Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05/05/20031. Call to Order MAPLEWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION Monday, May 5, 2003, 7:00 PM City Hall Council Chambers 1830 County Road B East 2. Roll Call 3. Approval of Agenda 4. Approval of Minutes a. April 21,2003 5. Public Hearings None o New Business a. Dearborn Meadow East (Castle Avenue) 1. Planned Unit Development (PUD) Revision 2. Preliminary Plat Revision Unfinished Business a. County Road D Extension Right-of-Way Study (Hazelwood to Highway 61) 1. Alignment Study and Options 2. Storm Water and Wetland Study b. South Maplewood Sanitary Sewer Study c. Hillcrest Village Mixed Use Standards - Subdivision Requirements 8. Visitor Presentations 9. Commission Presentations a. April 28 Council Meeting: Mr. Mueller b. May 12 Council Meeting: Mr. Ledvina c. May 27 Council Meeting: Ms. Dierich 10. Staff Presentations a. Annual Tour - June 30, 2003? 11. Adjoumment WELCOME TO THIS MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION This outline has been prepared to help you understand the public meeting process. The review of an item usually takes the following form: 1. The chairperson of the meeting will announce the item to be reviewed and ask for the staff report on the subject. 2. Staff presents their report on the matter. 3. The Commission will then ask City staff questions about the proposal. 4. The chairperson will then ask the audience if there is anyone present who wishes to comment on the proposal. 5. This is the time for the public to make comments or ask questions about the proposal. Please step up to the podium, speak clearly, first giving your name and address and then your comments. 6. After everyone in the audience wishing to speak has given his or her comments, the chairperson will close the public discussion portion of the meeting. 7. The Commission will then discuss the proposal. No further public comments are allowed. 8. The Commission will then make its recommendation or decision. 9. All decisions by the Planning Commission are recommendations to the City Council. The City Council makes the final decision. jw/pc\pcagd Revised: 01/95 DRAFT MINUTES OF THE MAPLEWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION 1830 COUNTY ROAD B EAST, MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA MONDAY, APRIL 21, 2003 I. CALL TO ORDER Chairperson Fischer called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. I1. ROLL CALL Commissioner Commissioner Commissioner Commissioner Commissioner Commissioner Commissioner Commissioner Commissioner Staff Present: Tushar Desai Mary Dierich Lorraine Fischer Matt Ledvina Jackie Monahan-Junek Paul Mueller Gary Pearson William Rossbach Dale Trippler Present Present Present Present Present Present Present Present Present Melinda Coleman, Assistant City Manager Chuck Ahl, Public Works Director Ken Roberts, Associate Planner Lisa Kroll, Recording Secretary APPROVAL OF AGENDA Commissioner Rossbach moved to approve the agenda. Commissioner Pearson seconded. Ayes-Desai, Dierich, Fischer, Ledvina, Monahan-Junek, Mueller, Pearson, Rossbach, Trippler The motion passed. IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Approval of the planning commission minutes for April 7, 2003. Chairperson Fischer had a correction on page 3, the second paragraph, in the third line. Mr. Ahl said he meant it to read: In other words, a governmental unit can put close a center median on and still provide reasonable access, which word would mean a right in and a right out. Commissioner Pearson moved to approve the planning commission minutes for April 7, 2003, with changes. Commissioner Ledvina seconded. Ayes- Desai, Dierich, Fischer, Ledvina, Monahan-Junek, Mueller, Pearson, Rossbach, Abstention - Trippler Planning Commission Minutes of 04-21-03 -2- V. PUBLIC HEARING a. Comprehensive Sanitary Sewer Plan Amendment and Update Mr. Roberts said city staff and Jon Horn of Kimley-Horn and Associates have completed an update to the Sanitary Sewer Comprehensive Plan portion of the Maplewood Comprehensive Plan. The city last updated the Sanitary Sewer Comprehensive Plan in November 2000. This 2003 update was necessary to address some inconsistencies in the previous update and to consider anticipated future development/redevelopment in the city. This update also was a requirement of the Alternative Urban Area wide Review (AUAR) for the proposed Legacy Village at Maplewood development. This is the project that has been proposed for the undeveloped area west of the Maplewood Mall. Mr. Roberts introduced Mr. Jon Horn of Kimley-Horn and Associates. Mr. Horn gave a presentation on the sanitary sewer comprehensive plan update. He said the City of Maplewood discharges its sanitary sewer to a system that is owned and operated by the Metropolitan Council Environmental Services. He said Maplewood is divided into 74 sewer districts. He said they reviewed those sewer districts and came up with sewer flow estimates for the years between 2003 and 2020. Commissioner Trippler said on page 4 of the south Maplewood sewer study report, under the 3.4 existing land use category, there are zoning categories listed as single-dwelling residential R-1 and planned unit development. He asked if a planned unit development (PUD) is a zoning category? Mr. Horn said yes, the planned unit development showed up in the zoning plan. Commissioner Ledvina asked if the planning commission made a recommendation to approve the update to the sanitary sewer comprehensive plan, how would changes to the sanitary sewer comprehensive plan get incorporated at a later date if those recommendations were made to the city council? Mr. Horn said the plan included getting a draft document approved and accepted by the planning commission and the city council and then submitted to the Met Council. He said through that process there would be some modifications and revisions. He said the south Maplewood sewer study would be presented and before the document is finalized, the modifications would be combined into the final document. Commissioner Dierich asked in regards to the south Maplewood area and the Bailey Nursery property, is it to the city's financial benefit to drain that area for the City of Woodbury? Mr. Horn said until the south Maplewood study is presented in detail, those questions couldn't be answered. The south Maplewood study would be presented sometime in May. Commissioner Dierich asked if the city is reserving the capacity, then when does the city pay for that? Mr. Ahl said sewer capacity is allocated through SAC charges (sewer availability charges) and those charges are collected when the city issues building permits. Chairperson Fischer asked if anybody in the audience wanted to be heard regarding the sanitary sewer plan update? Planning Commission Minutes of 04-21-03 -3- There were no audience members that wanted to speak on this issue. Commissioner Pearson moved to adopt the resolution on page 4 of the staff report. This resolution approves the proposed Comprehensive Sanitary Sewer Plan Update. Commissioner Ledvina seconded. Ayes - Desai, Dierich, Fischer, Ledvina, Monahan-Junek, Mueller, Pearson, Rossbach, Trippler The motion passed. VI. NEW BUSINESS a. Street Right-of-Way Vacations - Maplewood Middle School (Holloway and Lakewood) Mr. Roberts said Ron Parrucci, Director of Business Services for School District 622, is requesting that the city council vacate two street rights-of-way on the Maplewood Middle School property. The reason for the requested vacations is that one, Tierney Avenue right-of-way, lies in the location of the school. The other, Frisbie Avenue, lies within the athletic fields. Both are dead-end rights-of- ways that are not needed for street or utility purposes. The applicant wants to vacate these streets since there is no reason to keep them of record. Commissioner Dierich asked how often does it happen that street right-of-ways are vacated and are needed years later? Mr. Roberts said it has happened in the past and it would not be difficult to request that property owners dedicate new right-of-ways with new development plans. Commissioner Rossbach moved to approve the resolution on page 6 for the vacation of the Tierney Avenue and Frisbie Avenue street rights-of-way at Maplewood Middle School. The reason for these vacations is that there is no public purpose in retaining them. Commissioner Pearson seconded. Ayes- Desai, Dierich, Fischer, Ledvina, Monahan-Junek, Mueller, Pearson, Rossbach, Trippler The motion passed. This item goes to the city council on May 12, 2003. b. Frontline Church Conditional Use Permit - 2055 White Bear Avenue Mr. Roberts said Mr. Bill Arrigoni, representing Frontline Church, is proposing to open a church in the existing ASI office/warehousing building at 2055 White Bear Avenue. This would be a new location for the church that is now operating in Roseville on Hamline Avenue. To have the church in this location, Mr. Arrigoni is asking that Maplewood approve a conditional use permit (CUP). The Maplewood City Code requires a CUP for churches and places of worship. As proposed, the school would lease about 11,500 square feet of space in the existing 82,000-square-foot building. Mr. Roberts said the church would use their space primarily on Sunday mornings and on Wednesday evenings. These times would not conflict with the other tenants in the building as they use their spaces primarily during the day on weekdays. Planning Commission -4- Minutes of 04-21-03 Commissioner Rossbach said he understood the building was being leased. He asked staff if that meant the building was still on the tax roll? Mr. Roberts said that was his understanding. Chairperson Fischer asked the applicant to address the commission. Mr. Bill Arrigoni, the Senior Pastor for Frontline Church, residing at 1394 Hilltop Ridge, Houlton, Wisconsin, addressed the commission. Commissioner Rossbach asked Mr. Arrigoni where the Frontline Church is located? Mr. Arrigoni said Frontline Church is currently located at 2819 Hamline Avenue in Roseville in a shopping center that is owned by Kraus-Anderson. The shopping center has been sold to Presbyterian Homes, and the shopping center will be torn down in a few months. Commissioner Rossbach asked what the size of the congregation currently was? Mr. Arrigoni said their congregation was now at 100 people. Commissioner Desai said he read in the Wednesday evenings and Sunday mornings. held at the church during the week? staff report that the primary activities happen on He inquired if that meant there were no other activities Mr. Arrigoni said normal office activities happen during the day and in the evening there are small prayer meetings but there are not entire church meetings or gatherings. Commissioner Trippler said the memo from Deputy Chief Banick stated he was concerned about the safety and security of the patrons and he recommended the lighting plan be reviewed. He asked the applicant if he was aware of these situations? Mr. Arrigoni said no, he was not aware of Mr. Banick's comments. Mr. Arrigoni said however, he has discussed increasing the lighting in the area with the owners of the building. Commissioner Trippler said Deputy Banick's memo stated that there had been an increase in rear- end traffic crashes in the area. He asked if Mr. Arrigoni has been made aware of that? Mr. Arrigoni said no he was not. Commissioner Mueller asked if their intention was to own a building and move the congregation or is the plan to continue leasing space? Mr. Arrigoni said they will have a five-year lease at this location but their ideal situation would be to buy land and build a church, but that is out of their budget right now. Commissioner Desai asked if there was an existing sprinkler system in the warehouse building an, was it compatible for the amount of people that will be in the building? Planning Commission Minutes of 04-21-03 -5- Mr. Arrigoni said there is a sprinkler system. He said they will be working with the Fire Marshal throughout the renovation process to ensure the sprinkler system is compatible for the amount of people that would occupy the space. Commissioner Pearson moved to adopt the resolution on pages 15 and 16 in the staff report. This resolution approves the conditional use permit for Frontline Church to operate in the building at 2055 White Bear Avenue. Maplewood bases this permit on the findings required by the code and subject to the following conditions: 1. All construction shall follow the plans dated March 26, 2003, as approved by the city. The director of community development may approve minor changes. 2. The proposed church must be started in this location within one year after council approval or the permit shall end. The council may extend this deadline for one year. The church shall meet the requirements of the city building official and the fire marshal. In addition, city staff shall determine the maximum capacity of the church upon review of the final floor and building plans. 4. The property owner or manager shall sweep and restripe the parking lot before the church occupies their space. 