Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05/21/2001MAPLEWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION Monday May 21, 2001, 7:00 PM City Hall Council Chambers 1830 County Road B East 1. Call to Order 2. Roll Call 3. Approval of Agenda Approval of Minutes a. May 7, 2001 Public Hearings None New Business a. The Gardens 1. Conditional use permit (CUP) for a planned unit development (PUD) 2. Preliminary plat 7. Visitor Presentations Commission Presentations a. May 14 Council Meeting: Mr. Pearson b. May 29 Council Meeting: Mr. Frost c. June 11 Council Meeting: Mr. Ahlness 9. Staff Presentations 10. Adjournment MINUTES OF THE MAPLEWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION 1830 COUNTY ROAD B EAST, MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA MONDAY, MAY 21, 2001 CALL TO ORDER Chairperson Fischer called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m. I1. ROLL CALL Commissioner Comm,ss~oner Commissioner Commiss,oner Commissioner Commissioner Commissioner Commissioner Commissioner Staff Present: Lorraine Fischer Jack Frost Matt Ledvina Paul Mueller Gary Pearson William Rossbach Dale Tdppler Eric Ahlness Mary Dierich Recording Secretary: Present Absent Present Present Present Present Present Present Present (Left meeting at 8:45 p.m.) Ken Roberts, Associate Planner Chds Cavett, Assistant City Engineer JoAnn Morin II1. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Commissioner Ledvina moved approval of the agenda, as submitted. Commissioner Diedch seconded. Ayes -All The motion passed. IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES May 7, 2001 Commissioner Pearson moved approval of the minutes of May 7, 2001. Commissioner Ledvina seconded the motion. The motion passed. PUBLIC HEARING None. NEW BUSINESS A. Ayes - All The Gardens Townhouse Development - (east side of McMenemy Street, South of Roselawn Avenue). Conditional use permit (CUP) for a planned unit development (PUD) Preliminary Plat Planning Commission Minutes of 05-21-01 -2- Ken Roberts, Associate Planner presented the staff report for this request. He stated that Mr. Gordie Howe is proposing to develop 22 townhomes in a development called "The Gardens" located on the east side of McMenemy, south of Roselawn Avenue. The city has planned this site R-3M, (Medium Density Residential). The request by the applicant include a conditional use permit for a PUD. The applicant has also asked for a preliminary plat approval to create the individual lots for each townhome, each townhome unit will on its own lot and will be available for sale. The applicant has also applied for the design approval for the architectural landscaping that will be reviewed by the Design Review Board tomorrow evening at their regular meeting. Mr. Roberts stated that the Design Review Board items would not be discussed at this meeting and will be discussed at the Design Review Board meeting on Tuesday, May 22, 2001. The city has planned this area as medium density residential, and this proposal, with the 22 units on the five acres is about 4.4 units per acre. Therefore, it does meet city standards for density in the Comprehensive Plan. The Conditional use permit for the PUD is being requested because the proposed development has a mix of two and three-unit buildings. This plan has proposed setbacks from the south and east property lines (30-40 feet). The usual requirement is a 50-foot setback from a residential property line for buildings with more than two units. Mr. Roberts stated that we have some flexibility with the PUD. This proposal, with the decreased setbacks appears to be a good fit for the neighborhood. It is staff's opinion that the buildings are at about 40-feet in most parts, with some 30-foot setbacks in the southeast comer of the site. Staff does not see any problems with this development. The applicant has also requested preliminary plat approval to create the lots in the development. Those appear to meet all of our standards. Mr. Roberts stated that one important point in this development is the drainage. There is no city storm sewer in this part of Maplewood. The applicant has designed the site with a ponding area to collect and accommodate the rainwater from two one-hundred year, back-to-back storms if that was ever to occur. There will also be a series of rainwater gardens along the south side of Summer Lane to help collect some of the rainwater and infiltrate it into the ground. Mr. Roberts stated that Chds Cavett, Assistant City Engineer, is very favorable with the proposal and likes the idea of the rainwater gardens. The proposed ponding area meets the standards of the Watershed District and the city's engineering department. Mr. Roberts stated that the Maplewood Parks Department is recommending the developer build a trail from Summer Lane, between the buildings, out to Ripley Avenue. The vacant Lot 11 is owned by the same owner as the proposed development site. Lot 11 is not included in this proposal, but will ultimately be developed with a single family home. The trail would provide pedestrian access between the two neighborhoods. Generally, staff has been trying to have more trails built in the City to provide these pedestrian alternatives. Staff recommended approval of the Conditional Use Permit for the PUD subject to the eight conditions outlined in the staff report. He noted that on page 5, item 3c there is some specific language regarding curbing. He noted that it may change as the plans get further refined and revised. Both the developer's