Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout07/07/2003MAPLEWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION Monday, July 7, 2003, 7:00 PM City Hall Council Chambers 1830 County Road B East 1. Call to Order 2. Roll Call 3. Approval of Agenda 4. Approval of Minutes a. June 16, 2003 5. Public Headngs a. Legacy Village PUD (County Road D and Southlawn Ddve) 1. Comprehensive Plan Amendments 2. Rezoning 3. Conditional Use Permit for Planned Unit Development 4. Right-of-way Vacations 5. Preliminary Plat 6. New Business a. Liberty Classical Academy Conditional Use Permit (1717 English Street) Gruber's Power Equipment (1762 White Bear Avenue) 2. 3. 4. Moratorium Vadance Parking Lot Setback Vadance Fence Height Variance Conditional Use Permit for Expansion of Extedor Storage 7. Unfinished Business 8. Visitor Presentations 9. Commission Presentations a. June 23 Council Meeting: Ms. Fischer b. July 14 Council Meeting: Mr. Pearson c. July 22 (Tuesday) Council Meeting: Ms. Monahan-Junek 10. Staff Presentations a. Annual Tour- Follow up b. Wetland Ordinance Amendment Follow-up 11. Adjournment DRAFT MINUTES OF THE MAPLEWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION 1830 COUNTY ROAD B EAST, MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA MONDAY, JUNE 16, 2003 I. CALL TO ORDER Chairperson Fischer called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. II. ROLL CALL Chairperson Lorraine Fischer Commissioner Commissioner Commissioner Commissioner Commissioner Commissioner Commissioner Commissioner Tushar Desai Mary Dierich Matt Ledvina Jackie Monahan-Junek Paul Mueller Gary Pearson William Rossbach Dale Trippler Present Present Present Present Present Present Absent Present Present Staff Present: Tom Ekstrand, Assistant Community Development Director Chris Cavett, Assistant City Engineer Lisa Kroll, Recording Secretary APPROVAL OFAGENDA Commissioner Desai moved to approve the agenda. Commissioner Dierich seconded. The motion passed. Ayes- Desai, Dierich, Fischer, Ledvina, Monahan-Junek, Mueller, Pearson, Rossbach, Trippler IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Approval of the planning commission minutes for June 2, 2003. Commissioner Trippler had changes to the minutes on page 4, second paragraph in the first sentence. It should read: Commissioner Rossbach said it seems the city continues to ~ ....... y incur more and more debt when they are already in debt. Another change was in paragraph 3 in the second line. Change the word ~to objective. The fourth line in the ,,~s,,cs debt beyond the city's means. same paragraph should read doesn't issue :"" Commissioner Rossbach moved to approve the planning commission minutes for June 2, 2003, with the proposed changes. Commissioner Rossbach seconded. Ayes- Desai, Dierich, Fischer, Monahan-Junek, Mueller, Pearson, Rossbach, Trippler Abstention - Ledvina Planning Commission Minutes of 06-16-03 -2- V. PUBLIC HEARING None. VI. NEW BUSINESS a. Zoning Map Change - R-1 to LBC (1955 McMenemy Street) Mr. Ekstrand said the St. Paul Area Association of Realtors (SPAAR) has purchased the property at 1955 McMenemy Street for a future expansion to their office building, which is located directly to the south at 325 Roselawn Avenue. In order to expand their commercial office building, the property must be rezoned from single-dwelling (R-l) to limited business commercial (LBC). Mr. Ekstrand said some property owners have expressed concerns over the future expansion of the parking lot and office building including lighting, fencing and the impacts of a parking lot next to their residential home. Chairperson Fischer asked the applicant to address the commission. Commissioner Ledvina asked staff if this item would require a conditional use permit (CUP) if it is rezoned? Mr. Ekstrand said if it is rezoned, the zoning will be correct for office use and a CUP would not be required. Commissioner Ledvina asked staff if the three additional residential properties between Sloan Street and McMenemy Street are guided for limited business commercial (LBC) as well? Mr. Ekstrand said yes. Commissioner Rossbach asked staff if this goes through when they have their proposal would this come back to the planning commission for review? Mr. Ekstrand said no, it would only go to the community design review board for review. Commissioner Rossbach said it makes it very difficult to properly read the black and white map in the staff report with the different shades of gray and black and he would prefer it if staff could go back to labeling the maps if they are copied in black and white. He said he realizes it is expensive to provide color copies of the maps but the colored maps are easier to distinguish the differences in the reports. Mr. Ekstrand said staff would make note to do that from now on. Commissioner Rossbach commented, that he knows the CDRB will do a good job reviewing this proposal but due to the neighbors concern he would like to make sure the proper berming and protection against light glare are required when the CDRB reviews this item. Planning Commission Minutes of 06-16-03 -3- Commissioner Dierich said on page 4 of the staff report she noticed the opposed comments in number 3. from Hubert and Herbert Toenjes. She read that they wanted to pursue developing that area as R-1. She asked if staff thought the area will change from residential (R-l) to light business commercial (LBC)? Mr. Ekstrand said the Toenjes' have property on the east side, which they need to get the property platted. This will involve some other property owners and a small amount of park/open space land. This matter was recently reviewed by the city council to get direction whether they wanted to be involved with this situation or not and the city council felt the Toenjes' should go forward with their proposal. Chairperson Fischer asked the applicants to come forward and address the commission. Mr. Rob Rafferty, of Rafferty, Rafferty, Tollefson Architects, 253 East 4th Street, St. Paul, addressed the commission. Mr. Brian Strub of the St. Paul Area Association of Realtors (SPAAR), 325 East Roselawn Avenue, Maplewood, addressed the commission. Mr. Strub said within the last year the realtors association has grown to over 3,000 members. He said the plan is to meet their current need for parking at this location so that they can adequately meet the needs of their growing membership. He said they have been in Maplewood for 20 years and it is their intention to remain in this area for another 20 years. Commissioner Ledvina asked what the proposed timeline was for initial improvements for the site. Mr. Rafferty said he does not have an exact timeline but the intent is to request the zoning change and the additional parking and then move forward with the addition of the building. He said their existing building could be donated to a non-profit organization with the condition that the organization would be responsible for moving the building to another site. Commissioner Trippler asked how many parking spaces would be available for the first stage of their plans and if the proposed parking would be enough to meet their needs? Mr. Strub said the building is a drop-by facility for people to get forms and other things that they may need. It's not a normal 9-to-5 office where people park for eight hours or more. Currently, they have 26 parking spots and he said the first expansion of parking would include 55 parking spots and the second expansion would be around 65 parking spots. He said occasionally they rent their conference rooms out for seminars so that increases the amount of cars in the parking lot and also adds to the traffic. Mr. Strub said they are willing to be good neighbors and they fully intend to work with the city and the neighbors to make this fit into the neighborhood. He said they would be addressing the landscaping and lighting issues. Commissioner Rossbach moved to adopt the zoning map change resolution on page 14 of the staff report. This resolution changes the zoning map for 1955 McMenemy Street from single- dwelling residential (R-l) to limited business commercial (LBC). The city is making this change because: 1. The proposed change is consistent with the spirit, purpose and intent of the zoning code. Planning Commission Minutes of 06-16-03 -4- The proposed change will not substantially injure or detract from the use of neighboring property or from the character or the neighborhood, and that the use of the property adjacent to the area included in the proposed change or plan is adequately safeguarded. 3. The proposed change will serve the best interests and conveniences of the community, where applicable, and the public welfare. The proposed change would have no negative effect upon the logical, efficient, and economical extension of public services and facilities, such as public water, sewers, police and fire protection and schools. Commissioner Ledvina seconded. Ayes-Desai, Dierich, Fischer, Ledvina, Monahan-Junek, Mueller, Pearson, Rossbach, Trippier The motion passed. This item goes to the city council on July 14, 2003. b. Mendota Homes Town houses (County Road D) Mr. Ekstrand said Ms. Erin Mathern, of Mendota Homes, Inc., is proposing to build a 26-unit twin- home development on a 5.2-acre parcel between County Road D and Woodlyn Avenue. The proposed development would have 10 buildings fronting on a private roadway running south from County Road D to the Xcel power line easement. There would also be three twin homes fronting on Woodlyn Avenue south of the Xcel easement. Mr. Ekstrand said there are three depressions on the site that the Ramsey-Washington Metro Watershed District has classified as Class 4 wetlands. He said the applicant proposes to mitigate these by grading over them and creating a much larger wetland, which would be surrounded by an equivalent 25-foot wide Class 4 wetland buffer. Commissioner Rossbach asked what class the new wetland would be? Mr. Ekstrand said the proposed wetland would be at least a Class 4. He said the applicant has worked with the Watershed District and could address that issue. Mr. Cavett, Assistant City Engineer, said in terms of the revegetation requirements that the city has outlined, he would expect to see something better than a Class 4 wetland. He said it would be a man-made wetland so it may not be reasonable to expect it to be a Class 1 wetland. Commissioner Rossbach said in reading the staff report it made it sound as if a Class 4 wetland is not worth having. He would think that the city would want an upgraded wetland. If the city is going to allow the applicant to consolidate wetlands they should end up with a wetland that is classified as one that is worth having. Commissioner Rossbach asked Mr. Cavett if it's true that if a wetland is man-made it cannot be a Class 1 wetland? Mr. Cavett said he has not seen the mitigation report on these wetlands and defers the wetland interpretation to the Watershed District, who has the authority on this subject. Planning Commission Minutes of 06-16-03 -5- Commissioner Rossbach said in looking at the plan it appears there is a water sedimentation basin that feeds into the wetland area. He said it appeared the sedimentation was piped to a wetland off site and he asked how that all worked. Mr. Cavett said the majority of the site is draining to the south to a sedimentation treatment pond. Then from there is an overflow into what will become the new created wetland. Then there is a natural overland overflow which goes into a wetland area that was enlarged and is now part of the Birch Glen Apartment development and then it outlets into the city sewer system. Commissioner Rossbach said on page 18 of the staff report the area that the new wetland in this development is outletting to is listed as a wetland. He asked if that is awetland or a holding pond that it's going into? Mr. Cavett said the wetland on the Birch Glen Apartment site was classified as a Class 5 wetland and one of the recommendations from the Watershed District was that they enlarge and enhance the wetland in a way to improve what was there. So, essentially it's part of the storm sewer system. Commissioner Rossbach asked if this wetland was going to look like the pond in front of Pier 1 Imports on White Bear Avenue where the old Bruentrup farm site was? Mr. Cavett said that has a controlled outlet also. He cannot comment on that pond without more information. The storm water facility on the Birch Glen Apartment site has a controlled outlet. The only bounce that will occur is to bring it back up to the natural overflow elevation because it is flowing into the storm water system. There shouldn't be a lot of bounce in the wetland/pond areas except during dry periods when they experience a lot of infiltration without added storm runoff. Because of the soils in this area they anticipate that there will be a lot of infiltration and these basins will function like natural facilities and not like typical storm water ponds. Mr. Cavett said they aren't collecting such large drainage areas that the pond and wetland are going to get a lot of impact by repetitive filling and draining. Commissioner Rossbach said because there is a difference between a holding pond and a wetland he would appreciate it if people would clarify which they are referring to. Chairperson Fischer said she noticed the plans from the engineering company were not signed and dated and she thought that was a requirement. Mr. Cavett said with the preliminary plans sometimes the city receives the plans unsigned but before any permits can be issued the final plans would need to be signed and dated. Chairperson Fischer asked if the city has an expert on staff specializing in wetland delineation? Mr. Cavett said DuWayne Konewko, the Environmental Health Officer, is certified to do wetland delineations but he only does the wetland delineations for city work and not for private development. Applicants would have to hire their own consultant for wetland delineation. Chairperson Fischer asked if the Environmental Health Officer who is certified in wetland delineation has the capacity to agree or disagree with the wetland delineation plan proposals the city receives? T T Planning Commission Minutes of 06-16-03 -6- Mr. Cavett said the city defers the wetland issues to the Watershed District because they are the authority on the wetlands within the Ramsey-Washington Metro Watershed District. He said the exception would be the small areas outside the Ramsey-Washington Metro Watershed District. At that point, the city has to bring the watershed district in as consultants or use the city's own consultant. Commissioner Ledvina had a question regarding the grading plan. He said along the east side of the property the developer is showing retaining walls along the entire length of the east property boundary, which appears the retaining wall is necessary to build a walkout. He asked if that was an acceptable procedure for a development? Mr. Cavett said that was a concern of the engineering department as well. He wondered how the retaining wall would be constructed without extending construction limits beyond the property line. There have been homes that have been created where the walkout areas are below the retaining walls. He doesn't see it being an issue as long as it can be constructed without disturbing the east property line. Commissioner Desai said he noticed the applicant is going to be doing a substantial amount of tree replacement. He asked if it is the developer or homeowner's responsibility to replace the trees? Mr. Ekstrand said it is the developer's responsibility to replace the trees. He said it would be part of the developer's clearing, grading, and landscaping plan. Commissioner Dierich asked how long of a timeframe the developers are responsible to replace trees that died as a result from grading? Mr. Ekstrand said the trees that are required as part of the landscape plan would need to remain. In cases with a planned unit development (PUD), the planning department will look at the plan annually and would make sure the trees that died get replaced. Mr. Ekstrand said it gets harder when it's a plan that does not have to be reviewed annually, and then it would be up to the planners to check on the landscaping plan. Commissioner Dierich wondered what the city's policy was when a developer states in their proposal they would be using earth tones on their buildings and then they end up using colors that are not earth tones? Mr. Ekstrand said he is not aware of a developer that has done that but if there were, the city would have a hard time requiring the developer to change anything. He said sometimes developers refer to the color scheme as pleasing to the eye, non-offensive, neutral colors, and earth tones. Commissioner Dierich said on page 32 of the staff report, in number 1. of the engineering report, it's stated that the engineering department strongly questioned the sheeting of the water over the vegetated slopes. She asked if the engineering department received the information they were looking for yet? Planning Commission Minutes of 06-16-03 -7- Mr. Cavett said the only grading plan the engineering department has received is the original plan that was submitted. He said there are some areas where water is designed to sheet drain to slopes and there is nothing to protect the area from erosion. He said something will have to be done to revise the plans to accommodate the erosion, but nothing has been changed at this point. Commissioner Dierich said she assumed the applicant would not get a permit until they make some changes to the design. Mr. Cavett said that is correct. Commissioner Dierich stated she was not comfortable with the applicant only having seven parking spaces for visitors. Mr. Ekstrand said he is not very comfortable with that either. However, the visitor parking spaces meet the city ordinance. The applicant is required to have two parking spaces, which include one parking space in the garage and one in the driveway. He said this proposal for twin homes have two-car garages so there is room for four cars, and that certainly meets the city's ordinance. Mr. Ekstrand said the city is always pushing for additional visitor parking and he applauds the applicant for having the additional seven parking spots. It may not be very appealing, but the applicant could provide additional parking in some front-yard areas. Commissioner Dierich said she thought with a planned unit development (PUD) that allows the city to request more parking for the development? Mr. Ekstrand said yes, as long as there is space to add additional parking spaces. Commissioner Dierich asked Mr. Ledvina if the CDRB would approve of the architectural design of this proposal with the garages that overwhelm the front elevation? Commissioner Ledvina said the CDRB has had quite a bit of discussion regarding the layout of townhomes such as this and it's the board's opinion that this is not pedestrian friendly nor is it a very attractive type of architecture and they would like to see alternatives. The board has made it clear to staff that when applicants bring in plans like this that the staff voices the board's opinion to the applicant regarding this style of architecture. Commissioner Ledvina said there are things that can be done to improve the appearance of these types of dwellings but it's not the favorite style of the community design review board. Commissioner Trippler asked if the city has a policy or can the city request applicants to have their plans work around the wetlands rather than eradicate the wetlands and move or create the wetland to another location just so the applicant can put their development in the way they want to? Mr. Ekstrand said the city tries to accomplish that but in this instance the city didn't really stress to the applicant that they had to save the wetland. Staff stated that the applicant should submit their plans to the Watershed District for approval. The applicant did, and they have already received their permit. In many cases he and Mr. Cavett have strongly guided applicants to build their development around the wetlands. Mr. Ekstrand said many times the applicant returns and staff guides the applicant back to the drawing board until they can return with a plan where they do not disturb the wetland. Planning Commission Minutes of 06-16-03 -8- Commissioner Monahan-Junek asked what the setback would be if the wetland ends up being a Class 3? Mr. Ekstrand said the setback for a Class 3 wetland is 50 feet, but he is not sure the wetland has been given a classification yet. Chairperson Fischer asked the applicant to address the commission. Ms. Erin Mathern, of Mendota Homes, Inc., 2345 Rice Street, Roseville, addressed the commission. She said they have worked very hard to formulate a plan that makes use of the site in the best way possible while still giving credence to the wetlands and working around the utility easement. When that came together, they were able to use the area in the utility easement, which otherwise wouldn't be a buildable portion of the site, to create a much better wetland than what currently exists on the property. Ms. Mathern said to provide a 25-foot buffer requires a few modifications to their plan but it's something they can do. They can abide by the additional requirements with regard to plantings and posting signs of that buffer zone. She said they were happy to get their permit from the Watershed District today. Ms. Mathern said regarding the tree replacement, they would plant all the trees in the landscape plan. There is a one-year warranty on the trees, so if the trees would die for some reason, the trees would be replaced. The homeowner's association would maintain the trees and the grounds, and if any trees died after the one-year time period, the association would come to them as the developer requesting a tree replacement. Ms. Mathern said regarding the grading and the drainage, specifically the flow into the treatment pond and into the wetland area, they are willing to work with the engineer to be more specific about what he is proposing regarding the drainage out of the wetland area. Ms. Mathern said regarding the parking, there are seven parking spaces. It has been their experience that those parking spots will get used for holidays and when people have company over. However, on a day-to-day basis they do not anticipate that the clientele that they attract would find a need to use those additional seven visitor parking spaces. They feel those seven parking spaces are enough to accommodate this development but will take direction from the city staff.. Ms. Mathern said regarding the aesthetics of the building design, she'll withhold her comments until the community design review board meeting on June 24, 2003, since they deal with the design elements. She said it's hard to build a rambler-style townhome with a narrow rectangular site without a garage door on the front expansion. She said it isn't the most architecturally beautiful design to look at. They were trying to balance the use of the site for its highest and best use along with the fact that much of the site is not buildable because of the easement and the new wetland. Ms. Mathern said single-level housing with a walkout basement is in high demand. They tried to propose several different front elevations although the garage doors are all on the front elevations. She said the garage doors point out onto the new street, so from the public space outside the development, people are seeing something other than just the garage door. She said as far as the color scheme, the colors will be gray, taupe and cream, and Mendota Homes will take direction from the CDRB when it comes to adding design details. Planning Commission Minutes of 06-16-03 -9- Commissioner Ledvina said one of the concerns that he had heard that Birch Glen Apartments was concerned about is the setback of the buildings on the west property line. He asked if there is an opportunity to increase that setback and push everything to the east to provide a little more space between Birch Glen Apartments and these twin homes? Ms. Mathern said it is possible, but she would say the current setbacks are fairly ideal for townhouses. She said if you pushed the entire development 10 feet to the east you would end up with a pretty small backyard for the twin homes on the east side. Ms. Mathern said they are not in favor of this request. People want to have a backyard, and reducing the size of the yard makes for a smaller yard for the homeowners to enjoy. Chairperson Fischer asked staff if the applicant would need a variance for the setback. Ms. Mathern said correct. Mr. Ekstrand said Mr. Ledvina spoke to him about this subject on the telephone this afternoon. Mr. Ekstrand said he spoke with Mr. Bruce Anderson with the Park and Recreation Department about what impact this would have on the open space. He had concerns about it, and they both thought with a shortened back yard on those eastern homes the city would not want to see that impacting the open space property. Commissioner Dierich asked if the applicant had thought of turning the garages so they would face each other? Ms. Mathern said they entertained just about every option. She said that would make for significantly less units on the site and more impervious surface. Commissioner Dierich asked how many bedrooms would be in these units? Ms. Mathern said the units would be 28-feet wide, 30-feet wide, and 40-feet wide. The 40-feet- wide units are 1,800 square feet on the main level, and would have 2 bedrooms and a den. With the 28 or 30-feet-wide units you would have one bedroom plus a few living spaces. She said with two bedrooms the living space could get a little more crowded, With having the walkout basement, the homeowner could have an additional bedroom built. Ms. Mathern said their experience with the clientele that purchase these types of homes would be people that are retired or couples without children. Commissioner Ledvina asked the applicant if it was possible to eliminate the retaining walls on the east elevations and just grade those areas out? Ms. Mathern said at most there is a four-foot drop from the east property to the backyard. The retaining walls are not exclusively there to provide a walkout basement. She said perhaps it was to provide a clear delineation between the property to the east, which is seeded, and growing, and this property, which would be maintained by the homeowners' association. She said the retaining walls would go from a few feet in height to four feet high. Ms. Mathern said eliminating the retaining wall is something they could check into but she would have to discuss it with the engineer. Planning Commission Minutes of 06-16-03 -10- Commissioner Rossbach said he does not mean to offend Ms. Mathern, but he does not like this proposal. He doesn't like the fact that the applicant is going with twin homes because there is almost no green space available. He doesn't feel that creating a pond is an amenity, it's just a pond and nobody can use it. In the past, the commission has requested the applicant to build buildings with more units in them, that way you can compress the area with buildings and have more green space, which he would have liked to see done here. He said on page 27 in the staff report the applicant responded to the nine criteria regarding the conditional use permit. He is specifically referring to number 8, which states "the use would maximize the preservation of and incorporate the site's natural and scenic features into the development design". Commissioner Rossbach said the applicant's response doesn't really address anything in that statement. This is a site that has rolling topography, and in the grading plan it ends up a neat set of twin homes that pitch off at the back so there can be walkouts. He wonders how the commission can think the applicant is maximizing the preservation and incorporates the site's natural and scenic features into the site. Ms. Mathern said in order to maximize the natural and scenic features, which include the rolling topography, the relatively small wetland areas, and the existing vegetation, you would either not develop the property or develop the property in such a way that it would be outside how the city has guided the site for use. She said you could put one large building on the property, but she doesn't think that is consistent with how the city sees the property being used. Ms. Mathern said it's a buffer area between the apartments to the west and the city open space to the east, so putting up an apartment building does not help them out. So the choice would be to not develop the property or develop it in such a way that you can deal with the gigantic easement and the wetlands on the site. She said for development it's virtually impossible to incorporate the rolling topography that works for the site. Ms. Mathern said regarding the building and site design they have tried to balance creating the finest architecture they can or absolutely keeping the aesthetic features of the site such as the terrain and green space with trying to provide housing that is in demand and is appropriate with how the city has guided the site. She doesn't think she will convince Mr. Rossbach to like the plan, but they have spent a lot of time working with the planning staff on this development to make it the best possible site use. Commissioner Rossbach said he didn't like the Birch Glen Apartments development because it was a huge building that would create problems for the development of this property. He finds it amazing that the Birch Glen Apartments has stated they don't like the idea that a developer is going to develop these twin homes next to their huge apartment building and have requested the developer to move the buildings over away from their apartment building. He doesn't feel this whole area was developed properly. Dearborn Meadow townhomes is a development being built on Castle Avenue and Cope Avenue. Commissioner Rossbach said the developer brought plans to the commission that had too many buildings and not a lot of green space. The developer came back with a more consolidated plan and added more green space, which made for a much better development. He would like to see this developer do the same thing. In his opinion, it is not attractive architecturally to see a large garage door and only five feet of house sticking out from each end of the twin homes. Commissioner Dierich said in south Maplewood the planning commission had a similar proposal with the rolling hills and narrow lot and the commission made that developer return with a better plan. Planning Commission Minutes of 06-16-03 -11- Commissioner Dierich moved to table this and requested to ask the developer to come back with a better plan to incorporate more of the ideas the commission has discussed. Chairperson Fischer asked staff what the timeline was for this proposal? Mr. Ekstrand said this would go to the city council meeting on July 14, 2003, so staff would need an extension if the commission chooses to table this item. Commissioner Dierich said she proposes the commission ask the developer to allow the commission to table this proposal. Commissioner Mueller said he is not in favor of tabling this proposal but he is in favor of seeing new plans and ideas. He thinks the developer has worked hard to do the best they could with what they had to work with. He said maybe the developer has already done the best they can or maybe the developer could make the plans better. Commissioner Dierich again moved to table this proposal. Commissioner Rossbach seconded. Chairperson Fischer called to question tabling this proposal until the next planning commission meeting. Ayes- Dierich, Ledvina, Rossbach Nays - Desai, Fischer, Monahan-Junek, Mueller, Trippler The motion to table .failed. Commissioner Mueller moved to adopt the resolution on page 24 of the staff report approving a wetland buffer variance for the Woodlyn Ponds Twin Homes. Approval is based on the following findings: 1. The variance will be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the ordinance since the applicant will replace three small, poorer-quality wetlands with a larger, better-quality wetland. Strict enforcement of the code, by requiring the preservation of the existing wetlands, would not result in the best use and layout of the property and would, therefore, cause undue hardship. The three subject wetlands are not of a nature that they would be an asset to the site for either water retention or wildlife habitat. In this instance, it is an advantage to the developer, as well as the city, to create a useable and aesthetic wetland in lieu of the existing ones. Approval is conditioned upon the applicant doing the following: ao Revise the site plan to provide a wetland-protection buffer around the proposed wetland. This buffer must be an average of 25 feet with a minimum width of 20 feet. bo Dedicate a wetland buffer easement to the City of Maplewood prior to obtaining a grading permit for the project. Planning Commission Minutes of 06-16-03 -12- Install wetland-protection buffer signs around the buffer before the first unit is occupied which states, "WETLAND BUFFER AREA-DO NOT MOW, CUT, DUMP, DISTURB BEYOND THIS POINT-CITY OF MAPLEWOOD." These signs shall be installed not more than 100 feet apart. Provide a planting plan for the wetland buffer to be approved by the watershed district. This plan shall consist of a proposal to plant the buffer with native wetland vegetation. Commissioner Mueller moved to adopt the resolution starting on page 36 of the staff report approving a conditional use permit for a planned unit development for the Woodlyn Ponds Twin Homes. This approval is based on the findings for approval listed in the ordinance and subject to the following conditions: All construction shall follow the plans date-stamped May' 20, 2003. The city council may approve major changes. The director of community development may approve minor changes. 