Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout06/12/2001BOOK AGENDA MAPLEWOOD COMMUNITY DESIGN REVIEW BOARD June 12, 2001 6:00 P.M. City Council Chambers Maplewood City Hall 1830 East County Road B 1. Call to Order 2. Roll Call 3. Approval of Minutes: May 22, 2001 4. Approval of Agenda 5. Unfinished Business 6. Design Review a. Afton Ridge Townhomes - Thone Builders and Developers, Inc., McKnight Road and Lower Afton Road b. Outdoor Lighting Code Amendment 7. Visitor Presentations 8. Board Presentations 9. Staff Presentations a. CDRB representation needed for the June 25 and July 9 city council meetings. 10. Adjourn p:com-dvpt~cdrb.agd WELCOME TO THIS MEETING OF THE COMMUNITY DESIGN REVIEW BOARD This outline has been prepared to explain the review process of this meeting. The review of an item usually follows this format. 1. The chairperson of the meeting will announce the item to be reviewed. 2. The chairperson will ask the applicant or developer of the project up to the podium to respond to the staff's recommendation regarding the proposal. The Community Design Review Board will then discuss the proposed project with the applicant. 3. The chairperson will then ask the audience if there is anyone present who wishes to comment on the proposal. 4. After everyone is the audience wishing to speak has given his or her comments, the chairperson will close the public discussion portion of the meeting. 5. The Board will then discuss the proposal. No further public comments are allowed. 6. The Board will then make its recommendations or decision. 7. Most decisions by the Board are final, unless appealed to the City Council. You must notify the City staff in writing within 15 days to register an appeal. jw\forms\cdrb.agd Revised: 11-09-94 MINUTES OF THE MAPLEWOOD COMMUNITY DESIGN REVIEW BOARD 1830 COUNTY ROAD B EAST, MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA MAY 22, 2001 CALL TO ORDER Chairperson Ledvina called the meeting to order at 6:03 p.m. II. ROLL CALL Matt Ledvina Ananth Shankar Tim Johnson Craig Jorgenson Linda Olson Staff Present: Recording Secretary: III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES March 13, 2001 IV. Present Present Absent Absent Present Tom Ekstrand, Assistant Community Development Director JoAnn Morin Board member Olson moved approval of the minutes of March 13, 2001. Board member Shankar seconded. Ayes--all The motion passed. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Board member Shankar moved approval of the agenda as submitted. Board member Olson seconded. Ayes--all The motion passed. UNFINISHED BUSINESS a. The Gardens Townhouse Development- (east side of McMenemy Street, South of Roselawn Avenue). Mr. Ekstrand, Assistant Community Development Director, presented the staff report for this project. He stated that Mr. Gordie Howe is proposing to develop a 22-unit townhouse development. It is on a five-acre site on a private cul-de-sac off of McMenemy Street. Each building will have horizontal-lap vinyl siding, aluminum soffits and fascia and brick veneer on the fronts. There will be a mix of two and three unit buildings. Mr. Ekstrand stated that the Planning Commission reviewed the Conditional Use Permit and the Preliminary Plat for this development and recommended approval. Mr. Ekstrand stated that there is a large holding pond proposed on the north and central part of the site. The pond is necessary because there is no storm sewer in this area. There will also be rainwater gardens that are scattered along the south side of the private drive providing aesthetic appeal as well as water retention. The Ramsey Washington Watershed District has reviewed the plans and did not have any concerns about the proposal. They will be reviewing this proposal again when the applicant seeks their permit. Mr. Ekstrand stated that the site is heavily wooded. There are only six large trees that are noted as significant by our ordinance. The rest of the trees are scrub growth, Boxelders, and Cottonwoods. The applicant is proposing to put in 71 trees as part of the landscape plan. This is above the requirements of the tree replacement ordinance and provides a nice array of landscaping. Staff is also recommending that the applicant relocate some of the trees from the cluster of trees on the north side of the pond to the south and east side of the pond to increase the foliage around the pond. Mr. Ekstrand stated that Chris Cavett, the Assistant City Engineer, is also asking that the applicant propose some plantings within the pond area. This would be in an attempt to help put foliage onto the slope to provide some aesthetic appeal to that ponding area when viewed by the residents. Mr. Ekstrand stated that the Director of Parks and Recreation, Bruce Anderson, has recommended that the applicant provide a trail link from the neighborhood to the south through a property the applicant owns. The trail would pass between two two-unit buildings and then through the applicants lot to Ripley Avenue. Because there is no road link connecting the two neighborhoods, the Director of Parks and Recreation felt there should be a trail to help give pedestrians a link to go back and forth between the two neighborhoods. Regarding building design, Mr. Ekstrand stated that he felt the buildings are attractive. He stated that Mr. Howe has brought photographs of the units he is proposing to build. The materials are Iow or no maintenance. He stated that the Board had expressed some concerns in a previous development of Mr. Howe's regarding the garage fronts being the prominent design element. Mr. Ekstrand stated staff is not recommending against this, it is a small neighborhood and it is private drive. Staff did state that there are some things that can be done to enhance the front, such as a different garage doors or decorative lighting fixtures or covered front porches. Mr. Gordie Howe, the applicant and Mr. Steve Peters of Masterpiece Homes, addressed the Board. Mr. Howe stated that he was not aware of the proposed trail from the new development to Ripley until the City had notified him on Friday. He stated that he would like to keep the cul-de- sac private because it is geared towards empty nesters. The price range of the townhomes is between $200,000 and $250,000. Mr. Howe stated that he has nothing against having the walkway, but since Ripley is a public street and Summer Lane will be a private street, he questioned who would maintain the trail and who would be liable for any accidents that may happen on it. The common area around the townhouses is all community owned by the townhome association. Mr. Howe stated that he felt that some of the people on Ripley do not want to see the trail go in. He cited comments in the city staff report from a resident at 379 Ripley stating that he would like to see the area stay as private as possible. Mr. Howe stated that he had taken the board's recommendation from the last meeting regarding the front loading buildings. He showed the Board photographs of a development he had done in Roseville with a front loaded building with a front porch. He also pointed out that there will be considerable landscaping around the townhomes. Board member Olson pointed out that the plans that they had do not show any front porches. Mr. Howe displayed his plans with the porches on each unit and stated this is the proposed style of the townhomes. Mr. Peters stated that the three unit buildings will be slightly different. He then pointed out to the Board the various styles and features of the two and three unit buildings. Community Design Review Board Minutes of 05-22-01 Board member Ledvina requested the applicant to describe the color scheme and materials for the development. Mr. Peters stated that they would be using vinyl exterior products, the windows are lifetime warranty windows, and the shingles are a Hearthstead Serpentine. He stated that there would be nothing on the exterior of the building to be painted except the front door. Board member Olson questioned the 20-foot front setback and whether there would be sufficient parking in the driveway. Mr. Peters stated that there would be parking for two cars in the garage and two cars on the driveway. Board member Olson asked if there would be any sidewalks. Mr. Peters stated that no, there would not be any sidewalks. Board member Shankar asked the applicant about trash collection in the new development. Mr. Peters stated that the residents will be required to keep the trash receptacles in the garage and it would be brought out on the day of trash collection. He also stated that the mailboxes will