The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About07/21/2003MAPLEWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION Monday, July 21, 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. July7,2003 5. Public Headngs 6. New Business a. Zoning Map Change (F to BC-M) - Maplewood Office Park (east of 2035 County Road D) bo Proposed R-I(R) (Rural Residential) Zoning Distdct 7. Unfinished Business 8. Visitor Presentations 9. Commission Presentations a. July 14 Council Meeting: Mr. Pearson b. July 22 (Tuesday) Council Meeting: Ms. Monahan-Junek c. August 11 Council Meeting: Mr. Trippler 10. Staff Presentations a. AnnuaI Tour- Follow up 11. Adjournment WELCOME TO THIS MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION This outline has been prepared to help you understand the public meeting process. The review of an item usually takes the following form: The chairperson of the meeting will announce the item to be reviewed and ask for the staff report on the subject. Staff presents their report on the matter. The Commission will then ask City staff questions about the proposal. The chairperson will then ask the audience if there is anyone present who wishes to comment on the proposal. This is the time for the public to make comments or ask questions about the proposal. Please step up to the podium, speak clearly, first giving your name and address and then your comments. After everyone in the audience wishing to speak has given his or her comments, the chairperson will close the public discussion portion of the meeting. The Commission will then discuss the proposal. No further public comments are allowed. The Commission will then make its recommendation or decision. All decisions by the Planning Commission are recommendations to the City Council. The City Council makes the final decision. jw/pc\pcagd Revised: 01/95 DRAFT MINUTES OF THE MAPLEWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION 1830 COUNTY ROAD B EAST, MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA MONDAY, JULY 7, 2003 I. CALL TO ORDER ChairperSon Fischer called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. I1. ROLL CALL Chairperson Lorraine Fischer Commissioner Tushar Desai Commissioner Commissioner Commlsslor~er Commissioner Commissioner Commissioner Commissioner Mary Dierich Matt Ledvina Jackie Monahan-Junek Paul Mueller Gary Pearson William Rossbach Dale Trippler Present Present Present Absent Present Absent Present Present Present Staff Present: Melinda Coleman, Assistant City Manager Chuck Ahl, Public Works Director Tom Ekstrand, Assistant Community Development Director Ken Roberts, Associate Planner Lisa Kroll, Recording Secretary III. APPROVAL OFAGENDA Commissioner Pearson moved to approve the agenda. Commissioner Trippler seconded. Ayes - Desai, Dierich, Fischer, Monahan-Junek, Mueller, Pearson, Rossbach, Trippler The motion passed. IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Approval of the planning commission minutes for June 16, 2003. Commissioner Trippler moved to approve the planning commission minutes for June 16, 2003, with the proposed changes. Commissioner Trippler had a correction on page 13 in condition 5. it should say MPCA instead of MnPca and the word NPEDS should be NPDES (National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System) and the word Pollution should be Pollutant, Planning Commission Minutes of 07-07-03 -2- Chairperson Fischer Wanted to clarify her statement on page 16, in the fifth paragraph, she would like to separate the two sentences with a) and b). So the second sentence should read: a) if the ordinance allows the city the flexibility to state they will allow the business to pave one half of what is normally required, and if it then appears more parking is necessary, the city can require the business to add more parking, b) or does the business have to pave the whole parking lot at once? Commissioner Dierich seconded. V. PUBLIC HEARING Ayes - Desai,Dierich, Fischer, Monahan-Junek, Mueller, Rossbach, Trippler Abstention - Pearson a. Legacy Village PUD (County Road D and Southlawn Drive) Mr. Roberts said there is a correction to the agenda sheet and the report. He said item number 5. a. 2. Rezoning is unnecessary because there is not a PUD zoning district. The CUP for the PUD covers that so that action is not necessary. Aisc, the Alice Street right-of-way vacation is not necessary because it was already approved already, which leaves three items to discuss for the Legacy Village. Chairperson Fischer asked for the staff report. Mr. Phil Carlson, AICP, with Dahlgren, Shardlow, and Uban, Inc., addressed the commission. Mr. Carlson gave his presentation on Legacy Village to the commission as presented in the staff report. Commissioner Rossbach said this is the first time he has had a clear understanding of how the density is calculated. He said although the city is looking at a PUD and he agrees with the concept that it should be viewed as a whole, it seems odd to him that every open parcel that is not commercially developed has been included in the density figures for the residential areas. Mr. Carlson said perhaps a way to look at is to step back from the mathematical calculations and think how does this site function and does it create character and a plan that Maplewood would approve of. Mr. Carlson said the numbers that were calculated work in the city's planning and zoning plan. He asked the planning commission if this plan meets the intent of the PUD and keeps the character and setting of the surrounding area? Commissioner Rossbach said he doesn't see anything inappropriate with the plan. However, the city has the property and the proposed development and circumstances for each development can change. Therefore, he thinks it is important to have a baseline to work off of because how it feels will feel different to everyone in the room. In establishing a baseline he would like to see some of the space for the development and attach it to the commercial property of the development and not take and put it all on the residential side. Commissioner Rossbach asked for clarification regarding page 13, item 3) g. for the multi-family residential units to provide buffering on their own property from the commercial areas. Planning Commission Minutes of 07-07-03 -3- Mr. Carlson said he thinks it depends on whether residential or commercial property is built first. He said there are setbacks required in the code for commercial sites from residential sites and they would be adhered to. However, a commercial site may not be aware of exactly what is happening on the next site. He said it behooves the multi-family site to be designed in such a way to make sure it's providing a reasonable buffer and screening to what is around it. Commissioner Rossbach said that seems like a departure from the way the city has handled it in the past. He said the city has always looked at the commercial entities to provide the buffering on their own property of residential areas. He said the way the current ordinances are set up have to do with areas that are currently used as or planned as residential. For that reason, he thinks the city should follow through with the ordinance standards and have the commercial sites provide buffer to the residential sites. Mr. Carlson said then those rules should still apply. Chairperson Fischer asked how the densities were computed? Mr. Carlson said there is a table on page 21 of the staff report showing how the densities in the project were computed. Chairperson Fischer asked if they a certain amount of people per acre or did they use the bonus that clicks in when dealing with seniors rather than multi-family housing? Mr. Carlson said he calculated units per acre. When the number of units came in below the 12 units per acre, which is the standard in the comprehensive plan, he did not calculate the person per acre any further because he assumed that a portion of that would be for seniors and the numbers would be okay. Chairperson Fischer asked if there were other variances that would be covered by this not specifically listed? She said on one page of the report it says side yard building setbacks for all buildings are less than required by the code and are specifically approved within this PUD as shown on the site plans. Mr. Carlson said the variances are listed in categories were the front setbacks for the clubhouse, and the setbacks for the townhouses for Kennard, Hazelwood and County Road D are less than required in the code. The setback for the furniture company to County Road D and Southlawn would be less. The setbacks for senior assisted living would be less than required. Chairperson Fischer asked if the variances included other setbacks and is there the full contingent of parking spaces? Mr. Carlson said the commercial space is not being designed in detail and they did not do the parking calculation, however there would be more than enough space on the site. He said the building could be moved and the parking could be redesigned so there would be an unknown quantity there. He said the parking would be reviewed in detail by the CDRB for the correct number of parking spaces. He said he is not aware of any other specific variances other than those setbacks. Planning Commission Minutes of 07-07-03 -4- Commissioner Trippler said his concern has to do with the office complex. He said when the discussion first began for the Hajicek property it was based on having an office headquarters that would be the focus of the whole development. He knows things have changed over the past few years and it was the first time he heard the term office space or commercial space used. He wondered if the plan was to move away from the idea to include office space idea and move towards the area becoming commercial space? Mr. Carlson said the Hartford Group has presented that site on the plan as a corporate/commercial site but there may be commercial uses in the site. He said it is entirely appropriate for the city to specify which uses would be appropriate on which sites within the PUD. It is his feeling that commercial uses like retail would not be successful in that area so he does not anticipate the city would see retail used there because in order to visible and successful the retail companies would want to be on County Road D or on Southlawn for proper traffic exposure. He said to clarify that perhaps a representative from the Hartford Group could give more information on that. Commissioner Trippler asked what influence the city has to make changes to the proposed pool. He said he calculated the pool to be 1000 square feet of pool area, which in his opinion is too small. Mr. Carlson said the square footage of the proposed pool seems appropriate to him. Commissioner Trippler said he appreciates the concern and focus to provide sidewalks throughout the facility because he has always had strong feelings to have more sidewalks in Maplewood. He asked if the sidewalks would connect to the Gateway Trail or to anyplace outside the Legacy Village development? Mr. Carlson said the sidewalks go out to the public streets, which are Hazelwood, County Road D, Southlawn and Kennard and at that point you can get to the trail that goes up to the power line west of here. He said the fact that they are tying the sidewalks into the public sidewalk system means you can get to the other sidewalks and trail systems in the city. Commissioner Trippler said his concern is how people will get from one side of the street to the other without getting run over? He said when he was in Finland one of the interesting ways to get pedestrians across the street is to use speed bumps for crosswalks so that people slow down or take the chance of damaging the bottom of their car. He wonders how the city is going to keep traffic moving but still allow pedestrians to get from one place to the other. Mr. Carlson said he would defer that question to the city engineer. Mr. Ahl, Maplewood Public Works Director said as the city deals with this issue, the proposal is to have parkway design for Kennard Street. He said the parkway design would have very narrow drive lanes with large medians in the center and very small crossing points. He said the city is experimenting with raised crosswalks in a few spots in the city and it seems appropriate for the city to continue looking at that idea. Commissioner Trippler asked where the power line trail is? Planning Commission Minutes of 07-07-03 -5- Mr. Carlson said the power line trail is on the north side of the power line easement and south of the internal side for the townhouse complex. Commissioner Trippler asked if there would be affordable housing and if so where would it be located? Mr. Carlson said affordable housing would be in the 50-unit multi-family site. Ms. Melinda Coleman, Maplewood Assistant City Manager, said based on the feedback and concern of the planning commission and the city council to have additional commercial or retail to accommodate the residents living in the area to walk to a grocery or drugstore, the Hartford Group dropped the number of units in the apartment building from 100 units to 50 units so they could add additional retail space. Commissioner Monahan-Junek asked where she would park if she wanted to walk around the park in outlot F? Mr. Carlson said there is no specific public parking devoted to the southwest area. The park under the power line on the western side of the site would have a small public parking lot that people could park at and enjoy the park space in the area. Commissioner Monahan-Junek said she read there would be no on-street parking on Legacy Parkway. Mr. Ahl said the city is currently working on designing Legacy Parkway but he doesn't anticipate there will be parking on the street. Commissioner Pearson said with the smaller setbacks, walking trails and the narrower streets, he wondered how the snow removal would be taken care of and he asked if the trails would be maintained all year long? Mr. Ahl said the city has planned on five to seven feet of space for snow storage. He said the city is adding equipment and personnel to maintain the sidewalks. He said this is going to be a very active trail and the city will likely put the trails on the winter maintenance plan. Commissioner Pearson asked if there would be adequate space to plow the snow or would the snow have to be removed from the site? Mr. Ahl said he does not anticipate hauling snow out of the area. However, the city has not experienced a 60-inch snowfall with the new roundabout and therefore, they have not had to haul snow away, but if the city incurred a large snowfall the snow would then have to be hauled away. Mr. Carlson said the responsibility of the snow removal for the townhouse site and the private streets and walks within the area would be for the townhouse association. There could be a stipulation with the approval of the townhouse development that the association will maintain those sidewalk connections so they can function as a connection to the public trails. Planning Commission Minutes of 07-07-03 -6- Commissioner Dierich asked for clarification regarding whether or not this is the last time the planning commission would see the senior assisted living building as well as the townhomes? She said she has some concerns regarding the proposed parking. Ms. Coleman said no this plan would not come before the planning commission again but the community design review board would review the design and parking plans. Commissioner Dierich said in her opinion as a professional in the senior care field the parking situation for the senior assisted living is not very good. She would like the parking to be built at the far end of the building and leave the other end open straight to the pond. She asked why there were so many parking spaces if there would only be 58 people that could drive assuming residents on the first and second floor would not drive? She said it says there are three floors for the senior assisted living building plan although she counted four floors shown on the plan. She counted 58 units of