Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01/22/2003BOOK 1, Call to Order MAPLEWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION Wednesday, January 22, 2003, 7:00 PM City Hall Council Chambers 1830 County Road B East 2. Roll Call 3. Approval of Agenda 4. Approval of Minutes a. January 6, 2003 5. Public Hearing a. Highwood Farm (Town houses) - Highwood Avenue Land Use Plan Change (R-1 to R-3(M)) Conditional Use Permit (CUP) for a Planned Unit Development (PUD) Preliminary Plat 6. New Business None 7. Unfinished Business None 8. Visitor Presentations 9. Commission Presentations a. January 13 Council Meeting: Ms. Dierich b. January 27 Council Meeting: Mr. Rossbach c. February 10 Council Meeting: Ms. Fischer 10. Staff Presentations 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. o 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, JANUARY 6, 2003 I. CALL TO ORDER Chairperson Fischer called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. II. ROLL CALL Commissioner Commissioner Commissioner Commissioner Commissioner Commissioner Commissioner Commissioner Commissioner Tushar Desai Mary Dierich Lorraine Fischer Matt Ledvina Jackie Monahan-Junek Paul Mueller Gary Pearson William Rossbach Dale Trippler Present Present Present Present Present Present Present Present Present Staff Present: Ken Roberts, Associate Planner Lisa Kroll, Recording Secretary III. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Mr. Roberts added item X. b. Planning Commission reappointments under Staff Presentations. Commissioner Pearson moved to approve the agenda as amended. Commissioner Trippler seconded. The motion passed. Ayes- Desai, Dierich, Fischer, Ledvina, Monahan-Junek, Mueller, Pearson, Rossbach, Trippler IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Approval of the planning commission minutes for December 3, 2002. Commissioner Dierich had a correction on page 4 in the second and third paragraphs changing the words _effect and effected to affect and affected. Commissioner Trippler had a correction on page 5 in the second paragraph on the seventh line. Change the words doesn't do anythin,q to take no action. Another correction is on page 7 number 6. at the bottom of the page should read is a peat bog a wetland in place of or a wetland. Commissioner Rossbach moved to approve the planning commission minutes for December 3, 2002, with the proposed changes. Planning Commission Minutes of 01-06-03 -2- Commissioner Mueller seconded. Ayes- Desai, Fischer, Ledvina, Mueller, Rossbach, Trippler Nays- Dierich, Monahan-Junek, Pearson V. PUBLIC HEARING None. VI. NEW BUSINESS a., Conditional Use Permit (Over-sized Accessory Building) - 2776 Keller Parkway Mr. Roberts said Mr. IRon BroWn is requesting that the city council approve a conditional use permit(CUP) to have an accessory structure that exceeds the size limits set by the city code. On a lot the size of Mr. Brown's property, the code allows a maximum of 2,250 square feet for the combined area of the accessory, structures and no accessory structure may exceed 1,250 square feet. The garage and carport exceed the maximum size limit by 266 square feet in area. Mr. Roberts said the code allows the city council to approve a CUP to increase the area or height of an accessory building. Mr. Roberts said Mr. Brown built the carport on the garage without receiving a permit from the city. It was after the City received a complaint and Mr. Brown applied for a building permit that staff discovered that the garage and carport exceeded the city code size standards for an accessory structure. Mr. Roberts said Mr. Brown has applied to the city for all necessary zoning and building permits. Mr. Roberts said the garage and carport are complete. If the city council approves the CUP, city staff may issue Mr. Brown his building permit for these structures. Mr. Roberts said if the city council denies the CUP request, then Mr. Brown must remove the carport to make the accessory structure meet the city size requirements. Mr. IRoberts said staff recommends approval of the CUP for 2776 Keller Parkway for Mr. Ron Brown with the conditions on page 2 of the staff report. Commissioner Rossbach asked staff if there were recent alterations that were made to increase the size of the garage? Mr. Roberts said a neighbor claimed that there were alterations made but staff had not'verified that. The building inspection department did not have any record of any permits pulled to have alterations made to increase the size of the garage. The applicant, Mr. Ron Brown at 2776 Keller Parkway, addressed the planning commission. Commissioner Rossbach asked Mr. Brown if he had recently increased the size of his garage. Mr. Brown said he had increased the size of the garage about ten years ago. He said actUally he enlarged the garage twice without a permit. He said he increased the size of the garage to the maximum size allowed. Commissioner Rossbach asked Mr. Brown if he knew he had increased the size of the garage to the maximum size allowed? Planning Commission Minutes of 01-06-03 -3- Mr. Brown said yes, he did know that, he did not want to go over the maximum size because then someone might make him tear it down. Mr. Brown said the carport he built is basically a tin roof with a dirt floor with three open sides. He said he did not think he needed a permit to build it, in his opinion it is just a canopy. Mr. Roberts said he believes Mr. Brown did not think a carport would include the total garage area of 1250 square feet. Mr. Roberts said Mr. Brown was measuring the "enclosed" area not the "covered" area. Commissioner Trippler asked if.the roof was not attached to the garage and there was a six-inch space between the two buildings, would it be a different structure then? Commissioner Rossbach said he called the building inspection department and asked what the city's definition of a shed or accessory building is because Mr. Brown has a lean-to-roof with no walls. He said the building inspection department said you could build accessory building up-to- 120 square feet without a permit. It is the roof coverage of 120 square feet not necessarily the "walls" of the area. Mr. Rossbach said the building inspectors don't enforce that, they have always measured the walls. If the roof had an overhang they would include that as being more than the 120 square feet. Because the enclosure that Mr. Brown built has a lean-to roof it is covered under the carport section of the accessory building ordinance. He said it is a cumulative total of the square footage of all the accessory buildings on the property. Commissioner Dierich asked staff if the carport has been inspected yet? Mr. Roberts said the city can't do an inspection until a building permit is.issued and a building permit cannot be issued until the zoning issues are resolved. Commissioner Pearson asked staff if the materials that Mr. Brown used to build this carport would be up to code today or not? Mr. Roberts said the biggest concern is the snow Icad but that would be a question the building inspectors would have to answer. Commissioner Ledvina mOved to approve the resolution on pages 10 and 11 of the staff report. This resolution approves a conditional use permit for an accessory structure (garage and carport) that is 1,515 square feet in area for the property at 2776 Keller Parkway. The city is approving this permit based on the findings listed in the resolutions, this approval is based on the unique situation and the existinq structures for this particular site and it shall be subject to the following conditions: (changes or additions are in bold and underlined) 1. All construction shall follow the site plan approved by the city. The director of community development may approve minor changes. 2. The applicant shall obtain 'all necessary building permits from the city. 3. The owner shall not use the garage and carport for commercial or business activities, unless the city council approves such a request. 