Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11/25/2003AGENDA MAPLEWOOD COMMUNITY DESIGN REVIEW BOARD Tuesday, November 25, 2003 6:00 P.M. Council Chambers - Maplewood City Hall 1830 County Road B East 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 10. Call to Order Roll Call Approval of Agenda Approval of the October 14, 2003, Minutes Unfinished Business: U.S. Bank Ddveway Curbing Waiver- 1760 Beam Avenue Design Review: a. Metro Transit Station - 1793 Beam Avenue (Old Maplewood Movie II Site) b. Mapleleaf Center Comprehensive Sign Plan Amendment - 2251 Larpenteur Avenue Ashley Furniture - Legacy Village Heritage Square Townhouses - Legacy Village None Scheduled d. Visitor Presentations: Board Presentations Staff Presentations: a, b. Community Design Review Board Vacancy Update Community Design Review Board Representation at the December 8, 2003, City Council Meeting Adjourn I1. III. IV. DRAFT MINUTES OF THE MAPLEWOOD COMMUNITY DESIGN REVIEW BOARD 1830 COUNTY ROAD B EAST, MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA TUESDAY, OCTOBER 14, 2003 CALL TO ORDER Chairperson Ledvina called the meeting to order at 6:01 p.m. ROLL CALL Matt Ledvina Diana Longrie-Kline Linda Olson Ananth Shankar Staff Present: Present Present Present Present Shann Finwall, Associate Planner Lisa Kroll, Recording Secretary APPROVAL OFAGENDA Board member Longrie-Kline moved to approve the agenda. Board member Olson seconded. The motion passed. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Ayes - Ledvina, Longrie-Kline, Olson, Shankar Approval of the CDRB minutes for September 11,2003. Board member Olson asked to change the second from the last paragraph on page 7, in the fourth sentence, altering the word shocking to strong. Board member Shankar moved approval of the minutes of September 11,2003, as amended. Board member Longrie-Kline seconded. The motion passed. UNFINISHED BUSINESS None. Ayes---Ledvina, Longrie-Kline, Olson, Shankar ! Community Design Review Board Minutes 10-14-2003 VI. DESIGN REVIEW a. Draft Mixed-Use Zoning District Ms. Finwall said to ensure the city council reviews the proposed ordinance by the moratorium deadline of October 27, 2003, staff's goal is to present the mixed-use zoning district to the city council for their review at the October 27, 2003, city council meeting. Prior to the city council authorizing the rezoning of the Hillcrest Village redevelopment area to the mixed-use zoning district, staff will present the ordinance to all property owners located in the Hillcrest Village redevelopment area for review and comments. Rezoning of the city's first mixed-use district in the Hillcrest area should then take place by the end of this year. Staff recommends that the CDRB review, comment, and make a recommendation to the city council on the mixed-use zoning ordinance. Board member Olson said previously she asked about porches and entries. She asked if there was a way to define that as "entry/exit" porches as opposed to three/season porches or overhang porches? She doesn't think the category porches and entries are specific enough. Ms. Finwall said the last line in the porches and entries paragraph is more the intent statement and the rest of the paragraph just needs to be better defined to say "front entry" porches. Board member Shankar asked staff if they meant for porches to be on the front and the side of homes or was the intent to have the porches on the front of the houses only? Ms. Finwall said the intent is to increase the aesthetics of the front of the home towards the street. She is not sure that a porch should be mandated but they should be encouraged to add an architectural element and brings people out in front for a livable aspect. Board member Olson said she thinks it is important to have the word "entry" porch or "front entry" in front of the word porch each time. Board member Longrie-Kline asked if this would apply to porches on the back or rear of the home? Chairperson Ledvina said right now that would apply according to the wording in the first sentence. Ms. Finwall said the statement "porches may extend 6 feet into the required setback" should remain. Board member Longrie-Kline said even if the porch is in the front or the back of the house? Ms. Finwall said no, that would be front porches because the backyard setback is so minimal. Chairperson Ledvina said if it is clarified that this applies to front porches and not be restrictive to other types of porches that may solve the dilemma. I Community Design Review Board Minutes 10-14-2003 Board member Longrie-Kline asked what a porch is? Does a porch have walls, screens; are they open, do they have roofs? Maybe we need a better definition of porches and entries? Ms. Finwall said she would write a better definition of porches and entries to better define things. Board member OIson asked if handicap accessible ramps and decking is included in this porch and entry definition or not? Ms. Finwall asked if she meant as far as setbacks? Board member Olson said yes. Ms. Finwall said the existing ordinance allows ramps within the required front yard setback. Board member Olson asked if there were any other code requirements like foundation, materials, or height of railings that should be included? Ms. Finwall said nothing in the zoning code. Board member Olson asked if any of those code requirements should be put into this ordinance? Ms. Finwall said the construction is bound by the building code, which has updates and changes yearly. Chairperson Ledvina said he would suggest that the last sentence in the paragraph be the first sentence in the paragraph for the intent. Board member Olson asked if there would be a need for an emergency vehicle or utility vehicle to access the backyard in between the buildings and is there enough room or is there an alleyway? Ms. Finwall said alleys are encouraged in this zoning district. There will be requirements for easements for drainage and utility as there are for existing subdivisions. These easements are required at a certain width depending on what needed to be done and you cannot build anything in an easement. Board member Olson said if setbacks between a multi-family home and neighboring structure are reduced too tightly and there is no other access from the back, this could be an issue. She has seen instances where utility vehicles have had to gain access in between the buildings and she wanted to make sure this would not create any problems. Ms. Finwall said the city would require a five-foot setback for each detached townhome, for a total setback of 10 feet between buildings. If a greater access area were required, it would be addressed in an easement on the lot. Community Design Review Board Minutes 10-14-2003 4 Chairperson Ledvina said as it relates to easements and access, there will be site plan review prior to construction. He said given the density of these plans they will be scrutinized by the police chief and fire marshal. Board members discussed the material change paragraph and staff decided to revise the definition of material change adding the words front fa(;ade and defining external corner. Board member Shankar asked for clarification for the definition of windows. He is concerned about the sentence "windows being placed at a pedestrian scale or near eye-level". He asked if it could say windows shall extend to a minimum of two feet above the street elevation? What does eye-level mean? Eye-level to the person walking on the street, or the eye-level to the person in the building? Board member OIson said the way that is written it could encourage window peeking and she is not comfortable with the way that is stated. Board member Shankar asked if this was for commercial property? Ms. Finwall said this is for commercial buildings and offices. Ms. Finwall asked if board members were comfortable with the statement "windows shall extend a minimum of two feet to the street elevation"? Chairperson Ledvina said yes. Board member Olson said to remember that we live in Minnesota and there may be snow pushed up against the windows at that height. Ms. Finwall said they put in a clause regarding exceptions so if an applicant came in with a design where the windows were three feet high above street level, the board may consider that an acceptable exception to the design standards. Chairperson Ledvina said on page 8 of the staff report he would be comfortable calling the last paragraph "Building fa~;ade" and not "Building faCade width" since the paragraph says more in the paragraph than just building width such as modulation and arcades, awnings and window bays. Ms. Finwall said if the CDRB feels comfortable allowing her to make the changes they discussed this evening then she will bring this back to the planning commission on October 20, 2003, and then it may go to the city council for review on October 27, 2003. The board agreed that would be fine. VII. VISITOR PRESENTATIONS No visitors present. I Community Design Review Board Minutes 10-14-2003 VIII. BOARD PRESENTATIONS IX. None. STAFF PRESENTATIONS a. Interview of Applicants for CDRB Membership Ms. Finwall said there are three applicants for the community design review board (CDRB) vacancy, which include Jeffrey Bartol, Larry Hendrickson, and Roger Posch. The three applicants are to be interviewed and ranked by the board. The vacancy is for the remainder of Craig Jorgenson's two-year term that would end January 1,2004. a. Jeffrey Bartol, 2702 Pinkspire Lane, Maplewood. Mr. Bartol said he moved to south Maplewood last March and prior to that he lived in St. Paul in the Como area for over 20 years. After moving from St. Paul he felt guilty never having given back to the city. When he moved to Maplewood he made a personal commitment to give back to the city and that is why he is applying for this board position. Chairperson Ledvina asked if Mr. Bartol understood the commitment of being on this board that meets at 6:00 p.m. twice a month on the second and fourth Tuesday's of the month? Mr. Bartol said yes, he has a flexible work schedule and there should not be any difficulty making the meeting dates and times. Chairperson Ledvina asked Mr. Bartol if he had any problems taking time to read the packets that are sent in the mail and going out to do site inspections prior to the meeting time? Mr. Bartol said his work schedule is very flexible and he has no problem taking time in the evening to read the packets and leaving work a bit early to do the site inspections. Chairperson Ledvina asked Mr. Bartol what development he thinks was done well in Maplewood? Mr. Bartol said he likes the New Century development in his neighborhood with the Arts and Craftsman style homes that have been built. They did a very nice job combining single family and multi-family dwellings together with a very high standard making the neighborhood look nice. Each home has its own architectural detail and character and it all blends in so well. Chairperson Ledvina asked Mr. Bartol if there was anything he didn't like that was developed in Maplewood? Mr. Bartol said he would be reluctant to come up with a derogatory or critical statement of the city. Because of the shape of Maplewood he thinks the city is challenged with being surrounded by other suburbs. I Community Design Review Board Minutes 10-14-2003 Board member Shankar said he noticed Mr. Bartol applied for the opening on the planning commission as well as the board. He asked Mr. Bartol which opening he was more interested in? Mr. Bartol said he is interested in both the commission and the board opening and will be going before the city council as an applicant for both openings. Board member Olson said Mr. Bartol's application says he has a background in architecture and she would like more information on that background? Mr. Bartol said architecture was his first love when he was a child. He attended the University of Minnesota for his Bachelor degree in architecture. He also worked for Ellerbe Architects as a junior draftsman/architect. Working with the CAD system he gravitated towards his second love, which was computers. BeCause of his love for computers he continued in that field and has not practiced architecture for years now. Board member Longrie-Kline asked Mr. Bartol what he does in his current position? Mr. Bartol said he does a fair amount of project management, systems integration, needs assessment, computer database integration, and Internet data exchange. Board member Shankar asked if Mr. Bartol's passion was more towards setbacks, wetland, and density issues, which would be approved by the planning commission or would it be towards aesthetics, building materials, and landscaping, which would be approved by the community design review board? Mr. Bartol said he is torn and the planning commission asked the same question of him in his last interview. He would enjoy working with either group and he feels he is qualified for either opening. b. Larry Hendrickson, 1930 Price Avenue, Maplewood. Mr. Hendrickson said he has lived in the city over 14 years now. He has worked for 3M for 24 years now and his job function is sewing surplus and byproducts and many other things in between. He has communication skills and leads the organizational effort in both the newsletter and both work-based products at 3M. Prior to working at 3M he worked in residential and commercial construction. Chairperson Ledvina said the community design review board meets the second and fourth Tuesday's of each month at 6:00 p.m. and he asked if that would be a problem with Mr. Hendrickson's schedule? Mr. Hendrickson said no. Chairperson Ledvina asked if Mr. Hendrickson had any questions or comments regarding what was discussed at the meeting tonight? Mr. Hendrickson said no questions but he thinks the input the board members offered to the staff is very valuable. Community Design Review Board Minutes 10-14-2003 '7 Chairperson Ledvina asked if Mr. Hendrickson could give an example of a recent development that he felt was done very well in terms of building and site design? Mr. Hendrickson said he thinks the city hall is a great service to the community. He likes the senior housing that has been developed in the city and there is a definite need for it. The Maplewood Mall needs some very good guidance and redevelopment is key to the area. Board member Longrie-Kline asked Mr. Hendrickson would he prefer that the building be renovated and be with an architectural plan and develop something new. if there was an old building in the city reused as a new use or totally start new Mr. Hendrickson said in St. Louis, Missouri, they took a huge old train depot and added new shops and a hotel inside it. Aesthetically, it looks phenomenal, so he would prefer to reuse the building depending on the condition. Board member Longrie-Kline asked Mr. Hendrickson what he does with web-based applications in his job? Mr. Hendrickson said his organization communicates to the external and internal customers and clients. They have an "lnternet" and an "intranet" to communicate items of interest, and surplus equipment that is available. The intranet is a marketing tool of resource recovery and they conduct some monthly sales and advertisements at the distribution center. The rest is confidential information. Board member Longrie-Kline said the reason she asked is that the city is moving towards a paperless society with the Internet. One day the public will access the city's Internet site for board packet information and access information so the public can be more knowledgeable. One-day society will be a paperless world and this will be very important to use web-based applicants. Mr. Hendrickson said it is a very good marketing tool and with all the ecological issues today paper will be a thing of the past. It will not be easy and it can be done but the end result will be phenomenal. Board member Olson asked what Mr. Hendrickson's background is in construction and landscaping and what could he contribute to the board? Mr. Hendrickson said he can read blue prints and can understand the infrastructure of the house and the elevations. He can look at something for the aesthetics and has the ability to decide if something will look sharp or not. As far as landscaping, he does not have a formal background in landscaping other than by trial and error. He said he could offer the board his perception of what would look nice. Board member Shankar asked Mr. Hendrickson what the drawbacks and potential are for White Bear Avenue? Mr. Hendrickson said traffic is the number one drawback of White Bear Avenue. He sees pockets of development that need to be redeveloped. He uses the roundabout at English and Frost and thinks it would be nice to have more in the city. Community Design Review Board 8 Minutes 10-14-2003 Mr. Hendrickson said the city has some big issues with the population increasing and the traffic growing and the roundabout idea may help traffic in certain areas. c. Roger Posch, 1583 County Road B, Maplewood. Chairperson Ledvina asked Mr. Posch to tell the board something about himself? Mr. Posch said he grew up in North St. Paul and has lived in his current home in Maplewood for 24 years now. He worked at West Publishing for 22 years, and was downsized, and now he works for Coldwell Banker Burnet Realty as a realtor in north Maplewood. He has two children in first and second grade at Weaver Elementary. He does volunteer work at school and church and is a member of the Red Cross. Chairperson Ledvina said the board meets the second and fourth Tuesday's of each month at 6:00 p.m. he asked Mr. Posch if that would be a problem with his schedule? Mr. Posch said no. Chairperson Ledvina asked Mr. Posch if he would have any problem reviewing the packets that come in the mail and going out to do site inspections prior to the meeting? Mr. Posch said no. Chairperson Ledvina asked Mr. Posch if he had any questions or comments in regards to the proceedings at this evenings meeting? Mr. Posch said no. Chairperson Ledvina asked Mr. Posch if he could give an example of developments in Maplewood that he thinks were done well regarding aesthetics and design? Mr. Posch said he thinks Maplewood Mall was done well because of the relationship to the freeway. Chairperson Ledvina asked if there was something more recently developed such as in the last five years? Mr. Posch said no, not off-hand. Board member Olson asked if he has any experience in reading blueprints and working with different types of landscaping and plant identification? Mr. Posch said he studied architectural drafting after he finished high school. The house that he is in he had built so he studied the blueprints. As far as landscaping he has been doing neighbors landscaping for some extra money. Plant identification he is not familiar with yet. Board member Olson asked Mr. Posch if he were presented with a landscaping plan would he be able to decide if the landscaping was too sparse and needed some additional plantings? Community Design Review Board Minutes 10-14-2003 Mr. Posch said yes. Board member Longrie-Kline asked what Mr. Posch does in his position? Mr. Posch said he is a realtor. Board member Longrie-Kline asked if it is residential or commercial real estate? Mr. Posch said residential. Board member Longrie-Kline said she noticed on his application that Mr. Posch wanted to be a voice for his neighborhood? Mr. Posch said in the past he has talked to people and many people are not aware of what is going on in the city. He said he would go door to door and let people know what is going on in the city. Board member Longrie-Kline said that takes a lot of personal commitment, she asked if Mr. Posch has that kind of time on his hands? She asked if he would see his role on the board as a collaborative of not just driving around to the sites but going to the residents homes and letting them know about future developments and for their input? Mr. Posch said he has not done anything yet because he is not on the board yet but if he were on the board that is what he would do. Many people don't have the time to come to the meetings at the city hall and that is why he would go and knock on doors. Board member Longrie-Kline asked Mr. Posch if he has a lot of spare time because that is a very time consuming job. Mr. Posch said he would make that kind of time. Board member Olson asked as a realtor if he works with developers? Mr. Posch said no he does not; he works with existing residential homeowners. Board member Shankar said there are several car dealerships on Highway 61 and he asked if there was one dealership in particular that catches Mr. Posch's eye as far as building design? Mr. Posch said by KSTP Maplewood Imports has a nice building design and the Saturn dealership somewhere. Board member Olson asked if Mr. Posch sees anything in the city that he has a concern for that the board may be able to help address? Mr. Posch said no not at the moment. ! Community Design Review Board Minutes 10-14-2003 tO The board rated each candidate. The candidate with the lowest score is the person the board will recommend to the city council. Jeffrey Bartol received 4 points Larry Hendrickson received 9 points Roger Posch received 11 points. The candidates for the board opening will be interviewed on October 27, 2003, by the city council. Board member Longrie-Kline asked if the packets would be online in the computer? Ms. Finwall said she thought the packets were already online. After checking further with the department secretary we found out that currently the city council and planning commission packets are scanned onto the Internet and the community design review board packets will soon also be scanned. X. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 7:40 p.m. T MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: SUBJECT: LOCATION: DATE: City Manager Tom Ekstrand, Assistant Community Development Director Curbing-Waiver Time Extension - U.S. Bank 1760 Beam Avenue November 4, 2003 INTRODUCTION Richard Schreier, owner of the U. S. Bank property, is requesting a one-year time extension to postpone the installation of curbing along the ddveway to Beam Avenue for U. S. Bank. Refer to the maps on pages 3-5 and Mr. Schreier's letter on page 6. BACKGROUND Past Actions November 23, 1999: The community design review board (CDRB) approved the plans for the U. S. Bank on Beam Avenue. The ddveway in question was not proposed at that time, but was anticipated in the future when the adjacent land developed. Dudng the construction of U. S. Bank, Mr. Schreier received a driveway permit to extend this ddveway as it is now. Staff required that he curb the ddveway according to code requirements. November 14, 2000: The CDRB considered a request by Mr. Schreier that they waive the curbing requirement. He explained that curbing would be a waste of money and materials since he would be developing this parcel in the future. Staff concurred and recommended that Mr. Schreier install posts with reflectors along the edge of the ddveway to mark the ddveway to help keep cars and snowplows on the pavement. In addition to this condition, the CDRB recommended that this waiver end in three years, by November 14, 2003. Code Requirement Section 44-17(c) of the city code states that the CDRB can waive the curbing requirement in instances where the city engineer has determined that sheet drainage over ground would improve stormwater quality. The entire curbing ordinance is on page 7. DISCUSSION Three years ago, the applicant installed the posts as required. They are no longer in place. Consequently, ddvers have cut the inside curve short and have damaged the grass. The purpose of the posts was to prevent this in lieu of a six-inch updght curb. As was the case three years ago, the applicant is requesting that the CDRB again waive the curbing requirement since he is in negotiations with an office building and a restaurant to occupy the abutting property. Staff agrees that it is wasteful to install curbing if it would be removed with the development of the adjacent property. The problem, though, is when would this development happen? I recommend that the CDRB grant a one-year time extension. If the city does not see any evidence of the pending development of this lot by next year, the city should consider not extending this waiver again and require that Mr. Schreier install the curbing. The applicant should be required now, however, to reinstall the reflectodzed posts in the placement previously agreed upon (see page 9) and to repair the grass. The assistant city engineer suggested that this area be seeded and covered by a straw or wood-fiber blanket to prevent erosion and washout. RECOMMENDATION Extend the curbing waiver for the U.S. Bank driveway to Beam Avenue for one year, subject to Mr. Schreier doing the following: Reinstalling posts with reflectors to mark the ddveway curb cut and ddveway curvature to help keep vehicles on the pavement and prevent damage to the grass. The applicant shall install these posts by December 10, 2003. Placement of these posts shall be in accordance with the plan approved by staff dated November 15, 2000. 2. Seeding and applying a straw or wood-fiber blanket to prevent erosion and washout to the damaged grass in the inside curve of the ddveway also by December 10, 2003. The applicant may appeal the community design review board's decision to the city council within 15 days of their action. To appeal the board's decision, the applicant must submit a letter to staff by December 10, 2003. Staff will then schedule this item for council review. p: sec 3\USBank. curbing.rev Attachments 1. Location Map 2. Property Line/Zoning Map 3. Site Plan 4. Letter from Richard Schreier dated October 28, 2003 5. Curbing Ordinance 6. Fax Transmittal to Tom Schutte of Azure ProperlJes dated November 15, :2000 7. Post-Placement Plan dated November 15, 2000 A::acnmen: VADNAIS HEIGHTS COUNTY COUNTY 1. SUMMIT CT. 2. COUNTRYVIEW CIR. 5. DULUll~ CT. 4.. LYOIA ST. KOHl. MAN BROOKS EDGEHILL RD. COUNTY COURT KQHt. MAN GERVAIS AVE.. Z Z ~J Lake AV~.. A~... COP~ AVF_ 1 JUNCTION AVE. ROSEWOOg AVl[. N. LOCATION MAP Attachment BIRCH RUN STATION SHOPPING CENTER · / . ,, ?~,-, ' 2.~'7-~ -,,,- L01['-8~BLK~I .I OLIVE GARDEN $.oo ac. .( VILLAGE OF' I'~APLE¥j/OOD "" (-~ OUTBACK STEAKH~E'~' / MAPLEWOOD MALL 191:, 9& 0e' MAPLEWOOD II MOVIE THEATRES i2836;38 I imm 281~. .R A. DAT Z 4 ~ T f I ~ I ~] I ' I Attachment 3 DRIVEWAY CONNECTION _ PUDDLE BANK' BEAM AVENUE OUTBACK STEAKHOUSE PROPOSED U.S. BANK OUTBACK STEAKHOUSE SITE PLAN October 28, 2003 AZURE PR OPER TIES P.O. BOX 17830 ST. PA UL, MN 55117- 7830 (651) 484-0070 (FAX) 486-3444 Attachment 4 Tom Ekstrand City of Maplewood Office of Community Development 1830 East County Road B Maplewood, MN 55109 RE: Beam Avenue Driveway US Bank Maplewood, MN Dear Tom, Kindly extend the November 2003 requirement that curbing be installed to the US Bank, Beam Avenue driveway for another year. We are in negotiations with an office building and a restaurant to occupy this property. The parking lot will be completed and the curbing will be re-configured. Kindly reply to this request when convenient. Sincerely, Richard d. Schreief Azure Properties RJS/kl ! Attachment 5 ZONING § 44-17 include offices, industrial schools, churches, research, multiple dwellings, motels, sit-down restaurants and similar uses. Any questions on defining these uses shall be referred to the community design review board for a decision. (6) Employee park~ug with reduced stall widths must be signed for employee parking only. (c) All parking lots shall have continuous concrete curbing surrounding the exterior perimeter of the parking lot and drives. Park parking lots, that are not used in the winter, and parking lots having 12 spaces or less are exempt from this requirement, unless required by the city engineer for drainage control. The community design review board may waive the curbing rec[uirement when the citer engineer has determined that sheet drainage over ground would[ improve stormwater quality. The community design review board may allow continuous bitumiuous curbing temporarily on a case-by-case basis, subject to the following conditions: (1) Bitnm~uous curbing may be permitted for phased or staged developments where an adjacent future development phase would be built that would result in the removal of the curbing. (2) Bit-m~nous curbing shall not be allowed for more than three years from the time of installation, at which time it must be removed due to the construction of a future phase of development or simply replaced with permanent continuous concrete curbing. (8) Bituminous curbing shall not be permitted if the city engineer requires concrete curbing for drainage control. (4) Bituminous curbing that becomes damaged shall be repaired immecliately or as soon as the weather permits. (5) The city may require that the developer provide escrow to cover the replacement of the bituminous curbing with concrete curbing. (d) All park~ug lots shall be continually and properly maintained. (e) All parking lots and associated driveways shall have a surface ofbit-m~uous material or concrete and single-striped parking spaces. (f) The city may require a ten-foot-wide planter or median strip every three or four parking bays to prevent high speed movement diagonally across the parking lot and to improve esthetics. Refer to the following diagram: U l-'li'l Il t'!:J'l.! ~ CD44:27 Together We Can FAX TRANSMITTAL Attachment 6 TO: FROM: SUBJECT: DATE: Tom. Schutte, Azure Properties Tom Ekstrand, City of Maplewood U.S. Bank Driveway Connection to Beam Avenue November 15, 2000 Tom, last night the community design review board waived the curbing requirement for the curVed driVeway that runs from the U.S. Bank Parking lot to Beam Avenue. They waived the curbing based _on the following reasons: .1. Though negligible, sheet drainage over ground would improve storm-water qual' ry. The driveway in question-is temporary.. Requiring curbing would be a waste of money and' materials because this site will be developed and a proper grading/drainage plan implemented.: The board conditioned this waiver upon the.following: 1. Mr. Schreier Shall install poSts with reflectors tomark the driveway curb cut and driveway curVature to helP keep cars and snow plows onthe pavement-and, prevent damage to the grass. The number.and plaCement of reflectorized posts shall.be subject to staff approval'. .- ' ' 2' These postsshall be installed by November 30, 2000. 3. This waiver shall end in three years. At that time, concrete curbing' must be provided along both. sides of the driveway. As you requested, I am enclosing a site plan showing locations where the reflectorized posts should be installed. To determine the placement of these.posts, I inspected the site. People have already been dri,ving off ofthe pavement and damagingthe grass. I, therefore, have' shown posts at the points of the curVe where cars'left the pavement and at. spots in between. The posts should also mark the ends of straight portions of the driveWay. Please let me know if the enclosed drawing is not clear. TO: Tom Schutte FROM: FAX~ (651) 486-3444 PHONE: PAGES: 2 FAX~ Tom'Ekstrand, City of Maplewood (651) 770-4563 (651) 748-3096 OFFICE OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 8 651- 770- 4560 CITY Of MAPLEWOOD 1 i I830 EAST COUNTY ROAD b MAPLEWOOD, MN 55109 I I I I Attachment 7 DRIVEWAY CONNECTION BEAM AVENUE BANK' PROPOSED U.S. BANK OUTBACK STEAKHOUSE OU.TBACK STEAKHOUSE SITE PLAN MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: SUBJECT: DATE: City Manager Tom Ekstrand, Assistant Community Development Director Maplewood Mall Transit Center and Park/Ride October 20, 2003 INTRODUCTION Mr. Chds Weyer, of Metro Transit, is requesting approval of plans for a proposed transit center and park/ride lot on the former Maplewood II Movie Theatre property southwest of the Maplewood Mall. Metro Transit has purchased this property and removed the theatre for the proposed transit center. Refer to the Location Map on page 2, Mr. Weyer's narrative on page 3 and the plans for a description of the proposal. In short, the transit center would have 426 parking stalls, ten of which would be handicap accessible. There would be four motorcycle stalls as well. The center would also serve bus traffic and serve as a hub for up to 12 bus routes. The site would be upgraded with landscaping, new lights and secudty cameras. The proposed transit-center building would be brick and glass. BACKGROUND On October 13, 2003, Mr. Weyer presented this proposal to the city council at their council/manager workshop session. The Ramsey County Traffic engineer has approved the proposed access drive to Beam Avenue. DISCUSSION This project would be attractive and would serve the community's transit needs. RECOMMENDATION Approve the plans date-stamped October 20, 2003, for the Maplewood Mall Transit Center and Park/Ride at the northeast comer of Beam Avenue and Southlawn Ddve. p:Sec2N\MetroTransit. MallTransitHub. des Attachments 1. Location Map 2. Narrative 3. Plans (separate attachment date-stamped October 20, 2003) Attach ment 1 COUNI~ ROAD SUMMIT CT. COUNTRYVIEW CIR. DULUTH CT. LYDIA AVE.. ST. dOHN'S BLVD. COUNTY COURT WOODLYNN RD. LOCATION MAP T [ ~ I I MetroTransit Attachment 3 Maplewood Mall Transit Center and Park/Ride For several years Metro Transit has been attempting to create a combined transit center and park and ride at Maplewood Mall. In December of 2002, the former site of the Maplewood II Theater was acquired for this purpose. Since then, Metro Transit has been preparing a design for this facility. Included are several sheets reflecting the proposed facility. Construction :of the transit center is currently scheduled to begin in the spring of 2004. The facility inc'ludes fin island platform for loading and unloading passengers, passenger waiting shelters, a parkinglot fOr park and ride passengers, signage, and landscaping. The transit center is designed to accommOdate up to twelve bus routes, with up to ten buses staged at any given time. At present, six local and three express bus routes will utilize this location. Metro Transit staff crea.te_d a Plan allowing several bus routes to share the same loading areas, reducing the total necessary staging area. The main.shelter combines operator restrooms as well as a heated, enclosed passenger waiting area. The appearance of this shelter is similar to existing transit centers in Columbia Heights and 'at the Sun Ray Shopping Center in St. Paul. In addition, a standard passenger shelter is also to be installed on each end of the island. A pedestrian crosswalk will be provided through the island-area, as ¢~ell as across the mall ring road. A flashing crosswalk indicator and sign will also be installed at the ring road. Metro Transit intends to work cooperatively with Maplewood Mall to ensure the safety of the passengers arriving and departing from this facility. The parking lot is designed to accommodate 426 stalls, including 10 handicap accessible and 4 motorcycle stalls. The park and ride currently located at the Maplewood I Theater will be relocated to the site upon completion of this project. Bus operations that are currently occurring near the eastern malI entrance will also be relocated to this site once the transit center is constructed. Security cameras are scheduled for installation at various locations at both the transit Center and in the parking lot. New lighting upgrades at the transit center and in the parking lot are also included. This facility will provide a permanent location for transit customers to access Maplewood Mall .and to make transfers be. tween routes. The park and ride will provide expanded commuter parking capacity for express routes servicing downtown Minneapolis, downtown St. Paul, and the University of Minnesota. RECEIVED OCT 2 0 2002 3 A service of the Metropolitan Council 560 Sixth Avenue North http://www, metrotran sit.org Minneapolis, Minnesota 55411-4398 (612) 349-7400 Transit Info 373-3333 TTY 341-0140 An Equal Opportunity Employer MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: SUBJECT: APPLICANT: LOCATION: DATE: Richard Fursman, City Manager Shann Finwall, Associate Planner Comprehensive Sign Plan Amendment Mapleleaf Center 2251 Larpenteur Avenue November 19, 2003 INTRODUCTION Project Description The Community Design Review Board (CDRB) approved a comprehensive sign plan for the Mapleleaf Center at 2251 Larpenteur Avenue on February 15, 1978. The plan allows each tenant one wall sign to be placed above their tenant space facing Larpenteur Avenue. The Mapleleaf Center tenants are requesting an amendment to their comprehensive sign plan in order to allow additional wall signage on the east side of the building, toward McKnight Road (refer to plans attached on pages 3 through 5). Request The city's sign code requires that multi-tenant buildings with five or more tenants have a comprehensive sign plan approved by the CDRB. The applicants are requesting an amendment to the Mapleleaf Center's February 15, 1978, comprehensive sign plan. DISCUSSION The property currently has one 20-foot-tall freestanding sign located on the corner of Larpenteur Avenue and McKnight Road. This sign displays "Mapleleaf Center" and has seven small plates for the display of tenants in the building. In addition to the freestanding sign, each tenant has one wall sign located above their tenant space. Mr. Stefan Jones recently purchased the existing coffee/ice cream business located on the east side of the Mapiel.eaf Center. This business has been renamed Twin City Scoops from the previous business of Caife Loon. In order to create more visibility for his new business, Mr. Jones requested a sign on the east side of the building, toward McKnight Road. Because the intent of the comprehensive sign plan is to ensure consistency in signage for multi- tenant buildings, staff recommended that Mr. Jones work with the other tenants to create a comprehensive sign for all tenants. All seven tenants have expressed an interest in additional signage and are proposing a 16-foot-wide by 4.5-foot-tall (72 square foot) wall sign. The sign will display all seven tenants' businesses and will be placed on the east wall, toward McKnight Road. The sign will be constructed of duracore fiberglass, framed by a maroon-colored border to match the center's mansard roof, and will be illuminated by five decorative cowl lights hung above the sign. The sign code allows wall signage up to 20 percent of the gross wall area on which the sign is attached. The east-facing wall of the Mapleleaf Center is 2,000 square feet in area. Twenty percent of this area would allow a sign up to 400 square feet. A comprehensive sign plan creates specific sign requirements over and above the city's sign code, but this figure is presented as an example of the size of sign that a freestanding business could have in this location. Because of this example, the proposed 72 square foot wall sign seems reasonable. In addition, staff finds the sign acceptable because the style of sign proposed is more residential in nature, which will be compatible with the residential uses to the north of the property, and the sign will help keep the businesses in the center viable. RECOMMENDATION Approve Mapleleaf Center's comprehensive sign plan amendment subject to the following conditions (changes from the odginal 7/16/78 sign plan conditions are indicated): The freestanding sign is approved but shall be limited to 20 feet in height displaying the "Mapleleaf Center" and tenant names. '''~ '''~ ..... "I-"--' "'~' ...... ~'-- ",-,-,~-, ')~ ~, ..... "~-o~' be cra!ti, ed. The rccderbccrd ch=!! =!cc be cmi,',ed. The sign shall observe a 10-foot minimum setback from property lines. Additional secudty lighting shall be installed on top of the 20-foot freestanding sign and shall not shine onto adjacent properties or roadways. 