The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About06/16/2003MAPLEWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION Monday, June 16, 2003, 7:00 PM City Hall Council Chambers 1830 County Road B East Call to Order 2. Roll Call 3. Approval of Agenda 4. Approval of Minutes a. June 2,2003 5. Public Headngs 6. New Business a. Zoning Map Change - R-1 to LBC (1955 McMenemy Street) b. Mendota Homes Town houses (County Road D) 1. Wetland Buffer Variance 2. Conditional Use Permit for Planned Unit Development 3. Preliminary Plat c. Hillcrest Village Mixed-Use Zoning District Discussion - Parking Standards 7. Unfinished Business 8. Visitor Presentations 9. Commission Presentations a. June 9 Council Meeting: Mr. Rossbach b. June 23 Council Meeting: Ms. Fischer c. July 14 Council Meeting: Mr. Pearson 10. Staff Presentations a. Annual Tour-June 30, 2003 (5:15- 9:00) 11. Adjournment DRAFT MINUTES OF THE MAPLEWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION 1830 COUNTY ROAD B EAST, MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA MONDAY, JUNE 2, 2003 I. CALLTO ORDER Chairperson Fischer called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. I1. ROLL CALL Chairperson Lorraine Fischer Commissioner Tushar Desai Commissioner Commissioner Commissioner Commissioner Commissioner Commissioner Commissioner Mary Dierich Matt Ledvina Jackie Monahan-Junek Paul Mueller Gary Pearson William Rossbach Dale Trippler Present Present Present Absent Present Present Present Present Present Staff Present: Melinda Coleman, Assistant City Manager Chuck Ahl, Public Works Director Tom Ekstrand, Assistant Community Development Director Ken Roberts, Associate Planner Lisa Kroll, Recording Secretary III. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Commissioner Trippler moved to approve the agenda. 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 19, 2003. Commissioner Trippler had corrections on pages 6 and 9 of the May 19, 2003, minutes. On page 6, in the first paragraph, in the tenth sentence, change the word ~ to integral. On page 9, in the third paragraph, in the second sentence, it should read: when,~';-',,., ,"'-';'-'~'~'"'-~'""-"~,..,~, ,.....,. ,......,. *~'-*., ,,... the rule ~ '"'-'~" it nc ...rui,.,-, ,~,,.,, was eliminated, his neighborhood thought it that was a ~ ~ ~,.J.~,~ ~,.t[ [~k[[ [~ ,., ,~.y good option. In the tenth sentence, it should read: it would be a poor policy to have one parking ordinance in one area of the city and another parking ordinance in a different area of the city. Commissioner Pearson moved to approve the planning commission minutes for May 19, 2003, with proposed changes. Planning Commission Minutes of 06-02-03 -2- Commissioner Trippler seconded. Ayes - Desai, Dierich, Fischer, Monahan-Junek, Mueller, Pearson, Rossbach, Trippler V. PUBLIC HEARING a. 2004-2008 Maplewood Capital Improvements Plan Mr. Roberts said the city updates this report each year and Dan Faust, Finance Director, will show a video presentation to the planning commission. Any comments or questions that the planning commission may have can be addressed after the video presentation. Mr. Dan Faust, Finance Director of Maplewood, addressed the commission. He said the Capital Improvement Project document was provided to the planning commission in their packet. The letter of transmittal from the city manager provides an introduction to the material in the document. A large part of the document was based upon city goals that were established at a city council and management staff retreat held on July 30, 2002, and February 18, 2003. The 30- minute video presentation summarizes the items within the capital improvement plan. The planning commission watched the CIP video. Mr. Richard Fursman, City Manager of Maplewood, addressed the commission. He said the Capital Improvement Project is subject to availability of funds. A major portion of the Capital Improvement Projects will include road, sewer, and water projects. A lot of the money for these projects will come from special assessments and state aid. As these projects are completed in the city the property owners in Maplewood would be assessed. In 2004, the City of Maplewood will take an assessment to see what type of resources will be available to the city. Fortunately, the City of Maplewood will not be hit as hard as they had predicted. Unfortunately, the City of Maplewood loses 100% of its State Aid as well as a significant portion of the city's Home Value Credit. Commissioner Trippler said he noticed in the video presentation that some of the streets were in really bad condition and were not slated for work until 2007 and other streets that did not appear to be in that bad of condition were slated for work in 2004. He asked how the city decides which projects get done and when? Mr. Fursman said each street is graded by the engineering staff and then goes through a rating system as to what type of condition it is in. Each area on the video does not accurately show the best or worst area of the street. Commissioner Trippler said another area he noticed was Lions Park, which is slated for improvements in 2007-2008 and is in need of new playground equipment and improvements and Hazelwood Park, is slated for a new irrigation system in 2006. In his opinion, Lions Park needs repair before Hazelwood Park needs an irrigation system. Mr. Fursman invited Mr. Bruce Anderson, Parks and Recreation Director, to address that comment. Planning Commission Minutes of 06-02-03 -3- Mr. Bruce Anderson, Parks and Recreation Director of Maplewood, addressed the commission. He said Harvest Park is the primary ball field in northern Maplewood. There are five ball fields at Harvest Park and the number of participants that use Hazelwood Park in relationship to Lions Park justifies moving that project up in the priority list for funding. Lions Park may be a site that may revert back to different use other than a playground and park. Development on that site is still being analyzed and that is why the work has been delayed. Lions Park has had some significant water problems even though the park had been filled in. The city is looking at longer- term usage for the Lions Park area and one idea is to turn part of it into a storm water holding pond. Chairperson Fischer said on page 1-10 of the report it refers to the sanitary sewer sump pump removal program and it says its anticipated that as many as 20% of the homes in Maplewood have illegal connections. She asked where the 20% figure comes from and how it was arrived at? Mr. Chuck Ahl, Public Works Director of Maplewood, addressed the commission. The 20% figure of homes with illegal sump pump connections comes from the Metropolitan Council. It is estimated that because of the age of the home and the type of construction, 1 in 5 homeowners have sump pumps. Because the sump pumps are supposed to be discharged into your backyard they become a nuisance to people. The fact that it is easier for people to put the hose from the sump pump into the laundry tub or drain, Maplewood is paying to treat clear water that is perfectly clean. Chairperson Fischer asked Mr. Ahl how the city would handle homeowners illegally draining their sump pumps? Mr. Ahl said the city could provide an educational program, which would let people know there are alternatives out there. There are grants that the city could get to correctly connect the sump pump drainage. Another option is when a water meter is changed out they could go in and check the sump pump to see that it is draining properly. The city could also go door to door to do sump pump inspections to check for correct set-up. Commissioner Trippler said on page 3-52 of the report it talks about the Gladstone Savannah improvements and the construction of a sitting area near a well. He asked for clarification about the well? Mr. Anderson said the history of that site is that it has the deepest well in Ramsey County, which is close to 700 feet deep. When the railroad yard was in that location, they were required to use clear pristine water for the steam engines. When the city purchased the property they received a waiver so the well did not have to be sealed. Then 2 years ago the well was found and sealed and now there is a monitoring site there. Commissioner Rossbach asked what the economics were for the city to determine to invest a couple million dollars into an area such as the Gladstone or Hillcrest Area? Mr. Ahl said the experience of many cities has been to plant the seed by investing money into the area to attract developers. Once the developers see the city is willing to invest money in an area the developers are drawn to invest in redevelopment. Planning Commission Minutes of 06-02-03 -4- Mr. Ahl said a year ago the city stated they wanted the Hillcrest area to be a priority, however, the city invested in the roundabout in the Gladstone area because developers came to the city stating they noticed the city's interest in redeveloping the area. He said there is still a lot more work to do to redevelop the area. Mr. Ahl said this can be done with colored concrete, streetscapes, light posts, and flower baskets, but investing money in the area is the first step to attract developers to invest in redeveloping the area. Commissioner Rossbach said it seems the city continues to develop in the city when they are already in debt. How is it that the city will get rid of their debt when the city is paying off less debt now then they are gathering each year? It does not seem like that's the correct thing to do. Mr. Faust said there is a section in the five-year capital improvement plan on debt capacity on page 2-1 of the report and the city's objection is not to decrease debt over the next five years. The objective is to finance as many projects as possible that are high priority projects for the city but make sure that the city issues debt beyond the city's means. One way to deal with that issue is to deal with bond ratings. If the city is dealing with too much debt compared to other city's then that can have an adverse effect on the city's bond rating. Beyond the city's debt there are three other factors that are evaluated when a bond rating is assigned, which is on page 2-1 in the second paragraph. The other factors are economic, administrative and fiscal factors. Economic means the local economy. Maplewood has a strong tax base especially with 3M headquarters, which accounts for over 1,4 of the city's tax base. They look at the administrative factors, city management, their credentials and track record. Fiscal factor means the city's history with the annual budget and the size of its reserves. In terms of debt ratios, Mr. Rossbach indicated the city's debt is going up and the per capita debt is going up. On page 2-7 there is a graph that indicates the debt ratio to market value and that is pretty stable over the ten-year period. Commissioner Rossbach asked how much trouble the city would be in if the national economy does not recover? He said there has been discussion about deflation and the city is tying everything to what the market value is. Mr. Faust said it gets down to how the bonds will be paid back and what is the funding source for the debt service on the bonds? Most of the bonds that the city will be issuing have pretty secure funding sources. A large part will be paid for by special assessments, property taxes and state aid so the funding source is pretty solid. It would be a different situation if the funding source would be income taxes and sales tax because that is more directly related to the ups and downs of the economy. Commissioner Rossbach asked if the city would have significant property tax increases? Mr. Faust said the city is just beginning the budget for 2004. The preliminary projections indicate there will be a very small property tax increase for the City of Maplewood payable in 2004. Commissioner Rossbach asked if the frontage road that is proposed on TH 61 is going to be paid for by the city or by the car dealerships? Mr. Ahl said there are no city funds involved in that particular project. Planning Commission Minutes of 06-02-03 -5- Commissioner Rossbach said he would like to have more discussion regarding the development of the Gladstone area regarding whether the city of Maplewood should be in the developing business or not. In his opinion, the city should not be in the development business. It doesn't seem that city government is set up to be in the developing business. There is a chance of accusations being made when the city is involved in things outside of the governmental role. Mr. Ahl said the city agrees with that statement. That statement Mr. Rossbach referred to was only made if the city cannot find a developer for the Gladstone area. Commissioner Pearson said on page 2-3 in the report the projected debt and a large portion of the tax base is being based on growth and the completion of Legacy Village. With the Legacy Village property being the last large parcel left to develop in Maplewood, he wondered how much planning; additional funding or debt will the city be looking at as a result of less tax growth on new development? Mr. Faust said the tax base equates to the market value projections and the numbers are on page 2-6 of the report. Those numbers on page 2-6 are conservative and do not include Legacy Village. Chairperson Fischer asked Mr. Faust why the 2004, projected market value on page 2-8 of the report is less than the 2003 projected market value? Mr. Faust said he looks at what the estimated full market value is for the previous five years and calculates the annual percentage change average and then applies that percentage to the last known value. The drop is due to the way the tax assessor is calculating the estimated market value. Mr. Faust said there were two large tax appeals in the City of Maplewood. The 3M headquarters complex received a large reduction in their taxes and the Maplewood Mall contested their value and received an adjustment downward as well. Commissioner Trippler said in the report it