HomeMy WebLinkAbout02/12/2002BOOk
AGENDA
MAPLEWOODCOMMUNITY DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
February 12, 2002
6:00 P.M.
Maplewood City Hall Council Chambers
1830 County Road B East
2.
3.
4.
5.
10.
Call to Order
Roll Call
Approval of Agenda
Approval of the December 11, 2001 Minutes
Unfinished Business
a. Outdoor Lighting Ordinance
Design Review
a. Maplewood Toyota Addition - 2873 Highway 61
b. Carriage Homes of Maple Hills - Parkway Drive (Maple Hills Golf Course)
Visitor Presentations
Board Presentations
a. Election of Chair and Vice Chair for 2002
Staff Presentations
a. 2001 Community Design Review Board Annual Report
b. Community Design Review Board Representation for February 25, 2002
c. Schedule Interviews for Community Design Review Board Vacancy
Adjourn
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.
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.
The chairperson will then ask the audience if there is anyone present who wishes
to comment on the proposal.
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.
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
DECEMBER 11, 2001
II.
III.
CALL TO ORDER
Chairperson Ledvina called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m.
ROLL CALL
Matt Ledvina
Craig Jorgenson
Linda Olson
Ananth Shankar
Present
Absent
Present
Present
Staff Present:
Tom Ekstrand,
Assistant Community Development Director
Recording Secretary:
Lisa Kroll
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
November 27, 2001
Chairperson Ledvina suggested changes to the minutes on page 4. Paragraph
seven should read the site plan shows a bump in the curb along west parking
lot boundary for a vehicle turn.around in that area.
Chairperson Ledvina would also like to make changes on page 8 in the 1st
paragraph. The minutes shall state that board member Shankar asked Mr.
Amundson, if the plan is showing some metal plans above the dock doors,
is that correct?
Board member Shankar and Chairperson Ledvina also noted a correction
needed on on page 8 in the 2nd and 6th paragraph. It should say coiling not
cooling.
Board member Shankar moved approval of the minutes as amended of
November 27, 2001.
Board member Olson seconded.
Ayes ---Ledvina, Olson, Shankar
The motion carried.
Community Design Review Board
Minutes 12-11-2001
IV. APPROVAL OFAGENDA
Board member Shankar moved to approve the agenda.
Board member Olson seconded.
Ayes---Ledvina, Olson, Shankar
The motion carried.
V. UNFINISHED BUSINESS
None.
VI. DESIGN REVIEW
Carefree Cottages Villas (Phase IV)
Behind 1733 Gervais Avenue
Mr. Ekstrand said that Bruce Mogren, representing the Carefree Cottages Villas, is
proposing to build 12 units of senior housing and 2 single dwellings. He is proposing to
build this project on the north side of Gervais Avenue between the Carefree Cottages of
Maplewood and the property at 1733 Gervais Avenue.
The development would have two areas. As shown on the proposed site plan (page 20
of the staff report), there would be two one-stow buildings with a total of 12 town home
units north of Gervais Avenue, next to the driveway for the existing Carefree Cottages.
The other part of the project would be along Gervais Avenue and would include 3 single
dwellings (the existing house at 1733 Gervais and 2 new houses on either side of the
existing house). The 15 total units would be on a 1.9-acre site for an average of 7.9
units per acre.
The site would have 12 open parking spaces - one in front of each garage stall. (The
proposed plan does not show any guest parking spaces). The buildings would have
exteriors of vinyl horizontal-lap siding, gray asphalt shingles and vinyl trim and fascia
boards.
To build the development, Mr. Mogren is requesting that the city approve the following:
1. A change in the city's land use plan. This change would be from R-1 (single
dwellings) to R-3H (residential high density)for the 12 town house units.
A conditional use permit (CUP) for a planned unit development (PUD) for a 15-unit
housing development. This PUD would have 12 units of rental senior housing and
three single dwellings. The applicant is requesting the CUP because the proposed
development has a mix of housing types, lot sizes and densities. In addition,
having a PUD gives the city and developer a chance to be more flexible with site
design and development details than the standard zoning requirements would
Community Design Review Board 3
Minutes 12-11-2001
normally allow. For example, the new proposed lots on Gervais Avenue would be
9,375 and 9,384 square feet in area. (See the property line/zoning map on page
17, the proposed lot split map on page 19 and the proposed site plan on page 20.)
A lot division to divide the property into four lots - 3 lots for the single dwellings
along Gervais Avenue and one lot for the 12 townhouse units. (See the map on
page 19 of the staff report.)
4. The design plans for the site, landscaping and buildings.
Mr. Ekstrand said the city is recommending that the developer extend the sidewalk that
is in place along the north side of Gervais Avenue to the westerly boundary.
Mr. Ekstrand said staff is concerned about the parking spaces. The applicant is
meeting code with providing one outside space and one garage' space. There are not
any other visitor parking spaces on this site. The city tries to make sure parking for
guests is provided. There is not any room for curbside parking; therefore staff wants the
review board to consider the need for some additional visitor parking spaces.
Mr. Ekstrand said staff is recommending that the landscaping plan be more developed
to provide additional screening behind the home at 1725 Gervais Avenue. Additional
landscaping is also being recommended along the south of the driveway to help provide
screening for the existing and future homes on Gervais Avenue.
Staff is recommending the approval of recommendation D on page 7 of the staff report.
Recommendations A-C will be acted on by the Planning Commission.
Mr. Ekstrand added item 2. e. on page 9 require:
e. A photometric plan as required by city code.
Mr. Ekstrand said he spoke with the building official, David Fisher, and he said the
setbacks for the proposed garages should have a three-foot setback from the north lot
line.
Currently they are directly abutting the lot line. Also on the east side the units abut the
easterly bounds of the property. The building code would require a five-foot setback
there. This will require some shifting within the site to accommodate these setbacks.
Chairperson Ledvina asked if staff recommends an additional condition to state that?
Mr. Ekstrand said yes.
Chairperson Ledvina asked if that could perhaps be put under number 6. on page 107
Mr. Ekstrand said yes.
Community Design Review Board
Minutes 12-11-2001
4
Board member Olson asked if the building on the west could easily be shifted south to
accommodate the three-foot-setback from the driveway side. The east-west shift looks
possible to accommodate, but the north-south shift looks tight.
Mr. Ekstrand said the only leeway he can find is in the depth in the three single-family
lots.
Board member Olson said the lots would have to be adjusted in size.
Mr. Ekstrand said if they took three feet off the depth of those lots they could make it fit.
Board member OIson asked that would cause a problem.
Mr. Ekstrand said no, two of the undeveloped lots are just under the 10,000 square foot
minimum. Being a planned unit development it would be possible to do that. They have
the right within the ordinance to make those adjustments without requiring it a variance.
Board member Olson said better to make those changes earlier than later.
ChairpersOn Ledvina asked staff if they could just require "modifications acceptable
to staff."
Mr. Ekstrand said that would be fine.
Chairperson Ledvina said more input can be given from the applicant on this issue.
Board member Olson asked staff about the lighting ordinance. Staff has asked for a
lighting plan, how do the existing cottage lighting plans fit in with the current lighting
ordinance. Do you for-see any problems?
Mr. Ekstrand said when Mr. Mogren has the chance to speak he can explain the lighting
at the existing cottages. The present code says, when adjacent to residential, the
applicant needs to provide a lighting plan. That is just to make sure that staff is seeing
that the fixtures used are not going to create glare and that they are attractive.
Board member Olson asked staff if they had noticed any violations in the existing plans?
Mr. Ekstrand said no, and he would hope that the lighting fixtures proposed on these
buildings are going to be compatible with what is being used in the existing cottages
development.
Board member Shankar asked staff if there is anything in the code that requires one of
these twelve units to be a handicapped accessible unit?
Mr. Ekstrand said maybe Mr. Mogren could answer that. It is possible that that is a
building code requirement that a certain number of units are handicapped accessible
but Mr. Ekstrand is not aware that any of these twelve units are handicap accessible.
Community Design Review Board
Minutes 12-11-2001
Chairperson Ledvina asked staff about the density in this development that is 7.9 units
per gross acre. What is the existing density for the cottages?
Mr. Ekstrand said he does not know for sure what the existing density is, he does not
have the background data. But the code does allow up to twelve units per R-3H.
Chairperson Ledvina asked staff about the current use of this area, it seems to be a Iow
-lying area and he noticed it was all graded out. Is it functioning as a holding pond
right now?
Mr. Ekstrand said he did not think it had been. His recollection is that it was a treed
area and he does not think any water was being held there. The applicant could
address that.
Mr. Ekstrand said it does drop six feet or so. It is lower than the land to the north and to
the west.
Chairperson Ledvina questioned if the grading complies with the grading/drainage plan.
Mr. Ekstrand said Mr. Mogren is working with the city to make sure he is meeting the
cities needs. He also needs a watershed district permit for grading.
Chairperson Ledvina asked staff if these units are owner-occupied?
Mr. Ekstrand said they would be rental units.
Mr. Ledvina asked Bruce Mogren, the applicant to address the board.
Mr. Mogren said that he is willing to work with the city on a lighting plan. He wants to
provide safety and security and does not want to disturb the neighbors with light glare.
CurrentlY they have one handicapped unit. They typically setup the units with the wider
doors to accommodate wheelchairs to make it accessible. They want their residents to
be able to stay there as long as possible. Typically, in the town homes, the tenants are
a bit younger and in the villas they are for a bit older.
Mr. Mogren spoke to Jim Elias in Public Works about the grading and fill. Jim Elias was
okay with the grading plan.
Chairperson Ledvina asked Mr. Mogren if he knows what the density is for the town
homes?
Mr. Mogren said they started out with 10 acres and they have 248 units.
Community Design Review Board
Minutes 12-11-2001
d
Chairperson Ledvina asked Mr. Mogren if this area collects water right now, is this area
used for ponding in any way?
Mr. Mogren said no it is not, the previous owners had a daycare out there. He knows
the area is lower, he is letting his engineers take care of the technical end of it. There is
no vegetation to suggest any wetlands.
Chairperson Ledvina asked Mr. Mogren if the issue with the building setbacks on the
north line and the east line, how do you see that affecting your proposal?
Mr. Mogren said from a practical stand point Mogren Development owns all the
surrounding property. He wants this proposal to fit in as well as possible with the
existing 248 units. It would be nice not to have to move those pine trees, it creates a
nice buffer zone. They have hired Frattatone excavating and he thinks they would like
to keep that area possible.
Board member Olson asked Mr. Mogren about the parking problem, is there any way
you can squeeze any additional parking onto this site?
Mr. Mogren said it was just brought to his attention this week. He would be willing to
look into adding some parking spaces. He would meet with his engineer to see where
they could add visitor parking. He understands that people might need additional
parking for guests and celebrations.
Chairperson Ledvina asked Mr. Mogren if he looked at adding some architectural
elements to the villas like some brick, wainscoting on the fa~;ade, etc. to dress it up?
Mr. Mogren said they wanted these villas to fit in with the other units. They have
changed some of the patterns on the siding. This will only be visible to the project itself,
if you were driving by, you would not notice them from the street.
Chairperson Ledvina asked Mr. Mogren about the sidewalk plan. He is confused about
the sidewalk plan and the theme that is used.
Board member Olson said she appreciates the sidewalk plan, they have a shared
sidewalk that will provide less for the maintenance person to shovel, that also allows
more green space and less covered surface.
Chairperson Ledvina disagrees with that statement. He thinks some sidewalk could be
eliminated and still keep the green space. He does not see the value of the T in the
sidewalk plan.
Mr. Mogren asked if that could be put in the report that he can work it out with staff
regarding the sidewalk issues.
Community Design Review Board ?
Minutes 12-11-2001
Chairperson Ledvina said one of the things he is struggling with in terms of this design
is overall the site plan that creates double-fronted residential lots. He realizes that this
is not a public street, but it is a roadway. The two residential lots on eastern part of the
development are essentially double fronted.
Mr. Mogren said the cottages are built in quads of four, and that is how they ended up
with the plan. He understands what Mr. Ledvina is saying but that road is not really a
road, essentially it is a driveway to service just those homes. He has seen a lot of
single -family subdivisions over the past 25 years and he understands the concern.
Board member OIson asked staff about the landscape plan. Would you recommend
four additional trees be planted to the east to extend that buffer in an east west pattern?
Mr. Ekstrand said yes, he cannot say the exact amount of trees that should be there.
He also noticed in the report that it should say 6-foot tall trees instead of 8-foot trees.
Chairperson Ledvina asked if that was the required tree height at the time of planting?
Mr. Ekstrand said yes.
Mr. Mogren said he wants to make sure the landscaping is done in such a manner that
it is a buffer and not have to been removed when someone decides to build homes on
those sites.
Mr. Ekstrand said staff would have to make sure a grading plan is approved to make
sure the landscaping is not taken out.
Mr. Mogren said almost everyone that builds a house loves trees and they would do
what ever it takes to keep those trees. Maybe it could be made to work out something
with staff regarding this issue with the trees.
Mr. Mogren said that his excavator Frattalone Excavating suggested that there is a
berm along the west line of the existing cottages development. Maybe they could
continue that bern to the south and this could provide the people to the west a better
buffer. If they did, maybe they could tuck a few parking spaces in that area.
Mr. Ekstrand said the berm sounds like a good idea.
Board member Olson said she liked that suggestion.
Mr. Mogren said they want to be good neighbors. There are still some trees remaining
and he would not want to disturb those trees.
Mr. Ekstrand said staff does take into consideration existing vegetation. They would
just like to see that area enhanced.
Community Design Review Board
Minutes 12-11-2001
Mr. Mogren said he spoke with the Fenton's who are some of the neighbors and they
wanted to keep some of the trees in the area. He said the area is pretty well screened.
The other comment is regarding the sidewalk on the property by the street. There are
several trees that are right along the street. It would be pretty hard to snake a sidewalk
through that area. It may be more disruptive doing that than being more helpful.
Mr. Ekstrand said it was the city engineer that suggested putting a sidewalk in. He can
appreciate Mr. Mogren's comments, you would hate to lose some trees. Right now
there is a dead end sidewalk that ends at the cottages property line.
Chairperson Ledvina asked Mr. Ekstrand who would that sidewalk serve?
Board member Olson asked what the other sidewalk conditions in this section of
Gervais Avenue? Are there existing sidewalks or would this be the first piece?
Mr. Ekstrand said the sidewalks would go easterly towards Rainbow Foods but they do
not go any further to the west.
Mr. Mogren said for the record, he does not want to put any sidewalks in along the
street for fear of losing any of the mature trees..
Chairperson Ledvina said he went out to the site and he did not think a sidewalk could
be done.
Mr. Mogren said he didn't think it could either but he would like board members to go
and walk the site to see for themselves.
Chairperson Ledvina said he understands the design concept of matching the existing
exterior but he does not agree with the rationale that this area is not that visible. He
thinks the quality of the design shouldn't be compromised. It should be quality
construction for the benefit of the people that live there. He certainly understands Mr.
Mogren's point in terms of matching the architecture. The landscaping will dress up the
area.
Board member Shankar asked Mr. Mogren what kind of windows are you proposing to
use?
Mr. Mogren said he believes they are double hung windows.
Chairperson Ledvina asked Mr. Mogren if there will be clear panels in the garage
doors?
Mr. Mogren he believes they would.
Board member Shankar asked Mr. Mogren who Will be replacing the light bulbs outside?
Community Design Review Board
Minutes 12-11-2001
Mr. Mogren said there are four people on staff that take care of the tenants.
Do
Board member Olson moved to approve the plans (site and landscaping) dated
November 26, 2001, and the building elevations (dated November 26, 2001,) for
the Carefree Villas of Maplewood. The city bases this approval on the findings
required by the code. The developer or contractor 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:
Have the city engineer approve final construction and engineering
plans. These plans shall include the 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 final grading plan shall include:
(a) Building, floor elevation, driveway and contour information.
(b) The street, driveway and sidewalk grades as allowed by the
city engineer.
(c)
No grading beyond the boundaries of the development
without temporary grading easements from the affected
property owner(s).
(d)
Emergency overflow swales as required by the city engineer
or by the watershed district. The city engineer shall approve
the design of the overflow swales.
(e) Submit a lighting plan.