2....~. Each tenant shall be limited to the followinq wall si,qns: Individual tenant identification signs located on the mansard roof shall be limited to a height of 18 inches. Content of mansard signs shall include the name of the individual establishment, such as "Daisy Realtors". Mansard letters shall not be applied more than two high and shall not extend closer than two feet on either side to the border of each tenant's rental area. This mansard signage shall be individual letters, internally illuminated, of a single color, and mounted directly to the building by concealed fasteners. T~,~ ,;~.~.,;..~, ~,~ ,~, ......... '~ sight ~'"" ~'~ One 16-foot-wide by 4.5-foot-tall (72 square foot) wall si.qn displayin.q all seven tenants to be located on the east side of the buildinq. Si.qn to be illuminated by five decorative cowl li.qhts installed above the si.qn. Surface material shall be repaired followinq removal of si.qn. 3.._~. All signage below the mansard roof shall be located on the doors. All illuminated signs shall be extinguished no later than 11 p.m. or when the business is closed. There shall be provided additional exterior lighting consisting of a 10-foot high decorative light standard installed on each side of the entrance drives. Exterior lights, except for secudty lighting to be extinguished after business hours. The city shall retain the dght to review and to require modification of any extedor lighting, which causes any undue glare and/or reflection. 6.._~. Owner and applicant agree to the above conditions in wdting. All work shall follow the approved plans. The director of community development may approve minor chanqes. p:com-dev\sec14\Mapleleaf comp sign plan Attachments: 1. Location Map 2. Site Plan 3. Sign Elevation Mapleleaf Center 2 November 19, 2003 I Attachment 1 685 I 1762 1765 1 1755 1750 1742 ~_] 1732 1737 []1724 1709 1702  1695 2243 I 177:~r'1 I~ 229u ~ ' ' ' zozo 176~66 ' ~7~2"~,~ " ~722 ~7~0~ ]-173~1 16841687168~ ' · '~s3 ~ I L 2391 169o LARPENTEUR AVE E t643 ~ I0 t~ 1641 1628 / ~o~ I m ! ,,,,j \ ? North LOCATION MAP Attachment 2 E A PARKING I I North SITE PLAN I Attachment 3 Safeway PIZZA. _1~ School , ~, Insurance ~ ~ Maplewood D~ ~ ~ · ~~ · ~ ~ ~ Dental Sign Plans 16 ft. by 4.5 ft. White with black lettering Illuminated by five exterior decorative cowl lights SIGN ELEVATION MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: SUBJECT: LOCATION: DATE: City Manager Tom Ekstrand, Assistant Community Development Director Design Review- Ashley Furniture Southwest Comer of Southlawn Ddve and County Road D November 13, 2003 INTRODUCTION Mr. David Baillie, of Furniture Outlets USA, Inc., is requesting approval of design plans for an Ashley Furniture store at the southwest comer of Southlawn Ddve and County Road D. Refer to pages 8-9. The city council conceptually approved a furniture store in this location when they council approved the Legacy Village planned unit development last July. The proposed store would be a two-story bdck and E.I.F.S. (exterior insulation finish system) structure. It would have 48,558 square feet of foundation area. Refer to the plans. The proposed building would be situated close to the County Road D and Southlawn Drive right-of- way lines in keeping with the reduced-setbacks envisioned for this site and for Legacy Village overall. It would have a 15-foot setback from each street right-of-way line. The council required a front setback for this building of up to 15 feet. BACKGROUND July 14, 2003: The city council approved the planned unit development, comprehensive plan amendment, tax-abatement plan and preliminary plat for Legacy Village. Refer to page 10 for the city council's conditions of approval and development guidelines for Ashley Furniture. September 8, 2003: The city council approved the final plat for Legacy Village. October 13, 2003: The city council approved a change order to the Kennard Street construction plans to include additional street right-of-way width for the proposed parallel parking spaces shown on the Heritage Square Town House plans. DISCUSSION Building Design and Screening/Landscaping/Trash Buildin.q Desi.qn The design of the proposed building is attractive, but staff feels that it should be treated somewhat more decoratively in the following areas: both street sides, the westerly elevation and in the dock/trash area. Street Sides The front elevation of the proposed building faces south. This far.~,ade is the most decorative side and has received the best attention with materials, design and architectural accents. Staff's concern is that the two street sides, being very visible elevations, should not be treated with any less attention to detail as the front (south) side. The angled fac.~,ade facing the intersection is very attractive but this detailing wanes along these two sides with decreasing amounts of brick and fewer accents such as the glass-block details. Staff recommends that the plans be revised to provide as much brick on these elevations as is shown on the south side, along with the application of the glass-block accents. Westerly Elevation The westedy elevation is the plainest fa?.ade of the building, although, the amount of bdck has been increased over that proposed on the street sides. To soften this large wall surface, staff recommends that the applicant provide additional landscaping. Trash/Dock Area The proposed building orientation provides the better views of the store from streets and the parking lot. It places the dock and trash area, however, in the closest proximity to the future multi-family housing to the southwest. Every effort should be made to reduce the potential negative impact on these future residents. Staff recommends substantial evergreen screening to try to block the view of this area. The driveway opening hinders the proper screening of this area, but any additional landscaping that can be installed would help. To maintain consistent building treatment and aesthetics, this dock area should be treated with the same extedor materials as the rest of the building. Staff would recommend the continuation of brick, E.I.F.S and building crown and cornice treatments as proposed on the rest of the building. The applicant's architects said they would carry these materials throughout this area. Screening/Landscapin.q/Trash As is the case with the trash area, the landscaping plan should be further developed to provide more substantial screening for the future multi-dwelling residents. Staff recommends that the applicant plant evergreen trees along the west side of the parking lot for a year-round screen to hide, or at least soften, the view of the parking lot. The proposed landscaping elsewhere on the site is acceptable with one exception. The trees on the County Road D frontage near the retaining wall and valley gutter create an unusual planting issue. In his report described below, Chris Cavett, the assistant city engineer, discusses his recommendation that this valley-gutter system be replaced with a storm-water infiltration system. With the revision of the drainage plan as recommended by Mr. Cavett, the applicant should also revise the landscaping plan for this area. Parking When the council reviewed the PUD for Legacy Village, the site plan for the furniture store, though conceptual, proposed 137 parking spaces with 49 more "proof of parking" spaces. The current plan proposes 145 parking spaces-four of these would be for handicap-accessible parking. The city code does not have a clear parking requirement for a large fumiture store such as this. As an example, with Slumbedand to the north, the strictest interpretation of the code would have required them to provide 175 parking spaces for their 39,000 square foot building. (One parking space for each 200 square feet of floor area.) The approved site plan allowed 70 spaces with 20 proof-of-parking spaces. Their 70 spaces even proved to be too many for their needs. Staff feels that the 145 proposed spaces are more than needed for Ashley Furniture. The applicant could convert the 45 spaces, along the west and south sides of the site to "proof of parking" and they would still have adequate parking remaining with 100 spaces. Staff recommends that the applicant revise the plans to reduce the amount of parking proposed as described above. These areas should be designated as proof-of-parking. Sidewalks/Trails The applicant's plans propose a sidewalk along the County Road D frontage and along part of the Southlawn Ddve frontage from "D" to the northerly driveway. The applicant should extend this sidewalk along Southlawn Ddve to their southerly lot line since a sidewalk was intended along the Southlawn Drive frontage in the Legacy Village approval. The Legacy Village plans also included an east-west trail through the development as part of the regional Lakes-Link trail. In relation to the Ashley Furniture site, this trail was proposed to run along the southerly edge of their property. Now a more logical placement is found to be between the parking lot and the proposed holding pond. This revised location makes sense because there is not sufficient room available on the north side of Legacy Parkway because of the electdc tower. Staff recommends that the applicant dedicate a 15-foot-wide trail easement and grade this area for the trail installation. The city will install the trail. Site Lighting The site lighting around the south side of the building and the parking lot has the potential to be a nuisance for the future residential units to the west. The photometric plan, in fact, indicates that there are areas along the west and east lot lines that exceed the .4 footcandle maximum allowed by the code. The lighting proposal should be modified to meet the .4 footcandle maximum at lot lines. Regardless of meeting this maximum, there is still a great potential for a lighting nuisance for the nearby future residents. Staff recommends that the parking lot lights be turned off after business hours. They must also be of a fixture design that fully conceals the bulbs and lenses as code requires. Engineering Comments Refer to Chds Cavett's comments in the report on page 11. I included Mr. Cavett's comments as conditions in the Recommendation below. Building Official's Comments Refer to the memo on page 12 from Dave Fisher, the Maplewood Building Official. Comprehensive Sign Plan In their PUD approval, the city council required that the applicant submit a comprehensive sign plan for this project. They stated that pylon signs shall not be allowed. Monument signs may be allowed, but shall not exceed 12 feet in height. The applicant has not proposed any ground signs and has shown two wall-mounted signs on the plans. The two proposed signs are attractive and should be approved as part of this proposal. If the applicant wishes to add additional signs, they must comply with the requirements of the sign code and also with the city council's ground-sign criteria. Cross Easements The applicant should secure cross easements with the Hartford Group, the developer of Legacy Village, to assure access to their site and for access to the adjacent properties. The applicant should provide the city with evidence that this has taken place. Public Safety Comments Police Lieutenant Kevin Rabbett reviewed the proposal and stated that there were no public safety concerns. Fire Marshal Butch Gervais, the Maplewood Fire Marshal, had the following comments: · Ensure proper addressing on the building · Provide and maintain at least a 20-foot-wide emergency-access road at all times · Install a fire department lock box on the building · Provide a horn and strobe in occupied areas of the offices, showroom and warehouse · Install a monitored fire protection system RECOMMENDATION Approve the plans date-stamped October 8, 2003 for proposed Ashley Furniture store at the southwest comer of Southlawn Ddve and County Road D. Approval is subject to the applicant doing the following: 1. Repeat this review in two years if the city has not issued a building permit for this project. 2. Before getting a building permit, the applicant shall submit the following to staff for approval: A revised grading, drainage and erosion-control plan addressing the issues in Mr. Cavett's memo dated October 20, 2003. The details of sidewalk, driveway, pdvate roadway and parking-lot improvements shall be subject to the requirements of the city engineer. 4 I The dedication of an east-west, 15-foot-wide pedestrian easement between the parking lot and the holding pond. The applicant shall grade this site and prepare it for trail installation. The city will build the trail. c. A revised landscape plan that: Provides additional screening along the west side of the parking lot and the west side of the trash/dock area. This screening plan shall provide an 80 percent visual screen and must be a year-round screen using evergreens. · Relocates trees from the boulevard to the site. · Provides in-ground irrigation for all landscaped areas (code requirement). · Adds foundation plantings to the west side of the building to soften the appearance of this facade. · Includes a detailed turf establishment plan for the ponding and infiltration areas. This plan shall include revegetation with native grasses and forbs. · Provides sod for all turf areas and boulevards, except for the revegetation of the pond area. A revised photometric plan that meets the city's outdoor-lighting cdteda giving stdct attention to eliminating potential light-glare for the future residents to the west. The maximum light reading at lot lines shall not exceed .4 footcandles. The light fixtures must be of a design where the lens and bulbs are recessed and not visible by neighbors (code requirements). The applicant shall turn off the site lights at closing time, except for minimal secudty lighting that may be needed or required by the city. If complaints occur from the future residents of the adjacent proposed multi-family units, the city council may wish to reconsider the conditions of the planned unit development for this use. A revised sidewalk plan providing for the extension of the sidewalk along the Southlawn Ddve frontage to the south lot line. A revised site plan that eliminates the south and west rows of parking and designates these areas as proof-of-parking. These areas shall be curbed with continuous concrete curb and gutter. The proof-of-parking areas shall be sodded. g. A revised architectural plan that: · Provides the same amount of bdck on the north and east elevations as is proposed on the south elevation. · Accents the north and east elevations with glass block details as is proposed on the south elevation. · Treats the dock and trash area with the same building materials as proposed on the west and south sides of the building. ! · Shows the design and materials of the trash enclosure. The trash enclosure shall be 100 percent opaque with a closeable gate. Shows that the roof-mounted equipment will be screened from the view of the future multi-family development either by the parapet or by another screening method. h. Cash escrow or an irrevocable letter of credit to cover the installation of landscaping and the completion of other outside site improvements. 3. The applicant shall do the following: o · Restore and sod damaged boulevards. · Install the sidewalks along County Road D and Southlawn Ddve. Construct the entire private-access roadway, with curb and gutter on both sides, on the west side of the site. This private roadway shall extend from County Road D to the future Legacy Parkway right-of-way. This private driveway shall provide the necessary openings on both sides as well as for the pedestrian trail on the north side of the applicant's pond. · Comply with the requirements in Chris Cavett's memo dated October 20, 2003. The applicant's comprehensive sign plan is approved as shown on the building elevations date-stamped October 8, 2003, consisting of two wall-mounted signs. The community design review board shall review any changes to this comprehensive sign plan. Ground signs shall comply with the city council's criteria. The applicant shal[-secure cross easements with the Hartford Group, the developer of Legacy Village, to assure access between their site and adjacent properties and to assure the maintenance of these shared drives. The applicant shall provide the city with evidence that this has taken place. All work shall follow the approved plans. The director of community development may approve minor changes. 7. Comply with the requirements of the fire marshal as noted in the report. I REFERENCE INFORMATION SITE DESCRIPTION Site size: 3 acres Existing Use: Undeveloped SURROUNDING LAND USES North: County Road D and Slumbedand Fumiture Store South: Undeveloped property within the Legacy Village PUD East: Southlawn Ddve and the vacant Just For Feet Store West: Undeveloped property within the Legacy Village PUD PLANNING Land Use Plan: Zoning: BC BC (business commercial) APPLICATION DATE We received the complete application and plans for this proposal on October 8, 2003. State law requires that the city take action within 60 days of receiving complete applications. ^ decision on this request is required by December 7, 2003, unless the applicant agrees to a time extension. PARK AVAILABILITY CHARGE One charge that applicant's are sometimes unaware of is the park availability charge or "PAC" charge. On commercial developments, this charge is nine percent of the market value of the property. Questions about this charge should be directed to Bruce Anderson, the Parks and Recreation Director. Staff mentions this fee to make sure that the applicant is aware of it. p: sec 3~,shleyFurniture. Des Attachments 1. Location Map 2. Site Plan 3. City Council Conditions of Approval from July 14, 2003 4. Chds Cavett's Comments dated October 20, 2003 5. Dave Fisher's Comments dated October 20, 2003 6. Plans date-stamped October 8, 2003 (separate attachments) Attachment 1 AlS HEIGHTS 1. SUMMIT CT. 2. COUNTRYVIEW CIR. 3. DULUTH CT. 4.. LYf}IA AVE.. KOHLMAN AVE.. COUNTY ST. JOHN'S BLVD. P.