states the city is going to be purchasing some communications equipment and he wondered if that was for two different units and if they would be purchased in sequence? Mr. Dave Thomella, Police Chief of Maplewood, addressed the commission. He said in the report one communication equipment system is coded (FD) for the fire department and the second page is coded (PD) for the police department, which includes the upgrades to the communications center in the city hall building. Mr. Thomella said the rest of the funding is for the mobile and portable radios, which are required on these frequencies. Commissioner Pearson asked if the trail from Maryland Avenue into the Priory area was still needed. When the trail went in north of Maryland Avenue it was a fire department access road to the backside of the Pondview Apartments. Commissioner Pearson asked if the trail is still needed for the fire department and if so is the trail wide enough for the fire trucks? Mr. Ahl said staff would have to investigate that question further because staff from the fire department and police department did not have an answer to that question. Chairperson Fischer asked if anybody in the audience wanted to speak regarding the 2004 capital improvement plan? Planning Commission Minutes of 06-02-03 -6- There were no audience members that came forward to address the commission. Commissioner Rossbach moved to recommend to the city council that they adopt the 2004-2008 Capital Improvement Plan. Commissioner Pearson seconded. Ayes- Desai, Dierich, Fischer, Monahan-Junek, Mueller, Pearson, Rossbach, Trippler The motion passed. This item goes to the city council on June 9, 2003. b. Legacy Village (County Road D and Southlawn Drive) Ms. Coleman said staff scheduled this meeting for the planning commission to review the various requests by the Hartford Group for the proposed Legacy Village development. City staff sent out over 375 public hearing notices for this meeting. After sending the public hearing notices out the Hartford Group had asked for an extension on the review of this project and they are making revisions on the site plan based on the comments from the meeting between the planning commission and the city council on Monday, May 19, 2003. Ms. Coleman said the plan is to bring the revised site plan back to the planning commission on July 7, 2003. Another public hearing notice will be mailed out for that meeting. Ms. Coleman apologized to the audience members who came to this meeting for the inconvenience. Chairperson Fischer asked if anybody in the audience wanted to address the planning commission regarding this proposal. Mr. Paul Hajicek, 25699 Kruger Avenue, Chisago City, addressed the commission. His family is the present owner of the property that is proposed for the Legacy Village and he would like an update of the progress of this project. Ms. Coleman said things are going relatively well. The city council, planning commission, and the community design review board, saw a site plan of the Legacy Village proposal on May 19, 2003. She gave Mr. Hajicek a copy of the proposal and the staff report. At the joint meeting, several commission members made comments regarding the changes that they had and now the Hartford Group is making revisions. Ms. Coleman said the concerns related to the amount of retail that was being proposed, the amount of affordable housing and where the housing would be located, and the types of townhouses that were being proposed were some of the concerns. The planning schedule that was made for the Legacy Village over a year ago became more complicated and is taking longer than the city staff anticipated. Ms. Coleman said the comprehensive land use plan is scheduled for approval with the city council on July 14, 2003. After that is approved the Hartford Group will bring the building elevations to the city for approval by the various committees. Mr. Scott Uttley, Managing Partner of the Best Western Maplewood Inn, 1780 County Road D East, addressed the commission. He wants to make sure that the city is following the parameters that were set to preserve the corporate feel for this project because that is a piece that is missing in the area to support the existing areas. Planning Commission Minutes of 06-02-03 -7- Mr. Uttley said the reason the corporate offices are so important is because the vehicle traffic would not add to the traffic congestion problems that occur in the evening and the weekends. He wants some assurance that the development would not move forward without the corporate piece of the development followed through, Commissioner Rossbach assured the speaker that the corporate piece he mentioned had been brought up by several commission members and is a high priority. Commissioner Dierich asked Ms. Coleman if there had been any more discussion regarding reducing the amount of affordable housing in the Legacy Development and adding it to another area of the city such as in the Gladstone or Hillcrest development area? She remembered hearing discussion about that at the city council meeting on May 19, 2003. Ms. Coleman said city staff is working on that. There will be a presentation on affordable housing on Monday, June 9, 2003, at 6:00 p.m. All of the committees are invited to attend as well as the Lakeview Church who have been very involved in the affordable housing issue. The discussion will be about what affordable housing is and how much of it is currently in the City of Maplewood, what it looks like, and future affordable housing in Legacy Village, Gladstone and the Hillcrest area. Then on Monday, June 23, 2003, at 6:00 p.m. there will be a meeting with the Maxfield Research Group who will be presenting their findings of their market study with the Hillcrest and the Gladstone area. Commissioner Dierich asked Mr. Ahl if he could tell her why the Legacy Village development would have private roadways rather than public roadways cared for by the city? Mr. Ahl said private roads are becoming a trend. With private roads the city does not plow or sand the roads nor do they repair the roads, which saves the City of Maplewood tax dollars. The development community has control over the different setbacks and design standards although the city applies a local standard to them. The roads are also required to have emergency standards for proper access. Staff said the Legacy Village discussion should be tabled until the July 7, 2003, planning commission meeting. Commissioner Pearson moved to table the Legacy Village discussion until July 7, 2003. Commissioner Dierich seconded. Ayes- Desai, Dierich, Fischer, Monahan-Junek, Mueller, Pearson, Rossbach, Trippler The motion is tabled. VI. NEW BUSINESS Conditional Use Permit Revision - Saint Paul Regional Water Services McCarrons Treatment Plant (1900 Rice Street) Mr. Roberts said the Saint Paul Regional Water Services is proposing to make changes and additions (listed in the staff report) to their facilities at the McCarrons Water Treatment Plan at 1900 Rice Street. Planning Commission Minutes of 06-02-03 -8- Mr. Roberts said these changes and additions include a two-story, 36,000-square-foot office building, a one-story, 11,230-square-foot meter shop and warehouse, a one-story, 17,350-square- foot vehicle maintenance and storage building, and a future cold vehicle storage building. Mr. Roberts said the design plans were reviewed at their CDRB meeting May 27, 2003. Commissioner Trippler asked if for some reason the city did not grant the 20-foot variance on the setback could the city still require the SPRWS to do the modification work with the 40-foot variance? Mr. Roberts said yes. Commissioner Trippler said the only justification he saw for setting the building back 40 feet is that the SPRWS needed space to turn their trucks around. He asked if that was the only reason? Mr. Roberts said he would defer that question to the applicant. Commissioner Trippler asked what considerations the city staff gave to agreeing to the setback? Mr. Roberts said one of the main criteria was the grade on the property. Commissioner Pearson said there are 6 to 8 parking spots on the south side of the proposed new water treatment building, he asked if those spots are meant to go on the south side of the roadway because the blueprint does not show that. Mr. David Wagner, Project Manager, (SPRWS) St. Paul Regional Water Services, 400 Commerce Building, Eight- 4th Street East, St. Paul, addressed the commission. Mr. Wagner said regarding the question asked by Mr. Pearson, they are trying to separate the high security area of the water treatment complex from the medium and lower security area by bringing all of the parking to one location for security purposes. Commissioner Trippler asked the applicant about the need for the 20-foot variance on the setback from the stream and if it would be absolutely impossible to construct the garage 60-feet from the stream? Mr. Wagner said they would do whatever the City of Maplewood requests them to do. He said from an operational standpoint, they would like to have the 20-foot variance. Operationally it will be an easier environment to operate the trucks and equipment with the proposed variance. They could build the garage without the variance but it would be safer for everyone to have the extra space. He said Jim Butler from the architecture company could comment further on that. Mr. Jim Butler, Associate Vice President, (HGA) Hammel, Green and Abrahamson, Inc., 701 Washington Avenue North, Minneapolis, addressed the commission. He said there are vehicle maneuverability issues on the property. It is a large challenge to locate buildings on the property and miss underground utilities. The property slopes 30 feet from the north to the south so they are going to tier the property to make two flat areas, thus moving the building back allows them to have proper maneuvering and ramps. Currently, the gravel yard slopes down into trout brook and there is no green space next to the fence. By positioning the building there and providing the area with a new green space, this improves the site drainage and moves the site drainage away from going directly into trout brook. Planning Commission Minutes of 06-02-03 -9- Mr. Butler said then they can enclose the drainage that is piped off to the water pond itself. Commissioner Rossbach asked how long the water utility has been on this site? Mr. Wagner said the first plant was built around 1920 with various improvements throughout the years. Commissioner Rossbach said chances are the water utility created the gravel yard? Mr. Wagner said correct. Commissioner Rossbach said the statement in the staff report states the circumstances are not created by the applicant, which is incorrect. He said the water utility has manipulated the circumstances that are there. Mr. Wagner said yes, the water utility created those circumstances. Commissioner Rossbach said he would like to discuss what is happening along the stream. He said he could be open to allowing a variance here but he wants the water utility to do as much as possible along the entire length of the stream. If the water utility did some significant buffer improvements he may be more apt to agree to the variance. Commissioner Rossbach said he is interested in creating a buffer in the area. Even though the section of the stream is outside of the project area, he thinks that the buffer that is there is also degraded. If the city would consider the entire day lighted area of the stream that the water utility has available to them, and what the city can do to enhance it, he would be more apt to agree to put a building within 40 feet of trout brook. His position was the water utility should restore the buffer along the whole stream and not have any buildings within the buffer area and follow the code. Commissioner Rossbach does not feel there is a hardship here and nobody other than the water utility created the hardship. If he could say the water utility was doing everything they can to make sure there is a decent buffer around the stream then the city should give them a break. Mr. Wagner said the area south of the roadway is wide-open ground area. He feels the water utility and the architects (HGA) have done a good job of making this site work because it is a very difficult site to build on. They are trying to bring their buildings together so that operationally things work for the water utility. Commissioner Rossbach said when Mr. Trippler asked if the water utility could build without the variance Mr. Wagner replied the water utility would do whatever the City of Maplewood asks them to do. He also said they could build the garage without the variance but it would be a safer environment with the variance. Commissioner Rossbach said the commission is trying to make this site work for the City of Maplewood. It seems to him a good trade off would be that the city looks at the entire length of the day lighted stream and restoring the buffer as much as possible in those areas. In the southern part of the property it may a good idea to plant natural grasses for an undisturbed buffer area. In order for him to feel good about granting the variance he wants the water utility to do as much as they can to the whole stream that they have access to. Mr. Wagner said the water utility could look at that area south of the entrance at Rice Street with very little hardship to the water utility and probably make some improvements to the stream as well. Planning Commission Minutes of 06-02-03 -10- Mr. Roberts asked commissioner Rossbach if it would be his intention to expand on the area south of the entrance road, which is on page 5 in the recommendations? Commissioner Rossbach said it would be his desire to have the water utility improve the buffer area and or stream as stated by the applicant in the total expanse of the day lighted stream that the property abuts. He would view that as a trade off for the city giving the water utility a reduced variance area for their cold storage building. Over the years the stream has been desecrated