by Hazelwood Street, and on the" south by the S't. John's hospital campus and development adj. oining rermard Street and north O.fBeam Avenue. Property Use and Adjacent Uses '""" ' ' · The ProPerty i.s Currently primarily open·land, including one farmstead residence and' some wetland and forested· areas. On the we·st edge; there is AUAR Sub-Area 2, a row' of fiveexisfing. residences totaling 4.6 acres. Mapl'ewood Mai1 is to'the east; town.homes and retail development" is to the north, and senior housing, retail, ' and medical facilities to the's0uth and southWest. The · Developer is the equitable title owner of the Property by way of an ·eXecuted purchase agreement. .... TH'E LEGACY vILLAGE DEVELOPMENT PLAN' ' "'. ''~ Proposed Development·Plan '"" · Transportation improvements divide the Property. into three' main sections: north, southeast; and southwest. An east-west trail bounds the north one-th/rd (24.8 acres) of the Property. This north section willbe de-~eloped with residential townhomes and condOminiUms. Kennard Street, extended north through the Property, divides the southern section approximately in' half. All three sections feature m/Xed uses. ' The north portion.is primarily residential, 'wi.th a 44,'125 square-foot retail building '(shown on the Site Plan as "Furniture Store") on the east border adjacent to Maplewood Mall. A Wetland buffer is pi:armed near .the northwest comer. · ' The southeast portion is oriented around a greenspace, wetland buffer, and pond. A ' - corporate/commercial building curves around the greenspace north side. Three retail/restaurant locations are east of the ~eenspace, nearest MapleWood Mall and adjacent to Southlaw~.Drive. Tl~e center of this .portion is plarmed for multi-family development, with two 50-remit buildings with pond and wetland views. The'north edge of this portion serves as parking for the corporat~/commerciai s~te. ~ " The southwest portion is piarmed for residential development and a park area for amen/~ies. The southwest side is a 1'24-un/t assisted-tiring senior residence.. A pond is plarmed in the nOrthWest ~comer. The north edge is a playgrOuSad/park Complex, featuring atl:fletic fields, play structures, .' picnic areas, and a small parking area. The rest of this southwest port/on is Planned as residential rowhouse development. The residential area is 1.5.6 acres~ with 200'rowhomes planned. The rowhouse area includes a clubhouse/community center adjacent to a pool area, centrally located at Kennard Street and.served by an appropriately-scaled parking area .. 'The threerstory clubhouse/Community center mixes the communal use supporting the rowhome nel~bOrhood with commercial office use. The building footprint is 7,220 .square feet; total ilo'°r · area ~s.21,6.~~ square feet. The building's upper two stories are Small-scale office spaces for commercial tenantS, in size ranges from 140 square feet to 37. Sixty (60) offices are Planned, supported by 2' conference rooms, a copy center, clubroom; exerCise room, and media room. .. In addition to providing a border between uses, the central trail and trail network are an important feature of the ProjeCt..The inter/or trail netvcork allows easy walking access throughout Legacy Village, and is'a significant benefit to residents and families~ The central trail connects to ' Southlawn Drive in the east for easy access to Mapl~wood Mall and the 'surrounding retail and ' commercial development. .. . Pr0PertV and Buildin~ Description The southwest portion is proposed to develop first, with the senior assisted-Living bUilding .and muitifamily.r0whouses. The senior building, Called The. Regent at MaPleWood, 'is 'an inverted E- shape, .oriented north/south-w/th the wings extending to the.west. It is served by a surface parldng area to. its east, with 62 stalls. There will also be 94 under~oUnd garage parking stalls, with an entrance and exit at the north' end o£the building. A Pond is north of the Regent,' · bletween the bUilding and the main east-west trail bisecting the.Propertyl '- · The multi-family roWhouses are' oriented in pa/red rows, both east-west and north-south. 'The pairing allows front yards to face each other, withgarages facing each other sim_ilar to historic alleys. Each rowhome building has from. seven to nine units. Four building pa/rs are oriented. north-sOuth along-the north edge. Four building Pa/rs are oriented east-west in the middle, w/th four more building pairs oriented n0rth-south'along the south border, of.the Project. One building pa/r is oriented north-south adjacent to the clubhouse area in the middle. The access drives · generally divide the rowhome area into n°rtA, clubhouse, and south sections.. The rowhomes are designed ha a traditional two-story style, with rockfaced arckitectural block foundation treatments and ghingled gabled roofs. Details. are traditional mullioried W/ndows, with arched and .hay windows and shutters. Features such as.mn-ets, varied fi-ont entrance styles,' 15 and roof peak Windows provide individuality for each home. Each home has an attached two-car garage, w/th an additional 145 surface parking spaces, for'the 200 units. Access and'Traffic Ch~racter/stics Vehicular access to and from Legacy Village of Maplewood is provided at several p'oints. Kennard Street runs through' the middle of the ProPerty. Access points t'o both sides brancl{ off from Kermard Drive..Kennard connects Beam Avenue and. Count7 Road D, providing .. convenient access either the north or south. SouthJawn Drive is planned with four access Points, one for each building adjacent to it: the Furrfiture Store and the three re~ail/restaurant sites. ' The Project assists in implementing a key recommendation o£the 20'01 Maplew0od Mall Area. Comprehensive Traffic Study (the "2001 Traffic Smd)/'). County Road D currently int~sects Trunk Highway 61 approximately 330 feet south of the Interstate 694 South Ramp, Between Trunk Highway 61 and W-kite Bear Avenue, County Road D is d/sjointed at the railroad crossing west of Hazelw0od AvenUe. As a result, traffic near the Maple~vood Mall cannot access Trunk Hideaway 61 via County Road D. The 2001 Traffic Study rec6mmended rec0rmectmg o£ County Road D between White Bear Avenue and Trunk Highway 61 to better distr/bute trips in the Maplewo0d Mall area. Prelim/nary design concepts reconnect County Road D to Trunk Highway 61 approximately 1,915 feet south of the 1-694 South Ramp and reestablish County Road D as a through street between Trunk Highway61 and White Bear Avenue, as recommended in the 200t Traffic Study. Although the exact'location of reconnected Coufity Road D in the vicinity of the Property has not. yet been determined, the redisnibution o£nips assUmed in the' AUAR would not.likely change substantially with the various County Road D alignment concepts being considered. All . . alignment alternatives being considered would intersect Trunk Highway 61 at the same location; resulting ,in similar operations as those analyzed in the AUA_P,.. The proposed County Road D realignment concepts.being considered are compatible with the proposed .Legacy Village development land uses. The AUAR found that Legacy Village's m/xed-use concept, internal trails, compactdesign, and location at a ~:etail center were likely tosignificantly reduce .trips. The AUAR traffic analysis also found that most intersections would operate at a Level Of Service (LOS) D or E in the future, assuming typical nip generation growth. The. LOS D and E designauons are considered minimally acceptable or below acceptable. This suggests that the Property can only be developed with a strong mixed-use, nip-reducing design emphasis. The AUAR generally found that even without the County Road D realigrnnent, the Project woUld ' degrade' only one intersection from acceptable to .below-acceptable levels. With the County Road' D realignment and no other improvements,, one. below-acceptable intersect/on (Trunk Highway 61 and 'Beam Avenue) would improve to. acceptable service. Acceptable service at that' intersection would increase traffic flow to the Trunk l-I/ghv~ay 61 ramps to Interstate 694, causing" those ramps t0 perform at below-acceptable levels. Adding!eft_turn lanes att. he Trunk Hi,way 61 ramps to Interstate 694 Would improve that intersection to LOS C[ The AUAR notes ~hese issues, and recommends appropriate mitigation measures. These nntigafion measures are proposed to be incorporated through the City's Site Plan Review process, and in the final plan for improvements to County Road ID. Trip Generation SKF Consulting studied nip generation rates, includi~g analysis and inCOrporation Of the'City's 2001 Traffic Study, in connection with theAUAR. The nip generation analysis concluded that redevelopment of the entire AUAR site(including both Sub-Areas ] and 2) would-generate 1 !,505 daily ~ps, including t,178 p.m. peak hour trips. This trip generation is approximately equivalenf to the trip generation assumed in theCity's 2001 Traffic Study. The proposed Project- is reduced from that size by eliminating the AUAR Sub-Area 2. Parkin~ parking has b~en designed beyond' the concept level for' the Regent sen/or building and the multi- family rowhomes. The 127-unit Regent provides 156 total stalls, 62 surface and 94 under~ound garage stalls, for a ratio of 1.23 stalls per amt. Since the Regent is proposed as senior assisted living, both car use and car ownership rates are significantly lower for building res/dents than for mu/fi-family uses. This ratio has been adequate for similar buildings in the past. City regulation (§ 36-22) generally provides for 2 stalls per unit for multi,family bufldingm There is no .separate requirement for assisted-living buildings or similar uses-such as nursing homes. It is believed that the ratio represents adeqnate parking-for the purposes of PUD approval. The' 200-unit rowhome area is designed, with attached two-car garages for each. home and 144 additional surface stalls, for a parking 'ratio of 2.7 stalls per unit. This exceeds the 2 stalls per unit ~egulation for single-fam/ly homes in City Code § 36z22. Stormwater ' The City is currently studying a regional stormwater treatment plan for a larger area including the Project Property. Regional treatment needs and calculations will be performed in analyZing and formulating that plan. The Developer is working with the' plan drafters to ensure that the Project is constructed with the required improvements to comply with and ficrther the plan. Since the regiOnal stormwater