5. The city council shall review this permit in one year. Commissioner Rossbach seconded. Ayes-Desai, Dierich, Fischer, Ledvina, Monahan-Junek, Mueller, Pearson, Rossbach, Trippler The motion passed. This item goes to the city council on May 12, 2003. c. County Road D Extension Right-of-Way Study (Hazelwood to Highway 61) Mr. Chuck Ahl, Public Works Director at the City of Maplewood, gave another presentation regarding the County Road D Extension Right-of-Way Study from Hazelwood to Highway 61. He said it's recommended that the planning commission review the alignment options and the storm water management and wetland mitigation plan for the County Road D Realignment Project (City Projects 02-07 and 02-08) and table making a recommendation until May 5, 2003. Mr. Karl Keel of URS gave a presentation on the roadway alignment issues. Mr. Ron Leaf of Short Elliott Hendrickson gave a presentation on the storm water wetland plan. Commissioner Dierich asked Mr. Ahl, which of the road alignment options is flagged by staff as the preference? Mr. Ahl said Mr. Kgel said the preference was option Wl. Planning Commission Minutes of 04-21-03 -6- Commissioner Monahan-Junek said the report references the monitoring of the wetlands for five years and she wondered what happened after the five-year time period? Mr. Ahl said the responsibility for monitoring for the first five years is part of the permitting process. The city currently uses a staff member from the Nature Center to do such monitoring. They would expect to expand that and within five years they would like to have an environmental staff person. Commissioner Dierich asked staff if they could have a breakdown of the figures regarding the cost for the wetland mitigation and the land acquisition by the next planning commission meeting? Mr. Ahl said Mr. Horn is the project manager for this project and he could spend time at the next meeting going over the figures for the planning commission. The city is estimating a little Iow for property acquisition before they negotiate. He said the city has a large contingency fund that would cover that. Commissioner Dierich said having those figures would help her make some decisions. She asked where the four-lane road would run? She said it says in the report the road will be four lanes but it doesn't look like there is enough room and there are also significant land level issues. Mr. Ahl said the railroad berm will need to be removed through that area. He said that railroad line is abandoned. He said the railroad line exists for one reason, and that is that if the 30-ton transformer at Xcel should fail, the transformer would have to be removed. The transformer can only now be removed by rail. A 104-tire, 25-axel truck is now being worked on in a 6 to 9 month time period that could move the transformer. However, the truck is a special order vehicle and would require specie permits. He said the transformer cannot be taken over a bridge because the bridge could not hold it. It can only be transported on a railroad bridge. Commissioner Monahan-Junek asked what the speed limit on Beam Avenue was? Mr. Ahl said the speed limit is between 40 and 45 mph at different sections of Beam Avenue. Commissioner Monahan-Junek asked why it's not acceptable to have the realignment of County Road D at the T-intersection on the west side of TH 617 Mr. Ahl said this is a county road and it has a county state aid highway status. He said in order to construct that type of road there has to be a contiguous alignment, a right hand turn, and have 5,000 vehicles a day. This would require a three-way stop, which is typically not allowed on a state aid highway system. He said when proposing that plan to the county traffic engineer they said they would not support that plan at any time because it does not meet the proper criteria. Commissioner Desai asked how having the railroad tracks coming down would effect the Gateway Trail? Mr. Ahl said as part of this plan it was the bity's goal to have the Gateway Trail (Vento Trail) constructed all the way up to Highway 96 and White Bear Avenue. Greg Mack, the Ramsey County Parks Director, had a grant to construct the trail. He was hoping to have the railroad abandoned b now. Unfortunately, working with the railroad is very difficult to deal with. He said on top of that, Burlington Northern has leased this line to Minnesota Commercial for operation and they have a six- year lease. Planning Commission Minutes of 04-21-03 -7- Mr. Ahl said they are looking at that as one of the business propositions and have asked for a significant amount of cash in order to buy out those leases. In the long term it would be a goal to have this trail extended to Highway 96 and White Bear Avenue along this corridor with the cities of White Bear Township, White Bear Lake, Vadnais Heights, and Maplewood. They are working with Mr. Mack on abandoning a small segment of the trail and constructing it up to the County Road D area and moving it through to Buerkle Drive and TH 61. Commissioner Mueller asked if the intention was to keep the dead end to County Road D on the other side of the bridge? Mr. Ahl said yes. Commissioner Rossbach said he believes there is a piece missing from this plan and it seems it does not fit in with the goals in the comprehensive plan about protecting existing neighborhoods. Mr. Ahl said the goals of the comprehensive plan are to provide an adequate level of service to commensurate with the land use plan for the entire community. He said this plan moves the city in that direction and it sets the city up with future improvements. It is his opinion that the problems the city is enduring around the Maplewood Mall area and the area roadways are the result of congestion because the transportation system cannot handle the volume of traffic. Therefore, the city is hearing about people making a shortcut through the residential neighborhoods. An example of this is Walter Street between TH 61 and up to County Road D. This area has some of the highest traffic volumes for a residential street and there is an absolute need for the alignment of the western section of roadway. In his opinion, the speed and the traffic volume through residential neighborhoods like that along Walter Street is unacceptable. Commissioner Rossbach said he agrees that the city is planning on implementing a number of changes to help move traffic along. However, even with the studies the city has done and the proposed road alignment, he feels the traffic level would be at the same level the city is currently at in 2003 when 2010 comes. He said with the improvements the city has planned, the changes will not protect the neighborhoods from people making shortcuts through residential neighborhoods. Commissioner Dierich said when looking at the wetland mitigation on figure 4, it appears there is only one outlet out to County Road D. Mr. Ahl said there would be three outlets, there is no outlet proposed to Hazelwood Avenue. There will be a major outlet to the south on Kennard Street up to County Road D. As part of the staff recommendation, there is going to be a new street from Kennard Street over to Southlawn Drive. The city is also having discussions with St. John's Hospital regarding a possible connection of St. John's Boulevard to Kennard Street as a through street over to Hazelwood Street. Chairperson Fischer asked if anyone in the audience wanted to speak on these issues for them to come forward and give their name and address. The following people spoke: Mr. Tom Gelman, Vice President of the Board of Directors of Cardinal Pointe, addressed the commission. The realignment of County Road D will have an impact on the residents at Cardinal Pointe. He said whichever plan the city chooses, they hope it will be far enough from Cardinal Pointe to keep the traffic, noise and the glare from the car lights down. Planning Commission Minutes of 04-21-03 -8- Mr. Gelman said if they can keep the railroad berm between the largest point of the road and Cardinal Pointe, they would be most appreciative. Mr. Robert Kranze, 1264 Highridge Court, Maplewood, addressed the commission. He said he lives in the new townhomes on the west end of County Road D, which are affected by this project. Wetland H is right out the back of his property. When he bought this town house he was told the wetlands would not be disturbed because they were protected by the government policy. He said they paid more for the town house lot because it was on a wetland and they thought it would stay there. He just found out the wetland that was there had been allowed to deteriorate. The soils indicate that the wetland is not the best wetland it used to be. He is sympathetic to the neighbors that have lived in that area for 30 plus years that are affected by this road alignment project. He said he is less sympathetic to the business owners, because in his opinion, they don't care about things like wetlands. He said plan Wl would save the three houses on County Road D but the road would go right through the wetland. He said he was told that with wetland mitigation, if you need to go through the wetland area there would be a two-to-one replacement of wetlands replaced somewhere. He would like consideration to be given for the restoration of the wetland. He asked what the zoning would be for the developable land in that area? Mr. Keel of URS said the land is zoned industrial. He said they would suggest that a less intensive commercial use be utilized east of the roadway and that a residential use would be appropriate west of the roadway, adjacent to the existing residential area that is to the west. Mr. Kranze asked with the higher density residential, will there be an effort to have another wetland preserved whether homes or town homes are built? Mr. Keel said it depends on which road alignment plan is selected. He said if the alignment is selected that removes the wetland, the wetland replacement is proposed to occur on the east side of TH 61 on the golf course property. Mr. Kranze said he would like the wetland to be put where God put it rather than over on the golf course, which is nice for the golfers. He thinks the wetland would be more beneficial on the west side where it has been. Mr. George Suppan, 3050 Hazelwood Avenue, Maplewood, addressed the commission. Mr. Suppan said it looks like one of the ponding areas will be right behind his house. He is concerned about that because of the elevation of the pipeline. He said they say they need to have runoff. In the elevations proposed in the EAW and the AUAR, the area where the gas line extends east of Hazelwood Avenue to the Legacy Village property is at the same level if not higher than the backyards of the property owners that are at the south side of where the pond is being proposed. Mr. Suppan said he wanted to make sure the pond would not have an impact on the residential area. At this point, the residents do not have a firm agreement of doing anything other than staying put. He is concerned that the pond level is going to be higher than the level of the homes and any potential water problems this could cause. Mr. Ahl assured Mr. Suppan that the pond would be located so it would not drain towards or into the residential homes. The planning commission will be reviewing these items again at their May 3, 2003, meeting. Planning Commission Minutes of 04-21-03 -9- -VII. UNFINISHED BUSINESS None. VIII. VISITOR PRESENTATIONS None. IX. COMMISSION PRESENTATIONS a. Mr. Desai was the planning commission representative at the April 14, 2003, city council meeting. Items discussed were the home occupation hair salon for 2697 Pinkspire Lane, the city council approved the request. The city council denied the land use change for the higher density for the Van Dyke Village Townhomes and tabled action for the PUD request for the conditional use permit. b. Mr. Mueller will be the planning commission representative at the April 28, 2003, city council meeting. Items to be discussed will be the utility easement for Schroeder Milk, the reconsideration of the Sibley Cove Apartments on County Road D, and the CUP for the Van Dyke Village Town houses. c. Mr. Ledvina will be the planning commission representative at the May 12, 2003, city council meeting. Items to be discussed will be the street rights-of-way vacation for the Maplewood Middle School, the Frontline Church conditional use permit, and possibly the Legacy Village and the County Road D extension realignment. X. STAFF PRESENTATIONS a. Annual Tour Date - June 30, 2003 Mr. Roberts said he would like the planning commission to think about June 30, 2003, as the date for the upcoming annual tour. He said because there are five Mondays in the month of June, this fifth Monday in June makes the annual tour a possibility for the city council and planning commission to attend since they wouldn't have any scheduled meetings that week. Ms. Coleman reminded planning commission members that the joint city council and planning commission meeting on Monday, May 19, 2003, will start at 6:00 p.m. and end at 8:00 p.m. when the regular planning commission meeting would begin. Ms. Coleman said staff is in the process of scheduling a community-wide meeting to discuss the issues that have risen at Emma's Place. Based on the concerns of the neighborhood at the past planning commission and city council meetings, there is a need for a community-wide meeting to communicate the problems and try to resolve the issues. XI. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 9:23 p.m. TO: FROM: SUBJECT: LOCATION: DATE: MEMORANDUM City Manager Ken Robeds, Associate Planner Dearborn Meadow East Castle Avenue, north of Cope Avenue Apdl 29, 2003 INTRODUCTION Project Description Mr. Pat Kinney is proposing revisions to the approved Dearborn Meadow town house development. In 2002, the city approved plans for Dearborn Meadows with nine town houses (in four twinhomes and one single unit). The approval for the nine units was for a 2.11-acre site. The revised plan now has a total of 15 town houses (in seven twinhomes and one single unit) in on a 3.58-acre site on the south side of Castle Avenue, north of Cope Avenue. Refer to the maps on pages 15-20. A homeowners' association would own and maintain the common areas. Each building would have horizontal-lap vinyl siding, aluminum soffits and fascia and brick veneer on the fronts. In addition, each unit would have a two-car garage. (See the elevations on page 24 and the enclosed plans.) Requests To build this project, Mr. Kinney is requesting that the city approve: A revision to an approved conditional use permit (CUP) for a planned unit development (PUD). The revised PUD will allow the development of the site with 15 town houses to be on smaller lots than code usually allows (in area and in width) and to have them on a pdvate driveway. 2. A revised preliminary plat for 15 lots for the 15 housing units. (See the map on page 18.) 3. The design plans for the site, landscaping and buildings. BACKGROUND On July 22, 1985, the city approved a plan amendment and a rezoning for the property between Castle and Cope Avenues, east of the property at 1930 Castle Avenue. The land use plan change was from RL (Iow-density residential) to BW (business warehouse) and RM (medium-density residential). The zoning map change was from R-1 (single dwellings) and BC (business commercial) to M-1 (light manufacturing) and R-2 (single and double dwellings). These changes were required by the district court after Hillcrest Development sued the city to overtum a zoning map change from BC to R-1 that the council made on September 12, 1983. On May 15, 2000, the planning commission recommended approval of the land use plan and zoning map changes and the lot-area and lot-width variances for a 10-unit proposal. For the preliminary plat, the commission split their vote four to four. On May 23, 2000, the community design review board recommended that the city council deny the 10-unit proposal. The board felt that the site was too dense based on the configuration of the buildings. They felt that 15 feet between structures was too little and that the southerly buildings should be reoriented to face north with their backyards butting up to the backyards to the south. After much discussion and the recommendation from these meetings, Mr. Ackerman withdrew his development requests before staff sent the 10-unit proposal to the city council. On June 10, 2002, the city council made several approvals for the nine-unit Dearborn Meadows townhouses. These included: A change to the comprehensive plan. This was from M-1 (light manufacturing) to R-2 (single and double dwellings) for the site. (See the existing land use map on page 16.) A change to the zoning map. This was from M-1 (light manufacturing) to R-2 (single and double dwellings) for the site. Refer to the property line/zoning map on page 17. A conditional use permit (CUP) for a planned unit development (PUD). This PUD was to allow the town houses to be on smaller lots than code usually allows (in area and in width) and to have them on a private driveway. 