2. The proposed construction must be substantially started within one year of council approval or the permit shall end. The council may extend this deadline for one year. 3. The city council shall review this permit in one year. The applicant shall provide a noise evaluation for this site to determine if freeway noise would impact their proposed units above the maximum noise levels required by the MnPCA. If freeway noise does exceed these levels, the applicant shall reduce the outside noise within the units. 5. The homeowners' association documents shall state that the visitor parking lot shall be kept open for visitor parking and shall not be a storage area for RVs, trailers, campers and the like. 6. The applicant shall post the north-south private roadway for no parking on both sides. Commissioner Mueller moved to approve the Woodlyn Ponds Twin Homes preliminary plat date- stamped May 20, 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: Complete all grading for overall site drainage, complete all public improvements and meet all city requirements. b. Pay the city for the cost of traffic-control, street identification and no-parking signs. Provide all required and necessary easements, including ten-foot drainage and utility easements around the perimeter of the property, the wetland buffer easement and the 10-foot pedestrian easement along the north of the property. d. Cap and seal any wells on site. o Planning Commission -13- Minutes of 06-16-03 Have Xcel Energy install streetlights. The exact location and type of light shall be subject to the city engineer's approval. fo 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. g. Install survey monuments along the wetland boundaries. *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 Engineering Plan Review memo dated June 6, 2003. Paying for costs related to the engineering department's review of the construction plans. This escrow amount is $1,000. Label the common areas as "lots" instead of "outlot." Obtain a permit from the Ramsey-Washington Metro Watershed District for grading. Aisc obtain MnPCA and NPEDS (National Pollution Elimination Discharge System) permits. 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 applicant shall submit these prior to obtaining a building permit. *The developer must complete these conditions before the city issues a grading permit or approves the final plat. Commissioner Trippler seconded. Commissioner Rossbach requested that either commissioner Trippler or commissioner Mueller give an explanation of how they justify their vote for the conditional use permit (CUP). Commissioner Rossbach is referring to the letter from the developer on page 27, number 8. Commissioner Trippler said based on the ordinances that the developer has to work with and what the city provides, the developer has maximized the use of the property. He said in fact they haven't even maximized the use of the property, the developer could have proposed more units. He would've liked to have seen something different. Planning Commission Minutes of 06-16-03 -14- Commissioner Trippler said he doesn't like the way the units are packed in and he doesn't like the garages forward. Commissioner Trippler said there is a development in his neighborhood that the city developed and those units were packed in and the garage is forward and nobody was concerned about that. So, in his opinion, if the development in his neighborhood was approved it should be okay for this development to be built in this neighborhood. Commissioner Dierich asked if the chair could call each condition to question? Chairperson Fischer called to question all those in favor of condition A. for the wetland buffer variance? Ayes- Desai, Dierich, Fischer, Ledvina, Monahan-Junek, Mueller, Rossbach, Trippler Chairperson Fischer called to question all those in favor of condition B. for the conditional use permit?. Ayes-Desai, Fischer, Monahan-Junek, Mueller, Trippler Nays- Dierich, Ledvina, Rossbach Chairperson Fischer called to question all those in favor of condition C. for the preliminary plat?. Ayes-Desai, Fischer, Monahan-Junek, Mueller, Trippler Nays- Dierich, Ledvina, Rossbach The motion passed. This item goes to the city council on July 14, 2003. c. Hillcrest Village Mixed-Use Zoning District Discussion - Parking Standards Mr. Ekstrand said city staff is receiving comments and guidance from the planning commission and community design review board (CDRB) 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 redevelopment of an area into an urban center with compact, pedestrian-oriented commercial and residential developments. Mr. Ekstrand said 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. Mr. Ekstrand said staff recommends that the planning commission offer comments and guidance on the parking requirements proposed within the Hillcrest Village redevelopment area. He said staff would 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. Commissioner Dierich asked whether or not the city has considered having underground parking for the residential area and leaving the parking for retail the way it is currently? Planning Commission -15- Minutes of 06-16-03 Mr. Ekstrand said that was the proposal by Calthorpe Associates when they did the Hillcrest proposal and city staff would strongly push towards underground parking for the dwelling units. There might be an opportunity for underground parking for commercial use but they are trying to draft guidelines at this point. Commissioner Ledvina asked if the requirements would prohibit the construction of an above- ground parking garage? Mr. Ekstrand said there could be an above-ground parking garage but he is not sure if it would happen realistically based on the needs of the area businesses. Commissioner Desai said on Grand Avenue there is parking above the shops and that could be a possibility for the Hillcrest Area. Commissioner Trippler asked if the city staff is still pushing the concept of allowing overnight parking in this area? Mr. Ekstrand said he did not believe the police chief was in favor of overnight parking but it may be desirable from the mixed-use concept provision of parking. Commissioner Trippler said he did not see a need for overnight parking because he does not see any businesses that would use overnight parking between the hours of 2:00 a.m. and 6:00 a.m. Mr. Ekstrand said good point. Commissioner Dierich said she was in favor of having 24-hour on-street parking during the last planning commission discussion. Commissioner Rossbach asked for clarification of the requirement for number 3. on page 4 of the Hillcrest Parking Standards. Mr. Ekstrand said he did not clearly understand that requirement either. He said that came from the standards for the City of St. Paul. Commissioner Desai said he interpreted it as you can't reduce more than five spaces so that you won't drastically reduce the amount of parking spaces. Commissioner Rossbach said it seemed to him there should be some tie into the number of spaces that are actually required to start with? Commissioner Desai said that is a good start but that had not been suggested in that particular requirement. Commissioner Rossbach said he would suggest that there be some tie into the number of spaces that are actually required included in the requirement. Planning Commission Minutes of 06-16-03 -16- Commissioner Trippler said he had difficulty understanding what staff wanted from the commission based on what was presented in this report. He said he was getting mixed signals after reading through the report. He said it seems like the city staff is trying to push the pedestrian-friendly concept but then when he reads the parking requirements it seems like it is targeted to benefit the cars. Commissioner Rossbach said parking is slanted towards cars and there will be two things going on at once. On one hand you want to create a pedestrian-friendly environment and on the other hand people are going to be driving cars. Therefore, the city staff needs to decide what to do with the vehicles that will need to be there. Commissioner Rossbach said the city should figure out how they can least impact the pedestrians with the cars while they are there. Commissioner Desai said when he reads the parking ordinance he thinks the city is putting the cart in front of the horse so to speak. He said because the city does not know the exact type of a development that would be going in the area, how are you going to figure out what kind of parking is going to be needed? He said if the business doesn't support the theory of parking spaces, how can the city know how many parking spaces would be needed? Mr. Ekstrand said even if you know what is gong to be in that space the business turnover is what is scary from the staff's point of view. You can have one type of business in the space and five years down the road another type of business could move in the space and their parking needs could be totally different. He said the businesses generally know how many parking spaces they will need based on how many employees they have and what their clientele parking needs would be. Chairperson Fischer said she would be in favor of not putting more impervious surface than what is necessary on a site to meet the needs of a business to remain viable. She asked if the ordinance allows the city the flexibility to state they will allow the business to get by with paving one half of what the city normally requires and if it appears the business progresses the city can require the business to build or add more parking, or does the business have to pave the whole parking lot at once? Mr. Ekstrand said the city has a condition for that. However, it is easier to do that with a planned unit development (PUD) because the city staff can go back annually and review the parking needs. Chairperson Fischer asked if every business commercial (BC) property has to meet the same number of parking spaces for the same square footage? Mr. Ekstrand said yes, it does. Sometimes when the city staff requires the business to have a certain amount of parking spaces the applicant has come back requesting a waiver to decrease the parking spaces, and the city council generally grants it. Commissioner Rossbach commented that North St. Paul has some additional city-owned lots that are used for people to park in located behind the business area. Those lots get used frequently, especially for events such as the car show. People park and then walk four or five blocks to get to their destination. Commissioner Rossbach said, in his opinion, the Hillcrest area could have some smaller overflow lots built or even a parking ramp rather than an expansive parking lot. VII. VIII. Planning Commission Minutes of 06-16-03 -17- Commissioner Monahan-Junek said she would agree with commissioner Rossbach's comments, and she thinks that having the additional overflow parking lots, such as North St. Paul makes for a friendlier community. Commissioner Trippler said he likes Victoria Crossing in St. Paul because they have a parking ramp on Grand Avenue. He said having a parking ramp on top of the shops and office buildings eliminates the problem of having several surface parking lots making it more pedestrian friendly. Commissioner Rossbach said he thinks that is a good idea to have the parking ramp above the shops and the office buildings. Commissioner Mueller said he likes that idea as well except that it requires new construction of a building in order to do that since the buildings have to look the same from the outside and the structure has to be strong enough to hold a parking ramp on top of the facility. He wondered how it was determined how many parking spaces would be needed in order to accommodate the businesses, restaurants, shops and customers and what each business would be charged. Commissioner Dierich wondered how the snow removal would be handled. She said because of snow removal problem it would make more sense to have the parking ramp underground rather than above-ground. UNFINISHED BUSINESS None. VISITOR PRESENTATIONS None. IX. COMMISSION PRESENTATIONS a. Mr. Rossbach was the planning commission representative at the June 9, 2003, city council meeting. Items that were discussed were the street and alley right of way vacations on County Road D and Hazelwood Street and was approved ayes all. The Capital Improvement Plan for 2004- 2008 was approved ayes all. b. Ms. Fischer will be the planning commission representative at the June 23, 2003, city council meeting. Mr. Ekstrand said he would have to telephone Ms. Fischer with the agenda items. There will also be a city council workshop at 6:00 p.m. to discuss the Maxfield Research Study Report that he would hand out at the end of the meeting. c. Mr. Pearson will be the planning commission representative at the July 14, 2003, city council meeting. Planning Commission Minutes of 06-16-03 -18- X. STAFF PRESENTATIONS a. Annual Tour - June 30, 2003 (5:15 p.m. - 9:00 p.m.) Mr. Ekstrand asked which planning commission members would be attending the annual tour. All planning commission members other than Paul Mueller and Dale Trippler said they would attend. Because Gary Pearson was not present at the meeting, he was unable to respond whether he would be attending or not. Mr. Ekstrand handed out the Maxfield Research Study Report. Commissioner Ledvina requested a discussion regarding the wetland ordinance. He thinks the wetland ordinance should have a basic requirement which states wetlands should not be filled. He said you can say the Watershed District or the Core of Engineers is going to look at it, but there are areas in the City of Maplewood that the Watershed District does not cover. He is not sure of the criteria, but there are certain size wetlands that can be filled in without a permit. Commissioner Ledvina said he believes that the planning commission is the last defense for some of the very small wetlands that are not protected by other jurisdictions. He thinks the ordinance should state the planning commission requires a variance for filling a wetland. Commissioner Ledvina made a motion to look at changing the language to require a variance for filling a wetland. Commissioner Rossbach seconded. Ayes-Desai, Dierich, Fischer, Ledvina, Monahan-Junek, Mueller, Rossbach, Trippler The motion passed. Commissioner Trippler said he would like to see an effort to establish some criteria that would have to be fulfilled before a variance could or couldn't be granted, such as would a good reason for a wetland to be moved be because it meets the economic needs of a developer? He would think there could be five or six criteria put together that would guide the issuance of a variance or not. Commissioner Monahan-Junek said the issue could be larger than what is a wetland. It could be the difference with water and if it is a stream or not. Commissioner Rossbach said in the city's ordinance it states a stream is a wetland. Mr. Ekstrand said many times the commission discusses wetlands and wetland buffers. He said it may be as easy as changing the language by adding the word "wetland" to the language wherever it is appropriate. Mr. Ekstrand said city staff would begin drafting new language for the planning commission to review. Xl. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 9:27 p.m. MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: SUBJECT: LOCATION: DATE: City Manager Phil Carlson, AICP, Dahlgren, Shardlow, and Uban, Inc., Planning Consultant Legacy Village at Maplewood - Hartford Group, Inc. (Mixed Use PUD) Hijacek property, south of County Road D between Hazelwood and Southlawn June 30, 2003 INTRODUCTION The Legacy Village of Maplewood project has been discussed, reviewed, and analyzed in several forums and in several versions over the past year. City staff and consultants have met with the developer numerous times to review and revise the project. It is now being presented for official review by the City as a mixed use Planned Unit Development. The basic mix of uses complements the setting in Maplewood's premier commercial area; the residential density is appropriate for this intensely developed area and is within the City's Comprehensive Plan guidelines; and the overall network of streets, trails, and open space makes sense for this large undeveloped parcel of land at the City's northern edge. Legacy Village calls itself a "village" and is being planned as a "unit" under the city's zoning scheme, but it will be developed in several stages by different people at different times- various parcels being sold off to other developers, builders and bUsinesses to create the final entity some years down the road. The key will be to knit these pieces together with appropriate details, design guidelines, and development standards, so that the finished piece can truly become a legacy that Maplewood will be proud of and a village contributing to the character of the area. Project Description Legacy Village is a mixed use development consisting of rental townhomes and a senior assisted living apartment building in the first phase to be constructed by Hartford. Future development by others includes commercial uses of various kinds on the east side of the site fronting Southlawn Drive, a multi-family site of 50 units in the northeast corner of the site, a corporate office site in the middle of the property, and for-sale townhomes in the southwest quadrant of the site. Two public park areas, linked by sidewalks, trails and several ponding areas, will provide active and passive recreation for the project. Refer to the applicant's narrative on pages 28-38. The project is served by County Road D on the north, which is to be upgraded and extended to Highway 61 west of the property. On the east is existing Southlawn Ddve. Kennard Street will be extended north through the middle of the site to County Road D in a parkway design, and a new east-west street, Legacy Parkway, will connect Southlawn and Kennard in the middle of the site. Legacy Village PUD June 30, 2003 I REQUESTS · Comprehensive plan amendments from BC (business commercial) to R-3H (high density residential) and P (park) · Rezoning from BC to PUD (planned unit development) · Conditional use permit (CUP} for PUD · Preliminary plat · Public vacation of the undeveloped Alice Street right-of-way. BACKGROUND May 12, 2003: The city council adopted a resolution approving the AUAR (Alternative Urban Area Wide Review), the environmental analysis, for the Legacy Village site. June 2, 2003: The planning commission held a public hearing for the proposed Legacy Village land use plan revisions. The planning commission opened the hearing and took testimony from the audience. The applicant had requested postponement of this review since they were in the process of revising the plans according to direction from the city council. The planning commission tabled action on this proposal until July 7, 2003. June 9, 2003: The city council vacated Alice Street as requested by a neighbor to the Legacy Village site. This neighbor, Mr. George Supan, had requested the vacation of the Alice Street right-of-way since it abutted his property. DISCUSSION The existing property is a partially wooded, rolling site with wetlands in the northwest and southeast comers of the site. There is an existing farmstead with several buildings in the middle of the eastern third of the site. There is a power line, gas pipeline and telephone lines within easements running through the middle of the site, totaling about 230 feet in width. To the east and south of the site are commercial uses and the Maplewood Mall shopping center. Also to the south is the St. John's hospital campus. North of the site across County Road D are existing multi-family and commercial uses. To the west are existing single-family homes and a senior housing complex on Hazelwood Ddve. The current Comprehensive Plan guides the entire property as BC Business Commercial. The proposed PUD contains significant areas of high density residential and park uses, and it would be appropriate to have the Land Use Plan reflect these three major uses within Legacy Village: Business Commercial, High Density Residential, and Park. The existing property is zoned Farm Residential, a "holding zone" of sorts for the city. Hartford is requesting the project to be reviewed as a PUD and rezoned to PUD, which is appropriate. The PUD zoning then refers to uses in the Land Use Plan and corresponding zoning districts. Legacy Village PUD June 30, 2003 2 Hartford is applying for a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) for a Planned Unit Development (PUD). Under this approach, the property is ~ooked at as a whole, not as individual lots and creativity, flexibility, and a coordinated plan are encouraged. It is also appropriate within a PUD to consider the overall density and not the density of individual parcels. Just as the density of a residential project on an individual parcel includes the parking lot, play area, and ponding area on site, it is reasonable and appropriate to calculate the density of a PUD including all park areas, ponding area, and all of the various residential units together. The site is being planned as a "unit". Overall, taking just the residential parcels and the number of units planned (50 units on the multi- family site, 250 units on the for-sale townhome site) the net density would be 14.1 units/acre. But taking into account all the park and ponding area, which can be credited for density purposes to the residential uses, the gross density is 10.8 units/acres, well within the 12 units/acre guided in the Comprehensive Plan for High Density Residential and R-3 zoning. A summary of other town house projects around the region, with some of their features and densities is attached (separate attachment). Another feature of a PUD is the ability for the city to grant flexibility to the strict zoning standards, such as setbacks and height limits, in furtherance of an overall plan for the project. For Legacy Village the intent is to create an intense, well-connected pedestrian "village" rather than a spread- out suburban subdivision. Key to creating this character is allowing buildings to be close to the street, so many of the buildings in Legacy Village, both commercial and residential are closer to the street right-of-way that would otherwise be allowed. To create a "pedestrian-friendly" environment there must be a network of well-planned pedestrian connections throughout the development. Much of the detailed review of this project has revolved around making sure that these connections are provided. One of the major pads of this connection is the power line trail through the middle of the project, which will be connected to all the uses adjacent to it, so that everyone can use it. An important feature so far missing from the project is a sidewalk on the south side of County Road D. The County Road D project was being planned, designed and finalized some time before the final plans for Legacy Village were developed, and a sidewalk on the south side is not part of the County Road D plans at this point. Unfortunately, this was not apparent to Hartford and myself until recently, and trying to get this sidewalk into the plans or work around it has not been possible on such short notice. I believe this sidewalk is essential to creating a "pedestrian- friendly" neighborhood for the people who will live, work and shop in the northern tier of Legacy Village. There is a sidewalk planned for the north side of County Road D and the major east-west power line trail planned, but for pedestrians - especially children - a sidewalk on the other side of County Road D or 500 feet out of the way to the south is not practical. I would urge Hartford and the city to look at the details of the roadway and project design to see how this sidewalk might be provided, and to think creatively about how to make it happen. Each of the major pieces of the development is discussed below and recommendations follow. Legacy Village PUD June 30, 2003 3 Rental Townhomes Site Plan The rental townhomes are laid out in 5-, 7-, 8-, and 9-unit buildings on the north side of the site abutting County Road D; 14 buildings on the west side of Kennard and 12 buildings on the east side, for a total of 198 units in 26 buildings. The buildings are numbered 1-26 on the attached map for reference. The townhome units, all have a front and back door - the front door to a sidewalk system, the back door to the garage and driveway. The buildings are laid out in pairs on either side of a driveway, 36' apart, garage door to garage door. This is enough room for cars to maneuver into and out of the garages, but not enough space for cars to be parked in front of the garage doors as in some townhouse designs (that would require about 60' typically). The buildings are arranged to be faidy close to the public and private streets serving the project, giving it a more urban feel than many suburban townhouse projects. The fronts of the units are typically 15' to 25' from the internal streets and parking areas, and 15' from the right-of-way of Hazelwood Drive and Kennard Street. The actual distance from the front of the units to the curb line of these two public streets will depend on the final design of the streets, but should be about 30'. These setbacks to the public streets are closer than required under the Zoning Code, but are appropriate in my opinion. They are one of the features of the PUD that deserves flexibility. The site plan preserves a portion of the tree cover on the existing property for the proposed townhouse plan. About 7.5 acres of trees are shown north of the power line on the survey, and about 1.4 acres or 19% are preserved in four separate areas around the site. There are three areas in the northwest comer that are pad of the current tree cover surrounding three sides of the large wetland, and an area east of Kennard just south of Country Road D that is currently part of the stand along the west side of the ddveway into the Hijacek homestead. All other trees on site, except those within the delineated wetland buffers, are to be removed. There is a fifth stand of trees of about 2/10 acre, also on the east side of Kennard, south of stand noted above, that had been shown on earlier plans as being preserved. In order to save that stand, however, it would have been surrounded on three sides by a retaining wall about 8 feet in height, due to the grades on site. This retaining wall would have filled the view from the first-floor windows of buildings 16 and 17. A more reasonable solution, discussed with Hartford, is to allow this stand to be removed, the ground graded down closer to the level of the new buildings and some of the transplanted trees removed from various parts of the site replaced here. This would avoid a very costly retaining wall (the cost of the retaining wall alone around this small stand of trees would have been about as much as the combined total for all of the new landscape materials being planted for the entire townhouse project). Moreover, the retaining wall would not have been as attractive to future residents as a stand of trees at eye level. There will still be a significant stand of trees in this location, but transplanted trees, not the original stand. Street System Private streets and driveways serve all parts of the rental townhome plan, on both sides of Kennard Street. On the west side a single major ddve connects Kennard with Hazelwood. On the east side a single major drive connects Kennard to a roundabout at the multi-family and retail sites, then turns north to connect with County Road D. On both sides minor ddves connect into the actual units and their garages. No garages access directly out to these major private drives. Legacy Village PUD June 30, 2003 4 Several features of the internal roadway system for the townhome plan are worth commenting on: The west side major drive makes a "bump" in the middle of its run to avoid an existing telephone pole. This curve will cause headlights to shine into the units on either side of it. While the bump may be unavoidable I suggest it be flattened as much as possible to reduce the number of units affected. The same headlight issue might be a concern on the first curve west of Kennard in the big "S" that the roadway makes entedng the site past the clubhouse. Westbound cars could shine into the units in building 11. However, my sight line analysis shows that the proposed landscaping on the north side of the roadway consisting of evergreen shrubs, if allowed to grow to 3' or 4' tall, will screen the headlights. On the east side of Kennard the roundabout (where the townhomes, multi-family site, and retail site come together) is a good idea, giving some character and identity to the area, as well as handling traffic well. The roundabout noted above and the connecting roadway .link out.to County Road D. should be constructed with the townhomes, regardless of when or if the multi-family and retail parcels to the east are developed. Visitor and Overflow Parkinq There are good examples of projects around the region that have a minimal 35' spacing between garages, but also many with the more common 60' dimension allowing parking. With the proposed design there needs to be adequate visitor and overflow parking near each building in order for it to function well, to make up for the two spaces per unit in front of the garage door that are lost in this layout. The parking issue is one of the shortcomings in the earlier versions of the Legacy townhome plan that is improved with anticipated revisions. Townhouse projects need visitor and overflow parking spaces in a ratio of about 1/2 space per unit, evenly distributed around the site, based on my experience in other projects. The spaces should be arranged such that no unit is more than about 200' from a group of 5 or 6 parking spaces. This is equivalent to a little over half a block, and is what most single family neighborhoods expect in terms of parking in one's driveway or on the street for visitors. If a single family home had no driveway parking available and no parking at all for more than half a block from the home, it would be a real inconvenience. With on-street parallel parking on the pdvate streets and additional small parking areas scattered throughout the site, the Legacy townhome site plan (6/2/03) originally showed 64 surface parking spaces for 198 units, or less than 1/3 space per unit..About 20% of the units would have had no visitor parking at all within 200' and some units with close parking would have less than 1/2 space per unit in those nearby parking areas. Parking will not to be allowed on Hazelwood Drive and Kennard Street, so they cannot be part of the parking solution. A total of 99 visitor parking spaces need to be provided, spread evenly throughout the project as described above, which could involve one or a combination of the following: parallel parking on some of the internal streets; expanded parking areas where some are shown now; and parking spaces at the ends of the driveways (if tumarounds are provided to get in and out of these spaces). Hartford has agreed to revise the plans to show more visitor parking using some or all of these suggestions. Legacy Village PUD June 30, 2003 5 ¥ T Sidewalk/Trail System A well-planned and comprehensive sidewalk/trail system will be essential to the success of Legacy Village as a pedestrian-friendly development. There are sidewalks serving each townhome unit, but there are a few notable gaps in the system that I believe need to be addressed: · There is a sidewalk shown on the south side of County Road D along the entire northern edge of the rental townhome sites, but it does not appear on the City's design for County Road D. This is a significant piece of sidewalk continuity that I believe is important to Legacy Village, as noted above. · There needs to be a sidewalk connection to the clubhouse on the north side of the access drive from the group of townhomes west of the clubhouse. Immediately west of Kennard there is a gap in the sidewalk on the south side of buildings 13 and 14, which would allow pedestrians to get out to Kennard and then south to the power line trail and park. This is being addressed by Hartford with a modest realignment of the power line trail to allow better grades. West of Kennard on the south side of the major drive there should be sidewalk connections at two points to allow pedestrians to access the trail along the power line, and from there to the park. A third sidewalk connection would be desirable between the "bump" in the drive and Kennard Street, but the grades there are a challenge. I would suggest some attempt be made to put in such a connection, since children will make the trek up the slope in that location whether there is a sidewalk or not, rather than go several hundred feet out of their way to the next nearest sidewalk connection. East of Kennard it would also be desirable to have three sidewalk connections south to the power line trail. But the elevations for the townhouse pads in this area are lowered by as much as 10' from the current grades, making a sidewalk connection up the slope difficult if not impossible, and there is a storm pond behind the eastern pair of buildings that blocks this connection as well. Hartford is addressing this with the realignment of the power line trail. The power line trail should be accessible, meeting ADA guidelines. The proposed grades may be too steep in spots and should be reviewed for compliance with ADA minimum standards. Architecture I believe the architectural design of the townhomes is attractive and well done and I have no further comments or suggestions on it. The architectural plans will be submitted for review by the community design review board after the city council has reviewed the land use and zoning elements of this proposal. Legacy Village PUD June 30, 2003 6 Senior Assisted Living The senior assisted-living building is placed near the corner of Kennard and Legacy Parkway to anchor the intersection. The overall design places a major entrance at the corner and a vehicle drop-off entry behind the building opposite it. Parking is under the building and in a parking lot facing the pond to the east. The building is tight up against Kennard Street, again reinforcing the village character and pedestrian environment of Legacy Village. I believe the architectural design of the senior assisted-living building is attractive and well done and I have no further comments or suggestions on it. Furniture Store and Retail/Commercial Sites The northeast comer of the site is occupied by commercial uses, identified as a large furniture store on the corner of County Road D and Southlawn, and a pair of smaller retail/commercial buildings to the west. Hartford has indicated that the furniture store is a solid buyer but the smaller commercial buildings are shown as a concept only and no specific buyers are lined up. In the latest plans reviewed, the buildings on both sites were set back from County Road D about 150'. This arrangement creates some awkward relationships for the commercial buildings as well as the adjacent multi-family site. The furniture store has its parking lot divided on two sides of the building and the smaller buildings have their back close to the multi-family site. I suggest that both the furniture store and the retail/commercial buildings be placed close to County Road D with their parking to the south. This would improve the site plan as follows: · The furniture store would have a presence on County Road D for visibility and signage. The furniture store would have all its parking on one side of the building. Any future parking (noted as proof of parking on the plan) would therefore be contiguous to the original parking lot. The retail/commercial buildings would also have a presence on County Road D, but their front doors would face south toward the access off the roundabout and their neighborhood customers from the townhouses. · The access ddve from the roundabout would come dght into the new front door of the furniture store on the south side of the building. A driveway onto Southlawn for the furniture store could happen a bit further north than now shown and it would serve the front door of the building rather than the back side as on the earlier plans. Office/Corporate Site The office/corporate site is being shown in concept only and no detailed designs have been prepared. The building is also placed tight to the intersection of Legacy Parkway and Kennard, anchoring the corner. Parking is underneath and behind the building to the north. Legacy Village PUD June 30,2003 7 Restaurant and Commercial Sites These two parcels are also being shown in concept only, so the recommendations for them within the PUD are generalized as well. But being opposite the major commercial areas of Maplewood Mall, the uses are appropriate. Multi-Family Site The multi-family site is to be sold to another developer and is illustrated in concept only on the PUD site plan. When developed this parcel should tie into the adjacent uses in terms of access, sidewalk connections, architecture, and landscaping. Screening of this site from mechanical units and loading areas of the adjacent commercial sites will be important. For-Sale Townhomes The for-sale townhome site will be sold to another builder; negotiations are under way and the builder may be announced soon. The recommendations are general but similar to the other sites: connect pedestrian linkages, bring buildings close to Kennard Street, and provide adequate parking. Park System Two public parks are proposed for Legacy Village, one on the west side of Kennard under the power line and one around the large wetland in the southeast corner of the site. These locations will provide active and passive recreation for residents, linked with sidewalks and trails. A water park and small ballfields are suggested for the west park, while the southeast park is mostly passive, with a trail loop around it. The city's parks director has a more detailed memorandum on these park features and park dedication. Legacy Village PUD June 30, 2003 8 RECOMMENDATIONS As of this writing the recommendations and analysis are based on drawings from the Hartford Group dated 6/2/03. A number of revisions have been discussed verbally with Hartford that may or may not show up on revised drawings by the time of the Planning Commission meeting. The buildings and main private streets of the townhome site plan have been numbered and lettered on the attached map for reference. Refer to page 27. Comprehensive Plan Amendment. I recommend approval of an amendment to the Comprehensive Land Use Plan for Legacy Village of Maplewood as follows: 1 ) The following parcels on the Preliminary Plat remain guided BC Business Commercial, their current designation: a. That portion of Lot 1, Block 1 comprising the'office suites/clubhouse site, a roughly square area consisting of the first 265 feet south and west of the rights-of-way of County Road D and Kennard Street, an area of 1.61 acres; b. Outlot A - retail/commercial; c. Outlot C- furniture store; d. Outlot D- commercial; e. Outlot E- restaurant; and f. Outlot G - corporate/commercial. 2) The following parcels on the Preliminary Plat would be changed to Park: a. Outlot F- public park; and b. Outlot I- public park. 3) All other parcels on the Preliminary Plat 'except those noted above as Park or remaining BC would change to R-3H High Density Residential: a. Lot 1, Block 1 - rental townhomes, except for the office suites/clubhouse site descdbed above; b. Lot 1, Block 2- rental townhomes; c. Lot 1, Block 3- senior assisted living; d. Outlot B - multi-family; and e. Outlot H -for-sale townhomes; 4) The areas devoted to these three land use categories are as follows: BC - Business Commercial: 19.23 acres R3H - High Density Residential: 43.68 acres Park 13.64 acres Total: 76.55 acres Legacy Village PUD June 30, 2003 9 Rezoning I recommend approval of a rezoning for Legacy Village of Maplewood as follows: 1) The entire Legacy Village property is to be rezoned from Farm Residential to PUD - Planned Unit Development by conditional use permit, with conditions described below in this report; 2) All parcels within the PUD that are guided on the amended Land Use Plan(above) as BC Business Commercial shall follow the zoning standards of the BC Business Commercial Zoning District; 3) All parcels within the PUD that are guided on the amended Land Use Plan (above), as R- 3H High Density Residential and Park shall follow the R-3 Zoning District requirements. Conditional Use Permit (CUP) for Planned Unit Development (PUD) I recommend approval of the CUP for a PUD for Legacy Village of Maplewood with the following conditions: 1) Rental Townhomes and Office/Clubhouse: a. The project will be constructed according to the plans from Hartford Group dated 6/2/03 in all details, except as specifically modified by these conditions; A sidewalk will be provided continuously on the north or west side of Street A between Kennard Street and Hazelwood Drive, including the segment between the office/clubhouse parking lot and townhome buildings 11 and 12; c. Sidewalk connections will be added connecting the power line trail to the curb of Street A opposite townhome buildings 6 and 8; d. The sidewalks serving the fronts of townhome buildings 13, 16, 17, 18, 19, and 20 will be extended south to connect with the power line trail; eo Street B and Street C serving the townhomes will be constructed in their entirety with the townhomes, regardless of.the status of the multi-family and commercial parcels to the east; fo If parking spaces are provided at the ends of the driveways at the rear of buildings 1, 2, 3 and 4; 15/16; 19/20; 21/22; or 25/26, then sidewalks will be provided from those parking spaces connecting to the front sidewalks of each of those buildings; go The infiltration trenches on the south sides of buildings 13/14, 15/16, and 19/20 will be modified to accommodate a revised alignment for the power line trail, provided that reasonable grades are provided for the trail and any sidewalks connecting to it, and approval of the city engineer concerning the size and function of the trenches; ho A 6'-wide sidewalk should be provided if at all possible on the south side of County Road D for the entire length of the project from Hazelwood Drive to Southlawn Ddve, through continued discussion between the city and Hartford, focusing on Legacy Village PUD June 30, 2003 10 exact sidewalk width, location, and right-of-way needs for turn lanes and other features of the County Road D project; If a sidewalk is provided on the south side of County Road D, then sidewalks will be provided out to that sidewalk from the north side of buildings 1,4, 21, 22, 23, 24, and 25, as well as to the clubhouse front entry and the clubhouse parking lot; The grades of the power line trail and all sidewalks will meet ADA guidelines for slope; Overstory trees will be planted along both sides of Street A at an average of 30'-40' on center instead of the average 70' spacing shown on the plans; I. Overstory trees will be planted along both sides of Street B and on the west side of Street C at an average of 30'-40' on center instead of the sometimes 100' spacing shown on the plans, such additional tree islands to be coordinated with modified parking bays that might be added to this street; m. Overstory trees will be planted along both sides of Kennard Street in front of the townhomes at an average of 30'-40' on center instead of the average 50'-80' spacing shown on the plans; no The curve in the middle of Street A opposite buildings 10 and 12 will be flattened as much as possible to limit headlights aimed into the front of the units; o. Front building setbacks (clubhouse and buildings 1,4, 5, 14, 15, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, and 26) to Hazelwood Drive, Kennard Street, and County Road D that are less than required by the Zoning Code are specifically approved within this PUD as shown on the site plan, down to a minimum of 5' for the clubhouse and 15' for the townhome buildings, in order to enhance the urban character of the streets and intersections; p. Side yard building setbacks for all buildings that are less than required by the Zoning Code are specifically approved within this PUD as shown on the site plan; Visitor parking spaces for the rental townhomes will be added or modified as follows: Parking spaces will be added so there is a total of at least 48 spaces on the west side of Kennard and at least 51 spaces on the east side of Kennard, such that the front door of no unit is more than 200 feet from a group of at least 5 spaces. ii. Street A will be widened to 26' curb-to-curb and on-street parallel parking will be added along the north and west sides of the street except for within 100' of the pavement of Hazelwood Drive and Kennard Street. iii. The private drive immediately south of buildings 2 and 3 will be widened to 26' curb-to-curb and on-street parallel parking will be added along the north side of the drive. Legacy Village PUD June 30, 2003 11 iv, Parking areas will be added behind buildings I and 4 where the driveway abuts the ponding area, consistent with the recommendation of the city engineer on providing adequate grading and functioning of the pond. Parking areas may be added behind buildings 15/16, 19/20, 21/22, and 25/26 to meet the parking and distance criteria cited here. vi. Street B will be widened to 26' curb-to-curb and parallel parking will be added along the north and west sides of the street, or additional angled parking will be added to meet the criteria for parking spaces cited here. Fo The parking lot for the clubhouse/office building will be modified to add "proof of parking" spaces in the green area north and east of the swimming pool, for a total of 91 spaces possible in the lot. Such spaces will only be constructed if the owner believes they are needed, or if they are needed in the future to address parking . problems at the building in the opinion of the community development director, who can order the spaces to be constructed. Such spaces will maintain a sidewalk connection between the swimming pool and clubhouse building in an island in the middle of the parking bays as shown on the plans; s. An easement over the power line trail on this parcel will be provided to the city for access and maintenance. 2) Senior Assisted Living: ao Front building setbacks to Kennard Street and Legacy Parkway that are less than required by the Zoning Code are specifically approved within this PUD as shown on the site plan, down to a minimum of 5', in order to enhance the urban character of the streets and intersection; b. Emergency exits - two fronting Kennard Street and one fronting Legacy Parkway - will provide sidewalk connections to the sidewalks on the street; c. A sidewalk connection will be provided near the south side of the building connecting Kennard Street to the path around the pond to the east; d. The entry at the far south end of the building will provide a sidewalk connection to the sidewalk noted above; e. The emergency exit on the southwest face of the building near the south end of the building will provide a sidewalk connection to the sidewalk noted above; f. The emergency exit on the south face of the northeastem leg of the building will provide a sidewalk connection south to the sidewalk abutting the parking lot; go Overstory trees will be planted along the east side of Kennard Street and the south side of Legacy Parkway at an average of 30'-40' on center instead of the average 80'-100' spacing shown on the plans; Legacy Village PUD June 30, 2003 12 3) Multi-Family Site (Outl0t B): a. The multi-family site is planned in concept only within the PUD and will come in for design review and approval at a later date, but the use of the property is allowed as long as the provisions of the R-SA or R-3B zoning district (depending on the building size) and conditions outlined here are met; b. The multi-family site is approved for up to 50 units of housing; c. A building corner should be within 30' of the curb on the roundabout to maintain the character of the intersection; d. The building or buildings must be designed to continue the general pattern and sight lines of the townhomes to the west; e. Sidewalk connections must be provided to the power line trail on the south side of the parcel; f. Visitor parking must be provided at a ratio of 1/2 space per unit no more than 200' from the front door of any unit if townhomes are built, or the front entry of the apartment building if apartments are built; g. Adequate separation, buffering and screening must be provided from the multi- family residential units to the front door, parking areas, loading areas, and mechanical equipment on the adjacent commercial parcels; h. A play area or tot lot must be provided on site with easy access to the building entries and to the power line trail, within reasonable sight of as many of the units as possible; i. The architectural character and exterior building materials must be in keeping with the adjacent townhomes and other buildings if present; j. Overstory trees must be planted along the north side of the extension of Street B at an average of 30'-40' on center; k. An easement over the power line trail on this parcel will be provided.to the city for access and maintenance. 4) Retail/Commercial (Outlot A): a. The retail/commercial site is planned in concept only within the PUD and will come in for design review and approval at a later date, but the use is allowed as long as the provisions of the BC zoning district and conditions outlined here are met; b. The building(s) on the retail/commercial site should be sited on the north side of the parcel within 15' of the County Road D right-of-way with all parking to the south; Legacy Village PUD June 30, 2003 13 The applicant shall submit a comprehensive sign plan. One criteria to be established, however, is that pylon signs shall not be allowed. Monument signs may be allowed, but shall not exceed 12 feet in height; d. The architectural character and exterior building materials must be in keeping with the adjacent townhomes and other buildings if present; eo Access to the site will be off the east leg of the roundabout and another access drive off Street C between the roundabout and County Road D; and to County Road D at a shared driveway with the adjacent furniture store site; f. Ail ground-mounted and roof-mounted mechanical equipment shall be screened according to ordinance; g. Overstory trees must be planted along the south side of the extension of Street B at an average of 30'-40' on center. 5) Furniture Store (Outlot C): ao The furniture store is planned in concept only within the PUD and will come in for design review and approval at a later date, but the use is allowed as long as the provisions of the BC zoning distdct and conditions outlined here are met; bo The building should be sited on the north side of the parcel within 15' of the County Road D and Southlawn Ddve rights-of-way with all parking to the south. The design of the comer of the building should be such that reasonable and safe sight distances are maintained at County Road D and Southlawn; Co The applicant shall submit a comprehensive sign plan. One criteria to be established, however, is that pylon signs shall not be allowed. Monument signs may be allowed, but shall not exceed 12 feet in height; d. The architectural character and exterior building materials must be in keeping with the adjacent townhomes and other buildings if present; e° Access to the site will be off the extension of the east leg of the roundabout, to County Road D at a shared driveway with the adjacent retail/commercial site and up to two driveway accesses to Southlawn Ddve at points to be approved by the city engineer; f. All ground-mounted and roof-mounted mechanical equipment shall be screened according to ordinance; g. Overstory trees must be planted along the west side of Southlawn Drive at an average of 30'-40' on center. 6) Commercial Site (Outlot D): a° The commercial site is planned in concept only within the PUD and will come in for design review and approval at'a later date, but the use is allowed as long as the provisions of the BC zoning district and conditions outlined here are met; Legacy Village PUD June 30, 2003 14 One of the buildings on the commercial site should be sited close to the corner of Southlawn Drive and Legacy Parkway, within 30' of the Southlawn Drive right-of- way; Co The applicant shall submit a comprehensive sign plan. One criteria to be established, however, is that pylon signs shall not be allowed. Monument signs may be allowed, but shall not exceed 12 feet in height; The architectural character and exterior building materials must be in keeping with the nearby senior assisted-living building, townhomes and other buildings if present; e. Access to the site will be off Legacy Parkway and onto Southlawn if approved by the city engineer; f. All ground-mounted and roof-mounted mechanical equipment shall be screened according to ordinance; g. The parking lot on this site must provide through connections and cross parking easements with the parcel to the south (Outlot E); ho There must be sidewalks connecting entdes to all buildings on site to Legacy Parkway, Southlawn Drive, the path around the pond to the west, and to Outlot E. Such sidewalks must be separated from the parking lot - at curb level, not parking lot level; Uses on the site are encouraged to take advantage of the park and trail system around the ponding area to the west by providing outdoor seating, plazas, overlooks or similar features; j. Overstory trees must be planted along the north side of Legacy Parkway and the west side of Southlawn Drive an average of 30'-40' on center. k. An easement over the power line trail on this parcel will be provided to the city for access and maintenance. 7) Restaurant Site (Outlot E): The restaurant site is planned in concept only within the PUD and will come in for design review and approval at a later date, but the use is allowed as long as the provisions of the BC zoning district and conditions outlined here are met; The applicant shall submit a comprehensive sign plan. One criteria to be established, however, is that pylon signs shall not be allowed. Monument signs may be allowed, but shall not exceed 12 feet in height; Co The architectural character and exterior building materials must be in keeping with the nearby senior assisted-living building, townhomes and other buildings if present; Legacy Village PUD June 30,2003 15 Access to the site will be off a shared driveway with the shopping center property to the south, provided easements and agreements can be reached with that property owner to provide such access. Access will be provided onto Southlawn if approved by the city engineer; e. All ground-moUnted and roof-mounted mechanical equipment shall be screened according to the ordinance; f. The parking lot on this site must provide through connections and cross parking easements with the parcel to the north (©utlot D); There must be a sidewalk on the south side of the site connecting Southlawn Drive with the trail around the ponding area to the west. There must also be sidewalks connecting the building entry to the shared driveway on the south side, Southlawn Drive, and to Outlot D. Such sidewalks must be separated from the parking lot - at curb level, not parking lot level; Uses on the site are encouraged to take advantage of the park and trail system around the ponding area to the west by providing outdoor seating, plazas, overlooks or similar features; Overstory trees must be planted along the west side of Southlawn Drive and the north side of the driveway access on the south side of the site at an average of 30'- 40' on center. 8) Corporate/Commercial Site (Outlot G): ao The corporate/commercial site is planned in concept only within the PUD and will come in for design review and approval at a later date, but the use is allowed as long as the provisions of the BC zoning district and conditions outlined here are met; b. The building must be sited close to the roundabout intersection on the corner of Kennard Street and Legacy Parkway, within 15' of both rights-of-way, to maintain the character of the intersection, with parking to the north and east of the building; c. The applicant shall submit a comprehensive sign plan. One criteria to be established, however, is that pylon signs shall not be allowed. Monument signs may be allowed, but shall not exceed 12 feet in height; do The architectural character and extedor building materials must be in keeping with the nearby senior assisted-living building, townhomes and other buildings if present; eo Access to the site will be off Legacy Parkway and Kennard Street. The driveway access to Kennard Street at the northwest corner of the site may move north if needed for the realignment of the power line trail and to align with the driveway entrance to the park on the west side of Kennard; f. All ground-mounted and roof-mounted mechanical equipment shall be screened according to ordinance; Legacy Village PUD June 30, 2003 16 g. There must be sidewalks connecting entries to all buildings on site to Legacy Parkway, Kennard Street, and through the parking lot to the power line trail; Uses on the site are encouraged to take advantage of the park and trail system around the ponding area to the west by providing outdoor seating, plazas, overlooks or similar features; i. Overstory trees must be planted along the east side of Kennard Street and the north side of Legacy Parkway at an average of 30'-40' on center. 9) For-Sale Townhomes (Outlot H): The for-sale townhome site is planned in concept only within the PUD and will come in for design review and approval at a later date, but the use is allowed as long as the provisions of the R-3C zoning district and conditions outlined here are met; Townhome buildings must be sited close to the roundabout intersection on the corner of Kennard Street and Legacy Parkway, and close to Kennard Street, within 20' of both rights-of-way, to maintain the character of the intersection and the streetscape; The architectural character and exterior building materials must be in keeping with the nearby senior assisted-living building, townhomes and other buildings in the development; d. Access to the site will be off the west leg of the roundabout at Legacy Parkway and Kennard Street, plus another access to Kennard Street further south, most likely in a loop street through the site. If the properties west of Outlot H fronting Hazelwood Drive are likely to develop when Outlot H is proposed for development, then consideration will be given to a public through street connecting Kennard Street and Hazelwood Drive as an extension of Legacy Parkway; e. There must be a clear, simple system of internal pdvate streets serving the townhomes, at least 28' in width if parking is provided on one side, and 32' in width of parking is provided on both sides; There must be sidewalks connecting entries to all buildings on site to Legacy Parkway, Kennard Street, and the park and power line trail to the north. Such sidewalks must be designed within a clear system of open spaces and landscaping that serves all units more or less equally; g. Visitor parking must be provided at a ratio of 1/2 space per unit no more than 200' from the front door of any townhouse unit; h. Overstory trees must be planted along the west side of Kennard Street and along both sides of the major internal street(s) at an average of 30'-40' on center. Legacy Village PUD June 30,2003 17 10) Public a. 11) Public a. bo Co d° fo Park with Trail (Outlot F): The property will be deeded to the City as public park land, but will not be credited as land area in park dedication requirements. See Parks Director Bruce Anderson's memorandum (attached). Hartford will construct all the grading, ponding, and trails noted on the plans; Hartford will secure all necessary easements and agreements with the shopping center property owner to the south for grading and construction of the trail on the south side of the pond (and the extension of that trail west around the south side of the senior assisted living building noted previously). Once agreed to, an easement at least 5' wider than the trail surface will be dedicated to the city for access and maintenance of the trail. Park (Outlot I): The property will be deeded to the City as public park land, but will not be credited as land area in park dedication requirements. See Parks Director Bruce Anderson's memorandum (attached). Hartford will construct all the grading, play fields, equipment, and parking noted on the plans or as negotiated with the city; The power line trail will be realigned to cross Kennard Street further north to accommodate sidewalk connections to the townhomes to the north; Sidewalk connections will be provided in several locations to the power line trail in reasonable locations to connect all major activity areas with the trail; Sidewalk connections will be provided in appropriate locations to the sidewalk and green space system of the townhome development to the south, at such time as that development is planned or in place; Hartford will secure easements and agreements with the property owner to the south for the trail on the south side of the pond (and the extension of that trail west around the south side of the senior assisted-living building noted previously). Once agreed to, an easement at least 5' wider than the trail surface will be dedicated to the city for access and maintenance of the trail. Legacy Village PUD June 30, 2003 18 12)The Legacy Village site as a whole: The applicant shall dedicate wetland-protection buffers around each wetland within this development. The width of each buffer shall be according to each wetlands classification as determined by the Ramsey-Washington Metro Watershed District. These buffers shall be dedicated to the City of Maplewood and shall be dedicated to the city prior to the issuance of the first building permit for this development. The applicant shall install wetland-protection buffer signs around each wetland buffer. These signs shall state "there shall be no mowing, cutting, filling or dumping beyond this point." c. The community design review board shall review the landscape plans using the criteria herein as a guide. d. The architectural plans for all buildings in Legacy Village are sulsject to the approval of the community design review board. e. The grading, drainage, erosion control, utility and roadway plans (public and private) are subject to the approval of the city engineer. f. The applicant shall meet the tree-replacement/tree-preservation requirements of the Maplewood Code of Ordinances. Preliminary Plat I recommend approval of the Preliminary Plat for Legacy Village at Maplewood with the following conditions: 1) Public street right--of-way will be dedicated for County Road D, Kennard Street, Legacy Parkway and Southlawn Drive as recommended by city engineering consultant Jon Horn (see attached memorandum). 