be spaced out in the project with nice mailbox stands with the newspaper slot built right into it. He said that they have not addressed the specific location of the mailbox stands the with the post office yet, but they anticipate the stands will hold four mailboxes and be spaced out through the project. Board member Ledvina pointed out that the required side yard setback for single family homes is 10' - putting the buildings 20' apart. He pointed out that in this proposal the buildings are at 20' and 30' in terms of the side yard separation. Board member OIson commented that if this were not a private drive she would like to see sidewalks. Mr. Ekstrand stated that if this were not a private street the front setback would not meet code. In this case, there is a greater setback on the rear lot lines to help cushion from the existing homes. Board member Olson asked what the Planning Commissions decisions was on the fencing of the pond. Mr. Peters stated that the pond would be fenced in. They are proposing that the fence be placed down below, out of eyesight, with landscaping around it. Board member Olson asked what the driveways would be constructed of. Mr. Peters stated that they would be asphalt. Board member Olson asked what the Planning Commissions recommendations were on the proposed trial. Board member Ledvina stated that there were concerns regarding the requirement to connect a public trail to a private street. He also stated that the residents of Ripley Court had not been surveyed to find out what their options were regarding the trail. Board member Ledvina stated that he strongly favors the trail connection. It helps to link neighborhoods. and provides a safe method for individuals in this new community to access the Gateway Trail. He felt that over time the trail would also serve to strengthen our communities and join our neighborhoods. He stated that the Planning Commission's motion was to not necessarily recommend it, they wanted staff and City Council to explore the implications of the legalities of the public/private connection. Board member Ledvina stated that generally he felt that Planning Commissioners were in favor of a trail connection. Board member OIson asked about the traffic patterns in this area and if this development would have any impact on it. Mr. Ekstrand stated that yes, there would be additional vehicles, but it would not be very substantial. Board member Ledvina stated concerns regarding the spacial design of the pond. He stated that he was not in favor of a rectangular pond. He feels that a varied shaped pond would improve the aesthetics along with additional plantings associated with the pond. Community Design Review Board Minutes of 05-22-01 -4- Mr. Ekstrand liked the suggestion and stated that the pond is a prominent feature of the area. He felt that to give some creativity to the shape of it would be very appealing to the residents. Board member Ledvina stated that it could be made into a park like structure making it more appealing and he also noted that it was reflected in the Planning Commission motion. He indicated that he would like to strengthen that recommendation if the Board members are agreeable. Board member Olson agreed that softening the edges of the pond would be a positive improvement. She also asked if the Watershed had reviewed this proposed pond and if the soils had good absorption. Board member Ledvina stated that the subsurface soils are sandy in nature and do a good job infiltrating the water into the subsurface. Board member Ledvina stated that he felt that the prominent feature of the garages on the structure has been greatly improved with the modified plans. He stated that they definitely needed to revise the Board's recommendation on that feature and that he supported the applicants proposal as displayed on the revised plans. Mr. Ekstrand stated that he felt that the Board was in favor of the trail and he pointed out to the applicant that this proposal is going to the City Council, and that they could discuss any issues that they may disagree with with the City Council. The Board is typically the deciding body in cases where there is no other zoning issues, but since this issue is still going to the city council the applicant still has an opportunity to discuss it at city council. The Board continued discussion regarding the front layouts of the townhomes and also the placement of the house numbers. Board member Shankar asked if there were another location for the house numbers. Mr. Peters said that they could possibly be placed above the garage door. However, it is preferred that the numbers are located where they can be lit. Mr. Peters also stated that by code the house numbers must be within four feet of the front door and must be 3 ½" high. Board member Shankar moved that the Community Design Review Board recommend approval of the plans date stamped May 3, 2001, for the proposed 22 townhomes called The Gardens, subject to the following conditions: Repeat this review in two years if the city has not issued a building permit for this project. Complete the following before the city issues a building permit: a.* Have the city engineer approve final construction and engineering plans. These plans shall include: grading, utility, drainage, erosion control, tree, sidewalk and driveway and parking lot plans. The plans shall meet the following conditions: (1) The erosion control plan shall be consistent with city code. (2) The grading plan shall: (a) Include building, floor elevation and contour information. (b) Include contour information for the land that the construction will disturb. (c) Show sedimentation basins or ponds as may be required by the watershed board or by the city engineer. Community Design Review Board Minutes of 05-22-01 -5- (3) All the parking areas and the Summer Lane shall have continuous concrete curb and gutter except where the city engineer decides it is not needed. (4) There shall be no parking on the south side of the 28-foot-wide Summer Lane. The developer or contractor shall post Summer Lane and the driveways with no parking signs to meet the above-listed standard. Submit a certificate of survey for all new construction and have each building staked by a registered land surveyor. Submit a revised landscape plan to staff for approval which incorporates the following details: (1) All lawn areas shall be sodded. The city engineer shall determine the vegetation within the ponding area and the rain water gardens. (2) Shifting some of the trees proposed for the north side of the pond and the cul-de- sac to the south and east sides of the pond. (3) (4) (5) The developer shall install landscaping in the ponding area to break the appearance of the deep hole and to promote infiltration. Such landscaping shall be approved by the city engineer and shall be shown on the project landscape plans. Having in-ground irrigation for all landscape areas (code requirement). The plantings proposed around the front of the units shown on the landscape plan date-stamped May 3, 2001, shall remain on the plan. (6) A concrete walk from the driveway to the door of each unit. d. Show that Ramsey County has recorded the final plat for this development. o Complete the following before occupying each building: a. Replace property irons that are removed because of this construction. b. Restore and sod damaged boulevards and sod all turf areas. c. Complete all landscaping and turf irrigation for that building and its rain water garden(s). d. Install the required concrete curb and gutter. e. Put addresses on each building for each unit. 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 city receives cash escrow or an irrevocable letter of credit for the required work. Community Design Review Board Minutes of 05-22-01 -6- The amount shall be 150 percent of the cost of the unfinished work. Any unfinished landscaping shall be completed 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. 