treatmentPlan is in the drafting, stage; the Project stormwater has not been calculated ar this time. As the re~onal stormwater plan is drafted over the next few months, the Developer will complete stormwater calculations. COMPLIANCE WITH LAND USE CONTROLS 'Comorehensi~'e P1an Legacy Village at Maplewood is a mixed-use development planned to include 31 $ for-sale townhomes/condominiums, 2'00.rowhome un:its, 100 attached multi-family units, and 127 sen/or residence units in its residential areas, 62,545 square feet of retail and restaurant space in four 17 buildings, and one 270,000 square-foot eommercia] building. The proposed first buildings, in the southwest 19.8 acre portion,, preserve .over 52 percent of that acreage in. open space. Thc Legacy Village conforms generally with the goals of Maplewood's Comprehensive Plan. Legacy Village is designed to further the Comprehensive Plan goal to promote econom/c development by emblighing a new ohiee/eommereial area complementing the ex~sting Maplewo0d Mall. Legacy Vitlage'min/mizes the area planned for su'eets 'by serving the entire · .82-acre site'by adding just one interior street, Kennard Street, and allowing access fi.om . perimeter roads and internal connection. A single unified design minimizes site conflicts and allows development to integrate with natural features and cormmumry facilities, inclnding a- Unified' trail network. Legacy Village provides a var/cry of housing types, including aparunents, town-homes, rowhomes, and 'senior assisted-living homes. Land Use Goals, Plan p. 18-19. The. ComprehensiVe Ptan designates the Legacy Village sire for Business Commercial development...The Business Commercial designation is the broadest and most flexible -commercial (non-industrial) designation.' Maplewood's Comprehensive Plan recognizes that · Commercial development today calls for greater flexibility. The City has enacted a policy to "Use planned Unit Developments whenever practical" in both Commercial and Residential areas. The Plan's Transportation element identi'fies traffic deficiencies and, with the 2001 Traffic Study and' the Project AUAR, identifies County Road D realignment as a transportation improvement priority, Several alternatives are under consideration for the final' routing of County Road D; the Legacy .Village.pi'an conforms, w/th the recommended alternative. 'The COmprehensive Plan 'TransPortation element also.designates a.bikeway/trail across the. Legacy site. Plan p. 134. Legacy Village is proposed to provide this trail. . The Comprehensive Plan reflects Maplewood's policy for undeveloped land generally to remain in holding areas, where the Zoning is not yet consistent with the comprehensive Land Use Plan: · . Holdm, Areas... It.has not been the policy of the City to change the zoning Of-a property ,until a specific development request is 'approved by the City Council., . Maplewood will update the zoning and/or the. land use plan designations .when a development is proposed arid'~pproved bythe City Council" Plan p. 26~- - Legacy Village is in such a City. designated "Holding Area."' Plan p: 27. It is designated w/thin a Farm Residential Zoning D/strict, which generally provides for low-density single-family residential' development (10,000 square-foot 1.ots). This zoning does not 'conform with the Comprehensive Plan Commercial Business designation, and the Property is specifically listed' as an area on which zoning conflicts With.the Comprehensive Plan. Like other sites 'designated as "Holding Area". the Legacy site'req~es approval of a PUD or rezoning to conform with the 'Comprehensive Plan. The City's Plan 'calls for consideration o£ that PUD or rezoning to occur concurrent with consideration of the Legacy project. The Comprehensive Plan's Land Use Action element notes: The City shonid .... AllOw rezonings Consistent with the Land Use Plan. Plan p. 34. Review of the Legacy is therefore consistent with the Compr4hensive P1an, and approval is consistent folIowing the PUD .approval- or rezonmg. A PUD approval or ~ez0ning is supported by. the Comprehensive Plan. The Legacy site is Within .the Hazelwood planning neighborhood. In HazelWood, the 270 remaining undeveloped acres are 'planned to be developed with a mix of multi-family residential (R3), single-family residential (RI) manufacturing and commercial/office uses. Commercial/office is planned to predominate; ii is planned for 194 of the 270 acres (72 percent). Plan p. 36. The Commercial/office &velopment in the Project is proposed to occupy 18.4 acres of the Property (28.2 acres iftSe 9.8- acre greenspaee area is included to forms a commercial/office campus.. The Legacy is proposed to occur following approval' of a Planned unit Development (PUD). The PUD allows approval of dePartures from the strict appl. ication 0fregulations~ including the restriction of one principal building per lot, for projects which 'are superior to development allowed without departure .from restrictions. City Code § 36'-438. Approval of a PUD.appears on the zoning map and alters the site zoning. Therefore, following approval of a PUD, Legacy Village will. conform with the zoning and the Comprehensive Plan. 'The Pro_ject's mix of uSes can'occur following an amendment to the ComprehenSive Plan to . allow mixed use, from the 'current Business' Commercial designation. This application requests -that amendment. The Project includes uses categorized, as R-3H (Multiple Dwelling 8.4- 12.0 units/acre); CO (Commercial OffiCe); and BC (Business Commercial). The R-3H designation is requested to be changed so that the zoning designation conforms with it. Currently two multi- family .zoning designations allow densiti es above the 12.0 units per acre in the R-3H Comprehensive Plan designation: The R-3A Zoning District allows up to 17.0 units per acre; the R-3B Zoning District allows more than 17.0 units per .acre. 'The multifamily rowhouses are 13 units per acre; other residential uses are higher density, under the worst-case calculations if no open sPace or. amenity, space is. included as lot area. Expanding the multi-family density range in the Comprehensive Plan will allow the zoning to conform. As Staied in the Final AUAR, the Developer and AUAR consultants met with the City and - Metropolitan staff to calculate, sanitary sewer planning. The parties determined that the Project I' is within existing planned capacity, and wou]d not require an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan sanitary sewer sec~:ion. Zonin~ · The ProPerty is cun:entIy Within the Farm Residential Zoning District, a designation which does not conform to the Comprehensive Plan. The PUD approval would appear on the zoning map .and allov¢ modification of the Farm Residential re~oulations to allow the Property to confcm-n with - the Comprehensive Plan. With the PUD approval~ the zoning would conform as required. ]9 The Ci~'s-puD regulations include specific direction to allow mixed use and multi-fmmfly USe:.' A-,PUD.may include townhouses, apartment Projects involving more than one building, multi-use structures, such as an apartment building with retail shops at ground floor level, and similar Projects.". City Code § 36-438. The pUD provides broad latitude to deviate from underlying' regulations "to allow flexibility by substantial deviations 'from [zoning regulations] including -. uses, setbacks, he{git and other regulatlons." .. '.' - A PUD approw[1 would in this. case generally conform to the .reqUirements 'of the closest identifiablezoning districtS. For residential portions of the Project proposed for Design Review . Board approval with'this application, the closest zoning designation is the RS District which provides three different types of densities. The RSA district allows 3 to 17 urfits,, the R_3B District allows is more than I7 un/ts, and the R3C district allows townhomes. Multiple dwellings are a permitted use. ·Section 36-108. The RS Zoning Districts Iimit density through m/n/mum lot sizes, setbacks, m/n/mum unit. sizes, green area requirements, maximum building footprint i/m/t, and separation requirements..The initial rowhOme .and senior housing sites exceed the '35 % open space requirement, providing 53 percent and 52 percent, respectively, and exceed the 15,625 m/n/mm lot size required. The' entire PUD is planned to comply with the requirements for the Zoning Districts ·most similar to the planned usesj within, the modification allowed by the PUD. · The Project incorporates environmental Protection required by the City Code and-other ' applicable regulations. Legacy Village includes natural Wetland buffers 'and' mitigation as required by City and Watershed District regulations.' The Developer will work w/th an'urban'" forester to identify trees to be saved in place or relocated on the Property with atree spade. As noted in the AUAR, Project, construction and design will include measures to minimize impacts. to Blandings' turtles and their habitat.· ' · .. PUD Requirements · · The'Project satisfies the fife City C?de?equirementg. for PUD' approval applicable to the.86-acre PropertY. " Certain regulations contained in this· ChaPter should not aPPly tO the proposed . · deVelopment, because of its unique nature. The Project's mix of uses and integration of office, retail, and mUlti-generational residential design create a unique deyelopment for Maplewood, and represent the largest acreage site for any of Hartford's mixed-use nei~borh'ood projects. Serving the multiple. and inter-related goals of a complex mixed-use ~edevelopment would not be possible without deviations from some of Maplewood's land use regulations. The P. UD would be consistent with the-Purposes of this chapter. · The PUD is generally consistent with the Zon/ng Ordinance. The most Si~on/ficant deviation is the mix of uses and the required integrated design. The idenri~ed mitigation in the Project area AUAR ensures that the goals 'of the zoning code are preserved. 