4. The conditional use permit shall be reviewed by the city council in one year. Planning Commission Minutes of 01-06-03 -4- Commissioner Trippler seconded. The motion passed. Ayes- Desai, Dierich, Fischer, Ledvina, Monahan-Junek, Mueller, Pearson, Rossbach, Trippler This item goes to the city council on Monday, January 27, 2003. b. 2002 Planning Commission Annual Report Mr. Roberts reviewed the 2002 Planning Commission Annual Report with the planning commission. Commissioner Dierich would like the commission to have an in-service on septic systems and wells. Commissioner Pearson would like information on current drainfields in the south of Maplewood, what is their average life, if there are failed systems are they using septic tanks as a holding tank and what is the proper size for a tank based on the square footage of a home? He also would like to know if there is much of a variation in the perk tests from one area to the other in south Maplewood. Commissioner Trippler said he wanted to see the votes under the pc action and council action to see a comparison. He said that request was made last year and it still wasn't in the report this year. Commissioner Pearson asked staff if there had been any feedback recent from the meeting with Barb Strandel? Mr. Roberts said he has not heard any recent feedback but he believes commission members are now working well together. Mr. Roberts said he would make the changes that were discussed for the 2002 Planning Commission Annual Report and it will be sent to the city council for the Monday, January 27, 2003, meeting. Commissioner Ledvina moved to approve the 2002 Planning Commission Annual Report with the proposed changes. Commissioner Pearson seconded. Ayes- Desai, Dierich, Fischer, Ledvina, Monahan-Junek, Mueller, Pearson, Rossbach, Trippler Commissioner Mueller made a motion to reopen discussion for the 2002 Planning Commission Annual Report. Planning Commission Minutes of 01-06-03 -5- Commissioner Monahan-Junek suggested a friendly amendment to add the Manufactured Home Park Closing Ordinance as a review item to the 2002 Annual Report as a small paragraph under the list of activities. Mr. Roberts said he would insert a small paragraph as requested by Commissioner Monahan- Junek. Commissioner Monahan-Junek The motion passed. Ayes- Desai, Dierich, Fischer, Ledvina, Monahan-Junek, Mueller, Pearson, Rossbach, Trippler This item goes to the city council on Monday, January 27, 2003. VII. UNFINISHED BUSINESS None. VIII. VISITOR PRESENTATIONS None. IX. COMMISSION PRESENTATIONS a. Mr. Mueller was the planning commission representative at the December 9, 2002, city council meeting. Mr. Mueller said the city council approved on a 3-2 vote spending $80,000 to do a detailed alignment study of the County Road D Extension for the alternate plan. The one-year building moratorium in south Maplewood for properties lai'ger than one acre also was approved by the city council. Mr. Ledvina was scheduled to be the planning commission representative at the December 23, 2002, city council meeting, however, there were no planning commission items to be discussed. Ms. Dierich was scheduled to be the planning commission· representative at the January 13, 2003, city council meeting, however, there will be no planning commission items to be discussed. d. Mr. Rossbach will be the planning commission representative at the January 27, 2003, city council meeting. Items to be discussed will be the CUP for Mr. Ron Brown at 2776 Keller Parkway and the 2002 Planning Commission Annual Report. Planning Commission Minutes of 01-06-03 -6- (Commission Presentations Cont.) Commissioner Pearson said since there was discussion to add a small paragraph for the Manufactured Home Park Closing Ordinance in the 2002 Planning Commission Annual Report, he wanted to give an update regarding APAC. Mr. Pearson stated that APAC is claiming that they did not receive a fair hearing and were not given an opportunity to voice their concerns. Mr. Pearson also said one of the couples from Beaver Lake Estates put their manufactured home on the market and sold their home for a profit of $10,000 more than they would have received if the city would have adopted a manufactured home park closing ordinance. Mr. Roberts asked how would one know there was a $10,000 difference? Commissioner Pearson said he knows this because the price that the manufactured home sold for and the manufactured home park closing ordinance, when a manufactured home is not being moved, the measure used in most cases is the "tax assessed value". X. STAFF PRESENTATIONS a. Rescheduling the January 20, 2003, planning commission meeting (due to Martin Luther King Day) to either Wednesday, January 22 or Thursday, January 23, 2003. Chairperson Fischer conducted a vote and the planning commission decided to have the next planning commission meeting on Wednesday, January 22, 2003. b. Planning Commission Member reappointments Mr. Roberts said Planning Commissioner members Jackie Monahan-Junek, Gary Pearson and Will Rossbach's terms as planning commission members have expired. If they are interested in being reappointed, Mr, Roberts said they should let him know. Xl. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 8:28 p.m. MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: SUBJECT: LOCATION: DATE: City Manager Ken Roberts, Associate Planner Highwood Farm (Town houses) Highwood Avenue, east of Dennis Street January 14, 2003 INTRODUCTION Project Description Mr. charles Cox is proposing to build 18 town houses (in three six-unit buildings) in a development called Highwood Farm. It would be on a 3.71-acre site on the south side of Highwood Avenue, east of Dennis Street. Refer to the maps on pages 19-26. A homeowners association would own and maintain the common areas. Requests To build this project, Mr. Cox is requesting that the city approve: A change to the comprehensive plan. This would be from R-1 (single dwellings) to R-3(M) (medium density residential) for the site. (See the existing and proposed land use maps on pages 21 and 22.) 2. A conditional use permit (CUP) for a planned unit development (PUD). This PUD will give the city and developer a chance to be more flexible with site design and development details (such as setbacks and street right-of-way and pavement widths) than the standard city requirements would normally allow. Specifically, this PUD will allow the town houses and a ddveway to have a smaller setback to the side property lines than code usually allows and to have the town houses on a pdvate driveway. 3. A preliminary plat to create the 19 lots in the development (18 lots for the town houses and one lot for the common area). (See the map on page 23.) I also should note that the applicant has not yet applied for design approval for this project. If the city approves the above-listed requests, then the applicant will apply to the city for final plat approval and design approval (including architectural and landscape plans). Please also refer to the developer's project plans for more information about these proposals. BACKGROUND On September 23, 2002, the city council held a public hearing about the proposed 10-lot subdivision for this site. (See the proposed plat on page 23.) After taking public testimony about the proposal, the applicant agreed to a time extension for council action on the proposal. This time extension was to allow him time to study other options for the property, including the idea of putting town houses near Highwood Avenue and leaving the southern end of the property untouched. On October 28, 2002, the city council again considered development options for this site. These included the proposed 10-lot single-family subdivision and a concept plan that showed 16 to 22 i i · ...... T ................ town houses on the site. The applicants agreed to another time extension for council action until November 25, 2002, to allow them time to further develop the plans for town houses on the property. On November 25, 2002, the council again tabled action on the developer's original request for a single-family subdivision for the property while the applicant continued to work on alternative plans for the site. DISCUSSION Land Use Plan Change To build the proposed town houses, Mr. Cox wants the city to change the land use plan for the site. This change would be from R-1 (single dwellings) to R-3(M) (medium density residential). (See the existing land use plan map on page 21 and the proposed land use plan map on page 22.) The city intends R-3(M) areas for a. vadety of housing styles of up to six units per gross acre. For R-1 areas, the city plans for single dwellings of up to 4.1 units per gross acre. Land use plan changes do not require specific findings for approval. Any change, however, should be consistent with the city's land use goals and policies. There are several goals and general development policies in the Comprehensive Plan that apply to this request. They include: Provide for orderly development. Minimize conflicts between land uses. Provide a wide variety of housing types. Whenever possible, changes in types of land use should occur so that similar uses front on the same street or at borders of areas separated by major man-made or natural barriers. Grading and site plans should preserve as many significant natural featureS as practical. Include a vadety of housing for all residents.., including apartments, townhouses, manufactured homes, single-family housing, public-assisted housing, iow and moderate-income housing, and rental and owner-occupied housing. Support the use of planned units developments for sites with development challenges to allow for creative design solutions. Transitions between distinctly differing types of land uses should not create a negative economic, social or physical impact on adjoining developments. Protect neighborhoods from encroachment or intrusion of incompatible land uses by adequate buffedng and separation. The residential land use part of the Comprehensive Plan (on pages 30-31 of the plan) provides information about the various land use classifications in Maplewood. in the discussion about Iow- density areas, the plan states "the city also may allow multiple dwellings in Iow-density areas with a planned unit development if: 2 1. Clustering buildings would preserve significant natural features, such as woods, wetlands or steep slopes. 