5. All work shall follow the approved plans. The director of community development may approve minor changes. The building design of the three-unit building shall reflect the center design to stay as shown on the plans, the end units shall be redesigned to have the entrances on the front side of the unit. The two-unit design plan shall have the entrances on the front of the building with porches. The pond layout shall be revised to a more irregular shape that fits with the shape of the cul-de-sac subject to staff approval. The pond shall incorporate curbed elements to improve the visual appearance and the applicant shall enhance the landscaping for the pond subject to staff approval. Board member Ledvina noted that the board has received plans from the applicant on May 22, 2001 regarding changes to the two unit design plan which indicate that the entrances be located on the front of the building. Board member Olson seconded the motion. Motion carries. Ayes - All This proposal goes before the city council on June 11, 2001. VI. DESIGN REVIEW None. VII. VISITOR PRESENTATIONS VIII. There were no visitors present. BOARD PRESENTATIONS Board member Ledvina discussed the redesign of the Menards to remedy their problems with the building design that did not meet their approved conditions that were put forth by the review board. The concern was regarding the stripe on the building. The board agreed with the staff that the sign should be incorporated into the stripe. The city council had agreed with Menards and had approved the plan with the stripe below the sign. Board member Olson asked if there were any ramifications for the applicant for not meeting the approved conditions. Mr. Ekstrand stated that due to the changes that were made without authorization, they were required to do substantial additional landscaping. Menards' failure to comply with the plan resulted in the council requiring that they provide considerable landscaping. Community Design Review Board Minutes of 05-22-01 -7- IX. STAFF PRESENTATIONS a. Mr. Ekstrand requested a CDRB volunteer for the City Council Meeting on June 11, 2001. He stated that The Garden's project would be on that agenda. Board member Ledvina requested that the applicant have updated plans and elevations for the City Council to review at that meeting. Board member Olson volunteered to attend the June 11, 2001 City Council meeting. b. Mr. Ekstrand presented a Resolution of Appreciation for Jon LaCasse whom served on the Community Design Review Board for nearly two years. Board member Shankar moved to approve the Resolution of Appreciation for Jon LaCasse. Board member Olson seconded. Ayes - All The motion passed. c. Mr. Ekstrand gave a brief New Member Orientation to the Community Design Review Board. Xo ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 7:35 p.m. TO: FROM: SUBJECT: APPLICANT: LOCATION: DATE: MEMORANDUM City Manager Shann Finwall, Associate Planner Afton Ridge Thone Builders and Developers, Inc. (Tim Thone) Southeast Corner of Lower Afton and McKnight Roads June 6, 2001 INTRODUCTION Project Description Tim Thone, Thone Builders and Developers, Inc., is proposing to construct a 40-unit townhouse development. This development would be on a 4.22-acre parcel of land located on the southeast comer of Lower Afton and McKnight Roads, behind the Holiday Station Store (see the maps on pp. 12-22). The four proposed buildings would have earth-tone vinyl siding, vinyl shake accents under the windows and brick exterior on the garage level (see elevations on pp. 23-30). Each building will have three levels: first level to include a one or two-car tuck-under style garage and mechanical and storage rooms; second level to include the living room, kitchen, dining room, and bathroom; and third level to include the bedrooms and bathroom. This design will be marketed to empty nest professionals and will be priced from $160,000 to $190,000. Requests To build this development, the applicant is requesting that the city approve the following: An amendmem to the city's Comprehensive Land Use Plan from commercial office (CO) and limited business commercial (LBC) to residential high density (R-3H). A rezoning from commercial office (CO) and limited business commercial (LBC) districts to multiple-family residemial (R-3). Preliminary and final plat. Design plans. DISCUSSION Land Use Amendment and Rezoning The property is currently planned as CO and LBC in the city's Comprehensive Land Use Plan and zoned CO and LBC (see the Zoning and Land Use maps on pp. 13-16). Uses permitted within the CO and LBC districts include offices and other low-intensity commercial uses. Surrounding properties include the Holiday Station Store to the west and north of the property (planned and zoned business commercial (BC)); to the west across McKnight Road in St. Paul are rental apartments and a strip shopping center; to the south are single-family homes; to the east is a wetland that the city has planned as open space; and to the north across Lower Afton Road is Battle Creek Park. Mr. Thone states in his letter dated February 22, 2001 (pp. 31-32) that the main reason for proposing the land use amendment and rezoning of the property from commercial to residential is that the times and conditions have changed such that the planned land use is no longer appropriate for the property. He points out that the property is ideal for multi-family housing because of access to an existing major bus route on McKnight and Lower Afton Roads; the location of the regional park directly to the north of the property with walking paths and other recreational opportunities; the location of a bike trail on Lower Afton Road; residential use of the land may generate significantly less traffic and congestion versus traditional style retail or commercial developments, causing less of an impact on the adjacent single family housing; and the strong need and demand for moderately-priced housing compared to the need for more commercial development on the property. The city's Comprehensive Plan sets goals and policies for residential developments. Four specific goals apply to this proposal: 1) provide for orderly development; 2) minimize conflicts between land uses; 3) provide a wide variety of housing types; and 4) plan multi-family housing with an average density of at least 10 units per acre. In addition, two specific policies apply to this proposal: 1) disperse moderate-income developments throughout the city near bus lines; and 2) protect neighborhoods from encroachment or intrusion of incompatible land uses by adequate buffering and separation. In addition to the Comprehensive Plan goals and policies, the city's Zoning Code specifies criteria to be considered when a rezoning is proposed. In general, the code states that the proposed change not injure or detract from the use of neighboring property, serve the best interests and conveniences of the community and cause no negative impacts on the city's public services or facilities. This proposal meets the above-mentioned goals, policies and criteria. The proposed 40 units on the 4.22-acre site will create a density of 9.5 units per acre. The maximum density allowed for townhouses in the R-3H land use district is 10.4 units per acre. For comparison, the two other multi-family districts, R-3L and R-3M, allow for 5.4 and 6.0 units per acre, respectively. On this site, the R-3L land use designation would allow for up to 22 units and the R-3M land use designation would allow for 25 units. Neighborhood Comment Neighborhood comment received was generally for the land use and zoning change. Neighbors that attended a neighborhood meeting held by the developer in November 2000 stated that they believed their property values would remain strongest with a multi-family proposal such as Afton Ridge, compared to other uses. Written concerns received by neighbors about the development include possible increase in traffic, ensure screening between multi-family and single-family uses, ensure the preservation of existing trees and wetland, and ensure headlights from cars and on-site lighting do not produce glare into single- family lots. Preliminary/Final Plat and Public Utilities Mr. Thone is requesting a preliminary and final plat for the project. This development will be designed as a common interest community (CIC) with the four proposed buildings platted as one lot each. The buildings will then be divided into separate units, with the prospective buyers owning from wall to wall, as opposed to owning the land that the townhouse sits on and a small portion of the land surrounding it. The developer will be forming a homeowner's association with documents (declarations) specifying the legal responsibility of the association and homeowners for maintenance of the units and common grounds. The main difference in platting a townhouse development as a CIC as opposed to platting each townhouse unit with its own lot is that there is only one sewer and water hookup to each building rather than one per unit. City Code allows this type of utility connection as long as the declarations specify the responsible parties for maintenance. In this case, the homeowner's association will be responsible for the on-site sewer and water systems, rather