(3) There shall be no parking on either side of the new private
driveway. The developer or contractor shall post the driveways
with no parking signs.
(4) The tree plan shall:
(a) Show where the developer or contractor will remove, save or
replace large trees.
Community Design Review Board
Minutes 12-11-2001
l0
(b)
Show the size, species and location of the replacement and
screening trees. The new screening trees shall be grouped
together. These planting areas shall be along the south and
east sides of the site to help screen the development from the
existing and proposed houses to the south. The deciduous
trees shall be at least two and one half (2 1/2) inches in
diameter and shall be a mix of red and white oaks, ash,
lindens, sugar maples or other native species. The coniferous
trees shall be at least six (6) feet tall and shall be a mix of
Austrian pine and other species.
(c) Show the planting or transplanting of at least 20 trees after the
site grading is done.
(d) Show no tree removal beyond the approved grading and tree
limits.
(e) Include for city staff a detailed tree planting plan and material
list.
(5) All the parking areas and driveways shall have continuous
concrete curb and gutter.
(6)
The design of the rainwater garden and its outlet shall be subject to
the approval of the city engineer. The outlet shall be protected to
prevent erosion. The developer shall give the city an easement for
this drainage area and shall be responsible for getting any needed off-
site pond and drainage easements.
(7) Provide a minimum of six-inch-thick sidewalk section at each
driveway.
(8) The site, driveway, sidewalk and utility plans shall show:
(a)
A six-foot-wide concrete sidewalk along the north side of Gervais
Avenue between the west end of the existing sidewalk and the
west property line of the site. The public works director shall
approve the location and design of the sidewalk.
(b) A water service to each unit.
(c)
Repair of Gervais Avenue (street and boulevard) after the
developer connects to the public utilities and builds the private
driveway.
Community Design Review Board
Minutes 12-11-2001
(d)
The coordination of the water main locations, alignments and
sizing with the standards and requirements of the Saint Paul
Regional Water Services (SPRWS). Fire-flow requirements and
hydrant locations shall be verified with the Maplewood Fire
Department.
(e) The plan and profiles of the proposed utilities.
bo
Submit a certificate of survey for all new construction and have each
building staked by a registered land surveyor.
c. Revise the landscape plan for city staff approval showing:
(1) Foundation plantings of perennials and shrubs (with mulch) for the
areas between the sidewalks and the proposed buildings.
(2) The planting of additional native evergreens on the site to provide
additional screening. These additional trees should include Colorado
blue spruce, eastern red cedar and eastern arborvitae. These
additional trees should be located as follows:
do
(a) Along the north property line of 1725 Gervais Avenue.
(b) Along the south side of the new driveway (along the south
property line of the proposed Parcel A).
(c) Along the west side of the new driveway (along the east property
line of Parcel B.)
The trees in these locations shall be at least 6 feet tall, in staggered
rows (if possible) and are to provide screening that is at least 80
percent opaque.
(3)
All lawn areas shall be sodded. The city engineer shall approve the
vegetation within the rainwater garden.
(4) Having in-ground irrigation for all landscape areas (code
requirement).
Show city staff that Ramsey County has recorded the deeds, cross
easements and all homeowners association documents for this
development before the city will issue a certificate of occupancy for the first
town house unit.
e. A photometric plan as required by city code.
Community Design Review Board
Minutes 12-11-2001
3. Complete the following before occupying the buildings:
Replace property irons that are removed because of this construction and
set new property irons for the new property corners.
bo
Restore and sod damaged boulevards and sod all turf areas outside of the
rainwater garden.
Install a reflectorized stop sign at the Gervais Avenue exit, a handicap-
parking sign for each handicap-parking space, no parking signs along the
private driveway and addresses on each building for each unit. In
addition, the applicant shall install stop signs and traffic directional signs
within the site, as required by staff.
do
Construct a six-foot-wide concrete public sidewalk on the north side of
Gervais Avenue between the west end of the existing sidewalk and the
west property line of the site. The Maplewood Public Works Director shall
approve the location and design of the sidewalk.
Provide pedestrian ramps in the sidewalk along Gervais Avenue to match
the entrance driveway. Any future driveway shall match the grade of the
new sidewalk.
Complete the site grading and install all required landscaping, the
rainwater garden and an in-ground lawn irrigation system for all
landscaped areas (code requirement).
go
Install continuous concrete curb and gutter along all interior driveways and
around all open parking stalls, except where the CDRB determines that it
is not necessary.
Install on-site lighting for security and visibility, subject to city staff
approval.
Construct a six-foot-wide concrete sidewalk on the north side of Gervais
Avenue from the west end of the existing sidewalk (near the easterly
driveway) to the west property line of the site.
4. 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.
Community Design Review Board
Minutes 12-11-2001
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.
5. All work shall follow the approved plans. The director of community development
may approve minor changes.
6. Acceptable modifications to the setback requirements as determined by staff.
7. To work with staff to add additional parking.
8. To negotiate with staff parameters and layouts for the sidewalk on the proposed
site and future site.
Board member Shankar seconded the motion.
The motion is passed.
Ayes - Olson, Shankar
Nay- Ledvina
Chairperson Ledvina said he still has an issue with the overall design of this site. He
does not feel the residential lot should have a double fronted view. He felt that overall
the site plan could be improved to eliminate that. Perhaps it would relate to reducing
the number of units.
b. Code Amendment-Outdoor Lighting Ordinance
Mr. Ekstrand said June 12, 2001, the community design review board reviewed the
outdoor-lighting ordinance amendment. The board directed staff to survey other cities
for their requirements for comparison. Specifically, the CDRB wanted staff to consider
whether the code should require a maximum quantity of light on a property. Should the
total amount of lumen output, of all of the lamps (light bulbs in each luminary) on a site,
be required not to exceed a predetermined quantity?
Chairperson Ledvina said he actually wanted to know if other cities in other states have
lighting ordinances and what those ordinances are.
Mr. Ekstrand said he misunderstood and he only checked with the surrounding cities
like Oakdale, St. Paul, White Bear, White Bear Township, Roseville and Mounds View.
Much of these cities had very sparse lighting ordinances.
Community Design Review Board
Minutes 12-11-2001
14
It was determined by the board members to table this item until further investigating has
been done and changes should be made and brought back to the community design
review board for members to review at a later date.
Chairperson Ledvina would like to make the following changes to the Ordinance.
(1) a. under the 6th line the wording should say:
A purpose of the Outdoor Lighting Code is to set standards for outdoor
lighting to enhance the reasonable use and enjoyment of all property within
the city.
(6) for Li.qht Trespass: it should read:
The light produced by a luminary in exceedence of the standard beyond
boundaries of the property on which it is located.
b. (9) for Outdoor Li.qhtin.q: it should read
The nighttime illumination of an outside area or object by any man-made
device located outdoors that produces light by any means. This includes
but is not limited to signs, fixtures, street- lights etc.
eo
Grandfatherin.q of Nonconforminq Luminaries: it should read at the end of the
paragraph add:
If fixtures are replaced as part of construction requiring a building permit
the fixture shall be upgraded to meet the requirements of this ordinance.
Board member Shankar moved to table this outdoor lighting ordinance December 11,
2001.
Board member Olson seconded the tabling of this item.
The motion carried.
VII.
Ayes - Ledvina, Olson,
Shankar
Visitor Presentations
One visitor was present who wanted to speak.
Mr. Ken Chen from Maplewood had a question regarding the codes for having
residential, industrial and commercial combined.
Community Design Review Board
Minutes 12-11-2001
VIII.
IX.
15
Board Presentations
Board member Shankar represented the community design review board at the
December 10, 2001, city council meeting. The McCarron's Water Treatment plan
was approved.
Staff Presentations
a. Reminder that the CDRB meeting for December 25, 2001, is cancelled.
b. Mr. Ledvina will represent the community design review board at the
December 17, 2001, city council meeting. After the meeting there will be a
6:00 p.m. meeting to discuss the Maplewood Mall traffic area study.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting adjourned at 8:10 p.m.
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
DATE:
City Manager
Thomas Ekstrand, Assistant Director of Community Development
Outdoor-Lighting Ordinance Review
January 11, 2002
INTRODUCTION
The community design review board (CDRB) has been studying the outdoor lighting ordinance to
create an improved code that better regulates site lighting. On December 11, 2001, the CDRB
reviewed the proposed code amendment and suggested additional changes. Staff has made the
suggested revisions shown bolded and in italics.
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.
January 9, June 12 and December 11, 2001: The CDRB and staff discussed possible changes
to the city's outdoor-lighting ordinance
MAPLEWOOD'S CURRENT 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 ddvers
· money spent - costly to run lights all night
· glare - causes discomfort, can be blinding, appears cluttered, can lead to confusion
· skyglow
· hinders security when 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 and exploring revisions with the CDRB, 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 striving for lighting plans that do not
cause any nuisance and are not wasteful in terms of "over lighting." The proposed ordinance is
more descriptive and addresses elements like recreational lighting, light-pole height, expanded
photometric plan requirements, control of glare, light trespass, nuisance lighting in single-
dwelling neighborhoods and grandfathedng of existing lights. One significant change is requiring
a maximum of .4 footcandles of light intensity at all property lines of the site on which lights are
located. The code presently limits the light intensity of .4 footcandles at a residential lot line only.
Since the last meeting staff also added a provision to the CDRB ordinance (see page 6 of the
code amendment). Section 25-68 of the CDRB ordinance lists what information must be
included on proposed plans. One such item is "the locations of all extedor lighting standards."
Staff suggests that this require "a detailed photometric plan as required by the outdoor lighting
requirements in Section 36-28."
RECOMMENDATION
Approve the proposed outdoor-lighting ordinance amendment.
p:ord~Jightin2.501 .doc
Attachment:
Outdoor Lighting Ordinance Amendment
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE OUTDOOR-LIGHTING REQUIREMENTS
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 according to the following requirements:
a. Purpose and Intent.
The purpose and intent of the Outdoor Li~htin_~ Code is to create minimum standards
for the design and installation of all outdoor li.qhtinR. These regulations are intended
to reduce the problems created by improperly designed and installed outdoor lighting.
It is intended to eliminate problems of .qlare, minimize light trespass and help reduce
the energy and financial costs of outdoor lighting by establishing regulations that limit
the area that certain outdoor luminaries illuminate. A purpose of the Outdoor
L~qhtin.q Code is to set standards for outdoor h:qhtin.q to enhance the reasonable
use and enjoyment of all 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.
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: Luminaries not conforming to this Outdoor Liqhting
Code that were in place at the time this code took effect.
3
(5) Lamp: The component of a luminary that produces the actual light.
(6) Light Trespass: L~qht produced by a luminary that illuminates areas 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 requlations, the lumen-output values shall be the initial
lumen output ratin.q of the lamp.
(8) Luminary: This is a complete ghtinR system and includes a lamp or lamps and a
fixture.
(9) Outdoor Lighting: The illumination of an outside area or object by any man-
made device. This includes direct lighting for si~clns and I~qht emitting from
within a s~qn cabinet or s~qn structure.
(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 diffuser 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 I .qhting used for the purpose of illuminating any sign shall be aimed or shielded
to meet this requirement.
d. Recreational Facilities.
Lighting of outdoor recreational facilities, such as, but not limited to, ball fields, tennis
courts, soccer fields, hockey or skating dnks, golf courses and golf-ball driving ranges
and special event or play areas, shall meet the following conditions:
All fixtures used for such lighting shall be shielded or aimed to comply with this
ordinance as much as possible and be designed or provided with sharp cut-off
capability to minimize up-light, light spillover and glare. This code recognizes that
lighting of recreational facilities may require a certain amount of direct, outward
lighting to illuminate a vast area.
Recreational-facility ighting is prohibited after 10:30 p.m., unless a later
completion time is approved by the city council.
e_~. Grandfathering of Nonconforming Luminaries.
Luminaries lawfully in place before the effective date of the outdoor-lighting ordinance
shall be allowed to remain. Such luminaries, however, are not exempt from complying
with the outdoor-lighting ordinance that was in effect at the time of their installation. /f
fixtures are replaced as part of any construction requiring a buildin.q permit, the
fixture shall be up.qraded to meet the requirements of this ordinance.
f_. Light Pole Height Maximum.
The maximum heiqht 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
as part of a desiqn review for nonresidential development, based on appropriateness
for a specific proposal. Staff may review lighting plans under the "minor construction"
provisions of Section 25-65 of the city code.
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 is near property used or planned for
any type of residential development. Specifically, this plan shall include:
(1) Site and architectural plans indicating the location of the types of luminaries
proposed.
A detailed description of the luminary, including manufacturer's cataloq cuts and
drawings includ n,q sections.
(3) A drawn plan that illustrates the light spread and footcandle levels of the proposed
luminaries.
h_. Light-Intensity Maximum.
Outdoor ghting shall not exceed .4 footcandles of ght intensity at the property lines
on which the outdoor ights 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 adiacent or nearby residential property. If such
condition should occur, the luminary shall be replaced, 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 nei.qhbodn.q
property owner, occupant or resident. For the purpose of determininq allowable
liqhtin~, the guidelines listed in Section 38-28(c)(1) shall apply.
Section 3. This amendment also changes Section 25-68(a)(8) as follows (additions are
underlined and deletions are crossed out):
All persons required to submit building or remodeling plans under this article shall submit a
community design review board application form and the following written materials, as
applicable to the specific project and in sufficient quantities as determined by the board, to the
community design review board:
(a)(8) -r.. ,.....,~ .... ' ~" ""+"~"" ';"~'*""" "*""'~""'~" ph pi
................ ~ ...... ~ ........... A detailed otometric an as
required by the outdoor light ng requirements in Section 36-28.
Section 4. 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 -
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
LOCATION:
DATE:
city Manager
Thomas Ekstrand, Assistant Community Development Director
Maplewood Toyota - Conditional Use Permit Revision and Design Review
2873 Highway 61
February 5, 2002
INTRODUCTION
Project Description
Steve McDaniels is proposing to build a 4,972-square-foot addition onto the south side of Maplewood
Toyota. This additional space would be used to enlarge the service garage. The exterior of the
proposed addition would be rock face concrete block like the existing building and painted to match.
The applicant is also proposing to replace concrete curbing on the south and southeast sides of the lot,
remove a curbed parking island south of the building and patch the asphalt at this island area. He
would also install a new bituminous overlay on the south parking lot.
Recent Approval
On October 8, 2001, the city council approved Mr. McDaniels' plans to expand Maplewood Toyota. In
addition to a new parking lot north of Beam Avenue, the council approved a conditional use permit
(CUP) revision for three small additions on the dealership building. One was a 375-square-foot
lunchroom addition on the northwest corner of the building (the applicant no longer proposes to build
this addition), a 1,144-square-foot service-write-up area on the north side of the building and a 3,040-
square-foot showroom addition on the southeast corner of the building. These additions will be
constructed at the same time as the applicant's current proposal for a seven-bay auto service addition
to be constructed to the north of the new showroom. Refer to the approved October 8, 2001,
expansion plans on pages 12 through 14.
Requests
Mr. McDaniels is requesting:
A conditional use permit (CUP) revision. The code requires a CUP revision to enlarge the service
area and to enlarge a nonconforming use. The use is nonconforming because service garages
must now be at least 350 feet from a residential lot line. The proposed addition would be 211 feet
from the property line of the home to the west, the same as the existing building.
2. Approval of plans.
DISCUSSION
Conditional Use Permit Revision
The proposed addition would be compatible with the requirements of the CUP ordinance. It would not
be any closer to the west lot line than the present building. The proposed addition would also be on a
portion of the parking lot that is already paved and, therefore, impervious. The additional building area
would not add significant additional runoff to the wetland or reduce the grass area. The shoreland
issues are minor related to the proposed building expansion. There are water-quality concerns,
however, with respect to the curbing and paving changes proposed in the parking lot.
Curbing Changes, Paving Changes and Water-Quality Concerns
Chuck Ahl, City Engineer, states that the current Maplewood Toyota site does not meet water runoff
standards for quantity or quality control within the shoreland boundary of Kohlman Lake. The
submitted site proposal makes no effort to begin moving toward meeting these standards. The
proposed new curbing and removal of curb islands could easily be revised to add green area,
infiltration areas, rainwater gardens, etc. While these improvements would not achieve site runoff
standards, they would begin the process of making this site compliant. The applicant should be
required to submit to the city engineer for review and approval, prior to the city issuing a building permit,
a revised grading, drainage, curb removal, utility, and erosion control plans.