2. The buildings are of a scale, design and location that are compatible with adjacent development." The plan goes on to say "medium-density areas are for small-lot single dwellings, manufactured home parks and multiple dwellings. These areas usually abut single dwellings or are in neighborhoods where higher density would cause traffic or other problems for surrounding development of City facilities." An advantage of this proposal is that the proposed town house plan would only require grading on about the north one-half of the site. The proposed grading plan for the town houses shows that about 46 percent of the site would be undisturbed by the proposed project. Previous plans from the developer for single dwellings showed grading on virtually all of the property. These plans would have caused the loss of most of the trees on the property. This reduced amount of site disturbance would be beneficial to many of the existing property owners on Dennis Street, as they would not have any development or construction behind their homes. In addition, the proposed plan also has the ddveway for the town houses on the east side of the site so it would not be directly behind the homes on Dennis Street. Compatibility Staff does not find a problem with this proposal in terms of compatibility and land use. The proposed town houses would be near Highwood Avenue, next to four single dwellings and a wireless communications facility. In addition, developers will often build townhomes next to single dwellings. A recent example is with the New Century Addition across Highwood Avenue. The develoPer, Robert Engstrom, is presently developing this neighborhood with a mix of single dwellings and townhomes. There are many other examples in Maplewood, such as Alton Ridge, Southwinds, Bennington Woods and the Carriage Homes of Maple Hills where this is the case. Property Values The Ramsey County Assessor's Office has told us in the past that multiple dwellings adjacent to single dwellings are not a cause for a negative effect on property values. If properly maintained and kept up, this development should not be detrimental to the neighborhood. The required annual review of the conditional use permit is a built-in safeguard to ensure that the city council will regularly review this development. Traffic Considerations Data from the Institute of Traffic Engineers (ITE) says that, on average, a town house will generate about seven vehicle trips per day and that a single dwelling will generate about ten vehicle trips per day. As such, 18 town houses would create about 126 vehicle tdps from the site while 10 single dwellings would create about 100 vehicle trips from the site. In 2001, Highwood Avenue near the site averaged about 2,450 vehicles a day and Century Avenue near Highwood Avenue had 2,600 vehicles per day. The additional vehicles generated from this site, whether from single dwellings or from town houses, will not exceed the capacity of Highwood or Century Avenues. 3 Zoning, Land Use and Comprehensive Plan The 18 units on the 3.71-acre site means there would be 4.86 units per gross acre which is consistent with the density standards set in the Maplewood Comprehensive Plan for medium- density residential development (of up to six units per gross acre). In addition, the proposed development density would be consistent with the density standards recommended by the Metropolitan Council for housing in first-ring suburbs. For a comparison, the comprehensive plan allows developments with single dwellings to have up to 4.1 units per gross acre. As such, on a 3.71-acre site, there could be up to 15 single-family homes. This is a good site for town houses as it is on a collector street (Highwood Avenue), is near an artedal street (Century Avenue) and is across the street from a developing town house site. With a proposal such as this, the city must balance the interests and fights of the property owner to develop his property with the city's ordinances, development standards and Maplewood's Comprehensive Plan. The proposed plan (dated December 26, 2002) balances the land owner's dghts to use and develop the property versus the city's interest in preserving much of existing topography and trees on the site. In summary, this proposal meets many of the goals in the comprehensive plan. These include having similar uses fronting on the same street, having a grading plan that preserves many significant natural features and proposes to use a planned unit development to allow for creative design solutions. PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD) Conditional Use Permit Section 36-438(b) of the city code says that it is the intent of the PUD code "to provide a means to allow flexibility by substantial deviations from the provisions of this chapter, including uses, setbacks, height and other regulations. Deviations may be granted for planned unit developments provided that: Certain regulations contained in this chapter should not apply to the proposed development because of its unique nature. 2. The PUD would be consistent with the purposes of this chapter. The planned unit development would produce a development of equal or superior quality to that which would result from strict adherence to the provisions of this chapter. The deviations would not constitute a significant threat to the property values, safety, health or general welfare of the owners or occupants of nearby land. o The deviations are required for reasonable and practicable physical development and are not required solely for financial reasons ." The applicant has applied for a conditional use permit (CUP) for a planned unit development (PUD) for the 18-unit housing development. In addition, having a PUD gives the city and developer a chance to be more flexible with site design and development details than the standard city requirements would normally allow. In this case, the developer is requesting the CUP for the PUD because the proposed side yard setbacks for the buildings and for the driveway do not meet the usual city setback standards. Specifically, the ddveway on the east side of the site would be 12 feet from the side property line (instead of the usual 20 feet) and the town houses would be 47 feet from the west property line (instead of the usual 50 feet). (See the plans on pages 23 - 26.) The benefit of this plan is that the developer would not be disturbing almost one-half (46 percent) of the site - the area south of the proposed town houses. This plan keeps the new residences near Highwood Avenue and away from Interstate 494. In fact, the town house nearest to the freeway is 430 feet from the freeway right-of-way. Because of this large distance, the developer has told staff that the noise from the freeway will not be a factor with the proposed plan. The city should have the developer vedfy that the proposed plan will meet the state's noise standards with a study, testing or documentation. If the noise is a factor, then the contractor would have to build the town houses so they can meet the noise standards. This may be done with thicker walls, heavier windows, requiring air conditioning or other sound-deadening construction methods. The proposed setback deviations would not constitute a threat to the property values, safety, health or general welfare of the owners or occupants of nearby land and are required for reasonable and practicable physical development and are not required solely for financial reasons. However, in consideration for the PUD, the city should require the developer to record a conservation easement over the undisturbed area and to construct the development with a high level of architectural design and landscaping elements, including the size and quantities of materials. Off-Street Parking Standards The city code requires the developer to provide at least 36 off-street parking spaces (two for each unit) in this development. The developer's project plans show driveways providing access to underground parking that would be under each town house building. City staff, however, has not yet seen floor plans or building elevations for the town houses. The developer told me that they would be providing at least two underground parking spaces for each town house unit. This meets the minimum city code requirements. He also told me that access to the town houses would be from the garages and with a door on the outside of each unit. In addition, the proposed plans show extra or guest parking spaces between the buildings and at the south end of the driveway. The spaces between the buildings, however, would be very close to the comers of the buildings. The developer should revise the plans to reduce the number of spaces between the buildings from three to two to allow more space between 'the parking area and the edge of the building. Finally, the parking spaces and the turn-around area at the south end of the site should be revised to maximize the number of trees that can be saved and to maximize the number of spaces while minimizing the amount of surface area and impact on the undisturbed area of the site. The total number of proposed spaces should be enough parking for the residents and their guests. Preliminary Plat Density and Lot Size As proposed, the 18 units on the 3.71-acre site means there would be 4.86 units per acre (an average of 8,978 square feet per unit). This is consistent with the density standards in the comprehensive plan for medium density residential development and is well below the six units per acre density standard set by the city for medium-density residential development. Mr. Cox has designed this development as a common interest community (cie) with three proposed buildings platted as one lot each. The buildings will then be divided into separate units, with the prospective buyers owning from wall to wall, as opposed to owning the land that a town house sits on and a small portion of the land surrounding it. If approved, the developer will be forming a homeowners association with documents (declarations) specifying the legal responsibility of the association and homeowners for maintenance of the units and common grounds. 