2) Outlot f and Outlot I will be dedicated to the city for public park purposes as recommended and approved by the city parks director; 3) An easement over the power line trail will be dedicated to the city as required by the city engineer and parks director, and as modified by conditions of approval for the PUD; 4) Wetland buffer easements shall be shown around the wetlands on the site. The applicant shall dedicate these wetland buffer easements to the City of Maplewood. Public Vacation Take no action on the proposed Alice Street vacation since this right-of-way was recently vacated by the city council as requested by a neighboring property owner. Legacy Village PUD June 30, 2003 19 p:com_dvpt\sec3\LegacyVillage\TE rev Attachments: 1. Location Map 2. Land Use Map (existing) 3. Land Use Map (proposed) 4. Property Line/Zoning Map 5. Proposed Alice Street-Vacation Map 6. Legacy Village PUD (overall site plan) 7. Building Numbering Reference Plan & Acreage/Density Table 8. Applicant's Narrative dated June 11, 2003 9. Memo from Jon Horn dated June 25, 2003 10. Memo from Bruce Anderson dated June 25, 2003 1 1. Land Use Plan Resolution 12. Rezoning Resolution 1 3. CUP/PUD Resolution 14. Plans date-stamped June 12, 2003 (separate attachment) 15. Area Town House and Multi-Family Developments (separate attachment) Legacy Village PUD June 30, 2003 20 Attachment 1 ~ VADNAI£ HEIGHTS coum-y p.~. D HIGHRIDG£ ~'. 1. SUMMIT CT. 2. COUNTR'Y~EW ClP~ 5. DULUTH CT. 4-. LYDIA. ^VE.. BF_~M ROAD C AVE. JUNCTIDt PROPOSED LEGACY VILLAGE SITE ~'T. ,JOHN'S BLVd. COUNTY DEMDNT BROOK~ AVE_- SH~R~ AG ROAD R, kDAT'Z ~J KOHLMAN AVE. COPE: AGE. ~--~' LOCATION MAP Attachment 2' , minJcr art. eriai ~ .._J, in t erc'ha,m oe V a dnai-~ H eigl3t $ - M-1 !~r~c~p~l art e.rial 694 'CO' maioF..collect or { M-1 LBC '-'~-- H i g h~-w ~'y 36 R-2 interchange inte}~:~ahge LAND USE EXISTING MAP 22. Attachment 3 LEGACY VILLAGE AT MAPLEWOOD MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA R-3H FURNITURE 8TORE R 3H~ "'°'°" ~ 4.0~ AC. 137 PKG 8P 2.34 AC. ~-~ OUTLOT H R-3H - OUTLOT ..... - 10.OIl~C. /' ,~,,: RESTAURANT i! :--~ ~- 81rE ';' / ii POND OUTLOT [' ('i .... q.~..A..c ...... i '"" /-'i';'T :'-' 'i* :~:.:,:::~:,,.??::..~. i~iI PROPOSED 23 Attachment 4 R3 County Road D County R~ F BC mat PROPERTY LINE I ZONING MAP '~ Attachment 5 ~ '~ II f i ~ L~J I "l I I ~ , ?~ ~, ~ I PROPOSED '~ ~" N ~ ' I ' ALICE STREET ~ ....... ~ . .~ ....... ...... I ~', 25 Attachment 6 0 ~q 0 ,~. ~ 26 Attachment 7 Legacy Village Townhome Buildings and Streets Legacy Village Maplewood Acreage/Density Parcel Acreage Units Density L1 Bkl Rental TH 11.00 96 L1 Bk2 Rental TH 7.70 102 Outlot B Multi-Family 2.34 50 L1 Bk3 Senior Ass't 2.86 120 Outlot H For-Sale TH 19.78 250 Subtotal R-3H 43,68 acres 618 units Outlot F Park 11.39 Outlot I Park 2.25 Subtotal Park 13.64 acres 8.7 13.2 21.4 42.0 12.6 14.1 un/ac net Subtotal for Density L1 Bkl Office/Clubhouse Outlot A Commercial Outlot C Furniture Outlot 13 Commercial Outlot E Restaurant Outlot G Corporate Subtotal BC Total 57.32 1.61 2.29 4.02 3.35 1.50 6.46 19.23 acres 76.55 acres 618 units 618 unEs 10.8 un/ac gross Legacy Village PUD June 30, 2003 27 'r Attachment 8 LEGACY VILLAGE OF MAPLEWOOD A MIXED-USE INTERGENERATIONAL COMMUNITY CITY OF MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA June 11, 2003 Revised Narrative in Support of Comprehensive Plan Amendment Preliminary and Final Plat Approval Planned Unit Development Approval and Community Design Review Board Approval for an Intergenerational and Mixed-Use Neighborhood Project 28 Legacy Village of Maplewood Maplewood, Minnesota DEVELOPER Hartford Group, Inc. Elizabeth Kautz Executive Vice President 12100 Singletree Lane Suite 112 Eden Prairie, MN 55344 952-746-1200 Fax: 952-746-1201 www.harffordgrp.com ARCHITECTS/ENGINEER Hartford Group, Inc. Hal Pierce, AIA Patrick Sarver, ASLA Jon Theis, PE 12100 Singletree Lane Suite 112 Eden Prairie, MN 55344 952-746-1200 Fax: 952-746-1201 www.hartfordgrp.com ATTORNEY William C. Griffith, Jr. Neal J. Blanchett Larkin, Hoffrnan, Daly & Lindgren, Ltd. 7900 Xerxes Avenue South, Suite 1500 Bloomington, Minnesota 55431 (952) 896-3290 Fax: (952) 896-3333 wgriffith~lhdl.com nblanchett~lhdl.com 29 L THE PROPERTY Prior Review The Final AUAR and Mitigation Plan (the "AUAR") was approved on May 12, 2003 The Project concept has been introduced and reviewed extensively by City staff and City officials, most recently at the May 19, 2003 City Council meeting. The AUAR analyzed development of two areas, Sub-Area 1 (82.2 acres with one farmstead residence) and Sub-Area 2 (4.6 acres in five residential homesites. The Project is planned for Sub-Area 1, and for cOmpatibility with redevelopment of Sub-Area 2. Property Location and Boundaries The Property is 82.2 acres located west of the Maplewood Mall, south of Interstate 694 and east of Highway 61. It is bounded on the east by Southlawn Drive, on the north by County Road D on the west by Hazelwood Street, and on the south by the St. John's hospital campus and development adjoining Kennard Street and north of Beam Avenue. Property_ Use and Adjacent Uses The Property is currently primarily open land, including one farmstead residence and some wetland and forested areas. On the west edge, there is AUAR Sub-Area 2, a row of five existing residences totaling 4.6 acres. Maplewood Mall is to the east; townhomes and retail development is to the north, and senior housing, retail, and medical facilities to the south and southwest. The Developer is the equitable title owner of the Property by way of an executed purchase agreement. IL THE LEGACY VILLAGE DEVELOPMENT PLAN Proposed Development Plan Transportation improvements divide the Property into four main sections: northeast, northwest, southeast, and southwest. An east-west trail bounds the north one-third (24.8 acres) of the Property. Kennard Street, extended north through the Property, divides the Property approximately in half, east and west. Legacy Parkway divides the eastern portion of the property approximately in half, north and south. All four sections feature mixed uses. The northwest portion is primarily residential, with an executive office suites and clubhouse. A wetland buffer is planned near the northwest comer. The three-story clubhouse/community center mixes the communal use supporting the residential townhome neighborhood with commercial office use. The building footprint is 8,625 square feet; total floor area is 25,085 square feet. The building's upper two stories are small-scale office spaces for commercial tenants, in size ranges from 124 square feet to 248 square feet. Seventy 30 eight (78) offices are planned, supported by 2 conference rooms, a copy center, clubroom, exercise room, and media room. The northeast portion is a mixture of residential townhomes, multifamily housing, retail/commercial, corporate/commercial site, and a 44,080 square foot retail building (shown on the Site Plan as "Furniture Store"). The southeast portion is oriented around a greenspace, wetland buffer, and pond. Three retail/restaurant locations are east of the greenspace, nearest Maplewood Mall and adjacent to Southlawn Drive. At the intersection of Legacy Parkway and Kennard Street, a 120-unit assisted- living senior residence is planned. The southwest portion is planned for residential development and a park area for amenities. A pond is planned in the northwest comer. The north edge is a playground/park complex, featuring athletic fields, play structures, picnic areas, and a small parking area. The rest of this southwest portion is planned as for sale townhomes. The residential area is 19.78 acres. In addition to providing a border between uses, the central trail and trail network are an important feature of the Project. The interior trail network allows easy walking access throughout Legacy Village, and is a significant benefit to residents and families. The central trail connects to Southlawn Drive in the east for easy access to Maplewood Mall and the surrounding retail and commercial development. Property and Building Description The north portion is proposed to develop first, with the senior assisted-living building and multifamily rowhouses. The senior building, called The Regent at Maplewood, is modified C- shape, oriented north/south with the wings extending to the east. It is served by a surface parking area to its east, with 56 stalls. There will also be 71 underground garage parking stalls, with an entrance and exit at the southeast comer of the building. Ponds, wetlands, and public space borders The Regent to the east. The multi-family rowhouses are oriented in paired rows, both east-west and north-south. The pairing allows front yards to face each other, with garages facing each other similar to historic alleys. Each rowhome building has from five to nine units. The rowhomes are designed in a traditional two-story style, with rockfaced architectural block foundation treatments and shingled gabled roofs. Details are traditional mullioned windows, with arched and bay windows and shutters. Features such as turrets, varied front entrance styles, and roof peak windows provide individuality for each home. Each home has an attached two-car garage, with an additional 64 surface parking spaces, for the 198 units. Access and Traffic Characteristics Vehicular access to and from Legacy Village of Maplewood is provided at several points. Kennard Street runs through the middle of the Properly. Access points to both sides branch off from Kennard Drive. Kennard connects Beam Avenue and County Road D, providing convenient access either the north or south. Legacy Parkway connects Kennard and Southlawn Drive, providing access to the Furniture Store and the three retail/restaurant sites. The Project assists in implementing a key recommendation of the 2001 Maplewood Mall Area Comprehensive Traffic Study (the "2001 Traffic Study"). County Road D currently intersects Trunk Highway 61 approximately 330 feet south of the Interstate 694 South Ramp. Between Trunk Highway 61 and White Bear Avenue, County Road D is disjointed at the railroad crossing west of Hazelwood Avenue. As a result, traffic near the Maplewood Mall cannot access Trunk Highway 61 via County Road D. The 2001 Traffic Study recommended reconnecting of County Road D between White Bear Avenue and Trunk Highway 61 to better distribute trips in the Maplewood Mall area. Preliminary design concepts reconnect County Road D to Trunk Highway 61 approximately 1,915 feet south of the 1-694 South Ramp and reestablish County Road D as a through street between Trunk Highway 61 and White Bear Avenue, as recommended in the 2001 Traffic Study. The County Road D alignment has been approved. County Road D will border the Property on the north side. This is the preferred alignment analyzed in the AUAR, and therefore the AUAR traffic study analysis applies. The AUAR found that Legacy Village's mixed-use concept, internal trails, compact design, and location at a retail center were likely to significantly reduce trips. The AUAR traffic analysis also found that most intersections would operate at a Level Of Service (LOS) D or E in the future, assuming typical trip generation growth. The LOS D and E designations are considered minimally acceptable or below acceptable. This suggests that the Property can only be developed with a strong mixed-use, trip-reducing design emphasis. The AUAR generally found that even without the County Road D realignment, the Project would degrade only one intersection from acceptable to beloW-acceptable levels. With the County Road D realignment and no other improvements, one below-acceptable intersection (Trunk Highway 61 and Beam Avenue) would improve to acceptable service. Acceptable service at that intersection would increase traffic flow to the Trunk Highway 61 ramps to Interstate 694, causing those ramps to perform at below-acceptable levels. Adding let~-turn lanes at the Trunk Highway 61 ramps to Interstate 694 would improve that intersection to LOS C. The AUAR notes these issues, and recommends appropriate mitigation measures. These mitigation measures are proposed to be incorporated through the City's Site Plan Review process, and in the final plan for improvements to County Road D. Trip Generation SRF Consulting studied trip generation rates, including analysis and incorporation of the City's 2001 Traffic Study, in connection with the AUAR. The trip generation analysis concluded that redevelopment of the entire AUAR site (including both Sub-Areas 1 and 2) would generate 11,505 daily trips, including 1,178 p.m. peak hour trips. This trip generation is approximately equivalent to the trip generation assumed in the City's 2001 Traffic Study. The proposed Project is reduced from that size by eliminating the AUAR Sub-Area 2. Parking 32 Parking has been designed beyond the concept level for the Regent senior building and the multi- family rowhomes. The 120-unit Regent provides 127 total stalls, 56 surface and 71 underground garage stalls, for a ratio of 1.06 stalls per unit. Since the Regent is proposed as senior assisted living, both car use and car ownership rates are significantly lower for building residents than for multi-family uses. This ratio has been adequate for similar buildings in the past. City regulation (§ 36-22) generally provides for 2 stalls per unit for multi-family buildings. There is no separate requirement for assisted-living buildings or similar uses such as nursing homes. It is believed that the ratio represents adequate parking for the purposes of PUD approval. The 198-unit rowhome area is designed with attached two-car garages for each home and 64 additional surface stalls, for a parking ratio of 2.3 stalls per unit. This exceeds the 2 stalls per unit regulation for single-family homes in City Code § 36-22. Stormwater The City has approved a regional stormwater treatment plan for a larger area including the Project Property. Regional treatment needs and calculations were performed in analyzing and formulating that plan. The Developer has worked with the plan drafters to ensure that the Project is constructed with the required improvements to comply with and further the plan. The Project stormwater have not been calculated at this time. As the site plan is developed, the Developer will complete stormwater calculations implementing the results of the plan. COMPLIANCE WITH LAND USE CONTROLS Comprehensive Plan Legacy Village at Maplewood is a mixed-use development planned to include for-sale townhomes/condominiums, 198 rowhome units, 50 attached multi-family units, and 120 senior residence units in its residential areas, 87,380 square feet of retail and restaurant space in six buildings, and one 140,000 square-foot corporate/commercial building. The Legacy Village conforms generally with the goals of Maplewood's Comprehensive Plan. Legacy Village is designed to further the Comprehensive Plan goal to promote economic development by establishing a new office/commercial area complementing the existing Maplewood Mall. Legacy Village minimizes the area planned for streets by serving the entire 82-acre site by adding two interior streets, Kennard Street and Legacy Parkway, and allowing access fi.om perimeter roads and internal connection. A single unified design minimizes site conflicts and allows development to integrate with natural features and community facilities, including a unified trail network. Legacy Village provides a variety of housing types, including apartments, townhomes, rowhomes, and senior assisted-living homes. Land Use Goals, Plan p. 18-19. The Comprehensive Plan designates the Legacy Village site for Business Commercial development. The Business Commercial designation is the broadest and most flexible commercial (non-industrial) designation. Maplewood's Comprehensive Plan recognizes that Commercial development today calls for greater flexibility. The City has enacted a policy to "Use Planned Unit Developments whenever practical" in both Commercial and Residential areas. The Plan's 33 Transportation element identifies traffic deficiencies and, with the 2001 Traffic Study and the Project AUAR, identifies County Road D realignment as a transportation improvement priority. Several alternatives are under consideration for the final routing of County Road D; the Legacy Village plan conforms with the recommended alternative. The Comprehensive Plan Transportation element also designates a bikeway/trail across the Legacy site. Plan p. 134. Legacy Village is proposed to provide this trail. The Comprehensive Plan reflects Maplewood's policy for undeveloped land generally to remain in holding areas, where the zoning is not yet consistent with the Comprehensive Land Use Plan: "Holding Areas... It has not been the policy of the City to change the zoning of a property until a specific development request is approved by the City Council .... Maplewood will update the zoning and/or the land use plan designations when a development is proposed and approved by the City Council" Plan p. 26. Legacy Xrfllage is in such a City designated "Holding Area." Plan p. 27. It is designated within a Farm Residential Zoning District, which generally provides for low-density single-family residential development (10,000 square-foot lots). This zoning does not conform with the Comprehensive Plan Commercial Business designation, and the Property is specifically listed as an area on which zoning conflicts with the Comprehensive Plan. Like other sites designated as "Holding Area" the Legacy site requires approval of a PUD or rezoning to conform with the Comprehensive Plan. The City's Plan calls for consideration of that PUD or rezoning to occur concurrent with consideration of the Legacy project. The Comprehensive Plan's Land Use Action element notes: The City should... Allow rezonings consistent with the Land Use Plan. Plan p. 34. Review of the Legacy is therefore consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, and approval is consistent following the PUD approval or rezoning. A PUD approval or rezoning is supported by the Comprehensive Plan. The Legacy site is within the Hazelwood planning neighborhood. In Hazelwood, the 270 remaining undeveloped acres are planned to be developed with a mix of multi-family residential (R3), single-family residential (R1) manufacturing and commercial/office uses. Commercial/office is planned to predominate; it is planned for 194 of the 270 acres (72 percent). Plan p. 36. The Commercial/office development in the Project is proposed to occupy 18.4 acres of the Property (28.2 acres if the 9.8-acre greenspace area is included to forms a commercial/office campus. The Legacy is proposed to occur following approval of a Planned Unit Development (PUD). The PUD allows approval of departures from the strict application of regulations, including the restriction of one principal building per lot, for projects which are superior to development allowed without departure from restrictions. City Code § 36-438. Approval of a PUD appears 34 on the zoning map and alters the site zoning. Therefore, following approval of a PUD, Legacy Village will conform with the zoning and the Comprehensive Plan. The Project's mix of uses can occur following an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan to allow mixed use, from the current Business Commercial designation. This application requests that amendment. The Project includes uses categorized as R-3H (Multiple Dwelling 8.4 - 12.0 units/acre); CO (Commercial Office); and BC (Business Commercial). The R-3H designation is requested to be changed so that the zoning designation conforms with it. Currently two multi- family zoning designations allow densities above the 12.0 units per acre in the R-3H Comprehensive Plan designation. The R-3A Zoning District allows up to 17.0 units per structure on a 15,625-square foot-lot. City Code § 36-119. The R-3B Zoning District allows more than 17.0 units per structure, on a one-acre lot. § 36-122. Both these Districts are subject to the density restrictions of the Comprehensive Plan land use classification. The multifamily rowhouses are 13 units per acre and less than 17 units per structure; other residential uses are densities greater than 17 units per structure. Expanding the multi-family density range in the Comprehensive Plan will allow the zoning to conform. As stated in the Final AUAR, the Developer and AUAR consultants met with the City and Metropolitan staffto calculate sanitary sewer planning. The parties determined that the Project I is within existing planned capacity, and would not require an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan sanitary sewer section. Zoning The Property is currently within the Farm Residential Zoning District, a designation which does not conform to the Comprehensive Plan. The PUD approval would appear on the zoning map and allow modification of the Farm Residential regulations to allow the Property to conform with the Comprehensive Plan. With the PUD approval, the zoning would conform as required. The City's PUD regulations include specific direction to allow mixed use and multi-family use: A PUD may include townhouses, apartment projects involving more than one building, multi-use structures, such as an apartment building with retail shops at ground floor level, and similar projects." City Code § 36-438. The PUD provides broad latitude to deviate from underlying regulations "to allow flexibility by substantial deviations from [zoning regulations] including uses, setbacks, height and other regulations." A PUD approval would in this case generally conform to the requirements of the closest identifiable zoning districts. For residential portions of the Project proposed for Design Review Board approval with this application, the closest zoning designation is the R3 District which provides three different types of densities. The R3A district allows 3 to 17 units per structure; the R3B District allows more than 17 units per structure, and the R3C district allows townhomes. § 36-106. Multiple dwellings are a permitted use. § 36-108. The R3 Zoning Districts limit density through minimum lot sizes, setbacks, minimum unit sizes, green area requirements, maximum building footprint limit, and separation requirements. The initial rowhome site exceeds the 35% open space requirement_and exceed the one-acre minimum 35 lot size required in the R3B, as well as the less-restrictive 15,625-square-foot lot size required in the R3A. The senior housing site does not exceed the 35% open space requirement internally; however, it meets this standard with the adjacent public park included. The entire PUD is planned to comply with the requirements for the Zoning Districts most similar to the planned uses, within the modification allowed by the PUD. The Project incorporates environmental protection required by the City Code and other applicable regulations. Legacy Village includes natural wetland buffers and mitigation as required by City and Watershed District regulations. The Developer will work with an urban forester to identify trees to be saved in place or relocated on the Property with a tree spade. As noted in the AUAR, Project construction and design will include measures to minimize impacts to Blandings' turtles and their habitat. PUD Requirements The Project satisfies the five City Code requirements for PUD approval applicable to the 86-acre Property. 1. Certain regulations contained in this Chapter should not apply to the proposed development because of its unique nature. The Project's mix of uses and integration of office, retail, and multi-generational residential design create a unique development for Maplewood, and represent the largest acreage site for any of Hartford's mixed-use neighborhood projects. Serving the multiple and inter-related goals of a complex mixed-use redevelopment would not be possible without deviations fi.om some of Maplewood's land use regulations. 2. The PUD would be consistent with the purposes of this chapter. The PUD is generally consistent with the Zoning Ordinance. The most significant deviation is the mix of uses and the required integrated design. The identified mitigation in the Project area AUAR ensures that the goals of the zoning code are preserved. 3. The PUD would produce a development of equal or superior quality to that which would result from strict adherence to the provisions of this chapter. Each use is designed to be as consistent as much as possible with the regulations for that use, but some flexibility in traditional zoning, which historically segregated commercial fi.om residential uses, is necessary for any mixed-use project. Maplewood Mall provides a strong retail base; it is believed that mixed use development will provide more space for retail uses seeking proximity to Maplewood Mall, Business Commercial development that will fulfill the long-standing proposed planning for the Property, and residential development to fulfill life-cycle and metropolitan housing goals. The Project provides significant amenities, including the open space, athletic and playfields, pond and wetland buffers, and trail connections. 36 4. The deviations would not constitute a sign~cant threat to the property values, safety, health, or general welfare of the owners or occupants of nearby land. The Project area AUAR provides a thorough study of the Project impacts and compatibility with both adjacent uses and existing infrastructure. Implementing the steps identified in the AUAR will ensure adequate protection of neighboring properties. 5. The deviations are required for reasonable and practicable physical development and are not required solely for financial reasons. The deviations planned for the Project are required to achieve the multiple goals of mixed use in a project of sufficient size to realize the Property's value as an asset to the City. The PUD is proposed as a concept for the entire Property, with specific buildings proposed for the senior residence and rowhomes. Review of the concept for the entire Property at this time will streamline review of future buildings and elements of the PUD, provided they conform with this initial proposed concept. Subdivision The entire Property proposed for PUD designation is proposed to be replatted into the first two building sites proposed for Design Review with this application (Lots 1 and 2, Block 1) and Outlots A through H for future Project Elements. Lots 1 and 2 comply with subdivision regulations as shown on the Preliminary Plat. The AUAR includes detailed analysis of the adequacy of infrastructure and suitability of the Property for this Project. Design Review Board Legacy Village is professionally designed by a Developer relying on aesthetics as a valued amenity and selling point. The initial building elevations show the detail and quality materials typical of Hartford neighborhoods. Hartford's neighborhoods also incorporate designs to enhance walkability and promote mixed-use as a positive aspect for all uses included. Hartford has worked with consultants and staff of other communities, and added their positive ideas to the Legacy Village design. Hartford is requesting Maplewood's Design Review Board approval for the initial buildings. SUMMARY OF RATIONALE FOR PROJECT APPROVAL Legacy Village provides a high-quality mixed-use development for a site which is expected to develop pursuant to the City's Comprehensive Plan. Legacy Village is planned to conform with that Plan and the approvals sought are specifically contemplated in the Plan. The Legacy provides a mix of uses, including residential neighborhoods, small- and medium- scale commercial sites, senior housing, and a significant office building. This mix is intended to complement and be enhanced by Maplewood Mall and the surrounding existing development. 37 Combining a mix of residential units with commercial development offers Maplewood residents increased options to live in a pedestrian-scale neighborhood. Successful developments throughout the metropolitan area are incorporating a mix of housing options, and in many redeveloping suburbs, are bringing the first significant new housing options to those communities. Legacy Village includes outstanding outdoor amenities, providing ponds and wetland areas, linking trail systems, excellent pedestrian connections to Maplewood Mall, a large green space, and playfields. These amenities are designed to be the focus of Legacy Village and a positive addition to Maplewood. The Legacy Village is planned within the traffic capacity of adjacent roads, and provides sufficient parking for residents, visitors, and customers. The Legacy Village design incorporates, and is compatible with the approved option for County Road D re-alignment. Inclusion of the senior component meets a need for Maplewood residents as the population ages, and addresses a growing overall need for the metropolitan population. Hartford's Legacy Village senior living buildings allow Maplewood community residents to transition to assisted living without breaking community and family ties. 862663.1 38 Attachment 9 Memorandum To~ R. Charles Ahl/City of Maplcwood From: Jon Horn Date: June 25, 2003 Subject: Engineering Plan Review Hartford Group Legacy Village at Maplewood Development City Project D02-18 As requested, we have completed an engineering review of the plans for the Legacy Village at Maplewood development as proposed by the Hartford Group. This review has been completed considering the June 2, 2003 plan submittal to the City. The proposed overall development includes the construction of a 120 unit assisted living senior housing facility, 198 units of rental townhomes, 50 multi-family units, 11.16 acres of retail/commercial site, a 6.46 acre corporate/commercial site, 19.78 gross acres of for sale townhomes, 12.34 acres of park, and an executive office suites and clubhouse. Detailed plans have been submitted for the senior housing facility and the rental townhomes. The following comments should be addressed by the developer. AUAR The Final AUAR included a number of comments and requirements that need to be addressed in the final plans. A separate summary is attached detailing these comments and requirements. PRELIMINARY PLAT It is assumed that all internal roadways shown on the preliminary plat will be private streets with the exception of Kennard Street and Legacy Parkway. Kennard Street and Legacy Parkway will be public streets designed and constructed by the City of Maplewood. The location of the private street intersections along Kennard Street and Legacy Parkway need to be coordinated with the City's design for these streets. The location of the west driveway for the rental townhomes in the northwest comer of the site needs to be coordinated with the City's design for the Hazelwood Street and County Road D intersection. 39 Engineering Plan Review Hartford Legacy Village Development June 25, 2003 Page 2 of 4 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. As shown on the preliminary plat, the fight-of-way for Kennard Street shall be 80 feet wide with additional right-of-way width to accommodate the roundabout at Legacy Parkway. The right-of-way for Legacy Parkway is shown as 60 feet wide. This right-of-way width will only allow for a 36 foot wide roadway with sidewalks on both sides of the roadway. 20 feet of additional right-of- way (80 feet total) will be required to allow the roadway to be constructed to the Kennard Street parkway section. 