5. Yhe PUD wou[d prOduce a development of equal or superior quality to that which would result.from ~trict adherence to the provisions of this chapter. ' Each use is designed to. be as consistent 'as much as possible with' the regulations for that use, but some flexibility in traditional zoning, wi-rich historically segregated-commercial · from residential uses, is necessary for any mixed,use project. Maplewood.Mai1 pro¼des a strong retail base; it is believed that mixed use development will provide more space for · retail uses seeking proximity to MaplewoodMail, Business' Commercial development. that will fulfill the long-standing proposed planning for the Property,. and residential development to fulfill life-cycle and metropolitan h0usinggoals. The Project provides significant amenities,.in¢luding the open space, ·athletic and playfields, pond. and wetland buffers, and trail connections. ' . . · 4. The deviations 'would not constitute a ~ig-nificant threat to the pr°Perry values, safety, health,. Or general welfare of the Owners or occupants of nearby land. ' The projec~ m'ea AUAR provides a thorough study Of the Project impacts and compatibility with both adjacent uses and existing infrastructure. Implementing the ·steps identified.in the AUAR will ensure adequate protection of neighboring properties. 5. The deviations are required for reasonable and Practicable PhysiCal development and.. .. are not required solely for_financial reasons. - "The deviations Planned for the Project are required to achieve the multiple goals ofmixed use in a project of sufficient size to'.realize the Property's value as an asset to the City.' The PUD {s Proposed as a concept for the entire Property, with sPecific buildings PropOsed for the senior residence and rowhomes. Review' of the concept for the entire Property at this time' will stream!ine'review of furore buildings and' elements of the PUD, provided they :conform. with this initial proposed concept. ' Subdivision - The entire'Property proposed for PUD designation is proposed to be replatted into the first two building sites proposed for Desig2 Review with this application(Lots t and 2, Block 1) and Outlots A throu~ H for future Project Elements. Lots 1 and 2 comply With subdivision. regulations as shown on the Preliminary Plat. The AUAR includes detailed analysis Of the adequacy o£hzfi-astructUre and suitability o£the Property for this Project. Desire2 Review Board ' . 'Legacy Viliage' ~s professionally designed by a Developer relying on aesthetics'as a valued amenity and sellLng point. The initial building elevations show the detail and quality materials typicad o£Harfford nei~borhoods. Hartford's nei~borhoods also incorporate designs to "'enhance walkability and promote inixed-use as a positive aspect for alt rises included. Hartford has worked with consultants and staff of other communities, and added their positive ideas to the 10. Legacy Village design, Hartford is requesting Maplewood's Design Review Board approval for the initial buildings. SUMMARY OF RATIONALE FOR PROJECT AppROvAL Legacy Village provides a h_igh-quality mixed-use development for a site which is expected ro develop pursuant to the City's Comprehensive Plan. Legacy Village is planned ro conform with that' Plan and the approvals sought are specifically contemplated in the Plan. The Legacy provides a mix of uses, including residential neighborhoods, small- and medium-scale commercial sites, sen/or housing, and asignificant office building. This mix is intended to complement and be enhanced by Maplewood Mai1 and the surrounding existing development. Combining a mix of residential units' wi~h commercial development offers Maplewood residents increased options ~o live in a p~destri'an-scale neighborhood. Successful developments thr. 0ughout the metropolitan area are incorporating a mix of housing options, and in many redeveloping suburbs, are bringing the first sigrfificant new housing options to those communities: · Legacy Village includesl outstanding outdoor men/ties, providing ponds and wetland areas, linking trail systems, excellent pedestrian connections to Maplewood Mall, a large green . space, and play-fields. These men/ties are designed to be the focus of Legacy Village and a positive additi6n to.Maplewood. 5. The Legacy Village is planned within the traffic capacity of adjacent roads, and provides sufficient parking for residents, visitors, and cnstomers. 6. The Legacy'Village design is compatible with the 'preferred option for County Road D rel alignment. Inclusion of the sen/or component meets a need for MaPlewood res/dents as the population ages, and addresses a growing overall need for the metropolitan population. Hartford's Legacy Village settlor living buildings allow Maplew0od commun/ry residents to transit/on to assisted living without breaking commun/ry and family ties. 837532.1 ' ll. AGENDA ITEM NO ~ DRAFT--MINUTES Attachment 9 MAPLEWOOD CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING WITH THE PLANNING COMMISSION Action by Council CALL TO ORDER 6:04 P.M. Monday, May 19, 2003 Council Chambers, Municipal Building Meeting No. 03-10 Date _. Mod2fie. d _ A special meeting of the City Council was held in the Council Chambers, at the Municipal Building, and was called to order at 6:04 p.m. by Mayor Cardinal. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ROLL CALL Robert Cardinal, Mayor Kenneth V. Collins, Councilmember Kathleen Juenemann, Councilmember Marvin C. Koppen, Councilmember Julie A. Wasiluk, Councilmember APPROVAL OF AGENDA Present Present Present Present Present (arrived at 6:35 p.m.) NEW BUSINESS 1. Legacy Village Discussion-No Action to be taken a. Assistant City Manager Coleman introduced the consultants and provided the history behind the Legacy Village project. Phil Carlson, Dahlgren, Shardlow and Uban, Inc., was hired by the Hartford Group as a consultant for the city. Mr. Carlson provided an overview of the two major land use categories (business-commercial and high density residential) and highlights of the project for each. Bill Griffith from the Hartford Group introduced his colleagues: Patrick Sarver, the Landscape Architect for Legacy Village, and John Tice the Project Engineer; and explained specific details of the proposed Legacy Village project. d. The following persons provided comments: Mayor Cardinal would like to see the two multi-family units larger structures. Will Rossbach, Maplewood planning Commissioner, asked if the 250 occupants of the townhomes were included in the current density rating of 11 ? He questioned why this proposed area is being considered good for high density? He also felt that the workforce housing would be better scattered throughout the site rather than two specific buildings. Mr. Rossbach felt strongly that a corporate site was the missing piece of the puzzle. He also would appreciate a comparison from staff on traffic data between commercial and residential City Council Meeting 05-19-03 23 uses for review and consideration. Mary Dierich, Maplewood Planning Commissioner, was concerned with a busy street adjacent to senior housing for safety reasons. She felt the parking for the corporate site should be on the front side of the building toward the street and away from housing. She also questioned the private internal streets and the lack of a grocery type store. Paul Mueller, Maplewood Planning Commissioner would also like to see the workforce housing more scattered. He would like to see the parking stay behind the buildings to preserve the downtown effect and manicured look. Jackie Monahan-Junek, Maplewood Planning Commissioner was also concerned with the lack of a grocery and drugstore for senior housing residents. Dale Trippler, Maplewood Planning Commissioner liked the current plan so far including the round-about, but would like to see it two lanes. He was concerned with the homes on Hazelwood and how they would interact with the new proposed development. He would also like to see a strong corporate focus with the parking underneath that building. Lorraine Fischer, Maplewood Planning Commissioner, had concerns related to transit and how this site fit into the complete transit picture. Gary Pearson, Maplewood Plarming Commissioner, noted a lot of seniors are utilizing scooters and if they would be allowable on the trails? He also expressed that the Housing Redevelopment Authority is concerned with housing and a controlled ownership and price structure. Would there be a way to help with down payments? Tushar Desai, Maplewood Planning Commissioner was real impressed with the overall plan and would like to see retail stores on ground level with homes above. Councilmember Juenemann commented that there is a need to acknowledge that affordable housing is provided throughout the community. She noted that the Gladstone and Hillcrest Redevelopment areas would be a good place to have affordable housing because for the most part, that is what is located there now. George Supan, 3050 Hazelwood Street, Maplewood felt the plan was esthetically pleasing, very aggressive, and succinct to the area. Will Rossbach, second appearance, would not want to see the Legacy Village project reflective of the Hillcrest Area project or the Gladstone Project. They are three very different areas. Councilmember Juenemann questioned the street west of the roundabout and if it would be a cul-de-sac? City Engineer Ahl stated that it would likely be a u-shaped or loop type road. Councilmember Koppen noted since there will be numerous retail businesses that will need employees but do not pay high wages, there needs to be an emphasis on affordable housing. He also reminded everyone of the NEST program ($1.75 per ride) which is an available transportation alternative. City Council Meeting 05-19-03 24 Mayor Cardinal was curious as to the future of the Mogren golf course area. City Engineer Ahl responded that Mr. Mogren is looking at a planning study for this area and that the land is planned business commercial and industrial and that a townhome type usage may be appropriate for that area. Councilmember Wasiluk reiterated the importance of affordable housing, both rental and owner occupied. City Manager Fursman summarized key issues: affordability of housing and appropriate lqcation(s) · preserving a "corporate" focus · competing views on user parking locations a convenience store for grocery and pharmacy would be desirable · other projects within the city are independent, but linked into the total goals of the city , Mr. Fursman made very clear that the current homeowners have every option to stay, but if it is economically and socially beneficial for them to sell, that would also be negotiable. Patrick Sarver stated that he heard all comments and concerns loud and clear, has good directive to proceed, and as the project progresses feels the campus will sell itself to a corporate prospect. VISITOR PRESENTATIONS None G. COUNCIL PRESENTATIONS None ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS 1. Emma's Place Town Meeting-Tuesday, May 20th 6:30 