5 The main difference in platting a town house development as a CIC as opposed to platting each town house unit with its own lot is that there is only one sewer and water hookup to each building rather than one per unit. City code allows this type of utility connection as long as the declarations specify the responsible parties for maintenance. In this case, the homeowners association will be responsible for the on-site sewer and water systems, rather than one property owner. City Engineering Department Comments The city engineering department has been working with the applicant's engineering consultant in reviewing this proposal and plans. Chds Cavett's comments are in the attachment starting on page 27. Public Utilities There are sanitary sewer and water near the site to serve the proposed development. Specifically, water is to the west of the site at the intersection of Highwood Avenue and New Century Boulevard. The developer will extend the water main down Highwood Avenue to and through the site. The Saint Paul Water Utility will need to approve the plan for the water main. Sanitary sewer is east of the site at the intersection of Highwood Avenue and Century Avenue. The developer is proposing to extend the sewer up Highwood Avenue from Century Avenue to serve the development. The city engineer must approve the final engineering plans before the applicant or contractor may start construction. Drainage Most of the site drains to the north and east. The development would not increase storm water runoff onto adjacent properties. That is, the runoff leaving the site and flowing onto adjacent properties will be at or below current levels. Mr. Cavett noted this requirement, along with several others, in his comments. (See the information starting on page 27.) It also is important to remember that Mr. Cox or the contractor must get a permit from the watershed distdct before starting grading or construction. That is, the watershed district will have to be satisfied that the developer's plans will meet all watershed distdct standards before they may start grading or other site construction. Tree Removal/Replacement Maplewood's tree ordinance requires there be at least ten trees per gross acre on the site after grading. For this 3.71-acre site, the ordinance requires that at least 37 large trees remain. As proposed, the applicant's contractor would grade about one-half of the site to create the private driveways and the building pads. This grading would disturb about two acres of the 3.71-acre site while preserving many of the slopes and some of the large trees on the site, especially on the south end of the site. (See the proposed grading plan on page 25.) The plans show the removal of 42 large trees (pine, maple, ash, oak and elm), but the developer would save 37 existing large trees, including pine, maple, elm and oak. Before grading the site, the city should require the developer to submit a detailed tree plan to staff for approval. The developer has not yet submitted a landscape plan for the site. The developer should provide this plan, along with the proposed landscape plan, to the city for approval by the Community Design Review Board. 6 Design Issues The applicant has not yet submitted elevations or floor plans for the proposed buildings. The city will want to ensure that buildings will be attractive and that they fit in with the design (materials and colors) of the existing homes and town houses in the area. As with the building design, the applicant has not yet submitted a landscape plan for the site. This plan must be consistent with Maplewood ordinance standards. This includes having the new deciduous trees shown at least 2 % inches in caliper, balled and burlapped, showing all disturbed turf areas being sodded, having an underground irrigation system for all landscape areas and having mulched and edged planting beds. Other Comments Police Department Lieutenant Banick of the Maplewood Police Department provided me with comments about this proposal and the first proposal that had 10 hots for the site. The main concern expressed by Lt. Banick with the development of this site is the increase in calls for service in the south end of the city. As south Maplewood has grown and developed, there has been an increase in the calls to the police department from that part of the city. He also noted "every development throughout the city has a tendency to increase police calls for service.~ Lt. Banick also stated that last summer the police department received several traffic and speeding complaints from residents on Highwood Avenue. As such, he asks, "VVhat impact will the increase in traffic have on current residents?" Because of all these concerns, he recommends that the city limit the growth in this area by restricting this development to ten residential Units. Fire Department Review Fire Marshal Butch Gervais, the Maplewood Fire Marshal, wants the city to make sure the end of the ddveway is back far enough for proper snow removal and to have enough room for emergency vehicles to turn around. On-Street Parking Standards The applicant is proposing private driveways within the PUD with widths from 20 feet to 28 feet in the development. I had the Fire Chief and Fire Marshal review the proposed driveways and their widths. According to Article 9, Section 902 of the Uniform Fire Code, all fire access roads shall have an unobstructed width of not less than 20 feet. As such, the driveways in this development must be at least 20 feet wide with no parking on either side of the street. If the developer or the city wants to allow parking on one side of the driveways, then they must be at least 28 feet wide. Any driveway that is less than 28 feet wide must be posted for no parking on both sides. 7 CONCLUSION The revised project plans will provide the city with an additional housing style not common in Maplewood. While many of the neighbors would prefer no or little development of the property, the property owner has the dght to develop and use his land. The current proposal preserves many of the natural features on the site while giving the owner the opportunity to develop the site. This balance is something the city should stdve for with every development. RECOMMENDATIONS Approve the resolution on page 30. This resolution changes the land use plan for the Highwood Farm plat on the south side of Highwood Avenue, east of Dennis Street. This change is from R-1 (single dwellings) to R-3(M) (medium-density residential). The city is making this change because: It would be consistent with the goals and objectives of the comprehensive plan. These include having similar uses fronting on the same street, having a grading plan that preserves many significant natural features and uses a planned unit development to allow for creative design solutions. This site is proper for and consistent with the city's policies for medium-density residential use. This includes: a. Creating a transitional land use between the existing Iow-density residential and the existing telecommunications site. b. Being on a collector street and it is near an artedal street. c. Minimizing any adverse effects on surrounding properties because there would be no traffic from this development on existing residential streets. 