Building Design
The addition will be constructed of rock face concrete block painted to match the existing building. In
addition, five small windows will be added to the south elevation that will help break up the appearance
of a large wall. Staff finds the building design acceptable.
Parking
The applicant has a sufficient number of parking spaces to meet code and to accommodate their
parking needs. After this addition, there would be a total of 386 parking spacesm211 on the main site
and 175 in the new parking lot north of Beam Avenue. The code would require 105 spaces using the
ratio of one space for each 200 square feet of office and showroom area and three spaces for each
service bay.
Even though there is adequate parking, staff cautions the applicant to make sure that there is a
sufficient number of customer parking spaces available on the north.side of the building on the main
sito not across Beam Avenue in the new parking lot. The code's retail-parking requirement does not
properly cover the type of "retail" shopping needs a car dealership has. The normal retail formula
would require an excessive number of spaces for the showroom. Staff suggests leaving the number of
spaces up to Mr. McDaniels, with the stipulation that "an adequate number of parking spaces are
provided for customers north of the building on the main site." Enough parking means that there
should be enough spaces to accommodate the highest instance of customer parking and there is no
parking within drive aisles (an existing problem). Customer spaces should be marked as such by
signs. The two handicap-parking spaces should also be moved adjacent to the building.
2
Landscaping/Screening/Lighting
The west door of the proposed addition would face the pond and the back yard of the nearest
home. There should not be any impact on this neighbor from cars exiting this doorway. There is
also a fair amount of deciduous trees and shrubs between Maplewood Toyota and the westerly
neighbor as well as a shed that provides some screening. The plantin~ offer little screenin~ in the
winter, but create a substantial buffer spring through autumn. Staff is not recommending any
additional screening since there is little reom to add any, there have not been any complaints about
screening and it would not provide any appreciable benefit for the neighbor on the other side of the
pond.
Although the city has not received complaints about Maplewood Toyota's lights on the west side of
their building, the applicant should be required to down-cast any new wall-mounted lights on the
proposed west elevation. The two wall-mounted lights on the existing building should also be
adjusted downward. Presently they shine partially to the west.
Site Cleanup and Repairs
There are two sheds in the northwest corner of the site with miscellaneous materials outside the
sheds. The northerly shed also has a broken/splintered fascia board facing the street. The chain
link fence on the west and south sides of the site has also been damaged from the plowing of the
applicant's parking lot. As conditions of this approval, the applicant should remove the debris and
stored materials near the sheds, repair the northerly shed and repair all damaged fence sections.
SUMMARY
The additional 4,968-square-foot expansion is requested by Maplewood Toyota due to demands in
automobile service. The addition will be compatible to the existing building and the previously
approved additions. The proposed improvements will also give the city an opportunity to require
Maplewood Toyota to improve the site's water runoff standards within the shoreland boundary of
Kohlman Lake.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Adopt the resolution on pages 16 and 17 approving a conditional use permit revision for a
4,972-square-foot service area addition on Maplewood Toyota at 2873 Highway 61.
Approval is based on the findings required by code and subject to the following conditions:
All construction shall follow the site plan approved by the city. The director of
community development may approve minor changes.
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.
c. The city council shall review this permit in one year.
d. Beam Avenue shall not be used for loading or unloading of vehicles.
3
Approve the plans date-stamped January 23, 2002, for a 4,972-square-foot service area
addition on the south side of Maplewood Toyota. This approval is based on the findings
required by the city code. The approval shall be subject to the applicant or owner meeting
the following conditions:
Repeat this review in two years if the city has not issued a building permit for this
project.
bo
Before the city issues a building permit, the applicant shall submit a grading,
drainage, utility and erosion control plan to the city engineer for approval. All curb
removal, curb replacement and paving overlay shall be subject to the requirements
of the city engineer.
Co
Before the city issues a building permit, the applicant shall submit a revised site
plan for staff approval showing enough customer parking spaces on the main
Toyota Dealership site north of the building. This parking shall be signed for
"customer parking." The applicant shall provide written justification for staff
verifying that there will be sufficient customer parking provided. The revised site
plan shall provide for all of the handicap parking spaces to be placed adjacent to
the building. There shall be enough spaces to meet ADA (Americans with
Disability Act) requirements. These spaces shall be striped according to ADA
requirements.
d. Complete the following before occupying the addition:
1)
Any new roof-mounted mechanical equipment on the addition shall be
painted to match the building. Any roof-top equipment visible from nearby
homes must be screened according to ordinance.
2) Install fire protection and alarm systems as required by the fire marshal.
3)
Repair all damaged sections of the chain link fence, repaidreplace the
broken fascia on the northerly shed and remove any debris and stored
materials that are in the open.
4)
5)
Patch the parking lot not planned for bituminous overlay, restripe all
customer-parking areas, overlay the south parking lot and install all
proposed new curbing.
Redirect the two wall-mounted lights on the west side of the building to face
directly downward as well aS any new west-facing lights on the addition.
6)
The replacement curb shall be continuous concrete curbing, subject to the
design requirements of the city engineer.
e. If any required work is not done, the city may allow temporary occupancy if:
1)
The city determines that the work is not essential to the public health, safety
or welfare.
4
2)
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.
3)
The city receives an agreement that will allow the city to complete any
unfinished work.
All work shall follow the approved plans. The director of community development
may approve minor changes.
SITE DESCRIPTION
Site size: 3.94 acres
Existing land use:
REFERENCE INFORMATION
Maplewood Toyota
SURROUNDING LAND USES
North:
South:
West:
East:
Beam Avenue and Maplewood Toyota's new parking lot
KSTP property with radio towers
A vacant lot used as a holding pond and houses
Highway 61
PAST ACTIONS
January 18, 1979: The city council approved a plan amendment, special use permit and project
plans for the original Maplewood Toyota building.
January 9, 1995: The council approved a CUP and the plans for a 1,404-square-foot addition on the
north side of Maplewood Toyota.
January 22, 1996: The council reviewed the CUP for Maplewood Toyota. They decided to only review
the permit again if a problem arises.
October 8, 2001: The council revised the CUP and approved plans for the three small additions and
new parking lot.
PLANNING
Land Use Plan designation: M-1 (light manufacturing)
Zoning: M-1
Ordinance Requirements:
Section 25-70 of the city code requires that the CDRB make the following findings to approve plans:
That the design and location of the proposed development and its relationship to neighboring,
existing or proposed developments and traffic is such that it will not impair the desirability of
investment or occupation in the neighborhood; that it will not unreasonably interfere with the use
and enjoyment of neighboring, existing or proposed developments; and that it will not create
traffic hazards or congestion.
6
2. That the design and location of the proposed development is in keeping with the character of
the surrounding neighborhood and is not detrimental to the harmonious, orderly and attractive
development contemplated by this article and the city's comprehensive municipal plan.
3. That the'design and location of the proposed development would provide a desirable
environment for its occupants, as well as for its neighbors, and that it is aesthetically of good
composition, materials, textures and colors.
Section 36-17(e) allows the city council to approve a CUP for the enlargement of a nonconforming
use,
Section 36-151(b)(9) requires a CUP for maintenance garages.
Section 36-187(b) requires a CUP for any building construction in a M1 district that is closer than 350
feet to a residential district.
Findings for CUP Approval
Section 36-442(a) states that the city may approve a CUP, based on the nine standards in the
resolution on pages 16 and 17.
Application Date
We received the applications for this request on January 23, 2002. State law requires that the city
take action within 60 days of receiving proposals. City council action is required by March 23, 2002.
p:sec4/Toyota addn.2002.doc
Attachments:
1. Location Map
2. Property Line/Zoning Map
3. Site Plan
4. Elevations
5. Previously Approved Site Plan from 10/8/01
8. Previously Approved Elevations from 10/8/01
7. Previously Approved Parking Lot Expansion from 10/8/01
8. Applicant's letter dated January 22, 2002
9. Conditional Use Permit Revision Resolution
10. Plans date-stamped January 23, 2002 (separate attachment)
7
Attachment
VADNAIS HEIGHTS
WHITE
~ ¢~um'r RO~ D
B2
AV~.
LOCATION
8
MAP
Attachment 2
SUMmiT
CT.
bO
GULDEN'S
?4 ~.
CT.
PROPERTY LINE / ZONING MAP
~75
2889
1190
(~o)
' LAMETq
~- -,~- 2923
/ /
./ .,'~ ,
/' TOYOTA BUILDING
/ 2911
/
BEAM AVENUE-
SITE 2873~..
· C
I
I
[
I
I
I
.
I
i
i
I
I
I
:
I
..
I
:
I
I
_-
.I
i
I
I
I
I
:
I
I!1
tli
SITE PLAN
lO
t
Attachment 4
[ <3~) TOY 0 T A u^"~Ewooo ~ .................. ~
BUILDING ELEVATIONS
Attachment 5
Attachment 6 ,.
GWE~T ELEVATION
QEAST ELEVATION
Q~ORTH ELEVATION
QSOUTH ELEVATIQifl
MAPLEWOOD
Attachment 7
I LANDSCAPE SCHEDULE
7./
Approved Parking Lot Expansion '-"~ ~
Previously
Attachment 8
St in r
Developmenk Inc.
3610 Coun~ Ro~d lO1
Wayzata, MN 55391
(952)473-5650 Fax (952)473-7058
January 22, 2002
Tom Ekstrand
Associate Planner
City of Maplewood
1830 County Road B East
Maplewood MN 55109
Re: Maplewood Toyota Conditional Use Permit for the SerVice Area Expansion
Dear Tom:
On October 8, 2001 Maplewood Toyota received Maplewood City Council approval for their auto storage area north of
Beam Avenue and expansion of the existing building south of Beam Avenue. Due to increased future service area
demands and the desire to build the expansion space at one time to minimize disruption of their business Maplewood
Toyota is requesting approval of a 4,968 SF seven bay auto service addition to their previously approved project.
The site is zoned M-1 Light Industrial and the surrounding residential area is separated to the west by wet lands south of
Beam Avenue but auto service construction has to have a Conditional Use Permit.
The addition is to the southwest and does not alter the approved building north and east elevations that face Beam
Avenue and Highway 61. The addition does not affect the hard surface coverage because it is replacing parking area.
The approved building totals 20,135 SF including 4,813 SF of mezzanine storage. The approved 375 SF lounge
addition to the northwest is abandoned and therefore the requested additional square footage totals 4,593 SF for a total
building of 24,728 SF. The resultant Floor Area Ratio is. 14 based on a site of 176,646 SF.
It was determined with staff that the proposed building does meet the City's comprehensive plan, it will not change the
character of the surrounding area and the project should improve property values.
The proposed addition is basically squaring off the southwest corner of the building with similar materials and building
character. From a practical stand point the addition will have no impact on the surrounding area.
The proposed project efficiently utilizes existing city services and does not create any additional public costs.
We appreciate your cooperation on this matter.
Sincerely,
STEINER DEVELOPh/I~X, INC.
Vice President
RECEIVED
JAN 2 3 2001
15
Attachment 9
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REVISION RESOLUTION
WHEREAS, Steve McDaniels, of Maplewood Toyota, applied for a conditional use permit revision
to add onto an automobile repair garage.
WHEREAS, Section 36-151(b)(9) requires a CUP for maintenance garages.
WHEREAS, this permit applies to the property at 2873 Highway 61. The legal description is:
Subject to widened STH 61/1, Lot 101 Gardena Addition to Ramsey County, MN.
(PIN 04-29-22-41-0006)
WHEREAS, the history of this conditional use permit is as follows:
On ,2002, the planning commission recommended that the city council
approve this permit.
On ,2002, 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:
The use would be located, designed, maintained, constructed and operated to be in
conformity with the city's Comprehensive Plan and Code of Ordinances.
The use would not change the existing or planned character of the surrounding area.
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.
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.
The use would not create excessive additional costs for public facilities or services.
The use would maximize the preservation of and incorporate the site's natural and scenic
features into the development design.
16
9. The use would cause minimal adverse environmental effects.
,Approval is subject to the following conditions:
1. ,All construction shall follow the site plan approved by the city. The director of community
development may approve minor changes.
2. The proposed construction must be substantially started within one year of city 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. Beam Avenue shall not be used for loading or unloading.
The Maplewood City Council approved this resolution on ,2002.
17
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
LOCATION:
DATE:
City Manager
Ken Roberts, Associate Planner
Carriage Homes of Maple Hills
907 Parkway Drive (Maple Hills Golf Course)
February 6, 2002
Project Description
Mr. ,Steve Nelson, representing Bridgeland Development Company and Centex Homes, is proposing
to develop a 100-unit planned unit development (PUD) called the Carriage Homes of Maple Hills. It
would be on a 20.5-acre site on the north side of Parkway Drive, on the site of Maple Hills Golf
Course. (Please see the maps starting on page 20.)
The buildings would have exteriors of vinyl horizontal-lap siding, asphalt shingles and vinyl trim,
shutters and fascia boards. There also would be a partial main level brick veneer wainscot on the
front and sides.
Requests
To build this project, Mr. Nelson is requesting several city approvals including:
1. A conditional use permit (CUP) for a planned unit development (PUD) for a 100-unit housing
development. The applicant is requesting the CUP because Section 36-566(a) of the city code
(the shoreland district regulations) requires a PUD for developments with buildings with more
than four units when the site is in the shoreland district of a lake. In this case, the site is in the
shoreland zone of Round Lake and would have 100 for-sale townhouse units in 12 buildings.
The 12 buildings would have a mix of four units, eight units and 10 units. In addition, having a
PUD gives the city and developer a chance to be more flexible with site design and development
details (such as setbackS and street right-of-way and pavement widths) than the standard city
requirements would normally allow.
2. A variation from the city code to reduce the required street right-of-way width. The developer is
asking to reduce the width of the public street right-of-way from 60 feet to 50 feet.
3. A variation from the city code to reduce the required street pavement width. The developer is
asking to reduce the width of the street from 32 feet to 24 feet from gutter to gutter.
4. A preliminary plat to create the lots in the development. (See the enclosed maps from the
Carriage Homes of Maple Hills application materials and the enclosed project plans.)
5. Design approval of the project plans, including architectural and landscape plans.
Also refer to the developer's project narrative on pages 31 through 35, the developer's application
booklet and the plans for more information about these proposals.
BACKGROUND
On April 11, 1983, the city council rezoned the majority of the golf course from BC (business
commercial) to R-3 (multiple-dwelling residential) so the zoning would match the R-3 land use
designation on the site.
On August 23, 1983, the community design review board approved project plans for a development
called Somerset Ridge. This development was to have 96 condominium units in 11 eight-unit
buildings and two four-unit buildings on the southern 14 acres of the golf course.
DISCUSSION
Zoning, Land Use and Comprehensive Plans
The city has planned and zoned this site for multiple-family residential development since the early
1980s. Specifically, Maplewood intends areas designated in the land use plan as residential high
density (R-3H) as areas for town houses or apartments of up to 16 units per gross acre. (See the
land use plan map on page 21.) For areas the city has zoned multiple-family residential (R-3),
Maplewood allows a mix of housing types including double dwellings, town houses and apartments.
The proposed development plan is consistent with the density allowed by the comprehensive plan
and with the zoning designation for the property.
Specifically, the 100 units on the 20.5-acre site means there would be 4.9 units per gross acre. This
proposal would be well below the high-density residential development standards outlined in the
Maplewood Comprehensive Plan for this site and would even be below the standard of six units per
gross acre for medium-density residential development. In addition, the proposed development
density would be consistent with the density standards recommended by the Metropolitan Council
for housing in first-ring suburbs. This is a good site for medium-density or high-density housing as it
is on an arterial street (Parkway Drive), is near two major arterial streets (Larpenteur Avenue and
Highway 61) and is near open space and park facilities.
With a proposal such as this, the city must balance the interests and rights of the property owner to
develop his property with the city's ordinances, development standards and Maplewood's
Comprehensive Plan. The proposed plan balances the land owner's dghts to use and develop the
property versus the city's interests in preserving the wetland and ponding areas on the site.