engineer and the city engineer want to look at it further. Mr. Roberts recommends that we leave the language as is, but to be aware that in the future that may change but would be ironed out before taking this proposal to the City Council. Staff is also recommending approval of the preliminary plat subject to the ten conditions outlined in the staff report. Commissioner Rossbach recalled that originally the developer was not planning on any curb at all. Planning Commission Minutes of 05-21-01 -3- Mr. Roberts stated that that was the initial request. After city engineers reviewed the plan, they felt that it was needed for the ponding area and to insure drainage for the driveways. The engineers will be looking at the curbing proposal again. Commissioner Tdppler questioned staff regarding the fencing requirement around the ponding area. He cited the letter sent by the residents at 1843 DeSoto. Mr. Roberts stated that staff is recommending fencing for the new pond. Mr. Cavett commented that fencing requirements for ponds depends on the contouring and shapes of the ponds. Ponds that typically have a fiat bench where vegetation can grow typically do not require fencing, because fencing is not aesthetic. In a situation as in this proposal, where the pond does not have an established normal water elevation because there is no outlet, you cannot establish an elevation for a bench and at a point where the water will be. So, you never know how deep the water will be at times, and the slopes are steeper, therefore, a fence would be required. Commissioner Ledvina asked about the 30 and 40-foot front setbacks and what are the typical standard for multi-units. Mr. Roberts indicated that these are proposed to be 20-feet from Summer Lane, and 30 - 40 feet from the rear line. He also pointed out that Summer Lane is proposed to be a pdvate read, or driveway, so there is no setback standards specifically in our City Code for that. What is trying to be accomplish with the 20-feet is to have enough reom to get cars off Summer Lane onto their own driveways. Commissioner Ledvina asked if anyone has evaluated the potential for wetland classification for the existing Iow area. Mr. Roberts stated that he knows that the developer has done a lot of research and have provided information to the Watershed Distdct about that. He stated that yes, it has been evaluated and it is not a wetland. Commissioner Ledvina asked about the intention of the trail connection. Is it to enable residents of this new area to access the Gateway Trail? Mr. Roberts responded that no, it was more to provide an opportunity for the two cul-de-sacs to have pedestrian access rather than having to go out to McMenemy to Roselawn, to DeSoto. He stated there is no specific destination. Commission Ledvina asked it this was typical for back-to-back cul-de-sacs. Mr. Roberts indicated that it has not been consistently, but we are trying to do it more often. He stated it had been done in the Oak Ridge development and the New Century development. Commissioner Mueller indicated that he did not see driveways on the plans. Mr. Roberts stated that they are not clearly shown on the plan, but each townhome would have it's own two-car driveway. Commissioner Mueller asked it St. Jerome's had been notified that there would be a pond in the area. Mr. Roberts indicated that they were sent a neighborhood survey with the plans, but were not specifically contacted. Planning Commission Minutes of 05-21-01 -4- Commissioner Mueller asked if the 71 trees that are going to be planted would be sufficient for screening neighbors. Mr. Roberts stated that they are not proposing a real heavy wall of screening along the south side. Looking at the slopes, the sight drops down at least 5 - 10 feet and the feeling is that with the trees on the neighbors property, that it did not seem real beneficial to get into a heavy screening/planting. Commissioner Mueller asked if the people at 387 Ripley had been notified that there might be a trail going next to their property. Mr. Roberts indicated that they were not specifically notified about the trail possibility. Commissioner Mueller suggested that as a courtesy they should be notified. Commissioner Trippler asked for clarification on the rainwater garden. He wanted to know if they were tied together through sub-terrain piping, or are they individual. Mr. Cavett stated that they are not physically tied together. They are basically micro-detention to collect a small area. If they get full enough they basically just spill down into the road. There are structures at a few of the gardens, meaning that they will take the overflow drainage and bring it into the storm sewer and cross over to the large pond. Commissioner Rossbach asked what the developer is going to do with the rainwater gardens as far as developing them so that they don't look like some small depression in the yard and possibly be filled with dirt because the homeowners may think it's a hole. What is there to establish these as rainwater gardens? Mr. Cavett stated that they would be heavily landscaped with a variety of materials. We could also have it identified in the covenants that this is an area that needs to stay as a rainwater garden and should not be altered. Commissioner Rossbach asked about Lot 11, that it appears to be part of the plan. Mr. Roberts stated that it is all under one ownership, but the developer is not planning to develop it at this time. For the final plat it will not be included. It is zoned R-1 Single Family. Commissioner