and this would give the city a chance to get a little of the stream back. Commissioner Trippler asked if he is correct that the approval is subject to the applicant doing recommendations 1,2, and 3? He asked if that meant that the water utility has to do the buffer improvement now or does it mean that when and if the water utility decides to put this building in they are required to do this? Mr. Roberts said it was staff's intent that this would be done as part of the project whether the future building gets built or not. Commissioner Trippler said he agrees with Mr. Rossbach that it is a good trade off and that recommendation A. 1. on page 5 needs to be revised. Commissioner Mueller said he agrees with Mr. Rossbach and Mr. Trippler. He asked when the city made these rules for the 60-foot setback? He doesn't necessarily feel it is fair for the commission to say that the water utility messed up and they should have known better. The water utility did not do anything illegal. Mr. Roberts said the wetland protection ordinance was adopted in approximately 1994 but clearly the water utility has had a yard and they have been out there much longer. Commissioner Rossbach said he didn't mean to imply that the water utility intentionally created this problem but the property owner created their own problem. Commissioner Dierich asked how traffic fits into this on page 8 in ordinance requirement number 2 and 3? She read traffic is moving from 10 semi-trucks a day to 70 semi-trucks a day. She asked what kind of comments have you heard from engineering? Mr. Roberts said all the comments he received are in the report. They are not all semi-trucks that are coming and going into the site. Commissioner Dierich said she would like to see the applicant do something more exciting on the exterior of the building elevations to improve the aesthetics. Chris Cavett had many things that he talked about in his report and she is concerned about number 1., 6, and 7. She asked if staff had received the reports yet? Mr. Roberts said the applicant has those reports and they are revising the plans based on comments from the watershed district. Before the building permits are issued, the engineering department has to approve the plans and they will make sure those changes are on the plans before any permits are issued. Planning Commission Minutes of 06-02-03 -11- Commissioner Dierich said she was looking at the drainage issues and it says the upper lot was going to drain into an area and the lower area would drain into the storm water retention area and all of that drains into trout brook. She asked if there were going to be treatments done to the water before it drains into trout brook? Mr. Roberts said the existing ponding area is going to get some reconfiguring and shaping to better accommodate the runoff from this project site as well as the larger area. There will be some standing water but a lot of it settles in and infiltrates into the ground, He doesn't know the engineering details but there are some overflows and maybe Mr. Wagner can talk about them. Most of the water is intended to stay on site and settle after going through the rainwater garden and into this pond, Commissioner Rossbach moved to approve the resolution on pages 45 and 46 of the staff report. This resolution is for a 20-foot stream setback variance for the construction of a vehicle storage building at the McCarrons water treatment plant at 1900 Rice Street. The city approves this variance because: (changes are in bold, deletions have been stricken through.) Strict enforcement of the code would cause undue hardship because of circumstances unique to the property -'-a ""'* .... *"~ ~" *~' ...... "* ......... The 60-foot-wide stream buffer requirement would make development of this site difficult. The variance would be in keeping with the spirit 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 adjacent to the future cold storage building and creating a buffer along the entire length of the stream contained in or bordering their property. The created buffer shall be the full required 50 feet in all areas possible. 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. Submitting a revised landscape plan for the restoration of 40-feet-~ 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 district 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. Commissioner Rossbach moved to adopt the resolution on pages 47 and 48 of the staff report. 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: Planning Commission Minutes of 06-02-03 -12- 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 tho permit ~hall become null and void. 3. The city council shall review this permit in one year. 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 23, 2003. VII. UNFINISHED BUSINESS None. VIII. VISITOR PRESENTATIONS None. IX. COMMISSION PRESENTATIONS a. Ms. Dierich was the planning commission representative at the May 27, 2003, city council meeting. Ms. Dierich said the Dearborn Meadow townhouse CUP was approved, the comprehensive sanitary sewer plan update was approved with the commission's recommendations instead of staff's recommendations. The Maplewood Auto Center was approved but the applicant appealed the recommendations by the CDRB and it will go back to the city council. Mr. Roberts said Ms. Coleman is proposing that the city council write an ordinance regarding the licensing procedures for group homes and the spacing of how many group homes there may be in an area. c. Mr. Rossbach will be the planning commission representative at the June 9, 2003, city council meeting. Items to be discussed will be the Capital Improvement Plan for 2004-2008 and the street and alley vacations for County Road D and Hazelwood. d. Ms. Fischer will be the planning commission representative at the June 23, 2003, city council meeting. The Saint Paul Regional Water Services McCarrons Treatment Plant CUP will be discussed. Planning Commission Minutes of 06-02-03 -13- Commissioner Rossbach commented on the preliminary project review on Mendota Homes and there were a few things that were worth noting. He does not think it's a good idea for developers tO think that when they come into the city they can put all the wetlands on the project into one wetland and put a straight road in and have houses arranged neatly in a row. Some of the wetlands he saw from the road looked degraded but as a general rule of thumb he doesn't think that is the way the city should go. Commissioner Rossbach said in the Mendota Homes write up it says the development site has two significant characteristics that make this variance necessary. The existing small wetland areas on the site are disbursed throughout the property in a way that makes a cohesive housing development impossible while preserving these areas. He wanted to point out those comments and hopes that if the city would move to combining wetlands into one wetland that the city is also getting all the buffer area. When the city was dealing with the realignment of County Road D it seems there is buffer area around all those wetlands now and the city should have at least that amount of buffer area if the city is going to allow combining wetlands into one wetland. His other comment is that the garage forward design went out of style along time ago and he thinks the city would be making a mistake to allow buildings to be built like big garages. X. STAFF PRESENTATIONS Mr. Roberts said the city council approved the south Maplewood sewer study and from that the city council liked the 2-acre minimum lot size requirement. There are three sewer districts that are least likely to get sanitary sewers. The city staff will be preparing a proposed 2-acre minimum lot-size zoning district to be added to the code. Mr. Roberts said just as a reminder notices will be sent out regarding the meetings Ms. Coleman discussed on June 9 and June 23 at 6:00 p.m. XI. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 9:30 p.m. MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: SUBdECT: APPLICANT: LOCATION: DATE: Richard Fursman, City Manager Shann Finwall, Associate Planner Rezoning Craig Rafferty of Rafferty, Rafferty, Tollefson Architects, representing the St. Paul Area Association of Realtors 1955 McMenemy Street June 6, 2003 INTRODUCTION Project Description The St. Paul Area Association of Realtors (SPAAR) has purchased the property at 1955 McMenemy Street for a future expansion to their office building, which is located directly to the south at 325 Roselawn Avenue. In order to expand their commercial office building, the property must be rezoned from single-dwelling residential (R-l) to limited business commercial (LBC). Request To proceed with this proposal, SPAAR is requesting that the city rezone 1955 McMenemy Street from single-dwelling residential (R-l) to limited business commercial (LBC). State law requires rezoning of properties from residential to commercial to be passed by a two-third's city council vote (4 votes). DISCUSSION Existing Conditions SPAAR's office building is located on Roselawn Avenue, with additional frontage on Sloan Place and McMenemy Street. To the north of the office building are four single-family properties with double frontage lots on Sloan Place and McMenemy Street. To the north of the single-family houses is Maplewood Fire Station No. 3. Zoning and Comprehensive Plan The applicant's office building at 325 Roselawn Avenue is zoned and guided as LBC. The four single-family properties located to the north of the applicant's office building, including 1955 McMenemy Street, are zoned as R-1 but guided in the city's comprehensive plan as LBC. LBC zoning is a Iow-impact commercial zoning district, designed for transition areas between residential and commercial. Permitted uses include offices, medical or health related clinics and day care centers. In 1990 the city studied properties that had inconsistent zoning and land use designations. The four single-family properties located to the north of SPAAR's office building were included in this study. At that time, the properties were zoned Farm Residence and guided in the city's comprehensive plan as limited service commercial (this zoning classification was later changed to limited business commercial (LBC)). After the study, the city council rezoned the four properties from Farm Residence to R-l, but retained the limited service commercial land use designation. The city council determined that the commercial land use designation should be retained because of the properties' proximity to existing commercial properties to the west, across Sloan Place, and because of their proximity to freeway access. In addition, the Iow-impact uses allowed in the LBC zoning district would have minimal impacts on residential properties located to the east, across McMenemy Street. Future I~xpans;on If the city approves the rezoning of 1955 McMenemy Street, the applicants will complete more detailed plans for the removal of the single-family house and the expansion of their parking lot including grading and drainage, landscaping and lighting plans. The expansion of the parking lot will require review by the city's community design review board (CDRB), with notification to all affected property owners. Long-range plans include an expansion to the applicant's office building, which will also require review by the CDRB. The applicants state that rezoning the property from R-1 to LBC would comply with the intent defined in the city's land use designation map. In addition, the expansion of their office building will help eliminate occasional overflow parking on the street and will create two access points for their office building, minimizing traffic conflicts at Roselawn Avenue. Neighbor Concern The property owners most affected by the applicant's proposal are located at 1961 McMenemy Street, directly to the north of 1955 McMenemy Street. Their concerns are addressed in the Citizen Comments section of the staff report on page 4. In summary, these property owners have expressed concerns over the future expansion of the parking lot and office building including lighting, fencing and the impacts of a parking lot next to their residential home. Keith Holmes, representative for SPAAR, has indicated that the existing security lights were installed last year after their office building was vandalized. Mr. Holmes states that these lights will be removed entirely or replaced with lights that will not produce glare into the neighbor's property. Mr. Holmes has also stated that SPAAR will address the residential property owners' concern over the proposed fence by installing a more natural screen of berming and landscaping. Screening between residential and commercial properties is required by city code to ensure no negative impacts from the commercial property to the adjacent residential property. This screening will be reviewed by the CDRB once the applicant has submitted a formal design review application. Other Comments Building Official: When the applicant completes the parking lot at least three accessible parking spaces will be required, per the 65 parking spaces proposed, with at least one of the accessible parking spaces as van accessible. When the applicant completes the addition to their building they will be required to sprinkler the building and add an elevator. Assistant City Engineer: The applicant should note that the "conceptuar' site plan seems rather ambitious for the site. A full grading and drainage plan will be required prior to building permit application. There will be site issues with regard to grading, drainage and ponding that must be addressed at that time. St. Paul Area Association of Realtors 2 June 6, 2003 Summary Rezoning 1955 McMenemy Street is consistent with the spirit, purpose and intent of the city's long-range land use plan for the area. In addition, the zoning change and future expansion will not detract from the use of the neighboring properties because of the proposed berming and landscaping which will ensure screening, the additional parking which will help alleviate occasional on-street parking and the second parking lot access which will help alleviate occasional traffic congestion. RECOMMENDATION Adopt the zoning map change resolution on page 14. This resolution changes the zoning map for 1955 McMenemy Street from single-dwelling residential (R-l) to limited business commercial (LBC). The city is making this change because: 1. The proposed change is consistent with the spirit, purpose and intent of the zoning code. The proposed change will not substantially injure or detract from the use of neighboring property or from the character of the neighborhood, and that the use of the property adjacent to the area included in the proposed change or plan is adequately safeguarded. The proposed change will serve the best interests and conveniences of the community, where applicable, and the public welfare. The proposed change would have no negative effect upon the logical, efficient, and economical extension of public services and facilities, such as public water, sewers, police and fire protection and schools. St. Paul Area Association of Realtors 3 June 6, 2003 CITIZEN COMMENTS I surveyed the owners of the 33 properties within 500 feet of 1955 McMenemy Street. Of the eight responses received, four were in favor of the proposal, one had concerns, and three were opposed. In Favor Larry Black of MNCON, Inc., 1959 Sloan Place North: "With the fire department to the north, I think the proposed zoning is a better fit than the existing!" 