10 feet of additional right-of-way shall be dedicated along the entire north boundary of the plat for the future widening and expansion of County Road D. An additional 12-foot wide strip of right-of-way should also be dedicated along the south side of this additional right-of-way for a right turn lane along County Road D at Kennard Street. This additional 12-foot strip should extend from Kennard Street to a point 500 feet west. The plat needs to include the dedication of right-of-way for Southlawn Drive. Drainage and utility easements should be dedicated over the existing wetlands and the proposed storm water ponds. The existing right-of-way along the west side of the plat should be vacated as shown on the preliminary plat. A sidewalk/trail easement needs to be dedicated over the proposed trail alignment that runs east-west through the middle of the property. The designs for the proposed ponds on the site need to be coordinated with the overall Storm Water and Wetlands plan prepared for the area by the City's engineering consultant (SEH). Some of the proposed ponding areas will be designed, constructed and maintained by the City, while others will be designed, constructed and maintained by Hartford. The north terminus of Kennard Street at County Road D needs to be aligned to match existing driveways along the north side of County Road D. This needs to be coordinated with the City's design for Kennard Street. The developer should be aware that the proposed driveways to County Road D for the retail commercial site and/or the furniture store may become fight-in/right-out only accesses in the future when improvements are constructed along this section of County Road D. Consideration should be given to the elimination of the furniture store access to County Road D. The trail on the south side of the public park area south of Legacy Parkway is shown offthe Hartford property. This trail will need to be constructed on Hartford property or a separate trail easement will be required from the adjacent property owner. The combined driveway in the southeast comer of the development for the restaurant site will require an agreement with the adjacent property owner. Has this agreement been discussed with the property owner? 4O Engineering Plan Review Hartford Legacy Village Development June 25, 2003 Page 3 of 4 14. 15. Access to the for sale townhomes site shoUld be provided from Kennard Street at the Legacy Parkway roundabout. If desired, an additional connection to Kennard Street could be provided; however, it should be a minimum of 300 feet south of the roundabout. The driveways along Kennard Street for the park on Outlot I and for the corporate/commercial site should be aligned. EXISTING CONDITIONS SURVEY A tree survey needs to be completed for the site as identified in the AUAR. GRADING PLAN Design calculations need to be submitted detailing the volume of runoff from the site and the adequacy of the proposed storm sewer system. Storm sewer design calculations should be submitted for a 1 O-year design storm. Ponding calculations should be submitted for 10-year and 100-year events. The proposed grading plan needs to be coordinated with the City's design/profile for Kennard Street. The developer must obtain the necessary RWMWD approvals and permits and a NPDES construction permit. The grading plan shows impacts to the existing wetland south of County Road D (Wetland F). The City's Storm Water and Wetland Plan does not include impacts to this wetland. Impacts to this wetland should either be avoided, or the impacts and mitigation need to be included in the overall wetland permit. The grading plan should show the proposed locations for the installation of silt fence and the other erosion control measures. UTILITY PLAN It is assumed that all watermain, sanitary sewer and storm sewer improvements shown onthe Utility Plan outside of the Kennard Street right-of-way are private facilities. The design for the proposed sanitary sewer improvements needs to be coordinated with the City's proposed sanitary sewer improvements along Kennard Street. The City will provide sanitary sewer stubs as needed. The design for the proposed watermain improvements needs to be coordinated with the City's proposed watermain improvements along Kennard Street. The City will provide watermain stubs as needed. [ Engineering Plan Review Hartford Legacy Village Development June 25, 2003 Page 4 of 4 Design calculations should be submitted detailing the adequacy of the proposed water mare system to serve the service and fire flow needs of the development. Per the AUAR, the watermain system improvements also need to be reviewed by the St. Paul Regional Water Services (SP~tWS). Please let me know if you have any questions or you need any additional information. I can be reached at (651) 643-0406 or by e-mail at jon.hom@akimley-hom.com. Copy: Phil Carlson/DSU File 160500001.3.004 42 · LEGACY VILLAGE AT MAPLEWOOD FINAL AUAR COMMENTS/REQUIREMENTS Plan Review Comments Regent at Maplewood Senior Housing Community and Rental Townhomes June 25, 2003 The following comments/requirements were included as a part of the Final AUAR for the Legacy Village at Maplewood development. Comments/requirements highlighted in bold prim need to be addressed as a part of future reviews/approvals for the development. The comments/requirements are listed based upon the AUAR section in which they appeared. 6. DESCRIPTION INFRASTRUCTURE Roadways One of the recommended improvements in the 2001 Traffic Study was the reconnection of County Road D (CR D) to TH 61 (just west of the AUAR study area). Under existing conditions, CR D is disjointed between TH 61 and White Bear Avenue at the railroad crossing located west of Hazelwood Avenue. As a result, traffic from the Maplewood Mall area cannot access TH 61 via CR D. The recommended reconnection of CR D would reestablish CR D as a through street between TH 61 and White Bear Avenue and locate the TH 61/CR D intersection south of the 1-694 South Ramp. Concurrent with the Legacy Village AUAR development, the CR D roadway wffi be reconnected. In addition to the planned reconnection of CR D, Kennard Street will need to be extended north to CR D, to provide access to the southern portion of the study area. The AUAR study area includes the approximately 0.5-acre area required to extend Kennard Street from its existing northern terminus to the proposed development area. Sanitary_ Sewer Municipal sanitary sewer currently serves the study area, although not all existing parcels are connected to the system. Connections to the existing municipal sanitary sewer lines located along CR D, ltazelwood Avenue and Southlawn Drive will be necessary for development of the AUAR study area. 43 # Water Supply The study area is served by municipal water, although not all existing parcels are connected to the system. Development of the study area will require connection of all new development to the public water supply. Water supply lines are located north, west and east of the study area along the existing CR D (12-inch line), Hazelwood Avenue (12-inch line) and Southlawn Drive (8-inch line). Water service is provided by St. Paul Regional Water System (SPRWS). The City of Maplewood had previously conducted a study in cooperation with SPRWS that identified the need to install a 12-inch regional trunk water line along CR D from Tit 61 to connect to the existing system at Hazelwood Avenue. This line will be installed within five years from start of development in the AUAR area. Early coordination with SPRWS for the AUAR identified that the capacity of the existing system would likely be adequate to handle the projected demand from the study area. Further review of proposed development plans will be required by SPRWS during site plan review to confirm actual demand of proposed land uses and to ensure conformance of the proposed development water supply system to SPRWS system requirements. Storm Water The AUAR development scenario will increase the amount of impervious surface area with the addition of buildings, roadways and other paved surfaces, resulting in lower infiltration rates compared to existing conditions. Future development will be required to provide storm water treatment measures to adequately convey, detain and treat the additional runoff within the development area in accordance with the City of Maplewood and Ramsey-Washington Metro Watershed District (RWMWD) requirements, including the requirement for post-development discharges to remain at or below existing discharge rates. No new storm sewer system infrastructure would be required outside the development area. Other Utilities Overhead electrical and telecommunication lines and an underground pipeline traverse the study area from east to west. The proposed development will be configured to avoid impacting these utilities. Structures will be sited to avoid utility impacts and to meet City setbacks' standards (100-foot minimum) for the pipeline. PERMITS AND APPROVALS REQUIRED The following permit requirements were identified in the AUAR: 44 TABLE 3 REQUIRED PERMITS AND APPROVALS Unit of Government Permit or Approval City of Maplewood Comprehensive Plan Amendment; Preliminary and Final Plat Approval; Planned Unit Development (PUD) Approval; Building Permits; Community Design Review Board Review and Approval of building plans; Grading Plan and Permit (with grading/erosion escrow); I. and Disturbance and Erosion Control Plan Review and Permit; Site Plan Review and Approval; Storm Water and Water Quality Plan Review and Approval; Regional Storm Water Management and Wetland Mitigation Plan; Sanitary Sewer Service and System Permits; Storm Sewer System Utility Permits; Tree Plan Review and Approval (with a tree re-estabhshment escrow); Approval of Tax Abatement Plan. Ramsey-Washington Metro Watershed Storm Water and Water Quality Plan Review and District (RWMWD) Approval; l~finnesota Wetland Conservation Act Permit, if required. Metropolitan Council Environmental Sanitary Sewer Extension Permit Services St. Paul Regional Water System Water System Extension and Connection Review and Approval lVfinnesota Pollution Control Agency NPDES Construction Permit, Sanitary Sewer Extension Permit lVfinnesota Department of Health Approval for Water/Sewer Plans; Approval of well sealing records Army Corps of Engineers Section 404 Permit, if required. Amoco Oil Company Permit for grading near underground pipeline LAND USE Potential Environmental Hazards As idemified previously, a Phase I ESA was completed for the study area. The results of the ESA revealed no indications of recognized environmental hazards or comamination releases in the study area. 45 r ~ 10. Since the residence located in the center of Sub-Area 1 is not serviced by city water and sanitary, it is presumed that an existing private well and septic system are present on the site and will need to be located and sealed in accordance with state and local regulatory requirements. No wells were discovered in Sub-Area 2 during a search of the county well survey; however, based on information received during the Draft AUAR comment period, a field survey of properties in Sub-Area 2 will be conducted prior to site grading. If wells are located, proper protection will be implemented in accordance with Minnesota Department of Health requirements or the wells will be sealed in accordance with state and local regulatory requirements. As noted in Item 6, an underground petroleum pipeline traverses the AUAR study area but the development will be configured to avoid impacts to the pipeline. A Contingency Plan will be submitted to the City identifying measures to handle any contaminated soils related to pipeline leakage. This plan must be approved prior to the issuance of the grading permit. COVER TYPES 11. Protection Areas The City of Maplewood has ordinances and policies promoting protection of large trees and wetland buffer areas. Development plans submitted for City approval will be reviewed relative to these ordinances, and developer and City staff will need to work together to identify protection measures and/or plan features to preserve existing cover types to the extent possible while still achieving the City's planned Business/Commercial land uses. For example, the developer for Sub-Area 1 has indicated that existing trees will be evaluated by an urban forester to identify important specimens that should be preserved and/or existing trees that could be relocated within the development, using a tree spade. City staff will review the tree preservation and relocation plan and plans for tree replacement for conformance to the City's tree ordinance. City staff will also be requesting that the developer provide a description of how vegetation removed from the site will be disposed of. Similarly, City and watershed district regulations require maintenance of a minimum width of natural vegetation buffer around all wetlands. This buffer area promotes protection of natural vegetative cover as part of' site development plans. FISH, WILDLIFE, AND ECOLOGICALLY SENSITIVE RESOURCES Since the wetlands and surrounding vegetation at the southeast comer of the AUAR study area provide habitat similar to that preferred by Blanding's turtles, the DNR's list of recommendations for avoiding and minimizing impacts to Blanding's turtles and their habitat was reviewed for applicability to the AUAR study area. The following 46 recommendations will be implemented during planning/construction in the southeast portion of the study area, where feasible: 12. 1) 3) 4) Placement of silt fencing around construction areas to keep turtles out of construction areas in the spring. Notifying contractors of the possibility of threatened turtles in the area and instructions on how to identify them and to avoid harm to turtles if they are spotted. Minimization of impacts to open water wetlands in the area. Preservation of un-mowed upland buffer around wetlands in the area. PHYSICAL IMPACTS ON WATER RESOURCES To comply with requirements of the Minnesota Wetland Conservation Act (WCA) and of the Ramsey-Washington Metro Watershed District (RWMWD), the Local Governmental Unit (LGU) responsible for implementing WCA regulations, all wetland impacts will have to be offset by creating mitigation at a 2:1 ratio (two acres of mitigation for each acre of impacted area). A detailed mitigation plan would need to be developed as the site plans are developed. Wetland mitigation can be accomplished through a combination of new (replacement) wetland area and by providing public value credit areas within the AUAR development area. The existing wetlands located at the south-central portion of the site (Wetlands C and D) could be enlarged to create new wetland area for mitigation. If mitigation occurs in this area, the City of Maplewood and RWMWD have suggested that these two wetlands be left separate, to maintain the existing two-cell water drainage pattern. Permits will be required from the Army Corps of Engineers and the RWMWD for wetland alterations. As part of the permit approval process, a final mitigation plan will have to be submitted to these agencies documenting proposed wetland impacts and detailed mitigation. The Wetland Protection Ordinance of the City of Maplewood and the RWMWD's 1997 Watershed Management Plan each require buffers of undisturbed area to be left around existing wetlands. The required average and minimum widths of the buffers vary depending upon classification of the wetland. Some activities such as trails are permitted in the buffers if additional width is added to the overall buffer to mitigate for the trail impact. Table 5 shows the required average and minimum buffer widths for each wetland as specified by the Watershed District and City. 47 TABLE 5 REQUIRED WETLAND BUFFERS City of Maplewood Wetland Ramsey-Washington Metro Watershed Protection Ordinance District's 1997 Watershed Mana?ment Plan Wetland Buffer Name Classification Requirement Classification Buffer Requirement Not listed Wetland A N/A Not list~ N/A Not listed Wetland B N/A Not listed N/A 50 foot avg.; 25 foot rain Manage-I (Medium) 10 t~. building (Kohlman Creek 50 foot avg.; 25 foot Wetland C Class 3 setback Subwatershed) min 50 foot avg.; 25 foot min. Manage-1 (Medium) 10 ff. building (Kohlm~n Creek 50 foot avg.; 25 foot Wetland D Class 3 setback Subwatershed) min. 50 foot avg.; 25 foot min. Manag¢-I (Medium) 10 ft. building (Willow Creek 50 foot av~, 10 foot Wetland E Class 3 setback Subwatershed) rnin~ 25 foot avg.; Manage-2 (Low) 20 foot rnin~; 10 R. (Willow Creek 25 foot avg.; 10 foot Wetland F Class 4 buildin~ setback Subwatershed) min~ Table 5 reflects a recent wetland classification modification. During a field reconnaissance for this study, Wetland E was noted to have characteristics more similar to the Watershed District's Manage Class 1 or 2, instead of the "Protect" classification listed in the RWMWD's 1997 Watershed Management Plan. After a field reconnaissance to examine Wetland E, the Watershed District agreed with the characterization of the wetland warranting less than a "Protect" classification, and subsequently changed their classification of this wetland to "Manage 1." During development plan submittals, the City may consider reclassification of this wetland from Class 1 to Class 3 to match the Watershed District's classification. The wetland buffer requirements will need to be met by the proposed development for the wetlands that will not be filled. Wetlands A and B do not appear in Watershed District's 1997 Watershed Management Plan, and so are considered to be in the "Utilize" category, which has no buffer requirement, but does require 2:1 mitigation by type and location. A wetland mitigation plan will be developed and submitted to the City, the RWMWD and the appropriate state and federal wetland regulatory agencies for 48 13. 16. approval prior to any impacts. The City and the developer are also working together on preparation of a Regional Storm Water Management Plan and Wetland Mitigation Plan for the AUAR area. The City will be responsible for implementing the regional plan through the project approvals and development review process. Full mitigation concurrent with project construction, including a performance guarantee, will be a condition of the City's preliminary plat and PUD approval. WATER USE As referenced in Item 9, since the residence in the center of Sub-Area 1 is not serviced by city water and sanitary, it is presumed that a private well and septic system are present on the site and will need to be located. Although no wells were discovered on the county well survey for Sub-Area 2, based on comments received during the Draft AUAR comment period, a field survey of properties in Sub-Area 2 will be conducted prior to site grading.- All wells will be sealed in accordance with state and local regulatory requirements. Existing water lines are located north, west and east of the study area along the existing CR D (12-inch line), Hazelwood Avenue (12-inch line) and Southlawn Drive (eight inch line). Water is provided by St. Paul Regional Water System (SPRWS) for the AUAR study area. The City of Maplewood had previously conducted a study in cooperation with SPRWS that identified the need to install a 12-inch water line along CR D from TH 61 to the existing system at Hazelwood Avenue to complete the area trunk system. This line will be installed within five years from the start of development in the AUAR area. Early coordination with SPRWS indicated that the existing system would likely have the capacity to handle the additional demands from Legacy V'fllage. Further coordination with SPRWS will be required during site plan review to make certain that the specific land uses proposed in development plans, including irrigation use, can be accommodated by the existing system. EROSION AND SEDIMENTATION While it is premature to determine the detailed earthmoving requirements for the future development, the results of the Preliminary Geotechnical Evaluation Report completed for the study area in April 2002, recommend that the topsoil and soft alluvial soils within the study area be removed prior to construction of the buildings. More removal of existing soils and placement of engineered soils may be required in areas near wetlands. A detailed site grading plan wffi be required as part of the plan submittals for City approval of specific development proposals in the AUAR area. Also, a detailed erosion control mitigation plan will be prepared and approved prior to the City's issuance of site grading permits. Preparation of preliminary site development plans will include consultation with an 49 17. urban forester to identify important specimens that should be preserved and/or existing trees that could be relocated within the development, using a tree spade. The details of the transplanting as well as an overall tree/landscape plan will be completed and reviewed by City staff for conformance to the City's tree ordinance as part of the preliminary and final site review. Similarly, City and watershed district regulations require maintenance of a minimum width of natural vegetation buffer around all wetlands. This buffer area promotes protection of natural vegetative cover to minimize erosion and sedimentation as part of site development plans. The potential for erosion of soils exposed during development of the AUAR study area will be minimized by using Best Management Practices (BMPs) during and after construction. Examples of possible BMPs include: · Installation of erosion control measures prior to grading operations and maintaining them until all areas disturbed have been restored. · Construction of detention ponds prior to site mass grading, to contain construction- related runoff/sediment. · Sweeping streets as necessary where construction sediment has been deposited. · After construction, paving or vegetating all disturbed areas to eliminate exposed soil surfaces. · Delaying removal of erosion control measures until all disturbed areas have been stabilized. Specific erosion control practices will be identified in final grading and construction plans for each proposed development project as required by the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit the City of Maplewood and the RWMWD's erosion/sedimentation control standards. WATER QUALITY - SURFACE WATER RUNOFF Mitigation City and RWMWD regulations establish the standard for surface water conveyance, detention and mitigation for any development proposed in the AUAR study area. Mitigation requirements include: · Maintaining discharge rates at or below current levels. · Pre-treatment of runoff prior to discharge to wetlands, in accordance with wetland classification requirements. · Conformance to NUKP standards. 5O 18. 20. City and RWMWD guidelines also promote use of additional infiltration facilities (such as rain gardens) in new development areas, where feasible, to decrease runoff volumes and increase groundwater recharge. The City of Maplewood in cooperation with the developer is preparing a Regional Storm Water Management and Wetland Mitigation Plan. The City will be the responsible party for implementing the regional plan through project approvals and the development review process. As development plans are refined, developer and City/RWMWD staff will work together to refine storm water facilities on the development site, including sizing and location of detention/treatment ponds and identification of potential additional infiltration areas. This plan will include a detailed storm water analysis for water quality discharges, including demonstration of conformance to City water treatment standards for total system discharges. The storm water plan will also review wetland 'bounce' effects from storm water discharges as well as assessment of potential storm water impacts on wetland quality. WATER QUALITY - WASTEWATER The City of Maplew°od met with Metropolitan Council Environmental Services (MCES) staff during the Draft AUAR 30-Day comment period to review the estimated flows for the AUAR development. Since the distribution of the Draft AUAR, it was determined that the flow estimate presented in the Draft AUAR was conservative (high) and therefore, it was recalculated based on actual flow data from similar land uses. The revised flow estimates show that the estimated sanitary sewer flows from the proposed AUAR development are within the flow allocated to the AUAR land area in the Sanitary Sewer Comprehensive Plan. Review of the 2000 City of Maplewood Sanitary Sewer Comprehensive Plan (2000 Plan) allocations for sanitary sewer Sub-Areas 22 and 23 (that include the AUAR study area) identified an error in the 2020 projection calculated in the 2000 plan for these sub-areas. This error resulted in the projections in the 2000 Plan being lower than those in the previous, 1987, sanitary sewer plan. The 2000 projections would result in inadequate interceptor allocation to accommodate the flows from the proposed AUAR development (even though there is adequate capacity allocated previously in the 1987 Plan). This error was discussed with MCES staff, and the City is revising the 2000 Sanitary Sewer Comprehensive Plan to correct the error. The revised 2000 Plan is slated for completion in April or May 2003. SOLID WASTES; HAZARDOUS WASTES; STORAGE TANKS Solid waste resulting from demolition and grading (including existing structures And tree/vegetation waste) will be minimized and properly recycled or disposed of in compliance with state and local requirements. Existing structures will be inspected for potentially hazardous materials (e.g. existing fuel storage tanks and/or the presence of asbestos-containing construction materials), and if hazardous materials are identified, removal and disposal will be conducted in conformance 51 24. with state regulatory requirements. Also, an underground petroleum pipeline traverses the AUAR study area and a Contingency Plan will be submitted to the City identifying measures to handle any contaminated soils related to pipeline leakage. This plan must be approved prior to the issuance of the grading permit. A Phase I ESA prepared for the study area did not identify the presence of any existing above or underground tanks in the study area. The proposed development may include fuel storage above or underground for back up heating systems as well as for intermittent heating systems. No other above or underground storage tanks are anticipated for development within the study area. Any future fuel storage tanks would be installed and monitored in accordance with MPCA requirements. DUST, ODORS AND NOISE Odors & Dust During Construction The proposed project will not generate any odors during construction. Dust normal to construction will occur as a result of this project. Dust minimization measures to be implemented will be identified in the grading plan submitted to the City prior to construction. Dust generated during construction will be minimized through standard dust control measures such as watering. After construction is complete, dust levels are anticipated to be minimal because all soil surfaces will be in permanent cover (i.e., pavement or grassed areas). Construction Noise The actual noise levels that may be experienced near a construction zone depend on: · The distance between the construction equipment and the receiver. · The type of equipment in use. · The percentage of the time the equipment attains the peak level. · Noise control features incorporated into the equipment. Construction noise will be limited to daytime hours (7:00 a.m.-7:00 p.m. Monday through Saturday) in accordance with City of Maplewood ordinances. Construction equipment will be fitted with mufflers, which will be maintained during the construction process. Traffic Noise The relatively small increase in traffic resulting from the construction of this development will not perceptibly change noise levels in the project area. The dominant source of noise along the northern part of the development is traffic on 1-694 that will not be affected by the project. The local streets within the proposed development are exempt from state standards; therefore on-street mitigation is not proposed as part of this project. 25. 26. 27. However, since existing and future noise levels in the vicinity of the proposed development are relatively high, the proposed residential units will be designed to minimize noise impacts by providing climate-controlled units, increasing wall insulation and by providing outside common areas within the building courtyards, rather than on the street side of the units. These elements would decrease the residents' exposure to neighborhood traffic noise. SENSITIVE RESOURCES The Bruce Vento Regional Trail is located outside of the study area to the west and generally travels north-south. The City Comprehensive Plan indicates a planned east-west trail (along CR D) that would connect the Maplewood Mall area with the Bruce Vento Regional Trail. No other trails or parks are mediately adjacent to the study area. New development within the study area will include a connection to the new trail along CR D and an internal network of trails, providing a link to the wetlands in the southeastern portion of the study area. VISUAL IMPACTS The impacts from proposed commercial land uses on the proposed residential land uses has been considered and measures such as "downcast" or directed lighting will be used to mitigate as well as other measures consistent with the City of Maplewood lighting ordinance. COMPATIBILITY WITH PLANS The Comprehensive Plan designates the Legacy site for Business/Commercial development. It recognizes that Commercial development today calls for greater flexibility. The City has enacted a policy to "Use Planned Unit Developments whenever practical" in both Commercial and Residential areas. The Comprehensive Plan generally calls for undeveloped land where the zoning is not yet consistent with the Comprehensive Land Use Plan to remain in holding areas: "Holding Areas... It has not been the policy of the City to change the zoning of a property until a specific development request is approved by the City Council... Maplewood will update the zoning and/or the land use plan designations when a development is proposed and approved by the City Council" (Plan p. 26) The Legacy AUAR area is in such a City designated "Holding Area." (Plan p. 27) It is designated within a Farm Residential Zoning District, which generally provides for low- density single-family residential development (10,000 square-foot lots), but this land use is not consistent with the Business/Commercial designation in the Land Use Plan. This 53 28. zoning designation would need to be revised, consistent with the 'Holding Area' concept in the City's Plan, once development is proposed for the Legacy area. The Comprehensive Plan's Land Use Action element notes that rezonings should be allowed, consistent with the Land Use Plan. The rezoning is supported by the Comprehensive Plan. The Legacy site is within the Hazelwood planning neighborhood. In Hazelwood, the 270 remaining undeveloped acres are planned to be developed with a mix of multi-family residential (R3), single-family residential (RI) manufacturing and commercial/office uses. Commercial/office is planned to predominate; it is planned for 194 of the 270 acres (72 percent). (Plan p. 36) Phase one of the Legacy development is proposed to occur following approval of a Planned Unit Development (PUD). The PUD allows approval of departures from the strict application of regulations, including the restriction of one principal building per lot, for projects which are superior to development allowed without departure from restrictions. City Code § 36-438. Following approval of a PUD, Legacy Village will conform with the zoning and the Comprehensive Plan. IMPACT ON INFRASTRUCTURE AND PUBLIC SERVICES The existing public water, sanitary sewer and storm water system have been reviewed for the ability to accommodate the needs of the worst-case development scenario studied in this AUAR. Lateral extensions to the existing public systems along CR D, Hazelwood Avenue and Southlawn Drive will be necessary for the proposed development. The existing City systems have the capacity to accommodate the new developments needs. Early coordination with SPRWS and MCES indicated their systems have adequate capacity to accommodate the new development; however, there will be further coordination with these agencies during site plan review. The proposed AUAR land uses can be configured to accommodate any of the City's plans for reconstruction/reconnection of CR D. Kennard Street will be extended north from its existing terminus as part of the development to connect with reconstructed/reconnected CR D. Other streets within the AUAR study area will be private driveways and roads internal to the development, not public streets. Increased fire and police protection will need to be provided to the area with the proposed expansion. City police staff have determined that the proposed development will likely require 2 police officers based upon 1.5 officers per 1,000 people. The fire department has estimated a need for 8 new firefighters/paramedics throughout the City, of which 2 may need to be dedicated to the AUAR development area. Additional study of financial commitment of the development's related tax base toward police and fire protection will occur as part of the PUD and Tax Abatement hearings for the proposed development. Based on the current school system enrollment, no substantial impacts are anticipated with the addition of residential land use associated with the planned site development. 