~4SEY COUNTY KOHLMAN SHERREN AVE.. Knu~Je(]d L~ke /,'~-~ \ ^v~ ~ CT. G AVF-. COPE AVE. JUNCTION A ~ LOCATION 8 MAP Attachment 2 ASHLEY FURNITURE SITE PLAN T I ~ i --I' Attachment 3 d. The architectural character and exterior building materials must be in keeping with the adjacent townhomes and other buildings if present; Access to the site will be off the east leg of the roundabout and another access drive off Street C between the roundabout and County Road D; and to County Road D at a shared driveway with the adjacent furniture store site; All ground-mounted and roof-mounted mechanical equipment shall be screened according to ordinance; g. Overstory trees must be planted along the south side of the extension of Street B at an average of 30'-40' on center. ho Adequate separation, buffering and screening must be provided for the multi-family residential units from the front doors, parking areas, loading areas, and mechanical equipment of this commercial building; Furniture Store (Outlot C)~,~ The furniture store is planned in concept only within the PUD and will come in for design review and approval at a later date, but the use is allowed as long as the provisions of the BC zoning district and conditions outlined here are met; The building should be sited on the north side of the parcel within 15' of the County Road D and Southlawn Drive rights-of-way with all parking to the south. The design of the comer of the building should be such that reasonable and safe sight distances are maintained at County Road D and Southlawn; The applicant shall submit a comprehensive sign plan. One criteria to be established, however, is that pylon signs shall not be allowed. Monument signs may be allowed, but shall not exceed 12 feet in height; d. The architectural character and exterior building materials must be in keeping with the adjacent townhomes and other buildings if present; Access to the site will be offthe extension of the east leg of the roundabout, to County Road D at a shared driveway with the adjacent retail/commercial site and up to two driveway accesses to Southlawn Drive at points to be approved by the city engineer; All ground-mounted and roof-mounted mechanical equipment shall be screened according to ordinance; g. Overstory trees must be planted along the west side of Southlawn Drive at an average of 30'-40' on center. Adequate separation, buffering and screening must be provided for the multi-family residential units from the front doors, parking areas, loading areas, and mechanical equipment of this commercial building. 10 1 En~ineerin~ Plan Review PROJECT: Ashley Furniture REVIEWED BY: Chuck Vermeersch, Staff Engineer Chris Cavett, Assistant City Engineer Maplewood Engineering Department, October 20, 2003 Attachment 4 The parcel proposed for development (approximately four acres) is part of a 16-acre drainage area described in the Storm Water and Wetlands Plan (SWWP) for the Maplewood Mall Area Transportation Improvements (MMATI) project area. The SWWP outlines the hydraulic design for the MMATI area as well as the requirements for enhanced storm water practices and their evaluation. The area being developed under the Ashley Furniture proposal has been designed to detain and infiltrate storm water from the site. The following issues shall be addressed: The Environmentally Enhanced Storm Water Practice Worksheet (EESWPW) submitted with the Storm Water Management Plan (SWMP) for the site is in error. In the directions for Step 8, where Low Impact Development (LID) practice surface areas are tabulated, it specifically states that, "This number should also not include the wetted area of permanent ponds." The valley gutter shown near the base of the retaining wall on the north edge of the property seems at odds with the general development philosophy for this and the surrounding properties. The valley gutter promotes conveyance of storm water rather than detention and infiltration. An Infiltration Trench/French Drain system with drain tile connected to the storm sewer in this area would promote infiltration. This modification would also make up for the area lost in the correction of the error discussed in item 1. 3. The landscaping plan only shows trees and shrubs. Nothing is indicated for re-vegetation of the ponding and infiltration areas. Submit a detailed Landscape and Tuff Establishment plan for the site. The Landscape plan shall include a detailed plan for the ponding areas and infiltration areas. The landscape plan should include re-vegetation with native grasses and forbes. The mix design must be pre-approved by the city in advance. Because the west boulevard of Southlawn is part of the Lake-Links trail system, either an 8-foot bituminous trail or an 8-concrete sidewalk must be constructed by the developer. The pathway must extended from County Road D on the north to the south end of the property. The trees shown on the landscape plan are shown in the right-of-way in some areas and offthe right-of-way in others. Verify that all trees are outside of the fight-of-way as noted in the general landscaping notes. 6. Obtain permits from Ramsey-Washmgton Metro Watershed District, as well as the MPC& (NPDES - Storm water Construction Permit for sites over 1 acre). 11 Attachment 5 MEMO J To~ From: Date: RE: Tom Ekstrand, Assistant Director of Community Development David Fisher, Building Official ~-~- 10-20-03 Proposed project at Southwest corner of County Road D & Southlawn Drive, Ashley Furniture building. Based on the information provided the following items were noted: - A complete building code analysis will be required by the design professional. - Chapter 1306 of the State Building Code would require the building to be fully sprinklered. - There may be a two-hour firewall required between the office and the warehouse area depending upon how it is built. Bathrooms would be required to meet accessibility. Provide the minimum number of bathrooms required per the 2000 IBC and the State Building Code. - The building and parking would be required to meet all the accessibility requirements of Chapter 1341 of the State Building Code. - They will have to verify the height of the warehouse area for storage. If the storage has capability over 12 feet it shall have smoke and heat vents and be sprinklered to Type 4 Commodity. - Verify Fire Department access. - Provide surveywith plans. - The rules for the architects and engineers will require a design professional to submit plans for the building permit. Cc: Nick Carver, Asst. Building Official Cc: Butch Gervais, Fire Marshal 12 MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: SUBJECT: LOCATION: DATE: City Manager Phil Carlson, AICP, Dahlgren, Shardlow, and Uban, Inc., Planning Consultant Heritage Square (Amendment to Legacy Village PUD, Outlot H) Legacy Village PUD, SW comer of Future Kennard Street and Legacy Parkway November 14, 2003 INTRODUCTION The Legacy Village PUD, being developed by the Hartford Group and approved earlier this year, consists of a number of separate parcels with a vadety of land uses. Outlot H of the PUD consists of approximately 20 acres in the southwest comer of the PUD, bound by the new Kennard Street on the east, the power line easement on the north, and abutting the south and west lot lines of the Hijacek Property. Refer to the maps on pages 13-15. This parcel was approved in concept by the city council for up to 250 owner-occupied townhomes. Town and Country Homes, a national residential builder, is proposing a project of 221 townhomes, to be called Hedtage Square. Project Description and Background Town & Country Homes proposes to develop Outlot H of Legacy Village with 221 townhomes in 39 buildings on 19.78 acres, or about 11.2 units/acre. The previous approval for the overall Legacy Village PUD assumed 250 units on Outlot H, so this proposal is a reduction of about 10% from the approved density on that parcel. With this project as proposed, the entire Legacy Village PUD is now anticipated to include 589 units of housing, down from the 618 units approved in the PUD, and down over 30% from the 880 units analyzed and approved in the AUAR. Heritage Square involves two building types: the Hometown units, which are back-to-front units with an entry at the front and garage/driveway in the rear, in 4-, 5-, and 6-unit buildings, labeled Building Type A on the site plan; and the Chateau units, which are back-to-back units in 8-unit buildings, four on a side, labeled Building Type B on the site plan. REQUESTS · PUD Amendment (Outlot H of Legacy Village PUD) · Preliminary Plat · Design Review BACKGROUND July 14, 2003: The city council approved the planned unit development, comprehensive plan amendment, tax-abatement plan and preliminary plat for Legacy Village. The council's requirements relative to Hedtage Square are on page 36. September 8, 2003: The city council approved the final plat for Legacy Village. October 13, 2003: The city council approved a change order to the Kennard Street construction plans to include the parallel parking spaces shown on the proposed Hedtage Square plans. Heritage Square/Legacy Village PUD October 13, 2003 1 October 20, 2003: The planning commission recommended approval of the Hedtage Square Town Homes PUD and preliminary plat with conditions. See Committee Actions below. DISCUSSION Density As noted above, the density of Heritage Square is reduced by about 10% from the approved Legacy Village PUD, keeping both this parcel and the entire PUD below the Land Use Plan guide of 12 units/acre for High Density Residential. Site Plan The site plan is laid out in a gdd pattem with two east-west streets intersecting Kennard Street and two internal north-south streets. All internal streets and driveways are pdvate, except the extension of Legacy Parkway, which is to be dedicated as a public street. The Legacy Parkway intersection allows full movement with Kennard Street in a roundabout; the intersection of Street B with Kennard is dght-in right-out only, due to the median in Kennard Street. Legacy Parkway is designed to function as designed for the Hedtage Square project, or it could be extended west to intersect Hazelwood Street if the adjacent single family properties are ever redeveloped. The design of the Hedtage Square site places the front doors of the Hometown units on Kennard Street with on-street parking in front of them. This arrangement helps create the urban character and feel that Legacy Village is stdving for. The developer must dedicate the additional 8 feet of right-of-way to accommodate the on-street parking design and will need to make minor site plan adjustments to keep the 20-foot building setback to the new Kennard Street right-of-way. Across Kennard Street will be the Senior Assisted Living project in a building that will also front Kennard with a significant facade close to the right-of-way, reinforcing this streetscape. No on-street parking is proposed on the east side of Kennard, however. The Hometown back-to-front units are placed on three edges of the site (Kennard, north and south sides); the Chateau back-to-back units are placed on the inside and on the west edge. The Hometown buildings are narrower and somewhat less imposing than the Chateau buildings. The extension of Legacy Parkway is designed with a landscaped median and a small internal roundabout with Street C. The extension of Street C north to the open space under the power line easement is also a linear green space. In the middle of the site is a large linear green space behind the group of eight Chateau buildings. All of these streets, boulevards, driveways, green spaces, and yards are connected with sidewalks to the front doors of every unit. There are two locations within the site plan that I believe would benefit from modest re-design: The linear green space behind the central cluster of 8-plexes provides a strong link internally and a strong identity for the project. Where this green space comes out to Kennard Street it is interrupted by the backs of one of the units that front Kennard. The Hometown building that interrupts this sight line is a 5-unit building on the southwest comer of Legacy Parkway and Kennard. The southern unit of this building could be eliminated, reducing it from 5 units to 4 units, thus continuing the strong linear green connection out to Kennard Street. The landscape treatment of this green space should be continued in similar fashion into this expanded green space. Heritage Square/Legacy Village PUD October 13, 2003 2 Also within the linear green space is a network of sidewalks. This system would benefit from adding two short north-south segments of sidewalk across the rain gardens. The missing connections are between Driveways K and U, and Driveways G and W. In each case a sidewalk connection is provided halfway (out to the central sidewalk) but needs to be extended all the way across connecting the ends of the driveways noted, for full connectivity. If these revisions were incorporated into the site plan the project would lose only one unit, down to a total of 220 units, further reducing its overall density. It should be noted that at the staff level there were minor revisions requested of Town and Country that resulted in the loss of three units from their odginal submission of 224 units. The plans reviewed in this report represent the most recent revisions made by Town and Country. Setbacks The Hedtage Square plan shows setbacks of 20 feet minimum to the extemal lot lines and to the internal public street right-of-way. Internally all buildings are set at least 20 feet apart, most are much more than this. The previous PUD approval allows a 20-foot setback to the Kennard Street right-of-way. The R-3 Code requires increased setbacks for multi-family development to other residential development, which for this site would mean setbacks of 50 feet from the properties to the west. Town and Country is requesting a vadance to this west edge setback within the PUD approval. The odginal submission by Town and Country included one building placed parallel to the west lot line in the northwest comer that would have required a 100-foot setback. The plans being reviewed by the Planning Commission represent revisions made by Town and Country to eliminate that building in favor of two buildings that are perpendicular to the lot line, thus presenting a smaller farrade to the west property line. The proposed setbacks, including the west property line, are reasonable. The Code has numbers and formulas for determining the 50-foot setback for those units, but the purpose of setbacks and the purpose of a PUD would offset those standards. Setbacks are required in order to provide reasonable air, light, and visual relief around a given property. In the case of the existing single family homes, they are on lots that are over 250' deep, some of them significantly wooded. The existing homes are 170'-175' from the rear lot line with Hedtage Square. These lots have rear yards facing Hedtage Square that are over 100' deeper than the Code would require and there is little likelihood that new single family homes will be built on the lots any closer than they are now. There would appear to be little adverse impact on them. A preliminary wdtten comment from one of the neighbors opposed the variance, insisting that any new development be 200 feet from the existing homes - which is exactly what is proposed. In addition, the revision suggested above for the northwest comer would remove the requirement for the 100-foot setback, leaving only the 50-foot setback in contention. A PUD allows a look at the overall property, taking it as a unit rather than individual lots. The overall plan provides internal green space in many locations. A key goal of this development in my view is to provide some reasonably high density housing near the Maplewood Mall area and to keep the project affordable. Inefficient use of the land due to large setbacks for the sake of the very deep back yards of a few adjacent properties (which may be redeveloped soon anyway) is not a reasonable standard for this PUD. Heritage Square/Legacy Village PUD October 13, 2003 3 Parkinq All units have two-car garages. The Chateau units are designed with about 65 feet between facing garage doors, and have space for an additional two cars to park in front of each garage. The Hometown units are designed with only about 36 feet between facing garage doors, and so they do not have any additional parking behind the units. They need to rely on additional parking spaces for all visitor parking. The first-phase Hartford Group townhouse project was required to provide an additional one half space per unit of visitor parking, with a handful of such spaces within 200 feet of every unit, which standard I would apply to Hedtage Square as well. The current site plan meets that standard well. Visitor parking is handled with a combination of on-street parking - on Kennard Street, Legacy Parkway, and the internal pdvate streets - and in small parking lots scattered throughout the development, notably in pairs of spaces at the dead-ends of most internal driveways. The site plan and parking summary graphics from Town and Country do not indicate parking at the driveway dead-ends of the Chateau 8-plexes, but I believe this is necessary and feasible. Adding them provides additional public spaces in close proximity to those units. Landscaping The landscape plan is well designed and generous. Other than modest revisions to accommodate site plan changes suggested here, the plan is more than adequate. Architecture The architecture of the Town and Country units is attractive, but not extraordinary. The Chateau units have partial facades of bdck, the rest being vinyl siding and roofs of asphalt shingles. The Chateau has a more complex roof line, with porch features on the ends, and extended roof overhangs over the garage door and entry. They also include some horizontal offsets at each gable, giving some interest and relief to the far, de. The Hometown units have partial facades of brick or stone, the rest being vinyl siding, and roofs of asphalt shingles. The roof line and fa(~ade is less complex. The building is basically a box with a small porch roof and a gable above each unit. The designs of both types of units are tasteful, and affordability is a factor in the architectural design. Affordability The previous approval requires that 50 units be affordable, as that term is defined by Metropolitan Council standards. Furthermore, the developer's agreement between the Hartford Group and the City for Legacy Village affirms that 50 units of affordable housing will be provided and will be determined by the valuation set by the Metropolitan Council. As noted in Town and Country's narrative, that affordability standard is currently $183,000 for owner-occupied housing, but can change annually and