4. A preliminary plat for nine lots for the nine housing units. (See the map on page 25.) 5. The design plans for the site, landscaping and buildings. City staff also proposed the city change the zoning map and land use plan designations for two areas next to the proposed development. These changes were from M-1 (light manufacturing) to R-2 (single and double dwellings). The council approved these changes as well. DISCUSSION Land Use and Zoning With the actions of the city council in 2002, the city has now planned and zoned this area R-2 (single and double dwellings). These designations allow single and double dwellings with up to 6 units per gross acre. Compatibility Staff does not find a problem with this proposal in terms of compatibility and land use. The proposed townhouses would be on property that the city has planned and zOned for double dwellings. The site is near Highway 36 and next to single dwellings. In addition, developers will often build townhomes next to single dwellings. A recent example is with the New Century Addition in south Maplewood. The developer, Robed Engstrom, is presently developing this neighborhood with a mix of single dwellings and townhomes. There are many other examples in Maplewood, such as Alton Ridge, Southwinds, Bennington Woods and the Cardage Homes of Maple Hills where this is the case. Density As proposed, the 15 units on the 3.58-acre site means there would be 4.19 units per acre. This is consistent with the density standards in the comprehensive plan for double dwelling residential development. In addition, the proposed change would expand the residential uses on a street that is now pdmadly used by the existing homes in this area. Thus, the proposal meets the goals in the comprehensive plan by having similar uses fronting on the same street. 2 PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD) REVISION Conditional Use Permit Section 36-438(b) of the city code says that it is the intent of the PUD code "to provide a means to allow flexibility by substantial deviations from the provisions of this chapter, including uses, setbacks, height and other regulations. Deviations may be granted for planned unit developments provided that: Certain regulations contained in this chapter should not apply to the proposed development because of its unique nature. 2. The PUD would be consistent with the purposes of this chapter. The planned unit development would produce a development of equal or supedor quality to that which would result from stdct adherence to the provisions of this chapter. The deviations would not constitute a significant threat to the property values, safety, health or general welfare of the owners or occupants of nearby land. The deviations are required for reasonable and practicable physical development and are not required solely for financial reasons." The applicant has applied for a conditional use permit (CUP) for a planned unit development (PUD) for the 15-unit housing development. They are requesting the CUP revision for the PUD because of expanded project size and for the proposed lot widths and lot sizes. The developer is proposing a small lot around each dwelling unit. A homeowners' association would own and maintain the rest of the land, including the pdvate driveway. Exchanging the common land for larger lot sizes would not change the location, design or number of units in this development. In addition, the city has approved similar-styled developments in the past such as Holloway Ponds at Holloway Avenue and Beebe Road. In this case, the proposal would have 15 town house units in eight buildings. In addition, having a PUD gives the city and developer a chance to be more flexible with site design and development details than the standard city requirements would normally allow. The developer intends to sell each of the townhomes and expects that each unit will sell for at least $249,000. Preliminary Plat Revision Density and Lot Size As now proposed, the 15 units on the 3.58-acre site means there would be 4.19 units per acre (an average of 10,396 square feet per unit). This is consistent with the density standards in the comprehensive plan for double dwelling residential development and is well above the 6,000 square-foot minimum lot area that the city requires for each unit in a double dwelling. Maplewood has zoned the properties on the north side of Cope Avenue R-2 (single and double dwellings). This also is the zoning for undeveloped land between Cope and Castle Avenues. The city requires each single dwelling lot in this zoning district to have at least 60 feet of frontage and be at least 7,500 square feet in area. Double dwellings in this district are to have 120 feet of 3 T T street frontage and be at least 12,000 square feet in area. The existing lots on the north side of Cope Avenue meet or exceed these standards. Public Utilities There are sanitary sewer, storm sewer and water in Castle and Cope Avenues to serve the proposed development. Specifically, the city designed and built the storm sewer in Cope Avenue to accommodate drainage from a large area north of Cope Avenue. The developer's plans will connect their pipes to the existing storm and sanitary sewer pipes. Tree Removal/Replacement The plans for Dearbom East show the removal of nine large trees (ash, box elders and elm), but the developer would preserve six existing trees (3 ash and 3 elm). In addition, the plans show the developer saving 15 large trees (oaks and ash) in the first phase of the development. The proposed landscape plan for this phase (page 21) shows the developer planting six spruce trees, seven seedless ash and three white pine trees (a total of 16 replacement trees). The city should require the developer to plant at least two more trees in this phase of the development (for a total of 18) to replace at a two-to-one ratio the nine trees that he will be removing. Wetland Ordinance The Ramsey/Washington Metro Watershed District reviewed and approved the first phase of the development and has issued Mr. Kinney a permit. They have classified the wetland on proposed Outlot A (within the first phase) as a Class Five Wetland. These are the wetlands that humans have impacted the most and have the least diverse types of vegetation and the least community resource significance. This wetland classification does not require a buffer area. However, the building foundations must be at least ten feet from the edge of the wetland. The proposed grading plan (on page 20) meets these requirements. The project contractor has started grading the site, including the ponding area, following the approved plans. Drainage Concerns Several neighbors expressed concem over the potential for increased runoff and flooding due to this development. The neighbors also have told staff that there has been an on going drainage problem for the area between Cope and Castle Avenues for several years. Specifically, there are properties that have Iow areas that tend to collect storm water and this water does not drain off quickly. The city should require that the grading/drainage plan would not increase the storm- water flow onto any neighbor's land. (Please also see the comments from the Assistant City Engineer starting on page 26.) The plans approved by the city in 2002 for this area show the developer expanding the wetland to form a larger area for the collection of storm water. As proposed, the utility plan shows most of the storm water from the site, including the private driveways, and the drainage from the undeveloped area east of the site, going into the expanded ponding area. The developer is proposing that the overflow from the pond go into new and existing storm sewer pipes that connect to the city drainage system in Cope Avenue. These designs are all consistent with the plans approved by the city and the watershed district in 2002. Based on the latest plans, the developer's engineer provided the City Engineer with 4 information and calculations about the storm water. These show that this project will actually reduce the amount of storm water running off the site. Building Design The proposed buildings should be attractive and would fit in with the design of the existing homes. They would have an exterior of horizontal vinyl siding with bdck veneer on the fronts and the roof would have asphalt shingles. (See the drawings on page 24.) When the CDRB reviewed the plans for Dearborn Meadow in 2002, they added a condition of approval that the builder to present a revised building plan to staff that shows brick wainscoting on the north side of the building that is to be along Castle Avenue. The CDRB was concerned about the appearance of the buildings from the public streets, including Highway 36. As such, they thought that having the builder add more bdck to the street side of the buildings would improve the appearance. The city should now continue this same condition for the north side of all the buildings along Castle Avenue. This would include the street side of Unit 1 of Block 2 of Phase One and Units 7, 8 and 9 of Phase Two (Dearborn Meadow East). Landscaping The proposed plans keep many of the existing trees around the perimeter of the site and near the wetland. As proposed, the developer would plant 16 larger (replacement) trees in this phase of the development. These include a group of black-hills spruce along the north and east property lines, seven ash trees (one near each unit) and three white pines along the east property line. (See the plan on page 21.) The landscape plan (page 23) also shows the proposed plantings around each unit that will include a spirea, junipers, dogwoods and arborvitaes. The landscape plan for Phase One (page 22) shows the developer planting a few of 11 Black Hills Spruce along the south property line of the site. The city should require the developer to follow this plan for the first phase and make the changes to the landscape plan noted below. While the landscape plan for the new phase is a good start, the developer should add more trees for screening along the north and south sides of the site. These are intended to screen the new homes from the highway and from the existing houses to the south. The applicant should revise the landscape plan to show these additional trees and to be consistent with Maplewood ordinance standards including making the ash trees at least 2 1/2 inches in caliper, balled and budapped. The plantings proposed around foundations of the units should remain on the plan. In addition to the above, all yard areas should be sodded (except for mulched and edged planting beds). Other Comments Police Department Deputy Chief John Banick of the Maplewood Police Department noted that he wanted the city to be sure that there is enough room within the site to allow emergency vehicles (including fire trucks) to maneuver. Fire Marshal Butch Gervais, the Maplewood Fire Marshal, wants the city to make sure the end of the driveways are large enough for proper snow removal and for the maneuvering of emergency vehicles. RECOMMENDATIONS Approve the resolution starting on page 28. This resolution approves a revision to the conditional use permit for a planned unit development for the 15-unit Dearborn Meadow and Dearborn Meadow East development on the south side of Castle Avenue. The city bases this approval on the findings required by code. (Refer to the resolution for the specific findings.) Approval is subject to the following conditions: 1. All construction shall follow the plans approved by the city. The city council may approve major changes to the plans. The Director of Community Development may approve minor changes to the plans. Such changes shall include: a. Revising the grading and site plans to show: (1) The developer minimizing the loss or removal of natural vegetation including keeping and protecting as many of the trees as possible. (2) All driveways at least 20 feet wide. If the developer wants to have parking on one side of the main drive (Castle Place), then it must be at least 28 feet wide. (3) All parking stalls with a width of at least 9.5 feet and a length of at least 18 feet. (4) Revised storm water pond locations and designs as suggested or required by the watershed district or city engineer. The ponds shall meet the city's design standards. The proposed construction (of Dearborn Meadow East) must be substantially started within one year of council approval or the permit shall end. The council may extend this deadline for one year. Have the city engineer approve final construction and engineering plans. These plans shall meet all the conditions and changes noted in the engineer's memo dated April 28, 2003. 4. The approved setbacks for the principal structures in the Dearborn Meadow shall be: a. Front-yard setback (from a public street or a private driveway): minimum - 20 feet, maximum - 35 feet b. Front-yard setback (public side street): minimum - 30 feet, maximum - none c. Rear-yard setback: 30 feet from any adjacent residential property line d. Side-yard setback (town houses): minimum - 20 feet from a property line and 20 feet minimum between buildings. 6 5. The developer or builder will pay the city Park Access Charges (PAC fees) for each housing unit at the time of the building permit for each housing unit. 6. The developer or contractor shall: a. Complete all grading for the site drainage and the ponds, complete all public improvements and meet all city requirements. b. Place temporary orange safety fencing and signs at the grading limits. c. Remove any debris or junk from the site. 7. The city council shall review this permit in one year. Approve the Dearbom Meadow East preliminary plat (received by the city on April 7, 2003). The developer shall complete the following before the city council approves the final plat: 1. Sign an agreement with the city that guarantees that the developer or contractor will: a. Complete all grading for overall site drainage, complete all public improvements and meet all city requirements. b.