p.m. at the Community Center 2. The next City Council meeting will be held Tuesday, May 27th, at 7:00 p.m. ADJOURNMENT Mayor Cardinal moved to adioum the meeting at 7:48 p.m. Seconded by Councilmember Collins Ayes-All City Council Meeting 05-19-03 25 MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: SUBJECT: PROJECT: LOCATION: DATE: City Manager Ken Roberts, Associate Planner Conditional Use Permit Revision and Design Review Saint Paul Regional Water Services - McCarrons Water Treatment Plant 1900 Rice Street North May 23, 2003 INTRODUCTION Project Description The Saint Paul Regional Water Services is proposing to make the following changes and additions to their facilities at the McCarrons Water Treatment Plant at 1900 Rice Street (Refer to the narrative and maps starting on page 11): Build a two-story, 36,000-square-foot office building with 240 parking spaces near the center of the site. This building would have the business offices of the water utility and also would be for public visits to the water utility for service and information. The proposed extedor of the building would be in character with the main water treatment plant with a white plaster finish. Build a one-story, 11,230-square-foot meter shop and warehouse north of the proposed office building. The water utility would use this building for storing and repairing water meters and for stodng materials they use in the installation and repair of water lines. The proposed extedor of this building is a white metal panel. Build a one-story, 17,350-square-foot vehicle maintenance and storage building north of the existing dewatedng building near the north end of their site. They are proposing an extedor of white metal panels and white garage doom for this building. The plans also show a future cold vehicle storage building near the west property line of their site, west of the existing dewatedng building. The applicant said that they will want to construct this building in the future, but thought it was important to show it now on the project plans. With the addition of the above buildings to the site, the applicant is proposing several changes and additions to the parking and to the access for the facility. These changes include: Adding a 240-stall public and employee parking lot south of the proposed office building and north of the existing storm water pond. This lot, as proposed, would have vehicle access from Rice Street (under the existing narrow railroad bridge) and from Sylvan Street. 2. Access and deliveries for the proposed meter shop would be from Rice Street. 3. Trucks now use Roselawn Avenue as the access location for the plant and would continue to do so with the proposed plans. With all the grading necessary for the proposed buildings, parking and driveway, the applicant is proposing to add extensive landscaping to the site, pdmadly west of Sylvan Street and west of the proposed buildings. Requests The applicant is requesting that the city approve: A stream setback variance. The city code requires new buildings to be set back from a stream at least 60 feet. As proposed, the future cold vehicle storage building would be 40 feet from Trout Brook. A revision to the existing conditional use permit (CUP) to allow for the proposed new buildings and changes to the facility. City code requires a CUP for public utilities, public services or public buildings in the city. This request is to revise an existing CUP since the council previously approved a conditional use permit for the applicant. The proposed changes would be revisions to the site plan covered by the CUP. 3. The project design plans. BACKGROUND December 15, 1988: The city council approved a CUP to construct a clear-water pond south of the solids dewatedng facility west of Sylvan Street and north of Larpenteur Avenue. June 10, 1996: The city council approved a CUP and design plans for the expansion of the solids dewatering facility. August 11, 1997: The city council approved a CUP and design plans for the construction of two building additions and a new building at the water treatment plant. December 10, 2001: The city council approved a revision to the CUP and the design plans for the expansion and renovation of the water treatment plant (east of Sylvan Street). DISCUSSION Stream Setback Variance - Trout Brook As I noted above, the proposed project plans show a building for future vehicle storage set back 40 feet from Trout Brook. Since the code requires buildings to have a 60-foot setback from a stream, this proposed location requires a 20-foot variance. (See the statement from the project architect on pages 37 and 38.) Trout Brook is an existing stream that is east of the existing railroad and just west of the fence that is along the west side of the site. The water utility had Short-Elliott-Henddckson (SEH) investigate their site for possible wetlands or streams and for any possible impacts that the new construction might have. (See the report on pages 12 - 14.) I spoke to Todd Udvig of SEH about his site visit and his findings. He told me that the part of Trout Brook near the storage yard is, by definition, a stream but that most of Trout Brook has been altered and impacted by human activities. (In fact much of Trout Brook north and south of the storage yard has been put underground into pipes.) He noted that the existing storage yard goes up to the fence near Trout Brook and that there now is a large impervious surface area with little control for storm water run-off. The proposed plans, however, show the area between the vehicle storage building and fence planted with trees and native grasses. (See the north area planting plan on page 30.) Mr. Udvig agreed that the proposed plans, with the new grading, storm sewer system, plantings and rainwater garden, will be a big improvement to the buffer area along the east side of Trout Brook. Conditional Use Permit The city council should approve this CUP revision. The proposed buildings and changes meet the findings required for CUP approval in the city code. The proposed buildings and landscaping would be attractive and would enhance the water utility's property. Design and Site Issues New Office Building The applicant is proposing to build a two-story, 36,000-square-foot office building with 240 parking spaces near the center of the site. This building would have the business offices of the water utility and also would be for public visits to the water utility for service and information. The proposed exterior of the building would be in character with the main water treatment plant with a white plaster finish. (See the proposed building elevations on pages 32.) It also would have many windows and blue corrugated metal panels for accents around the entrances. The proposed elevations also show a clear aluminum metal panel screened roof enclosure. Warehouse/Meter Shop The proposed plans for the warehouse/meter shop show the extedor with white, fiat metal wall panels, several doors and a white metal panel roof. (See the proposed building elevations on pages 33 and 34.) While this is a plain, if not a boring design, this building would be in the center of the campus and not visible from off of the site. As such, staff is not as concerned about the appearance of this building and it should not effect any adjacent properties. Vehicle Storage/Maintenance Building The proposed elevations for the vehicle storage/maintenance building show the west and east sides of the building with many overhead garage doors and white, flat metal panels on the walls. (Please see the proposed elevations on page 35.) In addition, the proposed roof would have white metal panels, similar to the warehouse meter shop. As with the proposed warehouse/meter shop, the vehicle storage/maintenance building would be in the center of the campus and not visible from off of the site. As such, staff is not as concerned about the appearance of this building and it should not effect any adjacent properties. Trees and Landscaping As proposed, the project plans show the removal of 21 large trees and the planting of at least 89 replacement trees - including a vadety of deciduous overstory (oak, ash and maple) and a variety of coniferous (fir, pine and spruce). (These are shown on the plans on pages 28 - 31 .) Staff would like to see the planting of more screening trees along the south and east sides of the proposed parking lot. This screening should be as thick as possible to help screen the parking lot from the homes to the south and east of the site. The rest of the landscaping plan, with the proposed shrubs, trees, rain water gardens and areas of sod and areas of native grasses will be a fine improvement to the site. Other Comments Chris Cavett, the Assistant City Engineer, has reviewed the proposed project plans. His comments are in the memo starting on page 39. Butch Gervais, the Maplewood Fire Marshal, had the following comments about the proposal: 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. A fire protection system (sprinkler system) is required with this project. Monitoring of all fire protection systems is required. Notification devices will be required throughout the buildings. Provide a f~re department lockbox for access to all buildings. Provide a minimum of a 20-foot-wide access road for emergency vehicles. Provide proper addressing on all buildings. David Fisher, the Maplewood Building Official, had the following comments about the proposal: All buildings shall meet the IBC building code. Provide the required handicapped accessibility. Lt. Kevin Rabbett of the Maplewood Police Department reviewed the proposed project plans. Please see his comments in the memo on page 41. Dan Soler, the Ramsey County Traffic Engineer, noted, "1 do not see any problems with this plan. Sylvan Street at Larpenteur Avenue is signalized and will function adequately. The other existing access points at Roselawn and Rice Street should be OK. Will all vehicles at the Roselawn entrance be required to turn left? It appears to me that it would be alright for pick-ups or other maintenance vehicles to go east on Roselawn." We received comments from the Capital Region Watershed Distdct about this proposal on May 21, 2003. I have attached these on pages 42 - 45. I had the assistant city engineer and the project engineer review these comments. They both agree with the suggestions in the watershed comments and the project engineer has started changing the plans accordingly. RECOMMENDATIONS Approve the resolution on pages 45 and 46. This resolution is for a 20-foot stream setback vadance for the construction of a vehicle storage building at the McCarrons water treatment plant at 1900 Rice Street. The city approves this variance because: Stdct enforcement of the code would cause undue hardship because of circumstances unique to the property and not created by the property owner. The 60-foot-wide stream buffer requirement would make development of this site difficult. The vadance would be in keeping with the spidt and intent of the ordinance, since the applicant would greatly improve a portion of the stream buffer over its present state and the proposed development plans will treat storm water from the site with rainwater gardens, bio-retention basins and other best management practices. Approval is subject to the applicant doing the following: Dedicating a 40-foot-wide stream protection buffer easement along the west property line. This easement shall be prepared by a land surveyor, shall describe the bounda~j of the buffer and shall prohibit any building, mowing, cutting, filling or dumping within the buffer. The applicant shall record this easement before the city issues a building permit. Submitting a revised landscape plan for the restoration of 40 feet of the stream- protection buffer on the west side of the site. This plan shall show extensive use of native plantings and grasses and shall be subject to staff and watershed distdct approval. 