54 TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: Tom Ekstr ,~,rd'~ Bruce K. Ander~ June 25, 2003 Legacy Village Park rector ~nd Recreation Requirements Attachment 10 The purpose of this memorandum is to respond to your comments dated June 12 regarding the Legacy Village proposal. I have spoken with Patrick San/er regarding the park dedication requirements for Legacy Village and I have indicated to him that the city's position is that the park dedication be based on the attached 2003 park dedication rates. The final numbers are somewhat fluid, but based on the last plan I have received dated June 9, the park dedication fees would be as outlined in Addendum A. The total is $830,900. The city is not interested in accepting land in lieu of P.A.C. charges. The city does not believe the 2.25-acre park has the same land value as adjacent commercial/residential land. The property is located under the power lines and will not experience the increase in land value due to development. The proposed park will primarily benefit the developer and ultimately the leasers and renters. It is in effect a marketing tool for Hartford Development. We do believe and agree there is some benefit to the city from the park. This value needs to be negotiated and furthermore, the city may utilize tax abatement dollars as part of the solution. The bottom line is that the city's stance is to request the developer for cash in lieu of land dedication as calculated in Addendum A. We have discussed the feasibility of working in cooperation with the developer to construct a water park which would benefit both the city and the development. Should the water park concept be pursued, the actual cost of construction of the water park would be deducted on a dollar-for-dollar basis from the park dedication fees. All park dedication fee requirements will be met by the P.A.C. fees and there will not be any additional park dedication requirements. The city does not propose to construct any park improvements or amenities throughout the site including trails, ponds or parking lots. It will be the responsibility of the developer to construct and improve all identified public parks, ponds, and trails within the proposed development. The neighborhood park that sen/es this site is Hazelwood Park, which is located four blocks to the south. I have included a copy of a memo dated March 17 which has similar information, although the figures are different based on numbers that were available at that time. Should you have any questions on this issue, please contact me directly at ext. 4573. kd~egacyvfllage2.mem Enclosure C: PJcharci Fu~sman, City Manager Patrick Kelly, City Attorney Melinda Coleman, Asat City Manager Chuck Ahl, Director of Public Works Dennis Peck, Sr. Engineenng Tech. Patrick Sarver, Haltford Development 55 I:l Ill 56 _~EGACY VILLAGE OF MAPLEWOOD NET ACRES AVAILABLE FOR DEVELOPMENT ESTIMATED VALUE: RIGHT OF WAY 6/4~'2003 ACRES WETLAND 1.76 NW WETLAND 4.66 PARK N WETLAND 2.39 PARK S WETLAND 8.81 TOTAL ADDITIONAL R/W 0.58 HAZELWOOD 1.58 CR D' 3.00 KENNAR~ 1.66 EAST-WEST ST. 6.82 TOTAL PARK 3.04 UPLAND POND 2.25 PARK 5.29 TOTAL 85.33 -3.34 -8.81 -6.82 -5.29 61.07 2,660,209 3.07 6.82 297,079 $912,033 SUMMARY PURCHASE TOTAL ACRES EXIST R/W EXIST WETLANDS ADDITIONAL PjVV PARK ACRES DEVELOPABLE ACRES DEVELOPABLE SQUARE FEET VALUE OF ADDITIONAL RIGHT OF WAY LAND ACQUISITION AVERAGE COST PER SQUARE FOOT TOTAL ADDITIONAL RIGHT OF WAY-ACRES TOTAL ADDITIONAL RIGHT OF WAY-SQUARE FEET VALUE: TOTAL ADDITIONAL RIGHT OF WAY 57 2003 P.A.C. RATES Pop./Unit 2003 Rates Total Single Dwelling 3.4 $450 $1,530 Double Dwelling 5.4 $450 $2,430 Mobile Home 2.5 $450 $1,125 Townhouse 2.7 $450 $1,215 Regarding P.A.C. fees for apartment complex: If 3-4 units/building - 2.7 persons X rate X number of units If 5 units/building - 1.9 persons X rate X number of units If elderly apartments: 1 bedroom - 1.1 persons X rate X number of units 2 bedroom - 2.0 persons X rate X number of units The commercial/industrial rate is 9% of the market value of the property. 58 TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: MEMOP, ANDUM Tom Ekstrand, Assistant Community Development Director Bruce K. Anderson, Director of Parks and Recreation March 17, 2003 Legacy Village of Maplewood I have had the opportunity to review the project review form dated March 7, 2003 for Legacy Village of Maplewood. I have reviewed the project from a parks and recreation perspective including neighborhood park access, trail location, open space and park dedication fees. This proiect will be served by two major trail amenities, the first being the Bruce Vento Trai to the east which can be accessed off of Beam Avenue, and the second being the integration.of the Highfine Trail along County Road D, which will ultimately connect with the Bruce Vento Trail which ties into the ' Gateway Trail as well. · The neighborhood parks for this development are Hazelwood Park located approximately six blocks to the south on Hazetwood Avenue, with a trail access coming up Hazelwood Avenue as well as off of Beam Avenu. e adjacent to the Maplewood Library. The area is further served with city-acquired open space at the intersection of Hazelw0od Avenue and Beam Avenue. ' I have enclosed a copy of the 2003 park dedication rates..1 also forwarded under separate cover a copy of the park dedication fees to Patrick Sarver, ASLA. for Hartford Development The city will be assessing park dedication fees at the enclosed rates for the Legacy Village project. The proposed open space and/or ponding area does not meet the city's park dedication requirements and no credit or partial credit will be provided, as the ponding space is required through the PUD and does not meet the city's park dedication intent or requirement for dedicated land. I have had discussions with Hartford Development regarding potential creation of a water splash park within the de~/elopment. I believe that this would be a benefit to both the development and to the city and it could serve as one-for-one credit to meet the.park dedication fee. Estimated cost 'of the splash park (see enclosed' information) is estimated at' $590,.000. Discussions are extremely preliminary at this point, but the city would potentially serve as the operator or manager of the splash park. Once the developer completes the project, it would be deeded to the city as partial fulfillment of the park dedication requirements. The following park dedication fees are based on III under Comprehensive Plan of the Legacy Village submittal: a. 318 townhomes at $1215 = $386,370 b. 200 row home units at $1215 = $243,000 c. 100 multi-family units at 1.9 density at $450 = $95,500 d. 127 senior resident units (2 persons at $450 at 84.7 units = $76,230 and 1.1 persons at $450 at 42.3 units = $20,938)' e. 9.1 acres of retail for restaurants at $8/square foot at 9% = $285,405- -f. 9.3 acres of commercial building at $8/$guare foot at 9% = $291,678- *Staff estimated the breakdown of 1 and 2 bedroom units '"'Staff estimated the value of land; confirmation of developer would be required. 59 Staff recognizes that the proposed first buildings in the southwest 19.8-acr~por~ion wilt preserve over 52% of that acreage in open space, but the proposed open space' does not meet the intent .or requirements of park dedication fees. Shouid you have any questions regarding my comments, please contact me directly at (851) 770- 4573. kd~l~-~-aoyvfltage Ri:hard Fursman, City Manager M~-Iinda Coleman, ~ C~, Manager Chu~ Aha, ~uUli~War~ D~or 6O 61 Bruce Anderson From: Sent: To: Subject: 'Fom Ekstrand ['Tom.Ekstrand@ci. Maplewood.mn.us] Thursday, June 12, 2003 3:41 PM Bruce K. Anderson (E-mail) Legacy Village Park Element Bruce, would you please prepare some written comments on the proposed park portion of the Legacy Village proposal. We'd like to have Phil Carlson of DSU (our reviewing consultant) include any comments of yours in his report. Some questions are: Is the park to be dedicated in lieu of PAC charges to be paid? Will the dwelling units be charges PAC fees as well as the park dedication? Will the city be doing the park improvements inciu~ihg building those trail sections and parking lot7 Will the applicant build these? ~kny other bits of information you can think of that will be good to know for the planning' coramission and council Thanks Bruce, This ca/ne up today in our morning staff meeting. Could ! get something by nuid week next week? ! hope this isn't too much of a rush. PS: Sorry for the wild goose chase about the "curbing" or lack there of at the farm parking lot. I did try to find the file to answer this first before bothering you. I still can't find it. Chuck did help me remember the council action tho. Thanks, Tom Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Check.ed by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). VarsioD~ 6.0.465 / Virus Database: 263 - Release Date: 3/25/2003 62 Attachment ll LAND USE PLAN CHANGE RESOLUTION WHEREAS, the Hartford Group Inc. applied for a change to the city's land use plan from BC (business commercial) to R-3H (high density residential) and P (park). WHEREAS, this change applies to the property located on the south side of County Road D between Southlawn Drive and Hazelwood Street. The legal description is: Dorle Park, Lots 1-8, 14, 15, 18, 29-36, Block 2 and Except the West 10 acres, the North ½ of the Northeast ¼ in Section 3, Township 29, Range 22 (Subject to roads and easements). WHEREAS, the history of this change is as follows: On June 2, 2003, the planning commission held a public hearing. The city staff published a hearing notice in the Maplewood Review and sent notices to the surrounding property owners. The planning commission gave everyone at the hearing a chance to speak and present, written statements. The planning commission tabled action on this proposal since the applicant was in the process of revising their plans. 2. On July 7, 2003, the planning commission continued discussion of this proposal and recommended that the city council this land use plan change. 3. On July 14, 2003, the city council discussed the land 'use plan change. They considered reports and recommendations from the planning commission and city staff. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the city council approve the above described changes since they would be consistent with the comprehensive plan's goals and policies such as: 1. This project would promote economic development that will expand the property tax base, 'increase'jobs and provide desirable services. 2. It would provide a wide variety of housing types. 3. It would integrate development with open space areas, community facilities and significant natural features. 4. Adequate services would be provided such as for streets, utilities, drainage, parks and open space. 5. This project would provide attractive surroundings at which to shop, work and live. Legacy Village PUD June 30, 2003 63 The land use plan changes described in this resolution refer to the following segments of the Legacy Village development as shown on their preliminary plat for this project: The following parcels on the Preliminary Plat would be changed to Park: a. Outlot F- public park; and b. Outlot I - public park. All other parcels on the Preliminary Plat except those noted above as Park or remaining BC would change to R-3H High Density Residential: c. Lot 1, Block 1 - rental townhomes, except for the office suites/clubhouse site; d. Lot 1, Block 2 - rental townhomes; e. Lot 1, Block 3 - senior assisted living; f. Outlot B- multi-family; and g. Outlot H - for-sale townhomes; The Maplewood City Council approved this resolution on July 14, 2003. Legacy Village PUD June 30, 2003 64 Attachment 12 ZONE CHANGE RESOLUTION WHEREAS, the Hartford Group, Inc. applied for a change in the zoning map from BC (business commercial) to PUD (planned unit development). WHEREAS, this change applies to the property located on the south side of County Road D between Southlawn Drive and Hazelwood Street. The legal description is: Dorle Park, Lots 1-8, 14, 15, 18, 29-36, Block 2 and Except the West 10 acres, the North ~ of the Northeast ¼ in Section 3, Township 29, Range 22 (Subject to roads and easements). WHEREAS, the history of this change is as follows: On July 7, 2003, the Planning Commission recommended that the City Council the change. On July 14, 2003, the City Council held a public hearing. The city staff published a notice in the Maplewood Review and sent notices to the surrounding property owners. The Council gave everyone at the hearing an opportunity to speak and present written statements. The Council also considered reports and recommendations from the city staff and Planning Commission. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the city council approve the above- described change in the zoning map for the following reasons: The proposed change is consistent with the spirit, purpose and intent of the zoning code. The proposed change will not substantially injure or detract from the use of neighboring property or from the character of the neighborhood, and that the use of the property adjacent to the area included in the proposed change or plan is adequately safeguarded. The proposed change will serve the best interests and conveniences of the community, where applicable, and the public welfare. The proposed change would have no negative effect upon the logical, efficient, and economical extension of public services and facilities, such as public water, sewers, police and fire protection and schools. The Maplewood City Council approved this resolution on July 14, 2003. Legacy Village PUD June 30, 2003 65 Attachment 13 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION WHEREAS, the Hartford Group, Inc. applied for a conditional use permit for a planned unit development to develop a multi-use development called Legacy Village. WHEREAS, this permit applies to the property located on the south side of County Road D between Southlawn Drive and Hazelwood Street. The legal description is: Dorle Park, Lots 1-8, 14, 15, 18, 29-36, Block 2 and Except the West 10 acres, the North ½ of the Northeast ¼ in Section 3, Township 29, Range 22 (Subject to roads and easements). WHEREAS, the history of this conditional use permit is as follows: On July 7, 2003 the planning commission recommended that the city council this permit. The city council held a public hearing on July 14, 2003. City staff published a notice in the paper and sent notices to the surrounding property owners as required by law. The council gave everyone at the hearing a chance to speak and present 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. 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 Legacy Village PUD June 30, 2003 66 scenic features into the development design. 9. The use would cause minimal adverse environmental effects. Approval is subject to these code requirements: · All construction shall follow the site plan that the city stamped June 12, 2003. The Director of Community Development may approve minor changes. The. proposed construction must be substantially started or the proposed use utilized within one year of council approval or the permit shall become null and void. The council may extend this deadline for one year. · The city council shall review this permit in one year. Approval is also subject to the following conditions: Rental Townhomes and Office/Clubhouse: a. The project will be constructed according to the plans from Hartford Group dated 6/2/03 in all details, except as specifically modified by these conditions; bo A sidewalk will be provided continuously on the north or west side of Street A between Kennard Street and Hazelwood Drive, including the segment between the office/clubhouse parking lot and townhome buildings 11 and 12; c. Sidewalk connections will be added connecting the power line t. rail to the curb of Street A opposite townhome buildings 6 and 8; d. The sidewalks serving the fronts of townhome buildings 13, 16, 17, 18, 19, and 20 will be extended south to connect with the power line trail; eo Street B and Street C serving the townhomes will be constructed in their entirety with the townhomes, regardless of the status of the multi-family and commercial parcels to the east; fo If parking spaces are provided at the ends of the driveways at the rear of buildings 1, 2, 3 and 4; 15/16; 19/20; 21/22; or 25/26, then sidewalks will be provided from those parking spaces connecting to the front sidewalks of each of those buildings; The infiltration trenches on the south sides of buildings 13114, 15/16, and 19/20 will be modified to accommodate a revised alignment for the power line trail, provided that reasonable grades are provided for the trail and any sidewalks connecting to it, and approval of the city engineer concerning the size and function of the trenches; h. A 6'-wide sidewalk should be provided if at all possible on the south side of County Road D for the entire length of the project from Hazelwood Drive to Legacy Village PUD June 30,2003 67 [ mo no oo po q° Southlawn Drive, through continued discussion between the city and Hartford, focusing on exact sidewalk width,' location, and right-of-way needs for turn lanes and other features of the County Road D project; If a sidewalk is provided on the south side of County Road E), then sidewalks will be provided out to that sidewalk from the north side of buildings 1, 4, 21, 22, 23, 24, and 25, as well as to the clubhouse front entry and the clubhouse parking lot; The grades of the power line trail and all sidewalks will meet ADA guidelines for slope; Overstory trees will be planted along both sides of Street A at an average of 30'-40' on center instead of the average 70' spacing shown on the plans; Overstory trees will be planted along both sides of Street B and on the west side of Street C at an average of 30'-40' on center instead of the sometimes 100' spacing shown on the plans, such additional tree islands to be coordinated with modified parking bays that might be added to this street; Overstory trees will be planted along both sides of Kennard Street in front of the townhomes at an average of 30'-40' on center instead of the average 50'- 80' spacing shown on the plans; The curve in the middle of Street A opposite buildings 10 and 12 will be flattened as much as possible to limit headlights aimed into the front of the units; Front building setbacks (clubhouse and buildings 1, 4, 5, 14, 15, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, and 26) to Hazelwood Drive, Kennard Street, and County Road D that are less than required by the Zoning Code are specifically approved within this PUD as shown on the site plan, down to a minimum of 5' for the clubhouse and 15' for the townhome buildings, in order to enhance the urban character of the streets and intersections; Side yard building setbacks for all buildings that are less than required by the Zoning Code are specifically approved within this PUD as shown on the site plan; Visitor parking spaces for the rental townhomes will be added or modified as follows: Parking spaces will be added so there is a total of at least 48 spaces on the west side of Kennard and at least 51 spaces on the east side of Kennard, such that the front door of no unit is more than 200 feet from a group of at least 5 spaces. ii. Street A will be widened to 26' curb-to-curb and on-street parallel parking will be added along the north and west sides of the street Legacy Village PUD June 30, 2003 68 2) So Senior a. Co except for within 100' of the pavement of Hazelwood Drive and Kennard Street. iii. The private drive immediately south of buildings 2 and 3 will be widened to 26' curb-to-curb and on-street parallel parking will be added along the north side of the drive. iv. Parking areas will be added behind buildings I and 4 where the driveway abuts the ponding area, consistent with the recommendation of the city engineer on providing adequate grading and functioning of the pond. v. Parking areas may be added behind buildings 15/16, 19/20, 21/22, and 25/26 to meet the parking and distance criteria cited here. vi. Street B will be widened to 26' curb-to-curb and parallel parking will be added along the north and west sides of the street, or additional angled parking will be added to meet the criteria for.parking spaces cited here. The parking lot for the clubhouse/office building will be modified to add "proof of parking" spaces in the green area north and east of the swimming pool, for a total of 91 spaces possible in the lot. Such spaces will only be constructed if the owner believes they are needed, or if they are needed in the future to address parking problems at the building in the opinion of the community development director, who can order the spaces to be constructed. Such spaces will maintain a sidewalk connection between the swimming pool and clubhouse building in an island in the middle of the parking bays as shown on the plans; An easement over the power line trail on this parcel will be provided to the city for access and maintenance. Assisted Living: Front building setbacks to Kennard Street and Legacy Parkway that are less than required by the Zoning Code are specifically approvedwithin this PUD as shown on the site plan, down to a minimum of 5', in order to enhance the urban character of the streets and intersection; Emergency exits - two fronting Kennard Street and one fronting Legacy Parkway - will provide sidewalk connections to the sidewalks on the street; A sidewalk connection will be provided near the south side of the building connecting Kennard Street to the path around the pond to the east; d. The entry at the far south end of the building will provide a sidewalk connection to the sidewalk noted above; Legacy Village PUD June 30,2003 69 e. The emergency exit on the southwest face of the building near the south end of the building will provide a sidewalk connection to the sidewalk noted above; fo The emergency exit on the south face of the northeastern leg of the building will provide a sidewalk connection south to the sidewalk abutting the parking lot; g° Overstory trees will be planted along the east side of Kennard Street and the south side of Legacy Parkway at an average of 30'-40' on center instead of the average 80'-100' spacing shown on the plans; 1) Multi-Family Site (Outlot B): ao The multi-family site is planned in concept only within the PUD and will come in for design review and approval at a later date, but the use of the property is allowed as long as the provisions of the R-3A or R-3B zoning district (depending on the building size) and conditions outlined here are met; b. The multi-family site is approved for up to 50 units of housing; c. A building corner should be within 30' of the curb on the roundabout to maintain the character of the intersection; d. The building or buildings must be designed to continue the general pattern and sight lines of the townhomes to the west; e. Sidewalk connections must be provided to the power line trail on the south side of the parcel; fo Visitor parking must be provided at a ratio of 1/2 space per unit no more than 200' from the front door of any unit if townhomes are built, or the front entry of the apartment building if apartments are built; Adequate separation, buffering and screening must be provided from the multi- family residential .units to the front door, parking areas, loading areas, and mechanical equipment on the adjacent commercial parcels; A play area or tot lot must be provided on site with easy access to the building entries and to the power line trail, within reasonable sight of as many of the units as possible; i. The architectural character and exterior building materials must be in keeping with the adjacent townhomes and other buildings if present; j. Overstory trees must be planted along the north side of the extension of Street B at an average of 30'-40' on center; k. An easement over the power line trail on this parcel will be provided to the city for access and maintenance. Legacy Village PUD June 30, 2003 70 2) Retail/Commercial (Outlot A): The retail/commercial site is planned in concept only within the PUD and will come in for design review and approval at a later date, but the use is allowed as long as the provisions of the BC zoning district and conditions outlined here are met; The building(s) on the retail/commercial site should be sited on the north side of the parcel within 15' of the County Road D right-of-way with all parking to the south; Co The applicant shall submit a comprehensive sign plan. One criteria to be established, however, is that pylon signs shall not be allowed. Monument signs may be allowed, but shall not exceed 12 feet in height; d. The architectural character and exterior building materials must be in keeping with the adjacent townhomes and other buildings if present; Access to the site will be off the east leg of the roundabout and another access drive off Street C between the roundabout and County Road D; and to County Road D at a shared driveway with the adjacent furniture store site; f. All ground-mounted and roof-mounted mechanical equipment shall be screened according to ordinance; g. Overstory trees must be planted along the south side of the extension of Street B at an average of 30'-40' on center. 3) Furniture Store (Outlot C): ao The furniture store is planned in concept only within the PUD and will come in for design review and approval at a later date, but the use is allowed as long as the provisions of the BC zoning district and conditions outlined here are met; bo The building should be sited on the north side of the parcel within 15' of the County Road D and Southlawn Drive rights-of-way with all parking to the south. The design of the corner of the building should be such that reasonable and safe sight distances are maintained at County Road D and Southlawn; Co The applicant shall submit a comprehensive sign plan. One criteria to be established, however, is that pylon signs shall not be allowed. Monument signs may be allowed, but shall not exceed 12 feet in height; d. The architectural character and exterior building materials must be in keeping with the adjacent townhomes and other buildings if present; eo Access to the site will be off the extension of the east leg of the roundabout, to County Road D at a shared driveway with the adjacent retail/commercial site and up to two driveway accesses to Southlawn Drive at points to be approved by the city engineer; Legacy Village PUD June 30,2003 71 f. All ground-mounted and roof-mounted mechanical equipment shall be screened according to ordinance; g. Overstory trees must be planted along the west side of Southlawn Drive at an average of 30'-40' on center. 4) Commercial Site (Outlot D): The commercial site is planned in concept only within the PUD and will come in for design review and approval at a later date, but the use is allowed as long as the provisions of the BC zoning district and conditions outlined here are met; One of the buildings on the commercial site should be sited close to the corner of Southlawn Drive and Legacy Parkway, within 30' of the Southlawn Drive right-of- way; Co The applicant shall submit a comprehensive sign plan. One criteria to be established, however, is that pylon signs shall not be allowed. Monument signs may be allowed, but shall not exceed 12 feet in height; The architectural character and exterior building materials must be in keeping with the nearby senior assisted-living building, townhomes and other buildings if present; e. Access to the site will be off Legacy Parkway and onto Southlawn if approved by the city engineer; f. All ground-mounted and roof-mounted mechanical equipment shall be screened according to ordinance; g. The parking lot on this site must provide through connections and cross parking easements with the parcel to the south (Outlot E); ho There must be sidewalks connecting entries to all buildings on site to Legacy Parkway, Southlawn Drive, the path around the pond to the west, and to Outlot E. Such sidewalks must be separated from the parking lot - at curb level, not parking lot level; Uses on the site are encouraged to take advantage of the park and trail system around the ponding area to the west by providing outdoor seating, plazas, overlooks or similar features; j. Overstory trees must be planted along the north side of Legacy Parkway and the west side of Southlawn Drive an average of 30'-40' on center. k. An easement over the power line trail on this parcel will be provided to the city for access and maintenance. Legacy Village PUD June 30, 2003 7'2 5) Restaurant Site (Outlot E): The restaurant site is planned in concept only within the PUD and will come in for design review and approval at a later date, but the use is allowed as long as the provisions of the BC zoning district and conditions outlined here are met; The applicant shall submit a comprehensive sign plan. One criteria to be established, however, is that pylon signs shall not be allowed. Monument signs may be allowed, but shall not exceed 12 feet in height; Co The architectural character and exterior building materials must be in keeping with the nearby senior assisted-living building, townhomes and other buildings if present; Access to the site will be off a shared driveway with the shopping center property to the south, provided easements and agreements can be reached with that property owner to provide such access. Access will be provided onto Southlawn if approved by the city engineer; e. All ground-mounted and roof-mounted mechanical'equipment shall be screened according to the ordinance; f. The parking lot on this site must provide through connections and cross parking easements with the parcel to the north (Outlot D); go There must be a sidewalk on the sduth side of the site connecting Southlawn Drive with the trail around the ponding area to the west. There must also be sidewalks connecting the building entry to the shared driveway on the south side, Southlawn Drive, and to Outlot D. Such sidewalks must be separated from the parking lot- at curb level, not parking lot level; ho Uses on the site are encouraged to take advantage of the park and trail system around the ponding area to the west by providing outdoor seating, plazas, overlooks or similar features; Overstory trees must be planted along the west side of Southlawn Drive and the north side of the driveway access on the south side of the site at an average of 30'-40' on center. 