independent living, 29 units for assisted living, and 10 units of the memory impaired, and some seniors on the first floor. Mr. Carlson said there is exterior parking as well as parking under the building. He said the amount of parking seems reasonable to him for this type of facility. He said the Hartford Group may have more specific parking standards or expectations. Commissioner Dierich said in her opinion there is way too much parking. She said not including the exterior parking spaces she counted 67 units of parking underneath the building. She asked since the staff is not going to be living on the property she wondered why there were not less parking spaces and more green space? Mr. Carlson said maybe the Hartford Group could clarify that because he's not sure how many staff members would be working on the site. Commissioner Dierich said because there will be memory impaired seniors living on the main floor this area has to be fenced on the corner of Legacy Parkway and Kennard Street. The memory-impaired seniors could get outside and there should be an open feeling to this building without it being a dangerous situation. She said since assisted living is not state licensed because it is a local ordinance the city needs to make sure that the fencing occurs. She asked how people would get to the trail on the other side of Hazelwood? Is the city or the developer going to put a bridge in for the people to get over to the other side? Mr. Ahl said the plan for County Road D is to remove the railroad tracks and eventually there will be a bridge across. He said he anticipates there will be a switchback connection to the Bruce Vento Trail. He said the city is working hard and making very good progress working with the railroad company to get the railroad abandoned. He said the only need for a bridge would be for a trail bridge and the city is working with the county to do that. Commissioner Dierich asked once County Road D is realigned how much traffic would be anticipated on Hazelwood? With the diminished setback for the townhomes on Hazelwood and if Hazelwood experiences the same amount of traffic that they experience now, she said she would not want to be the people living in the townhomes facing Hazelwood with a five foot setback. Planning Commission Minutes of 07-07-03 -7- Mr. Ahl said he does not have specific traffic count numbers but Hazelwood and County Road D will be a busy intersection. However, the traffic engineers say there is not enough traffic there to justify a traffic signal in the short-term ten-year period. He said the city is anticipating a traffic signal at Kennard and County Road D. Once County Road D is realigned, much of the traffic will travel on County Road D and on Kennard taking'some of the traffic off of Hazelwood. Commissioner Dierich asked if the traffic noise would be screened for the townhome residents? Mr. Carlson said there would be some landscaping and trees but there would be no fence or large hedge shown screening that area. Commissioner Dierich asked if they anticipate most of the hospital traffic coming in from the Beam Avenue side rather than from the County Road D when the road is realigned? Mr. Ahl said the city is working with the hospital to make a connection from Saint John's Boulevard to Kennard and the city thinks Kennard and Beam Avenue will serve as a direct access to the area, this change should reduce some of the traffic that is currently on Hazelwood. Commissioner Dierich said on page 11, item q., number ii. She asked if the city is comfortable with the 26' curb to curb parking on the side of the street? In her neighborhood she has 28', which is very tight to maneuver cars around. Mr. Ahl said as a private street moving through a narrow area is fairly standard and the City of Stillwater is experimenting with a much narrower space. A typical parking space is 8-to-9 feet and with an 8 to 9 foot driving lane you get up to a 26' space, which is acceptable. Commissioner Dierich said that space seems tight with the size vehicles people are driving these days. Mr. Carlson said these are townhomes and not individual homes with driveways. When they get down to locating where those parallel parking spaces are if there is a private driveway coming out they can require no parking immediately opposite that area. Commissioner Desai asked if the multi-family units are were left out of the rental home proposal? Mr. Carlson said that parcel would be sold and developed in the future by somebody else. He is not sure if Hartford will develop the multi-family site in the future or sell it to someone else but it is not part of the current plans to get underway this season. Commissioner Desai asked if the rental townhomes would have work force housing? Mr. Carlson said work force housing is not part of the Hartford Group's plan. Commissioner Desai said at the group planning commission and city council meeting the proposal was made to spread work force housing throughout Legacy Village and now it sounds like that is not happening. Mr. Carlson said the Hartford Group representatives could explain why that is not in the plans. Ideally work force housing is something they would like to see. Planning Commission Minutes of 07-07-03 -8- Commissioner Rossbach said commissioner Dierich had asked how people would get across the road to the trail and he did not hear a clear answer. Mr. Ahl said while there would not be a traffic signal at County Road D and Hazelwood but there will be a stop condition for Hazelwood and there will be crosswalks when crossing to the trail. Chairperson Fischer asked the applicant to address the commission. Mr. William Griffith, Jr., Attorney representing the Hartford Group, Inc., 7900 Xerxes Avenue South, Suite 1500, Bloomington, addressed the commission. Regarding the corporate use of the site, it is the intent of the Hartford Group to seek a corporate use for that location if one is available in the market place. They have brokers assigned to that task and early last fall they had a corporate prospect but that fell through. The Hartford Group would like to find a corporate user but currently there is a 20% building vacancy rate so it may be difficult to find a tenant due to the vacancy rate. It would be ideal to scatter the workforce housing, however, because these projects are financed independently of each other unless there is a city subsidy of the townhome units, Hartford cannot afford to bring workforce housing to this area. Hartford set aside a site to use for workforce housing and are looking at an affordable townhome design for workforce housing. The key to making this work is to have a good architectural design and make sure that it is connected to the trails. However, since Hartford is only at the concept stage this idea would come back to the planning commission for review. Mr. Griffith said most of the parking at the senior housing facility is below the building. He said Hartford would like to have some parking spaces adjacent to the pond and trail so people can access the park and enjoy the area. The Hartford Group will discuss the need for an appropriate reduction in parking spaces with city staff. Hartford did look at parking from the city and national code experience standpoint and think it's a good balance. The memory impaired units for the senior assisted living facility would be a separate wing of the facility on its own floor and courtyard. It angles away from the street so that the memory care center can be managed differently then the rest of the facility. He assured Commissioner Dierich that the concern of the memory-impaired residents has been addressed in the design of the building. Commissioner Dierich asked how licensing will be handled? She asked if it would be boarding and lodging or would it be for nursing care as well and will there be a nursing staff there or just a food staff? Mr. Griffith said those details have not been decided yet. He said it would not include nursing home care but there would be services such as food service available and staff would be coming in to provide care but he does not believe that other then the memory care that the facility would be fully staffed. Commissioner Dierich said she would strongly recommend that the parking be removed from the memory impaired care wing and decrease the amount of parking for the facility. She also asked if the city knows if there is a need for care beds in the city or not. She spoke to somebody at the state and they said they have no idea if the need for assisted living matches what the city is building. She said the state is closing a lot of nursing homes and opening assisted living care because of the financial gain rather than having a nursing home beds. Commissioner Dierich said because the senior assisted living would be rental, she asked if they anticipated the beds being full, will there be swing beds, or will there be vacancies? Planning Commission Minutes of 07-07-03 -9- Mr. Griffith said Hartford does a careful market analysis with each phase of the development. They want to make sure there is a good market demand so the project can be financed. They had research done before they added the senior assisted living building to this project and as they talk to different operators that will either affirm or question the design and approach. Mr. Griffith said Hartford wants to make sure they have senior, independent, assisted care and memory impaired care in one building so that people feel that when they move in they won't have to move to another facility in the near future. Commissioner Dierich asked if there was a possibility that the number of rooms or beds would change over time? Mr. Gdffith said yes. Chairperson Fischer asked if anybody else in the audience wanted to speak regarding the Legacy Village proposal? Mr. Gerald Peterson, 3016 Hazelwood Street, Maplewood, addressed the commission. He said he had several questions and issues to discuss regarding the Legacy Village. He would like to see some restrictions added when the construction starts that Hazelwood Street is off limit to all construction vehicles. He knows this development will take several years to build and he has no plans to have construction trucks driving back and forth in front of house. He thinks Kennard Street, Southlawn and County Road D should absorb the construction traffic and stay off of Hazelwood Street. He said regarding the construction hours Monday through Saturday 7 a.m. to 7 p.m through previous construction that had occurred over the past 6 years he would like to see businesses be penalized for breaking the construction hour rules. There could be a per complaint two-to-five day work stoppage so that there would be no construction allowed. He does not know what the penalty is for working before and after the work hours but from past experience nothing ever happens to the companies and its workers. Therefore, he would like to see the workers be held accountable from not working for several days with no pay which would put pressure on the people in charge if there workers can't get paid and can't work. The police don't have time to patrol the construction hours there and he personally doesn't want to be calling the city complaining that workers are working before or after the posted work hours. To penalize a company a few thousand dollars on a multi-million dollar development isn't much of a penalty to pay or make much of a big impact on anybody and they the workers just go back to breaking the rules. He would like to see a restriction put on the lighting on the buildings so people don't have to have lights shining into their homes, his house gets lit from the people across the street from him. 4. He appreciates the sidewalks that will connect the properties, but whatever happened to the sidewalk at Cardinal Pointe that was never built for the residents to go north and south? Planning Commission Minutes of 07-07-03 -10- Ms. Coleman said the city will be very aware of the lighting concerns when the townhouse proposal comes in for outlot H. Regarding hours of construction and the ordinance and penalties associated with violating the noise ordinance, she doesn't believe that is within the reach of a conditional use permit to attach civil penalties. That would be handled through the city attorney and the police department and is not within the scope of the planning commission. Mr. Ahl said the city would put the restrictions in the specifications for the contractors and their access routes. That is something that can be done for public projects and the city has restricted truck traffic on a number of occasions due to private construction activities. He said depending on how this gets phased out, and where the contractors come in, he does not anticipate a significant problem with construction traffic on Hazelwood. Construction vehicles would need to come in the Kennard Street entrance. He said he would check into the sidewalk issue in front of Cardinal Pointe and find out why it was not completed. Mr. Roberts said the condition he remembers was that the sidewalk had to go south to the Freedom gas station but there wasn't a need to run the sidewalk to the north because it did not go anyplace or connect with anything. He said maybe as the street gets reconstructed and there would be a connection to the Bruce Vento Trail there may be a need to run the sidewalk to the north. Commissioner Rossbach said he would think it would be a good idea to look the conditions over because he believes that is a bituminous trail and he recalls the road was going to be ripped up so why have the sidewalk put in. Mr. George Supan, 3050 Hazelwood Street, Maplewood. In the past the issue of construction taking place before and after the work hours was brought to the planning commission and the city council and there was little or no restriction placed on the projects until many, many phone calls were made personally to the Mayor of Maplewood, so it is a major concern of the residents in the area. Finally the companies consented and stopped working at 7 p.m. and then would not start their construction engines until 7 a.m. Mr. Supan said another concern of the residents other than the construction noise is the dust. In the AUAR it identified dust control would be taken care of. He sent in a notice asking for specific requirements for dust control and was told it would be taken care as more meetings took place but he never heard anymore about dust control. When Cardinal Pointe was put in the residents received consent from the developer that the developer would pay for cleaning their homes because of the dust and dirt. But when it came time to clean their homes the developer said they could not take care of that. He is concerned that the residents get commitments from the developers and then the developers back out. This is a point where the residents ask the questions and get the city staff's input. Their concerns are documented stating that these are conditions that should take place and should be required by the developer in the future. The · conditional use permit is being granted and the residents feel these requests should be recorded and be required by the developer and the residents should be taken care of. He also has concerns regarding the pond to the north of the residential area. The residents have identified that the ponds as they are planned now will be built higher than the basements of the homes along that area. Planning Commission Minutes of 07-07-03 -11- Mr. Supan said the ponds are included in the Legacy Village plans and the residents that still live there have a concern that their basements may get water in them. This will remain a concern of theirs as long as they live there. He said if they are offered and accept a deal to move, then there is no longer a concern by the residents to be concerned about. Mr. Supan said they have to voice their concerns before the ponds are built because once the ponds are put in it will be too late. The pond and holding area for Cardinal Pointe across the street from the residents was supposed to be a 24-hour holding pond and it