usually does, reflecting changes in Metro area median incomes. Town and Country has assured the City that 50 units in Hedtage Square will meet the Metropolitan Council guidelines for affordability in place at the time of the home sales. Monument Siqns/Comer Treatment The project has two monument signs of brick and wrought iron at the comer of Kennard and Legacy Parkway. These are designed to be about 5-6 feet in height, wrapping around the comer, complemented by dense landscaping to define the comer. I believe this comer treatment is important to creating the character of the overall PUD at this intersection. Heritage Square/Legacy Village PUD October 13, 2003 4 On the two opposite comers of Legacy Parkway and Kennard Street from Hedtage Square will be the Senior Assisted Living building and a future office building. The senior building will be four stodes placed close to the right-of-way, with a two-story entry wrapping around the comer. The office building, although not designed in detail, is represented in similar fashion with a two- or three-story fa(}ade close to the intersection. The Hedtage Square townhouse buildings are not and cannot reasonably be placed as close to the intersection as the buildings on the other two comers, so the intent is to mimic the scale of the other buildings by placing trees or other landscape features that are at least 25 feet in height and close to the intersection, while still maintaining safe sight distances around the comer. The proposed monument signage and landscape treatment is a step in that direction, but I believe the design could go further toward creating a tall presence on the comer with more tall overstory trees, larger sign elements, or both. Kennard Street Parking As mentioned, on October 13, 2003, the city council approved a change order for the Kennard Street construction project. Subsequently, the city engineering staff and their consultants reviewed the specifics of the on-street parking design. Their conclusions and recommendations are: · The city will build on-street parking along the Town & Country frontage on Kennard. The on-street parking bays will be constructed of concrete. The Heritage Square plan shows 21 spaces; however, the length of the spaces need to be increased from 20 feet to 25 feet, resulting in a reduction in the number of spaces from 21 to 17. This would include 5 spaces north of Legacy parkway, 9 spaces between Legacy Parkway and Street B, and 3 spaces south of Street B. Kennard Street will be widened by 8 feet in the area of the parking bays. We had previously requested that Town & Country dedicate 10 feet of additional right-of-way for the on-street parking. Our request for additional right-of-way can be reduced to 8 feet. Our typical section for the roadway will include that the parking areas will slope back to Kennard at a 4 percent grade, the 8 foot boulevard between the curb and sidewalk will slope to the street at a 5 percent grade and the 6 foot sidewalk will slope to the street at a 2 percent grade. The design considers Town & Country's concerns with the grades between the street and their buildings in this area. Any carriage walks between the sidewalk and parking bays will not be constructed as a part of the city contract. Town & Country will need to determine whether and where' they want carriage walks. Town & Country would need to construct any cardage walks as a part of the private development work. The city's landscaping plan for Kennard will need to consider the location of any carriage walks. Police Department Comments The standard multi-family housing safety recommendations apply such as adequate signage and unit addressing. The latter is especially important in regards to the row house design. Numbers on the rear of buildings need to be cleady visible so as to facilitate identification of the correct unit on either approach. Finally, access roads and parking areas need to be wide enough for emergency vehicle access. Heritage Square/Legacy Village PUD October 13, 2003 Buildinq Official Comments Dave Fisher, the Maplewood Building Official, had several comments relative to building spdnkledng, building accessibility, the availability of accessible parking and plan submittal. He also addressed requirements for a temporary leasing office should the applicant wish to use one. Refer to the memo on page 33. COMMITTEE ACTIONS October 20, 2003: The planning commission recommended approval of this PUD amendment and preliminary plat. The planning commission accepted the staff recommendation with one change. Under Condition 6 of the PUD recommendation, they moved that the setbacks are approved as shown on the site plan "except the west side setbacks for the buildings shall be 50 feet." The planning commission disagreed with staff's recommendation for a reduced westerly setback. RECOMMENDATIONS The following recommendations incorporate comments from City staff, planning consultant, and engineering consultant. Engineering consultant Jon Horn's review memo is attached to this report. PUD Amendment We recommend adoption of the resolution on pages 34-35, approving the Planned Unit Development for Heritage Square, Outlot H of the Legacy Village PUD, as illustrated on the drawings prepared by Landform, date-stamped October 15, 2003, except as revised in accordance with the following conditions: 1) Outlot H is approved for 220 units of townhouses as revised according to the conditions in this report. 2) The southern unit of the Hometown (Type A) building, at the southwest comer of Legacy Parkway and Kennard Street, shall be eliminated, reducing it from 5 units to 4 units, thus continuing the internal linear green space out to Kennard Street at a width of at least 70 feet. The landscape treatment of this green space shall be continued into this new area in similar fashion to the rest of the linear green space. 3) Within the linear green space two north-south segments of sidewalk shall be added, one connecting Driveways K and U, the other connecting Driveways G and W. The rain gardens and landscaping shall be revised to accommodate these sidewalks. 4) The dead ends of all driveways behind the Chateau (Type B) buildings - Street B and Drives G, I, K, M, O, Q, U, V, and W - shall be designed, striped and signed to accommodate two common parking spaces each. 5) The monument signs and associated landscaping at the comer of Legacy Parkway and Kennard Street shall be revised to place trees or other landscape features that are at least 25 feet in height and close to the right-of-way, while still maintaining safe sight distances, that will create a significant tall edge mimicking the scale of the proposed senior building and future office building on the opposite comers of the intersection. Heritage Square/Legacy Village PUD October 13, 2003 7) The setbacks are approved as shown on the site plan. All construction shall follow the plans date-stamped October 15, 2003. The city council may approve major changes. The director of community development may approve minor changes. 8) The proposed construction must be substantially started within one year of council approval or the permit shall end. The council may extend this permit for one year. 9) The city council shall review this permit in one year. The homeowners association documents shall state that the visitor parking areas shall be kept open for visitor parking and shall not be used as a storage area for RVs, trailers, campers, boats and the like. Preliminary Plat We recommend approval of the Preliminary Plat as illustrated on the drawings submitted by Landform, dated September 12, 2003, except as revised in accordance with the following conditions: 1) The plat shall be revised in terms of the dimensions and numbering of lots if necessary to reflect the recommended revisions to the number and location of buildings in the above conditions for the PUD. 2) 3) Legacy Parkway west of Kennard Street is shown as a public roadway. The following conditions must be met if Legacy Parkway is constructed as a public roadway: a. The City should be responsible for the design and construction of the roadway. b. The developer will need to petition the City for the improvements. c. The roadway needs to be redesigned to a more typical City street design or the developer needs to be responsible for the ongoing maintenance of all of the amenities and rainwater gardens included in the design. The City will grant an easement to the developer for the maintenance of the amenities and rainwater gardens. The developer will be required to prepare a maintenance agreement detailing the specifics of the maintenance operations for City review and approval. The plan shows on-street parking along the west side of Kennard Street. The following conditions must be met if the on-street parking is to remain on Kennard Street: ao An additional 8 feet of right-of-way shall be dedicated by the developer along the west side of Kennard Street to accommodate the parking bays and allow for the necessary sidewalk and boulevard areas. The developer shall be responsible for the costs (construction and 31.5% admin & engineering) to add the parking bays along Kennard Street. These costs are estimated to be approximately $70,000. 4) The plans show grading outside of the property boundary along the north, west and south sides of the site. All grading shall be restricted to within the property boundaries or temporary construction easements need to be obtained from the adjacent property owners. The developer must provide evidence of any temporary construction easements. Heritage Square/Legacy Village PUD October 13, 2003 7 5) 6) The developer must prepare an operation and maintenance plan for the proposed storm drainage system for the review and approval of the City. An active operation and maintenance program is cdtical to the proper function and operation of the system. In the future, the City may desire to extend sanitary sewer and watermain services into Outlot I from the sanitary sewer and watermain utilities in the driveways north of Legacy Parkway. The services may be for future park and/or open space uses on Outlot I. The developer and the Home Owners Association must agree in wdting that they will not object to the future installation of these utility services. 7) The plat includes Outlot A for the storm water pond. The pond must be included in a public drainage and utility easement rather than an outlot. The developer must also dedicate a public drainage and utility easement for the pond outlet. 8) The plat shall include 20' wide utility easements along all watermain outside of public right-of-way per SPRWS requirements. 9) The developer shall be required to grant the City a dght of entry/temporary construction easement, as necessary, for public roadway construction outside of the limits of the public right-of-way. Desi,qn We recommend approval of the site, architectural and landscaping plans date-stamped October 15, 2003, for the Heritage Square Townhomes at Legacy Village, subject to the developer complying with the following conditions: 1) 2) Repeat this review in two years if the city has not issued a building permit for this project. Comply with all requirements of the city engineer and his consultants relative to streets, sidewalks, grading, drainage, utilities and erosion control before getting a building permit. The applicant shall also provide any documents, easements and developers agreement that may be required by the city engineer. This approval shall be subject to the conditions outlined in the report from Jon Horn, of Kimley-Hom, dated October 13, 2003. This approval shall also be subject to the following requirements relative to the on-street parking along the west side of Kennard street: · The city will build on-street parking along the Town & Country frontage on Kennard. The on-street parking bays will be constructed of concrete. The Heritage Square plan shows 21 spaces; however, the length of the spaces need to be increased from 20 feet to 25 feet, resulting in a reduction in the number of spaces from 21 to 17. This would include 5 spaces north of Legacy parkway, 9 spaces between Legacy Parkway and Street B, and 3 spaces south of Street B. Kennard Street will be widened by 8 feet in the area of the parking bays. We had previously requested that Town & Country dedicate 10 feet of additional right-of-way for the on-street parking. Our request for additional right-of-way can be reduced to 8 feet. Heritage Square/Legacy Village PUD October 13, 2003 8 3) 4) 5) Our typical section for the roadway will include that the parking areas will slope back to Kennard at a 4 percent grade, the 8 foot boulevard between the curb and sidewalk will slope to the street at a 5 percent grade and the 6 foot sidewalk will slope to the street at a 2 percent grade. The design considers Town & Country's concerns with the grades between the street and their buildings in this area. Any cardage walks between the sidewalk and parking bays will not be constructed as a part of the city contract. Town & Country will need to determine where they want cardage walks. Town & Country would need to construct any carriage walks as a part of the pdvate development work. The city's landscaping plan for Kennard Street will need to consider the location of any cardage walks. Carriage Walks and landscaping shall be subject to city engineer approval. Get the necessary approvals and permits from the watershed district. The setbacks are approved as shown on the site plan. Revise the site and landscaping plans as follows for staff approval: bo The southern unit of the Hometown (Type A) building, at the southwest comer of Kennard Street and Legacy Parkway, shall be eliminated reducing it from 5 to 4 units, thus continuing the internal linear green space out to Kennard Street at a width of at least 70 feet. The landscape treatment of this green space shall be continued into this new area in similar fashion to the rest of the linear green space. Within the linear green space, two north-south segments of sidewalk shall be added, one connecting Driveways K and U, and the other connecting Driveways G and W. The rain gardens and landscaping shall be revised to accommodate these sidewalks. The dead ends of all driveways behind the Chateau (Type B) buildings-Street B and ddves G, I, K, M, O, Q, U, V and W-shall be designed, stdped and signed to accommodate two common parking spaces each. The monument signs and associated landscaping at the corner of Legacy Parkway and Kennard Street shall be revised to place trees or other landscape features that are at least 25 feet in height and close to the right-of-way, while still maintaining safe sight distances that will create a significant tall edge mimicking the scale of the proposed senior building and future office building on the opposite comers of the intersection. 6) Complete the following: Install reflectodzed stop signs at the Legacy Parkway intersection with Kennard Street. Install and maintain an in-ground lawn irrigation system for all landscaped areas. Install all required trails, sidewalks and carriage walks. All curbing shall be continuous concrete curbing as proposed. Install any traffic signage within the site that may be required by staff. Herbage Square/Legacy Village PUD October 13, 2003 9 7) The applicant shall provide the city with a cash escrow or an irrevocable letter of credit for the extedor landscaping and site improvements pdor to getting a building permit for the development. Staff shall determine the dollar amount of the escrow as well as the portion of the project to be covered by the escrow. The escrow may cover the entire site or the site in phases of development. 8) All work shall follow the approved plans. The director of community development may approve minor changes. 9) This development shall be signed with clear address signs for direction to the buildings and individual unit signage on the front and back, subject to approval by the police and fire departments of the city. 10) A temporary sales office shall be allowed until the time a model unit is available for use. Such a temporary building shall be subject to the requirements of the building official as outlined in his report. 11) The applicant shall submit a lighting plan for staff approval prior to getting the first building permit. Heritage Square/Legacy Village PUD October 13, 2003 10 CITIZEN COMMENTS Staff surveyed the 53 property owners within 500 feet of this property for their comments about this proposal. Of the 10 replies, 4 had no comment, one had no objection, but offered a comment/concern, and five objected. No Objection Refer to the letter on page 28 from Welsh Companies. They do not object to this proposal but present a caution/concern that sometimes new residents, such as those in the proposed townhomes, may object to future commercial development in the area as it occurs. They encourage the applicant to make their buyers fully aware that there will be future commercial development in this area so there are no false expectations. Objections Refer to the letter on page 29 from Gerald and Linda Peterson of 3016 Hazelwood Street. Their main concern is that the westerly setback should comply with the code unless theirs and their neighbor's homes sell for redevelopment. If they stay in their homes, then the setback rules should be enforced. I would like to see the setback maintained. 200 feet from existing homes seems too close considering the size of the townhome development. (Larson Enterprises, 3060 Centerville Road, Little Canada) Refer to the letter on page 30 from Dan and Mickey Gebhard, of 3062 Hazelwood Street. They request that the city council deny any setback reduction from the westerly lot line. · I am opposed to this. Please do not approve this request. I hope you consider my opinion into your decision. Thank you. (Heather Behr, 1613 County Road D) Refer to the letter from Travis Smith on pages 31-32. Mr. Smith objects to commercial development and rental housing. He would prefer no development. He requests that all costs be borne by the builders without screwing the residents of Maplewood. He would oppose any assessments. Heritage Square/Legacy Village PUD October 13, 2003 11 p:Sec3~Heritage Square CC Report 11-14-03.te Attachments: 1. Location Map 2. Site Plan of Heritage Square Townhomes 3. Legacy Village Final Plat 4. Building Elevations-Hometown Collection Design 5. Building Elevations-Chateau Collection Design 6. Applicant's Narrative dated September 12, 2003 7. Report from Jon Horn dated October 13, 2003 8. Letter from Welsh Companies dated September 29, 2003 9. Letter from Gerald and Linda Peterson dated September 30, 2003 10. Letter from Dan and Mickey Gebhard dated September 30, 2003 11. Letter from Travis Smith date-stamped September 30, 2003 12. Memo from Dave Fisher dated September 30, 2003 13. Conditional Use Permit Resoluaon for a Planned Unit Development 14. July 14, 2003 City Council Requirements for the For-Sale Townhomes 15. October 20, 2003 Planning Commission Minutes 16. Plans date-stamped October 15, 2003, (separate attachments) Heritage Square/Legacy Village PUD October 13, 2003 12 ATTACHMENT 1 VADNAIS HEIGHTS ¢ouNw mn. ;~ HIGHRIDGE LEGACY VILLAGE COUNTY ROAD '/'??Z/Y COUN'P¢ AVE. 1. SUMMIT CT. RAD^~ RA~V. SEY C~Uh'TY COURT KOHI_MAN AVE. Knu~d Lake LOCATION MAP 13 ATTACHMENT 2 HERITAGE SQUARE - MAPLEWOOD, MN 10/14105 PROPOSED HERITAGE SQUARE TOWNHOMES SITE 14 ATTACHMENT 3 J.33~.L$ ClOOM-igZ~'H .................. 