3. Installing city approved signs at the edge of the stream-protection buffer that prohibit any building, mowing, cutting, filling or dumping within the buffer. Adopt the resolution on pages 47 - 48. This resolution approves a conditional use permit revision for the addition of four buildings, a new parking lot and associated site plan changes for the Saint Paul Regional Water Services McCarrons Water Treatment Plant at 1900 Rice Street North. The city bases this approval on the findings required by the code and is subject to the following conditions: 1. All construction shall follow the approved site plan. The director of community development may approve minor changes. 2. The proposed construction must be substantially started within one year of council approval or the permit shall become null and void. 3. The city council shall review this permit in one year. Approve the plans (date-stamped Apdl 24, 2003) for the proposed office building, meter shop and vehicle maintenance buildings (with the associated parking and landscaping) at the St. Paul Regional Water Services McCarrons Water Treatment Plant at 1900 Rice Street North. This approval does not include the future cold vehicle storage building shown on the plans along the west side of the site. The city bases this approval on findings required by the code. The property owner or contractor shall do the following: Repeat this review in two years if the city has not issued a permit for this project. Provide the following for city staff approval before the city issues a grading or building permit: a. Building matedal and color samples of the plaster, metal panels, roofs, tdm, and garage doom. b. A revised landscape/screening plan that shows the following: The spruce trees proposed for the south and east sides of the parking lot and the property revised from 6 feet in height to 8 feet in height. (2) The planting of more coniferous trees along the south and east sides of the proposed parking lot to help screen the parking lot from the houses to the south and east. (3) Landscaping details for the stream buffer area and for the proposed rainwater gardens. If the basin area will only be seeded, the area must be vegetated with native grasses and forbes. The mix design must be approved by the city before the contractor does the seeding. (4) An in-ground irrigation system (including sprinkler heads) for the areas that would have sod. The city does not require irrigation for areas with native grasses or for the rainwater gardens. Detailed grading, drainage, paving, utility and erosion control plan for approval by the Assistant City Engineer. These plans shall meet all the requirements of the Assistant City Engineer. A detailed photometric plan for all proposed outdoor lighting showing the location, style, height and design of the proposed light fixtures. All freestanding lights shall not be taller than 25 feet, and the illumination from any outdoor light must not exceed 0.4-foot candles at all property lines. Plans for any trash-dumpster enclosures. The gates for such enclosures shall be 100 percent opaque, and the materials and colors of the enclosure shall be compatible with those of the new buildings. These plans shall be subject to staff approval. Proof of recording of a 40-foot-wide stream protection buffer easement along the west property line. This easement shall be prepared by a land surveyor, shall describe the boundary of the buffer and shall prohibit any building, mowing, cutting, filling or dumping within the buffer. The applicant shall record this easement before the city issues a building permit. g. A letter of credit or cash escrow for all required exterior improvements. The amount shall be 150 percent of the cost of the work. Complete and install all required extedor improvements, including the approved landscaping and any dumpster enclosures before occupying the buildings. 4. If any required work is not done, the city may allow temporary occupancy if: The city determines that the work is not essential to the public health, safety or welfare. The above-required letter of credit or cash escrow is held by the City of Maplewood for all required exterior improvements. The owner or contractor shall complete any unfinished extedor improvements by June 1 if occupancy of the building is in the fall or winter, or within six weeks of occupancy of the building if occupancy is in the spring or summer. All work shall follow the approved plans. The director of community development may approve minor changes. CITIZEN COMMENTS Staff surveyed the property owners within 500 feet of this site to get their opinions of this proposal. Out of the 40 properties surveyed, we received one response as follows: Comments My main concern is when it is discovered that Sylvan Street needs road repair in two years because of the increase traffic flow; will I be paying the assessments? Right now Sylvan has a drainage problem and there is no speed limit posted. (Hendch - 1720 Sylvan Street) REFERENCE INFORMATION SITE DESCRIPTION Site size: 35.93 Acres Existing land use: Saint Paul Water Utility Water Treatment Plant SURROUNDING LAND USES The proposed buildings are pdmadly in the center of the water utility property. They will be surrounded by the applicant's property. There are single dwellings to the south and east of the site, across Sylvan Street. PLANNING Land Use Plan designation: OS (open space) and W (public water facility) Zoning: F (farm residential) ORDINANCE REQUIREMENTS Section 25-70 of the city code requires that the CDRB make the following findings to approve plans: 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. That the design and location of the proposed development is in keeping with the character of the surrounding neighborhood and is not detrimental to the harmonious, orderly and attractive development contemplated by this article and the city's comprehensive municipal plan. That the design and location of the proposed development would provide a desirable environment for its occupants, as well as for its neighbors, and that it is aesthetically of good composition, materials, textures and colors. Section 36-437 of the city code requires a CUP for public utilities, public services or public buildings in the city. Section 36-442(a) states that the city council may approve a CUP, based on nine standards. See numbers 1-9 in the resolution beginning on page 47. APPLICATION DATE We received all the materials for a complete application for this request on April 24, 2003. State law requires that the city council act on requests within 60 days. The council must act on these requests by June 23, 2003, unless the applicant agrees to a time extension. p:sec18\watrufil.2003.doc Attachments: 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. Applicant's Statement Apdl 16, 2003 letter from Short-Elliott-Henddckson Vicinity Map Location Map Overall Site Plan Area Map Property Line/Zoning Map Existing Site Conditions Sun/ey Overall Site Grading Plan North Area Grading Plan South Area Grading Plan Pond Area Grading Plan Overall Site Utility Plan North Area Utility Plan South Area Utility Plan Tree Plan Overall Landscape Plan North Area Planting Plan South Area Planting Plan Office Building Elevations Warehouse/Meter Shop Elevations Warehouse/Meter Shop Elevations Vehicle Storage/Maintenance Elevations Overall Electrical/Lighting Plan May 9, 2003 letter from Jim Butler of HGA May 13, 2003 memo from Chds Cavett May 9, 2003 memo from Lt. Kevin Rabbett May 21,2003 memo from Capital Region Watershed District Stream Setback Vadance Resolution Conditional Use Permit Revision Resolution Project Plans (separate attachment) Attachment 1 McCarron's Campus Expansion St Patti Regional Water Services APR ! 8 2003 Project Summary for the filing requirements of the Conditional Use or PUD Application to the City of maplewo fi,Cl I £ [I St Paul Regional Water Services has operated the facility at 1900 Rice Street for 80 years. The site is used for water treatment and pumps up to 120 million gallons of water to St Paul and surrounding suburbs. The current project brings approximately 200 more employees to the site from two other SPRWS facilities. The Commerce Building in downtown St Paul currently houses the Water Service's administrative offices. The Hamline Yards currently is used for the work crews and vehicles, which are dispatched to repair and install water utilities. The consolidation of the three locations into one provides a more efficient operation of the utility company. Site improvements around the treatment plant in the new project also makes the McCarrons Water Plant a more secure facility. The new buildings being added to the existing campus are a two-story Office Building, a one-story Meter Shop/Warehouse and a Vehicle Maintenance/Storage. A single story garage building is also planned in the yard for future expansion of vehicle storage. Office Building: The new office building is located west of the existing water plant and south of the existing Chlorine Building. 