* Place temporary orange safety fencing and signs at the grading limits. c. Pay the city for the cost of traffic-control, street identification and no-parking signs. Provide all required and necessary easements (including all utility easements and ten-foot drainage and utility easements along the front and rear lot lines of each lot and five-foot drainage and utility easements along the side lot lines of each lot). e. Cap and seal any wells on site. Have Xcel Energy install a street light at the intersection of Castle Avenue and the proposed private driveway (Castle Place). The exact location and type of light shall be subject to the city engineer's approval. Install permanent signs around the edge of the wetland buffer easement. These signs shall mark the edge of the easements and shall state that there shall be no mowing, vegetation cutting, filling, grading or dumping beyond this point. City staff shall approve the sign design and location before the contractor installs them. The developer or contractor shall install these signs before the city issues building permits in this plat. h. Install survey monuments along the wetland boundaries. 2.* Have the city engineer approve final construction and engineering plans. These plans shall include grading, utility, drainage, erosion control, tree, and street plans. The plans shall meet all the conditions and changes listed in the memo dated April 28, 2003 and shall meet the following conditions: 7 a. The erosion control plans shall be consistent with the city code. b. The grading plan shall: (1) Include proposed building pad elevation and contour information for each home site. The lot lines on this plan shall follow the approved preliminary plat. (2) Include contour information for all the land that the construction will disturb. (3) Show housing pads that reduce the grading on sites where the developer can save large trees. (4) Show the proposed street and driveway grades as allowed by the city engineer. (5) Include the tree plan that: · Shows where the developer will remove, save or replace large trees. This plan shall include an inventory of all existing large trees on the site. · Shows no tree removal beyond the approved grading and tree limits. (6) Show drainage areas and the developer's engineer shall provide the city engineer with the drainage calculations. The drainage design shall accommodate the runoff from the surrounding areas. The undeveloped parcel to the east of this site shall have unrestricted access to the storm sewer with a capacity to accommodate post development runoff. c. The street and utility plans shall show the: (1) Water service to each lot and unit. (2) Repair of Castle Avenue (street and boulevard) after the developer connects to the public utilities and builds the private driveways. 3. Paying for costs related to the engineering department's review of the construction plans. 4. Change the plat as follows: a. Add drainage and utility easements as required by the city engineer. This shall include a 30-foot-wide easement for the existing 16-inch water main and easements for any other existing utilities on the site. The Saint Paul Regional Water Services (SPRWS) shall approve the description and location of the easement for the water main. b. Show drainage and utility easements along all property lines on the final plat. These easements shall be ten feet wide along the front and rear property lines and five feet wide along the side property lines. c. Label the north/south part of the private ddveway as Castle Place, label Castle Street as Castle Avenue and label the east/west part of the pdvate ddveway as Castle Court on all plans. d. Label the common area as Outlot A. Secure and provide all required easements for the development including any off-site drainage and utility easements. The developer shall complete all grading for public improvements and overall site drainage. The city engineer shall include in the developer's agreement any grading that the developer or contractor has not completed before final plat approval. If necessary, obtain a permit from the Ramsey-Washington Metro Watershed District for grading. If the developer decides to final plat part of the preliminary plat, the director of community development may waive any conditions that do not apply to the final plat. Submitting the homeowners' association bylaws and rules to the director of community development. These are to assure that there will be one responsible party for the maintenance of the private utilities, driveways and common areas. *The developer must complete these conditions before the city issues a grading permit or approves the final plat. Approve the plans date-stamped Apdl 7, 2003 (site plan, landscape plan, grading and drainage plans and building elevations) for Dearborn Meadow. The city bases this approval on the findings required by the code. The developer or contractor shall do the following: 1. Repeat this review in two years if the city has not issued a building permit for this project. 2. Complete the following before the city issues a building permit: Have the city engineer approve final construction and engineering plans. These plans shall include: grading, utility, drainage, erosion control, tree, sidewalk and driveway and parking lot plans. The plans shall meet the following conditions: (1) The erosion control plan shall be consistent with city code. (2) The grading plan shall: (a) (b) (c) Include building, floor elevation and contour information. Include contour information for the land that the construction will disturb. Show sedimentation basins or ponds as may be required by the watershed board or by the city engineer. (d) Show a berm (two to four feet high) along the south property line of the site. (3)* The tree plan shall: 9 (a) Be approved by the city engineer before site grading or tree removal. (b) Show where the developer will remove, save or replace large trees. This plan shall include an inventory of all existing large trees on the site. (c) Show the size, species and location of the replacement trees. The deciduous trees shall be at least two and one half (2 1/2) inches in diameter and shall be a mix of red and white oaks and sugar maples. (d) Show no tree removal beyond the approved grading and tree limits. (4) All the parking areas and driveways shall have continuous concrete curb and gutter except where the city engineer decides that it is not needed. (5) There shall be no parking on one side of the 28-foot-wide driveway (Castle Place). The developer or contractor shall post Castle Place with no parking signs to meet the above-listed standard. The city will allow parking on Castle Court. b. Submit a certificate of survey for all new construction and have each building staked by a registered land surveyor. c. Submit a revised landscape plan to staff for approval that incorporates the following details: (1) All trees would be consistent with city standards for size, location and species. (2) Planting (instead of sodding) the disturbed areas around the wetland with native grasses and native flowering plants. The native grasses and flowering plants shall be those needing little or no maintenance and shall extend at least four feet from the ordinary high water mark (OHWM) of the pond. This is to reduce maintenance costs and to reduce the temptation of people mowing into the pond. (3) The ash trees must be at least 2 1/2 inches in caliper, balled and budapped. (4) The plantings proposed around the front of the units shown on the landscape plan date-stamped April 7, 2003, shall remain on the plan. (5) In addition to the above, the contractor shall sod all front, side and rear yard areas (except for mulched and edged planting beds and the area within the wetland easement). (6) No landscaping shall take place in the Castle Avenue boulevard. The contractor shall restore the boulevard with sod. (7) Adding ten more evergreen trees (Black Hills spruce or Austrian pines) to the proposed evergreen trees along the north and south property lines of the site. These trees are to be at least six feet tall and the contractor shall plant these trees in staggered rows on the berm. 10 d. Present a color scheme to staff for approval for each building. e. Present a revised building plan to staff that shows brick wainscoting on the north sides of all the units that are along Castle Avenue. 3. Complete the following before occupying each building: a. Replace property irons that are removed because of this construction. b. Restore and sod damaged boulevards. Sod all landscaped areas, except for the area within the easement, which may be seeded. c. Install continuous concrete curb and gutter along all interior driveways and around all open parking stalls. d. The developer or contractor shall: · (1) Place temporary orange safety fencing and signs at the grading limits. (2) Remove any debris or junk from the site. e. Put addresses on each building for each unit. f. Provide a driveway turn around for Lot 7 on Castle Avenue. 4. If any required work is not done, the city may allow temporary occupancy if: a. The city determines that the work is not essential to the public health, safety or welfare. The city receives cash escrow or an irrevocable letter of credit for the required work. The amount shall be 150 percent of the cost of the unfinished work. Any unfinished landscaping shall be completed by June 1 if the building is occupied in the fall or winter, or within six weeks of occupancy if the building is occupied in the spring or summer. c. The city receives an agreement that will allow the city to complete any unfinished work. 5. All work shall follow the approved plans. The director of community development may approve minor changes. 11 CITIZENS' COMMENTS I surveyed the owners of the 44 properties within 350 feet of this site. was against and one had comments. Of the two replies, one Objection No - what part do you not understand? No, traffic bad, no drainage, we have fought before and will again. Win - win? No, it is only the realtor. Do not hurt us again. (Themmes - 1928 Castle Avenue) Comments Because of the nursing home next to us, we are at the bottom of a dam, so to speak. The run-off water from the property in question has nowhere else to go. Therefore, in keeping with the rest of the neighborhood, we feel that single dwelling homes would be the most appropriate and cause the least problems as far as drainage is concerned. We also hope that whatever is built on this property be of equal (or greater) value as the existing homes in this area and not be public (government) assisted housing. (Gehrke- 1917 Cope Avenue) 12 SITE DESCRIPTION Site size: acres Existing land use: Vacant SURROUNDING LAND USES North: South: West: East: REFERENCE INFORMATION Home Depot across Highway 36 Single and double dwellings on Cope Avenue Houses on Castle Avenue Houses on Castle Avenue PLANNING Existing Land Use and Zoning designations: R-2 (single and double dwellings) Criteria for Conditional Use Permit Approval Section 36-442(a) states that the city council may approve a CUP, based on nine standards. (See findings 1-9 in the resolution on pages 28 and 29.) Application Date The city received all the application materials for this request on April 7, 2003. State law requires the city to take action on this request by June 2, 2003, unless the applicant agrees to a time extension. p:sec 11\dearborn 2003 (15).mem Attachments: 1. Applicant's Statement 2. Location Map 3. Land Use Plan Map (Existing) 4. Property Line/Zoning Map 5. Proposed Preliminary Plat (15 Unit Plan) 6. Proposed Utility Plan (15 Unit Plan) 7. Proposed Grading Plan (15 Unit Plan) 8. Proposed Landscaping Plan -2003 9. Landscape Plan - 2002 10. Typical Unit Landscape Plan - 2003 11. Proposed Building Elevations 12. Approved Nine Unit Plan - 2002 13. Comments from Chris Cavett dated April 28, 2003 14. Conditional Use Permit Revision for Planned Unit Development (PUD) Resolution 15. Project Plans (separate attachments) 13 Attachment 1 City of Maplewood Staff/Pl~g Commission Re: Dearborn Meadow (East Addition) I am asking the City of Maplewood, Staff and Planning commission to approve my request for the PUD of the Dearborn Meadows East Addition for the following reasons. 1. Developing the site would be in unison with the Dearborn Meadows 1 st Phase, therefore not negatively affecting the residential character of the neighborhood. 2. The unit density of 4.8 units per acre is consistent with Phase 1 and well below the maximum code of 7.3 units for medium density residential development. 3. Grading and water runoff have been calculated when the 1 st Phase was developed, not affecting the character of the land or affecting the surrounding properties. 4. The City will not incur additional costs for public services since this will remain a private road, owned and serviced by the homeowners association. 5. The development will consist of single-level town homes with basements, which are difficult to find in the area, providing a need for empty nesters and or handicapped individuals looking for one level living. The PUD will allow for long time area residents to transition from older non functional homes in the city to a low maintenance lifestyle, without having to seek such housing alternatives outside the city limits. 6. Finally it's a win-win for the City and neighborhood residents, turning a piece of property which was once zoned light industrial and manufacturing into a medium density high quality town home community which will increase the tax base for Maplewood while providing quality housing and a good neighborhood to the surrounding residential properties. Respectfully Submitted, 14 Attachment SCALE NORTH SAINT PAUL -- LOCATION MAP 15 T T Attachment3 ,H ,y 36 ~rchan BC rincipal M-1 R2 [jar ~rest ! "~' Cdunt M-1 arterl&l KEY R1 = SINGLE DWELLINGS R2 = SINGLE AND DOUBLE DWELLINGS R3(M) = MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL R3(H) = HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL LBC = LIMITED BUSINESS COMMERCIAL M1 "LIGHT MANUFACTURING W: WATER 16 Attachment 4 m?~;;m-mW i=-=i, imi~-,~ HIGHW,AY 36- -- DR-FV~ ........ ~--~- -m- ........ AVENUE" ,~m:) L - -mmmmm-m mm-mm- COPE AVENUE 150 , ~~___ AVE J--- ~ KEY ' = SINGLE DWELLINGS R2 = SINGLE AND DOUBLE DWELLINGS R3 = MULTIPLE DWELLINGS BC = BUSINESS COMM IAL MI = LIGHT MANUFACTURING ~) ~7.3~' LAURIE r PROPERTY LINE I ZONING MAP APPLICANT'S SITE °'°'" CITY-APPROVED ZONING CHANGE - 2002 17 Attachment 5 ""--,""'~ ~ H I G H W A Y 56 !0 ALLEY C-R,tCHIC SCA.