Rossbach asked if the current developer was tied with the existing apartment buildings. It appears that they are grading the apartment property. Mr. Roberts indicated that they are not. But there would have to be some agreement on the grading. Commissioner Ledvina asked what the typical design standard is for a pond such as the one being proposed. Mr. Cavett stated that typically ponds are designed for a single one-hundred year event. Most ponds also have some type of outlet piping. The developer's engineer, the city engineers and the Watershed Distdct had a number of discussions regarding this. In a scenario like this there is guidelines that talk about two back-to-back hundred-year events and maintaining pond elevations below the lowest floor openings. The developers have achieved that without even taking into account the volumes that the rainwater gardens will accommodate. In a scenado like this with a pond with no outlet, it is designed for two back-to-back hundred-year events. He indicated that we have some very sandy soils and we know from experience with the pond on Ripley, just south of the site, that it infiltrates quite rapidly and there seems to be no present standing water. Planning Commission Minutes of 05-21-01 -5- Commissioner Fischer asked if the R-1 lot is not a part of this site plan, is it correct to assume that that acreage is not included in the density allowance for this site. Mr. Roberts indicated that that was correct. Commissioner Fischer indicated that there was a reference to this being an updated proposal. Is this an update of a pdor proposal in this same application process and not in an earlier process. Mr. Roberts indicated that there was an earlier plan that had 20 - 21 units and that the street was in a different shape and there were some issues with the storm water. The developer withdrew that application and redid the planHII this has been done within the last six months. Commissioner Pearson asked the Assistant City Engineer to elaborate on which watergardens were tied into the storm sewers. Mr. Cavett indicated that on the proposed grading plan, between Lots 6 and 7 there does indicate a storm sewer in the boulevard in the rainwater garden. The rain gardens to the west and just to the east of there are designed to overflow to that point and at that point the water would be picked up and taken to the pond. There is also another drain between Lots 13 and 14 in the boulevard and the rainwater garden there. Commissioner Pearson asked if there were not curb storm sewers. Mr. Cavett stated that in this proposal there is no curb storm sewer, the drainage is designed to go into the boulevards, the rain gardens, or directly into the pond rather than being channeled under conventional design. Commissioner Pearson stated that there was quite an elevation difference from the west end going to the east and if the rain was to override that, it looks as if it would go out onto McMenemy and could end up flooding the lower level of the apartments. Mr. Cavett indicated that this site is considerably lower than McMenemy. The Iow point is actually between Lot 6 and 7. Commissioner Pearson asked if in a heavy rain could it possibly flow that way in opposition to the plan down into the apartments where it is very Iow. He suggested that if we are looking at redesigning some of the curbs, or the type of curbs, that it might be an idea to put some type of curb cut storm sewer channeling into the pond between Lot 6 and 7. Mr. Roberts stated that one of the major issues of the redesign of this proposal was looking at the elevation of the apartments lowest floor and making sure that whatever plans were built would prevent flooding of that building and was taken into account with this design. Commissioner Mueller asked if snow removal and maintenance is taken care of by the townhome association because Summer Lane is a private street. He also asked if all the snow would be pushed into the proposed ponding area. Mr. Roberts indicated that that would probably be the case. Commissioner Mueller stated that the pond looks to be about 14-feet deep and asked if the two hundred-year rains would fill that up. Mr. Roberts stated that the assumption is that the pond is deep enough that even two one hundred- year storms would not fill it up. It would take more than that to fill it up. Planning Commission Minutes of 05-21-01 -6- Commissioner Muller asked if it would drain rather quickly. Mr. Roberts indicated that yes, that is our hope that the water would drain rather quickly. Commissioner Tdppler questioned that the apartment building was not tied into this development, yet when reviewing the parking lots surrounding the apartment building that there were two entrances to the apartment building and that the entrance on the north edge of the building has appeared to have disappeared. Mr. Roberts stated that while the parking lot on the north side is not showing up on the plans, it is intended to remain as is. The area south of the apartment building does change and the parking lot will come out onto Summer Lane. As Mr. Roberts underetands it, the developer is buying the whole area, including the apartment building, and then will sell the apartment building to a new buyer, a third group. Currently there is one owner for the whole site. The townhomes will be developed, and the owner will then be selling the apartment with the reconfigured parking. Commissioner Tdppler asked if they are closing both entrances to the apartment building off of