became a pond. He said engineering agreed it was supposed to be a 24-hour holding pond and had to go in and reconstruct the pond. It is still a pond, which contains dust, dirt is not appealing and the city still has not changed it. If the city allows the ponds to go in and they are not taken care of from a mosquito and controlled standpoint the ponds become undesirable. With water conditions the city has with once in a 100- year rains that happen every five or ten years there will be the potential of flooding in that area. Mr. Supan said, for the record, if the city allows this pond to be built the city would be responsible for damage done to these homes because the residents have identified the issues to the city. Mr. Supan said in the original plans for Cardinal Pointe the sidewalk was to go from the northern entrance all the way through the front of the building including the south entrance and down to the gas station. However, the area in front of the building was never completed and the city staff should check the records. He thinks the Hartford Group, the designers, and the city have done a nice job designing the plans for Legacy Village. Everyone has helped the residents with their concerns and most of their concerns have been addressed with the design of Legacy Village. It will be a very nice development and the compliments go to everyone involved. Ms. Ruth Wilm, 3740 Oakrid.qe Lane, White Bear Lake, addressed the commission. She feels a strong connection to the area that is being developed. She saw a squirrel coming towards her house and she noticed it had something in its cheeks. She realized it was a baby squirrel in the mothers' mouth and she was carrying it to the nest. That is kind of how she feels about this property. It goes back to five years ago when she realized the property was for sale. She has delusions of grandeur and thought she would call Oprah and get some money to buy the property and turn it into what she wanted it to be. But as an adult she realized that eventually the property would be developed. She realizes the city does their job just like mothers with kids. She looks at this development knows its pretty, has winding paths, archways, and ponds but what does it have for teenagers? That has been her concern for five years now. She has a ten-year- old daughter and a 12-year-old son and there is nothing for kids like them to enjoy. If you're not rich and you can't afford to belong to the YMCA or the community center there is nothing for the teenagers to do. There are the lakes but they are polluted and are filled with chiggers. She would like to see the communities work together to do something for the teenagers. Commissioner Rossbach asked Ms. Wilm what she would like to see for the teenagers? Ms. Wilm replied she wants tons of public swimming pools for all the kids. She is tired of seeing kids getting chigger bites and everything else. When she grew up in Illinois they had a place called Teen Town which was a building with two floors with a dance floor, bathroom and coat check, concessions and a pool hall and it was a safe place to hang out. Maplewood could have a skateboard park in Legacy Village, bike paths, and swimming pools and the whole nine yards that kids like. This is what she envisioned and it would be for the surrounding communities and it would draw their parents to the Maplewood Mall. Planning Commission Minutes of 07-07-03 -12- Chairperson Fischer asked if there was anybody else in the audience that wanted to address the commission regarding the Legacy Village? Nobody else came forward. Commissioner Rossbach asked about the comment on page 46 under protection areas. He wondered about the comment that says City staff will also be requesting that the developer provide a description of how vegetation removed from the site will be disposed of and he asked why the city would be concerned about that? Mr. Ahl said these things were identified with the AUAR and the soils chemistry in the area. The dirt disposal is pretty basic and the city has some conditions that go into a development contract for testing the soils should there be underground leaking. Secondly, if any trees are cut down the city does not allow burning on site so the trees would need to be removed off the site and any hazardous materials that may be discovered on the site would also need to be removed. Commissioner Rossbach said on page 53, in number 27., under compatibility with plans, it reads: the city has enacted a policy to "Use Planned Unit Developments whenever practical in both Commercial and Residential areas". He wondered who determines when it is practical? Ms. Coleman said she knows the language to the holding areas is in the comprehensive plan and taken from the document. When the Hartford Group first came to the city and they started talking about the comprehensive plan and the densities that were allowed, the city has not done this type of thing before. The city has never had the request to calculate commercial land as part of the overall density before, nor will the city have this request again because of this unique property. In the comprehensive plan under the R-3H zoning it allows 10 units per acre for townhomes all the way to 16 units per acre for apartment projects. Ms. Coleman said when they began the discussion about the 80 acres with the Hartford Group and began looking at the whole 80 acres as a whole they thought it was one whole planned unit development. Ms. Coleman said without the commercial land being thrown in the mix there would 14 dwelling units per acre of the residential land. If you include the commercial land in the mix it goes down to 10.8 units per acre. The city staff did not think about the baseline question brought up by commissioner Rossbach and she thinks it is a good question. When they start land use planning for the property west of Legacy Village they will have to think about that issue. She thinks the city is within the confines of the comprehensive plan and how it was set up. The underlying comprehensive plan was business commercial and that is how the city staff got there. Commissioner Rossbach asked who decides when it's practical to use a planned unit development? Ms. Coleman said the city council makes that decision. Commissioner Trippler said Mr. Supan raised an interesting point about the ponds north of the existing residential neighborhood on Hazelwood Street. Ponds can be engineered and developed so they don't become a problem. He asked is there anything that provides a degree of protection to the residents if the engineering plan fails and water in the basements becomes a problem from those ponds? If there isn't a protection can the commission put something in to protect the residents? Planning Commission Minutes of 07-07-03 -13- Mr. Ahl said the ponding for the entire area is something that is a joint investigation between the city and the developer. If something were to go wrong on the project there is professional liability coverage by the engineers. The property is required to be engineered because of the public financing that is on the property. There is a reliability requirement by the public funding being involved in this because the city requires registered engineers to design these ponds to make sure the ponds work properly. If the ponds don't work properly then there is a responsibility to make sure they work. Commissioner Trippler asked if something goes wrong and they get water in their basement the homeowners are responsible for bringing legal action against the city? Mr. Ahl said he would hope that it never gets to the point of a lawsuit. He said drainage situations happen and drainage patterns change and there is a responsibility to make sure the problem is corrected. He said those types of situations do occur in the city and that is the business they are in. He is confident that the pond will not cause any problems. Commissioner Pearson asked if the city is aware of the residents having any problems of water in the basement in the last 10 years before the proposed ponds are put in? Mr. Ahl said he is not aware of any residential water problems but he is meeting with the property owners next week and he will be sure to ask that question to the property owners. 3omprehensive Plan Amendment Commissioner Rossbach moved to adopt the resolution on pages 67-68 of the staff report, approving comprehensive land use plan amendments for the proposed Legacy Village on the south side of County Road D between Southlawn Drive and Hazelwood Street. These changes are based on the following findings: · This project would promote economic development that will expand the property tax base, increase jobs and provide desirable services. · It would provide a wide variety of housing types. · It would integrate development with open space areas, community facilities and significant natural features. Adequate services would be provided for streets, utilities, drainage, parks and open space. This project would provide attractive surroundings at which to shop, work and live. 1) The following parcels shall remain guided as BC Business Commercial: 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; Planning Commission Minutes of 07-07-03 -14- e. Outlot E- restaurant; and f. Outlot G- corporate/commercial. 2) The following parcels shall be changed to Park: a. Outlot F- public park; and b. Outlot I - public park. 3) All other parcels shall change to R-3H High Density Residential: a. Lot 1, Block 1 -rental townhomes, except for the office suites/clubhouse site described 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: R3H - High Density Residential: Park Total: 19.23 acres 43.68 acres 13.64 acres 76.55 acres Commissioner Pearson seconded. Ayes- Desai, Dierich, Fischer, Monahan-Junek, Mueller, Pearson, Rossbach, Trippler All Conditional Use Permit (CUP) for Planned Unit Development (PUD) Commissioner Rossbach moved to adopt the resolution on pages 69-79 of the staff report, approving a conditional use permit for a planned unit development for the proposed Legacy Village located on the south side of County Road D between Southlawn Drive and Hazelwood Street. Approval is based on the findings required by the code and subject to the following 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: 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; Planning Commission Minutes of 07-07-03 -15- 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 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; 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 Parking spaces will be 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. Sidewalks will be provided from those parking spaces to the front sidewalks of each building; 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; 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 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; A sidewalk will be provided on the south side of County Road D, and 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; j. The grades of the power line trail and all sidewalks will meet ADA guidelines for slope; k. 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; mo 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; n. 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; Planning Commission -16- Minutes of 07-07-03 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 that are less than required by the Zoning Code are specifically approved within this PUD as shown on the site plan; q. 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; iv. Parking areas will be added behind buildings 1 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 will 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; s. An easement over the power line trail on this parcel will be provided to the city for access and maintenance. Planning Commission Minutes of 07-07-03 -17- 2) Senior Assisted Living: 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 si.re 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 northeastern leg of the building will provide a sidewalk connection south to the sidewalk abutting the parking lot; 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; h. Revise the site plan to show proof-of-parking to reduce the amount of surface parking. 3) 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; Planning Commission -18- Minutes of 07-07-03 g. 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; h. The architectural character and exterior building materials must be in keeping with the adjacent townhomes and other buildings if present; i. Overstory trees must be planted along the north side of the extension of Street B at an average of 30'-40' on center; j. 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): ao 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; 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 will be completely 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. 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 of this commercial building; 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 district and conditions outlined here are met; Planning Commission -19- Minutes of 07-07-03 b. 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; 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; 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 Drive 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. h. 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; 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; b. 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; 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; d. 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; ;I i ~ ! Planning Commission -20- Minutes of 07-07-03 g. The parking lot on this site must provide through connections and cross parking easements with the parcel to the south (Outlot E); 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. 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; bo 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; c. 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 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; Planning Commission Minutes of 07-07-03 -21 - 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): ac 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; bo 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; 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 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; 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. jo 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; Planning Commission Minutes of 07-07-03 -22- 9) 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-3A 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; 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; eo There must be sidewalks connecting entries to all buildings on site to Legacy Parkway, Kennard Street, and the park and power line trail to the north. Such sidewalks must be designed within a clear system of open spaces and landscaping that serves all units more or less equally; f. Visitor parking must be provided at a ratio of 1/2 space per unit no more than 200 from the front door of any townhouse unit; g. Overstory trees must be planted along the west side of Kennard Street and along both sides of the major internal street(s) at an average of 30'-40' on center. 10) Public Park with Trail (Outlot F): a° 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 in staff report. b. Hartford will construct all the grading, ponding, and trails noted on the plans; Co 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. Planning Commission Minutes of 07-07-03 -23- Public Park (Outlot I): ao 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 in staff report. b. Hartford will construct all the grading, play fields, equipment, and parking noted on the plans or as negotiated with the city; c. The power line trail will be realigned to cross Kennard Street further north to accommodate sidewalk connections to the townhomes to the north; d. 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; eo 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. 