3. It would be consistent with the proposed planned unit development (PUD) and land uses. Approve the resolution starting on page 31. This resolution approves a conditional use permit for a planned unit development for the Highwood Farm development on the south side of Highwood Avenue, east of Dennis Street. The city bases this approval on the findings required by code. (Refer to the resolution for the specific findings.) Approval is subject to the following conditions: 1. All construction shall follow the plans approved by the city. The city council may approve major.changes to the plans. The Director of Community Development may approve minor changes to the plans. Such changes shall include: a. Revising the grading and site plans to show: (1) The developer minimizing the loss or removal of natural vegetation. (2) All driveways at least 20 feet wide. If the developer wants to have parking on one side of the main ddve (Femdale Street), then it must be at least 28 feet wide. (3) All parking stalls with a width of at least 9.5 feet and a length of at least 18 feet. Revise the plans to reduce the number of spaces between the buildings from three to two to allow more space between the parking area and the edge of the building. Also, revise the parking spaces and the turn-around area at the south end of the site to maximize the number of trees to be saved and to maximize the number of spaces while minimizing the amount of hard surface area. (4) Revised storm water pond locations and designs as suggested or required by the watershed distdct or city engineer. The ponds shall meet the city's design standards. (5) The developer minimizing the loss or removal of natural vegetation including keeping and protecting as many of the large trees in the undisturbed area south of the town houses and parking areas. 2. The proposed construction must be substantially started within one year of council approval or the permit shall end. The council may extend this deadline for one year. Have the city engineer approve final construction and engineering plans. These plans shall meet all the conditions and changes noted in the engineer's memo dated January 14, 2003. These shall include: a. Include grading, utility, drainage, erosion control, streets, trails, tree, ddveway and parking lot plans. Show no grading or ground disturbance in the conservation easement. This land is to be preserved for open space purposes. The developer and contractors shall protect this area, including the large trees that are in and near the south side of the site, from encroachment from equipment, grading or filling. c. Include a storm water management plan for the proposal. 4. The design of all ponds shall meet Maplewood's design standards and shall be subject to the approval of the city engineer. If needed, the developer shall be responsible for getting any off-site pond and drainage easements. 5. The developer or contractor shall: a. Complete all grading for the site drainage and the ponds, complete all public improvements and meet all city requirements. b.* Place temporary orange safety fencing and signs at the grading limits. c. Remove any debris or junk from the site, including the conservation area. Provide the city with verification that the town houses on the proposed site plan will meet the state's noise standards. This shall be with a study, testing or other documentation. If the noise on this site is a factor, then the contractor will have to build the town houses so that they can meet the noise standards. This may be done with thicker walls, heavier windows, requiring air conditioning or other sound- deadening construction methods. 6. The approved setbacks for the principal structures in the Highwood Farm PUD shall be: a. Front-yard setback (from a public street or a pdvate driveway): minimum - 20 feet, maximum - 35 feet 10. 11. b. Rear-yard setback: 30 feet from any adjacent residential property line c. Side-yard setback (town houses): minimum - 20 feet from a property line and 20 feet minimum between buildings. The developer or builder will pay the city Park Access Charges (PAC fees) for each housing unit at the time of the building permit for each housing unit. Submit the homeowner's association documents to city staff for review and approval. The developer shall provide a permanent means to preserve and maintain the common open space. This may be done by conservation easement, deed restrictions, covenants or public dedication. The developer shall record this document with the final plat and before the city issues a permit for grading or utility construction. The city council shall review this permit in one year. This approval does not include the design approval for the townhomes. The project design plans, including architectural, site, lighting, tree and landscaping plans, shall be subject to review and approval of the community design review board (CDRB). The projects shall be subject to the following conditions: a. Meeting all conditions and changes as required by the city council. b. For the driveways: (2) (3) Minimum width - 20 feet. Maximum width - 28 feet. All driveways less than 28 feet in width shall be posted for "No Parking" on both sides. Driveways at least 28 feet wide may have parking on one side and shall be posted for No Parking on one side. c. Showing all changes required by the city as part of the conditional use permit for the planned unit development (PUD). 12. The city shall not issue any building permits for construction on an outlot (per city code requirements). The developer must record a final plat to create buildable lots in the preliminary plat before the city will issue a building permit. Approve the Highwood Farms preliminary plat (received by the city on December 26, 2002). The developer shall complete the following before the city council approves the final plat: 1. Sign an agreement with the city that guarantees that the developer or contractor will: 10 a. Complete all grading for overall site drainage, complete all public improvements and meet all city requirements. b.* Place temporary orange safety fencing and signs at the grading limits. c. Have Xcel Energy install Group V rate street lights in two locations - primarily at the s~reef. ~n{ersect~on and near the ~outh end of the driveway. The exact ~tYle and location shall be subject to the city engineer's approval. d. Pay the city for the cost of traffic-control, street identification and no parking signs. e. Provide all required and necessary easements, including any off-site easements. f. Demolish or remove the existing house and garage from the site, and remove all other buildings, fencing, trailers, scrap metal, debris and junk from the site. g. Cap and seal all wells on site that the owners are not using; remove septic systems or drainfields, subject to Minnesota rules and guidelines. h. Complete all the curb and gutter on Highwood Avenue on the north side of the site. This is to replace the existing driveways on Highwood Avenue and shall include the restoration and sodding of the boulevards. i; Install a sign where the new driveway intersects Highwood Avenue indicating that it is a pdvate driveway. j. Install survey monuments and signs along the edges of the conservation easement area. These signs shall explain that the area beyond the signs is a conservation easement area and that there shall be no building, fences, mowing, cutting, filling, dumping or other ground disturbance in that area. The developer or contractor shall install these signs before the city issues building permits in this plat. 2. Have the city engineer approve final construction and engineering plans. The applicant shall have these plans revised to follow the comments of the city engineer and shall include the grading, utility, drainage, erosion control, tree and street plans. The plans shall meet the following conditions: a. The erosion control plans shall be consistent with the city code. b. The grading plan shall show: (1) (2) (3) The proposed building pad elevation and contour information for each building site. The lot lines on this plan shall follow the approved preliminary plat. Contour information for all the land that the construction will disturb. Building pads that reduce the grading on sites where the developer can save large trees. (4) The proposed street and driveway grades as allowed by the city engineer. 