McMenemy. Mr. Roberts stated that McMenemy would still have the entrance to the north end, but it may have been dropped off the plans. The new connection on the south side would be onto Summer Lane. Commissioner Rossbach asked what the normal setback from a property line for the north parking lot would be. Mr. Roberts indicated that the normal setback to a single family would be 20 feet, if it were a commercial or institution then it would be five feet. He indicated that the developer is not proposing any change to the north parking lot. Commissioner Rossbach stated that he felt there were changes being made to the apartment building and said that he had noted parallel parking adjacent to the doorways on the northside, which look to be extremely inadequate. He feels that they don't have enough parking per code there. He indicated that there were no garages and he feels there is not enough information put forth regarding that building and feels that we should make sure that the building is meeting the restrictions that it should. Mr. Roberts indicated that there were garages on the lower level of the apartment building. The developer, Mr. Gordie Howe addressed the Commission. He stated concern regarding the proposed trail for the development. He stated that they were building the development for empty nesters. All units will be sold at a pdce range of $200,000 to $250,000. He noted that Ripley is a public street and Summer Lane is a pdvate street. He feels that the trail is not necessary between the two cul-de-sacs. He stated concern regarding who would be responsible for the maintenance, liability and snow removal. Commissioner Rossbach stated that he believed the trail would be a city trail and they would provide liability, maintenance and snow removal. He stated that the trail would work well there. Discussion continued regarding Lot 11 where the trail will come threugh. Lot 11 will not be on the final plat but will stay R-1 single family. Commissioner Pearson asked staff if when the notices were sent out to the adjoining property owners if the proposed trail was laid out in the notice. Mr. Roberts stated that no; the trail was not included in any of the notices. Planning Commission Minutes of 05-21-01 -7- Commissioner Pearson questioned if the neighborhood would have any sensitivity to a trail themselves. Mr. Roberts stated that they may. Commissioner Mueller questioned what jurisdiction the city would have over the pdvate preperty and pdvate ddve. Do we as a city have the right or ability to require the trail be built connecting the pdvate drive to city preperty. Mr. Roberts said that he would check with the city attorney on this issue. Commissioner Rossbach commented that Summer Lane is only a pdvate ddve because the city is allowing it to be. He stated that if the city required them to put in a development that had a public street, it would not work as well for them because it would be much wider and would not fit the buildings, etc. Mr. Roberts stated that there is an advantage to the city allowing Summer Lane to be a pdvate drive. The city does not have the responsibility to maintain or plow the street. Commissioner Dierich asked about the apartment building parking lot emptying out onto a private drive and how it would be maintained. Mr. Roberts stated that there would be access agreements between the preperties to maintain that access. Commissioner Tdppler stated that he was struggling with the issue that the trail goes no where, and comes frem nowhere. He wanted clarification of the purpose of the preposed trail. Mr. Roberts stated that it was simply a matter of previding an opportunity to have access between the two neighborhoods without having to cut threugh somebody's yard or having to go areund four blocks to get there. It provides a pedestrian way to move between the two cul-de-sacs. Commissioner Ledvina stated that he felt that the proposed trail would provide a good access to the gateway trail, east on Ripley and south on DeSoto right to the Gateway trail. Commissioner Rossbach felt that there was a lack of information regarding the existing apartment building. Mr. Howe stated that his development is not buying the apartment building. The whole parcel was owned by Richard Gilbert of Gilbert Investment Company, including the apartment building. He sold the apartment complex to Mr. Doug Happkee, with the condition that Mr. Howe's proposal is completed. He wanted to cladfy that the buyer of the apartment complex has seen the plans for The Gardens and is aware of the changes to the apartment building site. Commissioner Rossbach asked if the city would require some kind of review of the overall-parking situation at the apartment building. Mr. Roberts stated that typically, yes. However, in this situation there were only some minor changes to the south side where the entrance currently came in and staff felt that the proposed plan would be a better plan. Commissioner Mueller asked if there were some rule or regulation regarding changes to a property. At some point, when so many changes have been made, would it be required to bring things up to code. He wanted to know if the apartment building might fall under that rule or regulation. Planning Commission Minutes of 05-21-01 -8- Mr. Roberts stated if a building were damaged to more than 50% of the value, and if rebuilt within a year that they can build with current setbacks without any problems. However, if the owner waits more than a year, the non-conforming codes require them to meet the current