Golf Course/Open Space/Parks
Many neighbors prefer to keep this property as a golf course or have it as open space or a park. The
operators of the golf course have decided, however, to close the golf course and to sell 'the property.
Maplewood has not included this site in its park or open space acquisition plans. Maplewood or
Ramsey County would have to buy this property to keep it undeveloped or as open space.
There are several areas of publicly-owned open space and park land in this part of Maplewood.
Ramsey County has many acres of open space and park land around Round Lake, Phalen Lake and
Keller Golf Course near this site. In addition, the Gateway Trail is to the north of the site so
development of this property would not create a shortage of open space or park land in this area.
Conditional Use Permit
The applicant has applied for a conditional use permit (CUP) for a planned unit development (PUD)
for the 100-unit housing development. They are requesting the CUP for the PUD because
Section 36-566(a) of the city code (the shoreland district regulations) requires a PUD for
developments with buildings with more than four units. In this case, the site is in the shoreland
zone of Round Lake and would have 100 town house units in 12 buildings. In addition, having a
PUD gives the city and developer a chance to be more flexible with site design and development
details than the standard city requirements would normally allow. The developer intends to sell each
of the townhomes.
Compatibility
Staff does not find a problem with compatibility in terms of land use. The proposed town houses would
be next to an existing town house development, single dwellings, an office building and a cemetery. In
addition, townhomes are often built next to single dwellings. A recent example is with the New Century
Addition in south Maplewood. The developer, Robed Engstrom, is presently developing this
neighborhood with a mix of single dwellings and townhomes. There are many other examples in
Maplewood, such as Afton Ridge, Southwinds and Bennington Woods where this is the case as well.
Property Values
The Ramsey County Assessor's Office has told us in the past that multiple dwellings adjacent to
single dwellings are not a cause for a negative effect on property values. If properly maintained and
kept up, this development should not be detrimental to the neighborhood. The required annual
review of the conditional use permit is a built-in safeguard to ensure that the city council will
regularly review this development.
Traffic
I had Dan Soler, the Ramsey County Traffic Engineer, review the proposed development. (His
comments are in the memo on page 41). Traffic-generation data from the Institute of Traffic Engineers
indicates that residential units like townhomes generate an average of six vehicle trips per day. In this
case, with the proposed 100 town house units, the development would generate about 600 vehicle trips
to and from Parkway Drive each day. Currently there are about 9,300 vehicles per day on Parkway
Drive. Mr. Soler notes that the additional traffic from this development '~vill not have a measurable
effect on traffic operations." In addition, the residents of this development will have plenty of options
for vehicle travel once they get to Highway 61 or to Larpenteur Avenue.
Shoreland District Regulations
As I noted earlier, most of this site is in the shoreland district of Round Lake. Maplewood adopted
the current shoreland district regulations, under the guidance of the DNR, in 1996. The code says'
that the shoreland district "is to provide specific regulations to protect the city's shorelands. It is in
the public's best interest to provide for the wise subdivision, use and development of shorelands."
The objectives of the shoreland code are:
Protect, preserve and enhance the quality of surface waters.
Protect the natural environment and visual appeal of shorelands.
Protect the general health, safety and welfare of city residents.
As such, there are several shoreland ordinance regulations that apply to this request (including the
requirement that the city approve a CUP for a PUD). These include open space requirements, the
maximum building height, vegetation preservation and screening requirements. Specifically, the
shoreland code requires the following:
- at least fifty (50) percent of project area remain as open space;
that the buildings have a maximum height of 25 feet(unless the city approves taller
structures);
that the developer minimizes the loss or removal of natural vegetation;
- the applicant to prepare a storm water management plan for the proposal; and
- that the developer design the structures to reduce their visibility from the lake.
The plans as proposed by the applicant will meet all the requirements of the shoreland ordinance,
including the open space and impervious surface requirements.
Park Department Review
I had Bruce Anderson, the Maplewood Parks and Recreation Director, review the proposed
development plans. Mr. Anderson supports the development plan as submitted, including the
proposed trail and sidewalk and the developer not building a tot lot within the site.
Code Variation - Reduced Street Right-of-Way Width
The proposed plat shows the public street (Maple Hills Drive) with a 50-foot-wide street right-of-way.
Section 29-53 of the Maplewood City Code requires local residential streets to have 60 feet of right-
of-way. The developer is proposing to have 24-foot-wide streets in the 50-foot-wide right-of-way.
This narrower street right-of-way with a narrower street pavement width will require less grading and
will allow for an easier fit between the ponding area and the proposed buildings. The additional
right-of-way is not necessary for public health, safety, welfare or convenience.
Code Variation - Reduced Street Pavement Width
Section 29-52 of the city code requires that local streets be 32 feet wide (curb to curb). The code
says that the city council may permit variations from this requirement in specific areas that do not
effect the general purpose of this section. The applicant wants to build Maple Hills Drive as a 24-
foot-wide street. I had the Fire Chief and the Fire Marshal review this request. As long as the access
standards of the Uniform Fire Code are met or exceeded (with parking restrictions), they did not
express a preference about the street width. Since 1993, the council has approved narrower street
widths with parking restrictions for the Oak Ridge, Maple Woods, Highwood Estates 4th, Beth
Heights, Parkview and New Century developments. The narrower street would provide a larger
setback between the street and the homes and would put less impervious surface on the site.
On-Street Parking Standards
The applicant is proposing that Maple Hills Drive be 24 feet wide. I had the Fire Chief and Fire
Marshal review the proposed streets and their widths. According to Article 9, Section 902 of the
Uniform Fire Code, all fire access roads shall have an unobstructed width of not less than 20 feet.
As such, all the streets and driveways in this development must be at least 20 feet wide with no
parking on either side of the street. If the developer or the city wants to allow parking .on one side of
the street, then the street must be at least 28 feet wide. The fire marshal has reviewed the
preliminary plans and is comfortable with the proposed 24-foot-wide public street looping around the
pond and the design of the private driveways.
Preliminary Plat
Lots, Outlots and Ownership
The proposed preliminary plat (page 25) has 12 lots and five outlots. The 12 lots are for the 12
buildings and the five outlots are for various pieces of extra property around the site. The proposed
development and preliminary plat with 100 units meets the city's density requirements for medium-
density and high-density residential development. The applicant has designed this development as
a common interest community (CIC) with the developer platting a lot for each of the 12 buildings.
The builder will then divide each building into separate units, with the buyers owning from wall to
wall, as opposed to owning the land that the town house 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 town house development as a CIC as opposed to platting each
town house 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 parties responsible 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.
As noted above, the proposed plat has five outlots. Specifically, Outlots B and C are areas around
wetlands. Outlot A is an open space area with the trail to the Gateway Trail and Outlot D is on the
north and east sides of Maple Hills Drive between Parkway Drive and the ponding area near the
center of the site. The developer is proposing that the homeowner's association own and maintain
these four outlots and that each outlot have a drainage and utility easement over it. In addition, the
city should require the developer to record an 18-foot-wide pedestrian easement over the part of
Outlot A that will have the trail that will connect to the Gateway Trail.
Finally, the plans show a proposed Outlot E around parts of the existing parking lot on the north and
west sides of the existing office building at 905 Parkway Drive. The developer is proposing to deed
this outlot to the owners of the office building to better clarify the ownership of the parking lot and
the green space areas around the parking lot. (Please see the detail drawing of this part of the site
on page 29 and the letter from the owners of the office building on pages 45 and 46.)
Public Street
As I noted above, the developer is proposing to have 24-foot-wide streets in the 50-foot-wide right-
of-way. This narrower street right-of-way with a narrower street pavement width will require less
grading and will allow for an easier fit between the ponding area and the proposed buildings. The
additional right-of-way is not necessary for public health, safety, welfare or convenience.
The new public street (Maple Hills Drive) would connect with Parkway Drive north of the existing
office building at 905 Parkway Drive. It would loop around the pond and would provide two-way
traffic access around the pond in the center of the site to the proposed town houses. The distance
from the split in the proposed street near Building One to Building Eight near the Gateway Trail is
about 700 feet. Because this street would provide for two-way traffic, the fire marshal believes that
the proposed street and ddveway plans will provide adequate vehicle access within the site.
Wetlands, Drainage and Watershed District
Most of the site drains to the existing wetland/ponding area in the center of the property. The
developer's engineer told me that by using the existing ponds as storm water detention facilities, the
development will not increase the rate of storm water runoff from the site. That is, the runoff leaving
the site will be at or below current levels. The city engineer supports this design within the plan. The
developer's engineer has provided the city engineer with information and calculations showing that
this project will not increase the amount of storm water running off of the site.
The developer had the four wetlands on the site delineated by a trained wetland professional. The
watershed district has classified one of these wetlands as a Class IV wetland (located in Outlot B)
and the other three as Class V wetlands. The city wetland protection ordinance requires the
developer to protect the wetlands and their buffer areas on the site. Maplewood's wetland protection
ordinance requires a minimum 25-foot-wide no-disturb buffer around the Class II wetland on the
property. The wetland ordinance also requires the building foundations to be at least 35 feet from
these wetlands. The proposed development will meet these requirements.
It also important to note that the city does not usually allow any ground disturbance, including
grading, within the buffer area. However, Section 9-196(d)(1)(f) and Section 9-196(h)(2) of the city
code allows a contractor or owner to alter a buffer area where the watershed distdct has approved a
permit for the project. For the Type V wetlands, the city does not require any buffer areas or special
protection.
In addition, Sections 9-196 (d)(1)(b), (d) & (0 of the code give three examples of exemptions to
Maplewood's wetland protection ordinance. These include the construction or maintenance of public
drainage facilities, sedimentation ponds or erosion control facilities, where the city council waives
these requirements for the construction of utilities or trails or where the watershed district has
approved a wetland filling permit. The city code goes on to say that the city shall require mitigation
for any disturbed buffer land and may only allow the construction of utilities through buffers where
there is no other practical alternative. In addition, the code also notes that the city shall require the
owner or contractor to replant the disturbed areas with appropriate native vegetation after
construction ends. The contractor should place the silt fence and temporary construction fencing so
they protect the buffer areas during all construction.
The applicant's engineer has submitted preliminary utility and grading plans with calculations that
the city engineer has reviewed for consistency with city standards. The assistant city engineer is
generally satisfied with the plans, but does have comments and changes that he will be requiring of
the developer. (See the assistant city engineer's comments on pages 37 through 40.) Meeting all
city and other agency standards should be a requirement of the conditional use permit and the
design approval.
It also is important to remember that the applicant or the contractor must get a permit from the
watershed district before starting grading or construction. That is, the watershed district will have to
be satisfied that the developer's plans will meet all watershed district standards, including the types
of plantings used for restoration and providing adequate protection to the wetlands and their buffer
areas. The applicant must contact Kad Hammers of the watershed distdct at (651) 704-2089 to
inquire about their plan review and permitting requirements.
Building Design, Site Layout and Landscaping
Building Design Review
The proposed buildings would be attractive and would fit in with the design of the existing buildings
in the area. They would have an exterior of horizontal vinyl siding (with a wood grain finish), vinyl
trim and shutters, a partial wainscot of masonry (brick) on the front and side elevations, and the
roofs would have asphalt shingles. (See the proposed elevation on page 30 and the enclosed
project drawings.
Front and Rear-Yard Setbacks
As proposed, with the lot and building sizes, layouts and site topography, the developer has shown
a variety of building locations on the proposed grading plan. The proposed front-yard setbacks
shown on the project plans (20 to 65 feet) do not meet the standard setbacks the city usually
requires in the R-3 zoning district. (Typically, 30 to 35 feet from the front property line.) The
6
vadety of setbacks in this development will allow the developer to do less mass grading and to save
more trees, especially on the east side of the site.
Off-Street Parking Standards
The city code requires the developer to provide at least 200 off-street parking spaces (two for each
unit) in this development. The developer noted that they would be providing at least 224 parking
spaces (including two garage spaces per unit) within the site. This number exceeds the minimum
city requirement and should be enough parking for the residents and their guests.
It should be noted that the city will not allow parking along the new public street in the site since it
will be 24 feet wide. The applicant's plan does show 24 off-street parking spaces (besides those in
and behind the garages) and 12 proof-of-parking spaces in locations scattered throughout the site.
Trails and Sidewalks
The developer is proposing to build an eight-foot-wide trail from the north end of the new street
(Maple Hills Ddve) to the DNR's Gateway Trail. They also are proposing a six-foot-wide concrete
sidewalk between Maple Hills Drive and the existing wetland/ponding area in the center of the site.
Both of these features should be nice amenities for those in the development and will give the new
residents in the development off-street access to the Gateway Trail and to each other.
To prevent any confusion about ownership and property dghts for trails, the county recommends
that the city have the developer locate the trail in a right-of-way or within an easement on the plat.
All the trails within the development should be public and for all to use and not just for those living in
the development.
For paved off-street paths, Maplewood usually requires eight-foot-wide bituminous paths centered in
a right-of-way or easement that is at least ten feet wider than the trail. In this case, the developer is
showing the proposed new trail to the Gateway Trail in Outlot A (between buildings 8 and 9). The
city should require the developer to record a separate easement for this trail with the final plat.
The city should require the developer to install the wetland buffer signs, sidewalks, trails and fences
with the streets and driveways before final plat approval. This is to ensure that the lot buyers know
that the trails and sidewalks are there.
Fencing/Screening
Several of the neighbors (primarily in Bennington Woods) requested that the developer install a
fence between the properties for privacy and security. The floor elevation of the proposed
development will be six to ten feet below the elevation of Bennington Woods. It is staff's opinion that
having a fence between the project site and Bennington Woods is not necessary because of the
grade change that will occur between the two sites. It is unlikely that residents in the new town
houses will be walking to the south into Bennington Woods, as they would need to climb up a
landscaped slope to get to the existing town houses. A more likely scenado is that residents in
Bennington Woods will want to walk into the new development to walk around the pond and to get
to the Gateway Trail.
Having additional landscaping on the slope on the south side of the development site (primarily near
the top of the slope) will better serve the new residents and the existing residents in Bennington
Woods. I have outlined this in more detail below in the landscaping discussion.
Trees
The applicant completed a tree inventory of all the large trees on the site. This inventory found 150
large trees on the property (an average of 7.3 trees per acre) with the plans showing the removal of
74 trees and the saving of 76 trees. In this case, the city code requires the developer to replace the
removed trees on a one-for-one basis. As noted on the landscape plans and as I discuss below, the
developer will be planting and transplanting on-site more than enough trees to meet the tree
replacement requirements of the city.
Landscaping
The developer should further develop the proposed landscaping plan (page 27 and in the project
plans) to increase the screening and privacy between the proposed town houses and the existing
single dwellings and town houses. There are at least three areas that should have additional
plantings or another type of screening method. Specifically, the additional trees in these areas
should include Austrian Pine, Black Hills Spruce, Eastern Red Cedar and Eastern Arborvitae for
screening. In addition, these areas should have a vadety of shrubs (including Alpine Current, Yew,
Glossy Black Choke Berry, American Cranberry (short cultivar), Purple Leaf Sand Cherry and
Dogwood) to provide a variety of colors and textures. These additional planting areas should be
located:
(2)
(3)
Along the north property line of Bennington Woods.
In Outlot D, on the north and east sides of Maple Hills Drive.
Along the south side of Lot 12, east of the driveway to the new building.
The evergreen trees in these locations shall be at least six feet tall, in staggered rows (if possible) and
are to provide screening that is at least 80 percent opaque. The developer has provided a typical
planting plan (on page 28) for the foundation area of each building. This plan is acceptable.
Fire Marshal's Comments
Butch Gervais, the Maplewood Fire Marshal, stated that the fire department must have clear
passage to the buildings. He has reviewed the preliminary plans and is comfortable with the
proposed 24-foot-wide public street looping around the pond and the design of the private
driveways. The final project plans should be reviewed by Mr. Gervais to ensure fire safety needs are
met, including the location of the fire hydrants. He also noted that the code requires that the larger
buildings have a sprinkler system for fire protection.
CONCLUSION
The proposed project plans, if built, will provide the city with additional owner-occupied housing
while preserving many of the natural features of the site. While many of the neighbors would prefer
no or little development of the property, the property owner has the dght to reasonably develop and
use his land. The proposal provides good protection for the wetlands on the site while giving the
owner the opportunity to develop the site. This balance is something the city should stdve for with
every development.