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. Planning Commission Minutes of 07-07-03 -24- g. The city will be strictly enforcing the 7 p.m. to 7 a.m. no-noise requirement and strictly enforcing dust-control efforts for all phases of this development. h. The applicant shall coordinate the installation of the sidewalk along the County Road D alignment with the city engineer. Commissioner Monahan-Junek seconded. Ayes - Desai, Dierich, Fischer, Monahan~Junek, Mueller, Pearson, Rossbach, Trippler Preliminary Plat Commissioner Rossbach recommended approval of the Legacy Village preliminary plat date-stamped June 12, 2003, subject to 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 in his memorandum. In addition, the applicant shall dedicate the necessary right-of-way for a sidewalk along the County Road D alignment, subject to the city engineer's approval. 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. Commissioner Pearson seconded. Ayes - Desai, Dierich, Fischer, Monahan-Junek, Mueller, Pearson, Rossbach, Trippler Ayes The motion passed. This item goes to the city council on July 14, 2003. VI. NEW BUSINESS a. Liberty Classical Academy Conditional Use Permit (1717 English Street) Mr. Roberts said Ms. Kathy Smith, representing Liberty Classical Academy, is proposing to open an elementary school for up to 60 students. The proposed location for this school is in the existing Lake Phalen Community Church at 1717 English Street. To have the school in this location, Ms. Smith is asking that Maplewood approve a conditional use permit (CUP). As proposed, the school would lease three classrooms and the fellowship hall in the lower level of the church for their functions. They will have 3 full-time and 4 part-time staff and up to 60 students. Their goal is to have 20 students starting school in the fall. Planning Commission Minutes of 07-07-03 -25- Commissioner Trippler asked if the rules were the same between a school and a church as far as noise generated? He asked when the city zones a piece of property for a church, are there things that are different if the city zoned it for a school for example? Mr. Roberts said all schools and churches can be approved by a conditional use permit so each is treated the same but looked at on an individual basis as such the conditions for each are set by the city council. Commissioner Trippler asked why staff did not require a fence to be installed for the safety of the students? Mr. Roberts said he did not think the city required a fence to be installed at any other school and if a problem developed, through the conditional use permit review a fence could then be added. Commissioner Dierich asked if the sprinkler system is a requirement of the church and if that was going to affect the conditional use permit for the church? Mr. Roberts said the church does not have a conditional use permit because the church was there before CUP's were required. Commissioner Dierich asked if egress windows were required in the basement since it is going to be a school? Mr. Roberts said there are exiting requirements that deal with doors and hallways but the details are left for the building official and the school officials to work out. Commissioner Dierich asked if 2007 was the date the sprinkler system had to be installed and completed? She said that seemed an extensive time frame to have a sprinkler system complete for 20 children in that space. Mr. Roberts said in the applicant's letter on page 6 of the staff report they discuss the installation of the sprinkler to be started in 2006 and be completed by 2007. Commissioner Dierich asked if there was a chance the city could require the applicant to have the sprinkler installation done sooner for the safety of the children? Mr. Roberts said the fire marshal and the building official are requiring changes with door hardware and other items. He said the time frame of 2006-2007 is to have the church and the school space sprinklered to meet current code, so it is not just the school itself that would take that long to have the work completed. Chairperson Fischer said she read in the staff report that there was a school in this church years ago and she wondered if staff had any information about that school and why it was no longer there? Mr. Roberts said he would let the applicant address the issue of the former school. Chairperson Fischer asked the applicant to address the commission. Planning Commission Minutes of 07-07-03 -26- Ms. Kathy Smith, representing Liberty Classical Academy, 1964 Price Avenue, Maplewood, addressed the commission. Chairperson Fischer asked the applicant if she had any concerns about the staff report? Ms. Smith said no she did not. She said the school worked with the Maplewood Fire Marshal, Butch Gervais, on the sprinkler system and it the fee of $20,000 to complete the sprinkler system is what is holding the work up from being completed. She said the school needed to collect more money in order to be able to afford the work to be done. She said they will be putting in a life safety system, which will be monitored outside of the school by the start of school. Mr. Roberts asked the applicant to comment on the previous school history. Ms. Smith said she recently found out there was a school there from 1978 to 1985 and if there are any questions regarding the school, the pastor and a former student are here to speak. Commissioner Trippler asked if the school has any plans to install a fence so the children don't run out onto English Street? Ms. Smith said the door to the school is the back door of the church, which leads to the open field area so they won't be entering or exiting the school from the front door which is why the fence is not an issue of safety for the school. Commissioner Desai asked where the children would be playing? Ms. Smith said the children will be playing outside but most of the time will be spent inside the school. Commissioner Desai asked what about playground equipment for the children to play on? Ms. Smith said there is not a playground at this time but they are waiting for approval from the city council before they put the money into that. She said the decision regarding what kind of playground and how much it will cost is between the church and the school. Commissioner Desai asked if this was a year-round school or would it be on the same school schedule as the public schools? Ms. Smith said their school would run on the same 36-week school schedule as the public school system. Chairperson Fischer asked if anyone else wanted to speak regarding the school? Pastor Bob Highley, Lake Phalen Church, 1717 English Street, Maplewood, addressed the commission. Pastor Highley introduced Allan Franz, a former student from the former school. Pastor Highley said the former school used the upstairs as well before code issues came up. There was an old playground setup on the south side of the property that has since been removed. Pastor Highley said the school closed down because of the financial burden on the church. There were six classrooms with approximately 15 students per classroom for grades K-8. Planning Commission Minutes of 07-07-03 -27- Commissioner Pearson moved to adopt the resolution on pages 16 and 17 of the staff report. This resolution approves the conditional use permit for the Liberty Classical Academy to operate a K-9 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: (deletions have a strike through them). 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. 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. 2. 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: 5. The required fire protection (sprinkler) systems. a. An early warning fire protection system (smoke detection and monitoring). b. Additional emergency lights and exit signs (if necessary). c. Updated doors and hardware. d. The necessary changes to meet the handicapped accessibility code requirements. e. A proper address on the building. f. Any other changes the fire marshal or the building official deem necessary. g. The city council shall review this permit in one year. Commissioner Monahan-Junek seconded. Ayes - Desai, Dierich, Fischer, Monahan-Junek, Mueller, Pearson, Rossbach, Trippler The motion passed. This item goes to the city council on Tuesday, July 22, 2003. b. Gruber's Power Equipment (1762 White Bear Avenue) Mr. Roberts said 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 their exterior storage area. Gruber's also wants to construct a 10-foot 10-inch high metal fence to screen the expanded storage area. Mr. Roberts said the difficulty that city staff has with Gruber's requests is that they are 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. Planning Commission Minutes of 07-07-03 -28- Mr. Roberts said and approving the applicant's land use requests would not do that. In addition, it is staff's opinion that Gruber's site is fully developed. 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. Commissioner Trippler asked if there was any discussion about extending the fence due east and put a gate on the back of the fence for the loading and unloading of equipment and eliminate the five-foot variance? Mr. Roberts said the applicant was proposing to extend the fence along the new east line with a gate and a new access point. They also wanted to expand the fence farther north, which is where the partly constructed fence is. Commissioner Trippler asked if the planning commission and city council were to deny the applicant's request, would the city require the applicant to remove the fence because the fence posts are cemented in? Mr. Roberts said yes. Commissioner Dierich said it appears staff's issue is to use this building as a test case for the future Hillcrest Redevelopment Area. She hates to have Gruber's pushed out of the City of Maplewood. She asked what the city plans on doing to assist these companies to find alternative locations if they are unable to expand their businesses? She asked if the applicant can request to have covered storage rather than outdoor storage and ask for a building permit so they would not need these variances? Mr. Roberts said there are a few alternatives. One alternative is Gruber's would have to operate without any changes until such time that the city could put together a fund that would help businesses relocate to another part of Maplewood. He said a short-term alternative for Gruber's is to expand to the east although the parking shortage and unsightly fence is still an issue. Mr. Roberts said because Gruber's has outgrown their space the storage of tractors and large power equipment is an issue. Storing tractors in the front of the building is an eye sore and Gruber's has stated if they can't store their supply on site it makes it difficult for them to sell the product. Commissioner Dierich asked if the city could grant a CUP and time limit the CUP so that it would temporarily solve Gruber's problem but yet at the same time it would solve the city's problem? She said with a CUP the city could require the site to get cleaned up. Mr. Roberts said that is an option. But he stated how does someone make a fence that large look nice? He said the city wants to work with the businesses in Maplewood. The city has done a CUP with a time limit on it before and that puts the company on notice to find another location. Commissioner Dierich asked if there have been any problems at the site or complaints from the neighbors? Mr. Roberts said staff did not do a neighborhood survey but has not received any telephone complaints from the neighborhood either. Mr. Roberts said he believes the fence is to hide their supplies and is for security as well. Planning Commission Minutes of 07-07-03 -29- Chairperson Fischer asked staff what constituted a subdivision verses a lot split? She said the city is talking about two lots that are already two lots and then also moving the property line and this did not fit her idea of what a typical subdivision was. Mr. Roberts said under the city subdivision code in chapter 30 it states a subdivision means a separation of an. area, parcel or tract of land into two or more parcels. He said Junior Achievement is dividing their property into two pieces, one large parcel to keep and a small parcel to sell to Gruber's. Chairperson Fischer asked staff if the city would allow a lot split under the moratorium? Mr. Roberts said the city has not allowed lot splits in the past. He does not think that was the intention because the city requested that no change occur until the new ordinance was written and the moratorium was completed in October 2003. Chairperson Fischer asked staff where does the fence go from 10-feet high to 10-feet 10-inches high? Mr. Roberts said the applicant could answer that. Commissioner Desai said problem started between Gruber's and the city in December 2002. He asked if any progress was made towards some type of compromise between Gruber's and the city and were there any alternatives? Mr. Roberts said he is not aware of any discussion but if there were, it would have been between Ms. Finwall and Gruber's. He said he is confident Ms. Finwall would have mentioned that in the staff report. He said Gruber's started building the fence and the building inspector put a stop work order on the fence because the applicant did not have a permit, the city staff started reviewing this site and discovered there were other issues that needed to be addressed and it has taken this long to get to this point. Chairperson Fischer asked the applicant to address the commission. Mr. Matt Gruber, Gruber's Power Equipment, 1762 White Bear Avenue, Maplewood, addressed the commission. Mr. Gruber said due to the storage problem on the property it makes it difficult to run their business efficiently. He said the 10-foot 10-inch metal fence may be unsightly but the wood fence is unsightly and did not serve its purpose and the holes in the fence had been patched several times. He said with their wood fence Gruber's has had theft of property occur because people have removed or broken the fence and steal the tractors or power equipment off the property. He said in order to keep the top edge of the metal fence level because of the slope of the parking lot they built the range of the fence height from 10 feet in height to 10 feet 10 inches in height. He said Gruber's explained to staff that they could lower the metal fence to 10 feet high, however the fence will be a different height because of the slope on the property, therefore the top edge of the fence will no longer be a straight edge. Mr. Gruber said he knows the tractors sitting outside the property are an eyesore and Gruber's would like to move those tractors to the rear of the storage area to take care of that problem. Mr. Gruber said they are trying to improve the image of Gruber's and take what they have and make it better. Planning Commission Minutes of 07-07-03 -30- Mr. Gruber said Gruber's would like to reface the exterior of the building and they know because of the moratorium and the Hillcrest Redevelopment plan they cannot make any changes. He said Gruber's business should not have to be on hold because the city doesn't know when this redevelopment will happen or if there will be funding for it? Mr. Gruber said consumer expectations are higher than ever and with Northern Hydraulics and Home Depot down the street it makes it hard for businesses like theirs to stay in business if they can't store their tractors and power equipment on site. He said the lease agreement between Gruber's and Junior Achievement has a sixty-day termination clause if either party wants to cancel the lease. He said Junior Achievement expressed to Ms. Finwall that Gruber's could work on the Junior Achievement property and a longer lease agreement can be worked out. He said Gruber's wants to know what they can do to make this process move forward? Mr. Gruber said on October 25, 2002, there was a stop work order posted on the site because they did not get a fence permit. He said in the past fifteen years they have had 3 fences installed