~  T-.-.~ ~--~ T T 18 Attachment 6 ~ H i G H W Ad~/ 3 6 : ...... J 20 21 PAT ~ ll~L (651) 770-37'1~ 'F PROJECT No. 99395 PROPOSED UTILITY PLAN 15 UNIT PLAN- 2003 19 f Attachment 7 I hereby certify tho( thi~ ~urve~. or repo~t was prepared by me or und~ my dWec( sup~ws~ and that I Dote: ~-72-~ License No. ~ / // ~. 4,~ [/ / / / /I 20 Attachment 8 CASTLE AVENUE PRIVATE DRIVEWAY ......................... .,' ........ i~ ' _.. .... ~ ~ .~'1 --.':-T-- ~T~--i ............. !"'~.:~:. '1 . .I ' '1 i - - PROPOSED LANDSCAPING PLAN - 2003 21 Attachment ..: ] 22 Attachment 10 UNIT DRIVEWAY 23 Attachment ll 1 ~ ~ ,~- PROPOSED BUILDING ELEVATIONS O O n B B B Attachment 12 HIG CASTLE ALLEY T J_ 2. 7 HWAY 36 AVENUE GRAPHIC ~o S T !~ F_ f.i T APPROVED NINE UNIT PLAN - 2002 z/. ~/--~ ~. 25 Attachmnet 13 Engineering Review PROJECT: DEARBORN MEADOWS, Phase II PROJECT NO: 00-02 CHECKED BY: Erin Schacht and Chris Cavett, Maplewood Engineering Department Date: April 28, 2003 The following comments to the Dearborn Meadows preliminary plan shall be addressed: GRADING AND DRAINAGE PLAN Summary: There has been some drainage concerns expressed from residents in the area about this development with regards to drainage. This concern has been looked at in depth in the past. There is nothing as part of this proposal that should be considered to contribute to the problems experienced in this area. In fact, for most properties directly west of the site, there should be an improvement to the existing condition. This is because this development will intercept and control 5.7 acres of tributary drainage area that will runoff into the proposed storm sewer and pond. The applicant is proposing to enhance and enlarge the existing wetland to provide storm water treatment and detention. The watershed district has approved this proposal. Specific comments and conditions: 1) Submit a landscape plan for the ponding area. No seed mixture or permanent vegetation plan has been indicated on the proposed plans. The ponding area shall be seeded with native grasses containing forbes, (specify an appropriate upland and wet seed mixture). Consider using an approved native restoration contractor, such as Prairie Restorations to do this work. In addition, shrubs, trees and other landscaping materials shall be incorporated into the landscaping of the pond. NO GRADING PLAN WILL BE ISSUED FOR PHASE 2 OF THIS DEVELOPMENT UNTIL A LANDSCAPING PLAN FOR THE POND HAS BEEN REVIEWED AND APPROVED. Revegetation of the ponding area shall be completed with in 14-days of final grading and/or installation of storm sewer. 2) As expressed above, grading and drainage towards properties to the west continues to be a concern. The grading plan indicates a drainage swale is to be constructed along the south and west sides of units 1 & 2 of Block 3. We believe that this cannot or will not be constructed propedy or be constructed without damaging the oak trees on the south side of the pond. The applicant shall revise the grading and storm sewer plan to address this concern. On option is to consider placing a surface drain in this general area and to pipe it east to the storm sewer pipe, or north to the pond. 3) Revise the grading plan to include orange safety fence. The contractor shall place orange safety fence around the ddp line of all trees that are to be saved. In addition, orange safety fence shall be installed along all up gradient property lines, which do not require silt fence. 26 STREET DESIGN 1) The street width shown is 36-feet-wide. Note: city design standards allow the street width may be as narrow as 28-feet to allow parking on one side, or 32-feet to allow parking on both sides. 2) Consider crowning the east-west road to avoid a situation of sheet draining across 36-feet of pavement during freeze-thaw conditions, see related comment below, (#2). UTILITY PLAN REVIEW 1) All sanitary sewer and storm sewer facilities inside the plat shall be privately owned and maintained by the town home association. 2) As a result of the comments above under street design, provide catch basins at the intersection of the street running east/west to prevent runoff from crossing the street. 3) Submit plans to SPRWS for review and approval. Plat I MISC. 1) What has been proposed for the existing gravel drive at the northwest comer of the site? Relocate the ddveway or provide permanent easement. 2) Provide 15-feet of roadway, drainage and utility easement along the entire north side of the plat. Provide 10-foot drainage easements along the east, south and west property lines of the plat. 27 Attachment 14 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REVISION RESOLUTION WHEREAS, Mr. Pat Kinney applied for a conditional use permit (CUP) revision for the Dearbom Meadow residential planned unit development (PUD). WHEREAS, this permit applies to the 15-1ot Dearborn Meadow East development the city received on April 7, 2003. The legal description is: Lots 16 and 17, Block 6, Lots 27, 28, 29 and the east half of Lot 26, Block 7, Lots 1, 2, and 3, Block 10, Lots 14 and 15, Block 11, and Lots 18-22, Block 6; and Lots 9-13, Block 11, all in Dearborn Park, together with adjacent alleys and streets, in Section 11, Township 29, Range 22, Ramsey County, Minnesota. (The property to be known as Lots 1-6 of Dearborn Meadow and Lots 1-9 of Dearborn Meadow East) WHEREAS, the history of this conditional use permit is as follows: On May 5, 2003, the planning commission recommended that the city council approve this permit. On ,2003, the city council held a public hearing. The city staff published a notice in the paper and sent notices to the surrounding property owners. The council gave everyone at the hearing a chance to speak and present written statements. The council also considered reports and recommendations of the city staff and planning commission. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the city council 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. 3. The use would not depreciate property values. The use would not involve any activity, process, materials, equipment or methods of operation that would be dangerous, hazardous, detrimental, disturbing or cause a nuisance to any person or property, because of excessive noise, glare, smoke, dust, odor, fumes, water or air pollution, drainage, water run-off, vibration, general unsightliness, electrical interference or other nuisances. 5. The use would generate only minimal vehicular traffic on local streets and would not create traffic congestion or unsafe access on existing or proposed streets. o The use would be served by adequate public facilities and services, including streets, police and fire protection, drainage structures, water and sewer systems, schools and parks. 7. The use would not create excessive additional costs for public facilities or services. 8. The use would maximize the preservation of and incorporate the site's natural and scenic features into the development design. 28 9. The use would cause minimal adverse environmental effects. Approval is subject to the following conditions: 1. All construction shall follow the plans approved by the city. The city council may approve major changes to the plans. The Director of Community Development may approve minor changes to the plans. Such changes shall include: a. Revising the grading and site plans to show: (1) The developer minimizing the loss or removal of natural vegetation including keeping and protecting as many of the trees as possible. (2) All ddveways at least 20 feet wide. If the developer wants to have parking on one side of the main ddve (Castle Place), then it must be at least 28 feet wide. (5) All parking stalls with a width of at least 9.5 feet and a length of at least 18 feet. (6) Revised storm water pond locations and designs as suggested or required by the watershed distdct or city engineer. The ponds shall meet the city's design standards. 2. The proposed construction (of Dearborn Meadow East) must be substantially started within one year of council approval or the permit shall end. The council may extend this deadline for one year. 3. Have the city engineer approve final construction and engineering plans. These plans shall meet all the conditions and changes noted in the engineer's memo dated Apdl 24, 2003. 4. The approved setbacks for the principal structures in the Dearborn Meadow shall be: a. Front-yard setback (from a public street or a private driveway): minimum - 20 feet, maximum - 35 feet b. Front-yard setback (public side street): minimum - 30 feet, maximum - none c. Rear-yard setback: 30 feet from any adjacent residential property line e. Side-yard setback (town houses): minimum - 20 feet from a property line and 20 feet minimum between buildings. 5. The developer or builder will pay the city Park Access Charges (PA(::; fees) for each housing unit at the time of the building permit for each housing unit. 6.The developer or contractor shall: a. Complete all grading for the site drainage and the ponds, complete all public improvements and meet all city requirements. b. Place temporary orange safety fencing and signs at the grading limits. 29 c. Remove any debris or junk from the site. 7. The city council shall review this permit in one year. The Maplewood City Council approved this resolution on 2003. 30 AGENDA REPORT AGENDA REPORT TO: Planning Commission FROM: Charles Ahl, Director of Public Works/City Engineer SUBJECT: County Road D Extension (Hazelwood to TH 61 ) - City Project 02-07 County Road D Extension (West of TH 61) - City Project 02-08 Roadway Alignment Selection and Storm Water/VVetland Plan Adoption DATE: April 30, 2003 Introduction The realignment of County Road D between Hazelwood and TH 61 and also from TH 61 to Highridge Court has been discussed for over 16 months. Various alignments have been discussed and debated at recent meetings. On April 28, 2003 the City Council confirmed that they do not wish to study other alignment options. Our engineering team has presented a number of the refinements of the alignment (issues within 50 feet of the selected alignment) and the storm water/wetland planning issues for consideration and discussion at the April 21st Planning Commission meeting. The Planning Commission's role is to review any land use issues that may be impacted by the final refined alignment and provide a recommendation to the City Council on a recommended alternative. Additionally, the Planning Commission should consider the Storm Water and Wetland Plan and provide the City Council a recommendation on that document. Background On December 9, 2002, the city council approved a resolution to proceed with a project to realign County Road D from Hazelwood Street to TH 61 at the Yenburg Tire intersection and then realign County Road D west of TH 61 through the vacant property to the existing alignment on the east side of the Highridge Court development. That resolution was the culmination of many hours of discussion and debate with staff, agencies, other communities and property owners. A number of conclusions were reached in selecting the alignment and project approach. Project · · and Aliqnment Findinqs/Conclusions A detailed alignment study was prepared over a 16-month period. The alignment report studied eight options and concluded that the best traffic option considering mall traffic would be a direct connection of County Road D to 1-694. · Approval of alignments with direct connections to 1-694 were concluded to have negative impacts to TH 61 and 1-694 and were unlikely to be approved by MnDOT or the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). · Mitigating the impacts of the direct connections would exceed $12.0 - $15.0 million dollars. These would likely require 8-15 years to receive approval and construct and would likely require a development moratorium in the Mall area. This mitigation planning effort has a <25% likelihood of being approved by FHWA under the best circumstances. · An alternative alignment south of existing County Road D has been shown to significantly improve Mall Area Traffic flow without the negative impact to traffic flow on TH 61 and 1-694. MnDOT and Ramsey County concur and support this finding. · This alternative alignment has wetland impacts that must be mitigated. The mitigation plan provides for an enhancement of the wetlands and storm water treatment within the area. · Studies show that a realigned County Road D will adequately accommodate the traffic from Legacy Village past 2010 and will coordinate with the improvements to TH 61 and 1-694 that MnDOT is planning for 2011-2015. · Legacy Village Will help pay the $6.0 million cost of realigning County Road D. PLANNING COMMISSION BACKGROUND COUNTY ROAD D REALIGNMENT AND STORM WATER/VVETLAND PLAN MAY 5, 2003 PAGE TWO Study Information The Planning Commission has previously been provided with a set of drawings (with a green cover) titled County Road D Alignment Options. The first sets of attachments are maps of various alignment options. The alignment options are shown as W-1 and E-1 through W-4 and E-5. This means that there are four options west of TH 61 shown on the various drawings and five options shown east of TH 61. Also included are options for intersection crossing at TH 61 that have varying impacts on the area businesses and property owners. Following each option is a listing of issues that begins to identify the land use impacts and opportunities, along with the identified positives and negatives of each alignment option. These alignment options have been reviewed in detail with the commission at previous meetings. A summary of the alternatives will be provided at the meeting. Some key recommendations of the alignment options are: East of TH 61 · A 35 MPH roadway is strongly recommended east of TH 61 to accommodate the projected traffic expected to utilize this roadway. · Wetland impacts can be mitigated with slight alignment considerations. The wetland impacts are to lower quality wetland areas and can be mitigated with larger areas of higher quality wetlands in the project area. · Conflicts with the railroad berm and a future trail crossing need to be considered near Hazelwood. · Adequate sight distance is needed at the new Hazelwood and County Road D intersection. · The roadway should be located 100 feet south of the wetland area to allow for establishment of a buffer area to protect the higher quality wetland area. West of TH 61 · Existing single-family homes can be avoided with some alignment options. · The wetland area near Highridge Court is a lower quality wetland that can be mitigated with a larger wetland complex of higher quality. Reestablishment of storm water treatment areas near this area may provide the desired property owner requirements for screening and natural area. · An alignment conducive to the development needs of the area should provide an opportunity for residential land use on the west side of the new roadway and commercial / business land use of the east side of the new roadway. Currently the vacant property is planned for Manufacturing type uses. · New development coordination is likely required to avoid lengthy and expensive property acquisition costs. TH 61 - New Aliqnment Intersection · Any option will impact some existing property owner / business. · A 90-degree intersection is desirable but not required. An 80-degree approach is acceptable. · Coordination with future development of the Gulden's site and the vacant Kami property (formerly the Frattalone property) is needed to finalize the exact alignment. · Avoidance of the Lexus property is preferably due to the limited parking and potential wetland impacts of parking area mitigation. · A partial property taking at Venburg Tire may result in full taking of the property. The business, Venburg Tire, is leasing the building and is considering relocating, possibly to the Gulden's property. It may be possible to provide the existing Venburg Tire site with compensating property to the south of their existing site to offset the taking. 