36,000 square feet of office space is provided, 18,000 square feet on each of the two floors. The character of the new building will be in keeping with the existing water plant with a stucco exterior. A single rooftop mechanical unit will be completely screened from view. A new parking lot to the south of the office building provides 240 stalls, which includes 10 public parking stalls. The general public can come to the lobby of the office building to pay their water bill, talk to a collection agent or consult an engineer about a utility line. The public will access the site from Rice Street, driving on the existing road east and passing under the existing railroad bridge. This is a one-way access from Rice Street due to the limited single-lane-width span of the existing bridge underpass. Employee parking and public exiting from the parking lot will be to the south on Sylvan Street. An existing controlled intersection at Sylvan and Larpenteur provides the safest access to the site. The parking lot will be bermed and visually screened from the residences along Sylvan with new landscaping. The existing storm water retention pond and trail system on the site will be maintained. No dump trucks or semi-trailers will access the site from the south Sylvan entrance and there is no access to the yard from south Sylvan in the new site plan. Meter Shop/Warehouse: The new Meter Shop/Warehouse Building is composed of an enclosed and heated building and a roof over exterior racked pipe storage. The total enclosed building is 11,230 square feet, with the Meter Shop at 3,740 SF and the Warehouse at 6,490 SF. The Meter Shop is for testing and repairing of water meters. The Warehouse stores ali the materials needed in the process of installing and repairing water lines, valves, shovels, pipes, etc. The building structure is a pre-engineered metal building with a white metal panel exterior. Deliveries to the warehouse will come from Rice Street and unload on the south side of the new building. Deliveries are expected to be only two trucks per day usually. Delivery trucks do not pass under the existing railroad bridge: there is an existing road just east of the tracks to the north. Vehicle Maintenance/Storage Building: The new Vehicle Maintenance/Storage Building is 17,350 square feet. 6,940 SF of the building will be used for repair and maintenance of SPRWS vehicles. 10,410 SF of the building will be used as a garage for vehicles. The building structure is a pre-engineered metal building with a white metal panel exterior and white garage doors. 10 Vehicle Site Access: Existing access for trucks into the site are from the Roselawn entrance. Access for the new trucks coming to the campus will also enter off of Roselawn. It is anticipated that 20 dump trucks and SO pickups per day will access the site from the Roselawn entrance. Currently there are approximately l 0 semi-trucks that use this entrance each day. These trucks deliver chemicals to the Plant for water treatment and remove spent lime from the treatment process. Posted si~s on Roselawn restrict trucks to ttttn left to travel west on Roselawn when exiting the campus. This will not change in the new project. April 14, 2003 HGA Architects and Engineers, Inc. 2484-001-00 3535 Vadnais Center Drive, St. Paul, MN 55110-5196 651.490.2000 architecture · engineering · environmental Attachment 2 651.490.2150 FAX transportation April 16, 2003 RE: St. Paul Regional Water Services McCarrons Water Treatment Plant Wetlands Review SEH No. A-STPRW0301.00 14.00 Mr. David Wagner St. Paul Regional Water Services 400 Commerce Building Eight 4th Street East St. Paul, MN 55101-1007 APR 2 ~ 2003 Dear Mr. Wagner: We have completed a site assessment on April 16, 2003 for wetland habitat within the two proposed facility expansion areas at the St. Paul Regional Water Services McCarrons Campus. The McCarrons Campus is located on Rice Street between Roselawn and Larpenteur Avenues in St. Paul, Minnesota. The two areas of interest are located on the west side of the campus immediately adjacent to Trout Creek, and on the southwest area of the campus near the constructed water recirculation pond (i.e., "rabbit ear pond," but herein referred to as "constructed pond"). The St. Paul Regional Water Services is proposing two projects within its McCarrons Campus. One project will include moving the western fence for the pipe yard eastward and further away from Trout Creek. The fence relocation project may also involve some revegetation of areas within St. Paul Regional Water Services property that are near the eastern creek bank. The second project includes constructing a new building and parking area to be located just north of the constructed pond between the east-west access road (which goes under the railroad tracks) and the pond itself. A copy of the 2000 historic aerial photograph that you provided SEH Inc. is included as an attachment. The two proposed project areas that were investigated are noted on the copy of the photograph. Trout Creek flows south along the west side of the fenced pipe yard on the McCarrons Campus. Wetland habitat associated with Trout Creek appears to be restricted within the immediate banks of the creek. Steep side slopes along the creek appear to restrict the creek bed to an average width of three to five feet near the pipe yard area. The proposed project moving the fence east of its existing location should not directly affect Trout Creek. It is recommended that if any earth-moving activities should commence within the pipe yard near Trout Creek that best management practices (BMPs) be used to protect the creek from potential eroding materials and sedimentation. The area between the constructed pond and the access road is entirely upland habitat covered by turf grasses and planted upland deciduous and coniferous tree species. No wetland habitat was observed in this area. A review of historical aerial photographs of the site from 1937, 1940, 1953, 1957, 1966, 1974, 1980 do not show any wetland signatures within the area that was eventually used for the constructed pond or the proposed building site. Historic aerial photographs from 1991, 1997, and Short Elliott Hendrickson Inc. · Your Trusted Resource · Equal Opportunity Employer 12 Mr. David Wagner April 16, 2003 Page 2 2000 show the constructed pond, but no wetland signatures within the proposed building site north of the pond. If you have any questions regarding the results of this site assessment of the McCarrons Campus, please feel free to contact us at the numbers provided below. We are pleased to provide this information and look forward to working with the St. Paul Regional Water Services in the future. Sincerely, SHORT ELLIOTT HENDRICKSON INC. All~ J Staff Biologist 651.490.2162 651.765.2957 Enclosure v:~pfistprw~030100~wetlands\wagner041603.doc 13 Historical _ Information Gatherers, Inc. Maplewood Site Maplewood, Minnesota 200~0 Approximate Scale 1:6000 (1 "=500') Attachment 3 LARPENTEUR AVENUE SANDY LAKE ROSELAWN AVENUE ARUNGTON AVENUE z v Vicinity Map 15 Attachment 4 LOCATION 16 MAP Attachment 5 ~ m a --] o~ [] Overall Site Plan 17 I1~ 0 I 0 I ! 0 ROSELAWN AVE W 1870 16 o/ ROSELAWN AVE E Attachment 6 21 ~74~ FENTON AVE E WA TER 1900 1900 1734 1700 [] AREA MAP 18 KINGSTON AVE E []24 [] 171{[~ ~'12 [] 1702 0 1706 0 SAINT PAUL 76 UJ ILl A,~chmen~ 7_ ~ ,~__ ~ ~oROSELAWN AVENUE _ . ~. T FORMER ,,AMUSEMENT CITY ~AMUSEMENT PARK ST. PAUL WATER UTILITY PROPERTY C',L7 o[ 5t .P~' CROWN PLAZA SHOPPING CENTER'- PROPERTY LINE I ZONING MAP ]9 Attachment 8 McCarron's Campus Expanmon II.l I h ,, I! I .. ilt I .o 1111111 ' '" ~NG SI'~ DESIGN DE~/ELOPMEINT C100 EXISTING SITE CONDITIONS SURVEY 20 Attachment 9 McCarron's Campt~ Ex~nsJon SAINT PAUL OVERALL SITE GRADING PLAN 21 fL~NRALL SI'T~ G~.~DING DEVELOPMENT C400 Attachment l0 SITE GRADING AND DRAINAGE PLAN NORTH AREA DESIGN DEVELOPMENT Maintenance' Floor Elev, 862.0 Heated Vehicle Storage McCarron's Campus Expansion Meter Shop Warehouse Floor Elev. 854.0 Building o Existing Plant Building NORTH AREA GRADING PLAN Attachment ll McCarron's Campus Expansion Building Floor Elev. 862.0 0 © UNDER CONSTRUCTION S~TE GRADING AND DRAtNAGE PLAN SOUTH ARF~A DF-.5IGN DEVELOPMENT C402 Attachment 12 Storm NWL GBADII~G NOT~: LAR~PENTUER AVENUE SAINT PAUL III I McCarron's Campus Expansion SITE GRADING AND DRAINAGE PLAN POND AREA DESIGN DEVELOPMENT C403 Attachment 13 DEVELOPMENT C500 McCarron's Campus ~pansJon OVERALL SITE UTILITY25 PLAN Attachment 14. STr~ ~ PLAN NORTH AREA DESIGN DEVELOPMENT McCarron's Campus Expansion Dewate~ng Building Existing Plant Building ~ NOTI~ NORTH AREA UTILITY PLAN 26 Attachment 15 McCarron's Campus Expansion Si'I'E UT~Lt'I'Y PLAN SOUTH AREA DESIGN DEVELOPMENT C502 UNDER CONSTRUCTION SOUTH AREA UTILITY PLAN 27 Attachment 16 TREES TO BE REMOVED: Mccarron's Campus Expansion LEGEND: © 0 TEEE PROTECTION AND REMOVAL PLAN NO. 2484--001--00 DESIGN DEVELOPMENT LO50 TREE PLAN 28 Attachment 17 I , VEHICLE STORAGE BUILDING I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I -. I ~ I I I I I SHOP~AREHOUSE ! I I I ! I I I I I ! I ! I I ! I I I I HcCarron's Campus Expansion LEGEND: OVERALL LANDSCAPE PLAN 29 LEGEND: Attachment 18 McCarron'$ Campus Expansion sTrE Pt. ANTING PLAN - NORTH AREA DESIGN DEVELOPNENT LiO~ ~ttachment 19 Mc'Carton's Campus DESIGN DEVELOPMENT L102 SOUTH AREA31PLANTING PLAN Attachment 20 OFFIC~ BUILDING EXTERIOR ELEVA'I'ZONS DF..