and all 3 fences were required by the City of Maplewood. He said first the city wanted a chain-link fence and then the city wanted it to be opaque so Gruber's had to have the fence slotted, then the fence was unsightly so Gruber's put a 6-foot high wood fence up. Gruber's tried to patch the fence and that became unsightly. He said now Gruber's built the metal fence and this fence is too high. He said in the fifteen years that the fences were required by the city Gruber's was never required to have a fence permit before and therefore, they did not think they needed a permit for the metal fence but now this fence is too high. He said their sanitation is in front of the building and that would be moved to the back of the building. He said there has been theft and vandalism of the equipment and they are trying to make the business more secure and improve the appearance. If the city is going to redevelop and change the area, and the city does not have a time line, is it fair for the city to stop Gruber's from going on with their day-to-day business? He said they feel they have earned their place in Maplewood and to make their business better and to stay there. Commissioner Trippler asked why Gruber's moved the fence up to the parking lot and didn't extend it to the east and have a gate for loading and unloading the equipment from the east? Mr. Gruber said that is part of the fence design. There will be two openings, one opening on the north side and one on the east end of the lot, which is where they plan to Icad and unload their supply to get the trucks off of White Bear Avenue. Commissioner Trippler said he did not notice the gate openings on the plans. Mr. Gruber said he submitted the plans to Ms. Finwall, which showed the gate openings on the survey and drainage plan. Mr. Roberts said on page 13 it shows one gate on the east side but not on the north side of the fence. Mr. Gruber said the important gate opening is the east opening, if the north side gate does not get granted then so be it. Commissioner Desai asked Mr. Gruber if he and the city have had a discussion regarding a compromise considering the moratorium is in place and how Gruber's could make their business grow in the same location such as with off-site storage. Planning Commission Minutes of 07-07-03 -31 - Mr. Gruber said they have off-site storage in Stillwater. To run their daily business they have to have inventory in stock and it is very difficult to have to drive back and forth to their storage facility everyday. Mr. Gruber said it would relieve some of the pressure of having to move eight tractors out from storage in the back just to get one tractor out if they had better and more efficient storage space. Mr. Tim Greinert, President, Junior Achievement, 1800 White Bear Avenue, Maplewood, addressed the commission. After nine months he feels obliged to make a few comments regarding Gruber's Power Equipment. He said regarding the parking issue, Junior Achievement owns most of the available parking in that area that they lease to Gruber's. Their parking lot gets used frequently without lease agreements or permission and they are appreciative of Gruber's leasing the space from Junior Achievement. He said there are cars parking in their lot without permission all the time. They have cars parking there from the health care facility across the street and vendors have parked their trailers in their parking lot. He said if lengthening the lease agreement would facilitate things for Gruber's Junior Achievement would be happy to do that if necessary. Regarding the five-foot setback, where the fence goes is very negotiable, and Junior Achievement is happy to remove some asphalt if that is what needs to happen. He said Junior Achievement as part of their lease agreement with Gruber's has stated that the fence should be high enough to hide the inventory, the green barriers stay in place, and on the east side there are some tall pine trees that help hide the fence. Gruber's has also agreed to replace trees and shrubs to help conceal the fence. Mr. Greinert said Junior Achievement would like to go on the record stating they are very flexible and negotiable to work out a settlement with Gruber's and the city. Commissioner Pearson asked if Junior Achievement would be interested in a longer-term lease agreement with Gruber's for the space? Mr. Greinert said by all means and he thought Ms. Finwall had indicated that in her report. He said Junior Achievement is open to a six-month, 1-year, or 2-year lease agreement. Commissioner Trippler asked staff what happens on October 28, 2003, when the moratorium is lifted? Mr. Roberts said hopefully by then there is the new zoning ordinance and the zoning would be in place and the moratorium lifted. If the new zoning ordinance is not completed and not in place by that time the city can try to extend the moratorium again, or the moratorium would end and the city would operate under the current rules. Commissioner Pearson said he can't support denying this request for a number of reasons. There is a moratorium that is going to end and he has been involved in a lot of discussion regarding the Hillcrest redevelopment at the HRA meetings. He has asked several times how the Hillcrest Redevelopment plan is going to affect existing businesses that want to remodel or enlarge their buildings and he has never gotten a solid answer. He has been asking what the zoning was going for sites such as Junior Achievement and Gruber's and the plan only shows three white buildings but it has no specific designation of what the zoning will be. Commissioner Pearson said at the time the city was dealing with the Hillcrest Redevelopment plan there was no knowledge of any applications in process and he does not think this project is a good test of the moratorium. In his opinion this is a small adjustment to a lot split. Planning Commission Minutes of 07-07-03 -32- Commissioner Pearson said it seems the fence is something Gruber's has tried to accommodate the city on for months and they can't come to an agreement of what is acceptable to the city. He said the parking is not a problem because Junior Achievement is willing to work with Gruber's and the city regarding the length of the lease and the space that Gruber's needs. Commissioner Pearson said the city is talking about a new development that is going to be five or six years down the road if it gets funded, and if that is the case the only fair way to treat the business owner is to do a eminent domain and compensate the property owners for their property. He does not think this is the project to do a test on and he would vote against denying the use. Commissioner Monahan-Junek said she is in agreement with Commissioner Pearson and she can't support denying this request either. Gruber's has been in the city for a long and has been a good tenant. She believes in the Hillcrest Redevelopment Area plan and she knows the timeframe is not cast in stone nor will it be cast in stone based on the funding. She thinks the city needs to be fair and equitable to those businesses that existing now. She said it is a very small parcel in the grand scheme of things. She doesn't support the five-foot variance because she thinks the city can deal with that another way. The property is zoned commercial, which means you have property with things that may be a little unsightly. She said maybe the city could propose some screening along that north side to cover the fence. Commissioner Dierich said she agrees with both commissioners. She said Gruber's is trying to clean up the site. The city can put a time limit on the CUP and the city could review the CUP in a year and make sure this is where the city wants to go. She would really like to see the tractors taken out in front of the store. She thinks screening from the fence can be done with landscaping and Gruber's is trying to improve their business. Commissioner Rossbach said he has a different point of view. He doesn't like the 10-foot metal fence. He said the city turned down Walgreen's because they wanted to stand on the principal that the city wants this area to redevelop completely different than it is. He doesn't see the point of leading Gruber's along for a few years and then go in with eminent domain and force them out of their location at that point. He said Gruber's could make the decision to stay put or move out of that location and onto a larger parcel of land on their own. It would be a loss to the City of Maplewood if they moved out of the city. Commissioner Dierich said she would rather have somebody pay into the city's tax base then have an empty space there. The city has been complaining about losing Walgreen's since losing the proposal. The city has to be somewhat accommodating to the long-standing businesses of Maplewood. She is not in favor of this variance. Gruber's is very clear that they are going to outgrow their space and eventually will have to move to a larger location. Commissioner Pearson said the fence is going to make a much cleaner look to the area. There are items that could go to the dump, which would then clean the area up even more. He would favor continuing the fence to the east and head south with the two gates proposed and paint a two- tone paint color to improve the appearance of the metal fence. Commissioner Desai said he is all for the Hillcrest Redevelopment Plan. But at the same time he thinks of the example of Walgreen's. The City of St. Paul has betrayed Maplewood by allowing Walgreen's to build their building how they want when it doesn't meet the standards for the Hillcrest Redevelopment Plan. The moratorium will be lifted in October and that time will be here before we know it. Planning Commission Minutes of 07-07-03 -33- Mr. Roberts said he disagrees with Commissioner Desai regarding the Walgreen's proposal. One of the objections to the proposal was the location of the parking in the front of the building and some to the rear. The new urbanism concept is to pull the buildings closer to the street and put the parking in the rear. To St. Paul's credit they did get Walgreen's to pull their building up to the street and they did get rid of the Pawn Shop. Commissioner Rossbach said if the commission stays with the plan in front of them he would vote no. If the applicant would agree to have this proposal tabled and come back with a revised plan that reflects the changes they agreed, then he would vote yes. Commissioner Pearson moved to table this until the next planning commission meeting to give staff time to work with Gruber's. They should come back with a plan of approval for the fence, screening and landscaping, and any painting to the fence that would accommodate this project. Mr. Roberts said by state law the city should take action by July 28, 2003. With .the planning commission's request to table this, the city is not going to make that deadlineJ 'The option is to have Gruber's agree to a time extension. With a time extension, Gruber's would have to get plans together and meet with Junior Achievement and work out the details and bring back a revised plan that addresses some of the concerns. Or Gruber's can say no and remain with the time frame and take a chance by going to the city council with this plan. Mr. Gruber asked what the time extension is? Mr. Roberts said depending how quickly Gruber's can get a revised plan back to the staff determines how quickly the process works. Mr. Gruber clarified with the commission what needs to be changed on the plans before it could come back for review? 1. Overall sketch of the property with additional landscaping to the north and east side of the fence. 2. Junior Achievement agreed to remove five feet of asphalt so no five-foot variance is needed. 3. Paint the metal fence a two-tone color. 4. Fence shall be no higher than 10-feet high so no variance would be needed. 5. Extend the parking lot lease agreement to one year with Junior Achievement. Mr. Roberts asked Mr. Gruber to discuss the changes with Mr. Greinert from Junior Achievement and decide if they are willing to table the proposal. Mr. Gruber agreed to the time extension and to table the proposal. He agreed to come back to the planning commission with revised plans. Mr. Greinert said both he and Gruber's are frustrated that this has taken nine months to get this far and now staff is saying it is going to take another 30 to 40 days for it to get reviewed again. Planning Commission Minutes of 07-07-03 -34- Mr. Greinert said he does not feel the city staff has handled this situation very well and feels like the proposal has fallen through the cracks. Mr. Roberts said if the applicant brought revised plans back right away it would take at least 30 to 40 days before it could come back to the planning commission and then it goes to the city council who makes the final decision. He said staff and the planning commission are trying to make a positive recommendation to the city council rather than a negative recommendation. The reason for the delay is that there are typically 3 weeks in between the planning commission meeting and the city council meeting for minutes and materials to be updated for the city council meeting. Commissioner Pearson moved to table this proposal until the applicant can bring an updated plan back to the commission for review with the proposed changes listed by the planning commission. Commissioner Rossbach seconded. Ayes- Desai, Dierich, Fischer, Monahan-Junek, Mueller, Pearson, Rossbach, Trippler The motion to table carries. VII. UNFINISHED BUSINESS None. VIII, VISITOR PRESENTATIONS None. IX. COMMISSION PRESENTATIONS a. Ms. Fischer was the planning commission representative at the June 23, 2003, city council meeting. Items that were discussed were the Maxfield Research Study Report, the Sibley Cove TIF which was approved, plans for the SPRWCS McCarron's plant expansion was approved, the annual tour June 30, 2003, the finance report received an annual award for excellence, and that the city council meeting has been moved from July 28 to Tuesday, July 22, 2003. b. Mr. Pearson will be the planning commission representative at the July 14, 2003, city council meeting. Items for discussion include the public hearing for Legacy Village; Mendota homes twin- homes called Woodlyn Ponds, and the zoning change for the St. Paul Area Association of Realtors property off McMenemy Street. Ms. Monahan-Junek will be the planning commission representative at the Tuesday, July 22, 2003, city council meeting. Item for' discussion is Liberty Classical Academy's Conditional Use Permit. Planning Commission Minutes of 07-07-03 -35- Chairperson Fischer asked if the city has any plans to look at the parking requirement other than for the Hillcrest Redevelopment Area? Mr. Roberts said no. Chairperson Fischer said it seems like the commission has spent a lot of time discussing parking issues. This issue could be put on the list to discuss at a later date in the future. Commissioner Dierich said she would like some more information on affordable housing. She said she noticed how much is affordable and what percentage the city has that is affordable housing. She would like to know what percentage of affordable housing the city council would like to see in Maplewood. Mr. Roberts said the city council has not expressed any particular percentage or goal for affordable housing. The city council wants to know if the city is meeting the minimum or averages of other suburbs in the area or is Maplewood doing better then other suburbs. X. STAFF PRESENTATIONS a. Annual Tour Follow up Mr. Roberts said if there is anything the commission would like changed for next years tour to let him know, b. Wetland Ordinance Amendment Follow up Commissioner Ledvina had requested information on the wetland ordinance and it will be discussed at a later date. Mr. Roberts asked if commission members were using the Internet to review reports or did they want to continue receiving their packets by delivery. Staff wants to make it as convenient as possible for the commission members to review reports and plans. Commission members said they were not using the Internet to review reports and that they wanted to continue receiving their packets by delivery. Xl. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 11:08 p.m. TO: FROM: SUBJECT: PROJECT: LOCATION: DATE: MEMORANDUM City Manager Ken Roberts, Associate Planner Zoning Map Change and Design Review Maplewood Office Park East of 2035 County Road D July 15, 2003 INTRODUCTION Project Description Mark Gossman is proposing to build a 9 building, 45,000-square-foot, office building complex east of the First Financial office building at 2035 County Road D. Refer to the applicant statement on page 9 and the maps on pages 10-17. The proposed buildings would have an extedor of horizontal lap and shake siding with asphalt-shingle roofs. Please refer to the building elevations on pages 18 and 19 and the project plans. Requests Mr. Gossman is requesting approval of the following: 1. A zoning map change from F (farm residence) to BC-M (business commercial modified). 2. Approval of building, site and landscape plans. DISCUSSION Zoning Map Change and Comprehensive Plan The city has zoned the applicant's site F (farm residence) and guided it BC (business commercial) in the comprehensive plan. The F zoning was in place for the single dwellings that are now on the site. The proposed zoning of BC-M (business commercial modified) for the site would be consistent with the BC land use designation. Maplewood intends the BC,-M zoning to be a lower-impact commercial and transitional zoning district between residential and commercial land uses. In addition, the proposed BC-M zoning is more restrictive as far as permitted and conditional land uses than what the BC zoning district allows. The city permits a vadety of uses in the BC-M zone including offices, medical or health-related clinics, retail sales, banks, indoor theaters and day care centers. Maplewood prohibits extedor storage, car washes, motor vehicle repair and fuel stations in the BC-M zoning district but allows these uses in the BC zoning district. Building Design and Materials The proposed buildings are attractive. As the plans now show, the buildings would have a residential look including horizontal and shake siding and asphalt shingles. (See the elevations on pages 18 and 19 and the attached plans.) The plans, however, do not indicate the proposed colors. The applicant should submit matedal and color samples to the city for approval. Parking The applicant is proposing 268 parking spaces--the code requires 225 spaces for the 45,000 square feet of office space. The applicant should revise the site plan to add more handicap spaces to meet the standards of the ADA (Americans with Disabilities Act)--eight are now proposed. Trees and Landscaping There are several large trees on the site - pdmadly near the existing houses and in the western part of the site near the adjacent office building. The contractor will have to remove most, if not all, of the existing trees on the site to construct the buildings and the parking areas. The city code requires the replacement of all large trees on the site - up to a maximum of 10 trees per acre. For this 4.27-acre site, that would be a maximum of 43 trees. The proposed landscape plan (on page 17) shows the planting of 30 large trees including maples, birch, elm and Black Hills Spruce. To meet the code requirement for tree replacement, the developer needs to change the landscape plan to add 13 more large trees to the site. In addition, the plans show the developer trying to save three large spruce trees that are just west of the proposed ddveway into the site. If the developer and contractor are able to save these three trees, then those trees would count toward the 43 large trees required by the city code. The landscape plan does not state the type of ground cover for the turf areas nor does it provide any details on the proposed landscaping for the pond. The applicant should sod all areas except for planting beds, and the plans should provide landscaping around and into the ponding area (including the use of native grasses and plantings) to meet the requirements of the city engineer. City Engineer's Review Chds Cavett and Chuck Vermeersch of the city engineering department have reviewed the proposed grading, drainage, utility and landscape plans. I have included their memo with their comments on pages 22 and 23. The review board should require that the applicant submit revised grading and drainage plans for review and approval by the assistant city engineer. Public Utilities There are sanitary sewer and water in County Road D to serve the proposed development. The developer's plans will connect their pipes to the existing water and sanitary sewer pipes. Drainage The developer has designed the storm water drainage for this site to go into a new treatment ponding area in the center of the site. The plans direct the overflow out of the pond into the existing, adjacent storm water pond east of the site. The city will not need a drainage and utility easement over the ponding area, as this will be a pdvate ponding area. This project will need a permit from the watershed district and from the MPCA. Driveway As proposed, the driveway for the site will be near the ddveway for the proposed town houses across County Road D. The applicant should ensure that his driveway lines up with the driveway for the town houses to improve traffic safety and to lessen the potential of vehicle headlights causing a nuisance. Other Comments Lieutenant Kevin Rabbett: No public safety concerns. Dave Fisher, Building Official: Please see his comments in the memo on page 21. Butch Gervais, Maplewood Fire Marshal, provided the following comments: 1. Ensure there is proper addressing on the buildings. 2. The installation of a monitored fire-protection system (with sprinklers) is required. 3. Provide 20-foot-wide emergency access roads. 4. Fire Department lock boxes will be required. The number and location of the boxes shall be determined by the fire marshal. RECOMMENDATIONS A. Adopt the resolution on page 24. This resolution approves a zoning map change from F (farm residence) to BC-M (business commercial modified) for the proposed office building project east of the property at 2035 County Road D East. The city is approving this change because: 1. The proposed change is consistent with the spidt, purpose and intent of the zoning code. 2. 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. 3. The proposed change will serve the best interests and conveniences of the community, where applicable, and the public welfare. 4. 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. 5. The proposed zoning change would be consistent with the existing land use designation. B. Approve the plans date-stamped June 26, 2003, for the proposed Maplewood Office Park for the site east of the property at 2035 County Road D East. Approval is based on the findings required by the code and is subject to the following conditions: 1. Repeat this review in two years if the city has not issued a building permit for this project. 2. Complete the following before the city issues a grading permit or a building permit: 3 [ ] ~ ! Have the city engineer approve final construction and engineering plans. These plans shall include: grading, utility, drainage, erosion control, tree, and driveway and parking lot plans. The plans shall meet the following conditions: (1) The erosion control plan shall be consistent with city code. (2) The grading plan shall: (a) Include building, floor elevation, water elevation and contour information. These shall include the normal water elevation and 100-year high water elevation. (b) Include contour information for the land that the construction will disturb. (c) Show sedimentation basins or ponds as required by the watershed board or by the city engineer. The ponds or basins shall meet the city's design standards and shall include best management practices and rainwater gardens wherever practical. (d) Show all proposed slopes steeper than 3:1 on the proposed construction plans. The city engineer shall approve the plans, specifications and management practices for any slopes steeper than 3:1. This shall include covering these slopes with wood-fiber blankets and seeding them with a "no mow" native vegetation rather than using sod or grass. (e) Show as little disturbance as possible on the north and east sides of the site (near the freeway and ponding area) to minimize the loss or removal of natural vegetation. This is to keep and protect as many of the trees along the north and east property lines as possible. (3) All the parking areas and driveways shall have continuous concrete curb and gutter. The applicant shall ensure that the driveway for the site lines up with the ddveway for the town houses across County Road D. (4) A storm water management plan, including drainage and ponding calculations, for the proposal. (5) Make all the changes and meet all the conditions noted by the city engineer in the memo dated July 14, 2003. b. Submit a lawn-irrigation plan to staff showing the location of sprinkler heads. c. Submit a certificate of survey for all new construction. d. Submit a revised landscape plan for city staff approval showing: (1) As much of the existing vegetation (including large trees) remaining along the northern and eastern property lines (near the freeway and the ponding area) as possible. (2) The manicured or mowed areas from the natural areas. This shall include planting (instead of sodding) the area around the storm water pond with native grasses 4 (3) (4) The a. b. and native flowering plants. The native grasses and flowering plants shall be those needing little or no maintenance. This is to reduce maintenance costs and to reduce the temptation of mowers to encroach into the pond. Specifically, the developer shall have the natural areas seeded with an upland mixture and lowland mixtures as appropriate. The planting of native grasses, flowering plants and Iow-level shrubs around the proposed storm water pond. These materials shall extend at least four feet from the ordinary high water mark (OHWM) of the pond. The planting details (including flowering plants and shrubs) for the ponding area and for any rainwater gardens on the site. Get the necessary approvals and permits from the watershed district and from the MPCA. Submit a revised site plan for staff approval that adds more handicap-accessible parking spaces to meet ADA requirements and that shows that the driveway will line up with the ddveway for the town houses across County Road D. Submit plans for city staff approval for any outdoor trash or recycling containers and enclosures. If the developer wants to build such facilities, the enclosure shall have materials that are compatible with the buildings, and they shall have gates that are 100 percent opaque. Submit a letter of credit or cash escrow to the city for all required exterior improvements. The amount shall be 150 percent of the cost of the work. Combine the two properties into one site for tax and identification purposes. Get demolition permits from the city for the houses and structures on the properties. Cap and seal any wells on the property. applicant shall complete the following before occupying the buildings: Replace any property irons removed because of this construction. Sod all turf areas, including the boulevard, except the ponding area and planting beds if a different ground cover or mulch is to be used. Install a reflectorized stop sign at the exit, a handicap-parking sign for each handicap-parking space and an address on each building. In addition, the applicant shall install "no parking" signs within the site, as required by staff. Construct trash enclosures to meet code requirements, unless trash dumpsters are stored indoors. Any such enclosures must match the materials and colors of the building. e. Install continuous concrete curb and gutter around the parking lot and driveways. Install and maintain an in-ground lawn irrigation system for all new landscaped areas, excluding landscaping within any rainwater gardens and within the ponding area. Paint any roof-top mechanical equipment to match the uppermost part of the building. Screen all roof-mounted equipment visible from streets or adjacent property. (code requirement) Install on-site lighting for secudty and visibility that follows the approved site lighting plan. All exterior lighting shall follow the approved lighting plan that shows the light spread and fixture design. The light fixtures must have concealed lenses and bulbs to properly shield glare from the adjacent street right-of-ways and from adjacent properties. i. The developer or contractor shall: (1) Complete all grading for the site drainage, complete all public improvements and meet all city requirements. (2) Place temporary orange safety fencing and signs at the grading limits. (3) Remove any debds or junk from the site. 4. If any required work is not done, the city may allow temporary occupancy if: The city determines that the work is not essential to the public health, safety or welfare. bo The above-required letter of credit or cash escrow is held by the city for all required exterior improvements. The owner or contractor shall complete any unfinished landscaping by June 1 if the building is occupied in the fall or winter, or within six weeks of occupancy if the building is occupied in the spring or summer. The city receives an agreement that will allow the city to complete any unfinished work. Signs are not approved in this review. The applicant must submit the sign plans to staff for approval and obtain the necessary sign permits. All work shall follow the approved plans. The director of community development may approve minor changes. REFERENCE INFORMATION SITE DESCRIPTION Site size: 4.27 Acres Existing land use: Two single dwellings and accessory structures SURROUNDING LAND USES North: 1-694 South: Birch Glen Apartments and town house site across County Road D West: First Financial office building East: Ponding area PLANNING Land Use Plan designation: BC (business commercial) Existing Zoning: F (farm residence) Proposed Zoning: BC-M (business commercial modified) CRITERIA FOR APPROVAL Rezoning: Section 36-485 of the zoning code requires that the city council make the following findings to rezone property: 1. 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. Design Review: Section 25-70 of the city code requires that the CDRB make the following findings to approve plans: That the design and location of the proposed development and its relationship to neighboring, existing or proposed developments, and traffic is such that it will not impair the desirability of investment or occupation in the neighborhood; that it will not unreasonably interfere with the use and enjoyment of neighboring, existing or proposed developments; and that it will not create traffic hazards or congestion. That the design and location of the proposed development is in keeping with the character of the surrounding neighborhood and is not detrimental to the harmonious, orderly and attractive development contemplated by this article and the city's comprehensive municipal plan. '7 That the design and location of the proposed development would provide a desirable environment for its occupants, as well as for its neighbors, and that it is aesthetically of good composition, materials, textures and colors. Application Date We received the complete application and plans for this development on June 26, 2003. State law requires that the city take action within 60 days of receiving a complete application for a proposal. As such, city action is required on this proposal by August 25, 2003. p:sec35~vlaplewood Office Park.doc Attachments: 1. Applicant's Statement 2. Location Map 3. Land Use Plan Map 4. Property Line/Zoning Map 5. Area Map 6. Site Plan 7. Grading Plan 8. Utility Plan 9. Landscaping Plan 10. Building Eleva~on 11. Building Elevation 12. Floor Plan 13. July 1, 2003 memo from David Fisher 14. July 14, 2003 memo from Chris Cavett 15. Zoning Map Change Resolution t6. Plans date-stamped June 26, 2003 (separate attachment) Attachment 1 55082,651.275.0690 June 25, 2003 City of Maplewood 1830 County Road B East Maplewood, MN 55109 JUN 2 6 20O3 RECEIVED RE: 2091 & 2071 E. County Rd D We propose to rezone the property to commercial status to allow for the construction of 9 small office buildings. These small office buildings are commonly occupied by professional service providers such as Accountants, Attorneys, Insurance Agents, and a variety of other small business professionals. The occupants are generally low volume traffic users. Most do not have a heavy amount of customer traffic coming to the office. The property will be heavily landscaped with tress and a large pond, and maintained by a professional property management company. We believe this project will add value and bring in new businesses to the Maplewood community. Vice President Attachment 2 COUNTY ROAD EDGE:HILL RD. B~_AR LAKE WOODLYNN 10 LOCATION AVE. ., ~1 ~/~ ~ . ct. ~11 ~. ~.1 MAP NORTH SAINT PAUL / ,., KOH~ '~ "' STANDRIDGE AVE.. BEAM ~ AVE. o ~. AVE. interchange Attachment 3 al arterial White Bear Rol R-2-- Lake Coun[y .Hd D Lydia Be~m Ave BC R-3(H) oodlaw a.