15 ATTACHMENT 4 16 I I T I r I ................ ATTACHMENT 5 17 ATTACHMENT 6 PROPOSED PRELIMINARY PLAT/CUP AMENDMENT REVIEW FOR Heritage Square at Legacy Village MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA September 12, 2003 Prepared for review by the CITY STAFF, PLANNING COMMISSION, DESIGN REVIEW BOARD AND CITY COUNCIL Submitted by: TOWN ~ COUNTRY HOMES America's House of QualityTM 7615 Smetana Lane, Suite 180 Eden Prairie, MN 55344 PROJECT NARRATIVE HERITAGE SQUARE - MAPLEWOOD, MN 18 Heritage Square - Prelminary Plat/CUP Amendment Project Narrative - September 12, 2003 PROJECT NAME/LOCATION Heritage Square Part of Legacy Village - East of Hazelwood/North of Hospital LANDOWNER Legacy Holdings - Hartford Group DEVELOPER/APPLICANT Town and Country Homes 7516 Smetana Lane, Suite 180 Eden Prairie, MN 55344 Contact: Krista Flemming ph. (952) 253-0448 fax (952) 944-3437 SITE PLANNING, ENGINEERING Landform 650 Butler North Bldg 510 1st Ave N Minneapolis, MN 55403 Contact: Dwayne Sikich ph (612) 638-0225fax (612) 638-0227 DEVELOPMENT DATA Existing Land Use: Proposed Land Use: Proposed Zoning: Agricultural/Vacant High Density Residential Conditional Use Permit (CUP) PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT SUMMARY Gross Area: Total Unit Count: Multiple Family - Courtyard Collection: Homestead Collection: Gross Density: 19.78 AC. 224 Homes 128 Homes 96 Homes 11.3 Homes per Acre PROJECT NARRATIVE HERITAGE SQUARE - MAPLEWOOD, MN ]9 2 ~TRODUCTION Town & Country Homes is requesting a Preliminary Plat/CUP Amendment for a new multiple family community in Legacy Village called Heritage Square. The proposed project provides opportunities for a combination of two housing styles and price ranges to compliment adjacent land uses, and offer residents affordable housing options. Heritage Square has many neo-traditional dements creating a unique community and emphasizing pedestrian traffic and the streetscape. The layout and product design naturally encourages residents to walk and socialize in common green space areas. The community is interconnected by a series of sidewalks, trails, special green spaces and complimenting rain gardens. Front porches are featured on the main corridors, adding to the streetscape. The main entrance to the community is off the roundabout at Legacy Parkway and Kennard Street. Monumentation with significant landscaping welcomes visitors and residents down Legacy Parkway, which divides into one way streets separated by almost 30 feet of common open space. This open area is a gateway to the community and includes a variety of overstory trees and plantings within the rain gardens. Front doors face Legacy Parkway, and bays of on-street, guest parking make it easy for guests to visit. The north side of Legacy Parkway features our Hometown Collection (row townhome) with the Chateau Collection (back-to-back townhome) on the south side. Both products have common elements tying them together (i.e. front porches along streets, similar exterior materials, complimenting colors, etc.), and are intermingled throughout the community providing variation to the neighborhood. At the end of the common green space is another, smaller, roundabout to tie in with the circulation patterns on Kennard Street. A monument or structure (that does not disrupt site lines) will be placed in this area as a focal point enhancing views of the Parkway. (The type of structure is still under investigation. Final acceptance will be subject to city staff approval.) North of this roundabout is a shared courtyard area between two Hometown Collection buildings that ties into the large open space area to the north. Similar common courtyard areas are seen throughout the community to offer special spaces to those choose a home not fronting a street. These areas offer another option with a different "sense of place". The Hometown Collection and on-street guest parking are located along Kennard Street, creating a dominant, "mainstreet" presence across from the future senior housing and office buildings. Behind this is an area including the Chateau Collection. The shared space between these buildings includes varying landscape and rain gardens connected by a pedestrian trail. This area is available to everyone in the development, but provides a special space for those living in this area. The attached plans illustrate the general development concept, architecture, road alignments, access and land use. The proposed project includes 224 homes. PROJECT NARRATIVE HERITAGE SQUARE -MAPLEWOOD, MN 20 HOUSING STYLES Hometown Collection The Hometown Collection is Town and Country's row product. It is a two-story, slab-on-grade product with 4, 5, and 6-unit buildings. There are 26 buildings with a total of 128 homes. Four color palettes combining stone or brick with vinyl lap and shake siding will be used. Please see the attached elevations and color palette listing for more details. The Hometown Collection has base prices ranging from $175,000 - $190,000, and offers 1,300 - 1,600 square feet. Additional options can increase the livable area and corresponding price. Please see the attached elevations for more details. Chateau Collection The Chateau Collection is Town and Country's back-to-back product. It is a two-story, slab-on-grade product with 8 unit buildings. There are 12 buildings with a total of 96 homes. One unique product feature is with its varying architectural styles on each end of the building. This home has a prominent angled window/fireplace feature accented by the front porch and entrance on the end units facing the higher-traffic streets. The other end units are more square with a fireplace and porch accent, which is entered by a from door on the garage side. These varying features reduce the monotony sometimes felt with multiple family developments. Three color palettes combining brick with vinyl lap and shake siding will be used. Please see the attached elevations and color palette listing for more details. The Chateau Collection has base prices ranging from $180,000 - $205,000, and offers a product type with more square footage (1,570 - 1,650 sq. f~.) than the Hometown Collection. Additional options can increase the livable area and corresponding price. Please see the attached elevations for more details. HOMEOWNER'S ASSOCIATION All private drives, sprinkler systems, monument signs, and common open space areas will be owned and maintained by one homeowner's association for the multiple family area. GUEST PARKING There are 2 parking spaces in all garages. The Chateau Collection has 2 guest spaces in the driveway. The driveway areas for the Hometown Collection only allow enough room to maneuver a vehicle. There is no guest parking in these driveway areas, which is how they are designed. This design is meant to encourage guest parking along the street, by the front doors to enhance the character of the streetscape. Guest parking is designated on one side of the public and private streets. There are also some off-street parking areas to accommodate homes not next to on-street parking. Overnight guest parking will be available on private streets and parking bays. Guest parking exceeds the ordinance requirement. PROJECT NARRATIVE HERITAGE SQUARE - MAPLEWOOD, MN 1 I ~ I 4 ADJACENT LAND USES There are 5 existing single family homes west of the proposed development. All of the homes are located closest to Hazelwood Street. The property line setbacks of the proposed development adjacent to the existing single family vary from 20 to 30 feet. The closest point to any structure (garage) on the existing lots will be 77'. The minimum distance of a proposed home from an existing home is 200', or about ~A of a football field. This provides quite a distance between the two uses, but also allows for potential future development of the single family area to tie into the overall plan. There are some existing wooded areas on these single family sites that will be complimented by heavy landscaping on the townhome site to continue providing a buffer between the two land uses. Evergreen trees are located at the ends of each driveway area, which will reduce potential automobile glare year-round. AFFORDABILITY An affordability component was approved as part of the final plat approval for Legacy Village. This required the for-sale townhomes to provide 50 homes at a base price meeting Metropolitan Council's affordability standards, which is currently $183,000. This can be achieved by the providing the current mix of products as well as maintaining the standard floor plans and architectural components seen with this submittal. (The current Met Council number is subject to change. If the Met Council raises the current standard, then the new standard would apply to future sales at the time of the increase.) PllASING The project is proposed for site construction in a single phase. The Developer intends to develop the property as soon as all governmental approvals and permits are in place. UTILITIES The grading and utility plan illustrate the general layout of the proposed watermain, sanitary sewer, storm sewer, rain garden and ponding areas. A central storm sewer system is planned to convey street runoff water to a storm scepter and treatment/sedimentation pond before it continues onto wetlands. Rain gardens with a superior underground infiltration system are located throughout the development. EXISTING POWER LINES There are power lines, towers, and an associated easement near the property. The lines are owned and operated by Centerpoint Energy (NSP). A copy of the plan was sent to them for review. PROJECT NARRATIVE HERITAGE SQUARE - MAPLEWOOD, MN Memorandum To: R. Charles Ahl/City of Maplewood Phil Carlson/DSU From: Jon Horn Date: October 13, 2003 Subject: Engineering Plan Review Town & Country Homes Heritage Square at Legacy Village As requested, we have completed an engineering plan review for the Heritage Square at Legacy Village development as proposed by Town & Country. Homes. The review has been completed based upon the Landform preFnmnary plan submittal dated September 12, 2003. The proposed development includes the construction of a 224 unit townhome development on Outlot H of the Legacy Village of Maplewood plat. Engineering review eolnments have been compiled fi-om numerous sources including Jon Horn (general review), Ron Leaf (drainage system review), Steve Heth (coordination with Kennard Street project), Chris Cavett (general review) and Erin Schacht (general review). The following engineering plan review comments should be artdressed by the developer. EXISTING CONDITIONS & DEMOLITION PLAN (SHEET Cl.1) The City's proposed Kennard Street improvements include the construction of a roundabout at the Legacy Parkway intersection. The Kennard Street right-of-way shown on the plan should be modified to include the right-of-way needed for the construction of the roundabout. This information is available tSom the project designer for Kennard Street (SEH). Tree removals should be identified on the plan including the type and quanfiW of trees to be removed. The plan details an existing right-of-way for Alice Street along the west boundary of the property and states that the right-of-way is not vacated. The .Mice Street fight-of-way ~vas vacated as a part of the Legacy Village platting process and should be identified on the plan accordmg!y. 23 [ I ] ! Engineering Plan Review Heritage Square at Legacy Village October 13, 2003 Page 2 of 5 PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN (SHEET 2.1) Legacy Parkway west of Kennard Street is shown as a public roadway. We had previously assumed that this would be a private roadway. If it is going to be a pubhc roadway, there are a number of issues that need to be addressed including: · Setback issues need to be addressed or the site plan needs to be redesigned. · The City should be responsible for the design and construction of the roadway. · The developer will need to petition the City for the improvements. · The roadway needs to be redesigned to a more typical City street design or the developer needs to be responsible for the ongoing maintenance of all of the amenities and rainwater gardens included in the design. The City will grant an easement to the developer for the maintenance of the amemfies and rainwater gardens. The developer will be required to prepare a maintenance agreement detailing the specifics of the maintenanee operations for City review and approval. The plan should be modified to show the proposed roundabout at the Kennard Street and Legacy Parkway intersection. This information is available from the project designer for Kennard Street (SEH). Sight distance triangles need to be reviewed at the intersection considering the proposed monument signs. The construction of the access onto Kennard Street for Street B needs to be coordinated with the design plans for Kennard Street. Street B will have fight-in/right-out access to Kennard Street. The plan shows on-street parking along the west side of Kennard Street. This is not included as a part of the approved final design plans for Kennard Street. If the on-street parking is to remain on Kermard Street, the following issues need to be addressed: · An additional 8 feet of fight-of-way needs to be dedicated by the developer along the west side of Kennard Street to accommodate the parking bays and allow for the necessary sidewalk and boulevard areas. The site plan either needs to be redesigned or there are setback issues that need to be addressed as a result ofthe additional right-of-way dedication. · The developer will be responsible for the costs (construction and engineering) to add the parking ba~vs along Kennard Street. These costs are estimated to be approximately $70,000. · This issue needs to be resolved quickly as the construction of Kennard Street is currently underway. 24 I Engineering Plan Review Heritage Square at Legacy Village October 13, 2003 Page 3 of 5 There are 22-foot wide streets shown on the plan that do not meet the minimum City code requirement of a 24-foot width. The site plan either needs to be redesigned or variances would be needed for these street No parking should be provided within 50 feet of the roundabout at the intersection of Street C and Legacy Parkway. PRELIMINARY GRADING PLAN (SHEETS C3.1 - C3.6) The plans show grading outside of the property boundary along the north, west and south sides of the site. All grading needs to be restricted to within the property boundaries or temporary construction easements need to be obtained from the adjacent property owners. The developer must provide evidence of any temporary construction easements. The storm water pond in the northwest corner of the site should be designed with an effort to obtain more of a "natural" looking appearance and to minimize the amount of 3:1 grades. Landscaping and tuff establishment for the pond area shall be addressed. This should include a native tuff establishment plan with appropriate mix designs. A plan for phasing and protection of the pond area shall be addressed. The tuff establishment with native vegetation shall be performed by a contractor qualified in native turf restoration. The landscaping plan should also include the use of some appropriate trees and shrubs within and around the pond area. Design calculations need to be submitted for the storm sewer and pond design. Storm sewer design calculations should be submitted for a 10- year design storm. Pending calculations should be submitted for the 2-year, 10-year and 100-year events. The outlet for the pond needs to be coordinated with the adjaceaxt Hartford improvements and should be shown on the plan. The pond inlet pipe should include scour protection ~ures (i.e., tip rap, erosion stabilization mat, other). Emergency overflows should be shown on the plan for the storm water pond and for the internal low areas/rainwater gardens along the trail corridor between Legacy Parkway and Street B. The proposed grading plan matches the City's current design/profile for Kennard Street. The developer must obtain the necessary RWMWD approvals and permits and prepare the required SWPPP prior to applying for or obtaining a NPDES construction permit from the MPCA. Grading and paving Note 9 on Sheet C3.1 indicates compaction of soils in paved areas. This note should be clarified to exclude soils adjacent to paved areas that will be part of the raingardens. Note 13 on sheet C3.1 should be modified by deleting '~urfis established in the project" and replacing it with '~the site is fully restored." I Engineering Plan Review Heritage Square at Legacy Village October 13, 2003 Page 4 of 5 10. 11. 12. 