11 (5) All proposed slopes on the construction plans. The city engineer shall approve the plans, specifications and management practices for any slopes steeper than 3:1. On slopes steeper than 3:1, the developer shall prepare and implement a stabilization and planting plan. At a minimum, the slopes shall be protected with wood-fiber blanket, be seeded with a no-maintenance vegetation and be stabilized before the city approves the final plat. (6) All retaining walls on the plans. Any retaining walls taller than four feet require a building permit from the city. The developer shall install a protective reil or fence on top of any retaining wall that is taller than four feet. (7) Sedimentation basins or ponds as required by the watershed board or by the city engineer. (8) No grading beyond the plat boundary without temporary grading easements from the affected property owner(s). (9) As little grading as possible west and south of the town houses. This is to keep as many of the existing trees on the site as is reasonably possible. c. The street, driveway and utility plans shall show: (1) The driveway shall be a nine-ton design with a maximum grade of eight percent and the maximum grade within 75 feet of the intersection at two percent. (2) The street (driveway) with continuous concrete curb and gutter, except where the city engineer determines that curbing is not necessary for drainage purposes. (3) The removal of the unused driveways and the completion of the curb and gutter on the south side of Highwood Avenue and the restoration and sodding of the boulevards. (4) The coordination of the water main alignments and sizing with the standards and requirements of the Saint Paul Regional Water Services (SPRWS). Fire flow requirements and hydrant locations shall be verified with the Maplewood Fire Department. (5) All utility excavations located within the proposed right-of-ways or within easements. The developer shall acquire easements for all utilities that would be outside the project area. (6) The plan and profiles of the proposed utilities. (7) A detail of any ponds, the pond outlets and the rainwater gardens. The contractor shall protect the outlets to prevent erosion. The drainage plan shall ensure that there is no increase in the rate of storm water run- off leaving the site above the current (predeveiopment) levels. The developer's engineer shall: (1) Verify inlet and pipe capacities. (2) Submit drainage design calculations. 12 e.* The tree plan shall: (1) Be approved, along with the landscaping, by the. Community Design Review Board (CDRB) before site grading or final plat approval. (2) Show where the developer will remove, save or replace large trees. This plan shall include an inventory of all existing large trees on the site. (3) (4) Show the size, species and location of the replacement and screening trees. The deciduous trees shall be at least two and one half (2'%) inches in diameter and shall be a mix of red and white oaks, ash, lindens, sugar maples or other native species. The coniferous trees shall be at least eight (8) feet tall and shall be a mix of Black Hills Spruce, Austdan pine and other species. Show no tree removal in the buffer zones, conservation easement, or beyond the approved grading and tree limits. (5) Include for city staff a detailed tree planting plan and material list. (6) Group the new trees together. These planting areas shall be: (a) near the ponding areas (b) on the slopes (c) along the west side of the site to screen the proposed buildings from the homes to the west (7) . Show the planting of at least 37 trees after the site grading is done. 3. Change the plat as follows: a. Add drainage and utility easements as required by the city engineer. b. Show drainage and utility easements along all property lines on the final plat. These easements shall be ten feet wide along the front and rear property lines and five feet wide along the side property lines. c. Label the common areas as an outlot or as outlots. d. If allowed, show the conservation easement on the final plat. e. Showing the building pads and the common area as a Common Interest Community (ClC). 4. Pay for costs related to the engineering department's review of the construction plans. Secure and provide all required easements for the development including any off-site drainage and utility easements. These shall include, but not be limited to, an easement for the culvert draining the pond at the northwest comer of the plat. The developer shall complete all grading for public improvements and overall site drainage. The city engineer shall include in the developer's agreement any grading that the developer or contractor has not completed before final plat approval. 13 7. Sign a developer's agreement with the city that guarantees that the developer or contractor will: a. Complete all grading for overall site drainage, complete all public improvements and meet all city requirements. b.* Place temporary orange safety fencing and signs at the grading limits. c. Provide for the repair of Highwood Avenue (street, curb and gutter and boulevard) after the developer connects to the public utilities and builds the private driveway. 8. Record the following with the final plat: a. All homeowners association documents. A covenant or deed restriction that prohibits any further subdivision or splitting of the lots or parcels in the plat that would create additional building sites unless approved by the city council. A covenant or deed restriction that prohibits any additional driveways (besides the one new driveway shown on the project plans) from going onto Highwood Avenue. d. The conservation easement for the undisturbed area of the site. The applicant shall submit the language for these dedications and restrictions to the city for approval before recording. The city will not issue a building permit until after the developer has recorded the final plat and these documents and covenants. Submit the homeowners association bylaws and rules to the director of community development. These are to assure that there will be one responsible party for the maintenance of the common areas, outlots, private utilities, driveways, retaining walls and structures. 10. Obtain a permit from the Ramsey-Washington Metro Watershed District for grading. 11. If the developer decides to final plat part of the preliminary plat, the director of community development may waive any conditions that do not apply to the final plat. 12. The developer shall complete all grading for public improvements and overall site drainage. The city engineer shall include in the developer's agreement any grading that the developer or contractor has not completed before final plat approval. *The developer must complete these conditions before the city issues a grading permit or approves the final plat. 14 CITIZENS' COMMENTS I surveyed the owners of the 35 properties within 350 feet of this site and received two wdtten replies. Of the two replies, one was for the proposal and one was against. For I would prefer the town houses instead of the residential houses. (Calubayan - 1036 Dennis St) Objections I would support the single dwellings and the road to the east (so the houses are back to back on the property line). This is the lesser evil than the town house scheme! (Tranberg - 1018 Dennis Street.) 15 REFERENCE INFORMATION SITE DESCRIPTION Site size: 3.71 acres Existing land use: A single dwelling and accessory buildings from the former property owner SURROUNDING LAND USES North: South: West: East: New Century PUD across Highwood Avenue Interstate 494 Houses along Dennis Street and fronting on Highwood Avenue House at 2684 Highwood Avenue and cellular telephone tower PLANNING Existing Land Use Plan designation: R-1 (single dwellings) Proposed Land Use Plan designation: R-3(M) (medium density residential) Existing Zoning: F (farm residence) Proposed Zoning: R-3 (multiple dwellings) Criteria for Conditional Use Permit Approval Section 36-442(a) states that the city council may approve a CUP, based on nine standards. (See findings 1-9 in the resolution on pages 31 through 34.) AppLICATION DATE The city received the complete project plans for the original proposal on August 7, 2002. The city was to take action on the proposal by October 6, 2002, unless the developer agreed to a time extension. At the September 23, 2002 council meeting, the developer agreed to a time extension for council action until October 28, 2002. For the proposed town house development, the city received the complete applications on December 26, 2002. As such, the city council must act on these requests by February 25, 2003. 16 kr/p:/sec13-28/Highwood farms thouses.doc Attachments: - 1. Applicant's Statement 2. Location Map 3. Property Line/Zoning Map 4. Land Use Plan (Existing) 5. Land Use Plan (Proposed) 6. Site Plan 7. Proposed Utility Plan 8. Proposed Grading Plan 9. Proposed Tree Plan 10. Chris Cavett's plan review dated 1-14-03 11. Land Use Plan Change Resolution (R-1 to R-3(M)) 12. Conditional Use Permit for Planned Unit Development (PUD) Resolution 13. Project Plans (separate attachments -including 11x17s and full-size) - 17 Attachment 1 CEC DEVELOPMENT INC 1111 McKnight Rd S St Paul MN 55119 December 23, 2002 DE( 2 G 2002 To Whom It May Concern: R E C E J Y [ J~ As requested with the application for PUD, we are providing you with a statement of why we wish to develop the piece of land at 2666 Highwood as a PUD. The most attractive thing about the property is the nature that is present. The site consists of rolling hills, mature trees, and animals ranging from squirrels to deer. From the beginning, we have tded to work with the neighbors to guarantee that we build a community that is both aesthetically pleasing and financially feasible. We have met with the neighbors, Maplewood staff, and designed and redesigned this plan to try to come up with a plan that is a win, win situation for all involved. What we are proposing is to cluster the amount of units to the front half of the property and leave the back half of the lot to be used by the residents as a nature area which will include a walking path. In a further effort to minimize the effect that we have on the