6) Corporate/Commercial Site (Outlot G): a. The corporate/commercial site is planned in concept only within the PUD and will come in for design review and approval at a later date, but the use is allowed as long as the provisions of the BC zoning district and conditions outlined here are met; b. The building must be sited close to the roundabout intersection on the corner of Kennard Street and Legacy Parkway, within 15' of both rights-of-way, to maintain the character of the intersection, with parking to the north and east of the building; Legacy Village PUD June 30,2003 73 Co The applicant shall submit a comprehensive sign plan. One criteria to be established, however, is that pylon signs shall not be allowed. Monument signs may be allowed, but shall not exceed 12 feet in height; The architectural character and exterior building materials must be in keeping with the nearby senior assisted-living building, townhomes and other buildings if present; Access to the site will be off Legacy Parkway and Kennard Street. The driveway access to Kennard Street at the northwest corner of the site may move north if needed for the realignment of the power line trail and to align with the driveway entrance to the park on the west side of Kennard; f. All ground-mounted and roof-mounted mechanical equipment shall be screened according to ordinance; g. There must be sidewalks connecting entries to allbuildings on site to Legacy Parkway, Kennard Street, and through the parking lot to the power line trail; ho Uses on the site are encouraged to take advantage of the park and trail system around the ponding area to the west by providing outdoor seating, plazas, overlooks or similar features; i. Overstory trees must be planted along the east side of Kennard Street and the north side of Legacy Parkway at an average of 30'-40' on center. 7) For-Sale Townhomes (Outlot H): ao The for-sale townhome site is planned in concept only within the PUD and will come in for design review and approval at a later date, but the use is allowed as long as the provisions of the R-3C zoning district and conditions outlined here are met; bo Townhome buildings must be sited close to the roundabout intersection on the corner of Kennard Street and Legacy Parkway, and close to Kennard Street, within 20' of both rights-of-way, to maintain the character of the intersection and the streetscape; Co The architectural character and exterior building materials must be in keeping with the nearby senior assisted-living building, townhomes and other buildings in the development; Access to the site will be off the west leg of the roundabout at Legacy Parkway and Kennard Street, plus another access to Kennard Street further south, most likely in a loop street through the site. If the properties west of Outlot H fronting Hazelwood Drive are likely to develop when Outlot H is proposed for development, then consideration will be given to a public through street connecting Kennard Street and Hazelwood Drive as an extension of Legacy Parkway; Legacy Village PUD June 30, 2003 74 8) 9) go Public ao Public a. bo do There must be a clear, simple system of internal private streets serving the townhomes, at least 28' in width if parking is provided on one side, and 32' in width of parking is provided on both sides; There must be sidewalks connecting entries to all buildings on site to Legacy Parkway, Kennard Street, and the park and power line trail to the north. Such sidewalks must be designed within a clear system of open spaces and landscaping that serves all units more or less equally; Visitor parking must be provided at a ratio of 1/2 space per unit no more than 200' from the front door of any townhouse unit; Overstory trees must be planted along the west side of Kennard Street and along both sides of the major internal street(s) at an average of 30'-40' on center. Park with Trail (Outlot F): The property will be deeded to the City as public park land, but will not be credited as land area in park dedication requirements. See Parks Director Bruce Anderson's memorandum (attached). Hartford will construct all the grading, ponding, and trails noted on the plans; Hartford will secure all necessary easements and agreements with the shopping center property owner to the south for grading and construction of the trail on the south side of the pond (and the extension of that trail west around the south side of the senior assisted living building noted previously). Once agreed to, an easement at least 5' wider than the trail surface will be dedicated to the city for access and maintenance of the trail. Park (Outlot I): The property will be deeded to the City as public park land, but will not be credited as land area in park dedication requirements. See Parks Director Bruce Anderson's memorandum (attached). Hartford will construct all the grading, play fields, equipment, and parking noted on the plans or as negotiated with the city; The power line trail will be realigned to cross Kennard Street further north to accommodate sidewalk connections to the townhomes to the north; Sidewalk connections will be provided in several locations to the power line trail in reasonable locations to connect all major activity areas with the trail; Sidewalk connections will be provided in appropriate locations to the sidewalk and green space system of the townhome development to the south, at such time as that development is planned or in place; Legacy Village PUD June 30, 2003 75 Hartford will secure easements and agreements with the property owner to the south for the trail on the south side of the pond (and the extension of that trail west around the south side of the senior assisted living building noted previously). Once agreed to, an easement at least 5' wider than the trail surface will be dedicated to the city for access and maintenance of the trail. 10) The Legacy Village site as a whole: The applicant shall dedicate wetland-protection buffers around each wetland within this development. The width of each buffer shall be according to each wetlands classification as determined by the Ramsey-Washington Metro Watershed District. These buffers shall be dedicated to the City of Maplewood and shall be dedicated to the city prior to the issuance of the first building permit for this development. The applicant shall install wetland-protection buffer signs around each wetland buffer. These signs shall state "there shall be no mowing, cutting, filling or dumping beyond this point." c. The community design review board shall review the landscape plans using the criteria herein as a guide. d. The architectural plans for all buildings in Legacy Village are subject to the approval of the community design review board. e. The grading, drainage, erosion control, utility and roadway plans (public and private) are subject to the approval of the city engineer. f. The applicant shall meet the tree-replacement/tree-preservation requirements of the Maplewood Code of Ordinances. The Maplewood'City Council approved this resolution on July 14, 2003. Legacy Village PUD June 30, 2003 76 TO: FROM: SUBJECT: PROJECT: LOCATION: DATE: MEMORANDUM City Manager Ken Roberts, Associate Planner Conditional Use Permit Liberty Classical Academy 1717 English Street (Lake Phalen Community Church) June 30, 2003 INTRODUCTION Project Description Ms. Kathy Smith, representing Liberty Classical Academy, is proposing to open an elementary (grades K - 8) school for up to 60 students. The proposed location for th. is school is in the existing Lake Phalen Community Church at 1717 English Street. (See the location and property line maps on pages 6 and 7 and the maps on pages 8 - 10.) Request To have the school in this location, Ms. Smith is asking that Maplewood approve a c(~nditional use permit (CUP). The Maplewood City Code requires a CUP for schools. (Refer to the applicant's statement on page 5.) DISCUSSION The proposed school meets the city's findings of approval for a conditional use permit. As proposed, the school would lease three classrooms and the fellowship hall in the lower level of the church for their functions. With 3 full-time and 4 pad-time staff and up to 60 students, the existing parking lot should be adequate to handle the parking needs of the school and the church. There are about 80 total parking spaces with about 60 in the lots to the south of the building and the others behind (to the west) of the building. Traffic A concern of three of the neighbors near the site is the increase in traffic the school would bdng to the area. The city designed and built English Street as a collector street. It currently cardes about 4,000 vehicles per day between Larpenteur and Frost Avenues and about 6,000 vehicles per day between Frost Avenue and County Road B. In the area by the church, English Street has two traffic lanes and a stdped parking lane on each side of the street. City staff estimates that the school, with a maximum population of 60 students (if approved by the city), would add up to 150 vehicle trips per day to English Street. These tdps would be divided primarily between the moming and the afternoon as parents drop off and pick up the students. The city engineer told me that this proposal would not cause traffic problems or add enough traffic to exceed the capacity of English Street. Life Safety and Building Code Concerns Jason Menard, a neighbor living at 1706 English Street, expressed several concems about the proposal. (See his letter on pages 12 and 13.) These include traffic, the size of the facility and life safety and building code concerns. As Ms. Smith noted in her statement, she has met with Butch Gervais, the Maplewood Fire Marshal and David Fisher, the Maplewood Building Official, about this proposal. Mr. Gervais and Mr. Fisher provided Ms. Smith with information about their initial concerns. In addition, they have provided me with additional review comments that I have noted below. Butch Gervais had several comments about the proposal. They include having the address on the building and upgrading the fire protection and emergency lights and exits for the school. (Please see his project review comments on page 14.) David Fisher, the Maplewood Building Official, also has comments and corrections that the school and church will need to address. They include meeting the requirements of the accessibility code (parking, providing access routes and possibly adapting the bathrooms) and meeting the code standards for exiting from the building. Mr. Fisher noted that Ms. Smith has been in contact with the city and is working with city staff to resolve these issues. It is important to note that the city will require building permits for any remodeling of the existing space and that the city will not allow the school to occupy the building until the minimum life safety and building code standards are met. In addition, one should remember that the school is asking for a land use approval and that building code and life safety issues are typically reviewed and handled by city staff after the city council acts on the conditional use permit request. Furthermore, the city council would annually review the conditional use permit to check on the school, its compliance with the conditions and any issues or matters that may adse. RECOMMENDATION Adopt the resolution on pages 16 and 17. This resolution approves the conditional use permit for the Liberty Classical Academy to operate a K-8 school in the church building at 1717 English Street. Maplewood bases this permit on the findings required by the code and subject to the following conditions: 1. The school use shall follow the plans dated June 6, 2003, as approved by the city. The director of community development may approve minor changes. 2. The proposed school 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. 3. The school shall have no more than 60 students. The property owner or manager shall sweep and stripe the parking lot before the school occupies their space. This shall include having two handicapped parking spaces in the parking area west of the building near the entrance to the school space. The school, the church, the fire marshal and the city building official shall agree on a plan for the school and the church to make the required life safety and building improvements to the building. This plan shall include the installation of: a. The required fire protection (sprinkler) systems. b. An eady waming fire protection system (smoke detection and monitoring). c. Additional emergency lights and exit signs (if necessary). d. Updated doors and hardware. e. The necessary changes to meet the handicapped accessibility code requirements. f. A proper address on the building. g. Any other changes the fire marshal or the building official deem necessary. 6. The city council shall review this permit in one year. CITIZENS' COMMENTS City staff surveyed the owners of the 40 properties within 500 feet of the site of the proposed school. Of the eight replies, two were for the project, two objected and four had comments or concems. For We are in favor of a new school at 1717 English Street. They had a school in that church a few years ago and it all went well. We even invited one class to come over to our yard for a picnic. (Olsons- 1717 Duluth Street) 2. We approve of Liberty Classical Academy in our neighborhood and welcome them. (Walton - 1740 Atlantic Street) Opposed The school plans (according to their website) is going to charge $6,500 per student. We object to their running a profitable operation out of a tax-exempt building. In addition, the increase in traffic is not something we want in the neighborhood. The school is planning a stdctly Christian woddview. My husband and I do not feel it is appropriate for the city to provide any assistance in its establishment. (Manzella - 1741 Atlantic Street) 2. Please see the letter from Jason Menard on pages 12 and 13. Comments/Concerns/Questions The new school will increase traffic and on-street parking. Zoning change will effect property value. No sidewalk for safe pedestrian travel. Will the homeowners have to pay for a new sidewalk? (Mustain - 1756 English Street) 2. This would not benefit my family whatsoever. I do not want my taxes going any higher. Do not need any more traffic on the street. (Ash - 1699 Atlantic Street) Will it be a year-round school? How many students will be enrolled in future years? Will there be playground equipment installed? What will be the style of teaching? What charter will the school be under?. (Hughes - 1705 Atlantic Street) 4. For additional comments and concems, see the letter from Robert Meyers on page 15. SITE DESCRIPTION Site size: Existing land use: REFERENCE INFORMATION 3.6 acres Existing church building and parking lot SURROUNDING LAND USES North: South: West: East: Single dwellings Single dwellings Single dwellings across Atlantic Street Single dwellings across English Street PLANNING Zoning: R-1 (Single dwellings) ORDINANCE REQUIREMENTS Section 36-437(3) requires a CUP for schools. Section 36-442(a) states that the city council may approve a CUP, based on nine standards. See numbers 1-9 in the resolution beginning on page 16. APPLICATION DATE We received all the materials for a complete application for this request on June 6, 2003. State laW requires that the city council act on requests within 60 days. The council must act on this request by August 4, 2003, unless the applicant agrees to a time extension. p:sec16/LCA 1717 English st.cup Attachments: 1. Applicant's Statement 2. Location Map 3. Property Line/Zoning Map 4. Area Map 5. Area Map (Enlarged) 6. Site Plan 7. School Floor Plan dated 6-6-03 8. Letter from Jason Menard dated 6-20-03 9. Project Review Comments from Butch Gervais 10. Letter from Robert Meyers dated 6-23-03 11. Conditional Use Permit Resolution 4 Dear Maplewood City Council Members: Attachment 1 June 6, 2003 We are presenting a proposal for a Conditional Use Permit for Liberty ClassicalAcademy. Liberty Classical Academy is a small private school of approximately 20 students. Our mission is to equip students of all backgrounds to grow in wisdom, excellence and purpose by offering an education based on the highest academic standards grounded in a strong classical tradition from a distinctively Christian Worldview. LCA would like to rent 3 classrooms and the fellowship hall from Lake Phalen Community Church located at 1717 English Street, Maplewood, MN. We would rent the space Monday through Friday from 7:30-3:30 and the church would continue as it is now. We are expecting the first year to have 20 students and 3 staff. There will be no busing, but car- pooling is encouraged. We are aware of space regulations and will only allow 20 students in a classroom. That will cap our school size to 60 students while in this facility. During the week of May 12 1 handed out a basic information sheet with my contact information to the neighbors. I invited the adjacent neighbors to voice any questions, concerns and to find out about the school. I have attached that letter. Pastor Bob Highley and I will be visiting the 119 neighbors that are within the 500 feet of the property during the months of June and July to answer any questions and to receive concerns and thoughts. We highly respect the surrounding neighbors and want to make sure they are aware of the changes happening in their neighborhood. When I called Maplewood city offices I was assisted by a very helpful Ken Roberts who conected us with David Fisher and Butch Garvais who agreed to take a brief look at the facility and advise us on updates that would need to be made. On April 8th they toured the facility and shared with us a few of the things that will be needed before we can have a school in this building. It was a very informal meeting so we are aware that there are more things required, but from their suggestions we have devised the following plan. · We are planning to update the Life Safety by getting a system that is connected and monitored by a central station by September of 2003. We have had Synplex Granell, MN Conway, Current, and Olson Fire Protection give us a bid and we will continue to investigate how to accomplish this within our budget. Unfortunately, many of the contractors are scheduling months out and we may be unable to get the life safety in by September, but we will get it in as soon as the contractor is available. · We will also be putting in a main line for a sprinkler system following our third year (2006) of operations and sprinkler branches the fourth year (2007). · Lever handles will be on all doors for school use by September and work will be started in the bathrooms to remove stall walls, move toilets and any other changes that are needed to comply with accessibility. · Push doors will also be installed on all the exit doors that lead from the school area. · We are also expecting other updates that will be required and will plan those as they arise. · Steps are also being taken to get the correct licensing and requirements needed by the state. We have met with the church leaders and members and they have agreed to pursue this arrangement, but we are fully aware of the approval that is needed from you, the City Council. If the City Council does approve our request we could assist Lake Phalen Community Church in updating their facility and improving a Maplewood building. On behalf of a Maplewood parent it also gives the option of a classical Christian education that is open to all students regardless of their faith background. It is also our goal to be one of the top private academic schools in the Twin Cities and it will be connected with our town, Maplewood. An example being, "Have you heard about the new school Liberty Classical Academy? Oh yes, the one in Maplewood!" It would also provide employment oppommities for teachers and opportunities for families to patronize Maplewood stores because of the school's location. I, as a Maplewood resident, feel it would be an additional improvement to an already excellent town. Thank you for taking the time to review our application. APPLICANT'S STATEMENT 5 PALM CT. Keller Z GERVNS AVE. JUNCTION NTpN AVE. FRISBIE AVE. Attachment 2 GRANDVIEW VIKING DEMON]'" AVE. ~ BROOKS AVE. Z Z SHERREN AVi'E. AVE. I.~ke AVE. ~ t~ LARK AVE. AVE. ROSEWOOD AVE. AVF_S. PAUL ~ Phalen LARPENTEUR AVENUE SAINT PAUL LOCATION 6 MAP Attachment 3 SAINT PAUL II 28 ~. z~ (!7) Frisbie Ave [] ~ 1821 Ri: Ave 1217 1241 Larpenteur Ave 1246[~ E~1254 1260~ ["]F-~1266 ~_~4 [~ ~1~1280 1286 1294 .~. r-I 1717 SITE 1699~J 1697 1685 1251 1255 1257 1261 Attachmeni~ 4 Ripley Ave 1786 1750 [~ 1742 1734 L 1726 172° E~I 1714 1708 I-~. 1702 El. 1696 SAINT PAUL AREA8 MAP 1 {~ 1251 1255 ~ve 1257 1261 SITE Attachment ! ! E~ 1731 1717 16991~ 1697 E3 1685 m LARPENTEUR AVENUE SAINT PAUL AREA MAP (ENLARGED) 1750 1742E~ 1690 T T Attachment 6 0 SITE PLAN 10 Attachment 7 Liberty Classical ~lcademy SCHOOL FLOOR PLAN 11 Attachment 8 20 June 2003 1706 English Street Maplewood, Minnesota 55109 Kenneth Roberts Associate Planner Office of Community Development 1830 East County Road B Maplewood, Minnesota 55109 Dear Mr. Roberts, I am writing regarding the proposed conditional use permit for Liberty Classical Academy (LCA) on the premises of the Lake Phalen Community Church. We live at 1706 English Street, directly across the street from the church, and we oppose the approval of the permit, for a variety of reasons. English Street is already quite busy. A school on this street will increase the high level of traffic on what is largely a residential street, especially between Ripley and Larpenteur Avenues, where they propose to locate the school. Though LCA proposes to begin with 20 students in their first year, they also propose to eventually have up to 60 students in a relatively small facility with limited access from the street. Regardless of the size of the student body, the school will produce more traffic, more noise, and more disruption of our residential neighborhood. And should the school change its mind and choose to allow busing, the traffic and noise problem will become worse. The lot is zoned Residential, and the school will impact all of the properties in the area. Lake Phalen Community Church really isn't all that big. According to their school floor plan, they propose to squeeze K and first graders in one room, second through fourth graders in another, and fifth through eighth graders in a third, with a lunchroom and gym the size of two classrooms. This would mean that there are three grade levels in each classroom, with the exception of the kindergarten and first graders, where there are two in one room. Moreover, the school would have no kitchen facilities for hot lunches, and no playground facilities. The church does have a large lawn and parking lot, but the lawn is not fenced in, and there is no playground equipment. Such an arrangement cannot help but impact the quality of education despite the best of intentions. With an eventual population of 60 students, LCA will likely find the arrangement of facilities at the church wholly unmanageable, and indeed; may find the conditions stifling much sooner than that. According to the Applicant's Statement dated 6 June, City officials informed LCA of some, but not all of the improvements to the Lake Phalen Community Church facilities: o The fire monitoring systems were found to be inadequate. Though LCA has taken bids to correct the problem, they mention that they may not be able to have the issues resolved before September, when they propose to begin operations. Proper fire safety should be a sine qua non school o_operation, yet 12 JUN o v ~ they hope that they may be able to maintain children in the building without it. Along with the inadequate fire monitoring systems, they do not propose to install fire suppression sprinklers until 2006, with the system incomplete until 2007. Thus the school proposes to operate with a growing number of children each year with inadequate fire systems until 2007. LCA, according to their statement, have not yet obtained state licensing to operate the school, yet they are asking the city for a conditional use license to operate one before state licensure. Between the inevitable noise and traffic the school would cause, along with the inadequate safety systems that won't be corrected until 2007, it seems to us that the school should look for a better location, one where the impact of school traffic will be less noticeable, where safety facilities (such as fire suppression and monitoring) are already in place and to code, and where three grades won't be forced to share the same classroom. 6 English~reet 13 Project Review Comments Attachment 9 Date: From: Project: Planner: Comments: June 13, 2003 Butch Gervais, Fire Marshal Liberty Academy Ken Roberts · Ensure proper addressing on the building. · Early warning fire protection (smoke detection per-code and monitored) required by opening. · Installation of fire protection system (sprinklers per-code and monitored) we have talked with Kathy Smith (representative of the school) and she understands that the city will work with them on setting up a program to get the sprinkler system installed. It is the same type of program we have used with other schools. · Emergency lights and exits signs all shall be working properly · All doors and hardware shall be in proper working condition 14 Attachment 10 June 23, 2003 Mr. Kenneth Roberts, Associate Planner City of Maplewood 1830 East County Road B Maplewood, MN 55109-2797 Dear Mr.' Roberts: · After reviewing the application from Liberty Classical Academy, my wife and I have the following concerns regarding the proposed school. · Increased traffic noise. English Street is akeady a very busy street, especially since the City of Maplewood allowed the MTC to run on English Street. We don't need any additional traffic. This school would bring substantially more traffic to an already too busy street. · We live in a relatively quiet neighborhood (excluding traffic noise). Adding the playground and other activities associated with a school would change the quiet. · Whmhappenswhen school exceeds 60students? · I didn't see any plans for a fenced in playground! · Kids that walk to school have a tendency to walk on lawns or through yards. In the "Applicant's Statemem" it was stated that during the week of May 12 a basic information sheet was passed out to the neighbors. We never received this information nor did our neighbors that live closer to the church. Finally, and probably most importantly, the possible danger to studems due to excessive speed that frequently occurs on English Street. The stop sign at Ripley and English was set to discourage racing on the street; however, on any given day or night the "English 500" is going. Please keep the English Street residems advised as to how this plan will or will not progress. Sincerely, R6bert A. Meyers 1747 English Street Maplewood, MN 55109 15 Attachment ll CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION WHEREAS, Ms. Kathy Smith, representing Liberty Classical Academy, is requesting that Maplewood approve a conditional use permit for an elementary (grades K-8) school to operate in an existing church. WHEREAS, this permit applies to the property at 1717 English Street. The legal description is: The North 262 feet of the South 531.5 feet of the East % of the SE ¼ of the SE ¼, subject to streets, in Section 16, Township 29, Range 22 (PIN 16-29-22-44-0021) WHEREAS, the history of this conditional use permit is as follows: 1. On July 7, 2003, the planning commission recommended that the city council approve this permit. On July ,2003, the city council held a public headng. The city staff published a notice in the paper and sent notices to the surrounding property owners. The council gave everyone at the headng a chance to speak and present wdtten statements. The council also considered reports and recommendations of the city staff and planning commission. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the council approve the above-described conditional use permit based on the building and site plans. The city approves this permit because: 1. The use would be located, designed, maintained, constructed and operated to be in conformity with the Maplewood'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. 6. 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 8. The use features would not create excessive additional costs for public facilities or services. would maximize the preservation of and incorporate the site's natural and scenic into the development design. 9. The use would cause minimal adverse environmental effects. 16 Approval is subject to the following conditions: 1. The school use shall follow the plans dated June 6, 2003, as approved by the city. The director of community development may approve minor changes. 2. The proposed school 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. 3. The school shall have no more than 60 students. The property owner or manager shall sweep and stdpe the parking lot before the school occupies their space. This shall include having two handicapped parking spaces in the parking area west of the building near the entrance to the school space. The school, the church, the fire marshal and the city building official shall agree on a plan for the school and the church to make the required life safety and building improvements to the building. This plan shall include the installation of: a. The required fire protection (sprinkler) systems. b. An eady warning fire protection system (smoke detection and monitoring). c. Additional emergency lights and exit signs (if necessary). d. Updated doors and hardware. e. The necessary changes to meet the handicapped accessibility code requirements. f. A proper address on the building. g. Any other changes the fire marshal or the building official deem necessary. 6. The city council shall review this permit in one year. The Maplewood City Council adopted this resolution on ,2003. 