RECOMMENDATIONS
A. Approve the resolution starting on page 47. This resolution approves a conditional use permit
for a planned unit development for the Cardage Homes of Maple Hills development on the
north side of Parkway Drive on the site of the Maple Hills Golf Course. The city bases this
approval on the findings required by code. (Refer to the resolution for the specific findings.)
Approval is subject to the following conditions:
1. All construction shall follow the plans approved by the city. The city council may approve
major changes to the plans. The Director of Community Development may approve minor
changes to the plans. Such changes shall include:
a. Revising the grading and site plans to show:
(1) The developer minimizing the loss or removal of natural vegetation.
(2) All driveways at least 20 feet wide. If the developer wants to have parking on one
side of the public street, then that street must be at least 28 feet wide.
(3) All parking stalls with a width of at least 9.5 feet and a length of at least 18 feet.
2. The proposed construction must be substantially started within one year of council approval
or the permit shall end. The council may extend this deadline for one year.
3. Have the city engineer approve final construction and engineering plans.
4. The approved setbacks for the principal structures in the Carriage Homes of Maple Hills
'l-ownhome PUD shall be:
a. Front-yard setback (from a public street or a pdvate driveway): minimum - 20 feet,
maximum - none
b. Front-yard setback (public side street): minimum - 20 feet, maximum - none
c. Rear-yard setback: 50 feet from any adjacent residential property line.
d. Side-yard setback (town houses): minimum - 20 feet from a property line and 20 feet
minimum between buildings.
5. If the city council decides there is not enough on-site parking after the town houses are
occupied, the city may require additional parking.
6. The developer or builder will pay the city Park Access Charges (PAC fees) for each housing
unit at the time of the building permit for each housing unit.
7. The city council shall review this permit in one year.
B. Adopt the resolution starting on page 49. This resolution approves a city code variation to have
a 50-foot-wide street right-of-way instead of a 60-foot-wide right-of-way for Maple Hills Drive in
the Carriage Homes of Maple Hills. The city should approve this code variation because:
1. The variation will lessen the amount of grading, ground disturbance and tree removal in the
development.
Do
2. The additional right-of-way is not necessary for public health, safety, welfare or
convenience.
Adopt the resolution starting on page 50. This resolution approves a city code variation for a 24-
foot-wide public street (Maple Hills Drive) in the Carriage Homes of Maple Hills. This variation
is subject to the following conditions:
1. There shall be no parking on both sides of the street.
2. The developer shall pay the city for the cost of the no-parking signs.
Approve the Carriage Homes of Maple Hills preliminary plat. The developer shall complete the
following before the city council approves the final plat:
1. Sign an agreement with the city that guarantees that the developer or contractor will:
a. Complete all grading for overall site drainage, complete all public improvements and
meet all city requirements.
b.* Place temporary orange safety fencing and signs at the grading limits.
c. Have Excel Energy install Group V rate street lights in at least 10 locations - primarily at
street and driveway intersections and street or driveway curves. The exact style and
location shall be subject to the city engineer's approval.
d. Provide all required and necessary easements.
e. Cap, seal and abandon any wells that may be on the site, subject to Minnesota rules and
guidelines.
f. Pay the costs related to the engineering depadment's review of the construction plans.
g. For the trails and sidewalks, complete the following:
(1) Construct an eight-foot-wide paved public walkway from Maple Hills Ddve to the
Gateway Trail. This trail shall be in an 18-foot-wide trailway or pedestrian way or in
an easement.
(2) Construct a six-foot-wide concrete sidewalk between Maple Hills Drive and the
pond in the center of the site.
(3) The developer shall build the trail, sidewalks and fencing with the driveways and
streets before the city approves a final plat.
(4) The city engineer must approve these plans.
h. Petition and work with the city for the realignment of the sanitary sewer and the
installation of the sewer lift station on the site. This sewer project also will require an
assessment agreement between the developer and the city to compensate the city for
the benefit the developer receives from the city sewer construction.
]0
Have the city engineer approve final construction and engineering plans. These plans shall
include grading, utility, drainage, erosion control, tree, trail, sidewalk, driveway and street
plans. Specifically:
a. The plans shall meet the requirements of the city engineer, including the comments and
requirements of the Assistant City Engineer as outlined in his memo of 1-29-02.
b.* The tree plan shall:
(1) Be approved by the city engineer before site grading or final plat approval.
(2) Show where the developer will remove, save or replace large trees. This plan shall
include an inventory of all existing large trees on the site.
(3)
Show the size, species and location of the replacement and screening trees. The
deciduous trees shall be at least two and one half (2 1/2) inches in diameter and
shall be a mix of red and white oaks, ash, lindens, sugar maples or other native
species. The coniferous trees shall be at least eight (8) feet tall and shall be a mix
of Austrian Pine, Black Hills Spruce and other species.
(4) Show no tree removal in the buffer zones or beyond the approved grading and tree
limits.
(5) Include for city staff a detailed tree planting plan and material list.
(6) Group the new trees together. These planting areas shall be:
(a) near the ponding areas
(b) on the slopes
(c) along the trail
(d) along the north and east sides of Maple Hills Drive to help screen the
proposed buildings from the neighbors
(e) along the south side of the site to screen the development from the existing
town houses to the south
The developer may use the tree groupings to separate the different types of
residences.
(7) Show the planting or transplanting of at least 74 trees after the site grading is
done.
c. The street, trail, sidewalk and utility plans shall show the coordination of the water main
locations, alignments and sizing with the standards and requirements of the Saint Paul
Regional Water Services (SPRWS). Fire flow requirements and hydrant locations shall
be vedfied with the Maplewood Fire Department.
Revise the design of the entry road into the site (Maple Hills Drive where it meets
Parkway Ddve) so it is as far south on Parkway Drive as possible and so it has a left-turn
and a right-turn exit lane.
3. Pay the costs related to the engineering department's review of the construction plans.
11
4. Change the plat as follows:
a. Show drainage and utility easements along all property lines on the final'plat. These
easements shall be ten feet wide along the front and rear property lines and five feet
wide along the side property lines.
b. Show the wetland boundaries on 'the final plat as approved by the watershed district.
c. Make as many of the property lines as is reasonably possible radial to the cul-de-sacs or
perpendicular to the driveways and street right-of-ways.
d. Show the trails in publicly-owned property or easements. The developer shall record with
Ramsey County a separate deed for the trail that will connect to the Gateway Trail.
5. Secure and record with the final plat all required easements for the development. These
shall include:
a. Any off-site drainage and utility easements.
Wetland easements over the wetlands and any land within 25 feet surrounding a Class
IV wetland. The easement shall prohibit any building or structures within 25 feet of the
Class IV wetland or any mowing, cutting, filling, grading or dumping within 25 feet of the
wetland or within the wetland itself. The purpose of the easements is to protect the
water quality of the wetlands from fertilizer and runoff. They also are to protect the
wetland habitat from encroachment.
c. Any easements the city may need for the realignment of the sanitary sewer or the
construction of the new lift station on the site.
d. The easement for the trail between Maple Hills Drive and the Gateway Trail.
6. Record the following with the final plat:
a. All homeowner's association documents. These documents must assure that there will
be one responsible party for the maintenance of the private utilities, driveways and
structures.
b. A covenant or deed restriction that prohibits any further subdivision or splitting of the lots
or parcels in the plat that would create additional building sites unless approved by the
city council.
c. For the property at 905 Parkway Drive:
(1) All agreements between the developer and the property owner of 905 Parkway
Drive for changing the parking lot of the office building and for any changes to the
existing ingress and egress agreements.
(2) The deed that transfers the ownership of Outlot E to the owner of the property at
905 Parkway Ddve.
d. All wetland, drainage, utility and trail easements.
The applicant shall submit the language for these documents, easements, dedications and
restrictions to the city for approval before recording. These are to assure there will be one
responsible party for the maintenance of the common areas, private utilities, driveways and
structures.
The developer shall complete all grading for public improvements and overall site
drainage. The city engineer shall include in the developer's agreement any grading that the
developer or contractor has not completed before final plat approval.
8. Obtain a permit from the Ramsey-Washington Metro Watershed Distdct for grading.
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.
*The developer must complete these conditions before the city issues a grading permit or
approves the final plat.
Approve the development plans for the Carriage Homes of Maple Hills. The city bases this
approval on the findings required by the code. The developer or contractor 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:
Have the city engineer approve final construction and engineering plans. These plans
shall include the grading, utility, drainage, erosion control, tree, sidewalk and ddveway
and parking lot plans. The plans shall meet the following conditions and requirements
of the assistant city engineer outlined in his memo dated 1-29-02 and the following:
(1)
There shall be no parking on either side of Maple Hills Drive or on the private
driveways. The developer or contractor shall post the street and the driveways
with no parking signs.
(2) The tree plan shall:
(a) Show where the developer or contractor will remove, save or replace large
trees.
(b)
Show the size, species and location of the replacement and screening trees.
The new screening trees shall be grouped together. These planting areas
shall be along the south and east sides of the site to help screen the
development from the existing properties to the south and east. The
deciduous trees shall be at least two and one half (2 1/2) inches in diameter
and shall be a mix of red and white oaks, ash, lindens, sugar maples or other
native species. The coniferous trees shall be at least eight (8) feet tall and
shall be a mix of Austrian Pine, Black Hills Spruce and other species.
(c) Show the planting or transplanting of at least 74 trees after the site grading is
done.
(d) Show no tree removal beyond the approved grading and tree limits.
(e) Include for city staff a detailed tree planting plan and material list.
]3
(f) Group the new trees together. These planting areas shall be:
(1) near the ponding areas
(2) on the slopes
(3) along the trail
(4) along the north and east sides of Maple Hills Drive to help screen the
proposed buildings from the neighbors
(5) along the south side of the site to screen the development from the
existing town houses to the south
(3) All the parking areas and driveways shall have continuous concrete curb and gutter.
(4) The site, street, driveway, sidewalk and utility plans shall show:
(a)
A six-foot-wide concrete sidewalk between Maple Hills drive and the pond
in the center of the site. The public works director shall approve the
location and design of the sidewalk.
(b) A water service to each unit.
(c)
The repair of Parkway Drive (street and boulevard) and the driveways in
Bennington Woods after the developer connects to the public utilities and
builds the pdvate driveways and public street.
(d)
The coordination of the water main locations, alignments and sizing with
the standards and requirements of the Saint Paul Regional Water
Services (SPRWS). Fire-flow requirements and hydrant locations shall be
verified with the Maplewood Fire Department.
(e) The plan and profiles of the proposed utilities.
(0
The entry road into the site (Maple Hills Drive where it meets Parkway
Drive) as far south on Parkway Ddve as possible with a left-turn and a
right-turn exit lane.
Submit a certificate of survey for all new construction and have each building staked by
a registered land surveyor.
Revise the landscape plan for city staff approval showing:
(1) The planting of additional native evergreens and shrubbery on the site to provide
additional screening and privacy between the proposed town houses and the
existing single dwellings and town houses. The additional trees should include
Austdan Pine, Black Hills Spruce, Eastern Red Cedar and Eastern Arborvitae.
These additional trees should be located as follows:
(a)
(b)
(c)
Along the north property line of Bennington Woods.
In Outlot D, on the north and east sides of Maple Hills Ddve.
Along the south side of Lot 12, east of the ddveway to the new building.
The trees in these locations shall be at least six feet tall, in staggered rows (if
possible) and are to provide screening that is at least 80 percent opaque.
]4
(2) Aisc show the areas noted in (1) above planted with a variety of shrubs (including
Alpine Current, Yew, Glossy Black Choke Berry, American Cranberry (short
cultivar), Purple Leaf Sand Cherry and Dogwood) to provide a variety of colors
and textures.
(3) All lawn areas shall be sodded. The city engineer shall approve the vegetation
within the ponding area and on the steep slopes. On slopes steeper than 3:1, the
developer shall prepare and implement a stabilization and planting plan. These
slopes shall be protected with a wood fiber blanket, be seeded with a no-
maintenance vegetation and be stabilized before the city approves the final plat.
(4) Having in-ground irrigation for all landscape areas (code requirement).
do
Show city staff that Ramsey County has recorded the deeds and all homeowner's
association documents for this development before the city will issue a certificate of
occupancy for the first town house unit.
e. Submit a photometric plan for staff approval as required by the city code.
3. Complete the following before occupying the buildings:
Replace property irons that are removed because of this construction and set new
property irons for the new property comers.
bo
Restore and sod damaged boulevards and sod all turf areas outside of the ponding
areas.
Install a refiectorized stop sign at the Parkway Drive exit, no parking signs along both
sides of Maple Hills Drive and the private driveways and addresses on each building for
each unit. In addition, the applicant shall install stop signs and traffic directional signs
within the site, as required by staff.
Construct a six-foot-wide concrete public sidewalk between Maple Hills Drive and the
pond in the center of the site. The Maplewood Public Works Director shall approve the
location and design of the sidewalk.
Install the trail between Maple Hills Drive and the DNR Gateway Trail. The Maplewood
Public Works Director shall approve the location and design of the trail.
Complete the site grading and install all required landscaping (including the foundation
plantings), ponding areas and an in-ground lawn irrigation system for all landscaped
areas (code requirement).
go
Install continuous concrete curb and gutter along all interior driveways and around all
open parking stalls.
h. Install on-site lighting for security and visibility, subject to city staff approval.
4. 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.
]5
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.
5. All work shall follow the approved plans. The director of community development may approve
minor changes.
CITIZENS' COMMENTS
I surveyed the owners of the 88 properties within 350 feet of this site about this proposal and
received 26 written replies. Those who wrote had several concerns about the proposal. I have
summarized their issues with that plan as follows:
1. Possible effects of storm water run-off and drainage (potential for flooding).
2. The effects on the wildlife.
3. The proposed plans have too many units. The density is too high on an acreage this small.
4. Concerned about the loss of privacy by adding new housing and construction next to us. Have
the developer install a fence (privacy) or a hedge to separate Bennington Woods from the
development. We do not want people cutting through our property (Bennington Woods).
5. Can the existing lift station handle the additional sewage flow?
6. There would be too much traffic, congestion and noise (especially on Parkway Ddve). Can
Parkway Ddve handle the additional traffic (especially with vehicles turning in and out)?
7. Keep it as park or open space. It is our hope that this or any other development will not take
place.
8. It will ruin the nature area and destroy the quiet.
9. It will alter the character and could decease the economic value of adjacent properties.
Also see the letters on pages 42 through 46.
I also received several telephone calls from nearby residents about the proposal. They expressed
concerns about the loss of open space, storm water drainage, the loss of pdvacy and increased
traffic.
]7
REFERENCE INFORMATION
SITE DESCRIPTION
Site size: 20.5 acres
Existing land use: Maple Hills Golf Course
SURROUNDING LAND USES
N°rth:
South:
West:
East:
Cemetery across the Gateway Trail
Bennington Woods and a single dwelling on Larpenteur Avenue
Cemetery
Single dwellings on Parkway Drive and on Arcade Street
PLANNING
Existing Land Use Plan designations: R-3(H) (high density residential) and OS (open space)
Existing Zoning: 1:{-3 (multiple-family residential)
CRITERIA FOR APPROVAL
Section 36-442(a) states that the city council may approve a CUP, based on nine standards.
Refer to the findings in the resolution on pages 47 and 48.
Section 25-70 of the city code requires that the CDRB make the following findings to approve
plans:
1. That the design and location of the proposed development and its relationship to neighboring,
existing or proposed developments and traffic is such that it will not impair the desirability of
investment or occupation in the neighborhood; that it will not unreasonably interfere with the use
and enjoyment of neighboring, existing or proposed developments; and that it will not create
traffic hazards or congestion.
2. That the design and location of the proposed development is in keeping with the character of the
surrounding neighborhood and is not detrimental to the harmonious, orderly and attractive
development contemplated by this article and the city's comprehensive municipal plan.
3. That the design and location of the proposed development would provide a desirable
environment for its occupants, as well as for its neighbors, and that it is aesthetically of good
composition, materials, textures and colors.