than one property owner. The development will get water from a water main in McKnight Road. Sanitary sewer will be accessed through a city sewer line, which runs along the west property line of this development, behind the Holiday Station Store. The Ramsey/Washington Metro Watershed District and the city engineer have reviewed the proposed development for storm water issues. The current proposal channels most of the drainage from the site under Lower Afton Road into a culvert and then into a regional system. The city's ordinance requires compliance with the national urban runoff plan (NURP) design standards. Therefore, additional ponding for storm water retention will be required on the site. The location and depths of those ponds will need to be approved by the city engineer prior to issuance of a grading permit. Afton Ridge Staff Report 2 June 6, 2001 Design Buildings: There are two styles of buildings proposed. The Bradford and Camelot designs are proposed for the eastern portion of the development (adjacent Lower Afton Road) with 28 two-bedroom units. There are 14 units in each of these two buildings, with 7 units on each side, back to back. The garages are recessed under the front decks, which are held up by decorative columns. The Oxford design is proposed for the western portion of the development (adjacent McKnight Road) with 12 three-bedroom units. There are six units in each building, with front emry and rear walkouts. All four buildings will meet or exceed the required setbacks. Drives: There are two proposed entrance drives into the development. One on Lower Alton Road that will provide access for 28 units and one on McKnight Road that will provide access for 12 units. The plan included in this report shows four mm-around drives. These were requested by the city's fire marshal for emergency vehicle mm-around access. After further review of the project it was determined that the mm-around issue could be better addressed on the eastern portion of the development by installing a 12-foot wide fire lane from the ends of the two exterior drives, around the buildings. This lane will be used by emergency vehicles and as a walking path for residents of the development only. The fire lane alternative will reduce the amount of impervious surface on the site. Code states that a multi-family development of this nature must maintain at least 35 percent open space (pervious surface). As proposed, this development maintains 59 percent open space, which exceeds code. However, the less impervious surface on the site the better, particularly next to a wetland. The planning commission discussed the fire lane and suggested as a measure to further decrease the impervious surface the lane should be constructed of a Class IV material. City code requires that all parking lots and associated driveways shall have a surface of bituminous or concrete. Staff interprets the code to include the fire lane. For this reason, as well as the fact that the Class IV material is harder to maintain and the fine rock from the material can actually cause more harm to the adjacent wetland than the runoff from the bituminous, staff feels that the drive should remain bituminous. The Class IV pervious surface will also help reduce total impervious surface on the site. Because of the grade of the western portion of the development, a similar fire lane is impossible. However, the fire marshal stated that the proposed 120-foot long and 24-foot wide turn-arounds on the western portion of the development could be reduced in length and width to 80 feet and 12 feet respectively. Again, this will decrease the amount of impervious surface and grading required on the site. Parking: The city's parking code requires two spaces per unit. All units are proposed to have two-car garages, interior units in the Bradford and Camelot design will have garages which are one-car wide and two cars deep, with exterior units and units in the Oxford design having two-car wide garages. The Code requirements are met with the garages. However, guest parking is always a concern in such a development. Because the private drives are only 24 feet wide, no parking is allowed on either side. The driveways proposed for each unit will be at least 25 feet long with a variation in width depending on a one or two-car wide garage. One-car wide garages will have a 9-foot wide driveway, leaving space for one guest to park, and the two-car wide garages will have a 16-foot wide driveway, leaving space for two guests to park. In addition to the driveways, the developer is proposing a total of 17 additional guest parking spaces throughout the developmem. Trails and Sidewalk: When the adjacent single-family development (AJ Addition) was platted in 1996 a trail easement was placed on the plat. There is a bituminous trail with a split rail fence that runs through the easement and extends from Parkview Lane in between two of the single-family lots, down the middle of this development, onto Lower Afton Road. During the neighborhood meeting the two single-family property owners that have the trail easement running alongside their properties expressed a desire to remove this trail. However, other neighborhood comment received expressed a desire to retain this trail. The trail was part of the approved AJ Plat and serves as an important pedestrian/bicycle route from the AJ Addition single-family neighborhood to bus service, park access across Lower Alton Road, and to the convenience store. For this reason, staff recommends that the trail remain. Alton Ridge Staff Report 3 June 6, 2001 As stated above, the intersection of McKnight and Lower Afton Roads is the location of a bus stop. To ensure off-street access to this intersection and the convenience store for individuals living on the west portion of this development, staff is proposing that the developer construct a 5-foot wide, concrete sidewalk within the McKnight Road right-of-way. This sidewalk would run along the western side of the development from the most southerly property line to the existing sidewalk in front of the Holiday Station Store. There are no existing sidewalks on Lower Afton Road, only a bike path on the north side of the road. In order to ensure access to the intersection and the convenience store for residents of the east portion of the development, staff proposes an 8-foot wide, bituminous trail to extend from the western driveway of this portion of the development up to the existing pedestrian/bicycle trail. Landscaping, Screening, and Tree Preservation: Existing conditions on the site include a number of mature cottonwood trees interspersed with other deciduous trees and one large red pine located in the middle of the property. Within the property, only 28 of the trees are defined as "large trees" according to the city's tree preservation ordinance. Only "larger trees" are required to be replaced on a one-to-one basis if removed. Mr. Thone has agreed to save as many trees on the development as possible. According to the proposed grading plan, it appears that a number of trees on the southern end of the development, adjacent the single-family lots, can be saved. Unfortunately, the large red pine sits in the middle of the development and must be removed. Because of its maturity, it also cannot be relocated on the site. The landscape plan submitted does not depict the trees that will be preserved. For this reason, landscape screening adjacent the single-family property is hard to determine at this time. One of the main concerns expressed by the single-family property owners was the vehicle headlights shining into their properties. With the finalized landscape plan, care must be given to ensure an opaque evergreen screening at the ends of all of the driveways. Also, the grade of the development is such that the single homes are higher up in most places than the townhouses which will help shield the headlights. A main concern of Mr. Thone is supplying screening for the townhouse development from the Holiday Station Store. The city's police department recommends a 6-foot high privacy fence be installed along all common property lines with Holiday Station Store to help alleviate noise, trespass, and light complaints. Mr. Thone, however, feels that the installation of a row of deciduous trees would serve the development better. The city's landscape code requires screening of a business when adjacent to residential property. The Holiday Station Store was not required to install a fence or additional landscape screening as the Afton Ridge site was zoned commercial when Holiday Station Store was constructed. Therefore, there