2 PLANNING COMMISSION BACKGROUND COUNTY ROAD D REALIGNMENT AND STORM WATER/VVETLAND PLAN MAY 5, 2003 PAGE THREE Storm Water and Wetland Manaqement Plan The Planning Commission has also previously received a copy of the report on the storm water and wetlands management for the area. This report is a requirement of the AUAR process. It identifies the amount of wetland mitigation that will occur, along with enhanced protection measures within the Legacy Village project that will help the city implement storm water management and wetland protection measures throughout both the Legacy Village and County Road D projects. If adopted, this plan will serve as a guide for wetlands management and storm water planning for this area for the next 7 - 10 years. Some key recommendations from the plan include: · Six wetlands of lower quality will be impacted by the Legacy Village development and the County Road D realignment project. · Mitigation of these six wetland impacts will provide over twice the area of wetlands of a much higher quality and value than current wetlands. · Runoff volumes will be treated at a much higher level than current conditions and will exceed city and watershed standards. · Treatment and infiltration standards within the Legacy Village development will be established to enhance the overall treatment systems. Recommendation It is recommended that the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council alignment option E-5 and W-I as the final alignment, along with Intersection Option 2, as the final alignment for the County Road D Realignment Project (City Projects 02-07 and 02-08) and recommend that the City Council adopt the Storm Water Management and Wetland Mitigation Plan. RCA Uw Attachments: Alignment Options Report (previously provided to the Council) Storm Water and Wetland Mitigation Plan (previously provided to the Council) Memo Report from URS to Charles Ahl Property Owner Letters Approval Schedule MEMORANDUM Thresher Square 700 Third Street South Minneapolis, MN 55415 Phone: (612) 3704)700 Fax: (612) 370-1378 To: From: Date: Subject: Charles Ahl, PE Copy: Director of Public Works Karl Keel, PE April 29, 2003 County Road D Alignment Options -- Planning Commission Review City Project 02-07, 02-08 File: Background As part of the City of Maplewood's efforts to address traffic concerns in and around the Maplewood Mall, preliminary plans are being developed to reconnect County Road D to TH 61. A report, "Alignment Study and Report for County Road D Realignment" (December 2002), was completed that reviewed a wide range of County Road D realignment options. On December 9, 2002, the Maplewood City Council selected a preferred alignment that generally is located along the north edge of the Country View Golf Course, south of the Xcel Energy Substation and connects with existing County Road D east of Hazelwood Street. The preferred alignment also realigns County Road D west of TH 61 to TH 61 north of Gulden's Restaurant and Venburg Tire. Since December an Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) was prepared, circulated and approved for the preferred alignment. In addition, a number of refinements were prepared to the preferred alignment approved by the City Council on December 9, 2002. These refinements are summarized in an exhibit tiffed "County Road D Alignment Options" dated April 2003. During the discussion and review of the alignment options, if was recognized that the final alignment selection will have a significant impact on future land use in the project area. Considering that a number of large parcels impacted by the proposed alignments are anticipated to develop or redevelop in the near future, the City commissioned URS to review land use options associated with the proposed roadway alignment project. This memo is a summary of the findings of this review to support discussion of the roadway alignment options. Once an alignment has been selected, a formal amendment to the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Code, if needed, will be prepared for Planning Commission and City Council consideration. General Description of Land Use and Realigned County Road D The study area between 1-694 and Beam Avenue is experiencing significant redevelopment with the following land uses: New single-family and townhomes west of Maplewood Drive (TH 61) along Highridge Court, Duluth Street, and Carey Heights Driver. 4 Page 1 · Expansion of automobile related uses along Maplewood Drive (TH 61), including automobile dealerships, an auto body shop, and tire store. · New senior housing along Hazelwood Street. · A proposal for a major new mixed residential and commercial development to the east of Hazelwood Street and south of County Road D, known as the Legacy Village project. · Potential development of a vacant parcel to the west of Maplewood Drive (TH 61). Major and minor constraints in the study area include: Significant areas of wetlands and poor soils, including small wetlands along the southern edge of the existing County Road D, a large wetland area owned by the Watershed District in the middle of the study area, and poor soils on the Country View Golf Course. · An Xcel Energy power substation, which requires access to a raikoad spur in the Bruce Vento Trail Corridor in order to switch out transformers, and associated power lines and towers. · An existing tire store, a proposed tire store site, and an existing automobile dealership at the proposed intersection of the realigned County Road D and Maplewood Drive. · Existing single-family homes fi-onting County Road D, west of Maplewood Drive. · Zoning regulations constrain automobile related land uses, such as dealerships or maintenance garages, within 350 feet of existing or planned residential areas. General Land Use Planning Concepts All of the options share certain common elements and the suggested land use options follow these general concepts: · Highway commercial, especially automobile related uses are most appropriate along Maplewood Drive (TH 61). · Residential uses are appropriate west of the new County Road D in the area west of Maplewood Drive (TH 61). · Business Commercial is appropriate along Beam Avenue between Maplewood Drive (TH 61) and Hazelwood Street. · Higher density residential is appropriate to the south of the new County Road D between Maplewood Drive (TH 61) and the Bruce Vento Trail. · Wetland areas should be conserved as green space. Replacement wetlands and new storm water facilities should be designed as amenities to exiting and future land uses. Urban design amenities should be created along the two-lane 'S' curve portion of the new road west of Maplewood Drive (TH61) to create an attractive buffer between proposed residential and proposed commercial development. Page 2 5 It would be appropriate for the City to consider reducing the setback of 350 feet between the proposed new residential uses west of the new County Road D and proposed automobile uses east of the new alignment. Land Use Discussion in Relation to the Realignment Options. The area where the options vary most is the 'S' curve west of Maplewood Drive. The amount of land to the west or east of the new road varies in relation to how the road curves and where it is aligned. The discussion below is limited to land use issues. A table summarizing the relative benefits and disadvantages of each option is attached. Option "W-1". In option W-1, the realignment leaves approximately two-thirds of the land to the east of the new road, roughly 475 feet, and one-third to the west, roughly 200 feet. This distribution may be acceptable for creating residential development to the west of the road, however, the 200 feet may be somewhat shallow. This option has a major impact on the small wetland east of Highridge Court but allows the existing single- family homes along County Road D to remain. Option "W-2". In option W-2 the realignment creates a very large undivided piece of land between the new road and Maplewood Drive, roughly 750 feet. This is too large for any single uses without additional roadway development. Such a configuration also precludes residential to the west of the road, or any other use of that space. Option "W-3". Option W-3 creates a balance between land to the west and east of the new roadway. The potential residential space to the west of the road is approximately 280 feet, while the potential commercial space is also deep enough for a variety ofnses. This option also provides an oppommity to serve existing commercial properties along TH61 from the west - thus allowing exiting access from TH61 to be removed. The elevation of the new roadway, however, would require redevelopment and regrading of these properties in order to take advantage of this access oppommity. Impacts to the small wetland are avoided. Existing single-family homes along County Road D are heavily impacted. Option "W-4". Option W-4 is nearly thc same as W-3, with a balance between land to thc west and east of the new roadway. The potential residential space to the west of the road is approximately 286 feet, while the potential commercial space is also deep enough for a variety of uses. Impacts to the small wetland are avoided. Option E- 1 - E-5. The main issue of land use to the east of Maplewood Drive is the potential redevelopment of the existing golf course. Given the excellent visibility along Beam Avenue, business commercial uses are appropriate. The amount and timing of such development depends on the market for new retail and office in the area. Given the large wetland conservancy to the north of the new County Road D, land along the northern portion of this site may be best uses as higher density residential with units offering views into the wetland. A major issue on this site is the large area of poor soils, which may limit the development potential. The eastern options vary shghtly in the impacts to wetland areas. Option E- 1 has the largest impact on wetlands owned by the Watershed District and a small wetland at the comer of County Road D and Hazelwood Street. Options E-2 and E4 have a smaller impact on wetlands, but create access problems to the Xcel Energy property fi'om the raikoad spur. Option E-3 may allow access to the Xcel Energy property, while have a small impact on wetlands. Options E-2, E-3 and E-4 reduce the design speed of the roadway to 30 MPH. Considering the proposed CSAH designation of the roadway and the need to efficiently move traffic, a design speed of less than 35 MPH may not be desirable. 6 Page 3 Option E-5 is a refinement of Option El. This option provides a minimum design speed of 35 MPH. The intersection with Hazelwood Street is located to provide adequate site distance l~om a furore pedestrian bridge along the Brace Vento Trail Corridor. It also allows for a future rail spur to the Xcel Energy substation. On the negative side, this option impacts the lower quality wetland at the comer of County Road D and Hazelwood Street and requires the removal of a larger segment of the rail embankment that provides screening to the senior housing complex on Hazelwood Street. Recommended Alignments West of Maplwood Drive (TH 61) Option W-1 is the preferred alignment for the following reasons: · Provides reasonable depth development parcels on both the east and west of the new roadway · Proposes residential development west of the new roadway provides a good buffer to existing residential development to the west. · Allows exiting single-family homes along County Road D to remain. The major disadvantage of this option is that it requires filling of the exiting wetland. Wetland impacts, however, would be mitigated by new higher quality wetlands to be constructed at a ratio of 2:1. East of Maplewood Drive (TH 61) Option E-5 is the preferred alignraent for the following reasons: · Maintains a minimum 35 MPH design speed. · Allows for a future rail spur to be constructed to the Xcel Energy substation. · Adequate site distance (420') is provided between the new signalized intersection at Hazelwood Street and a future pedestrian bridge along the Bruce Vento Trail Corridor. Disadvantages to this option include increased wetland impacts and removal of a portion of the railroad embankment that screens existing land uses to the east. Page 4 "East" Segment Alignment Option Comparison E-1 * 35 ~H roadway desi~ * More wetl~d impact · Good sight dist~ce at · Potenfi~ bfidge/Mtersection H~elwood co~e~ion co.ct · Old Co. Rd. D not co~ected E-2a · ~Mmum wetl~d impact * 30 ~H roadway desi~ · M~mum prote~ion ofr~oad · Close profi~ty to Xcel substation bern - Requkes remov~ of r~ · Developable Sc~er prope~ · Mlows co~ection to old Co. Rd.D · Avoids potentifl co~icts be~een si~fl ~d powerfines E-2b * ~um wetl~d impa~ * 30 ~H roadway desi~ · ~ows co~ection to old Co. · Close pro~W to Xcel substation Rd. D - Requkes removfl of r~ · hcreases Legacy ViSage proje~ * May requke m-~ade tr~l crossMg at H~elwood E-3 * ~um wetl~d impact · 30 ~H roadway desi~ · Avoids potemifl co~cts * Removes a l~ge potion of between si~fl ~d power~es r~oad bern · No co~e~ion to old Co. Rd. D E-4 * ~um wetland ~pa~ * 30 ~H roadway desi~ · Maxum protection ofr~oad * Compficated bfidg~si~al desi~ be~ * Potentifl cut-t~ou~ on Co. Rd. · ~ows co~ection to old Co. D to ~61 Rd. D (sign~zed) · Close pro~W to Xcel Substation · Avoids potentifl co~s between si~fl and powerlines E-5 · 35 ~H roadway desi~ · More wetl~d ~pact · Good si~t dist~ce at * Loss of R~road Bern H~elwood co~ection · No Bfidge~tersection Co.ct 8 Page 5 "West" Segment Alignment Option Comparison W-1 · Avoids single family homes * Wetland impact on Co. Rd. D · ~ Minimum depth (200') west of · Only 1 property acquisition roadway along Co. Rd. D · Comfortable depth east of roadway · Allows for future redevelopment along D · Meets developer's expectations W-2 · Largest parcel east of · Wetland impact roadway along TH 61 · Lost property west of roadway · Strip west of roadway acts · Depth of east parcel (750') may as buffer to single family require additional roadways · Least impact to existing single family homes along Co. Rd. D · Good access to Lametti property behind Gulden's W-3 · No wetland impact · Requires acquisition of 3 single · Allows development family properties around wetland · Requires large wall or grading · Balances size of on Sparkle property or lowering development lots east and of pipeline (increased cost) west of roadway · Access provided to Sparkle Auto Dealership property (if redeveloped) W-4 · No Wetland Impact · T-intersection on CSAH · Balances Size of · Need to screen single family Development Lots East and property north of Co. Rd. D West of Roadway · Noise/Pollution at stop sign · Requires acquisition of only 1 single family home along Co. Rd. D · Traffic calming on Co. Rd. D would be supported by immediate neighborhood 9 Page 6 TH 61 Intersection Alignment Option Comparison * Acquisition fi-om minimum * Does not allow new lot at number of parcels Gulden's (Venburg and Gulden's) * Intersection at slight skew . Moves as far north as * ROW acquisition from 4 possible without significant properties impacts to Lexus · 90 degree intersection · Allows for new Gulden's lot · Spreads impact equally to · Significant impacts to numerous all properties (roadway parcels centered on property line) · Intersection at slight skew · Least impact to Venburg · More wetland impact Tire l0 Page 7 KELCO March 26, 2003 ' 7300 I%~on 3htd. S~te 245 Oakd~k, lvlN 553.28 O~cbz~ [651] 730~2020 Fas [65~] 73Ck2055. ~iml~-H0r~a & Associates, Thc. Suite 345N 2550 Um.'versity. Avenue West St. Paul, MN $$114. CO .umty Road D Extension City of Maplewood Project 02-08 TrOUt Land,.TJ_.C ., · .7 . ' :..i 77{. '. ' ... .'." , '. : '.: :- ...-. '";'iv - '"" '"' Thank you' for fo~v~ding th e o ns arebeing discuss~df~rthe eoaension. Co Road D west ofE[igii, way 61 in the City 0fMxplewood. I 'also appreciate your informing me Of the Planning Commission and City Council me.eti~g dates. Please let me know if these dates do ch~rtge. '.The following constitute the .c0mmen~s ofTroutLand, LI,C as owner ofttmt land of... approximately 14.4 acres directly west of Highway 61 which will be impacted by the right-of-' way required for the ex-tension of County Road D. Option ~1: 'This' righ~zof-:way alig~ment most closely follows the atignmem which'we had anticipated. This is ~e best alternative for us, by far. ;' Option #2: In ~ ali~rhent the north/south element of County Road D is further to the east which rmaits ~e amount- 0£tand available to us on the' east side'o£the new alimment .and increases the land on the west side which, is contrary to the devel6pment requirements for the ph-cel : Option #3: This alignment is absolutely contrary to our ability to subdivide and utilize the property. In the first place, the area were of the new' alig-nment b~comes totally unusable and not developable. We woUld requfi-e that. th~' CiV acquire tN[s land from ns as being So' adversely impacted that k woUld be ~eless to us. Also, the balance of the land to the east then be~o~ (2" __ kir~ ~on.I-Iorm. _ '__ March 26, 2003 Page 2 very large and would have to be SUbdivided into at least four lots which would probably require additional service roads to provide access thereby making the project economically infeasible. . Option//-4: This also is an unacceptable option for us. The land to the west of the new' alignment is too large_ mud the land to the east Of the alignment is'~oo -small It would be extremely difficult to develop the land on the west side of the new alignment in uses that Would be compan-ble with the residential property further 1o the west, but the land is too large to be developed as a senior's co-op apartment development. The land l'eft to the east of the alignment is also adversely impacted because it is too small to be properly devel6ped for commercial uses w/th t~. gJaway 61 .frontage. · Option#5: This option, as it impacts the Trout Land property, is slm~lar to Option ~4 and has all of the same negatives. ~ There is no ~tuestion that Option #1 will be the preferred option by Trout Land, LLC. l~rmor alternations to this such as a minor reaSg-nment 0fthe intersection at I-Sghway 61 more to the north and the location of the roadway exiting- across the north boundary line being somewhat further to the west o£its confi=mn'afion as shown would be acceptable ~,-,~,-~:,-, ..--. ~. Jon~ :I very much-appreciate the .opportunity'for uS to. provide .oUr:--~o'mments with respect to this .e!-, ~: .-~.~.. rare right-of-way. Obviously'it has a si=oniScant imp~/ct on' o~'d~¢~lbl~m plans' for '~ '" ' ' "~ '~:.' property and request a discretionary right-of-approva1 on the final alignment We look'forward , , '- · to continuing working with the City in an effort to find the b~st alig?m, ent.for al/parties '~ '"':-' c0ncemed. ,. Respectfully yours, · ~Kellkson ///President C: Gonzalo Medina/Trout Land, LLC R_ Char. les AN/City of Maplewood 12 VENBURG TBKE CO. Divizion-o£-Mercorreorp or-~zion 2990 Hwy. 61 North Maplewood, A,fN 55109 651-183-260I Fax 651483-2881 March 28, 2003 To: City of MaPlewood: Mayor Robert'Cardinal, 6ity Council MemBers: Ken Coiling, Kathleen Juenemann, Marvin Koppen & Jutie Wasiluk, City Manager R/chard Fursman, Public Works Director. Chuck A~ E~gineering & Planning Depts. ' · - pat & Carol McFarlane Venburg Tire Co. Owners County Rd. D Realignment Project We would like to take thi~ opportunity to share our support of the City's reco.mmendadon for County Rd. D reali~rnent project west of Hwy 6t (the URS, Inc.'s plan W-2 proposal at the.' intersection of Hwy. 61 and plan W-3. for the northern part of that proposed road.) Venburg Tire has been located at its present location for ~. caroI's father, Keith Venburg, founded the company and we are the owners of the business. We are currently leasing'the land and building from CaroI's brother, 'Keith VenbUrg II. We employ 11 full t/me and 4 part time staff. Our son's, are actively, involved._ in this family business and plan continuation of the'third.generation. The impact of all of the proposals for the project east of HWY. 61 severely inh~it us. from continuing to conduct business at that location. Upon early review of the Propose and thorough expiorafion of our · options, we feel k is our best interest to move to a new location. We have met several times with City ' officials during this prociss. The loss of a~cess to Hwy. 61, loss of'land to the new road, soft issues and . the age of our current fa .cility at our present site has lead us to explore other options. We have been ~orking with Mike & Brenda Gender of Gulden's and have an agreement to purchase · · approx_ 1 ½ acres of the northern part of their property to build a new state of the art facility. We are both ~cited about this joint venture and have a .very cooperative working relationship. The alignment of the intersection immediately west of Hwy. 61 on the city's proposed plan is the ~ allowing us to go forward with these plans. , " Venburg Tire Co. and Gulden's appear to be the only existin~ businesses in the project area whose day- · tOcda5'' operations are impacted by Construction. We would like to align our projects, so that there is no interruption of our businesses. Timing is crucial! Because ofrhi~, we ask that the city give priority to complefio'n of construction west of Hwy.'6/~ so that we can prepare-soil corrections, develop addlri6nal parking behind Gulden's and pr0ce~d with construction of our new building. This would also avoid .interruption-of business to us.at our present ~ke that would be caused by construction vehicles Passing through our parking lot while We are conducting bus/ness. The traffic in that area/s already. . treacherous and this could help avoid unnecessary accidents. After completion of our new builiing, there would be only mi~or conflicts to surrounding businesses with the construction on the project east We appreciate your consid~eradon of out'concerns. We are supportive oftlni~ improvement for Maplewood and the process that you are using. If you have any questions, please do no heshate to contact us at 651-483-2601. 13 LEGACY VILLAGE AND COUNTY ROAD D EXTENSION APPROVAL SCHEDULE CRITICAL ITEM / TASK *City Council - Alignment and Storm Plan/Wetland Review PROPOSED SCHEDULE April 14, 2003 *Plan Comm - Align Review * County Road D (west of TH 61) - Neighborhood Meeting *City Council - 2nd Align Review *Vadnais Heights Planning Comm *Plan Comm Align Recommendation *Vadnais Heights City Council - Alignment Review/Comments *City Council - Adopt AUAR Final Doc - Approve Final Alignment - Adopt Storm and Wetland Plan - Authorize Preparation of Feas. Rpt. *Planning Comm and City Council - 6:00 pm - Legacy Village Review Session *City Council - Legacy Village 2nd Review Session *Plan C°mm - Legacy Village Recommend for Approval *City Council - Legacy Village Final Site Approvals *City Council - Approval of Legacy Bldg Plans *Pub Hrg for D & Kennard Projects April 21, 2003 April 24, 2003 April 28, 2003 April 29, 2003 May 5, 2003 May 6, 2003 May 12, 2003 May 19, 2003 May 27, 2003 June 2, 2003 June 9, 2003 June 23, 2003 June 23, 2003 TO: FROM: SUBJECT: DATE: MEMORANDUM City Manager Ken Roberts, Associate Planner South Maplewood Sanitary Sewer Study City Project 03-03 April 29, 2003 INTRODUCTION Project Description At the Apd121, 2003, planning commission meeting, city staff presented an overview of the Sanitary Sewer Comprehensive Plan update. Part of the Sanitary Sewer Comprehensive Plan update includes the South Maplewood Sewer Study, which focuses on the area south of Linwood Avenue to the city's southern border. The South Maplewood Sewer Study was authorized by the city council on January 31, 2003. The city initiated this study to address land use and development issues in south Maplewood. City staff and Dave Simons of Short Elliott Henddckson Inc. (SEH), a consulting engineering firm, have completed a draft of the South Maplewood Sewer Study. We distributed copies of the draft report to the planning commission for their Apdl 21, 2003 meeting. BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION Background On December 9, 2002, the city enacted a one-year moratorium on development of property in Maplewood from Linwood Avenue to the southern border of the city. The moratorium was a result of concerns about the land use and development of the remaining undeveloped or underdeveloped property in south Maplewood. The previous sewer system plan for this area showed urbanized municipal sewer between Linwood Avenue and Carver Avenue, and undefined sewer systems south of Carver Avenue. Without a municipal sanitary sewer system, large lots with a minimum size requirement would be necessary to accommodate houses or properties with individual sewage treatment systems (ISTS). The Metropolitan Council Environmental Services (MCES) has a major sanitary sewer interceptor in the study area (generally running east to west from Carver Lake to McKnight Road, north of Carver Avenue). The city could use this part of the metropolitan sanitary sewer system to provide sanitary sewer service to the area. However, the city needs to explore various land use and development issues before the city council can make any final decisions. ,As a part of this, the city needed an overall plan for the south Maplewood area (including sanitary sewer) to identify and evaluate options for the area. Study Assumptions Staff made several assumptions when preparing the South Maplewood Sewer Study. The following is a summary of some of these key assumptions: If municipal sanitary sewer is extended to serve the area, land uses at full development will correspond to the city's current Land Use Map. The projected sanitary sewer flows staff listed in the report are based on full development and on the Land Use Map. Future densities of R1 land use will be 2.9 persons/unit and 2.8 units/acre. Because of topography and existing pipe size, future sanitary sewer flows from the Bailey property in Woodbury and Newport will need to be conveyed through Maplewood to the Carver Lake interceptor. · Future sanitary sewer flows from the Bailey property in Woodbury and Newport will be similar to those generated by typical single-family residential uses. It is important to note that the South Maplewood Sewer Study is only a planning document. In addition, the land use assumptions made above do not bind the city to any of these possible changes. Staff made the land use and sewer assumptions on a very conservative basis to identify the maximum sanitary sewer flows that the land uses could possibly generate in each of the sewer districts. Study Conclusions Soils within the study area range from a sandy soil in the south to a sandy loam with some clay loam and silty clay in the north. The sandy soils are good for installation of individual sewage treatment systems (ISTS) whereas the clay loam and silty clay pockets may require the use of non-conventional systems. If propedy maintained, evidence indicates that the life expectancy of an ISTS site is at least 25 to 30 years. Septic systems (ISTS) are a safe and effective soil-based system to treat household wastewater, provided there is enough soil area and the soil conditions are conducive to treatment. Septic systems treat sewage as well as or better than municipal treatment facilities when they are propedy designed, installed, and maintained. Cities or areas with marginal soils, steep slopes, and wetlands will require a larger minimum lot size for lots with ISTS sites than those with good soils, few slopes and few wetlands. Minimum lot sizes for lots with ISTS sites typically range from 1 acre to 5 acres in size. Many communities use a minimum lot size in the range of 2.0 to 3.0 acres. Gravity sanitary sewer can serve infill development in Districts 50, 51, 53, 54, 55, 56, 58, and 66. A gravity sanitary sewer can serve Distdct 70 and the sanitary sewer flows from the 240- acre Bailey's Nursery parcel in Woodbury and Newport. When the city or a developer extends municipal sanitary sewer to serve District 70, the new pipe must be sized large enough to serve the 240-acre Bailey Nursery parcel. The capacity of the Carver Lake interceptor is large enough to accommodate flows from all of the study area, as well as the 240-acre parcel in Woodbury and Newport owned by Bailey's Nursery. Connections to the Carver Lake interceptor will be allowed by permit from the MCES. The interceptor is metered at the points where it enters and exits Maplewood. Any flow that enters the interceptor between these two locations will be billed to Maplewood based on the difference between the two meter readings. 