~oP col R-3(M) I ~aj SITE LAND USE MAP 11 i :I Attachment 4 F ......... _: WOODLY ~<~' ~ ,¢,'-,oo ~,: .......... (7) co ' °' "°"""' <~) I "'"'<'"': Attachment 5 2025 2O35 2O36 DAY CARE I CENTER SlBLEY COVE SITE 2029 SITE PONDING AREA 207~ COUNTY ROAD D 3100 2090 TOWN HOUSE SITE C FARM 208O AREA MAP 13 2120 Attachment 6 MAPLEWOOD OFFICE PARK MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA SITE PLAN TRUNK H i O H WA',r" ~i~N O. 694 A~6o30'59"£ 230.23 ~% POND /\ LEGAL DESCRIP'IION: A ,d lying aouthedy o¢ ~ghwoy No. 694 of the Southwest Ouorter of the Souther~st ion 55, lo~'nship 50, Ronge 22, Romsey County, Mi/lnesoto, except the West 554.75 feet =opt the £~t Helf of tho~ pol'[ I~il~ Joist ~f the West 53 t~t ond ~d h3nd: Comme~clng ot the southwest comer of the Southwest {~u~rter of 5ectinn ip 30, Range 22: thence t:=st poroltel tm end olon9 County Ro=¢ D 43 rods to th= point r~; themce II/est 52 feet olong end porei~ to County Rood D; thence North to the point soid line ifltersect~ thm high.o), ri~ht--of--wey token b~ UI[ store of Mi~ne~to ~nent for ~ter~t~te Highwoy No. 694; thence £mst olong ond pot'mile! to sold higmwoy )f-woy §ne to o point directly Norttl of the point of b~ginninlj; thence 5outh to the pOitlt of [ to tho[ port token for C~unt)' Rood D ond eosernents of ~cord, if PARCEL 0 OuomLe[ of Lh¢ Soulhw~[ o[ Section 35, Towns~p 30, ~flge 22, Rums~ Count, AND Uinnesoto, except thor po~ token t0r Inte~e highwoy NO 694, Stodi~ ot t~ southwe~ co~r o~ ~e Sourest Quoter of Se~n 35, lo*nshlp 30, ~nge ~; GRAPHIC SCALE ~'_==,~ T ~ T SITE PLAN 14 Attachment MAPLEWOOD OFFICE PARK MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA INARY GRADING, DRAINAGE AND EROSION CONTROL IN ,.: TRUNK H OHWAY O. 694 .% GRADING PLAN 15 Attachment 8 MAPLEWOOD OFFICE PARK MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA PRELIMINARY UTILITY PLAN INT~;-I'-A-I1F-, TFRUNk< II II II II II h 1 694 UTILITY PLAN 16 Attachment 9 POND n nn PLANTIN~ ~ LANDSCAPING PLAN 17 Attachment 10 BUILDING ELEVATION 18 Attachment 11 I / BUILDING ELEVATION, 19 Attachment 12 Attachment 13 MEMO To: From: Date: Ken Roberts, Associate Planne/~ David Fisher, Building Official~_ 07-01-03 RE: Proposed project at 2075 to 2091 County Road D, 9 buildings with 27 offices suites. Based on the information provided the following items were noted: - Chapter 1306 of the State Building Code would require each building to be fully sprinklered. - All bathrooms would be required to meet accessibility. - Provide the minimum number of bathrooms required per 2000 IBC Chapter 29 and the State Building Code. Minimum of one water closet and one lavatory for each male and female bathroom. One drinking fountain high/Iow for accessibility and one service sink. - If the upper level has a separate tenant; separate plumbing fixtures are required. - The building and parking would be required to meet all the accessibility requirements of Chapter 1341 of the State Building Code. - Verify Fire Department access. - Provide horn and strobe in the commonly occupied areas in each office and by the Fire Department connection. - No storage allowed under stairs. It is the only exit out of the upper level. - If the building's occupant load exceeds 30 on the upper level an elevator is required. Provide survey with plans. The rules for the architects and engineers will require a design professional to submit plans for the building permit. Cc: Nick Carver, Asst. Building Official Cc: Butch Gervais, Fire Marshal 21 I ;! Attachment 14 ~Engineering Plan ~Review PROJECT: Maplewood Office Park PROJECT NO: REVIEWED BY: Chuck Vermeersch and Chris Cavett DATE: July 14, 2003 The applicant or their engineer shall address the following comments. Grading and Drainage Plan: Post development peak flows are acceptable. However, post development volumes are nearly double that of pre-development The applicant will be required to obtain approval of the proposed discharge from Mn/DOT and provide the city with wdtten verification of this. 2. The applicant will be required to obtain a permit from Mn/DOT for work within the right of way/pond easement. The water quality pond does not have sufficient wet volume to meet the city's water quality treatment standard (NURP standard). The pond should also have an average depth of not less than three feet. Runoff from drainage areas 5S and 9S (approximately half an acre total area) is not directed to the water quality pond. The storm sewer should be revised to accomplish this. Applicant shall consider other similar BMP's treatments, such as rainwater gardens for any roof drainage that would be directed towards the parking lot and the proposed storm sewer. Information on other BMP applications can be found on the Metropolitan Council Website: http://www, metrocouncil.or,q/environment/Watershed/bmp/manual, htm Provide a 2'-3' sump in the in the last storm sewer manholes before discharging into the pond. The purpose of the sump is to remove large sediment from the system before discharging into the pond. At a minimum, the sump will require an annual cleaning. 7. Complete a maintenance agreement for cleaning and maintenance of the sump manholes and water quality pond. A draft of a maintenance agreement is attached. 8. Standard erosion control notes are provided, but no silt fence is shown. The applicant shall submit an erosion control plan for city staff approval. 9. Label both ponds with normal and high water levels (NWL, HWL). For the MnDOT pond these are 938.2 and 942.2 respectively (prior to development of this site). J~0. Label building pads with finished floor elevations. 11. Show emergency overflow elevation. 22 12. The landscape plan shows trees and shrubs, but does not specify the methods and types of turf establishment. Native turf mixes shall be used around the pond perimeter and in areas that will not be mowed. 13. A rain garden was installed on the County Road D dght of way as part of City Project 01-15. This should be shown on the southwest comer of the property. 14. The location of the parking lot entrance shall-be coordinated to match with the entrance to the proposed Woodlyn Ponds Town Homes development on the south side of County Road D. A draft copy of the Woodlyn Ponds plans is attached. 23 Attachment 15 ZONING MAP CHANGE RESOLUTION WHEREAS, Mr. Mark Gossman has asked the city to change the city's zoning map from F (farm residence) to BC-M (business commercial modified). WHEREAS, this change is for the proposed Maplewood Office Park for the property east of 2035 County Road D, Maplewood, Minnesota. WHEREAS, the legal description of the properties are: Except the West 354.01 feet, the West 657.5 feet SLY of Highway 694 of the SE ¼ (Subject to road) of Section 35, Township 30, Range 22 (PIN 35-30-22-43-0005) and Except the East % of the part lying East of the West 33 feet of the SW % and except the West 657.5 feet; Part SLY of Hwy 694 of the SW % of the SE % (Subject to Road), of Section 35, Township 30, Range 22 (PIN 35-30-22-43-0006) WHEREAS, the history of this change is as follows: On July 21, 2003, the planning commission recommended that the city council approve the proposed zoning map change. On ,2003, the city council held a public hearing. City staff published a notice in the Maplewood Review and sent notices to the surrounding property owners. The council conducted the public hearing whereby all public present were given a chance to speak and present written statements. The city 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: 1. 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. 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. 5. The proposed change would make the zoning of the property consistent with the existing land use designation. The Maplewood City Council adopted this resolution on ,2003. 2.4 TO: FROM: SUBJECT: DATE: MEMORANDUM City Manager Ken Roberts, Associate Planner Proposed Rural Residential (R-I(R))Zoning District July 14, 2003 INTRODUCTION On December 9, 2002, the city enacted a one-year moratorium on development of property in Maplewood from Linwood Avenue to the southem border of the city. (See the map on page eight.) The moratorium was a result of concerns about the land use and development of the remaining undeveloped or underdeveloped property in south Maplewood. The previous sewer system plan for this area showed urbanized municipal sewer between Linwood Avenue and Carver Avenue, and undefined sewer systems south of Carver Avenue. Without a municipal sanitary sewer system, large lots with a minimum size requirement would be necessary to accommodate houses or properties with individual sewage treatment systems (ISTS). BACKGROUND On January 31, 2003, the city council authorized a separate Comprehensive Sanitary Sewer Study of south Maplewood. This study was initiated to address land use and development issues in south Maplewood, focusing on the area south of Linwood Avenue to the city's southern border. Short-Elliot-Hendrickson (SEH), a consulting engineering firm, has completed a report detailing the results of this study. We incorporated the results of the South Maplewood Sewer Study into the overall Sanitary Sewer Comprehensive Plan update. On May 27, 2003, the city council adopted the 2003 Comprehensive Sanitary Sewer Plan update. This sewer study included a detailed study of the sanitary sewer needs and availability for the part of Maplewood south of Linwood Avenue. (See the reference section on pages 5 and 6 for more information about this study.) In addition, this study recommended that the city study and possibly implement a larger minimum lot size for the areas of the city that will not likely have sanitary sewer for the foreseeable future. (This is pdmadly in sewer districts 10, 57 and 70 as shown on the map on page nine.) DISCUSSION Topography, property ownership and utilities will affect how and when development will occur in the southern part of Maplewood. Topography Much of this area has steep, rolling hills. Fish Creek at Sterling Street has an elevation of about 880, and the east part of the property at 1530 Sterling Street has an elevation of 1045. The difference between these is 165 feet. The hills along the east side of Sterling Street severely limit the chance of street and utility construction from Sterling Street. Thus, much of the land along Sterling Street will probably not have streets and utilities. The topography of the eastern part of the study area is gently rolling. This area would be easier to develop than the property near Sterling Street. Bailey Nursery owns these properties. Utilities Much of the study area does not have any public utilities. The Metropolitan Council Environmental Services (MCES) has a major sanitary sewer interceptor in the study area (generally running east to west from Carver Lake to McKnight Road, north of Carver Avenue). The city could use this part of the MCES sanitary sewer system to provide sanitary sewer service to the area. However, the city needs to explore various land use and development issues before the city council can make any final decisions about sewer extensions. As a part of this, the city needed an overall plan for the south Maplewood area (including sanitary sewer) to identify and evaluate options for the area. The nearest public water is at the intersection of Carver Avenue and Steding Street on the east side of 1-494. Any suburban-style residential development would require extensions of the sanitary sewer and water to serve the development. The water pressure for the study area is only enough to serve property below an elevation of 1010. About 13 acres, near the center of this study area, are above the elevation of 1010. Also, about four acres of the property south of 1670 Steding Street are above the elevation 1010. All utility extensions to this area would be difficult and expensive. Street Access Century Avenue is an undeveloped, 66-foot-wide public right-of-way between Carver Avenue and Maplewood's southern border. Century Avenue is on the border of Maplewood, Woodbury and Newport. The Maplewood Comprehensive Plan shows this part of Cent~iry Avenue as a major collector street. Because of the topography in the area and the existing right-of-way, an extension of Century Avenue south of Carver Avenue is the most likely future street for this area. Century Avenue would probably connect to Bailey Road in Newport. Century Avenue would probably have several east/west streets intersecting it. However, Since Bailey Nursery owns most of the property on either side of the Century Avenue right-of-way, the timing of any development will depend on the nursery. John Bailey at the nursery told me that they have no plans to develop their property and plan to stay in the plant and nursery business for many years. Lot Sizes The issue of minimum lot sizes came out of the city council's review of the Haller's Woods plat in 1997. Several neighbors near the proposed development thought the city had a 5-acre minimum lot size for non-sewered lots. However, both the zoning code and the comprehensive plan do not have a 5-acre minimum. In fact, the 19 residential lots along Steding Street near the proposed development range in size from 0.84 acres to 9.7 acres, with an average lot size of 4.05 acres. For lots that do not have public sanitary sewer, the code requires a minimum lot size large enough to fit the house and two on-site sewer treatment systems. This usually means a minimum lot size of at least one acre (43,560 square feet) to fit everything on the property. The zoning code also requires a minimum lot size of 10,000 square feet for single dwellings in the R-1 (single dwelling) and F (farm residence) zoning districts. In the RE-40 (residential estate) zoning district, the minimum lot size is 40,000 square feet. Staff contacted several cities in the area to see what they use for a minimum lot size for non- sewered areas. The survey showed a range of 22,000 square feet in White Bear Township to a 5- acre minimum for new developments in Grant. The minimum lot sizes for non-sewered lots in other cities are 30,000 square feet in Oakdale, 1.5 acres in Cottage Grove, 2.5 acres in Inver Grove Heights and 3 acres in Woodbury and in Newport. 2 Future Development Based on the above findings, we make the following projections for the south Maplewood area: 1. The area will develop with single dwellings. Lot sizes on the west side of Steding Street will be larger than normal because of the steep contours that limit buildable land and street access. There will be more homes on Steding Street with long pdvate ddves. Some homes will share ddves. There will probably be additional requests for homes on lots that do not front on a public street. The Bailey Nursery property is the most feasible place for future streets and normal suburban (sewered) development patterns. Extending Century Avenue south of Carver Avenue is necessary to develop the Bailey property. There is no need to extend Century Avenue until Bailey Nurseries is ready to develop their property. 