is no required screening for Mr. Thone's development from Holiday Station Store. For this reason, if the developer feels that a screening fence would not serve the development, staff agrees but recommends that a row of 6-foot high or larger evergreens be installed along the common property lines, in addition to some deciduous trees. The Holiday Station Store's conditional use permit requires that the store close between the hours of 11 p.m. and 6 a.m., alleviating noise and some lighting concerns during these hours. In order to add to the design of the buildings and development as a whole, staff recommends landscaped planting beds be located in between the driveways, in front of the doors. These landscaped beds should include low maintenance shrubs and perennials. Site Lighting: One of the neighbors' strongest concerns expressed was site lighting. They wanted to ensure that the multi-family development would not produce glare and light trespass onto their properties. Mr. Thone proposes exterior lights above each garage unit, with no additional site lighting. Staff feels that this proposal will be adequate to offer enough light for security, without over lighting the site. Final lighting details should be submitted to staff for approval before issuance of a building permit. Wetland There is a wetland on the east side of this property that the city has designated as open space on the Land Use Plan. The city's wetland ordinance requires a 50-foot wide buffer from a Class III type wetland such as this, with an additional 10-foot setback from the buffer for buildings. This development meets the setback Afton Ridge Staff Report 4 June 6, 2001 requirements on the buffer; however, four of the guest parking spaces will be constructed right up to the buffer line. With the removal of the turn-arounds, these four spaces should be relocated toward the south, away from the buffer area, to ensure protection of the wetland. Another means of protecting the wetland is the installation of native plantings within this buffer zone. Native plantings will help filter any overflow storm water runoff from the project and help restore the wetland to a more native habitat for wildlife. COMMITTEE ACTIONS June 4, 2001: The planning commission reviewed the Comprehensive Land Use Plan amendment, rezoning, and preliminary and final plat requests. The planning commission recommended approval of the three above-mentioned items by a vote of 6 to 1. RECOMMENDATIONS Ao Adopt the Land Use Plan change resolution on page 33. This resolution changes the Land Use Plan from Commercial Office (CO) and Limited Business Commercial (LBC) to Residential High Density (R-3H) for the proposed Afton Ridge Housing development on the southeast corner of Lower Alton and McKnight Roads. The city is making this change because the proposal will: 1. Provide for orderly development of land uses. 2. Help minimize conflicts between land uses. 3. Provide additional moderately priced housing stock. 4. Add to in-fill development with a density of 9.5 units per acre. Adopt the rezoning resolution on pp. 34-35. This resolution changes the zoning map from Commercial Office (CO) and Limited Business Commercial (LBC) to Multi-Family Residential (R-3) for the proposed Alton Ridge housing development on the southeast corner of Lower Alton and McKnight Roads. The city is making this change because it will: 1. Not detract from the use of neighboring property. 2. Serve the best interests and conveniences of the community. 3. Cause no negative impacts on the city's public services or facilities. Approve the preliminary and final plat date stamped May 11, 2001. Approval is subject to the applicant meeting the following conditions: Have the city engineer approve f'mal construction and engineering plans. These plans shall include: grading, utility, drainage, erosion control, streets, sidewalks, driveways and parking plans with the following changes: Developer will revise drainage plan to incorporate treatment and detention facilities per city ordinance which requires compliance with NURP design standards. The city engineer shall approve ponding and drainage calculations. bo Reduction in the length and width of the fire lane turn-around located on the west side of the development from 120 feet in length to 80 feet in length and 24 feet in width to 12 feet in width. Co Relocation of the four parking stalls on the west side of the development to ensure a 15-foot setback from the McKnight Road right-of-way. Relocation of the four parking stalls located nearest the wetland to the south, further away from the wetland. Afton Ridge Staff Report 5 June 6, 2001 Relocation of the four parking stalls located nearest the wetland to the south, further away from the wetland. A 5-foot wide concrete sidewalk within the McKnight Road right-of-way along the west side of the development. This sidewalk shall run from the most southerly end of the development's property line to the existing sidewalk in front of the Holiday Station Store. fo Removal of all three fire lane turn-arounds on the east side of the development to be replaced with a 12-foot wide bituminous surface fire lane which will extend from the ends of the driveways around the buildings. The entrance to the fire lane shall be equipped with a fall-down bollard to ensure access by emergency vehicles only. An 8-foot wide bituminous trail from the most westerly drive on the eastern portion of the development to the existing bituminous trail which is in the center of the development. ho Revising the parking space dimensions from 15 foot deep x 8 foot wide to 18 foot deep x 9.5 foot wide. Driveways for all units maintaining at least a 25-foot length. Showing concrete curb and gutter around all driveways (excluding east fire land drive) and parking areas within the development. Shift the two buildings located on the west side of the development 20 feet to the north. Paying for costs related to the engineering department's review of the construction plans. Signing a developer's agreement with the city that guarantees that the developer or contractor will: Complete all grading for overall site drainage, complete all public improvements and meet all city requirements. bo Place temporary orange safety fencing and signs at the grading limits, including around all trees to be preserved (construction fence to the drip line of the trees) and around the wetland buffer. c. Install wetland buffer signs at wetland buffer line. do Install a 5-foot wide concrete sidewalk within the McKnight Road right-of-way on the west side of the development from the most southerly property line to the existing sidewalk in front of Holiday Station Store. eo Install an 8-foot wide bituminous trail on the east side of the development from the most westerly driveway to the existing trail. Submit all required easement documents (wetland buffer and trail easements) for staff approval before recording them with Ramsey County. Submit homeowner's association documents for staff approval before recording it with Ramsey County. Record final plat with Ramsey County. Afion Ridge Staff Report 6 June 6, 2001 Approve the plans date stamped May 11,2001, for Afton Ridge Townhomes. The city is approving these plans based on the findings required by the code. The developer, Tim Thone, shall do the following: 1. Repeat this review in two years if the city has not issued a building permit for this project. 2. Complete the following before the city issues a building permit: ao Submit a revised landscape plan to staff for approval that incorporates the following details: (1) Location of all existing trees on the site to be preserved. (2) All replacement deciduous trees shall be at least two and one-half (2-1/2) inches in diameter, balled and burlapped. (3) A continuous row of 6-foot high or larger evergreens, spaced no more than 8-foot on center, to be installed along or near the shared property line of the Holiday Station Store. (4) Four groupings of six, 6-foot high or larger evergreen trees to be installed at the ends of the drives adjacent the single family lots. (5) Planting beds to be installed in between the driveways, in front of the entrance doors, to include low maintenance shrubs and perennials that are mulched and edged. (6) An underground lawn irrigation system. (7) Design of wetland buffer signs that are required to be installed at wetland buffer line to state: Wetland Buffer - no mowing, cutting, filling, or dumping. (8) If there is approved grading disturbance within the wetland buffer for required ponding on the site, native plantings within the wetland buffer are required. The species and location of native plantings within the wetland buffer are subject to city approval. (9) In addition to the above, all common grounds shall be sodded (except for mulched and edged planting beds and wetland buffer). bo Submit a certificate of survey for all new construction and have each building staked by a registered land surveyor. Co Submit a lighting site plan that shows the location and style of all proposed exterior lights. Dedicating a wetland-buffer easement. This easement shall describe the boundary of the buffer and prohibit any building, mowing, cutting, filling or dumping within the buffer. The applicant is responsible for recording the deed with Ramsey County. 