2. Church of St. Jerome's, 380 Roselawn Avenue East: "We have no objections." John and Marilyn Thomas, 328 Roselawn Avenue East: "The rezoning request and future plans are acceptable to us. We have no problems with them." David and Leilani Drake, 313 Bellwood Avenue East: "No comments at present, in information available as to potential positive and/or adverse implications. Will try to come to public meeting if the date works out with scheduled and/or prioritized plans. Thank you for the notice." Concerns Bud & Beth Walsh, 314 Roselawn Avenue East: "In response to the letter we received about the Realtor's rezoning request. We would like to see an additional entrance to the new parking lot on the east side, from McMenemy. This would help relieve some of the traffic on the corner of Sloan Place. We live directly across the street from that intersection. I have spoken with our neighbors many times about the amount of traffic at that intersection, and the speed that people drive on Roselawn. We have an extremely hard time getting in and out of our driveway, the traffic is too inconsiderate to let us in and out. There have been numerous accidents because of these conditions. When the realtors have meetings and they all leave at once you can sit in our driveway for 10 min. before someone will let you out. I'm not kidding, it happens a lot! Thank you for letting us put in our input." Opposed Mark and Janet Johnson, 1961 McMenemy Street North: ~1) We are concerned about the Realtor's building security lights shining too brightly on and in our house and yard; 2) Most important we don't want a fence blocking our view of McMenemy Street. The wood fence would be acceptable if it starts where the existing house is; 3) We are concerned that a parking lot would look ugly from McMenemy Street and not fit in with the current residential look. Instead of a lawn our view will be of cars and concrete from our front windows and yard." Lorraine Littlefield, 1986 McMenemy Street North: "1 am against this. There is enough congestion and cars on this street and lights shining in my bedroom window. Lets just have pdvate homes." Hubert and Herbert Toenjes, 1950 Hawthorne Avenue East: "We are pursuing developing R1 on the east side of McMenemy. Light business commercial across street would not be desirable. Our vote would be - no. However, if the city council would consider rezoning east side of McMenemy LBC then our comment would be - yes." St. Paul Area Association of Realtors 4 June 6, 2003 REFERENCE INFORMATION SITE DESCRIPTION Site Size: Existing Land Use: 25,646 square feet Single-Family House SURROUNDING LAND USES North: South: East: West: Single-Family House (Zoned R-l) St. Paul Area Association of Realtors' Office Building (Zoned LBC) Single-Family houses across McMenemy Street (Zoned R-l) Maplewood Office Center (Zoned LBC and Commercial Office) PLANNING Existing Zoning: Existing Land Use: Single-Dwelling Residential Limited Business Commercial CRITERIA FOR APPROVAL Rezoning: Section 36-485 of the zoning code requires that the city council make the following findings to rezone property: 1. The proposed change is consistent with the spirit, purpose and intent of the zoning code. The proposed change will not substantially injure or detract from the use of neighboring property or from the character of the neighborhood, and that the use of the property adjacent to the area included in the proposed change or plan is adequately safeguarded. The proposed change will serve the best interests and conveniences of the community, where applicable, and the public welfare. The proposed change would have no negative effect upon the logical, efficient, and economical extension of public services and facilities, such as public water, sewers, police and fire protection and schools. P:comdev~sec17~stpaulrealtorsrezoning Attachments: 1. City Location Map 2. Location Map 3. Land Use Map 4. Zoning Map 5. Existing Site Plan 6. 1955 McMenemy Street 7. Schematic Site Plan 8. Long Range Plan 9. Zoning Map Change Resolution St. Paul Area Association of Realtors 5 June 6, 2003 Attachment 1 North St. Paul St. Paul N City Location Map 6 Attachment 2 1955 McMenemy St. 325 Roselawn Ave. N S Location Map 7 Attachment 3 I.U 1955 325 Roselawn Ave. Roselawn ue Limited Business Commercial Business Commercial Modified Business Commercial Small Lot Single Dwelling Real Single Dwelling Residential Double Dwelling Residential Low Multiple Dwelling Resident Medium Multiple Dwelling Resid High Multiple Dwelling Residen 30000 Residential Estate 40000 Residential Estate Park Open Space School c~y Government Library Church Fire Station Land Use 8 Attachment 4 ILl 1955 McMenemy St. 325 Roselawn Ave. Roselawn Avenue N Light Manufacturing Heavy Manufacturing Neighborhood Commercial Commercial Office Limited Business Commercial Business Commercial Modified Business Commercial Shopping Center Small Lot Single Dwelling Residential Single Dwelling Residential Double Dwelling Residential Low Mulitple Dwellings High Multiple Dwelling Residential Condo Planned Urban Development Residential Estate (30,00 sq ft) Residential Estate (40,00) sq ft) Farm 9 Zoning ,?'{ T Attachment 5 DEPARTI'iENT RIGHT (DF LUAT ~ f~OSELAUJN 4,VENUE Existing Site Plan lO Attachment 6 66 N 955 McMenemy Street 11 S Attachment 7 NIGNU~Y DEP~,I~TMENT t~lSNt of UJ~,Y ROSELAIIN AVENUE Schematic Site Plan 12 N l_ NI~y DE~I~THt~T I~IGblT ~f ~y Attachment 8 ROSEL~EN AVENUE Long Range Plan 13 Attachment 9 ZONING MAP CHANGE RESOLUTION WHEREAS, the St. Paul Area Association of Realtors has requested a change to the city's zoning map from single-dwelling residential (R-l) to limited business commercial (LBC). WHEREAS, this change applies to 1955 McMenemy Street, Maplewood, Minnesota. WHEREAS, the legal description of the property is: East 223 feet of the N 405 feet of the SE quarter of the SE quarter of the NE quarter of Sec. 18, TWN 29, Range 22, except N 270 feet thereof, according to the United States Government Survey thereof, Ramsey County, Minnesota WHEREAS, the history of this change is as follows: 1. On June 16, 2003, the planning commission recommended that the city council approve the rezoning change. 2. On ,2003, the city council held a public hearing. City staff published a notice in the Maplewood Review and sent notices to the surrounding property owners. The council conducted the public hearing whereby all public present were given a chance to speak and present wdtten statements. The city 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 change in the zoning map for the following reasons: 1. The proposed change is consistent with the spirit, purpose and intent of the zoning code. 2. The proposed change will not substantially injure or detract from the use of neighboring property or from the character of the neighborhood, and that the use of the property adjacent to the area included in the proposed change or plan is adequately safeguarded. 3. The proposed change will serve the best interests and conveniences of the community, where applicable, and the public welfare. 4. The proposed change would have no negative effect upon the logical, efficient, and economical extension of public services and facilities, such as public water, sewers, police and fire protection and schools. The Maplewood City Council adopted this resolution on ,2003. 14 MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: SUBJECT: LOCATION: APPLICANT: DATE: City Manager Tom Ekstrand, Assistant Community Development Director Woodlyn Ponds Twin Homes I~etween County Road D and Woodlyn Avenue Mendota Homes, Inc. June 11,2003 INTRODUCTION Project Description Ms. Erin Mathern, of Mendota Homes, Inc., is proposing to build a 26-unit twin-home development on a 5.2-acre parcel between County Road D and Woodlyn Avenue. The proposed development would have 10 buildings fronting on a private roadway running south from County Road D to within the Xcel power line easement for the termination of the road. There would also be three twin homes fronting on Woodlyn Avenue south of the Xcel easement. Refer to the maps and narrative on pages 14-28. The proposed twin homes would each have two-car, front-facing garages. They would be sided with no-maintenance vinyl horizontal-lap siding, vinyl shake detailing beneath the gable peaks and brick wainscot on the front of the garages. The applicant has included three optional front-elevation designs as well. Refer to the building elevation reduction on page 22 or the larger plans (separate attachment). Requests The applicant is requesting that the city approve: A wetland buffer variance, since they propose to displace two small wetlands and mitigate them within the site. They would also incorporate a third wetland into a large wetland they would create beneath the power lines. A conditional use permit (CUP) for a planned unit development (PUD). The applicant is proposing this project as a PUD since they would be platting this as a townhome development and not create individual 12,000-square-foot double-dwelling lots as specified in the ordinance for twin homes. 3. A preliminary plat. 4. The project design plans. BACKGROUND Recent Housing Developments in this Neighborhood February 14, 2000: The city council approved the last three buildings to be constructed in the Woodlyn Heights Townhome development on Woodlyn Avenue west of McKnight Road. The first of the remaining three three-plexes is under construction. October 9, 2000: The city council approved the 60-unit Birch Glen Apartments on the west side of the proposed twin-home site. This development is completed and units are available for rent. April 28, 2003: The city council approved the 100-unit Sibley Cove Apartments located south of County Road D between White Bear Avenue and Ariel Street. DISCUSSION Wetland Buffer Variance There are three depressions on the site that the Ramsey-Washington Metro Watershed District has classified as Class 4 wetlands. The northerly and southerly ones would be removed as part of this development. The middle one, under the power lines, would be incorporated into a considerably larger wetland. Refer to the grading/drainage plan on page 19 or the full-sized plan (separate attachment). The watershed district has approved the proposed changes. Refer to their letter on page 29. At the June 2 planning commission meeting, Commissioner Rossbach stated that when the planning commission reviews this proposal, he will recommend that there not be any net loss of wetland buffer by the removal of the existing wetlands. I spoke to Cliff Aichinger of the watershed district. He concurred and suggested that the applicant provide a 25-foot buffer around the proposed wetland, equivalent to the required Class 4 wetland buffer requirement. (The code requires an average buffer width of 25 feet with a 20-foot minimum.) I measured the perimeter of the existing three wetlands and the perimeter of the proposed wetland. The existing wetlands have a combined distance of 740 linear feet of buffer surrounding them measured 25 feet from the wetland edge. The perimeter of the proposed wetland, also measured 25 feet from the proposed wetland edge, is 750 linear feet. Staff also compared the gain in wetland area between the three existing wetlands and the proposed mitigated wetland. The total area of the existing wetlands equals 6,600 square feet. The proposed wetland would have 17,200 square feet of area. This is an increase of 62 percent. The applicant is requesting a variance because they propose to replace the existing wetlands with the larger proposed one. The wetland ordinance allows the city council to approve variances and states that the council may require that the applicant mitigate any buffer alteration. Staff agrees with the applicant's proposed mitigation plan and, as stated in the watershed district's letter, feels that they would be improving the quality of wetlands on this site. Staff recommends that the 25-foot average-width buffer around this new pond be planted with native wetland vegetation (code requirement for mitigated buffers). Drainage/City Engineer's Comments In addition to the wetland pond proposed, the applicant is proposing a storm water treatment pond on the uphill side. This pond will collect and treat storm water runoff from the majority of the site before it enters the wetland. The runoff from the three building sites to the south will flow directly to the new wetland. I have included a copy of Chris Cavett's and Erin Schacht's report from our engineering- department's review. They have addressed grading, erosion control, storm sewers, drainage, the private street, utilities and trail/sidewalk easements. Please refer to pages 31-33. 