HOUSING POLICIES
The land use plan has eleven general land use goals. Of these, three apply to this proposal. They
are: minimize land planned for streets, minimize conflicts between land uses and provide many
housing types. The land use plan also has several general development and residential
development policies that relate to this project. They are:
Transitions between distinctly differing types of land uses should not create a negative economic,
social or physical impact on adjoining developments.
Include a vadety of housing types for all types of residents, regardless of age, ethnic, racial,
cultural or socioeconomic background. A diversity of housing types should include apartments,
]8
town houses, manufactured homes, single-family housing, public-assisted housing and Iow-to-
moderate-income housing, and rental and owner-occupied housing.
- Protect neighborhoods from encroachment or intrusion of incompatible land uses by adequate
buffering and separation.
The housing plan also has policies about housing diversity and quality that the city should
consider with this development. They are:
Promote a variety of housing types, costs and ownership options throughout the city. These are
to meet the life-cycle needs of all income levels, those with special needs and nontraditional
households.
The city will continue to provide dispersed locations for a diversity of housing styles, types and
price ranges through its land use plan.
The city's long-term stability of its tax base depends upon its ability to attract and keep residents of
all ages. To do so, the city must insure that a diverse mix of housing styles is available in each
stage of the life cycle of housing needs.
Application Date
We received the complete application materials for this request on December 28, 2001. State law
requires that the city take action within 60 days of receiving complete applications for a proposal.
As such, the city council would have normally had to take action on the proposal by February 27,
2002.
kr/p:/sec17/Cardage Homes of Maple hills.doc
Attachments:
1. Location Map
2. Land Use Plan Map
3. Location Map
4. Property Line/Zoning Map
5. Existing Conditions Map
6. Site Plan
7. Proposed Grading Plan
8. Proposed Landscape Plan
9. Example Foundation Planting Plan
10. Exhibit "C" (Outlot E detail)
11. Proposed Building Elevation
12. Developer's Project Justification Text
13. 1-16-02 letter from David Deebach
14. 1-29-02 memo from Chris Cavett
15. 1-24-02 memo from Dan Soler
16. 1-17-02 letter from Kurt Trygg
17. 1-16-02 letter from Husten
18. 1-22-02 letter from Hackleman
19. 1-15-02 letter from D. Patrick McCullough
20. Conditional Use Permit for a Planned Unit Development Resolution
21. Street Right-of-Way Width Code Variation Resolution
22. Street Pavement Width Code Variation Resolution
23. No Parking Resolution
24. Project Plans (separate attachments - including 1 lxlTs and full-size)
]9
Attachment 1
C
2640N
2400N
Lake
PLAZA
,~.VARADO DR
BELLE'CREST DR
DEAtNILLE DR
UERID~AH DR
r~
'7
RD. B2
PALM
COUNTY
AVE.
L.
GERVAIS
I BELMONT LN. ]
SKILLMAN ' II
ROSELAWN
LWOOD
RIPLEY
ST. PAUL
KINGSTON~ AVE.
BELMONT
PROJECT SITE
LOCATION
20
Pm'k
SKILL
g
Park
NT. ON AVE.
· FRISBIE AVE.
MAP
Attachment 2
IL
Canad
OS
OS
LLJ
R-3(H)
Larpenteur
LEGEND :
~ R-2 o
CEM -- CEMETERY ·
OS = OPEN SPACE ~
R-1: SINGLE DWELLINGS u.I
major
R-3(H),
R-3(H) -- MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (HIGH DENSITY)
BC -- BUSINESS COMMERCIAL
BC(M) = BUSINESS COMMERCIAL MODIFIED
LAND USE PLAN MAP
PROJECT SITE 21
B-C(M)
Attachment 3
Maple Hills Par 3
Golf Course
(Project Site)
[
Ear
)enteur Avenue
Maplewood
St. Paul
S
Location Map
22
Attachment 4
total Pl~d
PLAT C 2F
4 0
......,.':;.' M 0 U N T~,
ZION
PI E BREW
CEMETERY
i~, LEGEND PLAT A
in F-~F'A-RM RESIDENCE~ -.Ru [
R-1 = SINGLE DWELLINGS:
R-3 = MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL
BC -- BUSINESS COMMERCIAL
BC(M) -- BUSINESS COMMERCIAL MODIFIED
(~) n
LARPENTEUR AVENUE
SAINT PAUL
PROPERTY LINE / ZONING MAP
23
PROJECT SITE
I I
BLOCK 1
T-T-1 F
2_[.__1 L--7-
I~GSI'O~
(NOT BU~t~)
MOUNT ZION
HEBREW
CEMET[RY
PLAT A
'\,, ~ iI
\,%k /
BENNINGT,,~ WOODS
,... /
I'
Attachment 5
EXISTING CONDITIONS24 MAP 1 ~
Attachment 6
1
-r-TarT--
12913ol I- ~'
I II~T
19181 5
~'-~ N~P LA'~T
1_1_J i 7
_._KING__STON AVE.
(NOT BUILT) ~--
MOUNT ZION
· HIEBRI:'W
CIEMEZTERY
PLAT A
/
/
/
/
/
,OF
Attachment 7
BLOCK 1
19181 I-
I I IL
_[ _L _J L__7
.,,,.~ING~STON AVE.,,
(NOT BUILT) ~'
MOUNT ZION
HEBREW
CEMETERY
PLAT A
/
/
/
i
/
/
Attachment
Attachment 9
TYP. NORTH LANTING
PLANTING
SCN. J~:
~ PLANTING NOTES
EXAMPLE FOUNDATION PLANTING PLAN
28
·
%
·
10 UNIT
EXISTING' F'ENOE TO REM~N:
PROPOSED CARRIAGE HOMES
OF MAPLE HILLS
MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA
EXHIBIT "C"
McCULLOUGH/BRIDGELAND
1/18/02 Terra Engineering Inc.
/
/
/
/
l
/
/
/
/
/
/
// ,.
/
/
/
JAN 2 2 2002
RECEIVED
/
/
1
/
l
50
/
/
SCALE
5O
IN
DEVELOPMENT
100
FEET
/
/
29
Attachment ll
CENTEX
HOME
KEY EXTERIOR ELEMENTS
Floor Plans Sizes: 1400-1600SF
Key Customers Demographics
Dominant age Group: 25-34
Household Size: 1-2
Household Income: Avg. $$0K
Group: Young Midscale Suburban
Singles & Couples
ELEVATION STYLE: Eclectic
ROOF STRUCTURE:
Front to Back Roof: 5:12 pitch with I'-0" overhang & 6" rake
Side to Side Roof: 8:12 pitch with 1-0" overhang & 6" rake
ENTRY/PORCH:
Covered entry porch
Pomh Columns: 8" Architectural column
EXTERIOR MATERIALS:
Siding: Wolverine Restoration Collection premium, Double 4" Clapboard,
low-gloss wood grain finish, vinyl. The Restoration Collection is approved
by many preservation commissions.
Masonry Veneer: Partial main level wainscot at front and side elevations
WINDOWS:
Type: Vinyl sliding windows
Window Grilles: Colonial grille pattern all windows
EXTERI OR TRIM:
Comer Boards: Wide 3 ½" outside comer post, vinyl
Window Trim: Wide 2 ½" vinyl window and door surrounds reflect
architectural tradition;
Fascia: Wide 4" aluminum clad
Shutters: Louvered Shutters, vinyl
Specialty Trim: Decorative louvered vents in gables, vinyl per elevation
Attachment 12
Development Request
Bridgeland Development is requesting approval of this Planned Unit Development (PUD)
and Preliminary Plat for 100 multi-family homes on the 20.49 acre site. The site is
currently zoned R-3(H) Multi-Family Residential which allows a maximum of 213
multi-family units. The proposed development consists of 12 buildings with a
configuration of four, eight, and ten housing units per building.
Legal Description
The attached Existing Condition Plan shows the legal description and the boundary survey
for this property as prepared by John Oliver and Associates. The final plat and associated
condominium plats _will be prepared by John Oliver and Associates at a future time.
Location/Ownership/Developer
This 20.49 acre pari:el is currently operating as the Maple Hills Par 3 Golf Course. The
site is located west °fParkway Drive and Highway 61, north of Larpenteur Ave., and
south of the DNR Gateway Trail in the western portion of Maplewood.
The site abuts Forest Lawn Cemetery to the west, Bennington Woods multi-family
residential neighborhood to the south, and single family residential neighborhoods to the
north and east. The site also abuts a small office building to the southeast.
The applicant/developer is Bridgeland Development and the proposed builder is Centex
Homes. The current fee owner of the property is Maple Hills Par Three LLC, 616 Lincoln
Ave., St. Paul, MN_ 55102.
31
SITE ANALYSIS
Vegetation on the site is a mix of maintained lawn areas, mature trees, ponds, and
wetlands. As shown on the Existing Condition Plan, a total of 150 trees were surveyed
and inventoried on-site. These trees consist of mostly oaks and pines. Four
wetlands/ponds were identified on the site and are described in the accompanying wetland
report prepared by Kjolhaug Environmental Services Company.
Topography/Surface Drainage
The topography as shown on the plan is in two foot intervals. The site generally drains
from the outside boundary lines to the center land-locked pond. This on-site land-locked
pond takes drainage not only from our 20.5 acre site, but also from approximately 33.9
acres off-site. This land-locked pond has no outlet.
Eight soil borings and a soil report were prepared for this site by STS Consultants LTD.
Their report, dated November 29, 2001, accompanies our proposal. This report indicates
that the on-site soils are generally suitable for our proposed townhome development.
Their report states that "After appropriate site preparation, it is our opinion that the
townhomes can be supported on conventional, relatively shallow spread footings bearing
on compacted upper sand, stiff naturally occurring clayey and sandy silt, or on compacted
fill. The upper sand soil at this site will be competent for floor slab support, and as a
subgrade below pavements."
Surrounding Land Use/Zoning
The present zoning of this site is R-3(H) Multi-Family Residential at a maximum density
of 10.4 town_home units per gross acre (213 allowable units). The existing site is currently
used as a par three golf course and is called Maple Hills Golf Center.
Abutting our property to the south is the Bennington Woods townhome site that is also
zoned R-3(H) Multi-Family Residential. The land to the north, across the DNR Gateway
Trail, is zoned R-1 and has single family homes. The land to the east is also zoned R-1
and has single family homes. The land to the west and northwest is the Forest Lawn
Cemetery and is zoned Cemetery. Abutting our prope~-ty to the southeast if an existing
small office building that is zoned B-C(M).
32
Existing Transportation Systems/Trails/Sidewalks/Parks
This site fronts on Parkway Drive, a Maplewood city street. Parkway Drive connects
directly, within one block, of both Larpenteur Ave. and State Highway #61. These public
roads provide good and efficient access to this site.
This site directly abuts the DNR Gateway Trail to the north. There is currently no direct
access from this site to the paved trail.
The Phalen-Keller Regional Park and golf courses are located immediately east of this site
across Highway 61. Two neighborhood city parks (Edgerton Park and Roselawn
Preserve) are located about 3/4 of a mile northwest of this site.
Existing Utilities
The site is served by public sanitary sewer and water fi-om Parkway Drive. The existing
storm sewer in the area is too shallow to drain the existing land-locked pond that is
on-site.
'33
PLAN PROPOSAl,
The objective of this proposal is to provide a for-sale Multiple Residential Community in
the starter to middle pricing range with a Home Owners Association. This community
proposal is sensitive to the surrounding needs of single family homes, townhomes, office
building, and the neighboring community by providing adequate setbacks and buffers
between the proposed buildings and these adjacent uses. The internal layout of the site
plan is sensitive to saving trees and careful mitigation of wetland concerns.
Land Use/Zoning/Comprehensive Guide Plan
The site is currently zoned R-3(H) Multi-Family Residential, and is appropriate for this
project. The existing zoning allows up to 10.4 townhome units per gross acre (or 213
allowable units). Our proposal requests a Planned Unit Development (PUD) zoning with
a density of only 4.9 townhome units per acre. A Comprehensive Guide Plan amendment
will not be required.
Planned Unit Development (PUD)
This multiple family residential development proposes that a PUD be adopted. Through
the PUD process, land plan design enhancements can be achieved. The plan proposes that
Maple Hills Drive be constructed through the project as a residential 50' right-of-way
public street. The drives that serve the individual buildings are proposed to be private and
be maintained by the Home Owners Association. No buildings will be fronted or have
individual unit driveways on Maple Hills Drive, and all individual driveways will be
accessed on the private drives.
Additionally, great care has been taken to reduce the impact on the existing trees and
quality wetland areas. Due to the topography and other site constraints, a small area of
the existing pond (Wetland #3) will be filled and mitigated on-site. Wetland #3 is shown
in the City's zoning ordinance as the City's lowest quality wetland, "Class 5." Because of
our relatively low site density (4.9 units/acre versus 10.4 units/acre allowed), we are able
to save approximately 50% of the existing on-site trees. Per the City's tree ordinance, 74
trees will be replaced on-site as shown on our proposed Landscape Plan.
A minimum 50 foot setback is shown adjacem to ail residential areas. As shown on the
Preliminary Plat, we are also proposing to deed Outlot E to the owner of the adjacent
office building to help the existing parking and setback issues.
The proposed plans call for a 20 foot front setback to the public street right-of-way. The
nearest the proposed buildings will be to the street itself will be 33 feet, which is
comparable to a typical townhouse project street setback requirement. The proposed
project also indicates a 24' one-way street, with parking allowed onone side as discussed
with the City staff. In addition to the parking in front of the two-car garages and the
on-street parking, we are proposing to construct an additional 24 off-street guest parking
stalls.
Per the City zoning ordinance (Sec. 36-438), it is the intention of the planned unit
developments to "Provide a means to allow flexibility by substantial deviations from the
provisions of this chapter, including uses, setbacks, height and other regulations." This
project meets or exceeds the City's PUD standards (See. 36-442) described as follows:
O)
The proposed project conforms with: the City's comprehensive plan. The
comprehensive plan allows up to 213 townhome units on this site and we are
proposing 100 townhome units.
(2) This project will not change the existing or planned character of the
surrounding area.
(3) The proposed project will not depreciate surrounding property values.
(4) This project will not involve any activity that is dangerous, detrimemal,
nuisance, noisy or unsightly.
(5) This project will not create traffic congestion or unsafe access on Parkway
Drive or other adjacent streets.
(6) There are adequate public facilities to serve this site including milities, streets,
police and fire, and schools and parks.
(7) The proposed project will not create excessive additional costs for public
facilities or services.
(8)
This project will maximize the preservation of the site's natural and scenic
features. Because of the relatively low site density, over half of the existing
trees on the site will remain. Over 50% of the site will remain as open space.
There will also be minimal wetland impacts to the existing on-site ponds and
wetlands.
(9) This proposed development will cause minimal adverse environmemal effects.
(10) This project is not proposed as a public building.
35
Attachment 13
]anuary 16, 2002
CENTEX HOMES
Minnesota Division
12400 Whltewater Drive
Suite 120
Minnetonka, MN 55343
Mr. Kenneth Roberts, Associate Planner
City of Maplewood
1830 East County Road B
Maplewood, MN 55109
Re: Preliminary Plat/PUD, Carriage Homes of Maple Hills, Maplewood, Minnesota.
Dear Mr. Roberts:
Phone: 952-936-7833
Fax: 952-936~7839
2002
RECEI ,,:b
Centex Homes requests that the Tot Lot depicted on the above referenced Preliminary Plat/PUD be
modified so as to serve the needs of the typical buyer of the proposed residential product. This
requested modification is founded in an analysis of buyer demographics revea!!ng the fax that a Tot Lot
is not an amenity that will attract or benefit the average resident of this new community.
Our experience in building this particular style of home in the Twin Cities is extensive. Since 1990,
Centex Homes has constructed and sold in excess of 2,153 of these units in 12 Twin City neighborhoods
that are similar to the neighborhood proposed on this Preliminary Plat/PUD. In only one case (Bristol
Ridge Carriage Homes, 148 units, Burnsville, Minnesota) did we construct a small play area.
The typical Carriage Home buyer is under 40 years of age (64%), is single (72%), has an annual income
under $40,000.00 (55%), is a first time homebuyer (55%) and has no children (82%).