standards of the time. The amount of work proposed here on the south side of the parking lot is minor compared to the whole value of the apartment building and they would not be require to meet the current standards. Commissioner Mueller voiced his opinion that he was not "sold" on the proposed trail. His concern is that the neighbors had not been contact and that should be done before going forward. There are also many other questions surround the issue such as snow removal, maintenance, etc. Mr. Roberts stated that if the commission is not comfortable with the proposed trail, they could make the recommendation not to include the trail in the plan. Commissioner Fischer pointed out that in past projects in the city of Maplewood that were targeted for seniors, that many residents liked the idea of being able to take a trail to other neighborhoods, or just having the ability to take a walk. Commissioner Mueller suggested that possibly the developer could put in a walking trail around the proposed pond. Commissioner Tdppler asked why the location for the trail was between Units 11 and 12. He felt that placing it between units 13 and 14 and between Lot 11 and the pond on Ripley would be less disruptive to Lot 11. Mr. Roberts stated that in the proposed development as well as in the existing conditions, that there is an existing sanitary sewer line in the proposed trail area. It is preferable for the City of Maplewood maintenance staff to have a path over the sanitary sewer line to allow easier access. He stated that Mr. Cavett had drawn in an alternative trail path, however there is concerns about the grades in that area. Commissioner Diedch stated that we have set precedence in New Century by doing pdvate to public access and felt that something should be put down on paper or deciding it in code or an ordinance to make it clear what the Commission's expectations are in this type of situation. Commissioner Ledvina stated concern regarding the proposed pond and it's shape. He suggested that it have some shape variation instead of a rectangular shape. Mr. Roberts stated that the Design Review Board would be reviewing the landscaping for the pond area at May 22"a meeting. Commissioner Ledvina asked if the Commission is making a recommendation on the grading plan, that are we essentially agreeing to the developers plan for a rectangular pond with sharp comers. Discussion continued regarding the landscaping, shape and the fencing around the pond. Steve Peters addressed the commission. He stated that the rainwater gardens will be part of the homeowners association, and cannot be filled in. There is an architectural control committee for the association as well as a maintenance committee that is managed by a professional managing company. The association takes care of the snow plowing, the mowing of the lawns and the maintenance of the driveways, and the whole outside of the building. Commissioner Mueller asked if there would be water in the proposed pond continuously. Mr. Cavett stated that looking at the pond north of Ripley he has never seen sitting water and Planning Commission Minutes of 05-21-01 -9- anticipates the proposed pond would function in the same way. During large events there will be standing water until it evaporates or infiltrates. There are too many variables to determine how long water would be stand when faced with a 100-year rain. He felt that the pond should be fenced. Commissioner Ahlness asked the City Engineer about the equalization pipe mentioned in Item 3, B1. Mr. Cavett stated that theoretically the pipe would never be used. But the reason for the pipe is that if one of the ponds got to a 902 elevation, above the 100-year event, that yes, it would overflow into other areas. It is just another safety factor. Commissioner Diedch asked if the pond could go deeper, be shelved and just fence the area in the middle thereby having more design leeway as far as shape. Mr. Cavett stated that the fencing does not have to be at the top of the pond. It should be situated between the first hundred-year event elevation and the second hundred-year event elevation. The principle for fencing is that you never know where the water level will be. Commissioner Rossbach moved that the Commission recommend the City Council approve the Conditional Use Permit Resolution for the Planned Unit Development for the Gardens Development on the east side of McMenemy Street south of Roselawn Avenue. The city bases this approval on findings required by code and approval is subject to the conditions put forth in the Staff Report with the following changes: Strike all references to the Proposed Trail Item A1 a.(1) has been removed Staff report number 2, 3, and 4 become 1, 2, and 3. Item A3 c - these items may have some revisions when the vadous engineers complete work on them. Item ^5 d - is eliminated Item B1 g -Add (1) Investigate the City's position on connecting a trail from a public street to a pdvate street and also review the trails route to align the trail to the east side of Lot 11 on Ripley and passing then between Unit 11 and 12 on Summer Lane. Staff report numbers 1, 2, 3, and 4 become 2, 3, 4, and 5. Item B2 - add item (13) Planning commission recommends to City Council to allow the engineering staff to be more creative with the pond configuration other than the rectangular shape. The motion to approve ends at Item B10. Item C is to be review by the Community Design Review Board at the May 22, 2001 meeting. A. Conditional use permit for a planned unit development