3. Complete the following before occupying each building: a. Replace property irons that are removed because of this construction. Complete all landscaping for the development, including tree replacement, mulched and edged planting beds, any required wetland buffer plantings and sod. Afton Ridge Staff Report 7 June 6, 2001 o c. Restore and sod damaged boulevards. d. Install address signs at both driveway entrances and above each unit. e. Install wetland buffer signs that prohibit any building, mowing, cutting, filling, or dumping with the buffer. f. Remove all unneeded silt fence from the site. g. There shall be no parking on the 24-foot wide private drives. The developer shall post the drives with no parking signs. There shall be no parking on the fire lane turn-around located on the western portion of the development. The developer shall post the lane with no parking/fire lane signs. i. There shall be no driving or parking on the 12-foot wide fire lane located on the eastern portion of the development. The developer shall post the lane with fire lane signs and install a fall-down bollard at the entrance of each side of the lane. j. Install stop signs at both driveway exits. 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 city receives cash escrow or an irrevocable letter of credit for the required work. The amount shall be 150 percent of the cost of the unfinished work. Any unfinished landscaping shall be completed 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. The director of community development may h° All work shall follow the approved plans. approve minor changes. Afton Ridge Staff Report 8 June 6, 2001 CITIZEN COMMENTS I surveyed the owners of the 41 properties within 350 feet of this site. Of the 12 replies, 10 were in general favor of the land use change and rezoning proposal with minor concerns regarding the development itself, 1 objected, and ! had no comment: In Favor Consensus believed that their property values would remain strongest with a multi-family proposal such as Alton Ridge, compared to other uses. Sampling of concerns regarding the development itself include: Gregory Dietl and Lee Solyntjes of 341 Parkview Lane: We want to see the preservation of the surrounding wetlands and buffer zone and as many of the existing trees and other growth preserved. We would like to see planting of large trees and shrubs on the perimeter of the new development. William and Jennifer Jahner of 355 Parkview Lane: Want upscale development. Would like tree boarder on sides and backs of lots to separate them from our lots. There are some mature trees on those 2 lots. I would like to see them saved. The pine on the south lot is a beauty. Steven Weckman and Deanna Linden of 345 Parkview Lane: I am concerned about lighting on the property. All exterior lighting should be shielded to prevent reflection off site. Also, the driveways should be cut below original grade, but still retain proper drainage to prevent headlights shining into adjacent residences. Overall, I am in favor of this proposal as long as they don't ask for any variances or special exemptions. Opposed Don Palmer of 338 McKnight Road: Traffic concerns. Afton Ridge Staff Report 9 June 6, 2001 REFERENCE INFORMATION SITE DESCRIPTION Site Size: 4.22 acres Existing Land Use: Vacant SURROUNDING LAND USES Northwest: West: South: East: North: Holiday Station Store (planned and zoned business commercial (BC)) Rental apartments and a strip shopping center located in St. Paul Single-family homes A wetland that the city has planned as open space Battle Creek Park across Lower Alton Road PLANNING Existing Land Use Plan: Existing Zoning: Commercial Office (CO) and Limited Business Commercial (LBC) Commercial Office (CO) and Limited Business Commercial (LBC) CRITERIA FOR APPROVAL Land Use Plan Amendment: There is no specific criteria for land use plan changes. Any change, however, should be consistent with the goals and policies in the Comprehensive Plan. Four specific goals apply to this proposal: 2. 3. 4. Provide for orderly development; Minimize conflicts between land uses; Provide a wide variety of housing types; and Plan multi-family housing with an average density of at least 10 units per acre. In addition, two specific policies apply to this proposal: Disperse moderate-income developments throughout the city near bus lines; and Protect neighborhoods from encroachment or intrusion of incompatible land uses by adequate buffering and separation. Rezoning: Section 36-485 of the Zoning Code requires that the city council make the following findings to rezone property: 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. Afton Ridge Staff Report 10 June 6, 2001 REFERENCE INFORMATION (Continued) Application Date We received the complete applications and plans for this development on April 6, 2001. State law requires that the city take action within 60 days of receiving complete applications for a proposal. In order to allow the developer additional time in which to make changes to the originally submitted plans, on April 27, 2001, the developer submitted written authorization to the city to extend the required 60-day limit for an additional 60 days. As such, city action is required on this proposal by August 3, 2001. Attachments: 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. Location Map Existing Zoning Map Proposed Zoning Map Existing Land Use Map Proposed Land Use Map Preliminary/Final Plat Existing Conditions Site Plan Grading Plan Utility Plan Landscape Plan Elevations Tim Thone Letter Dated 2/22/01 Land Use Plan Change Resolution (CO, LBC to R-3H) Rezoning Resolution (CO, LBC to R-3) Building and Elevation Plans Date Stamped May 11, 2001 Afton Ridge Staff Report 11 June 6, 2001 RAUSEY COUNTY CORRECTIONAL LN. ~ FACIL~ FOREST D~, 2. D~R >- 0 0 HIGHWOOO V1EW AVE. NEW C NEW ¢ LOCATION MAP 12 Attachment 1 'LE CREEK PARK B HOLIDAY STATION -IOTA [. 1 8.~P~. ~ I ,, ~ L)T. LO¥ FOR ' ! l 19 ~ec · ,PAR'I UTL( FoOD 13 Attachment CREEK PARK · oo m m m mm m mm m mm mmlm mml~#~-m m mm m mm mmmm e ~--~m,,=~qm~mm -- HOLIDAY STATION '¥'OTA L. 18.8~c~._. (7. I FOR ' , ! UTLO'F ', 17 J~ :I · I PARq Ilmm mmmm mmmmlml~ 75' 15' 177.3G~ 17~.41~ Zt6.aiG : :1' TL( Attachment 14 Lower A~ton BC BC-M major arterial R-3(M) Londin Lane L- R-1 Mailand ~ minor collector Linwood ,.~ o o EXISTING LAND USE MAP I · Attachment 4 15 Lower Alton Londin Lane ~-'=' Mailand =; Linwoo~ 16 Attachtnent HOLIDAY ~-~ T A t JO:",: CA.RDDiAL HEF~HTS AFTON BO~ \ , I Attachmen 17 I I N_ ,,t. HFiGHT5 EXISTING CONDITIONS 18 1 Attachment 7 LOWER I 'HOLF.)AY STAT!O.N I~l C.,:,...'~,D~H AL H E k'.'