A demographic analysis of the children residing at our Carriage Home neighborhood in Hugo, (Carriage
Homes of Bald Eagle, 88 units) reveals that there are 6 pre-school age children, 7 children in grades 1-8
and 16 post high school age young adults. In fact, 74 of the 88 units (90%) do not have any children. It
is reasonable to assume the quantity and age breakdown of the children at the new Carriage Homes of
Maple Hills will be similar to that of the existing Hugo neighborhood. We at Centex Homes believe the
minimal number of children is a result of the housing type and the profile of the typical buyer.
Changing the Tot Lot to a grass covered neighborhood gathering area with park benches or picnic tables
would provide the opportunity for our typical buyer to meet other neighbors or sit and enjoy a relaxing
view of the pond. This area would also serve as the perfect location for a "cool-down" after an
invigorating walk on the adjacent Gateway Trail. In either case, the designated use of this amenity
should be targeted at the typical buyer of this residential product.
Upon your receipt and review, please do not hesitate to contact me should you have any questions.
Sincerely,
Centex Homes
David B. Deebach
Land AcquisitiOn Manager
Copy: Steve Nelson, Bridgeland Development Co.
36
Attachment 14
Maplewood Engineering Plan Review - Chris Cavett, 01/29/02
Carriage Homes of Maple Hills, Project 02-03
The developer's engineer shall meet with the Maplewood Engineering Department before
finalizing the engineering plans. This meeting will be to discuss the plan review and the
findings of the study to relocate the sanitary sewer lift station. Listed below is the
Maplewood engineering department's first comments to the preliminary plans. Additional
comments and changes may be necessary as the final plans for the project(s) are
prepared.
Grading and Erosion Control:
The applicant's engineer shall submit a finalized erosion control plan that outlines in
detail exact measures, phasing and methods of erosion control to be implemented.
The submittal shall include, but not be limited to, temporary sedimentation basins,
materials to be utilized, locations, temporary turf establishment and phasing.
Due to the grades around the site and the "no-outlet" condition of the pond, the
erosion control around the pond is extremely critical during the construction and until
turf is established on the site. As such, the applicant' s engineer shall revise the
grading and erosion control plan to address this critical area of the project. Note:
Standard silt fence shall NOT be acceptable for erosion protection around the pond.
At a minimum, heavy-duty polypropylene silt fence, in conjunction with other
measures, shall be required.
Revise the grading plan to include a permanent erosion control blanket, (Enkamat,
Miramat, NAG C350, etc.) shall be placed in defined 1 O-foot-wide emergency
overflow swales on the pond banks between the pond and the low points in the street.
Revise the grading and erosion control plan to address the temporary and permanent
turf establishment around the pond. Once grades have been established around the
pond, the banks around the pond shall be immediately seeded. Erosion control
matting and blankets, as well as intermediate silt fencing shall be placed on all slopes
3:1 or greater to protect the seeded area and the slope from erosion.
The grading plan and landscape plan shall be revised to specify the exact seed
mixtures to be utilized on the site. "No Maintenance" areas (including steep slopes)
shall be seeded with a native grass and forbes mixture. Appropriate upland and
lowland mixtures shall be used in specific locations. Great care shall be taken to
ensure that other temporary seed mixtures used in the rest of the site shall not
contaminate the native areas with evasive vegetation. Seeding and mulching of the
site shall be done in phases to secure the site and shall be completed with in 14-days
of the completion of the grading.
37
2:1 slopes shall NOT be permitted on the banks leading into the pond. Revise the
grading plan to utilize natural retaining wall systems to maintain 3:1 embankment
slopes, with wall stepping not to exceed 2-feet vertical. Consider implementing short
boulder retaining walls into the landscaping around the pond to achieve the 3:1
slopes.
7. 2:1 slopes shall NOT be permitted above retaining walls unless a certified structural
design detail is submitted.
8. Revise the grading plan to eliminate a 2:1 slope on the north east side of the main
entrance.
Revise the grading plan to indicate that the retaining walls will be constructed as part
of the mass grading of the project. Retaining walls are typically the responsibility of
the developer, unless there will be only one builder on the development and the
developer is assuming responsibility for the builder's work.
10. The grading plan shall be revised so all other slopes designed to be steeper than 2:1,
have a detailed plan for erosion protection and permanent turf establishment and
landscaping (including the use of no-maintenance landscape materials).
11. The grading plan shall be revised to include a permanent 4-foot high, black-vinyl,
chain link fence around the pond. The location of the fence should be approximately
along the 850 contour. This fence shall have three removable accesses (gates or
sections) located next to the storm outlets at the north, south and east sides of the
pond.
Street:
Based on the soils report and the soils encounter at boring No. 7, roadwork at the site
will likely encounter variability in the soil conditions. The contractor shall follow the
recommendations of the Geotechnical Engineering Analysis report by STS
Consultants, dated 11/29/2001. Roll testing of the subgrade and density testing of the
trench and embankment work shall be carefully followed and strictly administered.
2. Submit detailed plan and profile sheets for the street and storm sewer design.
Submit a drawing of the typical street sections. Revise the typical section to show a
turf'boulevard and the sidewalk no closer than 5-feet behind the back of curb. The
embankment can slope away from the edge of the sidewalk at a 3:1 slope.
Revise the plans to include a traffic guardrail or another means of vehicle protection
across from the bottom of the main entrance to the development. The guardrail
should also include a bicycle safe railing on the sidewalk side of the guardrail.
38
Revise the plans to make the street two-way. Where it is desired to have parking the
street width must be 28-feet-wide. Where space and grade will not allow parking, the
width can be narrowed to 24-feet.
Drainage/Storm Sewer:
Revise the plans to include the following: Provide at a minimum, three additional
catch basin structures at the main entrance to the development. Two catch basin
inlets should be placed at the bottom of the main entrance to pick up any flow before
it enters the street around the pond (ring road). A third catch basin inlet shall be
placed on Parkway Drive on the uphill side of the proposed street entrance. Revise
the plans to include a new storm pipe installed to direct flow from the existing
structure on Parkway Drive to the proposed structure. The existing storm pipe,
draining from Parkway Drive to the pond, should be removed or abandoned as
necessary.
Revise the plans to include a storm water force main and pumping inlet structure. A
storm water force main shall be located in the street right-of-way of the main entrance
between the pond and Parkway Drive. An inlet structure shall be designed such that a
temporary pump can be installed and connected to the force main by the city if
needed in the future. The force main shall be directed to either a connection structure
or a new storm sewer structure adjacent to Parkway Drive. The purpose of the
connection structure isto connect temporary piping to the proposed force main during
pumping. The city is also investigating the feasibility to provide a gravity flow
connection from Parkway Drive to the east. The final engineering plans shall be
revised to correspond to the findings of this study. The developer's agreement shall
provide for some cost participation of a gravity line between Parkway Drive and T. H.
61 if the city determines it to be feasible. Ifa gravity storm sewer line is constructed
by the city, if would likely be done in conjunction to the lift station relocation.
Revise the eleVation of the culvert located at the east side of the site, such that it may
pond a small amount of runoff between the inlet and the property line. (i.e.: ' place
the inlet at approximately 850.5 or higher).
The locations of the sump manholes are acceptable. Revise the plan to include a
sump manhole on the revised line coming from the main entrance. Submit a detail of
the sump manholes with the revised plans. Sump structures shall be a minimum 48"
diameter with a minimum 36" deep sump.
5. Submit plan and profile designs of the street and storm sewer. Include profiles of
sanitary sewer and water utilities to illustrate possible conflicts.
6. Revise plans to show location of perforated PE drainpipe to be used.
39
Sanitary Sewer:
1. Submit plan and profile designs of the sanitary sewer and water main. Include storm
sewer profiles to illustrate possible conflicts. Include benchmarks on the plan.
Revise sanitary sewer design, if necessary to correspond with the relocation of the
proposed lift station. At this time, the city is having a feasibility study prepared for
the relocation of the sanitary lift station. Right now it appears that the location of the
lift station will be in the general vicinity to where it is shown in the plans.
40
Attachment 15
RAMSEY COUNTY
TO:
FROM:
Department of Public Works
Kenneth G. Haider, P.E., Director and County Engineer
ADMINISTRATION/LAND SURVEY
50 West Kellogg Blvd., Suite 910
St. Paul, MN 55102 · (651) 266-2600 · Fax 266-2615
E-mail: Public.Works@co.ramsey. mn.us
MEMORANDUM
Ken Roberts
City of Maplewood
Dan
Ramsey County Public Works
ENGINEERING/OPERATIONS
3377 N. Rice Street
Shoreview, MN 55126
(651) 484-9104 · Fax 482-5232
3AN 2 9 2002
SUBJECT: Bridgeland Development - Maple Hills Golf Redevelopment
DATE: January24,2002
The Ramsey CoUnty Public Works Department has reviewed the proposed redevelopment plan
for the existing Maple Hills Golf Course on Parkway Drive west of TH 61. This property is
being proposed for redevelopment from the existing golf course use into a 100-unit residential
townhome development. Ramsey County has the following comments regarding this proposal.
1. The use of the site will change from commercial/recreational (public golf course) to
residential. I am assuming that the number Of'trips generated by the site will increase from
approximately 200/day to about 600/day. Based on the current traffic volume of 9300
vehicles per day on Parkway Drive this increase will not have a measurable effect on traffic
operations.
2. It is difficult to see from the site plan how access will be handled on the site. Currently there
are four access points onto Parkway Drive serving the golf course and commercial building. I
am assuming that the one access south of the commercial building will remain, the next
access north will remain and the two northernmost access points will be replaced by one
street entrance into the townhome complex. It is unclear whether the townhome street will
have access into the commercial parking lot as well. As this plan is developed further please
submit nay access modifications to the County for review. Consolidation of as many accesses
as possible is desired.
The new access point on Parkway Drive will require a permit from Ramsey County for
construction onto County fight of way. The developer will also need permits for any utility
work within County fight-of-way.
Thanks for the opportunity to make comments regarding this issue. If you have any questions or
need any additional information please give me a call.
41
]ffinnesota's First Home Rule County
printed on recycled paper v~ a minimum of 10% post-consumer content
Attachment 16
January l7,2002
Kenneth Roberts - Associate Planner
Community Development Department
City of Maplewood
1830 E County Road B
Maplewood, MN 55109-2797
Kenneth,
Thank you for the opportunity to express comments regarding the proposed - Carriage
Homes of Maple Hills- Parkway Drive.
First, let me make my opinion clear of being opposed to this development. Maple Hills
Golf Course has been part of Maplewood for 50 or so years, and being one of the few
remaining open areas left in the city, would be a shame to allow development of 100 or
so Townhomes. Regardless of the size and cost of these Townhomes, more people mean
more traffic and crime, and the somewhat isolated setting, which attracted my family
here, becomes less isolated. What used to be a few houses on a side street surrounded by
parks and a golf course with little, if any crime, now is vulnerable, due to easier access to
our homes fi:om the proposed Townhome area, as well as, a potential lowering of the
estimated market value in my home because of this vulnerability.
Another issue I would like to discuss is the expected increase of traffic along Highway
61/Arcade, onto Parkway Drive. Today, Parkway Drive going onto Highway 61 backs up
nearly to Larpenteur Ave. at times during the morning and afternoon commute times. It
also becomes difficult during these timefi:ames to exit fi:om my house onto Parkway
Drive (Taking a Right!), due to the traffic coming south fi:om Highway 61. Adding
another 200 or so vehicles coming in and out of the proposed entry on Parkway Drive
increases the likelihood of accidents for cars entering/exiting the development, and
to/fi:om Highway 61, due to fi:equent stopping and slowing down for cars going into the
development.
Kenneth, I appreciate the opportunity to 'sound off' and hope you and your peers
consider the above comments during future discussions. I will plan to attend any public
meetings I am able to.
1791 Arcade St
Maplewood, MN 55109
42
Attachment 17
;/1 G/2002
TO: KENNETH ROBERTS
FROM: LAWRENCE P. HUSTEN AND SHEILA J. HUSTEN
735B E. LARPENTEUR
BENNINGTON WOODS
MAPLEWOOD, MN 5517
PHONE 651-772-1362
DEAR MR. ROBERTS:
THANK YOU FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO EXPRESS OUR CONCERNS/IDEAS
ABOUT THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT ADJACENT TO OUR PROPERTY
REFERRED TO IN YOUR LETTER OF 6/8/2002..
LET US SAY FIRST THAT OUR OWN PERSONAL PREFERENCE IS THAT IT
WOULD REMAIN A GOLF COURSE OR PERHAPS A PARKLAND OWNED BY
THE CITY OF MAPLEWOOD. WE'LL ADMIT THAT OUR VIEWS ARE SOMEWHAT
SELF-SERVING, SINCE WE'VE LIVED HERE 18 YEARS AND HAVE GROWN TO
LOVE THE AREA AS IT IS, WE DO NOT BELIEVE THE AMBIENCE WOULD BE
THE SAME WITH 100 HOUSING UNITS DESTROYINGTHE LANDSCAPE.
AT THE SAME TIME, WE BELIEVE THERE ARE OTHER REASONS WHY THIS
PROPERTY SHOULD NOT BE DEVELOPED.
NUMBER ONE, IT IS A HAVEN FOR MIGRATORY BIRDS. IN THE SPRING AND
THE FALL THERE ARE HUNDREDS OF GEESE,, DUCKS AND OTHER
WATERFOWL WHO COME TO GRAZE ON THE ACRES OF GRASSLANDS.
NUMBER TWO. OUR PROPERTY AND ALMOST ALL THE OTHER PROPERTIES
DRAIN ON TO THE GOLF COURSE. WEARE WONDERING WHAT WILL HAPPEN
WHEN WE GET ONE OF THOSE OCCASSIONAL" GULLY WASHERS" OF 3 OR
MORE INCHES. WE CAN TELL YOU THAT MORE THAN ONCE IN THE PAST 18
YEARS WEVE SEEN THE GOLF COURSE 2-3 FT. DEEP IN WATER.
NUMBER THREE. WE HAVE WORKED HARD AS A COMMUNITY TO MAINTAIN
OUR PROPERTY AT THE HIGHEST LEVEL. AS A RESULT, OUR HOMES ARE
HIGHLY DESIRABLE. WE CANNOT BELIEVE THAT THIS DEVELOPMENT WILL
ENHANCE THE VALUE OF OUR HOMES: IN FACT, THE OPPOSITE WILL
ALMOST SURELY OCCUR. IN ADDITION, ASSESMENTS FOR SEWERS ETC.,
WHICH ARE ALMOST ALWAYS A BY-PRODUCT OF THESE DEVELOPMENTS,
WOULD PUT ~ ~FRi(~t Itr~ "',~,~,**- ^ ~"~" ^ ' BURDEN ON BENNINGTON WOODS
RESIDENTS, THE MAJORITY OF WHOM ARE ELDERLY.
I .miw* '" ou,¢' '-~-~,: ~'~ m ~_n---'~ .~.m---* ~ ~,~'i m~,'~o, REASONS I COULD GIVE, BUT I'VE PROBABLY
...... ~UR~ OTHERS WIl i ARTiC!I! ATE
OVERSTAYED MY WELCOME, A~'~'m ~'M ¢" , .................
i HSin vi~Wo ~o ~v~uu. ii~ ~ evENT, ~u~,v YOU AGAIN FOR ALLOWING
US TO PRE~ENT OUfi VIEWS. SINOERELY.
LAWRENCE.& SHEILA HUSTEN
43
Attachment 18
I am sorry to see any development of the Maple Hills golf course. However,
if it must be developed, I would very much like to see Bridgeland
Development be required to plant a hedge along the southern property line
between Bennington Woods and the Maple Hills development. A hedge
(please, not a fence) might restore some of the privacy we have had for the
last 15 years and give the illusion of restoring some the natural view we will
be losing.
I would also like to propose that building 3 along the southern edge of the
site be reduced to a 6-unit building. This would provide for alittle more
open land between Bennington Woods homes and the proposed new
construction. With the current plan, that building will only be slightly more
than 50 ft. from the front living room windows of the home owners at 735
Larpenteur.
I drove up to Hugo to Carriage Homes of Bald Eagle Lake to see what the
buildings would be like. There are no 1 O-unit buildings at the Bald Eagle
site and the 8-unit buildings are very large. Any additional open land that
can be created between current homes and the new homes will be good for
both the current residents and the future residents of Maplewood.