~IGN DEVELOPMENT A410 Mt'CarTon's Campus Expansion MATB~tN. NOTE~: Attachment 21 A420 I I i i I I ~ ; ; : ' I I I I I I I I I I ~ I I I I I I I I Attachment 22 McCarron's Campus EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS & BUILDING SECTION WAREHOUSE/ METER SHOP DESIGN DEVELOI:h~F~IT A421 WAREHOUSE/METER SHOP ELEVATIONS 34 Attachment,23 McCarron's Campus EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS VEHICLE STORAGE/ MAINTENANCE 14A'I'ER3AL NOTES: NORTH ELEVATION DESIGN DEVELOPMENT ~ A430 ...... Attachment 24 VEHICLE STORAGE BUILDING ELECTRZCAL STI'E PLAN DESIGN DEVELOPMENT E030 OVERALL ELECTRICAL/LIGHTING PLAN · Architecture I Engineering I Planning Attachment 25 May 9, 2003 WRITER'S DIRECT DLAL (612) 758-4239 Mr. Ken Roberts Associate Planner City of Maplewood, Minnesota 1830 East County Road B Maplewood, Minnesota 55109 Re: McCarron's Campus Expansion Trout Brook Setback and Yard Pavement HGA Commission Number 2484-001-00 Dear Ken: Per our telephone discussion today, I am writing you to clarify the Trout Brook setback for the future Cold Vehicle Storage Building and the yard pavement as shown on the proposed McCarron's Campus Expansion Project under city review. Currently, the existing gravel pipe yard west of the Dewatering Building abuts the eastern edge of Trout Brook without any setback or green space. The existing gravel yard slopes to drain into Trout Brook. The new construction project regrades the existing pipe yard to upper and lower yard areas. Drainage of the new upper yard area is treated in a rainwater garden to the west of the upper yard. Drainage of the new lower yard is collected into new stormwater piping that ultimately discharges south of the new parking lot into the existing storm water pond. Also in the lower yard, an area is defined for a Future Cold Vehicle Storage Building, which will be a one story metal building for parking the Water Department's micks and vans. The proposed edge of pavement of the yard is shown as 60 feet from the existing fencelme along Trout Brook, and a green space buffer of native grasses and trees is proposed in this zone. When the Cold Vehicle Storage Building is constructed in the future, the truck maneuvering space in the lower yard will be affected. Reducing the required setback of the future building to 40 feet in lieu of 60 feet will provide trucks the necessary turning radius and access up the ramp for the drive-through circulation into the west doors of the existing Dewatering Building. When the building is built, a 40 foot wide green space buffer of native grasses and trees will be maintained between this future building and Trout Brook. Since no green space exists now between the edge of pavement and Trout Brook, the proposed landscape, even at its future 40 foot wi~lth, will ~,= aq significant improvement. ' [ ~ E(~,-~V~)I , Green and Abrahamson, Inc. 701 Washington Avenue North · MinneapolisJ Minne. s~.t.~_U-S-~-5-,5.4~.],-.1,-l~B0 Telephone 612.758.4000 Facsimile 612.758.4199 Visit our Website: www.hga.com 37 Mr. Ken Roberts May 9, 2003 Page 2 The new upper and lower yards are paved in gravel in the base bid with an add alternate for asphalt paving. The new parking lot, roads and truck maneuvering south of the new Meter Shop will all receive asphalt paving in the base bid. The gravel is confined to the service yard. It is anticipated that if the bidding climate is favorable, that the asphalt paving of the yard would occur with this project. If not, the owner intends to pave the yard in the near future when funds become available. I hope this clarifies the intent of the proposed sitework for your review. Please call me if you have any further questions. Sincerely, HAMMEL, GREEN AND ABRAHAMSON, INC. Associate Vice President cc: Bernie Bullert, SPRWS Dave Wagner, SPRWS Erik Hansen, HGA Vicki Hooper, HGA Ted Lee, HGA \ \c~rp~~ate\c~rp~rate\p~~ject\24~~\2484\~~~.~~\c~mmunica~~ns\c~rresp~ndence\jtb~~~ s.doc;jmb 38 Attachment 26 En.qineerin,q Plan Review_ PROJECT: McCarrons Campus Expansion PROJECT NO: 03-21 REVIEWED BY: Chuck Vermeersch and Chris Cavett DATE: May 13, 2003 The applicant or their engineer shall address the following comments. Grading and Drainage Plan: 1. The drainage calculations do not include the area east of the site, (approximately 16 acres of existing residential area), which is tributary to the existing pond. The pond appears to be large enough to handle the additional drainage area, but including the additional area will likely change the calculated high water level. 2. The pond and area around it shall be dedicated to the city as a public drainage and utility easement. The south rainwater garden is considered a private BMP and should not be included in the public drainage easement, unless covered in the use and restrictions of the easement 3. Provide a 2'-3' sump in the in the last storm sewer manhole before it discharges into the pond. The purpose of the sump is to remove large sediment from the system before discharging into the pond. At a minimum, the sump will require an annual cleaning. 4. Complete a maintenance agreement for cleaning and maintenance of the sump manhole and rain gardens. A draft of a maintenance agreement is attached. 5. The existing storm sewer that outlets to the creek southwest of the new office building shall be removed or bulkheaded and abandoned. 6. A portion of the parking lot and loading dock area of the office building drains east to Sylvan Avenue. The boulevard east of the proposed office building parking lot also slopes east to Sylvan. The street grade here is very flat. As such, the project engineer shall change the grading plan in this area to insure street ponding does not occur. This may require a shallow swale between the parking lot and Sylvan Street to capture this runoff and provide a positive outlet if necessary. 7. If the parking area north of the meter shop is not paved, special considerations will be taken to protect the storm sewer system and rain garden. This shall include having solid grates for the catch basins temporarily and the contractor will need to quickly establish the buffer around the rain garden. 8. Submit an erosion control plan for city staff approval. 9. The applicant shall include for city approval a detailed landscaping plan for the pond, rain gardens and stream bank restoration. Turf establishment must be with a pre-approved native-grass seed mixture with forbs, (for upland and Iow 39 land areas as appropriate). The current landscaping plan already includes trees and shrubbery. 10. The parking lot south of the office building appears to be utilizing a dbbon curb along the center islands and the south edge of the parking lot (for drainage purposes). Provide a note and detail to clarify what is proposed for these edges in these locations. 11. Due to the abrupt drop in grade from the south end of the new parking lot and the fact that the plans do not show barrier curb, the applicant or contractor shall install a landscape fence, such as a split rail or wood rail fence, to provide a visual barrier of the edge of the parking lot and top of slope. 40 Attachment 27 Memo To: Ken Roberts From:Lt. Kevin Rabbett CC-' Deputy Chief Banick Date: 5/9/03 Re: McCarron's Water Treatment Plant Expansion I have reviewed the attached Project Review Form for the expansion of the St. Paul water treatment plant. The plan seems well designed from a public safety standpoint. The traffic flow is directed through appropriate intersections. One question involves the prohibition of dght tums onto Roselawn for trucks exiting the plant. I agree that this is necessan/ to reduce heavy truck traffic through the residential area. Will there be signage prohibiting incoming trucks from traveling westbound on Roselawn from 35E? Also the plan mentions that the parking lot will be bermed and visually screened from the residences on Sylvan. This may be difficult to do due to the height of those residences. However, if accomplished, it will prevent those residents from potentially witnessing thefts from vehicles. I assume that the parking lot will be easily visible from the office building which will provide some deterrent effect. If you have any questions, please cai me at x4532. 41 Page 1 5/21/2003 CRWD Development Review- McCarron's Campus Expansion Attachment 28 I A¥ 2 ! 2003 BACKGROUND R E C E I V £ D The St. Paul Regional Water Services is proposing to expand the McCarron's Water Treatment Plant facility by adding a two-story Office Building, a one-story Meter Shop/Watershouse and a Vehicle Maintenance/Storage facility. The McCarron's Campus is located at 1900 Rice Street between Roselawn and Larpenteur Avenues in St. Paul, Minnesota. The plans submitted by the applicant (dated April 2, 2003) propose to route stormwater from the entire site to an existing constructed stormwater pond located to the south of the facility. The existing outlet for this pond is a 24-inch culvert at 846.0 feet that discharges to Trout Brook. Under proposed conditions the pond is lined (no exfiltration) and the outlet would be modified to a 12-inch culvert at 844.0 feet. According to the applicant's engineer, the City of St. Paul would like the pond to remain in its current state. As a result the proposed plans are being modified to include a number of alternative stormwater management practices (e.g. raingardens) that will be designed to handle the excess stormwater runoff from the site. At this time, the modified plans and stormwater calculations have not been completed. This review takes a cursory look at the original submittal to see how it meets the District's recommendations. We will do a more thorough review of the site and plans once the applicant has completed the changes to the stormwater management plan. WATER QUALITY Development and redevelopment projects must incorporate effective non-point source pollution reduction BMPs. Effectiveness will be defined as meeting NURP criteria or achieving 60% annual phosphorus reduction, 90% sediment removal and 95% heavy metal removal. Met Council's Small Site BMP Manual can be referred to for selecting and designing alternative BMPs. A review of the water quality calculations submitted by the applicant indicates that the District's water quality recommendations are met on site. The dead storage available in the stormwater management pond exceeds NURP requirement. If the applicant were to make the modifications to the basin suggested below (under Volume Control and Infiltration) the amount of water quality treatment would improve substantially. VOLUME CONTROL AND INFILTRATION All land development and redevelopment activities must create stormwater volumes less than or equivalent to the volume of water produced from the site at existing level of impervious or 25 °/6 impervious whichever is less. This analysis is to be based on existing soils and geology. Refer to the Met Council Small Site BMP Manual for volume control 42 Page 2 5/21/2003 CR WD Development Review - McCarron's Campus Expansion BMPs such as the use of vegetated swales and redirecting impervious areas onto pervious areas. The applicant submitted ~tormwater calculations for thc 10- and 100-year 24-h0ur rainfall events. According to the model results, the proposed expansion does not meet the District's recommendations for volume control: the cumulative volume of stormwater being delivered to Trout Brook and from the pond is higher under proposed conditions (3.55 AF for the 10-year event and 6.03 for the 100-year event) than it is under existing conditions (2.88 for the 10-year event and 5.26 for the 100-year event). While the proposed pond modifications (changing the outlet