2 In brief, their main concerns are: · The need for proper turf establishment and slope stabilization. · The use of proper native seed mixes for the wetland area. · There should not be parking allowed on the private driveway due to the 24-foot width. · The applicant should dedicate 10-foot drainage and utility easements on all sides of each lot. The applicant should dedicate a 10-foot pedestrian easement along the northerly edge of the site for the relocation of the bituminous trail and relocate the bituminous trail within this easement. Regarding the bituminous trail, this trail did not follow the required and proper setback from County Road D when it was installed, because of objections from the previous owner. Now is the opportunity to correct this matter and provide an increased trail setback from the street edge. Conditional Use Permit/Planned Unit Development Density This proposal complies with the R2 designation in the land use plan and meets density requirements. The land use plan allows a maximum density of six units per acre for a total of 30 dwelling units. The proposed 26 units are under this limit. Compatibility The proposed twin-home use is compatible with the adjacent properties. It would provide an appropriate transition between the Birch Glen Apartments to the west and the Maplewood open space property to the east. It would also be an appropriate fit with the Village on Woodlyn seniors housing and the Salvation Army Church to the south and with the two houses to the north across County Road D. These homes, however, are on lots planned for BC (business commercial). If the city gets a commercial-development application for these parcels, we will work toward minimizing any negative impact on the twin homes. The applicant has applied for a PUD for the proposed lot widths and lot sizes. The code requires that double dwelling lots be at least 85 feet wide and have at least 12,000 square feet of area. These requirements are meant to apply when a twin home would be built on a lot in a typical single-family neighborhood. The city code does not have provisions for twin homes within townhome developments, although we have approved several such developments. One recent development is the Dearborn Meadow twin home plat on the south side of Highway 36 east of White Bear Avenue. Another is the Holloway Ponds twin-home townhome development on Hoiloway Avenue and Beebe Road. A homeowners association would own and maintain the common areas including the private driveway and parking lot. PUD Criteria/Flexibility Section 36-438(b) of the city code states it is the intent of the PUD code to provide a means to allow flexibility by substantial deviations from the provisions of this chapter, including uses, setbacks, height and other regulations. Deviations may be granted for planned unit developments provided that: Certain regulations contained in this chapter should not apply to the proposed development because of its unique nature. 2. The PUD would be consistent with the purposes of this chapter. The planned unit development would produce a development of equal or superior quality to that which would result from strict adherence to the provisions of this chapter. The deviations would not constitute a significant threat to the property values, safety, health or welfare of the owners or occupants of nearby land. The deviations are required for reasonable and practicable physical development and are not required solely for financial reasons. Staff feels that the proposed plan would create an attractive townhome development of double dwellings that would blend into this existing neighborhood creating an appropriate transition between neighboring land uses. Preliminary Plat As proposed, the 26 units on the 5.2-acre site means there would be five units per acre--an average of 8,712 square feet per unit. This is consistent with the density standards in the comprehensive plan for double dwelling residential development and is well above the 6,000- square-foot minimum lot area that the city requires for each unit in a double dwelling. The applicant is proposing a private roadway from County Road D. This roadway measures about 21 feet in width from curb-to-curb (inside edge to inside edge). The minimum roadway width required for a two-way roadway is 24 feet. The applicant should be able to accommodate this within their 27.63-foot roadway area. Staff recommends that the "outlot" designations on the plat be changed to "lots" to create a common-interest community. We have seen in the past where outlots have gone tax- delinquent which can result in unmaintained property or property that becomes available at county auction. Granted, this occurrence is very unlikely. Staff feels, though, that it is a good practice for this and future such developments to designate common areas as lots vs. outlots. Traffic A representative from the Salvation Army Church expressed concern over the existing traffic congestion along White Bear Avenue and in the Maplewood Mall area in general. One neighbor on Lydia Avenue also expressed concern that the traffic was turning Lydia Avenue into a "freeway." The city engineer does not feel that the proposed 20 dwelling units that would enter at County Road D and the six on Woodlyn Avenue would have any significant affect on the traffic. Noise Analysis The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MnPCA) requires that the proposed dwelling units not be impacted by noise over specific levels. If the freeway noise exceeds these levels, the applicant should dampen the noise within the units by methods like installing sound-reducing windows, better wall insulation and by providing air conditioning. The applicant is having a noise analysis performed to evaluate freeway noise impact. Design Approval The applicant has proposed roof design options that would provide some architectural variation within the project from building to building. This is illustrated in the streetscape drawing on page 23 and on Sheet A1 of the elevation drawings. Please note, however, that the 3-unit building shown right of the streetscape sketch is not proposed in this twin-home development. The exterior materials would be consistent from building to building. The applicant would mix color schemes for variety. All color ranges would be neutral tones such as tan, cream, taupe, gray and brown. Staff has one concern with the proposed building placement. The rear decks on the three southerly buildings would be within the Xcel power line easement. The applicant should obtain written approval from Xcel verifying that they will allow the deck encroachments. The city council made the same requirement of the developer of the Woodlyn Heights town houses to the east. Tree Replacement and Landscaping The applicant prepared a tree survey. Of the 78 large trees on the site, 30 were found to be significant trees according to our ordinance. These trees are of the following species: American Elm, Norway Spruce, White Spruce, Silver Maple, Austrian Pine, Crabapple, Green Ash, Blue Spruce, Paper Birch and European Mountain Ash. Other large trees on the site are species such as: Boxelder, Cottonwood, Black Locust and Siberian Elm. To comply with the city's tree- replacement requirements, the applicant must plant 30 replacement trees. They show 117 new trees on their landscape plan. The applicant would surpass the tree-replacement requirements. The proposed landscaping is shown on two drawings. There is an overall plan showing new trees around the site. The other drawing is more specific in showing the proposed plantings around each building. Staff finds the proposed landscaping acceptable. Site Considerations Sidewalks/Trails The applicant should provide a sidewalk along the southerly lot line as was required of the Woodlyn Heights Townhomes to the east. This will complete this section of future sidewalk on the north side of Woodlyn Avenue. The existing bituminous trail along the north side of the site should be relocated closer to the applicant's property. The previous property owner had agreed. Site-Lighting Plan The city code does not require a site-lighting plan for double dwellings, so none has been requested. Roadway Width The private roadway should be widened to 24 feet, which is the minimum width for two-way traffic. This roadway should also be posted for "no parking" on either side. The fire marshal, furthermore, requires a 20-foot-wide unobstructed drive for emergency vehicles. Visitor Parking Lot The applicant has proposed a seven-space visitor parking lot at the south end of their private roadway. Staff feels that this is a good idea though it would not be useful for the northerly six buildings. Staff is also concerned that the homeowners association should make sure that it does not become a storage lot for RVs, boats, trailers, etc. Barbed Wire Fence There is an old barbed wire fence on the east, west and south sides of the site. The applicant should remove these as part of their site development. Police and Fire Comments Butch Gervais, the Maplewood Fire Marshal, stated that the north-south roadway must be at least 20 feet wide. Likewise, the shared drive serving the southerly six units must also be at least 20 feet wide. The driveway in front of the easterly building narrows to 18.5 feet. Mr. Gervais will accept this as long as this driveway is kept clear of snow and parking is not permitted within this drive. Deputy Chief Banick sees no public safety concerns with this proposal. Building Official's Comments Dave Fisher, the Maplewood Building Official, stated the following: · This project must comply with the International Residential Code. Some of the units may need to be handicapped accessible. · If retaining walls are over four feet tall, they must be designed by a structural engineer and have a separate building permit. RECOMMENDATIONS Adopt the resolution beginning on page 34 approving a wetland buffer variance for the Woodlyn Ponds Twin Homes. Approval is based on the following findings: 1. The variance will be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the ordinance since the applicant will replace three small, poorer-quality wetlands with a larger, better-quality wetland. Strict enforcement of the code, by requiring the preservation of the existing wetlands, would not result in the best use and layout of the property and would, therefore, cause undue hardship. The three subject wetlands are not of a nature that they would be an asset to the site for either water retention or wildlife habitat. In this instance, it is an advantage to the developer, as well as the city, to create a useable and aesthetic wetland in lieu of the existing ones. Approval is conditioned upon the applicant doing the following: Revise the site plan to provide a wetland-protection buffer around the proposed wetland. This buffer must be an average of 25 feet wide with a minimum width of 20 feet. b. Dedicate a wetland buffer easement to the City of Maplewood prior to obtaining a grading permit for the project. Install wetland-protection buffer signs around the buffer before the first unit is occupied which states, "WETLAND BUFFER AREA-DO NOT MOW, CUT, DUMP, DISTURB BEYOND THIS POINT-CITY OF MAPLEWOOD." These signs shall be installed not more than 100 feet apart. Provide a planting plan for the wetland buffer to be approved by the watershed district. This plan shall consist of a proposal to plant the buffer with native wetland vegetation. Adopt the resolution starting on page 36 approving a conditional use permit for a planned unit development for the Woodlyn Ponds Twin Homes. This approval is based on the findings for approval listed in the ordinance and subject to the following conditions: All construction shall follow the plans date-stamped May 20, 2003. The city council may approve major changes. 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 end. The council may extend this deadline for one year. 3. The city council shall review this permit in one year. The applicant shall provide a noise evaluation for this site to determine if freeway noise would impact their proposed units above the maximum noise levels required by the MnPCA. If freeway noise does exceed these levels, the applicant shall reduce the outside noise within the units. The homeowners' association documents shall state that the visitor parking lot shall be kept open for visitor parking and shall not be a storage area for RVs, trailers, campers and the like. 6. The applicant shall post the north-south private roadway for no parking on both sides. Approve the Woodlyn Ponds Twin Homes preliminary plat date-stamped May 20, 2003. The developer shall complete the following before the city council approves the final plat: 1. Sign an agreement with the city that guarantees that the developer or contractor will: a, Complete all grading for overall site drainage, complete all public improvements and meet all city requirements. b. Pay the city for the cost of traffic-control, street identification and no-parking signs. Provide all required and necessary easements, including ten-foot drainage and utility easements around the perimeter of the property, the wetland buffer easement and the 10-foot pedestrian easement along the north of the property. d. Cap and seal any wells on site. e. Have Xcel Energy install street lights. The exact location and type of light shall be subject to the city engineer's approval. Install permanent signs around the edge of the wetland buffer easement. These signs shall mark the edge of the easements and shall state that there shall be no mowing, vegetation cutting, filling, grading or dumping beyond this point. City staff shall approve the sign design and location before the contractor installs them. The developer or contractor shall install these signs before the city issues building permits in this plat. g. Install survey monuments along the wetland boundaries. 