10. In Districts 10 and 57, the existing terrain vades drastically and there are significant elevation changes. As such, the use of lift stations will be necessary to convey sanitary sewer flows from lower areas to higher areas. 11. Districts 10 and 57 have a relatively high cost-to-benefit ratio associated with the extension of municipal sanitary sewer to serve the districts. As a result, no near term municipal sanitary sewer improvements are anticipated in these districts. 12. With the exception of Districts 10 and 57, it is anticipated that the rest of the study area could have sanitary sewer service within the next 20 years. However, before the city agrees to construct any municipal sanitary sewer extension, the city should prepare a feasibility study to identify pipe sizes, pipe alignments, construction costs, and other important project details. With all of this information, it is important to remember that the South Maplewood Sewer Study is a planning document and that it does not take the place of a detailed feasibility study for a particular proposal or project. RECOMMENDATIONS Adopt the South Maplewood Sewer Study, Project 03-03, as part of the 2003 Comprehensive Sanitary Sewer Plan Amendment. Bo The city should establish a minimum lot size requirement of 2.0 to 3.0 acres for non- sewered residential areas in the City, including the study area. This would be pdmadly in areas with steep slopes and with pockets of marginal soils. Co The city should change (if necessary) the future land use plan and zoning designations of properties to reflect the minimum lot size requirement (if changed) for non-sewered areas. The city should first consider those districts with a lower cost-to-benefit ratio for municipal sanitary sewer service before the districts that have a higher cost-to- benefit ratio. Attachment: 1. Location Map - South Maplewood Study Area 15 LONDIN RAMSEY COUN'i'Y CORRECTIONAL FACILflY Attachment 1 15 480S 16 1. HUNTINGTON CT. 2. OAKRIDGE LN. 720S ~ 16 480S ~ 720S 17 1. CURRIE CT. 2. VALLEY VIEW CT. 3. LAKEWOOD CT. 960S (7~) HIGHWOOD (~ 17 NE~ CENTURY PL NEW CENTURY 960S 18 18 1200S BOXWOOD Lake 1200S 144-0S 19 CARVER ~VE. 19 t 440S 2O RAIv1SE 1680S WASHINGTON 2O 1680S MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: SUBJECT: APPLICANT: LOCATION: DATE: Richard Fursman, City Manager Shann Finwall, Associate Planner Hillcrest Village Design Standards (Subdivision Requirements) City of Maplewood Along White Bear Ave., North of Larpenteur Ave. and South of Ripley Ave. April 28, 2003 INTRODUCTION Proposal City staff is receiving comments and guidance from the planning commission and community design review board on the drafting of a new zoning district called the mixed-use zoning district. The mixed-use zoning district will allow for a mixture of land uses and will promote the development and/or redevelopment of an urban center with compact, pedestrian-oriented commercial and residential developments. The city will consider implementing the new zoning district in the Hillcrest Village redevelopment area and other areas of the city, such as the Gladstone neighborhood, where there is a need for redevelopment to create a revitalized, urban village setting. Background On March 25, 2003, the community design review board reviewed sign regulations for the mixed- use zoning district. On April 7, 2003, the planning commission reviewed the permitted, conditional, nonconforming and accessory uses for the mixed-use zoning district. DISCUSSION City of Maplewood - Existing Subdivision Requirements This meeting's discussion will focus on subdivision requirements such as blocks, streets, alleys, on street parking, and sidewalks. These requirements are discussed in the city's subdivision and street design ordinances as follows: Block Length: No more than 1,320 feet. Right-of-Way Width: No full-width street shall be less than 60-feet wide. Street Pavement Width: Principal and Minor Artedal Widths: 52 feet Collector Widths: 36 to 44 feet Local Residential Widths: 32 feet Alleys: The use of alleys in any block is to be permitted only when absolutely necessary in the opinion of the city council. T ~ On Street Parking: Parking of any vehicle upon any street or road in the city for more than 2 hours between the hours of 2 a.m. and 6 a.m. is hereby prohibited. Sidewalks: Sidewalks shall be placed near schools, heavily traveled areas and other locations, when approved by the city council. Clearly the city's existing subdivision requirements were designed for suburban developments that depend on the automobile, with larger residential lots, limited on-street parking and no pedestrian transit ways. With the new mixed-use zoning district, the city is attempting to create an urban center with compact, pedestrian-oriented commercial and residential developments. The above-mentioned requirements should be revised for the new mixed-use zoning district to help promote pedestrian-oriented development within areas of the city envisioned as mixed-use. City of St. Paul - Traditional Neighborhood Subdivision Requirements Because the Hillcrest Village redevelopment area falls within two cities (St. Paul and Maplewood) the City of Maplewood should work closely with the City of St. Paul in developing consistent design standards. As stated in previous staff reports, St. Paul will likely rezone their portion of Hillcrest Village to their new traditional-neighborhood zoning district. St. Paul and their consultants drafted this zoning district after a year-long planning project designed to support urban village redevelopment, such as the Hillcrest Village redevelopment area. The traditional-neighborhood subdivision requirements are as follows: Blocks: The lengths, widths and shapes of blocks shall be such as are appropriate for the locality and the type of development contemplated, but block lengths in residential areas shall not exceed 1,000 feet. Wherever practical, blocks along major arterials and collector streets shall be not less than 1,000 feet in width. Right-of-Way Width: Minor arterials: 80 feet Collectors: 66 feet Local Streets: Up to the discretion of the director of public works Street Pavement Width: Minor arterials: 44 feet Collectors: 36 feet Local Streets: Up to the discretion of the director of public works Alleys: Interconnected streets and alleys are strongly encouraged within the traditional-neighborhood zoning district. Alleys shall have a 20-foot right- of-way width and a 16-foot pavement width. Cul-de-Sacs: Cul-de-sac streets are discouraged; crescent-shaped or courtyard street arrangements may be used when street connections are impractical. On-Street Parking: Streets shall generally have parking on both sides to buffer pedestrians, calm traffic and supplement off-street parking unless the space is needed to accommodate traffic volume, emergency vehicles, transit or deliveries. Hillcrest Village Design Standards 2 April 28, 2003 On street parking throughout the City of St. Paul is allowed 24 hours a day, except for snow emergencies or areas designated otherwise. Sidewalks: Streets shall be designed with sidewalks on both sides except where they abut a park or other open space. Sidewalk width shall be at least 5 feet, and 6 feet or more in areas of high pedestrian activity. Mixed-Use Subdivision Requirements Proposed changes to the city's subdivision and street design requirements for the new mixed-use zoning district are discussed below: Blocks: Typical pedestrian-oriented blocks range between 300 and 500 feet. A similar block length can be found in older residential neighborhoods in Maplewood, such as the Gladstone neighborhood where the maximum block length is 600 feet (refer to Gladstone map attached on page 5). The city's maximum block length allowed per code is 1,320 feet. This block length can be found in newer neighborhoods in Maplewood, such as the Maplewood Heights neighborhood (refer to the Maplewood Heights map attached on page 6). To reflect the pedestrian-oriented nature of the mixed-use zoning district, staff recommends a maximum block length of 600 feet. Right-of-Way Width: St. Paul's traditional neighborhood district encourages flexibility in right-of- way widths. When parking on two sides of the road is proposed, St. Paul requires a 66-foot wide right-of-way in order to allow for boulevards and sidewalks. This would be a good practice within the new mixed-use zoning district and could be accomplished with the city's existing subdivision ordinance that requires a minimum of 60-foot wide rights-of-way, but n._~o maximums. Within the mixed-use zoning district, however, there may be circumstances where a narrower right-of-way would be preferred. Refer to the street design map on page 7, which was taken from Calthorpe's Hillcrest Village Design Standards handbook. This map reflects the possible street patterns and widths created with redevelopment in the Hillcrest area. These street patterns are further portrayed in the attached street standards guidelines on pages 8 and 9, which was taken from a redevelopment handbook entitled From Nei.qhborhood to Home. The street patterns shown reflect several street designs including one-way streets or streets with parking on one or two sides of the street. For this reason, staff recommends adopting similar language as found in the traditional- neighborhood zoning district as follows: "street rights-of-way widths within the mixed-use zoning district shall be subject to the approval of the director of public works." This would allow for more narrow rights-of-way without processing the reduced width right-of-way as a variance. Street Pavement Widths: Again, in order to allow narrower streets when appropriate, staff recommends adopting the same language as the right-of-way widths above: "street pavement width within the mixed-use zoning district shall be subject to the approval of the director of public works." Hillcrest Village Design Standards 3 April 28, 2003 Alleys: Cul-de-Sacs: On-Street Parking: Sidewalks: While the attached Hillcrest Village Street Design map does not reflect alleys within the City of Maplewood's portion of Hillcrest Village, alleys would play an important role in a mixed-use zoning district. To promote a pedestrian-oriented development, residential units should be designed with porches in the front of the homes, and garages in the rear. St. Paul requires a maximum alley right-of-way width of 20 feet. State-aid roads and fire standards require two-way traffic to have pavement width of 24 feet. Therefore, alleys located within the mixed-use zoning district should require a 30-foot right-of-way, unless designated as one-way traffic. For this reason, staff recommends allowing the same flexibility in alley right-of- way widths as in street right-of-way widths, which allows the width of an alley by the discretion of the public works director. Also, staff recommends adopting the traditional-neighborhood zoning district language as follows: "Interconnected streets and alleys are strongly encouraged within the mixed-use zoning district." Cul-de-sacs should be discouraged within the mixed-use zoning district in order to ensure that streets throughout the new zoning district will be interconnected. Because the mixed-use zoning district will depend heavily on on-street parking, in combination with surface and ramped off-street parking, the city's current requirement of no on-street parking between the hours of 2 a.m. and 6 a.m. should be reviewed for the mixed-use zoning district. The commercial businesses will depend on on-street parking in addition to surface and ramp off-street parking. The residential units will depend on on-street parking for guests, with tenant/owner parking located in an underground ramp, in a garage, or on a driveway. The issue of allowing 24-hour parking only in the mixed-use areas of the city could pose many difficulties, including enforcement and perceived fairness in other areas of the city. This requirement should be examined closely when creating a new mixed-use zoning district. In order to ensure pedestrian-oriented developments within the new mixed- use zoning district, sidewalks should be required on both sides of streets. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the planning commission offer comments and guidance on subdivision requirements proposed within the Hillcrest Village redevelopment area. Staff will use this feedback to draft a new mixed-use zoning district for the Hillcrest Village redevelopment area, as well as other redevelopment sites within the city. P:com-dev\hillcrest\5-5-03 PC design standards report Attachments: 2. 3. 4. Gladstone Neighborhood Map Maplewood Heights Neighborhood Map Street Design Map Street Standards Guidelines Hillcrest Village Design Standards 4 April 28, 2003 /u/"¢IC;~: A V~: ~ Illlllll 5 COUNTY ROAD D E I II - WOODL YNN AVE GALL AVE E BEAM AVE 6 Attachment 3 P~O~C~D U~N D~ STX~DmmS PROPOSED STREET 'DESIGNS L A R P E /~ T E U R CALIFORNIA AYtt. IDAHO AVE, AVENUE IOWA AVE. HOYT AVE. dk E. MONTANA AVE. Key to Street Sections 22 · C~aom,~Assoc~T~s 7 Attachment 4 Street Standards ltieht-*~'-Wav lhild~ng ,%ti:ack ~20' ~l~ f~ P~vemmt Wid~ ~wo ~s ~ ~ Av~ ~T~ ~ + ~ ~ ~d~ E,~ld~n g ,~.ttmck. 20' 2.S S~:w Max~um Buading H~:ht Type RS-50 (Residential Street) TvDe PW-30 (Parkwavl 8 Ri~ht-oir-wav 2 Stay M~ ~ufldin~ Heit~t ~ ?.-'::' .~ '.':.'..':~::?::~:~ :..-..':: : :~'.'.::(.'.: :.k: ::-'.: ~ · .~:....?:~ ~.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.& ~ ...:.., ................. '//4. '~. ~'e "~'"" '""~'1 :.?:: :.'."'..V.:.':.'.:."~ ~ .~.~ ....~, ,...:..'... :..'.-_ :':'.. :..'.-. ~ f:,., a.,,.,,:,,:,,:. ~ i~ifht-of-W~v B~ldt~ g ~ - 3 ~ Ma~e~ Buildin, H~ht Tv~e PL-30 (Paved Lane) 9 Tvoe RS-60 (Residential Street)