structure from a 24-inch culvert at 846.0 feet to a 12-inch culvert at 844.0 feet) reduce the peak flow rates to below existing conditions, the proposed plans would discharge more storm water runoff volume to Trout Brook. As a result, the District recommends leaving the existing outlet structure and managing the pond as an infiltration practice (by excavating any sediment that has accumulated at the bottom of the basin, planting native deep-rooted vegetation that will promote the infiltration capacity of the surrounding soils, and possibly constructing infiltration enhancement techniques like an infiltration trench or dry wells in the bottom or adjacent to the basin). To increase the capacity of the basin, the applicant could modify the outlet structure by adding a drop inlet structure at 848.0 feet that would still provide 2 to 3 feet of freeboard to the existing natural overflow. FLOODING A proposed pond lO0-year high water level can be above adjacent existing structure's lowest floor elevation as long as the structure is at least 100 feet horizontally away from the pond's 100-year flood extent. A structure's lowest exposed wall elevation must be 2 feet above the lO0-year high water level of adjacent pond, and water bodies. According to the proposed Design Plans, the floor elevation for the building closest to the stormwater management pond, the Office Building, will be 862.0 feet. This is well above the proposed 100-year HWL on the pond of 846.48 feet. The applicant should verify that the District's recommended freeboard requirement is met for the houses located along the east side of Sylvan Street. RATE CONTROL Peak discharge rates for developments must be at or below existing rates for the 2, 5, 10, and l O0-year storm events. The applicant submitted stormwater calculations for the 10- and 100-year 24-hour rainfall events. According to the model results, the proposed pond expansion meets the District's recommendations for rate control: the cumulative peak flow rate to Trout Brook and from the pond is lower under proposed conditions (12.99 cfs for the 10-year event and 20.97 43 Page 3 5/21/2003 CR WD Development Review- McCarron's Campus Expansion cfs for the 100-year event) than it is under existing conditions (20.19 cfs for the 1 O-year event and 37.52 cfs for the 100-year event). WETLAND MANAGEMENT In addition to the requirements of the Wetland Conservation Act, development and redevelopment activities within the watershed district shall not result in the net-loss of wetland acreages or functions and values. Proposed wetland alterations must be evaluated using the District's Modified MnRAM methodology and compared to the District's pre-development evaluation to determine the change in wetland functions and values. While the large stormwater pond on site was constructed from upland, it currently has functions and values of a wetland. If properly restored, following the proposed pond excavation, these functions and values should not be reduced. The District recommends managing the pond as an infiltration practice by leaving the existing outlet structure in place (or constructing a riser is additional capacity is needed), removing any sediment that has accumulated in the bottom of the pond and planting native vegetation that will promote the infiltration capacity of the surrounding soils. All of these recommendations will increase the function and value of the pond. EROSION CONTROL Erosion and Sediment Control plans must be in adherence to the recommendations of the Ramsey County Erosion and Sediment Control Handbook. The erosion and sediment control plan appears to conform to the Ramsey County Erosion and Sediment Control Handbook. The Soil and Water Conservation District will likely provide further comments on the proposed plans. INTEGRATED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT All BMP designs should consider the use of Integrated Resource Management principles including the use of native planting and providing wildlife habitat features. All developments and redevelopments are encouraged to provide open spaces and native plantings in site design. As stated previously, the applicant's engineer has indicated that the proposed stormwater management plan is being changed to include alternative storm water management practices such as rain gardens. In the event these modifications are not made, the District recommends leaving the existing outlet structure to the pond as is (or adding a riser to the existing structure to increase the capacity of the pond) and managing the pond as an infiltration practice. This would involve planting native vegetation adjacent to the pond to promote the infiltration capacity of the underlying soils. 44 Attachment 29 STREAM SETBACK VARIANCE RESOLUTION WHEREAS, David Wagner, of the Saint Paul Regional Water Services, asked the city to approve a stream setback vadance from the zoning ordinance. WHEREAS, this variance applies to the water utility property at 1900 Rice Street. The legal description is: SECTION 18, TOWNSHIP 29, RANGE 22 IN THE VILLAGE OF MAPLEWOOD REVISED DESCRIPTION NUMBER 175 A SPECIFIC PART OF SEC 18, TN 29, R 22. (PIN 18-29-22- 31-0042) WHEREAS, Section 36-196(h) of the wetland protection ordinance requires a 60-foot-wide stream buffer area next to streams. WHEREAS, the applicant is proposing a 40-foot-wide stream buffer. WHEREAS, the history of this vadance is as follows: 1. On June 2, 2003, the planning commission recommended that the city council approve this variance. The city council held a public headng on June ,2003. City staff published a notice in the Maplewood Review and sent notices to the surrounding property owners as required by law. The council gave everyone at the headng an opportunity to speak and present wdtten statements. The council also considered reports and recommendations from the city staff and planning commission. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the city council approve the above-described vadance for the following reasons: Stdct enforcement of the code would cause undue hardship because of circumstances unique to the property and not created by the property owner. The 60-foot-wide stream buffer requirement would make development of this site difficult. The vadance would be in keeping with the spidt and intent of the ordinance, since the applicant would greatly improve a portion of the stream buffer over its present state and the proposed development plans will treat storm water from the site with rainwater gardens, bio-retention basins and other best management practices. Approval is subject to the applicant doing the following: Dedicating a 40-foot-wide stream protection buffer easement along the west property line. This easement shall be prepared by a land surveyor, shall descdbe the boundary of the buffer and shall prohibit any building, mowing, cuffing, filling or dumping within the buffer. The applicant shall record this easement before the city issues a building permit. Submitting a revised landscape plan for the restoration of 40 feet of the stream- protection buffer on the west side of the site. This plan shall show extensive use of native plantings and grasses and shall be subject to staff and watershed distdct approval. 45 3. Installing city approved signs at the edge of the stream-protection buffer that prohibit any building, mowing, cutting, filling or dumping within the buffer. The Maplewood City Council adopted this resolution on ,2003. 46 Attachment 30 OONDmONAL U$£ P~=RM~T R~=W$~ON R£$OLUT~ON WHEREAS, the Saint Paul Water Utility has requested a revision to their conditional use permit to add four new buildings, parking and landscaping to plant facilities at the St. Paul Water Utility McCarrons Water Treatment Plant. WHEREAS, this permit applies to the property at 1900 Rice Street North. The legal description is: SECTION 18, TOWNSHIP 29, RANGE 22 IN THE VILLAGE OF MAPLEWOOD REVISED DESCRIPTION NUMBER 175 A SPECIFIC PART OF SEC 18, TN 29, R 22. (PIN 18-29-22- 31-0042) WHEREAS, the history of this conditional use permit is as follows: 1. On June 2, 2003, the planning commission recommended that the city council approve this permit. 2. On June ,2003, the city council held a public headng. The city staff published a notice in the paper and sent notices to the surrounding property owners. The council gave everyone at the headng a chance to speak and present wdtten statements. The council also considered reports and recommendations of the city staff and planning commission. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the city council approves the above-described conditional use permit based on the building and site plans. The city approves this permit because: 1. The use would be located, designed, maintained, constructed and operated to be in conformity with the city's comprehensive plan and code of ordinances. 2. The use would not change the existing or planned character of the surrounding area. 3. The use would not depreciate property values. 4. The use would not involve any activity, process, materials, equipment or methods of operation that would be dangerous, hazardous, detrimental, disturbing or cause a nuisance to any person or property, because of excessive noise, glare, smoke, dust, odor, fumes, water or air pollution, drainage, water run-off, vibration, general unsightliness, electrical interference or other nuisances. 5. The use would generate only minimal vehicular traffic on local streets and would not create traffic congestion or unsafe access on existing or proposed streets. 6. The use would be served by adequate public facilities and services, including streets, police and fire protection, drainage structures, water and sewer systems, schools and parks. 7. The use would not create excessive additional costs for public facilities or services. 8. The use would maximize the preservation of and incorporate the site's natural and scenic features into the development design. 47 9. The use would cause minimal adverse environmental effects. Approval is subject to the following conditions: I. All construction shall follow the site plan approved by the city. The director of community development may approve minor changes. 2. The proposed construction must be substantially started within one year of council approval or the permit shall become null and void. The council may extend this deadline for one year. 3. The city council shall review this permit in one year. The Maplewood City Council adopted the resolution on ,2003. 48