2.*Have the city engineer approve final construction and engineering plans. These plans shall include grading, utility, drainage, erosion control, tree, and street plans. The plans shall meet all the conditions and changes listed in the Engineering Plan Review memo dated June 6, 2003. 3. Paying for costs related to the engineering department's review of the construction plans. This escrow amount is $1000. 4. Label the common areas as "lots" instead of "outlots." 5. Obtain a permit from the Ramsey-Washington Metro Watershed District for grading. Also obtain MnPCA and NPEDS (National Pollution Elimination Discharge System) permits. 6. If the developer decides to final plat part of the preliminary plat, the director of community development may waive any conditions that do not apply to the final plat. Submitting the homeowners' association bylaws and rules to the director of community development. These are to assure that there will be one responsible party for the maintenance of the private utilities, driveways and common areas. The applicant shall submit these prior to obtaining a building permit. *The developer must complete these conditions before the city issues a grading permit or approves the final plat. Approve the plans date-stamped May 20, 2003 (site plan, landscape plan, grading/drainage and architectural) for the Woodlyn Ponds Twin Homes. Approval is subject to the developer complying with the following conditions: 1. Repeat this review in two years if the city has not issued a building permit for this project. 2. Complete the following before the city issues a grading permit: Have the city engineer approve final engineering plans, subject to compliance with the Maplewood Enqineerin.q Plan Review dated June 6, 2003 from the staff report. This data shall be considered an addendum to these conditions. b. Dedicate a 25-foot (average width) wetland-protection buffer easement to the City of Maplewood around the proposed wetland. This buffer may narrow to 20 feet. c. Provide a revised landscape plan for the wetland-protection buffer for approval by the Ramsey-Washington Metro Watershed District. d. Provide a revised landscape plan for the area surrounding the holding pond for the approval of the city engineer. e. Provide engineering data for the retaining wall if the height would exceed four feet. Install wetland-protection buffer signs around the wetland buffer edge which states, "WETLAND BUFFER AREA-DO NOT MOW, CUT, DUMP, DISTURB BEYOND THIS POINT-CITY OF MAPLEWOOD." These signs shall be installed not more than 100 feet apart. 4. The north-south private roadway shall have continuous concrete curb and gutter. This roadway shall be 24 feet wide and be posted for "no parking" on both sides. 5. The 18.5-foot east driveway in front of Lots 5 & 6 by Woodlyn Avenue shall be kept free of snow and posted for "no parking". 6. Submit a lawn-irrigation plan to staff showing the location of sprinkler heads. (code requirement) 7. Submit a certificate of survey for all new construction. 8. Get the necessary approvals and permits from the watershed district. Provide the city with verification that the units will meet all state noise standards. This shall be with a study, testing or other documentation. If the noise levels on this site violate any of the state standards, then the contractor will have to construct the building so that it can meet the noise standards. This may be done with thicker walls, heavier windows, requiring air conditioning or other sound-deadening construction methods. The developer shall provide the city with this documentation before the city will issue a building permit for the building. 10. Relocate the bituminous trail to the south to widen the boulevard and to align the trail away from the street edge. 11. Complete the following: a. Replace property irons that are removed because of this construction. b. Restore and sod damaged boulevards. c. Install a reflectorized stop sign at County Road D. d. Install and maintain an in-ground sprinkler system for all landscaped areas. e. Install streetlights at the County Road D roadway connection, at the end of the private roadway by the visitor parking lot and at the Woodlyn Avenue driveway connection. f. Remove the old barbed wire fencing around the perimeter of the site. 12. If any required work is not done, the city may allow temporary occupancy if: a. The city determines that the work is not essential to the public health, safety or welfare. b. The above-required letter of credit or cash escrow is held by the city for all required exterior improvements. The owner or contractor shall complete any unfinished landscaping by June 1 if the building is occupied in the fall or winter, or within six weeks of occupancy if the building is occupied in the spring or summer. c. The city receives an agreement that will allow the city to complete any unfinished work. 13. All work shall follow the approved plans. The director of community development may approve minor changes. 10 CITIZEN COMMENTS Staff surveyed 26 property owners within 350 feet of the site about the proposal. We received seven replies. Three property owners had no objection, two were in favor and two objected. No Objection 1. I have no objections knowing that these units will be "for sale." (Howard Rekstad, the Village on Woodlyn) 2. No problems to us. (Tinh Zuan Le and Thu Huong Thi Nguyen, 2091 Lydia Avenue) 3. No reservations for this project. (Edward and Helen Dorle, 3745 South Hills Drive) In Favor The development of the proposed Mendota twin homes would blend the area from the apartments to the residential single family homes, which would enhance the community. This is an excellent proposal! (Jerome and Patricia Parker, 12866 Ingersol Avenue) Twin homes seem like an appropriate use for the property. (Tom Schuette, Plaza 3000 Shopping Center) Opposed We have serious concerns in regards to traffic flow. We already have a very difficult time trying to get onto White Bear Avenue, especially during the holidays, just to get to the 694 interstate and we are only a couple blocks away. What (how) are they going to handle this problem? (Salvation Army) 2. Refer to the written response on page 30 from Douglas and Sherri Sporre. 11 REFERENCE SITE DESCRIPTION Lot Area: 5.2 acres Existing Use: Vacant (the single dwelling previously on this site has been removed) SURROUNDING LAND USES North: East: South: West: County Road D and two single dwellings on property planned BC Undeveloped Maplewood open space land and the Bruentrup Farm Lydia Avenue, the Salvation Army church and the Village on Woodlyn Birch Glen Apartments PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS Land Use Plan Designation: R2 Zoning: F (farm residential) Criteria for Variance Approval State law requires that the city council make the following findings to approve a variance: Strict enforcement would cause undue hardship because of circumstances unique to the property under consideration. 2. The variance would be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the ordinance. Undue hardship, as used in connection with the granting of a variance, means the property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use if used under conditions allowed by the official controls. The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to his property, not created by the landowner, and the variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. Economic considerations alone shall not constitute an undue hardship if reasonable use for the property exists under the terms of the ordinance. Criteria for CUP Approval Section 36-442(a) states that the city council may grant a CUP, subject to the nine standards for approval. Refer to the resolution starting on page 36. APPLICATION DATE We received the complete application and plans for this proposal on May 20, 2003. State law requires that the city take action within 60 days of receiving complete applications for a proposal. City council action is required on this proposal by July 19, 2003, unless the applicant agrees to a time extension. 12 p: sec2n/MendotaHomes.6-03 Attachments: 1. Location Map 2. Area Map 3. Land Use Plan Map 4. Property Line/Zoning Map 5. Preliminary Plat 6. Preliminary Plat Denoting the Existing Wetlands 7. Overall Site Landscape Plan 8. Foundation Planting Plan 9. Building Elevations 10. Woodlyn Ponds Streetscape Drawing 11. Applicant's Letter of Variance Justification dated May 14, 2003 12. Applicant's Letter of Conditional Use Permit Justification dated May 14, 2003 13. Letter from the Ramsey-Washington Metro Watershed District dated April 21,2003 14. Survey Response from Douglas and Sherri Sporre dated May 27, 2003 15. Maplewood Engineering Plan Review dated June 6, 2003 16. Variance Resolution 17. Conditional Use Permit Resolution 18. Plans date-stamped May 20, 2003 (separate attachment) 13 Attachment 1 MAPLEWOOD MALL LOCATION MAP ~ ~ N Attachment 2 PERKINS '-"------' EMERALD INN ~ I 2075 F-] 2091 CHILDRENS WORLD SIBLEY COVE APARTMENTS ;ITE 'PLAZA 3000 NORTH ANNEX~ I PLAZA 3000 COUNTYROAD D E PROPOSED MENDOTA HOMES TWIN-HOME SITE ZONED: F (FARM RESIDENTIAL) PLANNED: R2 (DOUBLE DWELLING RESIDENTIAL) CITY OF MAPLEWOOD OPEN SPACE LAND WOODL YNN AVE SALVATION ARMY o VILLAGE ON WOODLYN 30: CHURCH 0 2043 2049 205~ 2061 2067 2073, 2079 208,~ 2091 2099 2103 2109 2115 2121 2127 [~2~[ LYDIA AVE E , r AREA MAP ~;~ N · Attachment 3 interchange Coun(y D arterial White Bear Lake Rol 694 Lydia Figure 14 Attachment 4 I-1 ~ A rN F: ~ I PROPOSED ~ *~ I MENDOTa HOMES , ~ i ~IN HOME ~il ~ !1 SITE ~11 ii~ ~ ~11 qI (~ " Ill ~ ~ JI / ~) i Illl~l~a: ll'Illl'II~I I~1 ~ ~ ~ ~; 3LYN~N~ 0(~ I 3.0 l ~-c. WOODLYN PONDS MAPLEWOOD, MN COUNTY ROAD D 9~ \ 9 \ \ oo Larson Engineering of Minnesota 18 ~ent 5 lin !33 10 Attachment 6 COUN~i ~OAD D i--~ ......... ' OIJTLOtF A .L..J '~". ' c)~-j c/') c:) ,! Attachment 7 COUNTY ROAD 2 ~ 5 7 2O Attachment 8 21 _/ _/ MAPLEWOOD TWINHOMES > ~ MAPLEWOOD, MN. MENDOTA HOMES, INC. 22 bvt ARCHITECT Attachment 10 MAPLEWOODTOWNHOMES-30UNITS COUNTY ROAD D MAPLEWOOD, MN. MENDOTA HOMES, INC. 23 bvt ARCHITECT Attachment 11 MENDOTA ,----L'H____ INC. May l4, 2003 RECEIVED NAY 2 0 2003 P.O. Box 416 Forest Lake, MN 55025 Roseville (651) 604-0967 Fax (65 l) 604-0972 Forest Lake (651 ) 464-9O55 Fax (651) 464-9056 City of Maplewood Attn: Tom Ekstrand 1830 County Road B East Maplewood, MN 55109 Dear Mr. Ekstrand, Mendota Homes, Inc. is requesting a variance to fill three small wetland areas located on the property at 2090 East County Road D in Maplewood. This request accompanies an application to construct 26 new townhomes (13 twinhomes) on the property. The development site has two significant characteristics which make this variance necessary. Fh'st, the existing, small wetland areas on the site are dispersed throughout the property in a way that makes a cohesive housing development impossible while preserving these areas. Second, the site is bisected by a substantial utility easement, 'making a one and one-half acre area of this five acre parcel unbuildable. The proposed development plan includes the creation of a new wetland in the easement area. The new wetland replaces the existing wetlands at a ratio greater than the required 2:1. Moreover, the new wetland creates an aesthetic and environmental amenity for the development and the surrounding neighborhood, while making use of an otherwise unusable portion of the property. Finally, the new wetland area provides cohesion to the development plan, helping to tie together the north and south portions of the development. This variance request meets the State law requirements for undue hardship. First, under the present conditions, developing the site while maintaining the existing small wetland areas would require under-utilization of the property and sporadic placement of dwelling units to accommodate wetland preservation. As a transitional area between a City park and a higher density apartment complex, twinhome construction is an appropriate, reasonable use of the property. Under-utilization is an unreasonable alternative, in light of the wetland replacement plan proposed. Second, the sporadic placement of wetland pockets and the existence of a utility easement are conditions unique to the property and not the creation of the developer. Third, granting this variance would not alter the essential character of the area. The property contains wetland areas now, and will contain a wetland area at~er development. In fact, the variance would facilitate the creation of a larger, maintainable wetland, enhancing the neighborhood's character. 24 This variance is in keeping with the spirit and intent of the ordinance. We have worked extensively with the Ramsey County Watershed District to ensure we are appropriately replacing the existing wetland pockets. The proposed new wetland exceeds the required 2'. 1 replacement ratio and represents a maintainable alternative to the present conditions. We are not wholesale removing a wetland. We are creating better conditions on the site that allow for wetland maintenance and well-planned residential construction. Please contact Mendota Homes, Inc. at 651-604-0967 for additional information. Sincerely, Erin Mathern for Mendota Homes, Inc. Attachment ENDOTA HOMES, INC. May 14, 2003 City of Maplewood Attn: Tom Ekstrand 1830 County Road B East Maplewood, MN 55109 RECEIVED HAY 2 0 2003 P.O. Box 416 Forest Lake, MN 55025 Roseville (651) 604-0967 Fax (651) 604-0972 Forest Lake (651) 464-9O55 Fax (65 I) 464-9056 Dear Mr. Ekstrand, Attached, please find Mendota Homes' application for a Conditional Use Permit to construct thirteen rambler-style twinhomes (26 dwelling units) on the property at approximately 2090 East County Road D, legally described as Tract A, Registered Land Survey//463. This property is rectangular in shape with County Road D as its north boundary and Woodlyn Avenue as its south boundary. The property includes 264 feet of street frontage on both streets and is 857 feet long. The property contains a wetland area and a pipeline easement running east / west, effectively bisecting the property. The property is zoned F, farm residential. One vacant single-family home is presently located on the site. It is bordered by a City park area to the west and a newly constructed apartment building to the east. We understand that twinhomes are a permitted conditional use within the farm residential Zoning classification. We believe our proposal meets the criteria for approval of a conditional use permit set forth by the City of Maplewood. 