17 TO: FROM: SUBJECT: LOCATION: DATE: MEMORANDUM Richard Fursman, City Manager Shann Finwall, Associate Planner Gruber's Power Equipment/Junior Achievement 1762 and 1800 White Bear Avenue June 30, 2003 INTRODUCTION Project Description Representatives of Gruber's Power Equipment at 1762 White Bear Avenue are proposing to purchase .258 acres of land from the adjacent Junior Achievement property at 1800 White Bear Avenue in order to expand Gruber's exterior storage area. Gruber's also wants to construct a 10-foot-1 O-inch high metal fence to screen the expanded storage area. Refer to the plans attached on pages 9 through 14. Requests The applicants are requesting the following city approvals: Minor subdivision in order to subdivide .258 acres of land from 1800 White Bear Avenue to combine with 1762 White Bear Avenue. A variance from the Hillcrest Village moratorium in order to allow a minor subdivision within the Hillcrest Village redevelopment area. Refer to the moratorium variance statement attached on pages 15 and 16. A parking lot setback variance in order to allow the new lot line to be placed dght up to Junior Achievement's parking lot, rather than the required 5-foot setback. A fence height variance in order to allow a 10-foot-10-inch high fence rather than the maximum height allowed for a commercial fence of 10 feet. A conditional use permit for the expansion of exterior storage. Refer to the conditional use permit statement attached on pages 17 and 18. BACKGROUND On September 23, 2002, the city council formally supported the Metropolitan Council's proposed Hillcrest Village concept plan. Refer to the Hillcrest Village concept plan attached on page 19. On October 28, 2002, the city council adopted the Hillcrest Village Moratorium Ordinance. This ordinance established a one-year moratorium on development within the Hillcrest Village redevelopment area. The purpose of the moratorium is to give the City of Maplewood time to implement land use and design standards for development within the city's portion of the Hillcrest Village redevelopment area that reflect the smart growth concept plan. Refer to the Hillcrest Village Moratorium Ordinance and moratorium area map attached on pages 20 through 23. On November 19, 2002, Junior Achievement submitted a lot division application to the City of Maplewood. Junior Achievement was requesting the lot division in order to sell .258 acres of their property to Gruber's Power Equipment. In December 2002 city staff informed representatives of Junior Achievement and Gruber's Power Equipment that the lot division would require a variance from the Hillcrest Village moratorium. In addition, the 10-foot-10-inch high fence that Gruber's had begun constructing would require a height variance, a building permit, and a conditional use permit for the expansion of their exterior storage area. In March 2003, the planning commission and community design review board began to draft a new mixed-use zoning district. The city council will consider implementing the new zoning district in the Hillcrest Village redevelopment area and other areas of the city where there is a need for redevelopment to create a revitalized, urban-village setting. On May 29, 2003, city staff was in receipt of all required materials for Gruber's and Junior Achievement's lot division, variances, and conditional use permit applications. DISCUSSION Minor Subdivision The Hillcrest Village Moratorium Ordinance states that no subdivisions or building permits for new buildings will be issued by the city during the moratorium period, which ends October 28, 2003. The ordinance allows for variances from the moratorium based on the city council's determination that a proposed subdivision or development would be compatible with the proposed land use and zoning, and that such proposals would keep with the spirit and intent of the Hillcrest Village Redevelopment Plan. The planning commission and community design review board have begun drafting a new mixed-used zoning district for the Hillcrest Village redevelopment area. This new ordinance will reflect smart growth principles envisioned by the city for the area. To ensure a compatible mix of residential and commercial uses, the commercial uses proposed include retail and office uses that create little or no impact on surrounding residential properties. Commercial exterior storage, such as that proposed by Gruber's, tends to have a negative impact on residential properties including unsightliness of the materials or large screening walls, noise produced by customers viewing the materials or employees working in the area, and lighting nuisances. For these reasons, exterior storage will be prohibited or limited in the new mixed-use zoning district. Gruber's proposes to triple the size of their existing exterior storage with the purchase of the .258 acres of subdivided land. In this area they propose to assemble, store, and display tractors and other power equipment. The proposed subdivision, and ultimate use of the newly-subdivided land by Gruber's, is therefore not compatible with the proposed land use and zoning, and will not keep with the spirit and intent of the Hillcrest Village Redevelopment Plan. Gruber's and Junior Achievement 2 June 30, 2003 Parking Lot Setback Variance Gruber's existing building was constructed right up to or within a few feet of their north and south property lines, leaving no access on the outside of the building to enter the backyard. In order to maintain an access to the proposed expanded exterior storage area, the proposed subdivision includes a 12-foot strip of land along the north side of Gruber's building. This new north lot line will come right up to Junior Achievement's existing parking lot. City code requires parking lots to maintain a 5-foot side and rear yard setback when adjacent commercial property. The subdivision will therefore create the need for a 5-foot parking lot setback variance. Variances must comply with state law, which require that the city council find that strict enforcement of an ordinance would cause undue hardship to a property owner because of circumstances unique to the property under consideration. In this case, Gruber's may have a unique hardship in that their building has no outside access to the backyard. However, Junior Achievement's existing parking lot is large with ample room to cut back the bituminous in order to create the required 5-foot setback. For this reason, a 5-foot parking lot setback variance is not warranted. Expanded Exterior Storage Conditional Use Permit: Both Gruber's and Junior Achievement's properties are currently zoned as business commercial (BC). Exterior storage is allowed within this zoning district with a conditional use permit. Gruber's Power Equipment has been located at 1762 White Bear Avenue for over 20 years. Over time, and prior to the city's requirement for a conditional use permit, Gruber's has expanded their storage of materials on the exterior of their building. Currently Gruber's has items stored behind a 6-foot-high fence in the back of their building, as well as in front of their building and in front of Junior Achievement's parking lot. The current proposal includes tripling the size of Gruber's backyard exterior storage area. Because of the expansion to the exterior storage area, a conditional use permit is required. City code allows conditional use permits subject to nine standards as noted in the Reference Section of this report on pages 7 and 8. One standard requires that a conditional use permit not change the existing or planned character of the surrounding area. While Gruber's expanded exterior storage area will not change the existing character of the area, it is clear that it would change the planned character of the proposed Hillcrest Village Redevelopment Area. In addition to changing the planned character of the area, the expanded exterior storage area creates other concerns as follows. Driveway Access: Gruber's proposes two additional driveway accesses into the new backyard storage area. These driveways enter the storage area from Junior Achievement's parking lot and access driveway. Driveway easements and access agreements would need to be obtained from Junior Achievement for Gruber's use of these accesses. Gruber's and Junior Achievement 3 June 30,2003 Grading/Drainage: Bituminous surface is proposed within the expanded exterior storage area. Chris Cavett, Maplewood's Assistant City Engineer, reviewed Gruber's proposed grading and drainage plan for this area. Mr. Cavett states in his engineering report attached on page 24 that all storm water from the expanded exterior storage area must be treated by a stormceptor or other best management practices before it enters the existing catch basins. In addition, the city will require a maintenance agreement for cleaning and maintaining this stormceptor. Parking: City code requires one parking space per 200 square feet of retail use and one parking space per 1,000 square feet of warehouse/storage space. Gruber's building is 6,376 square feet in area. If all areas within the building are used for retail use, city code requires 31 parking spaces. Additional parking spaces would be required for the exterior storage area. Staff estimates that Gruber's could accommodate up to seven cars in front of their building, leaving a deficit of 24 parking spaces, with additional spaces required if the exterior storage area is calculated into the parking requirements. Gruber's has obtained a temporary parking-lot lease agreement with Junior Achievement, which allows Gruber's to use 46 parking spaces within the Junior Achievement parking lot. Refer to correspondence referring to parking and the parking- lot lease agreement and parking space map on pages 25 through 27. The shared parking lease creates ample parking space for Gruber's business per city code. However, staff is concerned about the temporary nature of this arrangement. The lease states that either party may terminate the agreement with 60 days notice. Junior Achievement has indicated to staff a willingness to extend the lease termination deadline but is not interested in selling the additional property to Gruber's at this time. Tree Removal: The expansion of the exterior storage area will require the removal of 11 mature evergreen trees on Junior Achievement's property. Gruber's states that they will be planting additional trees on the east side of their new fence, within Junior Achievement's property. City code requires that these trees be replaced one for one. Fence Variance As stated above, Gruber's began the construction of a 10-foot-10-inch high metal fence along the proposed new property line last fall. The city's building official has been working with Gruber's to obtain the required building permit and structural engineering on the fence. City code allows commercial fences to be up to 10 feet in height. Again, state law requires that the city council find that strict enforcement of an ordinance would cause undue hardship to a property owner because of circumstances unique to the property under consideration. Representatives of Gruber's state that the additional 10 inches is required in order to keep the top of the fence at one level plane due to the slope of the property. This would not be considered a hardship because the applicants could have constructed a shorter fence without the need for a variance. In addition, staff Gruber's and Junior Achievement 4 June 30, 2003 finds the 10-foot-10-inch high, metal fence unsightly and incompatible to the proposed Hillcrest Village Redevelopment Plan. Other Comments Dan Solar, Ramsey County Engineer: "This proposal has no real impact on Ramsey County. I am assuming that all entrance points remain the same." Lieutenant Dave Kvam, Maplewood Police Department: "Based on the data provided, I do not believe the proposal would negatively impact public safety in any way. In fact, allowing Gruber's to construct a 10-foot-10-inch high fence that surrounds their storage area could help reduce theft during the nighttime hours, as they would be better able to secure products stored outside." SUMMARY This proposal has been a very difficult review for staff. Representatives of Gruber's Power Equipment state that over the last 20 years their customer base and business have grown in their current location. City staff would like to congratulate Gruber's for this success and their many years of business in the City of Maplewood. City staff has always attempted to promote and support this type of growth. The difficulty city staff has is that we are also compelled and bound to support the city council's goal for the redevelopment of this neighborhood as well as uphold the adopted ordinances of the city. Approving the applicants' land use requests would not do that. In addition, it is staff's opinion that Gruber's site is fully developed. Granted, the expanded exterior storage area would help alleviate immediate storage needs but it would not address the parking shortages on the site. For these reasons, staff does not support Gruber's proposed exterior storage expansion. RECOMMENDATION Deny the land use requests by Gruber's Power Equipment at 1762 White Bear Avenue and Junior Achievement at 1800 White Bear Avenue as follows: minor subdivision, Hillcrest Village moratorium variance, 5-foot parking lot setback variance, 10-inch fence height variance, and conditional use permit for the expansion of exterior storage. The city is denying these land use requests because: The city council has formally supported the Metropolitan Council's proposed Hillcrest Village Redevelopment Plan. This plan is based on smart growth principles, which help create livable neighborhoods where homes, jobs and services are linked by walkable streets. Gruber's Power Equipment is located in the Hillcrest Village Redevelopment Plan. An objective of the Hillcrest Village Redevelopment Plan is to help guide changes within the area in order to create a village center with an active street life that mixes shops, workplaces, housing, recreation and civic uses, and avoids commercial uses that are not residential friendly, such as exterior storage. Junior Achievement's proposal to subdivide land within the Hillcrest Village moratorium area, and Gruber's proposed use of the land as an expanded exterior Gruber's and Junior Achievement 5 June 30,2003 o storage area, is not compatible with the proposed land use and zoning for the area and does not keep with the spirit and intent of the Hillcrest Village Redevelopment Plan. There are no unique hardships or circumstances that warrant approving the 10- inch fence height variance and the 5-foot parking lot setback variance. Gruber's requested conditional use permit for the expanded exterior storage area would change the planned character of the surrounding area. Gruber's proposed 10-foot-10-inch high fence lacks human-scale architectural elements as envisioned in the Hillcrest Village redevelopment area. Gruber's and JUnior Achievement 6 June 30, 2003 REFERENCE SITE DESCRIPTION Gruber's Power Equipment - Site Size: .35 acres (15,323 square feet) Existing Use: Retail Power Equipment Store Junior Achievement - Site Size: 4.17 acres Existing Use: Educational Facility SURROUNDING LAND USES Gruber's Power Equipment - North: Junior Achievement Educational Facility South: Super America Gas Station East: Junior Achievement and North St. Paul Road West: Residential Properties across White Bear Avenue Junior Achievement - North: Ramsay County Golf Dome across Van Dyke Street South: Gruber's Power Equipment East: Perkins Restaurant West: Residential Properties across White Bear Avenue PLANNING Gruber's Power Equipment and Junior Achievement - Land Use: Business Commercial Zoning: Business Commercial Criteria for CUP Approval Section 36-442(a) states that the city council may grant a CUP subject to nine standards for approval as noted below: 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. 4. 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. Gruber's and Junior Achievement 7 June 30, 2003 The use would be served by adequate public facilities and services, including streets, police and fire protection, drainage structures, water and sewer systems, schools and parks. The use would not create excessive additional costs for public facilities or services. The use would maximize the preservation of and incorporate the site's natural and scenic features into the development design. The use would cause minimal adverse environmental effects. Findings for Variance Approval The Hillcrest Village Moratorium Ordinance states at Section 4 that variances from the moratorium may be granted by the city council based upon a determination that a proposed subdivision or development would be compatible with proposed land use and zoning, and that such proposals would keep with the spirit and intent of the Hillcrest Village Redevelopment Plan. In addition, the variance must comply with state law, which requires that the city codncil make the following findings to approve a variance: Strict enforcement would cause undue hardship because of circumstances unique to the property under consideration. The variance would be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the ordinance. Undue hardship, as used in connection with the granting of a variance, means the property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use if used under the conditions allowed by the official controls. The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to his property, not'created by the landowner, and a variance if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. Economic considerations alone shall not constitute an undue hardship if reasonable use for the property exists under the terms, of the ordinance. Application Date We received the complete application and plans for this proposal on May 29, 2003. State law requires that the city take action within 60 days of receiving complete applications for a proposal. City council action is required ,on this proposal by July 28, 2003, unless the applicant agrees to a time extension. P:Sec 14/Gruber's Attachments: 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. Location Map Land Use Map Zoning Map Subdivision Map Site Plan Fence Elevations Moratorium Vadance Statement Conditional Use Permit Statement Hillcrest Village Concept Plan Hillcrest Village Moratorium Ordinance and Map Engineedng Report Parking Lot Lease Documents and Map Gruber's and Junior Achievement 8 June 30, 2003 Attachment 1 [] [] Junior Achievement Gruber's Power Equipment -- 1762 White Bear Avenue Larpenteur Avenue Location Map 9 Attachment 2 rn Gruber's Power Equi 1762 White Bear Avenu~ Larpenteur Avenue LEGEND Heavy Manufacturin9 Nek:jhlx~hood Commercial Umited Business Commercial Business Commercial Modified Business Commercial Small Lot Single Dwelling Resi Single Dwelling Re~iclenUal Double Dwelling ResidenUal Iow Multiple Dwelling Resident Medium Multiple Dwelling Resid High MulUple Dwelling Residen 30000 Residential Estate 40000 Residential Estate Park Open Space c~y Govemment Ubrary Church Fire Station N Land Use Map 10 Attachment 3 Ri Avenue Gruber's Power Equipment 1762 White Bear Avenue Larpenteur Avenue LEGEND ~ Ught Manufacturing ~ Heavy Manufacturing ~ Neighborhood Commercial ~ Commercial Office ~ Emited Business Commercial ~ Business Commercial Modified ~ Business Commercial ~ Shopping Center ~ Small Lot Single Dwelling Residential [----] Single Dwelling Residential ~ Double Dwelling Residential ~ Low Mulitple Dwellings ~ High Multiple Dwelling Residential Condo ~ Planned Urban Development ~ Residential Estate (30,00 sq It) ~ Residential Estate (40,00) sq ft) ~ Farm N Zoning Map 11 Attachment 4 .I r o o t t 0.08 0 0 SW'LY LINE 0~' LOT Subdivision Map S 12 Attachment 5 Site Plan S 13 Attachment 6 S 14 Fence Elevations DORSEY & WHITNEY LLP Attachment 7 SUtT~ 1500 50 SOUTH SIXTH STR.R~T MINNI~APOLIS, MINNR$OTA 55402-1498 T~PHONm (612) 340-2600 FAX: (6t2) 340-2868 v~srw, dorscylaw, com PAMELA M. JORGENSEN Parale~al {612) 340-8769 FAX {6112} 340-2644 jorgensen.pamela~dorseylaw, corn December 20, 2002 VIA MESSENGER Shann Finwall Associate Planner City of MaPlewood 1830 County Road B Maplewood, MN 55109 Re: Junior Achievement/Gruebers Dear Shann: Enclosed please find an Application for Variance from the moratorium for the Hillcre~t Village Redevelopment Area. As you know, Junior Achievement of the Upper Midwest, Inc. ("JA") filed an application for subdivision that was rejected for reasons set forth in your letter dated December 4, 2002. It is our understanding that because of a moratorium on development in the Hillcrest Village Redevelopment Area, it is not possible to process the subdivision application without a variance from the moratorium. On behalf of JA, we are requesting such a variance. Will you please process the Application for Variance and let me know if there is any additional information that you need. On the substantive side, we are sure that the JA request is not the type of"subdivision" which was contemplated by the moratorium. JA is not asking to subdivide a large parcel into smaller parcels or lots. There is no subdivision at all, merely a realignment of the boundary lines between the JA property and Gruebers Hardware property ("Gruebers"). There are currently two parcels: the JA property and the Gruebers property. If the variance is granted and the boundary alignment ("subdivision") approved, there will still be two parcels: The JA property and the Gruebers property, The only difference will be the realigned boundary -- and the fact that property which is currently tax-exempt will be part of the tax base. I am enclosing a check in the amount of $841.00 as well as 14 copies of a survey prepared by Schoell & Madson, Inc., which identifies the property to be realigned. Hopefully, it contains all of the details which you require. 15 Moratorium Variance Statement DOKSEY & WHITNEY LLP Sharm Finwall December 20, 2002 Page 2 If you have any questions, or if you need any additional information, please call. you for your help. Very truly yours, Pamela M. Jorgensen Paralegal Enclosures cc: Tim Greinert Greg Grueber 16 G~Ub~ ! P°u~er ~ ~ ~Equq~ment Attachment 8 December 6, 2002 To; Re: Whom it may concern Conditional Use Permit Gruber's Power Equipment has been a faithful Maplewood based business for over twenty years. Through those years our customer base and business has grown. As many of you on the council knoTM and have probably seen our storage area has not given us adequate means to house our products in a safe and professional looking manner. As of right now we have anywhere from twelve to twenty four tractOrs stored outside our fence area and building twenty-four hours a day seven days a week. This presents an uninviting retail image. With the limited space in our current yard we are forced to do some assembly in our front parking lot. Our trailer, which is used daily for pick-up and deliveries, has to be stored in the fi:ont of our building out in the open. Sanitation dumpsters are in the open. Our current situation reduces our already limited parking, invites theft "which has been a problem", and presents an uninviting business appearance. These variables make it very difficult to run our business in a manner in which we see fit. Our current fence is approximately six feet in height. The equipment racked inside the fence can be seen from the street. Our planned fence is opaque and ten feet in height. Being that height, it would shelter all outside storage from the publics view. The proposed area will almost triple the size of our current yard. With that space we would have enough room to take care of the problems described above. We will be leaving the oak trees planted on the south side of the property. Additional trees will be planted on the east side of the fence per our agreement with Junior Achievement. Aesthetically the area will make dramatic improvements versus its current conditions. Conditional Use Permit Statement 1762 White Bear Avenue · Maplewood. Minnesota 551(t9 · Phone (651) 770-7680 · Fax (651) 770-7714 17 Gmber's Power Equipment is in need of additional space. The area proposed would give us an adequate amount of space to fulfill our needs. Not only will it clean up our business and the view it presents from White Bear Ave we will be able to serve our customers and community better. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Sincer,ely.2/--~,//'' l-.,TY,,,~,'/ ;,// Gruber's Power Equipment 18 CONCEPT REDEVELOPMENT PLAN March 15, 2002 I Commercial/Office Building ~ Mixed-Use Building ~ Residential Building j. ~ Future Commercial Building --Indicates Number of Stories BLOCK W1 12,900 SF Commercial 16 Townhome Units 42 Off-Street Surface Spaces BLOCK W2 16,800 SF Commercial 71 Off-Street Surface Spaces BLOCKS W3a & W3b 17,400 SF Commercial 4 Single-Family Units 50 Off-Street Surface Spaces BLOCK W4 38 Apartment Units 16 Off-Street Surface Spaces BLOCKS WSa & WSb 6 Townhome Units Single-Family Units BLOCK W6 12 Townhome Units LARPENTEUR CALIFORNIA A IDAHO AVE HOYT AVE )L Attachment ~ BLOC] 149,400 ~ 36,400 ~, 28 Apa ', 3Sl Off Els &Elb Commercial Office aent Units Street Surface Sp I BLOCKS E2a & E2b ~ ~, ~3 700 sv Commerci~ ~-~ ~ 101 Apartrflent Units I' r I ',  57 Off-Street Surface Spaces , BLOCK E3a ~ 21,700 SF Commercial 42 Apartment Units 81 Off-Street Surface Spaces BLOCK E3b 19,400 SF Commercial 44 Apartment Umts 71 Off-Street Surface Spaces BLOCKS E4a & F_Ab 10 Townhome Units 2 Single-Family Units 38 Apartment Units BLOCKS ESa & ESb 22 Townhome Units 2 Single-Family Units BLOCKS E6a & E6b 22 Townhome Units Caithorpe Associates HILLCREST VILLAGE Smart Growth Twin Cities Metropolitan Council City of Maplewood City of St. Paul 19 Attachment 10 ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE FOR THE PURPOSE OF PROTECTING THE PLANNING PROCESS AND DEVELOPING BUILDING AND DESIGN STANDARDS FOR THE HILLCREST VILLAGE REDEVELOPMENT AREA The area under consideration (hereinafter "Hillcrest Village Redevelopment Area") includes land north of Larpenteur Avenue, east of White Bear Avenue, south of Ripley Avenue, and west of Hazel Street; also including properties on the west side of White Bear Avenue located north of Larpenteur Avenue and south of Frost Avenue (refer to Hillcrest Village Redevelopment Area map attached for exact location). The Maplewood City Council ordains: SECTION 1. PURPOSE 1.01 The City of Maplewood, in cooperation with the Metropolitan Council and the City of St. Paul, are currently conducting a smart growth initiative study that includes land use planning components for the Hillcrest Village Redevelopment Area. 1.02 The objective of the study is to design a land use concept for the Hillcrest Village Redevelopment Area. This information will help create a livable neighborhood where homes, jobs, and services are linked by walkable streets. 1.03 In addition to the' study, the city's zoning ordinance, zoning map, and comprehensive plan may need to be revised to reflect the following issues: - Land use - Building setbacks - Building height - Design standards for buildings - Pedestrian flow and safety Parking Streetscaping Signage Lighting - Landscaping o Housing density There is a need for these studies to be conducted so that the city can adopt changes to the city's zoning ordinance, zoning map, comprehensive plan, and design standards for the development of the Hillcrest Village Redevelopment Area. 20 SECTION 2. REDEVELOPMENT STUDY; MORATORIUM 2.01 2.02 The study is authorized by the city. City staff shall coordinate this study with the Metropolitan Council, City of St. Paul, White Bear Avenue Business Association, hired consultants, property owners, interested citizens, and the city council. Upon completion of the study, it shall be presented to the planning commission and community design review board commission for their review and recommendation to the city council. 2.03 A moratorium on development in the Hillcrest Village Redevelopment Area is · adopted pending completion of the study and/or the adoption of any amendments to the city's zoning ordinance, zoning map, or comprehensive plan as deemed necessary as a result of the study. The city will not approve any subdivision or building permit for a new building during the moratorium pedod. The city may issue building permits for the expansion or remodeling of existing structures. SECTION 3. TERM 3.01 The term of ordinance shall be for one year or until such time as the city council adopts amendments to the city's zoning ordinance, zoning map, or comprehensive plan as deemed necessary as a result of the study. SECTION 4. VARIANCES 4.01 Variances from this ordinance may be granted by the city council based upon a determination that a proposed subdivision or development would be compatible with proposed land use and zoning, and that such proposals would keep with the spidt and intent of this ordinance. The procedures to be followed in applying for a vadance from this ordinance shall be in accordance with state law on findings for variances and shall include the following: The applicant shall file a completed application form, together with required exhibits, to the Community Development Department. The application for a variance shall set forth special circumstances or conditions which the applicant alleges to exist, and shall demonstrate that the proposed subdivision or development is compatible with existing or proposed land use and zoning. The application shall be submitted to the planning commission for their review and recommendation to the city council. The city council may in its discretion set a public headng prior to making a final determination on the requested variance. The city council may impose such restrictions upon the proposed subdivision or development as may be necessary to comply with the purpose and intent of this ordinance. 21 SECTION 5. EFFECTIVE DATE 5.01 This ordinance shall take effect after the city publishes it in the official newspaper. The Maplewood City Council approved this ordinance on October 28, 2002. Mayor Attest: City Clerk 22 City of Maplewood Avenue Larpenteur Avenue N Hillcrest Moratorium Area Attachment ll Engineering Review PROJECT: PROJECT NO: CHECKED BY: DATE: Gruber's Power Equipment Erin Schacht and Chris Cavett, Maplewood Engineering Department June 27, 2003 Summary: Gruber's Power Equipment is planning on expanding their parking area. They are located near the corner of White Bear Ave. and North Saint Paul Road. GRADING AND DRAINAGE PLAN The following comments to the Gruber's Power Equipment grading plan shall be addressed: Specific comments and conditions: 1) Storm water from the parking lot must be treated before it enters the existing catch basins to the north. Stormceptors, V2B1 's or any other storm water BMP's (Best Management Practices) are acceptable for treating storm water runoff. Provide treatment calculations for the selected BMP. Refer to the metropolitan council web site for more information on effective storm water BMP's: The Urban Small Sites Best Management Practice (BMP) Manual provides information on tools and techniques to assist in guiding development and redevelopment. The manual includes detailed information on 40 BMPs that are aimed at managing stormwater pollution for small urban sites: http:llwww, metrocouncil.or,qlenvironment/Watershed/bmplmanual.htm 2) The rate of flow to the existing storm sewer must be controlled and not be greater than the existing COnditions. Holding pipes or a pond may be used for rate control. Drainage calculations must be provided. 3) Before the city issues a utility permit, the applicant shall complete a maintenance agreement for cleaning and maintenance of the BMP's. The maintenance agreement will be filed'as a covenant on the property. A draft of a maintenance agreement is attached. Engineering Review 24 May 19, 2003 Shann Finwall City of Maplewood ! Po ef G r u b e r s Equll~plnent Attachment 12 Shann, enclosed you will find the original and purposed survey of the property we are seeking to purchase. Also enclosed is the lease agreement with Junior Achievement. Parking seems to be a real concern to the city. One of the reasons we are trying to purchase the property behind us and enclose it is to free up the area in fi'ont of our store. By removing the crated tractors from the front of the building and putting4.hem in the back we will free up three additional parking spaces and improve curb appeal. Let me reiterate. What we are trying to do is irr~ove our business storage and cosmetic situation. This will in mm improve the view from White Bear Avenue and only benefit the community and surrounding businesses. With the additional space we will be able to serve our customers in a more professional and organized manner. Please call with any questions. /? G-ruber s Power Equipment P: 651.770.7680 1762 White Bear Avenue · Maplewood, Minnesota 55109 · Phone (651) 770-7680 · (651) 770-7714 Junior .® Achievement Junior Achievement of The Upper Midwest, Inc. 1800 White Bear Avenue North Maplewood, MN 55109 651-255-0055 Fax: 651-255-{)460 E-Mail: administrator~{iamn.org Website: www.jaum.org February 17, 2003 Mr. Greg Gruber Gruber's Power Equipment 1726 White Bear Avenue North Maplewood, MN 55 I09 Dear Greg: Based on our conversations, I am pleased to propose the following arrangement for Gmber's use of the Junior Achievement parking lot for customer parking. Junior Achievement agrees to allow Gruber's Power Equipment to utilize the' White Bear Avenue parking space outlined on the attached drawing under a lease agreement. [] Gmber's will pay Junior Achievement an annualized rate of $2,400 for the exclusive use of the outlined parking area. Junior Achievement will invoice Gruber's in the amount of $200.00 on a monthly basis, with payment for each month due no later than the final date of the previous calendar month (For examPle, November 2003 payment would be due no later than October 31, 2003). ta Gruber's Power Equipment shall be responsible for liability and maintenance of the leased parking area and agrees to provide Junior Achievement with a certificate of insurance naming Junior Achievement as a covered party in the event of an accident or injury to a Gruber's customer while using this property. tn Either party may terminate this agreement by written notice at least 60 days prior to termination date. if this arrangement looks-a~eeable to you, sign below and remm one copy to me. Greg, Please call me with any questions. President Accepted by/~ / SignOre & ~tle ' Gruber's Power Equipment Enc. Parking site map Date let TF~eir %cc~ ge ¥ou~ lmpimfion!~ 26 S 27 Leased Parking