for the Gardens development. (Item A3c - these items may have some revisions when the various engineers complete work on them.) All construction shall follow the plans date-stamped May 3, 2001 except where the city requires changes. Such changes shall include: a. Revising the grading and site plans to show: Revised storm water pond locations and designs as suggested or required by the Planning Commission Minutes of 05-21-01 -10- watershed district or city engineer. The ponds shall meet the city's NURP Pond ordinance standards. The developer minimizing the loss or removal of natural vegetation and large trees. These plans shall make every attempt possible to save the double oak clump between Lots 2 and 3, the 8-inch oak tree south of Lot 6 and the basswood dump in front of building 22. Summer Lane must be at least 28 feet wide to allow parking on its north side. The city council may approve major changes to the plans. 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. 3.* Have the city engineer approve final construction and engineering plans. These plans shall include: The grading, utility, drainage, erosion control, streets, driveway, trails, tree preservation/replacement, and parking plans. The cul-de-sac bulb shall have the minimum radius necessary to ensure that emergency vehicles can turn around. b. The following changes for the storm sewer plans: (1) There shall be an equalizer pipe between the proposed north pond and the existing pond south of the site. This equalizer pipe shall be placed at or below 902.0, such that the elevations of both ponds would begin to equalize after either pond was to reach an elevation of 902.0 This equalizer pipe would likely run between Lots 15 and 16. The grades and elevations of the storm sewer shall be designed and installed to prevent any storm sewer flow to the existing pond south of the site until the north pond reaches an elevation of 902.0. (2) The developer shall enclose the new pond with a four-foot-high, black, vinyl-coated chain-link fence. (The fence shall not be six-feet-high as shown on the plans.) The contractor also shall install a gate in the fence as may be required by the city engineer. c. The following for the streets and driveways: 1) Use D412 concrete curb and gutter along the building side (south and east sides) of Summer Lane. (2) Use B618 concrete curb and gutter along the north and west side of Summer Lane between McMenemy Street and Lot 22. (3) Standard gutter-style catch basins to pick up street drainage. Drainage structures that extend into garden areas may be 27-inch or 48-inch catch basins with R-4342 castings. d. A revised storm water management plan for the proposal. e. Using, where at all feasible, the existing 6-inch water service stub when connecting to the water main (rather than open cutting McMenemy Street). f. Providing at least one additional fire hydrant between McMenemy Street and the end of Planning Commission Minutes of 05-21-01 -11- the cul-de-sac, so there are at least two hydrants along Summer Lane. 4. The design of the ponds shall meet Maplewood's NURP pond ordinance standards and shall be subject to the approval of the city engineer. The developer shall be responsible for getting any needed off-site pond and drainage easements, if applicable. 5. The developer or contractor shall: a. Complete all grading for the site drainage and the ponds, complete all public improvements and meet all city requirements. b.* Place temporary orange safety fencing and signs at the grading limits. c. Remove any debris, junk or fill from the site. c~;..i.... ~ ......... .~ ~ ...... . ..,... -r~.;o ~..~. ~.... ~. ...... *~'~' °3";*",~' ....... '; ..... ;~':" thc The parks and recreation director shall approve the location and design. d.Restore all disturbed areas within the pond with a native seed mix approved by the watershed distdct and by the city engineer. 6. The approved setbacks for the principal structures in the Gardens PUD shall be: a. Front-yard setback (from a private driveway): minimum - 20 feet, maximum - 25 feet b. Front-yard setback (public side street): minimum - 30 feet, maximum - 35 feet c. Rear-yard setback: minimum - 30 feet, maximum - none d. Side yard setback: minimum - 10 feet to a property line and 20 feet minimum between buildings 7. 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. 8. The city council shall review this permit in one year. The Gardens townhomes preliminary plat (received by the city on May 3, 2001). 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. Provide all required and necessary easements (including ten-foot drainage and utility easements along the front and rear lot lines of each lot and five-foot drainage and utility easements along the side lot lines of each lot). Planning Commission Minutes of 05-21-01 -12- Have Xcel Energy install Group V rate street lights in at least two locations. One shall be at the intersection of McMenemy Street and the proposed private driveway (Summer Lane) and the other near the intersection of the trail and Summer Lane. The exact style and location shall be subject to the city engineer's approval. e. Pay the city for the cost of traffic-control, street identification and no parking signs. f. Cap, seal and abandon any wells that may be on the site, subject to Minnesota rules and guidelines. g. For the trail, complete the following: (1) (2) The developer shall install a two-rail split-rail fence on both sides of each trail and posts at the end of the trail to prevent motorized vehicles from using