5. Local streets to serve this area will probably come from Century Avenue. Because of steep contours along Steding Street, connecting Steding Street and Century Avenue with a new street will probably not be feasible. 7. Until further development happens, the city will probably not choose a location for the planned park in this neighborhood. 8. Two high areas (above elevation 1010) will not have normal water pressure. Any houses in these areas will need a well or will need an individual private booster pump. Because of below normal density and vaded topography, it is not feasible for Maplewood to extend sanitary sewer to much of the area south of Carver Avenue (especially west of Steding Street). Homes in this part of Maplewood will use individual sewage treatment systems (ISTS) for sewage disposal. In addition, there is no need for Maplewood or Woodbury to provide additional sanitary sewer service for the southeast part of Maplewood if Bailey Nursery is not going to develop their property. Rural Residential Zoning District The adopted sanitary sewer study recommended that the city prepare a rural residential zoning distdct to add to the city code with minimum lot size, a minimum lot area, and the permitted and conditional uses. Such a district is for non-sewered single dwelling development. In December 1997, city staff surveyed 32 property owners in south Maplewood to help us in preparing the new rural zoning district. In this survey, we asked the owners for information about their property and for their ideas about creating a rural residential zoning district. The existing lots south and east of 1- 494 range in size from 0.6 acres to 39 acres. Many of the residential lots are less than 3 acres in size. Because of topography and existing house locations, these lots are probably not large enough for the owners to subdivide them into additional building locations. Only three of those responding to our survey said that they might want to further subdivide their property. These owners' properties were at least 7.5 acres in size. In addition, 17 respondents said they support the idea of the city creating a new rural zoning district. Many of these wanted this zoning district to have a three or five-acre minimum lot size. 3 I have prepared a new rural residential zoning ordinance starting on page 10. This ordinance has a 2-acre minimum lot size and a minimum lot width of 120 feet. I intended this zoning district for areas of Maplewood without sewer and water and with a semi-rural, very Iow-density residential life style. RECOMMENDATION Adopt the zoning code amendment starting on page 10. This code amendment adds a rural residential (R-I(R)) zoning distdct (with a two-acre minimum lot size) to the city code. REFERENCE 2003 South Maplewood Sewer Study Study Assumptions Staff made several assumptions when preparing the South Maplewood Sewer Study. The following is a summary of some of these key assumptions: If municipal sanitary sewer is extended to serve the area, land uses at full development will correspond to the city's current Land Use Map. The projected sanitary sewer flows staff listed in the report are based on full development and on the Land Use Map. · Future densities of R1 land use will be 2.9 persons/unit and 2.8 units/acre. Because of topography and existing pipe size, future sanitary sewer flows from the Bailey property in Woodbury and Newport will need to be conveyed through Maplewood to the Carver Lake interceptor. · Future sanitary sewer flows from the Bailey property in Woodbury and Newport will be similar to those generated by typical single-family residential uses. It is important to note that the South Maplewood Sewer Study is only a planning document. In addition, the land use assumptions made above do not bind the city to any of these possible changes. Staff made the land use and sewer assumptions on a conservative basis to identify the maximum sanitary sewer flows that the land uses could possibly generate in each of the sewer districts. 2003 South Maplewood Sewer Study Conclusions Soils within the study area range from a sandy soil in the south to a sandy loam with some clay loam and silty clay in the north. The sandy soils are good for installation of individual sewage treatment systems (ISTS) whereas the clay loam and silty clay pockets may require the use of non-conventional systems. If propedy maintained, evidence indicates that the life expectancy of an ISTS site is at least 25 to 30 years. Septic systems (ISTS) are a safe and effective soil-based method to treat household wastewater, provided there is enough soil area and the soil conditions are conducive to treatment. Septic systems treat sewage equal to or better than municipal treatment facilities when they are properly designed, installed, and maintained. Cities or areas with marginal soils, steep slopes, and wetlands will require a larger minimum lot size for lots with ISTS sites than those with good soils, few slopes and few wetlands. Minimum lot sizes for lots with ISTS sites typically range from I acre to 5 acres in size. Many communities use a minimum lot size in the range of 2.0 to 3.0 acres. 5 Gravity sanitary sewer can serve infill development in Districts 50, 51, 53, 54, 55, 56, 58, and 66. A gravity sanitary sewer can serve District 70 and the sanitary sewer flows from the 240- acre Bailey's Nursery parcel in Woodbury and Newport. When the city or a developer extends municipal sanitary sewer to serve Distdct 70, the new pipe must be sized large enough to serve the 240-acre Bailey Nursery parcel. The capacity of the Carver Lake interceptor is large enough to accommodate flows from all of the study area, as well as the 240-acre parcel in Woodbury and Newport owned by Bailey's Nursery. Connections to the Carver Lake interceptor will be allowed by permit from the MCES. The interceptor would be metered at the points where it enters and exits Maplewood. Any flow that enters the interceptor between these two locations will be billed to Maplewood based on the difference between the two meter readings. 10. In Districts 10 and 57, the existing terrain varies drastically and there are significant elevation changes. As such, the use of lift stations will be necessary to convey sanitary sewer flows from lower areas to higher areas. 11. Districts 10 and 57 have a relatively high cost-to-benefit ratio associated with the extension of municipal sanitary sewer to serve the districts. As a result, no near term municipal sanitary sewer improvements are anticipated in these districts. 12. With the exception of Districts 10 and 57, it is anticipated that the rest of the study area could have sanitary sewer service within the next 20 years. However, before the city agrees to construct any municipal sanitary sewer extension, the city should prepare a feasibility study to identify pipe sizes, pipe alignments, construction costs, and other important project details. 2003 South Maplewood Sewer Study Recommendations Adopt the South Maplewood Sewer Study, Project 03-03, as part of the 2003 Comprehensive Sanitary Sewer Plan Amendment. (The city council did this on May 27, 2003.) The city should establish a minimum lot size requirement of 2.0 acres for non-sewered residential areas in the city (subject to performance standards), including the study area. This would be primarily in areas with steep slopes and with pockets of marginal soils. The performance standards would be to ensure that the soils and conditions on any future lots would be such that the proposed lot could accommodate a house, driveway, a well and at least two drain fields. 3. The city should change (if necessary) the future land use plan and zoning designations of properties to reflect the minimum lot size requirement (if changed) for non-sewered areas. 4. The city should first consider those districts with a lower cost-to-benefit ratio for municipal sanitary sewer service before the districts that have a higher cost-to-benefit ratio. p:sec 24-28/morator3 2003.doc Attachments: 1. Location Map 2. Sewer Distdct Map 3. Proposed Zoning Code Amendment 7 Attachment 1 LOCATION MAP SOUTH MAPLEWOOD STUDY AREA Attachment 2 · ' ' CARVER AVENUE NEWPORT XX: SEWER DISTRICT NUMBER SOUTH MAPLEWOOD SEWER DISTRICTS Attachment 3 ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE CREATING THE R-1R (RURAL SINGLE-DWELLING RESIDENCE) ZONING DISTRICT THE MAPLEWOOD CITY COUNCIL approves the following changes to the Maplewood Code of Ordinances: (Deletions are crossed out and additions are underlined.) Section 1. This section changes Section 44-9 as follows: Section 44-9. Zoning districts. The city is hereby divided into the following zoning districts: F, Farm Residence District. R-l, Residence District (Single Dwelling). R-1R, Rural Single-Dwelling District. R-1S, Small-Lot Single-Dwelling District. R-2, Residence District (Double Dwelling). R-3, Residence District (Multiple Dwelling). R-E, Residence Estate District. NC, Neighborhood Commercial District. CO, Commercial Office District. BC, Business and Commercial District. LBC, Limited Business Commercial District. BC(M) Business Commercial Modified District. SC, Shopping Center District. M-l, Light Manufacturing District. M-2, Heavy Manufacturing District. Section 2. This section adds new Sections 44-117 through Section 44-150 as follows: DIVISION 3.5 R-I(R) RURAL SINGLE-DWELLING DISTRICT Sec. 44-117. Intent. Maplewood intends to protect and enhance the character of areas of the city that, because of topography or other factors, do not have, nor does the city expect to have, municipal sanitary sewer or water service. To allow for and to protect a very Iow density, semi-rural, residential life style, the city creates the R-1 R zoning district. This zoning distdct is for the areas of Maplewood that are not suitable for suburban or tract development because of topo.qraph¥, vegetation or other factors that make the installation of municipal sanitary sewer unlikely. The city finds the most suitable use of these areas is sinqle dwellings on large lots. Such Iow-density residential development will lessen grading and soil erosion and will help protect ground water, vegetation and wooded areas. The lots and parcels in the R-1R zoninq distdct are generally much larqer than those in the R-1 (single dwelling) district and those with municipal sanitary sewer and water. 10 Sec. 44-118. Uses. The City shall only allow the following uses: (a) Permitted uses: (1) Any permitted use in the R-1 District, subiect to its regulations. (13) Conditional uses. The City may permit the following by conditional use permit: Any use allowed by conditional use permit in the R-1 (single dwelling) District. (2) Commercial farming or gardening, including the use or storage of associated equipment, when on a property with a single dwelling. (3) Stands for the sale of agricultural products grown or produced on the property. (4) Metal storage buildings, commonly known as pole barns or a.qd-buildin,qs, subiect to the applicable size and heiqht requirements. (c) Prohibited uses. The city prohibits the following uses in the R-I(R) zoning district: (1) Accessory buildings without an associated single dwelling on the same property. (2) Reserved. Sec. 44-119. HeiQht of buildinQs. The maximum height of a single-family dwelling shall be thirty-five (35) feet. Sec. 44-120. Lot dimensions, lot area and width requirements. No person shall build a single dwelling on a site less than eighty seven thousand (87,120) square feet (2 acres) in area; and (b) Each lot or parcel shall have enough area or usable space for a house, driveway, well and an individual sewage treatment system (ISTS), including two drainfields. (c) No person shall build a single dwelling on a lot with less than one hundred twenty (120) feet of width at the front building setback line. (d) Each lot or parcel shall have at least sixty (60) feet of frontage on an improved public street. Sec. 44-121. Front yards. (a) Each dwelling and any accessory structure(s) shall have a front yard setback of at least fifty (50) feet. Except that: (1) If each of the lots next to an intedor lot has a dwellinq, the minimum setback shall be the setback of the adjacent dwellinq closest to the street. The maximum setback shall be the setback of the adjacent dwellinq farthest from the street. 11 If subsection (a)(1) above does not apply and there is a predominant setback, a dwelling shall be no further forward and no more than five feet to the rear of the predominant setback. (3} Regardless of the above, if the city council has approved special setbacks for a development, those setbacks shall apply. City approval of a preliminary plat with building pads does not constitute approval of special setbacks. ~ Regardless of the above, homeowners may add on to their homes usinq the existinq setback. ~ The director of community development may allow a different front yard setback if the proposed setback would not adversely affect the drainage of surrounding properties and if any of the following conditions apply: The proposed setback would not affect the pdvacy of adjacent homes. 2~. The proposed setback would save significant natural features, as defined in section 9-188. ('3) The proposed setback is necessary to meet city, state or federal regulations, such as pipeline setback or noise regulations. (4) The proposed setback is necessary for enerqy saving, health or safety reasons. Sec. 44-123. Side yards. Each dwellin.q and any accessory structure(s) shall have side yard setbacks of at least ten (10) feet from a side property line. The followinq exceptions to this standard shall apply: The side yard on the street side of a comer lot shall have a width of at least fifty (50) feet. (2) When a property owner uses two (2) or more adjoining lots as a single-buildin.q site, the side yard requirements shall apply only to the outside lot lines. (3) Regardless of the above, homeowners may add on to their homes usinq the existing setback. Sec. 44-124. Rear yards. (a) Single dwellings shall have a rear yard setback of at least twenty (20) percent of the lot depth or a minimum rear setback of fifty (50) feet, whichever is larger. (b) Accessory buildinqs shall have a rear yard setback of at least ten (10) feet. Sec. 44-125. Tower, antenna and flagpole setbacks. Towers, antennas and flagpoles for residential use in the R-1 (R) zoning district shall meet the same setbacks as accessory buildings in the R-1R district. 12 Sec. 44-126. Minimum foundation areas; room requirements. (a) The minimum foundation area shall be at least: 1.(11 A one-story dwelling, nine hundred fifty (950) square feet. (2) A one and one-half story dwelling, seven hundred twenty (720) square feet. (3) A bi-level dwelling, eight hundred sixteen (816) square feet. ~ A td-level dwelling, seven hundred sixty-five (765) square feet. (5) A two-story dwelling, five hundred twenty-eight (528) square feet. (b) Room size and number shall be consistent with the standards of the International Residential Code. Sec. 44-127. Building-width requirements. The minimum building width on any side shall be at least twenty-one (21) feet. The buildinq width shall not include entryways or other appurtenances that do not run the full depth of the building. Sec. 44-128. Accessory buildings. (a) Section 44-114 (Accessory buildings) in the R-1 Distdct shall apply to the use and heiqht of accessory buildinqs and garages in the R-1R zoninq district. (b) For lots of at least 2 acres in size in the R-1R zoning district, the following size standards shall apply to accessory buildings and garages: Detached Buildings (maximum area) (square feet) Attached Garages (maximum area) (square feet) Combination of detached buildings and attached garages (maximum area) 1,400 (garages) 1,100 (other buildings) 1,400 2,800 Section 3. Section 44-129 - 44-150. Reserved. Section 4. This ordinance shall take effect upon its passage and publication. The Maplewood City Council approved this ordinance on ,2003. ATTEST: Mayor City Clerk 13