landscape, we will have underground parking. This will minimize the amount of black top space above ground and maximize the amount of green space. Under the current density requirements of 10,000 per residence, our site will allow us to build 16.15 homes. If we take in account credits for underground parking and for the green space (18 underground parking spaces per building x 3 buildings= 54 underground spaces x 300 sq/ft per space density credit gives us an additional 16,200 in land credit plus an additional 200 sq/ft credit per unit for over 50% open space or 3600 square feet for a total of 19,800 additional density credit) we can build 18 units without any zoning changes or variances. There have also been some concerns about the noise level on our property. With this proposal, all residences will be on the front half of the property, further from the freeway then most of the contiguous properties to ours. This proposed plan would not require us to flatten any of the land or trees that provide a natural barrier for sound, a plus for the neighbors as well as us. We will not depreciate the value of the neighbor's homes, because the base pdce will exceed the value of a good portion of the surrounding homes and will enhance their value. The fact that we will make improvements that are needed to the infrastructure will also enhance the value of the neighbors that are not currently served by city water and city sewer. It will also prevent problems and possible contamination to the water supply from aging wells and septic systems still being used by some of the neighborsl In summary, the PUD that we are applying for will be good for the neighborhood, and Maplewood. It will add attractive residences and needed public improvements without adding additional cost to the city. It will be a win, win situation for all parties involved. Chades E. Cox Jr. President 18 l¸6 1. HUN'rlNGTDN CT. 2. OAKRIDGE LN. 720S 17 1. CURRIE CT. 2, VALLEY VIEW CT. 3. tAKEWOOD CT. 960S 18 · .~ DR. °11 u.wooo _. l[ ~BL AVE. TIMBER TIMBER TR. 2. DEER RU:~E iN. ~-. DR. HIOHWOOD NEW CEN'rtJRY NEW CENTURY TEE NEW CENTURY LN SOUTHCREST OAK HEIGHTS Pm, 1200S 1440S 19 20 BOXWOOD @, LOCATION 19 MAP Loke Attachnent 3 ~' ~' ~" HIGHWOOD AVENI '~'* '~ [] O 2660 984 ;: 2670 CARVER REPAIR Attachment 4 Linwood Highwood- Carver [ P R-1~ i~ Ir~ajCrr"collect or major collector "~ itl OS R-3(M) C o o R-I~ P I rrllrlor collector ! R- 1 OS lect ~ R'--- -- i / Linwood Highwood~' Carver minor R- 1 i I ·:! ' J~ajaT'-collectorm minor collector ! R-1 major collector P OS R-3(M) OS Attachment C 5 Attachment 6 PRELIMINARY SITE PLAT: PLAN HIGHWOOD 23 Attachment 7 / ../; .A?' l LEGEND 24 Attachment 8 ,L i I I / ] I I --''''/ / Attachment 9 ® © LEGEND 26 Attachment 10 Maplewood Engineering Plan Review - Chris Cavett, Date: 01/14/03 Highwood Farm, Project 02-17 Review Summary: The preliminary plans as submitted have shown that the project is feasible. There are, however, several issues that the developer and his engineer should address with city staff before final plan approvals. Below are commems that the applicant shall address on the final engineering plans before the city will issue grading and utility permits. The developer also shall complete a developer's agreement with the city before final plat approval. The developer's agreement shall cover all improvements to and in the plat that are considered public. Grading and Erosion Control: Due to grades and slopes in and around the site, erosion control on this site is extremely critical. Grading permits from the City, Watershed, as well as the new NPDES Construction permit (from the MPCA), are required for this site. 1. Revise the grading plan to include existing trees, as well as elevation of the top and bottom of walls. 2. The contractor shall install a heavy-duty silt fence on the east and north property lines. The contractor shall place erosion control matting and blankets, as well as imermediate silt fencing, on all slopes 3:1 or greater. This is to protect the seeded area and the slope from erosion. The grading plan and landscape plan shall be revised to specify the exact seed mixtures to be utilized on the site. "No Maintenance" areas (including steep slopes) shall be seeded with a native grass and forbes mixture. Seeding and mulching of the site with a temporary cover crop, (rye, oats or winter wheat), shall be done in phases to secure the site and shall be completed in accordance to the new NPDES Construction permit. The city requires a building permit for any retaining walls 4-feet tall or higher. The applicant shall include all retaining walls on the project plans. The developer or applicant shall include a detail of the wall design with the building permit application. More detail (including cross-sections) are required for the wall at the east side of the site. 27 The city requires temporary grading easements for any grading, excavation or wall construction that includes work or ground disturbance beyond property lines. I do not understand how the wall near station 2+50 to 3+00 can be constructed while saving the trees in that area. This needs more information and details. Street: The street shall be a private association driveway. Drainage/Storm Sewer: Existing drainage moves from west to east across this site. Post-development hydraulic conditions will either remain unchanged or are completely cut-off and directed into the storm sewer in Highwood Avenue. 1. Submit drainage calculations of pre- and post- development conditions. The developer's engineer shall review the capacity of the system on Highwood Avenue with the other tributary drainage areas taken into consideration. The accumulation of other flows and the added flows from the proposed site shall not exceed the capacity of that system under the 10-year event. Rate control shall be requked if the project would exceed system capacity. 3. Runoff from the site shall be treated, and shall meet NURP requirements through the use of appropriate BMP, (Best Management Practices). Potential BMP's: Stromceptor Structures, Rainwater Gardens, infiltration trenches, etc. or a combination of various BMP's. Utilities: Sanitary sewer main shall be extended west from Century Avenue to the west property line of the proposed development. This sewer shall be constructed as public sewer, either at the developer's expense or as a public improvement, petitioned by the developer and assessed back to the benefiting properties. The lateral system extending into the development shall be a private main owned and maintained by the town home association. Water main shall be extended east from New Century Boulevard to the east property line of the proposed development. This water main shall be constructed as public water main, either at the developer's expense or as a public improvement, petitioned by the developer and assessed back to the benefiting properties. The lateral system extending into the development shall be a private main owned and maintained by the town home association. 28 All public and private utilities shall be constructed to city specifications. The city will requke detailed final plan and profile designs of the utilities (including the sanitary sewer and water main). This is most critical for the utilities on Highwood Avenue. The city may require the developer to obtain utility easements and temporary easements from properties along Highwood Avenue. Based on the depth of the utility, permanent easements shall be adequate width to provide 1:1 slopes between the utility and the edge of the easement. The applicant shall verify where easements will be requked. Minimal disturbance of Highwood Avenue will be permitted to install the utilities. The city will require the boring of the water main under Highwood Avenue. Landscaping/Rainwater Gardens: If the developer proposes to use rainwater gardens as part of BMP requirements, then the city will require a landscape plan for the rainwater gardens as part of final plan approval. If the developer wants to use such gardens, then the developer shall designate who will be responsible for planting the gardens, when they will be planted and who will be responsible for the long-term care and maintenance of such gardens. Attachment ll LAND USE PLAN CHANGE RESOLUTION WHEREAS, Mr, Charles Cox is proposing a change to the city's land use plan from R-1 (single dwellings) to R-3(M) (medium density residential). WHEREAS, this change applies to the property now known has 2666 Highwood Avenue in Section 13, Township 28, Range 22, Ramsey County, Minnesota. WHEREAS, the history of this change is as follows: On January 22, 2003, the planning commission held a public headng. The city staff published a headng notice in the Maplewood Review and sent notices to the surrounding property owners. The planning commission gave everyone at the hearing a chance to speak and present written statements. The planning commission recommended that the city council approve the plan amendment. On February ,2003, the city council discussed the proposed land use plan change. They considered reports and recommendations from the planning commission and city staff. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the city council approve the above-described change for the following reasons: It would be consistent with the goals and objectives of the comprehensive plan. These include having similar uses fronting on the same street, having a grading plan that preserves many significant natural features and uses a planned unit development to allow for creative design solutions. 2. This site is proper for and consistent with the city°s policies for medium-density residential use. This includes: a. Creating a transitional land use between the existing Iow density residential and the existing telecommunications site. b. It is on a collector street and is near an artedal street. c. Minimizing any adverse effects on surrounding properties because there would be no traffic from this development on existing residential streets. 3. It would be consistent with the proposed planned unit development (PUD) and land uses. The Maplewood City Council adopted this resolution on ,2003. 30 Attachment 12 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION WHEREAS, Mr. Charles Cox, representing the project developers, applied for a conditional use permit (CUP) for the Highwood Farm residential planned unit development (PUD). WHEREAS, this permit applies to the Highwood Farm town house development plan the city received on December 26, 2002 for the property at 2666 Highwood Avenue. The legal description is: Subject to State TH 100/117 and HWY 393, the north 1100 feet of the West 173 feet of the East 198 feet of the West % of the NE % of the SE % of Section 13, Township 28, Range 22, Ramsey County, Minnesota. (This is the property to be known as Lots 1-19 of the proposed Highwood Farm) WHEREAS, the history of this conditional use permit is as follows: On January 22, 2003, the planning commission recommended that the city council approve this permit. On February ,2003, the city council held a public heating. The city staff published a notice in the paper and sent notices to the surrounding property owners. The council gave everyone at the hearing a chance to speak and present wdtten statements. The council also considered reports and recommendations of the city staff and planning commission. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the city council approve the above-described conditional use permit because: 1. The use would be located, designed, maintained, constructed and operated to be in conformity with the city's comprehensive plan and code of ordinances. 2. The use would not change the existing or planned character of the surrounding area. 3. The use would not depreciate property values. The use would not involve any activity, process, materials, equipment or methods of operation that would be dangerous, hazardous, detrimental, disturbing or cause a nuisance to any person or property, because of excessive noise, glare, smoke, dust, odor, fumes, water or air pollution, drainage, water run-off, vibration, general unsightliness, electrical interference or other nuisances. 5. The use would generate only minimal vehicular traffic on local streets and would not create traffic congestion or unsafe access on existing or proposed streets. The use would be served bY adequate public facilities and services, including streets, police and fire protection, drainage structures, water and sewer systems, schools and parks. 7. The use would not create excessive additional costs for public facilities or services. 8. The use would maximize the preservation of and incorporate the site's natural and scenic features into the development design. 9. The use would cause minimal adverse environmental effects. 31 Approval is subject to the following conditions: 1. All construction shall follow the plans approved by the city. The city council may approve major changes to the plans. The Director of Community Development may approve minor changes to the plans. Such changes shall include: a. Revising the grading and site plans to show: (1) The developer minimizing the loss or removal of natural vegetation. (2) All driveways at least 20 feet wide. If the developer wants to have parking on one side of the main drive (Femdale Street), then it must be at least 28 feet wide. (3) All parking stalls with a width of at least 9.5 feet and a length of at least 18 feet. Revise the plans to reduce the number of spaces between the buildings from three to two to allow more space between the parking area and the ecige of the building. Also, revise the parking spaces and the turn-around area at the south end of the site to maximize the number of trees to be saved, to maximize the number of spaces and to minimize the amount of hard surface area. (4) Revised storm water pond locations and designs as suggested or required by the watershed district or city engineer. The ponds shall meet the city's design standards. (5) The developer minimizing the loss or removal of natural vegetation including keeping and protecting as many of the large trees in the undisturbed area south of the town houses and parking areas. 2. The proposed construction must be substantially started within one year of council approval or the permit shall end. The council may extend this deadline for one year. 3. Have the city engineer approve final construction and engineering plans. These plans shall meet all the conditions and changes noted in the engineer's memo dated January 14, 2003. a. Include grading, utility, drainage, erosion control, streets, trails, sidewalks, tree, driveway and parking lot plans. b. Show no grading or ground disturbance in the conservation easement. This land is to be preserved for open space purposes. The developer and contractors shall protect this area, including the large trees that are in and near the south side of the site, from encroachment from equipment, grading or filling. c. Include a storm water management plan for the proposal. 4. The design of all ponds shall meet Maplewood's design standards and shall be subject to the approval of the city engineer. If needed, the developer shall be responsible for getting any off-site pond and drainage easements. 5. The developer or contractor shall: a. Complete all grading for the site drainage and the ponds, complete all public improvements and meet all city requirements. 32 b.* Place temporary orange safety fencing and signs at the grading limits. c. Remove any debds or junk from the site, including the conservation area. d. Provide the city with verification that the town houses on the proposed site plan will meet the state's noise standards. This shall be with a study, testing or other documentation. If the noise on this site is a factor, then the contractor will have to build the town houses such that they can meet the noise standards. This may be done with thicker walls, heavier windows, requiring air conditioning or other sound-deadening construction methods. 6. The approved setbacks for the principal structures in the Highwood Farm PUD shall be: a. Front-yard setback (from a public street or a private driveway): minimum - 20 feet, maximum - 35 feet b. Rear-yard setback: 30 feet from any adjacent residential property line c. Side-yard setback (town houses): minimum - 20 feet from a property line and 20 feet minimum between buildings. 7. The developer or builder will pay the city Park Access Charges (PAC fees) for each housing unit at the time of the building permit for each housing unit. 8. Submit the homeowner's association documents to city staff for review and approval. 9. The developer shall provide a permanent means to preserve and maintain the common open space. This may be done by conservation easement, deed restrictions, covenants or pub. lic dedication. The developer shall record this document with the final plat and before the city issues a permit for grading or utility construction 10. The city council shall review this permit in one year. 11. This approval does not include the design approval for the townhomes. The project design plans, including architectural, site, lighting, tree and landscaping plans, shall be subject to review and approval of the community design review board (CDRB). The projects shall be subject to the following conditions: a. Meeting all conditions and changes as required by the city council. b. For the driveways: (1) (2) (3) Minimum width - 20 feet. Maximum width - 28 feet. All driveways less than 28 feet in width shall be posted for "No Parking" on both sides. Driveways at least 28 feet wide may have parking on one side and shall be posted for No Parking on one side. Showing all changes required by the city as part of the conditional use permit for the planned unit development (PUD). 33 12. The city shall not issue any building permits for construction on an outlot (per city code requirements). The developer must record a final plat to create buildable lots in the preliminary plat before the city will issue a building permit. The Maplewood City Council approved this resolution on 2003. 34