- H T 5 POND J / SITE PLAN 19 Attachment LO%ER -' /// // / ~J" // .... --' / ' HEIGHTS POND [ IV~T/AND GRADING PLAN 20 Attachment AFTON ROAD C ARD~!,,~AL ?,'£~C-HT 5 \I POND I~gGRND UTILITY PLAN 21 Attachment I0 --AFl'ON RIOGE I LOW£R POND LANDSCAPE PLAN 22 Attachment I- Z 0 23 Attachme~ 2'7 (D 0 28 d vI d 0 Z ~°. d 0 February 22, 2001 Tom Ekstrand City of Maplewood 1830 E. County Road B Maplewood, MN. 55109 APR a 8 2001 Dear Mayor & City Council Members, Thone Builders & Developers has submitted application for comprehensive plan amendment, PUD and site plan to be known as Alton Ridge. In addition the request includes re-zoning the 4.22 acres from BC-M- LBC to R - C3 town homes. The proposed development is located near the Southeast intersection of McKnight and Afton Road, surrounding the Holiday gas station. A.) The most important reason for making these amendments are because times and conditions have changed such that the existing land use is no longer appropriate for the property. B.) This will provide a unique opportunity to provide moderately priced homes for "Empty Nest" professionals that want to live and work in Maplewood. C.) This location is ideal because of the existing major bus route. Alton Ridge homeowners will have easy access to public transportation. D.) Residential land use will generate significantly less traffic and congestion versus traditional style retail or commercial building. There is a strong need and demand for moderate housing compared to the need for more commercial development on this site. E.) Those attending the neighborhood meeting, held in November, unanimously believed their property values would remain strongest with Alton Ridge proposal compared to other uses. 31 Attachment 1 F.) City sewer and water are adjacent to project site, so there will be no impact on the city's utility system. G.) I feel existing public facilities, such as schools and parks are adequate for this proposal. The regional park, directly to the north, provides open space, walking paths, ECT. There will be virtually no impact on schools. During my 10 years of building comparable housing, the buyers have tended to be "Empty Nest" professionals mixed with first time homebuyers. H.) No deviation from city code regarding PUD. AEon Ridge is more compatible with surrounding uses as compared to more commercial development. Town homes will serve as a buffer between commercial use and the busy roads of Lower AEon and McKnight roads. Time and conditions have changed; the existing land use is more appropriate for town- homes. This proposal will enhance the site and surroundings, and fill the need for quality housing that is moderately priced. Thank you, Tim Thone Thone Builders & Developers, Inc. President LAND USE PLAN CHANGE RESOLUTION WHEREAS, Tim Thone, representing Thone Builders and Developers, Inc., made application to the City of Maplewood for a change to the city's land use plan from commercial office (CO) and limited business commercial (LBC) to residential high density (R-3H) for a project called Afton Ridge. WHEREAS, this change applies to the undeveloped property located on the southeast corner of Lower Alton and McKnight Roads, behind the Holiday Station Store, in Maplewood, Minnesota. WHEREAS, the history of this change is as follows: 1. On June 4, 2001, the planning commission held a public hearing. City staff published a hearing notice in the Maplewood Review and sent notices to the surrounding property owners. The planning commission conducted the public hearing whereby all public present were given a chance to speak and present written statements. The planning commission recommended that the city council approve the plan amendments. 2. On ,2001, the city council discussed the land use plan changes. They considered reports and recommendations from the planning commission and city staff. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the city council approve the above- described land use plan change for the following reasons: 1. This site is proper for and consistent with the city's policies for high-density residential use. This includes: a. Creating a transitional land use between the existing low density residential and commercial land uses. b. Increasing the moderately priced housing stock within the city. c. Create in-fill development with a density of 9.5 units per acre. 2. This development will minimize any adverse effects on surrounding properties because: a. The townhouses exceed the required 50-foot setback from adjacent residential property lines. b. Many of the existing mature trees will be preserved along the shared property lines with the single-family residential property lines. c. The architecture of the buildings will create a quality development. d. There would be no traffic from this development on existing residential streets. The Maplewood City Council adopted this resolution on ,2001. 33 Attachment ZONING MAP CHANGE RESOLUTION WHEREAS, Tim Thone of Thone Builders and Developers, Inc., has proposed the following change to the City of Maplewood's zoning map: commercial office (CO) and limited business commercial (LBC) to multiple dwelling residential (R-3). WHEREAS, this change applies to the undeveloped property located on the southeast corner of Lower Afton and McKnight Roads, behind the Holiday Station Store, in Maplewood, Minnesota. WHEREAS, the legal description of these properties are: That part of the NW Quarter of the NW Quarter of Sec 12, Twn 28, Rng 22, Ramsey County, MN described as follows: Commencing at a cast iron monument found for the NW corner of said Sec 12; thence S 00 deg 17 min 21 sec E, assumed bearing, along the W line of said Sec 12 a distance of 362.00 feet thence N 88 deg 15 min 34 sec E along the S line of N 362.00 ft of said NW Quarter of the NW Quarter a distance of 245.08 ft to an iron pipe which is the point of beginning; thence continuing N 88 deg 15 min 34 sec E a distance of 418.66 ft; thence S 00 deg 18 min 10 sec E a distance of 265.04 ft; thence S 88 deg 15 min 34 sec W a distance of 415.46 ft; thence N 00 deg 17 min 24 sec W a distance of 53.74 ft; thence S 88 deg 15 min 34 sec W a distance of 5.07 ft; thence N 00 deg 17 min 21 sec W a distance of 211.21 ft; thence to the point of beginning. That part of the NW Quarter of the NW Quarter of Sec 12, Twn 28, Rng 22, Ramsey County, MN described as follows: Commencing at a cast iron monument found for the NW corner of said Sec 12; thence S 00 deg 17 min 21 sec E, assumed bearing, along the W line of said Sec 12 a distance of 362.00 ft thence N 88 deg 15 min 34 sec E along the S line of the N 362.00 ft of said NW Quarter of the NW Quarter a distance of 40.01 ft to the E line of the W 40 ft of said NW Quarter of the NW Quarter thence S 00 deg 17 min 21 sec E along said E line a distance of 205.00 ft to an iron pipe which is the point of beginning; thence N 89 deg 42 min 39 sec E a distance of 250.07 ft; thence S 00 deg 17 min 24 sec E a distance of 288.76 ft; thence S 88 deg 18 min 50 sec W a distance of 250.07 ft to said east line of the W 40 ft; thence N 00 deg 17 min 26 sec W along said E line a distance of 294.85 ft to the point of beginning. WHEREAS, the Ramsey County Property Identification Number for the property is as follows: 12-28-22-22-0050. WHEREAS, the history of this change is as follows: On June 4, 2001, the planning commission recommended that the city council approve the rezoning change. On ,2001, the city council held a public hearing. City staff published a notice in the Maplewood Review and sent notices to the surro~unding property owners. The council conducted the public hearing whereby all public present were given a chance to speak and present written statements. The council also considered reports and recommendations from the city staff and planning commission. 34 Attachment 1 ZONING MAP CHANGE RESOLUTION (Continued) change 1. 2. o NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the city council approve the above-described in the zoning map for the following reasons: 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. The owner plans to develop this property as multiple-family dwellings. The Maplewood City Council adopted this resolution on ,2001. tO: FROM: SUBJI=CT: DATE: MEMORANDUM City Manager Thomas Ekstmnd, Assistant Dire~orof Community Development Outdoo~Lighting Ordinance Review June 5,2001 INTRODUCTION On January 9, 2001, the community design review board (CDRB) and staff discussed possible changes to the city's outdoor-lighting ordinance. The CDRB directed staff to review other city ordinances to compare them to Maplewood's for useful elements to guide developers in creating their lighting plans. The CDRB also felt that a statement of purpose and intent would provide a goal for developers and explain cleady the city's intent for proper outdoor lighting. As a result of studying other ordinances, staff is proposing revisions to Maplewood's outdoor-lighting code. In addition to revising the outdoor-lighting requirements for multi-family and non-residential development, staff is also proposing to add lighting cdteda that would apply to single-dwellings. BACKGROUND July 11, 2000: Ms. Tine Thevenin, a guest speaker, gave a presentation to the CDRB about site lighting. The CDRB directed staff to study the city's site-lighting requirements based on recommendations suggested by Ms. Thevenin. MAPLEWOOD'S EXISTING OUTDOOR-LIGHTING REQUIREMENTS (Last revised April 26, 1999) The developer of any project, other than single or double dwellings, shall do the following: Install extedor site lighting. The light source, including the lens covering the bulb, shall be concealed from any residential area or public street. Lighting shall not exceed a .4 footcandle of light intensity at a residential property line. Residential areas are areas planned or used for residential purposes. A site-lighting plan shall be