the trail. (3) The developer shall build the trail and fencing with the driveways and streets and before the city approves a final plat. (4) The city engineer must approve these plans. h. Install a sign where Summer Lane intersects McMenemy Street indicating that it is a pdvate driveway. Have the city engineer approve final construction and engineering plans. These plans shall include grading, utility, drainage, erosion control, tree, trail, ddveway and street plans. The plans shall meet the following conditions: a. The erosion control plans shall be consistent with the city code. b. The grading plan shall show: (1) The proposed building pad elevation and contour information for each building site. The lot lines on this plan shall follow the approved preliminary plat. (2) Contour information for all the land that the construction will disturb. (3) Building pads that reduce the grading on site where the developer can save large trees. (4) The street, ddveway and trail grades as allowed by the city engineer. (5) All proposed slopes on the construction plans. The city engineer shall approve the plans, specifications and management practices for any slopes steeper than 3:1. On slopes steeper than 3:1, the developer shall prepare and implement a stabilization and planting plan. These slopes shall be protected with wood fiber blanket, be seeded with a no-maintenance vegetation and be stabilized before the city approves the final plat. Planning Commission Minutes of 05-21-01 -13- (6) All retaining walls on the plans. Any retaining walls taller than four feet require a building permit from the city. The developer shall install a protective rail or fence on top of any retaining wall that is taller than four feet. (7) Sedimentation basins or ponds as required by the watershed board or by the city engineer. (8) No grading beyond the plat boundary without temporary grading easements from the affected property owner(s). (9) A minimum of a 10-foot-wide, 10:1 bench below the normal water level (NWL) of any pond designed to be a wet pond. The depth of the pond below the NWL shall not exceed four feet. (10) Emergency overflow swales as required by the city engineer or by the watershed district. The overflow swales shall be 10 feet wide, one foot deep and protected with approved permanent soil-stabilization blankets. (11) Restoration of the pond area being done with native seed mix or vegetation as approved by the city engineer and by the watershed district. This requirement is an addition to the required planting shown on the landscape plan. (12) Drainage areas and the developer's engineer shall provide the city engineer with the drainage calculations. The drainage design shall accommodate the run off from the entire project site and shall not increase the run-off from site. c.* 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. Specifically, the developer shall make every effort to save the double oak clump between Lots 2 and 3, the 8-inch oak tree south of Lot 6 and the basswood clump in front of building 22. (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 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 Austdan pine and other species. (4) Show no tree removal 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 Planning Commission Minutes of 05-21-01 -14- (b) along the trail (d) along the south side of the site to help screen the development from the existing houses to the south (7) Show the planting of at least 71 trees after the site grading is done. d. The street, driveway, trail, and utility plans shall show: (1) (2) An eight-foot-wide bituminous trail between Ripley Avenue and Summer Lane. This trail shall be over the sanitary sewer line within the development site (between buildings 11 and 12) and along the west property line of Lot 11 on the north side of Ripley Avenue. The parks and recreation director shall approve the location and design. The private driveway (Summer Lane) shall be a 9-ton design with a maximum street grade of eight percent and the maximum street grade within 75 feet of all intersections at two percent. (3) Water service to each lot and unit. (4) Repair of McMenemy Street (street and boulevard) after the developer connects to the public utilities and builds the pdvate driveway. (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) The developer enclosing the new pond with a four-foot-high, black, vinyl-coated chain- link fence. (The fence shall not be six-feet-high as shown on the plans.) The contractor also shall install a gate in the fence as may be required by the city engineer. Size and location of the sanitary sewer service for the existing apartment building The private driveways with continuous concrete curb and gutter except where the city engineer decides that it is not needed for drainage purposes. 