13. Indicate the location(s) of rock construction entrance(s) throughout the project. The proposed storm sewer layout at Street B to Kennard will require field changes to portions of the Kennard system currently under construction. Infiltration and storm water conveyance system details generally show, with two noted exceptions, that filtered storm water is allowed to enter the infiltration system. The first exception is the raingarden overflow which may allow floating debris and dead plant materials to enter the system. The second is fi.om thc street catch basins. Because of these exceptions, the preparation, submittal and implementation of an operation and maintenance plan is critical to the proper function and operation of the system. In addition, recent concerns for the west nile vires in storm sewer systems further highlights the importance of maintenance. Plan details show discrepancies between the 30" or 36" HDPE infiltration pipes. PRELIMINARY UTILITY PLAN (SHEET C4.1) It is assumed that all watermain, sanitary sewer and storm sewer improvements shown on the plans outside of the Legacy Parkway right- of-way will be private facilities. It is assumed that the utilities within Legacy Parkway will be public facilities. The design for the proposed sanitary sewer improvements needs to be coordinated with the City's proposed sanitary sewer improvements along Kennard Street. The City will provide sanitmy sewer stubs as needed. The design for the proposed watermain improvements needs to be coordinated with the City's proposed watermain improvemems along Kennard Street. The City will provide watermain stubs as needed. Design calculations should be submitted detailing the adequacy of the proposed watermain system to serve the service and fire flow needs of the development. Plans for the watermain system improvements need to be submitted to the St. Paul Regional Water Services (SPRWS) for review and approval. In the furore, the City may desire to extend sanitary sewer and watermain services into Outlot I fi.om the sanitary sewer and watermain utilities in the driveways north of Legacy Parkway. The services would be for future park and/or open space uses on Outlot I. The developer and the Home Owners Association will must agree to not object to the future installation of these utility services 26 I Engineering Plan Review Heritage Square at Legacy Village October 13, 2003 Page 5 of 5 PRELIMINARY PLAT (SHEET C5.1) The plat should be modified to include the necessary fight-of-way for the construction of the roundabout at the Legacy Parkway and Kennard Street intersection. The plat includes Outlot A for the storm water pond. The pond should be included in a drainage and utility easement rather than an outlot. A drainage and utility easement should also be dedicated for the pond outlet. The plat should include 20' wide utility easements along all watermain outside of public fight-of-way per SPRWS requirements. PRELIMINARY LANDSCAPE PLANS (SHEETS L2.1 - L2.3 & L6.1) The raingarden/infiltration basin detail should specify a maximum depth above the planting soil based on the infiltration capacity of the planting soil and a maximum pending time of 48 hours. In general, the raingardea detail looks functional assuming that an adequate operation and maintenance plan is prepared and followed. However, because the system uses under drams connected to the storm sewer system, the plan does not fully take advantage of the native soils. Can additional information be provided to explain why the under dram system is needed or desired in the plan? GENERAL COMMENTS The developer will be required to grant the City a right of entry/ temporary construction easement, as necessary, for public roadway construction outside of the limits of the public fight-of-way. Preliminary Storm Water Narrative, September 12, 2003. The preliminory submittal and computations appear to meet the enhanced practices criteria through the raingardens and perforated/oversized HDPE storm sewer pipes. We would like to schedule a meeting with the developer to review the proposed storm sewer system in detail due to the unique nature of the design. Please let me know if you have any questions or you need any additional information. Copy: Chris Cavett/City of Maplewood Erin Schacht/City of Maplewood Ron Leaf/SEH Steve Heth/SEH File 160500001.3.004/2.1 27 Attachment 8 OCT 0 1 2003 MEMORANDUM Date: To: From: Copy: Re: September 29, 2003 Tom Ekstrand, City of Maplewood lohn Johannson, Welsh Companies ~' Dennis Doyle, DJ-D Partners UI (w/attachment) Paul Durra, DJD Partners llI (w/attachment) Ann Hartman, Welsh Companies (w/attachment) Tom Hart, Winthrop & Weinstine (w/attachment) Heritage Square Townhomes at Legacy Village Maplewood, Minnesota We appreciate the Neighborhood Survey which was sent to our attention regarding Heritage Square Townhomes at Legacy Village (copy attached). On behalf of DJD Partners Ill, LLC, a nearby landowner, we offer the following observations. In general, we do not have a concern as to the proposed Heritage Square townhome development. Likewise, we do not have a concern regarding the setback issues as addressed in their correspondence. We do, however, ask that the applicant acknowledges that the general vicinity in which this project is proposed has historically and will in the future be primarily a commercial area. We support the inte~ation of different uses within these type of trade areas - however, we have found in the past that in similar circumstances, once the residents are in place, they begin to oppose the existing and future commercial uses within the trade area. As such, our comments are simply that the developer, owners, and future residents of Heritage Square should be fully aware that their project is surrounded by commercial uses at present, and will well into the future be surrounded by commercial uses - which by their nature, typically generate more traffic, loading activities, trash removal activities,, etc. With regards to our property, we will .not take kindly to future objections from nearby residents as to the commercial nature of our property. Thank you for the opportunity to present our thoughts. Attachment 28 CITY OF MAPLEWOOD Attachment 9 September 30, 2003 MAPLEWOO CITY HALL Dear Tom Ekstrand: Thank you for the information. The plan for Heritage square has a lot of homes. The round about on the one side looks out of place with other side. I don't" see a need for parkway on the one side. Should be same as street B. If it was not a parkway there WOuld be no need for set back change. As for the set back change on the west end. You know there are plans to develop the last 3 homes. Mine and the one on each side of me. If the two builders can work out what set backs work for each other. Then that is fine by me. If we are to stay here then the set backs should not be changed. It doesn~ matter how far the house is. What matters is how far the new buildings are from the property line. The buildings could look better on .short end on west side. Sincerely, GERALD AND LINDA PETERSON GERALD AND LINDA PETERSON 3016 HAZELWOOD ST N MAPLEWOOD MN GSP3016(~,COMCAST. NET 29 Attachment l0 SEP 3 n 2003 September 30, 2003 Mr. Thomas Ekstrand Assistant Community Development Director City of Maplewood 1830 East County Road B Maplewood, MN 55109 Dear Mr. Ekstrand: This is to respond to the neighborhood survey we received on September 25 regarding the Heritage Square Townhomes. After review of the information provided, we ask the City to uphold the City Code and deny the requested reduced setback from the westerly lot line. We feel the reduced building setback would have negative impacts on us and our daily living and would be detrimental to the future value, sale, and~or development of our property. Sincerely, Dan and Mickey Gebhat~ 3062 Hazelwood Avenue Maplewood, MN 55109 30 September 22, 2003 Together We Can Attachment ll TRAVIS S 1VIITI-I JANIS WAI.DEIVIARSEN 1663 COUNTY ROAD D EAST 1VIAPLEWOOD 1VIN 55109 NEIGHBORHOOD SURVEY - HERITAGE SQUARE TOWNHOMES AT LEGACY VILLAGE (HAJICEK PROPERTY, SOUTH OF THE POWER LINES) This letter is to get your opinion on an application the city received for property in your neighborhood. Town & Country Homes is requesting that the Maplewood City Council approve their proposed 224-unit town house development. This propoSed town house complex is part of the recently approved Legacy Village planned unit development (PUD). Town & Country Homes' townhomes would be for-sale units and would be located south of the power lines, west of the Kennard Street extension and north of the St. John's Hospital property. Refer to the attachments. On July 14, 2003, the Maplewood City Council approved the overall development in concept. The developer of the for=sale towni, iomes, however, still needed to submit their plans for council approval. These are the plans now submitted for review by Town & Country Homes. The applicant is requesting the following: a preliminary plat to create the individual lots to sell; revision of the planned unit development to incorporate their project into the Legacy Village PUD, and; building and site design plans. One aspect of the building layout is that the applicant is asking for a reduced building setback from the westerly lot line. The code requires a setback of 50 feet for the southerly four buildings and 100 feet for the northerly building because of its larger wall surface area facing this side lot line. The applicant is proposing setbacks for their westerly buildings of 20 to 30 feet. I need your opinion to help me prepare a recdmmendation to the planning commission and city council. Please write your opinion and comments below and return this letter, and any attachments on which you have written comments, in the enclosed postage-paid envelope by September 30, 2003. If you would like further information, please call me at 651-249-2302 between 8 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. I will send you a notice of any public headng on this application. Thank you for your comments. I will give,careful consideration. THOMAS EKSTRAND - ASSISTANT COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR Enclosures: Maps, Drawings and Narrative SEP 3 0 2003 I have no comments:  e~ge Square Townhomes / Se~on 3) ~ ' O~lG~ OD GOMMUNI~ D~V~NOPM~NT 651,,770-4560 Fg: 651- 748-3096 CITY Of MAPLEWOOD 183C EAST COUNTY F~OAD ~ MAPLEWOOD, MN 55109 ] I d ~ , ..... Attachment 12 Memo September 30, 2003 From: David Fisher, Building Official To: Tom Ekstrand, Asst. Comm. Dev. Director Re: Heritage Square at Legacy Village After reviewing the letter and information submitted by Town & Country Homes the following code issues would have to be addreSsed: New Townhomes 1. Comply with requirements of 1306 for sprinklering the buildings. Any building over 8,500 gross square feet is required to be sprinklered. 2. Verify the number of accessible units required for the development based on Minnesota State Building Code 1341 Table 16.2. 3. Provide accessible parking. 4. Submit complete plans using Minnesota registered design professionals. Temporary Leasing Office 1. Temporary per the building code is 6 months or less so this building would require a foundation. 2. Full bathrooms would be required based on Table 29 A of the 2000 IBC. 3. Site approach that is less than 1 to 20 in pitch would be required at one entry. (Ramp) 4. The building would have to be handicap accessible. 5. Two exits would be required. 6. A twenty-foot setback from any other building would be required. 7. MN State Building Code Chapter 1361 requires an IBC certification for code compliance on the prefabricated structure. 33 ! Attachment 13 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION WHEREAS, Town & Country Homes applied for a conditional use permit for a planned unit development revision to develop Heritage Square, a 220-unit town house development in the Legacy Village planned unit development. WHEREAS, this permit applies to the property located on the west side of Kennard Street, now under construction, south of the Xcel power line easement. The legal description is: , LEGACY VILLAGE AT MAPLEWOOD WHEREAS, the history of this conditional use permit is as follows: On October 20, 2003 the planning commission recommended that the city council approve this permit. The city council held a public hearing on December 8, 2003. City staff published a notice in the paper and sent notices to the surrounding property owners as required by law. 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 approves 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. 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. Heritage Square/Legacy Village PUD October 13, 2003 34 The use would maximize the preservation of and incorporate the site's natural and scenic features into the development design. 9. The use would cause minimal adverse environmental effects. Approval is subject to these code requirements: 1. Outlot H is approved for 220 units of townhouses as revised according to the conditions in this report. The southem unit of the Hometown (Type A) building, at the southwest comer of Legacy Parkway and Kennard Street, shall be eliminated, reducing it from 5 units to 4 units, thus continuing the internal linear green space out to Kennard Street at a width of at least 70 feet. The landscape treatment of this green space shall be continued into this new area in similar fashion to the rest of the linear green space. Within the linear green space two north-south segments of sidewalk shall be added, one connecting Driveways K and U, the other connecting Driveways G and W. The rain gardens and landscaping shall be revised to accommodate these sidewalks. The dead ends of all driveways behind the Chateau (Type B) buildings - Street B and Ddves G, I, K, M, O, Q, U, V, and W - shall be designed, stdped and signed to accommodate two common parking spaces each. The monument signs and associated landscaping at the corner of Legacy Parkway and Kennard Street shall be revised to place trees or other landscape features that are at least 25 feet in height and close to the right-of-way, while still maintaining safe sight distances, that will create a significant tall edge mimicking the scale of the proposed senior building and future office building on the opposite comers of the intersection. 6. The setbacks are approved as shown on the site plan. All construction shall follow the plans date-stamped October 15, 2003. The city council may approve major changes. 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 permit for one year.. The city council shall review this permit in one year. 10. The homeowners association documents shall state that the visitor parking areas shall be kept open for visitor parking and shall not be used as a storage area for RVs, trailers, campers, boats and the like. The Maplewood City Council approved this resolution on ,2003. Heritage Square/Legacy Village PUD October 13, 2003 35 Attachment 14 g. There must be sidewalks connecting entries to all buildings on site to Legacy Parkway, Kennard Street, and through the parking lot to the power line trail; Uses on the site are encouraged to take advantage of the park and trail system around the ponding area to the west by providing outdoor seating, plazas, overlooks or similar features; i. Overstory trees must be planted along the east side of Kennard Street and the north side of Legacy Parkway at an average of 30'-40' on center. Adequate separation, buffering and screening must be provided for the multi-family residential units from the front doors, parking areas, loading areas, and mechanical equipment of this commercial building. 9) For-Sale Townhomes (Outlot H): The for-sale townhome site is planned in concept only within the PUD and will come in for design review and approval at a later date, but the use is allowed as long as the provisions of the R-3C zoning district and conditions outlined here are met; Townhome buildings must be sited close to the roundabout intersection on the coruer of Kennard Street and Legacy Parkway, and close to Kennard Street, within 20' of both rights-of-way, to maintain the character of the intersection and the streetscape; c. The architectural character and exterior building materials must be in keeping with the nearby senior assisted-living building, townhomes and other buildings in the development; Access to the site will be off the west leg of the roundabout at Legacy Parkway and Kennard Street, plus another access to Kennard Street further south, most likely in a loop street through the site. If the properties west of 0utlot H fronting Hazelwood Drive are likely to develop when 0utlot H is proposed for development, then consideration will be given to a public through street connecting Kennard Street and Hazelwood Drive as an extension of Legacy Parkway; go There must be sidewalks connecting entries to all buildings on site to Legacy Parkway, Kennard Street, and the park and power line trail to the north. Such sidewalks must be designed within a clear system of open spaces and landscaping that serves all units more or less equally; f. Visitor parking must be provided at a ratio of 1/2 space per unit no more than 200' from the front door of any townhouse unit; g. Overstory trees must be planted along the west side of Kennard Street and along both sides of the major internal street(s) at an average of 30'-40' on center. 1 O) Public Park with Trail (Outlot F): The property will be deeded to the City as public park land, but will not be credited as land area in park dedication requirements. See Parks Director Bruce Anderson's memorandum (attached). 36 Attachment 15 Planning Commission Minutes of 10-20-03 -4- This item goes to the city council on November 10, 2003. b. Heritage Square Townhouses (Legacy Village) Mr. Ekstrand said Mr. Phil Carlson, AICP, with Dahlgren, Shardlow, and Uban, Inc., will be presenting the staff report. Mr. Carlson said the Legacy Village PUD, being developed by the Hartford Group and approved earlier this year, consists of a number of separate parcels with a variety of land uses. Outlot H of the PUD consists of approximately 20 acres in the southwest corner of the PUD, bound by the new Kennard Street on the east, the power line easement on the north, and abutting the south and west lot lines of the Hajicek Property. This parcel was approved in concept by the city council for up to 250 owner-occupied townhomes. Town and Country Homes, a national residential builder, is proposing a project of 221 townhomes, to be called Heritage Square. Mr. Carlson said Heritage Square involves two building types: the Hometown units, which are back-to-front units with an entry at the front and garage/driveway in the rear, in 4-, 5-, and 6-unit buildings, labeled Building Type A on the site plan; and the Chateau units, which are back-to-back units in 8-unit buildings, four on a side, labeled Building Type B on the site plan in the report. Commissioner Rossbach asked who is developing the open space to the north? Mr. Carlson said that open space is owned by the Hartford Group and there was some discussion about the city buying the open space for park land. Staff would be able to update the commission on the latest information. Mr. Ekstrand said the city was asked to pay a certain dollar amount for the open space, which the city rejected. Therefore, the property remains an open space and will remain an openspace as long as the dollar amount remains to be asked. The city would like to see that land incorporated into the other properties or retained as a recreational area. Commissioner Rossbach asked if that open space is set aside in the PUD to be an open space park land? Mr. Carlson said it's set aside to be an outlot within the approved Legacy Village PUD. Commissioner Rossbach asked if it has a specific designation? Mr. Carlson said it is designated as open space. Mr. Ekstrand said that is correct. Commissioner Rossbach asked if in the original PUD an area in the northeast corner was still being set aside as affordable? It was going to be apartment buildings and then there were going to be 50 townhomes. He asked if this affordable housing was going to take the place of that or is this an additional 50 affordable housing units? 