submitted for all development applications that abut residential properties. DISCUSSION The following is a brief overview and summary of Ms. Thevenin's discussion about site lighting. Purpose of Lighting · secudty · visibility Problems with Lighting · light trespass - nuisance to neighbors and drivers · money spent - costly to run lights all night · glare - causes discomfort, can be blinding, appears cluttered, can lead to confusion · skyglow · hinders secudtywhen improperly directed · confusing to birds, animals and insects Aspect of Good Lighting · Lights that illuminate only the area to be illuminated, not the sky or neighboring properties. Proposed Changes After reviewing several lighting ordinances, staff has substantially expanded the scope of our ordinance. In one respect the purpose and intent of the proposed code is the same as the current code--we are still stdving for lighting plans that do not cause any nuisance, hazard or are not wasteful in terms of "over lighting." The proposed ordinance, however, is much more descriptive and elaborates on the elements like recreational lighting, light-pole height, photometric plan requirements, control of glare, light trespass, nuisance lighting in single- dwelling neighborhoods and grandfathering of existing lights. One significant change is requiring a maximum of .4 footcandles of light intensity at the property line of the site which has the lights. The code presently only limits the light intensity at .4 footcandles at a residential lot line. Requiring this for all properties would save energy and the expense of more or stronger luminaries. The negative aspect of this is difficulty in enforcement. The question should also be asked if we should attempt to control the amount of outdoor lighting, for example, in a stdctly commercial area like around the Maplewood Mall. RECOMMENDATION Approve the proposed outdoor-lighting ordinance amendment. p:ord~iightin2.501 Attachment: Outdoor Lighting Ordinance Amendment 2 ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE OUTDOOR-LIGHTING REQUIREMENTS FOR MULTIPLE-DWELLING AND NONRESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES The Maplewood City Council approves the following changes to the Maplewood Code of Ordinances: Section 1. This amendment changes Section 36-28(C)(1) as follows (additions are underlined and deletions are crossed out): (c) The developer of any project, other than single or double dwellings, shall do the following: (1) Install outdoor lighting in accordance with the following requirements. a. Purpose and Intent. The purpose and intent of the Outdoor Lighting Code is to create minimum standards for the design and installation of site lighting on multi-family and nonresidential properties. These regulations are intended to reduce the problems created by improperly designed and installed outdoor lighting. It is intended to eliminate problems of glare, minimize light trespass and help reduce the energy and financial costs of outdoor lighting by establishing regulations which limit the area that certain kinds of outdoor lighting fixtures can illuminate and by limiting the total allowable illumination of lots located in the City of Maplewood. A purpose of the Outdoor Lighting Code is to set standards for outdoor lighting so that its use does not interfere with the reasonable use and enjoyment of property within the city. It is the intent of the Outdoor Lighting Code to encourage lighting practices that will reduce light pollution by reducing up-light, glare and over lighting. b. Definitions. (1) Direct Light: Light emitted directly from the lamp, off of the reflector or reflector diffuser or through the refractor or diffuser lens of a luminary. (2) Fixture: The assembly that houses the lamp or lamps and can include all or some of the following parts: housing, mounting bracket, pole socket, lamp holder, ballast, reflector, mirror and/or refractor or lens. (3) Glare: Direct light emitted from a luminary with an intensity great enough to cause visual discomfort, eye fatigue, a reduction in a viewer's ability to see, or in extreme cases, momentary_ blindness. (4) Grandfathered Luminaries: Luminades not conform ng to this Outdoor Lighting Code that were in place at the time this code took effect. (5) Lamp: The component of a luminary that produces the actual light (6) Light Trespass: The shining of light produced by a luminary beyond the boundaries of the property on which it is located. (7) Lumen: A unit of luminous flux. One footcandle is one lumen per square foot. For the purposes of these regulations, the lumen-output values shall be the initial lumen output rating of the lamp. Luminary: This is a complete lighting system and includes a lamp or lamps and a fixture, (9) Outdoor Lighting: The night-time illumination of an outside area or object by any man-made device located outdoors that produces light by any means. (10) Shielded Lights: Outdoor luminary shielded or constructed so that no light rays are emitted by the installed fixture at angles above the horizontal plane of the luminary's opaque cover or shade. c_. Control of Glare. All luminaries used for outdoor lighting shall be designed and installed to have their lamp, reflector and reflector defuser concealed from any residential area or public street. Luminaries mounted beneath canopies, shall be a flush-mount type so that they do not extend beneath the lower surface of the canopy. Direct lighting used for the purpose of illuminat ng any sign shall be aimed or shielded to comply with this requirement. d. Recreational Facilities. Lighting of outdoor recreational facilities, such as, but not limited to, ball fields, tennis courts and special event or play areas, shall meet the following conditions: All fixtures used for such lightinq shall be shielded as defined by this ordinance, or be designed or provided with sharp cut-off capability to minimize up-light, light spillover and glare. Such illumination is prohibited after 10:30 p.m., unless by directive of the city council. e. Grandfathering of Nonconforming Luminaries. Luminaries lawfully in place prior to the effective date of the outdoor-lighting ordinance shall be allowed to remain. Such luminaries, however, are not exempt from compliance with the outdoor-lighting ordinance that was in effect at the time of their installation. f_. Light Pole Height Maximum. The maximum height allowed for light poles shall be 25 feet. Taller light poles may be installed to replace existing poles that exceed 25 feet and for athletic field or recreational lighting. The community design review board may allow taller light poles for nonresidential development, based on its appropriateness for a specific proposal. Photometric Plan Required. The developer of any recreational, multiple-dwelling or nonresidential development shall submit a photometric plan for review by the city when the property to be illuminated is abutting, across the street from or near property used or planned for any type of residential development. Specifically, this plan shall include: Site and architectural plans indicating the location of the types of luminaries proposed. 2/~ A detailed description of the luminary, including manufacturer's catalog cuts and drawings including sections when requested. A drawn plan which illustrates the light spread and footcandle levels of the proposed luminaries. h~ Light-Intensity Maximum. Outdoor lighting shall not exceed .4 footcandles of light intensity at the Drooerty lines on which the outdoor lights are installed. I_. Light Trespass. All outdoor lighting fixtures shall be designed, installed and maintained to prevent light trespass. Outdoor lighting fixtures shall be installed and maintained to prevent direct light from the luminary from hitting adjacent or nearby residential property_. If such condition should occur, the luminary shall be redirected or shielded to have its light output controlled to eliminate light trespass or glare. 5 Section 2. This amendment also adds Section 19-9(25) as follows (additions are underlined): Sec. 19-9. Same--Affecting peace and safety. The following are declared to be nuisances affecting public peace and safety: (25) Lights on any building or property that annoy or cause a nuisance to neighbodn,q property owner, occupant or resident. For the purpose of determining allowable lighting, the guidelines listed in Section 38-28(c)(1) shall apply. Section 3. This ordinance shall take effect after the city publishes it in the official newspaper. The Maplewood City Council approved this ordinance on ,2001. Attest: Mayor City Clerk Ayes - Nays -