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. All utility excavations located within the proposed right-of-ways or within easements. The developer shall acquire easements for all utilities that would be outside the project area. (10) The plan and profiles of the proposed utilities. (11) Details of the ponds and the pond outlets. The outlets shall be protected to prevent erosion. The drainage plan shall ensure that there is no increase in the rate of storm water run-off leaving the site above the current (predevelopment) levels. The developer=s engineer shall: (1) Verify pond, inlet and pipe capacities. (2) Have the city engineer verify the drainage design calculations. Planning Commission Minutes of 05-21-01 -15- Pay the costs related to the engineering department=s review of the construction plans. Change the plat as follows: 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. Label the common areas as outlots. c. Show the trails in publicly-owned property or easements. d. Add drainage and utility easements as required by the city engineer. Label the private street as Summer Lane on all plans. Secure and provide all required easements for the development. These shall include any off- site drainage and utility easements. Sign a developers 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. Provide for the repair of McMenemy Street (street, curb and gutter and boulevard) after the developer connects to the public utilities and builds the private driveway. Record the following with the final plat: a. All homeowners association documents. b. Deeds dedicating the necessary stream and wetland buffer easements surrounding the stream and the wetlands. 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. The applicant shall submit the language for these dedications and restrictions to the city for approval before recording. Submit the homeowner's association bylaws and rules to the Director of Community Development. These are to assure that there will be one responsible party for the maintenance of the private utilities, driveways and 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. 10. Obtain a permit from the Ramsey-Washington Metro Watershed District for grading. Planning Commission Minutes of 05-21-01 -16- 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. Commissioner Pearson seconded. Commissioner Pearson added that the residents of Ripley should be surveyed regarding the proposed trail. If they do not want it, and the developer does not want to build it, it serves no purpose. Also he added that the city attorney should review the matter of the trail linking a private and a public street. Ayes - All Motion carries. This proposal goes before the city council on June 11, 2001. VII. VISITORS PRESENTATIONS No visitors were present. VIII. COMMISSION PRESENTATIONS May 14 Council Meeting: Commissioner Pearson reported on this meeting. The Beaver Lake Townhome Development was discussed. There were objections to using open space money for the purchase of the additional land to get the greenway and the width that was necessary. Some felt that these funds were being used to buy the profitability of the development rather than looking at it as buying down the density of the entire development. The development is on hold right now and an environmental assessment worksheet (EAW) will be done by an independent third party. There were objections to the number of rental units, they preferred to see it all owner occupied. There were more discussions about the width of the corridor, which for most of it is well within the requirements. There is a section at the northeast end of it that is not quite as wide as the watershed people were looking at. However, the Watershed was satisfied with how it had worked out. The vote was taken by the council on the environmental assessment worksheet study, that did pass and so this item will be on hold until that comes back. Mr. Roberts added that also at this meeting they did the second reading on the residential parking ordinance that goes into affect on August 1, 2001. The council also enacted a moratorium on pawnshops and currency exchange businesses, that was requested by our City Clerk to look at rewriting that code. They also received a letter from Bob Fletcher the sheriff of Ramsey County stating that he wanted to enact the 120-day notice that he no longer wanted dispatching into county. The council voted to bdng back this issue to the city, probably by October or November. May 29: Commissioner Frost will attend this meeting. The items on that agenda will be the street dght of way vacation for Clark Street and the Montessori school conditional use permit, and the capital improvement plan. C. June 11: Commissioner Rossbach will attend this meeting. Commissioner Mueller commented on the used car lot just north of Amusement City. He also indicated that it seems that Amusement City has carnival workers are parking their equipment there and there are eight to ten RV's and trailers set up. Mr. Roberts commented that the good news is that this is their last summer in business. Commissioner Rossbach commented on a lot on County Road B near the 900 - 1000 block that has a sign stating "clean fill". He wondered if the city has checked to see what they were doing. Mr. Roberts indicated that they are getting ready to build a house on that property and they are required to submit a Planning Commission Minutes of 05-21-01 -17- grading plan. Commission Ledvina stated that he had noted some sedous erosion into the wetland at the DeSoto and Roselawn senior housing project. This area needs repair to the cell fence and cleaning of the wetland out. Commission Fischer asked staff if there was anything on the Thone proposal that they should be looking at in particular. Mr. Roberts stated that there was not. IX STAFF PRESENTATIONS Mr. Roberts asked the Planning Commission to think about any particular sites that they would like to see dudng the City Tour. It will be the last Monday in July - the 30th. Commissioner Mueller suggested Sandy Lake. Commissioner Tdppler suggested the new fire station and the curbing that was established there for the storm water runoff. X. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjoumed at 8:45 p.m.