37 Planning Commission Minutes of 10-20-03 -5- Mr. Carlson said there are going to be 50 homes for affordable housing within Heritage Square and they are guaranteeing 50 homes, however, he was not privy to the discussion of it being "in place" of or "in addition" to the 50 affordable housing units. Mr. Ekstrand said it was his understanding that it would be "in addition" to the 50 affordable homes. Mr. Carlson said the overall Legacy Village PUD is owned by the Hartford Group and this piece of Outlot H is being sold as an option to Town & Country Homes and they are only dealing with this Outlot H and not the other parcels within the PUD. Commissioner Rossbach said at the last planning commission meeting the commission discussed the additional parking on Kennard Street and he was led to believe there would be carriage walks put in by the developer. In Mr. Carlson's report it sounds like a question that the carriage walks would be put in and he would like that clarified. Mr. Carlson said he would have to ask Mr. Cavett if that has been incorporated into the design or not. Mr. Cavett said as part of the change order to add parking to the Kennard Street project, the city felt the carriage walks should be put in by the developer. The city would put in the sidewalks and the developer should find out how many carriage walks would come out to those parking stalls. Commissioner Rossbach said he has a concern about the setback, regardless of the fact that he understands some of the residential homes have been sold to a developer. He said the ordinance states that the setbacks are taken from the property line so he doesn't agree with that portion of Mr. Carlson's report. He is hesitant to put the townhomes so close to the current residential property lines without knowing the fate of what is going to happen in that location. Mr. Carlson said three out of the five residential homes have been optioned to another developer so it is possible that those homes will stay there for the foreseeable future. He said if Outlot H were platted as single family homes it could be developed with the lots budding up to the back end of the property with homes that would be about the same size, shape, and profile as the townhouse buildings that are proposed and within the 30 foot setback. He said this development is not dramatically different from what a single-family development could accomplish on this same site. Chairperson Fischer asked staff if the engineering comments on pages 22 through 26 were incorporated' into the staff report, and if not, why not? Mr. Carlson said the engineer provided a full review, as well as a list of conditions for approval that the engineer thought would be appropriate. He said those conditions of approval were incorporated into the memo and the resolution. However, not every one of those comments were put' into the staff report. Chairperson Fischer asked what the procedure would be if the carriage walks did not get put in prior to occupancy and the potential of having unhappy neighbors if they tried to go in afterwards and finish the job later? She asked if the carriage walks would have to be put in before occupancy permits could be issued? 38 Planning Commission Minutes of 10-20-03 -6- Mr. Ekstrand said the carriage walks would be covered in the CDRB requirements. Typically the city would require escrow to guarantee all work would be completed before occupancy. Mr. Carlson said to clarify there are two pieces of sidewalk being discussed. The townhomes facing Kennard Street will have a walk from the front door to the city sidewalk parallel to Kennard Street. The second piece is for the carriage walk, which is from the sidewalk across the boulevard to the curb at the parking space itself. Both of those pieces are covered in the requirements of Town & Country. He said the first is shown on the site plan. The second piece would need to be part of Town & Country paying to build the sidewalks in the city right-of-way and those would be part of the private development. He said the sidewalks would be constructed in a manner agreed to at an appropriate staff level. Chairperson Fischer asked the applicant to address the commission. Ms. Krista Flemming, Project Manager of Land Development, Town & Country Homes, 7615 Smetana Lane, Suite 180, Edina Prairie, MN, addressed the commission. Ms. Fleming wanted to thank everyone who had been involved in this project for the past few months. She said this project creates a pedestrian friendly, streetscape feeling that is desired with a village feel. Commissioner Monahan-Junek asked what the difference in grade would be on Kennard Street? Ms. Flemming said depending on where you are on Kennard Street the grade ranges from four feet to eight feet in height. The walks going up to the townhomes have stairs and railings so there is an elevated feeling for the homes. Commissioner Monahan-Junek said the color rendering on page 3 of the booklet provided doesn't show the increase in the grade from the street level. Ms. Flemming said as you get farther down along the street there is more of a significance along that area that has the green space area. She said part of the color rendering was done before they had the final plan for Kennard Street because of what was happening with the final plat plan and when this rendering had to be completed. Commissioner Mueller said he has a concern about the stairs going up to the property. He Said that causes a problem for anybody who is in a wheelchair or handicapped. He asked if it's a standard practice to use steps or is there usually an attempt to try to make it a winding slope? Ms. Flemming said they try to have a graded area that can accommodate all conditions. Depending on the grade of the site they may not be able to provide that. They try to use long risers and stretch them out to eliminate the need for stairs. Town & Country has developed this design in a number of different locations under similar conditions and haven't had any issues or concerns. She said stairs make it more difficult to access the front of the home but you can access the home by the garage where there is a level plain. Commissioner Mueller said his concern is not so much for the access to the townhome because the homeowner can pick and choose the unit that is best for them but the concern is relating to the public pathways. 39 Planning Commission Minutes of 10-20-03 -7- Ms. Flemming said public paths are different from private paths. Public paths have to be winding or at a grade. The private paths are the ones that would have steps and then they could use retaining walls to wind the path along in place of using steps. Chairperson Fischer asked if anybody in the audience wanted to address the commission. Mr. Gerald Peterson, 3016 Hazelwood Street, Maplewood, addressed the commission. He said as far as the setback variances he doesn't think the setback is large enough. He said those lots are deep and just because the lots are deep doesn't mean there should be any exceptions made to allow the development to be any closer to the existing homes. He is concerned about the glare from headlights for the homes on the ends. He thinks the landscaping should be heavy and with a decent size tree between the existing homes and the new townhomes. Mr. Peterson said he noticed on the plans that there were some additional lines on Legacy Parkway and wondered what the lines represented? Mr. Carlson said those lines represent a possible future continuance of the road going through the area. He said Legacy Parkway could be a through street to Hazelwood Street to provide a thru connection. If the existing single-family homes that have not sold yet remain there than Legacy Parkway would not go through as it currently shows on the map. If the homes get sold, and the area is redeveloped, than Legacy Parkway could go through to Hazelwood. However, there is no street design; it is simply a suggestion that Legacy Parkway could be extended in the future. Chairperson Fischer asked if anybody else wanted to speak on this item? Nobody came forward. Commissioner Dierich asked what the purpose was for having two entrances to the driveway? Ms. Flemming said the area was designed that way for public safety purposes for fire and emergency vehicles to gain access. She said they would plant coniferous trees between the residential area and the new development to help block the vehicle headlights shining through for the four seasons of the year. Commissioner Mueller said he would recommend using Blue Spruce evergreen trees as the barrier between the homes and the townhome development. He asked if it was possible to use berms? He also asked how Town & Country Homes felt about fences? Ms. Flemming said they tried to tie into the neighborhood without having to create an offsite drainage issue and without having to look at grading. She said typically you can put a berm within a 20-foot area. She said they would prefer to use landscaping as a barrier instead of a fence. Commissioner Mueller said he doesn't care for fencing either but maybe the best thing would be to check with the homes that have not been sold to see what they would like to see in their backyard. Ms. Flemming said they could discuss that with staff as well. Commissioner Rossbach asked what type of landscaping and variety and size of trees Town & Country plans on planting on the boundary line? 40 Planning Commission Minutes of 10-20-03 -8- Ms. Flemming said they propose to use eight-foot high trees. They will try to cluster five to six different species of trees along with some deciduous trees to provide a balance as well as some ornamental trees. Commissioner Dierich asked if there are other public streets in this development besides Legacy Parkway? Mr. Ekstrand said just Kennard Street and Legacy Parkway. Chairperson Fischer asked what the distances would be of the setbacks of the buildings? She noticed on the plan that it cuts farther in then the private road shown on page 6? Mr. Ekstrand said the plan is not to scale but he would venture to say that the center of Legacy Parkway looks like 20 feet as compared to the setback for the homes on Kennard Street. He said other areas range from 12 to 15 feet and up to 30 feet for the setback. Chairperson Fischer said a comment was made in the report regarding additional trails may compromise the design of the rainwater gardens. She asked if that was going to be a problem or can they be accommodated? Mr. Cavett said there should be no problem and it should be a very workable plan. Commissioner Monahan-Junek said she likes this plan except for the setback issue on the west side that meets up with some of residential homes. She said'even though some of the properties have been sold to a developer there are two other homes that have not been sold. Since the city does not know what is going to be put in the area where the homes have been sold, and we can't assume the area will be developed, she does not think we should ask for a variance to allow a smaller setback. Chairperson Fischer said she shares the same feeling. Some people have deeper properties that they have maintained and it should not be used as an excuse for a development to not meet the requirements that would normally be in place. She said then the commission is faced with the unusual conditions of the property it is highly possible that the property will be redeveloped and the city does not know the time frame and that adds to the dilemma. She said if the city knew what the time frame was she would not have as much of a problem with this. Commissioner Dierich said what about the people that would live in the end townhome units, they would not have a reasonable setback from the existing residential homes. She agrees with the commissioners about the setback, maybe not as strong as some, but the new homeowners need to have a reasonable distance from the existing homes. Commissioner Pearson asked Mr. Cavett at one of the previous planning commission hearings a few homeowners to the west had some serious concerns that this development would be draining onto their properties and were concerned about potential flooding problems. He asked Mr. Cavett if he is satisfied the drainage will be maintained without draining excessively onto the neighboring properties? 41 Planning Commission Minutes of 10-20-03 -9- Mr. Cavett said the city is very satisfied that there will not be any drainage problems. There was an extensive drainage study done as part of the Hartford Development for this property. Part of the water will drain towards Kennard Street, into the drainage system, to the north and into the two drainage ponds. He said much of the drainage would be contained in the streets and conveyed by storm sewers. The drainage may be reduced from what currently goes to the neighbor's properties. Commissioner Rossbach said he believes the residents were concerned that the drainage would flood their basements. He said maybe the city could make a reassurance that the drainage would go to the drainage system and not into their basements? Mr. Cavett said staff will certainly look into that. The city will make sure that flooding would not be the case. This concern is the first time he had heard people were concerned there would be a potential flood problem so he will check into it. Chairperson Fischer asked if the commission wanted to call a five minute recess to come to a resolution regarding the motion? The Planning Commission members agreed to a five-minute break. When the commission reconvened, Commissioner Pearson moved to recommend adoption of the resolution on pages 33-34 of the staff report, approving the Planned Unit Development for Heritage Square, Outlot H of the Legacy Village PUD, as illustrated on the drawings prepared by Landform, date-stamped October 15, 2003, except as revised in aCcordance with the following conditions: (changes or additions to the motion are in bold and underlined.) 1) Outlot H is approved for 220 units of townhouses as revised according to the conditions in this report. 2) The southern unit of the Hometown (Type A) building, as the southwest corner of Legacy Parkway and Kennard Street, shall be eliminated, reducing it from 5 units to 4 units, thus continuing the internal linear green space out to Kennard Street at a width of at least 70 feet. The landscape treatment of this green space shall be continued into this new area in similar fashion to the rest of the linear green space. 3) Within the linear green space two north-south segments of sidewalk shall be added, one connecting Driveways K and U, the other connecting Driveways G and W. The rain gardens and landscaping shall be revised to accommodate these sidewalks. 4) The dead ends of all driveways behind the Chateau (Type B) buildings - Street B and Drives G, I, K, M, O, Q, U, V, and W - shall be designed, striped and signed to accommodate two common parking spaces each. 5) The monument signs and associated landscaping at the corner of Legacy Parkway and Kennard Street shall be revised to place trees or other landscape features that are at least 25 feet in height and close to the right-of-way, while still maintaining safe sight distances, that will create a significant tall edge mimicking the scale of the proposed senior building and future office building on the opposite corners of the intersection. 42 Planning Commission Minutes of 10-20-03 -10- 6) The setbacks are approved as shown on the site plan except the west side setbacks for the buildinRs shall be 50 feet. 7) All construction shall follow the plans date-stamped October 15, 2003. The city council may approve major changes. The director of community, development may approve minor changes. 8) The proposed construction must be substantially started within one year of council approval or the permit shall end. The council may extend this permit for one year. 9) The city council shall review this permit in one year. 10)The homeowners association documents shall state that the visitor parking areas shall be kept open for visitor parking and shall not be used as a storage area for RVs, trailers, campers and the like. Commissioner Pearson moved to recommend the Preliminary Plat as illustrated on the drawings submitted by Landform, dated September 12, 2003, in the staff report except as revised in accordance with the following conditions: 1) The plat shall be revised in terms of the dimensions and numbering of lots if necessary to reflect the recommended revisions to the number and location of buildings in the above conditions for the PUD. 2) Legacy Parkway west of Kennard Street is shown as a public roadway. The following conditions must be met if Legacy Parkway is constructed as a public roadway: a. The city should be responsible for the design and construction of the roadway. b. The developer will need to petition the city for the improvements. c. The roadway needs to be redesigned to a more typical city street design or the developer needs to be responsible for the ongoing maintenance of all of the amenities and rainwater gardens included in the design. The city will grant an easement to the developer for the maintenance of the amenities and rainwater gardens. The developer will be required to prepare a maintenance agreement detailing the specifics of the maintenance operations for city review and approval. 3) The plan shows on-street parking along the west side of Kennard Street. The following conditions must be met if the on-street parking is to remain on Kennard Street. An additional 8 feet of right-of-way shall be dedicated by the developer along the west side of Kennard Street to accommodate the parking bays and allow for the necessary sidewalk and boulevard areas. b. The developer shall be respOnsible for the costs (construction and 31.5% admin & engineering) to add the parking bays along Kennard Street. These costs are estimated to be approximately $70,000. 43 Planning Commission Minutes of 10-20-03 -11- 4) The plans show grading outside of the property boundary along the north, west and south sides of the site. All grading shall be restricted to within the property boundaries or temporary construction easements need to be obtained from the adjacent property owners. The developer must provide evidence of any temporary construction easements. 5) The developer must prepare an operation and maintenance plan for the proposed storm drainage system for the review and approval of the city. An active operation and maintenance program is critical to the proper function and operation of the system. 6) In the future, the city may design to extend sanitary sewer and water main services into Outlot I from the sanitary sewer and water main utilities in the driveways north of Legacy Parkway. The services may be for future park and/or open space uses on Outlot I. The developer and the Home Owners Association must agree in writing that they will not object to the future installation of these utility services. 7) The plat includes Outlot A for the storm water pond. The pond must be included in a public drainage and utility easement rather than an outlot. The developer must also dedicate a public drainage and utility easement for the pond outlet. 8) The plat shall include 20' wide utility easements along all water main outside of public right-of- way per SPRWS requirements. 9) The developer shall be required to grant the city a right of entry/temporary construction easement, as necessary, for public roadway construction outside of the limits of the public right-of-way. Commissioner Dierich seconded. Ayes- Desai, Dierich, Fischer, Monahan-Junekl Pearson, Rossbach Nay- Mueller Commissioner Mueller said he voted nay based on the information he received tonight that there is really only one property that is affected by the setback being less than 50 feet. The other lot that has not been sold is 52 feet from the setback. The rest of the homes have been sold and are to be redeveloped by a developer. Staff told him that once a developer comes to the city they have to work with what is "existing". Staff said the developers have to work with the land that is there and with the rules and regulations that exist. So with that information we know the remaining homes that have sold will be redeveloped in some way. Eventually maybe the two remaining unsold homes will decide to sell and the whole area will be redeveloped. The motion passed. This item goes to the city council November 10, 2003. 44