1. The use wouM be located, designed, maintained, constructed and operated to be in conformity with the City's comprehensive plan and Code of Ordinances. The proposed use is consistent with the residential character of the underlying zoning designation. Moreover, the style of housing proposed -twinhomes - is permitted as a conditional use. A residential use of the property has been contemplated by the City Maplewood. The presence of a 235 foot wide easement, the buildable portions of the property, makes twinhomes a logical choice. The proposed development will provide a lower density transition between the high density apartments to the west and the park area to the west. 2. The use would not change the existing or planned character of the surrounding area. 26 The surrounding area is either used as, or planned for, residential uses. The proposed development is exclusively residential and is in keeping with the surrounding area. 3. The use would not depreciate property values. The proposed development will bring 26 new homes to the neighborhood, enhancing property values. 4. The use will not involve any activity, process, materials, equipment, or methods of operation that wouM be dangerous... The proposed use is strictly residential, and poses no danger to the surrounding area. 5. The use would generate only minimal vehicular traffic on local streets and wouM not create traffic congestion or unsafe access on existing or proposed streets. o The 26 planned units will be served by two new private roadways. A roadway with access from Woodlyn Avenue will provide ingress and egress for the three twinhomes located on the south end of the development. A roadway with access from County Road D will provide ingress and egress for the remaining ten twinhomes. County Road D and Woodlyn are significant thoroughfares that do not presently appear congested. The proposed development will appeal to couples and empty-nesters likely to take fewer vehicular trips per day, thus minimizing the traffic impact of the development. Additionally, the new roadways included in the development provide for just two new curb cuts - one on Woodlyn and one on County Road D. The use wouM be served by adequate public facilities and services, including streets, police and fire protection, drainage structures, water and sewer systems, schools, and parks. The existing services, coupled with new services and amenities created by the development, will provide adequate public services for the project. The use would not create excessive additional costs for public facilities and services. We believe this statement to be true. The use wouM maximize the preservation of and incorporate the site's natural and scenic features into the development design. The site currently contains three small wetland areas. The proposed development plan allows the creation of a much larger wetland area, centrally located between the north and south portions of the development, for the enjoyment of all residents. The creation of this new, sustainable wetland allows for better, more efficient use of the property by replacing marginal wetland areas sporadically located on the site. The wetland will be the dominant natural feature on the site and will provide an appropriate transition between the proposed development and the new park area to the west. 9. The use will cause minimal adverse environmental impacts. The proposed development will allow for sustainable preservation of a significant wetland area, and will result in no foreseeable adverse environmental conditions. We feel that the proposed twinhome development represents an appropriate, thoughtful use of the property. Please contact me for any additional information. 651-604-0967. Sincerely, Erin Mathern for Mendota Homes, Inc. Attachment 13 Ramsey-Washington Metro District 1902 East County Road B Maplewood, MN 55109 (651)704-2089 fax: (651)704-2092 ernail: office@rwmwd.org April21,2003 John Mathem Mendota Homes, Inc. PO Box 416 Forest' Lake, MN 55025 2 0 2003 RE: Woodlyn Ponds Dear Mr. Mathern, After review of the replacement plan submitted for the above-mentioned project, there are additional components of the plan that are required. Please see the attached copies of the Wetland Conservation Act with the needed items highlighted. Because of the review time associated with replacement plan reviews, this project will not go to the Board in May but will go to the Board the following month. A notice of application has been sent out to the necessary agencies. A full staff review was held today and there were a couple of comments about the plan that should be addressed. Our engineer suggests that you either verify there is no increase in the flood level in the wetland to the southwest OR show that the 100~year flood elevation of the wetland is at least 2 feet below any nearby low floors. Also, the plans were unclear as to where the inlets and outlets to the stormwater ponds were located. Please send a plan where that is clearer. Also, on the revised set of plans, a rock construction entrance and inlet protection shall be shown. Overall, I feel this is a good plan with an exciting opportunity to create a wonderful amenity for the development. I hope that a good vegetation and monitoring plan is developed to ensure this created wetland is a success. If you have any questions, feel free to call me at 651-704-2089. Thank you. Sincerely, Tina Carstens Permit Program Coordinator 29 May 27, 2003 Together We Can Attachment 14 Douglas D. & Shcrri L. Spon'e 2099 Lydia Ave. E. Maplewood, MN 55109-1458 NEIGHBORHOOD SURVEY - MENDOTA HOMES TOWN HOUSE PROPOSAL (FORMERLY THE HAUSE PROPERTY AT 2090 COUNTY ROAD D) This letter is to get your opinion on an application the city received for property in yoqr neighborhood. Mendota Homes, Inc., is requesting that the Maplewood City Counci!J~p.p,[~ve their proposed 26-unit town house development. The applicant is proposing to deve~,'~ ..... property with 13 twin homes. Three twin homes would front on VVoodlyn Avenue; the other ten would be accessed from a private street that would intersect County Road D. Refer to the attachments. I need your opinion to help me prepare a recommendation to the planning commission and city council. Please write your opinion and comments below and return this letter, and any attachments on which you have written comments, in the enclosed postage-paid envelope by June 6, 2003. If you would like further information, please call me at 651-770-4562 between 8 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. I will send you a notice of any public headng on this application. Thank you for your comments. I will give them careful consideration. THOMAS EKSTRAND- ASSISTANT COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR Enclosures: Maps and Drawings I have no comments: CITY OF MAPLEWOOD · 18:30 EAST COUNTY ROAD B · MAPLEWOOD, MN 55109 30 Attachment 15 Maplewood Engineering Plan Review Date: 06/6/03 By: Erin Schacht and Chris Cavett Project: Woodlyn Ponds Review Summary: The applicant shall address the following comments to the preliminary plans. Gradinu and Erosion Control: 1. A large number of contours are missing from the grading plan between the buildings in block 2. 2. Grading permits from the city, Watershed, and MPCA (new NPDES Construction Permit) are required. 3. The applicant shall submit a specific seeding plan of exactly what seed mixtures are to be used in different areas. Steep slopes, as well as the areas in and around the ponding areas shall be seeded with a appropriate native (wet and dry) grass and forbes mixtures. In fact much of the area between blocks 1, 2 & 3 shall be vegetated with native vegetation. It is strongly recommended that the applicant utilize an experienced installer firm who specializes in the establishment of native plant communities. Seed mix designs should be compatible to the native restoration work taking place in the open space property to the east. Seeding and mulching of the site with a temporary cover crop (rye, oats or winter wheat) shall be done in phases to secure the site and shall be completed in accordance to the new NPDES Construction Permit. 4. The emergency overflow to the wetland, and the ditch on the west side of east side of the site needs to have soil stabilization blanket. Include riprap at all inlets and outlets. 5. All slopes 3:1 or greater need erosion control matting and blanket to protect the seeded area from erosion. 6. Revise the grading plan to show existing trees, as well as elevation of the top and bottom of the walls. 7. The city requires a building permit for any retaining walls 4-feet tall or higher. The applicant shall include all retaining walls on the project plans. The developer or applicant shall include a detail of the wall design with the building permit 31 application. More detail (including cross-sections) is required for the walls at the east side of the site. A temporary grading easement will be required for any activity on the adjacent properties. This includes the grading for the overflow swale at the south west. The City of Maplewood has been undergoing a native vegetation restoration project in the open space to the east and it is critical this area is not disturbed. Silt fence installation and work required to construct the retaining wall shall not extend east of the east property line, (city open space). Street: The street shall be a private association driveway. The street shown on the plan is 24-feet-wide, which allows for no on street parking. If on-street parking is desired, a minimum 28-wide street is required to allow parking on one side. Drainage/Storm Sewer: Summary,: The proposed storm water management plan is generally very good. The large pond area being created in the middle of the site will be nearly 3 times the size of the wetlands being lost. In addition, a treatment pond and grassy swales will treat storm water before it enters this large basin. Though properly engineered and constructed overland flow is advantageous to water quality, we strongly question this application: directing concentrated flows from impervious surfaces onto vegetated slopes. Either provide specific details of how short-term and long-term erosion and runoff will be managed with such an application, or provide catch basins and storm sewer on both streets that flow to the ponding areas. On the south side of the plat, one option is to consider spillways between parcels 2&3 and 4&5, as well as utilizing permanent soil stabilization blanket on the slopes. On all sloped swales where concentrated flows will be expected and where soils are susceptible to erosion, permanent soil stabilization blanket, (Enkamt, NAG C350, others) shall be utilized. No drainage map accompanied the runoff calculations. The applicant shall submit a drainage map of the site with pre-development and post-development runoff calculations. 32 Attachment 16 VARIANCE RESOLUTION WHEREAS, Mendota Homes, Inc. has applied for a variance from the wetland buffer requirements of the zoning ordinance. WHEREAS, this variance applies to the property at 2090 County Road D East. The legal description is: TRACT A, REGISTERED LAND SURVEY NO. 463, RAMSEY COUNTY WHEREAS, Section 36-196(h)(3) of the wetland protection ordinance requires a 25-foot- wide wetland buffer around the three existing Class 4 wetlands on this property. WHEREAS, the applicant is proposing to remove these wetlands and mitigate them with a better quality, larger wetland. WHEREAS, the history of this variance is as follows: 1. On June 16, 2003, the planning commission recommended that the city council this variance. The city council held a public hearing on ,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 hearing an opportunity to speak and present written 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 variance for the following reasons: The variance will be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the ordinance since the applicant will replace three small, poorer-quality wetlands with a larger, better-quality wetland. Strict enforcement of the code, by requiring the preservation of the existing wetlands, would not result in the best use and layout of the property and would, therefore, cause undue hardship. The three subject wetlands are not of a nature that they would be an asset to the site for either water retention or wildlife habitat. In this instance, it is an advantage to the developer, as well as the city, to create a useable and aesthetic wetland in lieu of the existing ones. Approval is conditioned upon the applicant doing the following: a. Revise the site plan to provide a wetland-protection buffer around the proposed wetland. This buffer must be an average of 25 feet wide with a minimum width of 20 feet. Dedicate a wetland buffer easement to the City of Maplewood prior to obtaining a grading permit for the project. Install wetland-protection buffer signs around the buffer before the first unit is occupied which states, "WETLAND BUFFER AREA-DO NOT MOW, CUT, DUMP, DISTURB 34 BEYOND THIS POINT-CITY OF MAPLEWOOD." These signs shall be installed not more than 100 feet apart. d. Provide a planting plan for the wetland buffer to be approved by the watershed district. This plan shall consist of a proposal to plant the buffer with native wetland vegetation. The Maplewood City Council adopted this resolution on 35 Attachment 17 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION WHEREAS, Mendota Homes, Inc. applied for a conditional use permit for a planned unit development to construct the 26-unit Woodlyn Ponds Twin Home development. WHEREAS, Section 36-438(b) of the city code provides a means to allow flexibility in design by the planned unit development process. WHEREAS, this permit applies to the property at 2090 County Road D East. The legal description is: TRACT A, REGISTERED LAND SURVEY NO. 463, RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA. WHEREAS, the history of this conditional use permit is as follows: 1. On June 16, 2003, the planning commission recommended that the city council permit. this On ,2003, the city council held a public hearing. The city staff published a notice in the paper and sent notices to the surrounding property owners. The council gave everyone at the hearing a chance to speak and present written statements. The council also considered reports and recommendations of the city staff and planning commission. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the city council approve the above-described conditional use permit, because: 1. The use would be located, designed, maintained, constructed and operated to be in conformity with the City's Comprehensive Plan and Code of Ordinances. 2. The use would not change the existing or planned character of the surrounding area. 3. The use would not depreciate property values. 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. 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. 36 8. The use would maximize the preservation of and incorporate the site's natural and scenic features into the development design. 9. The use would cause minimal adverse environmental effects. Approval is subject to the following conditions: 1. All construction shall follow the plans date-stamped May 20, 2003. The city council may approve major changes. 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 end. The council may extend this deadline for one year. 3. The city council shall review this permit in one year. 4. The applicant shall provide a noise evaluation for this site to determine if freeway noise would impact their proposed units above the maximum noise levels required by the MnPCA. If freeway noise does exceed these levels, the applicant shall reduce the outside noise within the units. 5. The homeowners' association documents shall state that the visitor parking lot shall be kept open for visitor parking and shall not be a storage area for RVs, trailers, campers and the like. 6. The applicant shall post the north-south private roadway for no parking on both sides. The Maplewood City Council approved this resolution on 37 MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: SUBJECT: APPLICANT: LOCATION: DATE: Richard Fursman, City Manager Shann Finwall, Associate Planner Hillcrest Village Design Standards (Parking Requirements) City of Maplewood Along White Bear Ave., North of Larpenteur Ave. and South of Ripley Ave. June 10, 2003 INTRODUCTION Proposal City staff is receiving comments and guidance from the planning commission and community design review board (CDRB) on the drafting of a new zoning district called the mixed-use zoning district. The mixed-use zoning district will allow for a mixture of land uses and will promote the redevelopment of an area into an urban center with compact, pedestrian-oriented commercial and residential developments. 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. Background On March 25, 2003, the CDRB reviewed sign regulations for the mixed-use zoning district. On Apdl 7, 2003, the planning commission reviewed the permitted, conditional, nonconforming and accessory uses for the mixed-use zoning district. On May 13, 2003, the CDRB reviewed the lighting and landscaping regulations for the mixed-use zoning district. On May 19, 2003, the planning commission reviewed the subdivision requirements for the mixed- use zoning district. DISCUSSION Design Standards This meeting's discussion will focus on parking requirements. Because the Hillcrest Village redevelopment area falls within two cities (St. Paul and Maplewood) the City of Maplewood should work closely with the City of St. Paul in developing consistent design standards, including parking requirements. As stated in previous staff reports, St. Paul will likely rezone their portion of Hillcrest Village to their new traditional-neighborhood zoning district. St. Paul and their consultants drafted this zoning district after a year-long planning project designed to support urban village redevelopment, such as the Hillcrest Village redevelopment area. Parking Overview One purpose of the proposed mixed-use zoning distdct is to promote compact, pedestrian- oriented commercial and residential developments. In today's auto-related world, this can be a challenge. The number and placement of parking spaces must be reviewed carefully to ensure the creation of a pedestrian-friendly environment. One of the most important elements in creating a pedestrian-friendly environment is the use of on-street parking. On-street parking will create a downtown atmosphere, will provide an additional buffer between the sidewalk and the street, and will minimize the necessity for large parking lots that separate the sidewalk from the building, which would preclude an inviting pedestrian environment. Shared parking lots with varying peak demands should also be utilized when possible. Shared parking encourages pedestrian tdps since people are able to move between destination points without getting into cars. Shared parking will allow for greater intensity of development, reduce the need for structure parking, and minimize impervious surface. Another way of creating a pedestrian-friendly environment will be through the promotion of alternative forms of transportation including buses, bicycles and in-line skates. Promotion of these forms of transportation will include bus shelters and bicycle racks. The Hillcrest Village concept redevelopment plan, adopted by the city council last fall, calls for a combination of the above-mentioned parking scenarios including on- and off-street surface parking, underground parking and parking structures. Parking should be provided by each private development; however, there will also be a strong demand for publicly provided parking, either on-street or in parking structures. City of Maplewood Parking Requirements The City of Maplewood's parking requirements specify the number of required off-street parking spaces for ten different types of uses ranging from single-family dwellings to motor fuel stations (refer to attached ordinance on page 6). The code further states that the required number of spaces must be provided for each type of use, unless otherwise authorized by the city council. The city processes these requests as "special agreements" and usually requires proof-of-parking, or a green area of land where future parking could be constructed. The city's parking requirements are not an exact science. First, the code does not deter development from constructing parking space overages, which could lead to an inefficient use of land with added impervious surface and runoff. Second, shared parking is not promoted. And third, on occasion the code will require too many parking spaces. An example of this is retail centers. City code does not specify the number of parking spaces required for retail centers, unless the retail center is located in a shopping center that has enclosed, non-leasable floor area, such as the Maplewood Mall. Other retail centers, such as a strip mall similar to the Town Center (Best Buy and Frank's Nursery), are covered under "commercial" space, which requires one space per 200 square feet of floor area. This requirement must take into account the entire square footage of a building, whether being utilized for customers or not. Hillcrest Village Design Standards (Parking Requirements) 2 June 10,2003 City of St. Paul Parking Requirements As stated above, the City of Maplewood should work closely with the City of St. Paul in developing consistent design standards, including parking requirements. St. Paul currently has an overlay district encompassing their portion of the Hillcrest Village. This district is called the White Bear Avenue Plan and was put in place in 2001 as a prelude to the Hillcrest Village Redevelopment Plan. Once the Traditional Neighborhood (TN) zoning district is approved by the St. Paul city council, as described in previous staff reports, the city will likely remove the overlay district and rezone their portion of the Hillcrest Village area to the new TN zoning. Included below are parking requirements for both the White Bear Avenue Plan and the TN zoning district, both of which should be reviewed for possible implementation into the City of Maplewood's new mixed- use zoning district. White Bear Avenue Plan Parkin.q Requirements Parking shall be provided as specified in Chapter 62 (city-wide parking requirements) except as follows: For retail, medical, service and office uses, if a transit shelter is provided on site, then required parking spaces shall be reduced by 5 percent, but not to exceed five spaces total. For retail, medical, service, and office uses, required parking may be reduced by the establishment of a parking district for the purposes of sharing parking within one shopping area; parking areas must be clearly identified and provided with dedicated pedestrian links to the street; the establishment of a commercial parking district to allow a reduction in parking required shall be subject to review and approval by the planning commission. The development of shared parking is allowed as regulated in the zoning code. Additionally, medical and service uses may participate in a shared parking agreement provided that it can be demonstrated that there will be adequate parking in combination with the other uses. Traditional Nei.qhborhood Parkin,q Requirements Within the Traditional Neighborhood zoning district St. Paul proposes the following parking guidelines: The minimum amount of required parking shall be specified in Chapter 62 (city-wide parking requirements). The maximum amount of surface parking shall not exceed the specified minimum by more than 10 percent or two spaces, whichever is greater. If additional parking is desired, it must be placed underground, within an enclosed building, or in a tuck-under garage. For properties having frontage on a transit street, as defined, the minimum amount of required off-street parking for nonresidential uses, as specified in Chapter 62, may be reduced by up to 25 percent. Hillcrest Village Design Standards (Parking Requirements) 3 June 10,2003 For properties within % mile of a transit street, as defined, the minimum amount of required off-street parking for residential uses may be reduced to one parking space per dwelling unit. This provision applies to principal and secondary dwelling units and units in mixed-use buildings, but not to live work units. City-Wide ParkinR Requirements Both of the above-mentioned St. Paul ordinances rely on their city-wide parking requirements (Chapter 62), which specify the required number of parking spaces for each type of use. St. Paul's parking requirements specify 82 different types of uses, compared to the City of Maplewood's ten types of uses. Mixed-Use Zone Parking Requirements The most important aspect of parking requirements within the new mixed-use zoning distdct will be flexibility. Developments should be given an opportunity to have parking space reductions when there is on-street parking located in front of the development, shared or public off-street parking located next to the development, or a transit shelter located in front of the development. In addition, parking space overages should never be allowed. While the City of Maplewood's existing parking requirements are not an exact science, as described above, it is still a good reference point to begin with. As with St. Paul's White Bear Avenue Plan and TN zoning district, the City of Maplewood's mixed-use zoning district should initially refer to the city-wide parking requirements. In addition, staff recommends the following parking requirements for the new mixed-use zoning district: The maximum number of off-street surface parking may not exceed the specified minimum by more than 10 percent or two spaces, whichever is greater. If additional parking is desired, it must be placed underground, within an enclosed building, or in a tuck-under garage. On-street parking located in front of a development may count toward the required number of parking spaces. For retail, medical, service and office uses, if a transit shelter is provided on site, then the required number of parking spaces may be reduced by 5 percent, but not to exceed five spaces total. For retail, medical, service and office uses, required parking may be reduced by the establishment of a parking district for the purposes of sharing parking within one shopping area (i.e., varying peak parking hours or availability of off-street public parking). The establishment of a commercial parking district to allow a reduction in parking required shall be subject to review and approval by the community design review board during the development's initial site plan review. Retail, medical, service and office uses may participate in a shared parking agreement provided that it can be demonstrated that there will be adequate parking in combination with the other uses. Hillcrest Village Design Standards (Parking Requirements) 4 June 10,2003 In addition to the above-referenced allowances for parking reduction, the city council may authorize other reduced off-street parking requests through a special agreement. The reduction must be based on proven parking data for a specific development. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the planning commission offer comments and guidance on the parking 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. P:com-dev~hillcrest~6-16-03 PC design standards report Attachment: City of Maplewood Parking Requirements Hillcrest Village Design Standards (Parking Requirements) 5 June 10, 2003 6