Thank you for sending out this survey. I look forward to hearing from you
when any meetings with the city are determined regarding this proposed
development.
44
Attachment 19
McCULLOUGH, SMITH, WRIGHT & KEMPE, P.A.
D. PATRICK McCULLOUGH*t
JEFFREY M. SMITH
DIANNE WRIGHT**t
JOHN R. KEMPE
LISA WATSON CYR
LAYNE 8. JEFFERY
Attorneys at Law
Maple Hills Office Center
905 Parkway Drive
St. Paul, Minnesota 55106-1098
(651) 772-3446
Fax {651) 772-2177
Office Manager
MARGARET A. CORBO
Law Clerk
MORGAN A. DUSHANE
WRITER'S E-MAIL:
d pmcculloug h@mswklaw.com
January 15, 2002
Kenneth Roberts, Associate Planner
Community Development Department
City of Maplewood
1830 E. County Road B
Maplewood, MN 55109-2797
Re: Proposed Carriage Homes of Maple Hills - Parkway Drive
Dear Mr. Roberts'
My wife Marlys and I own the office building known as 905 Parkway Drive and
which is contiguous to the proposed development.
We have met with Mr. Steve Nelson on more than one occasion, we have
corresponded with him and we have talked with him on the phone. He has been very
cooperative, forthright and revealing to us as to the plans. Obviously, we will miss
the golf course which has been a beautiful scenic site behind my office for over 30
years but, of course, people have a right to utilize their property as they see fit within
the regulations of the applicable governmental authorities.
Mr. Nelson has provided me with a preliminary plat together with a preliminary
draft of an agreement regarding the property that would be deeded to my wife and I.
After consulting with others smarter than myself I determined that it would be
difficult for some of the delivery trucks or larger trucks, especially in the winter time,
to make the turn by the carport to access the back of the building unless a couple
more feet were added to the northeast proposed property line and the northwest
proposed property line.
I sent a letter to Mr. Steve Nelson on that subject and he immediately called
and left me a voice mail that he believed that that would be accomplished. He has
since redrafted the plans showing two feet more on the entire northeast boundary and
the entire northwest boundary.
* Board Ce~ed Civil Tdal Advo~te by the National Board of Tdal A~o~ and the Minn~a S~te Bm ~sociation
t Fellow of the American Academy of Matrimonial ~ers
**~ Adm~ed in Wis~nsin
Kenneth Roberts
01/1 5/02
Page No. 2
I also discussed with Mr. Nelson the necessity of removing all of the light
standards and their bases that are on the boulevard which are quite old and especially
after the wind knocked one of them down and took out the electricity in the area a
year a go. Mr. Nelson agreed that they would do that.
I also asked Mr. Nelson about the "green area" between the development and
the entire boundaries of our property and he assured me that they would be
responsible for making sure that that green area was properly prepared and completed
such as sod, etc., and at no cost to me.
It.appears that Mr. Nelson and his company are quite professional and again,
although I really hate to see the golf course go, I am at least gratified that the housing
project will be coordinated and completed on a professional basis.
The only question or concern that I have and I believe Mr. Nelson already
answered it but perhaps you could confirm the same and that is regarding parking. I
want to make sure that the land area that is left is at least sufficient and then some
for the required parking spaces relative to the number of square feet in our building.
Could you please let me know.
Thank you.
DPM/bjb
Cc: Steve Nelson
Very truly yours,
McCU£'I~'0UGH, SMITH, WRIGHT & KEMPE
46
Attachment 20
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION
WHEREAS, Mr. Steve Nelson, representing Bridgeland Development Company, applied for a
conditional use permit (CUP) for the Carriage Homes of Maple Hills residential planned unit
development (PUD).
WHEREAS, this permit applies to Maple Hills Golf Course property for the Cardage Homes of
Maple Hills PUD north of Parkway Drive and Larpenteur Avenue and west of Highway 61 in Section
17, Township 29, Range 22, Ramsey County, Minnesota. (PIN 17-29-22-44-0009.)
WHEREAS, the history of this conditional use permit is as follows:
On February 4, 2002, the planning commission recommended that the city council
approve this permit.
On February 25, 2002, the city council held a public headng. The city staff published a
notice in the paper and sent notices to the surrounding property owners. The council
gave everyone at the hearing a chance to speak and present wdtten statements. The
council also considered reports and recommendations of the city staff and planning
commission.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the city council 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.
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.
47
Approval is subject to the following conditions:
1. All construction shall follow the plans approved by the city. The city council may approve major
changes to the plans. The Director of Community Development may approve minor
changes to the plans. Such changes shall include:
a. Revising the grading and site plans to show:
(1) The developer minimizing the loss or removal of natural vegetation..
(2) All driveways at least 20 feet wide. If the developer wants to have parking on one
side of the public street, then that street must be at least 28 feet wide.
(3) All parking stalls with a width of at least 9.5 feet and a length of at least 18 feet.
2. The proposed construction must be substantially started within one year of council approval
or the permit shall end. The council may extend this deadline for one year.
3. Have the city engineer approve final construction and engineering plans.
4. The approved setbacks for the principal structures in the Carriage Homes of Maple Hills
Townhome PUD shall be:
a. Front-yard setback (from a public street or a private driveway): minimum - 20 feet,
maximum - none
b. Front-yard setback (public side street): minimum - 20 feet, maximum - none
c. Rear-yard setback: 50 feet from any adjacent residential property line
d. Side-yard setback (town houses): minimum - 20 feet from a property line and 20 feet
minimum between buildings.
5. If the city council decides there is not enough on-site parking after the town houses are
occupied, the city may require additional parking.
6. The developer or builder will pay the city Park Access Charges (PAC fees) for each housing
unit at the time of the building permit for each housing unit.
7. The city council shall review this permit in one year.
The Maplewood City Council approved this resolution on
2002.
48
Attachment 21
STREET RIGHT-OF-WAY WIDTH CODE VARIATION RESOLUTION
WHEREAS, Mr. Steve Nelson, of Bddgeland Development Company, requested a variation from
the city code.
WHEREAS, this code variation applies to the Carriage Homes of Maple Hills PUD that is north
of Parkway Drive and Larpenteur Avenue and west of Highway 61.
WHEREAS, the partial legal description for this property is:
In the S.E. 1/4 of the S.E. 1/4 of Sec. 17, T.29, R.22, Ramsey County, MN. (PIN 17-29-
22-44-0009).
WHEREAS, Section 29-53 of the Maplewood City Code requires that local residential streets have
60 feet of right-of-way.
WHEREAS, the' applicant is proposing a local street in the development with 50-foot-wide right-
of-ways and reduced street pavement widths.
WHEREAS, this requires a variation of ten feet.
WHEREAS, the history of this variation is as follows:
The Maplewood Planning Commission reviewed this request on February 4, 2002. The
planning commission recommended that the council approve the proposed code variation.
The Maplewood City Council held a public hearing on February 25, 2002. City staff
published a notice in the Maplewood Review and sent notices to the surrounding property
owners. The council gave everyone at the hearing a chance to speak and to present wdtten
statements. The council also considered reports and recommendations from the city staff.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Maplewood City Council approve the above-
described variation subject to the city engineer approving the construction plans.
The Maplewood City Council adopted this resolution on
,2002.
49
Attachment 22
STREET PAVEMENT WIDTH' CODE VARIATION RESOLUTION
WHEREAS, Mr. Steve Nelson of Bridgeland Development Company requested a variation from
the city code.
WHEREAS, this code variation applies to the Carriage Homes of Maple Hills PUD that is north
of Parkway Drive and Larpenteur Avenue and west of Highway 61.
WHEREAS, the partial legal description for this property is:
In the southeast ¼ of the southeast 1/4 of Sec. 17, T.29, R.22, Ramsey County, MN.
(PIN 17-29-22-44-0009)
WHEREAS, Section 29-52(a)(9) of the Maplewood City Code requires that local residential streets
shall be 32 feet in width, measured between faces of curbs.
WHEREAS, the applicant is proposing a 24-foot-wide public street with no parking on both sides
of the street.
WHEREAS, this requires a variation of eight feet.
WHEREAS, the history of this variation is as follows:
The Maplewood Planning Commission reviewed this request on February 4, 2002. The
planning commission recommended that the council approve the proposed code variation.
The Maplewood City Council held a public hearing on February 25, 2002. City staff published
a notice in the Maplewood Review and sent notices to the surrounding property owners. The council
gave everyone at the headng a chance to speak and to present wdtten statements. The council also
considered reports and recommendations from the city staff.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Maplewood City Council approve the above-
described variation subject to no parking on the street that is less than 28 feet wide and the
developer paying the city for the cost of no-parking signs.
The Maplewood City Council adopted this resolution on
,2002.
5O
Attachment 23
NO PARKING RESOLUTION
WHEREAS, Maplewood has approved a residential PUD and preliminary plat known as the
Carriage Homes of Maple Hills.
WHEREAS, the developer wants to have reduced street right-of-way widths, reduced street
pavement widths and reduced pdvate ddveway widths in this development.
WHEREAS, the city has approved reduced street right-of-way widths, reduced street
pavement widths and reduced driveway widths in the development, subject to on-street parking
restrictions.
WHEREAS, Section 29-52(b) of the city code allows variations from the city code standards
if they do not affect the general purpose of the city code.
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED that Maplewood prohibits the parking of
motor vehicles on both sides of all public streets and driveways less than 28 feet wide and
prohibits parking on one side of the public streets and driveways that are 28 feet to 32 feet wide
in the Carriage Homes of Maple Hills PUD north of Parkway Drive in Section 17-29-22.
The Maplewood City Council approved this resolution on
,2002.
51
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
DATE:
City Manager
Thomas Ekstmnd, Assistant Communi~ Development Dim~or
Election of Chairperson and Vice Chairperson
Janua~ 30,2002
INTRODUCTION
The city code requires that the community design review board elect a chairperson and vice
chairperson at the second meeting of January. The current chairperson is Matt Ledvina. The
current vice chairperson is Ananth Shankar.
RECOMMENDATION
Elect a chairperson and vice chairperson for 2002.
p:\miscell\cdrbelec.sav
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
DATE:
City Manager
Shann Finwall, Associate Planner
2001 Community Design Review Board Annual Report
February 6, 2002
INTRODUCTION
The city's community design review board (CDRB) ordinance requires that the CDRB submit a
report to the city council once a year. The report is intended to outline the CDRB's actions and
activities during the preceding year. Also, the report may include recommended changes,
including, but not limited to, ordinance and/or procedure changes.
RECOMMENDATION
Review the attached draft of the CDRB annual report and be prepared to make recommendations
and comments on the report at the February 12, 2002, CDRB meeting.
P:\cdrb~001 Report
Attachment:
2001 Community Design Review Board Annual Report
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
DATE:
MEMORANDUM
City Manager
Matt Ledvina, Community Design Review Board Chair
2001 Community Design Review Board Annual Report
February 6, 2002
DRAFT
INTRODUCTION
Yearly the community design review board (CDRB) outlines the board's actions and activities for
the city council. In 2001 the CDRB reviewed 31 items as follows:
Type of Proposal
Number Reviewed
New Development Proposals
8
· AT & T Cellular Communications Tower- 1681 Cope Avenue
· Gander Mountain- Birch Run Station
· The Gardens Townhouse Development (22 units) - McMenemy Street
· Afton Ridge Townhouse Development (40 units) -
McKnight and Lower Alton Roads
· Comfort Bus - 1870 Rice Street
· Walgreens - 1706 White Bear Avenue
· Productive Day Golf Course - Century Avenue and Lower Alton Road
· Carefree Villas (12 units) - Gervais Avenue
Expansions and Remodeling
13
· Jehovah's Witness Kingdom Hall - 925 Century Avenue North
· Rose-Rice Auto Sales - 1908 Rice Street
· Maplewood Imports- 2780 Maplewood Drive
· Menard's-2280 Maplewood Ddve
· 3M Leadership Development Institute- 600 Carlton Street
· Dean's Tavern - 1986 Rice Street
· 5-8 Club- 2289 Minnehaha Avenue
· Maplewood Toyota - 2783/2889 Maplewood Drive
· Salvation Army Church - 2080 Woodlynn Avenue
· Sinclair Station - 2158 Rice Street
· Hill Murray Chapel - 2625 Larpenteur Avenue
· Specialty Engineering- 1766 Highway 36
· McCarron's Water Treatment Plant - 1900 Rice Street
Sign Reviews
· Mogren Properties Comprehensive Sign Plan-
2580/2582 White Bear Avenue
Type of Proposal Number Reviewed
Code Changes
· Exterior Lighting Ordinance
Variances
Rose-Rice Auto Sales - 1908 Rice Street
Miscellaneous
7
TOTAL
31
COMPARATIVE INFORMATION
Year
Number of Items Reviewed
1994 54
1995 57
1996 31
1997 53
1998 35
1999 28
2000 44
2001 31
There is a decrease in the number of items reviewed by the CDRB from 2000 to 2001. The main
source of the decrease comes in the number of new multi-family developmehts reviewed. In 2000
the CDRB reviewed nine multi-family developments with some associated variances including:
Emma's Place, VVoodlyn Heights, New Century, Dearborn Meadow, Pineview Estates, Rosoto
Senior Apartments, Birch Glen Apartments, Emerald Estates, and Highpoint Ridge. These nine
developments totaled 375 new multi-family units within the city in 2000. In 2001, however, the
CDRB reviewed only three multi-family developments including: AEon Ridge, Carefree Villas, and
The Gardens. These three developments totaled 74 new multi-family units within the city in 2001.
Another area of decrease was in the number of cellular towers reviewed. In 2000 the CDRB
reviewed four cellular tower proposals. In 2001, however, the CDRB only reviewed one.
COMMUNITY DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MEMBERS
Board Member
Membership Began
Term Expiration
Matt Ledvina, Chair 3/10/97 1/1/03
Craig Jorgenson 8/23/99 1/1/04
Linda Olson 3~26~01 1/1/03
Ananth Shankar 8~8~94 1/1/04
CDRB 2001 Annual Report 2 February 6, 2002
On January 14, 2002, the 'city council reappointed Ananth Shankar and Craig Jorgenson to another
two-year term. On September 25, 2001, CDRB member Tim Johnson retired from the CDRB
leaving one vacancy. The CDRB will interview applicants for the vacancy and will forward a
recommendation to the city council.
DISCUSSION
2001 Actions/Activities
In the year 2001 the CDRB reviewed several commercial additions and remodels including
Menard's 33,769 square foot retail addition; remodeling of Beau's Restaurant into the 5-8 Club
Restaurant; a vestibule, maintenance shop, and other exterior improvements to McCarron's Water
Treatment Plant. Also reviewed were three new residential developments (The Gardens
Townhouses, Afton Ridge Townhouses, Carefree Senior Cottages) and four new commercial
developments (Gander Mountain, Comfort Bus, Walgreen's, Productive Day Golf Course).
The CDRB continued their research and debate over the city's exterior lighting ordinance. The
proposed ordinance changes are intended to improve energy conservation and reduce light
pollution. A final version of the proposed exterior lighting ordinance will be presented to the city
council in the spring of 2002.
An area of special concern mentioned by the CDRB in the 2001 annual report was the need to
evaluate the building and design criteria as it relates to the White Bear Avenue Corridor Study
completed in 1999. Since that time, the city's Hillcrest area on the corner of Larpenteur and White
Bear Avenues has been chosen by the Metropolitan Council as a smart growth site for the
implementation of pedestrian-friendly redevelopment in the area. The Walgreen's development
proposed for the old Burger King site on White Bear Avenue in 2001 gave the CDRB an
opportunity to review the White Bear Avenue Corridor principles as well as the new smart growth
principles. The CDRB recommended denial of the Walgreen's development because it did not
meet these principles.
Recommendations/Areas of Concern
The CDRB will work with staff in 2002 on recommended site and design criteria for the city's
proposed Hillcrest Village Overlay District ordinance, including principles of the White Bear Avenue
Corridor Study.
Also, the CDRB looks forward to reviewing possible development plans for the 80-acre Robert
Hajicek property near the Maplewood Mall.
CONCLUSION
In 2002, the CDRB will continue its dedication to quality design for buildings and developments in
Maplewood.
CDRB 2001 Annual Report 3 February 6, 2002